Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-vjhkx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-02T23:41:52.242Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On clicks in English talk-in-interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2011

Melissa Wright
Melissa Wright*
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Language Therapy and Rehabilitation Studies, Birmingham City Universitymelissa.wright@bcu.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyses clicks in naturally-occurring English conversation. It demonstrates that regardless of any paralinguistic functions clicks may undertake, their occurrence is orderly and systematic, and intimately tied to the interactional structure of talk. Specifically, clicks are shown to function alongside the phonetic parameters of pitch, articulatory segmental features and voice quality (and the sequential and lexical organisation of talk) to demarcate the onset of new and disjunctive sequences. The methodology employed combines (i) the sequential analysis techniques of Conversation Analysis with (ii) parametric impressionistic and instrumental phonetic investigations. A key feature of this methodology is the study of naturally-occurring conversation rather than intuited or laboratory speech data. The findings in this paper challenge the traditional view that clicks function only paralinguistically in English. They also highlight the fruitfulness of implementing phonetic investigations alongside interactional analyses since such an approach enables previously unobserved patterns in the phonetics-interaction interface to be identified.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , August 2011 , pp. 207 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2011

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

Abercrombie, David. 1965. Studies in phonetics and linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John C.. 1984a. Transcription notation. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), ix–xvi.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John C. (eds.). 1984b. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Martin J. 1989. Phonetics for speech pathology. London: Whurr Publishers.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah B. 2004. Second style acquisition: The linguistic socialization of newly orthodox Jews. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2010. PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.39). http://www.PRAAT.org/ (retrieved 10 July 2010).Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian, Currie, Karen L. & Kenworthy, Joanne. 1980. Questions of intonation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Tree, Jean E. Fox. 2002. Using ‘uh’ and ‘um’ in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84, 73–111.Google Scholar
Clark, John & Yallop, Colin. 1990. An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1993. English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1996. The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting (eds.), 365–405.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1998. On high onsets and their absence in conversational interaction. InLiST 8. http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/8/index.htm (retrieved 18 February 2001). [Published in 2001 as Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns, Language in Society 30, 29–53.]Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2001. Intonation and discourse: Current views from within. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah & Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 13–33. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2003. On initial boundary tones in English conversation. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 15), Barcelona, 119–122.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2004. Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen & Ford (eds.), 335–376.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Ford, Cecilia E. (eds.). 2004. Sound patterns in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.). 1996. Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David & Davy, Derek. 1975. Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S., Local, John & Walker, Gareth. 2004. Repetition and the prosody–pragmatics interface. York Papers in Linguistics 2 (1), 29–63.Google Scholar
Dilley, Laura, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Ostendorf, Mari. 1996. Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics 24, 423–444.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2005. Conversation analysis. In Fitch, Kristine L. & Sanders, Robert E. (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 71–102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Holt, Elizabeth. 1998. Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27, 495–522.Google 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.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1935. The technique of semantics. In Firth, J. R., Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951, 7–33. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. & Schrock, Josef C.. 2002. Basic meanings of ‘you know’ and ‘I mean’. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 727–747.Google Scholar
French, Peter & Local, John. 1983. Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 701–715.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. 1970. An introduction to the pronunciation of English, 2nd edn. Bristol: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Goodwin, Marjorie H.. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Duranti, Alesssandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 147–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John C. 1989. Current developments in conversation analysis. In Roger & Bull (eds.), 21–47.Google Scholar
Heritage, John C. & Atkinson, J. Maxwell. 1984. Introduction. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), 1–15.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1986. Intonational structuring of discourse. 24th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New York, 136–144.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian & Wooffitt, Roger. 1998. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
IPA. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2, 181–199.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2002. Is “no” an acknowledgment token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(−) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1345–1383.Google Scholar
Kelly, John & Local, John. 1989a. Doing phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, John & Local, John. 1989b. On the use of general phonetic techniques in handling conversational material. In Roger & Bull (eds.), 197–212.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A course in phonetics, 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1975. The phonetic structure of paragraphs. In Cohen, Antonie & Nooteboom, Sieb (eds.), Structure and process in speech perception, 195–206. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Local, John. 1996. Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting (eds.), 177–230.Google Scholar
Local, John. 2003. Phonetics and talk-in-interaction. Position paper for symposium on phonetics and talk-in-interaction. 15th international Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 15), Barcelona, 115–118.Google Scholar
Local, John. 2004. Getting back to prior talk. In Couper-Kuhlen & Ford (eds.), 376–400.Google Scholar
Local, John & Kelly, John. 1986. Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9, 185–204.Google Scholar
Local, John, Kelly, John & Wells, William H. G.. 1986. Towards a phonology of conversation: Turn-taking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics 22, 411–437.Google Scholar
Local, John & Walker, Gareth. 2005. ‘Mind the gap’: Further resources in the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. York Papers in Linguistics 2 (3), 133–143.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.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2004. Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In Couper-Kuhlen & Ford (eds.), 29–62.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2006. Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1752–1775.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1995. A probable case of clicks influencing the sound patterns of some languages. Phonetica 52, 160–170.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry L. & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roger, Derek & Bull, Peter (eds.). 1989. Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), 21–27.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992a. Lectures on conversation, vol. I. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992b. Lectures on conversation, vol. II. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70, 1075–1095.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, Deirdre & Zimmerman, Don H. (eds.), Talk and social structure, 44–70. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Sacks, Harvey. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica VIII (4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of TCUs and turns in conversation. Pragmatics 6 (3), 357–388.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29, 477–517.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.). 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shriberg, Elizabeth. 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Shriberg, Elizabeth. 2001. To ‘errr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31 (1), 153–169.Google Scholar
Simpson, Adrian P. 2007. Acoustic and auditory correlates of non-pulmonic sound production in German. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37 (2), 173–182.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Swerts, Marc. 1998. Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (4), 485–496.Google Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth. 2004. The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings and continuations in conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth. 2007. On the design and use of pivots in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (12), 2217–2243.Google Scholar
Ward, Nigel. 2006. Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English. Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (1), 129–182.Google Scholar
Wells, William H. G. & Macfarlane, Sarah. 1998. Prosody as an interactional resource: Turn-projection and overlap. Language and Speech 41, 265–294.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2000. Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings, middles and ends. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1989. Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In Roger & Bull (eds.), 238–258.Google Scholar
Wrench, Alan A. & Scobbie, James M.. 2003. Categorising vocalisation of English /l/ using EPG, EMA and ultrasound. In Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Tabain, Marija (eds.), 6th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP, Sydney), 314–319. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2001. Conversational phonetics: The case of ‘and’. MA dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2002. Conversational phonetics: The case of ‘and’ and ‘but’. Presented at Colloquium of the British Association of Academic Phoneticians, Newcastle, UK, 25 March.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2005. Studies of the phonetics-interaction interface: Clicks and interactional structures in English Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2011. The phonetics-interaction interface in the initiation of closings in everyday English telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1080–1099.Google Scholar