Article In:
Interactional Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Achieving multi-unit turns

The versatile token khob in Persian extended tellings

 | Ulster University
 | The Ohio State University
 | University of Washington
 | Purdue University
This paper provides a conversation analytical and multimodal examination of a highly ubiquitous Persian token, khob, in everyday Persian multi-unit tellings. Based upon corpora of daily interactions between family members and friends over phone and face-to-face, three functions of khob are identified: (a) khob can be used by the recipient to a telling as a response functioning as a continuer and acknowledgement token, passing the opportunity for speakership, prompting the next unit of telling, and acknowledging the delivered prior turn. In this function, khob can carry a rising or falling final pitch movement; (b) the token can also be used as a tag by the speaker of a telling to elicit recipiency and check the recipient’s understanding of the turn so far. As a tag, khob may or may not solicit a response. Response soliciting and non-soliciting khobs differ in terms of the participants’ gaze behaviour and the coparticipants’ level of engagement in the storytelling, but both types only appear with a final rise in our corpora. Finally, (c) khob can be used as a resumption marker, managing a return to storytelling after it is suspended with an intervening action. Interactions were recorded in the capital of Iran.
Keywords: continuer, tag, resumption marker, eliciting recipiency, engagement, multimodality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Continuers
    • 2.2Tags
    • 2.3Story resumption markers
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Khob: Continuer
    • 4.2Khob: Tag
      • 4.2.1Response soliciting khob
    • 4.3 Khob: Story resumption marker
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (52)
References
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘causal’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169 1, 151–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, E. & Deppermann. A. (2021). OKAY in responding and claiming understanding. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada and M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across Languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction. (pp. 56–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, E. & Golato. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions. The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (1), 58–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2018. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. [URL]Google Scholar
Columbus, G. (2010). A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide, 31 (3), 288–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021). Language over time: Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, 1 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A. (2008), Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics, 18 (3), 381–406.Google Scholar
Drake, V. (2015), “Indexing uncertainty: the case of turn-final or”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (3), pp. 301–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drake, V., Golato A., & Golato, P. (2021) How a Terminal Tag Can Display Epistemic Stance and Constrain Responses: The Case of Oder Nicht in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (3), 319–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghasemi, A. A. (2020). Tag Questions in Persian: Investigating the Conversational Functions. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8 (29), 25–43.Google Scholar
Golato, A (2018), Turn-initial naja in German. In M. Sorjonen & J. Heritage (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages (pp. 413–444). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological inquiry, 50 (3–4), 272–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 225–246). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human studies, 9 (2), 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harren, I. (2001).“Ne?”in Alltagsgesprächen-Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). University of Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Heim, J. M. (2019). Turn-peripheral management of Common Ground: A study of Swabian gell. Journal of Pragmatics, 141 1, 130–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2005). Where grammar and interaction meet: the preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish. In A. Hakilinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 375–402). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helisten, M. (2017). Resumptions as multimodal achievements in conversational (story)tellings, Journal of Pragmatics, 112 1, pp. 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1), 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E.. (2020). Waiting to inhale: On sniffing in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53 (1), 118–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
(1981). The abominable ‘ne?’: An exploration of post-response-inititiation response-solicitation. In P. Schröder, & H. Steger (Eds.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 53–88). Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
(1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “Mm hm”. Papers in Linguistics, 17 1, 197–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984b). Transcription notation. In Atkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. ix—xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Is “no” an acknowledgement token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)(-) token. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1345–1383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2010). Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (2), 157–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick K, Holler J, & Levinson S. (2023). Turn-taking in human face-to-face interaction is multimodal: gaze direction and manual gestures aid the coordination of turn transitions. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 378 (1875), 20210473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (2012). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell, T. & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 492–508). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. & Huiskes, M. (2001), Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 308–329). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Vol. 11 & 21. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
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, (71–93) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language In Society, 29 (1), 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 11, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29 (4), 47–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited, In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, J. Sidnell (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M. L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish 70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2004), “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction”, Human Communication Research, 30 (2), 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K. -E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), 106(26), 10587–10592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Robinson, J. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35 (3), 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voutilainen, L.. Henttonen, P., Stevanovic, M., Kahri, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2019). Nods, vocal continuers, and the perception of empathy in storytelling. Discourse Processes, 56(4), 310–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar