1887
Volume 33, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Abstract

This paper offers a conversation analytic study of the Japanese turn-final construction as a conversational practice of formulation. is normally used in clausal noun modification, being placed between its preceding clausal component and a following head noun. However, also appears to be employed utterance-finally without a following head noun. Through microanalysis of mundane conversation data, this study documents a previously unstudied aspect of the turn-final as a formulation device. This study especially focuses on how informing recipients utilize formulations to summarize or explicate the gist of some part of their conversations, while indicating their high degree of epistemic access to the formulated information. Furthermore, this research examines what conversation participants accomplish by mobilizing this particular type of formulations. This study aims to contribute to the research of formulation by unveiling how a language-specific item can be deployed as a resource for turn-constructional formatting of formulation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21044.ari
2022-10-24
2024-05-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.21044.ari.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21044.ari&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Antaki, Charles, Rebecca Barnes, and Ivan Leudar
    2005 “Diagnostic Formulations in Psychotherapy.” Discourse Studies7 (6): 627–647. 10.1177/1461445605055420
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055420 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bilmes, Jack
    2011 “Occasioned Semantics: A Systematic Approach to Meaning in Talk.” Human Studies341: 129–153. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9183‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9183-z [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolden, Galina
    2010 “‘Articulating the Unsaid’ via And-prefaced Formulations of Others’ Talk.” Discourse Studies12 (1): 5–32. 10.1177/1461445609346770
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609346770 [Google Scholar]
  4. Depperman, Arnulf
    2011 “The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics.” Human Studies341: 115–128. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Drew, Paul
    2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch.” InStudies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. byPhillip. J. Glenn, Curtis. D. LeBaron, and Jennifer Mandelbaum, 293–308. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
    1992 “Introduction: Analysing Talk at Work.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Duranti, Alessandro
    2009 “The Relevance of Husserl’s Theory to Language Socialization.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology19 (2): 205–226. 10.1111/j.1548‑1395.2009.01031.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2009.01031.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
    1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” InTheoretical Sociology, ed. byJohn D. McKinney, and Edward. A. Tiryakian, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hauser, Eric
    2011 “Generalization: A Practice of Situated Categorization in Talk.” Human Studies34 (2): 183–198. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9184‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y [Google Scholar]
  11. Hayano, Kaoru
    2011 “Claiming Epistemic Primacy in Japanese: Yo-marked Assessments in Japanese.” InThe Molarity of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation.” PhD diss.Radboud UniversityNijmegen.
  13. 2018 “When (Not) to Claim Epistemic Independence: The Use of Ne and Yone in Japanese Conversation.” East Asian Pragmatics2 (2): 163–193. 10.1558/eap.34740
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34740 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hayashi, Makoto
    2009 “Marking a ‘Noticing of Departure’ in Talk: Eh-prefaced Turns in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (10): 2100–2129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 “An Overview of the Question-Response System in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 2685–702. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayashi, Makoto, Yuri Hosoda, and Ikuyo Morimoto
    2019 “Tte yuu ka as a Repair Preface in Japanese.” Research on Language and Social Interaction52 (2): 104–123. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608093
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608093 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge/New York: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1985 “Analyzing News Interviews.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3, ed. byTeun. A. van Dijk, 95–117. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. byTanya Stivers, and N. J. Enfield, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John, and Rod D. Watson
    1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hutchby, Ian
    2005 “‘Active Listening’: Formulations and the Elicitation of Feelings Talk in Child Counselling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (3): 303–329. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    1993Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jefferson, Gail
    1983 “Two Explorations of the Organizations of Overlapping Talk in Conversation: (a) Notes on Some Orderliness of Overlap Onset and (b) On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature281: 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-positioned Matters.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1987 “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organization, ed. byGraham Button, and John. R. E. Lee, 86–100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction261: 1–30. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jefferson, Gail, and John R. E. Lee
    1992 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 521–48. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kato, Yoko
    2010Hanashi-kotoba ni okeru Inyoo-hyoogen [Quotative Expressions in Spoken Language]. Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim, Joungmin
    2014 “Kankokugo no inyoo-shuushokusetsu no shusetsu-ka: Nihongo tono taihi o tsuujite. [Main clause phenomena of quotatitve clauses in Korean: Contrast with Japanese].” InNihongo fukubun-koobun no kenkyuu [Form and meaning in Japanese complex sentence constructions], ed. byTakashi Masuoka, Motoo Oshima, Osamu Hashimoto, Kaoru Horie, Naoko Maeda, and Takehiko Maruyama, 695–717. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Koda, Naomi
    2015 “Using Reported Thought and Speech to Enhance a Story.” The Japanese Journal of Language in Society17 (2): 24–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kushida, Shuya
    2011 “Confirming Understanding and Acknowledging Assistance: Managing Trouble Responsibility in Response to Understanding Check in Japanese Talk-in-interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (11): 2716–2739. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  32. Labov, William, and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lerner, Gene H.
    2004 “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 154–184. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1987 “Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora.” Journal of Linguistics231: 379–434. 10.1017/S0022226700011324
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011324 [Google Scholar]
  35. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    2018 “The Form and Meaning of the Dangling Mitaina Construction in a Network of Constructions.” InPragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture, ed. byMutsuko E. Hudson, Yoshiko Matsumoto, and Junko Mori, 75–98. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.285.03mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.285.03mat [Google Scholar]
  36. Maynard, Douglas. W.
    2003Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mori, Junko
    2006 “The Workings of the Japanese Token Hee in Informing Sequences: An Analysis of Sequential Content, Turn Shape, and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics381: 1175–1205. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ohori, Toshio
    1995 “Remarks on Suspended Clauses: A Contribution to Japanese Phraseology.” InEssays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore, ed. byMasayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 201–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.32.11oho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.32.11oho [Google Scholar]
  39. 1997 “Framing Effects in Japanese Non-final Clauses: Toward an Optimal Grammar-Pragmatics Interface.” Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure: 471–480. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1270
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1270 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ono, Toshio
    1987 “TE, I, and RU Clauses in Japanese Recipes: A Quantitative Study.” Studies in Language141: 73–92. 10.1075/sl.14.1.04ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.1.04ono [Google Scholar]
  41. Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra. A. Thompson, and Yumi Sasaki
    2012 “Japanese Negotiation through Emerging Final Particles in Everyday Talk.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 243–272. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664759 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. 2009 “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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1995Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language501: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schegloff, Emmanuel. A.
    1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” InGeorgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics: Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
    1996a “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. 1996b “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology104 (1): 161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2004 “On Dispensability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 95–149. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_2 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sidnell, Jack
    2010Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Steensig, Jakob, and Tine Larsen
    2008 “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Uses of You Say X Questions.” Discourse Studies10 (1): 113–33. 10.1177/1461445607085593
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085593 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tanaka, Hiroko
    1999Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.56
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.56 [Google Scholar]
  56. Uemura, Takashi
    2014 “On Functions of Japanese -Toiu in So-called Suspended-sentence: An Investigation on Usage as a Sentence-final Particle.” Papers in linguistic science201: 31–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Usami, Mayumi
    ed 2021BTSJ-Japanese Natural Conversation Corpus with Transcripts and Recordings (March, 2021), NINJAL Institute-based Projects: Multiple Approaches to Analyzing the Communication of Japanese Language Learners.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21044.ari
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