1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Ole hyvä (’please’) + imperative
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

In this article we conduct a multimodal conversation analysis of the use of where police officers instruct citizens to step into a police van as the final phase of an apprehension. To perform the task, officers typically formulate a directive turn that uses an imperative clause (IMP), but in the examples analysed in this article, it is combined with (OH) — ‘please’. In the case of these OH directive constructions, the preferred next action by the citizen is to step into the van, which may either take place unproblematically or require verbal and embodied upgrading from the officers. We show that the sequential position of the OH directive construction can be (1) the first-pair part of a sequence initiated in a series of collaborative actions, (2) an upgrade to a previous directive in the effort to maintain a police-led project during a prolonged directive sequence, or (3) a response to a citizen’s turn which has bypassed the police’s directive. From the embodied action perspective, we suggest that the OH directive constructions allow the police to divide their attention between the van and the citizen, thus providing a strong orientation for the citizen to step into the van themselves.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.24009.kan
2025-06-05
2025-06-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.24009.kan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/il.24009.kan/il.24009.kan.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.24009.kan&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., Nix, J., McLean, K. D., & Wolfe, S.
    (2021) Authority maintenance theory of police-citizen interactions. InR. G. Dunham, G. P. Alpert, & K. D. McLean (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (pp.–). Long Grove: Waveland Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolden, G.
    (2017) Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.06bol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.06bol [Google Scholar]
  3. Buscariolli, A.
    (2023) Moving civilians to the front of patrol cars: Built space, embodiment, and social control during police encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.04.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chalfoun, A., Rossi, G., & Stivers, T.
    (2024) The magic word? Face-work and the functions of ‘please’ in everyday requests. Social Psychology Quarterly. 10.1177/01902725241245141
     https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725241245141 [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Etelämäki, M.
    (2005) Context and referent in interaction. InR. Laury (Ed.), Minimal reference: The use of pronouns in Finnish and Estonian discourse (pp.–). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Frick, M., & Palola, E.
    (2022) Deontic autonomy in family interaction: Directive actions and the multimodal organization of going to the bathroom. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, (). 10.7146/si.v5i2.130870
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i2.130870 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A.
    (2014) Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. InP. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.08goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.08goo [Google Scholar]
  9. (2018) Embodied family choreography: practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315207773
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315207773 [Google Scholar]
  10. Haakana, M.
    (2012) Laughter in conversation: the case of “fake” laughter. InA. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Haddington, P., Kamunen, A., & Rautiainen, I.
    (2022) Noticing, monitoring and observing: Interactional grounds for joint and emergent seeing in UN military observer training. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Helasvuo, M.-L.
    (2004) Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Helasvuo, M.-L., & Vilkuna, M.
    (2008) Impersonal is personal. Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00208.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00208.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Henderson, G.
    (2021) Deontics at bedtime: A case study of participants’ resources in a directive trajectory involving a mother and her autistic child. Research on Children and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1558/rcsi.12412
     https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12412 [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, J. C., & Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (1994) Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hippi, K.
    (2021) Leading the way: Supporting functionality and autonomous action in providing mobility assistance in a Finnish care home. Gesprächsforschung, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Humă, B., Joyce, J. B., & Raymond, G.
    (2023) What does “resistance” actually look like? The respecification of resistance as an interactional accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1177/0261927X231185525
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231185525 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. InG. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.–). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  19. Kärkkäinen, E., & Keisanen, T.
    (2012) Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445612454069
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  20. Keesman, L. D.
    (2024) Creating “windows of opportunity”: How police officers sense and generate momentum for gaining control in police-civilian interactions. Symbolic Interaction, (), –. 10.1002/symb.686
     https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.686 [Google Scholar]
  21. Keevallik, L.
    (2010) Social action of syntactic reduplication. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Keevallik, L., & Pelikan, H.
    (2023) F-formation. InA. Gubina, E. M. Hoey, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of terminology for conversation analysis and interactional linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). 10.17605/OSF.IO/A7MQB
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A7MQB [Google Scholar]
  23. Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P.
    (2014) Suspending action. From simultaneous to consecutive ordering of multiple courses of action. InP. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.187.04kei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.04kei [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Koivisto, A.
