Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:34:16.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indexing one's own previous action as inadequate: On ah-prefaced repeats as receipt tokens in French talk-in-interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Rasmus Persson
Rasmus Persson*
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United [email protected] French Studies, Centre for Languages and Literature Lund University, P.O. Box 201, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers a practice in French talk-in-interaction, formally characterized as other-repeats prefaced by the change-of-state particle ah. The target practice accomplishes a claim of receipt, while at the same time indexing as somehow inadequate a previous turn by the receipt speaker. Evidence drawn upon includes: (i) the sequential locations of the examined phenomenon; (ii) ensuing developments of the sequence, wherein the indexed inadequacy is more explicitly acknowledged; and (iii) the discriminability of the focal practice with respect to alternative practices. Two phonetically distinguished variants of the practice, and their respective sequential projections (‘problematizing’ topicalization or ‘accepting’ closure), are discussed. This article contributes to the study of how intersubjectivity is managed and administered by participants, and to research on the management of accountability for producing ‘adequate’ turns and actions. Finally, it addresses ongoing discussions concerning the analysis of multiple actions (first- and second-order) conveyed simultaneously in single turns. (French, talk-in-interaction, repetition, receipts, particles, indexicality, intersubjectivity, prosody, phonetics)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , September 2015 , pp. 497 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar (2011). Response tokens in interaction: Prosody, phonetics and a visual aspect of German JAJA. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12:301–70. Online: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de.Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ ‘Okay’ usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19(4):325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor, & Walker, Traci (2013). Managing problems of acceptability through high rise-fall repetitions. Discourse Processes 50(2):107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Roxane; Ader, Morgane; Blache, Philippe; Ferré, Gaëlle; Espesser, Robert; & Rauzy, Stéphane (2009). Représentation, édition et exploitation de données multimodales: Le cas des backchannels du corpus CID. Cahiers de linguistique française 33(2):183–212.Google Scholar
Betz, Emma, & Golato, Andrea (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token achja. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41(1):58–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs 76(2):121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. M. (1957). Interrogative structures in American English. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M.; Thompson, Sandra A.; Suzuki, Ryoko; & Tao, Hongyin (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26(3):355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosnier, Jacques, & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (eds.) (1987). Décrire la conversation. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 366–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Selting, Margret (eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S. (2002). The phonetics of sequence organization: An investigation of lexical repetition in other-initiated repair sequences in American English. Boulder: University of Colorado dissertation.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (2003). Precision and exaggeration in interaction. American Sociological Review 68(6):917–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Kent, & Hopper, Robert (1993). Back channels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language & Social Interaction 26(2):157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Starkey, & Fiske, Donald W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edlund, Jens, & Heldner, Mattias (2005). Exploring prosody in interaction control. Phonetica 62(2–4):215–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, Rod (1997). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language & Social Interaction 30(2):131–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod (1998). Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics 19(2):204–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2012). German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(3):245–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea, & Fagyal, Zsuzsanna (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):241–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Jo Ann (1975). A system for the transfer of instructions in natural settings. Semiotica 14(3):269–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 9(2–3):205–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., & Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, John Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3):291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2011). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, David (ed.), Qualitative research: Issues of theory, method and practice, 208–30. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, Jan P. (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, David (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 294–338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics 17(2):197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In Button, Graham & Lee, John R. E. (eds.), Talk and social organisation, 86–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language & Social Interaction 26(1):1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia (2013). Repair. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 229–56. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koiso, Hanae; Horiuchi, Yasuo; Tutiya, Syun, Ichikawa, Akira; & Den, Yasuharu (1998). An analysis of turn-taking and backchannels based on prosodic and syntactic features in Japanese map task dialogs. Language and Speech 41(3–4):295–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koivisto, Aino (2013). On the preference for remembering: Acknowledging an answer with Finnish ai nii(n) (‘oh that's right’). Research on Language & Social Interaction 46(3):277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino (2015). Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token aa. Discourse Processes 52(2):111–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laforest, Marty (1992). L'influence de la loquacité de l'informateur sur la production de signaux backchannel par l'intervieweur en situation d'entrevue sociolinguistique. Language Variation and Change 4(2):163–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laforest, Marty (2006). Les manifestations vocales de l’écoute et leur place dans la conversation. In Drescher, Martina (ed.), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes: Approches théoriques et méthodologiques, 55–69. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 225–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–30. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Local, John (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 177–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, John, & Walker, Gareth (2005). Methodological imperatives for investigating the phonetic organization and phonological structures of spontaneous speech. Phonetica 62(2–4):120–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Local, John, & Walker, Gareth (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42(3):255–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction 30(2):93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie (1990). ‘Yes’, ‘no’ and ‘mhm’: Variations in acknowledgment choices. In Conein, Bernard, de Fornel, Michel, & Quéré, Louis (eds.), Les formes de la conversation, 251–82. Special issue of Réseaux. Issy-les-Moulineaux: CNET.Google Scholar
Müller, Frank E. (1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 131–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. (1987). Functions of repetition in conversation. Text 7(3):245–64.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2012). Making sense of outliers. Phonetica 69:48–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogden, Richard; Hakulinen, Auli; & Tainio, Liisa (2004). Indexing ‘no news’ with stylization in Finnish. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Ford, Cecilia E. (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation, 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Rasmus (2014). Ressources linguistiques pour la gestion de l'intersubjectivité dans la parole en interaction: Analyses conversationnelles et phonétiques. Lund: Centre for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2009). Managing counterinformings: An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers’ incompatible positions. Human Communication Research 35(4):561–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding, 261–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., & Kevoe-Feldman, Heidi (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43(3):232–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1995). Lectures on conversation, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97(5):1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction 26(1):99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102(1):161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3):499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 231–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (2010). Prosody in interaction: State of the art. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in interaction, 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, & Stivers, Tanya (eds.) (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McHardy, & Coulthard, Malcolm (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001a). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001b). Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 405–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2004). ‘No no no’ and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30(2):260–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan (2003). Echo answers in native/non-native interaction. Pragmatics 13(2):285–309.Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan (2004). Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies 6(4):489–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2):333–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1987). Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 63(3):574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Gareth (2013). Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 455–74. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ward, Nigel, & Tsukahara, Wataru (2000). Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 32(8):1177–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina (2006). Initiating repair and beyond: The use of two repeat-formatted repair initiations in Mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes 41(1):67–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yngve, Victor (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In Campbell, Mary Ann (ed.), Papers from the 6th regional meeting, 567–77. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. (1993). Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language & Social Interaction 26(2):179–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar