Cover not available

In:Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 315–338

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

Chapter 11
Making up one’s mind in second position

Estonian no-preface in action plans

 | Linköping University
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
Abstract
This chapter discusses preferred responses that are delayed in their turn by the initial particle no in Estonian. It demonstrates that the turn-initial time-space may be employed for a display of “making up one’s mind”, either weighing matters outside the conversation or something already discussed in the talk. The paper argues that besides the dichotomous choice between the preferred and the dispreferred answer format, there are individual contingencies to consider in committing to future actions as made relevant in requests, proposals and suggestions. By marking a transition from prior resistance to compliance with a no-preface, the speaker indexes that the emerging response is carefully considered and therefore socially cohesive.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data
  • 3. No-preface in full repeat compliances
  • 4. No-preface in verb-repeat compliances
  • 5. No-preface in modified repeat compliances
  • 6. No-prefacing in independently formulated second pair parts
  • 7.Non-compliances and the lack of no-preface
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Transcription conventions
References (43)
References
Clayman, Steven. 2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:290–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2):129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, Judy. 1984. “Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
EKSS – Eesti Kirjakeele Seletussõnaraamat 1–26 [Comprehensive Dictionary of Estonian]. (1988–2007). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson. 2010. “Responses to WH-questions in English Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2):133–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2009. “Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to Assessments in Finnish.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 124–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Ways of Agreeing with Negative Stancetaking.” The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensig, and Tanya Stivers, 235–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit. 2000. “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid [Introduction to spoken Estonian IV. Special vocabulary 3. Particles].” Akadeemia 8:1773–1806.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IX. Lausung suulises kõnes 4 [Introduction to spoken Estonian IX. Utterance in speech 4].” Akadeemia 1:179–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984: Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27 (3):291–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson, 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88:88–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Bob M. 1999. The Welsh Answering System. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2009a. “Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid [The functions of simple answers to yes/no questions].” Keel ja Kirjandus 52 (1):33–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009b. “Internal Development and Borrowing of Pragmatic Particles: Estonian vaata/vat ‘look’, näed ‘you see’ and vot .” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 30/31:23–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Minimal Answers to Yes/No Questions in the Service of Sequence Organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3):1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “The Terms of Not Knowing.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensig, and Tanya Stivers, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Accomplishing Continuity Across Sequences and Encounters: No(h)-Prefaced Initiations in Estonian.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:274–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Estonian no(o)(h) in Turns and Sequences: Families of function.” In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 213–242. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima. 2013. “Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:267–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 2007. “Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol 1.Clause structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 2005. “Language as Social Action: A Study of How Senior Citizens Request Assistance with Practical Tasks in the Swedish Home Help Service.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Acceptances and Grantings of Deferred Action Requests, Invitations and Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene Lerner, and John Heritage, 125–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa. 1989. “ No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [ No – a turn initial particle].” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Characteristics of Finnish conversation I]. (Kieli 4.), ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 147–161. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6):939–967. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol.1, Clause structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1):161–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996b. “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2):91–115 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. “Simple Answers to Polar Questions: The Case of Finnish.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen. 2009. “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” In Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2):131–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weatherall, Ann. 2011. “’I Don’t Know’ as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4):317–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ruskan, Anna
2024. Role of six turn-initial demonstrative and emotive particles in Lithuanian. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily
2020. Thinking with the Body: Embodying Thinking as a Practice in Board Games. In Discursive Psychology and Embodiment, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Keevallik, Leelo
2017. Negotiating deontic rights in second position. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue