Chapter 7. The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests for confirmation in Estonian
-
Tiit Hennoste
Abstract
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.’
Abstract
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.’
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Acknowledgments vii
- Chapter 1. Introduction 1
- Chapter 2. Repetitional responses to polar questions in Russian conversation 40
- Chapter 3. Responding to polar questions in Brazilian Portuguese 76
- Chapter 4. Responses to polar questions in Polish 109
- Chapter 5. Three practices for confirming inferences in French talk-in-interaction 139
- Chapter 6. Complexities of responding 179
- Chapter 7. The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests for confirmation in Estonian 210
- Chapter 8. Code-switching, agency, and the answer possibility space of Spanish-English bilinguals 239
- Chapter 9. Post-confirmation modifications 272
- Chapter 10. Responding to polar questions without a polarity item ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in Finnish 301
- Chapter 11. Renewing a social action in US primary care 328
- Chapter 12. Do English affirmative polar interrogatives with any favor negative responses? 350
- Appendix. Transcription conventions and symbols for glossing 377
- Subject index 381
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Acknowledgments vii
- Chapter 1. Introduction 1
- Chapter 2. Repetitional responses to polar questions in Russian conversation 40
- Chapter 3. Responding to polar questions in Brazilian Portuguese 76
- Chapter 4. Responses to polar questions in Polish 109
- Chapter 5. Three practices for confirming inferences in French talk-in-interaction 139
- Chapter 6. Complexities of responding 179
- Chapter 7. The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests for confirmation in Estonian 210
- Chapter 8. Code-switching, agency, and the answer possibility space of Spanish-English bilinguals 239
- Chapter 9. Post-confirmation modifications 272
- Chapter 10. Responding to polar questions without a polarity item ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in Finnish 301
- Chapter 11. Renewing a social action in US primary care 328
- Chapter 12. Do English affirmative polar interrogatives with any favor negative responses? 350
- Appendix. Transcription conventions and symbols for glossing 377
- Subject index 381
