image of Polar answers
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The purpose of this paper is to examine the forms and functions of answers to proposals for joint action, implemented through polar interrogatives, in Greek telephone calls. Our analysis indicates a distinct functional distribution of three types of accepting answers to such proposals. Particle-type answers do ‘simple’ acceptance of the proposal, i.e. they only display the respondent’s willingness to take on the proposed action and nothing else, while repetition-type answers display the speaker’s epistemic/deontic stance towards additional aspects of the proposal. With a third type of responses, speakers accept the proposal in a mitigated manner. Our findings align with conclusion that particles serve as pragmatically unmarked polar answers. They do not, however, evince the prevalence of this type of answer to proposals to the same extent as to epistemically oriented polar interrogatives.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alvanoudi, Angeliki
    2018 “Ερωτήσεις Oλικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions: Forms and Functions].” InΕρωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. byTheodossia-Soula Pavlidou, –. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2019 “‘May I Tell you Something?’: When Questions Do Not Anticipate Responses.” Text & Talk (): –. 10.1515/text‑2019‑2040
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2040 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2022 “Polar Answers and Epistemic Stance in Greek Conversation.” Pragmatics (): –. 10.1075/prag.19031.alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19031.alv [Google Scholar]
  4. Asmuss, Birte, and Sae Oshima
    2012 “Negotiation of Entitlement in Proposal Sequences.” Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/1461445611427215
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser
    2015 “Αρνητικές Ερωτηματικές 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-Soula Pavlidou, –. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 “What does Grammar tell us about Action?” Pragmatics (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    eds 2014aRequests in Social Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.01dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014b “Requesting – From Speech Act to Recruitment.” InRequests in Social Interaction, ed. byPaul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.01dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre [Google Scholar]
  10. Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson
    2010 “Question-Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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, and Stephen Levinson
    2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics (): –. 10.1017/S0022226718000336
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
  12. Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield
    eds 2020Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hancher, Michael
    1979 “The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society (): –. 10.1017/S0047404500005911
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005911 [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, Jοhn
    2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos
    2012Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203802380
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802380 [Google Scholar]
  18. Houtkoop Steenstra, Hanneke
    1987Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110849172
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849172 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  20. Lindström, Anna
    2017 “Accepting Remote Proposals.” InEnabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. byGeoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin [Google Scholar]
  21. Margutti, Piera, Liisa Tainio, Paul Drew, and Véronique Traverso
    2018Invitations and Responses across Different Languages: Observations on the Feasibility and Relevance of a Cross-Linguistic Comparative Perspective on the Study of Actions. Special Issue ofJournal of Pragmatics. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    1986 “Nα Ρωτήσω Κάτι; Ερωτήσεις σε Υποτακτική [May I Αsk Something? Questions in the Subjunctive].” Studies in Greek Linguistics: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1991a “Particles, Pragmatic and Other.” Multilingua (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1991b “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of the Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90024‑R
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90024-R [Google Scholar]
  25. 1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2014 “Phases in Discourse.” InPragmatics of Discourse, ed. byKlaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214406‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214406-014 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2016 “Το Corpus Προφορικού Λόγου του ΙΝΣ [The Corpus of Spoken Greek]”. InΚαταγράφοντας την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Making a Record of the Greek Language], ed. byTheodossia-Soula Pavlidou, –. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rossi, Giovanni
    2015 “Responding to Pre-Requests: The Organization of Hai X (‘Do You Have X’) Sequences in Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology (): –. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  31. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” InLanguage, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7, ed. byKeith Gunderson, –. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding 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]
  34. Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann
    2014 “The Social and Moral Work of Modal Constructions in Granting Remote Requests.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, ed. byPaul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.06ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.06ste [Google Scholar]
  35. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2012 “Establishing Joint Decisions in a Dyad.” Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/1461445612456654
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stivers, Tanya, and N. J. Enfield
    2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society (): –. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnell
    2016 “Proposals for Activity Collaboration.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson
    2007 “Person Reference in Interaction.” InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. byN. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Chase Wesley Raymond
    2021 “The Grammar of Proposals for Joint Activities.” Interactional Linguistics (): –. 10.1075/il.20011.tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho [Google Scholar]
  44. Tzartzanos, Achilleas A.
    1991 [1946]Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol.. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1991 [1953]Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol.. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: answers ; telephone calls ; particles ; Greek ; repetition ; conversation analysis ; polar interrogatives ; proposals
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