Particle
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Particle | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Aino Koivisto (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9380-5953) |
| To cite: | Koivisto, Aino. (2023). Particle. 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/XRKJZ |
CA/IL studies use the term particle to refer to small, uninflected words that can occupy different positions in a turn (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 495). Thus, a CA/IL understanding of particles includes words that have been classified as interjections, i.e., elements than can form an utterance on their own (e.g., oh, mm-hm, yeah, okay; see Ameka 1992, Norrick 2009) as well as (discourse) particles that typically do not occur as an utterance of their own, such as connectives (e.g., and, but, because; see, e.g., Heritage & Sorjonen 1994; Mazeland & Huiskes 2001; Schiffrin 1987; however, see Lerner 2004 and Raymond 2004 on the use of so as a stand-alone item). However, the term "interjection" has also been used in CA work to refer to particle responses and other kinds of “stand alone items that do not assert a proposition” (Stivers 2019). Generally speaking, the ways in which the term "(discourse) particle" is used and defined highly depends on the theoretical and methodological approach (see, e.g., Heritage & Sorjonen 2018).
The term "discourse particle" (see also "discourse marker", "pragmatic particle", and "pragmatic marker") originates from pragmatics and the discourse analytic tradition. In this view, discourse markers are seen as pragmaticalized elements that originate from different word classes and are best described with respect to their “pragmatic functions”, which go beyond sentence grammar (such as anyway, goodness, oh, OK, really, right, sure, you know) (e.g., Aijmer 2002). Other work distinguishes (discourse) particles from discourse markers in the sense that “particle” foregrounds linguistic form (i.e. the fact that they are single uninflected words), while “marker” puts more emphasis on pragmatic/ discourse function as grouping principle, bringing together a formally heterogenous class of elements (Fischer 2006: 4; Heritage & Sorjonen 2018: 3; Schourup 2009: 229). In CA/IL work, discourse particles have been defined as elements that are not obligatory parts of the sentence but are important in constructing the action of the turn and the stance of the speaker (Hakulinen 2001).
In CA studies the simplified term “particle” is often preferred to “discourse particle” when considering the use of a “single uninflected element of a language” (Heritage & Sorjonen 2018: 3) within different positions in a turn and a sequence (be it a free-standing element or a non-independent element occurring in different positions in a turn) (e.g. Heritage 1984; Keevallik & Hakulinen 2018; Koivisto 2012). CA work on particles has focused on the spectrum of uses a particle can have depending on its position within a turn and sequence (see, e.g., Heritage 1984, 1998, 2002 on oh; Schegloff & Lerner 2009; Heritage 2015 on well). Sequential analysis has thus proven to be a fruitful method in detailing the functional properties of single particles and also understanding the division of labor between different particles that are used in similar contexts (e.g., Golato 2010; Koivisto 2016; Sorjonen 2001). Most recently, particles have been researched from a comparative perspective to discover what kinds of particles are used to accomplish the “same” social action across languages (e.g., Heinemann & Koivisto 2016 on indicating a change-of-state) or how the “same” particle is used in different languages (Auer & Maschel 2016 on NU/NÅ; Betz, et al. 2021 on OKAY).
In CA (and other CA-influenced) research, (discourse) particles that occupy turn-initial position can also be termed turn-initial particles, which is also a major area of particle research in CA/IL (see papers in Heritage & Sorjonen 2018). Prototypically, a turn-initial particle is prosodically and actionally a part of the TCU that is belongs to; thus it does not accomplish a social action on its own (Heritage & Sorjonen 2018). In general, turn-initial particles give both cues of the type of turn that is forthcoming, and what its relation is to the previous talk (e.g., Heritage & Sorjonen 2018; Schegloff 1996); they can also invoke a link between the current turn and the larger interactional activity (see Heritage & Sorjonen 1994 on and). Moreover, it has been suggested that different turn-initial particles differ in terms of how strongly they are backward- or forward-oriented (Heritage & Sorjonen 2018). For instance, some turn-initial particles play an important role in, e.g., indexing departures from the expectable progress of interaction (see articles in Heritage & Sorjonen 2018).
Another major area of work has focused on response particles (historically also termed back-channel and feedback elements, see Sorjonen 2001 for an overview) (e.g. yeah, no, oh, okay). They are words that can (but need not) form a turn and a social action on their own, i.e., a responsive action (Sacks, et al. 1974: 702; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 493). They can also occur as a part of a longer turn, most typically in turn-initial position (see, e.g., Raymond 2013). In a CA understanding, response particles and other non-sentential response forms are not seen as elliptical reductions from fuller forms, but as possibly complete actions in their own right (Schegloff 2007: 108–109). In terms of their design, response particles are treated separately from other (semi-fixed) phrasal or lexical response formats (such as you are? and Really?), while all of these are considered as linguistic resources for accomplishing actions responsive to a specific first action (Thompson et al. 2015: 3). In terms of function, response particles are generally seen as central linguistic resources for managing intersubjectivity (Thompson, et al. 2015). Response particles can be distinguished into, e.g., change-of-state tokens (e.g., Heritage 1984; Heinemann & Koivisto 2016); acknowledgement, agreement and confirmation tokens; and continuers (e.g., Betz & Depperman 2018; Schegloff 1982; Sorjonen 2001; for an overview, see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018). Response particles can also convey affect (e.g., surprise, disappointment) when produced with specific prosodic features (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen 2009; Reber 2012; Thompson et al. 2015: 64–75; Wilkinson & Kitzinger 2006); some particles may even carry affective meaning by themselves (see Golato 2012 on German oh).
Additional Related Entries:
- Change-of-state token
- Multi-unit turn
- Preface
- Single-unit turn
- Turn-Constructional Unit (TCU)
- Turn-initial position
- Turn-taking
Cited References:
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. John Benjamins.
Ameka, F. K. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18: 101–118.
Auer, P., & Maschler, Y. (2016). 'NU/NA': A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond. De Gruyter.
Betz, E., Depperman, A., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2021). 'OKAY' across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to its Use in Talk-in-interaction. John Benjamins.
Betz, E., & Deppermann, A. (2018). Indexing priority of position: eben as response particle in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 171–193.
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.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, K. (2006). Towards an Understanding of the Spectrum of Approaches to Discourse Particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 1–20). Elsevier.
Golato, A. (2012). German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 245–268.
Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: achso. and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12, 147–176.
Hakulinen, A. (2001). On some uses of the discourse particle kyllä in Finnish conversations. In M. Setting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 171–198). John Benjamins.
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. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23, 1–29.
Heritage, J. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2018). Introduction. Analyzing turn-initial particles. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages (pp. 1-22). John Benjamins.
Keevallik, L. & Hakulinen, A. (2018). Epistemically reinforced kyl(lä)/küll-responses in Estonian and Finnish: Word order and social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 121–138.
Koivisto, A. (2012). Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1254–1272.
Koivisto, A. (2016). Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a). Journal of Pragmatics, 104 163–179.
Mazeland, H. & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction. In M. Setting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.
Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 866–891.
Raymond, G. (2013). At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In B. Szczepek-Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action (pp. 169–206). John Benjamins.
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in Interaction. Sound Objects in English. John Benjamins.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. 2007: Sequence organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse (pp. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: well-prefaced responses to Wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91–115.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. John Benjamins.
Stivers, T. (2019). How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, S. & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 150–182.
Additional References:
