Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design

Abstract

This article considers the use of negative polarization in polar (yes/no) questions. It argues that question polarity is used to take an epistemic stance toward the probability or improbability of the state of affairs referenced in the question and that taking such a stance is effectively unavoidable. Focusing on negatively polarized questions (NPQs), four main kinds of evidence are adduced that NPQs are associated with the questioner’s stance that the question’s underlying proposition is unlikely: (a) self-repair to reverse or otherwise adjust polarity; (b) evidence from the prior talk from which the question is occasioned; (c) contexts in which a particular state of affairs is relevant but has remained unstated; (d) overall structural organizational features of talk (e.g., conversational closings) that militate against the likelihood of affirmative responses. Finally, the article proposes that question design represents a distinct organizational layer vis-à-vis the preference-organizational characteristics of actions, and it appears to function in distinctive ways in relation to recruitment- and affiliation-relevant questions (e.g., requests, offers, etc.) by comparison with information-seeking questions. Data are drawn from corpora of British and American English conversations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 89 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.