Cover not available
Part of
Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 155–190

Chapter 6
Turn-initial particles in English

The cases of oh and well

| UCLA

This chapter examines the English turn-initial particles oh and well. It begins with a consideration of their distinctive usages and functions in three basic sequential positions (first, second and third), arguing that both exhibit what Schegloff (1996) terms ‘positional sensitivity’. The chapter then considers some larger contrasts between the two particles, including distinctions between epistemic (oh) and action-projecting (well) functions, forward- (well) and backward- (oh) looking orientations, and their underlying semantic characteristics.

Keywords: English, sequence organization, epistemics, preference, action formation, turn initiation, oh , well
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Oh
    • 2.1Sequential position
      • 2.1.1First position
      • 2.1.2 Third position
      • 2.1.3 Second position
        • 2.1.3.1Responses to informings
        • 2.1.3.2Responses to questions
        • 2.1.3.3Oh-prefaced second assessments
  • 3. Well
    • 3.1Sequential position
      • 3.1.1First position
      • 3.1.2 Third position
      • 3.1.3 Second position
        • 3.1.3.1Expanded and dispreferred responses
        • 3.1.3.2‘My side’ tellings
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.06her
References

References

Aijmer, Karin
1987 “ Oh and Ah in English Conversation.” In Corpus Linguistics and Beyond: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, ed. by Willem Meijs, 61–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi Bv Editions.Google Scholar
Church of England
1946 The Shorter Prayer Book According to the Use of the Church of England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy
1987 “ Ah: A Corpus-Based Exercise in Conversational Analysis.” In Spoken Discourse, ed. by John Morley, and Alan Partington, 123–137. Camerino, Italy: Universita di Camerino.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina
2006 “Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Communication 56:661–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1989 Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Busse, Beatrix
2006 Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, Graham
1990 “On Varieties of Closings.” In Interactional Competence, ed. by George Psathas, 93–148. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lauri
1984 Well in Dialogue Games. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis
1866 Aliceʹs Adventures in Wonderland. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E.
2013 “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö
2010 Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Judy
1984 “Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
2010 “Positive Appraisal as a Core Meaning of Well: A Corpus-Based Analysis in Middle and Early Modern English Data.” English Studies 91 (6):643–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Eleanor
1996 Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Francisco Torreira, and N. J. Enfield
2013 “Is “Huh” A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items.” PLOS ONE 8:e78273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2016 “Polar Questions.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. by Matthew S. Dryer, and Martin Haspelmath, chapter 116. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Url: [URL].
Eckert, Penelope
2008 “Variation and the Indexical Field.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2006 “Towards an Understanding of the Spectrum of Approaches to Discourse Particles.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1978 “Response Cries.” Language 54:787–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, John
1823 Institutes of Latin Grammar. London: Whitakker.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1957 “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 67:53–59.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
1993 “The Grammar of Opening Routines.” In Sky 1993: Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland 15, ed. by Susanna Shore, and Maria Vilkuna, 149–170. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja-Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
1998 The Function of Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984a “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1984b Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1998 “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27 (3): 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Questioning in Medicine.” In “Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88:88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven E. Clayman
2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1):15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Deborah
1972 “Some Aspects of the Syntax and Semantics of Interjections.” In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares, 162–172. Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980 “On ‘Trouble-Premonitory’ Response to Inquiry.” Sociological Inquiry 50:153–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 The Abominable ‘Ne?’: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper No.6. Manchester: Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.
1993 “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance Theoretic Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 19:435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “The Discourse Marker Well in the History of English.” English Language and Linguistics 1 (1):91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Discourse Markers in Early Modern English.” In Alternative Histories of English, ed. by Peter Trudgill, and Richard Watts, 210–230. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin, and Francisco Torreira
2015 “The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study.” Discourse Processes 52:255–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie
2011 Beginning an Action in English and Korean: Turn Design and Action Projection. Doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
2013 “Retroactive Indexing of Relevance: The Use of Well in Third Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (2):125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino
2013 “On the Preference for Remembering: Acknowledging an Answer With Finnish Ai Nii(n) (“Oh Thatʹs Right”).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3):277–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 “Questionable Answers and Answerable Questions.” In Issies in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. by Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta, 453–467. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott
1940 Liddell and Scottʹs Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Local, John
1996 “Conversational Phonetics: Some Aspects of News Receipts in Everyday Talk.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 177–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas
2003 Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McKeown, James C.
2010 Classical Latin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R.
2009 “Interjections as Pragmatic Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 41:866–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Person, Raymond F.
2009 “ Oh in Shakespeare: A Conversation Analytic Approach.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10 (1):84–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M.
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/no Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68:939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1987 “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1979 “The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon, 261–288. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1984 “On Some Questions and Ambiguities in Conversation.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 28–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversationʹs Turn-Taking Organisation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided for Place for the Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (5):1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Sandra Thompson, and Emanuel Schegloff, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “On Dispensability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37:95–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner
2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (42):91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks
1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1985 Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
1999 “Shakespeareʹs Well .” JoshidaiBungaku 51:83–115.Google Scholar
2001 “Rethinking well .” Journal of Pragmatics 33:1025–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, William
2008 Complete Sonnets and Poems, ed. by Colin Burrow. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2007 “ ‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9:387–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “An Overview of the Question-Response System in American English.” Journal of Pragmatics 42:2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39:1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nicholas J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter De Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson
2009 “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (26):10587–10592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoele, Hildegunn
2012 Interjections in Late Middle English Plays. Stavanger: Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan
1980 “ Well in Conversation.” In Studies in English Linguistics, ed. by Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik, 167–177. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma
1995 “Interjections in Early Modern English.” In Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, 439–465. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Exclamations in Late Middle English.” In Studies in Middle English Linguistics, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 573–607. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, Alene K.
2004 “Pre-Announcement Sequences in Conversation.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1995 “Subjectification in Grammaticalization.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1976 “Particles and Linguistic Relativity.” International Review of Slavic Linguistics 2:251–312.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Clayman, Steven E. & John Heritage
2021. Conversation Analysis and the Study of Sociohistorical Change. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Humă, Bogdana, Jack B. Joyce & Geoffrey Raymond
2023. What Does “Resistance” Actually Look Like? The Respecification of Resistance as an Interactional Accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology DOI logo
Humă, Bogdana & Elizabeth Stokoe
2020. The Anatomy of First-Time and Subsequent Business-to-Business “Cold” Calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:2 ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
Humă, Bogdana, Elizabeth Stokoe & Rein Ove Sikveland
2019. Persuasive Conduct: Alignment and Resistance in Prospecting “Cold” Calls. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Martínez Caro, Elena
2023. Chapter 13. English oh as a structural and modal marker. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph
2020. Turn structure and inserts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph
2020. Visual Linguistics with R, DOI logo
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2023. Chapter 4. On the rise of a marker of disaffiliation from Others’ discourse. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Wilkes, Julie & Susan A. Speer
2021. Reporting Microaggressions: Kinship Carers’ Complaints about Identity Slights. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 40:3 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Wilkes, Julie & Susan A. Speer
2021. Conversation Analysis and Ethnomethodology: Identity at Stake in a Kinship Carers’ Support Group. In The Cambridge Handbook of Identity, ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Methodological Approaches. In The Cambridge Handbook of Identity, ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 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.