Cover not available
Part of
Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts
Edited by Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35] 2023
► pp. 40–75

Chapter 2
Repetitional responses to polar questions in Russian conversation

| Rutgers University
This chapter examines repetitional responses to polar questions that implement requests for confirmation, information, or assistance in Russian conversation, contrasting them with particle responses, such as da (‘yes’) and net (‘no’). The analysis will show that Russian repetitional responses tend to be a marked response option deployed to disalign from some dimension of the interrogative or the action it implements. For example, repetitional responses may be deployed to reassert its speaker’s epistemic authority in the service of confirming a candidate understanding, to insist on the veracity of a statement following an enactment of disbelief or doubt, to disalign from the action implemented by an information request, or – in response to requests for service – to contest the stance that the provision of assistance might be problematic. The analysis suggests that different types of repetitional responses (such as lexical vs. longer repeats) may enact more or less disaligning stances vis-à-vis the initiating action. Overall, what exactly is being accomplished via a repetitional response is sensitive to a number of considerations, including the sequential and action environment of its deployment, the design of the repetitional response, and the repertoire of available response options.
Keywords: Russian, polar questions, polar responses, repetitions, response design, question design, requests, repair, news-marks, conversation analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.An overview of Russian polar questions
  • 4.Forms of repetitional responses
  • 5.Responding to negative polarity interrogatives
  • 6.Responding to repair initiations in the form of understanding checks
  • 7.Responding to news-marks and enactments of surprise
  • 8.Responding to requests for information
  • 9.Responding to requests for service
  • 10.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.02bol
References (62)
References
Bolden, Galina B. 2008. “Reopening Russian conversations: The discourse particle -to and the negotiation of interpersonal accountability in closings.” Human Communication Research 34: 99–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a. “Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation.” Communication Monographs 76 (2): 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. “Implementing delayed actions.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, In Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 326–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Unpacking “self”: Repair and epistemics in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 76 (4): 314–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation.” In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Liisa Raevaara, 175–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. “Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation.” In Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages, ed. by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 23–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2010. “Questions and their responses in Tzeltal.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2627–2648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. “Russian.” In Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, ed. by William Chisholm, Louis T. Milic and John AC. Greppin, 7–46. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. 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
Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell. 2015. “Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation.” Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1): 131–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katarina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Certie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Wesley Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyun-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. “Polar answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2010. “Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2615–2619. DOI logoGoogle 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
Girvan, William H. 1989. Russian handbook of spoken usage. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Kaoru Hayano. 2018. “A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese.” In Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages, ed. by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 191–224. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2006. “’Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (7): 1081–1104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden. 2017. Transcribing for social research. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview.” In Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Phillip J. Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron and Jenny S. Mandelbaum, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Questioning in medicine.” In ”Why do you ask?”: The functions of questions in institutional discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed and Carol M. Ehrlich, 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Language in society. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 J. P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirst, Daniel, and Albert Di Cristo. 1998. “A survey of intonation systems.” In Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, ed. by Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo, 1–44. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1980. “On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3/4): 153–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. The abominable ‘Ne?’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
. 1988. “On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation.” Social Problems 35 (4): 418–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. “Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3): 283–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Christopher J. 2011. “Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions.” Social Science & Medicine 72: 1105–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google 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
Meyer, Roland, and Ina Mleinek. 2006. “How prosody signals force and focus – A study of pitch accents in Russian yes-no questions.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1615–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. “Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.” In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and social organization: Yes/No type interrogatives and the structure of responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. “Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no type initiating actions in health visitor interactions.” In Why do you ask?: The function of questions in institutional discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 69–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Prosodic variation in responses: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives.” In Prosody in interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber and Margret Selting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives.” In Units of talk – Units of action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In Talk and social organization, ed. by Graham Button and John R E. Lee, In Intercommunication, 54–69. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction.” In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. “Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. “Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson, In Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. “Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation : the case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation.” In Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Chloe, Alexa Hepburn, and Jonathan Potter. 2013. “Having the last laugh: On post-completion laughter particles.” In Studies of laughter in interaction, ed. by Phillip J. Glenn and Elizabeth Holt, 91–106. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Vol. 70 Pragmatics & beyond. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish.” In Studies in interactional linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, In Studies in discourse and grammar, 405–431. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005a. “Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. “Parent resistance to physicians’ treatment recommendations: One resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision.” Health Communication 18 (1): 41–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “An overview of the question-response system in Americal English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 2019. “How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections.” Discourse Processes 2 (4): 191–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi. 2010. “Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svetozarova, Natalia. 1998. “Intonation in Russian.” In Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, ed. by Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo, 261–274. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, A N. 1972. Particles in colloquial Russian. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger. 2006. “Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69 (2): 150–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar