Heinemann2008
| Heinemann2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Heinemann2008 |
| Author(s) | Trine Heinemann |
| Title | Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Danish, Interrogatives, Yes/no, Challenging Questions |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 10 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 55–71 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445607085590 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article examines one practice for challenging a co-participant, the use of polar interrogatives that are unanswerable. These are questions that are designed to receive a confirming answer of the same polarity as the question, so-called `Same Polarity Questions'. Speakers accomplish this bias by formatting the question in accordance with their state of knowledge. Based on the recipient's prior turns at talk, a speaker can infer what the recipient's stance towards some matter is and use a `Same Polarity Question' to assert this inference and invite the recipient to confirm the stance. However, the sequential context in which these questions are produced means that with a confirming answer the recipient is heard to be in disagreement with the speaker and can subsequently be held accountable for this disagreement. Neither is a disconfirming response a real alternative, because this would contrast with the information provided by the recipient in prior talk. As this information is what leads the speaker to convey a certain belief about the recipient, the recipient is accountable for having misled the speaker. Because both confirming and disconfirming answers are accountable and hence problematic, recipients treat this type of question as unanswerable and instead orient to it as a challenge.
Notes
