1.1Questions and answers

Polar questions (also known as yes/no questions) “present whole propositions as hypotheses” to be affirmed/denied or confirmed/disconfirmed (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 224), and they are defined both formally and functionally (De Ruiter 2012De Ruiter, Jan P. 2012 “Introduction.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 1–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 2). That is, polar questions can be coded grammatically (e.g. via V-S inversion in English), morphosyntactically (e.g. via sentence-final particles in Lao, Enfield 2010Enfield, N. J. 2010 “Questions and Responses in Lao.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2649–2665. ) or prosodically (e.g. via final rising intonation in Greek, as discussed in Section 1.2). Also, polar questions are interpreted on what they accomplish in interaction, that is, requests for information or confirmation, depending on whether the questioner positions her/himself as wholly unknowing or partially knowing.

Interlocutors’ epistemic status, that is, their relative access to some epistemic domain, is key in recognizing and interpreting questions. Heritage (2012Heritage, Jοhn 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. , 4) considers “relative epistemic access to a domain or territory of information as stratified between interactants such that they occupy different positions on an epistemic gradient (more knowledgeable [K+] or less knowledgeable [K−]), which itself may vary in slope from shallow to deep”. The moment-by-moment expression of epistemic status as managed through the design of turns at talk is described by Heritage (2012Heritage, Jοhn 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. , 6) as epistemic stance. Polar questions indicate epistemic asymmetry between interlocutors, as questioners (K−) usually request information that falls into respondents’ (K+) epistemic domain (Heritage 2012Heritage, Jοhn 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. ; Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. ). The ways in which interlocutors express their epistemic status through the design of questions and answers are discussed below.

The depth of the K−/K+ epistemic gradient between questioner and respondent can be adjusted by means of the question design. For example, Heritage (2012Heritage, Jοhn 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. , 6) observes that the English polar interrogative (i) Are you married? positions the questioner as less knowledgeable than the respondent, whereas the tag question (ii) You’re married, aren’t you? and the declarative question (iii) You’re married. positions the questioner as somewhat more knowing, seeking confirmation for information that is already in play. Utterance (i) indexes “a deeply sloping epistemic gradient between an unknowing (K−) questioner and a knowing (K+) recipient”, whereas utterances (ii) and (iii) index “increasingly shallow K− to K+ epistemic gradients” (Heritage 2012Heritage, Jοhn 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. , 6). This is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.Epistemic stance of (i)–(iii) represented in terms of epistemic gradient (Heritage 2012Heritage, Jοhn 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. , 7, adapted)

In all three utterances, the respondent is positioned as having primary epistemic rights over the information at issue. However, in (i) the questioner is positioned as having no epistemic rights, whereas in (ii) and (iii) the questioner claims more epistemic rights over the information at issue (for a thorough discussion see Heritage and Raymond 2005Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond 2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1): 15–38. ; Raymond and Heritage 2006Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage 2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society 35(5): 677–705. ).

Also, the depth of the K−/K+ epistemic gradient between questioner and respondent can be adjusted by means of the derived action being implemented by the polar question. According to Schegloff (2007Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 169), questions are turn types with a “double duty”, that is, they enact their own action (questioning) and serve thereby “as the vehicle or instrument for another action.” For example, a polar question implements a request for information, i.e. a vehicular action (Sidnell 2017Sidnell, Jack 2017 “Action in Interaction is Conduct under a Description.” Language in Society 46(3): 313–337. , 325), which in turn may carry out a disagreement or confirming an allusion, i.e. a derived action (Sidnell 2017Sidnell, Jack 2017 “Action in Interaction is Conduct under a Description.” Language in Society 46(3): 313–337. , 326). Disagreeing or confirming an allusion are actions that challenge the respondent’s epistemic authority, that is, their “relative rights to know about some state of affairs” (Stivers et al. 2011Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig 2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 13), and imply the questioner’s primary epistemic rights over the matter in question (Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. ; Schegloff 1996Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996 “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 161–216. ). As Heritage and Raymond (2012Heritage, 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. , 181) observe, “polar questions, while acknowledging the epistemic rights of respondents, also tend to restrict the exercise of those rights”. The epistemic stance conveyed by the questioner has implications for the design of the respondent’s turn.

Questions anticipate and receive responses from addressed recipients (Schegloff 2007Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 78; see studies in Enfield et al. 2010Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) 2010 Question-Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). ). In their cross-linguistic study, Enfield et al. (2019)Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, Stephen Levinson 2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55(2): 277–304. identified two main formats for delivering confirming polar answers: interjection-type answers, such as yes, yeah or mm-hm, which are generally preferred, and repetition-type answers that fully or partially repeat elements of the question. Enfield et al. (2019)Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, Stephen Levinson 2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55(2): 277–304. showed that the two formats have different functional distributions. Interjection-type answers “represent a solution to the problem of how to answer a polar question and do nothing more than that” (p. 281), whereas repetition-type answers are pragmatically marked “relative to this simple function” (p. 282).

In American English conversation, speakers use interjection-type answers to “accept the terms of the question unconditionally, exerting no agency with respect to those terms, and thus acquiescing in them” (Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. , 183; see also Raymond 2003Raymond, Geoffrey 2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68(6): 939–967. ). Marked or upgraded interjections, such as of course, certainly or absolutely, serve “to underscore the question recipient’s acceptance of the terms of the question” and also display the respondent’s problem “not with the question’s design but with it having been posed to this recipient at all – a problem with the legitimacy of the action of requesting information, requesting confirmation, and so on” (Stivers 2019Stivers, Tanya 2019 “How we Manage Social Relationships through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections”. Discourse Processes 56(3): 191–209. , 8; see also Stivers 2011Stivers, Tanya 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. ). To resist or challenge the socioepistemic constraints of a polar question English speakers use repetition-type answers (see e.g. Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. ; Raymond 2003Raymond, Geoffrey 2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68(6): 939–967. ; Schegloff 1996Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996 “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 161–216. ; Stivers 2005Stivers, Tanya 2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 131–158. ) or transformative answers (Stivers and Hayashi 2010Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi 2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39(1): 1–25. ). On the one hand, respondents use repetition to assert their “epistemic and social entitlement in regard to the matter being addressed” and claim “more epistemic rights over the information required than the original polar question conceded” (Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. , 188). On the other hand, speakers can design their answers in ways that transform the question’s terms or agenda to resist the presuppositions of the questioner, the terms in which the question is being asked or what the questioner is trying to accomplish with the question (e.g. Question: He sold his place. Answer: Yeah I know) (Stivers and Hayashi 2010Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi 2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39(1): 1–25. , 18).

Equivalent practices for designing polar answers are reported in other languages (see e.g. Lee 2015Lee, Seung-Hee 2015 “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes 52(1): 21–46. and Kim 2015Kim, Stephanie Hyeri 2015 “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions Through Ani (‘No’)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52(4): 311–334. on Korean, Keevallik 2010Keevallik, Leelo 2010 “Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse Studies 12(3): 283–309. on Estonian, Sorjonen 2001aSorjonen, Marja-Leena 2001a Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. , 2001bSorjonen, Marja-Leena 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. on Finnish, Steensig and Heinemann 2013Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann 2013 “When Yes is not enough as an Answer to a Yes/No Question.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 207–241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. on Danish, Golato and Fagyal 2008Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal 2008 “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3): 241–270. on German, Seuren and Huiskes 2017Seuren, Lucas M., and Mike Huiskes 2017 “Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(2): 188–205. on Dutch, Bolden 2009Bolden, Galina B. 2009 “Beyond Answering: Repeat-Prefaced Responses in Conversation.” Communication Monographs 76(2): 121–143. , 2016Bolden, Galina B. 2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58. on Russian, and Weidner 2018Weidner, Matylda 2018 “Treating Something as Self-Evident: No-Prefaced Turns in Polish.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 225–250. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. on Polish). For example, Bolden (2016)Bolden, Galina B. 2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58. reports that Russian speakers use the prosodically marked affirmative particle da to convey a congruent or incongruent evaluative stance towards an affectively charged question (e.g. to express affiliation or disaffiliation with the evaluative stance conveyed by a question that initiates repair and conveys the questioner’s surprise). By contrast, repetitional answers convey the respondent’s incongruent epistemic stance in confirming information as inferable from prior talk. In Finnish, repetitional answers may register the question as a request for information, confirm an allusion or offer an upgraded confirmation (Sorjonen 2001aSorjonen, Marja-Leena 2001a Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. , 2001bSorjonen, Marja-Leena 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ). Also, in Tzeltal, a language spoken in Chiapas, Mexico, repetitional answers are the default form for a minimal affirming response and display shared epistemic access and agency between interlocutors (Brown 2010Brown, Penelope 2010 “Questions and Their Responses in Tzeltal.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2627–2648. ; Enfield et al. 2019Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, Stephen Levinson 2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55(2): 277–304. , 297–299). As Sorjonen (2018Sorjonen, Marja-Leena 2018 “Questions and Responses: On their Structural and Interactional Relationships.” In Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions-Answers in Talk-in-Interaction], ed. by Theodossia Pavlidou, 11–32. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies., 27) argues, “information on languages such as Estonian, Finnish, Japanese and Tzeltal indicates that there may be a division of labor between particle and repetition responses according to the sequential and activity context of the question, its epistemic assumptions and formal design”.

To sum up, prior research on polar answers across different languages demonstrates universal preferences, as well as language- and context-specific variation. That is, in certain contexts interjections can be treated as non-aligning with the questioner’s agenda (as in the transformative answer Yeah I know in English conversation), and in certain languages (e.g. Tzeltal) repetitional answers can be treated as non-resisting the constraints of the question. How does Greek fit in the overall picture? To date, there is a gap in the literature regarding polar answers and their communicative import in Greek conversation. This study aims to fill this gap partly by offering an empirical analysis of polar answers from a conversation analytic perspective. In the next section, I provide an overview of the forms and functions of polar questions in Greek.

1.2Polar questions in Modern Greek

In Modern Greek a declarative (1a)–(b)11.Examples given in this section are invented. or subjunctive main clause (2a)–(b) can be turned into a positive or negative polar question through rising intonation towards the end of the utterance, as in (3a)–(b) and (4a)–(b):

Tags are added after statements with normal declarative (falling) intonation and turn them into questions. Tags are delivered with final rising intonation and include the particle e, the phrases étsi ðen íne/ðen íne étsi, and clauses negating the main verb of the clause, as in (5a)–(b):

Polar questions in Greek are less routinely delivered with final falling intonation (Alvanoudi 2018Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2018 “Ερωτήσεις Ολικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions in Greek: Forms and Functions].” In Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. by Theodossia Pavlidou, 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.) and acquire their interrogative meaning because they are statements about a domain on which the respondent is an authority (Levinson 2012Levinson, Stephen C. 2012 “Interrogative Intimations: On a Possible Social Economics of Interrogatives.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 11–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 27).

Prior research on polar questions in Greek conversation (Alvanoudi 2018Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2018 “Ερωτήσεις Ολικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions in Greek: Forms and Functions].” In Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. by Theodossia Pavlidou, 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.; Alvanoudi 2019bAlvanoudi, Angeliki 2019b “ ‘May I Tell You Something?’: When Questions do not Anticipate Responses.” Text & Talk 39(4): 563–587. ; Bella and Mozer 2015Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Mozer 2015 “Αρνητικές Eρωτηματικές Προσκλήσεις: Συνέπειες για τη Δομή Προτίμησης [Negative-Interrogative Invitations: Consequences for Preference Organization].” In Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Greek Language and Oral Communication], ed. by Theodossia Pavlidou, 11–22. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.; Bella and Mozer 2018Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Mozer 2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 125: 96–110. ; Pavlidou 1986Pavlidou, Theodossia 1986 “Nα Ρωτήσω Κάτι; Ερωτήσεις σε Υποτακτική [May I Αsk Something? Questions in the Subjunctive].” Studies in Greek Linguistics: 233–249.; Pavlidou 1991Pavlidou, Theodossia 1991 “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of the Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics 15(1): 11–42. ; and studies in Pavlidou 2018Pavlidou, Theodossia (ed.) 2018 Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions-Answers in Talk-in-Interaction]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.) demonstrates the multifunctionality of polar questions. For example, Greek speakers use polar questions to carry out impromptu invitations (Bella and Mozer 2015Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Mozer 2015 “Αρνητικές Eρωτηματικές Προσκλήσεις: Συνέπειες για τη Δομή Προτίμησης [Negative-Interrogative Invitations: Consequences for Preference Organization].” In Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Greek Language and Oral Communication], ed. by Theodossia Pavlidou, 11–22. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.; Bella and Mozer 2018Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Mozer 2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 125: 96–110. ), requests for information or confirmation and other initiation of repair (Alvanoudi 2018Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2018 “Ερωτήσεις Ολικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions in Greek: Forms and Functions].” In Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. by Theodossia Pavlidou, 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.), and implement requests to say/do something (Pavlidou 1991Pavlidou, Theodossia 1991 “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of the Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics 15(1): 11–42. ) and secure multi-unit turns in interaction (Alvanoudi 2019bAlvanoudi, Angeliki 2019b “ ‘May I Tell You Something?’: When Questions do not Anticipate Responses.” Text & Talk 39(4): 563–587. ). A preliminary attempt to map out the forms and functions of yes/no answers to polar questions in Greek conversation was undertaken by Alvanoudi (2019a)Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2019a “Απαντήσεις σε Ερωτήσεις Ολικής Άγνοιας: Επιρρήματα, Μόρια και Τροποποιημένες Ετεροεπαναλήψεις [Responses to Polar Questions: Adverbs, Particles and Modified Repeats].” Studies in Greek Linguistics 39: 47–63., drawing on approximately 22 hours of audio-recorded conversations. The present study is based on the same and additional data, and focuses exclusively on affirming/confirming answers and epistemic stance. My research aim is to examine how respondents position themselves towards the questioner’s epistemic stance and the proposition in question through the design of their polar answers. Analytic methods for coding data are presented in Section 2. Findings are discussed in Section 3. Concluding remarks are in Section 4.

2.1Quantitative data

Utterances with final rising intonation are the dominant polar question type, as shown in Table 1.

In line with Stivers and Enfield’s (2010)Stivers, Tanya and N. J. Enfield 2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2620–2626. coding scheme, questions were coded as Requests for Information if “it seemed that there was no other primary action to be coded” (p. 2623) and getting new information was the only job the question was doing. Questions were coded as Requests for Confirmation if the questioner appeared to assume that the proposition raised by the question was probably true. Questions were coded as Other Initiations of Repair if they were dealing with a problem of hearing or understanding the prior turn. Questions that implement requests for action, suggestions, proposals and offers were coded in a single category. Other actions as well as questions that carried out more than one action were coded as Other. We can observe in Table 2 that requests for information and confirmation are the most common actions being implemented by polar questions.

Following Thompson et al. (2015Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 4), the first turn constructional unit (TCU) of a next turn was coded as a response. Table 3 shows that 85% of questions received a response.

I collected 709 instances of answers to polar questions. The following answer types were identified: (a) interjection-type answers or response tokens (henceforth response tokens), that is, particles or adverbial items; (b) repetitions, that is, answers that involve a modified replication of a question through addition or omission; (c) combination answers that consist of response tokens followed by repeats, and (d) transformations, that is, answers that change the terms or the agenda of the question.

As shown in Table 4, 57% of polar questions received an affirmation/confirmation, 22% of polar questions were responded to with a transformation, and 21% of polar questions received a disconfirming response or a non-answer. That is, in Greek there is a preference for affirming or confirming answers, as observed in other languages (Stivers et al. 2009Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan P. De Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson 2009 “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 106: 10587–10592. ). Moreover, in designing affirming/confirming polar answers Greek speakers rely most on response tokens. This finding aligns with the cross-linguistic preference for the use of interjections in polar answers reported by Enfield et al. (2019)Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, Stephen Levinson 2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55(2): 277–304. .

The present study focuses on affirming/confirming polar answers.22.Answers to polar questions that carry out directive and commissive acts, such as requests for action, offers or proposals were not included in the final analysis, given that these responsive actions are shaped by deontic stance rather than epistemic stance (cf. Thompson et al. 2015Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 264–267). Following Stivers’ (2019)Stivers, Tanya 2019 “How we Manage Social Relationships through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections”. Discourse Processes 56(3): 191–209. typology, positive response tokens were divided into: (a) unmarked response tokens, that include the prosodically unmarked particle ne (‘yes’), the monosyllabic particle m and the bisyllabic particle m(h)m, and (b) marked response tokens, that include upgraded and downgraded tokens. Upgraded tokens include particles, which are prosodically marked with higher pitch or increased loudness, such as ne (‘yes’), repeats, such as ne ne ne, and semantically emphatic adverbs, such as vévea (‘of course’) and enoíte (‘absolutely’). Downgraded tokens, such as málon (‘maybe, probably’), carry positive or negative valence and are less common in the data. We can observe in Tables 5 and 6 that 61% of positive response tokens are unmarked and 39% are marked. Most marked tokens are upgraded. Prosodically marked tokens are the most common ones, followed by semantically emphatic adverbs and repeats.

This study examines (a) positive response tokens (Sections 3.1 and 3.2), and (b) repetitional answers (Section 3.3). As for (a), the study focuses on unmarked positive response tokens (Section 3.1), and marked upgraded tokens (Section 3.2).

3.1Unmarked positive response tokens

Speakers use unmarked positive response tokens to answer polar questions that request information, as shown in Extract (1). The exchange comes from a conversation among four friends, two females, Magdalini and Yota, and two males, Spiros and Grigoris. Magdalini has informed her interlocutors that uncle Nikos just called her.

1   Spi:     =Αpό  pú    ín        aftόs.
              from where cop.3sg.prs this.m.sg
             =Where is he from.
2            (0.9)
3   Yot:     Αp   tin Aθína:.=
             from def Athens
             From Athe:ns.=
4   Gri:  -> =.h  Αp   tο  sόi   tu      babá   sas    ítan?=
                  from def family def.gen dad.gen your.pl cop.3sg.pst
             =.h Was he from your dad’s side?= 
5   Yot: =>  =Νe.
              yes
             =Yes.
6            (1.1)
7   Gri:     ʝaftό    ðen  don [°(gzérume).]
             for this neg   him    know.1pl
             That’s why we don’t [°(know) him.] 
8   Spi:                       [ʝaftό- aftό] °θa leɣa. 
                                for this this fut say.1sg
                               [That’s why- that’s] what °I was gonna say. 

In line 1, Spyros uses a wh-question to elicit information about the uncle’s origin, and Yota provides the information in line 3. The wh-question positions the recipient as having [K+] status and expresses a steep epistemic gradient as it “advances no hypothesis for confirmation” and claims no knowledge over the information at issue (Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. , 181). The recipient accepts the [K+] status by providing a response to the wh-question, and thus demonstrating that she has the information the questioner is seeking. The wh-question-answer sequence is followed by a polar question-answer sequence in lines 4–5, in which Grigoris uses a declarative clause with final rising intonation to request additional information about the uncle (‘Was he from your dad’s side?’, line 4), and Yota provides the affirming answer ne (‘yes’, line 5). The polar question positions the same recipient as the party “with epistemic rights with respect to the knowledge domain being addressed” (Heritage and Raymond 2012Heritage, 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. , 181). This domain is a Type 1 knowable (Pomerantz 1980Pomerantz, Anita 1980 “Telling my Side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing” Device.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. ), which speakers have rights and obligations to know from firsthand experience. The polar question is the second question in a row of questions about the same person that treats the recipient as having knowledge about the person being talked about. The polar question positions the questioner as unknowing [K−] and implements a request for information. Yota provides the information via the simple positive response token ne that comes with no delay or further elaboration, and simply affirms the question’s proposition. Yota’s response fully acquiesces to the terms of the question, not taking issue with the questioner’s epistemic positioning.

Also, speakers use unmarked positive response tokens to answer polar questions that request simple confirmation, as in Extract (2).

1   Fot:     >Prospaθúsa na  káno  káti      állo  vasiká.< =
             ((laughing..................................)) 
             try.1sg.pst  sbjv do.1sg something else actually
             >Actually I was trying to do something else.< = 
2   Art: ->  =Pçοs in        aftόs.    ʝaɲόtis       íne?
              who  cop.3sg.prs this.m.sg Yanniotis(m).sg cop.3sg.prs
             =Who is he. Is he from Ioannina? 
3   Chr: =>  Μ:.=
             particle
             Mm:.=

Artemis’ turn in line 2 consists of two TCUs requesting information. In the first TCU, the speaker uses a wh-question (‘Who is he.’) that claims no knowledge at all and seeks a single, specific piece of information (Specifying Question, Thompson et al. 2015Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 20). In the second TCU, the speaker uses a polar question (‘Is he from Ioannina?’) to offer a candidate answer (Pomerantz 1988Pomerantz, Anita 1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs 55(4): 360–373. ) that demonstrates the speaker’s implied knowledge of the proposition in question. According to Pomerantz (1988Pomerantz, Anita 1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs 55(4): 360–373. , 369), “in putting forth a candidate answer, a speaker recognizably offers the candidate answer as a likely possibility. The particular choice of candidate answer is treated as a display of the speaker’s knowledge of, and familiarity with, the situation.” Thus, the polar question in line 2 positions the respondent as [K+] and construes the questioner as “somewhat knowledgeable even while seeking information” (Pomerantz 1988Pomerantz, Anita 1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs 55(4): 360–373. , 370). In line 3, Chrysi responds to Artemi’s polar question delivered in the second TCU (given the preference for contiguity in interaction, Schegloff 2007Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ) via the particle m with final falling intonation. The respondent confirms the candidate answer as a likely possibility and demonstrates that she treats herself as [K+].

A similar case is in Extract (3). Ourania has informed Chrysanthi that the name Ourania is common in Corfu and in the Peloponnese. The question of interest is in line 4.

1   Chr:     =Έxo    tin edíposi   όmos  όti  pοlí Cerciréi
             have.1sg def impression but  that many Corfu residents
             =But I think that many residents of Corfu   
2            íne    Pelop- (.) ts,    ðilaðí   éxune    kataɣoʝí p- 
             cop.3pl Pelop-     click  that is  have.3pl origin 
             are from the Pelop- (.) ts, that is they come  
3            a:p  tin Belopόniso.=
             from def  Peloponnese 
             fro:m the Peloponnese.=
4   Our: ->  =Αlíθça  e?=
              really  particle 
             =Really eh?=
5   Chr: =>  =°Νe.
               yes
             =°Yes.

In lines 1–3, Chrysanthi delivers an informing about the origin of many residents of Corfu, assuming that the recipient does not know and should know (Heritage 1984Heritage, Jοhn 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 Aitkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). In line 4, Ourania confirms the informativeness of the information provided by Chrysanthi with a newsmark (‘Really eh?’) that consists of a tag (i.e. the particle e). The newsmark highlights Ourania’s turn as newsworthy and seeks confirmation, encouraging more talk on the matter. The tag question positions the respondent as [K+] but “construes the questioner as partly in the know”, as “the information provided in the response is not treated as wholly new” for the questioner (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 238). In line 5, Chrysanthi confirms with the token ne (‘yes’). Her answer is latched onto Ourania’s question, without any inter-turn gap or turn initial delay that disrupts the contiguity between the first and second pair part of the adjacency pair. Chrysanthi provides a simple confirming response and assumes an epistemically [K+] position.

In the above segments, speakers use unmarked positive response tokens to answer polar questions that request information or simple confirmation, and accept the epistemic terms of the question. The communicative import of marked response tokens is analyzed in the next section.

3.2Marked positive response tokens

Greek speakers use marked positive response tokens to answer polar questions that implement ‘surprised’ repair initiation. One example is visible in Extract (4):

1   Our:     = <Emís páli ti k- ti   fáɣame?>
                we   adv   what  what eat.1pl.pst 
             = <We what- what did we eat?>
2   Vag:     =A  ne.  [xθes     to vráði.] 
              ah yes  yesterday def night
             =Oh yes. [Last night.] 
3   Οur:              [.h Εmís     fáɣame] 
                          we       eat.1pl.pst   
                      [.h We ate] 
4            <maʝirítsa  °xtes     to vráði.>
              magirítsa  yesterday def night
             <magirítsa soup °last night.>
5 ?          .hh=
6   Our:     =.h[h fáɣame      maʝirí]tsa, 
                   eat.1pl.pst  magirítsa
             =.h[h We ate magirí]tsa,
7   Μar:        [Τi   tο  kalítero.]
                 what def  best      
                [It’s the best.] 
8   Οur:     tin ésti[le     i  mána]  mu:
             it  send.3sg.pst def mother my
             my: [mother sent] it to me 
9   Vag:             [>Ε     vévea.<]
                       eh    of course
                     [>Eh of course.<]
10  Οur:     me   ðéma,  .h=
             with package(n).acc.sg 
             in a package, .h= 
11  Μar: ->  =((laugh)) me   ðéma?=
                        with package(n).acc.sg  
                        In a package?=
12  Οur: =>  =↑NE:[::.  ]=
              ((laughing))
             yes
             =↑YE:[::S.]=
13 Vag:           [Íírθe,]=
                  arrive.3sg.pst 
                  [It arrived,]=
14  Μar:     =Κalá, pos re     pe[ðʝá.]
              well  how particle guys 
             =Well, gu[ys] how is this possible?’
15 Οur:                         [Αpό ] Cércira.
                                 from  Corfu
                                [From] Corfu.

Ourania informs her interlocutors that last night she ate a soup that her mum posted to her in a package (lines 3, 4, 6, 8, 10). In line 11, Maria initiates repair (‘In a package?’) using a partial questioning repeat of Ourania’s turn (Robinson 2013Robinson, Jeffrey 2013 “Epistemics, Action Formation and Other-Initiation of Repair: The Case of Partial Questioning Repeats.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell, 261–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). The repair initiation is a polar question that seeks confirmation and positions the respondent as [K+]. Moreover, the question displays speaker’s surprise, as shown by the prosodic realization (higher pitch) of the turn and speaker’s laughter (Selting 1996Selting, Margret 1996 “Prosody as an Activity Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-Called “Astonished” Questions in Repair.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2006Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger 2006 “Surprise as an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2): 150–182. ). Maria has initiated a repair to address a problem of expectation rather than a problem of hearing or understanding (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 188), and conveys that what Ourania said in her prior turn is in contradiction to Maria’s knowledge or expectations about what is true or acceptable. In line 12, Ourania emphatically confirms with the marked particle ↑NE::: (‘yes’), delivered contiguously, with higher pitch, loudness, duration and in laughing mode. The polar answer provides the confirmation requested and demonstrates that the respondent treats herself as [K+] and the questioner as [K−]. That is, the polar answer accepts the epistemic terms of the question. At the same time, the marked response token embraces the surprise expressed by the questioner. The respondent mobilizes prosodic resources, such as higher pitch, loudness and duration, to convey a congruent evaluative stance. Compare for example the intonation contour in Figure 2, the unmarked token ne in Extract (1), with the intonation contour in Figure 3, the marked token ne in Extract (4).

In these examples, prosodic variation of the same response token serves to convey the respondent’s different evaluative/affective stance towards the question. In Extract (1), the unmarked response token does ‘simple’ and neutral answering, whereas in Extract (4), the prosodically marked response token does ‘affectively charged’ answering (for the role of prosody in conveying stance see e.g. Couper-Kuhlen 2009Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2009 “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of Disappointment.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.; Golato and Fagyal 2008Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal 2008 “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3): 241–270. ; Selting 1996Selting, Margret 1996 “Prosody as an Activity Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-Called “Astonished” Questions in Repair.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2006Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger 2006 “Surprise as an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2): 150–182. ; Ward 2019Ward, Nigel 2019 Prosodic Patterns in English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , among other).

Another example is in Extract (5). Chrysanthi has informed Ourania and Athina about changes in how domestic calls are made, and she mentions that callers need to dial zero with no extra charges.

1   Ath: ->  ðila↑ðí:,  θa bor- θa: ʝa  na  páro    eɣό  apό:
             that is    fut can  fut  to sbjv call.1sg I   from
             That ↑i:s, can- wi:ll in order to call o:n
2        ->  kartotiléfono  eséna  stο staθerό su 
             pre-paid phone you.sg to  landline your.sg
             your landline fro:m a pre-paid phone
3        ->  θa  pérno   miðén triáda  éna <miðén?> =
             fut call.1sg zero  thirty  one zero
             do I need to dial zero thirty one <zero?> = 
4   Chr: =>  = <Νe  ne  ne.> =
                yes yes yes
             = <Yes yes yes.> = 
5   Our: =>  =Νe.
              yes
             =Yes.

After intervening talk and a gap, Athina initiates repair to check understanding of the information provided at a distance from the repair (Benjamin 2012Benjamin, Trevor 2012 “When Problems Pass Us By: Using “You Mean” to Help Locate the Source of Trouble.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 82–109. ). In lines 1–3, the speaker offers a candidate understanding (inference) of the trouble source (‘in order to call o:n your landline fro:m a pre-paid phone do I need to dial zero thirty one <zero?>’). The repair initiator is a polar question that seeks confirmation and positions the questioner as [K−]. In lines 4–5, Chrysanthi and Ourania overtly confirm the questioner’s understanding with the marked response tokens <Νe ne ne.> (‘yes yes yes.’) and Νe (‘yes’), and demonstrate that they treat themselves as [K+]. Respondents answer immediately, without providing any further explanation or information in understanding the trouble source. That is, they treat the questioner’s candidate understanding as an affiliative move that does not create a serious obstacle to the progressivity of talk (e.g. because the questioner claims that she knows better) (Antaki 2012Antaki, Charles 2012 “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.” Discourse Studies 14(5): 531–547. ). Respondents mobilize prosodic resources, such as slowed speech rate and higher pitch, and repetition to emphatically confirm information that has been accurately inferred from prior talk, and affectively align with the questioner’s proffering of a candidate understanding.

Extract (6) comes from a telephone call between Dimitra and her granddaughter, Zina. After the greeting sequence, Zina initiates a new topic about the Easter holiday in lines 1–2, and Dimitra replies that they had a barbeque with Yorgakis and the kids in lines 3–4, 7. The question of interest is in line 9.

1   Ζin:     °Νe:.° to Pásxa ↑pos ta pé:rases?
              yes   def Easter how pn pass.2sg 
              °Yes.° ↑How wa:s Easter?
2             írθe:    ο:  θíοs?
              come.3sg def  uncle
              Did uncle come:? 
3   Dim:      Νe. ↑í:rθe  ο   Yorɣá:cis, (.) me  ta  peðʝá: όli,
              yes come.3sg def Yorgakis(m)    with def kids   all.m
              Yes. Yorga:kis ↑ca:me, (.) with the ki:ds all of
              them,  
4             psísame    eðό:, fáɣane, tο  vrá:ði fíɣane.
              grill.1pl  here  eat.3pl  def night  leave.3pl 
              we had a barberque here:, they ate, in the
              eve:ning they left.
5             (0.5)
6   Ζin:      Α: [(όli-)] 
              ah   all.m
              O:h [(all-)]   
7   Dim:         [(Oréa)] perásame. polí kalá.
                   well   pass.1pl  very  well
                 We had [(a good time).] Very good.  
8             (0.6)
9   Ζin: ->   Ítan      ce  ta   peðʝá:?
              cop.3pl.pst and def  kids 
              Did the ki:ds come as well?
10            (.)
11  Dim: =>   >Vévea.<  ό:li  ítane.
              of course all.m cop.3pl.pst 
              >Of course.< They all came.  
12  Zin:      °Μ.°   ο  Έksarxos    ti   ká:ni.
              particle def Eksarxos(m) what do.3sg
              ‘Mm. How is Eksarxos?’  

After a gap (line 8), Zina launches a new sequence in line 9. She uses a polar question to ask whether the kids joined the barbeque, that is, to request information that Dimitra has already provided in line 3. After a micro-pause that indicates trouble (line 10), Dimitra confirms via the semantically emphatic adverb >vévea< (‘of course’) in line 11. The polar answer treats the questioner as [K−] and highlights the obviousness of the answer. In the next TCU, the respondent provides further explanation (‘they all came’), repeating information from her prior turn with emphasis, and, thus, she displays her problem with the necessity of the question. Zina closes down the sequence via the neutral information receipt token m in line 12.

In sum, speakers use marked positive response tokens to provide overt confirmations to polar questions. These overt confirmations accept the epistemic terms of the question and also address aspects of the derived action being implemented via the question, namely they convey a congruent evaluative stance towards ‘surprised’ repair initiation, affectively align with the proffering of a candidate understanding or highlight the obviousness of the answer.

3.3Repetition

When respondents seek to resist the questioner’s epistemic positioning and assert their own epistemic authority, they deploy repetition. This pattern is visible in (7):

1   Our:     Ce >ksérete  ti    skéftome?< όti  an válo    ce
             and know.2pl  what think.1sg   that if put.1sg and
             And >do you know what I’m thinking?< That if I
             also use  
2            staθerό, (.)   e:: (0.7) ðen gzéro:, 
             landline phone eh        neg  know.1sg 
             a landline phone, (.) u::h (0.7) I don’t kno:w, 
3            θa: íne        pára polí ce  to  páʝio.
             fut  cop.3sg.prs very much and def  fixed rate
             the fixed rate wi:ll be very high as well. 
4            ðilaðí  >tο [páʝio]    eména stο   Réθimno 
             that is  def fixed rate pn    in def Rethymno 
             That is >in Rethymno the [fixed rate]
5   Αth:                 [°Νe. ]
                           yes
                         [°Yes.]
6   Οur:     erxόtan  οxtό  çiʎáðes¿< =
             come.3sg eight thousand
             costed eight thousand¿< =  
7   Αth:    =Ks-  [pόsο.    eɣό   páli      (íç-)]
                   how much I     adv 
             =How [much. I also (had-)]  
8   Οur:          [°(Tο ðímino.)°  ΕΝO BORO   [ΝΑ]     pérno]
                     def two months but can.1sg sbjv     call.1sg
                  [°(For two months).° BUT I CAN [call]  
9   Chr:                                      [°Ise  síɣuri?] 
                                               cop.2sg.prs sure.f.sg
                                              [°Are you sure?]
10  Our:     °ne. pá[ʝio.]
             yes  fixed rate
             °Yes. Fixed [rate.] 
11  Chr: ->         [ °Se] staθerό?=
                       prep  landline.n.acc.sg
                    [°For] a landline phone?= 
12  Our: =>  =↑Se staθerό.=
             prep  landline.n.acc.sg
             =↑For a landline phone.= 
13  Chr:     =Τi   lé[te ]  re    peðʝá 
              what say.2pl  particle guys
             =Hey guys, sa[y] what?
14  Our:            [°Νe.]
                      yes
                    [°Yes.]
15  Chr:     ce  ðe mu éçi      érθi lοɣarʝazmόs   akόmi.=
                   ((laughing............................))
             and neg pn have.3sg come bill           yet 
             and I still haven’t received the bill.=  

In lines 1–4 and 6, Ourania informs her interlocutors of landline phone charges, and in lines 9 and 11, Chrysanthi challenges Ourania’s claim via a series of polar questions. Ourania responds to Chrysanthi’s first disagreement (‘Are you sure?) with the unmarked token ne (‘yes’) in line 10. Chrysanthi treats the response as non-conforming with the exigencies of the question and delivers another disagreement (‘For a landline phone?’). Ourania responds with a modified repeat in line 12: she repeats the phrase se staθerό with sharp intonation rise and final falling intonation. The derived actions implemented by the polar questions in this exchange challenge the respondent’s epistemic authority and imply the questioner’s primary epistemic rights over the information at issue. The respondent uses repetition to confirm the proposition raised by the question and assert her epistemic authority with respect to the knowledge domain being addressed. That is, the repetitional answer resists the epistemic terms of the question.

Α similar case is in Extract (8). The segment is from a conversation among three male friends, Yorgos, Manos, and Dimosthenis. In the lines preceding this segment, Yorgos has quoted Milan Kundera’s claim that men do not conquer women anymore. Manos has prompted Yorgos to elaborate, and Yorgos provides more information in lines 1–2. The question of interest is in line 4.

1   Yor:     [ðen a]ɣonízοde   as    púme      ʝa  káti.
             neg   fight.3pl    so to speak.1pl for something
             [They do not f]ight for anything so to speak.  
2            °ðen ganun  káti. 
             neg   do.3pl something
             °They do nothing.
3            (0.7)
4   Dim: ->  Αftό         enoí?
             this.n.acc.sg mean.3sg.prs 
             Is this what he means?
5   Yor: =>  Αf[tό        enoí.]
             this.n.acc.sg mean.3sg.prs 
             Th[is is what he means.]
6   Μan:       [Τi           ðilaðí?] 
               what          that is  
               [That is?] 

Dimosthenis delivers a polar question with emphasis (‘Is this what he means?’) that challenges Yorgos’ understanding of Kundera’s claim, indexes a shallow K− to K+ epistemic gradient, and implies the questioner’s primary epistemic rights over the information at issue. In line 5, Yorgos responds with a modified repeat of the question: he replicates the phrase aftό enoí (‘This is what he means.’) with final falling intonation and no emphasis. The repetitional answer confirms the question’s proposition and asserts the respondent’s epistemic authority over the matter in question.

In Extracts (7) and (8), repetitional answers resist the questioner’s epistemic stance. A slightly different pattern is visible in Extract (9):

1   Pol: ->  =Αléka θimáse          pos íxame       érθi
              Aleka remember.2sg.prs how have.1pl.pst come.pfv 
             =Aleka do you remember how we came
2             eðό  péra mɲa forá?=
              here over one time
              here once?= 
3   Αle: =>  =Το  θi↑máme.        aftό θimíθika        [tόra.]
              it  remember.1sg.prs this remember.1sg.pst  now
              =I re↑member. I [just] remembered it.
4   Pol:                                               [Μe ti]:: 
                                                        with def
                                                        The:: 
5             fialticí  istoría  °me   taftocínito?
              nightmare story    with  def car
              nightmare story °with the car?
6            (0.5)
7   Νas:     Τi:? ↑ti  éʝine.
             what what happen.3sg.pst 
             Wha:t? ↑What happened?

In lines 1–2, Polychronis uses a polar question (‘Aleka do you remember how we came here once?’) to initiate an assisted story telling and implement a ‘reminiscence recognition solicit’ (Lerner 1992Lerner, Gene H. 1992 “Assisted Story Telling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology 15(3): 247–271. ). This kind of preface forecasts a possible story but does “not indicate who is meant to deliver it” (Lerner 1992Lerner, Gene H. 1992 “Assisted Story Telling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology 15(3): 247–271. , 255). In line 3, Aleka responds with recognition: she repeats the verb θi↑máme in first person singular, with emphasis and final falling intonation, and adds the anaphoric pronoun to. Polychronis adds an increment to his question (lines 4–5), Aleka does not step in as the storyteller (there is a gap in line 6) and Nasos uses a wh-question to express his acceptance of the prior speakers telling the story. In the lines following (omitted for space considerations), Polychronis begins the delivery of the story and Aleka ends up as a story consociate who actively participates in the story delivery. The assisted story preface delivered by Polychronis demonstrates shared knowledge with Aleka and positions the questioner as knowledgeable. Aleka uses repetition to confirm her capacity to know some element of information due to experience. In this segment, the question’s derived action makes the respondent’s epistemic authority interactionally relevant and invites the respondent to display shared epistemic access and agency. The respondent uses repetition to bring her authority over the particular information to focused attention and takes no issue with the questioner’s epistemic positioning.

To recapitulate, speakers use repetition to confirm the question’s proposition and assert their epistemic authority. Repetitional answers can be treated as resisting or non-resisting the questioner’s epistemic stance, depending on whether the action carried out by the question challenges or not the respondent’s primary epistemic rights with respect to the knowledge domain being addressed. Conclusions are in the next section.