Language as Action
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139


The study to be reported in this paper examined the work accomplished by and in the interactions of a parent and his daughter aged 0;10–2;0. Using the findings of Gardner (2001) for adults, the analysis shows that accomplished a range of functions based on its sequential placement and prosodic features, whereas was much more restricted to its use as a continuer. The principal concern of the study, however, was to investigate how the child treated these tokens in next turn position. It was found that she was able to display her acceptance or rejection of the response and that she had acquired a stock of conversational resources to do so. Included in the stock were the ability to initiate self and other repair, to correct, and to initiate a new topic to mark completion of a sequence. It is argued that through these actions the child was offering a display of her understanding of sequential connections and appropriateness of fit, and importantly what she deemed to be a sufficient response. The paper ends with a discussion of the child’s emerging knowledge as it is revealed in the minutiae of interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Corrin, J. ; Tarplee, C. ; Wells, B.
    2001 ‘Interactional linguistics and language development: A conversation analytic perspective on emergent syntax’. InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Selting, M. ; Couper-Kuhlen, E. . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.10cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.10cor [Google Scholar]
  2. Diaz, R. M.
    1986 ‘The union of thought and language in children’s private speech’. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition8 (3): 90–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Döpke, S.
    1992One Parent One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Drew, P.
    2005 ‘Is confusion a state of mind?’ InConversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H. T. ; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Filipi, A.
    2001 ‘The Organization of Pointing Sequences in Parent-Toddler Interaction’. PhD thesis, Clayton,Vic: Monash University.
  6. 2003 ‘Failure of the parent to respond to a child’s action: A violation or an interactional display?’ Monash University Linguistics Papers3 (1): 27–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gardner, R.
    2001When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: Philadelphia, John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goffman, E.
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goodwin, C. ; Goodwin, M.
    2006 ‘Participation’. InA Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Duranti, A. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones, S. ; Zimmerman, D.
    2003 ‘A child’s point and the achievement of intentionality’. Gesture3: 155–185. doi: 10.1075/gest.3.2.03jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.2.03jon [Google Scholar]
  11. Kidwell, M.
    2005 ‘Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate “The Look” from a “Mere Look” by their adult caregivers’. Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (4): 417–449. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Molder, H. T. ; Potter, J.
    editors 2005Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ochs, E. ; Schegloff, E. A. ; Thopmson, S.A.
    editors 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  14. Pomerantz, A.
    2005 ‘Using participants’ video-stimulated comments to complement analyses of interactional practices’. InConversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T. ; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Sanders, R. E.
    2005 ‘Validating “observations” in discourse studies: A methodological reason for attention to cognition’. InConversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T. ; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Schaeffer, N. C. ; Maynard, M.W.
    2005 ‘From paradigm to prototype and back again: Interactive aspects of “cognitive processing” in standardized survey interviews’. InConversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T. ; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Schegloff, E. A.
    1992 ‘Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’. American Journal of Sociology97: 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  18. Schegloff, E. A. ; Jefferson, G. ; Sacks, H.
    1977 ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language53: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  19. Tarplee, C.
    1993 ‘Working on Talk: The Collaborative Shaping of Linguistic Skills Within Child-Adult Interaction’. PhD thesis, York: University of York.
  20. 1996 ‘Working on young children’s utterances: Prosodic aspects of repetition during picture labelling’. InProsody in Conversation. edited by Couper-Kuhlen, E. ; Selting, M. ; Couper-Kuhlen, E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Vygotsky, L. S.
    1962Thought and Language. Boston: MIT Press. doi: 10.1037/11193‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 [Google Scholar]
  22. Wootton, A. J.
    1991 ‘Obtaining an object from a young child: The social organization of a set of practices’. Sociological Studies of Child Development4: 155–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1994 ‘Object transfer and repair’. Journal of Child Language21: 543–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519895 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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