Hypothetical enactment as a resource for elaborating agreement in Japanese talk-in-interaction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.17771Keywords:
hypothetical enactment, agreement elaboration, Conversation Analysis, JapaneseAbstract
This study explores hypothetical enactments appearing subsequent to agreement sequences in Japanese non-institutional interactions. Employing Conversation Analysis, this study reveals that interactants, after they reach an agreement on a proffered opinion, may collaboratively enact a particular character in a hypothetical scenario to substantiate an agreed matter and elaborate their agreement. Such hypothetical enactments are categorised into two distinct types. In the first type, interactants enact a collective figure of a certain social category that the interactants belong to. In this case, enactments are provided as something that can happen in the future or could have happened in the past. In the second type, interactants enact an imaginary character in a completely fictitious scenario as a collaborative joke-telling. This study argues that Japanese hypothetical enactment is a resource with which interactants demonstrate and enhance a level of mutual agreement on a particular subject matter in their ongoing interaction.
References
Arita, Y. (2015). Enactment in Japanese talk-in-interaction: Design, response, and sequential accomplishment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Bolden, G. (2004). The quote and beyond: Defining boundaries of reported speech in conversational Russian. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1071–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.015
Buchstaller, I., & van Alphen, I. (2012). Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. https://doi.org/10.2307/414729
Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity (pp. 229–253). Oxford: Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6
Coppen, P. A., & Foolen, A. (2012). Dutch quotative van: Past and present. In I. Buchstaller & I. van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.15cop
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 71–102). New York: Psychology Press.
Ford, C., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ford, C., & Mori, J. (1994). Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: A cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics, 4(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.1.03for
Fox, B., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
Fox, B. A., & Robles, J. (2010). It’s like mmm: Enactments with it’s like. Discourse Studies, 12(6), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610381862
Golato, A. (2000). An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so “and I’m like/and he’s like”. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00030-2
Golato, A. (2012). Impersonal quotation and hypothetical discourse. In I. Buchstaller & I. van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.04gol
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk (pp. 16–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435
Haakana, M. (2007). Reported thought in complaint stories. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk (pp. 150–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayano, K. (2007). Repetitional agreement and anaphorical agreement: Negotiation of affiliation and disaffiliation in Japanese conversation (MA thesis). University of California, Los Angeles.
Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation (PhD Thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen.
Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12
Hayashi, M., & Hayano, K. (2018). A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages (pp. 191–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.07hay
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In 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., & 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
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
Holt, E. (2007). “I’m eyeing your chop up mind”: Reporting and enacting. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 47–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486654.004
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York: Irvington.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, G. H., & Takagi, T. (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 Pragmatics, 31(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4
Matsumoto, Y. (2002). Gender identity and the presentation of self in Japanese. In M. R. S. Benor, D. Sharma, J. Sweetland, & Q. Shang (Eds.), Gendered practices in language (pp. 339–354). Stanford: CSLI.
Miyazaki, A. (2004). Japanese junior high school girls’ and boys’ first person pronoun use and their social world. In S. Okamoto & J. S. Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology: Cultural models and real people (pp. 256–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.8
Nishizaka, A. (2008). Bunsan suru karada [The body distributed: An ethnomethodological study of social interaction]. Tokyo: Keisou Shobo.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874
Okamoto, S., & Sato, S. (1992). Less feminine speech among young Japanese females. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, & B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the 2nd Berkeley women and language conference (pp. 478–488). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling “how I know”. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(5–6), 607–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90002-X
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sams, J. (2010). Quoting the unspoken: An analysis of quotations in spoken discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 3147–3160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.024
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.006
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25(1), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715
Schegloff, E. A. (2007a). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007b). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534
Streeck, J. (2002). Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the evolution and uses of so and like. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x
Suga, A. (2012). Jitsuen to warai niyoru katari rensa [Enactment and laughter in storytelling sequence]. In A. Yoshimuda, A. Suga, & N. Yamamoto (Eds.), Kotoba o mitsumete – Uchida Seeji kyooju taikan kinen ronbunshuu [Observing linguistic phenomena: A festschrift for Professor Seiji Uchida on the occasion of his retirement from Nara Women’s University] (pp. 425–436). Tokyo: Eihoosha.
Sugiura, H. (2011). Strong agreements and their recognizability: A multimodal analysis on agreements in everyday Japanese conversation. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 14(1), 20–32.
Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.56
Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
Tanaka, H. (2010). Multimodal expressivity of the Japanese response particle Huun. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 303–332). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.25tan
Thompson, S. A., & Suzuki, R. (2014). Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies, 16(6), 816–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614546259
Winchatz, M. R., & Kozin, A. (2008). Comical hypothetical: Arguing for a conversational phenomenon. Discourse Studies, 10(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608089917
Yamamoto, M. (2013). Monogatari no ukete niyoru serifu hatsuwa: Monogatari no soogo kooi teki tenkai [Serifu utterances by recipients of storytelling: Interactive developments of stories]. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 16(1), 139–159.
Yamamoto, M. (2014). Monogatari no ukete niyoru serifu hatsuwa: Sanyosha kan no kyookan kankee no koochiku ni kansuru kaiwabunseki teki kenkyuu [Serifu utterances by recipients of storytelling: Conversation analytic research on participants’ construction of empathetic relationship] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hokkaido University.
