A sentence dispersed within a turn-at-talk

Response-opportunity places as loci for interactional work

Authors

  • Aug Nichiaka Chiba University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34561

Keywords:

japanese interaction, conversation analysis, response-opportunity places, grammatical construction

Abstract

The aim of this study is to show that there is orderliness in a piece of talk that is extremely complex and, in so doing, to explore the grammatical construction of naturally occurring, and contingently produced, utterances in Japanese interaction. First, I distinguish between unit-completeness and turn-completeness. Second, I introduce the notion of response-opportunity places to indicate those places in which although the ongoing talk is still both unit- and turn-incomplete, responses may be produced. These places are systematically used as loci for initiating solutions to various possible interactional problems, such as problems of hearing and understanding. Third, I examine different practices through which the speaker returns to the incomplete turn-constructional unit. The orderliness of the target talk is the result of the speaker’s systematic use of these places and practices.

Author Biography

Aug Nichiaka, Chiba University

Aug Nishizaka is Professor of Sociology at Chiba University. His current research is concerned with Japanese interactions in various settings, including interactions among residents in the areas directly affected by the nuclear power plant explosions subsequent to the earthquake on 11 March 2011. His recent publications include ‘Syntactical constructions and tactile orientations’, Journal of Pragmatics (2016), ‘The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction’, Mind, Culture, and Activity (2017), and ‘The moral construction of worry about radiation exposure’, Discourse & Society (2017).

References

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

Hayashi, M. (2001). Postposition-initiated utterances in Japanese conversation: An interactional account of a grammatical practice. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 317–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.15hay

Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12

Hayashi, M. (2004). Discourse within a sentence: An exploration of postpositions in Japanese as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 33, 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504043027

Hayashi, M. (2005). Referential problems and turn construction: An exploration of an intersection between grammar and interaction. Text, 25(4), 437–468. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.4.437

Hayashi, M., & Kushida, S. (2013). Responding with resistance to wh-questions in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.810407

Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46, 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.

Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9(1), 47–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.47

Jefferson, G. (2004a). A note on laughter in ‘male–female’ interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039445

Jefferson, G. (2004b). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Kushida, S. (2006). Sogokoi chitsujo to kaiwa bunseki (Interactional order and conversation analysis). Kyoto: Sekai Shiso Sha.

Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572

Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005

Lerner, G. H. (2004). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3

Local, J. (1992). Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 273–296). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.18loc

Mazeland, H. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1816–1869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz

Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.8

Mori, J. (2014). The re-examination of so-called ‘clefts’: A study of multiunit turns in Japanese talk-in-interaction. In K. Kabata & T. Ono (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar: Towards the understanding of human language (pp. 193–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.156.14mor

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

Nishizaka, A. (2008). Hatsugen junban nai ni oite bunsan suru bun (Dispersed sentences within a turn-at-talk). Shakaigengo Kagaku (Japanese Journal of Language in Society), 10(2), 83–95. DOI: 10.19024/jajls.10.2_83

Nishizaka, A. (2016). The use of demo-prefaced response displacement for being a listener to distressful experiences in Japanese interaction. Text & Talk, 36(6), 757–787. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0033

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, T. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1978). Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 249–270). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50017-3

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 34–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Oxford: Basil 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/10.2307/412243

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.

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

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’ Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2001). Conversation analysis: A project in process – increments. Forum Lecture, LSA Linguistics Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.

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

Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other ‘uh(m)’s. Discourse Processes, 47, 130–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903223380

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., &. Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53: 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107

Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wakamatsu, M., & Hosoda, Y. (2003). Sogo koi, bunpo, and yosoku kanose (Interaction, grammar, and projectability). Goyoron Kenkyu, 5, 31–43.

Published

2017-11-29

How to Cite

Nichiaka, A. (2017). A sentence dispersed within a turn-at-talk: Response-opportunity places as loci for interactional work. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(2), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34561