Deontic Autonomy in Family Interaction
Directive Actions and the Multimodal Organization of Going to the Bathroom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i2.130870Keywords:
action formation, deontic autonomy, deontic rights, directive actions, family interactionAbstract
The multimodal conversation analysis in this paper shows how an au pair and a mother use several turns consisting of various bodily and multilingual elements to persuade a 5-year-old to go to the bathroom. We examine the participants’ orientation to the child’s deontic autonomy; that is, his right to determine his own actions. The analysis shows that although the au pair and child disagree on whether the child should go to the bathroom, they both orient to the same norms of interaction and the norm of deontic autonomy more specifically.
References
Aronsson, K., & Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society, 22(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510392124
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. John Benjamins.
Butler, C. W., Danby, S., & Emmison, M. (2011). Address terms in turn beginnings: Managing disalignment and disaffiliation in telephone counseling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(4), 338–358, https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619311
Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2003).From Automaticity to Autonomy: The Frontier of Artificial Agents. In H. Hexmoor, C. Castelfranchi, & R. Falcone (Eds.), Agent Autonomy. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations (pp. 103–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9198-0_6
Cekaite, A. (2015). The Coordination of Talk and Touch in Adults’ Directives to Children: Touch and Social Control. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48, 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025501
Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.003
Church, A., & Hester, S. (2012). Conditional Threats in Young Children's Peer Interaction. In S. Danby & M. Theobald (Eds.), Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People (pp. 243–265). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1537-4661(2012)0000015014
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126
Demuth, C. (2013). Handling power-asymmetry in interactions with infants: A comparative socio-cultural perspective. Interaction Studies, 14(2), 212–239. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.2.04dem
Ekberg, K., & LeCouteur, A. (2020). Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status in cognitive behavioral therapy sessions. In C. Lindholm, M. Stevanovic & E. Weiste (Eds.) (pp. 95–114), Joint Decision Making in Mental Health. The Language of Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_4
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849
Endesfelder Quick, A., Gaskins, D., Bailleul, O., Frick, M., & Palola, E. (2021). A gateway to complexity: A cross-linguistic comparison of child bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(3), 800–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920956721
Ervin-Tripp, S., & Reyes, I. (2005). Child codeswitching and adult content contrasts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090010601
Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2020). Oral English performance in Danish primary school children: An interactional usage-based approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 523–546. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.6
Gal, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. Academic Press.
Gaskins, D., & Frick, M. (2021). Directives and the presentation of embodiment clues in child-directed speech: implications for heritage language acquisition. Presentation at 13th International Symposium on Bilingualism. Warsaw (on-line), 10–14 July 2021. https://isb13.wls.uw.edu.pl/
Gaskins, D., Frick, M., Palola, E., & Endesfelder Quick, A. (2021). Towards a usage-based model of early code-switching: Evidence from three language pairs. Applied Linguistics Review, 12(2), 179–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0030
Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite. A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite. A. (2014). Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 185–214). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.08goo
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26(4/5), 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite. A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. Routledge.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi. Online version. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. https://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php
Helasvuo, M.-L., & Vilkuna, M. (2008). Impersonal is personal. Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 216–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00208.x
Helasvuo, M.-L. (2001). Emerging syntax for interaction. Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 25–50). https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.04hel
Henderson, G. (2021). Deontics at bedtime: A case study of participants’ resources in a directive trajectory involving a mother and her autistic child. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 4(2), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12412
Hiratsuka, A., & Pennycook, A. (2020). Translingual family repertoires: ‘no, Morci is itaiitai panzita, amor’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(9), 749–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1645145
Kendon, A. (2002). Some uses of the head shake. Gesture, 2(2), 147–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.2.2.03ken
Kent, A. (2012a). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485
Kent, A. (2012b). Responding to Directives: What can Children do when a Parent Tells them what to do? In S. Danby & M. Theobald (Eds.), Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People (pp. 57–84), Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1537-4661(2012)0000015007
Kilani-Schoch, M. (2021). Competition of grammatical forms in the expression of directives in early French child speech and child-directed speech. In U. Stephany & A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Development of Modality in First Language Acquisition (pp. 191–234). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504457-006
Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children's noncompliance strategies from toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 398–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.398
Lappalainen, H., & Mononen, K. (2017). Use of first names and intersubjectivity. Presentation at the Intersubjectivity in Action Conference, 11. – 13.5.2017, Helsinki. https://blogs.helsinki.fi/iia-2017/
Lehtola, J. (2019). Multimodaaliset direktiivit aikuisen ja lapsen välisessä vuorovaikutuksessa. Bachelor’s thesis. University of Oulu. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201902021138
Levinson, S. C. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Llewellyn, N., & Butler, C. W. (2011). Walking Out on Air. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(1), 44–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.544128
Marttila, M. (2020). Opettajan direktiivit lukion musiikintunnilla. Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki.
Mondada, L. (2016). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Available at: https://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf
Muntigl, P., Chubak, L., & Angus, L. (2017). Entering chair work in psychotherapy: An interactional structure for getting emotion-focused talk underway. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.016
Niemetmaa, S. (2021). Myötämielisyyden osoittaminen ehdotuksia kohtaan yhdistysten hallitusten kokouksissa. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202101281097.
Pehkonen, S. (2020). Response cries inviting an alignment. Finnish huh huh. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712965
Poutiainen, M. (2019). Au pair korjattavana ja opetettavana. Multimodaalinen vuorovaikutusanalyysi. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201909262932
Raevaara, L. (2016). Toimintajaksojen rakenteet. In M. Stevanovic & C. Lindholm (Eds.), Keskustelunanalyysi. Kuinka tutkia sosiaalista toimintaa ja vuorovaikutusta (pp. 143–161). Vastapaino.
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Volumes I & II. Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Shin, S.-Y. (2010). The functions of Code-switching in a Korean Sunday School. Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.7.1.5
Sielski, L. M. (1979). Understanding body language. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 238–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1979.tb05155.x
Sikveland, R. O., & Stokoe, E. (2020). Should police negotiators ask to “talk” or “speak” to persons in crisis? Word selection and overcoming resistance to dialogue proposals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(3), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770
Søndergaard, B. (1991). Switching between seven codes within one family—a linguistic resource. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12(1–2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1991.9994448
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2017). Imperative turns at talk: An introduction. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.01sor
Stepheson, M. (2020). Setting the group agenda: Negotiating deontic rights through directives in a task-based, oral, L2, group assessment. Classroom Discourse, 11(4), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1651750
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52, 1–37. http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/52/Inlist52.pdf
Stevanovic, M. (2013) Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Publications of the Department of Social Research 2013:10. University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7685-5
Stevanovic, M. (2017). Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case of the Finnish clitic particles -pA and -pAs in imperatives and hortatives. In M-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 357–380). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30
Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano‐level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12175
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
Tabacaru, S., & Lemmens, M. (2014). Raised eyebrows as gestural triggers in humour: The case of sarcasm and hyper-understanding. European Journal of Humour Research, 2(2), 11–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2014.2.2.tabacaru
Tolonen, S. (2020). Kysymys–vastaus-vieruspari lapsen ja aikuisen monikielisessä vuorovaikutuksessa. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202006032264
Weidner, M. (2015). Telling somebody what to tell. “Proszę mi powiedzieć” in Polish doctor–patient interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.006
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
