Cover not available

In:New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 49–72

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

Ordering a series of turn-initial particles

An extreme case analysis

Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 26 August 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.36.02maz
Abstract
The paper is an attempt to describe the principles behind the ordering of a series of four different particles – hee ‘hey’, ja ‘yes’, eh ‘eh’, and nou ‘now’/’well’ – in the beginning of a sequence-initiating turn in which the speaker launches a new activity framework. A surprising result of the analysis is that it shows that the speaker lays the groundwork for a new activity framework in a turn-initial trajectory that indexes the turn’s position within the overall-structural organization of the talk both at the local level of the organization of subsequent sequences and at the global level of the organization of activities. The positioning of each particle in the series locates the order of organization by reference to which it operates. The study’s methodology – using multiple collection studies to establish the orientations that are at work – is an attempt to find an appropriate heuristic for developing an empirically plausible analysis of a complex configuration of single-case phenomena.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A few remarks on earlier research, concepts, and method
    • 2.1Some theoretical background
    • 2.2Turn-initial position and turn-constructional units
    • 2.3Topic, activity framework, and overall structural organization
    • 2.4Data and method
  • 3.The four particles
    • 3.1The first particle in the series: hee ‘hey’
    • 3.2The last particle in the series: nou ‘now’
    • 3.3The second particle in the series: ja ‘yes’
    • 3.4The third particle in the series: eh ‘uh’
  • 4.To conclude
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Auer, Peter. 1996. “The Pre-front Field in Spoken German and Its Relevance as a Grammaticalization Position.” Pragmatics 6, 3: 295–322.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “On-line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “Undh (ähm) ja.” In Prosodie und Multimodalität / Prosody and Multimodality. Empirische Beiträge der Interaktionalen Linguistik, ed. by Maxi Kupetz and Friederike Kern, 91–118. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Betz, Emma. 2017. “Diskursmarker aus konversationsanalytischer Sicht: Prosodisch integriertes ja am Beginn von responsiven Turns.” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen, ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 183–206. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 290–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2004. “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “OH + OKAY in Informing Sequences: On Fuzzy Boundaries in a Particle Combination.” Open Linguistics 2021, 7: 816–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz. 2015. “Introduction.” In Gail Jefferson, Talking about Troubles in Conversation, ed. by Paul Drew, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz, 1–26. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englert, Christina. 2010. “Questions and Responses in Dutch Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42, 10: 2666–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flick, Uwe. 1998. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. “‘Die Sache ist …’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 39–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2013. “Turn-initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 331–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.). 2018. Between Turn and Sequence. Turn-initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam / NY: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtkoop, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland. 1985. “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “On a Failed Hypothesis: Conjunctionals as Overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28.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 17: 198–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “On the ‘Semi-permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 2009. “Projecting nonalignment in conversation.” In Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 135–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2006. “Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39, 1: 81–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, John, Paul Drew, and Peter Auer. 2010. “Retrieving, Redoing, and Resuscitating Turns in Conversation.” In Prosody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 131–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 1990. “‘Yes’, ‘no’, ‘mhm’: Variations in Acknowledgment Choices.” In Les formes de la conversation, Vol. 1, ed. by Bernard Conein, Michel de Fornel, and Louis Quéré, 251–282. Issy les Moulineaux: Reseaux. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Inleiding in de conversatieanalyse. Bussum: CoutinhoGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “The Positionally Sensitive Workings of the Dutch Particle nou.” In NU/NÅ. A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Language of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 377–408. Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “Activities as Discrete Organizational Domains.” In Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings, ed. by Elisabeth Reber, and Cornelia Gerhardt, 29–61. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. “Mid-turn ja (yes) as a Repair Preface.” Paper presented at the AWIA symposium, Amsterdam, October 2022.
Mazeland, Harrie, and Leendert Plug. 2010. “Doing Confirmation with ja/nee hoor. Sequential and Prosodic Characteristics of a Dutch Discourse Particle.” In Prosody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 161–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raclaw, Joshua. 2013. Indexing Inferables and Organizational Shifts: ‘No’-Prefaces in English Conversation. PhD dissertation University Colorado
Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2013. “Overall Structural Organization.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 257–280. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Volume I/II. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation.” In Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 261–299. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1990. “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-interaction.” In Conversational Organization and Its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. “Interaction: The Infrastructure for Social Institutions, the Natural Ecological Niche for Language, and the Arena in Which Culture is Enacted.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 71–96. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. “Some other ‘Uh(m)’s.” Discourse Processes 47: 130–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 7: 289–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” Pragmatics 6, 3: 371–388.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 2001. Sprog i virkeligheden. Bidrag til en interaktionel lingvistik. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. “Alternative Recognitionals in Person Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hamann, Magnus, Sam N. Thrower, Elizabeth Stokoe & Chris G. Harwood
2025. What determines (in)effective post-competition parent-child interactions in British Tennis? A conversation analysis of car journeys home. Psychology of Sport and Exercise ► pp. 102840 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 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