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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonJ. Maxwell and DrewPaul. 1979. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings.London, England: Macmillan.
2.
AtkinsonJ. Maxwell and HeritageJohn, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BeckmanHoward and FrankelRichard. 1984. “The Effect of Physician Behavior on the Collection of Data.”Annals of Internal Medicine101:692–96.
4.
BelsonWilliam A.1981. The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions.London, England: Gower.
5.
BodenDierdre and ZimmermanDon, eds. 1991. Talk and Social Structure.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
6.
BourdieuPierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
ButtonGraham. 1987. “Moving Out of Closings.” Pp. 101–51 in Talk and Social Organization, edited by ButtonG. and LeeJ.R.E.. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
8.
ByrnePaul and LongBarrie. 1976. Doctors Talking with Patients: A Study of the Verbal Behaviors of Doctors in the Consultation.London, England: HMSO.
9.
CampbellArgus, ConversePhillip, MillerWarren, and StokesDonald. 1960. The American Voter.New York: Wiley.
10.
CarrLeslie. 1971. “The Srole Items and Acquiescence.”American Sociological Review36: 287–93.
11.
CrouchA. and KenistonK.. 1960. “Yeasayers and Naysayers: Agreeing Response Set as a Personality Variable.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology60:151–74.
12.
DrewPaul. 1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross Examinations: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” Pp. 470–520 in Talk at Work, edited by DrewP. and HeritageJ.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DrewPaul and HeritageJohn, eds. 1992. Talk at Work.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DurkheimEmile. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by HalesW. D. and edited by LukesS.. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
15.
DurkheimEmile and MaussMarcel. [1903] 1963. Primitive Classification. Introduced and translated by NeedhamR.. London, England: Cohen and West.
16.
FoddyWilliam. 1996. “The In-Depth Testing of Survey Questions: A Critical Appraisal of Methods.”Quality and Quantity30:361–70.
17.
FordCecelia and ThompsonSandra. 1996. “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” Pp. 134–84 in Interaction and Grammar, edited by OchsE., SchegloffE. A., and ThompsonS.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FrankelRichard. 1990. “Talking in Interviews: A Dispreference for Patient Initiated Questions in Physician-Patient Encounters.” Pp. 231–62 in Interaction Competence, edited by PsathasG.. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
19.
GarfinkelHarold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20.
GiddensAnthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21.
GiddensAnthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22.
GillVirginia. 1998. “Doing Attributions in Medical Interaction: Patients' Explanations for Illness and Doctors' Responses.”Social Psychology Quarterly61:342–60.
23.
GoffmanErving1964. “The Neglected Situation.”American Anthropologist66:133–36.
24.
GoffmanErving1983. “The Interaction Order.”American Sociological Review48:1–17.
25.
GoodwinCharles. 1980. “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning.”Sociological Inquiry50:272–302.
26.
GoodwinCharles. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers.New York: Academic.
27.
HabermasJurgen. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Beacon.
28.
HeritageJohn. 1984a. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” Pp. 299–345 in Structures of Social Action, edited by AtkinsonJ. M. and HeritageJ.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HeritageJohn. 1984b. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.Cambridge, England: Polity.
30.
HeritageJohn. 2002. “Ad Hoc Inquiries: Two Preferences in the Design of ‘Routine’ Questions in an Open Context.” Pp. 313–33 in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited by MaynardD., Houtkoop-SteenstraH., SchafferN. K., and van der ZouwenH.. New York: Wiley Interscience.
31.
HeritageJohn and BoydElizabeth. Forthcoming. “Taking the Patient's Personal History: Questioning during Verbal Examination.” In Practicing Medicine: Structure and Process in Primary Care Encounters, edited by HeritageJ. and MaynardD.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HeritageJohn and RaymondGeoffrey. 2003. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.”Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Unpublished manuscript.
33.
HornLaurence R.1989. A Natural History of Negation.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Houtkoop-SteenstraHanaka and AntakiCharles. 1997. “Creating Happy People by Asking Yes/No Questions.”Research on Language and Social Interaction30:285–313.
35.
JackmanMary. 1973. “Education and Prejudice or Education and Response Set?”American Sociological Review38:327–29.
36.
JeffersonGail. 1978a. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” Pp. 219–48 in Studies in the Organization of Coversational Interaction, edited by SchenkeinJ.. New York: Academic.
37.
JeffersonGail. 1978b. “What's in a ‘Nyem’?”Sociology12:135–39.
38.
JeffersonGail. 1981. “The Abominable ‘Ne?’: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response.” Occasional Paper No. 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
39.
KovarMary G. and RoystonPatricia. 1990. “Comment on Suchman and Jordan.”Journal of the American Statistical Association85: 246–48.
40.
LabovWilliam and FanshelDavid. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation.New York: Academic.
41.
LernerGene. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.”Language in Society20:441–58.
42.
LernerGene. 1996. “On the ‘Semi-Permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn-Space of Another Speaker.” Pp. 238–76 in Interaction and Grammar, edited by OchsE., SchegloffE. A., and ThompsonS.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MarxKarl and EngelsFriedrich. [1947] 1986. The German Ideology. Edited by ArthurJ. C.. New York: International.
44.
MaynardDouglas. 1997. “The News Delivery Sequence: Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction.”Research on Language and Social Interaction30:93–130.
45.
MaynardDouglas. 1998. “Praising versus Blaming the Messenger: Moral Issues in Deliveries of Good and Bad News.”Research on Language and Social Interaction31:359–95.
46.
MaynardDouglas. 2003. Bad News, Good News, and the Benign Order of Everyday Life.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
MaynardDouglas and SchaefferNora Cate. 1997. “Keeping the Gate: Declinations of the Request to Participate in a Telephone Survey Interview.”Sociological Methods and Research26:34–79.
48.
MaynardDouglas and SchaefferNora Cate. 2002. “Standardization and Its Discontents,” Pp. 3–47Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited by MaynardD.W., Houtkoop-SteenstraH., SchaefferN.C., and van der ZouwenJ.. New York: Wiley Interscience.
49.
MeadGeorge Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
MishlerEliot. 1984. The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical Interviews.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
51.
MolenaarNatascha and SmitJ.. 1996. “Asking and Answering Yes/No Questions in Survey Interviews: A Conversational Approach.”Quality and Quantity30:115–36.
52.
MooreRobert. Forthcoming. “Upshot Formulating in Standardized Interviews and Ordinary Conversation.”Social Psychology Quarterly..
53.
OchsEleanor, SchegloffEmanuel A., and ThompsonSandra, eds. 1996. Interaction and Grammar.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54.
OksenburgLois, CannelliCharles, and KaltonGraham. 1991. “New Strategies for Pretesting Survey Questions.”Journal of Official Statistics7:349–65.
55.
ParsonsTalcot. 1937. The Structure of Social Action.New York: McGraw-Hill.
56.
PomerantzAnita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” Pp. 57–101 in Structures of Social Action, edited by AtkinsonJ.M. and HeritageJ.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
57.
QuirkRandolph, SvartvikJon, GreenbaumSydney, and LeechGeoffrey. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English.London, England: Longman.
58.
RaymondGeoffrey. 2000. “The Structure of Responding: Type-Conforming and Nonconforming Responses to YNIs.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
59.
RoterDebra and HallJudith. 1992. Doctors Talking with Patients/Patients Talking with Doctors.Westport, CT: Auburn House.
60.
RoystonPatricia and BerciniDeborah. 1987. “Questionnaire Design Research in a Laboratory Setting: Results of Testing Cancer Risk Factor Questions.” Pp. 829–33 in Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods.Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
61.
RuggD.1941. “Experiments in Wording Questions II.”Public Opinion Quarterly5:91.
62.
SacksHarvey. [1973] 1987. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” Pp. 54–69 in Talk and Social Organization, edited by ButtonG. and LeeJ. R. E.. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
63.
SacksHarvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2, Fall 1968–Spring 1972.Oxford, England: Blackwell.
64.
SacksHarvey and SchegloffEmanuel A.. 1979. “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction.” Pp. 15–21 in Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited by PsathasG.. New York: Irvington.
65.
SacksHarvey, SchegloffEmanuel A., and JeffersonGail. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.”Language50:696–735.
66.
SadockJerrold and ZwickyArnold. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” Pp. 155–96 in Language Typology and Description, edited by ShopenT.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.”American Anthropologist70:1075–95.
68.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1970. “Opening Sequences.”Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Unpublished manuscript.
69.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1972. “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” Pp. 75–119 in Studies in Social Interaction, edited by SudnowDavid. New York: Free Press.
70.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1979a. “Identification and Recognition in Telephone Openings.” Pp. 23–78 in Everyday Language, edited by PsathasG.. New York: Erlbaum.
71.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1979b. “The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation.” Pp. 261–88 in Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, edited by GivonT.. New York: Academic.
72.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1980. “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question.”’Sociological Inquiry50:104–52.
73.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1988. “On an Actual Virtual Servo-Mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single Case Conjecture.”Social Problems35:442–57.
74.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1990. “Discussion of Suchman and Jordan: Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews.”Journal of the American Statistical Association85:248–50.
75.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1993. “Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation.”Research on Language and Social Interaction26:99–128.
76.
SchegloffEmanuel A. [1995] Forthcoming. A Primer in Conversation Analysis: Sequence Organization. Reprint, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
77.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1996a. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.”American Journal of Sociology104:161–216.
78.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1996b. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” Pp. 52–133 in Interaction and Grammar, edited by OchsE., SchegloffE. A., and ThompsonS.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
79.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1997. “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.”Discourse Processes23:499–545.
80.
SchegloffEmanuel A. and SacksHarvey. 1973. “Opening Up Closings.”Semiotica8:289–327.
81.
SchegloffEmanuel A., OchsEleanor, and ThompsonSandra. 1996. “Introduction.” Pp 1–51 in Interaction and Grammar, edited by OchsE., SchegloffE. A., and ThompsonS.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
82.
SchumanHoward and PresserStanley. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys.New York: Academic.
83.
SuchmanLucy and JordanBarbara. 1990. “Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews.”Journal of the American Statistical Association85:232–41.
84.
SudmanSeymor and BradburnNorman. 1974. Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis.Chicago, IL: Aldine.
85.
WillisGordon, RoystonPatricia and BerciniDeborah. 1991. “The Use of Verbal Report Methods in the Development and Testing of Survey Questionnaires.”Applied Cognitive Psychology5:251–67.
