3.1 Observations of the use of jep in spoken data from the 1990s to 2010s

The few cases of jep in the spoken interactions (recordings from the 1990s and early 2000s) involve using it as a simple receipt token or as part of topical transitions and closings. Let us begin with the case of a simple receipt token, which is extremely rare in both the spoken and the WhatsApp data. In the extract below, a family is having dinner together. In line 1, Kasperi hands Jani a napkin, who (instead of thanking him) verbally acknowledges this with jep. This instance is thus sequentially in second position and closes the minimal adjacency pair (offer–acceptance). (It should be noted that Jani’s response to a subsequent offer by his father Jorma is just as minimal, albeit negative).

Most of the cases from the ‘old’ spoken data come from topical junctures in telephone conversations. In example (2), E and P are discussing the practicalities of going to a party together. In line 6, E asks when P is going to arrive at her place (prior to the party).

As a response to E’s question, P provides a timeframe for her arrival (lines 6–7). This informing is receipted with joo by E, which is followed by jep by P (line 10). Here, jep is not directly responsive to the just-prior turn, that is, it is not confirming anything or agreeing with anything. It serves more to close the topic and/or start the transition to the next one. After jep, P produces the particles tota noi (‘well uhm’) no (‘well’), which also indicate a transition to (or a search for) the next topic (e.g. some other arrangements that still need to be discussed) or to the ending of the phone call (see Schegloff & Sacks Reference Schegloff and Sacks1973, Maynard Reference Maynard1980, Schegloff Reference Schegloff2010, Couper-Kuhlen & Selting Reference Couper-Kuhlen and Selting2018:315–317).

Jep can also be reduplicated (jep jep), at least as a closing implicative or transitional token. In the next case, jep jep is produced in third position, but instead of directly dealing with the second position turn, it is reconfirming what has already been said and sets in motion a negotiation about the direction of the conversation. Sini has been lengthily describing her new haircut to her mother, Irja.

Throughout the extract, Irja’s responses to Sini’s telling are minimal and orient more toward informativeness than displaying interest (‘right’, ‘I see’). Since they are produced in response to an enthusiastic telling, they sound disaffiliative. This impression is supported by the fact that Irja does not ask anything about the haircut. In line 6–7, Sini evaluates the haircut explicitly (‘It’s just awesome’). Even though Irja is not able to provide an agreeing second assessment (since they are talking on the phone and cannot see each other), this is where she could evaluate the telling in a way that would convey emphatic affiliation (see Heritage Reference Heritage, Stivers, Mondada and Steensig2011). Instead, she produces another string of news receipt particles (line 8). In line 9, Sini produces an assessment of her hairdresser, whom she has mentioned prior to the extract (‘he’s a funny guy’). This, too, is receipted with particles that orient to the information side of the turn (lines 10–11). After that, Sini produces the reduplicated jep (line 12). As in the previous case, this is not directly responsive to the just-prior turn, but is produced in a place where the other participant has not ‘nourished’ the topic (see Maynard Reference Maynard1980, Sorjonen Reference Sorjonen2001:262): by saying jep jep Sini refrains from producing any new material herself either, and thus (at least temporarily) abandons her pursuit of a more engaged response (cf. Heritage Reference Heritage, Stivers, Mondada and Steensig2011:164). In line 13, Irja adds an anaphoric proadverbial sillee ‘in that way’, which does not bring any new material to the topic. Thus, Irja maintains her ‘passive recipiency’ (see Jefferson Reference Jefferson1984, Sorjonen Reference Sorjonen2001:25) and leaves the responsibility for the topical development or closure to Sini. Sini resolves the situation by continuing the topic of her hairdresser – despite her mother’s lack of encouragement.Footnote ⁵

In sum, when produced after a response to an announcement, assessment, or other first action, jep (jep) indicates (or reacts to the fact) that the current topic has potentially been exhausted. By using jep, the speaker refrains from producing new topical material; instead, they reconfirm the relevance of what has already been said. This use of jep strongly foreshadows topical closure and/or movement toward ending the phone call. Interestingly, Sorjonen (Reference Sorjonen2001:261–267) has shown that the particle joo can be used in a comparable manner. Moreover, Steensig et al. (Reference Steensig, Hakulinen and Larsen2021) note that in both Finnish and Danish, the ingressive confirming particles (.joo and .ja) are specialized for closing implicative work: they suggest that there is nothing more to be added to the matter at hand. However, a more detailed comparison to other particles falls beyond the scope of this paper.

3.2 Analysis of WhatsApp data

In this section we move on to analyzing jep in our WhatsApp data. We find roughly two different contexts of use in this data: (a) simple confirmation (an answer to a request for confirmation) and (b) confirmation of a shared understanding/experience voiced by the other speaker. Although our main analytic attention will be on the latter context, we start with the case of simple confirmation, which roughly corresponds to the use described in the modern dictionary. Example (4) comes from a student theater group of 13 people. Here, and in the examples to follow, we present the extracts in the form of a table (see also Koivisto et al. Reference Koivisto, Vepsäläinen and Virtanen2023). The messages are numbered (column 1). Column 2 records the timestamp as well as the pseudonym of the sender. Column 3 includes the message in its original form, followed by the English translation. When needed, morphological glossesFootnote ⁶ are provided for the original text.

(4)

In message 1, Anna, one of the directors, asks a question about the different starting time of their rehearsal. This is a simple request for confirmation and makes relevant a (dis)confirmation. The first confirmation comes in message 2 by Karo (juupelis, which is a playful derivation of the word juu ‘yes’). In message 3 Satu offers a confirmation by writing Jep! in the same sequential position. No more messages are sent on this topic. Thus, the general sequential feature that is also present in other uses (see Section 3.1 and examples below) – closing implicativeness – is also present here.

Most of the instances of jep are not answers to questions but responses to agreement- or affiliation-relevant messages. The rest of the article focuses on these. These instances occur as a part of a fairly systematic pattern that is clearly different from the transitional uses in the older spoken data – and also responses in second position (example 4). In the cases to be analyzed we suggest that jep is used to confirm and validate a shared perspective voiced by the previous speaker. When comparing this use to Sorjonen’s (Reference Sorjonen2001:195–199) work on joo/nii, we find that nii can be used in a similar context, where it ‘reasserts one’s own prior stance’. However, whereas nii suggests that the co-participant’s response was not sufficient and invites elaboration (ibid. 197), jep suggests that there is no need for further talk from the co-participant.

The following schema illustrates the typical sequential structure of this use (A and B refer to the speakers). Note that even though the pattern consists of three positions, the first does not have to be a sequence-initiating action. That is, the positions indicated here do not strictly adhere to the adjacency part-based structure (see Schegloff Reference Schegloff2007); they could be described as more of a general discourse pattern (see Koivisto Reference Koivisto2012) that can be set in motion in different sequential positions (either first or second position).

1. 1 A: Claim, assessment or a telling of an experience that concerns A or is more general. This claim/assessment/telling can also be produced in second position.

2. 2 B: Turn that explicates some implicit yet obvious aspect of the previous turn or presents an aligning observation. This can occur in second or third position.

3. 3 A: jep

This general pattern can be divided into two subcategories on the basis of whether (a) the matter under discussion falls under the epistemic territory or domain (Heritage Reference Heritage2012) of speaker A, or (b) the speakers have equal epistemic access to it. We first discuss type 1. In example (5), a group of school friends are talking about the universities and other schools they have applied to (see Mikko’s question in message 1).

(5)

As a response to Mikko’s initial question, Katariina lists several city names (where the schools are located) (message 7), after which other group members list their choices. In message 12, Mikko comments on Katariina’s message by commenting on the number of schools she has applied to (‘Kartsa at least has options’), addressing her by her nickname (Kartsa). He thus puts into words an implicit yet obvious aspect of Katariina’s turn. In terms of action, Mikko’s message can be considered a noticing (see Pillet-Shore Reference Pillet-Shore2023) which, while explicating something that is observable to anyone, also invites a response from the addressed party, Katariina (cf. Schegloff Reference Schegloff, Drew and Wootton1988:122). Sequentially, it is a first-position turn in a post-expansion (see Schegloff Reference Schegloff2007:148–168). What does such a remark actually do? As the message ends with a tears of joy emoji, we can understand it as a playful comment or teasing, indicating amusement.

Mikko’s comment is confirmed with jep by Katariina, who is the epistemic authority with respect to the matter at hand. Sequentially speaking, she provides a second-position response to the post-expansion. What is noteworthy is that Katariina has already conveyed her stance toward her choices in message 7 with two emojis, a grimacing face and a monkey covering its eyes. These emojis may indicate embarrassment about how many schools she has applied to, which Mikko’s playful observation addresses. In her confirming jep message, Katariina further underscores her already indicated stance by adding another monkey emoji and a tears of joy emoji, thus treating the issue as both embarrassing and amusing.

Below is another example from a context in which the jep-speaker is the epistemic authority with respect to the matter at hand. Here, the group of (now former) school friends are talking about their newly started studies in different universities as a response to an inquiry by another participant (Mites teillä tää opiskelu lähtenyt käyntiin ‘Have your studies got off to a good start’). In the response slot, Tarmo and Silja are comparing their different experiences in their respective universities. However, they also share common ground: When making the comparison, they draw on their shared experiences from upper secondary school.

(6)

In message 1, Tarmo first describes his experiences of beginning his studies on a general level. Then, in message 2, he moves on to describe his math class of 500 students. Sequentially, this is another message in the same position as the first message (i.e. in second position). As this is a telling in which Tarmo describes his personal experiences, the other participants do not have direct access to them (i.e. they are A-event tellings; see Labov & Fanshell Reference Labov and Fanshel1977). However, the experiences described are something that the others can imagine and consequently relate to. The message thus makes relevant an affiliative response. This is also reflected in the linguistic design of the turn: it is formulated as a zero-person construction (‘math is a bit different from what 0 is used to’), lacking an overt subject pronoun in the second clause (marked as 0 in the translation). Although the turn clearly refers to Tarmo’s own experiences, by choosing the zero-person construction he is offering the experience for his recipients to recognize and identify with (see Helasvuo & Laitinen Reference Helasvuo, Laitinen, Helasvuo and Campbell2006, Laitinen 2006). To quote Sorjonen (Reference Sorjonen2001:136), it ‘opens a place for shared experience’.

In message 3, Silja responds to Tarmo’s message by making a comparison to a contrastive experience, that is, studying in a group of eight students (‘Well I’ll bet it’s a bit different from our 8-person group ’). Sequentially, this is in third position (although the speaker is different from the one that initially posed the question) and the second move in our general pattern. In her message, Silja probably refers to the size of their math group back in upper secondary school. This is an experience that both Tarmo and Silja share. However, the adverb varmaan (‘I suppose’/‘I’ll bet’) epistemically downgrades her claim and thus assigns the primary epistemic rights to evaluate the comparison to Tarmo. Tarmo’s jep then confirms Silja’s assessment. We can see jep as confirming the prior turn, both on the level of its truth value (it is true that studying in a group of eight differs from the experience of studying in a group of 500 students) and its relevance as a point of comparison in this context. Thus, by confirming with jep, Tarmo validates the comparison from an epistemically superior position. The use of the tears of joy emoji in both messages further conveys a sense of sharedness.

A subtle difference to the cases above can be seen in cases in which the matter at hand is initially epistemically (and emotionally) shared. In fact, the use of jep is also a way of constructing the experience as shared by confirming its validity. Example (7) below, from the theater group, is taken from a context in which the members have been discussing their joint experiences of the production and their sense of emotional togetherness. In message 1, Riina comments on the moving contents of the messaging thread and then moves on to describe her recent experience as a substitute teacher at a school, prefacing it with PS (message 2). In terms of actions, this turn is a telling, a first-position turn, which makes a response relevant. However, the preface PS can be seen – at least formally – as downgrading its response relevance.

(7)

In message 2, Riina describes her recent experience as a substitute teacher as being tough in comparison to her experience of being in speksikupla (‘speksibubble’; speksi is a special form of student theater). After two elaborating messages by Riina (3 and 4), Karo joins in the conversation by sharing a recent experience of her own, bumping into Ilona, who is a member of the production team, at the university campus. Her message ends with a heart-shaped emoji and the word speksikupla. Recycling this phrase explicitly ties her message to Karo’s previous message, that is, experiences outside the bubble. In message 6, Aino produces an assessment as a response to Riina’s message 2 with the ‘reply to’ function (‘0 brings 0 nicely down to earth’).

This responsive assessment formulates the gist, a ‘demonstrated comprehension’ of Riina’s telling (Heritage & Watson Reference Heritage, Watson and Psathas1979). Linguistically, this is done by using the zero-person construction: In fact, it lacks both an overt subject and an overt experiencer (marked again by zero). The assessment thus leaves open whether Aino has a similar experience or whether she is just able to relate to and understand the meaning of Riina’s experience. Notably, however, the message has no epistemically downgrading modal elements (as was the case in the previous example). Still, Aino’s responsive assessment is something that Riina is in a position to confirm due to her ‘going first’ (cf. Heritage & Raymond Reference Heritage and Raymond2005) and the recentness of her experience. She does this with jep. By ending the particle with a period (Jep.), Karo is adding a laconic tone to her message, possibly signaling self-evidence and a sense of resignation. What we should note is that even though Karo is in a position to confirm the gist of her complaint articulated by Aino on the local level, something is also more generally shared. That is, the sense of contrast between speksikupla and the ‘real’ world is common to all the participants. Karo’s jep can thus also be seen as confirming and validating the general sharedness of the experience. After jep, a participant called Piia goes back to a previous message by Julius (data not shown), which means that the jep closed the current topical line.

Below is another example of how jep is used to confirm and validate the shared experience described – or to construct an experience as shared. In the extract (from the theater group), more than one participant confirms the experience described in the previous message with jep. In the second occurrence, a participant also describes their own, similar experience in more detail. In message 1, Ilona starts a new topic by posting a YouTube link of a theme song from a TV show that was popular during the group members’ childhood (Uutisvuoto, the Finnish version of the Have I Got News for You format). The group must have previously discussed the theme song offline, as Ilona provides no explanation or contextualization for her contribution.

(8)

Ilona’s accompanying comment ‘here’s some soothing music for the evening’ is clearly ironic as the theme song is very loud and fast paced. In our three-part pattern, this message would constitute the first move. In message 2, Julius reproduces a part of the song by imitating its rhythm (Tiiiii titi tittidi), thus claiming access and recognition. In message 3, Satu makes a remark (‘Total flashback to childhood Saturdays every time’), which shows that she has personal memories of the theme song. Again, the turn is formulated as a zero-person construction. More specifically, even though there is a grammatical subject (Childhood Saturdays, see the literal translation and the grammatical gloss), the construction lacks an overt experiencer. This turn design can be seen as seeking recognition from the co-participants. The message voices an unarticulated but presumably shared dimension of Ilona’s opening post, thus constituting the second step in our sequential pattern.

In message 4 Julius – who did not start the topic but claimed access to it by imitating the song – produces the particle jep, which is marked as a response to Satu’s message with the ‘reply to’ function. By doing this, he is claiming recognition of the experience described by Satu and thereby validating it. Furthermore, another participant, Niklas, produces another jep in the same sequential slot using the ‘reply to’ function (message 6), thus specifically targeting it as a response to Satu’s message. Besides claiming recognition, Niklas’ jep also demonstrates his independent access to the experience by describing a visual recollection from his past (‘Jep! Dad on the couch staring at the TV’). The other group members can potentially relate to this as they are of the same age. In terms of action, it constitutes an aligning elaboration (Sorjonen Reference Sorjonen2001:181–185). Another notable point in this case is that the instances of jep are accompanied by exclamation points, which add emphasis to the relatability of the memory as it is described in the prior message. As a more general point, the example shows that the first and third turns in the sequential pattern do not need to be presented by the same participant. This holds for epistemic constellations in which the participants have equal access to the matter at hand. In terms of sequential development, Niklas’s message reconfirms (with an aligning elaboration) what has already been established, thus offering a pronounced ending to the topic. The messages on this topic end here.

In the previous two examples, the topics discussed have been something to which the members of the group have equal epistemic access and can relate. We have seen that both the first move and second move can be formulated to invite recognition using the zero-person construction or other generic formulations (as in example 6). The use of jep then confirms that the experience discussed is shared. In example (7), the recipient also demonstrated their access to the experience with additional turn-components.

In both contexts discussed in this section – whether it is used to confirm the validity of the previous claim from the K+ position, or to confirm a shared experience (equal access) – jep implies that no more needs to be added to the discussion of the topic. That is, when something can be confirmed (and thus be agreed with), it does not have to be further elaborated. In terms of sequential development, jep is thus strongly closing implicative.

Our last example further illustrates our general points: jep confirms the validity of something that its speaker is in the position to confirm because of equal (independent) access and implies that there is no need for further elaboration. Here, the interactional episode consists of only two messages, a picture posted in the feed and jep as a response. Thus, this example does not adhere to the three-part sequential pattern, but still has the same kind of interactional function. School friends have been talking about the practicalities of their weekend trip to a summer cottage. Messages 1–2 relate to this. Message 3 is sent two days later.

(9)

In his message, Aleksi posts a screenshot of the weather forecast (message 3), which seems to promise good weather. This first position turn, an informing, is not directly related to the practicalities discussed previously, but as it is sent in close time proximity with the planned trip, it can be interpreted as relating to it. Consequently, it does not have to be explained in any way: Aleksi trusts that the others understand its relevance to the present. Silja’s Jep in the following message does at least two things: It claims access to the piece of information (‘I knew this already’) and confirms its validity in the given context. Silja’s message is also accompanied by two emojis, ‘sun behind a cloud’ and ‘smiling face with sunglasses’. The second emoji in particular conveys a positive stance toward the fact that the group will have good weather on their weekend trip. Katariina’s following question (message 6) does not address the weather topic (thus treating it as closed), but relates to the larger overall topic (trip to the cottage), obviously invoked by a previous exchange.

In sum, jep is again used to confirm the recognizability and validity of the previous turn, and to construct its meaning as shared and as requiring no further elaboration.