Suomen "no"-partikkeli ja kysymyksiin vastaaminen keskustelussa

This study investigates the use of the Finnish particle “no”, its meaning and use in conversation, especially in answers to questions. The theoretical background of the study is in Interactional Linguistics and the method used was Conversation Analysis. The data consist of audio- and videotaped naturally occurring conversations. The majority are telephone conversations, both landline and mobile calls. Some face-to-face conversations were also analyzed.

The study had two main goals. First, to show what the use of the particle “no” accomplishes in interaction. The second goal was to investigate a specific action, answers to questions, to see what “no”-prefaced answers do when compared to non-prefaced answers, and what that reveals about the answering system of the Finnish language. The study begins with a comprehensive overview of the sequential positions of the particle “no”, showing that it is used equally often in responsive turns and in transitions that guide or correct the on-going project. In both of these positions, the particle “no” implies that the turn or turn constructional unit (TCU) it is prefacing is relevant for the larger project that the turn is part of, and it either aligns or disaligns with that project.

The “no”-prefacing of a response to questions shows the relevance of the response to the project in tandem with the form of the response, which can be minimal, clausal or indirect. The two direct responses, minimal and clausal, occur in answers to specifying questions and in answers to telling questions. In these contexts, the clausal “no”-prefaced answer aligns with the project of the question, whereas the “no”-prefaced minimal answer shows disalignment with the project. When responding to a telling question, the “no”-prefaced clausal answer is the predominant way of answering when the topic is offered as new. The “no”-prefaced indirect response is reserved for situations where there is a need to negotiate the matter that the question has brought up before possibly reaching a jointly constructed decision. These situations can either involve mutual planning or a challenge in the relevance of posing the question.