oa Polar answers and epistemic stance in Greek conversation

References

1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
   2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alvanoudi, Angeliki
   2018 “Ερωτήσεις Ολικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions in Greek: Forms and Functions].” InΕρωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. byTheodossia Pavlidou, 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alvanoudi, Angeliki
   2019a “Απαντήσεις σε Ερωτήσεις Ολικής Άγνοιας: Επιρρήματα, Μόρια και Τροποποιημένες Ετεροεπαναλήψεις [Responses to Polar Questions: Adverbs, Particles and Modified Repeats].” Studies in Greek Linguistics39: 47–63.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Alvanoudi, Angeliki
   2019b “‘May I Tell You Something?’: When Questions do not Anticipate Responses.” Text & Talk39(4): 563–587. 10.1515/text‑2019‑2040
   https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2040 [Google Scholar]
5. Antaki, Charles
   2012 “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.” Discourse Studies14(5): 531–547. 10.1177/1461445612454074
   https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454074 [Google Scholar]
6. Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Mozer
   2015 “Αρνητικές Eρωτηματικές Προσκλήσεις: Συνέπειες για τη Δομή Προτίμησης [Negative-Interrogative Invitations: Consequences for Preference Organization].” InΕλληνική Γλώσσα και Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Greek Language and Oral Communication], ed. byTheodossia Pavlidou, 11–22. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Mozer
   2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics125: 96–110. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.009
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.009 [Google Scholar]
8. Benjamin, Trevor
   2012 “When Problems Pass Us By: Using “You Mean” to Help Locate the Source of Trouble.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 82–109. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646742
   https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646742 [Google Scholar]
9. Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
   1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text9(1): 93–124.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bolden, Galina B.
    2009 “Beyond Answering: Repeat-Prefaced Responses in Conversation.” Communication Monographs76(2): 121–143. 10.1080/03637750902828446
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750902828446 [Google Scholar]
11. Bolden, Galina B.
    2016 “A Simple Da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics100: 40–58. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010 [Google Scholar]
12. Brown, Penelope
    2010 “Questions and Their Responses in Tzeltal.” Journal of Pragmatics42(10): 2627–2648. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.003 [Google Scholar]
13. Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols
    (eds) 1986 Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Clift, Rebecca
    2006 “Indexing Stance: Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential.” Journal of Sociolinguistics10(5): 569–595. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
15. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2009 “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of Disappointment.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. byMarkku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
    2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. De Ruiter, Jan P.
    2012 “Introduction.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. byJan P. De Ruiter, 1–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.001 [Google Scholar]
18. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
19. Enfield, N. J.
    2010 “Questions and Responses in Lao.” Journal of Pragmatics42(10): 2649–2665. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.004 [Google Scholar]
20. Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson
    (eds.) 2010 Question-Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: Special issue ofJournal of Pragmatics42(10). 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001 [Google Scholar]
21. Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, Stephen Levinson
    2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics55(2): 277–304. 10.1017/S0022226718000336
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
22. Fox, Barbara A.
    2001 “Evidentiality: Authority, Responsibility, and Entitlement in English conversation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology11(2): 167–192. 10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167 [Google Scholar]
23. Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal
    2008 “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41(3): 241–270. 10.1080/08351810802237834
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237834 [Google Scholar]
24. Heritage, Jοhn
    1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Aitkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Heritage, Jοhn
    2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
26. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68(1): 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
27. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. byJan P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
28. Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    (eds) 2018 Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31 [Google Scholar]
29. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
30. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
31. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2006 “Stance Taking in Conversation: From Subjectivity to Intersubjectivity.” Text and Talk26(6): 699–731. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
32. Keevallik, Leelo
    2010 “Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse Studies12(3): 283–309. 10.1177/1461445610363951
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610363951 [Google Scholar]
33. Kim, Stephanie Hyeri
    2015 “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions Through Ani (‘No’)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes52(4): 311–334. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.954950
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954950 [Google Scholar]
34. Lee, Seung-Hee
    2015 “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes52(1): 21–46. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.899001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.899001 [Google Scholar]
35. Lerner, Gene H.
    1992 “Assisted Story Telling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology15(3): 247–271. 10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
36. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2012 “Interrogative Intimations: On a Possible Social Economics of Interrogatives.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. byJan P. De Ruiter, 11–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003 [Google Scholar]
37. Ochs, Elinor
    1996 “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity.” InRethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. byJohn Gumperz and Stephen Levinson, 407–437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Pavlidou, Theodossia
    1986 “Nα Ρωτήσω Κάτι; Ερωτήσεις σε Υποτακτική [May I Αsk Something? Questions in the Subjunctive].” Studies in Greek Linguistics: 233–249.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Pavlidou, Theodossia
    1991 “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of the Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics15(1): 11–42. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90024‑R
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90024-R [Google Scholar]
40. Pavlidou, Theodossia
    2016 Καταγράφοντας την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Making a Record of the Greek Language]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Pavlidou, Theodossia
    (ed.) 2018 Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions-Answers in Talk-in-Interaction]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Pomerantz, Anita
    1980 “Telling my Side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing” Device.” Sociological Inquiry50: 186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
43. Pomerantz, Anita
    1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs55(4): 360–373. 10.1080/03637758809376177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
44. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68(6): 939–967. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
45. Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
    2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society35(5): 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
46. Robinson, Jeffrey
    2013 “Epistemics, Action Formation and Other-Initiation of Repair: The Case of Partial Questioning Repeats.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. byMakoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell, 261–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology102(1): 161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
48. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
49. Selting, Margret
    1996 “Prosody as an Activity Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-Called “Astonished” Questions in Repair.” InProsody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, ed. byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
50. Seuren, Lucas M., and Mike Huiskes
    2017 “Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?” Research on Language and Social Interaction50(2): 188–205. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1301307
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301307 [Google Scholar]
51. Sidnell, Jack
    2017 “Action in Interaction is Conduct under a Description.” Language in Society46(3): 313–337. 10.1017/S0047404517000173
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000173 [Google Scholar]
52. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001a Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
53. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001b “Simple Answers to Polar Questions: The Case of Finnish.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. byMargret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 405–431. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.18sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.18sor [Google Scholar]
54. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2018 “Questions and Responses: On their Structural and Interactional Relationships.” InΕρωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions-Answers in Talk-in-Interaction], ed. byTheodossia Pavlidou, 11–32. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann
    2013 “When Yes is not enough as an Answer to a Yes/No Question.” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, ed. byBeatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 207–241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.07ste [Google Scholar]
56. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38(2): 131–158. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
57. Stivers, Tanya
    2011 “Morality and Question Design: Of course as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005 [Google Scholar]
58. Stivers, Tanya
    2019 “How we Manage Social Relationships through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections”. Discourse Processes56(3): 191–209. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214 [Google Scholar]
59. Stivers, Tanya and N. J. Enfield
    2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics42(10): 2620–2626. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
60. Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society39(1): 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
61. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
62. Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan P. De Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)106: 10587–10592. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
63. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
64. Ward, Nigel
    2019 Prosodic Patterns in English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316848265
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316848265 [Google Scholar]
65. Weidner, Matylda
    2018 “Treating Something as Self-Evident: No-Prefaced Turns in Polish.” InBetween Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages, ed. byJohn Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 225–250. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.08wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.08wei [Google Scholar]
66. Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger
    2006 “Surprise as an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly69(2): 150–182. 10.1177/019027250606900203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900203 [Google Scholar]
67. Wu, Ruey-Jiuan R.
    2004 Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.117
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.117 [Google Scholar]