Chapter 11
Making up one’s mind in second position
Estonian no-preface in action
plans
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.
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
References
Clayman, Steven
2013 “
Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address
Terms.”
Journal of Pragmatics 57:290–302.
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.
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.
EKSS – Eesti Kirjakeele
Seletussõnaraamat
1–26 [
Comprehensive Dictionary of
Estonian] (
1988–2007) Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.
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.
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.
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
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.
Hayano, Kaoru
2013 Territories of Knowledge in Japanese
Conversation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.
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.
Hennoste, Tiit
2001 “
Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti
keelde IX. Lausung suulises kõnes 4 [Introduction to spoken Estonian IX.
Utterance in speech 4].”
Akadeemia 1:179–206.
Heritage, John
1984:
Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, John
1998 “
Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.”
Language in Society 27 (3):291–334.
Heritage, John
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.
Heritage, John
2013 “
Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.”
Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337.
Heritage, John
2015 “
Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A
Conversation Analytic Perspective.”
Journal of Pragmatics 88:88–104.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “
The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic
Authority and Subordination in Assessment
Sequences.”
Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38.
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.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
1987 Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of
Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Jones, Bob M.
1999 The Welsh Answering System. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Keevallik, Leelo
2009a “
Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste
funktsioonid [The functions of simple answers to
yes/no questions].”
Keel ja Kirjandus 52 (1):33–53.
Keevallik, Leelo
2009b “
Internal Development and Borrowing of Pragmatic
Particles: Estonian vaata/vat ‘look’, näed ‘you see’ and
vot
.”
Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 30/31:23–54.
Keevallik, Leelo
2010 “
Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the
Service of Sequence Organization.”
Discourse Studies 12 (3):1–27.
Keevallik, Leelo
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.
Keevallik, Leelo
2013 “
Accomplishing Continuity Across Sequences and
Encounters: No(h)-Prefaced Initiations in
Estonian.”
Journal of Pragmatics 57:274–289.
Keevallik, Leelo
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.
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima
2013 “
Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An
Introduction.”
Journal of Pragmatics 57:267–273.
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.
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.
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.
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “
Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No
Interrogatives and the Structure of
Responding.”
American Sociological Review 68 (6):939–967.
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.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996a “
Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account
of Action”
American Journal of
Sociology 102 (1):161–216.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in
Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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
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.
Stivers, Tanya
2005 “
Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting
Primary Rights from Second Position.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2):131–158.
Weatherall, Ann
2011 “
’I Don’t Know’ as a Prepositioned Epistemic
Hedge.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4):317–337.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Hofstetter, Emily
2020.
Thinking with the Body: Embodying Thinking as a Practice in Board Games. In
Discursive Psychology and Embodiment,
► pp. 247 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.