Performative intersubjectivity
Claiming epistemic primacy with wo gaosu ni ‘I tell you’ in Mandarin conversation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.18790Keywords:
stance, epistemic primacy, intersubjectivity, Mandarin conversationAbstract
Taking an interactional linguistic approach, this article examines the role of turn-initial wo gaosu ni ‘I tell you’ in informings in Mandarin conversation. Based on data from a television talk show, I argue that one major function of turn-initial wo gaosu ni is to serve as a ‘performative’ strategy in interaction that manages inter-subjectivity among interlocutors (Edwards, 1999, p. 140). Specifically, by treating oneself as the source of information and others as the uninformed, the wo gaosu ni-speaker asserts his/her epistemic primacy over the referent vis-à-vis coparticipants. I also propose that, drawing on this epistemic-encoding function, turn-initial wo gaosu ni can also act to reinforce the speaker’s affective stance, which may be supportive, affiliative, or antithetical to the ones taken by others.
References
Bolden, G. B. (2018). Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation. In J. Heritage & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages (pp. 25–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.02bol
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Chappell, H. (1991). Strategies for the assertion of obviousness and disagreement in Mandarin: A semantic study of the modal particle me. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 11, 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609108599451
Chen, Y., & Liu, L. (2010). Huayu biaoji ‘wo gen ni shuo/jiang’ (Discourse marker wo gen ni shuo/jiang ‘I tell you’). Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 14, 23–34.
Clayman, S. E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication, 4(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310364330
Clayman, S. E. (2013). Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623
Clayman, S. E., & Loeb, L. (2018). Polar questions, response preference, and the tasks of political positioning in journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449438
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–291. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0074
Dong, X. (2010). A discourse marker derived from clausal form. Linguistic Sciences, 9, 279–286.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25(1), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. (1986). Self-evidence and ritual speech. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality (pp. 313–336). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Edwards, D. (1999). Shared knowledge as a performative and rhetorical strategy. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA) (pp. 130–141). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: A conversation analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237834
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Heinemann, T. (2008). Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies, 10(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085590
Heinemann, T. (2010). The question-response system of Danish. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2703–2725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007
Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 1–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
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
Jefferson, G. (1983). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
Jefferson, G. (1985). On the interactional unpackaging of a ‘gloss’. Language in Society, 14(4), 435–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011465
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166–196). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48
Kim, M. S. (2013). Answering questions about the unquestionable in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.004
Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1851–1877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7
Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Li, Z. (2010). On the origin of discourse markers with woshuo as an example. Chinese Teaching in the World, 24, 192–198.
Lim, N. E. (2019). Preliminaries to delicate matters: Some functions of “I say to you” sequences in Mandarin Chinese conversations. In Y. Xiao, & L. Tsung (Eds.), Current studies in Chinese language and discourse: Global context and diverse perspectives (pp. 105–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.10.06lim
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features found in 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
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no 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
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5(3), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00653.x
Sacks, H. (1984). On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.024
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & R. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 112–138). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.06sch
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10
Sharrock, W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 45–53). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sidnell, J. (2004). There’s risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry testimony. Discourse & Society, 15(6), 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046503
Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and certainty. Philosophical Issues (Interdisciplinary Core Philosophy), 18(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00136.x
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: one method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637
Stivers, T., & Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text & Talk, 21(1–2), 151–185. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.151
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Introduction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
Takubo, Y., & Kinsui, S. (1997). Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(6), 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00073-8
Wang, Y. (2008). Beyond negation – the roles of meiyou and bushi in Mandarin conversation. Language Sciences, 30(6), 679–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.08.001
