Polar answers

References

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, 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alvanoudi, Angeliki
   2019 “‘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]
3. Alvanoudi, Angeliki
   2022 “Polar Answers and Epistemic Stance in Greek Conversation.” Pragmatics32 (1): 1–27. 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 Studies14 (1): 67–86. 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, 11–22. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser
   2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics1251: 96–110. 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?” Pragmatics24 (3): 623–647.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
   eds 2014a Requests in Social Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.01dre
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre [Google Scholar]
9. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
   2014b “Requesting – From Speech Act to Recruitment.” InRequests in Social Interaction, ed. byPaul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–34. 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 Pragmatics42 (10): 2615–2619. 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 Linguistics55 (2): 277–304. 10.1017/S0022226718000336
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
12. Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield
    eds 2020 Getting 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, 41–58. 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 Society8 (1): 1–14. 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 Interaction45 (1): 1–29. 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, 179–192. 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
    2012 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203802380
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802380 [Google Scholar]
18. Houtkoop Steenstra, Hanneke
    1987 Establishing 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, 13–31. 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, 125–143. 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
    2018 Invitations 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 Pragmatics1251. 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 Linguistics71: 233–249.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    1991a “Particles, Pragmatic and Other.” Multilingua10 (1/2): 151–172.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    1991b “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]
25. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics8 (1): 79–94.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    2014 “Phases in Discourse.” InPragmatics of Discourse, ed. byKlaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, 353–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214406‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214406-014 [Google Scholar]
27. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    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, 15–68. 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 Pragmatics821: 5–22. 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 Sociology102 (1): 161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
30. 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]
31. Searle, John R.
    1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
32. Searle, John R.
    1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” InLanguage, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7, ed. byKeith Gunderson, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001 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]
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, 145–170. 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 Studies14 (6): 779–803. 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 Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 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 Interaction38 (2): 131–158. 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 Pragmatics42 (10): 2620–2626. 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 Society39 (1): 1–25. 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 Interaction49 (2): 148–166. 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, 1–20. 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
    2015 Grammar 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 Linguistics1 (1): 123–151. 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.A1. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Tzartzanos, Achilleas A.
    1991 [1953] Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol.Β1. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.
    [Google Scholar]