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. 315–338

Chapter 11
Making up one’s mind in second position

Estonian no-preface in action plans

| Linköping University
This chapter discusses preferred responses that are delayed in their turn by the initial particle no in Estonian. It demonstrates that the turn-initial time-space may be employed for a display of “making up one’s mind”, either weighing matters outside the conversation or something already discussed in the talk. The paper argues that besides the dichotomous choice between the preferred and the dispreferred answer format, there are individual contingencies to consider in committing to future actions as made relevant in requests, proposals and suggestions. By marking a transition from prior resistance to compliance with a no-preface, the speaker indexes that the emerging response is carefully considered and therefore socially cohesive.
Keywords: interactional linguistics, emergent grammar, temporality, turn-prefacing, complying, agreeing, second pair part, preference, particle no , Estonian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data
  • 3. No-preface in full repeat compliances
  • 4. No-preface in verb-repeat compliances
  • 5. No-preface in modified repeat compliances
  • 6. No-prefacing in independently formulated second pair parts
  • 7.Non-compliances and the lack of no-preface
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Transcription conventions
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
References (43)
References
Clayman, Steven. 2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2):129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Judy. 1984. “Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
EKSS – Eesti Kirjakeele Seletussõnaraamat 1–26 [Comprehensive Dictionary of Estonian]. (1988–2007). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson. 2010. “Responses to WH-questions in English Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2):133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. “Minimal and Non-Minimal Answers to Yes-No Questions.” Pragmatics 11:1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2009. “Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to Assessments in Finnish.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 124–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Ways of Agreeing with Negative Stancetaking.” The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensig, and Tanya Stivers, 235–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit. 2000. “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid [Introduction to spoken Estonian IV. Special vocabulary 3. Particles].” Akadeemia 8:1773–1806.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IX. Lausung suulises kõnes 4 [Introduction to spoken Estonian IX. Utterance in speech 4].” Akadeemia 1:179–206.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984: Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.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. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88:88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jones, Bob M. 1999. The Welsh Answering System. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2009a. “Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid [The functions of simple answers to yes/no questions].” Keel ja Kirjandus 52 (1):33–53.Google Scholar
. 2009b. “Internal Development and Borrowing of Pragmatic Particles: Estonian vaata/vat ‘look’, näed ‘you see’ and vot .” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 30/31:23–54.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3):1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The Terms of Not Knowing.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensig, and Tanya Stivers, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Accomplishing Continuity Across Sequences and Encounters: No(h)-Prefaced Initiations in Estonian.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:274–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Estonian no(o)(h) in Turns and Sequences: Families of function.” In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 213–242. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima. 2013. “Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:267–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 2007. “Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol 1.Clause structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 2005. “Language as Social Action: A Study of How Senior Citizens Request Assistance with Practical Tasks in the Swedish Home Help Service.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Acceptances and Grantings of Deferred Action Requests, Invitations and Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene Lerner, and John Heritage, 125–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa. 1989. “ No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [ No – a turn initial particle].” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Characteristics of Finnish conversation I]. (Kieli 4.), ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 147–161. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6):939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol.1, Clause structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1):161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. “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
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2):91–115 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. “Simple Answers to Polar Questions: The Case of Finnish.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen. 2009. “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” In Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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
Weatherall, Ann. 2011. “’I Don’t Know’ as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4):317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ruskan, Anna
2024. Role of six turn-initial demonstrative and emotive particles in Lithuanian. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily
2020. Thinking with the Body: Embodying Thinking as a Practice in Board Games. In Discursive Psychology and Embodiment, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.