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.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bolinger, D.L.M. (1957) Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question (American Dialect Society publication no. 28). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
3.
Clayman, S.E. (1988) `Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews ', Social Problems35: 474—92.
4.
Dersley, I. and Wootton, A.J. (2001) `In the Heat of the Sequence: Interactional Features Preceding Walkouts from Argumentative Talk', Language in Society30: 611—38.
5.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992a) `Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 3—65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992b) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London : Longman.
8.
Heritage, J. (2002a) `Designing Questions and Setting Agendas in the News Interview', in P. Glenn, C. LeBaron and J. Mandelbaum (eds) Studies in Language and Social Interaction, pp. 57—90. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
Heritage, J. (2002b) `The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content', Journal of Pragmatics34: 1427—46.
10.
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D.L. (1991) `On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and Social Structure, pp. 93—137. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Horn, L.R. (1978) `Some Aspects of Negation', in J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E.A. Moravcsik (eds) Universals of Human Language, Vol 4: Syntax, pp. 127—210. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
Koshik, I. (in press) `A Conversation Analytic Study of Yes/No Questions Which Convey Reversed Polarity Assertions', Journal of Pragmatics .
13.
Lerner, G.H. (1987) `Collaborative Turn Sequences: Sentence Construction and Social Action', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
14.
Lerner, G.H. (1989) `Notes on Overlap Management in Conversation: The Case of Delayed Completion', Western Journal of Speech Communication53: 167—77.
15.
Lerner, G.H. (1991) `On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress', Language in Society20: 441—58.
16.
Lerner, G.H. (1996) `On the “Semi-Permeable” Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker”, in E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds) Interaction and Grammar, pp. 238—76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Pomerantz, A. (1978) `Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-Operation of Multiple Constraints', in J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction , pp. 79—112. New York: Academic Press.
18.
Pomerantz, A. (1984) `Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action, pp. 57—101. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
19.
Quirk, R. et al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . New York: Longman.
20.
Sacks, H. (1987[1973]) `On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation', in G. Button and J.R. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organization, pp. 54—69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
21.
Schegloff, E.A. (1972) `Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place', in D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 75—119. New York: Free Press.
22.
Schegloff, E.A. (1987) `Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction' , Linguistics25(1): 201—18.
23.
Schegloff, E.A. (1988) `Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation', in P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 89—135. Oxford: Polity Press .
24.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992) `Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation', American Journal of Sociology97(5): 1295—345.
Schegloff, E.A. (1997) `Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair', Discourse Processes23: 499—545.
27.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) `The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation', Language53(2): 361—82.
28.
Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. (1973) `Opening up Closings', Semiotica8: 289—327.
