Enacting surprise with ani ‘no’-prefaced questions

Authors

  • Stephanie Hyeri Kim California State University Northridge

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34617

Keywords:

turn-initial particle, question, ani, surprise, turn-initial particle, question, ani, surprise, Korean, conversation

Abstract

This study focuses on the use of the particle ani ‘no’ as a preface to questions in Korean conversation. Using ordinary telephone conversations as data, the study examines the practice of ani prefacing in a previously unexplored position: questions that begin with ani. The cases show that ani-prefaced questions display the speaker’s surprise at some content of the recipient’s prior talk and sometimes even serve to challenge the truthfulness of the surprise source. In this context, the ani preface serves as an alert that these actions should be understood as a departure from the ongoing course of action and as a distinct issue to be addressed. The article also discusses ani’s uses in turn-initial position in relation to its use in other positions.

Author Biography

Stephanie Hyeri Kim, California State University Northridge

Stephanie Hyeri Kim is Assistant Professor of Linguistics/TESL at California State University, Northridge. Her primary research interests concern the intersection of language, social interaction, and language learning and teaching. She has published on turn initial and final particles and other-initiated repair in English and Korean in the contexts of everyday life and institutional settings. Her work has appeared in Discourse ProcessesJournal of PragmaticsResearch on Language and Social Interaction, and Text and Talk, among others.

 

References

Bolden, G. B. (2008). ‘So what’s up?’: Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909

Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004

Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Max Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1988). Explanation as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation (pp. 127–144). London: Sage.

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 and agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). New York: Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008

Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656

Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M-L. (in press). Introduction. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Turn initial particles across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jefferson, G. (1981). The abominable ‘ne’? A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. Occasional Paper, 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.

Keevallik, L. (2012). Compromising progressivity: ‘No’-prefacing in Estonian. Pragmatics, 22(1), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22.1.05kee

Kim, H. R. S., & Kuroshima, S. (2013). Turn beginnings in interaction: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.026

Kim, M.-S. (1997). Tayhwakwucho-lo pon ‘ani’-ui kinung (Some functions of ‘ani’ in a conversational structure of Korean). Discourse and Cognition, 4(2), 77–101.

Kim, M. S., & Kim, S. H. (2014). Initiating repair with and without particles: Alternative formats of other-initiation of repair in Korean conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(4), 331-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.958277

Kim, S. H. (2015). Resisting the terms of polar questions through ani (‘no’)-prefacing in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954950

Kim, S. H. (2016). When speakers account for their questions: Ani-prefaced accounts in Korean conversation. In J. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 294–320). New York: Oxford.

Koo, H. J. (2008). Grammaticalization of negation markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 15(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2008.15.3.1

Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5, 51-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301

Maynard, D. W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 93–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1

Schegloff, E. (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.

Schegloff, E. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

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. (2007). A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 231–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008

Sohn, H.-M., (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steensig, J., & Drew, P. (2008). Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies, 10(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581

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

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900203

Yang, C. (2002). Ani ‘no’: It doesn’t always mean ‘no’ in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 9(2), 101–119.

Yoon, K.-E. (2010). Questions and responses in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2782–2798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.012

Published

2017-11-29

How to Cite

Kim, S. H. (2017). Enacting surprise with ani ‘no’-prefaced questions. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34617