Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian

When making requests, speakers need to select from a range of alternative forms available to them. In a corpus of naturally occurring Italian interaction, the two most common formats chosen are imperatives and interrogative constructions that include a turn-initial dative pronoun mi ‘to/for me’, which is referred to as the Mi X? format in this article. In informal contexts, both forms are used to request low-cost actions for here-and-now purposes. Building on this premise, this article argues for a functional distinction between them. The imperative format is selected to implement bilateral requests—that is, to request actions that are integral to an already established joint project between requester and recipient. On the other hand, the Mi X? format is a vehicle for unilateral requests, which means that it is used for enlisting help in new, self-contained projects that are launched in the interest of the speaker as an individual.

[1]  J. A. Becker Children's Strategic Use of Requests to Mark and Manipulate Social Status , 1982 .

[2]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[3]  Geert Jacobs Anna Wierzbicka. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction , 1995 .

[4]  Jonathan Potter,et al.  Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action , 2010 .

[5]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other‐initiated repair , 1997 .

[6]  Gene H. Lerner Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities , 1995 .

[7]  J. Searle A classification of illocutionary acts , 1976, Language in Society.

[8]  Rosina Márquez-Reiter Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay : a contrastive study of requests and apologies , 2000 .

[9]  Gene H. Lerner Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation , 1993 .

[10]  Jakob Steensig,et al.  The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation: Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement , 2011 .

[11]  M. Goodwin Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences , 2006 .

[12]  Paul Kockelman From status to contract revisited , 2007 .

[13]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Opening up Closings , 1973 .

[14]  Anna Lindström,et al.  Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service , 2005 .

[15]  Margaret H. Szymanski,et al.  Would You Like to Do it Yourself? Service Requests and Their Non-granting Responses , 2005 .

[16]  Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm Request Sequences: The intersection of grammar, interaction and social context , 2006 .

[17]  Eva Ogiermann Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests , 2009 .

[18]  Grace Zhang,et al.  Request Strategies: A comparative study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean , 2008 .

[19]  T. Stivers,et al.  Alternative recognitionals in person reference , 2007 .

[20]  A. Fasulo,et al.  Sequenze direttive tra genitori e figli = Directive utterances between parents and children , 2009 .

[21]  Federico Rossano,et al.  Questioning and responding in Italian , 2010 .

[22]  P. Drew,et al.  Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting , 2008 .

[23]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Shared Cooperative Activity , 1991 .

[24]  Trine Heinemann,et al.  Will you or can't you? Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests , 2006 .

[25]  H. H. Clark Responding to indirect speech acts , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  M. Goodwin He-Said-She-Said: Talk As Social Organization Among Black Children , 1993 .

[27]  S. Ervin-Tripp Is Sybil there? the structure of some American English directives , 1976, Language in Society.

[28]  Paul Kockelman Agency The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge , 2007 .

[29]  P. Brown Interaction and the development of mind , 1997 .

[30]  E. Schegloff Sequence Organization In Interaction , 2007 .

[31]  Bambi B. Schieffelin,et al.  The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children , 1992 .

[32]  W. Chafe Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing , 1996 .

[33]  Martine Grice,et al.  Map Tasks in Italian: Asking Questions about Given, Accessible and New Information , 2003 .

[34]  Eva Ogiermann,et al.  How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba x (“One Needs to x”) , 2011 .

[35]  S. Levinson Action formation and ascription , 2013 .

[36]  Celia Kitzinger,et al.  Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference , 2007 .

[37]  E. Goody Questions and politeness : strategies in social interaction , 1978 .

[38]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[39]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  Conversational sequences and preference for indirect speech acts , 1988 .

[40]  L. Wingard Parents' inquiries about homework: The first mention , 2006 .

[41]  A. J. Wootton,et al.  Two request forms of four year olds , 1981 .

[42]  Margaret Gilbert On Social Facts , 1989 .

[43]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests , 1975 .

[44]  Geoffrey Raymond Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[45]  J. Searle Consciousness and Language: Collective Intentions and Actions , 2002 .

[46]  Jack Sidnell The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation: The epistemics of make-believe , 2011 .

[47]  N. Enfield Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency , 2011 .

[48]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Collective Intentions and Actions , 2003 .

[49]  Anita M. Pomerantz Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[50]  R. Mackay Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology , 1987 .

[51]  N. J. Enfield Meanings of the unmarked. How 'default' person reference does more than just refer , 2007 .

[52]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Polite responses to polite requests , 1980, Cognition.

[53]  G. Kasper,et al.  Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies , 1991 .

[54]  R Marquez Reiter,et al.  Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay , 2000 .

[55]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[56]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[57]  R. Gibbs What makes some indirect speech acts conventional , 1986 .

[58]  A. Wierzbicka Semantics: Primes and Universals , 1996 .

[59]  Jack Sidnell,et al.  Conversation Analysis: List of tables , 2009 .

[60]  E. Goffman,et al.  Forms of talk , 1982 .

[61]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction , 2005 .

[62]  A. J. Wootton Interactional and sequential configurations informing request format selection in children’s speech , 2005 .

[63]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Indirect Speech Acts , 2001, Synthese.

[64]  Ellen Anderson Gholson Glasgow,et al.  The Ancient Law , 1908 .

[65]  S. Ervin-Tripp,et al.  Understanding requests , 1987 .

[66]  N. Enfield Relationship thinking and human pragmatics , 2009 .