Probability and Valence: Two Preferences in the Design of Polar Questions and Their Management

References

• Beach, W. A. (2002). Between dad and son: Initiating, delivering, and assimilating bad cancer news. Health Communication, 14(3), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1403_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (2009). A natural history of family cancer: Interactional resources for managing illness. Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions (pp. 87–105). Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W. (2015). Modular pivots: A resource for extending turns at talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dersley, I., & Wootton, A. J. (2000). Complaint sequences within antagonistic argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 375–406. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Social interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 14–38). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2015). The alignment of manual and verbal displays in requests for the repair of an object. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative analysis: Issues of theory and method (pp. 161–182). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2010). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1980). On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00019.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, A., & Heinemann, T. (2009). Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). At the interface of grammar and the body. Chais Pas (‘dunno’) as a resource for dealing with lack of recipient response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276
   Google Scholar
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2003). Doing “okay”: On the multiple metrics of an assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 285–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152–164). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (2004). Investigating reported absences. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 109–129). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W., Clift, R., & Heritage, J. (in press). Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K. (in press). Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740452000069X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 321–353). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2006). Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 22–47). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2020a). One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 53(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2020b). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 53(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1973/1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–288). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35(4), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/800596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Overwrought utterances: “Complex sentences” in a different sense. In J. Bybee & M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of sandra A. Thompson (pp. 321–336). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2016). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A. (2012). The interactional organization of self-praise: Epistemics, preference organization, and implications for identity research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511432939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2007). Prescribing under pressure: Parent-physician conversations and antibiotics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., De Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terasaki, A. K. (1976/2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171–223). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vom Lehn, D., Webb, H., Heath, C., & Gibson, W. (2013). Assessing distance vision as an interactional achievement: A study of commensuration in action. Soziale Welt, 64, 115–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar