In:Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts
Edited by Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35] 2023
► pp. 272–300
Chapter 9Post-confirmation modifications
Trajectories of un-initiated responses to polar questions in Japanese
Published online: 27 November 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.09hay
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.09hay
Abstract
It has long been acknowledged that, in response to polar questions, disagreements are normatively delayed
with agreements such that they are presented as modifications or exceptions rather than outright disagreements. While there is
a large body of literature on how the initial element in the answer projects upcoming modifications or disagreements to come,
little attention has been paid to the grammatical format in which delayed modification is presented. This study thus attempts
to document how grammatical formats contribute to the interactional outcomes of modifications in this position. The focus is
on three grammatical formats that are used to make such modifications following the minimal confirmation particle
un in Japanese: the coordinate clause marked with demo (“but”), the subordinate clause,
and clauses that are not grammatically tied to the preceding confirmation. The findings suggest that these grammatical formats
are used systematically to modify the preceding confirmation to varying degrees and in different ways. Modifications made in
coordinate clauses modify the degree of assessment presented in the question and/or preemptively deny a possible implication
that follows the state of affairs confirmed by un without retracting or conditioning the confirmation.
Modifications made in subordinate clauses, on the other hand, retract or significantly qualify the confirmation that has been
conveyed with un. Finally, modifications in clauses that are not grammatically marked for their semantic
relation to the confirmation address an issue with an assumption underlying the question and retroactively portray the
confirmation as ostensible. It is concluded that post-confirmation modification is one environment in which a fine division of
labor is assigned to different grammatical formats.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Responses to polar questions in Japanese
- 3.Data
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1un + demo (‘but’)-clause modification
- 4.2un + subordinate clause modification
- 4.3un + modification
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (36)
Bolden, Galina. 2018. “Nu-prefaced
Responses in Russian Conversation.” In Between Turn and
Sequence, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 25–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. “Polar
Answers.” Journal of
Linguistics 55(2): 277–304.
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and John Hellermann. 2004. “‘Getting
Past No’: Sequence, Action and Sound Production in the Projection of No-initiated
Turns.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic
Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 233–269. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. “Minimal
and Non-minimal Answers to Yes-no
Questions.” Pragmatics 11(1): 1–15.
Hayashi, Makoto. 2010. “An
Overview of the Question-Response System in Japanese.” Journal of
Pragmatics 42(10): 2685–702.
Hayashi, Makoto, and Kaoru Hayano. 2018. “A-Prefaced
Responses to Inquiry in Japanese.” In Between Turn and
Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 193–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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. New York: Cambridge University Press.
. 2015. “Well-Prefaced
Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of
Pragmatics 88: 88–104.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. “Navigating
Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar
Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and
Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan Peter de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendrick, Kobin H. and Francisco Torreira. 2015. “The
Timing and Construction of Preference : A Quantitative Study.” Discourse
Processes 52(4): 255–289.
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2013. “Reshaping the
Response Space with Kulenikka in Beginning to Respond to Questions in Korean
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 57: 303–317.
. 2018. “Two Types of
Trouble with Questions: A Comparative Perspective on Turn-initial Particles in
Korean.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles
Across Languages, ed. By John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 97–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kinjo, Katsuya. 2001. “Bunmatsu hyoogen toshiteno keredomo no kinoo ni
tsuite [On the sentence final expressions
keredomo/ga].” Scripsimus 10: 87–101.
Koiso, Hanae, Yasuharu Den, Yuriko Iseki, Wakako Kashino, Yoshiko Kawabata, Ken’ya Nishikawa, Yayoi Tanaka, and Yasuyuki Usuda. 2018. “Construction
of the Corpus of Everyday Japanese Conversation: An Interim Report.” Proceedings of the
11th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation
Conference, 4259–4264.
MacWhinney, Brian, and Johannes Wagner. 2010. “Transcribing,
Searching and Data Sharing: The CLAN Software and the TalkBank Data
Repository.” Gesprachsforschung 11: 154–173.
Maeda, Naoko. 2006. “Gendai nihongo ni okeru setsuzokujoshi shi no imi, youhou: Heiretsu to riyuuno kankei
wo chuusin ni [Usage of conjunctive particle shi in
modern
Japanese].” Jinbun 4: 131–144. (Gakushuin University, Research Institute for Humanities)
Morita, Emi, and Tomoyo Takagi. 2018. “Marking
‘Commitment to Undertaking of the Task at Hand’: Initiating Responses with Eeto in Japanese
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 124: 31–49.
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 J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Chase. 2018. “Bueno-,
Pues-, and Bueno-Pues-Prefacing in Spanish
Conversation.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial
Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar
and Social Organization: Yes/no Interrogatives and the Structure of
Responding.” American Sociological
Review 68: 939–967. [URL].
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On
the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in
Conversation.” In Talk and Social
Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech
Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and
Syntactic Description, Volume I, Clause Structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. “Discourse as an
Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh huh’ and Other Things that Come between
Sentences.” In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages
and Linguistics, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
1996. “Turn Organization: One
Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and
Grammar, ed. by Elinor S. Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2007. Sequence Organization in
Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, Lucas M., and Mike Huiskes. 2017. “Confirmation
or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?” Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 50(2): 188–205.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding
in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in
Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steensig, Jakob, and Heinemann, Trine. 2013. “When
‘Yes’ Is Not Enough as an Answer to a Yes/no
Question.” In Units of Talk−Units of
Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. “An
Overview of the Question-response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 42(10): 2772–2781.
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N. J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christiana, Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine, Hoymann, Gertie, Rossano, Federico, de Ruiter, Jan P. Yoon, Kyung-Eun, and Levinson, Stephen C. 2009. “Universals and
Cultural Variation in Turn-taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy
of
Sciences 106(26): 10587–92.
Stivers, Tanya, and Hayashi, Makoto. 2010. “Transformative
Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in
Society, 39: 1–25.
Stivers, Tanya, and Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006. “A Preference
for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in
Society, 35: 367–392.
Togashi, Jun’ichi. 2002. “Danwa hyooshiki maa ni tsuite [On the
danwa hyooshiki maa].” Tsukuba Japanese
Linguistics, 7: 15–31.
Weidner, Matylda. 2018. “Treating
Something as Self-evident: No-prefaced Turns in
Polish.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles
across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 225–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.