Wh-questions used as challenges

This article uses a conversation analytic framework to describe a type of wh-question used to challenge a prior utterance, specifically to challenge the basis for or right to do an action done by the prior utterance. These wh-questions are able to do challenging because, rather than asking for new information, they are used to convey a strong epistemic stance of the questioner, a negative assertion. The utterances are designed as requests for an account for a prior claim or action, but by conveying a negative assertion, they suggest that there is no adequate account available and, thus, that there are no grounds for the prior claim or action. The use of these questions in institutional settings can display participants' orientation to institutional goals, norms and roles, showing that institutional roles can thus be enacted, and goals accomplished, by means of practices of talk which are not, themselves, institutionally specific.

[1]  J. M. Atkinson.  Structures of Social Action: Contents , 1985 .

[2]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other‐initiated repair , 1997 .

[3]  E. Schegloff.  Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction , 1987 .

[4]  Steven E. Clayman,et al.  Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews , 1988 .

[5]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[6]  P. Drew,et al.  Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. , 1994 .

[7]  A. J. Wootton,et al.  In the heat of the sequence: Interactional features preceding walkouts from argumentative talk , 2001, Language in Society.

[8]  D. Bolinger.  Interrogative structures of American English : the direct question , 1957 .

[9]  A. J. Wootton,et al.  Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. , 1992 .

[10]  E. Schegloff.  Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation , 1992, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[12]  D. Greatbatch.  On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of news interviews , 1991 .

[13]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints , 1978, Asking and Telling in Conversation.

[14]  Irene Koshik,et al.  A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions , 2002 .

[15]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[16]  Gene H. Lerner.  Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion , 1989 .

[17]  Kuniyoshi Ishikawa,et al.  Some Aspects of Negation , 2000 .

[18]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[19]  Gene H. Lerner.  Interaction and grammar: On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker , 1996 .

[20]  Paul Drew,et al.  Analyzing talk at work: an introduction , 1992 .

[21]  Gene H. Lerner.  On the syntax of sentences-in-progress , 1991, Language in Society.

[22]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Opening up Closings , 1973 .