Final remarks on the Window situation

In the first place, it is necessary to repeat that the prescriptive frame involving Prohibition is described in the IF-framework (see Durst-Andersen, 1995) as having Warning as its obedience condi-tions (see [3.2]). This seems to be in line with the overall results of the interlanguage analysis of the Window situation, which demonstrated a high level of agreement between the ENSs, the RESs, and the DESs in that they verbalised Prohibition together with warning. Interestingly, the analysis of the MTD revealed a substantial number of more polite cautions, which I am inclined to construe in terms of Non-necessity (see [3.2] & [3.4]).

Yet, Durst-Andersen’s 2009 account (see [3.4]) is a bit confusing in that it describes the im-perative frame involving Prohibition as being impolite by virtue of having ‘penalty’ as its obedience conditions, which within the present analytical framework comprises impolite orders and threats (see section 3.5.5.3.1.2). None of the respondents participating in the SPTs verbalised Prohibition involv-ing these two subcategories as the speaker’s post-conditions. Even more perplexinvolv-ing is the fact that the same results were achieved in the pilot test, carried out before the final SPTs at Carlsberg, where the respondents similarly warned the hearer about undesired consequences rather than threatening him with a ‘penalty’ (see [4.12] and [4.13]).

Arnsberg and Bentsen’s pilot study from 2009 revealed similar results for the prohibitive situ-ation, where the Danish respondents appeared to prefer Prohibition in combination with warning.

The researchers account for the usage of warning rather than the more impolite ‘penalty’ in terms of the social variable of Power, according to which the speaker with less social power and status opts for

‘masking Prohibition under Warning’ (Arnsberg & Bentsen, 2009:84, my translation).

As far as the findings of both the pilot test and the final SPTs are concerned, I am inclined to construe them in terms of the design of the Window situation based on the deontic frame of Prohi-bition. More specifically, this prohibitive scenario instantiates a situation where the speaker wishes to prevent a certain type of action from happening in the future. In view of this, it therefore seems plau-sible to assume that such situation will involve requests having warnings rather than threats or orders as the obedience conditions. On the other hand, I believe that prohibitive situations where the speaker wishes to stop the activity that is going on at the moment of speaking might exhibit Prohibitions in-volving a ‘penalty’ as the obedience conditions. All in all, there is a need to extend the present analysis of a prohibitive situation where the speaker wishes to prevent a certain type of action from happening in the future to the study of situations where she wishes to stop the activity that is going on at the moment of speaking. If my predictions are valid, Durst-Andersen’s description of the imperative frame involving Prohibition in terms of PROHIBITION—REQUEST—WARNING in [3.2] should be supplemented with another type within the prohibitive imperative frame, namely PROHIBITION—

REQUEST—THREAT/ORDER.

Secondly, the idea that the speaker can take several turns in the pragmatic wheel allows analys-ing communicative events that comprise more than one speech act. However, its weakness is that the boundary between separate turns is not fixed by virtue of the possibility of drawing different border-lines between individual speech acts within one and the same communicative event. Consequently, the analysis of the Window situation presented in the study at hand is only one possible interpretation of the sample.

My third and last point concerns the issue of the inconsistency between the form of a range of imperative constructions, usually initiating a request, and their function within the IF. More specif-ically, the Window sample exhibited a large number of non-negated imperative utterances like Wait / Hang on / Stop, etc. which according to the IF should be analysed in terms of either descriptive Ne-cessity or prescriptive Obligation. Put differently, their non-negated form determines their function, which within the IF-approach can only be Necessity or Obligation (see [3.3]).

The scenario description at hand, however, is based on a different set of conditions that clearly exclude these two readings. It does not seem plausible that the Window situation based on the

imper-ative frame of Prohibition which preserves the world as it is will evoke Necessity or Obligation speech acts, both of which involve a change in the world. On the contrary, I am inclined to construe these non-negated imperatives in terms of Prohibition, i.e. PROHIBITION—REQUEST—WARNING.

This is because prohibitive constructions with the verb, e.g. stop, are claimed to be used in situa-tions where the speaker wants to prevent a state of affairs (see Xrakovskij, 2001:13). On the other hand, both Necessity and Obligation involve threats as their obedience conditions, and this was not found in the present sample. Rather, the sample revealed ample use of warning, which within the IF-approach is only licensed with Prohibition (see [3.2] as well as [3.3] & [3.4] for a more detailed description of the conditions determining the given imperative frames). And yet, warnings differ from threats by lacking the semantic component of ‘penalty’ (see section 3.5.5.3.1.2).

My point here is that there seems to be a lack of consistency between the description of the im-perative frame in question and the actual linguistic realisations. It does not appear to be true that the speaker would issue a Necessity or an Obligation in a situation where the hearer is simply not aware of the danger ensuing from carrying out the act of opening the window (NB: with both Necessity and Obligation, the speaker has to act upon the hearer’s initial disobedience to comply with her request by

‘enforcing’ his obedience).

In sum, the sample presented results that do not support the IF’s claim about the determining role of form in analysing requests. In actual fact, the linkage between a form and a function does not appear to be as straightforward as it is assumed to be. If my analysis is correct, then the prohibitive constructions in [3.3] should include not only negated imperatives but also non-negated imperatives.

By the same token, acts involving Non-necessity (e.g. [45]) should include non-negated imperative constructions like e.g. Watch out, Take care, etc. and caution markers, such as Careful, Caution, Danger, Alert.