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. 413–444

Chapter 14
Turn-initial naja in German

| Texas State University
This paper investigates the German token naja in turn initial position in everyday conversation. The paper makes the argument that naja is produced in situations when speakers are negotiating some form of break with prior utterances in the interaction: Prior research has indicated that in second-pair parts, naja prefaces disagreements. The current paper shows that naja is also used in initiating actions that serve to return to a previous sequence that was not brought to completion due to actions by the coparticipant(s) or outsiders of the interaction. In addition, naja is used in third position turns in which speakers are backing down from a previously held position. In initiating actions and third positions, naja serves to indicate the break and simultaneously initiates actions to overcome it. The findings hold both for cases in which subsequent talk is prosodically integrated to naja and the cases in which naja is not prosodically integrated to the subsequent talk.
Keywords: affiliation, alignment, continuation, German, response token, resumption, sequence organization, side sequence, topic, topic attrition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prior research on turn-initial tokens in German
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Stand-alone naja
  • 5. Naja in turn-initial position of initiating actions
  • 6. Naja in second-pair parts
  • 7. Naja in turn-initial position in third position turns
  • 8. Concluding discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.14gol
References (54)
References
Auer, Peter, and Yael Maschler. 2016. “The Family of NU and NÅ across the Languages and beyond: Structure, Function, and History.” In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 1–47. Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Susanne Uhmann. 1982. “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen [Aspects of the Conversational Organisation of Assessments].” Deutsche Sprache, 10: 1–32.Google Scholar
Barske, Tobias. 2009. “Same Token, Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions, and ‘ok’ in German Business Meetings.” Journal for Business Communication 46 (1):120–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barske, Tobias, and Andrea Golato. 2010. “German Turn-Intial ‘so’: Managing Squence and Action.” Text & Talk 30 (3):245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2011. “Double Sayings of German ‘ja’ – More Observations on Their Prosodic-Phonetic Make-up and Alignment Function.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (2):1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne. 1993. “Transitional Regularities for ‘Casual’ ‘okay’ Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19:45–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2009. “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘so’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (5):974–998. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bredel, Ursula. 2000. “‘Ach so‘ – Eine Rekonstruktion aus funktional-pragmatischer Perspektive [‚Ach so‘ – A Reconstruction from a Functional-Pragmatic Perspective].” Linguistische Berichte 184:401–421.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2008. “Topical and Sequential Backlinking in a French Radio Phone-in Program: Turn Shapes and Sequential Placements.” Pragmatics 18 (3):3381–3406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2012. “Turn-Design at Turn-Beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-Construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 46:91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Henrike Helmer. 2013. “Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit ‚also‘ und ‚dann‘ [On the Grammar of Understanding in Conversation: Indicating Inferences and Deducing Implications for Action with ,also’ and ,dann’]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32 (1):1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden. 1999. Das groβe Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [The Comprehensive Dictionary of the German Language]. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 1992. Using German: A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franck, Dorothea. 1980. Grammatik und Konversation [Grammar and Conversation]. Königstein/Ts.: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2005. Compliments and Compliment Responses. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Action and Topic Shifts in Conversation: The Case of 3rd-Position naja in German.” Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX, November 16–19, 2006.
. 2010. “Marking Understanding versus Receipting Information in Talk: Achso and ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies 12 (2):147–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Appreciatory Sounds and Expressions of Embodied Pleasure Used as Compliments.” In Pragmatics of Society, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Gisle Anderson, 359–390. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea, and Emma Betz. 2008. “German ‘ach’ and ‘achso’ in Repair Uptake: A Resource to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27:7–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal. 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):1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku. 2001. “Laughter as a Patientʹs Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text 21 (1):187–219.Google Scholar
Harren, Inga. 2001. “Ne?” in Alltagsgesprächen – Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz [,Ne?‘ in Everyday Conversation – Interactive Functions and Positions in Turn and Sequence]. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Harren, Inga, andMia Raitaniemi. 2008. “The Sequential Structure of Closings in Private German Phone Calls.” Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 9:198–223.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2009. “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström, and Jacob Steensig. 2011. “Addressing Epistemic Incongruence in Question-Answer Sequences Through the Use of Epistemic Adverbs.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 107–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27:291–334. 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
. 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
Jefferson, Gail. 1972. “Side Sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 294–338. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1981a. Caveat Speaker a Preliminary Exploration of Shift Implicative Articulation of Topic. Final report to the British SSRC.Google Scholar
. 1981b. The Abominable ‘Ne?’: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper No.6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.Google Scholar
. 1984. “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kluge. 2002. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological Dictionary of the German Language].(24th ed. ed.). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2015. “Displaying Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token aa .” Discourse Processes 5(2):111–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John. 2004. “Getting Back to Prior Talk: ‘And-uh(m)’as a Back-Connecting Device in British and American English.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia Ford, 377–400. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lütten, Jutta. 1979. “Die Rolle der Partikeln ‚doch‘, ‚eben‘, und ‚ja‘ als Konsens-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache [The Role of the Particles ,doch‘, ,eben‘, and ,ja‘ as consensus constituents in Spoken Language].” In Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, ed. by Harald Weydt, 30–38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 2007. “Parenthetical Sequences’.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (10):1816–1869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes. 2001. “Dutch ’but’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möllering, Martina. 2001. “Teaching German Modal Particles: A Corpus-Based Approach.” Language Learning & Technology 5 (3):130–151.Google Scholar
Mori, Junko. 2006. “The Workings of the Japanese Token hee in Informing Sequences: An Analysis of Sequential Context, Turn Shape, and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38:1175–1205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies 9 (2–4):210–229.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversationʹs Turn-Taking Organisation.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. byGraham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish (Vol. 70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen. 2016. “The Finnish Particle No .” In NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 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
Sutinen, Marika. 2014. “Negotiating Favourable Conditions for Resuming Suspended Activities.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tina Keisamen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 137–166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen [Modal Particles and their Combinations]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wahrig-Burfeind, Renate (ed.). 2000. Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch [Wahrig German Dictionary]. (7th ed.). Gütersloh/München: Bertelsmann Lexikon Institut.Google Scholar
Willkop, Eva-Maria. 1988. Gliederungspartikeln im Dialog [Structuring Particles in Spoken Language]. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of the German Language]. (vol. 3) Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Tůma, František, Leila Kääntä & Teppo Jakonen
2023. L2 grammar‐for‐interaction: Functions of “and”‐prefaced turns in L2 students’ collaborative talk. The Modern Language Journal 107:4 ► pp. 991 ff. DOI logo
Brackhane, Fabian & Christiane Ruhrmann
2022. Beobachtungen zu [nja] in deutscher Spontansprache. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2022:77 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Veronika Drake, Andrea Golato & Emma Betz
2020. Chapter 3. Mobilizing for the next relevant action. In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.