Noticing Breaches with Nonpolar Interrogatives: Estonian Kes (“Who”) Ascribing Responsibility for Problematic Conduct

References

• Bolden, G., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with why‐interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 94–119. doi:10.1111/jcom.2011.61.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English. Publications of the American Dialect Society, 28. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987/1978). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, C. W., Danby, S., & Emmison, M. (2011). Address terms in turn beginnings: Managing disalignment and disaffiliation in telephone counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(4), 338–358. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.619311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview discourse. Discourse and Communication, 4(2), 1–22. doi:10.1177/1750481310364330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2013). Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 290–302. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalist and public figures on the air. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2015). Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 7–24. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Introduction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Ruiter, J. P. (Ed.). (2012). Questions: Formal, functional, and interactional perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Egbert, M., & Vöge, M. (2008). Wh- interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. Discourse Studies, 10, 17–36. doi:10.1177/1461445607085583
   Web of Science ®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(10), 2615–2619. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erelt, M., Kasik, R., Metslang, H., Rajandi, H., Ross, K., Saari, H., … Vare, S. (1993). Eesti keele grammatika II [Estonian grammar II]. Tallinn, Estonia: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut.
   Google Scholar
• Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. doi:10.1017/S0047404500006849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1981). Social process in first and second language learning. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 379, pp. 33–47). New York, NY: New York Academy of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Freed, A. F., & Ehrlich, S. (Eds.). (2010). “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Günthner, S. (1996). The prosodic contextualization of moral work: An analysis of reproaches in “why”-formats. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Günthner, S. (2000). Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion: Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen [Reproach activities in everyday interaction. Grammatical, prosodic, rhetorical/stylistic and interactive processes in the constitution of communicative patterns and genres]. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). Suomen ja viron kyl(lä)/küll ja kieltolausen sanajärjestys [Finnish and Estonian kyl(lä)/küll and the word order of negative clauses]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja, 26, 84–126. doi:10.5128/LV26.03
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2006). “Will you or can’t you?”: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1081–1104. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes and social influence. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 99–120. doi:10.1348/014466610X500791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2003). Colloquial Estonian. In M. Erelt (Ed.), Estonian language (pp. 342–378). Tallinn, Estonia: Estonian Academy Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2011). Interrogative “complements” and question design in Estonian. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 37–68). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2012). Compromising progressivity: “No”-prefacing in Estonian. Pragmatics, 22(1), 119–146. doi:10.1075/prag.22.1.05kee
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2015). Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 309–336). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keisanen, T. (2007). Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 253–281). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keisanen, T. (2012). “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, 191, 199–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Laanesoo, K. (2012). Pööratud polaarsusega retoorilised küsimused argivestluses [Reversed polarity questions in Estonian everyday conversation]. Keel Ja Kirjandus, 7, 499−517.
   Google Scholar
• Laanesoo, K. (2014). Direktiivsed mis- ja mida-küsilaused suulises suhtluses [Directive what-interrogatives in Estonian spoken interaction]. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat, 59, 103–126. doi:10.3176/esa59.05
   Google Scholar
• Laanesoo, K. (2017). Miks-küsilausetega läbiviidavad suhtlustegevused telefonivestlustes [Social actions accomplished by why-interrogatives in Estonian phone conversations]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu Aastaraamat, 13, 89–105. doi:10.5128/ERYa13.06
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201. doi:10.1017/S004740450332202X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33, 703–736. doi:10.1017/S0047404504045038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metslang, H. (1980). Küsilause eesti keeles [Interrogative in Estonian]. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Tallinn, Estonia: Valgus.
   Google Scholar
• Monzoni, C. M. (2008). Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of “pre-sequences”? Discourse Studies, 10(1), 73–87. doi:10.1177/1461445607085591
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajusalu, R. (1997). Is there an article in (spoken) Estonian? In M. Erelt (Ed.), Estonian typological studies II (pp. 146–177). Tartu, Estonia: Tartu ülikooli kirjastus.
   Google Scholar
• Pajusalu, R., & Pajusalu, K. (2004). The conditional in everyday Estonian: Its form and functions. Linguistica Uralica, 4, 257–269.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   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, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A. J. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 9–135). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. doi:10.1017/S0047404500006837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sterponi, L. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 79–100. doi:10.1177/14614456030050010401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010a). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. doi:10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010b). A scalar view of response relevance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 49–56. doi:10.1080/08351810903471381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2007). Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. In D. Tannen, S. Kendall, & C. Gordon (Eds.), Family talk: Discourse and identity in four American families (pp. 49–69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weeks, P. (1996). A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 247–290. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka, A. (2006). Anglo scripts against “putting pressure” on other people and their linguistic manifestations. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context (pp. 31–63). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar