Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television Interview Discourse (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Gender, Language and Culture Gender, Language and Culture A study of Japanese television interview discourse Lidia...

81 downloads 1294 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Gender, Language and Culture

Gender, Language and Culture A study of Japanese television interview discourse

Lidia Tanaka La Trobe University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

Contents

List of abbreviations and conventions List of data transcription conventions Romanization of Japanese: Hepburn System List of tables List of ªgures Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Introduction Theoretical framework 3 The study of discourse 3 Discourse analysis: Speech act theory 3 Conversation analysis 5 Turntaking system 7 The concept of ¶oor 9 Adjacency pairs 9 Preference organization 12 Conversation analysis and ‘institutional’ language 13 Politeness 14 Politeness and conversation analysis 17 Speech style, personal pronouns and social relations 17 Asymmetry and power 19 Japanese communication: Some cultural concepts 19 Hierarchy 20 Role 21 Uchi/soto 22 Language and gender 23 Japanese women’s language 25 Historical background 25 Characteristics of Japanese ‘genderlects’ 27 Lexical features 27

xi xii xiii xv xvi xvii

1

vi

Gender, Language and Culture

Personal pronouns 27 Sentence ªnal particles 28 Verb forms 28 Syntax 28 Politeness 28 Conversation analysis and social variables 29 An overview of the study 30 Chapter 2 The interview genre Introduction 33 Previous studies 33 Typology of television interviews 36 News interviews 37 Current aŸairs 37 Cultural interviews 37 Talk shows 38 Television and language in Japan 38 Japanese television interviews 39 The data 40 Conversation analysis and interviews 42 Characteristics of the interview 43 Role allocation 43 Participants’ identities 44 Asymmetry in the interaction 44 Goal-oriented interaction 45 One-way ¶ow of information 45 Pre-arranged interactions 45 Turntaking rules 46 Summary and conclusion 54 Chapter 3 Turntaking Introduction 57 Japanese conversation: Characteristics of turntaking 57 Characteristics of Japanese television interviews 60 Some facts of interviews 61 The host’s turns 62

33

57

Contents vii

Questions 64 Wh-questions 64 Alternative questions 65 Yes/No questions 66 ‘No’ questions 66 Tte questions 67 Deshoo questions 67 Rising intonation 68 Echoing as clariªcation/questioning 69 Grammatically unªnished questions 70 Declaratives as information elicitors 71 Grammatically complete declaratives 71 Grammatically incomplete declaratives 72 Host’s comments 73 Reformulations and formulations 75 The guests’ turns 76 When guests ask questions 78 Other-correction 80 Turn-endings: Syntactically ªnished and unªnished turns 82 Syntactically complete turns: Some features 83 Postpositions 85 Unªnished utterances 85 Tte/to endings 87 Unªnished quotations 88 Grammatical particles in turn ends 89 Clausal particles and conjunctive particles in turn ends 90 Conjunctive forms 91 Conditional forms 92 Sentence ªnal particles 93 Abbreviated utterances 95 Summary and conclusion 96 Chapter 4 Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview Introduction 99 Previous studies 100 Research in Japan 101 Dominance and asymmetry in the interview 104

99

viii Gender, Language and Culture

Interruptions 104 Overlaps 107 Interruptions and gender 108 Interruptions in the female group under 50 Cooperative turns 112 Shifts of style 116 Pronouns and terms of address 122 When the host is older 128 Lexical items 130 An uchi interaction? 132 Summary and conclusion 133 Chapter 5 Aizuchi in the interview Introduction 137 Previous studies 137 Deªnition 138 Position of aizuchi in the discourse 142 Aizuchi at major junctures 143 Aizuchi after grammatical completion 143 Aizuchi after clauses 144 Aizuchi after noun phrases 145 Aizuchi after SFPs and rising intonation 146 Aizuchi in mid-sentence 148 Aizuchi sequences 150 Aizuchi functions 154 Intonation 154 Semantic content 155 Position in the discourse 156 Six functions of aizuchi 156 Aizuchi as continuers 156 Aizuchi as acknowledgements 157 Aizuchi as echoers 158 Aizuchi as newsmarkers 159 AŸective aizuchi 160 Aizuchi as ªllers 162 The aizuchi token hai 162 Hai as a continuer 163

110

137

Contents

Hai as an answer 164 Hai after aizuchi 166 Hai after announcements 167 Single and duplicated tokens 168 Summary and conclusion 171 Chapter 6 Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry Introduction 175 Previous studies 176 Gender diŸerences in aizuchi 178 Aizuchi of host and guests 183 Naruhodo: A role speciªc aizuchi 183 Formal and informal aizuchi tokens 187 Younger guests overwhelmingly use formal tokens 191 Duplicated tokens 195 Summary and concluding remarks 198 Chapter 7 Conclusion Turntaking in interviews 201 Aizuchi in interviews: Gender, age, and role diŸerences Theoretical implications 204 Concluding remarks 205 References Appendices Index

175

201 203

207 221 223

ix

List of abbreviations and conventions

COM COND CONJ COP DESID EXCL GEN HON HORT HUM INST LOC NEG NP O ONMT PASS PAST PL PROG PRE POL Q Qt S SFP T TOP

sentential complementiser (no, koto) conditional a¹x (-ba, -tara, -to) conjunctive a¹x (-te, -de) copula (da, na, dearu, desu) desiderative a¹x (-tai) exclamation genitive case (no) honoriªc hortative (daroo, deshoo) humble instrumental locative negative form noun phrase direct object onomatopoeia passive a¹x (-rare) past tense plural su¹x (-tachi, -ra) progressive (-teiru) present tense polite question particle (ka) quotation marker (to, tte) subject marker (ga) sentence ªnal particle title (-san, -chan, -kun, -sama) topic marker (wa)

List of data transcription conventions

The following conventions suggested by Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn, Paolino and Cumming (1990) were used for the transcription of the data. Hyphen Comma

(-) (,)

Full-stop Question mark @ mark Square brackets Two dots Three dots Three dots plus number

(.) (?) @@ ([]) (..) (…) (…(0.7))

Truncated word Continuing intonation unit, usually signalled by intonational, semantic and/or syntactic factors Completed intonation unit Question Laughter Simultaneous speech Brief pause, 0.2 seconds or less Medium pause, 0.3- 0.6 seconds Long pause with number indicating duration in seconds Indicates type of vocal noise Indicates comment by researcher Indicates indecipherable syllable Aizuchi Vowel lengthening Rising intonation marked quality possible utterance grammatically unªnished utterance

Single brackets (sneeze) Double brackets ((gaze)) Capital X (X) Single brackets bold (yes) Equal sign (=) Diagonal line (/) Capital letters TEXT <> *Hush sign (#) *Symbol devised for this study H letter (h) Indicates inbreath

Romanization of Japanese: Hepburn system

Vowels:

a

i

u

e

o

Long Vowels1:

aa

ii

uu

ee/ei

oo

Consonant+Vowel:

ka sa ta na ha ma ya ra wa ga za da ba pa

ki shi chi ni hi mi

ke se te ne he me

ri

ku su tsu nu fu mu yu ru

gi ji ji bi pi

gu zu zu bu pu

ge ze de be pe

ko so to no ho mo yo ro o go zo do bo po

Consonant+Consonant+Vowel: kya sha cha nya hya mya rya gya ja bya pya

kyu shu chu nyu hyu myu ryu gyu ju byu pyu

re

kyo sho cho nyo hyo myo ryo gyo jo byo pyo

1. The original Hepburn System uses â, û, ê and ô for the corresponding long vowels. However, for convenience I use double vowels instead.

xiv Gender, Language and Culture

Double consonant: eg.

ikka kotto

Single/n/:

n

Syllabic nasal:

n’

jissai

katte

ippen

List of tables

Chapter 3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2

Distribution of Turn Construction Units (TCU) DiŸerences in TCU distribution between host and guests

Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3

Interruptions Intrusive and cooperative interruptions Pronominal system

Chapter 5 Table 5.1

Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence)

Appendix I Details of interviews Table 1 Group FI: Females over 50 Table 2 Group FII: Females under 50 Table 3 Group MI: Males over 50 Table 4 Group MII: Males over 50 Appendix II Table 5 Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence) Table 6 Aizuchi frequency

List of ªgures

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

Distribution of Turn Construction Units (TCU) DiŸerences in TCU distribution between host and guests

Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2

Interruptions Intrusive and cooperative interruptions

Chapter 5 Figure 5.1

Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence)

Acknowledgments

This book is based on my PhD thesis and during the completion of this work I received the help of many people who encouraged me, guided me and oŸered me support directly and indirectly. My PhD supervisor, Dr. Hilary Chappell, was an endless fountain of knowledge and guidance throughout the most di¹cult years. Besides being a caring and supportive supervisor she also taught me the importance of careful observation, interpretation and meticulousness needed in research. Furthermore, I also wish to thank her for her patience and care in reading endless drafts of the thesis and this book. Dr. David Bradley, my co-supervisor, encouraged me to embark in this direction. I thank him for his support. I also want to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Michael Noonan, who read the initial manuscript and accepted it for publication. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for invaluable comments and advice, to Catherine Travis for her helpful observations on a number of chapters when this work was still in the early stages of a thesis and to Kees Vaes for all the publishing arrangements. My heartfelt gratitude is due to my undergraduate professors Dr. Yukio Takefuta and especially Dr. Erich Berendt at Chiba University (Japan) who introduced me to the world of linguistics. I would also like to thank Sudha Joshi and Richard Delacy for reading many of the chapters and for their friendship. This work would not have been completed without the initial and continuous encouragement of my husband, Peter. He put up with endless hours of housework, proof reading, computer skills and babysitting. Also thanks are due to my son Marcel for his patience and good humour. And ªnally I wish to express all my gratitude to my parents and my sister Nélida who taught me to love to learn.

Chapter 1

Introduction

This book examines the interaction of gender and some basic cultural notions in the communicative process of Japanese dyadic television interviews. It is an interdisciplinary study, which uses the Sacks, JeŸerson and SchegloŸ (1974) model as a starting framework for analysis and incorporates notions of politeness and theories of gender and language. The speech in same and mixed gender interactions is examined, focusing on turntaking, terms of address and aizuchi (listener’s responses). The study shows how participants interact through language and project their identities as deªned by role, age, gender and relationship in the context of the interview. Television interviews are ‘institutional’ interactions. They show a number of diŸerent characteristics from everyday conversation (Drew and Heritage, 1992; Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Clayman, 1988, Heritage, 1995) and are deªned by several factors. Firstly, participants’ roles are well deªned; they entail clear obligations and restrictions, which creates an asymmetric interaction. This produces a distinctive turntaking system, as I show throughout the book. The study of Japanese in formal situations has been largely overlooked (apart from Abe, 2000; Endo, 1997; Kobayashi, 1997b; Nakajima, 1997;Wetzel, 1984), even though it is well known that many factors in¶uence the way people talk. While the contribution to the understanding of spoken Japanese is enormous, most researchers have based their observations and analyses on data of conversational Japanese (Hayashi, 1996; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; Mori, 1999; Tanaka, 1999), or on answers provided through questionnaires (Ide et al., 1986; Peng, 1981). Because the degree of formality dictates the speech style, it is not extraordinary to expect that turntaking will also be aŸected. However, little is known about the turntaking aspect when formality increases. The speech used in court, in medical interviews, on television or in meetings, or ‘institutional’ language, has received very little attention in Japan. It is known that speech changes according to the degree of formality and Japanese is well known for its diŸerences in styles. Speech style is deªned by many factors, among them being event, topic, speakers, status and roles. Most languages in the world possess a number of mechanisms to show politeness

2

Gender, Language and Culture

or solidarity (Brown and Levinson, 1987), which range from an elaborate honoriªc system (Japanese, Korean, Javanese and Tamil), the T/V pronominal system (French, Spanish, German, Hungarian, etc.), to the usage of indirect utterances (subjunctive forms, negative forms, etc.). The Japanese language is well known for its complex honoriªc system and formal/plain forms. The main factors that determine the tenor of politeness in Japanese culture are formality, role, hierarchy and in-group/out-group membership (Loveday, 1986; Kindaichi, 1990; Kuno, 1973; Miller, 1967; Ogino, 1986). Apart from formal/informal styles, Japanese has a ‘gendered’ speech style, which denotes the sex of the speaker. From an early age, boys learn to talk like boys and girls learn to talk like girls. These female and male speech styles are reinforced throughout their formative years. Gender diŸerences in the Japanese language become less conspicuous in formal situations (e.g. usage of personal pronouns, sentence ªnal particles, lexicon) (Shibamoto, 1985; Shibatani, 1990), and diŸerences in the choice of particular syntactic, morphological and lexical forms diminish as the degree of formality increases. Despite this aspect, most studies on women’s language focus on informal conversational data or questionnaires (Ide et al., 1986; Shibamoto, 1985) or intuitive comments (Horii, 1990; Kitagawa, 1997). Research suggests that men and women talk diŸerently in other cultures too. In Anglo-Saxon culture, men’s language has been described as aggressive and controlling whereas women’s has been associated with cooperation and support. In Japanese, too, female language is akin to collaboration and politeness. However, many empirical studies are inconclusive regarding gender and language, and this is further emphasized by con¶icting reports. Given that Japanese males and females neutralize1 their speech style in formal situations, several questions arise. Do speakers use other strategies such as interruptions, hedges and backchanneling in order to assert their maleness or femaleness? Or do they prioritize the situation over their gender? What strategies do speakers use in situations when there is a con¶ict arising from a divergence between age, status and gender? These aspects of language use are the focal points of this study. This book shows the importance of role and age in Japanese society. It also shows that all participants, male and female, display a very cooperative communication style. This style is more pronounced when there is no con¶ict arising from a status/age or gender diŸerence. There are no ‘stereotypical’ speech styles such as onnarashii ‘feminine’ or otokorashii ‘masculine’ in my data, however, most of the male guests use some linguistic device to show their ‘male’ identity.

Introduction

Theoretical framework The next sections are devoted to the theoretical framework of this study, beginning with theories of spoken discourse. I then look more speciªcally at conversation analysis and its application to ‘institutionalized’ language. This is followed by an appraisal of politeness in the Japanese context. Finally, theories of gender and language are explored focusing on the context of Japanese female language.

The study of discourse In the last forty to ªfty years, research of ‘natural’ speech has attracted much attention. The concept of human speech as an ‘interactive’ activity is perhaps one of the most important characteristics of this interest in talk. Also, the in¶uence of disciplines such as philosophy, ethnography and sociology on the understanding of language shaped the theories that were formulated. The study of how language is actually used and its eŸects on the speakers is broadly known as discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is a ‘very ambiguous term’ (Stubbs, 1983; 1). Its deªnition varies among scholars, and an exact and comprehensive deªnition is in itself the topic of an entire book. Many scholars have written excellent works on this (see e.g. Brown and Yule, 1983; Heritage; 1984; Psathas, 1995; SchiŸrin, 1994), but the scope of what discourse analysis is diŸers for each author. Some deªne discourse analysis in a narrow sense (Psathas, 1995; Stubbs, 1983), while others combine various approaches into one discipline (SchiŸrin, 1994). SchiŸrin (1994), for example, writes that there are six diŸerent approaches within discourse analysis: speech act theory, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis and variation analysis. Others consider discourse analysis as a branch of pragmatics (Diamond, 1996).

Discourse analysis: Speech act theory In this study, I will use the narrower deªnition of discourse analysis. Each of the approaches mentioned above originated from a diŸerent discipline; therefore its emphasis is deªned by those in¶uences. Discourse analysis has its roots in philosophy, and is also known as speech act theory. In his book How to do things with words, Austin (1962) writes that there are two types of statements: performatives and constatives. By using performatives, people

3

4

Gender, Language and Culture

actually do things. Constatives undergo a test of truth and performatives have to fulªll four felicity conditions in order not to ‘misªre’. Although Austin states that performatives have a grammatical structure in the form of I+ present simple active verb, there are many performatives that have a diŸerent form. This discrepancy is resolved in a way so that performatives can be ‘reproducible’ in a form, that has the verb in the ªrst person singular indicative present. This basic notion was later developed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1975) into the speech act theory. While the focus was initially on the distinction between performatives and constatives, it later shifted to the idea that each utterance is a speech act with three levels: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary (Austin, 1975). The locutionary act is characterized by the use of speech. The illocutionary act is the ‘performance of an act in saying something as opposed to the performance of an act of saying something.’ (Austin, 1962: 99–100). And the perlocutionary act is what actually occurs as a result of what we say. Searle, who followed the work of Austin, has some diŸering points. While Austin emphasized the speaker’s intention for a successful realization of an illocutionary act, Searle stresses the listener’s interpretation. Another diŸerence lies in the notion of the locutionary act, which Searle does not accept but proposes instead a propositional act. For a linguistic realization of an illocutionary act, Searle suggests two rules: regulative and constitutive. The ªrst rule deals with conditions and the second deªnes the behaviour itself (Searle, 1969). Searle also deals with rules that are essential for making a speech act: the propositional content rule, the preparatory rule, the sincerity rule and the essential rule. The Birmingham school of discourse analysis focused on the sequential organization of talk. They used classroom interaction (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Stubbs, 1983) and doctor-patient situations as models of analysis. They proposed a rank scale, consisting of Lessons, Transactions, Exchanges, Moves and Acts. The smallest unit is the Act, but the Move is considered the ‘minimal interactive unit’ (Burton, 1980). Each Move has a unique internal structure with 22 diŸerent acts such as elicitation, reply, evaluate and comment suggested. The Acts are deªned according to the functions they fulªll in discourse. The typical structure of a classroom interaction had a sequence of three parts: Initiation, Response and Follow-up. An interaction is accomplished with Initiations that can predict certain types of responses. A Followup is used by teachers in order to evaluate the student’s answer. The I-R-F model has been applied to analyze daily conversation, where the Follow-up is

Introduction

used by interlocutors to indicate that the message has been heard or understood (Tsui, 1989), and also in medical encounters (Labov and Fanshel, 1977). While the approach of discourse analysis in understanding how language is used was revolutionary and had major repercussions in related ªelds such as language teaching, there are limitations. First, although Searle et al. imply that their system can be used as a model of analysis, albeit with some modiªcations, it was criticized as being based on the ‘traditional’ classroom situation. Although there are studies based on the I-R-F model in the analysis of everyday conversation, the major weakness in the model is its lack of insight into how ‘mutual understandings are achieved by the participants’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992). Another weakness is the di¹culty in applying this model to a free¶owing conversation with numerous participants and no rigid structure, unlike classroom interactions.

Conversation analysis Conversation analysis looks at language as a ‘social activity’. Its objective is to study the structure and the order of social interaction, which occurs through language in everyday talk. Conversation analysis (CA) developed as a result of in¶uences from the ethnographical approaches of GoŸman and Garªnkel to the study of human activities. GoŸman (1967) established an approach to studying human behaviour focusing on ‘natural’ activities. He described the everyday activities of people and demonstrated that important social aspects are manifested in those activities. His work validated the CA approach to detailed observation of everyday conversations. He also showed that an understanding of social structures could be achieved through description and analysis without hypothesis testing, the traditional method. The development of ethnomethodology, a term invented by Garªnkel (1974), had a profound impact on the study of language as it promised a new method of research. A theory of sociology prevailing in the 1950’s was Parson’s premise of social actions as a product of shared internalized rules and norms. Criticism of the Parsonian approach was based on the fact that the theory was static and that assumptions took prevalence over what and how actions occurred. Ethnomethodology is the study of ‘a particular subject matter: the body of common-sense knowledge and the range of procedures and considerations by means of which the ordinary members of society make sense of, ªnd their way about in, and act on the circumstances in which they ªnd themselves’ (Heritage, 1984: 4).

5

6

Gender, Language and Culture

CA is the meeting point of sociology and linguistics. Although language is the object of analysis, the aim of CA is to study the order and organization of social action. It is the task of the researcher to ªnd, describe and analyze this order and organization in natural speech. The techniques of CA include the minute analysis of talk to discover and observe recurrent patterns and also deviant cases. Although speech has a contextual relevance, there is a deliberate exclusion of external features such as the social identities of the participants, the setting, the personal attributes, and so on. This is justiªed by the emphasis on avoiding premature generalizations and idealization of the data. In the early stages of the development of CA, Sacks (1984) and SchegloŸ (1968) discovered that telephone call openings had certain repeated patterns in their sequence. They found that the calls were interactions where there was a turn sequence organization. They noticed that these sequences had a number of recurrent characteristics; most importantly, that there is order and structure in talk. Although they started collecting and analyzing data for a diŸerent purpose (Heritage, 1984: 235), their insight led to the writing of their turntaking model (Sacks et al., 1974), which is explained in detail in subsequent sections and more speciªcally in Chapter 3. Three basic assumptions underlie CA: (1) that the conversation is highly organized and orderly; (2) that talk is contextual; and (3) nothing is by chance, so that every detail in the interaction has to be analyzed with care. Every social interaction has a structure that is independent of psychological or social characteristics of its participants. As in any structure, the features recur in an organized manner. There is an emphasis on the ‘order’ in conversations, which is transferred into the macro structure. The second assumption is related to context. The CA approach takes into account the context of the talk and is claimed to be contextually sensitive. At the same time, it is context-free, as it dismisses the social attributes of the participants such as age, gender and social status. Context sensitivity is explained in terms of turns or adjacency pairs. For example, a response to an invitation is realized only after the ªrst pair, the invitation, has been uttered. The third assumption has shaped the way in which the whole process of analysis occurs. There is an emphasis on the usage of natural conversation and the ‘empirical’ approach in observing and studying the data. Audio recorded conversations are used for analysis to enable the researcher to scrutinize the data and look at every detail. It also gives the opportunity for other scholars to review the data. The use of traditional sociolinguistic data gathering techniques, such as questionnaires, experiment-oriented speech and native

Introduction

intuition-based created examples is strongly discouraged. As mentioned in the introduction, I adopt the CA approach in this study because it emphasizes social action, and any communicative interaction is a social action. Although SchegloŸ warns about the dangers of generalizations and assumptions when social context is incorporated into the analysis, there is no doubt that social phenomena such as gender and asymmetry can be explored through CA. The vast number of studies conducted in the past decade or so substantiates this. In the following sections, I discuss about the basic concepts used in CA: turntaking, the concept of ¶oor, adjacency pairs, and preference organization.

Turntaking system Natural conversations appear to be chaotic on the surface. Participants seem to interrupt each other. There are overlaps and speakers appear to compete to gain the ¶oor. In other cases, there are long pauses that indicate lack of interest in the topic. Despite this apparent disorder, Sacks et al. (1974) found that natural conversations have a very structured turntaking pattern and are quite ‘orderly’. They developed a turntaking model that explains and predicts the various phenomena observed in normal conversations (Sacks et al., 1974). Turn-taking models were also proposed by Duncan and Fiske (1985) and Capella (1980). Duncan and Fiske’s (1985) model focuses on verbal and non-verbal ‘cues’. The vast research dealing with non-verbal communication (Beattie, 1978; Duncan and Fiske, 1985; Kendon, 1990) is an indicator of the importance of those signals in most human communicative interactions. However, Duncan and Fiske’s (1985) model has been criticized for its limitations when applied to diŸerent languages and cultures (Wilson, Wieman and Zimmerman, 1984). Although S. Maynard (1989) successfully used it to analyze Japanese conversation, the major drawback of the model is its restricted applicability to all types of data. Non-verbal communication is extremely important, and it is used occasionally to facilitate the present analysis. Sacks et al.’ s model (1974) is by far the most important model of turntaking. It has been criticized as being unable to incorporate statistical information, as failing to include non-verbal signals, and for having a problematic deªnition of a complete turn construction (Power and Dal Martello, 1986). However, its seemingly universal applicability and ¶exibility in diŸering contexts is the most important strength of this model. It has been applied to other languages, such as Japanese (Tanaka, 1999), Thai (Moerman, 1988), to diŸerent types of interactions (news interviews by Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), and to studying

7

8

Gender, Language and Culture

particular items in relation to social structures (Zimmerman and West, 1975; West and Zimmerman, 1983). In their seminal work, A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation Sacks et al. (1974: 700–1) write about the 14 facts observed in any conversation. Some of them can be applied to television interviews, but others are characteristic of mundane talk. The features observed in conversations, but which diŸer in dyadic interviews, are written in bold and are explained in Chapter 3. 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief. Transitions (from one turn to the next) with no gap and no overlap are common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gaps or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions. Turn order is not ªxed but varies. Turn size is not ªxed but varies. Length of conversation is not speciªed in advance. What parties say is not speciªed in advance. Relative distribution of turns is not speciªed in advance. Number of parties can vary. Talk can be continuous or discontinuous. Turn allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a next speaker. Various ‘turn constructional units are employed; e.g., turns can be projectedly ‘one word long’, or they can be sentential in length. Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turntaking errors and violations; e.g., if two parties ªnd themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble (Sacks et al., 1974: 700–701).

Sacks et al. (1974) also note that the turn-constructional rules have two components: a turn-constructional component and a turn-allocation component. These are the basis of the system. The turn-construction component or turn construction unit (TCU) in English consists of a unit that can be a sentential, clausal, phrasal or lexical. These units have some characteristics which allow the listener to predict a possible completion of the unit, known as projectability. These are of a phonological, syntactic or pragmatic nature. Any possible point when turntaking is possible is known as a transition relevance place (TRP). The turn-allocation can occur in the following ways: when the turn-

Introduction

allocation is chosen by the speaker; when the turn-allocation is self-selected; and when the current speaker self-selects him/herself. When these rules are broken, for example if interruptions occur, repair mechanisms are applied so that the overlap is minimal.

The concept of ¶oor The term ‘¶oor’ was introduced by Sacks (1972a) and it refers to the right to begin to talk. Although some researchers use ¶oor and turn alternately (Duncan, 1972; Gumperz, 1982a), others have shown that the terms are diŸerent (Erickson and Schultz, 1982; Hayashi, 1996; Tannen, 1981). I believe that turn and ¶oor are diŸerent concepts. A speaker has the right to talk when he/she gains the ¶oor by starting a new turn. The listener/s on the other hand share the same ¶oor, although not actively. By sharing the same ¶oor, the listener can show his/her participation by sending backchannels or any other body language such as gaze or head movement. Floor is a psychological framework, which the participants in a conversation share (Edelsky, 1981). Hayashi writes: The interactional space, ¶oor, actively engages interactants’ cognition and knowledge acquisition in terms of how to participate in a conversation. It constrains, modiªes, maintains, adjusts, and creates moments of interaction in terms of at least three dimensions of participation: the dimension of interaction, the dimension of social and aŸective production, and the dimension of intentionality (Hayashi, 1996: 33).

Adjacency pairs Talk is produced in a sequence of pairs known as adjacency pairs (SchegloŸ and Sacks, 1973). SchiŸrin states that they are ‘organized patterns of stable, recurrent actions that provide for, and re¶ect, order within conversation’ (SchiŸrin, 1994: 236). The structure of an adjacency pair is composed of ªrst and second parts exempliªed in exchanges such as compliment-compliment responses, greetings, question-answer, and so on. In their description of an adjacency pair, SchegloŸ and Sacks (1973: 295–60) note that they are: – – – – –

a sequence of two utterances, which are adjacent, produced by diŸerent speakers, ordered as a ªrst part and second part, typed, so that a ªrst part requires a particular second part (or range of second parts)

9

10

Gender, Language and Culture

In the following example from the data, there is a clear example of an adjacency pair: exchange of greetings (1) (F10.V-1) 1 T: Asami Rei san. kyoo no okyakusama Asami Rei T today gen guest-pol 2 3

desu. doomo 2# cop G: yoroshiku onegaishimasu.3 well please ‘T: Asami Rei is today’s guest. <Welcome to the program/How are you?> G: Thank you for inviting me.’

In this exchange at the beginning of an interview, the adjacency pair consists of a salutation sequence. In lines 1–2, the host introduces the guest to the viewers and greets her. The host’s greeting is returned by the guest as seen in line 3. The second pair of this exchange unit is conditionally relevant on the ªrst pair. In other words, the absence of the second pair is explicable in terms of pragmatic or strategic reasons; for instance when a reply is withheld for pedagogical reasons, or a non-verbal answer explains the absence of a second pair. The second pair does not have to immediately follow the ªrst pair. Although the majority of adjacency pairs are sequential, there are instances when the second pair is found several turns later, as in examples provided by Heritage (1984). The insertion of sequences between the ªrst pair and second pair is not uncommon. The next fragment from the data of this study shows that, in Japanese, the second sequence can be sent non-verbally. It illustrates leavetaking in an interview with a kimono collector. The topic of the interview is an exhibition of items from her collection. The fragment is from the end of the program when the interviewer tells her guest she is very eager to see the exhibition. This exchange is a parting exchange. (2) (F5) 1 T: zehi by-all-means 2

haiken ((bowing)) see-hum

G: ((bowing)) ‘T: (I want to) see it by all means.’

The concept of adjacency pairs as the unit of analysis has been questioned by some researchers (Heritage and Atkinson, 1984; Tsui, 1989). They provide examples of cases in which a third component to the unit should be included.

Introduction

For example, Tsui (1989) proposes a third component as part of an exchange, where this last section is as important as the second pair. In fact, there might be multiple part exchanges. To illustrate this point, I quote the example used by GoŸman (1976; 265) : A: B: A: B:

Do you have the time? Sure. It’s ªve o’clock. Thanks. (gesture) It’s okay.

This exchange is in fact a four-part sequence, where speaker B thanks A for answering his/her question. Although the concept of pair is the basis of conversation, there are many examples where the sequence should be expanded. In the process of analyzing data, there are instances where the deªnition of a ‘pair’ is very di¹cult to establish. The following excerpt is from another interview in my data on cherry trees. In this section, the guest comments on the public’s lack of concern towards nature. (3) (M1.3) 1 T: sorekara minna wa ano zassoo o tottari then everybody top well weeds O take-conj 2

ironna koto shimasen yo ne. ichi nen juu. moo various thing do-neg fp fp one year around well

3

G: soo. soo. soo. iku dake yes yes yes go only

4

T: sakura ga(e.) saita toki sakura S uh-huh bloom time

5

G: donna beppin demo soo deshyaroo. aite dake ni whatever beauty even that-way cop-desid partner only in

6

yakara/ because ni ne/ in fp

natte pa tto kaettara okorimasu yaroo… become onm Qt return-cond angry cop ‘T: Then, nobody does things like weeding. For a whole year, well G: Yes, yes, yes. They just go. T: When the cherry (uh-huh) blossoms. G: It will be the same with any pretty lady. If you go out with her and just leave, she will get angry, won’t she….

In this excerpt, the host (T) does not ask any questions, but elaborates on a topic, which is further developed by the guest (G). In line 4, the host inserts an

11

12

Gender, Language and Culture

additional comment to the guest’s. In line 5, the guest uses a ªgurative comment. Is line 3 a second pair of line 1 where the interviewer comments on the average person? How do we account for lines 4, 5 and 6? Do they form a pair? We know that question–answer pairs are the normative form of interview talk (Heritage and Roth, 1995; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), and the data in this study are no diŸerent. However, the exchanges as shown in the example do not follow a rigid or monotonous pattern of ªrst and second pair sequences. It has been noted that requests/invitations and other ‘ªrst’ pairs can be preceded by sequences termed as presequences (SchegloŸ, 1988b, 1990). These include preinvitations, pre-requests and so on. In case of pre-invitations, ‘Are you free this weekend?’ is a very common presequence in English, whereas ‘Can I ask you a favor?’ is a pre-request. According to SchegloŸ (1990), a presequence can consist of a number of turns and they are uttered in such a way that the speaker can anticipate whether the invitation or request will be rejected (with a dispreferred second pair) or accepted (with a preferred second pair). The notion of insert expansions is another term to explain multiple turns in exchanges where ªrst and second pairs do not come one after the other. SchegloŸ (1990) writes that there are preseconds and postªrsts, where the ªrst turn follows postªrsts. In a very long example of Bonnie asking Jim to lend her a gun, SchegloŸ shows that the request is not rejected, contrary to what one would expect after the second pair is uttered about 40 turns later. The assumption is that dispreferred seconds are preceded by presequences (1990: 57–59). The data in the present study are heavily centred on the exchange of questions and answers. However, as the instance in (3) shows, the interviews do not follow a neat sequence of ªrst and second pairs; there are insert expansions, and ªrst pairs are not always questions. In example (3), the postªrsts (lines 1–4) are comments by the interviewer that contribute to the interviewee’s elaboration of the topic under discussion.

Preference organization In studying adjacency pairs, both preferred and dispreferred second pairs are found. For example, if the ªrst pair is an invitation, the preferred second pair is an acceptance, and a dispreferred second pair a rejection. This is known as preference organization (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984), a phenomenon where hearers have a dual choice. Preferred choices are sent immediately and are short. Dispreferred second pairs, on the other hand, are uttered with delays and are usually softened through various strategies. A number of studies have looked at this aspect, ranging from compliment responses (Pomeranzt, 1978a),

Introduction

and responses to assessments (Pomerantz, 1984), rejections (Davidson, 1984) and invitation sequences (Drew, 1984). Because preference organization overlaps with notions of politeness, this will be discussed further in Chapter 3.

Conversation analysis and ‘institutional’ language While the focus of study in CA is everyday conversation, CA methodology has nonetheless been successfully applied to analyze ‘institutional’ language: news interviews (Clayman, 1988; Drew, 1992; Greatbatch, 1988; Heritage, 1985, Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), doctor–patient interaction (West, 1984), language in the health system (Zimmerman, 1992; D. Maynard, 1992) and language in court (Drew, 1984b, 1992). ‘Institutional’ language refers to exchange in settings where at least one participant represents the institution they work for. In this setting, the talk is goal oriented and there are several constraints (Drew and Heritage, 1992). These aspects are explained and expanded in Chapter 2, but needles to say they shape ‘institutional’ interactions and distinguish them from ordinary conversations. The turn-taking procedures are the most basic aspects and are intrinsically related to the role allocation and power asymmetry. Within the broad characterization of ‘institutional’ settings, there are degrees of formality, with courtroom hearings being the most formal and nurse visits to new mothers the most informal (Heritage and Seª, 1992). In the courtroom or in news interviews, the constraints on the turntaking, for example, are stricter. This is re¶ected in the realization that questions are one- sided, and that an obligation is imposed on the other participant/s to provide answers. In less formal settings, the constraints are less rigid and the boundaries between ordinary and institutional talk in terms of turntaking seem to be blurred. The study of ‘institutionalized’ talk in CA is also known as study of talk and social structure. As the term indicates, the interest is on the interactional exchange and the social structure as a whole, but, without the old sociological concepts. In the past, the approach was one in which the social structure in¶uenced all interactions. The CA approach rejects this assumption, and instead proposes to explore the ways in which people react and engage with one another to create the social structure. There are three issues of importance in analyzing ‘institutional’ talk: relevance, procedural consequentiality, and social structure (SchegloŸ, 1992c). Relevance is a problem of analysis, where the di¹culty lies in ‘how to examine the data so as to be able to show that the parties were, with and for one another, demonstrably oriented to those aspects of who they are, and those aspects of

13

14

Gender, Language and Culture

their context, which are respectively implicated in the ‘“social structures”; which we may wish to relate to the talk’ (SchegloŸ, 1992c; 110). Some studies have successfully addressed this issue in analyzing how turntaking in courtrooms or news interviews is organized by the participants. Turntaking shows distinct characteristics and demonstrates its institutional nature from within (Atkinson and Drew, 1984, Greatbatch, 1988, ten Have, 1991). Procedural consequentiality, on the other hand, is related to context. In other words, another point that the researcher has to bear in mind is how the connection between talk and context (SchegloŸ, 1992c) can be explained and demonstrated. The third issue is related to the balance to be kept between emphasizing either the conversational structure or the social structure. According to Drew and Heritage (1992), ªve diŸerent topics of research have been addressed in the last twenty years: lexical choice (Heritage and Seª, 1992; D. Maynard, 1991); turn design (Clayman, 1992; Greatbatch, 1992; Heritage and Seª, 1992); sequence organization (Atkinson and Drew, 1984; Clayman, 1988, 1992; Greatbatch, 1988, 1992; Heritage, 1985; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991); overall structural organization (Zimmerman, 1992); and social epistemology and social relations (Clayman, 1992; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Zimmerman, 1992). In the latter, asymmetry in the interaction is included, as it is a distinctive characteristic of institutional exchanges. Although asymmetry in everyday conversation has also been the subject of research in relation to gender and power (West, 1984; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975), the status and power diŸerences are not as clear as in institutional discourse, where those attributes are directly related to each other and also to rights and obligations. The present study focuses on turn design, sequence organization and social epistemology. A more detailed account of the characteristics of institutional language is given in Chapter 2.

Politeness Politeness is an aspect of language that has been thoroughly studied. In the West, a number of theories have in¶uenced research on notions of politeness and language. The Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), the Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983) and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of universal politeness. The background of the literature and the politeness concepts in Japan are explained in subsequent sections; here, I will limit discussion to the most in¶uential theory on politeness, developed by Brown and Levinson (1987). This

Introduction

theory originated with the aim to explain universal ‘politeness’ and the concept of face that is shared by every member of society. In their book titled Politeness: Some Universals on Language, Brown and Levinson (1987) give numerous examples, especially from non-European languages. Their approach diŸers from that of other researchers (Grice, 1975; LakoŸ, 1973; Leech, 1983), who conceive politeness as a series of pragmatic rules and maxims. Brown and Levinson’s approach is more interactional and dynamic and takes into account a vast number of languages, including those that possess honoriªcs. A basic concept of politeness is face. Face, as deªned by Brown and Levinson (1987), is a basic human desire that in¶uences human interaction. Positive face is the desire to be liked, accepted, understood and so on. Negative face is the dislike of being imposed upon. People thus communicate so as to ‘save’ face, using strategies that address either positive or negative face. However, many communicative acts can potentially cause ‘loss’ of face, in what Brown and Levinson (1987) deªned as face threatening acts (FTA). A wide range of speech acts are possible FTAs, and their weight can be calculated with a formula that takes into account (1) the power that the listener possesses over the speaker, (2) the social distance, and (3) the degree of imposition. In order to reduce the degree of a FTA, several strategies are available to speakers. In order to fulªll positive face desire there are 15 super-strategies: (1) notice, attend to hearer; (2) exaggerate (interest, approval and so on); (3) intensify interest in hearer; (4) use in-group identity markers; (5) seek agreement; (6) avoid disagreement; (7) presuppose common ground; (8) joke; (9) assert speaker’s interest and knowledge of speaker’s wants; (10) oŸer promise; (11) be optimistic; (12) include both speaker and hearer in the activity; (13) give or ask for reasons; (14) assume or assert reciprocity; and (15) fulªll hearer’s wish for x. On the other hand, negative politeness strategies are: (1) be indirect; (2) use hedges; (3) be pessimistic; (4) minimize the imposition; (5) give deference; (6) apologize; (7) impersonalize speaker and hearer; (8) state the FTA as a rule; (9) nominalize; and (10) go on record as incurring a debt. The Japanese, British, and Indian cultures are categorized as ‘negativepoliteness’ cultures, where deference is a strategy to preserve ‘face’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 250). However, this claim has been criticized by various scholars (Ide, 1989; Ikuta, 1983), and most notably Matsumoto (1988), who questions the validity of the concept of ‘face’ as universal. She contends that the concept of ‘face’ in Japanese society does not agree with Brown and Levinson’s deªnition. She explains that Japanese human relations are based on one’s

15

16

Gender, Language and Culture

position in relation to others, and not on the notion of ‘negative’ face where the speaker wants his/her wants to be unimpeded. Another point of contention is in deªning FTA actions. Brown and Levinson (1987) do not consider that in some languages, such as Japanese, the speaker is ‘forced to make morphological or lexical choices that depend on the interpersonal relationship between the conversational participants’ (Matsumoto, 1988: 418). Even the simplest statements can have various verbal endings. Quoting Matsumoto’s example, the three sentences below contain the same semantic content: a. kyoo wa doyoobi da. Today top Saturday cop-plain b. kyoo wa doyoobi desu. Today top Saturday cop-polite c. kyoo wa doyoobi degozaimasu. Today top Saturday cop-super polite (Matsumoto, 1988: 415) ‘Today is Saturday.’

The ªrst example can be used only towards somebody younger or of lower status. It can also be used in casual conversation between intimate friends or family members. The second utterance has a wider usage and can be used towards strangers, acquaintances, or when one’s relationship to the hearer is not known. The last utterance is used towards superiors and in formal situations. As Matsumoto explains, one important feature that deªnes the style is one’s relation to the hearer, and this cannot be fully understood via a theory that considers negative politeness as an exclusive strategy. Usami (2002) disagrees with Matsumoto’s interpretation of the notion of ‘face’, using a technicality. The diŸerence appears to be in the possibility that each of the three statements above are potential FTAs (Usami, 2002). Brown and Levinson (1987) state that acts can be threats to the hearer’s negative face; orders, requests, suggestions, reminders. Other acts can threaten positive face, and include criticism, disagreement, expressions of violent emotion, taboo topics including divisive ones such as religion. There are also threats to the speaker’s face, such as thanking, oŸering excuses, accepting thanks and apologies. Brown and Levinson (1987) do not take into account, however, utterances such as (a) kyoo wa doyoobi da, which can be a faux pas if uttered to someone of higher status than the speaker. It seems that, in some other languages, any speech act can be a potential FTA. This is diŸerent from

Introduction

European languages, where statements of the same nature can be neutral. Face and sociolinguistic norms are aspects that seem hard to reconcile. In general, I agree with Matsumoto’s observation that in ‘any utterance of Japanese, one is forced to make morphological or lexical choices that depend on the interpersonal relationship between the conversational participants’ (Matsumoto, 1988: 418). Thus, any utterance in Japanese can potentially be a FTA.

Politeness and conversation analysis As stated in previous sections, preference organization can be explained in terms of politeness. Studies looking at the preference organization of acts such as invitations, compliments and so on, mention that there are preferred or dispreferred options. The preferred options or ªrst pair are usually short and are stated immediately after the ªrst pair. The dispreferred option, on the other hand, is structurally more complex, is longer, and is uttered after a pause or some other delaying strategy. Preferred options include acceptances, answers and agreements, whereas dispreferred options can be rejections, non-answers and disagreement. The reason why dispreferred pairs are lengthier and more complex can be explained in terms of ‘face’. A rejection for example, is a FTA and participants will try to use strategies in order to avoid or minimize the threat. Politeness is also observed in the syntactic forms of the TCU’s. It has been reported, for example, that verbal and clausal ellipsis in Japanese is triggered by social and psychological factors (Okamoto, 1985). By not ªnishing utterances, whether they are requests, invitations or questions, speakers leave their turns without grammatical completion as one ‘negative’ politeness strategy.

Speech styles, personal pronouns and social relations Speech style is determined by the relationship between interlocutors and the formality of the interaction. Any study that deals, directly or indirectly, with the subject of speech styles in Japanese must inevitably incorporate some aspects of honoriªc language. Beside the formal and informal styles da/desu described brie¶y in the section on politeness, Japanese possesses a complex system known as the honoriªc language or keigo. Keigo includes honoriªc proper known as sonkeigo and the humble forms or kenjoogo. Honoriªc forms are in many ways very similar to the T/V pronominal system (Brown and Gillman, 1960). The honoriªc or sonkeigo forms are used by a locutor who is either younger or lower in status, and they are not reciprocated in formal or

17

18

Gender, Language and Culture

soto4 situations. The humble or kenjoogo forms are used by younger or lower status speakers when talking about themselves or about someone who belongs to their inner circle. Again, the form is not reciprocated. Sonkeigo can be used among friends or equals when talking about someone higher. To illustrate, I use the verb ‘to eat’, of which there is more than one form. (i) moo already

tabeta/ eat-past-plain

(ii) moo already

tabemashita ka? eat-past-polite Q

(iii) moo already

meshiagarimashita ka? eat-past-honorific Q

(iv)* moo already

itadakimashita ka? eat-past-humble Q

When translated, these three forms mean ‘Have you already eaten?’ In Japanese, nominal ellipsis is quite frequent and it is only the form that indicates that in (i) the speaker is talking to someone of lower status and age and probably in an informal situation. The actor of the verb could be the hearer or someone who is equal or of lower status/age than both speaker and listener. In (ii), the addressee of the question could be a stranger or someone equal or younger in age and status in a formal situation. In (iii), the addressee is higher in status and older than the speaker, or the utterance is referring to the actor. The unacceptable form in (iv) is the pragmatic inappropriateness of the question. One cannot use the form itadaku towards the listener, as its usage is only permissible when talking about one’s actions or that of an uchi member, that is, an in-group member. While honoriªc forms have been the focus in studying politeness phenomena, recent developments have looked at level shifts in intra-turn constructions. These ªndings suggest that shift of styles are used strategically in discourse (S. Maynard, 1991). Early studies of politeness by Brown and Gilman (1960) looked at the pronominal system of some European languages in terms of power and solidarity. Several European languages, such as German, Spanish, French, and Hungarian, have two diŸerent forms of second person pronoun known as the T/V system. They are used according to the semantic power of the interlocutors. A worker addresses the boss as Sie/usted/Vous/ Maga but this is not reciprocated. On the other hand, the Du/tu/tu/te form is used to further emphasize the unequal relationship when used towards younger or lower status people. How-

Introduction

ever, when used among equals it is a sign of solidarity. Many subsequent studies, not only on pronominal usage but also on lexical and syntactic diŸerences in speech style have contributed to the understanding of a range of issues related to linguistic aspects and to the dynamic and complex system of communication (Gumperz, 1982a, 1982b; Labov, 1972a; Trudgill, 1972). Japanese possesses a personal pronoun system that is deªned by the gender of the speaker and the relationship between the interlocutors. The usage of pronouns is similar to the T/V system described by Brown and Gillman, however pronouns in Japanese have a number of important diŸerences (see Chapter 4).

Asymmetry and power There are very few occasions when interactions are not asymmetric. However, it is in institutional contexts that this asymmetry is most pronounced, where one side only is endowed with power. The deªnition of power in the context of language studies is very contentious. There are innumerable studies of this, and I can only refer to some which are more relevant to this study (without inferring that others are less important). Some researchers have focused on how ideological power is manipulated through the media (Fairclough, 1989), others on institutional power in cross-cultural gatekeeping interviews (Gumperz, 1982), on societal power in inter-racial gatekeeping interviews (Erickson and Shultz, 1982), on turntaking and asymmetric interactions (Diamond, 1996; Itakura, 2001), and on gender and turntaking (Fishman, 1978; West, 1984; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975). Power in this study is used in a restricted sense. It refers to the rights of the interviewer, as is manifested in very speciªc aspects of the interaction: turntaking and topic control. Such power is restricted to the institutionalized context of the interview and is analyzed at a micro level. The political and ideological connotations of the word ‘power’ are excluded in this study. I make a point of diŸerentiating power and status as diverse notions. While power is related to the rights and the role of the interviewer, and is therefore context dependent, status is less dynamic. Status is deªned by age and profession, although these are not mutually exclusive.

Japanese communication: Some cultural concepts This section is written for those who are unfamiliar with the Japanese language, society or culture. Much has been written on the ‘unique’ features of Japanese

19

20

Gender, Language and Culture

society and Japanese communication. Studies known as Nihonjinron or Japanese theories, have put forward theories to explain characteristics of concepts such as shame (Benedict, 1954), amae or interdependence (Doi, 1972), frame (Nakane, 1970), emphatic communication (T. Suzuki, 1975), wa or harmony (Hirokawa, 1978) to name some of the most in¶uential. These studies, however, have been criticized for their lack of objectivity, lack of data, and for reinforcing the myth of uniformity in Japanese society (Mouer and Sugimoto, 1986). While the concept of ‘uniqueness’ is disputable, some cultural characteristics can contribute to the understanding of linguistic phenomena, provided there is a strong body of natural data (Coulmas, 1992; Loveday, 1986; Martin, 1975; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Smith, 1992). There is no stronger argument than the fact that communication is primordially a social activity. The idiosyncratic features of each particular community aŸect language and have to be included in any analysis that looks at language as a social phenomenon. The interest in the honoriªc language is illustrated by the sheer volume of material written by Japanese authors, which ranges from self-help type books, newspaper and magazine articles and television programs, to more academic publications. The complex structure of honoriªcs includes a developed system of verbs that either elevate the listener and his/her group members or humble the speaker in order to show more respect towards the listener. Mastering this style is a di¹cult task even for Japanese, with the most important one being to discern one’s position in relation to the listener. This discernment is based on hierarchy, role, and whether the interaction occurs between uchi (inner) or soto (outer) members (Alfonso, 1966; Lebra, 1976; Kuno, 1973; Kindaichi, 1990; Miller, 1967; Nakane, 1970; Shibatani, 1990). ‘Female’ and ‘male’ styles are generally avoided when using the honoriªc style, although some of the formal lexical items overlap with women’s speech. However, the fact that these cultural notions play such an important role in deªning speech style provides a strong argument in favour of their inclusion in the research on language and gender. The following are some important concepts that are used in deciding the speech style a speaker can use. This depends not only on the situation, but also on the complex relationship between the status, role, age and in some ways gender of the speakers.

Hierarchy Nakane (1970) describes the Japanese social system in terms of hierarchy and ranking. According to her view, Japanese society is manifested in a vertical

Introduction

system where there is a strict hierarchy deªned by age, status or circumstantial factors. In schools, universities and o¹ces, the senpai ‘elder or senior’ is above his/her koohai ‘junior’. It is in the workplace that this hierarchy is more strongly implemented in a pyramidal structure with the shachoo ‘president’ at the top. Hierarchy is re¶ected in the usage of honoriªc verbs, where seniority and age are two5 of the three decisive factors in the selection of a particular form. It is crucial to know the interlocutor’s exact position in any institution in order to choose the appropriate honoriªc forms. An individual has to use honoriªc forms towards a senior, and humble forms when referring to her/ himself, which exalt the listener. This style is not reciprocated, thus creating and reinforcing social status and distance. Usually there is no con¶ict between age and rank, as the education and work systems are quite rigid and governed by seniority and not by merit. Therefore, a superior is, in most cases, older than his/her subordinates. The nature of a relation based on roles does not change. For example, the relationship between a teacher and her/his students is a good example. The teacher remains a mentor to his/her students long after they have graduated and have become successful members of the society. The hierarchical connection in this case is everlasting, where not only hierarchy but also roles are concomitant.

Role Role commitment and role versatility (Lebra, 1976) are two elements in the nature of role performance in Japanese society. On one hand, performing an assigned role leads to maintaining status, which ensures the success of a collective goal. This is exempliªed in the usage of terms of address that apply to various professions and re¶ecting the importance of roles people perform in society. Names of professions are used with the su¹x-san ‘Mr/Ms/Miss’. A policeman is addressed as omawarisan ‘Mr Policeman’, a vegetable shop owner as yaoyasan ‘Mr Greengrocer’, and so forth. A widely used title, sensei ‘teacher/ master’, is used to address teachers, university professors, medical doctors, politicians and artists, indicating a high status. Titles like shachoo ‘president’, kachoo ‘section chief’, and shochoo ‘head’ are used to address people working in an institution or company. The su¹x-san is added to the title when the person is referred to. On the other hand, because people are addressed in terms of their roles in society, those roles change according to other circumstances. A woman is

21

22

Gender, Language and Culture

addressed diŸerently within the family as changes occur around her. First addressed by her given name, she is later okaasan ‘mother’ after the birth of her ªrst child. Later in life, she is addressed as obaachan ‘grandmother’ when she becomes one herself (Peng, 1981; Lee, 1976). A similar process applies to men. In addition, people are addressed diŸerently depending on whether they are at work, at home or with friends. Although this is not a characteristic pertaining exclusively to Japanese society, it is more prominent because of the hierarchical system and the fact that in certain circumstances people talk about themselves in the third person6. The vertical system previously explained can be seen in cases where situation and role carry a heavier weight. The jooge (high/low) relationship can be applied to complete strangers engaged in an activity such as serving a customer in a department store, attending a patient, etc. The real status of the interlocutors does not count in those particular events (a minister being treated by a doctor, a student customer being served by the manager of the shop and so on). In those situations, the doctor and the customer are in the upper position irrespective of their real status outside that speech event.

Uchi/soto The concept of uchi ‘inside, in-group’ and soto ‘outside, out-group’ is another basic notion that shapes Japanese society. Uchi is the self and members of the self. Interactions that occur within the uchi domain are intimate and informal. Soto interactions take place with out-group speakers. This is the formal domain. Many researchers examining facets of Japanese society (Nakane, 1970, T. Suzuki, 1975, Wetzel, 1994) have described this dichotomy of uchi/soto. More recently, Bachnik has written that ‘uchi/soto is a major organizational focus for Japanese self, social life, and language’ (1994: 3). This inside/outside distinction has been used as a tool for research on aspects as varied as deixis (Wetzel, 1994), gender relations (Rosenberger, 1994), directive speech acts (Sukle, 1994), and semantic representations (Quinn, 1994). The boundaries of uchi/soto are ¶uid and in-group or out-group membership changes according to circumstances. A superior is normally an out-group member; however he/she becomes in-group when the speaker talks with a person from another institution, school or company. Honoriªc language is imperative in interactions with an out-group speaker, when humble and honoriªc forms are used to discern status diŸerences: humble forms are used about the self and any uchi member, and honoriªc forms to or about the soto speaker and any soto member.

Introduction

Language and gender Most researchers seem to agree that men and women talk diŸerently, regardless of their theoretical position. The dominance approach argues that women’s language is diŸerent from men’s because women have been denied access to the powerful language; men’s language (Cameron, 1992; Fishman, 1978; McConnell-Ginet, 1988; O’Barr and Atkins, 1980; Zimmerman and West, 1975). On the other hand, the diŸerence approach explains that women and men are members of two diŸerent sub-cultures (Coates, 1989a, 1989b, 1996; Holmes, 1986a, 1986b, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1996; Holmes and Stubbe, 1997; Maltz and Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1982 ). The diŸerence between these two theories lies mainly in acknowledging whether women are ‘subjugated’ by men or not. While in the dominance theory the concept of ‘power’ is an essential element in the discussion of gender diŸerences, the diŸerence theory simply treats women and men as belonging to diŸerent ‘sub-cultures’. The newest approach advocates the inclusion of other factors in the communicative process, not just the biological gender of the interlocutors. Emphasis is placed on the ‘practice’ that men and women undertake to project and create their identities. A bigger challenge lies also in the assumption of a malefemale dichotomy that so far has not been questioned (Bing and Bervall, 1996; Cameron, 1996; Freed and Greenwood, 1996; Freed, 1996; Wodak, 1997). The researchers also argue for the need to observe speakers within their speech communities, and warn of the dangers of accepting gender manifestations in language as universal. Research on language and gender is interwoven with feminism and feminist theories. It is an extensive area and I will concentrate only on what is relevant to this study. There are three diŸerent perspectives: a) the psychoanalysis approach, b) the muted group approach, and c) the sociolinguistic approach. The psychoanalysis approach is represented by Lacan, a disciple of Freud, and Irigaray (1990), who worked with Lacan. Lacan advocates that linguistic analysis is the tool for psychoanalysis since it is language that makes the ‘unconscious’ of a person. Irigaray also agrees on this key concept, but is critical of Lacan and Freud for their male centered theory which sees women as not diŸerent but as lacking maleness. Her approach and Kaplan’s (1990) state that women who re-evaluate language can bring changes to their status in society. The muted group approach (Ardener, 1978; Kramarae, 1981; Spender, 1980; Thorne and Henley, 1975) posits that values and assumptions are encoded in our language but they are primarily those of males. Therefore, men control

23

24

Gender, Language and Culture

language and women have to use ‘male language’. However, because of the impossibility of representing their own experiences using expressions based on a male perspective, women are alienated and thus fall silent (SchiŸrin, 1994). The third approach is the linguistic perspective, in which two types of research are undertaken: quantitative surveys and conversation analysis. Quantitative studies carried out by Labov (1972) in America and Trudgill (1972) in Britain surveyed the usage of prestige forms in pronunciation with respect to conservatism. Their studies found that women tend to use pronunciation associated with the prestige norms and use the ‘correct’ forms. However, these studies are criticized because the norm is based on male forms and women deviate from the norm (Jenkins and Kramarae, 1982). These studies put more emphasis on language than on gender, which is seen as just another factor. Brouwer (1989) conducted a study on standard Dutch and the Amsterdam dialect. Similar to Trudgill and Labov’s results, she found that women use more standard forms than men. However, Brouwer includes in her study the employment status of the speakers, the presence of children, and the speakers’ level of education. Apparently, being employed, having children, and having a higher education encourage the usage of standard pronunciation. The women interviewed in her study had obtained a higher education than their husbands. In Japan, Peng et al. (1981) undertook a survey in order to observe gender diŸerences in the usage of honoriªcs and other characteristics of language use (discussed later in this section). They also found that women use more honoriªc forms and are more aware of the ‘correct’ forms of language. LakoŸ’s article and book titled Language and Woman’s Place (1973, 1975) triggered research on gender diŸerences. This single work, which is a description of some characteristics of women’s language, gave rise to vast research on language and gender. Although her work was criticized for its subjectivity (Dubois and Crouch, 1975), it was the ªrst such work to point out that gender inequalities are manifested in language usage. LakoŸ writes that women tend to use more tag questions, non-oŸensive exclamations, more qualiªers and more rising intonation associated with ‘uncertainty’. She posits that there is a ‘language of women’ and that women are coerced to use these forms, which denote non-assertiveness. Researchers critical of the ‘dominance’ and ‘diŸerence’ theories postulate that the basic man/woman dichotomy needs to be questioned. The assumption that men and women have a diŸerent communicative style, cannot be simply explained in terms of biological diŸerences. Communication is a more complex process where gender is one of many factors (Bing and Bergvall, 1996;

Introduction

Cameron, 1996; Greenwood, 1996; Wodak, 1997; Woods, 1988). While I agree with this view, it should be pointed out that most researchers seem unaware of other languages and cultures where gender diŸerences in the speech are manifested so overtly as is the case in Japanese. The question, then, is whether gender diŸerences in the language are also manifested in turntaking strategies. These would include aspects of the interaction such as a more pronounced use of aggressive interruptions by men or of cooperative-type turns by women. Whether these gender diŸerences are ‘socially constructed’ or not is too broad a topic to be discussed in this study; however, another crucial view in the newest approach to gender and language is the emphasis on the importance of examining the speaker within the context of his/her community (Cameron, 1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995) and not to assume certain styles as being characteristically feminine or masculine.

Japanese women’s language Historical background In Japanese, male and female registers are dictated by the gender of the speaker. These ‘genderlects’ include lexical, syntactic, morphological and phonological diŸerences. Early records of women’s and men’s speech are found in literary works of court life (Heian period, 9th – 12th century). However, whether these diŸerences existed among common people is speculation due to lack of records. Only in the feudal period (Muromachi Period, 14th – 16th centuries) did indications appear of a planned and systematic eŸort to spread a language style exclusively for women. This feminine style was based on nyoobo kotoba, a code/ language created by the courtesans. Viewed by some scholars as an occupational style (Ide and Terada, 1998), it originated among the court ladies of the Imperial palace. Initially, nyoobo kotoba was used exclusively by the courtesans. However, it gradually spread to other spheres outside the palace, and due to its origins it was regarded as an elegant and reªned way of speaking. In due course it became synonymous with women’s language. The ‘womanly/feminine’ language was systematically inculcated in women from the beginning of the Edo period (1603–1868). Texts used for that purpose were in¶uenced by Chinese teachings based on Confucianism (Endo, 1997a; Inoue, 1994; Nolte and Hastings, 1991), and contained teach-

25

26

Gender, Language and Culture

ings on how women should behave and speak. For example, it was not considered appropriate for a woman to use kango words (Chinese-origin words). Instead, women were encouraged to use a set of words known as Yamato kotoba, which derived from nyoobo kotoba (Endo, 1997a). They were instructed to speak in a soft, gentle voice, and to avoid using ‘masculine’ words or blunt expressions. The Meiji government (1868) further emphasized this ‘genderization’ of the Japanese language. In this period, also known as the cultural revolution, there was an emphasis on moral education where the ideal woman had to become a ‘good wife and a wise mother’. This was a policy of the Meiji government, ‘popularized by the Education Ministry propaganda (that) exhorted women to contribute to the nation through their hard work, their frugality, their e¹cient management, their care for the young, the old, the ill, and their responsible upbringing of children’ (Nolte and Hastings, 1991: 152). Women were given access to education, and by 1890 there were more women than men workers in light industry (textiles, etc.). However, their roles in society were clearly limited and they were denied participation in political life. Women were expected to work but were denied power in society. The situation in contemporary Japan seems more egalitarian than in past centuries. Women now hold positions of power in areas that were considered exclusively male in the past. In politics for example, many women have held and are holding ministerial positions in the government, are members of political parties, or are elected mayors. More women are seen in upper managerial posts and other traditionally male professions. Yet, women are still taught to speak like ‘women’. From a feminist point of view, it is an unacceptable situation, because women, actively or not, participate in the construction of a soft and gentle image of the female. However, the notion that women are the ‘dominated’ group by having a particular language style imposed is fundamentally diŸerent in Japan. Japanese women in general use ‘women’s language’ as a matter of course and very few see the connection between speaking male language and the emancipation of women. In fact, even if women tried to prove their equality by using male speech, the more likely result would be criticism of inappropriate upbringing, bad manners and lack of common sense. A similar situation emerges if males use female speech. It is crucial to understand that the history of female language research in Japan and in the West has had a very diŸerent path. Academic interest in women’s language existed in Japan much earlier than in the West. Research was carried out within the ªeld of ‘kokugogaku’, which can be translated as the study

Introduction

of the national language. The main interest resided in the study of nyoobo kotoba, which has had a strong in¶uence on the lexicon and on certain structures of modern Japanese. Other studies focused on literary works, where a clear distinction between male and female language had appeared by the 11th century. More recent studies have looked at phonological characteristics and politeness phenomena in modern-day speakers. The reader is referred to Terada (1993) for a comprehensive list of gender studies published in Japanese and English. The language of Japanese women has been widely studied mainly from the viewpoint of politeness, syntax and lexicon (Endo, 1997a, 1997b; Ide, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1997; Ide et al., 1986; Shibamoto, 1987; Takahara, 1991; Wetzel, 1988). Recently there has been more interest in the discourse of women (Abe, 2000; Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group], 1997; Okamoto, 1994, 1995; Reynolds, 1993, 1997, 1998, Sunaoshi, 1994). The results con¶ict with previous studies, suggesting that neutralization in the language is taking place (Kobayashi, 1993, 1997). Neutralization is observed when the linguistic forms are devoid of any gender-associated particles, lexical items and so on. However, it is too early for conclusive ªndings as longitudinal studies are needed.

Characteristics of Japanese ‘Genderlects’ The following section is intended for readers who are not familiar with the Japanese language. It provides a synopsis of the most important characteristics of women’s and men’s language.

Lexical features Many lexical items that are for exclusive use by women can be traced back to nyobo kotoba. Those terms are mainly used in the household domain. For example, the adjective ‘delicious’ is oishii for women, umai for men. The noun for ‘meal/ cooked rice’ is gohan for women, meshi for men. Women add the preªx o/go to a noun, e.g. ohashi (chopsticks), whereas men use the plain form hashi. The female forms are considered more polite and softer than the male forms (see also the section on Politeness). Personal pronouns There are basically three sets of personal pronouns for ªrst and second person. The ªrst person ‘I’ forms ‘atashi/watashi/watakushi, are used by both males and females in formal and informal situations. Men have more choice as they

27

28

Gender, Language and Culture

can use other forms for ‘I’, ore/boku/washi, in informal situations. A similar situation occurs with the second person ‘you’, where both males and females use anata, but males can use kimi/omae and other deprecatory pronouns also.

Sentence ªnal particles Japanese has a rich variety of sentence ªnal particles (SFP), which are used mostly in informal situations. Although grammatically they have no function, semantically they convey additional information in terms of mood and speakers’ involvement. Both men and women use some SFPs, e.g. ne ‘isn’t it?’ ‘don’t you think?’, yo (creates the feeling of assertion and emphasis), and no (used for explanations or emotional emphasis, also used by men and women in informal questions). SFPs used exclusively by women are wa7 (softer nuance), and kashira (indicates doubt). SFPs used exclusively by men are na (is a rough and vigorous variation of the particle ne), zo (expresses strong emphasis and determination), and ze (used to call special attention to something and is generally considered rude). Verb forms Verbs have polite and plain endings regardless of tense or mood. While both males and females can use plain endings in informal situations, women opt to use the polite form in formal situations. Only men use imperative verbs. Women are expected to use the nasai su¹x, which is added to the verb base. Tabero (eat!) is the a¹rmative imperative and is exclusively used by men, whereas women use tabenasai (eat). Men can also use this form. Again, these ‘feminine’ forms are associated with softness and politeness. Syntax Women seem to be less conservative in applying certain grammatical rules than men (Shibamoto, 1985). They tend to omit case particles more often than men, use more adjectivals where the noun is deleted, and apply Scrambling and Left Dislocation rules more liberally than men do. Politeness At the discourse level, women tend to use more polite language than men. Increased usage of the preªx o/go before nouns, bikago (embellished words), and an extensive use of honoriªc forms are found to be more pronounced in female speech, which further emphasizes the image that women speak more politely than men (Ide, 1979, 1982, 1997; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987).

Introduction

While these characteristics are observed in contemporary spoken Japanese, it is important to note that formality plays an important role. The diŸerences between male and female styles are said to decrease when the situation is very formal. However, there are no empirical studies on the syntax and politeness in those situations, and there are two possibilities with an equal degree of feasibility. One is that neutralization will occur as interlocutors choose the neutral forms. The second possibility is that, because speakers cannot display their gender through their ‘genderlects’, they will do so at the discourse level. Syntactically, we can assume that speakers will use expressions closer to canonical forms. At the discourse level, however, speakers have many ways of displaying control or cooperation, and this study examines those strategies.

Conversation analysis and social variables One of the distinctive features of CA is the exclusion of the participants’ age/ status/gender from the analysis in order to avoid oversimpliªcation and idealization. Although Sacks et al. (1974) stress the need to exclude social variables from the initial analysis, they by no means deny the in¶uence of those attributes. However, the emphasis is on avoiding the automatic connection between social factors and conversational features such as interruptions. SchegloŸ (1993) suggests that there are two ways of connecting the micro and macro aspects in the methodology. One is the ‘positivist’ stance or the use of quantiªcation and/ or historical evidence. The second is that the categories which the researcher uses are also relevant to the speakers, and can also be evident. Throughout the years, the initial stand of non-inclusion of social categories into the analysis and of non-quantiªcation has gradually changed. SchegloŸ admits in his later works, that there were some ‘concerns which were deep preoccupations some twenty-ªve years ago’ (1993; 103), and proposes the above-mentioned solutions, namely the positivist stance and historical evidence. Even though the canonical method of CA is the description of how ‘social structure is attained through talk’, quantiªcation in studies where an ‘interactional practice is tied to a particular social or psychological categories, such as gender, status etc., statistical support will be necessary’ (Heritage, 1995: 404–5). However, SchegloŸ cautions researchers about the limitations of quantiªcation (SchegloŸ, 1993) and advices that it should not substitute the detailed analysis. The inclusion of quantiªcation has been achieved in a number of important studies that focus on gender and language (West and Zimmerman, 1987;

29

30

Gender, Language and Culture

Zimmerman and West, 1975), questions in news interviews (Heritage and Roth, 1995), and turntaking (Ford and Thompson, 1996). In this chapter I presented an outline of the theoretical framework on which this study is based. The approaches to the study of discourse were briefly explained with the focus on conversation analysis (CA), its terms and definitions, and related theoretical issues. Special emphasis was placed on the ‘institutional’ characteristics of interview discourse. I also discussed politeness and its relationship with asymmetric exchanges where power and human relationships determine the aspect of language style. This was followed by an introduction to Japanese cultural concepts that determine the level of politeness in communication. Then gender and language was examined, particularly different theories and representative studies. Finally, a brief introduction of the historical background and research on women’s language in Japan was given, together with a description of some characteristics of Japanese ‘genderlects’.

An overview of the study The ªrst part of this book provides a background to the study. In Chapter 1, I discuss the theoretical aspects underlying the study: conversation analysis in institutional settings, and politeness phenomena and gender diŸerences in language. In Chapter 2, the television interview as an ‘institutional’ speech event is explored. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on the turntaking aspect of interviews. Chapter 3 examines the structure of the interview and contrasts it to characteristics of mundane conversation. Chapter 4 analyzes the turn construction units (TCU) of host and guests. This analysis brings the aspect of age, role and gender to the fore. The next two chapters (5 and 6) concentrate on listener’s responses or aizuchi in interviews. Aizuchi are intrinsic in Japanese communication, and they are observed in high frequencies even in this type of ‘institutional’ speech event. Chapter 5 analyses aizuchi in the interview discourse, and Chapter 6 discusses aizuchi usage of host and guests focusing on role, age and gender diŸerences.

Introduction

Notes 1. The polite forms in Japanese, which are used in formal situations, do not denote the gender of the speaker. 2. Doomo is an adverb. It means ‘very much’ and is used together with thanks, apologies and other social expressions. The exact meaning in cases when it is used alone depends very much on context. The translation is therefore determined by context. 3. Yoroshiku onegaishimasu is an idiomatic phrase. Yoroshiku is an adverb meaning ‘well, properly’ and onegaishimasu means ‘I request you’. This phrase can be used when asking a favour or request. Therefore, the translation provided is an approximate one as this phrase’s meaning depends on the context. 4. The concepts of soto/uchi are further explained in the corresponding section of this chapter (see pp. 24). 5. The other factor, which dictates the usage of honoriªcs, is if the listener is a soto ‘outgroup’ or uchi ‘in-group’ person as described in Chapter 6. 6. Instead of saying ‘I will go’, when talking to younger people one can say ‘Mother/teacher will go’ even if the subject refers to the action of the speaker. This mainly occurs in schools and at home. 7. The sentence ªnal particle wa is also used by men in the Kansai region.

31

Chapter 2

The television interview genre

Introduction This chapter looks at the characteristics that diŸerentiate interviews from everyday conversations. Interviews, as institutional interactions, are ‘goaloriented’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992) and unlike conversation are conducted with the particular aim of obtaining information. Roles are deªned and not negotiated, conferring some rights on one participant (the interviewer) and imposing some obligations on the other (interviewee). This role allocation ensures a distinctive turntaking where it is rare for interviewees to ask questions unless for clariªcation. The interviewer, on the other hand, has the power to commence and end the interview, to initiate and change topics, to refuse to answer, thus creating an asymmetric interaction. This asymmetry, which may not be unique to interviews, can be the cause of con¶icting situations (younger interviewer and older interviewee in Japanese interactions), as discussed in Chapters 4 and 6.

Previous studies This section examines the most representative work on interviews conducted in the last thirty years. These are not exclusively CA studies; however they explore the same interactions. Jucker (1986), in his work on the language of radio interviews, analyzed interviewers’ questions. He classiªes them as prefaced and non-prefaced questions. Prefaced questions, which comprise 27 per cent of a corpus of 235, appear in subordinate clauses and contain a preface, that relates to the interviewee’s opinion. Non-prefaced questions include interrogatives (40%), declarative forms (30%), and imperatives and moodless types (2.6%). He also writes that a ‘comparatively small number of all interviewer utterances are actually in question form’ (Jucker, 1986: 163), but if both host and guest are cooperative, the illocutionary force of a question in the interviewer’s turn is

34

Gender, Language and Culture

interpreted correctly. In my data from Japanese interviews, I also found that the number of questions is quite low. In fact, only 15.4% of all the interviewer’s turns are grammatically complete questions and 15.8% are incomplete questions. The comparatively lower number of interrogatives in my data may be related to language and cultural diŸerences and /or to the type of program. As I describe in Chapter 3, the usage of non-ªnished questions in Japanese is a politeness strategy as it does not have the same degree of imposition as a grammatically complete question. Grammatical incompleteness has also been observed in colloquial Japanese (Hinds, 1978a; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; Mori, 1999; Tanaka, 1999). The main areas of CA research on interviews are on turntaking, turn design, lexical choice and social epistemology. Studies on turntaking in television interviews have focused mainly on British and American English news interviews. Greatbatch (1986, 1988) writes that turntaking rules in British news interviews are governed by a ‘simple form of turn-type preallocation’ (1988: 402). He also suggests that diŸerences between news interviews and everyday conversation are governed by the constraints of the former, and that turntaking in news interviews is strongly related to the United Kingdom legal restrictions under which interviewers must always be fair and unbiased. Therefore, minimal responses, or what they call ‘news receipts’, for example, are almost nonexistent in news interviews. The simple turn-type preallocation that Greatbatch (1988) suggests has a ‘number of important ramiªcations for the organization of news interview interaction’ (1988: 404), and can be summarized as follows: –

– – –

– –

The roles of interviewer and interviewee are strictly maintained. The interviewer may use other types of information-eliciting techniques such as challenges. There is a conspicuous absence of ‘news receipts’ or minimal responses. Interviewers often produce ‘statement turn components’ that are recognizable as questions. In instances where the interviewer’s turn is a statement, interviewees normally refrain from initiating their turn. This is an indication of the constraints of interviews where the interviewees are normally expected to respond to questions. In interviews involving more than one interviewee, the interviewer manages turn-allocation. Interviews are opened and closed by interviewers.

The television interview genre

While Greatbatch’s work was focused on news interviews, he also compared diŸerent types of interviews, guest interviewer interviews, celebrity interviews and talk show interviews, and found some diŸerences. In a news interview, the interviewer cannot state personal opinions, while in the other types, the program is designed in a way that the audience takes on the role of eavesdropper and the interview is conducted more like an intimate chat between host and guest. Also, the turntaking rules are more similar to those for conversations. The studies by Greatbatch and Jucker show us many interesting aspects of news interviews. However, they cannot be generalized in an absolute manner to other languages and to other types of television interviews. Japanese ethnographers have conducted similar studies in the Japanese language. T. Yamada (1995) states that, in Japanese news interviews, ‘news marks’ (Heritage, 1985) or minimal responses are almost non-existent (T. Yamada, 1995: 127). This is an interesting ªnding because aizuchi are so pervasive in Japanese (LoCastro, 1987; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; see Chapter 5). T. Yamada analyzed an excerpt of a news interview between Takako Doi (a female politician) and a female interviewer, and concluded that it is not an overstatement to say that news interviews are a sequence of questions and answers only. Although T. Yamada’s work (1995) is a detailed sequential analysis, it is premature to generalize his ªndings as there might be style diŸerences between interviewers. Furthermore, other types of interview programs might have other characteristics. Apart from T. Yamada’s study on news interviews, this area in Japanese (to my knowledge) is largely unexplored. Hinds’ (1978a) study on interview-type discourse focuses on topic organization as well as four aspects of Japanese conversation. Although the interview he used was recorded for investigative purposes, there are still more similarities to televised interviews than to mundane conversation. Hinds looks at overlaps, polite speech, turn-signaling behaviour and conversational harmony. Despite interesting results, the study fails to give a more rigorous analysis. For example, gender diŸerences are observed in the type of lead-in or in questions used by the interviewer, but the interpretation is rather simplistic. Hinds writes that more solidarity devices were used towards female interviewees because the interviewer felt they were more nervous than male interviewees. Although this point seems to be crucial for the interpretation of the data, he does not develop it further. Among studies on gender diŸerences and media interviews, Winter (1993), Johnson (1996) and KotthoŸ (1997) are of high relevance. While not all their data may be comparable (KotthoŸ used debate programs, Winter used

35

36

Gender, Language and Culture

political interviews), their divergent results are nevertheless very important. In Winter’s analysis (1993), two political interviews featuring a female and a male host, both interviewing a male guest, on Australian television were examined. Turntaking management, question strategies and episodic structure were looked at, and results indicate that there is a clear diŸerence in the interviewing strategies of the two hosts. While a more competitive and aggressive stance characterizes the all-male interview, the female interviewer maintains a cooperative style. Similarly, Johnson (1996) analyzed Maggie Barry, a New Zealand TV interviewer, in eight diŸerent programs. He found that women speak more and at greater length, are interrupted less than men, and that Maggie Barry used a greater percentage of questions with negative aŸect with male interviewees. While Winter found that female hosts do not change their style to suit the guests, Johnson found that females adopt a more aggressive stance towards male guests and a friendlier attitude towards female guests. On the other hand, KotthoŸ’s results seem to reinforce the notion of male dominance over females. The professional women in her data were asked questions on mundane topics rather than on their expertise, which tacitly belittled them. It is di¹cult to speculate whether these diŸerences are due to language (English vs. German), diŸerent cultures (Australian, New Zealand and German), or the type of program and the number of participants.

Typology of television interviews There are various types of television interviews varying in length and style. They can constitute a whole program or be a part of one. Short interviews as part of a news program are very common. The interviewees can be ‘experts’ or simply witnesses or victims. When interviews are independent programs, interviewees are usually ‘experts’ or celebrities. They may involve more than one interviewee and interviewer. In interviews such as on ‘Four Corners’ (ABC, Australia), there are usually more than two interviewees, who are connected via satellite. There are news programs in Japan where the anchorperson and his assistant (usually a younger female) conduct the interview jointly. They can be broadcast ‘live’ or pre-recorded, with scenes or photographs to illustrate stories, video segments shown in between, or they may have no other images apart from those of the participants. Topics vary according to the time of broadcast and the targeted audience. Social topics such as drugs, motherhood and human relationships are sched-

The television interview genre

uled for midday and early afternoon programs, while politics, economics or current aŸairs are broadcast early morning or at night.

News interviews News interviews are usually short because they are included in the news program. Interviewees range from ‘experts’, who are asked on any topic of their expertise, to ordinary people who have witnessed an accident or a natural disaster. The insertion of these short interviews is an addition to the news value. The witness-type interviewee is in many cases anonymous, whereas experts are always identiªed by name and a¹liation. The most common characteristic of this type of interviews is their duration. They are mostly short and the interviewer is less conspicuous. This style of interviewing is also a feature of Japanese television news, and is probably one of the most common formats in modern-day news reporting.

Current aŸairs Current aŸairs are programs that tackle controversial topics. Therefore, the format of the interviews is diŸerent from other types of broadcast interviewing. There is usually more than one interviewee and they represent diŸering opinions. The ‘interviewer’ or anchorperson introduces the various interviewees or participants to the audience and asks the questions. All participants may be in the studio or in diŸerent places and connected electronically. Due to the nature of the topics, these interactions are usually more aggressive than other interviews, and therefore interruptions may be more frequent.

Cultural interviews In cultural interviews, only one person is interviewed at a time. As the name indicates, the interviewee is an artist or writer, and the topic is related to her/his work, life and/or experience. In most cases, the interviewer has read, watched or listened to some of the artistic or literary works of the interviewee and has carried out some research. Naturally, the topics in the interview are prearranged. Contrary to most interviews in current aŸairs, the programs are not controversial and emphasize the artistic element. In Australia, interviews conducted by Andrea Stretton (Andrea Stretton Interviews, ABC) and Margaret Throsby (ABC FM morning show) can be classiªed in this category, although it should be noted that the latter is a radio interview.

37

38

Gender, Language and Culture

Talk shows Talk shows are a recent form of television programming. They are usually conducted by one interviewer and the guests are ordinary people or actors who talk about their personal life. There is an audience and an ‘expert’, who interact with the guest or guests and the interviewer (Andersen, 1995). In these programs, guests are judged and confronted by the audience. The topics are sensationalist, which can be explained in terms of rating demand. ‘From murder to incest, crime and punishment, almost no boundaries exist between what can and cannot be said in public’ (Andersen, 1995: 160). This type of show is a product of American television, and with globalization and the diŸusion of satellite broadcasting can be watched by a wider audience.

Television and language in Japan Television, and media in general, are so widespread in modern and technologically advanced societies that they cannot be dissociated from everyday life. It is well known that media can steer public opinion in a dramatic way (e.g. it can sway voters’ decisions before or during an election, and disseminate ideas or portray images). Japan, being a modern country, also experiences the powerful in¶uence of media in almost every aspect of life: language, information relay, leisure, education, and so on. Media have played an important role in spreading standard Japanese throughout the country. Though dialects still exist in most parts of Japan, the importance of radio and television on language standardization is undeniable. Given this enormous in¶uence, we can infer on the one hand that linguistic manifestations in the media are a re¶ection of how language is used by a great majority of people, and on the other that media plays a role in disseminating particular linguistic forms that are perceived as modern, elegant, appropriate, and ‘standard’. It is almost half a century since television started in Japan, and today most people regard television as a provider of news as well as of entertainment. On average, the time Japanese people spend watching television is 3 hours 16 minutes per day (1992 ªgures from Sekiguchi, 1998). Television is also known to have a major in¶uence on the perception and construction of the socialization of gender roles (Gunter, 1995). Numerous studies attest to the in¶uence of television and magazines in portraying the ‘ideal’ female or male, (Hayashi, 1997; A. Suzuki, 1993), which tends to reinforce the stereotypes.

The television interview genre

Television broadcasting started in Japan in 1953, although research and testing had commenced much earlier. Within four years, there was an interest in Japanese produced programs instead of the ªlms that had been shown in cinemas. In 1960, there were four commercial television networks and they received major cooperation from the newspapers and news agencies. This link remains today. By the 1990s, there were ªve major commercial television networks in addition to the government funded National Broadcasting Corporation (NHK). There are about 105 channels, all belonging to one of the ªve networks, and NHK oŸers two services: general and educational (Nippon Hoosoo Kyookai, 1967). The commercial television networks are NTV (Nihon television), TBS (Tokyo Broadcasting), (CX) Fuji television, (ABC) Television Asahi (Asahi Terebi or Channel 10) and TX (Tokyo 12 Channel). Each of these networks is connected to at least one other company, and their broadcasting is in¶uenced by the philosophy of those a¹liations. NTV is backed by the Yomiuri Group, which includes a professional baseball team and the Yomiuri Shinbun, Japan’s largest newspaper. NTV’s programs focus on sports events. TBS is related to the Mainichi Shinbun, and its strength is in the production of highly popular dramas. Fuji television is associated with the Sankei Shinbun and focuses its programs on young people. Tokyo 12 Channel is related to the Nikkei Shinbun and its contents are highly economics-oriented. Television Asahi is linked to the Asahi Shinbun, Oobunsha (a publishing company) and Tooei (a ªlm production company). This network’s programs are diverse: cartoons, Japanese ‘Westerns’ and a very successful news program are among their strengths.

Japanese television interviews The organization of television in Japan is similar to Britain, although the types of programs are more in line with the United States (Reischauer, 1977). Japanese television interviewing follows the same pattern as the types already mentioned (interviewing witnesses and ‘experts’, both as part of a news program, political interviews, cultural interviews). Audience rating is a common factor for television programs around the world. In Japan, people choose a particular news program because they like the news anchor. According to the results of a survey carried out in 1991, 59 per cent chose a news program because they like the newscaster (Sekiguchi, 1998). This tendency may be re¶ected in the popularity and longevity of the interview programs used in this study (Tetsuko no Heya) as I write in the next section.

39

40

Gender, Language and Culture

Another characteristic, which may re¶ect the cultural values in Japanese society, is the fact that news interviews are ‘generally controlled’, so that interviewees are seldom challenged or oŸended (Sekiguchi, 1998: 56). This aspect is in stark contrast to American, British, Australian, New Zealand or Israeli news interviews (Blum-Kulka, 1983; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Shearn, 1998), where both interviewer and/or interviewee can challenge one another and be openly aggressive. In fact, challenging or provoking an interviewee is a strategy designed to arouse the interest of the audience (Shearn, 1998)1

The data The data used in this study are twenty television interviews conducted by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi. The program is entitled Tetsuko no Heya ‘Tetsuko’s room’, and has been broadcast for the last twenty-eight years by Asahi Terebi (Television Asahi), a private television channel. The interviewees are artists, writers, lawyers, university professors and other professionals (for details see Tables 1–4 in Appendix 1). It is a very popular program as its broadcast life shows. The program is quite diŸerent to the American talk shows, as there is no live audience. Topics discussed are non-controversial and emphasis is placed on the guests’ professional or personal achievements. They are always praised and never confronted or criticized. In many ways the characteristics of the program re¶ect the way in which members of Japanese society maintain human relationships and communication in general, with harmony being extremely important. (Hendry, 1995; Lebra, 1976). Tetsuko no Heya started on February 1976 and, the 5000th interview was broadcast in September 1996. It is broadcast ªve days a week at midday and lasts forty-ªve minutes, including commercial breaks. The program is structured around three commercial breaks. The ªrst break comes after a preamble to the program. The second break is not shown until at least ªfteen minutes after the start. The last commercial break is almost at the end of the program. Before the second and third breaks, the interviewer makes an announcement. According to the information presented on the World Wide Web (1996), Tetsuko Kuroyanagi has interviewed 1,676 men and 1113 women in these twenty years. The interviewees are successful people and the topics are varied. As stated earlier, the program is not aggressive and no controversial issues are raised during the interviews. The policies in relation to the program are as follows:

The television interview genre

– – – – –

The program is broadcast without editing. Interviewees are not asked about gossip or scandals.2 Interviewees are never criticized.3 Politicians are not invited as interviewees People who intend to use the program as a tool for publicity are not invited.

The studio setting is a formal Western lounge room. The guest sits on a sofa in front of the main camera and the interviewer sits on an armchair on the left. A big coŸee table is in front of them, where drinks are served and books or photographs are placed when used. Three cameras are used in the program; however due to the angle at which both participants are seated it is di¹cult to see their faces at the same time. Although the host uses some notes during the program, there is no script and their speech is ‘natural’. This aspect is evident in the transcriptions, in which some of the typical characteristics of natural speech such as false starts, ‘ªllers’ and pauses occur. The host, Tetsuko Kuroyanagi, is a versatile and famous media personality in Japan. A graduate of the Tokyo University of Arts, she conducts various television programs besides performing in the theatre. She is the author of Madogiwa no Totto-chan ‘Tottochan’,4 an award-winning book. She is also famous for her charity work and was appointed a UNESCO ambassador of good-will. There is no doubt that viewers watch Tetsuko no Heya for to her popularity and fame. The interviewees in Tetsuko no Heya are selected because of their professional achievements or other outstanding merits. Unlike other interview programs where people are asked to appear in order to give their professional opinion and expertise about any given topic, the guests in Tetsuko no Heya are asked about their personal experience, their art or their work. For this study, the interview series was video-recorded during October 1993–February 1994. Interviews were then recorded onto audiotapes and transcribed. A year after the transcriptions were made, the recordings were viewed once more to check for accuracy. The smaller number of female guests was interesting. From the 17th of January to the 15th of February 1994, out of 16 interviewees, only 4 were women. As the program is broadcast almost daily, this diŸerence may not be evident over a year, for example. However, this imbalance may in itself might be an indication of the gender imbalance in society, where the majority of professionals are male. The transcriptions were typed in roman letters using the Hepburn method.5 Conventions for the transcription of the data were based on the system devised

41

42

Gender, Language and Culture

by Du Bois et al. (1990), although some changes had to be made due to space constraints. For example, in Du Bois et al. (1990), a new intonation unit is indicated by a new line. However, as I provide a transcription, a gloss and an English translation of the data, a space saving sign had to be implemented. The conventions for the data transcription are described in detail in Appendix I.

Conversation analysis and interviews In Chapter 1, three concerns raised by SchegloŸ (1992) were mentioned brie¶y when analyzing institutional language from a CA perspective. Here, they are discussed in more detail. SchegloŸ condenses these three issues as follows: 1. what is so loomingly relevant for us (as competent members of the society or as professional social scientists) was relevant for the parties to the interaction we are examining, and thereby arguably implicated in their production of the details of that interaction; 2. what seems inescapably relevant, both to use and to the participants, about the “context” of the interaction is demonstrably consequential for some speciªable aspect of that interaction; and 3. that an adequate account for some speciªable features of the interaction cannot be fashioned from the details of the talk and other conduct of the participants as the vehicle by which they display the relevance of socialstructural context for the character of the talk, but rather that this must be otherwise invoked by the analyst, who furthermore has developed defensible arguments for doing so (SchegloŸ, 1992: 65–66). The problem of relevance, as stated in Chapter 1 is, in SchegloŸ’s words, not ‘just the descriptive adequacy of the terms used to characterize objects being referred to, but the relevance that one has to provide if one means to account for the use of some term, the relevance of that term relative to the alternative terms that are demonstrably available’ (SchegloŸ, 1992: 108). In other words, the researcher should not automatically attribute particular phenomena to ‘external’ factors of the interaction. Two solutions are suggested to solve this problem. One of the solutions is termed as a ‘positivist’ approach. This involves some process of quantiªcation or statistical counting. The second and more complicated solution is to demonstrate that what is occurring in the interaction is relevant to the participants at that particular moment.

The television interview genre

As in concern 2, procedural consequentiality is related to the ‘context’ of the talk. It is a problem in demonstrating how the context of the place or the setting is ‘procedurally consequential’ to the talk. SchegloŸ (1992) warns the researcher of the di¹culties in showing the connection between talk and social structures in the traditional sense. The analyst should not take the ‘context’ for granted but rather it should be seen as the product of the participants. Lastly, concern 3 is related to the balance in the emphasis one should put on either the social structure or the conversational structure. The problem presented is that of the complexities of how and when to attribute features that are inherent in the talk and others that belong to the social and structural organization.

Characteristics of the interview Interviews are ‘institutionalized’ interactions. They are diŸerent from mundane talk in a number of aspects. Interviews are goal-oriented interactions, a fact tacitly understood by the participants. Roles are deªned and participants are aware of the tasks and restrictions inherent in the interaction. Interviews are pre-planned communicative events where at least two persons are involved. There is also an audience or ‘overhearers’, which may not be physically present. Each of these characteristics is inter-related and in¶uences mutually how the interaction is realized.

Role allocation One of the basic features of interviews is the allocation of roles. Participants are assigned a ‘role’ that entails a number of obligations and restrictions, which is re¶ected in the turntaking with the production of some adjacency pairs. One such pair is the question/answer, where the interviewer asks the questions and the interviewee answers them. This role and adjacency pair correspondence is not reversed (Greatbatch, 1988; Heritage and Roth, 1995). While in everyday conversation the role of questioner or respondent is not set but negotiated, in an institutional setting the roles are ªxed. This role allocation entails the tacit understanding of the rights and obligations of the participants. The interviewer has the right to ask the questions, initiate and terminate the interview, and initiate and shift topics. On the other hand, the interviewee has the obligation to provide answers, although there are situations where interviewee’s re-

43

44

Gender, Language and Culture

sponses are evasive in nature (see Bull, 1994, on non-replies in political interviews), or they challenge the interviewer.

Participants’ identities The interviewer usually knows much more about the interviewee, e.g. professional achievements, than vice versa. This aspect is more pronounced when the interview is a gate keeping process; interviewees usually do not even know the identity of their interviewers (e.g. in a job interview). The fact that only one participant (the interviewer) has more information about the other person creates psychological restrictions, which inevitably aŸects the communicative interaction in many ways. This aspect reinforces the asymmetry of the interaction. Turntaking, for that matter, is quite diŸerent to the one found in daily conversation (Clayman, 1988; Greatbatch, 1991; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1989; T. Yamada, 1995). Perhaps the identity of the interviewer is less relevant in interviews where politicians or experts are interviewed, but this very feature restrains the interviewee from asking questions.

Asymmetry in the interaction Asymmetry in the interview is one of the central topics of research in ‘institutional’ settings (Drew and Heritage, 1992; Heritage and Seª, 1992). Researchers have looked at the various ways speakers show their rights and how these diŸerences are locally constructed in the discourse. It has been argued against considering mundane conversation and institutional interaction in a dichotomous relationship (Drew and Heritage, 1992). However, it is important to note that, in many settings, there is an intrinsic relationship between role and rights which is not found in daily conversation. Power is used in reference to the rights that interviewers possess. Participants in an interview are unequal in terms of rights endowed on them in the interaction. In media interviews, the interviewer’s rights include topic control, commencing and ending the interview, and eliciting information. This aspect diŸers from daily conversation where topics are chosen relatively freely, turn taking is negotiated, and tasks are not deªned. In interviews, topics are introduced and changed solely by the interviewer, and attempts by the interviewee to change them are discouraged or even penalized.

The television interview genre

Goal-oriented interaction As Drew and Heritage (1992) note, ‘institutional’ language is goal oriented. The goal of media interviews is to obtain information from the relevant persons and broadcast it to a wider audience. The presence of an audience (physical or not) aŸects the discourse of the participants because the participants are aware of this ‘third’ party (Bell, 1984; Fairclough, 1989).

One-way ¶ow of information As opposed to mundane talk, there is no exchange of information or small talk in interviews, although in some less formal interviews we may see a more relaxed format. Interviewers, for example, cannot give personal opinions, since neutrality is a requisite in professional journalism. This restriction shapes the turn-type distribution and the types of adjacency pairs, as only the interviewer is entlitled to do the questioning (Clayman,1988; Greatbatch ,1988; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991).

Pre-arranged interactions Media interviews are diŸerent to mundane conversations in that they are prepared in advance. A reasonable amount of preparation by the interviewer is required for a successful interview. This involves some research into the achievements and career of the guest, which enables the interviewer to choose particular topics and prepare her/his questions in advance. On the other hand, the interviewee must agree to be interviewed. To summarize, interviews ‘involve interpersonal communication aimed at eliciting information’ (Cohen, 1987: 14). The roles of interviewer and interviewee are not negotiated but ªxed. In ‘institutionalized’ talk, a number of restrictions and constraints on the speakers shape the interaction (Drew and Heritage, 1992; Goodwin, 1981). Talk in these settings is always goal-oriented. Interviewers are constrained by their role because they are expected to be neutral (Drew and Heritage, 1992), and they have to conform to the interview rules. They are not just ordinary individuals; they represent the organization they work for. The constraints of the interaction are straightforward. Interviewers can decline to answer questions asked by an interviewee without any consequences. The interviewees, on the other hand, are expected to answer the interviewers’ questions or face the consequences of giving a negative impression.

45

46

Gender, Language and Culture

Turntaking rules The television interview format places several constraints on the discourse. For example, turn allocation and management of the interview is the responsibility of the interviewer. Interviewers are expected to maintain neutrality, although they might criticize or challenge their interviewee as a strategy to elicit a desired response. In interviews, there is a time constraint and there is an audience (although not necessarily physically present). As mentioned brie¶y, there are diŸerent types of television interviews, such as where an audience is a third participant in a talk show (although not active). The presence of an audience is an important factor, as participants may become more aware of their speech (Bell, 1984). These constraints discussed above seem to operate in all the interviews in my data, and there are several rules listed below. In order to avoid confusion, I will use the terms host and guest for the rest of this study. Rule 1: The host: – always opens the program – always introduces the guest Rule 2: The guest invariably: – remains silent during the introduction until the greetings are exchanged. Rule 3: The host: – always introduces the ªrst topic – invariably announces a commercial break to the audience and the guest – invariably closes the program Rule 4: The host and guest invariably: – exchange greetings verbally or nonverbally – exchange parting expressions verbally or nonverbally Rule 1: The host always opens the program and introduces the guest This initial section is directed to the audience and is observed in every interview. The host (T) looks brie¶y at the guest (G) but most of the time she looks at the camera in front of her. T gives a general background of the ‘guest’, citing his/her most important professional or personal accomplishments. T also mentions about the topic of the day’s interview in one or two sentences. Once the guest has been introduced, the host and guest exchange greetings. It is only after T greets the guest that he/she has the ‘right’ to talk.

The television interview genre

In the following example, the guest is a music university professor who is the author of a best-selling book on food. The introductory section can be quite lengthy, involving a multi-unit turn. There are many potential TRPs, (line 2, after the conjunctive particle te, line 3, after ga, line 5 after the sentence ªnal particle ne, line 5, 7 and 9, syntactic completion), but the guest does not take the ¶oor until he is greeted by the host. (1) (M9) 1 T: omenikakaru no o tanoshimini shiteorimashita. e.. meet -hon com O pleasure do-hum-past eh 2

→ taihen tasaina kata deirashaimashite.. donna fuuni very talented person cop-hon-conj what-kind way

3

→ goshookai mooshiagetara to omoimasu ga , introduction-hon say-hum-cond Qt think but,

4 5 6

yahari after all

ano= ima okyuuryoo o moratterasharu no uhm now salary-pol O receive-hon com

→ wa Tookyoo Geidai Ueno geidai desu ne. topic Tokyo Art-Uni Ueno Art-Uni cop fp asuko no there of

ongakubu de kokubungaku no sensei o music-dept loc Japanese-literature gen teacher O

7

→ shiterasharu koto ga hitotsu deirashaimasu. sorekara do-hon com S one cop-hon then

8

Kenburijji no kyakuin kyoojuu o nasatta Cambridge gen visiting professor O do-hon-past

9

→ koto mo gozaimasu. soshite TAIHENni mezurashii.. bururunn.. com also be-pol and very unique onmt

10

da toka.. ankomapan da toka (@@) nanka cop and sweet-bean-bread cop and something

11

wakannai omoshiroi oryoori o otsukurininaru understand-neg interesting food O make-hon

12

kata person

13

san. kyoo no okyakusama desu. doomo# T today gen guest-pol cop nice-to-meet-you

demo irassharu n desu. Hayashi also be-hon com cop Hayashi

14 G: konnichiwa. good-morning

Nozomu Nozomu

47

48

Gender, Language and Culture

‘T: I’ve looked forward to meeting him/you. He is a very talented person, and I don’t know how I can introduce him. Now he is getting his salary from the Tokyo Arts University, the Ueno Arts University. He is a teacher of Japanese literature (one of the many things he does) in the music department of that (place). Then he was a visiting professor at Cambridge and he also cooks very interesting and unique food such as sweet bean bread and bururun.6 Today’s guest is Mr. Nozomu Hayashi. Nice to meet you. G: Good morning’

Rule 2: The guest invariably remains silent during the introduction until greetings are exchanged During the introductory part of the program, the guest remains silent. He/she listens and occasionally nods. In the previous excerpt, the host opens the program and her multi-unit turn consists of 6 full declaratives. During this section, the guest remains silent. It is only after the host utters the ªrst pair of the greetings that the guest reciprocates. As a ‘deviant’ case, there is an instance in the data when the host asks the guest a question to conªrm a term. This is the only case in 20 interviews. The guest is a pianist who has a physical disability and the question is related to the disease she suŸered as a child. (2) (F8) 1 T: ima. now

mogoshookaimooshiagemashita yooni. piano no sensei already introduce-past-hum like piano of teacher

2

demo irasshaimasu. maa nisai han de. sekizui kariesu o. also be-hon well two-years half in spinal-caries o

3

sekitsui/ kariesu desu ka? vertebral caries cop Q

4

G: hai sekitsui desu. Yes vertebral cop

5

T: sekitsuikariesu o nasaimashita. ((continues)) Vertebral-caries o do-past-hon ‘T:… Now, as I said before, she is also a piano teacher. Uhm, when she was two and a half years old, she contracted the spinal caries, vertebral? Was it vertebral?

The television interview genre

G: Yes, it is vertebral. T: She contracted vertebral caries. ((continues))

In line 3, the host asks the guest a question in relation to the term for the disease that crippled her. Note that the pronunciation of the two words in Japanese is very similar, sekizui ‘spinal chord’ and sekitsui ‘vertebral chord’, and also the meaning. Being a rare disease and an unfamiliar terminology, the host might have not been fully conªdent of the correct terminology. In every case, the guest has the right to speak only after the host asks a question, or after the greetings have been exchanged. This is a very clear demarcation of the rights and duties of each participant, which is absent in daily conversation but is a characteristic of ‘institutional’ language. The ‘right’ to speak is clearly one of the most interesting aspects of these types of interactions, and is at its most visible in the courtroom (Drew, 1992). Rule 3.1: The host always introduces the Wrst topic only after the greetings have been exchanged It is only after greetings are exchanged that the interview formally starts, and it is always the host who introduces the ªrst topic. In the following example from the same interview with the professor, the host starts her turn with the word mazu, which is equivalent to the English term ‘ªrst’. (3) (M9) 1 T:… Hayashi Hayashi 2

Nozomu san. kyoo no okyakusama desu. Nozomu T today gen guest-pol cop

doomo# nice-to- meet-you

3

G: konnichiwa. good-morning

4

T: mazu ohanashi o ukagatteiru uchi ni kore ga ªrst talk O listen-hum-prog while loc this S

5

sameteshimaimasu node, (e.) mazu okangaeninarimashita kore wa# get-cold-totally because ªrst think-hon-past this top ‘T: Today’s guest is Mr Nozomu Hayashi, nice to meet you. G: Good morning. T: First, because (yes) this (dish) is going to get cold while I (we) listen to you, First, this (dish) is something you thought about’

49

50

Gender, Language and Culture

Invariably, topics are initiated with a discourse word, as in the following fragments. In these examples, topics are introduced with de (and), anoo (well), demo (but), indicated by the arrow. They are discourse markers that function in a similar way to the particle ‘oh’ in new topic beginnings (Button and Casey, 1984; Heritage, 1984). (4) (F2) 1 T: Sugiyama Tokuko san. kyoo no okyakusama desu. Sugiyama Tokuko T today of guest-pol cop 2 3

doomo quite G: [doomo. quite

[shibaraku degozaimashita. long-time cop-past-pol yoroshiku… please

4 →T: de ano- bikkurishita n desu kedo, anoand well surprised com cop but well 5

gokekkon marriage-pol

shiterassharanai, tte, (soo.) do-neg-hon Qt yes ‘T: Today’s guest is Miss Tokuko Sugiyama. We have not met for a long time. G: Hello. T: And, I was surprised to know that you are not married, (yes).

(5) (M8) 1 T: Egawa Susumu san kyoo no okyakusama desu. Doomo. Egawa Susumu T today gen guest-pol cop 2

G: yoroshiku onegaishimasu. please please

3

T: shibaraku de[gozaimashita. long-time cop-past-pol

4

G: [shibaraku desu.] long-time cop

5 →T: anoo hajimete oideitadaita toki ni ne/ (hai) well ªrst-time come-hon time in fp yes ‘T: Today’s guest is Mr. Susumu Egawa. Hello7 G: Hello.8 T: We have not met [for a long time].[(We have not met for a long time)]. Well, when you came here for the ªrst time (yes).’

The television interview genre

(6) (F6) 1 T: ogenki healthy 2

G: hai. sore yes. that

soo de# looks conj dake only

ga torie desu. S good-point cop

3 →T: demo sorenishitemo ((continues)) but anyway ‘T: You look very healthy G: Yes. Good health is my only strength. T: But, anyway ((continues)).’

Rule 3.2: The host invariably announces a commercial break to the audience and the guest (only if the program is broadcast by commercial TV) and closes the program In most of the programs, the host gives a pre-announcement of the topic to follow when announcing the commercial break. The announcement is directed to both the audience and the guest. (7) (M9) 1 T: soo derassharu n desu tte nee/ e…soshite asoko that be-hon com cop q fp uhm and there 2

de sono subarashii sono ichiman satsu loc that wonderful that 10,000 books

3

no hon no mokuroku ga dekita n desu gen book gen catalogue S be-done-past com cop

4

keredo. ja chotto sore wa komaasahru but then little that top commercial

5

o hasamimashite.# (hai.) O insert-conj yes ‘T: I heard that it was so. And at that place, the wonderful catalogue of 10,000 books was done. (We will talk about it) after the commercial break. (yes)’

Depending on time restrictions, the host closes the program with leave-taking expressions. Other times, the program is artiªcially terminated. However, as is the case at the start of the program, the guest does not ªnish the program.

51

52

Gender, Language and Culture

Rule 4: Host and guest invariably exchange greetings verbally and leave-taking expressions verbally or non verbally. Greetings diŸer according to the relationship between the participants, and whether they have met before or not. The following two examples are from interviews when the host meets her guests for the ªrst time. (8) (F1) 1 T: Inoue Fumi san kyoo no okyakusama desu. doomo, Inoue Fumi T today of guest-pol cop quite 2

[hajimemashite] pleased-to-meet-you G: [hajimemashite]… pleased-to-meet-you ‘T: Today’s guest is Mrs Fumi Inoue. [Pleased to meet you] G: [Pleased to meet you]

(9) (F8) 1 T: Oomura Noriko san kyoo no okyakusama desu. Doomo Oomura Noriko T today of guest-pol cop quite 2 3

hajimemashite. [yoroshiku, onegai itashimasu.] Pleased-to-meet-you please G: [hajimemashite. yoroshiku onegai itashimasu.] Pleased-to-meet-you please ‘T: Today’s guest is Mrs Noriko Oomura. Pleased to meet you. xxxx G: Pleased to meet you.

The next two excerpts show that the host and the guest have met before or know each other very well. (10) (M10) 1 T: nanishiro juuhachi nen (@) mae ni deteitadaita anyhow eighteen years ago loc appear-past-hon 2

okyakusama deirassharu Bandoo Tamasaburoo san desu. guest-pol cop-hon Bandoo Tamasaburoo T cop

3

[doomo xxxx

4

G: [doozo yoroshiku. xxxxxx

The television interview genre

5 6

T: ogenki Healthy

soo- ogenki soo ne anata koredake look healthy look fp you this-much

oisogashii noni,# busy-pol even ‘T: Anyhow, it is a guest who appeared in this program eighteen years ago. Mr Tamasaburoo Bandoo is our guest. XXXX G: XXXXX T: You look healthy, don’t you? Even though you are so busy.’

(11) (M6) 1 T: Wanami Takayoshi san ga kyoo no okyakusama desu. Wanami Takayoshi T S today of guest-pol cop 2 3

doomo quite

shibaraku. for some time

G: doomo shibaraku deshita. quite for some time cop-past ‘T: Mr Takayoshi Wanami is today’s guest. It is a long time since we met. G: It is a long time since I saw you last.’

In Japanese society, a formal salutation will always be accompanied by bowing. The more polite the situation, the longer the time and the deeper the bowing. Therefore, in some of the programs, there is no clear verbal greeting, but bowing between host and guest invariably takes place; therefore it is not obligatory to express leave-taking verbally. (12) (F5.U-15) 1 T: de Isetanbijutukan de juunigatsu no juurokunichi and Isetan-gallery loc December gen 16th 2 3 4

made zuibun takusan… odashininaru n deshoo? until quite a-lot exhibit-hon com cop-hort G: eeto kyoo miteitadaita no o, hachibai well today see-receive-past com O eight-times kara kyuubai gurai# from nine-times about

5

T: hachibai kara kyuubai aru eight-times from nine-times be

6

G: (XXXX)mo zutto takusan dashimasu. all-the-way a-lot take-out

53

54

Gender, Language and Culture

7

T: ja then

tanoshimi desu ne. pleasure cop fp

8

G: tottemo kireida to omoimasu. much pretty Qt think

9

T: zehi haiken ((bowing)) by-all-means see-hum

10 G: ((bowing)) ‘T: Are you going to exhibit at the Isetan Gallery from the 16th till the 29th of December? G: Yes, about eight to nine times as much what you saw today. T: Eight to nine times more G: xxx I will exhibit more (items) T: I look forward…(to viewing the exhibition) G: I think it will be very pretty T: (I want to) see it by all means.’

In the above excerpt from the interview with a female kimono collector, the host does not take leave verbally. Parting is expressed by the host when she bows (indicated in line 9). The guest reciprocates the bowing almost simultaneously in line 10.

Summary and conclusion In this chapter, the interview genre is discussed in detail, beginning with the work on interviews that is most directly related to the present study. Next, diŸerent types of journalistic interviews are described, followed by a description of journalistic interviews in Japan. Details of the data used in this study are presented. The constraints that operate in the interview are described, followed by the rules that are observed in the interaction. The most important characteristics of the interview as opposed to other communicative events can be summarized as follows. An interview is a preplanned and speech event where the goal is to obtain information from the guest. This information is used for speciªc purposes by the host or the institution she/he represents. The ¶ow of information is one-way: from the guest to the host and the audience. The participants have assigned roles, each with a speciªc task. There is an asymmetry, in which the host has control over the topics, and commences and ends the interview. These aspects can reveal inter-

The television interview genre

esting phenomena when gender and age diŸerences are explored as I will do in Chapters 4, 6 and 7.

Notes 1. Shearn (1998) used radio interviews for her study. 2. See appendix II. Home Page of Tetsuko no Heya. 3. See appendix II. e-mail from Ichiro Tagawa, producer of Tetsuko no Heya. 4. Totto is the name of a girl. The su¹x chan is added to children’s names or to females’. It is the equivalent of ‘little’. 5. See appendix I for details. 6. Bururun is the name of a dish invented by the guest. 7. Doomo is an expression used in various situations and is a polysemic word. It was translated as a greeting . 8. This expression was also translated as a greeting.

55

Chapter 3

Turntaking

Introduction Participants in television interviews adopt a number of strategies within the constraints that shape the turntaking characteristics of the interaction. Chapter 3 examines those strategies and attempts to show that ‘the participants themselves are demonstrably oriented to the identities’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992: 20) in the interview. The chapter begins with some of the characteristics of Japanese turntaking found in daily conversation. This is followed by an analysis of the turn constructional components (TCU) of host and guests in an interview, based on syntactic, intonational and pragmatic criteria.

Japanese conversation: Characteristics of turntaking Sacks et al. (1974) state that a Transition Relevance Place (TRP) is the point of completion of a constructional unit. In Japanese, it seems that turn-allocation also occurs mostly at grammatical completion. S. Maynard (1989) writes that in an analysis of her data containing 20 dyadic conversations, 96.35% of all smooth turn-allocations occurred at ‘the grammatical completion point’ (1989: 145). Although she does not give any speciªc examples from her data of any of these units, she characterizes them as follows (1989: 145–146): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Sentential units, including sentences with ellipses; Gerundive endings of verbs accompanied by clause-ªnal intonation; Subordinate clause endings without corresponding main clauses; Postposed sentences, considered complete at the end of the postposed elements; 5. Independent ªllers accompanied by a verb. She further writes that participants use not only grammatical completion as a signal for turn-allocation, but also the global structure, such as the narrative framework. In other words, when a speaker starts a narration, thus ‘activating

58

Gender, Language and Culture

the structural frame’ (S. Maynard, 1989: 146), no attempt is made by the recipient of the narration to gain the ¶oor, even at grammatical completion points, except to conªrm the newsworthiness while the development of the narrative continues. Moreover, the Japanese have to self-contextualize in all cases where there is a choice of speaker change. She deªnes the term ‘self-contextualization’ as the ‘on-going process of continually deªning oneself in relation to one’s interactional environment’ (1989: 4). This process involves not only the knowledge of linguistic information, but also ‘physical settings and socio-cultural assumptions about self and one’s partner’ (1989: 4). Equally, information about the theme and narrative of the conversation, as well as other signals such as backchannels and nonverbal cues, are incorporated in this process. Hinds (1978a) studied four speciªc areas of conversational analysis in Japanese interview discourse: overlaps, polite speech, turntaking and conversational harmony. In regard to turn signaling, Hinds noted that pitch lowering, very often accompanied by sentence ªnal particles and syntactic signals, is a cue for turn completion, and that this is mostly accompanied by some nonverbal signal. However, he does not provide any detailed explanation as to what he considers a ‘grammatical sentence ending in a polite form’ (Hinds, 1978a: 105). In an interesting contrasting ªnding between English and Japanese communication, Hinds (1978a) discusses two features which diŸer from two of the facts listed by Sacks et al. (1974) on mundane conversation. The two facts are: Fact 2. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time. Fact 3. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief. In his research involving Japanese data, he found that instances of more than one speaker talking at the same time for an extended period of time are quite common. This observation is explained in terms of cooperative behaviour, where interlocutors show their interest by participating actively. More recent studies include those of Furo (2001), Tanaka (1999) and Mori (1999). Tanaka (1999) used Sacks et al.’ s model to examine Japanese turntaking and test its applicability and universality. Informal and semi-informal data were analyzed in investigating the syntactic, intonational and pragmatic features of turn ends. Tanaka argued that the grammatical structure of English (SVO) induces an early ‘projectability’ of turn completion. However, having a diŸerent structure (SOV), Japanese does not have the same degree of ‘projectability’. This aspect enables Japanese speakers to either hold the ¶oor by what Tanaka (1999) calls ‘incremental transformability’ or end their turn. A smooth next-speaker transition is accomplished by the use of devices such as sentence

Turntaking

ªnal particles, copulas, or ªnal verb su¹xes. Another tool used to indicate speaker transition is rising intonation, which signals turn completion. She compared her results with the analysis of English conversation by Ford and Thompson (1996), and made interesting ªndings. In English, turntaking occurs largely at syntactical completion points. However, in Japanese, the pattern is quite diŸerent. Tanaka’s results show that syntactic completion and turn change occur 422 times, as opposed to 798 in English. In Japanese, pragmatic completion points were identiªed as ‘likely candidates for possible TRPs in Japanese’ (Tanaka, 1999: 219). In the present study, a high number of turn ªnal construction units are also syntactically unªnished, a ªnding that corroborates many studies (Mori, 1999; Okamoto, 1985; Tanaka, 1999). In a thorough study of this aspect, Mori (1999) looked at a particular set of particles known as connective particles and connectors. These are used to tie two clauses with diŸering relations, which include disagreement, agreement, and conclusion. Although connectors in a canonical sentence do not appear in sentence ªnal position, they are common in everyday conversation. The observations coincide with Tanaka (1999) and seem to conªrm that grammatically unªnished turns are quite common in Japanese oral communication. Mori explains that connectives are used as a strategy in the delivery of agreement or disagreement. Her analysis is thorough and provides a comprehensive study on these discourse markers. Furo (2001) did a comparative study of English and Japanese turntaking in casual talk and political news interviews. She found that the joint completion of grammatical, intonational and semantic properties project turn-transition, and that the majority of speaker changes occur at these points. One characteristic of her Japanese data is the overwhelming use of reactive tokens in both contexts. This also in¶uences turntaking, with more speaker changes in Japanese than in English, which is even more pronounced in conversation. The studies by Furo (2001), Mori (1999) and Tanaka (1999) are a valuable contribution to the growing research on Japanese conversation, and conªrm the characteristics of Japanese as a non-European language. Tanaka compares her results with the anthropo-sociological theories known as Nihonjinron, and explains some of the idiosyncrasies of Japanese communicative behaviour. She argues that the Japanese conversation style cannot be described as ‘inherently illogical, ambiguous and indirect’ (Tanaka, 1999), but that its turn taking features allow speakers to constantly change the course of a turn. The fact that many of the turns end with grammatical and conjunctive particles explains this phenomenon.

59

60

Gender, Language and Culture

The study in the present book indirectly tests the Sacks et al. (1974) model of turntaking as it is applied to a diŸerent language and to a diŸerent situation. The following sections demonstrate that, in fact, Sacks et al.’ s theory of turntaking is context-free. Also, as Heritage (1995) points out, everyday conversation is the basis of other types of communicative behaviour. Despite a number of points in the interaction that diŸer from the facts of ordinary conversations, the model can be used without major alteration.

Characteristics of Japanese television interviews Greatbatch writes that the turntaking systems in institutionalized language settings are based on the ‘systematic transformation of the one used for mundane conversation’ (1988: 402). He also suggests that there is a continuum, with casual conversation at one end and the speech used in ceremonies at the other. This can be observed in the interviews analyzed for this book. In contrast to news interviews where the situation is extremely formal and sometimes even hostile, Tetsuko no Heya is comparatively informal. The degree of formality varies according to the guest (age, gender and whether he/she is a friend of the host). Formal/informal shifts are also observed within a single interview. Therefore, many characteristics that appear in ‘mundane’ conversation and mentioned elsewhere (S. Maynard, 1989; Shibamoto, 1985; Tanaka, 1999), appear here. Equally, some of the restrictions of ‘institutionalized’ interactions (Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Heritage, 1985; T. Yamada, 1995) are also observed throughout the data on Tetsuko no Heya. According to Sacks et al. (1974), turntaking organization comprises two components; the turn-constructional component and the turn-allocation component, and a set of rules (see Chapter 1). In the turn-allocation component, two techniques for next-speaker allocation are used: allocation by the current speaker, and self-selection. Normatively, when the current speaker is the guest, turn-allocation is indicated in most cases by syntactic or pragmatic completion. On the other hand, when the current speaker is the host, turn-allocation is indicated by the use of questions, by addressing the guest, and by syntactic and/ or pragmatic completion of turns. In everyday conversation, there are many situations where more than two participants engage in the speech event simultaneously. In those cases, three options for next-speaker allocation seem to operate in the turntaking process (Sacks et al., 1974). However, in the present data, the number of participants is

Turntaking

limited to two. As in any dyadic interaction, the rule of the current speaker allocating the turn to the next speaker can apply without the need of speciªc strategies such as addressing the other party by name. Because of the dyadic nature of the interview, at ªrst hand it appears as though the rule of selfselection does not apply in this context. However, it is quite common for speaker change to occur at transitional relevance places (TRP), the potential points where speakers recognize the end of a turn (Sacks et al., 1974). In those cases, the current speaker continues talking. The following excerpt from the data can illustrate this technique. (1) (F2.N-9) 1 G: otaota nervously 2

shimashita ne. do-past fp

T: de yattegoranninatte doo deshita.. ochitsukanai and try-doing-hon-past-conj how cop-past settle-neg ‘G: I did not know what to do. T: And how was it when you performed? …You did not feel comfortable?’

In this example, the guest is an actress who is being asked about her roles in the theatre. She had always performed aged women roles and when she cast as someone her own age, she says that she was really nervous. In line 2 the host projects a TRP when the copula deshita is uttered with rising intonation. Notice the pause, however, when the guest does not take the ¶oor. The host asks another question which is again marked by rising intonation. It is only at the second TRP that the guest takes the ¶oor.

Some facts of interviews CA considers that ordinary conversation is the primary form of interaction. Other forms ‘branch out’ from everyday interaction. Therefore, comparing the facts observed by Sacks et al. (1974) on mundane talk to the interview interaction gives us a starting point in detecting the similarities and the diŸerences. Based on the 14 facts observed by Sacks et al. (1974) in daily conversations and presented in Chapter 1, a number of facts diŸer in interviews analyzed in this study and are explained as follows: i. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are not common (Fact 3) Overlaps and interruptions are less common in the present data. Turntaking

61

62

Gender, Language and Culture

occurs smoothly and, interestingly, non-aggressive interruptions and overlaps are more frequent in interviews with younger guests. The overlaps are brief and are probably mistimed new turns. This fact may be related to the nature of the televised interview and of this particular program. ii. Order is ªxed (Facts 5 & 9) Because it is a dyadic interaction, the order of the speakers is not a problem. Sometimes the speaker self- selects and continues, but in general the dyadic nature of the interview determines the order. iii. What parties say is speciªed (Fact 8) To some degree, what parties say is speciªed. Unlike everyday conversation in which topics are selected at random, including controversial ones, topics in the interview are predetermined. iv. Length of conversation is restricted (Fact 7) Time restrictions are in place and the host has to announce the end of the interview or a commercial break. v. Talk must be continuous (Fact 11) As a broadcasting event, talk in the interview must be continuous. There are occasions when a slight pause or an overlap takes place. However, those instances are brief and soon repaired by the host. vi. The number of parties does not vary (Fact 10) There are no ¶uctuations in the number of participants, unlike in everyday conversations.

The host’s turns One of the most conspicuous diŸerences between mundane talk and interviews is probably the unequal distribution of questions. In the former, any interlocutor can ask questions, whereas in the latter it is only the host who possesses that right. Heritage and Roth (1995) write that ‘questioning handles the main interactional and institutional tasks charged to modern news interviewers’ (1995: 1), and this point is also applicable in the present data.

Turntaking

The ªrst and most striking diŸerence between the TCUs of the host and guests is the disparate proportion of questions asked by the host as we can see in the following table. Looking closer at the data, other types of TCUs that do not fall into the syntactic description of a question function in the same way as an interrogative. These are termed information eliciting devices, which the host in this study uses expertly.

Host's

Figure 3.1 Distribution of turn construction units

Table 3.1 Distribution of turn construction units TCU

Host Total

%

Guests Total

%

Question UU (Q) UU Pause Post FU Int Overlap Total

179 184 278 54 83 185 99 102 1164

15.4 15.8 23.9 4.64 7.13 15.9 8.51 8.76 100

13 3 381 36 62 500 106 63 1164

1.12 0.26 32.7 3.09 5.33 43 9.11 5.41 100

UU(Q)= UU= Post= FU= Int=

unªnished utterances that function as questions unªnished utterances postposition ªnished utterance interruption

Overlap

Int

FU

Post

Pause

UU

UU (Q)

Guests'

Question

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

63

64

Gender, Language and Culture

Following Heritage and Roth’s (1995) model, the grammatical structure of the host’s TCUs demonstrate that they are related in type to the parties involved in the interaction (SchegloŸ and Sacks, 1973). The host uses a number of strategies that function as information eliciting devices: grammatically complete and incomplete questions, and statements in syntactically ªnished and unªnished forms.

Questions The questions found in the data are of a wide variety, as described by Nitta (1989, 1995). The questions categorized as grammatically complete follow the syntactic rule that a question particle ka must be attached to the end of the sentence accompanied by rising intonation, such as in the following example from the data: (2) (M9) 1 T: sooiu benkyoo doko de nasatta n that-type study where loc do-hon-past com 2

desu ka? cop Q ‘T: Where did you do such study?’

This is a typical question form marked by the question particle ka at the end of the sentence. Among ka questions, are WH, Yes/No and alternative questions, which are described below in detail. The use of the complementizer n in questions indicates a greater involvement in the interaction.

Wh-questions Wh-questions in Japanese are formed with the appropriate question word followed by the corresponding case particle. These types of questions can occur without the question particle ka but must be accompanied by ªnal rising intonation. The main question words in Japanese are: nani ‘what’, doko ‘where’, dare ‘who’, itsu ‘when’, dore ‘which’, donna/dooiu ‘how/what kind’, naze ‘why’. The guest in (3) is a pianist and educator. The topic being discussed is how to motivate and encourage people to achieve their best performance. The question word doo ‘how’ is used in line 1, and the interrogative ends with the question particle ka.

Turntaking

(3) (F8.Q-8) Wh- question 1 T: demo sono hito no utsuwa o doo yatte but that person gen container O how do 2

→ mikiwamereba yoroshii n desu ka? discern-cond good com cop Q

3

G: yappari sore wa hontooni sono hito no after-all that top really that person gen

4

ironna taiwa toka/ sorekara kankyoo ((continues)) various dialogue like then surroundings ‘T: But, how can you discern the potential of that person? G: After all, you have to see things like his/her surrounding, talk to him/ her ((continues)).’

This example also shows that grammatically complete questions have a stronger imposition on the listener and can set the tone of the interaction. In the excerpt above, the guest starts her answer with the word yappari ‘after all’, which is in a similar straightforward manner. Yappari functions as a discourse marker used to stress one’s point of view.

Alternative questions The structure for alternative questions in Japanese such as ‘Is something/ someone/ somewhere X or not X?, contains the a¹rmative option ªrst and then the negative one. The options do not have to be immediately adjacent. Another alternative question takes a slightly diŸerent form, where the option is X or Y, as illustrated in the following fragment. (4) (M3. 5) Alternative question 1 T: de sore wa, kore sore wa goranninatta n and that top this that top see-hon-past com 2 3 4

→ desu ka? soretomo goranninatta= hito no cop Q or see-hon-past person gen hanashi o okikininatta, story o listen-hon-past G: iya, watashi wa soko ni ita n desu yo. No I top there in be-past com cop fp ‘T: And that, this= that, did you see it? Or did you hear the story from a person who saw it? G: No, I was there, you see.’

65

66

Gender, Language and Culture

The guest is a famous cartoonist and in this excerpt the host asks him whether he had actually seen ghosts and spirits or was just retelling stories he had heard from witnesses. The alternative question commences in line 1 and the second section starts with the conjunction soretomo ‘or’, as indicated by the arrow in line 2.

Yes/No questions Yes/No questions can be answered by hai ‘yes’ or iie ‘no’. These types of questions end with the question particle ka preceded by the copula or a verb. (5) (F9.5) 1→ T: are wa nanka senaka ni shou n desu ka? that top well back loc carry com cop Q 2 3

G: soo desu ne/ ano= kuuki no haitteru that-way cop fp well air gen enter tanku o shotte ((continues)) tank O carry-conj ‘T: Do you carry that on your back? G: Yes, as you say, well you carry a tank ªlled with air ((continues)).’

In the above excerpt, the guest is an actress and the topic is diving. The host asks a very short question containing the discourse particle nanka, which functions as a hedge. The guest starts her answer with soo desune followed by ano=, which are equivalent to the English discourse markers ‘yes’ and ‘well’ respectively. They are used as the guest needs to correct the host’s wrong assumption that the tank is ªlled with oxygen and not air.

‘No’ questions In colloquial speech, utterances that do not end with the question particle can function as questions. The most common form is the use of rising intonation at the end of the sentence, which can occur together with one or more sentence ªnal particles. The host in the next example (6) asks the guest about his New Year ritual of sending cards to each of his immediate family members. The host compliments him in line 1 which is followed by a no question. (6) (M7.5) No question 1 T: sore wa demo suteki na koto desu ne/ that top but nice cop com cop fp

Turntaking

2

→ zutto sore o hajime kara tsuzuketerassharu no? through that O start from continue-hon fp

3

G: ee maa zutto tsuzuitemasu nde zutto yes well through continue-pre because through

4

tsuzukenakya ((continues)) continue-must ‘T: But that is very nice, isn’t it? Have you done it continuously from the beginning? G: Yes, well, I always do it, and I must continue ((continues)).’

In line 2, the host ends her sentence with the verb in plain form and the ªnal particle no accompanied by rising intonation. No has other functions as a nominalizer or as a ªnal particle used mainly by women but can be used as a question particle (Hinds, 1984) when it is pronounced with rising intonation. This type of question gives a more familiar and soft tone to the discourse.

Tte questions Another question form that does not follow the canonical structure is the use of a colloquial quotation particle, which literally means ‘you/someone said that, I’ve heard that’. In the following example (7), the guest is a famous and versatile Kabuki actor who received the Chevalier Prize for outstanding artistic performance. In line 1, the host asks her question using tte. (7) (M10. S-2) Tte question 1→ T: de sono kudasarikata tte sutekina n desu tte? and that way-of-giving qt splendid com cop Qt 2

G: soo desu ne. eeto= Rondon yes cop fp uhm London

ototoshi year-before-last

3

Rondon Rondon no kooen no toki ni London London gen performance gen time loc

4

((continues)) ‘T: (You/They said that) the way of giving (the Chevalier Prize) is splendid. G: Yes, well when London I went to London the year before last, after my performance ((continues)) ‘

Deshoo questions Ending with the copula in the tentative form, deshoo, with rising intonation, as

67

68

Gender, Language and Culture

in the following example, is a strategy for the listener’s agreement (Makino and Tsutui, 1992) It can be characterized as a light question (McClain, 1990). (8) (F1.L-6) Deshoo question 1 T: demo soiu kata ga kaketeru kaketeru but that-type person S written written 2

tte osshatte kudasatta kara (hai) motto qt say-conj give-past because yes more

3

→ kakoo tto omoininatta n deshoo? write-hort Qt think-hon-past com cop

4

G: soo na n desu. yes cop com cop ‘T: But because that type of person (writers) told you (yes) that your work was well written, then you probably thought that you could write more. G: Yes, it is like that.’

The guest in this example (8) is the widow of a famous writer. The host refers to the widow’s writing being assessed positively by her late husband. Her question is uttered in line 3 using deshoo at the end of her sentence.

Rising intonation Questions can be accomplished without the use of the question particle or other question words. Final rising intonation is enough to signal this function. This interrogative form can occur with any type of verbal, nominal or adjectival construction. The following interview features an ex-professional baseball player who became a sports commentator for television. The host asks him about other sports for which he has to do reports. He answers that, although he pretends to know about them, there are many with which he is not very familiar. (9) (M8.1) 1 G: boku wa anoo= shittakaburi shitemasu kedomo/.. I top uhm pretend-to-know do-pre but 2

anoo= ironna koo tatoeba fuyu no supootsu uhm various uhm for-example winter gen sports

3

nanka ammari yaranakatta wake desu yo ne/ like not-much do-past reason cop fp fp

4

T: aisuhokkei toka/ ice-hockey like

Turntaking

5

G: hokkee toka, hockey like

6

T: sukii/ ski

7

G: un. sorekara sukii toka. yes then ski like ‘G: As for me, I pretend to know, but there are various types of winter sports, for example, that I did not do, you know. T: (Sports) Like ice hockey? G: (Sports) Like ice hockey T: Skiing? G: Yes. Then (sports) like skiing.’

In line 4 there is a phrase, and in line 6 an adjectival. Both are accompanied by rising intonation.

Echoing as clariªcation/questioning The host uses repetition of a word, a name, a noun phrase or a whole clause for clariªcation. The excerpt to illustrate this type features the Kabuki actor mentioned in example (7). In this section (example (10)), they are talking about an actress whom the host apparently does not know. The repetition a few lines down of the guest’s word functions as a clariªcation. (10) (M10.S-6) 1 G: joyuusan na n desu. actress cop com cop 2 T: sooxxx Watanabe (e.) Misakosan o oyarininatta Watanabe yes Misako-Ms O do-hon-past 3 [xxxxxx 4 G: [no yooroppaban o yatteiru hito na n desu of Europe-edition O do-prog person cop com cop 5 kedo but 6 →T: joyuusan actress 7 G: e. Iruma toka ironna mono ((continues)) yes Irma like various things ‘G: She is an actress, T: Did she perform Misako Watanabe [xxxx?

69

70

Gender, Language and Culture

G: [She is doing] the European version. T: An actress. G: Yes, she played Irma and other roles ((continues))’

In line 6, the host echoes the guest’s word in line 1. We can see that her echoing the guest’s word triggers a more detailed account by the guest of the plays performed by this actress. On other occasions echoing is more immediate. The guest recounts his experience during World War Two (WWII) and the topic is about the ship he sailed in. (11) (M1.2) 1 G: soo da na. juu notto deta no ga yes cop fp ten knots get-past com top 2 saikoo janai no kashira. maximum be-neg com fp 3→ T: juu notto/ ten knots/ 4 G: juu notto tte no wa ne yaku niju ten knots Qt com top fp about twenty 5 kkiro nano yo ne. (un.) kilometres cop fp fp uh-huh ‘G: Well, I think that the maximum speed was ten knots. T: Ten knots? G: Ten knots is about twenty kilometres. (uh-huh).’

Echoing by the host in line 3 is accompanied by rising intonation and interpreted by the guest as a request for clariªcation or explanation, as is shown in lines 4–5.

Grammatically unªnished questions The host also uses grammatically unªnished questions. Despite the incomplete structure of the turn, they project turn-yielding. This type of question is quite common in conversations where interlocutors do not utter the whole question. Hinds (1984) calls this type of questions ‘truncated questions’, and writes that it ‘is a stylized means of asking questions in which only the ªrst noun phrase plus the topicalizing particle wa occurs’ (Hinds, 1984: 166). The following examples illustrate grammatically incomplete questions. In (12) the guest is a violinist who talks about recording with a string quintet in

Turntaking

London. The host does not ªnish her question but there are two cues that indicate what she wants to ask. The ªrst cue is the lengthening of the last vowel doko= ‘where’, and the second is another vowel lengthening kara= ‘from’. (12) (M6.i-7) 1→ T: chinamini doko= no rekoodo gaisha kara=# by-the-way where gen record company from 2

G: sore wa ne Pikkuuikku to iu n desu. that top fp Pickwick Qt say com cop ‘T: By the way, from which= recording company= G: It is called Pickwick. ‘

Turntaking occurs here without any problems as the guest elaborates on the recording company. The interrogative word doko ‘where’ and the particle no ‘of’ (dokono ‘which’) may have helped convey the intended message. However, in other instances there are no grammatical clues to indicate questioning. The guest here is the widow of the writer Inoue. Turntaking occurs without the host actually asking a question. (13) (F1. L-4) 1→ T: shoshite,.. maa seishoo… oseishoo wa zutto# and well fair-copy fair-copy-pol top through 2

G: a. shujin no seishoo wa itashimashita nee. my-husband of fair-copy top do-hum-past fp ‘T: And as for the fair copy, throughout G: I did the fair copy of my husband’s (works).’

This type of exchange is very common in the data and is labelled as unªnished questions in this study. The host does not need to ªnish her utterance; she is not interrupted and there is no communication breakdown. Turntaking is accomplished successfully, although there is no grammatical completion.

Declaratives as information elicitors Grammatically complete declaratives Declaratives are also used as information eliciting techniques. They can be grammatically complete sentences. In example (14), the guest is the former prosecutor who was in charge of the famous bribery case involving a Prime Minister. Here they talk about the quantity of money involved in the scandal.

71

72

Gender, Language and Culture

(14) (F2. N-7) 1 T: nan[zenoku.] [(nanzenoku)] tte iu okane no how-many-million how-many-million Qt say money of 2

[tan’i ga ima unit S now

3

[(soo na n desu yo ne/)] tooji wa, maa gookuen yes cop com cop fp fp then top well 5-million-yen

4

tte [taihen na okane deshita] Qt great cop money cop-past

5 6

mo moo detekiteshimaimashita kedo ne/] too already come-end-past but fp

G: [soo desu ne/] moo kangaerarenai yoona gaku yes cop fp well think-pot-neg like amount datta desu ne/ be-past cop fp ‘T: The amount (of money involving briberies) now is in the [billions] [(millions)] But at that time, ªve hundred million yen was [a lot of money.] G:[Indeed] It was an incredible amount of money.’

In this excerpt, the host yields her turn at the completion of her sentence. Although she does not ªnish her turn with the question form, the host could elicit the information she was seeking.

Grammatically incomplete declaratives Grammatically incomplete declaratives comprised 23.9% of the host’s TCUs (see Table 3.1). The high frequency indicates that they are successfully used as an eliciting technique. The guests have no di¹culty in understanding the intended question of the host and turntaking is smooth. The following example illustrates this point. The guest is Tamasaburo Bando, a famous Kabuki actor, known for his diverse performances in the theatre. Excerpts of this interview are used in (6) and (9). In this example (15), the host comments on his latest theatre production. (15) (M10.3) 1 T: ii ne/ docchimo ii shoo dashi/ sorekara ima good fp both good prize cop-conj then now 2

chotto little

hanashi ni demashita Nasutashia tte iu talk into come-past Nastashia Qt say

3

no wa taihen na kantoku.(hai.) maa eiga kantoku com top important cop director yes well movie director

Turntaking

4→ 5

toshite yuumei na kata ga# as famous cop person S G: hai. ano Waida kantoku. Yes well Wajda director ‘T: Both prizes are really good and it was mentioned that the director of Nastashia an important director (yes), well a famous movie director G: Yes, well (it is) director Wajda.’

The host’s turn indicated in line 4 by the arrow is an incomplete sentence. Nor is it a postposition, as there is no verb in the surface structure (see section on postposition). However, it is not di¹cult to understand that she wants her guest to provide the name of the famous movie director who is being referred to.

Host’s comments Interviewers in news interviews must maintain their neutrality by avoiding the use of any personal comments or other devices that denote empathy or cooperation (Clayman, 1988; Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Heritage, 1985). Although Tetsuko no Heya is not a news interview, and the constraints of neutrality are less stringent, as a professional broadcaster the host is expected to avoid expressing any preferences and to maintain an impartial stance. The host in my data has a distinct style that is more conversational than in news interviews, and she uses various ways of stating her comments in order to facilitate the interview. Some of them are similar to ‘B-event’ statements (Heritage, 1985; Heritage and Roth, 1995; Pomerantz, 1980), where the host uses declarative sentences. The guest is the former prosecutor presented previously and the host gives her rather sympathetic opinion of the former Japanese prime minister who was prosecuted on bribery charges. Her comment elicits a critical remark from the guest. Notice that there is no question formulated by the host, yet the guest participates actively in the exchange. (16) (M3.4–5) 1 T: konna koto ni naruto wa ne/ maa this-kind thing into become-cond top fp well 2

mochiron zenbu@@ sono Tanaka of-course all well Tanaka

san no tokoro T gen place

3

kara kita to omoimasen kedo/ (ee.) from come Qt think-neg but yes

4

demo ma,.. sooitta= nante iimasu kashira but well that-kind how say fp

73

74

Gender, Language and Culture

5 6

(e.) karakuri= ga desu ne/ yes tricks S cop fp G: soo desu ne/ maa, Tanaka san ga souiu yes cop fp well Tanaka T S that-type

7

shuukin shisutemu tsukurareta men money-collection system create-hon-past aspect

8

arimasu kara ne/ kore wa yappari, ee= be because fp this top after-all eh

9

koozai no zai no hoo na n deshoo ne/ ((continues)) jail-term gen crime gen type cop com cop-hort fp ‘T:(nobody expected that) things would result in this way, of course I do not think that everything (related to corruption) came from Mr Tanaka, (yes) but those (yes) tricks,.. G: Well, Mr Tanaka had created this system of collecting money, therefore he had to be sentenced to prison ((continues)).’

Other comments by the host are accompanied by the polite tentative form (desho) and the plain tentative form (daroo) of the copula and rising intonation, as in example (17). (17) (M10) 1 H: hontooni (e.) ii joyuusan ne/ (e.) really yes good actress fp yes 2

junsui pure

3

toki ni time in

4

[dake na n deshoo/ only cop com cop-hort

5

na uiuishii cop chaste

tokuni sooiu especially that-type

mono ga hitsuyoo no com S need gen

wa moo soiu mono tte hora engiryoku top well that-type com Qt inter acting

G: [soo desu ne. soo desu ne. (un.) dakara uchi mo yes cop fp yes cop fp uh-huh therefore we also

6

narubeku sooiu fuuni ano== sodateru tsumori na n as-possible that-way form well raise try cop com

7

desu kedomo, cop but ‘T: (She) is really (yes) a very good actress, isn’t she? (yes) Especially when you need something pure and chaste, ultimately it is the acting

Turntaking

skills (of the person that is the most important), isn’t, it? G: Yes, as you say. Yes, as you say (uh-huh) That is why we are trying to produce actors that can perform.’

This question does not ask for information, but rather is a form of agreementseeking utterance.

Reformulations and formulations One activity that is the exclusive right and obligation of the host is reformulations, or the elaboration of formulations. They are used to provide a clariªcation or explanation of the preceding speaker’s utterance. In many cases, the intended meaning diŸers from what the speaker originally intended. Formulations are associated with control (Fairclough, 1989) and can be used to direct other speakers (Sacks, 1992). In this data, the host’s formulations are mainly directed to the audience, but they are also used to elicit more talk. The following excerpts demonstrate this. (18) (M9) 1 T: desukara ima osshatta yooni hontooni, sono(@) therefore now say-hon-past like really that 2

kookogaku to onnaji tte sakki osshaimashita archaeology with same Qt before say-hon-past

3

keredomo, sono hon o ohirakininatte/ but that book O open-hon-and

4

hontooni itsu hakkosareta mono deari. (e.) dareno mono really when print-pass-past thing cop-conj whose thing

5

deari. dooiu cop-and what-kind

sono hon ga that book S

6

G: hai. sujoo dearu . yes origin cop

7

T: sujoo dearu ka tte koto zenbu akirakaninasaru origin cop Q Qt com all clear-hon

8

wake desukara (hai.) iRONNa koto, gozonjinaito,# com therefore various things know-hon-neg-cond ‘T: Therefore, as he said previously, it is really like (@) archaeology. When opening a book, he has to decide when the book was printed, whose book it was, what kindG: Yes, the origin’

75

76

Gender, Language and Culture

T: You have to know really many things (yes) because you must make clear things like the origin of the book #’

In (18), the host summarizes the guest’s description of the tasks involved in his job. Note that the host mentions on two occasions what the guest had said: in line (1) she uses the word osshatta (‘say’ in the plain past form), and in line (2) a slightly diŸerent form of the same verb. The host accomplishes her role as an interviewer using reformulations. In this way, she ensures the audience understands the information and at the same time she elicits more talk from her guest. In the next excerpt, the guest had explained how people could apply her music pedagogy in other ªelds. She mentions that she conducts seminars in places as varied as hospitals and business institutions. The host in the excerpt summarizes what the guest had explained about her pedagogical approach. Note that the host uses several discourse markers to indicate her reformulation: sosuto (and), yappari (after all), naniwatomoare (whatever the case) in line (2) and also the quotative expression tte iu in line (3). (19) (F8) 1 T: sosuto yappari naniwatomoare sono (un.) sono hito then after-all anyway that uh-huh that person 2

no koto o yoku shite[ageru [(soo desu ne.)] tte gen com o well do-give yes cop fp Qt

3

iu koto. say com ‘T: Then, anyway whatever the case, (uh-huh) in other words you have to be good (yes) to that person.’

In many ways, reformulations or formulations function as summaries in the ¶ow of the interview.

The guests’ turns Guests’s turns are usually the second pair of adjacency pairs. In the previous section, the host initiates the ªrst turn of the interaction and the guests normally answer the host’s questions. The following examples show guests giving answers to various types of questions. In example (20) the guest is an actress and the topic of the interview is about her health and her weight-loss method. Line 1 shows the question structure in Japanese indicated by the question particle ka.

Turntaking

(20) (F6) 1 T: kore wa nanika riyuu [ga arimasu ka?] this top some reason S be Q 2 3

G: [ano ne,] sugoku ano= soto dato koo amai well fp very well out when uhm sweet nomimono nondari shimasu deshoo? ((continues)) drink drink-like do cop-hort ‘T: Is there some reason for that? G: Well, when you are out, you drink beverages that are sweet, don’t you? ((continues))’

In an excerpt from the same interview, the guest answers a question that ends in a verb in plain form accompanied by rising intonation. (21) (F6) 1 T: kono gurai da to ima kara daitai nan this much cop if now from about how-many 2 3 4

kiro gurai futotteru? kilos about be-fat G: kono toki ga daitai..ee rokujuu= soo, this time S about eh sixty well roku shichi # ((continues)) six seven ‘T: If you are this slim, how many kilos heavier were you? G: At that time I was about sixty-six or -seven ((continues))’

The second pair of the guests’s turn is not always an answer to a question. In the following example, the guest takes the ¶oor even though the host does not ask a question. (22) (M2) 1 T: jigoku gokuraku no e (@@@) souiu no o hell paradise gen painting that-kind of o 2

gorannatte futsu dattara look-hon-conj normally cop-cond

waa kowai toka int afraid like

3

nantoka to omou n dakedo. funfun. kore wa like Qt think com but onmt this top

4

hontooni= kouiu mono ga aru no da na/ really thi-type thing S be com cop fp

77

78

Gender, Language and Culture

5

to (un.) uker@@ ireru yoona yooso ga sudeni atta Qt yes accept like element S already be-past

6

to omou to Qt think Qt

7

G: dakara watashi wa ne/ sono e o therefore I top fp that painting o

8

ichinchijuu miteru n desu. moo kaeroo tte iwareru whole-day look com cop now return-hort Qt say-pass

9

made kooyate. (hoo) ichinchijuu mitemashita yo. Until this-way really whole-day look-past fp ‘T: You were looking at the painting of hell and paradise. Normally, one would feel afraid. But you already had in mind to look at something like that (yes) and accept it. G: That’s why, you see? I would be looking at that painting the whole day. Until they would tell me that it was time to go home, (really) I would be looking at the painting the whole day’.

In the above example, the guest is a cartoonist who created ghouls, ghosts and other monsters as his characters. The host comments on the experiences of the guest as a child. He used to visit a nearby temple where there was a very frightening painting of hell and paradise. Notice that in line 6 the host’s utterance does not end in rising intonation or with the question particle ka, both being the ways to indicate questions in Japanese. It does not end as a usual syntactic unªnished turn observed in the data. However, the guest takes the ¶oor and retells the same episode.

When guests ask questions Guests in television interviews do not normally ask questions, unless it is to clarify the host’s question. In particular, questions with the canonical structure are rare. However, if a guest asks a question, the host has the right to ignore the question, as in the following example. The guest is an ex-baseball player who was a controversial sportsman when playing in the major league tournaments. He asks a question on two occasions, as indicated by the arrows. Note that the host ignores both questions in lines 7 and 9 and, instead of providing an answer, she asks him a question. In this example we can see how the participants are ‘doing’ the interview, where rights and obligations are subtly conveyed and enforced.

Turntaking

(23) (M8) 1 T:… anata tte.. are na n desu tte ne/ tsuri ikimasen ka you Qt uhm cop com cop Qt fp ªshing go-neg Q 2

tte yoso no kata ni denwashiterassharu. sore o osoba Qt other of person to telephone-hon that o next-pol

3

de kiiteruto. raishuu no nichiyoobi toka atashitachi and listen-if next-week gen Sunday like we

4

omoujanai desu ka. (hai.) sore o anata wa rainen think-neg cop Q yes that o you top next-year

5

no natsu nan te itterassharu n desu tte/ of summer com Qt say-hon com cop Qt

6

(@)@ nee/ hontoo na no/ fp true cop fp

7 →G: doko de sonna koto where in that-type thing 8

T: hontoo na no/ true cop fp

9 →G: doko de sonna joohoo where in that-type information 10 T: hontoo na no/ sooiu no tte/ true cop fp that-kind com Qt 11 G: eeh. chotto chuukan ga shooryakusareteru n desu ne yes little middle S abbreviate-prog com cop fp ‘T: I’ve heard that you are, uhm.. when listening while you are talking on the phone and inviting someone to go ªshing, one thinks of next week (yes). But for you, the invitation is for next year’s summer, isn’t it? (@) @ Is it true? G: Where did you (get/hear) that (information)? T: Tell me, is it true? G: Where did you (get/hear) that information? T: Tell me, is it true? G: Yes, but there is more to the story…’

In other ‘deviant’ examples, the guest uses the question form using the negative form of the copula in plain form and with rising intonation janai. This form of question functions as an invitation for agreement rather than one that requires an answer (Nitta, 1989, 1995). The next excerpt shows the guest’s

79

80

Gender, Language and Culture

TCU ending in janai. The ending is in plain form and the tenor of the interaction is quite informal. Note that the host agrees with the guest and repeats some of the words used by the guest. (24) (F4) 1 G: soo. dakara jibun wa heiki na yes therefore oneself top unconcerned cop 2 3

no yo. (soo com fp yes

da.) demo miteru hito wa kinodoku janai/ cop but watch people top feel-sorry cop-neg T: soo. jibun wa heiki ne/ yes oneself top unconcerned cop ‘G: yes. That’s why, I really don’t care (yeah) but one feels it for the person that watches you. T: Yes. One does not care, right?’

Other-correction Correction of a wrong statement is usually done by the speaker him/herself or by the listener. However, other-correction can be seen as an overt FTA, and are therefore in general limited to adult – child interactions (Sacks et al., 1974; 380–381). As, according to Sacks (1992), ‘correction in public is a sanctioned event’ (Winter Lecture 7), one can expect to ªnd very rare cases of othercorrection in television interviews. A remarkable example is the following exchange between a kimono collector and the host. The host announces she has been using the wrong word for the term ekoo ‘kimono hanger’, and that she was told about the term during the commercial break. (25) (F5) 1 T: sakihodo xxrai atakushi wa ano== nanka kimono o Just-a-while xxx I top uhm well kimono o 2

kakeru mono ekoo to itteta yooni omoimasu hang thing ekoo Qt say-past like think-pol

3

ga chotto (@) ano are wa ikoo de aru to but a-little well that top rack cop be Qt

4

iware. tashikani koromo o kakeru n desu kedo. tell-pass surely clothes o hang com cop but

Turntaking

5

ikoo na n desu kedo.namatte ori(@) mashite hanger cop com cop but corrupt be-hum-con (continues) ‘T: Just now, I was referring to the kimono hanger as ekoo. But, well (@@) I was told that the term is ikoo. It is surely used to hang kimonos, but the term is ikoo. My pronunciation was incorrect.’

In this section, there are a number of strategies that ‘soften’ or ‘turn-down’ the correction. The host uses the passive form of the verb iu ‘to say’, so we can only infer that the correction was done by the guest. Then she uses the term itteta yooni omoimasu ‘I think I was using the term’, instead of the more straightforward past tense ittemashita. In line (3) there is laughter, which is deªnitely not associated with humour, but is more reminiscent of the examples by JeŸerson (1984). Then there are 2 discourse markers, chotto and anoo. Although these two markers have not been thoroughly studied, they are used in various situations. Chotto means ‘a little’ and is used as an adjectival adverb to indicate a small quantity. However, as a marker in the discourse, it usually precedes a negative answer. On the other hand, anoo is used as a ªller, as an attention seeking device, and also in a context where a negative answer is to be given. Other-correction cases are always used with some kind of softening device that appears in diŸerent positions. The excerpt is from the same interview. In this case, the guest corrects the host because the error is too obvious. The Japanese calendar is based on the reign of the emperors. The Meiji Period is followed by the Taisho and Showa Periods. Note the failed turn in (1). (26) (F5) 1→ T: moo Shoowa ni kakari=kaketeru (iya) koro already Shoowa in start no time 2→ G: Taishoo ni. Taisho in 3

T: ah Taishoo janai. Meiji Taishoo shitsureiitashimashita. oh Taishoo cop-neg Meiji Taishoo excuse-hum-past

4

(hai.) Taishoo ni korekara sorosoro hairoo to yes Taishoo in from-now gradually enter-hort Qt

5→ G: to iu koro no mono da to omoimasu. Qt say time gen thing cop Qt think-pol ‘T: Already at the start of Shoowa (no) period G: In Taishoo

81

82

Gender, Language and Culture

T: Oh, not in Taishoo. Meiji, Taishoo, excuse me. When the Taishoo period was about to start G: I think it is a (kimono) of around that period.’

Despite the apparent straightforward correction of the guest in lines 1 and 2, the guest uses a softener to omoimasu ‘I think’ in line (5), which functions as a hedge and makes the correction less blunt.

Turn-endings: Syntactically ªnished and unªnished turns A striking diŸerence in the turn endings of the host and guests is observed in the interviews. While more of the host’s turns are syntactically unªnished (including questions), the guests’ turns show the opposite distribution. 1400 Host 1200

Guests

1000 800 600 400 200 0 UU

Post

FU

Others

Total

Figure 3.2 TCUs differences between host and guests

Table 3.2 DiŸerences in TCU distribution between host and guests TCU

Host Total

%

Guests Total

%

TOTAL

%

UU Post FU Others Total

278 83 185 618 1164

23.9% 7.13% 15.9% 53% 100%

381 62 500 221 1164

32.7% 5.33% 43% 19% 100%

659 145 685 839 2328

28.31% 6.22% 29.4% 36% 100%

UU: unªnished utterances Post: postpositioned FU: ªnished utterances

Turntaking

The majority of the host’s turns at turn-yielding points are unªnished utterances (UU) comprising 23.9% as opposed to 15.9% of complete utterances. However, the guests’ turns show exactly the reverse: 43% of the turns are grammatically complete utterances while 32.7% are unªnished utterances. This clear diŸerence shows the possibility of divergent strategies used by the host and the guests. If politeness in Japanese requires that things be left unsaid, this may account for the host’s grammatical incompleteness. The slightly higher number of unªnished questions (184–15.8%) against ªnished questions (179–15.4%) (see Table 3.1) further reinforces this point. On the other hand, the fact that guests utilize complete utterances might show that they are conscious of their role and know the behaviour expected from them in an interview situation. Guests have to speak clearly in order to provide information directly to the audience. Sociologists and anthropologists, who write on the characteristics of the Japanese speaker and the usage of the language, often mention that most sentences are left unsaid (Aoki and Okamoto, 1988; Goldstein and Tamura, 1975; Lebra, 1976). Lebra states that Japanese emphasize ‘implicit, nonverbal, intuitive communication over an explicit, verbal, rational exchange of information’ (1976: 46). She further says, ‘The Japanese believe that only an insensitive uncouth person needs a direct, verbal, complete message’ (1976: 47). Kabaya (1993), Kindaichi (1990), Mizutani and Mizutani (1987), Okamoto (1985) and Ooishi (1971) also write on the relationship of politeness and unªnished utterances. They suggest that it is left to the hearers to understand the whole sentence, and answer accordingly. In the present data, many of the questions or remarks of the host are syntactically incomplete. However, in most cases, turn-yielding is accomplished smoothly. In more recent studies on CA, Mori (1999) and Tanaka (1999) look at this aspect in the speech of Japanese. Tanaka (1999) found that turn-endings are not necessarily syntactically complete, but that pragmatic completion is considered a possible TRP. Mori (1999) also observed that conjunctions are used strategically to attain agreement or to mitigate disagreement, and appear in turn-beginning and turn-ending positions.

Syntactically complete turns: Some features A complete Japanese sentence, as deªned by grammarians, has a verb or a copula in plain or polite form at the end of the sentence. The verb can be in the plain form or the polite masu form. Adjectives, nouns and nominal adjectives

83

84

Gender, Language and Culture

can end with the copula in the plain da or polite form desu. Syntactically complete turns are also accompanied by sentence ªnal particles and falling or rising intonation. The following are some examples of typical complete constructions. (i) kyoo wa ii otenki desu. today top good weather cop (ii) kyoo wa ii otenki da. today top good weather cop (iii ) kyoo wa otenki ga ii desu. today top weather S good cop (iv) kyoo wa otenki ga ii ne. today top weather S good fp ‘It is a nice day today’ (v) ashita wa dochira e irasshaimasu ka? tomorrow top where to go-hon Q (vi) ashita wa doko e ikimasu ka? tomorrow top where to go-pol Q (vii) ashita wa dokka iku? tomorrow top where go-Plain ‘Where are you going tomorrow?

All of the above examples are grammatically complete structures. In (i), (ii) and (iii), the ending of the sentence is marked by the copula desu (polite form) or da (plain form), preceded by the noun otenki and the adjective ii. Example (iv) is an example of female casual speech marked by both the dropping of the copula and the usage of the sentence ªnal particle ne. Examples (v–vii) are questions with exactly the same meaning but diŸering degree of formality, (v) being the most formal. The ªrst two are ªnalized with the question particle ka, whereas the last one is accompanied by a rising intonation. The verb forms are diŸerent. In (vi), the verb irasshaimasu is the present honoriªc form of the verb ‘to go’, whereas in (vi), the verb iku is in the polite form. Example (vii) is a colloquial form characterized by the plain form of the verb iku and the omission of the directional particle e and the contracted form of the question word doko-dokka. Note that the question word in (vii) is dochira ‘where’, which is a more polite form of doko.

Turntaking

Postpositions Postposition or Right Dislocation is the shift of a noun or adjectival phrase after the verb phrase. Therefore, the canonical order of a Japanese sentence S–O–V is altered. Consider example (27) with the same guest who is asked about the rewards and satisfaction he gets from his job. (27) (M9) 1 G: hai. ee. ma issen satsu gurai yes uhm well 1,000 volumes about 2

shirabemasuto, (issen satsu guraih) soo investigate-cond 1,000 volumes about that-way

3

suruto ah, konna omoshiroi mono do-cond oh this-type interesting thing

4

mirareta soiu kasukana yorokobi no tameni see-pot-past that-type minute joy gen for

5

→ (e.) tsuiyasu wake desu. doryoku o. spend-pre reason cop eŸort O ‘G: If I investigate about 1,000 volumes, (about 1,000 volumes?) then I can ªnd a very interesting one. So I spend much eŸort (yes) for such a minute of joy.’

Postpositioning in Japanese colloquial speech seems to be quite common and is reported by various researchers (Peng et al., 1981; Shibamoto, 1985). Peng et al. and Shibamoto suggest that postpositioning is more common among female speakers, and it is used as an after-thought.

Unªnished utterances The syntactically unªnished turns in the present data end in quotative particles (tte, to), quotations (soode), conditionals (to, tara, ba), conjunctive particles (ga, keredemo, demo, kara, node), truncated forms (iikiri), and grammatical particles (wa, ga, no, ni). Many of these unªnished utterances are accompanied by sentence ªnal particles (ne, yo). Although this is not an exhaustive list, it presents a comprehensive picture of turn-taking characteristics in the interview discourse. The fact that turntaking is accomplished successfully indicates that turn endings in Japanese do not have to be grammatically ªnished. Pragmatic and intonation cues are considered to indicate turn completion in other types of

85

86

Gender, Language and Culture

data (Tanaka, 1999), and this aspect is also seen in the present data. Tanaka (1999) writes that in conversational Japanese, ‘syntactically incomplete turns in Japanese ending with conjunctive particles are contingently treated as complete turns’ (Tanaka, 1999: 219). Syntactic incompleteness has been studied mainly by grammarians, who have focused on ellipsis (Hinds, 1982; Kuno, 1978). Ooishi (1971) distinguishes ªve types of ellipsis: idiomatic expressions, head-ellipsis, clausal ellipsis, quotative ellipsis and ellipsis of questions. More recently, Okamoto (1985) and McGloin (1990) argue that ellipsis can be explained in terms of politeness strategies. McGloin (1990) explains that ellipsis is a typical strategy in Japanese that fulªls one of the broad politeness rules — deference. By leaving questions or utterances unªnished, the locutor gives an opening to the listener by making the speech act less imposing. As noted in Chapter 1, Matsumoto observes that Japanese are forced to make a morphological or lexical choice for any utterance, depending on the interpersonal relationship. Having that premise in mind, Okamoto’s (1985) analysis of ellipsis or grammatically unªnished utterances is a bridge between the notion of face and that of sociolinguistics norms. She argues that verbal and clausal ellipsis function in a similar way as hedges and tag questions in English, but, the basic principle is that of avoidance of imposition. Ellipsis is used by Japanese in order to: 1. satisfy politeness a. mitigation of speech acts (assertions, refusals, invitations, etc.) b. intensiªcation of speech acts (apologies, thanking, etc.) c. avoidance of commitment to a particular honoriªc or non-honoriªc expression 2. avoid of responsibility 3. indicate intimacy or power 4. indicate emotion 5. get attention Besides item 5), which is not relevant to our study, the other four items appear to explicate some of the diŸerences in distribution between host and guests. In the following sections, each type of unªnished utterance ending is looked at in contrast to Okamoto’s (1985) observations on politeness and ellipsis.

Turntaking

Tte/to endings As mentioned in the section on questions, one way in which the host asks questions is to end her turn with the quotative particle tte/to. The questions can be translated as ‘I’ve heard that…’ or ‘People say that….’. (see example 7). Why the host uses this type of question can be explained as a mitigation of the inquiry (1a) and as avoiding responsibility (2). To illustrate 1a), the following example is from an interview with a male ex-baseball player. The guest explains that he likes planning things long in advance. (28) (M8) 1 T: soo na n desu tte ne! (e.) soide sugu ryokan nanka koo yes cop com cop Qt fp yeah then soon hotel like uhm 2

totte. anoo yoyaku nanka shichauto sonna saki no koto book well book like do-cond that-kind ahead gen com

3

→ wa== dekimasen. toka tte.. iwarechau toki mo aru gurai top be-able-neg like Qt say-pass times also be about

4

→ desu tte/ cop Qt

5

G: eh. desukara tatoeba== ima da to/ ((continues)) yes therefore for-example now cop cond ‘T: I have heard that. (yes) And you immediately book an inn, and when you make the bookings, I have also heard that you are told that they cannot accept booking so long in advance, (is it true?) G: Yes. Therefore, for example, now ((continues))’

In this example, the host’s unªnished utterance satisªes three conditions: 1a), 1c) and 2. Mitigating the question in order to avoid imposition is observed in other discourse features. In line 3, a quotative particle is followed by a slight pause, which is a potential TRP. Avoidance of honoriªcs, and non-honoriªcs (1c) can be explained by the host’s style. Note that she uses a rather casual style; however it is not completely informal. On the other hand, avoidance of responsibility (2) suggests that the host does not know what the guest’s answer is going to be. It could be that the guest will disagree with her or that she has incorrect information. Therefore, by using a quotative particle, the host avoids compromising herself. The guests, on the other hand, very rarely use this particle in ªnal position unless they are referring to a quotation directly. As a ‘deviant’ example, we can see this being used by one of the young female guests.

87

88

Gender, Language and Culture

(29) (F7) 1 G: mazu honne o dashiteitadakanaito komaru tte ªrst truth o get-out-receive-cond trouble Qt 2

iwarete okaasan. shirooto desu node… say-pass mother honest cop because

ah, oh

3

watashi wa zutto nijuunen kan kakitamete I top all-the-time 20-years during write-store

4

→ gozaimasu node tte@@ cop-pol because Qt

5

T: @@okaasan kakitameta mono ga atta no/ your-mother write-store thing S be-past fp ‘G: My mother was told that she had to tell her true-self. And because she is honest, ‘I’ve been writing for all these 20 years’ @@ (she said) T: @@ She had been writing for 20 years?

Unlike the host’s turns that end in tte/to, the quotative particle is used to report a quotation by the guest’s mother-in-law. Note that the guest changes her tone of voice in order to make the quotation more prominent.

Unªnished quotations In line 3 of example (30), the arrow indicates an unªnished utterance that ends in de. Sooda/soodesu is an auxiliary meaning ‘ I hear’, which occurs at the end of the phrase or sentence. The de in soode is the conjunctive form of the copula, which follows the auxiliary soo. (30) (M9) 1 T: maa choroku o nasutta wake desu. well record O do-hon-past reason cop 2

moo hito kata. ofutari de nasutta more one person 2-persons with do-hon-past

3

→ soo de #. I-hear conj

4

G: hai. anoo Piitaa Konitsuki tte iu igirisujin yes well Peter Konitsky Qt call English

5

de# ee,…((continues)) conj

Turntaking

‘T: Well, so you recorded and there was another person. I hear you did the work together, ? G: Yes, it is an English man called Peter Konitsky, and…..((continues)).’

This excerpt is a very common example of the way the host elicits information from her guests.

Grammatical particles in turn ends Unªnished utterances include noun phrases; i.e. a noun followed by a grammatical particle, as in the following excerpt. The host and the guest talk about a Japanologist by the name of Sattow, whose family name is very similar to a very famous diplomat in the Meiji Period. Interlocutors would to understand that the correct spelling of the name in question is being asked. Note that turntaking occurs after the host’s grammatical particle ni accompanied by rising intonation. (31) (M9) 1→ T: Satoo tte saigo ni?#. Sattow Qt last loc 2 3

G: esu tei tei daburu yuu tte iu [tsuzuri s t t double u Qt say spelling o kakimasu node # ((continues)) O write because ‘T: The last (letter of) the name Sattow is (which one?) G: It is written with a t, t and double-u ((continues)).’

This type of question is used in other languages as well (see Ferrara, 1992, on joint constructions). In the above example, the intonation indicates turnending. However, turntaking can occur without any intonational cue. In the next excerpt, the guest talks about her father’s opinion about her husband not ªnishing university. Note in line 3 that the host does not ªnish her intended question and does not give any intonational cue. (32) (F1) 1 G: ..demo souiu koto wa nantomo kinishiteorimasen but that-type thing top nothing worry-hum-neg 2

deshita. cop-past

89

90

Gender, Language and Culture

3 →T: otoosama wa#. your-father top 4

G: hai. hai.((continues)) yes yes ‘G: ..but (he) did not worry at all about those kind of things. T: Your father# G: Yes, yes ((continues)).’

Clausal particles and conjunctive particles in turn ends Syntactically unªnished utterances in many cases end with a conjunctive particle. Clausal ellipsis occurs after conjunctive particles such as node ‘so, since, because’, kara ‘since, having done’, kedo, keredomo, ga ‘but’ (all have the same meaning and they diŸer in formality, kedo being the most informal). These are ordinarily used to show reason, cause or contradiction. However, when ellipsis occurs, the conjunctions lose the original meaning and function pragmatically as hedges. This aspect of Japanese communication has been mentioned by O. Mizutani (1981), who points out that conjunctions such as keredo, ga, kedo ‘crop up constantly in spoken Japanese’ (1981: 161), an aspect observed by Mori (1999) as well. In written form, sentences ending with these conjunctions often appear to be illogical. Therefore, another function, besides the logical connection between clauses, has been argued to be the psychological attitude of humility towards the listener (O. Mizutani, 1981). While a literal translation of utterances ending in ga, keredomo, keredo, kedo as ‘but’ would signal concession or disagreement in English, the term ‘humility’ that O. Mizutani uses is perhaps one cultural aspect in Japanese culture that values self-restraint and devalues assertiveness. The use of grammatically ªnished sentences in speech may sound too self-assured and abrupt to most Japanese people, hence they are infrequent in spoken language. Mori (1999) writes that these conjunctions are used strategically by speakers in order to mitigate disagreement or to show agreement. The next example (33) illustrates an unªnished turn ending in the conjunctive node ‘because’, accompanied by the sentence ªnal particle ne in line 3. The guest is explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the Chinese and Roman alphabets in compiling bibliographical lists in Japanese. (33) (M9) 1 G: ee.. nanishiro yon moji de sumu eh anyway 4 letters with enough

Turntaking

2

tokoro ga rooma ji de kakimashitara place S roman letters in write-cond

3

→ nanjuu ji nimo narimasu node ne/#. 10-some letters also become because fp

4

T: soo desu mono ne. sorekara, ((continues)) yes cop com fp then ‘G: In any case, instead of writing with only four Chinese characters, because you see, you need some 10 letters T: Yes, it is as you say, and ((continues))’

The guest ªnishes his turn with the particle node in line 3. Note that in line 1 the guest uses the word nanishiro ‘anyway’, which emphasizes his point and puts forward his argument in explaining the advantages of the Japanese writing system. Leaving the next clause unªnished, the guest’s particle node may work to intensify his argument. In the next example, we see that the guest comments on another term for zucchini. In an eŸort to sound less assertive or less pretentious as he refers to the term in English, the guest ends his turn with kedo. (34) (M9) 1 G: eh kore wa karifurawaa to zukkini desu ne. uhm this top cauli¶ower and zucchini cop fp 2

→ kurojetto to eigo de wa mooshimasu kedo#, courgette Qt English in top say-hum but

3

T: zukkini tte ano.. chotto kyuuri mitaino zucchini Qt well little cucumber like

4

(hai.hai.) de # ((continues)) yes conj ‘G: This is (with) cauli¶ower and zucchini. In English it is called courgette, but ‘T: Zucchini is like a cucumber (yes. yes.) and ((continues))’

Conjunctive forms The conjunctive form in Japanese clauses is indicated by the verb ending in te or de, which can be translated basically as ‘and’. These are used to combine or enumerate two or more adjectivals or actions that may occur sequentially. In the following excerpt, the host welcomes her guest, who is a very good friend of hers. Her turn ends with the adjective ureshii in the conjunctive form in line 1.

91

92

Gender, Language and Culture

(35) (F4) 1→ T: hontoo deteitadakete ureshikutte.. really come-receive-pot-conj happy-conj 2

G: iya iya deteitadaketa nante koto janai no no come-receive-pot-past like com cop-neg

3

no yo ((continues)) fp fp ‘T: Really, I am so happy that you came and G: No, no. You shouldn’t say that ((continues)).’

There is a slight pause after ureshikute. The guest responds with two consecutive negations, iya iya to downgrade the host’s utterance in a similar way to a response to a compliment. The host’s unªnished utterance, on the other hand, may work as an intensiªer. In the next excerpt, the guest (presented in examples 30, 31, 33 and 34) yields his turn in line 3 ending in de, the conjunctive form of the copula. The fact that the guest’s work had included such a vast amount of typing, and it is stressed that he did it alone, suggests that the turn is unªnished, thus satisfying the condition of intensiªcation. (36) (M9) 1 T: waapuro de ouchininarimashite, nanajugoman word-processor with type-hon-conj 75,000 2 3

ji. ouchininatta soo degozaimasu. letter type-hon-past hear cop-pol G: hai. jibun de uchimashita mon de # yes myself by type-past com conj ‘T: (He / you) typed 75,000 words on a word processor. G: Yes. I typed them myself and…’

Conditional forms The conditional verbs in Japanese are marked by the auxiliaries to, tara or ba. Many turns in the present data end in a conditional clause, as in the following example. The host in this excerpt explains and summarizes what the guest had previously explained about his bibliographical work, which is the study of authorship and the editions of books. Note that in line 3 the host ends her turn with the conditional to. There are many possible grammatical endings to the

Turntaking

turn of the host, ranging from dekinai desu ‘cannot do it’, dame desu ‘not good’, etc. (37) (M9) 1 T: sujoo dearu ka tte koto zenbu origin cop Q Qt com all 2

akirakaninasaru wake desukara (hai.) iRONNa clear-do-hon com therefore yes various

3

→ koto .. . gozonjinaito # things know-neg-hon-cond

4

G: soo desu ne. ironna chishiki ga hitsuyoo ((continues)) yes cop fp various knowledge S necessary ‘T: Because you have to clarify everything about the books (authors, year of print) (yes) if you don’t have … the knowledge about various things … G: Yes. A vast knowledge is necessary ((continues))’

Mori (1999) writes that these conjunctive particles are used in sequences where agreements and disagreements are negotiated. Tanaka (1999), on the other hand, writes that conjunctive particles can be linked to previous clauses or to the context. In this example, the main clause is completely missing but is provided by the guest in line 4. The conditional clause is not accompanied by any type of turn ªnal characteristic, such as falling intonation.

Sentence ªnal particles Some of the unªnished utterances are accompanied by sentence ªnal particles, or discourse particles such as ne ‘isn’t it?’, as exempliªed in (38). This set of particles is subdivided into two other types: sentence extenders (janaika ‘isn’t, it’, janaikashira ‘I wonder, if it is like that’ (used mainly by females), ka ‘is it so’ (used by males), kamoshirenai ‘maybe’, kana ‘I wonder’ (informal and used by both men and women), kashira ‘I wonder’, ne ‘you know/ isn’t, it?’, na ‘Hey, you’ (used by men), sa1 ‘I don’t know’, wa (expresses weak assertiveness and is used mainly by women), wane ‘Is it all right?’, yo ‘I tell you’; and hortatives (daroo, deshoo), which invite agreement (Nakau, 1973). In this study, the most common sentence ªnal particle (SFP) is the ne particle, which is equivalent to ‘isn’t it?’ in English. According to Cook (1990a; 42), ne is a ‘linguistic feature that indicates aŸective common ground between

93

94

Gender, Language and Culture

the speaker and the addressee since, ……. ne is a tool for establishing a cooperative relationship between conversation participants’. At the same time, the presence of SFPs indicates the degree of informality in the speech. In our interview data, the only SFPs found were ne ‘isn’t it?’, kashira ‘I wonder, used by females’, and yo ‘believe me’, indicating the formality of the speech event. Cook (1990a) and Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) state that the frequency of the particle ne is directly proportional to the degree of informality. Therefore, SFPs such as ze ‘I assure you’ and zo ‘I tell you’, used only by men and occurring in colloquial speech, are absent in the present data. To illustrate, the widow of a famous writer (already presented) tells about her father’s appraisal of her husband’s talent even before he started publishing. Note that the host does not ªnish her intended utterance and uses the particle ne in line 5. The guest then takes the ¶oor and tells more about her father’s opinion and advice. (38) (F1) 1 T: sugoi otoosama (hai.) sono toorini onarininatta wonderful your-father-hon yes that way-in become-hon-past 2

wake desu kedo (hai.) sakka nante wakararanai com cop but yes writer like understand-neg

3

desu mono ne/ (soo degozaimasu.) ikura sooiu cop com fp yes cop-hon how-much that-type

4

me o shiteiru toka sooiu me ga aru [tte] eye O have like that- type eye S have Qt

5

[(hai.)] osshattemo (hai. hai. hai.) nakanaka ne/ yes say-hon-even yes. yes. yes quite fp

6 7

G: me o sodatereba ii n dakara to eye O raise-cond good com because Qt mooshiteorimashita. say-hum-past ‘T: What an extraordinary father (yes) What he predicted became true (Yes) but it is di¹cult to discern a writer, isn’t, it? (exactly) Even though your father said [that ] [(yes)] your husband had the eyes (vision) of a writer. Yet it is quite (yes. yes. yes) (di¹cult) isn’t’, it? G: (He said) that we should nurture his eyes …..’

SFPs are potential TRPs, as they function in a similar way to tag questions by involving the listener in the interaction. However, not every SFP is

Turntaking

acknowledged by the listener, and while it would be interesting to explore the distributional pattern of backchannels and turntaking in relation to SFPs, this is a topic for future research.

Abbreviated utterances Some of the turns end without auxiliaries or sentence ªnal particles. These types of turns are syntactically complete; however, given that the style is formal and other turn-endings are accomplished with polite forms, they are termed as abbreviated in this study. The guest in the following example is a Kabuki actor. Here they talk about his performance of a Western play. In line 5, the guest ends his turn with a noun and falling intonation. (39) (M10) 1 G: kore wa ano migi ni iru no wa Nofuooku to this top uhm right in be com top Norfolk Qt 2

itte/ call-conj

3

T: ah. kore wa Nofuuoku [no hoo] [(e.)] oh. this top Norfolk gen side yeah

4

G: hontoo no koibito no mae ni iru.. shinrai real of lover gen before in be trust

5

→ dekiru mukashi no koibito. be-able previous gen lover.

4

T: naruhodo ne/ (hai.) I-see fp yes ‘G: The one on the right side is Norfolk and T: Oh. This is [Norfolk.] [(yeah.)] G: The ex-lover, the lover whom she could really trust. T: I see. (yes)’

Note that in line 5, the ending in the polite form would require the addition of the copula. TRP projection is indicated by ªnal intonation. These abbreviated turns are common in the data and turntaking occurs successfully due to prosodic features.

95

96

Gender, Language and Culture

Summary and conclusion In this chapter the 14 turntaking facts in conversation deªned by Sacks et al. (1974) are contrasted with the facts observed in a Japanese television interview. Six facts of the 14 described by Sacks et al. are diŸerent in television interviews. Firstly, occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are not common, perhaps due to the interview situation. No controversial topics are found in the data and the style is more formal than in everyday conversations. Three other points diŸer from mundane conversation: the variation in the number of parties, in turn order, and in distribution of turns. The fact that only dyadic interviews were selected for the data may strengthen this aspect. Also, irrespective of the number of participants, topics in interviews are speciªed in advance, the length of conversation is speciªed to a certain degree, and talk must be continuous, especially in a live interview. The host and the production crew conduct prior research so that questions can be prepared beforehand, as discussed in Chapter 2. The host, however, has a range of repair strategies for when guests do not cooperate or are simply not eloquent enough (e.g. rephrase, clariªcation). The time constraint in interviews also diŸers from everyday conversation. There is also an uneven distribution of questions, which are found in syntactic ªnished and unªnished forms. The host in the data uses various other strategies to conduct her interviews. Although a great number of turns are grammatically unªnished, turn-yielding occurs without di¹culty in the turntaking ¶ow, suggesting that syntactic completion is not a required condition for turn-end projectability. In addition, we have seen some of the characteristics of grammatically ªnished and unªnished turns and their unequal distribution. Among the host’s turns, 23.9% are unªnished while 15.9% are ªnished. The reverse pattern is observed in the guests’ turns: 32.7% are unªnished, 43% are ªnished. This distribution occurs in every interview, suggesting that it is due to the diŸering roles and obligations. This can be explained by the concept of politeness proposed by Okamoto (1985) and mentioned in the section on unªnished utterances. Okamoto argues that ellipsis in Japanese can be understood from the viewpoint of politeness felicity conditions. These are 1) satisfying politeness by a. mitigation of speech acts (assertions, refusals, invitations, etc.), b. intensiªcation of speech acts (apologies, thanking, etc.), c. avoidance of commitment to a particular honoriªc or non-honoriªc expression; 2) avoidance of responsibility; 3) indicating intimacy or power; 4) indicating emotion; and 5) gaining attention.

Turntaking

Although they seem to contradict each other, mitigation and intensiªcation of speech acts are used by the host and guest in unªnished utterances as hedges (see examples 42, 43), or to stress a point (examples 45, 46). Host and guests alike use unªnished utterances as intensiªers of speech acts, some of the examples being greeting, and thanking, (see example 44). The host in most cases does not want to impose on the guest, although the situation demands that the guest answer questions, as in the following example, where the disabled guest is asked about her height. The host uses an unªnished question, by is realized with the rising intonation. The words taihen shitsurei are very polite and cautious. Another strategy to soften her question is the usage of kedo, which announces an unpleasant request. (40) (F8) 1 T: taihen shitsurei desu kedo (e.) osei wa soosuruto very impolite cop but height top then 2

→ nan senchi gurai/ how-many centimeters about

3

G: ano=tabun= atakushi ano=hontooni ano ne/ uhm probably I well really well fp

4

Kuroyanagi san ni omenikakatte ((continues)) Kuroyanagi T to meet-hum-conj ‘T: It is very impolite (yes), but the how tall are you? G: Well, probably, well you see, I am very happy to meet you ((continues))’

The translation does not clearly show the syntactically unªnished question in line 2; however, if a literal translation was provided, an approximate version would be: It is very impolite, but how many centimetres tall are you? Note that the guest does not respond to the host’s question immediately, but then mentions that she is as tall as one of the characters in the book that the host had written. Other examples, when topics deal with death or unpleasant experiences, show that the host uses unªnished questions or syntactically unªnished turns, chosen to soften her question. On the other hand, the guests do not have to worry about saying anything displeasing related to the host. Approximately one third of turn exchanges occurred at syntactic completion points (685 of 2328 TCUs = 29.42%). This aspect may re¶ect one of the characteristics of ‘institutional language’; namely that the speech is not as fragmented as in colloquial Japanese. One of the reasons behind the fragmented style in mundane conversation is the shared knowledge that all participants

97

98

Gender, Language and Culture

possess. This factor is emphasized by the subjects in the data used by the majority of researchers on Japanese communication (Hayashi, 1996; S. Maynard, 1989). Maynard’s Japanese subjects were college or university students recruited from a ‘network of college friends’ (S. Maynard, 1989: 14), while Hayashi’s Japanese subjects were recruited in the USA, and were eight married couples arranged in four groups. Some of the couples were close friends, others were colleagues, and the fact that they lived in the USA indicates that they all had some shared knowledge about living in the same foreign country. Participants in a television interview do not have such shared knowledge, and this factor is more pronounced as it is addressed to a wider audience. As there is little or no common or shared knowledge between host, guest and audience in such ‘institutional’ interactions, the participants must speak explicitly, and one way of achieving clarity is by providing grammatically complete utterances. As is demonstrated by excerpts from the data, interviews have very speciªc rules in regard to the roles of participants, and there are a number of constraints that are absent in everyday conversation. All of these factors serve to make an interview a distinct speech event. Also, syntactic completion is associated with other speaker roles, with guests producing more grammatically ªnished utterances than the host.

Note 1. sa depending on the intonation can have other meanings.

Chapter 4

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

Introduction The asymmetry in ‘institutional’ interactions has been the focus of considerable research (D. Maynard, 1991; Heritage and Seª, 1992; West, 1984; Whalen and Zimmerman, 1990) and this study is no exception. Although most social interactions are asymmetric, interviews are among the most representative (Heritage and Drew, 1992; D. Maynard, 1991; West, 1984, Whalen, 1991). This asymmetry is the result of role allocation with its speciªc rights and obligations. In addition to the role diŸerences, asymmetry can originate in diŸerences in age, gender and status of the interlocutors. It has been argued that dominance over an interlocutor is displayed through various communicative strategies. Some are very conspicuous, like interruptions (Zimmerman and West, 1975, 1983), backchannel use (Fishman, 1978; Uchida, 1993), topic control (De Francisco, 1998) or quantity of talk (Edelsky, 1981). These have been associated with gender diŸerences in Anglo-Saxon societies, where female language is said to display cooperative strategies and male language to show aggressive features. Others are more subtle and discreet, such as lexical choice (Graddol and Swann, 1993; O’Barr and Atkins, 1998) or the use of hedges (LakoŸ, 1975). Recently, this male/female dichotomy associated with distinctive styles has been questioned (Bing and Bergvall, 1996; Cameron, 1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995; Freed and Greenwood, 1996). Moreover should these communicative strategies be automatically associated with control or aggression in every culture? Are there other ways of showing deference or control? If so, what are they and how are they expressed? These are the questions that I seek to answer in this chapter and in Chapter 6. Recent studies on other cultures reveal that some gender-related strategies (Murata, 1994), which have been associated with male communicative style, are not always applicable to other cultures. For example, interruptions are considered to be ‘violations’ (Sacks, et al., 1974), and many researchers have

100 Gender, Language and Culture

found that men interrupt more often than women (Zimmerman and West, 1975; West and Zimmerman, 1983; West, 1984). However, it has also been argued that interruptions in Japanese may not always be ‘violations’ (Hinds, 1978a; Hayashi; 1996), and that various types of interruption, including nonaggressive (Murata, 1994), are used in conversations. These are also found in the present data, particularly in interviews with younger females, suggesting that non-aggressive interruptions are not ‘violations’ but may be used to indicate cooperation and interest in the interaction. Naturally, this is not to say that aggressive interruptions are absent from Japanese interactions, as we see from other types of speech events such as political debates (Honda, 2002). This chapter explores the asymmetry of the interview by examining the use of interruptions, style shifts and terms of address. These are the most conspicuous linguistic forms that demonstrate diŸerences in power and status, as well as gender and age, of the interlocutors in the various interviews. They reveal interesting features of communicative exchange in ‘institutional’ Japanese.

Previous studies Among studies on gender diŸerences and media interviews, Winter (1993), Johnson (1996) and KotthoŸ (1997) are of high relevance for this study. While not all their data may be comparable (KotthoŸ used debate programs, Winter political interviews), their results are nevertheless important. Winter (1993) analyzed two political interviews on Australian television conducted by a female and a male host. Both interviewed a male guest. Turntaking management, question strategies and episodic structure were looked at and results indicated a clear diŸerence in the interviewing strategies of the two hosts. While a more competitive and aggressive stance characterized the all-male interview, the female interviewer maintained a cooperative style. Similarly, Johnson (1996) analyzed a New Zealand TV interviewer, Maggie Barry, in eight diŸerent programs. He found that women speak more and for longer, interrupt less than men, and that Maggie Barry used a greater percentage of questions with negative eŸect with male interviewees. Johnson also found that Barry adopted a more aggressive stance towards male guests and a friendlier attitude towards female guests. KotthoŸ’s results seem to reinforce the notion of male dominance over females. She found that professional women were asked questions on mundane topics rather than on their expertise, which tacitly belittled them. It is

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 101

di¹cult to speculate as to whether these diŸerences are due to language (English vs German), diŸerent cultures (Australian, New Zealand and German), the types of programs, or the number of participants. However, they do provide interesting results and demonstrate that gender diŸerences are manifested in these types of interaction.

Research in Japan As mentioned in Chapter 1, the work of LakoŸ (1973, 1975) was the main trigger for research on women’s use of language in the West, with further impetus from the women’s liberation movement in the 1970s. However, this movement had very little impact on Japanese society as a whole, which is re¶ected in the linguistic research on gender and language in terms of power (discrimination against women). There were some exceptions, most notably Ide (1979, 1982, 1983, 1997) and Shibamoto (1985). Only recently have Japanese scholars begun to focus on the discourse of women’s language, with contradictory results (Abe, 2000; Ehara et al. 1993; Endo, 1997a, 1997b; Okamoto, 1995; Sunaoshi, 1994; Takasaki, 1996, 1997; N. Uchida, 1993). Some reports suggest that there are signs of neutralization in the Japanese language (Nakajima, 1997; Takasaki, 1994); however, it is too early to arrive at any conclusions. Earlier linguistic studies of gender and language in Japan suggest that females use more honoriªc forms than men, thus reinforcing the association of women with politeness. Peng et al. (1981) looked at various aspects of language (length of utterances, types of verb ending, sentence ªnal particles, ellipsis, honoriªcs, phonological characteristics, usage of personal pronouns) for any gender diŸerences in four age groups and in two diŸerent geographical regions in Japan. The project had two main aims: to determine at what age children acquire the distinction of female/male language, and why this distinction is necessary. Apart from the fact that women consistently use more honoriªc language, they also found that male sentence ªnal particles are indeed used only by men and that women use more polite forms than males. Moreover, Peng et al. claim that this gender diŸerence is already part of a child’s linguistic awareness from as early as 2 (Peng et al., 1981). They argue that this gender diŸerence in the language exists in order to facilitate and improve the handling of psychological distance in communication, in a similar way to honoriªc language. Ide (1979, 1982, 1983, 1997), who also found that females use more honoriªc forms than men do, sees this diŸerence in other terms. She writes

102 Gender, Language and Culture

that ‘men’s dominance over women in social positions is a legacy of feudalism and is still maintained as a basic social norm, despite the improvement of women’s status in the last few decades. Women, therefore, are expected to be more polite than men’ (1982: 378). Ide states that women’s language in Japan is more polite than men’s language not because of their lower status in society but because the main role of most women is that of housewife. Politeness is emphasized by the fact that housewives need to have good communication skills with their families, with their neighbours, and with their community. Moreover, usage of honoriªcs is an indication of education and higher social class. So using honoriªcs towards a neighbour for example, may show politeness, but it also expresses a desire of the speaker to show her high status and reªnement (Ide, 1997: 6–7). Although Shibamoto’s (1985) research was on syntax (not on sociolinguistics), she was the ªrst scholar to publish a book on Japanese women’s language in English. Her analysis includes ‘predicate types, ellipsis of nominal adjuncts, presence of sentential, manner, time and place adverbials, word order and ellipsis of case particles’ in women and men’s speech (1985: 144). She found diŸerences in most cases, with the most striking ones in the deletion of particles, the scrambling and right dislocation rules, and the use of certain sentence types. Her research suggests that women are less conservative in using certain grammatical rules. She writes that syntax is one of the aspects of language where a person has less cognizant control, as opposed to the usage of honoriªcs or sentence ªnal particles, which most researchers have looked at. In order to prove her theory, Shibamoto used additional data based on television recordings of two interviews with male transvestites. She found that frequency of lexico-morphological features, which are used only by women, equaled those of female speakers. However, the same did not occur at the level of syntax, where manipulation is less plausible. Her results overall indicate that male and female diŸerences in Japanese might include syntactic ones but deªnitely include lexical and morphological diŸerences (e.g. honoriªc forms, personal pronouns, sentence ªnal particles). More recent research shows contradictory results. The following two studies looked at gender diŸerences in the speech of university students and focused on turntaking and politeness strategies (honoriªcs, personal pronouns, exclamations, hedges and sentence ªnal particles). N. Uchida (1993) carried out tests on the perception of gender behaviour and contrasted them to the data. While all her subjects were conscious of maintaining a cooperative style of conversation and keeping psychological distance by using honoriªcs, males were more

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 103

aware of keeping distance. Female subjects felt more comfortable when talking to same sex interlocutors. On the other hand, Ehara et al. (1993) and Yoshii (1996) suggest that indeed cooperativeness is associated with women’s style, and aggressiveness with men’s style. Their results point out that females take a more supportive and cooperative role, while males interrupt considerably more in mixed interactions. Other studies show that females use no more honoriªc or polite forms than men, and that there is an increased use of ‘masculine’ forms by young Japanese women (Kobayashi, 1993; Okamoto, 1994, 1995). However, Reynolds (1997, 1998) and Kobayashi (1993) speculate that the ‘masculine’ language used by young females will eventually change once they enter the workforce or get married. Unfortunately there are no longitudinal studies to my knowledge on the language change of females, once they start work or change their status, to verify this. Studies on the language of Japanese women at work present diverse results. In formal situations, women use more formal personal pronouns (Kobayashi, 1997) and tend to use more honoriªcs; however, this tendency decreases with age (Endo, 1997a, 1997b). On the other hand, Nakajima (1997) and Takasaki (1997) found that women are using less of the ‘feminine’ expressions. Interestingly, it is the men who are using more ‘feminine’ words. Nakajima and Takasaki state that there is a tendency for women to use more neutral forms. Abe (2000) interviewed and recorded a number of professional women at business meetings, at home and with friends. Their speech shows that ‘(they) are not necessarily more polite than their male counterparts, neither are they less assertive’ (2000: 140). At work they are able to shift styles for power negotiation and can have an aggressive style of speech. Smith (1992) and Reynolds (1993, 1998) write that women in positions of power appear to experience linguistic con¶ict. While Reynolds (1993, 1998) reports that women solve this con¶ict by ‘defeminizing’ their language, Smith (1992) writes that they create new strategies to cope with it. These observations are also reported by Takasaki (1996) on the diŸerent speech styles used by females in television interviews, who use ‘women’s language’, ‘men’s language’ and neutral forms. By mixing diŸerent styles, they enrich their speech and add more expression and colour to their account (Takasaki, 1996). Whether a change in the speech of Japanese contemporary women is taking place or not is a topic for further research, but what we can conclude from these studies is that the male/female dichotomy in Japanese society and language is a very complex phenomenon.

104 Gender, Language and Culture

Dominance and asymmetry in the interview Speakers and listeners use many strategies in order to dominate in a conversation. These strategies include aspects in turntaking such as interruptions (Zimmerman and West, 1975; West, 1984), topic control (Heritage, 1985; West, 1984), use of minimal responses (Fishman, 1978) and volubility. There are also less conspicuous ways of showing one’s status or power, such as lexical choices, which include address forms and usage of pronouns. In Japanese, an additional aspect is the use of honoriªcs to reveal social and interpersonal relationships. Dominance is associated with the relative status of the participants, with being male, older and in power. In interview discourse, some of these factors can be in con¶ict at times; for example when the host, who holds the power in the interview, is younger than the guest or when the guest has a higher status outside the interview situation. Moreover, the host in the present study is female and, in Japanese society, women are still rendered lower status compared to many Western societies. There is great controversy on this aspect of feminism as modern society demands change in gender role division (see Bernstein, 1991, for more); however the status of women in Japan is still that of ‘second class citizens’ (Hastings and Nolte, 1996), and gender equality is still a long way from reality (Itoh, 1998).

Interruptions One of the most evident ways of displaying dominance over the speaker is to interrupt and take control of the ¶oor. Sacks et al. (1974) consider interruptions as ‘violations’ of the turntaking rules. Moreover, in the literature on gender diŸerences, interruptions are associated with power and intrusion (Zimmerman and West, 1975; West, 1984). Although the studies by Zimmerman and West and West on interruptions are the most famous, others show con¶icting results (Coates, 1996; Greenwood, 1996). Greenwood suggests that interruptions are used diŸerently depending on the content and goal of the interaction and the participants. Greenwood also states that the style of a person can vary and that, besides the social context, group identiªcation is an important factor. On the other hand, Coates writes that women share what she calls a ‘collaborative ¶oor’, where everybody shares the ¶oor and speakers very often speak at the same time. In Japanese communication, interruptions seem to be diŸerent in nature to the aggressive types referred to previously, and research suggests that they

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 105

are not ‘violations’. Firstly, most interruptions are not aggressive in nature and are used to show interest in the conversation (Murata, 1994). Secondly, overlapping has been observed in colloquial conversation (Hayashi, 1996; Hinds, 1978a), and Hayashi writes that ‘speakers of Japanese tend to talk simultaneously’ (Hayashi, 1996: 230). I show in this study that overlapping is in fact common in television interviews and, is one way in which participants show their interest and cooperation. In the data for this study, interruptions occurred 205 times, or 8.8% of all 2328 turns. There were intrusive and non-intrusive interruptions. In the next example (1), the host interrupts her guest and changes the topic. This type of interruption can be classiªed as an intrusive interruption, whereas excerpt (2) is a co-operative interruption according to Murata (1994). The topic in (1) is one of the tasks required in the guest’s work, which includes recognizing whether a book is an original or a copy. In line 4, the host interrupts the guest and changes the topic without allowing him to ªnish. (1) (M9) 1 T: hontoo no mono ka dooka tte iu koto real of thing Q whether Qt say thing 2

mo, #… also

3

G: ee.. sooiu koto mo juubun ano eh that-type thing also enough well

4

→ [kentooshimashite] examine-conj

5 →T: [demo shahon to] osshaimashita kedomo but copy Qt say-hon-past but 6

(hai.) Nihon no hon no maa gaikoku mo yes Japan gen book gen well foreign also

7

soo desu kedo/ muzukashii koto no that-way cop but di¹cult thing gen

8

hitotsu ni,.. insatsu… no mae wa minna ((continues)) one in print gen before top all ‘G: Yes, (we) also [examine] that as well.’ T: [You have said original], but (yes) for Japanese and foreign books as well, one of the di¹cult things is that before it was printed ((continues))

106 Gender, Language and Culture

Note that the host uses demo, a connective particle that indicates disagreement (Ooishi, 1971). However, demo in this instance is used to return to an old topic because it is obvious that the host is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the guest. It has been found that demo is used to change topics (Karatsu, 1995) in Japanese conversation, as can also be seen here. The interruption in the next example is from the same interview, but is of a diŸerent nature. From the context of the topic, we can assume that it is not an aggressive interruption; rather, the host interrupts in order to conªrm some information. She does this by speciªcally repeating the guest’s words and continuing to elaborate on the information that he was providing. The guest talks about a scholar who worked with him by the family name of Sattow. This name is very similar to Satoh, a very common Japanese name, and also to Satow, who was a famous diplomat and Japanese scholar in the Meiji Period. (2) (M9) 1 T: Satoo tte saigoo ni/ Satow Qt last loc 2

G: esu tei tei daburu yuu tte iu [tsuzuri s t t double u Qt say spelling

3 4 5

o kakimasu node]. O write because T:

[daburu double yuu ga tsuiteru]. demo Aanesuto Satoo ((continues)) u S has-pre but Ernest Sattow ‘T: The last (letter of) the name Sattow is (which one?) G: [Because it is written] with a t, t and double-u. T: It has (is written with) [a double-u.] but Ernest Sattow ((continues))’

This type of interruption can be classiªed as a cooperative interruption, a term used by Murata (1994) who argues that there are two types of interruption: cooperative and intrusive. As the terms suggest, a co-operative interruption occurs when listeners ‘join the speaker’s utterance by supplying a word or a phrase for which the speaker is searching, or even completes it for him/her’ (Murata, 1994: 387). On the other hand, intrusive interruptions are used in order to disagree, to change topic or to gain the ¶oor. Example (2) can be considered as a co-operative interruption, as the host repeats the guest’s words and there is no attempt to change the topic. However example (1) is more aggressive, as the host interrupts her guest to return to a former topic.

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 107

According to Murata in her comparative analysis of interruptions between Japanese and English speakers, the ‘occurrence of intrusive interruptions was very rare in the Japanese interactions, averaging 0.43 per conversation’ (1994: 393). In the present data, 63 (30.8%) out of 205 interruptions are identiªed as intrusive. Although the intrusive interruptions in the present data are an infringement, they do not overtly confront or challenge the other party. This aspect is probably connected to the topic of the interviews. As stated in Chapter 2, the philosophy behind the interviews in Tetsuko no Heya is clearly deªned by the producer and the host herself, in that no politicians are invited and guests are never criticized. Therefore, it is natural that the topics are not confrontational. Political interviews or other programs featuring controversial topics, on the other hand, might give diŸerent results from both Murata’s (1994) and the present study.

Overlaps Although some researchers use interruptions and overlaps interchangeably (Hinds, 1978a), the distinction between them is whether they are ‘mistakes’ or not. Overlaps are, most of the time, due to mistiming, and occur at TRPs (Sacks et al., 1974). On the other hand, interruptions are considered ‘violations’ (Sacks et al., 1974). In the present data, overlaps occurred 165 times (7.08%). In (3) for example, the host conªrms that the guest was in the army (not the navy). A potential TRP is observed after the host’s rikugun, and after a slight pause, they talk simultaneously. (3) (M1) 1→ T: Ikebe san tachi wa rikugun … [rikugun Ikebe t pl top army army 2 3 4

na wake desu ne/] cop com cop fp G:

[boku wa I top rikugun desukara] army because ‘T: You belonged to the Army …[to the Army , didn’t you? (not to the Navy)] G: Because [I was in the Army’]

108 Gender, Language and Culture

The overlap in (3) lines 1–4 can be the result of mistiming. Note that there is no change of topic and instead there is repetition of the word rikugun. The overlapped section, although very diŸerent syntactically, conveys the same meaning. The kara ending indicates that the guest ‘marks a connection with the immediately preceding utterance’ (Mori, 1999: 186).

Interruptions and gender Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 show that younger female guests interrupt the host more often than other guests. This ªnding contradicts various studies on gender and interruptions (West and Zimmerman, 1983; West, 1984), which claim that men interrupt women more often than vice versa. In West’s study (1984) on interruptions in a doctor – patient encounter, the relation of power is very similar to a television interview. There is an imbalance of power, in which the doctor and the interviewer have the power as opposed to the patient and the interviewee. West (1984) shows that in doctor – patient interactions, most of the interruptions are by male doctors. However, if the doctor is a female, the reverse occurs; the male patients interrupt when the doctor is a

60 Host Guests

50 40 30 20 10 0 Females over 50

Females under 50

Males over 50

Males under 50

Figure 4.1 Host’s and guests’s interruptions Table 4.1 Interruptions

Host Guests Total

Females over 50

Females under 50

Males over 50

Males under 50

Total

18 (18%) 21 (19.8%) 39 (19%)

42 (42%) 49 (46%) 91 (44.3%)

22 (22%) 23 (21.6%) 45 (21.9%)

17 (17%) 13 (12.2%) 30 (14.6%)

99 (100%) 106 (100%) 205 (100%)

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 109

female. The results in the present study are in line with those of Coates (1996) and Tannen (1984), suggesting that interruptions should not automatically be considered as a conversational ‘violation’. If the ‘power/dominance’ concept of interruptions applied in all cultures and languages, then male guests should have interrupted the host often (21.6% and 12.2%). However this was not the case in any of the interviews with male guests. On the contrary, the host experienced the most interruptions from younger females (46%), which may indicate that, in Japanese culture, interruptions are not necessarily associated with power or dominance. Itakura (2001) writes that interruptions have various eŸects in the sequence of the conversation and should not necessarily be equated to dominance. Murata (1994) also observes that Japanese interlocutors ‘seem(s) to prefer not to have interruptions, apart from co-operative ones’ (Murata, 1994: 399). Moreover, speakers use cooperative interruptions to show their involvement in the conversation. This form of interruption occurs when listeners, for example, supply a word or provide the ending of a sentence and co-construct sentences. It is by no means aggressive and the intention of the interrupting party is to show interest and encouragement. As mentioned earlier, only 63 (30.8%) out of a total of 205 interruptions made by both interlocutors in this study are intrusive, although they are not really aggressive as they do not show overt disagreement. In addition, less intrusive interruptions are more pronounced in the older female guest group than in the other three groups. The next chart and table show the statistics of intrusive and cooperative interruptions. p 60 50

Intrusive

40

Cooperative

30 20 10 0

FI

FII

MI

MII

Figure 4.2 Intrusive & cooperative interruptions

110 Gender, Language and Culture

Table 4.2 Intrusive and cooperative interruptions Interruptions

Females over 50

Females under 50

Males over 50

Males under 50

Total

Intrusive Cooperative Total

7 (18%) 32 (82%) 39

31(34%) 60 (66%) 91

15 (33%) 30 (67%) 45

10 (33%) 20 (67%) 30

63 (30.8%) 142(69.2%) 205

That Japanese speakers seem to use cooperative interruptions more often does not mean that intrusive interruptions do not exist (Honda, 2002). One of the most important factors that decide the frequency and occurrence of interruptions is the topic and genre of the speech event. In debates where the topic is controversial, speakers use intrusive interruptions. In the data of the present study, all the topics are non-controversial and the guests are invited onto the program because of their professional or personal achievements. The producer of the program has commented that the most important ‘criterion’ is that the guests are never criticized. (See Appendix 2 and Chapter 2).

Interruptions in the female group under 50 In the younger female group, the greater number of interruptions by the younger females (46%) is quite revealing. Most of these interruptions are not in disagreement with the host but are ‘cooperative’ in nature. It may be that the host feels a closer identiªcation with her younger female guests and thus is more relaxed, and shifts her ‘interviewer’s’ style to one that is more conversational. In addition to interruptions, there are many other cooperative turns and other collaborative strategies, such as a higher aizuchi frequency. The next example is an excerpt from the interview with a female pianist who became disabled as a consequence of a disease contracted as an infant. Here, she talks about the special needs of people who are conªned to a special bed. The host does not allow her to ªnish her turn and asks her whether she uses any aids now. The guest interrupts her host with an immediate answer. Both host and guest interrupt each other, but, these interruptions are not aggressive. Note that the host is not trying to control the topic but is rather showing an eagerness to know more about the guest. These types of interruptions are referred to as ‘overlap-as-enthusiasm’ strategy (Tannen, 1984). (4) (F8) 1 G: tada yappari mukashi wa gibusu beddo well after-all before top cast bed

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

2

→ zutto netakkiri no seikatsuthroughout bed-ridden gen life

3

T:

4

→ shiterasharanai do-hon-neg

n-] com

5

G:

[ima wa ne yappari korusetto now top fp after-all corset

6

[ima wa nanimo now top nothing

mada shiteru n desu. dakara ((continues)) yet do-prog com cop therefore ‘G: Before, I had to be all the time in [a cast bed-] T: Now, you are not wearing anything G: Now, I am still wearing a special corset, therefore ((continues)).’

Another fragment is from an interview with a singer, who talks about her life after leaving the famous Takarazuka theatre and dance group. The guest says that she is very busy with concerts, radio and television. Note in lines 5 and 6 that the host interrupts the guest, using the expression soo desuyone, which indicates some kind of agreement and empathy. It can be used also as an aizuchi. Although it is di¹cult to understand the host’s meaning in lines 6–7, she introduces another topic. The guest takes the ¶oor with an agreement. The next interruption starts with the discourse marker ne, accompanied by rising intonation in lines 9 and 10. This is a very cooperative form of engagement, and is used to indicate or seek agreement. (5) (F10) 1 G: soo desu ne. ano-= kekko isogashii seikatsu-= na n yes cop fp well quite busy life cop com 2

desu ne/(un.) desukara maa jikan mo nai tte cop fp therefore well time also be-neg Qt

3

iu koto wa arimasu. ano Tookyoo kooen. say com top be well Tokyo concert

4

Oosaka kooen. chihoo jungyoo. soshite.ano.. rajio. Osaka concert rural tour and well radio

5

→ terebi no [xxx ga arimasu kara. TV gen S be because

111

112

Gender, Language and Culture

6→ T: [soo desu yo ne/ ja mukashi Tookyoo ni yes cop fp fp then before Tokyo in 7

irasshareba kondo mongen tte iu no be-hon-cond this-time curfew Qt say com

8

ga aru deshoo? S be cop-hort

9→ G: mongen wa kanarazu. [arimasu ne/ curfew top always be fp 10→ T: [nee/ ikutsu nattate aru no ne/] fp how-old become-conj be com fp ‘G: Yes, I have a quite busy life (uh-huh) So, I don’t have much time. Because I have concerts in Tokyo and Osaka, regional tours and radio and TV. [xxxxx T: [Yes, I understand]. Now, when you are in Tokyo there is a curfew (where you live), isn’t there? G: There is always a [curfew.] T:[Isn’t it, that there is a curfew no matter how old you are/]

In interviews with younger females, there is no psychological con¶ict in relation to power, age or gender. The host is older, therefore there is no interference in establishing relative status, one of the fundamental criteria in the Japanese language (Miller, 1967; Nakane, 1970; Niyekawa, 1991; Ide, 1982, 1989). The host has the power, and as an older person she is senior to her guests. Therefore, it appears that turntaking in interviews with younger females is more colloquial in style than with other guests. Coates (1996) uses the term ‘collaborative ¶oor’ in her analysis of conversation among women friends. She discusses the phenomenon of several guests ‘sharing in the construction of talk’ (1996: 139) in answering the host’s questions. This sharing in the construction style is very similar to the one found in the interviews with younger females.

Cooperative turns Some studies contest the dichotomy of communicative styles that associates cooperativeness with women and aggressiveness with men, claiming instead that the topic of the talk is more relevant than the gender of the speakers (Freed and Greenwood, 1996). Findings on Japanese conversation are also contradictory. Some show that men are the aggressive speakers (Ehara, Yoshii and Yamazaki, 1993), while others show that the situation dictates the tone of the interaction (T. Yamada, 1995; Yoshii, 1996). In this study, both males and

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

females use a cooperative style of turntaking, which suggests that the situation deªnes the tone of the interaction. Cooperative turns are observed when both participants contribute to make the narrative, and many strategies such as repetition and co-construction are found in these types of turn. The male guest in the next example talks about how boys and girls who are studying at his acting school react in diŸerent situations. The guest says that boys in their teens are unstable in contrast to girls. His turn ends with the shortened explanatory connective particle nde. At this point, the host provides additional comments that help the narration. (6) (M10) 1 G:… .kichitto benkyoosuru. otokonoko no juudai koohan properly study boy gen teens late 2

tte no wa sugoku ne/ ukishizumi ga hageshii nde. Qt com top really fp up-down S intense because

3

T: ah. asobitaku mo nachau darooshi ne/ oh play-want also become cop-hort fp

4

G: sore toka. karada mo.. tokidoki ne/ otokonoko te that like body also sometimes fp boy Qt

5

gatta tte koo.. yowaku nachattarisuru n desu yo ne/ onmt Qt like weakly become-conj com cop fp fp

6

T: ah. onnanoko to chigau no/ oh girl to diŸerent fp

7

G: onnanoko no hoo ga. tsuyoi desu yo ne. girl gen way S strong cop fp fp ‘G: (They) study properly. Boys in their late teens, you know are very unstable. T: Oh. They also want to have fun as well, right? G: Yes, and also physically the boys tend to get sick suddenly, they get weak very quickly you know. T: Are they diŸerent to girls? G: Well, girls are stronger, you see.’

In line 4, the guest starts his turns with sore toka. By using sore the guest acknowledges what the host has said, and the next particle toka ‘for example’ provides additional information. He then says that, physically, boys are more prone to illness than girls. Note that the host’s question in line 6 is marked by the ‘down’ shift shown in the plain ending of the verb and the SFP no. Note the

113

114

Gender, Language and Culture

repetition of the word onnanoko, which is another sign of cooperation between interlocutors (Tannen, 1989). The next example also allows us to look at the collaborative way in which the exchange takes place. The topic in this excerpt is a book chapter written by the guest on the Italian composer Antonio Vivaldi. The guest mentions the title of the book, ending her turn in a connective particle kedomo ‘but’. In line 3, the host starts her turn by saying ‘among eleven scholars’. Then, the guest takes the ¶oor after the particle no and completes the host’s comment. In this way, the sentence ‘I was selected among eleven world researchers on Vivaldi’ is coconstructed. Note that the guest’s turn is by no means an interruption, because there is neither overlap nor pause. In fact, the structure of the sentence is started by the host and completed by the guest. This shows an active and cooperative participation of the two interlocutors in making the interview. (7) (F8) 1 G: hai. (e.) seitan sanbyakunen kinen ronbunshuu== tte iu yes uh-huh birth 300-year celebration essay-collection Qt say 2

n desu kedomo/ com cop but

3

T: juuichinin no sekai no 11-people gen world gen

4

G: hai. Bibarudi gakusha no naka ni nandaka totemo yes Vivaldi scholar gen inside in somehow very

5 6 7

kooei ni erandeitadakimashite. (soo na n desu tte.)@@hai. honour in chose-receive-conj yes cop com cop Qt yes T: de maa hi. yoroppaken. (hai.) mata josei to shite and well non European yes more woman to be-conj (hai.) hajimete deirassharu [soo desu keredo ((continues)) yes ªrst-time cop-hon I-hear cop but ‘G: Yes, (uh-huh) It is titled, ‘Essay-collection celebrating the 300th Anniversary of the Birth of Vivaldi’, but T: And among 11 people of the whole world, G: Yes, among all the Vivaldi specialists, I had the honour to be selected and (So I’ve heard) @@@ yes. T: And, I also heard that not only are you the ªrst woman (yes), but also the ªrst non-European (yes) ((continues)).’

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

A similar stance between the host and a male guest with the use of aizuchi can be seen in (8). Here they talk about the guest’s experience during the war in Rabaul. He had befriended the locals and wanted to stay after the Second World War had ended; however, his superiors persuaded him to return and meet his parents before making a decision. He went back to Japan but found that the circumstances were very diŸerent to what he expected. The guest sends aizuchi in line 2 and 3, with the token e and a repetition of the host’s words dekinai and irushi. These are a sign of the listener’s participation (Nakada, 1991, 1992). (8) (M7) 1 T: ah. Nihon ni okaerininareba moo soto ni deru koto [nante oh. Japan to return-hon-cond no-more out to go-out com 2

dekinai.] [(e. dekinai.)] Makkassa wa irushi able-neg yes able-neg Macarthur top be-conj

3

(e. irushi.) yes be-conj ‘T: Oh. If you retu rned to Japan, you [could not go ]overseas again G: [(you couldn’t)] T: And Macarthur was there. G: Yes. He was there.

Cooperative turntaking is also accomplished in (9). The host explains the characteristics of a box received by princesses when they married. Note that each participant contributes to the explanation of the item. Both use the conjunctive form te and allow for the structure to be continuously expanded and incremented. In line 2, the host starts her sentence but does not complete it. Instead the TRP is indicated by the slight pause. The guest takes her turn and completes the host’s sentence, which is also left unªnished. Earlier in the book I wrote about these types of unªnished utterances, which are strategically produced in order to either allow the listener to add to the narrative or avoid committing to a particular style. (9) (F5) 1 T: kore honmono no hoo wa. maa ookisa iroiro arimasu kedo this real gen type top well size various be but 2

ohimesama ga oyome ni [kuru tokini. [(iku tokini)]. kami de.. princess S bride to come when go when paper inst

115

116

Gender, Language and Culture

3

G: kami de dekite. paper inst made

4

T: hako ni nattete. box into become-conj

5

G: hai. hai. de makura moto ni okutte [(xxxxxxx)] [otogi] yes yes and pillow base in place keep-company

6

o suru tte iu yoona koto da to [omoimasu. o do Qt say type thing cop Qt think ‘T: This, the real one, well there are many sizes but it was for when the princesses [came] [went] as brides. Of paper and G: Made of paper and T: In the shape of a box and G: Yes, yes. And it was placed next to the pillow to keep her company, I think.

Cooperative turntaking is present in interviews with both females and males, which suggests that this is due to the ‘institutional’ character of the interview. Participants are aware that it is a televised event, and understand their obligations tacitly. Most importantly, cooperative turntaking is more pronounced because of the non-controversial topics in these interviews.

Shifts of style The Japanese language possesses a highly developed honoriªc system with two forms: one that elevates the listener, his/her family/group or a third person who is higher in status than the speaker, and another that humbles the speaker and his/her family/group. The former is known as sonkeigo ‘honoriªc’ and the latter as kenjoogo ‘humble’. Both systems have regular and irregular verb forms. Except in ten irregular verbs, the verbs are accompanied by the particle o and an auxiliary form is added to the verb-stem. Regular honoriªc verbs thus take the structure o + verb-stem + ninaru, and the humble form takes o + verb-stem + suru. Another honoriªc verbal form that takes the passive voice is also used but it is a regional preference rather than politeness dependent. For example, the sentence ikaremasuka can mean ‘Are you going?’ in addressing someone of higher status, or ‘Can you go?’, depending on the context. The honoriªc system also includes what is known as bikago. Bikago translated literally means ‘embellished word’, and is expressed by adding the honoriªc o/go to a noun or adjective. The eŸect is higher politeness and reªnement. Besides verbs, honoriªc language

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

also extends to lexical items and the pronominal system, which is explained in detail in subsequent sections. The honoriªc system is similar to the T/V pronominal system. A subordinate has to use honoriªc language when talking to a superior and the humble form when talking about him/herself. This is of course not reciprocated. The person of higher status uses direct style towards the subordinate. Using honoriªc forms creates social and psychological distance, whereas the direct style creates solidarity. For example, the question ‘Where are you going tomorrow?’ can be expressed in the following forms, increasing in degree of politeness: (i) ashita doko iku no? tomorrow where go-pre fp (ii) ashita doko e ikimasu ka? tomorrow where to go-pre Q (iii) ashita dochira e ikaremasu ka? tomorrow where to go-hon Q (iv) ashita dochira e irasshaimasu ka? tomorrow where to go-hon Q ‘Tomorrow where (are you going?)’

The example in (i) shows that the grammatical particle e is missing, the verb is in direct form, and the question ends in a ªnal particle with ªnal intonation. This is a standard question between friends in informal speech. The question in (ii) is realized with the particle, and the verb appears in the masu or polite form, accompanied by the question particle ka with rising intonation. This form is formal and used between acquaintances. In (iii), the verb iku takes the passive form, but is interpreted within the context as an honoriªc form. The last form (iv) contains the same verb iku, but in the honoriªc form. In (iii) and (iv) the word doko is replaced by the more polite dochira. In the present data, the host routinely uses honoriªc forms when she talks to the audience about the guests and when she talks to the guests. She uses sonkeigo, and the guests answer in kenjoogo. The following segment illustrates such interaction. In lines 1–3, the host uses sonkeigo when talking about the guest and his family members. In this example, she refers to the guest’s late husband, who had appeared on the program, and had talked about his family background. The guest uses the humble verb form of ‘to know’ in line 6, and the plain form of ‘husband’ shujin. The guest is much older than the host and they are meeting for the ªrst time. These two facts contribute to the high degree of formality and the absence of style shifts.

117

118

Gender, Language and Culture

(10) (F1) 1→ T: soo Inoue san wa kochira ni irasshita toki yes Inoue T top here to come-hon-past time 2

→ ni (un.) gojibun dake wa obaasama ni in uh-huh himself only top grand-mother-hon by

3

→ sodaterareta tte osshatterasshaimashita yo ne/ (soo raise-pass-past Qt say-hon-past fp fp yes

4

na n desu.) Izu no hoo (hai.) hoo de (hai.) aa. cop com cop Izu gen side yes side in yes oh.

5

G: soide ano ano uchi wa mada moo hitori iru rashii then well well us top yet more one-person be seem

6

→ keredo. to iu gurai shika zonjimasen deshita. shujin but Qt say about only know-neg-hum cop-past husband

7

no koto wa. gen com top ‘T: When Mr Inoue was here (yes), he told us that he was the only one brought up by a grand-mother, (indeed) in Izu (yes) oh. G: And, I only knew that there was one more member of the family, about my husband.’

The rules for honoriªc use are complicated, as they include the criteria of in/ out-groups of not only listeners but also speakers. In addition, in real communication, shifts of style (plain and polite forms) have been observed to occur due to various other reasons. Shifts from polite to plain occur ‘for abrupt remembrance or sudden emotional surge, for expressing a narrative-internal point of view and for echo questions or jointly created utterances’ (S. Maynard, 1991: 560). All these expressions are ‘not deliberately addressed to the listener’ (S. Maynard, 1991: 560). Many of the style shifts in the interview data seem to occur within these three settings; however, they are triggered by other factors, too. It appears that style shifts re¶ect the status and power of the interlocutors, with people of more power being ‘less inhibited about using non-polite forms’ (Usami, 2002: 222). The next example illustrates such shifts. The guest suddenly shifts to plain style (line 1), which triggers the host to also shift style (lines 3 and 4). (11) (M10) 1 G: …ne/ ii yo tte iuttara nigetearuiteru n desu fp good fp Qt say-cond run-around com cop

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

2

→ tte, gakuya de (@) @ soidene/ Qt dressing-room in then fp

3

T: dareka ga ii wa ne tte iuto nigecchau someone S good fp fp Qt say-cond run-away

4

→ no. (soo.) moo taihen taihen to omotte. fp yes well terrible terrible Qt think-conj ‘G: ..You see, when she hears that her performance was good, she runs around in the dressing room, and then T: When someone tells her that it was good, she runs away? (yes) thinking ‘it’s terrible’.’

The guest is talking about a young actress whom they both know. Notice that the guest uses the informal soide instead of sorede for the word ‘then’. The host shifts to the plain form, as observed in lines 3–4, where she uses the informal contracted form nigecchau instead of the more formal nigeteshimau ‘run-away (completely)’. This is accompanied by the ªnal particle no, which is an informal question form. Why this shift occurs can be explained in terms of the involvement of the speakers in the narrative. Both interlocutors are very interested in the topic and the psychological distance between them is diminished by the use of informal style. A similar observation can be made in the next interview, although it is the host who shifts to plain forms and the guest uses mainly informal language. In line 3, the host uses the honoriªc form of the verb ‘to write’; however a few lines later, she switches to informal style. Line 8 shows the host using the contracted form of the verb ‘to be completely surprised’ bikkurishichatta instead of the polite bikkurishiteshimaishita. The verb is also accompanied by the ªnal particle no, observed also in line 9, which adds a degree of closeness between the speaker and the listener. In this particular interview, the guest does not use honoriªc forms and addresses the host as anata (more on pronouns in subsequent sections). Note that her style is very informal, with the usage of ªnal particles such as sa in line 11. Sa is a ªnal particle meaning ‘indeed, you see’, and according to McClain (1990) is a particle used by men. In recent years, however, it has been found in females’ speech as well but in very informal situations only. In addition, host and guest have met before and have a personal relationship outside the interview. (12) (F4) 1 T: un. tanoshiku kurasu to. (@)demo kore oi no yes enjoyable live Qt but this old-age gen

119

120 Gender, Language and Culture

2

tanoshimi tte maa konnaka ni takusan ano== enjoyment Qt well this-in in many uhm

3

toshiototte kara no koto mo kaiterassharu n dakedo. age-conj from gen com also write-hon com but

4

atashi bikkurishita no wa, atogaki ni ne/ kaasan ga/ I surprised com S postscript in fp mother S

5

(un.) mono o kakihajimeta no wa watashi ga yes thing o write-start-past com top I S

6

rokujuu== kanreki o mukaeta toki datta tte. 60-years 61-birthday do receive-past when cop-past Qt

7

(soo.) genkooyooshi ni mono kakihajimeta. kore wa tottemo yes manuscript in thing write-start-past this top very

8

→ bikkurishichatta no. kaasan tte zuttomae kara. kaiteru surprise-past fp mother Qt long-ago from write

9

→ kata da to minna wa omotteru to omou no. person cop Qt all top think Qt think fp

10 G: soo ne/ soo kamoshirenai kedo ne/ demo ne/ soremade yes fp that maybe but fp but fp till-then 11 → sa/ ano== anata ni yoku hanashishita kedomo.. nanishiro fp well you to well tell-past but anyway 12

Shoowa kunen deshoo/ jooyuu ni natta no ga. Showa 9-year cop-hort actress to become com S ‘T: It is written in your book that aged people should live with joy and you also wrote many other things about getting older. But what really surprised me (yes) is that you started writing when you (yes) were in your 60s. I thought that you had been writing all along, and everybody must think so, too. G: Well, yes, maybe. But, until then you know, I have told you several times already, but when I became an actress it was in the 9th year of Shoowa (1934) (continues)’

In lines 1–3, it appears that the host is talking to the audience, thus maintaining the formality by using honoriªc verbs. The switch to informal style occurs after the conjunctive particle dakedo ‘but’, described as ‘to make parenthetical remarks which themselves are not part of the main sequence’ (Nakayama and Nakayama, 1997: 610). In this section, the main sequence appears to be the

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

exchange with the guest and the ‘parenthetical remarks’ are directed to the audience. Shifts of style in the speech of guests are less frequent, except for two of the older male guests and an older female guest. In the next segment, an older male guest talks about his World War II memories as a soldier when he was on a ship. In line 1, the expression soodesune, which is used very often to show agreement, as aizuchi, or in this case as a preface, is replaced by the plain form soodana. In line 4, the utterance Noun+ttenowane would have the quotative particle to, the verb iu and the copula desu between the topic marker wa and the SFP ne in the polite form. Similarly, the copula desu is missing in the next expression nanoyone, which would be placed between the complementizer no and the SFP yo. The guest’s utterance in lines 1 and 2 is a self-directed expression, especially the use of the SFP kashira, which indicates that the speaker is not sure about something. However, the second shift is directed at the host, as it is an answer to her question. (13) (M1) 1→ G: soo da na. juu notto deta no ga yes cop fp ten knots get-past com top 2 3

saikoo janai no kashira, maximum be-neg com fp T: juu notto/ ten knots

4→ G: juu notto tte no wa ne, yaku niju ten knots Qt com top fp about twenty 5

→ kkiro na no yo ne. (un.) kilometres cop com fp fp uh-huh ‘G: Well, I think that the maximum speed was ten knots. T: Ten knots? G: Ten knots is about twenty kilometres, you know? (uh-huh)’.

In other interviews, the age of the guests and their personal relationship with the host seems to in¶uence the frequency of shifts. For example, the host uses more informal language with her younger female guests, and more shifts can be observed in interviews with guests whom she has met before. This can be seen with one older female guest mentioned in example (12), who uses informal style throughout the interview (see also example 31 in this chapter).

121

122 Gender, Language and Culture

Pronouns and terms of address It has been argued that personal pronouns in Japanese are used quite diŸerently from Indo-European languages (Hinds, 1976; Kuroda, 1979; S. Suzuki, 1972). One of the major diŸerences is that the Japanese pronominal system is deªned by the gender of the speaker, and a rich variety of choices exists according to formality, as seen in Table 4.3. Another important distinction is that personal pronouns in Japanese are avoided as much as possible in spoken or written discourse to the degree that they have been equated to the zero anaphora (Kuroda, 1979). Their usage is also restricted depending on the formality and the relationship between the interlocutors. For example, the second person pronoun anata can be used only to equals or to those of lower status than the speaker (Hinds, 1976). It can have a diŸerent connotation when a woman uses it towards her partner or husband. As is the case with the T-V system, it is not reciprocated. Instead, family names or roles are used to address older or higher status people. Table 4.3 Pronominal system I-Female

I-Neutral

I-Male

You-Female

You-Neutral

You-Male

watakushi atakushi watashi atashi atai

watakushi atakushi watashi atashi

watakushi atakushi watashi atashi boku ore oira**

anata

anata

anata

*deprecatory

anta**

anta** kimi kisama* omae*

**dialects

The governance of ªrst person pronouns by the gender of the speaker is one of the most powerful and meaningful expressions of maleness or femaleness. In other words, using male or female ªrst personal pronouns is a way to assert one’s gender, and thus, maintain gender distinctions. In the present data, participants in the interview routinely maintain the rules of Japanese politeness while at the same time projecting their male or female identity. The host and all the female guests avoid using the ªrst person pronoun when referring to themselves; however, when they must do so, they use either atashi, the variation watashi, or the most polite form watakushi. On the other hand, the male guests use the male form boku, and watashi or atakushi.

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 123

These examples are from female guests. Note the formal watakushi and atashi. (14) (F1) 1 G: e. ano= ano hito ga. watakushi ga hajimete yes well that person S I S ªrst-time 2

atta toki wa kookoo no ninensei meet-past time top high-school gen 2nd-year

3

degozaimashita deshoo ka? (haa) hai. cop-pol-past cop-hort Q (yes) yes ‘G: Well, that person (he), when I was in senior high second year I met him the ªrst time (yes).

(15) (F8) 1→ G: soo na n desu ne. @ moo nanka watashi. yes cop com cop fp well somehow I 2

osoreooi n desu kedo ne/ ano gohonnin no gracious com cop but fp well in-person-pol gen

3

Kuroyanagi Tetsuko san o mae ni shite. ano Kuroyanagi Tetsuko T o front in do. well

4

seminaakai no Kuroyanagi Tetsuko san tte iwareru seminar-world of Kuroyanagi Tetsuko T Qt call-pass [xxxxx ‘G: Yes, certainly. Well, uhm I feel a bit embarrassed to say this in front of you, but people call me the “Kuroyanagi Tetsuko of the Seminar World” xxxx’

In (15), the guest is younger than the host. Note that, where in English the pronoun ‘you’ would be used, the guest says gohonnin, which can be translated as ‘the person her/himself’. On the other hand, the male guests used boku regardless of their age. In this example, the guest is a male over the age of 50. In line 2, he also uses the informal form of the verb wakaru. (16) (M1) 1→ G: seikakuna tokoro boku mo ammari hakkiri correctly point I also not-much clearly 2 wakannai n desu kedo ne/ ((continues)) understand-neg com cop but fp G: I don’t know exactly myself, but ((continues))’

124 Gender, Language and Culture

In (17), the possessive form is expressed in Japanese with the personal pronoun (or noun) with the particle no. Note that the guest, who talks about his drama school, uses the masculine pronoun in line 1. (17) (M10) 1→ G: maa boku no tokoro wa tokuni ne/ odori o well I gen place top especially fp dance o 2 warito taisetsuni shiteru n desu. quite important do com cop ‘G: Well, in my school, I consider dancing as very important.’

In the following two excerpts, we see how the host and guests project their gender identity through the usage of pronouns. In excerpt (18), both of the participants are women. The female writer talks about the preparations involved in writing her newest novel set in Egypt. She uses the more formal watakushi, and the host, in line 5, uses the form atashi. (18) (F3) 1→ G: watakushi mo sono kiken ni narubeku ano- (soo I also that danger in possible well yes 2

desu ne.) eh. sarasarenaiyouni [(xxxx de gozaimasu cop fp yes expose-neg-xxx cop-pol

3

node. eh.)] [xxxxxxx ano== hotondo no mono wa because well almost gen things top

4

haikenshite. See-hum-conj

yonde. (ah soo.) hai. hai. read-conj oh yes yes yes

5→ T: atashi mo hajimete Ejiputo e itte an= Ejiputo no I also ªrst-time Egypt to go-conj uhm Egypt gen 6

hakubutsukan desu ka? (hai.) museum cop q yes ‘G: I, try to avoid being under the danger of xxxxx, (xxxxx because xx) and try to read and see as much as possible. (really?) yes. H: When I went to Egypt the ªrst time, is it the Egyptian museum? (yes)’.

The next excerpt shows the contrast of pronouns. In line 1, the guest uses the masculine form and in line 6 the host uses the feminine form. (19) (M8) 1→ G: soo. boku nara moo teikyuubi wa chanto shittete/ yes I if already holiday top well know-conj

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

2

rokkagetsu mae kara iku baai wa moo sono hi 6-months before from go case top already that day

3

yasumi dakara. tsugi no hi ka mae ka ne/ rest because next gen day or before or fp

4

mae no hi ni shitekure (un) te kimetearu n before gen day in do-give yes Qt decide com

5

desu yo. cop fp

6→ T: soo. atashi ne/ anoo= dorafuto to iu koto o yes I fp well draft Qt say com o 7

kangaeta toki ni ne/ think-past when in fp ‘G: Yes, if it is me (who has to make the appointments), I know about 6 months prior to the appointment that that day is a holiday, and decide to go (yes) before or after that date. T: Yes, when I think about such system as the drafting….’

While none of the female guests uses the masculine forms boku or ore, some of the male guests used the formal neutral pronoun watakushi. Male guests who use the neutral pronoun watakushi or watashi are meeting the host for the ªrst time; thus the level of formality is higher compared to other interviews in the data. (20) (M9) 1→ G: e. watakushi no uchi wa minna doomo sooiu well I gen house top all somehow that-kind 2

(clears throat) shoobai deshite ne, ichizoku ga job cop-conj fp whole-family S

3

yoriatsumaruto soogoodaigaku ga dekiru tte iu gather-cond a-university S be-made Qt say

4

kanji desu kedo, impression cop but ‘G:Well, somehow all our family has that occupation. And, when the whole family gets together, a university can be made.’

In the above example, the male guest talks about his family background. He is younger than the host and they are meeting for the ªrst time; therefore the style is very formal and we can see that he chooses the most formal form.

125

126 Gender, Language and Culture

From the above examples, there is a clear distinction between male and female pronoun usage, and it follows the traditional norms. Although of course conªned to the television interview setting, this ªnding tells us a number of things. First, the fact that the event is ‘institutional’ sets the tone of the speech, where people are expected to be formal. Second, speakers are all professional people who are aware of what is socially permitted. So, a female may use boku in private, but would not do so in an interview. On the other hand, the fact that all the men use boku in their speech shows that, for them, it is acceptable to use this pronoun, even in formal contexts. Despite some reports suggesting that a change is taking place in the speech of women towards a more ‘neutral’ style (Kobayashi, 1993; Nakajima, 1997; Okamoto, 1994, 1995; Takasaki, 1997), the fact that all the participants use ªrst personal pronouns according to the prescribed norms indicates a number of possibilities. Firstly, even though they might use diŸerent pronouns in private, the participants are aware of the interview situation. Secondly, the reported change is a trend only among younger people and, as Reynolds (1998) writes, competent working members of society must adhere to the rules. Thirdly, there is almost no gender diŸerence in the turntaking, so the only way for males to indicate their masculinity is via the use of pronouns.

Family names and second person pronouns When addressing people, Japanese prefer to use family names accompanied by a title, or the role of the person such as sensei. The host consistently uses family names with the title san or sama towards her older guests, irrespective of their gender. (21) (F1) 1 T: ano Fumi sama wa Kyooto no gosshushin de (hai.) well Fumi T Top Kyoto gen come-from and yes 2

goshujin. to wa moo hontooni chiisai toki kara.. your-husband with top already really small time from… ‘T: Well, you (Mrs. Fumi) are from Kyoto and (yes) you have known your husband since you were a child… ((continues))’

In the above lines, the host addresses her guest as Fumisama. Fumi is the ªrst name of the guest and it is rather unusual to use ªrst names in formal situations. However, the host uses the most polite title, sama. We can speculate that the host follows standard forms in order to diŸerentiate the guest from her late husband, whom she addresses as Inouesan. A more common way of address is

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 127

shown in the following two examples. The host addresses guests by their family names and the title san. (22) (F2) 1 T: de. ima. Sugiyama san wa sugoku ogenki de, and now Sugiyama T top very healthy and T: And, Mrs Sugiyama, you are very healthy now and ((continues)).’ (23) (M2) 1 T: … ano Mizuki san wa soko de wa Pauro to .. well Mizuki T top there in top Paulo Qt 2

yobarete[rasshitta no] [(so so so. soo desu.)] call-pass-past fp yes yes yes yes cop ‘T:… uhm, Mr Mizuki, there you were called Paulo,[ isn’t it?] [(yes. yes. yes. yes)]

On the other hand, the host addresses all her younger guests by the second singular pronoun anata, which is restricted to addressees of equal or lower status than the speaker. (24) (F6) 1 T: sorede anata to oshuutome san mo. ano uchi wa and you and mother-in-law T also well home top ‘T: And you and your mother in law, ‘((continues)) (25) (M7) 1 T: hontoo ne/ de anata go no tsuku suuji ga osuki true fp and you ªve gen adhere number S like ‘T: Truly. And because you like the number ªve’ ((continues))

Anata as a form of address is not reciprocated by any of the guests (with one exception, discussed in the next section). Instead, they use the host’s ªrst name1 or her family name. (26) (M10) 1 G: moo Tetsuko san ni mo kawaigatteitadaite.. uhm Tetsuko T by also spoil-receive-hon-conj 2

T: iie. (@) @ soo soo soo. ano== no yes yes yes well ‘G: Well, (thank you) for taking care of her. T: Don’t mention. @@@, Yes, I remember, uhm ((continues))’

128 Gender, Language and Culture

In the above example, the guest thanks the host, addressing her by her ªrst name. Although the phrase is syntactically unªnished, we can assume that it is meant as a thanking expression. This is seen in line 2, when the host replies with iie. The subsequent sequence of the token so, which is repeated twice, is used when speakers remember something important or interesting or when a new topic is introduced. There is a clear diŸerentiation in the use of terms of address and the second singular pronoun. While the host uses anata to her younger guests, she addresses her older guests by name and title. The guests, on the other hand, address her by name and title, except for one guest who is her senior and is a friend of hers. This diŸerentiation is based on age and degree of intimacy between the interlocutors. It appears that anata is used in a similar way to the tu pronoun in the T/V pronominal system (Brown and Gillman, 1960), where the higher status speaker uses it towards the lower status listener and, more importantly, this is not reciprocated. This suggests that anata is a positive politeness strategy that shows solidarity.

When the host is older Most of the switches from formal to informal language are observed in interactions with younger guests. Usami (2002) has also observed this phenomenon and writes that shifts to informal styles can be a sign of positive politeness. What she calls ‘downshifts’ are expressions of solidarity, closeness and empathy. Solidarity is also expressed in the use of personal pronouns. When the host asks a question of her younger female guest, she addresses the guest as anata and uses the plain form, which is realized with the noun gurai ‘about’ without the copula. Later, in line 3, the host keeps a polite style using the masu form, but chooses the contracted form of sitewa, which is sicha. In line 6, the guest starts her utterance with an informal beginning ano, which is used as a ªller and can be accompanied by the copula and/ or an SFP. (27) (F6) 1→ T: [ima anata gojuuni kiro gurai/ soshitara. now you 52 kilo about then 2

G: hai. gojuuni to gojuusan toka, yes 52 and 53 like

3→ T: zuibun hosoku miemasu ne/ nanka gojuuni kiro ni shicha. quite thin look-pol fp well 52 kilo dat do-cond

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 129

4

G: soo desu ka/ yes cop Q

5

T: e. yes

6→ G: ano ne/ well fp 7→ T: choto moo ikkai, little more once 8→ G: chotto iyaa. hazukashii desu. little not shame cop ((lines omitted)) 14 T: dandan maa kore wa okaasama no kakkoo o onmt well this top mother gen ªgure o 15 → shiteitterashatta ((continues)) do-hon-past ‘T: So now, you are about 52 kilos? G: About 52 to 53. T: You look thinner than 52 kilos. G: Really? T: Yes. G: You know, T: Once more (could you show the photo) G: Oh, no. It is embarrassing. (lines omitted) T: Gradually, well (she) looked like a mother ((continues))

In line 15, the host uses the honoriªc form of shiteita and uses shiteirashita. This shift is possibly due to the fact that it is a remark directed to the audience about the guest’s photos, which are shown on the screen (lines 14–15). Shifts from polite to informal style occur in interviews featuring younger guests, regardless of gender. The host retains the formality when talking to the audience, but uses less formal forms when interacting directly with the guests. In (28), the host also uses plain forms in all her turns and addresses the guest as anata, while the guest uses polite forms. Here they talk about the age of a younger actress who is the guest’s student. Talking about a younger and subordinate person does not require the use of honoriªc forms. The informal style also adds the feeling of intimacy and solidarity.

130 Gender, Language and Culture

(28) (M10) 1 T: juushichi tte konoaida anata kiitara juushichi. (@) 17 Qt recently you ask-cond 17 2

ikutsu/ tte kiitara juushichi. how-old Qt ask-cond 17

3

G: juugo de kita n desu. 15 at come-past com cop

4

T: sonna wakaii ko [na no/ that young child com fp ‘T: Seventeen, she said. When I recently asked her how old she was, she answered seventeen. G: She came when she was 15 years old. T: Is she that young?’

Usami writes that ‘speakers deviate from normative language use signiªcantly more often in conversation with an interlocutor who has less power than they do’ (2002: 183). This observation can be applied to the present data too, as it is either the host or an older guest who shifts styles fairly often.

Lexical items While some male lexical items are used sporadically by male guests, as in example (29), only older male guests use plain forms continuously. The guest in (29) uses lexical items that are restricted to male use. By using words that belong to one category, a speaker reinforces and projects his/her gender to the listener (Graddol and Swann, 1993). In addition, male words are considered rough and are avoided in formal situations. However, the male guest in the following excerpt uses a number of those ‘male words’ (these are underlined). In line 2, the guest chose to use kuimasu for the verb ‘to eat’, instead of the more formal and standard form tabemasu or the honoriªc meshiagarimasu. In line 7, there are two ‘male’ words used instead of the standard ones, hedo ‘vomit’ instead of ooto , and yatsu ‘thing’ instead of mono. (29) (M2) 1 G: ma sonna mon desu na/(@) honde== yappari well that com cop fp and after-all 2

→ anoo==… asoko de ironna mono kuimasu wa ne/ well there in various things eat fp fp

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

3

T: minna ga. everybody S

4

G: de sore ga ma koboshitari. sake koboshitari are ga and that S well spill-conj sake spill-conj that S

5 6

zenbu ano== tsuchi ni modotteikyoru kara all well earth to return-go because T: sore wa ii n desu ka? that S good com cop Q

7→ G: soo desu. hedo haita yatsu mo sakura no tameni monosugoi yes cop vomit vomit thing also sakura of beneªt extremely 8

hiryoo ni naru n desu. are. manure in become com cop that ‘G: Well, it’s something like that. @@And, after all, uhm (people) eat a lot there, don’t they? T: (You mean) everybody? G: And people spill, well they spill the sake, and it goes back to the soil, T: Is that ªne? G: Yes. The vomit is also a really good fodder for the cherry trees.’

Female guests, on the other hand, do not use any of the ‘male’ lexical items, as they are considered improper for women and because the situation is formal. Instead, they use the hyper-polite forms, as in the following example. (30) (F6) 1 G: ee soshite oshoosui @ mo yoku demasushi ne @ yes and urine too well go-out-conj fp 2

ii to omoimasu. good Qt think ‘G: And you pass water @ a lot@ I think (drinking luke-warm water) is good.’

The topic is drinking luke-warm water, which is part of her dietary regimen. In this excerpt the guest mentions its beneªts. In line 2, she uses the word oshoosui, which is the reªned and elegant term. In written form, the characters for small and water are used to represent this word. The excerpt in example (29) is striking because it is one of the ‘deviant’ cases in terms of the formality of the interaction. One would expect to ªnd no ‘male-only’ words in interviews; in fact, most of the male guests opt for formal or neutral forms. However, the fact that this particular guest, who is a male and

131

132 Gender, Language and Culture

older than the host, uses such words without any negative consequences is an indication that in Japanese society this is still accepted, if not the rule.

An uchi interaction? As discussed earlier in this chapter, the use of the pronoun anata in everyday conversation is restricted to addressing younger or lower status listeners. The host uses anata to address most of her younger guests. They, on the other hand, avoid addressing her altogether, or they use her ªrst or family name with the title san. The host uses either family or ªrst names to address her older guests, who, in turn, use her family name with the title san, except one particular guest. As a ‘deviant’ case, the next excerpt shows that this guest is revealed as a senior of the host and addresses her as anata (line 8). The host, on the other hand, addresses the guest as kaasan ‘mother’ (line 1), a rather unusual form among non-family, which shows their close relationship. (31) (F4) 1→ T: ah soo. demo sooiu== gojibun no koto maa kaasan oh yes but that-kind yourself gen thing well mother 2

wa moo joyuu o top well actress o (lines omitted)

intaishite kara nandemo hakkiri to retire-conj from everything clearly Qt

8 G:→ mada anata wakai kara ii kedo ne/ (ie. ie.) yet you young because good but fp no. no. ‘T: Oh, yes. But, that= , you wrote about yourself, and after you retired as an actress, you clearly… (lines omitted) G: You are still young, (no, no) so it is ªne.’

Other features of the guest’s language indicate that, despite the nature of the interaction, their relationship takes precedence. The guest, for example, uses informal language throughout the interview, and the host shifts from the polite to the informal style and vice versa. When addressing the audience or talking about her guest, she uses honoriªc language. When talking directly to her guest, she uses the direct style, as shown in the previous section. The fact that this guest consistently uses a very informal style suggests that personal relationships are of greater importance in Japanese society. Of course, this could be a ‘deviant’ case and the observations may not be applicable in general terms. However, this particular interview demonstrates that interpersonal relationships in Japan are an extremely important aspect in Japanese communication.

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

Summary and conclusion This chapter explored various aspects of the interview in relation to the asymmetry of the interaction: interruptions, lexical choice, personal pronouns, terms of address and style shifts. The asymmetry in the interview is not observable in the turntaking aspect, such as in the use of interruptions. However, pronouns and terms of address, and shifts in styles clearly demonstrate the unequal relationship between some of the interlocutors. The interview data show that ‘certain features of female speech can still be observed among the majority of Japanese women and some rules are even obligatory’ (Reynolds, 1998: 300), and the same applies to Japanese male speech. Despite reports on the ‘defeminization’ of young women’s language, the speech in the data is a sample of how adult speakers are expected to talk at a formal event. The interruptions in this particular data are of a very diŸerent type from the aggressive and hostile ones found in news interviews. Although some interruptions are used to change topics, they are not openly aggressive in any way (example 1). The most revealing result is the fact that interruptions are more conspicuous in interviews with younger female guests (see Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1, and examples 4 and 5). This suggests, ªrstly, that interruptions should not be associated with control and power, at least in the Japanese context (Murata, 1984). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they should not be associated with male or female communicative styles. This ªnding suggests that asymmetry in the Japanese ‘institutional’ setting does not necessarily display dominance of interlocutors in the form of interruptions. This observation is further highlighted by the collaborative and cooperative way of turntaking to producing the talk, on the part of both host and guests. Also, participants use some of the unªnished turns in a way that facilitates the co-construction of the narrative (examples 6–9). This again is not representative of male or female styles, as it occurs in all interview settings. This emphasizes the dangers of associating some features of communication with gender styles. Both males and females choose the prototypical gender markers; i.e. personal pronouns. Gender diŸerences in language are observed in the traditional pronominal choices. Male guests use boku, while females consistently use watashi and watakushi (examples 14–20). In this way, the participants demonstrate their identity as males and females respectively. In a similar way, the boundaries between male and female lexical items are clear. Some words used

133

134 Gender, Language and Culture

exclusively by men are found in interviews with older males; however women use super-polite forms for similar words (examples 29 and 30). In spite of studies reporting that young women increasingly use masculine pronouns, the fact that all the guests are professionals and very successful members of society indicates that language change is not likely to encroach into the mainstream working population, at least for the time being. The fact that participants use honoriªc forms regardless of their gender suggests that Japanese women are not more likely than males to use them. It is rather the situation and the personal relationship that dictates the degree of politeness measurable in the use of honoriªcs. More importantly, it is in the use of non-polite forms that we can observe the relationships between the interlocutors (example 31). Style shifts found in the data corroborate ªndings by Usami (2002) who reports that persons of power are less inhibited in using non-polite forms. In the present data, the host shifts styles when talking to younger guests, especially younger females (examples 27 and 28). This aspect of her speech is more pronounced when her guests are her friends or acquaintances. The guests, on the other hand, are less prone to shift styles. The degree of politeness in the data is determined by the age of the guests and their relationship to the host. With older guests being interviewed for the ªrst time, the formality is pronounced, but the degree is less when the guest is younger. The diŸerentiation between older and younger, uchi/soto, is also seen in the forms of address, which are consistent with age diŸerences. In examples (12) and (31), the guest, who is older than the host and is her senior, uses informal style and addresses the host as anata, which is not reciprocated. The host, on the other hand, shifts styles; when talking to her guests she uses polite and informal language, and honoriªcs when talking to the audience. All parties are aware that, by using either conventional forms or second person pronouns, they can establish their relative status. There are no gender diŸerences in this aspect, suggesting that in ‘institutional’ settings role, age and relationship take precedence. In interviews with younger guests, the style is more ‘conversational’, and this is more pronounced with females. This is shown in the higher frequency of interruptions and overlaps and style ‘down-shifts’ by the host (examples 4, 5, 27, 28). These ‘positive politeness’ strategies show closeness and empathy. I attribute these characteristics to the fact that there is no con¶ict in terms of power and gender, as the host is older than her guests and has a higher status outside the interview situation. The asymmetry of the interview is observed in features other than turntaking. It is visible in more ‘traditional’ aspects such as

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

pronominal choice and honoriªc use. Finally it appears that age and the relationship between host and the guest takes precedence over gender in the interview context.

Note 1. In Japan, it is customary to use family names, however the host is known by her ªrst name and the program is also known as Tetsuko’s Room, therefore guests might feel that using her ªrst name is appropriate.

135

Chapter 5

Aizuchi in the interview

Introduction It has been reported that one of the characteristics of interviews is the conspicuous absence of ‘news receipts’ or minimal responses (Greatbatch 1986, 1988; T. Yamada, 1995). In chat shows and celebrity interviews response tokens are ‘sometimes’ produced, however in news interviews they are ‘impossible to locate’ (Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991). Minimal responses, known as backchannels, listener responses or aizuchi1 (the Japanese term) are a sign of interest2 and sometimes agreement3. They are short messages sent by listeners to show their interest and involvement in the conversation. By abstaining from using them, hosts can show neutrality, which is one of the requirements of an interview (Clayman, 1988; Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Heritage, 1985). Aizuchi are an integral communicative tool in Japanese (Hinds, 1978a, 1978b; Horiguchi 1991, 1997; Iwasaki, 1997; Komiya, 1986; Kurosaki, 1987; LoCastro, 1987; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; N. Mizutani, 1982, 1988b; Szatrowski, 1989; White, 1989; T. Yamada, 1995). In the present study, they are sent in high numbers by both host and guests. Although neutrality is also expected from the host, the interviews in this data deal with ‘human interest’ topics, where guests are encouraged to talk and there are no controversial subjects.

Previous studies Aizuchi are a pronounced characteristic of Japanese communication. Originally, the term aizuchi referred to the joint striking of the iron by the master blacksmith and his pupil. Nowadays, it refers to the act of participating in the conversation. Besides anecdotal stories, serious anthropological results of studies carried out cross-culturally (Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki and Tao, 1996; Maynard, 1986; White, 1989; H. Yamada, 1992) show that Japanese speakers use aizuchi more frequently than speakers of other languages such as English and Mandarin. Lebra (1976) writes that the constant usage of aizuchi

138 Gender, Language and Culture

by Japanese people when talking to foreigners may be negatively interpreted as impatience, which results in misconceptions and misunderstandings in communication. In recent years, teachers of Japanese as a foreign language stress the importance of teaching students about aizuchi for successful communication in the target language (Horiguchi, 1991, 1997; N. Mizutani, 1982, 1988b; Szatrowski, 1989, 1993). The timing of aizuchi is crucial and is intrinsically related to its function. In order to indicate active participation, aizuchi have to be sent at a particular point in the discourse. Previous research has shown that they are sent mainly after sentence ªnal particles, clauses, intonational units, and rising and falling intonation (Kurosaki, 1987; Maynard, 1986, 1989; Mizutani, 1982, 1988b). A delayed aizuchi may indicate apathy and subtly discourage the speaker. The listener may be following the rules of conversational ‘etiquette’ by sending aizuchi, but he/she conveys a completely diŸerent message if they are not sent at the appropriate place (see Chapter 6, Ehara et al., 1993, Yoshii, 1996). It has also been suggested that females give positive backchannels more frequently, while delayed responses are associated with male backchanneling behaviour (Fishman, 1978; Yoshii, 1996; Zimmerman and West, 1975). This aspect of gender and aizuchi is the focus of the next chapter. Backchannels have diŸerent functions: as continuers (SchegloŸ, 1982), as assessments (Goodwin, 1981), and as signals of auditor participation (Kendon, 1990). S. Maynard (1989) disagrees with SchegloŸ’s characterization of a backchannel as a simple continuer, and proposes other functions: ‘continuer, display of understanding of content, support and empathy toward the speaker, agreement and strong emotional response’ (S. Maynard, 1989: 171). Szatrowski, on the other hand, cites eleven functions:4 marker of continuation, marker of understanding, marker of clariªcation, marker of interest, marker of feelings, marker of empathy, marker of opinion, marker of denial, marker of ending, marker of agreement, and self display (1993: 70). Horiguchi (1997) distinguishes only ªve types: signal of listenership, signal of understanding, signal of agreement, signal of denial and emotion display. These diŸerences are an issue of naming rather than of content. It also indicates that many aizuchi are multifunctional and could be categorized in more than one group.

Deªnition Yngve (1970) was the ªrst scholar to use the term ‘backchannel’, although others wrote about this phenomenon prior to his work (Fries, 1964; Kendon,

Aizuchi in the interviews 139

1967). He deªnes a backchannel as a situation where ‘the person who has the turn receives short messages such as “yes” and “uh-huh” without relinquishing the turn’ (1970: 570). He further writes that backchannels are varied. They can be very short and indicate interest and attention. They may consist of longer utterances such as short questions, or might even involve ‘a number of sentences’ (1970: 574). Scholars disagree with his classiªcation (S. Maynard, 1986), the point of divergence being the distinction between ‘having the ¶oor’ and ‘having the turn’. It is crucial to clearly deªne what is a ‘turn’ and what is ‘having the ¶oor’. While some scholars use both ¶oor and turn synonymously (Duncan, 1972; Gumperz, 1982a), others consider them to be quite distinct. Hayashi (1996), for example, claims that ¶oor is a ‘means of communicative attention orientation that exists not at the level of turn and move but at a higher level of conversational structure’ (1996: 31). Furthermore, she recognizes two channels of talk: main and backchannel. These depend on whether the participants are active co-participants, supportive, or simply present during the interaction. The person holding the ¶oor talks in the main channel and the listener talks in the backchannel (Hayashi, 1996). She classiªes backchannels as listener supportive signals, such as questions, ‘um hums’ or head nods. She even includes short questions and turns that involve more than a short question. Classiªcation of some utterances as short questions, requests for clariªcation, exclamations, or simple aizuchi is sometimes complex. Hayashi’s concepts of main channel/backchannel are very useful in these cases. There are also situations where neither of the speakers is willing to take the ¶oor and utilize aizuchi to ªll the ‘silence’. Iwasaki (1997) calls this phenomenon ‘loop sequence’, and classiªes it as a turn-taking pattern consisting of consecutive backchannel and backchannel expressions produced by diŸerent speakers. Although I agree with Hayashi that turn and ¶oor are diŸerent, the function of the utterance is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. Despite the extensive research on aizuchi in Japan, there is no consensus on its deªnition, and classiªcations vary. N. Mizutani (1988b), Kurosaki (1987) and Szatrowski (1993) are the few who have tried to deªne aizuchi in their researches. While all researchers agree that aizuchi are short utterances and can be categorized morphologically, there is a discrepancy in the inclusion of tokens such as clariªcation, repetitions and longer phrases. Kurosaki (1987), Komiya (1986) and Sugito (1987) recognize only short tokens as aizuchi, such as hai ‘yes’, so ‘it is, so’, naruhodo ‘really’ and exclamations. Szatrowski (1993) writes that repetitions can be aizuchi, but they are di¹cult to assess and depend on their intonation and the distance from the preceding phrase/sentence. On

140 Gender, Language and Culture

the other hand, Iwasaki (1997) includes ‘any form or a sentence or a series of sentences’ (Iwasaki, 1997: 666) as aizuchi. The functional deªnition given by Sugito (1987) has been adopted for the present analysis. Aizuchi is ‘any utterance sent by the listener that does not actively seek for information, for a request or a decision’ (1987: 88).5 The following type of tokens were found in the data in this study: (i) short utterances such as haa ‘yes’, un ‘uh-huh’, soo desuka ‘Is that so?’, soo desune , ‘As you say’, naruhodo ‘I see’. (ii) echoing the speaker (iii) exclamations such as eh!, haa, hoo, ah soo! All type (i) tokens express some degree of agreement. They are sent as acknowledgment signals and their usage does not necessarily mean that the listener agrees with the speaker. Soo desuka with rising intonation has a diŸerent connotation, and expresses mild disagreement. Naruhodo is used almost as a self-directed word, which indicates that something not clear has become understandable. There are instances in which a short utterance can be classiªed as a question. In line 5 of example (1), the utterance kanboochoo desu ka ne/ ‘(I think) it is secretary general’ sent by the guest functions as a correction. It is not an aizuchi because it actively seeks a response, as we can see in line 6 where the host corrects herself. The host comments on the guest’s former positions in the Justice Ministry, and uses the wrong term (kanboochookan instead of kanboochoo). A job in the Cabinet and a job in the Ministry of Justice are not the same; they involve very diŸerent tasks. (1) (M3. H-1) 1 T: mata Kotchan ni taisuru. ano shokutaku and Kotchan to against well extraordinary 2

jinmon mo nasatta tte (soo desu ne)6 inquiry also do-past-hon Qt yes cop fp

3

kata deirasshatte, de oyameninatta toki wa, person be-hon-conj and stop-hon-past time top

4

hoomudaijin, kanbochookan, to iu, Justice-minister Cabinet-secretary-general Qt call

5→G: kanboochoo desu ka ne/ secretary-general cop Q fp

Aizuchi in the interviews

6

T: kanboochoo desu. (hai.) kanboochoo desukara secretary-general cop yes secretary-general therefore

7

taihenna… ano=.. ma.. shoku ni tsuiteiras[shaimashite# important uhm well post in have-hon-conj

8

G:[mmm ‘T: And you conducted the extraordinary inquiry of Kotchan. (That is right)7. When you left the ministry, you had a post as a Cabinet secretary general. G: I think it was secretary general. T: It was secretary general (yes), secretary general (not Cabinet secretary). So, it [was][(mmm)] a very important/di¹cult post.’

The length of an utterance does not always determine if a listener’s response is a turn or an aizuchi. In the above example, the guest’s utterance is very short but is not an aizuchi. It is a turn, because it corrects the host. In Sugito’s (1987) deªnition, occurrences such as in example (1) provided above can be more easily classiªed. In addition to function, intonation is used to identify aizuchi. The following excerpt illustrates that a short utterance in line 3 is a question. The phrase ends in a rising intonation and actively asks for conªrmation. The guest is narrating his experience in World War II. He was aboard a boat, which was sunk. In lines 1–2, he comments on the speed of the boat. In line 3, the host echoes the guest’s words, juu notto, with rising intonation. This is a question, as knots are not a familiar speed unit for the average person. The guest responds in line 4 with the approximate measurement in the metric system. This example illustrates that the length of the utterance does not necessarily deªne an aizuchi. (2) (M1.2) 1 G: soo da na. juu notto deta no ga yes cop fp ten knots get-past com top 2

saikoo janai no kashira maximum be-neg com fp

3 → T: juu notto/ ten knots/ 4

G: juu notto tte no wa ne yaku niju ten knots Qt com top fp about twenty

5

kkiro na no yo ne (un.) kilometres cop com fp fp uh-huh

141

142 Gender, Language and Culture

‘G: Well, I think that the maximum speed was ten knots. T: Ten knots? G: Ten knots is about twenty kilometres, you know? (uh-huh)’.

Among the diŸerent types of aizuchi, there are non-verbal cues such as headmovement, smiling and gaze. Some scholars have included head movement as an important backchannel device (Duncan and Fiske, 1985; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989). Smiling, nodding and other head-movements occurred quite often in the data, especially when there were no other verbal aizuchi. Although the role of body language is very important in communication, due to the type of data in the present study a systematic and thorough analysis of non-verbal behaviour was not possible, and consequently non-verbal aizuchi were not included in the analysis.

Position of aizuchi in the discourse It has been argued that the grammatical structure of the Japanese language allows aizuchi to be sent at virtually any place in the discourse. Although this is not true of some tokens with a semantic content, other aizuchi like un and e can be uttered at any time without hindering the communication process. Why, then, do listeners send aizuchi at particular points in the discourse? This is a question that has preoccupied many researchers (S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; N. Mizutani, 1988b; Szratrowski, 1989), who have found that the majority of aizuchi are given at a major juncture or after a particle. The present study seems to corroborate those studies as the majority of aizuchi in the interviews occur after clauses (40%), after ªnal particles and rising intonation (26%), and at the end of sentences (11%). They are also sent in mid-sentence position (overlapping with speaker’s speech) (14%), and after another aizuchi (3.42%). The essence of aizuchi is their timing; they have to be sent at the most appropriate point in the discourse to show the cooperative stance, while delayed aizuchi are used strategically to show disinterest in the topic (Ehara et al., 1993; Fishman, 1978). In my data, no delayed aizuchi were found, suggesting that host and guests all participated cooperatively in the interview. In the following two sections, the discourse environment of aizuchi is described according to their frequency of distribution.

Aizuchi in the interviews 143

Aizuchi at major junctures Examples of aizuchi sent at major junctures are after grammatically complete utterances, clauses, noun phrases, sentence ªnal particles, and rising intonation. Some are potential TRPs, as discussed in Chapter 3. At many of these points, some prosodic features invite the listener’s participation.

Aizuchi after grammatical completion In example (3), an actress tells how her career started after she had sent a letter to a famous movie director. The guest does not want to reveal the director’s name; she mentions only that he was very famous. The host reformulates in line 1 and 2, and the guest adds that he was indeed a great person. This sentence has all the features of a canonical complete sentence. It is pre-faced by e, and is an answer to the host’s question. The aizuchi hee! is sent after the copula deirasshaimashita and ªnal intonation. (3) (F2.-4) 1 T: tooji yuumei datta tte koto wa oboeterassharu then famous cop-past Qt com top remember-hon 2 3 4

no ne/ com fp G: e. moo sugoi kata deirasshaimashita. (hee!) yes well great person cop-hon-past really demo atakushi shiranakatta n desu yo ((continues)) but I know-neg-past com cop fp ‘T: You remember that he/she was a famous person, right? G: Yes, He/she was a great person (really) but I did not know, you see ((continues)).’

In general, sentence completion is accompanied by falling intonation combined with a slight pause and is a potential TRP (Sacks et al., 1974). However, by sending an aizuchi, listeners can signal their lack of intention to gain the ¶oor. Sugito (1993) writes that aizuchi are mainly sent at points of falling intonation. Therefore, perception of a weakening of the voice and a slight pause are probably the most appropriate places to send these tokens, which may also coincide with potential TRPs.

144 Gender, Language and Culture

Aizuchi after clauses The high number of aizuchi after clauses coincides with the high incidence of turntaking (Mori, 1999; Tanaka 1999). This is not an unexpected result, as these are the places in the discourse where listeners’ participation is expected to occur in one way or another. The following excerpt illustrates the occurrences of aizuchi at clause boundaries. The guest in excerpt (4) talks about scuba diving, her latest hobby. She says that she would like her children to become interested in this sport, so they could enjoy it together. In line 2, the host sends an aizuchi at the end of the conditional clause which ended with the conjunction tara. Although it is a potential TRP, the host indicates that she is not taking the ¶oor, by sending an aizuchi. In Japanese, the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence states an action/state that precedes the main clause. (4) (F9. T-7) 1 G: kitto kodomotachi mo kyoomi o motte isshoni surely children also interest O have-conj together 2

yaruyooninaru kana to omottara (e.) ano= to-become Q Qt think-cond yes well

3

korekara zutto isshoni tanoshimeru to omounde… from-now all-the-way together enjoy Qt think-conj ‘G: When I thought (yes) that my children will become interested, we will be able to enjoy it (scuba diving) together, and..’

In other cases, the subordinate clause is post-positional. In the following example, the guest is talking about his new acting school and about his students. The utterance of the guest in (5) line 5 ends in the conjunction kara ‘because’, where the host sends her aizuchi. Not every clause is acknowledged by the listener. The ªrst conditional clause, accompanied by rising intonation in line 3, for example, is not followed by the listener’s aizuchi. (5) (M10) 1 G: maa boku no tokoro wa tokuni ne/ well I gen place top especially fp 2

odori o, warito taisetsuni shiteru n desu. dance O quite important do-prog com cop

3

yappari nikutai hyoogensha desu kara/ after-all body expression-people cop because

4

nikutai/ tte iu mono o chanto body Qt say thing O well

Aizuchi in the interviews 145

5

xx dekinakyaikenai kara# be-able-must because

6

T: sorya soo desu ne. that yes cop fp

7

G: e. yes ‘G: Well at my school I put special emphasis on dance because after all the (students) are artists who use their bodies to express their art. T: Certainly G: Uh-huh

In (5) there are at least three other potential TRPs where the host neither takes the ¶oor nor sends any aizuchi: after the SFP (line 1), after the copula desu (line 2), after kara (line 3). Although we could speculate that some type of nonverbal acknowledgment was sent, only the guest is shown on the screen during this excerpt. As we can see in the above examples, there are several subordinate clauses listeners are likely to send some kind of acknowledgement; however not every clause is followed by an aizuchi. For example, a listener may send some kind of response after the SFP in line 1. In addition, there are two other points with rising intonation that invite the listener’s participation. Why listeners choose to send or not to send aizuchi at these TRPs is beyond the scope of this study and is topic for future research. However, at this point, it is clear that there is a complex distributional pattern in¶uenced by other features besides prosodic and grammatical features.

Aizuchi after noun phrases Japanese traditional grammarians consider a noun phrase as a unit, which comprises a noun and a case particle. In the next excerpt, the guest tells about her trips with her late husband, and the ªrst aizuchi is sent after a noun phrase in line 1. The noun phrase consists of the noun Tonko and the particle e. The other noun phrase followed by an aizuchi is in lines 4–5. The noun is naka and the particle is ni. In these two cases, there are no obvious aizuchi eliciting signals. At the same time, there are other potential ‘aizuchi relevance places’ (after ni in line 2, after mo in line 3, after no in line 4) which they are ignored by the host.

146 Gender, Language and Culture

(6) (F1. L-4) 1→ G: hai Tonko e (hai.) hajimete iku toki yes Tonko to yes ªrstly go time 2 3

ni isshoni mairimashita. loc together go-hum-past T: okusama mo ano zutto goisshooni T-pol also well all-the-time together-pol

4

irashita no (hai.) kono hon no naka go-hon-past fp yes this book gen inside

5

ni (hai.) ((continues)) loc yes ‘G: When my husband went to Tonko (uh-huh) for the ªrst time, I went with him. T: So you went together (uh-huh). And in your book (yes)……. ((continues))’

Aizuchi after sentence ªnal particles and rising intonation The sentence ªnal particle (SFP) functions in a similar way to the English tag question. It invites an answer from the hearer, and is therefore one of the most suitable places to send an aizuchi in terms of discourse interaction (S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; Sugito, 1987; Szatrowski, 1993). Maynard, for example, writes that ‘particle endings marked 40.84% (281 out of 688) of all backchannel occurrence’ in her data (1989: 173). Sentence ªnal particles (SFP) have no grammatical function. Unlike case markers (o – direct object, ni/e – locative, ga – subject) or the topic marker wa, which denote syntactic relationships, SFPs also give the speaker’s point of view and/or an ‘additional hint of what (the speaker) is saying: doubt, conviction, caution, inquiry, conªrmation or request of conªrmation’ (Martin, 1975: 914). Due to the more formal nature of the discourse in our data, sentence ªnal particles are not as varied as in natural conversation. For example, the particle na is rarely found in the data. Na is a variation of the particle ne, which roughly means ‘don’t you think’. It has been described as more rough and rustic than ne, and is generally used only by males towards very close friends or to people of lower social status, and never to persons of higher status (Tsuchihashi, 1983). Similarly, particles zo and ze, which are exclusively used by men, were absent in the data. Ne is the particle overwhelmingly used in the interviews. It appears mostly

Aizuchi in the interviews 147

with the copula, and sometimes in combination with another particle: yo+ne, no+ne, wa+ne, wa+yo+ne, wa+yo, kashira+ne. Other ªnal particles observed in the data are: yo ‘believe me’/ ‘indeed’, kana ‘I wonder’, no for informal questions, explanations and emotive emphasis, wa used only by females, except for one male from the Kansai region, and kashira ‘I wonder’, which is used mainly by women. The following excerpt is from the interview with Masaru Hosono, a male shoemaker. The guest is explaining that deformation of the feet bones occurs due to the incorrect size and/or design of shoes. (7) (M5. H-2) 1 G: hajimete atakushidomo ni maa oideitadakimasuto ªrst-time we to well come-give-hon-cond 2

→ ne/ (e.) mo,.. atakushi ga ichiban ima fp well I S most now

3

kanjiru no desu ne/ sooiu/ sono= feel-pres com cop fp that-type well

4

ni onarininaru no wa ne/ narubeku shite to become-hon com top fp become-must do-conj

gaihanboshi

5

→ natterassharu n desu yo/ (un.).. zenzen fushigidemo become-hon com cop fp yes at-all strange-not

6

→ nandemo nai n desu ne (haahaa) narubbeku, anything be-neg com cop fp I-see become-must

7

sono= iremono ni/ ashi o ireterassharu kara, well container in foot O put-in-hon because

8

→ sono toori ni ashi ga junnooshiteshimau n desu ne/ that way into foot S adjust-completely com cop fp

9

→ (un.) desukara, naze narundaroo toka= soiu ((continues)) uhm therefore why become-wonder like that ‘ ‘G: When clients with toe/feet problems come to us you see, (uh-huh) I know that it is no wonder that they have that problem, surely (uh-huh). It is not strange, you see (yes, yes). Because they wear shoes that have a (bad) shape, the feet adjust to them, you see, (uh-huh) therefore that’s the bigger problem. To wonder why this problem occurs, ((continues))’

In this passage, the host also gives aizuchi following most of the SFPs. In line 2, the particle ne follows a conditional clause; in line 5 there is a combination of the copula desu and yo; and in lines 6, 8, and 9 it is the combination of the

148 Gender, Language and Culture

copula and ne. Note that most of them are accompanied by rising intonation, which actively encourages the listener to participate. The majority of utterances ending in a rising intonation do function as questions, although they may not be accompanied by the question particle ka that is required in Japanese grammar. In the following excerpt (8), the guest, who is an ex-professional baseball player, talks about his obsession with planning. Note the aizuchi sent immediately after the host’s copula with rising intonation. This works in a similar way to tag questions, which invite some kind of response and actively involve the listener. (8) (M8. G-7) 1 T: de anata wa chiisai toki kara dorafuto and you top small time from draft 2

ga nakatta wake deshoo? (soo desu ne.) S be-neg-past reason cop-hort yes cop fp

3

ne/ de atashi kangaeta no ne… fp and I think-past fp fp ‘T: From your childhood, there was no draft (system), was there (indeed)? Then I thought….’

In the next three sections, aizuchi sent at places considered inappropriate in the discourse are discussed. These aizuchi occur in the middle of the speaker’s turn, after hesitation, and after a pause. In many cases, they overlap with the speaker’s speech and can be potential FTAs.

Aizuchi in mid-sentence Aizuchi that overlap with the speaker’s speech are sent in the middle of a grammatical or phonological unit, but they are not interruptions as they are not intended to gain the ¶oor. In the following example, from an interview with a male horticulturist over ªfty, the guest sends an aizuchi in the middle of the host’s phrase. The overlapping in this case is minimal. (9) (M2. J-3) 1 T: ano=.. sakura mori to iu fuuni well cherry-tree carer Qt say way 2

minasan oyobininatte sandaime dasoo (e.) everybody call-hon-conj third-generation I-hear

Aizuchi in the interviews 149

3

desu ga.# cop but ‘T: You are the third generation of people that I hear (yes) are called cherry-tree carers.’

In other cases, the aizuchi overlaps with the speaker’s speech. In example (10), the guest’s aizuchi in line 2 overlaps with the host’s sentence desukara, but does not interrupt her speech. Overlapping can be caused by mistiming and by eagerness to participate in the interaction (see Chapter 4). (10) (M5) 1 T: a koreja ookii [desukara] oh with-this big therefore 2

[(soo desu.)] okyakusan moo hito saizu shita yes cop clients more one size under

3

ga ii desu yo (soo.) tte iu koto de (soo desu.) S good cop fp yes Qt say com and yes- cop

4

((continues)) ‘T: This (pair of shoes) is too [big], [(right)] therefore, you tell your clients that one size smaller is better (right) ((continues)).’

The distribution of aizuchi by host and guests across all the interview data shows an interesting contrast. While the host sends more aizuchi at sentence completion points (171–13%) than in mid-sentence (106–8.3%), the guests show the opposite tendency (120–8.5% and 268–19%). This is more clearly seen in the following graph and table.

Sentence end

20

Mid-sentence 15 10 5 0

Host's

Figure 5.1 Aizuchi in contrast

Guest's

150 Gender, Language and Culture

Table 5.1 Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence) Position of aizuchi

Host’s aizuchi

Guests’ aizuchi

Sentence end Mid – sentence

171 – 13% 106 – 8.3%

120 – 8.5% 268 – 19%

This aspect stresses again the diŸerence between the role of the host and that of the guests. Although overlapping aizuchi are not interruptions, they do aŸect the quality of sound, making it di¹cult to distinguish simultaneous utterances. On the other hand, sentence completion is a potential TRP, and by giving an aizuchi one can signal that the turn is still with the speaker. The fact that the host sends almost double the number of aizuchi at sentence end (13% vs. 8.3%), while the guests send more aizuchi in mid-sentence (19% vs. 8.5%), indicates a clear diŸerence between roles.

Aizuchi sequences A sequence of aizuchi occurs when the listener’s aizuchi is followed by another token send by the speaker (Iwasaki, 1997; Szatrowski, 1989, 1993). Sequences of aizuchi are observed when topic change is imminent, when there is a change in ¶oor-taking, or when the conversation is nearing an end (Szatrowski, 1989, 1993). Iwasaki calls this phenomenon ‘loop’ sequence, and writes that it ‘creates a context in which participants negotiate ¶oor structure’ (1997: 675). In the present data, aizuchi sequences seem to occur when the topic is a delicate one or when neither of the interlocutors wants to initiate a turn. In this short exchange, it appears that neither participant is willing to take the ¶oor. The topic is kimonos, which are part of the guest’s collection of Japanese costume. The aizuchi sequence occurs twice. First, in line 3, the guest sends her aizuchi, soodesune accompanied by rising intonation. As a ‘response’, the host sends another aizuchi, ne, with a lengthened vowel and rising intonation, which strongly invites the guest’s response. The second sequence is in line 7, where chotto is followed by a pause. Chotto is a multi-functional adverb that is used as a lead-in to dispreferred second pairs (declines to invitations, for example). It is also used as a ªller in troubled topics. In this case, chotto appears to be part of the host’s aizuchi and at the same time indicates speakership incipiency. In line 8, the guest sends her aizuchi, hai. (11) (F5. V-6) 1 T: kireina kimono desu ne/ iro ga nantomo pretty kimono cop fp colour S exquisite

Aizuchi in the interviews

2

sono jiiro ga mata#.. that brown S more

3 → G: soo desu ne/ yes cop fp 4 → T: neeee/ isn’t-it? 5 6

G: chotto atakushi wa takusan motteru little I top many have-prog nakade kono iro wa mezurasii desu. in this colour top uncommon cop

7 → T: nee chotto, isn’t-it? a-little 8 → G: hai. yes 9

T: oodoiro tte iimasu ka, (hai.) soko….((continues)) brown Qt say Q yes there…. ‘T: It is a nice kimono. The brown colour is exquisite. G: Indeed T: Isn’t, it? G: Yes, this colour is unusual even in my collection (of kimonos) T: Isn’t, it? G: Yes T: Can you call it a brown colour, (yes) ((continues)).’

Most sequences comprise an exchange of two aizuchi; however, there are examples of three and four exchanges, as in the following examples. In (12), the guest, a female musician, is being asked about her ªrst musical instrument. (12) (F3. Q-6) 1 T: tooji piano wa takakatta [atarimae then piano top expensive-past naturally 2

desu kedo,] cop but

3

G: [soo na n desu.] yes cop com cop

4

T: e. yes

151

152 Gender, Language and Culture

5

G: e. yes

6

T: demo kore wa==tooji donogurai no#, but this top then how-much poss

7

G: ano nijuuman en shita n desu tte. well 200-thousand yen do-past com cop Qt ‘T: Pianos were expensive then, [of course]. G: [Exactly] T: Yes G: Yes T: But at that time, how much (did pianos cost)? G: Well, I’ve hear that it was 200 thousand yen.’

The sequence of three exchanges in lines 3–5 in example (12) is similar to the exchange of two tokens. The ªrst aizuchi overlaps with the host’s talk in lines 1–3. It is possible to infer that the host tried to elicit an answer from the guest about the price of the piano. However, it is generally considered rude to talk about money and the host employed an indirect approach that was not correctly interpreted by the guest. Therefore, the host takes the ¶oor in line 6 and asks her unªnished question, although this time she uses diŸerent words. Note that she uses the conjunctive particle demo ‘but’ to stress her question. In line 7, the guest reveals the cost of the piano. In other situations, as in the excerpt below, the topic seems to in¶uence the sequence of aizuchi. The interview is with Asami Rei, a singer already mentioned in previous sections. The host asked the actress whether her father had had a chance to see her perform, to which she answers that he never did because he was too ill. The sequence of aizuchi appears to indicate a moment of di¹culty, as we learn during the interview that her father died without seeing her succeed. In lines 1–3, the guest says that her father was bedridden and unconscious. The host sends her ªrst aizuchi after the conjunctive form tsuitete, and after another conjunctive particle de in line 3. Both aizuchi are accompanied with stress and convey strong empathy. After the host’s aizuchi in line 4, the guest acknowledges it with another token hai. This is followed by yet another aizuchi in line 6. The last aizuchi in this sequence is the guest’s e. The repetition of aizuchi in this example shows how participants deal with a delicate topic. It would be improper to move into a new topic without showing some degree of empathy.

Aizuchi in the interviews

(13) (F10. S-11) 1 G: karada o kowashimashite toko ni body O break-past bed loc 2

tsuitete (ara RA) desukara chichi wa zenzen be-conj oh! therefore my-father top at-all

3

wakaranai jootai de# understand-neg situation conj

4 → T: arA sore wa zannen deshita ne/ oh! that top pity cop-past fp 5 → G: hai. yes 6 → T: a soo deshita ka, ah that-way cop-past q 7 → G: e. yes 8 9

T: demo anata ochiisai toki kara zuibun…. but you small time from quite kappatsu na ojoosan de omikoshi…… active cop lady and omikoshi8 ‘G: My father was ill in bed, and he did not know about my performances as he was in a coma. T: That was really a pity. G: Yes T: Was that so? G: Yes T: But you were a very active girl since you were young. (And you were carrying) the omikoshi’

It appears that aizuchi sequences are triggered by particular topics or when participants do not want to take the ¶oor. In the data of this study, aizuchi sequences are found when there is topic attrition, or when the topic is a sensitive one (illness, death, suŸering). Szatrowski (1989, 1993) writes that this type of aizuchi sequencing occurs at points where there is a topic change, when there is a change in speaker, or when the end of a conversation is near. In English, too, series of tokens are reported to be signs of interactional problems, which include troubling topics (Gardner, 2001; 50). In the above example, the aizuchi sequence fulªls both conditions: the topic is delicate and there is topic change.

153

154 Gender, Language and Culture

Aizuchi functions Aizuchi can have various functions depending on their position in the discourse, intonation (rising/falling, vowel lengthening), and semantic content. In other situations, aizuchi can have more restricted functions. In the following, I explain how aizuchi functions were identiªed in the analysis, and describe the types found.

Intonation Intonation is crucial to distinguish not only the function of an aizuchi but more basically if it constitutes an aizuchi at all. The token soodesu ka ‘Is it so?’ can have diŸerent functions depending on its intonation. In the following excerpt, a popular Japanese singer talks about his career. In the previous line he referred to an abbreviated term not known to the host, which refers to entertainment revenue (box o¹ce revenue). The lengthening of the vowel in line 3 and falling intonation indicate interest on the part of the listener (the host). (14) (M7.-2) 1 G: sore ga ichiban yokatta tte kiiteimasu that S ªrst good-past Qt hear-pol 2 3

kara [sooiu fuuni yappari] because that way in after-all T: [a /soo==desuka.] oh yes cop Q ‘G: Because I have heard that (the entertainment revenue) was the best, so [that way after all] [(o==h, is it so.)’

When this token is delivered with rising intonation, as in the next example, it indicates surprise. The host praises her guest for sending New Year cards to each of his immediate family members, who are living with him, which is not customarily done in Japan. The guest’s a soodesuka in line 3 is a response to the host’s compliment and shows he is pleased. (15) (M7.-2) 1 T: suteki de atashi ne kore tottemo ii nice and I fp this very good 2

na tte omotta no. fp Qt think fp

Aizuchi in the interviews

3

G: (a soo desu ka/) oh yes cop Q ‘T: It is nice and I thought that this is very good (Really/)’

As these two examples show, the same token a soodesu ka ‘is it so?’ can have diŸerent functions. It can indicate interest, surprise or mild disagreement, according to the intonation and position where it is sent in the discourse. When pronounced with falling intonation, it shows that the listener is hearing the information for the ªrst time and is expressing her/his amazement and interest. If the listener does not agree with the speaker, it is uttered with rising intonation; however it does not express total disagreement. As in (15), it is used in turn-initial position as part of either a preferred or a dispreferred response to compliments.

Semantic content Some aizuchi like ee and un have a broad semantic content. Depending on how they are pronounced, un can mean ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and ee can be used to indicate agreement or surprise. Similarly, the token so can express mild disagreement, understanding or agreement and is used more extensively in combination with other elements such as the copula. However the meaning that hai can convey is more restricted. It is translated as ‘yes’ and cannot express negation or surprise. Due to this fact, it appears that its usage and distribution is more limited. This is discussed at great length later in the chapter and in Chapter 6. A closer and detailed look at hai indicates that it is a multifunctional token. When used as an answer, hai indicates agreement and is used in a¹rmative answers. However, its original meaning can be lost in aizuchi sequences, for example. Also, the listener cannot agree with this aizuchi. In instances like (16), hai functions as ªller. (16) (M7.–2) 1 T: naruhodo ne/ I-see fp 2

G: hai. yes ‘T: I see G:Yes’

155

156 Gender, Language and Culture

Position in the discourse Position in the discourse is another useful criterion in deªning the function of an aizuchi. The host asks a famous blind violinist about his mother’s help in typing musical scores in Braille. There are two aizuchi in this excerpt, and both function as continuers. The ªrst token, un, is sent after the conjunctive particle demo. This token can be sent anywhere in the discourse as its semantic meaning is rather loose. However, the second token, hai, is diŸerent. In line 2 the host announces that she had already mentioned this topic before, so hai, is not an agreement because, at that stage, the guest does not yet know what the host is referring to. Hai in this case signals that the guest is simply listening and is an acknowledgement of understanding. (17) (M6.-1) 1 T: demo (un.) sakki chotto goshookaishita but uh-huh before little introduce-hon-past 2

→ yooni (hai). ima made hajime wa as yes now until beginning top

3

okaasama ga subete gakufu to iu mono mother-pol S all scores Qt say thing

4

wa tenji ga nai node, zenbu tenji cop Braille S be-neg because all Braille

5

de okaasama ga yattekudasatta ((continues)) inst mother-pol S do-give-hon-past ‘T: But (uh-huh) as I introduced a little while ago (yes), until now your mother, because scores were not in Braille, did all the typing in Braille for you ((continues)).’

Six functions of aizuchi Six major functions of aizuchi were identiªed in the interview data: continuers, acknowledgements, echoers, newsmarkers, aŸective aizuchi, and ªllers.

Aizuchi as continuers One characteristic of these tokens is that they are very short and can be sent at any point in the discourse. They mean ‘I am listening’ and encourage the

Aizuchi in the interviews

speaker to continue talking. The following example shows how the host listens and encourages the guest to talk about other performers who attended the same academy. The aizuchi un, in line 1, and e in line 2 are listening signals because the main information is not provided until the end of the guest’s utterance in line 3. In line 1, the guest mentions Azuma Chiaki, but at this point the only information is the name of a classmate. Note that un is sent after the guest’s ªller ano= is pronounced with the lengthening of the vowel. A similar pattern is observed in the following line, after the word shibai=. In both cases, the lengthening of the vowel indicates that the guest is trying to think of a word. Sending aizuchi at these points can encourage the speaker to talk. (18) (F10) 1 → G: Azuma Chiaki to iu yahari ano= (un.) Azuma Chiaki Qt say also well uh-huh 2 3

→ shibai= (e.) o ano=shiteru. (e.) theatre uh-huh O well do-prog uh-huh ano nakama mo imasushi (ah soo.) ((continues)) well colleague also be-pre-conj oh really ‘G: There are colleagues (oh really) like Chiaki Azuma (uh-huh), who is performing (uh-huh) at the theatre (uh-huh) and ((continues)).’

Note that none of these aizuchi are followed by more talk from the same person (the listener), which indicates that the opportunity to take the ¶oor is declined. Except for the token so, virtually any aizuchi can be used as a continuer if they are pronounced with a ¶at intonation.

Aizuchi as acknowledgements In contrast to continuers, acknowledgements are sent only after the main piece of information has been delivered. Because of this constraint, they function mainly to show agreement and understanding of the content. As with other types of aizuchi, they are multifunctional in the sense that by demonstrating understanding of the content they simultaneously convey participation and interest. To illustrate this, the next example is from an interview with a famous and versatile Kabuki actor, who also acts in modern plays. Here he talks about his acting school and says that dancing is a very important component of the curriculum. He says that the students must be able to express themselves with their bodies. In line 3 , the host sends an aizuchi with falling intonation, to

157

158 Gender, Language and Culture

show agreement. Note that this example is presented elsewhere, and also that it is a very long segment with virtually no aizuchi. (19) (M10) 1 G: nikutai/ tte iu mono o chanto body Qt say thing O well 2 3

xx dekinakyaikenai kara, be-able-must because T: sorya soo desu ne. that yes cop fp ‘G: Because the (students) are artists who use their bodies to express their art (certainly).’

This type of aizuchi not only demonstrates that the listener is attentive but it also encourages the speaker to continue talking.

Aizuchi as echoers Echoing the speaker is an indication of interest and participation in the communicative interchange. Such aizuchi are mainly sent after the information is given and they show understanding of the content. The guest in (20) is a cartoonist who spent some time in Rabaul during the Second World War. He befriended the natives and was going to stay on the island but once the war was over was persuaded to return to Japan to see his family. He was unable to return to Rabaul, due to the circumstances in defeated Japan. (20) (M4.–6) 1 T: ah Nihonni okaerininareba mo ah Japan to return-hon-cond no-more 2

soto ni deru koto [nante dekinai.][(e. dekinai.)] out to go-out com like unable yes. unable

3

Makkasa wa irushi (e. irushi.) sorede shigoto Macarthur top is-conj yes. be-conj and work

4

wa isogashiku=[nattekurushi.] [(so.so.so.)] ((continues)) top busy-become-conj yes.yes.yes. ‘T: So, when you returned to Japan, it was not possible to go overseas again. (it was not possible) And Macarthur was in Japan (he was) and you became busy at work (yes. yes. yes) ((continues)).’

Aizuchi in the interviews 159

The echoing by the guest in lines 2 and 3 shows agreement as well as his involvement in the interview. In general, this type of echoing has no rising intonation or vowel lengthening. Echoing can take any form as it is the repetition of a word or words. The crucial diŸerence between its function as either an aizuchi or a question is the intonation. Echoing that acts as an aizuchi does not have any particular prosodic characteristics other than falling intonation. Echoing as a question, on the other hand, is accompanied by rising intonation and actively asks for an answer, as observed in example (2) in this chapter.

Aizuchi as newsmarkers Newsmarkers can be used to show interest and are sent only after the main piece of information has been delivered. These function in a similar way to the Oh, Right, Really and Oh in English (Gardner, 2001; Heritage, 1984). Many of the aizuchi categorized in this group are accompanied by vowel lengthening. The following excerpt illustrates this type of aizuchi. The guest is a younger male ex-professional baseball player. He suggests that professional baseball players should be allocated to diŸerent teams using a ra§e-type method, which the players themselves would draw and in this way would feel that they were somehow in control of their destiny. The host seems to be surprised by the guest’s explanation. The overlapping question is one indication, and a second aizuchi is sent in line 4. Ho===o is an exclamation that indicates surprise, amazement, and is pronounced with vowel lengthening. (21) (M8.–6) 1 G: jibun no unmei wa yappari hiitemiru tte oneself gen destiny top after-all try-draw Qt 2

iu hoo ga mada [nattoku dekimasu] say way S yet accept can

3

T: [nattoku dekimasu ka?] accept can Q

4

G: eh (ho====o) sore wa moo sugoku omou n desu yes really that top uhm very think com cop ‘G: I can accept it (even if I do not get what I want) if I [draw it myself ] T: [Can you accept it?] G: Yes. (Really?) Oh, yes that is something with which I agree.’

160 Gender, Language and Culture

One of the characteristics of newsmarkers is that, for the listener, the information is new. The tokens are uttered with some accompanying phonological features such as rising intonation, vowel lengthening or stress. There are virtually no hai tokens as newsmarkers that can be attributed to the interview setting. The host seldom uses hai and, because of role allocation, is the one who most often hears new information. Also, as a general observation, it would be very unusual to replace the aizuchi ho===o in line 4 with hai. 3

T: [nattoku dekimasu ka?] accept can Q

4 G:→ e *(hai) sore wa moo sugoku omou n desu yes yes that top uhm very think com cop ‘T: [Can you accept it?] G: Yes. * (Yes.) Oh, yes that is something with which I agree’

The oddity of an inappropriate aizuchi token can be seen in both the Japanese transcript and the English translation and is marked with the * sign.

AŸective aizuchi In this study all the aizuchi that display emotion and feelings are classiªed as aŸective aizuchi. They can show surprise, empathy, or shock, and are accompanied by phonological characteristics such as vowel lengthening, stressing and rising-falling intonation. Many of them can be categorized as exclamation tokens as they are sent after the main piece of information is known. There are some situations where aŸective aizuchi, newsmarkers and assessments overlap. The act of displaying feelings already comprises interest in the conversation. However, the main criteria for the diŸerentiation are the intensity of the stress, the vowel length, and the semantic content. In the following excerpt, the host is interviewing a famous writer’s widow. She asks her about the fact that both his latest novel and her book were on the bestseller list. From the host’s utterance in lines 1–3, we learn that she knew that the writer had died before the books were listed. Therefore, the aizuchi in line 4, ara, is uttered with emphasis and a lengthened vowel, which indicates the host’s display of emotion that can be interpreted as empathy, sadness and regret. (22) (F1.L-5) 1 T: ah besuto seraa no ano Fumi sama ga ni oh best seller gen uhm Fumi T S second

Aizuchi in the interviews

2

(un.) ano= goshujinsama ga kooshi san’i to uh-huh uhm your-husband S kooshi third Qt

3

iu no wa nakunatte kara/ say com top die-past-conj after

4 5

G: nakunatte kara datta n desu. (arAA) die-past-conj after be-past com cop is-that-so? nakunatte jiki datta n desu. die-past-conj after be-past com cop ‘T: Oh, so it was after his death that your work, Ms. Fumi was second (yes) and your husband’s work ‘Kooshi’ was third in the bestseller list. G: It was soon after his death. (Is that so!) It was soon after his death.’

The next excerpt (23) illustrates how aizuchi are used to show surprise. This interview discusses the guest’s kimono collection. The guest describes the displayed items’ design, colours, fabrics, and their origin. The guest explains about wedding kimonos and the customs in former times surrounding wedding parties. She says that weddings were celebrated in some places for about a week. The host shows her surprise in line 3 with an aizuchi that is emphasized. (23) (F5.U-7) 1 G: mukashi no kekkonshiki tte iu no wa ichinichi in-old-days gen wedding Qt say com top one-day 2

ya futsuka janakute. nagai toko da to or two-days be-neg-conj long place cop if

3

isshuukan gurai yaru n dasoo desu yo. (EEE) one-week about do com I-hear cop fp really

4

mikka no tokoro mo arushi ((continues)) three-days gen place also be-conj ‘G: Weddings in the past I hear were celebrated not for one or two days, but for a whole week (Really!) There are places where it is celebrated during three days as well ((continues))’

The same token e can fulªl diŸerent functions according to the diŸerent prosodic characteristics with which it is pronounced. AŸective aizuchi are uttered with some clear phonological features that convey a strong feeling, be it surprise, shock or amazement. It is a way to display interest and involvement in the conversation. Their frequency is aŸected by the topic and the relationship. Among aŸective aizuchi in the interviews were the tokens aaa ‘oh’, ara ‘oh,

161

162 Gender, Language and Culture

really’, a soo nan desu ka? ‘Is that so?’, maa ‘Dear me’, hee ‘indeed’, hoo ‘oh’, sugoi ‘great’, taihen ‘terrible’, hontooni ‘really?’. The distinction between newsmarkers and aŸective aizuchi is that the information which the listener hears must be new in the former, but not necessarily in the latter. Note that, in (22), the host knows that the guest’s book was nominated for the best- seller list after her husband’s death. On the other hand, the length of wedding celebrations is a complete surprise for the host.

Aizuchi as ªllers When interlocutors cannot /do not want to continue talking, aizuchi can be used to indicate that they expect the other to continue holding the ¶oor, as discussed in a previous section. This can be seen in the usage of aizuchi sequences, where no one holds the ¶oor but both show their willingness to keep the conversation going. This function might be particular to the interview situation, where the participants must be engaged in some sort of verbal exchange. The same restrictions do not apply in mundane conversations or even in artiªcially set conversations. Speakers in these circumstances can remain silent until a new topic is introduced, without obvious consequences. In normal everyday conversations, there are always interruptions or moments when the participants do not have anything to say. However, in a televised interview, there is a time factor and the participants must keep talking. In conclusion, aizuchi used as ªllers or aizuchi sequences are sent when topics are delicate, when there is topic attrition, and when participants are not willing to take the ¶oor.

The aizuchi token hai The hai token is used more often in formal contexts and when the topic is of importance to the listener (Horiguchi; 1997). This section shows how the aizuchi, hai, is used in the interviews. First, it is conspicuously absent from the host’s speech, which could be attributed to personal style. The host may take an ‘empathetic’ attitude similar to a therapist’s non-intrusive role (Gerhard and Beyerle, 1997) by avoiding to use hai. However, it occurs at high frequency in all the guests’ speech. A more detailed look reveals that this aizuchi is used in various ways. While hai originally meant ‘yes’, when used as an aizuchi it obviously loses its meaning. In the data, hai is overwhelmingly used as a continuer and as an acknowledgement token.

Aizuchi in the interviews 163

Hai as a continuer Hai is most often sent when the information is not complete and when there is no speakership incipiency. The following excerpt is a typical example. In line 1, the host utters the name of the guest’s father with falling intonation. The guest sends the aizuchi hai on two occasions. The ªrst is right after the name of the guest’s father, and the second after the verb in the conjunctive form. In line 2, the host says that the guest’s father had a PhD. Note that, at both points, the question of the host is not yet clear. The same occurs in line 2 with the third token, although here it is possible that the guest and the audience know that the father was a famous anatomist. However, the question is still not clear, indicating that the third hai token is also used as a continuer. (24) (F1.–3) 1→ T: Adachi Buntaro. (hai.) hakase to osshatte, Adachi Buntaro (yes) doctor Qt say-hon-conj 2 3

→ (hai.)kaiboogaku no hoode wa taihenna (hai.) yes anatomy gen side top very yes kata deirassharu soo desu ga,# person be-hon hear cop but ‘T: He was called (yes) doctor Adachi Buntaro (yes) and I’ve heard that he was very (yes) important in the ªeld of anatomy, but (could you tell us more on that?).’

In (25), the host introduces a new topic on a successful production in which the guest, who is an actor, performed and directed. In the second line, the guest sends a hai just after the host mentions the title of a theatre production. As in the former segment, it is di¹cult to know at that stage the host’s intended question. Note that the aizuchi is sent in the middle of a phrase. (25) (M10) 1 T: ah. ano== ano== Shirano Deberujuraku to iu Furansu oh. Well uhm Cyrano D’Bergerac Qt say France 2 3

→ ban (hai.) no yatsu de akademi shoo o totta version yes gen one and Academy award o take-past hito (e.) no [ishoo o tsukutta person uh-huh gen costume o make-past ‘T: Oh. Well, uhm, for the French version of Cyrano De Bergerac (yes) he received the Academy Award for Best Costume and he made the costumes (for your production).’

164 Gender, Language and Culture

A similar exchange is shown in (26). The host comments that the guest is also acting in the theatre. Note that the guest’s aizuchi is sent after the word demo ‘but’, clearly indicating that it works as a continuer. The second hai indicates incipient speakership, as discussed in detail later in the chapter. (26) (F10) 1→ T: ee. demo. (hai.) iroirona yeah but (yes) various 2

butai zuibun takusan ne/ theatre very many fp

ironna mono [yatterasharunde, various things do-conj

3 → G: [hai]. ee. ano== soo desu nee. ((continues)) yes yeah uhm yes cop fp ‘T: But (yes) you have been in diŸerent theatre performances, isn’t it Because you are [doing many things G:[Yes]. Yeah. uhm, well, you know ((continues))’

Hai as an answer Hai is sent after a question or after the speaker actively invites the listener to participate, in a similar way to sentence ªnal particles. In the excerpt below, the host asks her male guest whether his mother accompanied him when he was giving concerts around Japan. The question is grammatically unªnished but there is rising intonation. Hai uttered by the guest is an a¹rmative answer, and the host acknowledges this answer. (27) (M8) 1 → T: de okaasama mo goisshooni/ (hai.) ah! sooooo/ and mother-pol too together yes is-it-so ‘T: With your mother? G: Yes. T: Is that so?’

In (28), the topic is the guest’s mother-in-law, who had published a book on their relationship. Contrary to the guest’s expectations of an exemplary relationship, the mother-in-law had confessed in that book to her displeasure and unhappiness. Here, we can see that the host conªrms with the guest that she had thought their relationship was perfect with the question omotterashitano. The guest answers a¹rmatively with the token hai followed by a pause, to which the host adds her utterance nijuunennkan. This is also a grammatically

Aizuchi in the interviews 165

unªnished utterance that can be interpreted as another question. On this occasion, too, the guest answers with a hai. (28) (F7) 1 T: omotterashita no/ think-past-hon fp 2

G: hai…

3

T: nijuunen kan. 20-years during

4

G: hai. ‘T: That’s what you thought? G: Yes. T: For 20 years. G: Yes.

Hai in turn-initial position as well as in turn-ªnal position has been observed. This token also indicates incipient speakership as well as turn-yielding. In the following segment, we can observe the distribution of hai in turn-ªnal position in line 3. The guest says that her late husband was very encouraging when she started writing. In line 3, she adds to the host’s comment that she is writing because of her husband’s encouragement, and ªnishes her turn with hai and falling intonation, indicating her intention to ªnish her turn. The next token appears in turn-initial position in line 6, when the guest starts talking, although there is no clear question. (29) (F3) 1 T: jaa hontooni maa rensai mo nasatteru yoo desu then really well serials also do-hon appear cop 2

keredomo (soo na n desu.) ja okaki[ninaru koto o] but yes cop com cop then write-hon com of

3→ G: [maa sono kotoba ni hagemaserate. hai. Well that word in encourage-caus yes 4 5

T: jaa sore made wa okakininaru tte koto wa hontooni then that until top write-hon Qt thing top really nakatta (soo degozaimasu.) EEEh ja hontooni be-neg-past yes cop oh then really

6 → G: hai. moo watashi wa moppara daidokoro ni yes well I top only kitchen in

166 Gender, Language and Culture

7

orimashita nde, be-past-hum because ‘T: Well, so now it seems that you are also doing serial novels (yes, indeed) so [writing G:[Well, I was encouraged by his words. Yes. T: So up to then, you didn’t write (Exactly) Ooooh, then really G: Yes. I was only in the kitchen.

Hai after aizuchi Interlocutors use aizuchi to indicate that they are not taking the ¶oor. DiŸerent tokens are used in these aizuchi sequences and hai is one of them, as we see in the next examples. Hai fulªls the function of ªller in line 3 of example (30), line 2 of example (31), line 2 of example (32), and line 2 of example (33). (30) (F5) 1 G: kondo nanka hajimete da soo desu. This-time well ªrst-time cop like cop 2

T: ah, soo. oh. yes

3

G: hai. yes ‘G: This time they say it is the ªrst time. T: Is it so? G: Yes.

(31) (F1) 1 T: ne/ FP 2

G: hai. yes ‘T: Isn’t it? G: Yes.’

(32) (F10) 1 T: ara! sore wa zannen deshita ne/ oh that top pity cop-past fp 2

G: hai. yes.

Aizuchi in the interviews 167

‘T: Really! That was a pity! G: Yes.’ (33) (F5) 1 T: ah. taagetto wa hatachi. oh. target top 20-years-old 2

G: hai. yes

3

T: ah, soo/ oh yes ‘T: Oh. The target is 20 year old (people). G: Yes. T: I see.’

In all the above extracts, the interlocutors send aizuchi indicating that they do not intend to take the ¶oor. In some cases, as in (32), a delicate topic induces this sequence: the guest’s father’s illness. On other occasions, there seems to be no apparent reason for the use of aizuchi sequences, however it appears that they occur when the topic of the conversation is nearing an end, when a topic change is imminent, or when there is a speaker-turn (Szatrowski, 1993). Speakers and listeners use aizuchi as a strategy to negotiate who will be the next ¶oor-holder. Iwasaki (1997) states that this is a result of the Japanese preference for ‘mutual dependency’, where speakers give more emphasis to harmony. Although silence in Japanese culture is not considered negative in terms of politeness (Lebra, 1987) in the interview setting aizuchi accomplish the role of ªller. Guests use aizuchi to keep some kind of verbal exchange because they do not have the power to change the topic. The host, on the other hand, uses them to indicate imminent topic change or to indirectly press the guest to continue speaking.

Hai after announcements Hai is also sent after announcements before commercial breaks. Although the host does not need permission from her guests to interrupt the program, in most cases she uses very polite expressions to indicate a break. (34) (F1.–3) 1 T: chotto (hai.) komaasharu ga gozaimasu node little (yes) commercial S be-pol because ‘T: Just (yes) because we have a commercial.’

168 Gender, Language and Culture

(35) (M10) 1 T: komaasharu o ja. (hai.) commercial o then yes ‘T: Then, now the commercial (Yes).’

Hai is similarly used in situations where the host directs a question to the television crew. Some lines before this excerpt, a number of photographs are shown from one of the guest’s theatre productions. In line 4, the host turns towards the cameramen and requests the photos to be shown again. Although the request is not directed to him, the guest answers with hai. (36) (M10) 1 G: e. sono kata to zuutto yatte kita n desu yeah that person with through do come com cop 2

T: ah soo na no/ oh. yes com fp

3

G: eh. yeah

4 → T: demo ima no moo ikkai modoshite itadakimasu/ but now of more once return give-pol 5 → G: hai. yes ‘G: Yeah. I’ve worked with that person all this time. T: Really! G: Yeah. T: But, could you return the (tape) once more? G: Yes.’

In these situations, other aizuchi tokens would be inappropriate with the exception of e. Although aizuchi types such as soo and un share some common functions like that of agreeing, hai has other characteristics. It is used in a similar way to what SchegloŸ and Sacks (1973) have noted for the English right and okay, which are known as ‘change-of-activity’ token. They are used in a pre-closing environment and signal imminent change in topic or activity. Similarly, hai is used to indicate readiness to move to a new topic or activity.

Single and duplicated tokens The token hai and its duplicate variants have been classiªed as belonging to one universal group of aizuchi tokens. The duplicate tokens are multi-functional.

Aizuchi in the interviews 169

They may indicate a lively participation and interest or to indicate that the talk is not newsworthy. Hai is used as a continuer, as a token of acknowledgement, as an answer, and as a ‘change-of-activity’ token. However, the duplicated form hai hai appears not to be used indiscriminately. It is said that duplicated forms are considered impolite as they may convey a sense of impatience (Horiguchi, 1997). In the interview data, the few duplicated hai tokens are all sent by the guests. It appears that duplicate forms are sent only when the information is complete, as in the next example. The topic is one of the ªrst literary works that the guest had written. Note that, in lines 1–11, the guest provides a long explanation of her beliefs about writing, which we can assume are very important to her. However, the host does not send any feedback. Instead, she mentions that the guest herself had published the book. Note the guest’s aizuchi, which is a sequence of the token hai. In line 13, the host repeats jihi shuppan, indicating that the guest did not take the turn as the host intended. (37) (F3) 1 G: hai. watakushi no sakuhin no naka de, kai to yes I gen works gen within of oar Qt 2

(e.) iu ano sakuhin degozaimasu keredomo. yahari yeah say well work cop-pol but after-all

3

mou jibun no koto o oitsumerarete kaita to iu koto well one gen thing do corner-pass write Qt say thing

4

de, sore ga ano (@) yappari nanto sakka to iu and that S well after-all how writer Qt say

5

no wa jibun ga chi o nagashinagara ano=jibun com top self S blood do shed-while well one

6

no kono subete sarakedashite dokusha no kata ni mite gen this all reveal-conj reader gen people by see

7

itadaku to iu no wa kore ga ichiban receive Qt say com top this S ªrst

8

daijina kihon shisei janaika to kigatsuite, important basic attitude cop-neg Qt realize-conj

9

sorekara ano= atakushi nan to iimasu ka jibun no then well I how Qt say Q self gen

10

kimochi no ue de hijouni kou ano=nanka kou ikite feelings gen top on very uhm well how uhm live

170 Gender, Language and Culture

11

ikiyasukunarimashita desu ne. live-easy-past cop fp

12 T: ano kai wa shikamo jihi shuppan de (hai. hai.) that oar top also private press and yes. yes 13

jihi shuppan. private press

14 G: hai. ((continues)) yes ‘G: Yes, among my works, there is a novel titled (yeah) ‘Oar’, and in that I wrote because I felt I had to write. And by writing, I realized that the most basic attitude of a writer is to expose herself completely and have it read by the public. After that, I felt life was easier to live. T: And also ‘Oar’ was also published by yourself. G: Yes, yes. T: You published it yourself. G: Yes. ((continues))

In the next example, the host is talking about the death of the guest’s husband. Note that, after about 6 lines, the host’s question is not clear. Therefore, the guest’s hai hai in line 6 can be taken as a sign of impatience. Although we can only speculate as to why the guest uses the duplicated form, the fact that it appears only when the information is complete indicates that it can imply either enthusiasm or impatience. (38) (F1) 1 T: nee/(hai.) ano=osooshiki no tokini terebi o fp yes uhm funeral gen when television o 2

haikenshitorimashitara. ne/ (hai.) okusama ga ne/ saigo watch-past-humb-cond fp yes wife-pol S fp last

3

ni byooin ni iku tokini masuku mo shite (hai.) in hospital to go when mask also do yes

4

sorekara erimaki mo sashite (hai.) moo zettai kaze then scarf too do-caus yes well really cold

5

hikanai yooni dashita noni tte (hai.) catch-neg xxxx send-past although Qt yes

6

oshatterashaimashita yo ne/ (hai. hai.) sore ga kuyashii say-past-hon fp fp yes yes that S angry

Aizuchi in the interviews

7

tte (hai.) oshatta n da kedomo Qt yes say-past-hon com cop but ‘T: Isn’t, it? (yes) Uhm when I was watching the TV on the funeral, you see (yes) You said that when he left to hospital (for a regular check-up), you made sure he was wearing a face mask (yes), and a scarf (yes) you made sure that he was not going to catch cold (yes) you said so, didn’t you ? (yes. yes.) you said that that made you angry (yes) but

In the next chapter the duplicated tokens are discussed in more detail. It appears that it is mostly the older guests that use them, which suggests that there is a politeness factor involved. To summarize, the aizuchi, hai, appears in the discourse according to its diŸerent functions, and although more research is needed to obtain a global picture it is evident that speakers and listeners are aware of these characteristics and use them expertly. Firstly, hai has a narrower semantic meaning than other aizuchi. Hai expresses agreement; however, its function changes according to when it is sent in the discourse. When sent turn-initially, it is an a¹rmative answer to a question or an acknowledgement of an announcement. It is also sent as a ªller after another aizuchi. When sent in mid-turn position, it is used as a continuer and as a ‘change-of-activity’ token before an imminent topic change.

Summary and conclusion Although aizuchi have been classiªed as a single group of tokens with broad but loose characteristics, a detailed analysis shows that they are more complex than originally described and are used strategically. Aizuchi in the present data are ªnely timed. Both host and guests send ‘positive’ aizuchi, which show interest and participation in the exchange. These are sent mainly after major junctures, which include clauses and sentence ªnal particles, and at the end of sentences. This conªrms previous studies (Kurosaki, 1987; S. Maynard, 1989; N. Mizutani, 1982, 1988b). There is some diŸerence in the distribution of aizuchi in the discourse. Guests send more aizuchi in mid-sentence position (19%) than the host (8.5%). However, the host sends more aizuchi in sentence-ªnal position (13%) than the guests (19%). This diŸerence can be attributed to the roles of the participants. Sending aizuchi while the speaker is talking can ªrstly be a potential FTA and secondly can hinder the quality of sound in broadcasting. Both situations are more the concern of the host than of the guests, as it is the job of the interviewer to ensure the success of the interview. The host’s

171

172 Gender, Language and Culture

understanding and command of conversational skills, among them the use of aizuchi, demonstrates why she is such a successful presenter. A revealing phenomenon in this study is the high frequency of aizuchi by the guests. One would expect a much lower incidence of these tokens in the guests’ speech because they are the main speakers. This ªnding conªrms that aizuchi are a very important communicative tool in Japanese, regardless of the context. It also indicates that guests are aware of the formality of an interview situation, which requires politeness and cooperation, and which is accentuated by the audience (even if not physically present). There is an increased awareness in terms of role conformity. Therefore, guests use aizuchi to show their involvement and participation in the interaction. Aizuchi are multi-functional as is shown in the numerous examples. They can be used as continuers (example 18), acknowledgements (example 19), echoers (example 20), newsmarkers (example 21), aŸective tokens (examples 22–23), and as ªllers (examples 11–13). Some aizuchi such as continuers can be sent at any time in the discourse. Others have to fulªl certain conditions. For example, aŸective aizuchi can be sent only after the information is made known to the listener. On the other hand, aizuchi as ªllers occur before a topic change and follow or precede another aizuchi token. A sequence of aizuchi is observed when the topic is problematic. This suggests that aizuchi are also used to negotiate ¶oor management. On the other hand, not all tokens fulªl every function. For example, the aizuchi, hai, cannot function as a newsmarker, or as an aŸective aizuchi. This is because of its restricted meaning of agreement. Similarly, the aizuchi, so, does not normally function as a continuer because one of the conditions for this token is that the information has to be complete. A wide variety of aizuchi tokens is found in the data, which have been previously categorized as one single uniform group. Most aizuchi tokens fulªl diŸerent functions depending on the prosodic features, the semantic content, and the point in the discourse at which they are sent. Furthermore, a closer and more meticulous observation of some of the tokens tells us that they have a distributional pattern, are multifunctional and are used purposefully. In this chapter, I looked speciªcally at the hai token. Firstly, it is noticeably absent from the host’s speech, which could be attributed to personal style. However, it appears that this diŸerence is a result of role diŸerence. Hai is a formal aizuchi, is reported to be used mostly in formal situations (Horiguchi, 1997), and, as the next chapter shows, younger guests use it more frequently.

Aizuchi in the interviews 173

From the above, we can conclude that aizuchi are used as a very eŸective communicative tool in interviews. Although they are short and in most cases have no grammatical function, they are extremely important in the communication process.

Notes 1. In order to maintain some uniformity, I will use the term aizuchi when it pertains to Japanese. 2. Positive backchanneling 3. A point that is often misinterpreted cross-culturally. Americans misunderstand Japanese backchanneling as agreement (H. Yamada, 1992). 4. My translation 5. My translation. 6. Aizuchi are indicated in bold letters and brackets. 7. Translations of backchannels are given where possible. However, due to the diŸerence in the grammatical structure of English and Japanese, not all of them could be translated at the exact point of occurrence. The translations are intended to give the reader an approximate meaning in English. 8. Omikoshi - A colorful portable temple that is carried or pushed by people during traditional festivals.

Chapter 6

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry

Introduction The literature associates listeners’ responses with cooperative behaviour, claiming that women backchannel more frequently than men (Edelsky, 1981; Fishman, 1978; West and Zimmerman, 1983). Some scholars suggest that women are better listeners because they have a cooperative listening style in contrast to the more aggressive male style (Edelsky, 1981; Coates, 1989b, 1996; Holmes, 1986a, 1993; Maltz and Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1984, 1994a). It has also been stated that men use minimal responses to dominate conversation (Fishman, 1978; Yoshii, 1996; Zimmerman and West, 1984). Others argue that the reason why women are higher backchannellers is because of the gender inequality in society (Cameron, 1992; Fishman, 1978; LakoŸ, 1973; Swan, 1989; Troemel-Ploetz, 1992; West and Zimmerman, 1975; Woods, 1988). Most recent studies have revealed contradictory results that suggest that this male–female dichotomy is not as clear as previously thought (Bing and Bergvall, 1996; Cameron, 1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1998; Freed and Greenwood, 1996; MeyerhoŸ, 1996). Research on Japanese aizuchi suggests that women are higher backchannellers (Kurosaki, 1987) and that they use it in a collaborative manner, whereas men use it to control the exchange (Ehara, Yoshii and Yamazaki, 1993). This chapter examines whether aizuchi tokens are used diŸerently by host and guests. The association of listener responses with the ‘powerless’ is one of the most important distinctions between the diŸerent gender theories. As discussed in Chapter 1, the concept of power is not taken into consideration by the ‘diŸerence’ theorists, whereas for the ‘dominance’ scholars this is the central issue (Cameron, 1992; LakoŸ, 1973; Freed, 1992; Hall, Bucholtz and Moonwomon, 1992; West, 1984; West and Zimmerman, 1983). In interviews where there is an asymmetric relationship, is gender a determinant for aizuchi use? Does the host send more aizuchi to her male guests? And do the male guests send ‘negative’ aizuchi to the host? How do the participants in the interview use aizuchi to show their participation or dominance? These are the questions I want to answer in this chapter, by exploring the aizuchi of host and

176 Gender, Language and Culture

guests to ªnd if these devices are used to achieve control or cooperation in the communication.

Previous studies A vast literature on language and gender diŸerences in English suggests that women are better listeners than men across diŸerent cultures (American, English, Australian, New Zealand) (Edelsky, 1981; Fishman, 1978; Holmes, 1986a, 1993; Maltz and Borker, 1982; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Woods, 1988). Women have been found to give more backchannels than men (for English, see Fishman, 1978; Coates, 1989b; Reid, 1992, 1995; for Japanese, see Kurosaki, 1987; N. Mizutani, 1988a). The dominance theorists argue that women are more accommodating because they are socially inferior (Cameron, 1992; LakoŸ, 1973; Swan, 1989; Troemel-Ploetz, 1992; Woods, 1988; West and Zimmerman, 1983). On the other hand, the diŸerence theorists explain the diŸerence in terms of male and female subcultures (Maltz and Borker, 1982; Goodwin, 1981; Tannen, 1984, 1994a, 1994b). Among many studies that observed that women backchannel more (Maltz Borker, 1982; Holmes and Stubbe, 1997; Reid, 1992, 1995; H. Yamada, 1992) that by Reid (1992, 1995) shows that women in interviews use more backchannels than men when talking to same gender interlocutors, regardless of status. At the same time, her results in the mixed pairs indicate that while women’s backchannels decrease, men’s increase. This phenomenon is explained in terms of interpersonal accommodation theory, where speakers adjust their speech to that of their listeners. Zimmerman and West (1975) write that men use minimal responses in a diŸerent way to women. They use delayed minimal responses and therefore do not provide the same positive feedback that women do. Delayed minimal responses or ‘negative’ responses are backchannels given after a pause (see Fishman, 1978; Yoshii, 1996). They ‘may function to signal a lack of understanding or even lack of interest and inattention to the current talk’ (Zimmerman and West, 1975: 123). On the other hand, Maltz and Borker (1982) suggest that men and women use backchannels with diŸerent meanings. While men use them to indicate agreement, women use them to show participation. In the English language, the function of backchannels has also been associated with the ‘supportive role’ that is equated with powerlessness (Fishman, 1978). However, according to Coates, ‘It shouldn’t be automatically assumed

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 177

that the use of these forms denotes powerlessness’ (1989a: 196). In Japanese, powerlessness is probably expressed diŸerently, because aizuchi is an essential tool in spoken communication; it is used by all interlocutors in this data, regardless of gender, age, and status, as shown in the previous chapter. This ªnding suggests that in cultures where backchannels are an integral part of verbal communication, they should not be automatically associated with ‘female style’. Studies on aizuchi and gender, status and age in Japan are few. However, those that have been published report contradicting results. Some ªndings on the in¶uence of status show that juniors or those inferior in status give fewer aizuchi to seniors or superiors (N. Mizutani, 1988a). Others, like Sugito (1987), state that the degree of closeness between participants in a conversation may be a key factor in the frequency of aizuchi: the less intimate the relationship the higher the number of aizuchi. A lower frequency of aizuchi is reported as one way to show attentiveness (1987: 92). On the in¶uence of gender,1 age, status and role in more formal situations, Kurosaki (1987) used a very wide range of subjects, from primary school students to sixty ªve-year-olds. He found that both younger and older women give more aizuchi than males, although the diŸerence is not great in the school students’ age group. While Kurosaki’s study provides interesting results, it is di¹cult to assess the aizuchi behaviour in mixed groups and when other factors such as status or power are present. On language, gender and power, Ehara et al.’ s (1993) results contradict the image of women as more polite. Their ªndings indicate that females give ‘positive’ but males give ‘negative’ (delayed) aizuchi. Also, they found more aizuchi in female-male pairs than in all-female groups. The higher backchannelers in the former group are women. The female subjects in the female-male pairs produce high-pitched aizuchi that are characteristic of the ‘good and sweet female’ role in Japanese society (Yoshii, 1996: 214–215). In contrast, the aizuchi in the all-female pairs are not accompanied by any particular characteristic, and contrary to the supportive and encouraging attitude shown in the mixed pairs, female interlocutors compete to gain the ¶oor. On cross-cultural communication, Hayashi writes that ‘Japanese women subjects were quiet listeners, that they seldom sent backchannel signals when they were ¶oor holders or supporters, and sent main channel signals only when they were holding a collaborative ¶oor’ (1996: 206). A collaborative ¶oor is when all members participate in the conversation and they hold one ¶oor. She further reports that ‘Japanese women, whose single ¶oor-holding time is far

178 Gender, Language and Culture

shorter than that of Japanese men, play the role of supporting men’s ¶oor’ (1996: 206). Kurosaki (1987), Ehara et al. (1993), Yoshii (1996) and Hayashi (1996) all state that women backchannel more than men. However, when it is an allfemale interchange they do not engage in this ‘supportive style’. Ehara et al. and Yoshii explain this discrepancy as power related. On the other hand, T. Yamada’s (1995) study on interview speech stresses the importance of the type of interaction as opposed to the gender of the participants, as she found no aizuchi in news interviews. The studies on minimal responses and asymmetric relationships have taken gender as the central focus. However, it is not possible to isolate gender, status, or power and treat them completely separately as they are interrelated.

Gender diŸerences in aizuchi Despite a numerical diŸerence in the interviews, with a higher number of aizuchi in interviews with younger guests, especially in the all-female interactions, there are no striking diŸerences between men and women (see Table 5 and 6 in Appendix). All aizuchi in this study data are used positively, and the interactions between host and guests exhibit a highly cooperative and collaborative stance. Interestingly, there are more diŸerences due to age and status than to the gender of the participants. The next excerpt illustrates some of the cooperative ways of talk. The guest is a female pianist, who also gives lectures on educational and managerial techniques. In the extract, she explains that success depends on how to use words to criticize ‘constructively’. Note the aizuchi (lines 5, 8 and 11), repetition (lines 7, 8, 11) and overlaps (lines 6–7), all of which indicate the host’s cooperative interaction. This is reciprocated when the host talks throughout the interview. The guest in lines 1–6 says that there are positive ways (and negative ways) of saying the same thing. She gives an example of some of her students who are very unreliable. At this point, the host sends her the aizuchi, un. The guest continues saying that those students are hopeless and the host adds a sentence to the guest’s narrative in lines 6–7. Note the overlap and the repetition of the words nai ko mo in line 7. Repetition is also observed in the host’s sentence, which follows the same syntactic pattern as the guest’s: verb (oo)+ mo nai ko, and when she takes the ¶oor in line 12.

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 179

(1) (F8.6) 1 G: oonaji koto o iu ni shitemo/ purasu same thing O say in even-do plus 2

no channeru tte iu koto arimasu deshoo/ gen channel Qt say com be-pre cop-hort

3

tatoeba uchi no seito mo ippai for-examplehome gen student also many

4

kimasu yo ne/ tayorinai ko mo iru n come fp fp unreliable child also be com

5

desu ne/ (un.) hakkiri itte doo shoo mo cop fp uh-huh clearly say-conj how do also

6

nai ko (@@ homeyoo no [nai ko be-neg child praise-hort gen be-neg child

7

mo]) [nai ko mo.] yappari tayorinaku also be-neg child also after-all timidly

8

hiitete (un.) souiu toki ni tayorinai tte play-conj uh-huh that time in hesitant Qt

9

iuto mainasu desu kara/ ara! say-cond minus cop because oh-my

10

sofuto na oto motteru janai toka soft cop sound have cop-neg like

11

(ah! sofuto) yawarakai oto ne/ ah soft soft sound fp

12 T: sofuto na oto motteru janai. [toka# soft cop sound have cop-neg like ‘G: To say the same thing/ there is a way to say it positively. For example, there are some students who come to me, who have nothing to be praised for (@@ children who have nothing [to be praised for]) [children who have nothing] When they play, they do it without any life. (uh-huh) So in those cases, if you say that your music is not lively, you give a negative comment, so you say: oh, my! What a delicate sound. Or (ah, delica)-it is a soft sound, isn’t, it? T: What a delicate sound, [or-

The next example is from an interview with an older female guest, the widow of a famous writer. They are talking about the time when they, the late writer and

180 Gender, Language and Culture

the guest, met. The host uses unªnished utterances as politeness strategies. In line 2, the host does not ªnish her question. She asks her guest whether they had met before the husband went to Kyoto University. The guest repeats the host’s words mae desu. The host’s line 4 is missed by the guest, and the host returns to that topic in line 8. In lines 5–8, the guest completes her answer with additional information. She says that they met before she graduated from high school. The host sends two aizuchi in that turn. The ªrst is a continuer un after a noun phrase and the second is a very polite newsmarker ah! Soo de irasshaimashita. The host’s question in line 8 is not direct. The lead-in sorede (line 8) is pronounced with vowel lengthening, there is a ªller ano, and the phrase achira wa juudoo ga is followed by the phrase chotto shinjirarenaindesukedo. All indicate the host is rephrasing her question; this may be an FTA because she is changing the topic. The guest sends an aizuchi in line 10. The host’s question is syntactically unªnished when the guest takes the ¶oor in line 11. Other cooperative strategies are the host’s aizuchi in line 11, and her acknowledgement in line 15, which is followed by a compliment after the guest’s aizuchi. (2) (F1.2) 1 T: ah. ja moo Kyooto daigaku yorimo motto ah so already Kyoto university from more 2

maeni before

3

G: mae desu. before cop

4

T: juudoo judo

5

G: watakushi ga (un) jogakkoo I S uh-huh women’s-high-school

sotsugyooshita graduate-past

6

toshi gurai (ah! [soo/] [hai.] deirasshaimashita.) year about oh so yes cop-hon-past

7

hai. yes.

8 9

T: sorede= ano achira wa juudoo ga chotto then uhm he top judo S a-little shinjirarenai n desu kedo.tottemo juudoobelieve-neg com cop but very judo

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry

10

(soo desu ne.) sugokute yes cop fp great-conj

11 G: hai. rokudan degozaimasu ka? (nee/) nakunatte yes six-dan cop-hon Q isn’t, it die-conj 12

kara rokudan itadakimashita after six-dan receive-past

keredomo. maa jitsuryoku but well capability

13

wa gozaimashite. imade iu Yamashita ni ataru top cop-pol-conj now say Yamashita to correspond

14

soo desu. I-hear cop

15 T: SONNa datta n desu ka/ (hai.) soo iu that-kind cop-past com cop Q yes that say 16

kata ga mata Nihon ichi no sakka ni person S too Japan one gen writer into

17

onarininaru to iu no mo sugoi desu nee. become-hon Qt say com also great cop fp

18

(@@@) ((continues)) ‘T: Oh, so much earlier than (when he was attending) Kyoto University G: It was before T: Judo G:It was sometime around when I graduated from (girl’s) high school (oh, [was it] so!!) [yes] yes. T: A==nd, he, it is unbelievable, but judo (yes, it was so) he was really great G: Yes, He was six-dan? (isn’t, it?) Although, he got the sixth dan after he died. But, he had the capacity and I hear he was as strong as Yamashita. T: Was he that strong? (yes) It is also wonderful that he was the number one writer in Japan (@@@) ((continues))

The same level of cooperation and politeness was present in interviews with male guests. The extracts from two interviews illustrate that aizuchi by male guests in fact conformed to the cooperative and collaborative style that has been associated with ‘female’ style. In example (3), the guest talks about a decree issued during WW II that all types of plants were to be destroyed. The guest sends aizuchi at almost all the ‘aizuchi-relevance-points’ in lines 2, 4, and 5. Also, in lines 7–8, when he starts to answer the host, his interruption is not aggressive. She asks him to talk about the government decree that forced them to fell all the cherry trees.

181

182 Gender, Language and Culture

(3) (M2.5) 1 T: mo sakura ni mo ironna shurui ga well cherry of also various types S 2

aru node odorokimashita keredomo (hai.) ano. be because surprise-past but yes well

3

nani ga oshii to itte sensoochuu sakura o what S pity Qt say-conj war-during cherry O

4

kire to iu meirei ga (hai.) kiteshimatte cut-imp Qt say order S yes come-ended

5

(hai.) otaku no sakura o zenbu yes your-house gen cherry O all

6

kitta tte iu soko n tokoro no ohanashi cut Qt say there com place gen story

7

chotto shite [itadakitailittle do-conj receive

8 9

G: [moo un aso kore wa- ne. maa iroiro ---maa jidai well uhm the- this top fp well many well period jidai de maa ((continues)) period and well ‘T: I am astonished to learn that there are so many species of cherry trees (yes) but, uhm, what is a loss is that during the war there was an order (yes) to fell all cherry trees (yes) and you had to cut down your own cherry trees. Could you tell us [something aboutG: [ Well, uhm the this is well the period and ((continues))’

Even in interviews with older males, who do not send as many aizuchi as the female guests do, all aizuchi are positive. The following extract is from an interview with a male actor over 50. The narration focuses on the camaraderie and bonding of his fellow army o¹cers when the ship they were travelling on was sunk. Note the repetition in line 1. The guest starts his turn in line 3 with the SFP ne, which is customarily uttered at the end of grammatical units such as noun phrases, adjectivals or verbs. It is a very cooperative communicative tool and similar to the English tag question. (4) (M1) 1 T: ee, mattete (mattete) moo jibuntachi no inochi yes wait-conj wait-conj yet they-pl gen life

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 183

2 3

datte abunai noni# even in-danger though G: ne/ jibuntachi ga abunai noni nee/ isn’t, it? they-pl S in-danger though isn’t, it? ‘T: Yes, (they) waited and (they waited) although their own lives were in danger# G: Yes. Even though their own lives were in danger. Isn’t, it?

As we can see from the examples, there are no negative aizuchi, and men and women use aizuchi in a collaborative way. However, variations in aizuchi use are found along role and age diŸerences, and these are explained in the following sections of this chapter.

Aizuchi of host and guests There is an enormous variety of aizuchi; some of the archetypal tokens such as hai, un, ee soo were described in Chapter 5. They are sent mainly after major breaks and are multifunctional. In particular, the hai token is largely absent from the host’s speech. Instead, the host uses aizuchi naruhodo, which strongly suggests a role-based diŸerence. In addition, formal and informal and duplicated tokens are used to convey particular messages, be they of formality or solidarity, and their distribution in the data also reveals role and age diŸerences.

Naruhodo: A role speciªc aizuchi It is only the host who uses the aizuchi token naruhodo ‘I see’: an adverb/ interjection used when the ‘speaker expresses his/her feelings after being convinced that certain opinions or knowledge from a third party are really true after counterchecking with reality’2 (Morita, 1994: 878). Mizutani and Mizutani write that the word naruhodo belongs to a group of expressions which are used in a ‘monologue-like way in polite speech. When speakers use this word in public, they have to do it so that they show that it is directed to them rather than to the other participant. If speakers do not show some diŸerence by lowering the tone or a falling intonation, they would be very impolite’ (1987: 21). They further say that people use such expressions to show enthusiasm: ‘Interviewers on radio or TV programs for example, often say naruhodo to show that they are so absorbed in the conversation that they have forgotten to pay attention

184 Gender, Language and Culture

to formalities: by doing this they encourage those they are interviewing’ (1987: 21). These observations are applicable to the present data. Examples of this token abound, and can be seen in excerpts previously presented. They are sent just after major junctures, and at TRPs. They overlap with the speech of the speaker and occur at the beginning of turns. They either stand on their own, or are accompanied by other aizuchi tokens, SFPs, and by vowel lengthening and falling intonation. Naruhodo are also followed by further talk. In (1), naruhodo appears in turn-initial position. In the interview, various accessories and Japanese kimonos are displayed as the guest explains about the designs, materials and so on. Most of the items are from the 18th and 19th centuries, when the majority of Japanese women wore kimonos. The guest comments that the artisans of former times created so many items because there was competition. The host sends her aizuchi after a considerably long turn. Naruhodo (in line 5) is accompanied by an SFP and is immediately followed by further talk. It is also used to indicate topic shift. (5) (F5) 1 G: ne/ yappari nihonjuu ga kimono fp after-all Japan-all S kimono

kitemasuto wear-cond

2

yappari sore ni tachisawaru ano shokunintachi ga after-all that in involve uhm artisan-pl S

3

kisotte ano ii mono o koshiraete soiu jidai compete uhm good thing o make that time

4

yappari [datta to omoimasu. after-all cop-past Qt think

5 →T: 6

[naruhodo ne. sorekara sono usagi no I-see fp then that rabbit gen katachi nanka mo joozuni dekitemasu ne/ shape well too skilfully make fp ‘G: Isn’t it? I think that after all, it was a time when every Japanese wore kimonos and the artisans engaged in creating diŸerent artifacts competed to make beautiful things. T: I see. And, that (embroidered) rabbit is really skillfully done, isn’t it?

In the next example, naruhodo is also followed by the SFP ne. Here, both talk about one of the characters in a play in which the guest performed. While the guest and host talk, a photograph of one of the guest’s performances is shown

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 185

on the screen. From the guest’s explanation we know that there are two people in the photograph. In line 3, the host says ah. korewa noofuooku no hoo, indicating that she had thought otherwise. The turn-initial ah is similar to the English Oh (Heritage, 1984b; SchiŸrin, 1987), and is a ‘change-of-state’ token. Ohs in English appear in the dialogue when the ‘producer has undergone some kind of change in his or her locally current state of knowledge, information, orientation or awareness’ (Heritage, 1984b: 229). Likewise the Japanese ah indicates sudden realization. The guest conªrms the host’s statement with a short aizuchi at the end of line 3. He then explains that the person in the photograph is Norfolk, the former lover of Queen Elizabeth, and not Sir Henry, in the play directed by Andrzej Wajda. Note that naruhodo can be sent only when the information is complete. In this segment, it is acknowledged by another aizuchi token hai. (6) (M10) 1 G: kore wa ano migi ni iru no wa Nofuooku this top uhm right in be gen top Norfolk 2

to itte/ Qt call-conj

3

T: ah. kore wa Nofuuoku [no hoo] [(e.)] oh. this top Norfolk gen side yeah

4

G: hontoo no koibito no mae ni iru.. shinrai real gen lover gen before in be trust

5

dekiru mukashi no koibito. be-able previous gen lover.

4→ T: naruhodo ne/ (hai.) I-see fp yes ‘G: The one on the right side is Norfolk and T: Oh. This is [Norfolk.] [(Yeah.)] G: The ex-lover, the lover whom she could really trust. T: I see. (yes)’

Naruhodo can also overlap with the speaker’s speech, as in the next example. The guest explains the advantages of the Japanese writing system in documenting Japanese literary material in that it resolves the ambiguity of many homonyms. The host’s aizuchi is sent in the middle of the guest’s turn as can be seen in line 6, and it is clear that the main piece of information is given in the preceeding lines. Naruhodo is sent after the guest repeats the words Nihon no

186 Gender, Language and Culture

mono. In this example, it appears that this token shows the host’s involvement in the interview, as the guest’s explanation continues after line 6. (7) (M9) 1 G: eh. orijinaru ga nihongo na n desu kedo/Nihon no eh original S Japanese cop com cop but Japan gen 2

hon no koto desu node, eigo de kakimasuto, book gen thing cop because English inst write-cond

3

dooiu ji o kaku n da ka wakaranai desu ne/ what letter O write com cop Q know-neg cop fp

4

doomei ga ooi desu kara, Nihon no mono wa homonyms S lot cop because Japan gen thing top

5

desu ne, kanji ga wakaranaito imi ga cop fp kanji S know-neg-cond meaning S

6

wakannnai n desu ne/ nihon no [mono.[(naruhodo.)] understand-neg com cop fp Japan gen thing I-see ‘Yes, the original is in Japanese. Because it is about Japan, if you write it in English, you don’t know what characters to write. Because there are so many homonyms [in Japanese.] [(I see)] ((continues)).’

Naruhodo is also sent after SFPs or other signals, such as deshoo. The next example shows such an exchange. The guest talks about musical scores. Previously, he raises the topic of copyright issues related to scores, that is whether musicians use photocopies or not. The host acknowledges the guest’s explanation by sending naruhodo in line 3, after the guest’s SFP ne. (8) (M6) 1 G: dakara bokutachi mo. honban de wa kopiifu wa therefore I-pl too performance in top copies top 2 3 4

narubeku tsukawanai yooni shite imasu. (a.) de tada renshuu as-possible use-neg like do be oh and only practice → yooni kopi o toru wake desu ne/ (naruhodo.) ie de for copy o take com cop fp I-see home in minna renshuu shite kuru yooni ne/ ((continues)) everybody practice do come like fp ‘G: Therefore, we try not to use the photocopies when we perform. (oh.) But, we xerox them for everyday practice, you see? (I see) It is for everybody to practice at home ((continues)).’

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 187

As shown in these examples, the host uses naruhodo as an interviewing tool and its use is more restricted than that of other aizuchi. Firstly, it is sent only after the information is made known. Secondly, it is used by the host only. It would be inappropriate for the guests to use it in the interview setting because of the character of the exchange and the goal of the interaction. Naruhodo has two main functions: to indicate understanding of the content and to mark topic shift. When the guests reveal some information that is new or interesting to her, the host sends this token to show that it is something unknown to her, or that she has ªnally understood something. It also appears that the host sends the token after she has been persuaded one way or another about a particular issue. The fact that none of the guests uses this particular token indicates that it is role determined. The comments of Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) on the inappropriateness of this aizuchi in terms of politeness are arguable as the host uses it with older guests too. As with other discourse markers, naruhodo is used by the host to facilitate the ¶ow of the interview.

Formal and informal aizuchi tokens Similar to verbs, there are formal and informal tokens in Japanese aizuchi. While some aizuchi tokens such as ee can be used regardless of the situation or the relationship between speakers, the usage of soo and its variants is more restricted. Soo, as described in Chapter 5, is sent after some information is conveyed and it functions as a newsmarker and acknowledgement. It can be accompanied by diŸerent grammatical and prosodic endings that convey diŸerent messages. Varying degrees of formality are expressed in the ending of the copula, which may appear in the plain, formal or polite forms: sooda, soodesu, soodegozaimasu. The single soo and the informal sooda are used between friends and family members, or when talking with people of lower status. Intonation is crucial in determining the intended message. Soo with fall-rising intonation indicates mild disagreement. With falling intonation it conveys an utterance such as ‘I understand’ or ‘I agree’ or ‘Exactly’. The guest in (9) talks about music scores and technology. Note that the host sends soo after a conjunctive particle reported to be a potential TRP (Mori; 1999; Tanaka, 1999). Semantically, soo indicates some degree of agreement and because the host has a degree in music we can assume that she totally agrees with her guest from her own experience. This can be observed in the way she utters soo in line 3. It is single and with falling intonation.

188 Gender, Language and Culture

(9) (M6) 1 G: yappari gakufu tte iu no wa wareware ni after-all scores Qt say com top we to 2 3

totte baiburu mitaina mon desu kara for Bible like thing cop therefore → (soo.)tada chotto yappari kankaku ga chigau ((continues)) yes only little after-all perception S diŸerent ‘G: After all, the score is like the Bible for us, so (Yes) although maybe the perception is a little diŸerent ((continues))’

Soo can also occur with SFPs, with an added degree of involvement and intimacy. In the next fragment, the host comments on the quantity of kimonos the guest had donated to the television company where she had worked. The guest is a senpai ‘senior’ of the host, and she uses the informal type of aizuchi, as can be seen in lines 3, 5 and 6. On both occasions, the aizuchi soo is followed by na no, which are SFPs used among very close friends. (10) (F4) 1 T: nEE/ demo ishoosan wa ah! Taishoo no kimono fp but costumer top oh Taisho gen kimono 2 3 4

wa kore de toobun tasukarimasu toka minna itte top this with for-a-while help-pol like all say → kaasan no[ittexxx ([soo na no.)] ja kaasan wa mother gen say yes fp fp then mother top juumai dake kimono o nokoshite. (e.) ma= shiraga 10-pcs only kimono o remain-conj yes well white-hair

5

→ ni niaisoona. kimono o nokoshite Shoonan in match-like kimono o remain-conj Shoonan

6

→ ni irasshita n desu kedo.(soo na no.) sokode to go-past-hon com cop But yes fp fp there

7

atarashii kimono tsui. tsukutteshimatta tte@ iu new kimono inadvertently make-end-past Qt say ‘T: Isn’t, it? But the costumer said that they would have enough kimonos from the Taisho Period and were really happy. Mother, your xxx (yeah) So, you have just kept 10 kimonos (uh-huh), kimonos that would match your white hair, and you moved to Shoonan (yeah) and there you ended up having more kimonos made for you, I’ve heard.’

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 189

This is the only guest in the interview data who does not use any honoriªc forms (see Chapter 4) and who maintains a very informal stance, even in the use of aizuchi. While all the soo variants have been classiªed as belonging to one category, there are some diŸerences, among these variants, as previously explained. The guest in the next example talks about his duties as a prosecutor in the Tribunal. He says that after being promoted he could not perform some tasks that he had obviously liked. The guest’s aizuchi ends with a rising intonation in line 2 and functions in a similar way to a turn-initial token. It has been reported that phrases ending in the conditional forms -to, -tara, -ba, also known as conjunctive particles, are potential TRPs (Tanaka, 1999). In this particular case, the -to is linked to the previous section of the talk called ‘skip-tying’, when the speaker refers to a previous utterance ‘skipping’ other talk (SchegloŸ, 1996a). The host adds the phrase mo zenzen, even though it seems that she does not intend to continue her turn, which is handed over to her guest immediately after. (11) (M3) 1 T: tokuni kanji no oshigoto ga suki da to especially inspector gen job S like cop Qt 2

→ suruto, (soo desu ne/) mo zenzen, do-cond yes cop fp well totally

3

G: ee/ moo chokusetu futsuu no (e.) shirabe nanka yes well directly normal gen yes inquiry like

4

totte mo ne/ (e.) ano, yarenai posuto ni natchau take too fp yes well do-neg post in become

5 6

→ n de, (ah soo=/)[ e.] (deirasshaimasu ka/) hontooni com and oh yes yes cop-pol Q really binbooshoo na n desu yo ne. born-to-be-poor cop com cop fp fp ‘T: Especially, if you like the job of an inspector, (yes, as you say), well nothing G: Yes. Well, even an ordinary (yes) inquiry, you see (yes) uhm, you are in a post that does not allow you to (oh. Is it so?) I can’t change, it is in my nature, you see.’

When soo is preceded by the exclamation ah with a rising intonation, it is used to express surprise and works as a newsmarker and as an assessment. Like all soo variants, it can have polite endings as in the above example. In line 5, the

190 Gender, Language and Culture

host sends her aizuchi pronounced with the lengthening of the vowel, rising intonation and the most polite ending. Note that an aizuchi is sent in the middle of ah soo=deirasshaimasuka. This token is extremely polite and indicates the host’s stance towards the guest. He is older than she and, most importantly, they are meeting for the ªrst time. The formality is also maintained by the guest. The aizuchi so when accompanied by a complementizer conveys a stronger feeling of agreement and intimacy. It means ‘Yes, that it is exactly so’. The next example is on the topic of the composer Antonio Vivaldi. The guest’s aizuchi soonandesu is sent soon after the host starts her turn, and the information is not new for the listener. The complementizer nan is used for explanations and stresses the point of the speaker. (12) (F8) 1 → T: ah soo/ juunana seiki no. (soo na n desu.) hito oh. yes 17 century gen yes cop com cop person 2 3

na n desu ne/ cop com cop fp G: hai. nanka ano== sakigoro seitan sanbyaku nen ga/ yes uhm well recently birth 300 year S ‘T: Really? From the 17th century (yes, he is), he is from that period. G: Yes, well, recently the 300th anniversary of his birth ((continues))

For the varied examples we can see that the token soo has diŸerent functions according to not only prosodic characteristics but also other accompanying elements. The factor of known/unknown information decides the most appropriate type of soo. When soo is pre-faced with ah and pronounced with falling intonation, the listener indicates that the information is completely new to him/her. Depending on the intonation, soo can also contain some element of doubt. (see example (14) in Chapter 5). In that excerpt, the guest utters the token a soodesuka ‘I don’t believe you/ Do you really think so?’ with rising intonation in response to a compliment. When soo is followed by the complementizer na and an additional SFP or the copula, the information is not new to the listener. The soo token in these cases is used to indicate agreement and functions more as a continuer. If soo is accompanied by na and other SFPs such as no or yo, there is additional pragmatic information which is related to the degree of intimacy and informality.

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry

Younger guests overwhelmingly use formal tokens There seems to be a clear and predictable distribution of formal and informal aizuchi tokens in the interview data. While younger guests, both men and women, overwhelmingly use the formal aizuchi token soodesu, some of the older guests send the single and more informal token soo. The host, on the other hand, consistently sends informal aizuchi to her younger guests but not to her older guests. This observation reinforces the claim that almost every Japanese word has a pragmatic content, which is deªned by the relationship between speakers (see Chapter 1). Examples (13), (14) and (15) illustrate the use of formal and informal aizuchi in interviews with older guests. Only some older guests send the single short aizuchi, soo. (13) (M4) 1 T: naruhodo. dakara. seirei karera wa kanjita seirei o katachi I-see therefore spirits they top feel spirits o form 2

shitemiruto konna fuuni naru kara [jibun tachi ga] do-try-cond this way become because oneself pl S

3

[(soo.)] odottari nanka shite (soo soo soo.) de sore ((continues)) yes dance like do yes yes yes and that ‘T: I see, that is why. Spirits. When they feel the spirits (are there), they represent them in these ways, so [they] [(yes)] do things like dancing (yes, yes, yes) and that ((continues))’

(14) (M2) 1 T: minna uemuki nanoni sakura wa mite hoshii kara all up-looking even-though cherry top look want because 2

[shita o muiteru n dakara [(soo soo soo)] ((continues)) down o face com therefore yes yes yes ‘T: Though all (the ¶owers) look upwards, the cherry ¶owers [look downwards] [(yes, yes, yes)] because they want to be admired ((continues))’

(15) (F1) 1 T: soreni kaeri nanka tabemono kattekaeru toka (soo soo soo.) also returning like food buy-return like yes yes yes 2

osshatte. ogenki datta n desu ne (e.) say-hon-conj healthy cop-past com cop fp uh-huh ‘T: And he said (yes, yes, yes) that he was going to buy food on the way back and he was ªne, wasn’t it (uh-huh)’

191

192 Gender, Language and Culture

In the above examples, the guests send their aizuchi while the host uses formulations possibly directed at the audience as a way of facilitating the ¶ow of the interview. Therefore, the aizuchi function as agreement because there is no new information for the listeners. Furthermore, the tokens overlap with the host’s turn or they are sent in the middle of her utterances. Except for one particular older female guest who has a very close relationship with the host, the other guests show no particular characteristics apart from being older than the host. However, not every older guest uses the informal soo. The host, on the other hand, sends informal aizuchi consistently to her younger guests, male and female, as the following examples illustrate. (16) (M8) 1 G: boku haita n desu kedo ne (un.) de sono I enter-past com cop but fp uh-huh and that 2

ikisastu wa mata betsutoshite, (sore wa so soo.) circumstance top next-time put-aside that top yes yes

3

nagaku narimasu kara. betsuto[shite. [(e. soo soo soo.) long become therefore put-aside uh-huh. yes yes yes ‘G: I entered (that baseball team), you see (uh-huh) and leaving aside those circumstances (of course, yes, yes) because it is a long story, so [putting aside] [(uh-huh. yes, yes)]’

(17) (F7) 1 G: katei no sutoresu mo [aru deshooshi. yappari family gen stress also be cop-hort-conj after-all 2 3

T: [ soo soo soo de okosan ne futari kakaete ne. sore yes yes yes and child-pol fp two have-conj fp that Wa taihen datta to omoimasu yo ne. ((continues)) top hard cop-past Qt think fp fp ‘G: Stress from family (problems) [would be T:[yes, yes, yes and with two children, isn’t, it? I really think that it was very di¹cult. ((continues))’

(18) (M10) 1 T: Jan Kokutoo wa shijin [demo Jean Cocteau top poet also 2

G: [shijin deari gaka deattari eiga kantoku poet cop-conj painter cop-conj movie director

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 193

3 4

yattari (soo soo.) iroiro shitemasu[shi ne/ do-conj yes yes various do-conj fp T: [soo soo. shibai mo kaiteru. ((continues)) yes yes theatre also write ‘T: Jean Cocteau is a poet [and G: [Is a poet, a painter, a movie director (yes yes) he does various things,[ right? T: [Yes yes. He also writes (for the) theatre ((continues)).’

In all the examples (16–18), the host uses duplicated short forms of soo. They function as agreements as they are sent after some major section of the information is delivered. The host’s stance is very cooperative and encourages the guests to speak. This is especially so in examples 16 and 17, where the host and the guest contribute to the narrative, as seen in the co-construction of the turns. Two excerpts from interviews with younger guests illustrate clearly that aizuchi tokens have a pragmatic function quite apart from that of a minimal response. The diŸerence in usage between host and guests is particularly striking. In the ªrst excerpt, the host comments on working mothers. The guest is a famous actress and a mother of two children. The host starts her turn with the aizuchi token ah soo, which is accompanied by a rising-falling intonation and functions as an acknowledgement. The guest sends an acknowledgement in line 4. Note the contrast between the host’s soo token, which is rather informal, and the guest’s formal aizuchi soo with the copula in the polite form. (19) (F9) 1→ T : ah soo. anata mo are dake oshigoto takusan oh really you too that much work much 2

oyarininagara deshita kara taihen/maa dono do-while-hon cop-past because hard well which

3

okaasan mother

4 →G:

[ (soo desu ne/ e.)] yes cop fp yes T: Oh, really. You work so much while being a mother, well I think that every mother [has a lot of work], [(yes, indeed. yes) but.’

mo taihen to [omoimasu kedomo/] also hard Qt think but

In (20), a Kabuki actor talks about his acting academy. Note that the host starts her turn with ah soo na no in lines 2 and 5. The accompanying SFPs add the degree of informality, an aspect in the host’s speech observed also in the turn-

194 Gender, Language and Culture

ªnal deshitakke in line 3. Kke is an informal particle to reiterate or emphasize a question. On the other hand, the guest acknowledges her aizuchi with another token. Hai is sent in the middle of the host’s aizuchi in line 2, while in line 5 it is sent right after soo nano. The guest’s soo token takes the polite form, as can be seen in line 5. (20) (M10) 1 G: hai. moo hajimattemasu. yes already start-pre 2 3 4 4 5

T: ah. soo/(hai.)na no. kore boshuu ttate doo oh yes yes fp fp this recruit even-say how suru n deshita kke/ do com cop-past fp G: konserubatorii tte Conservatory Qt

iu tokoro ga arimasu kara call place S be because

soko ni (e.) ano ganshoo dashitekurereba. there in yes well application submit-cond T: ah. soo/na no. (hai.) ja ichioo. (soo desu.) Oh yes fp fp yes then at-least yes cop ‘G: Yes, it has already started. T: Oh, really. (yes) Is it so? This, recruiting how was it done? G: There is a place called Conservatory, so if they send their papers there (oh, is it so?) yes.’

In (21), a newsmarker, ah soo, in plain form with rising-falling intonation, is followed by more talk from the host who conªrms a piece of information. The guest sends an aizuchi with the formal ending. A few lines further down, the host sends her aizuchi in the plain form. (21) ( F8 ) 1 T: ah. soo. juunana seiki no. (soo na n desu.) oh. yes 17 century gen yes cop com cop 2 3 4

hito na n desu ne/ person cop com cop fp G: hai. nanka ano== sakigoro seitan sanbyaku nen. ga/ yes uhm well recently birth 300 year S senkyuuhyakunanajuhachi nen de. ni nen mae ga 1978 year and 2 year before S

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 195

5

butsugo nihyakugojuunen. (ah soo.) data n desu death 250- years oh. yes cop-past com cop

6

ne. hai. FP yes. ‘T: Really? From the 17th century (Yes, he is), he is from that period. G: Yes, well, recently the 300th anniversary of his birth was celebrated in 1978, and 2 years ago, (Really?) it was 250th years after his death. Yes’.

Duplicated tokens Duplicated aizuchi may indicate that, because what the speaker says is not new to the listener, it is not interesting (Horiguchi, 1997). This is especially so when they are pronounced with ¶at intonation and delivered in rapid succession. However, in other situations, these duplicated forms may indicate the listener’s participation in the interaction. It is di¹cult to assess the listener’s attitude when there are no particular characteristics in the intonation or in the timing at which they are sent. The next example shows a triple form hai hai hai sent after the host’s comment on a photograph. It is di¹cult to discern if it is lack of interest or eagerness to participate because there are no other signs. (22) (M2) 1 G: … … 2 3 4

ano==chotto shoomei wa tsuketeru n well little lights top turn-on com

desu kedo/ cop but T: ah kore shasin o toru tameni/ oh this photo do take for

(hai hai hai.) HAAAA. yes yes yes really

shidarezakura.. kore wa imaa== genzai ano== willow-cherry this top now present uhm ‘G: … Well, I just have installed some lights. T: Oh. This is in order to take photos? (yes, yes, yes) Really? Willowcherry.. This is now uhm…’

However, in (23), when the host uses a reformulation, the guest sends aizuchi at a very high rate. Note that the four tokens in lines 2 and 3 are sent every two or three words in an utterance that contains very little information. Wake, the copula, and nantoka have almost no semantic content, but the guest sends an aizuchi on four consecutive occasions. In a similar fashion, hai hai hai is sent

196 Gender, Language and Culture

right after the host says to omotte, which again contains absolutely no new information. The guest in this example is a high backchanneler and it is not clear whether these duplicated tokens are an idiosyncrasy or he is impatient. (23) (M5) 1 T: de kore dake sukima ga arun dakara (hai.) maa and this much space S be com because yes well 2

daijoobujanai ka to omotte futsuu kutsu kattchau (hai.) wake ªne-neg Q Qt think usually shoe buy-end yes reason

3

(hai.) desu yo ne/ (hai.) nantoka (hai.) to omotte yes cop fp fp yes somehow yes Qt think

4

→ (hai. hai. hai.) tokoroga, dondondondon haiteruto ashi yes. yes. Yes but gradually wear-cond foot

5

ga nantonaku (soo desu.) itakunattekichau. S somehow yes cop hurt-become ‘T: And, with this much space (yes) one normally would think (yes) that it is ok (yes, yes, yes), and end buying the shoe (yes). But, as one keeps wearing them, they start (exactly) hurting.

The next fragment shows the token so sent in duplicated forms. The ªrst occurs in lines 1 and 2. There is a repetition of sensoochuu ‘during the war’, which indicates the listener’s participation (Tannen, 1989). The next sequences of aizuchi in lines 4 and 5 overlap with the host’s speech and are sent after the most relevant piece of information. (24) (M4) 1 T: ha. kore are desho. sensoo chuu Mizuki san ga [(so yeah this uhm cop-hort war during Mizuki T S yes 2

soo soo. senshoo chuu) Rabauru desu ka yes yes war during Rabaul cop Q

3

G: soo sensoo chuu. yes war during

4

T: Rabauru ni Rabaul in

5

te o.. hand o

6

n desu kedomo. (hai.) com cop but yes

[irasshatte [(soo soo)]soko de ma=.eetogo-hon yes yes there in well uhm

hidari te o left hand o

onakushina[tta] [(soo soo)] wake na lose-past-hon yes yes reason cop

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 197

‘T: This, uhm, During the war, you (yes, yes during the war) in Rabul, wasn’t it? G: Yes, during the war. T: You [were] [(yes, yes)] in Rabaul, and there well, uhm, the hand you [lost] [(yes, yes)] the left hand, but (yes)

The only interview in which the guest consistently uses informal aizuchi tokens, as presented in the following example, is with a close friend and senpai of the host. Examples from this interview are also presented in Chapter 4, in which formal/informal shifts and forms of address are explored. This guest is consistent in the usage of informal style, as can be observed not only in her verb forms but also in the pronoun usage and also in her choice of aizuchi tokens. She also uses duplicated forms, for example in line 3. (25) ( F4) 1 T: maa nijuugo kara ..uhn= yaruto kaasan no baai well 25 from uhm do-cond mother gen case 2

→ rokujuu ni naru wa ne/ rokujuunen (eh. soo 60 in become fp fp 60-years yes yes

3

soo soo.) ne/ hachijuugosai dakara eeto/ eeh. [(xx)] yes yes yes fp 85-year-old because uhm eh

4

[juu]sanmanko kakeru sanbyakurokujuugo kakeru [rokujuunen] 130,000-ones times 365 times 60-years

5

(rokujuu.)] maa nijuugo kara ano.. 60 well 25 from well

6 → G: ii yo. daitaide, ªne fp around ‘T: Well, if you do it from 25, in your case it is 60, isn’t it? Sixty years (yes, yes, yes), Isn’t it? Because you are 85 years old, uhm, eh (xx) 130, 000 times 365 times 60 years (sixty) well, from 25 uhm.. G: You don’t have to be exact.’

In this example, they are talking about the belief that cells start to die from the age of 25. Here they are trying to calculate how many cells the guest has already lost. In line 2, the guest sends soo in a series of three consecutive tokens, which can be a sign of impatience. Note that the guest expresses her slight annoyance in line 6, when she urges her to give an approximate ªgure. This woman may not ªnd age a pleasant topic.

198 Gender, Language and Culture

Summary and concluding remarks Despite reports that claim clear diŸerences in male and female aizuchi behaviour, there are no conclusive ªndings in this study. Male and female guests send ‘positive’ aizuchi throughout the interviews in my data and both engage in a cooperative and collaborative style. However, a higher frequency of aizuchi in interviews with young female guests was clearly evident. On the other hand, there are major diŸerences in host and guests’ aizuchi. Some are role and situation related, like the token naruhodo, which is exclusively used by the host, and hai, which is used solely by the guests (see Chapter 5). Even though all aizuchi have been classiªed as a single category of minimal responses, there are diŸerences between the tokens. The soo token has formal and informal forms, and these are used discriminately. Some older guests use informal forms (examples 13–15) but younger guests do not use them at all. On the other hand, the host sends informal forms to her younger guests (examples 16–18). The formal and informal aizuchi appear to function in a similar way to polite and honoriªc forms, which express the status diŸerences between interlocutors. At the same time, these aizuchi establish psychological distance; so an informal token accompanied by an SFP such as soonano indicates the listener’s intimacy with the speaker. On the other hand, the polite form soodegozaimasu with falling intonation indicates not only deference, but also a distant and detached relationship to the speaker. A similar eŸect is observed in the use of duplicated aizuchi, which can signal irritation or enthusiasm. Although absent from younger guests’ speech, they are used by some of the older guests (examples 22–25). Because the informal and abrupt token soo and its more polite forms are distributed in a predictable way, it appears that this particular aizuchi and its variants should be placed in a separate category. Firstly, the soo varieties show agreement, as opposed to the shorter forms e and un, which have a broader semantic content. Secondly, they are more restricted in their distribution as they can only be sent after the information has been disclosed. Most importantly, they are diŸerent to other tokens because they display some pragmatic characteristics. Hai belongs to a subcategory as it is considered a more formal token. Its distributional diŸerences are described in Chapter 5. Naturally, these ªndings have to be corroborated within distinct types of exchanges, which is a project for future research. However, I believe that these tokens need to be categorized diŸerently.

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 199

One particular interview, mentioned in Chapter 4, shows that the guest continuously uses informal aizuchi (example 10). The guest is a close friend and a senpai of the host. As written in earlier chapters, human relationships in Japan are based on a system or ranking hierarchy: ‘A Japanese ªnds his world clearly divided into three categories, senpai (seniors), koohai (juniors) and dooryoo (person on the same level). This ranking-consciousness is not limited to o¹cial groups but is to be found also among writers and actors, that is, groups which are supposed to be engaged in work based on individual ability’ (Nakane, 1970: 27). This characteristic does not change throughout life. Juniors or koohai are expected to show deference to their seniors, something that Japanese learn early in life (Nakane, 1970). The host, being her guest’s junior, has to choose a style that shows respect and at the same time fulªls her role as an interviewer. On the other hand, for the guest it seems that their relationship takes precedence over the interview situation. Aizuchi behaviour is neither static nor uniform. The same person may be a high backchanneler in certain circumstances, depending on the relationship with her/his interlocutors, and be a silent listener in other situations. The fact that my data is based on television interviews entails a certain number of conditions, including degree of formality and the presence of an audience. Therefore, it is possible to assume that every participant is conscious of the third participant, the audience, which is silent and not physically present but undeniably important. Bell writes about the eŸect of an audience on the style of a speaker. Although it seems style is related only to pronunciation, he nevertheless recognizes that ‘Audience design informs all levels of a speaker’s linguistic choices — the switch from one complete language to another in bilingual situation, the form of speech acts, pronoun choice, the use of honoriªcs, and quantitative style shift. The audience is, at one level, simply the people who hear the speaker’s utterances. Yet their role is by no means passive’ (1984: 161). This means that both host and guest are conscious of their language use, and we can see that they use a higher degree of politeness strategies. Interlocutors’ behaviour cannot be explained in terms of a single factor, but of a combination of various aspects that are characteristic of a given culture. It appears that aizuchi frequency is more uniform when, in terms of who holds power, there is no con¶ict between factors such as age, gender, and status, as is the case in interviews with younger females. To conclude, the results in this chapter suggest that age, role, and power/ status, which are key elements in Japanese society, as well as the topic and formality of the interaction play an important role in aizuchi use. When these

200 Gender, Language and Culture

factors are not in con¶ict, we can observe a more conversational stance. In the data this is the case with young female guests, who use aizuchi with higher frequency. Contrary to the assumption that aizuchi are sent mainly by women, the data shows that they are used by both women and men and that, even though the roles of host and guest are clearly set, both participants use them frequently. DiŸerent type of aizuchi tokens, which can be informal or formal, are used by host and guests in a strategic manner and in this way tacitly indicate their relative status diŸerences. The choice of formal or informal aizuchi is determined mainly by the age of the interlocutors and their relationship.

Notes 1. Maynard mentions gender diŸerences in her data, although she admits that ‘it is beyond the scope’ of her study (Maynard, 1989: 168). Females send aizuchi more often than males do. 2. My translation. The original is as follows: Ta kara haitte kita chishiki ya iken , genjitsu no jookyoo nadoni ni taishite, sore ga tadashii, rikutsu ni atteiru, mottomo da to mitomeru kimochi o arawasu (Morita, 1994: 878).

Chapter 7

Conclusion

This book examined the interaction of gender and idiosyncratic elements of Japanese culture in the communicative process in television interviews. This ªnal chapter condenses the most important ªndings in the study. It also includes a discussion on the implications of these results for future research on formal language and ‘female’ and ‘male’ communicative styles. The study takes an interdisciplinary approach that is based primarily on conversation analysis methodology. It focuses on turntaking and how the asymmetry in the interview is revealed in the speech. The results suggest that as an ‘institutional’ interaction, the turntaking aspect is constrained by the role allocation, as illustrated in the unequal distribution of questions. The asymmetry in terms of gender, age, and status is also observed in the more ‘traditional’ aspects of the speech: pronominal choice, formal–informal style shifts, and terms of address. However, interruptions associated with power and dominance, are used diŸerently. In most cases, they indicate interest in the interaction. This suggests that in Japanese culture they do not necessarily constitute a ‘violation’, as opposed to English. This is in line with analyses of gender and language that adopt the new approach, which places in the forefront the importance of the context of the speakers’ community (Cameron, 1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995).

Turntaking in interviews The theoretical framework utilized in this study is based on Sacks et al.’ s turntaking model (1974). Besides proving that the model can be applied to a non Indo-European language, the analyses also show that, with some modiªcations, it can be also be applied to other types of speech events in other languages. The host, naturally, produces more questions than her guests. However, turntaking in interviews is not a strict sequence of question-answer adjacency pairs. In fact, the host utilizes a variety of information-eliciting strategies, and most of the TCUs are grammatically unªnished turns. This aspect reinforces

202 Gender, Language and Culture

past studies on the incomplete nature of spoken Japanese as a characteristic of a society that avoids imposition (Kindaichi, 1990; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Ooishi, 1971; Okamoto, 1985). It also demonstrates the bi-functionality of politeness strategies in Japanese. The host uses unªnished turns as a sign of politeness towards older guests and of solidarity and informality with younger guests. Turntaking occurs in 29.4% of grammatically complete and in 28.3% of unªnished utterances. Role diŸerences can be observed in the types of turn construction units (TCU) prior to turntaking. Of the entire host’s turns, 23.9% are grammatically unªnished and 15.9% are ªnished utterances. The guests’ TCUs are distributed inversely: 32.7% are unªnished utterances and 43% are ªnished utterances. This suggests that the host is more polite than the guest, because unªnished utterances can imply a higher degree of politeness as they impose less on the listener. The guests, on the other hand, have to be more explicit because there is little or no shared information. Chapter 4 explores the asymmetry in the interview, focusing on age, gender and status diŸerences. It shows that aggressive interruptions are very rare in the data. However, non-aggressive interruptions are quite common, and are especially conspicuous in interviews with young female guests. As Murata (1994) points out, Japanese often use cooperative interruptions, which in the Japanese context are not considered ‘violations’ but signals of interest and collaboration. Contrary to the ªndings on interruptions and gender (West and Zimmerman, 1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975), it was the younger female guests who interrupted the most, which reinforces the claim that these are cooperative interruptions. A pattern, repeatedly observed in Chapters 4 and 6, is the distinctive style in interactions with younger guests, especially females. In the analysis of TCUs, the most consistent results are found in the all-female younger group, where there is a greater number of turns, of non-aggressive interruptions, and a more conversational style is observed. This indicates that there is less con¶ict in this group because the guests are younger and hence accept the other female, the host, as the power holder. Pronominal choice, terms of address and style shifts were also analysed in Chapter 4. Men use the masculine ªrst person pronoun, and women use the standard form. This ªnding shows that, in the typical gender markers, guests and host still adhere to the norms. When addressing the interlocutor, the host uses the second person pronoun towards her younger guests, while they use her name. However, the host uses names to address her older guests. Similarly,

Conclusion 203

the host shifts styles when talking to her younger guests. In all, it appears that gender diŸerences in the speech are observed in the prototypical ‘gendered’ elements in Japanese but not in the turntaking aspect of the discourse. The dominance in the interview is visible in the style shifts, which are mostly carried out by the host when talking to younger guests, or by some older guests.

Aizuchi in interviews: Gender, age, and role diŸerences As shown in Chapters 5 and 6, aizuchi or listener responses, are pervasive and are sent mainly after major breaks. They have varied functions, but mainly convey interest and participation in the interaction. There are no delayed or ‘negative’ aizuchi and host and guests alike use them positively. Gender and age diŸerences can also be observed in the frequency and types of aizuchi. Aizuchi are more frequent in interviews with younger guests, and are even more pronounced when guests are female. The pervasive use of aizuchi in interviews is an indication that they are integral to Japanese communication. The host sends them constantly to encourage the guest and show her involvement in the interaction. The guests on the other hand, use them to show their cooperation. A diŸerence based on roles is seen in the exclusive use of naruhodo by the host and hai by the guests. The detailed examples illustrate how they can be used to indicate diŸerent messages. Moreover, this study shows that aizuchi should not be categorized as a single group of responses, but that each token is ªnely tuned to convey a particular meaning. For example, the aizuchi so and its variants indicate diŸerent degrees of politeness, which is marked in the copula ending. The informal so tokens are sent to younger guests and are not reciprocated. Similarly, duplicated aizuchi, considered not polite, are used mainly by older guests towards the host. The host, on the other hand, uses them towards her younger guests. The relationship between host and guest also plays a very important role in determining the style. In an interview with a friend of the host, who is much older than her, the guest uses informal language throughout the interview, as seen in an uchi interaction. The host, on the other hand, shifts styles. She maintains an intimate but polite style, but shifts to honoriªc forms when addressing the audience. In a similar fashion, although to a lesser extent, we see a less formal stance with guests who are her acquaintances.

204 Gender, Language and Culture

It should be pointed out that, although there are certain tendencies such as the more pervasive exchange of aizuchi between women, the communicative style of men (and women) in our data is less aggressive than what is observed in other cultures (Holmes, 1992b). For example, of all the interruptions, 69.3% are cooperative. Men also use a cooperative style of communication, and both males and females send positive aizuchi. These results indicate that assuming certain linguistic manifestations be typically ‘female’ or ‘male’ across cultures is a pitfall, as some have warned (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995; Freed and Greenwood, 1996) both males and females used polite strategies. The ªnal and most important question is related to the status of women in terms or power. Is power central to diŸerent communicative styles? It appears that it is impossible to isolate one single factor to explaining human behaviour. Many features in the speech of the interlocutors in the interview data are associated with their respective roles. One crucially important determinant is the age of the guests in relation to the host. It appears that gender, in this context at least, does not decide the hierarchy in the interview; the role a person has in society or in that particular exchange is more important. Future research needs to reªne the picture by comparing men’s and women’s speech when performing the same role. Speciªcally, what occurs when people talk to two persons representing the same roles, one being a man and the other a woman? Will they be addressed in the same manner or will the man command more respect? If the woman is older, will she in turn be addressed with more deference? Are men who perform the same role as women less polite?

Theoretical implications The linguistic situation in Japan in terms of gender diŸerences is not comparable to that in societies where women’s and men’s language features are not speciªcally manifested. In Japanese, communication phenomena exist (hedges, minimal responses, co-construction and so on) on a par with traditionally ‘female’ and ‘male’ speech styles. Despite some scholars’ reports on changes of female and male language into a more neutral form (Abe, 2000; Endo, 1997a, 1997b; Okamoto, 1994) the interview data reinforce the fact that we cannot underestimate the in¶uence of centuries in the inculcation of ‘genderlects’. The other crucial question to be answered is whether women speaking in a male style will lead to more gender equality. With the passing of time, women’s language has lost the force of its original purpose, which might have been to subjugate women. Nevertheless, the diŸering gender styles are so ingrained

Conclusion 205

in the language that it sounds unnatural for females to use male speech or |vice-versa, unless there is humour involved. In formal situations, a woman using male speech faces contempt because she will be judged as uneducated (Reynolds, 1993, 1997, 1998). A man using female speech risks a similar fate, although for other reasons. There is no consensus in Japanese society that the usage of female or male language styles reinforces gender inequalities. Recent reports have shown that women in positions of power can command respect successfully by using diŸerent strategies without resorting to use male language (Abe, 2000; Reynolds, 1997; Takasaki, 1997; Wetzel, 1988), and perhaps this is the way the change is going to take place. On the other hand, we cannot deny that, even in this new era, Japanese society is male oriented. Despite the higher number of women in positions of power, four members in the Koizumi Cabinet, ambassadors, CEOs, etc., there is still a very strong and entrenched male centred perspective in society. Do the few women who are in positions of power utilize speciªc strategies to establish their authority in situations that require less formality? How do men and women of comparable positions use language in formal situations towards each other? Several researchers have started looking at the speech of working women (Abe, 2000) and early reports claim that working women are using verbal strategies that are not aggressive but assertive. However, there is almost no information on males’ language in junior positions when talking to other men or women of higher status, for example. Interactions where the issue of power becomes more central could provide the most valuable insights into this area of communication. As repeatedly stated, power in interviews is restricted to the event. However, in a situation where power is a more permanent element, the implications would be greater, not only in terms of gender diŸerences but on a more global scale.

Concluding remarks This study hopes to contribute to the understanding of Japanese communication in the particular context of the interview genre and the language of men and women. Research on ‘institutional’ Japanese language has just begun, promising interesting new results in the area of conversation analysis. At the same time, the inclusion in the analysis of cultural factors idiosyncratic to the community of the speakers, especially with respect to the aspect of dominance and asymmetry in interaction, has, I believe, gone some way towards obtaining a clearer picture of the exchange.

References

Abe, H. 2000. Japanese Professional Women and Their Speeches. Munich: Lincom Europa. Alfonso, A. 1966. Japanese Language Patterns. Tokyo: Sophia University. Andersen, R. 1995. Consumer Culture and TV Programming. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Aoki, H. and S. Okamoto. 1988. Rules for Conversational Rituals in Japanese. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Ardener, S. 1978. Deªning Females. New York: John Wiley. Atkinson, J. M, and J. Heritage (eds.) 1984. Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bachnik, J. 1994. Introduction: uchi/soto: Challenging our conceptualization of self, social order, and language. In J. Bachnik and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 3–38. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Beattie, G. 1978. Sequential temporal patterns of speech and gaze in dialogue. Semiotica 23(1/2): 29–52. Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204. Benedict, R. 1954. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. Tokyo: Tuttle. Bernstein, L. G. (ed.) 1991. Recreating Japanese Women, 1600–1945. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Bergvall, V., J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.) 1996. Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and practice. London: Longman. Bing, J. and V. Bergvall, 1996. The question of questions: Beyond binary thinking. In V. Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and practice, 1–29. London: Longman. Brouwer, D. 1989. Gender Variation in Dutch. A sociolinguistic study of Amsterdam speech. Dordrecht: Foris. Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP. Brown, R. and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In P. P.Giglioli (ed.), Language and Social Context, 252–283. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Blum-Kulka, S. 1983. The dynamics of political interviews. Text 3(2): 131–153. Burton, D. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan. Cameron, D. 1996. The language–gender interface: Challenging co-optation. In V. Bergvall,

208 Gender, Language and Culture

J. Bing and A. Freed. (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and practice, 31–53. London: Longman. Capella, J. N. 1980. Talk–silence sequences in informal conversations II. Human Communication Research 6: 130–45. Clancy, P., S. A. Thompson, R. Suzuki and H. Tao. 1996. The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 355–387. Clayman, S. 1988. Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35: 474–492. Clayman, S. 1992. Footing in achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, 163–198. Cambridge: CUP. Coates, J. 1989a. Introduction (Chapter 6). In Coates, J. and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 63–74. London: Longman. Coates, J. 1989b. Gossip revisited: Language in all–female groups. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 94–122. New York: Longman. Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Coates, J. 1998. Language and Gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Coates, J. and D. Cameron (eds.) 1989. Women in their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex. New York: Longman. Cohen, A. 1987. The Television News Interview. Newbury Park CA: Sage. Cook, H. M. 1990a. The sentence-ªnal particle ‘ne’ as a tool for cooperation in Japanese conversation. In K. Hajime (ed.), Japanese and Korean Linguistics, 29–45. Stanford CA: Stanford Linguistics Center. Coulmas, F. 1992. Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society. In R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in the history, theory and practice, 99–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Davidson, J. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, oŸers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis, 102–128. Cambridge: CUP. De Francisco, V. L. 1998. The sounds of silence: How men silence women in marital relations. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A reader, 176–184. Oxford: Blackwell. Doi, T. 1973. The Anatomy of Dependence. Tokyo: Koodansha. Diamond, J. 1996. Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a close-knit social network. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Drew, P. 1984. Speakers’ reporting in invitation sequences. In J. M, Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis, 129–51. Cambridge: CUP. Drew, P. 1992. Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial rape. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 470–520. Cambridge: CUP. Drew, P. and J. Heritage. 1992. Analyzing Talk at Work. Cambridge: CUP. Du Bois, J., S. Schuetze-Coburn, D. Paolino, and S. Cumming. 1990. Outline of discourse transcription. In J. Edwards and M. Lampert (eds.), Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research, 45–89. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References 209

Duncan, S. Jr. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 283–292. Duncan, S. and D. Fiske. 1985. Interaction Structure and Strategy. Cambridge: CUP. Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490. Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1995. Constructing meanings, constructing selves: Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belten High. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and socially constructed self, 469–507. London: Routledge. Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1998. Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all Live. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender, 484–495. Oxford: Blackwell. Edelsky, C. 1981. Who’s got the ¶oor? Language in Society 10: 383–421. Ehara, Y., Y. Yoshii and K. Yamazaki, 1993. Seisabetsu no esunomesodorojii: taimenteki komyunikeeshon ni okeru kenryoku soochi [The ethnomethodology on discrimination: Power devices in face-to-face communication]. In K. A. Reynolds (ed.) Onna to Nihongo [Women and Japanese], 4–26. Tokyo: Yuushindo. Endo, O. 1997a. Onna no Kotoba no Bunkashi [Cultural history of women’s language]. Tokyo: Gakuyoo Shobo. Endo, O. 1997b. Shokuba no Keigo no ima [The present of honoriªcs in workplaces]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no Kotoba. Shokubahen. [Women and language. At the workplace], 83–113. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Erickson, F. and J. J. Schultz. 1982. The Counsellor as Gatekeeper: Social and cultural organization of communication in counselling interviews. New York NY: Academic Press. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman. Ferrara, K. 1992. The interactive achievement of a sentence: Joint production in therapeutic discourse. Discourse Processes 15: 229–247. Ford, C. F. and S. A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. SchegloŸ and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 134–84. Cambridge: CUP. Freed, A. 1996. Language and gender research in an experimental setting. In V. Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and practice, 55–76. London: Longman. Freed, A. and A. Greenwood. 1996. Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the diŸerence? Language in Society 25: 1–26. Fries, C. 1964. Linguistics: The study of language. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fishman, P. 1978. Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems 258: 397–406. Furo, H. 2001. Turn-Taking in English and Japanese. Projectability in grammar, intonation and semantics. London: Routledge. Gardner, R. 2001. When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Garªnkel, H. 1974. On the origins of the term “ethnomethodology”. In R. Turner (ed.) Ethnomethodology, 15–18. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group]. 1997. Josei no Kotoba. Shokubahen [Women and Language. At the workplace]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

210 Gender, Language and Culture

Gerhardt, J. and S. Beyerle. 1997. What if Socrates had been a woman? The therapist’s use of acknowledgement tokens (mm-hm, yeah, sure, right) as a nonre¶ective means of intersubjective involvement. Contemporary Psychoanalysis 33 (3): 367–410. Goldstein, B. and K. Tamura, 1975. Japan and America. A comparative study in language and culture. Tokyo: Charles Tuttle. GoŸman, E. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257–313. Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York NY: Academic Press. Graddol, D. and J. Swann. 1993. Gender Voices. Oxford: Blackwell. Greatbatch, D. 1986. Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture and Society 8: 421–455. Greatbatch, D. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17: 401–430. Greatbatch, D. 1992. On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 268–301. Cambridge: CUP. Greenwood, A. 1996. Floor management and power strategies in adolescent conversation. In V. Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and practice. London: Longman. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts [Syntax and Semantics 3], 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Gumperz, J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. Gumperz, J. (ed.) 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Gumperz, J. 1992. Interviewing in intercultural situations. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 302–327. Cambridge: CUP. Gunter, B. 1995. Television and Gender Representation. London: John Libbey. Hastings, S.A and S. H. Nolte . 1996. The Meiji’s state’s policy toward women, 1890–1910. In G. L. Bernstein (ed.), Recreating Japanese Women, 1600–1945, 151–175. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Have, P. ten. 1991. Talk and institution: A reconsideration of the asymmetry of doctor — patient interaction. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (ed.), Talk and Social Structure, 138–163. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hayashi, R. 1996. Cognition, Empathy, and Interaction: Floor management of English and Japanese conversation. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Hayashi, R. 1997. Hierarchical interdependence expressed through conversational styles in Japanese women’s magazines. Discourse and Society 8(3): 359–389. Hendry, J. 1995. Understanding Japanese Society. (Second edition). London: Routledge. Heritage, J. 1984. Garªnkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, J. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3, 95– 119. New York NY: Academic Press. Heritage, J. 1995. Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In U. M. QuasthoŸ (ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication, 391–418). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Heritage, J. and D. Greatbatch. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social

References

Structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. 93–137. Berkeley CA: University Of California Press. Heritage, J. and J. M. Atkinson. Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, 1–16. Cambridge: CUP. Heritage, J. and A. Roth. 1995. Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60. Heritage, J. and S. Seª. 1992. Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and ªrst time mothers. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 359–417. Cambridge: CUP. Hinds, J. 1976. Aspects of Japanese Discourse. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Hinds, J. 1978a. Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse. In J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, 79–121. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Hinds, J. 1978b. Anaphora in Japanese conversation. In John Hinds (ed.), Anaphora in Discourse, 136–179. Edmonton Alberta: Linguistic Research. Hinds, J. 1985a. Misinterpretation and common knowledge in Japanese. Pragmatics 9: 7–19. Hinds, J. 1982. Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton Alberta: Linguistic Research. Hinds, J. 1984. Japanese. In Chisholm, W. L. Milic, J. Greppin (eds.), Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of question in seven diverse languages, 145–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hinds, J. 1985b. Intrusion in Japanese conversation. In S. Miyagawa and C. Kitagawa (eds.), Studies in Japanese Language Use, 1–33. Edmonton Alberta: Linguistic Research. Hirokawa, R. Y. 1987. Communication within the Japanese business organization. In D. L. Kincaid (ed.), Communication Theory: Eastern and western perspectives, 137–49. New York NY: Academic Press. Holmes, J. 1986a. Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15:1–22. Holmes, J. 1986b. Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics 28(4): 485–508. Holmes, J. 1992a. Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Holmes, J. 1992b. Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society 3(2): 131–150. Holmes, J. 1993. New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 91–116. Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. Holmes, J and M. Stubbe. 1997. Good listeners: Gender diŸerences in New Zealand conversation. Women and language 20(2): 7–14. Honda, A. 2002. Con¶ict management in Japanese public aŸair talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 573–608. Horiguchi, S. 1991. Aizuchi kenkyuu no gendankai to kadai [Present research on aizuchi and future topics]. Nihongogaku 10. Horiguchi, S. 1997. Japanese Conversation by Learners and Native Speakers. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Horii, R. 1990. Onna no Kotoba [Women’s language].Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Horiuchu, K. and Y. Omori. 1994. Wakai josei no kotoba no gokei gogi no tokushoku [Words and semantics of young women’s language]. Nihongogaku 13(10): 72–80.

211

212 Gender, Language and Culture

Ide, R. and T. Terada. 1998. The historical origins of Japanese women’s speech: From the secluded worlds of “court ladies” and “play ladies”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 129: 139–156. Ide, S. 1979. Onna no kotoba Otoko no kotoba. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Tsuushinsha. Ide, S. 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics. Politeness and women’s language. Lingua 57: 357– 385. Ide, S. 1983. Onnarashisa no gengogaku: Naze onna wa joseigo o tsukauka [The linguistics of female language: Why do women use female language]. In O. Mizutani (ed.), Hanashi Kotoba no Hyoogen [Expressions in spoken language], 174–193. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. Ide, S. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8:(2/3): 223–248. Ide, S. 1997. Joseigo no Sekai. Tokyo: Meiji Shooin. Ide, S. 1997. Sekai no joseigo – Nihon no joseigo: Joseigo kenkyuu no shintenkai o motomete [World’s women’s language – Women’s language in Japan: Pursuing new developments in women’s language research]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 6–12. Ide, S., M. Hori, A. Kawasaki, S. Ikuta and H. Haga. 1986. Sex diŸerence and politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58: 225–36. Ikuta, S. 1983. Speech level shift and conversational strategy. Language Sciences 5(1): 37–53. Inoue, M. 1994. Gender and linguistic modernization: A historical account of the birth of Japanese women’s language. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton and C. Hines (eds.), Cultural Performances. Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 322–333. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California. Irigaray, L. 1990. Women’s Exile. In D. Cameron (ed.), The Feminist Critique of Language: A reader. London: Routledge. Itakura, H. 2001. Conversational Dominance and Gender: A study of Japanese speakers in ªrst and second language-contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Itoh, H. 1991. Taiwa bangumi ni okeru “Repair” [“Repair” in talk programs]. Nihongogaku 10(3): 62:74. Iwasaki, S. 1997. The Northridge earthquake conversations: The ¶oor structure and the ‘loop’ sequence in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 661–693. JeŸerson, G. 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language. Studies in ethnomethodology, 79–96. New York NY: Irvington. Jenkins, M and C. Kramarae. 1982. A thief in the house: The case of women and language. In D. Spender (ed.), Men’s Studies Modiªed. Oxford: Pergamon. Johnson, G. 1996. The management of interaction in the television interviews of Maggie Barry. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 25–53. Jucker, A. 1986. News Interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kabaya, H. 1993. Taigu hyoogen ni okeru shooryaku [Ellipsis in polite expressions]. Nihongogaku 12(9): 27–33. Kaplan, C. 1990. Language and gender. In D. Cameron (ed.), The Feminist Critique of Language: A reader. London: Routledge.

References 213

Karatsu, M. 1995. A functional analysis of DEWA , DAKARA and SHIKASHI in conversation. Japanese Discourse 1: 107–130. Kawasaki, M. 1989. Nichijoo kaiwa no kimarikotoba [Idiomatic expressions in everyday language]. Nihongogaku 3(2): 26–35. Kendon, A. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologia 26: 22–63. Kendon, A. 1990. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of behaviour in focused encounters. Cambridge: CUP. Kindaichi, H. 1990. Nihongo [Japanese]. (Vol. 1 and 2). Tokyo: Iwanami shinsho. Kitagawa, C. 1997. A source of femininity in Japanese: In defence of Robin LakoŸ’s ‘Language and woman’s place’. Papers in Linguistics 10(3/4): 275–28. Kobayashi, M. 1993. Sedai to Joseigo: Wakai sedai no kotoba no “chuuseika” ni tsuite [Female language and generation: On the “neutralization” of the language in younger generations]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 181–192. Kobayashi, M. 1997. Jisho, taishoo wa chuuseika suruka [Are personal pronouns ‘neutralizing’?]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no Kotoba. Shokubahen [Women and language. At the workplace], 113–137. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Kodama, M. 1997. Nyuusu no okurite toshite no josei [The woman as a sender of news]. In T. Inoue, C. Ueno and Y. Ehara (eds.), Feminism in Japan: Hyoogen to media [Expression and the media], 202–240. Tokyo: Iwanami. Komiya, C. 1986. Aizuchi shiyoo no jittai: shutsugen keikoo yo sono shuuhen. Gogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Ronsoo. Daitoo Bunka Daigaku Gogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuujoo. KotthoŸ, H. 1997. The interactional achievement of expert status. In H. KotthoŸ and R. Wodak. (eds.), Communicating Gender in Context, 139–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. KotthoŸ, H. and R. Wodak. 1997. Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kramarae, C. 1981. Women and Men Speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Kuno, S.1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kuno, S. 1978. Danwa no Bunpoo [A grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Kuroda, S. 1979. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. New York NY: Garland Publishing. Kurosaki, Y. 1987. Danwa shinkoojoo no aizuchi no unyoo to kinoo [The functions and management of aizuchi in the conversation]. Kokugogaku 150(15): 122–109. Labov, W. 1972. The logic of non-standard English. In P. P. Giglioli (ed.) Language and Social context, 179–215. London: Penguin. Labov, W. and D. Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse. New York NY: Academic Press. LakoŸ, R. 1973. The logic of politeness: On minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society 9: 292–305. LakoŸ, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s place. New York NY: Harper and Row. Lebra, T. S. 1976. Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press. Lebra, T. S. 1987. The cultural signiªcance of silence in Japanese communication. Multilingua 6(4): 343–357.

214 Gender, Language and Culture

Lee, M. 1976. The married woman’s status and role as re¶ected in Japanese: An exploratory sociolinguistic study. Signs 1(4). Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. LoCastro, V. 1987. Aizuchi : A Japanese conversational routine. In L. K. Smith (ed.), Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes, 101–113. Oxford: Pergamon. Loveday, L. 1986. Explorations in Japanese Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Makino, S. and M. Tsutsui. 1992. A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. (11th edition). Tokyo: The Japan Times. Maltz, D. and R. Borker. 1982. A cultural approach to male–female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 196–216. Cambridge: CUP. Martin, S. 1975, A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Have CT: Yale University Press. Matsumoto, M. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403–426. Maynard, D. 1991. The perspective display series and the delivery and receipts of diagnostic news. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, 164–92. Cambridge: Polity Press. Maynard, D. 1992. On clinicians co-implicating recipients’ perspective in the delivery of diagnostic news. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 331–358. Cambridge: CUP. Maynard, S. 1986. On back-channel behaviour in Japanese and English casual conversation. Linguistics 24: 1079–1108. Maynard, S. 1989. Self-contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Maynard, S. 1991. Pragmatics of discourse modality: A case of da and desu/masu forms in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 551–582. McClain, Y. 1990. Handbook of Modern Japanese Grammar. (15th edition). Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press. Mc Connell-Ginet, S. 1988. Language and gender. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Vol. 4. Language: The socio-cultural context, 75–99. Cambridge: CUP. MeyerhoŸ, M. 1996. Dealing with gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable. In V. Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and practice, 202–227. London: Longman. Miller, A. 1967. The Japanese Language. Tokyo: Charles Tuttle. Mizutani, N. 1982. The listener’s response in Japanese conversation. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 13(1): 33–38. Mizutani, N. 1988a. Hanashi kotoba no hikaku taisho [A comparison in spoken language]. In Nihongo Kyooshiyoo Sankooshoo II. Hanashikotoba to Komyuunikeeshon [A guide to teachers of Japanese II. Spoken language and communication]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Mizutani, N. 1988b. Aizuchiron [The theory of aizuchi]. Nihongogaku 12(7): 4–11. Mizutani, O. 1981. Japanese: The spoken language in Japanese life. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Mizutani, O. and N., Mizutani. 1987. How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Moerman, M. 1988. Talking Culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mori, J. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Connective expressions

References 215

and turn construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Morita, Y. 1994. Kiso Nihongo Jiten. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Mouer, R. and Y. Sugimoto. 1986. Images of Japanese Society. London: Kegan Paul. Murata, K. 1994. Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 385–400. Nakada T. 1991. Kaiwa ni awareru kurikaeshi no hatsuwa [Repetition in conversations]. Nihongogaku 10(10): 52–62. Nakada, T. 1992. On repetition within conversational strategy. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuu Hookoku 104, Kenkyuu Hookokushuu 13: 267–302. Nakajima, E. 1997. Gimon hyoogen no yoosoo [An aspect of interrogative expressions]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai. [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no Kotoba. Shokubahen [Women and Language. At the workplace], 59–82. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Nakane, C. 1970. Japanese Society. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Nakayama, T. and K. J. Nakayama. 1997. Japanese kedo: Discourse gender and grammatization. In H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 6, 607–619. Stanford CA: CSLI. Nippon Hoosoo Kyookai, 1967. The History of Broadcasting in Japan. Tokyo: Nippon Hoosoo Kyookai. Nitta, Y. 1989. Nihongo no Modaritei [Japanese Modality]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Nitta, Y. 1995. Nihongo no Modaritei to Ninshoo [Japanese Modality and Personal Pronoun]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Nolte, S and S. A. Hastings. 1991. The Meiji State’s policy toward women, 1890–1910. In G. L. Bernstein (ed.), Recreating Japanese Women 1600–1945, 151–174. Berkeley CA: University of California of Press. O’Barr, W. and B. Atkins. 1980. ‘Women’s language’ or ‘Powerless language?’ In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker and N. Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society, 93–110. New York NY: Praeger. Octigan, M. 1997. A Study of Interruptions and Other Types of Simultaneous Speech Found in Talk-Back Radio Conversations. Unpublished MA. Dissertation, La Trobe University. Ogino, T. 1986. Quantiªcation of politeness based on the usage patterns of honoriªc expressions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58: 37–58. Okamoto, S. 1985. Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California. Okamoto, S. 1994. “Gendered” speech styles and social identity. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton and C. Hines (eds.), Cultural Performances. Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California. Okamoto, S. 1995. “Tasteless” Japanese: Less “feminine” speech among young Japanese women. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, 297–325. London: Routledge. Ooishi, H. 1971. Hanashi kotobaron [Spoken Language]. Tokyo: Shueisha. Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The study of talk- in-interaction. London: Sage. Peng, F. C. C. (ed.). 1981. Male/Female DiŸerences in Japanese. Tokyo: The East – West Sign

216 Gender, Language and Culture

Language Association. Pomerantz, A. 1974. Compliment Responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constrains. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 79–112. New York NY: Academic Press. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: CUP. Power, R. J. D. and M. F. dal Martello. 1986. Some criticisms of Sacks, SchegloŸ, and JeŸerson on turn taking. Semiotica 58(1/2): 29–40. Quinn, C. J. 1994. The terms uchi and soto as windows on a world. In J. Bachnik and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 38–73. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Reid, J. 1992. A Study of Gender DiŸerences in Minimal Responses and Other Simultaneous Speech. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Department of Linguistics, La Trobe University. Reid, J. 1995. A study of gender diŸerence in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 489–512. Reischauer, E. 1977. The Japanese. Tokyo: Charles Tuttle. Reynolds, A. K. 1993. Gengo to seisa no kenkyuu: Genzai to shoorai [Research on language and gender diŸerences: Present and future]. Nihongogaku 10(10): 52–62. Reynolds, A. K. (ed.) 1993. Onna to Nihongo [Japanese and Women]. Tokyo: Yuushindo. Reynolds, A. K. 1997. Gengo to seisa no kenkyuu [Research on language and gender]. Nihongogaku, 12(6): 199–215. Reynolds, A. K. 1998. Female speakers of Japanese in transition. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A reader, 299–308. Oxford: Blackwell. Rosenberger, N. 1994. Indexing hierarchy through Japanese gender relations. In J. Bachnik and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 88–113. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Sacks, H. 1972a. On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, 325–345. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. (Vol.1/2). Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, H., E. SchegloŸ and G. JeŸerson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. Sekiguchi, S. 1998. Terebi Bunka: Nihon no Katachi [Television Culture: The Japanese model]. (2nd edition). Tokyo: Gakubunsha. SchegloŸ, E. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologists 70: 1075–1099. SchegloŸ, E. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and talk, 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. SchegloŸ, E. 1984. On questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures on Social Action, 28–53. Cambridge: CUP.

References 217

SchegloŸ, E. 1988. GoŸman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds.), Erving GoŸman: Exploring the interaction order, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press. SchegloŸ, E. 1990. On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-ininteraction. In B. Dorval (ed.) Conversational Organization and its Development, 51–77. Norwood NJ: Ablex. SchegloŸ, E. 1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 101–134. Cambridge: CUP. SchegloŸ, E. 1993. Re¶ections on quantiªcation in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99–128. SchegloŸ, E. and H. Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289–307. SchiŸrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. SchiŸrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Shearn, S. 1998. Interviewing styles on New Zealand National radio: Is Mike Honking really so outrageous? Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 35–63. Shibamoto, J. 1985. Japanese Women’s Language. New York NY: Academic Press. Shibamoto, J. 1987. The womanly woman: Manipulation of stereotypical and nonstereotypical features of Japanese female speech. In S. Philips, S. Steele and C. Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. Shibatani, M.1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP. Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards and Analysis of Discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: OUP. Smith, J. 1992. Women in charge: Politeness and directives in the speech of Japanese women. Language in Society 21: 59–82. Spender, D. 1980. Man Made Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stubbe, M. 1998. Are you listening? Cultural diŸerences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 257–289. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis. The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell. Suckle, R. 1994. Uchi/soto: Choice in directive speech in Japanese. In J. Bachnik and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 113–143. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Sugito, K. 1987. Hatsuwa no uketsugi [Turn-yielding] Danwa koodoo no shosoo – Zadan shiryoo no bunseki [Aspects of conversation: Analysis of a meeting]. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujoo Hookoku 92. Sugito, M. 1993. Kookatekina danwa to aizuchi no tokuchoo oyobi sono taimingu [Characteristics of eŸective backchannels in the conversation and their timing]. Nihongo 12 (3): 11–20. Sunaoshi, Y. 1994. Japanese women in Command. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton and C. Hines (eds.), Cultural Performances. Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 678–690. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California. Suzuki, A. 1993. Joseigo no honshitsu: teineisa, hatsuwakoi no shiten kara [The essence of female language: from the perspective of politeness and turn-taking]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 148–155.

218 Gender, Language and Culture

Suzuki, M. 1995. Women and Television: Portrayal of women in the mass media. In K. Fujimura-Fanselow and A. Kameda (eds.), Japanese Women: New feminist perspective on the past, present and future, 75–90. New York NY: The Feminist Press. Suzuki, S. 1972. Nihongo Bunpoo. Keitairon [Japanese Grammar. Morphology]. Tokyoo: Mugi Shoboo. Suzuki, T. 1975. Tozasareta Gengo: Nihongo no sekai [A sealed language: The world of Japanese]. Tokyo: Shinchoo-sha. Szatrowski, P. 1989. Aizuchi to sono Rizumu [ Aizuchi and its rhythm]. Nihongo 3: 32–35. Szatrowski, P. 1993. Nihongo no Danwa no Koozoo Bunseki: Kanyuu no Sutoratejii no Koosatsu [Analysis of the Structure of Japanese Discourse: A study on invitation strategies]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Swann, J. 1988. Talk control: An illustration from the classroom of problems in analyzing male dominance of conversation. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 123–40. London: Longman. Takahara, K. 1991. Female speech patterns in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 92: 61–85. Takasaki, M. 1996. Terebi to joseigo [Television and female language]. Nihongogaku 15(9): 46–55. Takasaki, M. 1997. Josei no hatarakikata to kotoba no tayoosei [Women’s work and their language diversity]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no Kotoba. Shokubahen [Women and Language. At the workplace], 213– 239.Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Tanaka, H. 1999. Turn taking in Japanese Conversation: A study on grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tannen, D. 1981. New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30: 133–149. Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: CUP. Tannen, D. 1994a. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: OUP. Tannen, D. 1994b.The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and Discourse. Oxford: OUP. Terada, S. 1993. Nihongo ni okeru joseigo kenkyuushi [The history of female speech research in Japan]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 262–313. Tetsuko no Heya. Retrieved from http://www/tr-asati.co.jp/hscadcast/tetsuko/data.html#D. Thorne, B. and N. Henley (eds.) 1975. Language and Sex: DiŸerence and dominance. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Troemel-Ploetz. 1992. The construction of conversational equality by women. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds.), Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California. Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language and Society 1(2): 179–95.

References 219

Tsuchihashi, M. 1983. The speech act continuum: An investigation of Japanese sentence ªnal particles. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 361–387. Tsui, A. 1989. Beyond the adjacency pair. Language in Society 18: 545–564. Uchida, N. 1993. Kaiwa koodoo ni mirareru seisa [Gender diŸerences in conversational behaviour]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 156–167. Uchida, A. 1992. When “diŸerence” is “dominance”: A critique of the “anti-power-based” cultural approach to sex diŸerences. Language in Society 21: 547–568. Usami, M. 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation. Some implications for a universal theory of politeness. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoobo. West, C. 1984. When the doctor is a “lady”; power, status and gender in physician-patient encounters. Symbolic Interaction , 7: 87–106. West, C. and D. Zimmerman. 1983. Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender and Society, 86–111. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Wetzel, P. 1985. In-group and out-group deixis: Situational variation in the verbs of giving and receiving in Japanese. In J. P. Forgas (ed.), Language and social Situation, 141–57. New York NY: Springer. Wetzel, P. 1988. Are “powerless” communication strategies the Japanese norm? Language in Society 17: 55–564. Wetzel, P. 1994. A movable self: The linguistic indexing of uchi and soto. In J. Bachnik and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 73–88. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Whalen, M. and D. H. Zimmerman. 1990. Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society 19: 465–92. Wilson, T. P., Wieman, J. M. and D. H. Zimmerman. 1984. Models of turn taking in conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3(3): 159–83. Winter, J. 1993. Gender and the political interview in an Australian context. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 117–139. White, S. 1989. Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society 18: 59–76. Wodak, R. 1997. Gender and Discourse. London: Sage. Woods, N. 1988. Talking shop: Sex and status as determinants of ¶oor apportionment in a work setting. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex. London: Longman. World Wide Web. www.tv-asahi.cop.jp/broadcast/tetsuko/ Yamada, H. 1992. American and Japanese Business Discourse: A comparison of interactional styles. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Yamada, T. 1995. Kaiwa bunseki no hoohoo [Conversation analysis methodology]. In Inoue, T., C. Ueno, M. Oosawa, S. Mita and S. Yoshimi (eds.), Tasha, Kankei, Komyuunikeeshoon [The Others, Relations, Communication], 121–136. Tokyo: Iwanami. Yngve, V. H. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the 6th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 567–578. Yonekawa, A. 1994. Wakai josei no kotoba no shinriteki/shakaiteki haikei [The psychological/sociological background of young women’s language]. Nihongogaku 13(10): 18.

220 Gender, Language and Culture

Yoshii, H. 1996. Otoko ga onna o saegiru toki: Nichijoo kaiwa no kenryoku soochi [When men interrupt women: A power device in daily conversation]. In T. Yamada and H. Yoshii (eds.), Haijoo to Sabetsu no Esunomesodorojii [The Ethnomethodology of Exclusion and Discrimination], 213–250. Tokyo: Shinyoosha. Yoshioka, Y. 1994. Wakai josei no gengo koodoo [The language behaviour of young females]. Nihongogaku. 13(10): 33–71. Zimmerman, D. 1992. Achieving context: Openings in emergency calls. In G. Watson and R. M. Seiler (eds.), Text in Context: Contributions in ethnomethodology, 35–51. Newbury Park CA: Sage. Zimmerman, D. and C. West. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: DiŸerence and dominance, 105–129. Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Appendix 1

Tables

Details of interviews Table 1. Group FI: Females over 50 Guest

Age

Profession

Topic

(F1) (F2) (F3) (F4) (F5)

70 69 68 85 60’s

writer actress writer actress collector

her husband, books life after retirement her books, career her career kimonos, accessories

Table 2. Group FII: Females under 50 Guest

Age

Profession

Topic

(F6) (F7) (F8) (F9) (F10)

40’s 40’s 48 38 37

singer reporter pianist actress singer

diet, singing life with in-laws her career her latest movie her childhood

Table 3. Group MI: Males over 50 Guest

Age

Profession

Topic

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5)

74 70 60’s 60 60’s

actor gardener ex-lawyer cartoonist shoe-maker

WW II experiences cherry trees his ex-job , new job ghosts, his work shoes

Table 4. Group MII: Males under 50 Guest

Age

Profession

Topic

(M6) (M7) (M8) (M9) (M10)

40’s 40’s 40’s 48 41

violinist actor sportsman scholar Kabuki actor

music, concerts his family his career his books, career his latest activities

Appendix II

Aizuchi frequency

Table 5 . Total of aizuchi tokens All-female interviews Host 810

Female guests 1302

Female-male interviews Host 1061

Male guests 1083

Table 6. Aizuchi frequency Aizuchi in interviews with Female Male Older Younger Older Younger Host Guest Total

339 471 810

558 744 1302

544 517 1061

542 541 1083

Index

A Abe 1, 27, 101, 103, 204, 205 acknowledgment 140, 145 address 21, 122, 126–128, 132–134, 201, 202 age 2, 18–21, 60, 112, 121–123, 128– 130, 134, 135, 177, 178, 198, 199–204 aggressive 25, 36, 40, 99, 100, 103–106, 109, 110, 112, 133, 202, 204, 205 interruptions 24, 100, 106, 202 see also intrusive interruptions aizuchi exchange 150–153, 162, 167 frequency 142, 161, 162, 172, 177, 198–200, 203 function 138, 139, 141, 146, 148, 154– 162, 170–173, 192, 193, 198 signals 138–140, 145, 157, 177 timing 138, 142, 195 allocation 8, 9, 13, 33, 34, 43, 46, 57, 60, 201 anata 28, 119, 122, 127–130, 132, 134 see also personal pronouns answer 9, 10, 12, 17, 43, 45, 76–79, 81, 87, 121, 146, 152, 155, 159, 164, 169, 171, 180 anthropologists 83 asymmetric interaction 19, 44, 45, 104 relationships 178 see also power, control atashi 27, 122–125 see also watashi, watakushi, personal pronouns Atkinson 10, 12, 14 audience 35–40, 43, 45, 46, 51, 54, 75, 83, 98, 117, 120, 121, 129, 132, 134, 172, 199, 203

Austin 3, 4 auxiliaries 92, 95 B Bachnik 22 backchannel 9, 58, 95, 99, 137–139, 142, 146, 173, 175–178 boku 98, 122 -126 see also personal pronouns bowing 10, 53, 54 see also greetings broadcasting 38, 39, 62, 171 Brown 14–19, 128 C Cameron 23, 25, 99, 175, 176, 201 Chinese 25, 26 Clancy 137 clariªcation 69, 70, 75 classroom interaction 4, 5 clausal ellipsis 17, 86, 90 particles 90, 91 clause 91–93, 144, 145, 147 see also conditional clause Clayman 1, 13, 14, 44, 45, 73, 137 Coates 23, 104, 109, 112, 175, 176 co-constructions 113, 133, 193 collaborative 104, 110, 112, 114, 133, 175, 177, 178, 181, 183, 198 colloquial 34, 66, 67, 84, 85, 94, 97, 105, 112 comments 11, 12, 73, 74, 113 communication 2, 3, 7, 19, 20, 24, 58, 98, 101, 203–205 see also English and Japanese communication, Japanese communication, non-verbal communication

224 Gender, Language and Culture

communicative interaction 7, 44 competitive 36, 100 completion point 57 see also grammatical completion conditional 189 conditional clause 92, 93, 144, 147 Confucianism 25 conjunctive particle 86, 90–92 connective 59, 106, 113, 114 particles 59 see also sentence ªnal particles (SFP) constraints 34, 45, 46, 73 continuer 157, 162–164, 169, 171, 172, 180 control 19, 23, 44, 75, 99, 104, 110, 133, 175, 176 see also power, asymmetric interaction controversial 107, 110 conversation 6–9, 11, 57–61, 94, 97–98, 102, 112, 177 conversational dominance 104–107 see also power, intrusive interruptions Cook 93, 94 cooperation 2, 100, 105, 114, 181 cooperative 2, 25, 36, 94, 100, 102, 103, 106, 109–116, 133, 178, 180–182, 193, 198, 202, 204 interruptions 106, 108–112 see also intrusive interruptions Cooperative Principle 14 culture 2, 1590, 101, 176, 199 see also Japanese communication current speaker 8, 9, 60, 61

discourse 3–5, 101, discourse markers 50, 65, 66, 76, 81, 111, 187 distribution 62, 63, 82, 86, 96, 149, 191, 198 Drew 1, 5, 13, 14, 33, 44, 45, 49, 57, 99 duplicated aizuchi 195, 198, 203 tokens 168, 183, 195, 196 Dutch 24 dyadic interaction 61, 62

D daroo 74, 93 see also deshoo debates 100, 110 declaratives 71, 72 delayed aizuchi 138, 142 see also negative aizuchi deshoo 67, 68, 74, 93, 148, 186 see also daroo deviant 6, 48, 79, 87, 131, 132 diŸerence theory 23, 24, 175–177 see also dominance theory

F face 15–17, 86 see also negative face, positive face falling intonation 94, 95, 143, 157, 159, 163, 165, 183, 184, 187, 190 female interviewer and interviewee 35, 36, 40 - male dichotomy 23, 99 style 2, 23, 25–29, 84, 85, 93, 94, 99 100–106, 122–126, 130–135, 146 females and aizuchi 176, 177, 178, 182, 192–198, 205

E Eckert 25, 99, 175, 201, 204 Edelsky 9, 99, 175, 176 education 24, 26, 38, 102 Ehara 101, 103, 112, 138, 142, 175, 177, 178 eliciting 63, 64, 71, 72, 145, 201 elicitors 71 ellipsis 17, 18, 86, 90, 96, 102 English and Japanese communication 58, 59, 137, 138 empathy 73, 111, 128, 134, 152, 160 Endo 1, 25–27, 101, 103, 204 English 8, 12, 34, 36, 42, 58, 59, 86, 101, 102, 123, 153, 159, 176, 185, 201 ethnomethodology 5 European 17, 18, 122 everyday conversation 5, 13, 14, 34, 43, 59, 60, 62, 96, 98, 132 see also mundane conversation exchange 10–13, 45 of greetings 9, 10, 45, 49, 52

Index 225

feminine 2, 25, 28, 103 see also female style feminism 23, 104 ªller 81, 150, 162, 167, 171, 172 see also aizuchi exchange Fishman 19, 23, 99, 104, 138, 142, 175, 176 Fiske 7, 142 formal 2, 13, 16–18, 20, 22, 27–29, 31, 45, 53, 60, 84, 96, 103, 117, 119, 123–126, 128–131, 133, 146, 162, 172, 177, 183, 187–191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, 205 see also honoriªc, polite forms, speech styles formality 2, 13, 17, 29, 60, 84, 94, 117, 120, 122, 125, 129, 131, 134, 172, 183, 187– 190, 199, 200, 205 Freed 23, 99, 112, 175, 204 frequency 94, 110, 134, 142, 161, 162, 172, 177, 198–200, 203 of interruptions 108–110, 134 see also aizuchi frequency, particle frequency function 28, 90, 94, 138, 139, 141, 146, 148, 154, 156, 157, 159, 162, 171, 172, 173, 176, 192, 193, 198 see also aizuchi function, pragmatic function, semantic function Furo 58, 59 G Gardner 153, 159 Garªnkel 5 Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai 27 Gillman 17, 19, 128 goal-oriented 33, 43, 45 Goffman 5, 11 grammatical completion 17, 57, 58, 71, 143 particle 89, 102 Greatbatch 1, 7, 12–14, 34, 35, 40, 43–45, 60, 73, 137 Greenwood 23, 25, 99, 104, 112, 175, 204 greetings 9, 10, 46, 48, 49, 52 see also exchange of greetings

Grice 14, 15 Gumperz 9, 19, 139 H Hastings 25, 26, 104 Hayashi 1, 9, 38, 47–49, 98, 100, 105, 139, 177, 178 hedges 15, 86, 90, 97, 102, 204 Heritage 1, 3, 5–7, 10, 12–14, 29, 30, 33, 35, 40, 43–45, 50, 57, 60, 62, 64, 73, 99, 104, 137, 159, 185 Hinds 34, 35, 58, 67, 70, 86, 100, 105, 107, 122, 137 Holmes 23, 175, 176, 204 Honda 100, 110 honoriªc 17, 18, 20–22, 24, 28, 84, 86, 96, 101–103, 116–120, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 189, 198, 203 see also humble, keigo, forms, speech styles Horiguchi 137, 138, 162, 169, 172, 195 human relationships 40, 199 humble 17, 18, 20–22, 116, 117 see also keigo, kenjoogo, honoriªc, polite forms, speech styles I Ide 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 28, 101, 102, 112 identity 44, 122, 124, 133 imposition 15, 34, 65, 86, 87, 202 in-group 15, 18, 22, 31 see also Japanese society indirect 15, 59, 152 informal 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 58, 60, 80, 87, 90, 93, 117, 119–121, 123, 128, 129, 132, 134, 147, 183, 187, 188, 189, 191– 194, 197–201, 203 see also formal informality 94, 190, 193, 202 information 38, 45, 54, 76, 83, 140, 155, 157, 158–160, 162, 163, 169, 170, 172, 180, 185, 187, 190, 192–196, 198, 201, 202, 205 institutional discourse 13, 14, 43–45 interaction 13–15

226 Gender, Language and Culture

see also asymmetric interaction, dyadic interaction, classroom interaction, social interaction interpersonal relationships 104, 134 interrogative 63, 64, 68, 70, 71 intonation 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 90, 96, 97, 117, 138, 142, 143, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160, 187, 193, 194, 195 intrusive interruptions 105, 107 see also aggressive interruptions Irigaray 23 Itakura 19, 109 Iwasaki 137, 139, 140, 150, 167 J Japanese communication 19, 20, 30, 83, 90, 101, 102, 104, 132–134 society 15, 19–23, 101–104, 126, 132, 134 Johnson 35, 36, 100 joint constructions 89 see also co-constructions junior 21, 199, 205 see also koohai K Kaplan 23 kedo 90, 91, 94, 97, 105, 120, 123, 125, 132, 151, 180, 188 see also keredo keigo 17, 18, 116–120 see also honoriªc kenjoogo 17, 18, 116–120 see also humble keredo 90, 114, 118 see also kedo Kobayashi 1, 27, 103, 126 Komiya 137, 139 koohai 20, 21, 199 see also junior subordinate Kotthoff 35, 36, 100 Kurosaki 137–139, 171, 175–178

L Labov 5, 19, 24 LakoŸ 15, 24, 99, 101, 175, 176 leave-taking 10, 51–53 see also greetings Lebra 20, 21, 40, 83, 137, 167 Levinson 2, 14–16 lexical choices 16, 17, 86, 104 diŸerences 19, 25, 102, features 27 items 130, 131, 133 listener 4, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21, 30, 31, 65, 68, 80, 86, 90, 94, 95, 106, 109, 115, 116, 118, 119, 128, 130, 137–141, 143–145, 148, 150, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 162, 164, 172, 198, 199, 202, 203 participation 190, 195, 196 M male interviewee 35, 36, 40, 100 - female dichotomy 23, 99 registers 25–29, 93, 94 style 21, 99, 100, 116, 122–126, 130– 135, 146 talk 2, 23 males and aizuchi 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 192, 198–205 masu form 83, 128 see also polite forms Matsumoto 15–17, 86 Maynard, D. 13, 14, 99 Maynard, S. 1, 7, 18, 34, 35, 57, 58, 60, 98, 118, 137, 138, 139, 142, 146, 171, 200 media 19, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 100 men and aggressivity 112 and interviews 36, 40 and language 2, 22–28, 134, 191, 200, 202, 204, 205 and SFPs 93, 94, 119, 126, 146 minimal responses 34, 35, 104, 137, 175, 176, 178, 198, 204 see also backchannel, aizuchi mitigation 86, 87, 96, 97 Mizutani, N. 20, 28, 83, 94

Index 227

Mizutani, O. 20, 28, 83, 90, 94, 183, 187, 202 Mori 1, 34, 58, 59, 83, 90, 93, 108, 144, 187 mundane conversation 30, 35, 44, 58, 60, 96, 97 see also everyday conversation muted group 23 N Nakajima 1, 101, 103, 126 Nakane 20, 22, 112, 199 narration 57, 58, 113, 182 narrative 58, 113, 115, 118, 119, 133, 178, 193 negative aizuchi 183 see also delayed aizuchi negative face 15, 16 see also positive face neutral 17, 29, 45, 103, 122, 125, 126, 131, 204 forms 103, 131, 204 pronouns 122, 125, 126 neutrality 44, 73, 137 neutralization 2, 27, 29, 101 news interview 34, 35, 73 newscaster 39 Nihonjinron 20, 59 Nolte 25, 26, 104 nominalizer 67 non-verbal 7, 10, 142, 145 communication 142 noun 84, 95, 121, 145, 180, 182 noun phrase 69, 70, 85, 89, 145, 180, 182 Nyobo kotoba 26, 27 O obligation 13, 43, 75 see also rights oh 50, 159, 161, 162, 185 Okamoto 17, 27, 59, 83, 86, 96, 101, 103, 126, 202, 204 older 18, 21, 33, 104, 112, 117, 122, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 171, 177, 182, 198, 202–204

guests 187, 190–192 see also senpai, status organization 17, 39, 60 and social action 6–8 see also preference organization out-group 22, 31 see also in-group overlaps 61, 62, 107, 108, 134, 149, 178 P particles and gender 27, 28, 58, 59, 66142 frequency 94 see also clausal particle, conjunctive particle, connective particle, grammatical particle, quotative particle, sentence ªnal particle (SFP) patient-doctor interaction 4, 13, 22, 108 Peng 1, 22, 24, 85, 101 personal pronouns 17, 27, 28, 101–103, 122–128, 133 see also anata, atashi, boku, watashi polite forms 16, 29, 58, 84, 85, 96, 101, 103, 118, 129, 134, 187, 198 see also honoriªc political interviews 36, 39, 44, 100, 107 positive aizuchi 204 see also positive feedback positive face 15, 16 see also negative face positive feedback 176 see also cooperation power asymmetry 13–15, 18, 19, 33, 44, 96, 104, 108 and gender 23, 26, 100, 101, 103, 109, 204, 205 and language 130, 134, 177, 178, 190– 202 and interruptions 133 pragmatic 8, 10, 15, 18, 57–60, 83, 85, 190, 191, 193, 198 function 90, 94 preference organization 12–14

228 Gender, Language and Culture

Q question and answer exchange 150–153, 162, 167 quotations 85, 88 quotative particle 85 R radio 33, 37, 38, 55, 183 repetition 69, 113–115, 152, 159, 178, 182, 196 restrictions 34, 43–45, 60, 62, 162 Reynolds 27, 103, 126, 133, 205 rights 14, 19, 43, 44, 49, 78 see also obligations rising intonation 24, 59, 61, 64, 66–70, 89, 97, 117, 140–148, 150, 154, 155, 159, 160, 189, 190 role allocation 43, 44,45, 54, 113 and aizuchi 187, 198–200 and formality 29 and gender 102–104, 176–178, 201– 204 and interviews 34, 35, 38, 54, 76, 83, 96, 134, 150, 170, 171, 201–204 and power 19, 204 and titles 126 in Japanese society 21, 22, 26 S Sacks 1, 6–9, 29, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 75, 80, 96, 99, 104, 107, 143, 168, 201 sama 126 see also san, title san 21, 126, 127, 132 SchegloŸ 1, 6, 7, 9, 12–14, 29, 42, 43, 64, 138, 168, 189 SchiŸrin 3, 9, 24, 185 Searle 4, 5 Seª 13, 14, 44, 99 semantic function 28 senior 21, 112, 128, 132, 134 senpai 21, 188, 197, 199 see also koohai, senior sentence ªnal particle (SFP) 28, 31, 58,

84, 85, 93–95, 101, 102, 113, 119, 121, 128, 145–148, 164, 171, 182, 184, 186, 188, 190, 193,198 Shibamoto 2, 27, 28, 60, 85, 101, 102 skip-tying 189 Smith 20, 103 social structure 13, 14, 29, 43 interaction 5, 6 society 15, 19–23, 26, 53, 101–104, 126, 132, 134, 177, 200, 202, 204, 205 so, soo 88, 111, 140, 153–155, 157, 162– 168, 187, 188–198 Spanish 2, 18 speaker and Conversation analysis 8, 9, 12 and gender 2, 25, 27, 28,102, 128 and politeness 15–17, 116, 118, 119, 122, 126 and power 104, 105, 130 rights and restrictions 44, 45 speech styles 2, 17, 19, 20, 103, 204 status 14, 16–24, 104, 112, 116–118, 122, 128, 132, 134, 146, 177, 187, 198, 199– 202, 204, 205 see also power status and gender 23, 25, 122, 130 subordinate 117, 129 see also koohai, junior subordinate clauses 145 Sugito 139–141, 143, 146, 177 syntactic 17, 19, 57– 60, 63, 64, 86, 96–98, 102, 146, signals 58, 59 syntax 27– 29, 102 Szatrowski 137–139, 146, 150, 153, 167 T T/V 17–19, 117, 128 Takasaki 101, 103, 126, 205 talk show 35, 38, 40, 46 Tanaka 1, 7, 34, 58–60, 73, 74, 83, 86, 93, 144, 187, 189 Tannen 9, 23, 109, 110, 114, 175, 176, 196 TCU 8, 17, 30, 57, 63, 80, 82, 202 see also turn construction units

Index 229

television programs 35–39, 40, 41, 51, 100, 101, 107, 183 Tetsuko Kuroyanagi 40, 41 Tetsuko no Heya 39–42, 55, 60, 73, 107 time restrictions 51, 62 title 21, 126–128, 132 Transition Relevance Place 8, 56 see also TRP TRP 8, 56, 57, 59, 61, 83, 87, 95, 107, 115, 143, 144, 145,150, 187, 189 see also Transition Relevance Place Tsui 5, 10, 11, 188 turn construction units 30, 59, 63, 202 turntaking organization 60 U Uchida, N. 99, 101, 102 unknown information 190 Usami 16, 118, 128, 130, 134 V violations 8, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 202 vowel lengthening 71, 154, 159, 160, 180, 184 W watakushi 27, 122–125, 133

watashi 27, 122, 123, 125, 133 see also atashi, personal pronouns West 8, 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 29, 30, 99–101, 104, 108, 138, 175, 176, 202 Winter 35, 36, 68, 69, 80, 100 women and language 2, 20, 23–28, 93, 100–104, 108, 112, 133, 134, 176–178, 200, 202, 204, 205 Y Yamada, H. 137, 176 Yamada, T. 34, 35, 43, 60,112,137, 178 Yamato kotoba 26 Yngve 138 Yoshii 103, 112, 138, 175–178 Younger and aizuchi 172, 177,178,191– 193, 198, 199 and interruptions 108–110, 112 and politeness 16–18 and pronouns 123, 125–129 and style shifts 121 Z Zimmerman 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 23, 29, 30, 99, 100, 104, 108, 138, 175, 176, 202

In the STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS) the following volumes have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Workshop studies prepared for the 12th Conference of Linguistics, Vienna, August 29th to September 3rd, 1977. Amsterdam, 1978. 2. ANWAR, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Amsterdam, 1979. 3. MALKIEL, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965-1978. With an introd. by the author + indices. Amsterdam, 1983. 4. LLOYD, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam, 1979. 5. HAIMAN, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam, 1980. 6. VAGO, Robert (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony (May 14, 1977). Amsterdam, 1980. 7. PARRET, H., J. VERSCHUEREN, M. SBISÀ (eds): Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8-14, 1979. Amsterdam, 1981. 8. BARTH, E.M. & J.L. MARTENS (eds): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumentation, Groningen, October 1978. Amsterdam, 1982. 9. LANG, Ewald: The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam, 1984.(English transl. by John Pheby from the German orig. edition “Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung”, Berlin, 1977.) 10. DRESSLER, Wolfgang U., Willi MAYERTHALER, Oswald PANAGL & Wolfgang U. WURZEL: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam, 1987. 11. PANHUIS, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study of Latin Word Order. Amsterdam, 1982. 12. PINKSTER, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st Intern. Coll. on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. Amsterdam, 1983. 13. REESINK, G.: Structures and their Functions in Usan. Amsterdam, 1987. 14. BENSON, Morton, Evelyn BENSON & Robert ILSON: Lexicographic Description of English. Amsterdam, 1986. 15. JUSTICE, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic, in the mirror of European languages. Amsterdam, 1987. 16. CONTE, M.E., J.S. PETÖFI, and E. SÖZER (eds): Text and Discourse Connectedness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 17. CALBOLI, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1-5 April 1985. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 18. WIERZBICKA, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988. 19. BLUST, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An Essay on the Limits of Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988. 20. VERHAAR, John W.M. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles on Melanesia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990.

21. COLEMAN, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1991. 22. McGREGOR, William: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 23. COMRIE, Bernard and Maria POLINSKY (eds): Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 24. BHAT, D.N.S. The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 25. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds): Semantics and Lexical Universals. Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 26. LIMA, Susan D., Roberta L. CORRIGAN and Gregory K. IVERSON (eds): The Reality of Linguistic Rules. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 27. ABRAHAM, Werner, T. GIVÓN and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 28. HERMAN, József: Linguistic Studies on Latin: Selected papers from the 6th international colloquium on Latin linguistics, Budapest, 2-27 March, 1991. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 29. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Elisabeth et al. (eds): Content, Expression and Structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 30. HUFFMAN, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 31. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 32. FRAJZYNGIER, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study in Chadic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 33. VELAZQUEZ-CASTILLO, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 34. HATAV, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 35. MATSUMOTO, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semantic approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 36. KAMIO, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 37. HARVEY, Mark and Nicholas REID (eds): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 38. HACKING, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A Comparative Typology of Conditionals in Russian and Macedonian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 39. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 40. BIRNER, Betty and Gregory WARD: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 41. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 42. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER

and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II: Case studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 43. OLBERTZ, Hella, Kees HENGEVELD and Jesús Sánchez GARCÍA (eds): The Structure of the Lexicon in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 44. HANNAY, Mike and A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN (eds): Functional Grammar and Verbal Interaction. 1998. 45. COLLINS, Peter and David LEE (eds): The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney Huddleston. 1999. 46. YAMAMOTO, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. 1999. 47. BRINTON, Laurel J. and Minoji AKIMOTO (eds): ollocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. 1999. 48. MANNEY, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of an inflectional category. 2000. 49. BHAT, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999. 50. ABRAHAM, Werner and Leonid KULIKOV (eds): Transitivity, Causativity, and TAM. In honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999. 51. ZIEGELER, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000. 52. TORRES CACOULLOS, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language Contact.A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000. 53. FISCHER, Olga, Anette ROSENBACH and Dieter STEIN (eds.): Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English. 2000. 54. DAHL, Östen and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 1: Past and Present. 2001. 55. DAHL, Östen and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. 2001. 56. FAARLUND, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001. 57. MEL’C UK, Igor: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semanticcommunicative structure of sentences. 2001. 58. MAYLOR, Brian Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal prefixes in German. 2002. 59. SHI, Yuzhi: The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar. The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. 2002. 60. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 1. 2002. 61. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 2. 2002. 62. FIELD, Fredric W.: Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. 2002. 63. BUTLER, Chris: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. 2003. 64. BUTLER, Chris: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. 2003. 65. MATSUMOTO, Kazuko: Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation. Syntactic, informational and functional structures. 2003. 66. NARIYAMA, Shigeko: Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese. 2003.

67. LURAGHI, Silvia: On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. 2003. 68. MODER, Carol Lynn and Aida MARTINOVIC-ZIC (eds.): Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. n.y.p. 69. TANAKA, Lidia: Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interview discourse. 2004. 70. LEFEBVRE, Claire: Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 2004.

Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television Interview Discourse (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Studies on German-Language Islands (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language Complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse across Languages and Cultures (Studies in Language Companion)

After Rhetoric: The Study of Discourse Beyond Language and Culture

Gender, Language and Discourse (Women Andpsychology)

We Share Walls: Language, Land, and Gender in Berber Morocco (Blackwell Studies in Discourse and Culture)

We Share Walls: Language, Land, and Gender in Berber Morocco (Blackwell Studies in Discourse and Culture)

Gender and Discourse (Sage Studies in Discourse)

Gender and Discourse (Sage Studies in Discourse)

Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence: A Case Study in Chadic (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture

Gender, Language And New Literacy (Research in Corpus and Discourse)

Language and Gender

Language, Gender and Nationalism

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

i> in Slavic (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation: Syntactic, Informational, and Functional Structures (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Grammatical Relations in Change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect In Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Conversational Dominance and Gender: A Study of Japanese Speakers in First and Second Language Contexts (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Language and Gesture (Language Culture and Cognition)

Language and Gesture (Language Culture and Cognition)

The Study of Language

Cross-Linguistic Semantics (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language, Culture and Cognition: A Collection of Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition

Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television Interview Discourse (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Studies on German-Language Islands (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language Complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse across Languages and Cultures (Studies in Language Companion)

After Rhetoric: The Study of Discourse Beyond Language and Culture

Gender, Language and Discourse (Women Andpsychology)

We Share Walls: Language, Land, and Gender in Berber Morocco (Blackwell Studies in Discourse and Culture)

We Share Walls: Language, Land, and Gender in Berber Morocco (Blackwell Studies in Discourse and Culture)

Gender and Discourse (Sage Studies in Discourse)

Gender and Discourse (Sage Studies in Discourse)

Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence: A Case Study in Chadic (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture

Gender, Language And New Literacy (Research in Corpus and Discourse)

Language and Gender

Language, Gender and Nationalism

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

i> in Slavic (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation: Syntactic, Informational, and Functional Structures (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Grammatical Relations in Change (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Aspect In Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Conversational Dominance and Gender: A Study of Japanese Speakers in First and Second Language Contexts (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Language and Gesture (Language Culture and Cognition)

Language and Gesture (Language Culture and Cognition)

The Study of Language

Cross-Linguistic Semantics (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Language, Culture and Cognition: A Collection of Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition

Recommend Documents