Turn-taking in English and Japanese - Projectability in Grammar, Intonation and Semantics

242 5 13MB

English Pages 264 Year 2013

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Turn-taking in English and Japanese - Projectability in Grammar, Intonation and Semantics

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Title Page......Page 4
Copyright Page......Page 5
Dedication......Page 6
Table of Contents......Page 8
Acknowledgments......Page 12
List of Charts, Figures, and Tables......Page 14
Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations......Page 16
1.1 Purposes......Page 20
1.2.2 Japanese Conversation......Page 23
1.2.3 U.S. Political News Interviews......Page 24
1.2.4 Japanese Political News Interviews......Page 25
1.2.5 Summary of Data......Page 26
1.3.1 Approaches......Page 27
1.3.2.1 Grammatical Completion Points......Page 28
1.3.2.2 Intonational Completion Points......Page 31
1.3.2.3 Semantic Completion Points......Page 32
1.3.2.4 CTRPs......Page 34
1.3.2.5 Speaker Changes......Page 35
1.4 Overview......Page 37
1.5 Summary......Page 38
Notes......Page 39
2.1.1 Characteristics of Conversation......Page 42
2.1.2 Basic Assumptions about Conversation......Page 44
2.2 Turn-Taking......Page 45
2.2.1 Turn-Taking in English Conversation......Page 46
2.2.2 Interruption and Overlap......Page 48
2.2.3 Definition of Turns......Page 50
2.2.4 Tum-Taking and Projectabilities......Page 51
2.3 Political News Interviews......Page 54
2.3.1 Characteristics of Political News Interviews......Page 55
2.3.2 Turn-Taking System in Political News Interviews......Page 58
2.3.3 Disagreement in Political News Interviews......Page 59
2.4.1 Cultural Background......Page 61
2.4.2 Ritual Harmony in Japanese Communication......Page 63
2.5 Summary......Page 68
Notes......Page 70
3.0 Introduction......Page 72
3.1.1.1 Completion Points......Page 73
3.1.1.2 Speaker Changes......Page 76
3.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes......Page 79
3.1.2 Qualitative Analysis......Page 80
3.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 81
3.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 82
3.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 91
3.1.3 Summary......Page 96
3.2 Conclusion......Page 97
Notes......Page 98
4.0 Introduction......Page 100
4.1.1.1 Completion Points......Page 101
4.1.1.2 Speaker Changes......Page 105
4.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes......Page 107
4.1.2 Qualitative Analysis......Page 108
4.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 109
4.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 110
4.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 122
4.1.3 Summary......Page 128
4.2 Conclusion......Page 129
Notes......Page 130
5.0 Introduction......Page 132
5.1.1.1 Completion Points......Page 133
5.1.1.2 Speaker Changes......Page 135
5.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes......Page 137
5.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 138
5.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 139
5.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 144
5.2 Conclusion......Page 148
Notes......Page 150
6.1.1.1 Completion Points......Page 152
6.1.1.2 Speaker Changes......Page 154
6.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes......Page 156
6.1.2 Qualitative Analysis......Page 157
6.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 158
6.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 159
6.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 167
6.1.3 Summary......Page 171
6.2 Conclusion......Page 172
Notes......Page 173
7.0 Introduction......Page 174
7.1 Completion Points......Page 175
7.2 Completion Points without Reactive Tokens......Page 178
7.3 Summary......Page 182
8.0 Introduction......Page 184
8.1 Categorization of Speaker Changes......Page 185
8.2 Overall Speaker Changes......Page 186
8.3 Non-Floor-Taking Speaker Changes......Page 187
8.4 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes......Page 190
8.4.1 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs......Page 191
8.4.2 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 192
8.5 Summary......Page 195
Notes......Page 197
9.1 Completion Points and Speaker Changes......Page 198
9.2 Completion Points and Floor-Taking Speaker Changes......Page 200
9.3 Summary......Page 202
10.1.1 Single Person Floor......Page 204
10.1.2 Collaborative Floor......Page 208
10.1.3 Collaborative Floor to Single Person Floor......Page 210
10.2.1 Non-Floor-Taking Speaker Changes......Page 214
10.2.2 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 217
10.2.3 Floor Management Strategies......Page 220
10.4 Discussion......Page 224
Notes......Page 227
11.1 Conversation and Political News Interviews in English......Page 228
11.1 Acknowledgement Turns......Page 230
11.2 Floor Formation......Page 232
11.3 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 234
11.2.1 Acknowledgement Turns......Page 236
11.2.2 Floor Formation......Page 240
11.2.3 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs......Page 244
11.3 Summary......Page 247
11.4 Discussion......Page 248
Chapter 12. Conclusion......Page 250
References......Page 254
Index......Page 262

Citation preview

OUTSTANDING DISSERTATIONS

IN LINGUISTICS

Edited by

Laurence Horn Yale University

A ROUTLEDGE SERIES

This page intentionally left blank

TURN-TAKING IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE Projectability in Grammar, Intonation, and Semantics

Hiroko Furo

~l Routledge

!;i ~

Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2001 by Routledge Published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Croup, an informa business Copyright © 2001 by Hiroko Furo All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infornlation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Furo, Hiroko. Turn taking in English and Japanese: projectability in grammar, intonation, and semantics / by Hiroko Furo. p. cm. - (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics) fncludes bibliographical references and index. 1. Conversation analysis. 2. Japanese language--Discourse analysis. 3. English language--Discourse analysis. 1. Title. II. Series. P9S.4S.F97 2000 00-066297 401 '.41-dc21

ISBN 13: 978-0-815-34047-8 (hbk)

To my parents

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS Acknowledgments ..................................................................... xi List of Charts, Figures, and Tables ............... , ........................................ xiii Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations ........................................... xv Chapter I. Introduction ...................................................................... 3 1.1 Purposes ........................................................ " ....... , .... 3 ...................................................................... 6 1.2 Data 1.2.1 English Conversation............................................. 6 1.2.2 Japanese Conversation............................................ 6 1.2.3 U.S. Political News Interviews ................................ 7 1.2.4 Japanese Political News Interviews ........................... 8 1.2.5 Summary of Data .................................................. 9 1.3 Methodology .................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Approaches ........................................................ 10 1.3.2 Procedures .......................................................... II 1.3.2.1 Grammatical Completion Points ............. 11 1.3.2.2 Intonational Completion Points .............. 14 1.3.2.3 Semantic Completion Points .................. 15 1.3.2.4 CTRPs ............................................... 17 1.3.2.5 Speaker Changes .................................. 18 1.4 Overview .................................................................... 20 1.5 Summary .................................................................... 21 Notes .................................................................... 22 Chapter 2. Literature Review ................................................................. 25 2.0 Introduction .................................................................... 25 2.1 Conversation .................................................................... 25 2.1.1 Characteristics of Conversation .............................. 25 2.1.2 Basic Assumptions about Conversation ................... 27 2.2 Turn-Taking .................................................................... 28 2.2.1 Turn-Taking in English Conversation ..................... 29 2.2.2 Interruption and Overlap ....................................... 31 2.2.3 Definition of Turns .............................................. 33 2.2.4 Tum-Taking and Projectabilities ............................. 34 2.3 Political News Interviews .................................................... 37 2.3.1 Characteristics of Political News Interviews ............. 38 2.3.2 Turn-Taking System in Political News Interviews ..... 41 2.3.3 Disagreement in Political News Interviews ............... 42 2.4 Japanese Discourse ............................................................. 44 2.4.1 Cultural Background ............................................ 44 2.4.2 Ritual Harmony in Japanese Communication ........... 46 2.5 Summary Notes

.................................................................... 51 .................................................................... 53

vii

viii

Contents

Chapter 3. Tum-Taking in English Conversation ...................................... 55 3.0 Introduction .................................................................... 55 3.1 Results .................................................................... 56 3.1.1 Quantitative Analysis........................................... 56 3.1.1.1 Completion Points ............................... 56 3.1.1.2 Speaker Changes .................................. 59 3.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes .. 62 3.1.2 Qualitative Analysis ............................................ 63 3.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs .................... 64 3.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ............. 65 3.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs ............... 74 3.1.3 Summary ........................................................... 79 3.2 Conclusion .................................................................... 80 .................................................................... 81 Notes Chapter 4. Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation ..................................... 83 4.0 Introduction .................................................................... 83 4:1. Results .................................................................... 84 4.1.1 Quantitative Analysis ........................................... 84 4.1.1.1 Completion Points ............................... 84 4.1.1.2 Speaker Changes .................................. 88 4.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes .. 90 4.1.2 Qualitative Analysis ............................................ 91 4.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs .................... 92 4.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ............. 93 4.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs .............. I05 4.1.3 Summary.......................................................... l11 4.2 Conclusion ................................................................... 112 ................................................................... 113 Notes Chapter 5. Tum-Taking in U.S. Political News Interviews ......................... 115 5.0 Introduction ................................................................... 115 5.1 Results ................................................................... 116 5.1.1 Quantitative Analysis .......................................... 116 5.1.l.l Completion Points .............................. 116 5.1.1.2 Speaker Changes ................................. 118 5.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes .120 5.1.2 Qualitative Analysis .......................................... 121 5.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs ................... 121 5.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ............ 122 5.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs .............. 127 5.1.3 Summary.......................................................... 131 5.2 Conclusion ................................................................... 131 Notes ................................................................... 133

Contents

ix

Chapter 6. Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews .................... 135 6.0 Introduction ................................................................... 135 6.1 Results ................................................................... 135 6.1.1 Quantitative Analysis .......................................... 135 6.1.1.1 Completion Points .............................. 135 6.1.1.2 Speaker Changes ................................. 137 6.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes .139 6.1.2 Qualitative Analysis ........................................... 140 6.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs ................... 141 6.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ............ 142 6.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs .............. 150 6.1.3 Summary.......................................................... 154 6.2 Conclusion ................................................................... 155 Notes ................................................................... 156 Chapter 7 Completion Points ............................................................... 157 7.0 Introduction ................................................................... 157 7.1 Completion Points ............................................................ 158 7.2 Completion Points without Reactive Tokens ......................... 161 7.3 Summary ................................................................... 165 Chapter 8 Speaker Changes .................................................................. 167 8.0 Introduction ................................................................... 167 8.1 Categorization of Speaker Changes ....................................... 168 8.2 Overall Speaker Changes .................................................... 168 8.3 Non-Floor-Taking Speaker Changes ..................................... 170 8.4 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes ............................................ 173 8.4.1 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs ............... 174 8.4.2 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ........ 175 8.5 Summary ................................................................... 178 Notes ................................................................... 180 Chapter 9. Completion Points and Speaker Changes ................................. 181 9.0 Introduction ................................................................... 181 9.1 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ............................... 181 9.2 Completion Points and Floor-Taking Speaker Changes ............ 183 9.3 Summary ................................................................... 185 Chapter 1O. Tum-Taking in English and Japanese ..................................... 187 10.0 Introduction ................................................................... 187 10.1 Conversation in English and Japanese ................................. 187 10.1.1 Single Person Floor .......................................... 187 10.1.2 Collaborative Floor........................................... 191 10.1.3 Collaborative Floor to Single Person Floor ........... 193

x

Contents 10.2 Political News Interviews in English and Japanese ................. 197 10.2.1 Non-Floor-Taking Speaker Changes ..................... 197 10.2.2 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ....... 200 10.2.3 Floor Management Strategies .............................. 203 10.3 Summary ................................................................... 207 10.4 Discussion ................................................................... 207 Notes ................................................................... 210

Chapter 11. Conversation and Political News Interviews ............................ 2l1 11.0 Introduction ................................................................... 211 ILl Conversation and Political News Interviews in English .......... 211 11.1 Acknowledgement Turns ....................................... 213 11.2 Floor Formation ................................................. 215 11.3 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ......... 217 11.2 Conversation and Political News Interviews in Japanese ......... 219 11.2.1 Acknowledgement Turns .................................... 219 11.2.2 Floor Formation............................................... 223 11.2.3 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs ....... 227 11.3 Summary ................................................................... 230 11.4 Discussion ................................................................... 231 Chapter 12. Conclusion

................................................................... 233

References

................................................................... 237

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I like reading the acknowledgments in books since I believe that showing appreciation is one of the most beautiful forms of communication and since it reminds me of the fact that any work cannot be accomplished without support from others. This work as well could not be completed without the help of a number of people. First of all, I would like to express my foremost appreciation to my mentor, Dr. Deborah Schiffrin, for her guidance throughout the work of this study. Her encouragement and insightful comments have motivated me to strive for the best. She has taught me all about discourse analysis; how to collect data and analyze discourse, i.e. describe, interpret, and explain it. Throughout my graduate study, Dr. Schiffrin has been a source of inspiration to me as a great mentor, teacher, and researcher. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Heidi Hamilton and Dr. Yoshiko Mori, for their valuable comments. Dr. Hamilton taught me not only discourse analysis in her classes, but also efficient working strategies to carry out research projects. Throughout the interdisciplinary projects, Dr. Hamilton taught me how to work as a team and conduct research, applying approaches of discourse analysis on the data of institutional settings. Also, the comments from Dr. Mori on Japanese linguistics helped me tremendously to improve this work. Her advice and guidance on my job search also equipped me with the necessary skills to survive in the transition from a graduate program to the academic world. Many other people have contributed to the completion of my dissertation with their friendship and prayers throughout my graduate studies at Georgetown University. A few of these people are Barbara and Jack Tapping, Chambliss and Jimmy Mitchell, Dao and Clarence Light, Caron and Wayne Hofer, Anna Basili, Cicilia Castidio, Minako Ishikawa, Leslie Kamrad, Rob and Valerie Schwarzwalder, and Yuka Yamanaka. I would especially like to thank Phyllis Cockerham for her moral support and prayers and Valerie Schwarzwalder for her guidance in my spiritual growth through Bible Study. I would also like to show my sincere appreciation to Keiko Emmett for her friendship and valuable comments on cross-cultural communication between the u.S. and Japan. And last, but not least, my thanks go to my parents, who allowed me to pursue a graduate degree in the U.S. and have been providing me with the right amount of freedom and support. Although we were apart, I felt so close when my mom once said, "Write to us more often. Dad keeps every letter from you on the TV set in the living room and reads them every evening." I hope my completion of the graduate program is deserving of your faith in me and makes you a little bit more proud of me.

xi

xii

Acknowledgements

* The revision of my dissertation for publication as a book was financially supported by the Artistic/Scholarly Development Grant (1999-2000) and Janet McNew, Provost and Dean of the Faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. I would also like to thank my efficient and capable research assistants, Andrea Wyant and Becky Fredericks. They helped me tremendously by proofreading and reformatting the final version of the book for publication. Nevertheless, all the remaining errors are my responsibility.

CHARTS, FIGURES, AND TABLES Table 1.1 Table 3.1 Chart 3.1 Chart 3.2 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Chart 3.3 Table 3.4 Chart 3.4 Chart 3.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Table 4.1 Chart 4.1 Chart 4.2 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Chart 4.3 Table 4.4 Chart 4.4 Chart 4.5 Figure 4.1 Table 5.1 Chart 5.1 Chart 5.2 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Chart 5.3 Table 5.4 Chart 5.4 Chart 5.5 Table 6.1

Summary of Data ......................................................................... 9 Number of Completion Points .................................................. 56 Number of Completion Points ................................................... 57 Relationship of Three Completion Points ................................. 57 Speaker Changes ........................................................................ 60 Locations of Speaker Changes .................................................. 60 Speaker Changes and Completion Points ................................. 61 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ................................. 62 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ................................. 63 CTRPs and Speaker Changes .................................................... 64 Continuum of Floor Control ...................................................... 65 Three Parts in Turns .................................................................. 76 Three Coordinations of Multi-Unit Turns ................................ 77 Number of Completion Points ................................................... 84 Number ofCompletion Points ................................................... 85 Relationship of Three Completion Points ................................. 85 Speaker Changes ........................................................................ 88 Locations of Speaker Changes .................................................. 89 Speaker Changes and Completion Points ................................. 89 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ................................. 90 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ................................. 91 CTRPs and Speaker Changes .................................................... 92 Continuum of Floor Control ...................................................... 93 Number of Completion Points ................................................. 116 Number of Completion Points ................................................ 117 Relationship of Three Completion Points ............................... 118 Speaker Changes ...................................................................... 118 Locations of Speaker Changes ................................................ 119 Speaker Changes and Completion Points ............................... 119 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ............................... 120 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ............................... 120 CTRPs and Speaker Changes .................................................. 121 Number of Completion Points ................................................ 136 xiii

xiv

Charts, Figures, and Tables

Chart 6.1 Chart 6.2 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Chart 6.3 Table 6.4 Chart 6.4 Chart 6.5 Chart 7.1 Chart 7.2 Chart 7.3 Chart 7.4 Figure 8.1

Number of Completion Points................................................. 136 Relationship of Three Completion Points ............................... 137 Speaker Changes ...................................................................... 137 Locations of Speaker Changes ................................................ 138 Speaker Changes and Completion Points ............................... 139 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ............................... 139 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ............................... 140 CTRPs and Speaker Changes .................................................. 141 Completion Points ................................................................... 158 Completion Points ................................................................... 160 Completion Points without Reactive Tokens ......................... 161 Completion Points without Reactive Tokens ......................... 164

Chart 8.1 Chart 8.2 Table 8.1 Chart 8.3 Chart 8.4 Chart 8.5 Chart 8.6 Chart 9.1 Chart 9.2 Chart 9.3 Chart 9.4

Overall Speaker Changes ........................................................ 169 Types of Reactive Tokens ....................................................... 171 Locations of Reactive Tokens ................................................. 172 Floor-taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs ............................... 173 Floor-taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs ............................... 175 Overlaps and Interventions ...................................................... 177 Affiliative and DisaffiJiative Overlaps and Interventions ...... 178 Completion Points and Speaker Changes ............................... 182 CTRPs and Speaker Changes .................................................. 183 Completion Points and Floor-Taking Speaker Changes ........ 184 CTRPs without Reactive Tokens and Floor-Taking Speaker Changes ...................................................................... 185

Speaker Changes ...................................................................... 168

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS [ ()

?

overlapping utterance perceivable pause lengthened syllable cut-off sound latched utterance rising intonational contour

,?

faIling intonational contour continuing intonational contour mid-rising intonational contour

JAPANESE GLOSS SYMBOLS FP Neg OP QP

final particle negative morpheme object particle quotation particle

SP TP

subject particle topic particle

ABBREVIATIONS G I S GI

GS IS CTRP USCNV JCNV USPNI JPNI SC FSC NSC

grammatical completion point intonational completion point semantic completion point conjunction point of grammatical and intonational completion point conjunction point of grammatical and semantic completion point conjunction point of intonational and semantic completion point Complex Transition Relevance Place U.S. English conversation Japanese conversation U.S. political news interview Japanese political news interview speaker change floor-taking speaker change non-floor-taking speaker change

xv

xvi

Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations

ANALYSIS SYMBOLS /

>

*

#

" ->

grammatical completion point semantic completion point reactive token (i.e. non-floor-taking speaker change) CTRP floor-taking speaker change non-floor-taking speaker change analysis point

TURN-TAKING IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the basic idea of the study, presenting the purposes, data, organization, and methodology, which constitutes the frameworl Haru:

sou. right

Kei:

benkyousure ba daijyoubu desho. study if ok be-FP will be fine if they study hard.

Although Haru's reactive expression sou (right) is not a complete clause, we can assume that her utterance can mean 'Soudesu (That is right).' Therefore, a grammatical completion point is marked after Ham's response sou (right).

14

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

In sum, three main criteria are used for both English and Japanese data in order to determine grammatical completion points: (1) well-formed clauses, (2) increments, and (3) recoverable predicates. However, because of the syntactic differences between English and Japanese, predicates, instead of syntactic projectability, are employed to identify grammatical completion points in the Japanese data. Grammatical completion points are marked with '/' in the transcribed data.

1.3.2.2 Intonational Completion Points For both English and Japanese data, the intonational features are transcribed in four different ways: commas used for non-final (continuing) intonation contours, periods for final (falling) intonation contours, question marks for final (rising) intonation contours, and a combination of comma and question marks for continuing but rising intonation contours, which are weaker than those indicated by regular question marks. The following are examples of the four types of intonational contours in both English and Japanese. (I) comma for continuing intonation contour English: I went to Uptons, Japanese:

kaimono ni itte, shopping to go-QP (1) went shopping, and...

(2) period for falling intonation contour English: I couldn't get up this morning. Japanese:

watashi sonna koto ittenai. I such thing say-Neg I did not say such things.

(3) question mark for rising intonation contour English: Do you see that? Japanese:

shusshin wa Tokyo? from TP Tokyo (Are) (you) from Tokyo?

15

Introduction (4) combination of question mark and comma for continuing but rising intonation contour English: He is taking a nap right now,? Japanese:

chikaku da yo ne,? close be FP FP That is close,?

Among these four types of intonation contours, intonational completion points are detennined by final intonational contours (falling and rising), designated by periods or question marks. In the examples above, the second and third types are considered intonationally complete in this study. There are some cases in which intonational contours relate to sentence function differently in English and Japanese. For example, the fmal sentence intonation contour of a 'wh-question' is falling in English while that in Japanese is rising. However, the supersegmental features of sentence final contours can be categorized in the four groups in both English and Japanese in general, regardless of the sentence function. This study therefore applies the same criteria to English and Japanese data to determine intonational completion points.

1.3.2.3 Semantic Completion Points Ford and Thompson (1996) apply two types of pragmatic completion points: local and global. However, they admit that their defmition of the pragmatic completion points is 'intuitive and provisional' (150). Thus, pragmatic completion points are the most controversial and the most difficult to determine out of the three types of completion points (grammatical, intonational, and pragmatic completion points). In order to examine the linguistic properties that affect turn transitions, semantics, instead of pragmatics, is focused on in this study. Four criteria are used to identify semantic completion points for both English and Japanese data in this study: (1) floor right, (2) floor-claiming utterance, (3) proposition, and (4) reactive token. First, when the speaker has the right (or obligation) to hold the floor, a semantic completion point is marked at the point where the right is expired or yielded. The floor right can be acquired by the speaker's status (e.g. moderators who regularly open political news interviews) or obtained in the course of interaction (e.g. the speaker who is asked a question and thus selected as the next speaker). Thus, while the speaker has the right to hold the floor, the semantic unit is not considered to be complete. Second, when a longer turn is proclaimed by words, phrases, or 'preliminary action' (See Sacks 1974, Schegloff 1980), or negotiated and endorsed by the interlocutor, a semantic completion point is marked at the end of the projected longer talk. 15 First, words and phrases that work as cohesive devices are used to

16

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

identify semantic completion points. They include words such as a cataphora in the sentence, 'I said this,' which projects upcoming explanation about what the cataphora this refers to. They also include phrases such as 'for example,' which can ensure the speaker the turn-taking space of an 'example'. An example of claiming 'preliminary action' is 'a funny thing happened the other day.' This abstract of a narrative 'proposes that listeners refrain from exchanging speaking roles until something funny has been reported' (Schiffrin 1987:16). One example of negotiation for upcoming longer talk is "y'know what happened?" Schiffrin (1987) states that this question possibly leads to a listener's question, 'what?' This question-answer sequence endorses the speaker to take the upcoming floor for the story. In this case, a semantic completion point is marked after the story is completed. Thus, a semantic completion point is marked when the point of the story is made and the narrative is completed. In this way, a semantic completion point is designated when the projected longer talk is accomplished. Third, when there is no such semantic indication that projects upcoming longer talk, semantic completion points are designated at the end of each proposition. This category includes not only single clauses, but also complex clauses, such as, 'I assume that he is a good cook.' Also, a sentence with a subordinate clause and a main clause, such as 'When my kids are sleeping, I can go do errands,' is considered one semantic unit, and a semantic completion point is marked after the main clause. Fourth, reactive tokens are considered semantically complete, although they do not have the full structure of a sentence. This is because these utterances can also carry out recognizable actions, such as showing listenership. Reactive tokens are short responses to the primary speaker's utterances and do not project an upcoming longer talk or change the topic, polarity, or floor formation. Clancy et al. (1996) present five categories of reactive tokens: backchannel, reactive expressions, repetition, collaborative finish, and resumptive opener. This study, however, regards backchannel, reactive expression, repetition, collaborative finish, laughter, and short statement as reactive tokens. 16 The following are examples of reactive tokens in the data.

(I) backchannel 17 e.g. Um huh. (2) reactive expression e.g. Great. (3) repetition e.g. Lynn: -> Liz:

He was funny. Was he funny?

Introduction

17

(4) collaborative finish e.g. Lynn: more like a [brunch. -> Liz: [brunch. (5) laugher e.g. Hahaha. (6) short statement e.g. That's wonderful. Therefore, four criteria are used to detennine semantic completion points: floor right, floor-claiming utterances for an upcoming longer talk, propositions, and reactive tokens. Often these four criteria overlap with each other. For example, there are numerous propositions in a longer talk that is signaled by a floor claiming utterance, and more than one longer talk can appear in a floor in which one single speaker has obtained the right to hold. In these cases, semantic completion points are marl # Lynn: [Did you buy something! or you didn't?l> #

(2) Japanese Fumi san doko kara dakke?l> # Kei: Ms. where from be Furni, where (are you) from?

18

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese Fumi:

Kagawa ken.!> # prefecture (I'm from) Kagawa prefecture.

In this study, the ends of reactive tokens are counted as CTRPs as well since they are grammatically, intonationally, and semantically complete in general. It seems, however, that reactive tokens are different kinds of CTRPs from the others. Thus, this study marks CTRPs after reactive tokens differently. They are marked with '*'.

(1) English When I got back,! Liz: it was like, ooh I am not gonna be able to stay awake through this man.!># Val: Um.!>* (2) Japanese Fumi: shigoto shidai ne.!># job depends FP It depends on the job. Ham:

un.!>* Umhum.

As these examples show, the points where grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points coincide are considered CTRPs. CTRPs play an important role for the data analysis in this study since they are transitionrelevance places where not only grammar but also intonation and semantics jointly project a possible end of the tum and thus represent linguistic projectability in turn-taking.

1.3.2.5 Speaker Changes A point of speaker change is marked at any point where an interlocutor takes a recognizable tum. IS Any audible utterances are considered to form turn constitutional units. When a point of speaker change is determined, not only tum-transitions but also floor formation changes are taken into consideration, and speaker changes are categorized into two types: (1) floor-taking/forming speaker changes, and (2) non-flo or-taking speaker changes. 19 Non-floor-taking turns include what Clancy et al. (1996) call reactive tokens (i.e. backchannels,

19

Introduction

reactive expressions, collaborative finishes, repetitions, laughter, and short statements) in this study. Examples of non-floor-taking turns in English and Japanese follow. The mark' is used to indicate a non-floor-taking speaker change. Please note that a point of speaker change is marked just before the speaker change occurs. (1) English Lynn: He was very kind,' urn. -> Liz: (2) Japanese ie ni kaette,' Ham: home to retum-QP I got home and

-> Miki:

un, um huh,

Floor-taking turns include the primary speaker's tum in single person floor as well as utterances in collaborative floor. The following are examples of floortaking speaker change in both English and Japanese. A place of floor-taking speaker change is marked with" in each example.

(1) English I'll just pick up a couple of cups to serve tea," Val: Lynn: I haven't realized that tea cups are really not that expensive, (2) Japanese Ham: tape toka mo zenzen shitenakattashi," or too at all do-Neg-past We did not tape the conversation, Fumi:

gohan mo gochisouni nattashi, meal too treated was They treated you the dinner as well,

In case of speaker overlap, the exact point at which the overlapping speaker starts is marked as a point of speaker change. Following are the examples of non-floor-taking speaker changes in English and Japanese, in which the backchannel turns start in the middle of the current speakers' utterances.

20

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese (1) English Liz: I went to' [Reston Town Center, Lynn: rum huh,

(2)Japanese Osaka kara' [kaette, Kei: from return-QP (I) returned from Osaka,

Ham:

[un. um huh.

To summarize, floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes are marked differently. Non-floor-taking speaker changes are short verbal responses to the primary floor-holder, including reactive tokens (backchannel, reactive expression, repetition, collaborative finish, laughter, and short statement). Any other kinds of speaker changes are considered floor-taking speaker changes. The distinction between floor-taking speaker changes and nonfloor-taking speaker changes enables us to distinguish overlaps/interventions with floor-taking speaker changes from those with non-floor-taking speaker changes. 20 This distinction may help us identify the structure of floor and how the floor formation changes over the course of interaction.

1.4 OVERVIEW The organization of this study follows: This chapter introduces the purposes, data, organization, and methodology of this study. Chapter Two reviews previous studies on conversation, turn-taking, political news interviews, and Japanese discourse. The following four chapters (Chapters Three, Four, Five, and Six) examine data sets of English conversation, Japanese conversation, U.S. political news interviews, and Japanese political news interviews respectively. These chapters focus on systematicity in turn-taking and interactional factors that trigger unsystematic instances in each data set. Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine compare quantitative results in the four data sets, concerning the interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, the occurrences of speaker changes, and the relationship between completion points and speaker changes, respectively. Chapter Ten discusses tum-taking in English and Japanese to study how linguistic and cultural factors affect realization of turn-taking whereas Chapter Eleven studies turn-taking patterns in conversations and political news interviews to explore how the differences in settings affect realization of turn-taking and language in use. Chapter Twelve summarizes the main findings of this study.

Introduction

21

1.5 SUMMARY This first chapter has discussed the purposes, data, methodology, and organization of this study. This study explores the relationship between language and interaction by examining tum-taking. Tum-taking is analyzed using three linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) and one interactional factor (tum transitions). This study also explores the following subjects: (1) the interrelationship between grammar, intonational, and semantic units, (2) the ways people negotiate role-exchanges and manage floor, (3) the relationship between the three linguistic units and tum units, (4) the effect of linguistic and cultural context on tum-taking, and (5) the effect of situational context on tumtaking. In order to explore these research questions, conversations and political news interviews in U.S. English and Japanese are used as the data for this study. The approaches employed for the analyses are Conversation Analysis and Interactional Sociolinguistics. With both approaches, we can examine tumtaking patterns as to how and why they take place in context. Although the criteria used to detennine grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are adopted from Ford and Thompson's (1996) study, some modifications are made, based on the quantitative analysis of this study. Finally, there are systematicities (i.e. recurring patterns) in any interaction. These systematicities may be distinctive in each interaction; they may differ between languages or within interactional settings. This study will explore systematicity in each interaction and compare them with each other. In order to provide an explanation of the systematicity in each setting, this study will also explore unsystematic instances (i.e. modified recurring patterns) and explain motivations that trigger the diverted instances in each data set. This process will give us insight into the effects of linguistic and cultural influences and the influence of situational and interactional context on tum-taking. Consequently, this study will shed light on the relationship between language and interaction.

22

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

NOTES 1 Schiffrin (l987) states that language in use is always contextual and communicative. Thus, the word 'interaction' is used to refer to the integral functions of context and communication.

The term 'grammar' is used almost interchangeably with the term 'syntax' in this study. However, the tenn 'grammar' is used more widely than 'syntax' in this study since it includes morphology, which plays an important role in Japanese.

2

3 Schiffrin (1987) discusses constituents of discourse from both linguistic and interactional perspectives.

4

Edelsky (1993) differentiates singly developed floor from collaborative floor.

5 Goffinan (l98l) discusses two constraints on interplay, system constraints and ritual constrains.

'English conversation' refers to U.S. English conversation while 'American political news interviews' or 'English political news interviews' mean U.S. English political news interviews since all of the participants in the English data speak U.S. English.

6

7 The later part of the interaction includes more instances of single person floor than the earlier part. 8 Although Japanese political discourse is often viewed as question-answer sequences without real argumentation (e.g. Nakajima 1989), each segment of the data has two guest politicians, who have opposing ideas, and they debate on controversial issues. One of the interviews is heated enough to have the headline 'The heated debate: Miyazawa vs. Ozawa,' in a TV guide.

9 I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Atsuko Honda, who let me use the recorded data of this segment. 10 The Diet in Japan (equivalent to the U.S. Congress) consists of one ruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and several other opposition parties.

11 This study uses four different interactions as the data. To compare four interactions in two languages and two settings helps us understand linguistic, cultural, and situational influences on turn-taking. Conversation Analysis does not address the nature of conversation data and regards interactions in conversations and ones in institutional settings as the same kind (with only different parameter sets). Interactional Sociolinguistics, on the other hand, takes social context into consideration. Therefore, comparing four data sets may reveal how the nature of data affects (or does not affect) turn-taking.

Introduction

23

12 Although many researchers have argued the importance of non-verbal cues for tum transitions (e.g. Goodwin 1981, Schegloff 1984), this study excludes nonverbal cues, as in the study by Ford and Thompson (1996).

13 Shibatani (1990: 257) discusses the syntactic structure of Japanese and states that Japanese is an SOY language and that predicates are placed at the end of a canonical order clause. 14 Examples of reactive tokens are listed in the section of 'semantic completion points.'

This includes narratives, in which structure has been well studied (See Labov 1973).

15

16 This study regards laughter as one type of reactive token since it is one kind of listener's response to the primary speaker's talk.

17 Clancy et al. (1996: 359) state that backchannel refers to "a non-lexical vocalic form that serves as a 'continuer' (Schegloff 1982), display of interest, or claim of understanding." Maynard (1986: 1081) also calls these backchannel responses in Japanese 'tum-internal listener back-channels.' 18

'Recognizable tum' refers to any tum claiming utterance that is audible.

19 This study applies Hayashi's (1996: 60) definition on floor boundary for determining floor fonnation. She identifies 'floor boundary' by examining both topic and to whom the topic belongs, i.e. in order to put a boundary between floors, she first examines 'the smallest categorical topical units within a topic.' then 'communicative territory, that is, whom the topic belongs to.' 20 The criteria to differentiate overlaps from interventions are discussed in Chapter Eight.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

2.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter consists offour discussions on the following: (1) conversation, (2) turn-taking, (3) political news interviews, and (4) Japanese discourse. Section 2.1 addresses research on characteristics of conversation and basic assumptions about conversation. Section 2.2 reviews previous studies on turn-taking in English conversation, interruptions and overlaps, defInitions of turns, and tumtaking and projectabilities. Section 2.3 examines previous research on the characteristics of political news interviews, as well as the tum-taking system and disagreement strategies in political news interviews. Section 2.4 explores prior works on cultural background and ritual harmony in Japanese communication. Section 2.5 summarizes the discussions of this chapter.

2.1 CONVERSATION This section addresses the reasons why conversation is used as the data for this study. Then, since organization of conversation is systematically studied by conversation analysts, the assumptions that they make about conversation are reviewed.

2.1.1 Characteristics of Conversation In order to examine the relationship between language and interaction, this study employs the data of conversation. Conversation here refers to what conversation analysts often describe as 'ordinary and mundane conversation' (Goodwin and Heritage 1990: 284). More specifIcally, Levinson (1983: 284) defines conversation as a 'familiar predominant kind of talk in which two or more participants freely alternate in speaking, which generally occurs outside specifIc institutional settings like religious services, law courts, classrooms and the like.' The conversation I use as the data for this study can be described as spontaneous talk in interactions among two or more participants in casual, informal settings of everyday life.

25

26

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Conversation data is employed for this study because it has the following characteristics: (1) it reflects the communicative competence of the participants, (2) it is the most unmarked form of communication, and (3) it reflects the interactional norms as well as the social system of the culture where it occurs. I will examine these characteristics of conversation in turn. First, conversation can reveal communicative competence that the participants possess (Hymes 1972). SchifIrin (1988: 251) delineates communicative competence as 'our tacit knowledge of the abstract rules of a language, which is required both to produce sound/meaning correspondences within grammatical sentences and to use those correspondences between sounds, meanings, and forms in socially and culturally appropriate ways.' Conversation requires participants to draw upon not only their linguistic knowledge, but also their pragmatic abilitx. In other words, conversation shows the way the participants use language in interaction, and studying conversation can reveal how language and interaction are intertwined. Therefore, conversation is used as the data for this study, which aims to explore the relationship between language and interaction. Second, conversation is the most unmarked form of communication in our daily lives. This is the form of communication to which children are most likely to be exposed in their first language acquisition. Furthermore, since ordinary conversation occurs in ubiquity, it can be the prototype for any other forms of talk in interaction in institutional settings such as political news interviews. For example, Schiffrin (1988: 251) states that 'conversation is a more basic, unmarked mode of communication than other communicative genres.' Goodwin and Heritage (1990: 289) claim that 'ordinary conversation is the point of departure for more specialized communicative contexts~' This study compares conversation with political news interviews, and this comparison can help us identify how interaction in conversation differs from that in an institutional setting, and thus, how situational context influences interaction. Third, since conversation is carried out in cultural and social contexts, it indicates not only the participants' tacit ability to use the language appropriately in context, but also the interactional norms that the participants follow when they interact with other members of the society. Schiffrin (1988: 252) states that conversational rules may be "the products of more general social processes and norms of interaction through which people's interpersonal goals, selves, and relationships are negotiated, and out of which a sense of social order is created... Thus, conversation reveals interactional norms and social processes in interpersonal relationships. At the same time, it can also suggest the underlying social system and organization in which the interactional norms are formed. In other words, conversation can reveal the underlying principles that govern the linguistic and non-linguistic behavior of the members in the society as well as the culture and social system in which the underlying principals are constituted. This study compares conversation in U.S. English with that in Japanese. This

Literature Review

27

comparison may shed light on the differences in interactional nonns as well as the cultures and social systems in U.s. and Japanese societies. To summarize, three characteristics of conversation have been discussed. First, conversation reflects the communicative competence of the participants and may reveal the cognitive mapping between their linguistic knowledge and pragmatic ability. Second, since it is an unmarked fonn of communication, it can be the prototype of other fonns of communication (e.g. political news interviews). Third, it reflects not only interactional nonns in the society, but also the culture and social system in which the nonns are conventionalized. Therefore, conversation is used for this study since examining it contributes to our understanding of the relationship between language and interaction, i.e. the situational influence on language in interaction (by comparing conversation with political news interviews) as well as the cultural influence (by comparing English conversation with Japanese conversation).

2.1.2 Basic Assumptions about Conversation Conversation has been studied in several fields of linguistics, but the approaches toward conversation vary greatly (cf. Schiffrin 1994). For example, Ochs et al. (1996) discuss interaction and grammar in conversation and view grammar as the underlying system of interaction in social life. Conversation has been paid great attention, especially by conversation analysts, who study its sequential organization of turn-by-turn interaction. Thus, I will review the four assumptions on which conversation analysis is based. These assumptions are that (1) conversation is structurally organized, (2) it is jointly produced among the participants, (3) it is contextual, and (4) it is locally managed. I First, conversation analysts take a structural approach to sequential organization of conversation since they assume that conversation is structurally organized and sequentially constrained (Heritage 1984). One example of this structural approach is adjacency pair, which consists of both a first pair part and a second pair part, such as question and answer sequence. The first pair part requires the second pair part to follow. These two pair parts, which are expected to be adjacent to each other, exemplify structural organization as well as orderly sequence of interaction in conversation. Second, conversation analysts assume that conversation is a joint product among the participants and that the recipient plays an active role in the interaction. In other words, a response from the recipient may decide the upcoming course of interaction. This is called 'recipient design' (Goodwin and Heritage 1990). For example, the recipient's response demonstrates his/her intersubjectivity, the understanding and inference of the speaker's utterance. In the event that the recipient's response does not show hislher correct interpretation

28

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

of what the speaker meant, the speaker may reply with a repair work in the next slot, which is called 'the third position repair' (Schegloff 1992). Conversation analysts' third assumption is that conversation is contextdependent. The action that emerges in conversation is shaped in context (contextshaped), and the context, in turn, will shape the following action (contextrenewing) (Heritage 1984). However, what conversation analysts call 'context' does not mean social context (such as participants' identities or situational settings). Instead, 'context' in conversation analysis refers to sequences of action and interpretation that emerge in the organization of conversation. Thus, any details of interaction, such as repairs, should not be dismissed as irrelevant to context since they occur in a sequential organization of interaction in conversation. Finally, conversation analysts closely examine turn-by-turn organization of conversation, assuming that conversation is locally managed. Goodwin and Heritage (1990: 267) describe locally managed organization of interaction as 'the minute step-by-step details by which talk is constructed.' One example of this assumption is observed in the turn-taking system of conversation that Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) present. They state that turn exchanges are systematically realized with minimal gap/overlap because the participants primarily take turns at transition-relevance places (TRPs)/ according to the next speaker selection rules. These rules state that the next speaker is selected in the following order of preference: (1) the current speaker selects the next speaker, (2) the next speaker selects himselflherself as the next speaker, or (3) the current speaker continues hislher talk. Thus, orderly turn-taking is considered the result of the locally managed system in conversation. In summary, four assumptions of conversation analysis have been discussed: (1) conversation has sequential and structural organization, (2) it is a joint product among the participants, (3) it is context-dependent, and (4) it is locally managed. These assumptions can be summarized in two statements: (1) conversation is systematic, and (2) it is interactional. Although conversation seems disorderly at first (since it is dynamically transfonned by interactional factors), conversation analysts assume the existence of systematicity/orderliness in interaction and try to untangle and describe the systematicity that can be observed in recurring patterns of conversation.

2.2 TURN-TAKING This section consists of four discussions on (1 ) turn-taking in English conversation, (2) interruptions and overlaps, (3) defmitions of turns, and (4) turntaking and projectabilities. First, major studies on turn-taking by conversation analysts are reviewed so that we can grasp the chronological background on studies of turn-taking. Next, discussions by interactional sociolinguists on interruptions and overlaps are presented. Then, literature on turns is reviewed to

Literature Review

29

see how 'turns' have been defined by previous studies. I discuss definitions of turns from mechanical and. interactional perspectives. 3 The mechanical perspective views turns descriptively, while the interactional perspective takes social context into consideration. This discussion is followed by a review of the literature on how the end of turns is projected for smooth turn-transitions, i.e. how three properties of language (grammar, intonation, and semantics) function to predict turn-ends. The three properties concern different aspects of language, i.e. structure, sound, and meaning, respectively.

2.2.1 Turn-Taking in English Conversation Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson's study (1974) on turn4aking in English conversation is one of the most cited studies on turn-taking in conversation analysis. They present fourteen recurring patterns of tum-taking in English conversation as follows (700-70 I): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13.

14.

Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief. Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions. Turn order is not fixed, but varies. Turn size is not fixed, but varies. Length of conversation is not specified in advance. What parties say is not specified in advance. Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance. Number of parties can vary. Talk can be continuous or discontinuous. Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or parties may self-select in starting to talk. Various 'turn-constructional units' are employed; e.g., turns can be projected 'one word long,' or they can be sentential in length. Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations; e.g., if two parties fmd themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble.

As this list shows, this study includes extensive observations on tum-taking, such as tum transitions, turn size, turn order, length of conversation, turn distribution, tum allocation, and repair mechanisms. For example, when the current speaker does not select the next speaker, helshe may self-select himselflherselfas the next speaker ifno other interlocutor self-selects. Before the

30

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

current speaker's self-selection, a pause often appears, and this pause indicates that the floor is open to the interlocutors. Furthennore, a turn regularly includes three parts: (1) one that shows the relevance to the prior turn (fonnal affiliation), (2) one that has the point of the tum, and (3) one that links to the upcoming turn (projecting link). O'Connell, Kowal, and Kaltenbacher (1990) critically review previous studies on tum-taking, primarily the study by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974), taking issue with their assumptions, concepts, methods, statistics, interpretation of data, and theoretical considerations. For example, they claim that Sacks et al. (1974) do not define the basic tenn 'turn' systematically in their article. They claim that intention and purpose of utterances as well as cultural factors crucially affect turn-taking in conversation and suggest that these factors be examined for future studies on turn-taking. Jefferson's (1973) discussion about 'precision timing' of 'no sooner or no later constraints' helps us understand the point where an overlap starts. She argues that a next speaker's utterance is precisely placed at the point where he/she understands the previous speaker's utterance and where he/she can react to it most effectively as well as collaboratively. In other words, a recipient has the capacity to place his/her talk with precise timing as well as to respond collaboratively and appropriately according to the current speaker's orientation. Lerner (1989) discusses delayed completion, i.e. the increment that finishes hislher interrupted turn after the interrupting utterance by another speaker. He lists four features of delayed completion: (1) 'delayed completion provides a means to produce a complete turn-constructional unit across intervening talk,' (2) 'delayed completion can make out an intervening utterance to have been interruptive of a turn at talk,' (3) 'delayed completion can initiate overlap,' and (4) 'delayed completion can delete the sequential implicativeness of the intervening talk' (173). For example, a question implies the next action of an answer, but the production of a delayed completion after a question can cancel the relevance of an answer as a next action. He concludes that we distinguish between simultaneous speech and intetject entry since they are mutually exclusive. Short utterances that are called reactive tokens have also been studied by many conversation analysts. For example, Schegloff (1982) examines the instances of 'uh huh' and the like that appear between sentences and claims that these utterances have two primary functions: to serve as a continuer and to pass an opportunity to initiate repair. He further talks about 'continuer' as follows: "perhaps the most common usage of'uh huh' and the like (in environments other than after yes/no questions) is to exhibit an understanding that an extended unit of talk is underway by another, and that it is not yet complete" (81). Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki, and Tao (1996) also investigate the kinds and frequency of reactive tokens in Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and English. They define reactive tokens as "a short utterance produced by an interlocutor who is

Literature Review

31

playing a listener's role during the other interlocutor's speakership" (355) and classify them into five types: backchannels, reactive expressions, collaborative fmishes, repetitions, and resumptive openers. They find that Japanese conversation has a high frequency of both reactive tokens and backchannels while English conversation has a high frequency of reactive tokens but a low :frequency of backchannels. Also, reactive tokens occur at CTRPs and grammatical completion points at a low rate in Japanese conversation while reactive tokens occur at CTRPs at a moderate rate but at grammatical completion points at a high rate in English conversation. In summary, studies on tum-taking in conversation analysis have prospered in the last two decades, and conversation analysts approach tum-takitig in conversation from various perspectives, including tum allocation, turn transition points, and reactive tokens.

2.2.2 Interruptions and Overlaps Turn-taking has been studied with regard to interruptions, in contrast with overlaps, within the framework of interactional sociolinguistics. Discussions on interruptions and overlaps have been carried out from many perspectives, which can be categorized into (1) point of speaker change, (2) intention of interrupter and perception of interruptee, (3) right/obligation to hold floor, and (4) interpretations: affiliative versus disaffiIiative. For example, West and Zimmennan (1983) define 'overlap' as the brief simultaneous talk near possible completion points (e.g. within a syllable), which is constrained by the tum-taking system, e.g. one speaker at a time constraints and transition-relevance place constraints. In contrast, 'interruption' refers to a non-systematic occurrence of "deeper intrusion into the internal structure of a speaker's utterance than an overlap, i.e. candid interruptions are incursions initiated more than two syllables away from the initial or tenninal boundary ofa unit-type" (104). However, they claim that Jefferson's 'no sooner no later constraints' of precision timing are not counted as interruption because they show 'active listening or intense involvement' and thus they have 'facultative warrant,' showing 'independent knowledge by the hearer of what the speaker is about to say' (105). Makri-Tsilipakou (1994) examines simultaneous talk from three perspectives: (1) length of simultaneity that differentiates overlap, shallow interruptions, and deep interruptions, (2) function with the concept of 'face' and 'preference' that leads to the distinction between affiIiative and disaffiIiative interventions, and (3) gender. First, she differentiates overlaps, shallow interruptions, and deep interruptions. She quotes the studies by Zimmennan and West (1975) and West and Zimmennan (1983), who define 'overlaps' as 'those simultaneities occurring with the first or last syllable of unit-types,' 'shallow interruptions' as 'simultaneities occurring within the second or second to last

32

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

syllable or between first and second or next-to-last and last syllable of unit types,' and 'deep interruptions' as 'those onsets of simultaneity more than two syllables away from the beginning or end of a unit type' (West and Zimmennan 1983: 114). Next, she discusses instances of affiliative and disaffiliative interventions and regards affiliative interventions as addressee-oriented face-saving strategies, preferred second pair parts of adjacency pairs, such as genuine repair, ratifying backchannel response, initiating/development of affiliative topics, and affiliative topic change/shift. Disaffiliative intervention, i.e. interruption, on the other hand, is carried out in an antagonistic way. She fmds out that women overlap with each other to support, agree, or ratify while men do so in order to both support and dissent; both men and women directly interrupt their female interruptees. Murray (1985) discusses recognition of interruption in tenns of speaker's 'completion right' and disregards acoustic as well as syntactic criteria to detennine interruption. He claims that the following three perspectives should be examined to study the concept of interruption: (1) turn length and frequency of speaking, (2) 'points' in the tum made by the speaker, and (3) a special right to hold the floor. Furthennore, he claims that the severity of violation of a speaker's right, which may depend on context, affects the nature of 'interruption.' He states that "the severity of violation ofa speaker's right may depend on what happens afterwards as well as on what has occurred before, and severity of violations is what sets off 'interruption' from other turn-taking mechanisms" (38).

Murata (1994) distinguishes interruptions, "intentional actions of interrupting the conversational partner's utterances at non-TRPs" (388), from overlaps, 'unintentional infringements.' She then classifies interruptions into two types: (1) cooperative interruption, which shows the listener's collaboration and encouragement to the speaker, and (2) intrusive interruption, which functions as topic-changing, floor-taking, or disagreement. Bennet (1981:176) distinguishes 'overlap' from 'interruption': overlap is essentially a descriptive tenn employed by discourse analysts. On the other hand, the notion of 'interruption' is basically an interpretive category for participants to deal with currently prevailing rights and obligations in actual situations. The interpretation of ,interruption' differs radically because participants' perception of interruption is affected greatly by their beliefs on who has the right to talk at the moment of interaction. Talbot (1992) critically reviews previous studies on 'interruption' and advocates a qualitative approach instead of a quantitative approach toward the concept of interruption. She claims that interruption depends on the interruptee's perception, that is, who has the right to interrupt whom. Tannen (1993) states that overlaps do not necessarily have to be viewed negatively. There are cooperative overlaps, in which a listener talks along with the speaker not to interrupt the speaker, but to show enthusiastic listenership and

Literature Review

33

participation. This is one instance of high involvement interaction whereas cultures of high consideration tend to avoid overlaps and interruptions. In conclusion, studies on interruptions and overlaps have been canied out from many perspectives, which can be categorized into (1) point of speaker change, (2) interrupter's intention and interruptee's perception, (3) right/obligation to hold floor, and (4) interpretations: affiliative versus disaffiliative.

2.2.3 Definitions of Turns Since tum-taking is one of the areas that has attracted many researchers in linguistics as well as other areas such as psychology (e.g. O'Connell, Kowal and Kaltenbacher 1990), definitions of 'turns' vary greatly from study to study. Despite the variety of defmitions explicitly or implicitly presented in previous literature, the definitions of ,turns' can be categorized into two types: mechanical defmitions and interactional definitions (See Edelsky 1993). Mechanical defmitions view 'turns' as units of talk in interaction and exclude any interpretations that regard social context. For example, deliberately avoiding defming 'turns,' Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) call the basic unit of utterance a 'unit-type' or 'tum-constructional unit (TCU)' and state that the types of units in English vary, such as a sentence, clause, phrase, or word. Duncan and Fiske (1985) also view turns at talk mechanically and define turns as interactional units 'with an end boundary marked by turn-claiming responses from the auditor.' Since these definitions deal with language use in interaction, turns in this sense can refer to both utterances divided by speaker changes as well as opportunities for the speaker to take a turn in interaction. Interactional definitions of turns, on the other hand, deal mainly with exchange of speaker roles in interaction. For example, Goffman (1981:23) defines turns as 'an opportunity to hold the floor, not what is said while holding it. ' Furthermore, turns in these interactional definitions concern the speaker's right/obligation to talk, as well as the concept of floor, i.e. who has the privilege to hold the floor. For example, Edelsky (1993) discusses gender differences in interaction by examining floor types in committee meetings. She explores the following two research questions: (l) What is the floor? and (2) 'Are there gender differences in language use depending on the type of floor that is occurring?' (200). Edelsky defines turns as "on-record 'speaking' behind which lies an intention to convey a message that is both referential and functional" (207), and she defines 'floor' as "the acknowledged what's-going-on within a psychological time/space" (209). She then audio-records interaction of five committee meetings with five female and four male participants. When analyzing the data, she classifies the floors into two types, (1) singly developed floor, which is characterized by monologues and single party control, and (2) collaborative floor, which is a more informal and cooperative venture. She finds

34

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

that women talk in a similar manner in the singly developed floor and the collaborative floor, while men talk more in the singly developed floor than in the collaborative floor. She concludes that examining conditions in interaction is important for analysis of gender differences. Hayashi (1991) examines the concept of floor that underlies any interaction. She first defines 'floor' as 'a community competence which is cognitively developed while participants in a conversation interact with each other, and which is a form of mutual knowledge shared by the interactions and used to sequence conversation' (1). She examines naturally obtained data of interactions by native speakers of English and ones by native speakers of Japanese and claims that floor organization is universal. Then, she (1996) extends her own study of floor and categorizes floors into eight types. According to her floor categorization, 'single conversational floor' can be further divided into 'single person floor' and 'collaborative floor.' Single person floor includes holding longer sequences of utterances such as narratives and story telling. The distinction between mechanical and interactional approaches is somewhat similar to that between system constraints and ritual constraints, proposed by Goffinan (1981). He states that there are two types of constraints that affect tum-taking: system constraints and ritual constraints. System constraints, which are parallel to the mechanical approach, concern the ways turn sequences are managed; for example, how the next speaker is selected. Thus, system constraints are not considered to be influenced by social context. Ritual constraints, on the other hand, vary from situation to situation and from culture to culture. Speakers are viewed in relation to others in a social sense; how they are accepted/respected in the society is primarily concerned. Since ritual constraints are greatly influenced by the behavioral norms that the society imposes and by individuals' interpretation and application in context, they can reflect social values as well as power asymmetry among the participants. To summarize, definitions of turns are discussed from two perspectives: (1) mechanical, and (2) interactional. The mechanical perspective views turns as parts of the system requirements of talk. It studies turns as units of utterances without taking social context into consideration. The interactional perspective has more to do with ritual requirements, such as the right/obligation to hold floor; it takes situational and cultural context into consideration.

2.2.4 Turn-Taking and Projectabilities Three linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) can be considered to project possible completion points in relation to turn-taking. Interlocutors can predict tum-ends by grammatical, intonational, and semantic projectabilities, which can help them understand when the turns can end and carry out smooth tum transitions.

Literature Review

35

First, with respect to grammar, Sacks et al. (1974) discuss the concept of TCUs (turn-constructional units, a basic unit of utterance) on the basis of syntax and claim that a usable TCU must have the element of projectability by which the end of a possible completion point can be syntactically projected. They state that the types of 'units' vary in English such as a sentence, clause, phrase, or word. However, the common feature of all unit-types is projectability, which refers to a syntactic cue to indicate possible completion points in each unit-type. In other words, when the speaker sets out a TCU, helshe provides the interlocutors with syntactic information about the end of the unit-type or a possible completion point. This syntactic information helps the interlocutors carry out smooth. turn transitions at an upcoming transition-relevance place, TRP. The first possible completion point of a unit-type, which is indicated by its projectabiIity, is the initial transition-relevance place, i.e. the primary point where speaker changes can occur. While a completion point is a turn transition place, a 'possible' completion point is a transition-relevance place because it can occur (but does not have to) in the on-going, moment-by-moment sequence of interaction. Namely, 'possible' completion points indicated by syntactic cues of the linguistic properties are not necessarily accompanied by the actual tum-transitions in the interaction of conversation. Thus, syntactic cues of projectability in linguistic properties play an important role in indicating possible completion points and contribute to smooth turn transitions in interaction. Second, the end of a turn can be projected by intonation as well. Chafe (1994) focuses on intonation when discussing a basic segment of speech. He claims that vocalization of human speech is regularly intenupted by the physiological requirement of breathing, which creates 'some basic functional segmentations of discourse' (56). He calls these segmentations intonation units. Intonation units are characterized by any or all of the following features: 'Changes in fundamental frequency (perceived as pitch), changes in duration (perceived as the shortening or lengthening of syllables or words), changes in intensity (perceived as loudness), alternations of vocalization with silence (perceived as pausing) changes in voice quality of various kinds, and sometimes changes of turn' (58). According to his definition of intonation units, they include very short segments such as discourse markers or reactive tokens. Third, semantics can function to project a possible completion point as well. Semantic projectability concerns semantic units, which has been studied from many perspectives. Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985:595) discuss Discourse Units (DUs), which are larger turns or larger projects such as stories and jokes. DUs include two different types, (1) Closed DUs: 'Activities larger than one turn-constructional unit and are accomplished by a primary speaker holding the floor through the course of their production,' and (2) Open DUs: interactionally negotiated or managed construction. They conclude that DUs construed with

36

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

recipient design are not only sensitive to projectability but also to a higher level of action. Polanyi (1988) discusses discourse structures and proposes the Linguistic Discourse Model, which enables us to assign clauses a proper semantic representation. She defines discourse constituent units as the elementary units of discourse construction and utilizes the Discourse Parse Tree to describe the discourse constituent units. Since exchange oftums is achieved by both speaker and hearer, the speaker has to negotiate/proclaim the right to talk in order to achieve hislher interactional goal successfully, especially in longer sequences such as narratives, in which 'tum exchanges have to be temporarily suspended' (Schiffrin 1987). Sacks (1974) and Schegloff (1980) discus's semantic projectability, presenting instances of story-preface, which are often put at the beginning of multiple unit tums and ensure the speaker the longer tum until the projected story-telling is completed. Schiffrin (1987) states that at the beginning of longer turns such as narratives, the speaker can propose what he/she is going to say.4 In other words, the speaker announces the abstract of the upcoming talk, which prefigures the point of the story. This enables the hearer to guess when the point of the story is made, i.e. when the tum will end. Ford and Thompson (1996) discuss the interrelationship of syntax, intonation and pragmatics in order to characterize tum-constructional units. They define a pragmatic completion point as 'a combination of intonation and conversational action sequencing' (13) and claim that there are two kinds of pragmatic completion points: (1) local pragmatic completion points, and (2) global pragmatic completion points. Local pragmatic completion points refer to points 'at which the speaker is projecting more talk, but at which another speaker might reasonably take a minimal tum, such as offering a continuer, display of interest, or claim of understanding' (150) while global pragmatic completion points are recognized when longer sequences of interaction such as story telling are completed. These three linguistic perspectives (grammar, intonation, and semantics) have attracted the attention of researchers who study tum-taking. Schegloff (1996) discusses tum-taking in tum organization and claims that the main function of grammar is to project the ending points of tum-constructional units. He further mentions function of prosody and action in tum organization as well as projectability in intonation and pitch peak, which can indicate possible completion points prosodically. He states that pitch peak can adumbrate 'designated possible completion at next grammatical possible completion, when syntactic and pragmatic conditions have been met' (84). A pitch peak that appears just before the intonation completion point is the point where we can observe various orderly phenomena, such as early-starting of next turns and initiation of ,rush-through,' the phenomenon of the speaker rushing through the TRPs to keep the floor. This is the place where the current speaker can start

Literature Review

37

preparing what will happen at the immediately following grammatical completion point. Thus, he discusses how syntax, intonation, and pragmatics work on turn transitions and states that a turn-constructional unit is pragmatically complete when a recognizable action is accomplished. Orestrom (1983) discusses the relationship among syntactic, prosodic, and pragmatic completion points in English conversation. He finds that five linguistic features (prosody, syntax, semantics, loudness, and silent pauses) play an important part in a smooth exchange of turns. He refers to the conjuncture of prosody, syntax, and semantics as a grammatical boundary (GB) and states that GBs are the main indicator for the listener to take the next tum unless the speaker is not interrupted before GBs or unless a lengthy pause is predicted as the end of the tum. Thus, Orestrom points out the importance of the conjuncture among prosody, syntax, and semantics in which turn transitions take place at a high rate. In other words, tum transitions primarily occur at the points where syntactic, prosodic, and semantic completion points coincide. On the basis of Orestrom's study, Ford and Thompson (1996) discuss the relationship between language and interaction, examining tum-taking in English conversation. They call conjunction points among syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic completion points, Complex Transition Relevance Places (CTRPs), and examine the concurring points between CTRPs and speaker changes. They fmd that about three-fourths of speaker changes in English conversation coincide with CTRPs. They further discuss the divergent instances of CTRPs and speaker changes, which consist of (1) speaker changes at non-CTRPs and (2) the same speaker continuation after CTRPs. They state that speaker changes before CTRPs show interactional work, which is motivated by cooperation and dispute, i.e. the next speaker's strong agreement or strong disagreement. They present some instances of speaker changes at non-CTRPs, which show the next speaker's (1) recognition of prior knowledge, (2) appreciation, (3) strong emotional feeling, and (4) collaboration. The instances of the same speaker continuation after CTRPs include (1) overlap, (2) rush-through, and (3) selfselection after a pause. Thus, these studies show the strong correlation between CTRPs and speaker change, which leads to the correlation between language and interaction. In conclusion, projectabilities of turns have been studied in relation to linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics). These projectabilities in turns help the next speaker predict a possible turn end, facilitating smooth turn transitions. Also, a strong correlation between projectabilities of turns and speaker changes has been suggested.

2.3 POLITICAL NEWS INTERVIEWS This study employs political news interviews as a part of the data in order to compare its turn-taking system with that of conversation. I do this in an attempt

38

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

to infer situational influences on turn-taking, i.e. how situational settings affect realization of turn-taking. This section discusses the characteristics, the turntaking system, and the disagreement sequences in political news interviews, comparing them with those in conversation.

2.3.1 Characteristics Interviews

of

Political

News

Characteristics of political news interviews have been discussed from various viewpoints. I will review studies on political news interviews, focusing on (1) interviewee's responses, (2) neutrality, and (3) goals of political news interviews. First, many studies have analyzed interviewees' responses in political news interviews since most of them are regarded as violations of 'the cooperative principle.' Grice (1975:45) claims that participants are expected to observe the cooperative principle that sates, 'Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.' For example, Harris (1992) examines evasiveness in interviewees' responses in TV interview programs and categorizes them into six types: (1) direct answers with explicit yes/no, (2) direct answers with the infonnation to a 'wh-question,' (3) indirect answers with inferable yes/no, (4) indirect answers with cohesion and coherence to the question, (5) challenges to the presuppositions of a question, and (6) challenges to the illocutionary force of a question. He finds that politicians use a high degree of indirectness and elaboration, which make their responses evasive. Bull and Mayer (1993) examine the ways in which politicians equivocate their responses in political interviews. They analyze about 100 minutes of a British TV interview with the fonner Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the fonner leader of the Opposition Neil Kinnock. They specifically identifY instances of non-replies in their responses and categorize them into eleven types: cases when the interviewee (1) ignores the question, (2) acknowledges the question without answering it, (3) questions the previous question, (4) attacks the question, (5) attacks the interviewer, (6) declines to answer, (7) makes a political point, (8) makes an incomplete answer, (9) repeats the answer to the previous question, (10) states or implies that the question has already been answered, and (11) apologizes. They conclude that Thatcher frequently attacks the interviewer while Kinnock gets more defensive, which makes himself appear evasive in the interview. Clayman (1993) examines strategies and functions of refonnation (rephrasing) in the interviewees' responses in news interview programs. He finds two common functions of refonnation: (1) to simplifY a complicated question, and (2) to shift the topic of the question. Topic shifting can occur under the guise of (1) 'summarizing' (stepwise transition to a new topic), (2) 'reaching

Literature Review

39

back' (avoiding the second part of a two-part question), and (3) agreement/disagreement (embedded question refotmation). As these studies show, interviewees in political news interviews use various strategies to respond to the interviewer's questions (but not necessarily to answer the questions). These strategies can be placed in a continuum. Bull (1994) argues that responses in political news interviews cannot simply be dichotomized into a full reply and a complete failure to answer the question, but they should be viewed asa continuum between the full reply and the non-reply. He claims that most responses fall into the middle ground of the continuum. Interviewees' responses in political news interviews, especially ones used in political news interviews involving two guest politicians who belong to different political parties, are similar to the strategies used in debate. Therefore, Kruger's (1960) discussion on the common strategies of 'attack' and 'defense' in debate is helpful to understand contentious interaction during political news interviews. Kruger claims that an argument in debate generally consists of a conclusion and its supporting evidence. In responding to an argument, two kinds of attack can be employed: (1) the direct attack and (2) the indirect attack. The direct attack establishes the contrary conclusion to the opposite party's argument. It consists of the following three strategies: expressing doubt, denial, and retort. Expressing doubt is the strategy of presenting a reasonable doubt to the veracity of the conclusion in the opposite party's argument. Denial refers to the strategy of stating that the conclusion of the argument is false. Retort is the strategy not only of refuting the conclusion but also of claiming that the contrary conclusion is true. The indirect attack, on the other hand, is an attack in which the attacker accepts the other's conclusion as a truth, but attacks the argument in relationship with other arguments. It contains the following three strategies: showing insignificance, showing inconsistency, and showing irrelevance. There are two techniques for showing insignificance: weak conclusion (to suggest that the conclusion is too weak to be relevant to the proposition at issue) aJ:1.d stressing a minor point. Showing inconsistency points out that the opponent party uses a contradictory or contrary evidence for the same case. Showing irrelevancy (or slipping away from the main point) is often presented by the following eleven techniques: answering with an equivalent proposition, shifting to a moderate position, ground shifting by impromptu definition, ground shifting by diversion, misquoting the opposition, misstating the opposition's evidence, oversimplification, distortion, equivocation, extension, and exaggeration. Therefore, these studies show that there are numerous strategies that politicians use when responding to the interviewer's question and that politicians rarely comply with Gricean Maxims fully. Another characteristic of political news interviews is neutrality: interviewers are expected to be neutral and impartial to the guest interviewees. Clayman and Whalen (1988-89) examine a news interview between George Bush and Dan Rather and state that the requirement of the neutrality in news interviews can

40

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

affect the viewers' impressions. For instance, although Bush triggered the departure from the institutional stance, Rather was viewed as overstepping the boundaries of an interviewer since he was expected to be neutral. Greatbatch (1988) describes the turn-taking system operating in news interviews, which contrasts with mundane conversation in terms of turn allocation. He explains the turn-taking system used in political news interviews, comparing it with two other variations: guest interviews and celebrity/talk show interviews. He claims that institutionalized footing, i.e. being neutral and talking to an audience, influences the pre-allocation of the tum-taking system in interviews. Clayman (1988) studies the practices of TV news interviews in which neutrality is claimed to be the backdrop for discussion. He specifically examines the following: (1) embedding statements within questions, (2) attributing statements to third parties, and (3) mitigating. He concludes that neutrality is a collaborative achievement between interviewers and interviewees since interviewees can preserve or undermine the neutrality that interviewers present. Therefore, these studies show that political news interviews have an expectation that interviewers hold a stance of neutrality and that the neutrality of interviews is achieved collaboratively with the interviewees. Third, participants in political news interviews have interactional goals, such as for interviewees to persuade their interlocutors as well as the TV audience. These goals affect the dynamics of interaction among participants in political news interviews. For example, Rama Martinez (1993) discusses the relationship between 'the politeness principle' (Leech 1983) and 'the cooperative principle' (Grice 1975) that operate in British political interviews, examining (l) preference organization, (2) politeness behavior, and (3) cause-effect relationship between politeness and the goal of the interview. First, she examines preference organization from psychological as well as structural perspectives and argues that preference organization conforms with the interlocutor's expectation. Second, she finds that in order to satisfy their 'face,'s the interviewees use at least two techniques to recover from an interviewer's verbal attack, the direct approach (bald-on-record strategy) and the indirect approach (negative politeness strategy). Third, she claims that the goal of the interview set by the interviewers is achieved through the cooperative principle (joint effort between interviewer and interviewee to achieve the communicative goal), which requires the politeness principle (satisfaction of the interviewee's face). However, the interviewer's goal does not always match with that of the interviewee, and this discrepancy can cause conflict. She concludes that Gricean Maxims are often violated in news interviews not because of the politeness principle, but because of the different goals of the participants in political news interviews. To summarize, three characteristics of political news interviews have been reviewed: (1) interviewees often violate Gricean Maxims in their responses; (2) neutrality is expected and achieved collaboratively between interviewers and

Literature Review

41

interviewees; and (3) the goals of the participants affect the course of the interaction in political news interviews.

2.3.2 Turn-Taking System in Political News Interviews Greatbatch (1988: 404) presents the tum-taking system in political news interviews as follows: 1.

IRs and IEs systematically confme themselves to producing turns that are at least minimally recognizable as questions and answers, respectively. 2. IRs systematically withhold a range of responses that are routinely produced by questioners in mundane conversation. 3a. Although IRs regularly produce statement tum components, these are normally issued prior to the production of questioning tum components. 3b. IEs routinely treat IRs' statement tum components as preliminaries to questioning tum components. 4. The allocation of turns in multiparty interviews is ordinarily managed by IRs. 5. Interviews are overwhelmingly opened by IRs. 6. Interviews are customarily closed by IRs. 7. Departures from the standard question-answer format are frequently attended to as accountable and are characteristically repaired. Therefore, the turn-taking system of political news interviews is different from that of conversation (See Sacks et al. 1974). However, Sacks et al. (1974) claim that speech exchange systems of conversation are the basis for other forms of interactions, such as ceremonies and debates. Those institutional settings in which all turns are pre-allocated are considered to be positioned on the opposite side of the continuum from conversation; tum-taking in conversation is spontaneous while that in debate, for example, is prearranged Transformations from the tum-taking system of conversation to those of institutional settings are possible since institutional tum-taking systems pre-specify parameters that the tum-taking system of conversation allows to vary (Greatbatch 1988). Here I focus on two features of tum-taking parameters that differ in conversation and political news interviews: (1) the tum allocation and (2) the size and content of turns. Tum allocation is one category in which the tum-taking system of an institutional setting can vary from that of conversation. The next speaker in ordinary conversation is selected according to the next speaker selection rules, i.e. (1) the current speaker selects the next speaker, (2) the next speaker self-

42

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

selects him/herself, or (3) the current speaker continues his/her talk. This rule is recycled throughout the conversation. This locally managed tum-taking system does not apply to the turn-taking system in political news interviews, however. That is, the tum allocation is prearranged in political news interviews in two ways: (1) the tum allocation in political news interviews is managed largely by the interviewer, and (2) the tum sequences in political news interviews are confined to sequences of questions and answers. For example, in order to ascertain if news interviews consist of question-driven interaction, Heritage and Roth (1995) conduct quantitative analysis of grammatical form in news interviewers' utterances that elicit interviewees' responses. The result of the analysis shows that more than 80% of interviewer-interviewee turn-transfer in political news interviews are carried out after interviewers' questions. Thus, their study shows that interviewer-interviewee tum-sequence is a normative organization of the turn allocation in political news interviews. Second, because the size and content of turns are pre-specified in political news interviews, turn-taking occurs differently from that in conversation.6 In ordinary conversation, a basic unit of utterance consists of a 'turn-constructional unit' or 'unit-type,' and the size of unit-types varies, such as sentence, clause, phrase, or word. On the other hand, the size of turns in political news interviews is generally larger and more complex than that in ordinary conversation. This is because (1) interviewers regularly refrain from giving backchannel responses to the interviewees' answers, (2) the interviewers' questioning turns often include a statement prior to a question, and (3) the interviewer allots certain time to each interviewee. Therefore. political news interviews have more multiple-unit turns and more complex syntactic structure in a single unit than conversation. In conclusion, the turn-taking system in political news interviews differs from that in ordinary conversation in at least two features: (1) the turn allocation and (2) the size and content of turns. Namely, the turn-taking system is preallocated as the sequence of interviewer's question and interviewee's response, and the turns in political news interviews are larger and more complex than those in conversation. Despite these differences in conversation and political news interviews, the turn-taking systems in these settings are considered to be anayed on a continuum; the differences result from the turn-taking sequences that are pre-specified in political news interviews but locally managed in conversation.

2.3.3 Disagreement in Political News Interviews Interactional factors such as disagreement can modify the turn-taking system of conversation as well as that of political news interviews. In ordinary conversation, participants systematically apply the minimal gap/overlap formula in order to cany out smooth turn-transitions (Sacks et al. 1974). However, disagreement sequences do not always follow this formula; that is, disagreement turns are largely mitigated by delay devices. Pomerantz (1975, 1984) finds that

Literature Review

43

dispreferred sequences such as disagreement are perfonned hesitantly with delay devices such as a pause and silence. On the other hand, in political news interviews, disagreement is not delayed, but produced promptly in an unmitigated manner. Greatbatch (1992) suggests that the reason why disagreement in news interviews does not follow the dispreferred action management of conversations is because of the tum-taking system of news interviews. Since the turn-taking system in news interviews is pre-allocated as interviewer's question-interviewee's response, when an interviewee disagrees with the co-interviewee, but follows the tum-taking system of news interviews and responds after the interviewer's question, he/she is addressing the interviewer (the third party), thus, his/her utterance is automatically mitigated. The way turns are pre-allocated in news interviews (i.e. interviewers respond to the interviewer's question) can, therefore, function to mitigate disagreement among the interviewees. However, the tum-taking, such as the one-party-at-a-time formula, can be abandoned in disagreement sequences of news interviews as the disagreement escalates. This violation can be observed in (1) long simultaneous talk, (2) disturbance of pre-allocated tum-taking system, and (3) interruption. That is, although Sacks et al. (1974: 700) state that 'overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time,' long simultaneous talk between participants can take place in political news interviews. Clayman and Whalen (1988-89) examine a news interview between Bush and Rather and claim that there is a basic institutional tum-taking system in news interviews, which has adapted the tum-taking system of conversation to the 'argumentative' format of political news interviews. For example, Bush kept the floor by not taking his inbreath until Rather had dropped his tum. They suggest that long simultaneous talk in institutional settings is an instance that sustains the one-party-at-a-time fonnula in the locally managed system of conversation. Schegloff (1988-89) also presents instances of long simultaneous talk in political interviews as an example of confrontational interaction. He examines the concept of confrontation in a news interview between Bush and Rather and defines 'confrontation' as 'potentially controversial formulation' (215). He finds out that although the audience cannot hear the simultaneous talk, swprisingly Bush and Rather respond to each other according to the interlocutor's utterance. He concludes that although long simultaneous speech can be allowed in political news interviews, it is a marked instance and has to be dropped at a certain point. Also, the tum-taking system of conversation and that of political news interviews are not mutually exclusive, but the latter should be viewed as a variation of the tum-taking system of conversation. Thus, political news interviews exhibit one kind of interaction (confrontational interaction) that is developed from conversation. The tum allocation is often disturbed in disagreement sequences in political news interviews. For example, Greatbatch (1992) argues that the tum-taking

44

Turn-Taking in Eng/ish and Japanese

system in news interviews leads directly to the framework of institutional roles of interviewers and interviewees, i.e. the interviewer asks questions and interviewees answer them in return. 7 However, when disagreement occurs, this tum-taking system is often violated. He presents four kinds of turn-taking sequences that an interviewee takes in news interview programs: (1) an interviewee responds after the interviewer's question (where the interviewee follows the tum-taking system of political news interviews); (2) an interviewee responds in the middle of the interviewer's question (where the interviewee interrupts the interviewer); (3) an interviewee responds after a co-interviewee's tum (where the interviewee ignores the interviewer); and (4) an interviewee responds in the middle of a co-interviewee's response (where the interviewee interrupts the co-interviewee). These four turn-taking sequences show that disagreement does not necessarily follow the turn-taking system in news interviews in terms of turn allocation and turn transition points. To summarize, it is suggested that interactional factors such as disagreement cause modifications to the tum-taking system in both conversation and political news interviews; however, those modifications can be realized differently in the two situations because of the argumentative interaction of political news interviews. Namely, disagreements in ordinary conversations are systematically delayed while those in news interviews can be anticipated. Also, the turn-taking system in political news interviews can be diverted as disagreement escalates.

2.4 JAPANESE DISCOURSE Japanese data is employed for this study in order to see not only tum-taking systems in different languages, i.e. linguistic influences, but also cultural influences on tum-taking. This is because realization of turn-taking, especially of role exchange/floor management, can be influenced by both linguistic and cultural factors. In this section, the discussion focuses on Japanese communication style and its cultural background, which may influence the ways the Japanese implement speaker role exchange and floor management.

2.4.1 Cultural Background Japanese culture can be described as exhibiting 'ritual harmony' in the sense that it puts a high value on harmony in interpersonal relationships. This section discusses the four factors of cultural background that may have influenced 'ritual harmony' in Japanese society: (1) the concept of face, (2) the hierarchical structures in social relationships, (3) Confucian ideas, and (4) psychological dependency, called amae. First, the Japanese are very sensitive to the concept of 'face,' which refers to self-respect and dignity.s Hirokawa (1987) states that the Japanese are very conscious about not only their own face, but also others' face; they try to avoid "loss of one's face" in any respect since it results in embarrassment as well as

Literature Review

45

public humiliation. This sensitivity toward their 'face' motivates them to develop elaborate and indirect communication so as not to embarrass themselves by, for example, being rejected by others. They also take pains not to embarrass others by making negative comments directly to them. The concept of fuce facilitates the Japanese to act according to the behavioral norms of the society, so that they can avoid being considered unmannerly but rather as capable and mature members of the society. This social value promotes ritualistic aspects of interpersonal relationships in the society. Second, ritual harmony of Japanese society results from the hierarchical structure of interpersonal relationships. Nakane (1967) claims that Japanese society is structured hierarchically and that Japanese people are very conscious of their relative positions with others, especially with their interlocutors. Therefore, it is considered rude to disagree directly with their superiors, colleagues, or even with subordinates. Japanese people think they have to refrain from disagreeing since it can cause disorder of the hierarchy. Nakane presents an example of this disagreement-avoidance phenomenon in academic conferences where superiors and their subordinates participate in Japan. In these conferences, they cannot logically argue about their ideas since they do not disagree with others or even present their own ideas fqr fear of being seen as a 'rebel.' Since interpersonal relationships in Japanese society are hierarchically structured and since Japanese society has a strong force to conform to the norm, the behaviors of the Japanese are greatly influenced by ritual constraints. Third, the concept of ritual harmony in Japanese society results from Confucian influence. Yum (1988) discusses the influence of Confucianism in East Asian countries, including Japan, and states that principles of Confucianism (humanism, faithfulness, propriety, and wisdom) affect the interpersonal relationships in these countries where social relationships are highly valued (as opposed to individualism in North America). Tujimura (1987) explains the characteristics of Japanese communication, which originates in three influential religions: Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism. He claims that Confucianism has influenced hierarchical interpersonal relations in Japanese society more than any other religion. He claims that Japanese communication possesses the following characteristics: (1) ishin-denshin: communication without language, (2) social causes of taciturnity, (3) indirect communication and respect for reverberation, and (4) kuuki: the constraints of mood. The Confucian influence on hierarchical relationships requires the Japanese to show respect to their superiors and seniors by using polite expressions, such as honorifics. This concept of social relationships is reflected in the ritualistic and harmonious interpersonal relationships among Japanese people. Finally, ritual harmony of Japanese society also results from psychological dependence on other Japanese people, which Doi (1972) calls amae. Amae is translated in English as 'the tendency to presume upon another adult' (18). Presenting an example, Doi (1972) quotes Caudill and Weinstein's (1969)

46

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

comparative study of Japanese and American mother-infant relationships. This study concludes that Japanese infants learn a nonverbal and passive communication pattern by three to four months old. Also, Clancy (1986) examines mother-infant interactions and points out that Japanese communication emphasizes empathy and conformity, which forms group harmony, and that this communication style is found in mothers' speech to their children from the earliest stage. Because of amae, the Japanese are accustomed to expecting others to understand them without articulating, so that they do not verbalize their ideas and opinions nor confront others directly. People of amae put a high value on agreement with others because they have the tendency to depend mutually on others psychologically. This tendency of Japanese amae results in the harmonious communication pattern of the Japanese. In conclusion, the cultural background of Japanese society has been discussed. The cultural background includes four social value systems: (1) sensitivity toward the concept of face, (2) hierarchical structure in interpersonal relationships, (3) Confucian influence, and (4) the concept of amae, psychological interdependency among Japanese people. These cultural influences result in ritual harmony in interpersonal relationships in Japanese society.

2.4.2 Ritual Harmony in Japanese Communication The 'ritual harmony' of interpersonal relationships in Japanese society results in the ritualistic and harmonious communication style of Japanese people. This section discusses how these characteristics of Japanese culture affect communication style in Japanese society, focusing on ritualistic and harmonious realization of interaction. Ritualistic interpersonal relationships in Japanese society can be observed in various aspects of Japanese communication since Japanese people follow highly conventionalized ways of communicating with others. These ritualistic characteristics of Japanese communication are especially distinct in the abundant and complex system of politeness strategies. Matsumoto (1980) discusses the universality of 'face' proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) and presents some problems in their discussion when applying the concept of face in Japanese culture. According to Brown and Levinson, 'face' is the 'socially given self image,' which consists of 'positive face' and 'negative face.' 'Negative face' refers to the desire not to be impeded by others, while 'positive face' refers to the desire to be approved by others. 'Positive face' and 'negative face' are realized in the linguistic forms of 'positive politeness' (redressed forms in consideration of addressees' 'positive face') and 'negative politeness' (redressed forms in consideration of addressees' 'negative face') respectively. Matsumoto, however, presents two problems with the universality of face. First, the notion of face varies in different cultures, thus it is not claimed to be universal. For example,

Literature Review

47

whereas individuals and their rights are highly valued in American society, social rankings in interpersonal relationships are highly valued in Japanese society. Second, the positive and negative face is not manifested in linguistic positive and negative politeness straightforwardly. Although Brown and Levinson claim that Japanese culture is a negative politeness culture, linguistic negative politeness is used in order to accord with the behavioral norm of Japanese culture. In other words, the Japanese use the negative politeness as a relationacknowledgement device. The appropriate use of negative politeness makes them more accepted in the society, and thus satisfies the positive face of the speaker. Therefore, politeness strategies and face for which these politeness strategies are used do not correspond straightforwardly in Japanese communication. Ito (1989) examines politeness strategies in Japanese and American interactions and finds that Americans employ bald-on-record and positive politeness more frequently than the Japanese. The Japanese give precedence to negative politeness, which is unusual for Americans, and the major determinants in the use of the strategies are familiarity and age factors in Japanese culture, as opposed to status factors in the American culture. Hill, Ide, lkuta, Kawasaki, and Ogino (1986: 233) present the concept of discernment in Japanese society called wakimae, "the speaker's use of polite expressions according to social conventions rather than interactional strategy". Japanese people observe wakimae, complying with social norms of appropriate behavior so that they are recognized as competent members of society. Ide (1990) further discusses the two types of wakimae: (1) micro-level (discemment according to situational context) and (2) macro-level (discernment according to social and cultural value). This concept of discernment results in abundant and various politeness strategies, such as formulaic expressions, honorifics, and verbs of giving and receiving (Matsumoto 1980). The ritualistic communication style in Japanese is also observed in turn allocation, that is, who speaks in which order. For example, Watanabe (1993) observes the order of turn-taking in discussions among Japanese people and reports that turns are set in order of age and gender. In her study, a female participant started a discussion, followed by a younger male participant, with an elderly male last. The eldest male member, who is generally considered the most respectable person in the society, is assigned the last turn, where he can express his opinion freely without losing face by making a premature statement. This order of turn-taking (from female to male, younger to elder participants) can be seen as the reflection of the social hierarchy in Japanese society. This hierarchy may originate in Confucian ideas that value seniority and male predominance. Murata (1994) investigates the cross-cultural differences of interruption in English and Japanese conversations, using three kinds of data: (1) English conversation between native speakers of English, (2) Japanese conversation between native speakers of Japanese, and (3) English conversation between native speakers of English and Japanese speakers of English. She finds that

48

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

interruption occurs more frequently in English than in Japanese. Furthermore, types of interruption differ cross-culturally. English includes intrusive interruption and cooperative interruption equally, whereas Japanese interruption includes few instances of intrusive interruption. She concludes that interruption is the demonstration of the listener's participation in English while Japanese avoid interruption in conversation to show deference to the speaker's right to speak. This difference in conversational style reflects social values in each culture, i.e. English is the culture of co-operative imperative (i.e. solidarity and involvement) while Japanese is one of territorial imperative (i.e. deference and independence). Although turn allocation and interruption indicate ritualistic aspects of Japanese communication, turn distribution exemplifies harmonious communication in Japanese. Yamada (1990, 1992) discusses the concept of American individualism and Japanese group-ism (group oriented culture) and analyzes three kinds of business meetings: American, Japanese, and crosscultural. She finds that Americans take long monopolizing turns, distributed unevenly, and controlled by the topic initiator while Japanese businessmen take short turns, distributed evenly regardless of who is the topic initiator. She concludes that the tum distribution pattern of the Japanese reflects the cooperative and non-confrontational communication style in Japanese society. Frequent use of backchannel responses in Japanese conversation shows harmonious characteristics of Japanese communication as well. Maynard (1986) discusses listener's backchannel responses in terms of type, frequency, and context where they occur in Japanese and English casual conversations. First, she defines the term 'backchannel' as 'turn-internal listener backchannel,' which includes verbal and non-verbal behaviors such as a brief phrase of 'ub huh,' head movement, and laugher. Next, she examines the frequency of backchannel responses and finds out that the Japanese use backchannel responses three times as much as Americans. Then, she presents the functions of backchannels as follows: (1) continuer, (2) display of understanding, (3) support and empathy toward the speaker, (4) agreement, and (5) strong emotional responses. Finally, she studies the context where backchannel turns occur and claims that backchannels occur when there is a pause, grammatical signals such as sentencefmal particles or subordinate clause endings, and head movement in Japanese, while grammar plays a significant role as a contextualization cue for backchannels in English. Thus, these studies show that the harmonious communication in Japanese is observed in turn-taking as well. The harmonious characteristic of Japanese communication can be observed, especially, in conflict management. For example, Lebra (1984) discusses conflict management and presents seven prevalent strategies for conflict management in Japanese society: (1) anticipatory management, (2) negative communication, (3) situational code switching, (4) triadic management, (5) displacement, (6) selfaggression, and (7) acceptance. 9 She proposes that the harmony mode and

Literature Review

49

conflict mode are not dichotomous, nor mutually exclusive, but rather they are dovetailed, saying 'the more hannony-oriented people are, the more conflictsensitive' they are (56). She concludes that conflict avoidance strategies are so subtle in Japanese that the two parties in conflict seem to agree to preserve the harmonious relationship on the surface and that outsiders hardly notice these kinds of conflict at fIrst sight. Disagreement, which can trigger conflict, is managed harmoniously in Japanese communication as well.1O For example, there are highly conventionalized ways to avoid saying 'no' in Japanese. II Ueta (1972) discusses linguistic strategies of conflict management in Japanese. She claims that the Japanese always think about others' feelings and therefore avoid direct expressions to hurt others' feelings and that they avoid a direct 'no' because it sounds too informal and too straightforward. Then, she lists sixteen expressions that mean 'no,' without directly saying 'no,' in Japanese: (1) the equivalent of the English 'no' (rarely used in Japanese), (2) vague 'no' (expressing 'no' softly), (3) vague and ambiguous 'yes' or 'no' (expressing an answer that can be intetpreted as both afImnative and negative), (4) silence (used when the person cannot fInd a proper way to express hislher negative feeling or when helshe thinks the honest answer will hurt the other's feeling), (5) counter question (saying something such as 'why do you ask me that?') (6) tangential responses (changing the topic), (7) exiting (leaving without further explanation or comment), (8) lying, equivocation, etc. (lying to make the refusal plausible such as by using excuses of illness for appointment cancellation), (9) criticizing (saying that the question or request is not worth answering),12 (10) refusing the question, (11) conditional 'no' (saying such as 'I will try my best, but please understand if! will not be able to'), (12) 'yes, but.. .' (accepting and then adding the expression of doubt whether helshe can do it), (13) delaying answers (saying something such as "I'll think about it"), (14) internal 'yes' and external 'no' (expressing apology and regret), (15) internal 'no' and external 'yes' (saying "I'll accept it" and then adding an excuse for the possible failure of carrying out the promise), and (16) apology (apologizing to indicate the negative answer). These various linguistic strategies of avoiding saying 'no' make Japanese intetpersonal communication harmonious, at least on the surface level of communication. The concept of ritual harmony can be observed in an argumentative setting such as political discourse in Japanese. For example, Ishihara and Morita (1988), in their book, Japan that can say 'no,' contend that Japanese politicians do not say 'no' when they should do so. They state that in American political debate, Americans 'agree to disagree' and that Japanese politicians can become their real political partners only when the Japanese gain the courage to challenge American politicians. Also, Yamamoto (1993) claims that the negotiation style between Japanese politicians and American politicians is different, and he encourages Japanese politicians to not only confront, but present their arguments logically.

50

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

In this way, American politicians can understand what Japanese politicians are thinking, and consequently they can address each other effectively. Yokota (1995) examines question-response sequences in Japanese political discourse based on the following three research questions: (1) What kinds of questions are used to elicit responses in Japanese political discourse? (2) How 00 the participants of Japanese political discourse use questions in order to control topics and turn-taking patterns? and (3) What kind of roles do questions play in Japanese political discourse? First, she classifies questions into four categories according to their syntactic features: (I) grammatical yes/no questions, (2) prosodic questions, (3) wh-questions, both broad wh-questions (e.g. how) and narrow wh-questions (e.g. which), and (4) tag-like phenomena. Grammatical yes/no questions exhibit a strong degree of both topical and turn control since they require agreement or denial as the responses. Wh-questions have a strong degree of turn-control, but not topical control. Tag-like markers, on the other hand, have a weak degree of both turn and topical control. The result shows that Japanese political discourse includes frequent usage oftag-markers, but rare usage of grammatical yes/no questions. Namely, questions that can create ambiguity in both turn and topic control are frequently utilized in Japanese political discourse. Thus, Yokota concludes that cultural aspects are reflected in question-response sequence, i.e. ambiguity is preferred, while overt control and overt conflict are unfavorable in Japanese political discourse. Maynard (1994) studies a Diet testimony of the fOImer Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, whose speech is famous for 'clear-in-Ianguage, unknown-in-meaning.' In exploring the question, "What is Takeshita's rhetorical style?" she explicates the following 11 devices of his speech: (1) politeness expressions, (2) sentence-fmal verb manipulations, (3) teImS of address and mention of common personal experience, (4) self-quotation and animation of talk, (5) 'to yuu' clause-noun combination and quotative explanation, (6) repetition, (7) metalinguistic strategies-lexical (re-)definition and playful use of words, (8) strategy of humbling oneself, and (9) framing of the context. She concludes that juxtaposition of semiotic contexts with involvement and integrity strategies characterize his speech. This study suggests that Japanese politicians use various devices that make their speech ambiguous, and the ambiguous speech style, in contrast with assertive speech style, can help them avoid disagreement or conflict. Jones (1990) argues that Japanese political televised debate, where the participants are expected to express opposing ideas, are perfOImed playfully and collaboratively with the interaction framed as a game instead of a debate. In order to find how the Japanese express their opposing opinions, she analyzes the data of three different situations in Japanese: a television debate, talk among family members at home, and talk among co-workers in an office. The data analysis shows that the Japanese express their opposing ideas in certain situations, such as a television debate, where a confrontational argument is considered

Literature Review

51

appropriate. However, the debate is petformed playfully and collaboratively as if it were a game. For example, when the topic moves to a minor one, it is dropped with implicit consensus by the participants. Or they rapidly reach a compromise, so that they can move to a more important topic. The least confrontational interaction out of the three data sets is the talk between coworkers in an office. When the confrontation is inevitable, certain strategies are used, such as style-switching and laughter. These strategies allow the participants to ignore the opposition or to reframe conflicts as a play. Therefore, these studies show that the communication style of ritual harmony is prevalent in Japanese society even in argumentative settings such as political discourse. The Japanese have highly conventionalized strategies to avoid direct confrontation. These strategies are used ritually to maintain harmony in Japanese society. However, this harmony-oriented behavior does not straightforwardly correlate with the underlying feeling toward another. Matsumoto (1980) discusses the discrepancies between linguistic realization and the underlying principle by saying, 'one must be aware that the same underlying principle may produce superficial differences, but one must equally be aware that superficial similarity can result from different underlying principles' (404). Ritual harmony in communication does not necessarily correlate with the underlying true feelings among Japanese people. In conclusion, ritual harmony in Japanese communication has been reviewed. Ritualistic aspects can be observed in the extensive usage of politeness strategies and tum allocations while harmonious aspects can be realized in turn distributions and conflict avoidance strategies in conflict situations, such as political discourse. Thus, Japanese communication is greatly influenced by ritual constraints that orient to maintain harmony in interpersonal relationships in the society.

2.5 SUMMARY In this chapter, literature on four topics (conversation, turn-taking, political news interviews, and Japanese discourse) have been reviewed. Conversation is the basic form of communication, and it can reveal not only the speaker's communicative competence but also social norms and systems in which conversation takes place. conversation analysts assume systematicity in conversation and try to describe it or find out the motivation that triggers unsystematic instances. Previous studies on turn-taking in conversation analysis have been discussed. There is more than one way to distinguish interruptions from overlaps. Defmitions of turns can be approached from mechanical perspectives as well as interactional perspectives. Turns have also been studied in relation to linguistic properties, such as grammar, intonation and semantics; a strong relationship between these properties and speaker changes has been reported.

52

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Political news interviews are also realized in systematic ways. However, the systematicity in political news interviews differs from that in conversation, because of setting differences, i.e. political news interviews take place as argumentative interaction in an institutional setting. The setting differences between conversation and political news interviews can also cause different realizations of divergent cases of systematicity, especially in dispreferred sequences of disagreement. Japanese communication is realized ritually in many aspects since the Japanese value harmony. Although pervious studies show the strong correlation between linguistic properties and interaction in English conversation, there are few studies on the relationship between language and intemction in other languages or in other interactional settings. The present study compares turn-taking patterns in English and Japanese and in conversation and political news interviews in order to explicate the linguistic, cultural, situational, and interactional influences on realization of tum-taking. These comparisons will further our understanding on the relationship between language and interaction.

53

Literature Review

NOTES 1 These assumptions are reviewed, recapitulating conversation analysis presented by Schiffrin (1994).

the

discussions

on

2 'Transition-relevance places' refer to points at which the end of the turn is syntactically projected and at which turn-transitions primarily occur (cf. Sacks et al. 1974).

This distinction is based on the study by Edelsky (1993). However, she uses the word, 'interpretive' instead of 'interactional' as her definition.

3

This should be followed by the hearer's endorsement in order for the proposal to be accomplished.

4

'Face' here refers to basic human desires that are discussed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). It is discussed more fully in Section 2.3.2 of this chapter. 5

The following discussion on the turn-taking system in political news interviews is based on the study by Greatbatch (1988), whereas that on the turntaking system in ordinary conversation is based on the study by Sacks et al. (1974). 6

7 Greatbatch (1992) claims that (1) the management of disagreement is constrained in the framework of the turn-taking system in news interviews; (2) the preference features of disagreement in ordinary conversation are not observed in a news interview setting; (3) disagreement in news interview settings is mediated and mitigated through interviewers; and (4) interviewers intervene to manage an exit from the escalated argument.

8 Please note that the 'face' that Hirokawa proposes is different from the one described by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). 9 Anticipatory management refers to the preventive strategy of conflict management by anticipating and obstructing the future possible conflict. Negative communication refers to the strategy in which the conflicting parties stop communicating, which can insinuate that the victim has a negative feeling toward or the opposite opinion to the opposing party. Situational code switching is the strategy in which the two conflicting parties pretend to be

54

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

friends just for necessary situations. Triadic management includes a third party who manages the situation and works as the mitigater between the conflicting two parties. Displacement is a complicated strategy in which the victim uses a third party in order to imply his/her disagreement; for example, by scolding the third party that is in charge in front of the target opponent. Self-aggression is the strategy of 'remonstrative compliance,' since this strategy can exaggerate compliance, which can provoke the guilt of the opposite party by expressing the victims' grievances. Finally, acceptance refers to the strategy where the victim accepts the situation as it is. 10 Kakava (1993:36) defines disagreement as 'an oppositional stance (verbal or non-verbal) to an antecedent verbal (or non-verbal) action, and disagreement can generate deeper forms of confrontation, conflict.' She regards the relationship between disagreement and conflict as 'a cause-effect relationship' and states that 'conflict is superordinate to disagreement.'

II Although they do not say 'no' directly, 'no' is meant to be understood by the interlocutors.

12

This expression is only used when the respondent is in a superior position.

CHAPTER THREE

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

3.0. INTRODUCTION This chapter examines turn-taking in English conversation for the purpose of investigating (I) the interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic units, (2) the occurrences of speaker changes, and (3) the relationship between the conjunction points of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, i.e. CTRPs, and speaker changes. Approximately 20 minutes of continuous, face-to-face conversation among three American female friends was audio-taped and transcribed. The data is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis includes the following procedures: (l) grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are counted in order to identify CTRPs, (2) points of speaker changes are counted and examined as to how frequently they coincide with completion points, and (3) completion points are examined as to how they relate to speaker changes. The qualitative analysis focuses on convergent and divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, examining how and why the turntaking system of conversation is modified in the interaction. The main fmdings of the quantitative analysis are the following: (1) since intonational and semantic completion points always co-occur with grammatical completion points, conjunction points between intonational and semantic completion points are considered CTRPs, (2) about half of speaker changes occur at CTRPs, and (3) about two-thirds of CTRPs co-occur with speaker changes. The qualitative analysis reveals that the divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes are motivated by interactional factors and take place systematically. This chapter concludes that turn-taking in English conversation is systematically realized and interactionally motivated.

55

56

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

3.1 RESULTS This section presents the results of the data analysis. First, the data is analyzed quantitatively. Then, the results of the qualitative analysis are presented.

3.1.1 Quantitative Analysis The quantitative analysis consists of three discussions on the relationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, the occurrences of speaker changes, and the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes. These discussions are presented in turn.

3.1.1.1 Completion Points This section studies grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points in order to investigate how frequently these completion points appear in approximately 20 minutes of English conversation and how each type of completion point relates to the others. The number of each type of completion point as well as that of co-occurring points among these completion points is listed in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 . ts I t 'Ion p om omple N urn b er 0 f C Types of Completion Points Grammatical Completion Points (G) Intonational Completion Points (I) Semantic Completion Points (S) Grammatical and Intonational Completion Points (GI) Grammatical and Semantic Completion Points (GS) Intonational and Semantic Completion Points (IS) Grammatical Intonational and Semantic ComQletion Points (CTRP)

No.

908 379 448 379 448 345 345

The numbers in Table 3.1 are shown graphically in Chart 3.1. In the chart, G stands for grammatical completion points, I for intonational completion points, S for semantic completion points, GI for co-occurrences of grammatical and intonational completion points, GS for co-occurrences of grammatical and semantic completion points, IS for co-occurrences of intonational and semantic completion points, and CTRP for co-occurrences of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points.

57

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

Chart 3.1 Completion Points 1.1.2 1000r-~~--~------~----'----~--·------·--~~--~

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2 1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.1

1.11 .. 11.1

o 1.1.1

1.1.1

1.1.1

1.1.1

1.1.1

Table 3.l and Chart 3.1 show that there are a great number of grammatical completion points (908) in the data. This number is the highest out of the three types of completion points, while intonational completion points have the lowest number (379). The conjunction points among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are considered CTRPs, which occur 345 times in the data of approximately 20 minutes of English conversation. In order to visualize the relationship among the three types of completion points, Table 3.1 is transformed into the chart below.

Chart 3.2 Relationship of Three Completion Points

1.1.2

Grammatical CPs 908 Intonational CPs 379 Semantic CPs 448

1.1.2

34 1.1.2

58

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 3.2 shows that all of the intonational and semantic completion points cooccur with grammatical completion points, and overlapping points between intonational and semantic completion points (345) are considered CTRPs in the English conversation data. The chart also shows that there are four different categories of completion points: (1) grammatical completion points only (426), (2) grammatical and intonational but not semantic completion points (34), (3) grammatical and semantic but not intonational completion points (103), and (4) grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points (CTRPs, 345). Following are examples of each type. In these examples, grammatical completion points are marked with 'I', intonational completion points with '?' or '.', and semantic completion points with '>'. CTRPs are marked with '#'. The number in each parenthesis indicates the frequency of each type. (1) Grammatical completion points only (426)

->

1

Liz:

2

When I get ready j I just couldn't do it./>#

Liz's utterance in line 1 is a well-formed clause, so it is grammatically complete. However, as the comma at the end of the clause shows, it has a continuing intonation contour and thus is not intonationally complete. Also, since it is a subordinate clause and does not stand alone (requiring a main clause), it is not semantically complete. Thus, the clause in line 1 is considered an example of 'grammatical completion points only.' (2) Grammatical and intonational but not semantic completion points (34) I

2 3

->

4

5

Lynn:

Well she always calls herself secretary,! but now she is an administrative assistant,! now she's moved to Washington,! and gotten a job downtown.! She is an administrative assistant,!

This is a part of a long story that Lynn tells about her mother, who works as a secretary but is called an administrative assistant. The clause in line 4 is a wellformed clause, so it is grammatically complete. Also, the clause has a falling intonation contour, as the period indicates, so it is intonationally complete. However, it is not semantically complete since it occurs in the middle of a long story about Lynn's mother. Therefore, the clause in line 4 is grammatically and intonationally complete, but not semantically complete.1

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

59

(3) Grammatical and semantic but not intonational compl~tion points (103)

->

2 3

Lynn: Liz:

Did you-did you watch him / Tom Amold?/# I-I know he's-he's foul/and everything,!> I just-

This is a question-answer sequence. Liz answers Lynn's question in line 2. Her response in line 2 is grammatically complete since it is a well-fonned clause. Also, since it is an answer to the question, it is semantically complete (a recognizable action is completed). However, Liz tries to keep the floor and continue talking with a continuing intonation contour, as the comma shows at the end of line 2, so the clause in line 2 is not intonationally complete. Thus, this is an example of a grammatically and semantically, but not intonationa1ly complete clause. (4) Grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point (CTRP) (345) Val:

So did you have a long dress?/> #

This question is grammatically (a well-fonned clause), intonationally (with a rising intonational contour), and semantically (a question) complete, and thus a CTRP is marked at the end of the question. Most questions fall into this category. In summary, grammatical completion points occur most frequently, semantic completion points occur next, and intonational completion points occur least frequently. In fact, grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational and semantic completion points. Since both intonational and semantic completion points always co-occur with grammatical completion points, co-occurring points between intonational and semantic completion points are also CTRPs in the data of English conversation.

3.1.1.2 Speaker Changes This section examines instances of speaker changes to investigate how frequently they occur in approximately 20 minutes of English conversation and how they relate to completion points. Speaker changes are categorized into two types: floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes. As discussed in Chapter One, non-floor-taking speaker changes include (1) backchannels, (2) reactive expressions, (3) collaborative finishes, (4) repetitions, (5) laughter, and (6) short statements. Any other type of speaker change is regarded as floor-taking speaker changes. Each type of speaker change is counted and listed in Table 3.2. The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of floor-taking and non-floor taking speaker changes in the total number of speaker changes.

60

Tum- Taking in English and Japanese Table 3.2

Text and situation Text and situation

Text andand situation Text situation situation TextText and and situation Text and situation

Text situation Text andand situation Text and situation

Table 3.2 shows that speaker changes occur 436 times in about 20 minutes of English conversation. Also, 57.6% of all speaker changes are floor-taking speaker changes while 42.4% are non-floor-taking speaker changes. Then, at which points do these speaker changes occur frequently in the English conversation, at grammatical, intonational, and/or semantic completion points? Table 3.3 shows the frequency of concurring points between speaker changes and completion points. Table 3.3 also includes the percentage of speaker changes that take place at grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as at CTRPs. In the table, G stands for grammatical completion points, I for intonational completion points, S for semantic completion points, SC for speaker changes, FSC for floor-taking speaker changes, and NSC for non-floor-taking speaker changes.

Table 3.3

SCs (436) FSC(251) NSC (185)

L oca t'Ions 0 f Sipea k er Ch anges at G (n=908) at I (n=379) at S (n=448) at CTRPs (n=345) 322 (73.9%) 250 (57.3%) 283 (64.9%) 241 (55.3%) 194 (77.3%) 183 (72.9%) 167 (66.5%) 167 (66.5%) 83 (44.9%) 128 (69.2%) 9U49.2%) 74 (40.00/11)

Table 3.3 is graphed in Chart 3.3. Chart 3.3 shows what percentage of speaker changes converge with grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs. Once again, in Chart 3.3, SC stands for speaker changes, FSC for floor-taking speaker changes, and NSC for non-floor-taking speaker changes.

61

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

Chart 3.3 Speaker Changes and Completion Points QConvergence ■ Divergence 500 400 IB



lB

300

200

11

m 31! 2S)

l»t

100

r a

f i

211

11

isi

W

0 SC

FSC

at G

NSC

SC

FSC

at I

NSC

SC

FSC

at S

NSC

SC

FSC

NSC

at CTRP

Table 3.3 shows that 73.9% of speaker changes occur at grammatical completion points, 57.3% at intonational completion points, and 64.9% at semantic completion points. In other words, speaker changes fall at grammatical completion points most frequently, then semantic completion points, and intonational completion points least frequently. This order corresponds to the order of the frequency of these types of completion points, i.e. there are 908 grammatical completion points, 379 intonational completion points, and 448 semantic completion points. Therefore, we can infer that speaker changes co­ occur more frequently with completion points that occur more often. In addition, only 55.3% of all speaker changes occur at CTRPs. This figure may be related to the small number of CTRPs (345) that take place in the data. Comparing floor-taking speaker changes with non-floor taking speaker changes, floor-taking speaker changes co-occur with every type of completion point more frequently than non-floor-taking speaker changes. Since non-floortaking speaker changes are supportive responses, they may be allowed to occur at non-completion points more, i.e. even if they occur at non-completion points, they are not as intrusive as floor-taking speaker changes because of their supportive functions. In short, the analysis results regarding speaker changes can be summarized into four points. First, floor-taking speaker changes and non-floortaking speaker changes take place approximately at the ratio of six to four.

62

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Second, speaker changes occur most frequently at grammatical completion points, semantic completion points second, and intonational completion points last. Third, about one half of the total speaker changes take place at CTRPs. Fourth, floor-taking speaker changes occur at completion points more frequently than non-floor-taking speaker changes.

3.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes This section examines how grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points relate to speaker changes. In order to examine how each type of completion point singly predicts tum transition places, the numbers of cooccurring points between three types of completion points and points of speaker changes are counted and listed in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 also includes the number of CTRPs that co-occur with speaker changes. This result enables us to understand how grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points jointly predict points of speaker changes. The numbers in parentheses indicate the percentages of completion points that are accompanied by speaker changes. Table 3.4 Completion Points and Speaker Changes (SC) Types With SC Without SC Total CPs 908 (100%) Grammatical CPs 322 (35.5%) 586 (64.5%) Intonational CPs 250 (66.0%) 129(34.0%} 379000%) 283 (65.5%) 152 (34.5%) 435 (100%) Semantic CPs 241 (69.9%) 104 (30.1%) 345 (100%) CTRPs In order to visualize the ratio of completion points 'with speaker changes' and 'without speaker changes' in each type of completion point and CTRP, Table 3.4 is graphed in Chart 3.4. In the chart, GCP stands for grammatical completion points, ICP for intonational completion points, and SCP for semantic completion points.

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

63

Chart 3.4 Completion Points and Speaker Changes n With SC a Without SC

1000 800 600 400 200

2*3

322

0 OOP

CP

9CP

CTOP

Table 3.4 and Chart 3.4 show that 35.5% of grammatical completion points, 66.0% of intonational completion points, and 65.5% of semantic completion points co-occur with speaker changes. Thus, grammatical completion points have the lowest rate of co-occurrence with speaker changes out of the three types of completion points. This result indicates that grammatical completion points are not as strong an indicator of transition-relevance places as intonational or semantic completion points. Also, 241 CTRPs out of all CTRPs (345) co-occur with speaker changes, i.e. 69.9% of CTRPs provoke speaker changes. This result indicates that CTRPs play an important role in projecting upcoming transition-relevance places.

3.1.2 Qualitative Analysis The qualitative analysis explores the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes, focusing on: (1) convergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, (2) one kind of divergent case between CTRPs and speaker changes, speaker changes at non-CTRPs, and (3) the other kind of divergent case, no speaker changes at CTRPs. First, in order to explicate the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes, the number of CTRPs and speaker changes is graphed in Chart 3.5.

64

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 3.5 CTRPs and Speaker Changes

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

Texture Texture Texture 1.1.2

1.1.2

In Chart 3.5, the entire right circle represents the number of CTRPs (345) while the entire left circle depicts the number of speaker changes (436). The overlapping part between these two circles shows the number of co-occurring points between CTRPs and speaker changes (241). Chart 3.5 shows that there are three groups with regard to speaker changes and CTRPs: (I) speaker changes at non-CTRPs (195), (2) speaker changes at CTRPs (241), and (3) no speaker changes at CTRPs (104). These three types are discussed in the following sections.

3.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs The quantitative results show that slightly more than half (55.3%) of speaker changes occur at CTRPs. When speaker changes occur at CTRPs, the turn transitions take place smoothly without any overlap or intervention? The following is an excerpt with a co-occurrence of a speaker change and a CTRP. The CTRP is marked with '#'. The point of analysis is marked with an arrow at the left side.

->

1 2

Val: Lynn:

So how are you these days. # Pretty good,

Val's utterance in line 1 is grammatically (a well-fonned clause), intonationally (with a falling intonational contour), and semantically (a question) complete, so a CTRP is marked at the end of the utterance. Responding to Val's question, Lynn takes a tum in line 2. This turn-transition is canied out smoothly without any gap or overlap. This is an example of a convergent instance between a speaker change and a CTRP, a smooth tum transition.

65

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

3.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs There are two groups of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes. The ftrst is speaker changes at non-CTRPs, which result in overlaps and interventions. 3 The instances of speaker changes at non-CTRPs are examined in this section, focusing on interactional motivations that trigger these instances. Ford and Thompson (1996) state that affiliation and disagreement provoke speaker changes at non-CTRPs, i.e. speakers start their turns before CTRPs in order to cooperate with the interlocutors or to disagree with them. In the data of English conversation, the following 13 motivations trigger speaker changes at non-CTRPs: (1) to give a backchannel, (2) to show a reactive expression, (3) to repeat the previous speaker's utterance, (4) to ftnish collaboratively, (5) to start laughter, (6) to make a short statement (7) to ask a question, (8) to answer a question (9) to add information, (10) to show agreement, (11) to show disagreement, (12) to introduce a new topic, and (13) to show a frame shift. These 13 motivations can be placed in a continuum, depending on the degree of floor control that the overlapping speaker can execute. The continuum is displayed in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1

Continuum of Floor Control

--- ------

speaker changes at non-CTRPs non-floor-taking turn

floor-taking turn

I

/

sequential

(I) backchannel

(2) reactive expressions (4) collaborative finishes (5) laughter (6) short statement

~----opinion

,

knowledge

(3) repetitions

..........

/"

non-sequential

/

...........

untextual uncontextual

ioof.~:i~' .~ti" ask-Q answer-Q add info agreement disagreement new topic frame-shift

less ~ ----------------------------------degree of (listener role)

floor-control---------------------------~ greater

(speaker role)

Figure 3.1 shows that 13 motivations can ftrst be divided into non-floor-taking turns and floor-taking turns. Non-floor-taking turns include the following six motivations: (1) backchannel, (2) reactive expression, (3) collaborative ftnish,

66

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

(4) repetition, (5) laughter, and (6) short statement. Floor-taking turns, on the other hand, can be further divided into sequential and non-sequential turns. Nonsequential turns introduce a new topic if it is textually independent, or frameshift if it is contextually independent but situationally dependent. In other words, the introduction of a new subject changes the topic of conversation, and the new topic is not textually dependent on the previous one (textually un-sequential). Frame shift (e.g.. Would you like cream or sugar?) shows that the speaker shifts his/her frame to a contextually irrelevant but situationally relevant topic. Sequential floor-taking turns can further be divided into turns about knowledge and turns about opinion. Turns about knowledge are question-asking turns if the speaker has less knowledge about the topic than the previous speaker. If the speaker has greater knowledge than the previous speaker, and if it is the second part of an adjacency pair, it is a question-answering tum; or, if it is continuous to the previous tum, it is a turn that adds information to the previous speaker's utterance. Sequential floor-taking turns about opinions can also be divided into agreement (positive opinion toward the previous utterance) or disagreement (negative opinion). The degree of floor-control by the overlapping speaker increases as the continuum moves toward the non-sequential floor-taking turns since these turns are interruptive and irrelevant to the previous utterances compared to the ones located in the left side of the continuum. Now, let us look at an example in each interactional motivation. First, the participants of the English conservation start their talk before CTRPs in order to give backchannels to the floor-holding speaker. In the following excerpt, the floor-holding speaker, Liz, says that she went shopping and could not get up the next morning. In line 4, Lynn gives a backchannel at a non-CTRP. The analysis point is marked with an arrow at the left side. [Excerpt I: Giving a backchannel] I Liz: I meant I went to Uptons. 2 and I went to Chicos, 3 in [Reston Town Center, -> 4 Lynn: rUm huh. 5 Liz: and I don't know there was something about getting up this morning, 6 I just couldn't get up. While Liz is holding the floor and talks about her shopping on the previous day, Lynn gives a backchannel in line 4 at a non-CTRP, showing her listenership. Although the backchannel occurs at a non-CTRP, it is not intrusive since it functions to facilitate Liz's further talk, working as a continuer (Schegloff 1982). This is an example ofa speaker change at a non-CTRP, giving a backchannel to the floor-holding speaker.

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

67

Second, the participants overlap with each other when they give reactive expressions. The following excerpt has an instance of speaker change at a nonCTRP in line 3, where Liz shows a reactive expression of evaluation to Lynn's utterance in the previous line. In the excerpt, the floor-holding speaker, Lynn, talks about Steve Forbes, who was on the Tonight Show with David Lettennan. [Excerpt 2: Showing a reactive expression] 1 Lynn: Steve was very relaxed, 2 and-> 3 Liz: Wonderful. While Lynn is holding the floor and talks about Steve Forbes, Liz gives a reactive expression 'wonderful' at a non-CTRP in line 3. Although Liz's reactive expression occurs at a non-CTRP, it is not intrusive because it facilitates Lynn's talk, i.e. it shows Liz's active listenership and her collaboration with Lynn's floor. This is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, showing a reactive expression. Third, the participants start their talk at a non-CTRP in order to repeat the previous speaker's utterance. In the following excerpt, the participants are discussing Steve Forbes on the TV program the Tonight Show with David Lettennan. Liz, in line 5, repeats what Lynn has just said, overlapping with her. [Excerpt 3: Repeating the previous speaker's utterance) 1 Lynn: Steve was very relaxed, 2 and3 Liz: [Wonderful. 4 Lynn: [he was funny [he made lots of jokes. -> 5 Liz: [Was he funny? 6 Lynn: Very funny. 7 Liz: Oh good. In line 4, Lynn says the two sentences, 'He (Steve Forbes) was very funny,' and 'he made lots of jokes,' in one breath. But, the moment Liz hears the first sentence, she repeats the sentence, but in a question fonn, 'Was he funny?' overlapping Lynn's second sentence. This is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, repeating the utterance of the previous speaker. Fourth, the participants of the English conversation start their talk before CTRPs in order to finish the previous speaker's utterance collaboratively (See Leamer 1987, 1989, 1991). In the following excerpt, the participants are discussing morning weddings, and Liz fmishes Lynn's utterance collaboratively in line 4.

68

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

[Excerpt 4: Finishing collaboratively] I Lynn: So they're having a breakfast before the ceremony or after the [ceremony. 2 Val: [Right after3 Lynn: More like um like a [brunch? -> 4 Liz: [brunch. In line I, Lynn asks whether the breakfast will be held before or after the wedding ceremony. After Val answers that the breakfast is after the ceremony, in line 3 Lynn says that it is like a brunch, instead of breakfast. Notice that Lynn's utterance in line 3 starts with 'more like,' which compares breakfast to something else. Then, she looks for a word to describe the meal, indicated by 'um', but continues and says 'like a brunch.' Liz tries to help Lynn's search for a word, so she jumps into Lynn's utterance, saying 'brunch' simultaneously with Lynn. This example shows a speaker change occurring at a non-CTRP in order to fmish a sentence collaboratively with an interlocutor. Fifth, the participants in the data of English conversation take turns at non-CTRPs with laughter. In the following excerpt, Val starts laughing at a non-CTRP in line 9. In the sequence, the participants are discussing a short wedding ceremony of fifteen minutes. [Excerpt 5: Starting laughter] 1 Val: a fifteen minute ceremony, 2 Lynn: Really? 3 Val: Isn't that weird? 4 Lynn: Yes, 5 that's strange. 6 Liz: Wow, 7 that's8 thank you I love you [I do yes I do thank you good bye. -> 9 Val: [Hahaha. In line 8, Liz makes a joke about a fifteen minute ceremony, reciting the traditional words of a wedding in a row. Responding to the joke, Val starts laughing at a non-CTRP in line 9. Val's laughter begins the moment she understands Liz's joke, i.e. the laughter is precisely placed (Jefferson 1973), not too early, not too late, but at the exact timing. This is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP·with laughter, which is placed with precision timing. Sixth, the participants in the English conversation take turns at nonCTRPs in order to make a short statement, responding to the previous utterance. The following excerpt includes an instance of speaker change at a non-CTRP in

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

69

line 5. Again, in the excerpt, the participants are discussing the short wedding ceremony. [Excerpt 6: Making a short statement] 1 Liz: Wow, 2 that's3 thank you 1 love you [I do yes [I do thank you good bye. Val: 4 [Hahaha. -> Lynn: [Umm that's so funny. 5 Liz makes a joke about the short wedding that they are discussing. Responding to Liz's joke, Lynn takes a tum at a non-CTRP in line 5, saying "Umm that's so funny." Note that Val responds to Liz's joke with laughter in line 4 while Lynn responds to the same joke with a short statement in line 5. This excerpt shows that speaker changes take place at non-CTRPs to make a short statement. The seventh motivation for speaker changes at non-CTRPs is to ask a question. In the following excerpt, Liz talks about support that she and her husband, Dan, are gathering to work as full-time missionaries. In line 4, Val starts her utterance at a non-CTRP, asking Liz a question about the missionary support. [Excerpt 7: Asking a question] 1 Liz: it's going well. 2 I mean we urn picked up-> 3 Val: Has it picked up since Dan stopped working? 4 Liz: I guessIn lines 1 and 2, Liz explains their missionary support situation. After Liz answers positively in line 1, she tries to paraphrase it in line 2, starting, 'I mean.' The next pronoun 'we' refers to Liz and her husband, Dan, who quit his job to prepare for the missionary work. Then, she hesitates, indicated by 'um,' which makes her right to hold the floor vulnerable since it gives the interlocutors a chance to prepare for interjection and to take away the floor. However, she manages to continue, saying 'picked up' in line 2. Then Val jumps in and asks Liz a more specific question, 'Has it picked up since Dan stopped working?' in line 3. Although Val's question starts at a non-CTRP and interrupts Liz, it helps Liz reconstruct her talk with a more specific point, 'after Dan stopped working.' Also, the question is still about Liz and Dan's situation, so the question does not change the floor formation, but serves to facilitate Liz's talk, showing Val's active listenership. This is an example of speaker changes at non-CTRPs, asking a question of the previous speaker.

70

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Eighth, the participants start their talk at non-CTRPs in order to answer the previously asked questions. In the following excerpt, the participants discuss attending weddings. In line 6, Val interrupts Lynn, answering Lynn's question. [Excetpt 8: Answering a question) 1 Lynn: every summer, 2 =there would be like three weddings. 3 Val: [Wow. 4 Lynn: [and I've not been to any for a while. 5 Have you been to any -> 6 Val: I catered one this summer. In this sequence, Lynn says that when she graduated from college, she attended about three weddings every summer, but she has not been to a wedding for a while. Then she asks Val in line 5 if she has been to any weddings recently. Val, interrupting Lynn's question, answers that she catered a wedding this past summer. Although Val's answer is a case of intervention, it is placed at an exact point, i.e. as soon as she understands Lynn's question, she starts her answer. This is another example when speaker changes may occur at a non-CTRP, but with 'precision timing (Jefferson 1973).' Ninth, the participants in the English conversation start their utterance at non-CTRPs in order to add information to the previous speaker's utterance. Excetpt 9 has an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP in line 7, in which Liz adds information to Lynn's previous statement. In the· excerpt, the participants are discussing the previous night's Letterman show, in which David Letterman made fun of President Clinton. [Excerpt 9: Adding information) 1 Lynn: All the things he was saying, the president, 2 3 I mean it's true, 4 most parts are true unfortunately, 5 but to just besaying and joking about it [was just6 -> 7 Liz: [And those pictures? 8 When he did the little picture things, 9 Lynn: =All the pictures, I mean the, 10 11 whole first, 12 gosh, 13 20 minutes were all about the President.

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

71

In lines I to 6, Lynn shows her negative opinion of David Letterman, who made fun of the President continuously during the show. Then, in line 7, Liz, who also watched the program, jurnps in and adds information, reminding Lynn of the pictures that David Letterman used to make fun of the President. Agreeing with Liz, Lynn continues talking about the jokes Letterman made about the President with the pictures. Thus, Liz's utterance in line 7 starts at a non-CTRP, functioning to add information to Lynn's talk. The tenth motivation for speaker changes at a non-CTRP is showing agreement. In Excerpt 10, Liz, showing strong agreement, starts her utterance at a non-CTRP in line 5. In the sequence, the participants are discussing a short wedding ceremony. [Excerpt 10: Showing agreement] I Val: I-we maybe, 2 just being in a church, 3 where we're used to long ceremonies, 4 Lynn: Yeah, -> 5 Liz: That's true, 6 I've never really thought, =1 mean ours7 8 we weren't Christian when we got married, 9 but still I mean, 10 we had urn-organ, II I mean-organs and, 12 solos and, Agreeing with Val's comment that they are used to long ceremonies, Liz, in line 5, starts her utterance at a non-CTRP with an agreeing comment, "That's true." Then, she takes the floor and continues talking about her own wedding from line 5. Thus, Excerpt 10 shows an instance of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, showing agreement to an interlocutor's previous utterance. Eleventh, the participants start their utterances at non-CTRPs, disagreeing with their interlocutors. In the following excerpt, the participants are discussing Tom Arnold, who was a guest on the Letterman show the previous night. In line 5, Lynn starts her utterance at a non-CTRP, disagreeing with Liz's utterance.

72

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

[Excerpt 11: Expressing disagreement] 1 Lynn: I can't believe that. 2 Did you did you watch him Tom Arnold? 3 Liz: I-I know he's -he's foul and everything. 4 I just-> 5 Lynn: Well it wasn't that he was that this time he wasn't, 6 this7 he was urn,

8

()

9

he was just talking the whole time.

In line 3, Liz, answering Lynn's previous question, expresses a negative assessment of Tom Arnold on the show. Disagreeing with Liz, Lynn, in line 5, interrupts Liz, saying that he was talking about Rosanne, his ex-wife, the whole time. This sequence is interesting because Lynn's utterance starts at a non-CTRP and interrupts Liz's further talk, starting with precision timing (Jefferson 1973). On the other hand, Lynn delays her disagreeing utterance with a mitigation device, 'well', as Pomerantz (1984) states that dispreferred sequences such as disagreements are often delayed with mitigation devices. In lines 5 to 8, Lynn keeps delaying the completion of her disagreement utterance with repairs, hedges and a pause, and finally in line 9, she expresses her disagreement with Liz. Thus, Lynn's disagreement is issued in a very mitigated manner (indicated by 'just'). Although Lynn's disagreeing utterance starts at a non-CTRP in line 5, it has mitigation devices to delay the disagreement. This example shows two opposing forces, 'precision timing' of tum transitions, resulting in intervention, and 'delayed disagreemenf of dispreferred sequences. This is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, disagreeing with the previous speaker's utterance. Twelfth, the participants of the English conversation start their utterances at non-CTRPs, by introducing a new topic. In Excerpt 12, Val talks about her husband's (Bob) job. Then, in line 4, Lynn starts her utterance at a non-CTRP, introducing a new topic. [Excerpt 12: Introducing a new topic] 1 Val: yeah, 2 so, 3 right, 4 it's-it's a good-exciting-> 5 Lynn: I just saw stuff that he sent to Joe's fax or something, 6 and it said Bob director of communications I thought, 7 well I didn't exactly know what he was doing, Previously, Val has been discussing Bob's job situation, which is going well. In lines I to 4, Val is finishing up the discussion on his job, indicated by 'yeah,'

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

73

'so,' and 'right.' Then, in line 5, Lynn starts talking about Bob's job title, 'director of communications.' Lynn's utterance seems intrusive at first, since it interrupts Val and introduces a new topic, causing a topic change. However, when we examine the sequence carefully, it seems reasonable for Lynn to present a new topic. Val's utterance in lines I to 3, 'Yeah, so, right,' can be interpreted as the indication that her talk about her husband's job situation is almost over. Lynn might have noticed that Val's talk was almost over, so she introduced a new topic, Bob's job title. This new topic is still somehow relevant to Bob's job, although not directly related to Val's previous talk on his job situation. This sequence, introducing a new topic, is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP. Finally, the participants in the English conversation start their utterances at non-CTRPs, showing their mind frame has shifted. In the following excerpt, Liz talks about their support gathering as a preparation for their future missionary work. Since this conversation is recorded at Lynn's home, in line 6, she plays the role of hostess and asks Val and Liz how they would like their tea. Lynn's comment, however, starts at a non-CTRP, interrupting Liz. (Excerpt 13: Showing a frame shift] 1 Liz: he-um-said that they'll get back to us, 2 because they have a lot of people to review, 3 Lynn: Um, 4 Liz: things like that, S so, -> 6 Lynn: Do you take cream or sugar? 7 Liz: Black. Liz has been discussing her support gathering, however, 'things like that' and 'so' indicate that Liz's talk is almost over. Although the intonation of 'so' is not final, in line 6, Lynn interrupts Liz and kindly asks Val and Liz if they would like cream or sugar in their tea. In other words, Lynn has been engaged in the conversation as a participant until line 3, playing a listener role, but then, her frame of mind has shifted to her role as a hostess, serving tea to her guests, Val and Liz. So, in line 6, Lynn starts playing the role of hostess instead of listener. This is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, resulting from a frame shift. In short, I have discussed 13 interactional motivations that trigger speaker changes at non-CTRPs, resulting overlaps and interventions. Although there are divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, the onset timing is often placed at the exact moment of 'precision timing.'

74

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

3.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs Speaker changes at non-CTRPs are one group of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes. The other group of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes are instances of non-speaker changes at CTRPs; the speaker continues talking over a CTRP and makes a multi-unit turn. In this section, these instances are discussed qualitatively. The discussion includes the phenomena, i.e. how the same speaker continues his/her talk, as well as the motivations, i.e. why the same speaker keeps talking over a CTRP. The phenomena of no speaker changes over CTRPs are discussed by Ford and Thompson (1996). Three types of phenomena are observed when the same speaker continues talking over a CTRP; (1) self selection, (2) rushthrough, and (3) overlap. Let us examine each phenomenon in tum. First, the participants of the English conversation continue talking over CTRPs when they self-select themselves as the next speaker. This phenomenon agrees with the tum-taking rules that Sacks et al. (1974) present: When the current speaker does not select the next speaker and no other interlocutor selects himself7herself as the next speaker, the current speaker can self-select himself7herself as the next speaker. In Excerpt 14, Lynn self-selects herself as the next speaker in lines 5 and 7. She is talking about her husband, who is working at home. The CTRP of the analysis point is marked by '#'. [Excerpt 14: Self-selection] 1 Lynn: It's nice to have him home. 2 And then I can just3 () 4 when my kids are sleeping. -> 5 =1 can go do errands and stuff. # 6 7 But I am afraid that will be over soon. -> 8 9 Val: [Oh, 10 Lynn: [because he's-they'll probably open up an office,

o o

In line 1, Lynn talks about her husband, who is working at home. She tries to continue her talk from line 2, but she self-repairs in line 4, after a short pause of line 3. Then, she explains why it is nice to have him work at home in lines 4 and 5, saying that she can go do errands while the kids are sleeping if he is working at home. Then, a CTRP appears at the end of line 5, and a pause in line 6. This pause indicates that the floor is open to anyone. However, no interlocutor takes a tum here, so she selects herself as the next speaker and keeps talking in line 7, starting with a discourse marker, 'but.' This is an example of

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

75

no speaker change at a CTRP: The current speaker selects herself as the next speaker. Second, the participants of the English conversation continue talking over a CTRP, rushing through to the next sentence (See Schegloff 1996). In Excerpt 15, Liz rushes through from lines 5 to 6 in order to keep the floor. In the sequence, Liz says that she went shopping, and she could not get up next morning because she was very tired. [Excerpt IS: Rush-through] 1 Liz: When I get ready, 2 and get out the door, 3 and go to the mall, 4 you know, -> 5 I just couldn't do it. # -> 6 =So it took me eer-an hour, 7 to get just my hair done. In lines 1 to 5, Liz explains how tired she was after shopping. At the end of line 5, a CTRP appears where she can stop talking. However, with discourse marker, 'so,' which functions to connect the sentences before and after theCTRP, Liz continues talking and says that she was so tired that it took an hour to do her hair. The equal sign = at the beginning of line 6 indicates that the sentence begins without the usual beat of silence, i.e. utterances in lines 5 and 6 are latched, uttered in one breath. Since CTRPs might be vulnerable places for keeping the floor, in order to hold the floor, Liz intentionally speeds up over the CTRP at the end of line 5. This. is an example of no speaker change over a CTRP with a rush-through. The third phenomenon of no speaker change over a CTRP is 'overlap,' i.e. the current speaker continues over a CTRP, overlapping with another interlocutor. This overlap results in the same speaker continuation over a CTRP. In Excerpt 16, Liz and Lynn overlap with each other in lines 5 and 6, however, since Liz drops, Lynn keeps the floor over a CTRP, which appears at the end of line 4. In the sequence, Lynn talks about how companies are giving their employees good titles, such as 'coordinators' for secretaries. The CTRP of the analysis point is marked by '#'.

76

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

[Excerpt 16: Overlap] 1 Lynn:

2

3 -> ->

4 5 6 7

Liz: Lynn:

They are giving all the secretaries, or all the assistants, are becoming, many are becoming coordinators. # [That's not certain[But their jobs're not gonna change, but they are just giving them better titles.

At the end ofline 4, a CTRP appears, where Lynn can yield the floor. Then, Liz selects herself as the next speaker and tries to take the turn. However, it overlaps with Lynn's continuing utterance in line 6, which starts with a discourse marker 'but.' So, Liz drops her talk, and Lynn keeps the floor from line 6, resulting in the same speaker continuation over a CTRP. Thus, this is an example of overlap, which results in the same speaker continuing over a CTRP. So far, the phenomena of no speaker change over CTRPs have been discussed; self-selection, rush-through, and overlap. Now, let us examine the reasons why the same speaker continues talking over CTRPs. There seem to be three types of coordination for multi-unit turns when the same speaker continues talking over a CTRP. These three types of multi-unit turns relate to the discussion in Sacks et a1. (1974), who state that a turn can consist of three parts: (1) one that shows the relevance to the prior turn, (formal affiliation to the last tum), (2) one that has the point of the tum, and (3) one that links to the upcoming tum (projecting a link). These three parts are delineated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Three Parts in Turns --previous speaker's turn--> 4 Lynn: [and I've not been to any for a while. # -> 5 Have you been to any 6 Val: I catered one this summer. At the end of line 4, where grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points coincide, Lynn can stop talking. However, she continues, asking Val a

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

79

question. This question functions to link her utterance to Val's next utterance since it requires the second part of an adjacency pair (question-answer) to be followed. This is an example of no speaker changes over a CTRP and projecting a link to the utterance of the next speaker. Thus, three functions of no speaker changes over CTRPs have been discussed: (1) a link to the previous speaker's utterance + a CTRP + the point of the tum, (2) a point of the turn + a CTRP + another point of the tum, and (3) the point of the tum + a CTRP + a link to the next speaker's utterance.

3.1.3 Summary The results of my data analysis from the English conversation are presented in this section. The main findings of the quantitative analysis are summarized into the following three points. First, grammatical completion points take place :fur more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points and since intonational and semantic completion points always coincide with grammatical completion points, conjunctions between intonational and semantic completion points are considered CTRPs. Second, floor-taking speaker changes and nonfloor-taking speaker changes take place at the ratio of approximately six to four, and floor-taking speaker changes co-occur more frequently with every linguistic completion point. Third, intonation is the strongest indication of speaker changes out of the three linguistic completion points, and more than two-thirds of CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes. The qualitative analysis focuses on convergent and divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes. Convergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes result in smooth turn transitions, while instances of speaker changes at non-CTRPs cause overlaps and interventions. The interactional factors that trigger the instances of speaker changes at non-CTRPs are as follows; (1) to give a backchannel, (2) to show a reactive expression, (3) to repeat the previous speaker's utterance, (4) to fmish collaboratively with an interlocutor, (5) to start laughter, (6) to make a short statement, (7) to ask a question, (8) to answer a question, (9) to add information to the previous speaker's utterance, (10) to show an agreement, (11) to show a disagreement, (12) to introduce a new topic, and (13) to show a shifted frame. Although these motivations provoke the divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, these cases regularly take place with precise timing. Furthermore, instances of no speaker change at CTRPs result in multiunit turns with which the same speaker continues talking over the CTRP. They are realized with the functions of (1) projecting a link to the previous speaker's utterance + a CTRP + the point of the turn, (2) a point of the turn + a CTRP + another point of the turn, and (3) the point of the turn + a CTRP + projecting a link to the next speaker's utterance. These cases are carried out with the phenomena of self-selection, rush-through, or overlap.

80

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

3.2 CONCLUSION This chapter has examined tum-taking in the English conversation data in order to understand the interrelationship between grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, the occurrences of speaker changes, and the relationship between these completion points and speaker changes. The results of the data analysis show that tum-taking in the English conversation has orderliness in its realization. The divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes are triggered by interactional factors such as disagreement or expression of active listenership, and although they are divergent cases, the way they take place exhibits a certain systematicity. Therefore, this chapter concludes that tum-taking in English conversation is interactionally motivated, and it is realized in a systematic way.

Turn-Taking in English Conversation

81

NOTES I This excerpt also shows why grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points in the English conversation data.

2 There are cases when more than one person takes a tum at a CTRP, which results in an overlap. However, since these instances rarely occur, they are not discussed in this chapter. They will be discussed in Chapter Twelve. l Criteria to differentiate overlaps from interventions are discussed in Chapter Twelve.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FOUR

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation

4.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter explores the relationship between CTRPs, the conjunction points of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, and speaker changes in Japanese conversation for the purpose of examining how tum-taking is realized in Japanese. The data for this study is a face-to-face conversation in Japanese of approximately 20 minutes in length. It is a naturally occurring, spontaneous conversation among multiple participants. All the participants are native speakers of Japanese. The data was audio-tape recorded and transcribed. It then is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis includes the following procedures: First, grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are marked in the transcribed data to identify CTRPs. Next, the number of speaker changes are counted, and locations of speaker changes are examined. Third, completion points are studied as to how they relate to points of speaker changes. The qualitative analysis discusses convergent and divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, focusing on how and why the divergent instances take place. The main findings of the quantitative analysis are as follows: (1) grammatical, intonational, and semantic units are strongly interrelated, (2) speaker changes occur frequently at completion points, and (3) CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes at a high rate.. The qualitative analysis shows that tum-taking in the Japanese conversation is realized systematically. The divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes take place in orderly manners, triggered by interactional work. This chapter concludes that tum-taking in Japanese conversation is systematically realized and interactionally motivated, as in the English conversation data.

83

84

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

4.1 RESULTS 4.1.1 Quantitative Analysis The results of the quantitative analysis are presented in three sections. The fIrst section examines the relationship among three linguistic completion points (grammatical, intonational, and semantic) in order to identify CTRPs. The second section discusses the occurrences of speaker changes as to how frequently and where they take place. The third section explicates the relationship between completion points and speaker changes to understand how grammar, intonation, and semantics singly and jointly project points of speaker changes.

4.1.1.1 Completion Points Grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as cooccurring points among the three types of completion points are counted and listed in Table 4.1.

N um b ers

Table 4.1 . ts C I t ·Ion P oln ompJe

0f

Types of Completion Points Grammatical Completion Points (G) Intonational ComQietion Points (I) Semantic Completion Points (S) Grammatical & Intonational Completion Points (GD Grammatical & Semantic Completion Points (GS) Intonational & Semantic Completion Points (IS) Grammatical, Intonational & Semantic Completion Points (CTRP)

No.

928 723

649 712 649 649 649

Table 4.1 is graphed in Chart 4.1 in order to compare the frequency of each type of completion point.

85

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation

Chart 4.1 Completion Points 1.1.21.1.2

1.1.12.1.2 1.1.1 2.2

1.11 .. 21.2

1.11 .. 21.2

1.11 .. 21.2 1.1.12.1.2

1.1.12.1.2

500

o G

1.1.2

s

GI

s

1.1.2

ClRP

Table 4.1 and Chart 4.1 show that grammatical completion points (928) have the highest number of occurrences out of the three types of linguistic completion points, while semantic completion points have the lowest number (649). Also, conjunction points among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, CTRPs, occur 649 times in the data set. The relationship among the three types of linguistic completion points is illustrated in Chart 4.2.

Chart 4.2 Relationship of Three Completion Points

1.1.2

\+-+--

Texture and structure Intonational CPs 723

Jle-:f---I---Semantic CPs 649 1.1.2

'7'---"'16 1.1.2

Chart 4.2 shows that the vast majority of intonational and semantic completion points co-occur with grammatical completion points. However, there are a few intonational completion points, 11 to be exact, that do not coincide with grammatical completion points. Semantic completion points are always both

86

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

grammatical and intonational completion points in the data. Thus, in this study, semantic completion points are considered CTRPs. Chart 4.2 also shows that there are four different kinds of completion points, (1) grammatical completion points only (216), (2) intonational completion points only (11), (3) intonational and grammatical, but not semantic completion points (74), and (4) grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points (CTRPs) (649). Each kind is discussed with examples in order to understand how the three types of completion points take place independently or co-occur with one another. In these examples, grammatical completion points are marked with 'I', intonational completion points with '?' or '.', and semantic completion points with '>'. CTRPs are marked with '#'. The number in parentheses indicates the frequency of each kind. (1) Grammatical completion points only (216) Kei: ano Yoshiko san kara kiitan dakedo,l well Ms. from heard although Well I heard this from Yoshiko, Kei's utterance above is a well-formed clause, so it is grammatically complete. However, as the comma indicates, it has a continuing contour, so it is not intonationally complete. Also, since it is a subordinate clause, it is not considered semantically complete. Therefore, Kei's utterance is grammatically complete, but not intonationally or semantically complete. This type of completion point occurs 216 times in the data set. (2) Intonational completion points only (11) -> I Fumi: ja nanka sain toka? so well signature or So, well, (you got) signature or something? 2 Ham: un yoku attern.!> # yes often see Yes, we meet often. Fumi's utterance in the excerpt above is one instance that has an intonational completion point, but not a grammatical or semantic completion point. In the sequence above, the participants are discussing Ham's second cousin, who is a famous actor in Japan. In line 1, Fumi asks Ham a question. However, since it does not have a recoverable predicate, it is not grammatically nor semantically complete. However, it has a rising intonational contour, as indicated by a question mark, so it is considered intonationally complete. This kind of completion point occurs because the Japanese language allows, to a great extent, implicit arguments and predicates in verbal communication if they are recoverable from the context (See Shibatani 1990). Also, since the participants

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation

87

are close friends, they share a high degree of schemata or background knowledge. 1 This high degree of shared knowledge enables them to communicate without fully verbalizing their thoughts. Although Fumi's question is not grammatically or semantically complete, Haru understands what Fumi is trying to say and responds without hesitation in line 2. Therefore, frequent occurrences of implicit words in the data of Japanese conversation may result in the occurrences of independent intonational completion points. This kind of completion point occurs only 11 times in the data. (3) Grammatical and intonational, but not semantic completion points (64) I Kei: watashi mo ano undergraduate no tokini, / I also well of when When I was an undergraduate student,

->

2

chotto shinbun ni nottano ne.! little newspaper on appear FP I was on a newspaper, too.

Kei's utterance in line 2 in the excerpt above is a well-formed clause, so it is grammatically complete. Also, it is intonationally complete since it has a falling intonational contour, as indicated by a period at the end of the clause. However, it is not semantically complete since Kei's utterance in lines 1 to 2 is part of a narrative about her experience on a newspaper. Therefore, Kei's utterance in line 2 is considered grammatically, and intonationally complete, but not semantically complete. This kind of completion point occurs 74 times in the data. (4) Grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, i.e. CTRPs (649). -> Kei: Fumi san wa doko kara dakke?/> # Ms. TP where from is Where are you from, Fumi? 2

Fumi:

Kagawa ken.!> # Kagawa-prefecture.

The excerpt above is a question-answer sequence. Kei's question in line I is grammatically complete since it is a well-formed clause. It is also intonationally complete since it has a rising intonational contour, indicated by a question mark. It is semantically complete as well since a recognizable action, i.e. asking a question, is carried out in the clause. Therefore, a convergent point among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points (CTRPs) is marked

88

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

at the end of the clause. This kind of completion point occurs 649 times in the data. In short, grammatical completion points occur most frequently, then intonational completion points, and semantic completion points last. Also, there are only 11 intonational completion points that do not coincide with grammatical or semantic completion points. Since semantic completion points always co-occur with both grammatical and intonational completion points, they are considered CTRPs in the data of Japanese conversation. These results indicate that grammar, intonation, and semantics are strongly interrelated in the Japanese conversation.

4.1.1.2 Speaker Changes This section examines instances of speaker changes in order to study how frequently and where they occur. Speaker changes are divided into floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes. Non-floor-taking speaker changes consist of reactive tokens, i.e. backchannels, reactive expressions, collaborative finishes, repetitions, laughter, and short statements; any other speaker changes are considered floor-taking speaker changes. The numbers of speaker changes, both floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes, are listed in Table 4.2. The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of each type of speaker change in all speaker changes.

Texture and structure Texture and structure

Table 4.2 Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure

Table 4.2 shows that 727 speaker changes take place in approximately 20 minutes of Japanese conversation. It also shows that non-floor-taking speaker changes (50.0%) and floor-taking speaker changes (50.0%) take place at the same rate. Now, I will examine where speaker changes, both floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes, occur in the data. Table 4.3 shows speaker changes that occur at grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as at CTRPs. The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of speaker changes that occur at each type of completion point.

89

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation Table 4.3 Locations of Speaker Chan2es (SC) atG at I at S at CTRP (n=928) (n=723) (n=649) (n=649) 578 468 514 458 (79.5%) (70.7%) (63.0%) (64.4%) 310 308 297 297 (85.2%) (84.6%) (81.6%) (81.6%) 268 206 161 161 (44.4%) (44.4%) (73.9%) (56.7%)

SC (n=727) FSC (n=364) NSC (n=363)

In order to visualize the numbers, Table 4.3 is graphed in Chart 4.3, which shows the ratio of speaker changes at completion points and at non-completion points.

Chart 4.3 Speaker Changes and Completion Points ~III Convergence. Divergence -------------

------~

800 ~------------------------------------~ 1 ~ 600 ----------~ ---- ---------------> ---- -----~

400

-= ~ ...... ......

200 0

------

---'

SC

FSC

at G

~

!

f--

"---'"-"

NSC

:--

SC

-

...,.. "---'"-"

FSC

at I

~ p

NSC

'1 sc

-

r - -L

j-

..,.. ...,... "---'"-" ...... FSC

at S

NSC

SC

-

-

FSC

NSC

at CTRP

Table 4.3 and Chart 4.3 show that 79.5% of speaker changes occur at grammatical completion points, 70.7% at intonational completion points, and 63.0% at semantic completion points. This order corresponds to the frequency of each type of completion point, i.e. grammatical completion points occur most frequently (928), then intonational completion points (723), with semantic completion points (649) last.

90

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

In conclusion, floor-taking speaker changes occur at completion points more frequently than non-floor-taking speaker changes. Namely, 81.6% of floortaking speaker changes occur at semantic completion points (= CTRPs), while only 44.4% of non-floor-taking speaker changes occur at CTRPs. This result indicates that non-floor-taking speaker changes occur frequently at noncompletion points in the Japanese conversation. This frequent occurrence of nonfloor-taking speaker changes at non-completion points may be attributed to the supportive functions of non-flo or-taking speaker changes. In brief, non-floor-taking speaker changes and floor-taking speaker changes occur at the same rate in the data of Japanese conversation. Regarding the location of speaker changes, they occur at grammatical completion points most frequently, then at intonational completion points, and at semantic completion points last. Also, floor-taking speaker changes occur at completion points at much higher rates than non-floor-taking speaker changes.

4.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes Now let us look at the relationship between each type of completion point and speaker change as well as that between CTRPs and speaker changes in order to understand how each type of completion point singly and jointly projects transition-relevance places. Table 4.4 includes the numbers of the three types of completion points and CTRPs that are accompanied by speaker changes. The percentage in parentheses indicates how frequently each type of completion point and CTRPs coincide with speaker changes. Table 4.4 I . C ompletIon P OInts an d Sipea k er Changes Types +Speaker -Speaker Total Changes Changes Grammatical 578 353 928 (62.3%) (37.7%) CPs (100%1 Intonational 514 209 723 (71.1%) (28.9%) (100%) CPs Semantic 191 649 458 (100%) (29.4%) (70.6%) CPs CTRPs 191 649 458 (100%) (29.4%) (70.6%) Table 4.4 is illustrated in Chart 4.4 in order to graphically represent the ratio of the three types of completion points with speaker changes and those without speaker changes.

91

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation

Chart 4.4. Completion Points and Speaker Changes m Convergence m Divergence ]

1000

800 600 400 S78

m:4

4m

4m

GCP

ICP

SCP

CTRP

200

0

Table 4.4 and Chart 4.4 show that 62.3% of grammatical completion points, 71.1% of intonational completion points, and 70.6% of semantic completion points co-occur with speaker changes. The percentages of the three types of completion points that coincide with speaker changes are similar. Especially, intonational completion points (71.1%) and semantic completion points (70.6%) are accompanied by speaker changes at very similar rates. Also, more than twothirds of CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes (70.6%). This result indicates that CTRPs play an important role in projecting points of speaker changes. In conclusion, intonational completion points are accompanied by speaker changes most frequently, next semantic completion points, and grammatical completion points least frequently. However, all these completion points co-occur with speaker changes at a similar rate. CTRPs are also accompanied by speaker changes at a high rate. Thus, CTRPs strongly relate to speaker changes in the Japanese conversation

4.1.2 Qualitative Analysis The qualitative analysis focuses on the relationship between speaker changes and CTRPs, which are equal to semantic completion points in the data of Japanese conversation. In order to examine the relationship between speaker changes and CTRPs, the numbers of CTRPs and speaker changes are illustrated in Chart 4.5.

92

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 4.5 CTRPs and Speaker Changes

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2 1.1.2 1.1.2

1.1.2 1.1.1 2.1.2 1.1.2

In Chart 4.5, the entire right circle represents CTRPs while the entire left one represents speaker changes. The overlapping part of the two circles illustrates speaker changes at CTRPs. The instances of speaker changes at CTRPs (458) are cases in which speaker changes occur smoothly. On the other hand, the divergent cases between speaker changes and CTRPs leave two groups: speaker changes at non-CTRPs (269), and no-speaker changes at CTRPs (191). In the following sections, I will discuss these three groups: (1) speaker changes at CTRPs, i.e. convergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes (458), (2) one group of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, instances of speaker changes at non-CTRPs (269), and (3) the other group of divergent cases, instances of no speaker changes at CTRPs (191).

4.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs When speaker changes occur at CTRPs, the tum-transitions take place smoothly.2 The following is an example of a smooth turn-transition occurring at a CTRP. In the excerpt, the CTRP is marked with '#'. 1.1.2

->

2

Kei:

Fumi san te doko kara dakke? # Ms QP where from is Where are you from, Fumi?

Fumi:

Kagawa ken.

prefecture (rm from) Kagawa-prefecture.

In this excerpt, Kei asks Fumi a question. Responding to the question, Fumi takes a tum in line 2. At the end of line I, a CTRP appears. Without any gap or overlap, Fumi takes the other-selected tum in line 2. Thus, a smooth turn transition occurs at the CTRP at the end of line 1.

93

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation

4.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs One group of divergent cases between speaker changes and CTRPs, Le. speaker changes at non-CTRPs, is analyzed qualitatively in this section. The analysis focuses on the motivations that trigger speaker changes at non-CTRPs. Ford and Thompson's discussion (1996) about affiliation and disagreement helps us understand motivations of speaker changes at non-CTRPs. They state that speaker changes before CTRPs show some interactional work, motivated by the next speaker's cooperation or strong disagreement. In the data of Japanese conversation, there are eleven kinds of motivations that trigger speaker changes at non-CTRPs: (1) giving a backchannel, (2) expressing an emotional reaction (reactive expression), (3) repeating the previous speaker's utterance, (4) laughter, (5) adding information, (6) correcting the previous speaker's utterance, (7) asking for clarification, (8) asking a question, (9) showing a strong agreement, (10) showing a disagreement, and (11) introducing a new topic. These motivations can be placed in a 'continuum of floor control' as in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1 is based on the overlapping speaker's viewpoint. Figure 4.1 Continuum of Floor Control Speaker Changes

-

I

----

(I) backchannels (2) reactive expressions (3) repetitions (4) laughter

sequential

non-sequential

.. kn/owledge- - - - - - OpinIOn

""

----- "

greater

Positi;-::ti~e I

---

...............

floor taking turn

non-floor taking turn

I

/ positive negative

less

continJo'::::ntinuous

I

I

I \

i'!fo added correction clarification Q question agreement disagreement new topic

less

greater (speaker role)

Figure 4.1 shows that the eleven motivations can be classified into two categories at first, non-floor-taking turns and floor-taking turns. Non-floor-taking turns include backchannels, emotional reactions, repetitions, and laughter (See

94

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Clancy et al. 1996, Duncan and Fiske 1985). On the other hand, floor-taking turns can be further divided into sequential turns and non-sequential turns. The motivation of introducing a new topic belongs to the non-sequential turns because the utterance of introducing a new topic is not sequentially connected with the previous speaker's utterance regarding the topic they are discussing. The sequential floor-taking turns can be further divided into 'turns about knowledge' and 'turns about opinion.' 'Turns about opinion' can be agreement if they are positive, or disagreement if they are negative. 'Turns about knowledge' can be divided into two groups: 'greater knowledge' and 'less knowledge.' An example of the 'less knowledge' category, asking a question or asking a clarification question, might occur if the overlapping speaker opens a discussion on a new topic, or he/she asks a question about the previous utterance, respectively. On the other hand, if the overlapping speaker has equal or greater knowledge than the previous speaker, he/she might respond either positively or negatively to the previous utterance, resulting in adding information or correcting the previous speaker's utterance, respectively. These categories form a continuum that shows the degree of floor control, i.e. the left end of the continuum indicates that the speaker has little floor control and is more likely to engage in listenership, while the right end of the continuum shows strong influence on floor control (the speaker can dominate the floor, taking away the floor from the previous speaker). Therefore, the ten motivations reflect different degrees of floor control, which are viewed as a continuum in Figure 4.1. Now, let us examine each motivation. First, the participants in the data of Japanese conversation overlap with each other when they give backchannels to each other, and these backchannels are frequently set out at non-CTRPs. The following excerpt includes examples of backchannels, which are placed at nonCTRPs. In the excerpt, Kei is talking about her appearance in an article of a school newspaper when she was an undergraduate student. The interlocutors, Haru and Fumi, give backchannel responses in lines 4 and 7. The lines of analysis points are marked with arrows at the left side. [Excerpt I: Giving backchannel] I Kei: watashi mo ano undergraduate no toki ni, I too well of when at 2

chotto shinbun ni nottano ne,? little newspaper on be FP

3

=shashin made denakatta n dakedo, picture even appear Neg although

95

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation

->

->

4

Fumi:

un. um huh

5

Haru:

un un. urn huh urn huh

6

Kei:

international student no campus life mita[inakanjide, of like

7

Fumi:

8

Kei:

sono nakano hitori dat tan dakedo, that among one be past but

Kei:

When I was undergraduate, I was on a school newspaper, too. =Although the article did not have a picture of me, Urn huh. Urn huh. It is like 'campus life of international [students,' [Urn huh. and I was one of them, ...

[Translation] 1 2

3 ->

4

5 ->

6 7

8

Fumi: Haru: Kei: Fumi: Kei:

[un un. urn urn

In Excerpt 1, Kei is holding the floor and describes her experience of appearing in a school newspaper. Fumi and Haru take short turns to give backchannels in lines 4, 5, and 7, supporting Kei's floor. Although the backchannels by Fumi and Haru take place at non-CTRPs in lines 4 and 7, they do not seem to be intrusive since they are not floor-taking turns, but they are very short utterances, showing the interlocutor's listenership. Clancy et al. (1996:359) call this kind of 'non-lexical vocalic form' a backchannel, which functions as a continuer (Schegloff 1982), a display of interest, andlor an acknowledgment of listening/understanding. Specifically, Maynard (1986: 1081) calls backchannel in Japanese aizuchi, 'tum-internal listener backchannel,' which often occurs during the floor-holding speaker's tum in Japanese conversation. Secondly, the participants in the Japanese conversation take turns at non-CTRPs in order to express emotional reactions to the previous speaker's utterance. Clancy et al. (1996:359) call these kinds of short non-floor-taking utterances by the non-primary speaker 'reactive expressions.' These kinds of nonfloor-taking turns can show the listener's strong emotions (e.g. surprise, joy, or disappointment) with short expressions such as 'really?' and 'wow!' An example of 'expressing an emotional reaction' is presented in the following excerpt, which

96

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

includes expressions of surprise in lines 5, 6, and 7. In particular, Fumi's utterance in line 5 is placed at a non-CTRP. In the excerpt, the participants discuss Haru's relative, who is a famous tennis player in Japan. [Excerpt 2: Expressing emotional reaction] 1 Ham: warito uchirelatively our 2

->

attu shinseki de atsumam koto ga ookutte, oh relative with gather thing SP often

3

Miki:

4

Ham:

5

Fumi:

6

Miki:

7

Fumi:

8:

Ham:

[Translation] I 2 3 4 -> 5 6 7 8

Ham: Miki: Ham: Fumi: Miki: Fumi: Ham:

a: [a: , [sorede mukashi kara tenisu toka isshoni yatte, so past from tennis or together play ett[uu::, oh [sugo::i. great sugo:[:i. great [nihon ni kaeru tabini kaettekita toka it te, Japan to return whenever return or say QP

Ourour relatives get together fairly often, A: [a:, [so, we play tennis together, Wo[w! [Great! Great! whenever I return to Japan, ....

When Ham says that she often gets together with her relatives (including one of her relatives who is a famous tennis player in Japan) and plays tennis, Fumi and Miki show surprise in lines 5, 6, and 7. In particular, Fumi's utterance in line 5 is set out at a non-CTRP. Although these surprising utterances take place while Haru is holding the floor, they are not intrusive since they are not floor-taking

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation

97

turns, and Haru smoothly resumes her talk in line 8. Thus, Fumi's utterance of surprise that occurs at a non-CTRP functions to show her active listenership. Thirdly, the participants in the Japanese conversation start their utterances before CTRPs in order to repeat what has been said by the previous speaker. The following is an example of a speaker change before a CTRP, where the overlapping speaker repeats the previous speaker's utterance. In the segment, the participants discuss their hometowns in Japan. In line 4, Miki starts talking at a non-CTRP, repeating Haru's utterance. [Excerpt 3: Repeating the previous speaker's utterance] 1 Haru: Miki san wa dochiranan desu ka? Ms. TP where be Q 2 Miki: watashi wa Ichikawa shi. I TP Ichikawa-city 3 Haru: minnna barabara[no kanji. everyone different oflike -> 4 [barabara. Miki: different [Translation] 1 2

3

->

4

Haru: Miki: Haru: Miki:

Where are you from, Miki? I'm from Ichikawa-city. All are from different [towns. [Different.

In line 1, Haru asks Miki where she is from, and after Miki's answer in line 2, Haru states, in line 3, that each of the four participants is from different towns in Japan. Then, Miki repeats the word 'barabara (different)' in line 4. Miki's repeating utterance starts before Haru's utterance in line 3 ends, but immediately after the word 'barabara' (different), so it overlaps with Ham's utterance. However, Miki's repeating utterance is not intrusive since it is not a floor-taking turn, but shows agreement with, or even emphasizes, what Ham has just said. This is what Tannen (1989: 52) calls a repetition with the function of 'coherence as interpersonal involvement.' Thus, Miki responds to Ham at a non-CTRP, repeating Ham's utterance and showing her active participation in the conversation. Fourth, the participants in the Japanese conversation take turns before CTRPs to start laughing. The following is an example of laughter, which starts before a CTRP. The participants are discussing their financial situations.

98

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

[Excerpt 4: Starting a laughter] I Kei: hitoni ne, person by 2

->

3

[Translation] I 2 -> 3

kou kikareru to u:: tte [omocchau desu kedo. be but well asked QP awful QP think

Haru:

Kei: Haru:

[hahaha.

When I was asked the question, well I [feel awful. [hahaha.

Kei jokingly states that she feels awful to answer the question on her financial situations in lines I and 2. Responding to Kei's humorous way to answer the question, Haru starts laughing at a non-CTRP in line 3. This is an example of speaker changes at non-CTRPs, motivated by laughter. The fifth motivation of speaker changes at non-CTRPs is 'adding information.' The participants in the Japanese conversation often add information to the previous speaker's utterance, starting at non-CTRPs. For example, in the following excerpt, Haru tells the interlocutors about her experience of appearing in a newspaper. In line 5, Fumi adds information to Haru's talk, overlapping with Haru's utterance. [Excerpt 5: Adding information] I Haru: de sore ni nottan desu yo, so that at appear be FP

->

2

watashi tokorode. I by the way

3

shashin iride do::n toka itte, picture with big like say-QP

4

kouiu kennkyuu [wo shiteru hitodesu tte. this research OP do person QP

5

Fumi:

['are' no kenkyu toka it teo that of research like say QP

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation [Translation] I 2 3 4

->

5

Haru:

Fumi:

99

I was on a newspaper, by the way, with my picture, It is like, 'This is a person who [does this kind of research.' [Research of 'Are.'

While Ham is holding the floor and talks about her experience of appearing in a newspaper, Fumi adds information to her talk in line 5, describing the research Ham is reported to engage in. Since Fumi has read the article about Haru in the newspaper, she knows what Ham is talking about, so she collaborates in Haru's floor in line 5. Although Fumi's utterance starts before Ham's utterance ends, it does not seem to be intrusive because Fumi's short utterance supports Ham's floor, adding information to Ham's talk. Sixth, the participants in the Japanese conversation start their utterances before CTRPs in order to correct the previous speaker's utterance. This is what conversation analysts call 'other initiated repair (Schegloff 1989).' One example of this kind is found in line 2 of the following excerpt, where Miki corrects Fumi's utterance. In the excerpt, the participants discuss their hometowns in Japan. [Excerpt 6: Correcting the previous speaker's utterance] I Fumi: are Ichikawashi tte Ka[nawell Ichikawa-city QP Kana-> 2 Miki: [Chibaken. Chiba-prefecture [Translation] 1 -> 2

Fumi: Miki:

Well, Ichikawa-city is in Ka[na[Chiba-prefecture.

In the previous sequence, Miki says that she is from Ichikawa-city. In line 1, Fumi tries to say that Ichikawa-city is in Kanagawa-prefecture, but, in line 2, Miki interrupts Fumi and says that Ichikawa-city is in Chiba-prefecture. In line 2, Miki starts her utterance before Fumi finishes the word 'Kanagawa-ken (Kanagawa-prefecture).' This intervention takes place because Miki assumes that Fumi is talking about the prefecture that Ichikawa-city belongs to. As soon as Miki hears Fumi trying to say Kanagawa-prefecture, she corrects Fumi's utterance, saying Ichikawa-city is in Chiba-prefecture. In addition, this abrupt intervention occurs because Miki has more knowledge on what they are talking about (i.e. Ichikawa-city) because she is from that city. In other words, she has better knowledge of the town and can give more accurate information

100

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

confidently. Thus, when Miki hears Fumi saying the name of the wrong prefecture, she does not wait for the utterance to be completed, but jumps in and corrects it. This is an example of correcting the previous speaker's utterance that starts before a CTRP. Seventh, the participants of the Japanese conversation take turns at nonCTRPs in order to ask for clarification. The following excerpt has an 'asking for clarification' instance of a speaker change at a non-CTRP (i.e. the overlapping speaker seems to misunderstand a previous utterance and requests clarification). In this sequence, Ham discusses her research on the Japanese term 'are' (deictic term meaning 'that'), and Kei overlaps with her in line 5, asking a clarification question. [Excerpt 7: Asking for clarification] 1 Ham: kouiu kenkyuu [wo shiteiru hito desu tte. this research OP do person be QP 2

Fumi:

3

Ham:

4

->

[are no kenkyuu tte. that of research QP sou sou sou. right right right sore wa maa [( ? ) it-TP well

5

Kei:

6

Fumi:

[are hahaha. that

7

Ham:

[are tte deixis no 'are.' that QP deixis of that

1

Ham:

2 3 4 5 6 7

Fumi: Ham: Fumi: Kei: Fumi: Ham:

It's like 'she is a person who [does this kind of research' [Research of 'are (that).' Right right right. It was like [( ? ) [Research of 'ari'? 'Are (that)' (laugh) 'Are' as the deixis 'are (that).'

[ari no kenkyu? ant of research

[Translation]

->

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation

101

In line 1, Haru explains how she was introduced on the newspaper, saying "It's like 'she is a person who does this kind of research.'" In line 2, Fumi adds information and states specifically the topic of Ham's research, 'are (that).' In lines 3 to 4, Ham confirms Fumi's utterance and tries to talk further about the content of the article. Then, in line 5, Kei interrupts Haru's talk and requests clarification. This is because Kei mishears Fumi's word, in line 2, 'are' (that) as the Japanese term 'ari (ant),' which does not make sense to her. Kei's interrupting comment to request clarification is interesting for two reasons. First, Kei's overlapping question in line 5 is about Fumi's utterance in line 2. This means that Kei does not ask the question immediately after Fumi's utterance on 'are,' but delays, asking it until the middle of Haru's utterance. In other words, Kei waits to ask the question until she realizes that she would be lost completely if she did not ask the question. Kei's question is precisely placed at the point where she has to ask the question to avoid being entirely lost. It is not immediately after the incomprehensible utterance, but it is delayed until the crucial point, which, in this case, is in line 5. The second reason why Kei's utterance in line 5 is interesting is because it causes a digression. Although Ham plans to talk about the content of the article further in line 4, since Kei asks the question in line 5, Haru has to digress and explain about 'are' (that) in line 7. This digression may be the reason why Kei delays the question until the point at which she has to ask the question, since she knows that the question will cause the digression that interrupts the flow of Haru's talk. This is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, motivated by a request for clarification. Eighth, the participants ask questions, starting their turns at nonCTRPs. In the following excerpt, Fumi, in line 2, starts her self-selected tum at a non-CTRP, interrupting Haru. In the sequence, the participants are discussing Haru's second cousin, a famous actor in Japan. [Excerpt 8: Asking a question] 1 Haru: sugoi[tte iu koto naide shoo great QP say thing Neg FP ->

2

Fumi:

[nanka datte tomodachi de nanka ne, well though friend with well FP

3

okisaki-okisakisama kouho ni nanka, princess princess candidate to well

4

erabareta hito ga irutte? selected person SP have

102

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

[Translation] 1 -> 2 3 4

Ham: Fumi:

It is [not that great. [But well, you have ee-, a friend who was selected as a candidate for princess?

After Ham told the interlocutors that she is a second cousin of a famous actor, they respond with surprise, such as 'great.' Ham, in line 1, downplays their responses. Fumi, in line 2, asks her another question about one of Ham's who was selected as a princess candidate in Japan. Fumi's question in line 2 starts at a non-CTRP, overlapping Ham's utterance. Therefore, asking a question is an example of speaker change at a non-CTRP. Ninth, speaker changes at non-CTRPs occur in the Japanese conversation in order to show strong agreement to the previous speaker's utterance. In lines 1 to 3 of the following excerpt, Ham jokingly says that she may quit the Ph.D. program any time. Then, Fumi agrees with Ham, overlapping with her in line 4.

mends

[Excerpt 9: Showing strong agreement] 1 Ham: itu Ph.D. yamechauka wakan nai hahaha, when Ph.D. quit know Neg (laugh)

->

2

attu mo iito katte. oh now enough QP

3

=mou yame[te shimaukamo. now quit may

4

Fumi:

[yoku omou koto ga am. often think thing SP is

5

Ham:

[honto hahaha. really (laugh)

6

Fumi:

[mouiiya mou ii toka it teo enough now enough or sayQP

1

Ham:

2 3 4

Fumi:

1 don't know when 1 will quit Ph.D. program (laugh), like "That's enough or something." =1 may quit [soon. [I often think that,

[Translation]

->

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation 5 6

Haru: Fumi:

103

[Really (laugh)? ['This is enough, this is enough' or something.

Showing strong agreement with Haru, Fumi jumps into Haru's utterance before a CTRP in line 4. Although Fumi's utterance in line 4 is an agreement to Haru's utterance, and Fumi says she feels the same way, it starts at a non-CTRP and takes away the floor from Haru. From line 6, Fumi holds the floor and keeps talking about her graduate study.3 Thus, this is an instance of speaker change at a non-CTRP with an agreement utterance. Tenth, the participants in the Japanese conversation start their utterances before CTRPs, disagreeing with their interlocutors. The following is an example of a speaker change at a non-CTRP, an overlapping speaker disagreeing with the previous speaker's utterance. In line 4, Kei starts her utterance before a CTRP and disagrees with Furni. In this sequence, they are discussing the top ten lawyers' list in the United States. [Excerpt 10: Disagreeing with the previous speaker's utterance] 1 Fumi: watashi da ttara hazukashii to ka. 1 is if embarrassing QP Q

->

2

(.)

3

ma: souiu kankaku wa naino kashi[ra? well that sense TP not wonder [ureshi to omou. happy QP think.

4

Kei:

5

Fumi:

hontou ni? really

6

Kei:

uuun. urn huh.

Fumi:

If I were on the list, I might be embarrassed.

[Translation] I 2 3 -> 4 5 6

(.)

Kei: Fumi: Kei:

Well, I wonder they don't feel that [way? [I would be happy. Really? Umhuh.

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

104

In line 1, Fumi states it would be embarrassing to be on the top ten lawyers' list because of the bad reputation oflawyers in the U.S. In line 4, Kei disagrees with Fumi and says that she would be happy if she were on the list. Although Kei's disagreeing utterance in line 4 starts before Fumi's utterance finishes in line 3, it starts almost at the end of Fumi's utterance. Also, Kei does not disagree with Fumi's utterance in line 1, but delays her disagreeing utterance as the pause in line 2 indicates. Since no interlocutor takes a turn at the pause of line 2, Fumi selects herself as the next speaker and continues her talk in line 3, and then Kei jumps in and overlaps with her. Thus, although Kei's disagreeing utterance in line 4 starts at a non-CTRP, it is mitigated by being delayed. This delayed mitigation will be discussed further in the following section. Finally, the participants start their utterances before CTRPs in order to introduce a new topic. The following excerpt includes an utterance that introduces a new topic; however, it overlaps with the previous speaker's utterance. In the excerpt, Fumi is asking Miki a question, while Kei in line 2 asks Haru another question. [Excerpt 11: Introducing a new topic] 1 Fumi: Miki san wa, Ms TP

->

2

Kei:

ano Yoshiko san kara kiitan dakedo, well Ms. from hear but

3

Ham:

un. umhuh

4

Kei:

ano Ishii-Ishii Joe kana? well isn't it

5

Ham:

un un. umhuh umhuh

6

Kei:

ga itoko tte honto? SP cousin QP true

Fumi: Kei:

Miki, you areWell, I heard this from Yoshiko, Um huh, but Joe Ishii-Ishii? Umhuh, is it true that he is one of your cousins?

[Translation] 1 -> 2 3 4 5 6

Ham: Kei:

Haru: Kei:

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation

105

Preceding this sequence, the participants greet each other as the opening of the conversation. Then, Fumi tries to start conversation, asking Miki a question. However, Fumi's utterance in line 1 is interrupted by Kei's question to Ham, which is about a famous actor in Japan. The news that Ham is a second cousin of the famous actor must be surprising to Kei. When Kei remembers that Yoshiko, one of their mutual friends, has told her the news, Kei asks Ham the question in the middle of Fumi's utterance at a non-CTRP. This interrupting utterance takes the floor away from Fumi. In summary, we can find eleven interactional factors that trigger overlaps/interventions in the data of Japanese conversation: (1) giving a backchannel, (2) expressing an emotional reaction, (3) repeating the previous speaker's utterance, (4) starting laughter, (5) adding information, (6) correcting the previous speaker's utterance, (7) asking for clarification, (8) asking a question, (9) showing a strong agreement, (10) showing a disagreement, and (11) introducing a new topic. It seems that each motivation differs in terms of the degree of the overlapping participants' control over the floor in the conversation.

4.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs In the previous section, cases of speaker changes at non-CTRPs were examined. This is one group of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes. Another group of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes includes instances in which speaker changes do not occur at CTRPs, i.e. the same speaker continues hislher talk over a CTRP. In this section, instances of no speaker changes over CTRPs are examined as to how and why they occur in the data. First, how does the same speaker continue over a CTRP in Japanese conversation? As in the data of English conversation, there are three phenomena of same speaker continuation after CTRPs in the data: (1) overlap,4 (2) rushthrough, and (3) self-selection. First, let us look at an instance of overlap after a CTRP. The following is an instance in which the same speaker continues after a CTRP, but the utterance overlaps with that of another speaker. In the excerpt, Ham says that she started playing tennis with one of her cousins, who is a famous tennis player in Japan. Then, she corrects that utterance immediately in line 2. Her correcting utterance in line 2 overlaps with Miki's utterance in line 3. The CTRP of the analysis point is marked by '#'. [Excerpt 12: Overlapping] 1 Ham: sono kankei de tennis wo yappari isshoni hajimete. # that reason by tennis OP again together start

->

2

[gomen isshoja nai desu u: :n. sorry together Neg be uhm

106

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 3 Mild: [isshoni hajimetatte sugoi. together start great

4 Haru: ano oji

ga tennis school wo hajimete, OP start well uncle SP

[Translation] 1 -> 2 3

4

Haru: Miki: Haru:

(That's) why we started tennis together. # [Sorry, we did not start tennis together. [It's great you guys started tennis together. Well, one of my uncles started a tennis school,

After the CTRP in line 1, Haru continues her talk in line 2, correcting her previous utterance in line 1. In line 3, Miki takes a turn by self-selecting herself as the next speaker, but her utterance overlaps with Haru's utterance in line 2. Haru, despite the overlap with Miki, keeps talking from line 4. This is an instance of the same speaker continuation after a CTRP, overlapping with another interlocutor's utterance. Second, when the same speaker continues hislher talk after a CTRP, he/she rushes through in order not to yield the floor. Schegloff (1996) calls this phenomenon 'rush-through' and states that a pitch peak is the point where the current speaker prepares for the upcoming 'rush-through.' In other words, the speaker speeds up hislher utterance from the pitch peak over an upcoming CTRP. Let us examine an instance of 'rush-through' in the data. In the following excerpt, the participants discuss the meaning of the word 'hatoko' (second cousin). In line 2, Kei rushes through over a CTRP, which appears at the end of line 1. The rush-through is marked by --->. [Excerpt 13: Rush-through] 1 Kei: hatoko tte, second cousin QP

->

2

eigo dattara nannan darou. # se[coild cousin?] English if what

3

Haru:

-------------->

wonder

[second cousin] un. yes

107

Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation [Translation] 1 2

Kei:

3

Haru:

What is 'hatoko' in English? # Se[cond cousin?

--------------->

[Second cousin, yes.

In lines I and 2, Kei asks a question about the meaning of 'hatoko' (second cousin) in English. The moment she finishes the question, she comes up with the answer and says it immediately, rushing through the CTRP in line 2. This is an example of ,rush-through' over a CTRP, immediately giving an answer to her own question. Third, when the same speaker continues after a CTRP, helshe selfselects himself7herself as the next speaker. According to Sacks et al. (1974), when the current speaker does not select the next speaker and if no other interlocutor self-selects as the next speaker, the current speaker can self-select himself7herself as the next speaker and keep his/her tum. Before the current speaker's self-selection, a pause often appears. This pause indicates that the floor is open to everyone. The following is an example of no speaker changes over a CTRP, resulting from the current speaker's self-selection as the next speaker. In the excerpt, the participants are discussing a top ten lawyer's list in the United States. After Fumi's comment in line I, a perceivable pause occurs. Then, Fumi self-selects herself as the next speaker and resumes her talk in line 3. The CTRP of the analysis point is marked by '#'. [Excerpt 14: Self-selection] 1 Fumi: demo sore ni norut te nanka hazukashii youna but that on appear QP well embarrassing like kishi nai? # feel Neg

->

2

(.)

3

lawyer no top ten toka it te nanka:10 or say QP well lawyer of

4

(.)

5

nankawell

6

Ham:

[demo iinja nai. but OK Neg

108

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 7

Kei:

[demo sore wa sorenari no achievement dakara ne::. but that TP itself of because FP

Fumi:

But don't you think it (to be listed in a top ten lawyer's list) is embarrassing? # (.) Like Top Ten lawyer or(.) Well[But that's OK. [But that's a kind of achievement.

[Translation]

1 2 ->

3 4 5

6 7

Ham: Kei:

In line 1, Fumi says that it is embarrassing to be on the list of the Top Ten lawyers because lawyers in the United States do not enjoy good reputations. A CTRP appears at the end of line 1. However, no other interlocutor takes the turn. Thus, after a perceivable pause in line 2, which indicates that Fumi has given up the floor and the floor is open to everyone, Fumi self-selects herself as the next speaker and continues her talk. What Fumi says in line 3, however, is not what she prepared to say but just serves to fill the gap, so she cannot continue her talk smoothly, as indicated by the hedges 'nanka (well)' and the pause in line 4. Then, both Ham and Kei simultaneously jump into Fumi's talk to show disagreement with Fumi's utterance, saying that it is okay to be on the list and that to be on the list is an achievement. Pomerantz (1984) states that delay devices often appear in dispreferred sequences such as disagreement. In Excerpt 14, Haru and Kei delay their disagreeing responses until lines 6 and 7 respectively. This instance shows that disagreement in Japanese can also be delayed, so the current speaker can self-select himselflherself as the next speaker to fill the gap and to keep the conversation rolling until another speaker takes a turn. Thus, I have discussed three phenomena of no speaker changes over CTRPs, i.e. how the same speaker continues his/her talk over CTRPs. These phenomena include: (1) overlap, (2) rush-through, and (3) self-selection. Then, why does the same speaker continue his/her talk after a CTRP? In other words, what is the relationship between an utterance before a CTRP and one after the CTRP in the cases of no speaker changes? In the data of the Japanese conversation, as in the data of the English conversation, there are three kinds of cases in which the same speaker continues over a CTRP: (1) a formal affiliator + a CTRP + the point of the current speaker's tum, (2) a point of the current speaker's turn + a CTRP + another point added, and (3) the point of the current speaker's tum + a CTRP + projecting a link to the next speaker's tum. I will discuss each case in turn.

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation

109

The following excerpt includes a formal affiliator and the point of the tum over a CTRP. Preceding the sequence, the participants are discussing the misheard word 'ari' (ant) for 'are (that).' At the end of line 2, a CTRP appears, however, Haru keeps talking, making a point of the tum. The CTRP of the analysis point is marked by '#'. [Excerpt 15: Formal Affiliation] 1 Fumi: bio-linguistics toka it teo or say QP 2

->

Haru:

sou sou sou. # right right right

3

=nnde soredemotte, well then

4

kugatsu jyuroku nichi kana, September sixteen day or so

5

ka nanka nottan desu yo ne. Q well appear be FPFP

[Translation] I 2 -> 3 4

5

Fumi: Haru:

It could be bio-linguistics or something. Right. # And, around September sixteenth, it (the article) was in the newspaper.

In line 1, Fumi makes a joke of Kei's misheard word 'ari' (ant) for 'are (that),' saying that the study of ants could be bio-linguistics. In line 2, Ham responds to Fumi's joke, agreeing strongly, repeating 'sou (right).' Then, in line 3, Haru continues talking and returns to the agenda that she has been discussing, i.e. her research on a newspaper article. She begins line 3 with the discourse marker, 'nnde soredemotte' (well then), which indicates that she is returning from a side sequence, and she resumes her talk, keeping the floor. This excerpt shows that when Haru continues her talk over the CTRP in line 2, she begins with a formal affiliator before the CTRP and provides the point of the turn after the eTRP. Second, the same speaker continues his/her talk over a CTRP in order to do some interactional work, such as correcting the previous comment or giving an account, which results in expanding the tum over a CTRP. Let us look at an instance of "adding a point in one's tum" in the data. In lines 1 and 2 of the following excerpt, Ham jokingly tells the interlocutors that she wants to

110

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

quit the Ph.D. program. After the CTRP at the end of line 2, she paraphrases her utterance in line 3, adding infonnation. [Excerpt 16: Point added] 1 Ham: itu Ph.D. yamechauka wakan nai bahaha, when quit know Neg (laugh)

->

2

attu mo iito katte. # oh now enough QP

3

=mou yame[teshimau kamo. may now quit

[Translation] 1

2

->

3

Ham:

I don't know when I will quit Ph.D. program (laugh), like "Oh, now that's enough." # =1 may quit soon.

