Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable

Discourse Studies

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 55-71

  Heinemann, Trine ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Challenging questions; Conduciveness; Conversation analysis; Danish; Questions; Yes no interrogatives

Indexed keywords

EID: 38949102063     PISSN: 14614456     EISSN: 14617080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461445607085590     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bolinger, D.L.M. (1957) Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
2. Drew, P. (1998) ' Complaints about Transgressions and Misconduct ', Research on Language and Social Interaction 31 (3&4). 295 - 325.
3. Frank, J. (1990) 'You Call that a Rhetorical Question? Forms and Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Conversation', Journal of Pragmatics 14: 723 - 38.
4. Gnthner, S. (2000) Vorwurfsaktivitten in der Alltagsinteraktion [Reproach Activities in Everyday Conversation]. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
5. Heinemann, T. (2006) ''' Will You or Can't You?'': Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests', Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081 - 104.
6. Heinemann, T. (2007) 'Professional Self-disclosure: When the Home Help Talks about Herself', in C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni and V. Traverso (eds). Confidence/dvoilement de soi dans l'interaction. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
7. Heritage, J. (2002) 'The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content', Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427 - 46.
8. Keisanen, T. (2007) ' Stancetaking as an Interactional Activity: Challenging the Prior Speaker ', in R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, pp. 253 - 81. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
9. Koshik, I. (2002) 'A Conversation Analytic Study of Yes/No Questions which Convey Reversed Polarity Assertions', Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1851 - 77.
10. Koshik, I. (2005) Beyond Rhetorical Questions. Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Koshik, I. (forthcoming) ' Responses to Wh-question Challenges ', in G. Raymond, G.H. Lerner and J. Heritage (eds) Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
13. Maynard, D.W. (2003) Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14. Pomerantz, A. (1984) 'Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action, pp. 57 - 101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Pomerantz, A. (1986) 'Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims', Human Studies 9: 219 - 29.
16. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
17. Schegloff, E.A. (1988) 'Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation', in P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds) Erving Goffman. Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 89 - 135. Oxford: Polity Press.
18. Schegloff, E.A. (1997) ' Third Turn Repair ', in G. Guy, C. Feagin and J. Baugh (eds) Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, pp. 31 - 40. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
19. Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2006) ' Mobilizing Response ', presentation at the MPI Workshop: Questions and their Responses, Nijmegen.
20. Yadugiri, M.A. (1986) ' Some Pragmatic Implications of the Use of Yes and No in Response to Yes-No Questions', Journal of Pragmatics 10: 199 - 210.