Producing gendered parenthood in child health clinics

Nurses’ turns invoke presuppositions of gendered parenthood

The following two extracts illustrate some of the ways in which presuppositions of gendered parenthood are invoked in the nurses’ turns. A typical practice of initiating talk about sharing parental responsibilities in our data is topicalising the father’s role in childcare. In Extract 1, the nurse first topicalises the father’s role in childcare and designs her question to treat the mother’s taking care of the baby as self-evident. Moreover, she normalises the father’s secondary role in childcare. At the beginning of the extract, the nurse and the mother are discussing whether the parents have been able to sleep properly. The mother says in lines 4−6 that during the two weeks (referring to the time the father is on leave, which has been mentioned previously during the encounter) they have been taking turns, with the father being prepared to comfort the baby during the night. We focus on the nurse’s turns in lines 9, 11, 15 and 18, indicated with arrows. (In the extracts, N = public health nurse, M = mother, F = father, B = baby. The first line shows the original in Finnish and the second line the idiomatic translation into English. In the lines on which we are focusing, we also provide a middle line indicating the word order in Finnish. A key to the transcription symbols is given in Appendix 1.)

Extract 1 (ch3, baby 5 months old)

1    ((M is changing the nappy; N is standing next to the baby-care table and F

2    is walking towards it))

3 N:  ((…)) saatte kohtuudella [nukkua että,

((…)) you get to sleep  [reasonably so,

4 M:     [Juu ja nyt varsinki tää pari viikkoa ny (.)

        [Yes and especially now these two weeks now (.)

5    vuorotellen aina ollaan sit niinku vähä siinä (0.3) valmiudessa

      we have been taking turns all the time in like being somewhat (0.3) prepared

6    et toinen on sitte se joka laittaa sitä tuttia tai jotain ja

      so that the other one is then the one who puts in the dummy or something and

7 N:  (Mm,)

8 M:  (nou [see) (-)

      (gets [up) (-)

9 N: →  [Herääk  sääki (.) äänte°lyy.°

      wake.up-Q you-SG.also to.sounds

       [Do you also (.) wake up because of sou°nds ((made by the baby)).° ((gazes at F))

10    (0.4) ((N gazes at F; F’s gaze not visible as the camera is behind his back))

11 N: → Ook sää   [herkkäuni-

     are-Q you-SG a.light.sleep(er)

     Are  you   [a light sleep-

12 F:        [<Emmää [oikeestaan> Kyllä se usein

[<Not  [really> It is in fact often

13 M:           [Ei kauheen (-)

          [ Not very (-)

14 F:  sillai että Mari sitte tönii mua [että (0.3) katos ny että se (0.5)

       so that Mari then pushes me [ so that (0.3) look now he (0.5)

15 N: →       [£Ni(h) heh heh£

       [ £Yeah(h) heh heh£

16 N:  [£Aiva.£

     [ £Right.£

17 M:  [(Inisee)

     [ (Whimpers)

18 N: → £Nii, =[Aika monessa perh(h)eessä se (.) kuvi[o(h) (on nii.)

       £Nii, = [ In quite many famil(h)ies the (.) pat[tern(h) (is like that.)£

19 F:     [Mää     [En mä viime yönäkää sitä kyllä

      [ I          [ I didn’t even last night in fact

20 F:  huomannu että se ähisteli °(että)°

      notice that he was groaning °(so)°

21    (0.6)

22 M:  °(Mm)° (no niin ku) sä nukut sit vähä

       °(Mm)° (well that’s because) you sleep then a little more

23    kauempana sillon (1.4) sillon ku on mun vuoroni heräillä?

       far away when (1.4) when it is my turn to wake up?

24    ((talk about nights continues))

The nurse addresses the question ‘Do you also wake up because of sounds [made by the baby]’ (line 9) to the father by gazing at him (Sacks et al., 1974: 717). This question topicalises the father’s role during the night: although the mother has just stated that they have both been prepared to comfort the baby if he wakes up at night, the question treats the father’s waking up as newsworthy and not self-evident. The question also includes elements that treat the mother’s waking up as self-evident: the nurse emphasises the pronoun ‘you’ referring to the father and uses the clitic ‘-ki’ (translated as ‘also’), and in this way highlights the possibility that not waking up is related only to the father.

The question (line 9) is followed by a 0.4-second silence, indicating a dispreferred answer: the father does not wake up. Accordingly, the nurse reformulates the question (line 11) to make it less accountable for the father by shifting the focus away from his actions and towards a benign characteristic (being a light sleeper). The reformulated question presents a legitimate reason for the father not waking up: he will wake up only if he is a light sleeper.

The nurse’s way of receiving the father’s answer further demonstrates that his secondary role at night is treated as normal. The father reports that the mother wakes him (lines 12 and 14), and the mother confirms this by completing his turn with the verb ‘whimper’ (line 17). The nurse receives the description with the particle nii (lines 15 and 18), which displays recognition of the situation (Sorjonen, 2001: 164). In line 18, she presents the situation under discussion as normal – a typical pattern in other families as well. By laughing in line 15 and using a smiley voice in line 18, the nurse softens the accountability invoked by her question and implies that the division of labour in the family is non-problematic.

In line 19, the father continues to narrate that he had not noticed when the baby had been groaning during the previous night. After this (line 22), the mother initiates an account for the father’s behaviour during the previous night: it was her turn to wake up, and therefore the father was sleeping further away from the baby. Thus, she treats the father’s secondary role as accountable, at least in terms of consistency with her previous description of ‘being prepared’ to take care of the baby.

Extract 2 presents another example of nurses’ ways of invoking presuppositions about gendered parenthood. As in Extract 1, the nurse topicalises the father’s role in childcare with yes/no questions. Further, she treats the mother’s being away from the baby as accountable. Both the father and the mother are on parental leave at the time of this encounter. Before the beginning of the extract, the mother and the nurse have been talking about the possibility of giving the baby some formula or of pumping breast milk. The mother has been breastfeeding the 1-month-old baby, and now she has asked for advice on how to deal with the situation, as she has some (unspecified) plans which mean that she will be away from the baby for a while. We focus on the nurse’s turns in lines 4, 8 and 10−11.

Extract 2 (ch2, baby 1 month old)

1 N:  Mm [(mm)

2 M:    [Voihan sitä testata kyllä sitte [°(kuitenki)°

      [ You can just test it then   [°(anyway)°

3 N:          [Joo,

         [ Yes ,

4 N: → =Isä jää hoitamaan      °sitte [niinkö°

      father stays to.take.care  then so-Q

      =Father stays to take care ((of the baby)) °then [ is it so°

5 F:         [↑Juu,

        [↑Yeah,

6 N:  Joo,

      Yes ,

7   (0.3)

8 N: → Ootteko te   ollu kaksin,

      have-Q  you-PL been by.yourselves

Have you two been alone ,

9     (1.1) ((N gazes at F; M gazes at N; F’s gaze not visible))

10 N: → Jo   sillä lailla että (.) on kahestaan  koto↑na ↑ja (.)

     already that way that  is by.yourselves at.home  and

      Before so that (.) you two are alone at ho↑me ↑and (.)

11  → äiti   £on ollut heh l(h)iikenteessä että?£

     mother has gone.out   so

      the mother £has gone heh ou(h)t so?£

12 F:  [Juu↑:: siis ollaan.  ]

     [ Ye↑::s I mean we have.  ]

13 M:  [No mä oon käyny jossain Sitta]ris[sa ja tommosissa

     [ Well I have been to a super ] ma [ rket and things like that

14 N:         [£Nii,£

         [ £Yes,£

15 M:  mutta (0.2) en mä kauheen pitkiä aikoja et

      but (0.2) I haven’t ((been away)) for very long times as

16 M:  [sitte niinku (.) silleen että ku on syöttäny ni ((…))

     [ then you know (.) like when you have breastfed ((…))

17 N:  [Joo.

     [ Yes.

As in the previous extract, in line 4 the nurse topicalises the father’s role in childcare. The question ‘father stays to take care [of the baby] then is it so’ continues the topic of taking care of the baby when the mother is away by introducing another condition – in addition to feeding the baby – for the mother’s plans. The grammatical design of the question as a yes/no declarative invokes a presupposition (see Heritage, 2010: 47−49) that the father takes care of the baby when the mother is away. However, the presupposition is weakened by the tag niinkö (‘is it so’) and the particle sitte with which the nurse marks the question as an inference from previous talk (Hakulinen et al., 2004, §825). The inference is not, however, drawn directly from the previous discussion, as the parents have not mentioned anything about the father’s actions when the mother is away. Nevertheless, the mother has referred to her, not their, plans, and thus the father’s presence has not been ruled out either. In sum, the question treats the father as a probable carer for the baby while the mother is not present, but it also suggests that this is not self-evident.

The second question from the nurse, ‘Have you two been alone’ (line 8), topicalises the father’s role in childcare more generally. By gazing at the father at the end of the question, the nurse addresses him as the respondent (Sacks et al., 1974: 717). As a yes/no interrogative, the question suggests that it is not self-evident that the father has been alone with the baby so far (see Heritage, 2010: 47−49).

The nurse’s subsequent elaboration of the question treats the mother’s being away from the baby as accountable. The initial question is followed by a long silence (line 9), which indicates that the parents have some difficulty in answering the question. The nurse treats the silence as the result of some trouble in understanding arising from the non-specificity of her question, clarifying it with an utterance that is, grammatically, a fluent continuation of her question (lines 10−11). The nurse clarifies that ‘you two alone’ refers to the father and baby staying at home when the mother is away. The nurse’s laughter, accompanied by the word liikenteessä (an idiomatic expression for ‘going out’), suggests the delicacy of the issue of the mother being away from her 1-month-old baby (see Haakana, 2001).

Interestingly, the parents orient to the nurse’s elaborated question differently (cf. Heritage and Sefi, 1992: 367). The father answers the question only after the nurse’s clarification, and his answer ‘Yes I mean we have’ (line 12) displays an understanding of the referents of the question. The mother orients to the delicacy of being away from the baby by explaining that she has only been to a supermarket and not for long. She also points out that she takes care of the baby’s needs before going to the supermarket by acknowledging that she breastfeeds the baby first (line 16). (Her account is not given in full in the extract.)

The previous two extracts illustrate the ways in which nurses’ turns invoke presuppositions of gendered parenthood. In both extracts, the nurse topicalises the father’s role in childcare with yes/no questions. The recurrent practice in our data of topicalising the father’s role and the way in which these questions are designed suggest that childcare by fathers is treated as possible and appropriate, but not as self-evident as childcare carried out by mothers.

Parents upgrade the gendered presuppositions

Next, we turn our focus to cases in which parents upgrade the gendered presuppositions invoked by nurses. A detailed analysis of parents’ responses highlights a recurrent pattern in the data: mothers treat fathers’ answers to nurses’ questions, and nurses’ topicalising turns addressed to fathers, as inadequate by elaborating on the topic at issue (cf. Stivers and Heritage, 2001: 158−161). In their elaborations, mothers may highlight fathers’ secondary role in childcare. Extract 3 illustrates one such case, and here the mother even starts to answer on behalf of the father.

Before the start of Extract 3, the mother first answered the nurse’s opening question by talking at length about problems such as tiredness, and then changed the topic by describing how the 1-month-old baby slept for a three-hour period during the previous night. In lines 3−4, the nurse initiates talk about the father’s role in childcare. We focus on the mother’s answer in lines 6 and 8−9.

Extract 3 (ch7, baby 1 month old)

1 M:  Et iha hyvihän se meni.

     So it went quite well after all.

2    (0.2)

3 N:  Ja sä (oot) (.) pystyny myös olee

         And you (have) (.) also been able to take part in

4 N:   [(1.0)      [täs (.) hoitamises [mukana,

      [ (1.0) ((gazes at F, nods))   [ this (.) caring ,

5  [((M gazes at F/B, nods; F’s face is not visible))

6 M: →        [hh ((smiles))  [  O:[n (vi-)

        has (last)

       [He ha:[s (las-)

7 F:               [@↑Juu,@

              [@↑Yes,@

8 M: → Viime yönä Petri (0.2) hoisi hyvin kyllä.

     last  night Name   took.care well indeed

Last night Petri (0.2) took good care ((of the baby)) indeed.

9  → =(Sää/Se:) (.) molemmilla kerroilla nosti >pystyyn ku<

      you/he both  times  he.picked up when

      =(You/He:) (.) both times picked the baby >up when<

10    .h sitä siis on että tota .hhmt syönnin jälkeen se on pakko nostaa pystyy,

      .h that there is that you know .hhmt after eating she has to be picked up ,

In this extract, we see a question from the nurse (lines 3−4) that includes some of the ways of invoking gendered presuppositions discussed in the previous section: the nurse topicalises the father’s role in childcare with a yes/no declarative, which implies a presupposition (see Heritage, 2010: 47−49) that the father has been able to participate in taking care of the baby. Although the father’s role has not been mentioned during the previous discussion, he confirms some of the reporting by the mother, and the mother gazes at the father while describing the previous night. These actions by the parents suggest that the father has at least some epistemic access (Heritage and Raymond, 2005) to the topic at issue. Thus, the question suggests that the father’s role in childcare is at some level expected, although not self-evident. The question addresses his role in childcare at a very basic level – not his feelings and thoughts about everyday life with a newborn, or about combining paid work and family life, but his ability to participate in childcare, highlighted by the verb ‘take part in’ combined with the modal verb ‘be able to’.

Our main focus is on the mother’s answer to the question. She begins to answer verbally before the father does by repeting the verb of the question (line 6), which suggests that new information is provided in the answer (Sorjonen, 2001: 72). As the mother has already confirmed the presupposition before the father begins to answer, an adequate response from him is to confirm her answer. Slightly after the mother, he does so with the response particle juu (line 7).

In addition to confirming the presupposition in the question on the father’s behalf, the mother gazes at him and goes on to give a more detailed description of the situation in which he has participated in childcare. She uses his name and the third person when describing his actions (lines 8−9), ¹ and in this way she addresses her talk to the nurse, although at the same time she is gazing towards the father and the baby, who is on his lap. The mother assesses the father’s behaviour during the night before, thus changing the time frame offered by the nurse. Further, there is no indication in the mother’s turn of the father’s caring being repeated on other occasions. This implies that she only partly agrees with the presupposition invoked by the nurse’s question. This is reinforced by the turn’s final particle kyllä (line 8), which seeks to convince the recipient (Hakulinen, 2001b: 192−193). Stating explicitly that the father does not participate would be problematic for the family, as the institution encourages fathers to participate in childcare. Highlighting the father’s active role therefore presents the family in a positive light, but consequently the mother sets herself up as the representative of the family who is also accountable to the nurse for their childcare arrangements. Overall, on the one hand, the mother’s positive assessment produces an image of the father as a competent carer − at least in terms of the previous night. On the other hand, it positions the father as the object of an assessment, and the mother as the competent expert who is able to assess whether the father takes care of the baby correctly and sufficiently.

Parents show orientation to gendered presuppositions not invoked by nurses

So far, we have presented cases in which the gendered presuppositions are invoked by the nurse. In some cases, however, the parents may invoke the gendered presuppositions themselves: they may describe that they are sharing childcare responsibilities but refer to this activity in a way that implies orientation to the gendered presuppositions. One such case is illustrated by the following extract, in which the mother states that she does not have as much knowledge as the father about the issue the nurse has asked about; however, instead of simply letting the father answer, she accounts for her unknowing status. In Extract 4, the nurse and parents are standing around the baby-care table, and the nurse is examining the baby. She has undressed the baby and is just taking the nappy off. In line 3, the father initiates the topic of the baby urinating a lot. We focus on the mother’s turns in lines 14 and 17.

Extract 4 (ch2, baby 1 month old)

1    ((N takes the nappy off))

2 N:   @Nii,@

      @Yes,@

3 F:  Pissaa tulee aika hyvi,

         He pees quite a lot ,

4 M:   =£N(h)iin tulee,£

              =£Y(h)es he does,£

5 F:  =Sitä tuntuu

   =It seems

6 N:  No< (0.2) [°se on°

     Well< (0.2) [  °it is°

7 F:      [(että) joka (.) kerta ku vaipan vaihtaa ni on (.)

       [ (that) every (.) time when one changes the nappy there is (.)

8     oikein tosi paljon.

     really a lot.

9 N:  Just.

       Right.

10      (0.2)

11 N:  Joo, =No toisaalta se on (0.3) kertoo siitä että (1.0) (-) maitoo

      Yeah, =Well on the other hand it is (0.3) ((it)) shows that (1.0) (-) (there is) milk

12     (on iha) >riittävästi.< Kuinkas useesti hän kakkaa,

         (quite) >enough.< How often does he poo ,

13    (1.8)((N gazes at the baby; M & F turn to gaze at each other at the same time))

14 M: → Voi [voi,

     oh oh

     Oh [ dear

15 F:    [No<

       [ Well<

16    (0.6) ((N gazes at the baby; M & F gaze at each other))

17 M: → Sä vaihdat vaippaa (enemmä) (.) Sano   [£s(h)ää£

     you change nappy more   say  you

      You change the nappy (more) (.) £Y(h)ou£ [ tell

18 F:       [N:o mitähän mä ny

         [ We:ll what should I

19  sanosin =Kerran päivässä,

       say =Once a day ,

20    (0.3)

21 F:  Nyt aina[kin että,

     Now at[ least so ,

22 M:     [Nii,

       [ Yeah ,

23 N:  =Nii. (.) Että vielä kuitenki.

   =Right. (.) So still ((that often)) nevertheless.

In line 12, the nurse asks a follow-up question related to the baby’s bowel movements. The question is designed in such a way that either of the parents might answer it. While asking the question and afterwards, the nurse gazes at the baby on the baby-care table; thus, the direction of her gaze is neutral in the sense that it does not address either of the parents as the principal respondent (Tiitinen and Ruusuvuori, 2012).

We focus on the mother’s response, in which she treats her own lack of knowledge as problematic – although the nurse has not addressed the question particularly to her − and states that the father knows the answer. During the gap following the nurse’s question, the parents turn to gaze at each other, and they both start to answer almost at the same time, in lines 14 and 15. The father begins his answer with ‘well’, which might initiate an answer to the question, whereas the mother treats her own inability to answer the question as problematic by saying ‘oh dear’. The father stops his answer short and the parents gaze at each other in silence for a while (line 16). The nurse is still looking at the baby, and thus is not addressing either of the parents at this point either. The mother initiates an account, explaining why she does not know the answer and why the father should answer (line 17). She also explicitly addresses the father as the more eligible respondent, and suggests the delicacy of this by laughing slightly during the word ‘you’, which refers to him (see Haakana, 2001). In sum, in this extract the nurse poses a neutral question that either of the parents might answer, and the mother shows orientation to the gendered presupposition that the mother should know about issues related to childcare – although, at the same time, she suggests that the parents are indeed sharing childcare responsibilities.

Parents undermine gendered presuppositions

There are several cases in the data in which the parents undermine gendered presuppositions invoked in the nurses’ turns. For example, in Extract 5 the father treats the nurses’ questions about his participation in childcare as presupposing something that is self-evident.

In Extract 5, the father has just finished dressing the baby and has handed him over to the mother, who is sitting near the nurse’s desk. The father is walking away from the baby-care table towards the waste bin, a used nappy in his hand. The nurse has been making notes of the measurements. As the father is passing her desk, she finishes writing, lies back on her chair, gazes at him and asks him a question (line 2).

Extract 5 (ch5, baby 1 month old)

1 M:   ££Meinaako  [hermostu-

      Are you about to [ get nervo- ((about the grizzling baby))

2 N: →    [Ootkos  sää  ollu kaksin (0.3)

       have-Q  you-SG been by.yourselves

       [ Have you been alone (0.3) ((N & F gaze at each other))

3    .hh pienen miehen °kanssa [(vielä)°

      little man  with  yet

      .hh with the little °man   [ >(yet)°

4 F: →         [Jo↑o: ↓>(me) olimme tossa ku<

          yes   we were  there when

         [ Ye↑:s ↓>(we) were there when<

5    (0.3) ((F puts the nappy into the waste bin))

6 M:  Yhen kerra £heh  [heh he he he he£

      Once    £heh  [heh he he he he£

7 F:      [Yhen kerran me oltiin [(sillo)

       [Once    we were [(then)

8 M:         [£Kaks kertaa he [he he he heh£ ]

         [ £Twice he [he he he heh£ ]

9 F:         [Kaks kertaa ol]laan

[            [Twice we ha ]ve been

10    oltu ihan kahestaan [että

      just the two of us  [so

11 N:      [Joo,

       [ Yeah ,

12 N: → Ootte pär°jänny.°

     you-PL.have managed

      You have ma°naged.°

13 F: → [Ju↑u: [↓me: tullaan hyvin juttuun [°ei meillä mitää,°

     yes   we get  fine along not we.have nothing

     [ Ye↑:s [↓we: get along fine   [ °we have nothing,°

14 B:   [yy

15 M:   [(–)

16 N:      [Joo,

        [ Yeah ,

17 N: £Nii [siltä se näyttääki [et(h)tä£

      £Yeah [ it looks like it  [ tha(h)t£

18 F:   [Toine oli   [Nii: ei [meillä =Meillä on ((…))

       [ The other was  [ Yea:h [ we have no =We have ((…))

19 N:          [£.Joo£

           [ £.Yeah£

In this extract, the nurse poses two questions (in lines 2−3 and 12) addressed to the father, topicalising his participation and thus treating it as not self-evident. The father’s answers, on the other hand, share elements that suggest an orientation to the questions as presupposing something self-evident. His answers are immediate, provide confirmation rather than affirmation (see below) and have a marked intonation.

In line 4, the father answers without delay, overlapping with the question. An agreeing minimal response to a yes/no interrogative, like that in lines 2−3, can be given in two basic ways in Finnish: by repeating the verb, or by using the response particle joo (Hakulinen, 2001a; Sorjonen, 2001: 37−56; see Heritage and Raymond (2012) and Raymond (2003) for responses to polar questions in English). Repeating the verb would offer an affirmation, that is, it would suggest that new information is provided in the answer (Sorjonen, 2001: 37). The father’s answer, however, begins with joo, and in this way suggests a confirmation rather than an affirmation, that is, the answer does not provide new information (Sorjonen, 2001: 45−53). A marked prosody in the response is in line with these lexical and sequential features, conveying that no new information is provided: the intonation figure of the answer is first a low tone, then a high tone towards the end of joo (marked with an upwards arrow), and then again a lower tone at the beginning of ‘(we)’ (marked with a downwards arrow). Ogden et al. (2004) have demonstrated that this kind of stylised figure in Finnish marks as obvious something that has previously been said (in this case, the question).

The same intonation figure is observable in the answer (line 13) to the later question. After the confirming response particle juu, the father says ‘we get along fine’, which is an upgraded version of what was presupposed in the question (see also Stivers and Hayashi, 2010). ‘Getting along fine’ implies that the father has a relationship with his son; he is not merely surviving/managing with him. He also uses the present tense, which highlights an ongoing relationship as opposed to the occasional periods alone with the baby that were the focus of the nurse’s question. Both the stylised intonation figure (line 13) and the upgraded description in the present tense (line 13) show that the father treats the question as presupposing something that is obvious.

By orienting to the questions as enquiring about something that is self-evident, the father undermines the gendered presuppositions embedded in them. The mother, on the other hand, treats the information given by the father as inadequate (as in Extract 3). In lines 6 and 8, she adds the exact number of times the father has been alone with the baby – that is, when she has been away from the baby. She makes sure to note that she has only been away once or twice, thus making herself accountable for her absences and for leaving the father alone with the baby. By laughing at a point where there is no indication of humour, she points to something problematic in the discussion (see Haakana, 2001). Thus, although the father undermines the gendered presuppositions, the mother seems to be reinforcing them.

Nurses presuppose and parents describe shared parenting

Although nurses’ questions are typically designed to presuppose a secondary role for the father, there are cases in which nurses pose questions that invoke presuppositions of shared parenting. Extract 6 is one of these cases. In their responsive turns, the parents also describe that they share childcare responsibilities. One of their 5-week-old twins has just been measured; the mother is putting a nappy on her, and the father is standing and watching next to the baby-care table. The nurse is working on the computer behind the parents.

Extract 6 (ch9, baby twins 5 weeks old)

1 F:  Kyllä se äiskä on hyvä vaihtaa vaipan sulle.

      Mummy is very good at changing your nappy.

2  (1.3)

3 F:  @Nii[:,@

      @Yea [ h:,@

4 N:   [Mm:?

5    (0.4)

6 N: → Onko käsialaeroja    tommosissa perushommissa,

     are-Q handprint.differences in.those.kinds.of in.basic.tasks

      Are there differences in handprints in those kinds of basic tasks ,

7 N: → =Teiän välillä,

      =Between you ,

8    (1.0) ((the parents look down at the babies on the baby-care table))

9 F:  Mi↑tä eroja,

      Differences in what ,

10    (0.6) ((F turns to gaze at N; M continues changing the nappy))

11 N: → Sitä että toinen tekee (0.4) erilailla  [ku toine.

     that that other does   differently than other

      That one does it (0.4) differently    [ to the other .

12 M:           [(En mä oo< en mä oo)

            [ (I haven’t< I haven’t)

13  sillai seurannu että (0.8)

      paid so much attention to that (0.8)

14 F: Ei [varmaan.

      I [ guess not.

15 M:  [että millai sää teet (mut) (0.6) @eipä nää ny kauheesti@ (0.6)

     [ that how you are doing (but) (0.6) @these don’t really that much@ (0.6)

16 F:  Ei kai niissä mitään (eroja).

      I guess there are no (differences).

17  (1.0)

18 M:  Niin ainaka lapset mitenkä protestoi

      Right at least the children aren’t protesting in any way

19 M: [mun mielestä [sitä (että)    [°@(kumpi vaihtaa)@°

     [ I think    [ in terms of     [ °@(who is changing)@°

20 N:  [Mm,

21 F:   [Iha yhtä paljon     [tuottaa (.) soosia tonne.

    [ Exactly the same amount [ of poo is produced (.) there.

22 M?: £eh£

23 N: °£hhhehheh£°

24 F: [£L(h)aadussakaan ei o   [niinku (0.2) eroja.

  [£Even in the quality there aren’t[  ££you know (0.2) differences.£

25 N:       [£.hh eh .hh£

26      (3.4)

27 F:   Vaatehommat mä oon melkein jättäny Eijalle sitte ((…))

         Dressing them I’ve almost left to Eija then ((…))

In line 1, the father positively assesses the mother’s skills at changing the nappy. He addresses the talk to the baby by gazing at her and using the person reference ‘you’, and by referring to his spouse with the category term ‘mummy’. The nurse offers an agreeing response particle (line 4) and asks the question we focus on here. The question ‘Are there differences in handprints in those kinds of basic tasks, =between you’ enquires about the parents’ different ways of performing childcare tasks. As the question focuses on the differences, it presupposes that both parents carry out basic tasks related to childcare. The nurse clarifies her question in line 11, after the father’s repair initiation has marked the word ‘handprint’ as the problem source in the question. The reformulation of the question remains as neutral as the initial question. Referring to ‘one’ and ‘the other’, the question avoids addressing either of the parents as the one whose actions are compared to the baseline set by the other. In addition, the word ‘differently’ invokes no presupposition of hierarchy between the parents’ actions.

Both of the parents treat the question as difficult to answer. The father repeats a negative response with two different particles displaying uncertainty, varmaan and kai, translated here as ‘I guess’ (lines 14 and 16). The mother gives an account of not being able to answer by saying that she has not paid attention to how the father performs the tasks. The mother also gives grounds for her guess that there are no differences by referring to the children’s reactions (line 18). The father joins in this argument and jokes about how to measure the babies’ opinions: they both poo as much and in the same way, regardless of who has changed the nappy. In line 27, the talk about sharing household tasks is continued by the father, who says that he leaves the mother to choose what the babies wear.

The extract illustrates an example of cases in which the nurse and the parents (at least temporarily) co-constitute parenting as shared instead of gendered. The nurse’s question invokes a presupposition that both parents perform tasks related to childcare, and does not refer to either of the parents as principal or secondary. The question also suggests that there might be differences between the parents. This does not necessarily mean that the differences have to be evaluated against each other, but the parents orient to this possibility. The sequential place of the question as topicalising the father’s evaluation of the mother’s skill in changing the nappy might lead to this orientation. Nevertheless, the parents further treat the presupposition of the potential hierarchy in ‘handprints’ as irrelevant by saying that they do not pay attention to each other’s performance, and by joking about it. In this way, they jointly produce themselves as parents who share childcare responsibilities.

Somewhat similar orientation to producing shared parenthood is also observable in several other cases in which parents initiate describing how sharing childcare tasks benefits their everyday life. For example, at the beginning of Extract 1 (before the nurse’s question) the mother explicitly says that they have been taking turns, with the father being prepared to comfort the baby during the night (lines 4−6), as a response to the question of whether the parents have been able to sleep properly.