Response Cries Inviting an Alignment: Finnish huh huh

References

• Bartsch, J. (2014). Beware the frankenbite. ThePowerEdit.com [online]. Retrieved from http://thepoweredit.com/beware-the-frankenbite
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 113–146). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Curl, T. S. (2005). Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of ‘repetitions’. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 1–44. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3901_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curl, T. S., Local, J., & Walker, G. (2006). Repetition and the prosody–Pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1721–1751. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingemanse, M. (2017). On the margins of language: Ideophones, interjections and dependencies in linguistic theory. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Dependencies in language (pp. 195–203). Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2013). Is “huh?” a universal word? Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. PLoS One, 8(11), e78273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787–815. doi:10.2307/413235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370–404). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A. (2001). On some uses of the discourse particle kyl(lä) in Finnish conversation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A. (2004). Crying: Notes on description, transcription, and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 251–290. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_1
   Web of Science ®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 in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoey, E. M. (2014). Sighing in interaction: Somatic, semiotic, and social. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 175–200. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.900229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2006). Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jääskeläinen, A. (2013). Todisteena äänen kuva. Suomen kielen imitatiivikonstruktiot (Doctoral dissertation). Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian studies, University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 274–289. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2018). Sequence initiation or self-talk? Commenting on the surroundings while mucking out a sheep stable. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 313–328. doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1485233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L., & Hakulinen, A. (2018). Epistemically reinforced kyl(lä)/küll-responses in Estonian and Finnish. Word order and social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 121–138. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidwell, M. (2009). “What happened?” An epistemics of before and after in “at-the-scene” police questioning. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(1), 20–41. doi:10.1080/08351810802671727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legewie, N., & Nassauer, A. (2018). YouTube, Google, Facebook: 21st century online video research and research ethics. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3). doi:10.17169/fqs-19.3.3130
   Google Scholar
• Norrick, N. R. (2007). Discussion article: Pragmatic markers, interjections and discourse. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 159–168. doi:10.5565/rev/catjl.129
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1752–1775. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pehkonen, S. (2020). Huh huh kannanottona fyysiseen rasitukseen. Virittäjä, 124(1).
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments. Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, E. (2016). Incitement in the gym: Using pitch as a resource for action. Philadelphia, PA: National Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, E. (2017). Description of membership and enacting membership: Seeing-a-lift, being a team. Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 99–119. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robles, J. S. (2012). Troubles with assessments in gifting occasions. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 753–777. doi:10.1177/1461445612457490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545. doi:10.1080/01638539709545001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
   Google Scholar
• Sikveland, R. O. (2019). Failed summons: Phonetic features of persistence and intensification in crisis negotiation. Journal of Pragmatics, 150, 167–179. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikveland, R. O., Skovholt, K., Stokoe, E., & Skarbø Solem, M. (2018, November). Phonetic features of third turn receipts in Norwegian secondary school desk talk. Paper presented at Fifth Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Interaction, Aarhus, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L., & Vepsäläinen, H. (2016). The Finnish particle no. In P. Auer & Y. Maschler (Eds.), Nu/nå. A family of discourse markers across the language of Europe and beyond (pp. 243–280). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M. (2012). Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions: On approving responses to proposals in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 843–862. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2015). Experience sharing, emotional reciprocity, and turn-taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 450. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. doi:10.1080/08351810701691123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VISK=Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki, Finland: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7. Retrieved from http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk
   Google Scholar
• Walker, T., & Benjamin, T. (2017). Phonetic and sequential differences in other repetitions in repair initiation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(4), 330–347. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1340717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wharton, T. (2003). Interjections, language and the ‘showing’/’saying’ continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11(1), 39–91. doi:10.1075/pc.11.1
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S. (2013). The social life of ‘eugh’: Disgust as a form of evaluation in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 489–509. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02106.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182. doi:10.1177/019027250606900203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1559–1579. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar