Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions

References

• Bolden, G. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs, 76, 121–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryer, M. S. (2011). Polar questions. In M. S.Dryer & M.Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich, Germany: Max Plank Digital Library. Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/116.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2615–2619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (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 Interaction, 41, 241–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi, M. (2009). Marking a “noticing of departure” in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2100–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., Lindström, A., & Steensig, J. (2011). Addressing epistemic incongruence in question-answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In T.Stivers, L.Mondana, & J.Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 107–130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F.Freed & S.Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P.de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23, 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H. (1999). The form and function of questions in Korean conversation. Discourse and Cognition, 6, 211–247.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H. R. S. (2013). Reshaping the response space with kulenikka in beginning to respond to questions in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 303–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, M. S. (2013). Answering questions about the unquestionable in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 138–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. S. (1994). Discourse-pragmatic functions of sentence-type suffixes in Korean. In Y.-K.Kim-Renaud (Ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics (pp. 517–539). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H. S. (1999). A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 243–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S.-H. (2011). Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 904–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S.-H. (2013). Response design in conversation. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 415–432). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1981). Some pre-observations on the modelling of dialogue. Discourse Processes, 4, 93–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, J. (2009). Pre-verbal negation yes/no question-answer sequence in conversation: Action formation and sequence organization. Linguistics, 30, 75–105.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55, 360–373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. F.Freed & S.Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 87–107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadock, J., & Zwicky, A. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T.Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 1, clause structure (pp. 155–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M.Atkinson & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Sohn, H. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J., & Drew, P. (2008). Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies, 10, 5–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 131–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–2781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T.Stivers, L.Mondana, & J.Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question's constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suh, C.-S. (2006). Korean grammar. Seoul, Korea: Hanyang University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2434–2451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, R.-J. R. (2004). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, K.-E. (2010). Questions and responses in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2782–2798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar