Mori2006
| Mori2006 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Mori2006 |
| Author(s) | Junko Mori |
| Title | The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Japanese, Conversation Analysis, Informings, Response Token, Prosody |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2006 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 38 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 1175-1205 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.004 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Employing the methodological framework of conversation analysis (cf. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974), this study provides a detailed analysis of the ways in which the token hee is used in Japanese conversations. Hee has often been identified as a “news-receipt token,” and indeed it frequently occurs in response to deliveries of news or other types of informing in the current data. However, close examination of the sequential context, turn shape, and prosody involved in each occurrence of hee demonstrates the varying contributions this token can make in the development of informing sequences. On some occasions, the token displays its producer's “assessment” (cf. Goodwin, 1986; Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987, 1992) of the news received, whereas on other occasions it serves as a “continuer” (cf. Schegloff, 1982), occurring in the midst of a projected, extended informing, and yet on other occasions it is treated as a “repair initiator” (cf. Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, 1997). The results of the current microanalysis reveal potential pitfalls in classifying variants of a particular token into one category by virtue of its prescriptive orthographic representation and perceived core function. The concluding discussion considers implications for methodological issues involved in cross-linguistic, cross-cultural comparisons of interactional styles.
Notes
