“Questions” in Argument Sequences in Japanese
Tóm tắt
The present study reports on the use of a linguistic category "interrogative," which has been traditionally associated with the act of questioning, and its use in argument talk in Japanese. Based on the observation that interrogative utterances in argument data are regularly followed by non-answers, it is argued that interrogative utterances in argument sequences may not be designed/interpreted as doing questioning. Such use of interrogatives can become an orderly practice to which participants orient themselves in social activities recognizable as arguments. However, though an answer is not expected, the recipient invariably provides some form of response, or the initial speaker seeks such a response when none is provided. Thus the nature of interrogatives as a grammatical category seems to reside in the basic structural unit of social interaction [recipient-oriented action]-[response]. In general, this study is intended to show the dynamically interlocking relationship between grammar and interaction by exploring the intricate interplay between a local action for which interrogative grammar is employed, and the sequential environment and activity framework in which the action takes place.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Athanasiadou, A. (1991). The discourse functions of questions.Pragmatics 1(1): 107-122.
Atkinson, J.M. and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings.London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulter, J. (1990). Elementary properties of argument sequences.In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence, pp. 181-203.Washington, D.C.: University Press of America and International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis.London: Longman.
Drew, P. (1984). Speaker's reportings in invitation sequences.In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 129-151.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J.W. (1985). Competing motivations.In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, pp. 343-365.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J.W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity.Language 63: 805-855.
Du Bois, J.W. (1997). Lecture. Advanced discourse course.Winter, the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Fox, B. (1994). Contextualization, indexicality, and the distributed nature of grammar.Language Sciences 16(1): 1-37.
Freed, A.F. (1994). The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation.Journal of Pragmatics 21: 621-644.
Goodwin, M.H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Grimshaw, A. (Ed.) (1990). Conflict Talk.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. and Roth, A.L. (1995). Grammar and institution: questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview.Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1-60.
Hopper, P.J. (1988). Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar principle.In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding.117-134.Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse.Language 56(2): 251-299.
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E.C. (1993). Grammaticalization.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamio, A. (1990). Johoo no nawabari riron [A theory of territory of information]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures.Language in Society 22: 193-216.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation.Academic Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, D.W. (1985). How children start arguments.Language in Society 14: 1-29.
Maynard, S.K. (1993). Kaiwa bunseki [Conversational Analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Maynard, S.K. (1995). Interrogatives that seek no answers: exploring the expressiveness of rhetorical interrogatives in Japanese.Linguistics 33: 501-530.
McHoul, A.W. (1987). Why there are no guarantees for interrogators.Journal of Pragmatics 11: 455-471.
Mori, J. (1996). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement: The Uses of Connective Expressions in Japanese Conversations.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Nofsinger, R.E. (1991). Everyday Conversation.Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A. and Thompson, S.A. (Eds.) (1996). Interaction and Grammar.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A.M. (1978). Attribution of responsibility: Blamings.Sociology 12: 115-21.
Pomerantz, A.M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57-101.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A.M. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy.Communication Monographs 55: 360-373.
Quirk, R.G., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.New York: London.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.In G. Bolton and J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization, pp. 54- 69.Cleverdon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation Language 50: 696-735.
Schegloff, E.A. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings.In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, pp. 346-380.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schegloff, E.A. (1982). Discourse as and interactional achievement: some uses of 'uh huh' and other things that come between sentences.In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics.Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation.In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 28-52.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55-62.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992). Repair after next turn: the last structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in conversation.American Journal of Sociology 97(5): 1295-1345.
Schegloff, E.A. and H. Sacks. (1973). Opening up closings.Semiotica 7: 289-327.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanaka, H. (1996). Language, Culture and Social Interaction: A comparison of Turn Taking in Japanese and Anglo/American English.Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Oxford.
Thompson, S.A. (1998). A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogative and negation.In A. Siewierska and J.J. Song (Eds.), Case, Typology, and Grammar.
John Benjamins. Tsui, A. (1992). A functional description of questions.In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, pp. 89-110.London: Routledge.
Weber, E.G. (1993). Varieties of Questions in English Conversation.Philadelphia: John Benjamins.