1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores interactional functions of the connective ‘so’ and its particular role in organizing talk and activity in Mandarin conversation. Adopting the methodologies of conversation analysis, multimodal analysis, and interactional linguistics, this study examines 14 hours of naturalistic face-to-face Mandarin conversation. An examination of the data shows that in addition to marking results and conclusions, is also used to preface an utterance as a tying device to manage suspensions, where progressivity of a course of action is halted. Specifically, -prefaced utterances can be used to return to a pre-prior course of action at the possible completion of a side sequence or frame. When performing the function of return, -prefaced utterances facilitate the development of the main course of action. This study contributes to our understanding of the interactional uses of linking adverbials from a cross-linguistic perspective.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cld.20011.wan
2020-11-24
2021-01-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Biq, Yung-O.
    1995 “Chinese Causal Sequencing and Yinwei in Conversation and Press Reportage.” Berkeley Linguistic Society21: 47–62. 10.3765/bls.v21i2.1374
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v21i2.1374 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolden, Galina
    2006 “Little Words that Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Communication56 (4): 661–688. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘so’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (5): 974–998. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
    2001 “Introducing Interactional Linguistics.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, edited byMargret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 1–22. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/sidag.10.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.02cou [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dong, Weiguang
    1999 “句势在复句分类中的地位 [The Statuses of Sentence Structures in the Categories of Complex Sentences].” 语言研究 [Studies in Language and Linguistics] 2: 37–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt
    1998 “Figures of Speech: Figurative Expressions and the Management of Topic Transition in Conversation.” Language in Society27 (4): 495–522. 10.1017/S0047404500020200
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fang, Mei
    2000 “自然后语中弱化连词的话语标记功能 [Reduced Conjunctions as Discourse Markers].” 中国语文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 5: 459–470.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2012 “会话结构与连词的浮现义 [Discourse Structure and Emergent Meaning of Conjunctions].” 中国语文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 6: 575–585.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, Hua
    2019 “Devices of alignment: Suoyi- and Danshi-prefaced questions in Mandarin Chinese TV news interviews.” Chinese Language and Discourse. 10. 36–60. 10.1075/cld.18013.gao
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.18013.gao [Google Scholar]
  11. Gardner, Rod
    2001When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Pragmatics & Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, Charles
    1980 “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 272–302. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  13. 1981Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1986 “Gestures as a Resource for the Organization of Mutual Orientation.” Semiotica62: 29–49. 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1‑2.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2017Co-Operative Action. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139016735
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodwin, Charles, and John Heritage
    1990 “Conversation Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology19 (1): 283–307. 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Goodwin
    1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited byAlessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin. 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heath, Christian
    1986Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511628221
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628221 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, and Tania Kuteva
    2016 “On insubordination and cooptation.” InInsubordination, edited byNicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe. 39–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.115.02hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.02hei [Google Scholar]
  20. Heinemann, Trine
    2017 “Transitioning between Activities with the Danish Change-of-State Token Nå.” Journal of Pragmatics118: 1–21. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited byMaxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. 299–345: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society23 (1): 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoey, Elliott
    2015 “Lapses: How People Arrive at, and Deal with, Discontinuities in Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (4): 430–453. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1090116
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090116 [Google Scholar]
  24. Holt, Elizabeth
    2010 “The Last Laugh: Shared Laughter and Topic Termination.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1513–1525. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Holt, Elizabeth, and Paul Drew
    2005 “Figurative Pivots: The use of Figurative Expressions in Pivotal Topic Transitions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (1): 35–61. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Houtkoop, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland
    1985 “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol.9, no.5, 595–619. 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90055‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90055-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Howe, Mary Locke
    1991 Topic Change in Conversation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas.
  28. Jefferson, Gail
    1972 “Side Sequences.” InStudies in Social Interaction, edited byDavid Sudnow. 294–338. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about A Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited byMaxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. 191–222. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, Alison
    2002 “So…?: Pragmatic Implications of So-prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews.” InLanguage in the Legal Process, edited byJanet Cotterill. 91–110. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. 10.1057/9780230522770_6
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_6 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kendon, Adam
    2004Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kitzinger, Celia
    2013 “Repair.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. 229–256. Oxford University Press, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Xiaoting
    2013 “Language and the Body in the Construction of Units in Mandarin Face-to-Face Interaction.” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, edited byBeatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond. 343–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.11li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.11li [Google Scholar]
  35. 2016 “Some Discourse-Interactional Uses of Yinwei ‘because’ and its Multimodal Production in Mandarin Conversation.” Language Sciences58: 51–78. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2019 “Researching Multimodal Chinese Interaction: A Methodological Account.” InMultimodality in Chinese Interaction, edited byXiaoting Li and Tsuyoshi Ono. 181–212. Berlin: Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110462395‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110462395-008 [Google Scholar]
  37. Liao, Qiuzhong
    1986 “现代汉语篇章中的连接成分 [the Connective Elements in Modern Chinese Discourse].” 中国语文 [Studies of Chinese Language] 6: 413–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Local, John
    2004 “Getting Back to Prior Talk: And-Uh(M) as a Back-Connecting Device in British and American English.” InSound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, edited byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia Ford. 377–400. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.18loc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.18loc [Google Scholar]
  39. Local, John, and Gareth Walker
    2005 “Methodological imperatives for investigating the phonetic organisation and phonological structures of spontaneous speech.” Phonetica62: 120–130. 10.1159/000090093
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000090093 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (8): 1375–1403. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lü, Shuxiang
    1980现代汉语八百词 [800 Words in Modern Chinese]. 商务印书馆 [Beijing: Commercial press].
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mazeland, Harrie
    2007 “Parenthetical Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol.39, no.10, 1816–1869. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes
    2001 “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its use as a Resumption Marker.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, edited byMargret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 141–169. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.08maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz [Google Scholar]
  44. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 185–218. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 [Google Scholar]
  45. Robinson, Jeffrey
    2013 “Overall Structural Organization.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. 257–280. Oxford, U.K., Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rossano, Federico
    2013 “Gaze in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. 308–329. Oxford, U.K., Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50, no.4: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Scheflen, Albert
    1964 “The Significance of Posture in Communication Systems.” Psychiatry27 (4): 316–331. 10.1080/00332747.1964.11023403
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1964.11023403 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited byDeborah Tannen. 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, edited byElinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson. 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002 “Accounts of Conduct in Interaction: Interruption, Overlap and Turn-Taking.” InHandbook of Sociological Theory, edited byJonathan Turner. 287–321. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg R. Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen,
    2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion10: 353–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Seuren, Lucas, Mike Huiskes, and Tom Koole
    2016 “Remembering and Understanding with Oh-Prefaced Yes/no Declaratives in Dutch.” Journal of Pragmatics104: 180–192. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Song, Zuoyan, and Hongyin Tao
    2009 “A Unified Account of Causal Clause Sequences in Mandarin Chinese and its Implications.” Studies in Language, 33(1), 69–102. 10.1075/sl.33.1.04son
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.1.04son [Google Scholar]
  56. Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnell
    2005 “Introduction: Multimodal Interaction.” Semiotica (156): 1–20. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1 [Google Scholar]
  57. Su, Danjie
    2016 “Grammar Emerges through Reuse and Modification of Prior Utterances.” Discourse Studies, 18(3). 330–353. 10.1177/1461445616634551
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616634551 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, Wei
    2016 “Prosody and Discourse Functions of Ranhou: With Implications for Teaching Mandarin Conjunctions at the Discourse Level.” InIntegrating Chinese Linguistic Research and Language Teaching and Learning, edited byHongyin Tao. 145–168. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scld.7.08wan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.7.08wan [Google Scholar]
  59. Xing, Fuyi
    2003现代汉语 [Standard Chinese]. 华中师范大学出版社 [Huazhong Normal University Publishing House].
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Yao, Shuangyun
    2009 “口语中“所以”的语义弱化与功能拓展 [Semantic Reduction and Function Expansion of “suoyi” in Spoken Chinese].” 汉语学报 [Chinese Linguistics] (3): 16–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2015 “连词与口语语篇的互动性 [Conjunctions and Interactivity of Spoken Discourses].” 中国语文 [Studies of Chinese Language] (4): 329–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhu, Dexi
    1982语法讲义 [Lectures on Grammar]. 商务印书馆 [Beijing: Commercial Press].
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cld.20011.wan
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