1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Asian Languages and Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article explores the issue of temporality and projectability regarding the production of enactments – stretches of talk designed as there-and-then verbal and/or non-verbal behaviors – in Japanese conversations. As word order is a practice that interactants employ for projecting the shape of an upcoming turn, the predicate-final structure of Japanese leads to “delayed projectability” (Fox, Hayashi & Jasperson 1996Tanaka 19992000). Japanese enactments are no exception. In English, “she said” is prototypically produced before enactment and projects a forthcoming utterance as enactment (Lerner & Takagi 1999Schegloff 1987). In Japanese, however, syntactic markings of enactment appear after enactment and thus retrospectively indicate preceding enactment. Despite the syntactically delayed projectability, the Japanese interactants rarely exhibit difficulty in comprehending enactments. This article demonstrates that the projection of Japanese enactment is assisted by various linguistic and/or non-linguistic resources accumulated in preparation for the launch of enactment and deployed within the design of enactment.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21002.ari
2022-01-27
2025-03-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/alal.21002.ari
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25 (1), 7–36. doi:  10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bögels, Sara & Levinson, Stephen C.
    (2017) The brain behind the response: Insights into turn-taking in conversation from neuroimaging. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50 (1), 71–89. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2017.1262118
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262118 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, Herbert H. & Gerrig, Richard J.
    (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66 , 764–805. doi:  10.2307/414729
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clift, Rebecca
    (2006) Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10 (5), 569–595. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Corps, Ruth E. , Gambi, Chiara & Pickering, Martin J.
    (2018) Coordinating utterances during turn-taking: The role of prediction, response preparation, and articulation. Discourse Processes, 55 (2), 230–240. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330031
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330031 [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (2007) Assessing and accounting. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk (pp.81–119). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret
    (2017) Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139507318
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318 [Google Scholar]
  8. Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne
    (2018) Introduction: Temporality in interaction. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.1–23). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deppermann, Arnulf , Mondada, Lorenza & Doehler, Simona Pekarek
    (2021) Early responses: An introduction. Discourse Processes, 58 (4), 293–307. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2021.1877516
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1877516 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ford, Cecilia & Thompson, Sandra A.
    (1996) Interactional units in conversations: Syntax, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.134–184). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fox, Barbara , Hayashi, Makoto & Jasperson, Robert
    (1996) Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.185–237). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fox, Barbara & Robles, Jessica
    (2010) It’s like mmm: Enactments with it’s like. Discourse Studies, 12 (6), 715–738. doi:  10.1177/1461445610381862
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610381862 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fujii, Seiko
    (2006) Quoted thought and speech using the mitai-na ‘be-like’ noun-modifying construction. In Satoko Suzuki (Ed.), Emotive communication in Japanese (pp.53–95). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.151.05fuj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.151.05fuj [Google Scholar]
  14. Fujita, Yasuyuki
    (2000) Kokugo inyoo koobun no kenkyuu [A Study of the quotative structure in Japanese]. Izumi Shoin.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Golato, Andrea
    (2000) An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so “and I’m like/and he’s like. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (1), 24–59. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00030‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00030-2 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) Impersonal quotatives and hypothetical discourse. In Isabelle Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives (pp.3–36). John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.04gol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.04gol [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, Charles
    (1984) Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp.225–246). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1996) Transparent vision. In Elinor Ochs , Emanuel. A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.370–404). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2002) Time in action. Current Anthropology, 43 (4), 19–35. doi:  10.1086/339566
     https://doi.org/10.1086/339566 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk (pp.16–46). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, Susanne
    (1997) The contextualization of affect in reported dialogues. In Susanne Niemeier & Rene Dirven (Eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression and theoretical foundation (pp.247–275). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.85.19gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.85.19gun [Google Scholar]
  22. Hayashi, Makoto
    (2005) Joint construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica, 156 , 21–53. doi:  10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John & Raymond, Geffery
    (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quartetly, 68 (1), 15–38. doi:  10.1177/019027250506800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  24. Holt, Elizabeth
    (1996) Reporting on talk: the use of direct reported speech in a conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29 (2), 219–245. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000) Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 , 425–454. doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04 [Google Scholar]
  26. Holt, Elizabeth & Clift, Rebecca
    (2007) Reporting Talk. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hopper, Paul
    (2011) Emergent grammar. In James P. Gee & Michael Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp.301–314). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ikeda, Keiko
    (2009) Quotation patterns in Japanese political discourse. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), 34 , 1–9. doi: 10.1080/01638530902728918
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918 [Google Scholar]
  29. Iwasaki, Shimako
    (2009) Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46 (2), 226–246. 10.1080/01638530902728918
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2018) Suspending talk: Multimodal organization of participation and stance in Japanese. In Arnulf Deppermann & Jürgen Streeck (Eds.), Time in embodied interaction: Synchronicity and sequentially of multimodal resources (pp.69–96). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.293.02iwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.02iwa [Google Scholar]
  31. Jefferson, Gail
    (1991) List construction as a task and resource. In Geprge Psathas (Ed.), Interactional competence (pp.63–92). Irvington Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.13–31). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  33. Jin, Yin
    (2012) ‘-Teki’ ni kansuru ichikoosatsu [A study of ‘-teki’]. Research Journal of Graduate Students of Letters, 12 , 235–248. Hokkaido University.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Keevallik, Leelo
    (2014) Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations. Journal of Pragmatics, 65 , 103–120. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 1–21. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887 [Google Scholar]
  36. Koester, Almut & Handford, Michael
    (2018) It’s not good saying “Well it it might do that or it might not”: Hypothetical reported speech in business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 130 , 67–80. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kushida, Shuya
    (2011) Confirming understanding and acknowledging assistance: Managing trouble responsibility in response to understanding check in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (11), 2716–2739. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lerner, Gene H.
    (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20 (3), 441–458. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1996) On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.238–276). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002) Turn-sharing: the choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In Cecilia Ford , Barbara Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of turn and sequence (pp.225–256). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lerner, Gene H. & Takagi, Tomoyo
    (1999) On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (1), 49–75. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00051‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Makino, Seiichi & Tsutsui, Michio
    (1986) A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Japan Times.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Mandelbaum, Jenny
    (2013) Storytelling in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.492–507). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Martin, Samuel E.
    (1975) A reference grammar of Japanese. Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    (2018) The form and meaning of the dangling mitaina construction in a network of constructions. In Mutsuko Endo Hudson , Yoshiko Matsumoto & Junko Mori (Eds.), Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on grammar, interaction and culture (pp.75–98). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.285.03mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.285.03mat [Google Scholar]
  46. Mayes, Patricia
    (1990) Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14 , 325–363. doi:  10.1075/sl.14.2.04may
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.2.04may [Google Scholar]
  47. Maynard, Senko K.
    (2005) Another conversation: expressivity of Mitaina and inserted speech in Japanese discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 37 (6), 837–869. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2007) Linguistic creativity in Japanese discourse: Exploring the multiplicity of self, perspective, and voice. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.159
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.159 [Google Scholar]
  49. McGloin, Naomi H.
    (1980) Some observations concerning no desu expressions. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 15 (2), 117–149. 10.2307/488880
     https://doi.org/10.2307/488880 [Google Scholar]
  50. Morita, Emi
    (2005) Negotiation of contingent talk: The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.137
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.137 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nakamura, Kanae
    (2009) Interactive negotiation of perspectives in Japanese: Predicate-final structure as a resource to organize interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  52. Nakano, Yuri
    (2009) ‘Noda’ ni mirareru futatsu no kinoo [Two usages of ‘noda’]. Journal of International Student Center, 13 , 40–57. Hokkaido University.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nishizaka, Aug
    (2017) A sentence dispersed within a turn-at-talk: Response-opportunity places as loci for interactional work. East Asian Pragmatics, 2 (2), 229–258. doi:  10.1558/eap.34561
     https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34561 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2008) Hatsugen junban nai ni oite bunsan suru bun [Dispersed sentences within a turn-at-talk]. Shakaigengo Kagaku [Japanese Journal of Language in Society], 10 (2), 83–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Elinor Ochs, Elinor , Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  56. Oikawa, Ryoko
    (2000) Functional variety of toka as a quotative marker in conversational Japanese. The Research Center for Japanese Language Education annual bulletin, 9 , 77–108. International Christian University.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Okamoto, Shigeko
    (1995) Pragmaticization of meaning in some sentence-final particles in Japanese. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), In Essays in semantics and pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore (pp.201–218). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.32.12oka
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.32.12oka [Google Scholar]
  58. Raymond, Geffrey
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68 , 939–967. doi:  10.2307/1519752
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rosenthal, Benjamin M.
    (2008) A resource for repair in Japanese talk-in-interaction: The phrase TTE YUU KA . Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (2), 227–240. doi:  10.1080/08351810802028787
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028787 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rossano, Federico
    (2010) Questioning and responding in Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (10), 2756–2771. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sacks, Harvey
    (1974) An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In Richard Baumann & Joel Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp.337–353). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (1992) Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Sacks, Harvey , Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 , 696–735. doi:  10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’ Sociological Inquiry, 50 (3–4), 104–152. doi:  10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  65. (1987) Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp.70–85). University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of interaction and grammar. In Elinor A. Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2013) Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Makoto Hayashi , Geffery Raymond & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp.41–70). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Selting, Margaret
    (1996) On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6 , 371–388. doi:  10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel [Google Scholar]
  69. Selting, Margaret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  70. Sidnell, Jack
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, talk and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39 (4), 377–409. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  71. Streeck, Jürgen
    (2002) Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the evolution and uses of ‘so’ and ‘like.’ Journal of Communication, 52 , 581–596. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02563.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x [Google Scholar]
  72. Suga, Ayumi
    (2012) Jitsuen to warai niyoru katari rensa [Enactment and laughter in storytelling sequence]. In Akiko Yoshimura , Ayumi Suga & Naoko Yamamoto (Eds.), Kotoba o mitsumete –Uchida Seeji kyooju taikan kinen ronbunshuu [Observing linguistic phenomena: A festschrift for Professor Seiji Uchida on the occasion of his retirement from Nara Women’s University], 425–436. Eihoosha.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Suzuki, Ryoko
    (1995) A study of the sentence-final mitaina . The journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 29 (2), 55–78. doi:  10.2307/489589
     https://doi.org/10.2307/489589 [Google Scholar]
  74. (2007) (Inter)subjectification in the quotative tte in Japanese conversation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8 (2), 207–237. doi:  10.1075/jhp.8.2.04suz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.2.04suz [Google Scholar]
  75. Tanaka, Hiroko
    (1999) Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.56
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.56 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2000) Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (1), 1–38. doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  77. Teramura, Hideo
    (1982) Nihongo no shintakusu to imi [Syntax and semantics of Japanese], vol.1. Kurosio Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Thompson, Sandra A. & Suzuki, Ryoko
    (2014) Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies, 16 (6), 816–846. doi:  10.1177/1461445614546259
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614546259 [Google Scholar]
  79. Tsujimura, Natsuko
    (2007) An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Vatanen, Anna
    (2018) Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (2), 107–126. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894 [Google Scholar]
  81. Vatanen, Anna , Endo, Tomoko & Yokomori, Daisuke
    (2021) Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Projection in Overlapping Agreements to Assertions: Stance-Taking as a Resource for Projection. Discourse Processes, 58 (4), 308–327. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2020.1801317
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1801317 [Google Scholar]
  82. Venhuizen, Noortje J. , Crocker, Matthew W. & Brouwer, Harm
    (2019) Expectation-based comprehension: Modeling the interaction of world knowledge and linguistic experience. Discourse Processes, 56 (3), 229–255. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2018.1448677
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1448677 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21002.ari
Loading
Temporal realization of multimodally designed enactment in Japanese talk-in-interaction
Asian Languages and Linguistics 2, 135 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.21002.ari
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21002.ari
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21002.ari
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): enactment; interactional linguistics; Japanese; predicate-final structure; projectability

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error