Consecutive clause combinations in instructing activitiesDirectives and accounts in the context of physical training1

Jan Lindström, Camilla Lindholm, Inga-Lill Grahn & Martina Huhtamäki

Abstract This chapter investigates the formatting of instructions in physical training with personal trainers or physiotherapists. Instructions occur in multimodal activities where invitations to action, compliances with them, and accounts for them emerge through grammatical, prosodic and embodied resources. We identified a two-part pattern [directive & account] that accomplishes a complex structural and pragmatic unit in trainers’ instructions. The instructions are grammatically formed of consecutive clause combinations in which the directive part is a declarative or an imperative. These combinations emerge in interactive sequences and are a designed, rather than a contingent feature in the making of instructions. Nevertheless, there is variation in their sequential emergence and grammatical and prosodic composition, from tight packages to projected or expanded clause/action combinations.

Keywords: directives, instructions, accounts, clause combining, action combination, emergent grammar, projection, expansion, prosody, embodiment

1 The present study was supported by a grant from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond for the research program Interaction and Variation in Pluricentric Languages – Communicative patterns in Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish (grant nr. M12-0137:1) and by a grant from the Academy of Finland for the project Emergent Clausal Syntax for Conversation: Swedish in a cross-language comparison (grant nr. 316865). We want to thank Leelo Keevallik and Simona Pekarek Doehler for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this text. We also thank our research assistants Madeleine Forsén and Susanna Siljander for help with data excerpting. The article at hand is published in Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J., & Keevallik, L. (eds.) 2020: Emergent syntax for conversation: clausal patterns and the organization of action. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 245–274.

1

1. Introduction

Instructing another person and learning from one another constitute central parts of human interaction and culture. Instructing activities rely on a combination of verbal language and visual, also physical, demonstrations through which skills are passed on to a new generation in different forms of expert–novice interaction. Needless to say, instructing is not a business of mere commanding and issuing simple imperatives. Pedagogical studies show that students often lack interpretative resources for seeing the purpose of a task (see, e.g., Lindwall, 2008; Lindwall & Lymer, 2014); hence, students are probably more likely to focus on a learning task when they understand the goal of the instruction (see, e.g., Fisher & Frey, 2014). Unmotivated instructions can, at worst, lead to breakdowns of intersubjectivity between the instructor and instructed (see Deppermann, 2015). Instructions, then, can occasion problems of clarity, consistency, adequacy, completeness, and followability (cf. Garfinkel, 2002, p. 198).

In this study, we investigate instructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction that take the form of a combination of two clauses and actions expressed with them. The analysis concentrates on interactional sequences involving two participants: physiotherapists or personal trainers and their clients doing or preparing to do a physical exercise. The trainer2 instructs the client about the exercise and the effects of a certain training program or workout. Such instructing activities involve directives, explanations, motivations and conclusions addressed to the client and these are often expressed in multi-clausal turns. Here we set out to analyze one such formal pattern that repeated itself in our data: it consists of a directive clause (for example, in the imperative) that is followed by an adverbial, consecutive clause that accounts for the purpose or result of the nominated action. It is this two-part pattern, [directive & account], that accomplishes a clause combination as well as an action combination (see Couper-Kuhlen & Etelämäki, 2014, 2017 for the concept). Such action combinations are labeled as instructions in our analysis. These instructions emerge via a coordination of linguistic and multimodal practices among the participants throughout the instructional sequence and evidence how grammar is fitted to sequences and trajectories of embodied activities (Keevallik, 2018; see also Reed & Szczepek Reed, 2013 for instructions as multi-layered interactional projects).

2. Instruction as an interactionally emerging phenomenon

2 We use the label ’trainer’ in the text (and T in the excerpts) as a generic reference to the instructor, both in case of physiotherapists and personal trainers. ‘Client’ (and C in the excerpts) refers to the trainees.

2

In order to see how instructing sequences emerge in practice, we can turn to excerpt (1), where the trainer (T) guides the client (C) verbally and physically. The trainer assists the client to stretch her leg muscles by holding the left leg in an upward position while the client is lying on her back on the floor, with her arms along the body side and the hands palm down. To keep the body relaxed, the trainer asks the client to turn the palms to face upward (sätt ännu handflatan ner eller liksom upp mot taket ‘turn your palm down, I mean, upward towards the ceiling’, l. 5–6). The client complies and the trainer acknowledges this with a “third” (see Keevallik, 2018), upon which she produces a consecutive purpose clause så att den där axeln får ‘so that the shoulder gets [relaxed]’ that accounts for and completes the instruction (l. 10); see Figure 1 for the illustrations of the embodied acts. (Note that the lines in focus are bolded and highlighted with grey shading both in the original and translation: bold=directive, bold & grey=account.)

Ex. (1) ’A stretch’ (PTR:004II:43).01 T: Å *så tar ja lite å tänjer.

And then I will go on and stretch a little *T lifts C’s leg straight upwards and stretches

02 (0.6)

03 T: Å nu försök slappna av.And now, try to relax

04 (.)

05 T: Sätt ännu eh handflatan ne:,put.IMP yet PRT palm.DEF downTurn your um palm to face downward as well,

06 eller liksom *upp mot *take.or PRT up toward ceiling.DEFI mean, upward towards the ceiling.

*T turns her palm up *C turns her palm up

07 (0.5)

08 T: Jep.Yup.

09 (0.2)

10 T: Så att den där axeln ºfårºso that that.DEM shoulder.DEF get.PRSSo that the shoulder gets [relaxed]

3

Figure 1. Client lying down, palms down (left); trainer demonstrating palm up (center); client lying down, palms up (right).

When issuing the directive in lines 5–6, the trainer simultaneously demonstrates the requested palm position with her own hand, thus illustrating the verbal directive (and repairing her initial wording “to face downward”, l. 5). The client’s physical compliance, turning the palm upwards, is acknowledged by the trainer (l. 8) and as such is a sequence-closing move (see Keevallik, 2018, p. 3–5). Nonetheless, the trainer expands the sequence by adding an account with the consecutive clause in line 10, which, in effect, redresses the plain directive in line 5–6 as an instruction (with the components [directive] & [account]). The preceding directive was delivered with final falling intonation. However, the account-giving expansion is linked to the directive as an increment (see Couper-Kuhlen & Ono, 2007 for increments): it is fitted in with the subordinating conjunction så att ‘so that’ and prosodically delivered without pitch reset in the onset. This subsequent unit is also pragmatically projected because the initial directive, which concerns hand position, leaves the question ‘why that now’ open, as the trainer is presently manipulating the client’s leg. The temporal gap between the directive and the account can, in the end, result from the trainer seeking to coordinate talk with bodily movement (cf. Goodwin, 2000; Mondada, 2009), as the verbal and embodied actions are carried out in response to each other: the client’s successful compliance, so to speak, enables the trainer to complete the sequence with an account.

From a post hoc semantic-grammatical point of view the instructional sequence in (1) contains a consecutive clause combination, as represented in Table 1, although the combination in practice emerges across a sequence of actions: directive–compliance–acknowledgement–consecutive.

Table 1. Instruction in excerpt (1)Ex. Clause 1

DirectiveCombining element

Clause 2Account (Consequence)

(1) Sätt ännu eh handflatan ne:, eller liksom upp mot take.Turn your um palm to face downward, I mean, upward towards the

Så att

So that

den där axeln ºfårº

the shoulder gets [relaxed]

4

ceiling.

As regards their sequential composition, combinations of directives and accounts can materialize through the processes of expansion (as above), projection, or single-packaging in one intonational-structural unit.

Our study focuses on the issues mentioned above regarding the temporal, structural and interactional emergence of instructions in the context of physical training. By doing this, we add to the plethora of research on requesting in social interaction (see, e.g., Drew & Couper-Kuhlen, 2014), in the sense of ‘requesting action’. We call the actions and activity taking place in our cases ‘instruction’ and ‘instructing’ rather than request or requesting in order to stress the pedagogical aspects involved: the instructions are produced in a context where the other party is expected to learn how to carry out certain forms of exercise, and not, for example, to assist the requester. Also advice-giving is a broader phenomenon than instructing and may incorporate such less binding actions as counseling, recommending and information-giving (see Limberg & Locher, 2012). As an investigation of instructing and directing, our study contributes to research on directives (see, e.g., Ervin-Tripp, 1976; Sorjonen, Raevaara & Couper-Kuhlen, 2017) and instructional interaction (Szczepek Reed et al., 2013). But most specifically, we follow an interactional linguistic agenda by investigating how linguistic structure can be related to interactional function (see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018), placing combinations of clauses and actions at center stage (see Couper-Kuhlen and Etelämäki, 2014, 2017).

In this vein of interactional studies of instructing activities, Keevallik (2013, 2015) points to cases where instructions consist of a projecting clause followed by a physical teacher demonstration that completes the projection and the instruction. The temporality of the instruction and the expected response is central also in our study, in the sense that compliance with instructions is expected to be produced here and now. We can also see a parallel in the work on driving lessons by De Stefani and Gazin (2014), who distinguish between instructions that have to be immediately complied with, and instructions with a longer temporal scope (see also Reed & Szczepek, 2013). We follow up the dialogical trajectories in verbal and embodied instructing sequences, focusing on local actions in the instructional activity. Instruction can also be analyzed in a more holistic way so that instructing is viewed as a project with characteristic practices inhabiting the beginning, middle and end (see Reed & Szczepek, 2013); such a broader investigation of what instructing is built of does not fit in the limitations of our structural focus.

As was shown in excerpt (1), instructing is an interactionally emerging process in which an understanding of what to do and for what purpose is established between two participants. The process often involves a demonstration of a physical movement and the client’s repetition of the

5

movement that complies with the directive to act. In other cases the client is performing an exercise and the trainer intervenes by giving a directive to alter or correct the physical performance.

The study is organized as follows. To begin with, we will briefly describe our data in Section 3 and the collection of instances that this study is based on. Section 4 provides an overview of the structural patterns of instructing clause combinations in the data. Section 5 then provides detailed sequential analyses that account for how the structural emergence of instructing is intertwined with the intersubjective acts of directing and complying. Since the activity context revolves around physical actions, the analysis of structural emergence will keep track of multimodal aspects of the participants’ orientation to the formulation of instructions. The chapter ends with a summary that details grammatical and prosodic features of the clause/action combinations discussed in the analysis, followed by a concluding section.

3. Data and collection

Our data consist of 14 hours of video recordings of training sessions with personal trainers/physiotherapists and their clients. The participants are engaged in physiotherapeutic treatment or preventive healthcare activities, that is, the clients have turned to the experts in order to get and stay fit and healthy. During a session the trainer gives full attention to the client by instructing and encouraging him/her according to a personalized treatment or training program. Personal training also includes access to health clubs dedicated to physical activity with a variety of training equipment both for training and for relaxing after sessions. Recordings were made in Finland (12 sessions, 10 hours of data) and Sweden (3 sessions, 4 hours of data) and were transcribed according to general CA conventions (see, e.g., Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson, 1996). Embodied actions that are referred to or consequential for the analysis are notated in the transcripts.

The two sub-corpora are similar with regard to the language used (Swedish), institutional roles (personal trainers/physiotherapists and clients), activity type (training, instructing) and the period of data collection (between 2016 and 2017). The primary focus in the training is on physical performance and embodied compliance and not on a verbal display of learning (see also Reed & Szczepek Reed, 2013 on music masterclasses). Out of this data, instructing sequences were collected according to the following criteria: 1) the trainer expresses a directive to act, 2) the directive is elaborated with a consecutive clause expressing purpose or result, and 3) the client displays verbal or non-verbal compliance or understanding (after

6

the directive and/or the elaboration). The collection consists of 22 instances in the data from Finland and 21 from Sweden.3

The data were collected as a part of a larger research program on Swedish as a pluricentric language, Interaction and variation in pluricentric languages (IVIP) (see Norrby et al., 2012). The program conducts empirical studies of interaction in Swedish in Sweden and Finland and uses interactional linguistic methods, communication ethnography and a variational pragmatic framework to examine the complex relationship between language, nation, and culture. As the data represent two distinct, national varieties of Swedish, which reportedly differ in some aspects of pronunciation, prosody, lexis, syntactic construction and pragmatics (see Norrby et al., 2012; Reuter, 1992; Wide & Lyngfelt, 2009), we will also address the question of linguistic variation when it becomes relevant in light of our present collection of instances.

4. Overview of the instruction formats

The instructing actions we have collected in the data are composed of two clausal components: an initial directive component and a subsequent account-giving component that stands in a consecutive relation to the initial component. Together they form a clause combination in which a consecutive conjunction or an adverbial connective does the lexical combinatory work. The two parts communicate separate actions, namely directing and accounting respectively, but in combination with each other they accomplish one complex action, an instruction. The clause combination is not of the classical type, such as between a [matrix clause & complement clause] or an [antecedent & consequent] in conditional clause combinations, as a strictly structural dependency relation does not exist, for example, between an imperative clause and a consecutive clause. Nonetheless, it can be argued that there is a functional dependency relation between the component clauses: the directive is always the grammatical main clause, whereas the consecutive is constructed as a subordinate clause or as a [main] clause that is structurally recognizable as a “subsequent”, i.e. bearing marks of not standing alone (see J. Lindström, 2014a; also Günthner, this volume).

The directive component is expressed with a declarative or imperative clause or sometimes also with formally subordinate clauses or clausal fragments, e.g., å tårna ba lätt imot ‘and the toes only lightly against’, cf. ‘and [keep] the toes only lightly against [the wall]’ (Grahn & Huhtamäki, 2019). As shown in Table 2, the typical directive is a main clause, though, and declaratives are slightly more common than imperatives.

3 Despite the fact that the sub-corpora from Finland and Sweden respectively are different in size, they happened to yield an almost equal number of instances according to the collecting criteria.

7

Table 2. Distribution of grammatical formats in the directive part of instructions

Directive form OccurrencesDeclarative 20Imperative 15Other 8Total 43

Declaratives are usable as directives because they can be modulated in various ways; for example, by including the second person pronoun to highlight the other (client) as agent (2a), by including the first person pronoun to highlight self (trainer) as the agent (2b), or by using an existential format to mitigate the agent (2c).

Ex. (2)4 a. Du kan ta ännu bollen närmare.

‘You can take the ball even nearer.’b. Jag vill att du har lika mycket kraft nu i varje ben.

‘I want you to have as much power now in each leg.’c. Det är också lättare att hålla andra handen lös.

‘It is also easier to keep the other hand loose.’

As in excerpt (1), directives in the imperative are expressed directly, without any modulation with polite formulae or mitigating or intensifying particles (see Lindström et al., 2017 for imperatives and their modulations in Swedish medical consultations). Nonetheless, there is one special feature in the distribution of imperative formats: six out of seven imperatives in the data from Sweden are constructed with the formula tänk på (att ...) ‘consider (that …)’, whereas this type of imperative does not occur in the data from Finland. Excerpt (3) shows this directive format: the trainer and client are standing, facing each other, and the trainer intervenes in an exercise the client has been doing with a ball. This instruction, then, introduces a correction: the trainer points out how the ball should be handled, also demonstrating this with swaying arm and body movements (without a ball) from side to side.

4 These examples are culled from our collection but are somewhat normalized as regards spelling and sequential flow for a better overview of the basic grammatical structure.

8

Ex. (3) ’The ball’ (PTR:02:2).01 T: N[u, (0.3) har du] bollen *här ganska nä[ra dig?]

Now, you have the ball here rather close to you *T sways arms to her sides

02 C: [A jo ] Oh yes

03 C: [Ja jo ] Yes

right

04 (0.3)

05 T: *Tänk på att du kan ha bollen think.IMP PRT that you can have.INF ball.DEF Consider that you can have the ball *T makes big movements with her arms from side to side

06 ännu mer, (.) [så att] du får= yet more so that you get.PRS even more (to your side), so that you’ll get

07 C: [jo ] yes

08 =ännu mer rotation. yet more rotationeven more rotation.

The imperative with tänk på (l. 5) not only invites action but also introspection, and it therefore places the client closer to center stage as an active co-participant who is able to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the exercise. We can see here a link to a more pronounced person orientation in institutional discourse in Sweden; for example, Norrby, Wide, Lindström and Nilsson (2015) found that T-address was abundant in Sweden-Swedish medical consultations, whereas impersonal formats were more characteristic of Finland Swedish, and Henricson and Nelson (2017) found that Sweden-Swedish academic supervision meetings were more concerned with participant relations than corresponding Finland-Swedish meetings that focused on the task at hand. The tänk på-format also involves some softening of the directive, which in (3) redresses a corrective move as a mere tip that could be considered. Instructions in the tänk på format are somewhat more complex from the point of clause combination, because the introspection-inviting introductory part of the directive has the role of a matrix sentence that takes the action invitation as a complement clause: [tänk på] & [att du kan ha bollen ännu mer]. This bi-clausal directive, then, is further combined with a så att clause

9

that is a subordinate purpose clause: {directive [tänk på] & [att du kan ha bollen ännu mer]} & {account [så att du får ännu mer rotation]}.

In our data, the consecutive, account-giving component is combined with the directive via the subordinating conjunctions så and så att ‘so’ or with the adverbial connective så ‘so, and’ that is followed by a main clause with an inverted word order5 (finite verb + subject). Hence, the action combination [directive & account] can be realized through hypotactic or paratactic clause combination (see Matthiessen & Thompson, 1988). There is a slight semantic difference between these in that the subordinate clauses convey the purpose of an action (what can be achieved through it; excerpts 1 and 3 above), while the så-clauses with main clause syntax focus on the result (what the effects of an action are; excerpt 5 below). As can be seen in Table 3, purpose clauses are more frequent in the instructions. Even negative purpose or result is expressed in some instances (så att du inte bara stannar ‘so that you don’t just stand in one place’), that is, the client is directed to act in a certain way to avoid an unfavorable consequence (see ex. 4 below). Furthermore, the consequence can be agentive, focusing on what the client can achieve (så att du får ännu mer rotation ‘so that you’ll get even more rotation’), or it can be expressed in a generic way (så att de blir lite mer flow i de ‘so that there will be more flow in it’), defocusing the active subject (see Limberg & Locher, 2012).

Table 3. Distribution of connectors introducing the consecutive clause

Connector Occurrences

så (adverb); result 12

så (conjunction); purpose 11

så att (conjunction); purpose 20

Total 43

Instructions occur in different phases of the physical exercise in focus, considering whether they are issued before or during the client’s performance of the exercise. Table 4 gives an overview of this phasal patterning of instructions in the data: 1) preparatory instructions in which the trainer says and demonstrates him-/herself what the client is supposed to

5 When så is an adverb, and not a subordinator, it occupies the “front field” position of a clause (see, e.g., J. Lindström, 2014b). Because Swedish is a Germanic V2 language, the adverbial front-field constituent must be followed by the finite verb, and then by the subject: så ser du det ‘so you see it’, lit. ‘so see you it’.

10

do; 2) preparatory instructions in which the physical demonstration involves the client’s body as a point of reference, for example, through touching a focused body part, and 3) corrective instructions that respond to how the client is performing an exercise. The counts refer to occurrences of instructions in each phase.

Table 4. Distribution of instructions related to the phase of exercise

Type of instruction Occurrences

Preparatory; T self-demonstrates

16

Preparatory; T involves C in demonstration

11

Corrective; T intervenes in C’s performance

16

Total 43

In the following, we will proceed with a closer analysis of some representative instances of instruction types according to their occurrence in the training phases.

