The chapter considers the verbal design of Finnish second-person singular imperative and first-person plural hortative turns, asking whether and how those turns where there is a clitic particle -pA or -pAs attached to the finite verb differ from the non-cliticized turns, and whether -pA and -pAs are used in similar or dissimilar ways. The imperative and hortative turns used in the analysis are drawn from a data set of four violin lessons with a 5-year-old child and her teacher as the participants. All the imperative and hortative turns analyzed were spoken by the teacher to the child.
The analysis shows that the non-cliticized imperative or hortative turns and the ones with -pA or -pAs are used differently. The non-cliticized turns are common in contexts where the speaker and the recipient are actively engaged in an ongoing collaboration. The imperative and hortative turns with ‑pA occur characteristically after the recipient’s immediately preceding failures, which need to be remedied for the participants to be able to continue what they are up to. The imperatives and hortatives with ‑pAs are frequently used at activity transitions, where the speaker demonstrates her right to determine the broader agenda of the participants’ joint activity.
The chapter suggests that the linguistic design of Finnish second-person singular imperative and first-person plural hortative turns is informed by the speaker’s understanding of the extent to which, and the particular sense in which, the participants’ current actions are to be seen as joint ones. While the selection between imperatives and hortatives is warranted by the identity of the agent(s) of the nominated action (whether it is the recipient alone, or both the speaker and the recipient together), it is in and through the choices between the cliticized and non-cliticized formats that speakers invoke and manage the more specific basis upon which the recipient’s compliance can be expected.
2010Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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: 876–889.
Barbieri, Daniele
2014 “Discussion Paper: Between Sharing and Discourse.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 530–539.
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
2015 “Benefactors and Beneficiaries: Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Corkum, Valerie, and Chris Moore
1998 “The Origins of Joint Visual Attention in Infants.” Developmental Psychology 34 (1): 28–38.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
2015 ”Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 7–24.
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442.
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.
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.
Dunham, Philip J., Frances Dunham, and Ann Curwin
1993 “Joint-Attentional States and Lexical Acquisition at 18 Months.” Developmental Psychology 29 (5): 827–831.
Enfield, Nicholas J.
2006 “Social Consequences of Common Ground.” In Roots of Human Sociality, ed. by Nicholas J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 399–430. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
2014 “Orchestrating Directive Trajectories in Communicative Projects in Family Interaction.” In Requesting in Social Interaction: Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 185–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Hanks, William F.
2006 “Context, Communicative.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Keith Brown, 115–128. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38.
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine
2014Imperatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keisanen, Tiina, and Mirka Rauniomaa
2012 “The Organization of Participation and Contingency in Pre-beginnings of Requests Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (4): 323–351.
Kendon, Adam
1990Conducting interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kidwell, Mardi, and Don H. Zimmerman
2007 “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 592–611.
Lauranto, Yrjö
2013 “Suomen kielen imperatiivi – yksi paradigma, kaksi systeemiä [The imperative in Finnish – one paradigm, two systems].” Virittäjä 117 (2): 156–200.
Lauranto, Yrjö
2014Imperatiivi, käsky, direktiivi: Arkikeskustelun vaihtokauppakielioppia [Imperative, order, directive: Exchange grammar of everyday conversation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Lauranto, Yrjö
2015Direktiivisyyden rajoja: Suomen kielen vaihtokauppasyntaksia [Boundaries of directiveness: Exchange syntax of Finnish]. ([URL], Accessed on 2015-07-02.)
Lerner, Gene H.
1995 “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131.
Macbeth, Douglas H.
1991 “Teacher Authority as Practical Action.” Linguistics and Education 3: 281–313.
Macbeth, Douglas H.
2004 “The Relevance of Repair for Classroom Correction.” Language in Society 33: 703–736.
McHoul, Alexander
1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7: 183–213.
Merlino, Sara
2014 “Singing in “Another” Language: How Pronunciation Matters in the Organisation of Choral Rehearsals.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 420–445.
Mondada, Lorenza
2009 “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 329–361.
Mondada, Lorenza
2009 “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10): 1977–1997.
Mondada, Lorenza
2013 “Coordinating Mobile Action in Real Time: The Timely Organization of Directives in Video Games.” In Interaction and Mobility. Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 300–341. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Mondada, Lorenza
2014 “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction: Studies in Language and Social, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 269–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nishizaka, Aug
2006 “What to Learn: The Embodied Structure of the Environment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (2): 119–154.
Parton, Katharine
2014 “Epistemic Stance in Orchestral Interaction.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 402–419.
Raevaara, Liisa
2004 ”Mitäs me sovittais: S-partikkelin sisältävien hakukysymysten tehtävistä. [On the use of the particle ‑s in open ended questions].” Virittäjä 108 (4): 531–558.
Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed
2014 “The Emergence of Learnables in Music Masterclasses.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 446–467.
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49 (5): 426–58.
Sacks, Harvey
1992Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emmanuel
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shore, Susanna
1986Onko suomessa passiivia? [Is there a passive in Finnish?]. Suomi 133. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Shore, Susanna
1988 “On the So-called Finnish Passive.” Word 39: 151–176.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 ”Lääkärin ohjeet [Doctor’s instructions].” In Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Anssi Peräkylä, and Kari Eskola, 89–111. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Stalnaker, Robert
2002 “Common ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721.
Stevanovic, Melisa
2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures.” InLiSt 52. ([URL])
2013bDeontic Rights in Interaction. A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation. Academic dissertation, University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research.
Stevanovic, Melisa
2013c “Managing Participation in Interaction: The Case of Humming.” Text and Talk 33 (1): 113–137.
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.
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
2014 “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society 43 (2): 185–207.
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig
2015 “Introduction: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 1–6.
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon
2013 “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuits of Learnables in Vocal Masterclasses.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (1): 22–46.
Tomasello, Michael
1995 “Joint Attention as Social Cognition.” In Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development, ed. by Chris Moore, and Philip J. Dunham, 103–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tomasello, Michael
1999The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, Michael
2008Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, Michael
2009Why We Cooperate: Based on the 2008 Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Stanford University. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, Michael, and Michael J. Farrar
1986 “Joint Attention and Early Language.” Child Development 57 (6): 1454–1463.
Veronesi, Daniela
2014 “Correction Sequences and Semiotic Resources in Ensemble Music Workshops: The case of Conduction.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 468–494.
Weeks, Peter
1996 “A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3): 247–290.
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cited by
Cited by 10 other publications
Ehmer, Oliver & Geert Brône
2021. Instructing embodied knowledge: multimodal approaches to interactive practices for knowledge constitution. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4
Ekström, Mats & Melisa Stevanovic
2023. Conversation analysis and power: examining the descendants and antecedents of social action. Frontiers in Sociology 8
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge: metaphors and metonymies of body position in children’s music instrument instruction. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4
Stevanovic, Melisa & Arniika Kuusisto
2019. Teacher Directives in Children’s Musical Instrument Instruction: Activity Context, Student Cooperation, and Institutional Priority. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63:7 ► pp. 1022 ff.
Vatanen, Anna
2023. Embodied Noticings as Repair Initiations: On Multiactivity in Choir Rehearsals. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 99 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. 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.