Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 61–

Directive turn design and intersubjectivity

| University of Helsinki
| University of Oslo
| University of Helsinki

In this paper, we discuss turn design as a locus of intersubjectivity. We focus on two types of directives in Finnish interactions, turns formatted with second-person imperative and turns that contain zero person. Neither of these turn designs contains a separate subject phrase explicating the person(s) referred to, nor does either indicate when the action nominated is to take place. We study the kinds of assumptions these two turn designs make and present as shared, and the interplay of the assumptions in relation to the sequential and activity context of the turn. The design of turns and actions in sequences of interaction thus allows us to see intersubjectivity at work, even when repair does not take place.

Keywords: directive, imperative, zero-person, modal verb, turn design, Finnish, repair, shared assumptions, minimal design, Schuetz
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Directive turns with imperatives
  • 3.Directive turns with zero-person+modal constructions
  • 4.Directive sequences with both imperatives and zero-person+modal constructions
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.04cou
References
Auer, Peter
2017 “Epilogue: Imperatives – The Language of Immediate Action.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 411–427. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
2015 ”Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017 ”In the Face of Resistance: A Finnish Practice for Insisting on Imperatively Formatted Directives.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and J. R. E. Lee
1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics 5: 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H.
2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text & Talk 26: 513–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri
1961.  The Structure and Development of Finnish Language. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 3.  Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig
2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction: The Case of Imperative + Modal Particles bare and lige .” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 139–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2017 “Negotiating Deontic Rights in Second Position: Young Adult Daughters’ Imperatively Formatted Responses to Mothers’ Offers in Estonian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 271–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Lea
2006 “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva
1996 “Pronouns and Adverbs, Figure and Ground: The Local Case Forms and the Locative Forms of the Finnish Demonstratives in Spoken Discourse.” In SKY 1996. Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, ed. by Timo Haukioja, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Elise Kärkkäinen, 65–92. Helsinki: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys.Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa
1989 “ No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [No – a turn-initial particle].” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, Kieli 4, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 147–161. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish Language.Google Scholar
2017 “Adjusting the Design of Directives to the Activity Environment: Imperatives in Finnish Cooking Club Interaction.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2015 The Request System in Italian Interaction. Nijmegen: Ipskamp Drukkers.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni, and Jörg Zinken
2016 “Grammar and Social Agency: The Pragmatics of Impersonal Deontic Statements.” Language 92 (4): e296–e325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuetz, Alfred
1953 “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (1): 1–38. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt) 52. [URL].Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä.
2012 ”Deontic Authority in Interaction. The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen and Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish Descriptive Grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Accessed 4 June 2019. [URL]. URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba x (‘one needs to x’).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (3): 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar