Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:13:07.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indexing that something is sufficient: Interactional functions of ingressive particles in Finnish and Danish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2021

Jakob Steensig ,
Auli Hakulinen  and
Tine Larsen
Jakob Steensig
Affiliation:
1Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Cognitive Semiotics, Aarhus University, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 4, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark; Email: [email protected]
Auli Hakulinen
Affiliation:
2Helsinki, Finland; Email: [email protected]
Tine Larsen
Affiliation:
3Aarhus, Denmark; Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Sounds spoken on the inbreath have been shown to be common in the world’s languages, and in the Nordic languages ingressive speech seems to be especially frequent. The present study focuses on Finnish and Danish response particles spoken on the inbreath, by examining their uses in everyday talk-in-interaction in corpora of recorded interactions. The particles we examine and their non-ingressive counterparts can perform confirming and acknowledging actions. We analyze the particles as receipts to answers to questions, as responses to questions, as responses to assessments, and as responses to affiliation-seeking utterances. In these positions, the ingressive particles turn out to index that the content of the previous turn was already sufficiently established and, consequently, that there is nothing to add. In cases where an engaged response is called for, the particles are shown to have a disaffiliative potential.

Keywords

conversation analysisDanishFinnishingressive speechinteractional linguisticsresponse particlestalk-in-interaction
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , May 2022 , pp. 99 - 125
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Nordic Association of Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.). 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg. 1990. On the local sensitivity of conversation. In Ivana, Markova & Klaus, Foppa (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue, 201–226. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf (accessed 10 February 2021).Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret, Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth, Holt. 1988. Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35(4), 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eklund, Robert. 2008. Pulmonic ingressive phonation: Diachronic and synchronic characteristics, distribution and function in animal and human sound production and in human speech. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38(3), 235–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garly, Katrine. 2019. æv bæv – Et samtaleanalytisk indblik i vurderinger i danske, naturlige samtaler [æv bæv: A conversation-analytic insight into assessments in Danish, naturally occurring interactions]. Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 6(2). https://samtalegrammatik.dk/tidsskrift/aargang-6/ (accessed 10 February 2021).Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie, Harness Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1993. Inandningen som kulturellt interaktionsfenomen [The inbreath as a cultural interaction phenomenon]. In Anne-Marie, Ivars, Hanna, Lehti-Eklund, Pirkko, Lilius, Anne-Marie, Londén & Helena, Solstrand-Pipping (eds.), Språk och social context [Language and social context] (Meddelanden från Institutionen för Nordiska Språk och Nordisk Litteratur vid Helsingfors Universitet, Serie B:15), 49–67. Helsinki: Institutionen för Nordiska Språk och Nordisk Litteratur vid Helsingfors Universitet.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes–no questions. Pragmatics 11, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2010. Ingressive speech in Finnish interaction. Presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA10), Mannheim, 4–8 July.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [A comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [Also online 2008. http://www.kotus./julkaisut/kielioppi-_ja_kielenhuoltokirjat/iso_suomen_kielioppi, accessed 10 February 2021.]Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars, Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog [A grammar of the Danish language]. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2005. Where grammar and interaction meet: The preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish. In Auli, Hakulinen & Margret, Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2010. The question–response system of Danish. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2703–2725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2015. Negation in interaction, in Danish conversation. Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 2(12). http://samtalegrammatik.au.dk/skrifter-om-samtalegrammatik/aargang-2/ (accessed 10 February 2021).Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine & Aino, Koivisto. 2016. Indicating a change-of-state in interaction: Cross-linguistic explorations. Journal of Pragmatics 104, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa & Bolden, Galina B.. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds.), 57–76.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2010. Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In David, Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd edn., 208–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Rod Watson, D.. 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In George, Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. & Ofelia, Zepeda. 1999. Language, gender, and biology: Pulmonic ingressive airstream in women’s speech in Tohono O’odham. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, Linguistic Association of the Southwest 18, 15–40.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mh hm’. Two Papers on ‘Transitory Recipientship’ (Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28), 1–18. Tilburg.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2015. Talking about Troubles in Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2018. Language and bodily resources: ‘Response packages’ in response to polar questions in English. Journal of Pragmatics 123, 220–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo & Richard, Ogden. 2020. Sounds on the margins of language at the heart of interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2016. Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news receipts “aijaa” and “aha(a)”. Journal of Pragmatics 104, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Tine. 2013. Dispatching emergency assistance: Callers’ claims of entitlement and call takers’ decisions. Research on Language & Social Interaction 46(3), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Léon, Pierre R. 1992. Phonétisme et prononciations du français [Phonetics and pronunciations of French]. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 1999. Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversations (Skrifter Utgivna av Institutionen för Nordiska Språk Vid Uppsala Universitet 46). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna & Trine, Heinemann. 2009. Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna & Marja-Leena, Sorjonen. 2013. Affiliation in conversation. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds.), 350–369.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds.), 32–56.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard, Hakulinen, Auli & Tainio, Liisa. 2004. Indexing ‘no news’ with stylization in Finnish. In Elizabeth, Couper-Kuhlen & Cecilia, Ford (eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (ed.), The Production of Speech, 189–216. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, Mads Emil. 2019. Det’ lige præcis det – En samtaleanalytisk undersøgelse af præcis og lignende udtryk som bekræftelse i dansk samtalesprog [It’s exactly that: A conversation analytic investigation of ‘exactly’ and similar expressions as confirmation in Danish talk-in-interaction]. Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 6(3). https://samtalegrammatik.dk/tidsskrift/aargang-6/ (accessed 10 February 2021).Google Scholar
Ordbog over Dansk Talesprog. n.d. Ordbog over Dansk Talesprog [Dictionary of spoken Danish]. https://odt.hum.ku.dk/form/ (accessed 10 February 2021).Google Scholar
Peters, Francis Joseph. 1981. The Paralinguistic Sympathetic Ingressive Affirmative in English and the Scandinavian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Pitschmann, Louis A. 1987. The linguistic use of the ingressive air-stream in German and the Scandinavian languages. General Linguistics 27(3), 153–161.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), 57–101.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4/1), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
samtalegrammatik. 2020. Interjections and particles. https://samtalegrammatik.dk/en/the-grammar/forms/word-classesparts-of-speech/interjections-and-particles/ (accessed 10 February 2021).Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey, Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1996. On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Elinor, Ochs, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001b. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Margret, Selting & Elizabeth, Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena & Auli, Hakulinen. 2009. Alternative responses to assessments. In Jack, Sidnell (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, Susan. 2017. Flirting: A designedly ambiguous action? Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(2), 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 2015. Hvornår kan ja stå alene efter ja/nej-spørgsmål? [When can ‘yes’ stand alone after yes/no questions?]. Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 2(13). https://samtalegrammatik.dk/tidsskrift/aargang-2/ (accessed 9 February 2021).Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 2019. Conversation analysis and affiliation and alignment. In Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0196.pub2 (accessed 19 April 2021).Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob & Søren, Sandager Sørensen. 2019. Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Language 10(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stølen, Marianne. 1995. Multi-functional ja: An analysis of the Danish affirmative ingressive ja as conversation structuring device in informal conversations. Nordlyd 23, 217–229.Google Scholar
Thom, Eleanor Josette. 2005. The Gaelic gasp and its North Atlantic cousins: A study of ingressive pulmonic speech in Scotland. MA dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar