Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?

ABSTRACT

Recent analyses have argued that when requests for confirmation are implemented with declarative word order, they are closure-implicative due to the relatively knowing stance indexed with the declarative. This article demonstrates, however, that in some cases participants show an orientation to both confirmation and elaboration as a relevant next action. By comparing requests for confirmation that are closure-implicative to those that are expansion-implicative, it is argued that in addition to epistemic stance, participants also orient to the lexical design features and sequential placement of these declarative yes/no-type initiating actions to determine the relevant type of response. Data are in Dutch with English translations.

Notes

¹ All pauses, except the ones in Excerpt 3, were computer timed. This means that they are measured as slightly longer when compared to conventional counting techniques in which a counting phrase such as one Mississippi, two Mississippi is used (Kendrick & Torreira, 2015).

² The rather lengthy gap of 1.0 seconds might be a result of Jane checking her diary whether she is indeed available early August.

³ Earlier research argued that participants distinguish between declarative assertions and questions in Dutch using only the turn-final pitch movement (Haan, 2002). It should be clear, however, from Table 1 that Dutch has no turn-final questioning intonation (Seuren et al., 2015; Walker, 2014).

⁴ Loes implements her proposal also with declarative word order, and Karel’s response consists of more than a yes/no-type particle. However, the action implemented with the YND is a remote request: Karel’s turn is in fact a minimal way of committing to a remote request (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1985; Lindström, 2017).

⁵ Untranslatable adverb. It functions as a sort of polar opposite of niet (“not”). In English this is typically communicated by emphasizing the finite verb: “but you were on time for the train” (Hogeweg, 2009; C. W. Raymond, 2016)

⁶ Explanations and accounts are near synonymous, but we distinguish between the two in the following way: An explanation is aimed at resolving some understanding problem, whereas an account provides the reason for some behavior.

⁷ We have left toch untranslated. In its position here, in the middle of a clause, there is no simple English translation. It is typically used in what Foolen (1994) calls a drieslag (“three strikes”). One speaker takes a position, which is subsequently challenged by the recipient. After that challenge, the speaker repeats his position, this time using the particle toch to show that s/he is sticking to a position that has been challenged.

⁸ The precise meaning of uitgaan depends on the context. It is frequently used in a way similar to clubbing in English, where it means frequenting more than one club, although it could also mean visiting a single club. And Francine, in fact, seems to use it for the specific nightclub she went to, Aspen. Its vagueness actually is the source of Hayley’s problem, as can be seen in her turn in line 11.