Chapter published in:
Imperative Turns at Talk: The design of directives in action
Edited by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 30] 2017
► pp. 27–63

A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns

Evidence from German and Polish

| Institut für Deutsche Sprache Mannheim
| Institut für Deutsche Sprache Mannheim
In the management of cooperation, the fit of a requested action with what the addressee is presently doing is a pervasively relevant consideration. We present evidence that imperative turns are adapted to, and reflexively create, contexts in which the other person is committed to the course of action advanced by the imperative. This evidence comes from systematic variation in the design of imperative turns, relative to the fittedness of the imperatively mandated action to the addressee’s ongoing trajectory of actions, what we call the “cline of commitment”. We present four points on this cline: Responsive imperatives perform an operation on the deontic dimension of what the addressee has announced or already begun to do (in particular its permissibility); local-project-imperatives formulate a new action advancing a course of action in which the addressee is already actively engaged; global-project-imperatives target a next task for which the addressee is available on the grounds of their participation in the overall event, and in the absence of any competing work; and competitive imperatives draw on a presently otherwise engaged addressee on the grounds of their social commitment to the relevant course of actions. These four turn shapes are increasingly complex, reflecting the interactional work required to bridge the increasing distance between what the addressee is currently doing, and what the imperative mandates. We present data from German and Polish informal and institutional settings.
Keywords: action formation, commitment, embodiment, imperative, imperfective, modal particles, participation, requesting
Published online: 18 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.02zin
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2010 Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Alexandra Kent
2012 “Telling People What to Do (and Sometimes, Why): Contingency, Entitlement and Explanation in Staff Requests to Adults with Intellectual Impairments.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 876–889. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bangerter, Adrian, and Herbert H. Clark
2003 “Navigating Joint Projects with Dialogue.” Cognitive Science 27 (2): 195–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram
2003 "Nur ganz kurz mal": Abschwächungsintensivierung durch feste Muster mit mal ["Just very briefly mal": Intensification through weakening in fixed expressions with ‘mal’].” In Partikeln und Höflichkeit, ed. by Gisela Held, 179–201. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chrakovskij, Viktor S.
2001 Typology of Imperative Constructions. LINCOM studies in theoretical linguistics 09. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
2014 “Benefactors and Beneficiaries: Benefective Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Drew, and Couper-Kuhlen, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donhauser, Karin
1986 Der Imperativ im Deutschen: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik des deutschen Modussystems [The imperative in German: Studies on the syntax and semantics of the German mood system]. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Duden
2005 Die Grammatik [The Grammar]. 7th edition. Mannheim: Duden.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J.
2013 Relationship Thinking: Enchrony, Agency, and Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Sotaro Kita, and J. P. de Ruiter
2007 “Primary and Secondary Pragmatic Functions of Pointing Gestures.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1722–1741. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield
eds Under review Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments Berlin Language Science Press
Friedrich, Paul
1972 “Social Context and Semantic Feature: The Russian Pronominal Usage.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 277–300. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Fries, Norbert
1996 Flexionsmorphologie und Syntax des Imperativs im Deutschen und im Neugriechischen: Mit einer Skizze der Flexionsmorphologie des Verbs für beide Sprachen [Inflectional morphology and syntax of the imperative in German and Modern Greek: with a sketch of inflectional verb morphology in the two languages]. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2003 “Pointing as a Situated Practice.” In Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, ed. by Sotaro Kita, 217–241. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
1991 “Aspect vs. Particle: Contrasting German and Serbo-Croatian.” Multilingua 10 (1–2): 139–149.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
2012 “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 30–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin, and Paul Drew
2016 “Recruitments: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (1): 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Volkmar
1989 “Pragmatic Functions of Aspects and their Cognitive Motivation.” In Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Aspectology, ed. by L. G. Larsson, 1–11. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics: Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michael, John, Natalie Sebanz, and Günther Knoblich
2016 “The Sense of Commitment: A Minimal Approach.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2013 “Coordinating Mobile Action in Real Time: The Timely Organization of Directives in Video Games.” In Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 300–341. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room.” In Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 269–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “When Do People Not Use Language to Make Requests?” In Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 303–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes
2006 “Kommunikative Funktionen von ‘tun’ als Hilfsverb [Communicative function of the auxiliary verb ‘tun’].” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner, and Wolfgang Imo, 127–152. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Andreas
2009 “Imperativsatz [Imperative clauses].” In Slavic languages. An international Handbook of Their History, Their Structure and Their Investigation. Vol 1, ed. by Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger, Karl Gutschmidt, and Sebastian Kempgen, 509–519. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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
Stivers, Tanya
2004 “"No No No" and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja
2015 Deixis in der Face-to-Face-Interaktion [Deixis in face-to-face interaction]. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar in Everyday talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina, and Valentin Goussev
2013 “Imperative-Hortative Systems.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. by Matthew S. Dryer, and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/72, Accessed on 2015-03-03.)
Weydt, Harald, and Elke Hentschel
1986 Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: Ja, doch, halt und eben [Function and history of German particles: ja, doc, halt and eben]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997 Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Vol 3 [Grammar of the German language. Vol 3]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg
2016 Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Reanimating Responsibility. The weź-V2 (take-V2) Double Imperative in Polish.” In Approaches to Slavic Interaction, ed. by Nadine Thielemann, and Peter Kosta, 35–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Object Requests in English and Polish Everyday Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], Crossref logo
Betz, Emma, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm & Peter Golato
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Bodnaruk, Elena, Larisa Reznichenko, S. Cindori, O. Larouk, E.Yu. Malushko, L.N. Rebrina & N.L. Shamne
2019. Paradigmatics, semantics and pragmatics of the imperative in German. SHS Web of Conferences 69 ► pp. 00023 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf
2018. Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 265 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Alexandra Gubina
2021. When the Body Belies the Words: Embodied Agency With darf/kann ich? (“May/Can I?”) in German. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo
Golato, Peter
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Keevallik, Leelo
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri & Mary Shin Kim
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo
Simone, Monica & Renata Galatolo
2021. Timing and Prosody of Lexical Repetition: How Repeated Instructions Assist Visually Impaired Athletes’ Navigation in Sport Climbing. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54:4 ► pp. 397 ff. Crossref logo
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Veronika Drake, Andrea Golato & Emma Betz
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Chase Wesley Raymond
2021. The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 123 ff. Crossref logo
Zinken, Jörg, Giovanni Rossi & Vasudevi Reddy
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 253 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 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.