Cover not available
Part of
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. 109–138

Chapter 4
Responses to polar questions in Polish

| Kazimierz Wielki University

Using data from naturally occuring Polish conversations this chapter demonstrates how speakers of Polish answer polar questions. It offers a detailed conversation analytic examination of two response formats, particularly in their unexpanded form: (i) particle responses, which are used for confirming the terms and the action agenda of the question and which display the participants’ understanding of the status of the question as subsidiary to a larger course of action and (ii) repetitional responses, which are understood to do more than simple confirmation (e.g., to fullfil requests). By identifying the interactional circumstances for the choice of a particular format of a response, the chapter highlights the importance of social action as key to building and understanding polar question-answer sequences in Polish.

Keywords: conversation analysis, Polish, polar questions, responsive action, particles, repeats, social action format, action formation, action recognition, epistemics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Questions and responses in Polish: Prior research
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Responses to polar questions in Polish: Analysis
    • 4.1Particle responses: tak, nie and no
    • 4.2Repetitional responses
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.04wei
References
Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz
1974 [1965] Pragmatic logic [Logika pragmatyczna]. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne
1993 “Transitional Regularities for Casual “okay” Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
eds. 2021 OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction. John Benjamins. DOI logo
Bolden, Galina
2009 “Beyond answering: repeat-prefaced responses in conversation.” Communication Monographs 76 (2): 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 100: 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Elizabeth, and John Heritage
2006 “Taking the History: Questioning During Comprehensive History Taking.” In Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, edited by John Heritage and Douglas Maynard. 151–184. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
2002 “Questioning Presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan.” Journal of Communication 52 (4): 749–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2012 “Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions.” In Questions. Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, edited by Jan P. De Ruiter. 123–145. Language, culture & cognition, 12; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2013 “Position of polar question particles.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen Levinson
2010 “Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2615–2619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, et al.
2019 “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
2001 “Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions.” Pragmatics 11 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine
2005 “Where grammar and interaction meet: The preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction, edited by Auli Hakulinen and Margaret Selting. 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” In Structures of social action, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Ad hoc inquiries: two preferences in the design of ‘routine’ questions in an open context.” In Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited by Douglas Maynard, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer and Johannes van der Zouwen. 313–333. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
2010 “Questioning in medicine.” In ”Why Do you Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, edited by Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich. 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012a “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 45: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b “The Epistemic Engine: Action Formation, Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 25–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Epistemics in conversation.” In Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. 370–394. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2015 “Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions edited by J-P. De Ruiter. 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Chase Wesley Raymond
2021 “Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke, and Charles Antaki
1997 “Creating happy people by asking yes-no questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (4): 285–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1978 “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation.” In Studies in the organization of coversational interaction, edited by Jim Schenkein. 219–248. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Harvery Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
1977 “Preliminary Notes on The Sequential Organization of Laughter.” Pragmatics Microfiche.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2010 “Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization.” Discourse Studies 12 (3): 283–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubiński, Tadeusz
1980 An Outline of the Logical Theory of Questions. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel
1977 Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipińska-Grzegorek, Maria
1981 “Existential sentences in english and polish.” In Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Linguistics, edited by Jacek Fisiak. 347–364. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 12: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogiermann, Ewa
2009 “Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests.” Journal of Politeness Research 5: 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1980 “Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 “Pursuing a Response.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. 152–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “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, edited by Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich. 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
2006 “The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren.” Language in Society 35: 677–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2015 “Responding to pre-requests: The organisation of hai x ‘do you have x’ sequences in Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics 82: 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1987 [1973] “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, edited by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee. 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question’.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 “Presequences and Indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to Ordinary Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and grammar, edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson. 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis Volume 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
1996 “On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson. 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001a “Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics edited by Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 405–431. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b Responding in Conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Pragmatics & Beyond; Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and John Heritage
1991 “And-prefacing as a feature of question design.” In Leikkauspiste [Intersections: Essays in Honor of Auli Hakulinen], edited by L. Laitinen, P. Nuolijärvi, and M. Saari. 59–74. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Prescribing Under Pressure: Parent-Physician Conversations and Antibiotics. New York City: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections.” Discourse Processes 56 (3): 191–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and John Heritage
2001 “Breaking the sequential mold: Answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking.” Text 21 (1/2): 151–185.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
2011 The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, Oscar
2002 A grammar of contemporary Polish. Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Weidner, Matylda
2015 “Telling somebody what to tell : “Proszę mi powiedzieć” in Polish doctor-patient interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 70–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Treating something as self-evident: No-prefaced turns in Polish.” In Between Turn and Sequence. Turn-initial particles across languages, edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 225–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek
2008 “On the correlation between A-type scrambling and lack or weak crossover effects.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44.Google Scholar
Zagorska Brooks, Maria
1975 Polish Reference Grammar. The Hague: Mouton & Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Joerg, and Ewa Ogiermann
2011 “How to propose an action as objectively necessary: the case of Polish Trzeba X (“one needs to x”).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (3): 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, Giovanni Rossi, and Vasudevi Reddy
2020 “Doing more than expected: Thanking recognizes another’s agency in providing assistance.” In Mobilizing others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities, edited by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz and Andrea Golato, 253–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar