Chapter published in:
Imperative Turns at Talk: The design of directives in actionEdited by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 30] 2017
► pp. 357–380
Chapter 12Managing 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
- 2.1Non-cliticized imperatives and hortatives
- 3.Conclusions
-
Acknowledgements -
Note -
References
Published online: 18 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.12ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.12ste
References
References
Antaki, Charles, and Alexandra Kent
Barbieri, Daniele
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Brennan
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
Corkum, Valerie, and Chris Moore
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin
Dunham, Philip J., Frances Dunham, and Ann Curwin
Enfield, Nicholas J.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
Hanks, William F.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
Keisanen, Tiina, and Mirka Rauniomaa
Kendon, Adam
Kidwell, Mardi, and Don H. Zimmerman
Lauranto, Yrjö
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.
Macbeth, Douglas H.
McHoul, Alexander
Merlino, Sara
Mondada, Lorenza
Nishizaka, Aug
Parton, Katharine
Raevaara, Liisa
Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed
Rossi, Giovanni
Schegloff, Emmanuel
Shore, Susanna
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
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)
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon
Tomasello, Michael
Tomasello, Michael, and Michael J. Farrar
Veronesi, Daniela
Weeks, Peter
Wootton, Anthony J.
Cited by
Cited by 8 other publications
Ehmer, Oliver & Geert Brône
Golato, Peter
Stevanovic, Melisa
Stevanovic, Melisa
Stevanovic, Melisa
Stevanovic, Melisa
Stevanovic, Melisa & Arniika Kuusisto
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.