Conversation Analysis: Examining Response Tokens in English Discourse

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of response tokens (RTs) in conversation analysis, focusing on their sequential environments and prosodic features. It highlights the importance of RTs, such as 'Yeah', 'Uh huh', and 'Mm', in understanding the behavior of listeners and the dynamics of spoken English. The essay explores how these tokens, often used in small talk and abbreviated forms, contribute to the construction of meaning and the identification of roles in conversations. It references key linguistic concepts like adjacency pairs, insertion sequences, and the three-part exchange structure, emphasizing the significance of timing, prosody, and the context of utterances. The analysis also touches upon the historical contributions of linguists such as Harold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman. Furthermore, the essay underscores the importance of studying RTs as they offer valuable insights into the relational and evaluative aspects of communication, especially when contrasted with non-transactional talk. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for cautious and appropriate use of response tokens for effective communication.

Running head: CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Conversation Analysis
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Introduction
A growing body of research has explored response tokens (RTs) with an emphasis on
their sequential environments and their prosodic features. In the field of conversation analysis,
response tokens have been distinguished from one another, including ‘continuers’, typically Uh
huh, Mm, and Yeah (e.g. Sacks 1992a, 1992b; Schegloff 1982), ‘acknowledgment tokens’ such
as Yeah (e.g. Drummond and Hopper 1993) and Mm (Gardner 1997), and ‘newsmarkers’ such as
Really, I see, and Oh (e.g. Heritage 1984).
The response tokens are crucial to understand the conversations between two or more
persons and realize the style of responses from other persons. The responses of the listener
should be recorded for future use and understand his behavior. This has been a helpful
component for the speakers in the SLA field. The experts of linguistics have showed their faith
in this system (Kaukomaa, Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori, 2014). These response tokens have been
helpful for the listeners or the recipients of the speeches. It is most essential since other
components are based upon the responses or ideas of the speakers.
This is completely contrary to the other components in the field of linguistics. The
uniqueness of the response tokens are beginning to be unfolded in recent linguistic studies. It is
important to note that response tokens provide a good opportunity to everyone about
understanding the behavioral responses of listeners (Kasper & Wagner, 2014). Response tokens
must be used in the small talks rather than long conversations since it is mainly used in the
classroom sessions for children and business needs for the professionals. The phatic exchanges
of words between speakers and listeners should be the basis of response tokens precisely. The
insertion sequences are also crucial matters for the success of using the response tokens.

2CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Response tokens are not generally included into various clauses. The structures of clauses
are somewhat different from those which are used in response tokens in recent times. According
to the experts of linguistics, it is also hard for them sometimes since it will be difficult to use
response tokens in phrase-based or clause-based grammars (Sutherland, Peräkylä & Elliott,
2014). The interpersonal discourse of words must be applied when response tokens are being
used. The superfluous tendency of small talk has been noticed by the critics of linguistics in
several cases. These are used for the transactional needs for people as well. The mainstream talk
is avoided in this type of conversations. The full sentences are not used and grammatical errors
are generally ignored in this kind of superfluous talking.
Clause based or phrase based grammatical sentences is not that much perfect for the
conversation between two persons. This is why response tokens are used through the mode of
abbreviation. Rather, it aims at providing the understanding for utterances or description of
events by different speakers (Kendrick & Holler, 2017). These utterances work as the basis for
identifying roles of both the people in the conversation. The use of prosody and rhetoric are also
essential in the use of the response tokens in this context.
The utterance of human beings and their attitudes and behaviors are regarded as essential
things for spoken English. In this discourse, the significance of response tokens should be used
in the abbreviated forms. According to existing data, it is expected that special focus is being
given on the behaviors of listeners as well. It has been noted by critics that benefits have been
gained by the sociolinguistics by using the response tokens. The relational and evaluation
episodes have been observed and tracked down properly so it can give better opportunities to
both the listeners and speakers. This is completely different from the non transactional talk. The

3CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
sequences of initiation-responses are important parts for the conversation analysis. Therefore,
everyone must identify the positive and negative aspects of these types of conversations.
The optimum recipients of conversation between two human beings are its listeners only.
This is why the response of listeners must be highlighted for normative reasons. The ways of
expression and ability to express beliefs had been given the extreme importance but linguists
believe it is also something integral to understand what listeners have to say about the entire
process (Kasper & Kim, 2015). Therefore, the application of this process will indeed be helpful
for them from all aspects.
The response tokens will have to be used cautiously for the benefits of both speakers and
listeners. The limited use of response tokens might be problematic in some cases. Some
examples of response tokens are “umm”, “yeah’ and others. These words do not have deep
meanings in the conventional dictionaries but they are enough to note the viewpoints of the
listeners. These words generally provide speakers with utmost information on the stance of
listeners (Kasper & Kim, 2015).
The “third-turn receipts” are indeed crucial for this issue in several aspects. This means
the repairs that are needed by initiated in the next turn for small talks. The problematic
understanding of some phrase or sentence can be understood with the help of this tool. Linguistic
critics like Harold Garfinkel, Erving Goffman and others proposed this tool for response tokens.
The adjacency pairs based on initiation and response will have to be analyzed so the proper
outcomes can be recorded. The three-part exchange structure is also essential for the perfect
analysis of response tokens and its relevance in the notion of small talk.

4CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
References List
Kasper, G., & Kim, Y. (2015). Conversation-for-learning: Institutional talk beyond the
classroom. The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction, 390-408.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 34, 171-212.
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2014). Foreshadowing a problem: Turn-opening
frowns in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 132-147.
Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12-32.
Lee, S. H. (2015). Two forms of affirmative responses to polar questions. Discourse
Processes, 52(1), 21-46.
Sutherland, O., Peräkylä, A., & Elliott, R. (2014). Conversation analysis of the two-chair self-
soothing task in emotion-focused therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 738-751.