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

References

• Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8(1), 3–55. doi:10.1007/BF00143022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 22(1–4), 61–91. http://doi.org/10.1080/08351818809389298
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 123–145). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495–522. doi:10.1017/S0047404500020200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englert, C. (2010). Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2666–2684. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrara, K. W. (1997). Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics, 35(2), 343–378. http://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foolen, A. (1994). Toch wel [On the Dutch particle toch]. In R. Boogaart & J. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Nauwe betrekkingen: Voor Theo Janssen bij zijn vijftigste verjaardag (pp. 81–88). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.
   Google Scholar
• Haan, J. (2002). Speaking of questions—An exploration of Dutch question intonation. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
   Google Scholar
• Hayano, K. (2012). Question design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 395–414). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch19
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 1–36). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. http://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   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). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123–162). New York, NY: Irvington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hogeweg, L. (2009). The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 519–539. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1985). Kan een verzoek met “ja” worden geaccepteerd? [Can a request be accepted with a “yes”?]. TTT Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift Voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap, 5, 23–40.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 191–222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, 23, 30–87.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S.-H. (2015). Two forms of affirmative responses to polar questions. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 21–46. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.899001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, A. (2017). Accepting remote proposals. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 93–130. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch “but” as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Paardekooper, P. C. (1968). Beknopte ABN-syntaxix. ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands: Malmberg.
   Google Scholar
• Park, I. (2012). Asking different types of polar questions: The interplay between turn, sequence, and context in writing conferences. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 613–633. doi:10.1177/1461445612454077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side : “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–199. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W. (2016). Intersubjectivity, progressivity, and accountability: Studies in turn design. Los Angeles, CA: eScholarship,University of California Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. doi:10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010a). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 1–26). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010b). Prosodic variation in responses: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 109–129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. I: Clause structure (pp. 155–196). Cambridge, England: 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 (pp. 266–298). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 88–135). New York, NY: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2011). Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 367–380. doi:10.1177/1461445611402749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Seuren, L. M., Huiskes, M., & Koole, T. (2015). Epistemics and the functions of declarative questions in Dutch talk-in-interaction. In M. Boogaard, B. Van Den Bogaerde, S. Bacchini, M. Curcic, N. De Jong, E. Le Pichon, & L. Rasier (Eds.), Artikelen van de 8e Anéla Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap 2015 (pp. 59–78). Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2017). Distributed agency and action under the radar of accountability. In N. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 87–96). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x
   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., & Enfield, N. J. (2010). A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2620–2626. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. doi:10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. http://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, P. A. (2012). Grammar, epistemics and action ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, T. (2014). Form ≠ function: The independence of prosody and action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.871792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar