Alternatives to QUD
Alternatives to questions
The paper critically examines some central principles of the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework and ultimately explores the concept of ‘question’, central to QUD-models. It demonstrates how fine-grained, interactionally informed analyses of language-specific categories can reveal building blocks of interaction and explain the sources of the observed information- and discourse-structuring interpretations (such as update, contrast and more). Employing data from Anal Naga (Trans-Himalayan, India), it proceeds to a fine-grained analysis of the notion of ‘question’. The decomposition of ‘questions’ into smaller building blocks similarly reveals how diverse categories and discourse processes can trigger the interpretation of an information request. These findings and additional theoretical arguments suggest that QUD-models are problematic for various reasons: such models are non-parsimonious as they add superfluous extra layers to explain the observations; the explanatory apparatus is circular, as the extra layers are derived from within the explananda but regarded as underlying explanatory factors; and the models gloss over the actual factors by channelling them into cover terms prematurely regarded as primitive. Finally, since ‘question’ does not constitute a primitive concept but is a product of diverse discourse processes, discourse cannot be modelled on this foundation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical problems with QUD
- 2.1Introduction
- 2.2Circularity of implicit QUDs
- 2.3QUD and sentence structure
- 2.4QUD and discourse structure
- 2.5Conclusion
- 3.What makes a question
- 3.1Questions, interrogatives and responsive action
- 3.2Questions in Anal Naga
- 3.2.1Language background and data
- 3.2.2Cooperation-seeking intonation
- 3.2.2.1Phatic usage
- 3.2.2.2Hedged imperatives
- 3.2.2.3Turn-taking
- 3.2.2.4Negotiated discourse structuring
- 3.2.2.5Summary
- 3.2.3Interactional particles
- 3.2.3.1Directive =vo/ve
- 3.2.3.2Tag-markers =no/ne/na
- 3.2.3.3Expectational-epistemic =mo/me
- 3.2.3.4Interactional particles – summary
- 3.2.4‘Wh’-words
- 3.3What makes a question: Ask not how questions construct discourse, ask how inter-action constructs ‘questions’
- 4.Conclusion
- Notes
- Non-standard abbreviations
-
References
References (42)
References
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text & Talk 25 (1). 7–36. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2009. Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with parallel-opposition constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (11). 2271–2294. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beaver, David I., Craige Roberts, Mandy Simons & Judith Tonhauser. 2017. Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics 3 (1). 265–284. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Benz, Anton & Katja Jasinskaja. 2017. Questions under discussion: From sentence to discourse. Discourse Processes 54 (3). 177–186. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2020. Praat (version 6.1.30). Amsterdam: Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam. [URL]
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2016. The argument dependency model. In Gregory Hickok & Steven L. Small (eds.), Neurobiology of language, 357–369. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-Trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (5). 511–545. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clifton, Charles, Jr. & Lyn Frazier. 2018. Context effects in discourse: The question under discussion. Discourse Processes 55 (2). 105–112. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts PhD Thesis.
Elvira-García, Wendy. 2017. Create pictures with tiers v.4.4. Praat script. [URL]
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, et al. 2019. Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics 55 (2). 277–304. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fiengo, Robert. 2007. Asking questions: Using meaningful structures to imply ignorance. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harris, Daniel W. 2020. We talk to people, not contexts. Philosophical Studies 1771. 2713–2733. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hedberg, Nancy. 2006. Topic-focus controversies. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 373–397. Berlin: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Addressing epistemic incongruence in question-answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In Jakob Steensig, Lorenza Mondada & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 107–130. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1). 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, Paul J. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in Interactional Linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jasinskaja, Katja & Henk Zeevat. 2008. Explaining additive, adversative and contrast marking in Russian and English. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 241. 65–91.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kamide, Yuki, Gerry T. M. Altmann & Sarah L. Haywood. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1). 133–156. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen C. 2012. Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In Jan P. De Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 11–32. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matić, Dejan. 2015. Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 167–190. Berlin: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49 (1). 127–163. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ozerov, Pavel. 2018a. A community-driven documentation of natural discourse in Anal, an endangered Tibeto-Burman language. London. [URL]
Ozerov, Pavel. 2018b. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information.” Journal of Pragmatics 1381. 77–97. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ozerov, Pavel. 2019. This is not an interrogative: The prosody of ‘wh-questions’ in Hebrew and the sources of their questioning and rhetorical interpretations. Language Sciences 721. 13–35. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ozerov, Pavel. 2021a. Multifactorial information management: Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7 (1). 2020039. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ozerov, Pavel. 2021b. Prosodic salience in Anal Naga: Where non-arbitrariness, phaticity and engagement meet. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1). 41. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panov, Vladimir. 2020. The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: Presenting the Enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52 (1). 1–44. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5 (6). 1–69. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rojas-Esponda, Tania. 2014. A QUD account of German doch
. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 181. 359–376.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1978. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.), Current trends in text linguistics, 81–102. Berlin: Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shimojo, Mitsauki. 2016. Saliency in discourse and sentence form: Zero anaphora and topicalization in Japanese. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 55–75. Berlin: Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stalnaker, Robert. 2008. A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5). 539–544. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.) 2011. The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya & Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1). 3–31. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tanaka, Hiroko. 2015. Action-projection in Japanese conversation: Topic particles wa, mo, and tte for triggering categorization activities. Frontiers in Psychology 61. 1113–1135. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thounaojam, Harimohon & Shobhana L. Chelliah. 2007. The Lamkang language: Grammatical sketch, texts and lexicon. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30 (1). 1–212.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verhagen, Arie. 2007. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.