Against the theoretical and methodological background of conversation analysis (CA), the author addresses the issue of the contextual conditions for a specific type of grammatical phenomenon: answers to yes-no questions. She distinguishes five kinds of answers: two minimal ones, one next to minimal one, and two sentential types of answers. Minimal and non-minimal types of answers are shown to be doing different kinds of work in an interaction, full sentence answers addressing a wider range of features oriented to in the context either by the questioner or in the interpretation. The different types are placed along a confirmation-negation continuum.
Laitinen, Lea (1995) Nollapersoona [The zero person]. Virittäjä 99.3: 337-358.
Raevaara, Liisa (1993) Kysyminen toimintana. [Questioning as an activity]. Unpublished licentiate thesis, Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.
Raymond, Geoffrey (2000) Type-conforming and non-conforming responses to yes/no questions. Ph. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, UCLA.
Sacks, Harvey (1992) Lecture 2, Fall 1968; Lecture 2, Spring 1972. In G. Jefferson (ed.), Lectures on conversation, Vol II. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 410-415, 533-541.
Sadock, Jerry, and Arnold Zwicky (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol I.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155-196.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (forthcoming) Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.,) Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cited by (25)
Cited by 25 other publications
Weber, Kathrin
2024. Request for confirmation sequences in Low German. Open Linguistics 10:1
2022. Assessing and assisting prospective adoptive parents: Social workers’ communicative strategies in adoption assessment interviews. Qualitative Social Work 21:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
2017. Information structuring of dialogic pairs from a cross-linguistic perspective. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 70:3 ► pp. 391 ff.
Bolden, Galina B.
2016. A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 100 ► pp. 40 ff.
Simonen, Mika
2016. Social identity and procedural consequentiality in welfare interviews. Text & Talk 36:5 ► pp. 589 ff.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Marja Etelämäki
2015. Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics 78 ► pp. 7 ff.
Stevanovic, Melisa
2015. Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims: The case of proposal sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 78 ► pp. 84 ff.
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6
Tiitinen, Sanni & Johanna Ruusuvuori
2015. Producing gendered parenthood in child health clinics. Discourse & Society 26:1 ► pp. 113 ff.
Huang, Su-Fen & Manabu Oi
2013. Responses to Wh-, Yes/No-, A-not-A, and choice questions in Taiwanese children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 27:12 ► pp. 969 ff.
Koivisto, Aino
2012. Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 44:10 ► pp. 1254 ff.
Keevallik, Leelo
2010. Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies 12:3 ► pp. 283 ff.
2008. Intercultural Communication and the Challenges of Migration1. Language and Intercultural Communication 8:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Rodríguez Somolinos, Amalia
2006. Voire, modalisation de vérité et renforcement de l'assertion (xive-xviesiècles). Langue française n° 149:1 ► pp. 61 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 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.