Fox-Thompson2010
| Fox-Thompson2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Fox-Thompson2010 |
| Author(s) | Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson |
| Title | Responses to Wh-questions in English conversation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Interactional Linguistics, Response |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 133–156 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351811003751680 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
We explore the grammatical and interactional characteristics of various response-types to wh-questions in American English conversation. Our data reveal that there are two broad types of responses to type-specifying wh-questions, phrasal and clausal. We argue that each of these types of responses exhibits unique interactional properties, such that while phrasal responses to wh-questions do simple answering, clausal responses occur when there is trouble with the question or sequence.We suggest that the design of wh-questions permits a grammatically symbiotic or grammatically resonant response, and that such symbiotic phrasal responses, specifically fitted to the lexicogrammar of wh-questions, are the optimal no-trouble response for furthering the project initiated by the question. We take our study to provide further confirmation of the view of grammar that Schegloff has persuasively argued for (1996b, inter alia), namely the value, indeed the necessity, of considering grammar in terms of its real-time sequential habitat, the everyday practices through which social interaction is managed and accomplished.
Notes
