Cover not available
Article published In:
Language as Action
Edited by Maurice Nevile and Johanna Rendle-Short
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3] 2007
► pp. 33.1–33.17

A Toddler’s treatment of MM and MM HM in talk with a parent

| Australian Council for Educational Research
The study to be reported in this paper examined the work accomplished by mm and mm hm in the interactions of a parent and his daughter aged 0;10–2;0. Using the findings of Gardner (2001) for adults, the analysis shows that mm accomplished a range of functions based on its sequential placement and prosodic features, whereas mm hm was much more restricted to its use as a continuer. The principal concern of the study, however, was to investigate how the child treated these tokens in next turn position. It was found that she was able to display her acceptance or rejection of the response and that she had acquired a stock of conversational resources to do so. Included in the stock were the ability to initiate self and other repair, to correct, and to initiate a new topic to mark completion of a sequence. It is argued that through these actions the child was offering a display of her understanding of sequential connections and appropriateness of fit, and importantly what she deemed to be a sufficient response. The paper ends with a discussion of the child’s emerging knowledge as it is revealed in the minutiae of interaction.
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 January 2007
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0733
References (24)
Corrin, J.; Tarplee, C.; Wells, B. 2001. ‘Interactional linguistics and language development: A conversation analytic perspective on emergent syntax’. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Selting, M.; Couper-Kuhlen, E.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diaz, R. M. 1986. ‘The union of thought and language in children’s private speech’. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 8 (3): 90–97.Google Scholar
Döpke, S. 1992. One Parent One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. 2005. ‘Is confusion a state of mind?’ In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H. T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipi, A. 2001. ‘The Organization of Pointing Sequences in Parent-Toddler Interaction’. PhD thesis, Clayton,Vic: Monash University.Google Scholar
2003. ‘Failure of the parent to respond to a child’s action: A violation or an interactional display?’ Monash University Linguistics Papers 3 (1): 27–38.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. 2001. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C.; Goodwin, M. 2006. ‘Participation’. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Duranti, A. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jones, S.; Zimmerman, D. 2003. ‘A child’s point and the achievement of intentionality’. Gesture 31: 155–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. 2005. ‘Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate “The Look” from a “Mere Look” by their adult caregivers’. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (4): 417–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molder, H. T.; Potter, J., editors. 2005. Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.; Schegloff, E. A.; Thopmson, S.A., editors. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 2005. ‘Using participants’ video-stimulated comments to complement analyses of interactional practices’. In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, R. E. 2005. ‘Validating “observations” in discourse studies: A methodological reason for attention to cognition’. In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, N. C.; Maynard, M.W. 2005. ‘From paradigm to prototype and back again: Interactive aspects of “cognitive processing” in standardized survey interviews’. In Conversation and Cognition, edited by Molder, H.T.; Potter, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992. ‘Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’. American Journal of Sociology 971: 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.; Jefferson, G.; Sacks, H. 1977. ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language 531: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarplee, C. 1993. ‘Working on Talk: The Collaborative Shaping of Linguistic Skills Within Child-Adult Interaction’. PhD thesis, York: University of York.Google Scholar
1996. ‘Working on young children’s utterances: Prosodic aspects of repetition during picture labelling’. In Prosody in Conversation. edited by Couper-Kuhlen, E.; Selting, M.; Couper-Kuhlen, E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language. Boston: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, A. J. 1991. ‘Obtaining an object from a young child: The social organization of a set of practices’. Sociological Studies of Child Development 41: 155–179.Google Scholar
1994. ‘Object transfer and repair’. Journal of Child Language 211: 543–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Bui, Thi Minh Thu & Anna Filipi
2024. Children’s agency as a relational concept in bilingual family language practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Filipi, Anna & Mu-Sen Kevin Chuang
2023. Chinese whispers: international Chinese students’ language practices in an anglophone Higher Education context. Classroom Discourse 14:3 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo
Filipi, Anna, Amanda Berry & Minh Hue Nguyen
2022. Students’ unsolicited initiations in a science classroom as displays of competence. Linguistics and Education 72 ► pp. 101124 ff. DOI logo
Thanh Ta, Binh
2021. A conversation analytical study of story-openings in advice-giving episodes in doctoral research supervision meetings. Discourse Studies 23:2 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Keel, Sara
2015. Young children's embodied pursuits of a response to their initial assessments. Journal of Pragmatics 75 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Filipi, Anna
2014. Conversation Analysis and pragmatic development. In Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 10], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Filipi, Anna
2018. Making Knowing Visible: Tracking the Development of the Response Token Yes in Second Turn Position. In Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Doluca, Hasan & HHseyin Doluca
2012. Bank Performance and the Solow Paradox. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
Forrester, Michael A.
2012. Conversation Analysis and Child Language Acquisition. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, DOI logo
Gardner, Rod
2012. Conversation Analysis and Recipient Behavior. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, DOI logo
Danby, Susan, Lynette Ewing & Karen Thorpe
2011. The Novice Researcher: Interviewing Young Children. Qualitative Inquiry 17:1 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 295], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 october 2024. 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.