Abstract
The paper examines the formation of requests for sharing goods in Polish and Norwegian by focusing on the use of imperatives and Can I-interrogatives in informal settings. The study first identifies the contextual, material and embodied configurations that contribute to the selection of constructions. Then, it explores the moral roots of the divergent use of formats in similar configurations across the two languages. Employing a multimodal interactional-linguistic approach to comparable conversational data from Polish and Norwegian reality show corpora, the study demonstrates that the selection of format relies on the object’s control status and the requester’s orientation to contingencies. Imperatives are selected when the object is controlled by the requestee and no contingencies are recognized. Can I-interrogatives mark orientation to contingencies and have two realization patterns: Depending on whether the object is controlled by the requestee or not, they are used as transfer or permission requests, respectively. The study also reveals cultural differences in the selection of imperatives and transfer interrogatives across the languages. The Polish participants most often treated sharing as the requestee’s social obligation, using imperatives in the environments in which their Norwegian counterparts chose transfer interrogatives and marked that the requestee’s readiness to share was not taken for granted.
About the author
Paweł Urbanik is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan, University of Oslo. His areas of research are Interactional Linguistics, Forensic Linguistics, Conversation Analysis, Pragmatics, and Polish and Norwegian grammar.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Jakob Steensig and Jan Svennevig for their invaluable comments on the early drafts of this article. My thanks also go to Janne Bondi Johannessen for dispelling any doubts concerning the Norwegian syntax. Last but not least, I thank the two anonymous reviewers for getting me to make this article better. Any mistakes are mine.
References
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2017. Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation. In Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, 175–211. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.30.06bolSearch in Google Scholar
Brownell, Celia A., Stephanie S. Iesue, Sara R. Nichols & Margarita Svetlova. 2013. Mine or yours? Development of sharing in toddlers in relation to ownership understanding. Child Development 84(3). 906–920.10.1111/cdev.12009Search in Google Scholar
Brownell, Celia A., Margarita Svetlova & Sara Nichols. 2009. To share or not to share: When do toddlers respond to mother’s needs? Infancy 14(1). 117–130.10.1080/15250000802569868Search in Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome, Carolyn Roy & Nancy Ratner. 1982. The beginnings of request. In Keith E. Nelson (ed.), Children’s language: Volume 3, 91–138. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139507318Search in Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra & Jonathan Potter. 2010. Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies 12(4). 419–442.10.1177/1461445610370126Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Sally. 2015. Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!: Objects requests, ownership and entitlement in a children’s play session. Journal of Pragmatics 82. 39–51.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.009Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2014a. Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.26Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2014b. Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 1–34. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.26.01dreSearch in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2013. Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338733.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2017. Distribution of agency. In Nick J. Enfield & Paul Kockelman (eds.), Distributed agency, 9–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan & David Gordon. 1986. The development of requests. In Richard L. Schiefelbusch (ed.), Communicative competence: Acquisition and intervention, 61–95. Beverly Hills: College Hills Press.Search in Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2017. In the face of resistance: A Finnish practice for insisting on imperatively formatted directives. In Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, 215–240. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.30.07eteSearch in Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1985. Imperative and control. First person imperatives in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8. 149–160.10.1017/S0332586500001311Search in Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, Helen Bernhard & Bettina Rockenbach. 2008. Egalitarianism in young children. Nature 454. 1079–1084.10.1038/nature07155Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara & Trine Heinemann. 2016. Rethinking format: An examination of requests. Language in Society 45(4). 499–531.10.1017/S0047404516000385Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara & Trine Heinemann. 2017. Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics 3. 31–64.10.1515/opli-2017-0003Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25(1–2). 1–30.10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1Search in Google Scholar
Gordon, David & Susan Ervin-Tripp. 1984. The structure of children’s requests. In Richard L. Schiefelbusch & Joanne Pickar (eds.), The acquisition of communicative competence, 295–322. Baltimore: University Park Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gurven, Michael. 2004. To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27. 543–583.10.1017/S0140525X04000123Search in Google Scholar
Gurven, Michael & Adrian V. Jaeggi. 2015. Food sharing. In Robert Scott & Stephan Kosslyn (eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, John Willey & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0133 (accessed 28 July 2019).).10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0133Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Dale F. 1979. Cooperative interactions and sharing between very young children and their parents. Developmental Psychology 15(6). 647–653.10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.647Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Dale F. & Kaye V. Cook. 2007. The transformation of prosocial behavior from infancy to childhood. In Celia A. Brownell & Claire B. Kopp (eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions & transformations, 100–131. New York: Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 57–76. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch4Search in Google Scholar
Holler, Judith & Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23(8). 639–652.10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.006Search in Google Scholar
House, Bailey R., Joan B. Silk, Joseph Henrich, H. Clark Barrett, Brooke A. Scelza, Adam H. Boyette, Barry S. Hewlett, Richard McElreath & Stephen Laurence. 2013. Ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. PNAS 110(36). 14586–14591.10.1073/pnas.1221217110Search in Google Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 2005. Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1555–1577.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 2016. Prescriptive infinitives in the modern North Germanic languages: An ancient phenomenon in child-directed speech. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(3). 231–276.10.1017/S0332586516000196Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, Hillard & Kim Hill. 1985. Food sharing among ache foragers: Test of explanatory hypotheses. Current Anthropology 26(2). 223–239.10.1086/203251Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action Formation and Ascription. In Jack Sindell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 103–130. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch6Search in Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 2005. Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In Auli Hakulinen & Margret Selting (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction, 209–230. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/sidag.17.11linSearch in Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65. 137–156.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2016. Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf (accessed 07 April 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2017. Precision timing and timed embeddedness of imperatives in embodied courses of action. Examples of French. In Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, 65–101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.30.03monSearch in Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Julius M. 2004. The ties that bind. Budapest & New York: Central European University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Neville, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa. 2014. Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Jon Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/z.186Search in Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research 5. 189–216.10.1515/JPLR.2009.011Search in Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2015. Direct off-record requests? – ‘Hinting’ in family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 31–35.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006Search in Google Scholar
Rossano, Federico & Katja Liebal. 2014. “Requests” and “offers” in orangutans and human infants. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 335–363. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.26.13rosSearch in Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5). 426–458.10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136Search in Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2015. Responding to pre-requests: The organization of hai x ‘do you have’ sequences in Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 82. 5–22.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.008Search in Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni & Jörg Zinken. 2017. Social agency and grammar. In Nick J. Enfield & Paul Kockelman (eds.), Distributed agency, 79–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Marco F. H. & Jessica A. Sommerville. 2011. Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PLoS ONE 6(10). e23223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023223 (accessed 28 July 2019).10.1371/journal.pone.0023223Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Nick J. Enfield. 2012. Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology 53(3). 302–333.10.1086/665697Search in Google Scholar
Silk, Joan B. & Bailey R. House. 2016. The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371. 20150097. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0097 (accessed 28 July 2019).10.1098/rstb.2015.0097Search in Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2017. Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slsi.30Search in Google Scholar
Takada, Akira & Tomoko Endo. 2015. Object transfer in request-accept sequence in Japanese caregiver-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 83. 52–66.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.011Search in Google Scholar
Terasaki, Alene Kiku. 2004. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 171–223. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.125.11terSearch in Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Why we cooperate. Cambridge & London: A Boston Review Book & The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8470.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tuncer, Sylvaine & Pentti Haddington. 2019. Object transfers: An embodied resource to progress joint activities and build relative agency. Language in Society 1–27. doi:10.1017/S004740451900071X.Search in Google Scholar
Urbanik, Paweł. 2017. Requests in Polish and Norwegian informal conversation: A comparative study of grammatical and pragmatic patterns. Unpublished PhD thesis. Oslo: University od Oslo, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Urbanik, Paweł & Jan Svennevig. 2019. Managing contingencies in requests: The role of negation in Norwegian interrogative directives. Journal of Pragmatics 139. 109–125.10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.014Search in Google Scholar
Warneken, Felix & Michael Tomasello. 2006. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311(5756). 1301–1303.10.1126/science.1121448Search in Google Scholar
Warneken, Felix & Michael Tomasello. 2009a. Varieties of altruism in children chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(9). 397–402.10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Warneken, Felix & Michael Tomasello. 2009b. The roots of human altruism. British Journal of Psychology 100. 455–471.10.1348/000712608X379061Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220964Search in Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony. 1981. Two request forms of four year olds. Journal of Pragmatics 5. 511–523.10.1075/slsi.26.07wooSearch in Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519895Search in Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Shinya & Masayuki Tanaka. 2009. How did altruism and reciprocity evolve in humans? Perspectives from experiments on chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Interaction Studies 20(2). 150–182.10.1075/is.10.2.04yamSearch in Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2015. Contingent control over shared goods. ‘Can I have x’ requests in British English informal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 82. 23–38.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.005Search in Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting responsibility: The morality of grammar in Polish and English family interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg & Eva Ogiermann. 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). 256–276.10.1080/08351813.2013.810409Search in Google Scholar
Appendix 1
- CA transcription symbols
- (.)
-
micropause less than 0.2 seconds
- (0.3)
-
pause in seconds and tenths of a second
- [
-
beginning of overlapping talk
- ]
-
end of overlapping talk
- =
-
latched talk between the speakers
- ↑↓
-
sharp changes in pitch (rise or fall)
- ?
-
strongly rising intonation
- ¿
-
slightly rising intonation
- ,
-
a bit rising intonation
- _
-
level intonation
- .
-
falling intonation contour
- > <
-
faster talk
- hh
-
audible exhaling
- .hh
-
audible inhaling
- w(h)ord
-
exhalation inside the boundaries of a word
- word
-
stress
- WORD
-
loud talk
- wo::rd
-
sound prolongation or stretching
- wor-
-
a cut-off
- °word°
-
quieter talk
- £word£
-
“smiley voice”
- #word#
-
“creaky voice”
- ( )
-
unintelligible talk
- (word/k)
-
uncertain fragment (possible hearing)
- ((word))
-
transcriber comment
- Multimodal transcription symbols
- * *
-
two identical symbols delimit embodied actions and are synchronized with corresponding stretches of talk
- ¤ *
-
each symbol denotes a different participant
- ≫
-
the action begins before the excerpt’s beginning
- *-->
-
the action continues across subsequent lines
- -->*
-
the action ends at this point
- -->>
-
action continues after the excerpt’s end
- ,,,,
-
action retraction
- …………
-
action preparation
- %Figure 1
-
the exact moment at which a given screen shot has been taken
- fig
-
a screen shot line
- piotr
-
participant doing the embodied action
Appendix 2
- Glossing symbols
- 1, 2, 3
-
person
- ACC
-
accusative
- ADJ
-
adjective
- ADV
-
adverb
- ART
-
article
- DAT
-
dative
- DEF
-
definite
- DIM
-
diminutive
- FUT
-
future tense
- GEN
-
genitive
- IMP
-
imperative
- INF
-
infinitive
- INTJ
-
interjection
- IPFV
-
imperfective aspect
- NAME
-
proper noun
- NEG
-
negation
- PFV
-
perfective aspect
- PL
-
plural
- PRS
-
present tense
- PRT
-
particle
- PST
-
past tense
- SG
-
singular
- SUP
-
supine
- VOC
-
vocative
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
