1887
image of Achieving multi-unit turns
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper provides a conversation analytical and multimodal examination of a highly ubiquitous Persian token, , in everyday Persian multi-unit tellings. Based upon corpora of daily interactions between family members and friends over phone and face-to-face, three functions of are identified: (a) can be used by the recipient to a telling as a response functioning as a continuer and acknowledgement token, passing the opportunity for speakership, prompting the next unit of telling, and acknowledging the delivered prior turn. In this function, can carry a rising or falling final pitch movement; (b) the token can also be used as a tag by the speaker of a telling to elicit recipiency and check the recipient’s understanding of the turn so far. As a tag, may or may not solicit a response. Response soliciting and non-soliciting s differ in terms of the participants’ gaze behaviour and the coparticipants’ level of engagement in the storytelling, but both types only appear with a final rise in our corpora. Finally, (c) can be used as a resumption marker, managing a return to storytelling after it is suspended with an intervening action. Interactions were recorded in Iran.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.24005.afs
2025-01-21
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beach, W. A.
    (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘causal’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 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, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  3. Betz, E. & Deppermann. A
    (2021) OKAY in responding and claiming understanding. InE. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada and M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across Languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction. (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34.03bet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.03bet [Google Scholar]
  4. Betz, E. & Golato
    (2008) Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions. The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351810701691164
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691164 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2018Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. www.praat.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Columbus, G
    (2010) A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide, (), –. 10.1075/eww.31.3.03col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.31.3.03col [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2021) Language over time: Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/il.20008.cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20008.cou [Google Scholar]
  9. De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.
    (2008), Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Drake, V.
    (2015), “Indexing uncertainty: the case of turn-final or”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), pp.–. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058606
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058606 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drake, V., Golato A., & Golato, P.
    (2021) How a Terminal Tag Can Display Epistemic Stance and Constrain Responses: The Case of Oder Nicht in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1940051
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1940051 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gardner, R
    (2001) When listeners talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ghasemi, A. A.
    (2020) Tag Questions in Persian: Investigating the Conversational Functions. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Golato, A.
    (2005) Compliments and compliment responses: grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.15 [Google Scholar]
  15. Golato, A
    (2018), Turn-initial naja in German. InM. Sorjonen & J. Heritage (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages (pp.–). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.14gol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.14gol [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodwin, C.
    (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological inquiry, (), –. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  17. (1984) Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.–). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1986) Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human studies, (), –. 10.1007/BF00148127
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  19. Harren, I.
    (2001).“Ne?”in Alltagsgesprächen-Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). University of Oldenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heim, J. M.
    (2019) Turn-peripheral management of Common Ground: A study of Swabian gell. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heinemann, T.
    (2005) Where grammar and interaction meet: the preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish. InA. Hakilinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp.–). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.18hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.18hei [Google Scholar]
  22. Helisten, M.
    (2017) Resumptions as multimodal achievements in conversational (story)tellings, Journal of Pragmatics, , pp.–. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, J.
    (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G.
    (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, (), –. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoey, E.
    (2020) Waiting to inhale: On sniffing in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1712962
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712962 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, G.
    (1972) Side sequences. InD. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp.–). New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1981) The abominable ‘ne?’: An exploration of post-response-inititiation response-solicitation. InP. Schröder, & H. Steger (Eds.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp.–). Düsseldorf: Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1984a) Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “Mm hm”. Papers in Linguistics, , –. 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1984b) Transcription notation. InAtkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.—). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2002) Is “no” an acknowledgement token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)(-) token. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00067‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00067-X [Google Scholar]
  31. Keevallik, L.
    (2010) Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351811003737697
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737697 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kendrick K, Holler J, & Levinson S.
    (2023) Turn-taking in human face-to-face interaction is multimodal: gaze direction and manual gestures aid the coordination of turn transitions. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, (), . 10.1098/rstb.2021.0473
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0473 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mandelbaum, J.
    (2012) Storytelling in conversation. InJ. Sidnell, T. & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.–). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mazeland, H. & Huiskes, M.
    (2001), Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: its use as a resumption marker. InM. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.08maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz [Google Scholar]
  35. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rossano, F.
    (2012) Gaze in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.–). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, H.
    (1992) Lectures on conversation. Vol. & . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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, (–) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1996) Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2000) Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language In Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404500001019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001019 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  44. Selting, M.
    (2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404500004012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sidnell, J.
    (2014) The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited, InN. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, J. Sidnell (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.–. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sorjonen, M. L.
    (2001) Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish 70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stivers, T.
    (2004), “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction”, Human Communication Research, (), –. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  48. (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  49. Stivers, T. & Robinson, J.
    (2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
    (2010), “Mobilizing response”, Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol., no., pp.–. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  51. Voutilainen, L. Henttonen, P., Stevanovic, M., Kahri, M., & Peräkylä, A.
    (2019) Nods, vocal continuers, and the perception of empathy in storytelling. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1498670
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1498670 [Google Scholar]
  52. Xu, J.
    (2016) Displaying recipiency: Reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.6 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24005.afs
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24005.afs
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: tag ; multimodality ; eliciting recipiency ; engagement ; resumption marker ; continuer
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