Stivers,Enfield,(2010)

7/27/2019 Stivers,Enfield,(2010)

1/7

A coding scheme for questionresponse sequences in conversation

Tanya Stivers a,*, N.J. Enfield a,b,c

a Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525XD Nijmegen, The Netherlandsb Radboud University Nijmegen, PB 9102, 6500 HC, The Netherlandsc Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, PB 9102, 6500 HC, The Netherlands

1. Introduction

In this document, we outline the coding scheme that was developed and used in the 10-language comparative project on

questionresponsesequences in ordinaryconversation, carried out from2007 in the MultimodalInteractionProject at the Max

Planck Institute forPsycholinguistics.The introductionto thisspecial issue (Enfield,Stivers,and Levinson,this volume)provides

the background and motivations for the study, and describes the data supplied by the researchers who applied this codingscheme. Each researcher was asked to code at least 350 questions taken from ordinary conversation among a range of dyadic

and multi-participant interactions. The ten single-authored articles contained in this special issue give detailed information

concerning the results of the coding scheme for each language. Our reasons for publishing the coding scheme and instructions

information here are two: (1) we want to give readers of those articles some insight into how the data were collected and what

the findings mean, including how particular coding categories were operationalized, and (2) we want to provide researchers

with a tool to investigate this domain in other languages, for future comparisons with our findings.

This coding scheme is part of a methodology that we think provides an optimal solution to the problem of balancing

conflicting motivations of ecological validity, on the one hand, and quantitative control and evaluability, on the other. We

insist that natural data are indispensable to an account of what people do in social interaction (rather than, say, using

questionnaires that are at risk of tapping into ideology about practices rather than actual practices). At the same time, we

assume that quantitative data are useful methodologically.

This coding scheme was developed through two cycles of pilot coding and evaluation, involving the application of draft

coding categories to data from different languages, and collaborative discussion of conceptual and analytic issues that arose.This means that the coding scheme supplied here not only embodies the work of a large number of people (including all

contributors to this special issue), it has been developed through iterative consideration in light of language-specific facts

and the cumulative experience of analysts in applying the scheme. We therefore feel that the scheme is empirically well-

grounded and analytically well-motivated, and stands a good chance of usefully handling the kinds of distinctions in this

domain that are likely to be relevant for any language in any cultural setting. This is not to say that the scheme is perfect. For

instance, we found that it was difficult to attain validity or reliability in the coding of some aspects of sequential position and

as a result we were unable to include information about sequential position in our comparative analysis. We hope that if

Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 26202626

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 29 March 2010

Accepted 1 April 2010

* Corresponding author. Permanent address: Universityof California,Los Angeles, 264 Haines Hall,375 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551,United

States.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Stivers), [email protected] (N.J. Enfield).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p r a g m a

0378-2166/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/7

further researchers work with the categories we put forward here, new facts from new languages and speech settings may

help to refine and further improve this initial attempt.

2. The coding scheme

2.1. Inclusion criteria

In order for a questionresponse sequence to be coded, the following criteria had to be met:

(a) A question had to be either (or both) a formal question (i.e., it had to rely on lexico-morpho-syntactic or prosodic

interrogative marking) or a functional question (i.e., it had to effectively seek to elicit information, confirmation or

agreement whether or not they made use of an interrogative sentence type).

(b) Newsmarks such as Really?, Is it? or Yeah? were coded as functional questions. Under our broad

categorization of question, as in a), newsmarks qualify because they are routinely treated as seeking confirmation.

(c) Questions seeking acknowledgment in, for example, the middle of a story telling the teller solicits specific

acknowledgement (e.g., And it was a Weight Watchers recipe right?) were not coded as questions precisely

because they sought not neither confirmation nor affirmation.

(d) Questions offered in reported speech (e.g., And then he said Arent you gonna comeover?and Im like No way.)

were not coded as questions.

(e) Requests for immediate physical action (e.g., Will you hand me a pencil; Can you open the door?) were not

coded if it wasa physicalactionthat wasthe relevant nextresponse.Balancinga desire fora broad conceptualization

with a desire to constrain our scope to some extent, we viewed practical actions (e.g., the transfer of objects) as

sufficiently different fromother symbolic vocal and gestural responses such as Mm hm, headnods or points, as

to exclude these sequences from our collection.

2.2. The coding dimensions

Each coder was supplied with an Excel template for which each questionbelowwas allocated a column and each question

that met inclusion criteria was given an identification number and a row.

(1) Is the utterance formally a question?

0=No

1=YesSee inclusion criteria above. Examples of utterances that are formally questions included any question with

lexical, morphological, syntactic or prosodic marking appropriate to the language. Thus, rhetorical questions

used to express a stance such as Can you imagine going tuh school here? and declarative questions with, for

instance, sharply rising intonation, were included.

(2) Does the question have lexical, morphological or syntactic marking?

0=No

1=Yes

Lexical marking included, e.g., Which or Who questions; morphological marking included question

particles or clitics; syntactic marking included inversion as in the Germanic languages. For a number of the

languages too little was known about language specific prosodic marking to code this separately. However, for

languages where coders felt confident, this could be derived from codes 12.

(3) What is the logical semantic structure of the question?

0=Polar Question

A polar question is any question that makes relevant affirmation/confirmation or disconfirmation. It contains a

proposition with two possible answers in semantic terms: true/the case versus not true/not the case. The

question mightinvolve a question particle, inversion, or a tag. It didnot necessarily involve formalinterrogative

marking (as in a declarative question). It could be positive or negative.

1=Content (Q-word) question

A contentor Q-word question (or WH question) is where partof a propositionis presupposed,and the utterance

seeks the identity of one element of the proposition. Thus, in Who stole my newspaper it is presupposed that

Someone stole my newspaper, and the purpose of the question (at least nominally) is to ascertain the identityof

the personcorresponding to this someone.Variation in a language in the syntactic positionof the Q-Word is not

relevant to whether it is coded as such (cf. Where do you work. or You work where?).

T. Stivers, N.J. Enfield / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 26202626 2621


3/7

2=Alternative question

Alternative questions included the proposal of a restricted set of alternative answers in their formulation (e.g.

Were you drunk or were you sober. or Do you want corn or flour tortillas.). Note that just having or in the

question does not automatically make it an alternative question. Do you want coffee or, for instance, was not

coded as an alternative question because (1) the prosodic contour of these questions is recognizeable as a discrete

wayof askinga question,and (2)they areroutinelytreated as a practice for asking a polar question as evidenced by

regularly receiving answers (cf. Lindstrom, 1996).

(4) Is the question a through-produced multi-question?

0=No (Just one question in the turn)

1=Yes (2 or more questions in a turn)

Two or more questions delivered as a single query were additionally coded as through produced multiple-

question questions. These did not include cases in which a single question is followed by lack of uptake or a

quizzical facial expression, and the questioner pursues with a second question. An example of a through-

produced multi question is So howd you get them down there how many cars. This code allows for the

exclusion of these questions from particular analyses which was necessarysince some multi-questions combine

polar and content or often the answer is to only one of the questions, so these types of questions must be

considered separately.

For polar questions:

(5) Is the polar question marked with a turn-final element?

0=No

1=Yes

9=N/A (non-polar questions)

These are declaratively formatted turns that assert a proposition and add a turn-final element that marks

questionhood; these turn-final elements include question particles (e.g., Japanese ka), lexical items (e.g.,

Right or Yeah?) or tag type clauses (e.g., Dont ya think? or Did she?).

(6) Is the polar question negatively marked?

0=No

1=Yes

9=N/A (non-polar questions)

Negative marking wascoded for negative interrogative questionswhere the negative is brought up to the front

(in English Isnt one of his jobs five days a week? or Havent you been to Germany,). But, it also included

negative declaratives such as You dont have to go downtown do you?. If negation was present in either the

proposition or the tag, the question was considered negatively marked. Negative polarity items (e.g., any or

never) were not, in themselves, considered negative marking.

(7) Is the polar question dubitative (Maybe) marked?

0=No

1=Yes

9=N/A (non-polar question)

Among polar questions, if the question had a marker of doubt/uncertainty in it (e.g., I wonder if) then it was

coded as dubitative. (This appears to be a grammaticalized way to do polar questions in some languages).

(8) Is the polar question a declarative question?

0=No

1=Yes

9=N/A (non-polar question)

If a polar question was judged to be a question but was lacking interrogative morphology or syntax and/or was

marked as a declarative (e.g., with ge in ), then it was coded as a declarative question; for

instance But youre going. or You paid them already? Intonation was not criterial.

For content (Q-word) questions:

(9) Each content question was coded for which type of Q-word was used but this was done on semantic grounds. If the

question was about naming the person whether that was done as Who? or Which person, the question was coded

as a who-question

T. Stivers, N.J. Enfield / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 262026262622


4/7

0=Who (note, it can be done as which person)

1=What (note, it can be done as which thing)

2=Where (note, it can be done as which place)

3=When (note, it can be done as how late or what time)

4=Why (note, it can be done as for what reason)

5=How (note, it can be done as in what manner)

6=How many/much9=N/A (not Content Q)

General repair initiators such as Huh? in English or H? in Dutch were coded as What questions because they

are functionally equivalent to, or elliptical for, larger statements such as What did you say?.

(10) Is the question functionally a question?

0=No

1=Yes

See above under Inclusion criteria.

(11) What social action is the question doing?

0=Request for information (real question)Questions were coded as requesting information only if it seemed that there was no other primary action to be

coded. Something ambiguous might be Are you busy tonight? where the action is arguably to find out

whether the real invitation/request can be made (a pre-invitation/request). Thus, in such cases, coders were

asked to code Other and list the action as pre-invitation. Other cases were subsequently tabulated and if

there was a sufficient number a new category was created.

1=Other initiation of repair (OIR)

Questions including open class repair initiators (Huh? or What?) as well as partial repeats (He went

where?) were coded as other initiations of repair. If it seemed that the repair was more a challenge than an

initiation of repair, Other was coded and the action was listed as challenge.

2=Request for confirmation (non-OIR)

Questions (usually declarative although this was not criterial) that asserted a proposition for confirmation

such as So youre coming tomorrow night were coded as requests for confirmation.3=Assessment (stating evaluation; seeking agreement)

Evaluations that were formatted to seek agreement such as Isnt it beautiful out today or Shes such a pretty

girl isnt she were coded as performing an assessment.

4=Suggestion/Offer/Request

Questions that suggest, propose, or offer something to another as well as questions that request something

from another were coded in a single category (e.g., Did you want some? [about a breakfast cereal]). This was

because there were insufficient numbers to warrant several discrete categories but these actions seemed to

cohere in various ways.

5=Rhetorical question

Questions that may seek a response but do not seek an answer. For instance, questions that assert an opinion

as in Everything comes out in the wash doesnt it? said by a husband to his wife after he has spilled

something on the table cloth, were coded as rhetorical questions.

6=Outloud

Questions delivered to no one in particular often with lower volume and do not appear to be designed to

secure a response (e.g., Now where are my keys. while looking in a bag) were coded as outlouds.

7=Other

If the action did not fit into the other categories well, then contributors were asked to code Other and list, as

specifically as possible, the social action that the utterance was being used for.

(12) At the point that the question is asked is the interaction dyadic?

0=No

1=Yes

8=Cant be determined from the video



5/7

To be dyadic there could have been only 2 people present, or if there were multiple people present, only 2 were

engaged in the conversation at the moment of this question, and the other people were not attending to this.

(13) Is a specific next speaker (or party) clearly selected?

0=No

1=Yes

8=Cant determine

Clearly selected could have been through gaze (e.g., the speaker was looking at one of the three individuals

present), by epistemic domain (e.g., asking a question about chemistry when only one of the individuals

present knows about chemistry), with an address term/name, register (e.g., pitch that indicates it is for a

child), volume (e.g., loud or soft might differentiate between a recipient near or far). If only two people were

present, all cases were coded as selecting a next speaker unless the question was delivered in a way so as not

to require response (e.g., with low volume or looking out into space or out a window).

(14) If a next speaker was selected, is the selection done with gaze?

0=No

1=Yes

9=N/A (no next speaker selected)

If the speaker gazed towards a particular recipient at some point in the question and this could be seen and

understood by the recipient as helping to select him/her to respond, then this was considered to be a case in

which gaze served as a form of selection.

(15) If a next speaker was selected, is selection done with address term?

0=No

1=Yes


If the speaker made use of a name or a term of endearment (e.g., Honey) in the question then this was

considered as an address term used for selection of next speaker.

(16) If a next speaker was selected, is selection done by domain of epistemic authority?

0=No1=Yes

8=Cant tell


If the requested information was about something within the addressees particular domain of expertise (e.g.,

his house, homeland, wife, child, mother, profession, schedule, rice fields, animals) then this would be

considered to be a case of using domain of epistemic authority as a form of next speaker selection. Coders

were asked to code this conservatively such that simply being able to answer did not equate with having

particular epistemic authority over the topic.

(17) What sort of response is given?

0=None (=>9 for all further cells to end of coding scheme)

Non-response was coded if the person did nothing in response, directed his/her attention to anothercompeting activity, or initiated a wholly unrelated sequence (i.e., not something such as a repair initiation that

would allow an answer to ultimately be provided).

1=Non-answer response

The recipient of the question gave a verbal or visible response that failed to directlyanswer the question as

put. This included laughter, I dont know, initiation of repair (e.g., What?) or other inserted sequences,

gestural responses such as shrugs that do not answer the question. Other sorts of non-answer responses

included Maybe, Possibly or responses that deal with the question indirectly (e.g., A: Do you see Jack

much? B: He moved).

2=Answer

Answers directly dealt with the question as put. Answerscould be visible (e.g., a head nod or shake) or vocal(Uh

huh, Yeah or longer more involvedanswer including partial repeats of the question to confirm or disconfirm).

8=Cant determine (cant hear/see participants, etc.)



6/7

(18) If a next speaker was selected (see Q13), is the selected next speaker the (first) one to respond?

0=No

1=Yes

8=Cant determine/Dont know


No was coded in cases where Person A selected Person B to respond to a question but Person C answers the

question, whether first (Person B subsequently answers) or as the only one to respond. If two people

responded simultaneously, who started first was coded. In cases of precisely simultaneous starts the selected

speaker was coded. (i.e., =1).

(19) If there was a response, what is the offset of the response?

#=a number in milliseconds (rounded to 20 ms increments)

Response offset was measured as the amount of time between the end of the question and the beginning of the

response. Response time was measured in milliseconds and rounded to 20 ms increments. All timing was done

by observation in ELAN (http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan ). Negative milliseconds indicate overlapping

speech whereas positive milliseconds indicate gaps of silence.

Response onset was said to have begun if a sound or an inbreath were heard that could be understood as the

response. A visible response was coded as having started if the preparatory phase could be understood as the

beginning of a response (e.g., the raising of a hand after a Where question would be understandable as the

beginning of a pointing gesture).

(20) If there was a response, what was the timing of the response relative to the pace of the surrounding talk?

0=No overlap or delay

1=Overlap

2=Delay

9=N/A (e.g., no response)

As a second measure of timing, investigators were asked to judge no overlap or delay versus delay using a

modified version of Gail Jeffersons transcription procedures (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). Thus, investigators

were asked to judge whether the response began in keeping with the rhythm and speed of the preceding talk.

If, relative to the pacing of the talk, a response was late (regardless of whether that would be judged 0.2 or

0.9 s in Jeffersonian timing), then it was coded as delayed. If, relative to the pacing of the talk, there was no

discernable delay then the response was coded as neither overlapped nor delayed.

(21) If there was a response, is all/part of the response a visible action (e.g., nod or eye brow flash)?

0=No

1=Yes

8=Cant evaluate (e.g., if the investigator could not see)

9=N/A (e.g., no response)

Responses that included gestures were not automatically counted. Only if the gesture or bodily action was

concerned with providing either an answer or a non-answer response (most typically, head shakes, nods,

shrugs or pointing gestures) was it coded here.

(22) If there was a response, is all/part of the response a vocal action?

0=No

1=Yes

8=Cant evaluate (e.g., if the investigator could not hear)

9=N/A (no response)

Responses were coded as having a vocal component if there was a lexical item present that provided all or part

of an answer or non-answer response. This included mm and the like if it was clearly in the service of giving

one of these two response types.

(23) If the question was a polar question which received an answer, does the answer confirm or disconfirm?

0=confirming answer (regardless of form - - yes; no; partial/full repeat)

1=disconfirming answer (regardless of form)

9=N/A (not a polar question; did not receive answer)

http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elanhttp://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan


7/7

Depending on the design of the question, a confirmation may be either positive or negative in formal terms.

For instance, a negative question such as Hes not coming? in English could be confirmed with No. In

Japanese, this same question would be confirmed with nn (yes; meaning Yes, thats correct, hes

coming). Thus, the coding allows for this and is interested only in confirmation or disconfirmation.

(24) If the question was a polar question that received an answer, what form does the answer take?

0=repetitional answer

1=interjection answer2=marked interjection answer

9=N/A (not a polar question; did not receive answer)

Repetitional answers included full repeats of the question (e.g.,A: Have you gone to the store? B: Ivegone to

the store), partial repeats (e.g., B: I have) and modified repeats (e.g., I have) (e.g., Sorjonen, 1996;

Raymond, 2003). Interjection answers included yes or no as well as variations such as mm hm and uh

huh, head nods and head shakes. Marked interjections included such confirmations as Absolutely, Indeed

or Totally.

End of coding scheme.

3. Concluding remark

With this coding scheme, we hope to provide researchers of social interaction with a well-grounded and well-motivated

set of guidelines for the systematic and comparative investigation of questions and their responses from an interactional

point of view, where the questionis seen notmerely as a kind of grammatical structure or illocutionary type, but primarily as

a way of mobilizing a response from an interactant. There is much to be learned in this domain, both for individual languages

and comparatively; and we offer this scheme as a place to start for further comparative research. The papers in this special

issue and in related work (e.g., Stivers et al., 2009, 2010) suggest that this method can provide significant leverage on the

questions of universality and cultural specificity of conversational structures.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the contributors to this special issue for their contributions to the development of this

coding scheme. We thank Steve Levinson for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Atkinson, J. Maxwell, Heritage, John, 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Lindstrom, Anna, 1996. Affiliation and disaffiliation in Swedish conversation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Department of Sociology, UCLA.Raymond, Geoff, 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68,

939967.Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, 1996. Repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Interation and grammar.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 277327.Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N.J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christina, Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine, Hoymann, Gertie, Rossano, Federico, de Ruiter, J.P.,

Yoon, Kyung-Eun, Levinson, Stephen C., 2009. Universality and cultural specificityin turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academyof Science of the United States of America 106, 1058710592.

Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N.J., Levinson, Stephen C., 2010, February. Answering Polar Questions in Social Interaction, Workshop on Questions in Conversation(A Cross-Linguistic Project). University of York.


Stivers,Enfield,(2010)

Documents

Transcript of Stivers,Enfield,(2010)