Chapter 3
Responding to polar questions in Brazilian Portuguese
É-responses and repeats
This paper explores the division of labor between particle and repetitional responses to polar questions in
Brazilian Portuguese. We examine a response form that occurs both as a particle and as a verb repeat – the
é-response – and compare its uses to repeat responses consisting of elements other than é.
Freestanding and expanded responses are analyzed to gather evidence of the participants’ orientations to the epistemic and
action commitments that the initial polar responses convey. The analyses indicate that é-responses (both
particle and repeat) sufficiently confirm previously established information, for instance, in response to understanding
checks. In contrast, when responding to requests for confirmation about a new matter, é responses only weakly
confirm the proposition in the question, indicating that it might not be true, or treat it as ancillary. Importantly,
é-responses do not affirm genuinely new information but instead suggest a lack of commitment to affirming
the proposition. In order to provide a committed confirmation or affirmation, minimal repetitional responses other than
é are used. The study thus sheds further light on é-responses in different sequential
and action environments and on the role of repetitional responses in Brazilian Portuguese, including a discussion in relation
to findings from other languages.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Polar questions and responses in Brazilian Portuguese
- 2.1Question design
- 2.2Response variants
- 3.The corpus
- 4.É-responses
- 4.1É-particle as a freestanding response: Confirming already addressed matters
- 4.2É-particle response expanded: Weak commitment
- 4.3É-particle and moving on: Treating the matter as ancillary
- 4.4É-repeat
- 5.Repeats other than é
- 5.1Minimal repeat as a freestanding response: Affirming new information
- 5.2Repeat expanded: Committing and specifying
- 5.3A further look at what repetitional responses convey
- 6.Discussion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (46)
References
Antaki, Charles. 2012. “Affiliative
and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.” Discourse
Studies 14 (5): 531–547.
Armstrong, Meghan E. 2008. “Pragmatic Restrictions
on Affirmative Response Choice in Brazilian
Portuguese.” In Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Joyce B. de Garavito and Elena Valenzuela, 288–299. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Bolden, Galina. 2016. “A
simple da?: Affirming Responses to Polar Questions in Russian
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 100: 40–58.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional
linguistics. Studying language in social
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell. 2015. “Language
Structure and Social Agency: Confirming Polar Questions in Conversation.” Linguistics
Vanguard 1 (1): 131–143.
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Tiina, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase W. Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. “Polar
Answers.” Journal of
Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304.
Figueiredo, Giacomo. 2015. “Uma
Descrição Sistêmico-Funcional dos Marcadores Discursivos Avaliativos em Português Brasileiro: a Gramática das
Partículas Modais.” Alfa: Revista de
Linguística 59 (2): 281–307.
Guimarães, Estefania. 2007. Talking
About Violence: Women Reporting Abuse in Brazil. Ph.D.
thesis, University of York.
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2009. “Designing
Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to
Assessments.” In Talk in interaction. Comparative
dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Heritage, John. 1984. “A
Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential
Placement.” In Structures of social action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 2010. “Questioning
in Medicine.” In “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions
in institutional discourse, ed. by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, John. 2012. “Epistemics
in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and
Social
Interaction 45: 1–29.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. “Navigating
Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar
Questions.” In Questions. Formal, Functional and
Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, Gail. 1978. “What’s
in a
“Nyem”?”, Sociology 12 (1): 135–139.
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “On
Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned
Matters.” In Structures of social action: Studies in
conversation analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kato, Mary A., Martins, Ana Maria, and Jairo Nunes. 2023. The
Syntax of Portuguese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. “Minimal
Answers to yes/no Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse
Studies 12 (3): 283–309.
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic
Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Laury, Ritva. 2018. “The
Finnish Verb Repeat Response: Its Emergence and Its Nature as a Formulaic
Expression.” Journal of
Pragmatics 123: 139–150.
Levinson, Stephen. 2012. “Interrogative
Intimations: On a Possible Social Economics of
Interrogatives.” In Questions: Formal, functional and
interactional perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 11–32. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindström, Anna. 2017. “Accepting
Remote Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of
talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner and John Heritage, 125–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Moraes, João Antônio de. 1999. “Intonation in
Brazilian Portuguese.” In Intonation Systems. A Survey of
Twenty Languages, ed. by Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oloff, Florence. 2014. “L’évaluation
des complétions collaboratives: analyse séquentielle et multimodale de tours de parole
co-construits.” SHS Web of Conferences 8, 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique
Française, 2125–2145.
Ostermann, Ana Cristina, and Camila de Almeida Teixeira. 2017. “Small
Things that Matter a Lot’: the Deontic Nature of ‘né.” Presentation
at 18th AILA Congress. Rio de Janeiro.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. “Telling
My Side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing” Device.” In Language
and social interaction. Sociological
Inquiry 50 (3/4): 186–198.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing
and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn
Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar
and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of
Responding.” American Sociological
Review 68 (6): 939–967.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2010b. “Grammar
and Social Relations. Alternative Forms of Yes/No–Type Initiating Actions in Health Visitor
Interactions.” In “Why do you ask?”: The function of
questions in institutional discourse, ed. by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosemeyer, Malte, and Scott A. Schwenter. 2019. “Echoic
and non-echoic confirming affirmative responses in spoken Brazilian
Portuguese.” Journal of
Pragmatics 141, 80–101.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures
on conversation (vols. 1 &
2). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Santos, Ana Lúcia. 2003. “The Acquisition of
Answers to yes/no Questions in European Portuguese: Syntactic, Discourse and Pragmatic
Factors.” Journal of Portuguese
Linguistics 2: 61–91.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Confirming allusions:
Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of
Sociology 102 (1): 161–216.
Selting, Margret. 1996. “Prosody
as an Activity-Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: the Case of So-called “Astonished” Questions in Repair
Initiation.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional
Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, Lucas M., and Mike Huiskes. 2017. “Confirmation
or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?” Research on Language and Social
Interaction 50 (2): 188–205.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen. 2009. “Alternative
responses to assessments.” In Conversation analysis:
Comparative perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified
repeats. One Method for Asserting Primary Rights From Second Position.” Research on
Language and Social
Interaction 38 (2): 131–158.
Stivers, Tanya. 2019. “How
We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of
Interjections.” Discourse
Processes 56 (3): 191–209.
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi. 2010. “Transformative
answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints.” Language in
Society 39 (1): 1–25.
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar
in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive
Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Urbano, Hudinilson, Leonor Fávero, Maria Lúcia Andrade, and Zilda Aquino. 1993. “Perguntas
e respostas na conversação (‘Questions and responses in
conversation’).” In Gramática do português falado. Vol.
III, ed. by Atalíbio Teixeira de Castilho, 75–97. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Gipper, Sonja
2024.
Request for confirmation sequences in Yurakaré.
Open Linguistics 10:1
Weber, Kathrin
2024.
Request for confirmation sequences in Low German.
Open Linguistics 10:1
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.