Hayano2023a
| Hayano2023a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Hayano2023a |
| Author(s) | Kaoru Hayano, Makoto Hayashi |
| Title | Post-confirmation modifications: Trajectories of un -initiated responses to polar questions in Japanese |
| Editor(s) | Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage, Marja-Leena Sorjonen |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis |
| Publisher | John Benjamins Publishing Company |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/slsi.35.09hay/ |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
It has long been acknowledged that, in response to polar questions, disagreements are normatively delayed with agreements such that they are presented as modifications or exceptions rather than outright disagreements. While there is a large body of literature on how the initial element in the answer projects upcoming modifications or disagreements to come, little attention has been paid to the grammatical format in which delayed modification is presented. This study thus attempts to document how grammatical formats contribute to the interactional outcomes of modifications in this position. The focus is on three grammatical formats that are used to make such modifications following the minimal confirmation particle un in Japanese: the coordinate clause marked with demo (“but”), the subordinate clause, and clauses that are not grammatically tied to the preceding confirmation. The findings suggest that these grammatical formats are used systematically to modify the preceding confirmation to varying degrees and in different ways. Modifications made in coordinate clauses modify the degree of assessment presented in the question and/or preemptively deny a possible implication that follows the state of affairs confirmed by un without retracting or conditioning the confirmation. Modifications made in subordinate clauses, on the other hand, retract or significantly qualify the confirmation that has been conveyed with un. Finally, modifications in clauses that are not grammatically marked for their semantic relation to the confirmation address an issue with an assumption underlying the question and retroactively portray the confirmation as ostensible. It is concluded that post-confirmation modification is one environment in which a fine division of labor is assigned to different grammatical formats.
Notes
