On “Whistle” Sound Objects in English Everyday Conversation

References

• Busnel, R.-G., & Classe, A. (1976). Whistled languages. New York, NY: Springer.
   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., & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 12, 1–51.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (1996). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional Studies (pp. 11–56). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gehweiler, E. (2008). From proper name to primary interjection: The case of gee! Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 9, 71–88. doi:10.1075/jhp.9.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt, C., & Reber, E. (2019). Embodied Activities. In E. Reber & C. Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied activities in face-to-face and mediated settings: Social encounters in time and space (pp. 3–27). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Goddard, C. (2014). Interjections and emotions (with special reference to ”surprise” and ”disgust”). Emotion Review, 6, 53–63. doi:10.1177/1754073913491843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2012). German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 245–268. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A., & Betz, E. (2008). German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 27, 7–37. doi:10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9, 205–217. doi:10.1007/BF00148127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “mm hm.”. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197–216. doi:10.1080/08351818409389201
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984b). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics (pp. 11–38). Padova, Italy: Cleup Editore.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/08351813.2013.753710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, J. (2006). Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 81–117. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Local, J., & Walker, G. (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text and Talk, 28(6), 723–747. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2008.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. (2008). Typology and acoustic strategies of whistled languages: Phonetic comparison and perceptual cues of whistled vowels. Journal of the International Phoneic Association, 38(1), 69–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Version 3.0.1. Retrieved from https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user_upload/redaktion/Mondada_conv_multimodality.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nübling, D. (2001). Von oh mein Jesus! zu oje! Der Interjektionalisierungspfad von der sekundären zur primären Interjektion [From oh my Jesus! to oh gee! The interjectionalization path from secondary to primary interjection]. Deutsche Sprache, 1, 20–45.
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2012). Making sense of outliers. Phonetica, 69, 48–67. doi:10.1159/000343197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pompino-Marschall, B. (2004). Zwischen Tierlaut und sprachlicher Artikulation: Zur Phonetik der Interjektionen. [Between animal sound and linguistic articulation. On the phonetics of interjections]. Zeitschrift für Semiotik, 26, 71–84.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (2009). Zur Affektivität in englischen Alltagsgesprächen [On affectivity in English everyday conversation]. In M. Buss, S. Habscheid, S. Jautz, F. Liedtke, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Theatralität des sprachlichen Handelns. Eine Metaphorik zwischen Linguistik und Kulturwissenschaften [Theatrality of linguistic action. A metaphor at the interface of linguistics and cultural studies] (pp. 193–215). München, Germany: Fink-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (2018). Interjektionen [Interjections]. In F. Liedtke & A. Tuchen (Eds.), Handbuch Pragmatik [Handbook of pragmatics] (pp. 229–239). Stuttgart, Germany: J.B. Metzler.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (in press). Interjektionen – an den Rändern der Sprache? [Interjections – At the margins of language?]. In M. Elmentaler & O. Niebuhr (Eds.), An den Rändern der Sprache [At the margins of language]. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, E., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2010). Interjektionen zwischen Lexikon und Vokalität: Lexem oder Lautobjekt? [Interjections between lexicon and vocalization: Lexeme or sound object?]. In A. Deppermann & A. Linke (Eds.), Sprache intermedial: Stimme und Schrift, Bild und Ton [Language intermedially: Voice and writing, image and sound] (pp. 69–96). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Rialland, A. (2005). Phonological and phonetic aspects of whistled languages. Phonology, 22, 237–271. doi:10.1017/S0952675705000552
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70–85). Clevedon, England: Multilingual.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2005). Whistling in the dark: Notes from the other side of liminality. Texas Linguistic Forum, 48, 17–30.
   Google Scholar
• Shadle, C. (1983). Experiments on the acoustics of whistling. The Physics Teacher, 21(3), 148–154. doi:10.1119/1.2341241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadle, C. (1997). The aerodynamics of speech. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 33–64). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Shosted, R. K. (2006). Just put your lips together and blow? The whistled fricatives of Southern Bantu. Retrieved from http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2006/whistleISSP.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M. (2013). Managing participation in interaction: The case of humming. Text & Talk, 33(1), 113–137. doi:10.1515/text-2013-0006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wharton, T. (2003). Interjections, language, and the “showing/saying” continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11, 39–91. doi:10.1075/pc.11.1
   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
• Wundt, W. (1911). Völkerpsychologie. Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythos und Sitte [Social psychology. An investigation of the developmental laws of language, myth and custom] (Vol. 1). Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann. Die Sprache [The language].
   Google Scholar