Article in:
Interactional Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Language over time

Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English

| 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


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 16 April 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20008.cou

Full-text

Language over time
References

References

Beach, W. A.
(1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 151–164. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. and J. Heritage
(2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 Crossref
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, 12, 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting
(Eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.
(2012) What drives sequences? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 61–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R.
(2007) The ‘Right ‘connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 36, 319–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, A. M.
(1997) On the systematic deployment of OKAY and MMHMM in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, A.
(2015) Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token ‘aa’. Discourse Processes, 52(2), 111–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
Ed. (2004) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D.
(1997) The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., J. Wagner, & E. González-Martinez
(Eds.) (2018) Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D.
(2009) Managing counterinformings: An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers’ incompatible positions. Human Communication Research, 35, 561–587. CrossrefGoogle 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, 50, 696–735. CrossrefGoogle 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, 12, 55–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & H. Sacks
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.Google Scholar
Selting, M., P. Auer, D. Barth-Weingarten, et al.
(2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 10: 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2018) How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., B. Fox, & E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar