Dealing with Ambiguities in Informings: Finnish Aijaa as a “Neutral” News Receipt

REFERENCES

• Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 109–132.
   Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers ‘‘so’’ and ‘‘oh’’ and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661–688. doi:10.1111/jcom.2006.56.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In G. Button & J. R. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 101–151). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3–55. doi:10.1007/BF00143022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment.” In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction—Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Affiliation in conversational complaint stories. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 113–146). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freese, J., & Maynard, D. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 195–219. doi:10.1017/S0047404500019850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787–815. doi:10.2307/413235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso. and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12, 147–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2012). German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3), 245–268. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi. [The Comprehensive Finnish Grammar]. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2009). Answers to inapposite inquiries. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 159–186). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinonen, M. (2002). Ni(in), ni tota ja tota ni paluun merkkeinä puhelinkeskusteluissa. [Ni(in), ni tota and tota ni as resumption markers in telephone conversations.] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge (pp. 159–183). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1980). On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 153–185. doi:10.1111/soin.1980.50.issue-3-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1981). The abominable ‘ne’?: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of port-response pursuit of response. Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately newt-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kastari, A. (2006). Dialogipartikkelien aha(a) ja ai jaa tehtävistä keskustelussa [On the functions of response particles aha(a) and ai jaa in conversation.] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A. (2013). On the preference for remembering: Acknowledging an answer with Finnish ai nii(n) (“Oh that’s right”). Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46, 277–297. doi:10.1080/08351813.2013.810411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A. (2015). Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token aa. Discourse Processes, 52, 111–148. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.914357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelbaum, J. (1991). Conversational non-cooperation: An exploration of disattended complaints. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25, 97–138. doi:10.1080/08351819109389359
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(2), 93–130. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. (2003). Bad news, good news. Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D., & Freese, J. (2012). Good news, bad news, and affect: Practical and temporal “emotion work” in everyday life. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 92–112). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Routarinne, S., & Ogden, R. (2005). The communicative functions of final rises in Finnish intonation. Phonetica, 62, 160–175. doi:10.1159/000090096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In B. Blount & M. Sanches (Eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language use (pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York, NY: Irvington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1986). The routine as an achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218. doi:10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A Primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M. (1999). Dialogipartikkelien tehtävistä [On the functions of response particles.]. Virittäjä, 103, 170–194.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M. (2001). Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M. (2002). Recipient activities: The particle no as a go-ahead response in Finnish conversations. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 165–195). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1–25. doi:10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terasaki, A. (2004). Preannouncement sequences in conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171–224). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar