Golato2008a
| Golato2008a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Golato2008a |
| Author(s) | Andrea Golato, Zsuzsanna Fagyal |
| Title | Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, ja, German, prosody |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 241–270 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351810802237834 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article, we argue that although single ja (yes) is typically analyzed as an acknowledgment token, confirmation marker, or continuer, a doubled ja, either produced as ^jaja. or ja^ja., cannot be considered a more intense version of the same action. Moreover, the two forms ^jaja. and ja^ja. systematically accomplish separate interactional goals. Both forms are produced when the prior speaker utters something that is obvious and/or known by the jaja speaker. However, by uttering ^jaja. (with pitch peak on the first syllable), the speaker merely indicates that the prior utterance contains already known information and that therefore the current action should be stopped. In contrast, with a ja^ja. (with pitch peak on the second syllable), its speaker treats the action/content of the previous speaker's utterance as either unwarranted or self-evident and takes issue with it. With a ^jaja., its speaker indicates “I already got it, so stop,” whereas with a ja^ja., its speaker indicates “hold on, you didn't get it.” In this article, we corroborate the work of others who have argued against grouping response tokens into one single category. Moreover, in this article, we contribute to the growing body of work on grammar and interaction by demonstrating that the linguistic shape (prosody) of an utterance is intertwined with the interactional contingencies of a given situation.
Notes
