1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Chinese Language and Discourse
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines three major response particles, , and in Mandarin conversation. Using the framework of interactional linguistics, this study examines the actions implemented by these particles and their associated prosodic patterns. It discovers that, while these three particles have shared functions, they show interactional nuances that allow for more fine-grained actions. It also reveals that different particles tend to have a similar prosodic design when they implement the same action. This study sheds light on the detailed workings of these particles both prosodically and interactionally in Mandarin speakers’ everyday conversation, contributing a specific case to further cross-linguistic comparison.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
2024-04-26
2025-03-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (1987) Oh and Ah in English conversation. InW. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond, pp.61–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004483989_010
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004483989_010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2011) Double sayings of German JA – more observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(2), 157–185. 10.1080/08351813.2011.567099
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.567099 [Google Scholar]
  3. Betz, E., & Golato, A.
    (2008) Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding Relevant Next Actions: The German Token achja. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 58–98. 10.1080/08351810701691164
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691164 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., & Mandelbaum, J.
    (2023) The distinctive uses of right in British and American English interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 2051, 78–91. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  5. Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G.
    (1996) Callfriend mandarin Chinese-mainland dialect. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chao, Y. R.
    (1968) A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H.
    (1996) The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355–387. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00036‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00036-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2009) A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment.’InM. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindstro¨m (Eds.), Talk in interaction–comparative dimensions (pp.94–123). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2011) Pragmatics and prosody: Prosody as social action. InW. Bublitz & N. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp.491–510). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214260.491
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.491 [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C.
    (Eds.) (2004) Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62 [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (Eds.) (1996) Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2001) Introducing interactional linguistics. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp.1–22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.02cou [Google Scholar]
  13. (2017) Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139507318
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318 [Google Scholar]
  14. Deng, X.
    (2008) The use of listener responses in Mandarin Chinese and Australian English conversations. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 18(2), 303–328.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Drummond, K., & Hopper, R.
    (1993) Back channels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 157–177. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gardner, R.
    (1997) The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 131–156. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_2 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2001) When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  18. Golato, A.
    (2010) Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 147–176. 10.1177/1461445609356497
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356497 [Google Scholar]
  19. Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z.
    (2008) Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(3), 241–270. 10.1080/08351810802237834
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237834 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, C.
    (1986) Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217. 10.1007/BF00148127
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. 10.1177/0957926507069457
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jefferson, G.
    (1972) Side Sequences. InD. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in social interaction (pp.294–338). New York: Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1984) Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 171, 197–216. 10.1080/08351818409389201
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InConversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (Vol.1251, pp.13–34). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  27. Kasterpalu, R., & Hennoste, T.
    (2016) Estonian aa: A multifunctional change-of-state token. Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 148–162. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Koivisto, A.
    (2015) Dealing with ambiguities in informings: Finnish aijaa as a “neutral” news receipt. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 365–387. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1090109
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090109 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016) Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a). Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 163–179. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California press. 10.1525/9780520352858
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520352858 [Google Scholar]
  31. Local, J.
    (1996) Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp.177–230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007 [Google Scholar]
  32. Local, J. & Walker, G.
    (2008) Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk, 28(6), 723–747. 10.1515/TEXT.2008.037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.037 [Google Scholar]
  33. McCarthy, M.
    (2003) Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mori, J.
    (2006) The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1175–1205. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Müller, F. E.
    (1996) Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies (pp.131–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1996) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ogden, R.
    (2006) Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 381, 1752–1775. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  38. Oh, S.-Y., & Park, Y.-Y.
    (2017) Interactional uses of acknowledgment tokens: ‘ung’ and ‘e’ as responses to multi-unit turns in Korean conversation. InG. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp.145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.08oh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.08oh [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S.
    (2008) Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. InSchneider, K. P. & Barron, A. (Eds.), Variational pragmatics (pp.69–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.178.05ok
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.178.05ok [Google Scholar]
  40. Reber, E.
    (2012) Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.215
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.215 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’and other things that come between sentences. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.71–93). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Steensig, J., & Sørensen, S. S.
    (2019) Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 63–84. 10.7146/sss.v10i1.114671
     https://doi.org/10.7146/sss.v10i1.114671 [Google Scholar]
  43. Stivers, A.
    (2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Tao, H., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1991) English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic ‘interference.’Journal of Pragmatics, 16(3), 209–223. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90093‑D
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90093-D [Google Scholar]
  45. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tseng, S.-C.
    (2006) Linguistic markings of units in spontaneous Mandarin. Chinese Spoken Language Processing: 5th International Symposium, ISCSLP 2006, Singapore, December 13–16, 2006. Proceedings, 43–54. 10.1007/11939993_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/11939993_9
  47. Tseng, S.-C., & Gibbon, D.
    (2006) Discourse functions of duration in Mandarin: Resource design and implementation. Proceedings of LREC.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Walker, G.
    (2012) Phonetics and prosody in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.455–474). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch22
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, W.
    (2021) Pursuing Common Ground: Nondisaffiliative Rhetorical Questions in Mandarin Conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(4), 355–373. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1974746
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1974746 [Google Scholar]
  50. Weidner, M.
    (2016) Aha-moments in interaction: Indexing a change of state in Polish. Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 193–206. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  51. Won, H.
    (2022) Display of Listenership in Korean Conversation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
  52. Wu, R. J.
    (2004) Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.117
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.117 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wu, R.-J. & Heritage, J.
    (2017) Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. InG. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp.273–298). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.14wu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.14wu [Google Scholar]
  54. Xu, J.
    (2014) Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 741, 33–51. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016) Displaying Recipiency: Reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.6 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
Loading
Response particles in Mandarin conversation
Chinese Language and Discourse 16, 81 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): function; interactional linguistics; Mandarin conversation; prosody; response particle

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error