1.Introduction

Several Japanese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in my classes have experienced difficulty responding to native English-speaking interlocutors at the right time during conversations in American English. As American English speakers may provide few of the backchannels that Japanese speakers are used to (i.e., continuing to acknowledge the content or context of a shared topic), and especially if their interlocutor remains silent, Japanese speakers may even doubt whether their conversation partner is listening at all. This experience shows that Japanese speakers need to adopt different conversational attitudes when interacting in English and Japanese, at least in certain situations. However, this may not apply to all genres and types or contexts of conversation; when Japanese people talk in Japanese or English, there are various methods of interaction, including overlaps that vary by genre and the relationship between interlocutors. This also pertains to situations in which English speakers speak American English or Japanese, as well as to situations in which speakers of other languages speak in their mother tongue or their non-native languages.

Accordingly, this study compares the overlaps in utterances of (1) Japanese speakers interacting in Japanese and (2) English speakers interacting in American English11.We follow the definitions of Fujii (2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 637), who conducted a cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study using the same corpus data as this research: ‘American English’ is ‘US-American English’ (the language) throughout the article, differentiated from ‘Americans,’ that is ‘US-Americans’ (the people). in two genres: conversation and problem-solving tasks. These genres were selected because of their differences in how interlocutors construct and develop topics and ideas. Conversations generally entail an interaction in which one interlocutor presents a topic while another listens and in which topics are often co-developed and switched around. In contrast, in the problem-solving genre, two interlocutors negotiate to (co-)create new ideas about a specific problem through their interaction. Overlap is defined as a form of simultaneous conversation in which the utterance of the first speaker is not interrupted by that of the second (Beattie 1981Beattie, Geoffrey W. 1981 “Interruption in Conversational Interaction, and Its Relation to the Sex and Status of the Interactants.” Linguistics 19 (1–2): 15–36. , 19).

Researchers have examined whether speakers overlap their utterances similarly across all languages and interactions (Enfield 2013Enfield, Nick J. 2013 Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press. ; Levinson 2015Levinson, Stephen 2015 “Turn-Taking and the Pragmatic Origins of Language.” Plenary Lecture Given at the 14th International Pragmatics Conference, 26 July. Belgium: University of Antwerp.). These studies have shown that turn-taking (a basis of overlap) is universally systematic and structurally independent of contextually influenced social interactions. Other studies have highlighted different methods of interaction between Japanese and American English speakers (Y. Murata 2015Murata, Yasumi 2015 “Goyoo-Shihyoo to Sono Eigo Kyooiku he no Ooyoo [Pragmatic Features and Their Application to English Education].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 277–291. Tokyo: Hitsuji.). In particular, sociolinguistic studies have found that Japanese language interactions have more overlaps than interactions in American English, and the functions of overlap differ between the two languages (Uchida 2002Uchida, Rara 2002 “A Comparative Study of Turn-Taking in English and Japanese: When and How Do Speakers Express Their Correction to or Agreement with the Other’s Utterances?” Nihon Joshi Daigaku Daigakuin Bungaku Kenkyuuka Kiyoo [Journal of the Graduate School of Humanities, Japan Women’s University] 8: 55–68.; Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. ; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio.; Takeda 2019Takeda, Lala 2019 “Exploring Implicit and Explicit Teaching Methods in EFL Education: A Cross-Genre Analysis of Topic Management Through Overlaps.” In A Pragmatic Approach to English Language Teaching and Production, ed. by Lala Takeda, and Megumi Okugiri, 143–168. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo.). Among these, Uchida (2002)Uchida, Rara 2002 “A Comparative Study of Turn-Taking in English and Japanese: When and How Do Speakers Express Their Correction to or Agreement with the Other’s Utterances?” Nihon Joshi Daigaku Daigakuin Bungaku Kenkyuuka Kiyoo [Journal of the Graduate School of Humanities, Japan Women’s University] 8: 55–68. analyzed TV talk shows, where competitive interactions sometimes surface as points of disagreement are intentionally highlighted. She pointed out that Japanese speakers overlap their utterances more frequently to convey consensus; their overlaps often include repetition and supplementation. In addition, participants may match their tempos to encourage cooperation. American English speakers, by contrast, use overlaps for correction or objection; they usually do not use repetition or supplementation, and their tempo varies.

However, these conclusions were based only on single-genre studies. Are there differences in the locations or functions of overlaps by genre within or between languages or, alternatively, by language within or between genres? Given that participant intimacy, background knowledge, and genre have profound effects on language use and interaction, cross-genre research is needed of how overlap helps build interaction as a social practice.

To bridge this gap, this paper addresses collaborative overlaps: overlapping utterances used when an interlocutor intends to “assist the speaker in what he or she is saying” (Oertel et al. 2012Oertel, Catharine, Marcin Wlodarczak, Alexey Tarasov, Nick Campbell, and Petra Wagner 2012 “Context Cues for Classification of Competitive and Collaborative Overlaps.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2012, ed. by Qiuwu Ma, Hongwei Ding, and Daniel Hirst, 22–25. Shanghai: Tongji University Press., 23). Interactions were analyzed between pairs of speakers in (1) American English and (2) Japanese. In each case, the dyads engaged in two different genres of communication – conversation and problem-solving tasks – in which topic construction necessitates collaborative interaction. This study uses a metacommunicative approach (Bateson 1972Bateson, Gregory 1972 “A Theory of Play and Fantasy.” In Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology, ed. by Gregory Bateson, 177–193. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.) to explain how each utterance is interpreted in its social context against communicative needs/goals, and seeks to identify the influence of genre and language quantitatively and qualitatively on the relationship between overlaps and collaboration. Given the cooperative, co-developed nature of the selected genres, the discussion focuses on collaborative (non-competitive)22.Competitive overlap starts at non-transition-relevance places and means that a speaker “is competing with another speaker for the right to continue speaking … [and] may want to change the topic of the conversation or voice his own opinion on the topic discussed” (Oertel et al. 2012Oertel, Catharine, Marcin Wlodarczak, Alexey Tarasov, Nick Campbell, and Petra Wagner 2012 “Context Cues for Classification of Competitive and Collaborative Overlaps.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2012, ed. by Qiuwu Ma, Hongwei Ding, and Daniel Hirst, 22–25. Shanghai: Tongji University Press., 23). overlaps (K. Murata 1994Murata, Kumiko 1994 “Intrusive or Co-Operative? A Cross-Cultural Study of Interruption.” Journal of Pragmatics 21 (4): 385–400. ; Tannen 1994Tannen, Deborah 1994 Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.; Li 2001Li, Han Z. 2001 “Cooperative and Intrusive Interruptions in Inter- and Intracultural Dyadic Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20 (3): 259–284. ). This study aimed to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences in the occurrence and use of overlap (in frequency and function) between American English and Japanese interactions in two different genres within dyads of female university students?

2. How do these features (similarities or differences) of students’ use of overlap affect the nature and course of their interactions, and are they similar or different across genres and languages?

1.1Definition of genre

Previous research has taken two main perspectives on the conversation genre. The first is a discourse view, where a “conversation” is formulated and defined by contextual characteristics related to utterance content, style of linguistic expression, and configuration/structure (Bakhtin 1986Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (trans. Vern McGee). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.; Maynard 2008Maynard, Senko 2008 Maruchi-Janruron – Kan-Janrusei to Imi no Souzoo [An Exploration into Multi-Genre Discourse: Inter-Genre Significance and the Creation of Meaning]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.), which together form a genre. This is a useful perspective to incorporate in a cross-genre analysis of overlaps because it encompasses the different purposes of function and communication, as well as the expectations of different ideas and speaking attitudes by genre. However, a detailed analysis of this dynamism-in-interaction requires consideration of social and cultural elements, in addition to communicative purposes.

The other perspective views genre as a type of staged developmental structure defined by social and cultural goals-in-interaction (Swales 1990Swales, John 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Biber 1994Biber, Douglas 1994 “An Analytical Framework for Register Studies.” In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, ed. by Douglas Biber, and Edward Finegan, 31–56. New York: Oxford University Press.). Accordingly, a genre consists of the chronological and developmental stages of an emergent interaction with a beginning, middle, and end (Eggins 1994Eggins, Suzanne 1994 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.; Taboada 2011Taboada, Maite 2011 “Stages in an Online Review Genre.” Text and Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse and Communication Studies 31 (2): 247–269. ). In this sense, a genre can be defined as “staged,” because it usually “takes more than one step to reach the goal” (Rose 2012Rose, David 2012 “Genre in the Sydney School.” In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by James Gee, and Mike Handford, 209–225. London: Routledge., 209). However, genres are not set arbitrarily, but are determined by the situation, utterance content, and the stylistic mode of meaning conveyance. This perspective is essential to clarify how participants build interactions within socially and culturally influenced agendas and to discuss the control and coordination of participants’ contributions in genre-specific interactions.

Adopting both perspectives, this paper defines genre as a type of interaction determined by the interrelation between utterance content, linguistic expression style, and configuration/structure, performed for socially and culturally distinct purposes.

1.2Literature review

Researchers in conversation analysis (CA) have analyzed overlap in terms of transition-relevance places (TRPs) and projectability33.Projectability is defined as a unit’s ability to allow “participants to anticipate or predict where an instance of the unit will come to an end” (Tanaka 1999Tanaka, Hiroko 1999 Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 27). to clarify where overlaps occur and how to handle them to avoid breakdowns in conversation, based on systematic turn construction (Sacks et al. 1974Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson 1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. ; Tanaka 1999Tanaka, Hiroko 1999 Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Schegloff 2006Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2006 “Accounts of Conduct in Interaction: Interruption, Overlap and Turn-Taking.” In Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. by Jonathan Turner, 287–322. New York: Plenum. ; Sidnell 2010Sidnell, Jack 2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.; Hayashi 2013Hayashi, Makoto 2013 “Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 167–190. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. ). In particular, Sidnell (2010)Sidnell, Jack 2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. and Hayashi (2013)Hayashi, Makoto 2013 “Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 167–190. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. regard overlap as “a potential source of impairment” (Sidnell 2010Sidnell, Jack 2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell., 52) that needs to be resolved and repaired. However, as Sugawara (1996Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 1996 “Hitotsu no Koe de Kataru Koto – Shintai to Kotoba no ‘Doojisei’ wo Megutte [To Speak in One Voice – In Discussion of ‘Sameness’ in Body and Language].” In Komyunikeeshon to shite no Shintai [Body as a Communication], ed. by Kazuyoshi Sugawara, and Masaichi Nomura, 246–287. Tokyo: Taishukan., 2012Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 2012 “Interactive Significance of Simultaneous Discourse or Overlap in Everyday Conversations Among ǀGui Former Foragers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 577–618. ) suggests, this is a characteristic Western approach, and as such a speaker-oriented perspective not universal in non-European sociocultural contexts. The aforementioned studies of CA examined only single-genre data, viewing them as “context-shaped and context-renewing” (Butterfield 2015Butterfield, Jeffrie 2015 “Conversation Analysis and the Debate on Social and Sequential Context.” Kanagawa University Studies in Humanities 186: 97–109., 101). According to Butterfield (2015Butterfield, Jeffrie 2015 “Conversation Analysis and the Debate on Social and Sequential Context.” Kanagawa University Studies in Humanities 186: 97–109., 101), context-shaped means that “participants’ actions can be understood as responses to the preceding actions,” and context-renewing “refers to the present action being the context for the next action, and how the context is constantly being renewed by the present action.” That is, the CA perspective considers context in terms of a locally occasioned, sequential, or “intra-interactional context” (Schegloff 1992Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992 “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. , 195) “unaffected by the wider social context” (Butterfield 2015Butterfield, Jeffrie 2015 “Conversation Analysis and the Debate on Social and Sequential Context.” Kanagawa University Studies in Humanities 186: 97–109., 102; see also Maynard 2006Maynard, Douglas W. 2006 “Ethnography and Conversation Analysis: What Is the Context of an Utterance?” In Emergent Methods in Social Research, ed. by Sharlene Hesse-Biber, and Patricia Leavy, 55–94. London: Sage. ). Further, this perspective casts participants’ current actions as “responses to the preceding actions” (Butterfield 2015Butterfield, Jeffrie 2015 “Conversation Analysis and the Debate on Social and Sequential Context.” Kanagawa University Studies in Humanities 186: 97–109., 101) and as “the context for the next action” (ibid.). Conversely, from the metacommunicative perspective, researchers can analyze each overlap of conversation from the viewpoint of the social-interactional context, as well as the locally occasioned context, to reveal the dynamics of communication in terms of the emergent context of interaction (Lucy 1993Lucy, John A. 1993 “Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John Lucy, 9–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Silverstein 1993Silverstein, Michael 1993 “Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John Lucy, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ).

Regarding sociocultural contexts, several previous studies have compared interactions in American English with those in Japanese (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. ; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio.; Takeda 2019Takeda, Lala 2019 “Exploring Implicit and Explicit Teaching Methods in EFL Education: A Cross-Genre Analysis of Topic Management Through Overlaps.” In A Pragmatic Approach to English Language Teaching and Production, ed. by Lala Takeda, and Megumi Okugiri, 143–168. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo.). Takeda (2019)Takeda, Lala 2019 “Exploring Implicit and Explicit Teaching Methods in EFL Education: A Cross-Genre Analysis of Topic Management Through Overlaps.” In A Pragmatic Approach to English Language Teaching and Production, ed. by Lala Takeda, and Megumi Okugiri, 143–168. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo. shows that Japanese speakers use overlaps in interactions more than one-and-a-half times as often as American English speakers do. Fujii (2012)Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. and Fujii and Kim (2014)Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio. focused on overlaps in problem-solving tasks and found that even in this context, Japanese speakers perform “overlapping repetition”44.This term includes “speaking in unison” (Sugawara 2012Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 2012 “Interactive Significance of Simultaneous Discourse or Overlap in Everyday Conversations Among ǀGui Former Foragers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 577–618. , 577), which is “echoing the words of the other” (ibid.), and “completing the sentences of the other” (ibid.) via overlap. “Choral co-production” (Lerner 2002Lerner, Gene H. 2002 “Turn-Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–256. New York: Oxford University Press., 226) and “unison” (Kushida 2005Kushida, Shuuya 2005 “Kaiwa ni okeru Sanka no Soshikika no Kenkyuu: Nihongo Kaiwa ni okeru ‘Hanashite’ to ‘Kyo-Seiinsei’ no Sanshutsu Tetsuduki. [Study of the Participation Organization in the Conversation: The Procedure of Producing ‘Speaker’ and ‘Co-Membership’ in Japanese Conversation].” PhD diss. Kyoto University., 62) are two similar phenomena, but they refer to “voicing the same words in the same way at the same time as another speaker – or at least demonstrating that one is aiming at that result” (Lerner 2002Lerner, Gene H. 2002 “Turn-Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–256. New York: Oxford University Press., 227); that is, word echoing is not an essential prerequisite. more than American English speakers do (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 654; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio., 73): overlaps containing the same or similar expressions used in the previous turn. However, all the studies cited above examined only single-genre data.

Overlapping repetition (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 654; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio., 73) was also investigated in detail by Du Bois (2014)Du Bois, John W. 2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. , in terms of “dialogic syntax” (359). Du Bois (2014)Du Bois, John W. 2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. held that an overlapping repetition occurs “when one speaker constructs an utterance based on the immediately co-present utterance of a dialogic partner” (360) and that it supports “the active collaboration of interlocutors” (400) by using the equivalence of linguistic form to enhance resonance.55.The following example from Du Bois (2014)Du Bois, John W. 2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. shows the equivalence of the linguistic form to jointly produce “real-time representation of the structure of engagement” (388) in a diagraph level.(0) Conceptual Pesticides (SBC003: 376.04–384.85) (Du Bois 2014Du Bois, John W. 2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. , 388):

ROY:	^I	threw	a	green	^pepper	down	your	blouse.
MARILYN:	You	threw	a	green	^pepper	down	my	shirt   .

Here, ^ (caret) means “a word which bears a primary accent” (Du Bois et al. 1992Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, and Danae Paolino 1992 Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistic Volume 4: Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara., 35). In addition, expressions in overlapping repetitions (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 654; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio., 73) resonate with each other – based on their similarities, they encourage the interlocutor to activate and elaborate on certain aspects of the perceived relationship between paired linguistic elements (cf. Du Bois 2014Du Bois, John W. 2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. , 372).66.Resonance was originally defined by Du Bois (2014Du Bois, John W. 2014 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. , 360) as “the catalytic activation of affinities across utterances.” He included “both similarities and differences” as “affinities” (ibid.). However, given the definition and examples of “overlapping repetition” (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 654; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio., 73), I note that only similarities, not differences, are relevant to the concept of “affinities” in the case of “overlapping repetition” (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 654; Fujii and Kim 2014Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio., 73).

Regarding the gender of participants, previous studies (Tannen 1990Tannen, Deborah 1990 You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow., 1994Tannen, Deborah 1994 Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) have shown differences in conversational styles between male and female interlocutors, including in turn-taking and topic management. As Tannen (1994)Tannen, Deborah 1994 Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. claimed that American women use collaborative overlaps more often than American men, attention is needed to the effect of gender on negotiating interactions. The current study focuses on the distribution and features of collaborative overlaps among women across different languages and cultures to investigate the relationship between collaborative overlaps and building rapport during each interaction. This analysis also contributes to clarifying whether collaborative overlap is the only feature distinguishing the speech habits of American and Japanese women.

Some researchers have also pointed out situational differences in the use of overlaps. Bull and Aylett (1998)Bull, Matthew, and Matthew Aylett 1998 “An Analysis of the Timing of Turn-Taking in a Corpus of Goal-Oriented Dialogue” In ICSLP: The 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 1998, 1175–1178. Sydney: ISCA. found that participants tended to produce fewer overlaps and more pauses when engaged in difficult tasks. Conversely, Yuan et al. (2007)Yuan, Jiahong, Mark Liberman, and Christopher Cieri 2007 “Towards an Integrated Understanding of Speech Overlaps in Conversation” In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 16 (ICPhS XVI), ed. by Jürgen Trouvain, and William J. Barry, 1337–1340. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücken University. proposed that interactions with familiar interlocutors involve more overlaps than interactions with strangers. However, these studies did not compare conversations in different genres by the same participants. Conversely, Takeda (2016)Takeda, Lala 2016 “Choofuku Hatsuwa kara Sooshutsusareru Kyoochoosei – Shinso ga Kotonatta Nihongo Soogokooi no I-Janrukan Hikaku kara no Ichikoosatsu [Collaboration Created Through Overlaps – A Study of Japanese Interactions of Different Genres and Levels of Intimacy].” Shakai-Gengo Kagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in Society] 19 (1): 87–102. conducted a cross-genre study of Japanese female dyads, finding differences in the frequency and function of overlaps between conversations and problem-solving. However, her study focused only on Japanese interaction, and a cross-linguistic study of overlaps across these two genres has not yet been conducted.

Vatanen (2014)Vatanen, Anna 2014 “Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation.” PhD diss. The University of Helsinki., who studied Finnish and Estonian conversations, and Endo and Yokomori (2015)Endo, Tomoko, and Daisuke Yokomori 2015 “Nihongo Nichijoo Kaiwa ni okeru Taan Tochuu de no Hatsuwa no Kasanari [Utterance Overlap in the Middle of the Turn in Japanese Daily Conversations].” In Shakai-Gengo Kagakukai Dai 36 Kai Taikai Happyoo Ronbunshuu [Proceedings of the 36th Biannual Conference of the Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences (JASS)], ed. by Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences, 192–194. Kyoto: JASS., who studied Japanese conversations, focused on listeners’ positive responses to current speakers’ opinions and evaluations before the TRP. These collaborative overlaps entail a negotiation of agency (the right to make an assertion) and epistemicity (the speaker’s attitude regarding the reliability of the information) in utterances. In addition, Endo and Yokomori (2015)Endo, Tomoko, and Daisuke Yokomori 2015 “Nihongo Nichijoo Kaiwa ni okeru Taan Tochuu de no Hatsuwa no Kasanari [Utterance Overlap in the Middle of the Turn in Japanese Daily Conversations].” In Shakai-Gengo Kagakukai Dai 36 Kai Taikai Happyoo Ronbunshuu [Proceedings of the 36th Biannual Conference of the Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences (JASS)], ed. by Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences, 192–194. Kyoto: JASS. claim that “when to say” and “what to say” are crucial competencies for successful conversational interaction, where “when” is not defined absolutely but rather by the relative timing of the interaction’s “enchrony” (Enfield 2013Enfield, Nick J. 2013 Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press. , 31). Although Vatanen (2014)Vatanen, Anna 2014 “Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation.” PhD diss. The University of Helsinki. focused on overlaps in non-TRPs, the current study did not restrict the location of overlaps or the expectations of when turns would occur, as overlap itself conveys interactional meaning, even when occurring alongside expected turn-taking.

Beattie (1982)Beattie, Geoffrey W. 1982 “Turn-Taking and Interruption in Political Interviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan Compared and Contrasted.” Semiotica 39 (1–2): 93–114. and Vatanen (2014)Vatanen, Anna 2014 “Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation.” PhD diss. The University of Helsinki. considered overlaps equivalent to a turn-taking device. They exclude “continuers” (Schegloff 1982Schegloff, 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: Georgetown University Press., 81), such as backchannels, from their conception of overlaps and thus their targets of analysis. However, in this study, regardless of turn-taking (Tannen 1990Tannen, Deborah 1990 You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.; Sugawara 1996Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 1996 “Hitotsu no Koe de Kataru Koto – Shintai to Kotoba no ‘Doojisei’ wo Megutte [To Speak in One Voice – In Discussion of ‘Sameness’ in Body and Language].” In Komyunikeeshon to shite no Shintai [Body as a Communication], ed. by Kazuyoshi Sugawara, and Masaichi Nomura, 246–287. Tokyo: Taishukan.), overlaps were comprehensively defined as any simultaneous utterances of words or sentences in the context of cooperative interaction, which suggests that sequential and social contexts, specifically in cooperative rather than antagonistic overlaps or parallel overlaps, inevitably influence cases of overlap, and that subtle events are meaningful in the unfolding of the interaction (Sugawara 1996Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 1996 “Hitotsu no Koe de Kataru Koto – Shintai to Kotoba no ‘Doojisei’ wo Megutte [To Speak in One Voice – In Discussion of ‘Sameness’ in Body and Language].” In Komyunikeeshon to shite no Shintai [Body as a Communication], ed. by Kazuyoshi Sugawara, and Masaichi Nomura, 246–287. Tokyo: Taishukan.).

2.Data and methodology

The data consisted of twenty-two data sets from English interactions (eleven each for conversation and problem-solving tasks) and twenty-two data sets from Japanese interactions (eleven each for conversation and problem-solving tasks) between female university student dyads. Overall, eleven American and eleven Japanese pairs (aged 19–23 and 20–22, respectively) were extracted from the “Mr. O Corpus,” comprising L1–L1 dyadic conversations recorded under experimental conditions between twenty-two female students (eleven pairs) in American English and twenty-six female students (thirteen pairs) in Japanese.77.This cross-linguistic video corpus was collected for four projects under Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science: Nos. 15320054 and 18320069, directed by Sachiko Ide, and 20320064 and 23320090, directed by Yoko Fujii. All processes and interactions were DVD-recorded. Two Japanese pairs were excluded owing to a low level of intimacy (meeting for the first time) and a lack of time restriction for the recorded conversation.

Next, the recordings and their transcripts were analyzed. The data are presented in Table 1.

In the conversation genre, participants were asked to take approximately five minutes to discuss something surprising. Thus, this genre contained aspects of storytelling that were distinct from conversation. However, as Karatsu (2012)Karatsu, Mariko 2012 Conversational Storytelling Among Japanese Women. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. argued, based on Jefferson (1978)Jefferson, Gail 1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press. , storytelling “emerges from the conversation in progress and is produced through the interaction among the participants” (Karatsu 2012Karatsu, Mariko 2012 Conversational Storytelling Among Japanese Women. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 2). This study accordingly regards storytelling as a legitimate part of the conversation genre.

In the task genre, each dyad worked together without a time limit to construct a coherent story using a set of 15 picture cards from a French picture book, Mister O (Trondheim 2003Trondheim, Lewis 2003 Mister O. Tokyo: Kodansha.). The cards shown in Figure 1 represent the following story: Mr. O wants to cross a cliff with the help of a larger person, but the larger person picks Mr. O up and throws him to the other side of the cliff. Mr. O then tries to throw a smaller person in the same way, but accidentally crushes him.

Figure 1.Picture cards for the task genre in the female dyads (Ide 2014Ide, Sachiko 2014 “Kaihooteki Goyooron to Misutaa Oo Coopasu no Igi – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo no Kaimei no tame ni [Emancipatory Pragmatics and Significance of the Mr. O Corpus – For the Breakthrough of Culture, Interaction, and Language].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 1–31. Tokyo: Kuroshio., 27)

The participants were told that there was no ‘correct’ story. The overlaps were extracted from the transcripts and classified based on the form of the second speaker’s utterance into three categories (Takeda 2016Takeda, Lala 2016 “Choofuku Hatsuwa kara Sooshutsusareru Kyoochoosei – Shinso ga Kotonatta Nihongo Soogokooi no I-Janrukan Hikaku kara no Ichikoosatsu [Collaboration Created Through Overlaps – A Study of Japanese Interactions of Different Genres and Levels of Intimacy].” Shakai-Gengo Kagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in Society] 19 (1): 87–102. ): (a) overlapping backchannels, (b) overlapping responses, and (c) overlapping repetitions, thus reflecting the presence or absence of backchannels. We note that backchannels are only used to acknowledge the content or context of a shared topic and allow the speaker to continue; therefore, they differ in meaning from utterances where the listener actively engages in conversation and contributes to the speaker’s content development (Horiguchi 1997Horiguchi, Sumiko 1997 Nihongo Kyooiku to Kaiwa Bunseki [Japanese Education and Conversation Analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.; Otsuka 2015Otsuka, Yooko 2015 “Nichi-Eigo no Shotaimen San’nin Kaiwa ni okeru Aiduchi [Backchannels in Three-People Conversation in Japanese and English First Encounter Conversations].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 169–191. Tokyo: Hitsuji.).

The following excerpts are instances of each of the three categories in American English and Japanese. The American English excerpts and an excerpt of Japanese overlapping responses are new to this study. The other Japanese excerpts were drawn from Takeda (2016Takeda, Lala 2016 “Choofuku Hatsuwa kara Sooshutsusareru Kyoochoosei – Shinso ga Kotonatta Nihongo Soogokooi no I-Janrukan Hikaku kara no Ichikoosatsu [Collaboration Created Through Overlaps – A Study of Japanese Interactions of Different Genres and Levels of Intimacy].” Shakai-Gengo Kagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in Society] 19 (1): 87–102. ; see the Appendix for transcription conventions).

1. Overlapping backchannels

   1.

   American: (E-04_Cnv)

     070 L: And he’s like “Ahh! Jesse-san” (.) and then, yeah, I thought that was surprising @
     071 L: I wanted to [kick him.
   → 072 R:             [Hmm.
     073 L: Yes. @
   

   1′.

   Japanese: (J-04_Cnv)

     112 L: shinro (.) na[nka
   → 113 R:              [un (.)
                         ‘Yeah.’
     114 L: gakubu betsu [no (.) shinro jookyoo mitaina no mite
           ‘Future career, um, I saw the data on future career according to department.’
   → 115 R:              [un  un    un    un (.)   un
                          ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.’
   

2. Overlapping responses

   2.

   American: (E-18_Cnv)

     018 R: And we used to hide from him!=
     019 L:                              =You hated him! [Well, you didn’t hate him,
   → 020 R:                                              [My roommate hated him.
     021 L: however, your roommate, deep, hated him (..) and then (..) all of a sudden, @ you
            were kissing under the tree! @ And everyone was very surprised! So @
   

   2′.

   Japanese: (J-10_Cnv)

     190 L: ee:: (.) yamagata atsui imeeji aru n da [kedo
            ‘I have an image that Yamagata is so hot.’
   → 191 R:                                         [un (.) suggoi atsui n
            da kedo nanka (..) atsusa no (.)
                                     ‘Right. It is so hot, and the heat is something like, um,’
   

3. Overlapping repetitions

   3.

   American: (E-18_Tsk)

     204 L: But only this time, he’s not big enough (.) and you don’t catapult across,
            instead, you smoosh him and he looks like a cracked egg.
     205 L: [And then you look sad. @
   → 206 R: [And then you’re sad.
     207 L: Yeah.
   

   3′.

   Japanese: (J-08_Tsk)

     146 R: [saisho ni
              ‘First.’
   → 147 L: [saisho ni ue ni no- (.) nocchau ka
              ‘First, it gets on the black character.’
   

The third category, overlapping repetitions, includes repetition between task participants, as investigated by Fujii and Kim (2014)Fujii, Yoko, and Myung-Hee Kim 2014 “Kadaitassei Danwa ni okeru Soogokooi no Gengo Bunka Hikaku – Nihongo, Kankokugo, Eigo no Hikaku Bunseki [A Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Study of Interaction in Problem-Solving Tasks – Comparison Between Japanese, Korean and English].” In Kaihooteki Goyooron he no Choosen – Bunka, Intaa-Akushon, Gengo [Towards Emancipatory Pragmatics: Culture, Interaction and Language], ed. by Sachiko Ide, and Yoko Fujii, 57–90. Tokyo: Kuroshio., and repetition between conversation participants, as investigated in this study. According to the criteria of Horiguchi (1997)Horiguchi, Sumiko 1997 Nihongo Kyooiku to Kaiwa Bunseki [Japanese Education and Conversation Analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. and Otsuka (2015)Otsuka, Yooko 2015 “Nichi-Eigo no Shotaimen San’nin Kaiwa ni okeru Aiduchi [Backchannels in Three-People Conversation in Japanese and English First Encounter Conversations].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 169–191. Tokyo: Hitsuji. to distinguish backchannels from other conversational strategies, overlapping of the same utterance content between conversation participants conveys understanding and information sharing to actively support and develop the content of the speaker’s utterance (Otsuka 2015Otsuka, Yooko 2015 “Nichi-Eigo no Shotaimen San’nin Kaiwa ni okeru Aiduchi [Backchannels in Three-People Conversation in Japanese and English First Encounter Conversations].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 169–191. Tokyo: Hitsuji.). Therefore, this type of overlap was not defined as a backchannel.

3.Quantitative analysis

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed on the average frequency of overlaps per turn by genre and language. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test to assess whether the population mean ranks of two related samples differ, adopted because the distribution of the difference in means between conversations and problem-solving tasks was not assumed to be normal. Although the statistical significance indicates that genre influences the frequency of overlaps as well as language, not all frequency differences were significant between American English and Japanese.

The average frequency and statistical significance of overlaps per turn in American English and Japanese are presented in Table 2. There were more overlaps per turn in the conversation genre than the task genre in both American English (0.36 overlaps/turn in conversation vs. 0.3 in the task) and Japanese (0.37 in conversation vs. 0.31 in the task). The difference was significant under the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for American English at the 5% level and Japanese at the 1% level.

Table 3 shows the statistical significance of the differences in average frequencies for each overlap category. The first row shows that interactions in the conversation genre include more overlapping backchannels per minute than those in the task genre in both American English (4.18 overlapping backchannels/turn in conversation vs. 2.09 in the task) and Japanese (in conversation, 7.33, vs. in the task, 1.36), all differences significant at the 1% level. From this general perspective, in both American English and Japanese, there tend to be more overlapping backchannels in conversation than in tasks, reflecting the requirement to give encouraging feedback during the conversation to encourage the current speaker to keep talking. However, the frequency difference between the languages is also relevant, as Japanese speakers use more overlapping backchannels than American English speakers do, suggesting that Japanese speakers need more feedback than American English speakers for smooth conversation. The concepts of high-context and low-context culture (Hall 1976Hall, Edward T. 1976 Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.) allow us to understand these feedback trends. In a high-context culture like Japan, interlocutors share a great deal of experience and implicit content and rely heavily on phatic utterances, including backchannels and feedback, to facilitate understanding and achieve smooth conversation. In a low-context culture like the United States, there is less background knowledge or contextual information shared before interaction; therefore, speakers of American English tend to rely more on the actual utterance content on-site.

Second, as shown in the second row in Table 3, overlapping responses are more frequently observed in the task genre than the conversation genre in both languages (in American conversation, 2.43 overlaps/turn vs. 3.96 in the task; in Japanese conversation, 5.82 vs. 6.95, respectively). However, the frequency of overlaps in Japanese conversation is considerably higher than in American English; although Japanese overlapping responses are more frequent in the task genre than in the conversation genre, the respective frequencies are not significantly different (p = 0.174).

Finally, as shown in the third row of Table 3, task genre interactions had more overlapping repetitions than conversational genre interactions in both languages. The difference is significant at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively, for American English (in conversation, 0.07 overlaps/turn, vs. 0.44 in the task) and Japanese (in conversation, 0.09 overlaps/turn, vs. 1.46 in the task). From this general perspective, speakers of American English and Japanese both rely more on overlapping repetitions during tasks than in conversation, showing that tasks require a confirmation or question stage to determine the direction of negotiation and complete a coherent story.88.After the problem-solving task, the participants were each asked to tell their coherent story to the experimenter in turn. The difference is meaningful, as Japanese speakers use overlapping repetitions significantly more often than speakers of American English. This may indicate that the Japanese consider such overlap significant for “establishing mutual consent” during interactions (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 655).99.I do not suggest that mutual consent is less important to Americans, but rather that they seek it differently. As shown in Excerpt (3a), the other interlocutor repeats the previous utterance immediately to “establish mutual consent” (Fujii 2012Fujii, Yoko 2012 “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction Between the Japanese and American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 636–662. , 655) during the interaction.

In summary, more overlapping backchannels were observed in the conversation genre than in the task genre in both American English and Japanese; conversely, more overlapping responses and repetitions were observed in the task genre in both languages.

To consider the significance of these results, the next section shows how overlaps in the two genres function and clarifies how the frequencies of the three overlap types differ by genre. To this end, we discuss American English and Japanese examples in each category.

4.Qualitative analysis

4.1The conversation genre

A qualitative analysis was performed to determine some of the (shared or respective) functions of the American English and Japanese overlaps. First, in both American English and Japanese, overlaps help facilitate conversations by maintaining story coherence. One American excerpt and two Japanese excerpts are described below.

Excerpt (1) shows overlapping backchannels in American English.

Excerpt 1.

(E-20_Cnv: overlapping backchannel, helping the conversation progress)

  004 L: I was having a hard time thinking of things, but um (.) oh, I was talking
         about (..) chance meetings with people where you [run into someone
→ 005 R:                                                  [Hmm(..)
  006 L: from high-school [in a totally n (..) separate city
→ 007 R:                  [oh yeah (..) like
  008 L: or [another country even.
  009 R:    [Or country.
  010 L: Yeah.
  011 R: Yeah.
  012 R: And you’re just totally dumbfounded.

This excerpt shows that R used overlapping backchannels twice during this conversation about something that surprised L. The first overlapping backchannel, “Hmm,” serves to convey attention and corresponds to the category of “continuers” (Schegloff 1982Schegloff, 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: Georgetown University Press., 81). The second overlapping backchannel, “oh yeah,” conveys agreement. Note that L’s speech continues smoothly, even after R’s overlapping backchannels in lines 005 and 007. Thus, these overlaps keep the story coherent, help the conversation progress, and lead to the active contribution of L’s content by providing a choice, “Or country,” in line 009, to “separate city” in line 006. This choice functioned as an overlapping response.

Excerpt (2) shows overlapping backchannels in Japanese.

Excerpt 2.

(J-22_Cnv: overlapping backchannel, progressing the conversation)

  008 L: mejiro    no toori    aru    jan=
         ‘On a street in Mejiro, as you know,’
  009 R:                                 =un   [un     un    un
                                          ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.’
  010 L:                                       [futsuuni aruiteta   no=
                                               ‘When I was walking on the street as usual,’
  011 R:                                                              =un
                                                                       ‘Yeah.’
  012 L: soshitara (.) karasu no nakigoe ga shita no [ne
         ‘I heard a crow cawing.’
  013 R:                                             [@
  014 L: dakara (.) a (.) nandaroo, karasu ga iru no [ka na to omotte
         ‘I thought there was a crow near me,’
→ 015 R:                                             [unun
                                                      ‘Yeah, yeah.’
  016 L: chotto    yoketemita   no (.) shitara (.) futsuu karasu ga
         ue  ni iru to omou jan
         ‘so I tried to keep out of the way. In normal circumstances, crows are above me,
         as you can imagine.’

This excerpt describes the surprising situation of finding a dying crow on its back. Even after the overlapping backchannel in line 015, L does not falter or repeat the previous word; she is uninterrupted and continues to talk. Therefore, this overlap may also help the conversation progress by showing active listenership and ongoing engagement.

Excerpt (3) shows another function of overlaps, overlapping responses: preempting the previous speaker’s turn-ending to continue the current topic.

Excerpt 3.

(J-10_Cnv: overlapping response, preempting the speaker’s turn-ending)

  190 L: ee:: (.) yamagata  atsui  imeeji  aru  n  da [kedo
         ‘I have an image that Yamagata is so hot.’
→ 191 R:                                              [un (.) suggoi atsui n
         da  kedo nanka (..)  atsusa  no (.) [nan-
                                    ‘Right. It is so hot, and the heat is something like, um,’
  192 L:                                     [a (.)[aa    chigau    n da
                                                 ‘Ah, oh, it’s different.’
→ 193 R:                                           [nan  te  iu  no (.)  fun’iki  ga
        [chigau (.) nanka (.) konkuriito ni
         ‘how should I say, the atmosphere of the heat is different from Tokyo. On
         the cement ground,’
  194 L: [a::[::[::
         ‘Ah.’
  195 R:     [ne
→ 196 R:        [nanka koo (.) konkuriito no netsu ga hasshiteru (.) nan daroo (.)
         sono atsusa de
         ‘um, like, the heat is reflected on the cement ground and that causes more heat.’

In this excerpt, R, who is from Yamagata, talks about the surprising heat in Tokyo, where she goes to school. This excerpt contains three instances of overlap, in lines 191, 193, and 196. The overlap in line 191 shows R’s agreement with line 190,1010.The literary meaning of “kedo,” in line 191, is “but.” However, from a contextual point of view, the intention is not for R to deny her interlocutor’s comment; rather, she starts describing how hot Yamagata is. In addition, the response from L, in line 192, is uttered immediately after the phrase, “atsusa no.” This means that L identifies that the difference is something related to the experience of heat, and not simply the heat itself. and the overlaps in lines 193 and 196 are R’s responses to L’s utterance of understanding despite R’s inability to appropriately describe the intense heat in Yamagata. Specifically, the overlap in line 193 is initiated with an “overlap resolution device” (Schegloff 2000Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000 “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63. , 11), as a prior element is cut off and then repeated with an overlap: “nan-,” in line 191, is repeated at the beginning of line 193. The overlap in line 196 consists of a repeat of “nanka konkuriito” from line 193 but with the adverb “koo” added immediately after the filler “nanka.” Unlike in the previous excerpt, R does not cut off her phrase in line 193 but continues talking. Through the overlaps in lines 193 and 196, R continues to narrate and provides details in response to L’s signals of attention and an understanding of R’s explanation, “a (.)aa” (line 192) and “a::::::” (line 194), and the conversation runs smoothly.

The “overlap resolution device” (Schegloff 2000Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000 “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63. , 11) in the Japanese conversations examined in this study as seen in line 193 was not observed in conversations in American English. Rather, American English speakers used an iterative approach to previous elements in problem-solving tasks. For example, “And then” in line 064 was repeated in line 066, latching onto (no gap after the previous utterance) and not overlapping the other’s utterance, as shown in Excerpt (3a).

Excerpt 3a.

(E-12_Tsk: latching response, continuing the current topic)

  061 L: And he sees=
  062 R:            =Much like we did
  063 L: Yeah @
  064 R: And then [he sees
  065 L:          [And he gets confused=
→ 066 R:                               =Yeah(.) and then he sees the kareman1111.The interlocutors here compare the characters on picture cards to soft round food sold at Japanese stores, such as
						mochi (a round pounded rice cake) and umeboshi (a dried Japanese plum).
						Kareman (curry-flavored steamed bread) is another popular food in Japan, and it is used to represent orange
					characters. (.) who
         seems all nice(.)

4.2The problem-solving task genre

Unlike the conversation genre, the overlap characteristics usually differ between American English and Japanese in the problem-solving task genre. Supportive backchannels (i.e., overlapping backchannels used to express acceptance or agreement with a suggested idea) and conveying common content were frequent in American English to encourage collaboration in creating the story. Conversely, overlapping repetitions, suggesting the same view, were prominent in Japanese and contributed to the content of the speaker’s utterance, serving to convey a common understanding by actively joining the construction of topics or strongly supporting the speaker’s utterance.

The two excerpts below were extracted from problem-solving tasks in American English: Excerpt (4) shows overlapping backchannels and Excerpt (5) shows overlapping responses.

Excerpt 4.

(E-22_Tsk: overlapping backchannel, maintaining the speaker’s flow of speech)

  091 R: So, he meets this guy, he talks to [him,
→ 092 L:                                    [Hmmmm.
  093 R: asking (.) see ’cause he’s pointing, “Can I get on [your head?”
→ 094 L:                                                    [Yeah.
  095 R: Gets on his head
  096 L: He (.) he jump[s, but he
  097 R:               [(Jumps) boun- (.) he’s more like a cushion [here, or a spring,
→ 098 L:                                                           [Yeah.
  099 R: he bounces, and the other guy gets over and he’s

At the start of this excerpt, R is constructing a story about what happens after the two characters meet. L creates backchannels in lines 092, 094, and 098 to show her attention to and acceptance of the idea and to maintain the speaker’s flow of speech (O’Keeffe and Adolphs 2008O’Keeffe, Anne, and Svenja Adolphs 2008 “Response Tokens in British and Irish Discourse: Corpus, Context and Variational Pragmatics.” In Variational Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus Schneider, and Anne Barron, 69–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ). The function of the backchannels as continuers (Schegloff 1982Schegloff, 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: Georgetown University Press., 81) is similar to that of the two overlaps in lines 005 and 007 of Excerpt (1), showing the presence of overlapping backchannels in American English conversation.

Excerpt (5) was extracted from the latter half of the task.

Excerpt 5.

(E-04_Tsk: overlapping response, showing common content)

  120 R: Except he broke like an egg, @ as we see=
  121 L:                                         =And he’s like “Oh no! I killed my little
         friend!”=
  122 R:         =“Oh well, better make a new one”@
  123 R: So he walks and he meets [the yellow guy.
→ 124 L:                          [And he’s like “Hey, I got this idea”@
  125 R: “I got this idea,”1212.Lines 124 and 125 include allo-repetition (other-speaker repetition), “I got this idea.” However, the repetition
					appears sequentially without any overlap with the previous utterance. This feature differs from the type of overlapping repetition
					found in Excerpts (7) and (8). and he’s like, “Oh!”=
  126 L:                                          =“I bet if(…) you bounced on me(..)
         somehow I’d get across(..)” I don’t even know how(.) @ it doesn’t make sense.

After making jokes in lines 120 and 121, R proposes that they may need a new idea for a story in line 122 and starts suggesting one in line 123. Listening to this idea, L makes an overlapping response to create a story with R by talking about the same following event. This functions to construct a story as well as to show the same topic-related content between the pair and leads to continuous, collaborative story-making.

The three excerpts from the following Japanese problem-solving tasks also include different types of overlap: overlapping responses in Excerpt (6), overlapping repetition in the predicate of a clause in Excerpt (7), and repeated ending of the corresponding utterance in Excerpt (8).

Excerpt 6.

(J-26_Tsk: overlapping response, keeping the story coherent)

  115 L: a (.) chigau (.)  kore  iketeru
         ‘No, oh, this can lead to a solution.’
  116 R: n (..) a (.) honto da=
         ‘What? Ah you’re right!’
  117 L:                      =kore iketeru kara (.) tte koto ha kore to
         kore ga [setto da
         ‘This brings us close to the conclusion. Well, this card and this card are a pair.’
  118 R:         [a (.) soo da ne=
                 ‘Sure.’
  119 L:                         =koo na n da
                                  ‘You can see it.’
  120 L: [kore ga  saigo  no  hoo  da ne
         ‘This card will go to the latter part of the story.’
→ 121 R: [te  koto  ha  koko  de   hanasu   no  ga  koko  janai
         ‘Then, do we need to put these two cards apart from each other to make the story
         go smoothly?’
  122 L: soo da ne
         ‘I agree.’

In this excerpt, L and R attempt to determine which of the three characters first tried to jump off the cliff. L’s idea, which is expressed in lines 117, 119, and 120, provides a solution. Initially, R thought that the two (black and white) characters were separated in that scene, but she changed her mind after L’s utterance (see lines 115–116). She suggested moving the two cards to a certain place to keep the story coherent, concluding that the separation occurred in another part of the story (line 121). This overlap confirms that the participants shared a common understanding of the current topic. In addition, L acknowledged what R said (line 122).

Excerpt (7) focuses on an overlapping repetition with the same predicate.

Excerpt 7.

(J-10_Tsk: overlapping repetition, showing agreement to contribute to story construction)

  095 R: de (.) fumarete::=
         ‘Then, it is stepped on by the other character.’
  096 L:                  =fumarete::
                           ‘It was stepped on.’
  097 L: [tonde (.) chakuchi
         ‘The other character jumps and lands.’
→ 098 R: [tonde (.) chakuchishite
         ‘It jumps and lands.’
  099 R: sorede:: (.) jibun mo
         ‘And it also,’
  100 L: jibun mo (.) yaritai [na
         ‘It also wants to step on the other character, jump, and land.’
  101 R:                      [yaritai  [to  omotte
                               ‘It also wants to do so.’
  102 L:                                [tte  omotte
                                         ‘It wants to do that.’

Before the start of this excerpt, R suggested that one of the characters wanted to crush another character before jumping to the other side of the cliff. The participants then discussed the arrangement of the two cards. L and R overlap each other’s utterances with the same expression in line 098 to show agreement that they are prepared to describe the two cards; this occurs from line 099 to co-construct a single story.1313.As briefly mentioned in Note 4, I have followed Sugawara’s (2012)Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 2012 “Interactive Significance of Simultaneous Discourse or Overlap in Everyday Conversations Among ǀGui Former Foragers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 577–618. concept of overlapping repetition by including instances of “completing the sentences of the other” (577) via overlap. This can be applied to the description in line 115, Excerpt (8).

The following excerpt from a Japanese problem-solving task shows an overlap using the same ending as the overlapped utterance.

Excerpt 8.

(J-18_Tsk: overlapping repetition, showing shared understanding)

  109 L: nanka hanashi  wo  tsukureba  ii   n  da  yo  ne
         ‘We just make up some story to tell, don’t we?’
  110 R: nokkatte   mo (..)   muri   de[shita (.)
         ‘They couldn’t jump over to the other side of the cliff, even if one of them rode on
         the other.’
  111 L:                               [muri     deshita
                                        ‘They couldn’t jump over.’
  112 R: hanashiatte [(.) kondo ha
         ‘So they discussed how to get to the other side of the cliff, and’
  113 L:             [te
                     ‘discussed.’
  114 R: shita  ni [narimashita
         ‘one of the characters gave the other a piggyback.’
→ 115 L:           [narimashita (.) tobe ma- (.) shita
         ‘gave the other a piggyback so he could jump to the other side of the cliff.’

In this excerpt, the participants had to summarize the story to an experimenter after arranging the cards. Therefore, they needed to construct a common narrative. In line 115, L overlaps R’s utterance with the same utterance ending as line 114 to show a shared understanding.

In contrast to the Japanese results, only three overlapping repetitions of this type were observed in task-oriented interactions in American English. When the American participants wanted to show a shared understanding, they frequently used overlapping backchannels during their interaction, which overlapped at a slight delay with the same or similar expressions as the previous speaker, as in line 047 of Excerpt 9, starting with “Okay, he meets” (not “He meets”), in the middle of L’s utterance.

Excerpt 9.

(E-02_Tsk: overlapping repetition, showing shared understanding)

  042 R: Well is there a successful picture? (..) Where he actually gets across?
  043 L: [( )
  044 R: [Well, the yellow guy gets across
  045 R: Okay, so [this one’s the end
  046 L:          [So maybe he meets the [(..)little
→ 047 R:                                 [Okay, he meets the little guy first

5.Discussion

The results of the quantitative analyses show that the conversation genre has more overlaps per turn than the task genre in both American English and Japanese. This finding can be interpreted in terms of the three types of overlap recognized in this study: (a) overlapping backchannels, (b) overlapping responses, and (c) overlapping repetitions. The conversation genre contains more overlapping backchannels than the task genre in both American English and Japanese. In both languages, overlapping responses and repetitions were observed more frequently in the task genre than in the conversation genre, and there were no significant differences between American English and Japanese. However, a closer look at the data on the distribution of overlaps in the two genres reveals that in the task genre, the Japanese use more overlapping repetitions, whereas speakers of American English use more overlapping backchannels. Conversely, Japanese speakers use overlapping backchannels in the conversation genre more often than American English speakers. Here, the similarity in frequency tendencies between American English and Japanese in conversations and tasks may be because each genre requires almost the same interaction routine – conveying an episode or event and reacting to it in conversations, while arranging picture cards to check each for its content and negotiating their opinions to construct a coherent story in tasks.

These results were also examined from a qualitative perspective to clarify how different genres affected the frequency of overlap. This study found that in the conversation genre, the participants used overlaps to help the conversation progress by maintaining a coherent story in both American English and Japanese. Furthermore, Japanese speakers used overlaps to respond to their interlocutors’ previous utterances and contributed further details by co-narrating the situation. Conversely, in the task genre, speakers of both languages used overlaps to confirm their understanding of the current topic. In American English, overlaps are used to clarify the agreement or acceptance of a suggested idea, but overlaps convey a shared understanding in Japanese. Previous studies have suggested that in intimate female dyads, Japanese speakers use overlaps in conversation more frequently than American English speakers. However, this study demonstrated that frequent overlaps due to intimacy are not always observed among either Japanese or American English speakers and that differences in the genre as well as linguistic differences have a large impact on the frequency of occurrence. Furthermore, these results should lead to a more general discussion of how collaboration is achieved through situational adjustment1414.My definition of situational adjustment is based on the following principle of relationships between personality, behavior, and culture in the Chinese context: “behavior of Chinese maybe [sic] mainly influenced by situational factors aimed at adjusting the requirement of situations” (D. Wang and Cui 2006Wang, Dengfeng, and Hong Cui 2006 “Relations with Personality and Cross-Situational Consistency of Behavior.” Acta Psychologica Sinica 38: 543–552., 552). Though D. Wang and Cui (2006)Wang, Dengfeng, and Hong Cui 2006 “Relations with Personality and Cross-Situational Consistency of Behavior.” Acta Psychologica Sinica 38: 543–552. defined this term based on the Chinese context, my data analysis in the previous section showed that both American English speakers and Japanese speakers behave according to the requirements of the situation in each genre. Thus, I adopt this definition in my study. in interaction. Collaboration is (co-)developed according to the context and/or genre, depending on the purpose of the conversation or the amount of information that participants share.

Considering the matter of situational adjustment from the data analysis above, overlaps in conversation place value on the atmosphere and allow conversations to develop rhythmically, as interlocutors frequently use overlapping backchannels. I call this type of conversational interaction atmosphere-valued interaction.1515.These two types of interactions (atmosphere-valued and content-valued) may remind the reader of the two functions of language proposed by Brown and Yule (1983Brown, Gillian, and George Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1), “interactional” and “transactional.” However, atmosphere-valued interaction also includes the aspect of creating rhythms to develop interactions, as can be imagined from the term “phatic communion” (Malinowski 1989 [1923]Malinowski, Bronislaw 1923 “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” In The Meaning of Meaning, Supplement 1 , ed. by Charles Ogden, and Ivor Richards 1989, 296–336. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich., 315). Content-valued interaction is closer to the “transactional” function (Brown and Yule 1983Brown, Gillian, and George Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1) in terms of “the communication of information” (2). However, overlaps in content-valued interaction do not necessarily convey “factual or propositional information” (Brown and Yule 1983Brown, Gillian, and George Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 2); rather, they may express opinions and “the feelings of the speaker” (Y.-F. Wang and Tsai 2007Wang, Yu-Fang, and Pi-Hua Tsai 2007 “Textual and Contextual Contrast Connection: A Study of Chinese Contrastive Markers Across Different Text Types.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (10): 1775–1815. , 1805), such as agreement and understanding. Conversely, in the task genre, collaboration serves to complete the story-building task by providing each participant’s perspective on the story. Thus, tasks require a stage or stages for confirmation or questions during negotiations. Interactions of this sort clarify agreement and understanding rather than creating rhythm, and therefore may be referred to as content-valued. Following this difference between atmosphere-valued and content-valued interactions,1616.These two kinds of interactions are not binary, but gradient. This means that there may be more ways to interact than just “for atmosphere” or “for content.” For example, engaging in and perpetuating a conversation is also a task, and some conversations are much more focused than others; conversely, some tasks are very loose, such as certain games or free play. Or, for example, we may consider how conversation in work contexts, which is ostensibly task-unrelated, may still contribute to the achievement of work goals, or how we should use overlaps differently to achieve goals in more hierarchical settings. To further develop this discussion, future studies should include not only cooperative but also competitive genres. participants adjusted how they used overlaps by genre to create collaboration, both in American English and in Japanese.

Simultaneously, it is worth discussing why overlaps in problem-solving tasks do not have the same characteristics between the two languages. The frequent use of overlapping backchannels in American English and the extremely frequent use of overlapping repetition in Japanese suggest differences in “linguacultural” ideology (Friedrich 1989Friedrich, Paul 1989 “Language, Ideology, and Political Economy.” American Anthropologist 91 (2): 295–312. , 306–307) regarding how opinions are built and decisions are made. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies on co-construction (or joint utterance completion; Lerner 1991Lerner, Gene H. 1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20 (3): 441–458. ; Mizutani 1993Mizutani, Nobuko 1993 “ ‘Kyoowa’ kara ‘Taiwa’ he [From ‘Co-Construction’ to ‘Interaction’].” Nihongo-Gaku [Japanese Linguistics] 12 (4): 4–9.). Specifically, according to Mizutani (1993)Mizutani, Nobuko 1993 “ ‘Kyoowa’ kara ‘Taiwa’ he [From ‘Co-Construction’ to ‘Interaction’].” Nihongo-Gaku [Japanese Linguistics] 12 (4): 4–9., Japanese speakers often use joint utterance completion to actively participate in the current interaction and verbally demonstrate a common understanding of the contents of the current topic. We have shown a similar phenomenon throughout this study, which manifests a cultural feature of creating solidarity and harmony as well as “Amae”1717.The word “Amae” and the discussion of Japanese culture related to this word were originally devised by Doi (1986)Doi, Takeo 1986 The Anatomy of Dependence (trans. John Bester). Tokyo: Kodansha International.. (dependence or interdependence; Kosaki and Takeda 2018Kosaki, Junko, and Lala Takeda 2018 “Pragmatic Rules to Enhance Students’ Intercultural Competence: A Study Based on a Functional Analysis of Overlaps in Task-Based Dialogues.” Daigaku Eigo Kyooiku Gakkai Chuugoku-Shikoku Shibu Kenkyuu Kiyoo [JACET Chugoku-Shikoku Chapter Research Bulletin] 15: 37–54., 49). Conversely, speakers of American English have an interactive style in which they listen to others’ ideas and compare them to their own. If they can potentially repair what their interlocutor has provided, they may add commentary. This interactional behavior was also observed in the current study and highlights the importance of clarifying the stance and maintaining independence during the interaction (Kosaki and Takeda 2018Kosaki, Junko, and Lala Takeda 2018 “Pragmatic Rules to Enhance Students’ Intercultural Competence: A Study Based on a Functional Analysis of Overlaps in Task-Based Dialogues.” Daigaku Eigo Kyooiku Gakkai Chuugoku-Shikoku Shibu Kenkyuu Kiyoo [JACET Chugoku-Shikoku Chapter Research Bulletin] 15: 37–54.). This stance clarification applies not only to repair and correction but also to acknowledgment and understanding. The difference in co-construction tendencies can serve as one explanation for the difference in “overlap resolution devices” (i.e., repeated, previously cut off elements; Schegloff 2000Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000 “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63. , 11) between the two languages, as shown in Excerpts (3) and (3a).

Regarding the development of intercultural communication skills, Y. Murata (2015Murata, Yasumi 2015 “Goyoo-Shihyoo to Sono Eigo Kyooiku he no Ooyoo [Pragmatic Features and Their Application to English Education].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 277–291. Tokyo: Hitsuji., 279) pointed out the existence of language-specific “pragmatic1818. Y. Murata (2015)Murata, Yasumi 2015 “Goyoo-Shihyoo to Sono Eigo Kyooiku he no Ooyoo [Pragmatic Features and Their Application to English Education].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 277–291. Tokyo: Hitsuji., through the lens of interactional sociolinguistics, focused on conversational styles in each language community; accordingly, she paid special attention to “sociopragmatic” as opposed to “pragmalinguistic” competence of Leech’s two aspects of pragmatics (1983Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman., 11), although she did not explicitly mention this subcategory of pragmatic competence. rules,” or “rules on how to use language,” based on an analysis of first-encounter conversations in three dialects of English1919. Y. Murata (2015)Murata, Yasumi 2015 “Goyoo-Shihyoo to Sono Eigo Kyooiku he no Ooyoo [Pragmatic Features and Their Application to English Education].” In Nichi-Eigo Danwa Sutairu no Taishoo Kenkyuu – Eigo Komyunikeeshon he no Ooyoo [Comparative Study of Japanese and English Discourse Styles – Application to English Education of Communication], ed. by Sanae Tsuda, Yasumi Murata, Mami Otani, Yuuko Iwata, Yuka Shigemitsu, and Yooko Otsuka, 277–291. Tokyo: Hitsuji. covered the following three types of “English”: American, British, and Australian. These are encompassed by “English,” the subject that (e.g., Japanese) language learners focus on in school. and Japanese. She argued that pragmatic rules influence transcultural/interlingual communication and coordinate relationships between participants, and conversancy with how target languages/cultures treat these rules is necessary to cross linguistic and cultural divides. Given interlocutors’ co-construction of conversation by genre, the results of this study suggest that English and Japanese language education should implicitly and explicitly teach different pragmatic rules in ways inflected by genre to reduce communication difficulties arising from misjudging an acceptable timing to co-construct or develop the speaker’s utterance without intrusion, difficulties that arise from improper transfers of pragmatic rules across genres and languages.

6.Conclusions

This cross-genre study of the collaborative use of overlaps in linguistic interactions between American English and Japanese found differences in these collaborative techniques and the strategies underlying them, depending on the purpose of interaction and the information shared between participants. Furthermore, functional differences in overlaps were shown to be influenced not only by language but also by genre, from the viewpoint of statistical significance. The participants adjusted their use of overlaps and collaborated differently depending on the genre context. In other words, the different uses of overlap during collaboration depended on the purpose of the conversation and the amount of information shared by the participants.

Although this study was carefully conducted, a limitation concerns the languages examined, which were confined to each participant’s mother tongue. To make the strongest possible contribution to the field of language education, it will be necessary and insightful to analyze data from L1 and L2 speakers of American English and/or Japanese, which would allow researchers to examine how and to what extent the language spoken in a particular interaction affects the way of constructing a shared understanding. Thus, more empirical studies are necessary for more generalizable findings that will, inter alia, help Japanese EFL learners maintain their own linguistic, pragmatic, or cultural identity when negotiating English and negotiating in English.

By analyzing different genres, future studies in individual languages and cultures, as well as cross-cultural and cross-linguistic studies, should investigate how interlocutors maintain their identities during and through situational adjustments when differences in psychological distance and language appear. Finally, to deepen the discussion of how to teach the genre-specific functions and purposes of overlaps in language education, materials such as video-recorded interactions of their target language in two different genres should be developed to make learners aware of the needs of genre-based collaboration and refine their overlap use in interactions with L1 speakers. Students should then be asked to find as many overlaps as possible, discuss their similarities and differences from overlaps in a specific genre in their own L1, and implicitly and explicitly learn how overlaps can contribute to collaboration with another speaker.