Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T20:11:47.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Polar answers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

University of Sydney
University of California, Los Angeles
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
University of Groningen
University of Helsinki
Nagoya University
University of Helsinki
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
University of Oulu
University of Oulu
University of Colorado, Boulder
University of California, San Diego
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Radboud University
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Author’s address: N364, Building A20, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006,
Author’s address: 264 Haines Hall, 375 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551,


How do people answer polar questions? In this fourteen-language study of answers to questions in conversation, we compare the two main strategies; first, interjection-type answers such as uh-huh (or equivalents yes, mm, head nods, etc.), and second, repetition-type answers that repeat some or all of the question. We find that all languages offer both options, but that there is a strong asymmetry in their frequency of use, with a global preference for interjection-type answers. We propose that this preference is motivated by the fact that the two options are not equivalent in meaning. We argue that interjection-type answers are intrinsically suited to be the pragmatically unmarked, and thus more frequent, strategy for confirming polar questions, regardless of the language spoken. Our analysis is based on the semantic-pragmatic profile of the interjection-type and repetition-type answer strategies, in the context of certain asymmetries inherent to the dialogic speech act structure of question–answer sequences, including sequential agency and thematic agency. This allows us to see possible explanations for the outlier distributions found in ǂĀkhoe Haiǁom and Tzeltal.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


We are grateful for research support from the Language & Cognition Group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, and European Research Council Starting Grant 240853 ‘Human Sociality and Systems of Language Use’. We would like to acknowledge the input from three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, who helped us clarify our argument, and improve the paper.

Contributor statement: N. J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers wrote the article. All authors collected and transcribed primary data, had input in the coding, did the coding on their data and provided spreadsheets. All authors read and commented on drafts and approved final submission. We are grateful to Fernanda Miranda da Cruz at Unifesp (Federal University of São Paolo) for supplying the data cited in example (8).


Armstrong, Meghan E. 2008. Pragmatic restrictions on affirmative response choice in Brazilian Portuguese. In de Garavito, Joyce Bruhn & Valenzuela, Elena (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 288299. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Brody, Jill. 1986. Repetition as a rhetorical and conversational device in Tojolabal (Mayan). International Journal of Applied Linguistics 52.3, 255274.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 1979. Language, interaction and sex roles in a Mayan community. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 1998. Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and child speech. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8, 197221.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2010. Questions and their responses in Tzeltal. In Enfield et al. (eds.), 2627–2648.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, Sicoli, Mark & Le Guen, Olivier. 2010. Cross-speaker repetition in Tzeltal, Yucatec and Zapotec conversation. Presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Mannheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven. 2002. Sequence and solidarity. In Lawler, Edward J. & Thye, Shane R. (eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust and solidarity, 229253. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2017. Implicational universals and dependencies. In Enfield (ed.), 9–23.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, Jan P.(ed.). 2012. Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark & Enfield, N. J.. 2015. Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1, 98118.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Roberts, Seán G., Baranova, Julija, Blythe, Joe, Drew, Paul, Floyd, Simeon, Gisladottir, Rosa S., Kendrick, Kobin H., Levinson, Stephen C., Manrique, Elizabeth, Rossi, Giovanni & Enfield, N. J.. 2015. Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS ONE 10.9, e0136100. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136100.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.2013a. Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.2013b. Position of polar question particles. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2014. Natural causes of language: Frames, biases, and cultural transmission. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.(ed.). 2017a. Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2017b. How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Brown, Penelope & de Ruiter, Jan P.. 2012. Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence-final particles in comparative perspective. In de Ruiter (ed.), 193–221.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, Tanya & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.). 2010a. Question–response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. In Enfield et al. (eds.), 2615–2619.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, Tanya & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.). 2010b. Question–response sequences in conversation across ten languages: Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 42(10).Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Bruce, Kim B.. 2009. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27, 81118.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 1997. The conversation object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30.2, 131156.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2002. Yes or no? The complex semantics of a simple question. Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Scholar
Gossen, Gary. 1974. Chamulas in the world of the sun: Time and space in Maya oral tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guimaraes, Estefania. 2007. Talking about violence: Women reporting abuse in Brazil. Ph.D. dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes–no questions. Pragmatics 11.1, 115.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10.1, 4153.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42.1, 2570.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A.(ed.). 1988. Word order universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa & Bolden, Galina B.. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds.), 57–76.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2010. Questioning in medicine. In Freed, Alice F. & Ehrlich, Susan (eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse, 4268. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.1, 129.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68.1, 1538.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiesence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter (ed.), 179–192.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90.4, 927960.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2016. The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoymann, Gertie. 2010. Questions and responses in ǂĀkhoe Haiǁom. In Enfield et al. (eds.), 2726–2740.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Ingkaphirom Horie, Preeya. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bob Morris. 1999. The Welsh answering system. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Koji. 1990. Interactional synchrony: A fundamental condition for communication. In Moerman, Michael & Nomura, Masaichi (eds.), Culture embodied, 123140. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2002. Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 225256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Bruce & van Vleet, Krista. 1998. The dialogics of Southern Quechua narrative. American Anthropologist 100.2, 326346.Google Scholar
Norman, William N. 1980. Grammatical parallelism in Quiche ritual language. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 387399. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Suzuki, Ryoko. 2018. The use of frequent verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese everyday talk: Formulaicity, florescence, and grammaticization. Journal of Pragmatics 123, 209219.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68.6, 939967.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris & Farkas, Donka F.. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91.2, 359414.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50.4, 696735.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, 155196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Santos, Ana Lúcia. 2003. The acquisition of answers to yes/no questions in European Portuguese: Syntactic, discourse and pragmatic factors. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 2, 6191.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70.6, 10751095.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In Givon, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and syntax (Syntax and Semantics 12), 261286. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 104, 161216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53.2, 361382.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Sacks, Harvey. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7, 289327.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1958. Proper names. Mind 67, 166173.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.). 2013. The handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001b. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 405431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Alternative recognitionals in initial references to persons. In Enfield, N. J. & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives, 7396. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2011. Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza & Steensig, Jakob (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 82106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2013 Sequence organization. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds.), 191–209.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2015. Coding social interaction: A heretical appraoch in conversation analysis? Research on Language and Social Interaction 48, 119.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2018. How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections, Discourse Processes, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Enfield, N. J.. 2010. A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. In Enfield et al. (eds.), 2620–2626.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N. J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christina, Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine, Hoymann, Gertie, Rossano, Federico, de Ruiter, Jan P., Yoon, Kyung-Eun & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. Universality and cultural specificity in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 106.26, 1058710592.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Hayashi, Makoto. 2010. Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39.1, 125.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Robinson, Jeffrey D.. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35, 367392.Google Scholar
Sugawara, Kazuyoshi. 1996. Some methodological issues for the analysis of everyday conversations among the |Gui. African Study Monographs 22, 145164.Google Scholar
Sugawara, Kazuyoshi. 1998. The “egalitarian” attitude in everyday conversations among the |Gui. In Bank, Andrew (ed.), The proceedings of the Khoisan Identities and Cultural Heritage Conference, 232240. Cape Town: Infosource.Google Scholar
Urbano, Hudinilson, Fávero, Leonor Lopes, Andrare, Maria Lúcia C. V. O. & Aquino, Zilda G. O.. 2002. Preguntas e respostas na conversac¸ão. In de Castilho, Ataliba Teixeira (ed.), Gramática do Português Falado, 7597. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.Google Scholar