Cover not available

In:Imperative Turns at Talk: The design of directives in action
Edited by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 30] 2017
► pp. 103–137

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 4
Secondary and deviant uses of the imperative for requesting in Italian

 | University of Helsinki
Published online: 18 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.04ros
Abstract
The use of the imperative for requesting has been mostly explained on the basis of estimations of social distance, relative power, and entitlement. More recent research, however, has identified other selection factors to do with the functional and sequential relation of the action requested to the trajectory of the ongoing interaction. In everyday activities among family and friends, the imperative is typically warranted by an earlier commitment of the requestee to a joint project or shared goal which the action requested contributes to. The chapter argues this to be the primary use of the imperative for requesting in Italian informal interaction, and distinguishes it from other uses of the imperative that do not conform to the predominant pattern. These other uses are of two kinds: (i) secondary, that is, less frequent and formally marked imperatives that still orient to social-interactional conditions supporting an expectation of compliance, and (ii) deviant, where the imperative is selected in deliberate violation of the social-interactional conditions that normally support it, attracting special attention and accomplishing more than just requesting. This study extends prior findings on the functional distribution of imperative requests and makes a point of relating and classifying distinct uses of a same form of action, offering new insights into more general aspects of language use such as markedness and normativity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The imperative form in Italian
  • 3.Background: Using the imperative for requesting
  • 4.Data and sampling
  • 5.Primary use
  • 6.Secondary uses
  • 7.Deviant uses
  • 8.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (62)
References
Antaki, Charles, and Alexandra Kent. 2012. “Telling People What to Do (and, Sometimes, Why): Contingency, Entitlement and Explanation in Staff Requests to Adults with Intellectual Impairments.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (6–7): 876–889. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?” Journal of Pragmatics 11 (2): 131–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper (eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. “Social Actions, Social Commitments.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, ed. by N. J. Enfield, , and Stephen C. Levinson, 126–152. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2014. “Benefactors and Beneficiaries. Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 51–82. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin. 2014. “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Seàn G. Roberts, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Rosa S. Gisladottir, Kobin H. Kendrick, Stephen C. Levinson, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield. 2015. “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLoS ONE 10 (9): e0136100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Traci S. Walker. 2010. “Requesting Assistance in Calls to the Police.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcom Coulthard, and Alison Johnson, 95–110. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, Traci S. Walker, and Richard Albert Ogden. 2013. “Self-Repair and Action Construction.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffry Raymond, and Jack. Sidnell, 71–94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2007. “Meanings of the Unmarked: How ‘Default’ Person Reference Does More than Just Refer.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 97–120. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Reference in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 433–454. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1976. “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society 5: 25–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., Jiansheng Guo, and Martin Lampert. 1990. “Politeness and Persuasion in Children’s Control Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 307–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield (eds). Under review. Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, N. J. Enfield, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Mark Dingemanse, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Jörg Zinken. 2014. “Recruitments across Languages: A Systematic Comparison.” Talk presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis [ICCA 2014], University of California, Los Angeles, June 25–29, 2014.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1990. “Interstitial Argument.” In Conflict Talk, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2006. “‘Will You or Can’t You?’: Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (7): 1081–1104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press/Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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): 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1995. “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19 (1): 111–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. “Completable Projects and Winnable Games: Notes on the Organization of Activity.” Paper presented at the 4th annual Conference on Language, Interaction, and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Action Formation and Ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margaret Selting, 209–233. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michael, John, Natalie Sebanz, and Günther Knoblich. 2016. “The Sense of Commitment: A Minimal Approach.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1968. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014a. “Instructions in the Operating Room: How the Surgeon Directs Their Assistant’s Hands.” Discourse Studies 16 (2): 131–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 267–300. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. “Politeness and in-Directness across Cultures: A Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests.” Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2): 189–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parry, Ruth. 2013. “Giving Reasons for Doing Something Now or at Some Other Time.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (2): 105–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pufahl Bax, Ingrid. 1986. “How to Assign Work in an Office: A Comparison of Spoken and Written Directives in American English.” Journal of Pragmatics 10 (6): 673–692. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/no Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Felicia, and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2004. “Interobserver Agreement on First-Stage Conversation Analytic Transcription.” Human Communication Research 30 (3): 376–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2013. “Overall Structural Organization.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 257–280. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossano, Federico. 2012. “Gaze Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction.” Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49 (5): 426–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “When Do People Not Use Language to Make Requests?” In Requesting in social interaction, Studies in language and social interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 303–334. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “The Request System in Italian Interaction.” Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, volume 2, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 59–82. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. “Alternative Recognitionals in Initial References to Persons.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 73–96. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. “Person Reference in Interaction.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 1–20. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. “Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts: Polish vs. English.” Journal of Pragmatics 9 (2): 145–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. 2nd edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. “Interactional and Sequential Configurations Informing Request Format Selection in Children’s Speech.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Aauli Hakulinen, and Margaret Selting, 185–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2013. “Reanimating Responsibility: The Weź-V2 (take-V2) Double Imperative in Polish Interaction.” In Approaches to Slavic Interaction, Dialogue Studies, ed. by Nadine Thielemann, and Peter Kosta, 35–61. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg and Eva Ogiermann. 2013. “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Chalfoun, Andrew, Giovanni Rossi & Tanya Stivers
2025. The Magic Word? Face-Work and the Functions of Please in Everyday Requests. Social Psychology Quarterly 88:1 ► pp. 66 ff. DOI logo
Kannisto, Antti, Samu Pehkonen & Maria Frick
2025.  Ole hyvä (‘please’) + imperative. Interactional Linguistics 5:1-2 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Giovanni
2025. Bilateral and Unilateral Requests. In Systems of Social Action, ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Mary Shin
2023. Korean imperatives at two different speech levels. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:4 ► pp. 559 ff. DOI logo
Betz, Emma, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm & Peter Golato
2020. Mobilizing others. In Mobilizing others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri & Mary Shin Kim
2020. Requesting here-and-now actions with two imperative formats in Korean interaction. In Mobilizing others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Veronika Drake, Andrea Golato & Emma Betz
2020. Mobilizing for the next relevant action. In Mobilizing others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue