Polar answers

Abstract

How do people answer polar questions? In this fourteen-language study of answers to questions in conversation, we compare the two main strategies; first, interjection-type answers such asuh-huh(or equivalentsyes,mm, head nods, etc.), and second, repetition-type answers that repeat some or all of the question. We find that all languages offer both options, but that there is a strong asymmetry in their frequency of use, with a global preference for interjection-type answers. We propose that this preference is motivated by the fact that the two options are not equivalent in meaning. We argue that interjection-type answers are intrinsically suited to be the pragmatically unmarked, and thus more frequent, strategy for confirming polar questions, regardless of the language spoken. Our analysis is based on the semantic-pragmatic profile of the interjection-type and repetition-type answer strategies, in the context of certain asymmetries inherent to the dialogic speech act structure of question–answer sequences, including sequential agency and thematic agency. This allows us to see possible explanations for the outlier distributions found in ǂĀkhoe Haiǁom and Tzeltal.

Actions in practice: On details in collections

“…So turn-taking, the organization of sequences, the organization of repair mechanisms in talk, the conversational preference for particular actions -all part of that procedural infrastructure -are proving to be empirically robust across the structural variation and diversity of languages and language groups (see e.g. Clift, 2016;Enfield et al, 2017;Kendrick et al, 2014;. And, of course, such cross-linguistic analysis is also able to identify the extent to which specific practices may be universal.…”

“…Nonetheless, research in CA takes as its point of departure Sacks' (1984: 22) fundamental assumption that there is 'order at all points', and in so doing has produced countless studies -both qualitative and quantitative -that robustly demonstrate not only the existence, but also the systematic deployment of various different sorts of agreement and confirmation cross-linguistically (see e.g. Bolden, 2016;Enfield et al, 2017;Raymond, 2003;Raymond, 2015;.…”

“…17,18 Of course, various practices relevantly mobilized to deal with epistemic matters have been found to pattern similarly across languages (e.g. on turn-prefacing and change-ofstate tokens, see Heinemann and Koivisto, 2016;Heritage and Sorjonen, 2017;Kim and Kuroshima, 2013; on question-answer sequences, see Bolden, 2016;Enfield et al, 2017;Raymond, 2015;Stivers et al, 2010, inter alia), but this is not always the case. Take as a case in point the turn-final particle in Mandarin Chinese, '-a', which Wu (2004: 128) argues exhibits a contrast-invoking property: 'it is used to mark a discrepancy in knowledge, expectation or perspective regarding some state of affairs between the -a speaker and the prior speaker'.…”

Grammatical conformity in question-answer sequences: The case of meiyou in Mandarin conversation

“…To verify Li and Thompson’s (1981) observation, I examined the 196 polar answers in my data following the framework of the recent cross-linguistic works on question-answer system (Enfield et al, 2019; Stivers, 2018; Stivers and Enfield, 2010). They categorize polar responses into the following three types: (1) interjection type , which does not assert a proposition in and of itself but does confirm or disconfirm one; (2) repetition type , which repeats fully or partially the elements without qualitative semantic alternation; and (3) other , which mainly includes transformative answers (Stivers and Hayashi, 2010).…”

Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action

“…In contrast to a language like English, in which responses to polar questions normally employ polar response particles such as yes and no (Raymond, 2003), in Tzeltal an affirmative response is normally accomplished by repetition (Brown, 2010;Enfield et al, 2019). As a result, repetitional receipt sequences in Tzeltal typically consist of two repetitions, one as a receipt of the base second pair-part and one as a confirmation of the receipt.…”