Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions
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.
Keywords: Answer, Yes-no question, Grammar and contex, Typology, Conversation
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 March 2001
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.11.1.01hak
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.11.1.01hak
References
Hakulinen, Auli
(2000) On some uses of the discourse particle kyl(lä) in Finnish conversations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 
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 Unpublished licentiate thesis, Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.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
Full-text
Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questionsCited by
Cited by 23 other publications
Bolden, Galina B.
2016. A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics 100 ► pp. 40 ff. 
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Marja Etelämäki
2015. Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish conversational directives.
Journal of Pragmatics 78 ► pp. 7 ff.
ENFIELD, N. J., TANYA STIVERS, PENELOPE BROWN, CHRISTINA ENGLERT, KATARIINA HARJUNPÄÄ, MAKOTO HAYASHI, TRINE HEINEMANN, GERTIE HOYMANN, TIINA KEISANEN, MIRKA RAUNIOMAA, CHASE WESLEY RAYMOND, FEDERICO ROSSANO, KYUNG-EUN YOON, INGE ZWITSERLOOD & STEPHEN C. LEVINSON
2019. Polar answers.
Journal of Linguistics 55:2 ► pp. 277 ff.
Fernandez-Vest, M.M.Jocelyne, Marri Amon, Karl-Erland Gadelii, Victor Junnan Pan, Jirasak Achariyayos & Danh-Thàn Do-Hurinville
2017. Information structuring of dialogic pairs from a cross-linguistic perspective.
STUF - Language Typology and Universals 70:3 ► pp. 391 ff.
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, Tomoko Endo & Elise Kärkkäinen
2018. Units in responsive turns.
Journal of Pragmatics 123 ► pp. 117 ff.
Hofstetter, Emily, Leelo Keevallik & Agnes Löfgren
2021. Suspending Syntax: Bodily Strain and Progressivity in Talk.
Frontiers in Communication 6
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.
Keevallik, Leelo
2010. Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization.
Discourse Studies 12:3 ► pp. 283 ff.
Keevallik, Leelo
2017. Chapter 9. Negotiating deontic rights in second position.
In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30],
► pp. 271 ff.
Keevallik, Leelo
2018. Chapter 11. Making up one’s mind in second position.
In Between Turn and Sequence [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31],
► pp. 315 ff.
Koivisto, Aino
2012. Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions.
Journal of Pragmatics 44:10 ► pp. 1254 ff.
Koivisto, Aino
2013. On the Preference for Remembering: Acknowledging an Answer With FinnishAi Nii(n)(“Oh That's Right”).
Research on Language & Social Interaction 46:3 ► pp. 277 ff.
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020. Chapter 1. Complex syntax-in-interaction.
In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32],
► pp. 1 ff.
Rodríguez Somolinos, Amalia
2006. Voire, modalisation de vérité et renforcement de l'assertion (xive-xviesiècles).
Langue française n° 149:1 ► pp. 61 ff.
Simonen, Mika
2016. Social identity and procedural consequentiality in welfare interviews.
Text & Talk 36:5
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
Svennevig, Jan
2022. Echo answers in native/non-native interaction.
Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 285 ff.
Tiitinen, Sanni & Johanna Ruusuvuori
2015. Producing gendered parenthood in child health clinics.
Discourse & Society 26:1 ► pp. 113 ff.
Verschueren, Jef
2008. Intercultural Communication and the Challenges of Migration1.
Language and Intercultural Communication 8:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Wang, Wei
2020. Grammatical conformity in question-answer sequences: The case ofmeiyouin Mandarin conversation.
Discourse Studies 22:5 ► pp. 610 ff.
Wang, Wei
2021. The question-response system in Mandarin conversation.
Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:4 ► pp. 589 ff.
Wirzén, Madeleine & Asta Čekaitė
2022. Assessing and assisting prospective adoptive parents: Social workers’ communicative strategies in adoption assessment interviews.
Qualitative Social Work 21:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 january 2023. 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.