Cover not available

Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 2:1 (2022) ► pp.42–78

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

Responses within activities

Alignment via Egyptian Arabic ʔāh ‘yeah’ in extended turns

ORCiD logo with link | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Published online: 13 December 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21003.mar
Abstract
Large conversational activities (e.g., storytelling) necessitate a suspension of ordinary turn-taking rules. In the resulting constellation of main speaker and recipient, minimal displays of cooperative recipiency become relevant at particular junctures. We investigate this mechanism by focusing on the Egyptian Arabic particle ʔāh ‘yeah’ when thus used. We observe that tokens of ʔāh are mobilized by main speakers via the opening of prosodic slots at local pragmatic completion points. The prosodic design of the particle at these points is sensitive to prior talk and displays recipients’ alignment at the structural, action-sequential, and relational levels. This is done through variation of three prosodic features, namely, rhythm-based timing, pitch configuration, and prominence. The measure of alignment proposed by ʔāh is implicative for the continuation of the turn. While smooth progression suggests that ʔāh is understood to be sufficiently fitted and aligned, expansions are traceable to a departure from the terms set by prior talk, which can be heard to indicate lesser alignment. We propose to view ʔāh response tokens as a subset of positionally sensitive responses to part-of-activity actions that are crucial for the co-accomplishment of a large activity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Extended turns
    • 2.2Response tokens
    • 2.3Arabic ʔāh
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Analytical approach
    • 3.3Prosodic and phonetic analysis
      • 3.3.1Pitch configuration
      • 3.3.2Rhythm-based timing
      • 3.3.3Prominence
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Smooth progressivity sequences
      • 4.1.1Progression-implicative rising ʔāh
      • 4.1.2Progression-implicative falling ʔāh
    • 4.2Disrupted progressivity sequences
      • 4.2.1Expansion-implicative ʔāh tokens
      • 4.2.2Overt elicitation of recipiency
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Dirven, R. (2011). Typology of If-clauses. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Müller, F. (1999). Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction (Vol. 77, Issue 1). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badawi, E. S., & Hinds, M. (1986). A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic: Arabic-English. Librairie du Liban.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2009). When to say something – Some observations on prosodic-phonetic cues to the placement and types of responses in multi-unit turns. Studies in Pragmatics, 81, 143–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Response tokens in interaction : prosody, phonetics and a visual aspect of German “jaja.” Gesprächsforschung–Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 12(12), 301–370.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Intonation Units Revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction (Vol. 291). John Benjamins Publishing Company. [URL].
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (6.1.10). [URL]
Canavan, A., Graff, D., & Zipperlen, G. (1997). Callhome egyptian arabic speech. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2. English Translation and Adaptation of Selting, Margret et al. (2009): Gesprachsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993). Some Uses of Yeah. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 203–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 285–312). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gadalla, H., Kilany, H., Arram, H., Yacoub, A., ElHabashi, A., Shalaby, A., Karins, K., Rowson, E., MacIntyre, R., Kingsbury, P., Graff, D. & McLemore, C. (1997). Callhome Egyptian Arabic Transcripts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.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
(2001). When listeners talk. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 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 and 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
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 University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21–47). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (Issue November). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtkoop, H. & Mazeland, H. (1985). Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(5), 595–620. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on the systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “hm mm”’. Papers in Linguistics, 1(7), 197–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). List construction as a task and resource. In G. Pasthas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 63–92). University Press of America.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In L. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.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 University Press. 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 (pp. 131–176). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (Issue 34, pp. 45–87). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer : An information seeking strategy. Communications Monographs, 55(4), 360–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. [URL].
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Lectures on conversation, Volumes I and II. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (Issue January, pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers. 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
(1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 111–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 367–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29(4), 477–517. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sørensen, S. S. (2021). Affiliating in Second Position : Response Tokens with Rising Pitch in Danish. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 00(00), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772–2781. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2020). Reconceptualizing mirroring: Sound imitation and rapport in naturally occurring interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 1671, 131–151. 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. In Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woidich, M. (2006). Das Kairenisch-Arabische: Eine Grammatik. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Marmorstein, Michal & Leon Shor
2025. Orienting to knowledge as remarkable: The newsmark be'emet (‘in-truth’) in Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 238 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Dingemanse, Mark
2024. Interjections at the Heart of Language. Annual Review of Linguistics 10:1 ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Marmorstein, Michal
2023. Waḷḷāhi (‘by God’) as a marker of commitment and involvement in Egyptian Arabic conversation. Lingua 294 ► pp. 103582 ff. DOI logo
Marmorstein, Michal
2024. Request for confirmation sequences in Egyptian Arabic. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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