1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the features and interactional functions of collaboratively constructed TCUs (CCTs) in responsive positions of question-answer sequences in Mandarin daily conversations. Adopting the methodologies of Conversation Analysis, Interactional Linguistics and Multimodal Analysis, the study explores the sequential features of the CCTs and bodily-visual resources co-occurring with the CCTs, such as gaze orientations and gestures. Two categories have been identified based on the participants’ roles in the question-answer sequences. First, the answerer initiates the response to the question, and the questioner collaboratively completes the response. The analysis shows that the questioners are not conveying the action of answering the question but assuming the answer to the question. Second, one answerer initiates the response to the question, and another one collaboratively completes the response. The data demonstrates that this type of CCTs usually involves the two question-recipients with more or less equal epistemic access to the referent.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00038.son
2021-07-16
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bolden, Galina B.
    2003 “Multiple Modalities in Collaborative Turn Sequences.” Gesture3 (2): 187–212. doi:  10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol [Google Scholar]
  2. Clayman, Steven E.
    2002 “Sequence and Solidarity.” InGroup Cohesion, Trust and Solidarity, ed. byShane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler, 229–53. Advances in Group Processes 19. Bingley, UK: Emerald. 10.1016/S0882‑6145(02)19009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
    2001 “Introducing Interactional Linguistics.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. byMargret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.02cou [Google Scholar]
  4. Drew, Paul
    2005 “Conversation Analysis.” InHandbook of Language and Social Interactioned. byKristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 71–102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 “Practices in the Construction of Turns: The ‘TCU’ Revisited.” Pragmatics6 (3): 427–54. doi:  10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for [Google Scholar]
  6. Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Charles Goodwin
    1986 “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica62 (1–2): 51–75. doi:  10.1515/semi.1986.62.1‑2.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.51 [Google Scholar]
  7. Hayashi, Makoto
    1999 “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: A Study of Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation.” Human Studies22 (2): 475–99. doi:  10.1023/A:1005492027060
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005492027060 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2003Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Studies in Discourse and Grammar 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2005 “Joint Turn Construction through Language and the Body: Notes on Embodiment in Coordinated Participation in Situated Activities.” Semiotica156–1/4 (2005): 21–53. doi:  10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21 [Google Scholar]
  10. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    2004 “Shared Syntax: The Grammar of Co-Constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (8): 1315–36. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John
    2012a “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012b “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–52. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kim, Haeyeon
    2002 “Collaborative Turn Completion in Korean Conversation.” Language Research38 (4): 1281–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, Ok Joo
    2005 “The Prosody of Questions in Beijing Mandarin.” PhD diss., Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1122332580
  15. Lerner, Gene H.
    1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society20 (3): 441–58. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1993 “Collectivities in Action: Establishing the Relevance of Conjoined Participation in Conversation.” Text & Talk13 (2): 213–46. doi:  10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1996 “On the ‘Semi-permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. byCecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2002 “Turn Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. byCecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–56. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lerner, Gene H., and Tomoyo Takagi
    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 Pragmatics31 (1): 49–75. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00051‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, Charles, and Sandra A. Thompson
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, Xiaoting
    2014Multimodality, Interaction, and Turn-taking in Mandarin Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, Xiaoting, and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2019Multimodality in Chinese Interaction. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 34. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110462395
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110462395 [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, Ziyun 李子云
    1982 “Zhuwei weiyuju” 主谓谓语句 [Sentence with subject-predicate structure as predicate]. Yuyan jiaoxue yu yanjiu语言教学与研究 [Language Pedagogy and Research] 3: 52–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, Yuehua 刘月华, Wen-Wu Pan 潘文娱, and Wei Gu 故韡
    2002Shiyong xiandai Hanyu yufa实用现代汉语语法 [Practical grammar of Mandarin]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan商务印书馆 [The Commercial Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Local, John
    2005 “On the Interactional and Phonetic Design of Collaborative Completions.” InA Figure of Speech: A Festschrift for John Laver, ed. byWilliam J. Hardcastle and Janet Mackenzie Beck, 263–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mori, Junko, and Makoto Hayashi
    2006 “The Achievement of Intersubjectivity through Embodied Completions: A Study of Interactions between First and Second Language Speakers.” Applied Linguistics27 (2): 195–219. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml014 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 Interaction and Syntax in the Structure of Conversational Discourse: Collaboration, Overlap, and Syntactic Dissociation. InComputational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account, ed. byEduard H. Hovy and Donia R. Scott, 67–96. NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences), vol151. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03293‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Persson, Rasmus
    2015 “Registering and Repair-Initiating Repeats in French Talk-in-Interaction.” Discourse Studies17 (5): 583–608. doi:  10.1177/1461445615590721
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590721 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017 “Fill-in-the-Blank Questions in Interaction: Incomplete Utterances as a Resource for Doing Inquiries.” Research on Language and Social Interaction50 (3): 227–48. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2017.1340698
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1340698 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2010 “Grammar and Social Relations: Alternative Forms of Yes/No-Type Initiating Actions in Health Visitor Interactions.” InWhy Do You Ask? The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation. 2vols.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi:  10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist70 (6), 1075–95. doi:  10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. 1vol.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  38. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann
    trans. Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten 2011 “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion [Conversation research – Online journal on verbal interaction] 12 (2011): 1–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Stivers, Tanya
    2010 “An Overview of the Question–Response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (10): 2772–81. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society35 (3): 367–92. doi:  10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  41. Szczepek, Beatrice
    2000a “Formal Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt)17: 1–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2000b “Functional Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt)21: 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. London: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  44. Xiao, Guozheng 肖国政
    1994 “Xiandai Hanyu fei tezhiwen jiandashi de jiben leixing” 现代汉语非特指问简答式的基本类型 [Basic types of modern Chinese non-specific questions and short answers]. InYufa yanjiu yu yufa yingyong语法研究与语法应用 [Grammar research and grammar application], ed. byJingmin Shao 邵敬敏, 172–83. Beijing: Beijing yuyan xueyuan chubanshe 北京语言学院出版社 [Beijing Linguistics Society Publishing].
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Xie, Xinyang 谢心阳
    2016 “Wen yu da: Xingshi he gongneng de buduichen” 问与答:形式和功能的不对称 [Question and answer: The asymmetry between form and function]. PhD diss., Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan 中国社会科学院 [Chinese Academy of Social Sciences].
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhu, Dexi 朱德熙
    1982Yufa jiangyi语法讲义 [Notes on grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan 商务印书馆 [The Commercial Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhu, Xiaoya 朱晓雅
    2001Xiandai Hanyu jumo yanjiu现代汉语句模研究 [Modern Chinese sentence patterns research]. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe 北京大学出版社 [Peking University Press].
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00038.son
Loading
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