Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 34:3 (2024) ► pp.447–472

Polar answers

Accepting proposals in Greek telephone calls

| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

The purpose of this paper is to examine the forms and functions of answers to proposals for joint action, implemented through polar interrogatives, in Greek telephone calls. Our analysis indicates a distinct functional distribution of three types of accepting answers to such proposals. Particle-type answers do ‘simple’ acceptance of the proposal, i.e. they only display the respondent’s willingness to take on the proposed action and nothing else, while repetition-type answers display the speaker’s epistemic/deontic stance towards additional aspects of the proposal. With a third type of responses, speakers accept the proposal in a mitigated manner. Our findings align with Enfield et al.’s (2019) conclusion that particles serve as pragmatically unmarked polar answers. They do not, however, evince the prevalence of this type of answer to proposals to the same extent as to epistemically oriented polar interrogatives.

Keywords: proposals, polar interrogatives, answers, particles, repetition, Greek, conversation analysis, telephone calls
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Polar answers
  • 2.On ‘proposals’ and their answers
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Theoretical delineations
    • 3.2Polar interrogatives in Greek
    • 3.3Data
  • 4.Coding categories and distribution
    • 4.1Linguistic formats of polar interrogatives for proposals for joint action
    • 4.2Types of responses
    • 4.3Distributional information
  • 5.Analysis of answers to proposals for joint action
    • 5.1Particle-type answers
    • 5.2Repetition-type answers
    • 5.3Other-type answers
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22020.pav
References
Alvanoudi, Angeliki
2018 “Ερωτήσεις Oλικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions: Forms and Functions].” In Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 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
Asmuss, Birte, and Sae Oshima
2012 “Negotiation of Entitlement in Proposal Sequences.” Discourse Studies 14 (1): 67–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser
2015 “Αρνητικές Ερωτηματικές Προσκλήσεις: Συνέπειες για τη Δομή Προτίμησης [Negative-Interrogative Invitations: Consequences for Preference Organization].” In Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Greek Language and Oral Communication], ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 11–22. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar
2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 1251: 96–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What does Grammar tell us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
eds 2014a Requests in Social Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b “Requesting – From Speech Act to Recruitment.” In Requests in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson
2010 “Question-Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2615–2619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen Levinson
2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield
eds 2020 Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancher, Michael
1979 “The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 8 (1): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, Jοhn
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos
2012 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop Steenstra, Hanneke
1987 Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logo
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna
2017 “Accepting Remote Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, 125–143. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margutti, Piera, Liisa Tainio, Paul Drew, and Véronique Traverso
2018 Invitations and Responses across Different Languages: Observations on the Feasibility and Relevance of a Cross-Linguistic Comparative Perspective on the Study of Actions. Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics 1251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
1986 “Nα Ρωτήσω Κάτι; Ερωτήσεις σε Υποτακτική [May I Αsk Something? Questions in the Subjunctive].” Studies in Greek Linguistics 71: 233–249.Google Scholar
1991a “Particles, Pragmatic and Other.” Multilingua 10 (1/2): 151–172.Google Scholar
1991b “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
1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics 8 (1): 79–94.Google Scholar
2014 “Phases in Discourse.” In Pragmatics of Discourse, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, 353–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Το Corpus Προφορικού Λόγου του ΙΝΣ [The Corpus of Spoken Greek]”. In Καταγράφοντας την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Making a Record of the Greek Language], ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 15–68. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2015 “Responding to Pre-Requests: The Organization of Hai X (‘Do You Have X’) Sequences in Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics 821: 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In Language, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7, ed. by Keith Gunderson, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann
2014 “The Social and Moral Work of Modal Constructions in Granting Remote Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 145–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2012 “Establishing Joint Decisions in a Dyad.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 779–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and N. J. Enfield
2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2620–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnell
2016 “Proposals for Activity Collaboration.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (2): 148–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson
2007 “Person Reference in Interaction.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Chase Wesley Raymond
2021 “The Grammar of Proposals for Joint Activities.” Interactional Linguistics 1 (1): 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzartzanos, Achilleas A.
1991 [1946] Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol. A1. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.Google Scholar
1991 [1953] Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol. Β1. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.Google Scholar