1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 20, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

The use of particular lexical, semantic and pragmatic elements to determine the degree of formality is well recognised. In Japanese, formality in a communicative interaction is achieved not only by the use of the appropriate speech style but also of backchannels and short responses. Three such short affirmative responses that also have different pragmatic functions in Japanese are , (also variants and ) and is considered to be the most polite while and decrease in degree of formality. However, when looking at real data their use is not that clearly defined. While is found only in formal settings, and are used just as frequently in those interactions. Hence, formality or politeness alone cannot account for their use. This paper looks at the use of , and in formal interviews, and shows that all three tokens are used frequently as answers, backchannels and discourse markers. However, their distribution is determined by the speakers’ roles suggesting that they project a particular stance and have a distinct emotive value. It appears that puts the content in the foreground and is therefore mostly used by interviewees while is hearer-centered and is more frequently used by interviewers as a backchannel. On the other hand, the token is used by both interviewers and interviewees but has other very different functions to and . The fact that these tokens originally used as affirmative tokens are now multifunctional suggests that they are going through a process of intersubjectification.

© 2010 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20.2.04tan
2010-01-01
2024-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.20.2.04tan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akio, Kamio
    (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.48
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  2. Angles, Jeffrey , Ayumi Nagatomi , and Nakayama Mineharu
    (2000) Japanese responses hai, ee, and un: Yes, no, and beyond. Language and Communication 20: 55-86. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(99)00018‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00018-X [Google Scholar]
  3. Brinton, Laurel
    (1996) Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  4. Caffi, Claudia , and Richard W. Janney
    (1994) Towards a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics22: 251-64. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90111‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90111-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chafe, Wallace
    (1994) Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, Steven , and John Heritage
    (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on The Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  7. Danes, Frantisek
    (1994) Involvement with language and in language. Journal of Pragmatics22: 251-264. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90111‑2
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90111-2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    (1992) Analyzing Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Du Bois, John. , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Danae Paolino , and Susanna Cumming
    (1990) Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards and Martin D Lampert (eds.), Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuller, M. Janet
    (2003) The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics35: 23-45. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00065‑6
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00065-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fischer, Kerstin
    (2006) Towards and understanding of the spectrum of the approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Furo, Hiroko
    (2001) Turn-Taking in English and Japanese. Projectability in Grammar, Intonation and Semantics. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner, Rod
    (2001) When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.92
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goody, Esther
    (1978) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gupta, Anthea Fraser
    (2006) Epistemic modalities and the discourse particles of Singapore. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 243-264.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Guruupu Jamashii
    (1998) Nihongo bunkei jiten. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hayashi, Makoto
    (2009) Marking a ‘noticing of departure’ in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics41: 2100–2129. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Horiguchi, Junko
    (1997) Japanese Conversation by Learners and Native Speakers. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Iwasaki, Shotaro
    (1997) The Northridge earthquake conversations: The floor structure and the ‘loop’ sequence in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics28: 661-693. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00070‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00070-2 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jucker, Andreas
    (1986) News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pb.vii.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.4 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jucker, Andreas , and Yael Ziv
    (1998) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.57
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jucker, Andreas , and Sara Smith
    (1998) And people just know like ‘wow’; Discourse markers and negotiating strategies. In A. Jucker , H.Y. Ziv , (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 171–1201. doi: 10.1075/pbns.57
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kitagawa, Chisato
    (1980) Saying ‘yes’ in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics4: 105–120. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90048‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90048-X [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuno, Susumu
    (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press: Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Komiya, Chizuru
    (1986) Aizuchi shiyoo no jittai – shutsugen keikoo to sono shuuhen. Gogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Ronsoo. Daitoo Bunka Daigaku Gogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuujoo.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kurosaki, Yoshiaki
    (1987) Danwa shinkoojoo no aizuchi no unyoo to kinoo [The functions and management of aizuchi in the conversation]. Kokugogaku 150.15: 122–109.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lerner, Gene , 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/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martin, Samuel
    (1962) Essential Japanese: An Introduction to the Standard Colloquial Language. Rutland. VT: Charles E. Tuttle Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    (1988) Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics12: 403–426. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90003‑3
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 [Google Scholar]
  30. Maynard, Senko
    (2002) Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of Place, the Topic-Comment Dynamic, and an Ideology of Pathos in Japanese Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.97
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.97 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1986) On back-channel behaviour in Japanese and English casual conversation. Linguistics24: 1079-1108. doi: 10.1515/ling.1986.24.6.1079
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.6.1079 [Google Scholar]
  32. McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka
    (1990) Sex difference and sentence-final particles. In S. Ide and N. Hanaoka McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese Women’s Language. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 23–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mori, Junko
    (1999) Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.8
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sidag.8 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mori, Yoshiyuki
    (1993) Kiso Nihongo Jiten. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Okamoto, Shigeko
    (1985) Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California.
  36. Okutsu, Keichiro
    (1989) ‘Hai’ to ‘iie’ no kinou. In K. Inoue (ed.), Nihongo-no Fuhensei-to Kobetsusei-ni kan-suru Rironteki Oyobi Jisshooteki Kenkyuu Kenkyuu Hookoku 4: 133–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Onodera, Noriko
    (2004) Japanese Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.132
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.132 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pomerantz, Anita
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some feature of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-101.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sacks, Harvey , Emmanuel Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn–taking for conversation. Language50–4: 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  40. Suzuki, Satoko
    (2006) Emotive Communication in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.151
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.151 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tanaka, Hiroko
    (1999) Turn Taking in Japanese Conversation. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.56
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.56 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tanaka, Lidia
    (2004) Language, Gender and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slcs.69
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.69 [Google Scholar]
  43. Togashi, Junichi
    (2002) ‘Un’ to ‘hai’ no kankei o megutte. In T. Sadanobu (ed.), ‘Un’ to ‘so’ no gengogaku. Tokyo: Hitujisyobo, pp. 127–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Traugot, Elizabeth C
    (1995) The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented atICHL XII, Manchester1995. Version of 11/97. www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf
  45. Traugott, Elizabeth
    (2007) Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics6: 139–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Traugott, Elizabeth , and Richard Dasher
    (2002) Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, Yu-Fang , Aya Katz , and Chih-Hua Chen
    (2003) Thinking as saying: shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences25: 457–488. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(03)00020‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00020-2 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, Yu-Fang , Pi-Hua Tsai , and Meng-Ying Ling
    (2007) From informational to emotive use: Meiyou (‘no’) as a discourse marker in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies9: 677–701. doi: 10.1177/1461445607081271
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445607081271 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wouk, Fay
    (2001) Solidarity in Indonesian Conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal of Pragmatics33: 171–191. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00139‑3
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00139-3 [Google Scholar]
  50. Yngve, Victor H
    (1970) On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the 6th regional meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 567-578.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20.2.04tan
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ee; Hai; Japanese; Response tokens; Un

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