Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 35:1 (2025) ► pp.129–154

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Indexing a withdrawal from one’s previously-taken position

Using the multiple saying duì duì duì in Mandarin Chinese conversation

ORCiD logo with link | University of Science and Technology Beijing
 | Sichuan International Studies University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 20 December 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24005.zha
Abstract
Using conversation analysis as the research method, this article investigates what participants do with the multiple saying duì duì duì (‘right right right’) when they take divergent positions in Mandarin Chinese conversation. A participant may deploy duì duì duì to claim recalibrating understanding, which indexes a backdown or withdrawal from a previously-taken position. There are two trajectories to make such concessions. One is “Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì) — Claim Y”, with Y taking the co-participant’s perspective into account and duì duì duì serving as a pivot for the new Claim Y. The other is “Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì)”, in which conceding means abandoning. Through these trajectories, participants find out something different and implicate that their prior action is problematic due to not taking something into account, so they concede and change. This article will contribute to both concession and multiple sayings studies.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Making a concession or withdrawal from a previously-taken position
    • 2.2Multiple sayings and the multiple saying duì duì duì
      • 2.2.1Duì and the multiple saying duì duì duì
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Making a concession from a previously-taken position with duì duì duì
    • 4.1First-pair part (FPP) speaker conceding
      • 4.1.1Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì) — Claim Y
      • 4.1.2Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì)
    • 4.2Second pair part (SPP) speaker conceding
      • 4.2.1Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì) — Claim Y
      • 4.2.2Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì)
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Glossary
  • References
References (45)
References
Antaki, Charles, and Margaret Wetherell. 1999. “Show Concessions.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 7–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arita, Yuki. 2021. “Display of Concession: Maa-Prefaced Responses to Polar Questions in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 1861: 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Li-Hsiang. 2009. “Stance Uses of the Mandarin LE Constructions in Conversational Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 2240–2256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chui, Kawai. 2002. “Ritualization in Evolving Pragmatic Functions: A Case Study of duì.” Language and Linguistics 3 (4): 645–663.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “A Linguistic Practice for Retracting Overstatements: ‘Concessive Repair’.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 257–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S. 2006. “Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (8): 1257–1280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ge, Kaizhen. 2019. “On the Features of Stance-taking of ‘Shuo shihua’ and ‘Shuo zhende’.” Journal of Henan Polytechnic University (Social Sciences) 20 (2):71–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunthner, Susanne. 2016. “Concessive Patterns in Interaction: Uses of zwar…aber (‘true…but’)-Constructions in Everyday Spoken German.” Language Sciences 581: 144–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Policy Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Term of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi. 1992. “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions between Home Visits and First-Time Mothers.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 359–417. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsieh, Chen-Yu Chester. 2018. “From Turn-Taking to Stance-Taking: Wenti-shi ‘(the) thing is’ as a Projector Construction and an Epistemic Marker in Mandarin Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 1271: 107–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004a. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004b. “A Sketch of Some Orderly Aspects of Overlap in Natural Conversation.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 43–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2012. “Discourse Patterns for Turn-final Conjunctions.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1254–1272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society 22 (2): 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2005. “Arguing in English and French Asynchronous Online Discussion.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1801–1818. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Xianyin. 2016. “A Study on Multiple Sayings in Spoken Chinese: From an Interactional Perspective.” Language Education and Research 41: 84–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Yan. 2010. “Functional Analysis of Discourse on the Mark ‘duì’.” Journal of Jinan University 41: 118–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan K., and Anne-Marie Londen. 2013. “Concession and Reassertion: On a Dialogic Discourse Pattern in Conversation.” Text & Talk 33 (3): 331–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Insertion Concessive: An Interactional Practice as a Discourse Grammatical Construction.” Constructions 1 (3): 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marian, Klara S., Jenny Nilsson, Catrin Norrby, Jan Lindström, and Camilla Wide. 2023. “On the Verge of (In)directness: Managing Complaints in Service Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 2131: 126–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Frank E. 1996. “Affiliating and Disaffiliating with Continuers: Prosodic Aspects of Recipiency.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 131–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peng, Shuiqin, and Juanman Zheng. 2022. “The Sequence Characteristics and Conventionalization of the ‘Na Daoshi’.” Chinese Language Learning 51: 33–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preference for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (5): 1295–1345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2008. “Almost Certainly and Most Definitely: Degree Modifiers and Epistemic Stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 1521–1542. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Michael S., and Lucas M. Seuren. 2022. “Re-apprehending Misapprehensions: A Practice for Disclosing Troubles in Understanding in Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1931: 43–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3):297–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2004. “‘No no no’ and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. The Book of Answers: Alignment, Autonomy, and Affiliation in Social Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Liping, and Qingming Fang. 2011. “Overview of Study on Types and Functions of Chinese Discourse Markers.” Chinese Language Learning 61: 76–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsai, Hsiu-Chun. 2001. “The Discourse Function of the duì Receipt in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai, David Goodman, and Meng-Ying Lin. 2020. “Agreement, Acknowledgement, and Alignment: The Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of hao and duì in Taiwan Mandarin Chinese.” Discourse Studies 12 (2): 241–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina, and John Heritage. 2017. “Particles and Epistemics: Convergences and Divergences between English and Mandarin.” In Enabling Human Conduct, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, 273–297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Jie. 2013. “A Multimodal Study of Response Token duì duì duì in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta.
Yu, Guodong. 2022. “Ai (唉) as a Topic Transition Signal in Mandarin Conversations.” Journal of Foreign Languages 45 (2): 61–71, 92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuling. 2021. “The Epistemics of Advice-Giving Sequences: Epistemic Primacy and Subordination in Advice Rejection.” Discourse Studies 23 (6): 705–725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, Xiaoli. 2022. “Acknowledging Coparticipant’s Contribution to One’s Interactional Goal: The Multiple Saying duì duì duì in Mandarin Chinese Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 2001: 98–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue