What are some examples of superficial expansion

over No

While the particle Yes (yes) has been analyzed extensively in both spoken and written German, its counterpart No (no) has not received much attention. This has to do with the fact that Yes is a multifunctional word that can be used as a positive responsive particle, a modal particle, a discourse marker or a tag question. In contrast, No is usually only ascribed a narrow range of functions centering around negative responsivity particle. The aim of this article is to ask whether No is indeed only used as a negative responsive or whether it, too, is multifunctional - and if so, what its functions are. On the basis of an empirical analysis of spoken German formal and discourse-functional properties of No are described.

1 no

Linguistics did not begin to systematically examine the particles of German until late: The first study of degree particles was carried out by van Os, for example, in 1989 (cf. Breindl 2009: 403f.); The category of focus particles was only introduced in the 1970s Established in the last century (Altmann 2009: 363), and it is also true of the modal particles that are described quite comprehensively today that they were only researched with the "onset of intensive particle research" (Diewald 2009: 120) from the 1970s. The same applies to the response particles or the responsive: Ehlich (2009: 437) points out that the “term 'responsive' is a relatively recent formation of terminology” that “arises from the need for the expressions of affirmation and negation as far as they have a word character, to be summarized as a separate class. ”The fact that there is indeed still a need for research on responsives is already clear from the brief description in the Handbook of German Parts of Speech (Hoffmann 2009): Only one and a half pages are provided for this. What is even more striking, however, is that almost one side of it is in favor of the affirmative responsive Yes is provided while its counterpart No is just mentioned casually in a single sentence: “In contrast to the affirmation, the words for the purpose of negation show a wide range of expressions that differ from the actual negation responsive (German No) via indefinite pronouns (nothing, no), Adverbs (No way) up to prepositions. ”(Ehlich 2009: 438) The reason for this unequal treatment is easy to see: For the word Yes at least some detailed descriptions are available (Ágel / Kehrein 2002; Hoffmann 2008; Imo 2013), while on the other hand No Although it is described in some reference grammars (Duden 2006; Weinrich 2005; Zifonun et al. 1997), its variety of forms and functions has not yet been comprehensively researched. Fiehler (2015: 30) states: “The situation is even more unsatisfactory No and the variants ne (e), ne, nö, not (t), nn etc. There are no systematic, completeness-based, corpus-based investigations into the variants of negation in spoken language. ”This article is intended to remedy this deficiency: On the basis of a corpus of spoken language, the question is asked which formal and functional variants of the negating responsive occur in everyday life.

2 responsive and conversation particles

Dedicated linguistic research too No are not yet available (especially for No Hoffmann's (2008: 195) finding that the responsives “are usually not considered as clear in research”), and also in relevant grammars, can be agreed with No mostly only treated very superficially: Eisenberg (2004: 219) mentions succinctly No as “sentence word”, and elsewhere (Eisenberg 2004: 231) the possible designations are briefly presented Response particle, Validity adverb and Responsive Particle juxtaposed. The Duden grammar (2006) is more detailed No one that is there as Response particle is classified, which expresses rejection. Here, too, there is the entry that response particles “in contrast to most other types of particles (except interjections and onomatopoeia) are sentence-valued” and thus form “a complete expression” (Duden 2006: 603). In addition, they are "always emphasized". Within the answer particles, Duden grammar distinguishes between two main groups, the answers to decision-making questions (yes, no, yes) and the reactions to a statement in the sense of a "confirmation, reinforcement, restriction". As an example of using No in the second group the minimal dialogue “You promised me that. - no (Rejection). ”(Duden 2006: 603). The representation of, which is taken up again in the separate chapter on spoken language, goes in a similar direction No, which, as an answer particle, is subordinate to the large group of conversation particles.

Weinrich (2005: 865) suggests the classification of No as Negation morpheme, the “to the affirmation morpheme Yes stands in binary opposition ”, a terminologically rather unusual way. A great advantage of Weinrich's presentation is that it consistently uses authentic written and oral evidence. As a result, Weinrich also increasingly deals with phenomena such as particle combinations - he notes, for example, that there are a number of typical reinforcing particles No gives (oh no !, oh no !, but no! Weinrich 2005: 8659) - and above all he also deals with interactional processes by playing the role of No in the context of self-repair processes of the kind I went to visit my grandma yesterday - oh no, the day before yesterday. describes. He notes this No can serve to “indicate a correction by the speaker and at the same time correct the listener's expectation with regard to the validity of a statement. In this case it stands No after terminating an utterance and before starting a new one; In the following utterance, the appropriate language symbol is used. ”(Weinrich 2005: 866) Another interactional phenomenon is the correction of expectations. Here will No "Before an exclamation" is used and thus indicates that a speaker "corrects his previous expectation": As an example of a case in which the correction consists of "exceeding the speaker's expectation", the utterance "no, that is unheard of." , no, I would not have thought that of you! ”(Weinrich 2005: 866).

The IDS grammar works most extensively - especially when considering prosodic aspects No a. The most important phonetic variants are also listed there:

[naɪn] Standard language
[ne:] Colloquial language (often)
[no, no:] Colloquial language (north German)
[nɛ:] Colloquial language (Rhenish / Westphalian)
[n / A:] Colloquial language (Bavarian)
[nɔɪ] Colloquial language (Swabian) (Zifonun et al. 1997: 379)

Even if the assignment is ideally typical at best (the phonetic forms no, nø: and nɛ: are, in my opinion, not limited to regional colloquial language, but correlate with certain functions, which, however, still needs to be shown empirically), this is at least a first step in systematisation.

With regard to the placement in the context of utterances and sequences, a distinction is made between use within and outside of the gym. What is meant is that No can be used both as an independent communicative minimal unit in response to an utterance by a conversation partner and within a speech, for example to initiate a repair. It is noted that No used less than Yes and that it is “specialized in the opposition to the affirmative YES” (Zifonun et al. 1997: 379). The range of functions of No out. Two functional groups are named, one the task of “expressing divergence or inappropriateness in relation to introduced facts, action realizations or expectations” and one the task of indicating “convergence with regard to negative facts” (Zifonun et al. 1997: 379).

in the use outside of gymnastics the negation is in the foreground: “The speaker uses an expression of the form class NO to assert a given state of affairs as non-existent, expressed expectations as inapplicable or a negated state of affairs as existing. He can also try to prevent an action from being realized. ”(Zifonun et al. 1997: 380). In detail, this includes, for example, the "correction of a partner's statement", the "negative answer to a decision question" or the "non-confirmation after a confirmation question" and the task of rejecting or terminating a previous or ongoing action by someone present. Last but not least come No - with a falling-rising pitch curve - also in "question batteries" (Zifonun et al. 1997: 381). Phonological variants, e.g. B. the realization with a falling-rising, rising-falling or sharply falling pitch, are viewed as intensifying variants of the basic form, the same applies to duplications (No no).

in the internal gym use, is meant by No A distinction can be made between three functions. Once a speaker can No Use “for the direct return of the right to speak”, whereby he expects an “explication, explanation or repair” from the listener, “which allows him to accept the previous (negated) speech” (Zifonun et al. 1997: 382). A second use is to indicate "the transition to a repair (self-correction)" and thus secure his right to speak. The third usage is the "expression of convergence / divergence", where No similar to mhm is usually produced to accompany the statements of a conversation partner (Zifonun et al. 1997: 382–383). In all three cases, either the speaker who No produced, already the right to speak or, as in the case of the listener signals, it indicates that he does not want to take over his own speaking right and that the conversation partner should continue.

Finally, reference can be made to the only work that, as far as I know, exclusively deals with a variant of a negative responsive, an investigation into yes and no by Bücker (2013). Bucker shows that yes and no, unlike, for example, in Zifonun et al. (1997: 383), "is neither in the oral form nor in the written form characteristic of a 'joking' register". Rather, it has conversation structuring functions (Bücker 2013: 206–207) and can, among other things. are used to 'unfold' complex topics and address them in a differentiated manner. In written texts is yes and no in addition, a “means of rhetorically and stylistically innovative generation of 'virtual dialogicity' in the sense of Bakhtin” (Bücker 2013: 207).

In the following, an attempt will now be made to use a data corpus of spoken language to show which (discourse) functions are based on previous research on responsives No or. no is used and how the different functions with different formal characteristics (prosody; position in the context of utterances; position in the context of sequences; duplications (No no) and combination with other particles). I limit myself to No (and variants like no). On variants like mhmh as well as multimodal aspects of negation cannot be dealt with for reasons of space.

3 The data corpus

On the one hand, interactions from the FOLK research and teaching corpus of the IDS Mannheim (http://agd.ids-mannheim.de/folk.shtml) and on the other hand, self-collected data (everyday conversations, radio talk shows) were used as the data basis. All data, regardless of whether they are institutionally anchored, such as employee meetings in the FOLK data, or not (such as conversations between friends or family members), have in common that they are interactive, informal, i.e. H. conversations that are not scripted. In the data was after No as well as the phonetic variants ([naɪn], [ne:], [nœ, nø:], [nɛ:], [na:], [nɔɪ]; see Zifonun et al. 1997: 379) wanted. The data were searched for all occurrences of No (in all variants) searched, whereby no full analysis of the two corpora was carried out - what simply with the too large amount of the token No has to do. Rather, in both corpora the transcripts and the audio files were analyzed in as many different communicative constellations as possible (disputes and arbitration discussions; discussions; consultations and interviews; Skype discussions; table discussions; private telephone conversations) until no new forms were added. Of course, this approach has its limits in that it cannot be said whether other communicative constellations (and above all also in other regional, subject-specific, youth language etc. varieties) can find further forms. Indeed, this is clearly to be expected. However, a qualitative analysis reaches its limits with the large number of tokens, so that a further research desideratum remains for some expected forms. This is especially true for the phonetic variants of No: Only the first four variants ([naɪn], [ne:], [nœ, nø:], [nɛ:]), no but [n / A:] and [nɔɪ] were to be found in the data, the main part being there [naɪn] and [ne:]. Since the data available to me do not provide a representative picture of the variety spectrum in Germany, a detailed examination of the phonetic variants had to be dispensed with. Here we focus on the variants that are widespread throughout Germany No and no focused. Due to the fact that the transcripts do not accurately reproduce the variety of forms and that all conversations have to be listened to, a quantitative evaluation is in any case impossible given the current status of the conversation corpora available for spoken German. Accordingly, the creation of categories proposed in the following is necessarily provisional: The cases found in the data were grouped according to functional, interactive and formal aspects. One can always think about differently motivated demarcations, but this article aims to initially form groups as small as possible in order to cover the spectrum of No to grasp more clearly.

3.1 Negation of propositions and actions of others by No

As prototypical properties of the responsive No the following can certainly be listed:

  • No is uttered reactively by a speaker, i.e. it is made up of an at least two-part interactive sequence of the previous utterance (speaker A) and No- utterance (speaker B) embedded and

  • No negates either a proposition (again, it is typical here that this proposition is produced in a question format) or an action or an action goal (cf. Blühdorn 2012: 22) of the previous speaker.

In the following some examples will be discussed in which No is used as such a prototypical responsive. It is interesting to note that in the data I examined there were only very few cases in which only No was used as an answer without giving contextualization hints through non-verbal means (simultaneous laughter, whispering, etc.) that weaken the negative answer, or that the No an elaboration, justification, qualifying statement or at least a reformulation (e.g. no not at all) followed (the area of ​​multimodal analysis had to be completely excluded, since an analysis of the paraverbal accompanying and No Substituting means would go beyond the scope of this investigation and would also leave the research field of linguistics if one were to shake the head or look skeptical, for example No- wanted to analyze equivalents).

In the following I use for the No attached follow-up utterances refer only to the formal aspect of an extension of an utterance expansion. Stand alone No is dispreferred and only occurs in disputes and when processing 'questionnaire activities' - and even then the variant with a subsequent expansion is preferred.

(i) No as responsive:

The following example is from a radio talk show. A caller (A) tells the moderator (M) about her twenty-year affair with a married man:


In line 33 is the typical pattern for responding No given: The moderator asks the question whether the caller and her partner live in a city (line 31), whereupon they initially have a hesitation particle and the negative responsive No answers and after a micro pause then one through the discourse marker so projected explanatory elaboration, which in this case the No qualified insofar as the caller realizes that they both do not live in one city, but in two small towns in the country, which in the end has a similar effect (i.e. increases the potential that both could be seen by other people together) . It turned out to be single No almost never occurs, but always a combination of No with the following expansion, e.g. B. an elaboration with background information, a reason for the negation or at least a reformulation of the negation (e.g. no not at all). The responsive No obviously has too little 'weight' for the interacting party to be used on its own (or, to put it the other way round, it has the potential to be perceived as a too abrupt and too 'definitive' answer).

Incidentally, this applies even if No the preferred answer is, d. H. if with No a negated utterance is answered in the affirmative, as is clear in line 28: The caller confirms the moderator's negated question only with a question that was realized with a sharply falling pitch No. Then there is a pause of one second - the moderator does not take over immediately after the No the caller has the right to speak, but waits a second before he starts making his speech. He seems to be waiting for the expansion that is not taking place here. The data shows that such a stand-alone No, the affirmative, d. H. after a negated previous utterance, is used almost as rarely as a negatingNo.

So it can be said that a single No is marked as highly responsive in everyday interactions. Only in certain conversation constellations is an easy one No is used, namely once in institutional communication, in which certain question formats are processed, in which with Yes or No can be answered (e.g. anamnesis talks or similar), and once in a dispute, where the markedness of someone standing alone No is advantageous because one of the objectives of the conversation is confrontation. Whether the second part, i.e. H. the regular use of stand-alone No in dispute situations, actually applies, speculation must remain here: In the (altogether rare) dispute sequences in the corpus examined by me, No in most cases also not realized standing alone, but always together with an immediately following one No related expansion. This can be explained as follows: "No achieves - in this respect it is asymmetrical too Yes - a conversion only of the knowledge status of p. The recipient knows because of a mere No not what he is supposed to believe and will demand more differentiated knowledge or a justification of the verbalized knowledge status. "(Hoffmann 2008: 217)[1] This “differentiated knowledge” is normally, as the data show, directly supplied by the producer of the negation and not left to the demand by the other party. One of the rare cases where No stands alone, comes from an arbitration meeting in the context of Stuttgart 21 from the FOLK corpus - a dispute situation:

Here is that though No von BP from line 0110 is not part of a two-part question-answer sequence, but the negative responsive is used for uncompromising rejection of a statement. This rejection is initially made in line 0104. BP criticizes a comparison that WW previously made on the basis of a building plan and states that this is "NOT a permissible comparison". WW contradicts it in line 0108 ("der is verEINfachend (.) And permissible"), which HG rejects in line 0109 with a positive supportive responsive ("yes.") And of BP in line 0110 with "no" becomes. The single one No is possible here for two reasons: On the one hand, it is a 'second step' in the chain of negation, i. H. a corroborating contradiction. On the other hand, the speakers find themselves in a dispute in which conventions of courtesy are at least partially overridden (in the sense of "uninhibited communication", as described by Luhmann (1990) in the context of intra-family communication) and in which one is through terse Responsive like Yes or No uniquely assigned to certain positions. The insulting evaluation “geSCHWAfel” by XM4 in line 0111 is also clear evidence of the “uninhibited” situation of the dispute in this excerpt. However, this pattern is unusual for 'normal' interaction situations. The data show that an expansion of No is delivered, unless the scarcity of No in the concrete context (dispute or working through a question-and-answer list), the opposite is exactly the expected reaction.

(ii) stand-alone No with contextualization through laughter

The further discussion will focus on the pattern in more detail No + Expansion, but first the alternative to expansion, namely the use of parallel contextualization hints, has to be discussed. A contextualization via prosody (e.g. whispering, breathy speaking or strong prosodic realization that marks indignation, shock or astonishment) normally means, however, that No is not used as a responsive, but as a routine phrase with which interesting, unbelievable, terrifying or similar information is received and empathy is displayed (see the analysis in Section 3.9). In the data, however, there was also a case in which additional contextualization hints were provided by laughing, which can be interpreted interactively as an explanation and allow No to be able to realize alone as responsive. The example comes from a Skype conversation between students from the Universities of Essen and Münster, three female students from Essen and four female students from Münster sat opposite each other in front of the computer (an analysis of the paraverbal agents would go beyond the scope of the present study; however, it is closed also expect about paraverbal agents No can be contextualized so that it can stand alone). The beginning of the conversation before using the transcript dealt mainly with technical questions, i. H. whether you can see and hear everything well, etc. After the technical aspects have been clarified, the students introduced themselves and in line 175 a student from Münster now asks whether the students in Essen are already studying for their Masters:

The students from Essen answered yes to the question of the student M2 from line 175. The next question is whether the students from Münster are also studying for a master’s degree (line 180). This is realized by all four students with a laughing, with a slightly falling pitch No answered without any expansion following. The single one No is unproblematic here for two reasons: On the one hand, a kind of 'questionnaire' situation has been created locally in which the students collect background information about their interlocutors. This favors an answer only with the negation particle. In addition, laughter can also be interpreted as an implicit elaboration in the sense of “no, not for a long time” or “no, we are still in the bachelor's degree, but thank you for thinking that we are further advanced in our studies”. This implicit elaboration, associated with performing face-work, prevents the answer from being perceived as rude only with the negation particle.

(iii) Negation of a question or an action: the structural normal case

As already mentioned several times, the normal case is the use of the negative responsive - regardless of whether it is used as the second part of a question-answer neighborhood pair or through No a suggestion or generally an action by a counterpart is rejected - in that the responsive is first realized and immediately afterwards an expansion. This is true even in confrontational situations. In the following example from an interview with Rudi Völler, he accuses the journalists of distorted and unfair reporting and he verbally attacks the journalist (M).

In a longer 'rant', of which only the end is given here, Völler describes the statements of the journalists as "SHIT" (line 36) and suggests that they change their occupation (line 41). The moderator then asks in line 43 whether Völler had not chosen the wrong addressee with him, since Völler had previously dealt with his representation in newspapers and the moderator did not consider himself guilty of participating in a campaign against Völler . Völler answered the moderator's question during the production of the utterances (line 44) with a strongly emphasized “NO”, which was immediately followed by an expansion, in the case of an affirmation “I choose exactly the right one”, and then with a the discourse marker because The reasoning introduced on the level of speech acts (Z. 47f.) is expanded (in the sense of: I have chosen the right addressee because I was always tormented by the journalists with insane questions).

(iv) Evidence of the routine of No + Expansion

That it is the extension of the negative responsive No is a routine pattern due to an expansion, becomes clear in cases in which a 'played', i. H. stand-alone used for rhetorical purposes No is used. The following example comes from an interview with Angela Merkel (M). The interviewer (H) shows a photo of Angela Merkel's famous hand position ("Merkel diamond") and asks whether this hand position was recommended to Angela Merkel by her sister:

Similar to the previous example, Merkel reacts with the negative responsive immediately after the handover-relevant point of the question, i.e. H. after the finite verb "has" in line 140. The "no." is realized in a 'final' and 'concise' style with a sharply falling pitch and the moderator immediately afterwards delivers a similarly 'final' effect, aligning however, the more pronounced “NO” (line 143). This episode is embedded in a longer humorous exchange that began with the thematization of “MERkelrAUte” (line 133) and was accompanied by laughter several times by the audience. Merkel's brief answer and the marked aligning reaction by the moderator in lines 142 and 143 are also treated as joking by the audience, as the laughter in line 144 shows. In addition, Merkel is also providing an expansion here in parallel by her No elaborated in line 144. A single one No Due to the character of its markedness, it can also be used to generate 'funny' effects through the abruptness, but in such cases the elaboration is then delivered after a pause (in this case, the moderator also fulfills the “NO” in Z. 143 the function of an elaboration request).[2]

In summary, the following can be stated:

  • Stand alone No is dispreferred, it seems to have a strong potential of facial threat and has connotations not only of a negative response / reaction, but also of the termination of conversation cooperation; it is therefore found in everyday interactions at best (and even there rarely) in quarreling situations; only in institutional conversation types in which lists, questionnaires, anamnesis questions etc. have been processed No appear unmarked - and only there if the question type allows No as "type-conforming" (Raymond 2003) is considered, d. H. For example, in a judicial questioning or if an anamnesis inquires about previous illnesses. The typical structure in most conversation structures is thus a two-part structure with the following structure: no + expansion. The expansion can consist of a revision of a question, a suggestion, or an action that involves the negation particle Not or be negated with a negation pronoun or negation adverb, as well as from a subsequent justification or qualification of the rejection.

  • Stand alone No can be 'defused' by non-verbal signals, whereby it will be shown that these signals are typically used from a stand-alone No make a routine phrase to acknowledge unbelievable / interesting / terrifying etc. information and to mark emphasis; through accompanying laughter No However, they can be 'defused' as a responsive: It is indicated by the fact that the question is answered in the negative (or the action is rejected), but this is not intended to be a threat to the face.

3.2 Negation of propositions and actions of others through [ne:]

After in the previous section No was focused, now the shape becomes [ne:] in view (in the future, for the sake of simplicity, I will use the spelling <nee> play). Is it at no just a slang variant of No? Or do the two negation responses also differ functionally or in their distributional behavior?

(i) stand-alone no as responsive

How No can also no can be used as a stand-alone responsive in response to questions. In the following example children play with Playmobil, mother (MW) and aunt (FW) comment on the game:

After the mother noticed that the wall had fallen out in the Playmobil school, she jokingly asked whether the walls in the children's school also fell out more often (line 0735). A negative answer is projected through the content and the form of the question (among other things through the confirmation signal "or how" and the laugh) and accordingly the child OW answers in line 0737 with the responsive "no". The advantage of no is that a negative responsive can be delivered, but it does not have the character of a "definite" (Hundsnurscher 1997) answer and therefore does not appear as abrupt as a standing alone No. So in the context of a joke interaction, it is more appropriate than No, which would have to be elaborated earlier in order not to be perceived as a “po-faced receipt” (Drew 1987). Contextualization with laughter is included no for these reasons also less urgent than with No. In addition, in this example, the mother's interaction with the child is a secondary interaction - the main interaction is the children's play with each other. In this case, the aspect of inaccessibility for an interaction is rather intentional; the children want to continue playing in peace.

As already mentioned in the discussion above, the negative responsive can only be used when a list is processed, as in the following example from the FOLK data (it is a language-biographical interview, interviewer (MF) and interviewer (CHE3) speaking about his desire to become an opera singer):

MF talks about the vocal sound of opera singers and in this context comes to speak of possible impairments of CHE3, which could disturb the resonance body (ie the mouth): To the question "do you have piercings in the mouth area", CHE3 answers in line 0110 only with " no ". However, MF does not immediately take over the right to speak again, which is why, after a pause of a quarter of a second, CHE3 elaborates the answer through "NIRgends". At the same time, MF asks the next question about braces, which can then be answered in more detail by CHE3. It shows here that a simple one no Although it can be used as a stand-alone responsive, there is still an expectation of expansion even in questionnaire situations.

Overall, the data analysis has shown that No and no differ only by the degree of formality. Functionally, there are no differences to be found, with the exception of the 'negation staircase', which can, however, be explained by the degree of formality no and Nowhich is presented below.

(ii) Negation of a question or an action by no: the 'negation staircase'

The differences between No and no are in no case clear and selective. For one, will no favored to a not inconsiderable degree by the informality of the situation, d. H. the more informal the situation, the higher the chance that the speaker will be no instead of No use. On the other hand has no but also a modalizing character, it seems like a more polite, less abrupt variant of No. On top of that, that too no Normally, explanations, justifications, conclusions or subsequent supportive statements or negation reformulations follow, with the data also showing a kind of 'negation staircase pattern' in which the negation is increasingly emphasized in three steps by initially no is voiced, then an expansion and finally No. The following example is from a radio talk show, the caller (A) tells the moderator (M) that although he is over twenty years old, he still lives with his parents:


The moderator's question as to whether the caller has to give his parents money so that he can live with them is answered in the negative by the caller in three steps: First with the extended responsive "ne :::", followed by the expansion "actually NIX" and finally through the responsive “no”. (The moderator's second question, whether the caller has income, is answered by the negative responsive "n :::: EIn", followed by an explication; only the first pattern is of interest here). The three-part structure of no plus expansion plus No can be explained by the fact that initially a face-saving negation indicating disrepair (supported by the stretching) is delivered, which is qualified in the expansion ("actually") and then answered negatively without reservations ("definitely"; Hundsnurscher 1997) ( "No"). The pattern of the 'negation staircase' makes it possible to give a dispreferred answer and, on the one hand, to answer clearly and, on the other, to mark disrepair.

3.3 Aligning / Consent Use of No in response to actions, questions, statements from others

The negation responsive No and no can not only be used reactive disaffilating by z. B. negate actions, suggestions for action, statements, etc., they can also perform the opposite function, namely to respond in an affiliated manner to a previous utterance by the speaker. This is usually the case when the previous utterance is negated (cf. Blühdorn 2012: 385). Since this use is an affiliated - and therefore not face-threatening - act, one can No and no both stand-alone and with expansion, although use with expansion is also preferred here. The first example comes from a FOLK arbitration discussion in the context of the planned train station building in Stuttgart, the second from a Skype conversation between students:

In the first example, Spokesman HG argues that another person involved in the arbitration discussion, Mr. Sierig, did not claim that a certain tunnel could not be built, but that this was merely associated with dangers. Speaker WW first supplies the affiliating responsive “no” (line 0137) to this statement, which he repeats shortly afterwards with an expansion (“no, that STIMMT”; line 0139). The negated statement by HG is supported here with a negated responsive.

As already mentioned above, there is often an expansion in these cases as well, although the negation-responsive is positive in terms of face preservation. This is because, without expansion, there is a risk that the responsive will be interpreted as a disaffiliate responsive. For example, the truthfulness of the statement can only be negated by “no”. If the context is clear, no expansions are necessary, as in the second example: After MC and MJ have initiated the end of the conversation and MC has pointed out the potential of a facial threat (“we don't want to just wank you off now either”; line 790 ), to which EM does not react, MJ takes up the topic of the one-sided end of the conversation with "it should not come across as unfriendly" (line 790). This is responded to by laughing together and then by EM with “no no” (line 796). The negation particle alone is sufficient here, as on the one hand it has already been contextualized by laughing that there is no facial threat.

3.4 Metalinguistic use: No say

The use of responsive as part of fixed verb structures, namely in the form, must also be mentioned say no and say yes with the meaning agree or reject. In an example from the FOLK data from a staff meeting in a social institution, the staff demand of a child that it should not put up with everything from its sister (“may say NO”; line 0812). The advantage of construction No saying is that it covers a much wider range of activities than verbs like reject, deny, negate etc. That has to do with that, too No can be used as a responsive to react disaffilingly to a wide range of statements or actions. Since these verb structures have few peculiarities from an interactive perspective, they are only briefly discussed here for the sake of completeness.

3.5 no but and no then

For the responsive No exists as well as for the responsive Yes a solid, routine connection with a subsequent one but. For the latter, Hoffmann (2008: 205) found that Yes often with expressions like Well, now or but Connects "for specific purposes", with the connection with but "For example, the processing-based redirection to a weighted subsequent utterance (Yes but + Sentence) - more often in an argumentative framework than denying "(Hoffmann 2008: 205).

With No together is particularly common but, a little rarer too then. The function Hoffmann did for Yes but found can also be used for no but show, being yourself No however, it is even more concrete than a typical pattern for the interactive implementation of concessions (cf.Kotthoff 1993 and Barth-Weingarten 2003):

The speakers argue about a child and the question of whether they have a bad sense of time. MS takes up the previously introduced argument that the child has a bad sense of time because it does not know exactly when its grandparents died and rejects this argument. AW uses the negative responsive to respond in an affiliating manner, i. H. to agree to the assessment of MS, but then leads directly afterwards, initiated but - as Hoffmann (2008: 205) puts it - “processing-based redirection to a weighted follow-up utterance” by addressing the child's poor schedule in everyday life as a far more relevant aspect: it concedes the aspect mentioned by MS, but then steers to the topic of homework planning, which is more relevant from their point of view (according to Barth-Weingarten 2003: 185–194, “topic and discourse management” is one of the main tasks of concessions).

3.5 Yes No

The combination Yes No has already been discussed in detail in an article by Mroczynski (2013). Mroczynski (2013: 258) comes on the basis of the analysis of Yes No Everyday German spoken in question-answer neighborhood pairs to the result that the speakers can perform various discourse functions depending on the sequential environment, all of which have the following basic property:

retrospectively reject certain assumed information aspects and initiate a responsive statement prospectively. This responsively introduced utterance is intended to be used by the Yes No- Realize construction-triggered expectations - especially expectations regarding the charge of the deficiency of certain prerequisite information.

Depending on the context, this can mean that a repair of the utterance of a conversation partner is initiated or carried out, a counter-argument is provided or a change of subject is initiated. The following example from the FOLK data, more precisely from one of the language-biographical interviews, shows how Yes No operates and what is the reason for the interactive added value of this responsive combination: