In this chapter I introduce the notion of ‘slots’ as a unit used in the composition of type-conforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives (or YNIs) in English. Specifically, I show that speakers can compose type-conforming responses by reference to two (internally organized) slots associated with the relevancies set in motion by a YNI initiating action: a [response to the interrogative] and a [response to the action] that it conveys. Examining a collection of type-conforming responses I first show that ‘slots’ can be distinguished from turn constructional units (or TCUs, Sacks et al. 1974) by establishing that variations in such responses cannot be reduced to this more familiar unit. For example, in cases where talk past a yes or no is relevant type-conforming responses can be composed of materials drawn from (at least) two distinct TCU types (one for each slot) that are packaged within a singleintonation contour; in other cases, speakers can devote two TCUs to manage the relevancies associated with a single slot. Second, I describe the basic features of an ‘unmarked’ [response to interrogative] and show that a dense array of alternative actions can be composed via speaker’s alterations to one or more of the material elements used to compose it. Through these observations I illustrate how speakers adapt the material resources used to compose their turns to the relevancies posed by the sequence of action to which they contribute. That is, by focusing on variations in type-conforming responses I show how the complex obligations entailed in normatively organized social action are fulfilled in talk-in-interaction, and how the primary constituents of turn organization – grammar, prosody, and word selection – are manipulated and pressed into service on their behalf.
2024. Request for confirmation sequences in British and American English. Open Linguistics 10:1
Prettner, Robert, Hedwig te Molder & Bogdana Humă
2024. How a ‘good parent’ decides on childhood vaccination. Demonstrating independence and deliberation during Dutch healthcare visits. Sociology of Health & Illness 46:4 ► pp. 664 ff.
2023. ‘I’m actually shocked of how rude you are!’ Communication challenges in webchat-based customer service. Discourse & Communication 17:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
2023. What Does “Resistance” Actually Look Like? The Respecification of Resistance as an Interactional Accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 42:5-6 ► pp. 497 ff.
Kamunen, Antti & Pentti Haddington
2023. Building on Linguistically Exclusive Talk: Access, Participation, and Progressivity in a Multinational Military Staff. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 175 ff.
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes 58:4 ► pp. 293 ff.
Küttner, Uwe-A.
2020.
Tying Sequences Together with the [
That’s
+
Wh
-Clause] Format: On (Retro-)Sequential Junctures in Conversation
. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
Persson, Rasmus
2020. Prosody and grammar of other-repetitions in French: The interplay of position and composition. Language in Society 49:4 ► pp. 585 ff.
Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2020. Revisiting Preference Organization in Context: A Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of Responses to Information Seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:2 ► pp. 197 ff.
Gitte, Rasmussen, Kristiansen Elisabeth Dalby & Andersen Elisabeth Muth
2019. Working out availability, unavailability and awayness in social face-to-face encounters: The case of dementia. Discourse Studies 21:3 ► pp. 258 ff.
Raymond, Geoffrey & Jack Sidnell
2019. Interaction at the Boundaries of a World Known in Common: Initiating Repair with “What Do You Mean?”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52:2 ► pp. 177 ff.
Raymond, Geoffrey
2018. Which epistemics? Whose conversation analysis?. Discourse Studies 20:1 ► pp. 57 ff.
Rossi, Giovanni
2018. Composite Social Actions: The Case of Factual Declaratives in Everyday Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51:4 ► pp. 379 ff.
Kendrick, Kobin H. & Judith Holler
2017. Gaze Direction Signals Response Preference in Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50:1 ► pp. 12 ff.
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
2016. Pragmemes in the Sociolinguistic Interview: A Case Study on Expanded Polar Answers. In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 9], ► pp. 351 ff.
2015. Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation. Linguistics Vanguard 1:1 ► pp. 131 ff.
Hoey, Elliott M.
2015. Lapses: How People Arrive at, and Deal With, Discontinuities in Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48:4 ► pp. 430 ff.
Hoey, Elliott M.
2020. When Conversation Lapses,
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
2015. Managing the Boundary Between “Yes” and “But”: Two Ways of Disaffiliating With Germanja aberandjaber. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48:1 ► pp. 32 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.