CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 244Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLinguistics and Language Analysis

Responses to Wh -Questions in English Conversation

Open access
Fox, Barbara A., Thompson, Sandra A.·2010·Research on Language and Social Interaction
DOI 10.1080/08351811003751680
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We explore the grammatical and interactional characteristics of various response-types to wh-questions in American English conversation. Our data reveal that there are two broad types of responses to type-specifying wh-questions, phrasal and clausal. We argue that each of these types of responses exhibits unique interactional properties, such that while phrasal responses to wh-questions do simple answering, clausal responses occur when there is trouble with the question or sequence. We suggest that the design of wh-questions permits a grammatically symbiotic or grammatically resonant response, and that such symbiotic phrasal responses, specifically fitted to the lexicogrammar of wh-questions, are the optimal no-trouble response for furthering the project initiated by the question. We take our study to provide further confirmation of the view of grammar that Schegloff has persuasively argued for (1996b, inter alia), namely the value, indeed the necessity, of considering grammar in terms of its real-time sequential habitat, the everyday practices through which social interaction is managed and accomplished.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08351811003751680

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The elliptical nature of 'where from' strongly invokes prior talk, both in terms of reference and in terms of sequence.

    “The elliptical nature of 'where from' strongly invokes prior talk, both in terms of reference and in terms of sequence (see, e.g., Fox and Thompson, 2010).”

    From Dysarthria and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation (2020) · cites this paper as Fox and Thompson, 2010

    In “Responses to Wh-Questions” (page not provided), the paper describes a question prompted by prior talk that initiates a new sequence. It does not discuss the elliptical question “where from” or establish that its form invokes prior talk through both reference and sequence. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Bolden, G., & Robinson, J. D. (in press). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication.
  2. Bybee, J. (2002a). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of repetition. In R. Janda and B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602-623). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  3. Bybee, J. (2002b). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon and B. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language (pp. 109-132). Amsterdam The Netherlands: Benjamins.
  4. Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  5. Bybee, J. (2009). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Clayman, S. E., Elliott, M. N., Heritage, J., & MacDonald, L. L. (2006). Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953-2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 561-583.
  7. Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002a). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002b). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52, 749-775.
  9. Drew, P., & Curl, T. (2008). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1212), 2400-2414.
  10. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Hellerman, J. (2004). Getting past no. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and C. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 233-269). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  11. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Social interaction and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 2, pp. 119-143).
  12. Fox, B. A. (1987). Anaphora and the structure of discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  13. This claim is also suggested by much recent research on grammar as emergent structure (Bybee 2002a, 2002b, 2006, 2007, 2009;
  14. Günthner, S. (1996). The prosodic contextualization of moral work: An analysis of reproaches in "why"-formats. In E. Couper- Kuhlen and M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 271-302). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticaliza- tion (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam The Netherlands: Benjamins.
  16. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68,15-38.
  18. Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155-175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  19. Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse:Ssubjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 183-219). Amsterdam The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  20. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  21. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verscheuren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 61-129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  23. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112). New York, NY: Academic.
  25. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Raymond, G. (2000). The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type inter- rogatives. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.
  27. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding, American Sociological Review, 68, 939-967.
  28. Sacks, H., & Schegoff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). New York, NY: Irvington.
  29. Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: "Can I ask you a question?". Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 104-152.
  30. Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437-485). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  31. Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Schegloff, E. A. (1996c). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161-216.
  33. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Selting, M. (1992). Prosody in conversational questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 315-245.
  35. Stivers, T. (2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In T. Stivers and N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 73-96). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Stivers, T., & Enfield, N. J. (Eds.) (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Thompson, S. A., & Hopper, P. J. (2001). Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversa- tion. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 27-60). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Thompson, Sandra A.
ORCID
Venue
Research on Language and Social Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-05-14
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
133-156
ISSN
  • 0835-1813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7973
DOI
10.1080/08351811003751680
OpenAlex
W2025571408
Cited by
244
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
61.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Research on Language and Social Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
wh-questions, sequential organization, turn-taking, lexicogrammar

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review