U ovom radu razradile su se koristi koje Hrvatska ima od stupanja u Europsku uniju, također su u radu objašnjeni fondovi na raspolaganju. Dok Republika Hrvatska nije pristupila Europskoj Uniji na raspolaganju su joj bili pretpristupni fondovi a nakon ulaska se Hrvatskoj otvorila ogromna perspektiva u vidu Europski strukturnih i investicijskih fondova. Analizirali su se ekonomsko financijski benefiti. U radu je također predstavljen primjer kaki bi trebao izgledati jedan EU projekt

Seuren, Lucas

Mutavčić, Vjeko

Repository of the University of Rijeka

Economic and Financial Effects of Using EU Funds

Croatian Digital Thesis Repository

University of Groningen Research Database

  
 University of Groningen
The interactional accomplishment of action
Seuren, Lucas
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Seuren, L. (2018). The interactional accomplishment of action Utrecht: LOT/Netherlands Graduate School
of Linguistics
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 11-04-2018
The Interactional Accomplishment of
Action
CLCG
The research reported in this thesis has been carried out under the auspices of
the Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) of the Faculty of
Arts of the University of Groningen and The Netherlands Graduate School of
Linguistics (Landelijke Onderzoeksschool Taalwetenschap).
Groningen Dissertation in Linguistics 166
Published by
LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111
Trans 10
3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: lot@uu.nl
The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl
Cover illustration: Ross Fountain, Edinburgh. Photo by Lucas M. Seuren.
ISBN: 978-94-6093-276-2
NUR: 616
Copyright © 2018 Lucas Martinus Seuren. All rights reserved.
The Interactional Accomplishment of
Action
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
op gezag van de
rector magnificus prof. dr. E. Sterken
en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties.
De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op
donderdag 5 april 2018 om 16.15 uur
door
Lucas Martinus Seuren
geboren op1 juli 1986
te ’s-Gravenhage
Promotor
Prof. dr. A.J. Koole
Co-promotor
Dr. M. Huiskes
Beoordelingscommissie
Prof. dr. G. Redeker
Prof. dr. E. Couper-Kuhlen
Prof. dr. S. Pekarek Doehler
To my grandparents,
for always asking but never questioning.

Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Transcription Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 A problem of action formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Interaction as social action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Conversation Analytic Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.1 Adjacency pairs and turn taking . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.2 Intersubjectivity in interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.3 Interactional Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.4.1 Preferred interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.4.2 Semantics of sentence types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.4.3 Conversation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.5 Contents of this dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2 Confirmation or Elaboration 63
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.1.1 Questions in Dutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.2 Data & Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.3 YNDs that get a simple yes/no response . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.4 YNDs that elicit more than confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
viii
3 Getting into topic talk: a classification of topic proffers 91
3.1 Moving into topical talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.1.1 Coherence in interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.1.2 Topic boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.3 Topic-initiating actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.3.1 Other’s-News Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.3.2 News Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.3.3 Agnostic News Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4 Remembering and understanding 123
4.1 Knowing and understanding in interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.2 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.3 Restoring intersubjectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.3.1 Doing now-remembering with oh ja-prefaced YNDs . . 127
4.3.2 Doing now-understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.3.3 Interrogative formulations of understanding . . . . . . 139
4.4 Discussion & Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5 Resolving knowledge-discrepancies in informing sequences 145
5.1 Receipting information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.2 Data & Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.3 Counterexpectation remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.3.1 Combining practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.3.2 Responding with negative interrogatives . . . . . . . . 151
5.3.3 Responding with positive interrogatives . . . . . . . . 157
5.4 Challenges and repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.5 Discussion & Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6 Assessing Answers: Action ascription in third position 171
6.1 Conversational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6.2 Data & Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.3 Evaluative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.4 Deontic assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.4.1 Deontic assessments in second position . . . . . . . . 182
6.4.2 Deontic assessments in third position . . . . . . . . . 184
6.5 Mixed assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
ix
6.6 Implications for sequence organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
6.7 Discussion & Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7 Conclusion 197
7.1 Main findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
7.1.1 Sequential understanding of action . . . . . . . . . . . 198
7.1.2 Sequential understanding of grammar . . . . . . . . . 201
7.1.3 Procedural nature of action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7.2 Implications for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.2.1 Accountability, Epistemics, and Action . . . . . . . . 205
7.2.2 Rethinking Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Samenvatting in het Nederlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Groningen dissertations in linguistics (GRODIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Acknowledgments
When I say that this dissertation is not an individual, but, dare I say, an inter-
actional accomplishment, that would still be somewhat of an understatement.
In the past four years I’ve had so many interesting discussions, with so many
great people, from so many different institutions that it is virtually impossible
to thank everyone who helped bring this dissertation to life. But that does not
mean I’m not going to try, starting of course with the people who were most
influential: my supervisors.
First of all, Mike, I feel like I owemost of my academic accomplishments to
you. You’ve been supervising my academic career since my bachelor’s thesis,
and you enthusiastically supported me in all me endeavors since. You let me
discover my own voice, gently nudging me along the way in the direction you
saw I was going for, while also letting me stray from the path when I needed
to. Our discussions and particularly your feedback on my various manuscripts
and blogs—and there were a lot of those—have been invaluable. I will never
know where you found the time, but I am immensely grateful for it.
Tom, you showed me that being a good academic is about much more than
doing good research: it’s about collaborating, it’s about networking, it’s about
being open to other viewpoints, and it’s about accepting a win when one comes
your way. These are things they don’t necessarily teach you before becoming
a PhD student and they are skills that didn’t always come easy to me, but you
led by example, occasionally correcting my course more explicitly, and I am a
better scholar for it.
Some of the most inspirational, educational, and fun times of my PhD
were spent at a number of institutions in- and outside The Netherlands. There
were my regular visits to the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen, for which I
particularly want to thank Kobin Kendrick for welcoming me and providing
xii
me with the opportunity to present and discuss my work. In addition I want to
thank Elliott, Mark, Stephen, Tayo, and everybody else who participated in the
interesting data sessions and discussions.
For my extended visit to York I am particularly grateful to Traci Walker
and Richard Ogden. Traci, our regular meetings taught me a lot about the
analytic importance of transcription and how to use data, build collections,
and carefully distinguish between linguistic form and social action. I was also
very happy when you agreed to co-organize a panel for IPrA 2017; I’m sure
it would not have been half as successful without you. Richard, thank you for
your inspirational classes; I’ve gotten a new appreciation for the complexities
of phonetics in talk-in-interaction, and the fact that even the tiniest aspect of
behavior in interaction—clicks—should be understood as a meaningful part of
interaction. Of course, I also want to thank the other students and scholars at
York for the fun and interesting meetings: Becky, Carla, Katherina, Rasmus,
and Verónica.
I was fortunate enough to spend some time at UCLA for which I am
grateful to a number of people, foremost John Heritage, Tanya Stivers, and
Steven Clayman. John, you put the idea of visiting in my head and made it
possible. You also took the time to read my work, give feedback, and discuss
my questions and ideas. Your input and supportive feedback were invaluable
for a number of chapters in this dissertation. Tanya, I have never met anyone
who could read and comment as critically as you; you systematically dissected
my work, and while that sometimes left me overwhelmed, it always felt like an
opportunity to learn and improve myself. Steve, your support was instrumental
when I decided to do some work outside my project, and you were a great guide
to the hikes, bookstores, and coffee places in LA. I am also very grateful to Clara
Bergen for all the paperwork she did to make my visit possible, all the emails
she responded to, and all my questions she answered. Finally, a big thanks to
all the other PhDs and friends that made my stay in Los Angeles, and the US
in general, such an awesome time: Amanda, Amelia, Anne, Bernie, Caroline,
Chase, Emmi, Keith, Lisa, Liisa, Luis Manuel, Mika, Nan, Sam, Saskia, Signe,
Tianjian, and Will.
A special thanks to Geoff and Elena Raymond; I was thrilled that you let
me invite myself to Santa Barbara to present my work and that you welcomed
me into your home. I was and still am humbled by your incredible hospitality.
More locally there are a lot of people to whom I’m grateful for their com-
ments, the discussions, data sessions, and gezelligheid in general: Annerose,
Audrey, Carel, Henrike, Jacqueline, Joëlle, Joelle, John, Lennie, Lisanne, Liz,
Lotte,Myrte, Ninke, Petra, andYfke. A big thanks especially tomy officemates
xiii
Agnes, Bernat, Charlotte, and Ruth for making my PhD far more enjoyable and
plainly for putting up with me for so long. Bernat, thank you as well for inviting
me to stay with you and Mirjam in Berkeley for a weekend and for sharing
many a beer both in California and Groningen.
To my two paranymphs, Alisa and Samuel, thank you for all the work you
have done and will have done arranging the events around my defense and for
literally standing by me. Alisa, we’ve sort of gone through the PhD together:
you started a bit earlier but we attended the same seminars, dealt with the same
challenges, and we were are own little therapy group. I loved all the lunches,
coffees, teas, homemade cookies and cakes, and of course the moral support
that kept me going in tough times. Sammie, the last couple of years we’ve
shared two great passions, burgers and Star Wars, preferably in combination.
With Disney in charge, I don’t doubt we can keep enjoying those things for
decades to come.
Of course, I cannot ignore the most important people: my parents. The road
was long and it has not always been easy, but you supported me every time I
decided to change lanes or even directions. If not for you, I probably would have
literally ended up working at McDonald’s. I cannot express how happy I am to
have you, to be able to talk to you when things get tough, and to occasionally
occupy your chalet in France.

Transcription Conventions
The data in this dissertation consist of 21.5 hours of phone and Skype conver-
sations that were recorded by students at Utrecht University as part of a course
assignment in 2011 and 2012. These data were transcribed and the excerpts that
were selected for the studies in this dissertation are presented as follows. Every
excerpt displays the original Dutch with a word-by-word gloss in italics on the
subsequent line. A free translation is provided in boldface on a turn-by-turn
basis, unless this would hinder legibility in which case free translations are
provided on a line-by-line basis. The following abbreviations were used for the
glosses:
ADV Adverb
INT Interjection
PL Plural
PRT Particle
SG Singular
TAG Tag particle
Both the original Dutch and the free English translation make use of tran-
scription conventions that represent not just what the participants say, but also
give an approximation of how the talk was produced. The conventions used
were developed by Jefferson (2004; see also Hepburn & Bolden, 2013) and
should be understood as follow:
(1.0) Numbers between parentheses represent seconds of silence,
that is, time in which none of the participants make an audible
contribution. Silences between turns are written on a separate
line; silences within turns are written in the turn.
xvi
(.) A silence of less than 200ms, also known as a beat of silence.
turn1= Turn 2 is latched onto turn 1; there is no silence between the
=turn2 two turns
tur[n1 Turns 1 and 2 are produced in overlap. The left square bracket
[turn2 marks the point of overlap onset.
turn1] Turns 1 and 2 are produced in overlap. The right square bracket
tur]n2 marks the point where overlap ends.
tcu1<tcu2 The smaller than sign in between two turn-constructional units
signifies a left-push or abrupt-join; the speaker pre-empts the
point of transition relevance.
tcu. A periodmarks a point of prosodic completionwith a boundary
pitch that falls to low in the speaker’s range.
tcu, A comma marks a point of prosodic completion with a bound-
ary pitch that rises to the middle of the speaker’s range.
tcu? A question mark marks a point of prosodic completion with a
boundary pitch that rises to high in the speaker’s range.
tcu; A semicolon marks a point of prosodic completion with a
boundary pitch that falls to the middle of the speaker’s range.
tcu_ An underscore marks a point of prosodic completion with a
flat boundary pitch.
↑ An upwards pointing arrow marks an upstep in the speaker’s
pitch that lasts no longer than one syllable.
↓ Adownwards pointing arrowmarks a downstep in the speaker’s
pitch that lasts no longer than one syllable.
stre::tch Colons signify that the preceding vowel or syllable is held
longer than what would be considered normal.
stress Underlined data is pronounced with audible stress or emphasis.
pi:tch An underlined vowel followed by a colon that is not underlined
signifies a pitch that rises and falls during the production of
the vowel.
pi:tch A vowel followed by an underlined colon signifies a pitch that
rises throughout the production of the vowel.
LOUD Data written in capitals is produced relatively loud.
°soft° Data written between degree signs is produced relatively soft;
multiple degree signs °° mean that the data is barely audible.
xvii
^high^ Data in between two carets is produced high in the speaker’s
pitch range.
>talk< Talk between two inward pointing smaller than and larger than
signs is contracted; it is produced relatively fast.
<talk> Talk between two outward pointing smaller than and larger
than signs is elongated; it is produced relatively slowly.
tal- A hyphen signifies a cut-off in mid-production, typically audi-
ble as a glottal stop.
.hh An h or series of hs preceded by a period represents an audible
inbreath. Each h denotes about 200ms.
hh A free-standing h or series of free-standing hs represents an
audible outbreath.
ha hi hu Various laughter tokens.
t(h)alk An h between parentheses in a word means that the word is
produced laughing.
#talk# Talk in between number signs is produced with creaky voice.
£talk£ Talk in between two pound symbols is produced with smiley
voice; the speaker is audibly smiling while speaking.
((sniffs)) Anything in double parentheses is a comment, typically a char-
acterization of a sound that cannot be represented otherwise.
( ) Empty space between two parentheses signifies that the speaker
said something but it is not hearable what. More space means
more talk.
(talk) Talk in between two parentheses signifies that it is not clear
what the speaker said and only an attempt could be made at
transcription.
(talk/talk) Talk in between two parentheses and separated by a slash signi-
fies that it is not clear what the speaker said; the slash separates
two ways the data could be heard.

