Response cry

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Response cry
Author(s):	Leelo Keevallik (Linköping University, Sweden) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2175-8710)
To cite:	Keevallik, Leelo. (2023). Response cry. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/T7GW2

A response cry is a vocalization that is produced in relation to an event, such as stumbling, experiencing rain or cold, or winning at a slot machine (Goffman 1978). Goffman coined the concept to account for socially acceptable instances of self talk. Response cries are meant to be taken as externalizing an inner state of the utterer, such as surprise, bodily strain, pain, disgust, etc., and include threat startles, strain grunts, transition displays (e.g., moving into heat), revulsion sounds, pain cries (Weatherall, et al. 2021), sexual moans, and others.

Example (1) shows a moan produced in response to a move in a board game (Hofstetter 2020: 45). One of the players, Tina, has just completed a game turn. Another player, Frank, then turns over a new card, upon the sight of which Tina produces a moan (line 3). In this way she gives a performance of surprise and (mental) pain in immediate connection with a real world event, and in the context of this game the card is rendered as ‘the card I would have preferred to play’.

(1) (Hofstetter 2020: 45)

01          +(1.2)+(1.0)      +(0.3)+
02   fra    +flips+repositions+,,,,,+
03   TIN:   hh#A::gh:#
04   FRA:   hh(h)e(h)e(h)eh(h)eh[(h)ah.hhh

Given their presumed connection to an internal state, many studies of response cries have focused on their affective work in interaction. Studying a subset of response cries, affectively loaded reactions with oh (God) and uhoo:::eh:::, Goodwin (1996: 393–395) argues instead that they are interactional moves that make it relevant for other participants to inspect the surround for what triggered these reactions, thus serving to shape others’ perception and action. Along similar lines of distinguishing “internal” matters from public behavior, Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2006) demonstrate that the production of surprise tokens is often prepared for several turns in advance, thus being far from a visceral eruption of emotion in immediate reaction to an event. People also produce response cries on behalf of others, such as doctors sounding pain for patients and parents vocalizing gustatory pleasure for infants (Keevallik, et al. 2023), which demonstrates their interactional rather than individual nature.

In terms of their temporal organization, response cries show various regular patterns of use. They can be designed to assess the physical or physiological situation, such as when moving into the hot sun, or when indicating exhaustion during joint running (Pehkonen 2020). In the latter case, an aligning response is relevant from a co-runner and that may well be accomplished with a similar response cry (huh huh in Finnish). Even though originally characterized as responsive in Goffman’s impressionistic descriptions, some response cries occur alongside the ostensible experience, such as strain grunts and displays of disgust (Wiggins & Keevallik, 2021). While some of the response cries may be merely responsive to (extraconversational) events, others make relevant actions by others, such as when recruiting help as trouble alerts (Kendrick & Drew 2016) or when a strain grunt during a joint lift of a heavy load occasions more support by fellow lifters (Keevallik 2023). Example (2) shows the lifting of a large piece of manure into a wheelbarrow. While three people have begun the lift and Vello is still approaching with his fork, Siim utters a strain grunt during which the lift comes to a visible halt (line 2). The piece starts moving again once Vello has arrived to support it and the strain grunt emerges as having mobilized others into the joint effort.

(2) (Keevallik 2023: 146-149)

01          (0.8)

02  SII:    #uh€rahr *h^&        [χ͡ʊχ͡ɑ:h]
    piece      €halts  
    sii              *step towards the wheelbarrow
    vel                ^fork in position
    fig     #fig.1      

03	    (0.2)€(0.6)
    piece        €starts moving again

04  JAA:     oi: kur:a:t.#  
	     oh damned.  
    fig                  #fig.2



Figure 1: Vello’s fork approaching



 
Figure 2: Lift continues into the wheelbarrow

The broad palette of response cries includes non-lexical vocalizations as well as items with more conventionalized phonological form, such as ouch and oops, that are generally considered part of the lexicon as interjections (Keevallik & Ogden 2020). The fuzzy boundary between the somatic and the conventionalized interactional use of responsive sighs is discussed in Hoey (2014). Some change-of-state tokens, such as oh, have been compared with prototypical response cries, as they are both backward looking and formulate a presumable internal experience, an oh generally proposing a change of mental state by the speaker (Heritage 1984: 300, 336).

Additional Related Entries:

• Response
• Outloud
• Change-of-state token
• Non-lexical vocalization
• Self-talk
• Affect
• Outloud

Cited References:

Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787-815.

Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge University Press.

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 (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.

Hoey, E. M. (2014). Sighing in Interaction: Somatic, Semiotic, and Social. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 175-200.

Hofstetter, E. (2020). Nonlexical “Moans”: Response Cries in Board Game Interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 42-65.

Keevallik, L. (2023). Strain grunts and the organization of participation. In L. Mondada, A. Peräkylä (eds.) Body, Participation and the Self: New Perspectives on Goffman in Language and Interaction (pp. 139-167). Routledge.

Keevallik, L., Hofstetter, E., Weatherall, A., & Wiggins, S. (2023). Sounding others’ sensations in interaction. Discourse Processes, 60(1), 73-91.

Keevallik, L., & Ogden, R. (2020). Sounds on the Margins of Language at the Heart of Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 1-18.

Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1-19.

Pehkonen, S. (2020). Response Cries Inviting an Alignment: Finnish huh huh. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 19-41.

Weatherall, A., Keevallik, L., La, J., Dowell, T., & Stubbe, M. (2021). The multimodality and temporality of pain displays. Language & Communication, 80, 56-70.

Wiggins, S., & Keevallik, L. (2021). Enacting Gustatory Pleasure on Behalf of Another: The Multimodal Coordination of Infant Tasting Practices. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 87-111.

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise As an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150-182.

Additional References: