Reversed polarity question
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Reversed polarity question | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Burak S. Tekin (Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Turkey) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9206-7506) |
| To cite: | Tekin, Burak S. (2023). Reversed polarity question. 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: [] |
Reversed polarity questions (RPQs) refer to polar questions that convey “assertions of the opposite polarity to that of the form of the questions” (Koshik 2002: 1855). Reversed polarity questions are treated by their recipients as assertions rather than genuine questions seeking information or requesting confirmation (see Koshik 2002, 2005).
Koshik (2002) examines affirmative polar interrogatives deployed by teachers in second-language writing conferences which are treated as conveying negative assertions, pointing to something problematic in the written performances of the students. Koshik demonstrates that the RPQ sequences in the writing conferences are often organized as follows: First, teachers direct the attention of students with deictic expressions to something problematic in their texts. They make references to these problematic portions of texts, often using quotative frames. After something problematic in the student texts are brought into interaction, teachers produce polar interrogatives whose answers they know (on known answer questions in classroom contexts, see Macbeth 2004; Mehan 1979). Thus, these interrogatives convey assertions in their opposite polarity. Students’ answers usually display an agreement with the implied assertions. When they disagree, their disagreements are mitigated, delayed and sometimes accounted for (see Pomerantz 1984), which corroborates that they still orient to the RPQs as conveying assertions. Teachers’ subsequent responses to student answers align with their interpretations of their own interrogatively formulated utterances as reversed polarity assertions.
Koshik (2002) argues that both the displayed epistemic stances of the speakers and the implemented courses of actions make it possible for these interrogatives to be heard as assertions. Given that the producers of the RPQs have already access to the information that answers the interrogatives, the RPQs are rather treated as epistemic stance displays conveying assertions, thereby indicating criticisms over the written performances of the students. As such, the RPQs are deployed by teachers as pedagogical tools for signaling problems in students’ texts.
RPQs imply assertions in the opposite polarity, and they establish the relevance for a response, which aligns with the implied assertions. Similar observations to those discussed by Koshik in writing conferences can be found in other settings. For instance, Heritage (2002) demonstrates in the context of broadcast news interviews that interviewees hear some negatively formulated interrogatives as affirmative assertions. Interviewees’ responses to such questions with, for instance, some agreement or disagreement tokens display that they treat these questions as conveying assertions which can be agreed or disagreed with. Examining medical consultations, Park (2011) shows that physicians may repeat their questions by reversing their polarity, following the responses of the patients. Park’s analysis argues that these questions, which are repeated by reversing their polarity, highlight the significance of the patients’ reported symptoms, treated as crucial for arriving at a diagnosis in a way that is aligned with the patients.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1427-1446.
Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851-1877.
Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond Rhetorical Questions. John Benjamins.
Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33, 703-736.
Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 28, 285-294.
Park, Y. (2011). The use of reversed polarity repetitional questions during history taking. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1929-1945.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.
Additional References:
Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54, 39-59.
Koshik, I. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher-student conferences. In A. F. Freed and S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse (pp. 159-186). Oxford University Press.
Waring, H. Z. (2012). Yes-no questions that convey a critical stance in the language classroom. Language and Education, 26, 451-469.
