When (not) to claim epistemic independence

The use of ne and yone in Japanese conversation

Authors

  • Kaoru Hayano Japanese Women's University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34740

Keywords:

the particle yone, japanese, epistemic independence, conversation analysis

Abstract

The goal of this article is to demonstrate that the Japanese final particles ne and yone are systematically used to adopt different epistemic stances and thereby achieve different interactional consequences. Using conversation analysis, the article analyses the particles used in two specific sequential environments: (1) responses to informing and (2) first and second assessments. It is demonstrated that yone is used to claim that the speaker has arrived at the view independently prior to the ongoing conversation (epistemic independence) as well as knows or has experienced the referent first-hand (independent access) while ne is used to claim independent access but not epistemic independence. This analysis allows us to identify interactional contexts in which it is appropriate for participants to claim epistemic independence with the use of the particle yone and when it is not.

Author Biography

Kaoru Hayano, Japanese Women's University

Kaoru Hayano is Associate Professor in the Department of English, Japan Women's University. She holds a doctoral degree from Radboud University Nijmegen. Her research field is Conversation Analysis. She has published articles primarily on epistemics in interaction.

References

Cheng, C. (1987). Shuujoshi: Hanashite to kikite no ninshiki no gyappu o umeru tame no bun-setsuji (Sentence-final particles: sentence clitics for closing the gap between the speaker’s and the hearer’s recognition). Nihongogaku, 6, 93–109.

Cook, H.M. (1992). Meanings of non-referential indexes: A case study of the Japanese sentence-final particle ne. Text, 12, 507–539. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1992.12.4.507

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

Hasunuma, A. (1995). Taiwa ni okeru kakunin kooi: ‘Daroo’ ‘janaika’ ‘yone’ no kakunin yoohoo (Confirmation in discourse: The use of ‘daroo’ ‘janaika’ and ‘yone’ as confirmation request). In Y. Nitta (Ed.), Fukubun no kenkyuu (Research on complex sentences) (vol. 2; pp. 389–419). Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Hayano, K. (2007). Repetitional agreement and anaphorical agreement: Negotiation of affiliation and disaffiliation in Japanese conversation (Unpublished master’s thesis). Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL, University of California, Los Angeles.

Hayano, K. (2009). Generalization and specification of the scope of assessment: Negotiation of epistemic stance in Japanese talk-in-interaction. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.

Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 58–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004

Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen.

Hayano, K. (2016). Subjective assessments: Managing territories of experience in conversation. In J. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 207–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0007

Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (1984b). 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.

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. (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. 156–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 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

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. (1981). The abominable ‘ne’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. Occasional Paper No.6, Manchester: University of Manchester, Department of Sociology.

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: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Kamio, A. (1990). Joohoo no nawabari riron (The theory of territory of information). Tokyo: Taishukan.

Katagiri, Y. (2007). Dialogue functions of Japanese sentence-final particles ‘yo’ and ‘ne’. Journal of Pragmatics, 3,(7), 1313–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.013

Katoh, S. (2001). Bunmatsujoshi ne, yo no danwakooseekinoo (Discourse structuring functions of sentence-final particles ne and yo). Bulletin of the Department of Humanities, Toyama University, 35, 31–48.

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). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publisher.

Levinson, S.C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6

MacWhinney, B. (2007). The Talkbank project. In K. P. C. Joan, C. Beal, & H. L. Moisl (Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: Synchronic database (Vol. 1; pp. 163–180). Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230223936_7

Maynard, D. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 92–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1

Morita, E. (2002). Stance marking in the collaborative completion of sentences: Final particles as epistemic markers in Japanese. In N. Akatsuka & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 10 (pp. 220–233). Stanford: CSLI.

Morita, E. (2005). Negotiation of contingent talk: The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.137

Morita, E. (2012). ‘This talk needs to be registered’: The metapragmatic meaning of the Japanese interactional particle yo. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1721–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.011

Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements (Unpublished PhD dissertation). School of Social Science, University of California, Irvine.

Pomerantz, A. (1984a). 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: Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (vols. 1 and 2). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Sacks, H, Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Schegloff, E. A, and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289

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., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674

Tanaka, H. (2000). The particle ne as a turn-managing device in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1135-1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00087-9

Published

2018-10-06

How to Cite

Hayano, K. (2018). When (not) to claim epistemic independence: The use of ne and yone in Japanese conversation. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(2), 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34740