Little words that matter: Discourse markers "So" and "Oh" and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction

Journal of Communication

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 661-688

  Bolden, Galina B ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33750848528     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Afifi, W.A., & Burgoon, J.K. (1998). "We never talk about that": A comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5, 255-272.
2. Baxter, L.A. (1993). Thinking dialogically about communication in personal relationships. In R.L. Conville (Ed.), Structures of interpretation (pp. 29-47). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
3. Baxter, L.A., & Wilmot, W.W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253-269.
4. Berger, C.R. (1993). Goals, plans, and mutual understanding in personal relationships. In S. Duck & J.T. Wood (Eds.), Understanding relationship processes: Individuals in relationships (vol. 1, pp. 30-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Berger, C.R., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46, 1-24.
6. Blakemore, D. (1988). 'So' as a constraint on relevance. In R. M. Kempson (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp. 183-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bolden, G.B. (2003). Doing being late: The use of the Russian particle - to in personal state inquiries. CLIC: Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 5, 3-27.
8. Bolden, G.B. (2005). Delayed and incipient actions: The discourse markers "-to" and "so" in Russian and English conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 167-190). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
11. Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3-55.
12. Button, G., & Casey, N. (1988/1989). Topic initiation: Business at hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 61-92.
13. Crow, B.K. (1983). Topic shifts in couples'conversations. In R.T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 136-156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14. Dixson, M., & Duck, S. (1993). Understanding relationship processes: Uncovering the human search for meaning. In S. Duck & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Understanding relationship processes: Individuals in relationships (vol. 1, pp. 175-206). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Drew, P., & Chilton, K. (2000). Calling just to keep in touch: Regular and habitualised telephone calls as an environment for small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 137-162). New York: Longman.
16. Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Duck, S. (1995). Talking relationships into being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 535-540.
18. Duck, S., & Pittman, G. (1994). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 676-695). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
20. Fuller, J.M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (1), 23-45.
21. Glenn, P.J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
23. Goldsmith, D.J., & Baxter, L.A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23 (1), 87-115.
24. Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
25. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 283-307.
26. Greasley, P. (1994). An investigation into the use of the particle well: Commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 477-494.
27. Guerrero, L., & Afifi, W.A. (1995). Some things are better left unsaid: Topic avoidance in family relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43, 276-296.
28. Heingartner, N.L. (1996). The effect of age upon non-indefinite -to use: A study of the spoken Russian of Moscow women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brown University Providence.
29. Heritage, J. (1984a). 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. New York: Polity Press.
31. Heritage, J. (1995). Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In U. M. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects of oral communication (pp. 391-418). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
32. Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291-334.
33. Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C.E. Ford, B.A. Fox, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of turn and sequence (pp. 196-224). New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Hinde, R.A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships (Vol. 18). New York: Academic Press.
35. Hopper, R. (1989). Conversation analysis and social psychology as descriptions of interpersonal communication. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 48-65). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
36. Howe, M.L. (1991). Topic change in conversation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lawrence: University of Kansas.
37. James, D. (1972). Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections. In P.M. Parenteau, J.N. Levi, & G.C. Phares (Eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 162-172). Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.
38. James, D. (1974). Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints on, oh, interjections and hesitations. In M. Lagaly, R. Fox, & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 242-251). Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.
39. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219-248). New York: Academic Press.
40. Jefferson, G. (1980). On "trouble-premonitory" response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50 (3/4), 153-185.
41. Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 152-205). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
43. Johnson, A. (2002). So...?: Pragmatic implications of so -prefaced questions in formal police interviews. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 91-110). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Jucker, A.H., & Smith, S.W. (1998). And people just you know like 'wow' - Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A.H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 171-201). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
45. Jucker, A.H., & Ziv, Y. (Eds.). (1998). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
46. Kellermann, K., & Polomares, N.A. (2004). Topical profiling: Emergent, co-occurring, and relationally defining topics in talk. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 308-338.
47. Kleiner, B. (1998). Whatever-Its use in 'pseudo-argument'. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 589-613.
48. Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
49. Lenk, U. (1998). Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English (Vol. 15). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
50. Lerner, G.H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 247-271.
51. Local, J.K. (2004). Getting back to prior talk: And-uh(m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen (Ed.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies of phonetics and prosody for conversation.
52. Mandelbaum, J.S. (1987). Couples sharing stories. Communication Quarterly, 35 (2), 144-170.
53. Mandelbaum, J.S. (2003). Interactive methods for constructing relationship. In P.J. Glenn, C.D. LeBaron, & J.S. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 207-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Maschler, Y. (2003). The discourse marker nu: Israeli Hebrew impatience in interaction. Text, 23 (1), 89-128.
55. Maynard, D.W., & Zimmerman, D.H.(1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 301-316.
56. Morita, E. (2005). Negotiation of contingent talk: The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
57. Morrison, J.D. (1997). Enacting involvement: Some conversational practices for being in relationship. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
58. Ochs, E., & Taylor, C.E. (1992). Family narrative as political activity. Discourse and Society, 3, 301-340.
59. Ochs, E., Taylor, C.E., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (1992). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes, 15 (1), 37-72.
60. Park, Y.-Y. (1998). A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context of dispreferred responses. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 277-300). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
61. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. Pomerantz, A., & Mandelbaum, J.S. (2005). Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In K.L. Fitch & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 149-173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone "so" in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 185-218.
64. Roloff, M.E. (1987). Communication and reciprocity within intimate relationships. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 11-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-354). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
66. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
67. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
68. Schegloff, E.A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 23-78). New York: Irvington Publishers.
69. Schegloff, E.A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
70. Schegloff, E.A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191-227). New York: Cambridge University Press.
71. Schegloff, E.A. (2006). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
72. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
73. Sigman, S.J. (1991). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuous social relationships: Toward research on the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, 1 (2), 106-127.
74. Staske, S. (2002). Claiming individualized knowledge of a conversational partner. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 249-276.
75. Stenström, A.-B. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Cos (because) in teenage talk. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (pp. 127-146). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
76. Terasaki, A.K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171-223). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
77. Tracy, K. (1985). Conversational coherence: A cognitively grounded rules approach. In R.L. Street & J.N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (Vol. 3, pp. xii, -287). London: Edward Arnold.
78. Tracy, K., & Haspel, K. (2004). Language and social interaction: Its institutional identity, intellectual landscape, and discipline-shifting agenda. Journal of Communication, 54, 788-816.
79. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1968). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. London: Faber.
80. Wingard, L.M. (2004, November). Parent talk that initiates homework. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
81. Wu, R.-J.R. (2003). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Philadelphia: Benjamins.