Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding

Connections between grammar and social organization are examined via one of the most pervasive practices of speaking used in talk-in-interaction: yes/no type interrogatives and the turns speakers build in response to them. This investigation is composed of two parts. The first analyzes a basic organization set in motion by yes/ no type interrogatives, describing a preference for type-conforming responses and its consequences. The second considers how this basic organization is shaped and simplified to accomplish institutionally specific goals in survey research, medical encounters, and courtroom cross-examinations, and what such manipulations reveal about these institutions. Together these findings deepen our understanding of how language is adapted to-and for-interaction, while providing analytic resources for a broad range of sociologists, whether they are engaged in the direct observation of human behavior, developing sociological theories of language, analyzing institutions and social organizations, or interested in the practical consequences of questioning in the myriad institutions that make use of this form.

[1]  T. Abel,et al.  Mind, Self, and Society , 1934 .

[2]  T. Parsons,et al.  The Structure of Social Action , 1938 .

[3]  K. Keniston,et al.  Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[4]  Erving Goffman,et al.  The Neglected Situation , 1964 .

[5]  H. Garfinkel.  Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[6]  E. Schegloff.  Sequencing in Conversational Openings , 1968 .

[7]  Leslie G. Carr,et al.  The Srole Items and Acquiescence , 1971 .

[8]  M. Jackman.  Education and prejudice or education and response-set? , 1973, American sociological review.

[9]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis , 1974 .

[10]  R. Quirk.  A Grammar of contemporary English , 1974 .

[11]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[12]  W. Labov,et al.  Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy As Conversation , 1976 .

[13]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis , 1979 .

[14]  W. Belson,et al.  The design and understanding of survey questions , 1982 .

[15]  J. Habermas.  Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[16]  C. Goodwin.  Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers , 1981 .

[17]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Questions and answers in attitude surveys , 1982 .

[18]  E. Mishler,et al.  Discourse Of Medicine Dialectics Of Medical Interviews , 2017 .

[19]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[20]  Laurence R. Horn.  A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[21]  L. Suchman,et al.  Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews , 1990 .

[22]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  Language and Symbolic Power , 1991 .

[23]  Harvey Sacks,et al.  Lectures on Conversation , 1995 .

[24]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[25]  Ron Scollon,et al.  The interaction order , 2003 .