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. 241–270

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

Chapter 8
Imperatives and responsiveness in Finnish conversation

 | University of Helsinki
Published online: 18 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.08sor
Abstract
This paper focuses on two types of imperative turn design for implementing a responsive action in Finnish interaction, one without modal particles (bare imperatives) and another one containing the particle vaa(n) (coming in this usage close to, e.g., English just, German mal or Danish bare; modulated imperatives). It is shown that these two imperatively formatted turn designs are used differently for responding and that the prior actions to which they respond are different. More specifically, these two turn design types can implement different kinds of responsive action (e.g., giving support, encouraging, giving permission), depending on their sequential position and the relation of the participants to a possible larger project in which the action being discussed forms a part. In most of the cases the imperatively formatted turn is given as a response to the prior speaker’s mentioning of a possible intention to do a certain action, expressed with a first-person declarative or interrogative clause in the present tense. The turns formatted as bare imperatives respond to a prior turn that presents the nominated action as a future fact, whereas the turn design [IMP + vaa(n)] is used to respond to a turn in which the prior speaker has displayed uncertainty about whether to do the action nominated. The turn design with the modal particle vaa(n) indexes more precisely the kind of responsive action that the turn is implementing, related to the use of the particle as a focus particle. This character of the [IMP + vaa(n)] design makes it usable for removing uncertainty by the co-participant that has remained unspoken in the interaction but that the recipient has detected. It is argued that the responsive character of the imperatively formatted turn and the type of prior turn it responds to have an impact on the extent to which they express directive force.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Imperatively formatted turns as responses
  • 2.The data, imperatively formatted clauses, and the particle vaa(n)
  • 3.Bare imperatives as a response
    • 3.1Responding to a promise to do something
    • 3.2Approving an action inferred from the prior speaker’s turn
  • 4.Modulated imperatives as a response
    • 4.1Responding to requests for permission
    • 4.2[imp + vaan] as part of an extended response
    • 4.3Invoking responsiveness
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (26)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
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: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2001. “Interactional Prosody: High Onsets in Reason-for-the-Call Turns.” Language in Society 30: 29–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki. 2014. “On Divisions of Labor in Request and Offer Environments.” In Requesting in Social Interaction. Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, Traci. 2006. “Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1257–1280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea (eds). 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi, and Rea Peltola. Forthcoming. “Deontic readings of the imperative through the prism of force dynamic relations: Permissive and preventive utterances with the discourse marker vaa(n) in Finnish”.
Hakulinen, Auli. 1998. “The Use of Finnish Nyt as a Discourse Particle.” In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, ed. by Andreas Jucker, and Yael Ziv, 83–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. “The word ny(t) as an Adverb and a Particle in Finnish.” In NU/NÅ: A family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 281–319. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1999 [1951]. Luennot suomen kielen partikkeleista [Lectures on particles in Finnish language]. ed. by Yrjö Lauranto, and Tapani Lehtinen. Helsinki: Department of Finnish language, University of Helsinki.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
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine. 2014. Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “Notes on Some Orderliness of Overlap Onset.” In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by V. D’Urso, and P. Leonardi, 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauranto, Yrjö. 2014. Imperatiivi, KÄSKY, direktiivi. Arkikeskustelun vaihtokauppakielioppia [Imperative, command, directive. Grammar of exchange in everyday conversation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva 2012. “Syntactically Non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’-Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49: 3–4, 213–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, and Ritva Laury. 2016. “The Interactional Emergence of Conditional Clauses as Directives: Constructions, Trajectories and Sequences of Actions.” Language Sciences 58: 8–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa. 1989. ” No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [ No – turn-initial particle].” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 147–161. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Department of Finnish Language, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I and II. ed. by Gail Jefferson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen. 2016. “The Finnish particle no .” In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Yael Maschler, and Peter Auer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilizing response“ Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting Responsibility. The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Suomalainen, Karita
2025. Second-person singular imperatives in Finnish everyday conversations. In Grammar in Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 37], ► pp. 264 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
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Marja Etelämäki & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2021. Directive turn design and intersubjectivity. In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa & Tiina Keisanen
2021. Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato “look” in Nature-Related Activities. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Golato, Peter
2020. Recruitments in French. In Mobilizing others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], 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