Kent, A and Kendrick, KH (2016) Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49 (3). pp. 272-288. ISSN 1532-7973

[thumbnail of MS1033(r2) Imperatives Revision 5 - Submitted version.pdf]
MS1033(r2) Imperatives Revision 5 - Submitted version.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (7MB) | Preview


Our analysis proceeds from the question that if grammar alone is insufficient to identify the action of an imperative (e.g., offering, directing, warning, begging, etc.), how can interlocutors come to recognize the specific action being performed by a given imperative? We argue that imperative directives that occur after the directed action could have first been relevantly performed explicitly to direct the actions of the recipient and tacitly treat the absence of the action as a failure for which the recipient is accountable. The tacit nature of the accountability orientation enables both parties to focus on restoring progressivity to the directed course of action rather than topicalizing a transgression. Data are from everyday interactions in British and American English.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Taylor & Francis at Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Uncontrolled Keywords: conversation analysis, imperative, directive, transgression, progressivity, accountability
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions: Faculty of Natural Sciences > School of Psychology
Depositing User: Symplectic
Date Deposited: 17 Jun 2016 09:47
Last Modified: 31 Mar 2021 15:23

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item