Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This conversation analytic study examines the linguistic resources for indexing epistemic stance in second position in question sequences in Greek conversation. It targets three formats for providing affirming/confirming answers to polar questions: unmarked and marked positive response tokens, and repetitions. It is shown that the three formats display different functional distributions. Unmarked response tokens do ‘simple’ answering, marked response tokens provide overt confirmations, and repetitional answers assert the respondent’s epistemic authority besides confirming the question’s proposition. Unmarked and marked response tokens accept the questioner’s epistemic stance, whereas repetitional answers may accept or resist the epistemic terms of the question, depending on the action being implemented by the question. This study sheds light on the organization of questioning and answering in Greek conversation and the role of epistemics in the design of polar answers.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) 1986Evidentiality: 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
    2018Interactional 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. 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. 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) 2018Between 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
    2003Epistemic 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. 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. 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. 2016Καταγράφοντας την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Making a Record of the Greek Language]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (ed.) 2018Ερωτήσεις-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. 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. 2007Sequence 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
    2001aResponding 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ward, Nigel
    2019Prosodic 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.
    2004Stance 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]

Data & Media loading...

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