1887
Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper critically examines some central principles of the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework and ultimately explores the concept of ‘question’, central to QUD-models. It demonstrates how fine-grained, interactionally informed analyses of language-specific categories can reveal building blocks of interaction and explain the sources of the observed information- and discourse-structuring interpretations (such as update, contrast and more). Employing data from Anal Naga (Trans-Himalayan, India), it proceeds to a fine-grained analysis of the notion of ‘question’. The decomposition of ‘questions’ into smaller building blocks similarly reveals how diverse categories and discourse processes can trigger the interpretation of an information request. These findings and additional theoretical arguments suggest that QUD-models are problematic for various reasons: such models are non-parsimonious as they add superfluous extra layers to explain the observations; the explanatory apparatus is circular, as the extra layers are derived from within the explananda but regarded as underlying explanatory factors; and the models gloss over the actual factors by channelling them into cover terms prematurely regarded as primitive. Finally, since ‘question’ does not constitute a primitive concept but is a product of diverse discourse processes, discourse cannot be modelled on this foundation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00039.oze
2022-02-11
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text & Talk25 (1). 7–36. doi:  10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
    2009 Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with parallel-opposition constructions. Journal of Pragmatics41 (11). 2271–2294. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David I. , Craige Roberts , Mandy Simons & Judith Tonhauser
    2017 Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics3 (1). 265–284. doi:  10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011516‑033952
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033952 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benz, Anton & Katja Jasinskaja
    2017 Questions under discussion: From sentence to discourse. Discourse Processes54 (3). 177–186. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2020Praat (version 6.1.30). Amsterdam: Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam. www.praat.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolinger, Dwight L.
    1977Meaning and form. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2016 The argument dependency model. In Gregory Hickok & Steven L. Small (eds.), Neurobiology of language, 357–369. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑407794‑2.00030‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00030-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Büring, Daniel
    2003 On D-Trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy26 (5). 511–545. doi:  10.1023/A:1025887707652
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clifton, Charles, Jr. & Lyn Frazier
    2018 Context effects in discourse: The question under discussion. Discourse Processes55 (2). 105–112. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330029
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330029 [Google Scholar]
  10. Constant, Noah
    2014 Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Elvira-García, Wendy
    2017Create pictures with tiers v.4.4. Praat script. stel.ub.edu/labfon/en/praat-scripts
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Enfield, N. J. , Tanya Stivers , Penelope Brown , Christina Englert , Katariina Harjunpää , Makoto Hayashi , Trine Heinemann ,
    2019 Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics55 (2). 277–304. doi:  10.1017/S0022226718000336
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fiengo, Robert
    2007Asking questions: Using meaningful structures to imply ignorance. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208418.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208418.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Harris, Daniel W.
    2020 We talk to people, not contexts. Philosophical Studies177. 2713–2733. doi:  10.1007/s11098‑019‑01335‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01335-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hedberg, Nancy
    2006 Topic-focus controversies. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 373–397. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Heinemann, Trine , Anna Lindström & Jakob Steensig
    2011 Addressing epistemic incongruence in question-answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In Jakob Steensig , Lorenza Mondada & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 107–130. Cambridge: CUP. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511921674.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1). 1–29. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hopper, Paul J.
    2011 Emergent grammar and temporality in Interactional Linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jasinskaja, Katja & Henk Zeevat
    2008 Explaining additive, adversative and contrast marking in Russian and English. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique24. 65–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kamide, Yuki , Gerry T. M. Altmann & Sarah L. Haywood
    2003 The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language49 (1). 133–156. doi:  10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00023‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. Koshik, Irene
    2005Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  22. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2012 Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In Jan P. De Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 11–32. Cambridge: CUP. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Matić, Dejan
    2015 Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 167–190. Berlin: Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110368758‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110368758-009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood
    2013 The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics49 (1). 127–163. doi:  10.1017/S0022226712000345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000345 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ozerov, Pavel
    2018aA community-driven documentation of natural discourse in Anal, an endangered Tibeto-Burman language. London. https://elar.soas.ac.uk/Collection/MPI1035093
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018b Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information.” Journal of Pragmatics138. 77–97. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2019 This is not an interrogative: The prosody of ‘wh-questions’ in Hebrew and the sources of their questioning and rhetorical interpretations. Language Sciences72. 13–35. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2021a Multifactorial information management: Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard7 (1). 2020039. doi:  10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2021b Prosodic salience in Anal Naga: Where non-arbitrariness, phaticity and engagement meet. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics6(1). 41. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.967
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.967 [Google Scholar]
  30. Panov, Vladimir
    2020 The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: Presenting the Enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia52 (1). 1–44. doi:  10.1080/03740463.2020.1745618
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2020.1745618 [Google Scholar]
  31. Riester, Arndt , Lisa Brunetti & Kordula De Kuthy
    2018 Annotation guidelines for questions under discussion and information structure. In Evangelia Adamou , Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Information structure in lesser-described languages, 403–443. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.199.14rie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.14rie [Google Scholar]
  32. Roberts, Craige
    2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics5 (6). 1–69. doi:  10.3765/sp.5.6
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rojas-Esponda, Tania
    2014 A QUD account of German doch . Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung18. 359–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1978 On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.), Current trends in text linguistics, 81–102. Berlin: Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110853759.81
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853759.81 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shimojo, Mitsauki
    2016 Saliency in discourse and sentence form: Zero anaphora and topicalization in Japanese. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 55–75. Berlin: Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110368758‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110368758-004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stalnaker, Robert
    2008 A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy31 (5). 539–544. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9047‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9047-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Steensing, Jacob & Trine Heinemann
    2013 When ‘yes’ is not enough – as an answer to a yes/no question. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 207–242, Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.25.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.07ste [Google Scholar]
  38. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig
    (eds.) 2011The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stivers, Tanya & Federico Rossano
    2010 Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1). 3–31. doi:  10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tanaka, Hiroko
    2015 Action-projection in Japanese conversation: Topic particles wa, mo, and tte for triggering categorization activities. Frontiers in Psychology6. 1113–1135. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01113
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01113 [Google Scholar]
  41. Thounaojam, Harimohon & Shobhana L. Chelliah
    2007 The Lamkang language: Grammatical sketch, texts and lexicon. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30 (1). 1–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Verhagen, Arie
    2007Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00039.oze
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00039.oze
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error