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. 350–376

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 12
Do English affirmative polar interrogatives with any favor negative responses?

 | University of Helsinki
 | University of California Santa Barbara
 | University of Colorado Boulder
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.12cou
Abstract
In research on talk-in-interaction, English affirmative polar interrogatives with any have been argued to favor a negative response, with supporting data drawn largely from medical interactions. Considering a range of mundane interactional settings, we find that the response favored by an affirmative polar interrogative format with any varies according to the action it is being used to implement, to its sequential location, and – more generally – to what it will take to progress the sequence in that setting. In some cases, we find that the affirmative polar interrogative does not favor either a negative or affirmative response. Evidence for our claims comes from the type of response given and the format in which it delivered.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research and current state of the art
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Polar interrogatives with any tilted by the action they serve as a vehicle for
    • 4.1Actions with a positive tilt: Requests and offers
    • 4.2Actions with a negative tilt: Challenges
  • 5.Polar interrogatives with any tilted by sequential position
    • 5.1Sequence positions with a positive tilt: Topic proffers
    • 5.2Sequence positions with a positive tilt: Pre-requests for information
    • 5.3Sequence positions with a negative tilt: Pre-extended tellings
  • 6.Information-seeking polar interrogatives
  • 7.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2006. “Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction.” Journal of Communication 56(4): 661–688. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. “”Irrealis” as a grammatical category.” Anthropological Linguistics 40: 257–271.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (Volume 3) ed. by Timothy Shopen, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. “Sequence and solidarity.” In Group Cohesion, Trust and Solidarity, ed. by Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler, 229–253. New York: Elsevier. 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. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 102–127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1987. “Po-faced receipts of teases.” Linguistics 25: 219–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 2001. “Denial and the construction of conversational turns.” In Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Joan Bybee and Michael Noonan, 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 2015. “On the notion of pre-request.” Discourse Studies 17(1): 41–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara and Trine Heinemann. 2017. “Issues in action formation: the problem with x.” Open Linguistics 3: 31–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Polarity in the semantics of natural language.” Online: Oxford Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446. 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, ed. by Phillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron and Jenny Mandelbaum, 44–76. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places).” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Questioning in Medicine. In Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich.” 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.1: 30–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2021. “Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(1): 39–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Marc N. Elliott, Megan Beckett and Michael Wilkes. 2007. “Reducing Patients’ Unmet Concerns in Primary Care: The Difference One Word Can Make.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 22(10): 1429–1433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Jeffrey Robinson. 2011. “‘Some’ versus ‘any’ medical issues: Encouraging patients to reveal their unmet concerns.” In Applied Conversation Analysis: Changing institutional practices, ed. by Charles Antaki, 15–31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. A Natural History of Negation, Second edition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2012. “Compromising progressivity: ‘no’-prefacing in Estonian.” Pragmatics 22.1: 119–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina. 2007. “Stancetaking as an interactional activity: challenging the prior speaker.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson 253–281. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. and Paul Drew. 2016. “Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1): 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. and Judith Holler. 2017. “Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(1): 12–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. and Francisco Torreira. 2015. “The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study.” Discourse Processes 52(4): 255–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. “Negation in English.” In The Structure of Language, ed. by Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2002. “A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1851–1877. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Wh-questions used as challenges.” Discourse Studies 5(1): 51–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Responses to wh-question challenges.” 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, 79–104. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Seung Hee. 2011. “Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 904–917. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the syntax of sentences in progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. “On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action formation and ascription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Ji Seong. 2008. Negative yes/no question-answer sequences in conversation: grammar, action, and sequence organization. UCLA dissertation.
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
. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features found in 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita and John Heritage. 2013. “Preference.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 210–228. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase W., Jeffrey D. Robinson, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson, and Kristella Montiegel. 2020. “Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting.” Language in Society 50(1): 53–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 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 Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey and John Heritage. 2006. “The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren.” Language in Society 35, 677–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Felicia and Alexander L. Francis. 2013. “Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffry D. 2020. “Revisiting preference organization in context: A. qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(2): 197–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffry D., Tate, Alexandra, and Heritage, John. 2016. “Agenda-setting revisited: When and how do primary-care physicians solicit patients’ additional concerns?” Patient Education and Counseling 99, 718–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2018. “Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(4): 379–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by G. Button and J. R. E. Lee, 54–69. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. “On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: a single case conjecture.” Social Problems 35: 442–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. “Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson, 70–96. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. “A preference for progressivity in interaction.” Language in Society 35.3: 367–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terasaki, Alene K. 2004. “Pre-announcement sequences in conversation.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 171–223. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

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
Rääbis, Andriela
2024. Functions of the particle üldse ‘at all’ in questions in Estonian everyday conversations. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 209 ff. 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