Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre

StorytellinB across Japanese Conversational Genre

Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre

Studies in Narrative (SiN) The subject of SiN is the study of narrative. Volumes published in the series draw upon a variety of approaches and methodologies in the study of narrative. Particular emphasis is placed on theoretical approaches to narrative and the analysis of narratives in human interaction.

Editor Michael Bamberg Clark University

Advisory Board Susan E. Bell Bowdoin College

RomHarre llnac:re College, Oxford

Jerome S. Bruner

David Herman N ort Carolina State University

New York University

Jennifer Coates Roeharnpton University Michele L. Crossley Edge- Hill University College Carol Gilligan New York University

Janet Holmes Victoria University of Wellington

Allyssa McCabe University of Massachusetts, Lowell Eric E. Peterson University of Maine Catherine Kohler Riessman Boston University

Charlotte Linde Deborah Schiffrin Institute for Research Learning Georgetown University Dan P. McAdams Northwestern University

Volume13 Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre

Edited by Polly E. Szatrowski

Margaret Wetherell Open University

Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre Edited by

Polly E. Szatrowski The University of Minnesota

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam I Philadelphia

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre I edited by Polly E. Szatrowski.

p. cm. (Studies in Narrative, ISSN 1568-2706; v.13) Includes bibliographical references and index. Japanese language--Prosodic analysis. 1..

Japanese language--Spoken Japanese. 3·

Storytelling--Japan. I. Szatrowski, Polly Ellen. PL544.;7S86

2010

1.010021312

495·6'16--dc22 ISBN 978 90 272 2.653 2

(Hb ; alk. paper)

ISBN 978 90 272 8793 9 (Eb)

© 2010 -John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 ME Amsterdam -The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· P.O. Box 27519 ·Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 · usA

Table of contents

PART 1.

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre Pally Szatrowski PART 2.

3

Storytelling in casual conversation

CHAPTER 2

Manipulation of voices in the development of a story: Prosody and voice quality of Japanese direct reported speech Yuriko Sunakawa

23

CHAPTER 3

Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series: Gaze, pointing, and context Chisato Koike

61

CHAPTER 4

Sharing a personal discovery of a taste: Using distal demonstrative& in a storytelling about kakuni 'stewed pork belly' Ma.riko Karatsu PART

113

3. Storytelling in animation narratives

CHAPTER

5

Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstrative& in Japanese and English animation narratives Fumio Watanabe

147

VI

Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre PART

4· Storytelling in talk shows and survey interviews

CHAPTER

6

Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show: A host's responsive behavior as a resource for shaping the guest's story

183

Atsuko Honda CHAPTER

7

Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews: "Second stories" within the interview participatory framework Tomoko Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani PART

211

5. Storytelling in university lectures

CHAPTER

8

The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse

241

Yoshio Takahashi CHAPTER

9

Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture: Telling the story of a haiku

267

Polly Szatrowski Addresses for contributors to Sto1ytelling across

Japanese Conversational Genre

303

Author index Subject index

305 307

PART 1

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre Folly Szatrowski University of Minnesota

This book is a collection of papers on storytelling in a variety of Japanese conversational genre. These include casual conversation, narrative retellings of the story of an animation (hereafter, animation narratives), television talk shows, survey interviews, and large university lectures. The book is divided into five parts focusing on storytelling in each genre. Information on the presentation of the conversational data, Japanese Romanization, }apanese/Romanized transcription conventions, abbreviations used in the word-for-word gloss, English translation, and notation for nonverbal behavior is given in the Appendix at the end of this chapter. The chapters in Part 2 Storytelling in Casual Conversation relate to the use of prosody and voice quality in direct reported speech, ellipsis and action, and distal demonstratives (are 'that thing (distal): ano 'that (distal)'). The chapter in Part 3 Storytelling in Animation Narratives is concerned with the use of self-repetition and pre-nominal proximal (kono 'this (proximal): this) and neutral demonstratives (sono 'that (neutral): that) in this genre. The chapters in Part 4 Storytelling in Talk Shows and Survey Interviews focus on how the host's responsive behavior on a television talk show can shape the guest's story; and how respondents can tell "second stories" while observing the participatory framework in sociolinguistic interviews. Finally, the chapters in Part 5 Storytelling in University Lectures focus on the function of narratives in large Japanese lectures, and how a professor was able to create involvement by telling the story of a haiku. The stories themselves represent a wide range of possibilities, and include first person stories of personal experience, third person stories, and "non-person" stories about sequences in logic. The chapters in Part 2 Stmytelling in Casual Conversa.tion analyze a third person story by one woman to another about their friend and her henpecked fiance (Sunakawa. Chapter 2), three men's successive stories about a shared experience (two third person, and one first person story about how one of the men stood up a female friend with whom he had arranged to go rollerblading

4

Polly Szatrowski

in order to have a drink and go out to dinner) (Koike, Chapter 3), and a first person story told to two other women by a woman about her experience eating kakuni 'stewed pork belly' (Karatsu, Chapter 4). The chapter in Part 3 Storytelling in Animation Narratives, focuses on 15 Japanese and 18 English third person narratives of the story of an animated video (Watanabe, Chapter 5). The chapters in Part 4 Storytelling in Talk Shaws and Survey Intervie·ws concern a female guest's story told to a female talk show host about what happened when she was filmed from the back for television after having become accustomed to being photographed as a model (Honda, Chapter 6), and two female and two male interview respondents' stories about their personal experiences related to difficulties in using polite language in two sociolinguistic survey interviews (Kumagai & Kitani, Chapter 7). The chapters in Part 5 Storytelling in University Lectures investigate first person, third person, and non-person narratives/stories. These include three third person lecture narratives (about historical events, bullying in schools, and the sequence of the content in previous lectures), one non-person narrative about a logical probability sequence, and one first person lecture narrative about an argument the professor had with his wife about bullying in schools (Takahashi, Chapter 8). Finally, the story of a haiku told by a professor in a large lecture class is analyzed. This story has a multi-layering of third person events involving the character in the haiku, and contrasting hypothetical events involving hypothetical characters, often overlaid with the professor's personal evaluation (Szatrowski, Chapter 9). In the present chapter, I will give an overview of previous linguistic research on Japanese oral narrative and storytelling, summarize the definitions and approaches to storytelling used in this volume, and present the themes focused on across the chapters. In particular the chapters address questions of how stories shape genre and genre shape stories, how stories are fitted into the preceding and following discourse, and how story tellers and story recipients use verbal behavior (including prosody) and nonverbal behavior to make stories tellable, create involvement, negotiate shared knowledge, and show their personal selves.

Overview of linguistic research on Japanese oral narrative/storytelling Japanese linguistic research on oral narrative/storytelling began in the 1980's strongly influenced by Labov's (1972) approach to narrative elicited from interviews as a "transformation of experience:' Chafe's (1980) approach to narratives elicited using a film as a deployment of consciousness in The Pear Stories, and Hopper & Thompson's (1980) study of transitivity and fore grounding. Overall, the research on Japanese narratives in this early era focused on the use of specific linguistic forms, including forms for participant identification and topic continuity

Chapter 1. Introduction

in narratives in natural conversation (Hinds & Hinds, 1979; Hinds, 1983, 1984), referential forms (ellipsis, pronouns, noun phrases) and lexical choice in experimentally collected narratives of a film (Clancy; 1980, 1982; Downing, 1980), the topic marker wa in experimentally collected narratives of cartoon strips (Clancy & Downing, 1987), and tense/aspect (Saga, 1983, 1984; Szatrowski, 1985, 1987) in naturally occurring conversational narratives. Subsequent work by Maynard (1989) on casual narratives in conversation moved the field towards interaction. Studies in the early 1990's focused on linguistic forms related to wake 'the reason (is)' (Suzuki, 1992), subjectivity (Iwasaki, 1993), simau 'end up doing' (Yoshida, 1994), and topic (Takasaki, 1994) in stories from natural conversations. Current research on narrative/storytelling began in the late 1990's and 2000's with a gradual shift from a focus on linguistic form to questions of how verbal and nonverbal behavior shapes and is shaped by the activity of narrative/storytelling. Research on animation/cartoon narratives has focused on the use of referring expressions (Watanabe, 1998, 2003, 2005b, 2009), clausal self-repetition (Watanabe, 1999, 2007a, 2007c), discourse units (Szatrowski, 2002a; Watanabe, 2007b, 2007d), gesture (Kimbara, 2000; Kita, 2002; Szatrowski, 2002a, 2002b; Watanabe, 2007c), adjustment strategies (Sawa, 2004), and topic particle wa (Watanabe, 2005a). Studies of conversational storytelling have included the story recipient in investigations of alignment (Mayes, 1996), back channel utterances (Iwasaki, 1997), conversational patterns (Iwasaki and Horie (1998), and conversational management (Lee, 2000). More recent studies have investigated the role of verbal and nonverbal behavior in relation to participation roles and story recipients' questions (Koike, 2001, 2009), tellership (Hayashi, Mori, & Takagi, 2002; Koike 2008), sequential organization, tellability; and presentation of the self (Karatsu, 2004a, 2004b ), and the dynamic process of emotion/evaluation (Szatrowski, 2005a) in storytelling in conversational interaction. In addition, there has been a study of devices used in narratives in lecture discourse (Takahashi, 2002). Many of the researchers who participated in this thematic shift are contributors to the present volume. The chapters in this volume build on a wide range of linguistic research, including research by grammarians of Japanese and grammarians of English. Referring to studies on Japanese, English, German, and other languages, they shed light on devices such as quotation, reported speech and style shifting; demonstratives, deictic and referring expressions, prospective inde.'cicals and recognition searches; ellipsis; eo-construction, collaboration, and conjoined participation; laughter, repetition, responsive forms and fillers; connectives and discourse markers; prefaces, confirmation and final particles, not merely as linguistic forms, but as resources in the storytelling interaction. The chapters in this volume also build on research on a variety of conversational genres including interviews, talk shows, and lecture discourse. One chapter

5

6

Polly Szatrowski extends traditions in narrative research related to narrative retellings of a film/ animation/book. Many of the others incorporate conversational analytic approaches to storytelling in English and Japanese, including research by scholars of conversation analysis on turn-taking, assessment, and emotion. Others are concerned with conversational units and text structure, participation framework, and participatory framework. Finally, many chapters make reference to recent research on prosody, gesture, gaze, head nodding, etc.

Definitions and approaches to storytelling/narrative The question of how to define a storytelling or narrative is approached in each chapter. The term narrative is used in this volume to refer to monologic and less interactive animation narratives and lecture narratives. In contrast. we use the term storytelling to refer to stories involving more interaction among participants, including storytelling in lectures with high involvement. The definitions and framework used for storytelling in this study come from research on narrative (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Labov,1972; Polanyi, 1979, 1989; Ochs, 1997; Ochs & Capps, 2001; Takahashi, 2002) and storytelling (Sacks, 1992; Jefferson, 1978; Norrick, 2000, 2004, 2005; Karatsu, 2004a, 2004b; Georgakopoulou, 2007, Koike 2008). Some studies focus on Labov's approach, while others take a wider view including changes in perspective out of the here-and-now, that is, sequences of clauses reflecting the order of imaginary/hypothetical/future events (Maynard, 1989; Norrick, 2000). Sunakawa (Chapter 2) identifies her data as a story because it has an overall structure including the necessary elements ofnarrative proposed by Labov ( 1972) ("abstract," "orientation:' "complicating action:' "evaluation:' "resolution" and "coda"). Focusing on the story teller's use of prosody and voice quality in direct reported speech, she analyzes the story teller's use of"internal evaluation" to involve the recipient in the story world and encourage her to become more active and cooperative in constructing the story. Koike (Chapter 3) analyzes a series of three "joint storytelling" sequences, that is, "storytelling where two or more story tellers who have shared knowledge through firsthand or secondhand experience collaboratively tell a coherent story, shifting teller ship to depict an event" (Koike, 2008, p. 394). She focuses on how the participants assist one other in telling a shared story, and how they use gaze and pointing gestures to disambiguate ellipted referents while publicly negotiating responsibility and conflict. Karatsu (Chapter 4) analyzes the use of distal demonstratives (are 'that thing (distal); ano 'that (distal)') in a storytelling about the discovery of a new taste. She considers a storytelling to be an event in conversational interaction in which one or more participants may orient toward a story before it is told, and the story is

Chapter 1. Introduction achieved methodically and sequentially through the interaction (Jefterson, 1978; Karatsu, 2004a, 2004b ). She views the story as a discursive and cognitive product with a temporal sequence of events that are told from a particular perspective (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Ochs & Capps, 2001). She notes that after the story, participants may appreciate and/or negotiate its meaning, and the storytelling reaches closure as the participants' orient away from the story. Watanabe (Chapter 5) analyzes clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives, viewing narrative as a reproduction of past experiences in time and space, and focusing on how the narrators verbalize their memories of an animated video lacking human language. The experimental nature of the study creates a narrative setting in which the hearer does not share any knowledge about the objects or characters in the animation with the narrator. Honda (Chapter 6) takes the stance that talk is inherently interactive, rather than the product of a single speaker, in a study of a story told on a Japanese talk show. She identifies her data as a story not only because it reports past events initiated by the guest showing an orientation to a time in the past, but also because it constitutes a social practice, involving eo-authorship with the guest and host creating the story together. Contrary to the belief that storytelling on talk shows is performed by a guest to a host who remains a passive listener, she demonstrates how the host's contributions influence the story development, and can improve the audience's understanding of the story. Kumagai & Kitani (Chapter 7) focus on "second stories" in which one respondent's story about a past experience related to the use of polite language occasions a similar story by the other respondent in sociolinguistic survey interviews. The second story teller shows his/her understanding of and in some cases his/her involvement and appreciation of the prior story. They demonstrate how the respondents accommodate the participatory framework of the interview by designing their stories to be answers to the interview question or to contribute to the overall topic of the interview. Takahashi (Chapter 8) defines narratives in large university lectures as a verbal sequence of clauses following the order of real or inferred past, imaginary, or future events. His approach to narrative as a shift in viewpoint from the present hereand-now includes professors' recounting of things they have heard or read, fantasies, and dreams, as well as personal past experiences. His analysis focuses on how these narratives are fit into the preceding and subsequent parts of the lecture. Szatrowski (Chapter 9) analyzes how a professor tells the story of a haiku to a large lecture class in which the students are silent throughout The analysis focuses on how the professor fits her story into her lecture, designs her story for her students, and involves them in her storytelling using devices previously documented in conversational storytelling (topical coherence, knowledge questions, groundwork confirming circumstances, and evaluation, and casual style).

7

8

Polly Szatrowski

Themes in this volume The chapters in this volume address the questions of how stories can shape genre and how genre can shape stories. They also address a variety of themes, including how stories fit into the preceding and following discourse, involvement, negotiating shared knowledge, the role of the story recipient, and prosody and nonverbal behavior.

How stories shape genre and how genre shape sto1·ies This book offers insight into how narrative/storytelling is achieved in casual conversation and other genres. The contributors demonstrate that it is often necessary to make adjustments in storytelling to accommodate the genre, and the use of devices can vary depending on the number and nature of participants, type of story, and so on. In Part 2 Storytelling in Casual Conversation, Koik.e's (Chapter 3) analysis of joint storytelling sequences in three-party conversation shows that successive story tellers present their side of the story, ellipting information that they assume the other participants can understand and using gaze and pointing gestures to indicate ellipted referents, include unaddressed recipients, and negotiate responsibility and conflict. In Part 4 Storytelling in Talk Shows and Survey Interviews, Honda (Chapter 6) demonstrates how a talk show host goes beyond the passive role of a listener by using repetition and laughter to clarify the guest's utterances for the audience as well as preserve the guest's face, and back channel utterances to indicate her subjective attitude while maintaining an unbiased stance. Kumagai & Kitani (Chapter 7) show how respondents can use the participatory framework of the sociolinguistic survey interview as a resource for telling "second stories." For example, they manage to take a second responsive turn by designing their "second story to serve as an answer to the survey question, or tell a "second story that does not answer the survey question by showing that it contributes to the overall theme of the interview. Finally, in Part 5 Storytelling in University Lectures, Takahashi (Chapter 8) categorizes 60 narratives in 4 university lectures on Buddhism, Statistics, History and Education based on the way they fit into the preceding and following discourse. He demonstrates that narratives are used for three textual functions (illustration, Elaboration, Presentation of Topic/Problem), and one interpersonal function (Rapport). S:zatrowski (Chapter 9) shows how a professor tells the story of a haik:u, adapting many devices used to create involvement in casual conversation to the large lecture genre. For example, the professor asks for a show of hands in order to assess the students' knowledge of the haiku story, leaves some of her utterances incomplete to allow students to eo-construct the story silently, and uses gestures that are large enough to be visible to everyone in the lecture hall She also uses a multiple of voices to create

Chapter 1. Introduction

contrasting interpretations and does not make the point of the story explicit until the end in order to allow her students to participate in creating the meaning of the story.

Involvement Many of the chapters in this work focus on the use of verbal and nonverbal devices to involve the story recipient. They show that a story teller can vary her prosody and voice quality in direct reported speech and use onomatopoeia and laughter to create solidarity and involve her recipient in the story (Sunakawa, Chapter 2), a professor can use repetition, eo-construction, onomatopoeia, direct style, prosody and laughter to involve and appeal to her students and show her personal emotional side (Szatrowski, Chapter 9), and hosts can show their appreciation and agreement with their guest's utterances using lengthened aizuti 'back channel utterances' (Honda, Chapter 6). Gaze and gestures can also create involvement. For example, pointing gestures can be used to include an unaddressed recipient as a character in the storytelling (Koike, Chapter 3), shifts in gaze can display shared versus independent knowledge (Karatsu, Chapter 4), a talk show host can repeat the guest's utterance while pulling their body back. distancing herself from the content of the utterance in order to maintain the guest's face (Honda, Chapter 6), and pictorial, iconic, deictic, and beat gestures can be used and repeated to create images in the air and emphasize points in order to involve students in a lecture storytelling (Szatrowski, Chapter 9). Finally, respondents to interview questions may tell "second stories" to indicate their appreciation and involvement in another respondent's story and redefine previous individual stories/answers as shared common experience (Kumagai & Kitani, Chapter 7), and professors may tell personal narratives to create rapport with their students (Takahashi, Chapter 8).

Negotiating shared knowledge How shared knowledge is negotiated in storytelling and narrative is approached on micro and macro levels. On the micro level two chapters focus on the use of Japanese demonstratives (ko- 'this (proximal): so- 'that (medial): a- 'that (distal)' demonstratives). Karatsu (Chapter 4) demonstrates how two uses of the a- 'that (distal)' demonstrative (to refer to an entity which is solely in the speaker's mind, or to refer to an entity which the speaker and hearer have eo-experienced) can converge in conversational storytelling. Previous grammatical accounts draw a clear line between shared and unshared knowledge, and claim that a- 'that (distal)' can be used either to refer to an entity which is solely in the speaker's mind, or to refer to an entity which the speaker and hearer have eo-experienced. Karatsu shows how participants in storytelling can use distal demonstratives to refer to

9

10

Polly Szatrowski

lrnowledge that is both individual and mutually shared. Watanabe (Chapter 5) focuses on the functions and motivations for using kono N'this (proximal) N: sono N'that (medial) N' in Japanese and this Nand that Nin English in animation narratives to refer to people and objects in the animation. On a more macro level Koike (Chapter 3) shows how two or more story tellers who have shared lrnowledge through firsthand or secondhand experience can tell their side of a story while assisting one another in telling the story to justify each other's actions, and negotiate responsibility for these actions. Both Karatsu (Chapter 4) and S:zatrowski (Chapter 9) show how story tellers confirm information and assess the lrnowledge of potential story recipients before telling their stories, and use the information they gain about their recipients' lrnowledge to design their stories. S:zatrowski (Chapter 9) also shows how a professor uses information and lrnowledge that the students are likely to possess to get them to call to mind information necessary to understand her story of a haiku. This reference to shared information in the students' community raises the "tellability" of her story.

The role of the story recipient All of the chapters on storytelling, demonstrate that story recipients play a central role in the development of the story. Sunakawa (Chapter 2) shows how a story recipient becomes more involved in a story with increasing laughter in response to the story teller's use of prosody in direct reported speech, and this in turn contributes to the construction of the story. Koik.e (Chapter 3) demonstrates how story recipients become eo-tellers when they share lrnowledge of the story events, and how a recipient's role in the story varies with the story teller's gaze and pointing gestures. Karatsu (Chapter 4) notes that the response of prospective recipients prior to a story can influence the way in which the story teller designs her story, and demonstrates how story recipients are able to appreciate as well as add their own independent contribution to the story using distal demonstratives and changes in gaze direction. Honda (Chapter 6) shows how a talk show host maintains an objective stance while at the same time displaying disalignment (using E- 'What?' and A 'Oh'), repeats a part or all of the guest's preceding utterance for clarification, repeats the guest's self-deprecating utterances with laughter and posture changes to promote a positive image of the guest, and uses lengthened back channel utterances to show appreciation and agreement. In sociolinguistic survey interviews, Kumagai & Kitani (Chapter 7) demonstrate how the interviewer and one of the respondents respond in such a way to give the other respondent the go -ahead to tell a story or a "second story.' They also note that the respondent who is a story recipient observes the participatory framework by responding minimally in order to allow the other respondent to tell his/her story and not disrupt the respondent's answer.

Chapter 1. Introduction

Prosody/nonverbal behavior This book represents a major contribution to research on conversational interaction by suggesting ways in which less-researched nonverbal behaviors such as geshue, gaze, head nods, etc. can be used, and how they are crucial for the interpretation of the linguistic forms that they accompany or replace. Many of the contributors take into account prosody and nonverbal behavior in their analyses by making use of recent developments in computer software. In addition to the focus on how these behaviors contribute to the storytelling, the contributors also present new ways to analyze and present findings in this area. Some studies use acoustic software including Wavesurfer (Sunakawa, Chapter 2) and Praat (Szatrowski, Chapter 9) to demonstrate dramatic changes in pitch, loudness, and voice quality. The role of gaze is demonstrated through written transcription and video frame grabs annotated with arrows (Koike, Chapter 3), and gestures are shown with annotated (Koike, Chapter 3; Karatsu, Chapter 4; Szatrowski, Chapter 9) and unannotated frame grabs (Watanabe, Chapter 5) using Quicktime Pro and Photo shop. Koike (Chapter 3) analyzes how story tellers use gaze and pointing gestures not only to disambiguate ellipted referents, but also to include a participant in the storytelling as the implicitly addressed recipient and to mitigate conflicting actions. Karatsu (Chapter 4) shows how the story recipient can distinguish in her use of gaze at the story teller (to share and show appreciation of the story teller's evaluation of a new taste) and gaze at another story recipient (to indicate her own individual experience of the taste). Watanabe (Chapter 5) suggests that the tendency to repeat both the gesture and the words of preceding utterances in clausal self-repetition indicates that clausal self-repetition may be unintentional. He also notes that although English narrators frequently used indefinite this N to introduce new referents without an antecedent, Japanese narrators rarely used kono N'this (proximal) N' in this context, but when they did they accompanied this pre-nominal demonstrative with an iconic gesture. Szatrowski (Chapter 9) demonstrates how a professor uses large pictorial gestures and deictics (pointing at parts of the drawings that she had made in the air) to establish the circumstances of her story, and repeats large iconic gestures together with onomatopoeia and beat gestures for emphasis to involve students in her story. These studies provide support for C. Goodwin & M. H. Goodwin's (1986) claim that nonverbal behavior such as gaze, gesture, etc. is a "constitutive feature of the social organization of the activities they [the participants] are engaged in, (p. 51). By approaching storytelling/narrative as a multi-modal activity in which verbal and nonverbal behavior obtains its meaning from its placement in this activity, the studies in this volume usher in a new era of research on Japanese storytelling/narrative.

11

12

Polly Szatrowski

In summary, this book demonstrates the central role of the recipient in the development of Japanese storytelling across a variety of genres. Story tellers across genre use linguistic/paralinguistic (prosody, reported speech, style shifting, demonstratives, repetition, ellipsis, eo-construction, connectives, final particles, onomatopoeia) and nonverbal (gesture, gaze, head nodding) devices to involve their recipients, and recipients also use a multiple of devices (laughter, repetition, responsive forms, posture changes) to shape the development of the stories. Assessing the recipient's knowledge and the negotiation of shared knowledge can influence how story tellers design their stories for their recipients on the micro and macro level. Prosody and nonverbal behavior prove to a rich resource and a constitutive feature of storytelling and narratives that can modify the meaning of verbal forms. The analyses also shed new light on grammar across genre (ellipsis, demonstratives, clause combining), and illustrate a variety of methods for studying genre. The genre itself can be a resource for telling a story. Despite the necessity for a talk show host to remain objective, for survey respondents to give only one answer that addresses the interviewer's question, and for students in a large lecture to remain silent, story tellers and recipients accommodate to and make use of these characteristics of genre to make stories tellable, create interpersonal involvement, and show their personal selves.

References Atklnson, J.M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structure of social action: Studies In conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, W.L. (Ed). (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing CorporatioiL Clancy, P.M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W.L. Chafe (Ed), The pear stories: Cognitive and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 127-202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clancy, P.M. ( 1982). Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives. In D. Tannen (Ed), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 55-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clancy, P., & Downing, P. 1987. The use of wa as a cohesion marker in Japanese oral narratives. In J. Hinds, S. K. Maynard, & S. Iwasald (Eds.), Perspectives on tapicalization: The case of Japanese 'WA' (pp. 3-56). Amsterdam: John Benjamtns. Downing, P. ( 1980). Factors influencing lexical choice in narrative. In W.L. Chafe (Ed), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 89-126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Georgakopoulou, A (2007). Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. ( 1986). Gesture and coparticipatton in the activity of searching fora word. Semiotica, 62(1-2), 51-75. Hayashi, M., Mori, J., & Takagi, T. (2002). Contingent achievement of eo-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of ta]k, gaze. and gesture. In B. Fox & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 81-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 1. Introduction Hinds, J. (1983). Topic continuity in Japanese. In T. Giv6n (Ed. ), Topic continuity in discourse: A quanNtive cross-language study (pp. 43-93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hinds, J. (1984). Topic maintenance in Japanese narratives and Japanese conversational interaction. Discourse Processes, 7( 4), 465-482. Hinds, J., & Hinds, W. (1979). Participant indentification in Japanese narrative discourse. In G. Bedell E. Kobayashi, & M. Muraki (Eds.) Exploration in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue (pp. 201-212). Tokyo: Kenk:yuusha Hopper, P.J., & Thompson, S.A (1980). Transitivity in grammar and dlscourse. Language, 56(2), 251-299. Ikuta, S. (1983). Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese discourse. Language Sciences, 5(1), 37-53. Iwasaki, S. (1993). Subjectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Iwasaki, S. (1997). The Northridge earthquake conversations: The fioor structure and the 1oop' sequence in Japanese conversation. Joun1al ofPragmatics, 28, 661-603. Iwasaki. S., & Horte, P.I. (1998). The 'Northridge earthquake' conversations: Conversational patterns in Japanese and Thai and their cultural significance. Discourse and Society, 9(4), 501-529. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects ofstorytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studie.s in the organization ofconversational interactio11 (pp. 219-248). New York: Academic Press. Karatsu., M. (2004a). A study ofstorytelling in Japa11ese conversation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolls, MN, USA.). Dissertation Abstracts b1ternatio11al, 65, 1345. Karatsu., M. (2004b). Verbal and nonverbal negotiation in Japanese storytelling. In P. Szatrowski (Ed.), Hidden and ope11 conflict in Japanese conversational interaction (pp. 125-161 ). Tokyo: Kurosio Publlshers. Kimbara, I. (2000). Gengo hyoogen no kurlkaesi ni tomonau zyesutyaa ni tuite [On gestures accompanying repetition of linguistic expressions]. Gengo Zyoohoo Kagaku Ke11A:yuu [Research on Linguistic Informational Science], 5, 83-102. Kita, S. (2002). Zyesutyaa [Gesture]. Tokyo: Kaneko Shoboo. Koike, C. (2001). An analysis of shifts in participation roles in Japanese storytelling in terms of prosody, gaze, and body movements. Proceedings of the twe11ty-seventh am1ual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 381-392. Koike, C. (2008). Shift in tellershlp in joint storytelling: An analysis of story recipients' questions. Proceedings of the sixth Annual Hawaii b1ten1atlonal Conference on Arts a11d HumaJ~ities, 394-409. Koike, C. (2009). b1teract1on 111 storytelling in Japanese conversations: A11 analysis ofstory recipients' questions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA., USA). Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner city: Studies In the Black English vernacular (pp. 354-396). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W., & Waletzk.y, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 105-120). Seattle, Wk University of Washington Press. Lee, L. (2000). Nihongo bogowasya no zatudan nl okeru "monogatarl" no kenkyuu: Kaiv.•a kanrl no kanten kara [Study on storytelling in spontaneous conversations by Japanese native speakers: From the perspective of conversational management]. Tokyo: Kurosto Publishers. Levtnson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13

14

Polly Szatrowski Mayes, P. (1996, July). Storytelling as a means for re-establishing alignment in Japanese conversation." Paper presented at the 5th International Pragmatics Conference, Mexico City, Mexico. Maynard, S.K. (1989). Japanese conversation: Selfcontextualization through structure and interactional management. Nmwood, NJ: Ablex. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Norrick, N. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norrick, N. (2004). Hwnor, tellability, and conarration in conversational storytelling. Text 24(1), 79-111. Nor rick, N. (2005). Interaction in the telling and retelling of interlaced stories: The eo-construction of humorous narratives. In U.M. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), Narrative interaction (pp. 263-283). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E. (1997). Narrative. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 185-207). London: Sage. Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Polanyi, L. (1979). So what's the point? Semiotica, 25(3/4), 207-241. Polanyi, L. ( 1989). Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis ofconversational storytelli11g. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Sacks, H. (1992). Lecture.s 011 conversatio11 (Vols. I & 11). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Sawa, E. (2004). Nihongo bogowasya to hibogowasya no 'lyoosee" no sutoratezil.: Sutoorii o kataru bamen o toosite ["Adjustment" strategies of]apanese native speakers and non-native speakers: In a storytelling situation]. Yamagata Daigaku Daigakuin Syakai Bunka Sisutemu Kenkyuuka Kenkyuu Ronbunsyuu [Research Papers of the Graduate School ofSoctal & Cultural Systems at Yamagata University], 6, 43-62. Soga, M. (1983). Te,ISe and aspect 111 modern colloquial Japanese. Vancouver, BC: University of Colwnbia Press. Soga, M. (1984). Nihongo no danwa ni okeru zisee to soo ni tuite (On tense and aspect in Japanese discourse). Gelckan Ge11go, 13(4), 120-127. Suzukl, R 1992. A study of wake in Japanese narrative discourse. Kotoba 110 mozaiku: Okuda Natuko meeyoo kyoozyu koki kinen ro11bunsyuu [Mozaic of words: Papers to celebrate Professor Emeritus Natsuko Okud.a's seventieth birthday] (pp. 124-137). Tokyo: Japan Women's University Mejiro Linguistics Society. Szatrowski. P.E. (1985). The use of] apanese tense-aspect forms for vividness effect and participant tracking in conversations about past experiences. Journal of Asian Cultures, 10, 102-124. Szatrowski, P.E. (1987). "Fastness" and "narrative events" in Japanese conversational narratives. In R Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding In discourse (pp. 409-433). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Szatrowskl. P. (1993). Nihongo no danwa no koozoo bunselci-Kanyuu no danwa no sutoratezil no koosatu [Structure of Japanese co!IVersation: Invitation strategies]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Szatrowski, P. (2000a). Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatiba to gengo!higengo k.oodoo no kanren ni tutte [Relation between participant status and verbal/nonverbal behavior in eo-construction]. Nlhongo Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics], 7, 44-69. Szatrowski, P. (2000b). Relation between gaze, head nodding, and alzuti 'back channel' at a Japanese company meeting. Proceedings of the TWenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 283-294.

Chapter 1. Introduction Szatrowski, P. (2002a). Animeesyon no sutoorii o kataru sal no wadan to tyuusin hatuwa [Wadan 'stages' and central utterances in animation film narratives]. Hyoogen Kenkyuu [Expression Research], 76, 33-39. Szatrowski, P. (2002b). Nitibee in okeru animeesyon no sutoorii no katarlkata to hlgengo koodoo no sooi [Differences in American and Japanese nonverbal behavior and retellings of the story of an animation]. In 0. Mizutani & D.B. Yi (Eds.), Soogooteki nihongo kyooiku o motomete [In search of integrated Japanese l.a.nguage education] (pp. 187-201). Tokyo: Kokusyo Kankookai Szatrowski, P. (2003). Gaze, head nodding and aizuti 'back channel utterances' in information presenting activitles. In P. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguisNcs (Vol. 11, pp. 119-132). Stanford, CA:. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Szatrowski, P. (Ed.). (2004). Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Szatrowski, P. (2005a). Danwa to buntai-Kanzyoo hyooka no dooteki na katee ni tuite- [Discourse and Style: On the dynamic process of emotion/evaluation]. In A Nakamura, M. Nomura, M. Sakuma, & C. Komiya (Eds.), Hyooge11 to buntai [Expression and style] (pp. 469-480). Tokyo: Meiji Syoin. Szatrowski, P. (2005b). Zyoohoo syori, soogo sayoo, danwa koozoo kara mita tooti to higengo koodoo to no kankee [The relation between postposing and nonverbal behavior from the point of view of information management, interaction and discourse structure]. In H. Kushida, T. Sadanobu, & Y. Den (Eds.), Katudoo to site no bun to hatuwa [Sentences and utterances as activities] (pp.159-208). Thkyo: HituziSyoboo. Szatrowski, P. (2006). 20-daino zyosee no danwani okeru sizitek:i na miburi to hyoositeki na miburi note no katati tokinoo [Forms and functions ofdeictic and beat gestures in Japanese conversations between women in their 20's]. Hyoogen Ktm1.:yuu [Expression Research], 84, 67-77. Szatrowski, P. (2007). Koogi no danwa no higengo koodoo [Nonverbal behavior in university lecture discourse]. Research report for Grant-in-Aid for Sctenttlic Research (C) 2005-2007 (Research Theme No. 16520319) Gakusaiteki apurooti ni yoru daigakusee ,10 koogi rikai nooryoku ikusee no tame no karikyuramu kaihatu [Curriculum development for nurturing undergraduate students' lecture understanding capabilitles through interdisciplinary approach]. Research representative Miki Saijo, 108-117. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute of Technology. Szatrowski, P. (201 0). Chapter 10: Koogi no danwa no higengo koodoo [Nonlinguistic behavior in university lecture discourse]. In M. Sakuma (Ed..), Koogi no hyoogen to rikai [Expression and comprehension ofJapanese lecture discourse], (pp. 187-204). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Takahashi, Y. (2002). Koogi ni okeru "monogatari" ni kansuru iti-koosatu [Some notes on narratives in university lectures]. Hitotsubasi Daigaku Ryuugakusee Sentaa Kryoo, 5, 51-76. Tokyo: Hitotsubashi University. Takasaki., M. (1994). Sutooriiteki topikku to ippanronteki topikku no retorikku [Rhetoric of story topics and general topics]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Society] Syokuba ni okeru zyosee no hanasi kotoba: Sizen danwa rokuon siryoo ni motozulte [Women's language in the workplace: Based on natural recorded data] (pp. 61-69). Zaidan hoozin Tookyoo Zyosee Zaidan 1993 Zyosee Kenkyuu Hookokusyo [Tokyo Women's Foundation 1993 Grant-in-Aid Research Report]. Watanabe, F. (1998). Sizi hyoogen no keesiki to kikite ni yoru kaisyaku no katee [Forms of referring expressions and hearers' process of interpretation]. Yamagata Daigaku Nihongo Kyooiku Ronsyuu [Yamagata University Working Papers in Japanese Language Education], 1, 25-38.

15

16

Polly Szatrowski Watanabe, F. (1999). Naratibu disukoosu ni okeru setu no kurikaesi [Clausal self-repetition in narrative discourse]. Yamagata Daigaku Nihongo Kyooiku Ronsyuu [Yamagata University Working Papers in Japanese Language Education], 2, 53-68. Watanabe, F. (2003). Nihongo gakusyuusya to bogowasya nokatarino danwa niokeru s.lzi hyoogen siyoo ni tuite no kenkyuu [Research on the use of referring expressions in narrative discourse by Japanese learners and native speakers]. Research report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (2) 2001-2003. (Research Theme No. 13680348). Yamagata: Yamagata University. Watanabe, F. (2005a). Katari no danwa ni okeru "wi' no tukawarekata ni tuite [On use of"wi' in Japanese narrative discourse]. Syakai Bunka Sisutemu Kenkyuuka Ktyoo [Bulletin of the Graduate School of Social & Cultural Systems at Yamagata University], 1, 3-15. Watanabe, F. (2005b). Nihongo no katari no danwa ni okeru sizi hyoogen no aimaisa to wakariyasusa ni tuite [On ambiguity and accessibility of referring expressions in Japanese narrative discourse]. In M. Minami (Ed.), Gengo to nihongo kyooiku [Linguistics and Japanese language education] (VoL rv, pp. 125-136). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Watanabe, F. (2007a, March). Bogowasya to hibogowasya ni yoru katari no danwa ni okeru setu 110 kurikaesi ni tuite [Clausal self-repetition in native and non-native narrative discourse]. Paper presented at the Association of Teachers of Japanese 2007 Seminar, Boston, USA. Watanabe, F. (2007b). Nihongo bogowasya to hibogowasya no katari no da11wa ni okeru "'wadan" 111 tuite no kenkyuu [Research on "story units" in the narrative discourse of native and nonnative Japanese speakers]. Research report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 2004-2006. (Research Theme No. 16520311). Yamagata: Yamagata University. Watanabe, F. (2007c). Nihongo no danwa ni okeru setu no kurikaesi to zyesutyaa ni tuite [On clausal self-repetition and gestures in Japanese discourse]. In M. Minami (Ed..) Ge11gogaku to 11ihongo kyooiku [Linguistics and Japanese language education] (VoL V, pp. 231-243). Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Watanabe, F. (2007d). Katari no danwa ni okeru "wadalf to sono nintee kizyun ni tuite [Story units in narrative discourse and their recognition criteria]. Yamagata Daigaku Kiyoo (Zinbun Kagaku) [Bulletin ofYamagata University (Humanities)], 16(2), 109-120. Watanabe, F. (2009). Eego oyobi nihongo no katari no danwa bunsyoo ni okeru sizisi [Demonstratives in English and Japanese narrative discourse]. Yamagata Daigaku Zinbun Gakubu Kenkyuu Ne11poo [Faculty of Literature & Social Sciences, Yamagata University Annual Research Report], 6, 1-13. Yoshida, E. 1994. Speaker's subjectivity and the use of shimau in Japanese spoken narratives. Japanese/Korean linguistics VoL 4, ed. by N. Akatsuka, 183-199. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Appendix

Data The data in the chapters in this volume are cited using three or four lines for each utterance: the first line gives the utterance in Japanese orthography, second line the Romanized transcription, an optional third line with a word-for-word gloss for each word in the Romanized utterance, and the last line, an English translation. In the Romanization, the first letter of proper nouns and utterances after a falling

Chapter 1. Introduction

sentence-final intonation are capitalized, except in the case of postposed noun phrases and postposed clauses in which the first letter is not capitalized.

Japanese Romanization (Szatrowski 2004, p. viii) The Romanization given in Table 1 is used in the Japanese examples in this book, and is an adaptation of Shin-kunrei-shiki 'New Official System' which follows Jorden with Noda (1987) for the most part 1 This Romanization reflects Japanese phonology and the Japanese writing system. Each of the syllable-like units in the following chart constitute a 'mora' which gets one beat and is pronounced with approximately the same unit of time as the other mora in a given utterance. For readers who are less familiar with Japanese phonology, it may be helpful to think of the following approximate correspondences when pronouncing these sounds: si= shi, sya = sha, syu = shu, syo = sho, zi = ji, zya =ja, zyu =ju. zyo = jo, ti =chi, tya. = cha, tyu =chu, tyo =cho, hu = fu. For more precise information on Japanese pronunciation and romanization, refer to Jorden with Noda (1987:1-23). Table 1. Romanization of Japanese Mora

a u e 0

ki ku

ga gi gu

sa

za zi su zu ke se ze ge ko go so zo kya gya sya zya kyu gyu syu zyu kyo gyo syo zyo ka

si

ta ti tu te to tya tyu tyo

da

de do

na ni nu ne no eya nyu nyo

ha

hi hu he ho hya hyu hyo

pa ba pi bi pu bu pe be po bo pya bya pyu byu pyo byo

ya mi mu yu me mo yo mya myu myo ma

ra ri ru re ro rya ryu ryo

wa

k s t p n

Japanese/Romanized Transcription Conventi.ons2 (Chafe, 1980; Levinson, 1983; Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Szatrowski, 1993, 2004)

D o /.

?/?

Boxes are used to highlight important forms referred to in the text falling sentence-final intonation. rising intonation, not necessarily a question.

Unlike Jorden with Noda, we do not distinguish between hard 'g' and nasalized 'g' and do not indicate the syllabic nasal with a micron.

1.

2. Whenever possible, these conventions are also indicated in the English translation, unless they obscure the meaning or would be misleading (as is sometimes the case in indicating overlap with 11 and ll,laughter over the utterance with @ @, etc. because Japanese word order differs from English.)

17

18

Polly Szatrowski

'/, ---+

t .hh

hh @@ 0

0

(7.7) (.) oisii

11 11

-/:

= {}

(())

IJ/'"' If' .11 I"

continuing intonation followed by a slight pause. flat intonation. slight rise in intonation. in-breath, number of'h's' indicate the length of the in-breath in relation to the length of mora in the preceding talk. out-breath, number of'h's' indicate the length of the out-breath in relation to the length of mora in the preceding talk. utterance between the @ @is said in a laughing voice. utterance between the 0 0 is said in a quieter voice. indecipherable or slightly audible speech is indicated in < >. (However, <>are used to indicate the beginning and end of non-gestura! movements in Chapter 9, Szatrowski.) length of pause/silence in seconds, (0.7) indicates a pause of7-tenths of a second, relative to the speed of the preceding utterance. micro-pause bold letters indicate louder voice (Karatsu, Chapter 5 only) Double slashes 11 mark the place an utterance starts to overlap with the following utterance. Double vertical lines 11 indicate the end of an overlap with the following utterance. indicates lengthening of the preceding vowel or syllabic nasal in the Japanese/romanized version of the transcript. cut-off(Japanese Jh <.-represents a cut-offin the middle of the final mora, romanized as ugok-). Cut-offs are followed by a space in the romanized transcription in order to distinguish them from word-medial dashes which indicate morphological boundaries (for example, ryuugaku-suru 'study abroad'). latched utterances enclose non-linguistic sounds such as laughter, coughing, clicks, etc. Whenever possible the beats and sounds of the laughter are transcribed in the Japanese and romanized versions. indicates omission of lines in an example or excerpt. description of gestures, shift in gaze direction, etc. direct quotation from the lecture handout or direct reported speech enclose direct reported/quoted speech within other direct reported/ quoted speech.

Chapter 1. Introduction 19 Abbreviations Used in the Word-for-Word Gloss (Sunakawa, Chapter 2; Watanabe, Chapter 5; Honda, Chapter 6) CAU = causative morpheme coN= connective (no) coNc = concessive COND =conditional (-tam!-dcn·a.) CONS= consultative (-ry)oo) coP= copula DES = desiderative (- tai) ms = distal (formal) style DO= direct object (o) EVID = evidential FIL = interactional tokens, speech fillers, etc. (nanka, n::, sono) PAS = passive FP= final particle (ne, yo, etc.) GEN =genitive GER = gerund ( -te/-de) GOAL= goal

IMP = imperative ITER= iterative (-tari) NEG =negative NP =negative particle (na.) NOM = nominalizer P =past PER = perfect POT = potential PROV =provisional (-(r)eba) PROG =progressive Q = quotative particle QP = question particle SUB= subject (ga) TAG = tag question TENT = tentative TOP= topic (wa)

DIRECT refers to the use of direct style, that is, less formal final predicate forms (N da, A-i, V-ru, etc.) as opposed to distal style (more formal final predicate forms such as N desu, A-i desu, V-masu, etc.) (Ikuta, 1983; Jorden with Noda, 1987). Final predicates that are not marked DIS (distal) are uttered in direct (informal) style. English translation () explanatory material or words in the translation that do not directly reflect the Japanese, but are necessary in English. lit. used to indicate literal translations of the Japanese. [] words that directly reflect the Japanese, but are awkward in the English translation. (However, brackets are used to indicate the beginning and end of gestures in Chapter 9, Szatowski.) « >> words implied but left unsaid in the Japanese. Notation for nonverbal behavior To make the descriptions of nonverbal behavior more dear, figures giving sketches (Honda, Chapter 6), and annotated (Koike, Chapter 3; Szatrowski, Chapter 9) or unannotated frame grabs (Watanabe, Chapter 5) from the original video are

20

Polly Szatrowski

supplied. Annotations in the frame grabs include arrows to show the direction of gaze and pointing gestures (Koike, Chapter 3), and lines showing the movement of gestures in the frame grab (Szatrowski, Chapter 9). In addition, descriptions of the gaze and body movements are often described in the text and in the transcription of examples as follows. Koike (Chapter 3) <--Fujio--> arrows (that correlate with the Romanized version of the Japanese transcript) indicate the speaker's gaze. dotted underlines in the Japanese, the Romanization, and the English translation indicate the parts of utterances where gaze and pointing gestures are sustained. Karatsu (Chapter 4) (( )) description of gestures, shift in gaze direction, etc. ((Demo 'but'/H__..-+M..!-down)) Utterance on the left of the I is the location where a shift in gaze direction occurs. Following Szatrowski (2000a), underlines indicate participants whose gaze shifts, boxes indicate the speaker of the utterance, and arrows indicate gaze direction. Szatrowski (Chapter 9) (Szatrowski 2000a, 2000b, 2002,2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007, 2010) [] marks the beginning and end of gestural movements of the hands, neck, etc. <> marks the beginning and end of non -gestural movements, e.g., preening. Subscript numbers indicate the start of a gesture (the time when the speaker begins moving her hands, often in preparation for the gesture stroke). Numbers in the frame grab indicate that the gesture stroke shown in the frame grab occurred in the section of the utterance beginning with the corresponding subscript number. Underline indicates the stroke (main part) of the gesture (McNeill1992). Lines in the frame grabs indicate the gesture stroke accompanying the underlined words in the part of the utterance with the same gesture subscript number. Bold underline indicates the mora where a beat gesture occurs.

PART 2

Storytelling in casual conversation

CHAPTER 2

Manipulation of voices in the development of a story Prosody and voice quality of Japanese direct reported speech Yuriko Sunakawa University of Tsukuba

In this paper I analyze how a storyteller manipulates the prosody and voice quality in her direct reported speech in a Japanese story about her girlfriend and her henpecked fiance. While supporting Giinthner's (1999) theory that speakers make use of voicing, prosodic, and voice quality features to achieve various interactive goals, I also demonstrate that these goals do not necessarily apply to every use of direct reported speech in a story. Based on data from an audiotaped story in a naturally occurring conversation between two female friends in their late twenties, I demonstrate how the way that the storyteller changed her voice to enact her direct reported speech varied according to the developmental stage of the story. Although there was no marked prosody or change in voice quality in the initial stage, the story teller's direct reported speech showed increased emotion and pitch movement from the middle to the final stages. I also demonstrate how this draws the recipient into the story world, and encourages the recipient to become an active and cooperative participant in constructing the story.

In this paper, I will analyze how storytellers manipulate the prosody and voice quality of direct reported speech in Japanese. 1 In particular, I will focus on the changes in voice used by a storyteller during the development of a humorous story, and describe how these changes affect the involvement of both the storyteller and I would like to thank those who gave me their insightful and critical comments on the earlier versions of this paper. I am especially indebted to Polly Szatrowski, Toshiyuki Sadanobu and Kikuo Maekawa My gratitude also goes to Marnie Jorenby for her help with the English in this paper, and Tomoko Iizuka for her assistance in annotating Figures 1-9. 1.

24

Yuriko Sunakawa

her recipient in the story world. The data for this study come from a naturally occurring conversation between two women who are close friends. I analyze these data using both perception and sound analysis software (WaveSurfer 1.8.5). I will analyze the storyteller's changes in voice quality according to the development of the story and describe how these changes affect the involvement of both the storyteller and the story recipient in the story world.

Previous research on direct reported speech in conversation Direct reported speech in Japanese conversation is accompanied by the use of quotation markers such as to iu, ttutte, and toka, etc. after a quoted phrase to indicate that it is a person's thought or utterance (Sunakawa, 2003, 2006). The following excerpt is from a conversation between two male university students. Storyteller A is reproducing a conversation he had in the past with the owner of a restaurant where he worked as a part-time employee.2 (1) Conversation between two male students

A

'!0)-JtJ~, 12~1J\~-

r A:f!f*HeA.nJ:-?JC:n'~-.:>·c

r~.&t;t

:t.3 -? J C: :QYg '? L ~' Kinoo mo sa, 12-zi goro sa, "A-kun kyuukee ireyoo" toka itte, "Mesi kuoo" toka itte~. Yesterday too, you know, around 12 o'clock, you know, "Mr. A, let's take a break': (he) said, and "Let's eat': (he) said.

y {777} {Huhuhu} {LAUGH}

A

-c

rfiiJ:f;t~.@ J e: i'J'"g '? ·c r-lt7?f'L.> "' ~_,, ~ '9 J e: i'J' -g- '? ~, "Nani taberu" toka itte, "Sarada de ii desu" toka itte~. "What will (you) eat?" (he) said, and "Just salad is fine," (I) said, and

y {777} {Huhuhu} {LAUGH} A

r:filii& v' 61d:: v' 0), r\ ::;.; v' 61d:: v' 0) J e: i'J' '? -c r"' IJ £ -tt 1-v J ":::> '? 'L~,

"Gohan iranai no, pan iranai no" toka tte "Irimasen''

tutte~,

2. The Appendix in Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanl.zation, transcription conventions, and the English translation used in the examples. A full transcription of the story analyzed here is given in the Appendix of this chapter.

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story "Is it that (you) don't need rice? Is it that (you) don't need bread?" (he) said, and "(No, I) don't need (any)," (I) said, and

Y ? - Jv. ~ Jv n' t;;, ~~ U:n, nanka ne~, U:hm, like, you know? The phrases enclosed by r J in the Japanese and"" in the Romanization and English translation are direct reported speech. They may appear to be a faithful reproduction of the original utterances, but actually, the storyteller is not reproducing the conversation verbatim. Storytellers interpret utterances through their own filters, reconstruct scenes from their own point of view, and reenact conversations in such a way that they create an effect desired by the storyteller. Therefore, direct reported speech does not necessarily reproduce the original conversation in the strict sense, but rather creates what Tannen (1986) refers to as "reconstructed conversation.: In (1), short and repetitive requests and questions such as Mesi kuoo 'Let's eat: Nani taberu 'What will (you) eat?: Gohan iranai no 'Is it that (you) don't need rice?: and pan iranai no 'Is it that (you) don't need bread?' show the restaurant owner's good will, and the blunt answers such as Sarada de ii desu 'Just salad is fine' and Irimasen '(No, I) don't need (any)' show X.s irritation towards the owner's unwelcome interference. In this way; storytellers use direct reported speech in ways that appear to reproduce the original conversation faithfully, but actually alter the depiction of the characters to make their voices suitable for the story they are narrating. At the same time, the storytellers reveal their own evaluation of and attitude towards the characters they are depicting (Tannen, 1986; Besnier, 1993; Maynard, 1996; Gi.inthner, 1997a, 1997b, 1999; Halt, 2000; Kamada, 2000). Characters' personalities and the storyteller's evaluation of the character are expressed by the words and grammar contained in direct reported speech. In addition, the prosody and voice quality of direct reported speech also play an important role. Giinthner (1999) points out that "speakers make use of voicing and prosodic, as well as voice quality features to achieve various interactive goals'' (p. 704), which she summarizes as follows: i. to contextualize whether an utterance is anchored in the reporting world or the storyworld; ii. to animate the quoted characters and to differentiate between the quoted characters; iii. to signal the speech activities and the affective stance of the reported characters; iv. to comment on the reported speech as well as on the quoted characters. Gi.inthner (1999, p. 704)

25

26

Yuriko Sunakawa

Over all this paper supports Giinthner's claims about direct reported speech. I also demonstrate that these goals do not necessarily apply to every instance of direct reported speech in a conversation. In particular, I found that in conversational storytelling, direct reported speech tends not used for these goals in the orientation stage, before the story reaches its climax. I will show how storytellers manipulate their prosody and voice quality in direct reported speech in order to involve storytellers and recipients in the story world. This, in turn, enables both storytellers and recipients to deepen their interaction, and to develop the storytelling cooperatively.

Analysis of a storytelling between two friends The data for this study come from a naturally occurring conversation between two female university graduates, A and B. who are close friends in their late twenties. A brings up the fact that their mutual friend K henpecked her fiance M by making him serve as her chauffeur. Subsequently; she begins telling a story that she had heard from Kin which the event ofK's fiance M punching Kin the face developed into a big scene ending with him starting to cry during a humble apology to K. Thus, this unexpected episode ends with the humorous twist of M reverting back to his henpecked position. I identified this episode as a storytelling because it has the overall structure of narrative proposed by Labov (1972). 3 The storytelling lasts for 2 minutes and 50 seconds. A contributes most of the substantive content, with B responding only with back channel utterances or laughter most of the time. Therefore, initially this conversation seems to be a oneway communication of hearsay with limited interaction between the storyteller and recipient. However, as the story proceeds from the beginning to the middle, and from the middle to the end, both the storyteller and recipient contribute cooperatively to the development of the story. This deepens A and B's solidarity with each other through their shared feelings about the characters and increases their involvement in the story world. This interaction also increases their enjoyment of the storytelling as it progresses, as evidenced by an increase in their laughter.

Structu1-e of the story The structure of the story chosen for analysis satisfies all of the elements that Labov ( 1972) deemed necessary for narrative structure: "abstract; "orientation," "eom plieating action," "evaluation:' "resolution" and "coda': I divide the story into the following three stages, based on the amount of laugher by the storyteller and her 3·

A complete transcription of the storytelling is given in the Appendix.

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 27 recipient; the Beginning Stage, where no laughter occurs (1A-34A), the Middle Stage, where light laughter occurs (35A-48A), and the Final Stage, where the laughter is loud and hearty (49A-70A). I. Beginning Stage (no laughter) 1A-34A II. Middle Stage (light laughter) 35A-48A Ill. Final Stage (heavy laughter) 49A-70A

In this section I will analyze a portion of the Beginning Stage and the Final Stage of the story, describing how the storyteller structures the story and uses direct reported speech, and how laughter affects the storytelling. I will also analyze the "internal evaluation" expressed through the direct reported speech, and examine how it affects the interaction between the storyteller and recipient. The goal is to clarify my perspective on the analysis of prosody and voice quality of direct reported speech in a conversation with a storytelling. (2) is the first part of the Beginning Stage of the story. I indicate elements of Labov's narrative structure in bold letters on the right. (2) Beginning Stage (first part) 1 A K t:J~ ~ iJ: !v f:J' - M ~;:: -[!!) tnt- ~ ~ tc. c t:J~ ki ."@ ; L- v, 1v :G ?

;n

e:

Abstract

K ga, nanka: M ni ik-kai dake:. nagurareta koto ga aru rasii n ne? It's that apparently K somehow was punched by M just once, you know?

2 B ? fvo Un. Uhhuh.

3 A ..'f tl. ""f~ I;Jo:toJ C:iJ1 <~'? "L ~>~ Sorede, "Oo" toka . Then, (I) said,

4 A

"Oh!~

and

I]J:: !v ""f J C: f:J' ~ '? t.: G- ~~ "Nande"' toka itta.ra.:~, when (I) asked, "Why?"

5 A

K t:J'~-, £"tif";t~-~'?"L£"ki lt "\ £ 24i § <.~ ; lt "\ t2 ~:1

c:- ~'

Orientation

K ga:, mada tukiatte maa ima ni-nenme gura.i da kedo:~, It is, welL now about 2 years after they started seeing each other, but 6 A 14i~ <.~ G v' 0) <: 0 f:J' G; iJ: v' ~1 C:- ~'

Orientation

Iti-nen han gurai no koro ka siranai kedo:~. (Or) maybe it was about one and a half years, I don't know, but

28

Yuriko Sunakawa Orientation

nanka K ga kekkoo, asondetta rasii no ne? Somehow it's that it seems that K was playing around a lot, you know?

8 A

?fvo Un. Uhhuh.

9 A ki ki~ M ~i~

-t !> 0 !v

Orientation

I~S1d::J '? -c-g- '? L"v~-r- ~~

Aa, M wa, motimn ':Asobu na'• tte itte ite:~, Oh, of course M was saying "Don't play around~ and

10 B ?/vo Un. Uhhuh. Pis utterance in lA is the "abstract" in Labovs terms. This utterance, K ga, nanka: M ni ik-kai dake, nagurareta koto ga. a.ru rasii n ne? 'It's that, apparently K somehow was punched by M just once, you know?: reports the unthinkable and shocking event that strong-minded K had been punched by weak-minded M. This utterance indicates implicitly that A is starting a newsworthy story, so that she will not yield her turn to B for a while. Pis quoted utterances in 3A Oo 'Oh!' and 4A Nande 'Why?' do not take place in Pis storytelling; they are the exclamations A uttered when she heard the story from K. Instead of reporting explicitly how surprising K's story was, A reports what she said using "internal evaluation" (Labov; 1972) to indicate implicitly and efficiently how shocking and newsworthy K's story was. Then, A continues her story with her first orientation utterance in SA. A gives the "orientation" (Labov; 1972) in 5A-9A, reporting background information, such as the length of K and M's acquaintance and the unstable nature of their relationship due to K's flirtation. A uses the imperative form in her direct reporting of M's utterance in 9A Asobu na 'Don't play around'. The sharp tone of this imperative phrase indicates M's frustration with K's flirtation. These detailed descriptions of the background information serve to deepen B's understanding of K's and M's psychological states, and inform her about the cause of their quarrel. The functions of detailed descriptions in the orientation are not limited to the description of background information. By "orienting" the recipient via the background information depicted in the detailed description, the storyteller makes the events of her story seem more believable and realistic, so that her recipient can imagine the scene more vividly. These vivid descriptions help the storyteller to draw the recipient into the story world and to create a state of mind where the recipient can empathize with the actions taking place in the story world (Tannen, 1989, pp. 135-143).

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 29

As is observed in (2), the short excerpt from the Beginning Stage of the story, there are three examples of direct reported speech (3A, 4A and 9A). Although Li (1986) has stated that direct reported speech is "the most common mode of expression at the peak of oral narrative in many languages" (p. 40), in these data, it occurs frequently in other parts as well. Next, I will examine the last part of the Final Stage of the story. A reports that K has become furious after being punched by M, and M bends over backwards to apologize. (3) Final Stage (last part)

62 A

//{'"'"l"'"'"lii1J:!v7'J• Kt, l@jlff ~ 1J: ft>, -~ff ~;i'J: t·•, ;:: (}) J 1J: fv t.J•,

Orientation

r llL:1111f- J 2:: i:J'@~··-? ~ ~ "'0- ~@, II{Hahaha.haha }I I nanka, K mo, "Zettai yurusana.i, issyoo yurusana.i, kono" nanka, "Ranboomono:" toka @iu kanzi de:-')@, //{LAUGH}! I Somehow, @it's like@ K also says "(I) will absolutely never forgive (you) (I) won't forgive (you), for my whole life, this like "(You) bastard!~ and 63 B {'"'"'"'''"'"}

{Hahaha.ha.haha} {LAUGH}

64 A

t -? '9 ;::• t.J...._-:d<:. 'JJ. tc. ft' o Moo sugokatta mitai.

Evaluation

Oh, it seems that (it) was awful. Resolution 65 A M It? =~e: G 1J: v' t.J• !3 l:f fvC: ~;: &0 fv;i'J:: ~ ft>l:f fv (: t<: ;::· &0 fv 1J: ~lt' J //<@???????@>11 M" Moo ni-do to sinai kara honto ni gomen nasai honto ni gomen nasal' //<@???????@>11

c:

M said, "(I)'ll never do (it) again, so I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry"

//<@???????@>11 66 B 11{7 7 }t2 &0 r.: :t n 11~ ~- <@???I!??®> II

II{Huhu} Dame da. sore II zya.: <@???//??@>11 //{LAUGH} That didn't do (him) any goodll (I bet) [lit.//{LAUGH} It's no good thatll being the case]

<@???I/??@> II 67 A

//{;T; ;t; ;t; ;t; }@l:f fvC: ~;: @~11, 1/{Hohohoho} @Honto ni@-')11, //{LAUGH} Reallyll,

30

Yuriko Sunakawa

68 A v~~ i-tl..l;.(*~·::diG~*rf~.P@61"-~@~

Iya, sore irai yappasi,

Coda

aikawa@razu:~@,

No, since then, after all, it's been the same as @always@, 69 B {'"''}

{Haha} {LAUGH} 70 A

i--5@6 Gv~@o

Coda

Soo @rasii@. (It's) that way @apparently@. Compared to the Beginning Stage (1A-34A) where no laughter is observed, the Final Stage (49A-70A) contains frequent laughter. A not only laughs between her utterances, but she also uses "within-speech laughter (Jetrerson 1979), laughter that occurs simultaneously with utterances. For her part, B responds to Xs laughter with even louder and heartier laughter. During the Final Stage, unlike in the Beginning Stage, simultaneous utterances occur frequently, and direct reported speech occurs much more often. 45% of the utterances during the Final Stage (10 out of 22) consist of direct reported speech, compared to 18% at the Beginning Stage (8 out of 34). Direct reported speech occurs at every stage of this story, even in the very beginning. However, it occurs most frequently around the climax of the story (SOA-65A). Laughter, on the other hand, does not occur during the Beginning Stage, but starts to occur during the Middle Stage, especially around the climax, when both A and B laugh heartily.

Internal and external evaluation Explicit comments on the characters and the events of the story occurred only during the Final Stage. A makes an evaluative comment on K's frenzied state in 64A Moo sugokatta. mitai 'Oh, it seems that (it) was awfut and B replies with a negative comment in 66B 1/{Huhu} Dame dasm-ell zya.: '{LAUGH} That didn't do (him) any goodll (I bet). [lit. //{LAUGH} It's no good thatll being the case]'. At this point, A and Bare talking in the present time outside of the story world, about their mutual friends, K and M. Pi..s and B's evaluative comments in the present time prompt A to end the storytelling with the twist that M is still henpecked by K. In other words, this storytelling is lead to a particular ending via Pi..s and B's explicit evaluative comments. According to, Labov (1972) evaluation is "the means used by the narrator to indicate the point of the narrative, its raison dchre: why it was told, and what the narrator is getting at" (p. 366). If we accept Labov's definition, then storytelling without evaluation is pointless, and has no power to attract recipients. On the

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

other hand, storytelling made attractive through evaluation has the power to draw storytellers and recipients into the story world. At the same time, implicit and explicit evaluation help storytellers and their recipients to develop a common view. Labov (1972) divides evaluation into "internal evaluation, evaluation implied within the story world, and "external evaluation~ evaluation which is made explicit from the viewpoint of the storyteller and recipient in the present time. While both types of evaluation are important for constructing stories, "internal evaluation" involves recipients more intensely in the story world and draws them closer to the characters in the story. This is due to the tact that in contrast to "external evaluation': which conveys the storyteller's feelings and thoughts to recipients unilaterally; "internal evaluation" makes recipients feel as if they are actually witnessing the event in the story world, and obtaining their own understanding via their own experiences (Labov, 1972; Tannen, 1989; Mayes, 1990; Besnier, 1993). Evaluation by direct reported speech Direct reported speech is a powerful device that can be used to reveal the storyteller's feelings and attitudes without interrupting the flow of the story. Although direct reported speech seems to reproduce original utterances faithfully, in actuality, it is a reconstructed conversation enacted by the storyteller in her/ his story world. The storyteller performs the voice of the character vividly, as if the character is actually speaking in the present time, and the recipient hears the "real" voice of the character and experiences the event as if she/he herself is witnessing it firsthand (Tannen, 1986; Halt, 1996; Giinthner, 1997b). The utterance in 65A Moo nido to sinai kara honto ni gomen nasai honto ni gomen nasai '(I)'ll never do (it) again, so I'm really sorry. I'm really sorrY. exaggerates M's helplessness. He is presented as if he were a young child, naively repeating a cliched apology in a high pitched voice, with monotonous prosody. By emphasizing the unusualness of the events, the storyteller creates a humorous atmosphere so that she can succeed in infusing her feelings and evaluations into the story; and this in turn involves the recipient in the story world. Meanwhile, the recipient starts to play a more active role as she becomes more involved by laughing along with the storyteller in the Middle and Final Stages. This encourages the storyteller to continue, and leads the story to its climax in cooperation with the recipient. This interaction between the storyteller and the recipient encourages their mutual enjoyment and deepens their sense of solidarity by confirming their common understanding of the events. Direct reported speech not only reconstructs what a character has thought or said, but also reveals the storyteller's feelings and attitudes towards the characters (Tannen, 1986; Besnier, 1993; Maynard, 1996; Giinthner, 1997a, 1997b, 1999; Halt, 2000; Kamada, 2000). It also enables the storyteller to caricaturize the characters

31

32

Yuriko Sunakawa

and their acts in the story. This enables the storyteller to depict the story world vividly, so that recipient also becomes an active and cooperative participant in the story world (Besnier, 1993; Giinthner, 1999).

The recipient as a coopera.tive pm·ticipant In my data, the story is conveyed solely by A, with Busing only back channel utterances and laughter most of the time. During the Beginning Stage, B merely indicates that she is paying attention with the back channel utterances Un 'Yeah'. During the Middle Stage, she laughs a little, and during the Final Stage, she laughs heartily and frequently, sometimes overlapping Rs utterances with her laughter. By the Final Stage, B ceases to be a passive recipient and becomes an active and cooperative participant. Through her laughter she works with A to evaluate K and M's behavior, to make fun of them, and to encourage A to proceed further with the story. In other words, B shows that she shares Rs view through her involvement in lf.s Story by becoming an active participant cooperating with A in the story development.

Analysis of the prosody and voice quality of direct reported speech

In this section, I will analyze the prosody (loudness, pitch range, pitch movement) of the story teller's direct reported speech, in particular, how these prosodic features change as the story develops. I will also describe my perception of the story teller's voice quality as the story develops in order to investigate how she manipulates her voice to create the story world.

The Beginning Stage, where no laughter occurs lf.s story includes a sequence of events that occur in time similar to what Labov refers to as the "complicating action," one of the important criteria for defining a narrative (Labov 1972, pp. 359-362). The excerpt in (4) is the continuation of (2). A initiates the "complicating action in 12A in (4), the utterance immediately following the series of"orientation" utterances in SA, 6A, 7A, and 9A in (2) and llA in (4). (4) Beginning Stage (cont.)

11 A

.:t t·~ ~- ~ 1J: JviJ•- ~ ;5.@ 13- ~ 7J:: !viJ"' K iJ'~

Orientation

~?~~~<7J::?2~-~L~~-~ Soide:, nanka:, enu hi: nanka. Kga. tottemo osoku nat- maa denwa-site te:~,

Then somehow, one day, somehow, K was talking on the phone with him very late (at night), and

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

12 A 1J: Jv iJ• M iJ'i :lO L. (0.5)'? "l-, 1J: Jv iJ• (1.0):5 L. '?' Nanka. M ga oko (0.5) tte:, na.nka (1.0) okot-, Somehow M got angry, somehow, angry

Complicating action

13 B (0.7)'5 fvo (0.7) Un. (0.7) Uh huh. 14 A

15 B

K iJ'I.~'? t~::. tJ) iJ•1J:? K ga okotta. no ka na? Maybe it's that K got angry?

Complicating action

-Jfvo

Un. Uhhuh. 16 A ~~~::db Mt~-::>!i~ -::>"l-~, Demo maa M mo okottyatte:~, But, well, M ended up getting angry too, and

Complicating action

Complicating action 17 A i" fl. ~ - , 1J: Jv iJ• (1.4) it:~,~~ l.t•lt•J t. iJ•B"-::> -rtUI!i:Sli!.t•W-::> -r- ~'

sorede: nanka (1.4)"Zya, moo ii" toka itte denwa otagai kitte:~, and then, somehow (1.4), saying like "Okay, that's enough" they both hung up the phone, and 18 A ~ ~, 7J:: Jv iJ• ~ ~C.: M iJ.. *1<::. iJ• ~t td::> ~to Complicating action Demo, nanka tugi ni M ga mata kaketa wake. But, somehow, next it's that M called (her) again.

In (4), A quotes K and M's utterances when they hung up on each other, with her direct reported speech in 17A Zya, moo ii 'Okay, that's enough'. This is the second example of direct reported speech used by A in this storytelling to report the utterances of the characters. The first example was in 9A Asobu na 'Don't play around: The feature that these two examples of direct reported speech have in common is that there is no difference in prosody and voice quality between the direct reported speech and the surrounding narration. Figures 1 and 2 give the wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 9A and 16A-17A, respectively. The direct reported speech in these utterances is shown in the white area between the two vertical lines. AS direct reported speech in 9A and 17A, shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively, is pronounced with a volume andnarrowpitchrange (131-198Hzand 140199Hz, respectively), similar to that of the surrounding narration. There are no marked prosodic features in these two audio segments. The direct reported speech

33

34

Yuriko Sunakawa

9 A M wa, motiron

'.t\sobu na" tte itte ite:-+, M TOP of course play NP Q say-PROG-GER M was saying "Don't play around': and

Figure 1. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 9A

0

11!!"1

11

16 A Demo maa M mo okottyatte:-+,

but well M also end up getting angry-GER But, well, M ended up getting angry too, and 17 A sorede: nanka (1.4) "Zya, moo ii" toka itte denwa then somehow okay already good like say-GER phone otagai kitte:-+, mutually hang up-GER and then, somehow (1.4) saying like "Okay, that's enough" they both hung up the phone, and Figure 2. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 16A-17A

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story in Figure 2 is only slightly higher in pitch than the surrounding narration, but it is not particularly high. Next, I will examine the other examples of direct reported speech in the Beginning Stage of /f.s story. In (5), the continuation of Xs story in (4), A tells about what happened when M came to K's home. (5) Beginning Stage (cont.)

19 A i" 0) ~if K tt 16. fvt.J', :t5 M 8 i.J' 1J: fvi.J' A-::> -c tc6 G lt' OJ :G?

Orientation

Sono toki K 1va nanka, ohuro ka nanka haitte ta rasii no ne? At that time it's that K was like taking a bath or something, you know? 20 A \! 1J: fv i:i', ~ ~ #: fv #: fv lt' ;t 0) A

Orientation

tl :h ~/:Hid.< -c -,), De nanka, moo zenzen ie no hito dare mo denakute-,),

So nobody at K's home answered his phone call. 21 A ..'f ? G tc 6 M iJ"'\ ~l~"tc,

Complicating action

K fv!i *~*t.::G G ~·~ OJ:G? Soositara M ga. mata, K n ti made kita. rasii no ne? And then, it's that appparently M came over to K's home, you know?

*

;!& 3l[ lt' -::> !> ~ - 3l[ lt' fv tn.t ~ lt' ;t ti - , 1/..'f :h ~ -,)11, N maa tikai ttya: tikai n da kedo ie 1va:, 1/Sorede-,)11,

22 A fv

Orientation

Uhm, it's that (it) is nearby, but, (his) house is, //andll 23 B 1/

// . 't 1"t?.> 11
? fv, ~' *-c --,), Un, de, kite:-,),

Complicating action

Yeah, so (he) came, and 25 A -Rf-::>"'Cl"--,),

matte te:-,), (he) was waiting for her, and

Complicating action

35

36

Yuriko Sunakawa

26 A

~ tt ~ .t

n' id: IY· ·::de!? Vr ~?

Orientation

Sore demo dare mo ki ga tukanakattari site ne? But nobody noticed (him), you know? 27 A

28 A

K
-Bl ~ fv IJ~ ~ '? "L -

Complicating action

Complicating action

~'

Sosita.ra. na.nka, "M ga iru rasii wa. yo" tte no o okaasan ga itte:~, And then like (her mother) said, "M seems to be here, I tell you:: and 29 A

~ lt' ~, I M* L .:@

c. c:)<= tJ: '? -r ~,

fv t2 J '? L

Complicating action

soide, "M kite ru n da" tte koto ni natte~, and so they concluded, "It's that M's here~ and 30 A

~ t I~ lt' t.: ( id: lt' J C: iO' lt' '? L ~' Complicating action Demo "Aitaku nai" toka itte~. But (she) said like "(I) don't want to see (himr'

31 A t2"? "L*~flili~*L -lliO'G~, datte maa kekkyoku kite ru kara~, but, well, afterall (he) is there, so, 32 A

Orientation

*l~b~0~1fid:lt"~J"?"L~l;~~'

Orientation

.Ma "Awazaru o enai" tte kanzi de~, Well (it's) like "(I) have no choice but to see (him):' and 33 A ~ '? tc G L lt' !v tn:r C:- ~, atta rasii n da kedo:~, it's that apparently (she) did see (him), but 34 A

L t.: G1J: fviJ',

Complicating action

Complicating action

~'?~!J~fv~~id:'?~~"?L-~

sitara nanka, yappa.ri kenka ni nattyatte:~. then somehow after all (they) ended up fighting, and The four examples of direct reported speech in 28A, 29A, 30A and 32A in (5) (like the two examples in 9A and 17A illustrated in Figures 1 and 2), do not have any marked prosody or change in voice quality. Figure 3 gives the wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curves for utterances 30A-33A.

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

Xs direct reported speech of K's utterance in 30A Aitaku nai '(I) don't want to see (him)' and K's thought in 32A Awazaru o enai '(I) have no choice but to see (him)' is given between the two sets of vertical lines. Each use of direct reported speech is pronounced in a slightly narrower pitch range (136-185Hz and 111169Hz, respectively), than that of the surrounding narration (78-208Hz), and again, there is no significant difference in prosody and voice quality. All of the cases of direct reported speech of the characters during the Beginning Stage (9A, 17A, 28A, 29A, 30A and 32A) are short phrases of 4 to 12 moras in length, with no marked phonetic features (NB: M's name consists of 4 moras).

30 A Demo "Aitaku nai" toka itte?, but see-DES-NEG like say-GER But (she) said like "(I) don't want to see (him)." 31 A datte maa kekkyoku kite ru kara?, but well afterall come-PER so but, well, afterall (he) is there, so, 32 A Ma "Awazaru o enai" tte kanzi de?, well see-NEG-NOM DO can-NEG Q feeling COP-GER

atta

rasii

n

da

kedo:?,

see-P apparently NOM coP but Well (it's) like "(I) have no choice but to see (him)," and it's that apparently (she) did see (him), but Figure 3. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 30A-32A

37

38

Yuriko Sunakawa

In addition, there is no remarkable difference in prosody and voice quality between the direct reported speech and the surrounding narration. As mentioned before, the recipient B responds consistently with Un 'Uh huh'. Except in 23B when she states the name of the place where M lives, B remains a passive recipient of Pis storytelling throughout the Beginning Stage.

Ihe Middle Stage, where light laughter occurs In the Middle Stage, A tells about K and M's argument and the event of M punching K. (6), a continuation of ( 5), gives the first part of the Middle Stage. (6) Middle Stage (first part)

tc

35 A ..'f ft ~ ""f M iJ~ , 7J: Jv iJ~ (0.5) I 7J: !v J: , Complicating action :to tL ~;t :t5* ;:t 6J JEiJ'J: J '? "t B" '? t<:.@6 G lt~ 6J :G?@ Soide M ga, nanka, (0.5) "Na.n da yo, ore wa omae no asi ka.yo" tte itta

@rasii no ne?@ Then, @it's that apparently@ somehow, (0.5) M said "What? Am I your chauffeur?~ you know? 36 A ..'f tL ""f, K ~;l , K 6) -g '?

~<:: ~;l ~'

Orientation

Sorede, K wa, K no iu ni wa~, And then K, what K said (is) 37 A

lti:"? "t ~ -li JEiJ"' J:.n '? "t llftlt~ '!tt:.G ~ ~' "Datte sa: 'asi ka yo' tte kiite kita.ra. sa~,

Orientation

"But, you know, when (he) asked me i\.m (I) your chauffeur: you know, Orientation 38 A ..'f tL ~;l 1! '? t<:: lt ~- t5 td_, iJ'I ~-, 7J: Jv iJ"' (0.6) ~;E-t .SJ <:.C: ~~, M-Rf G"t 0J::GJ '? o Sore wa. zettai sa: atasi ga. sa.:, nanka (0.6) kootee-suru koto o sa, kitai-

-r

site ru yo ne" tte. (in response to) that (he) definitely, you know, is expecting that I, you know, like (0.6) will give (him) an affirmative answer, isn't he." 39 B

{.I.-"\"'--"\ -"\ }

{Ehehehehe} {LAUGH} 40 A

..'f'?lt~"'JJilo

Orientation

Soo iu huu. (Saying it) in that way. 41 A

l..'ftLti:iJ•G..'f'? lt~? c.C:-g?b~t""fGJ:Jt.iJ•o

"Sore da kara soo iu koto iu wake desyo" toka. "That, so it's that (he) said such things, you know?"

Orientation

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

42 A

Complicating action ltciJ'G ~' li .:f? tc~.ll '? "'C~? "'C tc. rJ)@J t iJ' ~ '? "'C - 7, "Dakara ne, 'Soo da yo' tte itte @yatta no@" toka itte:?, @~ '?

and she said "So, you know, @it's that (I) let (him) have it@ saying 'Yes, (you) are (my chauffer)~ 43 B {777} {Huhuhu}

{LAUGH} The first instance oflaughter in this storytelling is in 35A, where A uses "withinspeech laughter" at the end of her utterance on @rasii no ne@ '@it's that apparently@... , you know?: When B does not respond, A continues her turn with another use of direct reported speech to report K's response to M. After this utterance B laughs for the first time in 39B. Figure 4 gives Xs direct reported speech in 35A Nan da yo, ore wa omae no asi ka yo 'What? Am I your chauffeur?: It starts off with a soft whispering voice, and becomes louder up to asi ka yo 'Am (I) your chauffer?' which is pronounced in a loud voice with a rise on asi and fall on ka yo.

35 A Soide M ga, nanka, (0.5) "Nan da yo, ore then M suB somehow What coP FP I

wa omae no

asi ka yo" tte itta

@rasii

no

ne?@

TOP you CON foot QP FP Q say-P apparently NOM FP Then, @it's that apparently@ somehow, (0.5) M said "What? Am I your chauffeur?~ you know? Figure 4. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 35A

39

40

Yuriko Sunakawa

The direct reported speech in 35A (93-297Hz) in Figure 4 begins with low pitch and gradually gets higher toward the end, with more dynamic pitch movement compared with the direct reported speech in 9A, 17A, 30A and 32A, given in Figures 1-3. In addition, 35A is uttered with more affect and with more deliberate enactment than the direct reported speech in the Beginning Stage. These are the words that M uttered when his frustration from being exploited as K's chauffeur and irritation with K's flirtation with other men exploded. M's desperate wording and emotion-filled voice successfully describe his irritation and indignation at K's behavior. From 36A, A retreats from the story world and returns to a later point in time when A heard the episode from K for the first time. Figures 5 and 6 give the wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 36A-38A (first half) and 38A (second half), respectively, where A reports the words she heard directly from K.

36 A Sore de, K wa, K no iu ni wa?, then K TOP K CON say in TOP And then, K, what K said (is) 37 A "Datte sa: 'asi ka yo' tte kiite kitara sa?, but FP foot QP FP Q ask-GER come-COND FP "But, you know, when (he) asked me 'Am (I) your chauffeur: you know, 38 A sore wa zettai sa: that TOP absolutely FP (in response to) that definitely, you know, Figure 5. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 36A-38A (first half)

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

38 A atasi ga sa:, nanka (0.6) kootee-suru koto o sa, kitai-site ru I SUB FP like affirm NOM DO FP expect-PROG

yo ne" tte. FP FP Q (he) is expecting that I, you know, like (0.6) will give (him) an affirmative answer, isn't he." Figure 6. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 38A (second half)

Xs direct reported speech in 37A is pronounced at first in a low pitch with a quiet voice (based on my perception, the pitch curve is not visible in Figure 5), and as shown in Figure 5, the pitch curve becomes more dynamic when she says the question particle ka (304Hz) and the final particle yo (152Hz). In addition, while speaking in her natural voice, A keeps her mouth partly closed to create the effect of muttering. However, as shown in Figure 6, she speaks more clearly, in a loud voice raising her pitch on each phrase and falling dramatically on the final particle yo in the last half of 38A atasi ga sa:, nanka (0.6) (highest pitch = 204 Hz) kootee-suru koto o sa, (highest pitch= 241 Hz) kitai-site ru (highest pitch= 278 Hz) yo ne (lowest pitch = 85 Hz) '(he) is expecting that I, you know, like (0.6) will give (him) an affirmative answer, isn't he' (SS-278Hz). As she transforms her muttering unclear voice into a clear loud voice, it sounds like she is complaining about something in a demanding tone in order to compel her recipient to accept her point of view. K's wording as reproduced in Xs direct reported speech in 37A-38A, is unusual; when a boyfriend asks his girlfriend if she thinks he is her chauffeur, he is surely expecting to get a negative answer, because an affirmative answer would

41

42

Yuriko Sunakawa

definitely hurt his feelings. However, A reports K as insisting that M was definitely expecting her to give him an affirmative answer, which is obviously unreasonable. Through the combined effect of 1\.s words and prosody; A succeeds in depicting K's selfishness and irrationality. A portrays K as not simply strong-minded, but also as ruthless and selfish, that is, as a young woman who speaks as she likes without paying any attention to her fiancee's feelings. A does not try to explain this to her recipient B explicitly. Instead, A "quotes" K's words, and enacts K's tone of voice in order to allow B to witness K's acts, feel K's ruthlessness and selfishness, and share Pis feelings about K. In (7), a continuation of (6), A tells about how K was punched by M, who was infuriated by K's words. (7) Middle Stage (cont.)

44 A

:tGtcG~l~-?"L~G.tLtc6Gv""~O):G?

Complicating action

Sosita.ra, ba: tte nagurareta rasii no ne? Then evidently it's that (she) was punched (by him), you know? - POW!

45 B {777}

{Huhuhu} {LAUGH}

-*V

t :S K t;J: ::1 'Y :7 ~ t :S o Sositara de, moo K wa.: daisyokku de moo.

46 A i" G tc 6 ~ ~

Orientation

Then, oh, K was terribly shocked, oh.

47 A (1.7)'t:S 1:¥-1'- J?"L~!I~i15~1'"L-~~ (1.7)Moo "Gya:" tte himee wo agete:~, (1.7) (She) screamed "Shriek': and. ~

Complicating action

A t:S~~6~~~~t~-~~t ~~~~""[-~~

Complicating action

Moo dakara ottosan mo okaasan mo tonde kite:~, Oh, both (her) father and (her) mother came running (in), and A uses the the mimetic word ba: 'POW' and an onomatopoetic word Gya: 'Shriek' effectively to show M's fury and the shock K felt at unexpectedly being punched by M, respectively. Mimetic words and onomatopoetic words help recipients experience vividly the events that occur in the story world, and draw the recipient deeper into the story world (Tannen, 1986, p. 327). Pis external evaluations in 46A daishokku de 'terribly shocked' and himee o agete: '(she) screamed' also add to the effect by describing how shocking the incident was. Then, in 48A, A explains that surprised by K's rage, K's parents came running in.

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 43

The final stage, where loud and hearty laughter occurs Both A and B start laughing loudly in the Final Stage. A reports that K's father tries to calm down K and M, and make M go home, but they refuse to listen to him, and continue squabbling. At this point, the story becomes a comical farce, with noisy characters speaking in exaggerated tones. A and B laugh raucously together, completely caught up in the storytelling. (8), a continuation of (7), gives the first part ofthe Final Stage. (8) Final Stage (first part) 49 A

"l K ~i 1f; -'5 ~ .:C lv ~~ ~~ lv 2:: ~;:: (1.0) 1f; -'5 I <: 0) A ~ tL 1J: lt' J 2:: ;Q• J!t ? "l 7~ Tte K wa moo, son tok~ honto ni (1.0) ?

m;

Complicating action

moo" Kono hito sinzirarenar toka omotte7, And K thought oh, at that time, really, (1.0) oh, "(I) can't believe this guy: and 50 A

f;!~lvt.~c::IW~IIIJL!v~W~IIIJL!v~J @? "l 'ip?

Complicatingaction

"l t~/1; L,
mo honto ni "Keesatu yonde keesatu yonde" @tte yutte ta 1/rasikutte@ {Hahahahaha.haha}ll oh really, "Call the police. Call the police~ @(she) was saying //apparently, and@ {LAUGH}! I 51 B

11{7l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\}ll

11{Ahahahahahahahahahahaha} 11 //{LAUGH}! I

52 A

.:Clt"~~~X:~fv;Q~C:IJ&;~ '"f1J:fv;Q"~-

Complicating action

I &; &; -b :Q"~ ? t~ :Q"~ ; J 2:: :Q"~ -g ? "l - 7~ soide otoosan ga toriaezu nanka:, "Aa wakatta kara" toka itte:7, Then (her) father at once somehow said, "Ok. I understand, so .. ; or something like that, and 53 A

I*"&; M~ 2:: IJ &; ~ j" A,- S ~i !)ffl ? "l
Complicating action

@t.;Q•-g? "l -7@~

"Maa M-kun toriaezu kyoo wa kaette kure"@toka itte:@7, "Well, M, for today could you just go home." @(he) said, and@ 54 B { l \ l \ l \ l \ }

{Hahahaha} {LAUGH}

44

Yuriko Sunakawa

55 A

m

~~ 1v c -? ~;: K ~t , 1t -? 0 ; n. 7d: v• Orientation m1.5 6 n ;i'J:J
Really K's like, "I can't believe it. I can't believe it.': and 56 A

~

t -f" G tc 6 M ti - {l 'll 'I}, 1J: Jv t.J•,

Complicating action

I-'? L.> '9 !Ji! ~ £ f.t" Jv J c t.J• B" '? -c ~' Demo sositara M wa: {haha} nanka, "Ya desu. Kaerimasen" toka itte~, but then M said, {LAUGH} like, "No. I won't go home~ and 57 A 1J: 1v t.J•l'J: Jvt.J• t-? '9 r.~v' J6~£"?tc6 G v' O)t;l?

Complicating action

nanka nanka moo sugoi ayamatta rasii no ne? somehow somehow it's that evidently (he) really apologized, you know?

58 A 1J: Jv i:J"' I '9 v1 £ f.t" Jv ~ '9 t·• £ f.t" Jv 'T! G tc. J

Complicating action

c i:J"' B" '? -c - ~'

nanka "Suimasen de suimasen desita." toka. itte:~, saying something like "I'm sorry. I'm sorry."

59 B

{77l'll'll'll'll'll'l}

{Huhuhahahahahaha} {LAUGH}

Figure 7 gives the wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 49A-50A. A comparison of Xs direct reported speech of K's thought in 49A with her direct reported speech of K's cry for help in SOA shows that A reconstructs K's thought during her state of shock in a soft, whispering voice, and K's crying for help in a loud, high voice. A begins her reconstruction of K's thought in 49A Kono hito sinzirarenai '(I) can't believe this guy' with a low pitch (83-224Hz) in a whispering voice, and gradually speaks louder at the end when she says rarenai 'can't'. In contrast, A pronounces K's utterance in SOA Keesatu yonde keesatu yonde. 'Call the police. Call the police, in a loud voice from the beginning in a relatively high and narrow range (183-283Hz), repeating the same phrase twice with a steady beat. A laughs over the last phrase yutte ta 1/rasikutte@ '(she) was saying //apparently, and@: B overlaps her utterance with laughter, and they both continue laughing together from SOA to SIB. Subsequently, A reaches the climax of the story (SOA-65A), in which K's father tries to persuade M to leave, M refuses, and M starts to make an elaborate apology in a noisy farce. A reports that K kept raging even after M began to cry, and, both A and B laugh heartily.

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

49 A

"Kono hito this

sinzirarenai"

toka omotte?,

person believe-POT-NEG like think-GER

50 A mo honto ni "Keesatu yonde keesatu yonde" oh really police call-IMP police call-IMP (K) thought like "(I) can't believe this guy:' and oh really, "Call the police. Call the police': 51 A @tte yutte ta 1/rasikutte@ {Hahahahahahaha}ll Q say-PROG-P apparently-GER {LAUGH} @(she) was saying //apparently, and@ {LAUGH}! I Figure 7. Wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 49A-50A In (9), continued from (8), A tells how M started to cry. Subsequently, the storytelling draws rapidly to a close. (9) Final Stage (cant)

60 A iJ: lv 'IJ' .:f fJ) ? ~ M 'IJ~ 7ft lt' @~ ~ '? 'L -@7, Nanka sono uti M ga nai@tyatte:@?,

Complicating action

Somehow before long, M @ended up@ starting to cry, and 61 B {l\l\l\l\l\1/l\l\l\l\l\ HI

{Hahahahahal/hahahahaha} 11 {LAU//GH}II 62 A

1/{l\l\l\l\l\}lliJ:Iv'IJ', K 1&, IJ§:1;f'Wf ~ iJ: lt', - ~ Wf ~ iJ: lt', 'C. fJ) J iJ: lv 'IJ',

r&alf- J t'IJ'@"'?f.H~~-7@, 1/{Hahahahaha}ll nanka, K mo, "Zettai yurusanai, issyoo yurusanai, kono" nanka, "Ranboomono:" toka @iu kanzi de:?@,

Orientation

45

46

Yuriko Sunakawa

//{LAUGH} II Somehow, @it's like@ K also

says "(I) will absolutely never forgive (you) (I) won't forgive (you), for my whole life, this" like "(You) bastard!~ and

63 B {''''''''''''}

{Hahahahahaha} {LAUGH} 64 A

'fJ Jj "9 r.>tJ' CJ t<:.JJ.. t<:. v'o Moo sugokatta mitai.

Evaluation

Oh, it seems that (it) was awful. 65 A MltJj=J3lcL1J:v•7Y·6!:flvc~;:

Resolution

'C ~ !v 1J: ~ v ':f fv c ~;: 'C ~ fv 1J: ~ v J 11<@???????@>11 M" Moo ni-do to sinai kara honto ni gomen nasai honto ni gomen nasar //<@???????@>11 1

1

M said, "(I)'ll never do (it) again, so I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry:"

11 <@???????@>11 Figures 8 and 9 give the wave form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 62A64A and 65A, respectively. A comparison of ifs reconstruction of K' s utterance in 62A and M's utterance in 65A shows the difference in power between aggressive K and helpless M. As shown in Figure 8, K pronounces her accusation against M in 62A over a wide pitch range (118-319Hz) with fluctuating pitch movement. K also pronounces the evidential @iu kanzi de:@ '@it's like@' with "within-speech laughter." Right after B's subsequent hearty laughter, A uses external evaluation in 64A Moo sugokatta mitai 'Oh, (it) seems that (it) was awful'. ifs reconstruction of M's utterance in her direct reported speech in 65A sounds like a young child who is begging his mother for forgiveness. The wording itself is enough to reveal M's helplessness, but as shown in Figure 9, A pronounces M's utterance in a high pitch (179-338Hz) with a quick monotonous rhythm, allin one breath. The repetition of M's cliched apology. combined with ifs monotonous voice quality, makes M seem even more miserable. Through her choices of wording and prosody, A emphasizes M's helpless and miserable state, and his spinelessness in general. A contrasts her depiction of K as a ruthless and selfish young woman in the Middle Stage with that of M as an absolutely helpless, henpecked boy during the Final Stage. She uses direct reported speech to caricaturize the characters' personalities by presenting them in an exaggerated manner, and this contributes to her construction of a comical farce. In doing so, A and B experience enhanced solidarity, through their confirmation of their shared perceptions of the young couple (K and M).

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a si

K mo "Zettai

yurusanai, issyoo

yurusanai,

K too absolutely forgive-NEG whole life forgive-NEG

kono" nanka "Ranboomono:" toka @iu kanzi de:?@, this like bastard like say feeling COP-GER @it's like@ K also says "(I) will absolutely never forgive (you), (I) w1 forgive (you) for my whole life, this" like "(You) bastard!~ and

Moo sugokatta mitai. oh awful-P seems Oh, it seems that (it) was awful. tve form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 62A-64A

M "Moo ni-do to

sinai

kara honto ni gomen nasai hon1

M oh

two times do-NEG so really sorry reall nigomen nasai" 11<@ ???????®>11 sorry M (said) "(I)'ll never do (it) again so, I'm really sorry I'm really sot 11<@ ???????@>11 tve form, sound spectrogram, and pitch curve for 65A

48

Yuriko Sunakawa

Enactment of voices and interaction I have demonstrated how the storyteller (A) varies in the use of her voice to enact the direct reported speech in her story, according to three developmental stages, which I identified by the increased use of laughter by the storyteller and her recipient (no laughteH light laughteH heavy laughter). In the Beginning Stage, there was no marked prosody or change in voice quality, but from the Middle to the Final Stages, /lis direct reported speech showed increased emotion and variety in tone. When the recipient was just beginning to enter the story world, the storyteller talked rather plainly without much drama, but as the recipient became more engaged, the storyteller gradually changed her tone of voice to portray the story world more vividly. 1his drew the recipient into the story world, and encouraged the recipient to become a more active and cooperative participant in constructing the story. By exaggerating the voices and tones of different characters, a storyteller can draw a recipient into the storytelling, make fun of the characters in the story world, and deepen the recipient's feelings of solidarity with the storyteller by confirming shared perspectives about the characters. A passive recipient, in turn, can gradually become a more active and cooperative participant. 1his not only helps the storyteller carry the story forward, but the recipient's increase in participation also contributes to the direction of the story. (10), continued from (9), is the end of the Final Stage. After /lis story has reached its climax, and A reports M's humble apology in 65A, B comments on the story for the first time in 66B Dame da sore zya: '(I) bet that didn't do (him) any good'. 1his comment prompts A to return to the present time to narrate the coda in 68A-70A, which ends her long story. (10) Final Stage (cont.) 66 B //{7 7 }t2 &0 t2 .'f tl-lll>~- <@???1/??@>11 II{Huhu} Dame dasorell zya: <@???//??@>11 //{LAUGH} That didn't do (him) any goodll (I bet) [lit //{LAUGH} It's no good thatll being the case] <@???I/??@> II 67 A

tt{***7.l'l@l:!fvc~c::@~ll,

1/{Hohohoho} @Honto ni@~ll, //{LAUGH} Reallyll,

68 A lt, ~, .'f tt l;lJI~ ~ ·:di 1.-" .ffi ~ b @6 'f- ~@, Iya, sore irai yappasi.. aikawa@razu:-')@, No, since then, after all, it's been the same as @always@,

Coda

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 49

69 B {'"'"}

{Haha} {LAUGH}

.:t" '? @6 l, v' @o

70 A

Cod a

Soo @rasii@.

(It's) that way @apparently@. Pi..s utterances in 68A and 70A bring the story back to the present and function as the "coda" to end the whole story.

Conclusion

In this paper I have analyzed 11 examples of direct reported speech that occurred in the Beginning Stage, but most frequently during the climax of the story (SOA-65A) in the Final Stage. Previous research has shown how storytellers use direct reported speech to reconstruct the characters' thoughts and words, depict the characters' personalities, and at the same time reveal their own evaluative attitudes towards the characters and their acts. In doing so, storytellers can share their evaluation with recipients without interrupting the flow of the story, thus "preserving dramatic continuity" (Labov 1972, p. 372). I demonstrated how the storyteller used a variety of dramatic voices to enact her direct reported speech as the story develops, in order to get her recipient involved in the story world and encourage her to share a common view towards the events of the story. When the storyteller was successful in thus engaging the recipient, the recipient took a more active role in the conversation. This cooperation enhanced the storytelling experience for both participants. Table 1 summarizes the prosodic features observed in & direct reported speech.

Stage

Figure

Beginning Stage Figure 1 (no laughter) Figure2 Figure 3 Figure 3 Middle Stage Figure4 (light laughter) Figure 5

Figure6

Utterance number and 8s direct reported speech

Pitch (Hz)

Pitch of direct speech in relation to surrounding utterances

Other features

9A "Asobu na"

131-198 Hz

similar to surrounding narration

normal speech

17A "Zya, moo lr 30A "Aitaku nai" 32A "Awazaru o enai" 35A "Nan da yo, ore wa omae

140-199 Hz 136-185 Hz 111-169 Hz 93-297 Hz

similar to sur rounding narration slightly narrower range than surrounding narration slightly narrower range than surrounding narration low pitch at the beginning, gradually getting higher at the end. with more dynamic pitch movement compared to 9A, 17A, 30A and 32A starts in a low pitch, but the pitch curve becomes more dynamic

normal speech normal speech normal speech emotion-filled voice

85-278 Hz

starts in a low pitch with a small voice, then the pitch becomes higher and voice louder

loud. dear voice

83-224 Hz

lower and wider range than 50A

low whisper, gradually louder loud, with steady beat fluctuating pitch movement

no asl kayo" 37A "Datte sa: 'asi ka yo' tte kiite kltara sa~ 38A Sore wa zettai sa: 38A atasi ga sa:, nanka (0.6)

152-304 Hz 101-237 Hz

kootee-suru koto o sa,

quiet muttering, unclear voice

kitai-site ru yo ne" Final Stage Figure7 QJ.eavy laughter) Figure7 FigureS

Figure9

49A "Kono hito sinzirarenai"

183-283 Hz 50A "Keezatu yonde keesatu yonde" 62A "Zettai yurusanal issyoo 118-319 Hz yurusanai, kono" "Ranboomono:" 65A "Moo ni-do to sinal kara 179-338 Hz honto ni gomen nasal honto ni gomen nasar

higher and narrower range than 49A lower and wider range than 65A

higher and narrower range than 62A

quick monotonous rhythm, all in one breath

li I~

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story

References Besnier, N. (1993). Reported speech and affect on NUKULAELAE ATOLL In J.H. Hill & J.T. Irvine (Eds.), Responsibility and evide11ce i11 oral discourse (pp. 161-181 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gtinthner, S. (1997a). The contextualization of affect in reported dialogues. InS. Niemeier & R Dirven (Eds.), The language ofemotions: Conceptualization, expression and theoretical foundation (pp. 247-275). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Gtinthner, S. (1997b). Complaint stories: Constructing emotional reciprocity among women. In H. Kotthoff & R Wodak (Eds.), Communicating gender in context (pp. 179-218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gtinthner, S. (1999). Polyp honey and the 1ayering of voices' in reported dialogues: An analysls of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal ofPragmatics, 31, 685-708. Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219-245. Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 425-454. Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79-96). New York, NY: Irvington Publlshers. Kamada, 0. (2000). Nlhongo no inyoo [Japanese quotation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular (pp. 354-396). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Li, C.N. (1986). Direct speech and indirect speech: A functional study. In F. Coulmas (Ed), Direct and i11direct speech (pp. 29-45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mayes, P. (1990). Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14(2), 325-363. Maynard, S. K. (1996). Multi-voicedness in speech and thought representation: The case of selfquotation in Japanese. Joun1al ofPragmatics, 25,207-226. Sunakawa, Y. (2003). Wahoo ni okeru syuka11 hyooge11 [Subjective expressions concerning Japanese direct reported speech]. In Y. Kitahara (Ed), Asakura Nihongo kooza: Bu11po I [Asakura Japanese series: Grammar I] (pp. 128-156). Tokyo: AsakuraPublishers. Sunakawa, Y. (2006) . Ziyuu kaiwa 110 tyokusetu wahoo [Direct reported speech in Japanese spontaneous conversation]. In Grant- i11-Aid for Scientific Re.search (B) 2004-2007 (Research Theme No. 15320048). Danwa to bunpoo no sette11 [Interface between discourse and grammar]. Research representative, Saburo Aoki (pp. 47-60). Tsukuba: Tsukuba University. Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In F. Coulmas (Ed..), Directa11d indirect speech, (pp. 311-332). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tannen, D. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversatio11al discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51

52

Yuriko Sunakawa

Appendix Beginning Stage (no laughter) 1 A K iJ~, 7;t lviJ'- M t<:: -l§tn1-, ~6

Abstract

tLtcc. C: iJ~ 115~ 6 G t-•!v:G?

K ga, nanka: M ni ik-kai dake:, nagurareta koto ga aru rasii n ne? It's that apparently K somehow was punched by M just once, you know?

2 B ?/vo Un. Uhhuh. 3

A i" tL "'C, 1:10:10 J C: iJ' , Sorede, "Oo" toka , Then, (I) said, "Oh!': and

4 A

17;t!v"'C JC:iJ•g-"":Jtc6-~,

"Nande" toka ittara:~, when (I) asked, "Why?" 5 A

KiJ~-, *t2f-;f~-€i-:J"'C£115

"' *

Orientation

2~ § <~ 6 "' t2 ~1 c:- ~' K ga:, mada tukiatte maa ima ni-nenme gurai da kedo:~, It is, well, now about 2 years after they started seeing each other, but

6 A 1~:¥ <'' 6lt' 0) C. o iJ' L, 61J:: lt 1 ~1 ~- ~'

Orientation

Iti-nen han gurai no koro ka siranai kedo:~, (Or) maybe it was about one and a half years, I don't know, but

7 A 1J:: !v iJ' K iJ~ ~1 '? C. ? , i! !v "'C '? t.:: 6 L, lt' 0) :G ? Orientation nanka K ga kekkoo, asondetta rasii no ne? Somehow it's that it seems that K was playing around a lot, you know? 8 A

?fvo Un. Uhhuh.

9 A

10 B

o !v !)!.;;:; 1J:: J '? -r g- '? -r "•-r- ~' Aa, M wa, motiron 1<\.sobu na" tte itte ite:~, Oh, of course M was saying "Don't play around~ and .:15 &;, M ~i, 1f> ~

?/vo Un. Uhhuh.

Orientation

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 11 A

.:t V "V - ' 7J:: fv :b' - ' I

;1;5 ."@

s - ' 1J: fv iY· K iJ~

Orientation

~?~~~<1J:?*th~~L~~-~

Soide:, nanka:, aru hi: nanka Kga tottemo osoku nat- maa. demva-site te:7, Then somehow, one day, somehow, K was talking on the phone with him very late (at night), and 12 A 1J: fv :b' M :b~ ~ C:. (0.5)? ~-. 1J: fv :b' (1.0)~ c:.?' Nanka M ga oko (0.5) tte:, nanka (1.0) okot-, Somehow M got angry, somehow, angry

Complicating action

13 B (0.7)-J fuo (0.7) Un. (0.7) Uh huh. 14 A

K :b~ rz..? tc. (}) iJ' 1J:? K ga okotta no ka na?

Complicating action

Maybe it's that K got angry? 15 B

'Jfvo Un. Uhhuh.

16 A "V~* tbM ~rz..? !i~? ~- 7, Demo maa M mo okottyatte:~, But, well M ended up getting angry too, and 17 A

Complicating action

.:t tt. "V - , 7J:: fv :b' (1.4) Complicating action I~~, t-? v' v' J ~ :b• ~? ~ 1tlfl!i ~ 1i v' WJ? ~ - 7, sorede: nanka (1.4)"Zya, moo ii" toka. itte denwa otagai kitte:7, and then, somehow (1.4), saying like "Okay, that's enough" they both hung up the phone, and

18 A "V t

*

, 7J:: fv :b• :9( tL. M :b~ tc. :b' ~:1 td? ~:1 o

Complicating action

Demo, nanka tugi ni M ga mata kaketa wake. But, somehow, next it's that M called (her) again. 19 A

.:t (}) 11';1 K t~ 7J:: lv:b•,

Orientation

~ S El iJ• 7J:: fv n' A.? ~ tc. 6 L t·' (}) ~? Sono toki K wa nanka, ohuro ka nanka haitte ta rasii no ne? At that time it's that K was like taking a bath or something, you know?

20 A "V 7J:: fv iJ',

r.: n t

t -? -t! fv -t! fv v' ;"t (}).A

I:HtJ:: <~ ~,

De na.nka, moo zenzen ie no hito da.re mo denakute7, So nobody at K's home answered his phone call.

Orientation

53

54

Yuriko Sunakawa

21 A .:t-? Gt.::GMiJ~*tc, K lv !> l! tc. 6 l- v"" (J) :G ?

Complicating action

**

Soositam M ga ma.ta, K n ti made kita rasii no ne? And then, it's that appparently M came over to K's home, you know?

*

22 A lv :i5 ][[ v"" -::> !> ~ - ]li: v"" lv t2 ~:t l:: v"" ;t tt -, 11.:t fl.l! ~u,

Orientation

N maa tikai ttya: tikai n da kedo ie wa:, 1/Sorede~ll, Uhm, it's that (it) is nearby, but, (his) house is, //andll 23 B 1/

// 11 24 A

*

-? fv, l!, -r Un, de, kite:~.

~'

Complicating action

Yeah, so (he) came, and 25 A *-::>

-r -r -

~'

Complicating action

matte te:~, (he) was waiting for her, and 26 A :t tL 1:.> ~ 11 ~ ~ iJ~ f";f n"" 7J: :iJ' -::> t.:: ~ l-

-c :G?

Orientation

Sore demo dare mo ki ga tukanakattari site ne? But nobody noticed (him), you know? 27 A

K ~ Jil § :iJ"" 6lli -r ~' K mo huro kam dete~,

Complicating action

K came out of the bath, too, and

28 A .:tl-tcGlJ:lv:iJ"", IM:IJ'~v""~06l-v""~bJ:J -::> "'C (J) ~ :t.3 fr.J: ~ lv :IJ~ -g -::> L.' - ~'

Complicating action

Sositara nanka, "M ga. i1·u rasii wa yo" tte no o okaasan ga itte:~, And then like (her mother) said, "M seems to be here, I tell you.': and 29 A .:t t·"" 1:.>, I M* L.' .@ lv t2 J -::> L.'

Complicating action

;: t. ~;:: 7J: '? -r ~' soide, "M kite ru n da" tte koto ni natte~, and so they concluded, "It's that M's here~ and 30 A l! ~ I~ v"" tc ( 7J: v"" J t. iJ"" v' -::> "'C ~,

Demo "Aitaku nai" toka itte~, But (she) said like "(I) don't want to see (him)='

Complicating action

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 31 A tl-::> L" ~Ub ~JI§!BI~ L" ."@ iJ• 6 ~' datte maa kekkyoku kite ru kara~. but, well afterall (he) is there, so,

32 A

Orientation

*"f~:b~~.@~1f7J::l.-•J-::>L"~t:;L_$~,

Orientation

Ma. "Awaza1·u o enai" tte kanzi de~, Well (it's) like "(I) have no choice but to see (him):' and 33 A ~-::> tc 6 L t·' !v tn:r ~- ~,

Complicating action

atta rasii n da kedo:~, it's that apparently (she) did see (him), but

34 A L tc 6 7J:: !v iJ•,

Complicating action

~-::>~0~/v~~lJ::-::>~~-::>L"-~

sitara nanka, yappari kenka ni

nattyatte:~,

then somehow after all (they) ended up fighting, and Middle Stage (light laughter) 35 A ..'f l.- 1 "'[$M ;0~, 7J:: !v iJ' (O.S)ftJ:: !v tt J:, Complicating action .5 :h ~i .5 *" ;t (J) ..@ iJ' J: J -::> L" -g -::> h. @6 L ~-' (J) tl ? @ Soide M ga, nanka, (0.5) ''Nan da.yo, 01-e wa. omae no asi ka yo" tte itta

@rasii no ne?@ Then, @it's that apparently@ somehow, (0.5) M said "What? Am I your chauffeur?~ you know? 36 A

..'f :h L_$, K ~i, K (J) -g -5 ~;: ~i ~'

Orientation

Sorede, K wa, K no iu ni wa~, And then K, what K said (is)

37 A

ftl-::> L" ~-li",@;Q>J:JI-::> L"llftl.-• ~ tc6 ~~'

Orientation

"Datte sa: 'asi ka yo' tte kiite kitara sa~, "But, you know, when (he) asked me 'Am (I) your chauffuuf, you know,

38 A ..'f :h ~i 1! '? tc ~-' ~ - i1S tc L iJ~ ~-, 7J:: fv iJ' (0.6) ~JE"9 ."@cC:~~' WH~L L" ."@ J: tlJ-::> L" o

Orientation

Sm-e wa zettai sa: atasi ga sa:, nanka (0.6) kootee-suru koto o sa, kitai-site ru yo ne" tte.

(in response to) that (he) definitely, you know, is expecting that I, you know, like (0.6) will give (him) an affirmative answer, isn't he=' 39 B { .:r. ~ ~ ~"" }

{Ehehehehe} {LAUGH}

55

56

Yuriko Sunakawa

40 A

..:t-Jlt~"?.Mlo

Orientation

Soo iu huu. (Saying it) in that way.

41 A

r.:tntlt.r. G.:t? ~t~-? cc:.-g?.t>~t""($t...J::Jt.iJ\, "Sore da kara soo iu koto iu wake desyo" toka.

Orientation

"That, so it's that (he) said such things, you know?"

42 A

rtl iJ' G ~, li .:t "? tl J: .!1 '? "L -g '? "L

Complicating action '? tr:.q")@J C: iJ'-g'? "L- ~' "Dakara ne, 'Soo da yo' tte itte @yatta no@" toka. itte:~, and she said "So, you know, @it's that (I) let (him) have it@ saying 'Yes, @~

(you) are (my chauffer)':'

43 B {777}

{Huhuhu} {LAUGH} 44 A

.:tt...tr:.G,J'\~'?-r~G:htr:.GL-lt~q")~?

Complicating action

Sositara, ba: tte nagurareta rasii no ne? Then evidently it's that (she) was punched (by him), you know? - POW!

45 B {777}

{Huhuhu} {LAUGH}

t "? K ~i - 7;: V;:~ 'Y 7 ""f t "? o Sositara de, moo K wa: daisyokku de moo.

46 A .:t G tc G ""[$,

Orientation

Then, oh, K was terribly shocked, oh.

47 A (1.7)'t? f:¥"'~ J'?"L~!I~i15~1'"L-~, (1.7)Moo "Gya:" tte himee wo agete:~, (1.7) (She) screamed "Shriek': and. ~

Complicating action

A t?~~G~~~~t~-~~t 1R ~ "f! ~ "L - ~' Complicating action Moo dakara ottosan mo okaasan mo tonde kite:~. Oh, both (her) father and (her) mother came running (in), and

Final Stage (heavy laughter) 49 A '?L K ~it?, ..:t~~' l:f:~t.~;: (1.0) t -? r ;: q") A .ffi 15 G:h 7J:: lt ~ J t. iJ' £ '? "L ~' Tte K wa moo, son toki, honto ni (1.0) moo "Kono hito sinzira.renai" toka omotte~,

Complicating action

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 57

And K thought oh, at that time, really, (1.0) oh, "(I) can't believe this guy': and

50 A ~i:f/vt.~c::IW~IIIJL!v~W~IliJL!v~J Complicatingaction @'? l. r:P '? l. td/6 L, '? l. @{l\l'll\7\l'll\ 1\ }11 mo honto ni "Keesatu yonde keesatu yonde" @tte yutte ta 1/rasikutte@ {Hahahahaha.haha}ll oh really, "Call the police. Call the police~ @(she) was saying //apparently, and@ {LAUGH}! I

<

51 B

11{7.7\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\}11

1/{Ahahahahahahahahahahaha} 11 //{LAUGH}! I

52 A .!fv"'~~X:~!vi'J~t.IJ&->~ '-f~lvi'J"'1&; &; -b i'J"' '? tc. i'J"' 6 J t. i'J"' -g '? l. - ~'

Complicating action

soide otoosan ga toriaezu nanka:, "Aa wakatta kara" toka itte:7, Then (her) father at once somehow said, "Ok. I understand, so .. ; or something like that, and

53 A

I*"&; M~ t. IJ &; ~'"fA,- S ~i !)ffl '? l.
54 B { l \ l \ l \ l \ }

{Ha.hahaha} {LAUGH}

55 A !:f/vt.-5~c::K~i,l~-5-&~6tl.~v'

Orientation

-&~6tl.~J "JJ.tc.v' ~~~ ~~,

Hontoo ni K wa, "Moo sinzirarenai sinzirarena" mitai na kanzi de~, Really K's like, "I can't believe it. I can't believe it~ and

56 A !! ~ .!f L, tc. 6 M ~i - {1\ l \ }, ~ !v i'J', Complicating action I ~ !! '9 !)ffliJ 1i' !v J t. i'J' -g '? l. 7, Demo sositara M wa: {haha} nanka, "Ya desu. Kaerimasen" toka itte~. but then M said, {LAUGH} like, "No. I won't go home~ and

*

Complicating action 57 A ~!vtJ•~!vtJ•~5"9c."v"' &; -~ '? tc. 6 L- v"' 0) :t1? nanka nanka moo sugoi ayamatta rasii no ne? somehow somehow it's that evidently (he) really apologized, you know?

*

58 A ~ !v i'J"' 1"9 v"' *" 1i' !v!! '9 v"' *" 1i' !v!! G tc.J

Complicating action

58

Yuriko Sunakawa

nanka "Suimasen de suimasen desita" toka itte:~, saying something like "I'm sorry. I'm sorry." 59 B {7 7 J'\l\l'\ J'\l\l\} {Iluhuhahahahahaha} {LAUGH} 60 A

iJ: fv t;• i- (}) -) !i M t;~ bL lt • @!i ~ '? 'L - @~,

Complicating action

Nanka sono uti M ga nai@tyatte:~, Somehow before long, M @ended up@ starting to cry, and 61 B {l\l\l'\l'\l\1/l'\J\l\l'\l'\}11

{Ilahahahaha!!hahahahaha} 11 {LAU//GH}II 62 A

1/{l'\l\J'\l'\l\}lliJ:fvf;•, K 1£>, IK@lfff~lJ::Tt•, -~ff~lJ::Tt•, C. (J)JiJ:fvfJ', ~~:S1!f- J

Orientation

t. t;•@v•-5 m;~~-~@,

1/{Ila.hahahaha}ll na.nka, K mo, "Zettai yurusana~ issyoo yurusana~ kono" nanka, "Ranboomono:" toka @iu kanzi de:~@, //{LAUGH}II Somehow, @it's like@ K also says "(I) will absolutely never forgive (you) (I) won't forgive (you), for my whole life, this" like "(You) bastard!~ and 63 B {'"'"'"'"'"'"}

{Ilaha.hahahaha} {LAUGH} 64 A 1£> -? '9 C t;• '? t<:. "JJ.. tc.v • o Moo sugokatta mitai. Oh, it seems that (it) was awful.

Evaluation

65 A M lt-? =.13tt. GlJ:: lt• t;• 6 !:f fvt. f<:: ;:'" atJ fv 7J:: ~V I !:f fv C: ~L i.:'" atJ fv 7J:: ~ VI

Resolution j

//<@???????@>11 M"Moo ni-do to sinai kara honto ni gomen nasai honto ni gomen nasar //<@???????@>11 M said, "(I)'ll never do (it) again, so I'm really sorry I'm really sorry" //<@???????@>11 66 B

//{77}t2aiJt2i-tLII~~- <@???1/??@>11 1/{Iluhu} Dame da sorell zya: <@???//??@>11 //{LAUGH} That didn't do (him) any goodll (I bet) [lit //{LAUGH} It's no good thatll being the case] <@???1/??@>11

Chapter 2. Manipulation of voices in the development of a story 59

//{*** *}@t~ A,c ~<::@~11,

67 A

1/{Hohohoho} @Honto ni~ll. //{LAUGH} Really! I. 68 A

lt• ~' -'ftLJ;.OI~~? ~;ft.,, fflflb@6 'f- ~@,

Cod a

Iya, sore irai yappasi, aikawa@razu:~@. No, since then, after all, it's been the same as @always@, 69 B

{'"'"}

{Haha} {LAUGH} 70 A

-'f '? @6 L, lt'@o Soo @rasii@. (It's) that way @apparently@.

Coda

CHAPTER 3

Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series Gaze, pointing, and context Chisato Koike Calitornia State University, Los Angeles

This study analyzes the way in which three storytellers use gaze and pointing gestures to disambiguate ellipted referents in a series of three "joint storytelling" sequences (Koike, 2008) about the same event that they all experienced together. Building on previous studies on ellipsis in Japanese discourse, this study elucidates how complex the structure of human referent ellipsis can be, by showing how the three storytellers use multi-resources including ellipsis in the talk-in-interaction to tell their side of the story with no potential ambiguity. I demonstrate that (1) in elliptical utterances gaze selects the explicitly addressed recipient, and pointing supplies the elliptical element, thus suggesting a hierarchy in which gaze overrides pointing, (2) uses of gaze and pointing toward participants can influence the interpretation of ellipsis as well as the participation framewo:rk in storytelling, and (3) the same sustained pointing gesture can provide different ellipted arguments in different utterances. I also show how the participants assisted one other in telling a shared story, while also publicly negotiating responsibility and conflict through different social actions. They used gaze and pointing gestures in elliptical utterances not only to supply ellipted human referents, but also to include the participant in the storytelling as the implicitly addressed recipient and to effectively mitigate conflicting actions.

In this study I investigate the practice of ellipsis focusing on nominal ellipsis as it relates to grammar, gaze, body movements. and participation framework in Japanese conversation. 1 Specifically. I analyze the way in which three storytellers use gaze and

Earlier versions of tliis paper were presented at the 2006 American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference in Montreal, Canada, June 17-20, 2006 (Kolke, 2006) and the 1oth International Pragmatics Conference, GOteborg, Sweden. July 8-13, 2007 (Kolke, 2007). I am most grateful to Professor Polly Szatrowski for her insightful comments and constant encouragement

1.

62

Chisato Kolke

pointing gestures in a series of three joint storytelling sequences,2 in order to elaborate different information in their elliptical utterances about an event that they all experienced together, and shift participation roles. Ellipsis is "the phenomenon whereby speakers omit from an utterance normally obligatory elements of syntactic structure" (Fry; 2003, p. 82). Generally in Japanese discourse speakers use ellipsis rather than pronouns to refer to elements that they assume that their hearers can recover from the linguistic or non-linguistic context (Kuno, 1978). In storytelling, "once participants are introduced overtly; they immediately become candidates for zero anaphora" (Iwasaki, 2002, p. 269). For example, in Excerpt 1, between three male friends (Fujio, Tak.-u, and Seiji), Fujio begins a story with utterances that do not explicitly mention the agents= performer of the verbs in lines 17, 19, and 21. Excerpt 1. The beginning of Fujio's story [the longer version is provided in Excerpt 2] 17 Fujio:

1J: A.d. l"' :G? ""1 (...t~ ~ '9:@ '":J "'C $ '5 "'C Jtr :G? Nanka ne? bureedo-suru tte yuute lite ne? Somehow you know? () (was) saying ()will (go) [do] rollerblading, and, you know?

19 Fujio:

*'

G 1t fviJ' '":J -r Fi iJ• ~:r -r ~ -r fv lJ ~ fv ~;:o Simasen ka tte koe kakete kite Ruri-san ni. Won't ()do (it with ( ))? ()asked Ruri, and,

21 Fujio:

fv 1: llfi '":J "'C ~, Nde 1/itte:, And//( ) went, and,

Fujio's utterances in Excerpt 1 relate to two participants who are present at the conversation (Fujio and Taku), and Ruri, who is not. Prior to Fujio's initiation of his story in line 17, all three parties were introduced as parties relevant to the event (Taku's breaking an appointment with Ruri) that was subsequently relayed in Fujio's story. Taku mentioned that he stood up Ruri in line 15 (Excerpt 2), thus making Taku and Ruri story characters, and Fujio nodded quickly six times in the next turn (line 16), thus making him a party who knew and could tell about the incident. However, it is not clear how the ellipted agents of the verbs in Excerpt 1 are understood. that enabled me to develop earlier versions of my analysis into this paper. I am also deeply indebted to Professor Charles Goodwin for constantly providing me with inspiration and passion for the analysis of interaction. to the particlpants of my data for allowing me to use their conversation. and to the audiences at the above conferences for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am solely responsible for all the mistakes and problems that remain in this paper. 2. I define "joint storytelling" as "storytelling where two or more storytellers who have shared knowledge through firsthand or secondhand experience collaboratively tell a coherent story, shifting tellershlp to depict an event (Kolke, 2008, p. 394).

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

In this chapter, I will investigate the following questions. How do story recipients construe ellipted referents in the course of storytelling without ambiguity when there is more than one character in a story? Do the preceding utterances provide sufficient context for retrieving the full nouns of multiple ellipted referents? What strategies or devices do speakers use to clarify elliptical referents? How is ellipted information embedded concurrently in interactional environments using gaze and body movements together with elliptical utterances? How are gaze and pointing toward the participants in elliptical utterances used to execute social actions (e.g., accusation and defense) and change the participation framework3 during storytelling? How can the results of linguistic and interactional analyses of ellipsis be applied to teaching Japanese?

Previous studies

In this section I give a brief review of relevant previous studies on nominal ellipsis in Japanese which focused primarily on language. In particular, I will review research by Clancy (1982), Shibatani (1990), Fry (2003), and Nariyama (2003) on ellipsis, research by Kuno (1973), Clancy (1980), and Iwasaki (2002) on pronouns, and research on how people interpret and retrieve elliptical information by Clancy (1980), Hinds (1982), Maynard (1989), Horiguchi (1997), and Nariyama (2003). Ellipsis is a pervasive practice in Japanese, particularly in Japanese spoken discourse, as demonstrated by Clancy's (1982) comparative analysis of elicited experimental narratives in written and spoken Japanese. Shibatani (1990) has argued that the high frequency of zero pronouns in Japanese colloquial speech relates to (1) "the high frequency of information exchange between the speech-act participants, where the question sentence provides an immediate linguistic context that facilitates the recovery of the elliptical elements," and (2) "the fact that the presence of both speaker and hearer is taken for granted as non-linguistically provided omnipresentaccessible referents for pro" (pp. 362-363). In a quantitative study of ellipsis in a large annotated4 data corpus of casual telephone conversations in Japanese, Fry (2003) pointed out that ellipsis is "especially common in casual conversation

3· I define "particlpation framework" following Goffman (1981), who claims that "[t]he relation of any one such member to [an] utterance can be called his 'participation status' relative to it, and that of all the persons in the gathering the 'participation framework' for that moment of speech" (p. 137). 4· In Fry's (2003) corpus data, "the individual morphemes, words, or sentences are marked" with annotations, that is, "a combination of phonetic, acoustic, POS [part-of-speech], semantic, and word sense tags" (pp. 13-14).

63

64

Chisato Kolke

between speakers who know each other well" (overall ellipsis rate 5 = 70%) (p. 82), and found that subject/agent ellipsis was by the most common type of argument ellipsis. He also found that subject ellipsis was associated most strongly with transitive verbs and human subjects. Nariyama (2003) also found that "Japanese sentences are structured in such a way that a topicalised argument, predominantly subject, is most prone to ellipsis by sentence devices" 6 and that "non-subject ellipses occur much less frequently than subject ellipses" (p. 267). The findings in these studies are useful for my analysis of the ellipsis of human referents (primarily human subjects) who are both characters in the storytelling as well as participants present in the talk-in-interaction. While the above studies examined ellipsis by one or two participants in the interaction, the present study provides a more complex structure of human subject ellipsis, by showing how three participants use ellipsis to tell a story involving multiple referents with no potential ambiguity. Previous studies have also noted that Japanese speakers do not use pronouns frequently to identify referents. According to Kuno (1973), because Japanese does not have "authentic third-person pronouns," "where English would use he, she, i~ they, Japanese would either (1) have no overt forms, (2) have attribute nouns such as titles, or (3) have full-fledged noun phrases" (p. 17). In an analysis of third person human referents in English and Japanese narratives, Clancy (1980) found that while English speakers used third person pronouns (he, she, and they) for referents more frequently (63.8%) than ellipsis (20.5%) and noun phrases (15.7%), none of the Japanese speakers used third person pronouns (such as kare 'he; kanozyo 'she; or karera 'they'), and ellipsis (73.2%) and noun phrases (26.8%) were used more frequently than by English speakers (pp.131-133). Finally, Iwasaki (2002) pointed out that not only first person pronouns, but also "second and third person pronouns tend to be avoided altogether in actual conversation (zero form)" (p. 35). This raises the question of how people interpret and retrieve elliptical information in extended sequences such as storytelling when there is more than one referent. Nariyama (2003) proposed three devices that enable referent retrieval for ellipses in written discourse; (1) sentence devices which operate to identify the subject (which is most prone to ellipsis), (2) discourse devices governing the interaction of wa. (topic)lga (subject) marked subject-related elements, which provide the initial default interpretation for ellipsis, and (3) predicate devices which operate

tar

5· In Fry's (2003) corpus data (which contain 16,855 annotated predicate tokens), 11,569 of the 38,883 (approximately 30%) available argument slots were filled. The remaining approximately 70% of available argument slots that were not filled underwent ellipsis (pp. 85-86). 6. According to Nariyama (2003), "the higher an argument is in terms oftheperson/animacy hierarchy and discourse salience, the more prone it is to being ellipted; and "the transitivity of the sentence has an effect on ellipsis permissibility" (pp. 262-263), that is, sentences with high transitivity are more likely to have arguments ellipted..

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series to verify the default referent interpretation (p. 352). Although Nariyama's argument is useful. it does not consider factors related to the interaction between the speaker and hearer(s) (because it focuses on written discourse). Hinds (1982) suggested that the basic strategies for interpreting the referents of nominal ellipsis in Japanese oral narrative are "paragraph topics and case frames, 'scripts' for stereotyped actions, the salience of actors, reference to speaker motivations, and reference to story progressions" (p. 125). Maynard (1989) argued that elliptical phrases "are to be interpreted by incorporating grammatical, contextual. presuppositional, and socio-cultural information that is recoverable or identifiable" (p. 33). Horiguchi (1997) also stated that a hearer retrieves ellipted parts and understands elliptical utterances by using one or more of the following elements as clues: linguistic information such as vocabulary, grammar, and intonation, the hearer's knowledge and information about the speaker, the relationship between the speaker and hearer, shared and unshared information between the speaker and the hearer, the speaker's tone of voice, facial expressions, and nonverbal behavior, information relevant to the conversation, common sense, scenes, and contexts. (pp. 109-11 0; translation by Koike)

It is important to note that speakers do not continue to exploit ellipsis throughout an extended sequence. Clancy (1980) pointed out that in Japanese narratives speakers switched from ellipsis to noun phrases in order to mark various discourse boundaries such as introduction-action shifts, episode boundaries, world shifts, and digressions. and to monitor "the discourse from the standpoint of the listener's need for clarity (p. 160). She also suggested that speakers make use of linguistic devices such as immediate repetition of the subject with some elaboration and postposed subjects "to compensate for potential ambiguity and to be certain that the listener has understood switch references" (Clancy. 1980, p. 169). The question arises as to what happens when a hearer fails to interpret elliptical referents and the speaker does not use linguistic devices such as immediate repetition of the subject and postposed subjects to clarify them. Clancy (1982) found that in the course of oral narratives the hearer interrupted the speaker to request clarification when there was ambiguity in elliptical subject switch references (p. 66). Hinds (1982) also pointed out that when a speaker "does not properly evaluate his partner's ability to decode an utterance ... it typically leads to 'repair sequences'" (p. 127). Horiguchi (1997) found that in order to maintain a smooth conversation when retrieving ellipted parts of a speaker's utterance hearers (1) retrieve ellipted parts only in their head without expressing them verbally. (2) supply the ellipted parts verbally. thus eo-constructing the speaker's utterance, (3) request confirmation of the ellipted parts, and (4) request clarification using question-words (pp. 127-128).

65

66

Chisato Kolke

The previous studies cited above elucidate the linguistic strategies that speakers and hearers use to interpret and clarify elliptical subjects, retrieve ellipted referents from the prior context or explicitly supply them retrospectively (e.g., by the speaker's postposed utterances or by the hearer's other-initiated repair). Building on these studies, I will demonstrate that storytellers also utilize non-linguistic strategies such as pointing at participants during utterances with elliptical arguments in order to indicate referents. I will also examine how uses of ellipsis in storytelling a:trect the participation framework in talk-in-interaction.

Analysis

In the analysis I investigate a series of three joint storytelling sequences, in which three male friends (Fujio, Seiji, and Taku) recount the same event that they all experienced together in three different ways, each telling their side of the story. 7 First, I analyze how gaze and pointing gestures are used for di:trerent functions in the elliptical utterances in Fujio's story (Excerpt 2). Second, I demonstrate how participants use gaze and pointing gestures during elliptical utterances not only to supply ellipted information, but also to change the interpretation of utterances and to change participation roles in Seiji's story (Excerpt 3). Third, I analyze how elliptical utterances are built using the immediate local environment as well as prior sequences in Taku's story (Excerpt 4). In addition, in each excerpt I examine how each of the three storytellers and his story recipients negotiate their accounts, achieve mutual understanding about the event being recounted, and collaborate in creating the whole picture of the event that they all experienced from different positions.

Fujio's story: Elliptical infonnation and body movements

In this section, I examine how gaze and body movements function in elliptical utterances. Holmes (1984) has noted that speakers use gaze to select the "explicitly addressed recipient.: Following Holmes (1984), I define an "explicitly addressed recipient" as a "particular recipient as exclusive addressee" who is singled out "explicitlyor overtly" by speakers, and an "implicitly addressed recipient" as another/ 7· To protect participants' privacy, pseudonyms are used. Fujio, Seiji, and Taku, all in their mid-twenties, are coworkers at the same company in Japan. They all speak in the Kansai dialect. Fujio uses the "formal style (desu/masu style)" (Makino & Tsutsui, 1986,p. 42) in the conversation, probably because he is younger than and junior to Seiji and Taku (who use "informal style") in the company. The conversation was videotaped at a Japanese bar restaurant in Kyoto, Japan, while the participants were eating dinner and drinking after work.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

other "copresent recipient[s]" addressed "implicitly or covertly" (p. 312). I will show how speakers use gaze to select the "explicitly addressed recipient" and pointing gestures to supply elliptical information. Then, I will examine how Fujio uses his story to accuse the principal character8 (Taku, who is present in the talkin-interaction) of being mean to another character (Ruri).

Using pointing gestures to indicate elliptical information Prior to Excerpt 2 Taku mentioned that the okonomiyaki 'Japanese-style pancake' that he and Seiji ate together the other day was delicious, and he adds in line 15 that it was the day that he (Taku) stood up their mutual female friend Ruri. Subsequently, Fujio tells a story to explain how Taku broke his appointment with Ruri and Fujio. It is important to note that the storyteller Fujio does not explicitly state the agent of the actions in the beginning of his story. In this way Japanese speakers can omit information in utterances when they assume the hearer can retrieve the information from the context. 9 Excerpt 2. Fujio's Story (Fujio = storyteller) 15 Taku:

C. O)JJ(jf.T'? td!'f~ fvo Jv 1) ~ fvJ;.. ·:::>t.::ll;f~ o{?"''"'""'-""'}

Kono mae itta toki yan. Ru1·i-sa.n hutta toki ya. {U he he he he} (It)'s the time when (we) went (to eat okonomiyaki) the other day. (It)'s the time when (I) stood up Ruri. {LAUGH}

16 ~

17 Fujio:

(1.0)

1J:/vi.J':G?/v-J-?'9.@"?"LI9J'?"L/!L:G? Nanka ne? bureedo-suru tte yuute lite ne? Somehow, you know? () (was) saying ()will (go) [do] rollerblading, and, you know?

18 Taku:

//{""\""\""\""\}

//{He he he he} //{LAUGH} ~

19 Fujio:

UJ; tt !v iJ' "? "L Jlii.J' ~1 "L ~ ""C Jv lJ ~ !v ~;::. o Simasen ka tte koe kakete kite Ruri-san ni. Won't ()do (it with ( ))? ()asked Ruri, and,

8. I define a principal character as a story character whose actions and events are narrated as central to the storytelling. 9· The Appendix of Chapter 1 gives information about the Rorn.anization, transcription conventions, and the English translation used in the examples. Further information about transcription is given in Appendix A, and a full transcription of the storytelling sequence analyzed here is given in Appendix B of this chapter.

67

68

Chisato Kolke

~

20

(1.0)

21 Fujio:

fv t! llfi '? -r- ~ Nde 1/itte:, And//( ) went, and, //~? f: J? '? t<:.fvo liE? So yatta n.

22 Seiji:

//What? Is it that (it) was so? ~

23 Fujio:

'?fvofv'Tffi"?L-~ !::f7J:fi~£LJ:iJ'-~'5l":G-~*l

- ~ 1'6 - q:r f:Ht; ~ ~Un. Nde itte:, hona ikimasyo ka: yuute ne:, kite:, Taku-, Nakai-sensee mo:, Yeah. And, ( ) went, and ( ) said well then shall (we) go, you know, and ( ) came, Taku-, Instructor Nakai also, 24 Seiji:

0

'5 fvo 0

oun.o 0

25 Fujio:

Uh-huh. 0

*-r, 1'6~ fv kr ~ "fvlJ: 35 ~ '? tc.GJv l) ~ fv!::f fv t:;~ 1'6~ fv ~~~£LJ:~-~~"?~6-~~'?~~~~~*·~Ll"

'%Jfv Tf't J:Jv l) ~ fviJ'~o kite, Taku-san keehen naa yuttara Ruri-san honzya Taku-san ni kakemasyo ka:, yuttam.:, mettya metya da.ibakusyoo-site 1·u n desu yo Ruri-sa.n ga.. came, and when () said Tak:u hasn't come, has he, and when Ruri said well then shall () call Taku, it's that () is laughing out loud, Ruri (is). 26 Taku:

{l\1'\/fl'\ l'\}

{Ha. ha.l!ha. ha.} {LAUGH}

I f0'5 fv o o /f0Un. 0

27 Seiji:

/f0Uh-huh.0 ~

28 Fujio:

fiiJiJ' 7J:- !t tc. G~fvl:: fv:G !vi!'? -r v' '5o Na.ni ka na: omota.m. nondon nen 1/tte iu. When ()wondered what is (going on), it turns out that (lit. (the situation) is that) it's that ( ) is drinking.

29 Taku:

1/{l'\l'\l'\}

!!{Ha. ha. ha.} //{LAUGH}

30

(0.3)

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

Fujio starts telling his story in line 17 Nanka ne? bureedo-suru tte yuute lite ne? 'Somehow, you know? ( ) (was) saying () will (go) [do] rollerblading, and, you know?' and line 19 Simasen ka tte koe kakete kite Ruri-sa.n ni. 'Won't () do (it with ( ))? ( ) asked Ruri, and~ However, from the beginning of his story, he does not explicitly state the agent of the verbs '(was) saying' and 'will (go) [do] rollerblading' in line 17 and 'asked' in line 19, respectively. Fujio continues to tell his story in line 21 Nde itte: 'And () went, and' and in line 23 Nde itte: 'And, ( ) went, and' but in each utterance Fujio does not explicitly state the agent of the verb 'went.' IfFujio were describing the actions of a single person (e.g., his/her own actions), we could assume that the agent of the verbs in line 17 to line 23 remains the same. However, in this story; which is triggered by Taku's utterance in line 15, there are at least three possible agents: Taku, Fujio, and Ruri. This raises the question of how participants understand the agent of several different actions in a story when the agent is not explicitly stated. 10 Figures 1, 2, and 3 show Fujio's body movements in lines 17 and 19, lines 21 and 23, and line 28, respectively. As shown in Figure 1 (lines 17 and 19), Fujio looks at Seiji, while pointing at Taku with his left index finger. Then, as shown in Figure 2 (lines 21 and 23), Fujio moves his left hand and points at himself with his left index finger, while continuing to gaze at Seiji. Finally, in Figure 3 (line 28), Fujio again points at Taku while looking at Seiji. The dotted underlines in the Japanese, the Romanization, and the English translation indicate the parts of utterances where the described gaze and pointing gestures are sustained. The frame grab pictures are taken from this section of the utterance. The bold italics in the parentheses in the English translations give ellipted information that is understood. 17 Fujio:

1J:A.dJ>:G?_::1l-::.:-=.E~-~2_1:.~_?_'Ift:.C@?

Nanka ne? p_£!_r..e:_e_49_-§l:f!_l!.!!~Y.If~~e_((~e_!}_e_? Somehow, you know? .Qz_e)_{~~-~~yjp._g.Qz_~)_~l!_(g_oll~_
-~-~j£&_i2~2_T_f!_;?~}d:_I_~_T!k~~l_\.d;_o

Simasen ka tte koe kakete kite Ruri-san ni. -------------------------------------------

}:Yq!ft_(r~-~~g_(it\Yl!!t_(~~m_(hd~!!.~~~-R~~-~~.

It should be noted that the agent of the verb in line 19 koe kakete kite 'ask [towards the speaker's in-group]' is construed as neither Fujio nor as Rur!. If the agent were Fujio (I.e., 'I'), Fujio would use koe kakete 'ask' without specifying the direction with a motion verb such as kite 'come-GER.' Ruri also cannot be the agent of the verb, because she is the recipient of the verb. Thus, based on Japanese grammar alone the agent of the verb can be construed as Taku.

10.

69

70

Chisato Koike

Fujio

Figure 1. Fujio's gaze and pointing gesture in lines 17 and 19 ((Fujio looks at Seiji while pointing at Taku with his left index finger.))

21 Fujio:

lv 'l:" !lfi2_'I:-:_, Nde llltJ~!J And I /{!.L':Y~_l!t_~!1.4

23 Fujio:

_?_&_!}_&.':SJ3.-'?_'I.:-:_, ... J!?J.:JY..4~_i!!~!J ... X~@.=AnAin_':Y~_t!t_~.!! ...

Fujio

Figure 2. Fujio's gaze and pointing gesture in lines 21 and 23 ((Fujio maintains his gaze at Seiji while pointing at himself with his left index finger.))

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

28 Fujio:

friJ'IJ' i:r.- JM.fc. Gfl\.&."?.&R&ff2.T..."':!.'..?.o Nani ka na: omotara tt..C!.1Jf!-_o_1'];_1'J:f!.1J.I!J!~_i_t!· When (I) wondered what is (going on), !U!:l.t:.l!~.
Fujio

Figure 3. Fujio's gaze and pointing gesture in line 28 ((Fujio maintains his gaze at Seiji while pointing at Taku with his left index finger.))

First, Fujio begins looking at Seiji in line 17 and continues to gaze at Seiji through line 28. In Fujio's story, Fujio is both the storyteller and one of the story characters, Taku is the principal character who knows Fujio's story, ie., the knowing story recipient, and Seiji is the only participant who does not know his story, ie., the unknowing story recipient 11 Because stories tend to be told to recipients who have not heard them (Sacks, 1974, 1992), Seiji is the explicitly addressed story recipient in Fujio's story. Fujio's maintenance ofhis gaze toward Seiji in lines 17 through 28 also indicates that Fujio has selected Seiji as the explicitly addressed recipient (C. Goodwin, 1981, 1984; Heath, 1984; Holmes, 1984; Lerner, 1993, 1996; Szatrowski, 2000 12). n. C. Goodwin (1979) defined a "knowing recipient" as "a possible recipient already informed about that event" and an "unknowing recipient" as "a possible recipient not expected to know about an event being reported by a speaker" (p. 100). In this study, I expand his notion of a knowing recipient and define a knowing recipient as a possible recipient expected to know about an event being reported by a speaker through firsthand (by having eo-experienced the event) or secondhand experience (by having been informed about the event via the speaker, other people, or other resources). Szatrowski (2000) pointed out that speakers used gaze to distinguish between ratified participants and waki 'assistant' participants in eo-constructions of utterances in Japanese conversation.

12.

71

72

Chisato Kolke

Fujio's pointing gestures in lines 17 through 28 supply the ellipted agents of the verbs in these utterances. Thus, he points at Taku (the principal character in the story) to indicate that "he" (Taku) is the agent of the verbs bu1"eedo-su1·u '( ) will (go) [do] rollerblading' andyuute te '()(was) saying and' in line 17, koe kakete kite '()asked and' in line 19, and nondon '()is drinking' in line 28. In lines 21 and 23, he points at himself to indicate that the agent of the verb itte '( ) went, and' is "I" (the storyteller Fujio). Fujio's use of gaze and pointing toward the story characters (present in the speech situation) indicates the explicitly addressed recipient and who the ellipted referents are in his storytelling utterances. This provides further support for C. Goodwin's (2003b) claim that di:trerent simultaneously juxtaposed "semiotic systems" (e.g., talk. publicly displayed gesture, surrounding materials including the participants in talk-in-interaction) "mutually elaborate each other in a way relevant to the accomplishment of the actions that make up the setting" (p. 238).

Fujio's action in his story: Accusation against Taku Fujio uses his story to accuse Taku. Prior to Fujio's story, Taku says in line 15 Kono mae itta toki yan. Ru1·i-sa.n hutta toki ya. {U he he he he} '(It)'s the time when (we) went (to eat okonomiyaki) the other day. (It)'s the time when (I) stood up Ruri. {LAUGH}: Although Taku's laughter at the end of this utterance suggests that the event ofTaku standing up Ruri is tellable and also that his potential story would be something funny (Sacks, 1974), Taku does not continue to tell the story. Instead, it is Fujio, who nods quickly six times during the 1.0-second pause in line 16, while turning his head and upper body to the unknowing story recipient Seiji, and starts telling the story to him from line 17 in order to elaborate this event (i.e., how Taku stood up Ruri), which Fujio also experienced firsthand. Fujio does not characterize his story as a funny story, even though Taku initially projected the event as a funny one in line 15 and laughs in lines 15, 18, 26, and 29 during Fujio's story. 13 Rather, Fujio portrays Taku as an irresponsible selfish villain who stood up Ruri and other friends because he was drinking, despite the fact that Taku had invited Ruri to go rollerblading in the first place. The fact that Fujio is accusing Taku is also evident in Fujio's body movements; although the principal character, Taku, is present and sitting across the table from Fujio in this storytelling, Fujio tells his story facing Seiji without looking at Taku during the entire storytelling. However, as Taku's continuous laughter in Excerpt 2 suggests, 13. Although Fujio does not characterize his story as a funny story, in his story he mentions that Ruri was laughing out loud when she called Taku in line 25, and grins slightly (though not laughing out loud) at the very end of his utterance in line 28.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

Taku considers this event to be a funny one and does not show any feelings of guilt about his misbehavior.

Seiji's story: Gaze and body movements in elliptical utterances and story participation

In this section, I will first demonstrate how pointing at participants in the talk-ininteraction can be used to supply information other than the agent of verbs, and then analyze how gaze and body movements can be used with elliptical utterances to create different interpretations related to story participation. I will also examine how the second storyteller Seiji uses his story first to admit blame and then to defend himself, and how his unknowing story recipient (Fujio) participates actively in the storytelling and changes the storyline in Seiji's story into an accusation ofTaku.

Gaze, pointing gestures, and sto1y interpretations Excerpt 3 occurs after Fujio finishes telling his story in Excerpt 2 about how Taku broke his rollerblading appointment with Ruri and Fujio because he was drinking. In Excerpt 3, immediately after the completion of Fujio's story, Seiji confesses that he was the one that invited Taku to have a drink on that day, and subsequently tells his side of the story. While Seiji is telling his story, both he and Fujio accompany their elliptical utterances with body movements. Excerpt 3. Seiji's Story (Seiji = storyteller) Pre -storytelling sequence 31 Seiji: .15, C 3D Jv o fX J;;. t;: $§ '? 1/t.:: 0) ~i-, A, gomen. Nomi ni saso/!tta no wa:,

Oh sorry. The one who invited (him) to drink 32 Taku:

//{"""'"""'"'}

!!{He he he} //{LAUGH} 33 Seiji:

7'J: Jv t.1J:
34 Taku:

//{7777} !I{Hu hu hu hu} //{LAUGH}

73

74

Chisato Kolke

35 Fujio:

*

v~ J(o> I!:la v~ '9 J: o Iya 1/tigaimasu yo. No. //(That)'s not (it), I tell you.

/1-ili:IUJJ J(o> o

36 Taku:

1/lti-ban sa.isyo ya. //(You) (were) [are] the very first (one). 37 Fujio:

:la-? o i£5 0), ~'? t.:: t

fv;Q'\ B v~@'? L"v~ "?, @{7 7 7} Tigau. Ano, notta m on ga warui @tte iu,@ {Hu hu hu}

(That)'s not (it). Uhm, (the situation) is that the one who accepted (the invitation to have a drink) is to blame (lit. bad).

{LAUGH} 38

(1.5)

39 Fujio:

.:C "? o .:C "? o = Soo. Soo. = Right. Right. =

Storytelling sequence 40 Seiji: //(! t~

//Demo. //But. 41 Fujio:

//= -t!:'? t.J~ <. '{cl7;_, 1/=Sekkaku nee, //=All the trouble, you know,

~ 42 Seiji:

-IJ~i -:ni!flfll: '? L fvo

boku wa: kakunin totte n. it's that I got confirmation. ~

43

(1.3)

44 Seiji:

~Bti~~.@?'?L"//!I:flv~-r-,

Kyoo wa nomeru? tte 1/kiite:, Can ( ) drink today? !I( ) asked ( ), and,

//5 lvo

45 Fujio:

1/Un. //Uh-huh. 46 Seiji:

fv'C!-,/!f'vl)-, nde:, 1/Ruri-, and I !Ruri-,

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

~

//fii.JL"~$ldcfvo ~.b"f?

47 Fujio:

I/Nan te henzi-sita n. Mayowazu? /!What is it that ()answered? (Was it) without hesitation? 48 Seiji:

;t?&5~ 5fv~ff@5fvo@

E? A, un, 1/@un.@ What? Oh, yeah,//@yeah.@

11{77\l\l\l\l\} !!{A ha ha. ha. ha. ha}

49 Fujio:

//{LAUGH} 50 Seiji:

@~id: .i5 o @ .h

@Yanaa. @.h @Was (his answer), you know.@ .h 51 Fujio:

@&5 f:J' lv t:J~ id: &5o@ @Akan ganaa.@ @(It's) no good, you lrnow.@

52 Seiji:

*~ ~

Iede, At home, Seiji's pointing toward Taku supplies information about participants other than the agent of verb in the elliptical utterance in line 42. In line 40, Seiji begins to tell his story about how he invited Taku for a drink on the day when Taku had a prior appointment with Ruri and Fujio. Seiji's utterance in line 42 boku wa: kakunin totte n. 'it's that I got confirmation' indicates explicitly that the agent of the verbal predicate totte n 'it's that () got: is boku '1: 14 As shown in Figure 4, while saying kakunin totte n 'it's that ( ) got confirmation' in line 42, Seiji moves his left hand toward Taku (palm facing up, fingers extended and together) pointing at Taku with the extended fingers of his left hand. 15 He also gazes from Fujio to Taku and back to Fujio as shown in Figure 4. I indicate the receiver of and the beginning and end of Seiji's gaze with arrows that correlate with the Romanized version of the Japanese transcript.

14· It may be that Seiji indicated the agent boku 'I' in line 42 explicitly in order to emphasize his action of self-defense. Seiji is telling his story in Excerpt 3, in order to justify his action of inviting Taku for a drink, which eventually led to Taku breaking his prior appointment. 15. Seiji sustains this pointing gesture throughout the underlined part of his utterance in line 42 and after his utterance while he is gazing at Fujio.

75

76

Chisato Koike

42 Seiji:

~ ~;J: -1iJ!~_ljg2_'I &.o

boku wa:

kakunin

totte n.

------------------<--Fujio--> <------ Taku------> <---Fujio---> as for me, !f~J.h.'!1J!l.&q!fQl!!i!!!l.'!.tJ9!l·

Fujio

Figure 4. Seiji's gaze and pointing gesture in line 42 ((Seiji points at Taku with the extended fingers of his left hand and moves his gaze back to Fujio from Taku immediately after his utterance.))

Because Seiji states the agent of his utterance explicitly in line 42, he is free to use his pointing gesture toward Taku in line 42 to supply information about participants other than the agent of verb. As Iwasaki (2002) noted, verbs of receiving "require a receiver (ga), a sender (ni) and a transferred object (o)" (p. 95) in their argument structure. Similarly, in the phrase kakunin (o) toru 'get/receive confirmation: the verb toru 'get/receive' requires a receiver (of confirmation), a giver (of confirmation), and an object (in this case, kakunin 'confirmation') as arguments in its default argument structure. Seiji's utterance in line 42 contains arguments for the receiver (boku 'I') and the object (kakunin 'confirmation'), and Seiji's pointing gesture in line 42 indicates that the giver of confirmation was Taku. In this way gestures pointing toward participants can be used to supply not only the agent of verbs as discussed in Excerpt 2, but also information about other ellipted arguments. Next, I will examine the elliptical utterances in lines 44 and 47 to illustrate how gaze and pointing gestures can influence the interpretations of elliptical utterances during storytelling. In line 44 (repeated below as lines 44a and 44b) Seiji elaborates on how he got confirmation from Taku. Line 44a Kyoo wa nomeru? 'Can ( ) drink today?' is reported speech, specifically reporting the question Seiji asked Taku when he invited him to have a drink. Therefore, the agent of the final verb in line

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series 77

44b kiite: 'ask(ed) and' is construed as the same as that ofhis prior utterance in line 42 (ie., boku '1'). However, the ellipted agent (Taku) of the verb nomeru 'can drink' in Seiji's reported speech can have two different interpretations depending on who Seiji selects as the explicitly addressed recipient of this reporting of his own question to Taku, and these interpretations have implications for his actions (e.g., self-defense) as well If Seiji were to gaze at Fujio (the unknowing story recipient of Seiji's story in which Seiji and Taku are story characters) when he utters his reported speech, the agent of nomeru 'can drink' would be interpreted as the third person making line 44 roughly equivalent to '(I) asked can (he) drink (with me); because Fujio knows that he is not the agent. However, as shown in 44a in Figure 5, actually he gazes at Taku (the original recipient of the invitation) when he utters the reported speech. Thus, the agent is interpreted as the second person making line 44 roughly equivalent to '(I) asked can (you) drink (with me): 44 a. Seiji:

~§J_~~~-~?

&Q!'.l"::l:!-'1!'!'J~!.t!.? _g~n..(yP..f!l.
Fujio

Figure 5. Seiji's gaze and pointing gesture in line 44a ((Seiji looks at Taku while pointing at him with his left hand.))

44 b. Seiji:

?'L//Mlt""~'L-,

tte 1/kiite:, 11(1) asked (him), and,

78

Chisato Koike

Fujio

Figure 6. Seiji's gaze in line 44b 16 ((Seiji looks at Fujio while lowering his left hand onto the table.))

As shown in Figures 5 and 6, Seiji looks at two different recipients within one single utterance (C. Goodwin, 1979). 17 He directs his gaze at Taku, while continuing to point toward Taku throughout line 44a Kyoo wa nomeru? 'Can (you) drink (with me) today?: but as soon as he finishes his reported speech, he turns his gaze toward the unknowing story recipient Fujio while lowering his left hand onto the table in line 44b tte kiite: '(I) asked (him) and: 18 Therefore, Seiji's gaze toward Taku in line 44a suggests that he is not justreproducingwhathe said, but "demonstrating" 19 (Clark & Gerrig, 1990; Koike, 2001) how he looked at Taku when he asked him this question by looking at Taku (the original recipient of this question), not at Fujio (the explicitly addressed recipient of his story). In addition, Seiji's gaze provides a resource for interpreting the agent of the verb nomeru 'can drink' as the second person. 16. Fujio's right hand in Figure 6 (line 44b) and Figure 8 (line 51) is not a pointing gesture. He

just happens to have his right hand with his index finger extended, while holding a slice of pizza. 17. C. Goodwin (1979) demonstrated how a speaker adjusted his construction of a single sentence as he addressed it to three different recipients in order to "maintain its appropriateness to its recipient of the moment" (p. 98). 18. It is worth noting that Seiji continues pointing with his left hand at Taku from lines 42 through the beginning of line 44 ( 44a). Thus, the same pointing gesture is used to indicate different elliptical information: the ellipted giver 'from him' in line 42, and the ellipted agent 'you' in line 44. This suggests the dynamic and permeable nature of body movements used in elliptical utterances in talk-in-interaction. 19. Oark & Gerrig (1990) stated that "quotations are demonstrations; "nonserious actions" (as opposed to serious actions), and "selective depictions" (as opposed to descriptions) (pp. 769-770).

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series 79 Next, Fujio asks a question in line 47 Nan te henzi-sita n. Mayowazu? 'What is it that ()answered? (Was it) without hesitation?: ellipting the agent of the verb henzi-sita 'answered~ Because Seiji had directed his reported question in line 44a (Kyoo wa nomeru?'Can (you) drink (with me) today?') to Taku, it makes sense for the person who answered, that is, the agent of the verb henzi-sita 'answered,' to be Taku. However, as in line 44, depending on to whom Fujio's question in line 47 is addressed, it can bear two different interpretations. If Fujio addresses his question to Taku (the person who actually answered Seiji's question in reality), the agent of verb henzi-sita 'answered' would be Taku, the second person, roughly equivalent to English 'you' as in 'what did (you = Taku) answer?' However, if Fujio addresses his question to Seiji (the current storyteller), the agent of verb henzi-sita 'answered' would be the third person, roughly equivalent to English 'he' as in 'what did (he= Taku) answer?' From the analyst's point of view in order to determine the recipient of an utterance, it is important to examine not only gaze but also who responds to a question in the next turn. A question is the first-pair part of a question-answer sequential adjacency pair, makes its answer a relevant next turn as the second-pair part. and selects the party to whom the question is addressed as the next speaker (Sacks, Schegloft~ & Jefferson, 1974). It is Seiji who answers Fujio's question in line 48 E? A, un, 1/@un.@ 'What? Oh, yeah, @yeah.@' and in line 50 @Ya. naa.@ .h '@Was (his answer), you know.@ .h~ Seiji looks up at the ceiling in line 48 and then turns his gaze first towards Fujio and then towards Taku in line 50, demonstrating what and how Taku actually answered Seiji's question. Therefore, the sequential analysis of the utterances after Fujio's question in line 47 shows that Seiji interpreted Fujio's question as addressed to Seiji, in which case the interpretation of the agent in Fujio's elliptical question is the third person roughly equivalent to 'What did (he) answer?' Once again Seiji and other participants in the talk-in-interaction know that Fujio's question was addressed to Seiji from Fujio's gaze and pointing gesture. As shown in Figure 7, when Fujio asks his question in line 47, he looks at Seiji while pointing at Taku with his left index finger. It should be noted that although both gaze and pointing gestures can be used to select a next speaker (Szatrowski, 2005, 2006), in this case Fujio's gaze overrides his gesture pointing at Taku in selecting the next speaker. This is evident from the fact that Seiji (to whom Fujio directs his gaze in line 47) speaks in the next turn after Fujio's question. In this way, Fujio's gaze toward Seiji in line 47 is used to select the next speaker in the questionanswer adjacency pair, and provides a resource for interpreting the elliptical agent in line 47 as a third (rather than a second) person. 47 Fujio:

M:IJ~!JJ..~t:~&_o_~_{:2_'f?

NCJ!!.!~-h~!!.~_-§itq_f:!~Ma.xC!!1!~~? ~!_i§_i_t_ili~!_Ck~::J~!')_~Q~~!~.4t.lw:~~!1)-~_thq!l!_l!~~~tj9Q?

So

Chisato Koike

Figure 7. Fujio's gaze and pointing gesture in line 47 ( (Fujio looks at Seiji and points at Taku with his left index finger.))

The elliptical utterances in Excerpt 3 support the claim I made in my discussion of Excerpt 2 that speakers use gaze and pointing gestures for different functions: gaze for selecting the explicitly addressed recipient (lines 17 to 28) and pointing gestures for supplying elliptical information (lines 17, 19, 21, 23, and 28). Excerpt 3 also illustrates how elliptical information (e.g., the agent of the verb) can be construed using talk, gaze, and body movements that all mutually elaborate the elliptical information. However, the question arises as to whether pointing gestures as in Excerpt 3 are always necessary for clarifying elliptical information. Unlike Fujio's story in Excerpt 2 in which there are more than two story characters involved, Seiji's story in Excerpt 3 has only two story characters (Seiji and Taku). In addition, before Seiji starts telling his story, he mentioned explicitly that he (Seiji) was the one who asked Taku to have a drink in lines 31 and 33. Therefore, when Seiji subsequently says in line 42 boku wa: kakunin totte n. 'it's that I got confirmation' and in line 44 Kyoo wa nomeru? 'Can ()drink today?: even without pointing gestures there is little ambiguity about who the giver of the confirmation is in line 42 and who the agent is in line 44. This is due to what Hinds (1982) refers to as the "salience of actors" and the "story progression" (p. 125). Similarly, because the elliptical information in Fujio's utterance in line 47, ie., the agent of the verb in Fujio's question Nan te henzi-sita n. 'What is it that ()answered?' is recoverable from the prior context, Fujio's pointing gesture does not seem to provide any additional linguistic information. To answer the question of whether pointing gestures in elliptical utterances in which the elliptical referents can be retrieved from context merely provide and emphasize redundant information, it is important to analyze the participants' use ofgaze and body movements in elliptical utterances in relation to the participation framework

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

in the storytelling. A closer look at the participation framework in each storytelling suggests that each storyteller's pointing gestures provide information about who is participating in the storytelling activity. Fujio addresses his story in Excerpt 2 only to the unknowing story recipient Seiji, and also addresses his question in line 47 in Excerpt 3 to Seiji using gaze. Seiji addresses his story in Excerpt 3 primarily to the unknowing story recipient Fujio, although he looks at the knowing story recipient Taku twice (during the demonstration of the dialogue between them in line 44 and during his descriptive utterances in lines 42 and 44 only momentarily). Therefore, it appears that the storytelling activity from the beginning of Fujio's story until the end of Seiji's story is being carried out between Fujio and Seiji. In addition, it appears that Taku is excluded from making verbal contributions to the storytelling in Excerpts 2 and 3, and is being treated as a mere overhearer by these two storytellers, despite the fact that he is the principal character and is physically present in both stories. However, I propose thatFujio and Seiji's gestures that point toward Taku function not to treat Taku as a mere overhearer, but rather to bring focal "joint attention" (Tomasello, 1999) from every participant on Taku.20 Using their pointing gestures, storytellers Fujio and Seiji not only acknowledge Taku's presence in the interaction, but also include him in the storytelling activity as the implicitly addressed recipient of their stories who is central to the storytelling. Holmes (1984) stated that "two or more recipients or groups of recipients are simultaneously yet differentially addressed in the same utterance - one explicitly, or overtly, another/others implicitly, or covertly" by using "linguistic and paralinguistic design, gaze direction, gesture, and bodily display" (p. 312). C. Goodwin & M. H. Goodwin (1990) also pointed out that in multi-party interaction a single utterance "constructs two separate actions to two different recipients simultaneously:' (pp. 108-110) even when it is explicitly and officially addressed to only one participant. In Excerpts 2 and 3, even though Fujio and Seiji explicitly address their stories to unknowing story recipients (Seiji and Fujio, respectively) using gaze, they implicitly (yet intentionally) address their stories to the knowing story recipient Taku, by strategically employing gaze and pointing gestures towards him during their elliptical utterances. 20. Tomasello (1999) stated that infants at the age of around nine to twelve months begin to "involve a coordination of their interactions with objects and people, resulting in a referential triangle of child. adult, and the object or event to which they share attention" (p. 62). He also pointed out that there are three different levels of joint attention skills that nine to fifteen monthold infants can perform: "sharing/checking of adult attention in close proxim.ity:' then "following into adult attention to more distal external entities; and finally "directing adult attention to external entities" (Tomasello, 1999, p. 64). I suggest that the storytellers in my study used pointing gestures to direct knowing/unknowing story recipients' attention to an external entity (i.e., the eo-present story character, Taku).

81

82

Chisato Kolke

Action in Seiji's story: From taking blame to self-defense to accusation The actions in Seiji's story change from Seij1s taking blame to Seij1s self-defense to Fujio's accusation of Taku Seij1s actions and his story recipients' responsive actions to Seiji's story in Excerpt 3 are sequentially organized as summarized in Diagram 1. In Diagram 1 the arrows point towards the explicitly addressed recipient of each action, and the numbers indicate the order of the social actions that each participant performs. Prior to his story; Seiji initially apologized and admitted in lines 31 and 33 that he was the one to blame because he had invited Taku to have a drink. Then, Taku also indicated that Seiji was to blame saying that Seiji was the one that first caused the whole trouble in line 36 lti-ban saisyo ya. '(You) (were) [are] the very first (one): while gazing and pointing at Seiji with his left index finger. However, Fujio (who had accused Taku of being the one to blame in his story in Excerpt 2) still lays the blame on Taku saying in line 37 notta m on ga warui 'the one who accepted (the invitation to have a drink) is to blame (lit. bad)' pointing at Taku with his left hand while looking at Seiji.21 Then, although at first Seiji had admitted that he was the one at fault in lines 31 and 33, he (Seiji) proceeds to defend himself by prefacing his story with the disjunctive conjunction Demo 'But' in line 40 and providing an account for his actions in his storytelling in Excerpt 3. Here, Seiji's use of Demo 'But' expresses his reluctance to take full responsibility for the incident22 By emphasizing the fact

IPre-storytelling sequence (lines 31 to 39) I

lr

(lines 31 and 33). 2. Fujio denies Seiji's wrongdoing (line 35).

Fujio

3. Taku blames Seiji for the incident (line 36). 4. Fujio accuses Taku (line 37).

Seiji

y

Taku .........._ 4

1

2

4 ...........

1. Seiji apologizes to Fujio and admits the blame

IStorytelling sequence (lines 40 to 52) I Seiji Taku

~

15

5. Seiji defends himself in his storytelling (lines 40 to 50). 6. Fujio accuses Taku (line 51).

Fujio Diagram 1. Storyteller (Seiji) and story recipients' (Fujio and Taku) actions in Seiji's story 21. However, it should be noted that Fujio's laughter at the end of line 37 makes his serious action of accusation ofTaku rather playful 22. Mori (1999) pointed out that "the connective demo, which marks a contrast or a shift in perspective generally, serves to indicate recipients' disagreement or reluctance to fully agree with prior speakers" (p. 107).

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

that he got confirmation from Taku, Seiji indicates that he had a drink with Taku based on their mutual agreement (rather than forcing him to drink), thus justifying his action of inviting him to drink. Moreover, through his demonstration of his question to Taku and Taku's answer, he clarifies that Taku mentioned nothing about his prior engagement when he got confirmation, thus proving his innocence in this incident, as evidenced in Seiji's initial surprised reaction to Fujio's story in line 22 E? So yatta n. 'What? Is it that (it) was so?' Next, it is crucial to note that the unknowing story recipient Fujio actively shifted Seiji's storyline with his question in line 47 and assessment ofTaku in line 51. Although Seiji was about to say something about Ruri in line 46, Fujio asked how Taku responded to Seiji's invitation in line 47. Then, after Seiji demonstrated23 Taku's answer in lines 48 and 50, Fujio assessed Taku's answer in line 51 @Akan ganaa.@ '@(It's) no good, you know@: albeit mitigated by his concurrent laughter. Fujio's assessment changes the action performed by Seiji in his story from a selfdefense ofSeiji to an accusation ofTaku. What is even more significant is that although Fujio's utterance in line 51 @Akan ganaa.@ '@(It's) no good, you know@' assesses the content of Seiji's demonstration of Taku's answer in line 48, it is directly intended for Taku as shown by his gaze and body movements in Figure 8. 51 Fujio:

@~'IJ'Iv'l:l·i:r.~o@

@Akan ganaa.@ @(It's) no good, you know.@

Fujio

Figure 8. Fujio's gaze and body movements in line 51 ( (Fujio turns his upper body and gaze toward Taku.))

2.3. I use the term "demonstrate" here in Clark & Gerrig's (1990) sense to refer to quotations as "nonserious selective depictions" (pp. 769-770).

83

84

Chisato Kolke

From the beginning of Fujio's story in line 17 of Excerpt 2 until line 50 of Seiji's story in Excerpt 3, Fujio and Seiji focus primarily on what Taku did (in Fujio's story) and what Seiji and Taku did (in Seiji's story). Although they include the principal character Taku in their storytelling by pointing at him with their index fingers and hands, they directly address their stories primarily to unknowing story recipients (Seiji and Fujio, respectively) with their gaze. However, in line 51 Fujio addresses his negative assessment, not to the storyteller Seiji who demonstrated Taku's speech, but directly to Taku by turning his head and upper body towards Taku, thus explicitly accusing him of committing an irresponsible act. 24 By turning his gaze and upper body away from the current storyteller (Seiji), Fujio clearly treats Seiji's story as completed at the end of Seiji's demonstration of Taku's answer in line 50, and "disengages" (C. Goodwin, 2002) from the current storytelling, although Seiji attempts to continue his story in line 52 le de 'At home?

Taku's story: Gaze, pointing gestures, and prior sequence in elliptical utterances In this section I will first examine the way in which both the immediate local environment (such as participants' bodies) and prior sequences are embedded in the elliptical utterances in the storytelling (in Excerpt 4). Then, I will analyze how the third storyteller, Taku, tells his side of the story to provide an excuse and re pentance, and how the unknowing story recipient (Fujio) succeeds in getting Taku to make a public apology (Excerpt 5).

How the local environment and prior sequences are embedded in elliptical utterances In Excerpt 4, Taku, who listened and laughed during Fujio's and Seiji's stories from lines 17 to 52, finally participates as a storyteller to account for his actions, starting in line 53. Like Fujio and Seiji, Taku accompanies his elliptical utterances with gaze and pointing gestures. Excerpt 4. Taku's Story (Taku =storyteller; Seiji =eo-teller) ~

53 Taku:

Jvl) ~ fv(7)~tlf5(7)'9(~~~;: B" .:btL

-r !v.f!~ !viJ'~o

Ruri-san no: denwa. no sugu ato ni iwm-ete n 1/yan ka:. It's that ()was asked [told] right after Ruri's call, //you know. 24· Since Taku was looking down at his plate on the table during Fujids utterance in line 51, it is not clear whether Fujio's shift in body movements is what got Taku to join in the storytelling and tell his version of the story starting in line 53. However, he certainly heard Fujids accusation.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series /f}j-..- fvo 1/Hu:n.

54 Fujio:

55 Taku:

//Uh-huh.

*

lt' ~, L_$1f>- C. C. "'[$ ~
56 Seiji:

fv- ""f !> J; C.-, i: C. ""f !> J; Lt !> J; Lt '? L ~ fv "'[$ - , (l.O)!>J:tt!>J:Lt?"llt•::;; O)~;l:.-, (1.5)1!:-JvllJ'Y )'-Jv o::;; - fv o 0

.t-, U:n. 0 N:de tyoko-, soko de tyobityobi tte nonde:, (1.0) tyobityobi tte iu no wa:, (1.5) biiru-iti rittoru to:,

0

Yeah. And, a little, (we) drank a little there, and (1.0) a little means ( 1.5) a liter of beer and, 57 Fujio:

? fv o Un.

Uh-huh. ((Slines omitted.)) 66 Seiji:

t27'J• 6~?1-P¥~ -7J:$i! 1m ~? "l f.A.t ~, Dakam zenzen heeki: na han'i yatte n kedo, So, (it) was totally within safe limits but,

67 Taku:

"'[$ f: 0)

Jb!!C:. tL., De sono a!!to ni, And after that,

/If: 0)~ iJ~!> J; '? C:. Jb tJ• fv//iJ' '? t.:: 1d::o //Sono ato ga tyotto akanl!katta na. I I After that (it) was a little bit no good.

68 Seiji:

1/~fv"'[$-@iiS~~L.-C

69 Taku:

ffi!itJ'iJ'? "l 7S:tc.fv~ fv;Q>-o().O)fti~(0.4)!>J: '? .t(0.7)C'fi*-"'~<:: iJ'" fv?

1/Nonde ru totyuu ni: denwa kakatte kita n ya.n ka:. (1.0) Taku-kun (0.4) tyotto (0.7) gohan tabe ni ikahen? /!While (we) were drinking, it's that the phone rang, you know. (1.0) Taku, (0.4) just (0.7) won't (you) go eat dinner (with me)? 70 Fujio:

11::;;- fvo 1/U:n. //Uh-huh.

85

86

Ch!sato Kolke

71 Taku:

//71.. 71.. '? t., (0.5)71.., lt"' v"' "V'9 J:?

1/Eetto, (0.5) e, ii desu yo? //Uhm, (0.5) uhm (that)'s fine, I tell you. 72

(2.5)

73 Taku:

.:C :h tl' .:l5 fi' lv ~ o Sore ga akan ne. That (was) no good, you know.

74

(1.7)

75 Fujio:

£ .:l5 £ .:l5 £ &; £ .:l5 .:C 5 lt"' 5 ~ ~ &; I)£ '9 ~ o Maa maa maa maa soo iu toki mo arimasu ne. Well well well well there are times like that, too, you know.

76 Seiji:

"V c.~ If it"'\ ~<:: :fT '? tc 61J: ? ~ :D!Ht &; .:@ :b-, De gohan tabe ni ittara na? Awamori wa aru wa:, And when (we) went out for dinner, there is awamori (alcoholic beverage made in Okinawa) a:nd,

77 Fujio:

5 lv o Un. Uh-huh.

78 Seiji:

1J: lv iJ"' ::t 1) ::t :/ 1!:- Jld;t &; .@ .P o Nanka Orion biiru wa aru wa. Like there is Orion beer (beer made in Okinawa).

79 Fujio:

lv o @ @Un.@ @5

@Uh-huh.@ 80 Seiji:

<:I)~ fX£ 1J: .:l5 iJ"'/v~

o 5o

Korya nomana akan yaroo. Well then (we) have to have a drink. you know. 81 Fujio:

@il5 .:l5, .:l5 (J) Jd "V '9 J: :G?@ @Aa, ano mise desu yo ne?@ @Oh, (it)'s that restaurant, right?@

82 Taku:

~i3 ~ fvo

Yachimun. Yachimun (the name of the restaurant). 83 Seiji:

.:C 5 o .:C 5 o Soo. Soo. Right. Right.

84

(3.5)

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

Taku's story begins in line 53 (Ruri-san no: denwa no sugu ato ni iwarete n 1/yan ka:. 'It's that ()was asked [told] right after Ruri's call, //you know') with an utterance that states neither the "prime speaker" (the original speaker of the quoted material) (Du Bois, 1986; Iwasaki, 2002)25 nor the recipient of the quoted material explicitly. As Iwasaki (2002) pointed out, "due to the prevalent tendency of noun phrase ellipsis, the speaker and addressee noun phrases may not appear at all on the surface, leaving only the quoted material with to and the quoting verb" (p. 196). In addition, my data also show that the quoted material can be ellipted leaving only the quoting verb in the passive form iwarete <was asked [told]; as in the elliptical utterance in line 53. As in Excerpts 2 and 3, the storyteller's (Taku's) gaze and pointing gestures help the participants construe the ellipted quoted material, the prime speaker, and the recipient of the quoted material in the utterance in line 53 at the beginning ofTaku's story. Taku looks at Fujio as he begins telling his story in line 53a. Then he both gazes and points at Seiji with his left index finger in line 53b as shown in Figure 9. 53 a. Taku:

fv ') ~ lv 0)- -~ 0) '9 <'' ;f!H<= Ruri-san no: denwa no sugu ato ni Right after Ruri's call ((Taku looks at Fujio.))

53 b. Taku:

~p_fJ:_T...&JI~Iv'IJ'-o

l'~.t!rEitEE.!! 1/yan ka:. J!'§_th~H!2_':Y.!:I:.S_~§Ke_Jfllr!?Y.l'9_'!b //you know.

Fujio

Figure 9. Taku's gaze and pointing gesture in line 53b ((Taku looks at Seiji and points at him with his left index finger, palm up. )) 25. Iwasaki (2002) states that "in a quotation, two different speakers must be identified, 'the proxi-

mate speaker' who does the quoting and 'the prime speaker' whose speech is being quoted" (p. 196).

87

88

Chisato Kolke

Taku's pointing at Seiji at the exact moment that he says the quoting verb iwarete '()was asked [told] ()'indicates that the ellipted quoted material is the dialogue between Taku and Seiji and that Seiji is a candidate for one of the omitted arguments (that is, either the "prime speaker" or the recipient of the quoted material). Although it would be possible to postpose the quoted material of the quoting verb iwarete '()was asked [told]' after the quoting verb, neither Taku nor Seiji add the quoted material as an increment to Taku's utterance. Rather Taku moves his story forward in line 55 by quoting his thoughts about drinking at his place while demonstrating that he is thinking by turning his head and gazing to his left side and then down. The fact that Taku does not make the ellipted quoted material of iwarete '()was asked [told] ()'explicit suggests that it is retrievable from the context In this case a likely candidate for the quoted material is the dialogue that occurred between Taku and Seiji in the utterances prior to line 53 (specifically the dialogue demonstrated in Seiji's story from line 44 to line 48 in Excerpt 3). The recipient of the quoted material (that is, the syntactic subject of this passive sentence) in Taku's utterance in line 53 (Ruri-sa.n no: denwa. no sugu ato ni iwarete n 1/yan ka:. 'It's that ()was asked [told] right after Ruri's call, you know') is construed as the current storyteller Taku (equivalent to the first person 'I' as in 'I was asked [told]'), because the person who 'was told' must be the one who talked with Ruri on the phone, that is, Taku. This, in turn, makes it clear that Taku gazed and pointed at Seiji to indicate that he was the "prime speaker" of the quoted material. Thus, the ellipted quoted material of the verb iwarete '([)was asked [told]' in line 53 is the question that Seiji demonstrated in his story in line 44 I<;,voo wa nomeru? 'Can (you) drink (with me) today?' Filling in the ellipted parts, Taku's utterance in line 53 can be construed as 'It's that([) was asked [told] (by you) "Can (you) drink (with me) today?'" This shows how one must take into account the immediate local environment (including proximate objects and participants in the talk-in-interaction) as well as prior sequences (such as prior stories) in construing elliptical utterances in storytelling.

Taku's action in his story: Countering Fujio's and Seiji's interpretation Next, I will demonstrate 1) how Taku provides a counter-argument against Fujio's and Seiji's stories by providing his own account for what happened, 2) how Seiji, his eoteller, assists Taku in justifying their actions of drinking together, and 3) how Fujio, his unknowing story recipient, gives uptake in Excerpt 4. In Excerpt 4, Taku, the principal character in and knowing story recipient of Fujio's and Seiji's stories, finally gets a chance to tell his side of the story to defend himself. As C. Goodwin ( 1986) states: ... parties who are principal characters in the events being narrated in conversation are frequently present at the telling. On the one hand, this can lead to attempts

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

to defend themselves from the portrayal being offered by the speaker, and indeed to dispute this with both speaker and the rest of the audience (M. H. Goodwin, 1982), and on the other hand such recipients may face the task of organizing their reactions to the telling in terms of the story-relevant scrutiny they will receive from others in the audience (C. Goodwin, 1984). (p. 286)

Taku begins his story immediately after Seiji demonstrates his dialogue with Taku in his story in Excerpt 3. In line 53, Taku indicates that first Taku invited Ruri to go rollerblading (described in Fujio's story) and then Seiji invited Taku for a drink (described in Seiji's story), clarifying the temporal sequence of these two events. In line 53 (Ruri-san no: denwa. no sugu ato ni iwa.rete n 1/yan ka:. 'It's that (I) was asked [told] (by yotl) ("Can (you) drink (with me) today?") right after Ruri's call.//you know'), Taku makes it clear that he did not have any other plans (such as having a drink with Seiji) when he invited Ruri to go rollerblading, thus indicating that he did not intend to break his appointment with her at this point. Then, in line 55 Taku quotes the thoughts he had right after Seiji invited him for a drink in order to contrast his interpretation of this event with the one Seiji gave in line 48. In Seiji's demonstration of how Taku responded to his invitation in line 48 (E? A, un, 1/@un.@ 'What? Oh, yeah, //@yeah.@'), Seiji as an "animator" portrayed Taku as a "figure" (Goffman, 1981)26 who would readily break an appointment with a friend (Ruri) to have a drink with another friend (Seiji) without giving it any thought. In contrast, Taku quotes his thoughts in line 55 (Iya, demo: ma koko de nomu gurai yattara ekka. 'No, but, well (it) should be okay if (we) just drink here~) to indicate how he took some time to consider Seiji's invitation before he accepted. With this utterance, Taku implies that just drinking here (i.e., at Taku's home) would be okay and would not affect his prior engagement with Ruri later. In addition, by prefacing this thought with the interjection lya 'No' and the disjunctive conjunction demo 'but' in turn initial position, Taku suggests that he also felt a conflict, that is, he may have felt that accepting Seiji's invitation might not be okay. Subsequently, in lines 56 to 66, Taku and Seiji (eo-teller) indicate that they did not drink much at all at Taku's home, further supporting Taku's claim that he did not intend to miss his appointment with Ruri up to that point. Then, eo-teller Seiji provides his "evaluation'' of the ensuing "complicating action" (Labov, 1972)27 in line 68 Sono ato ga tyotto akanllkatta na. 'After that (it) was a little bit no good~ 26. Goffman (1981) defines an "animator" as "the talking machine, a body engaged in acoustic activity, or, lf you will, an individual active in the role of utterance production" (p. 144), and a "figure" as "a protagonist in a described scene, a 'character' in an anecdote, someone, after all, who belongs to the world that is spoken about, not the world in which the speaking occurs" (p. 147).

27. Labov (1972) defines "evaluation" as "the means used by the narrator to indicate the point of the narrative, its raison d~re: why it was told, and what the narrator is getting at" (p. 366), and stated that the evaluation "may be found in various forms throughout the narrative" (p. 369).

89

90

Chisato Kolke

In this evaluation he uses the same word akan 'no good' that Fujio used in line 51 when he (Fujio) accused Taku of accepting Seiji's invitation too readily at the end of Seiji's story in Excerpt 3. Taku explains this complicating action further in lines 69 and 71, saying that another one of Taku's friends called and invited him to go out for dinner while Taku and Seiji were drinking at Taku's home. He also indicates that accepting this invitation is akan 'no good' in line 73 Sore ga akan ne. 'That (was) no good, you know: recycling the evaluation akan 'no good' that Fujio and Seiji used in lines 51 and 68, respectively. Furthermore, in lines 76 to 80, eo-teller Seiji continues Taku's story by further describing what happened at the restaurant As Tak."U (line 69) and Seiji (line 76) indicated, Taku accepted another friend's invitation to go out for dinner, not for a drink. However, since the restaurant they went to was a restaurant bar that served alcoholic beverages made in Okinawa, drinking was inevitable, as Seiji said in line 80 Korya nomana akan yaroo. 'Well then (we) have to have a drink, you know.' Seij1s continuation ofTaku's story also provides further supporting evidence that Taku did not intend to break his appointment with Ruri, even at the point that he accepted the second invitation to dinner on the phone. In this way; Seiji assists Taku in justifying their actions of going out for dinner (and unexpected drinking). Thus, with the assistance of his eo-teller Seiji, Taku succeeds in depicting himself as a powerless victim who yielded to his friends' temptations in his story. At the same time, he also admits that he was at fault because he accepted the second invitation by another friend to dinner. This contrasts with Tak."U's previous interpretation of the events in the second (Seij1s) story where Taku initially accused Seiji in line 36 for inviting him for a drink. How does the unknowing story recipient (Fujio) receive Taku's (the storyteller and the principal character) account and repentance? Immediately after Taku admits that he should not have accepted the second invitation to dinner, Fujio sympathizes with and appeases Taku in line 75 Ma.a. maa maa maa soo iu toki mo arimasu ne. 'Well well well well there are times like that, too, you knoW, while looking at Taku. By generalizing Taku's story as something that could happen to anybody; Fujio shows his understanding that the happenings Taku explained were beyond his contra~ thus mitigating his initial accusation ofTaku in the first (Fujio's) story in Excerpt 2 and his subsequent accusation ofTaku at the end of the second (Seiji's) story. However, subsequently Fujio extends Taku's story as shown in Excerpt 5. This extension reveals that Fujio still judges Taku to be at fault for letting his appointment slide. Prior to Excerpt 5 Seiji (eo-teller) adds to Taku's story that he and Taku went out for dinner and drank at a restaurant bar in lines 76 to 83 (in Excerpt 4). Then Excerpt 5 begins after a 3.5-second pause in line 84. The "complicating action" describes the temporally ordered events and answers the question of "then what happened?" in a narrative (Labov, 1972, p. 370).

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series Excerpt 5. Fujio's extension ofTaku's story (Fujio =storyteller; Taku =eo-teller) ~ 85

Fujio:

B"HC~C:~~~//i/;'?L"£"l.Jc'tfv//~o

Nikki ni egao de 1/notte masita mon !/ne. It's that ( ) appeared in ( ) diary with a smile, you know. //{7 7 7 } 1/{Huhu hu}

86 Taku:

//{LAUGH} 1/{l\l\777}

87 Seiji:

!!{Ha ha hu hu hu} //{LAUGH} ~

88 Fujio:

to tt~ L.. iJ'' '? tc- t. i:i' ~I/? L" o Oisikatta: toka yul/tte. Saying (it) was delicious, or something. //{7 7 7} II{Huhuhu} //{LAUGH}

89 Taku:

~

90 Fujio:

;J; 1) ~ fv ;:~ dbfv '? L" t!f tt~ L" ~ 0) tC:.~f&Btil 0)-@, 1J:G~//~o

Ruri-san gomen tte kaite 1u no ni zenzen hansee no iro nasi de //ne. Although ()writes "Ruri, sorry" there are no signs of repentance at all, I /you know. //lt"~.J?~
91 Taku:

/ llya demo:, //No, bu:t, 92 Fujio:

11{71\l\l\l\} 1/{Hu ha ha ha ha} //{LAUGH}

93 Taku:

//'!bn-,

&sn~fvo

IIAre:, are yan. /!Iha:t, that's you know. 94 Fujio:

fv? N? Huh?

95 Taku:

'l!J. ~, id 0)- 'EJ. ~ tntl!~ ·;de. 0 ? Syasin, mise no: syasin dake 1/yatta ro? The picture, (it) was a picture of only the restaurant, wasn't it?

91

92

Chisato Kolke

!Pf:? o .:t? o 1/Soo. Soo. I /Right. Right.

96 Fujio:

97

(0.6)

98 Taku:

/'v 1) ~ fv r::.+ f);; fv o Ruri-san gomen. Ruri, sorry.

99 Fujio:

~~~SJi17:fi-::>L"0/vtJ~J!.:Z.:@fv"f'9"L

l!.?//J! l @'t-o@{**} De, egao de totte ru n ga mieru n desu yo, doo !!mite @mo:.@ {ho ho} And it's that (I) can see (you) taking (that picture) with a smile, no matter how //(I) look at (it). {LAUGH}. 100 Taku:

//{l'll\/'1}

!!{Ha ha ha} //{LAUGH} 101 Seiji:

11{7l'll'll'll'll'll'l} 1/{Hu ha ha ha ha ha ha} //{LAUGH}

102

(2.4)

103 Taku:

:fl-::> C: r::.? ~~ '? L" t1 '? L tc
Fujio mentions that after Taku, Seiji, and another friend finished having dinner at the restaurant, Taku sent Ruri a text message together with a picture taken at the restaurant in the form of a diary entry. Fujio knows about this event because he saw Taku's message on Ruri's cell phone, and he depicts this event together with his assessment of it in lines 85, 88, and 90. In line 85, Fujio does not explicitly state the agent of the verb notte masita 'appeared: However, as he did in his story in Excerpt 2 as well as in Seiji's story in Excerpt 3, he indicates who the agent is by pointing at Taku with his right index finger, while addressing his utterance to Seiji by gazing at Seiji, as shown in Figure 10.28 28. Although Fujio does not continue pointing at Taku in lines 88 and 90, the agent of the verb

yulltte'say' in line 88 and the agent of the verb kaiteru 'write' in line 90 can also be construed as the third person 'he' (Taku), because Fujio's utterances in lines 88 and 90 elaborate Taku's text message diary to Ruri that Fujio brought up in line 85.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series 93

85 Fujio:

.F.I_~gJf~-~.1"}/iG'?L"*Gtclf>AJ/~o N!~~Lt!i_~gg._q_.!l.t:,l!notte

masita mon //ne.

It's that (he) appeared!v_{~~lgi_!l_r.Y.Jrtfu_'!.§.m.!!c:, you know.

Fujio

Figure 10. Fujio's gaze and pointing gesture in line 85 ((Fujio looks at Seiji and points at Taku with his right index finger.))

It is interesting to note that although Taku is the main storyteller in Excerpt 4, Fujio addresses his entire extension of Taku's story in Excerpt 5 to Seiji by looking at Seiji from the beginning ofhis extension (ofTaku's story) in line 85 until the end of it in line 90. It is not until Fujio laughs after the extension is over in line 92 that he (Fujio) turns his gaze to Taku. In lines 85 to 90, Fujio tells Seiji that although Taku apologized to Ruri in a text message, his (Taku's) comment (about how delicious the food he ate at the restaurant was) in this message together with his (Taku's) smile in the photo attached to the message did not seem at all apologetic to Fujio. Through Fujio's extension to Taku's story, Fujio reverts to his original stance (i.e., his accusation ofTaku) from his sympathetic understanding ofTaku's story in line 75 (in Excerpt 4). However, the content of Fujio's accusation in his extension relates to the content ofTaku's text message (specifically to the fact that Taku's apology for his irresponsible act was not sincere), rather than to the fact that Taku missed his appointment with Ruri (the content ofhis original accusation in lines 25 and 28 in Excerpt 2). What is even more significant is that Fujio forges his second accusation of Taku by dramatizing Taku's misbehavior and adding embellishments that reflect his subjective interpretation. First, although Fujio said that Taku sent a text message to Ruri with a photo showing his smiling face, in actuality only the restaurant (and not Taku's face) was visible in the photo as indicated byTaku's corrections in

94

Chisato Kolke

lines 91, 93, and 95. However, subsequently in line 99, while looking at Taku, Fujio explains that he could tell from the photo of the restaurant that Taku was smiling when he took the picture, thus justifying his embellishment in line 85. Second, Fujio's description of Taku's apology in line 90 zenzen hansee no iro nasi de ne. 'there are no signs of repentance at all, you know= gives his subjective assessment of the content of Taku's text message (given in line 88 Oisikatta: '(it) was delicious' and line 90 Ruri-san gomen 'Ruri, sorry'). In addition, the tone of Fujio's verbal accusation of Taku is heightened by his accompanying gaze and body movements. As discussed earlier, Fujio addresses the utterances in which he accuses Taku in lines 85, 88, and 90 to Seiji by gazing at Seiji, and only turns his gaze to Taku in line 92 when he laughs after this accusation. It could be that Fujio gazes only at Seiji during these utterances because Seiji is the unknowing story recipient in this part of the story. However, given the fact that Fujio showed sympathetic understanding ofTaku's repentance in the preceding story in Excerpt 4, one might expect that Fujio would use gaze to address his extension of Taku's story to Taku in order to tell a reminiscent storf9 with him. However, because Fujio gazes at Seiji instead of Taku, it is worth going beyond the use of gaze to distinguish the unknowing story recipient from the knowing story recipient, in order to seek some further explanation related to the stance of the storyteller (Fujio) towards his story recipients. As discussed in Excerpt 3, storytellers point at participants present who are story characters not only to supply information ellipted in their utterances but also to indicate the storyteller's awareness of their presence and to include them in the storytelling as implicitly addressed recipients of the story. While Fujio includes Taku in his extension by pointing at him in line 85, at the same time he looks only at Seiji in order to avoid giving Taku tellership until he finishes his extension. In this way, he tells on Taku to Seiji and thereby forms an alliance with Seiji against Taku. By displaying his stance toward Taku and Seiji through his gaze and pointing gestures, Fujio intensifies his action of accusing Taku. Although he mitigates his accusation by his immediately subsequent laughter in line 92, Fujio's accusation gets Taku to express his repentance one more time, which Taku does by repeating the same phrase that he had written to Ruri in his text message to Ruri (that Fujio mentioned in line 90) in line 98 Ruri-san gomen. 'Ruri, sorrY. In this way, Fujio is able to get Taku to make a public apology that is more explicit than his first expression of repentance in line 73 Sm-e ga akan ne. 'That (was) no good, you know: :29· Reminiscence is one type ofstorytelling activity that "[s]everal parties collaboratively recall and talk about something they experienced together" (C. Goodwin, 2004). These kinds of stories have also been referred to as "spouse talk" (Sacks, 1992) or "collaborative retellings" (Norrick, 2000).

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

Conclusion In this study I examined nominal ellipsis, in particular ellipsis of human referents who were story characters present in the interaction, in a series of three joint storytelling sequences. I demonstrated that the participants distinguished in their use of gaze, pointing gestures, and movement of their upper bodies to supply different information in their elliptical utterances. First. when gaze and pointing were used together with elliptical utterances, they used gaze to select the explicitly addressed recipient of the utterance, and pointing to supply the ellipted elements (for example, the agent of a verb). This suggested that there is a hierarchy in which gaze overrides pointing when selecting the explicitly addressed recipient in face-to-face interaction. Second, I illustrated that in order to interpret elliptical utterances it is necessary to consider a multiple of factors (the talk, gaze, pointing, etc.) concurrently. because the interpretation of elliptical human referents depends on who is selected as the explicitly addressed recipient by gaze as well as the participation framework. For example, I showed that selection between the two possible interpretations of the elliptedagent (the second person (you) or the third person (he)) in Fujio's question in line 47 Nan te henzi-sita n. 'What is it that () answered?' was resolved as the third person (he = Taku) by Fujio's pointing at Taku, while he gazed at Seiji the unknowing story recipient. Next, I showed that a storyteller could use the same sustained pointing gesture toward the same referent to provide different ellipted arguments as reflected in the corresponding English translation in different elliptical utterances. For example, Seiji used a pointing gesture toward Taku (while gazing at the unknowing story recipient Fujio) in line 42 boku wa: kakunin totte n. 'it's that I got confirmation (from him)' to indicate that Taku was the ellipted third person argument (from him = Taku). Then, Seiji used the same sustained pointing gesture toward Taku (this time while gazing at the knowing story recipient Taku) in line 44a (Kyoo wa nomeru? 'Can (yorl) drink (with me) today?') in order to indicate that Taku was the ellipted second person argument (you= Taku). These phenomena provide corroborative evidence that ellipsis is permeable by nature, by which I mean its verbally transparent empty slot can flexibly and dynamically denote different referents in the context depending on various available interrelated resources including prosody. gaze, body movements, and the surrounding environment. Third, I demonstrated how a storyteller pointed toward a story character who was present in the interaction not only to supply the human referent in his elliptical utterances, but also to include the participant in the storytelling as the implicitly addressed recipient of the utterances rather than a mere overhearer. While the storyteller's pointing gesture visibly included the participant (=story character) in the storytelling, his gaze distributed exclusively toward the unknowing story recipient throughout the joint storytelling sequence showed his negative stance

95

96

Chisato Kolke

toward the story character and prevented the knowing story recipient from having tellership. As shown in Excerpt 2 (Fujio's story) and Excerpt 5 (Fujio's extension of Taku's story), Fujio directly addressed his story only to Seiji through gaze in order to form an alliance with this unknowing story recipient (Seiji) and thus make a stronger accusation of the principal story character/knowing story recipient Taku. The ellipsis in the storytelling data used in this study has a more complex structure than that reported in previous studies of ellipsis in Japanese narrative (e.g., Clancy, 1980; Fry, 2003; Hinds, 1982). This relates to the fact that there were (1) multiple characters in the stories, (2) more than two participants in the face-toface talk-in-interaction, and (3) all of the participants in the interaction appeared as story characters in a series of joint storytelling sequences. In addition, the successive joint storytelling sequences of this study were particularly complex because the different storytellers in each sequence presented different perspectives on the same event rather than re-telling the same story. In Diagram 2, I indicate how shared information was distributed among the three participants in each story in the series of joint storytelling sequences. One of the participants (Taku) was the principal character in all of the stories and knew everything about the entire event, while the other two participants (Fujio and Seiji) experienced the same event with Taku in temporally and spatially different ways. Each participant participated in the joint storytelling as a storyteller, Taku (in Excerpts 2-5) and Seiji (in Excerpt 4) participated as knowing story recipients (and potential eo-tellers that could tell the story collaboratively as in Excerpts 4 and 5), and Seiji (in Excerpts 2 and 5) and Fujio (in Excerpts 3 and 4) participated as unknowing story recipients. The joint storytelling series in this study displayed a public dispute and negotiation among the three participants who had different facts about the same event and tried to assemble information to get a complete picture of the event, in a way similar to a jigsaw puzzle. 30 The successive storytelling sequences by different storytellers illustrate not only how storytellers can assist one other in telling a shared story as demonstrated in previous studies of eo-telling (e.g., Eder, 1988; Karatsu, 2004a, 2004b; Lerner, 1992; Mandelbaum, 1987; Norrick, 2000, 2004, 2005; Sacks, 1992), but also how the storyteller and a knowing story recipient(s)/potential co-teller(s) can put the blame for an incident on another party by disagreeing with a previous storyteller's

30. M. H. Goodwin (1990) pointed out that accuser and defendant in he-said-she-said utterances "have differential access to the events that are the subject of the dispute" and these "differential information states ... of accuser and defendant have a number of consequences for the organization of the activity in which the participants are engaged" (p. 198).

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series 1. Fujio's story (Excerpt 2)

(+knowing)

(-knowing)

2.

Seiji's story (Excerpt 3)

(+knowing)

(storyteller)

~ Fujio (-knowing)

(storyteller)

3.

Taku's story (Excerpt 4)

(storyteller)

(co-teller/+knowing)

4. Fujio's

extension ofTaku's story (Excerpt 5) (co-teller/+knowing)

(-knowing)

~ Fujio (-knowing)

(storyteller)

Diagram 2. Shared information in stories by Fujio, Seiji, and Taku (+knowing = knowing story recipient; -knowing= unknowing story recipient)

presentation of the event. The joint storytelling in this study corroborates Mandelbaum's (1993) claim that conversational storytelling provides a method to "collaborate in assigning and reassigning responsibility" in order to collaboratively reconstruct "reality" (p. 263). 31 Specifically, I gave evidence that participants negotiate responsibility and conflict through different social actions (such as accusation and defense) by presenting different facts about an event in order to find out what exactly happened and who was to be blamed as well as to provide a public space for an apology and its acceptance. Moreover, in this "public dispute" through storytelling the unknowing story recipients (Seiji and Fujio, respectively) function as "third parties [and] as mediators" (M. H. Goodwin, 1990, p. 223). Speakers use ellipsis to "achieve more efficient communication" (Fry, 2003, p. 83; Nariyama, 2003) with minimal information. In complex joint storytelling in which multiple participants recount stories of their shared experiences, as in the data presented here, participants may also need to provide more explicit

31· Ochs & Capps (2001) also pointed out that "everyday narratives of personal experience are

interactionally constructed accounts of a temporal progression of events, whose contents and ordering are subject to dispute, flux, and discovery" (p. 57).

97

98

Chisato Kolke

information in order to avoid ambiguity. However, they can still tell stories efficiently with minimal verbal information by exploiting resources other than language (i.e., gaze, pointing gestures, upper body movements, and the surrounding environment such as materials and participants in the interaction), as immediately and simultaneously available contexts for ellipsis. While previous studies have argued that context is important for interpreting ellipsis, the context examined in these studies has been limited to the talk. However, as C. Goodwin (2000) maintains, ... context is not simply a set of features presupposed or invoked by a strip of talk, but is itself a dynamic, temporally unfolding process accomplished through the ongoing rearrangement of structures in the talk, participants' bodies, relevant artifacts. spaces, and features of the material surround that are the focus of the participants' scrutiny. (p. 1519)

Because ellipsis is an interdependent phenomenon that can be achieved through mutual understanding between a speaker and a hearer as to what is and is not recoverable from context, story recipients need to take into consideration all of these resources comprehensively in order to understand stories with elliptical information.32 I also demonstrated that utterances with ellipsis accompanied by pointing gestures which indicate referents are not only economical and efficient but also effective in complex multi-party joint storytelling in which the participants negotiate conflicting actions to achieve mutual understanding. In Japanese spoken discourse, participants choose between full nouns or ellipsis to refer to second and third person referents. However, using full nouns, in particular names, in conflict talk may be interpreted as name-calling (by which the speaker explicitly blames another participant with emphasis) even during complex storytelling with several characters, and cause friction between participants. On the other hand, ellipsis can mitigate potential conflict in storytelling by hiding the name of the referent at fault. In addition, pointing gestures as well as gaze toward participants can be used with elliptical utterances to display bodily against whom and to whom actions (such as accusation) are being delivered. 33 32· Hayashl. Mori, and Takagi (2002) demonstrated how a storytelle~ a eo-teller, and story redpients "efficiently and effectively utlllze[d] various resources available, including syntax, intonation, gaze, and gesture, as well as sequential development" (p. 112) to negotiate an "unexpressed referent" (p. 97), eo-construct utterances, and collaboratively tell a story. However, in their study they examined how storytellers used iconic gestures depicting objects (e.g., a collar), rather than pointing gestures, which is the focus of the present study of elliptical utterances in a storytelling sequence. 33· For detailed studies about conflict talk see Grimshaw (1990) on English conversation and Szatrowski (2004) on Japanese conversation.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

Ellipsis is one of the grammatical aspects of Japanese that is difficult for learners of the Japanese language to acquire. From an early stage, they learn that elements in utterances are ellipted if they are clear from context. For example, unlike in English first person referents (such as the pronoun watasi 'f) in utterances of self-introduction (e.g., indicating the speaker's name, year in college, and age) or second person referents (such as the pronoun anata 'you') in interrogative utterances regarding the interlocutor are typically ellipted because they are salient in that context. However, it is often difficult for learners of Japanese to figure out which elements can be ellipted in utterances in a given situation as speakers, and which elements can be retrieved from multiple resources for ellipted information as hearers. Furthermore, it is even more difficult to understand the actions that can be achieved in complex storytelling sequences as demonstrated in this paper. It is crucial to teach learners how to approach interaction holistically, employing various resources including the talk. gaze, body movements, and the surrounding environment, in order to understand ellipsis, storytelling, and social actions in talkin-interaction.

References Clancy, P.M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (Ed), The pear stories: Cognitive and linguistic aspects ofnarrath•e production (pp. 127-202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clancy, P.M. (1982). Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives. In D. Tannen (Ed), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 55-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clark, H.H., & Gerrig, R J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764-805. Du Bois, J. W. (1986). Self-evidence and ritual speech. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 313-336). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Eder, D. ( 1988). Building cohesion through collaborative narration. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(3), 225-235. Fry, J. (2003). Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese conversation. New York: Routledge. Goffman, E. ( 1981 ). Forms of talk. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97-121 ). New York. NY: Irvington Publishers. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press. Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 225-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6(3), 283-316. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522.

99

100

Chisato Kolke Goodwin, C. (2002). Time ln action. Current Anthropology, 43 (Supplement August-October), 19-35. Goodwin, C. (2003a). Embedded context Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(4), 323-350. Goodwin, C. (2003b). Pointing as situated practice. InS. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217-241 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoctates. Goodwin, C. (2004, April). Multimodality, gesture and eo-regulation in story telling. Paper presented at the Wenner-Gren Workshop (Beyond interactivity: Applying dynamic systems theory to the study of great apes and humans), Harpers Ferry, VA. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (1990). Interstitial argument. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 85-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, M. H. (1982). "Instigating": Storytelling as social process. American Ethnologist, 9( 4), 799-819. Goodwin, M.H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization amo11g black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Grlmshaw, A. D. (1990). Co,iflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations ofarguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayashi, M., Mori, J., & Takagi. T. (2002). Contingent achievement of co-tellershlp ln a Japanese conversation: An analysis oftalk. gaze, and gesture. In C. E. Ford. B. A. Fox, & S. A. Th.ompson (Eds.), The language of tun1 and sequence (pp. 81-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heath, C. (1984). Talk and reclpiency: Sequential organization in speech and body movement. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures ofsocial action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 247-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinds, J. (1982). FJlipsis in Japane.se. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Holmes, D. (1984). Explicit-lmplkit address.fournal ofPragmatlcs, 8, 311-320. Hortgucb.i, S. (1997). Nihongo kyooiku to kaiwa bu,ISeki [Teaching Japanese as a foreign language and conversation analysis]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Iwasaki, S. (2002). Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karatsu, M. (2004a). A study of storytelling in Japanese conversation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Dissertatlo11 Abstracts Internatlo11al: Section A Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(4), 1345. Karatsu, M. (2004b ). Verbal and nonverbal negotiation in Japanese storytelling. In P. Szatrowski (Ed.), Hidde11 and open conflict 111 Japanese co11versational i11teraction (pp. 125-161 ). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Koike, C. (200 1). An analysis of shifts in partklpation roles in Japanese storytelling in terms of prosody, gaze, and body movements. Proceedings of the 'IWenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 381-392. Koike, C. (2006, June). Ellipsis and body in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at the 2006 American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Montreal, Canada. Koike, C. (2007, July). Who is the storyteller now?: An analysis ofstory recipients' participation in joint storytelling. Paper presented at the lOth International Pragmatics Conference, GOteborg, Sweden. Koike, C. (2008). Shift in tellershlp in joint storytelling: An analysis of story recipients' questions. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities, 394-409. Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kuno, S. (1978). Danwa no bunpo [The grammar of Japanese discourse]. Tokyo: Thishukan Shoten.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphla, PA: University of Pennsylvanla Press. Lerner, G. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 247-271. Lerner, G. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation Text, 13(2), 213-245. Lerner, G. (1996). 0 n the place oflinguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: 'Second person' reference in multi-party conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 281-294. Makino, S., & 'Thutsui, M. (1986). A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Thkyo: The Japan Times. Mandelbaum, J. (1987). Couples sharing stories. Communication Quarterly, 35(2), 144-170. Mandelbaum, J. (1993). Assigning responslbility in conversational storytelling: The interactiona! construction of reality. Text, 13(2), 247-266. Maynard, S.K. (1989). Japanese conversation: Self-contextuallzatlon through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Mori. J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement i11 Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nariyama, S. (2003). Ellipsis and reference trackb1g in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norrick. N. (2000). Cmrversat1o11al narratil'e: Storytelli11g in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norrick. N. (2004). Humor, tellability. and conarration in conversational storytelling. Text, 24(1 ), 79-111. Norrick. N. (2005). Interaction in the telling and retelling of interlaced stories: The eo-construction of humorous narratives. In U.M. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), Narratll'e interaction (pp. 263-283). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Livb1g narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sacks, H. ( 1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sher:zer (Eds.), Exploratio,IS in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures 011 co11versation. Oxford: Basil IDackwell. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A, & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. Shibatani, M. (1990). The la11guages ofJapan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szatrowski, P. (2000). Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatlba to gengolhigengo koodoo no kanren ni tuite [Relation between participant status and verbal/nonverbal behavior in eoconstruction]. Niho11go Kagaku, 7, 44-69. Szatrowski, P. (Ed..). (2004). Hidde11 and ope11 cmiflict in Japa11ese co11versational i11teraction. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Szatrowski, P. (2005). Zyoohoo syori. soogo sayoo, danwa k.oozoo kara mita tooti to higengo koodoo to no kankee [Postposing from the point of view of information management, interaction and discourse structure and in its relation to nonlinguistic behavior]. InS. Kushida, T. Sadanobu & Y. Den (Eds.), Katudoo to site no bun to hatuwa (pp. 159-208). Tokyo: Hituji Publishers. Szatrowski, P. (2006). 20-dai no zyosee no danwa ni okeru siziteki na miburi to hyoositeki na miburi no te no katatt to kinoo [Forms and functions of deicttc and beat gestures in Japanese conversations between women in their 20's]. Hyoogen Kenkyuu, 84,67-77. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

101

102

Chisato Kolke

Appendix A In the excerpts of this study, the original speech in Japanese orthography is provided in the first line, the original speech in Romanization in the second line, and English translation in the third line. In the English translation words which are not verbally stated in Japanese are written in parentheses. However, for the purpose of this analysis I indicate references to participants that are ellipted (i.e., not verbally stated in the original Japanese) with blank parentheses inserted in the English translation. When relevant to the analysis I provide figures of body movements captured by frame grabs from the original video together with descriptions of the gaze and body movements in double parentheses.

AppendixB

1 Taku:

C: q") ltU q") :10 lt' l- i:i' -::> - , (0.5) :fO!lf
tc. :G o fL ~ :G ~ lt' -::> ~i l/' q") -::> 't :@

Kono mae no oisikatta ne. Kuzyoonegi ippai notte ru:, (0.5) okonomi. The one (we had) the other day was delicious, wasn't it? The Okonomiyaki (pancake) with a lot of Kujo scallions on top. 2 Seiji:

5fvo 5fvoff5fvo 5fvo 5fvo 5fvo Un. Un. /JUn. Un. Un. Un. Yeah.Yeah.//Yeah.Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

3 Fujio:

//5 fv o /JUn. //Yeah.

4 Taku:

&;, C:~fvll"l6.o =

A, gomen 1/na.= Oh, sorry, //you know.= 5 Fujio:

//"Ao liE. //Huh?

6 Taku:

=1r±*:tilt 1 lt' "0- fvl/i.J'-::> 't fvo =Fujio-kun iihin 1/katte n. =Fujio, it's that (you) weren't (there).

7 Fujio:

//~o

//A. //Oh.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series 103

8 Fujio

;t? § :$1' /h';i~ v~ :g, ~ -:: > "L = E? Zibun IIga iru toki tte= Huh? When I was (there),=

9 Taku:

//{.I.-"\-"\}

1/{Ehe he} //{LAUGH} 10 Fujio

=.i5 tt ~-"' tJ: :b' ·:de "If "t n' tl o =are tabenakatta desu ka ne. =(we) didn't eat that?

11 Taku:

12 Fujio:

-'f ~ ~ tl 'l{~~ ~ o Sorya negiyaki ya. That's negiyaki (pancake). .i5 ~ -'f '? :b• o A, sokka.

Oh, that's right.

13 14 Fujio:

(1.8) v•v~//tJ:.i5o

Ii 1/naa. How nice.

//C. O)JWfJ'? tc~~ fvo

15 Taku:

)j; 1) ~ fv~ '? tc~~o

{? ""' ""' ""' ""' }

1/Kono mae itta toki yan. Ruri-san hutta. toki ya. {U he he he he} //(It)'s the time when (we) went (to eat okonomiyaki) the other day. (It)'s the time when (I) stood up Ruri.

{LAUGH} 16

(1.0)

17 Fujio:

tJ: !v tJ• tl? / v ~ F "9 :g,-:::> "L 1'\D "5 "L //"L tl? Na.nka ne? bu1-eedo-su1·u tte yuute lite ne? Somehow, you know? (he) (was) saying (he) will (go) [do] rollerblading, and, you know?

18 Taku:

19 Fujio:

//{•\.-"\-"\-"\}

*"

//{He he he he} //{LAUGH}

l, 1t lv :b'-:::> "L JB:b' ~t "L ~ "L ;J; 1) ~ lv tC::. o Simasen ka tte koe kakete kite Ruri-san ni.

Won't (you) do (it with (me))? (he) asked Ruri, and,

104

Chisato Kolke

20

(1.0)

21 Fujio:

fv t! llfi '? -r- ~ Nde 1/itte:, And //(I) went, and,

//7....? f: ~ '? tr:. fv o

22 Seiji:

IlE? So yatta n. //What? Is it that (it) was so?

23 Fujio:

'5

fv o fv T! fi '?

-r- ~ !::f 7J: fi ~ £ L J: iJ'- ~ '5 L :G- ~

- ~ 1'6 - q:r f:Ht; ~ ~-

*

L

Un. Nde itte:, hona ikimasyo ka: yuute ne:, kite:, Taku-, Nakai-sensee mo:, Yeah. And, (I) went, and (I) said well then shall (we) go, you know, and (I) came, Taku-, Instructor Nakai also, 24 Seiji:

0

'5 fvo 0

oun.o 0

25 Fujio:

Uh-huh. 0

*-r,

1'6~ fv

kr 7...." fvlJ: 35 ~ '? tc: 6 Jv l) ~ fv !:t fv t; ~ 1'6~ fv

~~~£LJ:~-~~"?~6-~~'?~~~~~*·~Ll" '%Jfv Tf't J:Jv l) ~ fviJ'~o

kite, Taku-san keehen naa yuttara Ruri-san honzya Taku-san ni kakemasyo ka:, yuttam.:, mettya metya daibakusyoo-site 1·u n desu yo Ruri-san ga. came, and when (I) said Taku hasn't come, has he, and when Ruri said well then shall (I) call Taku, it's that (she) is laughing out loud, Ruri (is). 26 Taku:

{l\1\/fl\l\}

{Ha ha!!ha ha.} {LAUGH}

27 Seiji:

28 Fujio:

/f0'5 fvo 0 ff0Un. 0 /fDUh-huh.0 fn.JiJ•lJ:-J!ttc:GfX!v~fv:Gfv//'?l"lt•"'Jo

Nani ka na: omotara nondon nen 1/tte iu. When (I) wondered what is (going on), it turns out that (lit. (the situation) is that) it's that (he) is drinking.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

1/{1'\l'\l>}

29 Taku:

1/{Hahaha} //{LAUGH} 30 31 Seiji:

(0.3)

1!5, C &I) fv o fK dj. ~;:M-::> lite:: 0) ~a:.~, A, gomen. Nomi ni saso/!tta no wa:, Oh sorry. The one who invited (him) to drink

32 Taku:

//{""\ •'\.-.''\..}

!!{He he he} //{LAUGH} 33 Seiji:

7d: fv t.1J:: <11~ ~-::> tc:: iJ' ~ L tL" fvo nan to naku 1/boku yatta ka mo sirehen. somehow, //may have been me.

34 Taku:

35 Fujio:

//{7777} !I{Hu hu hu hu} //{LAUGH} lt'~//:lav'£"'9 J:o

Iya//tigaimasu yo. No. //(That)'s not (it), I tell you. 1!-:J:;II::W~o

36 Taku:

1/Iti-ban saisyo ya. //(You) (were) [are] the very first (one). 37 Fujio:

:la? o 1!5 0)~ ~'? tc:: ~ fviJ~ fiv' @'? "'Cv'-? ~ @{7 7 7} Tigau. Ano, notta mon ga warui @tte iu,@ {Hu hu hu} (That)'s not (it). Uhm, (the situation) is that the one who accepted (the invitation to have a drink) is to blame (lit. bad).

{LAUGH} 38 39 Fujio:

(1.5)

..'f-? o ..'f-? o

=

Soo. Soo.= Right. Right = 40 Seiji:

//73: ~, //Demo, //But,

105

106

Ch!sato Kolke

41 Fujio:

//= '{t'? iJ' <~ ;t, 1/=Sekkaku nee, //=All the trouble, you know,

42 Seiji:

.fl~i-:ul$!1&-::> L fvo

boku wa: kakunin totte n. it's that I got confirmation. 43

(1.3)

44 Seiji:

4- B ti fX&J.:@?? 'L //Mlt' 'L -, Kyoo wa nomeru? tte 1/kiite:, Can (you) drink (with me) today? //(I) asked (him), and,

//'? lvo

45 Fujio:

1/Un.

//Uh-huh. 46 Seiji:

1v 7! - , 1/f'v l) -, nde:, 1/Ruri-, and I /Ruri -, //fii.J'L~!Jl,f.:/vo ~.b'f?

47 Fujio:

I/Nan te henzi-sita n. Mayowazu? //What is it that (he) answered? (Was it) without hesitation? 48 Seiji:

;t? ;1;5,? /v, If@? fvo@ E? A, un, //@ un.@ What? Oh, yeah,//@yeah.@

49 Fujio:

11{77\l\l\1'\l\}

!!{A ha ha ha ha. ha.} //{LAUGH} 50 Seiji:

@~ 7'J:

51 Fujio:

@th iJ' lv iJ~ 7'J: tb o @

;1;5 o @ .h @Yanaa. @.h @Was (his answer), you know.@ .h

@Akan ga.naa.@ @(It's) no good, you know.@

52 Seiji:

*

1?,

le de, At home,

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series 53 Taku:

J!Jl) ~ fv0)-1i!U'~0)"9 \~1i~c: ~ .btL "L fv/1~ fvt.t·-o Ruri-san no: denwa no sugu ato ni iwarete n 1/yan ka:.

It's that (I) was asked [told] (by you) right after Ruri's call, //you know.

//Js..- fvo 1/Hu:n.

54 Fujio:

//Uh-huh. 55 Taku:

l/' ~, ~ ~- £ C:. C:. ~~ob' \~ G lt ~ ~ '? t<: 6 .:t '? tJ~ o Iya, demo: ma koko de nomu gumi ya.ttam ekka. No, but, well, (it) should be okayif(we) just drink here (I thought).

56 Seiji:

o~- fvo o fv- ~-; J: C:. -, of" C:. ~-; J: l§-; J: lf '? "L ~ fv ~ - , (l.O)-;J:tf-;J:tf"?"Llt~-5 O)~;l:.-, (1.5)1!:-;l;llJ'Y )'-;!;

t.-, U:n. 0 N:de tyoko-, soko de tyobityobi tte nonde:, (1.0) tyobityobi tte iu no wa:, (1.5) biiru-iti rittoru to:,

0

Yeah. And, a little, (we) drank a little there, and (1.0) a little means (1.5) aliter of beer and, 57 Fujio:

"5 fvo Un. Uh-huh.

r 0) 7::: ~ 6 L.>- "9 o Anago no tenpura de:su.

58 Waitress:1\

Here i:s sea eel tempura. 59 Taku:

~;l:. lt "~ o

Hai. OK. 60 Seiji:

1!5 t. 7 ;t 'Y .iJ ~ f'F '? t;:;;IJ 7 7 J!J -tJ~ Ato uwokka de tukutta kakuteru: ga, And cockta:ils made with vodka,

61 Fujio:

"5 fvo Un. Uh-huh.

62 Seiji:

1i. Ei (· Glt ~ o

gohyaku gurai. about five hundred (milliliters).

107

108

Ch!sato Kolke

63 Fujio:

@'? fv o @ @Un.@

@Uh-huh.@ 64 Seiji:

=A "'f J? '\! o Huta.-ri de ya de. (That)'s for two people.

65 Taku:

=A J? "'f o Huta-ri ya de. (That)'s two people.

66 Seiji:

tltJ• G~?&if ~- ~flli! lm J?? L." fv ~1 ~: ~ Dakara zenzen heeki: na. ha.rli ya.tte n kedo, So, (it) was totally within safe limits but,

67 Taku:

'\! .:C 0) "Jbl!C: ~;: , De sono a/!to ni, And after that,

1/.:C O)ri. "!J"."'f6 J:.? C: "Jb tJ• fv!!tJ•? h."l;t. o //Sono ato ga tyotto akan!!ka.tta. na. IfAfter that (it) was a little bit no good.

68 Seiji:

1/~fv"'f!.@~l:f:lt<::-CimtJ•

69 Tak:u:

tJ•? L." ~ tc.fv~ fv"/:J'- o (l.O)tfitf(0.4)!) .t.? C: (OJ)Cii~""'Z ~;: 1TtJ••' fv?

1/Nonde ru totyuu ni: denwa kakatte kita n yan ka:. (1.0) Taku-kun (0.4) tyotto (0.7) gohan tabe ni ikahen? /!While (we) were drinking, it's that the phone rang, you know. (1.0) Tak:u, (0.4) just (0.7) won't (you) go eat dinner (with me)? 70 Fujio:

//"?- fvo 1/U:n. //Uh-huh.

71 Taku:

//71..71..?C:, (0.5)71_, lt·"ll..-•'\!'9 J:? 1/Eetto, (0.5) e, ii desu yo? //Uhm, (0.5) uhm (that)'s fine, I tell you.

72

(2.5)

73 Taku:

.:C tL tJ~ i!5 tJ• fv :G o Sore ga. aka.n ne. That (was) no good, you know.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

74 75 Fujio:

(1.7)

£db£ db£ db£ db .'f '5lt'~'51if~ db t) £ "9 :Qo Maa maa maa maa soo iu toki mo arimasu ne. Well well well well there are times like that, too, you know.

76 Seiji:

~ CS&~~~;: t't-::> tc: G id: ?i'~!Ui}Hi db 0 b ~, De gohan tabe ni ittara na? Awamori wa aru wa:, And when (we) went out for dinner, there is awamori (alcoholic

beverage made in Okinawa) a:nd,

77 Fujio:

?/vo

Un. Uh-huh.

78 Seiji:

id: 1v t.J~ ::t 1) ::t : :. -' e' ~ fv ~i db ;g, b

0

Nanka Orion biiru wa aru wa. Like there is Orion beer (beer made in Okinawa).

79 Fujio:

@? lvo@

@Un.@ @Uh-huh.@ 80 Seiji:

C. t) ~iX*" id: db f.J'~/v~-3? o

Korya nomana. akan yaroo. Well then (we) have to have a drink, you know.

81 Fujio:

@db db, db 0) Ji5 "V "9 J: :G?@ @Aa, ano mise desu yo ne?@ @Oh, (it)'s that restaurant, right?@

82 Taku:

~iS <1J lv o

Yachimun. Yachimun (the name of the restaurant).

83 Seiji:

.'f? o .'f? o

Soo. Soo. Right. Right

84

(3.5)

85 Fujio:

SEt;: ~BJ{ "V//~-::> "l lJc: ~ lv!I:G o

*"

Nikki ni egao de 1/notte masita mon !/ne. It's that (he) appeared in (his) diary with a smile, you know.

86 Taku:

//{7 7 7} 1/{Huhuhu} //{LAUGH}

109

uo Ch!sato Kolke

//{l\1'\777} !!{Ha ha hu hu hu} //{LAUGH}

87 Seiji:

88 Fujio:

:tn.·' ld.J' '? t.::- C: iJ' 1-9:> I h L" o Oisikatta: toka yu!!tte. Saying (it) was delicious, or something.

//{7 7 7} 1/{Hu huhu} //{LAUGH}

89 Taku:

90 Fujio:

Jv 1) ~ 1v Cab!v? L"i!fv'L" ~ 0) ~<::~?&B{~0)-@3 1J:VC'II~o

Ruri-san gomen tte kaite ru no ni zenzen hansee no iro nasi de !/ne. Although (he) writes "Ruri, sorrY,' there are no signs of repentance at all, I!you know.

//lt' "? 1: 1£>-, 1/Iya demo:,

91 Taku:

//No, bu:t, 92 Fujio:

11{71'\l'\l'\l'\} 1/{Hu ha ha ha ha} //{LAUGH}

93 Taku:

//~ tl.-, ~ tl. "? fvo

II Are:, are yan. /!Tha:t, that's you know. 94 Fujio:

lv? N? Huh?

95 Taku:

'.EJ.Jl.,J;'50)-'.EJ.JI.tntl!"??tc0? Syasin, mise no: syasin dake 1/yatta ro? The picture, (it) was a picture of only the restaurant, wasn't it?

117!:? o 7f:? o 1/Soo. Soo.

96 Fujio:

//Right Right.

97 98 Taku:

(0.6) )]11)~/vC~abfvo

Ruri-san gomen. Ruri, sorry.

Chapter 3. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series

99 Fujio:

l! ~ ~JJ{l!fl '? L" ';@ lv t.J~ Jl 71.. ';@ fv l! '9 J:, t!."JJJJ! L @t-o@{**} De, ega.o de totte ru n ga mieru n desu yo,

doo //mite @mo:.@ {ho ho} And it's that (I) can see (you) taking (that picture) with a smile, no matter how //(I) look at (it). {LAUGH}.

100 Taku:

1/{l\l'll\}

//{Ha ha ha} //{LAUGH} 101 Seiji:

11{71\l\l\l\l\l\}

1/{Hu ha ha ha ha ha ha} //{LAUGH}

102

(2.4)

103 Taku:

f1 '? t. C: "5 ~ '? L" :fl '? L" tc:: t fv 7d: .i5 o Tottokoo yutte totte ta. m on naa. It's that (we) were taking (pictures) saying let's take (pictures to remember this fun time).

111

CHAPTER4

Sharing a personal discovery of a taste Using distal demonstratives in a storytelling about kakuni 'stewed pork belly' Mariko Karatsu University of Arizona

Focusing on the participants' uses of distal demonstratives. this chapter investigates how a teller's personal discovery and assessment of a new taste (kakutti 'stewed pork belly') are shared with a recipient through the process of a storytelling. In data from an audio/video taped naturally occurring conversation among three Japanese women, I demonstrate how the teller's uses of the word kakuni and the distal demonstrative (are 'that thing') work as a "prospective indexical" (C. Goodwin, 1996) in a recognition search, and create a context for the participants to share their knowledge about kakuni. Building on previous research on Japanese demonstratives by grammarians and researchers of conversation, I demonstrate how two uses of distal demonstratives (Le., to refer to an entity which is solely in the speaker's mind, or to refer to an entity which is shared or eo-experienced by the speaker and the listener) can converge in the process of storytelling, and how this convergence enables the recipient to display her agreement with the teller's assessment of a new taste while showing her individuality as someone who has her own experiences of kakuni. This study also indicates the importance of analyzing both verbal and nonverbal behavior (e.g., gaze direction) for understanding the use of grammatical forms in interaction.

One of the important functions of telling a story in conversation is to share emotions and attitudes towards events among conversational participants while making sense of them through the interaction (Tannen, 1989; Coates, 1996; Ochs & Capps, 2001; Becker & Quasthoft~ 2004). This study investigates how a story teller's personal discovery and assessment of a new taste are shared with other participants through the process of a storytelling using distal demonstratives. Research on English conversations has demonstrated that conversational participants share their emotional attitudes using linguistic strategies such as

114

Mariko Karatsu

repetition, eo-construction of utterances and back channel utterances (Tannen, 1989; Coates. 1996), and their assessments (the display of one's affective involvement in a referent) using grammar, prosody, and gaze direction (C. Goodwin, 1996; C. Goodwin & M. H. Goodwin, 1992). Previous research on Japanese conversations has demonstrated how telling a story is collaboratively achieved and how outcomes (such as a claim about an object in a story and the details of a story) are produced through participants' interaction (Hayashi, Mori & Takagi, 2002; Karatsu 2004b; Nishikawa, 2005). However, with the exception of Szatrowski (2005), little attention has been paid to the interactional process involved when a story teller presents her emotional attitude in a story and this attitude is shared with other participants in the storytelling. In this study, I analyze a conversational segment in which one of the participants' telling that she had discovered a new taste (kakuni 'stewed pork belly') is followed by her personal story about how she discovered and assessed this new taste. A noticeable practice in this conversational segment involves the participants' repeated use of distal demonstratives (e.g., a.re 'that thing' and anna. 'that kind of') to refer to kakuni 'stewed pork belly: a food which was not physically present in the speech situation. Focusing on the participants' uses ofdistal demonstratives. I investigate (1) how the teller introduces kakuni, a particular entity essential for the telling of her story that existed only in her memory, (2) how the participants share kakuni as a mutually accessible entity, and (3) how it is possible for other participants to appreciate the teller's assessment of this entity using linguistic and nonverbal resources.

Previous research This study builds on previous research on deixis and prospective indexicals by Hanks (1992) and C. Goodwin (1996). It also suggests ways to modify previous research on Japanese demonstratives by grammarians (Sakata, 1971/1992; Horiguchi, 1978; Kuroda, 1979/1992; Shooho, 1981; Tanaka, 1981; Kinsui & Takubo, 1990/1992a, 1992b) and researchers of naturally occurring conversation (Kitano, 1999; Hamaguchi, 2001; Hayashi, 2003, 2008; Naruoka, 2006).

Deixis and prospecti11e indexicals Hanks (1992) points out that "the study of deixis provides privileged evidence for the ways that natural languages define interactive context by encoding pragmatic categories and forms of interaction in the grammar itself" (p. 48). C. Goodwin (1996) shows how a speaker's use of a word such as "terrible" in a story preface can

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 115

prospectively index the context of interaction, that is, the speaker can refer to something that will be specified as the conversation develops with a word that gives the other participants a hint about how to participate in the following conversation. C. Goodwin (1996) uses the term "prospective indexical" to refer to a speaker's use of a particular term (e.g., the term "terrible/wonderful" in a story preface and the term "trouble" in a report) that hearers do not know or understand completely at the utterance time (e.g., what is terrible and how terrible it is), but is revealed subsequently as the interaction proceeds (p. 384).1 He points out the following: The occurrence of a prospective indexical thus invokes a distributed, multi-party process. The cognitive operations relevant to the ongoing constitution of the event in process are by no means confined to speaker alone. Hearers must engage in an active, somewhat problematic process of interpretation in order to uncover the specification of the indexical that will enable them to build appropriate subsequent action at a particular place. (C. Goodwin 1996, pp. 384-385)

The term "terrible" when used as a prospective indexical in a story preface does some of the same work that a story preface does (Sacks, 1974) by providing story recipients with (1) a framework for interpretation (i.e., how they should interpret an upcoming story), (2) a hint about where they should apply this framework, and (3) a motivation to engage in these tasks, so that the recipients respond in an appropriate way (C. Goodwin, 1996). C. Goodwin (1996) analyzed how the term "problem" used in a report that was given by a worker from a remote place to the airport operations room ("We definitely have a problem here on this je:t bridge."), works as a prospective indexical. He demonstrated how the term mobilized the attention of members in the room to find out what the "problem" was, and got the members to collaboratively make sense out of the report utilizing the different environments in which each member was located (e.g., using a tool such as a monitor to get access to a visual image at the site of the "problem). In this way, a prospective indexical creates a context for the subsequent conversational interaction by projecting its nature in a situated environment and mobilizing the participants' orientation in that direction. In my data, I show how the prospective story teller uses distal demonstratives together with other linguistic resources in a way similar to C. Goodwin's (1996) "prospective indexicals," to create the circumstances for telling her story and for other participants to appreciate it.

C. Goodwin (1996, p. 374) points out that "the indexical properties oflanguage (Hanks, 1990) link elements oftalk to features of the context that an utterance both emerges from and further helps to constitute (C. Goodwin & Duranti, 1992)." 1.

116

Mariko Karatsu

Anc~phoric

distal demonstratives in Japanese

Japanese language has three types of demonstratives: proximal demonstratives (ko- 'this' demonstratives), medial demonstratives (so- 'that' demonstratives), and distal demonstratives (a- 'that' demonstratives) as shown in Figure 1. These demonstratives have deictic uses that refer to a referent that is physically present, as well as anaphoric (including kannen sizi 'notion referentiaf (Horiguchi, 1978; Shooho, 1981)) and cataphoric (Tanaka, 1981; Hayashi, 2003) uses that refer to a referent that is not physically present.2 Grammarians have described the differences between the uses of these three types of anaphoric demonstratives in terms of the speaker's/hearer's territory of information (Kamio, 1990) and degree of shared knowledge about the referent (Kinsui & Takubo, 1992b). I will review research on uses of anaphoric distal demonstratives focusing on the degree of shared knowledge about the referent. Grammarians have pointed out that speakers use anaphoric distal demonstratives to refer to either (1) an entity that exists solely in the speaker's memory and is central to the speaker's concern, or (2) an entity which is shared or eo-experienced by the speaker and the listener in their memories (Sakata, 1971/1992; Horiguchi, 1978; Kuroda, 1979/1992; Shooho, 1981; Tanaka, 1981; Masuoka & Takubo, 1989; Kinsui & Takubo, 1990/1992a, 1992b). Sakata (1971/1992) pointed out that in the first use the speaker is not concerned with whether or not the hearer shares information about the referent. This type of distal demonstrative is often observed when the speaker tells about past events with a sense of nostalgia in a personal story, or in a monologue as in (1). 3 0 a- 'that' (distal)

Ieo- 'this' (proximal) 0 Speaker

0 so-'that' (medial) Hearer

Figure 1. Three types of demonstratives

:z.

Horiguchi (1978) refers to demonstratives that are used to refer to an entity that exists only In the speaker's head (kannen 'idea') and whose referent is not explidt, as kannen sizi 'notion referential: Tanaka (1981) has pointed out that the anaphoric and cataphoric uses of distal demonstratives are also deictic.

3· The Appendix In Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanization, transcription conventions, and the English translation used In the examples.

(1)

1!111

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 117

.:5

•ll';f

mO)if~~ ~t ~ § :$1 tc s 0) c. c~ It? c~ 1!t G:IJ•-::> tctr:IJ~

c~

1J: -::::> iJ' G <~ -::> -r <:@ o

Sumida no kenkyuu de wa, zibun mo dore dake kuroo-sita ka sirenai. • toki no koto,. ori no koto, to sugisatta hi no koto o omou to, kurusikatta mukasi ga natukasiku kaette kuru. No one can imagine how I suffered from the study of Sumida. Thinking of days that have passed (in such a way in my mind as) "Things (that happened) a t . time, things (that happened) o n . occasion=' the difficult past returns to me nostalgically. (Sakata, 1971/1992, p. 65; Romanization and English translation by Karatsu) (1) is a passage cited from the novel Sinzitu Itiro by Yuzoo Yamamoto. In (1), the speaker recalls the past by referring to a particular time (toki) and occasion (ori) as ano toki 'that time' and ano ori 'that occasion' using the anaphoric distal demonstrative ano. (2) is an example of the second use of anaphoric demonstratives to refer to an entity that is shared or eo-experienced by the speaker and the hearer. Kinsui & Takubo (1990/1992a, p. 130) point out that the speaker is able to use distal demonstratives when he/she assumes that the hearer has experienced the referent in the same way as he/she has. In (2) the first speaker's (A) use of ano 'that' in ano ryoori 'that food' indicates that he/she knows or assumes that the interlocutor (B) experienced the referent (a particular food). The interlocutor's (B) use of are 'that, that thing' indicates that he/she experienced the referent that the speaker (A) referred to with ano 'that: (2) A

I

m~i ')

*iJ' -::> tc ~ '9 :G

0

oori wa umakatta desu ne. od was tasty, wasn't it.

B ;:t ;:t~ti ~ L. 0) v .A r 7 ;/ ~<::
*

-tt fv J: o Be, wa doko no resutoran ni mo makemasen yo. Yes, would not lose (in a competition) with any restaurant, I tell you. (Kinsui & Takubo, 1990/1992a, p. 130; Romanization and English translation by Karatsu)

Grammarians argue that the first use of anaphoric distal demonstratives to refer to an entity that exists solely in the speaker's memory is more basic (Horiguchi, 1978; Kuroda, 1979/1992; Tanaka, 1981; Masuoka & Takubo, 1989). Kinsui & Takubo (1992b) point out that a speaker can use anaphoric demonstratives to "refer to an object that he/she encountered in the past as a direct experience, without the presupposition that the hearer shares the experience or there is mutual knowledge

118

Mariko Karatsu (p. 188; English translation by Karatsu). Shared knowledge of the referent between the speaker and the hearer is created derivatively in a situational context (Tanaka, 1981). When the hearer views the object/entity in the same way as the speaker does, he/she can use distal demonstratives to create a "sense of unity (group feeling)" (Horiguchi, 1978; English translation by Karatsu). Previous researchers have also investigated the semantic nature of the referent of anaphoric distal demonstratives. Shooho (1981) points out that the referent is the speaker's "whole image" of the referent (p. 85; English translation by Karatsu). In a discussion of the differences between the medial (so-) demonstratives and the distal (a-) demonstratives, Kuroda (1979/1992) claims that while distal demonstratives refer to speakers' "direct experience" or "direct knowledge," medial demonstratives refer to their "conceptual knowledge~ Extending Kuroda (1979/1992), Kinsui & Takubo ( 1992b) point out that anaphoric distal demonstratives connote attributes of the referent, i.e., the concrete situation in which the speaker encountered the referent. For example, in (3) the speaker uses ano kazi 'that fire' to refer not to the concept 'fire: but to the whole situation in which the speaker encountered the fire (e.g., the magnitude of the fire). This allows the speaker to draw the conclusion that "many people have died" based on what he experienced in the situation (e.g., what he/she saw). (3) ~

s flit m7! 1<. •

9E lv tl.C: It -5 J:

'IJ~ iki -::> tc. J: o ~ •

(})

c. e: tt. iJ' ; A 'IJ~ 1J: 1v ~<= 1v
0

Kinoo Kanda de kazi ga atta yo. • mo sinda to omou yo.

kazi no koto da kara hito ga nan-nin

Yesterday there was a fire in Kanda, I tell you. Because o f . fire, I think that many people have died, I tell you. (Kuroda, 1979 /1992, p. 101; Romanization and English translation by Karatsu) Anaphoric distal demonstratives "evoke the situation" for the hearer, and when the hearer shares the referent, they confirm a "sense of unity" between the speaker and the hearer, i.e., that they share the same world (Kinsui & Takubo, 1992b, p. 190; English translation by Karatsu). Grammarians have pointed out that speakers use anaphoric distal demonstratives when the referent is not physically present to refer to either (1) an entity which is solely in the speaker's memory about which the speaker is strongly concerned, or (2) an entity which is shared or eo-experienced by the speaker and the listener in their memories. In my analysis, I will demonstrate how these two uses converge in a storytelling where the teller and one of the other participants use distal demonstratives to refer to the entity (kakuni 'stewed pork belly') which is located both in their individual minds as well as shared.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 119

Interactional functions ofJapanese distal demonstratives in com,ersation Research on naturally occurring conversation has demonstrated how distal demonstratives function in participants' interaction, focusing on the progressive nature of the conversational interaction (Kitano 1999; Hamaguchi, 2001; Hayashi 2003, 2008; Naruoka 2006). Previous researchers have analyzed unique uses of distal demonstratives in conversation for "forward pointing" (Hamaguchi, 2001) or "cataphoric" reference (Hayashi, 2003, 2008), and non-referential meanings (Naruoka, 2006). Hayashi (2003, 2008) demonstrated that uses of the distal demonstrative (m-e 'that thing') work as a "place holder" in the organization of turn-taking. That is, by using the distal demonstrative before specifying the referent, the speaker can leave the task of clarifying the referent until later, and to hold his/her turn or floor. Building on C. Goodwin (1996), Hayashi (2003) showed how distal demonstratives have a "prospective orientation" (p. 122) and can work as a "prospective indexical" (C. Goodwin, 1996) in "word search" activities in which the speaker is looking for an appropriate word by (a) indexing a particular domain of words as a relevant domain of search, (b) projecting a specific course of subsequent action, and thereby (c) providing hearers with resources for eo-participation. (p. 121)

For example, in (4) after Takie indicates that she is having trouble producing the next item (i.e., the name of the town where the company she mentioned is located) in line 1. she begins a word search in line 1 that she continues in line 5 using the distal demonstrative asoko 'there: Then, Ayako immediately helps Takie by offering the name of the town "Hagiwaradai" in line 6, which is subsequently confirmed by Takie in line 7.

Tookyuu//Amellnikkusu yuu //no waiVJ:: (.) allno::::: Tokyu// Amellnikkusu i::s (.) uh:::::m, 5

Takie:

//(45 ~C.~ )11

1/(Asoko ya)ll //(There)ll 6

Akiyo:

Gti v~ o 11 Hagil/waradai.ll ~;;!:'.~~-I/ b

(in) Hagi//waradai.ll

120

Mariko Karatsu

7

Takie:

/17;_

7i.---- C ll~i ~.p 6 tlv~o

1/ee::::toll Hagiwaradai. 1/Uh::::mmll (in) Hagiwaradai. (Hayashi, 2003, p. 127) 4 Hayashi (2003) points out that in (4) the use of the distal demonstrative in line 5 provides a particular domain of words for the word search activity in such a way that a reference to a place is indexed tlrrough the type of demonstrative (asoko 'that place' rather than are 'that'), and its specification in the subsequent talk is projected. (p. 128)

Akiyo's participation in line 6 indicates that Takie's use of the demonstrative in line 5 together with the syntactic and semantic structure given in Takie's previous utterance (line 1) gave Akiyo a hint about how to participate in the word search activity. Building on research by previous grammarians who have argued that speakers use distal demonstratives to locate the referent outside of both the speaker's and hearer's territory, Naruoka (2006) showed how participants use distal demonstratives to perform an expressive function which creates a "mutuality of perspective" (p. 490). She pointed out that participants use the distal demonstrative (a1-e 'that thing') to indicate that "each speaker assumes her interlocutor has the same stance" (p. 489), and repeated uses of are 'that thing' reinforce this solidarity as the interaction precedes. Naruoka (2006) also demonstrated how one participant's use of distal demonstratives creates a context in which all participants share the same stance toward the same referent. This study modifies the claim made in previous research that speakers use distal demonstratives primarily to refer to an entity which is located in the speaker's distant memory and which they directly experienced (that is, distanced direct knowledge), regardless of whether or not it is shared with the hearer(s) (Horiguchi, 1978; Kuroda, 1979/1992; Shooho, 1981; Tanaka, 1981; Kinsui & Takubo, 1990/1992a, 1992b). I will demonstrate how the teller introduces an entity (kakuni 'stewed pork belly) which she experienced in the past with the distal demonstrative a1-e 'that thing' locating it in the context of distanced direct experience. I will also show how this entity becomes mutually accessible for the conversational participants to refer to with distal demonstratives in the same context of distanced direct experience.

4· A Japanese transcription has been added to the original transcript, and slight changes made In the Romanization and presentation following the format of the present volume. Lines 2 through 4 have been omitted from the original transcription.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste t:n

Analysis In this study; building on C. Goodwin (1996) and Hayashi (2003), I demonstrate how the teller's uses of the word kakuni 'stewed pork belly' and the distal demonstrative are 'that thing' work as a prospective indexical in a "recognition search" (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979) (described below), to project a course of activities while locating the entity kakuni in the "context of distanced direct experience=' I use the term "context of distance direct experience to refer to a psychological space where a speaker locates an object/entity which exists in her memory (in the distant past). I also demonstrate how the two previously demonstrated uses of the anaphoric distal demonstratives (1) to refer to an entity which is solely in the teller's mind, or (2) to refer to an entity which is shared or eo-experienced by the speaker and the listener) (Sakata, 1971/1992; Horiguchi, 1978; Kuroda, 1979/1992; Shooho, 1981; Tanaka, 1981; Masuoka & Takubo, 1989; Kinsui & Takubo, 1990/1992a, 1992b) can converge in the process of storytelling. Specifically; the teller initially uses the distal demonstrative a1-e 'that thing' to refer to an entity which exists solely in her mind (i.e., her image of the particular entity) (Use 1), specifying a domain of description for this referent. Subsequently; this domain becomes open for other participants (who have direct knowledge of the referent) to refer to using distal demonstratives. This allows the participants to share the context of distanced direct experience that the teller created, and appear to share their knowledge and image of the referent (Use 2) while at the same time showing their different orientations to it (Use 1).

Overview of the storytelling about kakuni 'stewed pork belly' The data for this study consist of a segment taken from an audio and video taped naturally occurring conversation over lunch among three Japanese women in Tokyo. The participants (Eriko, Hana, and Mie) 5 are eating sandwiches, onigiri 'rice balls;6 miso soup, etc. at a common working table in their office. Following Jefferson (1978), I refer to a storytelling as an event of conversational interaction in which any of its participants can show an orientation toward a story before the story is told, and the story is methodically and sequentially occasioned in the conversation through the participants' interaction (Karatsu, 2004a, 2004b). I consider a story to be a discursive and cognitive product which consists of temporally sequenced events that are told from a particular perspective (Labov 5·

All names are pseudonyms in this study.

6. An oniglri 'rke ball' is a palm-sized triangle, ball, or cylinder of cooked rice. It is usually wrapped in a thin sheet of dried seaweed and stuffed with fillings such as pickled plums.

122

Mariko Karatsu

& Waletsky 1967; Ochs & Capps 2001). After the story is told, itis appreciated and/ or negotiated by the participants, and as the participants' orientation moves away from the story, the event of storytelling achieves closure. The storytelling about kakuni includes the following three different telling sequences. 7

Telling Sequence I: Telling Sequence II: Telling Sequence Ill:

Eriko's telling about her discovery of a new taste (kakuni) Eriko and Hana's eo-telling about the food kakuni Eriko's story

In Eriko's telling about her discovery of a new taste, she tells how she found that she could eat kakuni 'stewed pork belly' referring to it as a.re 'that thing: In Eriko and Hana's eo-telling about the food kakuni, they talk about how all the fat has been removed from kakuni and other foods like kakuni, and how people in Okinawa eat these foods often, referring to these foods using demonstratives such as are 'that thing' and anna 'that kind of. The outcome of Eriko and Hana's eotelling, specifically the place name Okina.wa (referred to in the phrase Okinawa no hito 'people in Okinawa' by both Eriko and Hana), is methodically used by Eriko to occasion her story in the conversation.8 In Eriko's story. Eriko tells about how she thought she would not be able to eat kakuni when her friend ordered it at an Okinawa restaurant, but was surprised when she ate it to find that it was tasty, and Hana shows her appreciation of Eriko's discovery of this new taste. In my analysis I address the questions of how Hana could appreciate Eriko's assessment of the kakuni that Eriko ate, and how they share each other's experience and knowledge despite the fact that neither the food kakuni was physically present nor did Hana share Eriko's experience of the kakuni at the Okinawan restaurant. The word kakuni appears only two times in their conversation, once in Eriko's telling about her discovery of the taste of kakuni, and once in Eriko's story. 7· The food name kakunlls usually used to refer to a particular pork dish which was originally cooked in the Kyushu area (the southern part of Japan) and later spread all over Japan. There are two other dishes that are very similar to (or almost identical to) kakuni, which both share a common origin in Chinese stewed pork belly: the Okinawan dish called rahutee and toobani which is eaten in Nagasaki. Because kakuni is a more common name than rahutee, it is sometime used to refer to Ok.inawan stewed pork belly (even at an Okinawan restaurant). The name kakuni can also be used to refer to a stewed diced fish or beef dish, which are cooked in a similar way to kakuni. In the conversation used in this study, Eriko refers to the pork dish that she ate at an Okinawan restaurant (presumably in Tokyo) as kakuni (not rahutee). 8. Although Erikds telling in Telling Sequence I and Eriko and Hana's eo-telling in Telling Sequence II are part of the storytelling (e.g., Erikds discovery of a new taste turns out to be a part of her story), I do not consider them to be stories because they do not include explicitly sequenced events that are told from a particular perspective.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste

However, both Eriko and Hana use distal demonstratives (are 'that thing') to refer to kakuni and talk about their knowledge of and experience with this food that they each have in their individual minds. Erik.o's discovery of the taste of kakuni is based on her experience of eating kakuni at the Okinawan restaurant Thus, it might be possible to say that the food kakuni that she referred to using are 'that thing' is the kakuni that she ate at the restaurant. If so, Eriko's distal demonstrative (are 'that thing') and Hana's distal demonstratives (are 'that thing' and anna 'that kind of') are likely to refer to different entities. I will investigate this further in my analysis of the conversational interaction.

The conversation prior to Telling Sequence I Prior to Telling Sequence I (Eriko's telling about her discovery of a new taste), the participants talk about Hana's and Mie's miso soups. Erik.o implies that she does not like pork and pork fat. 9

(5) 1 Mie

'J:J. 16..'~ fv. c:. tL t;t :td. ;:t (.) ~ ~ tdf '5 tJ~ lt ~ lt ~ 2::: J!t '5 0 Minasan, kore wa nee(.) yameta hoo ga ii to omou. Everyone, this is, you know(.) (I) think that it's better not to have (this).

6

Hana

//~ c:. ~ lf:\l_, "l .Q 0) ?11 1/Doko de dasite ru no?ll

//What (company) is it that sells (it)?ll 7

Eriko

//~ L .Q 0) t;t ~ 11 Demo somosomo gyuunikull haitte ru no wa,

//But in the first place one (soup) with bee~ I in (it), ((Demo 'but'II~M~down; H~M's miso soup cup)) 8

Mie

(

)45 ~'(}g: .Go

(

) Asahimaru.

(

) Asahimaru.

9

(0.3)

10 Eriko

~ ""\ iJ: lt ~ 2::: J!t '5

o

tabenai to omou. (I) think that (I) (would)n't eat (it). 9·

Description of gestures, shift in gaze direction, etc. are given in (( )). In ((Demo 'buf/

!:!+M .,!..down)) the utterance on the left of the I is the location where shift in gaze direction occurs. Following Szatrowski (2000), underlines indicate participants whose gaze shifts, shading indicates the speaker of the utterance, and arrows indicate gaze direction.

123

124

Mariko Karatsu 11

?

fvo

N. N. 12 Eriko

Jm(.).i5.@ ~ GJ:o Abura (.) aru desyo. (It) has fat, right?

((Abura 'fat'ti~~M; H.J..her own miso soup cup)) 25 Mie

Btt ~;: '9 tL ~i J: 7J1 '? t~- o Tonziru ni sureba yokatta:. (I) should have gotten pork miso soup. ((Tonziru 'pork miso soup/ E~.J..down ~ID)

26 Eriko

//M!Ctt 11 ~i MIC tJ~ ~i v1 '? "l.@ b J: :G - - ~ ~ to 1/Tonzirull wa buta ga haitte ru wa yo ne::~ demo. //As for pork miso soupll (it) contains pork, I tell you, you kno::wbut.

27 Hana

//MIC?t ~ 11 1/Tonziru, 11 //Pork miso soup,ll

28 Mie

?

fvo

Un. Yeah. 29 Eriko

-*i!i fiU ~ ~ 2::: ~ ~ (J) !m tJ~ }.. '? "l .@ c. 2::: ~;: ~i ~ b 1J 1J: v1 (J) J: :G~o

Kekkyoku oniku to oniku no abura ga haitte ru koto ni wa kawari nai no yo ne~. After all, it's that there is no difference [in the fact] that (it) has meat and meat fat in (it), I tell you, you know. ((kawari nai 'no difference'/ H+M.J..down)) 30

(10.0)

((The participants engage in eating.))

In (5), after Mie says in line 1 that she does not recommend the miso soup with beef and burdock that she is eating, Eriko responds in lines 7 and 10 by saying Demo somosomo gyuuniku haitte ru no wa, tabenai to omou. 'But in the first place, (I) think that (I) (would)n't eat one (soup) with beef in (it>= and gives the reason she dislikes beef in line 12 sayingAbura (.) arudesyo. '(It) has fat, right?' Later in line 25 when Mie mentions that she regrets that she did not get miso soup with pork (instead of miso soup with beef and burdock), Eriko confirms that pork miso soup contains pork in

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 125

line 26, and says in line 29 Kekkyoku oniku to oniku no abura ga haitte ru koto ni wa kawari nai no yo nN. 'After all. it's that there is no difference [in the tact] (it) has meat and meat fat in (it), I tell you, you know.' By this Eriko means even if Mie had miso soup with pork. it would not make any difference because it would still have meat and meat fat in it. In this way Eriko implies that she does not like meat tat, using the word abura 'tat' repeatedly. After approximately 10 seconds of silence in which the participants continue eating their lunch, the storytelling about kakuni 'stewed pork belly begins. Eriko tells about her discovery of the new taste (kakuni), as an exception to her dislike of meat and meat tat, that she implied in the prior conversation.

Telling Sequence I: Eriko's telling about her discovery of a new taste (kakuni) In this section, I demonstrate how Eriko uses the word kakuni 'stewed pork belly together with the distal demonstrative (are 'that thing') as a "prospective indexical." Eriko introduces the image of kakuni (her direct experience with the food called kakuni) into the conversational interaction, and it is recognized by other participants. The word kakuni and her use of the distal demonstrative are 'that thing' function together as a prospective indexical in a "recognition search" (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979). Eriko uses this prospective indexical to begin the recognition search, provide a domain of description for the entity to be recognized, and hint to the other participants about how to participate in the subsequent interaction, while projecting her telling of a discovery of a new taste. Sacks & Schegloff (1979) discuss the relative strength of two referential options (that can be satisfied concurrently): "minimization" (the use of a single reference form) and "recipient design" (using recognitionals, i.e., reference forms that invite and allow a recipient to find the referent). They point out that the preference for recipient design is stronger than the preference for minimization, and that although the preference for minimization is not suspended, "it is relaxed step by step in aid of recognition" (p. 19). They point out that when a speaker is not sure if his/her use of a recognitional is recognizable for the recipient, he/she may try it (e.g., after the name as a "try-marker" with an upward intonation followed by a brief pause), and a recognition search sequence begins. A recognition search proceeds step by step, with the speaker trying available recognitionals, until the recipient recognizes the referent. Eriko first uses the word kakuni (a single recognitional form), and then describes the referent in the recognition search sequence in (6) analyzed below. The conversational sequence in (6) begins after the 10 second silence, following the talk in which Eriko implied her dislike of meat fat in (5). Eriko initiates her recognition search in line 31, and tells about her discovery of a new taste, referring to it as are 'that thing' in line 37.

12.6

Mariko Karatsu

(6) 31 Eriko

1: t ~ x~ (0.8)PJ ~-::> "L lt~ -'5 lv 1: "9 tJ~? ~~i o Demo nee, (0.8) kakuni tte yuu n desu ka? wa. But you know, (0.8) is it that (it)'s called kakuni? - · ((Demo nee 'But you know'/ H+M{..down)) ((kakuni/ H~~l; M{..down))

32

(2.0) ((H nods twice during the silence.))

33 Eriko

tJ~ 1J: ~ ft lt~ 1GJ (1.0)f<~ 69 (]) "T!~]blv tt. o Kanari nagai aida (1.0) koime no azide nikonda. (The dish which) is simmered for quite a long time with a thick flavor.

34

(2.0) ((H nods during the silence.))

35 Eriko

'*

/~G~:t~ll 1.-nara nee, 11 //If ( i t ' s ) - you know,ll

36 Hana

ll.lm~ /:H G-IJ.J-::>

lltc:::fi"T! ~

1/Abura o dasikilltta ato de, After //taking off all the fat, 11 ((ato de 'after'/ E~lt-down; M{..down)) 37 Eriko

*

~i ~~ fv ~~<::it"" 6 tl..@ C.~ tJ~ (.):$1tJ~ ~ Gtco = . .wa honto ni taberareru koto ga (.) wakarimasita.= As f o r - (I) discovered that (I) could really eat (it).= (((.) wakari/ H nods once.))

Eriko structures her turn in line 31 in such a way that it indicates her orientation to the upcoming telling of her discovery of a new taste that she experienced in the past (line 37). She begins her turn with the connective expression Demo 'But' This hints that something which contradicts what was said previously (i.e., Eriko's dislike of meat and meat fat), will follow. However, after a 0.8 second pause she changes the course of her utterance and begins a recognition search saying kakuni tte yuu n desu ka? 'Is it that (it)'s called kakuni?: to check to see if the other participants recognize the food called kakuni. With this utterance, she requests confirmation that they know about the food name kakuni marking it with the quotation expression tte yuu 'is called: 10 Eriko's use of the quotative expression indicates

The expression tte yuu is the contracted form of to iu. (To (tte) is the quotative particle and iu, the verb 'say.') When a speaker uses the quotation expression to iu (tte iu) 'is called; he/she

10.

assumes that the hearers are not familiar with the name of the referent (e.g., a food name) preceding to iu (tte iu).

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 127

that she treats the word kakuni as a name, i.e., a food category, with which her addressee may not be familiar (and about which she herself may not be sure). At the end of her utterance in line 31, Erik.o postposes the subject of the preceding sentence are 'that thing~ Because there is no food called kakuni present in the speech situation nor has it been mentioned in the previous conversation Erik.o's use of the distal demonstrative are indicates that she has an entity (a particular food (X) whose name is kakuni) in her memory that she wants the other participants to recognize. She uses are to locate the entity (X) called kakuni in the context of her distanced direct experience (Figure 2). Hana's subsequent nods in line 32 suggest that she recognizes the food called kakuni, and encourage Erik.o to continue her talk. Because Erik.o refers to the entity by the distal demonstrative are and only gives the name kakuni to it, it is a difficult task for the other participants to recognize the entity that she is actually referring to and whether or not the name kakuni is appropriate. 11 More information about features of the entity may be necessary for the participants to recognize it. Erik.o's use of the word kakuni together with the distal demonstrative are leaves Eriko with the task of describing what the entity (are) is in the subsequent recognition search, specifically it projects an elaboration that will specify the entity (are) within the domain of the food kakuni. This, in turn, instructs the other participants about how to participate in the ongoing activity of the recognition search, specifically what to monitor Eriko's description for and when to display their recognition or non-recognition of the entity.

The context of distanced direct experience

are© Eriko

©

©

Hana

Mie

31 E: Demo nee, (0.8) kakuni tte yuu n desu ka?. wa. 'But you know, (0.8) is it that (it)'s is called kakuni? -~ Figure 2. Locating kakuni in the context of distanced direct experience

n.

See 8 for how the food category kakuni is confusing.

128

Mariko Karatsu

Eriko describes the entity (are) in line 33 Kanari nagai aida (1.0) koime no azide nikonda. '(The dish which) is simmered for quite a long time with a thick flavor: Then, Hana shows her recognition of the entity by giving an additional description of it in line 36 //Abura o dasikilltta ato de, 'After taking off all the fat; Hana's utterance (in line 36) forms the following sentence together with Eriko's utterance (line 33), in which Hana's utterance functions to qualify Eriko's utterance: Abura o dasikitta ato de kanari nagai aida koime no azi de nikonda '(The dish which) is simmered for quite a long time with a thick flavor after taking off all the fat: Hana's description also indicates that she participates in the context of distanced direct experience, where Eriko located the entity (X) by her use of the distal demonstrative are (line 31), as shown in Figure 3. The word kakuni together with Eriko's use of are provide a domain of description for the entity called kakuni in the participants' recognition search. However, because the entity are is located solely in Eriko's memory, this makes it difficult for other participants to give its description before Eriko does, and also makes it easier for Eriko to keep her floor. Thus, it is after Eriko's description in line 33 that Hana gives her description of kakuni in line 36. Before tellers such as a story teller initiate their telling (the main activity), they sometimes do preliminary work in which they introduce significant information for their telling by requesting confirmation so that their recipients will understand points of the telling (Szatrowski, 1994; Karatsu 2004a; Kushida, 2008). Eriko

The context of distanced direct experience

©

©

Erlko

Hana

33 E: Kanari nagai aida (1.0) koime no azide nikonda. '(The dish which) is simmered for quite a long time with a thick flavor: 36 H: 1/Abura o dasikilltta ato de, 'After taking off all the fat' Figure 3. Hana's participation in the context of distanced direct experience

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste

appears to have initiated the telling of her discovery with Demo 'But' (line 31), but suspends it immediately in order to check other participants' recognition of the entity (a.re), i.e., the food called kakuni (line 31). Then she elaborates on its description (line 33), preliminary to her telling about her discovery. 12 All this preliminary work suggests Eriko's orientation toward her telling of the discovery of a new taste. Specifically, because of the nature of the distal demonstrative (i.e., its referent is something that the speaker has experienced and exists in his/her me mory), Eriko's are suggests that she is going to talk about an experience that she had related to the food kakuni. Thus, Eriko's use of the word kakuni together with are in the recognition search projects her upcoming telling about her discovery. Eriko begins telling about her discovery using an~ a second time in her utterance in line 35 which is overlapped by Hana's utterance in line 36. Then she tells about her discovery in line 37, using are to show that she locates the food kakuni in the same context (the context of distanced direct experience) that she created with her initial use of are (line 31). I have shown that Eriko introduces her private image of the food kakuni into the conversational interaction by her first use of are 'that thing' (line 31) locating it in the context of her distanced direct experience and this context is sustained by her second and third use of a1-e (lines 35, 37). I also demonstrated that the word kakuni together with Eriko's use of are work as a prospective indexical to project the course of a recognition search, provide a domain of description for specification of the referent, and give a hint to other participants about how to participate in the subsequent interaction, while at the same time projecting her telling of the discovery. Subsequently, one of Eriko's recipients, Hana, showed her recognition of the food kakuni by nodding (lines 32, 34), and participated in the context of Eriko's distanced direct experience by eo-describing it with Eriko (line 36).

Telling Sequence II: Eriko and Hana's eo-telling about the food kakuni Following the conversational sequence in (6), Eriko and Hana eo-tell about the food kakuni to each other and to Mie, in particular, how people in 0 kinawa eat foods like kakuni often, and how although kakuni looks very fatty, the fat has been removed, as shown in (7), (8), and (9). Had Hana or Mie showed interest in the newsworthiness of Eriko's discovery immediately after her telling of the discovery (line 37), it could have developed into the telling of her story in response to their interest (Mandelbaum, 1987). However, because Hana takes up the food kakuni as a topic of their conversation and Eriko aligns herself with Hana, they tell about kakuni Kushida (2008, p. 101) demonstrated how a speaker can initiate a recognition search within a turn, changing the course ofhis utterance before starting the main activity (Le., a request).

12.

129

130

Mariko Karatsu

together. The context of the distanced direct experience that Eriko created in (6) is sustained by both Erik.o and Hana's uses of the distal demonstratives (are 'that thing' and anna 'that kind of'). I demonstrate on the one hand how Eriko and Hana continue to display to each other that they share the image of kakuni as eo-constructed shared knowledge, by co-constructing13 and repeating each other's utterances. I also show how Hana appears to show that she has her own individual knowledge of the food kakuni by addressing her utterances to Mie by gazing at her. In (7), immediately after Eriko's prior telling of her discovery (line 37), Hana takes up the entity (the food kakuni) as a topic, referring to it as are 'that thing' for the first time in line 38. By using are, Hana suggests that she shares the food kakuni with Eriko in the context of distanced direct experience created by Eriko in (6). In other words, she suggests that the entity (indicated by "X" in Figure 2) is not just Eriko's private entity but it also includes Hana's experience of the food kakuni. (7) 37 Eriko

38 Hana

~~i If lv c ~<:: ~-"" 6 tl. .Q L. c t.J~ (. ):$1 i:J' ~

*

L, tc. o = wa honto ni taberareru koto ga (.) wakarimasita. = As f o r - (I) discovered that (I) could really eat (it). (((.) wakaril H nods once.))

~~<:: v'v'fv~"t-:> "l J:? =~arada ni ii n desu tte yo? (I heard that) it's t h a t - is good for your health, I tell you. ((are 'that'/ E~4 M-1-down))

39 Hana

"l f9:> -5 i:J'~ 11 ka,ll (.)or (should I) say, 11

40 Eriko~

111tfi*'IO)DIIc//-:>"l~ 11

1/0kinawa no hillto //tte,ll //Speaking of people in Okinawa, 11

41 Hana

1/'5/vo 11 1/Un.ll 1/Yeah.ll

42 Hana~

lk111!f 0) A 11-::> " l - 0 ) ~I lv ~I lv~-"' "l .Q o tyool/zyu no hitol~ no banban tabete ru.

Ono & Yoshid.a (1996) point out that eo-construction of utterances in Japanese tends to occur when two speakers share knowledge in regard to what they are talking about (e.g., shared world knowledge, eo-experienced past events, and matters mentioned repeatedly in the preceding conversation), and when the information does not pertain to the other person's private territory. 13.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 131

speaking of people who live long lives, (they) e a (food) a lot. ((arma 'that kind of'/ E+~M))

IlB 0) -11

43 Eriko

1/Buta no:ll 1/po:rk'sll 44 Mie

0 ~-//--/v?oll 0 0

Hu:ll::n? 0 ll Uh hu://::h ?0 11

In line 39, Hana uses are to refer to the food a second time, but before completing her utterance she yields her turn to Eriko in line 40 Okinawa no hito tte, 'Speaking of people in Okinawa:. Then, before Eriko completes her utterance, Hana overlaps Eriko's utterance with a back channel utterance (line 41), and gets the turn in line 42 tyool/zyu no hitoll tte no banban tabete ru. 'speaking of people who live long lives, (they) eat (food) a lof Eriko's utterance in line 40 and Hana's utterance in line 42 could form the following sentence together: Okinawa no hito tte, tyoozyu no hito tte • no banban tabete ru. 'Speaking of people in Okinawa, speaking of people who live long lives, (they) e a t - (food) a lof Hana's utterance begins with a phrase (tyoo//zyu no hitoll tte 'speaking of people who live long lives') that qualifies Eriko's phrase by highlighting a particular subset of people among people in Okinawa, and completes Eriko's utterance. 14 In light of Hana's initiation of repair in line 3 9 . (.) tte yuu ka, ' - (.) or (should I) say,' her use of the distal demonstrative anna no 'that kind of (food)' in line 42 to replace her are in line 39 appears to expand the domain of foods from only the food kakuni to foods which have features similar to kakuni. It is worth noting that in line 42 Hana gazes at Mie when says anna 'that kind of, and addresses the remainder of her utterance(. no banban tabete ru. '(they) e a t - (food) a lof) to Mie. Although Hana describes the foods (anna no 'that kind of (food)') eo-constructing her utterances with Eriko in the context of distanced direct experience that Eriko created in (6), she also appears to highlight her individuality as the one who owns the knowledge that people who live long lives eat that kind of food a lot, by addressing her utterance to Mie through her gaze. In (8), Eriko and Hana continue to share their knowledge about the food kakuni (specifically the fact that all the fat is taken out) as eo-constructed knowledge in the same context of distanced direct experience. Hana brings Eriko's utterances in lines 45 and 46 (I!Kekkyoku. wa: (0.3) ma ryoositu no tanpakusitu tte 14· It is a well known fact among Japanese people that Okinawan people live long lives, and it is often pointed out that their diet is one key contributor to their long lives.

132

Mariko Karatsu

yuu no to ato (.) aburami ga zenbu, 'After all,. (0.3) well so-called high quality protein and, in addition(.) the fat all;) to completion by adding a final predicate in line 48 nuketyatte ru kara. 'ends up getting taken out so: Then, Eriko also cornpletes her own utterances (lines 45, 46) in line 49 with the same verb (nukeru 'is taken out') showing that she approves Hana's completion.

(8) 45 Eriko

46 Eriko~

~~~~ . .~i- (0.3)*.ltflO)~Bfl-:>L"I9:>?0)c 1/Kekk~ wa: (0.3) ma ryoositu no tanpakusitu tte yuu no to //After all, • (0.3) well so-called high quality protein and ((1/Kekkyoku 'after all'/t~H; M..!-down)) (((0.3)/I~H..!-down; M down)) ;lf,c(.)Jti!lt:IJ~~$~

ato (.) aburami ga zenbu, in addition(.) the fat all,

47

(.)

48 Hana~

m~r-;~-:>L"//.@iJ'6oll

nuketyatte /I ru kara.ll ends up getting taken out so.ll

11m ~:1 -r 11* '9 et !v:td.?

49 Eriko~

1/nuketell masu mon ne? I !It's that (it's) all taken out, isn't it?

50

(1.0)

((H nods twice during the silence.))

In (9), Hana tells about how people in Okinawa (older women) eat foods which look fatty but actually have the fat removed (lines 51, 55, 57, and 61), repeating the phrase Okinawa no hito tte 'speaking of people in Okinawa' and the word abura 'fat,' which Eriko used previously (in lines 40 and 46, respectively), and the knowledge (that the fat is taken out) that she shares with Eriko (lines 46, 48, and 49). Eriko completes Hana's utterances in lines 55 and 57 with the predicate in line 60 tal/beru no yo ne::~ll 'it's that (they) eat (it), I tell you, you kno::w?' Hana approves Eriko's completion by using the same verb ( taberu 'eat') in line 61// obaasan to kall taberu. '//grandmothers among others II eat (it)~ while also highlighting a particular subset of people among people in Okinawa ('grandmothers among others'), as she did previously in line 42 (tyool/zyu noli hito 'people who live long lives'). The sense of Eriko and Hana sharing the image of kakuni (i.e., the fact that people in Okinawa eat it, and the fat is taken out) is reinforced by their repetition of each other's phrases and their growing shared knowledge.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 133

(9) 51 Hana

7'f!WO)A-:>'L~

Okinawa no hito tte, Speaking of people in Okinawa, ((Okinawal E+M-1-down)) 52 Mie

0

'5 fvo 0

o Un. o 0

53 54 Erik.o

Uhhuh. 0

(0.5) 0

Js.. fv o 0

o Hn. o 0

55 Hana

Uhhuh. 0

lb 'L (.) 1f> '5 Jt t.:: tn:r ~ lb 'L //19> -511 tJ• fv l5 0) ~ abura tte (.)moo mita dake de abura tte 1/yuull kanzi no, fat(.) oh just looking at it seems to be (all) fat ((moo mita/ E~~l= M-1-down))

((tte yuu/ E+~M))

I f0-5 fv o 0 11 1/oUn. oil

56 Erik.o

/ /0

57 Hana~

Yeah. 0 11

*:tR~:r-;~?'L.@fvt2~1C:II-~ 11

ma nuketyatte ru n da kedo/1:, 11 Well, it's that (the fat) ends up getting all taken out bu//:t,ll

//'5 fvo 11

58 Erik.o

1/Un.ll 1/Yeah.ll ((Un 'Yeah'ti~H-1-down; M-1-down))

59

(0.5)

60 Erik.o~

~//-"".@ 0) J: :G -

tal/beru no yo

-

~o 11

ne::~.ll

it's that (they) eat (it), I tell you, you kno::w?ll 61 Hana~

//~ ~i db~ fv <'::: tJ• 11~-"'.@ o

11 obaasan to kall taberu. //grandmothers among othersll eat (it). ((obaasan 'grandmothers'/ E+M-1-down))

62

(1.0)

63 Erik.o

i" '5 i" '5 o Soosoo.

134 Mariko Karatsu

Right right. ((Soo soo.JI, Hand M..!-down))

64

(2.0)

It is interesting to note that Hana gazes primarily at Mie when she tells about how people in Okinawa eat foods which look fatty but actually have the fat removed (lines 51, 55, 57, and 61), as she did previously in line 42. While the sense of sharing is reinforced between Eriko and Hana, Hana's gaze at Mie and her reference to a particular subset of people (grandmothers) appears to highlight her individuality as the one who has the knowledge about the food kakuni. I have demonstrated that in the context of distanced direct experience (in which Eriko located the entity (X) called kakuni by referring to it using the distal demonstrative are) in (6), is sustained by Eriko's use of are and Hana's use of are and anna in (7) through (9) as shown in Figure 4. Eriko and Hana complete each other's utterances (indicated by arrows) and recycle each other's phrases (marked with boxes and underlines). By eo-constructing their utterances and repeating their phrases, they expand the description of the food kakuni and share their image of this food. Specifically, they highlight the fact that people in Okinawa eat the The context of distanced direct experience X

Eriko found she could eat X.

©

©

Eriko

Hana

Figure 4. Eriko and Hana's sharing of knowledge about kakuni

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 135 food kakuni and that all the fat is taken out of this food. In this way, prior to Eriko's story, Eriko and Hana are connected on the level of their knowledge about kakuni, although they have never experienced it together. I have also demonstrated that although Eriko and Hana reinforce their sense of sharing the knowledge, Hana also displays her individuality as the one who has the knowledge about the food kakuni through her gaze at Mie.

Telling Sequence III: Eriko's story In (10), Eriko initiates a story about her discovery of a new taste (which she mentioned in (6)), following the conversation in (9). Eriko tells about how she went to an Okinawan restaurant (lines 65-83), and when her friend ordered kakuni there (line 84), she thought she would not be able to eat it (line 85), but when she did eat it, it turned out to be tasty (line 85). Then, Hana shows her appreciation ofEriko's assessment of the taste of the kakuni (line 86). I will demonstrate how Eriko utilizes the description of kakuni that she shared with Hana to initiate her story. I will also show how Hana is able to appreciate Eriko's assessment by using the distal demonstrative are 'that thing: while at the same time displaying that she (Hana) is an independent individual who has her own experiences by shifting her gaze from Eriko to Mie. (10) 65 Eriko

~et i" 0) ?**'l*lJ!I!O) JiS ~<::(.)fi·:>tc:!v ~ '9 J: o = Demo sono Okinawa ryoori no mise ni (.) itta n desu yo.=

Anyway, it's that (I) went to a restaurant with that Okinawan food, I tell you.= ((sono 'that'/ H~~~M)) {In lines 66-83, Eriko explains the location of the restaurant.} 84 Eriko

PH\\;~ li !v t2 0) ~ :&:~iJ~ :tcl?

Kakuni o tanonda no, tomodati ga ne? It's that (she) ordered kakuni, my friend, you know?

85 Eriko

.hhh~ it~ G tL 1J:: lt~ :IJ~

et-":> -c It":> tc: G- :to"' G :IJ~ ":>

t<:-o

.hhh Watasi taberarenai ka mo: tte omottara: oisikatta:. .hhh When I thought "I may not be able to eat (it):' (it turned out) to be tasty. ((ta of oisikatta: '(it turned out) to be tasty'/ H gives a big nod))

86 Hana

:i5li'~li'fv~'9 J::G-~/~II":>Lo Oisii n desu yo ne:~l-11 tte.

136 Mariko Karatsu

It's that (it) is tasty, I tell you, you lrnow, //that thing. II ((oisii 'is tasty'/ ._g..l,down to sandwich; M..l,down to her miso soup cup)) ((desu yo/ g+M..l,down to her miso soup cup)) ((are 'that thing'I I-H-E; M..l,down to her miso soup cup)) ((tte/ H, and M!down to her miso soup cup))

I

// 0 ? fvo 0 11

87 Eriko

noun. oil

1/oYeah. oil 88 Eriko

45 2:: ~ x~ (.)PJ ~ ~ ~ 7J: lt~ ~1 ~ Ato nee, (.) kakuni zya nai kedo And, you lrnow (.)(it's) not kakuni, but

89 Eriko

¥*1 9r; t

*

;:t 'Y -7"""-]J: C. 2:: ~ (0.3)~ Jt L, l.Jc::o tebasaki mo okkee na koto o (0.3) hakken-simasita.

(I) discovered that chicken wings are also okay (to eat). Eriko begins her story introducing the restaurant sono Okinawa ryoori no mise 'a restaurant with that Okinawan food,' recycling the word Okinawa (lines 40, 51) and modifying the phrase Okinawa ryoori 'Okinawan food' (which is not used in the preceding conversation) with the medial demonstrative sono 'that: Eriko uses sono to indicate that she treats Okinawan food not as an entity in the context of distanced direct experience (in which case she might use are) but as "conceptual The context of distanced direct experience X

Description of the food Kakuni O.kinawan people eat it All the fat is taken out. etc. Eriko's story the Okinawan restaurant (The kakuni) was tasty. [Concept]-

© Eriko

©

©

Hana

Mie

Figure 5. Eriko's conceptualization of Okinawan food

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 137

knowledge" (Kuroda, 1979/1992). She uses the medial demonstrative sono 'that' to conceptualize the knowledge (e.g., the fact that people in Okinawa eat kakuni, other foods like kakuni, etc.) that she shared with Hana through the preceding interactions in (8) and (9) as "Okinawan food" (Figure 5). This allows Eriko to bring Hana and their shared knowledge into her telling of the story. In this way, Eriko introduces her story into the conversation in a methodical way. Rather than simply repeating the word Okinawa to trigger her story (Jefferson, 1978), she utilizes knowledge that she has just established as shared with Hana. Eriko reaches the climax ofher story in line 85, when she says Watasi taberarenai ka mo: tte omottara: oisikatta:. 'When I thought "I rnaynot be able to eat (it= kakuni):' (it turned out) to be tasty;' Hana shows her appreciation of Eriko's assessment in line 86 Oisii n desu yo ne:~ Itill I tte. 'It's that (it) is tasty, I tell you, you know, / • • . 11: postposing the subject are 'that thing: Hana's utterance sounds as if she agrees with Eriko assessment of the taste and could imply that she has tasted kakuni at the same restaurant where Eriko ate it. 15 However, because it is clear from the preceding conversation that Hana has not been to the restaurant where Eriko ate kakuni, Hana uses the distal demonstrative are 'that thing' to refer to the same entity (the food kakuni) that she referred to in her previous uses of the distal demonstratives (lines 38, 39, 42), i.e., an entity that is located in her individual distanced memory, knowledge about which she shared with Eriko. Hana is able to appreciate Eriko's assessment of the kakuni by including it in the food kakuni. On the one hand, Hana's are allows her to appreciate Eriko's assessment by treating the kakuni that Eriko ate as one example of the food kakuni and showing that she shares Eriko's personal taste of this food. On the other hand, Hana also indicates by her use of are that she has her own individual experience of tasting kakuni. Hana's shifting of gaze from Eriko to Mie and back to Eriko during her utterance in line 86 also suggests the two orientations mentioned above. 16 By shifting her gaze from Eriko to Mie she indicates that she addresses her assessment to both 15. An overhearer of Erlko and Hana's talk in lines 84-86 might interpret Hana's use of the

demonstrative are 'that thing' in her agreement with Erlko's assessment as referring to kakuni at the same restaurant where Erlko ate kakuni, and assume that Hana had eaten kakuni at the same restaurant as Erlko on a different occasion. 16. In lines 84 and 85, Erlko and Hana display their "full engagement" (Goodwin, 1984, p. 228) in telling the story and listening to it, respectively, and disengagement in the activity of eating. Mie also displays her engagement in listening to Erlko's story by looking at Erlko while holding the miso soup cup dose to her mouth and sipping from it once. At the end of Erlko's utterance in line 85 (ta: inoisikatta: ), Erlko re-engages herselfin eating by shifting her gaze to her sandwich that she is touching on the table. In line 86, Mie appears to engage herself more in eating than in the talk by looking at her miso soup cup as she puts it down on the table while stirring the miso soup with chopsticks. In contrast, Hana displays her full engagement in the talk in line 86 (i.e., she does not resume her engagement in eating).

138 Mariko Karatsu

Eriko and Mie. First, she appreciates Eriko's assessment by gazing at Eriko during

oisii '(it) is tasty, but Eriko does not return her gaze because she is looking down at her sandwich on the table. Next, she appeals her assessment of kakuni to her audience by gazing at Mie during desu yo 'I tell you,' but once again her gaze is not returned by Mie who is looking down at her miso soup cup. Finally. Hana gazes back at Eriko who meets her gaze this time when Hana says are 'that thing= With her use of are 'that thing' and gaze, Hana shows that she agrees with Eriko's taste both as an individual who has had her own experience of the food kakuni and as a person connected with Eriko through their shared knowledge about this food. C. Goodwin & M. Goodwin (1992) and C. Goodwin (1996) demonstrate how the activity of assessment is collaboratively organized by the conversational participants utilizing all available resources including grammar, gaze, and prosody. Examining (11) below, C. Goodwin (1996) points out that "the sequential organization of the talk that occurs here provides a very strong display of agreement" (p. 371).17 In (11), Clacia shows her agreement with Dianne's assessment of the pie in the next turn overlapping the end of Dianne's assessment turn. Dianne's use of an intensifier with enhanced intonation ("s:: so") and the constraints of syntactic structure (i.e., the tact that adjectives often follow intensifiers) allow Clacia to anticipate Dianne's assessment. Thus, Clacia can begin to show her agreement with Dianne before Dianne offers the assessment adjective ("goo:d"). (11) Dianne: Jeff made en asparagus pie it wz s:: so [: goo:d. Clacia: [I love it. 0 Yeah I love tha:t. (C. Goodwin & M. Goodwin, 1992, p.169) C. Goodwin (1996) also points out that Clacia's use of present tense shows that she "makes visible her different access to what is being assessed" (p. 371). Similar to Clacia's uses of present tense, I suggest that Hana's directing of her gaze away from Eriko in line 86 also suggests that Hana has her own individual experience of kakuni that differs from Eriko's. I have shown that Eriko utilized the previous description of kakuni that she shared with Hana to begin her story. By modifing Okinawa ryoori 'Okinawan food' with the medial demonstrative sono 'that' (line 65), Eriko indicated that she used their shared description as conceptual knowledge. Then, I demonstrated that Hana both appreciated Eriko's personal assessment (by gazing at Eriko and using the distal demonstrative are 'that thing') and also displayed that she has had her own independent individual experience of the food kakuni (by shifting her gaze from Eriko to Mie). 17. In (a), [indicates overlapped utterances, and o indicates the beginning of soft voice.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 139

Conclusion Focusing on the participants' uses of distal demonstratives in the three telling sequences included in the storytelling chosen for this study, I examined the process by which the story teller (Eriko) in traduced her image of the food kakuni into the conversational interaction, shared the image of this food with one of her recipients (Hana), and the same recipient (Hana) appreciated the story teller's (Eriko's) assessment of this food. First, in Telling Sequence I, I demonstrated that Eriko used are 'that thing' to introduce the food kakuni, an entity that existed solely in her memory as a food that she experienced long ago, into the conversational interaction, and locate it in the context of distanced direct experience (Figure 2). Then, I showed how Eriko's use of the word kakuni 'stewed pork belly' with the distal demonstrative are worked together as a prospective indexical to project a recognition search, provide a domain of description for the recognition search, and give a hint to other participants about how to participate in the subsequent interaction, while projecting her telling of a discovery of a new taste. Through this process, Eriko was able to confirm Hana's recognition of the entity that she (Eriko) had referred to by are, and make its domain of description publicly open for other participants with knowledge of the referent to refer to using distal demonstratives (Figure 3). Second, in Telling Sequence IT, I showed how Hana's used the distal demonstratives are 'that thing' and anna 'that kind of' to indicate that she also located the food kakuni in the context of distanced direct experience that Eriko had created for her description of kakuni in Telling Sequence I. Eriko and Hana shared their knowledge about the food kakuni completing each other's utterances that centered around their uses of distal demonstratives (Figure 4). I also showed that Hana highlighted her individuality as the one who has the knowledge about the food kakuni though her gaze at Mie, referring to the particular subset of people in Okinawa (tyoozyu no hito 'people who live long lives'), and expansion of the food category (from kakuni to the foods similar to kakuni). Finally in Telling Sequence Ill, I showed how Eriko utilized the previous description she shared with Hana when she initiated her story. Specifically, she recycled the word Okinawa and conceptualized Okinawa ryoori 'Okinawan food' using the medial demonstrative sono (in line 65 sono Okinawa ryoori no mise 'that Okinawan restaurant') (Figure 5). When Hana displayed her appreciation in line 86 (Oisii n desu yo ne:~l-11 tte. 'It's that (it) is tasty, I tell you, you know,/ • • . 11') ofEriko's assessment of the kakuni in line 85 (oisikatta '(It turned out) to be tasty'), she shifted her gaze from Eriko to Mie and back. I demonstrated that Hana not only used the distal demonstrative (are) to show her appreciation of Eriko's assessment, but also shifted her gaze to demonstrate that she was an individual who had her own experiences of eating kakuni.

140

Mariko Karatsu

Grammarians have pointed out that anaphoric distal demonstratives can be used (1) to refer to an entity which is solely in the teller's mind or (2) to refer to an entity which is shared or eo-experienced by the speaker and the hearer. However, previous analyses of the first use have tended to be based on monologues, and the two uses have been analyzed separately in written texts or example sentences. Previous research on the uses of anaphoric distal demonstratives in natural conversation has paid little attention to the first use (to refer to an entity which is solely in the teller's mind). The present study contributes to research on distal demonstratives by illustrating how the two uses of the anaphoric distal demonstratives can converge in the unfolding conversational interaction in the event of storytelling. Specifically, it supports the grammarians' claim that the first use of anaphoric distal demonstratives is more basic (Horiguchi, 1978; Kuroda, 1979/1992; Tanaka, 1981; Masuoka & Takubo, 1989) and the claim that the mutuality of knowledge of the referent between the speaker and the hearer can be created in a situational context (Tanaka, 1981; Kinsui & Takubo, 1992b). I did this by showing the sequential process in talk-in-interaction whereby the story teller in traduced an entity (kakuni) in her private memory into the conversation using distal demonstratives, and then she and one of the other participants created mutual knowledge of this entity through their use oflanguage (including distal demonstratives) and nonverbal behavior. I also showed how a participant showed her dual orientation (both to the shared knowledge and to her individual knowledge/experience) by appreciating the teller's assessment of the entity, while offering her own individual knowledge. In the storytelling about kakuni, first Eriko uses are to refer to a private entity which is solely in her mind, and becomes recognized actively by one of the participants through a recognition search, in which Eriko provides a descriptive domain for this entity. This descriptive domain then becomes open for the participants (Hana) to share the entity with Eriko by referring to it using distal demonstratives. Their sharing is embodied in their use of linguistic resources (i.e., grammatical resources for the eo-construction and repetition of their utterances). However, although Hana shares the entity with Eriko in this way, it does not mean that Eriko and Hana share the same actual experience of eating the food kakuni. Hana's use of a.re while shifting her gaze from Eriko to Mie and back when she shows her appreciation of Eriko's positive assessment of kakuni (Eriko's emotional attitude toward kakuni) suggests a dual orientation. Thus, Hana is able to both appreciate Eriko's assessment as one example of the food kakuni when she gazes at Eriko, as well as appeal her own individual experience of and emotional attitude toward the food kakuni to her audience when she gazes at Mie. This research also contributes to the study of storytelling in talk-in-interaction by showing the process of storytelling through which multiple telling sequences can become a basis for subsequent sequences, and provide resources to the

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 141

participants that suggest how to participate in the interaction, and how to structure the story. It also indicates the importance of analyzing both verbal and nonverbal behavior, in particular the relation between shifts in gaze direction and assessment, and the importance of paying attention to both individuality and mutuality in analyzing how people share world knowledge and emotional attitudes.

References Becker, T. & Quasthoff, U.M. (2004). Introduction: Different dimensions in the field of narrative interaction. In U.M. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), Narrative interaction (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Cambridge: IDackwell. Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In M. Atkinson & ]. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. 225-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S. Th.ompson (Eds.), Interactio1! and grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. & Durant!, A. (1992). Rethi11kingofconte:~.t. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking ojco11text (pp. 147-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamaguchi, T. (2001). Go-construction of meaning In intergenerational family conversations: A case ofthe Japanese demonstrative pronoun are. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA). Hanks, W. (1990). Referential practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hanks, W. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking of context (pp. 43-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hll}'Wihl, M. (2003). Language and the body as resources fur collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 109-141. Hayash!, M. (2008). Soogo k.ooi no sigen to site no toosya to bunpoo: Sizisi "are" no k.ooi toosyateki yoohoo o megutte [Projection and grammar as interactional resources: Notes on the action-projecting use of the demonstrative are]. Syakai Gengo Kagaku Uapanese Journal of Language in Society], 10(2), 16-28. Hayash!, M., Mori, J. & Takagi, T. (2002). Contingent achievement of eo-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze, and gesture. In B. Fox & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 81-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hortguchi, K. (1978). Sizisi no hyoogensee [Expressiveness of demonstratives ]. Nihongo Nlhon Bunka Uapanese Language and Japanese Culture], 8, 23-44. Jefferson, G. (1978). Chapter 9: Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In}. Schenkein (Ed), Studies In the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219-248). New York, NY: Academic Press. Kamio, A. (1990). Zyoohoo no nawabari riron [Theory of information territory]. Tokyo: Taisyuukan Publishers.

142 Mariko Karatsu

Karatsu, M. (2004a). A study of storytelling In Japanese conversation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Karatsu, M. (2004b). Verbal and nonverbal negotiation in Japanese storytelling. In P. Szatrowski (Ed. ), Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction (pp. 125-161 ). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Kinsui, S. & Takubo, Y. (1992a). Danwa kanri riron kara mita nlhongo no slzisi [Japanese demonstratives from the perspective ofthe theory of discourse management]. In S. Kinsui & Y. Takubo (Eds.), Slzisi [Demonstratives] (pp. 123--150). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. (Reprinted from NinN kagaku no hatten [Development of cognitive science], VoL 3, pp. 85-115, by Nihon Ninti Kagakukai [Japanese Cognitive Science Society], Ed., 1990, Tokyo: Kodansha) Kinsul, S. & Takubo, Y. ( 1992b). Kalsetuhen: Nihongo slzisi kenkyuusi karale [Commentary chapter: Prom/To the history of research on Japanese demonstratives]. InS. Kinsui & Y. Takubo (Eds.), Siz"isi [Demonstratives] (pp. 151-192). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Kitano, H. (1999). On interaction and grammar: Evidence from one use of the Japanese demonstrative are ('that'). Pragmatics, 9(3), 383-400. Kuroda, S. (1992). (Ko) so ani tuite [About (ko 'this (proximal)'), so 'that (medial): and a 'that (distal)']. InS. Kinsui & Y. Takubo (Eds.), Sizisl [Demonstratives] (pp. 91-104). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. (Reprinted from Hayasi Eiiti kyoozyu kanreki kinen ronbunsyuu: Eego to nihlmgo to [A collection ofpapers inhonor ofProfessor Eiichi Hayashl: English and Japanese], (pp. 41-59), 1979, Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers) Kushida, S. (2008). Sizisya ga kaisi-suru ninsiki tansaku: Ninsiki to sinkoosee no yarikuri [Referrer-initiated recognition search: On the management of recognition and progressivity]. Syakai Gengo Kagaku [Japanese Journal of Language in Society], 10(2), 96-108. Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 105-120). Seattle, WA:. University of Washington Press. Mandelbaum. J. (1987). Recipient-driven storytelling in co11versation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA). Masuoka, T. & Takubo, Y. (1989). Kiso nihongo bunpoo [Basic Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Naruoka, K. (2006). The interactional functions ofthe Japanese demonstratives in conversation. Pragmatics, 16(4), 475-512. Nishikawa, R (2005). Nitizyoo kaiwa ni okoru naratlbu no kyoodoo keesee: Riron kootiku katudoo to site no naratibu [Collaborative formation of conversational narratives: Narrative as a theory-building activity]. Syakai Gengo Kagaku [Japanese Journal of Language in Society], 7(2), 25-38. Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (200 1). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ono, T. & Yoshida, E. (1996). A study of eo-construction in Japanese: We don't "finish other's sentences." In N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (VoL 5, pp. 115-129). Stanford, CA:. CSLI. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), R-qJlorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-535). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction In G. Pasathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.

Chapter 4. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste 143 Sakata, Y. (1992). Sizisi "koso a" no kinoo ni tuite [About functions of demonstratives "ko 'this (proximal): so 'that (medial): and a 'that (distal)"']. InS. Kinsui & Y. Takubo (Eds.), Sizisi [Demonstratives] (pp. 54-68). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. (Reprinted from Tookyoo galkokugo daigaku ronsyuu [Tokyo University of Foreign Studies A collection of papers], 21

pp. 125-138, 1971) Shooho, T. (1981). "Koso i' no taikee [A system of"ko 'this (proximal): so 'that (medial): and a 'that (distal)"']. In Kokuritu Kokugo Kenkyuzyo [National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics] (Ed.), Nihongo no sizisi [Japanese demonstratives] (pp. 51-122). Tokyo: Okurasyo Insatukyoku. Szatrowski, P. (1994). Discourse functions of the Japanese epistemic modal DESYOO. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 532-546.

Szatrowski, P. (2000). Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatlba to gengo!higengo k.oodoo no kanren ni tuite [Relation between participant status and verbal/nonverbal behavior in eoconstruction]. Nihlmgo Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics], 7, 44-49. Szatrowski, P. (2005). Danwa to buntai- Kanzyoo hyooka no dooteki na katee ni tuite [Discourse and style: On the dynamic process of emotion/evaluation]. In A. Nakamura, M. Nomura, M. Sakuma & C. Komiya (Eds.), Hyoogen to bu11tai [Expression and style] (pp. 469-480). Tokyo: Meiji-Shoin. Tanaka, N. (1981 ). "Ko so a" o meguru syomondai (Some issues on "ko 'this (proximal); so 'that (medial): and a 'that (distal)"'). In Kokuritu Kokugo Kenkyuzyo [National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics] (Ed.), Nihongo no sizisi [Japanese demonstratives] (pp. 1-50). Tokyo: Okurasyo Insatukyoku. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voiC£S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PART 3

Storytelling in animation narratives

CHAPTER

5

Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in Japanese and English animation narratives Fumio Watanabe Yamagata University

In this study, I investigate the functions and motivations for using clausal selfrepetition and pre -nominal demonstratives in Japanese and English animation narratives. Clausal self-repetition was nine times more frequent in the Japanese narratives (where it occurred sentence internally and across sentence boundaries) than in the English narratives (where it only occurred across sentence boundaries). In both languages the syntactic gap it created between the preceding and repeating clauses functioned to make the preceding clause prominent, and also connected the event of the repeating clause to the following events. The analysis ofpre-nominal demonstratives showed that the Japanese data had ten times as many uses of sotto N'that N (neutral)' (all definite), compared to kono N 'this N (proximal).' In contrast, the English data had twenty times more uses of this N (60% indefinite this N, and 40% definite this N) than that N. While indefinite this N was used to introduce the protagonists in the opening scene, Japanese used bare nouns (without pre-nominal demonstratives) in this context. While English narrators used indefinite this N to mark important referents and indefinite a N to mark less important ones, Japanese narrators used bare nouns (without pre-nominal demonstratives) for important referents and so no N 'that N' to mark less important referents. Results of this quantitative comparison shed light on how Japanese and English narrators verbalize knowledge obtained from a nonverbal source.

In this study, I shall compare and contrast the use of clausal self-repetition and demonstratives in Japanese and American English narratives of an animation called Pingu, hereafter referred to as animation narratives. 1 I address the questions I would like to thank Professor Polly Szatrowski for her valuable suggestions and encouragement. I would also like to thank Laura Johnson for her assistance in editing the English in

1.

148 Fumio Watanabe

of (1) How do clausal self-repetition and demonstratives function in Japanese and English animation narratives, and (2) What motivates their functions and differences in use. In this paper, I define narrative as a collection of linguistic expressions that reproduce past experiences in time and space (Labov, 1972; Sakuma, Sugito, & Hanzawa, 1997). Although knowledge about past experiences is not derived from verbal information alone, the recollection of knowledge that was obtained from nonverbal sources may well involve verbal components. Analyzing oral narratives provides insights into the processes by which speakers verbalize their memories. In order to investigate similarities and differences in verbalization by different people, previous studies have analyzed narrative data collected using movies (Chafe, 1980), animated films (McNeill, 1992; Watanabe, 1999, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2009), and picture books (Minami, 2004; Slobin, 2004). I will begin with a discussion of how the animation narratives were collected for this study. Then, I will present my analysis of clausal self-repetition and prenominal demonstratives used in these narratives, and present my conclusions.

Data

The data analyzed in this study were oral narratives by 15 native speakers ofJapanese and 18 native speakers of American English elicited using a 5-minute animation about a penguin named Pingu. I chose an episode from the Pingu series because it has a simple story and does not privilege native speakers of any realworld language (Watanabe 2007b). All of the characters in the story in the animation are penguins and communicate in their own penguin language, leaving the contents of their speech to the viewer's imagination. The story in the animation used for this study satisfies some of the constraints which Chafe (1980) imposed upon the movie to be used to collect narrative data for his study, such as including a set of people and objects that participate in the events of the film in various ways, each varying in codability and salience. I summarize the scenes and events in the story of the animation in Table 1.2

this paper. This chapter is an English translation of Watanabe (2007c, 2009), with some sections from Watanabe (1999, 2007b). I have added new examples and new conclusions to my analysis of clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives. 2.

Pingu. the main protagonist, is Pinga's older brother.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 149

Table 1. Scenes and events in the animation

2

Scenes

Events

Flying the kite

Pingu and his sister Pinga are flying a kite. Pingu falls and the kite lands on top of the igloo. He pulls the string of the kite, but the kite remains on the igloo. Pinga goes into the igloo and asks her parents for help, but they decline her request. Pinga comes out of the igloo and gets hit by a snowball that Pingu tried to throw at the kite. Pingu throws a second snowball which hits the kite. The kite falls and breaks. Pingu goes into the igloo and asks his parents for help, but they decline his request. Pingu yells at his father and leaves the igloo. Pingu and Pinga go off on a sled. pass several shops and arrive at the igloo oftheir grandfather who they ask for help. Pingu, Pinga, and their grandfather start making a kite. Pingu nails the frame and Pinga paints the kite. The parents get worried, go out of the igloo, and call Pingu and Pinga The parents get on a motorized vehicle and start searching for their children. They ask people at the shops about their children, but nobody has seen them. The parents see a kite flying over the grandfather's igloo, go to the backyard and find their children. The parents thank the grandfather, the whole family says goodbye to him and they go home.

Pinga in the igloo

3 Snowball throwing

4

Pingu in the igloo

5

Travelling to the grandfather's igloo

6

Making a kite

7

The parents get worried

8

The parents' search for their children

9

The reunion

10

Going home

I collected the narrative data as follows. I asked the narrators to watch the animation 3 times and then explain what happened in it to hearers who knew nothing about the story. The narrators were allowed to take notes as they watched the animation, but were not allowed to use them when they told the story. The hearers were told that they could ask the narrators questions for better understanding of the story. The narrative data in this study consist of linguistic expressions produced during the narrators' spontaneous verbalization of the story in a situation in which they did not share any knowledge about the story with their hearers.

150

Fumio Watanabe

Clausal self-repetition In this section I will define clausal self-repetition and review previous research on clausal self-repetition byTannen (1989, 1993), Kumagai (1997) and Kimbara (2000). Then I will compare the use of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese and English narratives focusing on the following questions (1) What is the syntactic relation between the preceding and repeating clauses in clausal self-repetition, (2) What is the discourse function of clausal self-repetition, (3) What is the di:ffurence between the use of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese data and in the English data. I define clausal self-repetition as a repetition of the immediately preceding clause by the same speaker, with the repeating clause having the same predicate and argument structure (but not necessarily the same form) as the preceding clause (Watanabe, 2007c). In (1), clause (1)a Tako ni atatta n da kedo 'It's that (the snowball) hit the kite, but' is immediately followed by clause (1)b atatte '(it) hit (the) kite, and'. (l)a and (1)b share the same argument structure (that is, the snowball is the subject and the kite is the object of the verb a.ta.ru 'hit'), although they differ in form (one or more of the arguments are ellipted, the ending on the verb and other elements after the verb difter, etc.). I disregarded aspectual and modal differences when judging the identity of the propositional content in preceding and repeating clauses. I will refer to clauses like (1)a as "preceding clauses," (1)b as "repeating clauses," and (1)c as "subsequent clauses."3

(1) a. .MU:: ~ t.: ....:> t.: fv tn:u::- ~ Tako ni atatta n da kedo, kite GOAL hit-P NOM COP but It's that (the snowball) hit the kite, but

b.

~tc"?L

Preceding clause

Repeating clause

ata.tte hit-GER (it) hit (the kite), and C.

:lftLt.:o

Subsequent clause

kowa.reta. break-P (it) broke. (2) is another example of clausal self-repetition in my Japanese data. Clause (2)c and (2)d share the same propositional content ito ga kireta 'the string broke,' although only clause (2)c has the aspectual auxiliary -te simau 'ended up -ing.' 3· The Appendix in Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanization. transcription conventions, abbreviations in the word-for-word gloss, and the English translation used in the examples.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives (2) a.

~ c."? D '? ~;f '? "l de koo hippatte then like this pull-GER then (Pingu) pulled (the string) like this, and

b. ft C: :t '5 C: 0 tc: G ~ otosoo to sitam, make fall-TENT Q do-COND when (he) tried to make (the kite) fall, c. fr.,; i'J~ ij] tL !> ~ '? tc: (J) :td ~ ito ga kiretyatta no ne, string suB end up breaking-P NOM FP it's that the string ended up breaking, you know,

Preceding clause

d. fv ~ ij] tL tc: i'J' G nde kireta kara, and then break-P because and then because (it) broke,

Repeating clause

(3) is an example of clausal self-repetition from the English data. The predicate in clause (3)d is in the simple present form and the predicate in clause (3)e has a progressive form, but the two clauses share the same propositional content "they make a kite." (3) a. b. c. d. e. f.

so they go to the penguin's house, old man penguin's house, and talks to, they talk to him, and urn, and he says okay, so they make a kite. Preceding clause And at the same time that they're making a kite, Repeating clause the parents are li k.e "Hey where are the kids?" you know.

I did not consider cases of paraphrase to be examples of clausal self-repetitions. For example, (4)b and (4)c do not constitute an example of clausal self-repetition, because the verb otita 'fell' in clause (4)b is paraphrased in clause (4)c by the verb suberiotita 'slid down,' and the argument yane kara. 'from the roof elaborate the situation described in clause (4)b.

(4) a.

t?-~§~~;./~-i'J~~-:>tc:C:'!~<::~

Moo ip-patume de Pinguu ga yatta toki ni, next one with Pingu suB do-P when when Pingu did it with the next one,

151

152

Fumio Watanabe

b.

n--t r- t.J~ Wr-7:3 t<:. Jvtnt (!_ ~ kaito ga otita n da kedo, kite SUB fall-P NOM COP but it's that the kite fell but,

m

c. .§UHt.J• 6 tJ lii? tclvt2~:t (!., Elaboration+ Paraphrase kedo, yane ka.ra suberiotita n da roof from slide down-P NOM COP but, it's that (the kite) slid down but,

d. jJ-{ r- t.J~:l!l tL i:3 ~ '":J to: 0) :td.~ kaito ga kowaretyatta no

ne, kite SUB end up breaking-P NOM FP it's that the kite ended up breaking, you know.

I found considerably more cases of self-repetition in the Japanese narratives than in the English narratives: 29 cases of clausal self-repetition in the 15 Japanese narratives (2 cases/narrative on the average), and 4 in the 18 English narratives used for this study (1 case for every 4.5 narratives). In the following sections, I will review previous research on clausal self-repetition, and analyze the syntactic and semantic relationships between the preceding and repeating clauses, and the motivations for clausal self-repetition in the Japanese and English narratives.

Previous studies on clausal self-repetition In a study of repetition in English spontaneous conversation, Tannen (1989) pointed out that repetition can function to enable a speaker to produce fluent speech while formulating what to say next. She also noted a case of"linking repetition" in a narrative in modern Greek, which corresponds to clausal self-repetition in this study, and claimed that linking repetition can be used as a time filler and a stalling mechanism (Tannen, 1993). In Kumagai's (1997) study of repetition in Japanese conversation, she noted that repetition functions to increase the length of the utterance, thus taking more time to utter it. Referring to a case of clausal self-repetition from the discourse of a street salesman in Japanese, she claimed that repetition helped the speaker to speak more fluently by reducing the effurt required to produce utterances. Building on the theory developed in McNeill (1992) (which holds that iconic gestures reflect a speaker's activation of mental images), Kimbara (2000) analyzed the relationship between gestures and repetition in Japanese animation narratives. She found that although narrators repeated accompanying iconic gestures when they repeated utterances for repair and elaboration, they did not do so in the repeating clause in cases of"recycling" (comparable to clausal self-repetition

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 153

in the present study). She explained that because repair and elaboration are unintentional failures in the production of utterances, narrators need to reorganize the information in the repeating phrases, which in turn activates mental images, and causes them to use iconic gestures with the repeating phrases. From the fact that none of the speakers in her data repeated iconic gestures with clausal selfrepetition Kimbara (2000) concluded that information was not reorganized in the repeating clauses, and thus the "recycling" (clausal self-repetition) in her data was intentional. The above studies suggest that clausal self-repetition has a stalling function (Tannen, 1989, 1993; Kumagai, 1997) and can be intentional (Kimbara, 2000). I will show that narrators are also motivated to use clausal self-repetition in order to focus on the relationships between events of the story in the animation.

Syntactic relation between the preceding and repeating clauses In Watanabe (2007c), I discussed the discourse function of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese animation narratives, and analyzed characteristics of the syntactic relationships between the clauses of self-repetition pairs using Minami's (1974, 1993) model. Minami (1974, 1993) proposed a hierarchical model of Japanese syntax in which he divided the structure ofJapanese sentence into 4levels based on the eo-occurrence restrictions of non-predicate elements and forms expressing tense, aspect, and modality. In the present analysis, I will be focusing on the subordinate clause Levels A, B, and C shown in Table 2, which relate to the clauses occurring in my data. Minami (1974, 1993) claimed that Level A has the most restrictions, and its syntactic status is the most dependent. Levels B, and C have progressively fewer restrictions. Table 2. Syntactic levels of subordinate clauses (Minami, 1974, 1993) Level more dependent

A B

c less dependent

Clause type

-nagara -te no de to -tara non I -te mo toki (ni) kedo kara

(continuous activity) (reason) (reason) (conditional) (conditional) (concession) (concession) (temporal) (contradiction) (reason)

'while' 'and, (so)' 'because' 'when, if 'when, if 'although' 'even if 'when' 'but' 'because'

154

Fumio Watanabe

In Watanabe (2007c), I noted further that in the examples of clausal self-repetition in my data, the preceding clauses had a more independent status in Minami's hierarchical model than the repeating clauses. In the two cases of clausal self-repetition in (5), the repeating clauses ((5)c and (5)e) are more syntactically dependent and more connected syntactically and semantically with their subsequent clauses ((5)d and (5)f, respectively), than with their preceding clauses ((5)b and (5)d, respectively). This suggests that there is a greater break between the preceding and repeating clauses than between the repeating and subsequent clauses.

(5) a.

~~=~§~~:r-e

de: ni-hatume nagete, and second one throw-GER a:nd (Pingu) threw the second (snowball), and b. :ttL~i~tc:JtcO)o

sore 1va atatta no. it TOP hit-P NOM it's that that one hit (the kite). c. ~t<:"":JL Atatte hit-GER (It) hit (the kite), and

d. 11[(1;. -r fi-:J omomi de

c. "":J tclv tntl!.,

okkotta n da kedo, weight with fall-P NOM COP but it's that (it) fell down with the weight, but

e. ti"":J 'C. '":J td:: ~ ~<:: okkotta toki ni fall-P when when (it) fell down

f.

Preceding clause Main clause

Repeating clause Level B -te (reason) Preceding clause Level C kedo (contradiction) Repeating clause Level B toki ni(temporal)

:IJ!ntco kowa.reta. break-P (it) broke.

There were 22 cases of clausal self-repetition across sentence boundaries and 7 cases within sentences. Figure 1 illustrates clausal self-repetition across a sentence boundary, as in (5)b-c. In this case, because the preceding clause is the main clause of the preceding sentence, there is a sentence boundary between the preceding clause and the repeating clause.

•

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 155

s

s

s

s

s

6

s

A

Preceding clause

Repeating clause

(5) b. i" .f1 t;J: ~t<:. ":> t<:.(J)o sore wa atatta no.

c.

~t<:.":>L

Atatte

it's that that one hit (the kite). Main clause

(It) hit (the kite) and LevelB -te (reason) Figure 1. Clausal self-repetition across a sentence boundary

Figure 2 illustrates clausal self-repetition within a sentence, as in (S)d-e (where the preceding clause was a Level C subordinate clause, and the repeating clause was a Level B clause). As in Figure 2, the repeating clause was more dependent than the preceding clause, and more connected to the following clauses than to

s

ss

s

s

Preceding clause

Repeating clause

e.

omomi de okkotta n da kedo, it's that (it) fell down with the weight, but Level C kedo (contradiction) Figure 2. Clausal self-repetition within a sentence

fi ":> C.":> td:: ~ ~;: okkotta toki ni when (it) fell down Level B toki ni (temporal)

s

156

Fumio Watanabe

the preceding clause. In this way, increasing dependency of the repeating clause was associated with stronger linking with subsequent clauses in the sentence. In (6) the narrator repeated the event of the kite's falling down two times. The preceding clause is the main clause (otite kita no ne, 'it's that (it) fell down, you know,') of the preceding sentence (6)a-b. The first repeating clause (6)c is a Level C clause, and the second repeating clause (6)d is a Level B clause.

(6) a. "f$1f;-? -1!!1 ~ ·:>t.::;, de moo ik-kai yattara, and again do-COND and when (Pingu) tried again,

b.

fi~ "L ~t.:O);G,

otite

kita

no

Preceding clause Main clause

ne,

fall-GER come-P nom FP it's that (it) fell down, you know,

c. Mi.fi~ -r ~ t.::Jvtn:r ~, Ta.ko otite kita n

da.

kedo,

kite fall-GER come-P NOM COP but It's that the kite fell down but

d.

fi~"L~t.::G

otite

kitara,

fall-GER come-P-COND when (it) fell down

Repeating clause Level C kedo (contradiction) Repeating clause Level B -tara (conditional)

e. :l!ltl.~~-::>"l, kowaretyatte, end up breaking-GER it ended up breaking, and (Watanabe, 2007c, p.235; Romani:zation, word-for-word gloss, and English translation by Watanabe) While sentence endings can be determined from the form of the predicate in Japanese, it was necessary to consider the final intonation in order to identify sentence boundaries in the English narratives. In all4 cases of clausal self-repetition in the English data, I observed falling intonation at the end of the preceding clause as in (7), thus all occurred across sentence boundaries. (7) a. b. c. d. e.

he walks backwards, and he trips. And then, you know, he trips and then like the kite falls from the sky, and it lands on the igloo.

Preceding clause Repeating clause

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 157

In (7), the narrator repeats the event of the protagonist's tripping. Because of the falling intonation at the end of the clause in (7)b, I identified a sentence boundary between (7)b and (7)c. In this way, I determined sentence boundaries by form in Japanese, and by intonation in the English data. Although clausal self-repetition was observed across sentence boundaries (22 cases) as well as sentence internally (7 cases) in the Japanese narratives, I only observed clausal self-repetition across sentence boundaries (all4 cases) in the English narratives.

Sequence of events and relationships in descriptions of the snowball scene There was a particularly high occurrence of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese data in descriptions of the scene where the protagonist Pingu threw snowballs to get the kite down from the top of the igloo. In the snowball throwing scene, Pingu's first snowball hits his sister Pinga, and his second snowball hits the kite, which makes the kite fall down, and break. 11 of the 29 cases of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese data and one of the 4 cases of clausal self-repetition in the English data occurred in connection with the events involving the second snowball. One of the most salient characteristics of the snowball scene is that it has a succession of causal relationships: Pingu's throwing the snowball results in the snowball's hitting the kite, the snowball's hitting the kite results in the kite's falling down, and the kite's falling down results in the kite's breaking. The other key characteristic of this scene is the successive changes in the subject of the clauses from Pingu to the snowball and then from the snowball to the kite. When a remembered scene is structured in this way, there are two possibilities for the verbalization of the scene. One is to verbalize the scene as a sequence of events (Figure 3), and the other as a sequence of relationships between the events (Figure 4). A verbalization describing the sequence of events in Japanese would be A site, B site, C sita '(someone) did A, (someone) did B, and (someone) did C' simply connecting the events with the -te gerund form, which is the most frequent and neutral clausal connective form in spoken Japanese. When the relation between the events is one of temporal succession or coordination, this form is sufficient.

I

Event A

r--1

_Re_la_ti_on_a_-.t~l Event B

Pingu throws a snowball

_Re_la_U_on----'-~----.t~l Event C

t-1

The snowball hits the kite.

Figure 3. Verbalization as a sequence of events

I

The kite falls down.

158

Fumio Watanabe

Pingu throws a snowball. The snowball hits the kite. The snowball hits the kite. The kite falls down.

Figure 4. Verbalization as a sequence of relationships If the relationship between the events is causal or conditional, however, a verbalization describing the sequence of relationships as illustrated in Figure 4 is possible. In this pattern of description, the emphasis is on how the events relate to one another, and the joint event (Event B) between the adjoining relations has multiple verbalizations. Although this pattern of clausal self-repetition is rare in written animation narrative texts, it is used in oral animation narratives in which the narrator has less time to plan his/her utterances. Example (5) illustrates the sequence of relationships given in Figure 4. In (5), the narrator uses clausal self-repetition to describe the snowball throwing scene focusing on the sequence of relationships. There is a causal relationship between (5)a (de: ni-hatume nagete, 'a:nd (Pingu) threw the second (snowball), and') and (5)b (sore wa atatta no. 'it's that that one hit (the kite).') as well as between (5)c (atatte '(It) hit (the kite), and') and (5)d (omomi de okkotta n da kedo, 'it's that (it) fell down with the weight, but'). The narrator repeats the event of hitting the kite with the snowball in order to focus on these causal relationships. Among the Japanese data, there were 3 cases in which the hearers retold the story to confirm their understanding after the narrators explained the story. Example (8) is an excerpt describing the snowball throwing scene from one of the hearers' confirming narratives. In (8), as in the other 2 cases, the hearer focused on the sequence of events, and did not use clausal self-repetition. The memory of the narrator's verbalization of the scene and the knowledge shared between the narrator and the hearer of the relation between the events in the scene probably led the hearer to narrate without using repetition.

(8) a. fv ~ t-? -1!!1 f~HJ'' -r ~ nde moo ik-kai nagete, and again throw-GER and (Pingu) threw (a snowball) again, and

b.

!f!vt2G~t<:-:>L'~

hondara atatte, then hit-GER then (the snowball) hit (the kite), and

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 159

c.

.m.t ~t~ '? L J:: ~<=tiiS ·c tako mo issyoni otite, kite also together fall-GER the kite fell together, too, and

d.

-::>~n:c

tuburete, smash-GER (it) smashed, and

The fact that 11 of the 29 cases of clausal self-repetition occurred in descriptions of the snowball throwing scene in the Japanese data, suggests that there may be a tendency to verbalize the relationships (logical connections) between events rather than the sequence of events in time, in particular when the events are related by cause. In the Japanese data, narrators used clausal self-repetition when describing the snowball throwing scene as shown in (5), in order to indicate the relationship between the events of the story. In the English data, on the other hand, there was only one example in which the narrator repeated clauses in the description of the snowball throwing scene, focusing on the sequence of relationships as shown in (9). 4 1he sequence of clauses in (9)c, and (9)e is similar to that in (S)b, and (S)c in the Japanese data. (9) a. b. c. d. e. f.

and then he makes another one and throws it. And it hits the kite, but then, so like the kite is on the roof hits the kite. The kite falls off.

Preceding clause Repeating clause

Discourse function of clausal self-repetition

An analysis of the syntactic relationship between preceding and repeating clauses showed that there was a syntactic separation between the two clauses in clausal self-repetition pairs in both Japanese and English. From this fact the question arises as to what motivates this syntactic separation and repetition. Chafe (1980) pointed out that syntactic sentencehood indicates "closure at an intermediate level, between the focus and the whole memory" (p. 23), in which "focus" refers to the local focus of consciousness and "whole memory" to "the totality of information which is sequentially activated to produce a story" (p. 22). 4· (9) is not a case of clausal self-repetition according to my definition, because the preceding clause in (9)c and the repeating clause in (9)e are not adjacent.

160

Fumio Watanabe

Information cluster 1

Information cluster 2

same content Figure 5. Clausal self-repetition and information clusters

This suggests that the syntactic separation between the preceding clause and the repeating clause in the cases of clausal self-repetition in my data reflects a semantic separation between the two clauses, such that they belong to different information clusters. As is illustrated in Figure 5, the two clauses of a clausal self-repetition pair always belonged to different information clusters. The relative syntactic linkage between clauses reflects the tightness or looseness of the semantic relations between them. The two clauses of the clausal self-repetition pair have the same propositional content, but each version of the proposition belongs to a different information cluster. Narrators have a need to make certain events more prominent, giving their propositional content a marked status in the discourse. Sentence endings in Japanese are more prominent than in English, due to the fact that Japanese is a head-final language. This may be one of the factors underlying the differing frequency of clausal self-repetition between the two languages. The frequency of clausal self-repetition was approximately 9 times higher in the Japanese data than in the English data. The most frequent occasion for clausal self-repetition in the Japanese data was the event of the kite falling down (8 out of29 cases, 28%). The event of the kite falling is the final goal of the preceding actions in the scene. The achievement of this goal is important information for the story, because it leads to the accident of the kite breaking which provides a reason for subsequent developments. Narrators made this event more prominent by expressing it in a prominent position in the sentence, and separating it from the subsequent events. At the same time, the event of the kite falling is related to the next event of the kite breaking. Although this relation might be expressed with a conjunction (such as sono tame 'as a result' in Japanese, or consequently in English) in the written language, narrators of oral Japanese animation narratives appeared to use clausal self-repetition instead of a conjunction in order to lessen the load on the narrator's cognitive processes. The events for which clausal self-repetition was employed can be classified into two groups: events connected to subsequent events through causal relationships,

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives

and events concerning the transitions between scenes (especially events describing the movement of characters to the location of the next scene). As for events connected through causal relationships, the story used in this study develops around happenings that took place in connection with the kite, and narrators tended to use clausal self-repetition to describe the causal relationships between these events in both the Japanese and English narratives (18 out of29 (62%) in the Japanese data). 5 Although there were no cases of clausal self-repetition in the description of snowball throwing scene in the English data, 3 cases out of 4 (75%) of clausal self-repetition described events connected through causal relationships to the subsequent context as shown in (7). In (7), the repeated event ofPingu's tripping caused the result of the kite's falling on the igloo which is described in the subsequent clauses. The remaining cases of clausal self-repetition (11 out of 29 (38%) in Japanese and 1 out of 4 (25%) in English) were used for events related to the transition between scenes. Watanabe (2007c) showed that in 16 out of 29 cases (55%) of clausal self-repetition the Japanese narrators repeated the iconic gestures accompanying the preceding clause in the repeating clause. In the present study. analysis of the gestures accompanying clausal self-repetition in the English data showed that in 2 out of the 4 cases of clausal self-repetition (50%) narrators repeated their preceding iconic gestures in the repeating clause. If iconic gestures reflect narrators' activation of mental images and informational reorganization of the information in their utterances (Kimbara, 2000), it may be that the narrators in my data who repeated iconic gestures accompanying the preceding clause in their repeating clauses were activating the images of the events expressed in the repeating clauses in order to reorganize information about the events in relation to the subsequent clauses. This suggests that clausal self-repetition may not be intentional. The examples of repeated iconic gestures with repeating clauses suggest that the use of clausal self-repetition is connected to narrators' mental processes when producing narratives. The above analysis shows that clausal self-repetition is more than a mere intentional time filler. In addition, it can be used as a narrative strategy to bring syntactic closure into the discourse, to mark an event as prominent, and to connect the event in the repeating clause to the subsequent context while dealing with the memory constraints of oral animation narratives. Although these motivations and functions of clausal self-repetition were observed in both Japanese and English, the frequency of occurrence was approximately 9 times higher in Japanese than in the English. 5· Watanabe (2007a) demonstrated that clausal self-repetition of events related to scene transitions was more frequent in Korean narratives than in Japanese narratives.

161

162

Fumio Watanabe Use of pre-nominal demonstratives for people and objects in the animation In this section, I will compare the use of pre-nominal demonstratives with nouns referring to people 6 and objects in the story of the animation in the Japanese and English data. In the narratives used for this study, the hearers had no prior knowledge of the animation. I will focus my analysis on referents that are people and objects in the animation (excluding referents that exist in the immediate speech situation), in order to analyze the use of pre-nominal demonstratives in cases in which the narrator and hearer do not share any knowledge about the referent. I will begin with a review of previous research on demonstratives in Japanese and English, and then will analyze the use and functions of pre-nominal demonstratives in the Japanese and the English data.

Pre11ious studies on demonstratives Demonstratives can function as pronoun when they are used independently and as determiner when they are used in pre-nominal position both in Japanese and English. While demonstrative pronouns and pre-nominal demonstratives take the same form in English (this, tha.t and this N, that N, respectively), Japanese has different forms (e.g. kore 'this (proximal)' and sore 'that (neutral)' for pronouns, but kono N'this N' and sono N'that N' for pre-nominal demonstratives). I review the studies of demonstratives focusing on the pre-nominal uses in the two languages. A common explanation of the use of demonstratives in English is that this implies the nearness of the referent and that implies a distant referent (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1972, 1985; Halliday & Hasan, 1976). This near/ distant polarity applies to both the endophoric use of the demonstratives (in which there is a cohesive relation between the noun phrase with a demonstrative and its antecedent) as well as exophoric or situational uses (in which the noun phrase with a demonstrative refers to a person or thing in the physical speech situation). Kamio (1990) pointed out that this refers to "proximal" information which belongs to the speaker's territory of information and tha.t refers to "distal" information which does not. Another difference between this and that is that this can be used for anaphoric as well as cataphoric reference in its endophoric use, while that only be used anaphorically (Quirk et al., 1972, 1985; Kamio, 1990). Gundel, Hedberg, & Zacharski (1993) analyzed the determinative uses of English demonstratives, and designated this N as requiring the status "Activated" and tha.t N as requiring the status "Familiar" in their cognitive model called the 6. Although many of the nouns refer to penguins, I will refer to them as "people" because they were animated.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 163

Givenness Hierarchy. According to their Givenness Hierarchy, "In Focus" is the most restricted state in which the referent is in the center of the hearer's attention, "Activated" requires only that the referent be in the addressee's awareness regardless of whether it is also in focus, and "Familiar" requires that it be represented in memory regardless of whether it is also in awareness. Their distinction between this Nand that N suggests that this N is used for referents conceived of as closer in the hearer's consciousness than that N. They further distinguished what they refer to as the non-demonstrative use of this as a determiner (so-called "indefinite this") which only requires the status of"Referential," because it requires hearers to retrieve an existing representation of the intended referent or construct a new representation of the referent? Chafe (1994) noted that in the uses of indefinite this/these in (10) and (11), the nonidentifiable referent is "pointed to" in a way that would be lacking if only the indefinite article (that is, an elephant in (10) and some gals in (11)) were used. This suggests that uses of indefinite this function as demonstratives because they point to the referents, although they lack antecedents in the preceding context. He also pointed out that when nonidentifiable referents occur as subjects, they are most often introduced with indefinite this rather than an indefinite article such as a or some. (10) .. and this .. elephant came, (Chafe, 1994, p. 98) (11) .. these gals were in a V6lkswagen, (Chafe, 1994, p. 98) Table 3. The Givenness Hierarchy (Gundel et al., 1993, p. 284) 8 In Activated Focus

Familiar Uniquely Referential Identifiable

Type

thatN

English it

HE, this, that, thlsN

Japanese 0

kare'he' anoN kore'this' 'thatN' sore 'that' medial distal are 'that' distal kono N 'this N' smw N 'that N' medial

Identifiable

theN

indefinite thisN

aN

0N

0N

0N

]. Quirk et al. (1985) also noted that indefinite this can be used to introduce a new person or thing into a narrative. 8.

In Table 3, "0" indicates ellipsis and "0N" noun phrases without pre-nominal determiners.

164

Fumio Watanabe

Japanese has a triple system of demonstratives, ko- 'this (proximal)'lso- 'that (neutral)'la- 'that (distal) .' Kinsui & Takubo's (1990) unified explanation of the exophoric and endophoric uses of demonstratives using discourse management has proven to be the most influential among the studies of demonstratives in Japanese. They characterized the Japanese demonstratives ko-/so-la- as proximal/ neutral!distal respectively based on the psychological distance between the speaker and the referent. They claimed that so- 'that (neutral)' is the neutral form of endophoric demonstratives because it can be used for referents that are not in the shared knowledge between the speaker and hearer. They also pointed out that so'that (neutral)' is the unmarked demonstrative, and there needs to be a special motivation for using ko- 'this (proximal)' rather than so- 'that (neutral),' such as to express the speaker's recognition that the referent is near for the speaker or for emphasis. Iori (2007) pointed out that there are endophoric uses of kono N 'this N' and sono N 'that N' which are not mutually exchangeable as in (12) and (13). In (12)b, kono 2)'oyuu 'this actress' is acceptable, whereas sono 2)'oyuu 'that actress' is not, and in (13)b, the acceptable form of subject noun phrase is sono Zyunko 'that Junko.' 9 (12) a. x.l) -if~.A.j--7-:b~ £"tdafltJ"LJco Erizabesu Teeraa ga mata kekkon-sita. Elizabeth Taylor SUB again get married-P Elizabeth Taylor got married again.

b.

C. 0) I*~ O)j;({f;b~ *i:'i!IJ'"t ~ 0) ~;;!:C. tL ~ {:; I!!J §

tl ~-? tlo

Kono I *sono 2)'oyuu ga kekkon-suru no wa This I *that actress SUB get married NOM TOP kore de nana-kaime da soo da. this with seventh time coP EVID It is said that this is seventh time that this/*that actress got married. (Iori, 2007, p. 18; Romanization, word-for-word gloss, and English translation by Watanabe) (13) a. Ji-T~i lL.'lt"~tc., Zyunko wa anata nasi de wa ikira.renai'" to Junko TOP you without with TOP live-POT-NEG Q itte ita. say-PROG-PER-P Junko had been saying "(I) can not live without you."

b.

9·

~0) I ??c. O)J{-T:b'~A,-~ift!!O) J.l 0)7~~ =A
In Japanese, demonstratives can be used with proper nouns as shown in (13)b.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives

that I ??this

Junko

kodomo o huta-ri

suB

now

TOP

other

coN

man

GEN

mo unde iru.

child DO two people also give birth-PER At this time that/??this Junk.o (who had been saying that) has given birth to as many as two children by another man. (Iori, 2007, p. 98; Romanization, word-for-word gloss, and English translation by Watanabe) Because the choice of demonstratives in (12) and (13) cannot be explained by psychological distance, Iori (2007) claimed that it is necessary to distinguish these endophoric uses of kono Nand sono N from the other endophoric and exophoric uses ofJapanese demonstratives explainable by Kinsui and Takubo's (1990) theory. He pointed out that one of the characteristics of uses of the endophoric ko- 'this' that are not exchangeable with so- 'that' (as in (12)b), is that the noun in the demonstrative kono noun phrase is a paraphrase of the noun of the antecedent. In (12), the antecedent Erizabesu Teera.a 'Elizabeth Taylor' is paraphrased as zyoyuu 'actress.' As another property of endophoric ko-, it was noted that it can be used to refer to a referent that appeared long before that point of the discourse. He also noted that ko- 'this' is the unmarked form of endophoric demonstratives based on an analysis of the use of demonstratives in a corpus of newspaper articles. In contrast, uses of endophoric so- 'that' that are not exchangeable with ko'this' (as in (13)b) assign the meaning of the demonstrative so- noun phrase from the context. In (13)b, the referent of sono Zyunko 'that Junko' is not the same as Zyunko in (13)a, because sono in sono .2_-vunko gets its meaning assigned from the preceding context, in this case to refer to a person who had been saying "I cannot live without you." Kinsui & Takubo's (1990) studies were based on written data and isolated conversations, and Iori's (1990) analysis on written data. I will examine how the claims of these previous studies apply to the data from oral animation narratives.

Ana.lysis of the use ofpre-nominal demonstmtives in the Japanese and English narrati11(!s In the following sections, I will analyze the uses of pre-nominal demonstratives in the Japanese and English narrative data, focusing on (1) how the narrators choose pre-nominal demonstratives in their description of events in the story. (2) how pre-nominal demonstratives function in the narratives, and (3) how the use of pre-nominal demonstratives differs between the two languages. As mentioned above, I restricted the demonstratives analyzed in this study to pre-nominal demonstratives that referred to people or objects in the events in the

165

166

Fumio Watanabe

story of the animation, such as sono kaito 'that kite' in (14)b. I also excluded demonstratives used in the narrator's responses to the hearer's questions from the hearer even when they referred to people and objects in events in the story. Uses similar to sono terebi 'that TV' in (15)b were also excluded because they referred to referents outside of the story-world. I also excluded demonstrative pronouns such as sore 'that' in (16)b, because they were neither pre-nominal demonstrative nor did they refer to a person or object in the story. (14) a.

*O)J?iUJ.H:,

7J-{ 1'-tJ~,

51-:>tJ•tJ• -:>"'C

le no yane ni, kaito ga, hikkakatte, house GEN roof GOAL kite SUB get stuck-GER The kite got stuck on the roof of the house, and

b. "7!,

Dt~51-:>~-:>·c

de, himo o hippatte, and that kite GEN string DO pull-GER and, (Pingu) pulled the string o f - and (15) a. j- 1/ l!: 5:$1 IGJ Jl. tc lv "f! '9 ~1 ~, Terebi go-hunkan mita n desu kedo, TV 5 minutes watch-P NOM coP-DIS but (I) watched TV for 5 minutes, but

b. B*M "f! t ~M "f! t 1J:: tJ•-:> tc:: lv "f! '9 ~:r ~, ~~, :JUIL nihongo demo eego demo nakatta n desu kedo, Japanese in also English in also not-P NOM coP-DIS but ga, bangumi, that TV suB program it was neither in Japanese nor in English,-· program, (16) a. *.'t!v•1JtJ~, m.t~H:f~G'Lv•·c Ookii hoo ga, takoage o site ite, big one SUB kite flying DO do-PROG-GER The older one is flying a kite, and b. ,J,~v'niJ\ .~Jl.'Lv'£'9o tiisai hoo ga, o mite imasu. small one SUB that DO watch-PROG-DIS the smaller one is watching • . The numbers of cases of pre-nominal demonstratives observed in the Japanese and the English data is shown in Table 4. While the neutral pre-nominal demonstrative sono N'that (neutral) N' was used over 10 times as often as kono N'this (proximal) N' in the Japanese data, the proximal pre-nominal demonstrative this N was used over 20 times more frequently than that N in the English data.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives Table 4. Numbers of pre-nominal demonstratives in the Japanese and English data Japanese

English

konoN

sonoN

7

74

thisN 66

thatN 3

There were few uses of the distal pre-nominal demonstrative ano N'that (distal) N' that to refer to people or objects in events in the story in the Japanese data. This is probably due to the fact that the use of a- requires shared knowledge about the referent on the part of the speaker and the hearer. The knowledge acquired about the referent of the story over the course of the narrative does not appear to have been considered to be shared knowledge for this purpose. One exception is the narrator's use of the pre-nominal demonstrative ano in (17) with the protagonist Pinguu 'Pingu' in the first utterance of her narrative. This suggests that the narrator believes that the hearer shares knowledge about Pingu. I did not include this utterance in the present study, because the shared knowledge in question is not knowledge related to Pingu as a referent who acts in the story, but knowledge of the particular genre of animation called Pingu. (17)

<: tL ti Korewa this TOP that Pingu. This i s - (the animation we both know about).

Use ofpre-nominal demonstratives in the Japanese data There were 74 cases of sono N 'that (neutral) N', over 10 times the number of cases of kono 'this (proximal)' (7 cases). In contrast with Iori's (2007) conclusion that ko- 'this' is the unmarked form of demonstratives in newspaper articles, results of the present study suggest that sono N 'that N' is the unmarked form of pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives. Thus, differences in discourse genre may have an effect on the choice of demonstratives. All of the cases of son oN 'that (neutral) N' were used with definite noun phrases that had antecedents. The referential distance between the sono noun phrases and their antecedents was relatively short (5 clauses or less) in most of the cases (68 out of 74), although 6 cases were recognized as long distance reference (over 10 clauses) as shown in (18). The antecedent of sono daiku no oniisan ka ozisan no ie 'that older brother's or uncle's carpenter house' in (18)a appeared only once, in an

167

168

Fumio Watanabe

utterance 20 clauses prior to (18)a, and had not been referred to in the intervening discourse. 10 (18) a.

1: de and that carpenter CON older brother or uncle .. no mae ni ittara, GEN house GEN front GOAL go-COND and when went to the front

b. 1J:AdJ'lfi'L, v~m.:IJ~ L.-? ~:Q~ '?L 'L .Q r.J):IJ~'J:J.-Jt~ 'L~ nanka atarasii tako ga koo agattete ru no somehow new

kite

SUB

like this fly-PROG

NOM

ga mi- miete, be visible-GER (The parents) could se- see the new kite flying, and (Watanabe, 2009, p.lO; Romanization, word-for-word gloss, and English translation by Watanabe)

SUB

Noun phrases containing sono 'that (neutral)' tended to refer to secondary characters (15 referred to the grandfather, 5 to Pinga, and 5 to the children in the scene "The parents' search for their children"). Of the 35 cases of sono N that referred to characters, only 3 of these cases were used to refer to the main protagonist Pingu. In Japanese, referents that were presumed to be in the center of hearers' consciousness were ellipted. The pre-nominal demonstrative sono N was used for referents that were introduced recently but were not yet in focus, and it functioned to mark the referents' role as secondary in the discourse. Example (19) describes the scene of the parents' search for their children. While the parents in focus are ellipted in (19)a, the lady at the fish shop who is newly introduced and has a secondary role in this scene is referred to with the pre-nominal demonstrative sono 'that' in (19)b.

de

ano:

osakanaya-san no

and u:hm fish shop

iku n

da

obasan toko ni

GEN aunt

place GOAL

kedo,

go NOM COP but and u:hm it's that (the parents) go to the lady at the fish shop('s) place, but In an analysis oftopic continuity, Giv6n (1983) defined referential distance as the number of clause boundaries between a referent and its previous occurrence in the discourse, and considered the value of 20 clauses or more to be discontinuous.

10.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 169

tJ! "l~v~ -:>"l~? O);G~

b. that aunt it's that know.

mo mite nai tte iu no ne, also see-PER-NEG Q say NOM FP says that (she) has not seen (the children), you

In (20), the narrator describes the last scene of the story where Pingu and his family go home from the grandfather's house. Pingu and the members of his family are referred to with noun phrases without pre-nominal demonstratives. Only the grandfather, who takes on a secondary role in this scene, is referred to with a pre-nominal demonstrative in (20)d (sono megane no pengin 'that penguin with glasses').

170

Fumio Watanabe

exophoric reference because the narrator accompanied her utterance of the phrase koo tabako no kono paipu 'this pipe of tobacco like this' with an iconic gesture in which she traced the outline of pipe with her right hand near her mouth as shown in Figure 6 (McNeill, 1992; Kita, 2002). (21) a. :to~~ fv~;J:, df>fl)-<:? ~1'\::Ifl)~""[, Otoosan wa, anoo koo taba~ father TOP u:hm like this tobacco coN this pipe o motte, DO hold-GER As for the father, u:hm, (he) is holding- of tobacco like this, and

b. :to~~ lv7 -1o ~d5""C""C ~lv~'"t~, df>fl), :tdfH<=, otoosan airon atete ru n desu ne, father iron put-PROG NOM COP-DIS FP ano, trut ni, uhm, clothes GOAL it's that the father is ironing, you know, uhm, clothes, (Watanabe, 2009, p.9; Romanization, word-for-word gloss, and English translation by Watanabe) (22) is another example of kono N 'this (proximal) N' with no antecedent. In (22) c, the narrator introduces the referent of kono enzin tuki no sunoo- sunoomoobiru mitai na yatu 'this thing that looks like a snow- snowmobile with an engine' into the discourse for the first time. The narrator accompanies the phrase kono enzin tuki no 'this ... with an engine' in (22)c with an iconic gesture in which he raises his arms in front of his shoulders as if he were holding on to the handlebars of a snowmobile as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Iconic gesture accompanying koo tabako no kono paipu 'this pipe of tobacco like this' in (21)a

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 171

(22) a. .:f tt:z~ Jl ~<= t'f <:? '? --r <: t ~, Sorede mi ni ikoo tte koto de, then see GOAL go-TENT Q NOM COP-GER Then (the parents said) "let's go looking (for our children)", and

h

~~~~t~•~~~,~~-<:~mG~fi'?k~,

otoosan to okaasan ga, ano: kono sagasi ni itta no, father and mother suB uhm um search GOAL go-P NOM it's that the father and the mother uhm, um went searching (for their children), c.

Figure 7. Iconic gesture accompanying kono enzin tuki no 'this ... with an engine' in (22)c

The uses of kono N 'this N' in (21) and (22) suggest that Japanese has indefinite proximal demonstratives similar to indefinite this N in English. The speakers in my data used indefinite proximal kono N 'this N' to introduce new objects (there were no cases referring to people or buildings) into the discourse. It may be that the use of indefinite proximal kono N 'this N' requires nonverbal support such as the iconic gestures observed in (21) and (22). (23) is an example of the use of kono N 'this (proximal) N' for long distance reference with an antecedent. Following an explanation of the penguin language used in the animation in (23)b, the narrator used the pre-nominal demonstrative kono 'this' with the noun phrase oyako 'family (lit. parents and children),' 11 clauses after it's first use in (23)a.

172

Fumio Watanabe

(23) a. ~ ;/ :¥ ;/ 0) ill T 0) ~ 351J: 0) :G ~ Pengin no oyako no, hanasi na no ne, penguin COP family CON story COP NOM FP It's that (it's) a story about a family (lit. parents and (their) children) of penguins, you know,

b.

"f!~~ IIJ~[!~~ lr~ ""'-:>"C

de:, doobutu de:, syabette, and animal COP-GER talk-GER and (they) are animals and (they) talk, and ... (9 clauses omitted) c. ~n "7!~ ~v~*'f~ ~;,;;:¥;,; sorede, n: mazu, pengin and uh: first and, uh:, at first, there is . . of penguins, and (Watanabe, 2009, p.9; Romanization, word-for-word gloss, and English translation by Watanabe) There were no cases oflori's (2007) endophoric use of kono 'this (proximal)' with a noun phrase that paraphrased its antecedent. In spontaneous oral narratives, the narrator may avoid paraphrasing nouns because of the load on the narrator's cognitive processes for producing discourse and the risk of misleading the hearer in identifying the referents.

Use ofpre-nominal demonstratives in the English data Among the 66 uses of this N in the English data, 42 were uses ofindefinite this N, and 22 were definite uses with antecedents. The remaining 2 cases were inferrable definite noun phrases which lacked immediate antecedents, but for which the referents could be inferred from the context (Prince, 1981). As shown in Table 5 below, there were 42 cases of indefinite this N: 13 referred to characters (such as the children or their parents), 19 referred to buildings (such as the house or the shop), and 10 referred to objects (such as the kite or the sled). (24) is an Table 5. Referents for the 42 cases of indefinite this N in the English data Characters

Buildings

Objects

13(31%)

19(45%)

10(24%)

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 173

example of indefinite this (these) N with a noun phrase that was introduced into the story for the first time (that is, with a noun phrase that lacked an antecedent). There were 8 cases of indefinite this N similar to (24) in which the narrator described the opening scene of the story introducing the protagonists with indefinite this (these) N. (24) a. but urn there's initially out there outside the igloo, b. and they're playing, c. and I think that they're brothers, or one's older one's younger. (Watanabe, 2009, p.6) There were 4 cases in which the narrators used a singular verb with a plural noun similar to there's these two penguins in (24)a when introducing the protagonist children into their narratives in the opening scene of the story (other examples were there's these two penguins, there's these two penguin kids, etc.). 10 of the 18 narrators in the English data used the there construction to introduce the protagonists as shown in Table 6. As Chafe (1985) noted, "spoken English makes use of grammatical devices that are not accepted in written English" (p. 114), for example indefinite this and the use of a singular verb with a plural noun. (25) is another example of the use of indefinite these N to refer to the protagonists (and the use of a singular verb with a plural noun). It is interesting to note that while the narrator used indefinite these for the noun phrase referring to the protagonists in (25)e, he used an indefinite article an for the building igloo in (25) d. Narrators tended to indicate the more important referents in the story with prenominal demonstratives and used the indefinite article for less important ones. (25) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Okay, so, basically what happens, isit's a really short movie, for five minutes. Starts out, urn, in- it looks like Alaska, or the North Pole, there's an and there's They're two brothers. I think, playing urn with a kite, outside.

Table 6. English expressions used to introduce the protagonist children in the first scene of the story there's N (pl.) 4

there's these N (pl.)

there's this N (sg.)

there are N (pl.)

4

n. "Others" in Table 6 includes 3 cases of use of indefinite this N.

others11 8

174 Fumio Watanabe

(26) to (28) show some of the variations used to introduce the protagonists in the opening scene of the story. (26)b is an example of there's this N (sg.) in Table 6 in which the narrator treats the noun family as a singular noun. In (27)a, indefinite this is used in the subject position of the sentence. In (28)b, the narrator introduces the proper noun Pingu after the expression we have. (26) a.

b. (27) a. so urn, b. They're two little kids,

are flying a kite, right?

(28) a. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of it, it's called Pingu. b. So, anyways, okay, so here we have Pingu. c. He's in front of their igloo home. In contrast to the examples in (24) to (27) from the English data, there were no cases in which the narrators introduced the protagonists using pre-nominal demonstratives in the first scene of the story in the Japanese data. Rather, the narrators used proper nouns such as Pinguu to Pinga 'Pingu and Pinga' in (29), which is similar to example (28) in the English data. Although it is possible to use pre-nominal demonstratives with proper nouns in Japanese as in (13)b, the narrators in my Japanese data did not do so when they introduced characters into their narratives. (29) 1!, *'9'\ *0)9'}1!, l:!."Y-'f~t::.l:!."Yt.Ji:J~7J-1rt!1111.fvl!·c De, mazu, ie no soto de, Pinguu to Pinga ga And first house GEN outside at Pingu and Pinga suB kaito de asonde te, kite with play-PROG-GER And, first, outside of the house, Pingu and Pinga were playing with a kite, and In 8 out of the 15 narratives, the Japanese narrators introduced the protagonists using a bare noun (0N) to modify another noun. The modified nouns referred to the genre of the animation (hanasi 'story' as in (30) and (23)a, monogatari 'narrative,' bideo 'video,' anime 'animation,' etc.). In contrast, there was only one similar case found in the English data as shown in (31). Although (23)a, (30), and (31) all modify nouns such as hanasi 'story' and anime 'animation' with a noun phrase referring to the protagonist(s), only the English narrator in (31) used an indefinite pre-nominal demonstrative (these N).

.:r

(3o) 1-v ~ c:. :G , 1J: 1-v i:J' :tci, """ -:-;-¥ -:-; 0) *Jl 0) ~ t2 ':> tr:. 1-v tnt N:to ne, nanka ne, pengin no oyako no hanasi U:m FP somehow FP penguin coP family coN story

c:,

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 175

datta n

da kedo,

COP-P NOM COP but

U:m you know, somehow you know, it's that (it) was a story about a family (lit. parents and children) of penguins, but (31) so, it's an anime about There were 11 cases in which the narrators used indefinite this N as in (32) to describe the grandfather's house in the scene in which the protagonists went to his house. In (32), although the indefinite article a is used for the places that the protagonists (Pingu and Pinga) passed by on the way (a music store, a fish shop, etc.) to the grandfather's house, the pre-nominal demonstrative this N is used to refer to the goal of their travel. Although the places that they passed by as well as the grandfather's house are new at this point in the discourse, the narrator uses aN for less important referents and this N for more important referents in the story. (32) a. So they go by a music store, a fish shop, and a couple of other houses, b. and they get to c. maybe it, maybe it's their grandfather or something. (Watanabe, 2009, p.6) The uses of indefinite this N in (25) and (32) both function to mark important referents in the discourse (the protagonists in (25) and this old guy's house in (32)). While the English narrators used indefinite this N to mark important referents and the indefinite article (a/an/some N) to mark less important ones, the Japanese narrators used bare nouns without demonstratives (0N) to mark important referents and the neutral pre-nominal demonstrative sono N'that N' to mark relatively less important old (previously introduced) referents as in (20)d. I summarize the syntactic positions for the 42 cases of indefinite this N in the English data in Table 7. Indefinite this N tended to be used in syntactic positions after prepositions (22 cases, 52%) as in (32), rather than in subject position (4, 10%) as in (27). 17 of the 19 noun phrases referring to buildings and 3 objects (sled, snowmobile) occurred in prepositional phrases with indefinite this as in (33). 6 of the 8 cases of characters after verbs occurred in there constructions as in (25) and (26). Table 7. Syntactic positions for the 42 cases of indefinite this N in the English data After a preposition 22(52%)

After a verb

Subject position

16(38%)

4(10%)

Characters Buildings Objects Characters Buildings Objects Characters Buildings Objects 2

17

3

8

7

3

0

176

Fumio Watanabe

(33) a. So they get o n - · b. And cruise into town. (Watanabe, 2009, p.6) There were 22 definite uses of this N with antecedents, as shown in (34) to (38). 6 were used with long distance referents and 16 with short distance referents. (34) is a case of long distance reference with an antecedent. A pronoun he (referring to this older penguin which had been introduced into the story 4 clauses prior to this use of he) referring to the same referent as this man in (34)d had appeared 35 clauses earlier. It is possible that the narrator used this man in (34)d because she assumed that the referent was out of the hearer's consciousness at this point in the discourse. u While the neutral demonstrative so noN 'that N' (rather than the proximal kono N 'this N') was used for long distance reference in the Japanese data as seen in (23), the proximal demonstrative this N tended to be used in the English data. (34) a. b. c. d. e.

They get on the motorized sled, and then they hook the other sled on to that one, and then they uhm go home. And they are all waving to - · And then that's it.

(35) and (36) are examples of short distance reference. In (35)c the narrator uses this to elaborate on the noun phrase the kite in (35)b. In (36) there is a referential link between a mechanized snow vehicle in (36)b and this thing in (36d). (35) a. and they get to the old man's house, b. and they see the kite. c. you know this kind of house. (Watanabe, 2009, p.7)

flying over the old guy's

(36) a. well like the kids, the kids used the sled, b. and then the parents came after urn with like a mechanized snow vehicle, c. I don't know what, what it was exactly, d. and then, so then they all got o n - · (Watanabe, 2009, p.7) I summarize the referents for the 22 cases of definite this N in the English data in Table 8. Definite this N was used with objects (10 cases) or buildings (3 cases), and

During the 35 intervening clauses the narrator described scenes 7 "The parents get worried," 8 "The parents' search for their children," and 9 "The reunion."

12.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 177

Table 8. Referents for the 22 cases of definite this N in the English data Characters

Buildings

Objects

9(41%)

3(14%)

10(45%)

when it was used to refer to characters in the story (9 cases), the referents were minor characters, such as the grandfather and the shopkeepers. There were no examples of definite this N referring to a character with a major role in the scene. While major characters presumed to be in focus in the hearer's consciousness were referred to with pronouns or proper nouns, there was a tendency to use both definite and indefinite pre-nominal demonstratives for characters and objects with minor roles. Although there were no cases of pre-nominal demonstratives with nouns inferrable from their antecedents in the Japanese data, there were 2 uses of inferrable definite this N in the English data, one of which is shown in (37). The existence of a resident was inferred from the noun phrase the third house in (37)a, and the resident was described as this penguin in (37)b. (37) a. and so they pass the third house, b. a n d - was sitting outside, sunbathing or something, (Watanabe, 2009, p.7) There were only 3 uses of that N, exceedingly few compared with the 66 cases of this N. One case was the use of definite that N in (38), and the other two cases were used with inferrable noun phrases as shown in (39). In (38), a smaller building in (38)a is referred to by that room in (38)b, which the narrator subsequently repairs as that buildingP In (39), that person in (39)b is a referent inferrable from the music store in (39)a. The narrator repaired the definite article the and corrected himself to say that person in (39)b. By repairing the to that N, the narrator makes it clear that the referent was inferred from the preceding context. (38) a. and then there's a smaller building to the right, b. and they go i n t o - · o r c. and they start to build a new kite. (Watanabe, 2009, p.8) (39) a. they first, they go by the music store, b. and ask t h e , - if, if he saw their kids. (Watanabe, 2009, p.8)

13.

I only counted that building (and did not count that room) as a use of that N.

178 Fumio Watanabe

It is difficult to determine why the narrator used that N rather than this N in these cases because such cases were very few in number, and there were other cases in which narrators used this N in similar descriptions of the same scene in (38) and (39). The narrator's intention to focus on the referent by using a pre-nominal demonstrative rather than a definite article can be observed in these examples.

Conclusion In this study. I investigated the functions and motivations of clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in Japanese and English animation narratives. My analysis of the 29 cases of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese data and 4 cases in the English data indicated that (1) there was a syntactic gap between the preceding and repeating clauses, (2) the gap functioned to make the event expressed in the preceding clause more prominent in the discourse, and (3) repetition was used to relate the event in the repeating clause (which had the same propositional content as the preceding clause) to the following events. This reflects the separation and connection between narrative events in the speaker's cognitive processes of oral narrative. The high frequency of clausal self-repetition in the Japanese data as compared to the English data may be related to the head-final syntactic structure ofJapanese, because it makes main clauses in the final position prominent. Nevertheless, the functions of clausal self-repetition to make the repeated event more prominent and to relate it to following events and the motivations of clausal self-repetition to focus on describing the sequence of relationships appeared to be the same in both languages. Analysis of the use of pre-nominal demonstratives in Japanese and English animation narratives showed that while the unmarked pre-nominal demonstrative was so no N'that (neutral) N' in the Japanese data, in the English data it was the proximal demonstrative this N, 2. while over 60% of cases of this N in the English data were used as indefinite this N, there were only 2 cases (29%) of the indefinite proximal demonstrative kono N'this N' in the Japanese data (and the use ofkono N'this N' was restricted to referents that were objects and were both accompanied by iconic gestures), 3. although pre-nominal demonstratives functioned to mark whether or not a referent was important in both languages, Japanese used neutral sono N'that N' to mark less important characters/objects, while English used proximal this N to mark more important characters/objects, 4. while Japanese narrators used the neutral pre-nominal demonstrative sono 'that' for long distance reference with an antecedent, English narrators used the proximal pre-nominal this N, 1.

Chapter 5. Clausal self-repetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives 179

5. while there were 4 of uses of pre-nominal demonstratives with inferrable referents in English. this use was not found in the Japanese data. In this study I investigated the functions and motivations for using clausal selfrepetition and pre-nominal demonstratives in animation narratives from a comparative perspective. By comparing these expressions in animation narratives told by a multiple of speakers (15 for Japanese,l8 for American English) about the same animation in a similar experimental setting, I was able to make a quantitative comparison of how speakers ofJapanese and English verbalize their knowledge obtained from a nonverbal source. For further investigation of clausal self-repetition, there is a need to collect more animation narratives in both languages (especially English) in order to verify the conclusions in this study. Further comparative quantitative research on other referring expressions (including pronominal demonstratives, ellipsis, pronouns, and proper nouns), in addition to the pre-nominal demonstratives focused on in the present study, will shed light on di:ffurences between the uses of prenominal demonstratives and other referring expressions in the two languages.

References Chafe, W. (Ed.) (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. Olson, N. Torrace, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning (pp. 105-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Giv6n, T. (Ed..) (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274-307. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesio11 in English. London: Long man. Iori, I. (2007). Niho11go ni okeru tekisuto 110 ke.ssokusee no ke11kyuu [A study of textual cohesion in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Kamio, A. (1990). Zyoohoo no nawabar i riron [Theory of territory of information]. Tokyo: Taishuukan Syoten. Kimbara, I. (2000). Gengo hyoogen no kurikaesi ni tomonau zyesutyaa ni tuite [On gestures accompanying repetition of linguistic expressions]. Gengo Zyoohoo Kagaku Kenkyuu [Research on Linguistic Informational Science], 5, 83-102. Kinsui, S., & Takubo, Y. (1990). Danwa kanri riron kara mita nihongo no sizi.si [A discourse management analysis ofJapanese demonstratives]. Ninti Kagaku no Hatten [Advances in Cognitive Science], 3, 85-115. Kita, S. (2002). Zyesutyaa [Gesture]. Tokyo: Kaneko Shoboo.

J.8o

Fumio Watanabe

Kumagai, T. (1997). Kurikaesu [Repeating]. In M. Sakuma, S. Sugito & K. Hanzawa (Eds.), Bunsyoo danwa no sikumi [Organization of written and spoken discourse] (pp. 38-48). Tokyo: Oohuu. Labov, W. (1972).Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Minami, F. (1974). Gendai nihongo no koozoo [Structure of modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishuukan Syoten. Minami, F. (1993). Gendal nlhongo bunpoo no rinkaku [Outline of modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishuukan Shoten. Minami, M. (2004). The development of narrative in second language acquisition: Frog storles. In M. Minami, H. Kobayashi, M. Nakayama & H. Sirai (Eds.), Studies in language sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 123-138). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. C ole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York, NY: Academic Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Quirk, R, Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Sakuma, M., Sugito, S., & Hanzawa, K. (Eds.) (1997). Bunsyoo danwa no sikumi [Organization of written and spoken discourse]. Tokyo: Oohuu. Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InS. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative (pp. 219-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, a11d imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. (Ed.) (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watanabe, F. (1999). Naratibu disukoosu ni okeru setu no kurikaesi [Clausal self-repetition in narrative discourse]. Yamagata Daigaku Nihongo Kyooiku Ronsyuu [Yamagata University Working Papers in Japanese Language Education], 2, 53-68. Watanabe, F. (2007a, March). Bogowasya to hibogowasya ni yoru katari no danwa ni okeru setu 110 kur ikaesi 111 tu ite [Clausal self-repetition in native and non-native narrative discourse]. Paper presented at the Association of Teachers of]apanese 2007 Seminar, Boston, USA. Watanabe, F. (2007b). Nihongo bogowasya to hibogowasya no katari no danwa ni okeru "wadan" ni tuite no kenkyuu [Research on "story units" in the narrative discourse of native and non-native Japanese speakers]. Research report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 2004-2006. (Research Theme No. 16520311). Yamagata: Yamagata University. Watanabe, F. (2007c). Nihongo no danwa ni okeru setu no kurikaesi to zyesutyaa ni tutte [On clausal self-repetition and gestures in Japanese discourse]. In M. Minami (Ed.) Gengogaku to nihongo kyooiku [Linguistics and Japanese language education] (Vol. V, pp. 231-243). Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Watanabe, F. (2009). Eego oyobi nihongo no katari no danwa bunsyoo ni okeru sizisi [.Demonstratives in English and Japanese oral and written narrative discourse]. Yamagata Dalgaku Zlnbun Gakubu Kenkyuu Nenpoo [Yamagata University, Faculty ofLiterature & Social Sciences Annual Research Report], 6, 1-13.

PART4

Storytelling in talk shows and survey interviews

CHAPTER6

Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show A host's responsive behavior as a resource for shaping the guest's story Atsuko Honda Senshu University

The present study investigates the host's responsive behavior (continuers, repetition, and stance displays) in a Japanese talk show segment and demonstrates how the host contributes to the construction of the guest's story. The analysis shows that the host uses continuers to keep the guest talking, and repetition in clarification requests to help make the guest's talk more comprehensible to the audience. While the host does the above to maintain an objective stance as facilitator of the show, other devices/body behavior allow her to go beyond this stance. By using the disalignment markers E- 'What?' and A 'Oh' before repeating a part or all of the guest's preceding utterance, and accompanying her repetition with laughter and posture changes, the host indicates that a positive image of the guest should be promoted. In addition, the host uses lengthened vocalizations (e.g., Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h') to express a stance of strong appreciation and agreement at the end of the guest's story, which also supports the guest in a positive way. In sum, by using various strategies, the host in the talk show does much more than just remain a passive listener, and indeed plays an active role in helping to shape the guest's story.

In the Japanese talk show context, storytelling is commonly viewed as an activity that guests perform while hosts participate primarily as passive listeners.1 However, a closer look at the interaction reveals that hosts actually play a powerful role in shaping the way stories unfold. The present study treats talk as an inherently interactive activity (Bakhtin, 1981; Erickson, 1982; Goodwin, 1981; I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Polly Szatrowski for her valuable comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Dr. Mayumi Bono for the wonderful illustrations (Figures 1-3) she drew for this study. This research was funded by a Senshu University Overseas Research Fellowship (2007-2008).

1.

184 Atsuko Honda Schegloft~ 1982) rather than as a product of the speaker, and it aims to clarify the host's contribution to the construction of the guest's talk. Building on the assumption that the structure and function of participants' actions can only be elucidated through the detailed examination of particular sequences of talk, I will investigate the responsive behavior of the host in one particular Japanese talk show segment. Specifically, I analyze three responsive behaviors by the host (continuers, repetition, and stance displays), and delineate how the host not only manages to maintain an objective position as facilitator of the show, but also attempts to align with or disalign from the guest. Through this examination, I show how the host plays a more active role in the construction of the guest's story than has previously been assumed. After reviewing previous studies in the following section, I will provide a brief description of the data. Then, I will analyze the responsive behavior of the host in the development of the story.

Previous studies Previous research on televised talk includes conversation analytic studies that examined British and American television news interviews. These studies shed light on the interviewer's roles (Clayman, 1988, 1992), the turn-taking system (Greatbatch, 1988, 1992; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1991), and other interactional aspects of news interviews. Other studies have analyzed Japanese public affairs talk shows in order to illuminate conflict management (Honda, 2002) and the moderator's role (Honda, 2004; Saft, 2007). However, studies done on other types of televised talk are still relatively few, and the interactional dimensions of talk shows, including the role of the talk show host, still need to be explored. According to Clayman (1988, 1992) and Clayman & Heritage (2002), news interviewers sustain their neutrality, the journalistic expectation to be objective, by shifting their footing (Goffman, 1981)2 and attributing their statements to third parties. Honda (2004) confirms that in Japanese public affairs talk shows as well, moderators usually maintain their neutrality with some exceptions. In an analysis of cases in which there is some disparity among the overall contribution and treatment of the participants, she shows how moderators attempt to rectify situation by relinquishing their neutrality. 2. Goffman (1981) argues that the role of speaker should be broken down into "animator," the person who speaks, "author," the person who originated the beliefS and sentiments, and perhaps also composed the words, and "principal," whose viewpoint is being expressed. By refraining from expressing their own ideas and not attributing statements to third parties, interviewers act only as an animator and thus sustain their neutrality.

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 185

The present study investigates the extent to which a talk show host maintains and relinquishes her objective stance. I will also examine how each of her actions helps to construct the guest's story.

Data

The data used for the analysis is taken from the Japanese talk show program called Stazio Paaku kara Konniti wa 'Hello from Studio Park,' a one-hour television talk show broadcast on weekday afternoons on NHK, Japan's public broadcasting system. The program is broadcast live from the studio in downtown Tokyo with one person invited as a guest each time, and is watched by the audience in the studio as well as by television viewers throughout Japan. The data for the present analysis consist of a segment taken from the program broadcast on February 1, 2007, in which Ms. Chieko Kuroda, a popular actress and model, is interviewed by the host, an NHK announcer, Ms. Yumiko Udoh. In the studio, they sit across the table from each other as shown in Figure 1 with Ms. Udoh (referred to as the host (H) in my analysis) on the left and Ms. Kuroda (referred to as the guest (G) in my analysis) on the right. Ms. Kuroda gained popularity while working as a model for a magazine that targeted to fashion-conscious Japanese women in their thirties and forties, and by the time of this program, she had started appearing on television as well. In the Host (Ms. Udoh)

Figure 1. The participants in the talk show

Guest (Ms. Kuroda)

186 Atsuko Honda

segment analyzed, the host asks her if she finds being filmed by a television camera different from having still pictures taken for a fashion magazine, and Ms. Kuroda answers that she has found it to be different. Then she develops her answer into a story about how she appeared on television with poor posture, that her friends had noticed this, and so on. I characterize this segment of her talk as a story because it reports past events (Labov, 1972). In addition, I will show that storytelling is a social practice (Georgakopoulou, 2007), in an analysis of how the story is shaped both by the teller (the guest) and the recipient (the host) whose contributions also influence its formation. By doing so, I corroborate Och's (1997) observation that the eo-authorship is observed frequently in conversational narrative. In the next section, I analyze the responsive behavior of the host. In particular, I will focus on what the host is doing while the guest provides her explanation in the form of a story. Analysis of the host's responsive behavior The segment in which the guest develops her talk into a story is triggered by the host's question as shown in (1). 3

(1)

1H .7-'f--Jv1J:J!i"Z?tt., ~~tiGtdltL'"C£'91?GJ:? Sutiiru sya..<:in de wa, moo torare narete masu desyo? still picture by TOP already take-PAS accustomed-PER-ms TAG (You) are accustomed to having still pictures taken (of you), aren't you? 2G

i- ~ l! '91/td - o Soo desu 1/ne:. COP-DIS FP (That's) right. SO

=> 3 H

IIJJJ< 7

V~;O ~ 71?/IG tL~-:> '"C lt• ~ 0) tt.=

11 Ugoku terebi kamera de torareru tteiu no 'J.Va= moving TV camera by take-PAS Q say NOM TOP //Being caught by moving TV cameras,=

=> 4 H

=:lilt

*" '9 iJ' ?

=tigaimasu

ka.?

different-DIS QP =(is it) different (from having still pictures taken)? 3· The Appendix in Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanization. transcription conventions, abbreviations in the word-fur-word gloss, and the English translation used in the examples. In my examples, I indicate the guest's utterances with a~. and the host's utterances with a=>.

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 187

Upon hearing the host's question in lines 3 and 4, the guest takes her turn as a primary speaker and starts talking. However, the host does not simply listen passively. Based on repeated observation of this segment, I identified the following three kinds of responsive behavior on the part of the host. 1. Continuers (brief vocalizations such as Ha.i 'Yes' or Un 'Uh huh, Yeah'). 2. Repetition of words or phrases which the guest has just uttered. 3. Stance displays, newsmarkers (such as A 'Oh' orE- 'What?'), and lengthened vocalizations (such as Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h').

In the following, I will analyze each behavior and show that by employing continuers and repetition as a clarification request, the host lets the guest do the talking and pursues her role as facilitator of the show. In contrast, when the host uses newsmarkers and lengthened vocalizations, she goes beyond sustaining her objective stance and shows her own subjective attitude (disalignment with newsmarkers and alignment with lengthened vocalizations) in order to protect or strongly support the positive face of the guest. By analyzing these behaviors by the host, I will demonstrate how she contributes to the interaction.

Continuers Throughout the guest's answer, the host responds with short tokens such as Un 'Uh huh, Yeah' or Hai 'Yes', that is with what Schegloff (1982) refers to as "continuers", tokens produced at the end of the other party's TCU (turn constructional unit). 4 By producing such tokens at a point where turn exchange is possible, the host withholds from taking a turn, thus showing her understanding that the guest's talk is still in progress. After responding to the host's question (in line 4 in (1)), by saying in line 5 in (2) Ti:gaimasu 'It's different', that is, posing for a magazine is different from being caught by a television camera, the guest starts elaborating the difference. From the beginning of the guest's response up to line 17, the host responds with continuers, which are shown by the arrows.

4· These short tokens referred to as aizuti 'backchannel utterances' in Japanese have been studied in depth (Maynard, 1986; White, 1989; Yamada, 1992; Szatrowski, 2000, 2003; Saft, 2007; and others). Many previous studies on aizuti have emphasized listenership as the basic function of back channel utterances. For example, Maynard (1986, p. 1085) defines aizuti as messages sent by "an interlocutor who assumes primarily a listener's role during the other interlocutor's speaking turiL" Here I use the term "continuer" to focus more on the collaborative aspect of talk between speaker and listener.

188 Atsuko Honda

(2)

5G

!i-7'J~lt•g:'9(.)~o 1/~r})-, (2.0)-tfi!lr})~{Ul;~i-,

Ti:gai masu (.) ne. 1/Ano:, (2.0) hutuu no zassi wa:, different-DIS FP FIL ordinary CON magazine TOP It's different(.) you know.// U:hm, (2.0) for regular magazines, at lea:st,

1/ff-o

=> 6H

1/Ho:. 1/0:h.

7G

-[ij]J:/v~'9J:o

iti-men na n desu yo. one side COP NOM COP-DIS FP it's that (it's) one side, I tell you. :::::> 8 H

~ilt•o

Hai. Yes. 9G

:::::>

!v , ;: r}) t. 6 tt tc 6 c. c. G:b' ~ !v 1J: lt 'o N, kono toraretara koko sika utunnai. FIL this take-PAS-COND here only appear-NEG Uh, when this (side of my body) is taken, only this (side of my body) appears (in the photo).

10 H ti lt"'o HaL Yes.

11 G !v7 vl!.'-:>"'C~~:b' 6 t. iJ'(.)~~tt L"-lllift ~.@ GN terebitte usiro kara toka 0 utusarete ru toki mo aru si:, FIL TV Q back from or shoot-PER-PAS time also exist and Uh on TV, there are also times when my back is visible (on camera), a:nd 12 G ~I) :b' 61ft I) ~kHi

hurimu- (.) ugoite ru kara hurimukeba look bamove-PROG because look back-PROV (I) look ba-, (I)'m moving around, so if (I) look back,

13 G -3

G~t~0-t>~:t~'9 J://~o

usiro mo uturu: wake desu yo //ne. back also appear NOM COP-DIS FP FP it's that (my) back is also visible, I tell you, //you know.

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 189

tnilt 1

=> 14H

1/Hai. //Yes. 15 G t2t.J' G -, iJ:: fvt.J' !;:f fv t. ~;: C: 5 ~ "? "t=

Dakara:, nanka honto ni koo yatte= so FIL really like this do-GER So:, like, really like this, =

16 G =7- 1/ "!::' ili ~ GL." ~ G 5 J: 5 ~;: iJ:: "? t;:;.ftf}J (!) C: ~ iJ:: !v 1/L."-, =terebi dasasite morau yoo ni natta saLoryo no koro TV appear-eAu receive like became beginning coN time nanl/te:, TOP

=when (I) first started appearing on TV,

=> 17H

1/5 fvo 1/Un. //Uh huh.

These host's continuers help the guest keep talking and enable her to pursue her role as the principal speaker of the talk show. Since it is the host's job to let the guest do the talking, the continuers also allow the host to fulfill her role as facilitator ofthe show. 5 In line 16, the guest appears to be beginning a story with an orientation to a time in the past when she first started appearing on television. And it is shortly after line 16 that the host starts engaging in the talk more positively with repetitions and stance markers, which I will analyze below.

Repetition

In this section, I will analyze two occasions in which the host repeats the guest's previous utterance as a clarification request and show how this allows the host to pursue her role as facilitator of the show. First, I will present each repetition below, and then analyze what the host is doing by the use of repetition.

5. The host continues using continuers as a responsive token even after the segment shown in (2), but not exclusively. Moderators in Japanese public affairs talk shows employ continuers in the same way as the host does in (2) (Honda 2004). Saft (2007) argues that this use of aizutl 'back channel' enables the moderator to gain access to the fioor and allows him/her to allocate turns to other participants.

190

Atsuko Honda

The first repetition occurs in (3) after the guest explains that, unlike shooting for a magazine, she is not always aware of the camera when shooting for a television program. Specifically, the guest mentions in line 18 that sometimes she gets caught off guard by a television camera when she is standing with a totally bosatto 'absent-minded' posture. In line 20, the host repeats the guest's word bosatto 'absent-minded' (in line 18) in order to request clarification of what the guest means by her use of this word.

<

(3) ~ 18 G id: 1v iJ' '9 C "'? ~:H: 1:£' ~ '? C: G tc: 13 71' t. iJ' ;O~ = Nanka sugoku ya.ke ni bosatto-sita zibun toka ga= FIL really quite absent-minded-P myself or suB my (appearance), somehow really quite absent-minded=

19G

=C:.-5~ (.)@-;o"?"t'5-:::>"?""Ctc:@l)'9~o =

=koo, (.) @ tiro tte ututte ta@ri suru.= FIL a bit Q appear-PER-ITER like this, (.)@appears (on TV) in fleeting view.@=

=> 20H ;"t,

':£'~1/'?t.G""Ctc:"?""C=

E, bosa//tto-site ta tte= What absent-minded-PER-P Q What?, bosa//tto 'absent-minded,'

21 G 1/ti. :IJ'1/Dakasol/So-, 22H

-v•.::J//0@~-t..@?

iu //no @wa@? say NOM TOP by saying (that), (what do you mean)? The second repetition is observed in (4) in which the guest explains that other people had pointed it out to her in order to back up what she said in (3). In line 28, she states that people who saw her on television told her Sisee ga warui '(You) have poor posture'. Subsequently in line 29, the host repeats the guest's words sisee ga warui '(you) have poor posture'. (4) ~ 28 G =ll~~iJ~~v''?L Jj.fviJ:tL. B" .:btL-, =1/Sisee ga wa.rui tte minna. m tware:, posture suB bad Q everyone by tell-PAS = 1/I had it pointed out (to me) by everyone "(You) have poor posture."

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show

=> 29H

~~ ~!lit.Nfjj,!.t..,?

A, sisee

ga 1/warui?

oh posture suB bad Oh, (you) have poor posture? Both of the repetitions shown in (3) and (4) above are examples of what Tannen (1989) refers to as alia-repetition (repetition of others), and take the form of exact repetition. (Tannen (1989, p. 54) classifies instances of repetition along "a scale of fixity in form" into "exact repetition", "repetition with variation", and "paraphrase" Here, the host reiterates the word(s) the guest has just uttered without varying or paraphrasing, so the repetition is "exact" in terms of form.) Although the segment shown in (4) alone does not provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the repetition in 29 functions as a clarification request, I will analyze it in a larger sequence and show that it does in the following section. I will also demonstrate how the host uses these two instances of repetition to clarify the guest's talk as well as to do some facework, while maintaining an objective stance as the facilitator of the talk show. 1.

Using repetition to help construct the story while pursuing the role offacilitator

In this section, I examine how the host uses repetition to help construct the guest's story while pursuing her role as facilitator. Bearing in mind that action is sequentiallyorganized, and what one person does by what she says in a particular sequence can be illuminated by looking at what the other person says in the following sequence and vice versa, I examine how the guest reacts to the host repetitions. In both cases, upon hearing the host's repetition, the guest explains what she meant by the repeated word or expression, trying to present it in a way that is easier for the audience as well as for the host to understand. In response to the host's repetition of the guest's word bosatto 'absent-minded' shown in line 20 in (3), and repeated in line 20 in (5) below, the guest explains the reason why she was being bosatto 'absent-minded'.

E.

bosal/tto-site ta

tte=

What absent-minded-PER-P Q What?, bosal/tto 'absent-minded,'

21 G

11tc. tf'1/Dakasol/So-,

191

192

Atsuko Honda

22H

t·~?//(T)@~i.@?

iu //no @wa@? say NOM TOP by saying (that), (what do you mean)?

/IS (T)=

23 G

1/a.no= FIL //uhm= 24 G =:~Hi c:. (T) ~"?-c.@ C: J.!..P 1J:: l.-~ (.) (T) ~;: / / - ,

=yoo 1-va kono ututte ru to omowanai (.) no nil/:, point TOP FIL appear-PER Q think-NEG although = the point is, although (I) don't think I'm appearing (on camera), 25 H

1/fvo

/IN. //Uh huh.

-,

(T) 7J )1: 7 ~ ~ ~ tt 'L t· ~ t.:: ~:H:: n~ = usiro no kamera de utusarete itari toka:,= back CON camera by take-PAS-PER-ITER or (I) am shot by a camera behind me, or things like that,=

26 G ~ 0

Similarly. in the next example, after the host repeats the guest's utterance sisee ga 1-varui '(you) have bad posture' in line 29, the guest restates what she meant by bad posture in lines 31, 33 and 34, saying she appeared droopy with her air let out (like a balloon with its air let out). (6) ~ 29H

'S,

~~:Q~/I!!.l.-~?

A, sisee ga 1/wa.rui? oh posture suB bad Oh, (you) have poor posture? 30G

11/v-, Jb(T)'9C:.~l.-~(o.5)~~7J~:Bl.-~-J::, '?Lo //N:, ano sugoi (0.5) sisee ga 1-varui: yo, tte. FIL FIL awfully (0.5) posture SUB bad FP Q //Yea:h, uhm, awfully (0.5) (they said) "(You) have bad posture, you know."

31 G I!~±. .!f (T) ~ '? 'L.@ ~if t<:: = Yoo wa sono ututte 1·u toki ni= point TOP FIL appear-PER time at The point is when (I'm) on (TV)=

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 193 32H =;:t-, llt2"?'L.

=E-,

1/da.tte

what but =What?, but 33 G

//~Ht~:tJ~mkt"L=

1/yoo wa ki

ga

nukete=

point TOP air suB come out-GER //the point is, (like a balloon with its) air let out= 34 G = "'- J: '? L. 'J!!. '? L. fv:@ ti.

=heyotte

ututte ru

c ,'Et -5 fv!! "t ~t ~.',

n

da to omou n

desu

kedo,

droopily appear-PER NOM COP Q think NOM COP-DIS but =it's that (I) think it's that (I) appear droopy, but In the two examples above, following the host's repetition of the guest's utterance, the guest restates what she meant by the repeated utterance. In both cases (lines 24 and 26 in (5) and lines 31 and 33 in (6)), the guest uses the expression yoo wa 'the point (is)', a marker that indicates that what follows is a restatement of what came before. This shows that the host's repetition is understood by the guest as a clarification request, which asks the guest to clarify what she has just said, ultimately making the story more comprehensible to the audience as well as to the host. Since hosts are responsible for making sure that the guest's talk is sufficiently clear for the audience to understand and enjoy the show, it is their job to clarify what the guest says when they teel it needs to be clarified. In this way, the host's use of repetition in (5) and (6) allows her to pursue the role of facilitator of the talk show. While repeating the guest's words is not the only way to achieve a clarification request, by choosing to repeat the guest's words, the host manages to remain what Goffman (1981, p.l44) calls the "animator" (a person who speaks), while allowing the guest to take the role of "author" (a person who originates the beliefs and sentiments, and may also compose the words), and "principal" (the one whose viewpoint is being expressed). By doing so, the host manages to maintain an objective stance as the facilitator of the show while making sure that the guest's talk is being developed. In sum, the host's repetition of the guest's words allows the host to clarify the guest's talk and encourages the guest to present her story in a way that is easier for the audience to understand, while maintaining an objective stance as the talk show host.

2. Showing considera.tion jo1· the guest's face A closer look at the host's behavior in (5) and (6) shows that, in addition to shaping the guest's story while pursuing a neutral role similar to that observed in

194 Atsuko Honda

news interviewers (Clayman, 1988; Clayman & Heritage, 2002), the host's use of repetition also allows her to show consideration for the guest's face. In particular, this relates to the fact that the words that the host chooses to repeat are facethreatening (Brown & Levinson, [1978]1987). 6 An examination of the guest's words that the host chose to repeat (bosatto 'absent-minded' and sisee ga warui 'have poor posture') shows that they are descriptions that could undermine the positive image of this popular fashion model. In addition, repeating such face-threatening expressions could be quite contrary to what the talk show host is expected to do, that is, to help construct the guest's positive image. Here, however, repeating the guest's words allows the host to remain merely an a.nimator, not the author. In other words, by making it clear that the host herself is not the agent of these face-threatening words, she is able to show some consideration for the guest's face. In sum, the use of repetition allows the host not only to clarify the guest's talk but also to do some facework while maintaining an objective stance as the facilitator of the talk show. Now, I will consider why the host uses repetition rather than continuers at particular points in the talk. In the above section on "continuers'', I demonstrated that continuers convey the host's understanding that the guest's talk is still in progress. Responding with a continuer does not show that the host overtly agrees with what is being said, nor does it convey clear disagreement. However, if the host were to continue producing "continuers" in response to the guest's negative description of herself, it could be interpreted that the host is affirming (or at least not disagreeing with) the guest's negative description of herself. That would be highly threatening to the positive face of the guest. However, if the host chooses to repeat the guest's words instead of producing continuers, the repetition makes the face-threatening words salient, but because they are not the host's own words, the host is absolved from being the agent of the face-threatening act. The host's behavior is similar to Clayman's (1988, 1992) demonstration that news interviewers sustain their neutrality by shifting their footing and attributing statements to third parties. However, as I will elaborate in the next section, the host does not stop there. She goes beyond the interviewer's objective stance and shows she is not aligned with the guest's face-threatening words.

6. According to Brown & Levinson ([1978]1987), anything we do or say is intrinsically a fuce-threatening act (FTA), which can threaten either the positive or negative fuce of the self or others. Every competent adult has a positive face and a negative face. The former is the desire to be appreciated and approved o:t; and the latter the desire that one's actions not be impeded by others. The guest's use of bosa tto 'absent-minded' in (5) and si see ga waru i 'you have poor posture' in (6) are FTAs that threaten her positive face because the negative connotations of these words are threatening to the guest's positive image.

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 195

Stance display 1 In this section, I will analyze the newsmarkersE- 'What?' and A 'Oh' that precede the two cases of host's repetition respectively. As I showed above, the host's use of continuers and repetition allows her to sustain neutrality and pursue her role as the facilitator of the show. With the use of these newsmarkers, however, she goes beyond her neutral stance to reveal her own perspective, that is, to show that she is not aligned with the guest's face-threatening words. In (7), the host's repetition of bosatto 'absent-minded' is preceded by the newsmarker E 'What?'.

(7) => 20 H ~~ !'l~ ll·:; t.T../tt<::. '?L= E, bosal/tto-site ta tte= What absent-minded-PER-P Q What?, bosal/tto 'absent-minded,' ((lline omitted)) 22 H

~· ~ :Jj 1/(J) @ ~i@ ? iu //no @Wa@?

say NOM TOP by saying (that), (what do you mean)? Likewise, in (8), the host's repetition of guest's expression sisee ga warui 'you have poor posture' is preceded by the newsmarker A 'Oh'.

(8) => 29H ll5~ ~~t:Nm.~.t~?

A, sisee

ga.

1/warui?

oh posture suB bad Oh, (you) have poor posture? Both E 'What?' and A 'Oh' are stance markers7 that occur in turn -initial position, roughly equivalent to oh newsmarkers (Heritage, 1998, 2002) in English. E'What?' in (7) indicates that the word that follows (bosatto) is something new, surprising or unexpected to the host herselt~ while A 'Oh' in (8) shows that the information that follows (sisee ga warut) is something new to her, or at least something she has not noticed up to this point. While the functional difference between E- 'What?' and A 'Oh' is in need of further investigation, 8 here, I categorize 7· According to Karkkainen (2006), stance is considered to be "a (near) synonym of subjectivity." In other words, the speaker presents a subjective or attitudinal (rather than objective) statement with stance. The speaker can show either alignment or disalignment with a stance marker. In this case, both E- 'what?' and A 'Oh' function as markers of disalignment. 8. Shi.motani (2007) mentions that E 'what?' has been categorized by past studies (Takubo & Ktnsui, 1997; Togashi, 2004; and others) as a marker that indicates the speaker's psychological

196

Atsuko Honda

both of them as "change of state" tokens (Heritage 1998, p. 291). With these markers, the host reveals her own evaluative or affective perspective. The host's utterance that begins with E- 'What?' (in line 20) ends with a laughlike voice (@wa@ in line 22). This resonates with the laugh-like voice in the guest's preceding utterance in line 19. (9) ---+ 19G =C.?, (.)@!io-::>"L?-:::>-::>"Lt.:@~'9.@o = =koo, (.) @tiro tte ututte ta@ri suru.= FIL a bit Q appear-PER-ITER like this, (.)@appears (on TV) in fleeting view.@=

=> 20H ;t, F!.ts.//'?l::..G"Ltc.-::>"L= E, bosa.//ttosite ta tte= What absent-minded-PER-P Q What?, bosal/tto 'absent-minded,' 21 G llt2 i:i' 1/Dakasol/So-,

=> 22H

v''?//~@~i@?

iu //no @wa@? say NOMTOP by saying (that), (what do you mean)? While the guest's laugh in line 19 is a kind of self-deprecating laugh, the host's laugh at the end of line 22 functions to mitigate the negative connotation of the word bosatto 'absent-minded'. In this way, the host begins her utterance with the newsmarker E 'What?' to show that the face-threatening word bosatto 'absentminded' (as applied to the guest) is something unexpected, and then attempts to mitigate the negative connotation of this word with laughter at the end of utterance to distance herself from this word. Furthermore, in line 29, the host assumes an upright posture 9 when she produces the stance marker A 'Oh' and starts repeating the guest's words sisee ga state (such as, surprise or unexpectedness). Endo (2007) analyzes Ah and its lengthened version Ah: (Romanized in this chapter as A and A:, respectively) at sequence-dosing position and shows that it signals that a partkipant has come to share the same knowledge or experience as the speaker of the prior utterance, and that a trouble in the partkipant's understanding has been resolved. 9· The visual data available for the analysis are limited to those broadcast on television. Up until the host's utterance A 'Oh' at the beginning ofline 29, only a close-up of the guest is visible on the screen, and it is only after the host utters A 'Oh', that both the guest and the host

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 197

29 H df>, ~~iJ~

A, sisee

1/Jjl.'?

ga

1/warui?

Oh, (your) posture

/lis bad?

Figure 2. The host's posture change in line 29

'your posture is.' Then she quickly resumes her normal posture when she utters her final word warui 'poor'. (10)

28 G =11~ ~ iJ~ Jj I.''? "L OZJ.Iv iJ: ~<: ~ t> tt-,

=1/Sisee posture

ga

warui tte minna

SUB bad

Q

ni iware:,

everyone by tell-PAS

= Ill had it pointed out (to me) by everyone "(You) have poor

posture."

=> 29 H df>,

~~iJ~/nll.'?

A, sisee

ga

1/warui?

oh posture suB bad Oh, (you) have poor posture? Both the host's stance marker A 'Oh' and her upright posture suggest that the information she has just received and is going to reiterate is something new, something she has just noticed.

become visible. Although I was unable to confirm the posture when she uttered A 'Oh', I assume there was a position shift because I observed the host shift to an upright posture when she uttered the other stance marker E- 'What?' in line 32.

198 Atsuko Honda

Next, in line 30 in (11), the guest repeats her own and the host's previous utterance sisee ga llwarui '(you) have poor posture' saying that people had told her that she appeared that way on television. Upon hearing this, in line 32, the host further disaligns herself from what she just heard, again using the newsmarker E- 'What?' followed by datte, a connective expression meaning 'but'. The host also shows her disalignment with her posture by raising her hands from her lap to chest height, while pulling her body back away from the guest when she produces this utterance. (11)

30G 11/v-, df>OY9Cit'(0.5) ~~iJ~~It'-d::, ?""Co IIN:, ano sugoi (0.5) sisee ga warui: yo, tte. FIL FIL awfully (0.5) posture SUB bad FP Q 11 Yea:h, uhm, awfully (0.5) (they said) "(You) have bad posture, you know." 31 G

~~<J:.:f 0)~? ""C .Q If&~<==

Yoo wa sono ututte ru toki ni= point TOP FIL appear-PER time at The point is when (I'm) on (TV)= 32 H

=it-,

lltt.?""C

= E-,

lldatte what but =What?, but

31 G ~? ""C .Q If& ~<: ututte ru toki ni

32 H

Figure 3. The host's posture change in lines 31 and 32

it-,

lltt.?""C

E-, lldatte

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 199

This illustrates that not only what is said but how it is said (that is, prosody and bodily behavior) can show the speaker's (host's) orientation toward what the interlocutor (the guest) has just said. The host coordinates her words, prosody, and bodily behavior to build the action of distancing herself from the repeated expression sisee ga warui '(you) have poor posture'. In short, by repeating the guest's self-deprecating expressions, the host succeeds in making them salient while maintaining an objective position using allorepetition, which allows her to avoid being the composer of the face-threatening words. This strategy also allows her to show some degree of consideration for the guest's face. However, she begins the utterances in which she uses repetition, with the disalignment markers A 'Oh' and E- 'What?', and bodily postures which suggest disalignment, and ends these utterances with a mitigating laugh-like voice. In this way, she attempts to distance herself further from words detrimental to the guest's positive image. These behaviors allow the host to manage her facework to a greater degree, and support the guest's positive image.

Stance display 2 In addition to using the disalignment stance markers A 'Oh' and E- 'What?' the host also uses lengthened vocalizations, such as Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h'. In this section, I will show how the host uses these stance markers again to go beyond her role as facilitator and show alignment that indicates stronger appreciation of what the guest has said. The segment (12) follows the host's clarification request made by repeating bosatto 'absent-minded' (in lines 20 and 22). After the guest explains in lines 24 and 26 why she was caught on television looking absent-minded, the host responds with a lengthened vocalization in line 27 Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h' indicating that she understands the guest's explanation. (12)

24G

=1HtC:.(7)~-::>"'C.@C:£.P1d::lt 1 (.)(7)~<:://-,

=yoo wa kono ututte ru to omowanai (.) no nil/:, point TOP FIL appear-PER Q think-NEG although = the point is, although (I) don't think I'm appearing (on cam era),

25H

1/Jvo /IN. 1/Uhhuh.

26 G ~ 0 (7) 7J): 7 ~ ~ ~ tL "L lt' t.: ~ C: ib' -, = usim no ka.mera. de utusarete itari toka:,= back CON camera by take-PAS-PER-ITER or (I) am shot by a camera behind me, or things like that,=

200

Atsuko Honda

=> 27H =mt--------" =1/Ha::::::::.

=1/0::::::::h. Similarly; a less lengthened version of the same vocalization is observed in (13). (13)

32H =~-, llt2"?"'C =E-, 1/datte what but =What?, but 33 G

tm~t~iJ~mkr-r=

1/yoo wa ki ga nukete= point TOP air SUB come out-GER //the point is, (like a balloon with its) air let out= 34 G = "'- J: '? "'C J3:'? "'C lv.:@ ta~ !!t-? lv ~ '9 ~1 ~'

=heyotte ututte ru n da to omou n desu kedo, droopily appear-PER NOM COP Q think NOM COP-DIS but =it's that (I) think it's that (I) appear droopy, but

=> 35H ti/1----., Ha//::::.

0//::::h. Here, in response to the host's second request for clarification question (which the host posed in line 29 after the guest mentioned that she had poor posture), the guest states that she was sort of in a relaxed state and was caught in sloppy posture. As soon as the host hears the guest's explanation, she responds that with a similar lengthened vocalization in line 35 Ha//:::: '0//::::h', through which she reveals her understanding of what the guest has just said. Whereas "continuers, show the hearer's understanding that the speaker's turn is now in progress and that s/he understands what the speaker is saying, the more lengthened vocalization Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h' does more than that. The host uses these lengthened vocalizations to express her appreciation, that is, her own stance toward what the guest has said. In both cases ((13) and (14) above), by expressing appreciation and understanding in this way, the host shows that she understands the meaning of the expressions she repeated in order to request clarification. It is also of note that the stance display made in the form of a lengthened vocalization Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h' is the third utterance in the following sequential pattern. 1. Host: 2. Guest:

Request for clarification (repetition) Restatement (explanation of the repeated word/expression)

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show

3. Host:

Display of understanding/appreciation (stance display, lengthened vocalization Ha.:::::::: 'O::::::::h')

Unlike news interviews, in which the interviewee's statement is presented in the form of answering the interviewer's question, and is often followed by the interviewer's objective summary (Heritage 1985, p. 100), here the guest's answer to the host's question (which repeats a part of the guest's preceding utterance) is followed by the host's stance display. Thus, the host's clarification questions allow the host to secure a place where she can provide a stance display after the answer. This shows that the repetition functions not only on the level of creating meaning but also on the interactional level of talk, that is, to accomplish social goals (Tannen 1989, p. 51). In addition, the sequential pattern mentioned above can be seen in the larger, overall storytelling sequence as well. Specifically, the host's question is followed by the guest's answer in the form of storytelling, which is followed by displays of understanding from both parties. 1. Host: Question 2. Guest: Answer (in the form of storytelling) 3. Host & Guest: Stance displays

As shown in (14), when the guest's story (which is triggered by host's question shown in (1)) comes to an end, the host and guest both show their understanding and appreciation of each other in lines 48-54. 47 G ~ @o@ tJ~~-@ !vt2- c: 1!. '? -r o usi@ro@ ga uturu n da: to omotte. back SUB appear NOM COP Q think-GER (But I realize that on TV) it's that my back is visible.

(14)

=> 48 H ..'f -? iJ' -

o

Soo ka:. SO

FP

Is (that) so. ~

49G

~/vo

Un. Yeah.

=> 50 H ..'f-? C! "9 J:./1~- o Soo desu

yo 1/ne:.

SO

FP

COP-DIS

FP

It's that (that's) so, isn't it.

201

202

Atsuko Honda

---+ 51 G

//So SO

na

n

desu

COP

NOM

COP-DIS FP

yo.

//It's that (that's) right, I tell you.

---+ 52 G ~f&i!i 5 fv "'C '9 J: o Zenzen tigau n

desu yo. completely different NOM COP-DIS FP It's that (it's) totally different, I tell you.

:::::> 53 H :G/1-o =

Ne/!:.= FP Isn't it.

---+ 54 G

1/fv-o 1/N:. yeah 1/Yea:h.

Here, the guest's story (which was initiated by the host's questions and elaborated with the help of her repetition as a clarification request) is confirmed and appreciated by both parties. This also shows that the host is not just a passive listener but an active participant whose contribution makes it possible for the story to come to an end.

Conclusion In this study, I analyzed a Japanese talk show segment, focusing on the host's use of three kinds of responses: continuers, repetition of the guest words/expressions to request clarification, and stance displays (newsmarkers and lengthened vocalizations). I showed that while the host used continuers to keep the guest talking, she used repetition in clarification requests to help make the guest's talk more comprehensible to the audience. In addition, I noted how repetition also allowed the host to distance herself from an act (of using words with negative connotations about the guest) that was potentially threatening to the guest's positive face. While the host does all of the above while maintaining an objective stance as facilitator of the show, she goes beyond thatto distance herselffurtherfrom FTAs that potentially threaten the guest's face with other devices and body behavior. By beginning her repeated utterances with the disalignment markers A 'Oh' and E'What?', and postures changes (e.g., pulling her body back away from the guest), and laughing over the end of these utterances, the host presents her own

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 203

perspective (disalignment or disagreement) on the guest's negative description of herself, and promotes the positive image of the guest. In addition, when the host comes to understand the point of the guest's story, she expresses a stance of strong appreciation and agreement using lengthened vocalizations (e.g., Ha:::::::: 'O::::::::h') at the end of the guest's story, which also help support the guest in a positive way. The host's display of understanding also allows the guest to continue her talk further, or bring the ongoing topic to an end. These observations confirm two conflicting sets ofbehavior on the part of the host, that is, the host's attempt to maintain objectivity on the one hand, and her effort to present her own perspective to align or disalign with the guest in order to protect and promote the guest's face on the other. Based on the fact that the former corresponds to the behavior of news interviewers while the latter to that of participants in casual conversation, talk shows can be regarded as an "intermediate type" which has traits of both news interviews and mundane conversation. Talk show hosts, then, are partly news interviewers and partly participants in daily conversation. Using different behavior for different purposes, the host engages in the construction of guest's talk. I have also shown how the host's use of continuers, repetition to request clarification, stance displays (newsmark.ers and lengthened vocalizations) and posture changes contribute to the guest's story. All these findings show that the host in the talk show does much more than just remain a passive listener, as is often suggested, but indeed plays an active role in helping to shape the guest's story. In sum, just as in conversation, storytelling in television talk shows is indeed a social practice achieved not only by the storyteller but also by the story recipient (host), and the guest's story is constructed interactively between the two parties. References Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holoquist (Ed.) and translated by C. Emerson & M. Holoquist, The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259-422). Austin: University ofTexas Press. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. ([1978]1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clayman. S.E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems, 35(4), 474-492. Clayman. S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 163-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clayman. S.E. & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

204

Atsuko Honda Endo, T. (2007, August). Establishment of intersubjecttvity through showing sharedness: A::: in Japanese conversation. Paper presented at the 2nd UK-Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Cardtlf, U K. Erickson, F. (1982). Money tree, lasagna bush, salt and pepper: Social construction of topical cohesion in a conversation among Italian-Americans. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing dis-

course: Text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981 (pp. 43-70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small stories, interaction and Iden tiNes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: UniversityofPennsylvania Press. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, N Y: Academic Press. Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in society, 17,401-30.

Greatbatcb., D. (1992). 0 n the management ofdisagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 268-301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. Ill: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 95-117). London: Academic Press. Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291-334. Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/ disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and SequeJ~ce (pp. 196-224). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heritage, J. & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk a11d social structure: Study in eth,wmethodology a11d conversation analysis (pp. 93-137). Cambridge: Polity Press. Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal ofPrag-

matics, 34, 573-608. Honda, A. (2004). Terebi tooron ni okeru sikaisya no yakuwari [Moderators' role in Japanese public affairs talk show]. In K. Miyake, N. Okamoto & A. Satoh (Eds.), Media to kotoba-1 [Media and language] (pp. 66-91). Tokyo: Hituji Syobo. Karkkainen E. (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity.

Text & Talk, 26(6), 699-731. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the im1er city: Studie.s in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Maynard, S.K. (1986). On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation.

Linguistics, 24, 1079-1108. Ochs, E. (1997). Narrative. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 185-207). London: Sage. Saft, S. (2007). Exploring alzucht as resources in Japanese social interaction: The case of a political discussion program. Journal ofPragmatics, 39, 1290-1312. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as interactional achievement: Some uses of'uhuh' and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzlng discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981 (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Shimotani, M. (2007). A claim- of-reanalysis token e?/e- within the sequence structure of other repair in Japanese conversation. In N.H. McGloin & ]. Mori (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (Vol. 15, pp. 121-134). Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a Japanese television talk show 205 Szatrowski, P. (2000). Relation between gaze, head nodding and aizuti 'back channel' at a Japanese company meeting. Proceedings of the Twe11ty-sixth Annual Meetb1g of the

Berkeley Linguistics Society, 283-294. Szatrowskl. P. (2003). Gaze, head nodding, and aizuti in information presenting activities. In P.M. Clancy (Ed..),Japanese/Korean Linguistics (Vol 11, pp. 119-132). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Takubo, Y. & Kinsul. S. (1997). Ootoosikandoosi no danwatekikinoo [The discourse management function of fillers in Japanese]. In Spoken Language Working Group (Ed.), Bu11poo to onsee [Speech and grammar] (pp. 257-279). Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, a11d imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Togashl. J. (2004). Nihongo danwa hyoosiki 110 kinoo. [Function of]apanese discourse markers]. (Doctoral dissertation, University ofTsukuba, Tsukuba, JAPAN). White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of American and Japanese. Language

in Society, 18, 59-76. Yamada, H. (1992). American and Japanese business discourse: A comparison of interactional styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Appendix

lH

.A:f--;J;~~~~i, ~-?!16tt11tt"L*'"t~G~?

Sutiiru syasin de wa, moo torare narete masu desyo? (You) are accustomed to having still pictures taken (of you), aren't you? 2G

7c -? t! '"t /Itd. -

o

Soo desu 1/ne:. (That's) right.

3H

l!j}J< j- v~;!.] ~7~!16tt.@ '?L li~-? 0) ~i= 1/Ugoku terebi kamera de torareru tte iu no wa= //Being caught by moving TV cameras,=

4H =iili~*"t7'J•? =tigaimasu ka? =(is it) different (from having still pictures taken)? 5 G i_3- ;Q'~ li~ £" '9 (.) :td o /lib

0) - .

(2.0)-it- im 0) ;tal; ~i-,

Ti:ga.i masu (.) ne. 1/Ano:, (2.0) hutuu no zassi wa:, It's different(.) you know.// U:hm, (2.0) for regular magazines, at lea:st,

/11'1.-o //Ho:.

6H

//O:h. 7G

-W1J:!vt!'9 J:o iti-men na n desu yo. it's that (it's) one side, I tell you.

206

Atsuko Honda

8H

~j: lt"'~o

Hai. Yes.

tt tc 6 c. c. LiJ"'13=/v 1J:lt•o N, kono toraretam koko sika utunnai.

9 G /v, ;: 0) t. 6

Uh, when this (side of my body) is taken, only this (side of my body) appears (in the photo).

lOH

~ilt"'~o

Ha.i. Yes.

n

a 1v.:r J./~-:>-r~oiJ'; t. iJ'(.)13=~n -r 011';Y~ ;i5.:@ L-, N terebi tte usiro kam toka (.) utusarete ru toki mo aru si:, Uh on TV, there are also times when my back is visible (on camera), a:nd

12 G ~ iJ ib'-(.)IJlt>'L 07'J' Gffti? r~H:Hf

hurimu- (.) ugoite ru ka.ra. hurimukeba (I) look ba-, (I)'m moving around, so if (I) look back,

13 G '5 L o ~ ~ 0 - t> ~:t 1? '9 J: 1/:G o usiro mo utu1·u: wa.ke desu yo //ne. it's that (my) back is also visible, I tell you, //you know. 1/t"ilt"'~o

14H

1/Hai. //Yes. 15 G t2iJ' 6-, 1J: /viJ' !:;I:. lv t. tL. C:. '5 ~-::> 'L=

Dakara:, nanka honto ni koo yatte= So:, like, really like this, =

J: '5 ~;:_ 1J:-::> tclUJJ 0) c. o 1J: fvii'L -, =terebi dasasite morau yoo ni natta saisyo no koro nan//te:,

16 G =7 1/ ~ /:H ~ L 'L ~ 6 '5

=when (I) first started appearing on TV,

//'5/vo

17H

1/Un. //Uhhuh. 18 G

1J: /v7'J''9 C: <~ ~:t tL. m:~-::> t. L tc §)3- t. iJ'iJ~ = Nanka sugoku yake ni bosatto-sita zibun toka ga= my (appearance), somehow really quite absent-minded=

19G =i.:-5, (.)®!>o-:>'L'5-:::->-:>'Lt<::®i?'90o = =koo, (.)@tiro tte ututte ta@ri suru.= like this, (.)@appears (on TV) in fleeting view.@=

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a] apanese television talk show

20 H ;t ~ 1'!. ~ ll·::> t. l/L. tc. -:::1L.= E, bosal/tto-site ta. tte= What?, bosal/tto 'absent-minded,' 1/ti. i:J' 1/Daka1/So-,

21 G

22 H

v' 51/(J)@ ~i@? iu //no @wa@? by saying (that), (what do you mean)?

!lib (J) =

23 G

1/ano= //uhm=

24 G

= IHt c. (J)~-::> -r:@ t. £-b i'J:v' (.) (J)~;: 1/-, =yoo wa kono ututte ru to omowanai (.) no nil/:,

= the point is, although (I) don't think I'm appearing (on camera), ~H

~o

/IN. 1/Uhhuh. (J) 7J ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ .f1 -r v' t.::!:) 2::: iJ'- ~ = usiro no kamem de utusa.rete itari toka:,=

26 G

1i 0

27H

=m-t..--------0

(I) am shot by a camera behind me, or things like that,= =1/Ha::::::::. =1/0::::::::h.

-r "J}. fv 1J: t;: -g .P .f1- ~ =1/Sisee ga warui tte minna ni iware:, =11 I had it pointed out (to me) by everyone "(You) have poor posture."

28 G =1/~!f/} i:J". !I v' -::>

29H ~~ ~~i:J~!Ifli.v'? A, sisee ga 1/warui? Oh, (you) have poor posture? 30 G

31 G

1/fv-~ ~ (J)'9 Cv'(0.5) ~~i:J~Bv'-J::~ -:>"L o 1/N:, ano sugoi (0.5) sisee ga warui: yo, tte. 1/Yea:h, uhm, awfully (0.5) (they said) "(You) have bad posture, you know."

11! ~i~(J)~-:> -r.@ ~~<::= Yoo wa sono ututte ru toki ni= The point is when (I'm) on (TV)=

207

208

Atsuko Honda

32 H

=::t-, 1/ti. '? l. =E-, 1/datte =What?, but

ml!'i ~iJ'~1J;t ~1 l.= 1/yoo wa ki ga nukete=

33 G

//the point is, (like a balloon with its) air let out=

c

34 G = -" J: '? l. 'liJ. '? l. fv ~ ti. £ -5 fv '1! '9 ~1 l::, = heyotte ututte ru n da to omou n desu kedo, =it's that (I) think it's that (I) appear droopy, but

35H

~i/1----o

Ha//::::. 0//::::h. 36 G

1/'liJ. Ji. 'i-, i- 0), V-v 'Y 9 -~ iJ'iS ~' iJ'iS ~' 1/syasin wa:, sono, syattaa o kacha, kacha, 1/{J_n the case of) (still) pictures, (in response to) the click. click of the shutter,

37 G c¥J!L l.- ~ 6 3) 0) ~;:,

1) A' .b. ~;:-g..p L l. ~-.:;(~1<:-, = to osite: morau no ni:, rizumu ni awasite poozu o pa:,=

(I) hold one pose after another to the rhythm (of the shutter),

c 1& ( ~ -5 :t tL ti .hh li:. ( ~ '? l. ~ fv -Ill!, =nan to naku moo sore wa .hh nagaku yatte ru n: //de,

38 G = 1d: fv

=somehow it's that (I)'ve been doing it for so long, //and ~H

~o

*

/IN. 1/Uhhuh.

40 G ~ fv ~ c: '5 iUJl-f.t 'f ~;: '1! ~ ~ c: t:.1d: fv '1! '9 ~1 11t!.'-. anmari koo isiki-sezu ni dekiru koto na n desu kel/do:, it's that the fact is that fJ) can do it without being very like [this] conscious, bu:t 41 H

1/fvo

/IN. 1/Uhhuh. 42 G

i" fv~~;: ti ~? -5 -:J-:> l..@ (.)iJ' 6 (.) ~'Y L.(.)1J:0 L, son toki ni wa moo ututte ru (.) kara (.)pi tte (.) naru si, at that time (I knew) (I was) visible (on camera), so fJ) hold my back straight, and what's more

Chapter 6. Storytelling in a] apanese television talk show 43 G ~-5 ~-.:;(~ C: '?L .@iJ' 6-~ /Ff:tL'? ~£< o

moo po:zu mo totte 1·u kara:, 1/soreppoku. since (fm) already posing (for the camera), 1/(f) can make myself look good.

1/"A ;:to /lEe.

44H

//Yes.

45 G (O.S)"f <::: 0) 00 G iJ' ~ fv 1J: v' !v "f //- ~

(0.5)De kono men sika utunnai n dell:, (0.5)And (since I know) only this side appears,

1/t"t--o 1/Ha.::.

46H

1/0::h.

47 G ~@o @iJ~~.@!vt2-C: J!!.'?Lo

usi@ro@ ga uturu n da: to omotte. (But I realize that on TV) it's that my back is visible.

48 H

::t -5 iJ' Sooka:.

o

Is (that) so.

--+i9 G

-5 fv o Un. Yeah.

50 H

::t '57! "t J:.. 1/:G.- o Soo desu yo 1/ne:. It's that (that's) so, isn't it.

1/::t- -5 1J: !v "f "t J:.. o //So na n desu yo.

51 G

//It's that (that's) right, I tell you. 52 G ~?&:la -5 !v "f "t J:.. o

Zenzen tigau n desu yo. It's that (it's) totally different, I tell you.

53 H t:J./1-o =

Ne/1:.= Isn't it.

54 G

1/fv-o

1/N:. //Yea:h.

209

CHAPTER?

Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews "Second stories'' within the interview participatory framework Tomoko Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani Tokyo Woman's Christian University & The Japan Foundation, Jakarta

This paper analyzes cases in which respondents answered questions in semistructured three-party interviews with consecutive stories about similar experiences. In each interview a researcher asked two respondents questions for a sociolinguistic survey. In particular, we investigate how the respondents tell "second stories" and interact with each other, while accommodating to the participatory framework of the survey interview. The analysis shows that "second stories" can contribute to the respondents' mutual understanding and interpersonal involvement even in survey interviews despite differences between this genre and casual conversations. We demonstrate that the interaction during the Ksecond stories" is qualitatively different from the direct verbal and nonverbal exchanges between the two respondents and the interviewer. Furthermore, the participatory framework of the interview discourse influenced the respondents' strategies and story design in significant ways. For example, the respondents designed their stories so as to make them worth telling as answers to the interview question or as a contribution to the overall topic of the interview. We conclude that the interview participatory framework operates not as a static, restrictive rule, but rather as a resource that can be used in the talk-in-interaction.

In this paper, we analyze data from semi-structured three-party interviews in which a researcher asks two respondents questions for a sociolinguistic survey.1

This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (18520346) by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. We would like to thank Professor Polly Szatrowski for her valuable comments and suggestions. 1.

212

Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

We focus on instances of consecutive telling of similar experiences by the two respondents when answering an interview question related to problems they have had choosing speech modes. 2 In casual conversations, one participant's story (telling of an experience or episode) is occasionally followed by a similar story by another participant. By illustrating a similar point in a "second story," the second story teller shows his/her understanding of the prior story (Sacks 1992, Vol. I, p. 770) and in some cases his/ her involvement with the teller of the prior story. Such story sequences can also be observed in survey interview discourse. However, because the primary goal of survey interviews is to collect answers to research questions, stories in which the participants become overly involved in sharing similar experiences do not always suit the overall framework and efficiency of the interview activity. Based on an analysis of respondents' interactions and the way in which they design their stories, we demonstrate how respondents tell "second stories" while accommodating to the participatory framework of the survey interview.

Previous research In this section, we review research on the participatory framework of survey interviews and "second stories" in conversation. Research by Tannen & Wallat (1987/2006), Schiffrin (1993), Hosaka, Nakazawa, & Ohnogi (2000), Suzuki (2005), and Kumagai & Kitani (2010) on the former, and research by Sacks (1992), Ryave (1978), Karatsu (2004), and Tannen (2005) on the latter is relevant to the present study.

Participatory framework ofsurvey interviews Based on Goffman (1974), Tannen & Wallat (1987/2006) define the interactive notion of frame as "a sense of what activity is being engaged in, how speakers mean what they say" (p. 334). From this we propose that the participatory framework of the survey interview denotes what activities are engaged in by the participants, and all utterances are meant and interpreted by the participants based on their tacitly shared knowledge of this framework.

2. In this paper, we use the term "mode" to refer to different ways of speaking including the speech style, speed of speaking, tone of voice and so on. We use the term "style" to refer to the use/non use of polite speech.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 213

Schiffrin (1993) points out that survey interviews are "asymmetrically structured speech events in which one person seeks to gain specific information from another" (p. 231). Literature on interview methods indicate that there is a clear distinction between the role of the interviewer and the interviewee (informant), specifically the former asks questions and the latter answers them, and that the interviewer controls the topics and development of the discourse (Hosaka et al. 2000; Suzuki, 2005). 3 Based on the above studies and the analysis of actual interview data in Japanese, Kumagai & Kitani (2010) proposed the following participatory framework, which is tacitly assumed by participants in the activity of semi-structured three-party survey interviews: The interviewer has the role of gathering information and the two respondents the role of providing information. 2. The interviewer asks the same question to each respondent and each respondent answers in a question-answer exchange. 1.

The interviewer, who asks the question and thus provides the first pair part of an adjacency pair (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefterson, 1974; Levinson, 1983), directs the topic development of interview discourse. In response, the respondents give short or long answers which may provide explanations and stories. Although the respondents also interact with each other in various ways (Kitani & Kumagai, 2006, 2007; Kumagai & Kitani, 2010), the major pattern of interaction is the question-answer exchange between the interviewer and one of the respondents, in which each respondentresponds individually, giving an answer relevant to the research question.

"Second stories"' In a series oflectures on "second stories," Sacks (1992) argues that "listening, in non-psychotherapeutic conversation, involves as its appropriate task that one listen in such a way as to be reminded of one's own experiences" (Vol. L p. 768). In other words, when a story teller tells a story, the story recipient is inclined to be reminded of one's own similar story. and tell it if the chance allows. Sacks (1992) points out that the "second story" thus told shows one's understanding of the prior story as well as one's appreciation ofits "tellability., and that "storytelling is an interactional business" (Vol. I, p. 771). For "second stories," he proposes a constraint "tell a story which has the characters that the story you're told has" 3· Hosaka et al. (2000) classify interviews into three types based on their purpose: gathering information, evaluation/selection and solving problems. Typical examples of the second and third types are job interviews and therapeutic counseling, respectively.

214 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

(Sacks 1992, Vol. I, p.769). He also suggests one method for searching for a "second story" is to look for a story in which one plays an equivalent role to the previous story teller in his story. He further suggests that the second story teller does so in order to avoid possibilities of disruption and embarrassment: If you tell a story about the time you saw an automobile accident and went over and looked at the people who were injured, then if the other guy tells you a story about the time he was in an automobile accident and all these idiots crowded around to look, then that's kind of embarrassing. (Sacks 1992, Vol. I, p. 769)

Ryave (1978) notes that there are "two separate, but deeply related, aspects of organization that many stories in conversation seem to possess" (p. 124). One is the "significance aspect," that is, the point or import of the story, which takes the idealized, abstract form of an assertion. The other is the "recounting aspect" which relates or recounts some event. Ryave (1978) further states the following about series-of-stories. A general procedure employable by a succeeding storyteller for constructing a story that observably displays a series-of-stories relationship with a preceding story, is to organize the story in terms of a significance statement which also serves to formulate a preceding story. (Ryave 1978, p. 127) Then he proposes two types of what he calls "same-significance procedures." In Type 1, a succeeding story teller utilizes the same significance statement of a preceding story for constructing his/her recounting, thus showing his/her understanding of and support for the preceding story. Type 2, on the other hand, involves the reordering of the meaning of the first story. Specifically, the succeeding story teller's significance statements "provide new materials for connecting [the] two stories" and supply "a new sense of what the preceding story is actually about" (Ryave 1978, p. 130). Based on an analysis of the interactions among three Japanese women, Karatsu (2004) showed that participants used "second stories, to indicate that the recipient of the first story acknowledged the story teller's position and recognized her opinion. In addition, she demonstrated that storytellings are not merely opportunities to tell about one's past experience but arenas to adjust interpersonal relationship. Tannen (2005) defines a conversational device that she calls a "story round" as "a particular kind of story cluster, in which speakers exchange stories of personal experiences that illustrate similar points," and includes "story rounds" as one of the conversational devices for involvement (p. 126). She also observed that participants who tended to use high-involvement strategies in her conversational data often participated in story rounds.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 215

The above studies demonstrate that the consecutive telling of similar stories contributes to the sharing and/or making of sense and involvement among participants in casual conversations. In this paper, we aim to show how "second stories" work in that way but at the same time require accommodation of the story tellers to the participatory framework of the survey interview, which differs substantially from that of casual conversations. Data In this paper, we analyze excerpts from the audio- and video-recorded data of two three-party survey interviews, selected from a corpus of 44 survey interviews. In each interview, the two respondents being interviewed were university students of the same age (20-21years old), and all three participants including the interviewer met one another for the first time at the interview. The participants were all female in the first interview and all male in the second. The overall topic of both interviews was "Ditrerent speech modes used in daily life." In both interviews each respondent responded to the same question (Dare ka ni hanasu toki ni donna huu ni hanasitara ii ka, mayotta, komatta to iu keeken wa. a.rimasen ka? 'Have you not (by any chance) ever had an experience in which (you) become perplexed, had trouble (deciding on) what manner to speak when talking to someone?') by describing his/her unsuccessful communication experiences. Given the general nature of the question, respondents' answers across the data of 44 interviews varied from episodes with professors, superiors or customers at part-time jobs, to interactions with junior or senior members of club activities, and in most interviews, the pair of respondents answered by telling about different situations involving different personal relationships. In contrast, in the responses given in the two interviews analyzed below, after the first respondent told about his/her experience, the other respondent followed suit by telling about a similar experience.

Analysis of Interview 1 In the first survey interview a female interviewer (I) interviewed two female respondents (A and B). In (1), in response to a question given prior to (1) (Kono aite ni donna hanasikata o sitara ii ka mayotta, koma.tta to iu keeken wa a.rimasu ka? 'Have (you) ever had the experience of becoming perplexed, being troubled in deciding what way to speak to (some)[this] interlocutor?'), A and B alternate in telling about instances in which they were somewhat at a loss when talking to their relatives.

216

Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

Prior to (1), A answered the question by telling about her experience of having trouble deciding how to speak with senior members in club activities. The interviewer (I) responds to Ks answer in the beginning of 1019I A:, na.ruhodo ne:. 'O:h, I see.' Then, in answer to I's question in 1019I, B begins telling about an experience she had in which she wondered whether she used the proper speech style with her uncle in 1020B. Sacks (1992) points out that, in casual conversations, speakers often begin by stating a part of their experience, in order to monitor their hearer's interest and get the opportunity to relate their experience. In this excerpt, however, because B's telling about her experience has been invited by the interviewer, B does not need to make an effort to gain the opportunity to do so. Rather, she is doing the expected action by talking about her experience here. B continues her telling through 1031B with I and A providing encouraging backchannels and laughter.4 (1) 1019I

db~~

1J: 0 1::1: 2:::: :G ~" B ~ !v ~;t l/' iJ' :IJ~ 1? '9 :iJ' 1J: !v iJ' f: ? lt'

?Cl::.'?"Lo

A:, naruhodo ne:. B-san wa ikaga desu ka, nanka soo iu koto tte. O:h, I see. What about you, Ms. B, somehow (have you ever had) such (an experience)? 1020B fv~t., ~dbO), :S~tJ:/vl?'t@~tC:, @;S~~cC:?, fHi'lf-61! ;t ~i lt' lt' 0 :iJ' :a:- im ~c ;t ~ t. tc. ~ '? ~£ @ HIS G"L lt' lt' 0 iJ' '? "L //lt'? ~ @

<

N:to, watasi ano, ozi na n desu @kedo,@ ozi ni doo, keego tukaeba ii no ka, hutuu ni eeto tameppoku @hanasite ii no ka tte 1/iu,@ Urn, I, uhm, it's that it's (with) my uncle, @hut@ (I wasn't sure) how (I), should (I) use polite language (to him), or @is it okay to speak@ normally, uhm casually (to him), 1021 A

11 db ~, f: td;t db t) £ '9 //:G o 1/A:, sore wa a1·imasu //ne. //Oh, that does happen, //doesn't it.

1022B

I /Jb 0, ? -; 0 !lifi t. iJ' ~;t 1::1: fv t. tc. ~ '? ~£ <~'9AtJ: !v 1? '9 J: o 1/Ano, uti no ane toka wa honto tameppoku hanasu hito na n desu yo. //Urn, it's that my older sister, is a per son who always speaks really casually, I tell you.

4· The Appendix in Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanization, transcription conventions, and the English translation used in the examples.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 217 10231

'i lt ~' Hai, Yes,

1024B '1!,

&5 td..~,

~

*

~ ~;: ~i ~ ..t ~;:

'i '9 L.~ lt ~, ::t- C:, i$0i'lf ~ '9

Ctt~~c.£'i!~@~lflt-f!I!-5.A1J:!v'i!,@

De, a.tasi, kihonteki ni wa tosiue ni wa. sugo~ eeto, keego o sugoi doko made mo @keego tuka.u hito na. n de,@ And, basically @it's that I am a person who, uses polite language@, polite language amazingly no matter what, to people older than me really, uhm and, 1025I

{~lt•}

{warai} {LAUGH} 1026B !!, ~7} ~c.* '1! '9 Ctt~7 7/716:~ t: 1J: !v '1!,

&5,

~ -5 '9

tt

ti~t~@~t~!vtto-5, .;Tj.t<:Tt~~c:,@

De, a.ne ga. soko made sugoi humnku na. kanzi na n de, a, doo sureba i@i n daroo, mitai n~@ And, because my older sister is so very frank, oh, it's like, what@ shall I do,@ 1027I

//db-' /lA:, //O:h,

102sB 11 "JD

e: , "JD 0) -¥ -v ~, e: n~ lt) '? , 1J: 1v n• ""'";) "? c. 1v tt.I'.J @ e: n' t/L.

tt •tt~ 0) n' 1116: "? ·-c @ 1/Ato, ano gyagu toka it-, na.nka. tukkonda1·i @toka site ii no ka. If na tte,@ IfAnd, (I wonder) if it's OK to tell uhm a joke or somehow tease him (my uncle), //{~ lt •}

1029A

1!{1-varai} //{LAUGH} 1030I

'i -I!-' Ha://:, 0://:h,

1031B

//IE'?tc::nc117J'~"Jb~*@'9~o@

1/Komatta kioku ga arima@su ne.@ 1/I remember (how I) became troubled (in that way), you know.

218

Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

1032I

Jb-, A:, O:h,

Immediately after B makes it clear that she has had trouble deciding how to speak with her uncle in 1020B, A says in 1021A A:, sore 1va arimasu line. 'Oh, that does happen, //doesn't it.' implying strongly that B's utterance has reminded her of a similar experience that A has had previously. A, however, does not say any more and continues to listen to B's story. Although ~s utterance in 1021A suggests that A realizes that she has had an experience similar to B's, and is prepared to tell about her experience, A waits until B finishes her story, presumably because B was chosen by the interviewer (I) as the next speaker in 10191. In this way, by respecting B's right to answer, A observes the question-answer exchange pattern, which comprises the participatory framework of the survey interview. However, based on the question-answer sequence of the same participatory framework. the interviewer usually goes on to the next question and changes the topic after the second respondent (in this case B) answers, because the first respondent (in this case A) has already answered once. This makes it necessary for A to speak up in 1033A at the first possible moment after B finishes her story, in order to get the chance to tell about a similar experience that she had, which turns out to be a "second story;" before the interviewer goes on to her next question.

//lE ·:>tc: "!C -fj iJ~ Jb I) £ @ '9 tl" @ 1/Komatta kioku ga arima@su ne.@

(2) 1031B

/fi remember (how I) became troubled (in that way), you know.

1032I

Jb-, A:, O:h,

J.JVIX Jb I) £ '91/tl- o id. !v iJ", J.Jl L '9 ~ ~ , A, sinseki arimasu 1/ne:. Nanka, sitasi-sugiru,

1033A Jb ,

Oh, (that) happens (with) relatives, //doesn't it. Somehow, (I feel) too close,

//JS..-fvo 1/Hu:n.

1034I

//Mm m. 1035B @.:C?

@

@Soo,@ @Right,@

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 219


Immediately after B completes her story in 1031B and the interviewer responds in 1032I A: 'O:h', A repeats her comment in 1021A (A:, sore wa arimasu !/ne. 'Oh, that does happen, //doesn't it.) adding the word sinseki 'relative' in 1033A A, sinseki arimasu //ne: 'Oh, (that) happens (with) relatives, //doesn't it.', and starts telling her own story in 1036A in (3) given below. Ks utterances in 1033A (A, sinseki arimasu//ne:. Nanka, sitasi-sugiru, 'Oh, (that) happens (with) relatives, //doesn't it. Somehow, (I feel) too close,') and 1036A (Sitasi:ku hanasite ii no//ka, ozisan obasan ni //na1·u to, '(You wonder) if it's OK to speak intimately, when it comes to (your) uncle (and) aunt,') are examples of what Ryave (1978) calls Type 1 "samesignificance procedure" because they show Ks understanding of and agreement with the point of B's story. In (3), A tells a story about what happened when she talked to an aunt whom she had not seen since she was a child. Ks story is similar to B's because it is about an interaction with a relative, and it also fits the equivalent role condition noted by Sacks (1992, Vol. I, p. 769). Specifically, A plays the same role (a niece) in the second story as that B played in the first story. Furthermore, Ks story is somewhat more complicated because it involves a considerable lapse in time, (which B's story did not involve), and relates to how A changed growing up from a child to a university student. 5 By telling a "second story,'' A makes a claim for another answering turn which prevents the interviewer from moving on to the next interview question. A tactfully makes a smooth transition from B's story (involving B's uncle) to her own story (involving her aunt) by stating 1033A and 1036A as if they were a comment on B's story and using the expression ozisan obasan 'uncle (and) aunt', thus indirectly acknowledging the interview participatory framework.

<

(3) 1036A {!Jl G- ii5 L -c ft ~ ft ~ 0) 1/iJ~ ~ :5 1.5 ~ !v :t.Hi ~ !v ~c.: 1/tJ: .'@ l: ~ Sitasi:ku hanasite ii no//ka, ozisan obasan ni 1/naru to, (You wonder) if it's OK to speak intimately, when it comes to (your) uncle (and) aunt,

5· Japanese speakers add to their repertoires of speech style as they get older (Sibata, 1978, 1999; Kawasaki, 1995, 2009). When they are young, their speech style is generally limited to direct (N da 'is N'/suru 'do') style. On entering elementary school, they are instructed by teachers and parents to use distal (de.su/masu) style to superiors or when talking with students during class. When they start working, the use of polite (neutral, e.g. N de gozaimasu 'is N'; honorific, e.g. N de irassyaimasu 'is N'/nasaimasu 'do';humble, e.g. itasimasu 'do') style may be required. As one grows up and their repertoire expands, appropriate use of speech style according to the interlocutor and situation is expected as a part of social manners. (The terms direct, distal, polite, honorific, humble used here follow Jorden with N oda (1987)).

:uo Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani 1037B

1038I

1Ft-?,

11-? -!v,

1/Soo,

1/u:n,

//Right,

//mmh,

45-, A:, O:h,

c: ~ ~;t lid: 1v c: n' ~~;r-; ~ lvJ 1J: lvn''t '? c.~v'?... L ~!? ~;:,

1039A -; '?-; .,t•t,,

c: n'~'? -r td.t ~,

Tittyai toki 'Mitl "Nantoka obatyan"' toka itte ta kedo, nanka suggoi hisasiburi ni, When I was little, I called her "Auntie So-and-so" or something like that but, somehow after a really long time, 1040I

//45 ' :t -? :tl 0 1/A, soo ne. //Oh, (that's) so, isn't it.

-r, ~ 5 C:, ~ '? ~i-~ (J) :*:A~ '5 L C: L -c -; ~ 1v c: IJI!iLtc 'f '5 n~ v' v' (J)i'J•,

1041A //C. (J) 1f. ~;: 1d. '?

1/kono tosi ni natte, au to, yappa ittee no otona doosi to site tyanto hanasita hoo ga ii no ka, //Seeing her again, now having grown up to this age, after all (I wonder ifl) should speak (with her) appropriately as two certain adult persons, 1042I

11/v--, 1/N::, //M mm,

n•-

c: n' ~~I-;~ lvJ '? -r ~ L -r v' "' (J) 1/mukasi no nm·i de "'Nantoka obatyan"' tte hanasite ii no ka,

1043A 1/'fE(J)/ lJ Tl l"ld./v

//if it is okay to call her "Auntie So-and-so" as (I did) before, 10441

45-

~tJ_~;J:.45 !J//"~"t:tlo

A:, sore wa aril/masu ne. O:h, that happens, doesn't it. //(!. 5 L);.. 5, C: o 1/Doo siyoo, to.

1045A

//(I wondered) what (I) should do. 1046I

~n ttA,-~

.t>n -r JJ.-'@ c:, @ 45- 91n•-'@ 91n•-'@.

~~ o @

Sore wa ima iwarete miru to, @a: wakaru 'Mitlkaru, watasi mo.@ Now that (you) tell (me) that,@o:h, I understand, I understand, me too.@

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews :w ~? lt-..-? O)o ~ G ~ 1J t;: {li]~~ 1J, :lO ~it C: 7'J' ~ C: ~ ~;:, Arimasita, soo iu no. Hisasiburi ni nan-nen buri, osoosiki toka de syuugoo-suru toki ni, It happened (to me), that kind (of experience). After a long while,

1047A th

1J ~n..,t.::,

-~'9 ,'@

many years, when (we) met at a funeral or something, 1048I

t;J: ltl, t;l:.l,-1 0

Hai, hai. Yes, yes. 1049A ~ 0) ;:: C: :fi ::t L ,'@ 0) 'I:JI 7'J: -1/C: 'I:JI. Watasi no koto oboete ru no ka na: 1/toka, (I wondered if she) remembers me //or, //{~ lt 1 }

1050B

1/{warai}

//{LAUGH} 10s1A

e:

<

r tJ: 1v tJ' -ts ~ 1v, tt:k. ~ tJ:? t.::tJ.- J ? ·c "Nantoka-tyan, 1/ookiku natta ne:"' tte, "Darling So-and-so, //you've grown up, haven't you!" she says,

IIth I) "*- '9 td.- o

1052B

1/Arimasu ne:. //(That) happens, doesn't it. 1053A

if 0) fiSllt; ~ 7'J: lt 1 t; ~ 7'J: lt 1 ~ '9 7:J1- t? o r ./:::? '9:@ 0)? Jilt. ta:J e: t;...-~ b tL:@ e:, t? tr 0), 'J' ~ :f3( <~; v' 0) / 1) ~ ta: Rl!1 'l:t 7'J: lt"' l-" Mukasi no wadai zya nai zya nai desu ka, moo. "Doo suru no? syuusyoku wa" toka iwareru to, moo mukasi no, syoogakkoo gurai no nori de wa hanasena.i si, (The talk) is not about topics that we used to talk about, are they. When (she) asks (me), "What is it you are going to do about getting a job?" or things like that, oh (I just) can't talk the way (I) did a way long time ago, when (I) was in elementary schooL

1054I

{~lt'}

{warai}

{LAUGH} 1055B IIth-, 1/A:,

1/0:h,

222

Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

1056A 11 ~ M~ l;i'J: A, C: IJ' :lO ~I ~Ad ~<:: ~ x J: ? iS', l;i'J: A, C: iJ• :t.HI !>~A,J -:>L"ru!i~-'5@;0•, @id;-, //-:>L"~l-//lb"tJ*-'ttclo 1/Keego de "'Nantoka. obasan" ni kaeyoo ka, "'Na.ntoka obatyan'" tte hanasoo @ka,@ naa, 1/tte kanzi 1/arimasu ne.

//It's like that (I) have the feeling should (I) switch to the polite "Aunt So-and-so," or should I say "Auntie So-and-so," you know.

//tb-o

10571

1/A:, //O:h,

1/Js..-fvo

1058B

1/Hu:n. //Hmm. 10591

1J: .@ !:£ ~ tcl- 0 Naruhodo ne:. I see.

B gives many supportive reactions to Ks story (1035B, 1037B, 1050B, 1052B, 1055B, 1058B). Furthermore, her comment in 1052B 1/Arimasu ne:. 'l/That happens, doesn't it.', which overlaps Ks utterance in 1051A, is similar to Ks previous utterances of agreement towards B's story in 1021A in (1) and 1033A in (2). Next, in (4), B begins a "second story" about communication with another relative at the first possible moment after the interviewer (I) says in 1059I Naruhodo ne:. 'I see.' at the end of Ks "second story." Her prompt start suggests that B, as A did previously in 1033A, is trying to take turn before the interviewer (I) goes on to the next question according to the interview procedure. B's "second story" relates to a "problem" she had had with her cousin. Specifically, when B was about to graduate from elementary school, her sister told her to speak more politely to her cousin who was older than B. Like Ks prior story in (3), B's story in (4) relates to how one's language is expected to change as one grows up. (4) 1060B 'fl.,

ibO),

~t•C:<:~,

'f-:>C:tbO)-,

IIIJLtfML"~IIIJLfv~t.:fv~

't~t~, ~J:O)A@~@, ~tLiJ~'J'~~$.~6-"fvt<::,

tr!H<::

1J:A,~,-~tb-:>~O)~')~~l:id:fv~~6-~~A,C:I~

it• ~ A,J C: iJ•,

tb 0), 1J: A, tC. '6?,

17;;. A, C: iJ' ~ A,J C: iJ'-:> L"

-:> L" //~ t>n "l, @ ano, itoko de, zutto anoo, yobisute de yonde ta n desu kedo, tosiue no hito @de@, sore ga syoogakkoo sotugyoo ra hen n~ ane ni nanka, itioo atti no hoo ga tosiue na n da kara, tyanto "niisan,. toka, ano, nan da.roo, "'Na.ntoka-san,. toka tte yobi@nasai tte 1/iwarete,@

IIIJL"U @7;;.~ Watas~

lt 1

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 223

It's that I, urn, (have) a cousin (whom I), for a long time, u:hm. had been calling without a suffix,6 but he's older (than me), and around when I graduated from elementary school, (I) was told by my older sister, like it's that he is older than you after all so, call him properly "big brother, or, urn, what is it, "Mr. So-and-so" or something,

1/::S -fv~

1061A

1/U:n, 1/Mmm, //{*=v'} 1/{warai} //{LAUGH}

1062I

to63B

@ ~-,

c:? -t n

~i

v' v•fv t2.:3? d;;l..tc::v' id::,

@

@E:, doo sure ha ii n daroo mitai na,@ @U:h, (the situation was) like what is it that (I) should do,@ 1064I

@~~ 6~@

@lmasara,@ @Now that,@

v' ::S ~ ::S ~;: ~ t> kl- t: ~ ki *i'XM~t> 1J: ~ ~ v' ~:r 1J: v' q")fJ•@ 1J:- 2:::

1065B ~£ \! 1J: fvfJ' JlljL rJ~ "t 1: Pf!v 1: t.:.q") t<:: ~ .f" '5

n .'@ tJ• 6, tJ•,@

Ima. made nanka yobisute de yonde ta no ni, soo iu huu ni iwareru kara, a: zyaa keego tukawanakya ikena.i no ka @na: toka,@ Up to [now] (that time) I had called (him) (by his first name) without an honorific suffix but because she says that and, o:h, then (I wondered) is it that (I) should use polite language to him @or@ 1066A

J: .f" J: .f" l, <1J: ~ £ '"t J: 1/:G-,

~ t<::,

Yosoyososiku na1·imasu yo 1/ne:, kyuu ni, (You) become aloof, //don't you, suddenly.

//@ .f" ? , @ 1/@Soo,@

1067B

//@Right,@ 1068B t:~, ~-::s-r-n~iv'v'fvt2o??"t, 1/!>J::?C:~c:~m@~

£-t":G-o@ 6.

In Japanese, speakers use suffixes with first and/or family names, for formal address

(-san) and to express endearment (-tyaP~). There is also a practice referred to as yobisute 'saying

(someone's name) without a suffix' in which speakers address someone dose or younger without one of these suffixes.

224 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

Zya, doo sureba ii n daroo tte, 1/tyotto ima demo koma@rimasu ne:.@ Then, what is it that (I) should do, just (I) am (still) a bit perplexed, even now. If~~

1069A

1/A:, //O:h, 1070I

{~lt•}

{warai} {LAUGH} 1071B

$i!i.

- JZ, ;~& 0) ~ '3 ~A G-; ~ -:J tc. fv 'T!' ~ ~' ~' '3 '9 tL ti lt "'\ lt "'\ fv ti: ~ '3 id:' ~ J: ' 0) ' c:. 0) iti fv~, ~ -:J-; ~, ;~& td.~ ~,

JjfJI!d/@ J.;..tc.lt"~id: @, N:, atti mo, atasi mo, itioo, ano kekkoo moo seezin-sityatta n de,

a:, doo sureba ii n daroo na, kyo, no, kono kyorikan 1/@mitai na@, Mm, both he and I, more or less, uhm it's that (we) have ended up becoming adults already and, oh, (I wonder) what is it that (I) should do, about dis-, //@like this distance,@ 1072A

ltfv~

{~lt"'}

1/N:, {1ovarai} //Mm, {LAUGH} 1073I

Js.. ~ fv' Hu:n, Hmm,

1074B 12§~£"'to {~lt 1 }

Komarimasu. {warai} It's a problem. {LAUGH} 10751

]s..~ /-v,

Hu:n, Hmm, 1076B

/v-, N:, Mm m,

The situation in B's story in (4) is more delicate than that in the previous stories in (1)-(3) because B's cousin is closer in age to B than A was to the auntin her story. and B's story involves more external pressure because she was told directly by her sister how she should speak. A responds to B's story with laughter (1072A), sympathetic

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 225 backchannels (1061A, 1069A and 1072A), and comments such as 1066A Yosoyososiku narimasu yo 1/ne:, kyuu ni. '(You) become aloof, //don't you, suddenly.' The three stories in (1), (2)-(3), and (4) form an instance ofwhat Tannen (2005) refers to as a "story round," in which the respondents A and B alternately illustrate a similar point, that is, the perplexity they experienced in communicating with relatives. With each successive story, A and B react more and more positively to each other, showing increased involvement with each other (Tannen, 2005). After B's story in (4), A makes a general comment in 1077A, 1079A and 1082A. Although she begins her comment in 1077A by referring to Hisasiburi ni atta hito 'someone (you) see again after a long time' which is one of the main features of her own story in (2)-(3), she paraphrases a portion of B's utterance in 1071B (a:, doo sureba. ii n da1"0o na, kyo, no, kono kyorikan 1/@mitai na@, 'oh, (I wonder) what is it that (I) should do, about dis-, //@like this distance,@') in her utterances in 1079A and 1082A (nanka, are desu yo ne, mukasi to onazi de hanasite ii no ka na: to, kym·i ga tukamenai ka.nzi ga. a.rimasu ne. 'it's like that, isn't it, (you wonder) if it's okay to talk the same as you did way back when, (you) have the feeling that (you) can't get the right distance, don't you.'). B. on her part, collaborates with A in making this summarizing comment with her encouraging backchannel in 1078B Un,//un, 'Uh huh, //uh huh,' and an attempted eo-construction (Szatrowski, 2000) by adding a possible completion to A's utterances in 1077A and 1079A in 1080B Komaru. '(It) becomes a problem.' (5) 1077A ~ G ~!?~<:~·::>teA-:>

-c ~ ~ lvi:i',

Hisasiburi ni atta hito tte, nanka, Speaking about someone (you) see again after a long time, somehow, 1078B

? fv/1? fv~ Un, 1/un, Uh huh, //uh huh,

1079A

11 trA.1 '7! -t J: :G , 11tt t.llll t: '7! 3"8 vr v~ t· ~ 0) :b' ~ - t. ~ l/a1-e desu yo ne, 1/mukasi to onazi de ha.nasite ii no ka na: to, //it's like that, isn't it, (you wonder) if it's okay to talk the same as you did way back when,

1/W-llo

1080B

1/Komaru. //(It) becomes a problem. 1081!

? fv 5 fv 5 /v, Un un un, Yeah, yeah, yeah,

226 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

1082A itiJI:b'~-:J:b' ~lJ:t-•~t::b' i!5 ~ £""9 ~0

kyori ga tukamenai kanzi ga arimasu ne. (you) have the feeling that (you) can't get the right distance, don't you. The two respondents' collaboration in the construction of this summarizing comment is significant in two ways. First, after their story round in (1), (2)-(3) and (4), it makes their respective experiences of perplexity in communication with relatives into a shared common experience, that is, "our perplexity." Kushida (2006:211) argues that the discovery that the interlocutor has some common experience with oneself gives rise to a special opportunity for the speakers to redefine their relationship, specifically, the "unique, experiences of each speaker are re-defined as "our experience., Also, A and B's agreement and mutual support in the summarizing comment shows clearly that their series of stories was constructed by Ryave's (1978) Type 1 "same-significance procedure". Second, this summarizing comment clarifies the "tellability» (Sacks 1992) of A and B's stories, that is, it confirms that their stories were worth telling as answers to the interviewer's question. The respondents indirectly assert that their series of stories (B's story in (1) + Xs "second story» in (2)-(3) + B's "second story» in (4)) contributes to the survey interview by supporting the interesting point that it is difficult to find the right distance when speaking with relatives. This in turn justifies their apparent violation of the participatory framework (in which the interviewer asks the same question to each respondent and each respondent answers) for the sake of the interview.

Analysis of Interview 2 In the second survey interview among three male participants, the interviewer (J) and two respondents (C and D), the interviewer asks a question similar to the one asked in the first interview about whether the respondents had ever experienced trouble deciding on their mode of speaking in 6481 and 650}. This leads C to tell about an experience he had at his part-time job, which subsequently induces D to follow suit telling about a similar experience.

(6) 648J

~''5 v''5~v'n~ l../tV'v'O)iJ'~ m'?t<:~ t.v"~-5 J: .:s lJ:ct. ~a:.iJ:~

iJ:v'

-c-ttJ"~? C:lviJ:~~O)~v'n~ L -r-v,t-•O)fJ'':flvt.~<.://lzr~bt<:~

Doo iu iikata o site ii no ka, komatta, to iu yoo na koto Ml na, nai desu ka.? Donna. kotoba no tuka.ikata o site ii no ka honto ni 1/koma.tta, Have (you) no-, not (by any chance ever) had the experience of becoming perplexed, (wondering) how is it (you) should speak

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 227

(to someone)? When you were really at a loss for what type of language to use, 1/":J~fv,

649D

1/U:n, 1/M:m, 650J

C:lt~5 J::?~~' e:r..~? O)~;t, A,-g:"(f:lO~iS "If~i~lt'"If'97J1 ?

To iu yoo na keeken, to iu no 'Wa, ima made omoti de wa nai desu ka? Such an experience, have (you) never had such an experience? 651C

as 0),

as

J!l r\-{ 1-- Vt to: C: ~ ~;:, 0) ~ J:-:> C:, L "ltc::!v "If 'to i-0) C: ~~;:, m-:> -r [email protected] tJ~, -*tc:: 1v"If -t, :S ~ ~ 1v e: L 11-r o A:, ano, e:to, arubaito site ta toki ni, ano tyotto, suupaa no rezi uti no arubaito site tan desu. Sono toki ni, sitte 1·u hito ga, kita n desu, okyakusan to si!!te. as~-

~ ~ C:, 7

.A~,~~ 0) vSifTiS 0)7J!Ir\-{ 1--

O:h, uhm, well, when I was doing a part-time job, uhm, it's that (I) was just working part-time as a supermarket cashier. At that time, it's that a person (I) knew, came (in), as a customer. ~~

653C

1/?fvo 1/Un. //Uh huh.

i" 0) C: ~ ~i, .!::? lt'? ~? ~;: -gjl[illt', Sono toki wa, doo iu huu ni kotoba.zukai, At that time, how (I) should speak,

654D

as~, H<::-:>i.:!J~?}

A:,{nikko1·i warau} O:h, {BIG SMILE} 655C

fl;ttc::6lt~lt'iJ'- ~lt>£"Lt.::tlo

Kaetara ii ka, mayoimasita ne. (I) wasn't sure if (I) should switch my speech, you know. 6S6J

as~

A:, O:h, 6s7c

as 0) , il ~m M~ "' " . . 0) iJ' i" n e: ~ , ffi!i L 1i 1: lt' lt' 0) iJ' -:> "llt' '5 ,

as 0) , ff m.!:: :S IJ 0)

A no, sekkyaku yoogo de ii no ka, sore to mo, ano, hudan doori no hanasikata de ii no ka tte iu, Urn, like should (I) use polite speech for customers, or uhm, would (it) be okay to speak as usual,

228 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

658J

-v ~ JM ~-.:> i5 ~ tt ~n.Jc o De kekkyoku dotti saremasita. And what did you do, after all?

6s9c

::t,

-u-m ~- :t> 9 ~ '9//tl

0

E, hudan doori desu //ne. Urn, I spoke in my usual manner, //you know. /ltH~~:to 9//~,

660]

1/Hudan doori !!de, //In your usual manner, //~

661C

t'

~

J;: '? t.

//Demo, tyotto tiisai koe de, "Doo sita no?" @mitai na,@ //But, in a lower voice, @like,@ "What is it you are doing here?" (DIRECT) 662}

{~lt"' }iJ: 7Y•1J: iJ'-

.:C? lt"'? t. ~, 7J: !v "l lt"'?, ~? l- "l .:C tt ~

~-)/v""Cl.,J;:-)t\o ~-)l.,"[,

//JS.-ti.,

{wami) Naka.naka, soo iu toki, nante iu, doo site sore o mayou n desyoo ne. Doo site, 1/huda-, {LAUGH} It's so, I wonder why is it that one (can't help but) hesitate about that, what to say at such times. Why, usual-, 1/~t,

663C

//Demo, //But, 664J

-tt-~~ :to 9 ~!-.:>

t.li\ -r c. 7J:v"'lv ~ L- J;:? //tl o

Hudan doori patto dete konai n desyoo !/ne. It's that (it) probably doesn't come out smoothly, in the usual manner, does it. 665C

1/.:C ? ~ '9 tl, i£5 0) (~ i.J' ~;: :t> ',g_ ~ !v t.J~ .tt !v ~ tc --:> L lt"' ? 0) t i£5 ~ t. £ ? tv 1: '9 J:: , ~'?~f9o i£5fv*9.:CL."V, ~l.,(lilfl-" //i_3~-)t_, i5J;:-.:>l:: ~ '? ~! 9 'f lt ' i:J' 7J:: '? "l v"' ? 0) 'i i£5 9 '9 tl o

*

*

1/Soo desu ne, ano hoka ni okya.kusan ga. namnde ta. tte iu no mo aru to omou n desu yo, yappa1·i. Anma1·i soko de, sitasiku hanasi, 1/tya.u to, tyotto yappari mazui ka na tte iu no wa arimasu ne. //Hmm, uhm, it's that I think it was partly because other customers were lined up

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 229

(behind my friend), you know, after all. [There is the fact that] it just wouldn't be so good after all if (I) ended up talking (to a customer) intimately there (in front of them).

11?-lv,

666D

1/U:n, //Mmm, 667J

? fuo Un. Yeah.

66sc

n-;

e:

*"

n

~ ~ '? ~t-~ -t ~ o :t.5 ~ ~ lvtJ~ t-~id: ~:r ~i tJ im ~;:: ~ 'l:t.@ C: J!t ? lv -c' "9 ~:r ~\ ~~ i:J' ~~ ~~ tJ~ ~;:: :t-3 ~ ~ lv i:J~ lt i ' lt i .@ C:

!> ~ '? C: ' lml/::5 ; lt \ ~ "911~ 0 Sore tyotto mayoimasu ne. Okyakusan ga inakereba hutuu ni hanaseru to omou n desu kedo, hoka ni, hoka ni okyakusan ga i-, iru to tyotto, hanasizurai desu //ne. That, just, (one) becomes perplexed, don't they. It's that (I) think (I) could talk as usual if there weren't any other customers (there), but with other, other customers ther-, there, it is a little difficult to talk, you know. /lid. .@ ~~ 1!. ~ 11-0

669J

1/Naruhodo ne/1:. //I see. mit·~o

670C

1/Hai. //Yes. 671D

lv-, N:, Mm,

C begins answering the interviewer J's question (648J, 650J) in 651C by telling about an incident in which his friend came to shop at a supermarket where he was working as a part-time cashier. On hearing that, D responds in 654D A:, 'O:h.' with a broad smile which suggests that he was reminded of a similar experience he had, rather than simply being amused by C's story. 7 D, however, (like A did in B's story in (1) in Interview 1) remains silent while C tells Jabout the difficulty he had in deciding whether to speak to his friend in the polite manner that he usually ]. D's A: 'O:h' maybe considered to be a "change-of. state token" (Heritage, 1984), although D is not the direct addressee of C's answer.

230

Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

used with his customers or in a casual, friendly manner. It appears that D (as was the case with A in (1) in Interview 1), is observing the participatory framework of the survey interview and trying not to interrupt C's answer. In addition, unlike A's situation in (1) (that is, that A had already given her answer to the interviewer's question), D has not answered the question yet, and it is highly likely that the interviewer (J) will give him a chance to answer soon. When C's story draws to a close, D's back channel utterances in 666D and 671D indicate that D is ready to participate by becoming the next speaker. 8 As if reacting to D's response in 671D N:, 'Mm,' the interviewer (J) gives D an opportunity to tell about his experience by asking in 672J Arimasita ka, soo iu keeken wa. 'Have (you) had such an experience?' However, D hesitates to tell his experience initially, saying in 673D N:, na.nka, to, ku ni nai, desu kedo, sono, sono 'Uh:m, somehow, uhm, (I), don't have (any), in particular, but, uhm, uhm,'. (7) 672J

;!5 9 ~n_., r.:: iJ~, ~ -? ~.- -? *-¥ • ~i 0

Arimasita ka, soo iu keeken wa. Have (you) had such an experience? 673D

fv-

v

id..fviJ~,

C:,

<~<::7J::lt'- ""f"9~t~, ~0), ~O).A-J'{-0)

v

v~ "f$, il iJ~ c. -? ~~J 0) A ""f, :&: @ ~ iJ'~ v~ lifT-:> "l 0 , @ N:, nanka, to, ku ni na~ desu kedo, sono, so no suupaa no rezi de, boku ga koo kyakugawa. no hito de, tomo@dati ga rezi 1/utte 1·u,@

Uh:m, somehow, uhm, (I) don't have (any), in particular, but, uhm, uhm, (there was a time when) at a supermarket checkout, I was u:h the customer, and my frie@nd was entering (prices into) the cash register,@ 674J

//{~ ~-'}

1/{wara.i} //{LAUGH} 675C

//{~ft'}

1/{warai} //{LAUGH} D's hesitation in 673D may relate to the fact that D's experience, although strikingly similar to C's, has certain problems, as is revealed through his subsequent story. For one, his situation was the opposite from C's situation in (6), because, as he mentions in 673D, in D's potential story D was the customer and his friend was the part-time cashier. Thus, his episode is disqualified from being an experience 8. Based on an analysis of multi-participant conversations in Japanese, Den (2003) argues that a participant may try to enter the on-going exchange and become the next speaker by giving backchannels and other reactions.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 231

in which the respondent D himself was perplexed about his mode of speaking which was invited by J's interview question. In addition, D's subsequent story which turns out to be a "second story" may also be problematic because D plays a different role in his prospective story than C played in his story. Sacks (1992) suggests that in "second stories" in which one plays an equivalent role to a previous storyteller in his/her story, the second storyteller does so in order to not cause possible disruption and embarrassment. Sacks (1992) also mentions that: [b]y shifting the characters that the two tellers take, one can systematically get that the first and second are not merely similar or dissimilar, but that the second agrees or disagrees with the first, and a variety of such sorts of interactional features. (Vol. II, p. 256)

Thus, D's "second story," while being very similar in setting and characters to C's story, may be disruptive and cause embarrassment, or disagree with C's story or involve some other interactional features. After D adds in 673D boku ga koo kyakugawa no hito de, tomo@dati ga 1-ezi 1/utte ru,@ 'I was u:h the customer, and my frie@nd was entering (prices into) the cash register,@' giving a little laugh over the end of this utterance, both Jand C return a chuckle showing their interest in 674] and 675C, respectively. This gives D the "go-ahead" to tell his story in (8) below (Schegloff 2007). (8) 676D

:t :S t-~-5 ~Nt<::1J: '? td:::~t<::t;t~ .'fO)At;t~ 16:1-vt.J', ffi!H<::31!1'9 fv ~'9J:, 31!1'9 C:. ~tio ~' -; ~fv C::, .'f6), ~.@fHJI-0~ .'f6) lfri]P3~

lfriJP3J ~ tc:~ lftMfriJP3~'9J ~i:J' l:to '?Llt':S 0t;l:~ l--?i:J'!J~'?L*l-h-'Go ~~ ,15cl)~ 1.15 !Jt.J~~ -5 C'~lt~*lJc:J t-; ~fv~B"-?"lt<:fv~~ i"~ i" :S lt~-5 ~ :S ~L.-(jl!lt~)t~j" L"tc:0f.J'1J: '? L~ //lt~-5 0t;l:~ §)t~£lt~*Gt<:o

'9J

lfriJP3~'9J ~f.J'~ .15~

'?!)fri]P3~'9J

Soo iu zyookyoo ni natta toki ni wa, sono hito wa, nanka, hutuu ni hanasu n desu yo, hanasu koto 1va. De, tyanto, sono, yaru sigoto no, sono "Nan-en desu" "Nan-en desu" toka, ato "Nan-en", ni, "Gookee nan-en desu" toka "Oturi nan-en desu" tte iu no wa, sikkari yatte masita ne. De, ano, ~rigatoo gozaimasita"' mo tyanto itte ta n de, so, soo iu huu ni tukaiwakete ta no ka na tte, 1/iu no wa, zibun de omoimasita.. In such a situation, he, like, it's that (he) spoke in his usual manner, you know, what he said. And, properly, uhm, for work-related, saying like "It's this many yen" (DISTAL), "(It's) this many yen" (DISTAL), and, in addition to "(It's) this many yen", he said "(It comes to) a total of this many yen" (DISTAL) and "(Your)

232 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

change is this many yen" (DISTAL), he was doing (it) properly, you know. And, urn, it's that he also said "Thank you" (DISTAL) in the proper manner, so, I thought (he) was differentiating in the use (of his speech appropriately) in that, that way. If];..~ f,.h

677}

1/Hu:n. //M:m. 678C

45~~

A:, Oh, 679}

iJ:: .@ !::f ~ :G 0 Naruhodo ne. I see.

D's story in (8) is quite problematic as an answer to the interview question because no one in his story experiences trouble with his/her speech. Thus, D is in a dilemma. Although he has a nice story to add to C's story, it does not serve as an appropriate "answer" to the question at hand, nor does D play a role that is equivalent to C's role in his story in (7). However, D's story is designed in such a way as to cope with these problems. First, D clarifies the point of his story from the beginning in 676D when he indicates that his friend, the cashier, managed the situation tactfully by using work-related speech and casual speech appropriately. This gives the impression that while the setting and characters in C's and D's stories are similar, his story has a different conclusion. D constructs his story employing Ryave's (1978) Type 2 "same-significance procedure," by providing new material to connect his story with C's previous story. By telling a story with a similar setting and characters but a different consequence, D's story has the possibility of making new sense of what C's story is about. D's summary of his point at the end of 676D soo iu huu ni tukaiwakete ta no ka na tte, 1/iu no wa, zibun de omoimasita. 'I thought (he) was differentiating in the use (of his speech appropriately) in that way.' is an attempt to assert the "tellability" (Sacks 1992) of his story. By suggesting that although his story does not answer the interviewer's question exactly, it makes a good contribution to the overall topic of the survey interview which relates to "Different speech modes used in daily life." In addition, D's presentation of his friend's utterances in direct reported speech (Nan-en desu '(It's) this many yen (DISTAL),' Gookee nan-en desu '(It comes to) a total of this many yen (DISTAL),' Oturi na.n-en desu '(Your) change is this many yen (DISTAL),' Ariga.too gozaimasita 'Thank you (DISTAL)') gives the impression that D's friend the cashier is efficient and proficient in formal speech, and worth reporting for this survey.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 233

D then continues his vivid report of his friend's behavior as a cashier with repeated re-creation of his friend's words and gestures in 687D. (9) 680D

if im ~<: L, ~ « ~ t. c. 6

~i L, ~

« '? 'L ~ 'T!, i" 0), !>~A, t. L, tc

ftlf.O)B" .. Jilt~ti, i-O)££f51!"?'L,

m, re: t. .'!!. -5 A..~ --t ~; .n ~,

~~"?'Llt~-5,

'"tCv'H

Hutuu ni syaberu tokoro wa syabette, de, sono, tyanto sita sigoto no kotobazukai wa, sono mama tukatte, yaru tte iu, sugoi kiyoo, da to omou n desu keredo, In contexts (in which it was okay to) speak casually, (he) did so, and, uhm, as for polite work-related speech, (he) used (it) as he should. It's that (I) think that (he) was amazingly skillful but, 681C

;1;5-, '"t C.~lt~o A:, sugoi. O:h, (that's) amazing.

682}

1J:: ~ ,;r: ~ 0 Naruhodo. I see.

683D

ti lt 1 o Hai. Yes.

684J

c; ~, "( .::...:z. 7 fv~:to 9 0)1f> O)iJ'~&; '? 'L, i- O)q:T~<: !>.~;:c.!> J:: c., Zya, manyuaru doori no mono ga atte, sono naka ni tyoko tyoko, Then he spoke according to the manual (for work-related language), and while doing (that) from time to time,

685D

-5 A,, Un, Yeah,

686}

il G v',

~miJ'~A '? 'L

<~ t.lt~ -5,

Sitasii, hyoogen ga haitte kuru to iu, (he) interspersed intimate, expressions, 687D

t. iJ', tb t., C.?, ~'Y, {l~- ::I- r ~~J;;. ~~ Jlttft 9} 1J:: A..~ v', fiiJ-111f>Jl '? tc{l~- ::I- r ~~J;;.~.:@ !l]'tft 9} ~~ ~'Y 'L lt ?

~ -:J 0)

IfiiJ P3 'T! '"t J I fiiJ P3 ~ '"t J ti, ~ ~ G'L, c.? ffi!i G, {l G @;fJ::jJ'If,@ C. '5 ~'Y ~'YL,

~

-::I- r~~J;;.~~J:lttft9}ffi!iL,

Toka, ato, koo, pitt, {baakoodo o yomitoru miburi} nan, i, nan-ko mo katta {baakoodo o yomitoru miburi} pitt pitt tte iu yatu no "Nan-en desu" "Nan-en desu" wa, syomyaku-site, koo hanasi, {baakoodo o yomitoru miburi} ha.nasi-si@nagam@ koo pitt pitt tte,

234 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

Or, also, (he went) like, "beep" {gesture of reading a bar code}, many (I) bought many items {gesture of reading a bar code}, he omitted saying "It's [this] many yen, (DISTAL), "It's [this] many yen" (DISTAL) with the thing that goes "beep beep, (barcode reader), and like this, while speak- {gesture of reading a bar code} speaking to me, (he went) like, "beep beep," 688]

J.-.-fv~

Hu:n, Hmm,

689D

.5?,>.:@ ~ .!:: ~ .15 .!:: ~ tl. 0) .!:: ~ G tc~

Ya.ru, to, ato sore no toki mo koe toka. wa, u:n, hutuu ni syabette ita yoo n~ hutuu ni, hanasite, !! sit a, When (he) did (that), and, his voice at that time, uhm, he was speaking as usual, I remember, as usual, he spoke, and did , //~ 0

690]

!'!. (!_ t:d.- 0

1/Naruhodo ne:. //I see.

691D

t;:t v'o

Hai. Yes.

In addition to summarizing his point in 676D in (8) (soo iu huu ni tukaiwakete ta. no ka na tte, 1/iu no wa, zibun de omoimasita. 'I thought (he) was differentiating in the use (of his speech appropriately) in that way.'), D expresses his positive evaluation of his friend's appropriate use of speech style again in 680D Hutuu ni syaberu tokoro wa syabette, de, sono, tyanto sita sigoto no kotobazukai wa, sono mama. tuka.tte, ya.ru tte iu, sugoi kiyoo, da to omou n desu keredo, 'In contexts (in which it was okay to) speak casually, (he) did so, and, uhm, when he used polite work-related speech, (he) did as he should. It's that (I) think that (he) was amazingly skillful, but,'. To this, C responds in 681C A:, sugoi. 'O:h, (that's) amazing.', showing his admiration for a deed he was unable to manage. D seems to have succeeded in telling his problematic story by designing it tactfully to fit into the larger frame of the overall interview topic, rather than the question at hand. He also makes his story suitable as an answer, by pointing out how his friend differentiated appropriately in his use of work-related speech and casual speech, using explicit evaluative comments and repeated demonstrations of his friend's behaviors.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews 235

Although D and C play different roles in their respective stories, D's story prevented rather than causing disruption. If D had been the cashier in his story and the one who had managed the situation efficiently, the contrast between D's and C's performances could have caused disruption. However, in actuality, it was not D but D's friend who performed well. and D simply reports that his friend's performance was skillful. In this way, although D tells a story in which he plays a ditrerent role from C, he is able to side with Cas someone who can admireD's friend's performance as a cashier. This is also evident in C's utterance in 681C A:, sugoi. 'O:h, (that's) amazing.' in which C expresses agreement with D by repeating a part of D's utterance in 680D sugoi kiyoo 'amazingly skillful.' Analyzed from the point of view of Ryave's (1978) story construction procedures, D's "second story" provides a new perspective on C's story. C's story, by itself, was an experience of perplexity about communication. However, with D's story, C's story becomes incorporated into a series of stories which seem to generate the point that "in the told cashier-customer setting, it is often difficult to use speech styles appropriately (exemplified by C's story), and because of that, someone (likeD's friend) who can do it well should be admired as all the more skillful." Thus, D's story is a "second story" which is constructed using Ryave's (1978) Type 2 "same-significance procedure" by reordering the meaning of C's story.

Discussion From the point of view of interaction, there are significant differences between storytellings in survey interviews and in casual conversations. In the survey interviews analyzed here, because storytelling was invited by the interviewers, the respondents did not need to create an opportunity to tell their stories or monitor their hearers' interest as in casual conversations. On the other hand, in order to maintain the participatory framework of the interview, that is, the distinctive purpose of the survey interview to gather information and each participant's role in that activity, it was necessary for the respondents' stories to serve as appropriate and meaningful answers to the interviewer's questions or relate in a more general sense to the overall topic of the interview. In other words, their stories had to be more than a mere telling of a funny story or an expression of involvement as is possible in friendly casual conversations. In the two interviews analyzed for this study we demonstrated how respondents oriented to the participatory framework of the interview while telling "second stories." In order to meet both ends, they adjusted their telling behaviors (by respecting the other respondent's answering turn, and starting to tell their "second stories" promptly before the interviewer went on to the next question, and so

236 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani

on) and their story designs (making it clear that their stories were worth telling as an answer to an interview question or as a contribution to the overall topic of the interview). In Interview 1, respondents A and Beach told "second stories" about similar experiences with relatives in (2)-(3) and (4), respectively. While designing their stories as suitable answers to the interview question, each of the "second stories" added something new and interesting to the one preceding. Generally, story tellers are motivated to tell a story which is more interesting than the previous one(s) in order to gain the recipients' attention. In the present data, the interview sequence in which each respondent usually had only one chance to answer each question was likely to give additional motivation for making "second stories" more interesting. After their series of stories, the respondents collaboratively constructed a final general comment summarizing the series of stories to ensure that the point that they were trying to make through their stories was appropriate for the interviewer's question and the survey interview as a whole. Their re-definition of their respective experiences as a common experience through their collaboration also enhanced their interpersonal involvement. In Interview 2, the respondent D managed to tell an amusing "second story" although it was slightly off the mark of the question at hand and did not satisfy the equivalent role condition (Sacks 1992, Vol. I, p. 769). D designed his story in such a way as to orient to both the participatory framework of the interview and to the telling of an experience similar to C's. He oriented to the interview participatory framework by designing his story to suit the overall theme of the interview, using detailed description and evaluative comments about his friend's skillful performance in differentiating his speech. In order to share common experiences with the other respondent C, he told his story from the stance of an observer admiring a cashier's excellent linguistic performance. This enabled him to side with C, who had experienced trouble as a cashier in a similar situation. Thus, D's reordering of the meaning of C's story realized a different type of collaboration from that observed between A and Bin Interview 1. D's storytelling in Interview 2 also represents an interesting case of how a teller of a "second story" can ally with a prior teller without playing an equivalent role in his story.

Conclusion In this paper, we analyzed excerpts from two survey interviews and demonstrated how the respondents told "second stories" to share similar experiences while conforming to the participatory framework of the interview. Based on the analysis and discussion above, we drew the following two conclusions.

Chapter 7. Telling about experiences in three-party survey interviews Z37

First, "second stories" can contribute to the respondents' mutual understanding and, at times, interpersonal involvement even in survey interviews which have the distinctive purpose of collecting information. In both Interview 1 and Interview 2, the two respondents (who met each other for the first time at the interview) recognized and confirmed that they had something in common (similar experiences, perplexities, viewpoints, and so on) through their "second stories," that expressed understanding and appreciation (in one case by reordering the meaning of the other's prior story as in Interview 2) of a point made by the prior teller. Thus the "second stories" can be considered as a way of interacting with each other and establishing interpersonal relationships in a way that is qualitatively different from the direct verbal and nonverbal exchanges between the two respondents analyzed in our previous studies (Kitani & Kumagai, 2006, 2007; Kumagai & Kitani, 2010). Second, the participatory framework of interview discourse influenced the respondents' strategies and story design in significant ways. In Interview 1, A and B's final general comment summarizing the point of their stories in (1), (2)-(3) and (4), can be interpreted as a move to justify their taking of multiple answering turns despite the one question-one answer exchange sequence established in the interview. In Interview 2, D's design of his "second story" as a report of and admiration for his friend's speech allowed him to ally with C, while making his story suitable as an answer to the interview. In this way, the interview participatory framework operates not as a static rule that restricts the participants' behaviors, but rather as a resource that can lead to a variety of communicative and interpersonal interactions.

References Den, Y. (2003). Ukete ni naru koto, ziwasya ni naru koto: Wasya kootai kisoku saikoo. [To be an addressee, and to be the next speaker: Thrn-taking rules revised] Zinkoo-tinoo Gakkai Ke11kyuukai Siryoo [Seminar paper, The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence] SIG-SLUD-A203-Pll (pp. 107-112). Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: A11 essay on the orga11ization of e:~.perience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hosaka, T., Nakazawa, J., & Ohnogi. H. (2000). Slnrlgaku manyuaru mensetuhoo [Psychology Manual: Interviewing Method]. Kyoto: Kitaoozt Syoboo. Jorden, E. H. with Noda, M. (1987). Japanese: The spoken language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Karatsu, M. (2004). Verbal and nonverbal negotiation inJ apanese storytelling. In P. Szatrowski (Ed.), Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction, (pp. 125-161). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

238 Tomok.o Kumagai & Naoyuki Kitani Kawasaki, A. (1995, October). Linguistic adulthood in Japanese. Paper presented at the Eleanor H. JordenFestival, Portland State University, Portland, OR. Kawasaki, A. (2009, July). Developme11tal sociolinguistics: From a college student to a working woman inJapa11. Paper presented at the 11th International Pragmatics Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Kitani, N. & Kumagai, T. (2006). Sansya mensetu tyoosa ni okeru kaitoosya doosi no soogosayoo: Syotaimen no kaitoosya no baai [Interaction between respondents who met for the first time at three-party survey interviews.] Syakaige11go Kagakukai Dai-17-kai Taikai Happyoo Ronbunsyuu [Proceedings of the 17th Conference of The Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences] (pp. 20-23). Kitani, N. & Kumagai, T. (2007). Sansya mensetu tyoosa ni okeru syotaimen kaitoosya no sanyok.oodoo [Participation behaviors of respondents who met for the first time at threeparty survey interviews.] Syakaige11go Kagakukai Dai-19-kai Taikai Happyoo RoJ~bun­ syuu [Proceedings ofthe 19th Conference of The Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences] (pp. 98-101). Kumagai, T. & Kitani, N. (2010). Sansya me11setu tyoosa ni okeru komyu11ikeesyon: Soogo kooi to sanka no wakugumi. [Communication in three-party survey interviews: Interaction and participatory framework.] Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Kushida, S. (2006). Soogo kool tituzyo to kaiwa bunseki: '1fanasite"to "kyo-seelnsee" o meguru sank a no sosikika [Interaction order and conversation analysis]. Kyoto: Sekai Shisoosha Levtnson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ryave, A.L. (1978). 0 n the achievement of a series of stories. InJ. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies In the organization ofconversational interaction (pp. 113-132). New York, NY: Academic Press. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. I, II). Cambridge: BlackwelL Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequential organization In Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrtn, D. (1993). 'Speaking for another' in sociolinguistic interviews: Alignments, identities, and frames. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 231-263). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sibata, T. (1978). 'Haha' to iu yoo ni naru made [Learning to say "haha" '(my) motherj. Syakaigengogaku no kadal [Topics in sociolinguistics] (pp. 145-160). Tokyo: Sanseido Publishing. Sibata, T. (1999). Learning to say "haha." In T. Sibata; T. Kunihiro, F. Inoue & D. Long (Eds.), Sociolinguistics in Japanese conte.r:ts (pp. 127-142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Suzuki, A. (2005). 'I)'oosateki mensetu no gihoo [Techniques of survey interviews] (2nd ed.) Kyoto: Nakanishiya ShuppaiL Szatrowski, P. (2000). Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatiba to gengo/htgengo koodoo no kanren ni tuite [Relation between participant status and verbal/nonverbal behavior in eo-construction]. Niho11go Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics], 7, 44-69. Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk amo11g jrie11ds (new edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. & Wallat, C. (2006). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 332-348). New York, NY: Routledge. (Reprinted from Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2), 205-216, 1987)

PART

5

Storytelling in university lectures

CHAPTERS

The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse Yoshio Takahashi Munich University

In this paper I present a new perspective on narratives in university lectures by suggesting criteria for categorizing narratives in relation to the preceding and following context. Based on an analysis of the narratives in four Japanese university lectures on Buddhism, Statistics, Eastern European History and Education, I address the questions of how narratives in university lectures are introduced, how they function and how they relate to the preceding and subsequent discourse. I categorized the narratives in my data into 4 types and 3 subtypes based on their textual and interpersonal functions: (1) Illustration, (2) Elaboration (a. Detail, b. Review/Preview, c. Epitome), (3) Presentation of Topic/ Problem, and (4) Rapport. Illustration narratives are preceded by an abstract idea and provide an explanation for or give an example related to that idea. Elaboration narratives provide important details that create the very content of the lecture, and can be further divided into three types: Detail, Review/Preview and Epitome. Presentation of Topic/Problem narratives introduce a topic or provide a problem to be interpreted subsequently in the lecture. Finally, in Rapport narratives, the professor relates his/her personal experiences in order to help bring the professor and students together. By analyzing the discourse organization in which the narratives are embedded, I demonstrate how the narratives connect to and contribute to the lecture content.

This paper presents a new perspective on narratives in university lectures by suggesting criteria for categorizing narratives in relation to the preceding and following context. 1 Based on an analysis of the narratives in four Japanese university lectures, I address the questions of how narratives in university lectures are 1. I would like to thank the professors who granted me permission to record and use their lectures for this study. I am also deeply grateful to Professor Polly Szatrowsk.i for giving me valuable comments and thoroughly reading my manuscript. Nevertheless, any error or mistake in the paper is the author's.

242 Yoshio Takahashi

introduced, how they function and how they relate to the preceding and subsequent discourse. University lectures are often characterized as expository discourse, that is, a type of discourse in which the speaker gives objective and logical explanations on a certain topic (Shigematsu & Hasegawa, 1988, pp. 1-2). However, in actuality. university professors not only introduce new notions or new points of view and explain their meanings, implications and relationships, but they also talk about events such as historical episodes, the story of a film, their own past experiences etc. I refer to this type of talk as "narrative." I demonstrate that narratives in Japanese lectures function to Illustrate, Elaborate (Give details, Review/Preview, Epitomize), Present a Topic/Problem, and Build Rapport. In addition, I show how narratives with these functions vary in their tendencies towards Association or Independence.

Previous research Labov (1972) defines narrative as "one method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred" (p. 359). In this paper, I follow Labov in viewing narrative as "matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred", however, I include recounting of things that the professor has heard or read, his/her fantasies or dreams, and so on, as well as recapitulation of the speaker's "past experience" in my definition of narrative (Norrick. 2000). The common feature that these types of narratives share is a shift in the speaker's point of view, similar to Maynard's (1989) claim that casual narrative "creates a conceptual world apart from the here-and-now world of conversation causing a shift in the participants' point of view" (p. 100). Thus, following Labov (1972, p. 359) and Maynard (1989, p. 100), I define narrative as a verbal sequence of clauses which are placed in the same order as that of events which occurred or are inferred to have occurred in the past, or in an imaginary situation or are expected to occur in the future. Linguistic studies on narrative/storytelling have focused on conversational interaction in English (Labov, 1972; Chafe, 1980; Tannen, 1984; Polanyi, 1989; Norrick, 2000; and others) and in Japanese (Maynard, 1989, 1993; Lee, 2000; Karatsu, 2004; and others). However, the interactional aspects oflarge university lectures tend to be less obvious, because they are monologues, that is, discourse which is produced by only one speaker. Rather, it is more fruitful to explore how narratives are introduced to the lecture and how they contribute to the lecture content. Thus, in the present study, I focus on how narratives are used in university lectures and how they relate to the surrounding discourse.

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 243

Recent studies on the structure of university lecture discourse have focused on the local organization (Shigematsu, 1987; Dudley-Evans, 1994; Takahashi, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002; Saijo, 2007) and macrostructure of the discourse (Dudley-Evans, 1994; Saijo, 2007). Sakuma (1987, 2006, 2010) developed the concept of wadan, 'functional paragraph.' a flexible, multi-layered semantic unit that functions as a paragraph, in order to integrate micro-analysis with the macrostructure of discourse. Another approach to analyzing discourse organization is Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) (Mann & Thompson, 1987, 1988; Matthiessen & Thompson, 1988), which can be used to identify the hierarchical organization of a discourse. In the present paper, I investigate how narratives are unified with previous/subsequent discourse and construct functional paragraphs, which are hierarchically organized.

Data The audio recorded data for this study are summarized in Table 1. I analyzed four Japanese university lectures, one each on Buddhism, Statistics, History and Education. The lecture on Buddhism dealt with the influences of ancient Indian philosophy on Buddhism. In the Statistics lecture, the professor explained how to make and interpret contingency tables. The History lecture dealt with foreign affairs in Poland in the thirteenth century. In the Education lecture, the professor discussed the problem ofbullying in schools. All of these lectures were recorded in 1996 at a university in Japan and were given to classes of approximately 100 students.

Analysis In this section I demonstrate how narratives function and construct the content of university lectures. I divided the textual and interpersonal functions of the narratives used in this study into four types and three sub types: 1) Illustration, 2) Elaboration (a. Detail, b. Review/Preview, c. Epitome), 3) Presentation of Topic/ Problem, and 4) Rapport. I will give identification criteria and an example from my data for each function below. Table 1. Outline of the data Lecture Subject

Topic

Buddhism Statistics History Education

Influence of ancient Indian philosophy on Buddhism Making and interpreting contingency tables Foreign affairs in Poland in the 13th century Dealing with bullying in schools

244 Yoshio Takahashi

Table 2. Number of Narratives in the Four University Lectures Functions

Subfunctions

Illustration Elaboration

Nwnber of Narratives in Each Lecture B2 s H E Total 0

Detail Review/Preview Epitome

Presentation of a Topic/Problem Rapport Total

3

13

0

4

7

16

9

39

2

0

4

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

0

0

17

6

16

6 21

60

Illustration narratives I identified the function of narratives that are preceded by an abstract idea and provide an explanation for or give an example related to that idea, as illustration. Illustration is one of the most basic functions in university lectures. Professors often gave an example or a concrete paraphrase of an abstract idea to aid students' understanding of their lecture. In (1) taken from the Statistics lecture, the professor introduces the statistical notions of "independence" and "relation."3 The organization of the discourse in (I) is summarized in Figure 1.4 In the functional paragraph (lines 137-155) in (1), the professor explains the notions of"independence" and "relation," by first giving a Definition (lines 137-139) and then an Illustration narrative (lines 143-155). I identify the function of the narrative (lines 143-155) as Illustration, because it provides an example of the definition. 5

2. "B" stands for the Buddhism Lecture, "S" the Statistics Lecture, "H" the History Lecture, and "E" the Education Lecture.

3· In the examples in this paper, I indicate the utterances that make up each narrative with arrows (~). The Appendix in Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanization, transcription conventions, and the English translation used in the examples. 4· I excluded lines 140-142 of the transcript because they are a digression. In these lines the professor says that it's just a matter of preference whether you say renka 11 'relation' or kanre11 'connection' to refer to the statistical notion of "relation." 5· In the figures in this paper, I indkate functional paragraphs with a triangle, and the organization within each functional paragraph at the base of the triangle.

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 245 137-155 "Notions of independence and relation"

137-139

143-155

Definition

illustration narrative

Figure 1. Discourse organization of (1) (1) Relation and independence (Statistics Lecture) 135 l!, ~ ~, llk.lz. J (:. iJ' lii~Jft J ";) L. (J) tt 16. 1v 16. 1v t2 ";) L. v' ~

c:

(:."(!"9 J:~o De, zya, "dokuritu"' toka "renkan"' tte no wa nan na n da tte iu koto desuyo ne. Well, then, it's that the (question) is what is "independence" and "relation"? 136

*

l!, tc:: (:. ;Ui, 1":J , ;:t ~ , lk .lz. (J) {;11 ~ c: c: ~<:: ~ G Gtc:: o De, tatoeba, hito-tu, e:, dokuritu no ree o koko ni simesimasita. So, for example, I have given one, u:h, an example of "independence" here.

137

*'f, l!k.lz.J

(J)}E~i6..fvl!"9~1~'Eh

;:t, ~.fH"t, -"jj(J)'JJ7

dV~(J)mm~4::t6~k(:.~~,M1i(J)n-rdv~(J),c~

fvi6.. ~ v', -15(!)7 -17- b(J) mmtJ~4::t 6 ~ tc::(:. ~ ~<::, Mn(J) 7-17- b (J) 'JJ 7- d V~~<:: ":J v1 l. (J) mmtJ~ !W ;:t:@ iJ' ~ ~ iJ'o Mazu, "dokuritu"' no teegi na n desu kedomo, e, sore wa, ippoo no kategorii no zyoohoo ga ataerareta toki ni, tahoo no kategorii no, gomen nasai, ippoo no aitemu no zyoohoo ga ataerareta toki ni, tahoo no aitemu no kategorii ni tuite no zyoohoo ga hueru ka doo ka. First, (as for) [it's that it's] the definition of "independence," uh, that is, when you are given (some) information about one category, then the other category, sorry, when (you) are given (some) information about one item, then (you need to ask) whether (you) gain any knowledge related to the category of the other item. 138

mmtJ~!W ::ti6..

v' ~-€i ~<:: tt,

2-:J (J) 7-17- b

tt Ilk .lz. J t2,

(:. ~ v'

*"to Zyoohoo ga huenai baai ni wa, huta-tu no aitemu wa "dokuritu"' da, to iimasu. If (you) don't gain any knowledge, then (you) say that the two items are "independent."

246 Yoshio Takahashi

139

fiUiiiJ~ :ttl it ~ ~ ft t;: ~;L 2"::) 0) 7-{ 7- .b. ~;L

lW ~ J IJ~ itS ~ ~ i!5 I ~ il J :Q~ ;5 .@ 2::: tt ~ v~ '9o Zyoohoo ga hueru ba.ai ni wa, huta.-tu no aitemu wa, "renkan,. ga. aru, aruiwa "kanren'" ga aru to iimasu. If you gain some knowledge, you say that the two items have a "relation" or a "connection."

*

~ tt ~ ~i

~

143

!!~

c O)f?l.J]J:fv\!'9~1~-t~

*

;t, ~:::~-7J-~~< 2:::~ J-.7;,t1'

~i 5~ 0) 7J- ).? IJ~ ;15 !) '9 0 De, kono ree na n desu kedomo, e, zyooka.a o nozoku to, tomnpu wa. gozyuu ni mai no kaado ga arimasu. Then, (as for) [it's that it's] this example, uh, if you leave out the joker, there are 52 cards in a deck of cards. ~

144

!!, ~fLiJ~2~JiUL7J~26~o De, akahuda ga nizyuu roku mai kurohuda ga nizyuu roku mai. And, (there are) 26 red cards and 26 black cards.

~

145

~fLiJ~12~0)~ JgcfLIJ~40~i5~v~t!!"t~o

Ehuda ga zyuu ni mai no, kazu huda ga yonzyuu mai aru wake desu ne. It's that, there are 12 picture cards and 40 cards without pictures, right?

·c

n-

m

~

146

I!, § ~ "::) ctJ> '? tfil J.? ~I& !? L * -to De, me o tumutte, iti-ma.i kaado o toridasimasu. And, (you) close your eyes and pick one card.

~

147

-f"VC 1-f"O);IJ-~~i, ~ -5 ~;: llfJ ~ '9 0

*

:#fL\!'97'J~?, J.UL!!'97'J~?J -:>""Lv~-5

Sosite, "Sono kaado wa, akahuda desu ka? Kurohuda desu ka?"' tte iu huu ni kikimasu. Then, (you) ask (me), "Is your card a red card? (Or) is it a black card?" ~

148

!!~

x-

l.f"~Hi~fL\!'9J -:>"lv~-?~-?~;:1§;t*'9J:~o

De, e:, "Sore wa kurohuda desu" tte iu huu ni kotaemasu yo ne. Then, uh, (I) would answer, "It's a black card," I tell you, you know? ~

149

-f" lJ.::;, -f" O)fUiJgc fLiJ: O)iJ~ ~fL1J: 0) IJ~~ "l "l
Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 247 ~

150

~?'"t-@c, fSO)tl~iJ~lJ:t·~c'!~<::,

l~.fLtiJ c~?"L~tc

:@ ii)'f~ ~;L 52:$t 0)40o

Soosuruto, iro no zyoohoo ga na.i toki ni, ''Kazuhuda da" to itte ataru kakuritu wa gozyuu ni bun no yonzyuu. Then, if (you) don't know the calor of the card and say it's a card without a picture, the probability of being right is 40 out of 52. ~

151

'@.0)1it~7J~4.:t6:h"L7J~G,

llt;fLt2J

c~?"L~tc-@lim$

~;!: , 26:$t 0) 20o

Iro no zyoohoo ga ataerarete kara, "Kazuhuda da"' to itte ataru kakuritu wa, nizyuuroku bun no nizyuu. And if (you) are given information about the calor of the card and say it's a card without a picture, (then) the probabilityofbeing right is 20 out of 26. ~

152

c. tL,

iM :$t '9 ~ ~ -M~ '9 J: :Go

Kore, tuubun-surya issyo desu yo ne. If (you) divide by a common denominator, the results are equal aren't they? ~

153

c " ? c. c ~t, ~ 0) 7J- J-? n~, JllJ: 0) n~ $ 7J: cl) n~ ? "L "~ ? c. c :tJ- r 0) *ii li-, ;t-, f.!Ufh "L 1t ~ ? ~ 0) ~t ~ f* tJ~ 7J: 1t ~ A.t ~

c,

'9J:."Go To iu koto wa, sono kaado ga, kuro na no ka aka na no ka tte iu koto to, kaado no syurui- e:, syurui tte iu mono wa kankee ga nai n desu yo ne. That is, it's that there is no relation between whether that card is black or red and, the type of the card, uh, the type, right? ~

154

-:1.1 0) fiUil i} 4 ;t G tL "L ~ , fl!! :1.1 0) fit ¥1Hi i.3 ? c

~

!I ;t 7J:

Ippoo no zyoohoo ga ataeran:te mo, ta.hoo no zyoohoo 'WQ. tittomo huenai. Even if (you) are given information about one aspect, (you) don't gain the least bit of information about the other aspect. ~

155

C. "? lt' "? ~ 0) ~, I 7 0 .A~ :b~ ~!Ul: tl J ? "L v~ ? ..5--? t<:: v~ t· ~

'to

*'

Koo iu mono o, "'Kurosu hyoo ga doku1·itu da" tte iu huu ni iimasu. In this kind of case, (you) say; "The contingency tables are independent" In lines 137-139, the professor begins by giving an abstract definition of "independence" and "relation." Then in the narrative in lines 143-155, he gives an example of"independence" using an imaginary situation of someone picking a card

248 Yoshio Takahashi

and asking whether it is a picture card or a card without a picture. The narrative here functions to illustrate the abstract definition given in lines 137-139.

Elaboration narratives I refer to the function of narratives that create the very content of the lecture, as Elaboration. I divided Elaboration narratives further into three types: Detail, Review/Preview and Epitome. Detail narratives give details related to a previously introduced topic. In Review/Preview narratives the professor presents a previous, present or forthcoming lecture in narrative form, making the topic of the narrative the lecture itself. Epitome narratives support a previously introduced abstract idea or general comment by telling a typical narrative related to that idea/comment. Elaboration (Detail) narratives differ from Illustration narratives because they are preceded by a topic introduction that presents the topic, but does not comment on the topic. 1.

Elaboration (Detail) narratives

The narrative in (2) is a detail narrative, because it gives details related to the previously introduced topic "The formation of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights." The professor recounts crucial historical events that constitute the main body of his lecture on Eastern European history. The organization of the discourse in (2) is summarized in Figure 2. 6 This functional paragraph (lines 206-243) explains how the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights was formed, and consists of a Topic Introduction (lines 206207) and an Elaboration (Detail) narratives (lines 208-243). This narrative gives details related to the topic previously introduced in lines 206-207. 206-243 "The formation of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights"

206-207

208-243

Topic Introduction

Elaboration (Detail) narrative

Figure 2. Discourse organization of (2)

6. I excluded lines 209-211 and 214-240 ofthe transcript because they constituted a digression. In lines 209-211 the professor gives details related to the activity of the Teutonic Knights in Jerusalem, and in lines 214-240 details concerning their activity in the Eastern Europe.

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 249

(2) The formation of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights (History Lecture) 206 17, .'fO), r-1'YH±IID~*17'9~:ttt~'~, <:tl.ti~''3lt~'3~17.'f0),

*'

~fiU~ic:O<::, L.O)if:!!~17B"~Ji.'f0), 1~r..p:.7JI[O),

{ 1Jit1JJ bHii

i!f}c O)J!:17'9:G, <:. <:. ~<::.'fO), 1'oVY-:>L"i!ft-~-r .:l5~*'9~:ttLE~,

L.0)1'PV70).'f0), it!!~<:, 17~~0)f.J\ .'fO),

r-1'Ytififl~*17'9o

De, sono, Doitu Kisidan Kokka desu keredomo, kore wa doo iu katati de sono, ma, kekkyoku wa koko ni, kono tizu de ieba sono, Visuwagawa no {writes toohoo on the black board} kono higasi desu ne, koko ni sono, Purosia tte kaite arimasu keredomo, kono Purosia no sono, ti n~ dekiru no ga, sono, Doitu Kisidan Kokka. desu. And, uh, (as for) the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights, what kind of form (did it take), uh, well, in the end (it was) here, on this map, uh, the Vistula River, {writes 'to the east' on the blackboard}, to the east of (the Vistula River), uh, "Prussia, is written here, and it (was) on, uh, this land of Prussia that the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights was formed.

207

"7!, <:.fl.~;U:::.:Slt"~-3 ~"f!.'fO), 17~ :t>t.J•, tcC: ;Ui, .'fO), r-1'Yfi±

fif!-:>'"C lt~-3 J: '3 ~#1£ti, lt~.PI~:{;,.'fO)ft±~iti~~A/l?'9~:tn ~­ ~' .'fO), *' 7":::.-'1'Jvft±IIDC:i.J', &s:t>t-~ti.'fO), ft±m, .'f'3t:; ..5- '31J:.'f0), *f{ft±fifi, cntJ~.'fO), +*•O)~iH<= 17~-r ~*'9 ~:tn~-~' .'f'5 tJc.'fO), *f{ft±fiHO).'fO), --:J~!v"7!'9:G;to De, km·e wa doo iu katati de sono, dekiru ka, tatoeba, sono, Doitu Kisidan tte iu yoo na sonzai wa, i'J.vayuru sono Kisi Syuudookai na n desu keredomo, sono, ma, Tenpuru Kisidan toka, arui wa sono, Kisidan, soo iuu huu na sono, syuukyoo kisidan, km-e ga. sono, Zyuuzigun no sai ni dekite kimasu keredomo, soosita sono, syuukyoo kisidan no sono, hito-tu na n desu nee. And, what kind of form did it, uh, take? For example, uh, it's that the body called the Teutonic Knights was the so-called Military Order, but, uh, well, such, uh, Religious Knights as the Knights Templar or, uh, Knights, these were founded at, uh, the time of the Crusades, and it's that (the Teutonic Knights) were, one of those, uh, religious knights groups, you know. ~

208

C: ~ C: ~i.'f 0), r-{ 'Yft±fif!? L" lt•-3 0) ti, .'fO), ~fBIID-t* $0)~~;:, .'fO), .r..;J;-ij-v.b.O)t-, R1Hi~§agC: L -r, .'fO), r -1 17,

~

ft±, i" '5lt~'5 ~ O)~.'f 0), l=fl~L.,~<:: LL"&50), *' .T..Jlt-!J v.b.~<::, .'fO), ""l?, ~,@'90/v""l:>'t:G;to

'YO)mm~C: tJ~
250

Yoshio Takahashi

De, motomoto wa sono, Doitu Kisidan tte iu no wa, sono, daisan-kai zyuuzigun no sai ni, sono, Erusaremu no mo-, booee o mokuteki to site, sono, doitu no tosimin toka a1·uiwa sono, kisi, soo iu mono o sono, tyuusin ni site ano, ma, Erusaremu ni, sono, de, hossoku-suru n desu nee. Well, uh, the Teutonic Knights were originally formed during, uh, the Third Crusade for the purpose of defending, uh, Jerusalem. It's that (they) were composed primarily, uhm, well, of German citizens or, uh, knights, such people in, uh, in Jerusalem, you know. ~ 212

*'

~Gt<::, A,-Jt~i, i-0), J&.-t<::&">-::>'"C !N!imHii-0), +*ill~:1J -::>'L t-•'5 O)~;i, ~qt<::, C. O)~il[J[:Q> 6 i"O)iat-""~I:H~tt 'L lt"" < o

Sara ni, kondo wa, sono, koogeki ni atte, ma, kekkyoku wa sono, zyuuzigun seeryoku tte iu no wa, zyozyo ni, kono Tyuukintoo kara sono oidasa.rete iku. In addition, this time, uh, (they were) attacked and, well, in the end, the power of. uh, the Crusaders were, gradually, uh, forced to get out of the Near East. ~

213

\!,CO), f?-{'YO),ft±IYlL f?-{~1.ft±IW~~-::>~11Ji"O), 13"t!t em~~;,&;0)-,~9~0)i"O),ffl~O)~~i"O),~~\!

~i;i'J: <'L, 8- o 'YJ"\, ~;:, i" 0), >1<~ J:-? .t '9-@ fv \! '9 :toto De, kono Doitu no kisidan. Doitu Kisidan mo yappari sono, zyuusan seeki hazime kara, ano:, zibun-tati no sono, katudoo no ti o sono, Seeti de wa nakute, Yooroppa, ni, sono, motomeyoo to suru n desu ne.

And from, uh, the beginning of the 13th century, it's that these, Teutonic Knights, the Teutonic Knights also u:hm, started to turn their eyes, to, Europe, rather than, uh, the Holy City, as a place to carry out their, uh, activity. you know. ~

241

1!, c. 0)3/llf§l.tc:: :lOt-"' ·c i:f .t 1v l::, i" 0) 1'o ·::.<:rA-::> -r t·""? 0) ~a:. 4-lJ A!-- f
~

242

*'

\!, 91-::>tc-=1t~ii"O), f?-{';lf~~tl.'Lt-""~<, i-?t-•?i-0), il'P1H<::, i" 0), 1J: 1J '9 o De, nokotta mono wa sono, Doituka-sarete iku, ma, soo iu sono, unmee ni, sono, narimasu.

*

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 251

And the survivers were, uh, Germanized, well, it, uh, came to be that kind of, uh, the destiny (for the Prussians). ~

243

-r:~ ..:t.:J"[email protected]:~c:J:-:>"LL.L.~c:..:t0)~-1'-"tifift"Lv~-?..:tO)~ 00~~ ~ .-{'.'JO)I{'fi)OO~'?Lv~? i/oO)'IJ~.:tO)~ ~ft"t.@fv7:"9~;to

De, soo suru koto ni yotte koko ni sono Doitu Kisidan tte iu sono, kokka, Doitu no ryoohoo kokka tte iu mono ga sono, seeritu-suru n desu nee. And, through that (process), it's that that State of, uh, the Teutonic Knights, a German territorial state was, uh, formed here, you know. In (2), the professor gives details related to how the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights was formed. First, he introduces the topic of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights in line 207, raising the question kore wa dooiu katatide, sono, dekiru ka 'What kind of form did it, uh, take?' Then, in response to this question he tells an Elaboration (Detail) narrative in lines 208-243 about how the failure of the Third Crusade made the Teutonic Knights turn their eyes from Jerusalem to Europe and consequently to form a state of their own. Narratives with the Elaboration (Detail) function were common in university lectures on history and literature (Takahashi, 2002, pp. 72-74). 2.

Elaboration (Review/Preview) narratives

I refer to sections in which the professor talks about a previous, present or forthcoming lecture in narrative form, making the lecture itself the topic of the lecture, as Review/Preview narratives. Review/Preview is a subfunction of Elaboration, which applies when the topic of the narrative is the lecture itself. The organization of the discourse in (3) is summarized in Figure 3.7 This functional paragraph (lines 52-80) reviews the content of previous lectures, and consists of a Topic Introduction (line 52) and an Elaboration (Review) narrative (lines 53-80). The Elaboration (Review) narrative gives details related to the topic "previous lectures." 52-80 "What the professor talked about previously•

52 Topic Introduction

53-80 Elaboration (Review) narrative

Figure 3. Discourse organization of (3)

7· I excluded lines 57-78 ofthe transcript because they constituted a digression. In these lines, the professor gives details about how the idea of"self" differs between the West and India.

252

Yoshio Takahashi

(3) Atman and Brahman (Buddhism Lecture)

52

x-~

i-tJ:c\

*.-~ *ll~<::i-0i-6tE'?L"v""~*'9iJ\ cttiJ"'~GbtL

vniJ~~.:@~c6~a:.~'9~~ x-~ eO)~ DfitmO)~ :to-~ *"'~~c::id:.:@v kr~'9~1Et~ (4.0):S-~ *~ .{YP'O)~ :to-~ QJ~::V-v'Y P'O)J~HIH<::

:tokr0~ :S~ <:.0)~ I§~J O)mJll~ {I§~

(atman) J ~~}~'9~? E:, sorede, e:, hondai ni sorosoro modotte ikimasu ga, kore kara wareware ga yaru tokoro wa desu ne, e:, kono, zenkai no, o:, tuzuki ni na.ru wake desu ke1·edomo, (4.0) u:, ma, Indo no, o:, Upanisyaddo no sisoo ni okeru, u, kono, "ziga" no mondai, {writes ziga (iitman) on the blackboard}, desu ne? U:h, so, u:h, now (I) will return to the main topic (of today's lecture) now, [but,] what we are going to do today, you know, is, u:h, this, it's that it's a continuation of the previous lecture but, (4.0) u:h, well, this, problem of "selt~" uh, in Upanishadic philosophy, u:h, in India {writes "self (atman)" on the blackboard}, right? ~

53

x-~ *~ -lt:::/.A71J'Yt-~~i~

r:r-t-"<':::/J

~~ .P~t~'tiJ\

c:

0)~ I~Ff~O)#fE~~\1)J:?~<::l/C iJ"'~tl.G~i~!AGt.::O)iJ""~ ~o

E:, ma, Sansukuritto de wa, "'Aatoman" to wake desu ga, kono, ziga no sonzai o dono yoo ni site, karera wa hyoosyoo-sita no ka. U:h, it's that it's "Atman" in Sanskrit. (The question is) how did they(= the Indian people) represent this, existence of the self? ~

54

*-~

i-VC

*.-~

~ki0~<:00)~

*' 1:177"<':.--'J

l§!lU O),fftE~~ *-~ i-tl.iJ""G~ ~1tf0)~ :to-~ q:r~c, l:fi'fJ { l:fi'f (brahman) J ~H}~v""-5~'9~~ *.-~ (3.0)~v""?~ ?-~ <:.0)~ tetJI¥'JiJ::#tE~EO)J:?~c::

!371iJ~-{;if;;~~~~.:@J:'5~<::~ v'~ ~!A'900)iJ'~

ki, ":)*~~ i-0), :to

-~ -~~ 8~'9~7~ i-tt~:to3\SGVr~£"Gt.:o E, sosite, e:, "ziga" no sonzai to, e, sorekara, utyuu no, o:, tyuusin de aru tokoro no, "bon" {writes bon (brahman) on the blackboard} to iu desu ne, e:, ma, "Bumhuman'" (3.0) to iu, u:, kono, zettaiteki na sonzai to

dono yoo ni zibun ga ittaikan o kanziru yoo ni, i, hyoosyoo-suru no ka, a, tumari, sono, o:, koosee, riron desu ne? sore o ohanasi-site kimasita. (Previously) I talked about uh. the existence of the "self," and, uh, the Bon 'the Absolute,' which is, u:h, the center of the universe {writes 'brahman' on the blackboard} right?, u:h, well, (the question of) how is it that the Indian people represent (these) in such a way that they feel themselves to be as one with u:h, this, the absolute being called (3.0) "Brahman," in other words that, u:h, construction, theory, right?

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse :153 ~ 55

i'&Tt~·c x,

.:t? "~ ?, ?, rtlu

t.~t •? 'tO)IJ\ "•0t. "~?c.

e: ~±, &; 0

"~~±, ;t, lfXJ ~t. !?*
lfXJ t.lt''? :G? Tuzuite, e, soo iu, u, "ware" to iu mono ga, iru to iu koto wa, aruiwa, e, "ware" o torimaku kankyoo ga aru to iu koto wa, zitu wa soo iu sekai no naka n~ i:, "1vare" to iu mono ga sonzai-site iru to iu koto ne? Next, uh, the fact that such an, uh, ''I'' exists or, uh, the fact that the ''I'' is surrounded by an environment in fact means that the "I" exists, u:h, in that kind of world, , right? O)iJ:IJ~~.:, ~t~~,

~

56

.:t ? lt' ? 1!!: W 0) id: IJ~ 17 # 1£ l./'C lt ~ ~ t. lt ~ ? c. t. ~i , ~ ~;:: ~ ;t ti, .:t? lt~? t!tW ~i C:? id: 0) t.J•, t. lt~? IUJM~ ag c. '9 :G? Soo iu sekai no naka de sonzai-site iru to iu koto wa, gyaku ni ieba, soo iu sekai wa doo na no ka, to iu mondai o okosu ne? The fact that (it) exists in such a world, on the other hand, raises the question of what is the nature of such a world, right?

~

79

c.? lt~? J.!I!M IJ'~,

<15~, ~ < lli ~tL -r lt"~.:@o

*<15,

.:tn~id:!v t. IJ~

t., t:.? l./C *.:@ b~t17'9~ttLC:to Koo iu riron ga, a:, ooku dasarete iru. Maa, sore o nantoka bukkyoo wa, norikoeyoo to, koo site, kuru wake desu keredomo. f.&~~i, ~!J~xJ:?

Many, u:h, theories of this kind have been presented. Well it's that the (theorists of) Buddhism have been struggling to get over such (theories), but. ~

so

*, <15, ..:ttttJ.!I!M t*~J!~IJ~ ;i5.:@ !v~'91J'~,

::t~,

*'

~

l< ~i A,- 0) C: c.~, c. c. 2, 31!!1 c. 0) 1!!:W 0) ~ ~ 0) fr1H<= -:J 1t ··c BlM~ G-r~-c t-~ 0-b~t 17'9 :Go Ma, a, so1-e mo rimn mo taihen kyoomi ga a1·u n desu ga, e:, ma, wareware wa ima no tokoro, koko ni san-kai kono sekai no keesee no sikata ni tuite, giron o site kite iru wake desu ne. Well, uh, it's that (the discussion on) the theories is also very interesting, but, u:h, well, it's that in the last two or three lectures we have been discussing (the topic of) the construction of the universe, right?

In (3) from the Buddhism lecture, the professor introduces what he talked about in the previous lectures, and reviews some important points from his previous lectures in narrative form. After saying that the lecture is a continuation of the previous one in line 52, he reviews the contents of his previous lectures in narrative form.

254 Yoshio Takahashi

I found Review/Preview narrative in the History lecture, the Statistics lecture, and the Buddhism lecture. These lectures had greater topic continuity with the previous lectures than the Education lecture. 3·

Elaboration (Epitome) narratives

I refer to narratives that embody an abstract idea or a general comment and form a crucial part of the lecture, as Epitome narratives. Epitome is another subfunction of Elaboration. Epitome narratives differ from Detail and Review/Preview narratives (which merely elaborate on topics introduced in the previous context) because they support a previously introduced idea or comment. They differ from Illustration narratives (which merely give an example of a previous statement) because they serve as the very content of the lecture, in addition to giving an example of a previous statement. While Illustration narratives can be forgotten if students understand the definition or comment that they illustrate, Epitome narratives form a crucial part of the lecture. In (4), which is taken from the Education lecture, the professor points out in line 153 that bullying in schools is not only observed in Japan, but is also discussed globally. Subsequently, in his Illustration in lines 154-157 the professor tells the story of the German film "Never Ending Story," whose protagonist is a boy who was bullied in school. (4) Never Ending Story (Education Lecture) 1s1 x- lt , 0 ~ is~ ~ ~ c. t. t2- rm mt;: -t ~ 0) ""f ~i 7J:: ·c r.., 0 ~ n~ ~ iJ::~ t.t-• 5 c. t. n~ IUJ lliJ:: 1v tt t., t.lt' 5 ~ 5 f<=~~O) E

*

<

~12" £ID'? -c

<

lt' <~~n~ ~.@ !v t; ~ iJ::lt• n'o

E:, izime ga aru koto o mondai ni suru no de 1va nakute, izime ga ookiku naru to iu koto ga mondai na n da to, to iu huu ni hassoo no tenkan o hakatte iku hituyoo ga a.ru n zya na.i ka. Uh, (I think) [isn't it the case that] there is a need to promote a change in perspective: rather than making the fact that bullying exists the problem, it's that the fact that bullying (can) get serious is the problem. 1s2

t·, 0 ~n~ ~ .'@ c. t. td:"MI ~.'@'?-cc. t. ~i, t '? t. *""~ aq7J::m£1l)j n~~~ tt t.£5 !v""f"tn\ ~tc!i~if.~Maqt;:~imfll}j""f~"L ~t.J!!. '?L*"9o lzime ga aru koto o mitome1·u tte koto wa, motto kagakuteki na syoomee ga. hituyoo da to omou n desu ga, watasi-ta.ti wa. keekenteki ni wa syoomee-dekite ru to omotte masu.

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 255 It's that although (I) think that (we) need more scientific proof in order to acknowledge the fact that bullying exists, (I) believe that (we) have proven through our experience that bullying in schools is a reality. 153

*"flt~ t:~C:lt •? O)~ii!tmmf'"($A,-Il!JB~<::iJ:?"l ~·~0 2:::~·~-?

c. 2:::"

Mazu izime to iu no wa sekai kakkoku de ima. mondai ni natte iru to iu koto First of all bullying (in schools) has now become a problem in countries all over the world. 154

W ~ fv t.J~ J! tc. ~ li!U "'($, tc. 2::: ;t ~i I.:;. 1->:- :I. / 71 /

*"

/j' A ]'- - l)

- J 7J: fv "l lt ' '? ~ li!U J! t<:. C. 2::: t.J~ ~ !? '9 f.J' tl " Minasan ga m ita eega de, tatoeba "Nebaa Endingu Sutoorii" nante iu eega m ita koto ga. arimasu ka ne. Among the films you have seen, (I) wonder if (you) have seen, for example, the film called "Never Ending Story." ~

155

*

;.;7 0), f'Fiir "'($ '9 t.J~, ~ 0) 1 1->:-x ;.;7 -r;.; J' ? "l lt ~ 5 ~ li!U ~<:: /:H "l <.@ 11' :fF ti ,IJ4 ~ R"J 7J: lt' t: ~

~ 1::: -v x;v. x

A ]'- - l) - J

G .fl.?f-2::: L "lfiif.J'.fl. "lt·~* 'to Mihyaeru Ende no, sakuhin desu ga. a no "Nebaa Endingu Sutoorii" tte iu eega ni dete ku1·u syoonen wa, tenkeeteki na. izimera.rekko to site egaka1·ete imasu. It's (based on) a bookbyMichaelEnde, and uhm the boy in the film called "Never Ending Story" is depicted as a typical bullied kid. ~

156

v~ t: ~ -:J r

~<::

v' t: ~ G .f1. "l ~ ~j' G .f1.-, t

5 ~ ~j' "l ~ k:l" "l, ~

eO).~~~eO)~m••~~~~~bb~'"($'9t\o

Izimekko ni izimerarete nigerare-, moo nigete nigete, koosya no, gakkoo koosya no yaneurabeya ni nigekomu wake desu ne. (He) is bullied as a bullied kid and run-, oh (he), runs away and runs away (from his bullies), and it's that (he) runs away to a room in the attic of the classroom building. ~

157

i"L"l.f-0)1f':f:Fti, 0)

~

*oo t±v 0)

q:T ~<::

-::>v~~<::, I;?~J>:-x;..t71/J'A

t--lJ-J

*" "'f ~ ~j' ~ fv "'f L *" '? 2::: ft ~ '? , ~ .@ it '* "'f ~i, ~

~ t: ~ ;

.n '? r

0) ~

oo "'f '9 tl "

0)

Sosite sono syoonen wa, tuini, "Neba.a Endingu Sutoorii" no hon no naka ni made nigekonde si mau to iu, a1·u imi de wa, a.no eega wa izimerarekko no eega desu ne. And then in the end the boy runs away into (the world of) the book, "Never Ending Story." (Thus,) in a sense, that film is a film about a bullied boy.

256

Yoshio Takahashi

The narrative "Never Ending Story" in lines 155-157 functions on at least three levels as: 1) an Elaboration of the story of the film "Never Ending Story", 2) an Illustration of the comment that the professor makes in line 153, and 3) an Epitome, that is, a primary example of the comment (that bullying can get serious) that the professor makes in line 151. The organization of the discourse at the first two levels is given by the two triangles at the bottom of Figure 4. First, the Elaboration (Detail) narrative in lines 155-157 elaborates the story of the "Never Ending Story," which the professor mentions in line 154. Second, the functional paragraph "Never Ending Story" (lines 154-157) (which consists of the narrative in lines 155-157 together with its introduction in line 154) functions as an Illustration by providing evidence for the professor's preceding general comment that bullying in schools is a global issue (line 153 Mazu izime to iu no wa sekai kakkoku de ima mondai ni natte iru to iu koto 'First of all, bullying (in schools) has now become a problem in countries all over the world.'). 151-157 "There is a need to change perspective"

151 Comment

153-157 Elaboration

"Bullying is a reality" and "Escalation of bullying is the problem"

152 Comment

153-157 Support

155-157 Elaboration (Epitome) narrative

151 Comment

"Bullying has now become a global issue"

153 Comment

154-157 lliustration narrative

"Never Ending Story"

~ 154 Topic Introduction

Figure 4. Discourse organization of (4)

155-157 Elaboration (Detail) narrative

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse %57

Third, as shown by the third triangle up on the right of Figure 4, the narrative "Never Ending Story" in lines 155-157 is an Elaboration (Epitome) narrative, that is, a primary example of the type of bullying (often found in Japanese schools) that gets progressively more serious. The functional paragraph "Escalation of bullying is the problem" (lines 151, 155-157) consists of a Comment (line 151) and an Elaboration (Epitome) narrative (lines 155-157). In (5), the professor's narratives in lines 177 and 178, like the narrative "Never Ending Story" in lines 155-157 in (4), function as Elaboration (Epitome) narratives. After commenting in line 176 that it is more important to prevent bullying from getting serious, rather than to try to eliminate or terminate it, the professor tells two narratives about bullying getting serious in lines 177 and 178 respectively; as primary examples to support his comment. 8 (5) Escalation of bullying (Education Lecture) 176 tliJ•Glt 't::ab~~< .:C? C:iJ\ 45-@v•~i, v-. t::ab~~J!LJ::? C:iJ•lt ,?-g lt•lJO)~~~itJ:<·c Tt•t::ab~:lO:lO<-, :*:~< L~lt"'~J::?~<::LJ::?o

Dakara. izime o nakusoo toka, a.ruiwa, izime o konzetu-siyoo toka iu iikata no taisaku de wa nakute, izime o ooku- ookiku sinai yoo ni siyoo. So, rather than (taking) a countermeasure to eliminate or terminate bullying, (we need to) try to prevent (it) from increas- getting serious. ~

177

tc:C:~.Ji,

v•t::at>GtL"tv•.@-=f{f;l;iJ\ v>t::at>Gn, v•t::~iJ·G~~J"t,

c: lvt!.fvt!.'fv:!::fv~~-J'-r, -::>v '~<=~i9E0)1!!:W*~~~-J'.@ C:v-.? ~?id: .:C? v•? .:r..A"bv- t-, .:cc. *~.:r..A"bv- t- ~-ttid:Tt•- ~Jio Tatoeba, izimerarete iru kodomo ga, izimemre, izime kara. nigete, dondon dondon nigete, tui ni wa si no seka.i made nige1·u to iu huu na esukareeto, soko made esukareeto-sasenai, taisaku. For example, a bullied child is bullied, and runs away from the bullying, and keeps on running and running and in the end runs away into [the world of] death, that kind of escalation, (we need to take) a countermeasure (that prevents) escalation from going to that extreme. ~

178

i"tl.iJ'G, v•t::~.@OOliJ\ 1/ifJJti,J\A.fl..tl--::>tc:O)iJ~tlfvtlfvtlfvtlfv -::>v' ~<:: ti? 7.A~.f*iJ• GV"b t- ~.tttc: I) v' t:; ~~~~1 ~.:C?v•? ~? ~<:::*:~<JJ:GlJ:Tt•, llfH<::, itll::ab~iJ>~J"-Go ,_tLl::iJ~--::> "t,

Sorekara, izimeru gawa ga, saisyo wa syooninzuu datta no ga dandan dandan huku1-eagatte, tui ni wa kurasu zentai kara sikato-sa1-etari izime o ukeru, soo iu huu ni ookiku naranai, mae ni, hadome o kakeru.

8. I have underlined the parts of lines 177-178 that constitute each of the narratives, because the narratives are embedded in these lines.

258

Yoshio Takahashi

Or, [when] (the number of) bullies, though tew at first, gradually increases more and more (until in the end) the bullied (pupils) are ignored and bullied by the whole class. (You must) put a stop (to the bullying) before (it) gets serious in that way. 179

-::>* 1), tj\ ~1J:lt• t::: &~)~ j.;:~ i'J::iO~ G1J:: t-•A.t ~ ~ 1J:lt'i0'~ v' :S 0)1J\ t>tc: G O)~-*l't91J:IUIMJifft17'9o Tu mar~ tiisa na izime o ookiku sinai, sono hadome ga kikanaku natte iru tokoro ni mondai ga aru n da to iu huu ni, mondai o tatenaosita ue de, e:, zya, doo yattara hadome o tukureru no ka, izime o ookiku sinai, e:, hadome wa nani ka, koo iu mondai no tatekata o site ikanai to kekkyoku wa izime taisaku, izime no kaiketu ni wa. tunagamna.i n zya nai ka to iu no ga, watasi no kihonteki na mondai isiki desu. In short, to prevent bullying on the small (scale) from getting serious, (you) have to change your perspective and recognize that the problem is that the brakes that keep bullying from getting serious are not working anymore. U:h, so, my basic sense of the problem is that (you) should think about how (you) can slow (it) down to prevent bullying from getting serious, u:h, what (will work as) brakes and if (you) don't take this kind of perspective on the problem, in the end the measure against bullying, it's that (it) will not succeed in resolving (the problem of the) bullying.

I summarize the organization of the discourse in (5) in Figure 5. The functional paragraph "Escalation ofbullying" (lines 176-178) consists of a General Comment (line 176) and two Elaboration (Epitome) narratives (in lines 177 and 178, respectively). The discourse development in (5) is similar to (4). First, the professor makes a comment that the problem is not that bullying exists, but that it can get serious (line 151 in (4)), and there is a need to prevent bullying from getting serious (line 176 in (5)). Then he tells the story of"Never Ending Story" (lines 154-157 in (4)) and relates two narratives about how bullying can escalate (lines 177-178 in (5)) as Epitome (primary examples) of"bullying getting serious." Thus, the narrative "Never Ending Story" in (4) is not only an Illustration to support the professor's view that bullying is a problem all over the world (line 153), but also an Epitome of the professor's comment that bullying can get serious (line 151). The professor's repetition of the phrase izime o ookiku sinai yoo ni siyoo 'let's prevent bullying from getting serious' (lines 176 and 179 in (5)) makes the

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 259 narrative "Never Ending Story" (lines 154-157) stand out as a concrete and impressive primary example of the professor's comment in line 151. 176-178 "Escalation of bullying"

176

General Comment

177

Elaboration (Epitome) narrative 178

Elaboration (Epitome) narrative Figure 5. Discourse organization of (5)

Presentation ofa Topic/Problem narratives I refer to narratives in which the professor introduces a topic or problem to be interpreted subsequently in the lecture as Presentation of a Topic/Problem narratives. In (6) taken from the Education Lecture, the professor begins with a narrative about a private argument that he had with his wife. Then he demonstrates the relevance of this narrative to education by interpreting the problems they discussed in this argument. The organization of the discourse in (6) is summarized in Figure 6. 9 The functional paragraph entitled "The administrator's view and the teacher's view of bullying" (lines 137-147) consists of a Presentation of Topic/Problem narrative (lines 137-141) and Discussion (lines 146-147). 137-147 "The administrator:S view and the teacher:S view of bullying"

137-147

Presentation of Topic/Problem narrative

146-147

Discussion

Figure 6. Discourse organization of (6)

(6) Argument between the professor and his wife (Education Lecture) ~

1~

~-,~~~~~-~,~~,-~,-~L~~~~~~'~ ~,

fv, lUJJ tt .'f ~ v~ ~ , ;J1{ 7t fl9 ~;: tt .flf v~ ;J1{ 7t ~ Pfr 1!t t2 ~ t<: ~

9· I excluded lines 142-145 of the transcript because the professor digresses there, and the content is not important for my analysis of the function of the narrative in lines 137-141. In lines 142-145, the professor says that it is the second time that he has had a heated argument with his wife, and mentions that the first argument was over kanri kyooiku 'supervisory education' in Japanese junior high schools.

26o

Yoshio Takahashi ~~~,~~5~~•••~~~£L~, r~~k~~~~<

fm1!lH:t2J

'?~ lt'~5 ~5 ~;:,

t2fvt2fv ~'?L '!tcfv ~~:Go

E:, doozi ni moo hito-tu, ano, hito-ban, giron-sityatta no wa, ano, n, saisyo 1va soo iu, zigenteki ni 1va hikui zigen no kenka datta no desu ga, sono uti kyooiku rongi ni na1·imasite, "Anata wa tonikaku musekinin da'" tte iu huu ni, danda.n itte kita. n desu ne. U:h. and at the same time one more, uhm, as for the issue (my wife and I) ended up quarrelling about all night, uhm, uh, it's that at first, that, as far as the level (of quarrelling) is concerned, it's that (it) was a low level quarrel, but the topic soon shifted to a discussion about education, and it's that (my wife) gradually started to criticize me saying "In any case, you are irresponsible", you know. -;) 138

r~fvtcfm1!lH:J:J

0

"Anta musekinin yo." "You are irresponsible, I tell you!" 7

1~

~~~fv~Bbn~n~ko

Kamisan ni iwarehazimeta. (I) began to be told off by my wife (in that way). 7

140

~~;:7J~fm1lH:iJ'~v"5~, r~~<=n'<, ~X1fm.;l§~m6~v•o IX•m.;l§~;:, ~-, :@:<1!ft1l.ff~;:~fvtdi8-::>L.~J

o

Nani ga musekinin ka to iu to, "Tonikaku, kyooiku genba o siranai. Kyooiku genba ni, na.-, mattaku musekinin ni anta wa itte ru."' What (she was) calling irresponsible (was) "In any case you don't know the actual situation in (junior high) school. You are speaking (in such a way that is) totally irresponsible to the actual situation in the schools." -;) 141

x-,

r~.- . . n~n~~~c.~~M!~~v"-::>~v"5~5~<=B5~tnl::
m_;l§~a:.l::ntc:~tv" ~~~m;:, 5 ~~:tJ LL.v"~n'o

1::1: 1v ~ ~;: t2~t

l::, v" ~~-::>~v•5 ~~a:.~tJ,~n•m"jiJ'~v"'t~~fvt2o m,;li,li~f.{ Mi~lfLJPtm;~~.- . . ~, ~!vtdt1/ft1!l.ff~<=v"~3tln~~~c: ~~M! ~~v"~~ill!J9t2~fv L.~-::>L. ~~~a:., ~fv~~~i:Q,

ll!J9t2J o

E:, "Izime ga. aru koto o mitomena.i tte iu huu ni iu keredomo, genba wa. dm·e dake izime o siroo to doryoku-site i1·u ka. Honto ni dakedo, izime tte iu no wa nakanaka kizukanai mono na n da. Genba no kyoosi no kurusimi mo siranai de, anta wa musekinin ni izime ga a.ru koto o mitomenai no wa. mondai da nante itte ru no wa, sonna. no wa. ne, mondai da."' U:h. "(You) say that (the teachers) do not admit the fact that bullying exists, but (you don't know) how hard (we teachers) in the

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse

schools try to identify bullying. But it's that it's really difficult to notice bullying. (You) don't know the efforts (we) teachers in the schools make, and the (real) problem is your saying that teachers are irresponsible for not admitting the fact that bullying exists." 146

a£

rm e

:t cc: ~*M~~ Pif L tr:. t.J~, ~~m ~t. "~ c:; li:> (J) c: c: '9 :G , lt ~ t; li:> t.J~ ;!& 0 ;: C: ~ ~ li:> 0 i:J' ~ li:> id: lt ~ i:J' '? "L lt' -5 (J) t.J~ li M (J) "7! iiUill , x - , v~ 0 v' 0 ~ '? t.:. v kr "7! '9 t.J~ - t.:. ti. ll&

*m

(J),~-~"7!'9:G,~~(J)~:JIU.Im~~~'?C:-M~C~~£

'? tr:. '? "L v' -5 ~·~;t ;!& 0 fv "7! 'to Soko demo daironsoo o yobimasita ga, konkai wa izime no mondai de desu ne, izime ga aru koto o mitomeru ka mitomenai ka tte iu no ga giron no hondai de giron, e:, iroiro yatta wake desu ga, tada ano, hansee wa desu ne, zigen no tigau mondai o tyotto issyo ni gotyamaze ni sityatta tte iu hansee wa a.ru n desu. That led (my wife and me) into a heated discussion, but this time (we) talked about the problem ofbullying, you know, (and) the major topic was whether one can identify the fact that bullying exists or not, u:h, it's that (we) talked a lot (about this). However, just uhm, in retrospect, you know, it's that (I) regret that we ended up confusing problems on [two] different levels. #:~;:: L ~ ~

147

;!&

<*" "7! ~ "~ 1,; li) ~Rf li:>t.: f.J'\ f) id: lt~ c: lt~ -5 ~~ (J)~!J!(J)' 'm'

~~(J)~!J!(J)~~~,~(J)-ll&<*c:~,a•ft~v~~b'?

m

"L lt ~ -5 fv "7! L ~ -5 t.J~ :G , ;'t, ft ~1: (J) !I! C: L "L, ~ -5 lt • -5 i& -fll t-.tm"? "L v' -5 ~ (J) t.J'~ ;!& , <~~~tt "L 0 fvti"? "L v' -5;: C: (J)f!IJmC:, "' t; li:>~R:I!L"L~ t.:.O/!i(J), ~i!l(J) v-"\J!J"?! (J)lt' 1,; li) f.J'\, ~;::id: i:J' id: i:J' ;: ? ~('::5 i:J'id: i:J' '? tc c: lt ~ '? ~;t' ~i )JrJ (J) IUJB!iJ:fvti.kr C:, x- ~tL~;:?, C'?~ ~ ~;:: IAML ~ ~

tsa

rm m **

"?k~li:>K,;'t,-~~*~~-~~?<:C:Kid:"?"LL£'?

tr:., C: 1t'? ~?

~;::,

::t-, i£ <~;t, ;!& , Jl "L 0 -b kr "7! '9o

Aku made mo izime o mitometagaranai to iu kootyoo no hassoo no, kanrisyoku no hassoo no naka ni wa, sono: aku made mo, kikikanri sisutemu tte iu n desyoo ka ne, e, ka.n1"izyoo no ka.dai to site, soo iu saiban taisaku tte iu mono ga, a, irokoku han'ee-sarete ru n da tte iu koto no mondai to, izime o kokuhuku-site kita mono no, zissen no reberu de no izime ga, ni nakanaka koo kizukanakatta to iu mondai wa, honrai wa betu no mondai na n da kedo, e:, sore o koo, gottya ni giron-sityatta tame ni, e, hito-ban enerugii o tukau koto ni na.tte simatta, to iu huu ni, e:, boku wa, a, mite ru wake desu.

261

262 Yoshio Takahashi

One problem is that in the principals' and administrators' conception that does not recognize bullying, tha:t, I wonder if I should I call it the persistent crisis management system?, (there is) a problem that is vividly reflected in (their) tasks managing countermeasures against lawsuits. The other problem is that it is not easy to identify the actual level of bullying (even) for an experienced teacher. It's that although this is a separate problem, u:h, because (we) ended up confusing these (two) problems, (we) got totally exhausted (talking) all night. It's that that's how, u:h, how I uh see (it now). The narrative in lines 137-141 introduces a problem to be discussed and interpreted in the lecture. In these lines, the professor talks about how his wife (a junior high school teacher) criticized him for being irresponsible when he said that schools do not admit that bullying exists, despite the fact that there is evidence for its existence, and pointed out how hard teachers try to identify bullying. Then, in lines 146-147 the professor reflects on this disagreement, and points out that both he and his wife were confusing two different aspects of schools, namely; the administrator's view and the teacher's view. Rapport narratives I refer to narratives in which the professor relates his or her past personal experiences as Rapport narratives, because they help establish rapport by bringing the professor and students together. In (6), the professor's narrative about an argument he had with his wife probably impressed the students and made them feel closer to the professor. In this way, professors' self-disclosure of personal episodes can enhance the rapport they have with their students. 10

Conclusion I have demonstrated that the narratives in my data from four Japanese university lectures had four functions and three subfunctions: Illustration, Elaboration (Detail, Review, Epitome), Presentation of a Topic/Problem and Rapport. I summarize the preceding/subsequent discourse and identification criteria for these narratives in Table 3. All of the functions relate to the discourse organization,

Of course this is not always the case. For example, if the professor appeared to be showing off by telling a personal narrative, it would probably not enhance the rapport between the professor and the students. 10.

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 2.63

Table 3. Preceding/subsequent discourse and identification criteria for narrative functions in university lectures Narrative Function

Precedingf.Subsequent Discoursel-2

Identification Criteria

Illustration

Preceded by an abstract idea, definition (1), comment, statement, view

Provides an explanation/example, of previous abstract idea (1), definition (1), statement; provides support for the professor's previous view

Elaboration (Detail)

Preceded by a topic introduction (2), (4)

Gives details related to/merely elaborates on a previously introduced topic

Elaboration (Preview/Review)

Preceded by a topic introduction (3)

Presents a previous, present, or forthcoming lecture in narrative form; topic of the narrative is the lecture itself

Elaboration (Epitome)

Preceded by an abstract/ general idea, idea, comment, topic introduction (4), general comment (5)

Typical narrative that supports/is related to a previously introduced idea/ comment, embodies an abstract ideal comment, serves as the very content of the lecture, i.e., is a crucial part of the lecture

Presentation of a Topic/Problem

Followed by a discussion(6)

Introduces a topic/problem to be interpreted later in the lecture/in a subsequent lecture

Rapport

Followed by a discussion(6)

with the exception of the final Rapport function which concerns interpersonal communication. While the functions of Illustration, Elaboration (Epitome) and Presentation of a Topic/Problem tended to relate strongly to previous or subsequent parts of the lecture, narratives with the Elaboration (Detail) and Elaboration (Review/ Preview) functions tended to form a relatively independent discourse unitP These tendencies toward Association (the tendency to be a part of larger unit), n. Features of the Previous and Subsequent Discourse are defining criteria in all cases except for Rapport. Although I examined the previous discourse when I analyzed Rapport narratives, it was not a defining criterion for Rapport narratives. 12. In Elaboration (Detail) narratives, because the preceding discourse merely indicates the topic, it is considerably less important than the previous discourse in Illustration, Elaboration (Epitome) and Presentation of a Topic/Problem narratives.

264 Yoshio Takahashi

and Independence (the tendency to create and present a separate world) can be identified in any narrative, though to different proportions, and are worthy of further study. Other areas worthy of future investigation include analysis of the strategies that professors use to introduce, develop and end narratives, and comparison of narratives in university lectures with conversational narratives and narratives in written texts. Finally, analysis of the relationship between the functions of narratives and the subject of the lectures, and professors' individual styles should also prove to be fruitful (Dudley-Evans, 1994; Yamazaki, 1989).

References Chafe, W. (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, a11d linguistic aspects of narrative pro-

duction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: R£.search perspective.s (pp. 146-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karatsu, M. (2004). Verbal and nonverbal negotiation inJ apanese storytelling. InP. Szatrowski (Ed.), Hidde11 a11d ope11 conflict in Japanese conversational i11teraction (pp. 125-161). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black E11glish vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lee, L. (2000). Niho11go bogowasya no zatuda11 11i okeru "monogatari" no ke11kyuu: Kaiwa ka11ri 110 kanten kara [Study on storytelling in spontaneous conversations by Japanese native speakers: From the perspective of conversational management]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Mann, W.C. & Thompson, S.A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: Description and construction oftext structures. In G. Kempem (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics (pp. 85-95). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Mann, W.C. & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281. Matthiessen, C. & Thompson, S.A. (1988). The structure of discourse and 'subordination'. In J. Haiman & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275-329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Maynard, S.K. (1989). Japanese conversation: Selfcontextualization through structure and interactlonal management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Maynard, S.K. (1993). Kaiwa bunseki [Conversation analysis]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Norrick, N.R (2000). Conversational narrath•e: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polanyi, L. (1989). Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Saijo, M. (Research representative) (2007). Heesee 16-18 kagaku kenkyuuhi hojyokin (Kiban kenkyuu (C)) Kenkyuu seeka hookokusyo [Research report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 2005-2007] "Gakusaiteki apurootl ni yoru daigakusee no koogi rikai

Chapter 8. The functions of narratives in Japanese university lecture discourse 2.65

nooryoku lkusee no tame no karikyuramu kaihatu" [Curriculum development for nurturing undergraduate students' lecture understanding capabilities through interdisciplinary approach]. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute of Technology. Sakuma, M. (1987). Bundan nintee no iti-kizyun (I): Teedai hyoogen no tookatu [Criteria for structural analysis of bundan 'grammatico-semantic paragraphs' in Japanese discourse (I): Coherency of topic markers]. Bungee gengo kenkyuu: Gengo hen, 11, 89-135. Tsukuba: Tsukuba University. Sakuma, M. (2006). Bunshoo danwa no bunseki tan'i [Units for analyzing written and spoken discourse]. Gekkan gengo, 35(10), 65-73. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing. Sakuma, M. (Ed.) (2010). Koogi no danwa no hyoogen to rikai [Expression and comprehension of Japanese lecture discourse]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Shigematsu, J. (1987). Daigaku koogi no sutairu bunseki: Daigaku k.oogi o klku koto o mokuteki to sita tyookai yoo tekisuto sakusee no tame ni [Style of university lectures: A pilot study for developing teaching material for listening of university lectures]. Nihongo to Nihongo Kyooiku, 16, 43-51. Tokyo: Keio University. Shigematsu, J. & Haseagwa, T. (1988). Koogi no tyookai sidoo [Teaching of comprehension of university lectures]. Nihongo Kyooiku 0ournal ofJ apanese Language Teaching), 64, 99-108. Takahashi, Y. (1999). Zimon-zitoo keesiki no gimon-hyoogen no seekaku [Characteristks of rhetorkal questions in university lectures]. Waseda Daigaku Niho11go Kenkyuu Kyooiku Sentaa Kiyoo, 12, 55-76. Tokyo: Waseda University. Takahashi, Y. (2000). Koogi ni okeru kurikaesL [Repetition in university lectures]. Waseda Daigaku Nihongo Kenkyuu Kyooiku Se11taa Kiyoo, 13, 155-168. Tokyo: Waseda University. Takahashi, Y. (2001). Koogi naiyoo o koosee-suru kurikaesi nikansuru iti-koosatu [Investigation of the framing function of repetition in university lectures]. Waseda Daigaku Nihongo Kenkyuu Kyooiku Sentaa Kiyoo, 14, 181-199. Tokyo: Waseda University. Takahashi, Y. (2002). Koogi ni okeru 'monogatari' ni kansuru iti-koosatu [Some notes on narratives in university lectures]. Hitotsubasi Daigaku Ryuugakusee Sentaa Kiyoo, 5, 51-76. Tokyo: Hitotsubashi University. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood. NJ: Ablex. Yamazaki, H. (1989). Gakumon ryooiki to zyugyoo [Academk disciplines and university lessons]. In T. Kataoka & K. Kitamura (Eds.), Daigaku zyugyoo no ke11kyuu [Research on university classes] (pp. 78-94). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

CHAPTER9

Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture Telling the story of a haiku Folly Szatrowski University of Minnesota

In this paper, I investigate how a professor fits her story of a famous haiku into the structure of a large lecture and adapts verbal/ nonverbal resources to create involvement. I demonstrate how she uses (1) knowledge questions to establish the tellability ofher story, (2) final particles yo ne 'I tell you, you know' and ne 'isn't it' and the epistemic modal desyo? 'right?' together with pictorial and deictic gestures to request confirmation of common knowledge necessary to understand the circumstances ofthe haiku, and (3) internal evaluation (including contrasting real events with hypothetical ones, repetition, onomatopoeia, changes in pitch, iconic and beat gestures, and eo-construction) to involve her students in the story. Finally. she gives her students a variety of perspectives to consider in their interpretation of the haiku, using quotation on several levels including the haiku itself; the voice of the character in the haiku, her own personal evaluation of the haiku (shifting from distal to direct style) and the voice of hypothetical characters in events that did not actually occur. She also involves her students and gets them to evaluate the events on their own by not making the point of her story/ the haiku explicit until the end of her story.

Stories told by professors in large lectures tend to be monologues with little verbal participation by students, the story recipients. 1 However, previous research 1. I would like to thank Hiroe Akimoto (University of Minnesota) for her assistance in transcribing the gestures in the lecture data for this study. I am also grateful to Dr. Miki Saijo (Tokyo Institute of Technology) and members of the Waseda University WTDK (Waseda Text, Discourse, and Context) research group led by Professor Mayumi Sakuma for allowing me to use the videotape and verbal transcript of the lecture data in this study. I also appreciate the comments Drs. Mariko Karatsu and Chisato Koike gave me on an earlier draft, in particular on casual style and onomatopoeia, respectively. Finally, I am especially thankful to the

268 Polly Szatrowski

suggests that one of the crucial elements of storytelling, "tellability" (that is making the story worth telling), is negotiated in the interaction between the story teller and story recipients (Sacks, 1992; Jefferson, 1978; C. Goodwin, 1984, 1986b; Tannen, 1984, 1987; Mandelbaum, 1987; M. H. Goodwin, 1997; Norrick 2000; Ochs & Capps. 2001). In this study, I will analyze how a professor tells a story in a large university lecture, in particular, what verbal and nonverbal devices the professor uses to create involvement in the storytelling, and suggest similarities and differences between storytelling in large lectures, storytelling in casual conversation, and retellings of an animation (hereafter animation narratives). The data for this study come from a large university lecture entitled Tazyuu 'Multi-layering' given in a class called Bunsyoo Hyoogenron 'Discourse Expression Theory' to approximately 100 undergraduates by a female professor in her 30's in Japan. The opportunity to tell a story arises when a show of hands indicates that the students are not familiar with the famous haiku written by Kaga no Chiyojo in the 1700's given in (1).2 The two-minute story occurs about halfway through the hour lecture.

W ~~~~~~~;~~tGO* Asagao ni turube torarete moraimizu morning glory by well bucket take-PASS receive water "the morning glory! The well-bucket entangled I ask for water" (Yamane, 1996, translated by Ishihashi & Donegan) "By the morning glory the well bucket was taken, (I) borrowed water." (translated by S:zatrowski)

professor in the lecture data (whose name will remain anonymous) for giving me permission to use these data for research. I am also grateful for being given the opportunity to present parts of this work and receive comments at Professor Akira Nakamura's Karuizawa seminar in 2007, and Professor Midori Takazaki's class at Ochanomizu University in 2009. This research was partially funded by a University of Minnesota Faculty Summer Research Fellowship and McKnight Summer Fellowship during summer 2007 and a US Department of Education Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Program Grant, 2008-2010. In addition, this research was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 2005-2007 (Research Theme No. 16520319) "Gakusaiteki apurooti ni yoru daigakusee no k.oogi rikai nooryoku lkusee no tame no karikyuramu kalhatu [Curriculum development for nurturing undergraduate students' lecture understanding capabilities through interdisciplinary approach]." Research representative Miki Saijo (Tokyo Institute of Technology). 2. A haiku is a Japanese poem made up of three phrases of 5, 7, and 5 mora in length. A mora in Japanese is a CV, CyV, V, C unit of equal length in time. The haiku in (1) consists ofthree phrases: A-sa-ga-o ni (5 mora) tu-ru-be to-ra-re-te (7 mora) mo-ra-1-mi-zu (5 mora). Haiku often include a reference to nature, and can have many interpretations. The haiku analyzed here is interpreted as a story.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 269

Previous research The background for this study comes from research on evaluation and gesture, and other storytelling devices. I will begin with a discussion of previous research on evaluation, involvement and gesture, and previously proposed storytelling devices that I found in the data for this study. I will also comment on tendencies for their use in lecture storytelling, storytelling in casual conversation, and animation narratives.

Evaluation, involvement and gesture According to Labov (1972), evaluation is used to convey the point of the narrative, and is pervasive throughout the narrative. Labov (1972) distinguished between "external evaluation" which the narrator expresses directly. and "internal evaluation, which is done more implicitly. He noted that external evaluation is expressed through direct quotes of the characters' impressions of the events, evaluative comments by the narrator (when she/he stops telling the events of the story and expresses the point of the narrative directly). etc. In contrast, internal evaluation is conveyed through the use of intensifiers (gestures, expressive phonology. repetition), comparators, correlatives, explicatives, etc. The use of gestures and comparatives, in particular the use of negatives, is relevant to the present study. Comparators include negatives, futures, modals, quasimodals, imperatives, orclauses, superlatives, and comparatives. According to Labov (1972) negation is related to evaluation, since negation is not something that happens: rather it expresses the defeat of an expectation that something would happen. Negative sentences ... provide a way of evaluating events by placing them against the background of other events which might have happened, but which did not. Comparators, including negatives, compare the events which did occur to those which did not occur. (pp. 180-181)

Based on a comparison of written and spoken discourse, Chafe (1982) noted that features including references to first person and speaker's mental processes, monitoring the information flow, emphatic particles, fuzziness, direct quotes, etc. contribute to involvement in speaking (pp. 46-48). Tannen (1989) referred to involvement strategies as "systematic ways of using language, to create "an internal even emotional connection individuals teel which binds them to other people as well as to places, things, activities, ideas, memories, and words" (p. 229). She characterized high-involvement style by features related to topic (personal topics, abrupt topic shifting, introducing topics without hesitation, persistence by rein troducing the topic repeatedly until it is accepted), pacing (quick speaking, fast turn

270 Polly Szatrowski

taking, avoidance of interturn pause, cooperative overlap, active participation by the recipient), narration strategies (telling a multiple of stories in rounds, internal evaluation by dramaticizing rather than lexicalizing the point of the story), expressive paralinguistics (expressive prosody, marked pitch, amplitude and voice quality, strategic pauses within turns) (Tannen, 1984, pp. 30-31), and repetition. Research on gesture by McNeill (1992) and Szatrowski (2002b, 2007a, 2010) is also relevant to this study. McNeill (1992) identified five gesture types in narrative retellings of a cartoon, three of which were found in the data for this study: iconics, deictics, and beats. !conics are gestures that represent a concrete event, object, or action which is referred to in the accompanying speech. For example, while saying in 260 hikkonuityaeba ii yo ne? '(one) should pull and uproot (it), I tell you, you know?' the professor in my data did a gesture in which she made her right hand (palm down) into a fist as if grabbing something and raised her hand to chest height. This is an iconic because it represents a concrete event in the accompanying speech. Deictics are pointing gestures made with the index finger, hand, head, etc. The professor used a deictic gesture when she pointed with her index finger at parts of a well that she had drawn in the air. Beats are small low-energy quick biphasic movements of the finger, hand, etc. which lack concrete meaning. In previous research on gestures in Japanese animation narratives and university lectures (Szatrowski, 2002b, 2007a, 2010), I identified two additional gestures which might be considered a subset of McNeill's iconics: pictorials and metaphoric-referring iconics. A pictorial is a gesture made by using the index finger, hand, etc. to trace the outline of or draw an object in the air (Szatrowski, 2002b). 3 For example, the professor used a pictorial gesture when she drew the outline of a well with her index finger showing the location of the pulley, rope, buckets, etc., using the gesture space in front of her as a drawing board. I define a metaphoric-referring iconic as an iconic gesture that accompanies a metaphoric reference used to explain an abstract concept in the speech. For example, the professor used a gesture where she appeared to grab something and pull it towards herself together with the word hipparu 'pull' in an explanation of the abstract concept "quotation." Because the iconic gesture accompanies a word expressing a concrete action that is used to refer metaphorically to the abstract concept of"quotation," I call it a metaphoric-referring iconic. An examination of utterances accompanied by gestures to see if their content appeared in students' summaries of the lecture showed that when the professor accompanied her utterances by metaphoric-referring iconics, metaphorics, and beats, the content of these utterances typically appeared in the summaries. This suggests that the 3· Recently, Streeck (2008, 2009) has referred to a similar practice as the depiction method of"drawing."

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture XJ1

professor used these gestures to emphasize important points in her lecture (Szatrowski, 2007a, 2010). 4 In contrast, the professor used pictorial gestures, deictics, and iconics when she told the story of the haiku analyzed below, and beat gestures to emphasize the point of the story. The utterances accompanied by these gestures did not appear in the students' summaries.

Storytelling devices In this section I will give an overview of the storytelling devices observed in the lecture storytelling for this study (summarized in Table 1), while reviewing relevant previous research. Unlike storytelling in casual conversation in which participants often negotiate the story and the evaluation together, the lecture storytelling had little active recipient participation. I will give a brief overview of the devices in Table 1. and suggest ways in which their use may difter across the three genres: storytelling in casual conversation, lecture storytelling, and animation narratives. 1.

Topical coherence

Topical coherence refers to the need to fit a storytelling into the prior topic sequence in order to make it tellable (that is worth telling) (Sacks, 1992; Jefferson, 1978; Karatsu, 2004a, 2004b; and others). In animation narratives, there is no need to create topical coherence with the previous conversation because the informants simply come in, tell the story of the animation, and leave. However, in casual conversations as well as lectures, there is a need to fit storytellings into the prior topic sequence. While the participants are relatively free to create topics as Table 1. Storytelling Devices 1. Topical Coherence

2. Knowledge Questions

3. Groundwork, Confirm Circumstances yo ne, desyo? 4. Evaluation

a. Gesture b. Comparators c. Repetition (for Evaluation, Clarification) d. eo-construction e. Onomatopoeia f Casual utterances (direct style, fillers, laughter, contracted forms)

4·

Metaphorics are gestures which present the image of an abstract concept (McNeill, 1992).

272 Polly Szatrowski

they go along in casual conversation, the topics of a lecture tend to be pre-determined. In the lecture for this study, the professor lectured using a handout that she had prepared for that day, and connected her story with the overall topic structure of her lecture. 2.

Knowledge questions

The storytellings in all three genres can start with knowledge questions, that is, questions that confirm potential story recipients' knowledge of information related to the story. For example, an animation narrative can begin with a question that confirms knowledge of a story character such as Pinguu tte sitte ru? 'Do you know Pingu (the penguin character in the animation)?' Sacks (1992) has noted that prospective story tellers use story prefaces to ask prospective story recipient(s) if they want to hear the story, and "request formats" to ask for information which they need to tell the story (Vol. II, p. 229). Prior to the lecture story, the professor asked the students if they knew the haiku in (1), and finding from a show of hands that few students did, went on to tell the story. In this way she is able to make her story tellable because telling the story will fill the students' knowledge gap. Unlike casual conversation, in which recipients may give the story teller a more explicit "go-ahead"5 to tell the story, the students in the class did not specifically ask the professor to do so. However, if more students had known about the haiku, the story would probably have been less tellable. 3·

Groundwork, confirming circumstances (yo ne, ne, desyo?)

Participants' knowledge of the world, specifically, the "social circumstances" (Sacks, 1992, Vol. I, p. 15) and "the particular circumstances under which a story is entered" (Jefferson, 1978, p. 224), are important for establishing "tellability." Karatsu (2004a) refers to utterances that confirm circumstances as sitazi-zukuri 'ground work,' and demonstrates that the way that the story teller forms her story. including the "'circumstances' the participants create" when the story is introduced, "affect the development" and "how the story recipients understand and appreciate the story" (p. 57). She found that utterances that confirm circumstances in Japanese storytellings in casual conversation ended with modal tags such as desyoo? 'right?' (TAG), zya. nai 'isn't it?', and final particles yo ne 'you know, weren't you' and often confirmed basic information that was crucial to

5· A "go-ahead" response "promotes progress ofthe sequence by encouraging its recipient to go ahead with the base FPP [First Pair Part] which the 'pre' was projecting" (Schegloff, 2007, p. 30).

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture X73

understanding the main point of the storytelling (Karatsu, 2004a, p. 59). 6 She also demonstrated that a common sequence for introducing a story was "Story teller: confirmation requesHRecipient: confirmation7Story teller: story." In the lecture analyzed in this study, the professor used utterances ending in desyo? 'right?', and the final particles yo ne literally, 'I tell you, you know' and ne 'isn't they' (all similar to tag questions) in the beginning of her story, to confirm basic information crucial for understanding the haiku, specifically the construction of the well the turube 'well bucket,' etc? 4·

Evaluation

There has been a wealth of research on evaluation and assessment in conversation (Labov, 1972; Polanyi, 1979; M. H. Goodwin, 1980, 1997; Tannen, 1984, 1987; C. Goodwin, 1984, 1986a, 1986b; C. Goodwin & M. H. Goodwin, 1987, 1992; M. H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 2000, 2001; Norrick., 2000; and others). Despite the fact that the students (the story recipients) could not participate actively in the lecture, I observed a great deal of internal evaluation in the lecture through the professor's gestures, comparators (Labov, 1972), repetition (for evaluation and clarification), eo-construction, onomatopoeia, and laughter. She also used external evaluation when she evaluated the haiku and the events in the haiku explicitly in her utterances at the beginning and end of the story. The professor used pictorial gestures and deictics to establish the groundwork for her story, beats for emphasis, and large iconic gestures to make her storytelling more vivid. In particular, her use of iconic gestures as comparators to contrast events that occurred with ones that did not occur allowed her to juxtapose the ordinary brutal treatment of plants with Chiyojo's caring and gentle attitude, and highlight the point of her story. Previous research on repetition has shown it has a multiple of functions including emphasis, clarification, and evaluation (Tannen, 1984, 1987; Nakada, 1991; Kumagai, 2004, and others). Repetition was used in the lecture similar to Similarly, Maynard (1989) has pointed out that epistemic modal forms in Japanese can be used for "overt confirmation of new information" (p. 101), and Szatrowski (1994) has demonstrated that the epistemk modal desyoo functions to "(1) retrieve information for further predication ... , (2) provide a focus/theme for subsequent utterances ..., and (3) provide a basis for subsequent discourse" (pp. 534-536). Hasunuma (1995) claimed that daroo (direct style variant ofdesyoo) 'right, isn't tt; zya nai (ka) 'isn't it ...?', andyo ne 'isn't it?' to evoke common recognition, and are often used to introduce a new topic. 6.

7·

These utterances have a function similar to what Onuma (2003, 2007) refers to as the

zyoohoo huyo 'information supplying/giving' function of maeoki 'prefaces' in Japanese written and spoken answers to yes/no questions.

274 Polly Szatrowski

the way it is used in casual conversation to foreground the sequence of events and for clarification. In the lecture, the professor used repetition for evaluation, specifically she repeated the event of the morning glory wrapping itself around the well-bucket rope, while contrasting it with events that did not occur (pulling out the morning glory from the roots or snapping it offby lowering the the well bucket into the well with force). In addition, in casual conversation, story tellers may repeat something to upgrade the recipient's response. 8 Many studies have noted the use of eo-construction in Japanese conversation, in which one or more participants completes a noun phrase, clause, sentence, complex sentence, etc. begun by another participant(s). By leaving syntactic units unfinished, speakers invite other participants to project the ends of their utterances and participate in the eo-creation of these utterances (Ono & Yoshida 1996; Szatrowski, 2002a, 2002c, 2003b, 2007b; Hayashi, 2003a, 2003b; and others). Although it is difficult for students to respond vocally to an utterance initiating a eo-construction in a lecture, the professor repeated events in unfinished sentences. By leaving it open for the students to fill in the end of her utterances, she gave them an opportunity to participate silently in the eo-construction of the evaluation. I also observed several uses of onomatopoeia in the lecture. The large number of onomatopoeic expressions in the lecture may relate to the fact that this professor is an authority on the use of onomatopoeia in Japanese literature. Onomatopoeia is a device that could be used in all three conversational genres. Finally, the professor often became more casual,9 showing her inner side and giving her personal thoughts by using self-directed utterances and style shifting from distal style (presenting her "professional self' (Cook, 2009, p. 18)) to direct style (which "foregrounds the innate self, a stance that is the spontaneous expression of the speaker" (Cook, 2009, p. 15)).10 These utterances often contained fillers and contracted forms, suggesting that they were more spontaneous than the The professor appears to repeat events for this purpose, in particular when her repeated gestures became larger (frame grabs 264-6~264-7~265-3), but it was difficult to see whether this made a difference in students' response. A future study of lecture storytelling including analysis of students' facial expressions and posture changes should shed further light on this question.

8.

9· Jorden with Noda (1987) characterize casual style in Japanese as having more direct-style predicates, fragments, contracted forms, shorter, simpler sentences, and "sentence particles, particularly those marked as colloquial, assertive, confirmatory, brusque, coarse, etc." (p. 227). I use the term distal style to refer to more formal final predicate forms (N desu, A-I desu, V-masu, etc.), and direct style for less formal final predicate forms (N da, A-I, V-ru, etc.) (Ikuta, 1982; Jorden with Noda, 1987). In the examples in this chapter, utterances not marked DIRECT are in distal style. Jones & Ono (2008) demonstrate many ways in which style shifting occurs in Japanese, and Suzuki (2008) investigates the relationship between speech level shift and functional paragraphs in university lectures. 10.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 275

utterances planned for her lecture. She also laughed over her utterances appearing to indicate what she personally found humorous. However, there was no audible laughter returned by the students on the tape. One might expect that more laughter would be returned in storytelling in casual conversation and animation narratives in which there is more eye contact and less physical distance between the participants.U

Analysis: The lecture storytelling In my analysis I will address the questions of how the professor introduces the story of the haiku in relation to previous talk, how she develops the story, and how she ends the story. In particular, I will focus on the professor's use of gestures and other storytelling devices (discussed in the previous section) to create involvement and establish the tellability of her story. The professor's story was topically coherent with the content of the lecture as shown in the overall structure of the lecture given in Table 2.12 The story occurred during the professor's discussion of4c.Anzi Inyoo 'Suggestive Quotation,' after her explanation of a suggestive quotation which was used in Example 72 on the handout. Example 72 was a passage from the novel "Botchan" which contained a partial quotation of Chiyojo's haiku in (1). Anzi Inyoo 'Suggestive Quotation' is a partial quote that is meant to get the reader/hearer to think of the whole quotation and find its relevance in the context. The professor illustrates "Suggestive Quotation" with Example 71 first, and then with Example 72, which leads to her story about the haiku. Example 72 is a section from "Botchan,"13 a famous novel by Natsume Soseki, in which there is a suggestive quotation that refers to the haiku by Chiyojo, given in (1) at the beginning of this paper. After the professor explains Botchan's suggestive quotation, she tells the story of the haiku that was suggested by Botchan's quotation, and gives an explicit explanation of the meaning of the haiku. Then she returns to her discussion of Botchan's quotation saying that it is a parody as well as a suggestive u. However, as Nesi (2007) demonstrated, the content of a lecture also has a lot to do with when students laugh. 12. In Table 2, "Examples 1, 2, 3" etc. given in parentheses are examples from the lecture handout. The literary workl author to the left of the < contains a quotation from the literary workl author to the right. Thus, "Botchan" < Chiyojo means that the novel "Botchan" contained a quotation from the author Chiyojo.

"Botchan," a novel written in 1906 by Natsume Soseki, is about how Botchan, a math teacher from Tokyo, gets a job in a traditional town called Matsuyama on the island ofSh!koku, and how he deals with the life and customs there.

13.

276 Polly Szatrowski

Table 2. Overall structure of the lecture entitled Tazyuu 'Multi-layering' (Szatrowski, 2007a, 201 0) 1. Dazyare 'Puns' (Examples 1, 2, 3) 2. Parod(e)l 'Parody' (Example 3) 3. Inyoo 'Quotation' (Example 68 Ryuunosuke Akutagawa <Pascal) 4. Kingen Siyoo 'Use of golden (famous) words' (Example 68, Example 69 Tan Onuma < Juntokuin, Example 70 Doppo Kunikida < Buson) a. Meez"l Inyoo 'Clear Quotation' (Examples 68, 69) b. In Inhoo 'Hidden Quoting' (Example 70) c. Anzi Inyoo 'Suggestive Quotation' 1) Example 71 2) Example 72 "Botchan" < Chiyojo a) Botchan's suggestive quotation ~L Story of the haiku suggested by Botchan's quotation iL Meaning of the haiku b) Botchan's quotation as a parody, suggestive quotation c) A bonus discussion ofBotchan's true character 5. Parod(e)i 'Parody' (Examples 74, B-1, B-3, 73, B-4, B-2)

quotation, and finally she adds a bonus discussion of Botchan's true character. Thus, Professor S fits her story into the overall topic structure of her lecture, maintaining topical coherence. The story of the haiku suggested by Botchan's quotation is an example of what Takahashi (Chapter 8, this volume), refers to as a "Post-prepositional Narrative"14 because it is preceded by a proposition in the lecture (that is, the professor's explanation of suggestive quotation) and provides an explanation or gives an example related to that proposition.

Previous talk: Botchan's suggestive quotation (229-242) As shown in (2) below, prior to the story, Professor S looks at her handout and mentions that she thinks that the students will be able to understand Example 72 better than the previous one in utterances 229-242, and then adds in 230 Eeto, "Bottyan" desu. 'Uhm, (it's) "Botchan" (a famous novel).' Then, she gives background information about the character Botchan, specifically; that he was appointed to a teaching position in Matsuyama, a place famous for writing haiku, where there have been many people who write and appreciate haiku (231-233). Her utterances in this explanation end with the epistemic modal desyo? 'right?' (231) 14. In Chapter 8 (this volume), Takahashi analyzes the types of narratives that occur in lectures based on their textual and interpersonal functions.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 277

and final particles yo ne 'I tell you, you know' (232, 233) and ne 'you know' (229, 233, 235, 240, 242), which confirm and request agreement with this information. ProfessorS reveals her private inner self during her self-directed utterances in direct style in 234 and 235. In 234, she pauses for 1.0 second in the midst of asking herself Kekkoo, (1.0) huukoo meebi na no ka na:, '(I) wonder if it's that (there is) quite, (1.0) scenic beauty (there),' and continues her utterance after the filler nanka 'somehow.' In 235 she laughs at the fact that they even read haiku in the faculty room, perhaps finding this humorous to imagine because she herself is a professor. Then, she asks herself whether she has the facts straight, and her use of the filler nanka 'somehow' and the contraction at the end of her self-directed question suggests that she is being more casual and is uncertain about the details (kottooya no, gesyukuya. no oya.zisan ga kottoo ka nanka yatte n no ka na? 'it's that (I) wonder whether it's that the owner of the lodging house is into antiques, or something?'). Although people in Matsuyama write and appreciate haiku, Botchan is an exception, because as Professor S notes in 236 De, Bottyan suugaku no sensyu-, sensee de, zenzen sono, huuryuugokoro ga (0.6) nai to. 'And, (they say) Botchan is a math teach-, teacher and, has absolutely no uhm, elegance.', that is, he is not refined enough to write haiku. However, in 237 she mentions that in spite of this, someone approached Botchan and asked him to join them, and begins reading the passage from the novel "Botchan" in Example 72 on the handout; "simai ni hanasi o kaete 'kimi haiku o yarimasu ka' to kita kara, koitu wa taihen da to omotte, 'haiku wa yarimasen, sayoonara' to, sokosoko ni kaette kita. "'at the end (he=someone) changed the subject, and (asked) 'Do you write haiku?' so, thinking this guy is a problem, (I=Botchan said) '(I) don't write haiku, Goodbye,' and came home in a hurry.' 15 Next, Professor S continues to read from the handout about what Botchan was thinking as he went home in 238 H okku wa Basyoo ka kamiyuidoko no oyakata no yaru mon da 'Haiku are things for Basho (famous haiku poet in the 1600's) or the master of the hair dresser to write', followed by Botchan's self-addressed rhetorical question in 239 Suuga.ku no sensee ga asagao ya (ni) turube tomrete tamaru mono ka."' 'Can a math teacher bear "by the morning glory the well bucket was taken?"' The quote from "Botchan" in 239 is a suggestive quotation because it contains the first two phrases of Chiyojo's haiku given in (1). After the professor finishes quoting the passage from "Botchan" on the handout, there is a pause and two fillers, and then she adds her own casual assessment ofBotchan 15. Professor S's utterances in 237 and 238 end in direct forms the common style used in writing, in particular, novels) because she is reading the example on the handout, rather than a shift to a more casual style.

278 Polly Szatrowski

with a laugh that suggests she personally finds his behavior funny in her utterance ending in direct style in 239 (0.8) ma:, ano, isee @no@ ii '(0.8) well, uhm, (he=Botchan) is @high@ strung.' Next, Professor S sums up the section in 240 De, koo monku 'And, (he) is complain(ing) like this,' using an iconic/beat gesture for the first time in the storytelling. Specifically, holding her right hand in the shape of Botchan's mouth (right palm front and down, fingers together extended forward, thumb below other fingers), she beats forward twice, once on the right side of her body and once in front of her right side at chest height. This gesture highlights Botchan's complaining behavior. Then Professor S brushes her hair aside, and holding her hand out to her right side at chest height, she continues in 241 Naisin de itte n da kedo, toriaezu yarimasen yo. 'It's that (he's) saying (this) to himselfbut, "for now (I= Botchan) don't write (them), I tell you.'" Then, she adds in 242 Tada, yaranai kedo, kon gurai wa sitte n da tte iu no ga wakaru n desu ne? 'But, although (he) doesn't write (them), it's that (one) can tell that it's that (he) knows (about them) to this extent at least, you know?' These utterances are important because they connect to a point that she makes later in her lecture that Botchan actually does know about haiku. She also mentions later that due to the omnipresence of haiku in this era of Japanese history, they were often quoted, as in Botchan's suggestive quotation, and these utterances lead to the bonus discussion of Botchan's true character after her story. The Lecture Storytelling16: (2) Example 72 "Botchan" < Chiyojo a. Botchan's suggestive quotation 229

*tt t:> iJ'.@

0) :~J~- fJ;{ tdlff ~

"9.

sr m0) t

0) 7J:: 1v ~

-t kr ~ ~

72

7J:: 6 b iJ'.@ iJ' 7J::-:> -r v'-? c. 2:: ~ Mada wakaru no ga • nita anzi inyoo no mono na n desu kedo, 72 nara wakaru lea na tte iu ~ One that (is easier to) understand, ~t's that (it) is a similar "anzi inyoo" (suggestive quotation) example, but, if (it)'s 72 the fact is (you) can understand (it), 230

;t-2::~

li:fti'?!> ~fv.!J

~"to

Eeto, "Bottyan" desu. Uhm, (it's) "Botchan" (a famous novel). 16. The Appendix in Chapter 1 gives information about the Romanization, transcription conventions, and the English translation used in the examples. Notation for nonverbal behavior is given in the Appendix to this chapter. Overall the Japanese transcript follows Sakuma (2010, pp. 281-282) but changes have been made to reflect pause and other prosodic features, and the Romanization, English translation and notation for nonverbal behavior are by Szatrowski.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 279

231

~ -~ f~ u.r ~;: jft.ff L, t.::~ De:, Matuyama ni hunin-sita A:nd, (he) was appointed (to a teaching position) in Matsuyama,

232

..

233

1J::~;: G~lEWdT-:IJlO)~ l±\tdWt2G~ et~ et ~1J::fviJ"\

~~ f~JlrtiA,-~et.U~lfiO) -{~ ;_!}- ~~ ~ *'9. . De,Matuyamawaimademohaikainoibentooyarimasu~ And, as for even now they have haiku poetry events,

•

!.ifv1J::fv~'9

.UHU§-1*.

Nani siro Masaoka Siki no, deta tokoro da si, motomoto nanka, sakan na n desu . . . haiku zitai. In any case, (it)'s the place where Shiki Masaoka 17 came from, and what's more, somehow it's that (they=haiku) are popular, haiku the very t h i n g , -

234

-*i!i W~ (l.O)B. 7't IIJJ 911J:: 0) iJ'1J:: - ~ 1J:: fv iJ' ~ Ill ~ .;1j. fv 1J:: tr iJ' G (DIRECT) M< t.:: 0 Kekkoo, (1.0) huukoo meebi na no ka na:, nanka, wari to (DIRECT) minna mukasi kara yomu hito ga ookatta. (I) wonder if it's that (there is) quite, (1.0) scenic beauty (there), somehow, relatively everyone since old times there have been a (DIRECT) lot of people who wrote (haiku there).

235

~~ -rm~O)*Jl~ etw.J<
.:@@ G-~

45 ~~

llliR~@~

et @ij
*•~ 0)~ -rm~ O)*Jl~ ~ fviJ~'I!tliiJ'1J::fviJ' ~ "?

-r

(DIRECT) fvO)iJ>;i'J::? ~~ i!tlillll!*t2L,.U~-·I!*t2L,. De, gesyukuya no oyazi mo yomu si:, ato, syokuinsitu @de mo@ yon@de ru@ si:, kottooya no, gesyukuya no oyazisan ga kottoo ka nanka yatte n no ka na? de, kottoo syumi da si hai(DIRECT) lcai syumi da s i . And, the owner of the (Botchan's) lodging house also writes them, and what's more, in addition, @even in@ the faculty room (people) are @reading@ (them), and what's more, it's that (I) wonder whether it's that the owner of the lodging house is into antiques, or something, and (he has) an antique hobby, and (DIRECT) what's more, a haiku hobby, a n d , -

236

~~ :11i-:>!>~fv~~O)-ttfvGI9>-~ ~~~~ ~f&~O)~

JL' iJ~ (0.6)1J:: v' ~ o 17. Sh!ki Masaoka is a famous ha!ku poet.

.m.rm

28o Polly Szatrowski

De, Bottyan suugaku no sensyu-, sensee de, zenzen sono, huuryuugokoro ga (0.6) nai to. And, (they say) Botchan is a math teach-, teacher and, has absolutely no uhm, elegance. 237

1J: 0) ~<:: ~lt ~ -c <:@ tJ~ G- ~ Ift1Jf ~<:: ~~ tJ~ ;:t -c 'tiJ'.!I C:*t<:tJ~ G~ <: lt~-:::>t;t::k~t2C:J!t '? -r~

li'tf.U~i!J ~ ~ ~

li'.UH!Ht~ ~

lv~ ft:~1J:G.!I C:~ ~<:~<:~<::!J$"?"L*t<:o

*

*1t

(DIRECT)

Na no ni kiite kuru kara:, "Simai ni hanasi o kaete 'kimi haiku o yarimasu ka' to kita kara, koitu wa taihen da to omotte, 'haiku wa yarimasen, sayoonara' to, sokosoko ni kaette kita. (DIRECT) In spite of (this), (someone) comes asking (him) so, "In the end (he=someone) changed the subject, and (asked) 'Do you write haiku?' so, thinking this guy is a problem, (I=Botchan said) '(I) don't write haiku, Goodbye,' and came home in a hurry. (DIRECT)

238

Hokku wa Basyoo ka kamiyuidoko no oyakata no yaru mon da. (DIRECT) Haiku are things for Basho (famous haiku poet in the 1600's) or the master of the hair dresser to write. (DIRECT) 239

lk ~ 0) 9r; ~ tJ~ ~m ~ o<= )i9 mi c: ; '? ~

(0.8)*-~

;If, 0)~

.n -c m:@
Hi!G~@O)@lt~lt~o

(DIRECT)

Suugaku no sensee ga asagao ya (ni) turube torarete tamaru (DIRECT) mono ka." to iu, (0.8) ma:, ano, isee @no@ ii.

240

241

Can a math teacher bear 'by the morning glory the well bucket was taken?'" (0.8) well, uhm, (he=Botchan) is @high@ strung. (DIRECT) ~[p <:'? !2_lvi!Jl< 1-g"?-c.@C:<:~> (DIRECT) De [p ko£!!!2nku] <1itte ru toko ~ (DIRECT) And[l' (he) is complain(ing) like this,] <1(this) is the place where (DIRECT) (he says t h a t ) , - ? > I1~ JL' ~ -g '? lv t2 ~:r ~ ~ I& ~ ;If, ::t '9'"2 ~ ~ 1tlv J: o

-c

[ 1Naisin

*

de itte n da kedo, toriaezu 2 yarimasen yo.

[ 11t'sthat (he's) 2 don't write

242

saying (this) to himselfbut, "for now (I=Botchan) (them), I tell you."

G 1J:t-~ ~r ~~ 3 <: lv <~ G t-~ ttru '? -c lvt2 '? -c t-~ .j_ tJ~t>tJ~ ,'@fv ~'9· t<:t2~ ~

0)

Tada,yaranai kedo, 3 kon gurai wa sitte n da tte i41£!!!,ga wakarundesu.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 2111

But, although (he) doesn't write (them), it's that (one)~ it',.! that (he) knows (about them) 3to this extent at least, - -18

Introducing the story 1.

Knowledge questions and background information about Chiyojo (243-247)

Next, in 243-247 ProfessorS asks three knowledge questions, to determine how many students know the haiku in Botchan's suggestive quotation. Her question in direct style in 244 addresses the students casually, and elicits their physical response through a show of hands. Then, her subsequent self-directed question in direct style in 247 reveals her personal assessment of the resulting show of hands, i.e., that few students know the haiku. 145 ~ ISJ{ J ~ I~ Jfi ~ GtL "C J -:> "C lt ~ -5 0) iJ~ 45 tL ~i, ~ -:> ~ J: ~:Hit>:IJ~.G.A~lt~~ L, J:? Ano:, "asa]gao" to "turube torarete" tte iu no ga areba, sakki no "noibara" yori wa wakaru hito ooi desyo? Uh:m, if (you) have (the expressions) "morning glory" and "well bucket was taken," there are more people that understand (this example) than the previous "noibara" 'field rose tree' (example) at least, aren't there?

243 45 0) -

,

0) IJY~J

244 <: tL ~ -:> "C .Q .A, 2:: !v <~ G lt ~ lt ~ .Q ?

(DIRECT)

Kore sitte ru hito, don gurai iru? (DIRECT) About how many people are there (who) know this (haiku)? (DIRECT) 245 ~ lt ~ t<: <: ~ 45 .Q J: -:> "C lt ~ -5 .A ti o Kiita koto aru yo tte iu hito wa. (How about) people who (can) say "(I)'ve heard it, I tell you"? 246 (2.0)45 tL? (2.0)Are? (2.0)What? 247 ~ t ' <: !v ~ lJ' ~ 0 Demo, konna ka na. But, (I) wonder if (there are) this (few who know it).

(DIRECT) (DIRECT) (DIRECT)

The fact that few students are familiar with the haiku makes it appear that she treats the lack of a show of hands as a "go-ahead" to tell the story of the haiku, and helps establish the "tellability" of her potential story in order to fill their knowledge

18. The order of gestures is reversed in the English translation due to differences in English and Japanese word order in 242 and 268 below.

282

Polly Szatrowski

gap. 19 The professor takes the students' lack of knowledge about the haiku into consideration in designing her story for her story recipients. Professor S gives background information about the writer of the haiku, Chiyojo in 248-251 using utterances ending in ne 'you know' and yo ne 'I tell you, you know'. This background information functions in a way similar to a reference to the person from whom the story was received, one of the features of Sack's story preface (Sacks, 1974, 1992). Chiyojo is the original author of the haiku, which turns out to be a story. 20 I consider ProfessorS's story (the story of the haiku that Chiyojo created) to be a story because it has 3 events that occur in succession in time. Professor S's characterization of the haiku as "famous" in 251 contributes to the tellability of her prospective story of the haiku.21 248

db 0) -~ blt:R=fft:t(-:>"tlt~ '5.AiJ~ lt~.@lv ~'9. Ano:, Kaga no Tiyozyo tte iu hito ga iru n desu Uh:m, it's that there is a person called Chiyojo from K a g a , -

249 bit.~ '9 :IJ~ fh :fi Ill JJf!: :IJ~ 0

Kaga desu kara, Isikawa-ken ka. (It)'s Kaga, so Ishikawa Prefecture, huh. 250 .'f <: 0) =fft ~ !v ~

Soko no Tiyo-san desu (It)'s Ms. Chiyo of that place, 251

~- ~

*-• JIO) ± tst.:

*

"":>

tc:.Ad}. tc: lt~ 1J:: 1v ~ -t ~:r ~ ~ .'f 0) ~m 0) q:.

~ Wl< tL tc: :t(-fi fi91J::#~i!J -:>"tlt~ '5 .@ ~ ~~;: <: tLlf~;i'J::/v ~'9-

<: ~ ~ ~ db 0)- ~

*- J: <M

:IJ~ tL

De:, ma: hutuu no syuhu datta hito mitai na n desu kedo, sono seekatu no naka de yomareta zyoseeteki na haiku tte iu koto de, ano:, ma: yoku kikareru, toku ni kore yuumee na n desu •

19. It may be that the professor told the story of the haiku because she had planned to do so before her lecture, and would have done so regardless ofthe students' show ofhands. However, what is important here is that the story developed as if the lack of hands gave her the "goahead" to tell the story. If most of the students had raised their hands she might have changed her plan and chosen not to tell the story, or would certainly have told l:t in a different way. 20. Although some may interpret a haiku simply as a visual image, the professor who tells the story of the haiku here makes it dear that a haiku can also be interpreted as a story. 21. Georgakopoulou (2007) has suggested that an important feature of small stories is that they contain songs, places, etc. that are shared by the group. This story could be interpreted as the reverse, that is, by telling the story of the haiku, the professor gives the students the opportunity to share the story, which could lead to the formation of a community of participants who know the haiku, read "Botchan," etc. (personal communication, Mariko Karatsu, 2010)

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 283

A:nd, we:ll it's that (she) was a regular housewife but, being a feminine haiku that was written in that daily life, uh:m, we:ll (it) is an often heard, it's that in particular this one is f a m o u s , -

Developing the story: Story of the haiku suggested by Botchan's quotation (252-268) 1. Abstract of the story of the haiku (252)

Professor S's story of the haiku suggested by Botchan's quotation begins in 252 where she quotes the full version of Chiyojo's haiku. This serves as an abstract of her potential story (Labov, 1972). The repetition of her previous assessment 251 in her announcement of the haiku in 252 "..." tte iu yuumee na ku ga arimasu. 'There is a famous haiku "..."',further establishes the tellability of her prospective story. This announcement is similar to what Mandelbaum (1987) refers to as an "announcing turn," and Maynard's (1989) "title-like theme announcement." In addition, her change in posture at the end of this utterance (she reaches her right hand out to the right and down on the desk and then leans on it) suggests her decision to tell the story. 22 252

2.

*

IOJUJ{ ~;: i9 Jf& 2:: 6 tl. "L "L v~ -'5 fl'~ 1J:-t!J :IJ\15 0 "9o "Asagao ni turobe torarete moraimizu" tte iu yuumee na ku ga arimasu. There is a famous haiku "By the morning glory the well bucket was taken, (I) borrowed water."

Confirmation of background information about the well structure (253-255)

Next, Professor S lays the groundwork and confirms the circumstances for her story with a sequence of utterances ending with the final particles yo ne 'I tell you, you know' in 253 to 255. In these utterances she gives information and requests agreement/ confirmation related to words in the haiku. Her utterance in 253 is accompanied by a pictorial gesture in which she actually draws the structure of the well in the air. Using pictorial gestures she explains that there is a pulley on top (253-2) (laughing as if amused by her drawing when she says in 253 kassya n @natte te@ '@there's@ a pulley, and') and ropes on both sides (253-3, 253-4) with buckets attached (253-5, 253-6).23 Using this picture in

22.

For an analysis of the relation of posture changes and non-gestura! body movements to

wadan units in lectures, see Szatrowski (2008). 23. The numbers indicated here in parentheses (#-#) indicate (utterance number-gesture number), and correlate with the numbers in the frame grabs above the utterance. The gesture number correlates with the gesture subscript number in the utterance, and the stroke (main part of

284 Pally Szatrowski

the air, she points out that if you lower one of the buckets down into the well making the sound GA:: (an onomatopoeic word expressing a loud scraping noise), and then pull on the other empty bucket, the bucket down in the well will come up with water. Utterance 253 ends with the final particles yo ne 'I tell you, you know.' With this utterance ProfessorS requests confirmation of common knowledge that the students need to understand the circumstances in which the haiku events take place. Karatsu (2004a) has noted the use of yo ne at the beginning of stories in casual conversation to give information that is key to understanding the point of the story. The professor's use here may be even more basic, because it provides a verbal explanation and gestura! image of the words in the haiku.

I~JtiJ -::>'"Ct,,?O)t;t, #pO), [1df>O), -::>'"C'"C@ 3 , i:-::> 4i5c!::<:-::>i5 5 c!::~i:ftii\{-fv''"C, 71:, '"(, 81:' ~O),:J:?ijb~.Qc!::, 7.Jt<::(~-:::>)iJ'I_b'J''?L"<.Q:b De:, "turube" tte iu no wa, ido no, [1ano, mizu kumu toki no 2, (1.2) kassya n @natte te@ 3, kot4ti to kotti 5 to ni oke ga 6 tuite, 7 de, ka~ • tte sagete, 8 de, kara no hoo hipparu to, mizu haitta (yatu) ga agatte kuru wake desu . .] A:nd, as for the thing called a "turube" 'well bucket', the well's, [1uhm, for

253 1:-,

when (you) draw water 2 , (1.2) @there's@ a pulley, and 3, to here 4 and here (onomato5buckets 6 are attached and, ~nd, (you) lower one side W one, it's that the (one) with water poeia), 8 and, when in it comes up, Subsequently Professor S continues confirming circumstances with her utterances in 254 and 255, also ending with yo ne 'I tell you, you know'. She accompanies her utterance in 254 with iconic gestures for the nagaya 'long houses' with a well in between, that were shared by many families, and are often seen in historical dramas on Japanese television. She accompanies 255 with a pictorial gesture drawing the rope of the well buckets in the air (255-la), and repeats this gesture the gesture) shown with lines in the frame grab correlates with the underlined words after the gesture subscript number in the utterance. A picture of a well is given in the Appendix.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 2.85

four times (255-lb). It is also important to note that ProfessorS uses recipient design in explaining the word turube 'well bucket' (with which the students are probably not familiar). She uses information and knowledge that the students are likely to know and possess related to the turube 'well bucket' (e.g., if they have seen historical dramas they are likely to have seen a well at least once). She increases their understanding by trying to get them to call to mind things they know, and increases the "tellability" of her story by referring to shared information in the students' community (Georgakopoulou, 2007). 254 7:-, ~<, i::tl.~;J:~f-t/111[17:<&, ~~O)ti:-3~<:, 2#.PiJ\;J:I;IPJl:df>'? 40ZJ.IvtJ:7:7lO)iJ'<'' 61t'~;J:t>iJ' 9 *-~

.c

<

De:, yoku, korewazidaigeki [1demo, nagayano tokoro ni, 2ido ga 3kyoodoo de atte, 4minna de mizu kundari site ru kara,] sawattari mitari sita koto nakutte mo, ido tte donna mono ka gurai wa wakarimasu . . A:nd, often, even in historical dramas, [1in the place (between) oflong houses, 2the well, 3 is for common use, and 4 everyone together is doing things like drawing water, so] even if you have never touched or seen (you) know somewhat about what kind of a thing a well is,

..

255 [l: 1' df>..;;..::..:!~=:....;.::...~:!.....,;.;;;.-=.,:::..::::.....;..::~~:::......::......:...._::....:....=~ [Dep-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [And , uhm, (1.2) it's that this part is called the "turube" (well bucket), m IC-UU -'''' -''''-~-~'-'-

In this way the professor establishes all the major background information that students need to know: the structure of the well, its location, and the turube 'well bucket' (the part of the well that the morning glory wrapped around). 24 2.4. It is interesting to note that the professor points to the rope connecting the two buckets on the well rather than a well bucket. She appears to interpret the turube 'well bucket' (around

2.86

Polly Szatrowski

3.

Story event 1 (256)

The professor begins narrating the first event of the story in 256 accompanied by an iconic gesture (that she repeats subsequently three times in 261, 264, and 265) depicting the morning glory wrapping around the well bucket rope (255-2), and another iconic gesture in which she drops her right hand in a fist to her right slightly below shoulder height to indicate a flower blooming (255-3). The professor quotes from the haiku the event of the morning glory ending up getting entwined on the well bucket rope and blooming a flower is marked by the past -ta form.

256 7:-, 2::f:fl)

lf-J1fU

~<:-, df>~~1J~~~f;flt"~~'?· 3 , ~;J:iJ:-::>~t~~

'?I'? "Lit' ?lvl:-'"9 ~o I

De:, 2sono "turube" ni:, asagao ga makituitya. 3, hana tuketyatl tte iu n desu yo.] A:nd, 2o:n that well bucket, the morning glory endli up getting entwined 3, (it) endl up blooming a flower it's that (it= the haiku) says (that), you know.] 4.

Background information about plants and their ordinary treatment (257-260)

Rather than proceeding to tell the other events of the haiku, Professor S designs her story so that the events become hearable in the story with a particular characterization. She does this by presenting general information about plants and describing how they are treated ordinarily, to provide a contrast with the actual events in the haiku. In 257-259 the professor gives background information about plant growth in general (that is, plants grow quite rapidly, sprouting up all over), and the ordinary which the morning glory in the haiku becomes entwined) to be the rope or at least include the rope. However, according to Syoogaku Tosyo (1982), turube is defined as "nawa ya sao no saki ni tukete ido no mizu o kumiageru oke" ('a bucket attached to the end of a rope, (well) sweep, etc. for drawing water from the well'). This is an example of how gestures can influence the interpretation of utterances. A picture that Chiyojo herself drew to represent her haiku shows the morning glory wrapped around a well bucket rather than the ropes of the well. (This picture, together with another picture representing the haiku is given in the Appendix.)

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture '2it]

treatment of pulling them up when they grow near a well. She establishes common ground with the epistemic modal desyo? 'isn't it?' (at the end of 257), and the final particles ne? 'you know?' (at the end of258), and yo ne 'I tell you, you know' (at the end of 259 and 260). She uses iconic gestures to show the plants sprouting and growing (259-1, 259-2), and accompanies the onomatopoeic expression GUNGUN (which express the manner in which something grows increasingly or rapidly) with an iconic gesture to indicate them growing "higher and higher'' (259-3). In 260, she uses an iconic gesture for pulling up the plants (260-4). Using direct style in 260, she gives her opinion directly (omou n da 'it's that (I) think') suggesting that if she were in that situation she would pull the plants out. Her fillers (ma: 'we:ll' and ano: 'uh:m') and contracted casual form (hikkonuityaeba 'provided (you) pull and uproot') also suggest that she is being more spontaneous and showing her personal side. With her utterance in 260 she begins telling the story as a story character, first as a hypothetical one. Thus, with iconic gestures, onomatopoeia, final particles and epistemic modals she establishes important background information about plant growth and the ordinary treatment of plants (which also appears to be her personal way of treating them, and the way the hypothetical character she animates would behave), which is necessary for understanding the meaning of the haiku. Later she contrasts this ordinary treatment of plants with Chiyojo's treatment of the morning glory, in order to highlight the noteworthiness of story events 2 and 3. 257 '1!'-, flt!fo/.JO)~~"?'L-, ~tH~It'--­ De:, syokubutu no seetyoo tte:, kekko~ A:nd, plant growth is pretty rapid, . . 258

!M' ~i: :l:f;Jj. Toku ni natuba. Especially in summer,

259

[ 1~iJ~ tf:l tr. ~ tc. ;1J: t lt'tc.DL-*_9_ [ 1Me ~

4 hana

,'!!, "? 'L 3 ~ 00 ~<:-fr. ~t iJ~f$ "(} 'L 4 -rf.--:>

deta na, 2 nobita na to omotte 3ru aida ni tuitari simasu . .]

-..mke

ga nobite

2.88 Polly Szatrowski

[(Just) when (one) is thinking 1a sprout has come out, hasn't it, 2 (it) has grown, hasn't it, 3 (its) height grows MM! (onomatopoeia for "higher 1I '1 I and higher"), ilowers bloom, etc., J r -11 1I 1

c :tHa: * -,

260 [ c\

1

tt. ~:r ~-'

4'0-?

~.P,

df> 0) - ,

~-, ~c:.? 'fl. 'IJ' 'IJ' ?

-c 1v tt. t. J'e, ? 1v

i: ntlt'~ ~ ;t ~ilt'lt'-}t p 0) .:f ~iiJ: lv'IJ'

*

t<:. (DIRECT)

13 I 0

[De, 1kore ~ ma:, Jf!syoo, ano:, :J!i-, nissuu kakatte n da to omou n da kedo:, 4hikkonuityaeba no soba nanka kitara.] (DIRECT) [And, 1~ for this well, 2a bit, uh:m, it's that I think that it's that it takes ~mber of days bu:t, 4 (one) should pull and uproot (it), - -5 if (it) comes near the well.] (DIRECT) 5.

First repetition of information about plants and their ordinary treatment (261)

Professor S repeats the general idea of plants growing and pulling them out, repeating her previous iconic gestures of the morning glory wrapping around the well bucket rope (261-1) and uprooting them (261-2) in 261. This time she begins her utterance with Datte 'because' and gives her personal justification saying that the reason for doing this is uttosii kara 'it (would) be annoying, so'. However, it is interesting to note that she leaves her sentence unfinished, with a mismatch between her utterance in 261 ma dete kita ziten de 'well at the point (it) has sprouted' and the accompanying iconic gesture for uprooting plants. 25 This gesture gives the students a hint as to how to complete her utterance, and also gives them an opportunity to participate silently in the eo-construction of the evaluation of what people do ordinarily when a plant (such as a morning glory) gets in the way.

261

[tt.?l:, f$ 1lfl:, -::>.Q1il"t:'***?tc.13-, ll
13,

~)ttf)!f2.?2f<:.l3, *lfi<:~f<:.~£"t:'o

I

2.5. By mismatch I mean that the meaning of the iconic gesture does not match the meaning of the words it accompanies.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 289

[Datte, no1bite, turukusa de karamattara:, mizu lcumu toki ni uttoosii kara, tabun hutuu datlara, m a dete lcita ziten de.] [Because, 1if (it=the morning glory) grows, and (it=the well bucket) gets entwined with the vine, it (would) be annoying when (one) draws water, so probably usually, 2well at the point (it) has sprouted] ...«(one) would pull it out.»

6. Second repetition of information about plants and their ordinary treatment with assertion (262-263) In 262-263, ProfessorS repeats the same idea of plants sprouting and the ordinary behavior of weeding them, with similar gestures for a second time. This time, she begins her utterance in 262 by introducing the topic syokubutu 'plants' with the evaluative particle nante and final particle ne 'you know,' and after giving a reason for why they come out in the summer in distal style, she ends her utterance more casually laughing over a contracted form and using direct style without final particles, (@dete kityau@ ka mo sirenait 'may@end up coming outt@').26 This suggests that she is speaking in her own voice expressing her inner feeling. In contrast, she presents her professional self in her utterance in 263 which ends in distal style with a beat gesture on the final copula and the final particle yo 'I tell you', asserting the information that she previously confirmed in 259 and 260 (which ended in yo ne 'I tell you, you know' to establish the groundwork)P 262

*

m

M ~ 1J:: fv -c :td. ~ JJJ ¥ ~<:: fi ~i G -c ~ <: ~<:: :!!f I:H '9 i:i' v i:i' ~ 1t fv iJ' G 4~ ll fv 1J:: .@ ~ ~ @ I:H -c ~ !> ~ '5 @ iJ' t G tL 1J:: lt 1 to (DIRECT)

3

3Syolcubutu nante ne, katte ni tane tobasite doko ni me dasu ka wakarimasen kara 40 natu n naru to, @dete kityau@ ka mo sirenai t.

(DIRECT) Plants, you know, .fly their seeds wherever (they) please, and (one) doesn't 3 know where (they) will sprout, so 4when it becomes summer, (they) may @end up coming out@t (DIRECT) 263

v

~ t 5 ~ $ R1J:: ~ <: a_ ~i
26. Although 262 ends in direct style, the unusual rise in intonation at the end of this utterance (although it is not phrased as a question), suggests that there is more to come, that is, the idea being conveyed does not end here. Her subsequent utterance in 263 is in distal style and ends with the assertive particle yo 'I tell you.'

27. Suzuki (1990) analyzes how participants' use of final particles changes as their stances become more similar in a casual Japanese gossip conversation.

290 Polly Szatrowski

7.

Hypothetical event of the bucket falling into the well (264)

ProfessorS begins her utterance in 264 with a reference to the ordinary treatment of plants (musittokeba ii no ni:, 'altho:ugh (one) should weed (it)'). However, she becomes the character in the haiku animating Chiyojo's voice when she says i1ra, sekkaku konna toko kara dete kita kara, moo iti-niti, @moo iti-niti@." '"Oh, here (it=the morning glory) made an effort to sprout in this place, so one more day @ one more day@'", laughing over the end of this quotation to suggest that she personally finds the situation humorous. In the latter part of 264, ProfessorS accompanies her utterance with a second repetition of the iconic gesture of the morning glory wrapping around the well bucket rope (264-5). Then she demonstrates a hypothetical event using an iconic gesture in which she lowers her hand in a fist from her ear to her shoulder (as if pulling on the well bucket rope) (264-6), followed by another iconic gesture in which she drops her hand from the top of her head straight down to her stomach (as if pulling hard on the rope to break off the morning glory vine and drop the bucket into the well) (264-7), whUe saying the onomatopoeic word BUTI to imitate the loud snapping sound that the morning glory would make if it were broken off. She later contrasts this hypothetical event with the actual second and third event of the haiku story.

264 t:, [1B 4 , @lb'?v'!>B@o J '?l"J!bl"~?!J~;:;fd? 5 :t"O), ~}fj~;:~

~N·v''"C@-@, 6 1f>?JIJiJ'Ltc::f,7, ~l"v'
Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 291

8.

Repetition of the hypothetical event of the bucket falling into the well and story event 2 (265)

In 265, Professor S repeats the gesture of the morning glory wrapping around the well bucket rope for the third time (265-2), and the iconic gesture dropping her hand from above her head straight down to her stomach (265-3), this time using the onomatopoeic word WA: to indicate the forceful manner in which the hypothetical character would pull down on the rope to drop the bucket into the well. Then, she contrasts this general explanation of ordinary behavior, with the second event of the story, in which Chiyojo ended up feeling sorry for the morning glory. When she tells this event at the end of 265 (zyoo ga utu@ttyatte@, kawaisoo ni nattyatta. '(her=Chiyojo's) feelings @ended up@ going out (to the morning glory) and, (it) ended up looking pitiable.'), she leans forward tilting her head to the right as if physically demonstrating Chiyojo's empathy for the morning glory when she says @ttyatte@, '@ended up@,' and marks the event with the final past -ta form and an accompanying nod at the end of her utterance. Her body movements and use of contracted forms and direct style without any final particles suggests that she is animating the character Chiyojo in the story world, rather than quoting the haiku as she did in 256. However, at the same time, her laughter over the end of the contracted form utu@ttyatte@, '@ended up@ going out (to the morning glory) and,' suggests that she personally finds this amusing.

[(J: ~~<&:to<& t>iJ: ~t:tt'i-, ll, ~ ~Nit'"Lt~ '? "L 3, '? "L-\0 '? ~ ~ ;t 'ilt' lt'lv tt. ~t ~, )'t~iJ~f$@ '? ~ ~ '? "'C@, iJ' t> 1t' .:f ? '<: iJ: '? ~ ~ ' ? . (DIRECT) De, hZ, mo !l,mowanakereba:, mizu kumu n da ka 2ra, makituite ta tte yattyaeba ii n da kedo,] zyoo ga utu@ttyatte@, kawaisoo ni tte3, natt;;il (DIRECT)

265 7:,

[j;;

And, [1if (one) doesn't £!re,!! all about (this kind of thing), it's that (one would think) (I) (need to) draw water, so2 even if (a morning glory) has wound (itself) around (the well bucket), 3it's that it (would be) alright to

292 Polly Szatrowski

g o . (onomatopoeia), but] (her=Chiyojo's) feelings @ended up@ going out (to the morning glory) and, (it) en4 up looking pitiable. (DIRECT) 9.

Story event 3 (266-268)

Professor S continues to be the character in the haiku quoting Chiyojo's voice in 266 "Kyoo wa mizu kumu no yametokoo." (to). '"Today at least, (I) guess (I)'ll give

up (the idea oO drawing water."' with three accompanying beat gestures that suggest Chiyojo's firm resolution in making this decision. Then, she stops being a character in the haiku story and returns to her lecture with her distal style utterances in 267 and 268. She uses beat gestures to make her point in 267, and quotes the final event of the haiku story from the haiku in 268 otonari ni:, mizu moraimasita '(she) received water fro:m next door'. She accompanies this utterance with an iconic gesture moving her hand out to her right to indicate Chiyojo going next door to borrow water while beating three times.

1 [/>' t> ", .:f ? 7:, rA,- s ~a: 71< 7&
266 7:,

And,] [1 (be~ the morning glory) looked pitiable, (she thought) "Today at least, (I) guess (I)'ll 2give up (the idea oO drawing water." 267 37: <&' 3). "9 ~a:~~ J2.~t 7: '"9 ~ 0

Demo, mizu ~ iru 4!fJ!;_ke desu yo.

3

3But, ~for water 4 it]

268

that (she) needs (it), I tell you.

* L..

tt. 5'/J' G , ~-, 71< <& G 1t' 7 t 1t' ? .:f ? 1t' ? miJ: lv7: '"9 :Q o Da 5kara, !!otonari ni:, mizu moraima~il to iu soo iu ku na n desu ne. 5So,

(she) 7recei. water lro:m next door, it's that (it)'s a haiku to that (effect), you know.

Thus, the professor describes the circumstances of the well structure, the well bucket and the rope, and gives the first event of the morning glory wrapping around the well bucket. Then, she mentions that in general when plants come up and are in the way one usually weeds them, and gives two hypothetical events (when a morning

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 293

glory wraps around the well bucket it would be alright to either pull it up, or break it off by pulling on the rope and dropping the well bucket into the well). However, she contrasts this ordinary behavior and the hypothetical events with the real second and third events of the story. Instead of pulling up the morning glory or breaking it off by dropping the bucket into the well, Chiyojo empathizes with and pities the morning glory, and does something out of the ordinary, specifically, she gives up the idea of drawing water from the well, and goes next door to borrow water. It is important to note that the professor does not express the meaning of her haiku story explicitly, but gives several hints by juxtaposing the actual events with the ordinary circumstances of plants growing GUNGUN ("higher and higher") and the ordinary treatment of weeding plants that get in the way, and the hypothetical event ofbrutally snapping off the morning glory vine (BUm, by pulling on the rope with force (WA:) to make the bucket drop into the well. This gives the recipient the impression that Chiyojo's giving up the idea of using the well and borrowing water from next door is unusual behavior, and highlights the noteworthiness of the story events. In addition, the professor's juxtaposition of the brutal treatment of plants (heightened by the onomatopoeic loud snapping sound BUTT and forcefulness, powerfulness ofWA:) with Chiyojo's behavior, highlights Chiyojo's caring and gentle attitude.

Completing the story: The meaning of the haiku (269-270) In 269-270, ProfessorS uses external evaluation to make the meaning of the haiku explicit accompanied by a series ofbeatgestures. In the first part of269, she laughs when she says yoku @kangaete miru@ to, 'if (you) @try thinking about@ (it) carefully,' and after three fillers (nanka koo, ma:, 'somehow in this way, we:ll,') admits that it would be a pity, taking the Chiyojo's perspective while making six beat gestures with her right hand to the right side of her body. Then, she returns to the character in her hypothetical story, appealing to the students with the final particle ne: 'you kno:w' and overlaying her personal view in the contracted part (nuityattokeba) of her utterance (sonna mono, ne:, warikitte nuityattokeba yokatta no n~ 'that kind of thing, you kno:w, here (she) could have been rational and totally pulled (it) out for later,'). It is interesting to note that she accompanies this part of her utterance about ordinary behavior (that is, rational actions that Chiyojo did not do) with two beat gestures made with her right hand in front of her body. This contrasts with the earlier part of her utterance in 269 in which she gave Chiyojo's perspective and her subsequent utterance in 270 about why she thinks Chiyojo's haiku has been loved over the years. These are accompanied by six and eight beat gestures, repectively, all made with her right hand to the right side of her body. In this way her beat gestures as well as the content of her utterances emphasize and contrast the real and hypothetical events.

294 Polly Szatrowski

At the end of her utterance in 269 the professor externalizes her evaluation of Chiyojo's actions in the story with her question yasasii zya nai? 'isn't (she) caring/ gentle?' This utterance in direct style gives the impression that she is stepping out of her role as professor to show her true inner feelings about the haiku.28 It is also interesting to note that she pronounces this utterance with a high pitch (496 Hz) on the mora si of yasasii 'caring/gentle,' which also suggests her heightened emotion (Figure 1) (M. H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 2000, 2001).

<

*

-r

c:

269 l! -, I J: @~ ;:t d7-.@@.f., ~ fvtJ1 c.~, -~-.!1:.~ lt 1 lt 1 ;:t ~i, 11t ~r ~ lt 1 G -, 7c fv ~ 'fJ (J), :G-, IP::HJJ 2 :fRlt 1 !> ~-:> l:;.~r ~i J: 7J1 -:> tc. (J) ~;: , C: lt 1 ~ c. C: 1! "9 ~n::, 1! 'fJ , if L, lt 1 l5 ~ ~ lt 1 ? (DIRECT) De:,] yoku @kanga£_te miru@ !!!, nanka koo, ma:z. nasakenai to i£_ba, nasake!!!!,i si:, sonna mono, ne:, wariki!te nuityattokeba yokatta no ni, to iu koto desu kedo, demo, yasasii zya nai? (DIRECT) A:nd,] !f (you) @try thinking about@ (it) carefully, somehow in this way, we:llz..if (you)~ it's a Jti.ty, (then) it's a Jti.ty (you have to admit it would be a pity), and what's more, that kind of thing, you kno:w, the point is, here (she) could have been rational and totally pulled (it) out for later, but, however, isn't (she) caring/gentle? (DIRECT)

-r

500

\

300 ~

200

.g

150

e;

'

P- ~-J

.r

/'1

\

\

\

:t:::j

IJ.o

\;

100 70 50 231 .72

Demo

yasaSii

Time (s)

zya naH

233 502

I

496

286

I

I

231.724

233.502 Time (s)

Figure 1. Pitch curve for 269 yasasii zya nai? 'isn't (she) caring/gentle?'

28.

Personal communication (Chisato Koike, 2007).

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 295

27o "Id. 1v ti'.

e: '? -r tJ c. -? ~ i5 .v .n ~ ti. "Id.- e:~ tJ• .v.!::2.v ~"Id.~

c. Jv"ld.m~c:

* id.-

~:r "Id. ~:r' tt"ld. ~

!!~~Nt-~-r :G? 7E-:::> ~:r 0 Jvtt '? tc.; ~ ~

(})* *~c:::.,

C: v' L" ;5 ~J''tc.v• C: v '3 J: '31d.~ ~ f!2. ,bC. ~ :G (}) -{1 G ~ iJ~ ili L" 0 iU t2-:JL" v' '3 1v !!~~n -r tee:£-? tv !!'t:G? Nanka, tottetno koo, aware, da !!!!.= to, kawa!i na, kenage da na, konna 1

tokoro ni made tnakituite ne? luma tukeru n dattara, sot~o !!Lama ni sitoite agetai !!!!.= to iu yoo na, S0!!2, kokorone no yasasisa ga dete ru ku da tte iu n de aisarete ta to omou n desu ne? Somehow, (it=morning glory)~ very in this way, a poor (thing) Lsn't it, (it)'s pret!J:; isn't it, (it)J. brave/admirable isn't it, getting entwined even around this kind of place, you know? and if (it)'s that (it) will bloom flower(s), (I= Chiyojo) want to leave it~ it is.~.,.it's that (!=professor) think that (it=this haiku) has been loved because (this) is a haiku in which that ~tleness deep down in (her=Chiyojo's) heart emerges, you know? 271

272

l!- *-~ i" n~t-:JL"~ :9.:1tl'f9tl1d.JvL" v•-? \W-fiffit ;5 0.:b~:Tl! 'to De:, ma:, sore o tnotte, zyoseeteki da t~ante iu IJyooka mo aru wake desu. A:nd, we:ll, because of that, it's that there is also the opinion to the effect that (it=the haiku) is feminine.

*-

J.J 1t t- ~ iJ~ ID}; Jv tt-? -r v~ v-. J: -? 76: iU !! '9 ~:T l::.' ~ v~,:2Jo -? ~ Jv id. ~ -? ~c:: v• .v .n 0 t (}) id. 1v!! -t ~ ?

M a:, danB!_e Kf! yonda tte ii yoo na ku desu kedo, i!ioo sonna IJuu ni iwareru mono na n desu ne? We:ll, (it)'s a haiku of the sort that would be okay for!~ to write (too), but it's that !!lyway (it) has been talked about in that way, you know?

Return to the lecture: Botchan's quotation as a parody, suggestive quotation (273-283) From 273 on, Professor S stops gesturing, and reaches her right hand out and places it down on the side of the desk. Then, leaning on her right hand on the desk while laughing about the fact that Botchan was familiar with haiku, she returns to her discussion ofBotchan, assuming the same posture that she took at the beginning of her story in 252. It is interesting to note that she reiterates what she said when she assumed this posture previously in 252 (that this haiku is famous), when she mentions that the haiku has been famous since Botchan's time in 274.

273 ~ -? '9 (0 ) C: , J1i -; 1> Jv ~ i" .tL t;J: 2i1!.-? L" 0 tv tt@ -:J L" C. C: @ iJ~ C. C. !! .:b

iJ• 0 -b ~:T !! '9 J:

0

Soo su(ru) to, Bottyat~, sore wa ~tte ru n da @tte koto@ ga koko de wakaru wake desu yo. Then, it's that here (we) know @that@ Botchan knows that, I tell you.

296

Polly Szatrowski

274 ~ -, ttiJ• (G) C O)~fC#' 6 t-? *li:ffif.fl'~tl-? tclvtt-0-? I'J:- C: o De:, daka(ra) kono zidai kara moo kekkoo yuumee datta n daroo na: to. A:nd, so, (we know that) probably it's that from this (Botchan's) time on (it=the haiku) was famous, huh.

Conclusion I summarize the devices used in the lecture storytelling in Table 3. Surprisingly, the devices the professor used to involve her students in her story of the haiku are very similar to those used in casual conversation. Prior to her story, she asked students knowledge questions that elicited their physical response by having them raise their hands, thus getting them more involved in her prospective story. Then, she used knowledge that students had (e.g., from seeing historical dramas) to confirm their understanding of the structure of the well and the circumstances of her story. During her story she used devices for internal evaluation including cornparators to juxtapose ordinary behaviors that did not occur with the actual events, in order to highlight the unusualness of Chiyojo's behavior, and make it seem noteworthy. She used large pictorial gestures and deictics (pointing at parts of the drawings that she had made in the air) to establish the circumstances, and large iconic gestures, onomatopoeia, repetition, and an unfinished sentence in 261 to involve the students by inviting them to eo-create the circumstances for the story. In addition, by delaying her external evaluation until the end of the story, she gave students the opportunity to figure out the point of the story on their own, and subsequently made the point explicit using beat gestures for emphasis. The professor gave her students a variety of perspectives to consider in their interpretation of the haiku using several levels of quotation including the haiku itself, the voice of the character (Chiyojo) in the haiku, her own personal evaluation of the haiku (showing her more casual personal side with fillers, contracted forms, laughter, and direct style) which often merged with a voice that expressed hypothetical events. She also involved her students by not using external evaluation to make the point of her story clear until the end of her story. In the end of the story the professor used direct style to temporarily step out of her role of professor and highlight her emotion with a high pitch during her external evaluation of Chiyojo's behavior in 269 yasasii zya nai? 'Isn't (she) kind/ gentle?' Subsequently, she switched back to distal style presenting her professional side when she explained explicitly why the haiku has been popular over the years, and returned to her discussion of how this haiku was used as an anzi inyoo

229-242

Botchan's suggestive quotation

243-247 248-251 252 253-255

Knowledge questions Background information about Chiyojo Abstract of the story of the haiku Confirmation of background information about the well structure

256 257-260

Story event 1 Background information about plants and their ordinary treatment

261

First repetition of information about plants and their ordinary treatment

262-263 264

Second repetition of information about plants and their ordinary treatment with assertion Hypothetical event of the bucket falling into the well

265

Repetition of the hypothetical event of the bucket falling into the well

266-268

Story event 2 Story event 3

4a. Gesture (ICONIC. BEAT) Knowledge questions Posture:leans on right hand extended out on desk 3. Groundwork. Confirm Circumstances 4g. Onomatopoeia (GA::) 4a. Gestures (PICTORIALS, DEICTICS) 4a. Gestures (ICO NICS) 3. Groundwork. Confirm Circumstances 4g. Onomatopoeia (GUNGUN) 4a. Gestures(ICONICS, BEATS) 4c. Repetition 4d. eo-construction 4a. Gestures(ICONICS, BEATS) 4c. Repetition 4a. Gestures (ICO NICS, BEAT) 4b. Corn parators (hypothetical events) 4g. Onomatopoeia (Bm'l) 4a. Gestures (BEATS, !CONICS) 4b. 4c. 4g. 4a. 4a. 4a.

Corn parators (hypothetical events) Repetition Onomatopoeia(WA:) Gestures (BEATS, !CONICS) Gesture (ICONIC) Gestures (BEATS, !CONICS)

desyo? yone, ne desyo? ne,yone yone,yone?

past -ta desyo?, ne?, yone

yo

past -ta past -ta

298 Polly Szatrowski

'suggestive quotation' in the novel "Botchan." Thus, despite the fact that students could not participate verbally in creating the story, the professor was able to adapt many storytelling devices used in face-to-face conversational interaction, including verbal and nonverbal devices, to create involvement and establish the tellability of her story.

References Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cook, H. M. (2008). Style shifts in Japanese academic consultations. InK. Jones & T. Ono (Eds.), Style shifting in Japanese (pp. 9-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Georgakopoulou, A (2007). Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures ofsocial action: Studies In conversation analysis (pp. 223-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (1986a). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9, 205-217. Goodwin, C. (1986b). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6(3), 283-316. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M.H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-54. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking of context (pp. 147-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, M.H. (1980). Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 303-317. Goodwin, M.H. (1997). Byplay: Negotiating evaluation in storytelling. In G. R Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor ofWilliam Labov, Vol. 2: Social interaction and discourse structures (pp. 77-102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goodwin, M.H. & Goodwin, C. (2000). Emotion within situated activity. In N. Budwig. I. C. U:zgris & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Communication: An arena ofdevelopment(pp. 33-54). Stamford. CT: Ablex. Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, C. (2001). Emotion within situated activity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader (pp. 239-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hasunuma, A. (1995). Taiwa ni okeru kakunin koo!: 'daroo,' 'zya nai,' 'yo ne' no kakunin yoohoo [Confirmative action in conversation: Confirmative usage of daroo 'right, isn't it,' zya nai 'isn't it ... ,' yo ne 'isn't it1. In Y. Nitta (Ed.), Hukubun no kenkyuu [Research on complex sentences] (pp. 389-419). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Hayashi, M. (2003a). Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 109-141.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture 299 Hayashi, M. (2003b). Joint utterances construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ikuta, S. (1983). Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese discourse. Language Sciences, 5(1), 37-53. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed), Studies In the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219-248). New York. NY: Academic Press. Jones, K. & Ono, T. (Eds.). 2008. Style shifting in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jorden, E. H. with Noda, M. (1987). Japanese: The spoken language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Karatsu, M. (2004a). A study of storytelling In Japanese conversation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Karatsu, M. (2004b). Verbal and nonverbal negotiation in Japanese storytelling. In P. Szatrowski (Ed.), Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational b1teraction (pp. 125161). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Kumagai, T. (2004). The role of repetition in complaint conversations. In P. Szatrowski (Ed), Hidden and open conflict in Japane.se co11versatio11al b1teraction (pp. 199-220). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the inner city (pp. 354-396). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mandelbaum, J. (1987). Recipient-driven storytelling in conversation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA). Maynard, S. K. (1989). Japanese co11versatio11: Seif-contextualization through structure and 111teractional ma11agement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand a11d mind: What gesture.s reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Nakada, T. (1991). Kaiwa ni arawareru kurikaesi no hatuwa [Repeating utterances in conversation]. Nihongogaku, 10(10), 52-62. Nesi, H. (2007, July). Thefunctio11 oflaughter in university lectures. Paper presented at the loth International Pragmatics Conference, GOteborg, Sweden. Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational 11arrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (2001). Living 11arrative: Creating live.s in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ono, T. & Yoshida, E. (1996). A study of eo-construction in Japanese: "We don't finish each other's sentences." InN. Akats uka, S. Iwasaki & S. Strauss (Eds.),Japanese/Korean Linguistics (Vol 5, pp. 115-129). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Onuma, K. (2003). Nihongo no "kakunin situmon no tanzyun situmon" de no hentoo ni tuite [Answers to "simple confirmation questions" in Japanese]. Association of Teachers of Japanese Occasional Papers, 17-18. Onuma, K. (2007). Nihongo no maeoki no hataraki to bunrui ni tuite [On the functions and types of prefaces in Japanese]. (Tukuba Daigaku Gaikokugo Sentaa) Galkokugo Kyoolku Ronsyuu, 29, 127-137. Polanyi, L. (1979). So what's the point? Semiotica, 25(3/4), 207-241. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman& ]. Sherzer (Eds.), Rr:plorations in the ethnography ofspeaking (pp. 337-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

300 Polly Szatrowski

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. I & 11). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Sakuma, M. (Ed.). (2010). Koogl no hyoogen to rikai [Expression and comprehension of]apanese lecture discourse]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequential organization In interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.). (1982). Kokugo daiziten [Major Japanese language dictionary]. Tokyo: Syoogakkan. Streeck, Jtirgen (2008). Depicting by gesture. Gesture, 8(3), 285-301. Streeck, Jtirgen. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Suzuki, K. (2008). Koogi no "wadan" ni okeru supiiti reberu sihuto no tookatu kinoo [Controlling functions of speech level shift of functional paragraphs in Japanese university lectures]. Hyoogen Kenkyuu [Expression Research], 88, 43-52. Suzuki, R. (1990). The role of particles in Japanese gossip. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 315-324. Szatrowski, P. (1994). Discourse functions of the Japanese epistemic modal desyoo. Proceedings of the Twentieth A,wual Meeting of the Berkeley Lb1gu istics Society, 532-546. Szatrowski, P. (2000a). Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatiba to gengo/higengo koodoo no kanren ni tuite [Relation between participant status and verbal/nonverbal behavior in eo-construction]. Niho11go Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics], 7,. 44-69. Szatrowski, P. (2000b). Relation between gaze, head nodding, and aizuti 'back channel' at a Japanese company meeting. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meetb1gof the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 283-294. Szatrowski, P. (2001). Soogo sayoo ni okeru higengo koodoo to nihongo kyooiku [Nonverbal behavior in interaction and teaching Japanese]. Nihongo Kyooiku [Journal of]apanese Language Teaching], 10, 7-21. Szatrowski, P. (2002a). Animeesyon no sutoorii o kataru sai no wadan to tyuusin hatuwa [Wadan 'stages' and central utterances in animation film narratives]. Hyoogen Kenkyuu [Expression Research], 76, 33-39. Szatrowski, P. (2002b). Nitibee in okeru animeesyon no sutoorii no katarikata to higengo koodoo no sooi [Differences in American and Japanese nonverbal behavior and retellings ofthe story of an animation]. In 0. Mizutani & D.B. Yi (Eds.), Soogooteki 11 ihongo kyooiku o motomete [In search of integrated Japanese language education] (pp. 187-201). Tokyo: Kokusyo Kankookai. Szatrowski, P. (2002c). Syntactic projectability and eo-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Proceedings ofthe 'TWenty-eighth Annual Meeting ofthe Berkeley Linguistics Society, 315-325. Szatrowski, P. (2003a). Gaze, head nodding and aizutt 'back channel utterances' in information presenting activities. In P. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (VoL 11, pp. 119-132). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Szatrowski, P. (2003b). Kyoodoohatuwakaramtta "ninsyoo seegen." "siten" o meguru mondai [Person restriction and perspective in eo-construction]. Nihongo Bunpoo [Journal of Japanese Grammar], 3, 49-66. Szatrowski, P. (2005a). Danwa to buntai- Kanzyoo hyooka no dooteki na katee ni tuite- [Discourse and Style: On the dynamic process of emotion/evaluation]. In A. Nakamura, M. Nomura, M. Sakuma & C. Komtya (Eds.), Hyoogen to buntai [Expression and style] (pp. 469-480). Tokyo: Meezi Syoin.

Chapter 9. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture Szatrowski, P. (200Sb). Zyoohoo syori, soogo sayoo, danwa k.oozoo kara mita tooti to higengo k.oodoo to no kankee [The relation between postposing and nonverbal behavior from the point of view of information management, interaction and discourse structure]. In H. Kushida, T. Sadanobu & Y. Den (Eds.), Katudoo to site no bun to hatuwa [Sentences and utterances as activities] (pp. 159-208). Tokyo: Hituzi Syoboo. Szatrowski, P. (2006). 20-dai no zyosee no danwa ni okeru siziteki na miburi to hyoositeki na miburi note no katati to kinoo [Forms and functions of deictic and beat gestures in Japanese conversations between women in their 20's]. Hyoogen Kenkyuu [Expression Research], 84,67-77. Szatrowski, P. (2007a). Koogi no danwa no higengo koodoo [Nonverbal behavior in university lecture discourse]. Research report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 20052007 (Research Theme No. 16520319) Gakusaiteki apurooN nl yoru daigakusee no koogl rlkai nooryoku lkusee no tame no karlkyuramu kalhatu [Curriculum development for nurturing undergraduate students' lecture understanding capabilities through interdisciplinary approach]. Research representative Miki Saijo, (pp. 108-117). Tokyo: Tokyo Institute ofTechnology. Szatrowski, P. (2007b). Subjectivity, perspective and footing in Japanese eo-construction. In R Zacharski & N. Hedberg (Eds.), Topics on the grammar-pragmatics interface: Essays 111 honor ofDr. Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 313-339). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Szatrowski, P. (2008). Koogi danwa ni okeru sisee, muimi na doosa, miburi ni tuite [On posture, meaningless movements, and gesture in Japanese university lecture discourse]. Hyoogen Ke11kyuu [Expression Research], 88, 24-37. Szatrowsk!, P. (2010). Koogi no danwa no higengo k.oodoo [Nonlinguistic behavior in university lecture discourse]. In M. Sakuma (Ed.), Koogi no hyoogen to rikai [Expression and comprehension ofJapanese lecture discourse], (pp. 187-204). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, D. (1987). Repetition in conversation: Towards a poetics of talk. Language, 63(3), 574-605. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, a11d imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yamane, K. (1996). Tiyozyo toki no uta [Chiyo-jo's haiku seasons] (Y. Ishihashi & P. Donegan, Trans.). Matto, Japan: Matto Siyakusyo (Matto City Hall). (Original work published 1996)

Appendix Notation for nonverbal behavior (Szatrowski 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c,2003a,2003b,2005a,2005b,2006,2007a,2010) [ ] marks the beginning and end of gestura! movements of the hands, neck, etc. < > marks the beginning and end of non -gestura! movements, e.g., preening. Subscript numbers indicate the start of a gesture (the time when the speaker begins moving her hands, often in preparation for the gesture stroke). Underline indicates the stroke (main part) of the gesture (McNeil11992). Bold underline indicates the mora where a beat gesture occurs.

301

:>hs of an ido 'well' (http:ja.wikipedia.org/wiki:J:I: P)

1n the left) was drawn by Kaga no Chiyojo to illustrate her haiku. turube torarete moraimizu. 'By the morning glory the well bucket borrowed water.' 1n the right) is another representation of the haiku. ures are from http://haikukan.city.hakusan.ishikawa.jp/about/index.h

Addresses for contributors to Storytelling

across Japanese Conversational Genre

Editor: Pally Szatrowski The University of Minnesota- Linguistics 214 Nolte Center Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA <[email protected]> Atsuko Honda Department of Network and Information Senshu University 2-1-1 Higashimita, Tama-ku Kawasaki, Kanagawa 214-8580 JAPAN Mariko Karatsu 1512 First St. PO Box 21015 University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 USA Chisato Koike California State University, Los Angeles Department of Modern Languages and Literatures 5151 State University Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90032-8112 USA Tomoko Kumagai (and Naoyuki Kitani): Please contact both through Tomoko Kumagai 2-4 Hasunuma-cho Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 174-0052 JAPAN

304 Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre

Yuriko Sunakawa 414-5 Ichinokiba, Fujimi-machi Maebashi-shi, Gunma-ken, 371-0106 JAPAN Yoshio Takahashi Japan-Center Munich University Oettingenstr. 67 80538 Munich GERMANY Fumio Watanabe Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences Yamagata University Yamagata 990-8560 JAPAN

Author index A Atkinson, J.M. 17, 99, 100 B

Bakhtin, M. 183 Becbr, T. 101, 113 Besnier, N. 25,31,32 Brown, P. 194

Grea:tbatch, D. 184 Greenbaum, S. 162 Grimshaw, A.D. 98 Gundel, J, 162, 163 Gii.nthner, S. 23, 25. 26, 31,32 H

Halliday; M. A. K. 162 Hamaguchi, T. 114,119

c

Hanks,

Capps, L. 6, 7, 97, 113, 122, 268 Chafe, W. L. 4, 17, 148, 159,163,

Hanzawa. K. 148

173, 242, 269 Clancy, P. M. 5, 63--65. 96 Clark, H. H. 78, 83 Clayman, S. E. 184, 194 Coa:tes, J. 113, 114 Cook, H. M. 274

Hasegawa. T. 242

D Den, Y. 230 Downing, P. 5 Du Bois, J, W. 87 Dudley-Evans, T. 243, 264 Duranti, A. 115 E Eder, D. 96 Endo, T. 196 Erickson, F. 183

G Georgalmpoulou. A. 6, 186,

w.

114,115

Hasan, R. 162

Hasunwna, A 273, 298,303 Hayashi, M. 5, 98, 114, 116, 119-121, 274 Heath, C. 71 Hedberg, N. 162 Heritage, J. 17, 184, 194, 195, 196, 201,229 Hinds, J. 5,13, 63,65,80, 96

Hinds, W. 5

Holmes, D. 66, 71, 81 Holt, E. 25, 31 Honda, A. 4, 7-10,19,184,189 Hopper, P. J, 4 Horie, P. I. 5 Horiguchi, K. 116-118, 120, 121, 140

Horiguchi, S. 63, 65 Hosaka. T. 212, 213

Ikuta, S. 19. 274 Iori, I. 164, 165.167, 172 lwasaki, S. 5, 62-64, ]6, 87

282,285

Gerrig, R. J, 78, 83 Giv6n, T. 13, 168 Goffinan, E. 63, 89. 184,193,212 Goodwin, C. 11, 71, 72, 78, 81, 84. 88, 89, 94. 98,113-115, 119. 121, 137. 1J8, 183, 273. 294 Goodwin, M. H. 11, 81, 89. 96,

97. 114, 138, 273, 294

Jefferson, G. 6, 7, 30, 79,121, 137, 213, 268, 271, 272

Jones, K. 274 Jorden. E. H. 17, 19, 219, 274

Kamio, A. 116, 162 Karatsu. M. 4-7, 9-11, 18, 20, 96, 121, 128, 212, 214, 242, 271-273, 282,284 Karkkainen, E. 195 Kawasaki, A. 219 Kimbara, I. 5, 150, 152, 153, 161 Kinsui, S. 114. 116-118, 120, 121, 140, 164, 16j, 195 Kita, S. 35, 170 Kitani, N. 4. 7-10,212,213, 237 Koike, C. 4--6, 8-11, 19, 20, 62, 78,294 Kwnagai, T. 4. 7-10,150,152, 153· 212,213, 237· 273

Kuno, S. 62--64 Kuroda, S. 114, 116-118, uo, 121, 137.140

Kushida, S. uS, 129, 226

L Labov, W. 4, 6, 7, 26-28, 3o-32, 49· 89, 90, 121, 148, 186, 242, 269, 273· 28J Lee, L. 5, 242 Leech, G. 162 Lerner, G. 71,96 Levinson, S. C. 17, 194, 213 Li,C.N. 29

M Makino, S. 66 Mandelbawn, J. 96, 97, 129, 268,283

c.

Mann, w. 243 Masuoka, T. 116, 117, 121, 140 Matthiessen, C. 243

Mayes, P. 5,31 Maynard, S. K. 5, 6, 25, 31, 63, 65, 187, 242, 273, 283 McNeiiL D. 20, 148,152,170, 270, 271,J01

K

Minami, F. 153,154 Minami, M. 148

Kamada, 0. 25, 31

Mori, J. 5, 82, 98,114

306 Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre N

Nakada, T. 273 Nakazawa. J. .112 Nari}'llli!a. S. 63-65, 97 Narooka, K. 114,119,120

Nesi, H. 275 Nishikawa, R 114 Noda, M. 17, 19,219,274 Norrick. N. 6, 94. 96, 242, 268, 27J

0 Ochs, E. 6, 7, 14, 97, 113, 122, .168,299

Ohnogi, H. 212 Ono, T. 130, .174 Onurna. K. 273

p Po lanyi, L. 6,242, 273 Prince, E. 169,172

Q Quirk, R. 16.1,163

Saft, s. 184, 187, 189 Saijo, M. 243, 268 Sakata, Y. 114,116,117, 12.1 Sakwna, M. 143, 1.48, 243, 278 Sawa, E. 5 Schegiof{. E. A. 79, 121,125,184,

Tanaka, N. 114. 116--118, 120,

187, .113, 231, 272 Schiffrin, D. 212, 213 Shibatani, M. 63

Thompson, S. A. 4.141, 243 Togashi, J, 195 Tomasello, M, 81 Tsutsui, M. 66

s Sacks, H. 6, 71, 72, 79, 94, 96, 115,121,125,212-214. 216,219, .126, 231, 23.1, .lJ68, 268, 271, 272,282

27J

Wallat. C. 212.

Suzuki, A. 212, 213 Suzuki, K. 274 Suzuki, R. 5, 289

y Yamada, H. 187 Yamane, K. 268, 301

Svartvik, J. 16.1 Szatrowski, P. 4· 5. 7-11, 17-20, 71, 79. 98, 1J.4, 123, 128,187,

Yoshida, E. 5.130, .174

Ryave, A. L. 212, 21.4> 219, 226, 232,235

114,150,15.1, 153,191,201, 21.1, .114, 2.15, 242, 268, 269, 270,

Shigematsu, J, 242, 243 Shimotani, M. 195 Shooho, T. 114, 116, 118, 120, 121 Sibata, T. 219 Slobin, D. 1.48 Soga.M. 5 Streeck, J. 270 Sugito, S. 148 Sunakawa, Y. 3, 6, 9-11, 19, 24

2.15, 268, 270, 271, .l7J, 274· 276, 278, 283

R

121,140

Thnnen, D. 25, 28, 31, 42, 113,

T Taka.gi, T. 5, 98, 114 Takahashi, Y. 4--9.243. 251, .165,276

Tak:asaki, M. 5 Thkubo, Y. 114· 116-118, 120, 12.1, 140,164,165,195

w Wale~

J.

6, 7, 13, 122

Watanabe, F. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 19. 148,150,153.161

White, s. 33· 187

Yiunazaki, H. 264

z Zacharski, R. 162

Subject index* A a- 'that ( distal)' 9, 116, us, Hi4, 167 abbreviations J, 19, 150, 1S6 abstra...-r. (n .) 6, 26, 270, 271, 2S3,297 abstract (adj.) abstract concept 270, 271 abstract idea 241, 244, 24S,

254, 26J 6J, ]2, 73, 82--8.4, 90,

accusation

93· 94· 96-9S action 3, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69> ]2, 75· 77· ]8, S1-84, Sll--90, 94. 97-99. 115, 119, 184. 185, 191, 194, 199. 2]0, 293. 294, 298 Sl!E social action active partidpant 32, 202 actu.al events 2S6, 293, 296 addressed recipient 11, 94 Sl!E explidtly addressed recipient, implicitly addressed redpient, unaddressed recipient adjacency pair 79. 213 agent 62, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73, 75-80, 92, 95. 194 agreement 9, 10, SJ, 113, 137, 138, 1S3, 203, 21!}, 222, 226, 235, 277,2S3 alignment 5, 1S7, 195, 199 ambiguity 61, 63--65, 8o, 9S amplitude 270 anaphoric 162 anaphoric distal demonstrative 116, 117, 11S, 121, 140 animating 290, 291 animation narrative 3, 4> 6, 7, 10, 145.147· 14S, 152, 15J, 15S, 16o, 161, 16j, 167, 1]8, 179, 268--2]2, 275 animator !2• 184,193, 194 announcement 2S3

announcingtum 2S3 ano 'that(distal)' 3, 6,117, us, 167, 192, 19S, 207 ano: 'u:hm' 18S, 205, 281, 282, 2S7,2S8 appreciation 7, 9-11, 122, 135, 137. 139. 140, 183, 199-201, 20J, 213,237 are 'that ( distal) thing' 3-8, 10, 11, 113-117, 119-123, 125-131, 134-142, arguntent (syntactic) 61, 64-66, ]6, S8, 95· 1j0, 151 arguntent (quarrel) 4> 259,262 assertive particle 2S9 assessment 6, S3, S4. 92, 94, 113, 114,122,135, 137-13S, 204. 273, 277, 281, 2S3, 29S association 242, ~. 299

B back channel 5, 8--10, 26, 32, 114, 131, 1S7, 1S9, 2JO background 269 background information 28, 276, 2S1-2SJ, 285-287, 297 beat (rhythmic) 17-1S, 44. 50 beat (gesture) 9, 11, 1S, 267, ~· 271, 27J, 27S, 2S9, 292, 293· 296,297 body !h 198, 202, 2]8, 293, 29S body behavior 183, 202 body movements 13, 20, 61, 63, 66, 69, 72, 73, ]8, So, 83, 84. 94. 95. 98, 99> 2S3, 291

c cartoon 5, 270

casual casual conversation 3, s, 21, 20J, 211,212, 215.216, 2Jj, 268, 269, 271, 2]2, 274· 275· 284,296

Pages giving definitions are marked with an underline.

casual style 7, 232, 234, 267, ~ 277, 287, 2S9 casual utterances 271 character 9, 6J, 64> 67, S9, 96, 98, 148, 161, 16S, 1]2, 174· 175· 177, 213, 2J1, 232, 267, 269, 2]2, 2]6, 2]8, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293,296 Sl!E prindpal story character, story character, protagonist characterization 282, 286 circumstances 7, 11, 115, 267, 271, 2]2, 2S3, 284, 292, 293· 296,2,97 clarification 10, 1S3, 1S7, 1S9, 190,191, 193· 19!}, 200,201, 202,20J,2]1,27J,274 clausal self-repetition 5, 7, 11, 147· 148, ~· 151-161, 1]8, 179,1SO sEE repeating clause climax 26,30,31,44,4S,49· 137 eo-authorship 7, 1S6 eo-construction 5, 9, 114, 130, 140, 143· 225, 267, 2]1, 27J, ~· 288, 296, 297, 299 coda 6,26,4S,49,59 cognitive processes 160, 172, 178 collaboration 5, 226, 236 common common ground 2S7 common knowledge 267, 2S4 community 10, 2S2, 285 comparators 269, 271, 273, 296, 297 completing the story 293 complicating action 6, 26, 32, 42-45, 53-5S, S9, _2!! confirm 124, 139, 226, 277, 296 confirmation 5, 7, 126, us, 267, 2]2, 27J, 2S3, 2S..., 297

308 Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre confirm(ing) circumstances 271, 272., 297 confirm information 10 conflict 6, 8, 61, 89, 97, 98, 1.84 conjoined participation 5 connective 5, 12, 19, 126,198 content of the lecture 241, ::148, 254, 263, 275 context 61-63, 66, 67, So, 88, 95, 98, 99, 113-115, 118, 120, 121, 12]'-131, 1Yf, 136, 139· 140, 183, ::167, 275. 298 continuer 183, 1.84, ~. 189, 194, 195,200,l02,l03,l98 contracted (furm) 126, 271, 274. 277. 287, 289, 291, 293. 296 contrast 6, 269, 271, 273, ::186, ::187, ::189, 290, 291, 293 conversation J, 5, 6, 8, 21, 61-66, 71, 88, 98, 113-115, 119, 1::11-123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 135-137, 14o--14l, 152, 18.;, 203,204, 242, 264, 268, 269, 271-275. lB.;, 289, 296, 298--301 cooperative participant 23,32, 48 correlatives 269 eo-teller 10, 88-9o, 96-98 eo-telling 96, 122, 129 cut-off 18

D

daroo 'isn't it, probably' 217,273, 296,298

data 3. 16, 113, 115, 121, 185, 211, 213-215, 236, 267, 268--270

datfe 'but' 193, 198, lOO, ::108, ::188,289 defense 6J, 75, 97 Sl!l! self-defense definition 244.245, 247, 248, 254,263 deictic (expression) 5,116 deictic (gesture) 9,11,267,~, 271, 273, 296, 297. 301 Sl!l! pointing (gestme) demonstrating B!? 79, 88, 291 demonstration 78, 81, 83, 8.;, 89,234 Sl!l! quotation, reported speech dem011strative 3, 6, 7,9-n, 113123, 125.12]'-131, 137. 134-139. 140, 141, 148. 162--169,171-179

Sl!l! anaphoric distal demonstrative, distal demonstrative, pre-nominal demonstrative, neutral pre-nominal demonstrative, proximal pre-nominal demonstrative, endophoric use, exophoric use design 125. 211, 212, 236, 237 desyo(o) 'isn't it. probably' 124, 186, 205, 267, 271-273, 276, 279,297 detailed description 28, 236 detail narrative ~ develop developmental stage 23,48 development of the story 10, 23, 24· 26, 1.8.;, ::183 Sl!l! story development device 5, 214. 271, 274. 297 direct DIRECT !l1.• 219, 228, 267, 271, 274· 279-281, 289, 291 direct quote 269 direct reported speech 3, 6, 9, 10, 18, 23-27, 29-33.35-41. 44. 46. 48-51, 232 Sl!l! reported speech direct style 9, !2_, 267, 271, 273, ~ 277, 2]8, ::181, ::187, 289, 291, 294, 296 disalignment 183, 187, 195, 198, 199, 202, 203 discourse discourse markers 5 discourse unit 5, 263 distal distal demonstrative 3, 6, 9, 10, 113-121, 123, 125, 12]'-131, 1Yf, 1J5, 137-140 distal style !2> 219, 232, 267, ~ 289,292,296 distanced direct experience uo, 121, 127-131, 134· 136, 139 domain 119-121, 125,127-129. 131, 139. 140 dramatic continuity 49

E elaboration 127, 256 elaboration narratives 8, 241,~

Sl!l! detail narrative, review/preview narrative, epitome narrative ellipsis 3, 5, 61, 62, 63--{)6, 87, 9 ellipted referents 6, 8, n, 61, 63, 66,72. emotion 5, 143, 294, 296 empathy 291 emphasis 9, 11,271,273,293, 296 enact(ment) 2J,40,42,48,49 ending 26, 30, 273, 278, 282-28.;, 286 endophoric use 162, 164. 165, 172. English translation 3, 17, 19, 20, 116--118, 186, 216 environment 63, 66, 8.;, 88, 95, 98, 99· 115 epistemic modal 143, ::167, 273, 276,287 epitome narratives ::148, ~ equivalent role 214, 219, 231, 236 evaluation 4-7,11, 25-28, 3o-31, 46, 49. ~ 90, 213, 234. 267, ~. 270, 271, 273, 274· 288, 294 SEE external evaluation, internal evaluation, personal evaluation evaluative comment 30, 234. 236,269 evaluative particle 289 event 6, 7, 113,115.116, 121,122, 130, 140, 186, 213, 214, 242, ::148, 267, 269, 273, 274· l8l, 28.;, ::186, 287, l90-29J, 296, 297 Sl!l! actual events, future events, hypothetical event. imaginary (events), past events, real (events), story event. sequence of events exophoric use 165 experimentally collected narratives 5 explicatives ::169 explicitly addressed recipient 61, 66, 67, 71, 7l· 77· ]8, 8o,82, 95 Sl!l! implicitly addressed recipient expressive paralinguistics 270 expressive phonology 269 external evaluation 30, .l!_, 46, ::169, 273, 293· 296

Subject index 309 Sl!B internal evaluation eye contact 275

guest 3,4, 7-10,183-187,

F face 8, 9, 187, 193, !21> 195.196,

H haiku 3. 4· 7· 8, 10' 267, 268,

199· 202, 203

positive face facial expressions 274 falling intonation 156,157 farce 43, 44, 46 SEE

figure~

fillers 5, 19, 205, 271, 274, 277, 287, 293, 296

final particle s, 12, 19,267,272, 27J, 277, 283, 284, 287, 289, 291,293 first person 64, 88, 99. 269

second person, third person first person story 3,4 flow of the story 31, 49 foreground 274 foregroundlng 4 FPP [First Pair Part] 272 frame 212, 234 Sl!B

189-196, 198-203

271-279, 281, 283, 284, 286, 287, 29Q, 293-297· 302 haiku story 8, 290, 292, 293 head nod 6, 11, 12, 205

nod head tilt 291 here-and-now world 242 high-involvement style 269 highlight 278, 293, 296 hint 115, uo, 125,126,129,139. sEE

288,293

host 3, 4> 7-10, 12, 183-187, 189-203

hypothetical hypothetical character 4. 267, 287, 291

hypothetical event 4. 6, 290293,296,297

hypothetical story 293

frame grab 11, 19, 20, 274. 283,284 functional paragraph ~· 244,

248, 251, 256--:159. 274 future events 6, 7 G

gaze 6-12, 20, 61, 63, 66, 67,

69-73, 75-81, 83, 84> 87, 93--96, 98. 99· 113, 114· 123, 1J1, 134> 135· 137-J.41, 205

genre 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 271, 272, 274 gestural movements 18, 20,301 gesture 5, 6, 8-11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 123,152,161,170,171,179,233. 2J4, 269-271. 27J-275. 278, 283, 284> 289, 290, 297, 301

beat (gesture), deictic (gesture), iconic (gesture), pictorial (gesture), pointing (gesture), metaphoric (gesture), metaphoricreferring iconic (gesture) gesture space 270 Givenness Hierarchy 163 go-ahead 10, 231, ~· 281, 282 grammarians 5, 113, 114. 116-118, SEE

120,140

groundwork 7, 271-273, 283, 289,297

interaction 5-7, 11, 12, 26, 27, 31, 48. 81, 95. 96, 98, 99. 113-115, 119-121, 123, llS,ll9, 139. 183, 187, 204, 211, 21J, 219, 235. 237,268

talk-in-interaction intera...--tive goals 23, 25 internal evaluation 6, 27, 28,.1!? SEE

267, ~ 270, 27J, 296

external evaluation interpersonal function 8, 243 interpretation 61, 64--66, 7J, 76, n. 79. 88-90,93,95,115. 267, SEE

286,296

interview 5, 181, 184, 201, 203, 211-213,215,218,219, 222,226, 229-232, 234-238

interview question 7, 9, 211, 212, 219, 231, 232, 2J6

intonation 17, 18, 125, 138, 156, 157,289

introdw::ing the story 281 involvement 3, 4, 6""""!}, 11, u, 23, 24. 26, J2, 114, 211, 212, 214> 215, 225, 235-2J7, 26]'-269, 275.298

iconic (gesture) 9, 11,152, 153, 161, 267, 170,171, ~ 27J, 278,284,286-288,29o-292, 296,297 illustration 256, 258 illustration narrative 8, ~ 248,254

imaginary imaginary (events) 6, 7, imaginary situation 242, 247

implidtly addressed recipient 11, 61, 66, 81, 94. 95 Sl!B explidtly addressed redpient important points 253, 271 in-breath 18 indefinite this 11, 147, 163, 171-175

independence 242,~ independent individual 135. 138

independent knowledge 9 individuality 113, 131, 134. 135. 139.141

inferrable 169,172, 177, 179 inner feeling 289. 294 intensifier 138, 269

involvement strategies 214. 269

joint attention ~ joint storytelling sequences 8, 61, 62, 66, 95. 96

justification 288 juxtaposition 293

K knowing story recipient E.• 81, 88,94--97 Sl!B unknowing story recipient knowledge 4, 6-10, 12, 113,

116-118, 12o--llJ, 130-132, 134, 135· 137-J.41, 196, 267, 271, 272, 281, 282, 284, 285, 296, 297

common knowledge, shared knowledge, unshared knowledge knowledge gap 272, 281 knowledge questions 7, 267,

SEE

271, 272, 281, 296, 297 km1o 'this (proximal)' 3, 10, 11, 162-167, 16!}-172, 176,178, 285,296 koo 'this way' 278, 280, 293-295

310

Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre ko- 'this (proximal)' 9, 116, 164, 165,167

L

laugh 196, 275. 278 SEE within

speech laughter laughingvoice 18 laugh-like voice 196, 199 laughter 5, 8-10, 12, 17, 18, 26, 27, 30, 32, 38, 39, 43, 44· 46, 48. so, 51, 183, 196, ;u6, 224, 271, 2.73, 2.75, 2.91, 296,2.99

lecture 4--9, 12, 18, 241, 2.67-276, 278, 282, 292, 295-297, 300, 301 SEE university lecture lecture narrative 4. 6 lecture storytelling 9. 269. 271, 2.74· 275. 278' 296, 297 lengthened vocalization 183, 187, 199. 200, 202., 2.03 lengthening 18 lexical choice 5, 12 loudness 11, 32

M ma: 'we: U' 142, 278, 280, 282, 2.87, 288, 293-2.95, 299

metaphoric-referring iconic (gesture) ~ metaphoric (gesture) 2.70,~ mimetic word 42 mismatch 288 monologue 140, 242, 267 mora 17, 18, 20, 37, 268, 294, 301 motivation 161, 164, 178, 236 multi-modal activity 11 mutuality 120, 140, 141

N

nanka 'someho~ something' 19,277,279,288, 293-295 nante (evaluative particle) 255,

260, 289, 295 narrative 3-5, §_, r-u, 145, 147, ~ 150,152,241, 186, ~ 2.68-272,275,2.76,299,300 narrative retellings 3, 6, 270 narrative strru.."i.ure 26, 27 negation 269

11e (final particle)

'you know; isn't it' 17, 19, 117, 124, 132, 133. 135. 137. 139. 186, 188, 201, 202, 205, 206, 209, 216--229, 231, 2J2, 234. 267, 270-27J, 277-280,282-285,287-290, 292-295· 297· 2,98, 303 neutrality !!1_, 194. 195, 203 neutral pre-nominal demonstrative 3, 166, 175, 178 Sl!E proximal pre-nominal demonstrative newsmarker 187, 195, 196, 198, 202,203 newsworthy 28 nod 11, 126, 127, 130, 132, 135, 291 SEE head nod non-gestura! (body) movements 18,2o,283,301 non-person narrative 4 nonverbal nonverbal behavior 3-5, 8, 11, 12, 19, 113, 140, 141, 278, 300,301 nonverbal devices 9. 268, 298 nonverbal resources 114, 267 nonverbal support 171 noteworthiness 287, 2.93, 2.96

0 objective stance 10, 183, 185, 187, 191, 193· 1% 202 onomatopoeia 9, 11, 12, 42, 267, 271, 27J, 274. 284, 287, 288, 290-293, 296, 297 ordinary (behavior) 273, 286--291,293,296,297 orientation 6, 7, 26, 28,32, 115, 119, 121, 122, 126, 129.140, 189,199 out- breath 18 out of the ordinary 293 overall structure 6, 275, 276 overall topic structure 272, 276 overhearer 81, 95, 137 overlap 17, 18, 44. 131, 222, 270

p pacing 269 participation framework 6, 61, ~ 66, 80, 81, 95 participation roles 5, 62, 66

participatory framework 3, 6--8, 10, 211, 212, 213, 215, 218, 219. 22.6, 230, 235-237 passive listener 7, 183, 202, 203 past 7· 19, 116, 117, 120, 121, 126, 130, 186, 189. 214, 286, 291, 297 past events 7, 116, 130, 186 pause 18, 72, 125, u6, 270, 277, 278 personal personal evaluation 4, 267, 2.96

personal story 114, 116 personal view 293 perspective 6, 7, 13, 12o---122, 195, 196, 203, 235, 293,300,301 Photoshop 11 physical response 281, 296 pictorial (gesture) 9, 11, 267, ~· 271, 2.7J, 283, 284. 296, 2.97 pitch 11, 23, 32--37,39-41,44-47, so, 2.67, 270, 294, 2.96 pointing (gesture) 6, 8-11,20, 61, 62, 66, 67, 69-73. 75-81, 84, 87, 93-95· 98, 270, 296 SEE deictic (gesture) point of the story/narrative 9, 267, 269-271, 273· 284. 296 polite language 4, 7 politeness 203 positive face 187, _!2f, 2.02. postposed postposed clauses 17 postposed noun phrases 17 post-propositional narrative 276 posture 10, u, 183, 186, 190-192, 194-200, 207, 274· 283, 295. 297.301 posture change 10, 12, 183, 197, 198, 2.02, 274, 283 potential story 10, 230, 272, 281,283 SEE prospective story Praat 11 preceding and following discourse 4.8 preceding and subsequent parts of the lecture 7 preceding clause 147, .!2!!_, 151, 154-156,159-161,178 preening 20, 301 preface 114, 115, 282

Subject index 311 pre-nominal demonstrative 7, n, 147, 148, 162, 16j-169. 171175, 177-179

proximalpre-nominal demonstrative, neutral prenominal demonstrative presentation oftopic/problem (narrative) 8, ~ previous talk 275, :q6 prime speaker ~. 88 principal character !!z., 71, 72, 81, SEE

84.88,90,96

prior topic sequence 271 process of storytelling 113, 121, 140

professional side 296 pronoun 5, 62--64, 99, 141, propositional content 150,151, 160,178

prosody :.1. 4, 6, 8--12, 23, 25-27, 31--33, 36-38, 42, 46, 48, 50, 114· 1J8, 199. 270

prospective prospective indexical 5, 113, 114. !!2_, 119,121,125,129, 139

prospective story 115, 231, 272,282, 283, 296 Sl!l! potential story

prospective story recipient 272 protagonist 147,148,157, 167, 168, 173-175

proximal pre-nominal demonstrative 166 SEE neutral pre-nominal demonstrative

Q question 4--9, 12, 17, 19, 63, 6j,

69. 76--411, 83, 88, 95. 122, 186, 187, 200-202, 211-213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 222, 226, 229-232, 234--237· 267, 271--275· 277, 281, 289, 294, 296,297· 299 question-answer 79, 213,218

Quicklime Pro n quotation 5, 18, 24, 78, 83, 87, 88,126, 267, 270,275-278, 281, 283, 290, 291, 292, 295--297

demonstration, reported speech

Sl!B

R rapport 8, 9 rapport narratives 262 real (events) 7, 267,293 recipient 4-6, s-12, 113,115,125,

responsive behavior 3, 183, 184. 186,187

retellings of an animation 268 review/preview narrative 248, ~·254

128, 129, 139,142, 186, 203, 213, 214. 236, 267, 268, 270--273,

Rhetorical Structure Theo-

274· 282, 285,293· 299

rhythm 46, 50, 208

story recipient, knowing story recipient, unknowing story recipient, explicitly addressed recipient. implicitly addressed recipient recipient design 125, 285 recognition search 113, 121, ~· SEE

126--129, 139· 140

reconstructed conversation 25,

ry 243

Romanization 3, 16, 17, 20, 116--118,120, 186, 216, 278

s same-significance proce-

dure ~· 219. 226,232,235 second person 77-79. 95, 99 Sl!B first person, third person second story 3, 7-10, 211-215, 218,219, 222,226, 231,235--237

31

reconstruct( ion) 25, 44, 46, 49 reference referent 6, 8, 11, 61, 63-66, 72, So, 95, 98, 99.114. 116--121, 125,126, 129,139· 140,147,162-168,170,172, 173,175-179 referential 5, 116, 119, 125 referential distance 167, 168 referring expressions 5, 15, 16,179

reiterate 191, 197, 295 repeat 9-11, 219, 235, 274. 284, 286,288,289,291

repeating clause 147, !i!!_, 151, 152-156,15!}-161, 178

self 3, 4. 5, 7, 10-12,14,194.274, 277, 281, 289, 299

self-defense 75, 77, 82,83 self-deprecating 196, 199 self-directed question 277,281 self-directed utterances 274. 277

self- repetition 3, 5, 7,11 sentence particles 274 sequence sequence of events 7, 32, 157-159.242,274

sequence of relationships 157-159, 178 sequential organization 5, 138,JOO

clausal repetition repetition 3, 5, 7--9, 11, 12, 114,

series of stories 214, 226, 235,

1J2, 140. 147· 148, 1j0-161, 178, 179. 18J, 1S,.. 187, 189-191, 193-195, 199-203, 205, 258, 26j, 267, 269-271, 273, 274· 283,288--291,296, 297, 299. 301 reported speech 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12,

shared 3, 4. 6, 8--10, 12, 113, 114.

Sl!B

76-78,232

direct reported speech, demonstration, quotation request request agreement 277, 283 request confirmation u6, SEE

267,284

request formats 272 resolution 6, 26, 292 responsibility 6, 8, 10, 61, 82, 97

236 116-118, 120, 121, 130, 132, 135, 13?-140, 226,282,284,285 shared feeling 26 shared information 10, 96, 97,285

shared knowledge 4. 6, 8--10, 12, 116, 118, 130, 132, 137, 138, 140.164. 167, 212 sl!E unshared knowledge shared perception 46 shared perspective 48 shift in the speaker's point of view 242 simau 'end up doing_ 5 simuhaneous utterances 30 SEE overlap

312 Storytelling across Japanese Conversational Genre sitazi-zukuri 'ground work' 2j'2. social social action 61, 63, 8:1, 97, 99,298 social circwnstances :172. sociolinguistic survey interview 3,4, 7,8,10 solidarity 9, 26,31,46,48,uo sono 'that (medial)' 3, 10, 19, 135-139· 147· 162-16<), 175· 176, 178, :177. 280, :18:1, 290, 295 sv- 'that (medial)' 9, 116, 118, 164.165 sound spectrogram 33, 34,36, 37.39-41.44-47 speaker's memory 116--118 speech level shift 274. 299. JOO spontaneous 149, 152, 172,274, 287 stance 7, 8, 10, 93-95, uo, 183-185, 187, 189, 191, 193. 194, ~' 196, 197, 199-203, 236, 274 stance display 183, 184. 187,195. 19<)-203 story character 62, 67, 71, j'2., 77· 80, 81, 94--<)6, 272., 287 SEE protagonist story development 7, 32 Sl!E development of the story story event 10, :187, 286, 291-293, 2.97 storyline 73, 83 story preface 114,115,282 story recipient 4. 5, 8--11, 63, 66, 82, 94, 98, 115, 267, 203, 213, 268, 2j'2., 273, 282 Sl!E recipient, knowing story recipient, unknowing story recipient story round ~ 225, 226 storytelling devices :169, 271, 275. 297. 298 storyt.eUing 3--5, ~ 7-12, 21, 26--2.8,30, J1,33,38, 39, 43, 45, 48, 49· 61--64, 66, 67, j'2., 73· 76, 81, 82, 84, 88, 94-100, 113, 114, 118, 121, 122, 125, 139-141, 145. 181, 183, 186, :101, 203, 213, 235-236, 23<), 268, 26<;, 271, :173-275.278,2.96--299.303

story world 6, :13-26, 28, 30-32, 40,42,48,49.291 stroke :10, 283,301 style 5, 7, 9, 12, 19, 143, 212, 216, 219, 234, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274. 277, 278, 281, 287, 289, 291, 292, 294, 296, 2<)8-J01 style shifting 5, 12, 274, 298, 299 subjective attitude 8, 187 subsequent clause !2!!_, 154. 156,161 successive stories 3 survey interview 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 181,211-213,215,218,226,230, 232, 235-238

T -ta PAST 286, 2<)1, 297 TAG 19, 186, 272, 273 talk-in-interaction 61, 64, 66, 67, 72.· 73· 78. 79· 88, 96, 9<), 211 (television) talk show 3-5, 7-10, 12, 181, 183-185, 189, 191, 193· 1<)4.202,203 tellability 5, 10, 213, 226, 232, :167, 268' 2j'2., 275. 281-:183, 28j, 298 tellable 4, 12, 7:1, :171, 2j'2. tellership 5, 6, 12, 13, 62, 94, 96 telling sequence 122, 123, 125, 129, 135· 1J9 temporal sequence of events 7 tense 5, 138 textual functions 8 that N 10,147, 162,163,166,167, 177,178 third person 3. 4· 64, 77. 79. 92, 95.98 Sl!E first person, second person third person narratives 4 this N 10, 11, 147, 162, 163, 167, 171-178 three-party three-party conversation 8 three-party survey interviews :111, :113, :115 title-like theme announcement 283

topic 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 129, 130, 203, 211,213,215, 218,232, 234-236, 241, 248, 251, 259. 26<;, 271-273, 276, 289 topical coherence 7, ~· 276 topic introduction 248, 251,

263 topic of the interview 7, 211, 235,:136 transcription conventions 3, 17, 116, 186, 216, 278 transitivity 4, 13 turn-taking 6, 119,184

u unaddressed recipient 8, 9 unbiased stance 8 underline :10, 123, 134. 301 unfinished sentence 274. 296 Sl!E eo-construction university lecture 3, 4. 7, 8, 239, 241, 243· 268, 270, 274. 29<), 300,301 unknowing story recipient Z!• 72, 73, 77, 78, 81, SJ, 84, 88, r;o,

94--97 knowing story recipient unshared knowledge 9 upgrade 274 Sl!E

V verbal 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 113, 141, 211, 237· 267, 268, 284. 298--JOO viewpoint 7, 184.193 voice 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 138, 212, 267, 270' 289, 290, :192, :196, 301 VDice of the character 31, 267,296 VDice quality 3, 6, 9, 11, 23-27, 32, 33· J6-J8, 46, 48, 270

w wadan 'functional paragraph' 180, 243. 283

wake 'reason' 5, :184, 289, 290, 2.95

Subject index 313 wa (topic particle) 5, 17, 19,117, 119,123-127, 13o--132, 142· 277-2.81,284,285,288,289, 291-293. 295, 297 waveform 33,34,36, 37,39-41, 44-47 Wavesurfer 11, 24 within-speech laughter l2_, 39.46

wording 40, 41, 46

word order 17, 281

yo ne (final particle) 'isn't it; I tell you, you know' 109,

y yes/no questions 273 yo (final particle) 'I tell you' 17, 19, 86, 108, 117, us, 1:1.4> 125, 1JO, 1J2, 1JJ, 135-139, 267, 270-l73,277-289,292,295· 297,298

124> 1J2, 133. 135.137. 139. 2.67, 270-273, 277, 279,282-285, 287-289, 297, 298

z zya nai (ka) 'isn't it ( ... ?)' 136, 2]2,273,294.296-2.98

In the series Studies in Narrative the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 13 12 11 10

9 8

6 5

4 3 2

SZATROWSKI,PollyE. (eel.): Storytelling across Japanese CoiWersational Genre. 2010. vi, 313 pp. STEWART, Katherine A. and Madel.ine M. MAXWELL: Storied Conflict Talk. Narrative construction in mediation. 2010. vu, 137 pp. HYVARINEN, Matti, Lars-O~risler HYD~N, Marja SAARENHBIMO and Maria TAMBOUKOU (eels.): Beyond Narrative Coherence. 2010. vi, 196 pp. KURKOWSKA-BUDZAN, Marta and Krzysztof ZAMORSKI (eels.): Oral History. The challenges of dialogue. 2009. xviii, 224 pp. BAMBERG, Mk:hael., Anna DE FINA and Debonh SCHIFFRIN (eds.): Selves and Identities in Narrative and Discourse. 2007. x. 355 pp. GEORGAKOPOULOU,Aieundra: Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. 2007• .xii, 186 pp. SHKEDI, Asher: Multiple Case Narrative. A qualitative approach to studying multiple populations. 2005. xvi, 210 pp. THORNBORROW, Joanna and Jennifer COATES (eds.): The Sociolinguistics of Narrative. 2005. vi, 300 pp. QUASTHOFF, Uta M. and Tabea BECKER (eds.): Narrative Interaction. 200 5· vi, 306 pp. BAMBERG, Mk:hael. and Molly ANDREWS (eds.): Considering Counter-Narratives. Narrating. resisting. making senS