Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 73–102

Turn continuation in yeah/no responding turns

Glottalization and vowel linking as contrastive sound patterns

 | King’s College London
 | The Open University | University of York
This study makes an original contribution to the understanding of sound patterns in interaction by investigating glottalization and linking at word boundaries in naturally occurring talk. Specifically, the study shows how speakers of British English make use of the contrast between glottalized and linked vowel-fronted TCU boundaries in multi-unit turns. Second TCUs whose initial vowel is joined to the last sound of the first TCU routinely either extend or elaborate on the social action of the first TCU. Second TCUs whose initial vowel is glottalized routinely accomplish new actions that are distinct from those accomplished by the first TCU. After giving an overview of a wider collection of cases, the analysis focuses on yeah/no responding turns.
Keywords: phonetics, turn-taking, turn design, TCU, action formation, British English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multi-unit turn design and the TCU
  • 3.Glottalization and linking in speech and conversation
    • 3.1Glottalization
    • 3.2Linking
    • 3.3Glottalization and linking as interactional resources in German and French
  • 4.Yeah/no responses followed by same-speaker talk
  • 5.Conceptual approach, data, and methodology
  • 6.Glottalization and linking of vowel-fronted TCUs in British English
    • 6.1General tendencies of glottalized and linked TCU boundaries in British English
    • 6.2Glottalization and linking of yeah/no responding turns
      • 6.2.1Action extensions
      • 6.2.2Action elaborations
      • 6.2.3New actions
  • 7.Concluding discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.36.03szc
References (58)
References
Auer, Peter. 1996. “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 51–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Zum Segmentierungsproblem in der gesprochenen Sprache.” InLiSt –Interaction and Linguistic Structures 49.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Yael Maschler. 2013. “Discourse or Grammar? VS Patterns in Spoken Hebrew and Spoken German Narratives.” Language Sciences 37: 147–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2016. Intonation Units Revisited. Cesuras in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buizza, Emanuela. 2022. Fine Phonetic Detail in the Production and Perception of Reduced Pronoun and Auxiliary Combinations in British English. Unpublished PhD diss., University of York.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 2014. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. 8th ed. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Lisa, and Daniel Erker. 2014. “Hiatus Resolution in American English: The Case Against Glide Insertion.” Language 90, 2: 482–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dilley, Laura, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, and Mari Ostendorf. 1996. “Glottalization of Word-Initial Vowels as a Function of Prosodic Structure.” Journal of Phonetics 24: 423–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Kent, and Robert Hopper. 1993a. “Back Channels Revisited: Acknowledgment Tokens and Speakership Incipiency.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26, 2: 157–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993b. “Some Uses of Yeah.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26, 2: 203–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.). 2010. Question-Response Sequences in Conversation Across Ten Languages. Special Issue of the Journal of Pragmatics 42, 10.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Eleanor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Practices in the Construction of Turns: The ‘TCU’ Revisited.” Pragmatics 6, 3: 427–454.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and John Hellermann. 2004. “‘Getting past no.’ Sequence, Action and Sound Production in the Projection of No-Initiated Turns.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia Ford, 233–269. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2013. “Units and/or Action Trajectories? The Language of Grammatical Categories and the Language of Social Action.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Yael Maschler, and Susanne Uhmann. 2010. “A Cross-Linguistic Study of Self-Repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew.” Journal of Pragmatics 42, 9: 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Robert. 2015. “Word-Initial Glottal Stop Insertion, Hiatus Resolution and Linking in British English.” Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Dresden, 6–10 September 2015. [URL]. DOI logo
Garellek, Marc. 2012. “Glottal Stops Before Word-Initial Vowels in American English: Distribution and Acoustic Characteristics.” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 110: 1–23.Google Scholar
. 2013. Production and Perception of Glottal Stops. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA]. [URL]
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68, 1: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis. Polity.Google Scholar
International Phonetic Association. 2015. “Full IPA Chart.” Accessed March 8, 2022. [URL]
Jasperson, Robert. 2002. “Some Linguistic Aspects of Closure Cut-Off.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecelia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 257–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ‘Yeah’; and ‘Mm Hm’;” Papers in Linguistics 17, 2: 197–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Is ‘No’ an Acknowledgment Token? Comparing American and British Uses of (+)/(−) Tokens.” Journal of Pragmatics 34, 10: 1345–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. 1994. “Glottal Stops and Glottalization in German.” Phonetica 51, 1–3: 38–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krech, Eva-Maria, Eberhard Stock, Ursula Hirschfeld, and Lutz-Christian Anders. 2009. Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Léon, Pierre R. 2001. Phonétisme et prononciations du français. 4th ed. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Lindsey, Geoff. 2019. English After RP: Standard British Pronunciation Today. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, and John Kelly. 1986. “Projection and ‘Silences’: Notes on Phonetic and Conversational Structure.” Human Studies 9: 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 1990. “‘Yes’, ‘no’ and ‘mhm’: Variations in Acknowledgment Choices.” In Les formes de la conversation, Volume 1, ed. by Bernard Conein, Michel de Fornel, and Louis Quéré, 251–282. Issy les Moulineaux: CNET. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mompeán, Jose A., and F. Alberto Gómez. 2011. “Hiatus Resolution Strategies in Non-rhotic English: The Case of /r/-Liaison.” International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2011, 1414–1417.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2001. “Turn Transition, Creak and Glottal Stop in Finnish Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31, 1: 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, and David Talkin. 1992. “Lenition of /h/ and Glottal Stop.” In Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture Segment Prosody, ed. by Gerard J. Doherty and D. Robert Ladd, 90–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. “Telling My Side: ‘Limited Access’ as a ‘Fishing’ Device.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68, 6: 939–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “At the Intersection of Turn and Sequence Organization.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences.” In Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Eleanor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53, 2: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1995. Prosodie im Gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionalen Phonologie der Konversation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-Constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” Pragmatics 6, 3: 371–388.Google Scholar
. 2000. “The Construction of Units in Conversational Talk.” Language in Society 29: 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten.” Gesprächsforschung 12: 1–51.Google Scholar
Seuren, Lucas M., and Mike Huiskes. 2017. “Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50, 2: 188–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Nick J. Enfield. 2012. “Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity.” Current Anthropology 53, 3: 302–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann. 2013. “When ‘Yes’ is not Enough – as an Answer to a Yes/No Question.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified Repeats: One Method of Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38, 2: 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice. 2000. “Functional Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, No. 21.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice. 2014. “Phonetic Practices for Action Formation: Glottalization versus Linking of TCU-initial Vowels in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 62: 13–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Managing the Boundary between ‘Yes’ and ‘But’: Two Ways of Disaffiliating with German ‘ja aber’ and ‘jaber’.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48, 1: 32–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, and Rasmus Persson. 2016. “How Speakers of Different Languages Extend Their Turns: Word Linking and Glottalization in French and German.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49, 2: 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Gareth, and John Local. 2004. “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36, 8: 1375–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar