3.1Theoretical delineations

Given the fluidity of the term ‘proposal’ that characterizes the relevant literature for the greatest part, in this paper we would like to delimit our examination to proposals for a joint action. We conceptualize proposals as highly cooperative actions, in the sense of substantial cooperation (cf. Pavlidou 1991bPavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1991b “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. ), i.e. cooperation that involves a common goal and is not confined to observing the principles/maxims of communication (cf. e.g. Grice 1975Grice, Herbert P. 1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. ). Echoing Couper-Kuhlen (2014)Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2014 “What does Grammar tell us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. and Stivers and Sidnell (2016)Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnell 2016 “Proposals for Activity Collaboration.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (2): 148–166. , this entails that both speaker and recipient are involved as agent (syntactically, the subject of the verb). But from the perspective of cooperation, although a participant may not be the agent of the proposed action at an initial stage, s/he can be directly affected by it, which in turn would require her/his cooperation at a later stage (syntactically, the (in)direct object of the verb).

Moreover, again from the cooperation point of view, we do not hold it necessary that both speaker and recipient benefit from the proposed action; it suffices that the action does not entail any disadvantages for either of them. What seems more important is the signaling that the speaker is willing to endeavor into the joint action, while probing the recipient’s willingness to join the endeavor. In other words, proposals for joint action, rather than being grounded on epistemic or deontic asymmetry, bring to the fore the dimension of wishing/desiring to do something. In view of this differentiation of proposals from both epistemically oriented questions and from directive-commissive actions of other kinds,88.As mentioned in Section 2, in the case of proposals – by contrast to other directive-commissive actions, such as invitations or suggestions – both speaker and recipient are agent as well as beneficiary of the future action. we regard positive/negative answers to proposals for joint action as accepting/rejecting the proposal (rather than complying/non-complying with the proposal, see e.g. Floyd et al. 2020Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield eds 2020 Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.; Thompson et al. 2015Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ).

3.2Polar interrogatives in Greek

As in other languages (e.g. Italian, Yeli Dnye; cf. Enfield et al. 2010Enfield, N. 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. , 2615), polar interrogatives in Greek are not marked morphosyntactically but only intonationally.99.There is one (modal) particle in Greek that, in addition to intonation, marks an utterance as interrogative, namely, άραγε ‘perhaps’ or ‘I wonder’ (as in Άραγε θα ’ρθει η Λένα; ‘Will Lena perhaps come?’). However, this particle (a) is not exclusive to polar interrogatives since it can also accompany wh-questions (e.g. Τι θα μας φέρει άραγε; ‘What will she bring us, I wonder’) and (b) only accompanies interrogatives of a particular type, namely those implementing deliberative questions (cf. Pavlidou 1991aPavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1991a “Particles, Pragmatic and Other.” Multilingua 10 (1/2): 151–172.). More specifically, a declarative sentence, either in the indicative or the subjunctive mood, can be turned into a polar interrogative through a rising intonational contour followed by a slight pitch fall at the end of the utterance (see e.g. Holton et al. 2012Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos 2012 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. , 504). Tags, delivered with the typical question intonation, can be added after declarative sentences to turn them into polar interrogatives (Holton et al. 2012Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos 2012 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. , 505).

Prior research on polar interrogatives in Greek talk-in-interaction (Alvanoudi 2018Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2018 “Ερωτήσεις Oλικής Άγνοιας στην Ελληνική: Μορφές και Λειτουργίες [Polar Questions: Forms and Functions].” In Ερωτήσεις-Απαντήσεις στην Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Questions and Answers in Greek Talk-in-Interaction], ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 35–59. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies., 2019Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2019 “ ‘May I Tell you Something?’: When Questions Do Not Anticipate Responses.” Text & Talk 39 (4): 563–587. ; Bella and Moser 2015Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser 2015 “Αρνητικές Ερωτηματικές Προσκλήσεις: Συνέπειες για τη Δομή Προτίμησης [Negative-Interrogative Invitations: Consequences for Preference Organization].” In Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Προφορική Επικοινωνία [Greek Language and Oral Communication], ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 11–22. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies., 2018Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser 2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 125: 96–110. ; Pavlidou 1986Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1986 “Nα Ρωτήσω Κάτι; Ερωτήσεις σε Υποτακτική [May I Αsk Something? Questions in the Subjunctive].” Studies in Greek Linguistics 7: 233–249., 1991bPavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1991b “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. ) has shown that these can carry out various actions, besides requesting information or confirmation. For example, Pavlidou (1991b)Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1991b “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. found that subjunctive interrogatives occur in highly cooperative contexts, functioning as indirect offers/proposals, among others, in more informal interactions, or as indirect requests for permission to do something, in less familiar ones. On the other hand, Bella and Moser (2018)Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser 2018 “What’s in a First? The Link between Impromptu Invitations and their Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 125: 96–110. found that ‘impromptu’ invitations, i.e. those that were not presented as the main reason for the call, were commonly issued by negative polar interrogatives, as in δεν έρχεσαι να φάμε το βράδυ; (neg come.2sg.prs sbjv eat.1pl.pfv tonight) ‘Wouldn’t you come for dinner tonight?’. They demonstrated that such invitations trigger a sequential pattern in which acceptance comes late and often displays features of dispreferred responses such as delays or accounts. Although these studies shed light into aspects of directive-commissive actions in Greek talk-in-interaction, polar interrogatives implementing proposals for joint action and their answers, remain an underexamined area.1010.Cf. though Alvanoudi (2022)Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2022 “Polar Answers and Epistemic Stance in Greek Conversation.” Pragmatics 32 (1): 1–27. on the different functions of three formats for providing positive answers to epistemically oriented polar interrogatives in Greek, i.e. unmarked and marked positive response tokens, and repetitions.

3.3Data

The data for the present study are drawn from 190 telephone calls between friends and/or relatives (147 different participants on the whole) that are part of the Corpus of Spoken Greek of the Institute of Modern Greek Studies.1111.Cf. http://​ins​.web​.auth​.gr​/index​.php​?lang​=en​&Itemid​=251 and for a full description of the Corpus see Pavlidou (2016)Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 2016 “Το Corpus Προφορικού Λόγου του ΙΝΣ [The Corpus of Spoken Greek]”. In Καταγράφοντας την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Making a Record of the Greek Language], ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 15–68. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.. The calls are fully transcribed according to the CA conventions (see Appendix). Following Stivers and Enfield (2010Stivers, Tanya, and N. J. Enfield 2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2620–2626. , 2621), an utterance was coded as a polar interrogative, if it was formally (via prosodic marking) or functionally (i.e. requesting information, confirmation or seeking agreement) marked as an interrogative. Νewsmarks and tags were coded as functional questions because they seek confirmation. Declarative questions and interrogatives in reported speech were not taken into account. This procedure yielded more than 1,200 polar interrogatives in the phone calls under examination, of which about 1/8 are polar interrogatives implementing proposals for joint action. As some of these receive no response, we were left with 130 polar interrogatives and their answers as our data.

4.1Linguistic formats of polar interrogatives for proposals for joint action

As mentioned in Section 2, we consider as proposals for joint action polar interrogatives that involve a future action, in whose accomplishment both speaker and recipient participate as agents. So, we first looked for polar interrogatives whose main verb denotes an action (commonly, non-verbal) to be accomplished (usually) in the future (cf. ‘remote proposals’) and the subject is explicitly (or implicitly) the first-person plural inclusive.

These considerations render as prototypical for implementing proposals for joint action the format ‘Shall we X?’, whereby the verb (denoting an action) is in the first-person plural, in the indicative, as in (2), or subjunctive mood, as in (3):1212.The indicative is regarded as the mood of the ‘real’ while the subjunctive is considered to be the mood of the ‘desired’ or the ‘expected’ (cf. Tzartzanos 1991 [1946]Tzartzanos, Achilleas A. 1991 [1946] Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol. A. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.). As such, the latter is ideally suited for the realization of proposals. On the formal differentiation of the two moods cf. Holton et al. (2012Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos 2012 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. , 363–265).

Sometimes the question does not occur in full form, but is articulated elliptically, e.g. ‘At five?’, when it is contextually clear that this is a proposal to do something at five o’clock, e.g. after a question like (3). The ‘Shall we X?’ format is the most frequent in our data.

We also considered the format ‘Do you want us to X?’, which is closely related to the previous one. In this case, aside from explicit reference to both speaker and recipient (cf. the first-person plural in the subordinate clause), the willingness of the recipient to do the joint action is foregrounded and explicitly articulated, for example:

In other words, with this format the speaker checks whether a basic pre-condition on the recipient’s part to get involved in the joint action, i.e. his/her willingness, holds.

Finally, we looked at tag questions that are formed on the basis of prior agreement regarding a future joint action and, most commonly, seek to determine the details of the plan. The tag follows a statement that gives the gist of the plan for joint action (the verb in the first-person plural), adding a new aspect, like the meeting time, and asks for confirmation with the tag, as in (5).

Tags in our data include adverbs such as έτσι; ‘right?’, εντάξει; ‘all right?’, and the interjection ε ‘eh?’. Quite expectedly, this format very frequently occurs just before the final phase of the phone call.

In our data, it is fifty polar interrogatives that occur in one of the above linguistic formats. There are also other polar interrogatives that could be arguably regarded as proposals for joint action but were left out of consideration in the present paper. These include cases where either the speaker or the recipient is agent of the future action, while the other party is somehow affected by the action, as can be contextually established (e.g. Να έρθεις από δω; ‘Would you come by?’). In other cases, the interrogative checks whether relevant preconditions – other than the recipient’s willingness – for the realization of the action hold. Such questions occur after a proposal for joint action has been articulated and refer to the specifics of the action to be accomplished, e.g. the time, or alternative plans (e.g. Πέντε η ώρα σε βολεύει; ‘Does five o’clock suit you?’). Finally, the interrogative may consist in idiomatic/formulaic expressions regarding the agreement for joint action like Μέσα; (lit. ‘inside’; ‘Can I count you in?’), or interrogative constructions with the verb ‘say’, as in Λες να δούμε καμιά ταινία; ‘Would you consider seeing a movie?’.

4.2Types of responses

In line with Thompson et al. (2015Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 3), we coded answers that “take up the action” of the initiating action implemented via the polar interrogative, and “are ‘typed’, i.e. they are specific to a particular type of initiating action that they are understood to address (Schegloff 2007Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. )”, that is, accepting or rejecting is a typed-responsive action to a proposal for joint action. Following Thompson et al. (2015Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 4), in the case of multi-unit responses, only the first turn-constructional unit (TCU henceforth) was coded. The following types of responses were found in our data.

Particles: This class includes ‘response particles’ (cf. Sorjonen 2001Sorjonen, Marja-Leena 2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ) as the cover designation for a) the prototypical response tokens ναι ‘yes’ and όχι ‘no’, which are categorized as adverbs in Greek grammars; b) other adverbials, like βέβαια (‘certainly’), εντάξει (‘all right’), ωραία (‘fine’); c) response tokens, like μ, μμ (‘m’, ‘mhm’).1313.This category corresponds to Enfield et al.’s (2019)Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen Levinson 2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304. ‘interjections’. Such responses are most commonly prosodically marked, in other words, they are delivered with lengthening of the vowel, higher pitch, etc.

Repetition: Responses of this type consist in partial or full repeats of the interrogative clause, for example:

Such repeats are sometimes prosodically modified.

Other: Any other kind of response, for example, ‘transformative answers’, which resist the constraints of a polar question by transforming its terms or its agenda (Stivers and Hayashi 2010Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi 2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–25. ), as in (7):

4.3Distributional information

Table 1 presents the frequencies of response types to proposals for joint action according to the format of the 50 polar interrogatives.

As can be seen from Table 1, the most common interrogative format for issuing proposals for joint action is ‘Shall we X?’ (60.0%), followed by the ‘Do you want us to X?’ format (24.0%) and tags (16.0%). In designing responses to such interrogatives Greek speakers most commonly rely on particle-type answers (60.0%),1414.Greek speakers’ preference for the use of response particles has also been observed in the case of positive answers to epistemically oriented polar interrogatives (Alvanoudi 2022Alvanoudi, Angeliki 2022 “Polar Answers and Epistemic Stance in Greek Conversation.” Pragmatics 32 (1): 1–27. ). and less on other-type (28.0%) and repetition-type answers (12.0%). It should be mentioned at this point that, aside from the repetition-type answers, which by definition are always positive, all but one particle-type responses are positive in our data, i.e. they accept the proposal. On the other hand, only 4 of the other-type answers are positive. It is the accepting responses that the following analysis will be confined to.

5.1Particle-type answers

Greek speakers use particles to accept proposals for joint action, whereby the usual practice in our data is: to respond with one or more particles (same or different) and then add a further TCU, which negotiates the specifics of the action (e.g. when/where to meet, inviting more friends to join, etc.) or, less commonly, changes topic/activity.

In Extract [1], from a phone call between two sisters, Anna and Stella, there are two instances of proposals for joint action formulated in the prototypical format ‘Shall we X?’. The first one – which, as it turns out, is the reason for the call – comes at line 12 and is about going out for coffee.1515.‘Going out for coffee’ is a metonymy for going out (and having a drink). Stella’s response comes at line 14, after a long gap (line 13), and is prefaced by the hesitation marker ε:: ‘u::h’. Stella accepts the proposal via the prosodically marked affirmative particle ↑ν:αι. ‘yes’. In the next TCU, she uses a wh-interrogative to request the specification of time for the joint action, which, however, does not receive an answer.

01             ((telephone rings))

02     Stella  ΄Ελα ΄A[ννα¿]
               Hi  Anna¿

03     Anna         [.hh ] ΄Ελα Στέλλα, τι γίνεται?
                     .hh Oh hi Stella, what’s up?

04     Stella  Μια χαρά. εσύ:.=
               Great.    what about you.=

05     Anna    =h Καλά κι εγώ.   τι κάνεις?
                ((laughing tone))
               =h I am fine too. what are you doing?

06             (0.4)

07     Stella  Κα↑λά: είμαι. (κάθομαι εδώ παίζω.)
               I am fine.    (I am just sitting here playing.)
                             ((recording problem))

08     Anna    .h Α ναι[:?]
               .h Oh really?

09     Stella          [Γκ]έιμ Μπόι. ναι:.
                                     ((laughing tone))
                        Game Boy.    yes.

10     Anna    ((γελάκι)) Με το Γκέιμ Μπόι? [((γελάει χαμηλόφωνα…… ]……
                         ((laughing tone…))
               ((light laugh)) Game Boy?     ((laughs quietly……))……

11     Stella                               [Ναι. να περάσει η ώρα.]
                                             ((laughing tone…………))
                                             Yes. to pass the time.

12 ->  Anna    ……)) πάμε      για κάναν καφέ:?
                    go.1pl.prs for some  coffee
               ……)) Shall we go out for some coffee?

13             (1.2)

14  →  Stella  Ε::  ↑ν:αι. τι   ώρα  θες.
               interj yes   what time want.2sg.prs
               U::h yes. what time do you want [us to meet]?

15     Anna    °Ε° πες και τον Αντρέα άμα θέλει νά ’ρθει:.
               Uh tell Andreas to come as well if he wants to.

16             (0.7)

17     Stella  ↑Ναι. να του πω:.    να ντο κανονίσουμε.
                Yes. I’ll tell him. we can arrange that.

18 ->  Anna    >Να πούμε      κατά τις< [ εννιά]:?
               sbjv say.1pl.pfv around      nine
               >Shall we say  around<     nine?

19     Stella                           [Να πού-]
                                         Shall we-

20             (0.9)

21     Stella  Τι ώρα είναι τώρα.=
               What’s the time now.=

22     Anna    =Τώρα είναι: ε- εφτάμισι σχεδόν.
               =Now it’s half past se- seven almost.

23             (0.8)

24 →  Stella   Ναι. ωραία. να  προλάβουμε        να ετοιμα↑στούμε, (0.5)
               yes  good   sbjv be_in_time.1pl.pfv sbjv get_ready.1pl.pfv
               Yes. good.  so that we have time  to get ready, (0.5)

25     Anna    [Εντ-]
                All r-

26     Stella  [και ] πάμε.
                and   go.1pl.prs
                and   then go.

27     Anna    Ναι. [εντάξει.              ]
               Yes.  all right.

28     Stella       [>(Ναι. θα ’ρθει κι ο)<] Βαγγέλης?
                     >Yes. will< Vangelis also join us?

29     Αnna    >Ναι ναι.< θα ’ρθει.
               >Yes yes.< he will.

30             (.)

After an insert sequence, in which Anna extends her proposal to Stella’s partner (line 15) and Stella agrees to tell him about it (line 17), Anna proposes a meeting time (again, in the prototypical format) at line 18, instead of providing the information requested at line 14. Stella repeats part of this question, before Anna mentions the proposed time, but cuts it off (line 19) in order to launch, after a gap (line 20), another insert sequence, in which she asks about the current time (lines 21–22). The pending second pair-part to Anna’s question from line 18 comes now – again after a gap (line 23) – at line 24. In the first TCU, she accepts the proposal via the prosodically marked affirmative particle Ναι. ‘yes’; in the second TCU, she delivers an evaluative affirmation of the proposed time (ωραία ‘good’); in the third TCU (lines 24, 26), she provides an account of her positive stance. At line 27, Anna accepts Stella’s account and closes down the sequence. In the last lines of the extract, it is established that Anna’s partner, Vangelis, will be joining them as well.

The next extract is from a phone call between Zina and Vicky, two fellow students from the university, on the last day of the Easter holidays. The proposal – in the ‘Do you want us to X?’ format – comes around the middle of the call, after the two friends have talked about their vacation, their upcoming exams and Vicky’s returning to town later on that day. In the lines preceding this extract, the two friends established that they would not be very busy on the next day, except for Vicky’s Italian class. Then at line 01, Vicky mentions a talk, which she thinks is scheduled for the morning of the next day. After a gap (line 02), Zina responds emphatically (prosodic marking in the first instance plus repetition of ‘yes’), followed by another polar (negatively formulated) question about the time that the talk is supposed to take place.

01     Vicky   Το πρωί νομίζω ότι είναι η ομιλία:?
               I think the talk is in the morning?

02             (0.7)

03     Zina    Ναι:. ναι. το πρωί στις δώδεκα δεν είναι?
               Yes. yes. isn’t it at twelve o’clock in the morning?

04             (0.6)

05     Vicky   Δώδεκα η ώρα πρέπει να ’ναι.
               It must be at twelve.

06 ->          θες         να  βρεθούμε    να  πάμε?
               want.2sg.prs sbjv meet.1pl.pfv sbjv go.1pl.pfv
               Do you want us to meet and go?

07 →   Zina    .h ΄Eγινε. τι   ώρα:?
                  done   what time
               .h Done. what time?

08             (0.6)

09     Vicky   Ε: αν είναι >κατά τις εντεκάμισι η ώρα< θα συναντηθούμε,
               U:h in that case we’ll meet >around eleven thirty<,

10     Zina    °Μ:,
                M:,

11     Vicky   >εκεί μπροστά στη< σχολή, και θα πάμε στην ομιλία. επ-
               >there in front of the< school, and we will go to the talk. al-

12             (0.6) έχω ιταλικά,             θα προλάβουμε.
               (0.6) I have my Italian class, we will make it.

Following the gap at line 04, Vicky responds that the talk must be at 12:00, and goes on to ask (line 06) whether Zina wants to meet and go with her to the talk. At line 07, Zina accepts this proposal. Her answer is prefaced by an in-breath and consists of the particle έγινε 1616.This is actually the 3SG.PST of the verb γίνομαι ‘become’, used as a particle to express strong agreement, and very commonly employed in telephone call closings (Pavlidou 1998Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics 8 (1): 79–94.). ‘done’ that accepts emphatically the proposal. Zina then uses a wh-interrogative, to carry out a new action (asking for information about the meeting time).

In the examples analyzed above, particle-type answers to proposals for joint action are followed by same speaker talk that negotiates the specifics of the plan. A slightly different pattern can be observed in the following extract, in which the proposing participant puts forward an already existing plan. In Extract [3], the proposal for joint action occurs in the final phase of the call. The segment is the continuation and end of [1], and we take it from line 31, where Stella closes down the sequence about Vangelis’ joining them.

31     Stella   Ω:ραία ωραία. [(θα πάμ’ ό]λοι.)
                Good good.     (we will all go.)

32     Anna                   [<Λοιπόν.> ]
                               <So then.>

33 ->  Anna     Ε:    ραντεβού στην   Αριστοτέλους τότε έτσι:?
                interj date     at:the Aristotelous then right
                U:h we will meet at Aristotelous square then, right?

34              (0.6)

35 →  Stella   <΄Eγινε.>
                 done
                <Done.>

36     Anna     ΄E:[γινε ] Στέλλα, άντε. [τα  λέμε.]
                Done      Stella, ADE. see you.

37     Stella     [΄Aντε.]               [΄Eγιν’ ΄A]ννα, ά:ντε=
                   ade                    Done Anna,      ade=

38     Anna     =΄A[ντε   ] >ναι. °γεια.<
                =ade        >yes. bye.<

39     Stella     [°γεια.]
                   °Bye.

40              ((end of call))

At line 32, Anna first initiates the closing of the call (<Λοιπόν.> ‘so then’) in partial overlap with Stella’s previous turn, and then proposes that they meet at Aristotelous square. Her proposal deals with the details of the plan for going out (established previously, see Extract [1]), and more specifically with the place of the meeting. It is designed as a declarative – formulated elliptically (the first-person plural verb is omitted) – followed by a tag (έτσι:? ‘right?’). Stella accepts the proposal with the particle <Έγινε.> ‘done’ uttered at slower pace and with emphasis on the first syllable. Then, at line 37 Stella initiates the closing with the typical pre-closing particle ADE,1717.ADE (άντε [΄ade]) is an untranslatable Greek interjection. Tzartzanos (1991 [1953]Tzartzanos, Achilleas A. 1991 [1953] Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (της Κοινής Δημοτικής) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Dimotiki)], vol. Β. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.), who was the first to examine such parts of speech in Modern Greek, regards it as a hortative particle. As shown in Pavlidou (1998)Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics 8 (1): 79–94., it is an almost indispensable element of Greek telephone call closings that indexes the speaker’s orientation towards the end of the conversation on the assumption of the recipient’s consensus. in partial overlap with Anna’s pre-closing (line 36).

In sum, speakers use particles (commonly, prosodically marked) to simply accept proposals for joint action implemented via polar interrogatives, in other words particle-type responses only do acceptance and nothing else. The common practice is first to accept the proposal with a particle and then to continue by specifying/negotiating the details of the joint action. We now turn to repetition-type answers to proposals for joint action.

5.2Repetition-type answers

The proposals analyzed in 5.1 are grounded on the questioner’s weak deontic rights over the future course of action and do not involve an epistemic asymmetry. However, in certain contexts proposals can make the respondent’s epistemic or enhanced deontic rights interactionally relevant. In such cases, Greek speakers use repetition to accept this kind of proposals.

In our data, we find repetition-type answers only after the ‘Shall we X?’ format. The following extract starts with Pelagia, who called Costas on his cell phone, asking whether he is at work (line 01). After Costas’ not so definitive affirmation (note the non-final intonation, line 03), Pelagia states the reason for the call, which is to confirm whether they will be undertaking something that evening (lines 04–05).

01  Pelagia  =Είσαι   στη δουλειά:?
             =Αre you at  work?

02           (0.5)

03  Costas   Ναι::,
             Yes,

04  Pelagia  Α.  .h ε >↑πήρα να σου πω.<
             Oh. .h uh >I called to tell you.<

05 ->        θα  κάνουμε  τίποτα   το   βράδυ  τελικά:?
             fut do.1pl.pfv anything the evening finally
             are we doing anything tonight     after all?

06           (0.6)

07 → Costas  Θα κάνουμε.
             fut do.1pl.pfv
             We are.

08           (0.4)

09  Pelagia  Ωραία.
             Good.

At line 05, the (prosodically marked) word τελικά: ‘after all’ in the formulation of the question indicates that there has been some prior arrangement. The questioner also conveys her expectation that the plan may not come to fruition, treating the respondent as [K+]. In this sense, the polar interrogative can be taken to do two actions: a request for confirmation of prior arrangement and a (renewed) proposal for joint action. After the gap at line 06, Costas produces a response that takes the form of a prosodically marked, partial repetition of the verb phrase of the question (line 07). Costas’ repetitional response accepts the proposal for joint action and, at the same time, confirms the question’s proposition. In other words, the respondent displays his willingness to participate in the joint plan and assumes an epistemically [K+] position.

In the next extract, having stated the reason for her call (line 01), namely that she was thinking that the two of them go to the movies, Soula checks the availability of her friend (line 02). At line 03, Sophia first asserts emphatically that she is available (via a full repeat of Soula’s question, ‘I can.’), upgrades this with ‘certainly’ in the second TCU, and finally takes herself agency over the proposal, now formulated in a non-interrogative mode.

01    Soula   .h Ε >έλεγα Σοφία< να πάμε κινηματογρά:φο σήμερα
              .h Uh >I was thinking Sophia< we could go to the movies tonight

02            μπορεί:ς?=
              can you make it?=

03    Sophia  =↑Μπορώ. βέβαια.    να πάμε.
              = I can. certainly. we should go.

04    Soula   Ε: θα ’ναι:- είπα και τη Νεφέλη, και τη Λάουρα.
              U:h there will- I also told Nefeli, and Laoura.

05            [μπορούνε κι αυ]τές, .hh ε: κατά τις εφτά η ώρα σε βολεύει?=
              they can make it too, .hh u:h around seven does it suit you?=

06    Sophia  [ Ωραί:α.      ]
                Good.

07    Sophia  =Αχ δε με βολεύει εφτά η ώρα:¿
              =Ah seven o’clock doesn’t suit me¿

08    Soula   Τι ώρα να πούμε.
              What time should we say.

09 -> Sophia  Να  πούμε      κατά τις οχτώ:?
              sbjv say.1pl.pfv around eight
              Shall we say   around eight?

10            (0.3)

11 →  Soula   ↑Οκτώ.=εντάξει.   το έργο:: αρχίζει      εννιά:,  ωραία.
              eight  all right  the film  start.3sg.prs nine     good
              Eight.=all right. the film  starts       at nine, good.

12            >θα κάνουμε< και μια βόλτα,
              >we will go for< a stroll too,

13    Sophia  Οκτώ. θα συναντηθούμε [στο ] κέντρο. στο εμπορικό.
              Eight. we will meet   downtown.      at the mall.

14    Soula                         [(Μ.)]
                                     (M.)

Soula’s subsequent proposal about the meeting time (line 05) is rejected by Sophia (line 07), indicating that the fulfillment of the joint plan may not be possible. At this point, Soula asks Τι ώρα να πούμε. (‘What time should we say.’, line 08) and Sophia makes a counter-proposal in the ‘Shall we X’ format Να πούμε κατά τις οχτώ:? (‘Shall we say around eight?’, line 09), that allows Soula to accept or reject the proposed time, thus construing the proposal as contingent on Soula’s affordances. After a gap, Soula accepts the proposal by repeating the time with upgraded pitch on the onset (line 11, first TCU), and, in dealing with the contingencies of the proposal, she enhances her deontic primacy. In the next TCUs, Soula confirms her acceptance via the particle εντάξει ‘all right’ and outlines the specifics for the joint action.

To summarize, speakers use repetition to accept proposals that carry an epistemic or deontic ‘flavor’, that is, they make the respondent’s epistemic or deontic rights interactionally relevant. Thus, repetition-type answers serve a double function: they display the respondent’s willingness to do the joint action and convey her/his epistemic or deontic stance towards additional aspects of the initiating action.

5.3Other-type answers

Other-type answers in our data are mostly of the transformative kind (Stivers and Hayashi 2010Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi 2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–25. ), rejecting ultimately the proposal. In the few cases of acceptance, this occurs in a mitigated way, in other words, without full commitment to the future action, as in the following example.

Extract [6] is from the middle phase of a phone call, in which Adriani called her friend Nasos to hear what he was doing and whether he was getting ready for the party he was invited to. After replying that he would be going to the party after ten o’ clock, Nasos uses a polar interrogative to deliver a proposal for joint action >Βασικά θες να πάμε κάνα σινεμά,< κάνα θέατρο μήπως? (‘Basically do you want us to go see a movie, a play perhaps?’). The modal particle μήπως at turn final position conveys the speaker’s uncertainty about Adriani’s willingness to endeavor in the proposed joint action.

01 ->  Νasos    >Βασικά θες να πάμε κάνα σινεμά,< κάνα θέατρο μήπως?
                >Basically do you want us to go see a movie,< a play perhaps?

02     Αdriani  Μέχρι τις δέκα:?
                Until ten?

03     Νasos    Ναι:.
                Yes.

04     Αdriani  ((smacks her tongue)) Ε:: [.h ]
                                      U::h .h

05 ->  Νasos                              [΄H ε]ννιά με έντεκα?
                                           or nine with eleven
                                           Or the nine to eleven [screening]?

06              (0.6)

07 →   Αdriani  >Εννιά μ’   έντεκ-< .h ε: >γενι↑κά<  δε θα ’λεγα όχι¿
                 nine  with eleven   uh    generally neg fut say.1sg no
                >Nine to elev-< .h u:h >by and large< I wouldn’t say no¿

08              (0.4)

09     Νasos    Ναι [ε?]
                yes interj
                Is that so huh?

10     Αdriani      [.h] Ναι:. >γενικά δε θα ’λεγα όχι, αλλά ↑τι ώρα θα πας εσύ
                     .h Yes. >by and large I wouldn’t say no, but when will you go

11              εκεί.<
                there.<

After an insert sequence concerning the time (lines 02–03), and in overlap with Adriani’s onset for a new turn (line 04), Nasos proposes elliptically the later screening (of a movie), i.e. nine to eleven (line 05). His proposal is responded to, after a gap, at line 07. Adriani first repeats part of Nasos’ preceding turn and after a self-cut, produces the hesitation marker ε: ‘u:h’ and the double negative clause >γενι↑κά< δε θα ’λεγα όχι¿ (‘By and large I wouldn’t say no¿’). She thus delivers a mitigated acceptance of the proposal, that is, she goes along with it without, however, fully aligning with the proposer. Nasos’ next turn shows that he does not treat Adriani’s response as a claim of full alignment. After a gap, Nasos requests confirmation (line 09) (‘Is that so huh?’), and Adriani confirms via the particle Ναι:. ‘Yes.’ and repeats her initial response (‘by and large I wouldn’t say no,’) with modifications (line 10). In the next TCU, she asks Nasos at what time he will go to the party. Her request is prefaced with the contrastive conjunction αλλά ‘but’ that indicates trouble, given Nasos’ prior commitment later that night.

In our data, speakers opt for other-type answers when they accept proposals without fully committing to the future action, i.e. when they withhold their full alignment with the proposed plan.