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: 01 June 2006
(1976) Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. BoP
(1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131-146. BoP
(1997) Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. London: Lawrence Erlbaums Associates, Inc. BoP
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
(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.
in press) Democracy starts at the dinner table. Working Paper 2003/6. Stockholm: Södertorn University College.
De Geer, B., and T. Tulviste
(2002) Behaviour regulation in the family context in Estonia and Sweden. Pragmatics 12.3: 329-346. BoP
(1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 26-66. BoP
Ervin-Tripp, S., and D. Gordon
Ervin-Tripp, S., J. Guo, and M. Lampert
(1990) Politeness and persuasion in children`s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 307-331. BoP
(1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236. BoP
(1993) Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 127-152. BoP
(1974) Frame analysis. New York: Penguin. BoP
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. BoP
Grice, H. Paul
(1988) Regulation of dialogue. A theoretical model of conversation with an empirical application. MINS 30. (Diss. Stockholm University).
(1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press. BoP
(1990) Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193-218. BoP
(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. BoP
(1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
Linell, P., and L. Gustavsson
(1987) Initiativ och respons. Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. SIC 15. University of Linköping. Studies in Communication.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language 50: 696-735. BoP
Scollon, R., and S.B. Scollon
(1981) Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. BoP
Sinclair, J., and R.M. Coulthard
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 14: 289-305. BoP
Tryggvasson, M-T., and B. De Geer
Van der Wijst
P (1996) Politeness in requests and negotiations. Ph.D. thesis. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit van Brabant.
(1985) Different cultures, different language, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics 9.2/3: 145-78. BoP
Cited by 5 other publications
No author info given
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2021. 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.