Chapter published in:
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

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
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
References

References

Clayman, Steven
2013 “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:290–302. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
2001 “Minimal and Non-Minimal Answers to Yes-No Questions.” Pragmatics 11:1–16. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88:88–104. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Accomplishing Continuity Across Sequences and Encounters: No(h)-Prefaced Initiations in Estonian.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:274–289. CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima
2013 “Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:267–273. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, Ann
2011 “’I Don’t Know’ as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4):317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], Crossref logo
Hofstetter, Emily
2020.  In Discursive Psychology and Embodiment, ► pp. 247 ff. Crossref logo
Keevallik, Leelo
2017.  In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 271 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2021. 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.