The use of utterance particles as assessment resources in Cantonese conversation
It has been reported in the literature that each language has very particular resourcesthat show how participants mark their epistemic positions (Hayano, 2011;Iwasaki & Yap, 2015; Kärkkäinen, 2003, 2007; Thompson, 2002). Our main objectivein this article is to discuss and explicate the use of these resources in a conversationcarried out by young adults in Cantonese. We discuss how conversationalistsmark and manage their epistemic positions through assessment devices carried outby certain utterance particles (ā ma, ge, and gám) and other combining resources(such as use of first person plural pronouns, modal adverbs, and tag questions). Todo so, we focus on the competition of rights to make assessments, turn design, andthe sequential positioning of each participant during the interaction. Our resultsshow that participants always search for ratification of their assessments and thatthe use of the three particles analysed herein play a fundamental role in this process.This work seeks to contribute to other studies that have analysed specific resourcesthat participants use when claiming or defeating rights during the evaluation processof a matter at hand in languages other than English.
Chor, W. (2018a). Sentence final particles as epistemic modulators in Cantonese conversations: A discourse-pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 129(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.008
Chor, W. (2018b). Directional particles in Cantonese: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of religious life. London: Allen and Unwin.
Endo, T. (2013). Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede ‘I think’. In Y. Pran & D. Kádár (Eds.), Chinese discourse and interaction: Theory and practice (pp. 12–34). London: Equinox.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Hayano, K. (2011). Territories of knowledge in Japanese interaction (PhD dissertation). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511665868.020
Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1427–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00072-3
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
Iwasaki, S., & Yap, F. H. (2015). Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 83(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.008
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebreston (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 183–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.08kar
Kwok, H. (1984). Sentence particles in Cantonese. Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Leung, W. (2010). On the synchrony and diachrony of sentence-final particles: The case of wo in Cantonese. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Lim, N. E. (2011). From subjectivity to intersubjectivity: Epistemic marker wo juede in Chinese. In Y. Xiao, L. Tao, & H. L. Soh (Eds.), Studies in Chinese linguistics in the new era (pp. 265–300). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Luke, K. K. (1990). Utterance particles in Cantonese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Luke, K. K. & Tanaka, H. (2016). Constructing agreements with assessments in Cantonese conversation: From a comparative perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 100(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.014
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (1994). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511665868.008
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060325
Rhee, S. (2012). Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences, 34(3), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, E. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35(4), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1988.35.4.03a00080
Su, L. I., & Cheng, K. (2011). From subjectification to intersubjectification: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis of hedging expression. In J. Chang (Ed.), Language and cognition: Festschrift in honor of James H. Y. Tai on His 70th Birthday (pp. 85–100). Taipei: Crane Publishing
Thompson, S. (2002). ‘Object complements’ and conversation towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26(1), 125–163. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
Thompson, S., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. Traugott and B. Heine (Eds.), Grammaticalization II, 313–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wu, R. (2004) Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Yap, F. H., Wang, J., & Lam, C. T. (2010). Clausal integration and the emergence of mitigative and adhortative sentence-final particles in Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 63–86.
Yau, S. (1966). A study of the functions and of the presentations of Cantonese sentence particles (MA thesis). University of Hong Kong.
Yeung, K. (2006). In the status of the complementizer waa6 in Cantonese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 1–48.
Zhang, L. (2014). Segmentless sentence-final particles in Cantonese: An experimental study. Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 35(2), 47–60.
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.