1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

An echo answer is an answer that repeats elements of the question. This response form occurs after yes/noquestions and “statements about B-events”. The current study is based on data from native/non-native institutional interaction, and echo answers are shown to play an important role in certain types of repair that are characteristic of such interaction. Echo answers have two main usages. The first is to appropriate a candidate formulation and integrate it into one’s own turn in progress. This often happens when native speakers attempt to assist non-native interlocutors in expressing themselves. The other is to claim a strengthened commitment to the answer. This is especially salient in cases where a minimal agreement might project a potential dispreferred response. Echo answers may occur alone or with an initial or final response word, and these different response formats are shown to index the relative epistemic authority of the interlocutors.

© 2003 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.2.04sve
2003-01-01
2025-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.2.04sve
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Clark, Herbert H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (1996) The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 366–405. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Du Bois, J. , S. Schuetze-Coburn , D. Paolino , & S. Cumming
    (1991) Discourse transcription. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Barbara.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1993) Outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards & M.D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ferrara, Kathleen
    (1994) Repetition as rejoinder in therapeutic discourse: Echoing and mirroring. In B. Johnstone (ed.), Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives (2 vols.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 66–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Firth, Alan
    (1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics26: 237–259. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(96)00014‑8
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00014-8 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fornel, M. de , & J. Léon
    (1997) Des questions-échos aux réponses-échos. Une approche séquentielle et prosodique des répétitions dans la conversation. Cahiers de Praxématique28: 101-126.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) “Footing”. InForms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 124-159.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Goodwin, M.H. , & C. Goodwin
    (1986) Gesture and coparticipation in the activitiy of searching for a word. Semiotica62.1/2: 51–75. doi: 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1‑2.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hakulinen, Auli
    (2001) Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions. Pragmatics11: 1-16.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In P. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299-345.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Heritage, J. , & G. Raymond
    (2002) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation AnalysisinCopenhagen, 17-21 May 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, J. , & D.R. Watson
    (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 123–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jefferson, Gail
    (1987) On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 86–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kurhila, Salla
    (2001) Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics33: 1083-1110. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00048‑5
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00048-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Labov, William
    (1972) The study of language in its social context. In P.P. Giglioli (ed.), Language and social context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 283–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lerner, Gene H
    (1996) Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59.4: 303–321. doi: 10.2307/2787073
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lindström, Anna
    (1999) Language as social action. Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation (diss.). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Long, Michael
    (1981) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4.2: 126-141. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.126
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126 [Google Scholar]
  20. Noh, Eun-Ju
    (2000) Metarepresentation: A relevance-theory approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.69
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.69 [Google Scholar]
  21. Pomerantz, Anita
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In P. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sacks, Harvey
    (1992) Lectures on conversation (2 vols., ed. by Gail Jefferson ). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Sadock, J. , & A. Zwicky
    (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155-196.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    (1990) On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in- interaction. In B. Dorval (ed.), Conversational organization and its development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 51–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1996) Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology104: 161-216. doi: 10.1086/230911
     https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1997) Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes23: 499-547. doi: 10.1080/01638539709545001
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schegloff, E.A. , G. Jefferson , & H. Sacks
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53.2: 361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schiffrin, Deborah
    (1993) “Speaking for another” in sociolinguistic interviews: Alignments, identities, and frames. In D. Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    (1996) On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 277–327. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Stivers, Tanya , & John Heritage
    (2001) Breaking the sequential mold: Answering “more than the question” during comprehensive history taking. Text 21.1/2: 151–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Svennevig, Jan
    (1999) Getting acquainted in conversation. A study of initial interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.64
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.64 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2001) Institutional and conversational modes of talk in bureaucratic consultations. In A. Hvenekilde & J. Nortier (eds.), Meetings at the crossroads. Oslo: Novus, pp. 106-135.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (in press) Reformulering av spørsmål i andrespråkssamtaler. [Reformulation of questions in native/non-native interaction.] In B. Nordberg (ed.) Grammatik och samtal. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (forthc.) Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance (submitted to Discourse Studies ).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Tannen, Deborah
    (1989) Talking voices. Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Wagner, Johannes
    (1996) Foreign language acquisition through interaction - A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics26: 215–235. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(96)00013‑6
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00013-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wagner, Johannes , & Alan Firth
    (1997) Communication strategies at work. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (eds.), Communication strategies. Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 323–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wong, Jean
    (2000) Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics21/1: 244-267. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.2.244
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.244 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.2.04sve
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Autership; Commitment; Native/non-native interaction; Repair; Repetition; Response words

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