Modification of the intensity of evaluation as an interactional resource
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.27766Keywords:
conversation analysis, self-repair, intensity of evaluation, stance, epistemicsAbstract
Using the methodology of conversation analysis, this study considers excerpts from Japanese spontaneous conversation in which the intensity of evaluation is modified through self-repair operations. It demonstrates that the modification is utilised as an interactional resource. The analysis reveals that the intensity of evaluation is modified to achieve two interactional outcomes: to disambiguate or amplify the speaker’s evaluative stance toward the referent and to display the speaker’s orientation to the lack of direct epistemic access or strong commitment to the position. The findings are discussed to explore the possibility that the public process of modifying the intensity of evaluation may itself be an interactional resource with which to display the speaker’s dual orientations. The paper further considers the possible crosslinguistic relevance of the findings.
References
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.003
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), Morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 58–81). Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (2013). Conversational repair and human understanding: An introduction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 1–40). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/0.1017/CBO9780511757464.001
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), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 3(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004334
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). John Benjamins.
Kitzinger, C. (2012). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Wiley-Blackwell.
Koiso, H., Amatani, H., Den, Y., Iseki, Y., Ishimoto, Y., Kashino, W., Kawabata, Y., Nishikawa, K., Tanaka, Y, Watanabe, Y. and Usuda, Y. (2022). Design and evaluation of the corpus of everyday Japanese conversation. Proceedings of LREC2022, 5587–5594.
Koyama, T. (1997). Bunmatsushi to bunmatsu intoneeshon [Sentence-final particles and final intonation]. In Onseibunpookenkyuukai (Ed.), Bunpoo to onsei [Speech and grammar] (pp. 97–119). Kuroshio Publisher.
Lerner, G. H. (2013). On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 95–134). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.004
Lindström, A., & Heinemann, T. (2009). Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296465
MacWhinney, B., & Wagner, J. (2010). Transcribing, searching and data sharing: The CLAN software and the TalkBank data repository. Gesprachsforschung, 11, 154–173.
Maeda, N. (2006). Gendai nihongo ni okeru setsuzokujoshi shi no imi, youhou: Heiretsu to riyuuno kankei wo chuusin ni [Usage of conjunctive particle shi in modern Japanese]. Jinbun, 4, 131–144. (Gakushuin University, Research Institute for Humanities.)
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1752–1775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
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: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Romaniuk, T., & Ehrlich, S. (2013). On the interactional import of self-repair in the courtroom. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 172–197). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.006
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/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.002
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001
Wilkinson, S., & Weatherall, A. (2011). Insertion repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.544136