Since grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points fall at the end of line 2, Haru can give up her tum there, or an interlocutor can take a tum. However, Haru rushes through the CTRP and continues talking, adding infonnation to her talk, saying she could quit the Ph.D. program soon. This is an instance of the same speaker continuing after a CTRP in order to Idl infonnation, resulting in expanding the tum. Third, a speaker continues hislher talk after a CTRP in order to project a link to the next speaker's utterance. The projection link regularly takes the fonn of a question. The following is an instance of no speaker change over a CTRP with 'projecting a link.' The participants are discussing the list of top ten lawyers in the United States. Fumi says that she would be embarrassed if she were on the list because of the bad reputation of lawyers in the United States. After a CTRP at the end ofline 1, the same speaker, Fumi, continues talking. In line 3, she uses a question that can link to the next speaker's tum. [Excerpt 17: Projecting a link] 1 Fumi: watashi da ttara hazukashii to ka. # embarrassing QP Q I is if

->

2

(.)

3

ma: souiu kankaku wa naino kashira? well that sense TP not wonder

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation [Translation] 1 2

->

Fumi:

3

111

I would be embarrassed if! were on the list. # (.) Well I wonder they don't feel in that way?

Fumi's utterance in line 1 functions as the point of the turn; however, after a perceivable pause in line 2, she does not get any response from the interlocutors. Then, she self-selects herself as the next speaker and continues her talk in line 3. In order to yield the turn to another interlocutor, she uses a question in line 3, which requires the second part of the adjacency pair to be followed. This strategy increases the chance to get a response from the interlocutors. Thus, this is an instance of the same speaker continuation after a CTRP, which includes 'a point of the turn' and 'projecting a link' to the next speaker's turn. In conclusion, phenomena of no speaker changes over CTRPs include: (1) overlap, (2) rush-through, and (3) self-select. Also, there are three kinds of cases in which the same speaker continues over a CTRP: (1) a formal affiIiator + a CTRP + the point of the current speaker's turn, (2) a point of the current speaker's turn + a CTRP + another point added, and (3) the point of the current speaker's turn + a CTRP + projecting a link to the next speaker's turn. These phenomena and motivations of no speaker changes at CTRPs indicate that although these are divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, they are systematically realized.

4.1.3 Summary The data of the Japanese conversation has been analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively in this chapter. The quantitative analysis has revealed the following points. First, since semantic completion points always co-occur with grammatical and intonational completion points, they are considered CTRPs. Second, about two-thirds of the speaker changes coincide with CTRPs. In particular, more than three-fourths of full-tum speaker changes coincide with CTRPs. Third, the three types of completion points are accompanied by speaker changes at high rates. These results indicate that grammar, intonation, and semantics are strongly interrelated and that completion points and speaker changes are also strongly correlated. The qualitative results show that instances of speaker changes at nonCTRPs are triggered by eleven motivations: (1) giving a backchannel, (2) expressing an emotional reaction, (3) repeating the previous speaker's utterance, (4) starting laughter, (5) adding information, (6) correcting the previous speaker's utterance, (7) asking for clarification, (8) asking a question, (9) showing a strong agreement, (l0) showing a disagreement, and (11) introducing a new topic. These eleven interactional factors can be placed in a continuum of floor control, and the onset of speaker changes at non-CTRPs are often precisely placed. When the

112

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

same speaker continues over CTRPs, the phenomena of overlap, rush-through, or self-selection occur, with the inclusion of a formal affiliator, an added point, or a projected link over the CTRP.

4.2 CONCLUSION This chapter shows a strong interrelationship among grammar, intonation, and semantics and a strong correlation between linguistic completion points and speaker changes in the data of Japanese conversation. Turn-taking is realized systematically (i.e. the turn-taking system of Japanese conversation). Even divergent instances occur in systematic ways and are triggered by interactional factors. Thus, this chapter concludes that turn-taking in the Japanese conversation is systematically realized and interactionally motivated, as in the English conversation data.

Tum-Taking in Japanese Conversation

113

NOTES I The fact that the conversation takes place in a casual setting, where the participants do not have to pay much attention to their speech styles and are able to speak in informal ways, may facilitate the frequent occurrences of implicit words.

There are cases when more than one person takes a tum at a CTRP, which results in an overlap. However, since these instances rarely occur, they are not discussed in this chapter. 2

3 Although Tannen (1985) states that Japanese is a 'high consideration' society (not 'high involvement' society), many 'high involvement' instances appear in the data of Japanese conversation. This may relate to the fact that all the participants in the Japanese conversation data are female friends.

4.

Ford and Thompson (1996) discuss the phenomenon of overlap as well.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FIVE

Turn-Taking in U.S. Political News Interviews

5.0. INTRODUCTION This chapter examines tum-taking in U.S. political news interviews for the purpose of investigating the following: (l) the interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic units, (2) the occurrences of speaker changes, and (3) the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes in an argumentative setting. Two political news interviews of approximately 20 minutes each are employed as the data. Each interview, conducted by a moderator with two guest politicians, was video-tape recorded from televised programs broadcast in the United States. The data are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis includes the following procedures: First, grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are marked in the transcribed data, and the conjunction points of these types of completion points, i.e. CTRPs, are identified. Next, speaker changes are examined as to how frequently and where they take place. Then, the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes are analyzed quantitatively. The qualitative analysis focuses on convergent and divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes. The divergent cases are categorized into two groups: (I) speaker changes at non-CTRPs (interrupting turn-transitions), and (2) no speaker changes at CTRPs (delayed tum-transitions). Interactional factors that trigger these divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes are discussed. The quantitative analysis shows that there is not a strong correlation between CTRPs and speaker changes in the U.S. political news interviews. The qualitative results show that divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes reflect the roles of the participants.

115

116

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Although tum allocation in U.S. political news interviews is prespecified and controlled by interviewers (Greatbatch 1988), tum-taking is not always carried out systematically, and interactional factors, especially dispute, cause divergence of the tum-taking system. Therefore, this study concludes that unsystematic tum-taking in U.S. political news interviews results from conflicting forces between the tum-taking system of political news interviews and interactional goals in the argumentative setting.

5.1. RESULTS 5.1.1 Quantitative Analysis 5.1.1.1 Completion Points

Grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are marked in the transcribed data, and the numbers of completion points are counted and listed in Table 5.1. Please remember that the data was taken from a period of about 40 minutes. Table 5.1 p' I' N um b er 0 f C omplehon omts Types of Completion Points Grammatical Completion Points (G) Intonational Completion Points (I) Semantic Completion Points (S) Grammatical and Intonational Completion Points (GI) Grammatical and Semantic Com~letion PointstG~) Intonational and Semantic Completion Points (IS) Grammatical, Intonational, and Semantic Completion Points (CTRP)

No.

1552 479 505 479 505 445 445

Table 5.1 is graphed in Chart 5.1, which compares these types of completion points visually.

Turn-Taking in

u.s. Political News Interviews

117

Chart 5.1 Completion Points 1800~~~--------------------------------~

1.11..21.2

1600+----------------------------------------~

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

o 1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.2 1.1.2

Table 5.1 and Chart 5.1 show that grammatical completion points (1552) appear far more frequently than intonational (479) or semantic completion points (505). In other words, numerous grammatical units are contracted in a relatively small number of intonational and semantic units. This may indicate that the content of political news interviews is primarily consisted of information presented in various grammatical units. The conjunction points among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points (CTRPs) occur 445 times in the data of U.S. political news interviews. In order to visualize the interrelationship among the grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, Table 5.1 is illustrated in Chart 5.2.

118

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 5.2 Relationship of Three Completion Points 1.11..21.2

Grammatical 1552 Intonational 479 Semantic 505

1.1.2

1.1.2

1.1.2

Chart 5.2 shows that all intonational and semantic completion points occur with grammatical completion points. There are 1012 grammatical completion points that take place independently from intonational or semantic completion points. Also, most of the intonational and semantic completion points overlap each other (445). Furthermore, 35 intonational completion points do not co-occur with semantic completion points, while 61 semantic completion points do not coincide with intonational completion points. Therefore, overlapping points between intonational and semantic completion points are considered CTRPs in the data of U.S. political news interviews.

5.1.1.2 Speaker Changes This section examines the occurrences of speaker changes, exploring how frequently and where they occur in about 40 minutes of the U.S. political news interviews. First, the instances of speaker changes are counted and listed in Table 5.2. Speaker changes are divided into floor-taking speaker changes and non-floortaking speaker changes. The number in parentheses indicates frequency of each type of speaker change among all speaker changes.

Table 5.2 Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure Texture and structure

Texture and structure Texture and structure

Turn-Taking in U.S. Political News Interviews

119

Table 5.2 shows that speaker changes occur 231 times in the data. Most of the speaker changes are floor-taking speaker changes (95.2%). Non-floor-taking speaker changes rarely occur (4.8%) in the data. Where then do these speaker changes start in relation to linguistic completion points? Table 5.3 shows the frequency of speaker changes (both floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes) that occur at linguistic completion points. Table 5.3 Locations of Speaker Changes at G at I at S (n=479) (n=1552) (n= 505) 164 (100%) 140 (60.6%) 140 (60.6%) 158 (71.8%) 134 (60.9%) 134 (60.9%) 6 (54.5%) 6(54.5%) 6 (54.5%)

SC (n=231) FSC (n=220) NSC (n=l 1)

at CTRP (n=445) . 140 (60.6%) 134 (60.9%) 6 (54.5%)

Table 5.3 is graphed in Chart 5.3. The darker parts in the graph indicate divergent instances between completion points and speaker changes while the lighter parts represent convergent instances. C hart 5.3 Speaker Changes and Completion Points El

Convergence

B

Divergence^

250 200

150 100

m

li

50 0

5

sc

5

5

6

FSC NSC

at G

H

134

SC FSC NSC

at I

5

SC FSC NSC

SC FSC NSC

at S

at CTRP

Table 5.3 and Chart 5.3 show that speaker changes occur slightly more frequently at grammatical completion points (71.0%) than intonational (60.6%) and semantic completion points (60.6%). Also, 60.6% of total speaker changes

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

120

take place at CTRPs. Non-floor-taking speaker changes occur rarely (11 times), half of which co-occur with completion points (54.5%).

5.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes This section examines the relationship between the three types of completion points (grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points) and speaker changes. Table 5.4 shows the numbers of completion points and CTRPs that are accompanied by speaker changes. The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of each type of completion point that co-occurs with speaker changes.

Table S.4 Completion Points (CP) and Speaker Chan2es (SC) with SCs without SCs Total CPs T~es Grammatical CPs 164(10.6%) 1388 (89.4%) 1552(100%t 479 (100%) Intonational CPs 140 (29.2%) 339 (70.8%) 365 (72.3%) 505 (100%) 140 (27.7%) Semantic CPs 140 (31.5%) 305 (68.5%) 445 (100%) CTRPs Table 5.4 is illustrated in Chart 5.4. Chart 5.4 shows the ratio of completion points 'with speaker changes' and 'without speaker changes.'

Chart S.4 Completion Points and Speaker Changes

I- With SCs • Without SCs J 2000r-----------------------------------------~

1500 1000 500

o

1.11.1

1.11.1

1.11.1

1.11.11.1

Table 5.4 and Chart 5.4 show that only 10.6% of grammatical completion points, 29.2% of intonational completion points, and 27.7% of semantic

Turn-Taking in

u.s. Political News Interviews

121

completion points are accompanied by speaker changes. In other words, very low percentages of linguistic completion points co-occur with speaker changes. Also, Table 5.4 shows that 31.5% ofCTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes. The low rate of co-occurrences between CTRPs and speaker changes indicates that CTRPs are not strong indicators of speaker changes in the data of U. S. political news interviews. Thus, there is not a strong correlation between linguistic completion points and speaker changes.

5.1.2 Qualitative Analysis The qualitative analysis explicates the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes. Chart 5.5 illustrates the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes.

Chart 5.5 CTRPs and Speaker Changes

1.3.5 1.3.5 1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5 1.3.5 1.3.5

In Chart 5.5, the entire right circle represents instances of CTRPs while the entire left circle represents speaker changes. The overlapping part between speaker changes and CTRPs indicates that speaker changes co-occur with CTRPs, resulting in smooth turn transitions. Chart 5.5 shows that there are two groups of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes; speaker changes at non-CTRPs and no speaker change at CTRPs. Thus, these are three groups of convergent and divergent cases: (1) speaker changes at CTRPs, (2) speaker changes at non-CTRPs, and (3) no speaker changes at CTRPs, are examined in the following sections.

5.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs When speaker changes occur at CTRPs, the turn-transitions take place smoothly without any overlap or intervention. The following example includes a turn transition that occurs at a CTRP. In the excerpt, the CTRP is marked with #. The point of analysis is marked with an arrow at the left side.

122

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese Moderator:

->

2 3

Reed:

Why did you think that Ross Perot would in any way shape or form ever think of supporting Bob Dole? # Because Ross Perot's a patriot, and he cannot sit by,

In this excerpt, the moderator asks a question to Mr. Reed in line 1. Responding to the question, Mr. Reed takes a turn in line 2. Mr. Reed's turn starts without any gap/overlap, and thus the tum transition from the moderator to Mr. Reed is carried out smoothly. This is an instance of a speaker change at a CTRP. As this example shows, when speaker changes occur at CTRPs, the turn transitions take place smoothly without any gap or overlap.

5.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs One group of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, i.e. speaker changes at non-CTRPs, is analyzed qualitatively in this section. The analysis of speaker changes at non-CTRPs focuses on floor-taking speaker changes at nonCTRPs. This is because the instances of non-floor-taking speaker changes rarely OCCUlTed (11 times out of 231 speaker changes) and because non-floor-taking speaker changes are not necessarily considered intrusive because of their short utterances and supportive functions. 1 The results of the data analysis show that the moderator and the political guests interrupt their interlocutors for different reasons. 2 Namely, the moderator's interruptions are motivated; (1) to control the topic, (2) to ask for clarification, or (3) to present contradicting ideas to the previous speaker's argument. Now let us consider each case in tum. First, the moderator in the data of u.s. political news interviews interrupts the political guests in order to control the topic of the interview. Excerpt 1 has an instance of speaker change at a non-CTRP in line 9. The moderator interrupts the political guest, Mr. Stephanopoulos, who has changed the topic from the moderator's question. The analysis point is marked with an arrow at the left side. [Excerpt I: Moderator's interruption: controlling topic] 1 Mod: Mr. Stephanopoulos? 2 What effect will Ross Perot have on this race? Oh he'll do the same thing he did last time. 3 Step: 4 =This will probably increase his vote over the last week. Ross Perot said it best, 5 when he said the meeting was weird and 6 inconsequential.

Turn-Taking in Us. Political News Interviews

->

7 8 9

Mod:

123

=But I can't let a lot of thesefalse charges from eer Scott Reed [go unanswered. [We're going to get into those.

In lines I and 2, the moderator asks Mr. Stephanopoulos the effect that Ross Perot has on the Presidential election. Responding to the question, in lines 3 to 6, Mr. Stephanopoulos answers that the meeting that the Republicans had with Ross Perot the previous week will increase Ross Perot's vote. In line 7, however, he changes the topic and talks about the false charges that Scott Reed has presented in the previous sequence. Notice that his topic-changing utterance starts with a discourse marker, 'but.' As soon as the moderator recognizes that Mr. Stephanopoulos digresses, the moderator interrupts him, correcting the digression in line 9, saying, "We're going to get into those." This is an example of the moderator controlling the topic, interrupting a political guest. Secondly, the moderator in the U.S. political news interviews interrupts the political guests in order to ask for clarification. In Excerpt 2, the moderator interrupts Mr. Reed in line 4, asking him a clarification question. [Excerpt 2: Moderator's interruption: asking for a clarification question] 1 Reed: Let me answer one thing Tim. 2 Because you brought up a very good point here George about Mr. Fireman, 3 and his fine that he paid this week and [that is-> 4 Mod: [This is your fmance committee vice [chairman? 5 Reed: [He was a finance committee vice chairman. In lines I to 3, Mr. Reed starts discussing Mr. Fireman. In line 4, the moderator interrupts him to ask if Mr. Fireman is the finance committee vice chairman. Responding to the moderator's question, Mr. Reed answers it positively, repeating the phrase in the moderator's question with the past tense predicate, 'He was a finance committee vice chairman.' The moderator's clarification question in line 4 is an intonation question, i.e. the sentence does not have any syntactic inversion, but the question is implemented with a rising intonational contour, indicated by a question mark. This is a confirmation seeking question, not an informationseeking question. This clarification question not only helps the moderator ascertain the information, but it also helps the TV audience understand who Mr. Fireman is. This clarification question thus helps the audience follow the interview more easily. This is an example of the moderator's interruption in

124

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

order to ask for a clarification question, not only for his own confinnation, but also for the audience's understanding. Third, the moderator interrupts the political guests in the U.S. news interviews in order to present contradicting evidence to the previous speaker's argument. In the following excerpt, in line 3, the moderator interrupts Mr. Frost, presenting evidence that opposes Mr. Frost's previous argument. [Excerpt 3: Moderator's interruption: presenting contradicting evidence] 1 Frost: I'm just saying that overwhelmingly, 2 the editorial sentiment in this country has been that he [should step down. -> 3 Mod: [Congressman Frost, 4 =let me raise something that a lot of Democrats have raised over the last couple of days, 5 that the Democrats politically are better off keeping Newt Gingrich as Speaker, Mr. Frost argues that Gingrich should resign as House Speaker because of the charges against him concerning a violation of ethics. In lines 1 and 2, Mr. Frost introduces the public opinion that Gingrich should step down. This statement serves to support his main claim that Gingrich should resign as House Speaker. Then, the moderator interrupts him in line 3, raising the question that although Mr. Frost (Democrat) insists on the House Speaker's resignation, the Democrats actually want to keep him since he has been weakened by the accusation. (If he remains House Speaker, the Democrats can gain power as a result.) Thus, the moderator's interrupting comment in line 3 functions to present an idea that contradicts Mr. Frost's preceding statement. This comment functions to stir the debate and makes the interview more entertaining, since it offers another perspective to the discussion. The political guests, on the other hand, interrupt their interlocutors for different reasons: (1) to defend their own argument, (2) to attack the opponent's argument, or (3) to refute the opponent's argument. 3 First, the political guests in the U.S. political news interviews interrupt their interlocutors in order to defend their argument, talking about themselves or members of their political party. In Excerpt 4, Mr. Frost attacks Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, in lines I to 3. Responding to his comment, Mr. Delay, who is a strong advocate for the House Speaker, interrupts Mr. Frost in lines 4 and 28 in order to present arguments that defend the House Speaker. (Lines 7 to 26 are omitted in this excerpt.) [Excerpt 4: Political guests' interruption-defending their own argument] I Frost: The public should have the opportunity to understand exactly what went on here.

Turn-Taking in

u.s. Political News Interviews

2

3 ->

4 5

Delay: Frost:

6 ->

27 28

29 30 31

Frost: Delay:

125

These charges are serious. The speaker is charged with providing false and misleading information to the Ethics committee [and which he[That's not true. which he agreed to, and the Republicans have a difficult time. Let's let him come in and set the record [straight. [That is not true Tim. =And I have to straighten this out. A lie implies that the speaker intended to-to misleadthe-the committee and the House of Representatives.

In line 4, Mr. Delay tries to take the floor and to interrupt Mr. Frost, who attacks the House Speaker, but the attempt does not succeed. In line 28, he tries it again, this time successfully. When he takes the floor in line 28, he corrects Mr. Frost's argument and explains why his comment is not true, defending the House Speaker. Thus, this excerpt shows that political guests interrupt their interlocutors in order to defend their own argument, their party or a member of the party. Secondly, the political guests in the U.S. political news interviews interrupt their interlocutors in order to attack their opponents' argument. In the following excerpt, Mr. Stephanopoulos overlaps with Mr. Reed's utterances in lines 6 and 8, attacking Bob Dole. [Excerpt 5: Politicians' interruption: attacking their opponent's argument] 1 Step: Did Bob Dole vote against the creation of Medicare in 1965. 2 Reed: Yes he did. Step: =Yes he did. 3 Did he say [he wants to eliminate the Depart4· [That doesn't mean he's for eliminating 5 Reed: [Medicare today. [Did he say he wants to eliminate the De[partment of -> 6 Step: Education? [Bob Dole's 7 Reed: plan-[Bob Dole's plan today is for Medicare to grow. [Is his plan to eliminate the Department of 8 Step: -> Education.

126

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Since Mr. Stephanopoulos works for President Clinton, and Mr. Reed for Bob Dole, Mr. Stephanopoulos attacks Bob Dole, who Mr. Reed defends in this sequence. In lines I and 3, Mr. Stephanopoulos presents the fact that Bob Dole voted against the creating of Medicare in 1965. Although Mr. Stephanopoulos' question in line 1, 'Did Bob Dole vote against the creation of Medicare in 1965' is a subject-verb inverted question, the intonation contour falls at the sentence final position, as if it were a statement. Interrupting Mr. Stephanopoulos, Mr. Reed defends Bob Dole in line 5, saying that the fact that Bob Dole voted against the creation of Medicare happened in the past. Then, Mr. Stephanopoulos, in tum, interrupts Mr. Reed in line 6 and attacks Bob Dole, presenting another fact that Bob Dole said that he wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. Mr. Reed again interrupts Mr. Stephanopoulos in line 7 and defends Bob Dole, presenting his current idea on Medicare. Mr. Stephanopoulos again attacks Bob Dole's policy on education in line 8, interrupting Mr. Reed. As this sequence shows, Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Reed overlap with or interrupt each other, attacking and defending Bob Dole respectively. Third, the political guests in the U.S. political news interviews interrupt their interlocutors in order to refute the previous speaker's argument. In Excerpt 6, Mr. Reed attacks President Clinton, introducing all the reported problems with the President. Responding to him, Mr. Stepbanopoulos refutes his argument, interrupting him in line 4. (The repetitions are underlined.) [Excerpt 6: Politicians' interruption: refuting the previous speaker's argument] I Reed: But the sheer volume of these problems, 2 =the over and over of all these [problem is overwhelming3 it's overwhelming. -> 4 Step: [Scott the sheer volume -the sheer volume of the problem is created, 5 by the Republican attacking machine over the last four years and people are sick and tired of it. In lines I to 3, Mr. Reed attacks the President by discussing the problems of the President's policy. Responding to the attack, Mr. Stephanopoulos, in line 4, overlaps with Mr. Reed and counterattacks the Republicans, repeating a part of Mr. Reed's comment. When the political guests in the U.S. political news interviews are attacked verbally, they often counterattack and refute the opponent's argument, instead of merely defending their own argument. This is a sharper form of defending, as the Japanese proverb says, 'Offense is the best defense.' In lines 4 to 5, Mr. Stephanopoulos overlaps with Mr. Reed and attacks Mr. Reed's argument, saying that the Republicans are unfairly attacking the President. Please notice the skillful way that Mr. Stephanopoulos uses

Turn-Taking in U.S. Political News Interviews

127

repetition to refute Mr. Reed. This is an example of overlap, refuting the previous speaker's argument. So far, interruption instances by the moderator and political guests have been discussed. The moderator interrupts the guests (1) to control the topic, (2) to ask for clarification, or (3) to present contradicting evidence to the previous speaker's argument. The political guests, on the other hand, interrupt their interlocutors in order (I) to defend their arguments, (2) to attack their opponent's argument, or (3) to refute the opponent's argument. These results indicate that the motivations that trigger the interruption instances differ greatly between the moderator and political guests and that the roles they play trigger the modification of the turn-taking system in the U.S. political news interviews.

5.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs Speaker changes at non-CTRPs are one group of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes. The other group of divergent instances, no speaker change at a CTRP, i.e. the same speaker continues his/her talk over a CTRP, is examined in this section. Instances of no speaker change over a CTRP in the data of U.S. political news interviews seem to be motivated differently between the moderator and political guests. The moderator continues talking over a CTRP because his question turns often have a multi-layered structure, consisting of three units: an introduction of a new topic or a response to the previous speaker's utterance, a statement, and a question. Namely, when the moderator's question tum starts a new topic, it can include an introduction of the topic, while if it occurs within a sequence of a single topic, the tum may start with a response to the previous speaker's utterance. Let us take a look at examples. First, I will discuss one type of question tum by the moderator, i.e. an introduction of a new topic, a statement, and a question. In the following excerpt, the moderator Tim Russert asks Mr. Stephanopoulos a question, which consists of a topic introduction (lines 1 to 3), a statement (lines 4 to 9), and a question (lines 10 to 13). The CTRPs of the analysis points are marked with '#'. [Excerpt 7: Moderator's continuation of talking-introduction, statement, and question] Let me go to an issue that has caused a lot ofI Mod: consternation in Democratic ranks, 2 Mr. Stephanopoulos and that's this drug dealer Jorge -> 3 Cabera.# There are the pictures released of eer Mr. Cabera, 4 at a Christmas party at the White House with Mrs. 5 Clinton,

128

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 6

7 8 9

->

10 11

12 13

and at a fund raiser and with Senator Gore-Vice President Gore excuse me, Less than a month after those photos were taken, he was arrested, for smuggling three tons-three tons-of cocaine into the United States.# How can someone with his record, and his background, get so close to the first lady and the vice president, and be rewarded for donating money to them?

In this excerpt, the moderator starts with a pre-sequence of introducing the topic (the drug dealer, Jorge Cabera) in lines 1 to 3. At the end of line 3, a CTRP appears, but he continues talking, presenting the fact that the drug dealer was arrested after taking pictures with Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore in lines 4 to 9. Then, in lines 10 to 13, he asks Mr. Stephanopoulos a question, saying, 'How can someone with his record and his background get so close to the First Lady and the Vice President and be rewarded for donating money to them?' Thus, this sequence shows that the moderator's question can consist of three units, an introduction of the topic, a statement, and a question, and each unit is separated by a CTRP. When the moderator's question tum is sequenced in the middle of a single topic, it can have a different three layered structure; a response to the previous speaker's utterance, a statement, and a question. The following excerpt is another example of a multi-unit question turn by the moderator, including a response (lines 1 to 3), a statement (lines 4 to 8) and a question (line 9). [Excerpt 8: Moderator's continuation of talking: response, statement, and question] All right, 1 Mod: 2 =Let's try to stay on-on the charges now, -> 3 confronting Speaker Gingrich.# 4 If the Democrats decide Congressman Frost, 5 =this week that they don't want to sit down, 6 with the other-there's five members, 7 they can say "No we're not going to meet this week. 8 We want to keep this going a little bit longer." # -> They can do that right? 9 In line 1, the moderator acknowledges the previous speaker's response and corrects the topic digression in lines 2 and 3. These utterances function to link this question tum to the previous speaker's utterance. In lines 4 to 8, he makes a statement about a hypothetical situation, presenting the possibility of the

Turn-Taking in U.S. Political News Interviews

129

proceeding being dragged out. Then, in line 9, he finally asks a tag question, 'They can do that, right?' which requires an answer to follow and thus links to the next speaker's utterance. This is another example where the moderator's question tum can consist of three units (a response to the previous speaker's utterance, a statement, and a question), and the moderator often keeps talking over the CTRPs that separate these units. The political guests in the U.S. political news interviews also continue talking over CTRPs; (1) to change the topic after responding to the moderator's question or (2) to elaborate their argument, making a two-layered argument of conclusion and supporting evidence. Excerpt 9 includes an example when a political guest continues talking over a CTRP, changing the topic in line 7. [Excerpt 9: Guest's continuation of talking: changing the topic] 1 Mod: Mr. Stephanopoulos? 2 What effect will Ross Perot have on this race? 3 Step: Oh he'll do the same thing he did last time. 3 =This will probably increase his vote over the last week. Ross Perot said it best, 5 when he said the meeting was weird and 7 inconsequential. # 7 -> =But I can't let a lot of these8 false charges from eer Scott Reed, [go unanswered. 9 Mod: [We're going to get into those. 10 In lines 1 to 2, the moderator assigns a tum to Mr. Stephanopoulos and asks him a question about Ross Perot and his effect on the presidential race. In lines 3 to 6, Mr. Stephanopoulos responds to the moderator's question, saying that the last week's meeting will increase the vote for Ross Perot. The pronoun 'this' in line 4 refers to the topic of the prior sequence, the meeting the Republicans had with Ross Perot in the previous week. At the end of line 6, a CTRP appears, but Mr. Stephanopoulos rushes through the CTRP to keep the floor, while changing the topic to Mr. Reed's previous comment about false allegations concerning the President. In line 10, the moderator, recognizing the topic change by Mr. Stephanopoulos, corrects the topic digression, by interrupting him and saying, "We're going to get into those." Thus, this excerpt shows that the political guests in the U.S. political news interviews keep talking over CTRPs in order to talk about another topic. Secondly, the political guests keep talking over CTRPs in order to elaborate their arguments with examples, evidences, explanations, and so forth. In the following example, Mr. Stephanopoulos keeps talking over CTRPs,

130

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

making an argument using the two layered structure, a conclusion with supportive evidence. Repetitions are underlined. [Excerpt 10: Guest's continuation of talking over CTRPs: elaborating their argument] 1 Mod: Mr. Stephanopoulos how badly does President Clinton want a Democratic Congress? He wants more Democrats in the Congress and that's 2 Step: why he's been fighting for it. # And he was proud of the fact that we voted, 3 to cut the deficit by sixty percent, 4 5 the economy is doing very well today with ten point five million new jobs, because of it.# 6 He's proud of the fact that we voted to take assault 7 weapons off the street, and started to put a hundred thousand police, 8 =on the street, 9 =he's proud of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 10 which Bob Dole tried to filibuster, 11 in-in the Senate.# 12 And this campaign is about issues.# l3 14 The reason the American people are rejecting, Senator Dole's prescription is because he's wrong on 15 the issues. # 16 He Was wrong on Medicare, he was wrong on education, 17 he's wrong on education, 18 he's wrong on family leave, 19 he's wrong on assault weapons.# 20 That's why the American people are rejecting his 21 campaign. Mr. Stephanopoulos' response consists of two arguments: the President's work (from lines 2 to 12) and Bob Dole's campaign (lines 13 to 21). The second argument is introduced with the discourse marker 'and' in line 13, which functions as a cohesive device between the two arguments. Each of these arguments has a conclusion and supportive evidence. The first argument consists of a response to the moderator's question (in line 2), which functions as the conclusion of the argument, and three pieces of evidence (in lines 3 to 12), which are linked by the repetition of the phrase, 'he was proud of in lines 3, 7 and 10.

Turn-Taking in

u.s. Political News Interviews

131

The second argument also includes a conclusion (in lines 13 to 15) and supporting evidence (lines 16 to 20), which presents five unfavorable facts about Bob Dole that are connected with the repeated phrase, 'he (Bob Dole) was wrong on. ' The conclusion is repeated in line 21. Thus, this excerpt shows that the political guests continue talking over CTRPs to elaborate their arguments that often include a conclusion and supportive evidence. 4 In this section, we have examined instances of no speaker change over CTRPs. The moderator keeps talking over CTRPs, which separate the units in his question turns into three units; an introduction of a new topic or a response to the previous speaker's utterance, a statement, and a question. The political guests, on the other hand, continue talking over CTRPs in order to change the topic or to elaborate their arguments. These instances show that the moderator and the political guests have different motivations when they continue talking over CTRPs.

5.1.3 Summary The results of the data analysis have revealed the following fmdings. The quantitative analysis shows that: (1) co-occurring points between intonational and semantic completion points are CTRPs, (2) there are few speaker changes, and non-floor-taking speaker changes are especially rare, and (3) a few CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes. These results indicate that CTRPs are not strong indicators of turn transitions in U.S. political news interviews. The qualitative results show that the moderator's interruptions are motivated: (1) to control topic, (2) to ask for clarification, or (3) to present contradicting evidence to the previous speaker's argument. The political guests, on the other hand, interrupt their interlocutors: (1) to defend their own arguments, (2) to attack their opponent's arguments, and (3) to refute their opponent's arguments. In addition, the moderator keeps talking over CTRPs because the question turns can have a three layered structure; (1) introduction of a new topic or a response to the previous speaker's utterance, (2) a statement, and (3) a question. The political guests delay their tum-transitions; (1) to change the topic, or (2) to elaborate their arguments. These qualitative results show that the roles the participants play affect realization of turn-taking in U.S. political news interviews and that the moderator and the political guests adjust the turn-taking system of political news interviews for different reasons. In particular, the political guests divert the turn-taking system in order to dispute with their opponents and to persuade the third party in argumentative ways.

5.2 CONCLUSION The system of turn-taking in U.S. political news interviews is sequenced as the moderator's question and a guest's answer, and the institutional roles that the

132

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

participants play in the political news interviews (as moderator or as political guest) affect realization of the turn-taking system. Although the tum-allocation is pre-specified and controlled by interviewers, it is modified greatly and dynamically in the process of a interview because interactional factors in the argumentative setting, especially dispute, cause unsystematicity of the turntaking system. Thus, this study suggests that the realization of turn-taking in U.S. political news interviews results from the conflicting forces between the tum-taking system of political news interviews and the interactional factors of dispute in the argumentative setting of political news interviews.

Turn-Taking in U.S. Political News Interviews

133

NOTES I

Types of non-floor-taking speaker changes are discussed in Chapter One.

2 I call the interviewees 'political guests' instead of 'politicians' since Mr. Reed and Mr. Stephanopoulos work for politicians.

J

Kruger (1960) discusses these strategies used in debate.

4 Kruger (1960) discusses the structure of argument and claims that an argument often includes one conclusion and supportive evidence.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SIX

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews

6.0. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the results of the data analysis on turn-taking in Japanese political news interviews regarding the following: (l) exploring how grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are interrelated, (2) investigating how frequently and where speaker changes occur, and (3) understanding how the conjunction points of these three types of completion points, i.e. CTRPs affect speaker changes and vice versa in the institutional setting of Japanese political news interviews. The data for this study consist of two 20 minute segments of Japanese political news interviews that were videotaped from a weekly televised program broadcast in Japan. I The segments include face-to-face interactions between one moderator and two politicians who have different ideas on current political and economic issues in Japan. The results of this study reveal that; (1) CTRPs are equal to semantic completion points in the data, (2) there is a strong correlation between CTRPs and speaker changes, especially floor-taking speaker changes, and (3) divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes reflect the roles that the participants play. This study concludes that tum-taking in Japanese political news interviews is systematically realized and that divergent cases are interactionally motivated in the argumentative setting of political news interviews.

6.1. RESULTS 6.1.1 Quantitative Analysis 6.1.1.1 Completion Points Grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are examined quantitatively in order to investigate how grammatical, intonational, and 135

136

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

semantic units relate to each other. The grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are marked in the transcribed data of Japanese political news interviews, and the numbers of each type of completion point, as well as c0occurring points of these completion points, are counted and listed in Table 6.1. The numbers in Table 6.1 show the frequencies of completion points in the data of Japanese political news interviews that last about 40 minutes. Table 6.1 i t ·Ion p. omple N um b er 0 f C omts Types of Completion Points Grammatical Completion Points (G) Intonational Com~letion Points (I) Semantic Completion Points (S) Grammatical & Intonational Completion Points (GI) Grammatical & Semantic Completion Points (GS) Intonational & Semantic Completion Points (IS) Grammatical Intonational, & Semantic Completion Points (CTRP)

No 1257 635 529 635 529 529 529

Table 6.1 is graphed in Chart 6.1 in order to compare these completion points visually. Chart 6.1 Completion Points 1400~~~---------------------------------------,

1200 1000 800

1.3.5

600 400

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

200

o

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

1.3.5

Table 6.1 and Chart 6.1 show that grammatical completion points (1257) occur far more frequently than intonational (635) or semantic completion points (529). Semantic completion points occur least frequently out of the three types of completion points.

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews

137

Table 6.1 is illustrated in Chart 6.2 in order to understand the interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points.

Chart 6.2 Relationship of Completion Points

2.4.1.4 2.4.1.4 Intonation 635 Semantics 529

2.4.1.4 2.4.1.4 2.4.1.4

Chart 6.2 shows that all of the semantic completion points (529) co-occur with intonational completion points. There are 106 intonational completion points that co-occur with grammatical completion points but not semantic completion points. Also, 622 grammatical completion points coincide with neither intonational nor semantic completion points. However, all of the intonational and semantic completion points also overlap with grammatical completion points, and all of the semantic completion points. coincide with intonational completion points. Thus, we can regard semantic completion points as CTRPs in the data of Japanese political news interviews, and we can conclude that grammatical, intonational, and semantic units are strongly interrelated, overlapping each other hannoniously.2

6.1.1.2 Speaker Changes

This section examines instances of speaker changes, focusing on how often and where they occur in the 40 minute data of Japanese political news interviews. Speaker changes are marked into two types, floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes. Each type of speaker change is counted and listed in Table 6.2. The number in parentheses indicates the frequency of each type of speaker change in the total number of speaker changes.

6.2on demonstratives ATable final note A final note on demonstratives A final note on demonstratives 2.5 .Comparative reference . A final note on demonstratives 2.5 Comparative reference 2.5 Comparative2.5reference . Comparative reference . comparison 2.5. I General comparison2.5. I General2.5. 2.5. I General comparison I General comparison 2.5.2 Particular comparison 2.5.2 Particular comparison 2.5.2 Particular comparison 2.5.2 Particular comparison

138

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Table 6.2 shows that speaker changes occur 748 times in approximately 40 minutes of Japanese political news interviews. Floor-taking and non-floor speaker changes occur with a similar frequency although floor-taking speaker changes (56.3%) occur slightly more frequently than non-floor-taking speaker changes (43.7%). Now, the points of speaker changes, i.e. where these speaker changes take place, are examined. Table 6.3 shows the locations where speaker changes, both floor-taking speaker changes and non-floor-taking speaker changes, take place. Table 6.3 includes the percentage of each type of speaker change that occurs at grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as at CTRPs.

SCs (n=748) FSC (n=42l) NSC (n=327)

Table 6.3 L oca t·Ions 0 f Sipea k er Ch anges atG at I at S (n=1257) (n=635) (n=529) 583 (77.8%) 465{62.2%) 435 (58.2%) 375 (89.1%) 360 (85.7%) 360 (85.7%) 208 (63.6%) 105 (31.8%) 75 (22.6%)

at CTRPs (n=529) 435 J55.6o/~ 360 (86.0%) 75 (16.5%)

Table 6.3 shows that speaker changes occur at grammatical completion points at a high rate (77.8%). More than half of speaker changes occur at intonational completion points (62.2%) and at semantic completion points (58.2%). In addition, 55.6% oftotal speaker changes occur at CTRPs. Table 6.3 is illustrated in Chart 6.3, which shows percentages of speaker changes (both floor-taking and non-floor-taking speaker changes) occurring at completion points.

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews

139

Chart 6.3 Speaker Changes and Completion Points [ia Convergence m Divergence

800

m

600

I

46

400 200

E,,J

3 78

S !

t

£fe'l

0 SC

FSC NSC

at G

SC

FSC NSC

at I

SC

FSC NSC

at S

SC

FSC NSC

at CTRP

Chart 6.3 shows that at every type of completion point, floor-taking speaker changes occur far more frequently than non-floor-taking speaker changes. In other words, most non-floor-taking speaker changes occur at non-completion points. The frequent occurrences of non-floor-taking speaker changes at non-completion points may result from their supportive functions.

6.1.1.3 Completion Points and Speaker Changes In this section, the relationship between completion points and speaker changes is examined in order to study how completion points singly and jointly project transition relevance places. Table 6.4 shows the numbers of co-occurring points between completion points and speaker changes. Table 6.4 also includes the percentages of completion points that are accompanied by speaker changes. Table 6.4 Completion Points (CP) and Speaker Changes (SC) Types With SCs Without SCs Total CPs Grammatical CPs 582 (46.3%) 674 (53.7%) 1257 (100%) International CPs 466 (73.4%) 170 (26.6%) 635 (100%) 94 (17.6%) Semantic CPs 435 (82.4%) 529 (100%) 529 (100%) CTRPs 435 (82.4%) 94(17.6%) Table 6.4 is illustrated in Chart 6.4, which explicates the ratio of completion points ’with speaker changes’ and 'without speaker changes.'

140

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 6.4 Completion Points and Speaker Changes a With SCs b Without SCs

1400

1200 1000

800 600 400 200

m 94

94

582

486

4m

4m

OOP

CP

SOP

CTRP

0

Table 6.4 and Chart 6.4 show that 46.3% of grammatical completion points, 73.4% of intonational completion points, and 82.4% of semantic completion points are accompanied by speaker changes. Namely, semantic completion points are more likely to be accompanied by speaker changes than grammatical or intonational completion points. Therefore, this result indicates that out of the three linguistic properties, semantics play the most important role in projecting transition-relevance places in the Japanese political news interviews. Also, since semantic completion points are equal to CTRPs in the data of Japanese political news interviews, 82.4% of CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes as well. This high rate of convergence between CTRPs and speaker changes suggests that CTRPs are strong indicators of transitionrelevance places in the Japanese political news interviews.

6.1.2 Qualitative Analysis The qualitative analysis focuses on the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes, i.e. how they are related to each other. Chart 6.5 illustrates the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes in the Japanese political news interview data.

141

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews Chart 6.S CTRPs and Speaker Changes

1.11.1

2.4.1.4

1.1

2.4.1.4

2.4.1.4 2.4.1.4 2.4.1.4

In Chart 6.5, the entire right circle represents instances of CTRPs (529) while

the entire left circle represents instances of speaker changes (748) in the data of Japanese political news interviews. The overlapping part between CTRPs and speaker changes illustrates instances of speaker changes co-occurring with CTRPs. Chart 6.5 shows that there is one group of convergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes and two groups of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes: (I) speaker changes at CTRPs, (2) speaker changes at nonCTRPs, and (3) no speaker changes at CTRPs. These three groups are discussed with examples in the following sections.

6.1.2.1 Speaker Changes at CTRPs The quantitative analysis shows that 82.4% of CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes. When speaker changes occur at CTRPs, turn-transitions are carried out smoothly. The following is an example of a speaker change occurring at a CTRP in the data of Japanese political news interviews. In the excerpt, the CTRP is marked with #. The point of analysis is marked with an arrow at the left side.

->

1

Mod:

Hashimoto san ikaga desuka?# Mr. how is-Q

2

Hash:

ano::: boku wa sa-aete sono Asahi no Katou san well I TP boldly that Asahi of Katou Mr. no: gen de, .... of words by

142

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

[Translation]

->

1 2

Mod: Hash:

Mr. Hashimoto, how do you think? I'd rather use Mr. Katou's words in The Asahi Newspaper,

In the excerpt, the moderator asks a question in line 1. Since his question is grammatically, intonationally, and semantically complete, a CTRP appears at the end, indicated by #. Responding to the moderator's question, Mr. Hashimoto answers in line 2. The turn-transition between the moderator and Mr. Hashimoto is smoothly canied out without any gap or overlap. This is an example of a speaker change at a CTRP, resulting in a smooth turn transition.

6.1.2.2 Speaker Changes at Non-CTRPs One group of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes is speaker changes at non-CTRPs. These cases result in disorderly turn transitions with overlaps and interventions. In this section, I focus on instances of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs since these can be perceived as more intrusive than non-floor-taking speaker changes. The results of the qualitative analysis show that one group of divergent cases between CTRPs and speaker changes, i.e. speaker changes at non-CTRPs, is .motivated differently depending on the role of the speaker. In other words, the moderator interrupts guest politicians for these reasons: (I) to ask questions for clarification, (2) to oppose a point in order to stir the debate, and (3) to anticipate an acknowledgment turn to control time. On the other hand, the politicians interrupt their interlocutors: (1) to express disagreement, (2) to provide evidence to support their own claim, and (3) to correct the previous speaker's utterance. Let us take a look at each motivation. First, the moderator overlaps with the guest politicians to ask for clarification in the data. In the following excerpt, the moderator starts his utterance before a CTRP in line 4, asking a guest politician, Hashimoto, a clarification question. In the sequence, the participants are discussing the privatization of 'yuusei jigyou' (postal industry). The analysis point is IIllIIked with an arrow at the left side. [Excerpt 1: Moderator's interruption: asking for a clarification question] I Hash: tada sono yuusei jigyou de, well that postal industry on 2

Koizumi san ga iwareru giron ni wa watashi wa, Mr. SP say discussion to TP I TP

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews kanarazushimo [sanseishima sen. necessarily agree Neg

3

->

4

143

[yuusei jigyou to iuno wa kono postal industry QP say TP this

Mod:

yuubin to yuubin chokin kan'ihoken postal service and postal saving postal life insurance ne?

FP 5

Hash:

haL yes

[Translation] 1

Hashimoto:

2 3

->

Well, regarding the postal industry, I do not necessarily

4

Moderator:

5

Hashimoto:

agree with [what Mr. Koizumi has said. [The postal industry refers to this postal service, postal saving service, and postal life insurance, doesn't it? Yes.

While Hashimoto expresses his disagreement to his opponent, Koizumi, in lines 1 to 3, the moderator overlaps with Hashimoto in line 4 and asks a question as to whether the word 'yuusei jigyou' (postal industry) refers to postal service, postal saving, and postal life insurance. Responding to this question, Hashimoto says 'hai' (yes) in line 5. This kind of clarification question often occurs after a moderator assigns the floor to a politician while that politician is holding the floor. This may be because the moderator wants to clarifY what seems confusing not only for himself but also for the TV audience, so both can follow the discussion easily. Second, the moderator often interrupts the political guests and presents opposing ideas to the current speaker in order to emphasize differences in opinion between the interviewees. This function is similar to what Clayman (1992:176) calls 'generating disagreement between interviewees.' This kIDd of interruption functions to stir the debate. The following excerpt includes an instance of the moderator interrupting a guest politician, Hashimoto, in line 5, by repeating Koizumi's comment. In the sequence, the participants are discussing the Japanese economy, comparing it to the time of day. Koizumi says it is night, i.e. the

144

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Japanese economy is bad and dark like the night. In contrast, his opponent Hashimoto says it is morning, i.e. the Japanese economy is going to boom. [Excerpt 2: Moderator's interruption: stirring the debate] 1 Hash: gozenchuu ni shinakya mata ikenain desu. morning at do also must PF 2

gozenchuu ni shinakya ikenai. morning at do must

3

Mod:

un. umhuh

4

Hash:

dakara sore de kono ichi nen kan ga shoubu da so that by this one year for SP important be toQP

->

5

Mod:

tada Koizumi san wa yonaka-mou yoru da to Well Mr. TP night already night be QP osshatteru. say

[Translation] 1 2 3 4

Moderator: Hashimoto:

->

Moderator:

Hashimoto:

We must rather make it 'morning.' We must make it 'morning.' Umhuh. So we have to do whatever we can do in this

year5

Well, Mr. Koizumi said that it was night and very dark.

In line 5, the moderator addresses Koizumi's idea that the Japanese economy is comparable to night, which opposes that of the current speaker, Hashimoto. After this sequence, Hashimoto, having been provoked by the moderator's utterance, starts to explain why he thinks it is still morning and denies the 'night theory.' The moderator's comment in line 5 emphasizes the difference in the opinions of the two politicians and stirs the debate. Since Japanese politicians enjoy the reputation that their political comments are very indirect and nonconfrontational (See Maynard 1994, Yokota 1994), the moderator highlights the

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews

145

differences in opinions between the guest politicians in order to make the intetview more heated and thus more interesting to the TV audience. Third, the moderator overlaps with the guest politicians with an acknowledgment token (See Schegloff 1982, Jefferson 1984). That is, after a politician responds to the moderator's question, the moderator gives him an acknowledgment token at a non-CTRP and continues talking, asking the other politician a question. The following excerpt includes an instance of a moderator overlapping with a guest politician, Miyazawa, with an acknowledgment token in line 4. In this sequence, Miyazawa explains the reason why the PKO law has passed. [Excerpt 3: Moderator's overlap: controlling time] I Miya: de souiu tsumori de, and that intention with

->

2

PKO no houritsu tte iu monowo, QP say thing OP PKO of law

3

tsukutta [to omoimasu. make QP think

4

5

[naruhodo. I see

Mod:

Ozawa san ikaga desu ka? Mr. how be Q

[Translation] I 2

Miyazawa:

3

->

4 5

Moderator:

I think we passed thePKO law [with that intention. [I see. Mr. Ozawa, how about you?

After Miyazawa answers the question about the PKO's law in lines 1 to 3, the moderator acknowledges the answer and gives a backchannel response in line 4, overlapping with Miyazawa. Then, taking away the floor from him, the moderator asks the other guest politician, Ozawa, the same question in line 5. This interruption sequence may result from the format of this kind of political news intetview, i.e. one moderator and two guest politicians. Namely, the canonical order of turn-taking sequences in this kind of political news interview in Japanese is the following; the moderator asks a politician a question, the politician responds to it, and the moderator gives an

146

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

acknowledgment token. Although the moderator's acknowledgment turns are frequently withheld, this question-answer-acknowledgment sequence can be recycled with the other politician, and the moderator often begins his acknowledgment token before the politician finishes his response. This kind of overlap and intervention may be carried out in order to save time since the time length of the program aired on TV is limited. It may also be done to control the time distribution among the guest politicians so that one politician does not monopolize the limited amount of time. With this kind of speaker change, the moderator can control the time and tum allocation indirectly, as well as speed up the pace of the interview and prevent the audience from getting bored. The politicians also start talking before CTRPs and interrupt their interlocutors. One motivation for politicians' interruptions is to disagree with the previous speaker. One example occurs in line 6 of the following excerpt. In the excerpt, the participants are discussing the government's investment in banks. One guest politician, Koizumi, complains that the investment is very disorganized; the other guest politician, Hashimoto, uses an interruption to disagree with Koizumi in line 6. [Excerpt 4: Politician's interruption: expressing disagreement] 1 Mod: chotto honto desu ka? little real be Q 2

Koiz:

honto desu. real be

3

Mod:

sono ranmyaku tte iuno wa? that reckless QP say TP

4

Koiz:

=sorya ranmyaku mo hidoi desu. well restless and awful be dakara [mesu wo so operation OP

5

->

6

Hash:

[chotto ne, little FP sore wa watashi wa ii sugi da to omoimasu. be QP think that TP I TP say too

7

8

irenakya ikan. do must

Mod:

un. um huh.

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews 9

[Translation] I 2 3 4

->

5 6 7 8 9

Hash:

147

tatoeba, for example

Modemtor: Koizumi: Modemtor: Koizumi:

Hashimoto: Modemtor: Hashimoto:

Well, is it true? It is true. that it is a reckless investment? =Yes, it is. It is awful. So [we have to reform that. [Well, I think it is not quite true. Um huh. For example,

This is a disagreement sequence that violates the tum-taking system. That is, Hashimoto violates the turn sequence of the question-response sequence and interrupts Koizumi directly in line 6. The way Hashimoto presents his argument in lines 6 and 7 is not hostile. He starts his disagreement turn with mitigation, 'chotto ne (a little)' and finishes the sentence with 'watashi wa omoimasu' (I think). After the modemtor allows Hashimoto to take a tum, indicated with the continuer 'un' in line 8, Hashimoto keeps the floor and presents an example that supports his own claim, instead of attacking Koizumi's claim. Another motivation for politicians' interruptions is to support their own claims by offering evidence. In the following excerpt, Koizumi interrupts his opponent, Hashimoto, in line 4 by providing evidence that supports his own claim. In the previous sequence, the modemtor asked Koizumi if Hashimoto had the ability to privatize the postal industry. Koizumi responded negatively, saying that Hashimoto would not be able to. Then, the modemtor asks Hashimoto for his own opinion in lines 1 to 2 of the following excerpt. While Hashimoto is responding to the question, Koizumi interrupts him in line 4. [Excerpt 5: Politician's interruption: supporting his own claim] I Mod: sou desu ka? so be Q 2

Hashimoto san? Mr.

148

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

3

Hash:

sou naru ka douka yarasete mite[itadakitai to so become Q if do let please QP omoimasu. think

->

4

Koiz:

[ima made juu nen now by 10 years kan sou deshita. for so was

[Translation] I 2 3 -> 4

Moderator: Hashimoto: Koizumi:

Is that right? Mr. Hashimoto? Let me do the job to see if I [can do it. [He couldn't privatize it (the postal industry) for the last ten years.

In line 4, Koizumi reminds his interlocutors and the audience of the fact that even though Hashimoto has been in the position where he could privatize the postal industry, he has not been able to initiate the reform in the last ten years. This utterance serves to support his previous claim that Hashimoto would not be able to privatize the postal industry. Koizumi's interrupting utterance that serves to support his own claim may also suggest that Japanese politicians' arguments have a two layered structure; a claim and evidence to support that claim. Namely, Koizumi's claim that Hashimoto would not be able to privatize the postal industry is followed by a past incident, saying that 'He couldn't privatize it in the last ten years.' Kruger (1960: 110) claims that argument in English debate consists of a conclusion (or inference) and supporting evidence. Japanese politicians also use the same argument structure in order to make a point and present opinions. Finally, politicians often interrupt their interlocutors in order to correct the previous speaker's utterance. The following excerpt includes an instance of a politician correcting the previous speaker's utterance in line 3. The participants are discussing the privatization of the postal industry. Koizumi advocates the privatization, while Hashimoto disagrees with him. Koizumi sarcastically says that it is great progress for a politician in the Liberal Democratic party, like Hashimoto, to be able to articulate his own idea about the postal industry's privatization, since it has been a taboo subject in the party. Hashimoto then interrupts Koizumi, correcting him in line 3.

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews

149

[Excerpt 6: Politician's interruption: correcting the previous speaker's utterance] 1 Koiz: aQ sore wa taihenna shimpo desu yo. oh that TP great progress be FP ima[made no jimintou seijika ni kurabere ba. now by of democratic politician with compare if

2

->

3

Hash:

[Translation] I 2

Koizumi:

->

Hashimoto:

3

[iya iya mae kara itteru koto desu yo. no no before from say thing be FP

Oh, that is great progress. compared [with former politicians in the Liberal Democmtic party. [No, no, I have been saying that for a long time.

In line 3, Hashimoto interrupts and corrects Koizumi's utterance, saying that he has been expressing his own idea about the postal industry's privatization for a long time. As this example shows, compared with disagreement (e.g. 'Well I think it is not quite true,' in Excerpt 4), correcting the previous speaker's utterance is carried out in a more direct manner with fewer mitigation devices. For example, Hashimoto's interrupting tum in line 3, 'No, no, I have been saying that for a long time,' begins with a strong negation word 'iya (no),' which is repeated. This direct correction can be done because Hashimoto is talking about his own past. Since he knows more about it than Koizumi or anyone else, he has authority over what he is saying. The sentence final particle 'yo,' which is employed when the addresser assumes that helshe has more information than the addressee (Maynard 1993: 193), confIrms this analysis. Thus, a correcting utterance that refers to the 'truth' of the utterance can be implemented more directly than a disagreeing utterance that concerns 'right-wrong' and is more subjective. In summary, the interrupting instances show the roles that each participant plays in political news interviews. Since the moderator is responsible for making the discussion easy to follow as well as interesting to watch, he interrupts politicians to ask for clarifIcation or to oppose an idea in order to stir the debate. Also, to prevent the interview from moving too slowly, to distribute the time fairly to each guest, and/or to control the time and tum allocation, the modemtor anticipates responses. Thus, instances of overlaps and interruptions show that the modemtor simultaneously plays the clarifIer, the debate-facilitator, and the time-keeper. On the other hand, when the politicians interrupt or overlap with each other, they play the roles of presenter and persuader, expressing their own claims

150

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

and attempting to persuade not only their interlocutors but also the TV audience. They correct the previous speaker's utterances or disagree with the previous speaker, interrupting their interlocutors to present their own ideas eagerly but politely. In order to support their own claims, they offer evidence in the fonn of examples or past incidents. These instances show that the typical tum-taking patterns in Japanese political news interviews can often be diverted for interactional and situational reasons. This is especially true with respect to the roles that each participant plays in the institutional setting of political news interviews, i.e. moderators as clarifiers, debate-facilitators, and time-keepers, and guest politicians as defenders, presenters, and persuaders.

6.1.2.3 No Speaker Changes at CTRPs Speaker changes at non-CTRPs are one group of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes. The other kind of divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes is no speaker changes at CTRPs, i.e. the same speaker continues his/her talk over a CTRP. In this section, the instances of no speaker changes over a CTRP are examined qualitatively, as to why speaker changes do not occur at some CTRPs, i.e. why the same speaker continues talking over a CTRP. The reason why the same speaker continues over a CTRP seems to depend on the roles that each participant plays in the political news interview. Namely, the moderator keeps talking over CTRPs; (1) to give a backcbannel to one politician and ask the other a question and (2) to elabomte upon his own questions. Politicians continue talking over CTRPs to elabomte their claims by giving supportive evidence in the fonn of reasons, examples, and explanations. Now, let us examine each instance. First, the modemtor in the data of Japanese political news interviews gives a backchannel response to one politician to acknowledge his response and then asks the other politician a question, continuing his talk over a CTRP. The following is an example of the modemtor acknowledging a politician's response in line 2 and asking the other politician the same question in line 3. Prior to the sequence, the guest politician, Koizumi, compared the Japanese current economy to the weather. The analysis p~int of the CTRP is marked with '#'. [Excerpt 7: Moderator's giving backchannel and asking a question] I Koiz: makkum ni nacchau. to become dark 2

Mod:

attu naruhodo. # oh I see

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews ->

Hashimoto san ikaga desu ka? Mr. how be Q

3

[Translation] I 2 -> 3

151

Koizumi: Moderator:

It (Japanese economy) will be very dark. Oh, I see. # How about you, Mr. Hashimoto?

In line 2, the moderator acknowledges Koizumi's response, and then a CTRP appears. However, he continues talking over the CTRP, asking the other politician, Hashimoto, the same question in line 3. In the data, after a politician responds to the moderator's question, the moderator acknowledges it, ending a turn sequence of the moderator's question, the politician's response, and the moderator's acknowledgement. The moderator then allocates a turn to the other politician, which opens another turn sequence. A CTRP appears between the two tum sequences of the moderator's acknowledgment and a question to the other politician. Thus, the moderator's acknowledgment and subsequent question over a CTRP can function to connect one turn sequence with another. Secondly, the moderator continues his talk over a CTRP when his question tum includes another question or statement and becomes a multi-unit question turn. Let us take a look at an example. The following sequence occurs when a guest politician, Koizumi, responds to the moderator's question in line 1. [Excerpt 8: Moderator's multi: unit turn question] 1 Koiz: yame-yannakat tara kakumeitekina henka ni nari stop- without if revolutionary change to be masen. Neg 2

->

3

Mod:

Hashimoto san do Mr. how

deshou? # be

=kore yaranakat tara nihon no keizai yokunara this without if Japan of economy improve nai to iun desu ga, Neg QP say be SP

[Translation] I 2

Koizumi: Moderator:

Ifwe don't do it (the reform), it (the Japanese economy) will not improve drastically. Mr. Hashimoto, how about you?#

152 ->

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese =He is saying that the Japanese economy won't improve without the reform,

3

The moderator's turn in lines 2 and 3 consists of a question (in line 2) and a statement (in line 3), which elaborates upon the preceding question. Namely, after the question in line 2, there is a CTRP, where the moderator can stop and yield the floor to the other guest politician, Hashimoto. The moderator, however, continues his talk, making a statement in line 3. This statement specifies the topic of the preceding question, which is an open-ended question and does not afford much response control. Thus, Excerpt 8 shows that the moderator keeps talking across the CTRP in order to elaborate on his question in line 2; this additional statement results in expanding his question turn. One interesting thing in this sequence is what Schegloff (1996) calls 'rush-through,' that is, at the end of the question in line 2, the moderator speeds up his talk to the beginning of line 3 (as indicated by the sign '='). This rushthrough shows the moderator's intention of further talk and helps him secure the floor. Mr. Hashimoto could have taken his tum and started his talk after the moderator's question in line 2 since the moderator specifically assigns him a turn in line 2 and since the moderator's assignment coincides with the end of grammatical, intonational, and semantic units. In order to keep the floor and secure his turn, the moderator rushes through the CTRP, so that he can successfully continue his turn, elaborating upon the question. Not only the moderator but also the politicians keep the floor over CTRPs, but their motivations are different from those of the moderator. The politicians keep talking over a CTRP in the Japanese political news interviews in order to elaborate their own claims; they give supportive evidence, so that their claim becomes more persuasive. The following excerpt includes an instance where a guest politician, Koizumi, continues his talk over a CTRP in order to present supportive evidence for his own claim. Prior to this sequence, the participants were discussing the postal reform. In line 2, the moderator asks Koizumi if he thinks that Hashimoto would be able to reform the postal industry. Koizumi answers the question and continues his talk from line 3, although there is a CTRP at the end of line 2. [Excerpt 9: Politicians' elaborating claim] 1 Mod: soko wa Hashimoto san wa oyarininari sou desu ka? that TP Mr. TP do look be Q 2

Koiz:

imano mamadat tara deki nai desu ne.# present situation if can Neg be FP

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews ->

3

153

imma made itta koto nannenkan juu suu now by say-past thing how-many-years 10 some nenkan yatte kite, years do has

4

aQ ziseitou yuushi seido ga hitsuyou desu, oh politics-invest-10an system SP necessary be

5

yuusei san jigyou wa yakunin ga yara postal 3 enterprise TP official SP do nakyaikemasen, must

6 [TranslationJ 1

->

2 3

4 5

6

onaji ketsuron desu yo. same conclusion be FP

Moderator: Koizumi:

Will Mr. Hashimoto be able to do that (the reform)? He can't do that in the present situation. # What he has said-how many years-about 10 years-he has been saying this, "Well, we need a fmancial investment system, the government officers have to control the three postal industries," there will be no change.

In this excerpt, Koizumi responds negatively to the moderator's question and expresses distrust in Hashimoto's ability to conduct a successful postal reform. In order to reinforce this claim, Koizumi continues over the CTRP at the end of line 2 and quotes Hashimoto's previous comments on the postal reform as supporting evidence. Then in line 6, he concludes that Hashimoto will not be able to establish the reform in the future, either. Therefore, this excerpt shows that although Koizumi could have yielded the turn after the CTRP in line 2 (since an answer-response sequence is complete), he instead continues his talk and presents evidence that supports his claim. In addition, this sequence shows two interesting points about turntaking sequences in Japanese political news interviews. When Koizumi responds to the moderator's question in line 2, he expresses a negative opinion of Mr. Hashimoto. This is a dispreferred sequence (Pomerantz 1984), which is followed

154

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

by Koizumi's explanation and supportive evidence. A dispreferred sequence of this kind, i.e. a negative response to a question, is often followed by some kind of explanation such as a reason, an example, or evidence that justifies or supports the negative response. Thus, this sequence suggests that giving an explanation for a dispreferred sequence is a preferred sequence from a tum-taking viewpoint, i.e. explanation tum slots occur frequently after dispreferred sequences. Secondly, although Koizumi's response in line 2 can be viewed as a completion of an adjacency pair (question-answer), no interlocutor takes a tum there. Rather, there seems to be a consensus among the participants that Koizumi will talk further. This may relate to neutrality in tum allocation of political news interviews, i.e. both politicians may be assigned approximately equal time to talk in order to insure fairness. If this is the case, the floor belongs to Koizumi from line 2 since he is assigned the floor via the moderator's question in line 1. Thus, tum-allocation between the two guest politicians seems to be implemented impartially, and all the participants seem to agree to this framework that dictates who has the right/obligation to talk and for how long. They collaborate with each other to keep the fairness working regarding tum allocation as if they share the same schema of the unspoken but unanimous rules in Japanese political news interviews. In other words, the tum allocation of political news interviews are established harmoniously, and the participants are expected to (or agree to) conform to the system of tum-taking in the institutional setting. Therefore, the instances of no speaker changes over CTRPs show that the moderator continues his talk over the CTRPs in order to give an acknowledgment token to a politician and then ask the other politician a question. These CTRPs are the places that the moderator finishes one tum sequence of question-response-acknowledgment and opens another. Also, the moderator keeps his tum over a CTRP in order to elaborate his question with another question or statement. As for the politicians, they continue talking over CTRPs in order to elaborate upon their own claims, presenting evidence, examples, or explanations that support these assertions. This elaboration is used to make their claims more persuasive. These instances of no speaker changes over CTRPs reflect the roles that participants play, i.e. moderators as tumallocaters and questioners and politicians as persuaders.

6.1.3 Summary The results of the quantitative analysis reveal the following findings. First, CTRPs correspond to semantic completion points in the context of Japanese political news interviews. Second, floor-taking speaker changes take place at CTRPs at a high rate. Third, CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes at a

Turn-Taking in Japanese Political News Interviews

155

high rate. These results indicate that there is a strong correlation between CTRPs and speaker changes. The qualitative analysis shows that: (1) speaker changes at CTRPs are carried out smoothly, (2) speaker changes at non-CTRPs are motivated by the roles that the participants play in the interviews, i.e. moderators play the roles of clarifier, debate-facilitator, and time-keeper, whereas politicians play the roles of defender, presenter and persuader, and (3) the cases of no speaker changes at CTRPs also reflect the participants' roles in the institutional settings of Japanese political news interviews, i.e. moderators as turn-allocaters and questioners and politicians as persuaders.

6.2 CONCLUSION There is a strong interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic units as well as a strong correlation between CTRPs and speaker changes in the tum sequences of Japanese political news interviews. This correlation between CTRPs and speaker changes indicates that tum-taking in Japanese political news interviews is systematically realized, and there seems to be consensus among the participants to follow the tum-taking system. Divergent instances between CTRPs and speaker changes show interactional work, i.e. the roles of the participants affect the divergent cases of the systematic turn sequences. Therefore, we can conclude that tum-taking in Japanese political news interviews is systematically realized, and unsystematic instances are triggered by situational and interactional factors of political news interviews.

156

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

NOTES I Political news interviews are employed for this study since they have been studied within the framework of conversation analysis (e.g. Clayman 1993, Greatbatch 1988, Schegloff 1988-89) and since they presumably have a great number of interruption instances due to the argumentative setting.

2 Chart 6.2 shows that there are three different types of completion points; (1) grammatical completion points only, (2) grammatical and intonational, but not semantic completion points, and (3) grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points (=CTRPs). These completion points are discussed in Chapter Four with examples.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Completion Points

7.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter examines grammatical, intonational, and semantic units for the purpose of exploring how three linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) interrelated. The results of the data analysis are compared quantitatively in the four data sets; the English conversation, the Japanese conversation, the U.S. political news interviews, and the Japanese political news interviews. Since the recorded data of the conversations last approximately 20 minutes while the data of the political news interviews last about 40 minutes, the quantitative numerical results in the political news interviews are divided in two to make the four data sets comparable. This chapter presents the number of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points in the four data sets and discusses the interrelationships of these types of completion points. However, since there are great differences in frequencies of reactive tokens in the four data sets, the data are re-analyzed excluding reactive tokens in the following section. The results show that all of the four data sets have far more grammatical completion points than intonational or semantic completion points and that the data of the same language have similar interrelationships of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points regardless of whether reactive tokens are taken into consideration. Furthermore, when reactive tokens are not counted, the frequency of completion points in all data sets (except the U.S. political news interviews) decreases greatly since these data sets have a great number of reactive tokens. This result indicates that the frequency of reactive tokens can greatly affect the frequency of grammatical, intonational, and semantic units.

157

158

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

7.1 COMPLETION POINTS The number of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs in each data set are compared in order to understand how frequently these types of completion points occur in the data of the English conversation (US CNV), the Japanese conversation (J CNV), the U.S. political news interviews (US PNI), and the Japanese political news interviews (J PNI). Chart 7.1 illustrates the frequency of grammatical (G), intonational (I), and semantic (S) completion points as well as CTRPs in the four data sets.

Chart 7.1 Completion Points 1.1

1.1

1.11.1

2000~----------------------------------------~

1500+------------------------

115,. .1 1.1

1.1 1000+-~-----------~---------

500

o

1.1 1.1 1.1

USCNV

1.1 1.1 1.1

JCNV

1.1 1.1 1.1

USPNI

1.1 1.1 1.1

J PNI

Chart 7.1 shows that the data in the same language have a similar pattern regarding frequency of completion points. Namely, the English conversation and the U.S. political news interviews have the highest frequency of grammatical completion points, followed by semantic completion points, and then by intonational completion points. Notably, in the English data, grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points. The Japanese data, both the Japanese conversation and the Japanese political news interviews, have the highest frequency of grammatical completion points, followed by intonational completion points, and then by semantic completion points. These results are summarized in (I). (1) Completion Points English:

Japanese:

English conversation U.S. political News Interviews Grammar>Semantics>Intonation Japanese conversation Japanese political news interviews Grammar>Intonation>Semantics

Completion Points

159

Chart 7.1 shows that the Japanese data have a larger number of CTRPs than the English counterparts. Namely, CTRPs occur more frequently in the Japanese conversation (649 times, to be exact) than in the U.S. English conversation (345) and in the Japanese political news interviews (265) than in the U.S. political news interviews (223). These results are summarized in (2). (2) CTRPs: Japanese data> English data Japanese conversation> English conversation Japanese political news interviews >U.S. political news interviews As for the setting differences, Chart 7.1 shows that the data of conversations have a larger number of CTRPs than those of political news interviews in both English and Japanese. Namely, CTRPs occur more frequently in the English conversation (345) than in the U.S. political news interviews (223), and in the Japanese conversation (649) than in the Japanese political news interviews (265). The frequency of CTRPs in the data of conversations and political news interviews is compared in (3). (3) CTRPs: Conversation data> Political News Interview data English conversation> U.S. political news interviews Japanese conversation> Japanese political news interviews Comparing the four data sets, CTRPs take place most frequently in the Japanese conversation, followed by the English conversation, the Japanese political news interviews third, and the U.S. political news interviews last. The hierarchy of the four data sets regarding frequency ofCTRPs is presented in (4). (4) CTRPs Japanese English Japanese political U.S. political conversation > conversation > news interviews > news interviews In order to understand how each type of completion point relates to the others in each data set, the overlapping parts among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points are depicted in Chart 7.2. Each circle represents one type of completion point. The proportion of overlapping parts as well as the size of the circles roughly correspond to the frequency of the completion points that they represent.

160

Turn- Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 7.2: Grammar (G), Intonation (I), and Semantics (S)

137P

345

SA48

US Conversation

1721

649

Japanese Conversation

12401

223

3253

US Political News Interviews

B649

13 111

265

B265

Japanese Political News Interviews

Chart 7.2 shows that the data of the same language have similar interrelationships among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points. That is, in the English data, all of the intonational and semantic completion points co-occur with grammatical completion points, and thus, overlapping points between intonational and semantic completion points are considered CTRPs. In the Japanese data, on the other hand, semantic completion points always co-occur with intonational completion points, which also coincide with grammatical completion points (except 11 intonational completion points in the Japanese conversation data). In other words, the three types of completion points in the Japanese data sets are harmoniously interrelated. These results indicate that grammar, intonation, and semantics are related in a similar way within the data from each language, and this makes sense since the ways in which these linguistic properties are employed are unique to each language.

161

Completion Points

7.2 COMPLETION POINTS WITHOUT REACTIVE TOKENS The previous section has shown that the Japanese data contain a much larger number of completion points and CTRPs than the English counterparts. The great number of CTRPs in the Japanese data seem to result from frequent occurrences of reactive tokens, especially backchannel responses. Since reactive tokens are grammatically, intonationally, and semantically complete in general, frequent occurrences of reactive tokens in the Japanese data increase the number of completion points as well as CTRPs. Therefore, because of the great differences in frequency of reactive tokens in English and Japanese (See Maynard 1986, Clancy et al. 1996), completion points are re-analyzed excluding reactive tokens. Chart 7.3 demonstrates the frequency of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs in each data set without reactive tokens.

Chart 7.3 Completion Points without Reactive Tokens [IIIGBI cS cCTRP

I

1000 800

1.1

1.1

600 400 200

1.1 1.1

1.1

1.1

0 USCNV

1.1 1.1 1.1

J CNV

1.1 1.1

1.1 1.1

USPNI

1.1

1.1 1.1

J PNI

Chart 7.3 shows that even when reactive tokens are not included, grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points in every data set. Especially in the English data sets, grammatical completion points take place far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points. This result may relate to one of the criteria of grammatical completion points, increments, as well as frequent instances of singly developed floor, where the sentences are divided by neither intonational nor semantic completion points, but only by grammatical completion points. For example, in the following excerpt, which comes from the English conversation data set, there are many grammatical completion points (marked by

162

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

'I'), but no intonational (marlred by'.' or '?') or semantic (marked by'>') completion points since the sequence is a part of semantic unit, a longer talk. Also, the excerpt has an instance of increment in line 2. In the excerpt, Lynn is talking about her mother and sister-in-law, who is Brazilian. [Excerpt I: Frequent grammatical completion points] 1 Lynn: the wife is Brazilian,! 2 So they're going home I to visit her family,1 3 And she's not gonna know the language,! 4 And she's been umS She is very nervous,! The sentence in line 2, "So they're going home I to visit her family,I" has an increment, 'to visit her family,' which is added to a well-fonned grammatical unit. As this example shows, since grammatical completion points are designated incrementally, grammatical completion points tend to take place more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points. Excerpt 1 also shows that singly developed floor often results in a great number of grammatical completion points but fewer intonational and semantic completion points. Namely, the excerpt above has five grammatical completion points, but no intonational or semantic completion points. When a tum is sequenced as a narrative or a multi-unit tum that is connected with continuous intonational contour (marked by',' or ',?'), a number of grammatical completion points appear but only a few intonational or semantic completion points take place. The data sets of political news interviews have more singly developed floors than the conversation data sets since the tum allocation is pre-specified by the moderator. This may be the reason that the data sets of political news interviews in both English and Japanese, in comparison with the conversation data sets, have a much larger number of grammatical completion points than any other types of completion points. In addition, the u.S. data sets, when compared with their Japanese counterparts, have far more grammatical completion points than intonational or semantic completion points. This may result from the syntactic structures of the two languages. That is, the Japanese language places the predicate at the end of the sentence, while English places the predicate next to the external argument in a canonical word order sentence. Because of these syntactic structures increments occur relatively infrequently in Japanese, while English sentences can have numerous increments, adding various words and phrases incrementally. These increments can increase the number of grammatical completion points in the English data sets. Next, Chart 7.3 shows that the English data reveals that grammatical completion points occur most often, semantic completion points next, and

Completion Points

163

intonational completion points last. In contrast, in the Japanese data, grammatical completion points occur most frequently, then intonational completion points, followed by semantic completion points. The order of completion points in the English and Japanese data is summarized in (5). (5) Completion points without reactive tokens English: English conversation U.S. political News Interviews Grammar>Semantics>/ntonation Japanese: Japanese conversation Japanese political news interviews Grammar>/ntonation>Semantics Charts (1) and (5) show that the frequency of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points is ordered in the same way with or without reactive tokens. This result indicates that reactive tokens do not affect the order of frequencies of the three completion points in English or Japanese. Thirdly, Chart 7.3 shows that the number of CTRPs decreases in frequency, beginning with the Japanese conversation, followed by the U.S. political news interviews, the English conversation, and finally the Japanese political news interviews. We can summarize the hierarchy of frequency of CTRPs in (6). (6) CTRPs without reactive tokens Japanese U.S. political English Japanese political conversation> news interviews> conversation> news interviews Chart (6) shows that the U.S. political news interviews have the second largest number of CTRPs, next to the Japanese conversation without reactive tokens, although the U.S. political news interview data set has the fewest CTRPs out of the four data sets when reactive tokens are included (See (4». Since the U.S. political news interviews have only a few reactive tokens, the number of completion points as well as CTRPs remains similar with or without counting reactive tokens, while the number of CTRPs in the other data sets decreases when reactive tokens are not included. Let us examine the interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points without reactive tokens. Chart 7.4 depicts the interrelationship in each data set.

164

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 7.4: Completion Points Without Reactive Tokens 1.11.1

1.1 1.1

1.11.1

1.1

1.11.1

US Conversation

1.11.1

1.11.1

Japanese Conversation

1.1.1

US Political News Interviews

1.1 1.1

1.11.1

1.1

1.1 1.1

1.1

1.11.1

Japanese Political News Interviews

Chart 7.4 shows that the circles of the Japanese data sets become much smaller without reactive tokens. Also, Chart 7.4 shows, as in Chart 7.2, that the data in the same language have similar interrelationships among grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points. lbat is, in the English conversation and U.S. political news interviews, all of the intonational and semantic completion points co-occur with grammatical completion points, and the overlapping points between intonational and semantic completion points are considered CTRPs. On the other hand, in the Japanese data, i.e. the Japanese conversation and the Japanese political news interviews, since semantic completion points always coincide with grammatical and intonational completion points, they are considered CTRPs. Therefore, there is no great difference in terms of interrelationship among grammatical, intonational, and semantic units whether reactive tokens are taken into consideration or not.

Completion Points

165

7.3 SUMMARY This chapter has compared the frequency of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs in each data set. We can swnmarize the results in the following three points. First, in all data sets, grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points regardless of whether reactive tokens are taken into consideration. The English data sets that have many increments, and the political news interview data, which are fonned mainly with a singly developed floor, have a relatively larger number of grammatical completion points than their Japanese counterparts. Secondly, the interrelationship among the three types of completion points is similar in each data set with or without reactive tokens, and the data of the same language have similar interrelationships among grammatical, intonational, and semantic units. Since these completion points are linguistic properties, they are interrelated in similar ways in the data of the same language. Thirdly, when we exclude reactive tokens, the frequency of completion points as well as CTRPs decreases in all the data sets except the U.S. political news interviews. The numbers of completion points especially in the Japanese data sets decrease greatly. This result indicates that the frequency of reactive tokens can affect the occurrence of completion points as well as the number of CTRPs.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER EIGHT

Speaker Changes

8.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter compares the occurrences of speaker changes in the four data sets: the English conversation, the Japanese conversation, the U.S. political news interviews, and the Japanese political news interviews, in order to explore how role exchanges (speaker-hearer roles) and floor management are realized in interaction. The occurrences of speaker changes are first categorized into non-floortaking speaker changes and floor-taking speaker changes. Then, each type is further divided into six types, according to the functions and onset places. The categorization of speaker changes is discussed in the first section of this chapter, and the quantitative analysis of all speaker changes is presented in the next section.} The instances of non-floor-taking speaker changes and floor-taking speaker changes are discussed qualitatively in the following sections in turn. The results show that I) speaker changes occur more frequently in the English data than in the Japanese data and more in the conversations than in the political news interviews, 2) non-floor-taking speaker changes occur far more frequently in the Japanese data sets than in the English data sets and more in the conversations than in the political news interviews, 3) floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the political news interviews are caused more by disaffiliative utterances and result in more overlaps than those in the conversations. In conclusion, role exchange and floor management are realized differently in each data set, and linguistic and cultural as well as situational and interactional factors greatly and dynamically affect the instances of speaker changes.

167

168

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

8.1 CATEGORIZATION OF SPEAKER CHANGES The occurrences of speaker changes are categorized into12 types in this study, according to the functions and locations. The categorization is summarized in the figure below.

Figure 8.1 Speaker Changes

NSC

I

SC

-

"'-...

1) backchannel 2) reactive expression 3) repetition 4) collaborative finish 5) laughter 6) short statement

FSC

/~ at non-CTRP /", / ' 2) overlap overlap 1) non-overlap intervention

"----I

atCTRP

I -...........

positive negative

~,/

3) affiJiative

4) disaffiJiative

positive

/

5) affiJiative

negative

I

6) disaffiliative

According to Figure 8.1, all speaker changes are classified into two types; nonfloor-taking speaker changes, reactive tokens, and floor taking speaker changes. The non-floor-taking speaker changes are further divided into six types; 1) backchannel, 2) reactive expression, 3) repetition, 4) collaborative finish, 5) laughter, and 6) short statement. 2 Floor-taking speaker changes are first divided into two types, depending on their locations: (1) floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs and (2) floortaking speaker changes at non-CTRPs. The floor-taking speaker changes that occur at CTRPs can be either smooth tum transitions or overlap tum transitions, depending on whether one single person takes the next tum or more than one person does so, respectively. Floor-taking speaker changes that occur at non-CTRPs are identified as either overlaps or interventions (See Marki-Tsilipalou 1994): If one speaker drops before reaching any linguistic completion point (such as a grammatical, intonational, or semantic completion point), they are considered interventions. If the overlapping speakers keep talking at least to one type of linguistic completion point and does not yield the tum immediately, the simultaneous talk is considered an overlap. Both overlaps and interventions are categorized as either affiliative or disaffiliative instances, depending on the function of the unsmooth

Speaker Changes

169

tum-transition utterance. The disaffiliative instances include dispreferred second pair parts such as corrections and disagreements while affiliative ones include preferred second pair parts such as agreements. Therefore, floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are classified into four types; affiliative overlaps, disaffiliative overlaps, affiliative interventions, and disaffiliative interventions (The disaffiliative interventions of unsmooth tum-transitions are often considered interruptions'). Based on this categorization, the following section presents quantitative results on speaker changes in the four data sets.

8.2 OVERALL SPEAKER CHANGES The number of speaker changes taking place in each data set is compared in Chart 8.1. In the chart, floor-taking speaker changes are differentiated from nonfloor-taking speaker changes. FSC stands for floor-taking speaker changes, and NSC stands for non-floor-taking speaker changes. Please note that each data set lasts 20 minutes. Chart 8.1 Overall Speaker Changes [h FSC h NFC

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

25

px

364

0 USCNV

JPNCNV

t TP

210

USPNI

JPN PNI

Chart 8.1 shows that the English data have a fewer number of total speaker changes than the Japanese data. That is, the U.S. conversation (436 times) has a smaller number of speaker changes than the Japanese conversation (727), and the U.S. political news interviews (116) have a smaller number than the Japanese political news interviews (374). The larger numbers of speaker changes in the Japanese data are attributed to the frequent occurrences of reactive tokens, especially backchannels, which increase not only non-floor-taking speaker changes, but also floor-taking speaker changes. This is because every utterance

170

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

after a non-floor-taking speaker change is counted as a floor-taking turn, even if it is a part of a long talk by the primary floor-holder. As for setting differences, the data of conversations have more speaker changes than political news interviews. Since turns are pre-specified in the political news interviews, turn transitions do not occur as freely as in the data of conversations, and this tum allocation decreases the number of speaker changes in the data of political news interviews. The hierarchy in frequency of speaker changes (SC), both floor-taking speaker changes (FSC) and non-floor-taking speaker changes (NSC), in the four data sets are summarized in (1).

(1) All SC Japanese English Japanese political U.S. political conversation> conversation> news interviews> news interviews FSC Japanese English Japanese political U.S. political conversation> conversation> news interviews> news interviews NSC Japanese English Japanese political U.S. political conversation> conversation> news interviews> news interviews

In the following sections, the occurrences of non-floor-taking speaker changes and floor-taking speaker changes are discussed separately. The discussions concern the frequency, function, and locations of speaker changes.

8.3 NON-FLO OR-TAKING SPEAKER CHANGES Clancy et al. (1996) claim that reactive tokens include backchannels, reactive expressions, collaborative fmishes, repetitions, and resumptive openers. This study, however, regards backchannels, reactive expressions, collaborative finishes, repetitions, laughter, and short statements as reactive tokens.3 Now let us examine what kinds of reactive tokens take place and how frequently they occur in each data set. In order to visually compare the frequency of each type of reactive token in each data set, the numbers are illustrated in Chart 8.2. BC represents backchannels, RE reactive expressions, CF collaborative finishes, RP repetitions, LT laughter, and SS short statements.

171

Speaker Changes

Chart 8.2 Tyeps of Reactive Tokens 'aOCaREaCFaRPaLTaSS ,

300 250 200

1.1

1.1

150 100 50 0

1.1 1.1

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

USCNV

1.1 1.1 1.1

1.1

JPNCNV

o1.12

1.10 31.10

0

USPNI

1.1

,

1.1

..

1.1

JPN PNI

Chart 8.2 shows that the Japanese data, both Japanese conversation and the Japanese political news interviews, have a greater number of reactive tokens than their English counterparts, the English conversation and the U.S. political news interviews. Namely, there are 547 reactive tokens in the Japanese data (i.e. 184 reactive tokens in Japanese political news interviews and 363 in the Japanese conversation) and 191 in the English data (i.e. 185 in the English conversation and 6 in the U.S. political news interviews). In particular, backchannels (represented by 'BC' in Chart 8.2) take place very frequently in the Japanese data sets. On the other hand, the English data have relatively large numbers of reactive expressions (represented by 'RE'). This result may indicate that the Japanese people tend to express their listenership verbally by giving backchannels while Americans do so with reactive expressions. Regarding the setting differences, the conversation data have a larger number of reactive tokens than the political news interviews data. In particular, the U.S. political news interview data have few reactive tokens and no backchannels. This difference between the conversation data and political news interview data may result from not only the fact that the participants tend to withhold reactive tokens in the political news interviews, but also the gender of the participants in these data sets, i.e. all the participants are female in the conversations versus all male in the political news interviews (See Maltz and Borker 1982). Now let us examine the locations of non-floor-taking speaker changes. Clancy et a1. (1996) focus on grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs when examining the location of reactive tokens and find that reactive tokens in Japanese conversation occur at grammatical completion points at a low rate while, in English conversation,

172

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

reactive tokens occur at grammatical completion points as well as CTRPs at a high rate. This study also examines how frequently speaker changes co-occur with grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs. However, in addition to these completion points, this study also examines how frequently reactive tokens occur at the end of intonational units (IUs).4 This is because the data of this study include frequent instances of reactive tokens that start at the end of intonational units. Also, since reactive tokens are short listener responses, reactive tokens that occur at the end of intonational units do not result in overlapping, but rather smooth turntransitions despite the fact that they occur at non-CTRPs. The following are examples of reactive tokens that occur at the end ofIUs. [Excerpt I: Non-floor-taking speaker changes at IV] [English] I Lynn: Wouldn't you feel sort of embarrassed or strange like, 2 Val: -> um. [Japanese] 1 -> 2 [translation] 1 2 ->

Ham: Miki:

tatoeba::, un un un.

Ham: Miki:

for example, um huh um huh.

Since there are often perceivable pauses for inbreath after IUs, reactive tokens that occur at the end ofIUs can result in smooth tum-transitions. Therefore, this study includes intonational units when examining the location of non-floortaking speaker changes. Table 8.1 shows the frequency of reactive tokens that take place at completion points as well as at the end of IUs. Also, the table includes the percentages of reactive tokens that take place at these points.

Table 8.1 Onset Places of Reactive Tokens

G I S CTRP IU

USCNV (n=185) 133 71.9% 109 58.9% 45.9% 85 85 45.9% 74.6% 138

JCNV (n=363) 304 83.7% 244 67.2% 53.7% 195 195 53.7% 82.1% 298

USPNI (n=6) 4 66.7% 66.7% 4 4 4 4

66.7% 66.7% 66.7%

JPNI (n= 164) 32.9% 54 65.9% 108 23.8% 39 23.8% 39 84.4% 138

173

Speaker Changes

Table 8.1. shows that reactive tokens take place at grammatical completion points at high rates in both English and Japanese conversation data sets but at a low rate in the Japanese political news interviews. Non-floor-taking speaker changes in all data sets occur at IUs at high rates. To be exact, 74.6% of nonfloor-taking speaker changes in the English conversation, 82.1 % in the Japanese conversation, 66.7% in the u.s. political news interviews, and 84.4% in the Japanese political news interviews occur at IUs. This result shows that IUs can be a strong indicator of the onset places of non-floor-taking speaker changes. 5

8.4 FLOOR-TAKING SPEAKER CHANGES This section examines the instances of floor-taking speaker changes. First, floortaking speaker changes are divided into two types, depending on where they take place: (l) those that occur at CTRPs, and (2) those that occur at non-CTRPs. Chart 8.4 illustrates the proportion of floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs and at non-CTRPs in each data set.

Chart 8.3 Floor-taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs

--.------.----J

II At CTRPs • At Non-CTRPs ~

----------------

400r-----------------------------------------~

300 +---------------200

1.1

100

1.11.1

o

1.1 1.1 1.1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

USCNV

JPNCNV

USPNI

JPN PNI

Chart 8.3 shows that floor-taking speaker changes co-occur at CTRPs at high rates in the four data sets, i.e. 66.5% of floor-taking speaker changes in the English conversation, 81.6% in the Japanese conversation, 60.9% in the U.S. political news interviews, and 85.4% in the Japanese political news interviews coincide with CTRPs. In particular, the Japanese data have higher rates of cooccurrences between floor-taking speaker changes and CTRPs than their English counterparts.

174

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

8.4.1 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs In general, the floor-taking speaker c~ges that occur at CTRPs are smoothly carried out. That is, when one person takes a tum at a CTRP, the tum-transition takes place smoothly without any gap or overlap. The following are excerpts that have co-occurrences of speaker changes and CTRPs. The CTRP is marked with '#'. The point of analysis is marked with an arrow at the left side. [English] I 2

Val: Lynn:

So how are you these days.# Pretty good,

[Japanese] I

Kei:

Fumi san te doko kara dakke?# Ms QP where from is Where are you from, Fumi?

->

Fumi:

Kagawa ken. prefecture (rm from) Kagawa-prefecture.

->

2

In these examples, the speaker changes occur smoothly at CTRPs. However, there are cases where more than one person takes a tum at a CTRP simultaneously because there are at least three participants in all the data sets. The following excerpts include these instances. [English] Lynn: Val: Liz:

It is fun.#

[Japanese] I -> 2 -> 3

Miki: Ham: Kei:

a::: soudesuka.# [un watashi no haha to kyoudai. [hatokotte eigo dattara nan nandarou?

[translation] I -> 2 -> 3

Miki: Ham: Kei:

Oh is that right. [Yes, he is a brother of my mother. [What does 'second cousin' mean in English?

-> ->

I 2 3

4 S

[I bet he loves what he's doing[And you love politics andpart of your job is, reading about politics,

175

Speaker Changes

These examples show that turn-transitions at CTRPs can result in overlaps if more than one person can select themselves to be the next speaker. However, these cases rarely occur in the four data sets. The following chart illustrates the number of floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs, both smooth and overlapping speaker changes.

Chart 8.4 Floor-taking Speaker Changes at CTRPs ~ SC • Overlap s~l 1.1 500~--------------~------------------------~

400

t-------------~

300

-1---,-,,---1.1

200 100

o

1.1 1.1

1.1

USCNV

1.1

1.1

JPNCNV

USPNI

1.1

JPN PNI

Chart 8.4 shows that only a few instances of simultaneous talk at CTRPs take place in the four data sets, i.e. 7.5% of floor-taking speaker changes occur in the English conversation, 3.5% in the Japanese conversation, 1.4% in the U.S. political news interviews, and 0% in the Japanese political news interviews. Specifically, in the data of political news interviews, simultaneous floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs rarely occur. Since turns are assigned by the moderator in the political news interviews, it is unlikely that more than one participant selects herself as the next speaker simultaneously in the political news interviews.

8.4.2 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at NonCTRPs

When floor-taking speaker changes occur at non-CTRPs, they result in overlaps and interventions. The study by Marki-Tsilipakou (1994) differentiates overlaps from interventions, i.e. overlaps are simultaneous instances of speech while interventions occur when one speaker stops immediately before reaching any grammatical, intonational, or semantic completion point). The following are examples of overlaps and interventions with floor-taking speaker changes that occur at non-CTRPs in the English and Japanese conversations.

176

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

[Overlap: Floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRP] [English] I you just couldn't believe [what he said, Liz: [What he was saying wasLynn: -> 2 [Japanese] I -> 2 [translation] I -> 2

Ham: Fumi:

sugoi [tte iukoto naide shoo [nanka datte tomodachi de nanka ne,

Ham: Fumi:

It is [not 'great' or anything. [Well because you had a friend,

[Intervention: Floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRP] [English] I Liz: it's an important function, but [but[and the secretary is very important, Lynn: 2 -> [Japanese] I -> 2 [translation] 1 -> 2:

Fumi: Miki:

are Ichikawashi tte Ka[na[Chibaken.

Fumi: Miki:

Oh Ichikawa-city is in Ka[na[Chiba-prefecture.

As these examples show, when one speaker yields hislher tum immediately, the simultaneous utterances are short, and these instances are considered interventions. Then, how often do overlaps and interventions appear in the four data sets? The following chart shows the proportion of overlaps and interventions in floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs.

177

Speaker Changes

Chart 8.5 Overlaps and Interventions ~ II Overlap III Intervention ~~~-----.--~----~-.--

~.

-----~-~--.".----

100-r---·------·----------,·------------,--·-----------, 80 60 40 20

o

1.1 1.1 1.1

1.1

USCNV

JPNCNV

1.1 1.1

1.1 1.1

USPNI

JPN PNI

Chart 8.5 shows that the political news interview data have a larger number of overlaps than interventions, compared with the data of conversations. Specifically, overlaps occur at higher rates in the data of U.S. political news interviews (72.5%) and Japanese political news interviews (54.0%) than in the data of the English conversation (34.1 %) and Japanese conversation (31.8%). In particular, the U.S. political news interviews have very frequent occurrences of overlaps in floor-taking tum transitions at non-CTRPs. This result indicates that the participants in the political news interviews do not drop immediately in the case of simultaneous talk. In other words, the high frequency of overlaps in the political news interviews results from the interaction in the argumentative setting in which the participants often struggle to take or keep the floor. Next, the floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs (i.e. overlaps and interventions) are marked as either affiliative or disaffiliative ones, i.e. if the utterance has a positive function, such as agreement, it is considered an affiliative overlap or affiliative intervention, while if it has a negative function such as disagreement, it is categorized as a disaffiliative overlap or disaffiliative intervention. Therefore, floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are classified into four types: (1) affiliative overlaps, (2) disaffiliative overlaps, (3) affiliative interventions, and (4) disaffiliative interventions (or 'interruptions,).6 The following chart shows the frequencies of these four types of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in each data set. In the chart, + signs represent affiliative instances while - signs represent disaffiliative ones.

178

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Chart 8.6 Affiliative and Disaffiliative Overlaps and Interventions ,_ Overlap- _ Inervention- a Overlap+ a Intervention+ , 100~------------------------------------------, 80T--r~~,-----------------------------------1

60

'----_I", ""

40

20 oL-~--L-

__--. .~__-

USCNV

JPNCNV

USPNI

JPNPNI

Chart 8.6 shows that the conversation data have the higher rate of affiliative instances than the data of political news interviews. Namely, 98.2% of floortaking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the English conversation and 88.6% in the Japanese are affiliative while only 32.5% of the u.s. political news interviews and 66.7% of the Japanese political news interviews are affiliative. That is, the data of political news interviews have more frequent occurrences of disaffiliative instances than their counterparts. Although the Japanese political news interviews have a relatively high rate of affiliative unsmooth tumtransitions, the U.S. political news interviews have a very low rate. This result suggests that the conversations in both English and Japanese are carried out in collaborative ways while the political news interviews, especially the U. S. political news interviews, are implemented argumentatively with frequent instances of disaffiliative overlaps and interventions.

8.5 SUMMARY

This chapter has examined the occurrences of speaker changes in the four data sets. The occurrences of speaker changes are categorized into non-floor-taking speaker changes and floor-taking speaker changes, and then these types of speaker changes are further categorized into 12 types, depending on the kinds and locations. Due to frequent occurrences of reactive tokens, the Japanese data have a higher number of overall speaker changes than their English counterparts. Also, the conversation data sets have a higher number of overall speaker changes than the political news interviews have, where the tum allocation is pre-specified by the moderators. As for non-floor-taking speaker changes, the results have revealed that they occur more frequently in the Japanese data than in the English data. Also,

Speaker Changes

179

the data of conversations have more occurrences of non-floor-taking speaker changes than the data of political news interviews. Second, the kinds of nonfloor-taking speaker changes that occur in each data set differ. The Japanese data have a large number of backchannels whereas the English data have relatively frequent occurrences of reactive expressions. Also, the conversation data have a larger number of non-floor-taking speaker changes than the political news interview data, where all the participants are male and reactive tokens are often withheld. Third, non-floor-taking speaker changes in the four data sets occur at IUs at high rates. Therefore, the kinds and frequencies of non-flo or-taking speaker changes in each data set differ, but intonation units seem to play an important role to project the onset points of non-floor-taking speaker changes in the four data sets. Floor-taking speaker changes are first categorized into floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs and floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs. The floor-taking speaker changes can be smooth tum transitions if one single person takes the tum, or overlapping tum transitions if more than one person takes the tum. Overlapping instances at CTRPs rarely occur in the four data sets, especially in the political news interviews, because of pre-specified tumallocations in the institutional setting. Floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are categorized into overlaps and interventions. The overlaps and interventions are, then, classified into affiliative and disaffiliative instances. The data of political news interviews have a larger number of overlaps as well as disaffiliative instances, compared with the data of conversations. This result indicates that the political news interviews are carried out argumentatively, while the conversations take place collaboratively. In conclusion, speaker changes are realized differently in the four data sets, and various factors, i.e. linguistic, cultural, situational and interactional factors, seem to dynamically affect the realization of role exchanges and floor management.

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

180

NOTES I Since the recorded data of the u.S. and Japanese political news interviews last approximately 40 minutes each, while the English and Japanese conversations last about 20 minutes, the quantitative numerical results from the political news interviews are divided in two to make all sets of data comparable.

2

Reactive tokens are explained with examples in Chapter One.

3

This is based on the quantitative work of this study.

4 Please note that intonational units are segments that are divided by noticeable pauses, and the intonational contours of the units are marked in four different ways, '.' for final contour, '?' for rising contour, ',' for continuing contour, and ',?' for continuing but rising contour. Final and rising contours are considered to indicate intonational completion points.

Certain types of reactive tokens, such as collaborative finishes, do not coincide with any grammatical, intonational, or semantic completion points or IUs. This type of reactive token decreases the frequency of non-floor-taking speaker changes at these points. S

6 The differentiation between affiliative and disaffiliative functions follows the discussion by Marki-Tsilipakou (1994) in many respects.

CHAPTER NINE

Completion Points and Speaker Changes

9.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the relationship between completion points and speaker changes in the data of English conversation, Japanese conversation, U.S. political news interviews, and Japanese political news interviews for the pwpose of determining how three linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) relate to speaker changes. In particular, this chapter aims to understand how grammar, intonation, and semantics singly and jointly project the points of speaker changes in the four data sets. The data are analyzed to examine the relationship between the linguistic completion points and speaker changes. However, since :frequencies of reactive tokens (i.e. non-flo or-taking speaker changes) differ greatly in the four data sets, the data are re-analyzed, focusing on the relationship between linguistic completion points, without taking reactive tokens and floor-taking speaker changes into consideration. The results of the data analysis show that grammatical completion points are not accompanied by speaker changes as much as intonational or semantic completion points and that the linguistic completion points project speaker changes at low rates in every data set if we exclude the element of reactive tokens. Therefore, linguistic completion points have a strong correlation with non-floor-taking speaker changes, but not with floor-taking speaker changes.

9.1 COMPLETION POINTS AND CHANGES

SPEAKER

This section explores how grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points singly and jointly project the points of speaker changes by studying how

181

182

Turn-taking in English and Japanese

frequently these linguistic completion points are accompanied by speaker changes. First, in order to examine how grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points singly project points of speaker changes, the number of these linguistic completion points that are accompanied by speaker changes is graphed in Chart 9.1.

Chart 9.1 Completion Points and Speaker Changes

III With SC II Without SC I 1000~----------------------------------------~

800 600 400 200

o G

S

[US CNV]

G

S

[JPN CNV]

G

S

[US PNI]

G

S

[JPN PNI]

Chart 9.1 shows that the number of linguistic completion points that are accompanied by speaker changes differs greatly in the four data sets. For example, in the U.S. political news interviews, all types of linguistic completion points provoke speaker changes at very low rates, while the Japanese conversation has all types of linguistic completion points accompanied by speaker changes at high rates. It seems that the conversation data have higher rates of completion points accompanied by speaker changes than the political news interviews, and the Japanese data have more than the English data. In addition, Chart 9.1 shows that, in all data sets, grammatical completion points are accompanied by speaker changes less frequently than intonational or semantic completion points since they occur far more frequently. Now let us examine the relationship between CTRPs and speaker changes in each data set in order to understand how grammar, intonation, and semantics jointly predict the points of speaker changes. Chart 9.2 depicts the numbers of CTRPs that are accompanied with speaker changes in each data set.

183

Completion Points and Speaker Changes

Chart 9.2 CTRPs with Speaker Changes ~ With SC • wrth~~C ] 700~------------------------------------------~

600 -.----------------500 t------------~ 400 +-------------------300 200 1.1 100

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

o

USCNV

JCNV

USPNI

1.1

J PNI

Compared with Chart 9.1, Chart 9.2 shows that CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes more frequently than each type of completion point in all the data sets. In other words, completion points seem to jointly, rather than singly, project the transition relevance places. Also, in the Japanese data sets, CTRPs are accompanied by speaker changes more frequently than in their English counterparts, i.e., 82.3% of CTRPs in the Japanese political news interviews and 70.6% in the Japanese conversation are accompanied with speaker changes in comparison with 69.9% in the English conversation and 31.4% in the U.S. political news interviews. In other words, all the data except the U.S. political news interviews have high rates of CTRPs with speaker changes. This may be attributed to the frequency of reactive tokens. Since most reactive tokens are grammatically, intonationally, and semantically complete, speaker changes that occur at the end of reactive tokens are considered speaker changes at CTRPs. The frequent occurrences of reactive tokens, therefore, increase not just the number of speaker changes at CTRPs but also the total number of speaker changes as a whole.

9.2 COMPLETION POINTS AND SPEAKER CHANGES WITHOUT REACTIVE TOKENS

The discussion in the previous section suggests that frequencies of reactive tokens affect the proportion of completion points that are accompanied by speaker changes. This section, therefore, discusses the relationship between completion points and speaker changes, excluding the occurrences of reactive tokens (i.e. non-floor-taking speaker changes). The following chart demonstrates the grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points that are

184

Turn-taking in English and Japanese

accompanied by floor-taking speaker changes. The numbers of these linguistic completion points do not include the occurrences of reactive tokens.

Chart 9.3 CPs without Reactive Tokens and Floor-taking SCs 1l1li With FSC l1li Without FSC I 1000~--------------------------------------------------~ 800+-------------------------------------------~

600 400 200

o

G

S

[US CNV]

G

S

[JPN CNV]

G

S

[US PNI]

G

S

[JPN PNI]

Chart 9.3 shows that when we do not take reactive tokens into consideration, the frequencies of linguistic completion points that are accompanied by floor-taking speaker changes become low in each of the four. data sets. This result indicates that each type of completion point does not have as strong a relationship with floor-taking speaker changes as with non-floor-taking speaker changes. In addition, since grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points in every data set, a great number of grammatical completion points are not accompanied by floor-taking speaker changes. Now, let us examine the relationship between CTRPs (without reactive tokens) and floor-taking speaker changes. The following chart shows the number of CTRPs (without reactive tokens) that are accompanied with floor-taking speaker changes in each data set. In the chart, the darker parts represent CTRPs (without reactive tokens) that coincide with floor-taking speaker changes while the lighter parts represent those without floor-taking speaker changes.

185

Completion Points and Speaker Changes Chart 9.4

CTRPs without Reactive Tokens and Floor-taking SCs

riiIWl-------1 ~ith FSC ~Without FSC

300 250 200 150 100· 50 0

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

USCNV

JPNCNV

USPNI

JPN PNI

The four data sets have similar percentages of CTRPs (without reactive tokens) that are accompanied by floor-taking speaker changes, i.e. 29.2% of CTRPs in the English conversation, 28.9% ofCTRPs in the Japanese conversation, 28.9% of CTRPs in the U.S. political news interviews, and 36.4% of CTRPs in the Japanese political news interviews are accompanied by floor-taking speaker changes. In other words, when we do not count reactive tokens, the frequency of CTRPs that co-occur with floor-taking speaker changes decreases greatly. This result suggests that CTRPs and speaker changes do not have a strong correlation without reactive tokens taken into consideration.

9.3 SUMMARY

This chapter discusses the relationship between completion points and speaker changes in the four data sets in order to understand how grammar, intonation, and semantics singly and jointly project points of speaker changes. First, the data are analyzed including reactive tokens (i.e. non-floor-taking speaker changes). However, because of the great differences in frequencies of reactive tokens in each data set, the data are re-analyzed without reactive tokens. The results of the data analysis show that: (1) since grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational or semantic completion points, they are accompanied by both overall speaker changes and floor-taking speaker changes at very low rates, and (2) all completion points as well as CTRPs become less frequently accompanied with speaker changes if we exclude reactive tokens. Therefore, this chapter shows that linguistic properties, i.e. grammar, intonation, and semantics, strongly project the points of non-floor-taking speaker changes, but not of floor-taking speaker changes.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER TEN

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

10.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to compare tum-taking in U.S. English data with that in Japanese data in order to understand how linguistic factors affect turntaking. In addition, since language usage reflects culture, we can comprehend cultural influences on tum-taking by comparing the English and Japanese data. First, the data of English and Japanese conversations are compared. Then, the data of U.S. and Japanese political news interviews are discussed. The results show that the data of the same language have certain similarities: (1) the Japanese data have more frequent occurrences of backchannels than their English counterparts, (2) the English data have floor-taking speaker changes at nonCTRPs at higher rates than their Japanese counterparts, and (3) intonational features are manipulated to ensure the speaker the floor right in the English data, whereas floor-holders in the Japanese data employ collaborative strategies to invite backchannels from the interlocutors. These differences are discussed from linguistic and cultural viewpoints. In conclusion, the English and Japanese data have different turn-taking patterns, and this result shows that linguistic and cultural factors play important roles in the realization of tum-taking.

10.1 CONVERSATIONS IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE

This section compares the English conversation data with the Japanese conversation data to determine how role exchanges (speaker-listener roles) and floor management are negotiated in single person floor, collaborative floor, and the transition from collaborative floor to single person floor. Therefore, this section consists of three discussions on these floor types. 1

10.1.1 Single Person Floor One of the striking differences between the English and Japanese conversations is the frequency of reactive tokens, especially backchannel responses. That is, the

187

188

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

data of Japanese conversation has far more frequent occurrences of backchannel responses than the English conversation (242 backchannels occur in the Japanese conversation while 48 occur in the English conversation). The different frequencies of backchannels are especially observed in single person floor in the two data sets. Let us examine an example of single person floor in the data of Japanese conversation, in which a number of backchannel responses take place. The following excerpt includes Kei's talk about her experience on a newspaper. In the excerpt, grammatical completion points are marked with 'I', intonational completion points with '?' or '.', and semantic completion points with '>'. CTRPs are marked with '#'. The lines with backchannels are marked with arrows on the left side. [Excerpt 1: Single person floor in Japanese conversation] 1 Kei: watashi mo ano undergraduate no toki ni,/ I too well of when at 2

chotto shinbun ni nottano ne,?1 little newspaper on be FP

3

=shashin made denakattan dakedo,l picture even appear·Neg although

->

4

Fumi:

un./># umhuh

->

5

Ham:

un./># un umhuh umhuh

6

Kei:

international student no campus life mita[inakanjide,l of like

7

Fumi:

8

Kei:

sono nakano hitori dattan dakedo,! that among one was but

9

(?):

un./># urn hum.

10

Kei:

ma: ano zutto interview ga denwa de atte ne,?1 well well long SP phone by be FP

->

->

[un un./># umum

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

->

11

(?)

un.!># urn huh

12

Ken:

dee tatoeba ano doushite America ni kitanda and example well why to came

189

te kikarerujanai?/># QP listen right

->

13

(?):

un.l># urn huh.

->

14

(?):

un un.l># urn huh urn huh.

Kei:

When I was undergraduate,! I was on a school newspaper, too,?/ =Although the article did not have a picture of me,! Urn huh.l># Urn huh.l># It is like 'campus life of international [students,'/ [Urn huh.l># and I was one of them,! Urn huh.l># Well I was interviewed by phone,?/ Urn huh.l># and for example, I was asked why I come to the US, right?/># Urn huh.!># Urn huh./>#

[Translation] 1 2 3 -> 4 -> 5 6 -> 7 8 -> 9 10 -> 11 12 -> ->

13 14

Fumi: Haru: Kei: Fumi: Kei: (?): Kei: (?): Kei: (?): (?):

This is an example of single person floor in the Japanese conversation, in which Kei holds the floor while the other interlocutors listen to her. Notice that while Kei is holding the floor, Fumi and Haru give backchannel responses to Kei frequently. Since backchannel responses are considered grammatically and semantically complete, and since most backchannel responses are intonationally complete (they generally occur with falling intonation contours), frequent occurrences of backchannel responses can contribute to a large number of completion points as well as CTRPs in the Japanese conversation. Also, this excerpt shows that most of the backchannels are placed at the end of intonational units, rhythmically filling the gap between Kei's utterances. Thus, backchannels frequently take place in single person floor in the Japanese conversation, and

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

190

they are rhythmically produced, hannoniously collaborating with the utterances of the primary floor holder. The English conversation, on the other hand, has fewer occurrences of backchannel responses in single person floor. Excerpt 2 is an example of single person floor in the data of English conversation, in which only a few backchannels appear. Preceding this sequence, the participants were discussing good titles that companies give out to their employees in order to make them feel confident. Then, the primary floor holder, Lynn, talks about her mother, who does secretarial work, but is called an administrative assistant. [Excerpt 2: Single person I Lynn: 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

->

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

Val: Lynn:

Liz: Lynn:

floor in English conversation] Yeah my mother is umwell she always calls herself secretary,/ but now she is an administrative assistant,! now she's moved to Washington,! and gotten a job downtown.! She is an administrative assistant,! which is she is doing the same thing,! but-umthey are giving all of them title-new titles,! promotions to be, coordinator?/> # [Urn.!> # [=1 think it's called co-um(.) yeah coordinators,! they are giving all the secretaries, or all the assistants, are becoming, many are becoming coordinators'!> # [That's not certain[=But their jobs're not gonna change,! but they are just giving them better titles.!> # What, I thought this was kinda strange,! I thought.!> #

In this excerpt, while Lynn keeps the floor, the interlocutors, Val and Liz, rarely verbalize their listenership with backchannel responses (except Val's backchannel in line 12, which functions as an answer to Lynn's question in the previous line). Since backchannel responses are, in general, grammatically, intonationally, and semantically complete, the rare occurrences of backchannels in the English conversation data decrease the number of grammatical,

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

191

intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs. For example, Excerpt 2 includes 12 grammatical completion points, but only 6 intonational completion points, 5 semantic completion points, and 5 CTRPs. Therefore, this excerpt shows that backchannel responses are withheld in single person floor in the English conversation and that this rare occurrence of backcbannels results in fewer completion points and speaker changes in the English conversation than in the Japanese conversation.

10.1.2 Collaborative Floor Another noticeable difference in tum-taking between the English and Japanese conversations is the frequency of floor-taking speaker changes that coincide with CTRPs. Namely, 81.6% of floor-taking speaker changes take place at CTRPs in the Japanese conversation while 66.5% of these speaker changes take place at CTRPs in the English conversation (See 8.3). In other words, the data set of English conversation has a larger number of overlaps and interventions than that of the Japanese conversation. In the data of the 20 minute English conversation, 79 instances of floor-taking speaker changes occur at non-CTRPs (27 overlaps and 52 interventions) while 44 floor-taking speaker changes take place at nonCTRPs in the 20 minute Japanese conversation (14 overlaps and 30 interventions). This section explores the reasons why this difference in overlaps and interventions takes place in the two data sets. We can observe different occurrences of floor-taking speaker changes in collaborative floor in each data set. The English conversation has a greater number of speaker changes at non-CTRPs in collaborative floor than the Japanese conversation. Let us examine examples in the two data sets. The following excerpt is an instance of collaborative floor in the English conversation data, where floor-taking speaker changes occur frequently. In the excerpt, the participants discuss Steve Forbes, who was on the Letterman show the previous night. [Excerpt 3: Collaborative floor in English conversation] 1 Liz: Dh I tried to stay up last night to watch him on Letterman, Lynn: Yeah he was on David Letterman.# 2 -> 3 Val: Hewas?# Lynn: Steve Forbes, 4 5 Val: Hahaha.# Lynn: He did such a good job, 6 -> Liz: Dh I wish I was quick, 7 they had [what his name8 Lynn: [We taped it, -> 9 [we (inaudible) 10 Val: [Did [hahaha-> 11

192 ->

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 12 13

Liz:

[That-that Rosanne guy, what was his name?

In line 2, Lynn jumps into Liz's utterance, which is not intonationally complete. In line 7, Liz jumps into Lynn, but Lynn resumes her talk in line 9, overlapping with Liz's utterance in line 8. Val overlaps with Lynn in line 11, but is also overlapped by Liz in line 12. These turns of overlaps and interventions are set out before CTRPs, and the participants in the conversation show their active participation by overlapping with each other collaboratively. The participants in the English conversation anticipate their utterances before CTRPs and participate collaboratively in the conversation. These frequent instances of overlaps and interventions decrease not only the number of CTRPs but also co-occurrences of floor-taking speaker changes and CTRPs in the English conversation data set (i.e. smooth tum-transitions). The Japanese conversation, on the other hand, has frequent occurrences of floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs in collaborative floor. The following excerpt includes an example of collaborative floor in the Japanese conversation in which CTRPs and speaker changes co-occur at a high rate. In the excerpt, the participants are discussing their hometowns in Japan. [Excerpt 4: Collaborative floor in Japanese conversation] 1 Kei: Fumi san doko kara dakke? # Ms. where from be 2

Fumi:

Kagawa ken. # prefecture

3

Kei:

Kagawa ken ka.# prefecture Q

4

Fumi:

Kyuushuu?#

5

Kei:

sottu,! right

6

watashi Fukuoka. # I

7

Ham:

aQ sounan da. # oh right be

8

Kei:

uuun. # umhuh

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 9 [Translation] I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ham:

demo zenzen wakan nai. # but at all know Neg

Kei: Fumi: Kei: Fumi: Kei:

Fumi, where (are you) from? # (I'm from) Kagawa prefecture. # Oh, Kagawa prefecture. # (Are you from) Kyuushuu? # (That's) right, (I'm from) Fukuoka-city.# Oh, is that right. # Um huh. # But I can't tell. #

Ham: Kei: Ham:

193

In the excerpt, most of the CTRPs co-occur with speaker changes. The frequent co-occurrences of CTRPs and speaker changes increase floor-taking speaker changes at CTRPs as well as the number of CTRPs, which appear eight times in the excerpt. Therefore, floor-taking speaker changes occur at CTRPs at a high rate in collaborative floor, resulting in more smooth tum-transitions and fewer overlaps and interventions in the Japanese conversation.

10.1.3 Collaborative Floor to Single Person Floor

This section discusses the ways in which floor is managed in the English and Japanese conversations, focusing on the transition from collaborative floor to single person floor as well as the way in which the speakers establish themselves as the primary floor holders. When the participants in the Japanese conversation self-select themselves as the next speaker and hold the floor, they tend to invite the interlocutors' backchannels by using questions and sentence final particles that function to establish a collaborative relationship with the interlocutors. The following excerpt from the Japanese conversation includes instances of these collaborative devices. In the excerpt, the questions and sentence final particles are boldfaced, and the lines with these devices are indicated by arrows at the left side. [Excerpt 5: Collaborative floor to single person floor in Japanese conversation] 1 Kei: watashi mo ano undergraduate no toki ni, I too well of when at

->

2

chotto shinbun ni nottano ne,? little newspaper on be FP

194

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

3

->

->

=shashin made denakatta n dakedo, picture even appear Neg although

4

Fumi:

un. urn huh

5

Haru:

un un. urn huh umhuh

6

Kei:

international student no campus life mita[inakanjide, of like

7

Fumi:

8

Kei:

sono nakano hitori dat tan dakedo, that among one be past but

9

(?):

un. urn hum.

10

Kei:

maa ano zutto interview ga denwa de atte De,? well well long SP phone by be FP

11

(?)

un. urn huh

12

Ken:

dee tatoeha ano doushite America ni kitanda te and example well why to came QP

[un un. urn urn

kikareru jaDai? listen right 13

(?):

un. um huh.

14

(?):

un un. urn huh urn huh.

Kei:

When I was undergraduate, I was on a school newspaper, too (De),? =A1though the article did not have a picture of me, Urn huh.

[Translation] 1 -> 2 3 4

Fumi:

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

-> ->

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ham: Kei: Fumi: Kei: (?): Kei: (?): Kei:

13 14

(?): (?):

195

Urn huh. It is like 'campus life of international students,' Urn huh. and I was one of them, Urn huh. Well I was interviewed by phone (ne),? Urn huh. and for example, I was asked why I come to the U.S., right? Urn huh. Urn huh.

The primary floor holder, Kei, uses the sentence particle 'ne' in lines 2 and 10 and a tag question 'janai' in line 12. Cook (1990) states that the sentence final particle 'ne' is a positive politeness strategy to create a cooperative relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor. Notice that when the sentence final particle 'ne' appears (in lines 2 and 10), sentence final contours are rising but not as much as regular questions (marked by',?'). This intonational contour indicates that they function as quasi-questions, inviting backchannel responses (but not real answers) from the interlocutors. Maynard (1986) lists functions of backchannels in Japanese called aizuchi: (1) continuer, (2) display of understanding of content, (3) support and empathy toward the speaker, (4) agreement, and (5) strong emotional response. The primary speakers invite backchannels to gain the acknowledgments of listening, understanding, agreeing, and/or approving of being the floor-holder. Therefore, sentence final particles and tag questions in Japanese function as the first pair part of the adjacency pair, i.e. quasi-question, which requires the second pair part, i.e. a backchannel, to follow. These collaborative devices help the speaker establish single person floor and obtain endorsement of the floor holding right as well as attention from the interlocutors. The participants in the English conversation, on the other hand, tend to speed up their talk and delay intonational completion points until they secure the floor at the beginning of single person floor. In the following excerpt, Lynn self-selects herself as the next speaker in line 5 and delays an intonational completion point until line 8. [Excerpt 6: Collaborative floor to single person floor in English conversation] 1 Liz: Wow, 2 so you should really just have like grits and scrambled eggs and3 (.) 4 Val: [Hahahahaha. -> 5 Lynn: [I have a friend who,

196 -> -> ->

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

6 7 8 9 10

she is not married, but she's-she's forty three, and she's still hoping to get married. I hope she does, but she has planned her wedding, ....

In Excerpt 6, after Liz's talk in line 2, a perceivable pause appears. Then, Val and Lynn simultaneously take turns, although their turns are different. Val give a reactive token, laughter, while Lynn takes a floor-taking tum and starts talking about a fiiend of hers. When Lynn self-selects herself as the next speaker in line 5, the floor formation changes from collaborative floor to single person floor, and Lynn gains the right to hold the floor by continuing her talk without any intonational completion points from lines 5 to 8. By the time the intonational completion point occurs in line 8, she has already established the speaker-listener roles, i.e. she as the primary speaker and the interlocutors as the listeners. Furthermore, at the beginning of single person floor, the participants in the English conversation try to take the floor by manipulating intonational features. The following example includes an instance in which grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points do not coincide. The participants are discussing morning wedding ceremonies. [Excerpt 7: Intonational features in English conversation] -> 1 Val: so they're having a breakfast,! -> 2 which is different,!> -> 3 =maybe there's another-> 4 (.) 5 wedding that afternoon.!> 6 Lynn: [Maybe.!> 7 Val: rUm, 9 and maybe that's part of10 they need to be out / at a certain time,! This excerpt occurs at the beginning of single person floor, where the role of the primary speaker is still negotiable and thus the floor right is vulnerable (Erickson 1988). At the end of line 1 in Val's utterance, a grammatical completion point appears, but the intonational unit has a continuing intonational contour, which is marked by','. At the end of line 2, grammatical and semantic completion points, but not intonational completion points appear, and Val rushes through the point, marked by '='. Then, she takes a pause for breath, indicated '(.)', in the middle of the sentence, "maybe there's another (.) wedding that afternoon." This is a place where no completion point falls and thus tum transitions are less likely to occur. These intonational strategies help her continue talking from lines 1 to 5, and she establishes herself as the floor

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

197

holder from line 6. Therefore, this excerpt shows that, in order to take the floor, the participants in the English conversation may manipulate intonational features to avoid co-occurrence of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points, and they do so by: (1) delaying an intonational completion point, (2) rushing through a completion point where speaker changes are likely to occur, and (3) taking a pause for breath in the middle of a sentence, where the floor right is less vulnerable. These devices help the speakers establish themselves as the primary speakers in single person floor in the English conversation.

10.2 POLITICAL NEW INTERVIEWS IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE The previous section has revealed that there are great differences in the data of English and Japanese conversations regarding: (l) the occurrences of backchannels, (2) overlaps and interventions, and (3) floor-management. This section compares tum-taking in U.S. and Japanese political news interviews for the purpose of examining how tum-taking in political news interviews is realized in the two languages. This section also specifically focuses on; (1) the occurrences of backchannel responses, (2) overlaps and interventions, and (3) floor-management strategies, comparing the data sets of English and Japanese political news interviews. 2

10.2.1 Non-Floor-Taking Speaker Changes The quantitative analysis has shown that the u.s. political news interviews have fewer speaker changes than the Japanese political news interviews and that nonfloor-taking speaker changes are especially rare in the U.s. political news interviews (See 8.2). These differences can be observed in the occurrences of backchannels in the two data sets, i.e. while there are 141 backchannels in the Japanese political news interviews, there are none in the U.S. political news interviews in the 20 minutes of each data set. The following is an example of a guest's response to the moderator's question in the U.S. political news interviews, where no backchannel appears. In the excerpt, the participants discuss the Presidential election of 1996. [Excerpt 8: Backchannels in U.S. political news interviews] I Mod: But he is. 2 He said your meeting was weird, 3 and he's staying in the race. 4 Reed: He's in the race for now. 5 =We'll (.) these ethical problems, 6 Mr. Hung is a fugitive (.) from the law this week. 7 The President has nothing to say about that.

198

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15

Mod:

16

Here's a fund raiser from the Democratic National Committee, refuses to appear, and talk about all these millions and millions of dollars of Asian money, that's begin funneled into the party. [It's wrong. [Did youdid you ask Ross Perotdid Ross Perot agree to step up, =his attacks on President Clinton's character?

The excerpt starts with the moderator's response to Mr. Reed in lines 1 to 3. In lines 4 to 13, Mr. Reed responds to the moderator, and then, in lines 13 to 17, the moderator asks another question without any acknowledgment to Mr. Reed's previous comment. In the excerpt, the moderator withholds backchannel responses to Mr. Reed, who is assigned the floor and talks from lines 4 to 12. Therefore, this excerpt shows that backchannel responses are withheld in the U.S. political news interviews. In contrast, the moderator in the Japanese political news interviews does not withhold reactive tokens but frequently gives backchannels while the guests are holding the floor. The following is an excerpt from the Japanese political news interviews, in which the moderator gives many backchannels to the guest. In the excerpt, the guest, Mr. Miyazawa, answers a question on Japanese contribution to international peace. CTRPs are marked with '#'. The lines with backchannels are marked with arrows at the left side. [Excerpt 9: Backchannels in Japanese political news interviews] 1 Miya: dakara, so 2

kore wa dekimasen to iu tameniwa koredakeno this TP do-cannot QP say for this-only koto wa deki masu to, thing TP do can QP

->

3

Mod:

un. # urn huh.

4

Miya:

iu koto wo kichinto shinai to ikenaindanaa to iu say thing OP clearly do QP must QP say

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

199

koto wo watakushi wa tukuzuku kangaeta thing OP I TP deeply think-past mondesukara, because

->

->

->

5

Mod:

un un.# un huh un huh

6

Miya:

sorede PKO no houritu to iumono wo, so of law QP things OP

7

seirutsu sashite itadai te, establish do let and

8

koko made wa nihon wa dekirundesu to, here till TP Japan TP do-can QP

9

Mod:

un.# urn huh.

10

Miya:

maa genjitu ni, well reality at

11

Cambodia de aaiu koto wo kuni zukuriwoshite, in that thing OP country establish

12

maa kore wa nai gai ni, well this TP inside outside at

13

shoukaisareta to omoundesu ga, introduce-passive QP thing SP

14

sore ga wareware no kotae deatta to, that SP we of answer was QP

15

Mod:

un.# un huh

16

Miya:

iufuuni watakushi wa-.... as I TP

[Translation] 1 2

Miyazawa:

so, in order to say we cannot do this,

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

200 ->

->

->

->

3 4 5 6 7

Moderator: Miyazawa: Moderator: Miyazawa:

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Moderator: Miyazawa:

Moderator: Miyazawa:

Urn huh.# I thought we had to do what we can do, Urn huh urn huh.# So that's why we passed the PKO law, to show what Japan can do, Urn huh.# well in reality, in Cambodia we helped to build the country, which was publicized well, both within and outside Japan, and that was our answer, Urn huh.# so 1-

In Excerpt 9, the moderator gives backchannels in lines 3, 5, 9, and 15 while the guest, Miyazawa, is holding the floor and answering the moderator's question. Since backchannel responses are generally grammatically, intonationally, and semantically complete, many backchannels increase completion points in the Japanese political news interviews. Therefore, this excerpt shows that backchannel responses are not withheld in the Japanese political news interviews. While the participants in the U.S. political news interviews completely withhold backchannel responses, those in the Japanese political news interviews do not, although the number of backchannels in the Japanese political news interviews (141) are smaller than the Japanese conversation (242). The differences in backchannel frequency between the Japanese conversation and the Japanese political news interviews may result from not only the situational difference but also the gender of the participants in the two data sets, i.e. all the participants are female in the conversation while those in the political news interviews are male. 3

10.2.2 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at NonCTRPs The quantitative analysis has shown that floor-taking speaker changes occur at CTRPs at a higher rate in the Japanese political news interviews (85.4%) than in the U.S. political news interviews (60.9%). The lower rate of co-occurrences between CTRPs and floor-taking speaker changes in the U.S. political news interviews can be explained by frequent occurrences of overlaps and interruptions. Namely, the U.S. political news interviews have 40 floor-taking speaker changes that occur at non-CTRPs (29 overlaps and 11 interventions) while 21 floortaking speaker changes occur at non-CTRPs in the Japanese political news interviews (12 overlaps and 9 interventions) in the 20 minutes of each data set.

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

201

The following excerpt from the U.S. political news interviews includes many instances of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs, resulting in Mr. Delay and Mr. Frost overlapping with each other frequently. Mr. Delay, who is a strong advocate of the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, defends him from Mr. Frost, who argues that the Speaker should resign. The lines that have floortaking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are marked with arrows at the left side. [Excerpt 10: Floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in U.S. political news interviews] 1 Frost: and he ignored that [legal advice, Delay: [And that's nothing new. 2 -> [No he didn't. 3 Frost: [ignored it. 4 Delay: [That's not true Martin that's not true. 5 Frost: [He got legal advice [that he didn't want as some 6 people do, [That's not true. Delay: 7 -> Frost: from to time and ignored that advice of his own 8 [attorney. Delay [That's not absolutely untrue, 9 -> =once again you've provided that American people 10 with inaccurate and unreliable information, and you intended to do it. 11 Mr. Delay denies Mr. Frost's accusation about the House Speaker, and their utterances overlap with each other. Greatbatch (1992) states that tum-taking in political news interviews is sequenced as interviewer's question and interviewee's response; however, when the debate is getting heated, the guests in the U.S. political news interviews start overlapping with each other, without waiting to be assigned a tum by the moderator. These sequences of simultaneous talk tend to be prolonged and occur frequently in the U.S. political news interviews, resulting in frequent overlaps because the participants do not easily drop from engaging in simultaneous talk. Although both English conversation and U.S. political news interviews have frequent occurrences of overlaps and interventions, the motivations that trigger these instances differ in the two data sets. The frequent overlaps and interventions in the English conversation data are implemented collaboratively to show active participation/listenership while those in the U.S. political news interviews are motivated by argumentative reasons. Therefore, floor-taking speaker changes that occur at non-CTRPs often result in negative overlaps in the U.S. political news interviews, where the participants aggressively take turns to argue with their interlocutors.

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

202

The guests in the Japanese political news interviews also overlap with each other; however, these instances occur sporadically, and in case of overlap, the participants tend to drop shortly, resulting in many interventions. The following excerpt is an instance of the two guests, Mr. Hashimoto and Mr. Koizumi, expressing different opinions on the Japanese economy. [Excerpt 11: Floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in Japanese political news interviews] I Mod: Koizumi san. Mr.

->

2

Koiz:

MazufIrst

3

Hash:

sukunakutomo chuushou kigyou at least medium and small-sized enterprises kinyuu [(inaudible) fInance

->

4

[kokutetsu seisan jigyou dano, JNR production industry or

Koiz:

saimu wa 26 chou en desu ne,? debt TP trillion yen be FP

5 6

Mod:

7

Koiz:

un. umhuh ni nen go, ... 2 year after

[Translation] I 2 -> 3

Moderator: Koizumi: Hashimoto:

->

Koizumi:

4 5 6 7

Moderator: Koizumi:

Mr. Koizumi. At fIrst, At least, the fmance of the medium and small-size enterprises [(inaudible) [JNR and other things, caused the debt of 26 trillion yen,? Umhuh. After two years, ...

After Mr. Koizumi is assigned the tum by the moderator in line 1, he tries to start his tum in line 2. However, Mr. Hashimoto interrupts him in line 3. ill line 4, Mr. Koizumi takes the tum back from Mr. Hashimoto, overlapping with

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

203

his utterance, which is inaudible and dropped shortly. Then, the moderator gives Mr. Koizumi a backchannel at line 6, endorsing his right to hold the floor as well as giving confirmation. Therefore, floor-taking speaker changes at nonCTRPs take place sporadically in the Japanese political news interviews and overlapping utterances are short, since the participants tend to refrain from engaging in simultaneous talk.

10.2.3. Floor Management Strategies

The political guests in the U.S. political news interviews and the Japanese political news interviews employ different floor management strategies: the political guests in the U.S. political news interviews manipulate intonational features in order to ensure the floor right and talk longer while the participants in the Japanese political news interviews employ collaborative strategies to invite backchannels from the interlocutors. 4 These strategies are also used in the conversation data sets. However, since the participants in the political news interviews are more conscious about tum allocation and floor right, these strategies are used more often and more explicitly, especially in the case of violation of the tum-taking system in political news interviews. The following is an example of the U.S. political news interviews in which a political guest keeps the floor by delaying an intonational completion point. In Excerpt 12, Mr. Delay claims that the House Speaker Newt Gingrich did not violate any law and that he does not have to resign as House Speaker. [Excerptl2: Floor management strategies in U.S. political news interviews] 1 Delay: What's important2 what's important here is the subcommittee, 3 in its findings, 4 ee-did not frod that Newt Gingrich violated any tax law,! 5 =what it did find is he vio-he violated one rule,! 6 because he didn't hire the right lawyer,! 7 and because the lawyer that he did hire, 8 to-to submit information into the Ethics Committee filed, 9 ee-bad-ee-bad documents./># This excerpt includes four grammatical completion points, but only one intonational completion point because Mr. Delay delays the intonational completion point until line 9. (This intonational completion point is delayed much longer than the ones in the English conversation data.) Delaying the intonational completion point for this long by using continuing intonational contours, he successfully keeps the floor in the argumentative setting. Therefore,

204

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

this excerpt shows that the guests in the U.S. political news interviews delay intonational completion points in order to keep the floor and talk longer. The following is another excerpt from the U.S. political news interviews, in which a guest delays an intonational completion point. [Excerpt 13: Floor management strategies in U.S. political news interviews] I Step: Over the last four years, 2 the president has been the subject,! 3 (.) 4 of a ee-ee-very determined strategyl by the Republican Party,! 5 to try to tear him down! personally,! 6 spent thirty five million dollars,! 7 they've had sixty hearings,! 8 on Whitewater,! 9 by the chainnan of ee-Bob Dole's presidential campaign Al D'Amato,! l O i n the Senate,! 11 and one, 12 on Medicare.! 13 Newt Gingrich ordered (.) his committeesl on the Congress,! 14 to gin up all these investigations,! 15 on the White House./># 16 =It's now17 of course there are questions.! In this sequence, Mr. Stephanopoulos argues for the President, claiming that all the attacks on the President were created by the Republicans. Notice that his utterances in the excerpt have many grammatical completion points (13 to be exact, marked by 'I') and many intonational units. However, most of these intonational units have continuing intonational contours, marked by','. Namely, Mr. Stephanopoulos continues talking, delaying an intonational completion point until the end of line 12, which is much longer than the delay devices that appear in the English conversation data. While Mr. Stephanopoulos delays an intonational completion point in the excerpt, he takes pauses for inbreath in lines 3 and 13, indicated by '(.)'. The pause in line 13 occurs in the middle of a sentence where no grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points take place. Since a pause gives the interlocutors a chance to steal the floor from the speaker and thus makes the speaker right vulnerable (Erickson 1988), Mr. Stephanopoulos takes a breath in the middle of the sentence, where a speaker change is less likely to occur. Also, he rushes through at the end of line 15, where a CTRP appears. Since speaker

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

205

changes are more likely to occur at CTRPs, Mr. Stephanopoulos speeds up his talk over the CTRP in line 15 to keep the floor. Thus, these examples show that the guests in the U.S. political news interviews manipulate intonational features in order to ensure the floor right and talk longer, and they seem to do so more frequently and explicitly than the participants in the English conversation. The political guests in the Japanese political news interviews, on the other hand, employ different floor management strategies, i.e. the political guests in the Japanese political news interviews use questions and sentence final particles to invite backchannels from the interlocutor. Although these strategies are used in the Japanese conversation data as well, the functions of these strategies found in the two data sets seem to differ. In the Japanese conversation, these strategies are used in order to invite backchannels that function to show the interlocutors' listenership and to endorse the speaker's floor right, whereas in the Japanese political news interviews, these strategies are used to invite agreement and confirmation as well as to persuade the interlocutors. The following example includes these strategies, which are bold-faced in the excerpt. [Excerpt 14: Floor management strategies in Japanese political news interviews] 1 Mod: Koizumi san. Mr.

2

Koiz:

Mazufirst

3

Hash:

sukunakutomo chuushou kigyou at least medium and small-sized enterprises kinyuu [(inaudible) finance

4

->

->

Koiz:

[kokutetsu seisan jigyou dano, JNR production industry or saimu wa 26 chou en desu ne,? debt TP trillion yen be FP

5

6

Mod:

un. urn huh

7

Koiz:

2 nen go, ... year after

8

dooyatte kaesuno ka,? how return Q

206

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese 9

[Translation] I 2

->

->

Mod:

un. urn huh.

3

Moderator: Koizumi: Hashimoto:

4

Koizumi:

5

6 7

Moderator: Koizumi:

8 9

Moderator:

Mr. Koizumi. At first, At least, the finance of the medium and small-size enterprises [(inaudible) [JNR and other things, caused the debt of26 trillion yen (ne),? Umhuh. After two years, ... how can we return it (ka),? Umhuh.

In this excerpt, the moderator assigns a tum to Mr. Koizumi in line I. However, Mr. Hashimoto interrupts Mr. Koizumi in line 2 and steals the floor. Then, Mr. Koizumi takes the floor back and establishes himself as the floor-holder from line 4. His utterance in line 5 ends with a sentence final particle 'ne,' which functions as a tag-question. Responding to the tag-question, the moderator gives a backchannel in line 6, which functions to confirm Koizumi's comment on the amount of debt that the Japanese government owes. Then, in line 8, Mr. Koizumi asks a rhetorical question, which is followed by another backchannel from the moderator. The sentence final particle in line 5 and the rhetorical question in line 8 have a slight rising intonational contour, marl 3 Val: Good. -> 4 Good. 5 Lynn: It's been fun. Even our [days are very full. 6 -> 7 Val: [Hahaha. (.) 8 Lynn: So with anything. 9 10 Val: Is Joel still working? [Joel11 12 Lynn: [Yeah he is working upstairs right now. 13 Hahahaha. -> 14 Val: Great. In line 1, Val asks Lynn a question, and Lynn answers it in line 2. Responding to Lynn's answer, Val takes an acknowledgment tum in lines 3 and 4, saying 'Good. Good.' These reactive tokens show her evaluative reaction to Lynn's answer. Then, Lynn makes a comment, which Val responds to with laughter in line 7. Since laughter is often intetpreted as a response to an utterance that is perceived funny, it also shows the listener's emotional or evaluative response to the previous utterance. Then, Val asks Lynn another question in line 10, which is answered by Lynn in line 12. Val, responding to Lynn's answer, gives a reactive token in line 14, saying 'Great.' This is another reactive expression that

214

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

shows her assessment to Lynn's answer. Thus, this excerpt shows that question turns are often sequenced as question-answer-acknowledgment in the English conversation and that the participants in the data frequently give reactive tokens of emotional or evaluative expressions in the acknowledgment turns. Question tum sequences in political news interviews, on the other hand, are generally realized as a two layered structure, i.e., the moderator's question and guest's response, and the moderator rarely gives acknowledgments to the guest's responses. In the following excerpt, the moderator asks Mr. Delay a question about House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is allegedly accused of a violation of ethics. After Mr. Delay's response, the moderator asks Mr. Delay another question without acknowledging Mr. Delay's response. The moderator's question after the guest's response is marked with arrows at the left side. [Excerpt 2: No acknowledgment turn in U.S. political news interviews] I Mod: Congressman Delay, 2 the Republican let me start with you. 3 Last week on this program, =DickAnny, 4 5 the majority leader of the House Republican, 6 flatly predicted that Republicans would vote unanimously for Newt Gingrich, 7 a week from Tuesday as the next speaker. 8 Is that true? 9 Delay: Well being a whip I concur with my majority leader. 10 We have seen no erosion whatsoever, 11 =In fact the members understand what's going on here that this is blatant partisan politics, 12 trying to demonize our speaker, 13 and it's been going on for a couple of (.) years now. 14 And most members understand, 15 what the subcommittee the bipartisan subcommittee is16 is going to allege to the full committee, 17 and hopefully we'll get that done before we vote, 18 =but even if we don't, 19 the members are going to support our speaker. -> 20 Mod: What will happen this week, -> 21 =The Ethics Committee, -> 22 chaired by Republican Nancy Johnson, -> 23 five Democrats five Republicans. -> 24 You believe they will meet?

Conversations and Political News Interviews

215

In this excerpt, the moderator asks Mr. Delay a question in lines I to 8, and Mr. Delay responds to it from lines 9 to 19. Without acknowledging Mr. Delay's response, the moderator asks him another question from lines 20 to 24. Thus, this excerpt shows that turns in the U.S. political news interviews are sequenced as the moderator's question and a guest's response. The lack of acknowledgment turns by the moderator results in rare occurrences of reactive tokens, which consequently cause not only fewer speaker changes, but also fewer completion points (grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points as well as CTRPs) in the U.S. political news interviews.

11.1.2 Floor Formation Greatbatch (1988) claims that, in political news interviews, turns are managed by the moderator and that the tum sequences are confmed in question-response sequences. Because of the tum-allocation, floor in the political news interviews largely consists of single person floor. The following is an example of a question-response sequence in the data of U.S. political news interviews. [Excerpt 3: Question-response sequence in U.S. political news interviews] 1 Mod: Last week on this program, 2 =Dick Army, 3 the majority leader of the House Republican, 4 flatly predicted that Republicans would vote unanimously for Newt Gingrich, 5 a week from Tuesday as the next speaker. 6 Is it true? 7 Delay: Well being the whip I concur with my majority leader. 8 We have seen no erosion whatsoever, =in fact the members understand what's going on here 9 that this is blatant partisan politics, trying to demonize our speaker, IO and its been going on for a couple of C.) years now. 11 12 And most members understand, what the subcommittee the bipartisan subcommittee 13 is14 is going to allege to the full committee, 15 and hopefully we'll get that done before we vote, 16 =but even if we don't, 17 the members are going to support our speaker. 18 Mod: What will happen this week,

216

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

This excerpt consists of the moderator's question in lines I to 6 and the political guest's response from lines 7 to 17. The tum sequence is opened by the moderator's question, which is followed by the political guest's response. Then, in line 18, the moderator opens another question-response sequence. Therefore, this excerpt shows that tums can be confined in the form of moderator's question and guest's response in the U.S. political news interviews. Since tum-allocation is managed by the moderator in the U.S. political news interviews, speaker changes do not occur freely, and floor can primarily consist of single person floor. The English conversation, on the other hand, has different floor formation. Since tum allocation is not pre-specified in conversation, speaker changes can occur freely, and this tum allocation in conversation increases the number of speaker changes. As a result, floor in the English conversation includes both collaborative floor and single person floor. The following is an excerpt from the English conversation, which includes both collaborative floor and single person floor. [Excerpt 4: Floor formation in English conversation] 1 Val: So how are you these days. 2 Lynn: Pretty good. 3 Val: Good. Good. 4 5 Lynn: It's been fun. 6 Even our [days are full. [Huhuhu. 7 Val: 8 Lynn: So with anything. Is Joel still working? Val: 9 [Joel10 Lynn: [He is working upstairs right now. 11 12 Hahaha. Val: 13 [Great. Lynn: [It's nice to have him home. 14 15 And then I can just16 when my kids are sleeping, 17 =1 can go do errands and stuff. 18 But I'm afraid that will be over soon. 19 [Oh, Val: 20 Lynn: [because he's-they'll probably open up an office,

Conversations and Political News Interviews

217

In the excerpt, Val opens the conversation in line 1 by asking Lynn a question. From lines 1 to 12, the participants overlap with each other, creating a collaborative floor. Then, in line 14, Lynn takes a longer turn, starting a single person floor. Therefore, this excerpt shows that since turn allocation and turn length are not pre-specified, floor fonnations can change freely from collaborative floor to single person floor (and vice versa) in conversation. Although the turn-taking patterns in the English conversation and the political news interviews follow the systems presented by Sack et al. (1974) and Greatbatch (1988) in general, through the interaction, the systems are modified, and various unsystematic phenomena are observed. For example, although Sack et al. claim (1974:700-701) that 'transitions (from one turn to the next) with no gap and no overlap are common,' there are many instances of overlaps in the two data sets. To be exact, 55.3% of all speaker changes coincide with CTRPs in the English conversation and 60.6% do so in the U.S. political news interviews. Let us examine some of the divergent instances of the turn-taking system of conversation and political news interviews and see how these instances are implemented in the two data sets.

11.1.3 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at NonCTRPs

One type of unsmooth turn-transitions is an instance of overlaps and interventions. The quantitative analysis shows that floor-taking speaker changes take place at CTRPs at a similar rate in the English conversation and the U.S. political news interviews, i.e. 66.5% of floor-taking speaker changes coincide with CTRPs in the English conversation and 60.9% do so in the U.S. political news interviews. Although floor-taking speaker changes occur at non-CTRPs at a similar rate in each data set, those instances happen differently in the two data sets. Namely, far more floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs result in overlaps in the U.S. political news interviews than in the English conversation, i.e. 72.5% of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the U.S. political news interviews are overlaps, compared with only 34.1 % in the English conservation (See 8.4.2). This result shows that the participants in the U.S. political news interviews do not drop their talk immediately in the case of simultaneous talk while the participants in the English conversation tend to yield the floor easily and shortly. In addition, the motivations that trigger floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs (i.e. instances of overlaps and interventions) differ in the two data sets. Namely, 98.2% of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are motivated by affiliation in the English conversation in contrast with only 32.5% in the u.s. political news interviews (See 8.4). These results indicate that floortaking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the U.S. political news interviews are

218

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

realized argumentatively with frequent overlaps that are motivated by disaffiliation, while those in the English conversation are canied out collaboratively with fewer overlaps, which are mostly motivated by affiliation. The participants in the English conversation implement overlaps and interventions collaboratively, and even dispreferred sequences are produced in a very mitigated manner. Pomerantz (1975, 1984) states that dispreferred sequences such as disagreement are often delayed and implemented hesitantly. In the data of English conversation, disaffiliative interventions, i.e. interruptions, occur rarely, but when they take place, they are canied out in a mitigated and hesitant way. The following is an excetpt from the English conversation, in which a disagreement sequence takes place. In line 5, Lynn disagrees with Liz. [Excetpt 5: Floor-taking SC at non-CTRPs in English conversation] 1 Lynn: I can't believe that. 2 Did you-did you watch him Tom Arnold? 3 Liz: I-I know he's-he's foul and everything. 4 Ijus~ -> 5 Lynn: Well it wasn't that he was that this time he wasn't, -> 6 this-> 7 he was um, -> 8 (.) -> 9 he was just talking the whole time. Although Lynn takes a turn at non-CTRPs in line 5 and disagrees with Liz, her disagreement is carried out in a mitigated way. She starts her disagreement turn with a mitigation device, 'well,' which delays the disagreeing utterance, and then she hesitates to continue, indicated by repairs in lines 5 to 7 and a pause in line 8. Although Lynn's interrupting turn is set out at non-CTRPs in line 5, her disagreement utterance is articulated in line 9. In other words, her interrupting turn is anticipated, but her dispreferred sequence of disagreement utterance is delayed. Thus, this excetpt shows that even interruptions are canied out hesitantly in the English conversation. Floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the U.S. political news interviews, on the other hand, are carried out in a more direct way. The following is an excetpt from the U.S. political news interviews, in which the two guests are overlapping with each other. [Excetpt 6: Floor-taking SC at non-CTRPs in U.S. political news interviews] 1 Step: Did Bob Dole vote against the creation of Medicare in 1965. 2 Reed: Yes he did.

Conversations and Political News Interviews

->

3 4 5

Reed:

->

6

Step:

->

7

Reed:

->

8

Step:

Step:

219

=Yes he did. Did he say [he wants to eliminate the Depart[That doesn't mean he's for eliminating [Medicare today. [Did he say he wants to eliminate the De[partment of Education? [Bob Dole's plan-[Bob Dole's plan today is for Medicare to grow. [Is his plan to eliminate the Department of Education.

This excerpt shows that floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the U.S. political news interviews are implemented in an aggressive and argumentative way. Although turns are allotted by the moderator in political news interviews, the interviewees often violate the turn-taking system and self-select themselves as the next speaker, overlapping with each other frequently. In the case of overlaps, they do not yield the floor easily, resulting in longer simultaneous talk. Therefore, the ways the disaffiliative overlaps and interventions are implemented in the English conversation and the U.S. political news interviews differ greatly. When the participants in the English conversation take disaffiliative floor-taking turns at non-CTRPs, they do so in a very mitigating and hesitant manner, and dispreferred sequences are often delayed, whereas the participants in the U.S. political news interviews aggressively anticipate their dispreferred turns as well as their dispreferred sequences. Therefore, the ways the tum-taking systems in conversation and in political news interviews are modified differ greatly in the two settings.

11.2 CONVERSATIONS AND POLITICAL NEWS INTERVIEWS IN JAPANESE

This section compares turn-taking in the data of Japanese conversation and Japanese political news interviews. This section also consists of three discussions, focusing on (1) acknowledgement turns, (2) floor formation, and (3) floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs.

11.2.1 Acknowledgement Turns Although acknowledgement turns are not completely withheld in the Japanese political news interviews, they occur less frequently in this context than in the Japanese conversation. Also, when acknowledgment turns appear in the Japanese political news interviews, the types of acknowledgment turns differ from the ones in the Japanese conversation.

Tum-Taking in English and Japanese

220

When the moderator gives acknowledgment turns, these acknowledgements are oriented toward the facts and information that are previously provided; they are realized in the forms of reactive expressions, such as 'really?' and 'I see.' The following excetpt includes a question-answeracknowledgment sequence in the Japanese political news interviews. In the excetpt, the participants discuss the current economy in Japan, comparing it to the time of day. The lines with acknowledgment turns are ma.rl

9

Fumi:

uso sugoi. kidding great

->

10

->

sugoi. great

Conversations and Political News Interviews [Translation] 1 2 3 4 5 6 -> 7 8 -> 9 -> 10

Kei: Ham: Kei: Ham: Kei: Ham: Fumi: Ham: Fumi:

223

Well Yoshiko said this but, Urn huh. Well Ken Ishii-Ishii? Urn huh urn huh. Is your cousin? Yes, he is my cousin. Really? It is not a big deal. Really? Great. Great.

Kei asks a question in lines 1,3, and 5. Responding to the question, Haru takes a turn in line 6. Haru's answer is surprising to Fumi, so Fumi takes a selfselected turn in line 7, showing her surprise in line 6. Then, she repeats the reactive token in line 9 and adds evaluative word, 'sugoi' (great), in lines 9 and 10. Therefore, this excerpt shows that question turns in the Japanese conversation are frequently sequenced as question-answer-acknowledgment, and the acknowledgment turns include many reactive tokens that show their emotions to or evaluations of the previous utterance, such as 'great' and 'good.'

11.2.2 Floor Formation The data of Japanese conversation and Japanese political news interviews have different floor formation. The Japanese conversation consists of both collaborative floor and single person floor, while the Japanese political news interviews predominantly have single person floor. This is because turn allocation is managed by the moderator in the Japanese political news interviews. Hayashi (1996) calls this type of floor in which speaker-listener roles are clearly discerned, 'one prime speaker floor.' Now let us examine an example of single person floor in the Japanese political news interviews. In the following excerpt, the moderator asks a question to Mr. Hashimoto. Responding to the question, Mr. Hashimoto takes the floor, forming single person floor. [Excerpt 9: Single person floor in Japanese political news interviews] 1 Mod: Hashimoto san ikaga desu ka? Mr. how be Q 2

Hash:

anooo boku wa sa-aete, well I TP dare

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

224 3

sono Asahi no Katou san noo gen de, that of Mr. of words by

4

eee tatoe tai to omoimasu keredo, example want QP think although

5

watashi mada gozen da to omotterundesu. I still morning be QP think

6

Mod:

gozen chu? morning

7

Hash:

gozen chu da tomorning

8

Mod:

mada kanousei ga aru? still possibility SP exist

9

Hash:

gozenchuuu ni shinakya mata ikenaindesu. morning in make also must

10

[Translation] 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

gozenchuu ni shinakya ikenai. must morning in make

Moderator: Hashimoto:

Moderator: Hashimoto: Moderator: Hashimoto:

How about you, Mr. Hashimoto? Well I dareto use the words by Mr. Kato to compare the economy to the time of day, I think it is morning still. morning? It is morningThere are still possibility? We have to make it morning. We have to make it morning.

In line I, the moderator asks a question to Mr. Hashimoto. Responding to the moderator's question, Mr. Hashimoto takes single person floor from lines 2 to 5. Then, the moderator repeats the word 'morning' with a rising intonation contour in line 6. Responding to the moderator's comment, Mr. Hashimoto also repeats the word 'morning' in line 7. Then, the moderator asks another question in line

Conversations and Political News Interviews

225

8, regarding Mr. Hashimoto's previous answer. Therefore, this excerpt shows that floor in the Japanese political news interviews is opened by the moderator's question and followed by the guest's response; then, floor primarily consists of single person floor. Since tum allocation is not pre-specified in the Japanese conversation, speaker changes occur more freely and frequently, and floor can be formed by both single person floor and collaborative floor. The following is an excerpt from the Japanese conversation, which includes collaborative floor and single person floor. In the excerpt, the participants are discussing their hometowns in Japan. [Excerpt 10: Collaborative floor and single person floor in Japanese conversation] Fumi san doko kara dakke? 1 Kei: Ms. where from be 2

Fumi:

Kagawa ken. prefecture

3

Kei:

Kagawa ken ka. prefecture Q

4

Fumi:

Kyuushuu?

5

Kei:

sottu, right

6

watashi Fukuoka. I

7

Ham:

aQ sounan da. oh right be

8

Kei:

uuun. umhuh

9

Ham:

demo zenzen wakan nai. but at all know Neg

10

Kei:

mattu kokoni ji-minna terebi motte masukara nee. well here everyone TV have because FP

226

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

11

Ham:

um. umhuh

12

Kei:

futuuu kyoutuugo wakaru desho,? usually standard-language understand FP

13

all:

laugh.

14

Kei:

nanka dakara nanka yappari Fukukoka tte, well so well so QP katoeba attu kokoni Hakataben hanashiteru example oh here -accent speaking

15

hito ga arawaretatoshitemo, person SP appear-if

16

[Translation] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

tabun hanasanai to omou. probably speak-Neg QP think

Kei: Fumi: Kei: Fumi: Kei: Ham: Kei: Ham: Kei: Ham: Kei: All: Kei:

Fumi, where (are you) from? (I'm from) Kagawa prefecture. Oh, Kagawa prefecture. (Are you from) Kyuushuu? (That's) right. (I'm from) Fukuoka-city. Oh, is that right. Um huh. But I can't tell. Well everyone has a TV set,? Umhuh. they can understand standard Japanese. (laugh) Well so well- as for Fukuoka city, even ifhere is someone who speak in Fukuoka dialect, I would not probably speak it.

Conversations and Political News Interviews

227

From line I to line 9, the conversants ask questions of each other, forming collaborative floor. Then, in line lO, Kei responds to Haru's previous utterance and talks longer about her Fukuoka dialect. Her longer talk leads to the floor formation of a single person floor. Therefore, this excerpt shows that the data of Japanese conversation have both collaborative floor and single person floor and that the floor formation can change freely because the tum allocation is not prespecified. In summary, it has been mentioned that floor in the English conversation consists of both single person floor and collaborative floor, while that in the U.S. political news interviews is formed primarily by single person floor. The Japanese data sets also show this difference between the conversation and political news interview data sets.

11.2.3 Floor-Taking Speaker Changes at NonCTRPs

Instances of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are realized differently in the Japanese conversation and the Japanese political news interviews as well. Although both data sets have low rates of floor-taking speaker changes at nonCTRPs, i.e. 14.6% in the Japanese conversation and 18.4% in the Japanese political news interviews, the ways those instances are carried out and the motivations that trigger them differ. Namely, 31.8% of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs in the Japanese conversations are overlaps, in contrast with 54.0% in the Japanese political news interviews. This difference indicates that the participants in the Japanese political news interviews are less likely to yield the floor immediately in the case of overlaps. (However, this rate is lower than in U.S. political news interviews, 72.5%). Furthermore, while only 11.4% of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are motivated by disaffiliation in the Japanese conversation, 33.3% of floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are triggered by disaffiliation in the Japanese political news interviews. (This rate is also lower than that in the U.S. political news interviews, 67.5%). These results indicate that floor-taking speaker changes in the Japanese conversation are carried out more collaboratively than those in the Japanese political news interviews. However, compared with the U.S. political news interviews, the Japanese political news interviews are carried out more harmoniously, conforming to the situational norm of the tum-taking system in the Japanese political news interviews. Now let us examine examples of floor-taking speaker changes at nonCTRPs in the two data sets. The interaction in the Japanese conversation is collaboratively managed, and even dispreferred sequences are mitigated with delayed devices. The following is an example of a speaker change at a non-

228

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

CTRP, motivated by disagreement, in the data of Japanese conversation. In the excerpt, the participants are discussing the top ten lawyer's list in the United States. [Excerpt 11: Floor-taking SC at non-CTRPs in Japanese conversation] 1 Fumi: watashi da ttara hazukashii to ka. I is if embarrassing QP Q

->

2

(.)

3

maa souiu kankaku wa naino kashi[ra? well that sense TPnot wonder [ureshi to omou. happy QP think.

4

Kei:

S

Fumi:

hontonni? really

6

Kei:

uuun. um huh.

Fumi:

If! were on the list, I might be embarrassed

[Translation] 1

->

(.)

2 3 4

Kei:

5 6

Fumi: Kei:

Well, I wonder they don't feel in that [way? [I would be happy. Really. Umhuh

Although Kei's disagreeing utterance in line 4 is placed at a non-CTRP, overlapping with Fumi's utterance in line 3, it has been delayed. It is a disagreement with Fumi's utterance in line 1. The pause in line 2 and Fumi's additional question in line 3 that tries to elicit any utterance from her interlocutors appear before Kei takes her disagreeing tum in line 4. In other words, Kei delayed her disagreement tum until line 4. Also, Kei's disagreement utterance expresses her own feeling toward the topic with the mitigating phrase '(I) think.' Therefore, this excerpt shows that dispreferred turns in the Japanese conversation are delayed and mitigated even if they are set out at non-CTRPs.

Conversations and Political News Interviews

229

The following is a disagreement sequence in the Japanese political news interviews. In line 6, Mr. Hashimoto overlaps with Mr. Koizumi. The disagreement sequence is carried out in a mitigated way. [Excerpt 12: Floor-taking SCs in Japanese political news interviews] 1 Mod: chotto honto desu ka? little real be Q

2

Koiz:

honto desu. real be

3

Mod:

sono rammyaku tte iuno wa? QP say TP that reckless

4

Koiz:

=sorya rammyaku mo hidoi desu. well restless . and awful be irenakya ikan. dakara [mesu 0 operation OP do so must

5

->

6

sore wa watashi wa ii sugi da to omoimasu. that TP I TP say too be QP think

7

8

Mod:

un. um huh.

9

Hash:

tatoeba, for example

[Translation] I 2 3 4

->

[chotto ne, little FP

Hash:

5 6 7

Moderator: Koizumi: Moderator: Koizumi:

Hashimoto:

Well, is it true? It is true. that it is a reckless investment? =Yes, it is. It is awful. So [we have to reform that. [Well, I think it is not quite true.

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

230

8 9

Moderator: Hashimoto:

Umhuh. For example, ....

Although Mr. Hashimoto takes the disagreement tum at a non-CTRP in line 6 and overlaps with Mr. Koizumi, the disagreement tum is expressed in a polite way from a turn-taking viewpoint. That is, Mr. Hashimoto's disagreement in line 6 is directed toward Mr. Koizumi's utterance in line 4. Koizumi's utterance in line 5 shows that Mr. Hashimoto's disagreement tum is delayed. Also, Mr. Hashimoto starts his disagreement tum with the mitigation, 'chotto ne (a little),' which delays his disagreement. Therefore, this excerpt shows that the disagreement turns in the Japanese political news interviews can be delayed and carried out in a polite way.

11.3 SUMMARY We can summarize the results of the data analysis in this chapter as follows. [Summary] (English) acknowledgment floor formation dispreferred sequence (Japanese) acknowledgment floor formation dispreferred tum

Conversations emotion+evaluation single+collaborative floor delayed+mitigated Conversations emotion+evaluation single+collaborative floor delayed+mitigated

Political interviews no acknowledgment single person floor anticipated Political interviews acknowledgement of info single person floor delayed+mitigated

The data analysis shows that conversations and political news interviews have different realizations of tum-taking. In the English data sets; I) the conversation has many acknowledgement turns that express the speaker's emotion and assessment to the previous speaker's utterance, while the political news interviews have virtually no acknowledgement, 2) the floor primarily consists of single person floor in the political news interviews, while it includes both single person floor and collaborative floor in the conversation, and 3) dispreferred sequences such as disagreement are delayed and mitigated in the conversation, whereas they are anticipated in the political news interviews. In the Japanese data sets, 1) the acknowledgment turns in the political new interviews are oriented toward fact and information, while those in the conversation include many acknowledgements that express the speaker's emotion and assessment, 2) the political news interviews have only single person floor, while the conversation has both single person floor and collaborative floor, and 3) the dispreferred turns

Conversations and Political News Interviews

231

and sequences are delayed and presented in a mitigated way in both the conversation and political news interviews.

11.4 DISCUSSION

Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) claim that the tum-taking system of conversation is the basis of tum-taking systems in other settings, which are viewed as merely transformations that are developed from the tum-taking system of conversation. This study shows how tum-taking in the data of conversation is implemented differently from that in the political news interviews. In particular, floor formation and question tum sequences differ greatly in the data of conversations and political news interviews in the following ways; (1) the acknowledgment turns are withheld in the U.S. political news interviews, and those in the Japanese political news interviews are oriented toward facts and information, while those in the conversation data include acknowledgement turns that express the speaker's emotional reactions, and (2) the conversation data have both collaborative floor and single person floor, while the political news interviews have mainly single person floor. These differences in tum-taking in the two situations result from disparate tum allocations, i.e. turns are prespecified and managed by the moderator in political news interviews (Greatbatch 1988), while turns are locally managed in conversation (Sacks et al. 1974). Not only do the turn-taking systems differ in the data of conversations and political news interviews, but also the ways the systems are modified as well as the motivations that trigger the modifications differ in the two settings. For example, floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs are frequently realized as overlaps in the data of political news interviews because the participants in the political news interviews do not yield the floor immediately during simultaneous talk. On the other hand, the participants in the conversations tend to drop out quickly, resulting in more frequent interventions. In addition, overlaps and interventions are largely motivated by affiliation in the data of conversations, while those in the political news interviews are often triggered by disaffiliation. Also, disprefetred sequences are delayed and presented in a mitigated way in the conversation data in both English and Japanese, while those in the U.S. political news interviews are anticipated (those in the Japanese political news interviews are implemented in a similar way as in the Japanese conversation). These results show that divergent cases of the tum-taking systems are collaboratively carried out in the data of conversation, but they are realized in more argumentative ways in the data of political news interviews. Although the Japanese political news interviews include many instances that show the argumentative setting of political news interviews, they also indicate harmonious interactional norms of the Japanese people. For example, although the interviews have more instances of disaffiliative overlaps and

232

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

interventions than the Japanese conversation, these instances are carried out in a polite manner. This polite disagreement in the Japanese political news interviews can be interpreted as the reflection of two conflicting forces between harmonious culture and the institutionalized setting of political news interviews; interaction in the political news interviews is argumentative in nature, with more disaffiliative overlaps and interventions than in the Japanese conversation. However, the interactional norm of harmonious culture in Japan restrains the participants from engaging in argumentative interaction openly. In conclusion, this chapter discusses the situational influences on turntaking by examining the data of conversations and political news interviews. The results show that the turn-taking systems differ in each data because of the disparate turn allocations in each setting (i.e. locally managed tum allocation in conversation versus pre-specified turn allocation in political news interviews). Also, the ways the tum-taking systems are modified, as well as the motivations that trigger those divergent instances, differ in conversations and political news interviews, and these different modifications of the turn-taking systems result from the disparate situational goals in each setting, i.e. argument in political news interviews versus collaboration in conversation. Therefore, this chapter concludes that tum-taking is realized differently in conversation and political news interviews and that situational factors greatly affect the realization of turntaking.

CHAPTER TWELVE

Conclusion

This study examines conversations and political news interviews in English and Japanese in order to detennine what tum-taking tells us about language and interaction. Based on this main purpose, this study also explores the following five questions: I) How are three linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) interrelated?; 2) How are role exchanges (speaker-hearer roles) and floor management negotiated in interaction?; 3) How do these linguistic properties relate to turn-transitions or speaker changes?; 4) How does cultural context affect tum-transitions?; and 5) How does situational context affect the realization of tum-taking? Answering these questions, this chapter briefly summarizes the main findings of this study. First, the question as to how three linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) are interrelated is examined in the four data sets, the English conversation, the Japanese conversation, the U.S. political news interviews, and the Japanese political news interviews. The results can be summarized in the following three points. First, grammatical completion points occur far more frequently than intonational and semantic completion points in all the data sets. This result indicates that there are more grammatical units than intonational or semantic units in the data sets. Secondly, since these three completion points represent linguistic properties, the interrelationship of the three completion points is similar in the same language data sets. In particular, the three completion points in the Japanese data are interrelated more harmoniously than those in the English data. Thirdly, reactive tokens greatly affect the interrelationship of the three types of completion points. Since the Japanese data sets have more reactive tokens, especially backchannels, they have more completion points than the English data sets. These results indicate that realization of grammatical, intonational, and semantic units are primarily affected by linguistic factors. Secondly, the results on how speaker changes are carried out in the four data sets are discussed. Overall speaker changes occur more frequently in the 233

234

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Japanese data than in the English data, and the conversation data have more speaker changes than the political news interview data This result is attributed to more frequent occurrences of reactive tokens in the Japanese data than the English data and more frequent occurrences in the conversation data than in the political news interview data. Next, intonational units play an important role in predicting the onset places of non-floor-taking speaker changes in all four data sets. Lastly, floor-taking speaker changes at non-CTRPs, i.e. overlaps and interventions, occur more frequently in the English data than the Japanese data, and they take place more frequently in the political news interview data than in the conversation data. These results show that since speaker changes are realizations of interactions, they are greatly affected by interactional goals and setting differences. Next, the third question of how these linguistic properties (grammar, intonation, and semantics) relate to tum-transitions or speaker changes is explored. The results of the data analysis show that grammar is not a strong indicator of transition-relevance places, but grammar, intonation, and semantics jointly predict the tum-transition points. In particular, the three linguistic properties are strongly related to non-floor-taking speaker changes. Linguistic and cultural influences on tum-taking are examined by comparing the Japanese data with the English data. The results show the following three points. First, the Japanese data have a greater number of backchannels than their English counterparts. This is considered a reflection of the harmonious interaction in Japanese society. Second, the Japanese data have fewer instances of overlaps and interventions than the English data. Since Japan is a high consideration culture and since there is a strong pressure to conform to the social norms in Japanese society, the realization of tum-taking tends to be more systematic than it is in the English data, which takes place in the high involvement culture of the u.S. In addition, syntactic structure of SOY in Japanese makes it more difficult for the interlocutors to predict transition relevance points than it is in English, which has a canonical word order of SVo. Thirdly, the strategies used for floor management differ between the English and Japanese data sets. Namely, in the English data, intonational features are manipulated in order to obtain or secure the floor right, while devices that elicit the interlocutors' backchannel responses to show listenership, agreement, confirmation, and endorsement of the speaker's floor right are often used in the Japanese data. Therefore, these results indicate that tum-taking patters differ greatly between the Japanese and English data and that linguistic and cultural factors greatly affect the realization of tum-taking. The fifth and fmal question as to how situational factors affect the realization of tum-taking is examined by comparing the conversation data with the political news interview data. The results show that recurring patterns of

Conclusion

235

turn-taking differ between the data from the conversation and the political news interviews. The conversation data include acknowledgement turns that show the speaker's emotional reaction or assessment to the previous speaker's utterance, and the conversation data include both collaborative floor and single person floor, freely transforming from one to the other, whereas the political news interviews primarily have single person floor. These differences result from the locally managed tum allocation in the conversation, as opposed to the pre-specified tum allocation by the moderator in the political news interviews. In addition, the ways the systematic tum-taking patterns are modified differ in the two situations. Simultaneous talk results in more overlaps in the political news interviews than in the conversations, since the participants in the political news interviews do not yield the floor easily. Furthermore, overlaps and interventions are motivated more by disaffiliation in the political news interviews, while ones in the conversations are generally triggered by affiliative reasons. Therefore, tum-taking patterns are realized argumentatively in the political news interviews, especially in the U.S. political news interviews, but those in the conversations are realized collaboratively. This difference results from different interactional goals in the two situations. In conclusion, we have examined the tum-taking patterns in the four data sets quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Although tum-taking is realized differently in each data set because of linguistic, cultural, situational, and interactional factors, systematicity is observed in each data set. Also, the systematicity in each data set is modified differently and triggered by disparate motivations. However, the ways the systematicity in each data set are modified show some orderliness. Tum-taking that reflects language and interaction sheds light on language use in interaction, i.e. how language and interaction are intertwined in each data set. Preston (1998) states that interaction is governed by certain rules, which are broken in rule-governed ways. This study has revealed that language use in interaction is systematically realized and can be modified to meet linguistic, cultural, and situational constraints as well as specific interactional needs; however, the modification is implemented in orderly ways. Therefore, this study concludes that language and interaction are intertwined systematically and dynamically.

This page intentionally left blank

RERENECES Bennett, Adrian. 1981. Interruptions and the interpretation Discourse Processes 4. 171-188.

of conversation.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer. 1993. How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology 14. 651-666. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clancy, Patricia M. 1986. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. Language socialization across cultures, ed. by Banbi B. Schieffelin and Elinor Ochs, 213-250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _ _ _ _, Sandra A. Thompson, Ryoko Suzuki, and Hongyin Tao. 1996. The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26. 355-387. Clayman, Steve E. 1988. Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35. 474-492. _____. 1992. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. Talk at work: interaction in institutional setting, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 163-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text 13. 159-188. and Jack Whalen. 1998-1989. When the medium becomes the message: the case of the Rather/Bush encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22. 241-272.

_ _ _ _I

Cook, Minegishi H. 1990. The sentence-final particle 'ne' as a tool for cooperation in Japanese conversation. Japanese Korean Linguistics I, ed. by Hajime Hoji, 28-43. Stanford, CA: The Stanford Linguistics Association. Doi, Takeo. 1972. Some psychological themes in Japanese human relationships. Intercultural encounters with Japan, ed. by John C. Condon and Mutsuko Saito, 1726. Tokyo: Simul.

238

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Duncan, Starkey Jr. and Donald W. Fiske. 1985. The turn system. Interaction structure and strategy, ed. by Starkey Duncan Jr. and Donald Fiske W., 43-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edelsky, Carole. 1993. Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10. 383-421. Erickson, Fredrick. 1988. Discourse coherence, participation structure, and personal display in a family dinner table conversation. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics. 1-25. Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. _ _ _ _ _, and John Heritage. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19. 283-307. Greatbatch, David. 1988. A tum-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17. 401-430. _ _ _ _ _. 1992. On the management of disagreement between news interviews. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional setting, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 268-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3), ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Harris, Sandra. 1992. Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. Broadcast talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell, 76-99. London: Sage. Hayashi, Reiko. 1991. Floor structure of English and Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 16. 1-30. 1996. Cognition, empathy, and interaction: Floor management of English and Japanese conversation. Ablex: New Jersey.

References

239

Heageman, Liliane. 1993. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Heritage, John. 1984. Gerfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Basil BlackweJl. _ _ _ _-', and Andrew L. Roth. 1995. Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28. 1-60. Hill, Beverly, Sachiko Ide, Shoko Ikuta, Akio Kawasaki, and Tsunao Ogino. 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10. 347-371. Hirokawa, Randy Y. 1987. Communication within the Japanese business organization. Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives, ed. by D. Lawrence Kincaid, 137-149. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Houtkoop, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland. 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 595-619. Hymes, Dell. 1972. Toward ethnographies of communication: the analysis of communicative events. Language and social context, ed. by Pier Paolo Giglioli, 2143. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ide, Sachiko. 1992. How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? Aspects of Japanese women's language, ed. by Sachiko Ide and Naomi H. McGloin, 63-79. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Ishihara, Shintaro, and Akio Morita. 1988. Japan that can say "no." Tokyo: Shinnihon. Ito, Yuri. 1989. Strategies of disagreement: A comparison of Japanese and American usage. Sophia Linguistica 27. 193-203. Jefferson, Gail. 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9. 47-96. _____,. 1984. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 3. 181-199. Jones, Kimberly Ann. 1990. Conflict in Japanese conversation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Ph.D. dissertation.

240

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Kakava, Christina. 1993. Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Ph.D. dissertation. Kruger, Arthur N. 1960. Modem debate: its logic and strategy. New York: McGrawHill Book Company. Labov, William. 1972. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the inner city: studies in the Black English vernacular, ed. by William Labov, 354-396. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lebra, Takei Sugiyama. 1984. Non confrontational strategies for management of interpersonal conflicts. Conflict in Japan, ed. by Elis S. Krauss, Thomas P. Rohlen and Patricia G. Steigoff, 41-60. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lerner, Gene H. 1987. Collaborative turn sequences: sentence construction and social action. Irvine, University of California, Ph.D. dissertation. _ _ _ _ _. 1989. Notes on overlap management in conversation: the case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53. 167-177. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20. 441-358. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makri-Tsilipakou, Marianthi. 1994. Interruption revisited: disaffirmative intervention. Journal of Pragmatics 21. 401-426.

Affirmative

vs.

Maltz, Daniel N., and Ruth A. Borker. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. Language and social identity, ed. by John J. Gumperz, 196-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1980. Reexamination of the universality of face. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 403-426. Maynard, Senko K. 1986. On back channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation. Linguistics 24. 1076-1108. 1994. Images of involvement and integrity: Rhetorical style of a Japanese politician. Discourse and Society 5. 233-261.

241

References

Murata, Kumiko. 1994. Intrusive or co-operative?: A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics 21. 385-400. Murray, Stephen O. 1985. Toward a model of members' methods for recognizing interruptions. Language in Society 14. 31-40. Nakajima, Fumio. 1989. Nihongo no kozo [Structure of Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami. Nakane, Chie. 1967. Tate-shakai-no ningenkankei hierarchical society]. Tokyo: Koudansha.

[Human relationship

in a

Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (ed.) 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Q'ConnelI, Daniel C, Sabine Kowal, and Erica Kaltenbacher. 1990. Tum-taking: A critical analysis of the research tradition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19. 345-373. Orestrom, Bengt. 1983. Tum-taking in English conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup. Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 601-638. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred tum shapes. Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Preston, Dennis. 1998. What real people know about language (and why applied linguistics should care). Paper presented at 1998 AAAL conference. Seattle, WA. Rama-Martinez, Marie-Esperanza. 1993. Preference organization in broadcast political interviews. Verba 20. 45-60. Sacks, Harvey. 1974. An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, ed. by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _ _ _ _....., Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of tum-taking for conversation. Language 50. 696-735.

242

Turn-Taking in English and Japanese

Schegloff, Emanuel. 1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries. Language and social interaction, ed. by Don Zimmennan and Candace West. Special Issue of Sociological Inquiry 50. 104-52. _____,. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of 'uhuh' and other things that come between sentences. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1981. 71-93. _____,. 1987. Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn-taking organization. Talk and social organization, ed. by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee, 70-85. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. _____. 1988-89. From interview to confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22. 215-240. _____,. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97. 1295-1345. _____. 1996. Turn organization as a direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____. 1988. Conversation analysis. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer, 251-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _ _ _ _..... 1994. Approaches to discourses. Cambridge: Backwell. Shibatani, Masayoshi. University Press.

1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge

Shillony, Ben-Ami. 1973. Victories without vanquished. Revolt in Japan, ed. by Ben-Ami ShiIIony, 127-137. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____,. 1993. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

References

243

Talbot, Mary. 1992. 'I wish you'd stop interrupting me!': Interruptions and asymmetries in speaker rights in equal encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 18. 451466. Tsujimura, Akira. 1987. Some characteristics of the Japanese way of communication. Communication theory, ed. by D. Lawrence Kincaid, 115-126. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ueda, Keiko. 1972. Sixteen ways to avoid saying 'No' in Japan. International encounters with Japan, ed. by John C. Condon and Mitsuko Saito, 185-192. Tokyo: Simul. Watanabe, Suwako. 1993. Cultural differences in framing: American and Japanese group discussions. Framing in discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 176-209. Oxford: Oxford University Press. West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1983. Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. Language, gender, and society, ed. by Barrie Thome, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, 102-117. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Wilson, Thomas, John Wiemann, and Don Zimmerman. 1984. Models of turn-taking in conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3. 159183. Yamada, Haru. 1990. Topic management and tum distribution in business meetings: American versus Japanese strategies. Text 10. 271-295. _____. 1992. American and Japanese business discourse: A comparison of interactional styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Yamamoto, Shinichi 1993. Nihonjin to Ameriajin [The Japanese and Americans]. Tokyo: PHP. Yokota, Mariko. 1995. The role of questioning in Japanese political discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics 5. 353-382. Zimmerman, Don H. and Candace West. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversations. Language and sex: Difference and dominance, ed. by Barrie Thome and Nancy Henley, 105-129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Yum, Jun Ock. 1988. The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs 55. 374-388.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

aizuchi, 45, 195 amae,44-46 Brown,46n Buddhism, 45 cataphora, 16 Clancy, 16n, 30n, 94n, 95n, 161n, 170n Clayman, 143n collaborative floor, 191-192 completion points, 157-165 and speaker changes, 181-185 grammatical, II intonational, 14 pragmatic, 37 prosodic, 37 semantic, 15 syntactic, 37 in English conversation, 56 and speaker changes, 62 in Japanese conversation, 84 and speaker changes, 90 in Japanese political news interviews, 135 and speaker changes, 139

245

in U.S. political ne:ws interviews, 116 and speaker changes, 120 Complex Transition Relevance Places, 11, 17 conflict management: in Japanese communication, 48 Confucianism, 45-46 context, 28 conversation: analysis, 10-11,28 analysts, 27 and language and interaction, 26 characteristics, 26 in interpersonal relationship, 26 Japanese interactional factors of,26 similarities between English and Japanese (language), 9 debate, 39 delayed completion, 30 discourse: approaches, 9 Japanese political, 50 types of, 35 units, 35

246 Discourse Parse Tree, 36 Edelsky,33n evasiveness, 37 face, Japanese concept of: definition, 44-45 negative,46-47 positive, 46-47 floor, 33 floor-right, 15 gender differences, 10,31,34 Goffman, 34n Goodman, 25n, 27n Greatbatch, 4On, 41n, 43n, 116n, 212n, 215n,217n Hayashi,223n interaction, confrontational, 43 kinds, 9.10 mother-infant. 46 systematicity.20 Interactional Sociolinguistics. 10-11 interruption: cross-cultural. 47-48 intonation: contours. 14-15. 123 features. 14 ishin-denshin. 45 Japanese society. 44-45

kuuki.45 Linguistics Discourse Model, 36

Index Marki-Tsilipakou, 168n, 175n Meet the Press, 7-8 neutrality, 40 in political news interviews. 39 politeness. 47 proposition, 15, 17 reactive tokens: examples. 16-17 frequency. 30-31 in Japanese. 13 recipient design. 27 reformation, 38 ritual harmony. 46. in Japanese society. See Confucianism Sacks, 15n.29n, 35n, 42n, 43n. 74n.76n. 207n.211n.212n.217n.231n Schegloff, 15n. 28n. 29n. 30n. 36n. 43n. 75n.95n.99n. 145n. 152n.207n.211n. 231n Schiffrin. 3. IOn. 16n, 26n. 27n. 36n Shibitani.86n single person floor, 187-190 speaker changes: floor-taking. 173 and completion points. 183 at C;rRPs. 174 at non-CTRPs. 175 in English conversation. 59-61. 64-74 and completion points. 62 in Japanese conversation. 88-89. 92-105 and completion points. 90

247

Index

in Japanese political news interviews, 137-138, 141-150 and completion points, 139 in U.S. political news interviews, I18-Il9,121-127 and completion points, 120 non-floor-taking, 170 Sunday Press, 9-10 Tannen, 97n, 208n, transitiori-relevance place, 34 turns, 33 allocation, 41-44 in Japanese conversation, 225 interactional definitions, 31

mechanical definitions, 31 multi-unit, 76-77 patterns, 30 turn-transitions, 10, 141-142, 174--175 utterance: basic unit of, 34 floor-claiming, 15, 17 and turn constitutional units, 18 Shintoism, 45 simultaneous talk, 31,168,175

wakimae,47 well-formed clause, 11-13