<div dir="ltr">Dear Nick,<br><br>It seems to me that the very distinction between interjections and repetition is often not so categorial, and results from a lack of diachronic information, since repetitions using pro-verbs are a normal source for "interjections." In Coptic, for example, you have a whole paradigm of responsives (affirmative and negative) for each tense form, pretty much. While they synchronically don't have the exact form of finite verbs, they are clearly identifiable as grammaticalized pro-verbs, rather like what one finds in Celtic languages. Some examples:<br>
<br>Finite auxiliary Responsive<br>mpe- past.neg mpê<br>nne- jussive.neg nno<br>sha- prs.aff. sho<br><br>A comprehensive treatment can be found in Ariel Shisha-Halevy (2007) Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect (pp. 164-177).<br>
<br>As such, the question would be better phrased as "What are the criteria by which we distinguish this kind of grammaticalized element ('responsive') and its source construction (pro-verb/repetition)?" at least for this type of responsive. <br>
<br>Best,<br>Eitan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Siva Kalyan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sivakalyan.princeton@gmail.com" target="_blank">sivakalyan.princeton@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">If you count nods of the head as an "interjection-type answer", I doubt you'd find any language that's purely of type B.<div><br></div><div>Does anyone know of cross-cultural research on gestures expressing affirmation or negation? Specifically, whether there's any culture that lacks them?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Siva<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/1/2 Nick Enfield <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Nick.Enfield@mpi.nl" target="_blank">Nick.Enfield@mpi.nl</a>></span><div><div></div><div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<font face="Helvetica Neue Light"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Happy new year everyone -<br>
<br>
Colleagues and I are comparing how polar questions are answered in various languages. There appear to be two basic types of strategy for answering a polar question such as 'Is John working today?': 1. with an 'interjection answer' such as "yes", "no", "of course", or 2. with a 'repetitional answer' (modifiable in various ways) such as "John is working today", "He's working", "He is". This suggests three possible types of system for a language:<br>
<br>
A. Interjection only: the language has no 'repetitional' type strategy, and it is only possible to answer by saying things like ‘Yes’.<br>
<br>
B. Repetitional only: the language has no 'interjection' type strategy, and it is only possible to answer by saying things like ‘He is’.<br>
<br>
C. Mixed. The language makes both strategies available (and the frequencies of use of one or the other alternative may vary across languages of this type)<br>
<br>
QUESTION. Does anybody know of any claims that there are languages with systems A or B? It does not seem possible that System A exists, since presumably all languages can provide speakers with a way to take the proposition that was coded in the question and simply assert it as a way of answering (i.e., repeat in declarative form for 'yes', or with negation for 'no'). There does, however, seem to be a common view that System B occurs. We have heard it said, for example, that Celtic languages like Welsh have no interjection strategy, but this is clearly not the case for Welsh itself, as shown by Bob Morris Jones in his book 'The Welsh Answering System'. In that book, Jones cites other languages as having repeat-only strategies (Gaelic, Breton) but he is not able to present sufficient data to establish that there is really no way to answer a polar question with an interjection type answer. (Note that under ‘interjection type answer’ we would include items like ‘yep’, ‘uh-huh’, ‘mm’, and nods of the head.)<br>
<br>
I would much appreciate any references to literature in which it is shown, or claimed, that a language has no means of answering a polar question with an interjection type strategy (functionally equivalent to 'yes' and 'no' in English), meaning that a 'repetitional' answer is the only means for answering a polar question.<br>
<br>
Many thanks in advance,<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Nick Enfield</font></span></font>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>