1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Giving space for self-direction
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines the sanctioning of problem behavior during family breakfasts. Such sanctionings are commonly initiated with declarative TCUs. These declarative TCUs work as a vehicle for flagging the problem, and thereby occasion behavior modification ‘indirectly’. While declaratives canonically ‘inform’, it will be shown that not all declarative TCUs in sanctioning turns are well analyzed as ‘informing’. What they share is an orientation to the wrongdoer’s agency: They give space for the other person to adjust their behavior ‘themselves’, without having been told to. The prioritization of flagging a problem (as opposed to telling the other what to do) is explored on the basis of sanctioning moves that are built with both an imperative and a declarative TCU. Both distributional and qualitative (self-repair) data support the analysis of a preference for self-direction (Hepburn, 2020). Data are in German and come from the .

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.24001.kor
2024-10-01
2024-10-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.24001.kor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahearn, L. M.
    (2001) Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, (), –. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, C., & Kent, A.
    (2015) Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baranova, J., & Dingemanse, M.
    (2016) Reasons for requests. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445616667154
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616667154 [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), –. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 translated and adapted for English. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Craven, A., & Potter, J.
    (2010) Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445610370126
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  7. Daston, L.
    (2022) Rules: A Short History of What We Live by. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780691239187/html#contents
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Drake, D., & Drake, V.
    (2010) “oda wey/oda wos” and “oder wie/oder was”: A comparison of Bavarian and German repair initiators. Presented at theGermanic Linguistics Annual Conference XVI (GLAC16), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R.
    (2013) Self-repair and action construction. InM. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp.–). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Enfield, N. J.
    (2011) Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. InT. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (1st ed., pp.–). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2017a) Distribution of Agency. InN. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp.–). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2017b) Elements of Agency. InN. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp.–). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J.
    (2017) The concept of action. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139025928
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139025928 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garfinkel, H.
    (1963) A Conception of and Experiments with “Trust” as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions. InO. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction (pp.–). Ronald Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gell, A.
    (1998) Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198280132.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198280132.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Giddens, A.
    (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Goffman, E.
    (1971) Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A.
    (2013) Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014) Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. InP. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (Vol., pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slsi.26.08goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.08goo [Google Scholar]
  21. Hepburn, A.
    (2020) The preference for self-direction as a resource for parents’ socialisation practices. Qualitative Research in Psychology, (), –. 10.1080/14780887.2019.1664679
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1664679 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hepburn, A., & Potter, J.
    (2011) Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence: Threats in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1348/014466610X500791
     https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X500791 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, J. C.
    (1990) Interactional Accountability: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Réseaux, (), –. 10.3406/reso.1990.3529
     https://doi.org/10.3406/reso.1990.3529 [Google Scholar]
  24. Keevallik, L., & Weidner, M.
    (2021) OKAY projecting embodied compliance to directives. InE. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Okay across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slsi.34.11kee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.11kee [Google Scholar]
  25. Kent, A.
    (2012) Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445612457485
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kent, A., & Kendrick, K. H.
    (2016) Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1201737
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1201737 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kockelman, P.
    (2007) Agency: The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge. Current Anthropology, (), –. 10.1086/512998
     https://doi.org/10.1086/512998 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kornfeld, L., Küttner, U.-A., & Zinken, J.
    (2023) Ein Korpus für die vergleichende Interaktionsforschung. InA. Deppermann, C. Fandrych, M. Kupietz, & T. Schmidt (Eds.), Korpora in der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft (pp.–). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111085708‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111085708-006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kornfeld, L., & Rossi, G.
    (2023) Enforcing Rules During Play: Knowledge, Agency, and the Design of Instructions and Reminders. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2023.2170637
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2023.2170637 [Google Scholar]
  30. Küttner, U.-A., Kornfeld, L., & Zinken, J.
    (2023) A coding scheme for (dis)approval-relevant events involving the direct social sanctioning of problematic behavior in informal social interaction. Online-Only Publikationen Des Leibniz-Instituts Für Deutsche Sprache, , –. 10.21248/idsopen.5.2023.8
     https://doi.org/10.21248/idsopen.5.2023.8 [Google Scholar]
  31. Küttner, U.-A., Vatanen, A., & Zinken, J.
    (2022) Invoking Rules in Everyday Family Interactions: A Method for Appealing to Practical Reason. Human Studies, –. 10.1007/s10746‑022‑09648‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-022-09648-0 [Google Scholar]
  32. Levin, L., Cromdal, J., Broth, M., Gazin, A.-D., Haddington, P., McIlvenny, P., … Rauniomaa, M.
    (2017) Unpacking corrections in mobile instruction: Error-occasioned learning opportunities in driving, cycling and aviation training. Linguistics and Education, , –. 10.1016/j.linged.2016.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mazeland, H.
    (2013) Grammar in Conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.–). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved fromwww.123library.org/book_details/?id=54984
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pomerantz, A.
    (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, (), –. 10.1007/BF00148128
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  36. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A.
    (2020) Shaming interrogatives: Admonishments, the social psychology of emotion, and discursive practices of behaviour modification in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1111/bjso.12346
     https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12346 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rawls, J.
    (1955) Two Concepts of Rules. The Philosophical Review, (), . 10.2307/2182230
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2182230 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rossi, G.
    (2018) Composite Social Actions: The Case of Factual Declaratives in Everyday Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rossi, G., & Zinken, J.
    (2017) Social Agency and Grammar. InN. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp.–). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  40. Roughley, N., & Bayertz, K.
    (Eds.) (2019) The Normative Animal? On the Anthropological Significance of Social, Moral and Linguistic Norms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190846466.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190846466.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M.
    (1985) Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1989) Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. InM. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in Human Development (pp.–). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (1991) Reflections on talk and social structure. InD. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp.–). Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (1st ed., pp.–). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  46. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1st ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  47. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., … Uhmann, S.
    (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
    (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved fromwww.123library.org/book_details/?id=54984
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351810903471258
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  50. Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., Golato, A., & Betz, E.
    (2020) Chapter 3. Mobilizing for the next relevant action: Managing progressivity in card game interactions. InC. Taleghani-Nikazm, E. Betz, & P. Golato (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (Vol., pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slsi.33.03tal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.33.03tal [Google Scholar]
  51. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ids-mannheim/detail.action?docID=4185010&query=grammar+in+everyday+talk. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zinken, J.
    (2016) Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zinken, J., & Deppermann, A.
    (2017) A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns: Evidence from German and Polish. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action (pp.–). John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam; Philadelphia. 10.1075/slsi.30.02zin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.02zin [Google Scholar]
  54. Zinken, J., & Küttner, U.-A.
    (2022) Offering an Interpretation of Prior Talk in Everyday Interaction: A Semantic Map Approach. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1080/0163853X.2022.2028088
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2028088 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24001.kor
Loading
Giving space for self-direction
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24001.kor
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24001.kor
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24001.kor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: interactional linguistics ; declaratives ; family interaction ; agency ; conversation analysis

Most Cited

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