Cover not available
Part of
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. 139–173

Chapter 5
Three imperative action formats in Danish talk-in-interaction

The case of imperative + modal particles bare and lige

| University of Helsinki
| Aarhus University
In Danish talk-in-interaction, imperative verbs often occur together with modal particles. This paper investigates three such combinations of imperatives and modal particles. We argue that the combinations are best understood as separate social action formats performing different actions in specific interactional contexts, rather than as modifications or modalizations of an imperative. The modal particles (bare and lige) investigated are the ones that occur most frequently with imperatives in our data. Both might on some occasions be translated into ‘just’ in English, but they are not synonymous in Danish. The investigated actions formats are: (1) imperative+lige, which is used to perform a request for an action that is portrayed as being part of a common project, (2) imperative+bare, which is used to grant permission, and (3) bare+imperative, which is used to advise the recipient to carry out a specific action as a solution to a problem. The action formats are designed to show consideration of the recipient’s benefits of the proposed actions in specific ways, and they make differential claims of entitlement, deontic authority, and moral accountability. As a more general point, we propose that an approach to grammatical formats that begins with the actual use of combinations of words and structures in interactional contexts, is more revealing than starting with a default understanding of the interactional function of a grammatical structure (for instance, that the imperative has a “commanding” function) and then see combinations with other words and structures as modifications of this default function.
Keywords: conversation analysis, Danish, imperative, modal particles, social action formats, requesting, granting permission, advising
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Danish imperatives in general and in our data
  • 3.Analysis of three imperative action formats
    • 3.1Imperative+lige as a format for requesting
    • 3.2Imperative+bare as a format for granting permission
    • 3.3 Bare+imperative as a format for giving advice
  • 4.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.05hei
References (38)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, Robin, Phillip Holmes, and Tom Lundskær-Nielsen 1995. Danish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2012. “Address Terms in the Organization of Turns at Talk: The Case of Pivotal Turn Extensions.” Journal of Pragmatics 44:1853–1867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath, and Balthasar Bickel. 2015. “The Leipzig Glossing Rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses”. Leipzig. ([URL], Accessed on 2016-04-04.)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DDO, Den danske ordbog [The Danish Dictionary]. 2015. (ordnet.dk/ddo. Accessed on 2015-10-05).Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 2007. “Principles Shaping Grammatical Practices: An Exploration.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft, 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog [Grammar of the Danish language]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog‑ og Litteraturselskab.Google 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, 375–399. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “‘Will You or Can’t You?’: Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081–1104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “From Looking to Seeing: Indexing Delayed Intelligibility of an Object with the Danish Change-of-state Token n↑å↓: ” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 108–132. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig. Forthcoming. “Justifying Departures from Progressivity: The Danish Turn-initial Particle altså .” In At the Intersection of Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. In preparation. “Seeing it our way versus seeing it my way – Two formats for mobilizing joint attention to an object in Danish talk-in-interaction..”
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi. 1992. “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions Between Health Visitors and Firsttime Mothers”. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 359–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 2005. “The Scandinavian Languages.” In Comparative Syntax, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque, and Richard S. Kayne, 420–458. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3): 219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by Valentina D’Urso, and Paolo Leonardi, 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and John 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes. 2001. “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction. Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1998. “Body Torque.” Social Research 65 (3): 535–596.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. “‘Look’-prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 387–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Birte Asmuß. 2005. “Notes on Disaligning ‘yes but’ Initiated Utterances in German and Danish Conversations: Two Construction Types for Dispreferred Responses.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 349–373. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann. 2014. “The Social and Moral Work of Modal Constructions in Granting Remote Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 145–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. In preparation. “Pursuing Imperative Compliance: The Case of Danish Imperative+nu .”
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
Stivers, Tanya. 2004. “‘No no no’ and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2013. “Reanimating Responsibility. The wez-V2 (take-V2) Double Imperative in Polish Interaction.” In Approaches to Slavic Interaction, ed. by Nadine Thielemann, and Peter Kosta, 35–61. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Kim, Mary Shin
2023. Korean imperatives at two different speech levels. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:4 ► pp. 559 ff. DOI logo
Nicolaisen, Emilie Munch & Gitte Rasmussen
2023. Multimodal methods for managing deontic rights in interdisciplinary trials. Multimodality & Society 3:4 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen & Søren Sandager Sørensen
2023. Toward a Grammar of Danish Talk-in-Interaction: From Action Formation to Grammatical Description. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:2 ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Marja Etelämäki & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2021. Directive turn design and intersubjectivity. In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Golato, Peter
2020. Chapter 4. Recruitments in French. In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri & Mary Shin Kim
2020. Chapter 2. Requesting here-and-now actions with two imperative formats in Korean interaction. In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 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.