    (2009) Kiitoksen paikka. Kiittäminen kioskiasiointia jäsentämässä. InH. Lappalainen & L. Raevaara (Eds.), Kieli kioskilla. Tutkimuksia kioskiasioinnin rutiineista (pp.–). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lauranto, Y.
    (2015) Direktiivisyyden rajoja. Suomen kielen vaihtokauppasyntaksia. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen, suomalais-ugrilaisten ja pohjoismaisten kielten ja kirjallisuuksien laitos.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Laurier, E.
    (2019) The panel show: Further experiments with graphic transcripts and vignettes. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, (). 10.7146/si.v2i1.113968
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v2i1.113968 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindström, J., Lindholm, C., Norrby, C., Wide, C., & Nilsson, J.
    (2017) Imperatives in Swedish medical consultations. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.10lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.10lin [Google Scholar]
  29. Majlesi, A. R., Ekström, A., & Hydén, L. C.
    (2021) Sitting down on a chair: Directives and embodied organization of joint activities involving persons with dementia. Gesprächsforschung, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Markkanen, R.
    (1985) ‘Please’ and ‘ole hyvä’. InR. Markkanen, Cross-language studies in pragmatics (pp.–). Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies 11. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondada, L.
    (2014) Pointing, talk and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. InM. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.188.06mon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.188.06mon [Google Scholar]
  32. (2024) Multimodal transcription conventions. InJ. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. H. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mondada, L., & Sorjonen, M.
    (2016) Making multiple requests in French and Finnish convenience stores. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404516000646
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404516000646 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pehkonen, S.
    (2021) Directive actions in three assistance-orientated activities between Finnish police officers and drunken persons. Gesprächsforschung, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Pehkonen, S. & Kannisto, A.
    (forthcoming). Ole hyvä -direktiivikonstruktion käyttö poliisivetoisessa kiinniottotilanteessa. Puhe ja kieli.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pekarek Doehler, S., Keevallik, L., & Li, X.
    (2022) Editorial: The grammar-body interface in social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875696
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875696 [Google Scholar]
  37. Peterson, E.
    (2010) Perspective and politeness in Finnish requests. Pragmatics, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Raevaara, L.
    (1997) Vierusparit — esimerkkinä kysymys ja vastaus. InL. Tainio (Ed.), Keskustelunanalyysin perusteet (pp.–). Tampere: Vastapaino.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Rossi, G.
    (2017) Secondary and deviant uses of the imperative for requesting in Italian. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.04ros
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.04ros [Google Scholar]
  40. Rouhikoski, A.
    (2015) Laita, laitatko vai laitat? Kolmen direktiivirakenteen variaatio asiakaspalvelutilanteessa. Virittäjä, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2020) Nollapersoona Kelan virkailijoiden direktiiveissä. Virittäjä, (), –. 10.23982/vir.60513
     https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.60513 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2006) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (2001a) Lääkärin ohjeet. InM.-L. Sorjonen, A. Peräkylä, & K. Eskola (Eds.), Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla (pp.–). Tampere: Vastapaino.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2001b) 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]
  46. Stevanovic, M.
    (2017) Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case of the Finnish clitic particles pA and pAs in imperatives and hortatives. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.12ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.12ste [Google Scholar]
  47. Stivers, T.
    (2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, (), –. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Tanner, J.
    (2012) Rakenne, tilanne ja kohteliaisuus. Pyynnöt S2-oppikirjoissa ja autenttisissa keskusteluissa. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Vatanen, A., & Haddington, P.
    (2023) Multiactivity in adult-child interaction: accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk, (), –. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0165
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0165 [Google Scholar]
  50. VISK = Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I.
    (2008) Iso suomen kieliopin verkkoversio. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus, Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen ja kotimaisen kirjallisuuden laitos. https://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php (26.4.2024).
  51. Weidner, M.
    (2015) Telling somebody what to tell: “Proszę mi powiedzieć” in Polish doctor–patient interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zimmermann, M.
    (2009) Asymmetry markers in discourse: The expressive meaning of bitte ’please’. InL. Kálmán (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Logic and Language (pp.–). Budapest: Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Theoretical Linguistics Program, Eötvös Loránd University.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24009.kan
Loading
Ole hyvä (’please’) + imperative
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24009.kan
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24009.kan
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24009.kan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: deontic rights ; directive ; imperative ; OLE HYVÄ ; embodiment

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