THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES ISSN 2321 - 9203 www.theijhss.com 53 Vol 9 Issue 10 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijhss/2021/v9/i10/HS2110-004 October ,2021 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES Talking Back with Meaning: A Pragmatic Analysis of Response Tokens in Ghanaian English Discourse 1. Introduction We generally do one of two things in any interactional process; we either speak to others in turn, or listen to them. To listen to others means that we pay attention to what they say. However, being listeners does not mean that we remain completely silent throughout the interaction. While we listen, we may make appropriate responses to speakers’ utterances. In this instance, Huq and Amir (2015) argue that we make use of brief responses instead of lengthy, elaborate turns to maintain an interactive listening behaviour. While these brief responses are mostly verbal, there are instances in which they can also be non-verbal in nature. McCarthy (2003, p. 2) observes that listeners tend to use ‘small words’ to communicate to their speakers that it is not only they (the speakers) who are involved in the conversation, but they, as listeners, also actively engage in the talk. In short, the listener’s role is seen as not an entirely passive one, but rather, an active one, similarly to the role of the speaker. With such an active role, the listener can become the speaker or give some signals to show his/her involvement in the conversation. This, s/he does, to help keep the smooth continuation of the interaction and to ensure ‘communicative economy’ (McCarthy, 2003). Listeners are able to coordinate with speakers to sustain interactions in a way that makes researchers interested in conversation analysis sometimes wonder how they (listeners) seem to know and follow the intricate rules of responding to everyday talk. This wonder is what compels Ward and Tsukahara (2000) to comment that ‘… there is the mystery of how ‘coordination’ is achieved when two people are talking together; their utterances seldom interfere with each other, despite the lack of any fixed protocol for who may speak when’ (p. 1178). With the act of listening and responding to the speaker, Gumperz (1982) notes that Gricean pragmatics is based on an analysis which is sentence-based and is ‘concerned with (shared) presuppositions in the interpretations of intent’ (p. 17). In Gumperz’s opinion, the intention of the speaker and its interpretation by the listener is an important part of the communicative event which cannot be ignored. He claims that ‘we assume such interpretation is a function of (a) listeners’ linguistic knowledge, (b) contextual presuppositions informed by certain cues, and (c) background information brought to bear on the interpretation (p. 17). Based on these assumptions, he considers contextualization cues as what help in the negotiation and interpretation of conversational cooperation between speakers and listeners. Consequently, one way by which these contextualization cues function is to serve as a guide for monitoring the progress of the talk. It is therefore important to recognize that the listener is a significant pivot within the interactional process, and like Gumperz, this recognition is supported by researchers such as Heritage (1984), Jefferson (1984), Sacks (1992), and Schegloff (1982). These researchers, rather than searching for linguistic rules, focused entirely on identifying sociological patterns embedded in the interactions. Such patterns include how listeners respond to speakers during talk-in-interaction. For example, Schegloff (1982) intimates that researchers stand the risk of losing the very essence of the interactivity between conversational participants if they ignore bits of talk and behaviour which are not made by the main speaker, but by the listener(s). He further notes that when the listener is neglected while focusing only on the speaker, it leads to the discourse being considered as ‘a single speaker’s, and a single mind’s, product’ (p. 74). Dr. Charlotte Fofo Lomotey Senior Lecturer, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana Abstract: In interaction, interlocutors are expected to allow the talk to flow without difficulty. This smooth flow can be achieved with the use of little words (or response tokens) which do not appear to have any effect on the syntactic structure of the utterances but add important pragmatic value to them. This paper is a case study on the use of response tokens in Ghanaian English. It investigates the types and functions of the tokens as they are used in this variety of English. To achieve this, conversations were recorded from 50 students and analyzed qualitatively. Using Xudong’s combined Lumping and Splitting approaches, the types and functions of the tokens were identified. The results revealed that there are minimal tokens (single words and non-lexical vocalizations) and non-minimal tokens (phrases, clauses, premodified tokens, clusters, extended responses, collaborative finishes). The tokens were utilized as continuers, convergence and divergence markers, and as engagement markers. Based on the results, it is argued that response tokens should be seen as meaningful elements which should be employed to maintain fluency in talk-in-interaction. Keywords: Response tokens, talking back, pragmatic analysis, Ghanaian English