Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 16:2/3 (2006) ► pp.171–211

Regulatory talk and politeness at the family dinner table

This study examined the use of regulatory talk at dinnertime in twenty Swedish families with children between the ages of four and seventeen years. The aim of the study was to explore activity regulation in the light of contextual factors, such as the age of the participating children, the number of participants and the different kinds of conversational contexts. Regulatory talk extracted from twenty videotaped dinner conversations was transcribed, coded and analysed within the framework of theories about the impact of context on control acts, indirect speech and politeness. Regulatory utterances, about 7 % of all utterances produced by all family members, were mostly formulated as direct requests and about 15 % of them were mitigated, softening the impact of coerciveness. Indirect regulators occurred, however, in nearly one half of the cases whereas hints were rather uncommon. Age of the children, as well as activity and conversational context had an obvious impact on the way regulatory utterances were performed. Most instrumental regulators (related to the dinner routine) were direct (somewhat more than 60 %) and most non-instrumental regulators were indirect (nearly 60 %). Furthermore, the intended goal i.e. what action was required from the addressee seemed to affect the use of regulators: Regulation at the dinner table mostly concerned nonverbal actions and requests for objects and was related to the main activity. Compared with the American and Israeli groups in Blum-Kulka’s study (1997), the Swedish parents together tended to be more indirect but less mitigating. However, in instrumental contexts i.e. when regulating routine actions relating to the meal, most parental regulators were direct (60 %) whereas about 75 % of the utterances were indirect in non-instrumental contexts. A comparison of these findings with the data from Blum-Kulka (1997) and with other similar intercultural studies leads to the conclusion that situational factors, such as family structure, conversational genres and communicative goals, might have more impact on regulatory talk than socio-cultural background.

Keywords: Indirect speech, Dinner talk, Politeness, Control acts, Family discourse, Behaviour regulation
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 June 2006
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.2-3.06bru
References
Austin, J.L
(1962) How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E
(1976) Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bellinger, D
(1979) Changes in explicitness of mothers´directives as children age. Journal of Child Language 181: 41-49.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S
(1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 111: 131-146. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990) You don´t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 259-288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) The dynamics of family dinner-talk: Cultural contexts for the children´s passages to adult discourse. Research on Language and Social interaction 271: 1-15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. London: Lawrence Erlbaums Associates, Inc.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
(1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-311.Google Scholar
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brumark, Å
(1989) Blindness and the context of language acquisition. MINS 31. (Diss. Stockholm University).
(1991) Om referens och informationsstruktur i direkt närkommunikation. In B. Nordberg (ed.), Svenskans beskrivning 18, FUMS, The University of Uppsala.
(2003) What do we do when we talk at dinner. Working Papers. Huddinge: Södertörn University college.Google Scholar
in press) Democracy starts at the dinner table. Working Paper 2003/6. Stockholm: Södertorn University College.
Cherry, R.D
(1988) Politeness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 121: 63-81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M
(1978) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Cross, T.G
(1977) Mother´s speech adjustments: The contribution of selected child listener variables. In C.E. Snow, & C.A. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children: Language input and Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Geer, B., and T. Tulviste
(2002) Behaviour regulation in the family context in Estonia and Sweden. Pragmatics 12.3: 329-346.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, S.K
(1987) Some Constraints of Consideration on Conversation: Interactions of Politeness and Relevance with Grice´s Secon Maxim of Quantity. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International(Diss. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois-Champaign, 1984).Google Scholar
Dore, J
(1977) Children´s illocutionary acts. Discourse Processes 11: 227-244.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S
(1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 51: 26-66. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1982) “Ask and it shall be given you”: Children´s requests. In H. Byrnes (ed.), Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguisitics. Vol. 351.Washingtown DC: Georgetown University, pp. 235-245.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., and D. Gordon
(1986) The development of children´s requests. In R.E. Schieffelbush (ed.), Communicative competence: Assessment and intervention.San Diego, CA: College Hill Press, pp. 61-96.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., J. Guo, and M. Lampert
(1990) Politeness and persuasion in children`s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 307-331. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B
(1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 219-236. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Garcia, C
(1993) Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 127-152. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Garvey, C
(1977) Contingent queries and their relation in discourse. In E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E
(1967) Interactional ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
(1974) Frame analysis. New York: Penguin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M.H
(1990) He-Said-She-Said. Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts.New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.Google Scholar
Handelman, D
(1990) Models and mirrors. Toward an anthropology of public events. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellspong, L
(1988) Regulation of dialogue. A theoretical model of conversation with an empirical application. MINS 30. (Diss. Stockholm University).
Hymes, D
(1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G
(1990) Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 193-218. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R
(1977) Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall and J.P. Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures.Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.N
(1980) Language and Tact. Pragmatics and Beyond Series. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Linell, P
(1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Linell, P., and L. Gustavsson
(1987) Initiativ och respons. Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. SIC 15. University of Linköping. Studies in Communication.
Levinson, S.C
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mac Whinney
(1991) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M.Z
(1982) The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society 111: 203-237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language 501: 696-735. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R
(1969) Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975) Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts.New York: Academic Press, pp. 59-82.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., and S.B. Scollon
(1981) Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J., and R.M. Coulthard
(1974) Towards an analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C.E., R.Y. Perlmann, J.B. Gleason, and N. Hooshyar
(1990) Developmental perspectives on politeness: Sources of children´s knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 289-305.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D
(1981) Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes 41: 221-238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tryggvasson, M-T., and B. De Geer
(2002) Eliciting talk as language socialization in Finnish, SwedishFinnish and Swedish families: A look at syntactic structures. Multilingua 211: 345-369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk
T (1981) Studies in pragmatic discourse. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Wijst
P (1996) Politeness in requests and negotiations. Ph.D. thesis. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit van Brabant.
Watts, R.J
(1991) Power in family discourse. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
(1985) Different cultures, different language, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics 9.2/3: 145-78. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Bova, Antonio
2015. Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
BRUMARK, ÅSA
2010. Behaviour regulation at the family dinner table. The use of and response to direct and indirect behaviour regulation in ten Swedish families. Journal of Child Language 37:5 ► pp. 1065 ff. DOI logo
Cekaite, Asta
2010. Shepherding the child: embodied directive sequences in parent–child interactions. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 30:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
2021. Impoliteness as a result of power asymmetry in selected social contexts. In Angewandte Linguistik – Neue Herausforderungen und Konzepte, ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Lifang, Feiyi Zheng, Ling Sheng, Yijun Hao & Jiangbo Hu
2021. Reasoning Talk at Chinese Families’ Dinner Table: Across Three Generations and Different Communicative Contexts. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Sheng, Ling, Wenming Dong, Feifei Han, Shiming Tong & Jiangbo Hu
2022. Language expansion in Chinese parent–child mealtime conversations: across different conversational types and initiators. International Journal of Early Years Education 30:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Zenner, Eline & Dorien Van De Mieroop
2021. Chapter 3. The alternation between standard and vernacular pronouns by Belgian Dutch parents in child-oriented control acts. In Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Acquisition across the Lifespan [Studies in Language Variation, 26], ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.