Cover not available
Part of
Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective
Edited by Kiki Nikiforidou and Mirjam Fried
[Constructional Approaches to Language 38] 2025
► pp. 285–312

Pragmatic and prosodic aspects of the negative directive ðe mu les? (‘tell me’) in Greek conversation

This study examines the pragmatic and prosodic aspects of the Greek negative directive ðe mu les? (neg pn.1sg.gen say.2sg.prs) ‘tell me’ (lit. ‘don’t you tell me?’), bringing together conversation-analytic informed Interactional Linguistics and Construction Grammar, and drawing on naturally occurring data from audio-recorded conversations and telephone calls. It is shown that the negative directive ðe mu les? construction is used as a discourse marker that signals disjunctive topic change and displays specific prosodic properties, which are partly inherited from polar interrogatives and offer frames for the interpretation of the construction in talk-in-interaction. The study enhances our understanding of the ways in which prosody pairs with constructions and contributes to action formation.
Keywords: negative polar interrogative, discourse marker, social action, prosody, Interactional Linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Polar interrogatives in Greek
    • 2.1The structural and semantic/pragmatic profile of ðe mu les?
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.The negative directive ðe mu les?
    • 4.1A question-based discourse marker for managing topic
  • 5.Prosodic aspects of the negative directive construction: Putting the puzzle together
  • 6.What can we conclude?
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (73)
References
Alvanoudi, A. (2018). Ερωτήσεις ολικής άγνοιας στην ελληνική: Μορφές και λειτουργίες [Polar questions: Forms and functions]. In Th.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Ερωτήσεις-απαντήσεις στην προφορική επικοινωνία [Questions and answers in Greek talk-in-interaction] (pp. 35–59). Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar
(2019). ‘May I tell you something?’: When questions do not anticipate responses. Text & Talk, 39(4), 563–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Polar answers and epistemic stance in Greek conversation. Pragmatics, 32(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, A., Ladd, D. R., & Mennen, I. (2006). Phonetic effects of focus and ‘tonal crowding’ in intonation: Evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Communication, 48(6), 667–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Bella, S., & Moser, A. (2018). What’s in a first? The link between impromptu invitations and their responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 96–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Computer program, version 6.1.04. [URL]
Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2017). The evolution of pragmatic markers in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 335–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (1996). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 11–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Introduction: Questions are what they do. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory. Methodology. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10).Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., Levinson, S. C. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 892–898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freese, J., & Maynard, D. W. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27(2), 195–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken interaction: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gras, P., & Elvira-García, W. (2021). The role of intonation in construction grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 232–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011). The construction of emotional involvement in everyday German narratives — interactive uses of ‘dense constructions’. Pragmatics, 21(4), 573–592.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(1), 35–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., Philippaki-Warburton, I., & Spyropoulos, V. (2012). Greek: A comprehensive grammar. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, W. (2015). Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso, & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discoure analysis and natural rhetoric (pp. 11–38). Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
(1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J., & Walker, G. (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(3), 255–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J., Wells, B., & Sebba, M. (1985). Phonology for conversation: Phonetic aspects of turn delimitation in London Jamaican. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2–3), 309–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlidou, Th.-S. (1991). Cooperation and the choice of linguistic means: Some evidence from the use of the subjunctive in Modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(1), 11–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Καταγράφοντας την ελληνική γλώσσα [Making a record of the Greek language]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Th.-S., & Alvanoudi, A. (2023). Polar answers: Accepting proposals in Greek telephone calls. Pragmatics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device.” Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, Ε. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjmanins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhee, S. (2004). From discourse to grammar: Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. In G. Fulton, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS: Forum XXX: Language, Thought and Reality (pp. 413–423). Houston, TX: Lacus.Google Scholar
Riou, M. (2017). The prosody of topic transition in interaction: Pitch register variations. Language and Speech 60(4), 658–678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. (2013). Epistemics, action formation and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 261–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 231–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Prosody in interaction: State of the art. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 3–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2002). On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek. In K. K. Luke, & Th.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls: Unity and diversity of conversational structure across languages and cultures (pp. 49–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2011). Analysing conversation: An introduction to prosody. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzitzilis, Ch. (forthcoming). Balkan and Anatolian Sprachbund. In Ch. Tzitzilis, & G. Papanastasiou (Eds.), Language contact in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
Ward, N. (2019). Prosodic patterns in English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 111–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zellers, M. (2013). Prosodic variation for topic shift and other functions in local contrasts in conversation. Phonetica, 69, 231–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar