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. 179–209

Chapter 6
Complexities of responding

Confirming responses to pseudo-tag questions in Korean conversation

| Yonsei University

This paper examines three forms of confirming responses to pseudo-tag questions in Korean conversation: unelaborated type-conforming responses with affirmative particles alone, elaborated responses with affirmative particles followed by elaboration, and nonconforming responses. The respondent’s selection of a particular form of response represents a solution to multiple contingencies involved in providing confirmation. When producing affirmative particles alone, respondents do nothing more than confirming and treat the question as in need of a mere confirmation. In producing elaborated type-conforming responses, respondents tend to avoid unwanted understandings that a simple yes particle can bring. They may address the action implemented by the question, often in affiliation with the questioner. Nonconforming responses tend to treat the question as problematic, proposing a problem with the legitimacy or relevance of the question.

Keywords: conversation analysis, epistemics, Korean, question, response, response design, type-conformity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An overview of polar questions and their responses in Korean conversation
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Unelaborated type-conforming responses
  • 5.Elaborated type-conforming responses
  • 6.Nonconforming responses
  • 7.Confirming responses, question formats, and epistemic gradients
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.06lee
References
Bolden, Galina
2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1978 “Yes-No Questions Are Not Alternative Questions.” In Questions, ed. by Henry Hiz, 87–105. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
1997 “ ‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Trouble in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.
2006 “Social Consequences of Common Ground.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 399–430. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Kaatariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase W. Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen C. Levinson
2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55: 277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, and Sandra A. Thompson
2010 “Responses to Wh-Questions in English Conversation”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1978 “Response Cries.” Language 54: 787–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru
2011 “Claiming Epistemic Primacy: Yo-Marked Assessments in Japanese.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina Bolden
2017 Transcribing for Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Questioning in Medicine.” In “Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011 “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” 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
Jefferson, Gail
1981 The Abominable “Ne?”: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.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
Kim, Haeyeon
1999 “The Form and Function of Questions in Korean Conversation.” Discourse and Cognition 6: 211–247.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin
2011 “Negotiating Epistemic Rights to Information in Korean Conversation: An Examination of the Korean Evidential Marker -tamye.” Discourse Studies 13: 435–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri
2015 “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions through Ani (‘No’)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52: 311–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang
1994 “Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Sentence-Type Suffixes in Korean.” In Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, ed. by Young-Key Kim-Renaud, 517–539. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1999 “A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of the Committal -ci in Korean: A Synthetic Approach to the Form-Meaning Relation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee
2006 “Second Summonings in Korean Telephone Conversation Openings.” Language in Society 35: 261–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Response Design in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 415–432. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2015 “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes 52: 21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Acquiescence and Resistance in Disconfirming Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes 54: 124–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
2003 Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs 55: 360–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “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, 87–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society 35: 677–705. 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, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold, and Arnold Zwicky
1985 “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume 1, Clause Structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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
Sohn, Ho-Min
1999 The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 “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
Stivers, Tanya
2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “An Overview of Question-Response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 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 56: 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: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suh, Cheong-Soo
2006 Korean Grammar. Seoul: Hanyang University Press.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun
2010 “Questions and Responses in Korean Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2782–2798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar