Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages

Abstract An understanding of “Okay” usages in conversation requires analytic considerations extending beyond free-standing and non -continuative deployments. Relying on previous findings on how recipients and current speakers organize such activities as phone openings and closings, the present analysis addresses a wider variety of interactional environments in establishing certain predominant and thus fundamental features. Those addressed herein include how recipients and current speakers rely on “Okay” pivotally , at or near transition/opportunity spaces: Decidedly in response to prior talk, yet also in transitionally relevant (‘state of readiness’) ways via shifts/ movements to next-positioned matters. Though recipients or current speakers may (in next turn) treat prior “Okay” usages as non-continuative, and/or move to sequentially delete the actions “Okay” was taken to be projecting (i.e., ‘Okay + [fuller turn]’), just what participants appear to be prefacing or setting-up via “Okay” is recurrently (and eventually) apparent.

[1]  A. Mchoul,et al.  The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom , 1978, Language in Society.

[2]  C. D. Claiborn,et al.  Talk and Social Organization. , 1988 .

[3]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[4]  H. Mehan,et al.  Learning Lessons, Social Organization in the Classroom , 1979 .

[5]  W. Beach,et al.  Conversational Universals and Comparative Theory: Turning to Swedish and American Acknowledgment Tokens in Interaction , 1992 .

[6]  Marjorie Harness Goodwin,et al.  he‐said‐she‐said: formal cultural procedures for the construction of a gossip dispute activity , 1980 .

[7]  E. Schegloff.  Discourse as an interactional achievement : Some uses of "Uh huh" and other things that come between sentences , 1982 .

[8]  Dominic A. Infante,et al.  Building communication theory , 1990 .

[9]  G. Redeker.  Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure , 1990 .

[10]  J. Atkinson,et al.  A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement , 1985 .

[11]  G. Button,et al.  Generating topic: the use of topic initial elicitors , 1985 .

[12]  E. Schegloff.  The routine as achievement , 1986 .

[13]  S. Condon,et al.  The discourse functions of OK , 1986 .

[14]  E. Schegloff.  Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis , 1987 .

[15]  E. Schegloff.  Sequencing in Conversational Openings , 1968 .

[16]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[17]  D. Greatbatch.  On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of news interviews , 1991 .

[18]  G. Jefferson.  Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset , 1986 .

[19]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[20]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation , 1978 .

[21]  Alec McHoul,et al.  Two aspects of classroom interaction, turn-taking and correction: A research report , 1985 .

[22]  M. Goodwin,et al.  Interstitial argument , 2022 .

[23]  R. Hopper.  Sequential ambiguity in telephone openings: ‘What are you doin’ , 1989 .

[24]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Opening up Closings , 1973 .

[25]  H. Mehan.  Structuring School Structure , 1978 .

[26]  M. Sorjonen.  Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design , 1994, Language in Society.

[27]  C. Goodwin.  Forgetfulness as an Interactive Resource , 1987 .

[28]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Preliminaries to Preliminaries: “Can I Ask You a Question?” , 1980 .

[29]  J. M. Atkinson.  Structures of Social Action: Contents , 1985 .

[30]  P. Drew.  Structures of Social Action: Speakers' reportings in invitation sequences , 1985 .

[31]  R. Hopper.  Speech in telephone openings: Emergent interaction v. routines , 1989 .

[32]  Gene H. Lerner.  Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion , 1989 .

[33]  A. Tsui.  Sequencing rules and coherence in discourse , 1991 .

[34]  W. Beach.  Avoiding ownership for alleged wrongdoings , 1990 .

[35]  Robert Hopper,et al.  Back Channels Revisited: Acknowledgment Tokens and Speakership Incipiency , 1993 .

[36]  B. Fraser.  An approach to discourse markers , 1990 .

[37]  Judy Davidson.  Structures of Social Action: Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection , 1985 .

[38]  W. Beach.  Orienting to the Phenomenon , 1990 .

[39]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Analyzing discourse : text and talk , 1982 .

[40]  J. Mandelbaum.  Interpersonal activities in conversational storytelling , 1989 .

[41]  W. Beach.  Searching for universal features of conversation , 1990 .

[42]  Alec McHoul,et al.  The organization of repair in classroom talk , 1990, Language in Society.