Reasons for requests

Request (no reason)

Often, requests are produced and complied with without further ado, as reported for interaction in both casual (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1990; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006) and institutional settings (Parry, 2009, 2013; Waring, 2007). Producing a simple request reveals an orientation on the part of the requester that it should be straightforwardly compliable with and does not require the provision of additional information (Couper-Kuhlen, 2012; Garfinkel, 1967).

In our data, the great majority of requests without reason (93 out of 101) are complied with right away, without any interactional problems or perturbations. The most minimal format for this kind of case is a non-verbal request, as in Extract 1.

The extract starts with an offer made by the host of the gathering, Anna, to one of her guests, Pavel. Pavel initially accepts the offer (line 3), but subsequently notes that he still has some tea in his cup (lines 5–7). Anna treats this account as a rejection by directing her offer to another participant. In the meantime, Pavel finishes his tea and requests a refill by stretching his arm out in Anna’s direction while holding his cup. Anna responds by putting the tea bag into his cup and pouring boiled water into it.

Extract 1. 20120602_family_friends_2_1085520

1 Anna Pavel ^chaj kofe

     Name tea coffee

     Pavel, tea, coffee?

2     (0.7)

3 Pavel .hhhh chijku  esli tol’ka luchshe

      tea-DIM-GEN if only better

    If {possible} better some tea

4 Anna ((takes a tea bag from [the box))

5 Pavel       [((lifts his cup and looks into it))

6    o:pa

     INTJ

     Oh

7    u minia eshio est’ An’

    with I-GEN still is Name-VOC

    I still have {some}, Anna

8 Anna [ ((turns to different speaker)) ^Ir

        Name-VOC

        Ira?

9 Pavel [ ((finishes his tea))

10    (0.9)

11 Ira (ni  budu   [spasiba)

    NEG be-FUT-1SG thanks

    I won’t, thank you

12 Anna          [ (( is laying the tea bag on the [ table ))

13 Pavel                 [ ((holds out his cup for Anna))

14 Anna (( puts the tea bag into Pavel’s cup ))

15    (( takes the cup, pours hot water into it and gives it back to Pavel ))

Under different circumstances, Pavel’s gesture could have meant various things: give me some coffee, take the cup away, wash the cup, give me another cup, and so on. How can a massively underspecified gesture serve as a successful request? The request is temporally proximal to the offer sequence that precedes it (see also Rossi, 2014). This sequential embedding allows Pavel to keep his request minimal. Also the timing of the request is crucial. Anna is still standing at the table with the water kettle and a tea bag in her hands, keeping herself available for pouring tea (Drew and Couper-Kuhlen, 2014). In this manner, it is clear that her offer still stands.

Of the requests without reasons, quite a few are non-verbal, and all of them are immediately complied with, as in Extract 1. Non-verbal requests are typically well embedded in the activity that is taking place so that a mere gesture or other non-verbal action is enough for the recipient to infer a meaning. It appears that requesters orient to these possibilities for minimisation in designing their requests.

Not all requests are as minimal as this. A large chunk of requests without reason are verbal, as illustrated in the following two cases. In Extract 2, several family members have gathered in the kitchen for dinner. One of the guests, Tanya, offers her little son something to drink. After he agrees to have some milk, Tanya makes a request for the host to give it.

Extract 2. 20120114_family_visit_2_164605

1 Tanya mozhet malaka?

    Maybe milk-GEN

    Maybe some milk?

2 Child ((nods with his head ))

3    (0.7) ((Tanya turns away from the child towards the host ))

4 Tanya ((nods)) malaka

     Milk-GEN

     Some milk

5 Host ((takes milk from the refrigerator, pours it into a cup and puts it on the table in front of the child ))

6 Child (spasiba)

    Thanks

    Thanks

In contrast with Extract 1, the offer sequence preceding the request in Extract 2 is not between the requester and requestee. It is between the requester and the benefactor of the request, her son. The requestee is the host of the gathering and a witness to the interaction between mother and son. After the child accepts the offer of milk, Tanya formulates a rather minimal (information-wise) request. She only provides the name of the object, the milk, which she combines with an empathic head nod. How is so little information enough for the recipient to understand it is a request at all?

The interpretation of the request is aided by the offer sequence. From this sequence it can be inferred that Tanya’s goal is to get her child a drink. The host places the cup of milk in front of the child, revealing her knowledge of the information she could only have access to by having witnessed the offer sequence. Finally, similar to Extract 1, the host is standing next to the table while the guests are seated. By this, she is making herself available for requests like the one Tanya has made. In contrast, Tanya has little freedom to navigate around the room as she is sitting on the kitchen bench surrounded by other guests.

Another request without a reason is illustrated in Extract 3. It starts with Lida taking a teaspoon for herself from the closet shelf behind her. By this, she demonstrates where the teaspoons are and that she can reach them. Some time later Yana, sitting at the table, is about to drink her tea. She turns and looks towards the closet (line 3). Taking a spoon would require her to stand up from the table. Instead of doing it, Yana makes a request for Lida to give her a (tea)spoon (line 5). Lida complies right away.

Extract 3. 20120114_memorial_1_835270

1 Lida ((takes a spoon from the closet behind her))

2    ((6.6 sec of unrelated talk))

3 Yana ((looks up in the direction of the closet))

4    (1.6)

5 Yana ^daj     mne  lozhichku     mama

    Give-IMP-PFV I-DAT spoon-DIM-ACC mama

    Give me a little spoon, mama

6    (0.7)

7 Lida ((turns her torso towards the closet))=

8   =((reaches towards the closet))=

9   =((takes a spoon and gives it to Yana))

10 Yana spasiba

    Thanks

    Thanks

The activity in which the request occurs makes it straightforward to comply with without the provision of a reason. From the immediately preceding context, it is clear who is the most relevant recipient for the request (Lida), where the requested object can be found (in the closet) and that the object is likely to be available (as Lida has helped herself to a spoon just previously). Finally, Yana’s request for a teaspoon corresponds well with the ongoing activity of drinking tea and coffee.

In all, 8 out of 77 verbal requests without a reason do not receive compliance and are also not pursued. Four of them are non-serious, where the requester does not seem to go for real compliance. In three other cases, the recipients or the beneficiary of the request explain why the requested action cannot or should not be performed. In the remaining case, the recipient ignores the request and leaves the room. As a consequence, the request becomes irrelevant and is not pursued. Requests that involve multiple attempts due to, for instance, problems with compliance are not included in this category.

The request sequences presented here show that effective requests can be minimally designed and result in immediate compliance. Such minimal requests are maximally supported by the conversational and material environment. The immediately preceding talk, the activity that is taking place and the physical configuration of participants and objects all contribute to making minimal requests readily interpretable. In short, requests that are not accompanied by reasons tend to occur in environments that support them and enable compliance.

Requests with a reason

While many requests are minimally designed and are readily complied with, our collection contains a sizable number of sequences (a good third of the total number of cases) in which a reason is provided at some point in the interaction. We will examine these sequences to shed light on the reasons for reasons.

To foreshadow the analysis, we will show that reasons make requests more understandable and easy to comply with by spelling out the kinds of information left to presuppositions and implicatures in minimal requests. Requesters can provide reasons in response to recipients’ trouble with compliance, or they can package request and reason together, displaying an orientation to various ways in which a request may be unexpected or otherwise underspecified for a recipient. We start with cases that are structurally closest to the minimal sequences previously analysed.

Request → Problematic uptake → Reason

Sometimes minimally designed requests fail to get immediate compliance: a fitted response may be delayed by an insert sequence, or noticeably absent. In this context, requesters often upgrade their request by providing a reason. This is illustrated in Extract 4, taken from a conversation between Maria and her daughters Katya and Olia. Maria stands at the kitchen counter talking to Olia, who is in a different room. Maria puts a cup with boiled water on the table for Katya. Katya is about to put some instant coffee in it.

Extract 4. 20110827_Family_2_820127

1 Katya (( takes the bag of instant coffee (duration 0.3) ))

2 Maria [ ((places a cup before Katya containing boiled water ))

3 Katya [(( opens up the bag of instant [coffee (duration 6.2) ))

4 Maria              [nu vot Ol’ka=

                  PCL PCL Name-DIM

                  So, Olia

5    = ja  kartoshku-ta    [padzha:rila,

    I  potato  PCL baked

    I did bake the potatoes

6 Katya             [ ((takes tea spoon from the table))

7 Maria shias nada, =

     Now need-MOD

     Now {I} need

8     =((brings the spoon to the bag))=

9 Maria ka[pu:staj    zaniaca

     Cabbage-INSTR get busy

     To start with the cabbage

10 Katya [d↑aj   lo:shku       dru[guju  pazhalu(sta)

     Give-IMP spoon-ACC    other-ACC please

     Give me another spoon, please

11    [((looks at the spoon and frowns)) [((puts the spoon back on the table))=

12 Maria =[^lo:shku-  (.) drug↑uju?

     Spoon-ACC   other-ACC

     A spoon? Another one?

13    [((turns her torso towards Katya ))

14    = ((reaches to the drawer with cutlery))=

15 Katya = [uhu:m,

      Uhuh

16 Maria [ ((opens the drawer))

17 Katya [ana v malake: pa  xodu dela  eta

     She in milk  along route business DEM-F

     It looks like this one has been {dipped} in the milk

18    [(( frowns and bends forward to look at the spoon on the table))

19 Maria [ta   da:. v malake:

     DEM-F yes in milk-LOC

     That one, yes, {it’s been dipped} in the milk

20    [((is selecting a spoon from the drawer, duration 5.5 sec))

21    ((gives a teaspoon to Katya ))

22 Katya  [((is putting coffee into her cup with the given spoon))

23    [spasiba

    Thanks

    Thanks

Katya takes up a teaspoon from the table (line 6), but after inspecting it puts it down again while asking, Give me another spoon please (line 10). Maria self-selects in the next turn, indicating that she takes the request to be addressed to her. However, instead of complying with the request (which would be the preferred response), she produces two next-turn repair initiators in quick succession: A spoon? Another one? (line 12). Maria’s repair initiations highlight specific elements of Katya’s turn as troublesome: first the object requested, then the formulation of the request. By repeating drug↑uju?= ‘Another one?’ she draws attention to the fact that Katya already has access to a spoon. By initiating repair, Maria treats Katya’s request for another item when she already has one as departing from common sense and requiring clarification.

Katya responds to the repair initiations with a simple confirmation (line 15), closing the repair sequence and resuming the base sequence. Orienting to the problematic character of her request, she supplements it with a reason (line 17): It looks like this one has been {dipped} in the milk.

Let us make two further observations about this case. First, the reason is formulated as a tentative observation (‘it looks like’), without attributing agency or blame. This no-fault quality (Heritage, 1984) is a known feature of many accounts in conversation and helps participants to avoid threats to social relationships. Still, by drawing attention to a less than spotless cutlery item, Katya potentially blames the host, Maria, for letting a dirty spoon linger on the table. The minimal formulation of the initial request was possibly oriented to this risk of apportioning blame.

Second, the reason is effectively solicited by Maria’s repair initiation (line 12). Explicit reason solicitations (e.g. by asking ‘why?’) are rare in interaction, perhaps because they are not just queries but also on-record suggestions that the behaviour in question does not accord with common sense (Bolden and Robinson, 2011; Garfinkel, 1967; Heritage, 1984; Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1990). The pattern seen here, where a repair initiation is treated as asking for a reason, is typical of the cases in our collection; indeed there are no cases of direct why-questions in our sample.

Another minimally designed request leading to interactional trouble and ultimately the provision of a reason is shown in Extract 5. Vera and Valia are school cleaners having lunch in the staff room together with several other colleagues. Vera proposes to taste the ginger that one of their colleagues brought to work, and Valia agrees with the proposal. Ania, entering the room a moment later, overhears a part of this conversation and tells Valia not to taste it. This request does not get immediate compliance.

Extract 5. 20120120_colleagues_casual_2_661290

1 Vera  [dastat’   imbir’ chto li  paprobavat’ s  su:pam?

    Take out-INF ginger Q-PCL taste-INF  with soup

     Shall {I} take the ginger to taste with the soup?

2     [ ((looks at Valia

3     (0.7)

4 Valia nu:  papro:buj

    PCL taste-IMP-PFV

    Do taste {it}

5    (0.3)

6 Vera khm khm=

7 Valia =ja [vot du:maju no

    I  PCL think-1SG but

    I am thinking {about it} but

8 Ania  [ ((Enters the room and looks at Valia))

9 Valia to:zhe ne [s  chem (0.8) probu-ta  sniat’

    Also NEG with what  sample PCL take

    there’s also nothing (0.8) to taste it with

10      [ (( turns and looks at Ania ))

11    (0.8)

12 Ania ((nods [to Valia))

13 Marina    [kto prinios?

    Who-Q brought

    Who brought {it}?

14    (0.2)

15 Valia imbir’

    ginger

    ginger

16 Olia Evse:ja

    Name

    Evseya

17  (1.1)

18 Ania Val’  ni  pro:buj.

    Name-VOC NEG taste-IMP-IMPFV

    Valia, don’t taste {it}.

19    (0.5)

20 Valia da?

    PCL

    No?

21    (0.8)

22 Ania nu esli tol’ka S  CHE:M-nibut’

    PCL if only with something

    Well, only if it’s WITH SOMEthing

23    (0.6)

24 Vera nu my ja gavariu von s  su:pam

  PCL we I say-1SG PCL with soup

  Well, we I am saying with the soup

25 Ania ^a:::

    INTJ

    Oh

26  bhu: a tak,

    INTJ PCL so

    Yuck, {just} like that

27   (0.6)

28  eta  nipiridava:emye ashiushenia

    It/ this undescribable-PL sensations

    the sensations are indescribable 

29   (0.9)

Ania says, ‘Valia, don’t taste {it}’ (line 18). Valia does not immediately accept the request, but initiates a repair (line 20). In response, Ania modifies the initial request by stating that ginger should only be tasted in combination with something else, implying that the ginger should not be tasted simply on its own. In response to this, Vera explains she proposed to taste it with the soup. Then at lines 25–28, Ania provides further justification for her injunction by uttering an exclamation of disgust and saying that ginger might bring sensations that are indescribably.

Like before, the original request is minimal and comes out of the blue: it is Vera’s first verbal contribution to the interaction. It is not immediately complied with, instead resulting in a repair sequence followed by the provision of a reason. So here again, we see that repair can be treated as a request for a reason (see also Robinson and Bolden 2010), and a reason can help to make the initial request more intelligible. Instructing someone not to perform a planned activity implies that this activity is somehow problematic. In a situation like this, the requester claims deontic authority over recipient’s actions, which has to be justified. One way to justify this is by claiming epistemic authority over the subject matter, in this case the qualities of ginger and how it is to be tasted.

The following extract illustrates another request that intervenes with recipients’ ongoing behaviour. The interaction involves Tanya, her husband and their son visiting their relatives. Just prior to the target sequence, a proposal by the hostess to have some tea has been met with a counter-proposal by Tanya: ‘well, we need to go’. Family member Lida goes out to the sauna, where some other relatives are lingering, ‘to ask what they are up to there’. Meanwhile, Tanya starts dressing her son, a visible sign of her commitment to leaving. Extract 6 starts when Lida returns and issues a bald on-record request to the guests:

Extract 6. 20120202_cooking_3_184770

1 Lida sadite’s  i ch- i eta=

    Sit-IMP-IMPFV-PL and  and PCL

    Sit down and te- and well

2    =i pejte  chaj

    and drink-IMP-IMPFV-PL tea

    and drink tea

3    (1.1) ((The host looks at Lida, Tanya continues to dress her child))

4    ani  eshio minut   pitnacat’ [budut

    They else  minute-GEN fifteen will be

    They’ll {only} take 15 more minutes

5 Host   [da xot’ dva:tsat’

      PCL least twenty

      Well even {if it’s} twenty {minutes}

6    pri chiom zdes’ chaj=

    At what-Q here tea

     h this

7    =[ani sami-

    they selves

    they themselves-

8 Lida  [^a  chio  gavarit  my do:lgda,=

    PCL what-Q say-3SG we long

    Why, {she} says, {have} we {been here too} long?

9   =ja gavariu nichio ni  dolga=

    I say-1SG nothing NEG long

    I said no, not {too} long

10  =prosta Taniusha  sabralasia a  eta nu la:dna

    simply Tanya-DIM got ready PCL PCL PCL all right

    {It’s} just {that} Tanya got ready {to go}, well it’s all right

Lida issues a request to ‘sit down and te- and well, and drink tea’ (lines 1–2). Recall that requests without reasons usually fit the activity in which they are produced. In contrast, Lida’s request here goes against the activity that is currently taking place. Lida requests that Tanya and her husband sit down and have a cup of tea, while they have just rejected a tea offer from the hostess and are already dressing their young child for cold weather. In this context, complying with the request would require the couple to undress their child and go home later than they had stated. Lida’s request encroaches upon the recipients’ deontic authority (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2012) and proposes a course of action that is at variance with the visible commitment of Tanya and her family. ²

A pause at the transition relevance place (line 3) provides an opportunity for the recipients to respond, but no response follows; instead, Tanya continues dressing the boy, and the hosts turn their gaze towards Lida. Following the noticeable absence of a response, Lida now shares information that can be construed as a reason behind the request: ‘They’ll {only} take 15 more minutes’, referring to the people in the sauna (see also Robinson and Bolden 2010 on how refraining from talking at a transition relevance place can function as a tacit reason solicitation strategy). Mentioning these people and the small amount of time it will take for them to re-join the social encounter has the effect of reformulating the requested action: it is not about having tea, but waiting briefly until the others can join. This is made even clearer by the exchange that follows: the host asks what the tea has got to do with it (line 6), and Lida reports telling the people in the sauna that ‘Tanya got ready {to go}’ (line 10), thus aligning herself with Tanya’s visible commitment to leaving while also indicating the desirability of making sure Tanya won’t have left before the sauna-goers get back. Lida’s contributions following the unsuccessful request amount to a reason that makes clear how this request fits into the ongoing activity and that validates meddling into Tanya’s affairs. The reason makes the request more comprehensible to the recipients, increasing the likelihood of compliance (Davidson, 1984; Pomerantz, 1984; Wootton, 1981).

Occasionally, requests evoke implicatures that may need to be cancelled or reinforced. Such implicatures may concern requests’ ancillary actions such as complaining, joking or rebuking (Grice, 1975; Levinson, 1983: 186). The following extract demonstrates how a reason makes the non-serious character of the request clearer. The interaction is between several school cleaners who are having dinner together. Anna is having soup with some bread and Alifa is taking a soup bowl from the closet behind Anna. Alifa makes a request for Anna to serve her some soup:

Extract 7. 201220120_colleagues_casual_2_498040

1 Alifa  ((takes a bowl from the closet and puts it on the table next to Anna))=

2 Anna  =[loshku ( )

      spoon-ACC

      a spoon ( )

3 Alifa [Anna- Anna Batkiyevna,

      Name Name Patronymic ((non-serious))

      Anna- Anna the daughter of a father

4 Anna   aye:

      INTJ

      hey

5      (0.3)

6 Alifa pazhalsta nakla:dyvajte  mneh

      please  put-IMP-IMPFV-PL I-DAT

      You may do {some} serving for me please

7    (0.4)

8 Vera   khahahm[hmhm

      ((laughter))

9 (Marina)    [ (Ret’)kiyevna

        Patronymic ((non-serious))

        Daughter of the (radish)

10 Anna [((puts her loaf of bread on the table))

11    [h.hehehe

     ((laughter))

12    (0.5)

13 Anna  ((takes Alifa’s bowl from the table))=

14 Alifa  =[ty  zhe po:var u  na[s

    You-SG PCL chef with us

    You are our chef here

15 Anna [((stands up and starts serving the soup))

16 Anna       [eta to:chna

It            exactly

            Exactly

Alifa’s request at lines 3–6 is formulated in a non-serious manner. A jokey person reference Anna Bat’kiyevna starts the request sequence. The word Bat’kiyevna has the format of a Russian female patronymic, ³ but it is clearly a non-serious one. It is based on the archaic Russian word for father – bat’ka – with a female patronymic ending –evna. Furthermore, Alifa is addressing Anna with the polite plural you (line 6). This is consistent with the use of the patronymic, which is in general not used with a singular you. It is, however, in contrast with the singular you that Alifa uses later at line 14. This suggests that Alifa is acting as if there is a status difference between her and Anna, but she is also making clear that it is only pretense.

The request contains one more feature that contributes to its non-serious character. Alifa makes use of imperfective imperative nakladyvajte (put/serve at line 6) as opposed to its perfective version nalazhite. Such imperfective imperatives can be used for expressing permission (Benacchio, 2002; Timberlake, 2004), giving rise to the translation ‘you may …’. Along with the patronymic person reference, this formal, almost pompous-sounding formulation contributes to the non-serious nature of the request.

Vera and Marina immediately respond with laughter to this designedly overwrought request. However, Anna, the main target of the request, provides only a minimal response – a smile. As the women do not face each other, it is unlikely that Alifa sees this. Alifa may also not have seen that Anna put down the loaf of bread she was eating and took up Alifa’s bowl. To pursue compliance and appreciation of the joke, Alifa provides a reason for it: you are our chef here. This reason explains recipient selection implying that it is Anna’s duty as a chef to serve the soup. Attributing to Anna the role of a chef (evoking scenes of a restaurant or a canteen) helps underline the non-serious nature of the earlier request. Far from being an actual chef, Anna only happened to have made this particular soup for everyone to eat. By invoking the role of a chef, the reason emphasises the non-serious character of the request while acknowledging Anna’s efforts in making the soup.

A similar use of a reason is illustrated in Extract 8. This extract introduces Maria and her adult daughter Katya. Maria requests that Katya feeds her son and supports her request with a reason.

Extract 8. 20110827_Family_2_755320

1 Maria NET. NU ON KUSH- ON KUSHAT’ -TA ^BUDIT SIODNE

    No PCL he eat-  he eat-INF  PCL will-3G  today

    NO, HE EA-, WILL HE EAT TODAY?

2 Katya on ni  pridiot    siuda ja tibe     gavariu=

    He NEG come-FUT-3SG here I you-SG-DAT say-1SG

    He won’t come here, I’m telling you

3    =eta nada  s  tarelkaj   idti  tuda:

    It need-MOD with plate-INSTR go-INF there

    {I} need to go there with the plate

4    i  kar[mit’ evo

    And feed-INF him

    and feed him

5 Maria [znachit idi     tuda i  karmi,

    So  go-IMPFV-IMP there and feed-IMP-IMPFV

    So go there and feed {him}

6 Katya (( looks away ))

7 Maria chio.

    What-Q

    What

8    (0.6)

9    nalivaj   chaj pej  i idi  tuda:

    Pour-IMP-IMPFV tea drink-IMP-IMPFV and go-IMP-IMPFV there

    Make tea, drink {it} and go there

10    (1.2)

11   a  to,

    PCL PCL

    Because

12    (0.3)

13    kto-ta   vystual  shto ribionak galodnyj,

     Somebody performed that child  hungry

     Someone whined that {her} child is hungry

14    celymi    dniami utram i vechiram

      Entire-INSTR-PL days  in morning and in evening

    all day in the morning and night

15    (0.9)

16 Katya no vot tut ^utram  von shias vot my fst^ali

    But PCL here in morning PCL now PCL we woke up-PL

    Well, when we woke up this morning here

17    on u minia xarasho:  pakushal

    He with I-GEN good-ADV ate-PFV

    He ate well with me

18    (0.8)

19   to est’ on (.) ^utram=

    That is  he  in morning

    So he (.) in the morning

20 Maria =eta on uzhe znaet shto zave:dama=

    It he already knows that in advance

    So he already knows in advance

21  =shto evo   tol’ka [v(h)e:chiram nak(h)ormiat

    That hi-ACC only in evening  feed-FUT-3SG

    That he’ll be fed only in the evening

22 Katya          [ha

      laughter

      ((laughter))

The extract starts with an exaggerated question by Maria, who expresses her amazement that her grandson has not had dinner yet by openly wondering whether he will even eat today (line 1). At line 5 Maria requests that Katya goes to the room where the child is and feeds him. Feeding children is the parents’ responsibility. Parents are also the ones who have deontic authority over their children’s actions (Sterponi, 2003; Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2012). Asking a mother to feed her child disregards her authority on this matter. Such a request is therefore potentially delicate.

A response does not immediately follow; instead, Katya looks away (line 6), upon which Maria upgrades the request by making it more specific (lines 7–9) and, after another long silence (line 10), providing a reason. The reason that Maria provides (lines 11–14) refers to Katya’s own previous complaints that her son does not eat properly. This reason does not mitigate the delicate character of the request. On the contrary, it makes the request even more urgent and renders the mother’s behaviour even more problematic. This is consistent with our interpretation of Maria’s request as a rebuke. This interpretation is also supported by Maria’s use of extreme expressions, such as ‘whined’, ‘all day’ and ‘every day and night’, which are also encountered with complaints (Pomerantz, 1986). Katya’s response to the rebuke is disaligning. She resists Maria’s reasoning by stating that her child did eat well in the morning (lines 16–17). This contradicts Maria’s statement that the child did not eat all day. As often happens, the argument is resolved with a joke and laughter (line 22).

We have examined a number of sequences that start out as a minimal request, yet are not followed by immediate compliance like the requests in the previous section. We have seen that in such cases, requesters can upgrade or further specify the request by providing a reason. The reasons serve a range of functions. They may provide background information about the request that was underspecified (Extract 4). They may be addressed to the delicate nature of requests that require recipients to alter an ongoing course of behaviour, explicating why this may be necessary and preserving the relationship between requester and requestee (Extract 5, Extract 6). Or they may explicate ancillary actions that may have been part of the request either by design or by implication (Extract 7, Extract 8). In all cases, the reasons make the requests more ‘palatable’ by adding information, re-specifying the fit to ongoing activities or appealing to authority. As interactionally generated upgrades, these reasons seem designed to pursue compliance.

Request and reason together

So far, we have seen that designedly minimal requests are often followed by immediate compliance (‘Request (no reason)’ section) and that when this is not the case, requesters may pursue compliance by providing a reason (‘Request → Problematic uptake → Reason’ section). Requesters can also forestall potential problems by providing relevant information for their request straightaway. This results in more complexly formatted requests, produced with a reason before problems in uptake become apparent.

Extract 9 illustrates such a case. Several family members are having dinner together on the porch of a country house. One of them, Julia, was also at the table but went outside to take some pictures. She is an honoured guest visiting from abroad. Julia’s uncle, Pavel, was sleeping when she left the table. So, at the beginning of this extract, he is unlikely to be aware of Julia’s whereabouts:

Extract 9. 20110821_ Family_dinner_Country_A2_876874

1 Pavel ((joins the others at the table after being outside))

2    Dozhdik zamarasil    [u vas

    Rain-DIM drizzle-PST-PFV with you-PL

    It has started drizzling in your {village}

3 Lida      [pasmatri, vyjdi   iz-za: ako:li-=

         look-IMP go out-IMP from fen-

         Take a look, go out behind the fen-,

4  = eh eta samae Julia pashla (pa-moemu)   snimat’,

    INTJ PCL PCL Name went (according to me) record-INF

    uh Julia went to take pictures, I think

5    (0.3)

6 Pavel shias (pajdu)

    now will go-1SG

    In a bit (I’ll go)

7    (0.8)

8 Lida [pajdiosh?

    will go-2SG

    You will go?

9 Pavel [((goes towards the door into the house))

10    (19.8)

11 Pavel ((returns to the porch with his jacket on))

12    ((goes outside where he meets Julia))

Lida’s initial formulation is as minimal as others we have seen in the first section: she simple asks Pavel to take a look and go outside. Unlike those earlier minimally formatted requests, however, there are three potentially problematic aspects to this request. First, it does not exhibit a tight fit to the ongoing activity: a gathering around the table does not make relevant a request to go outside. Second, it is underspecified in terms of what action Pavel has to perform: it merely states he has to go outside and take a look. Third, it is potentially problematic to ask Pavel to go outside just after he has joined the others with a remark that it has started drizzling there, which could be construed as a reason to not be outside. These three features – lack of fit to ongoing activity, underspecification of desired action and being at odds with requestee’s projected course of action – are the kind of things that can be obstacles to immediate compliance, as we have seen in the ‘Request → Problematic uptake → Reason’ section.

Lida abandons the final part of her not yet completed request turn and immediately adds, ‘uh Julia went to take pictures, I think’. The link between the request and the reason is established via a rush-through (Couper-Kuhlen, 2012; Schegloff, 1982; Walker, 2010). By self-repairing the initial minimal formulation and adding more information, Lida can be seen to orient to the need to provide a reason for her request in the given context. The reason now connects the request to Julia (the honoured guest) and her being alone outside. By implication, it also links the request to Pavel’s own statement that it is drizzling: not only is Julia outside, she is outside in the rain. This enables Pavel to infer what is to be done, and he verbally commits to compliance (line 6) after which he goes indoors, prompting a request for confirmation by Lida (lines 7–8). After a while, he returns with his jacket on (a visible sign of the need to be sheltered against the rain) and goes outside where he meets Julia. ⁴

Extract 10 features another request immediately followed by a reason. Several co-workers are about to eat the soup that one of them has made. The transcript starts with the participants laughing at Vera, who took a small soup bowl. Vera replies that the size of the bowl is fine for her (line 4). However, at line 11, she makes a request for a bigger bowl:

Extract 10. 20120120_colleagues_casual_2_321790

1 Anna mnoga  ni  pakazhica?   [((laughs))

    A lot-ADV NEG will seem-3SG

    Won’t it be too much? hahaha

2 Vera               [((laughs))

3    (0.4)

4    narma:l’na

    Normal-ADV

    {It’s} all right

5    ((8.2 sec of unrelated talk))

6 Vera ((removes the cover from the soup pan and lays it on the table))

7    (0.9)

8    oj  xa[chu  ja uzhe  e:st’ fsio

    INTJ want-1SG I already eat-INF all

    Oh that’s it, I want to eat already

9    [((puts the ladle into the soup))

10    (1.2)

11  >ladna  Anna davaj      bal’shuju tarelku=

    OK-ADV Name give-IMP-IMPFV big-ACC plate-ACC

    OK, Anna, do give me a big bowl

12  =tut kartoshka takaja krupnaja bliam.<

    Here potato-F such-F large-F INTJ

    The potatoes are so large here, damn

13    (0.3)

14 Anna a  ja i  gavar[iu,-

    PCL I PCL speak-1SG-PRS

    {that’s what} I was saying-

15 Vera ((to others))    [dve shtuki fsivo vlezit=

    Two pieces in total fit-FUT

    only two pieces will fit {in here}

16  =blina ((laughs))

    INTJ

    damn hahahah

17 Anna ^na taku:ju  dat’?

    PCL such-ACC give-INF

    here, shall I give you this one?

18 Vera ^da:a:

    yes

    Yeah

The colleagues make jokes about Vera’s choice of a soup bowl. With an assertion that a smaller bowl is fine for her (line 4), Vera refutes these jokes. Vera’s request for a bigger bowl (lines 11–12), however, contradicts her previous statement. The request is followed by an assessment that can be construed as a reason for needing a bigger bowl: ‘The potatoes are so large here, damn’. After completing the unit containing the request, Vera rushes into the reason, giving the recipient no time to intervene. In addition to this, both the request and the reason follow the same line of pitch declination, linking the two units to each other (Couper-Kuhlen, 2012). By immediately providing a reason for her request, Vera acknowledges the lack of sequential fit for her request and forestalls potential comments from her colleagues. When Anna responds at line 14, Vera overlaps with her turn, upgrading her reason by noting that only two potato pieces would fit into the small bowl. Vera’s reason, provided with a swear word and upgraded with the claim that at most two pieces would fit in the small bowl, amounts to an extreme case formulation, a format well known for its interactional use in proposing causes and legitimising claims (Pomerantz, 1986). The final laughter particles appended to it may invite an interpretation of the extreme formulation as ironic (Edwards, 2000). Anna responds to the request and reason by offering another bowl (line 17).

The following extract features a request that aims to alter the course of the recipient’s ongoing behaviour and is not well-fitted to the ongoing activity. The requester packages her request with a reason. The extract starts with Olia entering the kitchen, where her mother Maria and sister Katya are sitting.

Extract 11. 20110827_Family_2_545980

1 Olia [((Enters the kitchen))

2    [chaj (ili) kofe

    tea or coffee

    tea or coffee

3    (0.2)

4 Maria NO:GI  moj

    Legs/feet wash-IMP-IMPFV

    wash {your} FEET

5    (0.4)

6    kofe ej [( )

    coffee she-DAT

    coffee for her ( )

7 Katya   [(mam) tam-

      mom there

      (Mom) there-

8    [((touches Maria’s arm))

9  ((points [with her finger towards the kitchen counter))

10    [Maria Marianna ⁵

    Name

    Maria Marianna

11  (0.9)

12 Katya O:l’ka  nalej iz  fil’tra tam dalzhno setavat’

    Olia-DIM pour from filter there must  verb-PFV-INF ⁶

    Olia, pour there for me from the filter it should be already done.

13   [nu i  vo:t,

    PCL and PCL

    So

14 Olia [((stands next to the camera))

15   [^a minia zdes’ ni  vi:dna. Hahaha ((=laugheter))

    PCL I-GEN here NEG visible-ADV

    {You} cannot see me here haha

16 Maria ^da ^O[:l’

    PCL Name-VOC

    {Come on} Olia

17 Katya [s- skazhi  mne ja tibe     tozhe  sk[azhu

    Say-IMP I-DAT I you-SG-DAT also will say-1SG

    Tell me and I will tell you

18 Maria        [m-

19    ((points to something off camera))

20            [m

21    [((points to something off camera))

22 Olia  [(adnoj) mne kofe ( )

    Alone-DAT I-DAT coffee

    coffee (just) for me ( )

23    (0.6)

24 Maria [chitaj.     eta  nikuda  daliko ni  pajdiot

    read-IMP-IMPFV DEM nowhere far  NEG will go-3SG

    Read {it}. This will not go anywhere

25   [((points in the same direction off camera))

26    (0.8)

27 Olia  [nu i  chio?

    PCL and what

    And then?

28   [((takes a cup from the table))

29  zvani:t  ana tibe.

    call-3SG she you-DAT

    she calls you

30  (29.3 of unrelated talk)

31 Olia ((takes the informed consent form and reads it))

Starting from line 18, Maria produces an interjection m (lines 18 and 20) and a pointing gesture (lines 19 and 21) towards something off camera, which the later interaction reveals to be an informed consent form. At the same time, Olia says ‘coffee (just) for me’. Finally, Maria verbalises her request that Olia ‘read {it}’, stating in the same turn that the activity of coffee drinking will not ‘go anywhere’, implying it will still be possible later on. The link between the request and its reason is also in this case established via a rush-through. Maria’s request interferes with Olia’s ongoing course of action and, by this, invades the area of her deontic authority; additionally, the request departs from the projected activities of pouring water and drinking coffee. The reason serves to provide justification for delaying these activities. Olia does not comply immediately: she takes a cup from the table at line 28 and puts the kettle on. Only after this does she comply with Maria’s request by taking the form and reading it (line 31).

In the following request sequence, Anna is having dinner at the kitchen table. Marina is sitting next to Anna, holding her dog in her arms. Anna requests that Marina lets go of her dog (Extract 12):

Extract 12. 20110807_Family_evening_1_459097

1 Marina ((talking to the dog)) sla:tkaja maja: de-

            Sweet-F my-F

            My sweet gi-

2 Marina [(devachka)

    girl

    (Girl)

3 Anna [nu Marish,   [pusti:    ejo, ja pa-pae:m       spako:jna

    PCL Name-DIM let go-IMP-PFV her I  finish eating-FUT-1SG quietly

    Marisha, let her go, I’ll finish eating in peace

4    [((waves with one hand from left to right))

5    (0.2)

6 Marina ja sh  tibe     nichio, ni  eta.

    I PCL you-SG-DAT nothing NEG PCL

    But I nothing, well

7 Marina ^my sh  tibe     nich^io ni  delaem,

    We PCL you-SG-DAT nothing NEG do-PL

    We aren’t doing anything to you

Marina is involved in playing with her dog at the table (lines 1–2). Anna’s request that she lets go of the dog interrupts this activity. It also directly interferes with Marina’s deontic authority. Furthermore, given the special relationship between dogs and their owners (which does not extend to non-owners), an intervention in this relationship is a delicate matter. Packaged with Anna’s request is the statement ‘I’ll finish eating in peace’. The request and the reason are delivered as one prosodic unit. The juxtaposition of request and reason implies that finishing dinner in peace is incompatible with the presence of the dog at the table. Marina orients to this negative implication with her response, stating that she and her dog ‘aren’t doing anything to you’. Thus, she resists the request-plus-reason with a counter-reason of her own.

The requests we have seen in this section differ considerably from the straightforward, minimal requests discussed earlier. They go against the expectations set by the previous sequence or the current activity that the participants are involved in, or they include requests that can be called delicate because the requesters intervene with recipients’ freedom to act upon their own wishes. The added reasons orient to this potential problem by providing grounds for such an intrusion. It explains, for instance, that recipient’s actions harm the requester, that the recipient will benefit from compliance, that the recipient can complete his/her own project after having complied with the request and so on.

As discussed earlier, a request might perform additional actions besides requesting alone. An immediate reason can make these actions explicit. We will illustrate this with two examples.

In Extract 13, participants are family members who are about to read an informed consent form. Fyodor and Nina are husband and wife who are both severely visually impaired. Vera is Nina’s sister. She can read with her reading glasses on, but they are elsewhere in the house. The conversational environment preceding the request sequence can be characterised as non-serious. Fyodor advises Vera to sign the form without reading it and supports it with various jokey arguments.

Extract 13. 20110816_Sisters_A_1_188525

1 Vera ne:t prosta intiresna    pachit(at’)

    No just  interesting-ADV read-(INF)

    No, {it’s} just interesting to read

2    (0.4)

3 Fyodor ((reads out loud)) <sagla:sin ucha:stvavat’  e::h [u:hm>

      agreed-M participate-INF

      {I} agree to participate eh uhm

4 Vera        [nu chitaj.=

            PCL read-IMP-IMPFV

            Do read

5 Vera =ty  vot v achkax chitaj.=

     You-SG PCL in glasses read-IMP-IMPFV

    You’re wearing glasses, {so} read

6 Fyodor =AHA:

    INTJ

    UHUH

7    (0.2)

8 Nina a:  [vot Julia

    PCL DEM Name

    Julia (here)

9 Fyodar  [a: ja paetamu i  v achkax-ta  tolkam [( )

     PCL I therefore and in glasses-PCL properly

     That’s why I’m wearing glasses, {I} properly ( )

10 Nina                    [^chitaj  Julia da i  fsio

                      Read-IMP Name PCL and all

                      Read, Julia, and that’s it

Fyodor is reading the form out loud (line 3). His difficulties in doing it are expressed by his relatively slow reading rate and stretching of the vowels. Right after his reading becomes disfluent and results in e::h, Vera makes her request: Do read (at line 4). By this, Vera is appointing him to continue reading the form out loud for everyone. In the light of Fyodor’s recently displayed difficulties reading the form along with the public knowledge of his visual impairment, Vera’s request can be interpreted as disregarding his health problems. This makes the request delicate and potentially harmful for Vera’s and Fyodor’s relationship. She immediately rushes into a reason explaining why she selected Fyodor for the task: You’re wearing glasses, {so} read. This implies that with his glasses on Fyodor should be able to read the form. This reason is, however, problematic. Fyodor has trouble reading even with his glasses on, as evident from line 3. Recordings also reveal that Fyodor never removes his glasses and even then he has difficulties navigating his surroundings. This leads to our conclusion that the request is not a serious one and does not prefer compliance in response. Considering conversational context preceding the request sequence, it is possible that Vera is taking back on Fyodor’s jokey suggestion that Vera signs the form without even reading it.

Fyodor responds to Vera’s request with an exclamation UHUH (line 6). He then attempts to rebut her request by saying that he is wearing glasses for a reason (line 9). Also Fyodor’s wife, Nina, does not orient to Vera’s request as seeking actual compliance from Fyodor. At lines 8 and 10, she proposes that the researcher, Julia, reads the form out loud. In fact, Julia is the only person in the room who is not visually impaired and can read the form.

A reason can also exaggerate a complaint done through a request. This is represented in Extract 14, where several friends are gathered for dinner. Sasha makes a request to the host, Ksenia, to open a window. The extract starts with a conversation between Ksenia and Liusia on an unrelated topic:

Extract 14. 20110813_School_Friends_2_164910

1 Liusia a chio ana u  to:j babushki u  Ivanovoj zhiviot?

     PCL what-Q she with DEM grandmother with Surname lives

     Why is she staying with that grandmother, with Ivanova?

2    (0.5)

3 Ksenia nu u etaj  adna komnata u toj-ta

     PCL with DEM-F one room  with DEM-PCL

     This one has one room and the other

4    (0.2)

5 Ksenia dve ili tri

     Two or three

     Two or three

6    (0.3)

7 Liusia a:  ana to:zhe adna  zhiviot [da?

     INTJ she also alone-F lives  PCL

     Oh she also lives alone, doesn’t she?

8 Sasha              [ty  b[y xot’ =

                  You-SG would at least

                  You’d at least

9 Ksenia   [da.

10 Sasha =akoshki  atkryla (a  t[o) <takaja (.) duxa[ta>,

     Windows-DIM opened-F PCL PCL such   sultriness

     open the windows, (because) it’s so stuffy {in here}

11 Ksenia                [((reaches to the curtians and opens them

12 Ksenia                   [^DA: TY  chio.

                       PCL you-SG what-Q

                       REALLY?

13 Ksenia davaj    atkroju  akno

     Give-IMP-IMPFV open-FUT-1SG window

     Let me open the window

14 Sasha a  chio u  tibia  setki ( )=

     PCL what-Q with you-SG nets

     Why are your screens are ( )

15 Ksenia =((opens the window))

16 Galina ana ni  atkryvaet shto shias eti  arat’ budut

     She NEG open-3SG that now DEM-PL scream be-FUT

     She doesn’t open {it} because those {ones} will start screaming

17    (0.8)

18 Ksenia kto  [ara(l).

     Who-Q scream-(PST)

     Who (was) screaming

19 Galina      [shias ani: budut arat’   DEti  ^nu byvajut (oni)

          Now they be-FUT scream-INF children PCL occur they

          They’ll start screaming now the CHIldren, well they might

A trajectory of falling pitch unites Sasha’s request and its reason (lines 8–10). This request interrupts Ksenia’s ongoing conversation with Galina. This interruption adds to the urgency of the request. The request goes, ‘you’d at least open the windows’. The request already conveys Sasha’s negative evaluation of Ksenia’s failure to open the window by stating that it is the least she could do. The request calls on Ksenia for her failure to act as a proper host. Sasha expands her request with an immediate reason that explicates the complaint – ‘it’s so stuffy {in here}’. Instead of mitigating its delicacy, the reason exaggerates it. As often encountered with complaints, the request and its reason use extreme case formulations as ‘at least’ and ‘such’ (Pomerantz, 1986). In response, Ksenia does more than simply comply with the request. She also acknowledges her failure with an expression of surprise ‘DA TY chio.’ (line 12) and corrects the situation hastily. Orienting to Vera’s complaint, one of the guests defends Ksenia by providing a possible explanation why Ksenia did not open the window in the first place (lines 16 and 19).

To summarise this section, a reason can support a request that is otherwise informationally underspecified (Extracts 9 and 10). A reason can create a link between the request and the preceding sequences in interaction. Occasionally, a request forces the recipient to stop or alter his/her ongoing activity (Extracts 11 and 12). Such requests invade the domain of recipients’ deontic and epistemic authority and with potential implications for the relationship between requester and requestee. Requesters can supplement their requests with a reason that justifies this invasion and pursue compliance. A reason can also explicate a request’s possible ancillary actions (Extracts 13 and 14). Such ancillary actions can, for instance, be joking, rebuking and complaining. Reasons explicating non-serious requests contain information that is not entirely truthful. Reasons for rebukes and complaints exaggerate the complainable matter instead of mitigating it. Such reasons often make use of extreme case formulations.

In terms of design, the cases discussed in this section featured requests packaged together with reasons. These reasons were non-contingently produced. They were tied to the requests via a rush-through and/or by means of prosodic integration (Couper-Kuhlen, 2012). In all cases, the reason followed the request. The types of request mirror the initially unsuccessful requests of the previous section. While those resulted in problems in uptake and the subsequent provision of a reason, here we see no such problems in uptake. Essentially, by providing a reason right away, a requester can help render the request intelligible and increase the chances of immediate compliance.

Reason as pre → Request

So far, we have seen that request sequences can consist of a bare request, a request with an interactionally generated reason or a request and reason produced together. Thus, most of the time, requesters let recipients infer the rationale behind requests, or subsequently supply this rationale, either in response to problems in uptake or in anticipation of such problems.

However, since reasons supply information that makes a request intelligible, it is also possible for them to stand in for a request or, in other words, to serve as a pre-request. Extract 16 starts with Maria taking a seat on the kitchen bench with her back blocking the camera view. Katya points Maria to this problem. Only when Maria does not respond to this problem statement, Katya makes an explicit request for Maria to change her position at the table.

Extract 15. 20110827_Family_2_437830

1 Maria ((to the cat)) [Kir     padvin’sia

           Name cat-VOC move over-IMP

           Kira, move over

2 Maria       [ ((sits down on the kitchen bench next to the cat))

3 Katya       [( )

4    (0.4)

5    ja patom k   kantsu u  nivo zabrala,

    I later towards end from him took away

    Later, towards the end, I took {it} away from him

6    (1.0)

7    e:ta

     PCL

     Well

8    (0.3)

9    ty   naverna [sela v’t kak ras

    You-SG probably sat-F DEM just right

    You’ve probably sat down exactly {there}

10    [((finger pointing towards the camera

11    (0.9)

12    zakrylasia [na stul tuda sadis’

     covered-REFL-F ⁷ on chair there sit

     {It} got obscured, sit on the chair there

13    [((points to the chair))

14    (0.6)

15 Maria ((shifts on the kitchen bench))

The turn in focus are lines 7–9, where Katya produces a statement along with a pointing gesture: ‘Well (0.3) you’ve probably sat down exactly {there}’. This highly underspecified statement draws attention to a potentially problematic state of affairs: Maria has chosen to sit right in front of the camera, blocking the ongoing recording. Participants in interaction do not normally explicitly describe each other’s position, and so this explicit formulation appears designed to make relevant a response from Maria. A response remains noticeably absent (as seen from the silence at the transition relevance place, line 11). Katya then adds more information together with an explicit request: ‘{it} got obscured, sit on the chair there’ (with a pointing gesture). In response, Maria complies, though only partially: instead of taking a seat on the chair, she shifts on the bench, partially uncovering the view of the camera.

The semantic relation between the initial description and the subsequent request is the same as in the cases we have seen before: the reason specifies information that may not be apparent from the request alone. The sequential relation between the two is reversed compared to the earlier cases: here the reason functions as a pre-request, and the request follows only when a response remains noticeably absent (so it is a mirror image of the sequences discussed in ‘Request → Problematic uptake → Reason’ (see also Schegloff, p. 68)). One advantage of a pre-request is that it is defeasible: it is off record and so may mitigate potential face-threatening consequences of a direct request that intervenes with Maria’s deontic authority. The disadvantage is, however, that Maria cannot be held accountable for not complying. When Katya’s reason fails to achieve desired response, she expands on her reason and makes her request explicit at line 12.

Only one request in our collection has shown this sequential structure in which the reason functions as a pre-request. Its relative rarity suggests that other sequential solutions are preferred in the kind of data we study here: practical requests in informal face-to-face interaction, which can receive immediate compliance. It is possible that reasons used as pre-requests are more common in other kinds of contexts (see also Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1990; Parry, 2009; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Waring, 2007).

Request → Compliance → Reason

In some cases, a recipient indicates willingness to comply with a request only to find out that it is missing some crucial information. Then a reason can help to explicate the requested action and resolve problems of understanding.

Several relatives have gathered in Lida’s living room for a memorial dinner. Lida has just poured tea for some guests. She then requests that her daughter Yana, who has just entered the room, brings more boiled water from the kitchen. Yana shows signs of compliance, but a problem arises when she arrives in the kitchen (line 8).

Extract 16. 20120114_memorial_1_198851

1 Lida Yan,

     Name-VOC

     Yana

2    (0.4)

3 Lida prinisi  mne: yeshio: kipitka,

     bring-IMP-PFV me else boiled water-GEN

     bring me more boiled water

4 Yana ((Yana goes off to the kitchen))

5 Lida  i chajnik adin elektricheskij=

      and water kettle one electric

6    =kakoj-nibut’ pastaf’

      some/any put on-IMP

     and put one of the electric kettles on

7    (16.1 of unrelated talk)

8 Yana  ma:m ((from the kitchen))

     Mama-VOC

     Mom

9     (7.8 of unrelated talk)

10 Yana  ma:m ((from the kitchen))

     Mama-VOC

     Mom

11    (0.4)

12 Lida  a?

     INTJ

     Ha?

13 Yana a gde  ty  tut kipitok  nashla?

     PCL where-Q you-SG here boiled water found-PFV-F

     Where did you find boiled water here?

14    (0.4)

15 Lida  kipitok  f cha:jnike

     Boiled water in water kettle

     Boiled water is in the water kettle

16    (0.6)

17 Yana  tam ano chut’-chu::t’

     there it little-ADV

     There’s very little

18 Lida  nu prinisi  zdes’ nam xvatit=

     PCL bring-IMP-PFV here we-DAT be enough-FUT

     Well bring {it}, {it} will be enough here

19    =evo razba:vit’=

     he-ACC dilute-INF

     to dilute it.

20    =a: eletricheskij adin  fkliuchi:

     PCL electric-M-SG one-M-ACC put on-IMP-PFV

     and put one electric {kettle} on.

21 Yana  ((returns from the kitchen and gives the water kettle to Lida))

22 Lida  patamu shta- sli:shkam eta-

  because  too  PCL

     Because it’s too well-

23 Yana  krepkij?

     Strong-M-SG

     Strong?

24    (0.5)

25 Rima  kre:pkij  (.) krasnyj sil’na sil’na KRASNYJ

     stron-M-SG  red-M very very red-M

     Strong (.) very red, very RED.

There are two notable aspects to Lida’s request. First, its formulation suggests that Lida needs a lot of boiled water by asking for the water already available in the water kettle and for more water to be boiled. Second, the request is twofold: bring boiled water and put one of the electric kettles on. As it later becomes clear, these requests have different reasons behind them, but Lida does not make this explicit right away.

Initially, the request does not seem to cause problems on Yana’s side. The first sign of potential trouble is Yana’s summons ‘Mom’ at line 8, repeated at line 10 and responded to with ‘a?’ by Lida. Having secured Lida’s attention, Yana then asks her to specify the location of the boiled water in the kitchen. Lida treats it as an information question by simply telling where the water can be found – in the water kettle (line 15). Yana goes on and specifies the problem: there is only very little water in the kettle. Lida repeats her request at line 18, this time adding a reason: it is just to dilute the tea, which explains why a small amount of water will be enough (lines 18–19).

In the next turn, Lida also repeats her second request to put one of the electric kettles on. By doing this, she makes clear that not all the water is needed to dilute the tea. This implies that the two requests have different rationales behind them. When Yana returns from the kitchen with the water to dilute tea, Lida provides an additional reason justifying her request for a little water – the tea she made for one of the guests was too strong (lines 22). Although, she seems to have trouble finding the right word to describe the tea, which results in the incomplete turn: ‘Because it’s too well-’ Yana had no access to this information before because she entered the room too late to witness the interaction between Lida and the guest. Yana displays her understanding and acceptance of the reason by helping Lida with her word search at line 23.

Note that Lida prefaces the repeated reason at line 22 with a causal connective patamu shta ‘because’. This may be a way to establish a direct link between the reason and the initial request at line 3, repeated at line 18. Reason and request have become sequentially separated from each other by the intervening, second request (line 20) (see also Couper-Kuhlen, 2011). When reason and request are closer to each other, the link between them may be supported by their sequential proximity, the meaning, contextual aspects and prosodic features (Couper-Kuhlen, 2012; Gohl, 2000). Grammatical features may also contribute to the link between requests and their reasons, as they usually match in tense and lexical items in an English sample (Parry, 2013). In our collection, only three reasons were prefaced with a causal connective: patamu shta ‘because’ (Extract 16), and a to ‘because’ (Extract 8) and shtoby ‘so that’ (comes from a request sequence that is not presented in this paper). The broader literature on accounts has also shown that causal connectives are not all that common (Ford, 2005; Heritage, 1988; Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1990; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Waring, 2007); this is likely because request and reason are normally close enough together to be indexically linked without requiring an explicit connective.

The latter case shows that reasons are not merely a device to pursue a response in the absence of one or to avoid anticipatable problems in uptake; they are also employed when compliance is well underway or indeed completed. Even when requestees are willing and able to comply, they may run into an incongruity or ambiguity in the request. Reasons provided after response initiation offer one way to address such incongruities or ambiguities, justifying or clarifying the request post-hoc.

Extract 17 provides another example of a post-compliance reason. Similar to what we saw in Extracts 7 and 8, the request from Extract 17 here is performing an additional action. Inna is making a request for her adult grandson to pour brandy for grandpa as well:

Extract 17. 20110821_Family_dinner_Country_A_2_572060

1 Grandson ((pours brandy for himself and brings the screw cap to the bottle neck))

2 Inna   [de:du.

      grandpa-DAT

      for grandpa.

3 Grandson [((puts the screw cap on the bottle))

4      (0.8) ((Grandson screws the cap on the bottle))

5 Inna   [a  ^dedu.

      PCL grandpa-DAT

      And for grandpa.

6      (0.5) ((Grandson seems to unscrew the cap))

7 Inna   [a  ^dedu.

      PCL grandfather-DAT

      And for grandpa.

8 Grandson [((unscrews the cap from the bottle))

9      (0.4)

10 Grandpa a   dedu    ni  abizatel’na=

      PCL grandpa-DAT NEG necessary-ADV

      And for grandpa it’s not necessary ((places his glass closer to the bottle))

11 Inna   =[HAHAHAHA

12 Grandson [((pours the drink for grandpa))=

13 Inna   =.h sibe   nalil   i la:dna

        Self-DAT poured-M and all right

        you poured {it} for yourself and that’s it

Inna makes her request three times (lines 2, 5 and 7), allowing her grandson little time to comply. She gives a reason for her request at line 13, although compliance was already underway at line 8 and completed at line 12. This reason points to the problematic aspect of the grandson’s behaviour – the fact that he poured brandy for himself without offering his grandfather some as well. This suggests that Inna’s request was aimed at doing more than just getting her grandson to comply: the added reason retrospectively turns it into a rebuke. In this sequential position, the reason’s role is to explicate the ancillary action implied by the request, and thereby justify its formulation and repetition. Grandfather also makes a contribution to Inna’s request by upgrading it to ‘And for grandpa it’s not necessary’ (line 10). At the same time, he places his glass closer to the bottle, which suggests the opposite and implies that his previous statement was ironic. This is also supported by Inna’s laughter at line 11.

To conclude this section, reasons in post-acceptance position can deal with informationally underspecified requests (Extract 16) and with the ancillary actions implied by a request (Extract 17); in both cases, the reason serves as much to clarify as to retrospectively justify the request.