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. 357–380

Chapter 12
Managing compliance in violin instruction

The case of the Finnish clitic particles -pA and -pAs in imperatives and hortatives

The chapter considers the verbal design of Finnish second-person singular imperative and first-person plural hortative turns, asking whether and how those turns where there is a clitic particle -pA or -pAs attached to the finite verb differ from the non-cliticized turns, and whether -pA and -pAs are used in similar or dissimilar ways. The imperative and hortative turns used in the analysis are drawn from a data set of four violin lessons with a 5-year-old child and her teacher as the participants. All the imperative and hortative turns analyzed were spoken by the teacher to the child.The analysis shows that the non-cliticized imperative or hortative turns and the ones with -pA or -pAs are used differently. The non-cliticized turns are common in contexts where the speaker and the recipient are actively engaged in an ongoing collaboration. The imperative and hortative turns with ‑pA occur characteristically after the recipient’s immediately preceding failures, which need to be remedied for the participants to be able to continue what they are up to. The imperatives and hortatives with ‑pAs are frequently used at activity transitions, where the speaker demonstrates her right to determine the broader agenda of the participants’ joint activity.The chapter suggests that the linguistic design of Finnish second-person singular imperative and first-person plural hortative turns is informed by the speaker’s understanding of the extent to which, and the particular sense in which, the participants’ current actions are to be seen as joint ones. While the selection between imperatives and hortatives is warranted by the identity of the agent(s) of the nominated action (whether it is the recipient alone, or both the speaker and the recipient together), it is in and through the choices between the cliticized and non-cliticized formats that speakers invoke and manage the more specific basis upon which the recipient’s compliance can be expected.
Keywords: directives, imperatives, hortatives, Finnish particle clitics, deontic status, instructional interaction, violin lessons, joint activity, commitment, institutional agenda
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Finnish clitic particles -pA and -pAs
    • 1.2Music instruction as the research context
    • 1.3Data and method
  • 2.Analysis
    • 2.1Non-cliticized imperatives and hortatives
      • 2.1.1Second-person singular imperatives
      • 2.1.2First-person plural hortatives
      • 2.1.3Summary: Non-cliticized imperatives and hortatives
    • 2.2Imperatives and hortatives with -pA
      • 2.2.1Second-person singular imperatives
      • 2.2.2 First-person plural hortatives
      • 2.2.3Summary: Imperatives and hortatives with -pA
    • 2.3Imperatives and hortatives with -pAs
      • 2.3.1Second-person singular imperatives
      • 2.3.2First-person plural hortatives
      • 2.3.3Summary: Imperatives and hortatives with -pAs
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 18 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.12ste
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
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
Barbieri, Daniele
2014 “Discussion Paper: Between Sharing and Discourse.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 530–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
2015 “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
Corkum, Valerie, and Chris Moore
1998 “The Origins of Joint Visual Attention in Infants.” Developmental Psychology 34 (1): 28–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
2015 ”Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin
2014 “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunham, Philip J., Frances Dunham, and Ann Curwin
1993 “Joint-Attentional States and Lexical Acquisition at 18 Months.” Developmental Psychology 29 (5): 827–831. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J.
2006 “Social Consequences of Common Ground.” In Roots of Human Sociality, ed. by Nicholas J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 399–430. Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Orchestrating Directive Trajectories in Communicative Projects in Family Interaction.” In Requesting in Social Interaction: Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 185–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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
Hanks, William F.
2006 “Context, Communicative.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Keith Brown, 115–128. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine
2014 Imperatives. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, and Mirka Rauniomaa
2012 “The Organization of Participation and Contingency in Pre-beginnings of Requests Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (4): 323–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1990 Conducting interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidwell, Mardi, and Don H. Zimmerman
2007 “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 592–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lauranto, Yrjö
2013 “Suomen kielen imperatiivi – yksi paradigma, kaksi systeemiä [The imperative in Finnish – one paradigm, two systems].” Virittäjä 117 (2): 156–200.Google Scholar
2014 Imperatiivi, käsky, direktiivi: Arkikeskustelun vaihtokauppakielioppia [Imperative, order, directive: Exchange grammar of everyday conversation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
2015 Direktiivisyyden rajoja: Suomen kielen vaihtokauppasyntaksia [Boundaries of directiveness: Exchange syntax of Finnish]. (https://​helda​.helsinki​.fi​/handle​/10138​/154288, Accessed on 2015-07-02.)
Lerner, Gene H.
1995 “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, Douglas H.
1991 “Teacher Authority as Practical Action.” Linguistics and Education 3: 281–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “The Relevance of Repair for Classroom Correction.” Language in Society 33: 703–736. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, Alexander
1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7: 183–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merlino, Sara
2014 “Singing in “Another” Language: How Pronunciation Matters in the Organisation of Choral Rehearsals.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 420–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2009 “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 329–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10): 1977–1997. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
2014 “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction: Studies in Language and Social, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 269–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, Aug
2006 “What to Learn: The Embodied Structure of the Environment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (2): 119–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parton, Katharine
2014 “Epistemic Stance in Orchestral Interaction.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 402–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa
2004 ”Mitäs me sovittais: S-partikkelin sisältävien hakukysymysten tehtävistä. [On the use of the particle ‑s in open ended questions].” Virittäjä 108 (4): 531–558.Google Scholar
Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed
2014 “The Emergence of Learnables in Music Masterclasses.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 446–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49 (5): 426–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shore, Susanna
1986 Onko suomessa passiivia? [Is there a passive in Finnish?]. Suomi 133. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
1988 “On the So-called Finnish Passive.” Word 39: 151–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 ”Lääkärin ohjeet [Doctor’s instructions].” In Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Anssi Peräkylä, and Kari Eskola, 89–111. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002 “Common ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures.” InLiSt 52. (http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/52​/Inlist52​.pdf)
2013a “Constructing a Proposal as a Thought: A Way to Manage Problems in the Initiation of Joint Decision-making in Finnish Workplace Interaction.” Pragmatics 23 (3): 519–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Deontic Rights in Interaction. A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation. Academic dissertation, University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research.Google Scholar
2013c “Managing Participation in Interaction: The Case of Humming.” Text and Talk 33 (1): 113–137. CrossrefGoogle 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
2014 “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society 43 (2): 185–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig
2015 “Introduction: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 1–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon
2013 “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuits of Learnables in Vocal Masterclasses.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (1): 22–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1995 “Joint Attention as Social Cognition.” In Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development, ed. by Chris Moore, and Philip J. Dunham, 103–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2009 Why We Cooperate: Based on the 2008 Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Stanford University. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, and Michael J. Farrar
1986 “Joint Attention and Early Language.” Child Development 57 (6): 1454–1463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veronesi, Daniela
2014 “Correction Sequences and Semiotic Resources in Ensemble Music Workshops: The case of Conduction.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 468–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Peter
1996 “A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3): 247–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997 Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Interactional and Sequential Configurations Informing Request Format Selection in Children’s Speech.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 185–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Ehmer, Oliver & Geert Brône
2021. Instructing embodied knowledge: multimodal approaches to interactive practices for knowledge constitution. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4 Crossref logo
Golato, Peter
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley
2022. Suffixation and sequentiality. Interactional Linguistics Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge: metaphors and metonymies of body position in children’s music instrument instruction. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4 Crossref logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo
Stevanovic, Melisa & Arniika Kuusisto
2019. Teacher Directives in Children’s Musical Instrument Instruction: Activity Context, Student Cooperation, and Institutional Priority. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63:7 ► pp. 1022 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 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.