Cover not available
Part of
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan K. Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 245–274

Chapter 9
Consecutive clause combinations in instructing activities

Directives and accounts in the context of physical training

This chapter investigates the formatting of instructions in physical training with personal trainers or physiotherapists. Instructions occur in multimodal activities where invitations to action, compliances with them, and accounts for them emerge through grammatical, prosodic and embodied resources. We identified a two-part pattern [directive & account] that accomplishes a complex structural and pragmatic unit in trainers’ instructions. The instructions are grammatically formed of consecutive clause combinations in which the directive part is a declarative or an imperative. These combinations emerge in interactive sequences and are a designed, rather than a contingent feature in the making of instructions. Nevertheless, there is variation in their sequential emergence and grammatical and prosodic composition, from tight packages to projected or expanded clause/action combinations.
Keywords: directives, instructions, accounts, clause combining, action combination, emergent grammar, projection, expansion, prosody, embodiment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Instruction as an interactionally emerging phenomenon
  • 3.Data and collection
  • 4.Overview of the instruction formats
  • 5.Analysis of instruction sequences
    • 5.1Preparatory instructions: Demonstration by trainer
    • 5.2Preparatory instructions: Client involved in trainer’s demonstration
    • 5.3Corrective instructions: Trainer intervenes in client’s performance
    • 5.4Summary: On projection, expansion and prosody
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Transcription symbols
  • Grammatical glosses
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.09lin
References (50)
References
Auer, P. (2000). Pre- and postpositioning of wenn-clauses in spoken and written German. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.173–204). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.39, April 3rd 2018. [URL]Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes 49(3/4), 273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). Incrementing in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4), 513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2014). On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In P. Drew, & E. Couper Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp.115–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017). Linking clauses for linking actions: Transforming requests and offers into joint ventures. In R. Laury, M. Etelämäki, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Linkings clauses and actions in social interaction (pp.176–200). Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Gazin, A.-D. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics 65, 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung 16, 63–101.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S. (Eds.). (2015). Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2014). Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5(1), 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, M., Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Laury, R. (2017). Introduction. In R. Laury, M. Etelämäki, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Linking clauses and actions in social interaction (pp.11–23). Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Instructions and instructed actions. In H. Garfinkel, & A. Warfield Rawls (Eds.), Ethnomethodology’s Program, (pp.197–218). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grahn, I.-L., & Huhtamäki, M. (2019). Frasformade instruktioner under fysisk aktivitet – form och funktion i interaktionell belysning [Phrase-formed instructions during physical activity – form and function in an interactional illustration]. In M. Bianchi, D. Håkansson, B. Melander, L. Pfister, M. Westman, & C. Östman (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 36 (pp.65–78). Uppsala: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Henricson, S., & Nelson, M. (2017). Giving and receiving advice in higher education: Comparing Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish supervision meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 109, 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analyzed. Semiotica 30(3/4), 245–262.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp.155–175). Mahwah, HJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.99–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huhtamäki, M. (2012). Prosodiska mönster hos frågor: en undersökning av Helsingforssvenska samtal [Prosodic patterns in questions: A study of Helsinki Swedish conversations]. Språk och stil 22(2), 153–184.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.309–336). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Limberg, H., & Locher, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Advice in discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. (1999). Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. (Diss.) Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
(2014b). Front field negation in spoken Swedish: A regional archaism? In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker, & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics (pp.237–253). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Lindholm, C., Norrby, C., Wide, C., & Nilsson, J. (2017). Imperatives in Swedish medical consultations. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk (pp.299–324). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, O. (2008). Lab work in science education: Instruction, inscription, and the practical achievement of understanding. (Diss.) Linköping: Linköping University.Google Scholar
Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2014). Inquiries of the body: Novice questions and the instructable observability of endodontic scenes. Discourse Studies 16(2), 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.275–329). Amsterdam. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2008). The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84(1), 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, C., Wide, C., Lindström, J., & Nilsson, J. (2012). Finland-Swedish as a non-dominant variety of Swedish – Extending the scope to pragmatic and interactional aspects. In R. Muhr (Ed.), Non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages: Getting the picture (pp.49–60). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015). Interpersonal relationships in medical consultations: Comparing Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish address practices. Journal of Pragmatics 84, 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R., Hakulinen, A., & Tainio, L. (2004). Indexing ‘no news’ with stylization in Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp.299–334). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and emergence in grammar: Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topics in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, D., & Szczepek Reed, B. (2013). Building an instructional project. Actions as components of music masterclasses. In B. Szczepek Reed, & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp.313–341). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuter, M. (1992). Swedish as a pluricentric language. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Pluricentric languages (pp.101–116). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scheutz, H. (2001). On causal clause combining: The case of ‘weil’ in spoken German. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp.111–140). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2017). Imperative turns at talk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (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
Szczepek Reed, B., Reed, D., & Haddon, E. (2013). NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal masterclasses. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1), 22–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, C., & Lyngfelt, B. (Eds.). (2009). Konstruktioner i finlandssvensk syntax: skriftspråk, samtal, dialekter. [Constructions in Finland-Swedish syntax: Written language, conversation, dialects.] Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Keevallik, Leelo, Emily Hofstetter, Ann Weatherall & Sally Wiggins
2023. Sounding others’ sensations in interaction. Discourse Processes 60:1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Norrby, Catrin
2021. Interaction and Variation in Pluricentric Languages - communicative patterns in Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish . Sociolinguistica 35:1 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.