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. 241–270

Imperatives and responsiveness in Finnish conversation

| University of Helsinki
This paper focuses on two types of imperative turn design for implementing a responsive action in Finnish interaction, one without modal particles (bare imperatives) and another one containing the particle vaa(n) (coming in this usage close to, e.g., English just, German mal or Danish bare; modulated imperatives). It is shown that these two imperatively formatted turn designs are used differently for responding and that the prior actions to which they respond are different. More specifically, these two turn design types can implement different kinds of responsive action (e.g., giving support, encouraging, giving permission), depending on their sequential position and the relation of the participants to a possible larger project in which the action being discussed forms a part. In most of the cases the imperatively formatted turn is given as a response to the prior speaker’s mentioning of a possible intention to do a certain action, expressed with a first-person declarative or interrogative clause in the present tense. The turns formatted as bare imperatives respond to a prior turn that presents the nominated action as a future fact, whereas the turn design [IMP + vaa(n)] is used to respond to a turn in which the prior speaker has displayed uncertainty about whether to do the action nominated. The turn design with the modal particle vaa(n) indexes more precisely the kind of responsive action that the turn is implementing, related to the use of the particle as a focus particle. This character of the [IMP + vaa(n)] design makes it usable for removing uncertainty by the co-participant that has remained unspoken in the interaction but that the recipient has detected. It is argued that the responsive character of the imperatively formatted turn and the type of prior turn it responds to have an impact on the extent to which they express directive force.
Keywords: imperative, response, modal particles, repetition, giving permission, encouraging, giving a go-ahead, invoking responsiveness, deontic force, benefit, sequential position, adult interaction, Finnish
Published online: 18 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.08sor
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2010 Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
2014 “Benefactors and Beneficiaries. Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2001 “Interactional Prosody: High Onsets in Reason-for-the-Call Turns.” Language in Society 30: 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
2014 “On Divisions of Labor in Request and Offer Environments.” In Requesting in Social Interaction. Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci
2006 “Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1257–1280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea
(eds) 2013 Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duvallon, Outi, and Rea Peltola
Forthcoming. “Deontic readings of the imperative through the prism of force dynamic relations: Permissive and preventive utterances with the discourse marker vaa(n) in Finnish”.
Hakulinen, Auli
1998 “The Use of Finnish Nyt as a Discourse Particle.” In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, ed. by Andreas Jucker, and Yael Ziv, 83–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “The word ny(t) as an Adverb and a Particle in Finnish.” In NU/NÅ: A family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 281–319. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri
1999 [1951] Luennot suomen kielen partikkeleista [Lectures on particles in Finnish language]. ed. by Yrjö Lauranto, and Tapani Lehtinen. Helsinki: Department of Finnish language, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press/Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine
2014 Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1984 “Notes on Some Orderliness of Overlap Onset.” In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by V. D’Urso, and P. Leonardi, 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Lauranto, Yrjö
2014 Imperatiivi, KÄSKY, direktiivi. Arkikeskustelun vaihtokauppakielioppia [Imperative, command, directive. Grammar of exchange in everyday conversation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva
2012 “Syntactically Non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’-Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49: 3–4, 213–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, and Ritva Laury
2016 “The Interactional Emergence of Conditional Clauses as Directives: Constructions, Trajectories and Sequences of Actions.” Language Sciences 58: 8–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa
1989 ” No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [ No – turn-initial particle].” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 147–161. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Department of Finnish Language, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I and II. ed. by Gail Jefferson.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen
2016 “The Finnish particle no .” In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Yael Maschler, and Peter Auer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilizing response“ Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony
1997 Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg
2016 Requesting Responsibility. The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2021.  In OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], Crossref logo
Golato, Peter
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. 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.