2.2.1 Duì and the multiple saying duì duì duì

Previous studies examined the single duì from various perspectives. Tsai (2001)Tsai, Hsiu-Chun 2001 “The Discourse Function of the duì Receipt in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. argued that the usage of duì has generated two pragmatic meanings. One is that the meaning of “assent” has weakened, but the meaning of “acknowledgement” has increased, without admitting newness of the information; the other is that duì is used to confirm the speaker’s own proposition (Tsai 2001Tsai, Hsiu-Chun 2001 “The Discourse Function of the duì Receipt in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.). Chui (2002)Chui, Kawai 2002 “Ritualization in Evolving Pragmatic Functions: A Case Study of duì .” Language and Linguistics 3 (4): 645–663. pointed out two evolvements of duì: the evolvement from the truth value of duì to expressing agreement, and the evolvement of the meaning of confirming. Li (2010)Li, Yan 2010 “Functional Analysis of Discourse on the Mark ‘duì’.” Journal of Jinan University 4: 118–123. argued that when the initial sentence is interrogative, duì expresses a positive judgement; when the initial sentence is non-interrogative, duì as a response expresses “agreement”, and that its meaning of “correctness” has been weakened. Wang et al. (2010)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. noted that duì, as a marker of “continuity” and “agreement”, shows the speaker’s affiliation with the recipient. They also held that duì conveys agreement with the co-participants and passes the floor to the co-participants when it stands alone as a response. Therefore, it can be summarized that duì is primarily used to show agreement, and its meaning of “correctness” has weakened.

The multiple saying duì duì duì in this study bears the five features noted by Stivers (2004)Stivers, Tanya 2004 “ ‘No no no’ and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–293. . Wang et al. (2010)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. compared the single duì and duì duì duì from a functional linguistic perspective, and held that in Taiwanese Mandarin, duì duì duì expresses stronger agreement than the single duì in supporting the co-participant’s proposition, without affecting the continuity of the co-participant. Sun and Fang (2011)Sun, Liping, and Qingming Fang 2011 “Overview of Study on Types and Functions of Chinese Discourse Markers.” Chinese Language Learning 6: 76–84. compared the urgency expressed by single duì and duì duì duì from the perspective of cognitive linguistics, and argued that duì is an ordinary responsive token, while duì duì duì expresses the urgency of the response and unthinkingly listening to the co-participant. They explicated that an increase of form can result in an increase of meaning, which provides evidence for the strengthened meaning of the multiple saying duì duì duì. Yang (2013)Yang, Jie 2013 “A Multimodal Study of Response Token duì duì duì in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta. provided a multimodal analysis on the sequential position, intonational contour, and gestures of the speakers of duì duì duì in two sequential positions. One is that the speaker expresses affiliation with the recipient’s immediately preceding assertion, where duì duì duì stands alone and the speaker passes the floor to the recipient (Yang 2013Yang, Jie 2013 “A Multimodal Study of Response Token duì duì duì in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta.). The other is that after one’s turn was co-completed by the co-participants, the speaker deploys duì duì duì to express confirmation, and then continues with what he/she was saying (Yang 2013Yang, Jie 2013 “A Multimodal Study of Response Token duì duì duì in Mandarin Conversation.” Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta.). Similarly, Li (2016)Li, Xianyin 2016 “A Study on Multiple Sayings in Spoken Chinese: From an Interactional Perspective.” Language Education and Research 4: 84–93. pointed out that duì duì duì is a unit and forms an intonational contour. A recent study using conversation analysis by Zhou (2022)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 200: 98–118. notes that by deploying the multiple saying duì duì duì, the speaker acknowledges the co-participant’s contribution to the interactional goals when the co-participant co-completes the speaker’s prior turn, and the participants sustain intersubjectivity cooperatively in conversation.

Previous studies on the multiple saying duì duì duì have identified some of its interactional imports, whereas the multiple saying duì duì duì in other sequential positions is still underexplored, for example, when participants take differential standpoints on some issues in question, which is different from the interactional imports illustrated above and is what this study focuses on.

4.1.1 Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì) — Claim Y

In this trajectory, after the FPP speakers make concessions with duì duì duì, they continue to make a new or adjusted claim, taking the recipient’s perspective into consideration. In Extract (1) below, both Zou and Liu are studying abroad, and the FPP speaker Liu backs down from his previously-taken position to affiliate with the recipient Zou after being resisted.

At the beginning of the extract, Zou displays that his spoken English improved not fast (lines 06–07). After confirming with Zou (lines 09–10), which can be treated as pre-advice (Schegloff 2007Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ), Liu offers some advice (Claim X) using a deontic modal verb yīnggāi (‘should’, line 11) (Stevanovic and Peräkylä 2012Stevanovic, 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. ). Then, both the 1.2-second silence (line 12) and the elongated sound uh:: (line 13) project a dis-preferred response (Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Policy Press.), which is proved to be so. The delicate preface shuō shíhuà (‘to be honest’) (Ge 2019Ge, 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.) is followed by a telling of his own circumstances (lines 13–14), which are within the epistemic domain of Zou (Heritage and Raymond 2005Heritage, 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. ) and indicate a declination to the advice (Zhang 2021Zhang, Shuling 2021 “The Epistemics of Advice-Giving Sequences: Epistemic Primacy and Subordination in Advice Rejection.” Discourse Studies 23 (6): 705–725. ).

Responding in the midway of Zou’s turn displays Liu’s recognition of what is being said (Jefferson 2004bJefferson, Gail 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. ). Through the multiple saying duì duì duì in overlap with Zou’s turn (line 15), Liu claims recalibrating understanding and implicates a concession from his previous advice (Claim X). The concession can be evidenced by the following TCUs. Zhè dào shì (‘This is true’, line 15) is to adjust Liu’s position to that of Zou’s after being challenged (Peng and Zheng 2022Peng, Shuiqin, and Juanman Zheng 2022 “The Sequence Characteristics and Conventionalization of the ‘Na Daoshi’.” Chinese Language Learning 5: 33–41.). Then, Liu goes on to tell his own similar experience (lines 16–17, 19), which can be treated as a new claim (Claim Y), indicating his affiliation with Zou on this issue and the infeasibility of his prior advice. Therefore, Liu’s turn design demonstrates his backdown from the position “asking Zou to practice English with American roommates” to “having no chance to talk to them”. Zou’s telling of his experience helps Liu realize something he did not take into account in the first place, although Liu had a similar experience.

Extract (2) below is from a conversation among several students after Yun’s national grant application is rejected. It is different from Extract (1) in that the FPP speaker Zhu withdraws from a former suggestion and proceeds to offer a new one after finding out the recipient’s own plan.

Zhu first proffers a suggestion for Yun’s problem (line 06), which Yun declines by treating it as a long shot (line 07). Considering Yun not going abroad, which is probably based on her response in line 07, Zhu offers another suggestion, asking Yun to write the dissertation instead (lines 11–12) (Claim X). As a response, Yun declines by disclosing her own plan, namely applying for the program of the university at which Yun and Zhu are both studying (line 13). Yun’s plan is within her own epistemic domain, and Zhu normally has no access to it (Heritage and Raymond 2005Heritage, 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. ), but the university’s program is within Zhu’s epistemic domain, which is evidenced in her following turns (lines 22–23). Being informed of Yun’s plan, Zhu claims recalibrating her understanding by deploying duì duì duì (Concession), which results in a withdrawal from her prior position “asking Yun to write her dissertation”. After confirming with Yun what she refers to by “University T’s program” (line 14), which serves as an inter-expansion, Zhu goes on to provide a different suggestion, namely that Yun should apply for a whole year and pay for half a year (lines 17–20) (Claim Y). This new suggestion is legitimized with Zhu’s roommate’s experience, her own previous plan, and her account for it (lines 22–23). From advising Yun to write the dissertation to advising her to apply for a whole year’s visit, Zhu backs down from her prior position with duì duì duì and makes a new claim (Claim Y) to affiliate with Yun.

In the extract below between a daughter (Dau) and her mother (Mom), the daughter is telling her mother on phone about her job interviews. The mother deploys duì duì duì to back down from her previous suggestion after being resisted, and then moves on to providing an alternative suggestion.

Prior to the extract, the daughter (Dau) is disclosing to her mother (Mom) her problems in taking job interviews. Mom first acknowledges it and then goes on to make an advice-implicative claim (lines 70, 72). Mom’s attitude towards resolving Dau’s problem is demonstrated in the lexical resource yīnggāi (‘should’, line 72) and the account preceding it (line 70) (Claim X). However, Dau resists the advice with “not necessarily” (line 73), and then accounts for it with Wei’s job and her job interview experience (lines 73–76), on which Dau has more knowledge (Heritage and Raymond 2005Heritage, 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. ). Therefore, this account results in a change of Mom’s epistemic stance, which is indexed by the preface ah (line 77), similar to the change-of-state token oh in this position (Wu and Heritage 2017Wu, 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. ). With her change of knowledge state, Mom claims recalibrating her understanding with duì duì duì (line 77), indicating her concession from the previously-taken position.

Since Mom’s concession is in an overlap with Dau’s accounting (line 78), Mom did not claim the floor. It is when she is clear that Mom proceeds to provide an adjusted suggestion that Dau should read some books (line 81) (Claim Y) to affiliate with Dau, for it is in line with Dau’s way of handling the interview (lines 65, 67). Therefore, the advice-giver Mom gives in after finding out some knowledge she did not possess initially and implies that her prior action is problematic. Consequently, the progressivity of the interaction is facilitated, ending up with Mom changing the subject in her next turn (line 84).

In these extracts, after being resisted, the FPP speakers deploy duì duì duì to back down from their previously-taken positions (Claim X). The backdown may be triggered by the co-participants’ informing of their circumstances, plans and so on. After the concession duì duì duì, the FPP speakers continue to make a new or adjusted claim (Claim Y), taking the co-participants’ perspective into consideration to affiliate with them. In this trajectory, duì duì duì serves as a pivot for the new claim. As a result, the disaffiliation is resolved, and the continuity of the interaction is facilitated.

4.1.2Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì)

This section will show how FPP speakers make concessions following a simpler version, without post-expansion of a new claim (Claim Y). Sun is having lunch with Fan, a friend who comes to the university where Sun is studying to attend lectures. After finding out something different, Sun withdraws her prior suggestion with duì duì duì, without proffering another suggestion.

The suggestion in this extract is provided when no problem has been disclosed at all (line 08). Following a fourteen-second silence (line 09) (probably because they are having lunch), Sun initiates an unsolicited suggestion (lines 10–11) for a projected problem (line 12). The two seconds’ silence (line 15) following the suggestion projects that the response may be dis-preferred (Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Policy Press.). In fact, Fan responds first with a lower-volumed acknowledgement token °mm°, and then resists the suggestion by explicating her circumstances (line 16). “Not wearing a hat” is within Fan’s epistemic domain (Heritage and Raymond 2005Heritage, 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. ), and Sun could not take into account when she offered the suggestion initially. Therefore, after finding out something different, which is marked by the change-of-state token oh (Wu and Heritage 2017Wu, 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. ), Sun employs duì duì duì to claim recalibrating her understanding (line 17), resulting in a withdrawal from her previous suggestion.

Different from the extracts in last section, Sun does not go on to provide a different suggestion or make a new claim, and the interaction moves forward with Fan changing the subject in her turn (line 18). It is probably because no problem has been disclosed, and the suggestion is unsolicited for a problem projected by the advice-giver. Since there is no disclosed problem, it seems not necessary to provide an alternative solution. This is different from Extract (3) (“Job interviews”), where the suggestion is offered for a displayed problem. If the first suggestion (Claim X) cannot resolve the problem, when the advice-giver backs down after being resisted, there is still a problem to be resolved, which may make relevant another suggestion (Claim Y). In addition, different from Extract (1), the advice-recipient’s account for resistance “holding an umbrella while riding a bike is hard” is common knowledge, so there is no need to add self-experience to show affiliation.

4.2.1 Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì) — Claim Y

In Extract (5), Xiu, who has visited some universities abroad, is having lunch with her co-worker Lin, who plans to go abroad for a visit. The SPP speaker Lin withdraws a prior position with duì duì duì, leaning to accepting the advice which she resisted initially.

Since Lin discloses a weight concern (data not shown), Xiu suggests Lin get a gym card as a subject shift indexed by ai (Yu 2022Yu, Guodong 2022 “ Ai (唉) as a Topic Transition Signal in Mandarin Conversations.” Journal of Foreign Languages 45 (2): 61–71, 92.) (lines 06–07). This suggestion is responded to with a minimal acknowledgement token mm (line 08), indicating some resistance in it (Heritage and Sefi 1992Heritage, 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.). Taking the minimal acknowledgement token mm as a resistance, Xiu pursues acceptance by informing Lin of the inexpensiveness (line 09), attributing the source of resistance to the concern of cost. Nevertheless, the informing is only treated by Lin as news with shì me? (‘Really?’) (line 10). The five seconds’ silence (partially because they are having lunch) also implicates some problem in accepting the suggestion (Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Policy Press.). In line 13, Lin discloses her concern about the time for fitness, which is elaborated in her next turn (lines 15–18). Lin’s turn design demonstrates her negative attitude toward doing exercise abroad, which disaffiliates from Xiu’s view (line 06), inhibiting the progressivity of the interaction.

In her turn, Xiu legitimizes her claim with the feasible time for exercise “in the evening”, and the time duration “one hour” (lines 20–21). This may help Lin find out something she may not have recognized or considered initially. In line 22, Lin cuts in in the middle of Xiu’s turn, displaying a recognition of what is in the course of being said (Jefferson 2004bJefferson, Gail 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. ). The emphasized and elongated en:: (‘mm’) as a preface indicates an agreement in this sequential context. With the multiple saying duì duì duì (line 22), Lin is claiming recalibrating her understanding of this issue, which results in her concession. The TCU in the same turn “if you don’t exercise…” evidences Lin’s concession from “no time for exercise” (Claim X) to “making time for exercise” (Claim Y) by explicating the rationale of the suggestion (lines 22–23), which indicates her affiliation with Xiu. The point where Lin cuts in to show agreement, namely when “one hour” is due, demonstrates that she not only agrees with Xiu on the necessity of doing exercise, but also on the time duration she can spend on exercise. Here, they have achieved affiliation, and the progressivity of the interaction is facilitated, with Xiu going on to provide more options for exercise (lines 24–25).

This case demonstrates that after the SPP speaker backs down from his/her prior position with duì duì duì, there is still a suggestion for him/her to address. Therefore, they may continue to adjust their former claim or make a new claim to affiliate with the advice-giver.

4.2.2 Claim X — Concession (duì duì duì)

SPP speakers may index a concession by deploying duì duì duì, without making a new claim (Claim Y). However, for SPP speakers conceding, Claim Y is still relevant and the absence of Claim Y may leave the sequence in an equivocal state. The following example may show the co-participant’s orientation to the Claim Y having not been produced.

Extract (6) is from a phone call between a father (Dad) and his son (Son). The father is informing his son of something concerning Mei, who they both know. The son withdraws his previous assessment about Mei after some information being clarified by his father.

In line 114, Dad makes an assessment about Mei’s job, namely that her work is not exhausting. However, Son makes a divergent assessment that Mei’s job is exhausting (line 116), and the preface è yō indicates Son’s negative attitude towards Mei’s job. Son’s disaffiliative response results in Dad’s defense in his turn. Dad first denies Son’s assessment with bú shì (‘It’s not that’, line 117), and then he makes clear his position with wǒ kàn (‘I think’), indicating something delicate (Kärkkäinen 2003Kärkkäinen, Elise 2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ). About Dad’s defense that this job is not bad for Mei (line 119), Son’s bald duì duì duì (line 120) in an overlap with Dad’s further account (line 121) shows his slight concession, probably because Dad’s defense is not very sufficient. When Dad further explains why the job is not exhausting (lines 121–122), Son indicates a change of knowledge state with “oh” and recalibrates his understanding with duì duì duì (line 123), as working for three hours a day is not hard. This concession may be based on Dad’s clarification of an ambiguous point by adding wǎnshàng (‘in the evening’) and sān gè xiǎoshí (‘three hours’), because working from nine to one can mean from 9 am to 1 am and from 9 pm to 1 am as well. Therefore, the “oh, duì duì duì” in this sequential position indexes a relatively stronger backdown after something being clarified. However, it may still be an insufficient response, as they have not reached an agreement on the status of Mei’s working circumstances. Then, Dad keeps getting more explicit about why the job is good, how it is good in the following turns (lines 124–126, 128), implicating his orientation to Claim Y having not been produced. In other words, Dad is oriented to trying to solicit a positive assessment from Son that he meant to invite from the beginning. The sequence ended with a unilateral close by Son launching something new (data not shown).

In this example, Son concedes twice. The first time (line 120) is a slight concession with the bald duì duì duì following Dad’s first defense (Concession 1), and the concession in the second time (line 123) is stronger with an addition of the change-of-state token “oh” (Concession 2). However, the second concession also implicates insufficiency without a Claim Y, as Dad continues to elaborate, pursuing something more from Son, and the sequence ends with Son’s unilateral close by launching something new. Therefore, if SPP speakers concede, the co-participant may recognize the missing Claim Y and pursue it.

In sum, for FPP speakers, they can follow either pattern to concede, with or without Claim Y. Since FPP speakers initiate the action in the first place, they normally can either adjust or abandon the action. However, if SPP speakers concede, when they back away with duì duì duì from their former divergent claim, they still need to provide another second pair part. Therefore, the co-participants orient to Claim Y not having been produced and pursue it if a more affiliative claim has not been provided on the issue in question.