Cover not available

Article published In: Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 16:1 (2025) ► pp.81–110

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Response particles in Mandarin conversation

Interplay of function and prosody

ORCiD logo with link | University of Houston
Published online: 26 April 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
Abstract
This study examines three major response particles, o/ou, en, and a in Mandarin conversation. Using the framework of interactional linguistics, this study examines the actions implemented by these particles and their associated prosodic patterns. It discovers that, while these three particles have shared functions, they show interactional nuances that allow for more fine-grained actions. It also reveals that different particles tend to have a similar prosodic design when they implement the same action. This study sheds light on the detailed workings of these particles both prosodically and interactionally in Mandarin speakers’ everyday conversation, contributing a specific case to further cross-linguistic comparison.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Prosody and function in interaction
    • 2.2Mandarin response particles
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Response particles: Functions and prosodic patterns
    • 4.1o/ou 哦/噢
    • 4.2en 嗯
    • 4.3a 啊
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • The abbreviations used in the word-by-word glossing line are as follows
  • References
References (55)
References
Aijmer, K. (1987). Oh and Ah in English conversation. In W. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond, pp. 61–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Double sayings of German JA – more observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(2), 157–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding Relevant Next Actions: The German Token achja. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 58–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., & Mandelbaum, J. (2023). The distinctive uses of right in British and American English interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 2051, 78–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). Callfriend mandarin Chinese-mainland dialect. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment.’ In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindstro¨m (Eds.), Talk in interaction–comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Pragmatics and prosody: Prosody as social action. In W. Bublitz & N. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp.491–510). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. (Eds.) (2004). Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp.1–22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deng, X. (2008). The use of listener responses in Mandarin Chinese and Australian English conversations. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 18(2), 303–328.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, K., & Hopper, R. (1993). Back channels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 157–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 131–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 147–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(3), 241–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side Sequences. In D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 171, 197–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (Vol. 1251, pp. 13–34). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasterpalu, R., & Hennoste, T. (2016). Estonian aa: A multifunctional change-of-state token. Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 148–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koivisto, A. (2015). Dealing with ambiguities in informings: Finnish aijaa as a “neutral” news receipt. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 365–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a). Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 163–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, J. (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 177–230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, J. & Walker, G. (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk, 28(6), 723–747. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mori, J. (2006). The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1175–1205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, F. E. (1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies (pp. 131–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 381, 1752–1775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y., & Park, Y.-Y. (2017). Interactional uses of acknowledgment tokens: ‘ung’ and ‘e’ as responses to multi-unit turns in Korean conversation. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In Schneider, K. P. & Barron, A. (Eds.), Variational pragmatics (pp. 69–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (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 D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steensig, J., & Sørensen, S. S. (2019). Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 63–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, A. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tao, H., & Thompson, S. A. (1991). English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic ‘interference.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 16(3), 209–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseng, S.-C. (2006). Linguistic markings of units in spontaneous Mandarin. Chinese Spoken Language Processing: 5th International Symposium, ISCSLP 2006, Singapore, December 13–16, 2006. Proceedings, 43–54.
Tseng, S.-C., & Gibbon, D. (2006). Discourse functions of duration in Mandarin: Resource design and implementation. Proceedings of LREC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, G. (2012). Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 455–474). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, W. (2021). Pursuing Common Ground: Nondisaffiliative Rhetorical Questions in Mandarin Conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(4), 355–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weidner, M. (2016). Aha-moments in interaction: Indexing a change of state in Polish. Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 193–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Won, H. (2022). Display of Listenership in Korean Conversation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Wu, R.-J. & Heritage, J. (2017). Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp. 273–298). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, J. (2014). Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 741, 33–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kazemian, Reza, Mohammad Amouzadeh & Homa Asadi
2025. The interface of prosody and pragmatics: A phono-pragmatic analysis of bebin (‘look’) in Persian. Language & Communication 104 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue