Cover not available
Part of
Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 191–224

Chapter 7
A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese

| Nagoya University.
| Japan Women’s University

This study explores the stances communicated by two turn-initial particles in Japanese, a and eh, when they are used to preface responses to inquiry. The particle a comes close in its usage to oh in English and is often used to acknowledge the receipt of new and/or unexpected information. Eh is similar to a in that it indicates that the information being received is unexpected; however, it is often employed in contexts where its producer problematizes or resists what the prior speaker has just said, such as in other-initiated repair and disagreements. We compare the workings of these two particles in the context of prefacing responses to inquiry and show that, while a-prefaced responses generally embody moves that are affiliative with the prior speaker, eh-prefaced responses convey more disaffiliative stances. Based on our findings, we suggest that there is a division of labor between a-prefacing and eh-prefacing of question responses in Japanese and that what is performed by one particle in one language (oh in English) may be carried out by two particles in another (a and eh in Japanese).

Keywords: responses to questions, “change-of-state” token, Japanese, affiliative stance, disaffiliative stance, resistance, particle a , particle eh , shift in orientation, division of labor
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. A as a change-of-state token
  • 3. A-prefaced responses to inquiry
    • 3.1Indexing a shift in attention/orientation
    • 3.2 Indicating a prosocial stance toward an unexpected act
    • 3.3Treating the preceding question as unexpected but legitimate
    • 3.4Treating the preceding question as unexpected and far off the mark
  • 4. Eh-prefaced responses to inquiry
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.07hay
References
Betz, Emma, and Andrea Golato
2008 “Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding Relevant Next Actions: The German Token ‘achja’.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:58–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina
2006 “Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers ‘so’ and ‘oh’ and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Communication 56:661–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
1997 “ ‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Trouble in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28:69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea
2010 “Marking Understanding versus Receipting Information in Talk: ‘Achso’ and ‘ach’ in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies 12:147–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “German ‘oh’: Marking an Emotional Change of-State.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru
2013 Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto
2009 “Marking a ‘Noticing of Departure’ in Talk: Eh-Prefaced Turns in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41:2100–2129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Claiming Uncertainty in Recollection: A Study of kke-Marked Utterances in Japanese Interaction.” Discourse Processes 49:391–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Shuya Kushida
2013 “Responding with Resistance to Wh-Questions in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46:231–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine
2009: “Two Answers to Inapposite Questions.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1998 “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27:291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Turn-Initial Position and some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1981 “The Abominable ‘ne?’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response.” Occasional Paper No. 6. Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26:1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2012 “Compromising Progressivity: ‘No’-Prefacing in Estonian.” Pragmatics 22:119–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie
2013 “ Ani ‘No’-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions as Challenges in Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 20, ed. by Peter Sells, and Bjarke Frellesuig, 383–398. Standford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri
2015 “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions Through ani (no)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52:311–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koyama, Tetsuharu
1997 “Bunmatsushi to bunmatsu intoneeshon [Sentence-final particles and final intonation]. ” In Onsee to Gengo, ed. by S. L. W. Group, 97–119. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee
2013 “Response Design in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 415–432. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
2007 “The TalkBank Project.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Databases, Vol.1, edited by Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan, and Hermann L. Moisl, 163–180. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K.
1993 Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion, and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moriyama, Takuro
1996 “Joodoo teki kandooshi koo [Notes on emotive interjections].” Gobun 65:51–62.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1978 “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Cooperation of Multiple Constraints.” In Studies in the Organisation of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1979 “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 261–286. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2011 “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of course’ as Questioning the Presupposibility of Askability.” In Moralities of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jackob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and N. J. Enfield
2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2620–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takubo, Yukinori, and Satoshi Kinsui
1997 “Ootooshi, kandooshi no danwa teki kinoo [Discourse functions of response tokens and interjections].” Bunpoo to Onsei, 257–279. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Togashi, Jun’ichi
2005 “Odoroki o tsutaeru to iu koto: Kandooshi ‘a’ to ‘wa’ no bunseki o tooshite [Communicating surprise: An analysis of interjections ‘a’ and ‘wa’].” In Katsudoo to shite no Bun to Hatsuwa, ed. by Shuya. Kushida, Toshiyuki. Sadanobu and Yasuharu. Den, 229–251. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Arita, Yuki
2023.  Demo “but”-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese . Discourse Processes 60:8 ► pp. 594 ff. DOI logo
Bolden, Galina B.
2023. Chapter 2. Repetitional responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Feng, Jiayu
2022. How an utterance is regarded as implying disagreement: an analysis of confirmation requests in Japanese decision-making meetings. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 38:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Hayano, Kaoru & Makoto Hayashi
2023. Chapter 9. Post-confirmation modifications. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Persson, Rasmus
2020. Taking Issue with a Question While Answering It: Prefatory Particles and Multiple Sayings of Polar Response Tokens in French. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:3 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo
Yasunari, Asuka
2018. The Role of Questions in Managing Affect and Emotional Involvement in Japanese Conversations. Journal of Universal Language 19:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Guodong, Yaxin Wu & Paul Drew
2019. Couples bickering: Disaffiliation and discord in Chinese conversation. Discourse Studies 21:4 ► pp. 458 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.