Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This study examines cross-speaker repetition in triadic conversations in the Japanese language. For the analysis, three sets of triadic conversations between close friends taken from a TV talk show are used. The results reveal that repetition in triadic conversations performs distinctive functions that are not observed in dyadic conversations: repetition often takes place between only two participants of the triad and allows the two to team up and strengthen their bond exclusively (teaming repetition), or even playfully tease the third participant (teasing repetition). Repetition is also shared between the three participants. In such cases, it allows the participants to create an instant bond by joking or referring to shared circumstances (immediate threefold repetition), or to gradually establish rapport by connecting their utterances and co-constructing a story (repetition relay). All these types of repetition express the participants’ points of view and contribute efficiently to their relationships that shift from moment to moment. The study further demonstrates cases in which one participant makes good use of various repetition types in a short period of time and efficiently allocates thoughts and feelings to the other two participants. The study concludes that repetition plays a significant role in Japanese conversation, helping speakers to converse smoothly and manage the dynamic relationships efficiently.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Bakhtin, Michael M.
    1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. byCaryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist, and trans. byVern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauman, Richard
    2004A World of Others’ Words. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470773895
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773895 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, Penelope
    1999 “Repetition.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology9 (1–2): 223–226. 10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1‑2.223
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.223 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bublitz, Wolfram
    1988Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.32 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coates, Jennifer
    2007 “Talk in a Play Frame: More on Laughter and Intimacy.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 29–49. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., and Martin D. Lampert
    2009 “The Occasioning of Self-Disclosure Humor.” InHumor in Interaction, ed. byNeal R. Norrick, and Delia Chiaro3–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.182.01erv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.182.01erv [Google Scholar]
  7. Drew, Paul
    1987 “Po-faced Receipts of Teases.” Linguistics25: 219–253. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferrara, Kathleen Warden
    1994Therapeutic Ways with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fujii, Yoko
    2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (5): 636–662. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Geyer, Naomi
    2010 “Teasing and Ambivalent Face in Japanese Multi-party Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (8): 2120–2130. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    1990He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haugh, Michael
    2010 “Jocular Mockery, (Dis)affiliation, and Face.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (8): 2106–2119. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hayashi, Makoto, and Junko Mori
    1998 “Co-construction in Japanese Revisited: We Do “Finish Each Other’s Sentences.”” Japanese/Korean Linguistics7: 77–93. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ishikawa, Minako
    1991 “Iconicity in Discourse: The Case of Repetition.” Text11 (4): 553–580. 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.553
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnstone, Barbara
    1987 “An Introduction.” Text7 (3): 205–214. (Special issue on “Perspectives on Repetition”) 10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.205 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2002Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Machi, Saeko
    2007 “My/your Story” vs. “Our Story”: Repetition in English and Japanese Conversation. Master’s Thesis presented to theEnglish Department of The Graduate School of Japan Women’s University.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2012 “How Repetition Works in Japanese and English Conversation: Introducing Different Cultural Orientations towards Conversation.” The English Linguistic Society of Japan JELS29: 260–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014 “Repetition as a Device for Teaming and Teasing in Triadic Conversation in Japanese.” Studies in English and American Literature49: 61–79. Japan Women’s University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Maynard, Senko K.
    1997Japanese Communication: Language and Though in Context. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Norrick, Neal R.
    1987 “Functions of repetition in conversation.” Text7 (3): 245–264. 10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byMaxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology102 (1): 161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1993 ““Speaking for Another” in Sociolinguistic Interviews: Alignments, Identities, and Frames.” InFraming in Discourse, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 231–263. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Wong Scollon
    1995Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Strauss, Susan, and Yumiko Kawanishi
    1996 “Assessment Strategies in Japanese, Korean, and American English.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics5: 149–165. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tannen, Deborah
    1987 “Repetition in Conversation: Towards a Poetic of Talk.” Language63 (3): 574–605. 10.2307/415006
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415006 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
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