Responses within activities
Alignment via Egyptian Arabic ʔāh ‘yeah’ in extended turns [*] *
Large conversational activities (e.g., storytelling) necessitate a suspension of ordinary turn-taking rules. In the resulting constellation of main speaker and recipient, minimal displays of cooperative recipiency become relevant at particular junctures. We investigate this mechanism by focusing on the Egyptian Arabic particle ʔāh ‘yeah’ when thus used. We observe that tokens of ʔāh are mobilized by main speakers via the opening of prosodic slots at local pragmatic completion points. The prosodic design of the particle at these points is sensitive to prior talk and displays recipients’ alignment at the structural, action-sequential, and relational levels. This is done through variation of three prosodic features, namely, rhythm-based timing, pitch configuration, and prominence. The measure of alignment proposed by ʔāh is implicative for the continuation of the turn. While smooth progression suggests that ʔāh is understood to be sufficiently fitted and aligned, expansions are traceable to a departure from the terms set by prior talk, which can be heard to indicate lesser alignment. We propose to view ʔāh response tokens as a subset of positionally sensitive responses to part-of-activity actions that are crucial for the co-accomplishment of a large activity.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 2.1Extended turns
- 2.2Response tokens
- 2.3Arabic ʔāh
- 3.Methods
- 3.1Data
- 3.2Analytical approach
- 3.3Prosodic and phonetic analysis
- 3.3.1Pitch configuration
- 3.3.2Rhythm-based timing
- 3.3.3Prominence
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1Smooth progressivity sequences
- 4.1.1Progression-implicative rising ʔāh
- 4.1.2Progression-implicative falling ʔāh
- 4.2Disrupted progressivity sequences
- 4.2.1Expansion-implicative ʔāh tokens
- 4.2.2Overt elicitation of recipiency
- 5.Discussion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (57)
Abercrombie, D.
(
1967)
Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Athanasiadou, A., & Dirven, R.
(
2011)
Typology of If-clauses. In
E. H. Casad (Ed.),
Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Müller, F.
(
1999)
Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction (Vol. 77, Issue 1). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Badawi, E. S., & Hinds, M.
(
1986)
A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic: Arabic-English. Librairie du Liban.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barth-Weingarten, D.
(
2009)
When to say something – Some observations on prosodic-phonetic cues to the placement and types of responses in multi-unit turns.
Studies in Pragmatics,
8
1, 143–181.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barth-Weingarten, D.
(
2011)
Response tokens in interaction : prosody, phonetics and a visual aspect of German “jaja.”
Gesprächsforschung–Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion,
12
(12), 301–370.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T.
(
2000)
Listeners as co-narrators.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79
(6), 941–952.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.
(
2020)
Praat: doing phonetics by computer (6.1.10).
[URL]
Canavan, A., Graff, D., & Zipperlen, G.
(
1997)
Callhome egyptian arabic speech. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D.
(
2011)
A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2. English Translation and Adaptation of Selting, Margret et al. (2009): Gesprachsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M.
(
2018)
Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R.
(
1993)
Some Uses of Yeah.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
26
(2), 203–212.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Enfield, N. J.
(
2011)
Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In
T. Stivers,
L. Mondada &
J. Steensig (Eds.),
The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 285–312). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A.
(
1996)
Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In
E. Ochs,
E. A. Schegloff, &
S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
Interaction and Grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gadalla, H., Kilany, H., Arram, H., Yacoub, A., ElHabashi, A., Shalaby, A., Karins, K., Rowson, E., MacIntyre, R., Kingsbury, P., Graff, D. & McLemore, C.
(
1997)
Callhome Egyptian Arabic Transcripts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gardner, R.
(
1997)
The conversation object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
30
(2), 131–156.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Golato, A. & Fagyal, Z.
(
2008)
Comparing single and double sayings of the German response Token ja and the role of prosody: A conversation analytic perspective.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
41
(3), 241–270.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goodwin, C.
(
1986)
Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments.
Human Studies,
9
(2–3), 205–217.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, J.
(
1989)
Current developments in conversation analysis. In
D. Roger &
P. Bull (Eds.),
Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21–47). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, J.
(
2007)
Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In
Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (Issue November).
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G.
(
2012)
Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In
J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.),
Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Houtkoop, H. & Mazeland, H.
(
1985)
Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics,
9
(5), 595–620.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jefferson, G.
(
1984)
Notes on the systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “hm mm”’.
Papers in Linguistics,
1
(7), 197–206.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jefferson, G.
(
1990)
List construction as a task and resource. In
G. Pasthas (Ed.),
Interaction Competence (pp. 63–92). University Press of America.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lerner, G. H.
(
1996)
On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In
E. Ochs,
E. A. Schegloff &
S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S. C.
(
2013)
Action formation and ascription. In
L. Sidnell &
T. Stivers (Eds.),
The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Local, J.
(
1996)
Conversational phonetics: some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In
E. Couper-Kuhlen &
M. Selting (Eds.),
Prosody in Conversation (pp. 177–230). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, F. E.
(
1996)
Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: prosodic aspects of recipiency. In
E. Couper-Kuhlen &
M. Selting (Eds.),
Prosody in Conversation (pp. 131–176). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(
2011)
Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In
P. Auer &
S. Pfänder (Eds.),
Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (Issue 34, pp. 45–87). De Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pomerantz, A.
(
1988)
Offering a candidate answer : An information seeking strategy.
Communications Monographs,
55
(4), 360–373.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Raymond, G.
(
2003)
Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.
American Sociological Review,
68
(6), 939–967.
[URL].
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Sacks, H.
(
1987)
On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In
G. Button &
J. R. E. Lee (Eds.),
Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, H.
(
1995)
Lectures on conversation, Volumes I and II. Oxford: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A.
(
1979)
Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In
G. Psathas (Ed.),
Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (Issue January, pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
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, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
1986)
The routine as achievement.
Human Studies,
9
(2–3), 111–151.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
1993)
Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
26
(1), 99–128.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
1996)
Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.
American Journal of Sociology,
102
(1), 161–216.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
2007)
Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
2011)
Word repeats as unit ends.
Discourse Studies,
13
(3), 367–380.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Selting, M.
(
2000)
The construction of units in conversational talk.
Language in Society,
29
(4), 477–517.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Selting, M.
(
2007)
Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource.
Journal of Pragmatics.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (
2013)
The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sørensen, S. S.
(
2021)
Affiliating in Second Position : Response Tokens with Rising Pitch in Danish.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
00
(00), 1–25.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T.
(
2008)
Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
41
(1), 31–57.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T.
(
2010)
An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics,
42
(10), 2772–2781.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T.
(
2019)
How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections.
Discourse Processes,
56
(3), 191–209.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
(
2010)
Mobilizing response.
Research on Language and Social Interaction,
43
(1), 3–31.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Szczepek Reed, B.
(
2020)
Reconceptualizing mirroring: Sound imitation and rapport in naturally occurring interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics,
167
1, 131–151.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(
2015)
Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. In
Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Woidich, M.
(
2006)
Das Kairenisch-Arabische: Eine Grammatik. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Dingemanse, Mark
2024.
Interjections at the Heart of Language.
Annual Review of Linguistics 10:1
► pp. 257 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Marmorstein, Michal
2023.
Waḷḷāhi (‘by God’) as a marker of commitment and involvement in Egyptian Arabic conversation.
Lingua 294
► pp. 103582 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.