Cover not available

Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 25:1 (2024) ► pp.70–99

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

Backchannels in the lab and in the wild

ORCiD logo with link | Illinois State University
 | Elon University
 | University of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzCA
Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.21036.ngu
Abstract
Backchannel choices affect conversational development. Some backchannels invite interlocutors to continue to the next part of what they are saying and others invite them to elaborate on what they have just said. We tested how communicative modality (audiovisual, audio, text), environmental setting (wholly in-lab, partially in the wild), and conversational goals (on-task, off-task) influenced backchannel usage by participants. We found that backchannel production depends on modality, setting, and goals. For example, we found that specific backchannels played a more prominent role in self-motivated dialogue. Knowledge of how backchannels are used has both theoretical and practical implications.
Article outline
  • A collaborative approach to dialogue
  • Two approaches to backchannels
    • Generic and specific backchannels
    • Horizontal and vertical backchannels
    • Overlap between generic and horizontal backchannels
  • Examples of how backchannels are used
  • Factors affecting backchannel use
    • Goals of the conversation
    • Task familiarity
    • Conversational modality
  • Current studies
  • The influence of conversation type on backchannel use
  • The Roommates Corpus
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • The IM Reciprocity Corpus
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • The Artwalk Corpus
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • The influence of modality and location on backchannel use
  • Discussion
  • General discussion
    • Limitations
    • Future directions
    • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
References (32)
References
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 271(2003), 195–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Bryant, G. A. (2010). Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 545–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge university press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive science, 13(2), 259–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Arcey, J. T., Oraby, S., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2019). Wait signals predict sarcasm in online debates. Dialogue & Discourse, 10(2), 56–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dideriksen, C., Fusaroli, R., Tylén, K., Dingemanse, M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Contextualizing conversational strategies: Backchannel, repair and linguistic alignment in spontaneous and task-oriented conversations. In A. K. Goel, C. M. Seifert, & C. Freksa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2019) (pp. 261–267). Montreal, QB: Cognitive Science Society. 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
Fox Tree, J. E. (2015). Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 64–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. & Clark, N. B. (2013). Communicative effectiveness of written versus spoken feedback. Discourse Processes, 50(5), 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E., Mayer, S. A., & Betts, T. E. (2011). Grounding in instant messaging. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(4), 455–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E., Whittaker, S., Herring, S. C., Chowdhury, Y., Nguyen, A., & Takayama, L. (2021). Psychological distance in mobile telepresence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1511, 102629. 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
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guydish, A., D’Arcey, J. T., Fox Tree, J. E. (2021). Reciprocity in conversation. Language and Speech, 64(4), 859–872. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guydish, A., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2021). Good conversations: Grounding, convergence, and richness. New Ideas in Psychology, 631. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Reciprocity in instant messaging conversations. Language and Speech, 65(2), 404–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Smith, S. W. (1998). “And people just you know like ‘wow’”: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Description and Theory, 171–201. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bates, R., Coccaro, N., Martin, R., Meteer, M., Ries, K., … & Van Ess-Dykema, C. (1997). Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding. In 1997 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Proceedings (pp. 88–95). IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knudsen, B., Creemers, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2020). Forgotten little words: How backchannels and particles may facilitate speech planning in conversation? Frontiers in Psychology, 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, H. Z. (1999). Grounding and information communication in intercultural and intracultural dyadic discourse. Discourse Processes, 28(3), 195–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, K., D’Arcey, J. T., Walker, M., & Tree, J. F. (2021). Referential Communication Between Friends and Strangers in the Wild. Dialogue & Discourse, 12(1), 45–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, K., Fox Tree, J. E., & Walker, M. A. (2016). Coordinating Communication in the Wild: The Artwalk Dialogue Corpus of Pedestrian Navigation and Mobile Referential Communication. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paatsch, L. E., & Toe, D. M. (2014). A comparison of pragmatic abilities of children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their hearing peers. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 19(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, (pp. 71–93). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Pragmatics, 701, 152–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Overhearers use addressee backchannels in dialog comprehension. Cognitive Science, 40(6), 1412–1434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolins, J., Namiranian, N., Akhtar, N., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2017). The role of addressee backchannels and conversational grounding in vicarious word learning in four-year-olds. First Language, 37(6), 648–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolins, J., Zeamer, C., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2018). Overhearing dialogues and monologues: How does entrainment lead to more comprehensible referring expressions? Discourse Processes, 55(7), 545–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In M. A. Campbell (Ed.), Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 567–578). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Clark, Thomas Hikaru, Moshe Poliak, Tamar Regev, A. J. Haskins, Caroline Robertson & Edward Gibson
2025. The Relationship Between Surprisal and Prosodic Prominence in Conversation Reflects Intelligibility‐Oriented Pressures. Cognitive Science 49:10 DOI logo
Nguyen, Allison & Jean E. Fox Tree
2025. How authority affects social evaluations of negotiation words. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. 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