Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.33–63

Language over time

Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English

ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
This paper demonstrates how the tools of Interactional Linguistics can be applied to the study of change in language use. It examines the particle OKAY as used in everyday American English interaction at two different points in time, the 1960s and the 1990s/early 2000s. The focus is on the remarkable increase of OKAY as a response in epistemically driven sequences. Three uses of epistemic OKAY are identified in the newer data, one of which is unattested in the older data: OKAY in response to information that has no implications for the recipient’s agenda or expressed beliefs. This novel use of OKAY appears in the newer data where OH would have occurred earlier, although OH is still attested with displays of affect such as surprise and empathy. The study concludes by arguing for an examination of ‘possibility spaces’, the set of options for filling a given sequential slot in conversational structure, at different points in time as a means for identifying changes in language use.
Keywords: OKAY, epistemics, response, informing, correction, longitudinal
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The present study: Conception and development
    • 1.2Uses of OKAY in the older and newer data
      • 1.2.1OKAY in the older data
        • OKAY in the second position of a deontic sequence
        • OKAY in the third position of a deontic sequence
        • OKAY as a marker of transition to a new topic or activity
        • OKAY in pre-closings
        • OKAY in the second position of an epistemic sequence
        • OKAY in the third position of an epistemic sequence
        • OKAY as a tag
      • 1.2.2OKAY in the newer data
        • OKAY as a continuer
  • 2.The rise of epistemic OKAY
    • 2.1Epistemic sequences in the older data
    • 2.2Epistemic OKAY in the newer data
      • 2.2.1Consequential OKAY
      • 2.2.2Revised-understanding OKAY
      • 2.2.3Non-consequential OKAY
    • 2.3Factors contributing to the rise of epistemic OKAY
  • 3.Discussion
    • 3.1Consequential and corrective informings in the older data
    • 3.2OH as a news receipt in the newer data
    • 3.3Possibility spaces in informing and counter-informing sequences
  • 4.Conclusion: Interactional Linguistics and language over time
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 16 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20008.cou
References
Beach, W. A.
(1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1691, 151–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, E., A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen
Eds. (In press) OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. and J. Heritage
(2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2009) A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso and J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in Interaction. Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Helsinki, Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
(2014) What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
In press-a). The prosody and phonetics of OKAY in American English. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada & M.-L. Sorjonen Eds. OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction Amsterdam John Benjamins DOI logo
In press-b). OH+OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics. Special issue “Weak cesuras: What fuzzy boundaries can accomplish in talk-in-interaction”, D. Barth-Weingarten & R. Ogden Eds.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & D. Barth-Weingarten
(2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, M. et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 121, 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting
(Eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.
(2012) What drives sequences? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 61–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R.
(2007) The ‘Right ‘connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 361, 319–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, A. M.
(1997) On the systematic deployment of OKAY and MMHMM in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 71, 397–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, A.
(2015) Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token ‘aa’. Discourse Processes, 52(2), 111–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
Ed. (2004) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D.
(1997) The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 301, 93-130.Google Scholar
Metcalf, A.
(2010) OK: The improbable story of America’s greatest word. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson
(Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., J. Wagner, & E. González-Martinez
(Eds.) (2018) Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D.
(2009) Managing counterinformings: An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers’ incompatible positions. Human Communication Research, 351, 561–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992) Lectures on conversation, Volumes I & II. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 501, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.
(1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In: D. Tannen, Ed., Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Presequences and indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 55–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & H. Sacks
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 71, 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., P. Auer, D. Barth-Weingarten, et al.
(2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 101: 353–402.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & A. Peräkylä
(2012) Deontic authority in interaction. The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2018) How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. K.
(2004) Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In: G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171–223). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., B. Fox, & E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Almossa, Amereh Ibrahim
2023. The Emergence of Tab in Najdi Arabic. Languages 8:4 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Bolden, Galina B., Alexa Hepburn & Jenny Mandelbaum
2023. The distinctive uses of right in British and American English interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 205 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2021. OH + OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics 7:1 ► pp. 816 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Longitudinal Conversation Analysis - Introduction to the Special Issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54:2 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
HALL, JOAN KELLY
2022. L2 Classroom Input and L2 Positionally Sensitive Grammars: The Role of Information‐Seeking Question Sequences. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Keevallik, Leelo & Marri Amon
2023. Seeing is believing. Interactional Linguistics DOI logo
Malabarba, Taiane, Anna C. Oliveira Mendes & Joseane de Souza
2022. Multimodal Resolution of Overlapping Talk in Video-Mediated L2 Instruction. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
Reber, Elisabeth
2023. On the ritualization of commemorative practices: Paying tribute in British Prime Minister's Questions. Journal of Pragmatics 214 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Voutilainen, Liisa & Anssi Peräkylä
2023. Anticipation and Delivery of a Personality Disorder Diagnosis in Psychiatry. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:1 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 october 2023. 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.