Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


Negative polar particles have generally been characterized as items for expressing disagreement or responding negatively to polar questions. What has been lacking in these accounts is attention to embodied activities. This paper studies the usage of the Estonian negative particle as a preface in realtime activities, showing that it halts the ongoing action, often for the sake of achieving intersubjective understanding and establishing epistemic authority. The paper shows how other matters besides logic and truth-conditions define the meaning of the negative particle. Analysis of linguistic function demands transgressing the boundaries of language and scrutiny of co-present interaction in its temporal emergence. The paper argues that several discourse functions of are also more accurately described from the vantage point of its usage in multimodal face-to-face settings than from the logical properties that the item happens to display in limited sequential contexts after yes/no interrogatives.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bolden, Galina
    (2008) “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker “so” to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction41.3: 302–327. doi: 10.1080/08351810802237909
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2010) ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies12.1: 5–32. doi: 10.1177/1461445609346770
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609346770 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ford, Cecilia E.
    (2001) At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Margret Selting (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.51–79. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.05for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.05for [Google Scholar]
  4. Ford , Cecilia, E. , Barbara A. Fox , and John Hellermann
    (2004) “Getting past no”: Sequence, action and sound production in the projection of no-initiated turns. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Cecilia E. Ford (eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.233–269. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62 [Google Scholar]
  5. Goffman, Ervin
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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. doi: 10.1080/08351810802237834
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237834 [Google Scholar]
  7. Goodwin, Marjorie
    (1998) Games of stance: Conflict and footing in hopscotch. In Susan Hoyle , and Carolyn TempleAdger (eds.), Kids’ Talk: Strategic Language Use in Later Childhood. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.23–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Haakana, Markku , and Salla Kurhila
    (2009) Other-correction in everyday interaction: Some comparative aspects. In M. Haakana , M. Laakso , and J. Lindström (eds.), Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, pp.152–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haakana, Markku , and Laura Visapää
    (2010) Expanding the scope of repair: Finnish eiku in action. Paper presented atthe International Conference on Conversation Analysis 2010 , Mannheim, July 4–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hayashi, Makoto
    (2009) Marking a ‘noticing of departure’ in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics41.10: 2100–2129. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heinemann, Trine
    (2009) Two answers to inapposite inquiries. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.159–186. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hennoste, Tiit
    (2000) Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde VIII. Lausung suulises kõnes III: Eneseparandused. [Introduction to Spoken Estonian VIII. Utterance in spoken language III.] Akadeemia12.12: 2687–2710.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, John
    (1984a) A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson , and John C. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.299–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1998)  Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society27.3: 291–334. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500019990
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2002) ‘Oh’-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Cecilia E. Ford , Barbara A. Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.196–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly68.1: 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heritage, John , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    (1994) Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society23.1: 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017656
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jefferson, Gail
    (1974) Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society3.2: 181–199. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004334 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Is ‘‘no’’ an acknowledgment token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(-) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics34.10-11: 1345–1383 doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00067‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00067-X [Google Scholar]
  21. Keevallik, Leelo
    (2009) Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid. [Simple answers to yes/no questions.] Keel ja Kirjandus52.1: 33–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kasterpalu, Riina
    (2005) Partiklid jah, jaa ning jajaa naaberpaari järelliikmena müügiläbirääkimistes. [Particles jah, jaa and jajaa as second pair parts in business negotiations.] Keel ja Kirjandus 47.11-12: 873–890, 996–1000.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie
    (2010) “Ani”-prefacing: Indexing “Why I Said That”. Paper presented at International Conference on Conversation Analysis 2010 , Mannheim, July 4–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee-Goldman, Russell
    (2011)  No as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics43.10: 2627–2649. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lerner, Gene , and Celia Kitzinger
    (2010) Repair prefacing in the organization of same-turn self-repair. Paper presented atthe International Conference on Conversation Analysis 2010 , Mannheim, July 4–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sacks, Harvey
    (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Vol 2. Gail Jefferson (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53.2: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    (1991) Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick , J. Levine , and S. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp.150–171. doi: 10.1037/10096‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-007 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. The American Journal of Sociology 97.5: 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1997) Third turn repair. In G.R. Guy , C. Feagin , D. Schiffrin , and J. Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Volume 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.31–40. doi: 10.1075/cilt.128.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.128.05sch [Google Scholar]
  31. (2001) Getting serious: Joke - serious no. Journal of Pragmatics33.12: 1947–1955. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00073‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schiffrin, Deborah
    (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sidnell, Jack
    (2007)  Look-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding, and redirecting action. Discourse Studies9.3: 387–408. doi: 10.1177/1461445607076204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076204 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , and Minna Laakso
    (2005) Katko vai eiku? Itsekorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorovaikutustekevät. [Cut-off, the particle eiku and other practices for initiating self-repair, and the interactional functions of self-repair.] Virittäjä109.2: 244–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Stivers, Tanya
    (2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research3.2: 260–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  37. (2005) Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction38.2: 131–158. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig
    (eds.) (2011a) The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2011b) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–26. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stivers, Tanya , and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    (2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society35.3: 367–392. doi: 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  41. Turk, Monica
    (2004) Using and in Conversational Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction37.2: 219–261. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_5
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_5 [Google Scholar]
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