Can English Provide a Framework for Spanish Response Tokens?

Part of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics book series (YCLP, volume 1)


This chapter investigates the question of whether response items in Spanish can be analysed using frameworks developed for the study of similar items in English. Data comes from the Spanish corpus COREC, the Corpus Oral de Referencia del Español Contemporáneo, and is compared where appropriate with data from the British English corpus, CANCODE, the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English. The main motivation behind this chapter is to assess the possibility and appropriateness of using English-based frameworks for the analysis of Spanish and to further the notion of ‘good listenership’. To this end, the study scopes out (a) formal aspects of response items in Spanish, (b) pragmatic coverage of the items and their translatability and transferability, and (c) insights into potential cross-cultural misunderstandings with English as the comparison language. We conclude that there is a good but not complete match between English and Spanish, that response tokens are an essential element in being an active and engaged listener in conversation in any language and that fluency is a process best understood in the context of dialogue.


Response Token Conversation Analysis Spanish Data Taboo Word Discourse Marker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amador Moreno, C.P., A. Chambers, and S. O’Riordan. 2006. Integrating a corpus of classroom discourse in language teacher education: The case of discourse markers. ReCALL 18: 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, L., and P. Trudgill. 1990. Bad language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Antaki, C. 2000. ‘Brilliant. Next question…’, high-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antaki, C. 2002. ‘Lovely’, turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies 4: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauhr, G. 1994. Funciones discursivas de bueno en Español moderno. Lingüística Espanola Actual XVI: 79–121.Google Scholar
  6. Brinton, L.J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bublitz, W. 1988. Supportive fellow-speakers and cooperative conversations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, R.A., and M.J. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carter, R.A., M.J. McCarthy, G. Mark, and A. O’Keeffe. 2011. English grammar today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clancy, P.M., S.A. Thompson, R. Suzuki, and H.Y. Tao. 1996. The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, H., and J. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition 84: 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drummond, K., and R. Hopper. 1993. Backchannels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan, S. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan, S. 1974. On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaker turns. Language in Society 2: 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan, S., and G. Niederehe. 1974. On signaling that it’s your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10: 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duranti, A. 1986. The audience as co-author, an introduction. Text 6, 239–247 [Introduction to special issue of the journal on The audience as co-author, ed. A. Duranti and D. Brenneis].Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, F. 1986. Listening and speaking. In Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, 1985, ed. D. Tannen and J. Alatis, 294–319. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Erickson, F., and J. Shultz. 1982. The counselor as gatekeeper, social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Farr, F., B. Murphy, and A. O’Keeffe. 2004. The Limerick Corpus of Irish English: Design, description and application. Teanga (Yearbook of the Irish Association for Applied Linguistics) 21: 5–29Google Scholar
  20. Fillmore, C.J. 1979. On fluency. In Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, ed. C.J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W.S.Y. Wang, 85–102. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fries, C.C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
  23. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1993. Comportamiento discursivo de bueno, bien, pues bien. E.L.U.A., 9: 205–221.Google Scholar
  24. Gardner, R. 1997. The listener and minimal responses in conversational interaction. Prospect 12: 12–32.Google Scholar
  25. Gardner, R. 1998. Between speaking and listening, the vocalization of understandings. Applied Linguistics 19: 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardner, R. 2002. When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational organization, interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Goodwin, C. 1986. Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 9: 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hasselgreen, A. 2005. Testing the spoken English of young Norwegians: A study of test validity and the role of ‘smallwords’ in contributing to pupils’ fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Heritage, J. 1985. Analyzing news interviews, aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 3, ed. T.A. Van Dijk, 95–117. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  31. Holmes, J., and M. Stubbe. 1997. Good listeners: Gender differences in New Zealand conversation. Women and Language 20: 7–14.Google Scholar
  32. Jucker, A. 1986. News interviews, a pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Kendon, A. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psycholoigia 20: 22–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knight, D., D. Evans, R. Carter, and S. Adolphs. 2009. HeadTalk, HandTalk and the corpus: Towards a framework for multi-modal, multi-media corpus development. Corpora 4(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lenk, U. 1998. Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Lerner, G.H. 1989. Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martín Zorraquino, M.A., and J. Portolés. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática de la lengua española 3, ed. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4051–4214. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
  38. Maynard, S.K. 1989. Japanese conversation: Self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  39. McCarthy, M.J. 1998. Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. McCarthy, M.J. 2002. Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation. In Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, ed. R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, and D. Biber, 49–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. McCarthy, M.J. 2003. Talking back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCarthy, M.J. 2010. Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal. Inaugural issue. Online at: Accessed 28 April 2013.
  43. McGregor, G., and R. White. 1990. Reception and response, hearer creativity and the analysis of spoken and written texts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. O’Keeffe, A., and S. Adolphs. 2008. Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In Variational pragmatics, ed. K.P. Schneider and A. Barron, 69–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  45. O’Keeffe, A., M.J. McCarthy, and R.A. Carter. 2007. From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Öreström, B. 1983. Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  47. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments, some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action, ed. J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Portolés, J. 1998. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel practicum.Google Scholar
  49. Schegloff, E. 1982. Discourse as interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Analysing discourse. Text and talk, ed. D. Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schegloff, E. 2006. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott, M. 2011. Wordsmith tools. Software. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sinclair, J.Mc.H., and D. Brazil. 1982. Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sinclair, J.Mc.H., and R.M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sorjonen, M.-L. 2001. Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  56. Stenström, A.-B. 1990. Lexical items peculiar to spoken discourse. In The London-Lund corpus of spoken English, ed. J. Svartvik, 137–175. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stubbe, M. 1998. Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 257–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  59. Tao, H. 2003. Turn initiators in spoken English, a corpus based approach to interaction and grammar. In Corpus analysis, language structure and language use, ed. C. Meyer and P. Leistyna, 187–207. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  60. Tao, H.Y., and S.A. Thompson. 1991. English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic “interference”. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tottie, G. 1991. Conversational style in British and American English, the case of backchannels. In English corpus linguistics, ed. K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg, 254–271. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  63. Travis, C. 1998. Bueno: A Spanish interactive discourse marker. Berkeley Linguistic Society 24: 268–279.Google Scholar
  64. Watts, R.J. 1989. Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers’ perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yngve, V. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English, Facultad de Filosofía y LetrasUniversidad de ExtremaduraCáceresSpain
  2. 2.School of English StudiesUniversity of NottinghamUniversity ParkUK
  3. 3.Department of English Language and Literature, Mary Immaculate CollegeUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations