Article published In: Language as Action
Edited by Maurice Nevile and Johanna Rendle-Short
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3] 2007
► pp. 33.1–33.17
A Toddler’s treatment of MM and MMHM in talk with a parent
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 1 January 2007
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0733
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0733
The study to be reported in this paper examined the work accomplished by mm and mm hm 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 mm accomplished a range of functions based on its sequential placement and prosodic features, whereas mm hm 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.
References (24)
Corrin, J.; Tarplee, C.; Wells, B. 2001. ‘Interactional linguistics and language development: A conversation analytic perspective on emergent syntax’. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Selting, M.; Couper-Kuhlen, E.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diaz, R. M. 1986. ‘The union of thought and language in children’s private speech’. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 8 (3): 90–97.
Döpke, S. 1992. One Parent One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Drew, P. 2005. ‘Is confusion a state of mind?’ In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H. T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Filipi, A. 2001. ‘The Organization of Pointing Sequences in Parent-Toddler Interaction’. PhD thesis, Clayton,Vic: Monash University.
2003. ‘Failure of the parent to respond to a child’s action: A violation or an interactional display?’ Monash University Linguistics Papers 3 (1): 27–38.
Gardner, R. 2001. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C.; Goodwin, M. 2006. ‘Participation’. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Duranti, A. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jones, S.; Zimmerman, D. 2003. ‘A child’s point and the achievement of intentionality’. Gesture 31: 155–185.
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 Interaction 38 (4): 417–449.
Molder, H. T.; Potter, J., editors. 2005. Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E.; Schegloff, E. A.; Thopmson, S.A., editors. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. 2005. ‘Using participants’ video-stimulated comments to complement analyses of interactional practices’. In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanders, R. E. 2005. ‘Validating “observations” in discourse studies: A methodological reason for attention to cognition’. In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaeffer, N. C.; Maynard, M.W. 2005. ‘From paradigm to prototype and back again: Interactive aspects of “cognitive processing” in standardized survey interviews’. In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. 1992. ‘Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’. American Journal of Sociology 971: 1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. A.; Jefferson, G.; Sacks, H. 1977. ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language 531: 361–382.
Tarplee, C. 1993. ‘Working on Talk: The Collaborative Shaping of Linguistic Skills Within Child-Adult Interaction’. PhD thesis, York: University of York.
1996. ‘Working on young children’s utterances: Prosodic aspects of repetition during picture labelling’. In Prosody in Conversation. edited by Couper-Kuhlen, E.; Selting, M.; Couper-Kuhlen, E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (13)
Cited by 13 other publications
Bui, Thi Minh Thu & Anna Filipi
Filipi, Anna & Mu-Sen Kevin Chuang
Filipi, Anna, Amanda Berry & Minh Hue Nguyen
Thanh Ta, Binh
Keel, Sara
Filipi, Anna
2014. Conversation Analysis and pragmatic development. In Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 10], ► pp. 71 ff.
Filipi, Anna
Filipi, Anna
Forrester, Michael A.
Gardner, Rod
Danby, Susan, Lynette Ewing & Karen Thorpe
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.