In:Requesting in Social Interaction
Edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 26] 2014
► pp. 145–170
The social and moral work of modal constructions in granting remote requests
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.06ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.06ste
Previous research has established that participants in interaction distinguish between those requests that can be satisfied immediately and those that are to be satisfied at some point in the future. Whereas immediate requests can be granted simply by the recipient carrying out the requested action, the preferred and aligning response to a remote request is a full-clause response with which the recipient commits to carrying out the requested action in the future. This paper investigates the most frequently occurring forms of full-clause, complying responses to remote requests in Danish interactions. We show that those full-clause responses that contain a modal adverb differ in interactionally relevant ways from those full-clause responses that do not contain a modal adverb. Full-clause responses without a modal adverb are treated by participants as indicating that the relevance of carrying out the requested action is a given and as such something that both requester and recipient understand as an appropriate action. Full-clause responses with modal adverbs, by contrast, are employed to indicate that the requested action is not recognizably appropriate to the recipient, but will be carried out specifically because it was requested.
References (27)
Aachmann, Allan. 2010. Forskellen på fortsættelsesaccept og returvurdering: om ”ikke” og ”vel” som returvurderingsefterlyser på dansk. [The difference between continuation-acceptance and return-assessment: about “not” and “right” as return-assessment-pursuits in Danish.] Unpublished essay, Aarhus University.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us About Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647.
Curl, Traci, and Paul Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 129–153.
DDO. Den Danske Ordbog. Moderne dansk sprog. [The Danish Dictionary. Modern Danish language.]. At [URL]. Visited on June 30, 2013.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite. 2013. “Calibration in Directive/response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138.
Heinemann, Trine. 2005. “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet. The Preference for Matched Polarity in Responsive Turns in Danish.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2006. ““Will You or Can’t You?”: Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081–1104.
. 2009. “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Addressing Epistemic Incongruence in Question-answer Sequences Through the Use of Epistemic Adverbs.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 107–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, Trine, and Ben Matthews. forth. “Concessions in the Audiology Clinic.” In Restricted Interactional Activities, ed. by Fabienne Chevalier, and John Moore, xx–xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig. in prep. “Accounting for breaks in progressivity: The Danish turn-initial particle altså in Danish Talk-in-interaction.” To appear in Turn-initial Particles [Working title], ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen.
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1994. “Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23: 1–29.
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jefferson, Gail. 1981. “The Abominable 'ne?' An Exploration of Post-response Pursuit of Response.” In Sprache der Gegenwart 54: Dialogforschung, ed. by Peter Schröder, and Hugo Steger, 53–88. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
Keisanen, Tiina, and Mirka Rauniomaa. 2012. “The Organization of Participation and Contingency in Prebeginnings of Request Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (4): 323–351.
. 1996. “On the “Semi-permeable” Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindström, Anna. 2005. “Language as Social Action: A Study of how Senior Citizens Request Assistance with Practical Tasks in the Swedish Home Help Service.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. forth. “Accepting Remote Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, xx–xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lindström, Anna, and Trine Heinemann. 2009. “Good Enough: Low-Grade Assessments in Caregiving Situations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 309–328.
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–456.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. by Paul Drew, and Anthony Wootton, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321.
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. forth. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (15)
Cited by 15 other publications
Chalfoun, Andrew, Giovanni Rossi & Tanya Stivers
Steensig, Jakob
2025. Grammatical formats of requests for immediate actions. In Grammar in Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 37], ► pp. 78 ff.
Yang, Shuai
Lindholm, Camilla, Jenny Paananen, Melisa Stevanovic, Elina Weiste & Taina Valkeapää
2024. Requests for concrete actions in interaction. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:2 ► pp. 190 ff.
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula & Angeliki Alvanoudi
2024. Polar answers. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:3 ► pp. 447 ff.
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen & Søren Sandager Sørensen
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
Sørensen, Søren Sandager
Arano, Yusuke
Fox, Barbara & Trine Heinemann
Heinemann, Trine & Jakob Steensig
2017. Three imperative action formats in Danish talk-in-interaction. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 139 ff.
Keevallik, Leelo
2017. Negotiating deontic rights in second position. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 271 ff.
Sterie, Anca-Cristina & Esther González-Martínez
Kendrick, Kobin H. & Paul Drew
Landgrebe, Jeanette & Trine Heinemann
2014. Mapping the epistemic landscape in innovation workshops. Pragmatics and Society 5:2 ► pp. 191 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.