Kedo-ending turn format as a formula for a problem statement with a deontic implication

References

Canavan, Alexandra & George Zipperlen. 1996. CALLHOME Japanese speech. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647.10.1075/prag.24.3.08couSearch in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4). 513–552.10.1075/prag.17.4.02couSearch in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139507318Search in Google Scholar

Curl, Tracy S. & Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2). 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul. 2013. Turn design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 131–149. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch7Search in Google Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru. 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Tanya Stivers, Loreza 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. 2013. Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation. Nijmegen: Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Max Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3). 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500019990.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195124897.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012. 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

Heritage, John. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15(5). 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103.Search in Google Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth. 2012. Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4). 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.726886.Search in Google Scholar

Itani, Reiko. 1992. Japanese conjunction kedo (‘but’) in utterance-final use: A relevance-based analysis. English Linguistics 9. 265–283. https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.9.265.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2015. Talking About Troubles in Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin H. & Paul Drew. 2016. Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436.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

Miyata, Susanne, Kyoko Banno, Saya Konishi, Ayumi Matsui, Shiori Matsumoto, Rie Ooki, Akane Takahashi & Kyoko Muraki. 2010. Japanese Sakura Corpus. Pittsburgh: Talk Bank. Available at: https://ca.talkbank.org/access/Sakura.html.Search in Google Scholar

Morita, Emi. 2012. “This talk needs to be registered”: The metapragmatic meaning of the Japanese interactional particle yo. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13). 1721–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.011.Search in Google Scholar

Nakayama, Toshihide & Kumiko Ichihashi-Nakayama. 1997. Japanese kedo: Discourse genre and grammaticization. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6. 607–618.Search in Google Scholar

Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpoo Kenkyuukai. 2008. Fukubun [Complex Sentences]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Yumi Sasaki. 2012. Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes 49(3–4). 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2012.664759.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50(4–1). 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Stevanovic, Melisa. 2012. Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 14(6). 779–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654.Search in Google Scholar

Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3). 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260.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

Yokomori, Daisuke. 2013. Bunpoo-kenkyuu to guroobaru-na bunmyaku: Nihongo kedo-setsu o reini [Grammar studies and global contexts: The case of Japanese kedo-clauses]. In Kazuhiro Kodama & Tetsuharu Koyama (eds.), Gengo no Soohatsu to Shintaisei [Emergence and Embodiment of Language]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.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