Japanese turn-final tteyuu as a formulation device

Yuki Arita


This paper offers a conversation analytic study of the Japanese turn-final construction tteyuu as a conversational practice of formulation. Tteyuu is normally used in clausal noun modification, being placed between its preceding clausal component and a following head noun. However, tteyuu also appears to be employed utterance-finally without a following head noun. Through microanalysis of mundane conversation data, this study documents a previously unstudied aspect of the turn-final tteyuu as a formulation device. This study especially focuses on how informing recipients utilize tteyuu formulations to summarize or explicate the gist of some part of their conversations, while indicating their high degree of epistemic access to the formulated information. Furthermore, this research examines what conversation participants accomplish by mobilizing this particular type of formulations. This study aims to contribute to the research of formulation by unveiling how a language-specific item can be deployed as a resource for turn-constructional formatting of formulation.

Publication history
Table of contents

This paper offers a conversation analytic study of the Japanese turn-final construction tteyuu as a conversational practice of formulation. Tteyuu is a complementizer, composed of the quotative particle tte and the verb yuu “say.” Tteyuu is normally placed between its preceding clausal component and a following head noun, and it functions in clausal noun modification. However, the use of the utterance-final tteyuu, which lacks a following head noun, in both written and spoken data has been reported in recent literature (Kato 2010; Kim 2014; Koda 2015; Matsumoto 2018; Ohori 1995, 1997; Uemura 2014), and it is considered as an “innovative construction” (Matsumoto 2018, 92). This study documents a hitherto unstudied aspect of the turn-final tteyuu as a formulation device.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.


Antaki, Charles, Rebecca Barnes, and Ivan Leudar
2005 “Diagnostic Formulations in Psychotherapy.” Discourse Studies 7 (6): 627–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, Jack
2011 “Occasioned Semantics: A Systematic Approach to Meaning in Talk.” Human Studies 34: 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina
2010 “ ‘Articulating the Unsaid’ via And-prefaced Formulations of Others’ Talk.” Discourse Studies 12 (1): 5–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depperman, Arnulf
2011 “The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics.” Human Studies 34: 115–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Phillip. J. Glenn, Curtis. D. LeBaron, and Jennifer Mandelbaum, 293–308. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
1992 “Introduction: Analysing Talk at Work.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro
2009 “The Relevance of Husserl’s Theory to Language Socialization.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 19 (2): 205–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” In Theoretical Sociology, ed. by John D. McKinney, and Edward. A. Tiryakian, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Hauser, Eric
2011 “Generalization: A Practice of Situated Categorization in Talk.” Human Studies 34 (2): 183–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru
2011 “Claiming Epistemic Primacy in Japanese: Yo-marked Assessments in Japanese.” In The Molarity 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.” PhD diss. Radboud University Nijmegen.
2018 “When (Not) to Claim Epistemic Independence: The Use of Ne and Yone in Japanese Conversation.” East Asian Pragmatics 2 (2): 163–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto
2009 “Marking a ‘Noticing of Departure’ in Talk: Eh-prefaced Turns in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10): 2100–2129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “An Overview of the Question-Response System in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2685–702. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, Yuri Hosoda, and Ikuyo Morimoto
2019 “ Tte yuu ka as a Repair Preface in Japanese.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (2): 104–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge/New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1985 “Analyzing News Interviews.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3, ed. by Teun. A. van Dijk, 95–117. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Tanya Stivers, and N. J. Enfield, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Rod D. Watson
1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
2005 “ ‘Active Listening’: Formulations and the Elicitation of Feelings Talk in Child Counselling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (3): 303–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
1993Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1983 “Two Explorations of the Organizations of Overlapping Talk in Conversation: (a) Notes on Some Orderliness of Overlap Onset and (b) On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28: 1–33.Google Scholar
1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button, and John. R. E. Lee, 86–100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and John R. E. Lee
1992 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 521–48. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kato, Yoko
2010Hanashi-kotoba ni okeru Inyoo-hyoogen [Quotative Expressions in Spoken Language]. Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan.Google Scholar
Kim, Joungmin
2014 “Kankokugo no inyoo-shuushokusetsu no shusetsu-ka: Nihongo tono taihi o tsuujite. [Main clause phenomena of quotatitve clauses in Korean: Contrast with Japanese].” In Nihongo fukubun-koobun no kenkyuu [Form and meaning in Japanese complex sentence constructions], ed. by Takashi Masuoka, Motoo Oshima, Osamu Hashimoto, Kaoru Horie, Naoko Maeda, and Takehiko Maruyama, 695–717. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Koda, Naomi
2015 “Using Reported Thought and Speech to Enhance a Story.” The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 17 (2): 24–39.Google Scholar
Kushida, Shuya
2011 “Confirming Understanding and Acknowledging Assistance: Managing Trouble Responsibility in Response to Understanding Check in Japanese Talk-in-interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2716–2739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel
1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
2004 “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 154–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1987 “Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora.” Journal of Linguistics 23: 379–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2018 “The Form and Meaning of the Dangling Mitaina Construction in a Network of Constructions.” In Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture, ed. by Mutsuko E. Hudson, Yoshiko Matsumoto, and Junko Mori, 75–98. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas. W.
2003Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mori, Junko
2006 “The Workings of the Japanese Token Hee in Informing Sequences: An Analysis of Sequential Content, Turn Shape, and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1175–1205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohori, Toshio
1995 “Remarks on Suspended Clauses: A Contribution to Japanese Phraseology.” In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 201–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 “Framing Effects in Japanese Non-final Clauses: Toward an Optimal Grammar-Pragmatics Interface.” Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure: 471–480. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Toshio
1987 “TE, I, and RU Clauses in Japanese Recipes: A Quantitative Study.” Studies in Language 14: 73–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra. A. Thompson, and Yumi Sasaki
2012 “Japanese Negotiation through Emerging Final Particles in Everyday Talk.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 243–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-alone ‘So’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 185–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Grammar and Social Relations: Alternative Forms of Yes/No-type Initiating Actions in Health Visitor Interactions.” In Why Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1995Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel. A.
1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics: Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
1996a “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (1): 161–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “On Dispensability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 95–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Tine Larsen
2008 “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Uses of You Say X Questions.” Discourse Studies 10 (1): 113–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko
1999Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uemura, Takashi
2014 “On Functions of Japanese -Toiu in So-called Suspended-sentence: An Investigation on Usage as a Sentence-final Particle.” Papers in linguistic science 20: 31–48.Google Scholar
Usami, Mayumi
ed 2021BTSJ-Japanese Natural Conversation Corpus with Transcripts and Recordings (March, 2021), NINJAL Institute-based Projects: Multiple Approaches to Analyzing the Communication of Japanese Language Learners.Google Scholar