Difference between revisions of "Morita2012b"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Emi Morita; | |Author(s)=Emi Morita; | ||
| − | |Title=“This talk needs to be registered”: The metapragmatic meaning | + | |Title=“This talk needs to be registered”: The metapragmatic meaning of the Japanese interactional particle yo |
| − | of the Japanese interactional particle yo | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interactional Linguistics; Particle; Japanese; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interactional Linguistics; Particle; Japanese; | ||
|Key=Morita2012b | |Key=Morita2012b | ||
Latest revision as of 08:22, 30 November 2019
| Morita2012b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Morita2012b |
| Author(s) | Emi Morita |
| Title | “This talk needs to be registered”: The metapragmatic meaning of the Japanese interactional particle yo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interactional Linguistics, Particle, Japanese |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 13 |
| Pages | 1721–1742 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.011 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The Japanese interactional particle yo has been the subject of much uncertainty and controversy, as researchers have proposed various disparate functions and meanings of this small lexeme. Attending closely to the interactional environment where yo is used, I hereby propose a generic semiotic for this omnipresent particle and its role in highlighting the communal nature of meaning-making interaction. In particular, I show that yo is deployed by speakers and understood by recipients as an indication that a particular stretch of talk needs to be properly “registered” for both talk progressivity and the joint accomplishment of specific interactional concerns to be acknowledged and acted upon. I argue that this explicit indication of the usually taken-for-granted presupposition that any given effort at communicative action cannot be implemented in interaction until it is received somewhere foregrounds the semiotically interlocked contingency of the next turn at talk, engendering a variety of context-bound pragmatic effects.
Notes
