Chapter published in:
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 203–236

Self-addressed questions as fixed expressions for epistemic stance marking in Japanese conversation

| The University of Tokyo
| Kyushu University
Speakers in conversation do not always produce utterances smoothly. Among the various ways of deferring utterance production, this chapter focuses on three kinds of self-addressed questions (SAQs) in Japanese conversation: nan-daroo ‘what would it be,’ nan-te-yuu-no ‘what do you call it,’ and nan-da-kke ‘what was it again.’ Through quantitative analyses, we argue that the SAQs should be treated as fixed expressions for marking the epistemic stance of the speaker. We then qualitatively examine how these SAQs are used in conversation and discuss that the use of the different types of SAQs, each of which indicates a specific type of trouble, contributes to the management of progressivity of the interaction and intersubjectivity between participants.
Keywords: epistemic stance, uncertainty, speech disfluency, self-addressed questions, Japanese conversation
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.08end
References

References

Bybee, Joan, and Joanne Scheibman
1999 “The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of don’t in English.” In Linguistics 37(4): 575–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Endo, Tomoko, and Daisuke Yokomori
2018 “Interactional Functions of Verbalizing Trouble: Self-addressed Questions in Japanese Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 25, ed. by Shin Fukuda, Mary Shin Kim, and Mee-Jeong Park, 327–339. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
(1979) “On Fluency.” In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. by Charles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler, and William S-Y. Wang, 85–102. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds.) 2002 The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1987 “Forgetfulness as an Interactive Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 115–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko
2010 Soliloquy in Japanese and English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru
2011 “Claiming Epistemic Primacy: Yo-marked Assessments in Japanese.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013  Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen.
Hayashi, Makoto
2004 “Projection and grammar: Notes on the ‘Action-Projecting’ Use of the Distal Demonstrative Are in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 36(8): 1337–1374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Claiming Uncertainty in Recollection: A Study of Kke-marked Utterances in Japanese Conversation.” Discourse Processes 49(5): 391–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2014 “Agreement or Crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd Person Subjects and Verbs of Cognition in Finnish Conversational Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 63: 63–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” In Person reference in interaction, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2011 “Clines of Subordination – Constructions with the German ‘Complement-Taking Predicate’ Glauben .” In Subordination in Conversation, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 165–190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
2002 Japanese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
2006 “Stancetaking in Conversation: From Subjectivity to Intersubjectivity.” Text & Talk 26(6): 699–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “The Roles of I guess in Conversational Stancetaking.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 183–219. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973 The Structure of Japanese Language. Cambridge: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Koiso, Hanae, Yayoi Tanaka, Ryoko Watanabe, and Yasuharu Den
2016 “A Large Scale Corpus of Everyday Japanese Conversation: On Methodology for Recording Naturally Occurring Conversations.” Proceedings of LREC 2016 Workshop on Casual Talk among Humans and Machines , 9–12.
Lakoff, George
1972 “Hedges: a Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” The 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 183–228.
MacWhinney, Brian
2007 “The TalkBank Project.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Databases, Vol.1. ed. by Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan, and Hermann L. Moisl, 163–180. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maekawa, Kikuo
2003 “Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese: Its Design and Evaluation.” Proceedings of The ISCA & IEEE Workshop on Spontaneous Speech Processing and Recognition (SSPR 2003) , 7–12.
Masuoka, Takashi, and Yukinori Takubo
1992 Kiso nihongo bumpoo [Basic Japanese Grammar]. Revised Edition. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publisher.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Ikuyo
2010 “Hanashite ni naru koto, hanashite ni naroo to shinai koto: guruupu dhisukasshon ni mirareru nagai chinmoku kara [Becoming a speaker and avoiding being a speaker: Some observations on long silences in group discussion].” In Komyunikeeshon no kyookai to setsuzoku [Boundaries and connections in interaction], ed. by Daiji Kimura, Michio Nakamura, and Katsuya Takanashi, 254–272. Kyoto: Showadoo.Google Scholar
Morita, Emi
2005 Negotiation of Contingent Talk: The Japanese Interactional Particles Ne and Sa . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001 Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds.) 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder
1983 “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.” In Language and Communciation, ed. by Jack C. Richards, and Richard W. Schmidt, 191–226. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1993 “Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Ten Operations in Self-initiated, Same-Turn Repair.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 41–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shimotani, Maki, and Tomoko Endo
2015 “Sequential Patterns of Storytelling using Omotte in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 30: 33–53.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds.) 2013 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko
1990 “The Role of Particles in Japanese Gossip.” Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS16) , 315–324.
Takubo, Yukinori, and Satoshi Kinsui
1997 “Discourse Management in terms of Mental Spaces.” Journal of Pragmatics 28(6): 741–758. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanomura, Tadaharu
1989 Gendai nihongo no yoohoo I: ‘noda’ no imi to yoohoo [Usage of Contemporary Japanese I: The Meaning and usage of noda]. Osaka: Izumi shoin.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 ““Object Complements” and Conversation towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26(1): 125–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tian, Ye, Takehiko Maruyama, and Jonathan Ginzburg
2017 “Self Addressed Questions and Filled Pauses: A Cross-linguistic Investigation.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(4): 905–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Michiko
2009 Features and Roles of Filled Pauses in Speech Communication. Tokyo: Hituzi shobo.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Michiko, Keikichi Hirose, Yasuharu Den, and Nobuaki Minematsu
2008 “Filled Pause as Cues to the Complexity of Upcoming Phrases for Native and Non-native Listeners.” Speech Communication 50: 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yamane, Chie
2002 Nihongo no danwa ni okeru firaa [Fillers in Japanese Discourse]. Tokyo: Kuroshio publishers.Google Scholar