Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232



This paper demonstrates how the tools of Interactional Linguistics can be applied to the study of change in language use. It examines the particle OKAY as used in everyday American English interaction at two different points in time, the 1960s and the 1990s/early 2000s. The focus is on the remarkable increase of OKAY as a response in epistemically driven sequences. Three uses of epistemic OKAY are identified in the newer data, one of which is unattested in the older data: OKAY in response to information that has no implications for the recipient’s agenda or expressed beliefs. This novel use of OKAY appears in the newer data where OH would have occurred earlier, although OH is still attested with displays of affect such as surprise and empathy. The study concludes by arguing for an examination of ‘possibility spaces’, the set of options for filling a given sequential slot in conversational structure, at different points in time as a means for identifying changes in language use.

This work is currently available as a sample.This work was made publicly available by the publisher.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Beach, W. A.
    (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2020) Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 151–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  3. Betz, E. , A. Deppermann , L. Mondada , & M.-L. Sorjonen
    Eds. (In press) OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clayman, S. and J. Heritage
    (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2009) A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. In M. Haakana , M. Laakso and J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in Interaction. Comparative dimensions (pp.94–123). Helsinki, Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  7. (In press-a). The prosody and phonetics of OKAY in American English. In E. Betz , A. Deppermann , L. Mondada & M.-L. Sorjonen Eds. OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34.05cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.05cou [Google Scholar]
  8. (In press-b). OH+OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics. Special issue “Weak cesuras: What fuzzy boundaries can accomplish in talk-in-interaction”, D. Barth-Weingarten & R. Ogden Eds.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & D. Barth-Weingarten
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, M. et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 12, 1–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting
    (Eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, P.
    (2012) What drives sequences?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 61–68. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646688
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646688 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gardner, R.
    (2007) The ‘Right ‘connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 36, 319–341. 10.1017/S0047404507070169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070169 [Google Scholar]
  13. Guthrie, A. M.
    (1997) On the systematic deployment of OKAY and MMHMM in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415. 10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.299–345). Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers , L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp.159–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  18. Koivisto, A.
    (2015) Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token ‘aa’. Discourse Processes, 52(2), 111–148. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.914357
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.914357 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lerner, G. H.
    Ed. (2004) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125 [Google Scholar]
  20. Maynard, D.
    (1997) The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 93-130.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Metcalf, A.
    (2010) OK: The improbable story of America’s greatest word. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ochs, E. , E. A. Schegloff , & S. A. Thompson
    (Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pekarek Doehler, S. , J. Wagner , & E. González-Martinez
    (Eds.) (2018) Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑57007‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Robinson, J. D.
    (2009) Managing counterinformings: An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers’ incompatible positions. Human Communication Research, 35, 561–587. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2009.01363.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01363.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Sacks, H.
    (1992) Lectures on conversation, Volumes I & II. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sacks, H. , E. Schegloff , & G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schegloff, E.
    (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In: D. Tannen , Ed., Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1988) Presequences and indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90019‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schegloff, E. A. & H. Sacks
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  31. Selting, M., P. Auer, D. Barth-Weingarten,
    (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 10: 353–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stevanovic, M. & A. Peräkylä
    (2012) Deontic authority in interaction. The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  33. Stivers, T.
    (2018) How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214 [Google Scholar]
  34. Terasaki, A. K.
    (2004) Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In: G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.171–223). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.11ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.11ter [Google Scholar]
  35. Thompson, S. A. , B. Fox , & E. Couper-Kuhlen
    (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): correction; epistemics; informing; longitudinal; OKAY; response
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