5. Analysis of instruction sequences

This section offers analyses of instructions as emergent sequential, interactional processes in which the practices of clause combining, the participants’ initiatives and responses, and their embodied acts are intertwined. The organization of the analytic sections is based on where the type of training instructing occurs in the activity, i.e. as preparatory or corrective actions (see Table 4 above). The first two phases include preparatory instructions in which the trainer either makes a demonstration him-/herself or involves the client in the demonstration. The third category involves cases in which the instruction occurs while the clients are performing exercises and is produced to correct the clients’ performance.

5.1 Preparatory instructions: demonstration by trainer

In this category the instructing sequences contain a physical demonstration from the trainer as part of an instruction when introducing a new exercise, a

11

variation of which was seen in ex. (3). The consecutive clause and the physical demonstration complete the instruction and account for it. Excerpt (4) contains two consecutive clauses produced after a directive action that is complemented with a physical demonstration by the trainer. The consecutives account for what should be achieved (or not achieved) through implementing the exercise in the instructed way. The trainer and the client are standing facing each other while the trainer introduces a squat-and-jump type of exercise.

Ex. (4) ’Leg bending’ (PTR:02:15).01 T: När du gör den med benböjen, (0.7)

when you do-PRS that with leg.bend-DEF when you do the one with leg bending,

02 så vill ja att (0.3) nu (.) PRT want I that now I want that (you) now

03 att du *#gör dom här tre där¿that you do-PRS those-DEM three therethat you do these three (like this)¿ *T squats #Fig. 2 left

04 (0.5)

05 T: *Så en två tre #upp* (.) ner. So one two three up, down.

*T squats stepwise and ends with a jump on “upp”* #Fig. 2 right

06 (0.4)

07 T: *En två tre (0.4) °upp°.* One two three, up.

*T squats stepwise and ends with a jump on “upp”*

08 T: *så att de blir lite mer flow i de. so that it become-PRS a.little more flow in itso that there will be a little more flow in it *T gesticulates with her hands up and down

09 C: Ja oke[j ] Yes, okay

10 T: [Så] att du inte ba *stannar, so that you not only stall-PRS So that you don’t just stand in one place

12

*T stands in a frozen position

11 (.) å sen så,= and then PRT and then,

12 C: =Absolut (.) okej.Absolutely, okay.

The exercise is referred to by the trainer as den med benböjen ‘the one with leg bending’ (l. 1). The client is supposed to squat, bending his legs, three times and end with a jump in an upright position, and then to repeat this ten times. The instruction begins with a declarative-formatted directive (l. 1–3) from the trainer who is getting into position with slightly bent knees: så vill jag att nu (.) att du gör dom här tre där ‘I want that now (.) that you do these three’. The declarative is followed by two bodily demonstrations showing how to ‘do these three there’, both accompanied by a phrasal counting unit en två tre upp ‘one two three up’ (l. 5 and 7; Figure 2). The demonstration explicates the physical execution of the performance, while a verbal description is not produced in this slot (see Keevallik, 2015 for verbal projection and embodied completion).

Figure 2. Trainer demonstrates squat down (left); Trainer demonstrates jump up (right).

After the demonstrations, the trainer resumes a standing position and produces a consecutive clause, in which she explains that the method demonstrated gives more “flow”: så att de blir lite mer flow i de ‘so that there will be a little more flow in it’ (l. 8). The consecutive clause is combined with the directive and demonstrating part of the instruction with the conjunction så. This account-giving part contains the formal subject de ‘it’ and the verb bli ‘become’, which gives the achievement of “flow” an impersonal aspect. The client displays understanding with ja okej ‘yes okay’ in line 9 and takes a couple of steps towards the gym mat on which he should perform the exercise. The trainer then continues on with another consecutive clause that offers an alternative account: it is negated and contains the subject du ‘you’ (l. 10), thereby moving the focus to the client

13

as an agent in telling him what he should not do: så att du inte ba stannar ‘so that you don’t just stand in one place’. The personal orientation prompts the client to start the exercise, while the client confirms his understanding of the instruction and willingness to comply with an upgraded receipt in line 12: absolut (.) okej ‘absolutely (.) okay’, then moving on to do the exercise.

To form a directive concerning another person’s bodily movement by using the subjective volitional format jag vill att du ‘I want you to’, is not uncommon in our data. It could be heard as quite self-centered, even rude, in another situation, but in this specific instructing context it emphasizes the trainer’s deontic authority as a professional who is responsible for the training (see Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012). The format with the volitional verb also projects the upcoming core of the directive, possibly involving a longer spate of instruction (see Reed & Szczepek Reed, 2013, p. 321), which comes in the form of physical demonstration and counting in lines 5–7. The embodied demonstrations and the ensuing consecutive clauses are mutually meaning-making and carefully timed: the consecutives are expressed only after the physical demonstration is fully concluded. This sequential emergence of the clausal and (inter)actional structure between the trainer (T) and client (C) can be outlined in the following steps:

1) T: Directive inviting action (declarative clause)2) T: Demonstration of invited action (embodied, verbal support) 3) T: Account for the directive in a consecutive clause4) C: Verbal display of understanding5) T: Account for the directive in a negated consecutive clause6) C: Verbal display of understanding

The steps 1) and 3) in this instruction sequence are chunked prosodically into units of their own, separated by the demonstration in step 2). Nonetheless, the consecutive component is produced prosodically as a continuation, as there is no final fall in the directive component (l. 3 in ex. 4) and no upstep at the beginning of the consecutive part (l. 8). This establishes the embodied demonstration as a designed, integrated part of the directive, and not as an inserted, separating segment.

In summary, the trainer’s instructing turn unfolds in a temporal progression out of three distinctive parts – directive, demonstration, account – that are sequenced after each other to organize and coordinate social action. This accomplishes a single complex action which, in a post hoc structural perspective, is a complex consecutive clause combination that in its process of emergence is matched with the participants’ initiating and responding moves in the local instruction sequence. The consecutive clause completes this complex action combination pragmatically and the recipient takes an orientation to it as one of completion.

14

5.2 Preparatory instructions: client involved in trainer’s demonstration

The instances in this category differ from the type of instructions discussed in section 5.1 in that the clients here are involved in the trainer’s demonstrations. Excerpt (1) presented one such instance: the trainer proceeds with the directive and consecutive components, and the client does the directed action while being instructed. A similar kind of progression can be seen in excerpt (5). The trainer has just demonstrated how the client should move her thigh and told her to lie down on her belly with a strap attached to her right leg. The client is now lying down on a training bench and the trainer has directed her to move her right leg with the strap. To demonstrate that this movement is difficult in this position, he asks the client to bend up her left, unstrapped leg in line 1 (gör me de här bene ‘do (it) with this leg’). In line 3, the adverb så (literally ‘so’ but best translated with ‘and’ in English) initiates a concluding result clause: så märker du att de går no ‘so/and you’ll see that you sure can make it’.

Ex. (5) ’Strength to draw’ (FYS:002:1).01 T: *#Gör me de här bene,

do.IMP with this-DEM leg-DEF Do (it) with this leg, *T is pointing at C’s left leg #Fig. 3 left 02 *# (0.7)

*C, on her belly, bends her left leg up from the knee. #Fig. 3 right

03 T: så märker du att (.) de går ↑no.

so notice-PRS you that it go-PRS PRT and you’ll see that you sure can make it. 04 T: [.h *Hi]t ända har man kraft å dra, Up to this point one has the strength to draw, *T takes a hold of C’s leg. 05 C: [Jå. ] Yeah.

15

Figure 3. Trainer points at client’s left calf (left); Client bends left leg at the knee (right).

This excerpt shows clearly the sequential-temporal emergence of the consecutive relation. The trainer produces the directive as a first prosodically separate unit (l. 1), but it ends with level intonation that suggests continuation. This is followed by a pause during which the client complies by carrying out the nominated physical action (l. 2). Upon compliance, the trainer produces a concluding consecutive clause (l. 3), which then results in a complex action and clause combination with the preceding directive clause/action. The verbal presentation is intertwined with embodied acts. When issuing the directive in line 1, the trainer touches the client’s calf with a pointing gesture (Fig. 3 left), thus clarifying the deictic reference in the directive (de här bene ‘this leg’). Monitoring the client’s physical compliance, as she bends her leg at the knee, the trainer then matches the account-giving component with the client’s completion of the task (Fig. 3 right). We then get the following sequential structure:

1) T: Directive inviting action (imperative clause)2) C: Compliance through physical action3) T: Account for the directive in a consecutive clause

The clause/action combination seems pre-designed, when we take the prosody of the clauses into account. The directive component ends in the speaker’s middle range, without final lengthening; this differs from excerpt (1) where the pitch contour of the directive is falling and the consecutive clause is produced as an increment-like expansion (see further 5.4 Summary). Thus, the prosody in (5) projects a continuation which comes in the account-giving component of the instruction. In addition, the subsequent consecutive clause is initiated smoothly with no pitch reset, i.e. as a structurally and prosodically fitted completion of the two-part instruction. The latter part of the consecutive, de går no ‘you can make it’ has a stylized pitch contour, consisting of a low, high and middle tone, resembling the stylized figure in Finnish described by Ogden, Hakulinen and Tainio (2004). The contour can signal that the trainer presents the movement as a routine, predictable achievement in this activity context where he is the expert; indeed, the stylization could be heard as signifying expert-to-novice talk.

16

Both of the combined clauses have the structure of a main clause but they are sequenced so that they are functionally dependent on each other, standing in an ‘if-then’ relation (cf. the conditional clause combination Om du gör med det här benet, så märker du att det går nog. ‘If you do it with this leg, then you’ll see that you can make it’). The consecutive clause indexes its position as a “subsequent” unit through the adverbial connector and inverted VS order (see also Günthner, this volume). We could go as far as to say that the consecutive VS clause, then, retro-constructs the preceding imperative clause as a condition to the consequence, thus making the imperative clause virtually, and at least pragmatically, subordinate to the consequence. Such a functional view diverts, of course, from traditional views of dependency relations in clause combinations.

5.3 Corrective instructions: trainer intervenes in client’s performance

The instances in this category differ from the two previous categories in that the trainer produces the instruction as a corrective response to the client’s performance during an ongoing exercise (cf. Deppermann, 2015). These responses, then, are interventions, done by reference to a problem (Reed & Szczepek Reed, 2013, p. 328). In the following excerpt (6), the client is doing squat jumps, keeping her hands on her waist. First, she makes a verbal comment on the challenges related to the exercise (l. 1), and then, she actually loses her balance (l. 4, Fig. 4 left). The trainer responds by providing a bit of instruction (l. 9–10, Fig. 4 right).

Ex. (6) ’Balance’ (VHEL:PTR2:002:61).01 C: *Gud va de här e svårt.

God, this is so difficult.*C balances, makes squat jumps, alternating the support leg

02 T: Ja:a.Yeah.

03 (6.6)

04 C: *#Ehh*C loses the balance #Fig. 4 left

05 (0.4)

06 T: A.Right.

17

07 (0.8)

08 T: (De) *kan va lättare it can.PRS be.INF easy-CMP It can be easier *T stretches his arms out to the sides

09 ti *#hålla händerna löst INF hold-INF hand-PL-DEF looseto keep the hands loose

*C lets her arms down #Fig. 4 right

09 så du får balansera *me dem lite bättre.so you get-PRS balance.INF with them a.little good-CMPso you can balance a little better with them. *T lets his arms down

Figure 4. Client loses balance (left); Trainer shows ‘loose hands’, Client complies (right).

The trainer directs the client to keep her hands out to the sides instead of having them on her waist, the verbal format being a suggesting declarative with no person reference (de kan va lättare ‘it can be easier’). He simultaneously demonstrates the correct performance by moving his arms out to the sides, and the client complies by moving her hands from her waist out to her sides. The trainer goes on to provide an account for the instruction (l. 9): changing the position of her hands will improve the balance. The account is produced at a point when the client has already changed her physical performance: she has responded immediately to the trainer’s physical demonstration which is intertwined with the verbal suggestion in lines 8–9. The sequential structure in this instructing sequence can then be illustrated in the following way:

1) C: Performs physical exercise 2) T: Directive suggesting action (with an embodied cue)3) C: Complying physical action (in overlap with 2)

18

4) T: Account for the directive in a consecutive clause

The directive and account-giving components are produced in one go, with no intervening pauses as the client responds to the directive immediately without pausing in her exercise. She monitors the emergence of the instruction carefully, responding through altering her performance as soon as she notices the trainer’s physical demonstration (l. 9) and thus even before the completion of the verbal directive. The introduction to the instructing turn de kan va lättare ‘it can be easier’ contains the adjective “easier” in the comparative degree and can be heard as projecting a move to improve the performance. The consecutive clause concludes the instruction by explicating the client’s problem and the point of the intervening instruction. It also shifts agency to the client from “it can be easier” in the initial part to “you can balance a little better” in the concluding part of the instruction.

Excerpt (7) provides another case with corrective instruction that shapes the form of the client’s performance. In this exercise the client is standing on her knees, and is supposed to lean with her body backwards but without moving her thighs backwards. The trainer is standing beside the client on the gym mat, on her knees as well, monitoring the client’s body position.

Ex. (7) ‘Lock the hips’ (VGBG:PTR:03: 9).

01 T: Okej (.) tänk att den ska gå Okay, imagine that there is

02 som en *linje rakt ner,a line that goes straight down,

*C bends backwards

03 (0.3)

04 T: så att du- (.) *#Här låser du, so that you here lock-PRS youso that you- Here your leg gets locked, *T places her hand on the front of C’s thigh

#Fig. 5 left

05 *(0.4)* *C gazes down and complies and keeps thighs vertical*

06 T: så du [inte går ba- (.) *#så du inte-] so you not go-PRS so you notso you don’t go ba- (.) so you don’t, *C complies by not bending thighs

#Fig. 5 right

19

07 C: [Jaha (0.3) så¿ (.) (så¿ )] I see, (like this?)

08 (.)

09 T: Exakt. (.) Så de e höften vi ska jobba me.Precisely. So it’s the hip we are working with.

Figure 5. Trainer touches front of client’s thigh (left); Client “locks” her hips (right).

The sequence starts with a directive introduced with the verb tänk ‘think, imagine’ which invites the client to self-reflect on her physical positioning (cf. excerpt 3 above), i.e. keeping a straight posture. The client is supposed to bend herself backwards and starts the movement in overlap, bending backwards from her knees. The trainer initiates a consecutive clause with the subordinator så att ‘so that’ but aborts it (l. 4), responding to the client’s incorrect performance. She then issues a directive in a declarative form, här låser du ‘here your leg gets locked’, placing her hand on the front of the client’s right thigh simultaneously with the deictic adverb här ‘here’ (Fig. 5 left). The client complies immediately by “locking” (Fig. 5 right), and the trainer then initiates two subordinate consecutive så-clauses (l. 4), which, however, are not completed. Both are negated, which is a way of accounting for the instruction in the sense that the speaker depicts scenarios to be avoided (apparently, not going backwards from the knees): så att du inte går ba- [bakåt] (.) så du inte...‘so that you don’t go ba- [backwards], so you don’t...’ (l. 6).

The client shows an orientation to the directive issued on line 4 both by making an altered movement backwards and by giving a verbal response in overlap with the consecutives on line 6. She first says jaha ‘I see’, a minimal response showing a change in epistemic status (see A. Lindström, 1999, p. 81, 123), and then produces two så ‘so, this way’ manner adverbials, evoking feedback. These physical and verbal responses display a candidate understanding and are probably the reason why the trainer leaves the consecutives in line 6 non-completed. The trainer responds with a confirmation, exakt ‘precisely’ (l. 8), thereby showing an orientation to the

20

client’s candidate understanding and providing an expert answer. The instructing sequence is completed in line 9 with a så-initiated clause that in a “we”-form gives an upshot of the instructional project, så de e höften vi ska jobba me ‘so it’s the hip we are working with’, as the trainer is simultaneously clapping her hands on her own hips. This formulation stands in a more independent pragmatic, grammatical and prosodic relation to the preceding utterances, aiming at consolidating the participants’ intersubjective understanding of what the whole instructional project was about (see Heritage & Watson, 1980 on formulations), and does not directly belong to the local action pattern [directive] & [account].

To summarize, excerpt (7) shows the unfolding of an instructing sequence that begins with the trainer’s intervention in the client’s performance. The client responds quickly to the directive, which in turn makes the trainer match the production of the accounting consecutive clauses with the response and abort them when the client’s action displays sufficient understanding. This trajectory can be formalized with the following steps:

1) C: Performs physical exercise 2) T: Directs C to correct performance (declarative with embodied cue)3) T: Negated account in a consecutive clause (aborted in response to step 4)4) C: Complying physical and verbal action (in overlap with 3)5) T: Confirmation of C’s understanding and conclusion of the project

Examples of this kind show how the mechanisms of clause combining and construction of multi-clausal turns are locally sensitive to the participants’ mutual embodied and verbal actions. In (7) we can see an aborted clause-combining trajectory in which the abortion responds to an action by the recipient that makes the completion of the account-giving part of the instruction uncalled-for. Such adjustments of emerging grammatical and interactional structures are rendered possible by the participants’ focused orientation to their embodied interaction.

5.4 Summary: on projection, expansion and prosody

When considering the temporal, structural and interactional emergence of the instructions in our data we can conclude that they materialize through the processes of projection and expansion (see Auer, 2009; Deppermann & Günthner, 2015; Hopper & Thompson, 2008; Pekarek Doehler et al., 2015), but not in a uniform manner. There is variation in how the clause and action complexes are achieved, from smoothly conjoined bi-clausal units to sequentially emerging products whose part-clauses and part-actions do not follow one another in a continuous flow of talk. In order to understand the workings of the actual combinatory practices, we now turn to a

21

summarizing comparison of the structural and prosodic features of the excerpts analyzed above.

The most canonical way of producing an instruction in our collection is through a consecutive clause combination in which the directive and consecutive components are delivered in a single, coherent intonation unit. An example of this variant was seen in excerpt (6), here schematized in Table 5 and further illustrated with the pitch trace in Figure 6.

Table 5. Instruction in excerpt (6)

Ex. Clause 1Directive

Combining element

Clause 2Account

(6) De kan va lättare ti hålla händerna löstIt can be easier to keep the hands loose

så

so

du får balansera me dem lite bättre.you can balance a little better with them.

Figure 6. Pitch trace of the directive and consecutive clauses in ex. (6); male speaker.6

This instance shows all the features of classical grammatical clause combining with an initial main clause (in a declarative form), the conjunction så ‘so’ as the lexical conjoiner, and a concluding adverbial clause with SV order. The pitch of the directive clause stays high, with some final lengthening on the word löst ‘loose’), and the speaker continues the

6 The waveform is not shown in this figure because the sound file contains a good deal of background noise from the gym. We have used the software Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2018) for the acoustic analyses.

22

same pitch contour with no gap. The consecutive clause has a falling contour and the loudness decreases to the degree that the last syllable is whispered.

Projection, that is, one action foreshadowing another (Auer, 2005), becomes an issue in cases where the directive component is followed by a pause that seems to be designed to be there until the complex action is fulfilled with a consecutive part. In other words, there seems to be “more to come” after the completion of the initial directive. Excerpt (5), schematized in Table 6, provided an illuminating instance of prosodic projection, but prosodic projection is also present in excerpts (3), (4), (6) and (7).

Table 6. Instruction in excerpt (5)

Ex. Clause 1Directive

Combining element

Clause 2Account

(5) Gör me de här bene,

Do (it) with this leg,

så

and

märker du att (.) de går ↑no.you’ll see that you sure can make it.

The pitch contour of the directive component ends in the middle range, without final lengthening. This is followed by a gap during which the client complies with the directive, and the trainer monitors her behavior. He then initiates the subsequent consecutive clause by picking up the prior pitch contour where it left off, without a pitch reset (see Figure 7). Thus, we have two intonation phrases that cohere prosodically and in which the latter one completes the intonational trajectory (see Couper-Kuhlen, 2012 for the prosody of clause combining). However, the latter part of the account (de går no ‘you can make it’) does not end as low as usually in a terminal declination (cf. Figure 6), which is the result of the slightly stylized, “curved” patterning of the intonation contour that places stress on the final modal particle no(g) ‘sure(ly)’ (see the analysis in Section 4.2).

23

Figure 7. Pitch trace and waveform of the directive and consecutive clauses in ex. (5); male speaker.

The account-giving components of the instructions are not strongly projected in structural terms, because the directive component is expressed through declarative or imperative main clauses that formally could stand on their own. This is comparable with causal clause combinations in cases where the causal clause stands in a subsequent position (see Ford, 1993 on English; Scheutz, 2001 on German), or when the protasis is postponed in a conditional clause combination (see Auer, 2000 for German). However, there is often pragmatic projection involved. Many directives, i.e. the initial parts of the instruction pattern, are formulated in a manner that leaves the question of their ‘why that now’ open, which then is accounted for in the consecutive clause. For example, in excerpt (5), the directive to move the leg that is not in the focus of the treatment may call for a motivation. Of course, in some types of instruction, the understanding of why something is done is the learnable and may thus be unexpressed to test the other’s competence (see Deppermann, 2015). We also observed that some forms of projection combine the structural and pragmatic as, for example, in directives that are constructed with a presentational format and contain an adjective in the comparative degree (de kan va lättare ‘it can be easier’ in ex. 6): these formal and semantic features induce an expectation of an explication of what was presented as being improvable.

In some cases the account-giving component comes after a directive that has the features of an already finished turn. Such consecutives can be understood as products of structural expansion, such as in our initial example (1); the clause combination is represented in Table 7.

24

Table 7. Instruction in excerpt (1)

Ex. Clause 1Directive

Combining element

Clause 2Account

(1) Sätt ännu eh handflatan ne:, eller liksom upp mot take.Turn your um palm to face downward, I mean,upward towards the ceiling.

Så att

So that

den där axeln ºfårº

the shoulder gets [relaxed]

Here, the directive component ends with falling pitch (see Figure 8), as well as with other turn-final features, that is, final lengthening, diminishing loudness and creaky voice (see Huhtamäki, 2012 for final features of questions in Finland Swedish). It is followed by a pause during which the trainer monitors the client’s complying action and produces an acceptance token (not too different from ex. 5, although that one does not contain a verbal acknowledgement). Nonetheless, the consecutive component follows as a glued-on expansion of the directive turn, rather than as a new beginning: it has no pitch reset in the onset, and it ends with a fall, and at the very end in a whisper (decreasing volume can be seen in the waveform in Fig. 8).

Figure 8. Pitch trace and waveform of the directive and consecutive clauses in ex. (1); female speaker.

25

The prosodic design, then, suggests that the account-giving component was not a pre-planned part of the instruction, but it is linked to the directive through lexical and prosodic incrementing practices, which, in the end, result in something that post hoc could be analyzed as a complex clause and action combination (for a similar point, see Stoenica & Pekarek Doehler, this volume on incremented relative clauses). Such cases, then, represent extensions of clausal dependency relations beyond the “sentence” (see Mithun, 2008). In support of this analysis, we can note that there is a relatively strong pragmatic projection also in this case. The trainer is holding the client’s left leg, stretching it upwards, but the directive concerns a small detail of hand positioning, the purpose of which, given the focus on the leg, may appear obscure for the client.

In the data, and in the detailed analyses above, we can see that the emergence of most directive and account-giving clause/action combinations involves a sequence of dialogic verbal and embodied moves. The regularity with which the combinations [directive & account] appear in the data suggests that they constitute a routine way of speaking, a conventionalized pattern for accomplishing a complex social action (see Hopper 1998). In this respect we cannot say that the combinations emerge as results of local, unforeseen interactional contingencies (see Etelämäki, Couper-Kuhlen & Laury, 2017 for the division-of-labor pattern). To be sure, there is a pause between the constitutive parts of many instructions, but the pauses are often designed features of the instructing sequence. As our stepwise sequence schemas in the above sections suggest, the professionals deploy pauses strategically, leaving space for the client’s compliance or displays of understanding after a directive has been issued. Having monitored the client’s performance, sometimes with a concomitant acknowledgement token, the trainer then concludes the instruction with an account linked to the directive, strengthening its “pedagogical” or motivational effect. Similarly, trainers can leave pauses between the directive and account in preparatory instructions as they demonstrate the nominated action during the pause. This then showcases how grammar can be fitted to sequences and trajectories of verbal and embodied actions (see Keevallik, 2018). The strength of these designed features varies from cases with prosodically projected second parts to more ambiguous cases that materialize through expansion and in which some more contingent factors can come into play. In the general dialogic architecture, however, the clause and action combinations emerge across participants and modalities: the directive foresees a complying move, the production of which in turn “enables” the trainer to deliver the account. Sometimes these moves can overlap: trainers produce the clause and action combination in one go or abort the production of a projected account, when they see that the client already executes the directed action in a satisfactory manner.

26

6. Conclusion

We have studied how directives are issued by trainers to clients partaking in physical training, and investigated the ways in which invitations to action, compliances with them, and accounts for them emerge through grammatical, prosodic and embodied resources. We identified a two-part pattern [directive & account] that accomplishes a more complex structural and pragmatic unit, here labeled as instruction. A related kind of combining of actions and clauses, [directive & commitment] or [commitment & directive], has been analyzed by Couper-Kuhlen and Etelämäki (2014, 2017). The instructions consisting of a directive and an account-giving component are grammatically formed of consecutive clause combinations in which the directive most often is a declarative or an imperative clause; these are linked together with a consecutive conjunction (så ‘so’, så att ‘so that’) or adverb (så ‘so/and’), in the former case through hypotaxis and in the latter through parataxis. The complex clause and action combinations occur both in preparatory and corrective instructional sequences.

The directive component is often followed by the client’s verbal or physical compliance, or, indeed, the trainer can design the instruction in a way that leaves a gap after the directive so that the client has a temporal space to comply or display understanding, or the trainer can self-demonstrate the directed movement in this space. The account-giving component, then, comes as an elaboration of the directive to increase the pedagogical moral of the instruction, giving the clients clues for what they can achieve through an exercise or a detail in its execution. Because not only execution but also understanding are the goals of the instructed exercises, the trainers do not simply exert their “deontic authority” to produce plain directives (cf. Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012).

Both parts of the instruction, the directive and the account, can be produced in one intonation phrase, but when there is a designed gap between the parts, the account is projected by a “continuing” intonation at the end of the directive. In some cases the account emerges as an expansion, as the directive has final intonation. But also in these instances there is a rather strong pragmatic projection: the directive itself does not inform the client about its purpose and may even seem unmotivated when considering what has been focused in the ongoing training activity. We can then conclude that the pattern [directive] & [account] is a conventionalized structural resource that displays variation in some detail, for example, in that the directive can be a declarative or an imperative.

Our data has targeted the Swedish language, or two national variants of it which do not display any major differences in the deployment of the combination [directive & account], disregarding some pragmatic modulations of imperative-formatted directives in Sweden Swedish (the format tänk på ‘consider this’ to invite introspection as well as action). The pattern of [directive & account] seems so fundamentally rooted in an

27

instructing activity context that we have reason to believe that at least the underlying phenomenon, of combining clauses and actions to produce complex instructions of the kind we have studied here, is more universal and to be found in other languages as well.

References

Auer, P. (2000). Pre- and postpositioning of wenn-clauses in spoken and written German. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause - condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 173–204). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.

Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31, 1–13.

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.39, April 3rd 2018. http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes, 49(3/4), 273–299.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing in conversation’. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2014). On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In P. Drew, & E. Couper.Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 115–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2017). Linking clauses for linking actions: Transforming requests and offers into joint ventures. In R. Laury, M. Etelämäki, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Linkings clauses and actions in social interaction (pp. 176–200). Helsinki: SKS.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Stefani, E. & Gazin, A.-D. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 63–79.

Deppermann, A. (2015). When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung, 16, 63–101.

Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S. (Eds.). (2015). Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2014). Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

28

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5(1), 25–66.

Etelämäki, M., Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Laury, R. (2017). Introduction. In R. Laury, M. Etelämäki, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Linkings clauses and actions in social interaction (pp. 11–23). Helsinki: SKS.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garfinkel, H. (2002). Instructions and instructed actions. In H. Garfinkel, & A. Warfield Rawls (Eds.), Ethnomethodology’s Program, (pp. 197–218). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.

Grahn, I.-L., & Huhtamäki, M. (2019). Frasformade instruktioner under fysisk aktivitet – form och funktion i interaktionell belysning [Phrase-formed instructions during physical activity – form and function in an interactional illustration]. In M. Bianchi, D. Håkansson, B. Melander, L. Pfister, M. Westman, & C. Östman (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 36 (pp. 65–78). Uppsala: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University.

Henricson, S., & Nelson, M. (2017). Giving and receiving advice in higher education: Comparing Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish supervision meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 105–120.

Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: some instances analyzed. Semiotica, 30(3/4), 245–262.

Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, HJ: Erlbaum.

Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Huhtamäki, M. (2012). Prosodiska mönster hos frågor: en undersökning av Helsingforssvenska samtal [Prosodic patterns in questions: A study of Helsinki Swedish conversations]. Språk och stil, 22(2), 153–184.

Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 1–21.

Keevallik, L. (2015). Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 309–336). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 1–21

Limberg, H., & Locher, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Advice in discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

29

Lindström, A. (1999). Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. (Diss.) Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Lindström, J. (2014a). On the place of turn and sequence in grammar: Verb-first clausal constructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics, 24(3), 507–532.

Lindström, J. (2014b). Front field negation in spoken Swedish: A regional archaism? In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker, & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics (pp. 237–253). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lindström, J., Lindholm, C., Norrby, C., Wide, C., & Nilsson, J. (2017). Imperatives in Swedish medical consultations. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk (pp. 299–324). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Lindwall, O. (2008). Lab work in science education: Instruction, inscription, and the practical achievement of understanding. (Diss.) Linköping: Linköping University.

Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2014). Inquiries of the body: Novice questions and the instructable observability of endodontic scenes. Discourse Studies 16(2), 271–294.

Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275–329). Amsterdam. Benjamins.

Mithun, M. (2008). The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language, 84(1), 69–119.

Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1977–1997.

Norrby, C., Wide, C., Lindström, J., & Nilsson, J. (2012). Finland-Swedish as a non-dominant variety of Swedish – Extending the scope to pragmatic and interactional aspects. In R. Muhr (Ed.), Non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages: Getting the picture (pp. 49–60). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Norrby, C., Wide, C., Lindström, J., & Nilsson, J. (2015). Interpersonal relationships in medical consultations: Comparing Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish address practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 84, 121–138.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ogden, R., Hakulinen, A., & Tainio, L. (2004). Indexing ‘no news’ with stylization in Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 299–334). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and emergence in grammar: Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topics in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Reed, D., & Szczepek Reed, B. (2013). Building an instructional project. Actions as components of music masterclasses. In B. Szczepek Reed, & G. Raymond

30

(Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp. 313–341). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Reuter, M. (1992). Swedish as a pluricentric language. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Pluricentric languages (pp. 101–116). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheutz, H. (2001). On causal clause combining: The case of ‘weil’ in spoken German. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 111–140). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Sorjonen, M-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2017). Imperative turns at talk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

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.

Szczepek Reed, B., Reed, D., & Haddon, E. (2013). NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal masterclasses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 22–46.

Wide, C., & Lyngfelt, B. (Eds.). (2009). Konstruktioner i finlandssvensk syntax: skriftspråk, samtal, dialekter. [Constructions in Finland-Swedish syntax: Written language, conversation, dialects.] Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland.

Transcription symbols7 but emphasisbu:t lengthening of a soundºbutº sotto voce(but) parenthesized words are possible hearingsbu- cut-off word or unfinished intonation unit, final level intonation. final falling intonation¿ final slightly rising intonation↑ locally rising intonation* timing of embodied action with talk (beginning/end point)# shows the exact moment for a screen shot (“Figure”)

Grammatical glossesCMP comparativeDEM demonstrativeDEF definiteIMP imperativeINF infinitive marker or formPL pluralPRS present tense

7 For other standard CA transcription conventions, see Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson (1996, p. 461–465).

31

PRT particle

32