Cover not available

Article published In: Instructing Bodies
Edited by Leelo Keevallik, Emily Hofstetter and Jan Lindström
[Interactional Linguistics 5:1/2] 2025
► pp. 99–126

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Ole hyvä (‘please’) + imperative

A multimodal analysis of Finnish police directive turns

ORCiD logo with link | University of Oulu | Police University College
ORCiD logo with link | Tampere University
ORCiD logo with link | University of Oulu
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Tampere University.

Published online: 5 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24009.kan
Abstract
In this article we conduct a multimodal conversation analysis of the use of OH directive constructions 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 ole hyvä (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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Literature review
  • 4.OH directive constructions as first-pair part
  • 5.Prolonged sequences
  • 6.OH directive constructions as a response to a citizen’s turn
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (52)
References
Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., Nix, J., McLean, K. D., & Wolfe, S. (2021). Authority maintenance theory of police-citizen interactions. In R. G. Dunham, G. P. Alpert, & K. D. McLean (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 376–397). Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. (2017). Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 175–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buscariolli, A. (2023). Moving civilians to the front of patrol cars: Built space, embodiment, and social control during police encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 2121, 8–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chalfoun, A., Rossi, G., & Stivers, T. (2024). The magic word? Face-work and the functions of ‘please’ in everyday requests. Social Psychology Quarterly. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Etelämäki, M. (2005). Context and referent in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Minimal reference: The use of pronouns in Finnish and Estonian discourse (pp. 12–37). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 5(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2014). Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 185–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Embodied family choreography: practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2012). Laughter in conversation: the case of “fake” laughter. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 174–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 2001, 119–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L. (2004). Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1315–1336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L., & Vilkuna, M. (2008). Impersonal is personal. Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 216–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 4(2), 168–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hippi, K. (2021). Leading the way: Supporting functionality and autonomous action in providing mobility assistance in a Finnish care home. Gesprächsforschung, 221, 514–543.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 42(5–6), 497–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 587–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keesman, L. D. (2024). Creating “windows of opportunity”: How police officers sense and generate momentum for gaining control in police-civilian interactions. Symbolic Interaction, 47(3), 410–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2010). Social action of syntactic reduplication. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 800–824. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, L., & Pelikan, H. (2023). F-formation. In A. Gubina, E. M. Hoey, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of terminology for conversation analysis and interactional linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Suspending action. From simultaneous to consecutive ordering of multiple courses of action. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 711–730. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koivisto, A. (2009). Kiitoksen paikka. Kiittäminen kioskiasiointia jäsentämässä. In H. Lappalainen & L. Raevaara (Eds.), Kieli kioskilla. Tutkimuksia kioskiasioinnin rutiineista (pp. 174–200). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauranto, Y. (2015). Direktiivisyyden rajoja. Suomen kielen vaihtokauppasyntaksia. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen, suomalais-ugrilaisten ja pohjoismaisten kielten ja kirjallisuuksien laitos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laurier, E. (2019). The panel show: Further experiments with graphic transcripts and vignettes. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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: The design of directives in action (pp. 299–324). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 221, 569–590.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markkanen, R. (1985). ‘Please’ and ‘ole hyvä’. In R. Markkanen, Cross-language studies in pragmatics (pp. 85–95). Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies 11. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). Pointing, talk and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance (pp. 95–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Multimodal transcription conventions. In J. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L., & Sorjonen, M. (2016). Making multiple requests in French and Finnish convenience stores. Language in Society, 45(5), 733–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pehkonen, S. (2021). Directive actions in three assistance-orientated activities between Finnish police officers and drunken persons. Gesprächsforschung, 221, 615–647.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pehkonen, S. & Kannisto, A. (forthcoming). Ole hyvä -direktiivikonstruktion käyttö poliisivetoisessa kiinniottotilanteessa. Puhe ja kieli.
Pekarek Doehler, S., Keevallik, L., & Li, X. (2022). Editorial: The grammar-body interface in social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 131, 875696. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, E. (2010). Perspective and politeness in Finnish requests. Pragmatics, 20(3), 401–423.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raevaara, L. (1997). Vierusparit — esimerkkinä kysymys ja vastaus. In L. Tainio (Ed.), Keskustelunanalyysin perusteet (pp. 75–92). Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2017). Secondary and deviant uses of the imperative for requesting in Italian. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 103–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rouhikoski, A. (2015). Laita, laitatko vai laitat? Kolmen direktiivirakenteen variaatio asiakaspalvelutilanteessa. Virittäjä, 119(2), 189–222.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Nollapersoona Kelan virkailijoiden direktiiveissä. Virittäjä, 124(3), 320–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 54(4), 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001a). Lääkärin ohjeet. In M.-L. Sorjonen, A. Peräkylä, & K. Eskola (Eds.), Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla (pp. 89–111). Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2017). Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case of the Finnish clitic particles pA and pAs in imperatives and hortatives. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 357–380). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanner, J. (2012). Rakenne, tilanne ja kohteliaisuus. Pyynnöt S2-oppikirjoissa ja autenttisissa keskusteluissa. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vatanen, A., & Haddington, P. (2023). Multiactivity in adult-child interaction: accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk, 43(2), 263–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. [URL] (26.4.2024).
Weidner, M. (2015). Telling somebody what to tell: “Proszę mi powiedzieć” in Polish doctor–patient interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 781, 70–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2009). Asymmetry markers in discourse: The expressive meaning of bitte ’please’. In L. Kálmán (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 53–61). Budapest: Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Theoretical Linguistics Program, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue