Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse: Online-First Articles

Response particles in Mandarin conversation

Interplay of function and prosody

ORCID logo | University of Houston
This study examines three major response particles, o/ou, en, and a in Mandarin conversation. Using the framework of interactional linguistics, this study examines the actions implemented by these particles and their associated prosodic patterns. It discovers that, while these three particles have shared functions, they show interactional nuances that allow for more fine-grained actions. It also reveals that different particles tend to have a similar prosodic design when they implement the same action. This study sheds light on the detailed workings of these particles both prosodically and interactionally in Mandarin speakers’ everyday conversation, contributing a specific case to further cross-linguistic comparison.
Keywords: response particle, function, prosody, interactional linguistics, Mandarin conversation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Prosody and function in interaction
    • 2.2Mandarin response particles
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Response particles: Functions and prosodic patterns
    • 4.1 o/ou 哦/噢
    • 4.2 en 嗯
    • 4.3 a 啊
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • The abbreviations used in the word-by-word glossing line are as follows
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.00049.wan
References (55)
References
Aijmer, K. (1987). Oh and Ah in English conversation. In W. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond, pp. 61–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Double sayings of German JA – more observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44 (2), 157–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding Relevant Next Actions: The German Token achja. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41 (1), 58–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., & Mandelbaum, J. (2023). The distinctive uses of right in British and American English interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 205 1, 78–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). Callfriend mandarin Chinese-mainland dialect. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment.’ In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindstro¨m (Eds.), Talk in interaction–comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
(2011). Pragmatics and prosody: Prosody as social action. In W. Bublitz & N. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp.491–510). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. (Eds.) (2004). Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp.1–22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deng, X. (2008). The use of listener responses in Mandarin Chinese and Australian English conversations. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 18 (2), 303–328.Google Scholar
Drummond, K., & Hopper, R. (1993). Back channels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (2), 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30 (2), 131–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12 (2), 147–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41 (3), 241–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9 (2–3), 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18 (1), 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side Sequences. In D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
(1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 171, 197–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (Vol. 1251, pp. 13–34). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasterpalu, R., & Hennoste, T. (2016). Estonian aa: A multifunctional change-of-state token. Journal of Pragmatics, 104 1, 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, A. (2015). Dealing with ambiguities in informings: Finnish aijaa as a “neutral” news receipt. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (4), 365–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a) . Journal of Pragmatics, 104 1, 163–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 177–230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. & Walker, G. (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk, 28(6), 723–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, J. (2006). The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (8), 1175–1205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, F. E. (1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies (pp. 131–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 381, 1752–1775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, S.-Y., & Park, Y.-Y. (2017). Interactional uses of acknowledgment tokens: ‘ung’ and ‘e’ as responses to multi-unit turns in Korean conversation. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In Schneider, K. P. & Barron, A. (Eds.), Variational pragmatics (pp. 69–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Steensig, J., & Sørensen, S. S. (2019). Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10 (1), 63–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, A. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30 (2), 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, H., & Thompson, S. A. (1991). English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic ‘interference.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 16 (3), 209–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, S.-C. (2006). Linguistic markings of units in spontaneous Mandarin. Chinese Spoken Language Processing: 5th International Symposium, ISCSLP 2006 , Singapore , December 13–16, 2006. Proceedings , 43–54. DOI logo
Tseng, S.-C., & Gibbon, D. (2006). Discourse functions of duration in Mandarin: Resource design and implementation. Proceedings of LREC.Google Scholar
Walker, G. (2012). Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 455–474). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. (2021). Pursuing Common Ground: Nondisaffiliative Rhetorical Questions in Mandarin Conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (4), 355–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weidner, M. (2016). Aha-moments in interaction: Indexing a change of state in Polish. Journal of Pragmatics, 104 1, 193–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Won, H. (2022). Display of Listenership in Korean Conversation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Wu, R. J. (2004). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, R.-J. & Heritage, J. (2017). Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp. 273–298). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, J. (2014). Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 74 1, 33–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Displaying Recipiency: Reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar