Cover not available

In:Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts
Edited by Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35] 2023
► pp. 40–75

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 2
Repetitional responses to polar questions in Russian conversation

 | Rutgers University
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.02bol
Abstract
This chapter examines repetitional responses to polar questions that implement requests for confirmation, information, or assistance in Russian conversation, contrasting them with particle responses, such as da (‘yes’) and net (‘no’). The analysis will show that Russian repetitional responses tend to be a marked response option deployed to disalign from some dimension of the interrogative or the action it implements. For example, repetitional responses may be deployed to reassert its speaker’s epistemic authority in the service of confirming a candidate understanding, to insist on the veracity of a statement following an enactment of disbelief or doubt, to disalign from the action implemented by an information request, or – in response to requests for service – to contest the stance that the provision of assistance might be problematic. The analysis suggests that different types of repetitional responses (such as lexical vs. longer repeats) may enact more or less disaligning stances vis-à-vis the initiating action. Overall, what exactly is being accomplished via a repetitional response is sensitive to a number of considerations, including the sequential and action environment of its deployment, the design of the repetitional response, and the repertoire of available response options.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.An overview of Russian polar questions
  • 4.Forms of repetitional responses
  • 5.Responding to negative polarity interrogatives
  • 6.Responding to repair initiations in the form of understanding checks
  • 7.Responding to news-marks and enactments of surprise
  • 8.Responding to requests for information
  • 9.Responding to requests for service
  • 10.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (62)
References
Bolden, Galina B. 2008. “Reopening Russian conversations: The discourse particle -to and the negotiation of interpersonal accountability in closings.” Human Communication Research 34: 99–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009a. “Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation.” Communication Monographs 76 (2): 121–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009b. “Implementing delayed actions.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, In Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 326–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Unpacking “self”: Repair and epistemics in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 76 (4): 314–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. “A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. “Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation.” In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Liisa Raevaara, 175–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. “Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation.” In Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages, ed. by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 23–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2010. “Questions and their responses in Tzeltal.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2627–2648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. “Russian.” In Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, ed. by William Chisholm, Louis T. Milic and John AC. Greppin, 7–46. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. 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
Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell. 2015. “Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation.” Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1): 131–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katarina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Certie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Wesley Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyun-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. “Polar answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2010. “Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2615–2619. 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
Girvan, William H. 1989. Russian handbook of spoken usage. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Kaoru Hayano. 2018. “A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese.” In Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages, ed. by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 191–224. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2006. “’Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (7): 1081–1104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden. 2017. Transcribing for social research. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview.” In Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Phillip J. Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron and Jenny S. Mandelbaum, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Questioning in medicine.” In ”Why do you ask?”: The functions of questions in institutional discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed and Carol M. Ehrlich, 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Language in society. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 J. P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel, and Albert Di Cristo. 1998. “A survey of intonation systems.” In Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, ed. by Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo, 1–44. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1980. “On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3/4): 153–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. The abominable ‘Ne?’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. “On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation.” Social Problems 35 (4): 418–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. “Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3): 283–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, Christopher J. 2011. “Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions.” Social Science & Medicine 72: 1105–1114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic 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
Meyer, Roland, and Ina Mleinek. 2006. “How prosody signals force and focus – A study of pitch accents in Russian yes-no questions.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1615–1635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. “Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.” In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and social organization: Yes/No type interrogatives and the structure of responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010a. “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 F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 69–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Prosodic variation in responses: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives.” In Prosody in interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber and Margret Selting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives.” In Units of talk – Units of action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In Talk and social organization, ed. by Graham Button and John R E. Lee, In Intercommunication, 54–69. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction.” In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. “Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (1): 161–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996b. “Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson, In Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 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
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, Chloe, Alexa Hepburn, and Jonathan Potter. 2013. “Having the last laugh: On post-completion laughter particles.” In Studies of laughter in interaction, ed. by Phillip J. Glenn and Elizabeth Holt, 91–106. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001b. “Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish.” In Studies in interactional linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, In Studies in discourse and grammar, 405–431. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005a. “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
. 2005b. “Parent resistance to physicians’ treatment recommendations: One resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision.” Health Communication 18 (1): 41–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “An overview of the question-response system in Americal English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2772–2781. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Morality and question design: ‘of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections.” Discourse Processes 2 (4): 191–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi. 2010. “Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svetozarova, Natalia. 1998. “Intonation in Russian.” In Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, ed. by Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo, 261–274. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, A N. 1972. Particles in colloquial Russian. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger. 2006. “Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69 (2): 150–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Fang, Hongmei
2025. Echo answers. Linguistic Typology 29:2 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Gubina, Alexandra
2025.  Countering Prior Interactional Conduct with Responsive doch in German Talk-in-Interaction . Research on Language and Social Interaction 58:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Gipper, Sonja
2024. Request for confirmation sequences in Yurakaré. Open Linguistics 10:1 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