Continuer

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Continuer
Author(s):	Shimako Iwasaki (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6593-7203)
To cite:	Iwasaki, Shimaki (2024). Continuer. 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: [ ]

Continuers are minimal tokens such as mm-hm and uh huh in English, which are produced as displays of continued recipiency within ongoing talk. As Schegloff (1982) argued, they “exhibit on the part of its producer an understanding that an extended unit of talk is underway by another, and that it is not yet […] complete” (p. 81). With a continuer, a participant “takes the stance that the speaker of that extended unit should continue that extended unit [...] by passing an opportunity to produce a full turn at talk” (p. 81; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 497, 511-51; Gardner 2001).

Continuers regularly occur at the possible completion points of a turn-constructional unit (TCU) and at transition-relevance places (TRP) (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974). They can also overlap with speaker’s production as interlocutors project the trajectory of the turn. However, continuers suggest that there is no need for repair or clarification since they are not turns, but displays from the recipient to the speaker that it is okay to progress the unfolding turn-at-talk. Continuers have been identified as an interactional strategy within a range of languages (e.g., Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki & Tao 1996, for English, Japanese and Chinese; Kita & Ide 2007, for Japanese; Sorjonen 2001, for Finnish; Steensig & Sørensen, 2019, for Danish; Young & Lee 2004, for Korean). Continuers may also be conveyed through combinations of verbal and bodily resources (e.g., Kita & Ide 2007; Schegloff 1982; See also Stivers 2008 and Voutilainen et al. 2019, for nodding and vocal continuers in storytelling).

For example, in the excerpt below Nancy provides “Uh hu: h” as a continuer overlapping with Hyla’s production of “sixteen,” which is a syntactically possibly complete point for the TCU. Rather than taking a turn and the floor, Nancy supports Hyla to continue with the next TCU.

(1) [HGII:35] (Goodwin, 1986: 212)

01  Hyla:      One time I remember, .hh ‘s girl wrote
02             end her, .hh she wz like (.) fifteen er
03             six [teen end ] her mother doesn let’er wear,
04  Nancy: ->      [Uh hu:h, ]
05  Hyla:      .hh nail polish er sh(h)ort ski:::rts   
06             Er:[:: .hhhhhhh]=
07  Nancy:        [Oh: wo:(h)w]
08  Hyla:      =Oo::h no I remember what yesterday was

Related to continuers is the notion of “backchannel,” coined by Yngve (1970), which originated from psychologically oriented signal-based approaches (Duncan & Fiske 1977). While “backchannel” has become a common term for a range of listener behaviors, conversation analysts tend to avoid the term in favor of classifying recipient tokens by their sequential position, composition, and interactional import. For example, in English continuers such as mm-hm and uh-huh, which facilitate the speaker’s extension of the turn, have been contrasted with acknowledgement tokens such as yeah (Jefferson 1984) that can display incipient recipiency, assessments such as oh wow (Goodwin 1986) which provide evaluative feedback, and change-of-state tokens such as oh (Heritage 1984) which indicate shifts in epistemic stance. Scholars use a range of terms to explain recipient actions and tokens and there is not consistent agreement on the distinctions between the terms. However, a continuer is a recognizable indication that the speaker is expected to proceed with their unfolding turn. While continuers are instigated by the recipient passing an opportunity to take a turn at TCU boundaries, "interactive turn spaces" (Iwasaki, 2009, 2011) are strategically initiated by the speaker within a TCU creating a relevant location for recipients to provide contributions to the trajectory of the unfolding talk.

Additional Related Entries:

• Assessment
• Change-of-state token
• Gap
• Incipient talk
• Micropause
• Pause
• Transition-relevance place (TRP)
• Turn-taking

Cited References:

Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R. & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355-387.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.

Duncan, S., Jr., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Lawewnce Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 205-217.

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: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.

Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46(2), 226-246.

Iwasaki, S. (2011). The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit construction in Japanese conversation. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.), Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World (pp. 106-120). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic development of the acknowledgment tokens “Yeah” and “Mm hm.” Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 197-216.

Kita, S. & Ide, S. (2007). Editorial: Introduction to the special issue, “Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1239–1241.

Sacks, H. Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘un huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 198, Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71-93). Georgetown University Press.

Sorjonen, M. (2001). Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. John Benjamins.

Steensig, J., & Sørensen, S. S. (2019). Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 63–84.

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: Nodding as a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31-57.

Voutilainen, L., Henttonen, P., Stevanovic, M, Kahri, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2019). Nods, vocal continuers, and the perception of empathy in storytelling. Discourse Processes, 56(4), 310-330.

Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In M.A. Campbell (Ed.), Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 567–577). Chicago Linguistic Society.

Young, R. F. and Lee, J. (2004), Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 380–407.

Additional References:

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., and Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566–580.

Deng, X. (2008). The use of listener responses in Mandarin Chinese and Australian English conversations. Pragmatics, 18(2), 303-328.

Drummond, K. and Hopper, R. (1993). Back channels revised: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership recipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 157-177.

Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation Analysis and recipient behavior. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell.

Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-54.

Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222-244). Blackwell.

Pope, E. M. (2019). Continuers in research interviews: A closer look at the construction of rapport in talk about interfaith dialogue. In K. Roulston (Ed.) Interctional studies of qualitative research interviews (pp. 219-238). John Benjamins.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures in conversation (2 vols, G. Jefferson, ed.). Blackwell.

Siitonen, P. & Wahlberg, K. (2015). Finnish particles mm, jaa and joo as responses to a proposal in negotiation activity. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 73-88.

Zimmerman, D. H. (1993). Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 179-194.