Marmorstein2026
| Marmorstein2026 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Marmorstein2026 |
| Author(s) | Michal Marmorstein, Nadav Matalon |
| Title | Hebrew ken? (Yes?): A minimal format for inviting the review of prior talk |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis, Minimal responses |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2026 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 58 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 397-426 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2025.2567822 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Minimal responses are often seen as limited to fully accepting or rejecting prior talk. This article examines a minimal response practice that is used to withhold or avoid taking such a clear-cut stance. The practice consists of the affirmative particle ken “yes,” delivered with a rise-to-high pitch movement. Ken? invites co-participants to review their prior assertions, without targeting an exact part or aspect thereof. Prior speakers assess the relevancy of this invitation-to-review based on the sequential, actional, and relational context. This analysis yields varied responses to ken? including reassertions, retractions, or deferrals of the review invitation. While ken? is often suggesting affective or epistemic incongruence, it may also be used affiliatively, by encouraging the development of a yet unfinished topic. These findings reveal further depths in the use of minimal responses, showing that their lack of specificity has its own affordances. Data are in Hebrew with English glosses and translations.
Notes
