Cover not available
Part of
Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures
Edited by Cornelia Ilie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 323] 2021
► pp. 167–192

Constructing interrupting inquiries as cooperative interactions

Question-response-hai ‘yes’ sequences in Japanese interviews

| Kanto Gakuin University
This chapter examines how speakers manage the simultaneous occurrence of questioning and interruption. The data are 22 sequences consisting of an interviewer’s interrupting question, the interviewee’s response, and the interviewer’s hai ‘yes’, from 60-minute interviews with eight women. I analyze what discursive strategies the interview participants employ to construct such sequences as cooperative interactions. The analysis shows that: (1) the interviewee constructs the sequence as a side activity, sustaining the status of her narrative as the main activity; (2) the interviewee turns the side activity into a crucial contribution to the interaction; and (3) the interviewer utilizes hai to explicitly transfer speakership to the interviewee. The findings demonstrate the importance of examining questions within sequences of ongoing interaction.
Keywords: question, interruption, interview, main/side activities, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Theoretical approach
  • 4.Data and methodology
  • 5.The relationship between utterances before and after the [question-response-hai] sequence
    • 5.1Continuation
    • 5.2Resumption
    • 5.3Redesign
  • 6.The responses of the interviewees
    • 6.1Transformative answer
    • 6.2Repetitional answer
    • 6.3Adoption of part of the question in the return
    • 6.4Combination of repetition, addition, and adoption
  • 7.The role of the turn-final hai ‘yes’
    • 7.1Degree of prompting force of hai
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.323.06nak
References (35)
References
Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 1991. “The Discourse Function of Questions.” Pragmatics 1 (1): 107–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Adrian. 1981. “Interruption and the Interpretation of Conversation.” Discourse Processes 4: 171–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Digital Daijisen Dictionary. 2017. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.Google Scholar
Drummond, Kent, and Robert Hopper. 1993. “Some Uses of Yeah.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2): 203–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Funahashi, Mizuki. 2011. “Utterance Structures and Linguistic Forms of the Annotation Insertion: Identifying the Verbal Markings of Utterance Structures.” Nihongo bumpō 11 (1): 105–121.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2005. “Bunnai ni okeru intāakushon: Nihongo joshi no sōgokōijō no yakuwari o megutte” [Interaction within a sentence: The role of Japanese particles in interaction]. In Sirīzu Bun to Hatsuwa 1: Katsudō toshiteno Bun to Hatsuwa, ed. by Shūya Kushida, Toshiyuki Sadanobu, and Yasuharu Den, 1–26. Tokyo: Hituji shobo.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Making a ‘Noticing of Departure’ in Talk: Eh-prefaced Turns in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2100–2129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “An Overview of the Question-Response System in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2685–2702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1998. “Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Andrew L. Roth. 1995. “Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28: 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2005. “Interruption Patterns in British Parliamentary Debates and Drama Dialogue.” In Dialogue Analysis IX: Dialogue in Literature and the Media, ed. by Anne Betten and Monika Dannerer, 415–430. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Argumentative Functions of Parentheticals in Parliamentary Debates.” In Discourse and Politics, ed. by Gloria Álvarez-Benito, Gabriela Fernández-Díaz, and Isabel Íñigo-Mora, 61–79. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 2007. “Parenthetical Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (10): 1816–1869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murata, Kumiko. 1994. “Intrusive or Co-operative? A Cross-cultural Study of Interruption.” Journal of Pragmatics 21 (4): 385–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakada, Seiichi. 1980. Aspects of Interrogative Structure: A Case Study from English and Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, Aogu. 2007. “Kōirensa no naka no keitai to jōtai” [Polite style and plain style in interactional sequence]. Meiji Gakuin University Graduate School of Sociology Bulletin 31: 55–78.Google Scholar
Oshima, Hiroko. 2007. “The Final Particle Ka.” In Japanese Linguistics: European Chapter, ed. by Yoshihiko Ikegami, Viktoria Eschbach-Szabo, and André Wlodarczyk, 155–167. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simple Systematics for Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2011. “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of Course’ as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Makoto Hayashi. 2010. “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takagi, Tomoyo. 1999. “‘Questions’ in Argumentative Sequences in Japanese.” Human Studies 32: 397–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Lidia. 2006. “Turn-Taking in Japanese Television Interviews: A Study of Interviewer’s Strategies.” Pragmatics 16 (2/3): 361–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Japanese Questions: Discourse, Context and Language. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1983. “When Is an Overlap Not an Interruption? One Component of Conversational Style.” In The First Delaware Symposium on Language Studies, ed. by Robert J. Di Pietro, William Frawley, and Alfred Wedel, 119–129. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Togashi, Junichi. 2002. “Hai to un no kankei o megutte” [The relationships between hai and un]. In Un to so no gengogaku [Linguistics of un and so], ed. by Toshiyuki Sadanobu, 127–157. Tokyo: Hituji shobo.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mari. 2016. “Differences in Interactive Usage of Japanese Recipient Response Tokens Un and Hai.” NINJAL Research Papers 10: 297–313.Google Scholar
Yokota, Mariko. 1994. “The Role of Questioning in Japanese Political Discourse.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 5 (2): 353–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Xiaoquan, and Walter Gantz. 2003. “Disruptive and Cooperative Interruptions in Prime-time Television Fiction: The Role of Gender, Status, and Topic.” Journal of Communication 53 (2): 347–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar