How a Terminal Tag Can Display Epistemic Stance and Constrain Responses: The Case of Oder Nicht in German

References

• Barron, A., Pandarova, I., & Muderack, K. (2015). Tag questions across Irish English and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua, 34(4), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barske, T., & Golato, A. (2010). German so: Managing sequence and action. Text & Talk, 30(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In I. Wischer & G. Diewalds (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 345–361). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Betz, E., & Deppermann, A. (2018). Indexing priority of position: Eben as response particle in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 58–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betz, E., Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., & Golato, A. (2013). Third-position repeats in German: The case of repair- and request-for information sequences. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 14, 133–166. http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D (2021). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program] (Version Version 6.1.38), Retrieved January 2, 2021, from http://www.praat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions (pp. 87–110). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diewald, G., & Fischer, K. (1998). Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. [On the discursive and modal functions of the particles aber, auch, doch and ja in instructional dialogs]. Linguistica, 38(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.4312/linguistica.38.1.75-99
   Google Scholar
• Döring, S., & Repp, S. (2019). The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. In S. Featherston, R. Hörnig, S. Von Wietersheim, & S. Winkler (Eds.), Experiments in focus: Information structure and semantic processing (pp. 17–55). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Drake, D., & Drake, V (2010). “oda wey/oda wos” and “oder wie/oder was”: A comparison of Bavarian and German repair initiators [Paper presented]. In Germanic linguistics annual conference XVI (GLAC 16). Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
   Google Scholar
• Drake, V. (2015). Indexing uncertainty: The case of turn-final or. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drake, V. (2016). German questions and turn-final oder. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 17, 168–195. http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
   Web of Science ®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
• Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: grammatical structure and sequential organization. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2016). Nu(n) in standard German: Its functions as a temporal adverbial, as an adverbial structuring discourse, and as a modal particle. In P. Auer & Y. Maschler (Eds.), “Nu” and “nå”. A family of discourse markers across the languages of Europe and beyond (pp. 320–356). de Gruyter/Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Hagemann, J. (2009). Tag questions als Evidenzmarker. Formulierungsdynamik, sequentielle Struktur und Funktionen redezuginterner tags. Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 10, 145–176. http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de
   Google Scholar
• Harren, I. (2001). “Ne?” in Alltagsgesprächen - Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). University of Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2009). Interrogating tears: Some uses of tag questions in a child protection helpline. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask? The functionof questions in institutional discourse (pp. 69–86). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance in institutional settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2), 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511408055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012b). 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., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–15). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexicing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®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 University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. (1982). The function of tag questions. English Language Research Journal, 3, 40–65.
   Google Scholar
• Imo, W. (2011). ‘Jetzt gehen wir einen trinken, gell?’ Vergewisserungssignale (tag questions) und ihre Relevanz für den DaF-Unterricht. In I. M. Moraldo (Ed.), Deutsch aktuell 2. Einführung in die Tendenzen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (pp. 127–150). Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1980). The abominable ne? An exploration of post-response pursuit of response. In P. Schröder & H. Steger (Eds.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 53–88). Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2008). Conjunction and sequenced actions: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In R. Laury (Ed.), Studies of clause-combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 125–152). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Koerfer, A. (1979). Zur konversationellen Funktion von ja aber. Am Beispiel universitärer Diskurse. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache (pp. 14–29). De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A., Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2011). Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 69–103). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• König, K. (2016). Question tags als discourse markers? [Paper presented]. 19 Arbeitstagung Gesprächsforschung „Diskursmarker“.
   Google Scholar
• König, K. (2017). Question tags als Diskursmarker? – Ansätze zu einer systematischen Beschreibung von ne im gesprochenen Deutsch. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp. 233–258). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
   Google Scholar
• König, K. (2020). Prosodie und epistemic stance: Konstruktionen mit finalem oder. In W. Imo & J. P. Lanwer (Eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 176–199). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2008). Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The finnish että. In R. Laury (Ed.), Studies of clause-combining: The multifunctionality of conjunction (pp. 153–178). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstrom, A (1997). Designing social actions: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Lütten, J. (1979). Die Rolle der Partikeln doch, eben und ja als Konsens-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache [The role of the particles doch, eben, and ja as consensus markers in spoken language]. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache [Particles in German] (pp. 30–38). Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, W. (1995). The English ‘tag question’: A new analysis, is(n’t) it?. In R. Hasan & P. H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme. A discourse functional perspective. Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 91–121). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mithun, M. (2012). Tags. Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2165–2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Studies of clause-combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 179–204). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–164). Cambridge 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
• Rehbein, J. (1979). Sprechhandlungsaugmente. Zur Organisation der Hörersteuerung. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache (pp. 58–74). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Rehbein, J. (1992). Zur Wortstellung im komplexen deutschen Satz. Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten, 523–574. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622447-024
   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. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schleef, E. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of the functions and sociolinguistic distribution of English and German tag questions and discourse markers in academic speech. In E. Suomela-Salmi & F. Dervin (Eds.), Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 61–79). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. InLiSt - Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 52. http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/52/InLiSt52.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M (2013). Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation (Doctoral dissertation), University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J (Eds). (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B. (2015). Managing the boundary between “yes” and “but”: Two ways of disaffiliating with German ja aber and jaber. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.993843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2015). On reference work and issues related to the management of knowledge: An analysis of the Farsi particle dige in turn-final position. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaselli, M. V., & Gatt, A. (2015). Italian tag questions and their conversational functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 84, 54–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tottie, G., & Hoffmann, S. (2006). Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 34(4), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424206294369
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: ‘Trail-off’ conjunctions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911428858
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache (3 Bände). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar