Cover not available
Part of
Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts
Edited by Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35] 2023
► pp. 272–300

Chapter 9
Post-confirmation modifications

Trajectories of un-initiated responses to polar questions in Japanese

 | Japan Women’s University
 | Nagoya University
It has long been acknowledged that, in response to polar questions, disagreements are normatively delayed with agreements such that they are presented as modifications or exceptions rather than outright disagreements. While there is a large body of literature on how the initial element in the answer projects upcoming modifications or disagreements to come, little attention has been paid to the grammatical format in which delayed modification is presented. This study thus attempts to document how grammatical formats contribute to the interactional outcomes of modifications in this position. The focus is on three grammatical formats that are used to make such modifications following the minimal confirmation particle un in Japanese: the coordinate clause marked with demo (“but”), the subordinate clause, and clauses that are not grammatically tied to the preceding confirmation. The findings suggest that these grammatical formats are used systematically to modify the preceding confirmation to varying degrees and in different ways. Modifications made in coordinate clauses modify the degree of assessment presented in the question and/or preemptively deny a possible implication that follows the state of affairs confirmed by un without retracting or conditioning the confirmation. Modifications made in subordinate clauses, on the other hand, retract or significantly qualify the confirmation that has been conveyed with un. Finally, modifications in clauses that are not grammatically marked for their semantic relation to the confirmation address an issue with an assumption underlying the question and retroactively portray the confirmation as ostensible. It is concluded that post-confirmation modification is one environment in which a fine division of labor is assigned to different grammatical formats.
Keywords: conversation analysis, “yes but” answers, Japanese, un, responses to polar question, confirmation, modification, grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Responses to polar questions in Japanese
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1un + demo (‘but’)-clause modification
    • 4.2un + subordinate clause modification
    • 4.3un + modification
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.09hay
References (36)
References
Bolden, Galina. 2018. “Nu-prefaced Responses in Russian Conversation.” In Between Turn and Sequence, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 25–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Chase Raymond, Federico Rossano, Kyung-Eun Yoon, Inge Zwitserlood, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2019. “Polar Answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55(2): 277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and John Hellermann. 2004. “‘Getting Past No’: Sequence, Action and Sound Production in the Projection of No-initiated Turns.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 233–269. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. “Minimal and Non-minimal Answers to Yes-no Questions.” Pragmatics 11(1): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2010. “An Overview of the Question-Response System in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2685–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Kaoru Hayano. 2018. “A-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry in Japanese.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 193–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27: 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan Peter de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. and Francisco Torreira. 2015. “The Timing and Construction of Preference : A Quantitative Study.” Discourse Processes 52(4): 255–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2013. “Reshaping the Response Space with Kulenikka in Beginning to Respond to Questions in Korean Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 303–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Two Types of Trouble with Questions: A Comparative Perspective on Turn-initial Particles in Korean.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. By John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 97–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinjo, Katsuya. 2001. “Bunmatsu hyoogen toshiteno keredomo no kinoo ni tsuite [On the sentence final expressions keredomo/ga].” Scripsimus 10: 87–101.Google Scholar
Koiso, Hanae, Yasuharu Den, Yuriko Iseki, Wakako Kashino, Yoshiko Kawabata, Ken’ya Nishikawa, Yayoi Tanaka, and Yasuyuki Usuda. 2018. “Construction of the Corpus of Everyday Japanese Conversation: An Interim Report.” Proceedings of the 11th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 4259–4264.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, and Johannes Wagner. 2010. “Transcribing, Searching and Data Sharing: The CLAN Software and the TalkBank Data Repository.” Gesprachsforschung 11: 154–173.Google Scholar
Maeda, Naoko. 2006. “Gendai nihongo ni okeru setsuzokujoshi shi no imi, youhou: Heiretsu to riyuuno kankei wo chuusin ni [Usage of conjunctive particle shi in modern Japanese].” Jinbun 4: 131–144. (Gakushuin University, Research Institute for Humanities)Google Scholar
Morita, Emi, and Tomoyo Takagi. 2018. “Marking ‘Commitment to Undertaking of the Task at Hand’: Initiating Responses with Eeto in Japanese Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 124: 31–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase. 2018. “Bueno-, Pues-, and Bueno-Pues-Prefacing in Spanish Conversation.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/no Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. [URL]. DOI logo
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume I, Clause Structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences.” In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor S. Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Lucas M., and Mike Huiskes. 2017. “Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2): 188–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Heinemann, Trine. 2013. “When ‘Yes’ Is Not Enough as an Answer to a Yes/no Question.” In Units of Talk−Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. “An Overview of the Question-response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N. J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christiana, Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine, Hoymann, Gertie, Rossano, Federico, de Ruiter, Jan P. Yoon, Kyung-Eun, and Levinson, Stephen C. 2009. “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26): 10587–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Hayashi, Makoto. 2010. “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society, 39: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006. “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society, 35: 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Togashi, Jun’ichi. 2002. “Danwa hyooshiki maa ni tsuite [On the danwa hyooshiki maa].” Tsukuba Japanese Linguistics, 7: 15–31.Google Scholar
Weidner, Matylda. 2018. “Treating Something as Self-evident: No-prefaced Turns in Polish.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 225–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar