Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:30:59.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delaying dispreferred responses in English: From a Japanese perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2008

HIROKO TANAKA
HIROKO TANAKA
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article employs conversation analysis to explore the interpenetration of grammar and preference organization in English conversation in comparison with a previous study for Japanese. Whereas varying the word order of major syntactic elements is a vital grammatical resource in Japanese for accomplishing the potentially universal task of delaying dispreferred responses to a range of first actions, it is found to have limited utility in English. A search for alternative operations and devices that conversationalists deploy for this objective in English points to several grammatical constructions that can be tailored to maximize the delay of dispreferred responses. These include the fronting of relatively mobile, syntactically “non-obligatory” elements of clause structure and the employment of various copular constructions. A close interdependence is observed between the rudimentary grammatical resources available in the two languages and the types of operations that are respectively enlisted for the implementation of the organization of preference.

Keywords

conversation analysispreference organizationdispreferred responseword orderadverbial clauseepistemic phrasediscourse markercopular constructionpseudocleftrepair
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 487 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Atkinson, J. Maxwell, & Drew, Paul (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter; Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth; & Müller, Frank (1999). Language in time: The rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar (2003). Concession in spoken English: On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language 77:245–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter C. (1991). Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2001). Constructing reason-for-the-call turns in everyday telephone conversation. InLiSt (Interaction and Linguistic Structures) No. 25, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universitat Konstanz.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Thompson, Sandra A. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. In Kortmann, Bernd & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Thompson, Sandra A. (2005). A Linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: Concessive repair. In Hakulinen, Auli & Selting, Margret (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction, 257–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Judy (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1984). Speaker's reportings in invitation sequences. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 129–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (2006). Requesting, offering and complaining. Plenary paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Helsinki, 10–14 May.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek, & Fasulo, Alessandra (2006). “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39:343–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Peter (1990). Discourse and grammar: Focussing and defocussing in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.; Hayashi, Makoto; & Jasperson, Robert (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Ochs, In ElinorSchegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Jasperson, Robert (1996). A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In Davis, Philip W. (ed.), Alternate linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, 77–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1996). Transparent vision. In Ochs, In ElinorSchegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto (2003). Joint utterance Construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul (2001). Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Pütz, MartinNiemeier, Susanne & Dirven, René (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 109–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul (2004). The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40:239–56.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, & Thompson, Sandra A. (to appear). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun (1995/2001). Wh-clefts and left-dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In Downing, P. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Word order in discourse, 247–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, John (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20:441–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59:303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32:177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H., & Takagi, Tomoyo (1999). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics 31:49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Helsinki, 19–14 May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28:185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 7:289–327.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.) (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takezawa, Kooichi, & Whitman, John (1998). Kaku to gojun to toogo koozoo [Case, word order and syntactic structure]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko (2005). Grammar and the “timing” of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society 34:389–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. (1985). Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5:155–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26:125–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7:481–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, volume II: Focus on types of grammatical markers, 313–29. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar