Responding in Conversation

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena

doi:10.1075/pbns.70

Cited by 286 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Extract 3, there were no overt displays of stance (and, consequently, no counselor nodding) but the beginning of the student's answer was more accommodating to the counselor assuming the listening posture. Also in Extract 3, the writing initial nod was produced in conjunction with the verbally produced response particle joo, which, in general, responds to the factual content of the previous utterance to be understood (Sorjonen 2001). It seems that the nodding during an answer preface seems to be related to displaying affiliation (Stivers 2008), whereas the writing initial nod, the movement into writing and the subsequent writing of the notes, is related to the factual content of the answer containing a noteworthy item that answers the initial question.…”

Section: Nodding Before Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nodding and note-taking

Svinhufvud

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper studies the activity of note-taking in interactions between a university student counselor and an undergraduate student. The study is based on authentic videotaped discussions recorded in a Finnish university. The study concentrates on sequences consisting of a question, an answer, and the taking of notes. The aim of the paper is to present a detailed multimodal analysis on how the note-taker moves from not writing to writing and how nodding is used in both receiving the answer and indicating the transition from listening to taking down notes. Listening and note-taking are seen as a dual involvement depending partially on the same embodied resources, especially the gaze and bodily orientation. The shift from listening to note-taking often is indicated with a pronounced writing initial nod.

show abstract

Section: Nodding Before Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nodding and note-taking

Svinhufvud

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Linguistics has concentrated on the "word" end of this continuum; but more recent work on iconicity, multimodality, and-within conversation analysis-on pragmatic particles (Heritage, 1984;Sorjonen, 2001), has led many linguists to question this distinction. Articles in this special issue show examples of phenomena along this continuum, from the more somatic sniffs analyzed by Hoey to the more word-like Finnish interjection huh-huh (Pehkonen, 2020/this issue).…”

Section: Phonetic Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sounds on the Margins of Language at the Heart of Interaction

Keevallik

Ogden

2020

Research on Language and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What do people do with sniffs, lip-smacks, grunts, moans, sighs, whistles, and clicks, where these are not part of their language's phonetic inventory? They use them, we shall show, as irreplaceable elements in performing all kinds of actions-from managing the structural flow of interaction to indexing states of mind and much more besides. In this introductory essay we outline the phonetic and embodied interactional underpinnings of language and argue that greater attention should be paid to its nonlexical elements. Data are in English and Estonian. Sounds in interaction In spoken and embodied interaction, participants may produce sounds that are not words in the traditional sense but that nonetheless are treated by participants as meaningful. Examples from English in regular orthography include ugh, mmm, argh!, pfft!, brrr (used in English to mark "cold"), and phew. There are many others that cannot be written orthographically, such as clicks, sniffs, or sighs, or items that are made up ad hoc-singular items (Enfield, 2009) whose meaning has to be deduced from the occasion of use. Although items like these are embedded within a linguistic context, linguists do not normally think of them as linguistic objects: They do not belong to a major syntactic category, they may not conform to the phonological requirements of the language, and the relationship between their form and meaning might not be arbitrary, which to a large extent has been considered the sine qua non of linguistic forms (see, however, Dingemanse, 2018). These sounds are therefore at the boundary of language and paralanguage, or nonlanguage. An early sociological account for the use of sounds beyond the lexicon in English was authored by Goffman (1981), who called a group of them response cries and provided impressionistic accounts for their use. Interaction researchers (most notably Gardner, 2002; Goodwin, Goodwin, & Olsher, 2002; Wiggins, 2013) have over the years treated a variety of single examples of sounds with great precision in their embodied context. These results are scattered, not always precise in their phonetic/prosodic detail, and mostly deal with English. Building on the pioneering work on the phonetics of talk-ininteraction (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 1996; Local & Kelly, 1986) as well as the welldocumented embodied turn in interaction research (Nevile, 2015), authors of this special issue take a closer look at a variety of human sounds in natural interaction, aiming to reveal their social organization from a participant perspective.

show abstract

“…Terveydenhoitajan käyttämä partikkeli nii (r. 4) on ns. jatkaja (continuer), jolla hän osoittaa odottavansa puhekumppanilta lisää puhetta (Sorjonen 2001). Potilas toistaa kielteisen vastauksensa (r. 6), mutta lisää siihen nyt sanan kyllä.…”

Section: Vastakkainen Sanajärjestys (Suom Ei/en + Kyl(lä); Vir Küllunclassified

Suomen ja viron kyl(lä)/küll ja kieltolauseen sanajärjestys

Hakulinen¹,

Keevallik²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding in Conversation

Cited by 286 publications

References 0 publications

Nodding and note-taking

Nodding and note-taking

Sounds on the Margins of Language at the Heart of Interaction

Suomen ja viron kyl(lä)/küll ja kieltolauseen sanajärjestys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About