Children’s demands for parental action

Authors

  • Catherine L. Tam University of the Witwatersrand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.18054

Keywords:

deontic authority, directives, socialization, parent–child interaction, agency

Abstract

Theory and research on parent–child interaction generally make a priori assumptions of asymmetry in authority between parent and child. Rather than investigating how children exercise autonomy by resisting parental authority, I examine their methods for exercising deontic authority in interaction with their parents. Using conversation analysis and drawing on Stevanovic and Peräkylä’s distinction between deontic status and stance, I analyse video-recorded naturally occurring interactions in which children issue demands to their parents, thus claiming a high deontic stance. Parents may choose to comply and reinforce the claim or not. Domains of deontic authority are (re)negotiated when children pursue compliance; though children can test the boundaries of their authority, parental responses reinforce them, reifying their own authority.

Author Biography

Catherine L. Tam, University of the Witwatersrand

Catherine Tam is a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychology at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. From an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective, her doctoral thesis examines children’s agency in parent–child interaction. She is interested in the interactional mechanisms underpinning asymmetries and inequities in social relations.

References

Butler, C. W. & Edwards, D. (2018). Children’s whining in family interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413893

Corsaro, W. A. (2020). Big ideas from little people: What research with children contributes to social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 83(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272520906412 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272520906412

Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126

Cromdal, J. (2006). Socialization. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition (pp. 462–466). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00353-9

Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613

Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7

Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26(4–5), 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021

Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008

Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920460

Hepburn, A. & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X500791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X500791

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’; and ‘mm hm’. Paper in Linguistics, 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when resp­onding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485

Kidwell, M. (2005). Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate’ the look’ from a’ mere look’ by their adult caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 417–449. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_2

Kidwell, M. (2013). Interaction among children. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 509–532). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch25

Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frame­works for understanding dynamics in parent–child relations. In Handbook of Dynamics in Parent–Child Relations (pp. 3–24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229645.n1

Lerner, G. H. (1998). Completable Projects and Winnable Games: Notes on the Organization of Activity. Paper presented at Center for Language, Interaction and Culture, UCLA.

Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occur­ring social interaction. In D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 283–304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 325–345). New York: Rinehart & Winston.

Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On integrity in inquiry … of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 455–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054402 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054402

Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the naturalecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (pp. 70–96). Oxford: Berg. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003135517-4

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Con­versation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001

Stevanovic, M. & Koski, S. (2018). Intersubjectivity and the domains of social interaction: proposal of a cross-sectional approach. Psychology of Language and Communication, 22(1), 39–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2018-0003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2018-0003

Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260

Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037

Stevanovic, M. & Svennevig, J. (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008

Thompson, S., Fox, B. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154

Waring, H. Z. (2019). Voicing control: A child resource for ‘growing a head taller’. Semiotica, 2019(231), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0011

Waring, H. Z. (2020). Conditional granting in parent–child interaction at mealtimes. Journal of Pragmatics, 167, 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.014

Wootton, A. J. (1981). The management of grantings and rejections by parents in request sequences. Semiotica, 37(1–2), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1981.37.1-2.59 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1981.37.1-2.59

Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519895

Published

2021-08-31

How to Cite

Tam, C. L. . (2021). Children’s demands for parental action. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 5(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.18054