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. 271–295

Chapter 9
Negotiating deontic rights in second position

Young adult daughters’ imperatively formatted responses to mothers’ offers in Estonian

| Linköping University
This study looks at offer sequences in Estonian with an analytical focus on answers in the imperative form. “Telling someone to do something” has traditionally been considered an initiating action, typically an order. In this study, however, Estonian speakers are shown to produce “orders” in second position, i.e., in response to an initiating action. These imperative responses are grammatically fitted to first actions in at least two ways. First, they reuse the verbs in the first actions, thus constituting one type of verb repeat response that is common in Estonian conversation. Second, they are grammatically restricted to positions after turns formatted in 1st person, termed my-side offers in this study. With the adjacency pair my-side offer – imperative response participants are shown to navigate the landscape of interpersonal deonticity. It is a crucial feature of my-side offers that the speaker defines the future from her own perspective, formulating what she herself will do, albeit with clear consequences and obligations for the recipient. The originator of the offer thus claims deontic rights over the future course of activities that concern both parties, and displays a strong expectation of acceptance by the other. Imperative responses, however, challenge these rights. Instead of merely accepting the offer, they redefine the current speaker as the deontic authority. The analysis is based on phone calls between mothers and young adult daughters – a relationship where entitlement to services, as well as respective deontic rights, can be an issue. It is overwhelmingly mothers who produce offers in these calls, and daughters who answer them in the imperative form. The paper argues that the daughters thereby reclaim agency and rights to independently decide upon their future in the ongoing process of becoming a responsible adult.
Keywords: imperative, echo answers, responses to offers, offer sequence, deontics, agency, repeating, grammar in interaction, Estonian, mother-daughter relationship
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Imperative as a morphological form in Estonian conversation
  • 3.The data
  • 4. My-side offers : The sequential environment for imperatively formatted responses
  • 5.Imperative response: Cutting the umbilical cord
    • 5.1Interrogative my-side offer sequences
    • 5.2Declarative my-side offer sequence
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Special transcription conventions
  • References
Published online: 18 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.09kee
References (57)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bojczyk, Kathryn E., Tara J. Lehan, Lenore M. McWey, Gail F. Melson, and Debra R. Kaufman. 2011. “Mothers’ and Their Adult Daughters’ Perceptions of Their Relationship.” Journal of Family Issues 32 (4): 452–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Carol J. 1989. “Mothers and Daughters: A Discussion of Theory and Research.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51: 291–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicirelli, Victor G. 1993. “Intergenerational Communication in the Mother-daughter Dyad Regarding Caregiving Decisions.” In Discourse and Lifespan Identity, ed. by Nikolas Coupland, and Jon Nussbaum, 215–236. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2014. “Benefactors and Beneficiaries: Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki. 2014. “On Divisions of Labor in Request and Offer Environments.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Contingency and Entitlement in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci. 2006. “Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fingerman, Karen L. 2001. Aging Mothers and Their Adult Daughters: A Study in Mixed Emotions. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
Fingerman, Karen L., Yen-Pi Cheng, Kelly E. Cichy, Kira S. Birditt, and Steven Zarit. 2013. “Help With “Strings Attached”: Offspring Perceptions That Middle-aged Parents Offer Conflicted Support.” Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences 68 (6): 902–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fingerman, Karen L., Yen-Pi Cheng, Eric D. Wesselmann, Frank Furstenberg, Steven Zarit, and Kira S. Birditt. 2012. “Helicopter Parents and Landing Pad Kids: Intense Parental Support of Grown Children.” Journal of Marriage & Family 74 (4): 880–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. “Minimal and Non-minimal Answers to Yes-No Questions.” Pragmatics 11: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle 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
