Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:51:15.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speaker's sex or discourse activities? A micro-discourse-based account of usage of nonparticle questions in Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2006

MISAO OKADA
MISAO OKADA
Affiliation:
Hokusei Gakuen University, 2-3-1, Oyachi-nishi, Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo, 004-8631 Japan, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A micro-discourse-based approach is employed to examine the usage of nonparticle questions (e.g., ii? ‘{Is that} okay?’) in Japanese university orchestra meetings. Women appear to ask such questions more often than men do there. It is shown that a detailed discourse analysis, including participants' talk, nonvocal behaviors, and the use of documents, can uncover how superficially sex-linked usage arises from differences in speakers' activities at the moment. By means of both sequential and quantitative analyses of 140 nonparticle questions, it is demonstrated that their use with different frequencies by women and men is not a direct consequence of the sex of the speaker per se. Rather, the speakers' engagement in activities specific to particular discourses (e.g., note-taking) affects their opportunities to ask nonparticle questions.I would like to express my appreciation to my former academic adviser, Amy Sheldon of the University of Minnesota, and to the other members of my dissertation committee, Junko Mori, Betsy Kerr, Jeanette Gundel, and Bruce Downing, for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this article. I am also grateful to the editor of the journal and two anonymous reviewers of this article who helped me to refocus the argumentation. I also appreciate the help of Anthony Backhouse, Marjorie Harness Goodwin, Jane Hill, Noël R. Houck, Hiroaki Ishiguro, Etsuko Oishi, and Tomoharu Yanagimachi, who gave me useful and insightful suggestions. I also thank Anne-Marie Cusac and Jane McGary, who made many stylistic changes. I am solely responsible for any problems that remain in this article. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2001 annual meeting of American Association for Applied Linguistics in St. Louis, Missouri. A related but different article concerning functions of nonparticle questions appeared as Okada 2005 in the Bulletin of Fuji Women's University 42 (Series I).

Keywords

genderquestionsmicro-discourse analysisdiscourse activities
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 341 - 365
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bing, Janet M., & Bergvall, Victoria L. (1996). The question of questions: Beyond binary thinking. In Victoria L. Bergvall et al. (eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice, 1–30. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Cameron, Deborah (1996). The language-gender interface: Challenging co-optation. In Victoria L. Bergvall et al. (eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice, 31–53. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Cameron, Deborah; McAlinden, Fiona; & O'Leary, Kathy (1988). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Jennifer Coates & Deborah Cameron (eds.), Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 74–93. New York: Longman.
Cook, Haruko Minegishi (1999). Situational meanings of Japanese social deixis: The mixed use of the masu and plain forms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8 (1):87–110.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Kira Hall et al. (eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 1:89–99. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ehrlich, Susan (1997). Gender as social practice: Implications for second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19:421–46.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.; Fox, Barbara A.; & Thompson, Sandra. A. (2002). Introduction. In Cecilia. E. Ford et al. (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 3–13. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freed, Alice F. (1996). Language and gender research in an experimental setting. In Victoria L. Bergvall et al. (eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice, 54–76. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Freed, Alice F., & Greenwood, Alice (1996). Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the difference? Language in Society 25:1–26.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32:1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2003). The body in action. In Justine Coupland& Richard Gwyn (eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity, 19–42. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Goodwin, Charles, & Duranti, Alessandro (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, Charles, & Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1998). Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Yrjö Engeström & David Middleton (eds.), Cognition and communication at work, 61–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1980). Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4):303–17.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1995). Assembling a response: Setting and collaboratively constructed work talk. In Paul ten Have & George Psathas (eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities, 173–86. Washington DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Heritage, John (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Kristine L. Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 103–47. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heritage, John, & Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1984). Introduction. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, Janet (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo 27:47–62.Google Scholar
Ide, Sachiko (1990). How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In Sachiko Ide & Naomi H. McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese women's language, 63–79. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Jorden, Eleanor H., & Noda, Mari (1987). Japanese: The spoken language. Part 1. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jorden, Eleanor H., & Noda, Mari (1988). Japanese: The spoken language. Part 2. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jorden, Eleanor H., & Noda, Mari (1990). Japanese: The spoken language. Part 3. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kamio, Akio (1990). Joohoo no nawabari-riron: Gengo no kinoo-teki bunseki [A theory of territory of information: Functional analysis of language]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makino, Seiichi, & Tsutsui, Michio (1986). A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Masuoka, Takashi, & Yukinori, Takubo (1989). Kiso Nihongo bunpoo [Basic Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Maynard, Senko K. (1989). Japanese conversation: Self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Maynard, Senko K. (1990). An introduction to Japanese grammar and communication strategies. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Maynard, Senko K. (1993a). Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Maynard, Senko K. (1993b). Kaiwa bunseki [Conversation analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
McGloin, Naomi H. (1980). Some observations concerning no desu expressions. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 15(2):117–49.Google Scholar
Nakajima, Etsuko (1997). Gimon-hyoogen no yoosoo [Aspects of interrogative expressions]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuu-kai (ed.), Josee no kotoba: shokuba-hen [Women's language at work], 59–82. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.
Nakajima, Etsuko (2002). Shokuba no dansei no gimon-hyoogen [Interrogative expressions used by men in the workplace]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuu-kai (ed.), Dansee no kotoba: shokuba-hen [Men's language at work], 47–61. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.
O'Barr, William M., & Atkins, Bowman K. (1980). ‘Women's language’ or ‘powerless language’? In Sally McConnell-Ginet et al. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society, 93–110. New York: Praeger.
Ochs, Elinor (1992). Indexing gender. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okada, Misao (2001). The use of nonparticle questions among women and men in Japanese spontaneous conversation. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Okada, Misao (2005). Dynamic processes of coparticipants' understanding of some functions of nonparticle questions in Japanese. Bulletin of Fuji Women's University 42 (Series I):55–78.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko (1995). “Tasteless” Japanese: Less “feminine” speech among young Japanese women. In Kira Hall & Mary Bucholtz (eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, 297–325. New York: Routledge.
Okamoto, Shigeko (1996). Indexical meaning, linguistic ideology, and Japanese women's speech. In Jan Johnson et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 290–301. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRef
Okamoto, Shigeko (2002). Ideology and social meanings: Rethinking the relationship between language, politeness, and gender. In Sarah Benor et al. (eds.), Gendered practices in language, 91–113. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Okamoto, Shigeko, & Smith, Janet S. Shibamoto (2004). Introduction. In Shigeko Okamoto & Janet S. Shibamoto Smith (eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology: Cultural models and real people, 3–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1976). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. Pragmatics Microfiche, 2.2, D8-G1 (reprinted in Atkinson & Heritage 1984).Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1):99–128.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997a). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society 8(2):165–87.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997b). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23:499–545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4): 289–327.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Amy (1992). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill Palmer Quarterly 38(1):95–117.Google Scholar
Smith, Janet S. (1992). Women in charge: Politeness and directives in the speech of Japanese women. Language in Society 21:59–82.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth H. (2005). Analysing gender and language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(1):118–33.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction, 165–88. New York: Oxford University Press.
Teramura, Hideo (1984). Nihongo no shintakusu to imi [Syntax and semantics of Japanese], vol. 2. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Uchida, Aki (1992). When “difference” is “dominance”: A critique of the “anti-power-based” cultural approach to sex differences. Language in Society 21:547–68.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, & Benke, Gertraud (1997). Gender as a sociolinguistic variable: New perspectives on variation studies. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics, 127–50. Oxford: Blackwell.