Article published in:
Requesting in Social Interaction
Edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 26] 2014
► pp. 145–170

The social and moral work of modal constructions in granting remote requests

| Aarhus University
| University of Helsinki
Previous research has established that participants in interaction distinguish between those requests that can be satisfied immediately and those that are to be satisfied at some point in the future. Whereas immediate requests can be granted simply by the recipient carrying out the requested action, the preferred and aligning response to a remote request is a full-clause response with which the recipient commits to carrying out the requested action in the future. This paper investigates the most frequently occurring forms of full-clause, complying responses to remote requests in Danish interactions. We show that those full-clause responses that contain a modal adverb differ in interactionally relevant ways from those full-clause responses that do not contain a modal adverb. Full-clause responses without a modal adverb are treated by participants as indicating that the relevance of carrying out the requested action is a given and as such something that both requester and recipient understand as an appropriate action. Full-clause responses with modal adverbs, by contrast, are employed to indicate that the requested action is not recognizably appropriate to the recipient, but will be carried out specifically because it was requested.
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.06ste
References
Aachmann, Allan
2010 Forskellen på fortsættelsesaccept og returvurdering: om ”ikke” og ”vel” som returvurderingsefterlyser på dansk. [The difference between continuation-acceptance and return-assessment: about “not” and “right” as return-assessment-pursuits in Danish.] Unpublished essay, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
1990 “Rhythm in Telephone Closings.” Human Studies 13: 361–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What Does Grammar Tell Us About Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci, and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DDO. Den Danske Ordbog. Moderne dansk sprog. [The Danish Dictionary. Modern Danish language
At http://​ordnet​.dk​/ddo. Visited on June 30, 2013.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive/response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine
2005 “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet. The Preference for Matched Polarity in Responsive Turns in Danish.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 ““Will You or Can’t You?”: Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081–1104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström, and Jakob Steensig
2011 “Addressing Epistemic Incongruence in Question-answer Sequences Through the Use of Epistemic Adverbs.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 107–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Ben Matthews
forth. “Concessions in the Audiology Clinic.” In Restricted Interactional Activities ed. by Fabienne Chevalier, and John Moore xx xx Amsterdam John Benjamins
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig
in prep. “Accounting for breaks in progressivity: The Danish turn-initial particle altså in Danish Talk-in-interaction.” To appear in Turn-initial Particles [Working title] ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack
1995 The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
1987 Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1981 “The Abominable 'ne?' An Exploration of Post-response Pursuit of Response.” In Sprache der Gegenwart 54: Dialogforschung, ed. by Peter Schröder, and Hugo Steger, 53–88. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, and Mirka Rauniomaa
2012 “The Organization of Participation and Contingency in Prebeginnings of Request Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (4): 323–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H
1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the “Semi-permeable” Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna
2005 “Language as Social Action: A Study of how Senior Citizens Request Assistance with Practical Tasks in the Swedish Home Help Service.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forth. “Accepting Remote Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage xx xx Amsterdam John Benjamins
Lindström, Anna, and Trine Heinemann
2009 “Good Enough: Low-Grade Assessments in Caregiving Situations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 309–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A
1988 “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. by Paul Drew, and Anthony Wootton, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
forth. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Velea, Adina Ioana
2013 “Imperatives and Subjunctives in Romanian.” Journal of Pragmatics 51: 92–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Arano, Yusuke
2020. Doing reflecting: Embodied solitary confirmation of instructed enactment. Discourse Studies 22:3 ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Fox, Barbara & Trine Heinemann
2019. Telescoping responses to requests: Unpacking progressivity. Discourse Studies 21:1 ► pp. 38 ff. Crossref logo
Kendrick, Kobin H. & Paul Drew
2016. Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Landgrebe, Jeanette & Trine Heinemann
2014. Mapping the epistemic landscape in innovation workshops. Pragmatics and Society 5:2 ► pp. 191 ff. Crossref logo
Sørensen, Søren Sandager
2021. Affiliating in Second Position: Response Tokens with Rising Pitch in Danish. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54:1 ► pp. 101 ff. Crossref logo
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
2021. Multiactivity in adult-child interaction: accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. 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.