Deontic Autonomy in Family Interaction

Directive Actions and the Multimodal Organization of Going to the Bathroom




action formation, deontic autonomy, deontic rights, directive actions, family interaction


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.


Aronsson, K., & Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society, 22(2), 137–154.

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,

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.

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.

Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42.

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.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647.

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.

Demuth, C. (2013). Handling power-asymmetry in interactions with infants: A comparative socio-cultural perspective. Interaction Studies, 14(2), 212–239.

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.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66.

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.

Ervin-Tripp, S., & Reyes, I. (2005). Child codeswitching and adult content contrasts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1), 85–102.

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.

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.

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.

Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite. A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 122–138.

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.

Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26(4/5), 515–543.

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.

Helasvuo, M.-L., & Vilkuna, M. (2008). Impersonal is personal. Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 216–245.

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).

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.

Hiratsuka, A., & Pennycook, A. (2020). Translingual family repertoires: ‘no, Morci is itaiitai panzita, amor’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(9), 749–763.

Kendon, A. (2002). Some uses of the head shake. Gesture, 2(2), 147–182.

Kent, A. (2012a). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 711–730.

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.

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.

Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children's noncompliance strategies from toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 398–408.

Lappalainen, H., & Mononen, K. (2017). Use of first names and intersubjectivity. Presentation at the Intersubjectivity in Action Conference, 11. – 13.5.2017, Helsinki.

Lehtola, J. (2019). Multimodaaliset direktiivit aikuisen ja lapsen välisessä vuorovaikutuksessa. Bachelor’s thesis. University of Oulu.

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.

Llewellyn, N., & Butler, C. W. (2011). Walking Out on Air. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(1), 44–64,

Marttila, M. (2020). Opettajan direktiivit lukion musiikintunnilla. Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki.

Mondada, L. (2016). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Available at:

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.

Niemetmaa, S. (2021). Myötämielisyyden osoittaminen ehdotuksia kohtaan yhdistysten hallitusten kokouksissa. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu.

Pehkonen, S. (2020). Response cries inviting an alignment. Finnish huh huh. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 19–41.

Poutiainen, M. (2019). Au pair korjattavana ja opetettavana. Multimodaalinen vuorovaikutusanalyysi. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu.

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.

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.

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.

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.

Shin, S.-Y. (2010). The functions of Code-switching in a Korean Sunday School. Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 91–116.

Sielski, L. M. (1979). Understanding body language. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 238–242.

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.

Søndergaard, B. (1991). Switching between seven codes within one family—a linguistic resource. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12(1–2), 85–92.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52, 1–37.

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.

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.

Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano‐level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389.

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.

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.

Tolonen, S. (2020). Kysymys–vastaus-vieruspari lapsen ja aikuisen monikielisessä vuorovaikutuksessa. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu.

Weidner, M. (2015). Telling somebody what to tell. “Proszę mi powiedzieć” in Polish doctor–patient interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 70–83.




How to Cite

Frick, M., & Palola, E. (2022). Deontic Autonomy in Family Interaction: Directive Actions and the Multimodal Organization of Going to the Bathroom. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(1).