Kasterpalu, Riina, and Tiit Hennoste. 2016. Estonian aa: A multifunctional change-of-state token. Journal of Pragmatics 104: 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henwood, Karen. 1995. “Adult Mother-daughter Relationships: Subjectivity, Power and Critical Psychology.” Theory and Psychology 5 (4): 483–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henwood, Karen L., and Geraldine Coughlan. 1993. “The Construction of ‘Closeness’ in Mother-daughter Relationships across the Lifespan.” In Discourse and Lifespan Identity, ed. by Nikolas Coupland, and Jon Nussbaum, 191–214. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Action Formation and Its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies 15 (5): 547–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-acceptance Sequences. Dordrecht/Providence: R.I., Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, M. Katherine, and Teresa M. Cooney. 1998. “Patterns of Parent-teen Sexual Risk Communication: Implications for Intervention.” Family Relations 47 (2): 185–194 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Alexander C., Shawn D. Whiteman, Karen L. Fingerman, and Kira S. Birditt. 2013. “’Life Still Isn’t Fair’: Parental Differential Treatment of Young Adult Siblings.” Journal of Marriage & Family 75 (2): 438–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bob M. 1999. The Welsh Answering System. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasterpalu, Riina 2013. “Two Different Intonation Contours of Estonian jaajaa .” In Nordic Prosody, ed. by Eva Liina Asu, and Pärtel Lippus, 177–186. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 1999. “Informatsioonikäsitluse partikkel ahah telefonivestlustes [The information management particle ahah in phone calls].” Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 43: 34–56.Google Scholar
. 2003. From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Internal Development and Borrowing of Pragmatic Particles: The Estonian vaata/vat ‘look’, näed ‘you see’ and vot .” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 30/31: 23–54.Google Scholar
. 2009a. “Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid [The functions of simple answers to polar questions].” Keel ja Kirjandus 52 (1): 33–53.Google Scholar
. 2009b. “Käskiv kõneviis nõustuvas voorus ja vastuste tüpoloogia [Imperative in complying turns and the typology of answers].” Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 54: 94–106.Google Scholar
. 2009c. “The Grammar-interaction Interface of Negative Questions in Estonian.” SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 139–173.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The Terms of Not Knowing.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. In press. “Making up One’s Mind in Second Position: Estonian no-preface in Action Plans.” 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.
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Paul Drew. 2014. “The Putative Preference for Offers over Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabetg Couper-Kuhlen, 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyungmin, Steven H. Zarit, Kira S. Birditt, and Karen L. Fingerman. 2014. “Discrepancy in Reports of Support Exchanges Between Parents and Adult Offspring: Within‑ and Between-family Differences.” Journal of Family Psychology 28 (2): 168–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekehard, and Peter Siemund. 2007. “Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol 1. Clause Structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 1999. Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Social Action in Swedish Conversation. Skrifter utgivna av institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet 46. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Miller, Michelle. 1992. “The Mother–daughter Relationship: Narrative as a Path of Understanding.” Women’s Studies in Communication 15: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennington, Barbara A. 2004. “The Communicative Management of Connection and Autonomy in African American and European American Mother-daughter Relationships.” Journal of Family Communication 4: 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. “Telling My Side: ‘Limited Access’ as a ‘Fishing Device’.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Randall, Deleasa. 1995. ““Doing” Mother-daughter: Conversation Analysis and Relational Contexts.” In Parents, Children and Communication: Frontiers of Theory and Research, ed. by Thomas J. Socha, and Glen H. Stamp, 113–125. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49 (5): 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol.1. Clause Structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Cloë. 2012. Advice Giving in Telephone Interactions between Mothers and Their Young Adult Daughters. Unpublished PhD thesis, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1996. “On Repeats and Responses in Finnish Conversation.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “Simple Answers to Polar Questions: The Case of Finnish.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margaret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen. 2009. “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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: John Benjamins.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usita, Paula M., and Barbara C. DuBois. 2005. “Conflict Sources and Responses in Mother-Daughter Relationships: Perspectives of Adult Daughters of Aging Immigrant Women.” Journal of Women & Aging 17: 151–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony. 1997. Interaction and the Development of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Haugh, Michael
2024. Chapter 7. Ostensible offers, politeness and sincere hypocrisy. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Ekström, Mats & Melisa Stevanovic
2023. Conversation analysis and power: examining the descendants and antecedents of social action. Frontiers in Sociology 8 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
Stevanovic, Melisa
2018. Social deontics: A nano‐level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 48:3 ► pp. 369 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 27 september 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.