1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Intersubjectivity in Action
  4. Chapter

Directive turn design and intersubjectivity

image of Directive turn design and intersubjectivity

In this paper, we discuss turn design as a locus of intersubjectivity. We focus on two types of directives in Finnish interactions, turns formatted with second-person imperative and turns that contain zero person. Neither of these turn designs contains a separate subject phrase explicating the person(s) referred to, nor does either indicate when the action nominated is to take place. We study the kinds of assumptions these two turn designs make and present as shared, and the interplay of the assumptions in relation to the sequential and activity context of the turn. The design of turns and actions in sequences of interaction thus allows us to see intersubjectivity at work, even when repair does not take place.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Helsinki; 2: University of Oslo

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    2017 “Epilogue: Imperatives – The Language of Immediate Action.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 411–427. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.14aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.14aue [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Marja Etelämäki
    2015 ”Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics78: 7–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Etelämäki, Marja , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2017 ”In the Face of Resistance: A Finnish Practice for Insisting on Imperatively Formatted Directives.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.07ete
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.07ete [Google Scholar]
  4. Jefferson, Gail , and J. R. E. Lee
    1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics5: 399–422. 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90026‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text & Talk26: 513–541. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hakulinen, Lauri
    1961.  The Structure and Development of Finnish Language. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 3.  Bloomington: Indiana University.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Heinemann, Trine , and Jakob Steensig
    2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction: The Case of Imperative + Modal Particles bare and lige .” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 139–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.05hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.05hei [Google Scholar]
  8. Keevallik, Leelo
    2017 “Negotiating Deontic Rights in Second Position: Young Adult Daughters’ Imperatively Formatted Responses to Mothers’ Offers in Estonian.” InImperative 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. 10.1075/slsi.30.09kee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.09kee [Google Scholar]
  9. Laitinen, Lea
    2006 “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” InGrammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Lyle Campbell , 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.277.15lai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.277.15lai [Google Scholar]
  10. Laury, Ritva
    1996 “Pronouns and Adverbs, Figure and Ground: The Local Case Forms and the Locative Forms of the Finnish Demonstratives in Spoken Discourse.” InSKY 1996. Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, ed. by Timo Haukioja , Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Elise Kärkkäinen , 65–92. Helsinki: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Raevaara, Liisa
    1989 “ No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [No – a turn-initial particle].” InSuomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, Kieli 4, ed. by Auli Hakulinen , 147–161. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish Language.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 “Adjusting the Design of Directives to the Activity Environment: Imperatives in Finnish Cooking Club Interaction.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.13rae
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.13rae [Google Scholar]
  13. Rossi, Giovanni
    2015 The Request System in Italian Interaction. Nijmegen: Ipskamp Drukkers.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Rossi, Giovanni , and Jörg Zinken
    2016 “Grammar and Social Agency: The Pragmatics of Impersonal Deontic Statements.” Language92 (4): e296–e325. 10.1353/lan.2016.0083
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0083 [Google Scholar]
  15. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  16. Schuetz, Alfred
    1953 “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research14 (1): 1–38. 10.2307/2104013.
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001 Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” InImperative 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. 10.1075/slsi.30.08sor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.08sor [Google Scholar]
  19. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt)52. www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Stevanovic, Melisa , and Anssi Peräkylä.
    2012 ”Deontic Authority in Interaction. The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  21. VISK = Auli Hakulinen , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen and Irja Alho
    2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish Descriptive Grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Accessed 4 June 2019. scripta.kotus.fi/visk. URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Zinken, Jörg , and Eva Ogiermann
    2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba x (‘one needs to x’).” Research on Language and Social Interaction44 (3): 263–287. 10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591900 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    2017 “Epilogue: Imperatives – The Language of Immediate Action.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 411–427. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.14aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.14aue [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Marja Etelämäki
    2015 ”Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics78: 7–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Etelämäki, Marja , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2017 ”In the Face of Resistance: A Finnish Practice for Insisting on Imperatively Formatted Directives.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.07ete
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.07ete [Google Scholar]
  4. Jefferson, Gail , and J. R. E. Lee
    1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics5: 399–422. 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90026‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text & Talk26: 513–541. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hakulinen, Lauri
    1961.  The Structure and Development of Finnish Language. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 3.  Bloomington: Indiana University.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Heinemann, Trine , and Jakob Steensig
    2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction: The Case of Imperative + Modal Particles bare and lige .” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 139–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.05hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.05hei [Google Scholar]
  8. Keevallik, Leelo
    2017 “Negotiating Deontic Rights in Second Position: Young Adult Daughters’ Imperatively Formatted Responses to Mothers’ Offers in Estonian.” InImperative 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. 10.1075/slsi.30.09kee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.09kee [Google Scholar]
  9. Laitinen, Lea
    2006 “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” InGrammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Lyle Campbell , 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.277.15lai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.277.15lai [Google Scholar]
  10. Laury, Ritva
    1996 “Pronouns and Adverbs, Figure and Ground: The Local Case Forms and the Locative Forms of the Finnish Demonstratives in Spoken Discourse.” InSKY 1996. Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, ed. by Timo Haukioja , Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Elise Kärkkäinen , 65–92. Helsinki: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Raevaara, Liisa
    1989 “ No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [No – a turn-initial particle].” InSuomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, Kieli 4, ed. by Auli Hakulinen , 147–161. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish Language.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 “Adjusting the Design of Directives to the Activity Environment: Imperatives in Finnish Cooking Club Interaction.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.13rae
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.13rae [Google Scholar]
  13. Rossi, Giovanni
    2015 The Request System in Italian Interaction. Nijmegen: Ipskamp Drukkers.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Rossi, Giovanni , and Jörg Zinken
    2016 “Grammar and Social Agency: The Pragmatics of Impersonal Deontic Statements.” Language92 (4): e296–e325. 10.1353/lan.2016.0083
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0083 [Google Scholar]
  15. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  16. Schuetz, Alfred
    1953 “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research14 (1): 1–38. 10.2307/2104013.
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001 Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” InImperative 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. 10.1075/slsi.30.08sor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.08sor [Google Scholar]
  19. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt)52. www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Stevanovic, Melisa , and Anssi Peräkylä.
    2012 ”Deontic Authority in Interaction. The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  21. VISK = Auli Hakulinen , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen and Irja Alho
    2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish Descriptive Grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Accessed 4 June 2019. scripta.kotus.fi/visk. URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Zinken, Jörg , and Eva Ogiermann
    2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba x (‘one needs to x’).” Research on Language and Social Interaction44 (3): 263–287. 10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591900 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.04cou
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.04cou
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027259035
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error