Home Sequential positions and interactional functions of negative epistemic constructions in Japanese conversation
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Sequential positions and interactional functions of negative epistemic constructions in Japanese conversation

  • Tomoko Endo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 4, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

In this study, we adopted the methodology of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to investigate the use of shiranai and wakannai ‘I don’t know’ in data from (the Corpus of Everyday Japanese Conversation), a corpus of naturally occurring conversations. The quantitative and qualitative analyses of the sequential positions and the interactional functions of these two expressions revealed that shiranai is often used as a response to a question that explicitly requests knowledge status. Shiranai is also used in response to informing, soliciting more talk from the interlocutor. On the other hand, wakannai is more often used as a response to a question that requests information. Used with prosodic features such as elongation and laughter, both shiranai and wakannai sometimes convey the speaker’s affective stance towards the lack of knowledge. Furthermore, wakannai can be used as a discourse marker to mark the speaker’s low degree of commitment, sometimes working as a sequence-closing device.


Corresponding author: Tomoko Endo, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by KAKENHI grants #JP17KT0061 and #JP20H05630, and NINJAL Collaborative Project “A Comprehensive Study of Spoken Language Using a Multi-Generational Corpus of Japanese Conversation.”

Appendix A: Transcription symbols

,

continuing intonation

-

truncated speech

.

terminal intonation (falling)

=

latching (no gap between two lines)

[ ]

overlapping speech

huh

laughter or laughing quality

X

uncertain hearing

h

hearable exhalation

:

lengthening

.h

hearable inhalation

(.)

micro pause

sudden rise of pitch

(2.1)

long pause and its length in seconds

< >

slowed down speech

º

soft voice

> <

speeded up speech

word

stressed

Appendix B: Glossing symbols

1SG

1st person singular

COP

Copula

DAT

Dative

EMP

Emphatic

FP

Final particle

GEN

Genitive

INJ

Interjection

NEG

Negation

NML

Nominalizer

PN

Proper noun

Q

Question particle

SE

Sentence extender

TOP

Topic marker

References

Beach, Wayne A. & Terri R. Metzger. 1997. Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research 23(4). 562–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & Joan Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37. 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Harbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338733.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara, Sandra A. Thompson, Cecilia E. Ford & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2012. Conversation analysis and linguistics. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 726–740. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch36Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1978. Response cries. Language 54(4). 787–815. https://doi.org/10.2307/413235.Search in Google Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru. 2011. Giving support to the claim of epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004Search in Google Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru. 2012. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 395–414. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch19Search in Google Scholar

Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke & Arnulf Deppermann. 2016. A range of uses of negative epistemic constructions in German: ICH WEISS NICHT as a resource for dispreferred actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012a. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012b. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685.Search in Google Scholar

Joh, Ayami, Mayumi Bono & Katsuya Takanashi. 2015. Kagakukan niokeru “taiwa” no koochiku: soogokooi bunseki kara mita “shitteru?” no shiyoo [construction of “dialogue” in science museum: The use of shitteru? ‘Do you know?’ from the perspective of interaction analysis]. Cognitive Studies 22(1). 69–83.Search in Google Scholar

Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territories of information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Kato, Yukiko. 2002. “Chigai ga wakaru otoko” wa donna otoko ka [What kind of person is someone who is called “chigai ga wakaru otoko”]. Bulletin of the International Student Center Gifu University. 97–109.Search in Google Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo. 2016. Abandoning dead ends: The Estonian junction marker maitea ‘I don’t know’. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.007.Search in Google Scholar

Koiso, Hanae, Yasuharu Den, Yuriko Iseki, Wakako Kashino, Yoshiko Kawabata, Ken’ya Nishikawa, Yayoi Tanaka & Yasuyuki Usuda. 2018. Construction of the Corpus of Everyday Japanese conversation: An interim report. In Proceedings of LREC2018, 4259–4264.Search in Google Scholar

Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo. 2016. Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.005.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Kiri. 2006. Territory of information theory and emotive expressions in Japanese: A case observed in shiranai and wakaranai. In Satoko Suzuki (ed.), Emotive communication in Japanese, 191–207. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.151.10leeSearch in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch6Search in Google Scholar

Lindström, Jan & Susanna Karlsson. 2016. Tensions in the epistemic domain and claims of no-knowledge: A study of Swedish medical interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 129–147.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.003Search in Google Scholar

Lindström, Jan, Yael Maschler & Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2016. A cross-linguistic perspective on grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 72–79.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Liyan. 2006. Huayu biaoji “ni zhidao” [Discourse marker ni zhidao]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Language] 5. 423–432.Search in Google Scholar

Matsugu, Yuka. 2005. Japanese epistemic sentence-final particle kana: Its function as a ‘mitigation marker’ in discourse data. Pragmatics 15(4). 423–436.10.1075/prag.15.4.02matSearch in Google Scholar

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2016. More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequence organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014.Search in Google Scholar

Polak-Yitshaki, Hilla & Yael Maschler. 2016. Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew ‘ani lo mevin/a’ (‘I don’t understand’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 163–183.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.013Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey & John Heritage. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owing grandchildren. Language in Society 35. 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060325.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sadler, Misumi. 2010. Subjective and intersubjective uses of Japanese verbs of cognition in conversation. Pragmatics 20(1). 109–128.10.1075/prag.20.1.06sadSearch in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002Search in Google Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 2003. Cong yuyin, yufa he huayu tezheng kan “zhidao” geshi zai tanhua zhong de yeanhua. [Phonological, Grammatical, and Discourse Evidence for the Emergence of Zhidao (to know) Constructions in Mandarin Conversation]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Language] 2003.4(295). 291–302 (Reprinted in Xu Jie and Zhong Qi, eds., Interface in Chinese: Phonetics, Morphology, and Syntax. Beijing Language and Culture University Press. 425–445. 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139381154Search in Google Scholar

Vatanen, Anna. 2018. Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: Mätiedän ‘I know’ responses in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 123. 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.009.Search in Google Scholar

Yokomori, Daisuke & Tomoko Endo. 2022. Projective/retrospective linking of a contrastive idea: Interactional practices of turn-initial and turn-final uses of kedo ‘but’ in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 196. 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.017.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-10-07
Accepted: 2022-03-30
Published Online: 2023-05-04
Published in Print: 2023-05-25

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jjl-2023-2005/html
Scroll to top button