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. 210–238

Chapter 7
The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests for confirmation in Estonian

| University of Tartu
| University of Tartu
| University of Tartu
| University of Tartu
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.’
Keywords: polar question, confirmation, response particles, Estonian, ordinary conversation
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
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.07hen
References (52)
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.Google Scholar
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 L. 1946. “Thoughts on ‘Yep’ and ‘Nope’.” American Speech 21 (2): 90–95. 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., 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati, and Helle Metslang (eds). 2017. Eesti keele süntaks. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja-Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit. 2000a. “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid.” Akadeemia 8: 1773–1806.Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde V. Mõned mitteverbaalsed nähtused suulises kõnes.” Akadeemia 9: 2011–2038.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Küsimuse vorm, episteemiline staatus ja episteemiline hoiak.” Keel ja Kirjandus 8/9: 674–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis, and Kirsi Laanesoo. 2017. “Polar Questions, Social Actions and Epistemic Stance.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 70 (3): 523–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasterpalu, Riina. 2005. “Partiklid jah, jaa ning jajaa naaberpaari järelliikmena eestikeelsetes müügiläbirääkimistes.” Keel ja Kirjandus 11: 873–890, 12: 996–1000.Google Scholar
Kasterpalu, Riina, and Tiit Hennoste. 2016. “Estonian aa: A Multifunctional Change-of-State Token.” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2003a. From Interaction to Grammar. Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala.Google Scholar
. 2003b. “Terminally Rising Pitch Contours of Response Tokens in Estonian.” Crossroads of Language, Interaction and Culture, vol. 5: 49–65.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Üldküsimuse lihtvastuse funktsioonid.” Keel ja Kirjandus 1: 33–53.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3): 283–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015. “Other-Initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1 (1): 164–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Francisco Torreira. 2014. “The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study.” Discourse processes 52 (4): 255–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2014. “Displaying Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token aa.” Discourse Processes 52 (2): 111–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurhila, Salla, and Niina Lilja. 2017. “Toisto ja korjauksen rajat.” Virittäjä 121 (2): 213–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee. 2015. “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes 52 (1): 21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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 Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2020. “Other-Repetition in Conversation across Languages: Bringing Prosody into Pragmatic Typology.” Language in Society 49: 495–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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 (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 12), ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: 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, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2018. “How We Manage Social Relationships through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections.” Discourse Processes 56 (3): 191–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strandson, Krista. 2001. “Kuidas vestluskaaslane parandusprotsessi algatab?” Keel ja Kirjandus 6: 394–409.Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2004. “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies 6 (4): 489–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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