Cover not available
Part of
Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 225–250

Chapter 8
Treating something as self-evident

No-prefaced turns in Polish

| Kazimierz Wielki University
This chapter offers a detailed sequential examination of the usage of the turn-initial Polish particle no in responsive actions. It demonstrates that no represents a particular kind of epistemic stance, where it contributes a “my side” positioning of the no speaker, and in this way participates in the local management of epistemic relations between speakers of Polish. Drawing on the analysis of data from both institutional and ordinary interactions, I demonstrate that stand-alone no and no-prefaces index the stance of the current speaker towards the prior speaker’s turn or action. No operates on three layers, which are invoked by the particular sequential and activity contexts in which the particle occurs. The primary function of no is to treat the content of the prior speaker’s turn as already known or self-evident. Second, associated with that treatment, no invokes its speaker’s “my-side” perspective and alerts the recipient to a possible incongruity between the no speaker’s epistemic status vis-à-vis the recipient’s perspective. The third layer is sequential in character and drawing on the affordances created by the two other epistemic and stance-related layers, exploits these basic interactional capacities of no in a further direction. When this happens, a no-prefaced action can set a given piece of knowledge aside and hence contribute to sequence closure and coincide with a topic and/or an activity shift. Based on the analysis of both the preceding and subsequent talk surrounding no, this chapter illustrates some systematic regularities related to the usage of no, which offer empirical evidence that no is implicated in foreshadowing epistemic stance in contexts of epistemic incongruence.
Keywords: conversation analysis, turn-initial position, Polish, interaction, action design, action recognition, particles, epistemic stance, epistemic status
Article outline
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Points of departure for no
  • 3. No and its epistemic layers
  • 4. No versus tak
  • 5. No-prefaced responses in question-answer sequences
  • 6. No-prefaced responses in other sequence types
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Transcription conventions
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.08wei
References (51)
References
Bańko, Mirosław. 2000. Inny Słownik Języka Polskiego [A Different Dictionary of Polish]. Warsaw: PWN.¨Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A. 1993. "Transitional Regularities for Casual 'okay' Usages." Journal of Pragmatics 19:325–352.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma, and Andrea Golato 2008. "Remembering Relevant Information and Witholding Relevant next Actions: The German Token 'achja'." Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:58–98.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2016. "The Discourse Marker Nu in Russian Conversation." In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 48–80. Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. "Sequence and Solidarity." In Advances in Group Processes: Group Cohesion, Trust and Solidarity, ed. by Edward J. Lawler, and Shane R. Thye, 229–253. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Doroszewski, Witold. 1999. Słownik Języka Polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2009. ""Quit Talking while I’m Interrupting:" A Comparison between Positions of Overlap Onset in Conversation." In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 70–93. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Dunaj, Bogusław. 1996. Słownik Współczesnego Języka Polskiego [Dictionary of Contemporary Polish]. Warsaw: Wilga.Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna. 1982. 'Topical Sentence Positions in English and Polish" In 18th International Conference on English-Polish Contrastive Lingustics, Błażejewko.
Emmertsen, Sofie, and Trine Heinemann. 2010. "Realization as Device for Remedying Problems of Affiliation in Interaction." Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43 (2):109–132.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal. 2008. "Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token 'ja' and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective." Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (3):241–270.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Jo Ann. 1978. "Amplitude Shift. A Mechanism for the Affiliation of Utterances in Conversational Interaction." In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 199–218. New York: Academic.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, 233–292. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. "Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective." In Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods, ed. by Charles Antaki, 127–144. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
. 1998. "'Oh'-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry." Language in Society 27 (3):291–334.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. "'Oh'-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement." In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. "Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in References to Persons (and Places)." In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 255–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012a. "The Epistemic Engine: Action Formation, Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge." Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:25–50.Google Scholar
. 2012b. "Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge." Research on Language & Social Interaction 45:1–25.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. "Action Formation and Its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds." Discourse Studies 15 (5):551–578.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven E. Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1983a. Two Papers on 'Transitory Recipientship': Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-shift Implicature; Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens 'yeah' and 'mm hm'. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 30: University of Tilburg, Tilburg, Netherlands.
. 1983b. Two Explorations of the Organization of Overlapping Talk in Conversation: 'Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset' and 'On a Failed Hypothesis: 'Conjunctionals' as Overlap-Vulnerable'. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: University of Tilburg, Tilburg, Netherlands.
. 1990. "List Construction as a Task and Interactional Resource." In Interaction Competence, ed. by George Psathas, 63–92. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 2004. "Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction." In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and John Lee 1992. “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’”. In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 521–548. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1987. "Notes on Laughter in the Pursuit of Intimacy." In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 152–205. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. "Social Action of Syntactic Reduplication." Journal of Pragmatics 42:800–824.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2013. "On the Preference for Remembering: Acknowledging an Answer with Finnish 'ai nii(n)' (“oh that's right”)." Research on Language & Social Interaction 46 (3):277–297.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. "Utterances Ending in the Conjunction 'että'. Complete or to Be Continued?" In Contexts of Subordination: Cognitive, Typological and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski, and Helena Sorva, 223–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2015. "Displaying Now-understanding: The Finnish Change-of-state Token 'aa'." Discourse Processes 52 (2):111–148.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kryk, Barbara. 1992. "The Pragmatics of Interjections: The Case of Polish 'no'." Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3):193–207.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2003. "The Discourse Marker 'nu': Israeli Hebrew Impatience in Interaction." Text 23 (1):89–128.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisarkowa, Krystyna. 1975. Skladnia Rozmowy Telefonicznej [The Syntax of Polish Telephone Conversation]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imiania Ossolińskich Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M. 1980. "Telling My Side: 'Limited Access' as a 'Fishing Device''. Sociological Inquiry 50:186–198.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomeranzt, Anita M. 1984. "Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes." In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey. 2014. "What “What?” Tells Us about How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity." Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (2):109–129.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. "Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction." In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. "Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided for Place for the Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation." American Journal of Sociology 95 (5):1295–1345.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. "Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics." In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. "Word Repeats as Unit Ends." Discourse Studies 13 (3):367–380.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. "Recipient Activities: The Particle 'no' as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations." In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 165–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
. 2007. "Alternative Recognitionals in Initial References to Persons." In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. "Morality and Question Design: "Of course" as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability." In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szulc-Brzozowska, Magdalena. 2010. "Zur semantisch-pragmatischen Erweiterung der Abtönungsfuntion bei polnischen Modalpartikeln aus kontrastiver Sicht (Deutsch - Polnisch) [On a semantic-pragmatic extension of the Polish modal particles from a contrastive perspective (German-Polish)]." Linguistik online 44 4/2010, accessed 15/09/2011.Google Scholar
Szymczak, Mirosław. 1978–1981. Słownik Języka Polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Weidner, Matylda. 2016. "Aha-moments in Interaction: Indexing a Change of State in Polish." Journal of Pragmatics 104:193–206.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1976. "Particles and Linguistic Relativity." International Review of Slavic Linguistics 1 (2–3):327–367.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Ruskan, Anna
2024. Role of six turn-initial demonstrative and emotive particles in Lithuanian. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo
Arita, Yuki
2023.  Demo “but”-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese . Discourse Processes 60:8 ► pp. 594 ff. DOI logo
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hayano, Kaoru & Makoto Hayashi
2023. Chapter 9. Post-confirmation modifications. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Weidner, Matylda
2023. Chapter 4. Responses to polar questions in Polish. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Alvanoudi, Angeliki
2022. Polar answers and epistemic stance in Greek conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 32:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zinken, Jörg, Julia Kaiser, Matylda Weidner, Lorenza Mondada, Giovanni Rossi & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2021. Rule Talk: Instructing Proper Play With Impersonal Deontic Statements. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Persson, Rasmus
2020. Taking Issue with a Question While Answering It: Prefatory Particles and Multiple Sayings of Polar Response Tokens in French. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:3 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo

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.