Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 4:2 (2024) ► pp.131–157

Giving space for self-direction

Trouble-flagging declaratives in sanctioning problem behavior

ORCID logo | Leibniz-Institute for the German LanguageMannheim
This article examines the sanctioning of problem behavior during family breakfasts. Such sanctionings are commonly initiated with declarative TCUs. These declarative TCUs work as a vehicle for flagging the problem, and thereby occasion behavior modification ‘indirectly’. While declaratives canonically ‘inform’, it will be shown that not all declarative TCUs in sanctioning turns are well analyzed as ‘informing’. What they share is an orientation to the wrongdoer’s agency: They give space for the other person to adjust their behavior ‘themselves’, without having been told to. The prioritization of flagging a problem (as opposed to telling the other what to do) is explored on the basis of sanctioning moves that are built with both an imperative and a declarative TCU. Both distributional and qualitative (self-repair) data support the analysis of a preference for self-direction (Hepburn, 2020). Data are in German and come from the Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction.
Keywords: conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, agency, declaratives, family interaction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on declaratives and agency
  • 3.Method and data
  • 4.Trouble-flagging declaratives
  • 5.Reverse order: Imperative first
  • 6.Shifting format to declarative
  • 7.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24001.kor
References (54)
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30 (1), 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C., & Kent, A. (2015). Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last. Journal of Pragmatics, 78 1, 25–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baranova, J., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). Reasons for requests. Discourse Studies, 18 (6), 641–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 translated and adapted for English. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, (12), 1–51.Google Scholar
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12 (4), 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daston, L. (2022). Rules: A Short History of What We Live by. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from [URL]
Drake, D., & Drake, V. (2010). “oda wey/oda wos” and “oder wie/oder was”: A comparison of Bavarian and German repair initiators. Presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference XVI (GLAC16), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (1st ed., pp. 285–312). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Distribution of Agency. In N. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 9–14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Elements of Agency. In N. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 3–8). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017). The concept of action. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1963). A Conception of and Experiments with “Trust” as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction (pp. 187–238). Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
(1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46 (1), 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (Vol. 261, pp. 185–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A. (2020). The preference for self-direction as a resource for parents’ socialisation practices. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17 (3), 450–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence: Threats in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50 (1), 99–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. C. (1990). Interactional Accountability: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Réseaux, 8 (1), 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L., & Weidner, M. (2021). OKAY projecting embodied compliance to directives. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Okay across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction (pp. 337–362). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14 (6), 711–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, A., & Kendrick, K. H. (2016). Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49 (3), 272–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2007). Agency: The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge. Current Anthropology, 48 (3), 375–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfeld, L., Küttner, U.-A., & Zinken, J. (2023). Ein Korpus für die vergleichende Interaktionsforschung. In A. Deppermann, C. Fandrych, M. Kupietz, & T. Schmidt (Eds.), Korpora in der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 103–128). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfeld, L., & Rossi, G. (2023). Enforcing Rules During Play: Knowledge, Agency, and the Design of Instructions and Reminders. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 56 (1), 42–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küttner, U.-A., Kornfeld, L., & Zinken, J. (2023). A coding scheme for (dis)approval-relevant events involving the direct social sanctioning of problematic behavior in informal social interaction. Online-Only Publikationen Des Leibniz-Instituts Für Deutsche Sprache, 5 1, 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küttner, U.-A., Vatanen, A., & Zinken, J. (2022). Invoking Rules in Everyday Family Interactions: A Method for Appealing to Practical Reason. Human Studies, 793–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, L., Cromdal, J., Broth, M., Gazin, A.-D., Haddington, P., McIlvenny, P., … Rauniomaa, M. (2017). Unpacking corrections in mobile instruction: Error-occasioned learning opportunities in driving, cycling and aviation training. Linguistics and Education, 38 1, 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2013). Grammar in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 475–491). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from [URL]
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9 (2–3), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2020). Shaming interrogatives: Admonishments, the social psychology of emotion, and discursive practices of behaviour modification in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59 (2), 347–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1955). Two Concepts of Rules. The Philosophical Review, 64 (1), 3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G. (2018). Composite Social Actions: The Case of Factual Declaratives in Everyday Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (4), 379–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G., & Zinken, J. (2017). Social Agency and Grammar. In N. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 79–86). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roughley, N., & Bayertz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The Normative Animal? On the Anthropological Significance of Social, Moral and Linguistic Norms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1989). Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in Human Development (pp. 139–153). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 44–70). Polity Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (1st ed., pp. 52–133). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1st ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., … Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, (10), 353–402.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from [URL]
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43 (1), 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., Golato, A., & Betz, E. (2020). Chapter 3. Mobilizing for the next relevant action: Managing progressivity in card game interactions. In C. Taleghani-Nikazm, E. Betz, & P. Golato (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (Vol. 331, pp. 47–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., & Deppermann, A. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns: Evidence from German and Polish. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action (pp. 27–63). John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam; Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., & Küttner, U.-A. (2022). Offering an Interpretation of Prior Talk in Everyday Interaction: A Semantic Map Approach. Discourse Processes, 59 (4), 298–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar