Part of
Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and ContextsEdited by Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35] 2023
► pp. 210–238
Edited by Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35] 2023
► pp. 210–238
Chapter 7The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests
for confirmation in Estonian
This chapter examines the use of the Estonian particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to positively formulated requests for confirmation in ordinary interaction. We will show what actions these particles perform, in which sequential contexts they are used, and whether they can be interpreted as equivalent or not. Our analysis reveals that although both jah and jaa confirm the accuracy of the proposition presented in the question, the particles are not equivalent. The most important difference between jah and jaa lies in how the sequence continues after the response. After jah, the local sequence is closed, while after jaa, the sequence is expanded by the questioner. By using jaa the answerer indicates that the sequence is open for expansion and allows the interlocutor to choose how to continue. In addition, the context of jaa is more limited and partially different from the context of jah. In the case of jaa, the interactional stances of the interactants are systematically incongruent. Specifically, the questioners express their non-neutral interactional stance in the expansion of the sequence, while the answers respond neutrally or express a different interactional stance. Overall, jah could be classified as an ‘unmarked’ response particle which only confirms the question’s proposition, while jaa is pragmatically a more ‘marked’ particle used for ‘special purposes.’
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Confirmation-seeking polar questions and their responses in Estonian: An overview
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1Jah: Confirming the accuracy of the proposition and closing the sequence
- 4.2Jaa: Confirming the accuracy of the proposition and implicating sequence expansion
- 5.Conclusions and discussion
-
Notes -
References
References
Asu, Eva Liina
2006 “Rising Intonation
in Estonian: An Analysis of Map Task Dialogues and Spontaneous
Conversations.” In Fonetiikan Päivät 2006. The Phonetics
Symposium 2006, ed. by Reijo Aulanko, Leena Wahlberg, and Martti Vainio, 1–8. Helsinki: Helsinki University.
Bolden, Galina
2016 “A
Simple da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 100: 40–58. 
Bolinger, Dwight L.
1946 “Thoughts on ‘Yep’ and
‘Nope’.” American
Speech 21 (2): 90–95.
Drew, Paul
1997 “ ‘Open’
Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Trouble in
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 28: 69–101.
Enfield, N. J., Mark Dingemanse, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Penelope Brown, Tyko Dirksmeyer, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Rósa S. Gísladóttir, Gertie Hoymann, Kobin H. Kendrick, Stephen C. Levinson, Lilla Magyari, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, Lila San Roque, and Francisco Torreira
2013 “Huh?
What? – A First Survey in Twenty-One
Languages.” In Conversational Repair and Human
Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 343–380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Wesley Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen C. Levinson
2019 “Polar
Answers.” Journal of
Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304.
Erelt, Mati, and Helle Metslang
(eds) 2017 Eesti
keele süntaks. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja-Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004 Iso
suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Hennoste, Tiit
2000a “Sissejuhatus
suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3.
Partiklid.” Akadeemia 8: 1773–1806.
2000b “Sissejuhatus
suulisesse eesti keelde V. Mõned mitteverbaalsed nähtused suulises
kõnes.” Akadeemia 9: 2011–2038.
2012 “Küsimuse
vorm, episteemiline staatus ja episteemiline hoiak.” Keel ja
Kirjandus 8/9: 674–695.
in
press). “Suuline
keel.” In Eesti grammatika ed.
by Helle Metslang Tartu Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus
Hennoste, Tiit, Olga Gerassimenko, Riina Kasterpalu, Mare Koit, Andriela Rääbis, and Krista Strandson
2008 “From
Human Communication to Intelligent User Interfaces: Corpora of Spoken
Estonian.” In Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [URL]
2009 “Towards
an Intelligent User Interface: Strategies of Giving and Receiving Phone
Numbers.” In Text, Speech and Dialogue. TSD 2009. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol 5729, ed.
by Václav Matoušek, and Pavel Mautner, 347–354. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis, and Kirsi Laanesoo
2017 “Polar
Questions, Social Actions and Epistemic Stance.” STUF – Language Typology and
Universals 70 (3): 523–544.
Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis, and Andra Rumm
2019 “Estonian
Declarative Questions: Their Usage and Comparison with vä- and
jah-questions.” Journal of
Pragmatics 153: 46–68.
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.
2012 “Epistemics
in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and
Social
Interaction 45 (1): 1–29.
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.
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
1994 “Constituting
and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question
Design.” Language in
Society 23 (1): 1–29.
Kasterpalu, Riina
2005 “Partiklid
jah, jaa ning jajaa naaberpaari järelliikmena eestikeelsetes
müügiläbirääkimistes.” Keel ja
Kirjandus 11: 873–890, 12: 996–1000.
Kasterpalu, Riina, and Tiit Hennoste
2016 “Estonian
aa: A Multifunctional Change-of-State Token.” Journal of
Pragmatics 104: 148–162.
Keevallik, Leelo
2003a From
Interaction to Grammar. Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala.
2003b “Terminally
Rising Pitch Contours of Response Tokens in Estonian.” Crossroads of Language,
Interaction and
Culture, vol. 5: 49–65.
2008 “Conjunction
and Sequenced Actions: The Estonian Complementizer and Evidential Particle
et.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause
Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2009 “Üldküsimuse
lihtvastuse funktsioonid.” Keel ja
Kirjandus 1: 33–53.
2010 “Minimal
Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse
Studies 12 (3): 283–309.
2011 “The
Terms of Not Knowing.” In The Morality of
Knowledge, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2016 “Estonian
no(o)(h) in Turns and Sequences: Families of
Function.” In NU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across
the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 213–242. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Kendrick, Kobin H.
2015 “Other-Initiated Repair
in English.” Open
Linguistics 1 (1): 164–190.
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Francisco Torreira
2014 “The
Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study.” Discourse
processes 52 (4): 255–289.
Koivisto, Aino
2014 “Displaying
Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token aa.” Discourse
Processes 52 (2): 111–148.
Kurhila, Salla, and Niina Lilja
2017 “Toisto
ja korjauksen
rajat.” Virittäjä 121 (2): 213–243.
Lee, Seung-Hee
2015 “Two
Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse
Processes 52 (1): 21–46.
Rääbis, Andriela
2009 Eesti
telefonivestluste sissejuhatus: struktuur ja suhtlusfunktsioonid. Dissertationes
linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis
13. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Raymond, Geoffrey
2000 The
Structure of Responding. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
2010 “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, 109–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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 Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, Jeffrey D., and Heidi Kevoe-Feldman
2010 “Using
Full Repeats to Initiate Repair on Others’ Questions.” Research on Language and Social
Interaction 43 (3): 232–259.
Rossi, Giovanni
2020 “Other-Repetition
in Conversation across Languages: Bringing Prosody into Pragmatic Typology.” Language
in Society 49: 495–520.
Rumm, Andra
2019 Avatud
küsimused ja nende vastused eesti suulises argivestluses. Dissertationes linguisticae
Universitatis Tartuensis 36. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in
Interaction. A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Volume 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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 (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 12), ed.
by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
1996 “On
Repeats and Responses in Finnish
Conversations.” In Interaction and
Grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), ed.
by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2001a Responding
in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in
Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2001b “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.
Stivers, Tanya
2018 “How
We Manage Social Relationships through Answers to Questions: The Case of
Interjections.” Discourse
Processes 56 (3): 191–209.
Strandson, Krista
2001 “Kuidas
vestluskaaslane parandusprotsessi algatab?” Keel ja
Kirjandus 6: 394–409.
Svennevig, Jan
2004 “Other-Repetition
as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse
Studies 6 (4): 489–516.
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar
in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger
2006 “Surprise
as an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation.” Social Psychology
Quarterly 69 (2): 150–182.