In conversation analytic and interactional studies, some responses are analyzed as being minimal.This article explores minimality in regard to two types of answers that appear to be used interchangeably as minimal responses to yes/no questions in Estonian. The answers represent typologically different formats, particles and echo answers (verb repeats). It is argued that minimality should be defined in a sequentially sensitive manner and that the two answer formats are used to display speakers’ understanding of the status of the social action implemented in the preceding question. The data come from audio recordings of phone calls and face-to-face interaction.
Bolden, G. (2009) ‘Beyond Answering : Repeat-Prefaced Responses in Conversation’ , Communication Monographs76: 121-143.
2.
Hakulinen, A. ( 2001) ‘Minimal and Non-minimal Answers to Yes-no Questions’ , Pragmatics11: 1-16.
3.
Heritage, J. ( 1998) ‘Oh-prefaced Responses to an Inquiry’, Language in Society27(3): 291-334.
4.
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R. and Alho, I. ( 2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
5.
Jefferson, G. ( 1981) ‘The Abominable ‘‘Ne?’’: An Exploration of Post-response Pursuit of Response’, in P. Shroder (ed.) Sprache der gegenwaart, pp. 53-88. Düsseldorf: Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann.
6.
Jones, B.M. ( 1999) The Welsh Answering System. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter .
7.
Kasterpalu, R. ( 2005) ‘Partiklid jah, jaa ning jajaa naaberpaari järelliikmena müügiläbirääkimistes’, Keel ja Kirjandus47(11,12): 873-90, 996-1012.
8.
Keevallik, L. ( 1999) ‘Informatsioonikäsitluse partikkel ahah telefonivestlustes’ , in Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat43, pp. 34-56. Tartu: Emakeele selts.
9.
Keevallik, L. ( 2008) ‘Conjunction and Sequenced Actions: The Estonian Complementizer and Evidential Particle et’, in R. Laury (ed.) Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, pp. 125-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10.
Keevallik, L.(2009a) ‘Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid’, Keel ja Kirjandus52(1): 33-53.
11.
Keevallik, L. ( 2009b) ‘The Grammar-Interaction Interface of Negative Questions in Estonian’, SKY Journal of Linguistics22: 139-173.
12.
König, E. and Siemund, P. ( 2007) ‘Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar’, in T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 1. Clause Structure, pp. 276-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. ( 1977) Therapeutic Discourse. New York, San Francisco and London: Academic Press.
14.
Lindström, A. ( 1999) Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Social Action in Swedish Conversation. Skrifter utgivna av institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet 46 . Uppsala: Textgruppen.
15.
Raymond, G. ( 2003) ‘Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/no Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding’, American Sociological Review68(6): 939-67.
16.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. ( 1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation’, Language50(4): 696-735.
17.
Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A. ( 1985) ‘Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax’, in T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, pp. 155-96. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
18.
Schegloff, E.A. ( 1996) ‘Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action’, American Journal of Sociology102(1): 161-216.
19.
Schegloff, E.A. ( 2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Sorjonen, M.-L. ( 1996) ‘On Repeats and Responses in Finnish Conversation’ , in E. Ochs, E. Schegloff and S. Thompson (eds) Interaction and Grammar, pp. 277-327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Sorjonen, M.-L. ( 2001a) Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia , PA: John Benjamins.
22.
Sorjonen, M.-L. ( 2001b) ‘Simple Answers to Polar Questions: The Case of Finnish’, in M. Selting and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds) Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 405-31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
23.
Sorjonen, M.-L. and Hakulinen, A.(2009) ‘Alternative Responses to Assessments’, in J. Sidnell (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 281-303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Stivers, T. ( 2005) ‘Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position’, Research on Language and Social Interaction38(2): 131-58.
25.
Stivers, T. and Hayashi, M. (2010) ‘Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints’, Language in Society39(1): 1-25.
26.
Tannen, D. ( 2007[1989]) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imaginary in Conversational Discourse, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
