Cover not available
Part of
Grammar in Action: Building comprehensive grammars of talk-in-interaction
Edited by Jakob Steensig, Maria Jørgensen, Jan K. Lindström, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen and Søren Sandager Sørensen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 37] 2025
► pp. 266–302

Chapter 9
Second-person singular imperatives in Finnish everyday conversations

Multifunctionality and routinization of grammatical formats

 | Åbo Akademi University
The chapter discusses different ways in which second-person singular imperatives are used in Finnish conversations and how this multifunctionality should be described in a grammar of Finnish talk-in-interaction. In traditional grammar writing, the description of imperatives has focused on their use in directive actions. The chapter shows that in spoken interaction, second-person singular imperatives have a wider range of functions: they can also be used in actions that are not primarily directive, e.g., storytellings, assessments, news deliveries, and informings. In such use, they function as sedimented formulae with fixed local tasks and recurrent collocative elements. The chapter suggests that formulaicity and routinization of grammatical formats play an important role in everyday language use, which should be reflected in grammar writing.
Keywords: Finnish, everyday conversation, fixed expression, formulaicity, imperative, routinization, second-person singular, social action format
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Distribution of second-person singular imperative forms in the data
  • 4.Analysis: Use of second-person singular imperative forms
    • 4.1Kat(s)o ‘look.2sg.imp’
    • 4.2Kuule ‘hear.2sg.imp’
    • 4.3Älä ‘neg.2sg.imp’
    • 4.4A(j)attele ‘think.2sg.imp’
    • 4.5O(d)ota ‘wait.2sg.imp’
    • 4.6Sano ‘say.2sg.imp’
    • 4.7Arvaa ‘guess.2sg.imp’
    • 4.8Summary
  • 5.Discussion: Second-person singular imperatives
    in an interactional grammar
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arkisyn. A morphosyntactically Coded Database of Conversational Finnish. Database compiled at the University of Turku, with material from the Conversation Analysis Archive at the University of Helsinki and the Syntax Archives at the University of Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.
Auer, Peter. 2017. “Epilogue. Imperatives — the Language of Immediate Action.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 411–423. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder (eds). 2011. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2013. “Units and/or Action Trajectories? The Language of Grammatical Categories and the Language of Social Action. In Units of Talk — Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 2007. “Principles Shaping Grammatical Practices: An Exploration.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 2006. “Participation, Affect and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text and Talk 26: 513–541.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1998. “The Use of Finnish nyt as a Discourse Particle.” In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Yael Ziv, 83–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 1992. “Finnish kato: From Verb to Particle.” Journal of Pragmatics 18, 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Leelo Keevallik Eriksson, and Jan Lindström. 2003. “Kuule, kule, hördu — projicerande praktiker i finska, estniska och svenska samtal [Kuule, kule, hördu – practices of projection in Finnish, Estonian and Swedish conversation].” In Grammatik och samtal. Studier till minne av Mats Eriksson [Grammar and conversation: Studies in the memory of Mats Eriksson], ed. by Bengt Nordberg, Leelo Keevallik Eriksson, Kerstin Thelander, and Mats Thelander, 199–218. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Online version (2008), [URL].Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2001. “Tracing Grammaticalization of oota ‘wait’ in Estonian Conversation.” In Papers in Estonian Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ilona Tragel, 119–144. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
. 2003. From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Negotiating Deontic Rights in Second Position Young Adult Daughters’ Imperatively Formatted Responses to Mothers’ Offers in Estonian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 271–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kielitoimiston sanakirja. Institute for the Languages in Finland. Online version, kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/ (29.5.2023).
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, command, directive: On interactional syntax in Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Janica Rauma. 2020. “When an Expression Becomes Fixed: Mä ajattelin että ‘I thought that’ in Spoken Finnish.” In Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Tsuyoshi Ono, 133–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono (eds). 2020. Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2012. “Action Formation and Ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 101–130. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2012. “Emergent Projecting Constructions: The Case of Hebrew yada (‘know’).” Studies in Language 36 (4): 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas. 1997. “The News Delivery Sequence: Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 30 (2): 93–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möttönen, Tapani, and Maria Ahlholm. 2018. “The Toisto-Method: Speech and Repetition as a Means of Implicit Grammar Learning.” SKY Journal of Linguistics 31: 71–105.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pouttu, Suvi-Maaria. 2010. Sanallinen reagoiminen päällekkäispuhuntaan perhekeskustelussa [Verbal reactions to overlapping speech in family interaction]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Tiina Keisanen. 2019. “Kato. Hulluna puolukoita: Kato vuorovaikutuksen resurssina luontoilussa [Kato. An insane amount of lingonberries: Kato as an interactional resource in nature-related activities].” Virittäjä 123 (4): 518–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato ‘look’ in Nature-Related Activities.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 661784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Recipient Activities: The Particle “no” as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 165–195. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds). 2017. Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen, and Søren Sandager Sørensen. 2023. “Toward a Grammar of Danish Talk-in-Interaction: From Action Formation to Grammatical Description.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 56 (2): 116–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2017. “Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles -pA and -pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 357–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita. 2018. ”Sinä, konteksti ja monitulkintaisuus: Yksikön 2. persoonan viittaukset arkikeskustelussa [Sinä ‘you’, context, and ambiguity: Second-person singular reference in everyday Finnish conversation].” Virittäjä 122 (3): 320–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Kuka sinä on? Tutkimus yksikön 2. persoonan käytöstä ja käytön variaatiosta suomenkielisissä arkikeskusteluissa [Who is ‘you’? On the use of the second person singular in Finnish everyday conversations]. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Teeri-Niknammoghadam, Krista, and Maija Surakka. 2023. “Hetkinen, mitä tällä tehdään? Hetkinen-sana vuorovaikutuksen jäsentäjänä [Uses of the Finnish word hetkinen ’moment’].” Puhe ja kieli 43 (3): 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, Alene Kiku. 2004 [1976]. “Pre-announcement Sequences in Conversation.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thompson Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna, and Pentti Haddington. 2023. “Multiactivity in Adult-Child Interaction: Accounts Resolving Conflicting Courses of Action in Request Sequences.” Text&Talk 43 (2): 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. “Oota pikku hetki. Lykkäykset avunvärväyssekvensseisssä perhevuorovaikutuksessa [’Wait a moment’: Suspensions in recruitment sequences in family interaction].” Virittäjä 128 (1): 4–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna, Karita Suomalainen, and Ritva Laury. 2020. “The Finnish Projector Phrase se että as a Fixed Expression.” In Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Tsuyoshi Ono, 167–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vepsäläinen, Heidi. 2019. Suomen no-partikkeli ja kysymyksiin vastaaminen keskustelussa [The Finnish particle no and answering questions in conversation]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Visapää, Laura. 2021. “Self-Description in Everyday Interaction: Generalizations about Oneself as Accounts of Behavior.” Discourse Studies 23 (3): 339–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar