Change-of-state token

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Change-of-state token
Author(s):	Aino Koivisto (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9380-5953)
To cite:	Koivisto, Aino. (2023). Change-of-state token. 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: []

A change-of-state token is a linguistic practice for speakers to show that they have “undergone some kind of change in his or her locally current state of knowledge, information, orientation or awareness” (Heritage 1984: 299). The term was coined by Heritage in a study of English oh (1984). In the following example from Heritage (1984) oh indexes a change in state, such that the previously unknowing speaker is now informed based on the information provided in the prior answer:

[HG:II:25] (Heritage 1984: 310)

01  N:    =hhh Dz he ‘av’iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02  H:                                [hhhh ] Yea:h,=
03  N: -> =Oh:,    

The general meaning of a change-of-state token may be particularized with respect to the sequential position and position in the turn. The particle oh may thus propose that the speaker has undergone a shift in information or knowledge when produced as a response to an informing (Heritage 1984), a shift of attention when produced as a preface to an answer (Heritage 1998), and a shift of orientation when produced as a preface to a second assessment (Heritage 2002) (on oh, see also, e.g., Bolden 2006; Heritage 2018; Schiffrin 1987: 102–127). The meaning of a change-of-state token also depends on its prosodic delivery, such that it can have various kinds of “cognitive-affective laminations” indicating, e.g., surprise or disappointment (see Thompson, et al. 2015: 68–75; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2009; Local 1996; Reber 2012).

While in English the particle oh is the central change-of-state token (however, see also Aston 1987 on ah and Küttner 2018 on oh that’s right), cross-linguistic research suggests that in a range of other languages, the general meaning of proposing change of state “is coded differently in the linguistic inventory” (Golato 2010: 170). That is, languages such as German (see, e.g., Golato 2010; Golato & Betz 2008), Finnish (Koivisto 2013, 2015, 2016), and Japanese (Endo 2018; Hayashi & Hayano 2018) have several different lexical resources and their combinations at their disposal to indicate a change-of-state (for an overview, see Heinemann & Koivisto 2016). For example, in Finnish the particle aa is used to indicate now-understanding (Koivisto 2015), while particles aijaa and aha(a) are central devices (among other particles) for treating the previous turn as having provided new information (Koivisto 2016; see also Sorjonen 1999). On the other hand, Danish nå seems to be multifunctional similarly to English oh; however, it does not share the “general semantics” of oh in all of its uses (that is, it cannot be used as a preface to an answer as described by Heritage 1998) (Heinemann 2009, 2017; Koivisto & Heinemann 2016).

Additional Related Entries:

• Epistemics
• Preface
• Single-unit turn
• Third position
• Turn-Constructional Unit (TCU)
• Turn-initial position

Cited References:

Aston, G. (1986). Ah: A corpus-based exercise in conversational analysis. In J. Morley & A. Partington (Eds.), Spoken Discourse: Phonetics Theory and Practice (pp. 123–137). University of Camerino Press.

Bolden, G. B. (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.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2019). A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment”. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindstrom (Eds.), Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions (pp. 94–123). Finnish Literature Society.

Endo, T. (2018). The Japanese change-of-state tokens a and aa in responsive units. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 151–166.

Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: achso. and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12, 147–176.

Hayashi, M., & Hayano, K. (2018). A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages (pp. 193-223). John Benjamins.

Heinemann, T. (2009). Answers to inapposite inquiries. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 159–186). Cambridge University Press.

Heinemann, T. (2017). Receipting answers that are counter to expectations: The polar Question-Answer-nå sequence in Danish. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50 (3), 249–267.

Heinemann, T. & Koivisto, A. (2016). Indicating a change-of-state in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 104, 83–88.

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.

Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334.

Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J. (2018). Turn-initial particles in English: The cases of oh and well. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages (pp. 155-190). John Benjamins.

Koivisto, A. (2013). On the preference for remembering: Acknowledging an answer with Finnish ai nii(n) (“Oh that’s right”). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46, 277–297.

Koivisto, A. (2015). Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token aa. Discourse Processes, 52, 111–148.

Koivisto, A. (2016). Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a). Journal of Pragmatics, 104 163–179.

Küttner, U.-A. (2018) Investigating inferences in sequences of action: The case of claiming “just-now” recollection with "oh that’s right". Open Linguistics, 4, 101–126.

Local, J. (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Interaction (pp. 175–230). Cambridge University Press.

Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in Interaction. Sound Objects in English. John Benjamins.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.

Sorjonen, M.-L. (1999). Dialogipartikkeleiden tehtävistä [On the functions of response particles]. Virittäjä, 103, 170–194.

Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press.

Additional References: