In:Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 193–224
Chapter 7
A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.07hay
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.07hay
Abstract
This study explores the stances communicated by two turn-initial
particles in Japanese, a and eh,
when they are used to preface responses to inquiry. The particle
a comes close in its usage to
oh in English and is often used to acknowledge
the receipt of new and/or unexpected information.
Eh is similar to a in that it
indicates that the information being received is unexpected;
however, it is often employed in contexts where its producer
problematizes or resists what the prior speaker has just said, such
as in other-initiated repair and disagreements. We compare the
workings of these two particles in the context of prefacing
responses to inquiry and show that, while
a-prefaced responses generally embody moves that
are affiliative with the prior speaker, eh-prefaced
responses convey more disaffiliative stances. Based on our findings,
we suggest that there is a division of labor between
a-prefacing and eh-prefacing
of question responses in Japanese and that what is performed by one
particle in one language (oh in English) may be
carried out by two particles in another (a and
eh in Japanese).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2. A as a change-of-state token
- 3.
A-prefaced responses to inquiry
- 3.1Indexing a shift in attention/orientation
- 3.2 Indicating a prosocial stance toward an unexpected act
- 3.3Treating the preceding question as unexpected but legitimate
- 3.4Treating the preceding question as unexpected and far off the mark
- 4. Eh-prefaced responses to inquiry
- 5.Summary and conclusion
Notes References
References (33)
Betz, Emma, and Andrea Golato. 2008. “Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding
Relevant Next Actions: The German Token
‘achja’.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:58–98.
Bolden, Galina. 2006. “Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers ‘so’
and ‘oh’ and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social
Interaction.” Journal of Communication 56:661–688.
Drew, Paul. 1997. “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to
Sequential Sources of Trouble in
Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28:69–101.
Golato, Andrea. 2010. “Marking Understanding versus Receipting
Information in Talk: ‘Achso’ and ‘ach’ in German
Interaction.” Discourse Studies 12:147–176.
. 2012. “German ‘oh’: Marking an Emotional Change
of-State.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:1–24.
Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Territories of Knowledge in Japanese
Conversation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Radboud University Nijmegen.
Hayashi, Makoto. 2009. “Marking a ‘Noticing of Departure’ in Talk:
Eh-Prefaced Turns in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41:2100–2129.
. 2012. “Claiming Uncertainty in Recollection: A Study of
kke-Marked Utterances in Japanese
Interaction.” Discourse Processes 49:391–425.
Hayashi, Makoto, and Shuya Kushida. 2013. “Responding with Resistance to
Wh-Questions in Japanese
Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46:231–255.
Heinemann, Trine. 2009: “Two Answers to Inapposite
Questions.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its
Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic
Authority and Subordination in
Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38.
Jefferson, Gail. 1981. “The Abominable ‘ne?’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response.” Occasional Paper No. 6. Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.
. 1993. “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient
Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26:1–30.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2012. “Compromising Progressivity: ‘No’-Prefacing in
Estonian.” Pragmatics 22:119–146.
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie. 2013. “
Ani ‘No’-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions
as Challenges in Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 20, ed. by Peter Sells, and Bjarke Frellesuig, 383–398. Standford: CSLI publications.
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions Through
ani (no)-Prefacing in Korean
Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52:311–334.
Koyama, Tetsuharu. 1997. “Bunmatsushi to bunmatsu
intoneeshon [Sentence-final particles and final
intonation]. ” In Onsee to Gengo, ed. by S. L. W. Group, 97–119. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Lee, Seung-Hee. 2013. “Response Design in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 415–432. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
MacWhinney, Brian. 2007. “The TalkBank Project.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic
Databases, Vol.1, edited by Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan, and Hermann L. Moisl, 163–180. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Maynard, Senko K. 1993. Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion, and Voice in
the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Moriyama, Takuro. 1996. “Joodoo teki kandooshi
koo [Notes on emotive
interjections].” Gobun 65:51–62.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Cooperation of
Multiple Constraints.” In Studies in the Organisation of Conversational
Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. “The Relevance of Repair to
Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and
Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 261–286. New York: Academic Press.
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in
Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response
Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stivers, Tanya. 2011. “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of course’ as
Questioning the Presupposibility of
Askability.” In Moralities of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jackob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, Tanya, and N. J. Enfield. 2010. “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences
in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2620–2626.
Cited by (10)
Cited by ten other publications
Sung, Min-Chang & Sun-Young Oh
2025. Production and understanding of change‑of‑state tokens in English talk‑in‑interaction among L1 and L2
speakers. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)
Arita, Yuki
Arita, Yuki
Bolden, Galina B.
2023. Repetitional responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 40 ff.
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff.
Hayano, Kaoru & Makoto Hayashi
2023. Post-confirmation modifications. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 272 ff.
Feng, Jiayu
Persson, Rasmus
Yu, Guodong, Yaxin Wu & Paul Drew
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
