Difference between revisions of "Bolden2016"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2016-06-14 11:09:18)
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|Key=Bolden2016
+
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Key=Bolden2016
+
|Author(s)=Galina B. Bolden;
 
|Title=A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation
 
|Title=A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation
|Author(s)=Galina B. Bolden;
 
 
|Tag(s)=Agreement; Conversation analysis; EMCA; Epistemics; Polar interrogatives; Prosody; Russian
 
|Tag(s)=Agreement; Conversation analysis; EMCA; Epistemics; Polar interrogatives; Prosody; Russian
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|Key=Bolden2016
 
|Publisher=Elsevier B.V.
 
|Publisher=Elsevier B.V.
 
|Year=2016
 
|Year=2016

Revision as of 02:09, 14 June 2016

Bolden2016
BibType ARTICLE
Key Bolden2016
Author(s) Galina B. Bolden
Title A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation
Editor(s)
Tag(s) Agreement, Conversation analysis, EMCA, Epistemics, Polar interrogatives, Prosody, Russian
Publisher Elsevier B.V.
Year 2016
Language
City
Month
Journal Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 100
Number
Pages 40–58
URL Link
DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article examines affirming answers to polar (yes/no) questions in Russian, that is, responses that confirm or agree with the propositional content of the question. Drawing on a corpus of telephone conversations and using the methodology of Conversation Analysis, I analyze question-answer sequences that are initiated by polar interrogatives whose focal action is to seek information or confirmation of a particular state of affairs. In Russian, a simple affirmation can be accomplished via either a response token (da ‘yes’ or net ‘no’) or a repetition of the question's focal element (“echo repeat”). The article first examines responses that simply affirm the informational content of the question. Then, I analyze three ways in which affirmative responses may resist the question: by conveying an incongruent evaluative stance, an incongruent epistemic stance, or by disattending its action implications. This article sheds light on the organization of questioning and answering in Russian conversation and advances our understanding of agreement as a social action more generally.

Notes