Cover not available

In:Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective
Edited by Kiki Nikiforidou and Mirjam Fried
[Constructional Approaches to Language 38] 2025
► pp. 285–312

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Pragmatic and prosodic aspects of the negative directive ðe mu les? (‘tell me’) in Greek conversation

 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Published online: 16 January 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.09alv
Abstract
This study examines the pragmatic and prosodic aspects of the Greek negative directive ðe mu les? (neg pn.1sg.gen say.2sg.prs) ‘tell me’ (lit. ‘don’t you tell me?’), bringing together conversation-analytic informed Interactional Linguistics and Construction Grammar, and drawing on naturally occurring data from audio-recorded conversations and telephone calls. It is shown that the negative directive ðe mu les? construction is used as a discourse marker that signals disjunctive topic change and displays specific prosodic properties, which are partly inherited from polar interrogatives and offer frames for the interpretation of the construction in talk-in-interaction. The study enhances our understanding of the ways in which prosody pairs with constructions and contributes to action formation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Polar interrogatives in Greek
    • 2.1The structural and semantic/pragmatic profile of ðe mu les?
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.The negative directive ðe mu les?
    • 4.1A question-based discourse marker for managing topic
  • 5.Prosodic aspects of the negative directive construction: Putting the puzzle together
  • 6.What can we conclude?
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (73)
References
Alvanoudi, A. (2018). Ερωτήσεις ολικής άγνοιας στην ελληνική: Μορφές και λειτουργίες [Polar questions: Forms and functions]. In Th.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Ερωτήσεις-απαντήσεις στην προφορική επικοινωνία [Questions and answers in Greek talk-in-interaction] (pp. 35–59). Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). ‘May I tell you something?’: When questions do not anticipate responses. Text & Talk, 39(4), 563–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arvaniti, A., Ladd, D. R., & Mennen, I. (2006). Phonetic effects of focus and ‘tonal crowding’ in intonation: Evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Communication, 48(6), 667–696. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bella, S., & Moser, A. (2018). What’s in a first? The link between impromptu invitations and their responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 96–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Computer program, version 6.1.04. [URL]
Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2017). The evolution of pragmatic markers in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 335–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (1996). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 11–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Introduction: Questions are what they do. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory. Methodology. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., Levinson, S. C. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 277–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 563–588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 892–898. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freese, J., & Maynard, D. W. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27(2), 195–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken interaction: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gras, P., & Elvira-García, W. (2021). The role of intonation in construction grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 232–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to 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: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(1), 35–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., Philippaki-Warburton, I., & Spyropoulos, V. (2012). Greek: A comprehensive grammar. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2015). Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso, & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discoure analysis and natural rhetoric (pp. 11–38). Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, J., & Walker, G. (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(3), 255–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, J., Wells, B., & Sebba, M. (1985). Phonology for conversation: Phonetic aspects of turn delimitation in London Jamaican. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2–3), 309–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 263–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, R. (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Th.-S. (1991). Cooperation and the choice of linguistic means: Some evidence from the use of the subjunctive in Modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(1), 11–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Καταγράφοντας την ελληνική γλώσσα [Making a record of the Greek language]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlidou Th.-S., & Alvanoudi A. (2024). Polar Answers: Accepting proposals in Greek telephone calls. Pragmatics, 34(3), 447–472.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device.” Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rhee, S. (2004). From discourse to grammar: Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. In G. Fulton, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS: Forum XXX: Language, thought and reality (pp. 413–423). Houston, TX: Lacus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riou, M. (2017). The prosody of topic transition in interaction: Pitch register variations. Language and Speech 60(4), 658–678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (2013). Epistemics, action formation and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 261–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 111–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 231–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Prosody in interaction: State of the art. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 3–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2002). On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek. In K. K. Luke, & Th.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls: Unity and diversity of conversational structure across languages and cultures (pp. 49–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2011). Analysing conversation: An introduction to prosody. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tzitzilis, Ch. (forthcoming). Balkan and Anatolian Sprachbund. In Ch. Tzitzilis, & G. Papanastasiou (Eds.), Language contact in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
Ward, N. (2019). Prosodic patterns in English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 111–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zellers, M. (2013). Prosodic variation for topic shift and other functions in local contrasts in conversation. Phonetica, 69, 231–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue