Transformative answer
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Transformative answer | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Makoto Hayashi (Nagoya University, Japan) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4613-8238) |
| To cite: | Hayashi, Makoto. (2023). Transformative answer. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/G6ND8 |
A transformative answer is a type of answer which, though its design, proposes alterations to the terms or agenda of the prior question while providing (dis)confirmation with the altered terms or agenda (Stivers & Hayashi 2010). The following extract illustrates a transformative answer that alters the terms of the question posed:
(Stivers & Hayashi 2010: 11) 01 JUD: =Have you <ever eaten> steak tartare? 02 (0.8) 03 GIO: -> I tried it once.
While “eaten” implies that the person ate a full serving of steak tartare, “tried” conveys that the person has tasted it but not necessarily eaten a full serving. By replacing “eaten” used in Judy’s question with “tried”, Gio adjusts the terms of the question and confirms a proposition that is more true to his level of acquaintance with steak tartare.
Transformative answers are a subtype of nonconforming responses, i.e., responses that depart from the constraints set in motion by the grammatical form of the preceding question and which display the answerer’s resistance to some aspect(s) of the prior question (Raymond 2003). Compared to other types of nonconforming responses, such as repetitional answers (Enfield, et al. 2019; Heritage & Raymond 2005, 2012; G. Raymond 2003; C. Raymond 2017; Schegloff 1996) and marked confirmations (Heritage 1998; Stivers 2011; cf. Lee 2013), which essentially accept the terms of the preceding question even though the answerer treats the question posed as problematic in some way, transformative answers show a greater degree of resistance to the prior question because they seek alterations to the terms or agenda of the prior question and respond to a somewhat different question than was originally presented to the answerer.
Transformative answers are employed as a resource to resist potentially adversarial questioning in certain kinds of institutional contexts. For instance, in broadcast news interviews, interviewees have been shown to deploy transformative answers (and other practices of responding) to evade the interviewers’ challenging questions (Clayman 2001; Clayman & Heritage 2002). In legal cross examination, facing the attorney’s hostile questions, witnesses may use transformative answers to offer “alternative descriptions” (Drew 1992) that are “designed to qualify and replace the versions initially produced by the attorney” (491).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403–442.
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 277-304.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334.
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscape: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press.
Lee, S.-H. (2013). Response design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 415-432). Wiley-Blackwell.
Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The 'do'-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 22–37.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Towards an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158.
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 82-106). Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T. & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1-25.
Additional References:
Bolden, G. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 121-143.
Ehrlich, S. & Sidnell, J. (2006). “I think that’s not an assumption you ought to make”: Challenging presuppositions in inquiry testimony. Language in Society, 35(5), 655–676.
Heinemann, T. (2009). Two answers to inapposite questions. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 159–186). Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.) (2010). Question-Response Sequences in 10 languages. Special Issue of the Journal of Pragmatics 42(10).
Stivers, T. & Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text 21(1-2), 151-185.
