Meetings are complex institutional events at which participants recurrently negotiate institutional roles, which are oriented to, renegotiated, and sometimes challenged. With a view to gaining further understanding of the ongoing negotiation of roles at meetings, this article examines one specific recurring feature of meetings: the act of proposing future action. Based on microanalysis of video recordings of two-party strategy meetings, the study shows that participants orient to at least two aspects when making proposals: 1) the acceptance or rejection of the proposal; and 2) questions of entitlement: who is entitled to launch a proposal, and who is entitled to accept or reject it? The study argues that there is a close interrelation between questions of entitlement, aligning and affiliating moves, and the negotiation of institutional roles. The multimodal analysis also reveals the use of various embodied practices by participants for the local negotiation of entitlement and institutional roles.
AsmußB (2007) What do people expect from public services? Requests in public service encounters. Journal of Language and Communication Studies38: 65–83.
2.
AsmußB (2011) Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In: StiversTLorenzaMSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–234.
3.
AsmußBSvennevigJ (2009) Meeting talk: An introduction. Journal of Business Communication46(1): 3–22.
4.
BodenD (1994) The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity.
5.
ClarkCPinchT (2010) Some major organizational consequences of some ‘minor’ organised conduct: Evidence from a video analysis of preverbal service encounters in a showroom retail store. In: LlewellynNHindmarshJ (eds) Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140–171.
6.
CravenAPotterJ (2010) Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies12(4): 419–442.
7.
CurlTDrewP (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction41(2): 129–153.
8.
DavidsonJA (1984) Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.
9.
DeppermannAMondadaLSchmittR (2010) Planned and contingent action: A detailed analysis of a meeting’s pause. Journal of Pragmatics42: 1700–1718.
10.
GarciaA (1997) Interactional constraints on proposal generation in negotiation hearings: A preliminary investigation. Discourse & Society8: 219–247.
11.
HayanoK (2011) Giving support to the claim of epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In: StiversTLorenzaMSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–81.
12.
HeathCLuffP (2010) Orders of bidding: Organising participation in auctions of fine art and antiques. In: LlewellynNHindmarshJ (eds) Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119–139.
13.
HeinemannT (2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics38: 1081–1104.
14.
HeinemannT (2009) Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Journal of Pragmatics41: 2435–2451.
15.
HeinemannTLindströmASteensigJ (2011) Addressing epistemic incongruence in question–answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In: StiversTLorenzaMSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107–130.
16.
HeritageJ (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
Houtkoop-SteenstraH (1987) Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal Acceptance Sequences. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris Publications.
18.
LaaksoMTykkyläinenT (2009) Gendered practices of negotiation? Comparing girls and boys’ practices of making proposals in same-sex peer play. In: HaakanaMLaaksoMLindströmJ (eds) Talk in interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 279–298.
19.
LindströmA (1999) Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet 46, Diss. Uppsala.
20.
LindströmA (2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In: HakulinenASeltingM (eds) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209–230.
21.
LindströmAHeinemannT (2009) Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction42(4): 309–328.
22.
MaynardD (1984) Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum.
23.
MondadaL (2007) Operating together through videoconference: Members’ procedures for accomplishing a common space of action. In: HesterSFrancisD (eds) Orders of Ordinary Action. Aldershot: Ashgate, 51–67.
24.
NevileMRendle-ShortJ (2009) A conversation analysis view of communication as jointly accomplished social interaction: An unsuccessful proposal for a social visit. In: HaughMLiddicoatA (eds) Conceptualizing Communication. Special Issue, Australian Journal of Linguistics29: 75–89.
25.
PomerantzA (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.
26.
PomerantzADenvirP (2007) Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In: CoorenF (ed.) Interacting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31–51.
27.
RaymondG (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68: 939–967.
28.
SacksHSchegloffEAJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4): 696–735.
29.
SteensigJ (in press) Affiliation and alignment. In: ChapelleCA (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
30.
SteensigJDrewP (2008) Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies10(1): 5–15.
31.
StiversT (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction41(1): 31–57.
StiversTMondadaLSteensigJ (2011) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In: StiversTLorenzaMSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–24.
34.
StreeckJ (2002) A body and its gestures. Gesture2(1): 19–44.
35.
VögeM (2010) Local identity processes in business meetings displayed through laughter in complaint sequences. Journal of Pragmatics42: 1556–1576.
