Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making Knowing Visible: Tracking the Development of the Response Token Yes in Second Turn Position

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction

Abstract

This study is a longitudinal investigation of the development of the token yes in second turn position in Summons/Response and in yes/no Question/Answer adjacency pairs. The study draws on data from the interactions between two children aged 10 months to 24 months with their parents. Noting the strong association of yes with the actions of affirming, agreeing and acknowledging, analysis follows its trajectory from its initial non-verbal design at around 10 months, achieved through gaze, bodily orientation and physical action, to a more distinctive head nod in response to questions from around 15 months and to an increasingly verbal yes formulation as the child approaches her second birthday. Analysis also focuses on how the child construed the action that the parent’s question projected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bateman, A. J., & Danby, S. J. (2013). Recovering from the earthquake: Early childhood teachers and children collaboratively telling stories about their experiences. Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(5), 467–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolden, G. (2016). A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, C. W. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, C. W., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Mobilising recipiency: Child participation and ‘rights to speak’ in multi-party family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, P. (2010). Child participation in their primary care consultations. In H. F. Gardner & M. A. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 128–145). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. (2009). Preference organisation and peer dispute: How young children resolve conflict. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danby, S. J. (2009). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: An epilogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1596–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, C., & Liszkowski, U. (2012). Infants anticipate others’ social preferences. Infant and Child Development, 21(3), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A. (2007). A toddler’s treatment of mm and mh mm in talk with a parent. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 33.1–33.17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A. (2009). Parent and toddler interaction: The development of interactional competence through pointing, gaze and vocalisations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A. (2013). Withholding and pursuit in the development of skills in interaction and language. Interaction Studies, 14(2), 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A. (2014). Conversation analysis and pragmatic development. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 71–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A. (2015). The development of recipient design in bilingual child-parent interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 100–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A. (2017). The organization of early story-telling. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.), Children’s knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 279–296). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, M. A. (2008). The emergence of self-repair: A case study of one child during the early preschool years. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, M. A. (2010). Ethnomethodology and adult-child conversation: Whose development? In H. F. Gardner & M. A. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 42–58). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, M. A. (2015). Early social interaction: A case comparison of developmental pragmatics and psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Cohen, S. H. (2014). The communicative competence of young children: A modular approach. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzley, V. H., & Lee, K. (2003). Do young children always say yes to yes–no questions? A meta developmental study of the affirmation bias. Child Development, 74(5), 1297–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzley, V. H., Lindsay, R. C., & Lee, K. (2013). Young children’s response tendencies toward yes-no questions concerning actions. Child Development, 84(2), 711–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and recipient stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, E., & Davies, C. (2014). Development of referring expressions. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 161–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayano, K. (2013). Question design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 395–414). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I. (2010). Feelings-talk and the paradoxes of child counselling. In H. F. Gardner & M. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 146–162). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2003). A child’s point and the achievement of intentionality. Gesture, 3(2), 155–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, M. (2005). Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate “the look” from a “mere look” by the adult caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 417–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, M. (2011). Epistemics and embodiment in children. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 257–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, M. (2013). Interaction among children. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 511–532). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liszkowski, U. (2011). Three lines in the emergence of prelinguistic communication and social cognition. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10(1), 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liszkowski, U., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Individual differences in social, cognitive, and morphological aspects of infant pointing. Cognitive Development, 26, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendle-Short, J., Skelt, L., & Bramley, N. (2015). Speaking to twin children: Evidence against the “Impoverishment” thesis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (1992). Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews. Language Testing, 9(2), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomo, D., & Liszkowski, U. (2013). Sociocultural settings influence the emergence of prelinguistic deictic gestures. Child Development, 84(4), 1296–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 266–298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2009). Conversational understanding in young children. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 304–323). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2012). Access to language and cognitive development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language as Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svennevig, J. (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 333–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarplee, C. (1993). Working on talk: The collaborative shaping of linguistic skills within child-adult interaction. PhD., University of York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarplee, C. (1996). Working on young children’s utterances: Prosodic aspects of repetition during picture labelling. In E. Coupler-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 406–435). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tarplee, C. (2010). Next turn and intersubjectivity in children’s language acquisition. In H. F. Gardner & M. A. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 3–22). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wootton, A. J. (1994). Object transfer, intersubjectivity and third position repair: Early developmental observations of one child. Journal of Child Language, 21(3), 543–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, Australia

    Anna Filipi

Authors
  1. Anna Filipi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Simona Pekarek Doehler

  2. Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Johannes Wagner

  3. Department of Social Sciences, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Esther González-Martínez

Appendix: Annotations for Non-verbal Features

Appendix: Annotations for Non-verbal Features

figure 13

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Filipi, A. (2018). Making Knowing Visible: Tracking the Development of the Response Token Yes in Second Turn Position. In: Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J., González-Martínez, E. (eds) Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57006-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57007-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation