Gender, Language and Culture A study of Japanese television interview discourse

Gender, Language and Culture

<DOCINFO AUTHOR ""TITLE "Gender, Language and Culture: A study of Japanese television interview discourse"SUBJECT "Studies in Language Companion Series, Volume 69"KEYWORDS ""SIZE HEIGHT "220"WIDTH "150"VOFFSET "4">

Gender, Language and Culture

A study of Japanese television interview discourse

Lidia TanakaLa Trobe University

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam�/�Philadelphia

Contents

List of abbreviations and conventions xi

List of data transcription conventions xii

Romanization of Japanese: Hepburn System xiii

List of tables xv

List of ªgures xvi

Acknowledgments xvii

Chapter 1

Introduction 1

Theoretical framework 3

The study of discourse 3

Discourse analysis: Speech act theory 3

Conversation analysis 5

Turntaking system 7

The concept of ¶oor 9

Adjacency pairs 9

Preference organization 12

Conversation analysis and ‘institutional’ language 13

Politeness 14

Politeness and conversation analysis 17

Speech style, personal pronouns and social relations 17

Asymmetry and power 19

Japanese communication: Some cultural concepts 19

Hierarchy 20

Role 21

Uchi/soto 22

Language and gender 23

Japanese women’s language 25

Historical background 25

Characteristics of Japanese ‘genderlects’ 27

Lexical features 27

vi Gender, Language and Culture

Personal pronouns 27

Sentence ªnal particles 28

Verb forms 28

Syntax 28

Politeness 28

Conversation analysis and social variables 29

An overview of the study 30

Chapter 2

The interview genre 33

Introduction 33

Previous studies 33

Typology of television interviews 36

News interviews 37

Current aŸairs 37

Cultural interviews 37

Talk shows 38

Television and language in Japan 38

Japanese television interviews 39

The data 40

Conversation analysis and interviews 42

Characteristics of the interview 43

Role allocation 43

Participants’ identities 44

Asymmetry in the interaction 44

Goal-oriented interaction 45

One-way ¶ow of information 45

Pre-arranged interactions 45

Turntaking rules 46

Summary and conclusion 54

Chapter 3

Turntaking 57

Introduction 57

Japanese conversation: Characteristics of turntaking 57

Characteristics of Japanese television interviews 60

Some facts of interviews 61

The host’s turns 62

viiContents

Questions 64

Wh-questions 64

Alternative questions 65

Yes/No questions 66

‘No’ questions 66

Tte questions 67

Deshoo questions 67

Rising intonation 68

Echoing as clariªcation/questioning 69

Grammatically unªnished questions 70

Declaratives as information elicitors 71

Grammatically complete declaratives 71

Grammatically incomplete declaratives 72

Host’s comments 73

Reformulations and formulations 75

The guests’ turns 76

When guests ask questions 78

Other-correction 80

Turn-endings: Syntactically ªnished and unªnished turns 82

Syntactically complete turns: Some features 83

Postpositions 85

Unªnished utterances 85

Tte/to endings 87

Unªnished quotations 88

Grammatical particles in turn ends 89

Clausal particles and conjunctive particles in turn ends 90

Conjunctive forms 91

Conditional forms 92

Sentence ªnal particles 93

Abbreviated utterances 95


Chapter 4

Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview 99

Introduction 99

Previous studies 100

Research in Japan 101

Dominance and asymmetry in the interview 104

viii Gender, Language and Culture

Interruptions 104

Overlaps 107

Interruptions and gender 108

Interruptions in the female group under 50 110

Cooperative turns 112

Shifts of style 116

Pronouns and terms of address 122

When the host is older 128

Lexical items 130

An uchi interaction? 132


Chapter 5

Aizuchi in the interview 137

Introduction 137


Deªnition 138

Position of aizuchi in the discourse 142

Aizuchi at major junctures 143

Aizuchi after grammatical completion 143

Aizuchi after clauses 144

Aizuchi after noun phrases 145

Aizuchi after SFPs and rising intonation 146

Aizuchi in mid-sentence 148

Aizuchi sequences 150

Aizuchi functions 154

Intonation 154

Semantic content 155

Position in the discourse 156

Six functions of aizuchi 156

Aizuchi as continuers 156

Aizuchi as acknowledgements 157

Aizuchi as echoers 158

Aizuchi as newsmarkers 159

AŸective aizuchi 160

Aizuchi as ªllers 162

The aizuchi token hai 162

Hai as a continuer 163

ixContents

Hai as an answer 164

Hai after aizuchi 166

Hai after announcements 167

Single and duplicated tokens 168


Chapter 6

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry 175

Introduction 175


Gender diŸerences in aizuchi 178

Aizuchi of host and guests 183

Naruhodo: A role speciªc aizuchi 183

Formal and informal aizuchi tokens 187

Younger guests overwhelmingly use formal tokens 191

Duplicated tokens 195

Summary and concluding remarks 198

Chapter 7

Conclusion 201

Turntaking in interviews 201

Aizuchi in interviews: Gender, age, and role diŸerences 203

Theoretical implications 204

Concluding remarks 205

References 207

Appendices 221

Index 223

List of abbreviations and conventions

COM sentential complementiser (no, koto)

COND conditional a¹x (-ba, -tara, -to)

CONJ conjunctive a¹x (-te, -de)

COP copula (da, na, dearu, desu)

DESID desiderative a¹x (-tai)

EXCL exclamation

GEN genitive case (no)

HON honoriªc

HORT hortative (daroo, deshoo)

HUM humble

INST instrumental

LOC locative

NEG negative form

NP noun phrase

O direct object

ONMT onomatopoeia

PASS passive a¹x (-rare)

PAST past tense

PL plural su¹x (-tachi, -ra)

PROG progressive (-teiru)

PRE present tense

POL polite

Q question particle (ka)

Qt quotation marker (to, tte)

S subject marker (ga)

SFP sentence ªnal particle

T title (-san, -chan, -kun, -sama)

TOP topic marker (wa)

List of data transcription conventions

The following conventions suggested by Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn, Paolino

and Cumming (1990) were used for the transcription of the data.

Hyphen (-) Truncated word

Comma (,) Continuing intonation unit, usually

signalled by intonational, semantic

and/or syntactic factors

Full-stop (.) Completed intonation unit

Question mark (?) Question

@ mark @@ Laughter

Square brackets ([]) Simultaneous speech

Two dots (..) Brief pause, 0.2 seconds or less

Three dots (…) Medium pause, 0.3- 0.6 seconds

Three dots plus number (…(0.7)) Long pause with number indicating

duration in seconds

Single brackets (sneeze) Indicates type of vocal noise

Double brackets ((gaze)) Indicates comment by researcher

Capital X (X) Indicates indecipherable syllable

Single brackets bold (yes) Aizuchi

Equal sign (=) Vowel lengthening

Diagonal line (/) Rising intonation

Capital letters TEXT marked quality

< > <text> possible utterance

*Hush sign (#) grammatically unªnished utterance

*Symbol devised for this study

H letter (h) Indicates inbreath

Romanization of Japanese: Hepburn system

Vowels: a i u e o

Long Vowels1: aa ii uu ee/ei oo

Consonant+Vowel: ka ki ku ke ko

sa shi su se so

ta chi tsu te to

na ni nu ne no

ha hi fu he ho

ma mi mu me mo

ya yu yo

ra ri ru re ro

wa o

ga gi gu ge go

za ji zu ze zo

da ji zu de do

ba bi bu be bo

pa pi pu pe po

Consonant+Consonant+Vowel:

kya kyu kyo

sha shu sho

cha chu cho

nya nyu nyo

hya hyu hyo

mya myu myo

rya ryu ryo

gya gyu gyo

ja ju jo

bya byu byo

pya pyu pyo

1. The original Hepburn System uses â, û, ê and ô for the corresponding long vowels.

However, for convenience I use double vowels instead.

xiv Gender, Language and Culture

Double consonant:

eg. ikka jissai katte ippen

kotto

Single/n/: n

Syllabic nasal: n’

List of tables

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Distribution of Turn Construction Units (TCU)

Table 3.2 DiŸerences in TCU distribution between host and guests

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Interruptions

Table 4.2 Intrusive and cooperative interruptions

Table 4.3 Pronominal system

Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence)

Appendix I

Details of interviews

Table 1 Group FI: Females over 50

Table 2 Group FII: Females under 50

Table 3 Group MI: Males over 50

Table 4 Group MII: Males over 50

Appendix II

Table 5 Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence)

Table 6 Aizuchi frequency

List of ªgures

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 Distribution of Turn Construction Units (TCU)

Figure 3.2 DiŸerences in TCU distribution between host and guests

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Interruptions

Figure 4.2 Intrusive and cooperative interruptions

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence)

Acknowledgments

This book is based on my PhD thesis and during the completion of this work I

received the help of many people who encouraged me, guided me and oŸered

me support directly and indirectly. My PhD supervisor, Dr. Hilary Chappell,

was an endless fountain of knowledge and guidance throughout the most

di¹cult years. Besides being a caring and supportive supervisor she also

taught me the importance of careful observation, interpretation and meticu-

lousness needed in research. Furthermore, I also wish to thank her for her

patience and care in reading endless drafts of the thesis and this book. Dr.

David Bradley, my co-supervisor, encouraged me to embark in this direction.

I thank him for his support.

I also want to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Michael Noonan,

who read the initial manuscript and accepted it for publication. I am grateful

to the anonymous reviewer for invaluable comments and advice, to Catherine

Travis for her helpful observations on a number of chapters when this work

was still in the early stages of a thesis and to Kees Vaes for all the publishing

arrangements.

My heartfelt gratitude is due to my undergraduate professors Dr. Yukio

Takefuta and especially Dr. Erich Berendt at Chiba University (Japan) who

introduced me to the world of linguistics. I would also like to thank Sudha

Joshi and Richard Delacy for reading many of the chapters and for their

friendship.

This work would not have been completed without the initial and con-

tinuous encouragement of my husband, Peter. He put up with endless hours

of housework, proof reading, computer skills and babysitting. Also thanks are

due to my son Marcel for his patience and good humour. And ªnally I wish to

express all my gratitude to my parents and my sister Nélida who taught me to

love to learn.

Chapter 1

Introduction

This book examines the interaction of gender and some basic cultural notions

in the communicative process of Japanese dyadic television interviews. It is an

interdisciplinary study, which uses the Sacks, JeŸerson and SchegloŸ (1974)

model as a starting framework for analysis and incorporates notions of polite-

ness and theories of gender and language. The speech in same and mixed gender

interactions is examined, focusing on turntaking, terms of address and aizuchi

(listener’s responses). The study shows how participants interact through

language and project their identities as deªned by role, age, gender and relation-

ship in the context of the interview.

Television interviews are ‘institutional’ interactions. They show a number

of diŸerent characteristics from everyday conversation (Drew and Heritage,

1992; Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Clayman, 1988, Heritage, 1995) and are deªned

by several factors. Firstly, participants’ roles are well deªned; they entail clear

obligations and restrictions, which creates an asymmetric interaction. This

produces a distinctive turntaking system, as I show throughout the book.

The study of Japanese in formal situations has been largely overlooked

(apart from Abe, 2000; Endo, 1997; Kobayashi, 1997b; Nakajima, 1997;Wetzel,

1984), even though it is well known that many factors in¶uence the way people

talk. While the contribution to the understanding of spoken Japanese is enor-

mous, most researchers have based their observations and analyses on data of

conversational Japanese (Hayashi, 1996; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; Mori, 1999;

Tanaka, 1999), or on answers provided through questionnaires (Ide et al.,

1986; Peng, 1981). Because the degree of formality dictates the speech style, it is

not extraordinary to expect that turntaking will also be aŸected. However, little

is known about the turntaking aspect when formality increases. The speech

used in court, in medical interviews, on television or in meetings, or ‘institu-

tional’ language, has received very little attention in Japan.

It is known that speech changes according to the degree of formality and

Japanese is well known for its diŸerences in styles. Speech style is deªned by

many factors, among them being event, topic, speakers, status and roles. Most

languages in the world possess a number of mechanisms to show politeness

2 Gender, Language and Culture

or solidarity (Brown and Levinson, 1987), which range from an elaborate

honoriªc system (Japanese, Korean, Javanese and Tamil), the T/V pronominal

system (French, Spanish, German, Hungarian, etc.), to the usage of indirect

utterances (subjunctive forms, negative forms, etc.). The Japanese language

is well known for its complex honoriªc system and formal/plain forms. The

main factors that determine the tenor of politeness in Japanese culture

are formality, role, hierarchy and in-group/out-group membership (Loveday,

1986; Kindaichi, 1990; Kuno, 1973; Miller, 1967; Ogino, 1986).

Apart from formal/informal styles, Japanese has a ‘gendered’ speech style,

which denotes the sex of the speaker. From an early age, boys learn to talk like

boys and girls learn to talk like girls. These female and male speech styles are

reinforced throughout their formative years. Gender diŸerences in the Japanese

language become less conspicuous in formal situations (e.g. usage of personal

pronouns, sentence ªnal particles, lexicon) (Shibamoto, 1985; Shibatani, 1990),

and diŸerences in the choice of particular syntactic, morphological and lexical

forms diminish as the degree of formality increases. Despite this aspect, most

studies on women’s language focus on informal conversational data or ques-

tionnaires (Ide et al., 1986; Shibamoto, 1985) or intuitive comments (Horii,

1990; Kitagawa, 1997).

Research suggests that men and women talk diŸerently in other cultures too.

In Anglo-Saxon culture, men’s language has been described as aggressive and

controlling whereas women’s has been associated with cooperation and sup-

port. In Japanese, too, female language is akin to collaboration and politeness.

However, many empirical studies are inconclusive regarding gender and lan-

guage, and this is further emphasized by con¶icting reports. Given that Japanese

males and females neutralize1 their speech style in formal situations, several

questions arise. Do speakers use other strategies such as interruptions, hedges

and backchanneling in order to assert their maleness or femaleness? Or do they

prioritize the situation over their gender? What strategies do speakers use in

situations when there is a con¶ict arising from a divergence between age, status

and gender? These aspects of language use are the focal points of this study.

This book shows the importance of role and age in Japanese society. It also

shows that all participants, male and female, display a very cooperative com-

munication style. This style is more pronounced when there is no con¶ict

arising from a status/age or gender diŸerence. There are no ‘stereotypical’

speech styles such as onnarashii ‘feminine’ or otokorashii ‘masculine’ in my

data, however, most of the male guests use some linguistic device to show their

‘male’ identity.

3Introduction

Theoretical framework

The next sections are devoted to the theoretical framework of this study,

beginning with theories of spoken discourse. I then look more speciªcally at

conversation analysis and its application to ‘institutionalized’ language. This is

followed by an appraisal of politeness in the Japanese context. Finally, theories

of gender and language are explored focusing on the context of Japanese

female language.

The study of discourse

In the last forty to ªfty years, research of ‘natural’ speech has attracted much

attention. The concept of human speech as an ‘interactive’ activity is perhaps

one of the most important characteristics of this interest in talk. Also, the

in¶uence of disciplines such as philosophy, ethnography and sociology on the

understanding of language shaped the theories that were formulated. The

study of how language is actually used and its eŸects on the speakers is broadly

known as discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is a ‘very ambiguous term’

(Stubbs, 1983; 1). Its deªnition varies among scholars, and an exact and

comprehensive deªnition is in itself the topic of an entire book. Many scholars

have written excellent works on this (see e.g. Brown and Yule, 1983; Heritage;

1984; Psathas, 1995; SchiŸrin, 1994), but the scope of what discourse analysis is

diŸers for each author. Some deªne discourse analysis in a narrow sense

(Psathas, 1995; Stubbs, 1983), while others combine various approaches into

one discipline (SchiŸrin, 1994). SchiŸrin (1994), for example, writes that there

are six diŸerent approaches within discourse analysis: speech act theory, inter-

actional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conver-

sation analysis and variation analysis. Others consider discourse analysis as a

branch of pragmatics (Diamond, 1996).

Discourse analysis: Speech act theory

In this study, I will use the narrower deªnition of discourse analysis. Each

of the approaches mentioned above originated from a diŸerent discipline;

therefore its emphasis is deªned by those in¶uences. Discourse analysis has

its roots in philosophy, and is also known as speech act theory. In his book

How to do things with words, Austin (1962) writes that there are two types of

statements: performatives and constatives. By using performatives, people


actually do things. Constatives undergo a test of truth and performatives have

to fulªll four felicity conditions in order not to ‘misªre’. Although Austin

states that performatives have a grammatical structure in the form of I+

present simple active verb, there are many performatives that have a diŸerent

form. This discrepancy is resolved in a way so that performatives can be

‘reproducible’ in a form, that has the verb in the ªrst person singular indica-

tive present. This basic notion was later developed by Austin (1962) and

Searle (1975) into the speech act theory. While the focus was initially on the

distinction between performatives and constatives, it later shifted to the idea

that each utterance is a speech act with three levels: locutionary, illocutionary

and perlocutionary (Austin, 1975). The locutionary act is characterized by

the use of speech. The illocutionary act is the ‘performance of an act in saying

something as opposed to the performance of an act of saying something.’

(Austin, 1962: 99–100). And the perlocutionary act is what actually occurs as

a result of what we say.

Searle, who followed the work of Austin, has some diŸering points. While

Austin emphasized the speaker’s intention for a successful realization of an

illocutionary act, Searle stresses the listener’s interpretation. Another diŸerence

lies in the notion of the locutionary act, which Searle does not accept but

proposes instead a propositional act. For a linguistic realization of an illocution-

ary act, Searle suggests two rules: regulative and constitutive. The ªrst rule deals

with conditions and the second deªnes the behaviour itself (Searle, 1969).

Searle also deals with rules that are essential for making a speech act: the

propositional content rule, the preparatory rule, the sincerity rule and the

essential rule.

The Birmingham school of discourse analysis focused on the sequential

organization of talk. They used classroom interaction (Sinclair and Coulthard,

1975; Stubbs, 1983) and doctor-patient situations as models of analysis. They

proposed a rank scale, consisting of Lessons, Transactions, Exchanges, Moves

and Acts. The smallest unit is the Act, but the Move is considered the ‘mini-

mal interactive unit’ (Burton, 1980). Each Move has a unique internal struc-

ture with 22 diŸerent acts such as elicitation, reply, evaluate and comment

suggested. The Acts are deªned according to the functions they fulªll in

discourse. The typical structure of a classroom interaction had a sequence of

three parts: Initiation, Response and Follow-up. An interaction is accom-

plished with Initiations that can predict certain types of responses. A Follow-

up is used by teachers in order to evaluate the student’s answer. The I-R-F

model has been applied to analyze daily conversation, where the Follow-up is

5Introduction

used by interlocutors to indicate that the message has been heard or under-

stood (Tsui, 1989), and also in medical encounters (Labov and Fanshel, 1977).

While the approach of discourse analysis in understanding how language is

used was revolutionary and had major repercussions in related ªelds such as

language teaching, there are limitations. First, although Searle et al. imply that

their system can be used as a model of analysis, albeit with some modiªcations,

it was criticized as being based on the ‘traditional’ classroom situation. Al-

though there are studies based on the I-R-F model in the analysis of everyday

conversation, the major weakness in the model is its lack of insight into how

‘mutual understandings are achieved by the participants’ (Drew and Heritage,

1992). Another weakness is the di¹culty in applying this model to a free-

¶owing conversation with numerous participants and no rigid structure, un-

like classroom interactions.

Conversation analysis

Conversation analysis looks at language as a ‘social activity’. Its objective is to

study the structure and the order of social interaction, which occurs through

language in everyday talk. Conversation analysis (CA) developed as a result of

in¶uences from the ethnographical approaches of GoŸman and Garªnkel to

the study of human activities. GoŸman (1967) established an approach to

studying human behaviour focusing on ‘natural’ activities. He described the

everyday activities of people and demonstrated that important social aspects

are manifested in those activities. His work validated the CA approach to

detailed observation of everyday conversations. He also showed that an under-

standing of social structures could be achieved through description and analy-

sis without hypothesis testing, the traditional method.

The development of ethnomethodology, a term invented by Garªnkel

(1974), had a profound impact on the study of language as it promised a new

method of research. A theory of sociology prevailing in the 1950’s was Parson’s

premise of social actions as a product of shared internalized rules and norms.

Criticism of the Parsonian approach was based on the fact that the theory was

static and that assumptions took prevalence over what and how actions oc-

curred. Ethnomethodology is the study of ‘a particular subject matter: the

body of common-sense knowledge and the range of procedures and consider-

ations by means of which the ordinary members of society make sense of, ªnd

their way about in, and act on the circumstances in which they ªnd themselves’

(Heritage, 1984: 4).


CA is the meeting point of sociology and linguistics. Although language is

the object of analysis, the aim of CA is to study the order and organization of

social action. It is the task of the researcher to ªnd, describe and analyze this

order and organization in natural speech. The techniques of CA include the

minute analysis of talk to discover and observe recurrent patterns and also

deviant cases. Although speech has a contextual relevance, there is a deliberate

exclusion of external features such as the social identities of the participants,

the setting, the personal attributes, and so on. This is justiªed by the emphasis

on avoiding premature generalizations and idealization of the data.

In the early stages of the development of CA, Sacks (1984) and SchegloŸ

(1968) discovered that telephone call openings had certain repeated patterns in

their sequence. They found that the calls were interactions where there was a

turn sequence organization. They noticed that these sequences had a number

of recurrent characteristics; most importantly, that there is order and structure

in talk. Although they started collecting and analyzing data for a diŸerent

purpose (Heritage, 1984: 235), their insight led to the writing of their turntak-

ing model (Sacks et al., 1974), which is explained in detail in subsequent

sections and more speciªcally in Chapter 3.

Three basic assumptions underlie CA: (1) that the conversation is highly

organized and orderly; (2) that talk is contextual; and (3) nothing is by chance,

so that every detail in the interaction has to be analyzed with care. Every social

interaction has a structure that is independent of psychological or social char-

acteristics of its participants. As in any structure, the features recur in an

organized manner. There is an emphasis on the ‘order’ in conversations, which

is transferred into the macro structure.

The second assumption is related to context. The CA approach takes into

account the context of the talk and is claimed to be contextually sensitive. At

the same time, it is context-free, as it dismisses the social attributes of the

participants such as age, gender and social status. Context sensitivity is ex-

plained in terms of turns or adjacency pairs. For example, a response to an

invitation is realized only after the ªrst pair, the invitation, has been uttered.

The third assumption has shaped the way in which the whole process of

analysis occurs. There is an emphasis on the usage of natural conversation and

the ‘empirical’ approach in observing and studying the data. Audio recorded

conversations are used for analysis to enable the researcher to scrutinize the

data and look at every detail. It also gives the opportunity for other scholars

to review the data. The use of traditional sociolinguistic data gathering

techniques, such as questionnaires, experiment-oriented speech and native

7Introduction

intuition-based created examples is strongly discouraged.

As mentioned in the introduction, I adopt the CA approach in this study

because it emphasizes social action, and any communicative interaction is a

social action. Although SchegloŸ warns about the dangers of generalizations

and assumptions when social context is incorporated into the analysis, there is

no doubt that social phenomena such as gender and asymmetry can be ex-

plored through CA. The vast number of studies conducted in the past decade

or so substantiates this.

In the following sections, I discuss about the basic concepts used in CA:

turntaking, the concept of ¶oor, adjacency pairs, and preference organization.

Turntaking system

Natural conversations appear to be chaotic on the surface. Participants seem to

interrupt each other. There are overlaps and speakers appear to compete to

gain the ¶oor. In other cases, there are long pauses that indicate lack of interest

in the topic. Despite this apparent disorder, Sacks et al. (1974) found that

natural conversations have a very structured turntaking pattern and are quite

‘orderly’. They developed a turntaking model that explains and predicts the

various phenomena observed in normal conversations (Sacks et al., 1974).

Turn-taking models were also proposed by Duncan and Fiske (1985) and

Capella (1980). Duncan and Fiske’s (1985) model focuses on verbal and

non-verbal ‘cues’. The vast research dealing with non-verbal communication

(Beattie, 1978; Duncan and Fiske, 1985; Kendon, 1990) is an indicator of

the importance of those signals in most human communicative interactions.

However, Duncan and Fiske’s (1985) model has been criticized for its limita-

tions when applied to diŸerent languages and cultures (Wilson, Wieman and

Zimmerman, 1984). Although S. Maynard (1989) successfully used it to ana-

lyze Japanese conversation, the major drawback of the model is its restricted

applicability to all types of data. Non-verbal communication is extremely

important, and it is used occasionally to facilitate the present analysis.

Sacks et al.’ s model (1974) is by far the most important model of turntak-

ing. It has been criticized as being unable to incorporate statistical information,

as failing to include non-verbal signals, and for having a problematic deªnition

of a complete turn construction (Power and Dal Martello, 1986). However, its

seemingly universal applicability and ¶exibility in diŸering contexts is the most

important strength of this model. It has been applied to other languages, such as

Japanese (Tanaka, 1999), Thai (Moerman, 1988), to diŸerent types of interac-

tions (news interviews by Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), and to studying


particular items in relation to social structures (Zimmerman and West, 1975;

West and Zimmerman, 1983).

In their seminal work, A simplest systematics for the organization of turnta-

king for conversation Sacks et al. (1974: 700–1) write about the 14 facts observed

in any conversation. Some of them can be applied to television interviews, but

others are characteristic of mundane talk. The features observed in conversa-

tions, but which diŸer in dyadic interviews, are written in bold and are explained

in Chapter 3.

1. Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs.

2. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time.

3. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief.

4. Transitions (from one turn to the next) with no gap and no overlap are

common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gaps or slight

overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions.

5. Turn order is not ªxed but varies.

6. Turn size is not ªxed but varies.

7. Length of conversation is not speciªed in advance.

8. What parties say is not speciªed in advance.

9. Relative distribution of turns is not speciªed in advance.

10. Number of parties can vary.

11. Talk can be continuous or discontinuous.

12. Turn allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may

select a next speaker.

13. Various ‘turn constructional units are employed; e.g., turns can be project-

edly ‘one word long’, or they can be sentential in length.

14. Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turntaking errors and violations;

e.g., if two parties ªnd themselves talking at the same time, one of them will

stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble (Sacks et al., 1974: 700–701).

Sacks et al. (1974) also note that the turn-constructional rules have two compo-

nents: a turn-constructional component and a turn-allocation component.

These are the basis of the system. The turn-construction component or turn

construction unit (TCU) in English consists of a unit that can be a sentential,

clausal, phrasal or lexical. These units have some characteristics which allow the

listener to predict a possible completion of the unit, known as projectability.

These are of a phonological, syntactic or pragmatic nature. Any possible point

when turntaking is possible is known as a transition relevance place (TRP).

The turn-allocation can occur in the following ways: when the turn-

9Introduction

allocation is chosen by the speaker; when the turn-allocation is self-selected;

and when the current speaker self-selects him/herself. When these rules are

broken, for example if interruptions occur, repair mechanisms are applied so

that the overlap is minimal.

The concept of ¶oor

The term ‘¶oor’ was introduced by Sacks (1972a) and it refers to the right

to begin to talk. Although some researchers use ¶oor and turn alternately

(Duncan, 1972; Gumperz, 1982a), others have shown that the terms are

diŸerent (Erickson and Schultz, 1982; Hayashi, 1996; Tannen, 1981). I believe

that turn and ¶oor are diŸerent concepts. A speaker has the right to talk when

he/she gains the ¶oor by starting a new turn. The listener/s on the other hand

share the same ¶oor, although not actively. By sharing the same ¶oor, the

listener can show his/her participation by sending backchannels or any other

body language such as gaze or head movement.

Floor is a psychological framework, which the participants in a conversa-

tion share (Edelsky, 1981). Hayashi writes:

The interactional space, ¶oor, actively engages interactants’ cognition and knowl-

edge acquisition in terms of how to participate in a conversation. It constrains,

modiªes, maintains, adjusts, and creates moments of interaction in terms of

at least three dimensions of participation: the dimension of interaction, the

dimension of social and aŸective production, and the dimension of intentionality

(Hayashi, 1996: 33).

Adjacency pairs

Talk is produced in a sequence of pairs known as adjacency pairs (SchegloŸ

and Sacks, 1973). SchiŸrin states that they are ‘organized patterns of stable,

recurrent actions that provide for, and re¶ect, order within conversation’

(SchiŸrin, 1994: 236). The structure of an adjacency pair is composed of ªrst

and second parts exempliªed in exchanges such as compliment-compliment

responses, greetings, question-answer, and so on. In their description of an

adjacency pair, SchegloŸ and Sacks (1973: 295–60) note that they are:

– a sequence of two utterances, which are

– adjacent,

– produced by diŸerent speakers,

– ordered as a ªrst part and second part,

– typed, so that a ªrst part requires a particular second part (or range of

second parts)


In the following example from the data, there is a clear example of an

adjacency pair: exchange of greetings

(1) (F10.V-1)

1 T: Asami Rei san. kyoo no okyakusama

Asami Rei T today gen guest-pol

2 desu. doomo 2#

cop

3 G: yoroshiku onegaishimasu.3

well please

‘T: Asami Rei is today’s guest. <Welcome to the program/How are you?>

G: Thank you for inviting me.’

In this exchange at the beginning of an interview, the adjacency pair consists of

a salutation sequence. In lines 1–2, the host introduces the guest to the viewers

and greets her. The host’s greeting is returned by the guest as seen in line 3.

The second pair of this exchange unit is conditionally relevant on the ªrst

pair. In other words, the absence of the second pair is explicable in terms of

pragmatic or strategic reasons; for instance when a reply is withheld for peda-

gogical reasons, or a non-verbal answer explains the absence of a second pair.

The second pair does not have to immediately follow the ªrst pair. Although

the majority of adjacency pairs are sequential, there are instances when the

second pair is found several turns later, as in examples provided by Heritage

(1984). The insertion of sequences between the ªrst pair and second pair is not

uncommon. The next fragment from the data of this study shows that, in

Japanese, the second sequence can be sent non-verbally. It illustrates leave-

taking in an interview with a kimono collector. The topic of the interview is an

exhibition of items from her collection. The fragment is from the end of the

program when the interviewer tells her guest she is very eager to see the

exhibition. This exchange is a parting exchange.

(2) (F5)

1 T: zehi haiken ((bowing))

by-all-means see-hum

2 G: ((bowing))

‘T: (I want to) see it by all means.’

The concept of adjacency pairs as the unit of analysis has been questioned by

some researchers (Heritage and Atkinson, 1984; Tsui, 1989). They provide

examples of cases in which a third component to the unit should be included.

11Introduction

For example, Tsui (1989) proposes a third component as part of an exchange,

where this last section is as important as the second pair. In fact, there might be

multiple part exchanges. To illustrate this point, I quote the example used by

GoŸman (1976; 265) :

A: Do you have the time?

B: Sure. It’s ªve o’clock.

A: Thanks.

B: (gesture) It’s okay.

This exchange is in fact a four-part sequence, where speaker B thanks A for

answering his/her question. Although the concept of pair is the basis of conver-

sation, there are many examples where the sequence should be expanded. In

the process of analyzing data, there are instances where the deªnition of a ‘pair’

is very di¹cult to establish. The following excerpt is from another interview in

my data on cherry trees. In this section, the guest comments on the public’s

lack of concern towards nature.

(3) (M1.3)

1 T: sorekara minna wa ano zassoo o tottari

then everybody top well weeds O take-conj

2 ironna koto shimasen yo ne. ichi nen juu. moo

various thing do-neg fp fp one year around well

3 G: soo. soo. soo. iku dake yakara/

yes yes yes go only because

4 T: sakura ga(e.) saita toki ni ne/

sakura S uh-huh bloom time in fp

5 G: donna beppin demo soo deshyaroo. aite dake ni

whatever beauty even that-way cop-desid partner only in

6 natte pa tto kaettara okorimasu yaroo…

become onm Qt return-cond angry cop

‘T: Then, nobody does things like weeding. For a whole year, well

G: Yes, yes, yes. They just go.

T: When the cherry (uh-huh) blossoms.

G: It will be the same with any pretty lady. If you go out with her and

just leave, she will get angry, won’t she….

In this excerpt, the host (T) does not ask any questions, but elaborates on a

topic, which is further developed by the guest (G). In line 4, the host inserts an


additional comment to the guest’s. In line 5, the guest uses a ªgurative com-

ment. Is line 3 a second pair of line 1 where the interviewer comments on the

average person? How do we account for lines 4, 5 and 6? Do they form a pair?

We know that question–answer pairs are the normative form of interview talk

(Heritage and Roth, 1995; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), and the data in this

study are no diŸerent. However, the exchanges as shown in the example do not

follow a rigid or monotonous pattern of ªrst and second pair sequences. It has

been noted that requests/invitations and other ‘ªrst’ pairs can be preceded by

sequences termed as presequences (SchegloŸ, 1988b, 1990). These include pre-

invitations, pre-requests and so on. In case of pre-invitations, ‘Are you free this

weekend?’ is a very common presequence in English, whereas ‘Can I ask you a

favor?’ is a pre-request. According to SchegloŸ (1990), a presequence can

consist of a number of turns and they are uttered in such a way that the speaker

can anticipate whether the invitation or request will be rejected (with a dispre-

ferred second pair) or accepted (with a preferred second pair).

The notion of insert expansions is another term to explain multiple turns in

exchanges where ªrst and second pairs do not come one after the other.

SchegloŸ (1990) writes that there are preseconds and postªrsts, where the ªrst

turn follows postªrsts. In a very long example of Bonnie asking Jim to lend her

a gun, SchegloŸ shows that the request is not rejected, contrary to what one

would expect after the second pair is uttered about 40 turns later. The assump-

tion is that dispreferred seconds are preceded by presequences (1990: 57–59).

The data in the present study are heavily centred on the exchange of

questions and answers. However, as the instance in (3) shows, the interviews

do not follow a neat sequence of ªrst and second pairs; there are insert

expansions, and ªrst pairs are not always questions. In example (3), the post-

ªrsts (lines 1–4) are comments by the interviewer that contribute to the

interviewee’s elaboration of the topic under discussion.

Preference organization

In studying adjacency pairs, both preferred and dispreferred second pairs are

found. For example, if the ªrst pair is an invitation, the preferred second pair is

an acceptance, and a dispreferred second pair a rejection. This is known as

preference organization (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984), a phenomenon where

hearers have a dual choice. Preferred choices are sent immediately and are

short. Dispreferred second pairs, on the other hand, are uttered with delays and

are usually softened through various strategies. A number of studies have

looked at this aspect, ranging from compliment responses (Pomeranzt, 1978a),

13Introduction

and responses to assessments (Pomerantz, 1984), rejections (Davidson, 1984)

and invitation sequences (Drew, 1984). Because preference organization over-

laps with notions of politeness, this will be discussed further in Chapter 3.

Conversation analysis and ‘institutional’ language

While the focus of study in CA is everyday conversation, CA methodology has

nonetheless been successfully applied to analyze ‘institutional’ language: news

interviews (Clayman, 1988; Drew, 1992; Greatbatch, 1988; Heritage, 1985,

Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), doctor–patient interaction (West, 1984), lan-

guage in the health system (Zimmerman, 1992; D. Maynard, 1992) and lan-

guage in court (Drew, 1984b, 1992).

‘Institutional’ language refers to exchange in settings where at least one

participant represents the institution they work for. In this setting, the talk is

goal oriented and there are several constraints (Drew and Heritage, 1992).

These aspects are explained and expanded in Chapter 2, but needles to say they

shape ‘institutional’ interactions and distinguish them from ordinary conver-

sations. The turn-taking procedures are the most basic aspects and are intrinsi-

cally related to the role allocation and power asymmetry.

Within the broad characterization of ‘institutional’ settings, there are de-

grees of formality, with courtroom hearings being the most formal and nurse

visits to new mothers the most informal (Heritage and Seª, 1992). In the

courtroom or in news interviews, the constraints on the turntaking, for example,

are stricter. This is re¶ected in the realization that questions are one- sided, and

that an obligation is imposed on the other participant/s to provide answers. In

less formal settings, the constraints are less rigid and the boundaries between

ordinary and institutional talk in terms of turntaking seem to be blurred.

The study of ‘institutionalized’ talk in CA is also known as study of talk and

social structure. As the term indicates, the interest is on the interactional

exchange and the social structure as a whole, but, without the old sociological

concepts. In the past, the approach was one in which the social structure

in¶uenced all interactions. The CA approach rejects this assumption, and

instead proposes to explore the ways in which people react and engage with one

another to create the social structure.

There are three issues of importance in analyzing ‘institutional’ talk: rel-

evance, procedural consequentiality, and social structure (SchegloŸ, 1992c).

Relevance is a problem of analysis, where the di¹culty lies in ‘how to examine

the data so as to be able to show that the parties were, with and for one another,

demonstrably oriented to those aspects of who they are, and those aspects of


their context, which are respectively implicated in the ‘“social structures”;

which we may wish to relate to the talk’ (SchegloŸ, 1992c; 110). Some studies

have successfully addressed this issue in analyzing how turntaking in court-

rooms or news interviews is organized by the participants. Turntaking shows

distinct characteristics and demonstrates its institutional nature from within

(Atkinson and Drew, 1984, Greatbatch, 1988, ten Have, 1991). Procedural

consequentiality, on the other hand, is related to context. In other words,

another point that the researcher has to bear in mind is how the connection

between talk and context (SchegloŸ, 1992c) can be explained and demon-

strated. The third issue is related to the balance to be kept between emphasizing

either the conversational structure or the social structure.

According to Drew and Heritage (1992), ªve diŸerent topics of research

have been addressed in the last twenty years: lexical choice (Heritage and Seª,

1992; D. Maynard, 1991); turn design (Clayman, 1992; Greatbatch, 1992;

Heritage and Seª, 1992); sequence organization (Atkinson and Drew, 1984;

Clayman, 1988, 1992; Greatbatch, 1988, 1992; Heritage, 1985; Heritage and

Greatbatch, 1991); overall structural organization (Zimmerman, 1992);

and social epistemology and social relations (Clayman, 1992; Heritage and

Greatbatch, 1991; Zimmerman, 1992). In the latter, asymmetry in the interac-

tion is included, as it is a distinctive characteristic of institutional exchanges.

Although asymmetry in everyday conversation has also been the subject of

research in relation to gender and power (West, 1984; West and Zimmerman,

1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975), the status and power diŸerences are not as

clear as in institutional discourse, where those attributes are directly related to

each other and also to rights and obligations. The present study focuses on turn

design, sequence organization and social epistemology. A more detailed ac-

count of the characteristics of institutional language is given in Chapter 2.

Politeness

Politeness is an aspect of language that has been thoroughly studied. In the

West, a number of theories have in¶uenced research on notions of politeness

and language. The Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), the Politeness Principle

(Leech, 1983) and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of universal politeness.

The background of the literature and the politeness concepts in Japan are

explained in subsequent sections; here, I will limit discussion to the most

in¶uential theory on politeness, developed by Brown and Levinson (1987). This

15Introduction

theory originated with the aim to explain universal ‘politeness’ and the concept

of face that is shared by every member of society. In their book titled Politeness:

Some Universals on Language, Brown and Levinson (1987) give numerous

examples, especially from non-European languages. Their approach diŸers

from that of other researchers (Grice, 1975; LakoŸ, 1973; Leech, 1983), who

conceive politeness as a series of pragmatic rules and maxims. Brown and

Levinson’s approach is more interactional and dynamic and takes into account

a vast number of languages, including those that possess honoriªcs.

A basic concept of politeness is face. Face, as deªned by Brown and

Levinson (1987), is a basic human desire that in¶uences human interaction.

Positive face is the desire to be liked, accepted, understood and so on. Negative

face is the dislike of being imposed upon. People thus communicate so as to

‘save’ face, using strategies that address either positive or negative face. How-

ever, many communicative acts can potentially cause ‘loss’ of face, in what

Brown and Levinson (1987) deªned as face threatening acts (FTA). A wide

range of speech acts are possible FTAs, and their weight can be calculated with

a formula that takes into account (1) the power that the listener possesses over

the speaker, (2) the social distance, and (3) the degree of imposition.

In order to reduce the degree of a FTA, several strategies are available to

speakers. In order to fulªll positive face desire there are 15 super-strategies:

(1) notice, attend to hearer; (2) exaggerate (interest, approval and so on); (3)

intensify interest in hearer; (4) use in-group identity markers; (5) seek agree-

ment; (6) avoid disagreement; (7) presuppose common ground; (8) joke; (9)

assert speaker’s interest and knowledge of speaker’s wants; (10) oŸer prom-

ise; (11) be optimistic; (12) include both speaker and hearer in the activity;

(13) give or ask for reasons; (14) assume or assert reciprocity; and (15) fulªll

hearer’s wish for x. On the other hand, negative politeness strategies are:

(1) be indirect; (2) use hedges; (3) be pessimistic; (4) minimize the imposi-

tion; (5) give deference; (6) apologize; (7) impersonalize speaker and hearer;

(8) state the FTA as a rule; (9) nominalize; and (10) go on record as incurring

a debt.

The Japanese, British, and Indian cultures are categorized as ‘negative-

politeness’ cultures, where deference is a strategy to preserve ‘face’ (Brown and

Levinson, 1987: 250). However, this claim has been criticized by various schol-

ars (Ide, 1989; Ikuta, 1983), and most notably Matsumoto (1988), who ques-

tions the validity of the concept of ‘face’ as universal. She contends that the

concept of ‘face’ in Japanese society does not agree with Brown and Levinson’s

deªnition. She explains that Japanese human relations are based on one’s


position in relation to others, and not on the notion of ‘negative’ face where the

speaker wants his/her wants to be unimpeded. Another point of contention is

in deªning FTA actions. Brown and Levinson (1987) do not consider that in

some languages, such as Japanese, the speaker is ‘forced to make morphologi-

cal or lexical choices that depend on the interpersonal relationship between the

conversational participants’ (Matsumoto, 1988: 418). Even the simplest state-

ments can have various verbal endings. Quoting Matsumoto’s example, the

three sentences below contain the same semantic content:

a. kyoo wa doyoobi da.

Today top Saturday cop-plain

b. kyoo wa doyoobi desu.

Today top Saturday cop-polite

c. kyoo wa doyoobi degozaimasu.

Today top Saturday cop-super polite

(Matsumoto, 1988: 415)

‘Today is Saturday.’

The ªrst example can be used only towards somebody younger or of lower

status. It can also be used in casual conversation between intimate friends or

family members. The second utterance has a wider usage and can be used

towards strangers, acquaintances, or when one’s relationship to the hearer is

not known. The last utterance is used towards superiors and in formal situa-

tions. As Matsumoto explains, one important feature that deªnes the style is

one’s relation to the hearer, and this cannot be fully understood via a theory

that considers negative politeness as an exclusive strategy.

Usami (2002) disagrees with Matsumoto’s interpretation of the notion of

‘face’, using a technicality. The diŸerence appears to be in the possibility that

each of the three statements above are potential FTAs (Usami, 2002). Brown

and Levinson (1987) state that acts can be threats to the hearer’s negative face;

orders, requests, suggestions, reminders. Other acts can threaten positive face,

and include criticism, disagreement, expressions of violent emotion, taboo

topics including divisive ones such as religion. There are also threats to the

speaker’s face, such as thanking, oŸering excuses, accepting thanks and apolo-

gies. Brown and Levinson (1987) do not take into account, however, utter-

ances such as (a) kyoo wa doyoobi da, which can be a faux pas if uttered to

someone of higher status than the speaker. It seems that, in some other

languages, any speech act can be a potential FTA. This is diŸerent from

17Introduction

European languages, where statements of the same nature can be neutral. Face

and sociolinguistic norms are aspects that seem hard to reconcile.

In general, I agree with Matsumoto’s observation that in ‘any utterance

of Japanese, one is forced to make morphological or lexical choices that

depend on the interpersonal relationship between the conversational partici-

pants’ (Matsumoto, 1988: 418). Thus, any utterance in Japanese can poten-

tially be a FTA.

Politeness and conversation analysis

As stated in previous sections, preference organization can be explained in terms

of politeness. Studies looking at the preference organization of acts such as

invitations, compliments and so on, mention that there are preferred or dispre-

ferred options. The preferred options or ªrst pair are usually short and are stated

immediately after the ªrst pair. The dispreferred option, on the other hand, is

structurally more complex, is longer, and is uttered after a pause or some other

delaying strategy. Preferred options include acceptances, answers and agree-

ments, whereas dispreferred options can be rejections, non-answers and dis-

agreement. The reason why dispreferred pairs are lengthier and more complex

can be explained in terms of ‘face’. A rejection for example, is a FTA and

participants will try to use strategies in order to avoid or minimize the threat.

Politeness is also observed in the syntactic forms of the TCU’s. It has been

reported, for example, that verbal and clausal ellipsis in Japanese is triggered by

social and psychological factors (Okamoto, 1985). By not ªnishing utterances,

whether they are requests, invitations or questions, speakers leave their turns

without grammatical completion as one ‘negative’ politeness strategy.

Speech styles, personal pronouns and social relations

Speech style is determined by the relationship between interlocutors and the

formality of the interaction. Any study that deals, directly or indirectly, with

the subject of speech styles in Japanese must inevitably incorporate some

aspects of honoriªc language. Beside the formal and informal styles da/desu

described brie¶y in the section on politeness, Japanese possesses a complex

system known as the honoriªc language or keigo. Keigo includes honoriªc

proper known as sonkeigo and the humble forms or kenjoogo. Honoriªc forms

are in many ways very similar to the T/V pronominal system (Brown and

Gillman, 1960). The honoriªc or sonkeigo forms are used by a locutor who is

either younger or lower in status, and they are not reciprocated in formal or


soto4 situations. The humble or kenjoogo forms are used by younger or lower

status speakers when talking about themselves or about someone who belongs

to their inner circle. Again, the form is not reciprocated. Sonkeigo can be used

among friends or equals when talking about someone higher.

To illustrate, I use the verb ‘to eat’, of which there is more than one form.

(i) moo tabeta/

already eat-past-plain

(ii) moo tabemashita ka?

already eat-past-polite Q

(iii) moo meshiagarimashita ka?

already eat-past-honorific Q

(iv)* moo itadakimashita ka?

already eat-past-humble Q

When translated, these three forms mean ‘Have you already eaten?’ In Japanese,

nominal ellipsis is quite frequent and it is only the form that indicates that in (i)

the speaker is talking to someone of lower status and age and probably in an

informal situation. The actor of the verb could be the hearer or someone who is

equal or of lower status/age than both speaker and listener. In (ii), the addressee

of the question could be a stranger or someone equal or younger in age and status

in a formal situation. In (iii), the addressee is higher in status and older than the

speaker, or the utterance is referring to the actor. The unacceptable form in (iv)

is the pragmatic inappropriateness of the question. One cannot use the form

itadaku towards the listener, as its usage is only permissible when talking about

one’s actions or that of an uchi member, that is, an in-group member.

While honoriªc forms have been the focus in studying politeness phenom-

ena, recent developments have looked at level shifts in intra-turn constructions.

These ªndings suggest that shift of styles are used strategically in discourse

(S. Maynard, 1991).

Early studies of politeness by Brown and Gilman (1960) looked at the

pronominal system of some European languages in terms of power and solidar-

ity. Several European languages, such as German, Spanish, French, and Hungar-

ian, have two diŸerent forms of second person pronoun known as the T/V

system. They are used according to the semantic power of the interlocutors. A

worker addresses the boss as Sie/usted/Vous/ Maga but this is not reciprocated.

On the other hand, the Du/tu/tu/te form is used to further emphasize the

unequal relationship when used towards younger or lower status people. How-

19Introduction

ever, when used among equals it is a sign of solidarity. Many subsequent studies,

not only on pronominal usage but also on lexical and syntactic diŸerences in

speech style have contributed to the understanding of a range of issues related

to linguistic aspects and to the dynamic and complex system of communication

(Gumperz, 1982a, 1982b; Labov, 1972a; Trudgill, 1972).

Japanese possesses a personal pronoun system that is deªned by the gender

of the speaker and the relationship between the interlocutors. The usage of

pronouns is similar to the T/V system described by Brown and Gillman, however

pronouns in Japanese have a number of important diŸerences (see Chapter 4).

Asymmetry and power

There are very few occasions when interactions are not asymmetric. However,

it is in institutional contexts that this asymmetry is most pronounced, where

one side only is endowed with power. The deªnition of power in the context of

language studies is very contentious. There are innumerable studies of this, and

I can only refer to some which are more relevant to this study (without inferring

that others are less important). Some researchers have focused on how ideo-

logical power is manipulated through the media (Fairclough, 1989), others on

institutional power in cross-cultural gatekeeping interviews (Gumperz, 1982),

on societal power in inter-racial gatekeeping interviews (Erickson and Shultz,

1982), on turntaking and asymmetric interactions (Diamond, 1996; Itakura,

2001), and on gender and turntaking (Fishman, 1978; West, 1984; West and

Zimmerman, 1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975).

Power in this study is used in a restricted sense. It refers to the rights of the

interviewer, as is manifested in very speciªc aspects of the interaction: turntak-

ing and topic control. Such power is restricted to the institutionalized context

of the interview and is analyzed at a micro level. The political and ideological

connotations of the word ‘power’ are excluded in this study. I make a point of

diŸerentiating power and status as diverse notions. While power is related to

the rights and the role of the interviewer, and is therefore context dependent,

status is less dynamic. Status is deªned by age and profession, although these

are not mutually exclusive.

Japanese communication: Some cultural concepts

This section is written for those who are unfamiliar with the Japanese language,

society or culture. Much has been written on the ‘unique’ features of Japanese


society and Japanese communication. Studies known as Nihonjinron or Japa-

nese theories, have put forward theories to explain characteristics of concepts

such as shame (Benedict, 1954), amae or interdependence (Doi, 1972), frame

(Nakane, 1970), emphatic communication (T. Suzuki, 1975), wa or harmony

(Hirokawa, 1978) to name some of the most in¶uential. These studies, however,

have been criticized for their lack of objectivity, lack of data, and for reinforcing

the myth of uniformity in Japanese society (Mouer and Sugimoto, 1986).

While the concept of ‘uniqueness’ is disputable, some cultural characteris-

tics can contribute to the understanding of linguistic phenomena, provided

there is a strong body of natural data (Coulmas, 1992; Loveday, 1986; Martin,

1975; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Smith, 1992). There is no stronger argu-

ment than the fact that communication is primordially a social activity. The

idiosyncratic features of each particular community aŸect language and have

to be included in any analysis that looks at language as a social phenomenon.

The interest in the honoriªc language is illustrated by the sheer volume of

material written by Japanese authors, which ranges from self-help type books,

newspaper and magazine articles and television programs, to more academic

publications. The complex structure of honoriªcs includes a developed system

of verbs that either elevate the listener and his/her group members or humble

the speaker in order to show more respect towards the listener. Mastering this

style is a di¹cult task even for Japanese, with the most important one being to

discern one’s position in relation to the listener. This discernment is based on

hierarchy, role, and whether the interaction occurs between uchi (inner) or soto

(outer) members (Alfonso, 1966; Lebra, 1976; Kuno, 1973; Kindaichi, 1990;

Miller, 1967; Nakane, 1970; Shibatani, 1990). ‘Female’ and ‘male’ styles are

generally avoided when using the honoriªc style, although some of the formal

lexical items overlap with women’s speech. However, the fact that these cultural

notions play such an important role in deªning speech style provides a strong

argument in favour of their inclusion in the research on language and gender.

The following are some important concepts that are used in deciding the

speech style a speaker can use. This depends not only on the situation, but also

on the complex relationship between the status, role, age and in some ways

gender of the speakers.

Hierarchy

Nakane (1970) describes the Japanese social system in terms of hierarchy and

ranking. According to her view, Japanese society is manifested in a vertical

21Introduction

system where there is a strict hierarchy deªned by age, status or circumstantial

factors. In schools, universities and o¹ces, the senpai ‘elder or senior’ is above

his/her koohai ‘junior’. It is in the workplace that this hierarchy is more

strongly implemented in a pyramidal structure with the shachoo ‘president’ at

the top. Hierarchy is re¶ected in the usage of honoriªc verbs, where seniority

and age are two5 of the three decisive factors in the selection of a particular

form. It is crucial to know the interlocutor’s exact position in any institution in

order to choose the appropriate honoriªc forms. An individual has to use

honoriªc forms towards a senior, and humble forms when referring to her/

himself, which exalt the listener. This style is not reciprocated, thus creating

and reinforcing social status and distance. Usually there is no con¶ict between

age and rank, as the education and work systems are quite rigid and governed

by seniority and not by merit. Therefore, a superior is, in most cases, older than

his/her subordinates.

The nature of a relation based on roles does not change. For example, the

relationship between a teacher and her/his students is a good example. The

teacher remains a mentor to his/her students long after they have graduated

and have become successful members of the society. The hierarchical connec-

tion in this case is everlasting, where not only hierarchy but also roles are

concomitant.

Role

Role commitment and role versatility (Lebra, 1976) are two elements in the

nature of role performance in Japanese society. On one hand, performing an

assigned role leads to maintaining status, which ensures the success of a collec-

tive goal. This is exempliªed in the usage of terms of address that apply to

various professions and re¶ecting the importance of roles people perform in

society. Names of professions are used with the su¹x-san ‘Mr/Ms/Miss’. A

policeman is addressed as omawarisan ‘Mr Policeman’, a vegetable shop owner

as yaoyasan ‘Mr Greengrocer’, and so forth. A widely used title, sensei ‘teacher/

master’, is used to address teachers, university professors, medical doctors,

politicians and artists, indicating a high status. Titles like shachoo ‘president’,

kachoo ‘section chief’, and shochoo ‘head’ are used to address people working in

an institution or company. The su¹x-san is added to the title when the person

is referred to.

On the other hand, because people are addressed in terms of their roles in

society, those roles change according to other circumstances. A woman is


addressed diŸerently within the family as changes occur around her. First

addressed by her given name, she is later okaasan ‘mother’ after the birth of her

ªrst child. Later in life, she is addressed as obaachan ‘grandmother’ when she

becomes one herself (Peng, 1981; Lee, 1976). A similar process applies to men.

In addition, people are addressed diŸerently depending on whether they are at

work, at home or with friends. Although this is not a characteristic pertaining

exclusively to Japanese society, it is more prominent because of the hierarchical

system and the fact that in certain circumstances people talk about themselves

in the third person6.

The vertical system previously explained can be seen in cases where situa-

tion and role carry a heavier weight. The jooge (high/low) relationship can be

applied to complete strangers engaged in an activity such as serving a customer

in a department store, attending a patient, etc. The real status of the interlocu-

tors does not count in those particular events (a minister being treated by a

doctor, a student customer being served by the manager of the shop and so on).

In those situations, the doctor and the customer are in the upper position

irrespective of their real status outside that speech event.

Uchi/soto

The concept of uchi ‘inside, in-group’ and soto ‘outside, out-group’ is another

basic notion that shapes Japanese society. Uchi is the self and members of the

self. Interactions that occur within the uchi domain are intimate and informal.

Soto interactions take place with out-group speakers. This is the formal

domain. Many researchers examining facets of Japanese society (Nakane, 1970,

T. Suzuki, 1975, Wetzel, 1994) have described this dichotomy of uchi/soto.

More recently, Bachnik has written that ‘uchi/soto is a major organizational

focus for Japanese self, social life, and language’ (1994: 3). This inside/outside

distinction has been used as a tool for research on aspects as varied as deixis

(Wetzel, 1994), gender relations (Rosenberger, 1994), directive speech acts

(Sukle, 1994), and semantic representations (Quinn, 1994).

The boundaries of uchi/soto are ¶uid and in-group or out-group member-

ship changes according to circumstances. A superior is normally an out-group

member; however he/she becomes in-group when the speaker talks with a

person from another institution, school or company. Honoriªc language

is imperative in interactions with an out-group speaker, when humble and

honoriªc forms are used to discern status diŸerences: humble forms are used

about the self and any uchi member, and honoriªc forms to or about the soto

speaker and any soto member.

23Introduction

Language and gender

Most researchers seem to agree that men and women talk diŸerently, regard-

less of their theoretical position. The dominance approach argues that women’s

language is diŸerent from men’s because women have been denied access

to the powerful language; men’s language (Cameron, 1992; Fishman, 1978;

McConnell-Ginet, 1988; O’Barr and Atkins, 1980; Zimmerman and West,

1975). On the other hand, the diŸerence approach explains that women and

men are members of two diŸerent sub-cultures (Coates, 1989a, 1989b, 1996;

Holmes, 1986a, 1986b, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1996; Holmes and Stubbe, 1997;

Maltz and Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1982 ). The diŸerence between these two

theories lies mainly in acknowledging whether women are ‘subjugated’ by men

or not. While in the dominance theory the concept of ‘power’ is an essential

element in the discussion of gender diŸerences, the diŸerence theory simply

treats women and men as belonging to diŸerent ‘sub-cultures’.

The newest approach advocates the inclusion of other factors in the com-

municative process, not just the biological gender of the interlocutors. Empha-

sis is placed on the ‘practice’ that men and women undertake to project and

create their identities. A bigger challenge lies also in the assumption of a male-

female dichotomy that so far has not been questioned (Bing and Bervall, 1996;

Cameron, 1996; Freed and Greenwood, 1996; Freed, 1996; Wodak, 1997). The

researchers also argue for the need to observe speakers within their speech

communities, and warn of the dangers of accepting gender manifestations in

language as universal.

Research on language and gender is interwoven with feminism and feminist

theories. It is an extensive area and I will concentrate only on what is relevant to

this study. There are three diŸerent perspectives: a) the psychoanalysis ap-

proach, b) the muted group approach, and c) the sociolinguistic approach.

The psychoanalysis approach is represented by Lacan, a disciple of Freud,

and Irigaray (1990), who worked with Lacan. Lacan advocates that linguistic

analysis is the tool for psychoanalysis since it is language that makes the

‘unconscious’ of a person. Irigaray also agrees on this key concept, but is

critical of Lacan and Freud for their male centered theory which sees women

as not diŸerent but as lacking maleness. Her approach and Kaplan’s (1990)

state that women who re-evaluate language can bring changes to their status

in society.

The muted group approach (Ardener, 1978; Kramarae, 1981; Spender,

1980; Thorne and Henley, 1975) posits that values and assumptions are encoded

in our language but they are primarily those of males. Therefore, men control


language and women have to use ‘male language’. However, because of the

impossibility of representing their own experiences using expressions based on

a male perspective, women are alienated and thus fall silent (SchiŸrin, 1994).

The third approach is the linguistic perspective, in which two types of

research are undertaken: quantitative surveys and conversation analysis.

Quantitative studies carried out by Labov (1972) in America and Trudgill

(1972) in Britain surveyed the usage of prestige forms in pronunciation with

respect to conservatism. Their studies found that women tend to use pronuncia-

tion associated with the prestige norms and use the ‘correct’ forms. However,

these studies are criticized because the norm is based on male forms and women

deviate from the norm (Jenkins and Kramarae, 1982). These studies put more

emphasis on language than on gender, which is seen as just another factor.

Brouwer (1989) conducted a study on standard Dutch and the Amsterdam

dialect. Similar to Trudgill and Labov’s results, she found that women use

more standard forms than men. However, Brouwer includes in her study the

employment status of the speakers, the presence of children, and the speakers’

level of education. Apparently, being employed, having children, and having a

higher education encourage the usage of standard pronunciation. The women

interviewed in her study had obtained a higher education than their husbands.

In Japan, Peng et al. (1981) undertook a survey in order to observe gender

diŸerences in the usage of honoriªcs and other characteristics of language

use (discussed later in this section). They also found that women use more

honoriªc forms and are more aware of the ‘correct’ forms of language.

LakoŸ’s article and book titled Language and Woman’s Place (1973, 1975)

triggered research on gender diŸerences. This single work, which is a descrip-

tion of some characteristics of women’s language, gave rise to vast research on

language and gender. Although her work was criticized for its subjectivity

(Dubois and Crouch, 1975), it was the ªrst such work to point out that gender

inequalities are manifested in language usage. LakoŸ writes that women tend

to use more tag questions, non-oŸensive exclamations, more qualiªers and

more rising intonation associated with ‘uncertainty’. She posits that there is a

‘language of women’ and that women are coerced to use these forms, which

denote non-assertiveness.

Researchers critical of the ‘dominance’ and ‘diŸerence’ theories postulate

that the basic man/woman dichotomy needs to be questioned. The assumption

that men and women have a diŸerent communicative style, cannot be simply

explained in terms of biological diŸerences. Communication is a more com-

plex process where gender is one of many factors (Bing and Bergvall, 1996;

25Introduction

Cameron, 1996; Greenwood, 1996; Wodak, 1997; Woods, 1988). While I agree

with this view, it should be pointed out that most researchers seem unaware of

other languages and cultures where gender diŸerences in the speech are mani-

fested so overtly as is the case in Japanese.

The question, then, is whether gender diŸerences in the language are also

manifested in turntaking strategies. These would include aspects of the interac-

tion such as a more pronounced use of aggressive interruptions by men or of

cooperative-type turns by women. Whether these gender diŸerences are ‘so-

cially constructed’ or not is too broad a topic to be discussed in this study;

however, another crucial view in the newest approach to gender and language

is the emphasis on the importance of examining the speaker within the context

of his/her community (Cameron, 1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992,

1995) and not to assume certain styles as being characteristically feminine or

masculine.

Japanese women’s language

Historical background

In Japanese, male and female registers are dictated by the gender of the speaker.

These ‘genderlects’ include lexical, syntactic, morphological and phonological

diŸerences. Early records of women’s and men’s speech are found in literary

works of court life (Heian period, 9th – 12th century). However, whether these

diŸerences existed among common people is speculation due to lack of records.

Only in the feudal period (Muromachi Period, 14th – 16th centuries) did

indications appear of a planned and systematic eŸort to spread a language style

exclusively for women. This feminine style was based on nyoobo kotoba, a code/

language created by the courtesans. Viewed by some scholars as an occupa-

tional style (Ide and Terada, 1998), it originated among the court ladies of the

Imperial palace. Initially, nyoobo kotoba was used exclusively by the courtesans.

However, it gradually spread to other spheres outside the palace, and due to its

origins it was regarded as an elegant and reªned way of speaking. In due course

it became synonymous with women’s language.

The ‘womanly/feminine’ language was systematically inculcated in

women from the beginning of the Edo period (1603–1868). Texts used for

that purpose were in¶uenced by Chinese teachings based on Confucianism

(Endo, 1997a; Inoue, 1994; Nolte and Hastings, 1991), and contained teach-


ings on how women should behave and speak. For example, it was not con-

sidered appropriate for a woman to use kango words (Chinese-origin words).

Instead, women were encouraged to use a set of words known as Yamato

kotoba, which derived from nyoobo kotoba (Endo, 1997a). They were in-

structed to speak in a soft, gentle voice, and to avoid using ‘masculine’ words

or blunt expressions. The Meiji government (1868) further emphasized this

‘genderization’ of the Japanese language. In this period, also known as the

cultural revolution, there was an emphasis on moral education where the

ideal woman had to become a ‘good wife and a wise mother’. This was a

policy of the Meiji government, ‘popularized by the Education Ministry

propaganda (that) exhorted women to contribute to the nation through

their hard work, their frugality, their e¹cient management, their care for the

young, the old, the ill, and their responsible upbringing of children’ (Nolte

and Hastings, 1991: 152). Women were given access to education, and by

1890 there were more women than men workers in light industry (textiles,

etc.). However, their roles in society were clearly limited and they were de-

nied participation in political life. Women were expected to work but were

denied power in society.

The situation in contemporary Japan seems more egalitarian than in past

centuries. Women now hold positions of power in areas that were considered

exclusively male in the past. In politics for example, many women have held

and are holding ministerial positions in the government, are members of

political parties, or are elected mayors. More women are seen in upper mana-

gerial posts and other traditionally male professions. Yet, women are still

taught to speak like ‘women’. From a feminist point of view, it is an unaccept-

able situation, because women, actively or not, participate in the construction

of a soft and gentle image of the female. However, the notion that women are

the ‘dominated’ group by having a particular language style imposed is funda-

mentally diŸerent in Japan. Japanese women in general use ‘women’s lan-

guage’ as a matter of course and very few see the connection between speaking

male language and the emancipation of women. In fact, even if women tried to

prove their equality by using male speech, the more likely result would be

criticism of inappropriate upbringing, bad manners and lack of common

sense. A similar situation emerges if males use female speech.

It is crucial to understand that the history of female language research in

Japan and in the West has had a very diŸerent path. Academic interest in

women’s language existed in Japan much earlier than in the West. Research was

carried out within the ªeld of ‘kokugogaku’, which can be translated as the study

27Introduction

of the national language. The main interest resided in the study of nyoobo

kotoba, which has had a strong in¶uence on the lexicon and on certain struc-

tures of modern Japanese. Other studies focused on literary works, where a

clear distinction between male and female language had appeared by the 11th

century. More recent studies have looked at phonological characteristics

and politeness phenomena in modern-day speakers. The reader is referred to

Terada (1993) for a comprehensive list of gender studies published in Japanese

and English. The language of Japanese women has been widely studied mainly

from the viewpoint of politeness, syntax and lexicon (Endo, 1997a, 1997b; Ide,

1979, 1982, 1983, 1997; Ide et al., 1986; Shibamoto, 1987; Takahara, 1991;

Wetzel, 1988). Recently there has been more interest in the discourse of women

(Abe, 2000; Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group],

1997; Okamoto, 1994, 1995; Reynolds, 1993, 1997, 1998, Sunaoshi, 1994). The

results con¶ict with previous studies, suggesting that neutralization in the

language is taking place (Kobayashi, 1993, 1997). Neutralization is observed

when the linguistic forms are devoid of any gender-associated particles, lexical

items and so on. However, it is too early for conclusive ªndings as longitudinal

studies are needed.

Characteristics of Japanese ‘Genderlects’

The following section is intended for readers who are not familiar with the

Japanese language. It provides a synopsis of the most important characteristics

of women’s and men’s language.

Lexical features

Many lexical items that are for exclusive use by women can be traced back to

nyobo kotoba. Those terms are mainly used in the household domain. For

example, the adjective ‘delicious’ is oishii for women, umai for men. The noun

for ‘meal/ cooked rice’ is gohan for women, meshi for men. Women add the

preªx o/go to a noun, e.g. ohashi (chopsticks), whereas men use the plain form

hashi. The female forms are considered more polite and softer than the male

forms (see also the section on Politeness).

Personal pronouns

There are basically three sets of personal pronouns for ªrst and second person.

The ªrst person ‘I’ forms ‘atashi/watashi/watakushi, are used by both males

and females in formal and informal situations. Men have more choice as they


can use other forms for ‘I’, ore/boku/washi, in informal situations. A similar

situation occurs with the second person ‘you’, where both males and females

use anata, but males can use kimi/omae and other deprecatory pronouns also.

Sentence ªnal particles

Japanese has a rich variety of sentence ªnal particles (SFP), which are used

mostly in informal situations. Although grammatically they have no function,

semantically they convey additional information in terms of mood and speak-

ers’ involvement. Both men and women use some SFPs, e.g. ne ‘isn’t it?’ ‘don’t

you think?’, yo (creates the feeling of assertion and emphasis), and no (used for

explanations or emotional emphasis, also used by men and women in informal

questions). SFPs used exclusively by women are wa7 (softer nuance), and

kashira (indicates doubt). SFPs used exclusively by men are na (is a rough and

vigorous variation of the particle ne), zo (expresses strong emphasis and deter-

mination), and ze (used to call special attention to something and is generally

considered rude).

Verb forms

Verbs have polite and plain endings regardless of tense or mood. While both

males and females can use plain endings in informal situations, women opt to

use the polite form in formal situations. Only men use imperative verbs.

Women are expected to use the nasai su¹x, which is added to the verb base.

Tabero (eat!) is the a¹rmative imperative and is exclusively used by men,

whereas women use tabenasai (eat). Men can also use this form. Again, these

‘feminine’ forms are associated with softness and politeness.

Syntax

Women seem to be less conservative in applying certain grammatical rules

than men (Shibamoto, 1985). They tend to omit case particles more often than

men, use more adjectivals where the noun is deleted, and apply Scrambling and

Left Dislocation rules more liberally than men do.

Politeness

At the discourse level, women tend to use more polite language than men.

Increased usage of the preªx o/go before nouns, bikago (embellished words),

and an extensive use of honoriªc forms are found to be more pronounced in

female speech, which further emphasizes the image that women speak more

politely than men (Ide, 1979, 1982, 1997; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987).

29Introduction

While these characteristics are observed in contemporary spoken Japanese,

it is important to note that formality plays an important role. The diŸerences

between male and female styles are said to decrease when the situation is very

formal. However, there are no empirical studies on the syntax and politeness in

those situations, and there are two possibilities with an equal degree of feasibil-

ity. One is that neutralization will occur as interlocutors choose the neutral

forms. The second possibility is that, because speakers cannot display their

gender through their ‘genderlects’, they will do so at the discourse level.

Syntactically, we can assume that speakers will use expressions closer to ca-

nonical forms. At the discourse level, however, speakers have many ways of

displaying control or cooperation, and this study examines those strategies.

Conversation analysis and social variables

One of the distinctive features of CA is the exclusion of the participants’ age/

status/gender from the analysis in order to avoid oversimpliªcation and ideali-

zation. Although Sacks et al. (1974) stress the need to exclude social variables

from the initial analysis, they by no means deny the in¶uence of those attributes.

However, the emphasis is on avoiding the automatic connection between social

factors and conversational features such as interruptions. SchegloŸ (1993)

suggests that there are two ways of connecting the micro and macro aspects in

the methodology. One is the ‘positivist’ stance or the use of quantiªcation and/

or historical evidence. The second is that the categories which the researcher uses

are also relevant to the speakers, and can also be evident.

Throughout the years, the initial stand of non-inclusion of social categories

into the analysis and of non-quantiªcation has gradually changed. SchegloŸ

admits in his later works, that there were some ‘concerns which were deep

preoccupations some twenty-ªve years ago’ (1993; 103), and proposes the

above-mentioned solutions, namely the positivist stance and historical evi-

dence. Even though the canonical method of CA is the description of how ‘social

structure is attained through talk’, quantiªcation in studies where an ‘interac-

tional practice is tied to a particular social or psychological categories, such as

gender, status etc., statistical support will be necessary’ (Heritage, 1995: 404–5).

However, SchegloŸ cautions researchers about the limitations of quantiªcation

(SchegloŸ, 1993) and advices that it should not substitute the detailed analysis.

The inclusion of quantiªcation has been achieved in a number of important

studies that focus on gender and language (West and Zimmerman, 1987;


Zimmerman and West, 1975), questions in news interviews (Heritage and Roth,

1995), and turntaking (Ford and Thompson, 1996).

In this chapter I presented an outline of the theoretical framework on

which this study is based. The approaches to the study of discourse were briefly

explained with the focus on conversation analysis (CA), its terms and defini-

tions, and related theoretical issues. Special emphasis was placed on the ‘insti-

tutional’ characteristics of interview discourse. I also discussed politeness and

its relationship with asymmetric exchanges where power and human relation-

ships determine the aspect of language style. This was followed by an introduc-

tion to Japanese cultural concepts that determine the level of politeness in

communication. Then gender and language was examined, particularly differ-

ent theories and representative studies. Finally, a brief introduction of the

historical background and research on women’s language in Japan was given,

together with a description of some characteristics of Japanese ‘genderlects’.

An overview of the study

The ªrst part of this book provides a background to the study. In Chapter 1, I

discuss the theoretical aspects underlying the study: conversation analysis in

institutional settings, and politeness phenomena and gender diŸerences in

language. In Chapter 2, the television interview as an ‘institutional’ speech

event is explored. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on the turntaking aspect of inter-

views. Chapter 3 examines the structure of the interview and contrasts it to

characteristics of mundane conversation. Chapter 4 analyzes the turn con-

struction units (TCU) of host and guests. This analysis brings the aspect of age,

role and gender to the fore.

The next two chapters (5 and 6) concentrate on listener’s responses or

aizuchi in interviews. Aizuchi are intrinsic in Japanese communication, and

they are observed in high frequencies even in this type of ‘institutional’ speech

event. Chapter 5 analyses aizuchi in the interview discourse, and Chapter 6

discusses aizuchi usage of host and guests focusing on role, age and gender

diŸerences.

31Introduction

Notes

1. The polite forms in Japanese, which are used in formal situations, do not denote the

gender of the speaker.

2. Doomo is an adverb. It means ‘very much’ and is used together with thanks, apologies

and other social expressions. The exact meaning in cases when it is used alone depends very

much on context. The translation is therefore determined by context.

3. Yoroshiku onegaishimasu is an idiomatic phrase. Yoroshiku is an adverb meaning ‘well,

properly’ and onegaishimasu means ‘I request you’. This phrase can be used when asking a

favour or request. Therefore, the translation provided is an approximate one as this phrase’s

meaning depends on the context.

4. The concepts of soto/uchi are further explained in the corresponding section of this

chapter (see pp. 24).

5. The other factor, which dictates the usage of honoriªcs, is if the listener is a soto ‘out-

group’ or uchi ‘in-group’ person as described in Chapter 6.

6. Instead of saying ‘I will go’, when talking to younger people one can say ‘Mother/teacher

will go’ even if the subject refers to the action of the speaker. This mainly occurs in schools

and at home.

7. The sentence ªnal particle wa is also used by men in the Kansai region.

Chapter 2

The television interview genre

Introduction

This chapter looks at the characteristics that diŸerentiate interviews from

everyday conversations. Interviews, as institutional interactions, are ‘goal-

oriented’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992) and unlike conversation are conducted

with the particular aim of obtaining information. Roles are deªned and not

negotiated, conferring some rights on one participant (the interviewer) and

imposing some obligations on the other (interviewee). This role allocation

ensures a distinctive turntaking where it is rare for interviewees to ask ques-

tions unless for clariªcation. The interviewer, on the other hand, has the power

to commence and end the interview, to initiate and change topics, to refuse to

answer, thus creating an asymmetric interaction. This asymmetry, which may

not be unique to interviews, can be the cause of con¶icting situations (younger

interviewer and older interviewee in Japanese interactions), as discussed in

Chapters 4 and 6.

Previous studies

This section examines the most representative work on interviews conducted

in the last thirty years. These are not exclusively CA studies; however they

explore the same interactions.

Jucker (1986), in his work on the language of radio interviews, analyzed

interviewers’ questions. He classiªes them as prefaced and non-prefaced ques-

tions. Prefaced questions, which comprise 27 per cent of a corpus of 235,

appear in subordinate clauses and contain a preface, that relates to the

interviewee’s opinion. Non-prefaced questions include interrogatives (40%),

declarative forms (30%), and imperatives and moodless types (2.6%). He also

writes that a ‘comparatively small number of all interviewer utterances are

actually in question form’ (Jucker, 1986: 163), but if both host and guest are

cooperative, the illocutionary force of a question in the interviewer’s turn is


interpreted correctly. In my data from Japanese interviews, I also found that

the number of questions is quite low. In fact, only 15.4% of all the interviewer’s

turns are grammatically complete questions and 15.8% are incomplete ques-

tions. The comparatively lower number of interrogatives in my data may be

related to language and cultural diŸerences and /or to the type of program. As

I describe in Chapter 3, the usage of non-ªnished questions in Japanese is a

politeness strategy as it does not have the same degree of imposition as a

grammatically complete question. Grammatical incompleteness has also been

observed in colloquial Japanese (Hinds, 1978a; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; Mori,

1999; Tanaka, 1999).

The main areas of CA research on interviews are on turntaking, turn

design, lexical choice and social epistemology. Studies on turntaking in televi-

sion interviews have focused mainly on British and American English news

interviews. Greatbatch (1986, 1988) writes that turntaking rules in British

news interviews are governed by a ‘simple form of turn-type preallocation’

(1988: 402). He also suggests that diŸerences between news interviews and

everyday conversation are governed by the constraints of the former, and that

turntaking in news interviews is strongly related to the United Kingdom legal

restrictions under which interviewers must always be fair and unbiased. There-

fore, minimal responses, or what they call ‘news receipts’, for example, are

almost nonexistent in news interviews. The simple turn-type preallocation that

Greatbatch (1988) suggests has a ‘number of important ramiªcations for the

organization of news interview interaction’ (1988: 404), and can be summa-

rized as follows:

– The roles of interviewer and interviewee are strictly maintained. The inter-

viewer may use other types of information-eliciting techniques such as

challenges.

– There is a conspicuous absence of ‘news receipts’ or minimal responses.

– Interviewers often produce ‘statement turn components’ that are recog-

nizable as questions.

– In instances where the interviewer’s turn is a statement, interviewees

normally refrain from initiating their turn. This is an indication of the

constraints of interviews where the interviewees are normally expected to

respond to questions.

– In interviews involving more than one interviewee, the interviewer man-

ages turn-allocation.

– Interviews are opened and closed by interviewers.

35The television interview genre

While Greatbatch’s work was focused on news interviews, he also compared

diŸerent types of interviews, guest interviewer interviews, celebrity interviews

and talk show interviews, and found some diŸerences. In a news interview, the

interviewer cannot state personal opinions, while in the other types, the pro-

gram is designed in a way that the audience takes on the role of eavesdropper

and the interview is conducted more like an intimate chat between host and

guest. Also, the turntaking rules are more similar to those for conversations.

The studies by Greatbatch and Jucker show us many interesting aspects of

news interviews. However, they cannot be generalized in an absolute manner to

other languages and to other types of television interviews. Japanese ethnogra-

phers have conducted similar studies in the Japanese language. T. Yamada

(1995) states that, in Japanese news interviews, ‘news marks’ (Heritage, 1985)

or minimal responses are almost non-existent (T. Yamada, 1995: 127). This is

an interesting ªnding because aizuchi are so pervasive in Japanese (LoCastro,

1987; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; see Chapter 5). T. Yamada analyzed an excerpt of

a news interview between Takako Doi (a female politician) and a female

interviewer, and concluded that it is not an overstatement to say that news

interviews are a sequence of questions and answers only. Although T. Yamada’s

work (1995) is a detailed sequential analysis, it is premature to generalize his

ªndings as there might be style diŸerences between interviewers. Furthermore,

other types of interview programs might have other characteristics. Apart from

T. Yamada’s study on news interviews, this area in Japanese (to my knowledge)

is largely unexplored.

Hinds’ (1978a) study on interview-type discourse focuses on topic organi-

zation as well as four aspects of Japanese conversation. Although the interview

he used was recorded for investigative purposes, there are still more similarities

to televised interviews than to mundane conversation. Hinds looks at overlaps,

polite speech, turn-signaling behaviour and conversational harmony. Despite

interesting results, the study fails to give a more rigorous analysis. For example,

gender diŸerences are observed in the type of lead-in or in questions used by

the interviewer, but the interpretation is rather simplistic. Hinds writes that

more solidarity devices were used towards female interviewees because the

interviewer felt they were more nervous than male interviewees. Although this

point seems to be crucial for the interpretation of the data, he does not develop

it further.

Among studies on gender diŸerences and media interviews, Winter

(1993), Johnson (1996) and KotthoŸ (1997) are of high relevance. While not

all their data may be comparable (KotthoŸ used debate programs, Winter used


political interviews), their divergent results are nevertheless very important. In

Winter’s analysis (1993), two political interviews featuring a female and a male

host, both interviewing a male guest, on Australian television were examined.

Turntaking management, question strategies and episodic structure were

looked at, and results indicate that there is a clear diŸerence in the interviewing

strategies of the two hosts. While a more competitive and aggressive stance

characterizes the all-male interview, the female interviewer maintains a coop-

erative style. Similarly, Johnson (1996) analyzed Maggie Barry, a New Zealand

TV interviewer, in eight diŸerent programs. He found that women speak more

and at greater length, are interrupted less than men, and that Maggie Barry

used a greater percentage of questions with negative aŸect with male

interviewees. While Winter found that female hosts do not change their style to

suit the guests, Johnson found that females adopt a more aggressive stance

towards male guests and a friendlier attitude towards female guests. On the

other hand, KotthoŸ’s results seem to reinforce the notion of male dominance

over females. The professional women in her data were asked questions on

mundane topics rather than on their expertise, which tacitly belittled them. It

is di¹cult to speculate whether these diŸerences are due to language (English

vs. German), diŸerent cultures (Australian, New Zealand and German), or the

type of program and the number of participants.

Typology of television interviews

There are various types of television interviews varying in length and style.

They can constitute a whole program or be a part of one. Short interviews as

part of a news program are very common. The interviewees can be ‘experts’ or

simply witnesses or victims. When interviews are independent programs,

interviewees are usually ‘experts’ or celebrities. They may involve more than

one interviewee and interviewer. In interviews such as on ‘Four Corners’

(ABC, Australia), there are usually more than two interviewees, who are

connected via satellite. There are news programs in Japan where the

anchorperson and his assistant (usually a younger female) conduct the inter-

view jointly. They can be broadcast ‘live’ or pre-recorded, with scenes or

photographs to illustrate stories, video segments shown in between, or they

may have no other images apart from those of the participants.

Topics vary according to the time of broadcast and the targeted audience.

Social topics such as drugs, motherhood and human relationships are sched-


uled for midday and early afternoon programs, while politics, economics or

current aŸairs are broadcast early morning or at night.

News interviews

News interviews are usually short because they are included in the news

program. Interviewees range from ‘experts’, who are asked on any topic of their

expertise, to ordinary people who have witnessed an accident or a natural

disaster. The insertion of these short interviews is an addition to the news value.

The witness-type interviewee is in many cases anonymous, whereas ex-

perts are always identiªed by name and a¹liation. The most common charac-

teristic of this type of interviews is their duration. They are mostly short and the

interviewer is less conspicuous. This style of interviewing is also a feature of

Japanese television news, and is probably one of the most common formats in

modern-day news reporting.

Current aŸairs

Current aŸairs are programs that tackle controversial topics. Therefore, the

format of the interviews is diŸerent from other types of broadcast interviewing.

There is usually more than one interviewee and they represent diŸering opin-

ions. The ‘interviewer’ or anchorperson introduces the various interviewees or

participants to the audience and asks the questions. All participants may be in

the studio or in diŸerent places and connected electronically. Due to the nature

of the topics, these interactions are usually more aggressive than other inter-

views, and therefore interruptions may be more frequent.

Cultural interviews

In cultural interviews, only one person is interviewed at a time. As the name

indicates, the interviewee is an artist or writer, and the topic is related to her/his

work, life and/or experience. In most cases, the interviewer has read, watched

or listened to some of the artistic or literary works of the interviewee and has

carried out some research. Naturally, the topics in the interview are pre-

arranged. Contrary to most interviews in current aŸairs, the programs are not

controversial and emphasize the artistic element. In Australia, interviews con-

ducted by Andrea Stretton (Andrea Stretton Interviews, ABC) and Margaret

Throsby (ABC FM morning show) can be classiªed in this category, although

it should be noted that the latter is a radio interview.


Talk shows

Talk shows are a recent form of television programming. They are usually

conducted by one interviewer and the guests are ordinary people or actors who

talk about their personal life. There is an audience and an ‘expert’, who interact

with the guest or guests and the interviewer (Andersen, 1995). In these pro-

grams, guests are judged and confronted by the audience. The topics are

sensationalist, which can be explained in terms of rating demand. ‘From

murder to incest, crime and punishment, almost no boundaries exist between

what can and cannot be said in public’ (Andersen, 1995: 160). This type of

show is a product of American television, and with globalization and the

diŸusion of satellite broadcasting can be watched by a wider audience.

Television and language in Japan

Television, and media in general, are so widespread in modern and technologi-

cally advanced societies that they cannot be dissociated from everyday life. It is

well known that media can steer public opinion in a dramatic way (e.g. it can

sway voters’ decisions before or during an election, and disseminate ideas or

portray images). Japan, being a modern country, also experiences the powerful

in¶uence of media in almost every aspect of life: language, information relay,

leisure, education, and so on. Media have played an important role in spread-

ing standard Japanese throughout the country. Though dialects still exist in

most parts of Japan, the importance of radio and television on language

standardization is undeniable. Given this enormous in¶uence, we can infer on

the one hand that linguistic manifestations in the media are a re¶ection of how

language is used by a great majority of people, and on the other that media

plays a role in disseminating particular linguistic forms that are perceived as

modern, elegant, appropriate, and ‘standard’.

It is almost half a century since television started in Japan, and today most

people regard television as a provider of news as well as of entertainment. On

average, the time Japanese people spend watching television is 3 hours 16

minutes per day (1992 ªgures from Sekiguchi, 1998). Television is also known

to have a major in¶uence on the perception and construction of the socializa-

tion of gender roles (Gunter, 1995). Numerous studies attest to the in¶uence

of television and magazines in portraying the ‘ideal’ female or male, (Hayashi,

1997; A. Suzuki, 1993), which tends to reinforce the stereotypes.


Television broadcasting started in Japan in 1953, although research and

testing had commenced much earlier. Within four years, there was an interest

in Japanese produced programs instead of the ªlms that had been shown in

cinemas. In 1960, there were four commercial television networks and they

received major cooperation from the newspapers and news agencies. This link

remains today. By the 1990s, there were ªve major commercial television

networks in addition to the government funded National Broadcasting Corpo-

ration (NHK). There are about 105 channels, all belonging to one of the ªve

networks, and NHK oŸers two services: general and educational (Nippon

Hoosoo Kyookai, 1967).

The commercial television networks are NTV (Nihon television), TBS

(Tokyo Broadcasting), (CX) Fuji television, (ABC) Television Asahi (Asahi

Terebi or Channel 10) and TX (Tokyo 12 Channel). Each of these networks is

connected to at least one other company, and their broadcasting is in¶uenced

by the philosophy of those a¹liations. NTV is backed by the Yomiuri Group,

which includes a professional baseball team and the Yomiuri Shinbun, Japan’s

largest newspaper. NTV’s programs focus on sports events. TBS is related to

the Mainichi Shinbun, and its strength is in the production of highly popular

dramas. Fuji television is associated with the Sankei Shinbun and focuses its

programs on young people. Tokyo 12 Channel is related to the Nikkei Shinbun

and its contents are highly economics-oriented. Television Asahi is linked to

the Asahi Shinbun, Oobunsha (a publishing company) and Tooei (a ªlm pro-

duction company). This network’s programs are diverse: cartoons, Japanese

‘Westerns’ and a very successful news program are among their strengths.

Japanese television interviews

The organization of television in Japan is similar to Britain, although the types

of programs are more in line with the United States (Reischauer, 1977).

Japanese television interviewing follows the same pattern as the types already

mentioned (interviewing witnesses and ‘experts’, both as part of a news pro-

gram, political interviews, cultural interviews).

Audience rating is a common factor for television programs around the

world. In Japan, people choose a particular news program because they like the

news anchor. According to the results of a survey carried out in 1991, 59 per

cent chose a news program because they like the newscaster (Sekiguchi, 1998).

This tendency may be re¶ected in the popularity and longevity of the interview

programs used in this study (Tetsuko no Heya) as I write in the next section.


Another characteristic, which may re¶ect the cultural values in Japanese society,

is the fact that news interviews are ‘generally controlled’, so that interviewees are

seldom challenged or oŸended (Sekiguchi, 1998: 56). This aspect is in stark

contrast to American, British, Australian, New Zealand or Israeli news inter-

views (Blum-Kulka, 1983; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Shearn, 1998), where

both interviewer and/or interviewee can challenge one another and be openly

aggressive. In fact, challenging or provoking an interviewee is a strategy designed

to arouse the interest of the audience (Shearn, 1998)1

The data

The data used in this study are twenty television interviews conducted by

Tetsuko Kuroyanagi. The program is entitled Tetsuko no Heya ‘Tetsuko’s

room’, and has been broadcast for the last twenty-eight years by Asahi Terebi

(Television Asahi), a private television channel. The interviewees are artists,

writers, lawyers, university professors and other professionals (for details see

Tables 1–4 in Appendix 1). It is a very popular program as its broadcast life

shows. The program is quite diŸerent to the American talk shows, as there is no

live audience. Topics discussed are non-controversial and emphasis is placed

on the guests’ professional or personal achievements. They are always praised

and never confronted or criticized. In many ways the characteristics of the

program re¶ect the way in which members of Japanese society maintain

human relationships and communication in general, with harmony being

extremely important. (Hendry, 1995; Lebra, 1976).

Tetsuko no Heya started on February 1976 and, the 5000th interview was

broadcast in September 1996. It is broadcast ªve days a week at midday and

lasts forty-ªve minutes, including commercial breaks. The program is struc-

tured around three commercial breaks. The ªrst break comes after a preamble

to the program. The second break is not shown until at least ªfteen minutes

after the start. The last commercial break is almost at the end of

the program. Before the second and third breaks, the interviewer makes an

announcement.

According to the information presented on the World Wide Web (1996),

Tetsuko Kuroyanagi has interviewed 1,676 men and 1113 women in these

twenty years. The interviewees are successful people and the topics are varied. As

stated earlier, the program is not aggressive and no controversial issues are raised

during the interviews. The policies in relation to the program are as follows:


– The program is broadcast without editing.

– Interviewees are not asked about gossip or scandals.2

– Interviewees are never criticized.3

– Politicians are not invited as interviewees

– People who intend to use the program as a tool for publicity are not invited.

The studio setting is a formal Western lounge room. The guest sits on a sofa in

front of the main camera and the interviewer sits on an armchair on the left. A

big coŸee table is in front of them, where drinks are served and books or

photographs are placed when used. Three cameras are used in the program;

however due to the angle at which both participants are seated it is di¹cult to

see their faces at the same time. Although the host uses some notes during the

program, there is no script and their speech is ‘natural’. This aspect is evident in

the transcriptions, in which some of the typical characteristics of natural

speech such as false starts, ‘ªllers’ and pauses occur.

The host, Tetsuko Kuroyanagi, is a versatile and famous media personality

in Japan. A graduate of the Tokyo University of Arts, she conducts various

television programs besides performing in the theatre. She is the author of

Madogiwa no Totto-chan ‘Tottochan’,4 an award-winning book. She is also

famous for her charity work and was appointed a UNESCO ambassador of

good-will. There is no doubt that viewers watch Tetsuko no Heya for to her

popularity and fame.

The interviewees in Tetsuko no Heya are selected because of their profes-

sional achievements or other outstanding merits. Unlike other interview pro-

grams where people are asked to appear in order to give their professional

opinion and expertise about any given topic, the guests in Tetsuko no Heya are

asked about their personal experience, their art or their work.

For this study, the interview series was video-recorded during October

1993–February 1994. Interviews were then recorded onto audiotapes and tran-

scribed. A year after the transcriptions were made, the recordings were viewed

once more to check for accuracy. The smaller number of female guests was

interesting. From the 17th of January to the 15th of February 1994, out of 16

interviewees, only 4 were women. As the program is broadcast almost daily,

this diŸerence may not be evident over a year, for example. However, this

imbalance may in itself might be an indication of the gender imbalance in

society, where the majority of professionals are male.

The transcriptions were typed in roman letters using the Hepburn method.5

Conventions for the transcription of the data were based on the system devised


by Du Bois et al. (1990), although some changes had to be made due to space

constraints. For example, in Du Bois et al. (1990), a new intonation unit is

indicated by a new line. However, as I provide a transcription, a gloss and an

English translation of the data, a space saving sign had to be implemented. The

conventions for the data transcription are described in detail in Appendix I.

Conversation analysis and interviews

In Chapter 1, three concerns raised by SchegloŸ (1992) were mentioned brie¶y

when analyzing institutional language from a CA perspective. Here, they are

discussed in more detail. SchegloŸ condenses these three issues as follows:

1. what is so loomingly relevant for us (as competent members of the society

or as professional social scientists) was relevant for the parties to the

interaction we are examining, and thereby arguably implicated in their

production of the details of that interaction;

2. what seems inescapably relevant, both to use and to the participants, about

the “context” of the interaction is demonstrably consequential for some

speciªable aspect of that interaction; and

3. that an adequate account for some speciªable features of the interaction

cannot be fashioned from the details of the talk and other conduct of the

participants as the vehicle by which they display the relevance of social-

structural context for the character of the talk, but rather that this must be

otherwise invoked by the analyst, who furthermore has developed defen-

sible arguments for doing so (SchegloŸ, 1992: 65–66).

The problem of relevance, as stated in Chapter 1 is, in SchegloŸ’s words, not

‘just the descriptive adequacy of the terms used to characterize objects being

referred to, but the relevance that one has to provide if one means to account

for the use of some term, the relevance of that term relative to the alternative

terms that are demonstrably available’ (SchegloŸ, 1992: 108). In other words,

the researcher should not automatically attribute particular phenomena to

‘external’ factors of the interaction. Two solutions are suggested to solve this

problem. One of the solutions is termed as a ‘positivist’ approach. This involves

some process of quantiªcation or statistical counting. The second and more

complicated solution is to demonstrate that what is occurring in the interac-

tion is relevant to the participants at that particular moment.


As in concern 2, procedural consequentiality is related to the ‘context’ of

the talk. It is a problem in demonstrating how the context of the place or the

setting is ‘procedurally consequential’ to the talk. SchegloŸ (1992) warns the

researcher of the di¹culties in showing the connection between talk and social

structures in the traditional sense. The analyst should not take the ‘context’ for

granted but rather it should be seen as the product of the participants.

Lastly, concern 3 is related to the balance in the emphasis one should put

on either the social structure or the conversational structure. The problem

presented is that of the complexities of how and when to attribute features that

are inherent in the talk and others that belong to the social and structural

organization.

Characteristics of the interview

Interviews are ‘institutionalized’ interactions. They are diŸerent from mun-

dane talk in a number of aspects. Interviews are goal-oriented interactions, a

fact tacitly understood by the participants. Roles are deªned and participants

are aware of the tasks and restrictions inherent in the interaction. Interviews

are pre-planned communicative events where at least two persons are in-

volved. There is also an audience or ‘overhearers’, which may not be physically

present. Each of these characteristics is inter-related and in¶uences mutually

how the interaction is realized.

Role allocation

One of the basic features of interviews is the allocation of roles. Participants are

assigned a ‘role’ that entails a number of obligations and restrictions, which is

re¶ected in the turntaking with the production of some adjacency pairs. One

such pair is the question/answer, where the interviewer asks the questions and

the interviewee answers them. This role and adjacency pair correspondence is

not reversed (Greatbatch, 1988; Heritage and Roth, 1995). While in everyday

conversation the role of questioner or respondent is not set but negotiated, in

an institutional setting the roles are ªxed. This role allocation entails the tacit

understanding of the rights and obligations of the participants. The interviewer

has the right to ask the questions, initiate and terminate the interview, and

initiate and shift topics. On the other hand, the interviewee has the obligation

to provide answers, although there are situations where interviewee’s re-


sponses are evasive in nature (see Bull, 1994, on non-replies in political inter-

views), or they challenge the interviewer.

Participants’ identities

The interviewer usually knows much more about the interviewee, e.g. profes-

sional achievements, than vice versa. This aspect is more pronounced when the

interview is a gate keeping process; interviewees usually do not even know the

identity of their interviewers (e.g. in a job interview). The fact that only one

participant (the interviewer) has more information about the other person

creates psychological restrictions, which inevitably aŸects the communicative

interaction in many ways. This aspect reinforces the asymmetry of the interac-

tion. Turntaking, for that matter, is quite diŸerent to the one found in daily

conversation (Clayman, 1988; Greatbatch, 1991; Heritage and Greatbatch,

1989; T. Yamada, 1995). Perhaps the identity of the interviewer is less relevant

in interviews where politicians or experts are interviewed, but this very feature

restrains the interviewee from asking questions.

Asymmetry in the interaction

Asymmetry in the interview is one of the central topics of research in ‘institu-

tional’ settings (Drew and Heritage, 1992; Heritage and Seª, 1992). Research-

ers have looked at the various ways speakers show their rights and how these

diŸerences are locally constructed in the discourse. It has been argued against

considering mundane conversation and institutional interaction in a dichoto-

mous relationship (Drew and Heritage, 1992). However, it is important to note

that, in many settings, there is an intrinsic relationship between role and rights

which is not found in daily conversation.

Power is used in reference to the rights that interviewers possess. Partici-

pants in an interview are unequal in terms of rights endowed on them in the

interaction. In media interviews, the interviewer’s rights include topic control,

commencing and ending the interview, and eliciting information. This aspect

diŸers from daily conversation where topics are chosen relatively freely, turn

taking is negotiated, and tasks are not deªned. In interviews, topics are intro-

duced and changed solely by the interviewer, and attempts by the interviewee

to change them are discouraged or even penalized.


Goal-oriented interaction

As Drew and Heritage (1992) note, ‘institutional’ language is goal oriented.

The goal of media interviews is to obtain information from the relevant per-

sons and broadcast it to a wider audience. The presence of an audience (physi-

cal or not) aŸects the discourse of the participants because the participants are

aware of this ‘third’ party (Bell, 1984; Fairclough, 1989).

One-way ¶ow of information

As opposed to mundane talk, there is no exchange of information or small talk

in interviews, although in some less formal interviews we may see a more

relaxed format. Interviewers, for example, cannot give personal opinions, since

neutrality is a requisite in professional journalism. This restriction shapes the

turn-type distribution and the types of adjacency pairs, as only the interviewer

is entlitled to do the questioning (Clayman,1988; Greatbatch ,1988; Heritage

and Greatbatch, 1991).

Pre-arranged interactions

Media interviews are diŸerent to mundane conversations in that they are

prepared in advance. A reasonable amount of preparation by the interviewer is

required for a successful interview. This involves some research into the

achievements and career of the guest, which enables the interviewer to choose

particular topics and prepare her/his questions in advance. On the other hand,

the interviewee must agree to be interviewed.

To summarize, interviews ‘involve interpersonal communication aimed at

eliciting information’ (Cohen, 1987: 14). The roles of interviewer and inter-

viewee are not negotiated but ªxed. In ‘institutionalized’ talk, a number of

restrictions and constraints on the speakers shape the interaction (Drew and

Heritage, 1992; Goodwin, 1981). Talk in these settings is always goal-oriented.

Interviewers are constrained by their role because they are expected to be neutral

(Drew and Heritage, 1992), and they have to conform to the interview rules.

They are not just ordinary individuals; they represent the organization they work

for. The constraints of the interaction are straightforward. Interviewers can

decline to answer questions asked by an interviewee without any consequences.

The interviewees, on the other hand, are expected to answer the interviewers’

questions or face the consequences of giving a negative impression.


Turntaking rules

The television interview format places several constraints on the discourse. For

example, turn allocation and management of the interview is the responsibility

of the interviewer. Interviewers are expected to maintain neutrality, although

they might criticize or challenge their interviewee as a strategy to elicit a desired

response. In interviews, there is a time constraint and there is an audience

(although not necessarily physically present). As mentioned brie¶y, there are

diŸerent types of television interviews, such as where an audience is a third

participant in a talk show (although not active). The presence of an audience is

an important factor, as participants may become more aware of their speech

(Bell, 1984).

These constraints discussed above seem to operate in all the interviews in

my data, and there are several rules listed below. In order to avoid confusion, I

will use the terms host and guest for the rest of this study.

Rule 1: The host:

– always opens the program

– always introduces the guest

Rule 2: The guest invariably:

– remains silent during the introduction until the greetings are exchanged.

Rule 3: The host:

– always introduces the ªrst topic

– invariably announces a commercial break to the audience and the guest

– invariably closes the program

Rule 4: The host and guest invariably:

– exchange greetings verbally or nonverbally

– exchange parting expressions verbally or nonverbally

Rule 1: The host always opens the program and introduces the guest

This initial section is directed to the audience and is observed in every inter-

view. The host (T) looks brie¶y at the guest (G) but most of the time she looks

at the camera in front of her. T gives a general background of the ‘guest’, citing

his/her most important professional or personal accomplishments. T also

mentions about the topic of the day’s interview in one or two sentences. Once

the guest has been introduced, the host and guest exchange greetings. It is only

after T greets the guest that he/she has the ‘right’ to talk.


In the following example, the guest is a music university professor who is

the author of a best-selling book on food. The introductory section can be

quite lengthy, involving a multi-unit turn. There are many potential TRPs,

(line 2, after the conjunctive particle te, line 3, after ga, line 5 after the sentence

ªnal particle ne, line 5, 7 and 9, syntactic completion), but the guest does not

take the ¶oor until he is greeted by the host.

(1) (M9)

1 T: omenikakaru no o tanoshimini shiteorimashita. e..

meet -hon com O pleasure do-hum-past eh

2 → taihen tasaina kata deirashaimashite.. donna fuuni

very talented person cop-hon-conj what-kind way

3 → goshookai mooshiagetara to omoimasu ga ,

introduction-hon say-hum-cond Qt think but,

4 yahari ano= ima okyuuryoo o moratterasharu no

after all uhm now salary-pol O receive-hon com

5 → wa Tookyoo Geidai Ueno geidai desu ne.

topic Tokyo Art-Uni Ueno Art-Uni cop fp

6 asuko no ongakubu de kokubungaku no sensei o

there of music-dept loc Japanese-literature gen teacher O

7 → shiterasharu koto ga hitotsu deirashaimasu. sorekara

do-hon com S one cop-hon then

8 Kenburijji no kyakuin kyoojuu o nasatta

Cambridge gen visiting professor O do-hon-past

9 → koto mo gozaimasu. soshite TAIHENni mezurashii.. bururunn..

com also be-pol and very unique onmt

10 da toka.. ankomapan da toka (@@) nanka

cop and sweet-bean-bread cop and something

11 wakannai omoshiroi oryoori o otsukurininaru

understand-neg interesting food O make-hon

12 kata demo irassharu n desu. Hayashi Nozomu

person also be-hon com cop Hayashi Nozomu

13 san. kyoo no okyakusama desu. doomo#

T today gen guest-pol cop nice-to-meet-you

14 G: konnichiwa.

good-morning


‘T: I’ve looked forward to meeting him/you. He is a very talented person,

and I don’t know how I can introduce him. Now he is getting his salary

from the Tokyo Arts University, the Ueno Arts University. He is a

teacher of Japanese literature (one of the many things he does) in the

music department of that (place). Then he was a visiting professor at

Cambridge and he also cooks very interesting and unique food such as

sweet bean bread and bururun.6 Today’s guest is Mr. Nozomu Hayashi.

Nice to meet you.

G: Good morning’

Rule 2: The guest invariably remains silent during the introduction until greet-

ings are exchanged

During the introductory part of the program, the guest remains silent. He/she

listens and occasionally nods. In the previous excerpt, the host opens the

program and her multi-unit turn consists of 6 full declaratives. During this

section, the guest remains silent. It is only after the host utters the ªrst pair of

the greetings that the guest reciprocates.

As a ‘deviant’ case, there is an instance in the data when the host asks the

guest a question to conªrm a term. This is the only case in 20 interviews. The

guest is a pianist who has a physical disability and the question is related to the

disease she suŸered as a child.

(2) (F8)

1 T: ima. mo- goshookaimooshiagemashita yooni. piano no sensei

now already introduce-past-hum like piano of teacher

2 demo irasshaimasu. maa nisai han de. sekizui kariesu o.

also be-hon well two-years half in spinal-caries o

3 sekitsui/ kariesu desu ka?

vertebral caries cop Q

4 G: hai sekitsui desu.

Yes vertebral cop

5 T: sekitsuikariesu o nasaimashita. ((continues))

Vertebral-caries o do-past-hon

‘T:… Now, as I said before, she is also a piano teacher. Uhm, when she

was two and a half years old, she contracted the spinal caries, vertebral?

Was it vertebral?


G: Yes, it is vertebral.

T: She contracted vertebral caries. ((continues))

In line 3, the host asks the guest a question in relation to the term for the

disease that crippled her. Note that the pronunciation of the two words in

Japanese is very similar, sekizui ‘spinal chord’ and sekitsui ‘vertebral chord’,

and also the meaning. Being a rare disease and an unfamiliar terminology, the

host might have not been fully conªdent of the correct terminology.

In every case, the guest has the right to speak only after the host asks a

question, or after the greetings have been exchanged. This is a very clear

demarcation of the rights and duties of each participant, which is absent in

daily conversation but is a characteristic of ‘institutional’ language. The ‘right’

to speak is clearly one of the most interesting aspects of these types of interac-

tions, and is at its most visible in the courtroom (Drew, 1992).

Rule 3.1: The host always introduces the Wrst topic only after the greetings have

been exchanged

It is only after greetings are exchanged that the interview formally starts, and it

is always the host who introduces the ªrst topic. In the following example from

the same interview with the professor, the host starts her turn with the word

mazu, which is equivalent to the English term ‘ªrst’.

(3) (M9)

1 T:… Hayashi Nozomu san. kyoo no okyakusama desu.

Hayashi Nozomu T today gen guest-pol cop

2 doomo#

nice-to- meet-you

3 G: konnichiwa.

good-morning

4 T: mazu ohanashi o ukagatteiru uchi ni kore ga

ªrst talk O listen-hum-prog while loc this S

5 sameteshimaimasu node, (e.) mazu okangaeninarimashita kore wa#

get-cold-totally because ªrst think-hon-past this top

‘T: Today’s guest is Mr Nozomu Hayashi, nice to meet you.

G: Good morning.

T: First, because (yes) this (dish) is going to get cold while I (we) listen to

you, First, this (dish) is something you thought about’


Invariably, topics are initiated with a discourse word, as in the following

fragments. In these examples, topics are introduced with de (and), anoo (well),

demo (but), indicated by the arrow. They are discourse markers that function

in a similar way to the particle ‘oh’ in new topic beginnings (Button and Casey,

1984; Heritage, 1984).

(4) (F2)

1 T: Sugiyama Tokuko san. kyoo no okyakusama desu.

Sugiyama Tokuko T today of guest-pol cop

2 doomo [shibaraku degozaimashita.

quite long-time cop-past-pol

3 G: [doomo. yoroshiku…

quite please

4 →T: de ano- bikkurishita n desu kedo, ano- gokekkon

and well surprised com cop but well marriage-pol

5 shiterassharanai, tte, (soo.)

do-neg-hon Qt yes

‘T: Today’s guest is Miss Tokuko Sugiyama. We have not met for a long

time.

G: Hello.

T: And, I was surprised to know that you are not married, (yes).

(5) (M8)

1 T: Egawa Susumu san kyoo no okyakusama desu. Doomo.

Egawa Susumu T today gen guest-pol cop

2 G: yoroshiku onegaishimasu.

please please

3 T: shibaraku de[gozaimashita.

long-time cop-past-pol

4 G: [shibaraku desu.]

long-time cop

5 →T: anoo hajimete oideitadaita toki ni ne/ (hai)

well ªrst-time come-hon time in fp yes

‘T: Today’s guest is Mr. Susumu Egawa. Hello7

G: Hello.8

T: We have not met [for a long time].[(We have not met for a long

time)].

Well, when you came here for the ªrst time (yes).’


(6) (F6)

1 T: ogenki soo de#

healthy looks conj

2 G: hai. sore dake ga torie desu.

yes. that only S good-point cop

3 →T: demo sorenishitemo ((continues))

but anyway

‘T: You look very healthy

G: Yes. Good health is my only strength.

T: But, anyway ((continues)).’

Rule 3.2: The host invariably announces a commercial break to the audience

and the guest (only if the program is broadcast by commercial TV) and closes

the program

In most of the programs, the host gives a pre-announcement of the topic to

follow when announcing the commercial break. The announcement is di-

rected to both the audience and the guest.

(7) (M9)

1 T: soo derassharu n desu tte nee/ e…soshite asoko

that be-hon com cop q fp uhm and there

2 de sono subarashii sono ichiman satsu

loc that wonderful that 10,000 books

3 no hon no mokuroku ga dekita n desu

gen book gen catalogue S be-done-past com cop

4 keredo. ja chotto sore wa komaasahru

but then little that top commercial

5 o hasamimashite.# (hai.)

O insert-conj yes

‘T: I heard that it was so. And at that place, the wonderful catalogue of

10,000 books was done. (We will talk about it) after the commercial

break. (yes)’

Depending on time restrictions, the host closes the program with leave-taking

expressions. Other times, the program is artiªcially terminated. However, as is

the case at the start of the program, the guest does not ªnish the program.


Rule 4: Host and guest invariably exchange greetings verbally and leave-taking

expressions verbally or non verbally.

Greetings diŸer according to the relationship between the participants, and

whether they have met before or not. The following two examples are from

interviews when the host meets her guests for the ªrst time.

(8) (F1)

1 T: Inoue Fumi san kyoo no okyakusama desu. doomo,

Inoue Fumi T today of guest-pol cop quite

2 [hajimemashite]

pleased-to-meet-you

G: [hajimemashite]…

pleased-to-meet-you

‘T: Today’s guest is Mrs Fumi Inoue.

[Pleased to meet you]

G: [Pleased to meet you]

(9) (F8)

1 T: Oomura Noriko san kyoo no okyakusama desu. Doomo

Oomura Noriko T today of guest-pol cop quite

2 hajimemashite. [yoroshiku, onegai itashimasu.]

Pleased-to-meet-you please

3 G: [hajimemashite. yoroshiku onegai itashimasu.]

Pleased-to-meet-you please

‘T: Today’s guest is Mrs Noriko Oomura. Pleased to meet you. xxxx

G: Pleased to meet you.

The next two excerpts show that the host and the guest have met before or

know each other very well.

(10) (M10)

1 T: nanishiro juuhachi nen (@) mae ni deteitadaita

anyhow eighteen years ago loc appear-past-hon

2 okyakusama deirassharu Bandoo Tamasaburoo san desu.

guest-pol cop-hon Bandoo Tamasaburoo T cop

3 [doomo

xxxx

4 G: [doozo yoroshiku.

xxxxxx


5 T: ogenki soo- ogenki soo ne anata koredake

Healthy look healthy look fp you this-much

6 oisogashii noni,#

busy-pol even

‘T: Anyhow, it is a guest who appeared in this program eighteen years

ago. Mr Tamasaburoo Bandoo is our guest. XXXX

G: XXXXX

T: You look healthy, don’t you? Even though you are so busy.’

(11) (M6)

1 T: Wanami Takayoshi san ga kyoo no okyakusama desu.

Wanami Takayoshi T S today of guest-pol cop

2 doomo shibaraku.

quite for some time

3 G: doomo shibaraku deshita.

quite for some time cop-past

‘T: Mr Takayoshi Wanami is today’s guest. It is a long time since we met.

G: It is a long time since I saw you last.’

In Japanese society, a formal salutation will always be accompanied by bowing.

The more polite the situation, the longer the time and the deeper the bowing.

Therefore, in some of the programs, there is no clear verbal greeting, but

bowing between host and guest invariably takes place; therefore it is not

obligatory to express leave-taking verbally.

(12) (F5.U-15)

1 T: de Isetanbijutukan de juunigatsu no juurokunichi

and Isetan-gallery loc December gen 16th

2 made zuibun takusan… odashininaru n deshoo?

until quite a-lot exhibit-hon com cop-hort

3 G: eeto kyoo miteitadaita no o, hachibai

well today see-receive-past com O eight-times

4 kara kyuubai gurai#

from nine-times about

5 T: hachibai kara kyuubai aru

eight-times from nine-times be

6 G: (XXXX)mo zutto takusan dashimasu.

all-the-way a-lot take-out


7 T: ja tanoshimi desu ne.

then pleasure cop fp

8 G: tottemo kireida to omoimasu.

much pretty Qt think

9 T: zehi haiken ((bowing))

by-all-means see-hum

10 G: ((bowing))

‘T: Are you going to exhibit at the Isetan Gallery from the 16th till the

29th of December?

G: Yes, about eight to nine times as much what you saw today.

T: Eight to nine times more

G: xxx I will exhibit more (items)

T: I look forward…(to viewing the exhibition)

G: I think it will be very pretty

T: (I want to) see it by all means.’

In the above excerpt from the interview with a female kimono collector, the

host does not take leave verbally. Parting is expressed by the host when she

bows (indicated in line 9). The guest reciprocates the bowing almost simulta-

neously in line 10.

Summary and conclusion

In this chapter, the interview genre is discussed in detail, beginning with the

work on interviews that is most directly related to the present study. Next,

diŸerent types of journalistic interviews are described, followed by a descrip-

tion of journalistic interviews in Japan. Details of the data used in this study are

presented. The constraints that operate in the interview are described, followed

by the rules that are observed in the interaction.

The most important characteristics of the interview as opposed to other

communicative events can be summarized as follows. An interview is a pre-

planned and speech event where the goal is to obtain information from the

guest. This information is used for speciªc purposes by the host or the institu-

tion she/he represents. The ¶ow of information is one-way: from the guest to

the host and the audience. The participants have assigned roles, each with a

speciªc task. There is an asymmetry, in which the host has control over the

topics, and commences and ends the interview. These aspects can reveal inter-


esting phenomena when gender and age diŸerences are explored as I will do in

Chapters 4, 6 and 7.

Notes

1. Shearn (1998) used radio interviews for her study.

2. See appendix II. Home Page of Tetsuko no Heya.

3. See appendix II. e-mail from Ichiro Tagawa, producer of Tetsuko no Heya.

4. Totto is the name of a girl. The su¹x chan is added to children’s names or to females’. It

is the equivalent of ‘little’.

5. See appendix I for details.

6. Bururun is the name of a dish invented by the guest.

7. Doomo is an expression used in various situations and is a polysemic word. It was

translated as a greeting .

8. This expression was also translated as a greeting.

Chapter 3

Turntaking

Introduction

Participants in television interviews adopt a number of strategies within the

constraints that shape the turntaking characteristics of the interaction. Chap-

ter 3 examines those strategies and attempts to show that ‘the participants

themselves are demonstrably oriented to the identities’ (Drew and Heritage,

1992: 20) in the interview. The chapter begins with some of the characteristics

of Japanese turntaking found in daily conversation. This is followed by an

analysis of the turn constructional components (TCU) of host and guests in an

interview, based on syntactic, intonational and pragmatic criteria.

Japanese conversation: Characteristics of turntaking

Sacks et al. (1974) state that a Transition Relevance Place (TRP) is the point of

completion of a constructional unit. In Japanese, it seems that turn-allocation

also occurs mostly at grammatical completion. S. Maynard (1989) writes that in

an analysis of her data containing 20 dyadic conversations, 96.35% of all smooth

turn-allocations occurred at ‘the grammatical completion point’ (1989: 145).

Although she does not give any speciªc examples from her data of any of these

units, she characterizes them as follows (1989: 145–146):

1. Sentential units, including sentences with ellipses;

2. Gerundive endings of verbs accompanied by clause-ªnal intonation;

3. Subordinate clause endings without corresponding main clauses;

4. Postposed sentences, considered complete at the end of the postposed

elements;

5. Independent ªllers accompanied by a verb.

She further writes that participants use not only grammatical completion as a

signal for turn-allocation, but also the global structure, such as the narrative

framework. In other words, when a speaker starts a narration, thus ‘activating


the structural frame’ (S. Maynard, 1989: 146), no attempt is made by the recipient

of the narration to gain the ¶oor, even at grammatical completion points, except

to conªrm the newsworthiness while the development of the narrative contin-

ues. Moreover, the Japanese have to self-contextualize in all cases where there is

a choice of speaker change. She deªnes the term ‘self-contextualization’ as the

‘on-going process of continually deªning oneself in relation to one’s interac-

tional environment’ (1989: 4). This process involves not only the knowledge of

linguistic information, but also ‘physical settings and socio-cultural assump-

tions about self and one’s partner’ (1989: 4). Equally, information about the

theme and narrative of the conversation, as well as other signals such as

backchannels and nonverbal cues, are incorporated in this process.

Hinds (1978a) studied four speciªc areas of conversational analysis in

Japanese interview discourse: overlaps, polite speech, turntaking and conversa-

tional harmony. In regard to turn signaling, Hinds noted that pitch lowering,

very often accompanied by sentence ªnal particles and syntactic signals, is a cue

for turn completion, and that this is mostly accompanied by some nonverbal

signal. However, he does not provide any detailed explanation as to what he

considers a ‘grammatical sentence ending in a polite form’ (Hinds, 1978a: 105).

In an interesting contrasting ªnding between English and Japanese com-

munication, Hinds (1978a) discusses two features which diŸer from two of the

facts listed by Sacks et al. (1974) on mundane conversation. The two facts are:

Fact 2. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time.

Fact 3. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief.

In his research involving Japanese data, he found that instances of more than

one speaker talking at the same time for an extended period of time are quite

common. This observation is explained in terms of cooperative behaviour,

where interlocutors show their interest by participating actively.

More recent studies include those of Furo (2001), Tanaka (1999) and Mori

(1999). Tanaka (1999) used Sacks et al.’ s model to examine Japanese turntak-

ing and test its applicability and universality. Informal and semi-informal data

were analyzed in investigating the syntactic, intonational and pragmatic fea-

tures of turn ends. Tanaka argued that the grammatical structure of English

(SVO) induces an early ‘projectability’ of turn completion. However, having a

diŸerent structure (SOV), Japanese does not have the same degree of ‘project-

ability’. This aspect enables Japanese speakers to either hold the ¶oor by what

Tanaka (1999) calls ‘incremental transformability’ or end their turn. A smooth

next-speaker transition is accomplished by the use of devices such as sentence

59Turntaking

ªnal particles, copulas, or ªnal verb su¹xes. Another tool used to indicate

speaker transition is rising intonation, which signals turn completion. She

compared her results with the analysis of English conversation by Ford and

Thompson (1996), and made interesting ªndings. In English, turntaking oc-

curs largely at syntactical completion points. However, in Japanese, the pattern

is quite diŸerent. Tanaka’s results show that syntactic completion and turn

change occur 422 times, as opposed to 798 in English. In Japanese, pragmatic

completion points were identiªed as ‘likely candidates for possible TRPs in

Japanese’ (Tanaka, 1999: 219).

In the present study, a high number of turn ªnal construction units are

also syntactically unªnished, a ªnding that corroborates many studies (Mori,

1999; Okamoto, 1985; Tanaka, 1999). In a thorough study of this aspect, Mori

(1999) looked at a particular set of particles known as connective particles and

connectors. These are used to tie two clauses with diŸering relations, which

include disagreement, agreement, and conclusion. Although connectors in a

canonical sentence do not appear in sentence ªnal position, they are common

in everyday conversation. The observations coincide with Tanaka (1999) and

seem to conªrm that grammatically unªnished turns are quite common in

Japanese oral communication. Mori explains that connectives are used as a

strategy in the delivery of agreement or disagreement. Her analysis is thorough

and provides a comprehensive study on these discourse markers.

Furo (2001) did a comparative study of English and Japanese turntaking in

casual talk and political news interviews. She found that the joint completion

of grammatical, intonational and semantic properties project turn-transition,

and that the majority of speaker changes occur at these points. One character-

istic of her Japanese data is the overwhelming use of reactive tokens in both

contexts. This also in¶uences turntaking, with more speaker changes in Japa-

nese than in English, which is even more pronounced in conversation.

The studies by Furo (2001), Mori (1999) and Tanaka (1999) are a valuable

contribution to the growing research on Japanese conversation, and conªrm

the characteristics of Japanese as a non-European language. Tanaka compares

her results with the anthropo-sociological theories known as Nihonjinron, and

explains some of the idiosyncrasies of Japanese communicative behaviour. She

argues that the Japanese conversation style cannot be described as ‘inherently

illogical, ambiguous and indirect’ (Tanaka, 1999), but that its turn taking

features allow speakers to constantly change the course of a turn. The fact that

many of the turns end with grammatical and conjunctive particles explains

this phenomenon.


The study in the present book indirectly tests the Sacks et al. (1974) model

of turntaking as it is applied to a diŸerent language and to a diŸerent situation.

The following sections demonstrate that, in fact, Sacks et al.’ s theory of

turntaking is context-free. Also, as Heritage (1995) points out, everyday con-

versation is the basis of other types of communicative behaviour. Despite a

number of points in the interaction that diŸer from the facts of ordinary

conversations, the model can be used without major alteration.

Characteristics of Japanese television interviews

Greatbatch writes that the turntaking systems in institutionalized language

settings are based on the ‘systematic transformation of the one used for mun-

dane conversation’ (1988: 402). He also suggests that there is a continuum,

with casual conversation at one end and the speech used in ceremonies at the

other. This can be observed in the interviews analyzed for this book. In contrast

to news interviews where the situation is extremely formal and sometimes even

hostile, Tetsuko no Heya is comparatively informal. The degree of formality

varies according to the guest (age, gender and whether he/she is a friend of the

host). Formal/informal shifts are also observed within a single interview.

Therefore, many characteristics that appear in ‘mundane’ conversation and

mentioned elsewhere (S. Maynard, 1989; Shibamoto, 1985; Tanaka, 1999),

appear here. Equally, some of the restrictions of ‘institutionalized’ interactions

(Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Heritage, 1985; T. Yamada, 1995) are also observed

throughout the data on Tetsuko no Heya.

According to Sacks et al. (1974), turntaking organization comprises two

components; the turn-constructional component and the turn-allocation com-

ponent, and a set of rules (see Chapter 1). In the turn-allocation component, two

techniques for next-speaker allocation are used: allocation by the current

speaker, and self-selection. Normatively, when the current speaker is the guest,

turn-allocation is indicated in most cases by syntactic or pragmatic completion.

On the other hand, when the current speaker is the host, turn-allocation is

indicated by the use of questions, by addressing the guest, and by syntactic and/

or pragmatic completion of turns.

In everyday conversation, there are many situations where more than two

participants engage in the speech event simultaneously. In those cases, three

options for next-speaker allocation seem to operate in the turntaking process

(Sacks et al., 1974). However, in the present data, the number of participants is

61Turntaking

limited to two. As in any dyadic interaction, the rule of the current speaker

allocating the turn to the next speaker can apply without the need of speciªc

strategies such as addressing the other party by name. Because of the dyadic

nature of the interview, at ªrst hand it appears as though the rule of self-

selection does not apply in this context. However, it is quite common for

speaker change to occur at transitional relevance places (TRP), the potential

points where speakers recognize the end of a turn (Sacks et al., 1974). In those

cases, the current speaker continues talking. The following excerpt from the

data can illustrate this technique.

(1) (F2.N-9)

1 G: otaota shimashita ne.

nervously do-past fp

2 T: de yattegoranninatte doo deshita.. ochitsukanai

and try-doing-hon-past-conj how cop-past settle-neg

‘G: I did not know what to do.

T: And how was it when you performed? …You did not feel comfort-

able?’

In this example, the guest is an actress who is being asked about her roles in the

theatre. She had always performed aged women roles and when she cast as

someone her own age, she says that she was really nervous. In line 2 the host

projects a TRP when the copula deshita is uttered with rising intonation.

Notice the pause, however, when the guest does not take the ¶oor. The host

asks another question which is again marked by rising intonation. It is only at

the second TRP that the guest takes the ¶oor.

Some facts of interviews

CA considers that ordinary conversation is the primary form of interaction.

Other forms ‘branch out’ from everyday interaction. Therefore, comparing the

facts observed by Sacks et al. (1974) on mundane talk to the interview interac-

tion gives us a starting point in detecting the similarities and the diŸerences.

Based on the 14 facts observed by Sacks et al. (1974) in daily conversations and

presented in Chapter 1, a number of facts diŸer in interviews analyzed in this

study and are explained as follows:

i. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are not common (Fact 3)

Overlaps and interruptions are less common in the present data. Turntaking


occurs smoothly and, interestingly, non-aggressive interruptions and overlaps

are more frequent in interviews with younger guests. The overlaps are brief and

are probably mistimed new turns. This fact may be related to the nature of the

televised interview and of this particular program.

ii. Order is ªxed (Facts 5 & 9)

Because it is a dyadic interaction, the order of the speakers is not a problem.

Sometimes the speaker self- selects and continues, but in general the dyadic

nature of the interview determines the order.

iii. What parties say is speciªed (Fact 8)

To some degree, what parties say is speciªed. Unlike everyday conversation in

which topics are selected at random, including controversial ones, topics in the

interview are predetermined.

iv. Length of conversation is restricted (Fact 7)

Time restrictions are in place and the host has to announce the end of the

interview or a commercial break.

v. Talk must be continuous (Fact 11)

As a broadcasting event, talk in the interview must be continuous. There are

occasions when a slight pause or an overlap takes place. However, those

instances are brief and soon repaired by the host.

vi. The number of parties does not vary (Fact 10)

There are no ¶uctuations in the number of participants, unlike in everyday

conversations.

The host’s turns

One of the most conspicuous diŸerences between mundane talk and inter-

views is probably the unequal distribution of questions. In the former, any

interlocutor can ask questions, whereas in the latter it is only the host who

possesses that right. Heritage and Roth (1995) write that ‘questioning handles

the main interactional and institutional tasks charged to modern news inter-

viewers’ (1995: 1), and this point is also applicable in the present data.

63Turntaking

The ªrst and most striking diŸerence between the TCUs of the host and guests

is the disparate proportion of questions asked by the host as we can see in the

following table. Looking closer at the data, other types of TCUs that do not fall

into the syntactic description of a question function in the same way as an

interrogative. These are termed information eliciting devices, which the host in

this study uses expertly.

Figure 3.1 Distribution of turn construction units

Table 3.1 Distribution of turn construction units

TCU Host % Guests %

Total Total

Question 179 15.4 13 1.12

UU (Q) 184 15.8 3 0.26

UU 278 23.9 381 32.7

Pause 54 4.64 36 3.09

Post 83 7.13 62 5.33

FU 185 15.9 500 43

Int 99 8.51 106 9.11

Overlap 102 8.76 63 5.41

Total 1164 100 1164 100

UU(Q)= unªnished utterances that function as questions

UU= unªnished utterances

Post= postposition

FU= ªnished utterance

Int= interruption

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Qu

est

ion

UU

(Q)

UU

Pa

use

Po

st

FU

Int

Ov

erl

ap

Host's

Guests'


Following Heritage and Roth’s (1995) model, the grammatical structure of the

host’s TCUs demonstrate that they are related in type to the parties involved in

the interaction (SchegloŸ and Sacks, 1973). The host uses a number of strate-

gies that function as information eliciting devices: grammatically complete

and incomplete questions, and statements in syntactically ªnished and unªn-

ished forms.

Questions

The questions found in the data are of a wide variety, as described by Nitta

(1989, 1995). The questions categorized as grammatically complete follow the

syntactic rule that a question particle ka must be attached to the end of the

sentence accompanied by rising intonation, such as in the following example

from the data:

(2) (M9)

1 T: sooiu benkyoo doko de nasatta n

that-type study where loc do-hon-past com

2 desu ka?

cop Q

‘T: Where did you do such study?’

This is a typical question form marked by the question particle ka at the end of

the sentence. Among ka questions, are WH, Yes/No and alternative questions,

which are described below in detail. The use of the complementizer n in

questions indicates a greater involvement in the interaction.

Wh-questions

Wh-questions in Japanese are formed with the appropriate question word

followed by the corresponding case particle. These types of questions can occur

without the question particle ka but must be accompanied by ªnal rising

intonation. The main question words in Japanese are: nani ‘what’, doko

‘where’, dare ‘who’, itsu ‘when’, dore ‘which’, donna/dooiu ‘how/what kind’,

naze ‘why’.

The guest in (3) is a pianist and educator. The topic being discussed is how

to motivate and encourage people to achieve their best performance. The

question word doo ‘how’ is used in line 1, and the interrogative ends with the

question particle ka.

65Turntaking

(3) (F8.Q-8) Wh- question

1 T: demo sono hito no utsuwa o doo yatte

but that persongen container O how do

2 → mikiwamereba yoroshii n desu ka?

discern-cond good com cop Q

3 G: yappari sore wa hontooni sono hito no

after-all that top really that persongen

4 ironna taiwa toka/ sorekara kankyoo ((continues))

various dialogue like then surroundings

‘T: But, how can you discern the potential of that person?

G: After all, you have to see things like his/her surrounding, talk to him/

her ((continues)).’

This example also shows that grammatically complete questions have a stron-

ger imposition on the listener and can set the tone of the interaction. In the

excerpt above, the guest starts her answer with the word yappari ‘after all’,

which is in a similar straightforward manner. Yappari functions as a discourse

marker used to stress one’s point of view.

Alternative questions

The structure for alternative questions in Japanese such as ‘Is something/

someone/ somewhere X or not X?, contains the a¹rmative option ªrst and

then the negative one. The options do not have to be immediately adjacent.

Another alternative question takes a slightly diŸerent form, where the option is

X or Y, as illustrated in the following fragment.

(4) (M3. 5) Alternative question

1 T: de sore wa, kore sore wa goranninatta n

and that top this that top see-hon-past com

2 → desu ka? soretomo goranninatta= hito no

cop Q or see-hon-past person gen

3 hanashi o okikininatta,

story o listen-hon-past

4 G: iya, watashi wa soko ni ita n desu yo.

No I top there in be-past com cop fp

‘T: And that, this= that, did you see it? Or did you hear the story from a

person who saw it?

G: No, I was there, you see.’


The guest is a famous cartoonist and in this excerpt the host asks him whether

he had actually seen ghosts and spirits or was just retelling stories he had heard

from witnesses. The alternative question commences in line 1 and the second

section starts with the conjunction soretomo ‘or’, as indicated by the arrow in

line 2.

Yes/No questions

Yes/No questions can be answered by hai ‘yes’ or iie ‘no’. These types of

questions end with the question particle ka preceded by the copula or a verb.

(5) (F9.5)

1→ T: are wa nanka senaka ni shou n desu ka?

that top well back loc carry com cop Q

2 G: soo desu ne/ ano= kuuki no haitteru

that-way cop fp well air gen enter

3 tanku o shotte ((continues))

tank O carry-conj

‘T: Do you carry that on your back?

G: Yes, as you say, well you carry a tank ªlled with air ((continues)).’

In the above excerpt, the guest is an actress and the topic is diving. The host

asks a very short question containing the discourse particle nanka, which

functions as a hedge. The guest starts her answer with soo desune followed by

ano=, which are equivalent to the English discourse markers ‘yes’ and ‘well’

respectively. They are used as the guest needs to correct the host’s wrong

assumption that the tank is ªlled with oxygen and not air.

‘No’ questions

In colloquial speech, utterances that do not end with the question particle can

function as questions. The most common form is the use of rising intonation at

the end of the sentence, which can occur together with one or more sentence

ªnal particles. The host in the next example (6) asks the guest about his New

Year ritual of sending cards to each of his immediate family members. The host

compliments him in line 1 which is followed by a no question.

(6) (M7.5) No question

1 T: sore wa demo suteki na koto desu ne/

that top but nice cop com cop fp

67Turntaking

2 → zutto sore o hajime kara tsuzuketerassharu no?

through that O start from continue-hon fp

3 G: ee maa zutto tsuzuitemasu nde zutto

yes well through continue-pre because through

4 tsuzukenakya ((continues))

continue-must

‘T: But that is very nice, isn’t it? Have you done it continuously from the

beginning?

G: Yes, well, I always do it, and I must continue ((continues)).’

In line 2, the host ends her sentence with the verb in plain form and the ªnal

particle no accompanied by rising intonation. No has other functions as a

nominalizer or as a ªnal particle used mainly by women but can be used as a

question particle (Hinds, 1984) when it is pronounced with rising intonation.

This type of question gives a more familiar and soft tone to the discourse.

Tte questions

Another question form that does not follow the canonical structure is the use

of a colloquial quotation particle, which literally means ‘you/someone said

that, I’ve heard that’. In the following example (7), the guest is a famous and

versatile Kabuki actor who received the Chevalier Prize for outstanding artistic

performance. In line 1, the host asks her question using tte.

(7) (M10. S-2) Tte question

1→ T: de sono kudasarikata tte sutekina n desu tte?

and that way-of-giving qt splendid com cop Qt

2 G: soo desu ne. eeto= Rondon ototoshi

yes cop fp uhm London year-before-last

3 Rondon Rondon no kooen no toki ni

London London gen performance gen time loc

4 ((continues))

‘T: (You/They said that) the way of giving (the Chevalier Prize) is

splendid.

G: Yes, well when London I went to London the year before last, after my

performance ((continues)) ‘

Deshoo questions

Ending with the copula in the tentative form, deshoo, with rising intonation, as


in the following example, is a strategy for the listener’s agreement (Makino and

Tsutui, 1992) It can be characterized as a light question (McClain, 1990).

(8) (F1.L-6) Deshoo question

1 T: demo soiu kata ga kaketeru kaketeru

but that-type person S written written

2 tte osshatte kudasatta kara (hai) motto

qt say-conj give-past because yes more

3 → kakoo tto omoininatta n deshoo?

write-hort Qt think-hon-past com cop

4 G: soo na n desu.

yes cop com cop

‘T: But because that type of person (writers) told you (yes) that your work

was well written, then you probably thought that you could write more.

G: Yes, it is like that.’

The guest in this example (8) is the widow of a famous writer. The host refers to

the widow’s writing being assessed positively by her late husband. Her question

is uttered in line 3 using deshoo at the end of her sentence.

Rising intonation

Questions can be accomplished without the use of the question particle or

other question words. Final rising intonation is enough to signal this function.

This interrogative form can occur with any type of verbal, nominal or adjecti-

val construction. The following interview features an ex-professional baseball

player who became a sports commentator for television. The host asks him

about other sports for which he has to do reports. He answers that, although he

pretends to know about them, there are many with which he is not very

familiar.

(9) (M8.1)

1 G: boku wa anoo= shittakaburi shitemasu kedomo/..

I top uhm pretend-to-know do-pre but

2 anoo= ironna koo tatoeba fuyu no supootsu

uhm various uhm for-example winter gen sports

3 nanka ammari yaranakatta wake desu yo ne/

like not-much do-past reason cop fp fp

4 T: aisuhokkei toka/

ice-hockey like

69Turntaking

5 G: hokkee toka,

hockey like

6 T: sukii/

ski

7 G: un. sorekara sukii toka.

yes then ski like

‘G: As for me, I pretend to know, but there are various types of winter

sports, for example, that I did not do, you know.

T: (Sports) Like ice hockey?

G: (Sports) Like ice hockey

T: Skiing?

G: Yes. Then (sports) like skiing.’

In line 4 there is a phrase, and in line 6 an adjectival. Both are accompanied by

rising intonation.

Echoing as clariªcation/questioning

The host uses repetition of a word, a name, a noun phrase or a whole clause for

clariªcation. The excerpt to illustrate this type features the Kabuki actor men-

tioned in example (7). In this section (example (10)), they are talking about an

actress whom the host apparently does not know. The repetition a few lines

down of the guest’s word functions as a clariªcation.

(10) (M10.S-6)

1 G: joyuusan na n desu.

actress cop com cop

2 T: sooxxx Watanabe (e.) Misakosan o oyarininatta

Watanabe yes Misako-Ms O do-hon-past

3 [xxxxxx

4 G: [no yooroppaban o yatteiru hito na n desu

of Europe-edition O do-prog person cop com cop

5 kedo

but

6 →T: joyuusan

actress

7 G: e. Iruma toka ironna mono ((continues))

yes Irma like various things

‘G: She is an actress,

T: Did she perform Misako Watanabe [xxxx?


G: [She is doing] the European version.

T: An actress.

G: Yes, she played Irma and other roles ((continues))’

In line 6, the host echoes the guest’s word in line 1. We can see that her echoing

the guest’s word triggers a more detailed account by the guest of the plays

performed by this actress.

On other occasions echoing is more immediate. The guest recounts his

experience during World War Two (WWII) and the topic is about the ship he

sailed in.

(11) (M1.2)

1 G: soo da na. juu notto deta no ga

yes cop fp ten knots get-past com top

2 saikoo janai no kashira.

maximum be-neg com fp

3→ T: juu notto/

ten knots/

4 G: juu notto tte no wa ne yaku niju

ten knots Qt com top fp about twenty

5 kkiro nano yo ne. (un.)

kilometres cop fp fp uh-huh

‘G: Well, I think that the maximum speed was ten knots.

T: Ten knots?

G: Ten knots is about twenty kilometres. (uh-huh).’

Echoing by the host in line 3 is accompanied by rising intonation and inter-

preted by the guest as a request for clariªcation or explanation, as is shown in

lines 4–5.

Grammatically unªnished questions

The host also uses grammatically unªnished questions. Despite the incomplete

structure of the turn, they project turn-yielding. This type of question is quite

common in conversations where interlocutors do not utter the whole ques-

tion. Hinds (1984) calls this type of questions ‘truncated questions’, and writes

that it ‘is a stylized means of asking questions in which only the ªrst noun

phrase plus the topicalizing particle wa occurs’ (Hinds, 1984: 166).

The following examples illustrate grammatically incomplete questions. In

(12) the guest is a violinist who talks about recording with a string quintet in

71Turntaking

London. The host does not ªnish her question but there are two cues that

indicate what she wants to ask. The ªrst cue is the lengthening of the last vowel

doko= ‘where’, and the second is another vowel lengthening kara= ‘from’.

(12) (M6.i-7)

1→ T: chinamini doko= no rekoodo gaisha kara=#

by-the-way where gen record company from

2 G: sore wa ne Pikkuuikku to iu n desu.

that top fp Pickwick Qt say com cop

‘T: By the way, from which= recording company=

G: It is called Pickwick. ‘

Turntaking occurs here without any problems as the guest elaborates on the

recording company. The interrogative word doko ‘where’ and the particle no

‘of’ (dokono ‘which’) may have helped convey the intended message.

However, in other instances there are no grammatical clues to indicate

questioning. The guest here is the widow of the writer Inoue. Turntaking

occurs without the host actually asking a question.

(13) (F1. L-4)

1→ T: shoshite,.. maa seishoo… oseishoo wa zutto#

and well fair-copy fair-copy-pol top through

2 G: a. shujin no seishoo wa itashimashita nee.

my-husband of fair-copy top do-hum-past fp

‘T: And as for the fair copy, throughout

G: I did the fair copy of my husband’s (works).’

This type of exchange is very common in the data and is labelled as unªnished

questions in this study. The host does not need to ªnish her utterance; she is

not interrupted and there is no communication breakdown. Turntaking is

accomplished successfully, although there is no grammatical completion.

Declaratives as information elicitors

Grammatically complete declaratives

Declaratives are also used as information eliciting techniques. They can be

grammatically complete sentences. In example (14), the guest is the former

prosecutor who was in charge of the famous bribery case involving a Prime

Minister. Here they talk about the quantity of money involved in the scandal.


(14) (F2. N-7)

1 T: nan[zenoku.] [(nanzenoku)] tte iu okane no

how-many-million how-many-million Qt say money of

2 [tan’i ga ima mo moo detekiteshimaimashita kedo ne/]

unit S now too already come-end-past but fp

3 [(soo na n desu yo ne/)] tooji wa, maa gookuen

yes cop com cop fp fp then top well 5-million-yen

4 tte [taihen na okane deshita]

Qt great cop money cop-past

5 G: [soo desu ne/] moo kangaerarenai yoona gaku

yes cop fp well think-pot-neg like amount

6 datta desu ne/

be-past cop fp

‘T: The amount (of money involving briberies) now is in the [billions]

[(millions)] But at that time, ªve hundred million yen was [a lot of

money.]

G:[Indeed] It was an incredible amount of money.’

In this excerpt, the host yields her turn at the completion of her sentence.

Although she does not ªnish her turn with the question form, the host could

elicit the information she was seeking.

Grammatically incomplete declaratives

Grammatically incomplete declaratives comprised 23.9% of the host’s TCUs

(see Table 3.1). The high frequency indicates that they are successfully used as

an eliciting technique. The guests have no di¹culty in understanding the

intended question of the host and turntaking is smooth. The following ex-

ample illustrates this point. The guest is Tamasaburo Bando, a famous Kabuki

actor, known for his diverse performances in the theatre. Excerpts of this

interview are used in (6) and (9). In this example (15), the host comments on

his latest theatre production.

(15) (M10.3)

1 T: ii ne/ docchimo ii shoo dashi/ sorekara ima

good fp both good prize cop-conj then now

2 chotto hanashi ni demashita Nasutashia tte iu

little talk into come-past Nastashia Qt say

3 no wa taihen na kantoku.(hai.) maa eiga kantoku

com top important cop director yes well movie director

73Turntaking

4→ toshite yuumei na kata ga#

as famous cop person S

5 G: hai. ano Waida kantoku.

Yes well Wajda director

‘T: Both prizes are really good and it was mentioned that the director of

Nastashia <is> an important director (yes), well a famous movie director

G: Yes, well (it is) director Wajda.’

The host’s turn indicated in line 4 by the arrow is an incomplete sentence. Nor

is it a postposition, as there is no verb in the surface structure (see section on

postposition). However, it is not di¹cult to understand that she wants her guest

to provide the name of the famous movie director who is being referred to.

Host’s comments

Interviewers in news interviews must maintain their neutrality by avoiding

the use of any personal comments or other devices that denote empathy or

cooperation (Clayman, 1988; Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Heritage, 1985). Al-

though Tetsuko no Heya is not a news interview, and the constraints of neutrality

are less stringent, as a professional broadcaster the host is expected to avoid

expressing any preferences and to maintain an impartial stance. The host in my

data has a distinct style that is more conversational than in news interviews, and

she uses various ways of stating her comments in order to facilitate the interview.

Some of them are similar to ‘B-event’ statements (Heritage, 1985; Heritage and

Roth, 1995; Pomerantz, 1980), where the host uses declarative sentences.

The guest is the former prosecutor presented previously and the host gives

her rather sympathetic opinion of the former Japanese prime minister who was

prosecuted on bribery charges. Her comment elicits a critical remark from the

guest. Notice that there is no question formulated by the host, yet the guest

participates actively in the exchange.

(16) (M3.4–5)

1 T: konna koto ni naruto wa ne/ maa

this-kind thing into become-cond top fp well

2 mochiron zenbu@@ sono Tanaka san no tokoro

of-course all well Tanaka T gen place

3 kara kita to omoimasen kedo/ (ee.)

from come Qt think-neg but yes

4 demo ma,.. sooitta= nante iimasu kashira

but well that-kind how say fp


5 (e.) karakuri= ga desu ne/

yes tricks S cop fp

6 G: soo desu ne/ maa, Tanaka san ga souiu

yes cop fp well Tanaka T S that-type

7 shuukin shisutemu tsukurareta men

money-collection system create-hon-past aspect

8 arimasu kara ne/ kore wa yappari, ee=

be because fp this top after-all eh

9 koozai no zai no hoo na n deshoo ne/ ((continues))

jail-term gen crime gen type cop com cop-hort fp

‘T:(nobody expected that) things would result in this way, of course I do

not think that everything (related to corruption) came from Mr Tanaka,

(yes) but those (yes) tricks,..

G: Well, Mr Tanaka had created this system of collecting money, there-

fore he had to be sentenced to prison ((continues)).’

Other comments by the host are accompanied by the polite tentative form

(desho) and the plain tentative form (daroo) of the copula and rising intona-

tion, as in example (17).

(17) (M10)

1 H: hontooni (e.) ii joyuusan ne/ (e.) tokuni sooiu

really yes good actress fp yes especially that-type

2 junsui na uiuishii mono ga hitsuyoo no

pure cop chaste com S need gen

3 toki ni wa moo soiu mono tte hora engiryoku

time in top well that-type com Qt inter acting

4 [dake na n deshoo/

only cop com cop-hort

5 G: [soo desu ne. soo desu ne. (un.) dakara uchi mo

yes cop fp yes cop fp uh-huh therefore we also

6 narubeku sooiu fuuni ano== sodateru tsumori na n

as-possible that-way form well raise try cop com

7 desu kedomo,

cop but

‘T: (She) is really (yes) a very good actress, isn’t she? (yes) Especially

when you need something pure and chaste, ultimately it is the acting

75Turntaking

skills (of the person that is the most important), isn’t, it?

G: Yes, as you say. Yes, as you say (uh-huh) That is why we are trying to

produce actors that can perform.’

This question does not ask for information, but rather is a form of agreement-

seeking utterance.

Reformulations and formulations

One activity that is the exclusive right and obligation of the host is reformula-

tions, or the elaboration of formulations. They are used to provide a clariªca-

tion or explanation of the preceding speaker’s utterance. In many cases, the

intended meaning diŸers from what the speaker originally intended. Formula-

tions are associated with control (Fairclough, 1989) and can be used to direct

other speakers (Sacks, 1992). In this data, the host’s formulations are mainly

directed to the audience, but they are also used to elicit more talk. The following

excerpts demonstrate this.

(18) (M9)

1 T: desukara ima osshatta yooni hontooni, sono(@)

therefore now say-hon-past like really that

2 kookogaku to onnaji tte sakki osshaimashita

archaeology with same Qt before say-hon-past

3 keredomo, sono hon o ohirakininatte/ sono hon ga

but that book O open-hon-and that book S

4 hontooni itsu hakkosareta mono deari. (e.) dareno mono

really when print-pass-past thing cop-conj whose thing

5 deari. dooiu

cop-and what-kind

6 G: hai. sujoo dearu .

yes origin cop

7 T: sujoo dearu ka tte koto zenbu akirakaninasaru

origin cop Q Qt com all clear-hon

8 wake desukara (hai.) iRONNa koto, gozonjinaito,#

com therefore various things know-hon-neg-cond

‘T: Therefore, as he said previously, it is really like (@) archaeology.

When opening a book, he has to decide when the book was printed,

whose book it was, what kind-

G: Yes, the origin’


T: You have to know really many things (yes) because you must make

clear things like the origin of the book #’

In (18), the host summarizes the guest’s description of the tasks involved in his

job. Note that the host mentions on two occasions what the guest had said: in line

(1) she uses the word osshatta (‘say’ in the plain past form), and in line (2) a

slightly diŸerent form of the same verb. The host accomplishes her role as an

interviewer using reformulations. In this way, she ensures the audience under-

stands the information and at the same time she elicits more talk from her guest.

In the next excerpt, the guest had explained how people could apply her

music pedagogy in other ªelds. She mentions that she conducts seminars in

places as varied as hospitals and business institutions. The host in the excerpt

summarizes what the guest had explained about her pedagogical approach.

Note that the host uses several discourse markers to indicate her reformula-

tion: sosuto (and), yappari (after all), naniwatomoare (whatever the case) in

line (2) and also the quotative expression tte iu in line (3).

(19) (F8)

1 T: sosuto yappari naniwatomoare sono (un.) sono hito

then after-all anyway that uh-huh that person

2 no koto o yoku shite[ageru [(soo desu ne.)] tte

gen com o well do-give yes cop fp Qt

3 iu koto.

say com

‘T: Then, anyway whatever the case, (uh-huh) in other words you have to

be good (yes) to that person.’

In many ways, reformulations or formulations function as summaries in the

¶ow of the interview.

The guests’ turns

Guests’s turns are usually the second pair of adjacency pairs. In the previous

section, the host initiates the ªrst turn of the interaction and the guests nor-

mally answer the host’s questions. The following examples show guests giving

answers to various types of questions. In example (20) the guest is an actress

and the topic of the interview is about her health and her weight-loss method.

Line 1 shows the question structure in Japanese indicated by the question

particle ka.

77Turntaking

(20) (F6)

1 T: kore wa nanika riyuu [ga arimasu ka?]

this top some reason S be Q

2 G: [ano ne,] sugoku ano= soto dato koo amai

well fp very well out when uhm sweet

3 nomimono nondari shimasu deshoo? ((continues))

drink drink-like do cop-hort

‘T: Is there some reason for that?

G: Well, when you are out, you drink beverages that are sweet, don’t you?

((continues))’

In an excerpt from the same interview, the guest answers a question that ends

in a verb in plain form accompanied by rising intonation.

(21) (F6)

1 T: kono gurai da to ima kara daitai nan

this much cop if now from about how-many

2 kiro gurai futotteru?

kilos about be-fat

3 G: kono toki ga daitai..ee rokujuu= soo,

this time S about eh sixty well

4 roku shichi # ((continues))

six seven

‘T: If you are this slim, how many kilos heavier were you?

G: At that time I was about sixty-six or -seven <kilos> ((continues))’

The second pair of the guests’s turn is not always an answer to a question. In

the following example, the guest takes the ¶oor even though the host does not

ask a question.

(22) (M2)

1 T: jigoku gokuraku no e (@@@) souiu no o

hell paradise gen painting that-kind of o

2 gorannatte futsu dattara waa kowai toka

look-hon-conj normally cop-cond int afraid like

3 nantoka to omou n dakedo. funfun. kore wa

like Qt think com but onmt this top

4 hontooni= kouiu mono ga aru no da na/

really thi-type thing S be com cop fp


5 to (un.) uker@@ ireru yoona yooso ga sudeni atta

Qt yes accept like element S already be-past

6 to omou to

Qt think Qt

7 G: dakara watashi wa ne/ sono e o

therefore I top fp that painting o

8 ichinchijuu miteru n desu. moo kaeroo tte iwareru

whole-day look com cop now return-hort Qt say-pass

9 made kooyate. (hoo) ichinchijuu mitemashita yo.

Until this-way really whole-day look-past fp

‘T: You were looking at the painting of hell and paradise. Normally, one

would feel afraid. But you already had in mind to look at something like

that (yes) and accept it.

G: That’s why, you see? I would be looking at that painting the whole

day. Until they would tell me that it was time to go home, (really) I

would be looking at the painting the whole day’.

In the above example, the guest is a cartoonist who created ghouls, ghosts and

other monsters as his characters. The host comments on the experiences of the

guest as a child. He used to visit a nearby temple where there was a very

frightening painting of hell and paradise. Notice that in line 6 the host’s

utterance does not end in rising intonation or with the question particle ka,

both being the ways to indicate questions in Japanese. It does not end as a usual

syntactic unªnished turn observed in the data. However, the guest takes the

¶oor and retells the same episode.

When guests ask questions

Guests in television interviews do not normally ask questions, unless it is to

clarify the host’s question. In particular, questions with the canonical structure

are rare. However, if a guest asks a question, the host has the right to ignore the

question, as in the following example. The guest is an ex-baseball player who was

a controversial sportsman when playing in the major league tournaments. He

asks a question on two occasions, as indicated by the arrows. Note that the host

ignores both questions in lines 7 and 9 and, instead of providing an answer, she

asks him a question. In this example we can see how the participants are ‘doing’

the interview, where rights and obligations are subtly conveyed and enforced.

79Turntaking

(23) (M8)

1 T:… anata tte.. are na n desu tte ne/ tsuri ikimasen ka

you Qt uhm cop com cop Qt fp ªshing go-neg Q

2 tte yoso no kata ni denwashiterassharu. sore o osoba

Qt other of person to telephone-hon that o next-pol

3 de kiiteruto. raishuu no nichiyoobi toka atashitachi

and listen-if next-week gen Sunday like we

4 omoujanai desu ka. (hai.) sore o anata wa rainen

think-neg cop Q yes that o you top next-year

5 no natsu nan te itterassharu n desu tte/

of summer com Qt say-hon com cop Qt

6 (@)@ nee/ hontoo na no/

fp true cop fp

7 →G: doko de sonna koto

where in that-type thing

8 T: hontoo na no/

true cop fp

9 →G: doko de sonna joohoo

where in that-type information

10 T: hontoo na no/ sooiu no tte/

true cop fp that-kind com Qt

11 G: eeh. chotto chuukan ga shooryakusareteru n desu ne

yes little middle S abbreviate-prog com cop fp

‘T: I’ve heard that you are, uhm.. when listening while you are talking on

the phone and inviting someone to go ªshing, one thinks of next week

(yes). But for you, the invitation is for next year’s summer, isn’t it? (@) @

Is it true?

G: Where did you (get/hear) that (information)?

T: Tell me, is it true?

G: Where did you (get/hear) that information?

T: Tell me, is it true?

G: Yes, but there is more to the story…’

In other ‘deviant’ examples, the guest uses the question form using the nega-

tive form of the copula in plain form and with rising intonation janai. This

form of question functions as an invitation for agreement rather than one that

requires an answer (Nitta, 1989, 1995). The next excerpt shows the guest’s


TCU ending in janai. The ending is in plain form and the tenor of the interac-

tion is quite informal. Note that the host agrees with the guest and repeats

some of the words used by the guest.

(24) (F4)

1 G: soo. dakara jibun wa heiki na no yo. (soo

yes therefore oneself top unconcerned cop com fp yes

2 da.) demo miteru hito wa kinodoku janai/

cop but watch people top feel-sorry cop-neg

3 T: soo. jibun wa heiki ne/

yes oneself top unconcerned cop

‘G: yes. That’s why, I really don’t care (yeah) but one feels it for the

person that watches you.

T: Yes. One does not care, right?’

Other-correction

Correction of a wrong statement is usually done by the speaker him/herself or

by the listener. However, other-correction can be seen as an overt FTA, and are

therefore in general limited to adult – child interactions (Sacks et al., 1974;

380–381). As, according to Sacks (1992), ‘correction in public is a sanctioned

event’ (Winter Lecture 7), one can expect to ªnd very rare cases of other-

correction in television interviews.

A remarkable example is the following exchange between a kimono collec-

tor and the host. The host announces she has been using the wrong word for

the term ekoo ‘kimono hanger’, and that she was told about the term during the

commercial break.

(25) (F5)

1 T: sakihodo xxrai atakushi wa ano== nanka kimono o

Just-a-while xxx I top uhm well kimono o

2 kakeru mono ekoo to itteta yooni omoimasu

hang thing ekoo Qt say-past like think-pol

3 ga chotto (@) ano are wa ikoo de aru to

but a-little well that top rack cop be Qt

4 iware. tashikani koromo o kakeru n desu kedo.

tell-pass surely clothes o hang com cop but

81Turntaking

5 ikoo na n desu kedo.namatte ori(@) mashite

hanger cop com cop but corrupt be-hum-con

(continues)

‘T: Just now, I was referring to the kimono hanger as ekoo. But, well

(@@) I was told that the term is ikoo. It is surely used to hang kimonos,

but the term is ikoo. My pronunciation was incorrect.’

In this section, there are a number of strategies that ‘soften’ or ‘turn-down’ the

correction. The host uses the passive form of the verb iu ‘to say’, so we can only

infer that the correction was done by the guest. Then she uses the term itteta

yooni omoimasu ‘I think I was using the term’, instead of the more straightfor-

ward past tense ittemashita. In line (3) there is laughter, which is deªnitely not

associated with humour, but is more reminiscent of the examples by JeŸerson

(1984). Then there are 2 discourse markers, chotto and anoo. Although these

two markers have not been thoroughly studied, they are used in various

situations. Chotto means ‘a little’ and is used as an adjectival adverb to indicate

a small quantity. However, as a marker in the discourse, it usually precedes a

negative answer. On the other hand, anoo is used as a ªller, as an attention

seeking device, and also in a context where a negative answer is to be given.

Other-correction cases are always used with some kind of softening device

that appears in diŸerent positions. The excerpt is from the same interview. In

this case, the guest corrects the host because the error is too obvious. The

Japanese calendar is based on the reign of the emperors. The Meiji Period is

followed by the Taisho and Showa Periods. Note the failed turn in (1).

(26) (F5)

1→ T: moo Shoowa ni kakari=kaketeru (iya) koro

already Shoowa in start no time

2→ G: Taishoo ni.

Taisho in

3 T: ah Taishoo janai. Meiji Taishoo shitsureiitashimashita.

oh Taishoo cop-neg Meiji Taishoo excuse-hum-past

4 (hai.) Taishoo ni korekara sorosoro hairoo to

yes Taishoo in from-now gradually enter-hort Qt

5→ G: to iu koro no mono da to omoimasu.

Qt say time gen thing cop Qt think-pol

‘T: Already at the start of Shoowa (no) period

G: In Taishoo


T: Oh, not in Taishoo. Meiji, Taishoo, excuse me. When the Taishoo

period was about to start

G: I think it is a (kimono) of around that period.’

Despite the apparent straightforward correction of the guest in lines 1 and 2,

the guest uses a softener to omoimasu ‘I think’ in line (5), which functions as a

hedge and makes the correction less blunt.

Turn-endings: Syntactically ªnished and unªnished turns

A striking diŸerence in the turn endings of the host and guests is observed in

the interviews. While more of the host’s turns are syntactically unªnished

(including questions), the guests’ turns show the opposite distribution.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

UU Post FU Others Total

Host

Guests

Figure 3.2 TCUs differences between host and guests

Table 3.2 DiŸerences in TCU distribution between host and guests

TCU Host % Guests % TOTAL %

Total Total

UU 278 23.9% 381 32.7% 659 28.31%

Post 83 7.13% 62 5.33% 145 6.22%

FU 185 15.9% 500 43% 685 29.4%

Others 618 53% 221 19% 839 36%

Total 1164 100% 1164 100% 2328 100%

UU: unªnished utterances

Post: postpositioned

FU: ªnished utterances

83Turntaking

The majority of the host’s turns at turn-yielding points are unªnished utter-

ances (UU) comprising 23.9% as opposed to 15.9% of complete utterances.

However, the guests’ turns show exactly the reverse: 43% of the turns are

grammatically complete utterances while 32.7% are unªnished utterances.

This clear diŸerence shows the possibility of divergent strategies used by the

host and the guests. If politeness in Japanese requires that things be left unsaid,

this may account for the host’s grammatical incompleteness. The slightly

higher number of unªnished questions (184–15.8%) against ªnished ques-

tions (179–15.4%) (see Table 3.1) further reinforces this point. On the other

hand, the fact that guests utilize complete utterances might show that they are

conscious of their role and know the behaviour expected from them in an

interview situation. Guests have to speak clearly in order to provide informa-

tion directly to the audience.

Sociologists and anthropologists, who write on the characteristics of the

Japanese speaker and the usage of the language, often mention that most

sentences are left unsaid (Aoki and Okamoto, 1988; Goldstein and Tamura,

1975; Lebra, 1976). Lebra states that Japanese emphasize ‘implicit, nonverbal,

intuitive communication over an explicit, verbal, rational exchange of infor-

mation’ (1976: 46). She further says, ‘The Japanese believe that only an insensi-

tive uncouth person needs a direct, verbal, complete message’ (1976: 47).

Kabaya (1993), Kindaichi (1990), Mizutani and Mizutani (1987), Okamoto

(1985) and Ooishi (1971) also write on the relationship of politeness and

unªnished utterances. They suggest that it is left to the hearers to understand

the whole sentence, and answer accordingly. In the present data, many of the

questions or remarks of the host are syntactically incomplete. However, in

most cases, turn-yielding is accomplished smoothly. In more recent studies on

CA, Mori (1999) and Tanaka (1999) look at this aspect in the speech of

Japanese. Tanaka (1999) found that turn-endings are not necessarily syntacti-

cally complete, but that pragmatic completion is considered a possible TRP.

Mori (1999) also observed that conjunctions are used strategically to attain

agreement or to mitigate disagreement, and appear in turn-beginning and

turn-ending positions.

Syntactically complete turns: Some features

A complete Japanese sentence, as deªned by grammarians, has a verb or a

copula in plain or polite form at the end of the sentence. The verb can be in the

plain form or the polite masu form. Adjectives, nouns and nominal adjectives


can end with the copula in the plain da or polite form desu. Syntactically

complete turns are also accompanied by sentence ªnal particles and falling or

rising intonation. The following are some examples of typical complete con-

structions.

(i) kyoo wa ii otenki desu.

today top good weather cop

(ii) kyoo wa ii otenki da.

today top good weather cop

(iii ) kyoo wa otenki ga ii desu.

today top weather S good cop

(iv) kyoo wa otenki ga ii ne.

today top weather S good fp

‘It is a nice day today’

(v) ashita wa dochira e irasshaimasu ka?

tomorrow top where to go-hon Q

(vi) ashita wa doko e ikimasu ka?

tomorrow top where to go-pol Q

(vii) ashita wa dokka iku?

tomorrow top where go-Plain

‘Where are you going tomorrow?

All of the above examples are grammatically complete structures. In (i), (ii)

and (iii), the ending of the sentence is marked by the copula desu (polite form)

or da (plain form), preceded by the noun otenki and the adjective ii. Example

(iv) is an example of female casual speech marked by both the dropping of the

copula and the usage of the sentence ªnal particle ne. Examples (v–vii) are

questions with exactly the same meaning but diŸering degree of formality, (v)

being the most formal. The ªrst two are ªnalized with the question particle ka,

whereas the last one is accompanied by a rising intonation. The verb forms are

diŸerent. In (vi), the verb irasshaimasu is the present honoriªc form of the verb

‘to go’, whereas in (vi), the verb iku is in the polite form. Example (vii) is a

colloquial form characterized by the plain form of the verb iku and the omis-

sion of the directional particle e and the contracted form of the question word

doko-dokka. Note that the question word in (vii) is dochira ‘where’, which is a

more polite form of doko.

85Turntaking

Postpositions

Postposition or Right Dislocation is the shift of a noun or adjectival phrase

after the verb phrase. Therefore, the canonical order of a Japanese sentence

S–O–V is altered. Consider example (27) with the same guest who is asked

about the rewards and satisfaction he gets from his job.

(27) (M9)

1 G: hai. ee. ma issen satsu gurai

yes uhm well 1,000 volumes about

2 shirabemasuto, (issen satsu guraih) soo

investigate-cond 1,000 volumes about that-way

3 suruto ah, konna omoshiroi mono

do-cond oh this-type interesting thing

4 mirareta soiu kasukana yorokobi no tameni

see-pot-past that-type minute joy gen for

5 → (e.) tsuiyasu wake desu. doryoku o.

spend-pre reason cop eŸort O

‘G: If I investigate about 1,000 volumes, (about 1,000 volumes?) then I

can ªnd a very interesting one. So I spend much eŸort (yes) for such a

minute of joy.’

Postpositioning in Japanese colloquial speech seems to be quite common and

is reported by various researchers (Peng et al., 1981; Shibamoto, 1985). Peng et

al. and Shibamoto suggest that postpositioning is more common among fe-

male speakers, and it is used as an after-thought.

Unªnished utterances

The syntactically unªnished turns in the present data end in quotative particles

(tte, to), quotations (soode), conditionals (to, tara, ba), conjunctive particles

(ga, keredemo, demo, kara, node), truncated forms (iikiri), and grammatical

particles (wa, ga, no, ni). Many of these unªnished utterances are accompanied

by sentence ªnal particles (ne, yo). Although this is not an exhaustive list, it

presents a comprehensive picture of turn-taking characteristics in the inter-

view discourse.

The fact that turntaking is accomplished successfully indicates that turn

endings in Japanese do not have to be grammatically ªnished. Pragmatic and

intonation cues are considered to indicate turn completion in other types of


data (Tanaka, 1999), and this aspect is also seen in the present data. Tanaka

(1999) writes that in conversational Japanese, ‘syntactically incomplete turns

in Japanese ending with conjunctive particles are contingently treated as com-

plete turns’ (Tanaka, 1999: 219).

Syntactic incompleteness has been studied mainly by grammarians, who

have focused on ellipsis (Hinds, 1982; Kuno, 1978). Ooishi (1971) distin-

guishes ªve types of ellipsis: idiomatic expressions, head-ellipsis, clausal ellip-

sis, quotative ellipsis and ellipsis of questions. More recently, Okamoto (1985)

and McGloin (1990) argue that ellipsis can be explained in terms of politeness

strategies. McGloin (1990) explains that ellipsis is a typical strategy in Japanese

that fulªls one of the broad politeness rules — deference. By leaving questions

or utterances unªnished, the locutor gives an opening to the listener by making

the speech act less imposing.

As noted in Chapter 1, Matsumoto observes that Japanese are forced to

make a morphological or lexical choice for any utterance, depending on the

interpersonal relationship. Having that premise in mind, Okamoto’s (1985)

analysis of ellipsis or grammatically unªnished utterances is a bridge between

the notion of face and that of sociolinguistics norms. She argues that verbal and

clausal ellipsis function in a similar way as hedges and tag questions in English,

but, the basic principle is that of avoidance of imposition. Ellipsis is used by

Japanese in order to:

1. satisfy politeness

a. mitigation of speech acts (assertions, refusals, invitations, etc.)

b. intensiªcation of speech acts (apologies, thanking, etc.)

c. avoidance of commitment to a particular honoriªc or non-honoriªc

expression

2. avoid of responsibility

3. indicate intimacy or power

4. indicate emotion

5. get attention

Besides item 5), which is not relevant to our study, the other four items appear

to explicate some of the diŸerences in distribution between host and guests. In

the following sections, each type of unªnished utterance ending is looked at in

contrast to Okamoto’s (1985) observations on politeness and ellipsis.

87Turntaking

Tte/to endings

As mentioned in the section on questions, one way in which the host asks

questions is to end her turn with the quotative particle tte/to. The questions can

be translated as ‘I’ve heard that…’ or ‘People say that….’. (see example 7).

Why the host uses this type of question can be explained as a mitigation of the

inquiry (1a) and as avoiding responsibility (2). To illustrate 1a), the following

example is from an interview with a male ex-baseball player. The guest explains

that he likes planning things long in advance.

(28) (M8)

1 T: soo na n desu tte ne! (e.) soide sugu ryokan nanka koo

yes cop com cop Qt fp yeah then soon hotel like uhm

2 totte. anoo yoyaku nanka shichauto sonna saki no koto

book well book like do-cond that-kind ahead gen com

3 → wa== dekimasen. toka tte.. iwarechau toki mo aru gurai

top be-able-neg like Qt say-pass times also be about

4 → desu tte/

cop Qt

5 G: eh. desukara tatoeba== ima da to/ ((continues))

yes therefore for-example now cop cond

‘T: I have heard that. (yes) And you immediately book an inn, and when

you make the bookings, I have also heard that you are told that they

cannot accept booking so long in advance, (is it true?)

G: Yes. Therefore, for example, now ((continues))’

In this example, the host’s unªnished utterance satisªes three conditions: 1a),

1c) and 2. Mitigating the question in order to avoid imposition is observed in

other discourse features. In line 3, a quotative particle is followed by a slight

pause, which is a potential TRP. Avoidance of honoriªcs, and non-honoriªcs

(1c) can be explained by the host’s style. Note that she uses a rather casual style;

however it is not completely informal. On the other hand, avoidance of re-

sponsibility (2) suggests that the host does not know what the guest’s answer is

going to be. It could be that the guest will disagree with her or that she has

incorrect information. Therefore, by using a quotative particle, the host avoids

compromising herself.

The guests, on the other hand, very rarely use this particle in ªnal position

unless they are referring to a quotation directly. As a ‘deviant’ example, we can

see this being used by one of the young female guests.


(29) (F7)

1 G: mazu honne o dashiteitadakanaito komaru tte

ªrst truth o get-out-receive-cond trouble Qt

2 iwarete okaasan. shirooto desu node… ah,

say-pass mother honest cop because oh

3 watashi wa zutto nijuunen kan kakitamete

I top all-the-time 20-years during write-store

4 → gozaimasu node tte@@

cop-pol because Qt

5 T: @@okaasan kakitameta mono ga atta no/

your-mother write-store thing S be-past fp

‘G: My mother was told that she had to tell her true-self. And because she

is honest, ‘I’ve been writing for all these 20 years’ @@ (she said)

T: @@ She had been writing for 20 years?

Unlike the host’s turns that end in tte/to, the quotative particle is used to report

a quotation by the guest’s mother-in-law. Note that the guest changes her tone

of voice in order to make the quotation more prominent.

Unªnished quotations

In line 3 of example (30), the arrow indicates an unªnished utterance that ends

in de. Sooda/soodesu is an auxiliary meaning ‘ I hear’, which occurs at the end of

the phrase or sentence. The de in soode is the conjunctive form of the copula,

which follows the auxiliary soo.

(30) (M9)

1 T: maa choroku o nasutta wake desu.

well record O do-hon-past reason cop

2 moo hito kata. ofutari de nasutta

more one person 2-persons with do-hon-past

3 → soo de #.

I-hear conj

4 G: hai. anoo Piitaa Konitsuki tte iu igirisujin

yes well Peter Konitsky Qt call English

5 de# ee,…((continues))

conj

89Turntaking

‘T: Well, so you recorded and there was another person. I hear you did

the work together, <didn’t you>?

G: Yes, it is an English man called Peter Konitsky, and…..((continues)).’

This excerpt is a very common example of the way the host elicits information

from her guests.

Grammatical particles in turn ends

Unªnished utterances include noun phrases; i.e. a noun followed by a gram-

matical particle, as in the following excerpt. The host and the guest talk about a

Japanologist by the name of Sattow, whose family name is very similar to a very

famous diplomat in the Meiji Period. Interlocutors would to understand that

the correct spelling of the name in question is being asked. Note that turntak-

ing occurs after the host’s grammatical particle ni accompanied by rising

intonation.

(31) (M9)

1→ T: Satoo tte saigo ni?#.

Sattow Qt last loc

2 G: esu tei tei daburu yuu tte iu [tsuzuri

s t t double u Qt say spelling

3 o kakimasu node # ((continues))

O write because

‘T: The last (letter of) the name Sattow is (which one?)

G: It is written with a t, t and double-u ((continues)).’

This type of question is used in other languages as well (see Ferrara, 1992, on

joint constructions). In the above example, the intonation indicates turn-

ending. However, turntaking can occur without any intonational cue. In the

next excerpt, the guest talks about her father’s opinion about her husband not

ªnishing university. Note in line 3 that the host does not ªnish her intended

question and does not give any intonational cue.

(32) (F1)

1 G: ..demo souiu koto wa nantomo kinishiteorimasen

but that-type thing top nothing worry-hum-neg

2 deshita.

cop-past


3 →T: otoosama wa#.

your-father top

4 G: hai. hai.((continues))

yes yes

‘G: ..but (he) did not worry at all about those kind of things.

T: Your father#

G: Yes, yes ((continues)).’

Clausal particles and conjunctive particles in turn ends

Syntactically unªnished utterances in many cases end with a conjunctive

particle. Clausal ellipsis occurs after conjunctive particles such as node ‘so,

since, because’, kara ‘since, having done’, kedo, keredomo, ga ‘but’ (all have the

same meaning and they diŸer in formality, kedo being the most informal).

These are ordinarily used to show reason, cause or contradiction. However,

when ellipsis occurs, the conjunctions lose the original meaning and function

pragmatically as hedges.

This aspect of Japanese communication has been mentioned by O. Mizutani

(1981), who points out that conjunctions such as keredo, ga, kedo ‘crop up

constantly in spoken Japanese’ (1981: 161), an aspect observed by Mori (1999)

as well. In written form, sentences ending with these conjunctions often appear

to be illogical. Therefore, another function, besides the logical connection

between clauses, has been argued to be the psychological attitude of humility

towards the listener (O. Mizutani, 1981). While a literal translation of utterances

ending in ga, keredomo, keredo, kedo as ‘but’ would signal concession or

disagreement in English, the term ‘humility’ that O. Mizutani uses is perhaps

one cultural aspect in Japanese culture that values self-restraint and devalues

assertiveness. The use of grammatically ªnished sentences in speech may sound

too self-assured and abrupt to most Japanese people, hence they are infrequent

in spoken language. Mori (1999) writes that these conjunctions are used

strategically by speakers in order to mitigate disagreement or to show agreement.

The next example (33) illustrates an unªnished turn ending in the con-

junctive node ‘because’, accompanied by the sentence ªnal particle ne in line 3.

The guest is explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the Chinese and

Roman alphabets in compiling bibliographical lists in Japanese.

(33) (M9)

1 G: ee.. nanishiro yon moji de sumu

eh anyway 4 letters with enough

91Turntaking

2 tokoro ga rooma ji de kakimashitara

place S roman letters in write-cond

3 → nanjuu ji nimo narimasu node ne/#.

10-some letters also become because fp

4 T: soo desu mono ne. sorekara, ((continues))

yes cop com fp then

‘G: In any case, instead of writing with only four Chinese characters,

because you see, you need some 10 letters

T: Yes, it is as you say, and ((continues))’

The guest ªnishes his turn with the particle node in line 3. Note that in line 1

the guest uses the word nanishiro ‘anyway’, which emphasizes his point and

puts forward his argument in explaining the advantages of the Japanese writing

system. Leaving the next clause unªnished, the guest’s particle node may work

to intensify his argument.

In the next example, we see that the guest comments on another term for

zucchini. In an eŸort to sound less assertive or less pretentious as he refers to

the term in English, the guest ends his turn with kedo.

(34) (M9)

1 G: eh kore wa karifurawaa to zukkini desu ne.

uhm this top cauli¶ower and zucchini cop fp

2 → kurojetto to eigo de wa mooshimasu kedo#,

courgette Qt English in top say-hum but

3 T: zukkini tte ano.. chotto kyuuri mitaino

zucchini Qt well little cucumber like

4 (hai.hai.) de # ((continues))

yes conj

‘G: This is (with) cauli¶ower and zucchini. In English it is called

courgette, but

‘T: Zucchini is like a cucumber (yes. yes.) and ((continues))’

Conjunctive forms

The conjunctive form in Japanese clauses is indicated by the verb ending in te

or de, which can be translated basically as ‘and’. These are used to combine or

enumerate two or more adjectivals or actions that may occur sequentially. In

the following excerpt, the host welcomes her guest, who is a very good friend of

hers. Her turn ends with the adjective ureshii in the conjunctive form in line 1.


(35) (F4)

1→ T: hontoo deteitadakete ureshikutte..

really come-receive-pot-conj happy-conj

2 G: iya iya deteitadaketa nante koto janai

no no come-receive-pot-past like com cop-neg

3 no yo ((continues))

fp fp

‘T: Really, I am so happy that you came and

G: No, no. You shouldn’t say that ((continues)).’

There is a slight pause after ureshikute. The guest responds with two consecu-

tive negations, iya iya to downgrade the host’s utterance in a similar way to a

response to a compliment. The host’s unªnished utterance, on the other hand,

may work as an intensiªer.

In the next excerpt, the guest (presented in examples 30, 31, 33 and 34)

yields his turn in line 3 ending in de, the conjunctive form of the copula. The

fact that the guest’s work had included such a vast amount of typing, and it is

stressed that he did it alone, suggests that the turn is unªnished, thus satisfying

the condition of intensiªcation.

(36) (M9)

1 T: waapuro de ouchininarimashite, nanajugoman

word-processor with type-hon-conj 75,000

2 ji. ouchininatta soo degozaimasu.

letter type-hon-past hear cop-pol

3 G: hai. jibun de uchimashita mon de #

yes myself by type-past com conj

‘T: (He / you) typed 75,000 words on a word processor.

G: Yes. I typed them myself and…’

Conditional forms

The conditional verbs in Japanese are marked by the auxiliaries to, tara or ba.

Many turns in the present data end in a conditional clause, as in the following

example. The host in this excerpt explains and summarizes what the guest had

previously explained about his bibliographical work, which is the study of

authorship and the editions of books. Note that in line 3 the host ends her turn

with the conditional to. There are many possible grammatical endings to the

93Turntaking

turn of the host, ranging from dekinai desu ‘cannot do it’, dame desu ‘not

good’, etc.

(37) (M9)

1 T: sujoo dearu ka tte koto zenbu

origin cop Q Qt com all

2 akirakaninasaru wake desukara (hai.) iRONNa

clear-do-hon com therefore yes various

3 → koto .. . gozonjinaito #

things know-neg-hon-cond

4 G: soo desu ne. ironna chishiki ga hitsuyoo ((continues))

yes cop fp various knowledge S necessary

‘T: Because you have to clarify everything about the books (authors, year

of print) (yes) if you don’t have … the knowledge about various things

…

G: Yes. A vast knowledge is necessary ((continues))’

Mori (1999) writes that these conjunctive particles are used in sequences where

agreements and disagreements are negotiated. Tanaka (1999), on the other

hand, writes that conjunctive particles can be linked to previous clauses or to

the context. In this example, the main clause is completely missing but is

provided by the guest in line 4. The conditional clause is not accompanied by

any type of turn ªnal characteristic, such as falling intonation.

Sentence ªnal particles

Some of the unªnished utterances are accompanied by sentence ªnal particles,

or discourse particles such as ne ‘isn’t it?’, as exempliªed in (38). This set of

particles is subdivided into two other types: sentence extenders (janaika ‘isn’t,

it’, janaikashira ‘I wonder, if it is like that’ (used mainly by females), ka ‘is it so’

(used by males), kamoshirenai ‘maybe’, kana ‘I wonder’ (informal and used by

both men and women), kashira ‘I wonder’, ne ‘you know/ isn’t, it?’, na ‘Hey,

you’ (used by men), sa1 ‘I don’t know’, wa (expresses weak assertiveness and is

used mainly by women), wane ‘Is it all right?’, yo ‘I tell you’; and hortatives

(daroo, deshoo), which invite agreement (Nakau, 1973).

In this study, the most common sentence ªnal particle (SFP) is the ne

particle, which is equivalent to ‘isn’t it?’ in English. According to Cook (1990a;

42), ne is a ‘linguistic feature that indicates aŸective common ground between


the speaker and the addressee since, ……. ne is a tool for establishing a

cooperative relationship between conversation participants’. At the same time,

the presence of SFPs indicates the degree of informality in the speech. In our

interview data, the only SFPs found were ne ‘isn’t it?’, kashira ‘I wonder, used

by females’, and yo ‘believe me’, indicating the formality of the speech event.

Cook (1990a) and Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) state that the frequency of

the particle ne is directly proportional to the degree of informality. Therefore,

SFPs such as ze ‘I assure you’ and zo ‘I tell you’, used only by men and

occurring in colloquial speech, are absent in the present data. To illustrate, the

widow of a famous writer (already presented) tells about her father’s appraisal

of her husband’s talent even before he started publishing. Note that the host

does not ªnish her intended utterance and uses the particle ne in line 5. The

guest then takes the ¶oor and tells more about her father’s opinion and advice.

(38) (F1)

1 T: sugoi otoosama (hai.) sono toorini onarininatta

wonderful your-father-hon yes that way-in become-hon-past

2 wake desu kedo (hai.) sakka nante wakararanai

com cop but yes writer like understand-neg

3 desu mono ne/ (soo degozaimasu.) ikura sooiu

cop com fp yes cop-hon how-much that-type

4 me o shiteiru toka sooiu me ga aru [tte]

eye O have like that- type eye S have Qt

5 [(hai.)] osshattemo (hai. hai. hai.) nakanaka ne/

yes say-hon-even yes. yes. yes quite fp

6 G: me o sodatereba ii n dakara to

eye O raise-cond good com because Qt

7 mooshiteorimashita.

say-hum-past

‘T: What an extraordinary father (yes) What he predicted became true

(Yes) but it is di¹cult to discern a writer, isn’t, it? (exactly) Even though

your father said [that ] [(yes)] your husband had the eyes (vision) of a

writer. Yet it is quite (yes. yes. yes) (di¹cult) isn’t’, it?

G: (He said) that we should nurture his eyes …..’

SFPs are potential TRPs, as they function in a similar way to tag questions

by involving the listener in the interaction. However, not every SFP is

95Turntaking

acknowledged by the listener, and while it would be interesting to explore the

distributional pattern of backchannels and turntaking in relation to SFPs, this

is a topic for future research.

Abbreviated utterances

Some of the turns end without auxiliaries or sentence ªnal particles. These

types of turns are syntactically complete; however, given that the style is formal

and other turn-endings are accomplished with polite forms, they are termed as

abbreviated in this study. The guest in the following example is a Kabuki actor.

Here they talk about his performance of a Western play. In line 5, the guest

ends his turn with a noun and falling intonation.

(39) (M10)

1 G: kore wa ano migi ni iru no wa Nofuooku to

this top uhm right in be com top Norfolk Qt

2 itte/

call-conj

3 T: ah. kore wa Nofuuoku [no hoo] [(e.)]

oh. this top Norfolk gen side yeah

4 G: hontoo no koibito no mae ni iru.. shinrai

real of lover gen before in be trust

5 → dekiru mukashi no koibito.

be-able previous gen lover.

4 T: naruhodo ne/ (hai.)

I-see fp yes

‘G: The one on the right side is Norfolk and

T: Oh. This is [Norfolk.] [(yeah.)]

G: The ex-lover, the lover whom she could really trust.

T: I see. (yes)’

Note that in line 5, the ending in the polite form would require the addition of

the copula. TRP projection is indicated by ªnal intonation. These abbreviated

turns are common in the data and turntaking occurs successfully due to

prosodic features.



In this chapter the 14 turntaking facts in conversation deªned by Sacks et al.

(1974) are contrasted with the facts observed in a Japanese television interview.

Six facts of the 14 described by Sacks et al. are diŸerent in television interviews.

Firstly, occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are not common, perhaps

due to the interview situation. No controversial topics are found in the data and

the style is more formal than in everyday conversations. Three other points diŸer

from mundane conversation: the variation in the number of parties, in turn

order, and in distribution of turns. The fact that only dyadic interviews were

selected for the data may strengthen this aspect. Also, irrespective of the number

of participants, topics in interviews are speciªed in advance, the length of

conversation is speciªed to a certain degree, and talk must be continuous,

especially in a live interview. The host and the production crew conduct prior

research so that questions can be prepared beforehand, as discussed in Chap-

ter 2. The host, however, has a range of repair strategies for when guests do not

cooperate or are simply not eloquent enough (e.g. rephrase, clariªcation). The

time constraint in interviews also diŸers from everyday conversation.

There is also an uneven distribution of questions, which are found in

syntactic ªnished and unªnished forms. The host in the data uses various other

strategies to conduct her interviews. Although a great number of turns are

grammatically unªnished, turn-yielding occurs without di¹culty in the turn-

taking ¶ow, suggesting that syntactic completion is not a required condition

for turn-end projectability.

In addition, we have seen some of the characteristics of grammatically

ªnished and unªnished turns and their unequal distribution. Among the

host’s turns, 23.9% are unªnished while 15.9% are ªnished. The reverse pat-

tern is observed in the guests’ turns: 32.7% are unªnished, 43% are ªnished.

This distribution occurs in every interview, suggesting that it is due to the

diŸering roles and obligations. This can be explained by the concept of polite-

ness proposed by Okamoto (1985) and mentioned in the section on unªnished

utterances. Okamoto argues that ellipsis in Japanese can be understood from

the viewpoint of politeness felicity conditions. These are 1) satisfying politeness

by a. mitigation of speech acts (assertions, refusals, invitations, etc.), b. intensi-

ªcation of speech acts (apologies, thanking, etc.), c. avoidance of commitment

to a particular honoriªc or non-honoriªc expression; 2) avoidance of responsi-

bility; 3) indicating intimacy or power; 4) indicating emotion; and 5) gaining

attention.

97Turntaking

Although they seem to contradict each other, mitigation and intensiªca-

tion of speech acts are used by the host and guest in unªnished utterances as

hedges (see examples 42, 43), or to stress a point (examples 45, 46). Host and

guests alike use unªnished utterances as intensiªers of speech acts, some of the

examples being greeting, and thanking, (see example 44). The host in most

cases does not want to impose on the guest, although the situation demands

that the guest answer questions, as in the following example, where the dis-

abled guest is asked about her height. The host uses an unªnished question, by

is realized with the rising intonation. The words taihen shitsurei are very polite

and cautious. Another strategy to soften her question is the usage of kedo,

which announces an unpleasant request.

(40) (F8)

1 T: taihen shitsurei desu kedo (e.) osei wa soosuruto

very impolite cop but height top then

2 → nan senchi gurai/

how-many centimeters about

3 G: ano=tabun= atakushi ano=hontooni ano ne/

uhm probably I well really well fp

4 Kuroyanagi san ni omenikakatte ((continues))

Kuroyanagi T to meet-hum-conj

‘T: It is very impolite (yes), but the how tall are you?

G: Well, probably, well you see, I am very happy to meet you ((continues))’

The translation does not clearly show the syntactically unªnished question in

line 2; however, if a literal translation was provided, an approximate version

would be: It is very impolite, but how many centimetres tall are you? Note that

the guest does not respond to the host’s question immediately, but then

mentions that she is as tall as one of the characters in the book that the host had

written. Other examples, when topics deal with death or unpleasant experi-

ences, show that the host uses unªnished questions or syntactically unªnished

turns, chosen to soften her question. On the other hand, the guests do not have

to worry about saying anything displeasing related to the host.

Approximately one third of turn exchanges occurred at syntactic comple-

tion points (685 of 2328 TCUs = 29.42%). This aspect may re¶ect one of the

characteristics of ‘institutional language’; namely that the speech is not as

fragmented as in colloquial Japanese. One of the reasons behind the fragmented

style in mundane conversation is the shared knowledge that all participants


possess. This factor is emphasized by the subjects in the data used by the majority

of researchers on Japanese communication (Hayashi, 1996; S. Maynard, 1989).

Maynard’s Japanese subjects were college or university students recruited from

a ‘network of college friends’ (S. Maynard, 1989: 14), while Hayashi’s Japanese

subjects were recruited in the USA, and were eight married couples arranged in

four groups. Some of the couples were close friends, others were colleagues, and

the fact that they lived in the USA indicates that they all had some shared

knowledge about living in the same foreign country.

Participants in a television interview do not have such shared knowledge,

and this factor is more pronounced as it is addressed to a wider audience. As

there is little or no common or shared knowledge between host, guest and

audience in such ‘institutional’ interactions, the participants must speak ex-

plicitly, and one way of achieving clarity is by providing grammatically com-

plete utterances.

As is demonstrated by excerpts from the data, interviews have very speciªc

rules in regard to the roles of participants, and there are a number of con-

straints that are absent in everyday conversation. All of these factors serve to

make an interview a distinct speech event. Also, syntactic completion is associ-

ated with other speaker roles, with guests producing more grammatically

ªnished utterances than the host.

Note

1. sa depending on the intonation can have other meanings.

Chapter 4

Gender, age and status diŸerences

in the interview

Introduction

The asymmetry in ‘institutional’ interactions has been the focus of considerable

research (D. Maynard, 1991; Heritage and Seª, 1992; West, 1984; Whalen and

Zimmerman, 1990) and this study is no exception. Although most social

interactions are asymmetric, interviews are among the most representative

(Heritage and Drew, 1992; D. Maynard, 1991; West, 1984, Whalen, 1991). This

asymmetry is the result of role allocation with its speciªc rights and obligations.

In addition to the role diŸerences, asymmetry can originate in diŸerences in

age, gender and status of the interlocutors.

It has been argued that dominance over an interlocutor is displayed through

various communicative strategies. Some are very conspicuous, like interrup-

tions (Zimmerman and West, 1975, 1983), backchannel use (Fishman, 1978;

Uchida, 1993), topic control (De Francisco, 1998) or quantity of talk (Edelsky,

1981). These have been associated with gender diŸerences in Anglo-Saxon

societies, where female language is said to display cooperative strategies and

male language to show aggressive features. Others are more subtle and discreet,

such as lexical choice (Graddol and Swann, 1993; O’Barr and Atkins, 1998) or

the use of hedges (LakoŸ, 1975). Recently, this male/female dichotomy associ-

ated with distinctive styles has been questioned (Bing and Bergvall, 1996;

Cameron, 1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995; Freed and Green-

wood, 1996). Moreover should these communicative strategies be automati-

cally associated with control or aggression in every culture? Are there other ways

of showing deference or control? If so, what are they and how are they expressed?

These are the questions that I seek to answer in this chapter and in Chapter 6.

Recent studies on other cultures reveal that some gender-related strategies

(Murata, 1994), which have been associated with male communicative style,

are not always applicable to other cultures. For example, interruptions are

considered to be ‘violations’ (Sacks, et al., 1974), and many researchers have


found that men interrupt more often than women (Zimmerman and West,

1975; West and Zimmerman, 1983; West, 1984). However, it has also been

argued that interruptions in Japanese may not always be ‘violations’ (Hinds,

1978a; Hayashi; 1996), and that various types of interruption, including non-

aggressive (Murata, 1994), are used in conversations. These are also found in

the present data, particularly in interviews with younger females, suggesting

that non-aggressive interruptions are not ‘violations’ but may be used to

indicate cooperation and interest in the interaction. Naturally, this is not to say

that aggressive interruptions are absent from Japanese interactions, as we see

from other types of speech events such as political debates (Honda, 2002).

This chapter explores the asymmetry of the interview by examining the use

of interruptions, style shifts and terms of address. These are the most conspicu-

ous linguistic forms that demonstrate diŸerences in power and status, as well as

gender and age, of the interlocutors in the various interviews. They reveal

interesting features of communicative exchange in ‘institutional’ Japanese.

Previous studies

Among studies on gender diŸerences and media interviews, Winter (1993),

Johnson (1996) and KotthoŸ (1997) are of high relevance for this study. While

not all their data may be comparable (KotthoŸ used debate programs, Winter

political interviews), their results are nevertheless important. Winter (1993)

analyzed two political interviews on Australian television conducted by a

female and a male host. Both interviewed a male guest. Turntaking manage-

ment, question strategies and episodic structure were looked at and results

indicated a clear diŸerence in the interviewing strategies of the two hosts.

While a more competitive and aggressive stance characterized the all-male

interview, the female interviewer maintained a cooperative style.

Similarly, Johnson (1996) analyzed a New Zealand TV interviewer, Maggie

Barry, in eight diŸerent programs. He found that women speak more and for

longer, interrupt less than men, and that Maggie Barry used a greater percent-

age of questions with negative eŸect with male interviewees. Johnson also

found that Barry adopted a more aggressive stance towards male guests and a

friendlier attitude towards female guests.

KotthoŸ’s results seem to reinforce the notion of male dominance over

females. She found that professional women were asked questions on mun-

dane topics rather than on their expertise, which tacitly belittled them. It is

101Gender, age and status diŸerences in the interview

di¹cult to speculate as to whether these diŸerences are due to language

(English vs German), diŸerent cultures (Australian, New Zealand and Ger-

man), the types of programs, or the number of participants. However, they do

provide interesting results and demonstrate that gender diŸerences are mani-

fested in these types of interaction.

Research in Japan

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the work of LakoŸ (1973, 1975) was the main trigger

for research on women’s use of language in the West, with further impetus from

the women’s liberation movement in the 1970s. However, this movement had

very little impact on Japanese society as a whole, which is re¶ected in the

linguistic research on gender and language in terms of power (discrimination

against women). There were some exceptions, most notably Ide (1979, 1982,

1983, 1997) and Shibamoto (1985). Only recently have Japanese scholars begun

to focus on the discourse of women’s language, with contradictory results (Abe,

2000; Ehara et al. 1993; Endo, 1997a, 1997b; Okamoto, 1995; Sunaoshi, 1994;

Takasaki, 1996, 1997; N. Uchida, 1993). Some reports suggest that there are

signs of neutralization in the Japanese language (Nakajima, 1997; Takasaki,

1994); however, it is too early to arrive at any conclusions.

Earlier linguistic studies of gender and language in Japan suggest that

females use more honoriªc forms than men, thus reinforcing the association

of women with politeness. Peng et al. (1981) looked at various aspects of

language (length of utterances, types of verb ending, sentence ªnal particles,

ellipsis, honoriªcs, phonological characteristics, usage of personal pronouns)

for any gender diŸerences in four age groups and in two diŸerent geographi-

cal regions in Japan. The project had two main aims: to determine at what age

children acquire the distinction of female/male language, and why this dis-

tinction is necessary. Apart from the fact that women consistently use more

honoriªc language, they also found that male sentence ªnal particles are

indeed used only by men and that women use more polite forms than males.

Moreover, Peng et al. claim that this gender diŸerence is already part of a

child’s linguistic awareness from as early as 2 (Peng et al., 1981). They argue

that this gender diŸerence in the language exists in order to facilitate and

improve the handling of psychological distance in communication, in a simi-

lar way to honoriªc language.

Ide (1979, 1982, 1983, 1997), who also found that females use more

honoriªc forms than men do, sees this diŸerence in other terms. She writes


that ‘men’s dominance over women in social positions is a legacy of feudalism

and is still maintained as a basic social norm, despite the improvement of

women’s status in the last few decades. Women, therefore, are expected to be

more polite than men’ (1982: 378). Ide states that women’s language in Japan

is more polite than men’s language not because of their lower status in society

but because the main role of most women is that of housewife. Politeness is

emphasized by the fact that housewives need to have good communication

skills with their families, with their neighbours, and with their community.

Moreover, usage of honoriªcs is an indication of education and higher social

class. So using honoriªcs towards a neighbour for example, may show polite-

ness, but it also expresses a desire of the speaker to show her high status and

reªnement (Ide, 1997: 6–7).

Although Shibamoto’s (1985) research was on syntax (not on sociolinguis-

tics), she was the ªrst scholar to publish a book on Japanese women’s language

in English. Her analysis includes ‘predicate types, ellipsis of nominal adjuncts,

presence of sentential, manner, time and place adverbials, word order and

ellipsis of case particles’ in women and men’s speech (1985: 144). She found

diŸerences in most cases, with the most striking ones in the deletion of par-

ticles, the scrambling and right dislocation rules, and the use of certain sen-

tence types. Her research suggests that women are less conservative in using

certain grammatical rules. She writes that syntax is one of the aspects of

language where a person has less cognizant control, as opposed to the usage of

honoriªcs or sentence ªnal particles, which most researchers have looked at. In

order to prove her theory, Shibamoto used additional data based on television

recordings of two interviews with male transvestites. She found that frequency

of lexico-morphological features, which are used only by women, equaled

those of female speakers. However, the same did not occur at the level of

syntax, where manipulation is less plausible. Her results overall indicate that

male and female diŸerences in Japanese might include syntactic ones but

deªnitely include lexical and morphological diŸerences (e.g. honoriªc forms,

personal pronouns, sentence ªnal particles).

More recent research shows contradictory results. The following two stud-

ies looked at gender diŸerences in the speech of university students and focused

on turntaking and politeness strategies (honoriªcs, personal pronouns, excla-

mations, hedges and sentence ªnal particles). N. Uchida (1993) carried out tests

on the perception of gender behaviour and contrasted them to the data. While

all her subjects were conscious of maintaining a cooperative style of conversa-

tion and keeping psychological distance by using honoriªcs, males were more


aware of keeping distance. Female subjects felt more comfortable when talking

to same sex interlocutors. On the other hand, Ehara et al. (1993) and Yoshii

(1996) suggest that indeed cooperativeness is associated with women’s style,

and aggressiveness with men’s style. Their results point out that females take a

more supportive and cooperative role, while males interrupt considerably more

in mixed interactions.

Other studies show that females use no more honoriªc or polite forms than

men, and that there is an increased use of ‘masculine’ forms by young Japanese

women (Kobayashi, 1993; Okamoto, 1994, 1995). However, Reynolds (1997,

1998) and Kobayashi (1993) speculate that the ‘masculine’ language used by

young females will eventually change once they enter the workforce or get

married. Unfortunately there are no longitudinal studies to my knowledge on

the language change of females, once they start work or change their status, to

verify this.

Studies on the language of Japanese women at work present diverse results.

In formal situations, women use more formal personal pronouns (Kobayashi,

1997) and tend to use more honoriªcs; however, this tendency decreases with

age (Endo, 1997a, 1997b). On the other hand, Nakajima (1997) and Takasaki

(1997) found that women are using less of the ‘feminine’ expressions. Interest-

ingly, it is the men who are using more ‘feminine’ words. Nakajima and

Takasaki state that there is a tendency for women to use more neutral forms.

Abe (2000) interviewed and recorded a number of professional women at

business meetings, at home and with friends. Their speech shows that ‘(they)

are not necessarily more polite than their male counterparts, neither are they

less assertive’ (2000: 140). At work they are able to shift styles for power

negotiation and can have an aggressive style of speech.

Smith (1992) and Reynolds (1993, 1998) write that women in positions of

power appear to experience linguistic con¶ict. While Reynolds (1993, 1998)

reports that women solve this con¶ict by ‘defeminizing’ their language, Smith

(1992) writes that they create new strategies to cope with it. These observations

are also reported by Takasaki (1996) on the diŸerent speech styles used by

females in television interviews, who use ‘women’s language’, ‘men’s language’

and neutral forms. By mixing diŸerent styles, they enrich their speech and add

more expression and colour to their account (Takasaki, 1996).

Whether a change in the speech of Japanese contemporary women is

taking place or not is a topic for further research, but what we can conclude

from these studies is that the male/female dichotomy in Japanese society and

language is a very complex phenomenon.


Dominance and asymmetry in the interview

Speakers and listeners use many strategies in order to dominate in a conver-

sation. These strategies include aspects in turntaking such as interruptions

(Zimmerman and West, 1975; West, 1984), topic control (Heritage, 1985;

West, 1984), use of minimal responses (Fishman, 1978) and volubility. There

are also less conspicuous ways of showing one’s status or power, such as lexical

choices, which include address forms and usage of pronouns. In Japanese, an

additional aspect is the use of honoriªcs to reveal social and interpersonal

relationships.

Dominance is associated with the relative status of the participants, with

being male, older and in power. In interview discourse, some of these factors

can be in con¶ict at times; for example when the host, who holds the power in

the interview, is younger than the guest or when the guest has a higher status

outside the interview situation. Moreover, the host in the present study is

female and, in Japanese society, women are still rendered lower status com-

pared to many Western societies. There is great controversy on this aspect of

feminism as modern society demands change in gender role division (see

Bernstein, 1991, for more); however the status of women in Japan is still that of

‘second class citizens’ (Hastings and Nolte, 1996), and gender equality is still a

long way from reality (Itoh, 1998).

Interruptions

One of the most evident ways of displaying dominance over the speaker is to

interrupt and take control of the ¶oor. Sacks et al. (1974) consider interruptions

as ‘violations’ of the turntaking rules. Moreover, in the literature on gender

diŸerences, interruptions are associated with power and intrusion (Zimmerman

and West, 1975; West, 1984). Although the studies by Zimmerman and West and

West on interruptions are the most famous, others show con¶icting results

(Coates, 1996; Greenwood, 1996). Greenwood suggests that interruptions are

used diŸerently depending on the content and goal of the interaction and the

participants. Greenwood also states that the style of a person can vary and that,

besides the social context, group identiªcation is an important factor. On the

other hand, Coates writes that women share what she calls a ‘collaborative ¶oor’,

where everybody shares the ¶oor and speakers very often speak at the same time.

In Japanese communication, interruptions seem to be diŸerent in nature

to the aggressive types referred to previously, and research suggests that they


are not ‘violations’. Firstly, most interruptions are not aggressive in nature and

are used to show interest in the conversation (Murata, 1994). Secondly, over-

lapping has been observed in colloquial conversation (Hayashi, 1996; Hinds,

1978a), and Hayashi writes that ‘speakers of Japanese tend to talk simulta-

neously’ (Hayashi, 1996: 230). I show in this study that overlapping is in fact

common in television interviews and, is one way in which participants show

their interest and cooperation.

In the data for this study, interruptions occurred 205 times, or 8.8% of all

2328 turns. There were intrusive and non-intrusive interruptions. In the next

example (1), the host interrupts her guest and changes the topic. This type of

interruption can be classiªed as an intrusive interruption, whereas excerpt (2)

is a co-operative interruption according to Murata (1994). The topic in (1) is

one of the tasks required in the guest’s work, which includes recognizing

whether a book is an original or a copy. In line 4, the host interrupts the guest

and changes the topic without allowing him to ªnish.

(1) (M9)

1 T: hontoo no mono ka dooka tte iu koto

real of thing Q whether Qt say thing

2 mo, #…

also

3 G: ee.. sooiu koto mo juubun ano

eh that-type thing also enough well

4 → [kentooshimashite]

examine-conj

5 →T: [demo shahon to] osshaimashita kedomo

but copy Qt say-hon-past but

6 (hai.) Nihon no hon no maa gaikoku mo

yes Japan gen book gen well foreign also

7 soo desu kedo/ muzukashii koto no

that-way cop but di¹cult thing gen

8 hitotsu ni,.. insatsu… no mae wa minna ((continues))

one in print gen before top all

‘G: Yes, (we) also [examine] that as well.’

T: [You have said original], but (yes) for Japanese and foreign books as

well, one of the di¹cult things is that before it was printed ((continues))


Note that the host uses demo, a connective particle that indicates disagreement

(Ooishi, 1971). However, demo in this instance is used to return to an old topic

because it is obvious that the host is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the

guest. It has been found that demo is used to change topics (Karatsu, 1995) in

Japanese conversation, as can also be seen here.

The interruption in the next example is from the same interview, but is of a

diŸerent nature. From the context of the topic, we can assume that it is not an

aggressive interruption; rather, the host interrupts in order to conªrm some

information. She does this by speciªcally repeating the guest’s words and

continuing to elaborate on the information that he was providing. The guest

talks about a scholar who worked with him by the family name of Sattow. This

name is very similar to Satoh, a very common Japanese name, and also to

Satow, who was a famous diplomat and Japanese scholar in the Meiji Period.

(2) (M9)

1 T: Satoo tte saigoo ni/

Satow Qt last loc

2 G: esu tei tei daburu yuu tte iu [tsuzuri

s t t double u Qt say spelling

3 o kakimasu node].

O write because

4 T: [daburu

double

5 yuu ga tsuiteru]. demo Aanesuto Satoo ((continues))

u S has-pre but Ernest Sattow

‘T: The last (letter of) the name Sattow is (which one?)

G: [Because it is written] with a t, t and double-u.

T: It has (is written with) [a double-u.] but Ernest Sattow ((continues))’

This type of interruption can be classiªed as a cooperative interruption, a term

used by Murata (1994) who argues that there are two types of interruption:

cooperative and intrusive. As the terms suggest, a co-operative interruption

occurs when listeners ‘join the speaker’s utterance by supplying a word or a

phrase for which the speaker is searching, or even completes it for him/her’

(Murata, 1994: 387). On the other hand, intrusive interruptions are used in

order to disagree, to change topic or to gain the ¶oor. Example (2) can be

considered as a co-operative interruption, as the host repeats the guest’s words

and there is no attempt to change the topic. However example (1) is more

aggressive, as the host interrupts her guest to return to a former topic.


According to Murata in her comparative analysis of interruptions between

Japanese and English speakers, the ‘occurrence of intrusive interruptions

was very rare in the Japanese interactions, averaging 0.43 per conversation’

(1994: 393). In the present data, 63 (30.8%) out of 205 interruptions are

identiªed as intrusive. Although the intrusive interruptions in the present data

are an infringement, they do not overtly confront or challenge the other party.

This aspect is probably connected to the topic of the interviews. As stated in

Chapter 2, the philosophy behind the interviews in Tetsuko no Heya is clearly

deªned by the producer and the host herself, in that no politicians are invited

and guests are never criticized. Therefore, it is natural that the topics are not

confrontational. Political interviews or other programs featuring controversial

topics, on the other hand, might give diŸerent results from both Murata’s

(1994) and the present study.

Overlaps

Although some researchers use interruptions and overlaps interchangeably

(Hinds, 1978a), the distinction between them is whether they are ‘mistakes’ or

not. Overlaps are, most of the time, due to mistiming, and occur at TRPs

(Sacks et al., 1974). On the other hand, interruptions are considered ‘viola-

tions’ (Sacks et al., 1974). In the present data, overlaps occurred 165 times

(7.08%). In (3) for example, the host conªrms that the guest was in the army

(not the navy). A potential TRP is observed after the host’s rikugun, and after a

slight pause, they talk simultaneously.

(3) (M1)

1→ T: Ikebe san tachi wa rikugun … [rikugun

Ikebe t pl top army army

2 na wake desu ne/]

cop com cop fp

3 G: [boku wa

I top

4 rikugun desukara]

army because

‘T: You belonged to the Army …[to the Army , didn’t you? (not to the

Navy)]

G: Because [I was in the Army’]


The overlap in (3) lines 1–4 can be the result of mistiming. Note that there is no

change of topic and instead there is repetition of the word rikugun. The

overlapped section, although very diŸerent syntactically, conveys the same

meaning. The kara ending indicates that the guest ‘marks a connection with

the immediately preceding utterance’ (Mori, 1999: 186).

Interruptions and gender

Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 show that younger female guests interrupt the host

more often than other guests. This ªnding contradicts various studies on

gender and interruptions (West and Zimmerman, 1983; West, 1984), which

claim that men interrupt women more often than vice versa. In West’s study

(1984) on interruptions in a doctor – patient encounter, the relation of power

is very similar to a television interview. There is an imbalance of power, in

which the doctor and the interviewer have the power as opposed to the patient

and the interviewee. West (1984) shows that in doctor – patient interactions,

most of the interruptions are by male doctors. However, if the doctor is a

female, the reverse occurs; the male patients interrupt when the doctor is a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Females over

50

Females under

50

Males over 50 Males under 50

Host

Guests

Figure 4.1 Host’s and guests’s interruptions

Table 4.1 Interruptions

Females Females Males Males Total

over 50 under 50 over 50 under 50

Host 18 (18%) 42 (42%) 22 (22%) 17 (17%) 99 (100%)

Guests 21 (19.8%) 49 (46%) 23 (21.6%) 13 (12.2%) 106 (100%)

Total 39 (19%) 91 (44.3%) 45 (21.9%) 30 (14.6%) 205 (100%)


female. The results in the present study are in line with those of Coates (1996)

and Tannen (1984), suggesting that interruptions should not automatically be

considered as a conversational ‘violation’.

If the ‘power/dominance’ concept of interruptions applied in all cultures

and languages, then male guests should have interrupted the host often

(21.6% and 12.2%). However this was not the case in any of the interviews

with male guests. On the contrary, the host experienced the most interrup-

tions from younger females (46%), which may indicate that, in Japanese

culture, interruptions are not necessarily associated with power or domi-

nance. Itakura (2001) writes that interruptions have various eŸects in the

sequence of the conversation and should not necessarily be equated to domi-

nance. Murata (1994) also observes that Japanese interlocutors ‘seem(s) to

prefer not to have interruptions, apart from co-operative ones’ (Murata,

1994: 399). Moreover, speakers use cooperative interruptions to show their

involvement in the conversation. This form of interruption occurs when lis-

teners, for example, supply a word or provide the ending of a sentence and

co-construct sentences. It is by no means aggressive and the intention of the

interrupting party is to show interest and encouragement.

As mentioned earlier, only 63 (30.8%) out of a total of 205 interruptions

made by both interlocutors in this study are intrusive, although they are not

really aggressive as they do not show overt disagreement. In addition, less

intrusive interruptions are more pronounced in the older female guest group

than in the other three groups. The next chart and table show the statistics of

intrusive and cooperative interruptions.

40

50

60

p

30

20

10

0

Intrusive

Cooperative

FI FII MI MII

Figure 4.2 Intrusive & cooperative interruptions


Table 4.2 Intrusive and cooperative interruptions

Interruptions Females Females Males Males Total

over 50 under 50 over 50 under 50

Intrusive 7 (18%) 31(34%) 15 (33%) 10 (33%) 63 (30.8%)

Cooperative 32 (82%) 60 (66%) 30 (67%) 20 (67%) 142(69.2%)

Total 39 91 45 30 205

That Japanese speakers seem to use cooperative interruptions more often does

not mean that intrusive interruptions do not exist (Honda, 2002). One of the

most important factors that decide the frequency and occurrence of interrup-

tions is the topic and genre of the speech event. In debates where the topic is

controversial, speakers use intrusive interruptions. In the data of the present

study, all the topics are non-controversial and the guests are invited onto the

program because of their professional or personal achievements. The producer

of the program has commented that the most important ‘criterion’ is that the

guests are never criticized. (See Appendix 2 and Chapter 2).

Interruptions in the female group under 50

In the younger female group, the greater number of interruptions by the

younger females (46%) is quite revealing. Most of these interruptions are not

in disagreement with the host but are ‘cooperative’ in nature. It may be that the

host feels a closer identiªcation with her younger female guests and thus is

more relaxed, and shifts her ‘interviewer’s’ style to one that is more conversa-

tional. In addition to interruptions, there are many other cooperative turns

and other collaborative strategies, such as a higher aizuchi frequency.

The next example is an excerpt from the interview with a female pianist

who became disabled as a consequence of a disease contracted as an infant.

Here, she talks about the special needs of people who are conªned to a special

bed. The host does not allow her to ªnish her turn and asks her whether she

uses any aids now. The guest interrupts her host with an immediate answer.

Both host and guest interrupt each other, but, these interruptions are not

aggressive. Note that the host is not trying to control the topic but is rather

showing an eagerness to know more about the guest. These types of interrup-

tions are referred to as ‘overlap-as-enthusiasm’ strategy (Tannen, 1984).

(4) (F8)

1 G: tada yappari mukashi wa gibusu beddo

well after-all before top cast bed


2 → zutto netakkiri no seikatsu-

throughout bed-ridden gen life

3 T: [ima wa nanimo

now top nothing

4 → shiterasharanai n-]

do-hon-neg com

5 G: [ima wa ne yappari korusetto

now top fp after-all corset

6 mada shiteru n desu. dakara ((continues))

yet do-prog com cop therefore

‘G: Before, I had to be all the time in [a cast bed-]

T: Now, you are not wearing anything

G: Now, I am still wearing a special corset, therefore ((continues)).’

Another fragment is from an interview with a singer, who talks about her life

after leaving the famous Takarazuka theatre and dance group. The guest says

that she is very busy with concerts, radio and television. Note in lines 5 and 6

that the host interrupts the guest, using the expression soo desuyone, which

indicates some kind of agreement and empathy. It can be used also as an

aizuchi. Although it is di¹cult to understand the host’s meaning in lines 6–7,

she introduces another topic. The guest takes the ¶oor with an agreement. The

next interruption starts with the discourse marker ne, accompanied by rising

intonation in lines 9 and 10. This is a very cooperative form of engagement,

and is used to indicate or seek agreement.

(5) (F10)

1 G: soo desu ne. ano-= kekko isogashii seikatsu-= na n

yes cop fp well quite busy life cop com

2 desu ne/(un.) desukara maa jikan mo nai tte

cop fp therefore well time also be-neg Qt

3 iu koto wa arimasu. ano Tookyoo kooen.

say com top be well Tokyo concert

4 Oosaka kooen. chihoo jungyoo. soshite.ano.. rajio.

Osaka concert rural tour and well radio

5 → terebi no [xxx ga arimasu kara.

TV gen S be because


6→ T: [soo desu yo ne/ ja mukashi Tookyoo ni

yes cop fp fp then before Tokyo in

7 irasshareba kondo mongen tte iu no

be-hon-cond this-time curfew Qt say com

8 ga aru deshoo?

S be cop-hort

9→ G: mongen wa kanarazu. [arimasu ne/

curfew top always be fp

10→ T: [nee/ ikutsu nattate aru no ne/]

fp how-old become-conj be com fp

‘G: Yes, I have a quite busy life (uh-huh) So, I don’t have much time.

Because I have concerts in Tokyo and Osaka, regional tours and radio

and TV. [xxxxx

T: [Yes, I understand]. Now, when you are in Tokyo there is a curfew

(where you live), isn’t there?

G: There is always a [curfew.]

T:[Isn’t it, that there is a curfew no matter how old you are/]

In interviews with younger females, there is no psychological con¶ict in relation

to power, age or gender. The host is older, therefore there is no interference in

establishing relative status, one of the fundamental criteria in the Japanese

language (Miller, 1967; Nakane, 1970; Niyekawa, 1991; Ide, 1982, 1989). The

host has the power, and as an older person she is senior to her guests. Therefore,

it appears that turntaking in interviews with younger females is more colloquial

in style than with other guests. Coates (1996) uses the term ‘collaborative ¶oor’

in her analysis of conversation among women friends. She discusses the phe-

nomenon of several guests ‘sharing in the construction of talk’ (1996: 139) in

answering the host’s questions. This sharing in the construction style is very

similar to the one found in the interviews with younger females.

Cooperative turns

Some studies contest the dichotomy of communicative styles that associates

cooperativeness with women and aggressiveness with men, claiming instead

that the topic of the talk is more relevant than the gender of the speakers (Freed

and Greenwood, 1996). Findings on Japanese conversation are also contradic-

tory. Some show that men are the aggressive speakers (Ehara, Yoshii and

Yamazaki, 1993), while others show that the situation dictates the tone of the

interaction (T. Yamada, 1995; Yoshii, 1996). In this study, both males and


females use a cooperative style of turntaking, which suggests that the situation

deªnes the tone of the interaction.

Cooperative turns are observed when both participants contribute to make

the narrative, and many strategies such as repetition and co-construction are

found in these types of turn. The male guest in the next example talks about

how boys and girls who are studying at his acting school react in diŸerent

situations. The guest says that boys in their teens are unstable in contrast to

girls. His turn ends with the shortened explanatory connective particle nde. At

this point, the host provides additional comments that help the narration.

(6) (M10)

1 G:… .kichitto benkyoosuru. otokonoko no juudai koohan

properly study boy gen teens late

2 tte no wa sugoku ne/ ukishizumi ga hageshii nde.

Qt com top really fp up-down S intense because

3 T: ah. asobitaku mo nachau darooshi ne/

oh play-want also become cop-hortfp

4 G: sore toka. karada mo.. tokidoki ne/ otokonoko te

that like body also sometimes fp boy Qt

5 gatta tte koo.. yowaku nachattarisuru n desu yo ne/

onmt Qt like weakly become-conj com cop fp fp

6 T: ah. onnanoko to chigau no/

oh girl to diŸerent fp

7 G: onnanoko no hoo ga. tsuyoi desu yo ne.

girl gen way S strong cop fp fp

‘G: (They) study properly. Boys in their late teens, you know are very

unstable.

T: Oh. They also want to have fun as well, right?

G: Yes, and also physically the boys tend to get sick suddenly, they get

weak very quickly you know.

T: Are they diŸerent to girls?

G: Well, girls are stronger, you see.’

In line 4, the guest starts his turns with sore toka. By using sore the guest

acknowledges what the host has said, and the next particle toka ‘for example’

provides additional information. He then says that, physically, boys are more

prone to illness than girls. Note that the host’s question in line 6 is marked by

the ‘down’ shift shown in the plain ending of the verb and the SFP no. Note the


repetition of the word onnanoko, which is another sign of cooperation between

interlocutors (Tannen, 1989).

The next example also allows us to look at the collaborative way in which

the exchange takes place. The topic in this excerpt is a book chapter written by

the guest on the Italian composer Antonio Vivaldi. The guest mentions the title

of the book, ending her turn in a connective particle kedomo ‘but’. In line 3, the

host starts her turn by saying ‘among eleven scholars’. Then, the guest takes the

¶oor after the particle no and completes the host’s comment. In this way, the

sentence ‘I was selected among eleven world researchers on Vivaldi’ is co-

constructed. Note that the guest’s turn is by no means an interruption, because

there is neither overlap nor pause. In fact, the structure of the sentence is

started by the host and completed by the guest. This shows an active and

cooperative participation of the two interlocutors in making the interview.

(7) (F8)

1 G: hai. (e.) seitan sanbyakunen kinen ronbunshuu== tte iu

yes uh-huh birth 300-year celebration essay-collection Qt say

2 n desu kedomo/

com cop but

3 T: juuichinin no sekai no

11-people gen world gen

4 G: hai. Bibarudi gakusha no naka ni nandaka totemo

yes Vivaldi scholar gen inside in somehow very

5 kooei ni erandeitadakimashite. (soo na n desu tte.)@@hai.

honour in chose-receive-conj yes cop com cop Qt yes

6 T: de maa hi. yoroppaken. (hai.) mata josei to shite

and well non European yes more woman to be-conj

7 (hai.) hajimete deirassharu [soo desu keredo ((continues))

yes ªrst-time cop-hon I-hear cop but

‘G: Yes, (uh-huh) It is titled, ‘Essay-collection celebrating the 300th

Anniversary of the Birth of Vivaldi’, but

T: And among 11 people of the whole world,

G: Yes, among all the Vivaldi specialists, I had the honour to be selected

and (So I’ve heard) @@@ yes.

T: And, I also heard that not only are you the ªrst woman (yes), but also

the ªrst non-European (yes) ((continues)).’


A similar stance between the host and a male guest with the use of aizuchi can

be seen in (8). Here they talk about the guest’s experience during the war in

Rabaul. He had befriended the locals and wanted to stay after the Second

World War had ended; however, his superiors persuaded him to return and

meet his parents before making a decision. He went back to Japan but found

that the circumstances were very diŸerent to what he expected. The guest sends

aizuchi in line 2 and 3, with the token e and a repetition of the host’s words

dekinai and irushi. These are a sign of the listener’s participation (Nakada,

1991, 1992).

(8) (M7)

1 T: ah. Nihon ni okaerininareba moo soto ni deru koto [nante

oh. Japan to return-hon-cond no-more out to go-out com

2 dekinai.] [(e. dekinai.)] Makkassa wa irushi

able-neg yes able-neg Macarthur top be-conj

3 (e. irushi.)

yes be-conj

‘T: Oh. If you retu rned to Japan, you [could not go ]overseas again

G: [(you couldn’t)]

T: And Macarthur was there.

G: Yes. He was there.

Cooperative turntaking is also accomplished in (9). The host explains the

characteristics of a box received by princesses when they married. Note that

each participant contributes to the explanation of the item. Both use the

conjunctive form te and allow for the structure to be continuously expanded

and incremented. In line 2, the host starts her sentence but does not complete

it. Instead the TRP is indicated by the slight pause. The guest takes her turn and

completes the host’s sentence, which is also left unªnished. Earlier in the book

I wrote about these types of unªnished utterances, which are strategically

produced in order to either allow the listener to add to the narrative or avoid

committing to a particular style.

(9) (F5)

1 T: kore honmono no hoo wa. maa ookisa iroiro arimasu kedo

this real gen type top well size various be but

2 ohimesama ga oyome ni [kuru tokini. [(iku tokini)]. kami de..

princess S bride to come when go when paper inst


3 G: kami de dekite.

paper inst made

4 T: hako ni nattete.

box into become-conj

5 G: hai. hai. de makura moto ni okutte [(xxxxxxx)] [otogi]

yes yes and pillow base in place keep-company

6 o suru tte iu yoona koto da to [omoimasu.

o do Qt say type thing cop Qt think

‘T: This, the real one, well there are many sizes but it was for when the

princesses [came] [went] as brides. Of paper and

G: Made of paper and

T: In the shape of a box and

G: Yes, yes. And it was placed next to the pillow to keep her company, I

think.

Cooperative turntaking is present in interviews with both females and males,

which suggests that this is due to the ‘institutional’ character of the interview.

Participants are aware that it is a televised event, and understand their obliga-

tions tacitly. Most importantly, cooperative turntaking is more pronounced

because of the non-controversial topics in these interviews.

Shifts of style

The Japanese language possesses a highly developed honoriªc system with two

forms: one that elevates the listener, his/her family/group or a third person who

is higher in status than the speaker, and another that humbles the speaker and

his/her family/group. The former is known as sonkeigo ‘honoriªc’ and the latter

as kenjoogo ‘humble’. Both systems have regular and irregular verb forms.

Except in ten irregular verbs, the verbs are accompanied by the particle o and an

auxiliary form is added to the verb-stem. Regular honoriªc verbs thus take the

structure o + verb-stem + ninaru, and the humble form takes o + verb-stem +

suru. Another honoriªc verbal form that takes the passive voice is also used but

it is a regional preference rather than politeness dependent. For example, the

sentence ikaremasuka can mean ‘Are you going?’ in addressing someone of

higher status, or ‘Can you go?’, depending on the context. The honoriªc system

also includes what is known as bikago. Bikago translated literally means ‘embel-

lished word’, and is expressed by adding the honoriªc o/go to a noun or adjective.

The eŸect is higher politeness and reªnement. Besides verbs, honoriªc language


also extends to lexical items and the pronominal system, which is explained in

detail in subsequent sections.

The honoriªc system is similar to the T/V pronominal system. A subordi-

nate has to use honoriªc language when talking to a superior and the humble

form when talking about him/herself. This is of course not reciprocated. The

person of higher status uses direct style towards the subordinate. Using honor-

iªc forms creates social and psychological distance, whereas the direct style

creates solidarity. For example, the question ‘Where are you going tomorrow?’

can be expressed in the following forms, increasing in degree of politeness:

(i) ashita doko iku no?

tomorrow where go-pre fp

(ii) ashita doko e ikimasu ka?

tomorrow where to go-pre Q

(iii) ashita dochira e ikaremasu ka?

tomorrow where to go-hon Q

(iv) ashita dochira e irasshaimasu ka?

tomorrow where to go-hon Q

‘Tomorrow where (are you going?)’

The example in (i) shows that the grammatical particle e is missing, the verb is

in direct form, and the question ends in a ªnal particle with ªnal intonation.

This is a standard question between friends in informal speech. The question in

(ii) is realized with the particle, and the verb appears in the masu or polite form,

accompanied by the question particle ka with rising intonation. This form is

formal and used between acquaintances. In (iii), the verb iku takes the passive

form, but is interpreted within the context as an honoriªc form. The last form

(iv) contains the same verb iku, but in the honoriªc form. In (iii) and (iv) the

word doko is replaced by the more polite dochira.

In the present data, the host routinely uses honoriªc forms when she talks

to the audience about the guests and when she talks to the guests. She uses

sonkeigo, and the guests answer in kenjoogo. The following segment illustrates

such interaction. In lines 1–3, the host uses sonkeigo when talking about the

guest and his family members. In this example, she refers to the guest’s late

husband, who had appeared on the program, and had talked about his family

background. The guest uses the humble verb form of ‘to know’ in line 6, and

the plain form of ‘husband’ shujin. The guest is much older than the host and

they are meeting for the ªrst time. These two facts contribute to the high

degree of formality and the absence of style shifts.


(10) (F1)

1→ T: soo Inoue san wa kochira ni irasshita toki

yes Inoue T top here to come-hon-past time

2 → ni (un.) gojibun dake wa obaasama ni

in uh-huh himself only top grand-mother-hon by

3 → sodaterareta tte osshatterasshaimashita yo ne/ (soo

raise-pass-past Qt say-hon-past fp fp yes

4 na n desu.) Izu no hoo (hai.) hoo de (hai.) aa.

cop com cop Izu gen side yes side in yes oh.

5 G: soide ano ano uchi wa mada moo hitori iru rashii

then well well us top yet more one-person be seem

6 → keredo. to iu gurai shika zonjimasen deshita. shujin

but Qt say about only know-neg-hum cop-past husband

7 no koto wa.

gen com top

‘T: When Mr Inoue was here (yes), he told us that he was the only one

brought up by a grand-mother, (indeed) in Izu (yes) oh.

G: And, I only knew that there was one more member of the family,

about my husband.’

The rules for honoriªc use are complicated, as they include the criteria of in/

out-groups of not only listeners but also speakers. In addition, in real commu-

nication, shifts of style (plain and polite forms) have been observed to occur

due to various other reasons. Shifts from polite to plain occur ‘for abrupt

remembrance or sudden emotional surge, for expressing a narrative-internal

point of view and for echo questions or jointly created utterances’ (S. Maynard,

1991: 560). All these expressions are ‘not deliberately addressed to the listener’

(S. Maynard, 1991: 560). Many of the style shifts in the interview data seem to

occur within these three settings; however, they are triggered by other factors,

too. It appears that style shifts re¶ect the status and power of the interlocutors,

with people of more power being ‘less inhibited about using non-polite forms’

(Usami, 2002: 222).

The next example illustrates such shifts. The guest suddenly shifts to plain

style (line 1), which triggers the host to also shift style (lines 3 and 4).

(11) (M10)

1 G: …ne/ ii yo tte iuttara nigetearuiteru n desu

fp good fp Qt say-cond run-around com cop


2 → tte, gakuya de (@) @ soidene/

Qt dressing-room in then fp

3 T: dareka ga ii wa ne tte iuto nigecchau

someone S good fp fp Qt say-cond run-away

4 → no. (soo.) moo taihen taihen to omotte.

fp yes well terrible terrible Qt think-conj

‘G: ..You see, when she hears that her performance was good, she runs

around in the dressing room, and then

T: When someone tells her that it was good, she runs away? (yes) think-

ing ‘it’s terrible’.’

The guest is talking about a young actress whom they both know. Notice that

the guest uses the informal soide instead of sorede for the word ‘then’. The host

shifts to the plain form, as observed in lines 3–4, where she uses the informal

contracted form nigecchau instead of the more formal nigeteshimau ‘run-away

(completely)’. This is accompanied by the ªnal particle no, which is an infor-

mal question form. Why this shift occurs can be explained in terms of the

involvement of the speakers in the narrative. Both interlocutors are very inter-

ested in the topic and the psychological distance between them is diminished

by the use of informal style.

A similar observation can be made in the next interview, although it is the

host who shifts to plain forms and the guest uses mainly informal language. In

line 3, the host uses the honoriªc form of the verb ‘to write’; however a few

lines later, she switches to informal style. Line 8 shows the host using the

contracted form of the verb ‘to be completely surprised’ bikkurishichatta in-

stead of the polite bikkurishiteshimaishita. The verb is also accompanied by the

ªnal particle no, observed also in line 9, which adds a degree of closeness

between the speaker and the listener. In this particular interview, the guest does

not use honoriªc forms and addresses the host as anata (more on pronouns in

subsequent sections). Note that her style is very informal, with the usage of

ªnal particles such as sa in line 11. Sa is a ªnal particle meaning ‘indeed, you

see’, and according to McClain (1990) is a particle used by men. In recent

years, however, it has been found in females’ speech as well but in very

informal situations only. In addition, host and guest have met before and have

a personal relationship outside the interview.

(12) (F4)

1 T: un. tanoshiku kurasu to. (@)demo kore oi no

yes enjoyable live Qt but this old-age gen


2 tanoshimi tte maa konnaka ni takusan ano==

enjoyment Qt well this-in in many uhm

3 toshiototte kara no koto mo kaiterassharu n dakedo.

age-conj from gen com also write-hon com but

4 atashi bikkurishita no wa, atogaki ni ne/ kaasan ga/

I surprised com S postscript in fp mother S

5 (un.) mono o kakihajimeta no wa watashi ga

yes thing o write-start-past com top I S

6 rokujuu== kanreki o mukaeta toki datta tte.

60-years 61-birthday do receive-past when cop-past Qt

7 (soo.) genkooyooshi ni mono kakihajimeta. kore wa tottemo

yes manuscript in thing write-start-past this top very

8 → bikkurishichatta no. kaasan tte zuttomae kara. kaiteru

surprise-past fp mother Qt long-ago from write

9 → kata da to minna wa omotteru to omou no.

person cop Qt all top think Qt think fp

10 G: soo ne/ soo kamoshirenai kedo ne/ demo ne/ soremade

yes fp that maybe but fp but fp till-then

11 → sa/ ano== anata ni yoku hanashishita kedomo.. nanishiro

fp well you to well tell-past but anyway

12 Shoowa kunen deshoo/ jooyuu ni natta no ga.

Showa 9-year cop-hort actress to become com S

‘T: It is written in your book that aged people should live with joy and

you also wrote many other things about getting older. But what really

surprised me (yes) is that you started writing when you (yes) were in

your 60s. I thought that you had been writing all along, and everybody

must think so, too.

G: Well, yes, maybe. But, until then you know, I have told you several

times already, but when I became an actress it was in the 9th year of

Shoowa (1934) (continues)’

In lines 1–3, it appears that the host is talking to the audience, thus maintaining

the formality by using honoriªc verbs. The switch to informal style occurs after

the conjunctive particle dakedo ‘but’, described as ‘to make parenthetical

remarks which themselves are not part of the main sequence’ (Nakayama and

Nakayama, 1997: 610). In this section, the main sequence appears to be the


exchange with the guest and the ‘parenthetical remarks’ are directed to the

audience.

Shifts of style in the speech of guests are less frequent, except for two of the

older male guests and an older female guest. In the next segment, an older male

guest talks about his World War II memories as a soldier when he was on a

ship. In line 1, the expression soodesune, which is used very often to show

agreement, as aizuchi, or in this case as a preface, is replaced by the plain form

soodana. In line 4, the utterance Noun+ttenowane would have the quotative

particle to, the verb iu and the copula desu between the topic marker wa and

the SFP ne in the polite form. Similarly, the copula desu is missing in the next

expression nanoyone, which would be placed between the complementizer no

and the SFP yo. The guest’s utterance in lines 1 and 2 is a self-directed expres-

sion, especially the use of the SFP kashira, which indicates that the speaker is

not sure about something. However, the second shift is directed at the host, as

it is an answer to her question.

(13) (M1)

1→ G: soo da na. juu notto deta no ga


2 saikoo janai no kashira,


3 T: juu notto/

ten knots

4→ G: juu notto tte no wa ne, yaku niju


5 → kkiro na no yo ne. (un.)

kilometres cop com fp fp uh-huh


T: Ten knots?

G: Ten knots is about twenty kilometres, you know? (uh-huh)’.

In other interviews, the age of the guests and their personal relationship with

the host seems to in¶uence the frequency of shifts. For example, the host uses

more informal language with her younger female guests, and more shifts can

be observed in interviews with guests whom she has met before. This can be

seen with one older female guest mentioned in example (12), who uses infor-

mal style throughout the interview (see also example 31 in this chapter).


Pronouns and terms of address

It has been argued that personal pronouns in Japanese are used quite diŸer-

ently from Indo-European languages (Hinds, 1976; Kuroda, 1979; S. Suzuki,

1972). One of the major diŸerences is that the Japanese pronominal system is

deªned by the gender of the speaker, and a rich variety of choices exists

according to formality, as seen in Table 4.3. Another important distinction is

that personal pronouns in Japanese are avoided as much as possible in spoken

or written discourse to the degree that they have been equated to the zero

anaphora (Kuroda, 1979). Their usage is also restricted depending on the

formality and the relationship between the interlocutors. For example, the

second person pronoun anata can be used only to equals or to those of lower

status than the speaker (Hinds, 1976). It can have a diŸerent connotation when

a woman uses it towards her partner or husband. As is the case with the T-V

system, it is not reciprocated. Instead, family names or roles are used to address

older or higher status people.

Table 4.3 Pronominal system

I-Female I-Neutral I-Male You-Female You-Neutral You-Male

watakushi watakushi watakushi anata anata anata

atakushi atakushi atakushi

watashi watashi watashi anta** anta**

atashi atashi atashi

atai boku kimi

ore kisama*

oira** omae*

*deprecatory **dialects

The governance of ªrst person pronouns by the gender of the speaker is one of

the most powerful and meaningful expressions of maleness or femaleness. In

other words, using male or female ªrst personal pronouns is a way to assert

one’s gender, and thus, maintain gender distinctions.

In the present data, participants in the interview routinely maintain the

rules of Japanese politeness while at the same time projecting their male or

female identity. The host and all the female guests avoid using the ªrst person

pronoun when referring to themselves; however, when they must do so, they

use either atashi, the variation watashi, or the most polite form watakushi. On

the other hand, the male guests use the male form boku, and watashi or

atakushi.


These examples are from female guests. Note the formal watakushi and

atashi.

(14) (F1)

1 G: e. ano= ano hito ga. watakushi ga hajimete

yes well that person S I S ªrst-time

2 atta toki wa kookoo no ninensei

meet-past time top high-school gen 2nd-year

3 degozaimashita deshoo ka? (haa) hai.

cop-pol-past cop-hort Q (yes) yes

‘G: Well, that person (he), when I was in senior high second year I met

him the ªrst time (yes).

(15) (F8)

1→ G: soo na n desu ne. @ moo nanka watashi.

yes cop com cop fp well somehow I

2 osoreooi n desu kedo ne/ ano gohonnin no

gracious com cop but fp well in-person-pol gen

3 Kuroyanagi Tetsuko san o mae ni shite. ano

Kuroyanagi Tetsuko T o front in do. well

4 seminaakai no Kuroyanagi Tetsuko san tte iwareru

seminar-world of Kuroyanagi Tetsuko T Qt call-pass

[xxxxx

‘G: Yes, certainly. Well, uhm I feel a bit embarrassed to say this in front

of you, but people call me the “Kuroyanagi Tetsuko of the Seminar

World” xxxx’

In (15), the guest is younger than the host. Note that, where in English the

pronoun ‘you’ would be used, the guest says gohonnin, which can be translated

as ‘the person her/himself’.

On the other hand, the male guests used boku regardless of their age. In this

example, the guest is a male over the age of 50. In line 2, he also uses the

informal form of the verb wakaru.

(16) (M1)

1→ G: seikakuna tokoro boku mo ammari hakkiri

correctly point I also not-much clearly

2 wakannai n desu kedo ne/ ((continues))

understand-neg com cop but fp

G: I don’t know exactly myself, but ((continues))’


In (17), the possessive form is expressed in Japanese with the personal pronoun

(or noun) with the particle no. Note that the guest, who talks about his drama

school, uses the masculine pronoun in line 1.

(17) (M10)

1→ G: maa boku no tokoro wa tokuni ne/ odori o

well I gen place top especially fp dance o

2 warito taisetsuni shiteru n desu.

quite important do com cop

‘G: Well, in my school, I consider dancing as very important.’

In the following two excerpts, we see how the host and guests project their

gender identity through the usage of pronouns. In excerpt (18), both of the

participants are women. The female writer talks about the preparations in-

volved in writing her newest novel set in Egypt. She uses the more formal

watakushi, and the host, in line 5, uses the form atashi.

(18) (F3)

1→ G: watakushi mo sono kiken ni narubeku ano- (soo

I also that danger in possible well yes

2 desu ne.) eh. sarasarenaiyouni [(xxxx de gozaimasu

cop fp yes expose-neg-xxx cop-pol

3 node. eh.)] [xxxxxxx ano== hotondo no mono wa

because well almost gen things top

4 haikenshite. yonde. (ah soo.) hai. hai.

See-hum-conj read-conj oh yes yes yes

5→ T: atashi mo hajimete Ejiputo e itte an= Ejiputo no

I also ªrst-time Egypt to go-conj uhm Egypt gen

6 hakubutsukan desu ka? (hai.)

museum cop q yes

‘G: I, try to avoid being under the danger of xxxxx, (xxxxx because xx)

and try to read and see as much as possible. (really?) yes.

H: When I went to Egypt the ªrst time, is it the Egyptian museum? (yes)’.

The next excerpt shows the contrast of pronouns. In line 1, the guest uses the

masculine form and in line 6 the host uses the feminine form.

(19) (M8)

1→ G: soo. boku nara moo teikyuubi wa chanto shittete/

yes I if already holiday top well know-conj


2 rokkagetsu mae kara iku baai wa moo sono hi

6-months before from go case top already that day

3 yasumi dakara. tsugi no hi ka mae ka ne/

rest because next gen day or before or fp

4 mae no hi ni shitekure (un) te kimetearu n

before gen day in do-give yes Qt decide com

5 desu yo.

cop fp

6→ T: soo. atashi ne/ anoo= dorafuto to iu koto o

yes I fp well draft Qt say com o

7 kangaeta toki ni ne/

think-past when in fp

‘G: Yes, if it is me (who has to make the appointments), I know about 6

months prior to the appointment that that day is a holiday, and decide to

go (yes) before or after that date.

T: Yes, when I think about such system as the drafting….’

While none of the female guests uses the masculine forms boku or ore, some of

the male guests used the formal neutral pronoun watakushi. Male guests who

use the neutral pronoun watakushi or watashi are meeting the host for the ªrst

time; thus the level of formality is higher compared to other interviews in the

data.

(20) (M9)

1→ G: e. watakushi no uchi wa minna doomo sooiu

well I gen house top all somehow that-kind

2 (clears throat) shoobai deshite ne, ichizoku ga

job cop-conj fp whole-family S

3 yoriatsumaruto soogoodaigaku ga dekiru tte iu

gather-cond a-university S be-made Qt say

4 kanji desu kedo,

impression cop but

‘G:Well, somehow all our family has that occupation. And, when the

whole family gets together, a university can be made.’

In the above example, the male guest talks about his family background. He is

younger than the host and they are meeting for the ªrst time; therefore the style

is very formal and we can see that he chooses the most formal form.


From the above examples, there is a clear distinction between male and

female pronoun usage, and it follows the traditional norms. Although of

course conªned to the television interview setting, this ªnding tells us a num-

ber of things. First, the fact that the event is ‘institutional’ sets the tone of the

speech, where people are expected to be formal. Second, speakers are all

professional people who are aware of what is socially permitted. So, a female

may use boku in private, but would not do so in an interview. On the other

hand, the fact that all the men use boku in their speech shows that, for them, it

is acceptable to use this pronoun, even in formal contexts.

Despite some reports suggesting that a change is taking place in the speech

of women towards a more ‘neutral’ style (Kobayashi, 1993; Nakajima, 1997;

Okamoto, 1994, 1995; Takasaki, 1997), the fact that all the participants use ªrst

personal pronouns according to the prescribed norms indicates a number of

possibilities. Firstly, even though they might use diŸerent pronouns in private,

the participants are aware of the interview situation. Secondly, the reported

change is a trend only among younger people and, as Reynolds (1998) writes,

competent working members of society must adhere to the rules. Thirdly,

there is almost no gender diŸerence in the turntaking, so the only way for

males to indicate their masculinity is via the use of pronouns.

Family names and second person pronouns

When addressing people, Japanese prefer to use family names accompanied by

a title, or the role of the person such as sensei. The host consistently uses family

names with the title san or sama towards her older guests, irrespective of their

gender.

(21) (F1)

1 T: ano Fumi sama wa Kyooto no gosshushin de (hai.)

well Fumi T Top Kyoto gen come-from and yes

2 goshujin. to wa moo hontooni chiisai toki kara..

your-husband with top already really small time from…

‘T: Well, you (Mrs. Fumi) are from Kyoto and (yes) you have known

your husband since you were a child… ((continues))’

In the above lines, the host addresses her guest as Fumisama. Fumi is the ªrst

name of the guest and it is rather unusual to use ªrst names in formal situa-

tions. However, the host uses the most polite title, sama. We can speculate that

the host follows standard forms in order to diŸerentiate the guest from her late

husband, whom she addresses as Inouesan. A more common way of address is


shown in the following two examples. The host addresses guests by their family

names and the title san.

(22) (F2)

1 T: de. ima. Sugiyama san wa sugoku ogenki de,

and now Sugiyama T top very healthy and

T: And, Mrs Sugiyama, you are very healthy now and ((continues)).’

(23) (M2)

1 T: … ano Mizuki san wa soko de wa Pauro to

.. well Mizuki T top there in top Paulo Qt

2 yobarete[rasshitta no] [(so so so. soo desu.)]

call-pass-past fp yes yes yes yes cop

‘T:… uhm, Mr Mizuki, there you were called Paulo,[ isn’t it?] [(yes. yes.

yes. yes)]

On the other hand, the host addresses all her younger guests by the second

singular pronoun anata, which is restricted to addressees of equal or lower

status than the speaker.

(24) (F6)

1 T: sorede anata to oshuutome san mo. ano uchi wa

and you and mother-in-law T also well home top

‘T: And you and your mother in law, ‘((continues))

(25) (M7)

1 T: hontoo ne/ de anata go no tsuku suuji ga osuki

true fp and you ªve gen adhere number S like

‘T: Truly. And because you like the number ªve’ ((continues))

Anata as a form of address is not reciprocated by any of the guests (with one

exception, discussed in the next section). Instead, they use the host’s ªrst

name1 or her family name.

(26) (M10)

1 G: moo Tetsuko san ni mo kawaigatteitadaite..

uhm Tetsuko T by also spoil-receive-hon-conj

2 T: iie. (@) @ soo soo soo. ano==

no yes yes yes well

‘G: Well, (thank you) for taking care of her.

T: Don’t mention. @@@, Yes, I remember, uhm ((continues))’


In the above example, the guest thanks the host, addressing her by her ªrst

name. Although the phrase is syntactically unªnished, we can assume that it is

meant as a thanking expression. This is seen in line 2, when the host replies

with iie. The subsequent sequence of the token so, which is repeated twice, is

used when speakers remember something important or interesting or when a

new topic is introduced.

There is a clear diŸerentiation in the use of terms of address and the second

singular pronoun. While the host uses anata to her younger guests, she ad-

dresses her older guests by name and title. The guests, on the other hand,

address her by name and title, except for one guest who is her senior and is a

friend of hers. This diŸerentiation is based on age and degree of intimacy

between the interlocutors. It appears that anata is used in a similar way to the

tu pronoun in the T/V pronominal system (Brown and Gillman, 1960), where

the higher status speaker uses it towards the lower status listener and, more

importantly, this is not reciprocated. This suggests that anata is a positive

politeness strategy that shows solidarity.

When the host is older

Most of the switches from formal to informal language are observed in interac-

tions with younger guests. Usami (2002) has also observed this phenomenon

and writes that shifts to informal styles can be a sign of positive politeness.

What she calls ‘downshifts’ are expressions of solidarity, closeness and empa-

thy. Solidarity is also expressed in the use of personal pronouns. When the host

asks a question of her younger female guest, she addresses the guest as anata

and uses the plain form, which is realized with the noun gurai ‘about’ without

the copula. Later, in line 3, the host keeps a polite style using the masu form,

but chooses the contracted form of sitewa, which is sicha. In line 6, the guest

starts her utterance with an informal beginning ano, which is used as a ªller

and can be accompanied by the copula and/ or an SFP.

(27) (F6)

1→ T: [ima anata gojuuni kiro gurai/ soshitara.

now you 52 kilo about then

2 G: hai. gojuuni to gojuusan toka,

yes 52 and 53 like

3→ T: zuibun hosoku miemasu ne/ nanka gojuuni kiro ni shicha.

quite thin look-pol fp well 52 kilo dat do-cond


4 G: soo desu ka/

yes cop Q

5 T: e.

yes

6→ G: ano ne/

well fp

7→ T: choto moo ikkai,

little more once

8→ G: chotto iyaa. hazukashii desu.

little not shame cop

((lines omitted))

14 T: dandan maa kore wa okaasama no kakkoo o

onmt well this top mother gen ªgure o

15 → shiteitterashatta ((continues))

do-hon-past

‘T: So now, you are about 52 kilos?

G: About 52 to 53.

T: You look thinner than 52 kilos.

G: Really?

T: Yes.

G: You know,

T: Once more (could you show the photo)

G: Oh, no. It is embarrassing.

(lines omitted)

T: Gradually, well (she) looked like a mother ((continues))

In line 15, the host uses the honoriªc form of shiteita and uses shiteirashita.

This shift is possibly due to the fact that it is a remark directed to the audience

about the guest’s photos, which are shown on the screen (lines 14–15).

Shifts from polite to informal style occur in interviews featuring younger

guests, regardless of gender. The host retains the formality when talking to the

audience, but uses less formal forms when interacting directly with the guests.

In (28), the host also uses plain forms in all her turns and addresses the guest as

anata, while the guest uses polite forms. Here they talk about the age of a

younger actress who is the guest’s student. Talking about a younger and

subordinate person does not require the use of honoriªc forms. The informal

style also adds the feeling of intimacy and solidarity.


(28) (M10)

1 T: juushichi tte konoaida anata kiitara juushichi. (@)

17 Qt recently you ask-cond 17

2 ikutsu/ tte kiitara juushichi.

how-old Qt ask-cond 17

3 G: juugo de kita n desu.

15 at come-past com cop

4 T: sonna wakaii ko [na no/

that young child com fp

‘T: Seventeen, she said. When I recently asked her how old she was, she

answered seventeen.

G: She came when she was 15 years old.

T: Is she that young?’

Usami writes that ‘speakers deviate from normative language use signiªcantly

more often in conversation with an interlocutor who has less power than they

do’ (2002: 183). This observation can be applied to the present data too, as it is

either the host or an older guest who shifts styles fairly often.

Lexical items

While some male lexical items are used sporadically by male guests, as in

example (29), only older male guests use plain forms continuously. The guest

in (29) uses lexical items that are restricted to male use. By using words that

belong to one category, a speaker reinforces and projects his/her gender to the

listener (Graddol and Swann, 1993). In addition, male words are considered

rough and are avoided in formal situations. However, the male guest in the

following excerpt uses a number of those ‘male words’ (these are underlined).

In line 2, the guest chose to use kuimasu for the verb ‘to eat’, instead of the

more formal and standard form tabemasu or the honoriªc meshiagarimasu. In

line 7, there are two ‘male’ words used instead of the standard ones, hedo

‘vomit’ instead of ooto , and yatsu ‘thing’ instead of mono.

(29) (M2)

1 G: ma sonna mon desu na/(@) honde== yappari

well that com cop fp and after-all

2 → anoo==… asoko de ironna mono kuimasu wa ne/

well there in various things eat fp fp


3 T: minna ga.

everybody S

4 G: de sore ga ma koboshitari. sake koboshitari are ga

and that S well spill-conj sake spill-conj that S

5 zenbu ano== tsuchi ni modotteikyoru kara

all well earth to return-go because

6 T: sore wa ii n desu ka?

that S good com cop Q

7→ G: soo desu. hedo haita yatsu mo sakura no tameni monosugoi

yes cop vomit vomit thing also sakura of beneªt extremely

8 hiryoo ni naru n desu. are.

manure in become com cop that

‘G: Well, it’s something like that. @@And, after all, uhm (people) eat a

lot there, don’t they?

T: (You mean) everybody?

G: And people spill, well they spill the sake, and it goes back to the soil,

T: Is that ªne?

G: Yes. The vomit is also a really good fodder for the cherry trees.’

Female guests, on the other hand, do not use any of the ‘male’ lexical items, as

they are considered improper for women and because the situation is formal.

Instead, they use the hyper-polite forms, as in the following example.

(30) (F6)

1 G: ee soshite oshoosui @ mo yoku demasushi ne @

yes and urine too well go-out-conj fp

2 ii to omoimasu.

good Qt think

‘G: And you pass water @ a lot@ I think (drinking luke-warm water) is

good.’

The topic is drinking luke-warm water, which is part of her dietary regimen. In

this excerpt the guest mentions its beneªts. In line 2, she uses the word

oshoosui, which is the reªned and elegant term. In written form, the characters

for small and water are used to represent this word.

The excerpt in example (29) is striking because it is one of the ‘deviant’

cases in terms of the formality of the interaction. One would expect to ªnd no

‘male-only’ words in interviews; in fact, most of the male guests opt for formal

or neutral forms. However, the fact that this particular guest, who is a male and


older than the host, uses such words without any negative consequences is an

indication that in Japanese society this is still accepted, if not the rule.

An uchi interaction?

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the use of the pronoun anata in everyday

conversation is restricted to addressing younger or lower status listeners. The

host uses anata to address most of her younger guests. They, on the other hand,

avoid addressing her altogether, or they use her ªrst or family name with the

title san. The host uses either family or ªrst names to address her older guests,

who, in turn, use her family name with the title san, except one particular

guest. As a ‘deviant’ case, the next excerpt shows that this guest is revealed as a

senior of the host and addresses her as anata (line 8). The host, on the other

hand, addresses the guest as kaasan ‘mother’ (line 1), a rather unusual form

among non-family, which shows their close relationship.

(31) (F4)

1→ T: ah soo. demo sooiu== gojibun no koto maa kaasan

oh yes but that-kind yourself gen thing well mother

2 wa moo joyuu o intaishite kara nandemo hakkiri to

top well actress o retire-conj from everything clearly Qt

(lines omitted)

8 G:→ mada anata wakai kara ii kedo ne/ (ie. ie.)

yet you young because good but fp no. no.

‘T: Oh, yes. But, that= , you wrote about yourself, and after you retired as

an actress, you clearly… (lines omitted)

G: You are still young, (no, no) so it is ªne.’

Other features of the guest’s language indicate that, despite the nature of the

interaction, their relationship takes precedence. The guest, for example, uses

informal language throughout the interview, and the host shifts from the polite

to the informal style and vice versa. When addressing the audience or talking

about her guest, she uses honoriªc language. When talking directly to her

guest, she uses the direct style, as shown in the previous section. The fact that

this guest consistently uses a very informal style suggests that personal relation-

ships are of greater importance in Japanese society. Of course, this could be a

‘deviant’ case and the observations may not be applicable in general terms.

However, this particular interview demonstrates that interpersonal relation-

ships in Japan are an extremely important aspect in Japanese communication.



This chapter explored various aspects of the interview in relation to the asym-

metry of the interaction: interruptions, lexical choice, personal pronouns,

terms of address and style shifts. The asymmetry in the interview is not observ-

able in the turntaking aspect, such as in the use of interruptions. However,

pronouns and terms of address, and shifts in styles clearly demonstrate the

unequal relationship between some of the interlocutors.

The interview data show that ‘certain features of female speech can still

be observed among the majority of Japanese women and some rules are

even obligatory’ (Reynolds, 1998: 300), and the same applies to Japanese male

speech. Despite reports on the ‘defeminization’ of young women’s language,

the speech in the data is a sample of how adult speakers are expected to talk at

a formal event.

The interruptions in this particular data are of a very diŸerent type from

the aggressive and hostile ones found in news interviews. Although some

interruptions are used to change topics, they are not openly aggressive in any

way (example 1). The most revealing result is the fact that interruptions are

more conspicuous in interviews with younger female guests (see Figure 4.1 and

Table 4.1, and examples 4 and 5). This suggests, ªrstly, that interruptions

should not be associated with control and power, at least in the Japanese

context (Murata, 1984). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they should

not be associated with male or female communicative styles. This ªnding

suggests that asymmetry in the Japanese ‘institutional’ setting does not neces-

sarily display dominance of interlocutors in the form of interruptions.

This observation is further highlighted by the collaborative and coopera-

tive way of turntaking to producing the talk, on the part of both host and

guests. Also, participants use some of the unªnished turns in a way that

facilitates the co-construction of the narrative (examples 6–9). This again is

not representative of male or female styles, as it occurs in all interview settings.

This emphasizes the dangers of associating some features of communication

with gender styles.

Both males and females choose the prototypical gender markers; i.e. per-

sonal pronouns. Gender diŸerences in language are observed in the traditional

pronominal choices. Male guests use boku, while females consistently use

watashi and watakushi (examples 14–20). In this way, the participants demon-

strate their identity as males and females respectively. In a similar way, the

boundaries between male and female lexical items are clear. Some words used


exclusively by men are found in interviews with older males; however women

use super-polite forms for similar words (examples 29 and 30). In spite of

studies reporting that young women increasingly use masculine pronouns, the

fact that all the guests are professionals and very successful members of society

indicates that language change is not likely to encroach into the mainstream

working population, at least for the time being.

The fact that participants use honoriªc forms regardless of their gender

suggests that Japanese women are not more likely than males to use them. It is

rather the situation and the personal relationship that dictates the degree of

politeness measurable in the use of honoriªcs. More importantly, it is in the

use of non-polite forms that we can observe the relationships between the

interlocutors (example 31). Style shifts found in the data corroborate ªndings

by Usami (2002) who reports that persons of power are less inhibited in using

non-polite forms. In the present data, the host shifts styles when talking to

younger guests, especially younger females (examples 27 and 28). This aspect

of her speech is more pronounced when her guests are her friends or acquain-

tances. The guests, on the other hand, are less prone to shift styles. The degree

of politeness in the data is determined by the age of the guests and their

relationship to the host. With older guests being interviewed for the ªrst time,

the formality is pronounced, but the degree is less when the guest is younger.

The diŸerentiation between older and younger, uchi/soto, is also seen in the

forms of address, which are consistent with age diŸerences. In examples (12)

and (31), the guest, who is older than the host and is her senior, uses informal

style and addresses the host as anata, which is not reciprocated. The host, on

the other hand, shifts styles; when talking to her guests she uses polite and

informal language, and honoriªcs when talking to the audience. All parties are

aware that, by using either conventional forms or second person pronouns,

they can establish their relative status. There are no gender diŸerences in this

aspect, suggesting that in ‘institutional’ settings role, age and relationship take

precedence.

In interviews with younger guests, the style is more ‘conversational’, and

this is more pronounced with females. This is shown in the higher frequency of

interruptions and overlaps and style ‘down-shifts’ by the host (examples 4, 5,

27, 28). These ‘positive politeness’ strategies show closeness and empathy. I

attribute these characteristics to the fact that there is no con¶ict in terms of

power and gender, as the host is older than her guests and has a higher status

outside the interview situation. The asymmetry of the interview is observed in

features other than turntaking. It is visible in more ‘traditional’ aspects such as


pronominal choice and honoriªc use. Finally it appears that age and the

relationship between host and the guest takes precedence over gender in the

interview context.

Note

1. In Japan, it is customary to use family names, however the host is known by her ªrst

name and the program is also known as Tetsuko’s Room, therefore guests might feel that

using her ªrst name is appropriate.

Chapter 5

Aizuchi in the interview

Introduction

It has been reported that one of the characteristics of interviews is the con-

spicuous absence of ‘news receipts’ or minimal responses (Greatbatch 1986,

1988; T. Yamada, 1995). In chat shows and celebrity interviews response

tokens are ‘sometimes’ produced, however in news interviews they are ‘impos-

sible to locate’ (Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991). Minimal responses, known as

backchannels, listener responses or aizuchi1 (the Japanese term) are a sign of

interest2 and sometimes agreement3. They are short messages sent by listeners

to show their interest and involvement in the conversation. By abstaining from

using them, hosts can show neutrality, which is one of the requirements of an

interview (Clayman, 1988; Greatbatch, 1986, 1988; Heritage, 1985).

Aizuchi are an integral communicative tool in Japanese (Hinds, 1978a,

1978b; Horiguchi 1991, 1997; Iwasaki, 1997; Komiya, 1986; Kurosaki, 1987;

LoCastro, 1987; S. Maynard, 1986, 1989; N. Mizutani, 1982, 1988b; Szatrowski,

1989; White, 1989; T. Yamada, 1995). In the present study, they are sent in high

numbers by both host and guests. Although neutrality is also expected from

the host, the interviews in this data deal with ‘human interest’ topics, where

guests are encouraged to talk and there are no controversial subjects.

Previous studies

Aizuchi are a pronounced characteristic of Japanese communication. Origi-

nally, the term aizuchi referred to the joint striking of the iron by the master

blacksmith and his pupil. Nowadays, it refers to the act of participating in

the conversation. Besides anecdotal stories, serious anthropological results

of studies carried out cross-culturally (Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki and Tao,

1996; Maynard, 1986; White, 1989; H. Yamada, 1992) show that Japanese

speakers use aizuchi more frequently than speakers of other languages such as

English and Mandarin. Lebra (1976) writes that the constant usage of aizuchi


by Japanese people when talking to foreigners may be negatively interpreted as

impatience, which results in misconceptions and misunderstandings in com-

munication. In recent years, teachers of Japanese as a foreign language stress

the importance of teaching students about aizuchi for successful communica-

tion in the target language (Horiguchi, 1991, 1997; N. Mizutani, 1982, 1988b;

Szatrowski, 1989, 1993).

The timing of aizuchi is crucial and is intrinsically related to its function. In

order to indicate active participation, aizuchi have to be sent at a particular

point in the discourse. Previous research has shown that they are sent mainly

after sentence ªnal particles, clauses, intonational units, and rising and falling

intonation (Kurosaki, 1987; Maynard, 1986, 1989; Mizutani, 1982, 1988b). A

delayed aizuchi may indicate apathy and subtly discourage the speaker. The

listener may be following the rules of conversational ‘etiquette’ by sending

aizuchi, but he/she conveys a completely diŸerent message if they are not sent

at the appropriate place (see Chapter 6, Ehara et al., 1993, Yoshii, 1996). It has

also been suggested that females give positive backchannels more frequently,

while delayed responses are associated with male backchanneling behaviour

(Fishman, 1978; Yoshii, 1996; Zimmerman and West, 1975). This aspect of

gender and aizuchi is the focus of the next chapter.

Backchannels have diŸerent functions: as continuers (SchegloŸ, 1982),

as assessments (Goodwin, 1981), and as signals of auditor participation

(Kendon, 1990). S. Maynard (1989) disagrees with SchegloŸ’s characterization

of a backchannel as a simple continuer, and proposes other functions: ‘con-

tinuer, display of understanding of content, support and empathy toward the

speaker, agreement and strong emotional response’ (S. Maynard, 1989: 171).

Szatrowski, on the other hand, cites eleven functions:4 marker of continuation,

marker of understanding, marker of clariªcation, marker of interest, marker of

feelings, marker of empathy, marker of opinion, marker of denial, marker of

ending, marker of agreement, and self display (1993: 70). Horiguchi (1997)

distinguishes only ªve types: signal of listenership, signal of understanding,

signal of agreement, signal of denial and emotion display. These diŸerences are

an issue of naming rather than of content. It also indicates that many aizuchi

are multifunctional and could be categorized in more than one group.

Deªnition

Yngve (1970) was the ªrst scholar to use the term ‘backchannel’, although

others wrote about this phenomenon prior to his work (Fries, 1964; Kendon,

139Aizuchi in the interviews

1967). He deªnes a backchannel as a situation where ‘the person who has the

turn receives short messages such as “yes” and “uh-huh” without relinquishing

the turn’ (1970: 570). He further writes that backchannels are varied. They can

be very short and indicate interest and attention. They may consist of longer

utterances such as short questions, or might even involve ‘a number of sen-

tences’ (1970: 574). Scholars disagree with his classiªcation (S. Maynard,

1986), the point of divergence being the distinction between ‘having the ¶oor’

and ‘having the turn’. It is crucial to clearly deªne what is a ‘turn’ and what is

‘having the ¶oor’. While some scholars use both ¶oor and turn synonymously

(Duncan, 1972; Gumperz, 1982a), others consider them to be quite distinct.

Hayashi (1996), for example, claims that ¶oor is a ‘means of communicative

attention orientation that exists not at the level of turn and move but at a higher

level of conversational structure’ (1996: 31). Furthermore, she recognizes two

channels of talk: main and backchannel. These depend on whether the partici-

pants are active co-participants, supportive, or simply present during the

interaction. The person holding the ¶oor talks in the main channel and the

listener talks in the backchannel (Hayashi, 1996). She classiªes backchannels as

listener supportive signals, such as questions, ‘um hums’ or head nods. She even

includes short questions and turns that involve more than a short question.

Classiªcation of some utterances as short questions, requests for clariªca-

tion, exclamations, or simple aizuchi is sometimes complex. Hayashi’s con-

cepts of main channel/backchannel are very useful in these cases. There are also

situations where neither of the speakers is willing to take the ¶oor and utilize

aizuchi to ªll the ‘silence’. Iwasaki (1997) calls this phenomenon ‘loop se-

quence’, and classiªes it as a turn-taking pattern consisting of consecutive

backchannel and backchannel expressions produced by diŸerent speakers.

Although I agree with Hayashi that turn and ¶oor are diŸerent, the function of

the utterance is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration.

Despite the extensive research on aizuchi in Japan, there is no consensus on

its deªnition, and classiªcations vary. N. Mizutani (1988b), Kurosaki (1987)

and Szatrowski (1993) are the few who have tried to deªne aizuchi in their

researches. While all researchers agree that aizuchi are short utterances and can

be categorized morphologically, there is a discrepancy in the inclusion of

tokens such as clariªcation, repetitions and longer phrases. Kurosaki (1987),

Komiya (1986) and Sugito (1987) recognize only short tokens as aizuchi, such

as hai ‘yes’, so ‘it is, so’, naruhodo ‘really’ and exclamations. Szatrowski (1993)

writes that repetitions can be aizuchi, but they are di¹cult to assess and depend

on their intonation and the distance from the preceding phrase/sentence. On


the other hand, Iwasaki (1997) includes ‘any form or a sentence or a series of

sentences’ (Iwasaki, 1997: 666) as aizuchi.

The functional deªnition given by Sugito (1987) has been adopted for the

present analysis. Aizuchi is ‘any utterance sent by the listener that does not

actively seek for information, for a request or a decision’ (1987: 88).5 The

following type of tokens were found in the data in this study:

(i) short utterances such as haa ‘yes’, un ‘uh-huh’, soo desuka ‘Is that so?’, soo

desune , ‘As you say’, naruhodo ‘I see’.

(ii) echoing the speaker

(iii) exclamations such as eh!, haa, hoo, ah soo!

All type (i) tokens express some degree of agreement. They are sent as acknowl-

edgment signals and their usage does not necessarily mean that the listener

agrees with the speaker. Soo desuka with rising intonation has a diŸerent

connotation, and expresses mild disagreement. Naruhodo is used almost as a

self-directed word, which indicates that something not clear has become un-

derstandable.

There are instances in which a short utterance can be classiªed as a question.

In line 5 of example (1), the utterance kanboochoo desu ka ne/ ‘(I think) it is

secretary general’ sent by the guest functions as a correction. It is not an aizuchi

because it actively seeks a response, as we can see in line 6 where the host corrects

herself. The host comments on the guest’s former positions in the Justice

Ministry, and uses the wrong term (kanboochookan instead of kanboochoo). A

job in the Cabinet and a job in the Ministry of Justice are not the same; they

involve very diŸerent tasks.

(1) (M3. H-1)

1 T: mata Kotchan ni taisuru. ano shokutaku

and Kotchan to against well extraordinary

2 jinmon mo nasatta tte (soo desu ne)6

inquiry also do-past-hon Qt yes cop fp

3 kata deirasshatte, de oyameninatta toki wa,

person be-hon-conj and stop-hon-past time top

4 hoomudaijin, kanbochookan, to iu,

Justice-minister Cabinet-secretary-general Qt call

5→G: kanboochoo desu ka ne/

secretary-general cop Q fp


6 T: kanboochoo desu. (hai.) kanboochoo desukara

secretary-general cop yes secretary-general therefore

7 taihenna… ano=.. ma.. shoku ni tsuiteiras[shaimashite#

important uhm well post in have-hon-conj

8 G:[mmm

‘T: And you conducted the extraordinary inquiry of Kotchan. (That is

right)7. When you left the ministry, you had a post as a Cabinet secretary

general.

G: I think it was secretary general.

T: It was secretary general (yes), secretary general (not Cabinet secre-

tary). So, it [was][(mmm)] a very important/di¹cult post.’

The length of an utterance does not always determine if a listener’s response is

a turn or an aizuchi. In the above example, the guest’s utterance is very short

but is not an aizuchi. It is a turn, because it corrects the host. In Sugito’s (1987)

deªnition, occurrences such as in example (1) provided above can be more

easily classiªed.

In addition to function, intonation is used to identify aizuchi. The following

excerpt illustrates that a short utterance in line 3 is a question. The phrase ends

in a rising intonation and actively asks for conªrmation. The guest is narrating

his experience in World War II. He was aboard a boat, which was sunk. In lines

1–2, he comments on the speed of the boat. In line 3, the host echoes the guest’s

words, juu notto, with rising intonation. This is a question, as knots are not a

familiar speed unit for the average person. The guest responds in line 4 with the

approximate measurement in the metric system. This example illustrates that

the length of the utterance does not necessarily deªne an aizuchi.

(2) (M1.2)

1 G: soo da na. juu notto deta no ga


2 saikoo janai no kashira


3 → T: juu notto/

ten knots/

4 G: juu notto tte no wa ne yaku niju


5 kkiro na no yo ne (un.)

kilometres cop com fp fp uh-huh



T: Ten knots?

G: Ten knots is about twenty kilometres, you know? (uh-huh)’.

Among the diŸerent types of aizuchi, there are non-verbal cues such as head-

movement, smiling and gaze. Some scholars have included head movement as

an important backchannel device (Duncan and Fiske, 1985; S. Maynard, 1986,

1989). Smiling, nodding and other head-movements occurred quite often in

the data, especially when there were no other verbal aizuchi. Although the role

of body language is very important in communication, due to the type of data in

the present study a systematic and thorough analysis of non-verbal behaviour

was not possible, and consequently non-verbal aizuchi were not included in

the analysis.

Position of aizuchi in the discourse

It has been argued that the grammatical structure of the Japanese language

allows aizuchi to be sent at virtually any place in the discourse. Although this is

not true of some tokens with a semantic content, other aizuchi like un and e

can be uttered at any time without hindering the communication process.

Why, then, do listeners send aizuchi at particular points in the discourse? This

is a question that has preoccupied many researchers (S. Maynard, 1986, 1989;

N. Mizutani, 1988b; Szratrowski, 1989), who have found that the majority of

aizuchi are given at a major juncture or after a particle. The present study

seems to corroborate those studies as the majority of aizuchi in the interviews

occur after clauses (40%), after ªnal particles and rising intonation (26%),

and at the end of sentences (11%). They are also sent in mid-sentence position

(overlapping with speaker’s speech) (14%), and after another aizuchi (3.42%).

The essence of aizuchi is their timing; they have to be sent at the most

appropriate point in the discourse to show the cooperative stance, while de-

layed aizuchi are used strategically to show disinterest in the topic (Ehara et al.,

1993; Fishman, 1978). In my data, no delayed aizuchi were found, suggesting

that host and guests all participated cooperatively in the interview. In the

following two sections, the discourse environment of aizuchi is described

according to their frequency of distribution.


Aizuchi at major junctures

Examples of aizuchi sent at major junctures are after grammatically complete

utterances, clauses, noun phrases, sentence ªnal particles, and rising intona-

tion. Some are potential TRPs, as discussed in Chapter 3. At many of these

points, some prosodic features invite the listener’s participation.

Aizuchi after grammatical completion

In example (3), an actress tells how her career started after she had sent a letter

to a famous movie director. The guest does not want to reveal the director’s

name; she mentions only that he was very famous. The host reformulates in

line 1 and 2, and the guest adds that he was indeed a great person. This sentence

has all the features of a canonical complete sentence. It is pre-faced by e, and is

an answer to the host’s question. The aizuchi hee! is sent after the copula

deirasshaimashita and ªnal intonation.

(3) (F2.-4)

1 T: tooji yuumei datta tte koto wa oboeterassharu

then famous cop-past Qt com top remember-hon

2 no ne/

com fp

3 G: e. moo sugoi kata deirasshaimashita. (hee!)

yes well great person cop-hon-past really

4 demo atakushi shiranakatta n desu yo ((continues))

but I know-neg-past com cop fp

‘T: You remember that he/she was a famous person, right?

G: Yes, He/she was a great person (really) but I did not know, you see

((continues)).’

In general, sentence completion is accompanied by falling intonation com-

bined with a slight pause and is a potential TRP (Sacks et al., 1974). However,

by sending an aizuchi, listeners can signal their lack of intention to gain the

¶oor. Sugito (1993) writes that aizuchi are mainly sent at points of falling

intonation. Therefore, perception of a weakening of the voice and a slight

pause are probably the most appropriate places to send these tokens, which

may also coincide with potential TRPs.


Aizuchi after clauses

The high number of aizuchi after clauses coincides with the high incidence of

turntaking (Mori, 1999; Tanaka 1999). This is not an unexpected result, as

these are the places in the discourse where listeners’ participation is expected to

occur in one way or another. The following excerpt illustrates the occurrences

of aizuchi at clause boundaries. The guest in excerpt (4) talks about scuba

diving, her latest hobby. She says that she would like her children to become

interested in this sport, so they could enjoy it together. In line 2, the host sends

an aizuchi at the end of the conditional clause which ended with the conjunc-

tion tara. Although it is a potential TRP, the host indicates that she is not taking

the ¶oor, by sending an aizuchi. In Japanese, the subordinate clause of a

conditional sentence states an action/state that precedes the main clause.

(4) (F9. T-7)

1 G: kitto kodomotachi mo kyoomi o motte isshoni

surely children also interest O have-conj together

2 yaruyooninaru kana to omottara (e.) ano=

to-become Q Qt think-cond yes well

3 korekara zutto isshoni tanoshimeru to omounde…

from-now all-the-way together enjoy Qt think-conj

‘G: When I thought (yes) that my children will become interested, we

will be able to enjoy it (scuba diving) together, and..’

In other cases, the subordinate clause is post-positional. In the following

example, the guest is talking about his new acting school and about his stu-

dents. The utterance of the guest in (5) line 5 ends in the conjunction kara

‘because’, where the host sends her aizuchi. Not every clause is acknowledged

by the listener. The ªrst conditional clause, accompanied by rising intonation

in line 3, for example, is not followed by the listener’s aizuchi.

(5) (M10)

1 G: maa boku no tokoro wa tokuni ne/

well I gen place top especially fp

2 odori o, warito taisetsuni shiteru n desu.

dance O quite important do-prog com cop

3 yappari nikutai hyoogensha desu kara/

after-all body expression-people cop because

4 nikutai/ tte iu mono o chanto

body Qt say thing O well


5 xx dekinakyaikenai kara#

be-able-must because

6 T: sorya soo desu ne.

that yes cop fp

7 G: e.

yes

‘G: Well at my school I put special emphasis on dance because after all

the (students) are artists who use their bodies to express their art.

T: Certainly

G: Uh-huh

In (5) there are at least three other potential TRPs where the host neither takes

the ¶oor nor sends any aizuchi: after the SFP (line 1), after the copula desu

(line 2), after kara (line 3). Although we could speculate that some type of non-

verbal acknowledgment was sent, only the guest is shown on the screen during

this excerpt.

As we can see in the above examples, there are several subordinate clauses

listeners are likely to send some kind of acknowledgement; however not every

clause is followed by an aizuchi. For example, a listener may send some kind of

response after the SFP in line 1. In addition, there are two other points with

rising intonation that invite the listener’s participation. Why listeners choose

to send or not to send aizuchi at these TRPs is beyond the scope of this study

and is topic for future research. However, at this point, it is clear that there is a

complex distributional pattern in¶uenced by other features besides prosodic

and grammatical features.

Aizuchi after noun phrases

Japanese traditional grammarians consider a noun phrase as a unit, which

comprises a noun and a case particle. In the next excerpt, the guest tells about

her trips with her late husband, and the ªrst aizuchi is sent after a noun phrase

in line 1. The noun phrase consists of the noun Tonko and the particle e. The

other noun phrase followed by an aizuchi is in lines 4–5. The noun is naka and

the particle is ni. In these two cases, there are no obvious aizuchi eliciting

signals. At the same time, there are other potential ‘aizuchi relevance places’

(after ni in line 2, after mo in line 3, after no in line 4) which they are ignored by

the host.


(6) (F1. L-4)

1→ G: hai Tonko e (hai.) hajimete iku toki

yes Tonko to yes ªrstly go time

2 ni isshoni mairimashita.

loc together go-hum-past

3 T: okusama mo ano zutto goisshooni

T-pol also well all-the-time together-pol

4 irashita no (hai.) kono hon no naka

go-hon-past fp yes this book gen inside

5 ni (hai.) ((continues))

loc yes

‘G: When my husband went to Tonko (uh-huh) for the ªrst time, I went

with him.

T: So you went together (uh-huh). And in your book (yes)……. ((con-

tinues))’

Aizuchi after sentence ªnal particles and rising intonation

The sentence ªnal particle (SFP) functions in a similar way to the English tag

question. It invites an answer from the hearer, and is therefore one of the most

suitable places to send an aizuchi in terms of discourse interaction (S. Maynard,

1986, 1989; Sugito, 1987; Szatrowski, 1993). Maynard, for example, writes that

‘particle endings marked 40.84% (281 out of 688) of all backchannel occur-

rence’ in her data (1989: 173).

Sentence ªnal particles (SFP) have no grammatical function. Unlike case

markers (o – direct object, ni/e – locative, ga – subject) or the topic marker wa,

which denote syntactic relationships, SFPs also give the speaker’s point of view

and/or an ‘additional hint of what (the speaker) is saying: doubt, conviction,

caution, inquiry, conªrmation or request of conªrmation’ (Martin, 1975: 914).

Due to the more formal nature of the discourse in our data, sentence ªnal

particles are not as varied as in natural conversation. For example, the particle

na is rarely found in the data. Na is a variation of the particle ne, which roughly

means ‘don’t you think’. It has been described as more rough and rustic than ne,

and is generally used only by males towards very close friends or to people of

lower social status, and never to persons of higher status (Tsuchihashi, 1983).

Similarly, particles zo and ze, which are exclusively used by men, were absent in

the data.

Ne is the particle overwhelmingly used in the interviews. It appears mostly


with the copula, and sometimes in combination with another particle: yo+ne,

no+ne, wa+ne, wa+yo+ne, wa+yo, kashira+ne. Other ªnal particles observed

in the data are: yo ‘believe me’/ ‘indeed’, kana ‘I wonder’, no for informal

questions, explanations and emotive emphasis, wa used only by females, ex-

cept for one male from the Kansai region, and kashira ‘I wonder’, which is used

mainly by women. The following excerpt is from the interview with Masaru

Hosono, a male shoemaker. The guest is explaining that deformation of the

feet bones occurs due to the incorrect size and/or design of shoes.

(7) (M5. H-2)

1 G: hajimete atakushidomo ni maa oideitadakimasuto

ªrst-time we to well come-give-hon-cond

2 → ne/ (e.) mo,.. atakushi ga ichiban ima

fp well I S most now

3 kanjiru no desu ne/ sooiu/ sono= gaihanboshi

feel-pres com cop fp that-type well

4 ni onarininaru no wa ne/ narubeku shite

to become-hon com top fp become-must do-conj

5 → natterassharu n desu yo/ (un.).. zenzen fushigidemo

become-hon com cop fp yes at-all strange-not

6 → nandemo nai n desu ne (haahaa) narubbeku,

anything be-neg com cop fp I-see become-must

7 sono= iremono ni/ ashi o ireterassharu kara,

well container in foot O put-in-hon because

8 → sono toori ni ashi ga junnooshiteshimau n desu ne/

that way into foot S adjust-completely com cop fp

9 → (un.) desukara, naze narundaroo toka= soiu ((continues))

uhm therefore why become-wonder like that

‘ ‘G: When clients with toe/feet problems come to us you see, (uh-huh) I

know that it is no wonder that they have that problem, surely (uh-huh).

It is not strange, you see (yes, yes). Because they wear shoes that have a

(bad) shape, the feet adjust to them, you see, (uh-huh) therefore that’s

the bigger problem. To wonder why this problem occurs, ((continues))’

In this passage, the host also gives aizuchi following most of the SFPs. In line 2,

the particle ne follows a conditional clause; in line 5 there is a combination of

the copula desu and yo; and in lines 6, 8, and 9 it is the combination of the


copula and ne. Note that most of them are accompanied by rising intonation,

which actively encourages the listener to participate.

The majority of utterances ending in a rising intonation do function as

questions, although they may not be accompanied by the question particle ka

that is required in Japanese grammar. In the following excerpt (8), the guest,

who is an ex-professional baseball player, talks about his obsession with plan-

ning. Note the aizuchi sent immediately after the host’s copula with rising

intonation. This works in a similar way to tag questions, which invite some

kind of response and actively involve the listener.

(8) (M8. G-7)

1 T: de anata wa chiisai toki kara dorafuto

and you top small time from draft

2 ga nakatta wake deshoo? (soo desu ne.)

S be-neg-past reason cop-hort yes cop fp

3 ne/ de atashi kangaeta no ne…

fp and I think-past fp fp

‘T: From your childhood, there was no draft (system), was there

(indeed)? Then I thought….’

In the next three sections, aizuchi sent at places considered inappropriate in the

discourse are discussed. These aizuchi occur in the middle of the speaker’s

turn, after hesitation, and after a pause. In many cases, they overlap with the

speaker’s speech and can be potential FTAs.

Aizuchi in mid-sentence

Aizuchi that overlap with the speaker’s speech are sent in the middle of a

grammatical or phonological unit, but they are not interruptions as they are

not intended to gain the ¶oor. In the following example, from an interview

with a male horticulturist over ªfty, the guest sends an aizuchi in the middle of

the host’s phrase. The overlapping in this case is minimal.

(9) (M2. J-3)

1 T: ano=.. sakura mori to iu fuuni

well cherry-tree carer Qt say way

2 minasan oyobininatte sandaime dasoo (e.)

everybody call-hon-conj third-generation I-hear


3 desu ga.#

cop but

‘T: You are the third generation of people that I hear (yes) are called

cherry-tree carers.’

In other cases, the aizuchi overlaps with the speaker’s speech. In example (10),

the guest’s aizuchi in line 2 overlaps with the host’s sentence desukara, but does

not interrupt her speech. Overlapping can be caused by mistiming and by

eagerness to participate in the interaction (see Chapter 4).

(10) (M5)

1 T: a koreja ookii [desukara]

oh with-this big therefore

2 [(soo desu.)] okyakusan moo hito saizu shita

yes cop clients more one size under

3 ga ii desu yo (soo.) tte iu koto de (soo desu.)

S good cop fp yes Qt say com and yes- cop

4 ((continues))

‘T: This (pair of shoes) is too [big], [(right)] therefore, you tell your

clients that one size smaller is better (right) ((continues)).’

The distribution of aizuchi by host and guests across all the interview data

shows an interesting contrast. While the host sends more aizuchi at sentence

completion points (171–13%) than in mid-sentence (106–8.3%), the guests

show the opposite tendency (120–8.5% and 268–19%). This is more clearly

seen in the following graph and table.

0

5

10

15

20

Host's Guest's

Sentence end

Mid-sentence

Figure 5.1 Aizuchi in contrast


Table 5.1 Aizuchi in contrast (Sentence ªnal/mid-sentence)

Position of aizuchi Host’s aizuchi Guests’ aizuchi

Sentence end 171 – 13% 120 – 8.5%

Mid – sentence 106 – 8.3% 268 – 19%

This aspect stresses again the diŸerence between the role of the host and that of

the guests. Although overlapping aizuchi are not interruptions, they do aŸect

the quality of sound, making it di¹cult to distinguish simultaneous utterances.

On the other hand, sentence completion is a potential TRP, and by giving an

aizuchi one can signal that the turn is still with the speaker. The fact that the

host sends almost double the number of aizuchi at sentence end (13% vs.

8.3%), while the guests send more aizuchi in mid-sentence (19% vs. 8.5%),

indicates a clear diŸerence between roles.

Aizuchi sequences

A sequence of aizuchi occurs when the listener’s aizuchi is followed by another

token send by the speaker (Iwasaki, 1997; Szatrowski, 1989, 1993). Sequences

of aizuchi are observed when topic change is imminent, when there is a change

in ¶oor-taking, or when the conversation is nearing an end (Szatrowski, 1989,

1993). Iwasaki calls this phenomenon ‘loop’ sequence, and writes that it ‘cre-

ates a context in which participants negotiate ¶oor structure’ (1997: 675). In

the present data, aizuchi sequences seem to occur when the topic is a delicate

one or when neither of the interlocutors wants to initiate a turn.

In this short exchange, it appears that neither participant is willing to take

the ¶oor. The topic is kimonos, which are part of the guest’s collection of

Japanese costume. The aizuchi sequence occurs twice. First, in line 3, the guest

sends her aizuchi, soodesune accompanied by rising intonation. As a ‘response’,

the host sends another aizuchi, ne, with a lengthened vowel and rising intona-

tion, which strongly invites the guest’s response. The second sequence is in line

7, where chotto is followed by a pause. Chotto is a multi-functional adverb that

is used as a lead-in to dispreferred second pairs (declines to invitations, for

example). It is also used as a ªller in troubled topics. In this case, chotto appears

to be part of the host’s aizuchi and at the same time indicates speakership

incipiency. In line 8, the guest sends her aizuchi, hai.

(11) (F5. V-6)

1 T: kireina kimono desu ne/ iro ga nantomo

pretty kimono cop fp colour S exquisite


2 sono jiiro ga mata#..

that brown S more

3 → G: soo desu ne/

yes cop fp

4 → T: neeee/

isn’t-it?

5 G: chotto atakushi wa takusan motteru

little I top many have-prog

6 nakade kono iro wa mezurasii desu.

in this colour top uncommon cop

7 → T: nee chotto,

isn’t-it? a-little

8 → G: hai.

yes

9 T: oodoiro tte iimasu ka, (hai.) soko….((continues))

brown Qt say Q yes there….

‘T: It is a nice kimono. The brown colour is exquisite.

G: Indeed

T: Isn’t, it?

G: Yes, this colour is unusual even in my collection (of kimonos)

T: Isn’t, it?

G: Yes

T: Can you call it a brown colour, (yes) ((continues)).’

Most sequences comprise an exchange of two aizuchi; however, there are

examples of three and four exchanges, as in the following examples. In (12),

the guest, a female musician, is being asked about her ªrst musical instrument.

(12) (F3. Q-6)

1 T: tooji piano wa takakatta [atarimae

then piano top expensive-past naturally

2 desu kedo,]

cop but

3 G: [soo na n desu.]

yes cop com cop

4 T: e.

yes


5 G: e.

yes

6 T: demo kore wa==tooji donogurai no#,

but this top then how-much poss

7 G: ano nijuuman en shita n desu tte.

well 200-thousand yen do-past com cop Qt

‘T: Pianos were expensive then, [of course].

G: [Exactly]

T: Yes

G: Yes

T: But at that time, how much (did pianos cost)?

G: Well, I’ve hear that it was 200 thousand yen.’

The sequence of three exchanges in lines 3–5 in example (12) is similar to the

exchange of two tokens. The ªrst aizuchi overlaps with the host’s talk in lines

1–3. It is possible to infer that the host tried to elicit an answer from the guest

about the price of the piano. However, it is generally considered rude to talk

about money and the host employed an indirect approach that was not cor-

rectly interpreted by the guest. Therefore, the host takes the ¶oor in line 6 and

asks her unªnished question, although this time she uses diŸerent words. Note

that she uses the conjunctive particle demo ‘but’ to stress her question. In line

7, the guest reveals the cost of the piano.

In other situations, as in the excerpt below, the topic seems to in¶uence the

sequence of aizuchi. The interview is with Asami Rei, a singer already men-

tioned in previous sections. The host asked the actress whether her father had

had a chance to see her perform, to which she answers that he never did

because he was too ill. The sequence of aizuchi appears to indicate a moment of

di¹culty, as we learn during the interview that her father died without seeing

her succeed. In lines 1–3, the guest says that her father was bedridden

and unconscious. The host sends her ªrst aizuchi after the conjunctive form

tsuitete, and after another conjunctive particle de in line 3. Both aizuchi are

accompanied with stress and convey strong empathy. After the host’s aizuchi

in line 4, the guest acknowledges it with another token hai. This is followed by

yet another aizuchi in line 6. The last aizuchi in this sequence is the guest’s e.

The repetition of aizuchi in this example shows how participants deal with a

delicate topic. It would be improper to move into a new topic without showing

some degree of empathy.


(13) (F10. S-11)

1 G: karada o kowashimashite toko ni

body O break-past bed loc

2 tsuitete (ara RA) desukara chichi wa zenzen

be-conj oh! therefore my-father top at-all

3 wakaranai jootai de#

understand-neg situation conj

4 → T: arA sore wa zannen deshita ne/

oh! that top pity cop-past fp

5 → G: hai.

yes

6 → T: a soo deshita ka,

ah that-way cop-past q

7 → G: e.

yes

8 T: demo anata ochiisai toki kara zuibun….

but you small time from quite

9 kappatsu na ojoosan de omikoshi……

active cop lady and omikoshi8

‘G: My father was ill in bed, and he did not know about my performances

as he was in a coma.

T: That was really a pity.

G: Yes

T: Was that so?

G: Yes

T: But you were a very active girl since you were young. (And you were

carrying) the omikoshi’

It appears that aizuchi sequences are triggered by particular topics or when

participants do not want to take the ¶oor. In the data of this study, aizuchi

sequences are found when there is topic attrition, or when the topic is a sensitive

one (illness, death, suŸering). Szatrowski (1989, 1993) writes that this type of

aizuchi sequencing occurs at points where there is a topic change, when there is

a change in speaker, or when the end of a conversation is near. In English, too,

series of tokens are reported to be signs of interactional problems, which

include troubling topics (Gardner, 2001; 50). In the above example, the aizuchi

sequence fulªls both conditions: the topic is delicate and there is topic change.


Aizuchi functions

Aizuchi can have various functions depending on their position in the dis-

course, intonation (rising/falling, vowel lengthening), and semantic content.

In other situations, aizuchi can have more restricted functions. In the follow-

ing, I explain how aizuchi functions were identiªed in the analysis, and de-

scribe the types found.

Intonation

Intonation is crucial to distinguish not only the function of an aizuchi but

more basically if it constitutes an aizuchi at all. The token soodesu ka ‘Is it so?’

can have diŸerent functions depending on its intonation. In the following

excerpt, a popular Japanese singer talks about his career. In the previous line he

referred to an abbreviated term not known to the host, which refers to enter-

tainment revenue (box o¹ce revenue). The lengthening of the vowel in line 3

and falling intonation indicate interest on the part of the listener (the host).

(14) (M7.-2)

1 G: sore ga ichiban yokatta tte kiiteimasu

that S ªrst good-past Qt hear-pol

2 kara [sooiu fuuni yappari]

because that way in after-all

3 T: [a /soo==desuka.]

oh yes cop Q

‘G: Because I have heard that (the entertainment revenue) was the best,

so [that way after all] [(o==h, is it so.)’

When this token is delivered with rising intonation, as in the next example, it

indicates surprise. The host praises her guest for sending New Year cards to

each of his immediate family members, who are living with him, which is not

customarily done in Japan. The guest’s a soodesuka in line 3 is a response to the

host’s compliment and shows he is pleased.

(15) (M7.-2)

1 T: suteki de atashi ne kore tottemo ii

nice and I fp this very good

2 na tte omotta no.

fp Qt think fp


3 G: (a soo desu ka/)

oh yes cop Q

‘T: It is nice and I thought that this is very good (Really/)’

As these two examples show, the same token a soodesu ka ‘is it so?’ can have

diŸerent functions. It can indicate interest, surprise or mild disagreement,

according to the intonation and position where it is sent in the discourse.

When pronounced with falling intonation, it shows that the listener is hearing

the information for the ªrst time and is expressing her/his amazement and

interest. If the listener does not agree with the speaker, it is uttered with rising

intonation; however it does not express total disagreement. As in (15), it is used

in turn-initial position as part of either a preferred or a dispreferred response to

compliments.

Semantic content

Some aizuchi like ee and un have a broad semantic content. Depending on how

they are pronounced, un can mean ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and ee can be used to indicate

agreement or surprise. Similarly, the token so can express mild disagreement,

understanding or agreement and is used more extensively in combination with

other elements such as the copula. However the meaning that hai can convey is

more restricted. It is translated as ‘yes’ and cannot express negation or surprise.

Due to this fact, it appears that its usage and distribution is more limited. This

is discussed at great length later in the chapter and in Chapter 6.

A closer and detailed look at hai indicates that it is a multifunctional token.

When used as an answer, hai indicates agreement and is used in a¹rmative

answers. However, its original meaning can be lost in aizuchi sequences, for

example. Also, the listener cannot agree with this aizuchi. In instances like (16),

hai functions as ªller.

(16) (M7.–2)

1 T: naruhodo ne/

I-see fp

2 G: hai.

yes

‘T: I see

G:Yes’


Position in the discourse

Position in the discourse is another useful criterion in deªning the function of

an aizuchi. The host asks a famous blind violinist about his mother’s help in

typing musical scores in Braille. There are two aizuchi in this excerpt, and both

function as continuers. The ªrst token, un, is sent after the conjunctive particle

demo. This token can be sent anywhere in the discourse as its semantic mean-

ing is rather loose. However, the second token, hai, is diŸerent. In line 2 the

host announces that she had already mentioned this topic before, so hai, is not

an agreement because, at that stage, the guest does not yet know what the host

is referring to. Hai in this case signals that the guest is simply listening and is an

acknowledgement of understanding.

(17) (M6.-1)

1 T: demo (un.) sakki chotto goshookaishita

but uh-huh before little introduce-hon-past

2 → yooni (hai). ima made hajime wa

as yes now until beginning top

3 okaasama ga subete gakufu to iu mono

mother-pol S all scores Qt say thing

4 wa tenji ga nai node, zenbu tenji

cop Braille S be-neg because all Braille

5 de okaasama ga yattekudasatta ((continues))

inst mother-pol S do-give-hon-past

‘T: But (uh-huh) as I introduced a little while ago (yes), until now your

mother, because scores were not in Braille, did all the typing in Braille for

you ((continues)).’

Six functions of aizuchi

Six major functions of aizuchi were identiªed in the interview data: continuers,

acknowledgements, echoers, newsmarkers, aŸective aizuchi, and ªllers.

Aizuchi as continuers

One characteristic of these tokens is that they are very short and can be sent at

any point in the discourse. They mean ‘I am listening’ and encourage the


speaker to continue talking. The following example shows how the host listens

and encourages the guest to talk about other performers who attended the

same academy. The aizuchi un, in line 1, and e in line 2 are listening signals

because the main information is not provided until the end of the guest’s

utterance in line 3. In line 1, the guest mentions Azuma Chiaki, but at this

point the only information is the name of a classmate. Note that un is sent after

the guest’s ªller ano= is pronounced with the lengthening of the vowel. A

similar pattern is observed in the following line, after the word shibai=. In both

cases, the lengthening of the vowel indicates that the guest is trying to think of

a word. Sending aizuchi at these points can encourage the speaker to talk.

(18) (F10)

1 → G: Azuma Chiaki to iu yahari ano= (un.)

Azuma Chiaki Qt say also well uh-huh

2 → shibai= (e.) o ano=shiteru. (e.)

theatre uh-huh O well do-prog uh-huh

3 ano nakama mo imasushi (ah soo.) ((continues))

well colleague also be-pre-conj oh really

‘G: There are colleagues (oh really) like Chiaki Azuma (uh-huh), who is

performing (uh-huh) at the theatre (uh-huh) and ((continues)).’

Note that none of these aizuchi are followed by more talk from the same person

(the listener), which indicates that the opportunity to take the ¶oor is declined.

Except for the token so, virtually any aizuchi can be used as a continuer if they

are pronounced with a ¶at intonation.

Aizuchi as acknowledgements

In contrast to continuers, acknowledgements are sent only after the main piece

of information has been delivered. Because of this constraint, they function

mainly to show agreement and understanding of the content. As with other types

of aizuchi, they are multifunctional in the sense that by demonstrating under-

standing of the content they simultaneously convey participation and interest.

To illustrate this, the next example is from an interview with a famous and

versatile Kabuki actor, who also acts in modern plays. Here he talks about his

acting school and says that dancing is a very important component of the

curriculum. He says that the students must be able to express themselves with

their bodies. In line 3 , the host sends an aizuchi with falling intonation, to


show agreement. Note that this example is presented elsewhere, and also that it

is a very long segment with virtually no aizuchi.

(19) (M10)

1 G: nikutai/ tte iu mono o chanto

body Qt say thing O well

2 xx dekinakyaikenai kara,

be-able-must because

3 T: sorya soo desu ne.

that yes cop fp

‘G: Because the (students) are artists who use their bodies to express their

art (certainly).’

This type of aizuchi not only demonstrates that the listener is attentive but it

also encourages the speaker to continue talking.

Aizuchi as echoers

Echoing the speaker is an indication of interest and participation in the com-

municative interchange. Such aizuchi are mainly sent after the information is

given and they show understanding of the content. The guest in (20) is a

cartoonist who spent some time in Rabaul during the Second World War. He

befriended the natives and was going to stay on the island but once the war was

over was persuaded to return to Japan to see his family. He was unable to

return to Rabaul, due to the circumstances in defeated Japan.

(20) (M4.–6)

1 T: ah Nihonni okaerininareba mo

ah Japan to return-hon-cond no-more

2 soto ni deru koto [nante dekinai.][(e. dekinai.)]

out to go-out com like unable yes. unable

3 Makkasa wa irushi (e. irushi.) sorede shigoto

Macarthur top is-conj yes. be-conj and work

4 wa isogashiku=[nattekurushi.] [(so.so.so.)] ((continues))

top busy-become-conj yes.yes.yes.

‘T: So, when you returned to Japan, it was not possible to go overseas

again. (it was not possible) And Macarthur was in Japan (he was) and

you became busy at work (yes. yes. yes) ((continues)).’


The echoing by the guest in lines 2 and 3 shows agreement as well as his

involvement in the interview. In general, this type of echoing has no rising

intonation or vowel lengthening.

Echoing can take any form as it is the repetition of a word or words. The

crucial diŸerence between its function as either an aizuchi or a question is the

intonation. Echoing that acts as an aizuchi does not have any particular prosodic

characteristics other than falling intonation. Echoing as a question, on the other

hand, is accompanied by rising intonation and actively asks for an answer, as

observed in example (2) in this chapter.

Aizuchi as newsmarkers

Newsmarkers can be used to show interest and are sent only after the main

piece of information has been delivered. These function in a similar way to the

Oh, Right, Really and Oh in English (Gardner, 2001; Heritage, 1984). Many of

the aizuchi categorized in this group are accompanied by vowel lengthening.

The following excerpt illustrates this type of aizuchi. The guest is a younger

male ex-professional baseball player. He suggests that professional baseball

players should be allocated to diŸerent teams using a ra§e-type method,

which the players themselves would draw and in this way would feel that they

were somehow in control of their destiny. The host seems to be surprised by

the guest’s explanation. The overlapping question is one indication, and a

second aizuchi is sent in line 4. Ho===o is an exclamation that indicates

surprise, amazement, and is pronounced with vowel lengthening.

(21) (M8.–6)

1 G: jibun no unmei wa yappari hiitemiru tte

oneself gen destiny top after-all try-draw Qt

2 iu hoo ga mada [nattoku dekimasu]

say way S yet accept can

3 T: [nattoku dekimasu ka?]

accept can Q

4 G: eh (ho====o) sore wa moo sugoku omou n desu

yes really that top uhm very think com cop

‘G: I can accept it (even if I do not get what I want) if I [draw it myself ]

T: [Can you accept it?]

G: Yes. (Really?) Oh, yes that is something with which I agree.’


One of the characteristics of newsmarkers is that, for the listener, the informa-

tion is new. The tokens are uttered with some accompanying phonological

features such as rising intonation, vowel lengthening or stress. There are

virtually no hai tokens as newsmarkers that can be attributed to the interview

setting. The host seldom uses hai and, because of role allocation, is the one who

most often hears new information. Also, as a general observation, it would be

very unusual to replace the aizuchi ho===o in line 4 with hai.

3 T: [nattoku dekimasu ka?]

accept can Q

4 G:→ e *(hai) sore wa moo sugoku omou n desu

yes yes that top uhm very think com cop

‘T: [Can you accept it?]

G: Yes. * (Yes.) Oh, yes that is something with which I agree’

The oddity of an inappropriate aizuchi token can be seen in both the Japanese

transcript and the English translation and is marked with the * sign.

AŸective aizuchi

In this study all the aizuchi that display emotion and feelings are classiªed as

aŸective aizuchi. They can show surprise, empathy, or shock, and are accom-

panied by phonological characteristics such as vowel lengthening, stressing and

rising-falling intonation. Many of them can be categorized as exclamation

tokens as they are sent after the main piece of information is known. There are

some situations where aŸective aizuchi, newsmarkers and assessments overlap.

The act of displaying feelings already comprises interest in the conversation.

However, the main criteria for the diŸerentiation are the intensity of the stress,

the vowel length, and the semantic content.

In the following excerpt, the host is interviewing a famous writer’s widow.

She asks her about the fact that both his latest novel and her book were on the

bestseller list. From the host’s utterance in lines 1–3, we learn that she knew that

the writer had died before the books were listed. Therefore, the aizuchi in line 4,

ara, is uttered with emphasis and a lengthened vowel, which indicates the host’s

display of emotion that can be interpreted as empathy, sadness and regret.

(22) (F1.L-5)

1 T: ah besuto seraa no ano Fumi sama ga ni

oh best seller gen uhm Fumi T S second


2 (un.) ano= goshujinsama ga kooshi san’i to

uh-huh uhm your-husband S kooshi third Qt

3 iu no wa nakunatte kara/

say com top die-past-conj after

4 G: nakunatte kara datta n desu. (arAA)

die-past-conj after be-past com cop is-that-so?

5 nakunatte jiki datta n desu.

die-past-conj after be-past com cop

‘T: Oh, so it was after his death that your work, Ms. Fumi was second

(yes) and your husband’s work ‘Kooshi’ was third in the bestseller list.

G: It was soon after his death. (Is that so!) It was soon after his death.’

The next excerpt (23) illustrates how aizuchi are used to show surprise. This

interview discusses the guest’s kimono collection. The guest describes the

displayed items’ design, colours, fabrics, and their origin. The guest explains

about wedding kimonos and the customs in former times surrounding wed-

ding parties. She says that weddings were celebrated in some places for about a

week. The host shows her surprise in line 3 with an aizuchi that is emphasized.

(23) (F5.U-7)

1 G: mukashi no kekkonshiki tte iu no wa ichinichi

in-old-days gen wedding Qt say com top one-day

2 ya futsuka janakute. nagai toko da to

or two-days be-neg-conj long place cop if

3 isshuukan gurai yaru n dasoo desu yo. (EEE)

one-week about do com I-hear cop fp really

4 mikka no tokoro mo arushi ((continues))

three-days gen place also be-conj

‘G: Weddings in the past I hear were celebrated not for one or two days,

but for a whole week (Really!) There are places where it is celebrated

during three days as well ((continues))’

The same token e can fulªl diŸerent functions according to the diŸerent

prosodic characteristics with which it is pronounced. AŸective aizuchi are

uttered with some clear phonological features that convey a strong feeling, be it

surprise, shock or amazement. It is a way to display interest and involvement in

the conversation. Their frequency is aŸected by the topic and the relationship.

Among aŸective aizuchi in the interviews were the tokens aaa ‘oh’, ara ‘oh,


really’, a soo nan desu ka? ‘Is that so?’, maa ‘Dear me’, hee ‘indeed’, hoo

‘oh’, sugoi ‘great’, taihen ‘terrible’, hontooni ‘really?’. The distinction between

newsmarkers and aŸective aizuchi is that the information which the listener

hears must be new in the former, but not necessarily in the latter. Note that, in

(22), the host knows that the guest’s book was nominated for the bestseller list

after her husband’s death. On the other hand, the length of wedding celebra-

tions is a complete surprise for the host.

Aizuchi as ªllers

When interlocutors cannot /do not want to continue talking, aizuchi can be used

to indicate that they expect the other to continue holding the ¶oor, as discussed

in a previous section. This can be seen in the usage of aizuchi sequences, where

no one holds the ¶oor but both show their willingness to keep the conversation

going. This function might be particular to the interview situation, where the

participants must be engaged in some sort of verbal exchange. The same

restrictions do not apply in mundane conversations or even in artiªcially set

conversations. Speakers in these circumstances can remain silent until a new

topic is introduced, without obvious consequences. In normal everyday conver-

sations, there are always interruptions or moments when the participants do not

have anything to say. However, in a televised interview, there is a time factor and

the participants must keep talking. In conclusion, aizuchi used as ªllers or

aizuchi sequences are sent when topics are delicate, when there is topic attrition,

and when participants are not willing to take the ¶oor.

The aizuchi token hai

The hai token is used more often in formal contexts and when the topic is of

importance to the listener (Horiguchi; 1997). This section shows how the

aizuchi, hai, is used in the interviews. First, it is conspicuously absent from the

host’s speech, which could be attributed to personal style. The host may take an

‘empathetic’ attitude similar to a therapist’s non-intrusive role (Gerhard and

Beyerle, 1997) by avoiding to use hai. However, it occurs at high frequency in

all the guests’ speech. A more detailed look reveals that this aizuchi is used in

various ways. While hai originally meant ‘yes’, when used as an aizuchi it

obviously loses its meaning. In the data, hai is overwhelmingly used as a

continuer and as an acknowledgement token.


Hai as a continuer

Hai is most often sent when the information is not complete and when there is

no speakership incipiency. The following excerpt is a typical example. In line 1,

the host utters the name of the guest’s father with falling intonation. The guest

sends the aizuchi hai on two occasions. The ªrst is right after the name of the

guest’s father, and the second after the verb in the conjunctive form. In line 2,

the host says that the guest’s father had a PhD. Note that, at both points, the

question of the host is not yet clear. The same occurs in line 2 with the third

token, although here it is possible that the guest and the audience know that

the father was a famous anatomist. However, the question is still not clear,

indicating that the third hai token is also used as a continuer.

(24) (F1.–3)

1→ T: Adachi Buntaro. (hai.) hakase to osshatte,

Adachi Buntaro (yes) doctor Qt say-hon-conj

2 → (hai.)kaiboogaku no hoode wa taihenna (hai.)

yes anatomy gen side top very yes

3 kata deirassharu soo desu ga,#

person be-hon hear cop but

‘T: He was called (yes) doctor Adachi Buntaro (yes) and I’ve heard that

he was very (yes) important in the ªeld of anatomy, but (could you tell

us more on that?).’

In (25), the host introduces a new topic on a successful production in which

the guest, who is an actor, performed and directed. In the second line, the guest

sends a hai just after the host mentions the title of a theatre production. As in

the former segment, it is di¹cult to know at that stage the host’s intended

question. Note that the aizuchi is sent in the middle of a phrase.

(25) (M10)

1 T: ah. ano== ano== Shirano Deberujuraku to iu Furansu

oh. Well uhm Cyrano D’Bergerac Qt say France

2 → ban (hai.) no yatsu de akademi shoo o totta

version yes gen one and Academy award o take-past

3 hito (e.) no [ishoo o tsukutta

person uh-huh gen costume o make-past

‘T: Oh. Well, uhm, for the French version of Cyrano De Bergerac (yes)

he received the Academy Award for Best Costume and he made the

costumes (for your production).’


A similar exchange is shown in (26). The host comments that the guest is also

acting in the theatre. Note that the guest’s aizuchi is sent after the word demo

‘but’, clearly indicating that it works as a continuer. The second hai indicates

incipient speakership, as discussed in detail later in the chapter.

(26) (F10)

1→ T: ee. demo. (hai.) iroirona butai zuibun takusan ne/

yeah but (yes) various theatre very many fp

2 ironna mono [yatterasharunde,

various things do-conj

3 → G: [hai]. ee. ano== soo desu nee. ((continues))

yes yeah uhm yes cop fp

‘T: But (yes) you have been in diŸerent theatre performances, isn’t it

Because you are [doing many things

G:[Yes]. Yeah. uhm, well, you know ((continues))’

Hai as an answer

Hai is sent after a question or after the speaker actively invites the listener to

participate, in a similar way to sentence ªnal particles. In the excerpt below, the

host asks her male guest whether his mother accompanied him when he was

giving concerts around Japan. The question is grammatically unªnished but

there is rising intonation. Hai uttered by the guest is an a¹rmative answer, and

the host acknowledges this answer.

(27) (M8)

1 → T: de okaasama mo goisshooni/ (hai.) ah! sooooo/

and mother-pol too together yes is-it-so

‘T: With your mother?

G: Yes.

T: Is that so?’

In (28), the topic is the guest’s mother-in-law, who had published a book on

their relationship. Contrary to the guest’s expectations of an exemplary rela-

tionship, the mother-in-law had confessed in that book to her displeasure and

unhappiness. Here, we can see that the host conªrms with the guest that she

had thought their relationship was perfect with the question omotterashitano.

The guest answers a¹rmatively with the token hai followed by a pause, to

which the host adds her utterance nijuunennkan. This is also a grammatically


unªnished utterance that can be interpreted as another question. On this

occasion, too, the guest answers with a hai.

(28) (F7)

1 T: omotterashita no/

think-past-hon fp

2 G: hai…

3 T: nijuunen kan.

20-years during

4 G: hai.

‘T: That’s what you thought?

G: Yes.

T: For 20 years.

G: Yes.

Hai in turn-initial position as well as in turn-ªnal position has been observed.

This token also indicates incipient speakership as well as turn-yielding. In the

following segment, we can observe the distribution of hai in turn-ªnal position

in line 3. The guest says that her late husband was very encouraging when she

started writing. In line 3, she adds to the host’s comment that she is writing

because of her husband’s encouragement, and ªnishes her turn with hai and

falling intonation, indicating her intention to ªnish her turn. The next token

appears in turn-initial position in line 6, when the guest starts talking, although

there is no clear question.

(29) (F3)

1 T: jaa hontooni maa rensai mo nasatteru yoo desu

then really well serials also do-hon appear cop

2 keredomo (soo na n desu.) ja okaki[ninaru koto o]

but yes cop com cop then write-hon com of

3→ G: [maa sono kotoba ni hagemaserate. hai.

Well that word in encourage-caus yes

4 T: jaa sore made wa okakininaru tte koto wa hontooni

then that until top write-hon Qt thing top really

5 nakatta (soo degozaimasu.) EEEh ja hontooni

be-neg-past yes cop oh then really

6 → G: hai. moo watashi wa moppara daidokoro ni

yes well I top only kitchen in


7 orimashita nde,

be-past-hum because

‘T: Well, so now it seems that you are also doing serial novels (yes,

indeed) so [writing

G:[Well, I was encouraged by his words. Yes.

T: So up to then, you didn’t write (Exactly) Ooooh, then really

G: Yes. I was only in the kitchen.

Hai after aizuchi

Interlocutors use aizuchi to indicate that they are not taking the ¶oor. DiŸerent

tokens are used in these aizuchi sequences and hai is one of them, as we see in

the next examples. Hai fulªls the function of ªller in line 3 of example (30), line

2 of example (31), line 2 of example (32), and line 2 of example (33).

(30) (F5)

1 G: kondo nanka hajimete da soo desu.

This-time well ªrst-time cop like cop

2 T: ah, soo.

oh. yes

3 G: hai.

yes

‘G: This time they say it is the ªrst time.

T: Is it so?

G: Yes.

(31) (F1)

1 T: ne/

FP

2 G: hai.

yes

‘T: Isn’t it?

G: Yes.’

(32) (F10)

1 T: ara! sore wa zannen deshita ne/

oh that top pity cop-past fp

2 G: hai.

yes.


‘T: Really! That was a pity!

G: Yes.’

(33) (F5)

1 T: ah. taagetto wa hatachi.

oh. target top 20-years-old

2 G: hai.

yes

3 T: ah, soo/

oh yes

‘T: Oh. The target is 20 year old (people).

G: Yes.

T: I see.’

In all the above extracts, the interlocutors send aizuchi indicating that they do

not intend to take the ¶oor. In some cases, as in (32), a delicate topic induces

this sequence: the guest’s father’s illness. On other occasions, there seems to be

no apparent reason for the use of aizuchi sequences, however it appears that

they occur when the topic of the conversation is nearing an end, when a topic

change is imminent, or when there is a speaker-turn (Szatrowski, 1993).

Speakers and listeners use aizuchi as a strategy to negotiate who will be the next

¶oor-holder. Iwasaki (1997) states that this is a result of the Japanese prefer-

ence for ‘mutual dependency’, where speakers give more emphasis to har-

mony. Although silence in Japanese culture is not considered negative in terms

of politeness (Lebra, 1987) in the interview setting aizuchi accomplish the role

of ªller. Guests use aizuchi to keep some kind of verbal exchange because they

do not have the power to change the topic. The host, on the other hand, uses

them to indicate imminent topic change or to indirectly press the guest to

continue speaking.

Hai after announcements

Hai is also sent after announcements before commercial breaks. Although the

host does not need permission from her guests to interrupt the program, in

most cases she uses very polite expressions to indicate a break.

(34) (F1.–3)

1 T: chotto (hai.) komaasharu ga gozaimasu node

little (yes) commercial S be-pol because

‘T: Just (yes) because we have a commercial.’


(35) (M10)

1 T: komaasharu o ja. (hai.)

commercial o then yes

‘T: Then, now the commercial (Yes).’

Hai is similarly used in situations where the host directs a question to the

television crew. Some lines before this excerpt, a number of photographs are

shown from one of the guest’s theatre productions. In line 4, the host turns

towards the cameramen and requests the photos to be shown again. Although

the request is not directed to him, the guest answers with hai.

(36) (M10)

1 G: e. sono kata to zuutto yatte kita n desu

yeah that person with through do come com cop

2 T: ah soo na no/

oh. yes com fp

3 G: eh.

yeah

4 → T: demo ima no moo ikkai modoshite itadakimasu/

but now of more once return give-pol

5 → G: hai.

yes

‘G: Yeah. I’ve worked with that person all this time.

T: Really!

G: Yeah.

T: But, could you return the (tape) once more?

G: Yes.’

In these situations, other aizuchi tokens would be inappropriate with the

exception of e. Although aizuchi types such as soo and un share some common

functions like that of agreeing, hai has other characteristics. It is used in a

similar way to what SchegloŸ and Sacks (1973) have noted for the English right

and okay, which are known as ‘change-of-activity’ token. They are used in a

pre-closing environment and signal imminent change in topic or activity.

Similarly, hai is used to indicate readiness to move to a new topic or activity.

Single and duplicated tokens

The token hai and its duplicate variants have been classiªed as belonging to one

universal group of aizuchi tokens. The duplicate tokens are multi-functional.


They may indicate a lively participation and interest or to indicate that the talk

is not newsworthy. Hai is used as a continuer, as a token of acknowledgement,

as an answer, and as a ‘change-of-activity’ token. However, the duplicated

form hai hai appears not to be used indiscriminately. It is said that duplicated

forms are considered impolite as they may convey a sense of impatience

(Horiguchi, 1997). In the interview data, the few duplicated hai tokens are all

sent by the guests.

It appears that duplicate forms are sent only when the information is

complete, as in the next example. The topic is one of the ªrst literary works that

the guest had written. Note that, in lines 1–11, the guest provides a long

explanation of her beliefs about writing, which we can assume are very impor-

tant to her. However, the host does not send any feedback. Instead, she

mentions that the guest herself had published the book. Note the guest’s

aizuchi, which is a sequence of the token hai. In line 13, the host repeats jihi

shuppan, indicating that the guest did not take the turn as the host intended.

(37) (F3)

1 G: hai. watakushi no sakuhin no naka de, kai to

yes I gen works gen within of oar Qt

2 (e.) iu ano sakuhin degozaimasu keredomo. yahari

yeah say well work cop-pol but after-all

3 mou jibun no koto o oitsumerarete kaita to iu koto

well one gen thing do corner-pass write Qt say thing

4 de, sore ga ano (@) yappari nanto sakka to iu

and that S well after-all how writer Qt say

5 no wa jibun ga chi o nagashinagara ano=jibun

com top self S blood do shed-while well one

6 no kono subete sarakedashite dokusha no kata ni mite

gen this all reveal-conj reader gen people by see

7 itadaku to iu no wa kore ga ichiban

receive Qt say com top this S ªrst

8 daijina kihon shisei janaika to kigatsuite,

important basic attitude cop-neg Qt realize-conj

9 sorekara ano= atakushi nan to iimasu ka jibun no

then well I how Qt say Q self gen

10 kimochi no ue de hijouni kou ano=nanka kou ikite

feelings gen top on very uhm well how uhm live


11 ikiyasukunarimashita desu ne.

live-easy-past cop fp

12 T: ano kai wa shikamo jihi shuppan de (hai. hai.)

that oar top also private press and yes. yes

13 jihi shuppan.

private press

14 G: hai. ((continues))

yes

‘G: Yes, among my works, there is a novel titled (yeah) ‘Oar’, and in that

I wrote because I felt I had to write. And by writing, I realized that the

most basic attitude of a writer is to expose herself completely and have it

read by the public. After that, I felt life was easier to live.

T: And also ‘Oar’ was also published by yourself.

G: Yes, yes.

T: You published it yourself.

G: Yes. ((continues))

In the next example, the host is talking about the death of the guest’s husband.

Note that, after about 6 lines, the host’s question is not clear. Therefore, the

guest’s hai hai in line 6 can be taken as a sign of impatience. Although we can

only speculate as to why the guest uses the duplicated form, the fact that it

appears only when the information is complete indicates that it can imply

either enthusiasm or impatience.

(38) (F1)

1 T: nee/(hai.) ano=osooshiki no tokini terebi o

fp yes uhm funeral gen when television o

2 haikenshitorimashitara. ne/ (hai.) okusama ga ne/ saigo

watch-past-humb-cond fp yes wife-pol S fp last

3 ni byooin ni iku tokini masuku mo shite (hai.)

in hospital to go when mask also do yes

4 sorekara erimaki mo sashite (hai.) moo zettai kaze

then scarf too do-caus yes well really cold

5 hikanai yooni dashita noni tte (hai.)

catch-neg xxxx send-past although Qt yes

6 oshatterashaimashita yo ne/ (hai. hai.) sore ga kuyashii

say-past-hon fp fp yes yes that S angry


7 tte (hai.) oshatta n da kedomo

Qt yes say-past-hon com cop but

‘T: Isn’t, it? (yes) Uhm when I was watching the TV on the funeral, you see

(yes) You said that when he left to hospital (for a regular check-up), you

made sure he was wearing a face mask (yes), and a scarf (yes) you made

sure that he was not going to catch cold (yes) you said so, didn’t you ?

(yes. yes.) you said that that made you angry (yes) but

In the next chapter the duplicated tokens are discussed in more detail. It

appears that it is mostly the older guests that use them, which suggests that

there is a politeness factor involved.

To summarize, the aizuchi, hai, appears in the discourse according to its

diŸerent functions, and although more research is needed to obtain a global

picture it is evident that speakers and listeners are aware of these characteristics

and use them expertly. Firstly, hai has a narrower semantic meaning than other

aizuchi. Hai expresses agreement; however, its function changes according to

when it is sent in the discourse. When sent turn-initially, it is an a¹rmative

answer to a question or an acknowledgement of an announcement. It is also sent

as a ªller after another aizuchi. When sent in mid-turn position, it is used as a

continuer and as a ‘change-of-activity’ token before an imminent topic change.


Although aizuchi have been classiªed as a single group of tokens with broad but

loose characteristics, a detailed analysis shows that they are more complex than

originally described and are used strategically. Aizuchi in the present data are

ªnely timed. Both host and guests send ‘positive’ aizuchi, which show interest

and participation in the exchange. These are sent mainly after major junctures,

which include clauses and sentence ªnal particles, and at the end of sentences.

This conªrms previous studies (Kurosaki, 1987; S. Maynard, 1989; N.

Mizutani, 1982, 1988b). There is some diŸerence in the distribution of aizuchi

in the discourse. Guests send more aizuchi in mid-sentence position (19%)

than the host (8.5%). However, the host sends more aizuchi in sentence-ªnal

position (13%) than the guests (19%). This diŸerence can be attributed to the

roles of the participants. Sending aizuchi while the speaker is talking can ªrstly

be a potential FTA and secondly can hinder the quality of sound in broadcast-

ing. Both situations are more the concern of the host than of the guests, as it is

the job of the interviewer to ensure the success of the interview. The host’s


understanding and command of conversational skills, among them the use of

aizuchi, demonstrates why she is such a successful presenter.

A revealing phenomenon in this study is the high frequency of aizuchi by

the guests. One would expect a much lower incidence of these tokens in the

guests’ speech because they are the main speakers. This ªnding conªrms that

aizuchi are a very important communicative tool in Japanese, regardless of the

context. It also indicates that guests are aware of the formality of an interview

situation, which requires politeness and cooperation, and which is accentuated

by the audience (even if not physically present). There is an increased aware-

ness in terms of role conformity. Therefore, guests use aizuchi to show their

involvement and participation in the interaction.

Aizuchi are multi-functional as is shown in the numerous examples. They

can be used as continuers (example 18), acknowledgements (example 19),

echoers (example 20), newsmarkers (example 21), aŸective tokens (examples

22–23), and as ªllers (examples 11–13). Some aizuchi such as continuers can

be sent at any time in the discourse. Others have to fulªl certain conditions. For

example, aŸective aizuchi can be sent only after the information is made

known to the listener. On the other hand, aizuchi as ªllers occur before a topic

change and follow or precede another aizuchi token. A sequence of aizuchi is

observed when the topic is problematic. This suggests that aizuchi are also used

to negotiate ¶oor management.

On the other hand, not all tokens fulªl every function. For example, the

aizuchi, hai, cannot function as a newsmarker, or as an aŸective aizuchi. This is

because of its restricted meaning of agreement. Similarly, the aizuchi, so, does

not normally function as a continuer because one of the conditions for this

token is that the information has to be complete.

A wide variety of aizuchi tokens is found in the data, which have been

previously categorized as one single uniform group. Most aizuchi tokens fulªl

diŸerent functions depending on the prosodic features, the semantic content,

and the point in the discourse at which they are sent. Furthermore, a closer and

more meticulous observation of some of the tokens tells us that they have a

distributional pattern, are multifunctional and are used purposefully. In this

chapter, I looked speciªcally at the hai token. Firstly, it is noticeably absent

from the host’s speech, which could be attributed to personal style. However, it

appears that this diŸerence is a result of role diŸerence. Hai is a formal aizuchi,

is reported to be used mostly in formal situations (Horiguchi, 1997), and, as

the next chapter shows, younger guests use it more frequently.


From the above, we can conclude that aizuchi are used as a very eŸective

communicative tool in interviews. Although they are short and in most cases

have no grammatical function, they are extremely important in the communi-

cation process.

Notes

1. In order to maintain some uniformity, I will use the term aizuchi when it pertains to

Japanese.

2. Positive backchanneling

3. A point that is often misinterpreted cross-culturally. Americans misunderstand Japanese

backchanneling as agreement (H. Yamada, 1992).

4. My translation

5. My translation.

6. Aizuchi are indicated in bold letters and brackets.

7. Translations of backchannels are given where possible. However, due to the diŸerence in

the grammatical structure of English and Japanese, not all of them could be translated at the

exact point of occurrence. The translations are intended to give the reader an approximate

meaning in English.

8. Omikoshi - A colorful portable temple that is carried or pushed by people during

traditional festivals.

Chapter 6

Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry

Introduction

The literature associates listeners’ responses with cooperative behaviour, claiming

that women backchannel more frequently than men (Edelsky, 1981; Fishman,

1978; West and Zimmerman, 1983). Some scholars suggest that women are

better listeners because they have a cooperative listening style in contrast to the

more aggressive male style (Edelsky, 1981; Coates, 1989b, 1996; Holmes, 1986a,

1993; Maltz and Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1984, 1994a). It has also been stated that

men use minimal responses to dominate conversation (Fishman, 1978; Yoshii,

1996; Zimmerman and West, 1984). Others argue that the reason why women

are higher backchannellers is because of the gender inequality in society

(Cameron, 1992; Fishman, 1978; LakoŸ, 1973; Swan, 1989; Troemel-Ploetz,

1992; West and Zimmerman, 1975; Woods, 1988). Most recent studies have

revealed contradictory results that suggest that this male–female dichotomy is

not as clear as previously thought (Bing and Bergvall, 1996; Cameron,

1996; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1998; Freed and Greenwood, 1996;

MeyerhoŸ, 1996). Research on Japanese aizuchi suggests that women are higher

backchannellers (Kurosaki, 1987) and that they use it in a collaborative manner,

whereas men use it to control the exchange (Ehara, Yoshii and Yamazaki, 1993).

This chapter examines whether aizuchi tokens are used diŸerently by host

and guests. The association of listener responses with the ‘powerless’ is one of

the most important distinctions between the diŸerent gender theories. As

discussed in Chapter 1, the concept of power is not taken into consideration by

the ‘diŸerence’ theorists, whereas for the ‘dominance’ scholars this is the

central issue (Cameron, 1992; LakoŸ, 1973; Freed, 1992; Hall, Bucholtz and

Moonwomon, 1992; West, 1984; West and Zimmerman, 1983). In interviews

where there is an asymmetric relationship, is gender a determinant for aizuchi

use? Does the host send more aizuchi to her male guests? And do the male

guests send ‘negative’ aizuchi to the host? How do the participants in the

interview use aizuchi to show their participation or dominance? These are the

questions I want to answer in this chapter, by exploring the aizuchi of host and


guests to ªnd if these devices are used to achieve control or cooperation in the

communication.

Previous studies

A vast literature on language and gender diŸerences in English suggests that

women are better listeners than men across diŸerent cultures (American,

English, Australian, New Zealand) (Edelsky, 1981; Fishman, 1978; Holmes,

1986a, 1993; Maltz and Borker, 1982; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Woods,

1988). Women have been found to give more backchannels than men (for

English, see Fishman, 1978; Coates, 1989b; Reid, 1992, 1995; for Japanese, see

Kurosaki, 1987; N. Mizutani, 1988a). The dominance theorists argue that

women are more accommodating because they are socially inferior (Cameron,

1992; LakoŸ, 1973; Swan, 1989; Troemel-Ploetz, 1992; Woods, 1988; West and

Zimmerman, 1983). On the other hand, the diŸerence theorists explain the

diŸerence in terms of male and female subcultures (Maltz and Borker, 1982;

Goodwin, 1981; Tannen, 1984, 1994a, 1994b).

Among many studies that observed that women backchannel more (Maltz

Borker, 1982; Holmes and Stubbe, 1997; Reid, 1992, 1995; H. Yamada, 1992)

that by Reid (1992, 1995) shows that women in interviews use more backchan-

nels than men when talking to same gender interlocutors, regardless of status.

At the same time, her results in the mixed pairs indicate that while women’s

backchannels decrease, men’s increase. This phenomenon is explained in terms

of interpersonal accommodation theory, where speakers adjust their speech to

that of their listeners.

Zimmerman and West (1975) write that men use minimal responses in a

diŸerent way to women. They use delayed minimal responses and therefore do

not provide the same positive feedback that women do. Delayed minimal

responses or ‘negative’ responses are backchannels given after a pause (see

Fishman, 1978; Yoshii, 1996). They ‘may function to signal a lack of understand-

ing or even lack of interest and inattention to the current talk’ (Zimmerman and

West, 1975: 123). On the other hand, Maltz and Borker (1982) suggest that men

and women use backchannels with diŸerent meanings. While men use them to

indicate agreement, women use them to show participation.

In the English language, the function of backchannels has also been associ-

ated with the ‘supportive role’ that is equated with powerlessness (Fishman,

1978). However, according to Coates, ‘It shouldn’t be automatically assumed

177Aizuchi tokens and asymmetry

that the use of these forms denotes powerlessness’ (1989a: 196). In Japanese,

powerlessness is probably expressed diŸerently, because aizuchi is an essential

tool in spoken communication; it is used by all interlocutors in this data,

regardless of gender, age, and status, as shown in the previous chapter. This

ªnding suggests that in cultures where backchannels are an integral part of

verbal communication, they should not be automatically associated with ‘fe-

male style’.

Studies on aizuchi and gender, status and age in Japan are few. However,

those that have been published report contradicting results. Some ªndings on

the in¶uence of status show that juniors or those inferior in status give fewer

aizuchi to seniors or superiors (N. Mizutani, 1988a). Others, like Sugito (1987),

state that the degree of closeness between participants in a conversation may be

a key factor in the frequency of aizuchi: the less intimate the relationship the

higher the number of aizuchi. A lower frequency of aizuchi is reported as one

way to show attentiveness (1987: 92).

On the in¶uence of gender,1 age, status and role in more formal situations,

Kurosaki (1987) used a very wide range of subjects, from primary school

students to sixty ªve-year-olds. He found that both younger and older women

give more aizuchi than males, although the diŸerence is not great in the school

students’ age group. While Kurosaki’s study provides interesting results, it is

di¹cult to assess the aizuchi behaviour in mixed groups and when other

factors such as status or power are present.

On language, gender and power, Ehara et al.’ s (1993) results contradict the

image of women as more polite. Their ªndings indicate that females give

‘positive’ but males give ‘negative’ (delayed) aizuchi. Also, they found more

aizuchi in female-male pairs than in all-female groups. The higher backchan-

nelers in the former group are women. The female subjects in the female-male

pairs produce high-pitched aizuchi that are characteristic of the ‘good and

sweet female’ role in Japanese society (Yoshii, 1996: 214–215). In contrast, the

aizuchi in the all-female pairs are not accompanied by any particular character-

istic, and contrary to the supportive and encouraging attitude shown in the

mixed pairs, female interlocutors compete to gain the ¶oor.

On cross-cultural communication, Hayashi writes that ‘Japanese women

subjects were quiet listeners, that they seldom sent backchannel signals when

they were ¶oor holders or supporters, and sent main channel signals only when

they were holding a collaborative ¶oor’ (1996: 206). A collaborative ¶oor is

when all members participate in the conversation and they hold one ¶oor. She

further reports that ‘Japanese women, whose single ¶oor-holding time is far


shorter than that of Japanese men, play the role of supporting men’s ¶oor’

(1996: 206).

Kurosaki (1987), Ehara et al. (1993), Yoshii (1996) and Hayashi (1996) all

state that women backchannel more than men. However, when it is an all-

female interchange they do not engage in this ‘supportive style’. Ehara et al.

and Yoshii explain this discrepancy as power related. On the other hand, T.

Yamada’s (1995) study on interview speech stresses the importance of the type

of interaction as opposed to the gender of the participants, as she found no

aizuchi in news interviews.

The studies on minimal responses and asymmetric relationships have

taken gender as the central focus. However, it is not possible to isolate gender,

status, or power and treat them completely separately as they are interrelated.

Gender diŸerences in aizuchi

Despite a numerical diŸerence in the interviews, with a higher number of

aizuchi in interviews with younger guests, especially in the all-female interac-

tions, there are no striking diŸerences between men and women (see Table 5

and 6 in Appendix). All aizuchi in this study data are used positively, and the

interactions between host and guests exhibit a highly cooperative and collabo-

rative stance. Interestingly, there are more diŸerences due to age and status

than to the gender of the participants.

The next excerpt illustrates some of the cooperative ways of talk. The guest

is a female pianist, who also gives lectures on educational and managerial

techniques. In the extract, she explains that success depends on how to use

words to criticize ‘constructively’. Note the aizuchi (lines 5, 8 and 11), repeti-

tion (lines 7, 8, 11) and overlaps (lines 6–7), all of which indicate the host’s

cooperative interaction. This is reciprocated when the host talks throughout

the interview. The guest in lines 1–6 says that there are positive ways (and

negative ways) of saying the same thing. She gives an example of some of her

students who are very unreliable. At this point, the host sends her the aizuchi,

un. The guest continues saying that those students are hopeless and the host

adds a sentence to the guest’s narrative in lines 6–7. Note the overlap and the

repetition of the words nai ko mo in line 7. Repetition is also observed in the

host’s sentence, which follows the same syntactic pattern as the guest’s: verb

(oo)+ mo nai ko, and when she takes the ¶oor in line 12.


(1) (F8.6)

1 G: oonaji koto o iu ni shitemo/ purasu

same thing O say in even-do plus

2 no channeru tte iu koto arimasu deshoo/

gen channel Qt say com be-pre cop-hort

3 tatoeba uchi no seito mo ippai

for-examplehome gen student also many

4 kimasu yo ne/ tayorinai ko mo iru n

come fp fp unreliable child also be com

5 desu ne/ (un.) hakkiri itte doo shoo mo

cop fp uh-huh clearly say-conj how do also

6 nai ko (@@ homeyoo no [nai ko

be-neg child praise-hort gen be-neg child

7 mo]) [nai ko mo.] yappari tayorinaku

also be-neg child also after-all timidly

8 hiitete (un.) souiu toki ni tayorinai tte

play-conj uh-huh that time in hesitant Qt

9 iuto mainasu desu kara/ ara!

say-cond minus cop because oh-my

10 sofuto na oto motteru janai toka

soft cop sound have cop-neg like

11 (ah! sofuto) yawarakai oto ne/

ah soft soft sound fp

12 T: sofuto na oto motteru janai. [toka#

soft cop sound have cop-neg like

‘G: To say the same thing/ there is a way to say it positively. For example,

there are some students who come to me, who have nothing to be

praised for (@@ children who have nothing [to be praised for]) [children

who have nothing] When they play, they do it without any life. (uh-huh)

So in those cases, if you say that your music is not lively, you give a

negative comment, so you say: oh, my! What a delicate sound. Or (ah,

delica)-it is a soft sound, isn’t, it?

T: What a delicate sound, [or-

The next example is from an interview with an older female guest, the widow of

a famous writer. They are talking about the time when they, the late writer and


the guest, met. The host uses unªnished utterances as politeness strategies. In

line 2, the host does not ªnish her question. She asks her guest whether they

had met before the husband went to Kyoto University. The guest repeats the

host’s words mae desu. The host’s line 4 is missed by the guest, and the host

returns to that topic in line 8. In lines 5–8, the guest completes her answer with

additional information. She says that they met before she graduated from high

school. The host sends two aizuchi in that turn. The ªrst is a continuer un after

a noun phrase and the second is a very polite newsmarker ah! Soo de

irasshaimashita. The host’s question in line 8 is not direct. The lead-in sorede

(line 8) is pronounced with vowel lengthening, there is a ªller ano, and the

phrase achira wa juudoo ga is followed by the phrase chotto shinjirarenain-

desukedo. All indicate the host is rephrasing her question; this may be an FTA

because she is changing the topic. The guest sends an aizuchi in line 10. The

host’s question is syntactically unªnished when the guest takes the ¶oor in line

11. Other cooperative strategies are the host’s aizuchi in line 11, and her

acknowledgement in line 15, which is followed by a compliment after the

guest’s aizuchi.

(2) (F1.2)

1 T: ah. ja moo Kyooto daigaku yorimo motto

ah so already Kyoto university from more

2 maeni

before

3 G: mae desu.

before cop

4 T: juudoo

judo

5 G: watakushi ga (un) jogakkoo sotsugyooshita

I S uh-huh women’s-high-school graduate-past

6 toshi gurai (ah! [soo/] [hai.] deirasshaimashita.)

year about oh so yes cop-hon-past

7 hai.

yes.

8 T: sorede= ano achira wa juudoo ga chotto

then uhm he top judo S a-little

9 shinjirarenai n desu kedo.tottemo juudoo-

believe-neg com cop but very judo


10 (soo desu ne.) sugokute

yes cop fp great-conj

11 G: hai. rokudan degozaimasu ka? (nee/) nakunatte

yes six-dan cop-hon Q isn’t, it die-conj

12 kara rokudan itadakimashita keredomo. maa jitsuryoku

after six-dan receive-past but well capability

13 wa gozaimashite. imade iu Yamashita ni ataru

top cop-pol-conj now say Yamashita to correspond

14 soo desu.

I-hear cop

15 T: SONNa datta n desu ka/ (hai.) soo iu

that-kind cop-past com cop Q yes that say

16 kata ga mata Nihon ichi no sakka ni

person S too Japan one gen writer into

17 onarininaru to iu no mo sugoi desu nee.

become-hon Qt say com also great cop fp

18 (@@@) ((continues))

‘T: Oh, so much earlier than (when he was attending) Kyoto University

G: It was before

T: Judo

G:It was sometime around when I graduated from (girl’s) high school

(oh, [was it] so!!) [yes] yes.

T: A==nd, he, it is unbelievable, but judo (yes, it was so) he was really

great

G: Yes, He was six-dan? (isn’t, it?) Although, he got the sixth dan after he

died. But, he had the capacity and I hear he was as strong as Yamashita.

T: Was he that strong? (yes) It is also wonderful that he was the number

one writer in Japan (@@@) ((continues))

The same level of cooperation and politeness was present in interviews with

male guests. The extracts from two interviews illustrate that aizuchi by male

guests in fact conformed to the cooperative and collaborative style that has

been associated with ‘female’ style. In example (3), the guest talks about a

decree issued during WW II that all types of plants were to be destroyed. The

guest sends aizuchi at almost all the ‘aizuchi-relevance-points’ in lines 2, 4, and

5. Also, in lines 7–8, when he starts to answer the host, his interruption is not

aggressive. She asks him to talk about the government decree that forced them

to fell all the cherry trees.


(3) (M2.5)

1 T: mo sakura ni mo ironna shurui ga

well cherry of also various types S

2 aru node odorokimashita keredomo (hai.) ano.

be because surprise-past but yes well

3 nani ga oshii to itte sensoochuu sakura o

what S pity Qt say-conj war-during cherry O

4 kire to iu meirei ga (hai.) kiteshimatte

cut-imp Qt say order S yes come-ended

5 (hai.) otaku no sakura o zenbu

yes your-house gen cherry O all

6 kitta tte iu soko n tokoro no ohanashi

cut Qt say there com place gen story

7 chotto shite [itadakitai-

little do-conj receive

8 G: [moo un aso kore wane. maa iroiro ---maa jidai

well uhm the- this top fp well many well period

9 jidai de maa ((continues))

period and well

‘T: I am astonished to learn that there are so many species of cherry trees

(yes) but, uhm, what is a loss is that during the war there was an order

(yes) to fell all cherry trees (yes) and you had to cut down your own

cherry trees. Could you tell us [something about-

G: [ Well, uhm the this is well the period and ((continues))’

Even in interviews with older males, who do not send as many aizuchi as the

female guests do, all aizuchi are positive. The following extract is from an

interview with a male actor over 50. The narration focuses on the camaraderie

and bonding of his fellow army o¹cers when the ship they were travelling on

was sunk. Note the repetition in line 1. The guest starts his turn in line 3 with

the SFP ne, which is customarily uttered at the end of grammatical units such

as noun phrases, adjectivals or verbs. It is a very cooperative communicative

tool and similar to the English tag question.

(4) (M1)

1 T: ee, mattete (mattete) moo jibuntachi no inochi

yes wait-conj wait-conj yet they-pl gen life


2 datte abunai noni#

even in-danger though

3 G: ne/ jibuntachi ga abunai noni nee/

isn’t, it? they-pl S in-danger though isn’t, it?

‘T: Yes, (they) waited and (they waited) although their own lives were in

danger#

G: Yes. Even though their own lives were in danger. Isn’t, it?

As we can see from the examples, there are no negative aizuchi, and men and

women use aizuchi in a collaborative way. However, variations in aizuchi use

are found along role and age diŸerences, and these are explained in the follow-

ing sections of this chapter.

Aizuchi of host and guests

There is an enormous variety of aizuchi; some of the archetypal tokens such as

hai, un, ee soo were described in Chapter 5. They are sent mainly after major

breaks and are multifunctional. In particular, the hai token is largely absent

from the host’s speech. Instead, the host uses aizuchi naruhodo, which strongly

suggests a role-based diŸerence. In addition, formal and informal and dupli-

cated tokens are used to convey particular messages, be they of formality or

solidarity, and their distribution in the data also reveals role and age diŸerences.

Naruhodo: A role speciªc aizuchi

It is only the host who uses the aizuchi token naruhodo ‘I see’: an adverb/

interjection used when the ‘speaker expresses his/her feelings after being con-

vinced that certain opinions or knowledge from a third party are really true after

counterchecking with reality’2 (Morita, 1994: 878). Mizutani and Mizutani

write that the word naruhodo belongs to a group of expressions which are used

in a ‘monologue-like way in polite speech. When speakers use this word in

public, they have to do it so that they show that it is directed to them rather than

to the other participant. If speakers do not show some diŸerence by lowering

the tone or a falling intonation, they would be very impolite’ (1987: 21). They

further say that people use such expressions to show enthusiasm: ‘Interviewers

on radio or TV programs for example, often say naruhodo to show that they

are so absorbed in the conversation that they have forgotten to pay attention


to formalities: by doing this they encourage those they are interviewing’

(1987: 21). These observations are applicable to the present data. Examples of

this token abound, and can be seen in excerpts previously presented. They are

sent just after major junctures, and at TRPs. They overlap with the speech of the

speaker and occur at the beginning of turns. They either stand on their own, or

are accompanied by other aizuchi tokens, SFPs, and by vowel lengthening and

falling intonation.

Naruhodo are also followed by further talk. In (1), naruhodo appears in

turn-initial position. In the interview, various accessories and Japanese kimo-

nos are displayed as the guest explains about the designs, materials and so on.

Most of the items are from the 18th and 19th centuries, when the majority of

Japanese women wore kimonos. The guest comments that the artisans of

former times created so many items because there was competition. The host

sends her aizuchi after a considerably long turn. Naruhodo (in line 5) is

accompanied by an SFP and is immediately followed by further talk. It is also

used to indicate topic shift.

(5) (F5)

1 G: ne/ yappari nihonjuu ga kimono kitemasuto

fp after-all Japan-all S kimono wear-cond

2 yappari sore ni tachisawaru ano shokunintachi ga

after-all that in involve uhm artisan-pl S

3 kisotte ano ii mono o koshiraete soiu jidai

compete uhm good thing o make that time

4 yappari [datta to omoimasu.

after-all cop-past Qt think

5 →T: [naruhodo ne. sorekara sono usagi no

I-see fp then that rabbit gen

6 katachi nanka mo joozuni dekitemasu ne/

shape well too skilfully make fp

‘G: Isn’t it? I think that after all, it was a time when every Japanese wore

kimonos and the artisans engaged in creating diŸerent artifacts competed

to make beautiful things.

T: I see. And, that (embroidered) rabbit is really skillfully done, isn’t it?

In the next example, naruhodo is also followed by the SFP ne. Here, both talk

about one of the characters in a play in which the guest performed. While the

guest and host talk, a photograph of one of the guest’s performances is shown


on the screen. From the guest’s explanation we know that there are two people

in the photograph. In line 3, the host says ah. korewa noofuooku no hoo,

indicating that she had thought otherwise. The turn-initial ah is similar to the

English Oh (Heritage, 1984b; SchiŸrin, 1987), and is a ‘change-of-state’ token.

Ohs in English appear in the dialogue when the ‘producer has undergone some

kind of change in his or her locally current state of knowledge, information,

orientation or awareness’ (Heritage, 1984b: 229). Likewise the Japanese ah

indicates sudden realization. The guest conªrms the host’s statement with a

short aizuchi at the end of line 3. He then explains that the person in the

photograph is Norfolk, the former lover of Queen Elizabeth, and not Sir

Henry, in the play directed by Andrzej Wajda. Note that naruhodo can be sent

only when the information is complete. In this segment, it is acknowledged by

another aizuchi token hai.

(6) (M10)

1 G: kore wa ano migi ni iru no wa Nofuooku

this top uhm right in be gen top Norfolk

2 to itte/

Qt call-conj

3 T: ah. kore wa Nofuuoku [no hoo] [(e.)]

oh. this top Norfolk gen side yeah

4 G: hontoo no koibito no mae ni iru.. shinrai

real gen lover gen before in be trust

5 dekiru mukashi no koibito.

be-able previous gen lover.

4→ T: naruhodo ne/ (hai.)

I-see fp yes

‘G: The one on the right side is Norfolk and

T: Oh. This is [Norfolk.] [(Yeah.)]

G: The ex-lover, the lover whom she could really trust.

T: I see. (yes)’

Naruhodo can also overlap with the speaker’s speech, as in the next example.

The guest explains the advantages of the Japanese writing system in document-

ing Japanese literary material in that it resolves the ambiguity of many hom-

onyms. The host’s aizuchi is sent in the middle of the guest’s turn as can be seen

in line 6, and it is clear that the main piece of information is given in the

preceeding lines. Naruhodo is sent after the guest repeats the words Nihon no


mono. In this example, it appears that this token shows the host’s involvement

in the interview, as the guest’s explanation continues after line 6.

(7) (M9)

1 G: eh. orijinaru ga nihongo na n desu kedo/Nihon no

eh original S Japanese cop com cop but Japan gen

2 hon no koto desu node, eigo de kakimasuto,

book gen thing cop because English inst write-cond

3 dooiu ji o kaku n da ka wakaranai desu ne/

what letter O write com cop Q know-neg cop fp

4 doomei ga ooi desu kara, Nihon no mono wa

homonyms S lot cop because Japan gen thing top

5 desu ne, kanji ga wakaranaito imi ga

cop fp kanji S know-neg-cond meaning S

6 wakannnai n desu ne/ nihon no [mono.[(naruhodo.)]

understand-neg com cop fp Japan gen thing I-see

‘Yes, the original is in Japanese. Because it is about Japan, if you write it

in English, you don’t know what characters to write. Because there are so

many homonyms [in Japanese.] [(I see)] ((continues)).’

Naruhodo is also sent after SFPs or other signals, such as deshoo. The next

example shows such an exchange. The guest talks about musical scores. Previ-

ously, he raises the topic of copyright issues related to scores, that is whether

musicians use photocopies or not. The host acknowledges the guest’s explana-

tion by sending naruhodo in line 3, after the guest’s SFP ne.

(8) (M6)

1 G: dakara bokutachi mo. honban de wa kopiifu wa

therefore I-pl too performance in top copies top

2 narubeku tsukawanai yooni shite imasu. (a.) de tada renshuu

as-possible use-neg like do be oh and only practice

3 → yooni kopi o toru wake desu ne/ (naruhodo.) ie de

for copy o take com cop fp I-see home in

4 minna renshuu shite kuru yooni ne/ ((continues))

everybody practice do come like fp

‘G: Therefore, we try not to use the photocopies when we perform. (oh.)

But, we xerox them for everyday practice, you see? (I see) It is for

everybody to practice at home ((continues)).’


As shown in these examples, the host uses naruhodo as an interviewing tool and

its use is more restricted than that of other aizuchi. Firstly, it is sent only after

the information is made known. Secondly, it is used by the host only. It would

be inappropriate for the guests to use it in the interview setting because of the

character of the exchange and the goal of the interaction.

Naruhodo has two main functions: to indicate understanding of the con-

tent and to mark topic shift. When the guests reveal some information that is

new or interesting to her, the host sends this token to show that it is something

unknown to her, or that she has ªnally understood something. It also appears

that the host sends the token after she has been persuaded one way or another

about a particular issue.

The fact that none of the guests uses this particular token indicates that it is

role determined. The comments of Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) on the

inappropriateness of this aizuchi in terms of politeness are arguable as the host

uses it with older guests too. As with other discourse markers, naruhodo is used

by the host to facilitate the ¶ow of the interview.

Formal and informal aizuchi tokens

Similar to verbs, there are formal and informal tokens in Japanese aizuchi. While

some aizuchi tokens such as ee can be used regardless of the situation or the

relationship between speakers, the usage of soo and its variants is more restricted.

Soo, as described in Chapter 5, is sent after some information is conveyed and it

functions as a newsmarker and acknowledgement. It can be accompanied by

diŸerent grammatical and prosodic endings that convey diŸerent messages.

Varying degrees of formality are expressed in the ending of the copula, which

may appear in the plain, formal or polite forms: sooda, soodesu, soodegozaimasu.

The single soo and the informal sooda are used between friends and family

members, or when talking with people of lower status. Intonation is crucial in

determining the intended message. Soo with fall-rising intonation indicates mild

disagreement. With falling intonation it conveys an utterance such as ‘I under-

stand’ or ‘I agree’ or ‘Exactly’.

The guest in (9) talks about music scores and technology. Note that the

host sends soo after a conjunctive particle reported to be a potential TRP (Mori;

1999; Tanaka, 1999). Semantically, soo indicates some degree of agreement and

because the host has a degree in music we can assume that she totally agrees

with her guest from her own experience. This can be observed in the way she

utters soo in line 3. It is single and with falling intonation.


(9) (M6)

1 G: yappari gakufu tte iu no wa wareware ni

after-all scores Qt say com top we to

2 totte baiburu mitaina mon desu kara

for Bible like thing cop therefore

3 → (soo.)tada chotto yappari kankaku ga chigau ((continues))

yes only little after-all perception S diŸerent

‘G: After all, the score is like the Bible for us, so (Yes) although maybe

the perception is a little diŸerent ((continues))’

Soo can also occur with SFPs, with an added degree of involvement and

intimacy. In the next fragment, the host comments on the quantity of kimonos

the guest had donated to the television company where she had worked. The

guest is a senpai ‘senior’ of the host, and she uses the informal type of aizuchi, as

can be seen in lines 3, 5 and 6. On both occasions, the aizuchi soo is followed by

na no, which are SFPs used among very close friends.

(10) (F4)

1 T: nEE/ demo ishoosan wa ah! Taishoo no kimono

fp but costumer top oh Taisho gen kimono

2 wa kore de toobun tasukarimasu toka minna itte

top this with for-a-while help-pol like all say

3 → kaasan no[ittexxx ([soo na no.)] ja kaasan wa

mother gen say yes fp fp then mother top

4 juumai dake kimono o nokoshite. (e.) ma= shiraga

10-pcs only kimono o remain-conj yes well white-hair

5 → ni niaisoona. kimono o nokoshite Shoonan

in match-like kimono o remain-conj Shoonan

6 → ni irasshita n desu kedo.(soo na no.) sokode

to go-past-hon com cop But yes fp fp there

7 atarashii kimono tsui. tsukutteshimatta tte@ iu

new kimono inadvertently make-end-past Qt say

‘T: Isn’t, it? But the costumer said that they would have enough kimonos

from the Taisho Period and were really happy. Mother, your xxx (yeah)

So, you have just kept 10 kimonos (uh-huh), kimonos that would match

your white hair, and you moved to Shoonan (yeah) and there you ended

up having more kimonos made for you, I’ve heard.’


This is the only guest in the interview data who does not use any honoriªc

forms (see Chapter 4) and who maintains a very informal stance, even in the

use of aizuchi.

While all the soo variants have been classiªed as belonging to one category,

there are some diŸerences, among these variants, as previously explained. The

guest in the next example talks about his duties as a prosecutor in the Tribunal.

He says that after being promoted he could not perform some tasks that he had

obviously liked. The guest’s aizuchi ends with a rising intonation in line 2 and

functions in a similar way to a turn-initial token. It has been reported that

phrases ending in the conditional forms -to, -tara, -ba, also known as conjunc-

tive particles, are potential TRPs (Tanaka, 1999). In this particular case, the -to

is linked to the previous section of the talk called ‘skip-tying’, when the speaker

refers to a previous utterance ‘skipping’ other talk (SchegloŸ, 1996a). The host

adds the phrase mo zenzen, even though it seems that she does not intend to

continue her turn, which is handed over to her guest immediately after.

(11) (M3)

1 T: tokuni kanji no oshigoto ga suki da to

especially inspector gen job S like cop Qt

2 → suruto, (soo desu ne/) mo zenzen,

do-cond yes cop fp well totally

3 G: ee/ moo chokusetu futsuu no (e.) shirabe nanka

yes well directly normal gen yes inquiry like

4 totte mo ne/ (e.) ano, yarenai posuto ni natchau

take too fp yes well do-neg post in become

5 → n de, (ah soo=/)[ e.] (deirasshaimasu ka/) hontooni

com and oh yes yes cop-pol Q really

6 binbooshoo na n desu yo ne.

born-to-be-poor cop com cop fp fp

‘T: Especially, if you like the job of an inspector, (yes, as you say), well

nothing

G: Yes. Well, even an ordinary (yes) inquiry, you see (yes) uhm, you are

in a post that does not allow you to (oh. Is it so?) I can’t change, it is in

my nature, you see.’

When soo is preceded by the exclamation ah with a rising intonation, it is used

to express surprise and works as a newsmarker and as an assessment. Like all

soo variants, it can have polite endings as in the above example. In line 5, the


host sends her aizuchi pronounced with the lengthening of the vowel, rising

intonation and the most polite ending. Note that an aizuchi is sent in the

middle of ah soo=deirasshaimasuka. This token is extremely polite and indi-

cates the host’s stance towards the guest. He is older than she and, most

importantly, they are meeting for the ªrst time. The formality is also main-

tained by the guest.

The aizuchi so when accompanied by a complementizer conveys a stronger

feeling of agreement and intimacy. It means ‘Yes, that it is exactly so’. The next

example is on the topic of the composer Antonio Vivaldi. The guest’s aizuchi

soonandesu is sent soon after the host starts her turn, and the information is not

new for the listener. The complementizer nan is used for explanations and

stresses the point of the speaker.

(12) (F8)

1 → T: ah soo/ juunana seiki no. (soo na n desu.) hito

oh. yes 17 century gen yes cop com cop person

2 na n desu ne/

cop com cop fp

3 G: hai. nanka ano== sakigoro seitan sanbyaku nen ga/

yes uhm well recently birth 300 year S

‘T: Really? From the 17th century (yes, he is), he is from that period.

G: Yes, well, recently the 300th anniversary of his birth ((continues))

For the varied examples we can see that the token soo has diŸerent functions

according to not only prosodic characteristics but also other accompanying

elements. The factor of known/unknown information decides the most appro-

priate type of soo. When soo is pre-faced with ah and pronounced with falling

intonation, the listener indicates that the information is completely new to

him/her. Depending on the intonation, soo can also contain some element of

doubt. (see example (14) in Chapter 5). In that excerpt, the guest utters the

token a soodesuka ‘I don’t believe you/ Do you really think so?’ with rising

intonation in response to a compliment. When soo is followed by the comple-

mentizer na and an additional SFP or the copula, the information is not new to

the listener. The soo token in these cases is used to indicate agreement and

functions more as a continuer. If soo is accompanied by na and other SFPs such

as no or yo, there is additional pragmatic information which is related to the

degree of intimacy and informality.


Younger guests overwhelmingly use formal tokens

There seems to be a clear and predictable distribution of formal and informal

aizuchi tokens in the interview data. While younger guests, both men and

women, overwhelmingly use the formal aizuchi token soodesu, some of the

older guests send the single and more informal token soo. The host, on the

other hand, consistently sends informal aizuchi to her younger guests but not

to her older guests. This observation reinforces the claim that almost every

Japanese word has a pragmatic content, which is deªned by the relationship

between speakers (see Chapter 1).

Examples (13), (14) and (15) illustrate the use of formal and informal

aizuchi in interviews with older guests. Only some older guests send the single

short aizuchi, soo.

(13) (M4)

1 T: naruhodo. dakara. seirei karera wa kanjita seirei o katachi

I-see therefore spirits they top feel spirits o form

2 shitemiruto konna fuuni naru kara [jibun tachi ga]

do-try-cond this way become because oneself pl S

3 [(soo.)] odottari nanka shite (soo soo soo.) de sore ((continues))

yes dance like do yes yes yes and that

‘T: I see, that is why. Spirits. When they feel the spirits (are there), they

represent them in these ways, so [they] [(yes)] do things like dancing

(yes, yes, yes) and that ((continues))’

(14) (M2)

1 T: minna uemuki nanoni sakura wa mite hoshii kara

all up-looking even-though cherry top look want because

2 [shita o muiteru n dakara [(soo soo soo)] ((continues))

down o face com therefore yes yes yes

‘T: Though all (the ¶owers) look upwards, the cherry ¶owers [look

downwards] [(yes, yes, yes)] because they want to be admired ((contin-

ues))’

(15) (F1)

1 T: soreni kaeri nanka tabemono kattekaeru toka (soo soo soo.)

also returning like food buy-return like yes yes yes

2 osshatte. ogenki datta n desu ne (e.)

say-hon-conj healthy cop-past com cop fp uh-huh

‘T: And he said (yes, yes, yes) that he was going to buy food on the way

back and he was ªne, wasn’t it (uh-huh)’


In the above examples, the guests send their aizuchi while the host uses

formulations possibly directed at the audience as a way of facilitating the ¶ow

of the interview. Therefore, the aizuchi function as agreement because there is

no new information for the listeners. Furthermore, the tokens overlap with the

host’s turn or they are sent in the middle of her utterances.

Except for one particular older female guest who has a very close rela-

tionship with the host, the other guests show no particular characteristics

apart from being older than the host. However, not every older guest uses the

informal soo. The host, on the other hand, sends informal aizuchi consis-

tently to her younger guests, male and female, as the following examples

illustrate.

(16) (M8)

1 G: boku haita n desu kedo ne (un.) de sono

I enter-past com cop but fp uh-huh and that

2 ikisastu wa mata betsutoshite, (sore wa so soo.)

circumstance top next-time put-aside that top yes yes

3 nagaku narimasu kara. betsuto[shite. [(e. soo soo soo.)

long become therefore put-aside uh-huh. yes yes yes

‘G: I entered (that baseball team), you see (uh-huh) and leaving aside

those circumstances (of course, yes, yes) because it is a long story, so

[putting aside] [(uh-huh. yes, yes)]’

(17) (F7)

1 G: katei no sutoresu mo [aru deshooshi. yappari

family gen stress also be cop-hort-conj after-all

2 T: [ soo soo soo de okosan ne futari kakaete ne. sore

yes yes yes and child-pol fp two have-conj fp that

3 Wa taihen datta to omoimasu yo ne. ((continues))

top hard cop-past Qt think fp fp

‘G: Stress from family (problems) [would be

T:[yes, yes, yes and with two children, isn’t, it? I really think that it was

very di¹cult. ((continues))’

(18) (M10)

1 T: Jan Kokutoo wa shijin [demo

Jean Cocteau top poet also

2 G: [shijin deari gaka deattari eiga kantoku

poet cop-conj painter cop-conj movie director


3 yattari (soo soo.) iroiro shitemasu[shi ne/

do-conj yes yes various do-conj fp

4 T: [soo soo. shibai mo kaiteru. ((continues))

yes yes theatre also write

‘T: Jean Cocteau is a poet [and

G: [Is a poet, a painter, a movie director (yes yes) he does various

things,[ right?

T: [Yes yes. He also writes (for the) theatre ((continues)).’

In all the examples (16–18), the host uses duplicated short forms of soo. They

function as agreements as they are sent after some major section of the informa-

tion is delivered. The host’s stance is very cooperative and encourages the guests

to speak. This is especially so in examples 16 and 17, where the host and the

guest contribute to the narrative, as seen in the co-construction of the turns.

Two excerpts from interviews with younger guests illustrate clearly that

aizuchi tokens have a pragmatic function quite apart from that of a minimal

response. The diŸerence in usage between host and guests is particularly

striking. In the ªrst excerpt, the host comments on working mothers. The

guest is a famous actress and a mother of two children. The host starts her turn

with the aizuchi token ah soo, which is accompanied by a rising-falling intona-

tion and functions as an acknowledgement. The guest sends an acknowledge-

ment in line 4. Note the contrast between the host’s soo token, which is rather

informal, and the guest’s formal aizuchi soo with the copula in the polite form.

(19) (F9)

1→ T : ah soo. anata mo are dake oshigoto takusan

oh really you too that much work much

2 oyarininagara deshita kara taihen/maa dono

do-while-hon cop-past because hard well which

3 okaasan mo taihen to [omoimasu kedomo/]

mother also hard Qt think but

4 →G: [ (soo desu ne/ e.)]

yes cop fp yes

T: Oh, really. You work so much while being a mother, well I think that

every mother [has a lot of work], [(yes, indeed. yes) but.’

In (20), a Kabuki actor talks about his acting academy. Note that the host starts

her turn with ah soo na no in lines 2 and 5. The accompanying SFPs add the

degree of informality, an aspect in the host’s speech observed also in the turn-


ªnal deshitakke in line 3. Kke is an informal particle to reiterate or emphasize a

question. On the other hand, the guest acknowledges her aizuchi with another

token. Hai is sent in the middle of the host’s aizuchi in line 2, while in line 5 it is

sent right after soo nano. The guest’s soo token takes the polite form, as can be

seen in line 5.

(20) (M10)

1 G: hai. moo hajimattemasu.

yes already start-pre

2 T: ah. soo/(hai.)na no. kore boshuu ttate doo

oh yes yes fp fp this recruit even-say how

3 suru n deshita kke/

do com cop-past fp

4 G: konserubatorii tte iu tokoro ga arimasu kara

Conservatory Qt call place S be because

4 soko ni (e.) ano ganshoo dashitekurereba.

there in yes well application submit-cond

5 T: ah. soo/na no. (hai.) ja ichioo. (soo desu.)

Oh yes fp fp yes then at-least yes cop

‘G: Yes, it has already started.

T: Oh, really. (yes) Is it so? This, recruiting how was it done?

G: There is a place called Conservatory, so if they send their papers there

(oh, is it so?) yes.’

In (21), a newsmarker, ah soo, in plain form with rising-falling intonation, is

followed by more talk from the host who conªrms a piece of information. The

guest sends an aizuchi with the formal ending. A few lines further down, the

host sends her aizuchi in the plain form.

(21) ( F8 )

1 T: ah. soo. juunana seiki no. (soo na n desu.)

oh. yes 17 century gen yes cop com cop

2 hito na n desu ne/

person cop com cop fp

3 G: hai. nanka ano== sakigoro seitan sanbyaku nen. ga/

yes uhm well recently birth 300 year S

4 senkyuuhyakunanajuhachi nen de. ni nen mae ga

1978 year and 2 year before S


5 butsugo nihyakugojuunen. (ah soo.) data n desu

death 250- years oh. yes cop-past com cop

6 ne. hai.

FP yes.

‘T: Really? From the 17th century (Yes, he is), he is from that period.

G: Yes, well, recently the 300th anniversary of his birth was celebrated in

1978, and 2 years ago, (Really?) it was 250th years after his death. Yes’.

Duplicated tokens

Duplicated aizuchi may indicate that, because what the speaker says is not new

to the listener, it is not interesting (Horiguchi, 1997). This is especially so when

they are pronounced with ¶at intonation and delivered in rapid succession.

However, in other situations, these duplicated forms may indicate the listener’s

participation in the interaction. It is di¹cult to assess the listener’s attitude

when there are no particular characteristics in the intonation or in the timing

at which they are sent. The next example shows a triple form hai hai hai sent

after the host’s comment on a photograph. It is di¹cult to discern if it is lack of

interest or eagerness to participate because there are no other signs.

(22) (M2)

1 G: … ano==chotto shoomei wa tsuketeru n

… well little lights top turn-on com

2 desu kedo/

cop but

3 T: ah kore shasin o toru tameni/ (hai hai hai.) HAAAA.

oh this photo do take for yes yes yes really

4 shidarezakura.. kore wa imaa== genzai ano==

willow-cherry this top now present uhm

‘G: … Well, I just have installed some lights.

T: Oh. This is in order to take photos? (yes, yes, yes) Really? Willow-

cherry.. This is now uhm…’

However, in (23), when the host uses a reformulation, the guest sends aizuchi

at a very high rate. Note that the four tokens in lines 2 and 3 are sent every two

or three words in an utterance that contains very little information. Wake, the

copula, and nantoka have almost no semantic content, but the guest sends an

aizuchi on four consecutive occasions. In a similar fashion, hai hai hai is sent


right after the host says to omotte, which again contains absolutely no new

information. The guest in this example is a high backchanneler and it is not

clear whether these duplicated tokens are an idiosyncrasy or he is impatient.

(23) (M5)

1 T: de kore dake sukima ga arun dakara (hai.) maa

and this much space S be com because yes well

2 daijoobujanai ka to omotte futsuu kutsu kattchau (hai.) wake

ªne-neg Q Qt think usually shoe buy-end yes reason

3 (hai.) desu yo ne/ (hai.) nantoka (hai.) to omotte

yes cop fp fp yes somehow yes Qt think

4 → (hai. hai. hai.) tokoroga, dondondondon haiteruto ashi

yes. yes. Yes but gradually wear-cond foot

5 ga nantonaku (soo desu.) itakunattekichau.

S somehow yes cop hurt-become

‘T: And, with this much space (yes) one normally would think (yes) that

it is ok (yes, yes, yes), and end buying the shoe (yes). But, as one keeps

wearing them, they start (exactly) hurting.

The next fragment shows the token so sent in duplicated forms. The ªrst occurs

in lines 1 and 2. There is a repetition of sensoochuu ‘during the war’, which

indicates the listener’s participation (Tannen, 1989). The next sequences of

aizuchi in lines 4 and 5 overlap with the host’s speech and are sent after the

most relevant piece of information.

(24) (M4)

1 T: ha. kore are desho. sensoo chuu Mizuki san ga [(so

yeah this uhm cop-hort war during Mizuki T S yes

2 soo soo. senshoo chuu) Rabauru desu ka

yes yes war during Rabaul cop Q

3 G: soo sensoo chuu.

yes war during

4 T: Rabauru ni [irasshatte [(soo soo)]soko de ma=.eeto-

Rabaul in go-hon yes yes there in well uhm

5 te o.. hidari te o onakushina[tta] [(soo soo)] wake na

hand o left hand o lose-past-hon yes yes reason cop

6 n desu kedomo. (hai.)

com cop but yes


‘T: This, uhm, During the war, you (yes, yes during the war) in Rabul,

wasn’t it?

G: Yes, during the war.

T: You [were] [(yes, yes)] in Rabaul, and there well, uhm, the hand you

[lost] [(yes, yes)] the left hand, but (yes)

The only interview in which the guest consistently uses informal aizuchi to-

kens, as presented in the following example, is with a close friend and senpai of

the host. Examples from this interview are also presented in Chapter 4, in

which formal/informal shifts and forms of address are explored. This guest is

consistent in the usage of informal style, as can be observed not only in her verb

forms but also in the pronoun usage and also in her choice of aizuchi tokens.

She also uses duplicated forms, for example in line 3.

(25) ( F4)

1 T: maa nijuugo kara ..uhn= yaruto kaasan no baai

well 25 from uhm do-cond mother gen case

2 → rokujuu ni naru wa ne/ rokujuunen (eh. soo

60 in become fp fp 60-years yes yes

3 soo soo.) ne/ hachijuugosai dakara eeto/ eeh. [(xx)] yes

yes yes fp 85-year-old because uhm eh

4 [juu]sanmanko kakeru sanbyakurokujuugo kakeru [rokujuunen]

130,000-ones times 365 times 60-years

5 (rokujuu.)] maa nijuugo kara ano..

60 well 25 from well

6 → G: ii yo. daitaide,

ªne fp around

‘T: Well, if you do it from 25, in your case it is 60, isn’t it? Sixty years

(yes, yes, yes), Isn’t it? Because you are 85 years old, uhm, eh (xx) 130,

000 times 365 times 60 years (sixty) well, from 25 uhm..

G: You don’t have to be exact.’

In this example, they are talking about the belief that cells start to die from the

age of 25. Here they are trying to calculate how many cells the guest has already

lost. In line 2, the guest sends soo in a series of three consecutive tokens, which

can be a sign of impatience. Note that the guest expresses her slight annoyance

in line 6, when she urges her to give an approximate ªgure. This woman may

not ªnd age a pleasant topic.


Summary and concluding remarks

Despite reports that claim clear diŸerences in male and female aizuchi behav-

iour, there are no conclusive ªndings in this study. Male and female guests

send ‘positive’ aizuchi throughout the interviews in my data and both engage

in a cooperative and collaborative style. However, a higher frequency of aizuchi

in interviews with young female guests was clearly evident.

On the other hand, there are major diŸerences in host and guests’ aizuchi.

Some are role and situation related, like the token naruhodo, which is exclu-

sively used by the host, and hai, which is used solely by the guests (see Chap-

ter 5). Even though all aizuchi have been classiªed as a single category of

minimal responses, there are diŸerences between the tokens. The soo token has

formal and informal forms, and these are used discriminately. Some older

guests use informal forms (examples 13–15) but younger guests do not use

them at all. On the other hand, the host sends informal forms to her younger

guests (examples 16–18). The formal and informal aizuchi appear to function

in a similar way to polite and honoriªc forms, which express the status

diŸerences between interlocutors. At the same time, these aizuchi establish

psychological distance; so an informal token accompanied by an SFP such as

soonano indicates the listener’s intimacy with the speaker. On the other hand,

the polite form soodegozaimasu with falling intonation indicates not only

deference, but also a distant and detached relationship to the speaker.

A similar eŸect is observed in the use of duplicated aizuchi, which can

signal irritation or enthusiasm. Although absent from younger guests’ speech,

they are used by some of the older guests (examples 22–25).

Because the informal and abrupt token soo and its more polite forms are

distributed in a predictable way, it appears that this particular aizuchi and its

variants should be placed in a separate category. Firstly, the soo varieties show

agreement, as opposed to the shorter forms e and un, which have a broader

semantic content. Secondly, they are more restricted in their distribution as

they can only be sent after the information has been disclosed. Most impor-

tantly, they are diŸerent to other tokens because they display some pragmatic

characteristics.

Hai belongs to a subcategory as it is considered a more formal token. Its

distributional diŸerences are described in Chapter 5. Naturally, these ªndings

have to be corroborated within distinct types of exchanges, which is a project

for future research. However, I believe that these tokens need to be categorized

diŸerently.


One particular interview, mentioned in Chapter 4, shows that the guest

continuously uses informal aizuchi (example 10). The guest is a close friend

and a senpai of the host. As written in earlier chapters, human relationships in

Japan are based on a system or ranking hierarchy: ‘A Japanese ªnds his world

clearly divided into three categories, senpai (seniors), koohai (juniors) and

dooryoo (person on the same level). This ranking-consciousness is not limited

to o¹cial groups but is to be found also among writers and actors, that is,

groups which are supposed to be engaged in work based on individual ability’

(Nakane, 1970: 27). This characteristic does not change throughout life. Jun-

iors or koohai are expected to show deference to their seniors, something that

Japanese learn early in life (Nakane, 1970). The host, being her guest’s junior,

has to choose a style that shows respect and at the same time fulªls her role as

an interviewer. On the other hand, for the guest it seems that their relationship

takes precedence over the interview situation.

Aizuchi behaviour is neither static nor uniform. The same person may be a

high backchanneler in certain circumstances, depending on the relationship

with her/his interlocutors, and be a silent listener in other situations. The fact

that my data is based on television interviews entails a certain number of

conditions, including degree of formality and the presence of an audience.

Therefore, it is possible to assume that every participant is conscious of the third

participant, the audience, which is silent and not physically present but undeni-

ably important. Bell writes about the eŸect of an audience on the style of a

speaker. Although it seems style is related only to pronunciation, he neverthe-

less recognizes that ‘Audience design informs all levels of a speaker’s linguistic

choices — the switch from one complete language to another in bilingual

situation, the form of speech acts, pronoun choice, the use of honoriªcs, and

quantitative style shift. The audience is, at one level, simply the people who hear

the speaker’s utterances. Yet their role is by no means passive’ (1984: 161). This

means that both host and guest are conscious of their language use, and we can

see that they use a higher degree of politeness strategies.

Interlocutors’ behaviour cannot be explained in terms of a single factor,

but of a combination of various aspects that are characteristic of a given

culture. It appears that aizuchi frequency is more uniform when, in terms of

who holds power, there is no con¶ict between factors such as age, gender, and

status, as is the case in interviews with younger females.

To conclude, the results in this chapter suggest that age, role, and power/

status, which are key elements in Japanese society, as well as the topic and

formality of the interaction play an important role in aizuchi use. When these


factors are not in con¶ict, we can observe a more conversational stance. In the

data this is the case with young female guests, who use aizuchi with higher

frequency. Contrary to the assumption that aizuchi are sent mainly by women,

the data shows that they are used by both women and men and that, even

though the roles of host and guest are clearly set, both participants use them

frequently. DiŸerent type of aizuchi tokens, which can be informal or formal,

are used by host and guests in a strategic manner and in this way tacitly indicate

their relative status diŸerences. The choice of formal or informal aizuchi is

determined mainly by the age of the interlocutors and their relationship.

Notes

1. Maynard mentions gender diŸerences in her data, although she admits that ‘it is beyond

the scope’ of her study (Maynard, 1989: 168). Females send aizuchi more often than males

do.

2. My translation. The original is as follows: Ta kara haitte kita chishiki ya iken , genjitsu no

jookyoo nadoni ni taishite, sore ga tadashii, rikutsu ni atteiru, mottomo da to mitomeru kimochi

o arawasu (Morita, 1994: 878).

Chapter 7

Conclusion

This book examined the interaction of gender and idiosyncratic elements of

Japanese culture in the communicative process in television interviews. This

ªnal chapter condenses the most important ªndings in the study. It also

includes a discussion on the implications of these results for future research

on formal language and ‘female’ and ‘male’ communicative styles. The study

takes an interdisciplinary approach that is based primarily on conversation

analysis methodology. It focuses on turntaking and how the asymmetry in the

interview is revealed in the speech. The results suggest that as an ‘institutional’

interaction, the turntaking aspect is constrained by the role allocation, as

illustrated in the unequal distribution of questions. The asymmetry in terms

of gender, age, and status is also observed in the more ‘traditional’ aspects of

the speech: pronominal choice, formal–informal style shifts, and terms of

address. However, interruptions associated with power and dominance, are

used diŸerently. In most cases, they indicate interest in the interaction. This

suggests that in Japanese culture they do not necessarily constitute a ‘viola-

tion’, as opposed to English. This is in line with analyses of gender and

language that adopt the new approach, which places in the forefront the

importance of the context of the speakers’ community (Cameron, 1996;

Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995).

Turntaking in interviews

The theoretical framework utilized in this study is based on Sacks et al.’ s

turntaking model (1974). Besides proving that the model can be applied to a non

Indo-European language, the analyses also show that, with some modiªcations,

it can be also be applied to other types of speech events in other languages.

The host, naturally, produces more questions than her guests. However,

turntaking in interviews is not a strict sequence of question-answer adjacency

pairs. In fact, the host utilizes a variety of information-eliciting strategies, and

most of the TCUs are grammatically unªnished turns. This aspect reinforces


past studies on the incomplete nature of spoken Japanese as a characteristic

of a society that avoids imposition (Kindaichi, 1990; Mizutani and Mizutani,

1987; Ooishi, 1971; Okamoto, 1985). It also demonstrates the bi-functional-

ity of politeness strategies in Japanese. The host uses unªnished turns as a

sign of politeness towards older guests and of solidarity and informality with

younger guests.

Turntaking occurs in 29.4% of grammatically complete and in 28.3% of

unªnished utterances. Role diŸerences can be observed in the types of turn

construction units (TCU) prior to turntaking. Of the entire host’s turns, 23.9%

are grammatically unªnished and 15.9% are ªnished utterances. The guests’

TCUs are distributed inversely: 32.7% are unªnished utterances and 43% are

ªnished utterances. This suggests that the host is more polite than the guest,

because unªnished utterances can imply a higher degree of politeness as they

impose less on the listener. The guests, on the other hand, have to be more

explicit because there is little or no shared information.

Chapter 4 explores the asymmetry in the interview, focusing on age, gen-

der and status diŸerences. It shows that aggressive interruptions are very rare

in the data. However, non-aggressive interruptions are quite common, and are

especially conspicuous in interviews with young female guests. As Murata

(1994) points out, Japanese often use cooperative interruptions, which in the

Japanese context are not considered ‘violations’ but signals of interest and

collaboration. Contrary to the ªndings on interruptions and gender (West and

Zimmerman, 1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975), it was the younger female

guests who interrupted the most, which reinforces the claim that these are

cooperative interruptions.

A pattern, repeatedly observed in Chapters 4 and 6, is the distinctive style

in interactions with younger guests, especially females. In the analysis of TCUs,

the most consistent results are found in the all-female younger group, where

there is a greater number of turns, of non-aggressive interruptions, and a more

conversational style is observed. This indicates that there is less con¶ict in this

group because the guests are younger and hence accept the other female, the

host, as the power holder.

Pronominal choice, terms of address and style shifts were also analysed in

Chapter 4. Men use the masculine ªrst person pronoun, and women use the

standard form. This ªnding shows that, in the typical gender markers, guests

and host still adhere to the norms. When addressing the interlocutor, the host

uses the second person pronoun towards her younger guests, while they use

her name. However, the host uses names to address her older guests. Similarly,

203Conclusion

the host shifts styles when talking to her younger guests.

In all, it appears that gender diŸerences in the speech are observed in the

prototypical ‘gendered’ elements in Japanese but not in the turntaking aspect

of the discourse. The dominance in the interview is visible in the style shifts,

which are mostly carried out by the host when talking to younger guests, or by

some older guests.

Aizuchi in interviews: Gender, age, and role diŸerences

As shown in Chapters 5 and 6, aizuchi or listener responses, are pervasive and

are sent mainly after major breaks. They have varied functions, but mainly

convey interest and participation in the interaction. There are no delayed or

‘negative’ aizuchi and host and guests alike use them positively. Gender and age

diŸerences can also be observed in the frequency and types of aizuchi. Aizuchi

are more frequent in interviews with younger guests, and are even more

pronounced when guests are female. The pervasive use of aizuchi in interviews

is an indication that they are integral to Japanese communication. The host

sends them constantly to encourage the guest and show her involvement in the

interaction. The guests on the other hand, use them to show their cooperation.

A diŸerence based on roles is seen in the exclusive use of naruhodo by the

host and hai by the guests. The detailed examples illustrate how they can be

used to indicate diŸerent messages. Moreover, this study shows that aizuchi

should not be categorized as a single group of responses, but that each token is

ªnely tuned to convey a particular meaning. For example, the aizuchi so and its

variants indicate diŸerent degrees of politeness, which is marked in the copula

ending. The informal so tokens are sent to younger guests and are not recipro-

cated. Similarly, duplicated aizuchi, considered not polite, are used mainly by

older guests towards the host. The host, on the other hand, uses them towards

her younger guests.

The relationship between host and guest also plays a very important role in

determining the style. In an interview with a friend of the host, who is much

older than her, the guest uses informal language throughout the interview, as

seen in an uchi interaction. The host, on the other hand, shifts styles. She

maintains an intimate but polite style, but shifts to honoriªc forms when

addressing the audience. In a similar fashion, although to a lesser extent, we see

a less formal stance with guests who are her acquaintances.


It should be pointed out that, although there are certain tendencies such as

the more pervasive exchange of aizuchi between women, the communicative

style of men (and women) in our data is less aggressive than what is observed in

other cultures (Holmes, 1992b). For example, of all the interruptions, 69.3%

are cooperative. Men also use a cooperative style of communication, and both

males and females send positive aizuchi. These results indicate that assuming

certain linguistic manifestations be typically ‘female’ or ‘male’ across cultures

is a pitfall, as some have warned (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992, 1995;

Freed and Greenwood, 1996) both males and females used polite strategies.

The ªnal and most important question is related to the status of women in

terms or power. Is power central to diŸerent communicative styles? It appears

that it is impossible to isolate one single factor to explaining human behaviour.

Many features in the speech of the interlocutors in the interview data are

associated with their respective roles. One crucially important determinant is

the age of the guests in relation to the host. It appears that gender, in this

context at least, does not decide the hierarchy in the interview; the role a person

has in society or in that particular exchange is more important. Future research

needs to reªne the picture by comparing men’s and women’s speech when

performing the same role. Speciªcally, what occurs when people talk to two

persons representing the same roles, one being a man and the other a woman?

Will they be addressed in the same manner or will the man command more

respect? If the woman is older, will she in turn be addressed with more

deference? Are men who perform the same role as women less polite?

Theoretical implications

The linguistic situation in Japan in terms of gender diŸerences is not compa-

rable to that in societies where women’s and men’s language features are not

speciªcally manifested. In Japanese, communication phenomena exist (hedges,

minimal responses, co-construction and so on) on a par with traditionally

‘female’ and ‘male’ speech styles. Despite some scholars’ reports on changes of

female and male language into a more neutral form (Abe, 2000; Endo, 1997a,

1997b; Okamoto, 1994) the interview data reinforce the fact that we cannot

underestimate the in¶uence of centuries in the inculcation of ‘genderlects’.

The other crucial question to be answered is whether women speaking in a

male style will lead to more gender equality. With the passing of time, women’s

language has lost the force of its original purpose, which might have been to

subjugate women. Nevertheless, the diŸering gender styles are so ingrained

205Conclusion

in the language that it sounds unnatural for females to use male speech or

|vice-versa, unless there is humour involved. In formal situations, a woman

using male speech faces contempt because she will be judged as uneducated

(Reynolds, 1993, 1997, 1998). A man using female speech risks a similar fate,

although for other reasons. There is no consensus in Japanese society that the

usage of female or male language styles reinforces gender inequalities. Recent

reports have shown that women in positions of power can command respect

successfully by using diŸerent strategies without resorting to use male lan-

guage (Abe, 2000; Reynolds, 1997; Takasaki, 1997; Wetzel, 1988), and perhaps

this is the way the change is going to take place.

On the other hand, we cannot deny that, even in this new era, Japanese

society is male oriented. Despite the higher number of women in positions of

power, four members in the Koizumi Cabinet, ambassadors, CEOs, etc., there

is still a very strong and entrenched male centred perspective in society. Do the

few women who are in positions of power utilize speciªc strategies to establish

their authority in situations that require less formality? How do men and

women of comparable positions use language in formal situations towards

each other? Several researchers have started looking at the speech of working

women (Abe, 2000) and early reports claim that working women are using

verbal strategies that are not aggressive but assertive. However, there is almost

no information on males’ language in junior positions when talking to other

men or women of higher status, for example.

Interactions where the issue of power becomes more central could provide

the most valuable insights into this area of communication. As repeatedly

stated, power in interviews is restricted to the event. However, in a situation

where power is a more permanent element, the implications would be greater,

not only in terms of gender diŸerences but on a more global scale.

Concluding remarks

This study hopes to contribute to the understanding of Japanese communica-

tion in the particular context of the interview genre and the language of men

and women. Research on ‘institutional’ Japanese language has just begun,

promising interesting new results in the area of conversation analysis. At the

same time, the inclusion in the analysis of cultural factors idiosyncratic to the

community of the speakers, especially with respect to the aspect of dominance

and asymmetry in interaction, has, I believe, gone some way towards obtaining

a clearer picture of the exchange.

References

Abe, H. 2000. Japanese Professional Women and Their Speeches. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Alfonso, A. 1966. Japanese Language Patterns. Tokyo: Sophia University.

Andersen, R. 1995. Consumer Culture and TV Programming. Boulder CO: Westview Press.

Aoki, H. and S. Okamoto. 1988. Rules for Conversational Rituals in Japanese. Tokyo:

Taishuukan.

Ardener, S. 1978. Deªning Females. New York: John Wiley.

Atkinson, J. M, and J. Heritage (eds.) 1984. Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in

conversation analysis. Cambridge: CUP.

Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Bachnik, J. 1994. Introduction: uchi/soto: Challenging our conceptualization of self, social

order, and language. In J. Bachnik and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and

outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 3–38. Princeton NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Beattie, G. 1978. Sequential temporal patterns of speech and gaze in dialogue. Semiotica

23(1/2): 29–52.

Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.

Benedict, R. 1954. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. Tokyo:

Tuttle.

Bernstein, L. G. (ed.) 1991. Recreating Japanese Women, 1600–1945. Berkeley CA: University

of California Press.

Bergvall, V., J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.) 1996. Rethinking Language and Gender Research:

Theory and practice. London: Longman.

Bing, J. and V. Bergvall, 1996. The question of questions: Beyond binary thinking. In V.

Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory

and practice, 1–29. London: Longman.

Brouwer, D. 1989. Gender Variation in Dutch. A sociolinguistic study of Amsterdam speech.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.

Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:

CUP.

Brown, R. and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In P. P.Giglioli

(ed.), Language and Social Context, 252–283. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1983. The dynamics of political interviews. Text 3(2): 131–153.

Burton, D. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan.

Cameron, D. 1996. The language–gender interface: Challenging co-optation. In V. Bergvall,


J. Bing and A. Freed. (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and

practice, 31–53. London: Longman.

Capella, J. N. 1980. Talk–silence sequences in informal conversations II. Human Communi-

cation Research 6: 130–45.

Clancy, P., S. A. Thompson, R. Suzuki and H. Tao. 1996. The conversational use of reactive

tokens in English, Japanese and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 355–387.

Clayman, S. 1988. Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35:

474–492.

Clayman, S. 1992. Footing in achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview dis-

course. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, 163–198. Cambridge: CUP.

Coates, J. 1989a. Introduction (Chapter 6). In Coates, J. and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in

their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 63–74. London:

Longman.

Coates, J. 1989b. Gossip revisited: Language in all–female groups. In J. Coates and D.

Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and

sex, 94–122. New York: Longman.

Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coates, J. 1998. Language and Gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coates, J. and D. Cameron (eds.) 1989. Women in their Speech Communities: New perspec-

tives on language and sex. New York: Longman.

Cohen, A. 1987. The Television News Interview. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

Cook, H. M. 1990a. The sentence-ªnal particle ‘ne’ as a tool for cooperation in Japanese

conversation. In K. Hajime (ed.), Japanese and Korean Linguistics, 29–45. Stanford CA:

Stanford Linguistics Center.

Coulmas, F. 1992. Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society. In R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich

(eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in the history, theory and practice, 99–323. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Davidson, J. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, oŸers, requests, and proposals deal-

ing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures

of Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis, 102–128. Cambridge: CUP.

De Francisco, V. L. 1998. The sounds of silence: How men silence women in marital relations.

In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A reader, 176–184. Oxford: Blackwell.

Doi, T. 1973. The Anatomy of Dependence. Tokyo: Koodansha.

Diamond, J. 1996. Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a close-knit

social network. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Drew, P. 1984. Speakers’ reporting in invitation sequences. In J. M, Atkinson, and J.

Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis, 129–51.

Cambridge: CUP.

Drew, P. 1992. Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial

rape. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 470–520. Cambridge: CUP.

Drew, P. and J. Heritage. 1992. Analyzing Talk at Work. Cambridge: CUP.

Du Bois, J., S. Schuetze-Coburn, D. Paolino, and S. Cumming. 1990. Outline of discourse

transcription. In J. Edwards and M. Lampert (eds.), Transcription and Coding Methods

for Language Research, 45–89. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

209References

Duncan, S. Jr. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 283–292.

Duncan, S. and D. Fiske. 1985. Interaction Structure and Strategy. Cambridge: CUP.

Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and

gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490.

Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1995. Constructing meanings, constructing selves:

Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belten High. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz

(eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and socially constructed self, 469–507. London:

Routledge.

Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1998. Communities of practice: Where language, gen-

der, and power all Live. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender, 484–495. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Edelsky, C. 1981. Who’s got the ¶oor? Language in Society 10: 383–421.

Ehara, Y., Y. Yoshii and K. Yamazaki, 1993. Seisabetsu no esunomesodorojii: taimenteki

komyunikeeshon ni okeru kenryoku soochi [The ethnomethodology on discrimina-

tion: Power devices in face-to-face communication]. In K. A. Reynolds (ed.) Onna to

Nihongo [Women and Japanese], 4–26. Tokyo: Yuushindo.

Endo, O. 1997a. Onna no Kotoba no Bunkashi [Cultural history of women’s language].

Tokyo: Gakuyoo Shobo.

Endo, O. 1997b. Shokuba no Keigo no ima [The present of honoriªcs in workplaces]. In

Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no Kotoba.

Shokubahen. [Women and language. At the workplace], 83–113. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

Erickson, F. and J. J. Schultz. 1982. The Counsellor as Gatekeeper: Social and cultural organi-

zation of communication in counselling interviews. New York NY: Academic Press.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.

Ferrara, K. 1992. The interactive achievement of a sentence: Joint production in therapeutic

discourse. Discourse Processes 15: 229–247.

Ford, C. F. and S. A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, into-

national and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. SchegloŸ

and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 134–84. Cambridge: CUP.

Freed, A. 1996. Language and gender research in an experimental setting. In V. Bergvall, J.

Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and prac-

tice, 55–76. London: Longman.

Freed, A. and A. Greenwood. 1996. Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the

diŸerence? Language in Society 25: 1–26.

Fries, C. 1964. Linguistics: The study of language. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Fishman, P. 1978. Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems 258: 397–406.

Furo, H. 2001. Turn-Taking in English and Japanese. Projectability in grammar, intonation

and semantics. London: Routledge.

Gardner, R. 2001. When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Garªnkel, H. 1974. On the origins of the term “ethnomethodology”. In R. Turner (ed.)

Ethnomethodology, 15–18. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group]. 1997. Josei no Kotoba.

Shokubahen [Women and Language. At the workplace]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.


Gerhardt, J. and S. Beyerle. 1997. What if Socrates had been a woman? The therapist’s use of

acknowledgement tokens (mm-hm, yeah, sure, right) as a nonre¶ective means of

intersubjective involvement. Contemporary Psychoanalysis 33 (3): 367–410.

Goldstein, B. and K. Tamura, 1975. Japan and America. A comparative study in language and

culture. Tokyo: Charles Tuttle.

GoŸman, E. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257–313.

Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers.

New York NY: Academic Press.

Graddol, D. and J. Swann. 1993. Gender Voices. Oxford: Blackwell.

Greatbatch, D. 1986. Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda

shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture and Society 8: 421–455.

Greatbatch, D. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society

17: 401–430.

Greatbatch, D. 1992. On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P.

Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 268–301. Cambridge: CUP.

Greenwood, A. 1996. Floor management and power strategies in adolescent conversation.

In V. Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research:

Theory and practice. London: Longman.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts

[Syntax and Semantics 3], 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

Gumperz, J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP.

Gumperz, J. (ed.) 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: CUP.

Gumperz, J. 1992. Interviewing in intercultural situations. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.),

Talk at Work, 302–327. Cambridge: CUP.

Gunter, B. 1995. Television and Gender Representation. London: John Libbey.

Hastings, S.A and S. H. Nolte . 1996. The Meiji’s state’s policy toward women, 1890–1910.

In G. L. Bernstein (ed.), Recreating Japanese Women, 1600–1945, 151–175. Berkeley

CA: University of California Press.

Have, P. ten. 1991. Talk and institution: A reconsideration of the asymmetry of doctor —

patient interaction. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (ed.), Talk and Social Structure,

138–163. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hayashi, R. 1996. Cognition, Empathy, and Interaction: Floor management of English and

Japanese conversation. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Hayashi, R. 1997. Hierarchical interdependence expressed through conversational styles in

Japanese women’s magazines. Discourse and Society 8(3): 359–389.

Hendry, J. 1995. Understanding Japanese Society. (Second edition). London: Routledge.

Heritage, J. 1984. Garªnkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an

overhearing audience. In T. A. Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3, 95–

119. New York NY: Academic Press.

Heritage, J. 1995. Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In U. M. QuasthoŸ (ed.),

Aspects of Oral Communication, 391–418). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Heritage, J. and D. Greatbatch. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: The

case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social

211References

Structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. 93–137. Berkeley CA:

University Of California Press.

Heritage, J. and J. M. Atkinson. Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.),

Structures of Social Action, 1–16. Cambridge: CUP.

Heritage, J. and A. Roth. 1995. Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the

broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60.

Heritage, J. and S. Seª. 1992. Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of delivery and reception of

advice in interactions between health visitors and ªrst time mothers. In P. Drew and J.

Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 359–417. Cambridge: CUP.

Hinds, J. 1976. Aspects of Japanese Discourse. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

Hinds, J. 1978a. Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview

discourse. In J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics,

79–121. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

Hinds, J. 1978b. Anaphora in Japanese conversation. In John Hinds (ed.), Anaphora in

Discourse, 136–179. Edmonton Alberta: Linguistic Research.

Hinds, J. 1985a. Misinterpretation and common knowledge in Japanese. Pragmatics 9: 7–19.

Hinds, J. 1982. Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton Alberta: Linguistic Research.

Hinds, J. 1984. Japanese. In Chisholm, W. L. Milic, J. Greppin (eds.), Interrogativity: A

colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of question in seven diverse lan-

guages, 145–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hinds, J. 1985b. Intrusion in Japanese conversation. In S. Miyagawa and C. Kitagawa (eds.),

Studies in Japanese Language Use, 1–33. Edmonton Alberta: Linguistic Research.

Hirokawa, R. Y. 1987. Communication within the Japanese business organization. In D. L.

Kincaid (ed.), Communication Theory: Eastern and western perspectives, 137–49. New

York NY: Academic Press.

Holmes, J. 1986a. Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society

15:1–22.

Holmes, J. 1986b. Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. An-

thropological Linguistics 28(4): 485–508.

Holmes, J. 1992a. Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Holmes, J. 1992b. Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society 3(2): 131–150.

Holmes, J. 1993. New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness

strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 91–116.

Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

Holmes, J and M. Stubbe. 1997. Good listeners: Gender diŸerences in New Zealand conver-

sation. Women and language 20(2): 7–14.

Honda, A. 2002. Con¶ict management in Japanese public aŸair talk shows. Journal of

Pragmatics 34: 573–608.

Horiguchi, S. 1991. Aizuchi kenkyuu no gendankai to kadai [Present research on aizuchi

and future topics]. Nihongogaku 10.

Horiguchi, S. 1997. Japanese Conversation by Learners and Native Speakers. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Horii, R. 1990. Onna no Kotoba [Women’s language].Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.

Horiuchu, K. and Y. Omori. 1994. Wakai josei no kotoba no gokei gogi no tokushoku

[Words and semantics of young women’s language]. Nihongogaku 13(10): 72–80.


Ide, R. and T. Terada. 1998. The historical origins of Japanese women’s speech: From the

secluded worlds of “court ladies” and “play ladies”. International Journal of the Sociol-

ogy of Language 129: 139–156.

Ide, S. 1979. Onna no kotoba Otoko no kotoba. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Tsuushinsha.

Ide, S. 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics. Politeness and women’s language. Lingua 57: 357–

385.

Ide, S. 1983. Onnarashisa no gengogaku: Naze onna wa joseigo o tsukauka [The linguistics of

female language: Why do women use female language]. In O. Mizutani (ed.), Hanashi

Kotoba no Hyoogen [Expressions in spoken language], 174–193. Tokyo: Chikuma

Shobo.

Ide, S. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguis-

tic politeness. Multilingua 8:(2/3): 223–248.

Ide, S. 1997. Joseigo no Sekai. Tokyo: Meiji Shooin.

Ide, S. 1997. Sekai no joseigo – Nihon no joseigo: Joseigo kenkyuu no shintenkai o

motomete [World’s women’s language – Women’s language in Japan: Pursuing new

developments in women’s language research]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 6–12.

Ide, S., M. Hori, A. Kawasaki, S. Ikuta and H. Haga. 1986. Sex diŸerence and politeness in

Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58: 225–36.

Ikuta, S. 1983. Speech level shift and conversational strategy. Language Sciences 5(1): 37–53.

Inoue, M. 1994. Gender and linguistic modernization: A historical account of the birth of

Japanese women’s language. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton and C. Hines (eds.),

Cultural Performances. Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference,

322–333. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of Califor-

nia.

Irigaray, L. 1990. Women’s Exile. In D. Cameron (ed.), The Feminist Critique of Language: A

reader. London: Routledge.

Itakura, H. 2001. Conversational Dominance and Gender: A study of Japanese speakers in ªrst

and second language-contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Itoh, H. 1991. Taiwa bangumi ni okeru “Repair” [“Repair” in talk programs]. Nihongogaku

10(3): 62:74.

Iwasaki, S. 1997. The Northridge earthquake conversations: The ¶oor structure and the

‘loop’ sequence in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 661–693.

JeŸerson, G. 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declina-

tion. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language. Studies in ethnomethodology, 79–96. New

York NY: Irvington.

Jenkins, M and C. Kramarae. 1982. A thief in the house: The case of women and language. In

D. Spender (ed.), Men’s Studies Modiªed. Oxford: Pergamon.

Johnson, G. 1996. The management of interaction in the television interviews of Maggie

Barry. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 25–53.

Jucker, A. 1986. News Interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kabaya, H. 1993. Taigu hyoogen ni okeru shooryaku [Ellipsis in polite expressions].

Nihongogaku 12(9): 27–33.

Kaplan, C. 1990. Language and gender. In D. Cameron (ed.), The Feminist Critique of

Language: A reader. London: Routledge.

213References

Karatsu, M. 1995. A functional analysis of DEWA , DAKARA and SHIKASHI in conversa-

tion. Japanese Discourse 1: 107–130.

Kawasaki, M. 1989. Nichijoo kaiwa no kimarikotoba [Idiomatic expressions in everyday

language]. Nihongogaku 3(2): 26–35.

Kendon, A. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologia

26: 22–63.

Kendon, A. 1990. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of behaviour in focused encounters. Cam-

bridge: CUP.

Kindaichi, H. 1990. Nihongo [Japanese]. (Vol. 1 and 2). Tokyo: Iwanami shinsho.

Kitagawa, C. 1997. A source of femininity in Japanese: In defence of Robin LakoŸ’s ‘Lan-

guage and woman’s place’. Papers in Linguistics 10(3/4): 275–28.

Kobayashi, M. 1993. Sedai to Joseigo: Wakai sedai no kotoba no “chuuseika” ni tsuite

[Female language and generation: On the “neutralization” of the language in younger

generations]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 181–192.

Kobayashi, M. 1997. Jisho, taishoo wa chuuseika suruka [Are personal pronouns ‘neutraliz-

ing’?]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no

Kotoba. Shokubahen [Women and language. At the workplace], 113–137. Tokyo:

Hitsuji Shobo.

Kodama, M. 1997. Nyuusu no okurite toshite no josei [The woman as a sender of news]. In

T. Inoue, C. Ueno and Y. Ehara (eds.), Feminism in Japan: Hyoogen to media [Expres-

sion and the media], 202–240. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Komiya, C. 1986. Aizuchi shiyoo no jittai: shutsugen keikoo yo sono shuuhen. Gogaku

Kyooiku Kenkyuu Ronsoo. Daitoo Bunka Daigaku Gogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuujoo.

KotthoŸ, H. 1997. The interactional achievement of expert status. In H. KotthoŸ and

R. Wodak. (eds.), Communicating Gender in Context, 139–178. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

KotthoŸ, H. and R. Wodak. 1997. Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Kramarae, C. 1981. Women and Men Speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley MA:

Newbury House.

Kuno, S.1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Kuno, S. 1978. Danwa no Bunpoo [A grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.

Kuroda, S. 1979. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. New York NY:

Garland Publishing.

Kurosaki, Y. 1987. Danwa shinkoojoo no aizuchi no unyoo to kinoo [The functions and

management of aizuchi in the conversation]. Kokugogaku 150(15): 122–109.

Labov, W. 1972. The logic of non-standard English. In P. P. Giglioli (ed.) Language and

Social context, 179–215. London: Penguin.

Labov, W. and D. Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse. New York NY: Academic Press.

LakoŸ, R. 1973. The logic of politeness: On minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics

Society 9: 292–305.

LakoŸ, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s place. New York NY: Harper and Row.

Lebra, T. S. 1976. Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Lebra, T. S. 1987. The cultural signiªcance of silence in Japanese communication. Multi-

lingua 6(4): 343–357.


Lee, M. 1976. The married woman’s status and role as re¶ected in Japanese: An exploratory

sociolinguistic study. Signs 1(4).

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

LoCastro, V. 1987. Aizuchi : A Japanese conversational routine. In L. K. Smith (ed.),

Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes, 101–113. Oxford: Pergamon.

Loveday, L. 1986. Explorations in Japanese Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Makino, S. and M. Tsutsui. 1992. A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. (11th edition).

Tokyo: The Japan Times.

Maltz, D. and R. Borker. 1982. A cultural approach to male–female miscommunication. In

J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 196–216. Cambridge: CUP.

Martin, S. 1975, A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Have CT: Yale University Press.

Matsumoto, M. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in

Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403–426.

Maynard, D. 1991. The perspective display series and the delivery and receipts of diagnostic

news. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure. Studies in

ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, 164–92. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Maynard, D. 1992. On clinicians co-implicating recipients’ perspective in the delivery of

diagnostic news. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 331–358. Cambridge:

CUP.

Maynard, S. 1986. On back-channel behaviour in Japanese and English casual conversation.

Linguistics 24: 1079–1108.

Maynard, S. 1989. Self-contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management.

Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Maynard, S. 1991. Pragmatics of discourse modality: A case of da and desu/masu forms in

Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 551–582.

McClain, Y. 1990. Handbook of Modern Japanese Grammar. (15th edition). Tokyo: The

Hokuseido Press.

Mc Connell-Ginet, S. 1988. Language and gender. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The

Cambridge survey, Vol. 4. Language: The socio-cultural context, 75–99. Cambridge: CUP.

MeyerhoŸ, M. 1996. Dealing with gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable. In V.

Bergvall, J. Bing and A. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory

and practice, 202–227. London: Longman.

Miller, A. 1967. The Japanese Language. Tokyo: Charles Tuttle.

Mizutani, N. 1982. The listener’s response in Japanese conversation. Sociolinguistics News-

letter 13(1): 33–38.

Mizutani, N. 1988a. Hanashi kotoba no hikaku taisho [A comparison in spoken language].

In Nihongo Kyooshiyoo Sankooshoo II. Hanashikotoba to Komyuunikeeshon [A guide to

teachers of Japanese II. Spoken language and communication]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.

Mizutani, N. 1988b. Aizuchiron [The theory of aizuchi]. Nihongogaku 12(7): 4–11.

Mizutani, O. 1981. Japanese: The spoken language in Japanese life. Tokyo: The Japan Times.

Mizutani, O. and N., Mizutani. 1987. How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times.

Moerman, M. 1988. Talking Culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia

PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mori, J. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Connective expressions

215References

and turn construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Morita, Y. 1994. Kiso Nihongo Jiten. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.

Mouer, R. and Y. Sugimoto. 1986. Images of Japanese Society. London: Kegan Paul.

Murata, K. 1994. Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal

of Pragmatics 21: 385–400.

Nakada T. 1991. Kaiwa ni awareru kurikaeshi no hatsuwa [Repetition in conversations].

Nihongogaku 10(10): 52–62.

Nakada, T. 1992. On repetition within conversational strategy. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuu

Hookoku 104, Kenkyuu Hookokushuu 13: 267–302.

Nakajima, E. 1997. Gimon hyoogen no yoosoo [An aspect of interrogative expressions]. In

Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai. [Modern Japanese Research Group] Josei no Kotoba.

Shokubahen [Women and Language. At the workplace], 59–82. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

Nakane, C. 1970. Japanese Society. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Nakayama, T. and K. J. Nakayama. 1997. Japanese kedo: Discourse gender and

grammatization. In H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 6, 607–619.

Stanford CA: CSLI.

Nippon Hoosoo Kyookai, 1967. The History of Broadcasting in Japan. Tokyo: Nippon

Hoosoo Kyookai.

Nitta, Y. 1989. Nihongo no Modaritei [Japanese Modality]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Nitta, Y. 1995. Nihongo no Modaritei to Ninshoo [Japanese Modality and Personal Pro-

noun]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

Nolte, S and S. A. Hastings. 1991. The Meiji State’s policy toward women, 1890–1910. In

G. L. Bernstein (ed.), Recreating Japanese Women 1600–1945, 151–174. Berkeley CA:

University of California of Press.

O’Barr, W. and B. Atkins. 1980. ‘Women’s language’ or ‘Powerless language?’ In S.

McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker and N. Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature

and Society, 93–110. New York NY: Praeger.

Octigan, M. 1997. A Study of Interruptions and Other Types of Simultaneous Speech Found

in Talk-Back Radio Conversations. Unpublished MA. Dissertation, La Trobe Univer-

sity.

Ogino, T. 1986. Quantiªcation of politeness based on the usage patterns of honoriªc

expressions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58: 37–58.

Okamoto, S. 1985. Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Univer-

sity of California.

Okamoto, S. 1994. “Gendered” speech styles and social identity. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L.

Sutton and C. Hines (eds.), Cultural Performances. Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley

Women and Language Conference. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language

Group, University of California.

Okamoto, S. 1995. “Tasteless” Japanese: Less “feminine” speech among young Japanese

women. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the socially

constructed self, 297–325. London: Routledge.

Ooishi, H. 1971. Hanashi kotobaron [Spoken Language]. Tokyo: Shueisha.

Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The study of talk- in-interaction. London: Sage.

Peng, F. C. C. (ed.). 1981. Male/Female DiŸerences in Japanese. Tokyo: The East – West Sign


Language Association.

Pomerantz, A. 1974. Compliment Responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple con-

strains. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction,

79–112. New York NY: Academic Press.

Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of pre-

ferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of

Social Interaction. Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.

Power, R. J. D. and M. F. dal Martello. 1986. Some criticisms of Sacks, SchegloŸ, and

JeŸerson on turn taking. Semiotica 58(1/2): 29–40.

Quinn, C. J. 1994. The terms uchi and soto as windows on a world. In J. Bachnik and C.

Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and

language, 38–73. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reid, J. 1992. A Study of Gender DiŸerences in Minimal Responses and Other Simulta-

neous Speech. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Department of Linguistics, La Trobe

University.

Reid, J. 1995. A study of gender diŸerence in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics 24:

489–512.

Reischauer, E. 1977. The Japanese. Tokyo: Charles Tuttle.

Reynolds, A. K. 1993. Gengo to seisa no kenkyuu: Genzai to shoorai [Research on language

and gender diŸerences: Present and future]. Nihongogaku 10(10): 52–62.

Reynolds, A. K. (ed.) 1993. Onna to Nihongo [Japanese and Women]. Tokyo: Yuushindo.

Reynolds, A. K. 1997. Gengo to seisa no kenkyuu [Research on language and gender].

Nihongogaku, 12(6): 199–215.

Reynolds, A. K. 1998. Female speakers of Japanese in transition. In J. Coates (ed.), Language

and Gender: A reader, 299–308. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rosenberger, N. 1994. Indexing hierarchy through Japanese gender relations. In J. Bachnik

and C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and


Sacks, H. 1972a. On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes

(eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, 325–345. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Win-

ston.

Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. (Vol.1/2). Oxford: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., E. SchegloŸ and G. JeŸerson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of

turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.

Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.

Sekiguchi, S. 1998. Terebi Bunka: Nihon no Katachi [Television Culture: The Japanese

model]. (2nd edition). Tokyo: Gakubunsha.

SchegloŸ, E. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologists 70:

1075–1099.

SchegloŸ, E. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and

other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse:

Text and talk, 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

SchegloŸ, E. 1984. On questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson

and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures on Social Action, 28–53. Cambridge: CUP.

217References

SchegloŸ, E. 1988. GoŸman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew and A. Wootton

(eds.), Erving GoŸman: Exploring the interaction order, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.

SchegloŸ, E. 1990. On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-

interaction. In B. Dorval (ed.) Conversational Organization and its Development, 51–77.

Norwood NJ: Ablex.

SchegloŸ, E. 1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.),

Talk at Work, 101–134. Cambridge: CUP.

SchegloŸ, E. 1993. Re¶ections on quantiªcation in the study of conversation. Research on

Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99–128.

SchegloŸ, E. and H. Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289–307.

SchiŸrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.

SchiŸrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Shearn, S. 1998. Interviewing styles on New Zealand National radio: Is Mike Honking really

so outrageous? Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 35–63.

Shibamoto, J. 1985. Japanese Women’s Language. New York NY: Academic Press.

Shibamoto, J. 1987. The womanly woman: Manipulation of stereotypical and nonstereo-

typical features of Japanese female speech. In S. Philips, S. Steele and C. Tanz (eds.),

Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.

Shibatani, M.1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP.

Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards and Analysis of Discourse: The English used by

teachers and pupils. Oxford: OUP.

Smith, J. 1992. Women in charge: Politeness and directives in the speech of Japanese

women. Language in Society 21: 59–82.

Spender, D. 1980. Man Made Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Stubbe, M. 1998. Are you listening? Cultural diŸerences on the use of supportive verbal

feedback in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 257–289.

Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis. The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Suckle, R. 1994. Uchi/soto: Choice in directive speech in Japanese. In J. Bachnik and C.

Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and


Sugito, K. 1987. Hatsuwa no uketsugi [Turn-yielding] Danwa koodoo no shosoo – Zadan

shiryoo no bunseki [Aspects of conversation: Analysis of a meeting]. Kokuritsu Kokugo

Kenkyuujoo Hookoku 92.

Sugito, M. 1993. Kookatekina danwa to aizuchi no tokuchoo oyobi sono taimingu [Charac-

teristics of eŸective backchannels in the conversation and their timing]. Nihongo 12

(3): 11–20.

Sunaoshi, Y. 1994. Japanese women in Command. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton and

C. Hines (eds.), Cultural Performances. Proceedings of the 3rd Berkeley Women and

Language Conference, 678–690. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group,

University of California.

Suzuki, A. 1993. Joseigo no honshitsu: teineisa, hatsuwakoi no shiten kara [The essence of

female language: from the perspective of politeness and turn-taking]. Nihongogaku

12(6): 148–155.


Suzuki, M. 1995. Women and Television: Portrayal of women in the mass media. In K.

Fujimura-Fanselow and A. Kameda (eds.), Japanese Women: New feminist perspective

on the past, present and future, 75–90. New York NY: The Feminist Press.

Suzuki, S. 1972. Nihongo Bunpoo. Keitairon [Japanese Grammar. Morphology]. Tokyoo:

Mugi Shoboo.

Suzuki, T. 1975. Tozasareta Gengo: Nihongo no sekai [A sealed language: The world of

Japanese]. Tokyo: Shinchoo-sha.

Szatrowski, P. 1989. Aizuchi to sono Rizumu [ Aizuchi and its rhythm]. Nihongo 3: 32–35.

Szatrowski, P. 1993. Nihongo no Danwa no Koozoo Bunseki: Kanyuu no Sutoratejii no

Koosatsu [Analysis of the Structure of Japanese Discourse: A study on invitation

strategies]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Swann, J. 1988. Talk control: An illustration from the classroom of problems in analyzing

male dominance of conversation. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their

Speech Communities: New perspectives on language and sex, 123–40. London: Longman.

Takahara, K. 1991. Female speech patterns in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology

of Language 92: 61–85.

Takasaki, M. 1996. Terebi to joseigo [Television and female language]. Nihongogaku 15(9):

46–55.

Takasaki, M. 1997. Josei no hatarakikata to kotoba no tayoosei [Women’s work and their

language diversity]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai [Modern Japanese Research

Group] Josei no Kotoba. Shokubahen [Women and Language. At the workplace], 213–

239.Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

Tanaka, H. 1999. Turn taking in Japanese Conversation: A study on grammar and interaction.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tannen, D. 1981. New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociol-

ogy of Language 30: 133–149.

Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational dis-

course. Cambridge: CUP.

Tannen, D. 1994a. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: OUP.

Tannen, D. 1994b.The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in

gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and Discourse. Oxford: OUP.

Terada, S. 1993. Nihongo ni okeru joseigo kenkyuushi [The history of female speech

research in Japan]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 262–313.

Tetsuko no Heya. Retrieved from http://www/tr-asati.co.jp/hscadcast/tetsuko/data.html#D.

Thorne, B. and N. Henley (eds.) 1975. Language and Sex: DiŸerence and dominance. Rowley

MA: Newbury House.

Troemel-Ploetz. 1992. The construction of conversational equality by women. In K. Hall,

M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds.), Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second

Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Lan-

guage Group, University of California.

Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of

Norwich. Language and Society 1(2): 179–95.

219References

Tsuchihashi, M. 1983. The speech act continuum: An investigation of Japanese sentence

ªnal particles. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 361–387.

Tsui, A. 1989. Beyond the adjacency pair. Language in Society 18: 545–564.

Uchida, N. 1993. Kaiwa koodoo ni mirareru seisa [Gender diŸerences in conversational

behaviour]. Nihongogaku 12(6): 156–167.

Uchida, A. 1992. When “diŸerence” is “dominance”: A critique of the “anti-power-based”

cultural approach to sex diŸerences. Language in Society 21: 547–568.

Usami, M. 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation. Some implications for a

universal theory of politeness. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoobo.

West, C. 1984. When the doctor is a “lady”; power, status and gender in physician-patient

encounters. Symbolic Interaction , 7: 87–106.

West, C. and D. Zimmerman. 1983. Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex

conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and N.

Henley (eds.), Language, Gender and Society, 86–111. Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Wetzel, P. 1985. In-group and out-group deixis: Situational variation in the verbs of giving

and receiving in Japanese. In J. P. Forgas (ed.), Language and social Situation, 141–57.

New York NY: Springer.

Wetzel, P. 1988. Are “powerless” communication strategies the Japanese norm? Language in

Society 17: 55–564.

Wetzel, P. 1994. A movable self: The linguistic indexing of uchi and soto. In J. Bachnik and

C. Quinn Jr. (eds.), Situated Meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and


Whalen, M. and D. H. Zimmerman. 1990. Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in

citizen calls to the police. Language in Society 19: 465–92.

Wilson, T. P., Wieman, J. M. and D. H. Zimmerman. 1984. Models of turn taking in

conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3(3): 159–83.

Winter, J. 1993. Gender and the political interview in an Australian context. Journal of

Pragmatics 20: 117–139.

White, S. 1989. Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language

in Society 18: 59–76.

Wodak, R. 1997. Gender and Discourse. London: Sage.

Woods, N. 1988. Talking shop: Sex and status as determinants of ¶oor apportionment in a

work setting. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities:

New perspectives on language and sex. London: Longman.

World Wide Web. www.tv-asahi.cop.jp/broadcast/tetsuko/

Yamada, H. 1992. American and Japanese Business Discourse: A comparison of interactional

styles. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Yamada, T. 1995. Kaiwa bunseki no hoohoo [Conversation analysis methodology]. In Inoue,

T., C. Ueno, M. Oosawa, S. Mita and S. Yoshimi (eds.), Tasha, Kankei, Komyuunikeeshoon

[The Others, Relations, Communication], 121–136. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Yngve, V. H. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the 6th regional meeting of the

Chicago Linguistics Society: 567–578.

Yonekawa, A. 1994. Wakai josei no kotoba no shinriteki/shakaiteki haikei [The psychologi-

cal/sociological background of young women’s language]. Nihongogaku 13(10): 18.


Yoshii, H. 1996. Otoko ga onna o saegiru toki: Nichijoo kaiwa no kenryoku soochi [When

men interrupt women: A power device in daily conversation]. In T. Yamada and H.

Yoshii (eds.), Haijoo to Sabetsu no Esunomesodorojii [The Ethnomethodology of Exclu-

sion and Discrimination], 213–250. Tokyo: Shinyoosha.

Yoshioka, Y. 1994. Wakai josei no gengo koodoo [The language behaviour of young

females]. Nihongogaku. 13(10): 33–71.

Zimmerman, D. 1992. Achieving context: Openings in emergency calls. In G. Watson and

R. M. Seiler (eds.), Text in Context: Contributions in ethnomethodology, 35–51. Newbury

Park CA: Sage.

Zimmerman, D. and C. West. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In

B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: DiŸerence and dominance, 105–129.

Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Appendix 1

Tables

Details of interviews

Table 1. Group FI: Females over 50

Guest Age Profession Topic

(F1) 70 writer her husband, books

(F2) 69 actress life after retirement

(F3) 68 writer her books, career

(F4) 85 actress her career

(F5) 60’s collector kimonos, accessories

Table 2. Group FII: Females under 50


(F6) 40’s singer diet, singing

(F7) 40’s reporter life with in-laws

(F8) 48 pianist her career

(F9) 38 actress her latest movie

(F10) 37 singer her childhood

Table 3. Group MI: Males over 50


(M1) 74 actor WW II experiences

(M2) 70 gardener cherry trees

(M3) 60’s ex-lawyer his ex-job , new job

(M4) 60 cartoonist ghosts, his work

(M5) 60’s shoe-maker shoes

Table 4. Group MII: Males under 50


(M6) 40’s violinist music, concerts

(M7) 40’s actor his family

(M8) 40’s sportsman his career

(M9) 48 scholar his books, career

(M10) 41 Kabuki actor his latest activities

Appendix II

Aizuchi frequency

Table 5 . Total of aizuchi tokens

All-female interviews Female-male interviews

Host Female guests Host Male guests

810 1302 1061 1083

Table 6. Aizuchi frequency

Aizuchi in interviews with

Female Male

Older Younger Older Younger

Host 339 558 544 542

Guest 471 744 517 541

Total 810 1302 1061 1083

Index

A

Abe 1, 27, 101, 103, 204, 205

acknowledgment 140, 145

address 21, 122, 126–128, 132–134, 201,

202

age 2, 18–21, 60, 112, 121–123, 128– 130,

134, 135, 177, 178, 198, 199–204

aggressive 25, 36, 40, 99, 100, 103–106,

109, 110, 112, 133, 202, 204, 205

interruptions 24, 100, 106, 202

see also intrusive interruptions

aizuchi exchange 150–153, 162, 167

frequency 142, 161, 162, 172, 177,

198–200, 203

function 138, 139, 141, 146, 148, 154–

162, 170–173, 192, 193, 198

signals 138–140, 145, 157, 177

timing 138, 142, 195

allocation 8, 9, 13, 33, 34, 43, 46, 57, 60,

201

anata 28, 119, 122, 127–130, 132, 134

see also personal pronouns

answer 9, 10, 12, 17, 43, 45, 76–79, 81, 87,

121, 146, 152, 155, 159, 164, 169, 171,

180

anthropologists 83

asymmetric interaction 19, 44, 45, 104

relationships 178

see also power, control

atashi 27, 122–125

see also watashi, watakushi, personal

pronouns

Atkinson 10, 12, 14

audience 35–40, 43, 45, 46, 51, 54, 75, 83,

98, 117, 120, 121, 129, 132, 134, 172,

199, 203

Austin 3, 4

auxiliaries 92, 95

B

Bachnik 22

backchannel 9, 58, 95, 99, 137–139, 142,

146, 173, 175–178

boku 98, 122 -126

see also personal pronouns

bowing 10, 53, 54

see also greetings

broadcasting 38, 39, 62, 171

Brown 14–19, 128

C

Cameron 23, 25, 99, 175, 176, 201

Chinese 25, 26

Clancy 137

clariªcation 69, 70, 75

classroom interaction 4, 5

clausal ellipsis 17, 86, 90

particles 90, 91

clause 91–93, 144, 145, 147

see also conditional clause

Clayman 1, 13, 14, 44, 45, 73, 137

Coates 23, 104, 109, 112, 175, 176

co-constructions 113, 133, 193

collaborative 104, 110, 112, 114, 133, 175,

177, 178, 181, 183, 198

colloquial 34, 66, 67, 84, 85, 94, 97, 105, 112

comments 11, 12, 73, 74, 113

communication 2, 3, 7, 19, 20, 24, 58, 98,

101, 203–205

see also English and Japanese commu-

nication, Japanese communication,

non-verbal communication


communicative interaction 7, 44

competitive 36, 100

completion point 57

see also grammatical completion

conditional 189

conditional clause 92, 93, 144, 147

Confucianism 25

conjunctive particle 86, 90–92

connective 59, 106, 113, 114

particles 59

see also sentence ªnal particles (SFP)

constraints 34, 45, 46, 73

continuer 157, 162–164, 169, 171, 172, 180

control 19, 23, 44, 75, 99, 104, 110, 133,

175, 176

see also power, asymmetric interaction

controversial 107, 110

conversation 6–9, 11, 57–61, 94, 97–98,

102, 112, 177

conversational dominance 104–107

see also power, intrusive interruptions

Cook 93, 94

cooperation 2, 100, 105, 114, 181

cooperative 2, 25, 36, 94, 100, 102, 103,

106, 109–116, 133, 178, 180–182, 193,

198, 202, 204

interruptions 106, 108–112

see also intrusive interruptions

Cooperative Principle 14

culture 2, 1590, 101, 176, 199

see also Japanese communication

current speaker 8, 9, 60, 61

D

daroo 74, 93

see also deshoo

debates 100, 110

declaratives 71, 72

delayed aizuchi 138, 142

see also negative aizuchi

deshoo 67, 68, 74, 93, 148, 186

see also daroo

deviant 6, 48, 79, 87, 131, 132

diŸerence theory 23, 24, 175–177

see also dominance theory

discourse 3–5, 101,

discourse markers 50, 65, 66, 76, 81, 111,

187

distribution 62, 63, 82, 86, 96, 149, 191, 198

Drew 1, 5, 13, 14, 33, 44, 45, 49, 57, 99

duplicated aizuchi 195, 198, 203

tokens 168, 183, 195, 196

Dutch 24

dyadic interaction 61, 62

E

Eckert 25, 99, 175, 201, 204

Edelsky 9, 99, 175, 176

education 24, 26, 38, 102

Ehara 101, 103, 112, 138, 142, 175, 177,

178

eliciting 63, 64, 71, 72, 145, 201

elicitors 71

ellipsis 17, 18, 86, 90, 96, 102

English and Japanese communication 58,

59, 137, 138

empathy 73, 111, 128, 134, 152, 160

Endo 1, 25–27, 101, 103, 204

English 8, 12, 34, 36, 42, 58, 59, 86, 101,

102, 123, 153, 159, 176, 185, 201

ethnomethodology 5

European 17, 18, 122

everyday conversation 5, 13, 14, 34, 43, 59,

60, 62, 96, 98, 132

see also mundane conversation

exchange 10–13, 45

of greetings 9, 10, 45, 49, 52

F

face 15–17, 86

see also negative face, positive face

falling intonation 94, 95, 143, 157, 159,

163, 165, 183, 184, 187, 190

female interviewer and interviewee 35, 36,

40

- male dichotomy 23, 99

style 2, 23, 25–29, 84, 85, 93, 94, 99

100–106, 122–126, 130–135, 146

females and aizuchi 176, 177, 178, 182,

192–198, 205

225Index

feminine 2, 25, 28, 103

see also female style

feminism 23, 104

ªller 81, 150, 162, 167, 171, 172

see also aizuchi exchange

Fishman 19, 23, 99, 104, 138, 142, 175, 176

Fiske 7, 142

formal 2, 13, 16–18, 20, 22, 27–29, 31, 45,

53, 60, 84, 96, 103, 117, 119, 123–126,

128–131, 133, 146, 162, 172, 177, 183,

187–191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 200, 201,

203, 205

see also honoriªc, polite forms, speech

styles

formality 2, 13, 17, 29, 60, 84, 94, 117, 120,

122, 125, 129, 131, 134, 172, 183, 187–

190, 199, 200, 205

Freed 23, 99, 112, 175, 204

frequency 94, 110, 134, 142, 161, 162, 172,

177, 198–200, 203

of interruptions 108–110, 134

see also aizuchi frequency, particle

frequency

function 28, 90, 94, 138, 139, 141, 146,

148, 154, 156, 157, 159, 162, 171, 172,

173, 176, 192, 193, 198

see also aizuchi function, pragmatic

function, semantic function

Furo 58, 59

G

Gardner 153, 159

Garªnkel 5

Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai 27

Gillman 17, 19, 128

goal-oriented 33, 43, 45

Goffman 5, 11

grammatical completion 17, 57, 58, 71,

143

particle 89, 102

Greatbatch 1, 7, 12–14, 34, 35, 40, 43–45,

60, 73, 137

Greenwood 23, 25, 99, 104, 112, 175, 204

greetings 9, 10, 46, 48, 49, 52

see also exchange of greetings

Grice 14, 15

Gumperz 9, 19, 139

H

Hastings 25, 26, 104

Hayashi 1, 9, 38, 47–49, 98, 100, 105, 139,

177, 178

hedges 15, 86, 90, 97, 102, 204

Heritage 1, 3, 5–7, 10, 12–14, 29, 30, 33, 35,

40, 43–45, 50, 57, 60, 62, 64, 73, 99, 104,

137, 159, 185

Hinds 34, 35, 58, 67, 70, 86, 100, 105, 107,

122, 137

Holmes 23, 175, 176, 204

Honda 100, 110

honoriªc 17, 18, 20–22, 24, 28, 84, 86, 96,

101–103, 116–120, 129, 130, 132, 134,

135, 189, 198, 203

see also humble, keigo, forms, speech

styles

Horiguchi 137, 138, 162, 169, 172, 195

human relationships 40, 199

humble 17, 18, 20–22, 116, 117

see also keigo, kenjoogo, honoriªc,

polite forms, speech styles

I

Ide 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 28, 101, 102, 112

identity 44, 122, 124, 133

imposition 15, 34, 65, 86, 87, 202

in-group 15, 18, 22, 31

see also Japanese society

indirect 15, 59, 152

informal 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 58, 60, 80,

87, 90, 93, 117, 119–121, 123, 128, 129,

132, 134, 147, 183, 187, 188, 189, 191–

194, 197–201, 203

see also formal

informality 94, 190, 193, 202

information 38, 45, 54, 76, 83, 140, 155,

157, 158–160, 162, 163, 169, 170, 172,

180, 185, 187, 190, 192–196, 198, 201,

202, 205

institutional discourse 13, 14, 43–45

interaction 13–15


see also asymmetric interaction,

dyadic interaction, classroom

interaction, social interaction

interpersonal relationships 104, 134

interrogative 63, 64, 68, 70, 71

intonation 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 90, 96, 97,

117, 138, 142, 143, 154, 155, 157, 159,

160, 187, 193, 194, 195

intrusive interruptions 105, 107

see also aggressive interruptions

Irigaray 23

Itakura 19, 109

Iwasaki 137, 139, 140, 150, 167

J

Japanese communication 19, 20, 30, 83, 90,

101, 102, 104, 132–134

society 15, 19–23, 101–104, 126, 132,

134

Johnson 35, 36, 100

joint constructions 89

see also co-constructions

junior 21, 199, 205

see also koohai

K

Kaplan 23

kedo 90, 91, 94, 97, 105, 120, 123, 125,

132, 151, 180, 188

see also keredo

keigo 17, 18, 116–120

see also honoriªc

kenjoogo 17, 18, 116–120

see also humble

keredo 90, 114, 118

see also kedo

Kobayashi 1, 27, 103, 126

Komiya 137, 139

koohai 20, 21, 199

see also junior

subordinate

Kotthoff 35, 36, 100

Kurosaki 137–139, 171, 175–178

L

Labov 5, 19, 24

LakoŸ 15, 24, 99, 101, 175, 176

leave-taking 10, 51–53

see also greetings

Lebra 20, 21, 40, 83, 137, 167

Levinson 2, 14–16

lexical choices 16, 17, 86, 104

diŸerences 19, 25, 102,

features 27

items 130, 131, 133

listener 4, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21, 30, 31, 65,

68, 80, 86, 90, 94, 95, 106, 109, 115, 116,

118, 119, 128, 130, 137–141, 143–145,

148, 150, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 162,

164, 172, 198, 199, 202, 203

participation 190, 195, 196

M

male interviewee 35, 36, 40, 100

- female dichotomy 23, 99

registers 25–29, 93, 94

style 21, 99, 100, 116, 122–126, 130–

135, 146

talk 2, 23

males and aizuchi 176, 177, 178, 181, 182,

183, 192, 198–205

masu form 83, 128

see also polite forms

Matsumoto 15–17, 86

Maynard, D. 13, 14, 99

Maynard, S. 1, 7, 18, 34, 35, 57, 58, 60, 98,

118, 137, 138, 139, 142, 146, 171, 200

media 19, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 100

men and aggressivity 112

and interviews 36, 40

and language 2, 22–28, 134, 191, 200,

202, 204, 205

and SFPs 93, 94, 119, 126, 146

minimal responses 34, 35, 104, 137, 175,

176, 178, 198, 204

see also backchannel, aizuchi

mitigation 86, 87, 96, 97

Mizutani, N. 20, 28, 83, 94

227Index

Mizutani, O. 20, 28, 83, 90, 94, 183, 187,

202

Mori 1, 34, 58, 59, 83, 90, 93, 108, 144, 187

mundane conversation 30, 35, 44, 58, 60,

96, 97

see also everyday conversation

muted group 23

N

Nakajima 1, 101, 103, 126

Nakane 20, 22, 112, 199

narration 57, 58, 113, 182

narrative 58, 113, 115, 118, 119, 133, 178,

193

negative aizuchi 183

see also delayed aizuchi

negative face 15, 16

see also positive face

neutral 17, 29, 45, 103, 122, 125, 126, 131,

204

forms 103, 131, 204

pronouns 122, 125, 126

neutrality 44, 73, 137

neutralization 2, 27, 29, 101

news interview 34, 35, 73

newscaster 39

Nihonjinron 20, 59

Nolte 25, 26, 104

nominalizer 67

non-verbal 7, 10, 142, 145

communication 142

noun 84, 95, 121, 145, 180, 182

noun phrase 69, 70, 85, 89, 145, 180, 182

Nyobo kotoba 26, 27

O

obligation 13, 43, 75

see also rights

oh 50, 159, 161, 162, 185

Okamoto 17, 27, 59, 83, 86, 96, 101, 103,

126, 202, 204

older 18, 21, 33, 104, 112, 117, 122, 126,

128, 130, 132, 134, 171, 177, 182, 198,

202–204

guests 187, 190–192

see also senpai, status

organization 17, 39, 60

and social action 6–8

see also preference organization

out-group 22, 31

see also in-group

overlaps 61, 62, 107, 108, 134, 149, 178

P

particles and gender 27, 28, 58, 59, 66142

frequency 94

see also clausal particle, conjunctive

particle, connective particle,

grammatical particle, quotative

particle, sentence ªnal particle

(SFP)

patient-doctor interaction 4, 13, 22, 108

Peng 1, 22, 24, 85, 101

personal pronouns 17, 27, 28, 101–103,

122–128, 133

see also anata, atashi, boku, watashi

polite forms 16, 29, 58, 84, 85, 96, 101,

103, 118, 129, 134, 187, 198

see also honoriªc

political interviews 36, 39, 44, 100, 107

positive aizuchi 204

see also positive feedback

positive face 15, 16

see also negative face

positive feedback 176

see also cooperation

power asymmetry 13–15, 18, 19, 33, 44,

96, 104, 108

and gender 23, 26, 100, 101, 103, 109,

204, 205

and language 130, 134, 177, 178, 190–

202

and interruptions 133

pragmatic 8, 10, 15, 18, 57–60, 83, 85, 190,

191, 193, 198

function 90, 94

preference organization 12–14


Q

question and answer exchange 150–153,

162, 167

quotations 85, 88

quotative particle 85

R

radio 33, 37, 38, 55, 183

repetition 69, 113–115, 152, 159, 178, 182,

196

restrictions 34, 43–45, 60, 62, 162

Reynolds 27, 103, 126, 133, 205

rights 14, 19, 43, 44, 49, 78

see also obligations

rising intonation 24, 59, 61, 64, 66–70, 89,

97, 117, 140–148, 150, 154, 155, 159,

160, 189, 190

role allocation 43, 44,45, 54, 113

and aizuchi 187, 198–200

and formality 29

and gender 102–104, 176–178, 201–

204

and interviews 34, 35, 38, 54, 76, 83,

96, 134, 150, 170, 171, 201–204

and power 19, 204

and titles 126

in Japanese society 21, 22, 26

S

Sacks 1, 6–9, 29, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 75, 80,

96, 99, 104, 107, 143, 168, 201

sama 126

see also san, title

san 21, 126, 127, 132

SchegloŸ 1, 6, 7, 9, 12–14, 29, 42, 43, 64,

138, 168, 189

SchiŸrin 3, 9, 24, 185

Searle 4, 5

Seª 13, 14, 44, 99

semantic function 28

senior 21, 112, 128, 132, 134

senpai 21, 188, 197, 199

see also koohai, senior

sentence ªnal particle (SFP) 28, 31, 58,

84, 85, 93–95, 101, 102, 113, 119, 121,

128, 145–148, 164, 171, 182, 184, 186,

188, 190, 193,198

Shibamoto 2, 27, 28, 60, 85, 101, 102

skip-tying 189

Smith 20, 103

social structure 13, 14, 29, 43

interaction 5, 6

society 15, 19–23, 26, 53, 101–104, 126,

132, 134, 177, 200, 202, 204, 205

so, soo 88, 111, 140, 153–155, 157, 162–

168, 187, 188–198

Spanish 2, 18

speaker and Conversation analysis 8, 9, 12

and gender 2, 25, 27, 28,102, 128

and politeness 15–17, 116, 118, 119,

122, 126

and power 104, 105, 130

rights and restrictions 44, 45

speech styles 2, 17, 19, 20, 103, 204

status 14, 16–24, 104, 112, 116–118, 122,

128, 132, 134, 146, 177, 187, 198, 199–

202, 204, 205

see also power

status and gender 23, 25, 122, 130

subordinate 117, 129

see also koohai, junior

subordinate clauses 145

Sugito 139–141, 143, 146, 177

syntactic 17, 19, 57– 60, 63, 64, 86, 96–98,

102, 146,

signals 58, 59

syntax 27– 29, 102

Szatrowski 137–139, 146, 150, 153, 167

T

T/V 17–19, 117, 128

Takasaki 101, 103, 126, 205

talk show 35, 38, 40, 46

Tanaka 1, 7, 34, 58–60, 73, 74, 83, 86, 93,

144, 187, 189

Tannen 9, 23, 109, 110, 114, 175, 176, 196

TCU 8, 17, 30, 57, 63, 80, 82, 202

see also turn construction units

229Index

television programs 35–39, 40, 41, 51,

100, 101, 107, 183

Tetsuko Kuroyanagi 40, 41

Tetsuko no Heya 39–42, 55, 60, 73, 107

time restrictions 51, 62

title 21, 126–128, 132

Transition Relevance Place 8, 56

see also TRP

TRP 8, 56, 57, 59, 61, 83, 87, 95, 107, 115,

143, 144, 145,150, 187, 189

see also Transition Relevance Place

Tsui 5, 10, 11, 188

turn construction units 30, 59, 63, 202

turntaking organization 60

U

Uchida, N. 99, 101, 102

unknown information 190

Usami 16, 118, 128, 130, 134

V

violations 8, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 202

vowel lengthening 71, 154, 159, 160, 180,

184

W

watakushi 27, 122–125, 133

watashi 27, 122, 123, 125, 133

see also atashi, personal pronouns

West 8, 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 29, 30, 99–101,

104, 108, 138, 175, 176, 202

Winter 35, 36, 68, 69, 80, 100

women and language 2, 20, 23–28, 93,

100–104, 108, 112, 133, 134, 176–178,

200, 202, 204, 205

Y

Yamada, H. 137, 176

Yamada, T. 34, 35, 43, 60,112,137, 178

Yamato kotoba 26

Yngve 138

Yoshii 103, 112, 138, 175–178

Younger and aizuchi 172, 177,178,191–

193, 198, 199

and interruptions 108–110, 112

and politeness 16–18

and pronouns 123, 125–129

and style shifts 121

Z

Zimmerman 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 23, 29, 30, 99,

100, 104, 108, 138, 175, 176, 202

In the STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS) the following volumeshave been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:

1. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Work-shop studies prepared for the 12th Conference of Linguistics, Vienna, August 29th toSeptember 3rd, 1977. Amsterdam, 1978.

2. ANWAR, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic.Amsterdam, 1979.

3. MALKIEL, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965-1978.With an introd. by the author + indices. Amsterdam, 1983.

4. LLOYD, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theoryof Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam, 1979.

5. HAIMAN, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea.Amsterdam, 1980.

6. VAGO, Robert (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY LinguisticsConference on Vowel Harmony (May 14, 1977). Amsterdam, 1980.

7. PARRET, H., J. VERSCHUEREN, M. SBISÀ (eds): Possibilities and Limitations ofPragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8-14, 1979. Am-sterdam, 1981.

8. BARTH, E.M. & J.L. MARTENS (eds): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation.Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumenta-tion, Groningen, October 1978. Amsterdam, 1982.

9. LANG, Ewald: The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam, 1984.(English transl. by JohnPheby from the German orig. edition “Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung”, Berlin,1977.)

10. DRESSLER, Wolfgang U., Willi MAYERTHALER, Oswald PANAGL & Wolfgang U.WURZEL: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam, 1987.

11. PANHUIS, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study of LatinWord Order. Amsterdam, 1982.

12. PINKSTER, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1stIntern. Coll. on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. Amsterdam, 1983.

13. REESINK, G.: Structures and their Functions in Usan. Amsterdam, 1987.14. BENSON, Morton, Evelyn BENSON & Robert ILSON: Lexicographic Description of

English. Amsterdam, 1986.15. JUSTICE, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic, in the mirror of European languages.

Amsterdam, 1987.16. CONTE, M.E., J.S. PETÖFI, and E. SÖZER (eds): Text and Discourse Connectedness.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989.17. CALBOLI, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third

Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1-5 April 1985. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989.18. WIERZBICKA, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988.19. BLUST, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An Essay on the Limits of Morphology.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988.20. VERHAAR, John W.M. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First

International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles on Melanesia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,1990.

21. COLEMAN, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4thInternational Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991.

22. McGREGOR, William: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,1990.

23. COMRIE, Bernard and Maria POLINSKY (eds): Causatives and Transitivity. Amster-dam/Philadelphia, 1993.

24. BHAT, D.N.S. The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification.Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.

25. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds): Semantics and Lexical Universals.Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.

26. LIMA, Susan D., Roberta L. CORRIGAN and Gregory K. IVERSON (eds): The Reality ofLinguistic Rules. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.

27. ABRAHAM, Werner, T. GIVÓN and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Grammarand Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995.

28. HERMAN, József: Linguistic Studies on Latin: Selected papers from the 6th internationalcolloquium on Latin linguistics, Budapest, 2-27 March, 1991. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,1994.

29. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Elisabeth et al. (eds): Content, Expression and Structure. Studiesin Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.

30. HUFFMAN, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. Amsterdam/Philadel-phia, 1997.

31. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing.Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.

32. FRAJZYNGIER, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study inChadic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.

33. VELAZQUEZ-CASTILLO, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorpora-tion and possessor ascension in Guaraní. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.

34. HATAV, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and BiblicalHebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.

35. MATSUMOTO, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semanticapproach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.

36. KAMIO, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.37. HARVEY, Mark and Nicholas REID (eds): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.38. HACKING, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A Comparative Typology of Conditionals in

Russian and Macedonian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.39. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,

1997.40. BIRNER, Betty and Gregory WARD: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in

English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.41. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER

and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I:General papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999.

42. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER

and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II:Case studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999.

43. OLBERTZ, Hella, Kees HENGEVELD and Jesús Sánchez GARCÍA (eds): The Structure ofthe Lexicon in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.

44. HANNAY, Mike and A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN (eds): Functional Grammar and VerbalInteraction. 1998.

45. COLLINS, Peter and David LEE (eds): The Clause in English. In honour of RodneyHuddleston. 1999.

46. YAMAMOTO, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguis-tics. 1999.

47. BRINTON, Laurel J. and Minoji AKIMOTO (eds): ollocational and Idiomatic Aspects ofComposite Predicates in the History of English. 1999.

48. MANNEY, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of aninflectional category. 2000.

49. BHAT, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999.50. ABRAHAM, Werner and Leonid KULIKOV (eds): Transitivity, Causativity, and TAM.

In honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999.51. ZIEGELER, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000.52. TORRES CACOULLOS, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language

Contact.A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000.53. FISCHER, Olga, Anette ROSENBACH and Dieter STEIN (eds.): Pathways of Change.

Grammaticalization in English. 2000.54. DAHL, Östen and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages.

Volume 1: Past and Present. 2001.55. DAHL, Östen and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages.

Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. 2001.56. FAARLUND, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001.57. MEL’C� UK, Igor: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-

communicative structure of sentences. 2001.58. MAYLOR, Brian Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal

prefixes in German. 2002.59. SHI, Yuzhi: The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar. The formation of the

resultative construction and its effects. 2002.60. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar.

Theory and empirical findings. Volume 1. 2002.61. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar.

Theory and empirical findings. Volume 2. 2002.62. FIELD, Fredric W.: Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. 2002.63. BUTLER, Chris: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional

Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. 2003.64. BUTLER, Chris: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional

Theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. 2003.65. MATSUMOTO, Kazuko: Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation. Syntactic, informa-

tional and functional structures. 2003.66. NARIYAMA, Shigeko: Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese. 2003.

67. LURAGHI, Silvia: On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semanticroles in Ancient Greek. 2003.

68. MODER, Carol Lynn and Aida MARTINOVIC-ZIC (eds.): Discourse Across Languagesand Cultures. n.y.p.

69. TANAKA, Lidia: Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interviewdiscourse. 2004.

70. LEFEBVRE, Claire: Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 2004.

Gender, Language and Culture A study of Japanese television interview discourse

Documents

Transcript of Gender, Language and Culture A study of Japanese television interview discourse