Wh -interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why

Abstract

This article contributes to a critical discussion of how `question' and `questioning' may be defined in terms of form and function by analyzing the interactional usage of two apparently synonymous `question' words, German warum (why) and wieso (why) and their common English translation why. Warum and why are employed for two different interactional achievements. Wieso marks the utterance as an information request. In this respect, it is affiliative. In contrast, warum points to something wrong and is thus complaint implicative. Recipients orient to warum as disaffiliative. A contrastive analysis of German warum and wieso with English why (Clayman and Heritage, 2002a; Koshik, 2003; Schegloff, 1984) shows that why allows for ambiguity, whereas warum and wieso are unambiguous. While there is a core usage of these lexical items, they are also employed differently with an orientation to institutionality. In business meetings, there is a correlation between the occurrence of the complaint-implicative warum and the leadership status of the speaker in the team.

Keywords

affiliation business meetings complaints conversation analysis cross-linguistic comparison hierarchy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Breitsprecher, R. (1993) Pons Globalwörterbuch Deutsch—Englisch [Pons Global Dictionary German—English]. Stuttgart: Klett.

Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002a) The News Interview — Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002b) `Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan' , Journal of Communication 52(4): 749—75.

Clayman, S. , Elliott, M. , Heritage, J. and McDonald, L. (2006) `Historical Trends in Questioning Presidents 1953—2000' , Presidential Studies Quarterly 36(4): 561—83.

Dannerer, M. (2002) `Allen Ernstes Scherzen? Formen und Funktionen von Scherzen und Lachen in innerbetrieblichen Besprechungen' [`Really Seriously Joking? Forms and Functions of Joking and Laughing in Organizational Business Meetings'], in M. Becker-Mrotzek and R. Fiehler (eds) Unternehmenskommunikation , pp. 89—115. Tübingen: Forum Fachsprachen Forschung.

Dudenredaktion (1997) Duden Synonymwörterbuch [Duden Synonym Word Book]. Mannheim : Dudenverlag.

Dudenredaktion (2001) Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch [Duden German Universal Word Book] . Mannheim: Dudenverlag.

Egbert, M. (2002) ` Affiliation and Disaffiliation through Lexical Choice. The Difference between Two German Translations of English Why ', paper presented at the International Conference of Conversation Analysis, Copenhagen.

Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual. Pantheon : New York.

10.

Günthner, S. (2000) Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion [Reproach Activities in Everyday Conversation]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

11.

Heritage, J. (1984) `A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299—345. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

12.

Jefferson, G. (1984) `On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 347—69. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

13.

Jefferson, G. (1989) `Notes on a Possible Metric which Provides for a ``Standard Maximum'' Silence of Approximately One Second in Conversation' , in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds) Conversation; An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 166—96. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

14.

Koshik, I. (2003) `Wh-Questions Used as Challenges' , Discourse Studies 5: 51—77.

15.

Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Pasch, R. (1991) `Überlegungen zur Syntax und semantischen Interpretation von w-Interrogativsätzen' [`Thoughts on the Syntax and Semantic Interpretation of wh-Interrogative Sentence'] , Deutsche Sprache 3/91: 193—212.

17.

Raymond, G. (2003) `Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding' , American Sociological Review 68: 939—67.

18.

Reis, M. (1991) `Was konstituiert w-Interrogativsätze? Gegen Paschs Überlegungen zur Syntax und Semantik interrogativer w-Konstruktionen' [`What Constitutes wh-Interrogative Sentences? Against Pasch's Thoughts on the Syntax and Semantic Interpretation of wh-Interrogative Sentence'] , Deutsche Sprache 3/91: 213 .

19.

Schegloff, E.A. (1984) `On Some Questions and Ambiguities in Conversation' , in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 28—52. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

20.

Selting, M. (1991) `W-Fragen in konversationellen Frage-Antwort-Sequenzen' [`Whquestions in Conversational Question-Answer-Sequences'], in M. Reis and I. Rosengren (eds) Fragesätze und Fragen, pp. 263—88. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

21.

Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2006) ` Mobilizing Response ', paper presented at a Workshop on Questions and Answers, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen , The Netherlands.