“May I tell you something?”: When questions do not anticipate responses
-
Angeliki Alvanoudi
Angeliki Alvanoudi is Lecturer at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, and Adjunct Lecturer in Linguistics at James Cook University, Australia. Her main interests are language and gender, and grammar and interaction. Her book-length publications are
Grammatical gender in interaction: Cultural and cognitive aspects (Brill, 2014) andModern Greek in diaspora: An Australian perspective (Palgrave, 2018). Address for correspondence: School of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24, Greece. Email: alvanoudiag@yahoo.gr
Abstract
This conversation analytic paper reports on the interactional functions of the Greek subjunctive polar interrogative clause na (su) po (káti)? ‘may I tell you something?’ in informal Greek conversation (Corpus of Spoken Greek). It is shown that the clause is a practice for securing a multi-unit turn and prefacing big packages in interaction, such as arguments and tellings. It is argued that the interrogative clause is used as a discourse marker when it occupies the initial slot of an extended turn. By employing an interactional approach to grammar, this study brings sequential context, social action and practice into the analysis of the clause na (su) po (káti)?, and sheds light on the vehicular structure of social action and the emergence of linguistic devices that project multi-unit turns.
About the author
Angeliki Alvanoudi is Lecturer at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, and Adjunct Lecturer in Linguistics at James Cook University, Australia. Her main interests are language and gender, and grammar and interaction. Her book-length publications are Grammatical gender in interaction: Cultural and cognitive aspects (Brill, 2014) and Modern Greek in diaspora: An Australian perspective (Palgrave, 2018). Address for correspondence: School of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24, Greece. Email: alvanoudiag@yahoo.gr
Acknowledgements
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Valérie Guérin and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou read earlier drafts of this paper and provided very helpful observations. I thank the three Text & Talk referees for their useful comments. The first version of this paper was presented at the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, at Freie Universität Berlin, on 16–19 September, 2015. I am grateful to the participants of this event for their feedback.
Appendix A: Abbreviations
1: first person; 2: second person; 3: third person; acc: accusative; conj: conjunction; cop: copula; def: definite; f: feminine; gen: genitive; imp: imperative; m: masculine; neg: negation; n: neuter; nom: nominative; pst: past; pfv: perfective; pl: plural; prs: present; pron: pronoun; sg: singular; sbjv: subjunctive
Appendix B: Transcription conventions
The left bracket [is the point of overlap onset between two or more utterances (or segments of them). The right bracket] is point of overlap end between two or more utterances (or segments of them).
The equal sign = is used either in pairs or on its own. A pair of equals signs is used to indicate the following:
If the lines connected by the equals signs contain utterances (or segments of them) by different speakers, then the signs denote “latching” (that is, the absence of discernible silence between the utterances).
If the lines connected by the equals signs are by the same speaker, then there was a single, continuous utterance with no break or pause, which was broken up in two lines only in order to accommodate the placement of overlapping talk. The single equals sign is used to indicate latching between two parts of the same speaker’s talk, where one might otherwise expect a micro-pause, as, for instance, after a turn constructional unit with a falling intonation contour.
Numbers in parentheses (0.8) indicate silence, represented in tenths of a second.Silences may be marked either within the utterance or between utterances.
(.) indicates a micro-pause (less than 0.5 second).
A period indicates falling/final intonation.
A question mark indicates rising intonation.
A comma indicates continuing/non-final intonation.
Colons: are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the sound just preceding them. The more colons, the longer the stretching.
Underlining is used to indicate some form of emphasis, either by increased loudness or higher pitch.
The degree sign ° is used to indicate the onset of talk that is markedly quiet or soft. When the end of such talk does not coincide with the end of a line, then the symbol is used again to mark its end.
A hyphen - after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or interruption.
Combinations of underlining and colons are used to indicate intonation contours. If the letter(s) preceding a colon is underlined, then there is prolongation of the sound preceding it and, at the same time, a falling intonation contour. If the colon itself is underlined, then there is prolongation of the sound preceding it and, at the same time, a rising intonation contour.
The arrows mark sharp intonation contours. The upper arrow ↑ indicates sharp intonation rises, whereas the down arrow ↓ indicates sharp intonation falls.
The combination of the symbols > and < indicates that the talk between them is compressed or rushed.
The combination of the symbols < and > indicates that the talk between them is markedly slowed or drawn out.
Hearable aspiration is shown with the Latin letter h. Its repetition indicates longer duration. The aspiration may represent inhaling, exhaling, laughter, etc.
If the aspiration is an inhalation, then it is indicated with a period before the letter h.
Double parentheses are used to mark meta-linguistic, para-linguistic and non-conversational descriptions of events by the transcriber, e.g. ((s/he laughs)).
Parentheses with dots (…) indicate that something is being said, but no hearing can be achieved.
Words in parentheses represent a likely possibility of what was said.
References
Alvanoudi, Angeliki. 2018. Ερωτήσεις ολικής άγνοιας στην ελληνική: Μορφές και λειτουργίες [Polar questions in Greek: Forms and functions]. In Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou (ed.), Ερωτήσεις-απαντήσεις στην προφορική επικοινωνία [Questions and answers in Greek talk-in-interaction], 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6(3). 295–322.10.1075/prag.6.3.03aueSearch in Google Scholar
Blythe, Joe. 2013. Preference organization driving structuration: Evidence from Australian Aboriginal interaction for pragmatically motivated grammaticalization. Language 89(4). 883–919.10.1353/lan.2013.0057Search in Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61(1). 94–119.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.xSearch in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1996. Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of because. Pragmatics 6(3). 389–426.10.1075/prag.6.3.04couSearch in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2011. Grammaticalization and conversation. In Harrog Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 424–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0034Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647.10.1075/prag.24.3.08couSearch in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2017. Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139507318Search in Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S. 2006. Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8). 1257–1280.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004Search in Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S. & Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2). 129–153.10.1080/08351810802028613Search in Google Scholar
De Ruiter, Jan P. (ed.). 2012a. Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414Search in Google Scholar
De Ruiter, Jan P. 2012b. Introduction: Questions are what they do. In Jan P. De Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 1–7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Methodology. vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dori-Hacohen, Gonen. 2011. “I have a question for you”: Practices for achieving institutional interaction in Israeli radio phone-in programs. Pragmatics 21(4). 527–548.10.1075/prag.21.4.02dorSearch in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2013. Turn design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 131–149. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch7Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338733.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 429–448.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XSearch in Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554278Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 2001. At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 51–79. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10.05forSearch in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (ed.). 1996. Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.33Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Sandra A. Thompson, Cecilia E. Ford & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2013. Conversation analysis and linguistics. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 726–740. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch36Search in Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction: On left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.1Search in Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie. H. & Charles Goodwin. 1987. Children’s arguing. In Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele & Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective, 200–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 395–414. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch19Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 88–104.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38.10.1177/019027250506800103Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Andrew L. Roth. 1995. Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1). 1–60.10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_1Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hopSearch in Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2003. Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies 5(1). 51–77.10.1177/14614456030050010301Search in Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1992. Assisted story telling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology 15(3). 247–271.10.1007/BF00990328Search in Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32(2). 177–201.10.1017/S004740450332202XSearch in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch6Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2017. Speech acts. In Yan Huang (ed.), Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 199–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.22Search in Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1997. Emergent bilingual grammar: The case of contrast. Journal of Pragmatics 28(3). 279–313.10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00085-9Search in Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1998. Rotsè lishmoa kéta? ‘Wanna hear something weird/funny’ [lit. ‘a segment’]?’: Segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 13–59. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.57.04masSearch in Google Scholar
Maynard, Senko K. 1995. Interrogatives that seek no answers: Exploring the expressiveness of rhetorical interrogatives in Japanese. Linguistics 33(3). 501–530.10.1515/ling.1995.33.3.501Search in Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter & William Turnbull. 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics 29(3). 225–256.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9Search in Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874Search in Google Scholar
Pavlidou, 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). 11–42.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90024-RSearch in Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia. 2016. Καταγράφοντας την ελληνική γλώσσα [Making a record of the Greek language]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2004. From discourse to grammar: Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. In Gordon Fulton, William J. Sullivan & Arle R. Lommel (eds.), LACUS: Forum XXX: Language, thought and reality, 413–423. Houston TX: Lacus.Search in Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In Richard Bauman & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611810.022Search in Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6). 1075–1095.10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4). 104–152.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.xSearch in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. Maxwell Aitkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 28–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.006Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3). 499–545.10.1080/01638539709545001Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29(1). 1–63.10.1017/S0047404500001019Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382.10.1353/lan.1977.0041Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Gene H. Lerner. 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2). 91–115.10.1080/08351810902864511Search in Google Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.21832/9781847692849-020Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2017. Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society 46(3). 313–337.10.1017/S0047404517000173Search in Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, N., J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) 2010. Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages [special issue]. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 10.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002Search in Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah & Kakavá. Christina. 1992. Power and solidarity in modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10(1). 11–34.10.1353/mgs.2010.0203Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139381154Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756393.ch20Search in Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40(5). 987–1010.10.1515/ling.2002.041Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Announcement
- ‘You’ll need help from your adult assistant’: Readership accommodation in children’s recipes
- Being an ‘older parent’: Chrononormativity and practices of stage of life categorisation
- Linguistic strategies prompting interactions in recipes from Mandarin Chinese food blogs
- Sequential organization of hinting in online task-oriented L2 interaction
- A corpus-based study on the functions of antonym co-occurrences in spoken Chinese
- “May I tell you something?”: When questions do not anticipate responses
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Announcement
- ‘You’ll need help from your adult assistant’: Readership accommodation in children’s recipes
- Being an ‘older parent’: Chrononormativity and practices of stage of life categorisation
- Linguistic strategies prompting interactions in recipes from Mandarin Chinese food blogs
- Sequential organization of hinting in online task-oriented L2 interaction
- A corpus-based study on the functions of antonym co-occurrences in spoken Chinese
- “May I tell you something?”: When questions do not anticipate responses
