AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Conversational Dominance and Gender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker Justus Liebig University Giessen, English Department Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10, D-35394 Giessen, Germany e-mail:
[email protected] Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey, Odense University Herman Parret, Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp Jef Verschueren, Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Chris Butler, University College of Ripon and York Jean Caron, Université de Poitiers Robyn Carston, University College London Bruce Fraser, Boston University Thorstein Fretheim, University of Trondheim John Heritage, University of California at Los Angeles Susan Herring, University of Texas at Arlington Masako K. Hiraga, St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University David Holdcroft, University of Leeds Sachiko Ide, Japan Women’s University Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, University of Lyon 2 Claudia de Lemos, University of Campinas, Brazil Marina Sbisà, University of Trieste Emanuel Schegloff, University of California at Los Angeles Deborah Schiffrin, Georgetown University Paul O. Takahara, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Sandra Thompson, University of California at Santa Barbara Teun A. Van Dijk, University of Amsterdam Richard J. Watts, University of Berne
Volume 89 Conversational Dominance and Gender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts by Hiroko Itakura
Conversational Dominance and Gender A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts
Hiroko Itakura The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Itakura, Hiroko. Conversational Dominance and Gender : A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts / Hiroko Itakura. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 89) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.Japanese language--Discourse analysis. 2.Japanese language--Sex differences. 3.Dominance (Psychology). I.Title. II.Series PL640.5.I83 2001 495.6’01’41--dc21 isbn 90 272 51088 (Eur.) / 1 58811 0575 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)
2001025566
© 2001 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O.Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O.Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Table of contents"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Table of contents
Acknowledgementsix List of tablesxi Transcription notationxiii List of abbreviationsxv Chapter 1 Introduction1 Chapter 2 Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer5 2.1 Language and gender in Japanese culture5 2.1.1 Sensitivity to status in the Japanese language5 2.1.2 Japanese women’s language7 2.1.3 Uchi-soto relationships as a social variable in Japanese culture11 2.1.4 Summary13 2.2 Conversational dominance and gender14 2.2.1 Gender markers15 2.2.2 Gender and dominance in interaction16 2.2.3 Construction of gender in context22 2.2.4 Conversational styles23 2.2.5 Conversational competence27 2.2.6 Summary28 2.3 Conversational dominance and pragmatic transfer29 2.3.1 Gender and conversational dominance in L229 2.3.2 L1–L2 transfer31 2.3.3 Summary35 2.4 Conclusion36
vi
Table of contents
Chapter 3 Analysing conversational dominance37 3.1 Theories of spoken discourse37 3.1.1 Conversation Analysis37 3.1.2 Birmingham school of discourse analysis41 3.1.3 Dialogical analysis42 3.2 Features of interactional asymmetry44 3.2.1 Introduction44 3.2.2 Sequencing45 3.2.3 Participation59 3.2.4 Quantity of talk63 3.2.5 Topic64 3.3 Analytical framework70 3.3.1 Basic principles70 3.3.2 Sequential dominance72 3.3.3 Participatory dominance80 3.3.4 Quantitative dominance83 3.3.5 Conclusion85 Chapter 4 Empirical study: Gender dominance and pragmatic transfer among Japanese speakers 87 4.1 Research design87 4.1.1 Data88 4.1.2 Analytic procedure90 4.2 Results92 4.2.1 Hypothesis 1. Male dominance in Japanese conversation92 4.2.2 Hypothesis 2. Conversational dominance and pragmatic transfer97 4.2.3 Conclusion102 Chapter 5 Dimensions of conversational dominance105 5.1 Relationships among the three dimensions of conversational dominance105 5.2 Sequential dominance and quantitative dominance106 5.2.1 Introduction106
Table of contents
Consistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance107 5.2.3 Inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance108 5.2.4 Sequential dominance, quantitative dominance and topic115 5.3 Sequential dominance and participatory dominance116 5.3.1 Introduction116 5.3.2 Consistency between sequential dominance and participatory dominance117 5.3.3 Inconsistency between sequential dominance and participatory dominance120 5.3.4 Sequential dominance, participatory dominance and topic126 5.4 Conclusion127 5.2.2
Chapter 6 Conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer: Informatives 129 6.1 Introduction129 6.2 Gender differences in the use of initiations in L1 and L2132 6.3 Informatives135 6.3.1 Introduction135 6.3.2 Dyad 1137 6.3.3 Dyad 6146 6.4 L1 to L2 transfer of informatives161 Chapter 7 Conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer: Elicitations 163 7.1 Elicit:agree163 7.1.1 Introduction163 7.1.2 Dyad 1166 7.1.3 Dyad 6170 7.1.4 L1 to L2 transfer of elicit:agrees173 7.2 Elicit:inform175 7.2.1 Introduction175 7.2.2 Dyad 1176 7.2.3 L1 to L2 transfer of elicit:informs182 7.3 Conclusion183
vii
viii Table of contents
Chapter 8 Conclusion185 8.1 Re-examination of the analytical framework185 8.1.1 Analysing conversational dominance185 8.1.2 Self-oriented initiations vs. other-oriented initiations187 8.1.3 Degrees of control for self-oriented initiations190 8.1.4 Degrees of control for other-oriented initiations192 8.1.5 Summary193 8.2 Gender dominance in Japanese conversation194 8.3 Gender and pragmatic transfer196 8.4 Concluding remarks198 Appendix 1: Topic sheet 201 Appendix 2: Number of turns used for quantitative analysis 203 References205 Name index221 Subject index223
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Acknowledgements"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Acknowledgements
Throughout the process of writing this book, I have received support from numerous people. I am extremely grateful to Amy Tsui for helping me come to understand and appreciate conversation with her critical, demanding and yet encouraging comments when I was formulating the theoretical framework and synthesise analyses. Without her guidance and vision, this book would never have been possible. This book also owes a great deal to the participation of the many people who happily agreed to help me collect conversational data. I wish to thank Ian Harrison and Nick Marshall, who helped me record data at Kanda University in Japan, and the students who participated in the recording sessions. I would also like to thank Kevin Forde and Jean Young for helping me record data from their students at the British Council in Hong Kong for a preliminary study. I would also like to extend my profound appreciations to friends, colleagues and teachers who helped me at various stages of writing this book: to Ron Carter and K. K. Luke for giving me their insightful comments and suggesting the right directions for further research; to Mark Constas, William Littlewood, Peter Grundy who kindly read the earlier drafts of this book and gave me insightful comments; to Tom Lumley, Mr Leung and John Sachs for going through tables and figures used for the quantitative analysis with me and suggesting the right direction for presenting them; to Mari Takayanagi for going through Japanese transcripts and giving me useful suggestions; to Sachiko Nakajima for discussing Japaense transcripts and keeping me informed of the latest developments in the field of Japanese interactional particles; and to Masako Hiraga, Sachiko Ide, Paul Takahara for their contributions. My heartfelt thanks also go to my friends and colleagues who have given me unfailing support and encouragement, which has enabled me to complete the process of writing this book. Espeically, I would like to record my thanks to Liz Walker, Dwight Atkinson, Liz Hamp-Lyons, Ken Hyland, Joachim Lembach, Yuko Miyazoe-Wong, Sima Sengupta, Yoko Tangiku and John Ure. Above all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Andreas Jucker,
x
Acknowledgements
Jacob Mey and Isja Conen of Benjamins for providing this opportunity to publish my research and for their helpful advice in the preparation of the manuscript. I am also very grateful to Katsue Reynolds and Anna Trosborg for their comments which substantially improved the earlier drafts of the manuscript. Last but not the least, I owe my deepest gratitude to Phil Benson who through generosity of his heart, gave me his advice, support and encouragement throughout the entire process of writing this book, even in the most difficult times of our life.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "List of tables"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
List of tables
Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Sequential dominance in L1 — number of SSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads Participatory dominance in L1 — number of PSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads Quantitative dominance in L1 — total number of words spoken by male and female speakers in MF dyads Relationship between M and F in the 8 MF dyads across the three dimensions of conversational dominance in L1 Sequential dominance in L2 — number of SSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads and comparison with L1 Participatory dominance in L2 — number of PSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads and in comparison with L1 Quantitative dominance in L2 — number of words spoken by male and female speakers in MF dyads and comparison with L1 Relationship between M and F in the 8 MF dyads across the three dimensions of conversational dominance in L2
93 94 95 96
98
99
100 101
Chapter 6 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3
Sequential dominance in L1 and L2 — number of SCAs produced by 8 male and 8 female speakers in 8 MF dyads 129 Categorisation of initiations produced by M and F in L1 and L2 in Dyad 1 132 Categorisation of initiations produced by M and F in L1 and L2 in Dyad 6 133
xii
List of tables
Chapter 7 Table 7.1 Table 7.2
Number of informatives and elicit:agrees in Dyad 1 and Dyad 6 in L1 and L2 173 Number of elicit:informs in Dyad 1 and Dyad 6 in L1 and L2 175
DOCINFO
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Transcription notation"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Transcription notation
Adapted from Jefferson (1984a) and Tsui (1994). [
Beginning of overlapping utterances
//
Beginning of overlapping utterances (in cited excerpts)
]
End of overlapping utterances
=
A single speaker’s utterance which is a continuous flow of speech but has been separated graphically in order to accommodate intervening interruption or A second utterance being latched immediately to the first utterance with no overlap.
-
Short untimed pause within an utterance.
((pause))
Long untimed pause
((2 sec))
Timed pause. Pauses are timed only when they are significant for dominance
?
Rising intonation (not necessarily a question)
!
Animated tone
((
))
(
)
( ? )
Non-verbal elements, e.g., ((laughs)) Doubtful transcription or indeterminable speech Untranscribable speech
. (full stop) End of sentence , (comma)
Clause boundary or repeated words
-,
Incomplete words during self-repair
…
Incomplete utterances
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "List of abbreviations"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
List of abbreviations
Major types of moves I R F TP CO ReI X
Initiation Response Follow-up Turn passing signal (indicating that the speaker does not wish to add any more and wishes to relinquish the floor ) Completion offer Re-initiation Incomplete turn
Sub-classification of moves (from Tsui, 1994) Initiation adv ch el:inf el:conf el:agr el:rep el:cla inf
advice challenging move elicit:inform elicit:confirm elicit:agree elicit:repeat elicit:clarify informative
Response ack agr comp
acknowledgement agreement compliance
{?}
move that cannot be determined
xvi List of abbreviations
Turns p1, p2, p3…
indicate that turns are not included in the last 100 turns selected for quantitative analysis in Chapter 4
Controlling actions SCA ACA SSCA PSCA SACA PACA
successful controlling action attempted controlling action sequential successful controlling action participatory successful controlling action sequential attempted controlling action participatory attempted controlling action
Japanese grammatical items Adapted from Maynard (1993; 1997) BE various forms of the verb ‘be’ IP interactional particle NM nominalizer Japanese expressions att
Japanese expression indicating that the speaker has suddenly remembered something. ne, nee, naa, jan Japanese expressions used (a) for eliciting agreement for statements that are self-evidently true (similar to tag questions in English) and also (b) for eliciting empathy for or involvement in statements that are not obvious to the other speaker. Ne and jan and their variants are translated by tag questions when used with the function of (a), and as “you see” when used with the function of (b) (Biber et al., 1999). They are not explicitly translated if they do not affect the classification of moves or are used for other functions, for example: (c) when used as an attention getter during story-telling, (d) when used in a response or follow-up move to express agreement and empathy (see Izuhara, 1993), (e) when used as a part of an idiomatic expression (e.g., ‘aa maa nee’ [‘ah that’s right’] or ‘..toka nanka nee’ [‘things like that’].
List of abbreviations xvii
sa, saa yo, yoo
Japanese sentence ending particle that emphasises the speaker’s utterance Japanese expression equivalent to ‘you know’ in English
Use of foreign words English and Japanese English words used in Japanese conversation are printed in italics. Japanese words that are difficult to translate into English such as derutan (exercise books for university entrance examinations that list English vocabulary with their Japanese equivalents) are also printed in italics in English translations.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Introduction"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 1
Introduction
This book explores the notion of dominance in conversation — in particular gender dominance and its pragmatic transfer in Japanese (L1) and English (L2) conversation. The concept of dominance has been particularly important in language and gender research, which has sought to explain how male dominance in society also manifests itself linguistically, e.g., in everyday conversation and institutional talk. Language and gender issues are particularly pertinent to the study of Japanese, which has traditionally been assumed to reflect in its use and structure the lower social status of Japanese women vis-à-vis Japanese men. Language and gender issues have also played a substantial role in the study of second language acquisition. This is due to the fact that, if gender is implicated in L1 conversational dominance, and if similar patterns of dominance are then transferred to an L2, it may lead to gender-based inequalities in learners’ opportunities to acquire and use the target language. However, despite the importance of the concept of dominance in these research areas, scholars have yet to develop a systematic approach to the analysis of dominance in conversation. Only then would we be able to test the credibility of the prevalent view that Japanese men dominate Japanese women in sociolinguistic terms, especially in the present context where traditional gender relationships are going through rapid change in Japan. Likewise, without a fully operational analysis of dominance, second language acquisition research will not be able to explain how patterns of dominance in L1 and L2 are related. The present volume is an attempt to develop and use such a system of analysis. In Conversational Dominance and Gender, interaction is used as a broad term to refer to the exchange of talk, which commonly includes both everyday conversation and institutional talk. Institutional talk has generally been found to be highly asymmetrical (e.g., by Adelswärd et al., 1987; Agar, 1985; Drew and Heritage, 1992; ten Have, 1991). Everyday conversation, on the other hand, is often believed to be a form of interaction that is characterised by symmetry and equality of participation. For some analysts, however, everyday conversation is also characterised by asymmetry. Van Dijk (1989: 29), for example, states that
2
Conversational Dominance and Gender
unequal relations in social structure, such as those between rich and poor, men and women, and adults and children, influence relationships between speakers during conversation and are especially evident in asymmetrical control of dialogue, turn taking, use of speech acts, topic choice and style. In everyday conversation, a speaker who does not allow others to get a word in edgewise, who by asking questions forces others to provide information, or who speaks more loudly than others is often said to dominate the conversation. For the purposes of pragmatics, however, this use of the word ‘dominate’ is imprecise. In order to investigate relationships between gender and conversational dominance, and how such patterns are pragmatically transferred, it is necessary to operationalize the notion of dominance in a way that enables us to compare the interactional behaviour of the speakers in a conversation on the basis of recorded data. At the theoretical level, the objective of this book is therefore to outline a framework for the analysis of conversational dominance based on a critical synthesis of insights from Conversation Analysis, the Birmingham school of discourse analysis, and dialogical analysis. Within this framework, conversational dominance refers to an overall pattern of asymmetry measured in terms of the distribution of controlling actions between speakers over the course of an interaction along (1) sequential, (2) participatory and (3) quantitative dimensions. Conversation is viewed as being inherently asymmetrical in the sense that relationships between speakers are rarely equal at any particular stage of an interaction. For example, when one speaker speaks, the other generally listens. Given two adjacent utterances, if one speaker asks a question the other speaker generally answers it. In other words, at any particular moment in a conversation one speaker tends to control the other speaker’s following conversational actions. Controlling actions are thus the basic units of dominance. Over the course of an interaction, two kinds of relationships between speakers are possible. If the speakers produce an equal number of controlling actions on one dimension of conversational dominance, their overall relationship can be considered equal on that dimension. By contrast, if one of the speakers consistently produces more controlling actions than the other, the former can be said to dominate the latter. The analytical framework described so far is developed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this volume. Chapter 2 reviews previous studies of gender dominance both within and outside Japan, as well as research on pragmatic transfer. It focuses on frameworks and research methods used to investigate these phenomena in previous research. Chapter 3 explores the notion of conversational dominance
Introduction
on the basis of different approaches to spoken interaction, and proposes a framework for analysing it. At the empirical level, the main objective of this book is to provide empirical evidence regarding the influence of gender on dominance in L1 Japanese, as well as on L1-to-L2 pragmatic transfer of dominance patterns among L1 Japanese speakers. Chapter 4 thus describes the research methods employed in the study, and presents quantitative results on the issue of male dominance in Japanese speakers’ L1 and L2 conversation. In Chapter 5 the validity of the proposed framework is tested. More specifically, I try to establish whether theoretical assumptions made within the analytical framework that sequential dominance is the most important dimension of conversational dominance is justified on the basis of a detailed descriptive analysis of part of the data. Chapters 6 to 7 pursue further the implications of the quantitative analysis presented in Chapter 4 by closely examining selected dyadic interactions qualitatively. They explore limited but potentially generalisable patterns found in the data connecting gender and pragmatic transfer, using the notions of selforiented and other-oriented conversational styles and strategies. The final chapter draws conclusions regarding the main questions addressed in the study and proposes directions for future research. The three main questions addressed in this book are therefore: 1. How can conversational dominance be analysed? 2. Do Japanese men tend to dominate Japanese women in L1 (Japanese) conversation? 3. Are patterns of gender dominance in Japanese L2 (English) conversation similar to those found in L1 (Japanese) conversation? Investigation of the first question aims to provide systematic methods for the analysis of conversational dominance. Investigation of the second question aims to enhance our understanding of the role of gender in conversational dominance in Japanese among L1 Japanese speakers. By addressing the third question, I hope to deepen our understanding of L1-to-L2 transfer at the interactional level, especially in terms of sociocultural norms of conversation.
3
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 2
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
In this chapter, I will review the literature in order to gain insights into (1) whether research evidence can be found to support the widely held assumption that Japanese men dominate Japanese women during their L1 conversation, (2) how gender dominance has been investigated in contexts outside Japan, and (3) whether patterns of gender dominance in L1 conversation are also observed in L2 conversation. These questions are discussed under the headings of language and gender in Japanese culture, conversational dominance and gender and pragmatic transfer of interactional norms.
2.1 Language and gender in Japanese culture 2.1.1 Sensitivity to status in the Japanese language Japanese has been characterised as a language that especially reflects speakers’ sensitivity to social distance and the relative status of (a) speakers and addressees and (b) speakers and third persons referents. It has also been noted to have a highly intricate system for expressing these relationships (Hori, 1986; Ide, 1982; Kodansha, 1995: 374; Matsumoto, 1989; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Neustupný 1978; Ogino, 1986; Tsujimura, 1996). Matsumoto (1989: 208), for example, claims that “no utterance in Japanese can be neutral with respect to the social context” and that “politeness expressions are not simply additions to a neutral utterance which conveys the propositional content: rather, the structure of the language requires some choice of expression which conveys additional information on the social context”. Benjamin (1997: 70) states that “no one can speak Japanese, even the simplest and most straightforward sentence, without being aware of the vertical relationships implied by linguistic choices”. According to Mizutani and Mizutani (1987: 59), the Japanese language has two levels of speech, characterised mainly by a systematic change of verb forms according to the situation:
6
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Generally speaking, polite speech is used in social situations such as conversations between acquaintances or strangers and familiar speech in familiar conversations between good friends or family members.
Depending on the speaker’s perception of his or her social distance from the addressee, their relative social status and the formality of the situation that they are in, different verb forms may be used. For example, based on a verb stem ik(to go), a polite form (ikimasu) and a plain form (iku) are formed, as in the following examples: (a) Ashita gakkoo e ikimasu ka tomorrow school to go:polite question particle ‘Will you go to school tomorrow?’ (to a colleague who is not very close) (b) Ashita gakkoo e iku? tomorrow school to go:plain ‘Will you go to school tomorrow?’
(to a colleague who is very close)
The polite form ikimasu would be used to a person who is not particularly close to the speaker, while the plain form iku would be used to a person who is a close friend. In addition to polite and plain verb forms, honorifics (keego), or ‘respectful’ forms (sonkeego) and ‘humble’ forms (kenjoogo), are used to express the speaker’s attitude towards the status of the addressee or a third person referent. According to Mizutani and Mizutani (1987: 80–106), respectful forms are used to refer to the interlocutor’s condition or actions, while humble forms are used to refer to the condition or actions of the speaker or people or things associated with the speaker (e.g., family members, home). The speaker elevates the interlocutor’s status by using respectful forms and lowers his or her own status by using humble forms: (c) Asu gakkoo e irrashaimasu ka? tomorrow:polite school to go:respectful question particle Will you go to school tomorrow? (d) Asu gakkoo e mairimasu tomorrow:polite school to go:humble I will go to school tomorrow
In both of these examples, asu (tomorrow), which is a more polite form than ashita (see the previous examples (a) and (b)) is used. In (c), irrashaimasu is a respectful form of iku (to go). In (d), mairimasu is a humble form of iku (to go). Both speakers express their attitude that their addressee is in a superior position.
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
Speech can also be made more polite by using an o- prefix in front of nouns. For example, o-tenki (weather) would be used to make the tone of speech more polite than tenki. Mizutani and Mizutani (1987: 69) also remark that the o- prefix is characteristic of female speech. Status differences between speakers are also expressed in vocabulary and terms of personal referents (Jorden, 1983a,b; Kodansha, 1995; Loveday, 1986a,b; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Moeran, 1988; Shibamoto, 1987a). For example, Mizutani and Mizutani (1987: 90–92 and 98–99) describe how humble forms are used to refer to the speaker’s own family members (e.g., kanai or tsuma for the speaker’s wife) while respectful forms are used for the other speaker’s family members (e.g., okusan for the interlocutor’s wife). The use of terms of personal reference such as anata (you) is described as being restricted to addressees with equal or inferior status to the speaker (Mizutani and Mizutani 1987: 89–90). For an addressee with superior status, -san or -sama may be attached to the family name, or the addressee’s position may be used (e.g., sensee for a teacher or shachoo for the president of a company). Japanese has, therefore, a more highly developed and more consistent system for expressing interpersonal relationships with respect to social distance and social variables than many other languages, including English. Although some European languages distinguish different levels of social status and social distance through the use of second person pronouns such as tu and vous in French (Brown and Gilman, 1968), their systems are more limited than the Japanese system, which systematically extends to choice of verb forms and lexical items. 2.1.2 Japanese women’s language In studies of Japanese culture, social variables are often described in hierarchical terms so that individuals who have a higher social rank, who are older, or who are male, are thought of as having a higher status than those who have a lower social rank, who are younger or who are female (Lebra, 1978, 1984; Nakane, 1970, Pharr, 1976). In other words, gender is one of the factors determining the relative status of individuals in Japanese society. Lebra (1984: 301) in this regard states: The structural embeddedness of sex roles stabilizes and rigidifies the sex-based hierarchy. Social structure as a whole dictates that women be inferior, submissive, more constrained, and more backstaged than men; that they be lower in status, power, autonomy and role visibility.
7
8
Conversational Dominance and Gender
The lower status of Japanese women in this hierarchical system is said to be manifested in their use of the Japanese language (Ehara et al., 1984; Jorden, 1983a,b; Kodansha, 1995; Lebra, 1976; Loveday, 1986a,b; Moeran, 1988; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Nakane, 1970; Pharr, 1976; Shibamoto, 1992). According to Pharr (1976: 306), Japanese women have long been accorded a lower status to men, and until the Second World War, were expected to show “deference to men of their own as well as higher classes through the use of polite language and honorific forms of address, bowing more deeply than men, walking behind their husbands in public and in numerous ways deferring to men”. Lebra (1976: 78–79) makes a similar observation: Status complementarity is expressed and stabilized through what might be called linguistic dimorphism, where one party “talks down” and the other complementarily “talks up.” This sort of dimorphism appears most clearly in heterosexual interaction where the Japanese male speaks a dominant, masculine language that the female complements by a language of inferiority.
Lebra (1984: 42) relates female speech to “femininity training”, which involves modesty in speech imposed on young girls. This involves requirements of reticence, softness of voice, a polite or feminine style of speech, and covering the mouth when talking or laughing. Jorden (1983b: 124) also states that differences in male-female speech start at an early stage: There is evidence that Japanese mothers tend to treat their male offspring with greater linguistic deference than they show their daughters: from an early age, sons are addressed more politely and with more solicitude than their sisters. As they interact with an increasingly wider network of acquaintances at play and at school, the concept of sexually differentiated language is reinforced by their peers, their teachers and their textbooks. The male child is socialized to take his position in a society where language overtly reflects the different social roles and behaviour expected of males.
Loveday (1986b: 304) has also noted that boys and girls are more clearly segregated, even at university level, than in Western society: …males and females are not encouraged (permitted to) mix socially as such as in the West after childhood, with the prevalence of monosexual groupings which are age-graded at school (even in co-eds), at university and at work.
The expression of women’s status in speech continues to be reported in the 1990s. Shibamoto (1992), for example, describes the language of Japanese women as ‘powerless’, while Kodansha (1995: 382) describes it as the result of “training Japanese women to be polite and subservient to men”.
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
Japanese women’s speech is believed to be ‘more polite’ than men’s speech in the sense that women are likely to use polite speech and honorifics more often than men do. This assumption has been mostly made on the basis of researchers’ introspection (e.g., Ide, 1982 and 1992; Jorden, 1983a,b; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Shibatani, 1990) and is supported by examples in textbooks for foreign learners of Japanese which teach characteristic male and female forms (Maynard 1990; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1977). Japanese women’s speech is also said to be characterised by special vocabulary and sentence particles (Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Shibamoto, 1985, Shibatani, 1990; Tsujimura, 1996). For example, a different word for meal may be used by a man (meshi) and by a woman (gohan). Use of sentence final particles such as -wa tend to be associated with ‘femininity’. Sociolinguistic studies do not always support this view of Japanese women’s language, however. For example, Ide et al. (1986) interviewed 256 men and 271 women in Tokyo whose ages ranged from 40 to 70. The majority of the men were businessmen and the majority of the women were housewives. Subjects were given 50 different forms of iku (to go) as a reference and asked (1) to rate the level of politeness according to a scale of 5 (most polite) to 1 (least polite), (2) to rate people with whom they interacted according to those they deal with most carefully and least carefully, and (3) to tell the interviewer which verbal form they would use to each category of interactant. No conclusive finding was reported on the correlation between linguistic differences as reported by the interviewees and their gender. Ide et al. (1986:36) conclude their study by saying: In conclusion, we wish to claim that sex differences in language should not be looked at only as a direct consequence of speaker sex per se, but rather as a phenomenon determined by complex factors among which are speakeraddressee distance or speaker-addressee interaction and its frequencies.
Ogino (1986) computer analysed responses obtained from interviewing 488 subjects, both men and women, about which forms (polite or plain) they would use to addressees of different types. He found that differences in the use of polite expressions as reported by the subjects were influenced not only by gender, but also by factors such as age and familiarity. Studies of recorded speech also suggest that the proposition that women speak more politely than men is more complex than it appears to be at first sight. Based on an analysis of recorded conversations among three male speakers and among three female speakers, Shibamoto (1985) found that the
9
10
Conversational Dominance and Gender
women used more polite language than the men. In a later study Shibamoto (1987a: 39) stated that: …features such as the politeness of female speech as indicated by predicate form, by the attachment of the prefix o- to nominals, and by the selection of sentence-final particles have the status of social fact, are part of the general knowledge of the adult members of society, and are referred to freely by members of the speech community.
However, although these features appear to be part of the adult speakers’ competence within the Japanese speech community, Shibamoto’s empirical investigation of recordings of informal conversations by Japanese women and transcripts of Japanese TV dramas did not confirm that they were actually characteristic of Japanese female speech. In a more recent study Shibamoto (1992) suggests that the language of Japanese women may be undergoing change (see also Ide, 1982: 367). Shibamoto investigated transcripts of videotaped television cartoons, in which cartoon characters are believed to represent traditional roles, and transcripts of instructional TV programmes on cooking, carpentry and maintenance. In order to investigate the language of Japanese women in non-traditional roles, she examined a two-hour TV detective show. Her results show that women in traditional roles use more polite verbs and directive verbal auxiliaries than men. They also showed that Japanese women in non-traditional roles experience ‘linguistic conflicts’ between their traditionally imposed low status and a newly acquired status that requires them to give commands to their male subordinates. In order to resolve these conflicts Japanese women empower their speech by adopting strategies such as the ‘Motherese Strategy’ (using forms that are commonly used by mothers speaking to their children) or the ‘Passive Power Strategy’ (giving orders without using imperative forms). For example, instead of using “Kore kopii shite kudasai” (“Please photocopy this”), the speaker may say “Kore kopii suru koto” (“This is for photocopying”) or “Kopii shite moraimasu” (“I will receive your favour of photocopying this”). The language of Japanese women in non-traditional roles appears to differ both from stereotypes of feminine language and also from powerful male language. However, Shibamoto suggests that her conclusions should be considered with some caution because the data were taken from TV programmes, which may not be an accurate representation of actual speech. The status of women in Japanese society appears to be changing, albeit slowly and these changes appear to be reflected in women’s language. Various
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
efforts have been made to enforce equality between men and women in Japan, although attitudes are slower to change (Kodansha, 1995; Moeran 1988; Reischauer, 1977; Ueno, 1994). For some time, it has been suggested that greater equality between men and women will be reflected in their use of the Japanese language. Mizutani (1981) and Mizutani and Mizutani (1987: 79–80), for example, remark that the modernisation of Japan should lead to linguistic unification between male and female speech. They observe that an increasing number of Japanese male speakers place ‘o’ in front of nouns (for example, ‘ocha’ (tea)), which has traditionally been described as a feature of female speech. The feminization of Japanese men’s speech has been also noted by Lebra (1976: 76) and Loveday (1986b: 301). Jorden (1983b: 124–125) also observes an increasing trend towards masculization of Japanese young girls’ language, notably, their use of ‘boku’ (a term of reference for first person traditionally categorised as male speech) and states that this is because women are gradually becoming more assertive and participate in situations previously recognised as all-male domains. 2.1.3 Uchi-soto relationships as a social variable in Japanese culture A second factor said to determine interpersonal relationships in the Japanese context is group identity, which defines relationships of social distance. Moeran (1988) describes this as a relationship between “inside, in-group, us” (uchi) and “outside, out-group, them” (soto), while Loveday (1986b:304) refers to a “strong sense of inward versus external connections”. Examples of uchi include groups based on the same dialect, age group, gender, company, university, household, residential area, village, town, factory, and so on (Lebra, 1976; Loveday, 1986a,b; Moeran, 1988; Nakane, 1970). Within uchi, members are likely to use language to create feelings of solidarity and to distinguish themselves from soto. Loveday (1986b: 305–306), for example, observes that, when speaking to each other, Japanese university students have a strong tendency to use linguistic features of uchi such as (1) foreign loan words (2) syllabic clipping (3) particular phonetic features such as heavy stress on particles and rising intonation at the end of clauses and (4) sentence particles specific to their group. Uchi are also said to be characterised by internal hierarchical relationships that are related to social variables. For example, within a company, strong vertical relationships are likely to be formed according to seniority and rank (Benjamin, 1997: 66–72). Among students of the same university, strong hierarchical relationships are observed between seniors (senpai) and juniors
11
12
Conversational Dominance and Gender
(koohai) (Lebra, 1976; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Nakane, 1970). Senpaikoohai relationships are strongly hierarchical, especially in sports clubs, where koohai are traditionally expected to obey senpai unconditionally. These hierarchical relationships are also manifested linguistically. Senpai use plain forms while koohai use polite forms when speaking to each other (Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987: 5). When speakers from different uchi interact, they are likely to use polite forms to express uchi-soto relationships. Moeran (1988: 432–433) states that hierarchical relationships within uchi may be modified in the face of the presence of out-group members to express solidarity and respect. He illustrates this point with an example of the way in which a company secretary would talk to and about her boss: [Talking to her boss, she] would use an exalted expression, together with a deferential style, appropriate to her own low status, and to his position as president of the company. If, later on in the day, she were asked by a fellow member of the company about the president’s whereabouts, the secretary would probably use an exalted expression about her boss, but a polite, or possibly plain, style to the person speaking to her. If, however, a visitor were to arrive from elsewhere and inquire after the company president, the secretary would use a humble (albeit polite) expression about her boss. Precisely because the visitor is an outsider, the secretary places her boss and herself in the same in-group, using a humble expression to signify the visitor’s superior status. This is how the principle of ‘out-groupness’ influences selection of which honorific form to use in conversational interaction.
The relationship between social status and social distance in the Japanese context, and its expression in language is, therefore, complex. Uchi-soto relationships may also be negotiated in the course of interaction. For example, it is often observed that people on their first encounter often use polite forms, but switch to plain forms as soon as they find out that they come from the same region and share the same dialect (Ide, 1982: 375). The effect of uchi-soto relationships on hierarchical relationships raises several issues about relationships between men and women. First, when men and women clearly belong to different social groups, hierarchical relationships appear to be less significant than social distance. Both are likely to use polite forms to each other. Second, in situations where men and women belong to the same uchi (for example, the same section of a company), hierarchical relationships will tend to be confirmed when gender variables coincide with other variables such as position in the company and age. In other words, a
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
person who holds a senior position, who is older, and who is male is likely to be higher in the hierarchy than a person who holds a junior position, who is younger, and who is female. In such situations, male speakers are likely to use plain forms, while female speakers are likely to use polite forms. In situations where men and women belong to the same uchi but gender is not in line with other social variables, the linguistic expression of hierarchical relationships is less easy to predict. The literature thus suggests that gender is an important factor in hierarchical relationships in Japanese society. It also suggests that relationships between Japanese men and women are determined within a combination of factors of social rank, age and uchi-soto relationships. The conclusion that Japanese men tend to dominate Japanese women may therefore be an oversimplification if it fails to take account of other variables such as uchi-soto relationships, the age group or social status of women in mixed gender interaction. 2.1.4 Summary The relationship between gender and linguistic expression in present-day Japan is a complex one because of the changing situation regarding the status of Japanese women and the influence of uchi and soto relationships on gender relationships. These factors make it difficult to draw an accurate picture of how Japanese men and women interact and, more specifically, of whether the former dominate the latter during spoken interaction. The lack of empirical studies investigating male dominance on the basis of recorded data also makes it difficult to determine the current status of Japanese women’s language. Although previous studies conducted in this area provide useful insights, the evidence provided in them tends to be based on the researchers’ introspection and informal observations, and may not represent actual language use. Data based studies are fewer in number and have used self-reports, questionnaires, interviews or data recorded from TV programmes. Shibamoto (1997:316) states that “what is needed is work with primary linguistic transcripts or texts”. Where recorded data has been used, the focus tends to be on linguistic features of male and female speech rather than on features of inequality in interaction. While linguistic features are important because they can be seen as symbolising status differences between men and women, analysis of interactional features is also indispensable as it shows how relationships between men and women are established in the course of interaction. One exception to the rule is Ehara et al. (1984), who analysed 32 dyads of
13
14
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Japanese conversation (10 male to male, 10 female to female and 10 mixed sex conversations) conducted between university students (see also Uchida, 1997). According to their findings, Japanese men used questions in such a way that allows them to control topic, while Japanese women asked questions to support the other female speaker, during the same sex conversations. No findings were reported on the use of questions during mixed gender conversations. Ehara et al. also found that Japanese men interrupted Japanese women more frequently than vice versa, which was partly ascribed to the exercise of Japanese men’s exercise of their social power. Studies of male-female interaction conducted on the basis of recorded data are therefore essential to obtain a better understanding of male dominance in Japanese interaction. Our immediate concern is, however, to establish reliable methods of investigating dominance through interactional features on the basis of recorded data. A number of studies of male dominance based on the analysis of interactional features observed in recorded data have been conducted outside Japan. In the next section, I will examine these studies in more detail in order to gain insight into how male dominance in Japanese conversation can be analysed.
2.2 Conversational dominance and gender Jespersen (1922) was one of the first linguists to take account of women’s speech. He observed that women had less extensive vocabulary, used simpler sentence structures, and had a greater tendency to speak before they thought, resulting in sentences that were often left incomplete (pp. 237–254). Fifty years later, the influential work of Lakoff (1973, 1975) marked the beginning of language and gender as a field of study. Lakoff (1973) distinguished between male and female language according to 6 linguistic features: lexical distinctions such as colour terms, strong versus weak expletives, ‘women’s’ versus ‘neutral’ adjectives, use of tag questions, use of question intonation with statements and strength of direct speech. She pointed out, for example, that women tend to be encouraged to use weaker expletives such as Oh dear! or Fudge! instead of stronger expletives such as Damn and Shit. Women were also described as using tag questions more frequently than men, which Lakoff ascribed to lack of confidence in what they say. On the basis of these observations, Lakoff stated that women were denied the means of expressing themselves strongly and that their identities were submerged. However, the fact that her remarks were based on informal
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
observations makes it difficult to evaluate their validity. Indeed, recent studies have contradicted some of her claims. For example, Coates’ (1996: 191–201) analysis of recorded data questions Lakoff’s statement that women’s use of tag questions is symptomatic of their lack of confidence and suggests that women’s tag questions can, in fact, be expressions of powerful speech. Since Lakoff’s influential article, many studies have been conducted on the relationship between gender and language or discourse. In this section I will review approaches investigating gender and language under 5 headings: (1) gender markers (2) gender and dominance in interaction (3) construction of gender in context (4) conversational styles and (5) conversational competence. 2.2.1 Gender markers Sociolinguistic studies of gender and speech have tended to focus on ‘markers’, or isolated linguistic or phonological items that are assumed to be characteristic of men’s or women’s speech, and their correlation with speaker gender (e.g., Labov, 1966, 1972a; Milroy, 1980; Milroy and Milroy, 1978; Trudgill, 1974, 1975, 1983). On the basis of such evidence, women are, for example, reported to use ‘correct’ forms or prestigious forms more frequently than men in order to make up for their lower social status (see Trudgill 1983: 167–168). Brown and Levinson (1979) suggest that social structure determines social relationships, which are marked in speech and for Giles et al. (1979: 351) “it is clear that social categories of age, sex, ethnicity, social class and situation can be clearly marked on the basis of speech”. Giles et al. (ibid.: 365) also state that …many of the linguistic variables intuitively associated with social categories like sex, ethnicity and age are operating between the social categories. Hence, if the power positions between dominant and subordinate were changed or even reversed then one would expect a corresponding change in the linguistic variables associated with these categories.
This suggests that social markers in speech are directly influenced by inequalities in social structure. West and Zimmerman (1985: 107–108), however, state that studies based on isolated variables tend to exaggerate gender differences. Smith (1979: 115–116) also questions the association of gender with linguistic features of speech: (1) the differences may be few, and may not be found where expected; (2) when differences are found, they are more likely to be ‘sexpreferential’ rather than ‘sex-exclusive’; (3) male-female markers do not necessarily reflect differences of sex, but may be caused by other social divisions
15
16
Conversational Dominance and Gender
(e.g., occupation); (4) the differences may be ‘unsaturated’, that is, they are seen only in some members of the society (see also Thorne et al., 1983: 13). 2.2.2 Gender and dominance in interaction In contrast to studies that identify male and female speech markers, Zimmerman and West (1975) attempted to demonstrate that male dominance in the social structure is exercised in everyday interaction. Since then, a large number of studies have been conducted in a similar vein (e.g., Aries, 1982; Beattie, 1981; Eakins and Eakins, 1978; Edelsky, 1981; Fishman, 1978a, 1983; Leet-Pellegrini, 1980; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Woods, 1988). These studies have investigated male dominance by examining the distribution of different interactional features between men and women during recorded conversations. Below I will discuss how interruptions, topic change, turn length and distribution of the number of turns have been treated as indicating male dominance. I will then look at studies that investigate how other social factors influence interactional behaviour between men and women.
Interruptions Zimmerman and West (1975) used Sacks et al. (1974) as a model to investigate asymmetry between men and women in interaction. While they acknowledged that syntactic, semantic, phonological structures function to communicate gender roles, they also saw that relationships between men and women could be analysed by investigating features in interaction. Zimmerman and West (1975: 106) stated: We, however, wish to stress the role of language and its constituent structures in the organization of social interaction in general and from that perspective view the characteristics of interaction between men and women. Conversation is clearly one very basic form of social interaction and it is the analysis of conversational structure in relation to sex roles that concerns us here.
In their study, an overlap in speech was viewed as an ‘error’ caused by a speaker who anticipates the end of the current speaker’s utterance too soon. An interruption, on the other hand, which was identified as simultaneous speech whose onset is prior to the last word that could be the possible terminal boundary of a ‘turn constructional unit’ (Sacks et al., 1974), was considered a ‘violation’ of the speaker’s right to complete the turn. Zimmerman and West
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
investigated occurrences of overlaps and interruptions in 31 units of conversation (10 male to male, 10 female to female and 11 mixed dyads) collected in informal settings such as coffee shops, drug stores, and other public places in a university community. According to their findings, the distribution of overlaps and interruptions was more or less even in single sex conversations, while in mixed sex conversations, all the overlaps (46 in total) and 98 percent of the interruptions (9 in total) were made by male speakers. Zimmerman and West (1975: 124–125) considered that the unequal distribution of overlaps and interruptions between male and female speakers may be a reflection of socioeconomic inequalities: Differences between males and females in the distribution of turns may, for example, be parallel to the differences between them in the society’s economic system, i.e., a matter of advantage…just as male dominance is exhibited through male control of macro-institutions in society, it is also exhibited through control of at least a part of one micro-institution.
The definition of interruptions as a violation of speaking rights and the finding that the distribution of interruptions between male and female speakers was extremely uneven suggests that interruptions may indeed be a sign of male socio-economic dominance. However, this conclusion needs to be interpreted in the light of Zimmerman and West’s observation that overlaps may also be viewed as ‘errors’, which are not necessarily indicative of the speaker’s intention to violate the other speaker’s participatory rights. As I will argue in more detail later, it is also important to consider the effect of particular instances of interruption and overlap, in terms of the subsequent development of the interaction. In a similar study, West and Zimmerman (1983) collected data from conversations between 10 university students in 5 mixed sex dyads recorded in controlled settings. As in their earlier study, they defined an interruption as simultaneous speech that starts more than two syllables away from the initial or terminal boundary of a turn constructional unit. According to their results, men were found to interrupt women more often than women interrupted men (75 percent of the interruptions were made by men and 25 percent by women in total). They hypothesised that the men may have interrupted the women more frequently because women talked more. In other words, in order to gain the floor, men needed to resort to interruptions. In order to test this hypothesis, they investigated whether males’ interruptions occurred later in the females’ turns by counting the number of syllables from the initiation of the interrupted
17
18
Conversational Dominance and Gender
speaker’s turn to the onset of the interruption. However, their findings suggested that, contrary to their hypothesis, it was women who interrupted men later in the turn. The hypothesis that men interrupted women because women talk ‘too much’ and men become impatient was not supported. Arhens’ (1997) empirical study of the conversational behaviour of older and younger Berlin natives confirmed West and Zimmerman’s (1983) interpretation of interruptions as a potentially dominance-claiming device. However, she emphasized the importance of context as well as the formal organisation of the rules of turn-taking in interpreting interruptions, and presented a classification of context-sensitive interruption types that provides a more refined set of tools with which to examine the dominance potential of interruptions. According to Ahrens, the act of interruption is not in itself a sufficient indicator of dominance, but in combination with other factors (e.g. face-threatening acts) it may result in dominance. Talbot (1992) has also criticised the quantitative methods employed by Zimmerman and West (1975) and West and Zimmerman (1983). Analysing a transcript of conversation between a husband and a wife and their mutual friends in detail, Talbot suggested that a functional approach to interruptions is necessary and that, instead of defining interruptions syntactically researchers should examine what the interactants in conversation think interruptions are. Talbot (ibid.: 459–465) also points out that a statistical approach is of limited value as the distribution of interruptions needs to be interpreted in the light of the participants’ conception of ‘distributive justice’ with regard to turns (Murray, 1985, 1988). Interruptions by speakers who have been dominating the floor may be interpreted as a more serious violation of the other speaker’s right to turn than interruptions by speakers who have not been able to contribute to the conversation.
Topic change Topic change was one of the features used by Fishman (1983, see also 1978a) to investigate male dominance in interaction. Fishman collected her data by asking three couples to leave a tape recorder on in their homes for up to a total of 52 hours. She analysed the data in terms of the frequency of numbers of questions asked, statements produced, minimum responses used, and topics introduced and accepted or not accepted as mutual topics. According to her findings, a total of 107 and 263 questions were asked by men and women, respectively. The greater frequency of questions among women was ascribed to their need to use
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
questions as a resort to gain men’s attention to what they are saying. Second, around twice as many statements were made by men as by women. Fishman explains this similarly by suggesting that men do not have to worry about securing responses from women and can therefore use statements, which, according to Fishman, structurally do not induce a response. Third, differences were found in functions of minimal response between men and women. While men tended to use minimal responses in order to resist the topics introduced by women, women tended to use them as backchannel expressions. Fourth, out of 73 topics raised, 28 were introduced by men and 45 by women. However, all 28 topics introduced by men were taken up as mutual topics, in comparison to 17 out of the 43 introduced by women. According to Fishman (1983), this suggests that women try more often but succeed less often in getting the conversation going, whereas men make fewer attempts but seldom fail. Describing women as ‘shitworkers’ in mixed gender conversations, Fishman suggested that women are required to do more support work, more active maintenance and continuation work than men do. West and Garcia (1988) also investigated male dominance with respect to topic change. Her analysis of data from 5 male and female first and second year university student dyads, who were unacquainted before the experiment in a laboratory setting, showed that male and female speakers equally initiated ‘collaborative’ topic change (initiating a new topic when the previous topic appears to be dying out). By contrast, only male speakers initiated ‘unilateral’ topic change (initiating a new topic when there is no such sign).
Turn length and distribution of the number of turns Length of turns was studied as an indicator of dominance by Eakins and Eakins (1978), who analysed departmental faculty meetings and found that the number of turns taken increased with status in the department (e.g., rank or length of tenure) and that males, without exception, spoke longer per turn. Edelsky (1981) also examined length of turns and soliciting behaviour in 5 recorded staff meetings. She found that male dominance depended on the type of floor. Men tended to produce longer turns and solicited more responses when the floor was developed by one person during ‘monologue’. In contrast, when the floor was collaboratively constructed by several participants, men and women tended to have similar turn lengths and soliciting behaviours were mainly from women. Aries (1982) also used level of participation as a measurement of asymmetry. Her objective was to determine whether traditional sex stereotypes of “men
19
20
Conversational Dominance and Gender
as dominant, active, competitive, and women as quiet, nurturant, and aware of the feelings of others” still obtained “in a sample of very bright, career-oriented men and women raised under the influence of the women’s movement and laws prohibiting sex discrimination” (ibid.: 127–128). She used 21 units of conversation recorded in experimental settings (7 all male, 6 all female and 8 male and female speakers), each involving 5 to 6 participants, who attended a small, highly competitive liberal arts college. Data were analysed in terms of the distribution of turns taken among participants and the content of interactional behaviour, such as giving opinions, suggestions and agreement, and non-verbal behaviour. The results showed that, while female speakers dominated male speakers in terms of the number of turns, male speakers dominated female speakers with respect to non-verbal behaviour such as open body (defined as opening legs and arms simultaneously) and leaning back. Male speakers were also found to give more opinions and suggestions (initiating moves), while female speakers were found to give more agreements or disagreements (responding moves). Aries (ibid.: 132) ascribed the contradiction between the number of turns and types of turns to a social change in which women’s status was becoming higher but was still not completely equal to men: … contrary to prediction, women actually dominated most of the mixed-sex group discussion, initiating more interaction than did men… It is an encouraging finding in terms of sex-role change, for it suggests that very bright, motivated women do not defer to men when they are equally competent to express themselves and that the norms may be changing regarding the acceptability and desirability of such verbal participation by women.
Whether or not some of the features analysed are more significant than others in indicating asymmetrical relationships among speakers was not considered.
Interaction of gender with other social variables Woods (1988) focused on a combination of different features of asymmetry between men and women. Her data consisted of nine surreptitiously recorded triadic conversations. The participants in the conversations were work colleagues: (a) 3 units with one female of high occupational status and one male and one female subordinate, (b) 3 units with one male of high occupational status and one male and one female subordinate (the female speaker was the same speaker as the ‘boss’ in (a)), and (c) 3 control units of same-sex participants with similar occupational status. Woods examined the effect of gender,
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
different occupational status, and the change of the participants’ behaviour in ‘boss’ and ‘subordinate’ occupational positions. Her results suggest that both gender and occupational status influence asymmetries, and that gender tends to be more influential than occupational status, with respect to interactional features such as interrupting, length of turn and giving assent. Gender and expertise (defined as possession of knowledge about a topic) were used by Leet-Pellegrini (1980) to determine dominant behaviour. Her subjects (college students, all unacquainted previously) were asked in experimental settings to discuss the effects of television violence on children. Some of the dyads had one subject who had previously been given some relevant information for the topic of discussion. In other dyads, neither subject was given any previous information. According to Leet-Pellegrini, gender alone does not make male speakers dominant but it does in combination with expertise. That is, when male speakers were informed (expert), they dominated their female interlocutors. When male/informed speakers interacted with male/ uninformed interlocutors, the former tried to compete for control. In contrast, when female/informed (expert) speakers interacted with male/uninformed interlocutors, they did not dominate the conversation, but instead used their resources for supportive and collaborative work to make their conversations interactive. Leet-Pellegrini (ibid.: 103) concluded “whereas the name of the man’s game appears to be ‘Have I won?’ the name of the woman’s game is ‘Have I been sufficiently helpful?’” Preisler (1986) investigated (1) whether sex differences during interaction are a result of the sex variable itself (i.e. sex-typed socialisation) or whether they reflect more general role differences only indirectly related to sex and (2) if role differences are at issue, whether these reflect institutionalised role/status distinctions arising from the social structure or whether they are established through the interaction itself. In order to address these questions, Preisler analysed 24 four-person group discussions among participants from a British industrial area (both cross-sex and same-sex groups) of approximately 43 minutes’ duration. The data were analysed systematically in terms of the participants’ use of linguistic tentativeness signals (e.g. tag questions and hedges). The results demonstrated that these signals were indeed correlated with sex and the institutionalised and/or interactional roles associated with it, irrespective of age and social status variables. These studies offer useful insights for research on asymmetries between men and women in conversation. First, they provide possible methods for data collection, either naturalistic or controlled. Second, they suggest interactional
21
22
Conversational Dominance and Gender
features to look for in the spoken data (e.g., interruptions, topic change, length and distribution of the number of turns, number of questions and statements). They also indicate the possibility that gender has an influence on conversational behaviour independently of or in conjunction with other variables. However, the question remains unresolved of how the results obtained in relation to different interactional features should be compared. This is especially problematic when the results are contradictory (e.g., Aries, 1982; West and Zimmerman, 1983). 2.2.3 Construction of gender in context Thorne et al. (1983: 14) emphasised the need to take account of the context in which interaction takes place in explaining differences between men’s and women’s speech, stating that “the most fruitful research on gender and speech has conceptualized language not in terms of isolated variables, nor as an abstracted code, but within contexts of actual use”. Kiesling (1997) adopts a similar view. Assuming that men hold more power than women in modern western societies, he investigated how men construct male identities through language. Analysing recorded data involving four male speakers collected from an American university fraternity meeting, he found that men employed several discursive means to construct powerful identities. For example, imperatives (e.g., ‘All right, look’) and the first person plural subject without any hedges in making judgmental comments (e.g., ‘we need to …’ instead of ‘I just think we should…) are used. Men also resorted to their past experience and knowledge relevant to the ongoing topic in order to claim speaking rights. West et al. (1997: 119–120) state that: Our thesis is that gender is accomplished in discourse. As many researchers have shown, that which we think of as ‘womanly’ or ‘manly’ behavior is not dictated by biology, but rather is socially constructed. And a fundamental domain in which gender is constructed is language use.
This suggests that participants in conversation actively establish roles and relationships in discourse, rather than reproduce roles and relationships predetermined by the social structure. In other words, discourse does not simply reflect social roles and relationships. It is the means through which these roles and relationships are constructed and even maintained in everyday interaction. Although these studies emphasise the participants’ active roles in establishing gender relationships, institutionalised categories are still assumed to be relevant to interactional patterns. For example, West (1995: 125) argues:
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
In short, by treating conversational practices as attributes of sex, we exempt the institutional arrangements of society from a role in the process. However, insofar as societies are predicated on beliefs in ‘essential’ differences between the sexes — and insofar as sex categorization is both relevant and enforced — we can always be held accountable for our behaviors as women or as men. This imperative for gendered conduct, and its institutional supports, reproduces asymmetries in conversation between women and men independently of any variation in conversational competence, or indeed, in the basic interactional work going on. ‘Gendered talk’ is an institutional imposition on the interaction order, not a product of it.
The biological fact of sex is not the cause of gender differences in conversation. Speaker gender becomes relevant to the analysis of language only in so far as it is related to asymmetrical relationships within the social power structure. Although conversational behaviour is directly related to these social asymmetries, speakers are also seen as actively enacting socially imposed roles during conversation, rather than being caused to behave in a manly or womanly way by the biological fact of their gender. West et al. (1997: 120) also state that social constructions of gender are not neutral but “implicated in the institutionalized power relations of societies” and that “language does not merely reflect a preexisting sexist world; instead, it actively constructs gender asymmetries within specific sociohistorical contexts”. 2.2.4 Conversational styles In some studies differences between male and female speech have been related to cultural differences or differences in conversational style, rather than inequalities in social status (e.g., Holmes, 1992: 329–330; Maltz and Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994). Maltz and Borker (1982) maintain that differences between men’s and women’s speech arise from distinctive norms for friendly conversation and different strategies for engaging in it. According to Maltz and Borker, girls are brought up in a subculture where equality, support and cooperativeness are the norms. They use speech to create and maintain relationships of closeness and equality, to criticise others in acceptable ways, and to interpret accurately the speech of other girls. In contrast, boys are described as being brought up in a hierarchical subculture where relative status, dominance and competition are the norms. Boys, therefore, learn to use linguistic skill to assert dominance, to attract and maintain an audience, and to assert themselves when other speakers have the floor.
23
24
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Maltz and Borker suggest that norms for men’s and women’s speech develop out of the norms for boys’ and girls’ speech. Women are said to orient to each other, or to be highly engaged in what each other has to say, and to maintain equal participation among the participants. To this end women use strategies which include giving signs of attention, such as questions asked during a speaker’s discourse, and making interruptions as calls for elaboration and development. Women’s interruptions are also seen as attempts to show support and interest. By contrast, men are described as having a different orientation in that they highly value single-handed conversational activities such as joking and story-telling. Maltz and Borker list 5 different conversational rules (also called strategies) that are likely to lead to miscommunication between men and women. Women see questions as a part of conversational maintenance while men view them primarily as requests for information. Men and women also differ in terms of rules for beginning an utterance in that women follow the rule of acknowledging what has been said and making a connection to it, while men do not follow such a rule and may ignore the preceding utterance. Third, while women tend to interpret overt aggressiveness as personally directed, men tend to view it as a normal feature of conversational flow. Fourth, women and men understand topic differently: for example, men tend to define topics fairly narrowly, resulting in abrupt topic shift, while women tend to develop topics progressively and gradually. Lastly, men and women are described as having different attitudes towards problem sharing and advice giving. While women tend to share experiences and offer reassurances, men tend to hear other people’s problems as requests for solutions and respond to them by giving advice, by acting as experts or lecturing to their audiences. Different ways of using the same linguistic forms by men and women are explained in terms of different strategies arising from different conversational styles by Tannen (1984, 1986, 1990, 1994). According to Tannen (1990:42), women’s conversational style is characterised by their tendency to speak and hear a language in terms of “connection and intimacy”, while men tend to speak and hear a language in terms of “status and independence”. Tannen (ibid.: 77) states that women’s conversational style, which emphasises rapport, is supported by strategies in which they emphasise similarities and match experiences. In contrast, men’s conversational style, which places importance on independence and maintenance of status in a hierarchical social order, is sustained by strategies of “exhibiting knowledge and skill, and by holding centre stage through verbal performance such as story-telling, joking, or imparting information”.
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
Tannen’s (1994: 85–135) argument for different conversational styles is supported by her analyses of video recorded conversations among male speakers and among female speakers of different age groups. The results of her analyses show that conversations between boys and men on the one hand, and between girls and women on the other, are characterised in different ways in terms of topic development. The girls and women were found to have no difficulty in finding things to talk about, and their talk focused on personal and specific concerns. They also showed direct concern for the other speaker’s personal stories. In contrast, boys and men were found to have more trouble finding things to talk about, resulting in abrupt topic changes. They were also found to discuss personal topics in relatively impersonal and abstract terms. In addition, they tend to focus on and return to their own concerns and downplay the concerns expressed by their interlocutor (Tannen, 1994: 126–127). These findings support Maltz and Borker’s (1982) point that women are more oriented towards each other while men are more oriented towards themselves. Tannen (1990: 215) also suggests that men tend not to support, but to lead the conversation so that they can take centre stage by telling a story, joking or displaying knowledge. Tannen (1994: 21–24) argues that linguistic strategies such as indirectness, interruption, silence versus volubility, topic raising and verbal conflict are ambiguous in that the same linguistic forms can be used for and/or interpreted as signs of dominance or as signs of solidarity, depending on the speakers’ conversational style. For example, in discussing the ambiguity of the linguistic strategy of interruption, she distinguishes a ‘high involvement style’ and a ‘high considerateness style’. The former refers to a speaker’s tendency to place relatively high priority on the need for ‘positive face’ or solidarity, while the latter refers to speaker’s tendency to adopt a conversational style that places “relatively more emphasis on serving the need for negative face, not to impose”. According to Tannen, speakers with a ‘high involvement’ style use interruptions in order to show enthusiasm, support and participation in the interlocutor’s talk. However, these are likely to be interpreted as imposition or dominance by speakers with a ‘high considerateness’ style. Tannen (1994: 71–72) also emphasises the importance of distinguishing between the speaker’s intention and the effect of the linguistic strategy. Coates (1996) also suggests that men and women use the same linguistic forms in different strategies for achieving distinctive interactional goals. Women are described as being oriented to a conversational mode which values collective rather than individual values, solidarity rather than separateness.
25
26
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Accordingly, Coates (ibid.: 263–266) states that women tend to use strategies such as ‘other-oriented’ questions (called ‘addressee oriented’ questions by Holmes, 1984; 1995), or questions that “essentially express solidarity and connection” to maintain close and equal relationships. ‘Other-oriented’ questions are also described as being concerned with the addressee rather than the speaker and with conversational maintenance. These include questions used to invite others into talk, to extend the topic under discussion and to avoid playing the expert (see also Coates, 1996: 200–202). Men, who are described as being more speaker-oriented, are more inclined to talk about their own areas of expertise, in contrast to women who tend to talk about a wide range of issues that draw on the personal experience of everyone present (Coates, 1987). Men also tend to play the role of expert more commonly than women (Coates, 1996: 160–161) and prefer speaker-oriented questions that are used to seek information (Coates, 1993: 122–124, 189; Coates 1997: 123–124) and that are used to demonstrate power and expertise and to reinforce boundaries between speakers (Coates, 1997: 200–202). Men and women are also said to differ with respect to story telling (Coates, 1996: 115–116; 1997: 120). While story-telling functions to bind women together, through creating a shared world, men tend to perform monologues which are associated with playing the expert. Women are also said to use highrising intonation during narrative more frequently than men as a positive politeness device to check that the listener understands the utterance, to seek the listener’s participation in the speaker’s story and to emphasise the agreement and solidarity shared between the two speakers (Britain, 1992). These remarks on interactional behaviour among men and women should, however, be treated with caution as they tend not to be supported by systematic analysis of recorded conversations. The attribution of gender differences in conversation to cultural or style differences has been criticised by a number of researchers (e.g., Cameron, 1997; Henley and Kramarae, 1991; Trömel-Plötz, 1991; West, 1995; West et al., 1997). First, some findings contradict typical assumptions about men’s and women’s conversational styles. For example, Cameron’s (1997) study of recorded conversation among 5 men shows cooperativeness as well as competitiveness. Kiesling’s (1997) analysis of recorded conversation among men, however, shows characteristics commonly associated with men’s talk such as being competitive and hierarchical. Referring to Tannen (1990), Cameron (1997: 60) states: Men and women do not live on different planets, but are members of cultures in which a large amount of discourse about gender is constantly circulating.
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
They do not only learn, and then mechanically reproduce, ways of speaking ‘appropriate’ to their own sex; they learn a much broader set of gendered meanings that attach in rather complex ways to different ways of speaking, and they produce their own behaviour in the light of those meanings…. Performing masculinity or femininity ‘appropriately’ cannot mean giving exactly the same performance regardless of the circumstances. It may involve different strategies in mixed and single-sex company, in private and in public settings, in the various social positions…
This suggests that instead of being controlled by conversational styles acquired in childhood, men and women play more active roles in creating their relationships. It also suggests that men and women use different strategies, which may or may not be typically associated with men or women, depending on the sex of the interlocutor. Tannen’s approach is also questioned by Trömel-Plötz (1991), who argues that, “by interpreting observed asymmetries in conversation as the result of subcultural misunderstandings those who adopt a speech-style approach trivialize women’s experiences of injustice and conversational dominance”. However, in more recent work, Tannen (1994) claims that she does not deny the fact of dominance but argues rather that differences in conversational style are the starting point of misunderstandings between men and women, which can result in dominance. 2.2.5 Conversational competence Yet another way to explain the differences between men’s and women’s speech is to relate them to the concept of conversational competence. For example, West (1995) lists different types of competence, including co-ordinated entry into conversation (Schegloff, 1968), negotiation of turn taking (Sacks et al., 1974), conversational closing (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973), conversational repair (Schegloff et al., 1977). West (1995: 115–116) also maintains that men tend to fail to give supportive responses to women’s topic development. She warns against research that focuses on men’s ability to hold the floor while neglecting women’s supportive work as this leads to a picture of men’s assumed superiority. Similarly, Fishman (1978b) analysed female speakers’ conversational behaviour during male speaker’s story telling and suggests that this story telling or topic development is enabled by the female speaker’s skill in providing supportive work such as inserting displays of active listening (including questions to expand on the male speaker’s story). This view calls into question
27
28
Conversational Dominance and Gender
the view that men’s dominance in conversational behaviour is a result of their conversational competence while women’s subordination is caused by their conversational deficiency. Male speakers’ dominance may, in fact, be seen as a manifestation of their lack of competence in providing supportive work and the female speaker’s competence in the same work. 2.2.6 Summary In this section, different approaches to the relationship between gender and interaction have been reviewed. Sociolinguistic studies have tended to see language as reflecting speakers’ social identities that are determined externally to interaction. They have been less concerned with influence of gender on relationships between men and women during interaction. Researchers who are concerned with women’s lower social status have examined the distribution of various interactional features in recorded conversations. Their approaches suggest that gender dominance in conversation may be analysed in terms of the different levels of participation of men and women in interaction. The weakness of this approach has been pointed out by researchers who see dominance as being constructed by the participants in the course of interaction. Approaches that view interaction between men and women as intercultural communication ascribe gender differences in interaction to different conversational styles and strategies used to maintain them. They criticise the correlational approach for ignoring the ambiguity of linguistic strategies and emphasise the need to distinguish the speaker’s intention and its effect. A strategy may be interpreted as an intention to dominate while in fact it was intended to show support. However, their approach is criticised in turn by researchers who see the differences between men and women as related to social inequalities. The last approach reviewed sees conversation as requiring competence. Researchers question the validity of studies that claim that men dominate women because they are more competent conversationalists as those studies fail to consider women’s competence in providing supportive work for conversational maintenance. The approach suggests that men and women may possess different types of interactional competence, rather than one dominating the other. It should be pointed out, however, that some researchers have adopted more than one approach. For example, Fishman (1978a,b, 1983) attempts to demonstrate women’s dominated status by using quantitative measures but she
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
also relates the differences between men’s and women’s speech to different amounts of conversational work and competencies. Similarly, West (1975 and 1983 with Zimmerman) takes a correlational approach but more recently she has approached gender and interaction from the point of view of different competencies (1995) and the construction of gender (1997 with Lazar and Kramarae). In conclusion, previous empirical studies of conversational dominance and gender do not seem to be based on systematic analysis of dominance. Only after a theoretically motivated framework is established can empirical studies be conducted usefully on the relationship between conversational dominance and gender. Interactional approach (Section 2.2.2) and conversational styles (Section 2.2.4) combined have the potential of offering a useful means of conducting empirical studies on the relationship between conversational dominance and gender. Interactional approach enables to determine which speaker dominates conversation on the basis of the distribution of interactional features between two speakers. Intercultural communication can further illuminate how dominance is constructed by the participants’ use of those interactional features with respect to their conversational styles.
2.3 Conversational dominance and pragmatic transfer A number of studies have demonstrated that NNS-NNS interactions can provide good opportunities for acquiring the target language (e.g., Doughty and Pica, 1986; Futaba, 1994; Gass and Varonis, 1985; Long and Porter, 1985; Long et al., 1976; Pica and Doughty, 1985a,b; Rulon and McCreary, 1986; Schwartz, 1980; Varonis and Gass, 1985; White, 1989). But few have focused on the influence of gender on asymmetries in L2 interactions. The exception is Gass and Varonis (1986). 2.3.1 Gender and conversational dominance in L2 Gass and Varonis (1986: 348–349) note that the study of male-female differences in NNS-NNS interaction is an important but neglected area. Assuming that receiving input and producing output in L2 interaction are a precondition for target language acquisition, they investigated gender dominance in NNS dyads as one of the variables that may affect acquisition. In order to control the learners’ L1 and L2 background, native speakers of Japanese studying English
29
30
Conversational Dominance and Gender
were selected as subjects. 10 dyads were observed: 4 male-female dyads, 3 malemale dyads and 3 female-female dyads. Each dyad was given one conversation task (free talking) and two picture drawing tasks and the first 10 minutes of each conversation were transcribed and analysed. According to Gass and Varonis, male subjects in male-female dyads initiated more abrupt topic shifts than female subjects. In addition, it was the men in the 4 mixed sex dyads who tended to nominate new topics in order to rescue the conversation from awkward silence or communication breakdown. Like Fishman (1978a; 1983), West and Zimmerman (1983) and Zimmerman and West (1975), Gass and Varonis analysed the distribution of interactional features between men and women. Amount of talk, topic, number of turns and overlaps (who holds the floor while the other relinquishes it) were considered to indicate one speaker’s dominance over the other in terms of output, while the number of questions asked was considered to indicate which speaker played the major role in guiding the conversation. Gass and Varonis’ findings can be summarised as follows: (1) in 3 out of the 4 MF dyads, men spoke more words than women during free conversation, which was related to the fact that in all 4 M-F dyads it was men who decided the initial topic of their conversation, either by asking a question or by nominating a topic, (2) men and women in the 4 dyads took a similar number of turns during free conversation; (3) in 2 of the 4 dyads, the male speakers asked more questions, while in the remaining two the female speakers asked more questions; and (4) the frequency count of overlaps found 9 instances in two of the four dyads, out of which men won the floor in 8. Although there is some inconsistency in the results relating to different features, Gass and Varonis state that they support Zimmerman and West’s (1975) finding that men tend to dominate women in conversation. They also suggest that the observed pattern of male dominance among Japanese learners of English may be influenced by the cultural norms of the speakers’ L1. As L1 data was not collected, however, this claim must be treated as speculative. Duff (1986) also investigated the influence of social variables on asymmetries in L2 conversations, although her study focused on ethnicity rather than gender. Duff also assumed that speech modifications (or negotiation of meaning) in NNS-NNS interaction are conducive to the second language acquisition process and that dyad work and group work will generate more opportunities for speech modifications than teacher-led classroom interactions. Duff’s particular concern was the effect of task types (problem solving tasks or debate tasks), but she also found that ethnicity played a role in asymmetries in L2 interaction. Duff analysed 8 dyads: 2 Chinese/Chinese (1 MM and 1 FF), and 2
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
Japanese/Japanese (1 MM and 1 FF) and 4 Chinese/Japanese (2 MM and 2 FF), in order to investigate the hypothesis that Chinese speakers would dominate conversations with Japanese. She focused on several interactional features, including distribution of the total number of words and turns, turn length, number of questions and turn stealing or interruptions. Her analysis of the Chinese/Japanese dyads suggested that the Chinese speakers dominated overall on the basis that they produced more words and more questions, took more turns, and stole three times as many turns as the Japanese speakers. She ascribed these asymmetrical patterns to transfer of different ‘sociolinguistic orientations’ or ‘discourse strategies’ by Chinese and Japanese speakers. These remarks were based on comparison of the Chinese/Chinese dyads and Japanese/Japanese dyads, which showed that Chinese speakers participated in interaction more actively (e.g., produced more words, took turns more frequently and asked more questions) than Japanese speakers in the same ethnicity dyads. However, the findings need to be supported by L1. Gass and Varonis (1986) and Duff (1986) suggest that social variables such as gender and ethnicity are related to asymmetry in L2 interactions. Both studies ascribe the observed asymmetry between speakers to transfer of learners’ sociocultural norms for interaction from L1. However, neither set out to investigate directly whether the inequalities observed arise from L1 to L2 transfer by comparing the speakers’ interactional patterns in L1 and L2 conversations. 2.3.2 L1–L2 transfer Interlanguage pragmatics is defined by Kasper (1996: 145) as “the study of nonnative speakers’ use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge”. According to Ellis (1994: 159), studies in the field of interlanguage pragmatics are mainly concerned with (1) interactional acts, or how L2 users manage the process of exchanging turns, how they open and close conversations, and how they sequence acts to ensure a coherent conversation, and (2) speech acts, or how L2 users perform actions such as compliments, apologies, requests or complaints. As Ellis notes, studies on the management of interactional acts are fewer in number than those on speech acts. Riley (1989: 247) suggests that learners transfer their sociolinguistic behaviour, including the way they manage conversational acts, nominate and develop topics and regulate discourse. Similarly, Wolfson (1983: 61) suggests that learners’ rules of speaking concerning appropriate ways of opening conversation, raising topics, using forms of address and managing speech acts tend to be distinct from those of native speakers of the
31
32
Conversational Dominance and Gender
target language. According to Wolfson, learners tend to transfer their L1 rules of speaking into interactions with native speakers of the target language, because the rules of speaking operate below the conscious level, and that this results in communication problems. Similarly, Scarcella (1983) suggests that learners interacting with native speakers of English tend to display distinctive ‘discourse accents’ with respect to such conversational features as topic development and use of backchannel expressions. She ascribes these ‘discourse accents’ to transfer at the level of discourse. Scarcella based this claim on direct investigation of three sets of data involving 10 native speakers of English and 10 native speakers of Spanish: 5 conversations between Spanish speakers in Spanish, 5 conversations between English speakers in English and 5 English conversations between Spanish and English speakers. In contrast to the scarcity of studies on transfer of interactional norms, a large number of studies have investigated how learners of English realise speech acts, including requests, suggestions, invitations, refusals, expressions of disagreement, corrections, complaints, apologies, expressions of gratitude, compliments, and indirect answers in L2 (see Kasper, 1992 and Ellis, 1994 for reviews). Studies on learners’ use of speech acts tend to address two questions: (1) To what extent and in what ways do learners perform speech acts in the L2 differently from native speakers of the target language? (2) How do learners learn to perform various acts? (Ellis, 1994: 161). According to Ellis, interlanguage pragmatics is dominated by studies belonging to the first category. In order to address these issues, researchers have used discourse completion tests (DCTs) (e.g., Beebe and T. Takahashi; 1989; Beebe et al., 1990; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; T. Takahashi and Beebe 1987, 1993), role play (e.g., Walters, 1980; Trosborg, 1994) or analysis of naturally occurring speech (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1990; Wolfson, 1989a). In DCTs, which have been extensively used in studies in this area, learners are invited to predict their behaviour in hypothetical situations (see below for examples), while in role plays learners are asked to play out situations which call for particular speech acts. For example, Trosborg (1994) analysed aspects of discourse competence in Danish learners of English in comparison with native speakers of English in three particular communicative acts of requesting, complaining and apologizing. Her analysis was based on the comparison of (a) English native speaker conversation (b) the interlanguage of Danish learners of English and (c) Danish native speaker conversation, elicited from role play situations. The results reveal shortcomings in the learners’ pragmalinguisitc and sociopragmatic competence with regard to the mastery of those communicative acts. The number of studies using
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
naturally occurring data is small partly because of the difficulty of collecting this kind of data. Ellis (1994: 164) states that DCTs have certain advantages, for example, enabling the researcher to collect large quantities of data quickly, eliciting information about the kinds of semantic formulas that learners use to realise different illocutionary acts, and revealing social factors that learners think are important for speech act performance. However, results from DCTs have been found to differ from results from observational data, for example, with respect to semantic expressions used by learners and the length of their responses (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989; Wolfson et al., 1989). Another disadvantage is that they deprive learners of the chance to opt out of making a speech act (Bonikowska, 1988). Wolfson (1989b) also argues that learners’ intuitions about what they would say in a particular situation may be unreliable. Beebe and T. Takahashi (1989) investigated whether or not Japanese ESL learners’ production of the speech acts of ‘giving disagreement’ and ‘giving embarrassing information’ in unequal encounters in English may be transferred from their L1. The data on which their analysis was based was collected through discourse completion tests (DCT’s), in which subjects were asked how they would respond in certain hypothetical situations such as the following: Disagreement Situation I (higher to lower status): You are a corporate executive. Your assistant submits a proposal for reassignment of secretarial duties in your division. Your assistant describes the benefits of this new plan, but you believe it will not work. Disagreement Situation (II) (lower to higher status): You work in a corporation. Your boss presents you with a plan for reorganisation of the department that you are convinced will not work. Your boss says: ‘Isn’t this a great plan?’
30 respondents (15 native speakers of American English) and 15 advanced Japanese ESL speakers (colleague graduates) were asked to fill in what they would say in each situation. The results showed that, in Situation I (higher to lower), 11 out of 13 Japanese speakers reported that they would criticise the lower status interlocutor (company assistant), as compared to 7 out of 14 native speakers of American English. According to Beebe and T. Takahashi, these results support their hypothesis that Japanese ESL speakers transfer the L1 norm of not avoiding disagreement when speaking to an interlocutor with a lower status. However, in situation II (lower to higher), their results did not support their hypothesis that the Japanese ESL speakers would be very polite, hesitant and indirect. On the contrary, the Japanese ESL speakers responded that they
33
34
Conversational Dominance and Gender
would criticise, even explicitly, the interlocutor with a higher status. Similarly, Beebe et al. (1990) studied the transferability of the speech act of ‘refusal’ in unequal encounters on the basis of DCT’s. The tests were administered to 2 groups of Japanese speakers of English and 2 groups of native speakers of English. Their findings suggest that the Japanese speakers of English transferred L1 sociocultural norms into L2 situations by reacting differently according to whether the invitation was made by a higher- or lower-status person. Beebe and T. Takahashi (1989) and Beebe et al. (1990) both assume that differences observed between the Japanese ESL speakers’ self-reports on their L2 performance and those of native speakers of English result from the Japanese speakers’ L1 transfer of sociocultural norms. However, this assumption needs to be supported by collecting the speakers’ responses to the same situations in L1 and L2. T. Takahashi and Beebe (1993) examined Japanese ESL learners’ production of the speech acts of correction, disagreement, chastisement and announcing embarrassing information in unequal encounters. In addition to L2 data obtained from 15 Japanese learners of English and baseline English data from 15 native speakers of American English, Japanese (L1) data was collected from 25 Japanese speakers. According to T. Takahashi and Beebe, comparison of the L1 data and L2 data clearly shows L1 transfer of style-shifting based on hierarchical relationships. However, the L1 and L2 data were not collected from the same group of Japanese speakers. Although there is some evidence that learners’ L1 norms of speaking may be transferred to L2, there does not seem to be any consensus within the research findings on how this influence works. The relationship between L2 proficiency and the level of transfer can be ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ or inconclusive. The effect is considered to be ‘positive’ by T. Takahashi and Beebe (1987), who found that higher proficiency Japanese ESL speakers transfer their L1 style of ‘refusal’ to a greater degree than lower proficiency speakers — they were more indirect in their refusals (e.g., ‘I am very delighted and honoured to be asked to attend the party but…’) than lower proficiency Japanese, who tended to use more blunt expressions for refusal such as ‘I can’t’. In contrast, the relationship was found to be ‘negative’ in other studies (e.g., Maeshiba et al., 1996; Robinson, 1992; S. Takahashi and DuFon, 1989). For example, Maeshiba et al. (1996) examined the speech act of ‘apology’ used by Japanese learners of ESL at two proficiency levels, intermediate and advanced, and found that the lower proficiency students were more likely to transfer L1 apology strategies than the higher proficiency students. In an attempt to test which view is correct, S. Takahashi
Gender, dominance and pragmatic transfer
(1996) investigated indirect request strategies among Japanese ESL learners but found no definite tendency for a positive or a negative correlation between patterns of L1 to L2 transfer and L2 proficiency. Factors other than L1 to L2 transfer have been suggested to influence the divergence of learners’ performance of speech acts from that of native speakers. First, Beebe and T. Takahashi (1989) suggest that Japanese learners’ direct behaviour in English may be related to ‘psychological convergence’. Having been advised by their Japanese teachers to be direct when they are in the United States, learners may try too hard to converge towards a stereotypical norm of native speaker behaviour, thus diverging from it. Second, Preston (1989) observes that learners may wish to retain ‘learner like’ behaviour as this brings communicative advantages. Trosborg (1994), on the other hand, suggests that learners’ lack of awareness of features such as indirectness and politeness markers in their mother tongue may result in lack of transfer in cases where those items are needed in the target language, thus leading to divergence. In sum, studies conducted in the area of interlanguage pragmatics have shown that it is likely that learners transfer sociocultural norms to their L2 interaction to some extent. They have also revealed various factors suggesting that L1 to L2 transfer is not the only explanation for non-native speaker performance. However, the claim for L1 to L2 transfer at discourse level is weakened because most of the studies are limited to speech acts and only a few studies have looked at interactional features. In addition, the research methods adopted are not ideal. Few studies have investigated L1 to L2 transfer (both interactional patterns and speech acts) on the basis of direct evidence from L1 and L2 data, which is, according to Ellis [1994: 162], the only reliable way to determine the extent to which learners transfer their L1 norms L2. 2.3.3 Summary Research in the area of NNS-NNS interaction suggests that asymmetries in L2 interaction may be related to learners’ social variables such as gender and ethnicity. On the other hand, studies on interlanguage pragmatics suggest that learners’ norms of speaking and speech acts in L1 may be transferred to their L2 conversations. They also suggest that L1 to L2 transfer may be influenced by various factors such as learners’ proficiency level in the target language, learners’ psychological status, overgeneralisation, modality reduction and their wish to retain their ethnic identity. We should bear in mind, however, that no study has investigated transfer of dominance on the basis of direct comparison
35
36
Conversational Dominance and Gender
of interactional features of asymmetry between L1 and L2 conversations involving the same speakers.
2.4 Conclusion Research on language, gender and Japanese culture suggests that women’s lower social status is manifested in their use of language. However, this claim tends to be based on observation of linguistic markers in speech rather than interactional behaviour. In order to test the claim we need a reliable method of measuring dominance in interaction. Although there have been many studies of dominance in western contexts, we do not yet have a systematic method of identifying features indicative of asymmetry, assessing their relative significance, or relating them to global construct of conversational dominance. It seems likely, however, that such a method can be derived from a critical synthesis of approaches that investigate conversational dominance through the distribution of interactional features between male and female speakers and those that investigate it through different conversational styles. As for the question of whether Japanese male speakers are likely to dominate Japanese female speakers in L2 as well as in L1, research on asymmetries in NNS-NNS interactions and in the area of interlanguage pragmatics suggests that the answer is likely to be complex. Few studies have investigated conversational dominance in L2. The statement that learners’ interactional patterns are transferred from their L1 needs to be supported by further studies that compare L1 and L2 interactions involving the same sets of speakers using a systematic method of analysis.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Analysing conversational dominance"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 3
Analysing conversational dominance
In this chapter I will first discuss the ways in which asymmetries in interaction have been approached in the fields of Conversation Analysis (e.g., Sacks et al., 1974), the Birmingham school of discourse analysis (e.g., Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975) and dialogical analysis (e.g., Linell et al., 1988). This will be followed by a more detailed examination of each approach to the relationship between features of interactional asymmetry and dominance in conversation. I will then draw findings from previous studies together and describe the framework for analysing and describing conversational dominance that is used in the analysis of data later in this book.
3.1 Theories of spoken discourse 3.1.1
Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis originated among a group of sociologists, who called themselves ethnomethodologists (e.g., Garfinkel, 1967; Heritage, 1984; Sacks, 1984, 1992a,b; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). In Conversation Analysis, conversation is viewed as ‘orderly’. Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 290) state: We have proceeded under the assumption (an assumption borne out by our research) that in so far as the materials we worked with exhibited orderliness, they did so not only to us, indeed not in the first place for us, but for the coparticipants who had produced them. If the materials (records of natural conversation) were orderly, they were so because they had been methodically produced by members of the society for one another, and it was a feature of the conversations we treated as data that they were produced so as to allow the display by the co-participants to each other of their orderliness, and to allow the participants to display to each other their analysis, appreciation and use of that orderliness.
Conversation is also often described as offering a means to investigate “structures of social action” (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Drew and Heritage, 1992).
38
Conversational Dominance and Gender
According to Sacks (1992b: 37 [1968 Fall Lecture]), “… doing conversation is behaving according to certain sorts of orderly procedures”. Heritage (1984: 241) states: At its most basic, the objective is to describe the procedures and expectations in terms of which speakers produce their own behaviour and interpret the behaviour of others.
In order to achieve these goals, Conversation Analysis uses recordings of naturally occurring speech and rejects other methods of data collection such as interviewing, experimental methodologies in which subjects’ behaviour is manipulated or directed, field notes or native intuition (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984: 2–3; Heritage, 1984: 236). Aspects of conversation that have been studied include openings and closings (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973), turn-taking (Sacks et al., 1974), adjacency pairs (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973), sequential organisation (Jefferson and Schenkein, 1978), preference organisation (Sacks, 1987), assessments (Pomerantz, 1975, 1978, 1984), topic generation (Button and Casey, 1984), topic shift (Jefferson, 1984b) and conversational repairs (Schegloff et al., 1977). Sacks et al. (1974) established a model for the organisation of the turntaking system in conversation, where turn is considered as the speaker’s right as well as obligation, and as something which is valued, sought, or avoided. They argue that: The social organization of turn-taking distributes turns among parties. It must, at least partially, be shaped as an economy. As such, it is expectable that, like other economies, its organization will affect the relative distribution of that which it organizes. (ibid.: 701)
The organisation of conversation that they proposed is described as being both ‘context-free’ and ‘context-sensitive’. It is context-free in that the basic mechanism of turn-taking is applicable to all forms of talk regardless of differences in context such as place, time and identity of participants. It is context-sensitive in that the system can also accommodate the particulars of each context: Conversation can accommodate a wide range of situations, interactions in which persons in varieties (or varieties of groups) of identities are operating; it can be sensitive to the various combinations; and it can be capable of dealing with a change of situation within a situation. Hence there must be some formal apparatus which is itself context-free, in such ways that it can, in local instances of its operation, be sensitive to and exhibit its sensitivity to various parameters of social reality in a local context. (ibid.: 699–700)
Analysing conversational dominance
These remarks suggest that Sacks et al. recognised that social factors such as participant identities influence the systematic organisation of conversation and thus the distribution of speaking rights. Although Sacks et al. were fully aware of asymmetries in conversation and the possible influence of participants’ identities, they focused on its context-free nature because they thought analysis of the internal structure of conversation should precede analysis of its social aspect. They explain this as follows: The problem of introducing particular social identities into our description of the technology is especially complex, because one of the major aspects of the flexibility of conversation is that it is compatible with multiplicities of, and changes in, the social identities of some ‘same’ participants. A formal characterisation of how participants’ social identities are made relevant, and changed in conversation, does not now exist, though work is proceeding on that problem. It is clear enough that some ‘current selects next’ techniques are tied to the issue with which such a formal characterisation will deal, but for now they are too cumbersome to be introduced in detail. (ibid.: 718)
The difficulty of including social factors in the analysis of conversation is also referred to in later studies. Schegloff (1987) argues that the priority of Conversation Analysis should be analysis of the micro-structure and organisation of conversation (e.g., repair, interruption), and not analysis of its macro-aspect (e.g., gender issues). He questions the value of introducing macro-analysis into micro-analysis of conversation on two grounds: 1. It is difficult to show that the characterisations the investigator makes of the participants (class, age, gender) are actually grounded in the participants’ own orientations in the interaction. 2. The identification of the participants in terms of such attributes as class, age and gender are not analytically linked to specific conversational mechanisms by which the outcomes might be produced. However, this does not mean that Schegloff denies the link between the microand macro-levels. What he objects to is an early introduction of the links between micro- and macro-analyses. To illustrate this point, Schegloff (1987: 214–216) cites how interruptions and gender are related in West and Zimmerman (1983). In this study, only one type of interruption is identified as a feature of asymmetry: Speaker A is speaking, Speaker B begins to talk in the middle of A’s turn, and Speaker A drops out. Speaker B’s behaviour is treated as
39
40
Conversational Dominance and Gender
indicative of dominance. However, Schegloff (1987: 216) suggests that there is at least one more type of interruption: One type of response to the other’s continuation at talking or deployment of these forms of “competitive” speaking is to drop out of the overlap and yield the turn to the other — at least for the moment. Another response type is to continue in the face of the competition, and perhaps even to become competitive (or more competitive) oneself.
This suggests that interruptions are not necessarily indicative of dominance. The interrupting speaker can be viewed as dominant if he or she completes the turn while the interrupted speaker’s turn is left incomplete. On the other hand, the interrupted speaker can be as dominant as or more dominant than the interrupting speaker if he or she completes the turn, leading to the interrupting speaker’s withdrawal from the floor. Schegloff cautions against linking conversational actions such as interruptions with social variables without fully examining beforehand the mechanisms by which these actions work: …early introduction of such linkages to macro-level variables …tends to preempt full technical exploration of the aspects of interaction being accounted for and the micro-level mechanisms that are involved in their production. There is a potential for analytic losses at both the micro and macro levels. (ibid.: 215)
However, he also acknowledges the possibility of relating interruptions to speaker gender: Perhaps it [gender] is one “proxy” for high/low status. Indeed, such differences may come to embody for some investigators what high/low status amounts to interactionally, although establishing the relationship to external status (as measured by noninteractional measures) may be quite problematic. (ibid.: 216)
Schegloff (1992: 108–9) suggests two possible strategies that may enable analysts to make the link between conversational organisation and social structure. The first is characterised as a ‘positivist’ stance, which uses statistical or historical evidence to categorise participants in particular ways. The second is to demonstrate that the categories for participants’ identity proposed by the analyst are actually oriented to by the participants in producing certain conducts during the interaction and are therefore relevant to their interpretation (see ten Have, 1991, for an example of a study using the second approach).
Analysing conversational dominance
3.1.2 Birmingham school of discourse analysis Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) study of classroom talk established the first systematic descriptive model of spoken discourse. On the basis of their analysis of data from traditional teacher-fronted classroom interactions, which they regarded as showing the clearest structure of spoken discourse, Sinclair and Coulthard borrowed the concept of a hierarchical rank scale of linguistic units proposed by Halliday (1961) and suggested a hierarchy of discourse units consisting of move, exchange, transaction and lesson. Their system has been further developed by Berry (1981), Coulthard and Brazil (1981), Richardson (1981) and Stubbs (1983), among others, and more recently applied to everyday conversation by Francis and Hunston (1992), Stenström (1994), Tsui (1994) and Trosborg (1994). In developing their descriptive framework, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) observed that a pattern of initiation – response – follow-up (I-R-F) at the level of the exchange was evident during classroom interactions. Although their system based on this three part structure has been criticised for the fact that it is not found in less traditional classrooms (e.g., Fairclough, 1992: 13–16) or in everyday conversation (e.g., Burton 1981), Tsui (1994) shows that it is, in fact, a common feature of ordinary conversations. Trosborg (1994) has also demonstrated that with some modifications to the original model (e.g., adding two categories of moves to the I-R-F structure), Sinclair and Coulthard’ model can be applied to English conversation, Danish conversation, and learner conversation by Danish speakers in English, in role-play situations (see also Stenström, 1994). The three part structure is relevant to the analysis of dominance in conversation in that it may make manifest underlying social relationships between speakers. In Sinclair and Coulthard’s study (1975), teachers controlled pupils through initiations and follow-up moves. But, as Drew and Heritage (1992: 40–41) point out, the structure can also be seen as accomplishing the participants’ goals in a particular setting: …the three-part sequence is characteristic of the setting (classroom) only because it is generated out of the management of the activity (instruction) which is the institutionalized and recurrent activity in the setting. Thus, where the same activity is performed in other and possibly noninstitutionalized settings, as when parents instruct their children in the home, there also may be found similar three-part sequence structures.
41
42
Conversational Dominance and Gender
This suggests that the I-R-F structure is not limited to a particular type of setting (classroom data) but is related to the nature of the interaction, and sensitive to speakers’ social identities and their relationships in that setting. Following Coulthard and Brazil (1981: 101), who suggested that ‘the exchange is the unit concerned with negotiating the transmission of information’, Berry (1981) distinguished ‘primary knower’ and ‘secondary knower’ in the exchange structure. The primary knower is the speaker who already knows the information and makes an inform move or a response move to a preceding elicit move. The secondary knower is the speaker to whom the information is transmitted. This suggests that move types (initiation) may be related to different states of knowledge between two speakers and to speakers’ social roles such as father and son, quiz master and contestant. The I-R-F structure proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and others may, therefore, offer the potential for analysing dominance in conversation in terms of who directs the course of interaction. The pattern of the distribution of initiating and responding roles between two speakers established in the course of interaction may be related to social variables such as gender. 3.1.3 Dialogical analysis In contrast to the trend in Conversation Analysis towards caution in relating features of informal conversations to asymmetries between speakers (Drew and Heritage, 1992; Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 1987; Schegloff, 1992), in dialogical analysis, asymmetries are believed to be inherent to any kind of interaction. In dialogical analysis, language and interaction are seen as being inseparable from their cultural, socio-historical and situational contexts (Linell, 1990; Linell and Luckmann, 1991; Linell et al., 1988; Marková and Foppa, 1990 and 1991a; Marková, and Linell, 1996). Spoken interaction is seen as being inherently asymmetrical since interlocutors are bound to differ in their control of the content, quality and quantity of their dialogical contributions. Marková and Foppa (1991b: 260) state: In fact, the effort to establish what can broadly be called equality or symmetry of the relationships between people has characterized much of the dynamics of social change in Western culture for centuries… while acknowledging symmetry as a value to strive for, the driving forces of progress and of social change are the existing states of asymmetries, inequalities, imbalances and disharmony. It is apparent that many asymmetries pertaining to dialogue as such are determined by exogenous inequalities existing between interacting people.
Analysing conversational dominance
Asymmetries in spoken interaction are also discussed by Linell and Luckmann (1991: 7), who state that the ultimate purpose of conversation is to make things common to each other or ‘to equalize knowledge and mutual influence’. According to Linell and Luckmann (1991: 7), interlocutors are mutually dependent on each other, and this is manifested in the nature of their utterances. They argue: Basic asymmetries are also involved in the smallest units of dialogue. An utterance may be analysed in terms of its responsive and initiatory (retroactive and proactive) aspects; it is both dependent on prior context and defines the conditions for possible continuations. By responding to prior communicative events, by making his or her utterance ‘conditionally relevant’ in the local context, the utterer, at some level, complies with conditions already defined. On the other hand, by taking the discourse further, by initiating new topical aspects, he or she tries to govern the contributions to follow.
Linell and Luckmann (1991: 7–8) also argue that asymmetries are ‘ubiquitous properties’ and ‘intrinsic feature[s]’ of talk, including informal conversation. Linell (1990: 173) criticises Conversation Analysis for failing to “recognise that a good deal of informal, mundane conversation is characterised by asymmetries” (see also Luckmann, 1990). Linell et al. (1988: 415) define dominance in interaction as follows: To be dominant in a dialogue is to control a major part of the territory which is to be shared by the parties, i.e. the interactional space, the discourse ratified by and jointly attended to by the actors (what is normally called the ‘floor’).
Dominance in conversation is seen as having two aspects: local and global. It is also seen as being quantifiable. Linell and Luckmann (1991: 4) explain this as follows: Local asymmetries may be tied to single exchanges (‘adjacency pairs’) (a greeting and its reciprocation would be only mildly asymmetrical, while, e.g. a promise and its acceptance form a much more asymmetrical pair) or to single turns; there are basic asymmetries tied to the allocation of speaker versus listener roles. ‘Dominance’, on the other hand, should, as regards discourse, be taken as a less neutral and somewhat more precise term to be used of certain global properties, i.e. in principle quantifiable and aggregated patterns emergent over sequences (entire social encounters or dialogues or parts or phases thereof)…
Linell and Luckmann also propose that dominance can be analysed according to quantitative, topical, and interactional dimensions (Linell and Luckmann,
43
44
Conversational Dominance and Gender
1991; Linell et al., 1988). Quantitative dominance refers to the amount of speech produced: the speaker who speaks the most words is treated as the dominant speaker. Topical dominance refers to introduction of new content words (referents, concepts) during the interaction: the speaker who introduces the most content words is the dominant speaker. Interactional dominance refers to dominant behaviour in directing the interaction. The descriptive framework developed by Linell and his associates has been applied to various types of discourse and patterns of asymmetry have been related to the social identities of speakers. For example, Linell et al. (1988) suggest that the level of asymmetry in informal conversations (e.g., between husband and wife at a dinner table) may be considerably lower than that in institutional interactions (e.g., between a legal professional and a defendant in a court trial). Linell et al.’s (1988) insight that conversational dominance consists of a global pattern emerging from several dimensions over the course of interaction and that it is quantifiable in terms of the sum of local asymmetries along each dimension open up the possibility of analysing dominance on an objective basis and of investigating its relationship with social variables.
3.2 Features of interactional asymmetry 3.2.1 Introduction Asymmetries in interaction can be said to be manifest in four major aspects of interaction. First, one speaker may control the other speaker with respect to the direction of the interaction, or how initiating and responding roles are shared in the creation of sequences of utterances. Second, one speaker may control the other in terms of speaking rights, in particular through overlaps and interruptions, which affect participation in interaction. Third, one speaker may control the quantity of the other’s contribution to the interaction. Lastly, one speaker may control the other speaker with respect to the development of topic. In the following sections, I will examine some of the major interactional features that have been associated with asymmetry in interaction in these four categories and discuss the extent to which they can be seen as indicative of one speaker’s control over the other speaker.
Analysing conversational dominance
3.2.2 Sequencing Control over sequencing is essentially a matter of the constraining force of initiations and their different consequences depending on the types of responses they receive. 3.2.2.1Initiations In Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) model, sequencing during interaction is achieved through initiation moves that set up an expectation of response moves. Coulthard and Brazil (1981: 100) state: The powerful structural relationship between I and R means that any move occurring in the I slot will be heard as setting up a prediction that there will be an appropriate move in the R slot.
Various terms have been adopted to describe the relationship between initiation and response moves. For example, initiations are said to “prospect” (Coulthard and Brazil, 1981; Tsui 1994), “predict” (Coulthard and Brazil, 1981; Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Stubbs, 1983), “constrain” (Coulthard and Brazil, 1981), or “prescribe” (Coulthard et al., 1981) appropriate response types. In addition, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 51) state that follow-up or feedback is an essential element in classroom interaction because of the type of questions asked during the class: This fact enables us to explain why feedback is an essential element in an exchange inside the classroom. Having given their reply children want to know whether it was the right one. So important is feedback that if it does not occur we feel confident in saying that the teacher has deliberately withheld it for some strategic purpose.
In their system, therefore, initiation, response and follow-up are considered as essential elements of the exchange structure characteristic of classroom interactions. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 21) also state that “the vast majority of exchanges have their boundaries within utterances”. In other words, a speaker may make more than one move within a turn. For example, a speaker may answer a question (a response move oriented towards the previous initiating move) and ask a new question (initiating move) within the same turn. The excerpt below illustrates how the three part structure of initiation, response and follow-up can be seen as indicating asymmetry (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975:70):
45
46
Conversational Dominance and Gender
(1) I R F
I R F
1 T: Can you say anything about those symbols? 2 P: They’re all easy to draw 3–1 T: Eh yes. Reasonably easy to draw. That’s a good point isn’t it. Because if they were very complicated it wouldn’t be very easy to put them on whatever you wanted to put them on. 3–2 Can you think of anything that they would be put on. Would they just be written or painted or drawn on the sand? 4 P: They might be on the rocks. 5 T: Yes they were mainly carved in rocks.
In turn 1, the teacher (T) makes an initiating move, to which the pupil responds in turn 2. Turn 3 consists of two moves: follow-up and initiation. In making the follow-up, the teacher evaluates the pupil’s preceding response. By making a follow-up move and a new initiation move, which receives a response move from the pupil, in the same turn (3–1 and 3–2), the teacher maintains continuous control over the sequencing during two exchanges. Since I-R-F tends to be a pattern repeated during the course of interaction, the teacher who controls within the exchange is also likely to dominate the sequencing of interaction globally. Outside the context of classroom interaction, Tsui (1994) analysed everyday conversations (see also Linell et al., 1988) and proposed that responses are also prospective because “the addressee may need to know whether the speaker has understood his or her response, whether the response is acceptable, and whether the addressee has correctly interpreted the speaker’s utterance” (Tsui, 1994: 32). Follow-ups are therefore also treated as prospected moves which do not set up any expectation for the following move. According to Tsui, both initiations and responses can be seen as having controlling force in requiring specified moves from the other speaker. However, follow-ups are also characterised as having the function of letting “the addressee know that the speaker has understood the addressee’s response, that he or she has provided an acceptable response, and that the interaction has been felicitous” (ibid.: 32), or as having the general function of acknowledging the outcome of an exchange (ibid.: 194–213). This suggests that the speaker who makes an initiation has the final judgement on whether to produce a follow-up or withhold it, depending on the nature of the response. The prospective force of responses is therefore considerably weaker than that of initiations. In everyday conversations speakers also control the sequencing of interaction through utterances in which response and initiation moves are combined.
Analysing conversational dominance
The following is an excerpt of everyday conversation from Tsui (1994: 199, with a slight change in transcription): (2) I
1
R I
2
R
3
I
4
G: In other words, why don’t — why don’t — when you think you — want to do it, why don’t you just give us a call. I mean not // tonight. S: Any time, we’re we’re ready any time. = = It’s just when YOU’ll be around for us to look look for you. G: Oh that’s um ((pause)) I don’t know what John’s schedule is. I know we’re out tonight and ((pause)) ah and ((pause)) I don’t know about the rest of this week. S: Or may be tomorrow night?
In turn 1, G makes an initiation to request that S should give her a call when she is ready to come around at G’s place to borrow some tools ‘do it’. In turn 2, S makes a prospected response to G’s previous initiation, acknowledging that she is ready to meet the request at any time, but she also makes a new initiation, requesting that G should suggest a convenient time. Control over sequencing shifts from S’s initiation in turn 1 to G’s initiation following her response in turn 2. The discussion so far suggests that a turn which consists of an initiation (I), a combination of a response and an initiation (R/I), or a combination of a follow-up and an initiation (F/I) can be thought of as a controlling action which constrains the interlocutor to provide a prospected response, rather than make a new initiation, in the following turn. A response (R) can also be thought of as showing the speaker’s acceptance of this controlling action. The number of initiations made by a speaker over a sequence of exchanges shows how many times this speaker has attempted to control the other speaker’s conversational behaviour with respect to types of moves to be produced in the following turn. In addition, the number of the interlocutor’s responses shows how many times the speaker’s attempt to control has been accepted. In other words, each instance of initiation followed by a prospected response can be seen as a local instance of controlling action. The distribution of such I-R sequences between the speakers over the course of an interaction is therefore a strong indicator of global dominance. The concept of adjacency pair is similar to that of initiation and response in that the first pair part is also seen as controlling the second pair part. According to Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 295), ‘adjacency pairs’ have the following features:
47
48
Conversational Dominance and Gender
1. two utterance length 2. adjacent positioning of component utterances 3. different speakers producing each utterance The first turn in an adjacency pair is called the ‘first pair part’ and the second turn is called the ‘second pair part’. These are affiliated to comprise pair types, such as ‘question – answer’, ‘greeting – greeting’, ‘offer – acceptance/refusal’ and so on. Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 296) point out further features of adjacency pairs: 4. relative ordering of parts (i.e. first pair parts precede second pair parts) 5. discriminative relations (i.e. the pair type of which a first pair part is a member is relevant to the selection among second pair parts) These features suggest that the speaker providing the first pair part puts some restriction on the interlocutor in terms of the timing and content of his or her next utterance. In other words, given a first pair part, the other speaker is expected to produce a second pair part which is a ‘recognizable member’ of the same pair type in the following turn. Schegloff and Sacks (ibid.: 296) explain this as follows: … wherever one party to a conversation is specifically concerned with the close order sequential implicativeness of an utterance he has a chance to produce, the use of a first pair part is a way he has of methodically providing for such implicativeness. So, if he is concerned to have another talk directly about some matter he is about to talk about, he may form his own utterance as a question, a next speaker being thereby induced to employ the chance to talk to produce what is appreciable as an answer. This suggests that, the first pair part has controlling power over the second pair part.
Control over conversation is frequently discussed in Conversation Analysis. For example, Sacks (1992a: 54 [1964 Fall Lecture 7]) discusses how questions can control conversation by introducing the rule which states: “A person who asks a question has a right to talk again, after the other talks”, which is elaborated as follows. …the person who is asking the questions seems to have first rights to perform an operation on the set of answers. You can call it ‘draw a conclusion.’ Socrates used the phrase ‘add them up.’ It was very basic to his way of doing dialectic. He would go along and then say at some point, “Well, let’s see where we are. Let’s add up the answers and draw some conclusion. And it’s that right that provides for a lot of what look like struggling in some conversations, where the
Analysing conversational dominance
attempt to move into the position of ‘questioner’ seems to be quite a thing that persons try to do… As long as one is in the position of doing the questions, then in part they have control of the conversation.
He suggests that enforcement of this rule depends on the situation. For example, it is strictly enforced in cross-examination, whereas in everyday conversation the roles of questioner and answerer are not fixed. Initiations and first pair parts share the common feature that both control the other speaker’s following utterance to be of a particular type. Different types of adjacency pair may represent different degrees of control. For example, questions control not only the immediately following utterance but also the sequence of utterances (see Sacks 1992a: 54 [1964 Fall Lecture 7] quoted above). It is unlikely that other types of first pair parts control to a similar degree (e.g. ‘greetings’ and ‘goodbyes’). Although the IRF system developed by the Birmingham School of discourse analysis has the potential to capture patterns of control over the whole course of interaction, it does not take account of such differences. On the other hand, the varying degrees of control represented by different types of adjacency pairs has not been examined to the point where it might be possible to assign them different quantitative values. Although the IRF system ignores varying degrees of control among different types of first pair parts, it may represent the most valid method available for assessing control over sequencing over the course of interaction. The validity of results would, however, need to be tested in the light of more detailed analysis of the data. Linell et al.’s (1988) system for analysing dominant behaviour with respect to sequencing, which he calls ‘interactional dominance’, is based on categorisation of turns. According to Linell et al. (ibid.: 416): Interactional dominance has to do with the communicative actions, initiatives, and responses taken by the interlocutors; the dominant party is the one who manages to direct and control the other party’s actions to the greater extent and who also avoids being directed and controlled in his own interactive behaviour.
I (‘initiative’ rather than ‘initiation’ as in Sinclair and Coulthard) is considered to project relevant next actions or ‘point forward’, whereas R (response) creates coherence with the preceding discourse by linking up with what the interlocutor or the speaker himself has said before. Single utterances are not regarded as either initiative or response, but as having both qualities. Even an answer to a question is regarded as having an element of response (determined by the preceding context) and initiative (determining the forthcoming context), although the degree of initiative force
49
50
Conversational Dominance and Gender
may be extremely low in the case of a ‘minimum response’. Conversely, a question may also be regarded as having a response element and as being dependent on the preceding context, or ‘context determined’, although the degree of responsiveness can be extremely low, in the case of an ‘initiative on a new and independent topic’. The degree of ‘initiative’ in turns is graded. Questions and directives, by which “the speaker explicitly solicits or demands a response from the interlocutor” (ibid.: 439) are categorised together as ‘strong’ initiatives. Statements in which the speaker “asserts something or submits a proposal for comment without explicitly soliciting or demanding (but often inviting) a response from the interlocutor” are categorised as ‘weak’ initiatives. A distinction is also made in terms of how a given turn links with the prior discourse. For example, distinctions are made among initiatives that link to the preceding interlocutor’s utterance, to the speaker’s own preceding utterance or to another utterance made earlier in the discourse (see also Tsui, 1993 for discussion of different elicitative forces among initiations). On the basis of strength of initiative (‘strong’ or ‘weak’), a ratio between response and initiative element and how links are made with the prior discourse, turns are divided into 18 different categories. These 18 categories are given an interactional weight on a scale from 1 to 6. ‘6’ is given to turns which attempt to determine the other speaker’s next action, while avoiding control by the previous speaker’s utterance. ‘1’ is given to turns where the speaker refrains from trying to determine the other speaker’s next turn and allows himself to be controlled by the other speaker. After each turn is allocated to one of the 18 categories with a numerical value, the relationship between the speakers is determined by several statistical measures, including a frequency count of different types of initiatives and an I/R index for each speaker, which is calculated as the median value on an ordinal scale. For example, the index of a conversation between husband and wife may be 3.12 for the husband, and 2.91 for the wife. On the basis of comparison of the indexes for the two speakers, the conversation is determined to be symmetrical or asymmetrical (in the case of the example of husband-wife conversation, symmetrical). Initiative and response in Linell et al. are similar to initiation and response in Sinclair and Coulthard in that both indicate one speaker’s control over the other speaker. However, while the interactional force of different kinds of initiations is treated equally in Sinclair and Coulthard, in the system developed by Linell et al. controlling turns, categorised into 18 types, are assigned values
Analysing conversational dominance
corresponding to varying degrees of control from 1 to 6. Although Linell et al.’s system enables more detailed analysis of the nature of dominance, its application to data may pose problems. In particular, it is difficult to determine how different numerical values for interactional force should be assigned to different types of initiatives. “Strong initiatives”, such as questions and directives, are given a value of “6” and “weak initiatives”, such as statements, are given the value of “5”. While researchers might agree that the former has greater interactional force than the latter, the assignment of numerical values and the intervals between them is somewhat arbitrary. If the values assigned were 6 and 5.5, or 6 and 4, for example, the global result would be influenced. The IRF system developed by Birmingham school of discourse analysis, which treats different kinds of initiations as having an equal level of control, therefore seems to offer a greater potential of analysing dominance in sequencing for the purpose of quantitative analysis. However, it is necessary to examine its validity in the light of features neglected in their system such as different degrees of interactional forces and conversational styles by qualitative analysis of data. 3.2.2.2Responses Tsui (1994) shows how different types of initiations can be followed by a positive or negative response. Below are examples of an offer followed by an accept (positive response) and with a reject (negative response) (ibid.: 174–175): (3) I R I R (4) I R
D: I’ll see if I can find an old map of Canton that we had of the city, y’know, just as reference. R: Oh Henry, that’s very kind of you. D: I’ll sen - I saw it in the book shop, but I have to, I’ll search again, I’ll put it in the mail box. R: Ah, thank you very much. C: Have you got - mu - I’ve got some paper if you want. D: No, I’ve got tons of paper - stole it.
Both utterances by Speaker R in (3) and D’s utterance in (4) are given in response to an offer (requestive). However, while R’s utterances “fulfill the illocutionary intents of the requestives”, D’s utterance does not and is therefore ‘dispreferred’ (ibid.: 174–175). Tsui (1994: 161–165) also suggests that a distinction should be made between responding moves and ‘challenging moves’ on the basis that, the former share the speaker’s presupposition while the latter do not (see also
51
52
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Burton 1981). Tsui gives the following examples of challenging moves and presuppositions challenged by them (the order of illustrative sentences has been changed so that each question and the presupposition that it challenges match): A: What’s the time? B: a. You know bloody well what time it is. b. Why do you ask? c. How should I know. d. Ask Jack. e. What did you say? f. What do you mean?
Challenged presuppositions a. b. c. d.
the speaker does not have the information and wants to (sincerely); the speaker has the need and the right to ask for the information; the speaker has reason to believe that the addressee has the information; the speaker has reason to believe that the addressee is willing to supply the information; e. the addressee can hear what the speaker says; f. the addressee can understand the meaning conveyed. Challenging moves avoid giving a prospected response by challenging the first speaker’s pragmatic presuppositions. They also prospect an appropriate response from the first speaker. According to Tsui (ibid.: 163), a challenging move is therefore a kind of initiation move. It can be seen as indicating the second speaker’s rejection of the first speaker’s control and the second speaker’s attempt to control the first speaker’s next move. However, different degrees of rejection of control are also observed. Examples (a) to (d) are concerned with the content of interaction (interactive) whereas (e) to (f) are concerned with the interaction itself (meta-interactive). Meta-interactive challenging moves may not indicate the speaker’s rejection of the first speaker’s control as strongly as interactive challenging moves since the former simply indicate that the felicity conditions for successful communication do not obtain. In contrast, interactive challenging moves indicate more clearly the speaker’s refusal to be controlled by the previous initiation and the intention to control the following utterance. In adjacency pairs, second pair parts are called ‘preferred’ and or ‘dispreferred’. According to Sacks (1987 [1973]), responses that are in ‘agreement’ with first pair parts, such as ‘yes’ answers, are preferred. They are given immediately after the first pair part and are in accordance with the first speaker’s preference.
Analysing conversational dominance
In contrast, responses which are not in ‘agreement’ with the first pair parts, such as ‘no’ answers, are ‘dispreferred’ and are usually characterised by delay and syntactic complexity. Preferred responses are also more frequent than dispreferred responses (see also Levinson, 1983: 332–345; Pomerantz, 1975, 1978, 1984). The following are examples of questions followed by a preferred response and a dispreferred response (Sacks 1987: 57 [1973], with a slight change in transcription): (5) A: And it- apparently left her quite permanently damaged (I suppose) B: Apparently. Uh he is still hopeful. (6) A: Well is this really whatchu wanted? B: Uh… not originally? No. But it’s uh…promotion? en it’s very interesting, I’ve been doing this onna part time basis fer a number of years.
In Example (5) the second speaker observes a social preference for giving a preferred response by concurring with the previous speaker by repeating the word “apparently” given in A’s utterance. In Example (6), a dispreferred response is given with some delay (“Uh…”). Sacks also finds that questioners may also orient their questions so that the second speaker can give a preferred response: (7) A: they have a good cook there? ((pause)) A: Nothing special? B: No, everybody takes their turns.
The questioner (Speaker A) upon receiving a pause, reformulates the question so that it is more likely to receive a preferred response. Levinson (1983: 333) suggests that there is a rule for speech production to “try to avoid the dispreferred action — the action that generally occurs in dispreferred or marked format”. Sacks (1992b: 198–199 [1970, Winter Lecture 4]) suggests that in an unequal encounter like slave/master, agreement is almost obligatory for the inferior person. This suggests there may be two types of asymmetry in relation to adjacency pairs. First, a speaker who gives a preferred second pair part (a) satisfies the expectation from the first speaker that he or she should be given a particular type of response (member from the same pair type) and (b) complies with the rule for a preferred social organisation. On the other hand, a speaker who gives a dispreferred second pair part does not comply with a socially preferred expectation, even though he or she gives the required type of response.
53
54
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Positive responses and preferred second pair parts are similar in that both comply with the interactional control prospected from the preceding initiations and first pair parts of adjacency pairs. Negative responses and dispreferred responses, on the other hand, are not given in accordance with such interactional expectation. Combination of the initiation with a positive response, or a first pair part with a preferred second pair part, therefore seems to be indicative of one speaker’s control over the other speaker. 3.2.2.3Completion offers While it is considered a norm that the next speaker takes up the following turn upon completion of the current speaker’s turn (Sacks et al., 1974), the current speaker’s turn may also be completed by the interlocutor, as in the following example. (8) [Sacks, 1992a [Fall Lecture 4, 1967] A: you were trying to be [ B: (I hid my anger,) A: You were trying uh Æ B: - to play along with us
In this example, A is having difficulty finding an appropriate word and B comes in to supply it. Sequences of this kind are called “collaborative” or “joint production” by Sacks (1992a [1967, Spring Lecture 7 and Fall Lecture 4]; 1992b [1968, Fall Lecture 5]) and Jefferson (1973). Utterances like B (arrowed) in Example (8) that complete the previous speaker’s utterance are referred to as “appendor” by Sacks (e.g., 1992a [1967, March 2]; 1992b [1968, Fall Lecture 5]), as “completion offers” by Grimshaw (1987) and jointly constructed/owned turns by Coates (1994, 1996 [118–128 and 266–267]). For the rest of this discussion, I will use the term “completion offer”, following Grimshaw (1987). Completion offers can also be found in other circumstances: (9) [Jefferson 1973: 50] Roger: Well yeah I would’ve done something like that maybe, but I wouldn’t ’v made it a point. Æ Al: -to bring it up. (10) [Jefferson 1973: 50] Louise: No a Soshe is someone who is a carbon copy of their friend. [ Æ Roger: -drinks Pepsi.
Analysing conversational dominance
(11)
[Jefferson 1973: 51] Dan: The guy who doesn’t run the race doesn’t win it, but ’e doesn’t lose it. [ ] Roger: B’t-lose it
Example (9) illustrates a situation in which the second speaker turns a possible complete current turn into an incomplete one by adding an extension. In Examples (10) and (11), the second speaker supplies a phrase to continue the first speaker’s utterance when the first speaker does not apparently expect the second speaker to supply it. Completion offers are concerned with sequential dominance in a particular way. The completing utterances are not responses prospected by the function of the prior utterance, although it may be said that they are prospected by the speaker’s non-linguistic expectation (e.g., that the interlocutor will supply the word that he or she is looking for, or that the interlocutor will show that he or she is on the same wave length). Completion offers are not entirely initiations either since they are bound, or pretend to be bound, by the content of the prior turn. Completion offers are sequentially controlling, however, because the speaker joins in the construction of the preceding initiation with the interlocutor and he or she requires the interlocutor to confirm or disconfirm the appropriateness of the current speaker’s guess made in the offer. This feature is especially evident in the case of completion offers in the form of a question, which are illustrated in the following example (“appendor question” by Sacks, 1992a [lecture 5, fall 1967]): (12) A: Gimme another lifesaver I’m about to drown Æ B: - in your own humility?
According to Sacks, after the appendor question the next speaker is expected to confirm or disconfirm it. Completion offers, therefore, direct the content of the communicative action of the interlocutor and can therefore be considered as indicative of asymmetry. 3.2.2.4Reformulation/formulation Reformulation or formulation refers to a speaker’s attempt to fix the interpretation of the content of the preceding speaker’s utterance, often in a way that was not intended by the original speaker (Adelswärd et al., 1987: 323; Fairclough, 1992: 158; Sacks 1992a [spring lecture, April 26, 1971]; Thomas, 1985: 773). Adelswärd et al. (1987: 323) define reformulation as follows:
55
56
Conversational Dominance and Gender
to summarise aspects of what the interlocutor has just said, reformulate it in other words, draw conclusions from it and very often assign an interpretation that has not been expressed by the interlocutor himself.
Fairclough (1992: 158), who discusses formulation as an aspect of police interviews, also states: Even when formulating is not specifically to do with policing, it often still has a major interactional control function, in attempts by some participants to win acceptance from others for their versions of what has been said, or what has transpired in an interaction, which may then restrict the latter’s options in ways which are advantageous to the former.
Formulation may be used by a speaker to control the other speaker by constraining the content of the other speaker’s following utterance. The interlocutor’s options are restricted because he or she is required to either confirm or disconfirm the formulation. The following example from Sacks (1992a [spring lecture, April 26, 1971]; also see spring lecture, April 23, 1971) illustrates this point: (13) [B and C are graduate students] B: How ya doing? Say what are you doing? C: Well we’re going out, why? B: Oh I was just gonna say come out and come over here and talk this evening, but if you’re going out // you can’t very well do that. Æ C: “Talk” you mean get drunk don’t you? B: What? C: It’s Saturday. B: What do you do. Go out and get drunk every Saturday? C: Hm hehhh Well my folks are helping us to do it this evening. B: That’s why you look so bad on Monday morning.
Sacks characterises the sequence following C’s ‘Talk you mean get drunk don’t you?’ as a “battle”, where C seems to stand superior to B by characterising B’s plan as not a proper way to spend a Saturday evening. C’s reformulation is therefore not merely checking her understanding of what B has said in the previous turn. C is proposing her own interpretation of an appropriate way to spend a Saturday evening. In other words, C attempts to control B even in this informal encounter. From a pragmatic point of view, Thomas (1985:773) characterises reformulation as ‘pragmatic disambiguation’ and defines it as the “presentation of H’s [hearer] utterance in unambivalent terms”. Assuming that leaving an utterance
Analysing conversational dominance
ambiguous is the speaker’s right, Thomas states that pragmatic disambiguation is a strategy used in unequal encounters by dominant speakers to control subordinate speakers. In other words, upon receiving a reformulation, the subordinate interlocutor will be required to make clear the intended (but left ambiguous) pragmatic force of his or her previous utterance (Example 14 below) or confirm the pragmatic force that has been proposed by the interlocutor (Example 15 below): (14) (Police Data) Constable: I’ve never had any comment other than that. Æ Inspector: Are you saying that nobody’s brought your shortcomings to your notice? (Thomas 1985: 774) (15) (Court Data) Court Official: How do you plead-guilty or not guilty? Defendant: (Silence) Court Official: Did you do it or not? Defendant: Well, I did hit him, yes. Æ Court Official: So that’s ‘guilty’ then. Defendant: Yes, sir (Thomas 1985: 774)
In Example (15), the Defendant has no choice but to say ‘yes’ to the court official’s apparent pragmatic intent. Reformulations are, therefore, similar to initiations and first pair parts in that they constrain the other speaker to produce a particular type of utterance (i.e. acceptance of the reformulation). 3.2.2.5Other-correction Research on correction or repair has shown that, when an interlocutor feels that the prior speaker has made a wrong statement or has used a wrong word, the repair work may be conducted either by the prior speaker himself (‘selfcorrection’) by the interlocutor (‘other correction’) (e.g., Jefferson 1987; Schegloff et al. 1977). The following are examples of each case (from Jefferson 1987: 86–87; with slightly simplified transcription notations):
57
58
Conversational Dominance and Gender
(16) (self-correction) Hannah: And he’s going to make his own paintings. Bea: Mm hm, Æ Hannah: And or I mean his own frames, Bea: Yeah
In this example, Hannah’s mistake ‘paintings’ in the first turn is pointed out and corrected by herself. (17) (other correction) Larry: They’re going to drive back Wednesday. Æ Norm: Tomorrow. Larry: Tomorrow. Right. [ Norm: M-hm, Larry: They’re working half day.
In this example of other-correction, ‘Wednesday’ in Larry’s first utterance is a mistake and it is corrected by Norm’s ‘Tomorrow’. Larry’s ‘Tomorrow. Right’ indicates that he accepts Norm’s correction. According to Schegloff et al. (1977: 380–381) other-correction is generally constrained, except in the domain of adult-child interaction, especially parentchild interaction. Other-correction is given to children because they are still considered to be incompetent and thus unable to do self-correction. This suggests that, when an adult speaker corrects an adult interlocutor, it is something special, possibly an instance of control. Other-correction is controlling also from a pragmatic point of view. That is, the corrector is doing something unnecessary at the risk of the interlocutor’s loss of face. Interlocutors usually understand what each other mean even if an utterance contains some mistakes. According to Sacks (1992b: 120 [1969 Winter Lecture 7]): The sheer fact of their correcting you is telling you that they know what you meant. It is not just that everybody likes to correct everybody else, but that when they correct, something particular is going on, in that the sheer action of correction is something that operates under constraints. Correction in public is a sanctioned event. Adults can correct children in public; adults shouldn’t properly correct each other in public.
Other-correction can, therefore, be seen as a controlling action both for its constraining force to predict acceptance from the other speaker and also from the pragmatic view that it is a socially undesirable action between speakers with equal status.
Analysing conversational dominance
3.2.2.6Summary In sum, the division of responses into positive responses and negative responses and the division of second pair parts into preferred and dispreferred have different consequences for the first speaker’s control. A combination of initiation and positive response or of first pair part and preferred second pair part, indicate that the first speaker’s attempt to control has been successful. In contrast, a combination of initiation and negative response or of first pair part and dispreferred second pair part indicates that the first speaker’s attempt to control has been unsuccessful. In addition to initiations and responses and adjacency pairs, other features such as completion offers, reformulations and other-corrections have also been discussed as manifesting speaker control. However, they can also be thought of as types of initiations or first pair parts in that they require the other speaker to produce the prospected type of utterance. Whether they are considered to be controlling will depend on whether they receive a positive response or not. 3.2.3 Participation Overlaps and interruptions may be controlling in the sense that speakers have a right to maintain and complete their turns. They thus restrict speakers’ right to participate in conversation (Sacks et al., 1974). However, whether overlaps and interruptions indicate control or not depends on their outcome (Schegloff, 1987: 214–216). Distinctions among different kinds of overlaps and interruptions are necessary before they can be considered to be indicative of control. Overlaps and interruptions are both cases of simultaneous speech, and are deviant from the norm of conversation (Sacks et al., 1974). Zimmerman and West (1975: 114) define overlap as simultaneous speech caused by a speaker who begins to speak at or very close to a possible transition place in a current speaker’s turn. Interruption is defined as simultaneous speech that is caused by a speaker who begins to speak in the middle of a current speaker’s turn. The following are examples of overlap and interruption from Zimmerman and West (1975: 114–115): (18) Overlap A1: I know what you thought I know you: [ A2: [Ya] still see her anymore (?)
59
60
Conversational Dominance and Gender
A2 is an overlap because the speaker starts the utterance at a transition relevance place. In contrast, speaker A’s utterance in the following example is made prior to the transition relevance place: (19) Interruption B: That sounds fantastic not everybody can jus’ spend a day in some place [ A: [Well] we’ve already established the fact that um he’s not y’know just anyone (.)
Overlaps tend to be seen as ‘error’ (Sacks et al., 1974, Zimmerman and West, 1975). In contrast, interruptions are described as ‘deviant’ (Lee, 1987) or “not a thing that people are supposed to do in conversation”(Sacks, 1992b: 24 [1968 Fall Lecture 2]; Sacks et al., 1974). They are also regarded as a ‘violation’ of a current speaker’s right to complete a turn (e.g., Sacks, 1992b: 50 [1968]; Zimmerman and West, 1975) and as a sign of dominance (e.g., Beattie, 1982; Roger, 1989; Roger and Schumacher, 1983; Rogers and Jones, 1975). In Zimmerman and West (1975) and West and Zimmerman (1983), no subclassification of overlaps is made. For example, the following example of overlap in Zimmerman and West (1975: 114) is treated in the same way as Example (18): (20) B1: … ’n I have a class at three so [ B2: [I’m] sure you’ll be in by then dear…
In this example, B2 begins to speak after ‘three’ in B1’s utterance. Consequently, B1 stops speaking. Although it is not clear without information about the intonation whether ‘so’ is a turn-yielding signal, it is possible that B1 failed to complete the turn because it was overlapped by B2’s utterance. In contrast, in Example (18), both speakers completed their utterances. From the point of view of seeing turn as the speaker’s right, neither speaker abandoned the right because of the other speaker’s control. Several attempts have been made to classify different kinds of interrupting behaviour. Ferguson (1977) divides simultaneous speech into ‘simple interruption’, ‘overlaps’, ‘butting in interruptions’ and ‘silent interruptions’. Below is an example of each type from Ferguson (1977: 296–297, with slight changes in transcription notation):
Analysing conversational dominance
A. Simple interruptions (21) A: … and this bit about him being bankrupt and having no money I just don’t see how it’s possible because [ B: I haven’t heard that.
Speaker A in this example is interrupted in the middle of the utterance after “because”, following which Speaker A drops out while Speaker B completes the turn.
B. Overlaps (22) A: … I expect you would like to go with him [ B: Well, I’d prefer it, yeah - but then he would want me= [ A: Yes B: = to go to a Ranger’s football match…
There are two interruptions in this example. First, Speaker A is interrupted after he says ‘go’. Second, Speaker B is interrupted after he says ‘prefer’. However, neither interruption disrupts the interrupted speakers’ turns.
C. Butting-in interruptions (23) A: I don’t know, I’ve got mixed feelings, I think it would be nice to have a baby… [ B: I think I -
In this example, Speaker A is interrupted in the middle of the utterance but he or she completes the turn, while the interrupter does not.
D. Silent interruptions (24) A: It wasn’t in ours actually it was a bloke, and um… B: But anybody who’s a bit lazy I suppose, is it, that he used to pick on?
In this example, A pauses in the middle of the sentence and B comes in instead of waiting for A to continue. According to Ferguson (1977: 297), B’s interruption is a ‘silent’ interruption because there is no simultaneous speech involved.
61
62
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Ferguson’s classification suggests that the completion or non-completion of the interrupted speaker’s turn may be a factor in determining whether or not an interruption is indicative of control. In ‘overlaps’, both interrupting and interrupted turns are completed and their status is equal. In the other three types of interruptions, there is an asymmetry between the interrupter’s turn and the interrupted speakers’ turn. In ‘simple interruptions’ and ‘silent interruptions’, the interrupter’s turn is completed while the interrupted speaker’s turn is left incomplete. In ‘butting-in’ interruptions, it is the interrupter’s turn that is left incomplete. Roger et al.’s (1988) classification system is even more detailed than Ferguson’s, since they classify interruptions into 17 different categories. “Unsuccessful interrupted interruption”, which they define as an interruption where “the interrupter prevents the first speaker from completing his or her utterance but fails to complete his/her own utterance” (p.31), suggests another type of interruption from the point of view of control. In this case, there is no asymmetrical status between the two turns in terms of completeness as neither speaker completes the turn. Formal classifications of interruptions are, however, open to criticism. For example, Bennet (1981: 185) states that “interruptions can be seen as accidental or deliberate; co-operative or antagonistic; nonserious or serious, etc”. He suggests the need to interpret interruptions according to the direction of the participants’ conversation. Similarly, Makri-Tsilipakou (1994) and Murata (1994) argue for the need to differentiate interruptions according to their functions rather than their syntactic characteristics. For example, MakriTsilipakou (1994) analysed 10 hours of conversation among Greek men and women and suggests the need for a qualitative classification of interruptions into ‘affiliative’ (e.g., addressee-oriented face-saving strategies, preferred second pair parts of adjacency pairs, and so on) versus ‘disaffiliative’ interruptions (addressee-oriented face-threatening strategies, dispreferred second pair parts, and so on). Tannen (1994) emphasises the importance of taking into account different conversational styles when interpreting whether interruptions show speakers’ enthusiasm, support or participation in their interlocutor’s talk or their imposition and dominance (see Section 2.2.4). To summarise, a close observation of examples of overlaps suggests that where there is asymmetry between an overlapped turn and overlapping turn, the completed turn can be seen as controlling while the incomplete turn can be seen as being controlled. Previous studies on classification of interruptions suggest that asymmetries between interrupted and interrupting turns are
Analysing conversational dominance
relevant to an analysis of dominance in conversation. Interrupting turns are successfully controlling only if they are completed while interrupted utterances are left incomplete. Where both interrupted utterances are complete, interrupting utterances fail to control (recall Schegloff’s statement on the need for detailed analysis of interruptions in terms of competition in Section 3.1.1). However, qualitative studies suggest that the formal distinction made from the point of view of turn as speaker’s right, and action that leads to the loss of it as control, needs to be supported by more detailed analysis. 3.2.4 Quantity of talk Asymmetry in the levels of speakers’ contributions to interaction has been analysed in two major ways: by the number of words spoken by each speaker (e.g., Käswermann, 1991; Linell, 1990; Linell and Luckmann, 1991; Linell et al., 1988; see James and Drakich, 1993 for a review of studies on gender and amount of talk) and turn length (e.g., Edelsky, 1981; Linell et al., 1988). It has also been discussed with respect to story telling or narrative (Coates, 1996: 95–96; Labov, 1972b; Sacks 1992b [1970, Spring Lecture 2, 1974]; Tannen, 1990: 138–139). Since the length of turns and the number of words for each speaker indicate the level of each speaker’s contribution towards interaction in a quantitative sense, I will refer to them as aspects of quantitative dominance. Number of words spoken indicates the degree to which each speaker occupies ‘space’ in the sequence of utterances created mutually or in time (Linell et al., 1988). Turn length has also been used as a measurement of asymmetry in some studies (e.g., Edelsky, 1981; Linell et al., 1988) but without any detailed discussion on how it is indicative of speaker’s control. However, one of the rules of conversation established in Conversation Analysis states that a speaker is initially entitled to one turn-constructional unit, after which other speakers have the legitimate right to start talking (Sacks et al., 1974). This suggests that holding on to a turn by using devices such as ‘story preface’ (e.g., “I have something terrible to tell you” (Sacks 1992a [1970, Spring Lecture 2]) or turn holding devices such as ‘and’ and ‘but’ may be indicative of control. By holding on to a turn, the speaker suspends the other speaker’s right to start talking and forces him or her to remain a listener. Story-telling has been discussed in relation to asymmetry by Labov (1972b), who studied the use of language among Black adolescent males in New York City. He states that narratives “command the total attention of an audience in a remarkable way, creating a deep and attentive silence that is never found in
63
64
Conversational Dominance and Gender
academic or political discussion’ (ibid.: 396). Similarly Tannen (1990: 139) states that the act of giving information (giving a long talk or a lecture) by definition frames the speaker in a position of higher status, while the act of listening frames one as lower. Coates (1996: 95–96) also points out that in story-telling the other participants “withdraw temporarily from active participation and give the story-teller privileged access to the floor”. Edelsky (1981) used number of words and turn length as units of measurement for her study of male-female relationships in interaction. According to her results, men took longer turns than women in academic meetings. Linell et al. (1988) also investigated distribution of the total number of words and relative turn lengths between two speakers in various types of interaction. According to their results, dominant speakers such as teachers and adults tend to speak more words and take longer turns than less dominant speakers such as pupils and children. The number of words spoken by each speaker and the length of their turns may therefore indicate the dominance of one speaker’ over another. Quantity of talk differs from control over sequencing and participatory rights, however, in that asymmetries between speakers cannot be analysed in terms of the sum of locally observed controlling actions. Instead it refers to the pattern established over the whole course of an interaction. Research evidence also suggests that quantity of talk and turn length may not be related to asymmetry in sequencing (distribution of controlling moves) in a straightforward way. Although a positive correlation (i.e., the speaker who speaks more also makes more controlling moves) is sometimes found in some types of interaction (e.g., teacher-student interaction), a negative correlation (i.e., the speaker who speaks more makes fewer controlling turns) is found in other types (e.g., interviews and interrogations) (Linell et al., 1988). Linell and Jönsson’s (1991) study of court trials shows that the less powerful participant (i.e. defendant) may speak more words than the more powerful participant (i.e. prosecutor) depending on the phase of the trial. 3.2.5 Topic Topic characterises conversation as meaningful interaction. As Bergmann (1990: 201) observes, when talking, people always talk ‘about something’. Foppa (1990: 182) also states that:
Analysing conversational dominance
topic progression seems to be one of the constitutive features of dialogues. Verbal exchanges which show no kind of topic development can hardly be perceived as ‘natural’ conversations.
Control of topic development is therefore indicative of dominance over the most important aspect of conversation. Two major ways of analysing topic control have been discussed in previous studies: (1) instances of topic control are identified by utterances marking topic boundaries (Shuy, 1982; West and Garcia, 1988) (2) topic control is seen as more gradual and constant at the level of words and moves (Bergmann, 1990; Foppa, 1990, Linell et al., 1988). However, in both cases topic dominance is not easily identifiable as a sum of observable features of interactional asymmetry. 3.2.5.1Topic boundaries West and Garcia (1988) analysed male dominance in interaction by investigating the frequency of instances of ‘unilateral topic change’, or one speaker’s attempt to change topic while the other speaker is still on the previous topic. An example is found in Andy’s last turn in the following excerpt. Prior to the exchange, the two speakers have been talking about philosophy classes in which examinations are not given and students’ grades are based on their exposition of a “single question that they have been thinking about” (ibid.: 567): (25) Andy: There’s discuss::ion an’:: short- ’h There’s ya’know, written an’ oral exams frequently. Er (.) once in a while at least. Beth: Yeah, I’d like to take uh-something like Hist’ry (of) Andy: ’hhh-hh-hh-hh Beth: Philosophy ’r something where you don’ afta do any of that kinda(1.0) Beth: I don’t thiNK that way. (0.6) Beth: I’m not that logical (0.4) Beth: Yuh know they go step by step. (1.2) Beth: ’N I just- (0.5) I’m Really an irRAtional person sometimes. (.) So (0.6) Andy: Where do you live in IV?
65
66
Conversational Dominance and Gender
According to West and Garcia, Andy’s last turn is an instance of unilateral topic change, which counts towards his dominance. However, unilateral topic changes may not be a very reliable indicator of dominance as the frequencies can be very low (9 instances in total from 5 dyads studied by West and Garcia). In addition, it is not always clear how utterances can be identified as changing the previous topic. For example, in the above excerpt, it is possible that Andy sees examinations and where Beth lives as being related to each other. Button and Casey (1984) showed how topics are initiated at openings, closings, and following topic boundaries. The following is an example of how topics are determined at the opening of a conversation: (26) 1 A: …llo :: 2 B: G’morning Olivia, 3 A: Howuh you::, 4 B: Fine. 5 B: How’ // you 6 A: That’s good ehheh 7 A: Whaddiyouh know: 8 B: ’hh Jis’ got down last night. 9 A: Oh you di:d,? (Button and Casey, 1984: 167–168):
This example also illustrates the difficulty of determining whether topic control can be identified as one speaker’s unilateral attempt to introduce a new topic. Although Speaker A in turn 7 initiates the topic, it is Speaker B in turn 8 who supplies the substance for it, which is taken up by Speaker A in turn 9. This exemplifies Covelli and Murray’s (1980: 385) statement that “it takes two to topic”. Also, according to Sacks (1992a [1968, Spring Lecture April 17]), even if each speaker attempts to maintain the current topic by keeping coherence with the previous utterance, what one speaker thinks is a topic may be different from what the other speaker thinks is a topic. This suggests that a speaker’s utterance may be interpreted as changing the topic, when in fact the speaker was attempting to relate it to the previous utterance. In addition, Sacks suggests that a speaker’s topic change may be beyond his control. The following excerpt (1992a: 761 [1968, April 17]) (with a slight transcription change) illustrates this point:
Analysing conversational dominance
(27) A: B: C: A: B: A: C:
God any more hair on my chest an’ I’d be a fuzz boy. ’d be a what. A // fuzz boy. Fuzz boy. What’s that. Fuzz mop. Then you’d have t’start shaving. (1.0) Æ B: Hey I shaved this mornin- I mean last night for you.
According to Sacks, “Hey” in B’s last utterance (arrowed) suggests that the speaker is aware that the utterance is not topically coherent, or that he is changing the topic. However, the utterance was ‘touched off’, or produced because his memory was triggered off in reaction to C’s preceding utterance. Thus, although B’s utterance may appear to be an instance of topic control, the speaker may have had no intention to control. Stenström (1994) notes that various aspects of topic such as topic termination (closing the old topic before introducing a new one), topic change (abandoning the current topic in favour of a new, unrelated topic) and topic shift (moving from one topic to a related topic) are identified by linguistic ‘markers’. For example, termination markers include ‘all right’, ‘OK’, changing markers include ‘what else’ ‘let me tell you’, and shifting markers include ‘actually’ and ‘by the way’. This suggests that it is possible to identify topic dominance by such linguistic markers. However, Stenström also notes that topic termination markers are rare and that topic drifts are not linguistically marked but are common in a social conversation. The discussion so far suggests that it is difficult to determine which speaker controls topic if topic control is identified as one speaker producing an utterance that bears no semantic relationship at all with the previous interaction. 3.2.5.2‘Stepwise’ topic change Conversation analysts tend to argue that instances of a clear-cut topic change are difficult to identify. Atkinson and Heritage (1984: 165) state that topic is an “extremely complex and subtle matter” and “there are no simple or straightforward routes to the examination of topical flow”. Sacks (1992b: 566 [1972, Spring Lecture 5, 1972]) also warns against easy identification of topic changes: It’s a general feature for topical organization in conversation that the best way to move from topic to topic is not by a topic close followed by a topic beginning,
67
68
Conversational Dominance and Gender
but by what we call a stepwise move. Such a move involves connecting what we’ve just been talking about to what we’re now talking about, though they are different. I link up whatever I’m now introducing as a new topic to what we’ve just been talking about.
This suggests that topic shift is a gradual process, which can be seen as imperceptibly shifting from utterance to utterance. According to Sacks (1992b [1971 April 9 Lecture]), topic control can be analysed by looking at adjacent utterances in terms of whether speakers successfully obtain a direct response in the immediately following turn. Excerpt (28) from Sacks illustrates this: (28) 1 Roger: 2 Ken: 3 Roger: 4 Jim:
5 Roger: 6 Jim: 7 Roger:
Isn’t the New Pike depressing? Hh. The Pike? Yeah! Oh the place is disgusting Any day of the week [ I think that P. O.P is depressing it’s just --[ But you go --- you go --- take --Those guys are losing money. But you go down -dow. down to the New Pike there’s a buncha people oh :: and they’re old and they’re pretending they’re having fun. but they’re really not…
According to Sacks, topic normally proceeds in a stepwise fashion as speakers relate their utterances back to the other speaker’s preceding utterance. However, when two speakers are competing over topic control, the norm is not followed. In Excerpt (28), Roger wants to talk about New Pike (name of an amusement park) and Jim wants to talk about ‘P. O.P’ (another amusement park called ‘Pacific Ocean Park’). In order to gain control over the topic, Both Roger and Jim are ‘skip-connecting’, or relating their utterances back to the last-but-one utterance, which is their own. Roger’s turn 5 does not respond to Jim’s turn 4 but it is connected to his own turn 3, and his turn 7 is related to his own turn 5 instead of Jim’s turn 6. Similarly, Jim’s turn 6 does not respond to Roger’s turn 5 but it is related to his own turn 4. This suggests that in order to gain control over topic shift, the speaker needs to obtain a response from the other speaker’s following turn. If, on the other hand, a speaker’s utterance does not receive any direct response, he or she does not control topic shift. If one speaker is successful in receiving direct responses from the other speaker more
Analysing conversational dominance
frequently, he can be seen as dominating the topic of the conversation. Dialogical analysis sees topic control as analysable at the level of moves or words (Bergmann, 1990; Foppa, 1990; Linell et al, 1988). Foppa (1990:190–191) suggests that mechanisms such as questions direct the course of the conversation and thereby influence the development of topics. He describes questions as possibly being used as simply a communicative routine to maintain an ongoing conversation. Bergmann (1990: 204), however, states that a controlling move towards topic development may be supported or blocked, continued or transformed, assisted or ignored by the interlocutor. According to Bergmann (1990: 201–205), in each turn speakers are obliged to be informative (to contribute something new to the ongoing verbal exchange) and also to stay on topic (to keep coherence). In other words, it is their duty to provide both ‘new’ and ‘old’ lexical items to maintain informative and coherent topic development. Both ‘new’ lexical items and ‘old’ lexical items are, therefore, seen as being relevant to topic development as they indicate the participants’ mutual effort to ensure the smooth flow of the conversation. Linell et al. (1988) state that topic dominance can be measured by the introduction of new content words such as referents and concepts. The dominant speaker in topic development is “the one who tries to put the most content into the socially shared world of discourse, he who places the most topics and sub-topics ‘on the floor’”. In order to investigate this, they compared the number of new content words such as nouns, adjectives, and adverbs derived from these major categories introduced by each speaker. However, as Sacks points out (see above), old words (repetition of a previous word) may also be related to topic change. Counting the number of new lexical items or moves such as questions may not, therefore, be a valid measure of topic control because a distinction needs to be made between new lexical items or moves that are supported (and therefore lead to the development of the topic) and those that are not supported (and therefore do not lead to the development of topic). Analysing topic control by counting the number of clear-cut topic changes is therefore problematic. It appears more appropriate to analyse topic dominance in terms of a constant control over the content of the talk at the level of moves or words. However, as it is often difficult to distinguish between new and old lexical items and to identify which lexical items are associated with topic control, it seems more promising to analyse topic at the level of moves since initiations and responses seem very closely related to topic change. In this sense, topic dominance may be very closely related to sequential dominance. This relationship will be discussed further on the basis of my own data in Chapter 5.
69
70
Conversational Dominance and Gender
3.3 Analytical framework In this section, I will propose an analytical framework for the analysis of dominance in conversation by drawing on insights gained from the previous studies reviewed so far. This framework is designed to enable examination of one speaker’s dominance over the other speaker through instances of controlling action. I will first discuss basic principles and then illustrate them with some examples from my data. 3.3.1 Basic principles In the present study, dominance in conversation is defined as one speaker’s tendency to control the other speaker’s conversational actions over the course of an interaction. The analytical framework will deal with dominance in conversation along three dimensions: sequential, participatory and quantitative. Sequential dominance is defined as a speaker’s tendency to control the other speaker with respect to the direction of the interaction, or how two speakers share initiating and responding roles. Participatory dominance refers to a speaker’s tendency to control the other speaker in terms of speaking rights, in particular through overlaps and interruptions, which affect the speaker’s participation in interaction. Lastly, a speaker’s tendency to control the other speaker with respect to the level of contribution to the size of interaction will be referred to as quantitative dominance. As suggested in Section 3.2.5.2, sequential dominance will be treated as the most important among the three dimensions. Sequential and participatory dominance are analysed by identifying controlling actions, which are defined as actions which have the effect of restricting the other speaker’s contribution to the development of conversation. A controlling action (e.g., an initiation or an interruption) can be followed by a complying action or a non-complying action. A complying action consists of a contribution that is restricted by the previous speaker’s controlling action (e.g., a positive response or a withdrawn utterance). In contrast, a non-complying action is a conversational contribution which is not restricted by or challenges the previous speaker’s controlling action (e.g., a negative response or a completed interrupted utterance). A combination of a controlling action and a complying action is treated as an instance of successful controlling action. On the other hand, a combination of a controlling action followed by a non-complying action is treated as an instance of attempted controlling action. This can be summarised as follows:
Analysing conversational dominance
Units of analysis for sequential and participatory dominance Successful controlling action = Controlling action + Complying action Attempted controlling action = Controlling action + Non-complying action Only instances of successful controlling action are treated as contributing to dominance in conversation because only they indicate the degree to which the speaker has successfully controlled the other speaker’s conversational actions. The question of whether or not one speaker dominates the other speaker on these two dimensions can, therefore, be investigated by counting the instances of successful controlling action for each speaker. If Speaker A has more instances of successful controlling action than Speaker B, Speaker A would be assumed to have dominated Speaker B (see Section 4.2). This can be summarised as follows: Principles for identifying patterns of dominance More successful controlling actions Fewer successful controlling actions
Æ Æ
Dominant speaker Dominated speaker
Analysis of quantitative dominance is based on a different principle from that used for sequential and participatory dominance. Quantitative dominance is based on the assumption that each speaker’s contribution to conversation is quantifiable in terms of the sum of turns produced during the conversation or the size of text. It can also be in terms of the time spent on producing the conversation. Quantitative dominance refers to the pattern where one speaker’s contribution towards the size of the text or the time spent speaking during the conversation is greater than that of the other speaker. Identification of dominant speakers in terms of quantitative dominance will be based on a comparison of the amount of contribution between the two speakers. Principles for identifying patterns of dominance for quantitative dominance Greater amount of contribution Smaller amount of contribution
Æ Æ
Dominant speaker Dominated speaker
Analysis of quantitative dominance is therefore based on the overall pattern of the conversation, rather than controlling and complying or non-complying actions at different stages of conversation. Sequential dominance is assumed to be the strongest indicator of conversational dominance as it captures the speakers’ behaviour in each exchange which is the basic unit of conversational organisation. It is also the most closely related
71
72
Conversational Dominance and Gender
to development of the topic. Participatory dominance may be a weaker indicator of conversational dominance as controlling actions on this dimension are likely to occur less frequently. Quantitative dominance appears to be the weakest indicator of the three. While a speaker’s amount of contribution can be said to indicate the degree to which it restricts the other speaker’s contribution, the relationship between patterns of dominance in terms of initiations and responses (sequential dominance) and the number of words spoken is not always consistent (see Section 3.2.4). The possibility that a speaker dominates a conversation sequentially while contributing fewer words than the other speaker needs to be taken into account. In the following sections, I will show how instances of successful controlling action and attempted controlling action can be identified on the dimensions of sequential and participatory dominance, and how the amount of contribution can be identified on the dimension of quantitative dominance. Examples will be drawn from Japanese speakers speaking in English. 3.3.2 Sequential dominance Sequential dominance refers to an overall pattern where one speaker tends to control the direction of conversation, measured by the way in which the speakers share initiating and responding moves when creating sequences of utterances. Initiation, response and follow-up moves can be seen as basic units of topic development (e.g., Coulthard and Brazil 1981; Coulthard et al., 1981; Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Stubbs, 1983; Tsui, 1994). The process of initiation and response creates coherent units of two moves, which may or may not be followed by a follow-up move (for a detailed discussion, see Section 3.2.2). Sequences of moves can be created by two types of moves: interactional and meta-interactional. Interactional moves carry the content of the interaction forward and develop the topic of the conversation. Meta-interactional moves keep the interactional channel open, either by restoring it when it is disrupted by such means as repeating an expression which the preceding speaker did not understand, or by checking the appropriateness of the linguistic items used during interaction by such means as correcting a linguistic expression used by the preceding speaker. Before I illustrate how instances of successful and attempted controlling action can be identified for sequential dominance, I will discuss the use of moves as units of analysis with examples from my data.
Analysing conversational dominance
3.3.2.1Units of analysis Sequential dominance concerns the distribution of initiating moves and responding moves. In Excerpt (29), moves correspond to turns: (29) F3 and F4 are talking about food. [English] 1 F4: I Do you know (Vipas) (= the name of a kind of chocolate)? 2 F3: R Yeah! ((laughs)) I love it. 3 F4: I Eh do you know ah – do you like strawberry? 4 F3: R Yeah.
In this excerpt, F4’s turns 1 and 3 consist of initiating moves and F3’s turns 2 and 4 consist of responding moves. F4’s turn 1 and F3’s turn 2, and F4’s turn 3 and F3’s turn 4 form an exchange. The move boundaries correspond to those of turns. In contrast, move boundaries in Excerpt (30) do not correspond to turn boundaries. In Excerpt (30), turn 2 is divided into two parts to indicate the different moves: (30) M4 and F4 are talking about their favourite baseball teams. [English] 1 F4: I I hate Giants. 2-a M4: R ((laughs)) Oh yeah? 2-b I I hate Hanshin Tigers. 3 F4: R Ah ((laughs)) oh my God.
In this excerpt, F4’s turn 1 consists of an initiating move. M4’s turn 2 consists of two moves: a response to F4’s preceding initiation (2-a) and a new initiation (2-b). Excerpt (31) is a similar case: (31) M4 and F4 are talking about part-time job. [English] 1 F4: I Your part-time job is very good? 2 M4: R Yeah, I work at Tokyo Dome (=a name of the concert hall) for usher which is ah - ah telling telling customers their seats or “Please don’t stand here”, something like that. 3-a F4: F Mm O. K.
73
74
Conversational Dominance and Gender
3-b
4R
I
M4:
R
When I was ah when I got I went to Aerosmith’s concert ah - my friend take ma-, match ah lighter like this. Uh-huh.
While F4’s turn 1 and M4’s turn 2 consist of an initiating move and a responding move, F4’s turn 3 is divided into a follow-up move (3-a) and a new initiation (3-b). Excerpts (29) to (31) show that move boundaries do not necessarily correspond to those of turns. Instances of successful controlling action should therefore be identified on the basis of moves and not on the basis of turns. This also suggests that the number of moves or exchanges (IR or IRF) does not necessarily correspond to the number of turns. In the following section, I will illustrate how instances of successful controlling action and attempted controlling action can be identified with examples from my data. I will start with interactional moves and then move on to metainteractional moves. 3.3.2.2Interactional moves According to Tsui’s (1994) classification system, initiations can be of different types, each of which prospects an appropriate response. A speaker making an initiation restricts the other speaker to a response which is related to the type of initiation. For example, elicitations prospect specific types of information, informatives prospect acknowledgements, and requestives and directives prospect compliance. An initiation followed by a prospected response can therefore be considered a case of one speaker’s controlling action and the other’s complying action along the dimension of sequential dominance. An exchange which consists of an initiation and a prospected response is therefore considered as an instance of successful controlling action. By contrast, an initiation that is not followed by a prospected response can be seen as a case of the speaker’s controlling action followed by the other speaker’s non-complying action. It can therefore be viewed as an instance of attempted controlling action. Below I will illustrate how instances of successful controlling action and attempted controlling action can be identified with respect to interactional moves.
Analysing conversational dominance
Successful controlling action Elicitation Elicitation is characterised by Tsui (1994: 65–89) as a type of initiation which requests a specific type of obligatory response (e.g., some specific information, confirmation and agreement) or its non-verbal surrogate. Excerpt (29) is an example of this from my data (reproduced below for clarification): (29) F3 and F4 are talking about food. [English] 1 F4: I Do you know (Vipas) (= the name of a kind of chocolate)? 2 F3: R Yeah! ((laughs)) I love it. 3 F4: I Eh do you know ah - do you like strawberry? 4 F3: R Yeah.
In turn 1, F4 makes an initiation (elicitation), which is followed by F3’s response supplying the information prospected. In turn 3, F4 makes another initiation (elicitation), which is also followed by the prospected response. These two exchanges are therefore identified as instances of successful controlling action for F4. Advice Excerpt (32) illustrates an example of advice, which is characterised by Tsui (1994: 122) as an utterance which advocates a course of action for the benefit of the addressee, and in which the consequence of compliance is desirable to the addressee. (32) M3 and M4 are talking about M3’s part-time job as a tutor. M3 told M4 that he would like to quit because he is worried that his student’s parents might blame him for his poor performance. [English] 1 M4: 2 M3: 3 M4: 4 M3:
You want to give up. Yes ((laughs)) O. K. You should make him ah study much more. Yes.
In turn 3, M4 advises M3 that he should make his student study harder, which M3 accepts. In other words, the initiation (advice) obtains the prospected response (compliance). The exchange of moves in turns 3 and 4 can therefore be considered as a controlling action for M4.
75
76
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Assessment (informative) Excerpt (33) is an example of assessment, which is defined by Tsui (1994: 142) as “a subclass of informative in which the speaker asserts his judgement or evaluation of certain people, objects, events, state of affairs, and so on”. It is followed by a preferred response: (33) M7 and M8 are talking about their school trips. M8 is telling M7 that he and his group members did not follow their teacher’s instructions on the places to visit, and went somewhere else instead. [English] 1 M8:
2 3
M7: M8:
No, Disneyland or Korakuen Yuuenchi something like that. It’s called pier land, it’s called. In Kobe we went we spent there one day one whole day so we didn’t go to any temples or shrines. We didn’t go there. Yeah- maybe - that’s kind of bad thing? Yeah, bad thing, yeah ((laughs))
M7 in turn 2 gives a negative assessment of the reported event, which prospects an agreement. Since he successfully obtains the preferred response, turns 2 and 3 are identified as an instance of successful controlling action for M7. Completion offer In addition to initiations, moves which complete the previous speaker’s move or ‘completion offers’ (see Section 3.2.2.3) can also be identified as controlling in the sense that they prospect a response which accepts the completion they offer. An exchange formed by a completion offer and a response which accepts the given completion is therefore an instance of successful controlling action. Excerpt (34) is an example of this (X means ‘incomplete turn’ and CO means ‘completion offer’): (34) M1 and F1 are talking about travelling. M1 has told F1 about his summer cycling trip, which took him 12 hours. [English] 1 M1: 2 F1: 3 M1: 4 F1: 5 M1:
I R X CO R
But twelve hours. It’s too long! Oh and summer, in summer-hot. Hot.
Analysing conversational dominance
In turn 4, F1 completes M1’s turn 3 based on her guess as to what M1 was about to say. The completion offer obtains a confirmation from M1. Turns 4 and 5 therefore form an instance of successful controlling action for F1. Other-correction Other-correction (Section 3.2.2.5) can also be treated as an example of initiation. Excerpt (35) illustrates a case where other-correction is followed by a complying response: (35) M2 is telling M1 about his past experience of part-time work. [English] 1 M2: … and ah jikyuu (=hourly wage)? mm - per, per minute, per minute money, per minute money… 2 M1: Mm? Per hour? 3 M2: Per hour, per hour money is nn (=mm) seven hundred fifty …
In turn 1, M2 is struggling to find the English word for jikyuu, which means hourly wage and can be literally translated as “per hour wage”. Instead of coming up with “per hour money”, M2 uses “per minute money”. In turn 2, M1 proposes a correction and in turn 3, M2 accepts the correction. The moves in turn 2 and 3 are therefore identified as an instance of successful controlling action for M1.
Attempted controlling action Advice (directive) Attempted controlling actions occur when an initiation receives a ‘negative’ response (see Section 3.2.2.2) or a non-complying action, or no response. Excerpt (36) is an example of a non-complying or negative response to an advice move: (36) F1 and F2 are talking about part-time job. F2 has told F1 that she would like to find a summer job at Fujiya restaurant. [English] 1 F1: Erm ah there, there is a Fujiya restaurant near my house and the Fujiya restaurant fin(d)-, ah - want to get someone to work at Fujiya restaurant so if you, if you came to Saitama, you can do. 2 F2: But it make no sense. I must do Fujiya in Makuhari ((laughs)) 3 F1: ((laughs))
77
78
Conversational Dominance and Gender
In turn 1, F1 suggests that F2 should be able to find a summer job at the Fujiya restaurant in Saitama. In turn 2, however, F2 rejects this advice. Turns 1 and 2 are therefore identified as an instance of attempted controlling action for F1. Excerpt (37) illustrates a non-complying response to an informative: (37) F4 is telling M4 about her current part-time job. F4 has told M4 that she eats cakes at the cake shop where she works when her employer is not around. [English] 1 M4: Yes but chief (=owner of the cake shop) count, count, count. 2 F4: Never! count, never, never count. [ 3 M4: What do you do (if) he comes?
M4’s turn 1 is a speculation, which prospects an acknowledgement, but in turn 2 F4 does not make the prospected response. Turns 1 and 2 are therefore identified as an attempted controlling action for M4. Initiation followed by a new initiation An initiation may also lead to attempted controlling action if it fails to obtain any response. Excerpt (38) is an example of this: (38) F8 and M8 are talking about food. F8 has said that she does not like celery and M8 has said that he does not like tomatoes. [English] 1 F8: I Why tomato? 2 M8: I Why ce-, celery? ((laughs)) 3 F8: ((laughs))
In turn 1 in this excerpt, F8 makes an initiation move, which prospects the answer to the question as a response. However, M8 does not give the prospected response but instead gives a new initiation (challenging move) or a noncomplying move in turn 2. Turns 1 and 2 therefore form an instance of attempted controlling action for F8. Turns 2 and 3 also form an instance of attempted controlling action for M8, as it does not receive a prospected response from F8.
Analysing conversational dominance
3.3.2.3Meta-interactional moves Meta-interactional moves are used to restore the interactional channel by means such as repeating or rephrasing some linguistic expression which the preceding speaker was unable to understand. Repairing moves restore the interactional channel by asking the previous speaker to repeat or clarify what he or she said (see Tsui 1994: 88–89). A repairing move may be identified as a controlling move in the sense that it prospects some appropriate response which will restore the interactional channel. Excerpt (39) below illustrates this: (39) M5 and M6 are talking about travel experiences. [English] 1 M6: Have you been to any other countries? 2 M5: Ah yes just= [ 3 M6: Where? 4 M5: =just twice ah South Korea and United States. 5 M6: Att? (=what?) 6 M5: United States. 7 M6: States. For how long? 8 M5: Ah just two weeks, too short.
Turn 5 indicates that there is a hitch in the communication channel, which M6 attempts to restore by asking M5 to repeat what he said in the preceding turn. M6’s turn 5 can therefore be identified as a controlling action. M5’s next turn can be identified as a complying action since it supplies the prospected repetition. Turns 4 and 5 are therefore identified as an instance of successful controlling action for M6. A repairing initiation may form an instance of attempted controlling action if it is not followed by a prospected repairing response. For example, in Excerpt (40) F5 ignores F6’s request for repetition in turn 5 by ignoring the request and starting a new initiation as in the following example: (40) F5 and F6 are discussing their university life. F5 has been telling F6 that when she skips her classes, she goes visit her friends or goes to a restaurant. [English] 1 F6: Not study? (gloss: You don’t do any work if you go to a restaurant then) 2 F5: Yes, no study (gloss: That’s right. I don’t do any work) 3 F6: No study (gloss: You don’t do any work)
79
80
Conversational Dominance and Gender
4
F5:
5 6 7 8
F5: F6: F5: F6:
Why is that? (gloss: Why am I like that?) ((pause)) Why is that? What? I, I should attend the class. Mm
In turns 1 to 3, F6 is confirming if F5 really does not spend any time on her study when she skips her classes. In turn 4, F5 asks a question about herself indicating that she herself does not know why she behaves in this way. She repeats the question in turn 5 following a pause. In turn 6, F6 asks F5 to repeat her previous question. Instead of complying with F6’s request for repetition, F5 in turn 7 makes a new initiation. The exchange formed by F6’s meta-interactional move in turn 6 and F5’s withholding of a prospected response in turn 7 is therefore identified as an instance of attempted controlling action for F6. Although meta-interactional initiations differ from interactional initiations in that the former are concerned with restoring the communication channel rather than with the content of the conversation, they are similar in that they prospect appropriate responses from the other speaker. The framework will therefore take into account all types of interactional initiations (i.e. elicitations, requestives, directives and informatives; see Tsui, 1994) as well as meta-interactional initiations. It will also treat other moves such as completion offer and other-correction as belonging to initiations. However, it will not consider the possibility of varying degrees of interactional force among different types of initiation as it is difficult to determine appropriate numerical values for each type on a theoretically sound basis. It will instead treat the interactional force of different interactional initiations equally for the purpose of quantitative analysis. Differences in the interactional forces of initiations will be discussed in the subsequent qualitative analysis (Section 8.1). 3.3.3 Participatory dominance Participatory dominance refers to patterns of asymmetry where one speaker’s holding on to the turn until completion following an interruption or overlap leads to the other speaker’s leaving the turn incomplete and therefore losing the chance to participate in the conversation (Section 3.2.3). In the following sections, I will illustrate how instances of successful controlling action can be identified along the dimension of participatory dominance in relation to overlap and interruption.
Analysing conversational dominance
3.3.3.1Overlap An overlap occurs when two speakers speak simultaneously at a turn transition relevance point where both speakers have a right to complete their respective utterances. Overlapping turns cause problems in the turn-taking system in the sense that more than one speaker is speaking and neither is able to contribute to the development of the conversation during this period. The ‘problem’ of overlaps may be solved in two ways. First, one speaker may insist on the completion of the turn, which leads to the other speaker’s withdrawal: (41) M1 and F1 are talking about travelling. F1 is giving him advice that he should learn Italian if he wants to visit Rome. [English] 1 F1: Fortunately this college has, have a Italian course a course ah - second and third st-, for second and third student - ah second language yeah. 2 M1: Oo oo (=Right right). 3 F1: Why don’t you… [ 4 M1: French? German? Italy? 5 F1: Ita-, Italy also ((pause)) nn (=mm) yes nn (=mm). 6 M1: Fuun (=I see).
Turn 3 and turn 4 overlap, following which F1 abandons the utterance while M4’s turn 4 is completed. M1’s insistence on holding on to his turn may have led F1 to withdraw her utterance, restricting her chance of participation. Turns 3 and 4 can therefore be identified as instances of complying action and controlling action, respectively, which forms an instance of successful controlling action for M1. Secondly, if both utterances are completed, neither utterance leads to a successful controlling action: (42) M4 has just asked F4 if she does any study for getting the certificate for using a word processor, which will raise her salary for her part-time job. [English] 1 F4: Don’t don’t ask. [ ] 2 M4: You don’t want to talk? 3 F4: Don’t ask it. 4 M4: O. K.
81
82
Conversational Dominance and Gender
F4 and M4’s utterances in turn 1 and 2 are complete. However, neither speaker succeeds in obtaining an independent utterance. Turns 1 and 2 are therefore identified as an instance of attempted controlling action for both F4 and M4 with respect to participatory chance. It should be noted, however, that F4 in turn 3 re-iterates her previous utterance “Don’t ask it”, which receives a response from M4 in turn 4, enabling her to control the topic. Turns 3 and 4 are therefore an instance of successful controlling action for F4 on the dimension of sequential dominance. 3.3.3.2Interruptions Interruptions are similar to overlaps in the sense that they are not a normal feature of the turn-taking system. Interruptions also concern the speaker’s chance to complete the turn. However, they are distinguished from overlaps in that they are caused by the interrupter’s violation of turn-taking rules rather than mishap. An interrupting turn and an interrupted turn may be identified as forming an instance of successful controlling action for the interrupter: (43) M3 and F3 are talking about travel experiences. M3 has just told F3 about his plan to make a trip to Okinawa. [English] 1 F3: Ah so y-, you er – camping? 2 M3: Camping= 3 F3: =Camping= 4 M3: =Yes but er we are= 5 F3: =Are you going to swim? 6 M3: Yes. 7 F3: Of course in Okinawa.
In turn 5, F3 interrupts M3. Following the interruption, F3 completes the turn while M3 withdraws, which suggests that he is prevented from participating in interaction because of F3’s violation of the turn-taking rules. F3’s turn 5 and M3’s turn 4 can therefore be identified as instance of successful controlling action for F3. An interrupting turn and interrupted turn form an instance of attempted controlling action for the interrupting speaker if the interrupted speaker’s turn is not withdrawn:
Analysing conversational dominance
(44) F7 and F8 are talking about part-time jobs. [English] 1 F8: Which kind of job do you like? 2 F7: Ah I like ((laughs)) very easy like if I= [ 3 F8: And… F7: =have a chance I’d like work in Tokyo Disney Land because it’s I think it’s fun but I…
In turn 3, F8 interrupts F7 in the middle of her utterance. The interrupted turn 2, however, is completed despite the interruption. Turns 2 and 3 are identified as an instance of attempted controlling action for F8. An interruption is also a case of attempted controlling action if both interrupting and interrupted utterances are completed: (45) F5 is complaining about her sociology teacher at university [English] 1 F5: Yeah, it’s yeah I hate it especially the sociology sociology’s teacher er he mm he repeated same things. [ 2 F6: -said “ah” or “mm”. 3 F6: Oh really?
In turn 1, F5 is interrupted by F6 who starts her utterance in the middle of F5’s utterance (completion offer). However, F5 completes her utterance despite F6’s interruption. Turns 1 and 2 are therefore identified as an instance of attempted controlling action for F6 with respect to participatory dominance. Also F6’s turn 3 can be identified as a complying move to F5’s initiation in turn 1. Turns 1 and 3 can therefore be identified as an instance of successful controlling action for F5 in terms of sequential dominance. 3.3.4 Quantitative dominance Quantitative dominance refers to a pattern where one of the speakers makes a greater contribution towards the text of a conversation than the other. It tends to be analysed in two major ways: distribution of the number of words between two speakers (e.g., Käswermann, 1991; Linell, 1990; Linell and Luckmann, 1991; Linell et al., 1988; see also James and Drakich, 1993) and turn length for each speaker (e.g., Edelsky, 1981; Linell et al., 1988) (for a detailed discussion of different treatments of quantitative dominance, see Section 3.2.4).
83
84
Conversational Dominance and Gender
The size of total contribution made by each speaker during a conversation may be compared at different levels, for example, utterances, sentences, clauses, words, or morphemes. Words can be said to be the most appropriate unit in that they are the basic units in creating meaning or contributing to topic and they are the smallest identifiable units for ordinary speakers. Distribution of the period of time occupied by the conversation between the two speakers can also be a basis to analyse quantitative dominance. However, duration of speech is problematic as a measure of quantitative dominance since different speakers speak at different speeds. Analysing quantitative dominance on the basis of duration of speech when speakers speak at different speeds would overestimate a slow speaker’s contribution to the topic and underestimate the contribution of a fast speaker. Quantitative dominance will therefore be based on the distribution of the number of words between the two speakers concerned. Since this study is concerned with conversations involving two speakers, distribution of the number of words between two speakers should also reflect the different turn lengths between them. The number of words speakers utter in a conversation represents their participation level in the sense that each word assumes a fixed quantity of space in their mutual construction of text. The distribution of the words between the two speakers is therefore one measure of quantitative dominance. If the two speakers produce a similar number of words, it can be assumed that both speakers have participated more or less equally. On the other hand, if one speaker utters more words than the other, the former may have caused the latter speaker’s participation in the creation of the mutual text to be reduced. In such cases, the former can be assumed to be dominant and the latter dominated along the dimension of quantitative dominance. For English data, the number of words is identified by using a computer ‘word count’. However, it should be borne in mind that dividing streams of utterances into words may be artificial: speakers may disagree on how utterances are divided into words, for example, the negative form of ‘do’ can be treated as one word (‘don’t’) or two words (‘do not’). To minimise the effect of different orthography, the same computer ‘word’ count is used to count the number of words consistently for all the data. In addition, different types of words (e.g., nouns, verbs, newly introduced words or repeated words) may also be valued differently in terms of their contribution to topic. However, these distinctions will not be taken into account for the analysis of quantitative dominance in this study as it is not possible to value the degree of contribution for each word at this stage.
Analysing conversational dominance
Japanese data is more problematic in that it is difficult to identify ‘words’, partly because the Japanese script does not leave spaces between lexical items such as nouns and verbs. Also, there is no standard romanisation system for Japanese scripts. For example, inflections are sometimes joined to verb stems and sometimes separated from them. For the present study, the number of words in Japanese transcripts is counted following the romanisation system used in one of the most popularly used Japanese dictionaries (Shinmeikai, 1981) and Maynard (1993, 1997). Quantification of the number of words spoken is, therefore, necessarily problematic for both English and Japanese data. However, quantitative dominance, defined as the distribution of the number of words between the speakers should approximately indicate the overall tendency of one speaker to dominate the other in terms of level of contribution. 3.3.5 Conclusion In this chapter, I have outlined an analytical framework for conversational dominance based on a critical synthesis of insights from the fields of Conversation Analysis, the Birmingham school of discourse analysis and dialogical analysis. I have discussed how dominance in conversation can be identified along three dimensions: sequential, participatory and quantitative. On the dimensions of sequential and participatory dominance, local instances of controlling action are identified in terms of controlling actions, which are followed by complying actions (successful controlling action) or non-complying actions (attempted controlling action). In sequential dominance, controlling actions are identified at the level of moves or exchanges, while in participatory dominance they are identified at the level of turns. Quantitative dominance is analysed by comparing the total number of words uttered by each speaker. In cases where the results from these three dimensions differ, sequential dominance will be considered the strongest indicator of conversational dominance as it is most closely related to topic development. The analytical framework proposed in this chapter allows us to investigate whether one speaker dominates the other speaker during a conversation. However, the proposed analytical framework is designed only to capture broad patterns based on quantifiable features. It does not take account of other features relevant to dominance that are either non-quantifiable or difficult to quantify, such as the importance of context, different degrees of interactional force and different conversational styles. Quantitative analysis enables us to see
85
86
Conversational Dominance and Gender
the general patterns that emerge over large quantities of data. However, in order to see how dominance is realised at the local level, close examination of the ways in which conversational features such as moves and turns and amount of words are negotiated between speakers is needed. It is therefore important that the results of quantitative analysis based on the proposed framework are interpreted in the light of qualitative analysis. In the next chapter, the analytical framework will be used to investigate (1) whether Japanese men dominate Japanese women in L1 and (2) whether patterns of gender and dominance will be similar in L1 and L2. Qualitative analysis of selected pairs of conversation is reported in Chapters 6 and 7.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Empirical study"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 4
Empirical study Gender dominance and pragmatic transfer among Japanese speakers
4.1 Research design A major aim of the empirical studies to be discussed in the remainder of this book was to examine the validity of the analytical framework proposed in the previous chapter. A secondary aim was to provide empirical evidence concerning conversational dominance among male and female Japanese speakers speaking in Japanese (L1) and English (L2), although it is recognised that the conclusions that can be drawn on the basis of a small sample of data collected under controlled conditions are limited. The study consisted of two phases. The first phase focused on the relationship of conversational dominance to gender in L1. The second phase focused on the transfer of patterns of dominance observed in L2 conversations to the same speakers’ L1 conversations. The first phase addressed whether the observation that Japanese women have a lower social status than Japanese men is manifested in Japanese conversation. The following hypothesis was formulated: Hypothesis 1. Japanese male speakers will dominate Japanese female speakers in L1 conversation. As for the second phase, the literature reviewed in Section 2.3 suggests that L2 interactions may also be asymmetrical and that patterns of asymmetry may be related to gender. Learners are also found to transfer L1 norms of speaking to their L2 conversation. The following hypothesis was therefore formulated: Hypothesis 2. Patterns of dominance observed in Japanese native speakers’ L2 conversation will be similar to those observed in their L1 conversation. The analytical framework established in the previous chapter was used to test these hypotheses in the following ways. Hypothesis 1 was tested by comparing
88
Conversational Dominance and Gender
the sum of successful controlling actions for male (M) and female (F) speakers in M-F conversations in L1 and by comparing their contributions to the conversation in terms of the number of words spoken. Hypothesis 2 was tested by investigating the same features in the same speakers’ L2 conversation and comparing the results with those for L1. In order to test Hypothesis 1, it was necessary to obtain M-F conversations in L1. In addition, L2 conversations from the same M-F dyads were needed to compare whether the patterns of dominance between the same dyads of speakers would be similar in L1 and L2 (Hypothesis 2). The results of the quantitative analysis are presented later in this chapter. The problem of not taking into account different degrees of interactional force and features related to dominance such as context, conversational styles and goals will be dealt with in qualitative analyses in Chapters 5 to 8. 4.1.1 Data 4.1.1.1Data collection procedure The data was collected at Kanda University of Foreign Languages in Chiba (near Tokyo). Although it was origianlly planned that 20 male students and 20 female would participate in 5 recording sessions (4 MF dyads in each session), 4 male students did not turn up. Therefore 14 individual male students and 20 individual female students participated in the 5 recording sessions, 3 of the male students participating in more than one session and the author participating in one of the sessions to make up for the missing student. All the participants were first year undergraduate students specialising in English. The major reason for choosing first year students was to focus on the possible influence of gender on the participants’ conversation while controlling as far as possible other major variables such as the participants’ age and educational background. Although the proficiency level of the students was not tested, particularly in regard to conversational skills, all the participants had passed the entry examinations for the university and had been studying on the same course (English) for around two months when the recording took place. Admission to the course was partly based on general proficiency level in English, measured by a written test and listening test. It was therefore assumed that the participants were approximately equal in this respect and that there was no systematic difference in proficiency levels among the participants in relation to their gender (for the difficulty of assessing conversational skills, see, for example, Lumley and Brown, 1998; McNamara and Lumley, 1997).
Empirical study
The participants were not told the purpose of the research or of the recording. At the time of the recording, the participants were simply asked to hold conversations in mixed gender dyads selected by the researcher, first in English (Part 1) and second in Japanese (Part 2), with the same opposite gender interlocutor for approximately 10 minutes for each conversation. They were told that their conversations would be recorded, but were assured that details of their conversations would not be disclosed to outsiders. All the participants were paid a fee of 1,000 yen after each session. 4.1.1.2Topics An effort was made to make sure that the participants would be similar in terms of their background knowledge about the initial topics of their conversations, because a speaker with greater knowledge of a topic is likely to dominate a speaker who has less knowledge (Leet-Pellegrini, 1980). A list of topics that both speakers were likely to be familiar with such as university life or food was, therefore, given to the participants (see Appendix 1 for the complete list). At the beginning of the session, the participants were asked to mark any topics that they were interested to talk about on the list. Before beginning the recording, the members of each dyad were encouraged to compare their lists and to start with a topic of their common choice for Part 1 (i.e. English conversation). However, it was left up to each dyad of speakers to develop it in any way they wished. It was assumed that if one speaker dominated the development of the topic when both speakers were able to participate equally well and were similar in respect of the major variables other than gender, dominant behaviour in topic development would be likely to be related to gender. At the beginning of Part 2 of the recording (i.e. Japanese conversation), the participants were encouraged to continue with the same topics as in Part 1 or to start a new topic if they felt that they had exhausted the earlier topics. 4.1.1.3The participants’ behaviour Although the recorded conversations are somewhat artificial in that the speakers were asked to hold them in a controlled setting, the transcripts of the data show that most of them proceeded freely and in a very lively way (for the effect of recording on the naturalness of conversational data, see Pomerantz and Fehr [1997: 70] and Wiemann [1981]). For example, many conversations included laughter, detailed discussion of topics and discussion of personal matters. In addition, topics in most conversations developed freely. Most of the conversations were still in full swing when the participants were asked to stop
89
90
Conversational Dominance and Gender
talking. This suggests that the participants took their conversation seriously in both L1 and L2. Intervention from the researcher was kept to the minimum so that the participants’ conversation would be as free as possible. Only the minimum intervention necessary in order to obtain the kind of data I needed within a limited amount of time was given: i.e., pairing off the participants, giving a list of suggested topics and specifying the length of time. Before each conversation started, some participants asked questions to check the procedure: for example, which language to speak, how many topics they could choose. Once those questions had been answered by the researcher, the participants were asked to say their names and then start their conversation. The reason for asking the students to say their names was to help identify the voices when transcribing. Once the students started speaking, they were left alone for about ten minutes. However, it became clear after listening to the tapes that some of the students had already started talking before the researcher asked them to start. Those students were talking either about which topic they were going to choose from the sheets, about something of mutual interest that was not suggested on the sheet, or in the case of Part 2 of the recordings, they continued their talk from Part 1. When the participants were instructed to say their names and start, they stopped talking and spoke their names in to the tape recorder. They then either continued discussing what they had already started, which may or may not have been relevant to the instruction given, or stopped their original talk and began choosing their topic. After approximately ten minutes the participants were asked to stop the conversation and move to the next participant. 4.1.1.4Summary of data In sum, 20 sets of mixed gender conversations were recorded (20 MF in English and 20 MF in Japanese by the same MF pairs). Out of those, 8 sets involving 8 males and 8 females were chosen for detailed analysis (both quantitative and qualitative). The data were chosen on the grounds of good sound quality and that neither ‘repeaters’ nor the author were involved. 4.1.2 Analytic procedure 4.1.2.1Transcription First the audio-taped data were transcribed in as much detail as possible. This included the points where interruptions and overlaps started and finished,
Empirical study
conversational gaps, laughter, backchannel expressions, some non-verbal behaviours such as inhaling breath and coughing, external noise (e.g. dropping something). No attempt was made to ‘clean-up’ the transcripts, for example, by excluding incomplete utterances or restoring what was said into grammatical form. However, the transcripts do not include detailed descriptions of supra-segmental features (e.g. intonation, prosody and rhythm) or body movements (e.g. gaze and gesture). Although the significance of such features has been pointed out (e.g. Chafe 1988, 1993; Du Bois et al. 1993; Goodwin 1981), their inclusion in the transcripts and their analysis were beyond the scope of this study. Conversational gaps were transcribed within and between turns but they were not timed unless they were seen as significant in terms of dominance (e.g., a long pause indicating a lack of complying action rather than a delayed response). 4.1.2.2Database Approximately the last 100 turns were selected from each of the 8 sets (8 MF in English and 8 MF in Japanese) of conversation for analysis (the number ranged from 98 to 101 in order to make sure that each conversation started with an initiation and ended with a response; for the number of turns selected for each dyad, see Appendix 2). This made the total number of turns for the data set 1598 (800 for Japanese conversation and 798 for English conversation). The reason for selecting the last part of conversation rather than the beginning was to make sure that the data captured the participants’ behaviour when they were fully involved in conversation. Since different dyads spoke at different speeds, data varied in terms of how many minutes the speakers were into their conversation before the last 100 turns. The differences were greater in English (2 minutes to 5 and a half minutes) and more consistent for Japanese data (approximately 6 minutes). 4.1.2.3Analytic procedure The following is a summary of the analytic procedure for investigating dominance in conversation based on my database. 1. Transcribe the conversations 2. Identify the last 100 turns from each conversation 3. Mark each occurrence of successful controlling action on the dimensions of sequential and participatory dominance. 4. Count the number of words on the dimension of quantitative dominance.
91
92
Conversational Dominance and Gender
(Hypothesis 1) 5. Compare the sum of successful controlling actions for M and F for 8 dyads in L1 (sequential dominance and participatory dominance) 6. Compare the number of words per speaker in each dyad (quantitative dominance) (Hypothesis 2) 7. Repeat 5–6 for L2 conversations 8. Compare the results for L1 and L2 In L1 and L2, the speaker who had more successful controlling actions along the dimensions of sequential dominance and participatory dominance was considered to be the dominant speaker. For the dimension of quantitative dominance, the speaker who produced more words was considered to be the dominant speaker. Where a speaker was dominant in one dimension but not on the others, the results from sequential dominance were treated as most significant. If one speaker produced more instances of successful controlling action or greater number of words than the other speaker in both L1 and L2, the two speakers were judged to have transferred their patterns of dominance to L2.
4.2 Results 4.2.1 Hypothesis 1. Male dominance in Japanese conversation Sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.5 report results in relation to Hypothesis 1: Japanese male speakers will dominate Japanese female speakers in L1. This hypothesis was tested on the 8 male speakers and the 8 female speakers in MF dyads on the dimensions of sequential, participatory and quantitative dominance by analysing the data collected following the procedures described in Section 4.1 and according to the analytical framework that I have proposed. In the following discussion, SSCA refers to sequential successful controlling action and PSCA refers to participatory successful controlling action. 4.2.1.1Sequential dominance The test on the dimension of sequential dominance is based on comparison of the total number of SSCAs for M and F in the 8 MF dyads. Table 4.1 shows the number of SSCAs produced by each M (Column 2) and F (Column 3).
Empirical study
Table 4.1Sequential dominance in L1 — number of SSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads Number of SSCAs in L1 Dyad
M
F
Difference (M minus F)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
24 18 12 16 14 26 19 23
17 17 21 18 20 11 13 15
7 1 −9 −2 −6 15 6 8
Total
152
132
20
Column 4 shows the differences between M and F in each dyad. Minus figures in Column 4 mean that M’s SSCAs are fewer than F’s. A total of 284 SSCAs (152 from 8 male speakers and 132 from 8 female speakers) were found in the data. M performed more SSCAs than F in 5 dyads (D1, 2, 6, 7 and 8) and F performed more SSCAs than M in 3 dyads (D3, 4 and 5). The degree of difference between the male speaker’s SSCAs and the female speaker’s SSCAs varies from dyad to dyad, however. For example, the difference is 15 in Dyad 6, but only 1 in Dyad 2. Although M dominated F in a majority of the dyads, F performed more SSCAs than M in 3 dyads. The results therefore did not show that M consistently performed more SSCAs than F. The hypothesis that male speakers would dominate female speakers in L1 was therefore not supported. 4.2.1.2Participatory dominance Hypothesis 1 on the dimension of participatory dominance was tested on the same L1 data but this time the dyads for successful controlling action were overlaps and interruptions that lead the other speaker to abandon the turn (PSCAs). In Table 4.2, Columns 2 and 3 show the total number of PSCAs produced by M and F, and Column 4 shows the difference between M and F in each dyad. The total number of PSCAs (70) is much lower than the total number of SSCAs (284). This is not surprising since turns involving overlaps and interruptions are normally fewer than turns in which one speaker finishes before the
93
94
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Table 4.2Participatory dominance in L1–number of PSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads Number of PSCAs in L1 Dyad
M
F
Difference (M minus F)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
6 5 2 3 4 8 6 2
1 4 8 4 4 1 4 8
5 1 −6− −1− 0 7 2 −6−
Total
36
34
2
other speaker takes the turn, which is stated to be the norm of conversation by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). The low frequency of PSCAs supports the view that participatory dominance is not such a strong indicator of overall dominance as sequential dominance. M performed more PSCAs than F in 4 dyads (D1, 2, 6 and 7), F performed more PSCAs than in M in 3 dyads (D3, 4 and 8) and they performed an equal number in 1 dyad (D5). The results show that M did not dominate F in a majority of the dyads. Hypothesis 1 was therefore not supported by the results on the dimension of participatory dominance.1 4.2.1.3Quantitative dominance Hypothesis 1 was tested on the dimension of quantitative dominance by investigating the distribution of the total number of words between M and F in
1.This result differs from that found in Ehara et al. (1984), which showed that Japanese male university students interrupted Japanese female university students during their Japanese conversation more frequently than vice versa. The difference may be related to differences in social distance between the speakers in the two studies. While all the subjects in the present study used the plain form, the subjects in Ehara et al.’s study used the polite form as well as the plain form. This suggests that Ehara et al.’ subjects, who came from different universities, might have been in a more distant relationship but developed hierarchical relationships over the course of their conversation on the basis of, for example, expertise (see Chapters 6 and 7). In contrast, the subjects in the present study came from the same university and appeared to be in a closer relationship based on equality and thus had less chance to develop hierarchical relationships.
Empirical study
the same 8 MF dyads. Table 4. 3 shows the number of words spoken by M and F and the difference between them. Table 4.3Quantitative dominance in L1–total number of words spoken by male and female speakers in MF dyads Number of words in L1 Dyad
M
F
Difference (M minus F)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
345 298 423 211 257 488 451 514
764 484 379 404 306 488 233 185
−419 −186 −44 −193 −49 −0 −218 −329
Total
2987
3243
−256
Table 4.3 shows that M spoke more words than F in 3 dyads (D3, 7 and 8), F spoke more words than M in 4 dyads (D1, 2, 4 and 5), and M and F spoke the same number of words in 1 dyad (D6). The results did not show that M spoke more words than F in a majority of the dyads. The hypothesis that male speakers would dominate female speakers in L1 in the data was therefore not supported. 4.2.1.4Comparison of the results from the three dimensions In Sections 4.2.1.1 to 4.2.1.3, I have reported results on Hypothesis 1 on three dimensions of conversational dominance. In this section, I will draw the results together and investigate whether the relationships for each MF dyad are consistent across the three dimensions. In Table 4.4, “M” means that M dominates F, “F” means that F dominates M and “=” means that M and F are equal. Table 4.4 shows that the relationships between M and F on the dimensions of sequential, participatory and quantitative dominance are always consistent in only 2 dyads (D4 and 7). The number of dyads where the results for M and F are consistent on two of the dimensions are as follows: 1. sequential and participatory dominance: 6 dyads (4 M and 2 F) 2. sequential and quantitative dominance: 4 dyads (2 M and 2 F) 3. participatory and quantitative dominance: 2 dyads (1 M and 1 F)
95
96
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Table 4.4Relationship between M and F in the 8 MF dyads across the three dimensions of conversational dominance in L1 Dyad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sequential
Participatory
Quantitative
M M F F F M M M
M M F F = M M F
F F M F F = M M
The comparison shows that the results from sequential and participatory dominance tend to be consistent with each other, while the results from sequential and quantitative dominance, and the results from participatory and quantitative dominance tend to be inconsistent. This inconsistency supports doubts (noted in Section 3.2.4) about the validity of treating quantitative dominance as one of the dimensions of conversational dominance. The discrepancies between the results for sequential and quantitative dominance raise the possibility that it may be problematic to treat quantitative dominance as an independent dimension of conversational dominance. This will be discussed further with examples from my data in Chapter 5. 4.2.1.5Summary The findings related to Hypothesis 1 on the three dimensions of conversational dominance can be summarised as follows: Sequential dominance – M performed more SSCAs than F in 5 dyads and F performed more SSCAs than M in 3 dyads. Participatory dominance – The total number of PSCAs is smaller than that produced in sequential dominance (284 in sequential dominance and 70 in participatory dominance). – M performed more PSCAs than F in 4 dyads, F performed more PSCAs than M in 3 dyads and M and F performed an equal number of PSCAs in 1 dyad.
Empirical study
Quantitative dominance – In 3 dyads M spoke more words than F, in 4 dyads F spoke more words than M and in 1 dyad M and F spoke an equal number of words. On all the three dimensions Hypothesis 1 was not supported. In addition, it was found that the relationships for each MF were not consistent across the three dimensions. Although the results from sequential and participatory dominance tend to be consistent with each other, the results from these two dimensions tend to be inconsistent with quantitative dominance, which raises doubts about the validity of using number of words spoken as one means of determining conversational dominance between the two speakers. 4.2.2 Hypothesis 2. Conversational dominance and pragmatic transfer Sections 4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.2 report the results in relation to Hypothesis 2: Patterns of dominance observed in L2 will be similar to those observed in L1. Since Hypothesis 1 was not supported for the L1 data, the analysis will be presented in two parts. First, the L2 data will be analysed to see whether the results support the substance of Hypothesis 1: Male speakers will dominate female speakers. Second, the results in L1 and L2 will be compared to see whether there is any consistent pattern for the 8 MF dyads across the two languages. 4.2.2.1Sequential dominance Table 4.5 shows the number of SSCAs produced by each M (Column 2) and F (Column 3) in L2 on the dimension of sequential dominance. Column 4 shows the differences between M and F in each dyad. A minus figure in Column 4 means that M’s total is smaller than F’s total. Column 5 is reproduced from Column 4 in Table 4.1 and shows the differences between M and F in L1. Column 6 compares the differences between M and F in L2 and L1 by subtracting the differences in L1 (Column 5) from the differences in L2 (Column 4). Plus figures mean that M has more SSCAs relative to F in L2 than in L1. Minus figures mean that M has fewer SSCAs relative to F in L2 than in L1. Table 4.5 shows that in L2 M performed more SSCAs than F in 3 out of the 8 dyads (D4, 7 and 8), F performed more SSCAs than M in 4 dyads (D1, 2, 3 and 6) and the numbers are equal in 1 dyad (D5). Where M dominates F the difference also tends to be smaller than where F dominates M. Since M dominates F in a minority of the dyads, the hypothesis that the male speakers will dominate the female speakers is not supported on the dimension of sequential dominance in L2.
97
98
Conversational Dominance and Gender
Table 4.5Sequential dominance in L2 — number of SSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads and comparison with L1 Number of SSCAs in L2
L1
Difference between L2/L1
Dyad
M
F
Difference (M minus F)
Difference (M minus F)
[M-F (L2)] − [M-F (L1)]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
11 11 6 16 14 14 19 15
22 17 27 13 14 15 17 11
−11 −6 −21 −3 −0 −1 −2 −4
7 1 −9 −2 −6 15 6 8
−18 −7 −12 −5 −6 −16 −4 −4
Total
106
136
−30
20
−50
The results from L2 can be compared with those from L1 as follows: Similarities – In both L1 and L2 the hypothesis that the male speakers will dominate the female speakers was not supported. Differences – In 6 dyads, F produced more SSCAs relative to M in L2 than in L1 (see Column 6 of Table 4.5). This suggests that the male speakers tend to be less dominant in L2 than in L1 on this dimension. The results did not show any consistent pattern with respect to male dominance among the 8 dyads in L1 and L2. They did not, therefore, support the hypothesis that male speakers would dominate female speakers in L1 and L2. Hypothesis 2, that patterns of dominance and asymmetry observed in L2 would be similar to those observed in L1, was therefore not supported in that no consistent pattern of dominance was observed in relation to speaker gender. However, it is interesting to note that male speakers tend to be less dominant in L2 than in L1. In Chapters 6 to 7, I will discuss why this may be the case on the basis of a qualitative analysis of part of the data.
Empirical study
4.2.2.2Participatory dominance In Table 4.6, Columns 2 and 3 show the total number of PSCAs produced by M and F in L2 and Column 4 shows the difference between M and F in each dyad. Column 5 is reproduced from Column 4 in Table 4.2 and shows the differences between M and F in L1. Column 6 compares the differences between M and F in L2 and L1 (see Table 4.5). Table 4.6Participatory dominance in L2 — number of PSCAs produced by male and female speakers in MF dyads and in comparison with L1 Number of PSCAs in L2
L1
Difference between L1-L2
Dyad
M
F
Difference (M minus F)
Difference (M minus F)
[M-F (L2)] − [M-F (L1)]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3 4 1 3 3 6 6 3
3 2 4 4 3 0 1 7
−0 −2 −3 −1 −0 −6 −5 −4
−5 −1 −6 −1 −0 −7 −2 −6
−5 −1 −3 −0 −0 −1 −3 −2
Total
29
24
−5
−2
−3
In L2, M has more PSCAs than F in 3 dyads (D2, 6, and 7), F has more PSCAs than M in 3 dyads (D3, 4 and 8) and the numbers are equal in 2 dyads (D1 and 5). M again dominates F in a minority of the dyads. Hypothesis 1 is therefore not supported for L2. The results in L2 compare with those in L1 as follows. M produced more PSCAs in L2 than in L1 relative to F in 4 dyads, and fewer in 2 dyads. The numbers are equal in 2 dyads (Column 6). The results from L1 and L2 do not show any consistent pattern of dominance. They do not therefore support the hypothesis that male speakers will dominate female speakers in L1 or L2. In addition, comparison of the results in L1 and L2 does not suggest any consistent pattern of shift in the relationship between M and F between L1 and L2.
99
100 Conversational Dominance and Gender
4.2.2.3Quantitative dominance In Table 4.7, Columns 2 and 3 show the total number of words spoken by M and F in L2. Column 4 shows the difference between M and F in each dyad. Column 5 is reproduced from Column 4 in Table 4.3 and shows the differences between M and F in L1. Column 6 compares the differences between M and F in L1 and in L2 (see Tables 4.5 and 4.6). Table 4.7Quantitative dominance in L2 — number of words spoken by male and female speakers in MF dyads and comparison with L1 L2
L1
L2-L1
Dyad
M
F
M-F
M-F
[M-F (L2)] − [M-F (L1)]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
216 296 154 242 191 450 487 796
334 246 415 409 176 231 366 150
−118 −50 −261 −167 −15 −219 −121 −646
−419 −186 −44 −193 −49 −0 −218 −329
−301 −236 −305 −26 −64 −219 −97 −317
Total
2832
2327
−505
−256
−761
In L2, M spoke more words than F in 5 dyads (D2, 5, 6, 7 and 8) but in Dyad 2 and Dyad 5 the difference is quite small (50 and 15 words). F spoke more words than M in 3 dyads (D1, 3 and 4). The results did not show that male speakers consistently speak more words than female speakers. Hypothesis 1 is therefore not supported on the dimension of quantitative dominance in L2. The results in L2 compare with those in L1 in the following way: M spoke more words in L2 than in L1 relative to F in 6 dyads. The hypothesis that patterns of dominance observed in L2 would be similar to those observed in L1 was therefore not supported in the sense that there was no clear pattern of dominance in L1 or in L2. However, a pattern was observed that the male speakers tend to speak more words relative to F in L2 than in L1.
Empirical study
4.2.2.4Comparison of the results from the three dimensions of conversational dominance In Section 4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.3, I have analysed Hypothesis 2 in relation to Hypothesis 1 on the three dimensions of conversational dominance. In this section, I will draw the results together and discuss whether the relationships for each MF dyad are consistent across the three dimensions in L2. I will then investigate relationships for each MF across L1 and L2. In Table 4.8, “M” means that M dominates F, “F” means that F dominates M and “=” means that M and F are equal. Table 4.8Relationship between M and F in the 8 MF dyads across the three dimensions of conversational dominance in L2 Dyad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sequential
Participatory
Quantitative
F F F M = F M M
= M F F = M M F
F M F F M M M M
Table 4.8 shows that the relationships between M and F on the dimensions of sequential, participatory and quantitative dominance are not necessarily consistent with each other in L2. In only two dyads is the relationship between M and F consistent on all three dimensions (D3 and 7). The number of dyads where the relationships for M and F are consistent on two of the dimensions are as follows: 1. sequential and participatory dominance: 3 dyads (1 M, 1 F and 1 equal) 2. sequential and quantitative dominance: 4 dyads (2 M and 2 F) 3. participatory and quantitative dominance: 5 dyads (3 F and 2 M) The comparison shows that, unlike L1, the results from sequential and participatory dominance tend to be less consistent than the results from participatory and quantitative dominance (see Table 4.4 for the results in L1). This may be due to the smaller number of PSCAs in L2 than in L1 (70 in L1 and 53 in L2). On the other hand, the comparison across the three dimensions is similar to the findings for L1 in that the results from sequential dominance tend to be inconsistent with the results in quantitative dominance. This reinforces doubts
101
102 Conversational Dominance and Gender
about the validity of treating participatory dominance and quantitative dominance as independent indicators of conversational dominance. 4.2.2.5Summary The results in this section can be summarised as follows: Sequential dominance – The hypothesis that male speakers will dominate female speakers is not supported in L2 because no pattern of dominance is found among the 8 MF dyads. Hypothesis 2, that patterns of dominance observed in L2 will be similar to those observed in L1, is therefore not supported. However, some evidence is found that M tends to be less dominant than F in L2. Participatory dominance – The hypothesis that male speakers will dominate female speakers is not supported in L2 because no consistent pattern of dominance is found among the 8 MF dyads. Hypothesis 2 is therefore not supported. Quantitative dominance – No consistent pattern of dominance is found among the 8 MF dyads. Hypothesis 2 is therefore not supported. However, there is a consistent pattern that M tends to speak more words relative to F in L2 than in L1. Comparison across the three dimensions – There is a discrepancy between the results in sequential dominance and quantitative dominance and between sequential dominance and participatory dominance in both L1 and L2. The results show that the relationships between M and F may or may not be the same across L1 and L2 depending on the MF dyad. The reasons why sequential dominance and participatory or quantitative dominance tend to be inconsistent and why male speakers are less dominant in L2 than in L1 will be investigated in more detail in Chapter 5, and Chapters 6 and 7, respectively. 4.2.3 Conclusion In this chapter, the analytical framework proposed in Chapter 3 has been shown to be applicable to the empirical investigation of conversational data. However, the results indicate that the two hypotheses made at the beginning of the chapter were not supported by the results from this data set. There was no
Empirical study 103
evidence that the male speakers in this data set dominated the female speakers in L1 or L2. On the basis of the results from sequential dominance as the most important indicator of conversational dominance, Hypothesis 1, which states that Japanese male speakers will dominate Japanese female speakers in L1, was not supported because consistent pattern of male dominance over female was not observed over the 8 dyads. It was also observed that there was some inconsistency between the results for sequential dominance and the results for quantitative dominance. Hypothesis 2 was examined in two parts because Hypothesis 1 was not supported in L1. First, the substance of Hypothesis 1, which stated that male speakers would dominate female speakers, was not supported in L2 because M does not dominate F in a majority of the dyads. However, a consistent pattern was found in as much as M tends to be relatively less dominant in L2 than in L1 in terms of moves (sequential dominance). On the other hand, M tends to be more dominant relative to F in terms of amount of speech in L2 (quantitative dominance). These results raise the following questions: 1. What is the relationship among the three dimensions of conversational dominance? 2. How can we explain the fact that speakers behave differently in L1 and L2, and that male speakers were less dominant in L2 than in L1? 3. Does the fact that the three hypotheses are not supported for this data set mean that the validity of the analytical framework should be questioned? These questions will be discussed in detail in Chapters 5 to 8.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Dimensions of conversational dominance"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 5
Dimensions of conversational dominance
5.1 Relationships among the three dimensions of conversational dominance In the empirical study reported in Chapter 4, inconsistency was found among results for the three dimensions of conversational dominance. In this chapter, I will discuss how these inconsistencies might be explained. In particular, I will explore whether the theoretical assumption that the sequential dimension of conversational dominance is the most significant dimension among the three can be justified on the basis of qualitative analysis of the data. Studies of conversational dominance have often analysed conversational data in terms of single interactional features such as overlaps/interruptions (e.g. Beattie, 1981; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975) or a combination of more than one feature such as interruptions and the distribution of words between speakers (e.g. Aries, 1982; Duff, 1986; Fishman, 1978a, 1983; Gass and Varonis, 1986; Woods, 1988). These features have often been treated independently of each other and little attempt has been made to explain relationships among them. The exception to this is Linell et al’s. (1988) study, which investigated conversational dominance as a multidimensional construct, but it still remains to be solved how the results from different dimensions should be related to each other more fully. According to Linell et al. (1988: 436–437), there is no necessary or general relationship between dominance with respect to initiation and response (interactional dominance) and dominance with respect to the number of words (quantitative dominance), although a very high correlation was found between quantitative and topic dominance (see Section 3.2.4). In the analytical framework presented in Chapter 3, conversational dominance was treated as a global construct consisting of three dimensions: sequential, participatory and quantitative dominance. It was assumed that the results across these dimensions would be consistent within each dyad of conversation and that a global measure of conversational dominance could be derived from
106 Conversational Dominance and Gender
the aggregate of results from the three dimensions. This did not turn out to be the case, however. For example, in 4 out of the 8 dyads in the study reported in Chapter 4, the relationship between the male speaker and the female speaker on the dimension of sequential dominance differed from that on the dimension of quantitative dominance in L1. The results from sequential and participatory dominance were also inconsistent in 2 out of the 8 dyads. In addition, it was also assumed that in cases where the results on different dimensions were inconsistent, sequential dominance would be the most reliable dimension for measurement of conversational dominance (Section 3.3.5). In view of the results presented in Chapter 4, this assumption turns out to be crucial because the validity of a global concept of dominance depends upon whether inconsistencies in the data can be explained in terms of the primacy of sequential dominance or not. In this chapter, I will attempt to establish whether the treatment of sequential dominance as the most important dimension of conversational dominance is justified on the basis of a detailed descriptive analysis of part of the data. In Section 5.2, I will discuss how consistencies and inconsistencies between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance can be explained. I will then discuss the validity of treating participatory dominance as an independent dimension from sequential dominance (Section 5.3). This analysis is based on the L1 data, which is translated semantically into English. Issues concerning the L2 data are considered further in Chapters 6 to 8. Numbering of turns in conversational excerpts in the following sections does not reflect sequencing in the original data, as the purpose is to illustrate theoretical issues.
5.2 Sequential dominance and quantitative dominance 5.2.1 Introduction Quantitative dominance has been used as an independent indicator of asymmetries between speakers in several earlier studies. For example, in examining asymmetries in talk between Chinese and Japanese learners of English, Duff (1986) based her finding that Chinese learners dominated Japanese learners in part on the distribution of the total number of words and turn length. Duff’s finding was based on comparison of the average figures for the 8 Chinese and the 8 Japanese speakers, and she did not discuss the results for each dyad
Dimensions of conversational dominance 107
separately or examine the relationship of number of words and turn length. Gass and Varonis (1986) also looked at interactional features such as the number of words, questions and interruptions and overlaps in their analysis of dominance among Japanese learners of English. Although the results from different features varied, they reported that male speakers tended to dominate female speakers. A close analysis of my data suggests that it may be unwise to treat quantitative dominance as a measure of conversational dominance without first examining its relationship to sequential dominance. I will support this suggestion by comparing some excerpts where sequential dominance and quantitative dominance tend to be consistent and other excerpts where they tend to be inconsistent. 5.2.2 Consistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance Consistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance is observed in the following excerpt: (1) M6 and F6 are discussing the uselessness of derutan, a name widely used for exercise books for learning English vocabulary that list English words with Japanese equivalents. M6 and F6 are critical of derutan because they think they list useless words such as aikokushin (or the Japanese equivalent of patriotism). [Japanese] 1M6: I Donna toki ni tsukau n da tte yuu. Ato tsukaikata ni shita tte saa, tango ni shita tte saa, soo da naa, att dakara regret toka no an jan. 2F6: R N. 3M6: I Regret tte ttatte Eego ( ? ) shika tsukanai kedo Nihongo de benkyoo shite repent toka. So yatte repent nante iwanee yo, zettai. Repent tte ittara ne, chotto furui iikata da sutta yoo, kodaiteki na saa. 4F6: R Nn. 5M6: I Demo soredemo repent tte futsuu ni kookai suru tte kaite aru shi saa. Ore repent tte mite “Kore nan jaro na” tte omotte saa. 6F6: R Fuun. 7M6: F Nn.
108 Conversational Dominance and Gender
[translation] 1M6: I They have no idea that such words are never used. And also explanation about how words are used given in such books are, well let me see, ah well, you know the word ‘regret’, don’t you? 2F6: R Yes. 3M6: I In English ‘regret’ is only used in (?) but in Japanese we are taught a word like ‘repent’. They never use ‘repent’, you know, never. I was told that it’s old fashioned, you know, sort of archaic. 4F6: R Yes. 5M6: I But er derutan explains the meaning of the word as meaning ‘to regret’, you know. When I found ‘repent’ mentioned in derutan I had no idea of why the word is there. 6F6: R Oh I see. 7M6: F Right.
The development of the topic in this excerpt is controlled by M6’s long informatives, to which F6 makes minimal responses. The long informatives in turns 1, 3 and 5 play a key role in the development of the topic. Since M6’s informatives are followed by F6’s acknowledgements, his initiations are SSCAs (sequential successful controlling actions) and count towards sequential dominance. M6’s quantitative dominance during this interaction is seen to be directly dependent on his sequential dominance because it depends upon him having some information to convey through the ‘informative-acknowledgement’ structure. Where one speaker produces long informatives and the other speaker produces short acknowledgements, dominance on the dimension of sequential dominance necessarily leads to dominance on the dimension of quantitative dominance. In this case, both sequential dominance and quantitative dominance are aspects of topic control. 5.2.3 Inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance Three types of cases are found in the data where inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance is observed: (1) short initiations and long responses, (2) attempted controlling actions and (3) interrupted initiations.
Dimensions of conversational dominance 109
Short initiations and long responses Inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance is observed when one speaker controls the development of the topic of conversation via short initiations that prospect longer responses. Excerpt (2) illustrates this pattern: (2) F2 and M2 are comparing what boys and girls do at night during school trips. F2 has been telling M2 how girls talk at night. [Japanese] 1F2: I “Shitteruu?” toka tte itte nanka minna kanshooteki ni natchatte. “Un kiku kikuu” toka nanka nee ((laughs)) 2M2: R Nanka sonna kanji ga suru, nanka. 3F2: I Soonna kanji ni natchau no nee. 4M2: R Haan. 5F2: I Donna kanji? Otoko no katari tte? 6M2: R Ett? - “Yoshitt kyoo wa kataroo ka” tte. Sonna shibia-, shibia ttsuka, nani, sonna nani kanshooteki ni nannakute “Yoshi kyoo wa ikoo ka. Onna no hanashi ippon de. Onna no hanashi ippon de ikoo” tte. Zettai akiru kedo. Saishuuteki ni nanka saigo ni wa jimanbanashi ni natchau jan, soittsu no. “Nan nara moo ii yo” toka tte. 7F2: F Aa naruhodo ne. [translation] 1F2: I We say things like “Did you know …” and all the girls get sentimental and say, “Yeah, I’ll be listening”, you see ((laughs)) 2M2: R I would have guessed that somehow. 3F2: I We end up like that, you see. 4M2: R Huh-huh. 5F2: I What is it like? Boys’ talk? 6M2: R Mm? - ours starts like “Right, shall we have a chat today?” We don’t get too serious or er too sentimental. We say things like “Right, shall we concentrate on talking about girls? Let’s talk only about girls”. But it will definitely become boring eventually. Er it will end up by somebody boasting about himself. Then we say, “That’s enough, you know”. 7F2: F Oh I see.
110
Conversational Dominance and Gender
In turns 1 to 4, F2 tells M2 about how girls talk at night. In turn 5, she shifts the topic towards boys’ talk through an elicitation. Her attempt to shift their topic is successful as her elicitation receives an appropriate response. However, the response that she receives is considerably longer than her elicitation. Thus, if a speaker successfully controls the development of the topic but uses short initiations (elicitations) to do so, inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance is likely. Moreover, the response is relevant to the topic only because of the preceding initiation. In other words, although M2 has achieved quantitative dominance, it is F2 who has achieved sequential dominance by controlling the topic development through an initiation that elicits the prospected response.
Attempted controlling action In the previous example, inconsistency results because a controlling initiation is shorter than its response. Inconsistency also results when an initiation fails to receive a prospected response, and is therefore not counted as an SSCA, while the number of words used to produce the ‘failed’ initiation is counted towards quantitative dominance: (3) M4 and F4 are talking about smoking. Before the excerpt starts, F4 was telling M4 about her experience of witnessing a woman student who was having a cigarette during her meal. [Japanese] 1M4: I Tabako sutte hoshikunai ne, josee ni wa. 2F4: R Soo? I Maki sutte n jan. 3 ((pause)) 4F4: I Yaa soo miteru n da kedo ne, watashitachi wa. 5 ((pause)) 6F4: I Chigau no ka na. 7 ((pause)) 8F4: I Chigau no kana? 9M4: I Nihonshoku da yo ne. 10F4: I Ett? 11M4: ReI Nihonshoku da yo ne, misoshiru. 12F4: R Nn.
Dimensions of conversational dominance
[translation] 1M4: I I don’t like women to smoke, you see. 2F4: R Is that right? I Maki smokes, doesn’t she? 3 ((pause)) 4F4: I Well, I’ve got a feeling that she does, you see. 5 ((pause)) 6F4: I I wonder if I’m wrong. 7 ((pause)) 8F4: I I wonder if I’m wrong? 9M4: I Japanese food is the best, isn’t it? 10F4: I What? 11M4: ReI Japanese food is the best, isn’t it?, miso soup. 12F4: R Yes.
M4’s initiation in turn 1 is acknowledged by F4, who then attempts to shift the topic towards their mutual friend Maki. However, she does not receive a response from M4. She attempts to introduce the same topic in turns 4, 6 and 8 but M4 does not endorse it as their mutual topic. The four initiation moves therefore fail to establish control over topic development, although F4’s words count towards the total number of words contributed to the conversation. The following is a similar example: (4) M3 is telling F3 about his maths student. [Japanese] 1M3: I Choobaka dee. Ano sa Eego no E aru jan. E wakannai no. De sansuu suugaku janakute moo sansuu no. 2F3: R Ett! 3M3: I Ano saa doonatsu kooyuu sa kooyuu no koo natte tee koko no menseki motomen no an no. Sonde koko ga hankee ga 3 senchi de kokode 5 senchi tte nattetara kono 8 senchi no en kara 3 senchi no hikeba ii jan. Sore o futsuu setsumee sureba wakaru jan. Setsumee shite mo kore o hii-, hiku to kono menseki ga deru tte yuu koto ga wakannai kara moo doo shiyoo mo nai. “Sonna koto yatte deru n desu ka” toka kikarechatte. Daara “Koo yuu no wa hiku n da yoo” toka itte oshiete. [ 4F3: I Aa sore saa kami tsukutte sa “Ii ka. 8 senchi daro. Koo yatte 3 senchi kiru daro. Nakunaru jan” te yareba ii n da yo.
111
112
Conversational Dominance and Gender
5M3: R Soo da kedo… [translation] 1M3: I He is super weak. Let me tell you, he doesn’t know what the letter alphabet E is and his level is arithmetic and not math. 2F3: R Gosh! 3M3: I Let me tell you. There was an exercise of measuring the area of a shape like a doughnut. If this inside radius is 3 cm and here is 5 cm, we can get the area size here by calculating the area of this circle with a radius of 8 cm and deducting the area of this inner circle with a radius of 3 cm. Students usually understand this kind of explanation, don’t they? But when I explained to him like if you subtra-, subtract this from this, he just can’t understand it. He is just hopeless. He said something like, “Can I really get the answer like that?” So by saying that this kind of exercise needs subtraction, I taught him. 4F3: I [ For that, if you use some paper saying, “Look, here is 8 cm and if we cut off the inner circle with 3 cm like this, it disappears”, you can solve the problem, you know. 5M3: R That’s true…
In turn 1, M3 introduces the topic of his maths student. In turn 2, F3 acknowledges this and endorses it as their mutual topic. In turn 3, M3 gives an account of how weak the student is by making a long informative. However, his description of the student’s weakness does not receive any direct reaction from F3 in turn 4 as, instead of making an acknowledgement to M3’s preceding initiation (informative), F3 in turn 4 makes a new initiation. This shifts the direction of talk from M3’s description of his problem student to the way in which M3 should solve the problem in teaching him, although the broad topic (i.e. M3’s part-time tutoring job) remains the same. M3’s long informative in turn 3, therefore, is not counted as SSCA because it is followed by a topic shift, although its words count towards quantitative dominance.
Incomplete turns Initiations that are truncated by overlaps and interruptions may also lead to inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance, as in the following example:
Dimensions of conversational dominance
(5) M4 and F4 are talking about international marriage. M4 has told F4 earlier that he is not very keen on the idea. [Japanese] 1F4: I Aa maa nee. Sore wa aru kedo ne. Demo Eego shabereru yoo ni naritai kara tsukiau hito wa hoshii naa to. 2M4: R Nn soo soo soo. X Soree zettai umaku naru to omou. Mochiron aite ga… [ 3F4: I Nn datte saa every time issho ni iru n da yo. 4M4: R ((laughs)) Every time English da yo ((laughs)) 5F4: F Soo da yoo. Ii yo nee. 6M4 TP Ii nee. [translation] 1F4: I Ah that’s right. That’s true. But I want to improve my English so I wouldn’t mind having a foreign boyfriend. 2M4: R Yes, right right right. X That would definitely improve English. Of course that person… 3F4: I [ Right because we’ll be together every time, you know. 4M4: R ((laughs)) Every time speaking English ((laughs)) 5F4: F That’s it. That will be good. 6M4 TP Good.
In turn 2, M4 acknowledges F4’s preceding informative. He then starts to produce an informative which is disrupted by F4’s overlap in turn 3. M4’s disrupted move fails to establish control and is therefore discounted from sequential dominance. However, the number of words used to produce the disrupted turn is counted towards quantitative dominance. The inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance will be greater if the disruption takes place a long time after the beginning of the turn, as in the following example: (6) M8 is telling F8 about his class. [Japanese] 1M8: X … De sugoi naka ga moo guruupu ga dekichatte. Sorede nante yuu ka na, gakkoo haitte moo 1 shuukan de 1 shuukan shite “Jaa booringu ikoo kaa” toka itte tanjoobi mo
113
114
Conversational Dominance and Gender
yattee. Soo 1 shuukan de sonna kanji da kara sugoi naka ii shi. Nde ne hajime ne otoko to onna de yott-, futari zutsu de ikoo tsutte, att 3 nin da, otoko 3 nin de onna futari de ikoo tsutte, booringu. Demo otoko 3 nin hayaku tsuichatta no. Kuruma de itchatta kara. De… [ 2F8: I Kuruma motteru ko in no? ((pause)) 3M8: R 22. 4F8: F Aa. 5M8: I Nn sorede kuruma de itta no. Itte hayaku tsui chatta karaa doo shiyoo ka ttee Shitt-, Ikebukuro na no ne. Hima tsubusanakyaa toka itte ( ? ) haitta no ((laughs)) 6F8: R Shinjirarenaai! [translation] 1M8: X … And our class is really friendly. There are some buddy groups, and what can I say, within one week after the course started, somebody was suggesting that we should go bowling together or we have a birthday party for someone, you know, within one week we were already like that, really close and er four, er two boys and two girls, sorry, three, three boys and two girls planned to go bowling but the boys arrived too early because we went by car. And… 2F8: I [ Is there anybody who’s got a car? ((pause)) 3M8: R (X is) 22 years old.1 4F8: F Ah. 5M8: I Mm and we went by car. We got there too early so we wondered about what we should do. We were in Shitt-, Ikebukuro. So we went into ( ? ) to kill time ((laughs)) 6F8: R I can’t believe it!
In turn 1, M8 makes a long informative about how he and his friends decided to go bowling. His informative fails to receive a response from F8 in turn 2. Instead of responding to M8’s preceding initiation with an acknowledgement,
1.22 years old is well above the legal age to drive a car in Japan.
Dimensions of conversational dominance
which would facilitate the smooth development of M8’s story, F8 makes a new initiation. In turn 2, F8 creates an inserted sequence where she clarifies some point in M8’s preceding initiation (i.e., whether it is possible for M8 and his classmates to own a car because they are university students) before M8 is able to resume his story telling in turn 5. F8’s initiation in turn 2 therefore creates a topic shift between turn 1 and turn 2, although her clarification question remains within the broad topic of M8’s story and M8 returns to the original topic in turn 5. Although a story telling-clarification-resumption of the story is likely to be a common feature of conversation, M8’s long informative in turn 1 fails to be counted as an instance of SSCA. However, although M8’s long informative in turn 1 is left incomplete and fails to contribute to sequential dominance, the number of words in it counts towards quantitative dominance. 5.2.4 Sequential dominance, quantitative dominance and topic The analysis presented in Section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 suggests two types of relationships between quantitative dominance and sequential dominance. First, quantitative dominance can be dependent on sequential dominance. The type of initiation determines the distribution of number of words between two speakers. If a long informative prospects a short acknowledgement, the speaker’s initiation counts towards both sequential dominance and quantitative dominance. On the other hand, if a short elicitation prospects a long response, then the speaker’s initiation counts towards sequential dominance but not towards quantitative dominance. Second, quantitative dominance can be independent of sequential dominance. An initiation needs to obtain a response in order to count towards sequential dominance. However, unsuccessful initiations that are truncated by overlaps or interruptions and initiations that do not succeed in obtaining a response are not counted towards sequential dominance although they are counted towards quantitative dominance. The number of words used in producing these unsuccessful initiations counts towards quantitative dominance independently of the speaker’s sequential dominance. Consistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance is therefore to be expected only when one speaker tends to give long informatives and the other speaker tends to give shorter acknowledgements over a stretch of conversation. In contrast, inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance is to be expected if the conversation tends to include parts where one speaker makes short elicitations that receive long responses, or
115
116
Conversational Dominance and Gender
where initiations do not receive responses. This analysis tends to support the assumption that sequential dominance is a more significant measure of conversational dominance than quantitative dominance. Initiations followed by prospected responses have been shown to play a major role in developing topic and in causing topic shifts. Initiations count towards sequential dominance only if they are followed by prospected responses. Initiations that are not followed by prospected responses, or those that fail to control the topic, do not count towards sequential dominance. In contrast, the number of words always count towards quantitative dominance whether the words play any major role in topic development or not. Sequential dominance, therefore, captures the speakers’ contribution to topic control more accurately than quantitative dominance. However, it should be noted that, as analysis of some of the data (Excerpts 4 and 6) suggests, sequential dominance may be problematic in cases where initiations are not followed by prospected responses (and therefore are not counted as instances of successful controlling action) but the speaker keeps control of the topic in a broader sense. The analysis also suggests that, in addition to questions, which are mentioned as a mechanism for directing the topic by Foppa (1990), other types of initiations that successfully receive prospected responses are strongly relevant to topic control. An elicitation prospects information and can be seen as constraining the type of information that will be acceptable for the topic. An informative proffers new information and prospects acknowledgement and can also be seen as the first speaker’s attempt to determine the topic. The system of sequential dominance itself appears to be very closely tied to topic control and therefore to conversational dominance as a whole. Using quantitative dominance as an independent measurement of dominance in conversation, as some earlier studies have done, appears to be unsound. The results from quantitative dominance may be treated as supportive of sequential dominance when the results are consistent, but quantitative dominance should not be used as an indicator of asymmetry if the results from two dimensions are inconsistent.
5.3 Sequential dominance and participatory dominance 5.3.1 Introduction In Chapter 4, I concluded that the frequency of instances of participatory dominance (PSCAs) in both L1 and L2 was too low to make any definite claim
Dimensions of conversational dominance
about asymmetries between male and female speakers. In addition, it was seen that the results from participatory dominance tended to be inconsistent with those from sequential dominance, although they were more consistent in L1 than in L2. However, in two of the most frequently quoted studies on male dominance in conversation, Zimmerman and West (1975) and West and Zimmerman (1983) use interruptions and overlaps as the sole basis for strong claims on male dominance over female in English conversations. The low frequencies of participatory dominance in the data make it difficult to judge its validity as an independent measure of conversational dominance. In this section, I will examine the question of the validity of participatory dominance as a measure of conversational dominance by examining the relationship between participatory dominance and sequential dominance in more detail. 5.3.2 Consistency between sequential dominance and participatory dominance Speakers may use an interruption or overlap to gain an initiation as in the following piece of conversation: (7) M1 and F1 are discussing the problem of commuting to their university. [Japanese] 1M1: I Kono gakkoo tooi yo ne. 2F1: X Tooi. Sore ga taihen. Asa… 3M1: I [ Doko? 4F1: R Oomiya na no ne. 5M1: I Oomiya kara ( ? ) sen? ja nai yo 6F1: R Nn chigatt-, Ueno itte Tokyo itte Keiyoo sen. [translation] 1M1: I This university is so far to get to, isn’t it? 2F1: X Yes. That’s the problem. In the morning… 3M1: I [ Where do you live? 4F1: R I live in Oomiya. 5M1: I Do you take ( ? ) line from Oomiya? That’s wrong. 6F1: R No, I don’t-, I go to Ueno, Tokyo and Keiyoo line.
In turn 1, M1 begins to introduce the topic of the difficulty of commuting to their university. In turn 2, F1 agrees with M1 and begins her own initiation. Her
117
118
Conversational Dominance and Gender
turn is disrupted by M1’s interrupting question in turn 3. By interrupting F1, M1 acquires an initiation, which is successful in obtaining a prospected response in turn 4. M1’s initiation in turn 3 shifts the topic from the location of the university to where F1 lives, although the broad topic remains the same (the difficulty of commuting). The successful interruption (PSCA) in this example therefore helps the interrupting speaker to gain a successful initiation (SSCA), which also shifts the topic. There is therefore consistency in the counting of SSCA and PSCA. M1 in turn 3 acquires one PSCA, which leads to one SSCA. Sequential dominance, which is facilitated by participatory dominance, is closely related to control of topic development in this case. Excerpt (8) is similar to Excerpt (7) but the interruption takes the form of a completion offer: (8) F4 and M4 are discussing the benefits of having an English speaking boyfriend or girlfriend for learning English. But they also find that they may not gain the benefits if the English speaking boyfriend speaks fluent Japanese. [Japanese] 1F4: I Nn datte saa every time issho ni iru n da yo. 2M4: R ((laughs)) Every time English da yo ((laughs)) 3F4: F Soo da yoo. Ii yo nee. 4M4: TP Ii nee. 5F4: I Itsu demo da yo. Ii naa. 6M4: X Mukoo ga Nihongo perapera dattaraÆ 7F4: CO -sore tte tsumannai. 8M4: R Tsumannai. [translation] 1F4: I Right. We’ll be together every time, you know. 2M4: R ((laughs)) Every time speaking English ((laughs)) 3F4: F That’s it. That will be good. 4M4: TP Good. 5F4: I Always being together, you know. How nice! 6M4: X If the friend speaks fluent Japanese – Æ 7F4: CO – it’s boring. 8M4: R Boring.
From turn 1 to turn 5, F4 and M4 are discussing the benefits of having an English speaking boyfriend or a girlfriend. In turn 6, M4 introduces a new aspect to their topic by suggesting that the English speaking friend may speak fluent Japanese
Dimensions of conversational dominance
(topic shift). When he has finished the conditional clause, the main clause is completed by F4 in turn 7 with “it’s boring”. F4’s completion offer is accepted by M4’s response move in turn 8. F4’s controlling move (completion offer in turn 7) plays an important role in topic development because her completion offer followed by a complying move (turn 8) determines the direction of the topic at M4’s turn 6. Although M4 starts the utterance “If the friend speaks fluent Japanese”, it is F4 who completes the meaning of the utterance as “it’s boring”. However, the second part of the utterance could have been different, for example, “If the friend speaks fluent Japanese, it would be even better because we can help each other”. By interrupting M4’s turn 6 (PSCA), F4 acquires a new initiation, which establishes control because it obtains a response (SSCA). In turns 6 to 8, consistency between sequential dominance and participatory dominance is observed: F4’s completion offer in turn 7 counts as one PSCA, which helps her to acquire one SSCA. F4’s SSCA gained through the PSCA in turn 7 is also closely related to topic control. On the other hand, M4 in turn 6 loses one PSCA and one SSCA because of F4’s interruption. This again suggests that an interruption can help the interrupting speaker to gain control on the dimension of sequential dominance, which may be closely related to topic development. A speaker may gain an initiation through an overlap as well as through an interruption, as in Excerpt (9): (9) M8 is telling F8 about his class. 1M8: X … De sugoi naka ga moo guruupu ga dekichatte. Sorede nante yuu ka na, gakkoo haitte moo 1 shuukan de 1 shuukan shite “Jaa booringu ikoo kaa” toka itte tanjoobi mo yattee. Soo 1 shuukan de sonna kanji da kara sugoi naka ii shi. Nde ne hajime ne otoko to onna de yott-, futari zutsu de ikoo tsutte, att 3 nin da, otoko 3 nin de onna futari de ikoo tsutte, booringu. Demo otoko 3 nin hayaku tsuichatta no. Kuruma de itchatta kara. De… [ Æ 2F8: I Kuruma motteru ko in no? ((pause)) 3M8: R 22. 4F8: F Aa.
119
120 Conversational Dominance and Gender
[translation] 1M8: X … And our class is really friendly. There are some buddy groups and what can I say, within one week after the course started, somebody was suggesting that we should go bowling together or we have a birthday party for someone, you know, within one week we were already like that, really close and er four, er two boys and two girls, sorry, three, three boys and two girls planned to go bowling but the boys arrived too early because we went by car. And… Æ 2F8: [ I Is there anybody who’s got a car? ((pause)) 3M8: R (X is) 22 years old. 4F8: F Ah.
In turn 1, M8 begins to make a long informative, which can be seen as keeping the topic on his story about his classmates. At the end of turn 1, M8 is overlapped by F8, who asks M8 a question, which shifts the direction of the topic to the legal age for having a car. Following the overlap, M8 drops out while F8 persists with her question. The overlap therefore helps F8 to acquire an initiation, which shifts the topic. These excerpts suggest that if an interruption or overlap disrupts the other speaker’s preceding initiation and also succeeds in receiving a response, the speaker will establish control on both the participatory and sequential dimensions of dominance. The analysis also suggests that a dominant speaker who makes an initiation through an interruption or overlap may also control the direction of topic in the relevant turn, which will lead to consistency between sequential dominance, participatory dominance and topic control. 5.3.3 Inconsistency between sequential dominance and participatory dominance In contrast to the examples in Section 5.3.2 where interruptions or overlaps (participatory dominance) facilitate dominance on the dimension of sequential dominance, examples are also found where interruptions or overlaps do not seem to lead to the dominance of the speaker who interrupts.
Interruption preventing the interrupting speaker’s own previous initiation from being established
Dimensions of conversational dominance
In Excerpt (10), the initiation that the interrupting speaker gains is unsuccessful because it fails to receive a response: (10) M3 and F3 have been talking about M3’s part-time job of tutoring. [Japanese] 1F3: I Sore doko de mitsuketaa? 2M3: X Sore ne anoo… [ Æ 3F3: I Nanka kateekyooshi shookaijo mitaina yatsu? 4M3: R Soo soo soo soo. I Nanka shikamo soko n chi nanka kechitte 1 ji kan han na no. 5F3: R Nn. [translation] 1F3: I Where did you find the job? 2M3: X That er… [ Æ 3F3: I From an agent for tutoring jobs or something? 4M3: R Right right right right. I And also the student’s family is mean and pays me for an hour and a half. 5F3: R Yes.
In turn 1, F3 asks M3 where he found his tutoring job. In turn 2, M3 is unable to complete his answer because he is interrupted by F3 in turn 3, who re-initiates her question. F3’s initiation in turn 1 is therefore not counted as an instance of SSCA because of her own interruption. There is therefore inconsistency during the sequence from turn 1 to turn 3: F3 in turn 3 scores one PSCA because she completes the turn following the interruption while M3 withdraws. However, F3’s interruption in turn 3 leads to her own loss of an SSCA because she disrupts M3’s response in turn 2, which would otherwise be an instance of SSCA for F3 in turn 1.
Interruption failing to receive a prospected response A PSCA may also fail to facilitate sequential dominance if the interrupting speaker’s initiation fails to receive a response in the interlocutor’s following turn: (11) M5 and F5 are discussing organising a camping trip for their class. M5 and F5 agree that M5 has the potential to be a good organiser.
121
122 Conversational Dominance and Gender
[Japanese] 1M5: I Kedo are da yo ne. Na-, na-, nante yuu no - nante yuu no. Minna yaritai n daroo kedo iidasanai no ga aru kedo. 2F5: X Uun kekkoo… [ Æ 3M5: I Sasoeba kuru s-, suu kanji da yo ne= 4F5: ch =Teeka kekko ne - uchi no kurasu no hito tte yappa tsumannai tte yuu no ga aru rashii. 5M5: R Fuun. [translation] 1M5: I But, ho-, ho-, how shall I put it - how shall I put it. There is a feeling among the classmates that everybody wants to do something together but nobody speaks up. 2F5: X Mm quite… [ Æ 3M5: I “If we invite them, they come” sort of people, aren’t they?= 4F5: ch =Rather than that, well, our classmates seem to think that it’s boring to do things together. 5M5: R Oh I see.
In turn 1, M5 conveys his opinion of their classmates. In turn 2, F5 begins to respond to M5’s preceding initiation, but M5 interrupts in turn 3. M5’s turn 3 therefore counts as one PSCA. However, M5’s interrupting initiation does not receive a prospected response from F5 in turn 4. Instead of responding to M5’s preceding informative with an acknowledgement, which would treat it as a topic agreed upon by both speakers, F5 instead challenges M5’s presupposition that she will agree with his opinion of their classmates. M5 is therefore prevented from controlling the topic. There is inconsistency between sequential dominance and participatory dominance between turns 2 to 5. M5’s interrupting initiation in turn 3 is counted as one PSCA. However, it is not counted as an SSCA as it is not followed by a prospected response. It also fails to keep control over the topic in the sense that it fails to receive an agreement for his previous initiation. This suggests that if one speaker tends to interrupt the other speaker but fails to receive prospected responses following interruptions, the speaker will appear to be dominant on the dimension of participatory dominance but not on the dimension of sequential dominance.
Dimensions of conversational dominance
Interruption disrupting the preceding speaker’s initiation In the examples that I have discussed so far, interruptions take the form of initiations. However, an interruption can also take the form of a response. (12) M7 is telling F7 about his sister who has been to New York. [Japanese] 1F7: I Att itta no? 2M7: R Nn. X Dakara soko de itte… [ Æ 3F7: R Hee ii na. Ii jan. 4M7: I De soko no uchi ni tomatte. [ Æ 5F7: I Sooyuu no aru to ii ne. 6M7: I De sono ato tomodachi no uchi hanareta kara honto kootsuuhi dake 2 ka getsu gurai asonde kita… [translation] 1F7: I Oh she’s been there (=New York)? 2M7: R Yes. X So there she went and… [ Æ 3F7: R Huh that’s good. That’s good. 4M7: I And there she stayed with a family. Æ 5F7: I [ Having that kind of thing (= some connections overseas) is good, isn’t it? 6M7: I And after that she left her friend’s house so she just paid for her airfare and could stay there for two months…
In turn 1, F7 asks M7 a question to check whether his sister has actually been to New York. In turn 2, M7 responds to the initiation and begins to make an initiation himself. However, before he reaches the end of the initiation, F7 cuts in with a response (turn 3). Following the interruption, M7 drops out and does not complete the initiation, while F7 completes the response. The interrupting response in turn 3 is therefore identified as a PSCA but not as an SSCA. It is also noted that it does not play a major role in the topic development since F7’s interruption is a response and does not make any new contribution. In cases where the interrupted speaker’s turn is an initiation and the interrupting speaker’s turn is a response, and if the interrupted initiation is
123
124 Conversational Dominance and Gender
incomplete while the interrupting response is complete, inconsistency will arise between sequential dominance and participatory dominance: the speaker appears to be dominant on the dimension of participatory dominance while he is not dominant on the dimension of sequential dominance and does not control topic development.
Interruption resisting the other speaker’s control Earlier studies such as Zimmerman and West (1975) and West and Zimmerman (1983) considered interruptions as indicative of speaker dominance. My analytical framework has also viewed them as one dimension of conversational dominance. However, Excerpt (13) suggests that interruptions may also be indicative of resistance to a controlling action: (13) F6 and M6 are discussing problems of English education in Japan, i.e. it does not help the students to speak English. [Japanese] 1F6 I Nihon no kookoo no jugyoo sono mama uketete daigaku juken no benkyoo shita dake ja shaberenai deshoo. 2M6: CO [ -muri da ne. 3F6 R Nee 4M6 I Hotondo muri da ne. Ore mo ichioo daigaku juken shita kara aru teedo tango wa motteta kedo mukoo iku mae ni shaberenakatta mon ne. 5F6: R Nee. 6M6 I Daara “See you soon” te iwarete saa “Arigatoo gozaimasu” tte ta mon. 7F6 ((laughs)) 8M6: I “See you soon” te sonna no benkyoo shinee jan, Nippon ja. 9F6: R Ne, detekuru mon ja nai shi ne. 10M6: I “Nanda yo, sore” tte omotte yoo. 11F6: R Nn. I Henna sa myoona tango shitteru n da yo ne, sorede ne. 12M6: R Soo. I Imi nai no ne. 13F6: R Soo soo. 14M6: I Zenzen tsukawanai no. Daara saa tatoeba saa - nan da, tatoeba saa - soo da na…
Dimensions of conversational dominance
15F6: I
Nanka derutan toka no sa saisho no hoo ni ‘aikokushin’ ka nanka no sooyuu tango ga aru toka kiita n da kedo. 16M6: R ‘Aikokushin’ atta, ee patriotism. 17F6: F Zenzen shiranai n da kedo, atashi. 18M6: I Nn nan tsukawanai yo ne. 19F6: R Nee zettai tsukawanai. 20M6: I Donna toki ni tsukau n da tte yuu. Ato tsukaikata ni shita tte saa, tango ni shita tte saa, soo da naa, att dakara regret toka no an jan. 21F6: R N. [translation] 1F6: I Just receiving English classes at school in Japan and studying for university examinations does not help the students to= [ 2M6: CO -offers no chance, you see. (F6:) =be able to speak English, right? 3F6: R Right. 4M6: I It offers us almost no chance, you see. I took university entrance examinations so I guess I knew some English vocabulary but I could hardly speak any English before I went there (=Australia), you see. 5F6: R Right. 6M6: I So when somebody said to me, “See you soon”, I responded, “Thank you very much”. 7F6: ((laughs)) 8M6: I We never learn anything like see you soon in Japan, do we? 9F6: R Right. That kind of expressions never appears in textbooks. 10M6: I I had no idea what it meant, you know. 11F6: R Yes. I The Japanese students know peculiar vocabulary, don’t they? 12M6: R Right. I They know useless vocabulary, don’t they? 13F6: R Right right. 14M6: X They know some vocabulary items that are never used er, for example, er mm, for example, well… 15F6: I Well I heard that at the beginning of derutan such words as aikokushin are listed.
125
126 Conversational Dominance and Gender
16M6: R Aikokushin that’s right er patriotism. 17F6: F I don’t know the word at all. 18M6: I These kinds of words are never used in everyday English, are they? 19F6: R Right never used. 20M6: I They have no idea that such words are never used. And also explanation about how words are used given in such books are, well, let me see, er well you know the word regret, don’t’ you? 21F6: R Yes.
From turns 2 to 13, M6 makes five instances of successful initiations (turns 2, 4, 8, 10 and 12), while F6 makes only one (turn 11). In turn 14, M6 begins another initiation but he is interrupted by F6 in turn 15. F6’s interruption causes M6 to withdraw from the floor and allows F6 to acquire a successful initiation. Through the interrupting initiation F6 succeeds in shifting the topic by introducing derutan. However, sequential control is again taken back by M6 in turn 18. Their conversation following turn 18 is again sequentially dominated by M6. It is difficult to see F6’s interruption in turn 15 as indicative of her conversational dominance, however. It rather seems to be an attempt to resist M6’s dominance. In a sense, therefore, it is indicative of M6’s dominance rather than that of F6. 5.3.4 Sequential dominance, participatory dominance and topic Interruptions and overlaps (participatory dominance in my analytical framework) have been used as a measure of dominance in a number of earlier studies. However, the analysis presented in this section suggests that interruptions and overlaps have several different effects in relation to the sequencing of conversation. While some interruptions lead to the interrupter gaining sequential control, others do not. They may disrupt the other speaker’s right to speak without disrupting his or her control of the topic. In addition, interruptions can sometimes be viewed as resistance to dominance rather than dominance itself. The relationship of participatory dominance to sequential dominance therefore depends on the functions and effects of interruptions or overlaps in the course of a conversation. Sequential dominance may in part be facilitated through violation of speaking rights. Consistency between participatory dominance and sequential dominance is, however, contingent on an interruption or overlap being of a type which helps the speaker gain control of the topic. Participatory
Dimensions of conversational dominance 127
dominance can only be responsible for a part of sequential dominance given the generally low frequency of participatory dominance in the data. Inconsistency between participatory dominance and sequential dominance is also likely if the majority of interruptions or overlaps are of a type that do not help the speaker gain control of topic. It may therefore be concluded that an accurate picture of conversational dominance cannot be gained from the distribution of interruptions or overlaps alone. Instead, participatory dominance should be understood as a violation of speaking rights, which may or may not lead to dominance on the sequential dimension. As in the case of quantitative dominance, the results relating to participatory dominance should be interpreted in the light of sequential dominance.
5.4 Conclusion Sequential dominance has been shown to be more closely related to control over topic development than the other two dimensions of conversational dominance. Initiations followed by prospected responses indicate that the first speaker succeeds in obtaining the second speaker’s acceptance of the first speaker’s utterance as their mutual topic. On the other hand, initiations that are not followed by prospected responses indicate that the first speaker does not receive the second speaker’s acceptance of the first speaker’s utterance as their mutual topic. Successful controlling actions on the sequential dimension therefore capture the speaker’s control over the topic closely. Results from sequential dominance will not necessarily be consistent with those from quantitative dominance and participatory dominance. Nor are successful controlling actions on the participatory dimension or the number of words spoken necessarily related to topic dominance. The results from sequential dominance and quantitative dominance are likely to be consistent for a dyad of speakers if controlling initiations (informatives) are longer than prospected responses (acknowledgements). In contrast, if controlling initiations (elicitations) are shorter than prospected responses, the results are likely to be inconsistent. In addition, if controlling initiations do not receive prospected responses, the results are likely to be inconsistent because attempted initiations are not counted towards sequential dominance while the number of words used to produce them is counted towards quantitative dominance.
128 Conversational Dominance and Gender
The results from sequential dominance and participatory dominance are likely to be consistent if interruptions or overlaps lead to the speaker’s gaining initiations and if the initiations receive prospected responses. When interruptions do not lead to the speaker’s gaining initiations that are followed by prospected responses, the results are likely to be inconsistent: the interrupting turn is counted towards participatory dominance but it is not counted towards sequential dominance. The assumption that sequential dominance is a stronger indicator of conversational dominance than participatory dominance and quantitative dominance is therefore supported by qualitative analysis of the data.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 6
Conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer Informatives
6.1 Introduction The empirical study reported in Chapter 4 found that on the dimension of sequential dominance, which has been identified as the stronger indicator of conversational dominance, men tend to be less dominant in L2 than in L1. Table 6.1 reminds us of the results. In Dyad 1, M performed 24 SSCAs and F performed 17 SSCAs in L1. In L2, M performed 11 SSCAs and F performed 22 SSCAs. M therefore performed 7 more SSCAs than F in L1 but 11 fewer than F in L2. M therefore dominated F in L1 but was dominated in L2. Dyad 2 and Dyad 6 are similar to Dyad 1 in that M dominated F in L1 but was dominated in L2. In all three dyads, F was more dominant in L2 than in L1. Subtracting the difference between M’s and F’s number of SSCAs in L1 (column 4) from that in L2 (column 7) for each dyad shows that the degree of increase in F’s dominance varies from dyad to dyad. Table 6.1Sequential dominance in L1 and L2 — number of SCAs produced by 8 male and 8 female speakers in 8 MF dyads L1
L2
L2-L1
Dyad
M
F
M-F
M
F
M-F
[M-F (L2)] − [M-F (L1)]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
24 18 12 16 14 26 19 23
17 17 21 18 20 11 13 15
−7 −1 −9 −2 −6 15 −6 −8
11 11 6 16 14 14 19 15
22 17 27 13 14 15 17 11
−11 −6 −21 −3 −0 −1 −2 −4
−18 −7 −12 −5 −6 −16 −4 −4
130 Conversational Dominance and Gender
In sum, column 8 in Table 6.1 shows that the male speakers were less dominant in L2 than in L1 in all the dyads except Dyads 4 and 5. Dyads 1 and 6 are the most extreme cases of this in that (a) the shift from M’s dominance in L1 to F’s dominance in L2 is greatest and (b) the asymmetrical relationship is reversed in L1 and L2: the male speaker dominated the female speaker in L1 but was dominated by the female speaker in L2. In this chapter, I will examine more closely the possible meanings of these patterns by examining Dyads 1 and 6 where the difference is greatest. In particular, I will explore the possibility that they are related to differences in the transferability of male and female conversational styles to L2. Conversational style refers to the ways in which speakers deal with their interlocutors and the values that they place on conversation. Certain conversational styles have been associated with male speakers while others have been associated with female speakers. Men’s conversational styles have been described in terms of characteristics such as competitiveness and separateness. They are also said to value individuality, status and independence. Women’s conversational style has been described in terms of characteristics such as high involvement and intimacy, and they are said to value collectivity, and solidarity (see for example, Coates, 1996; 1997; Maltz and Borker, 1984; Tannen, 1984; 1986; 1990; 1994). Male conversational goals are said to include telling monologues and displaying knowledge, while women prefer to share stories and establish rapport and closeness. These goals are achieved by means of conversational strategies, or characteristic actions that speakers employ at various interactional levels such as turn-taking, interrupting and questioning. Conversational styles may also be described as self-oriented or otheroriented. Speakers with a self-oriented style will tend to develop topics singlehandedly and pursue topics that they wish to develop. Speakers with an otheroriented style will tend to develop topics collaboratively and help their interlocutors to pursue topics that they wish to develop. Although strategies associated with self-oriented and other-oriented styles may be employed by male or female speakers, it has been argued that male speakers tend to have a self-oriented style, while female speakers tend to have an other-oriented style. Self-oriented and other-oriented conversational styles may be more or less easily transferred from L1 to L2, if the strategies associated with them require different degrees of linguistic skill and pragmatic competence in L2. For example, if self-oriented strategies require an ability to produce longer and more complex sentences or skills to maintain coherence, they may be less easily transferred to L2 than other-oriented strategies. As a result, speakers whose
Conversational dominance: Informatives
dominance in L1 is based on the use of self-oriented styles may be less dominant in L2 because their L1 strategies are less easily transferred. The relationship between conversational styles and dominance in L1 and L2 in my data will be examined by focusing on how the male speakers and the female speakers develop topic by using initiations. As a starting point, I will sub-categorise the initiations observed in the two dyads, as different initiation types may be related to different conversational styles and strategies. For example, questions are said to be associated with both self-oriented and otheroriented conversational styles (Coates, 1993; 1996; 1997; Holmes, 1984; 1995; Maltz and Borker, 1982). Men are said to use them to seek information or to demonstrate their power and expertise, while women are described as using questions to encourage the addressee to talk. Statements, on which story-telling is built, can also be self-oriented or other-oriented (Coates, 1987; 1996; 1997; Tannen, 1990; 1994). In categorising the initiations, I will use Tsui’s (1994) system, which is currently the most refined categorisation of interactional moves. In her system, initiation moves are divided into four classes of acts: elicitations, requestives, directives and informatives. These are further divided into sub-classes. The class of elicitation is, for example, subdivided into elicit:agree, elicit:inform and so on. The initiation types that I will follow are informative, elicit:agree and elicit:inform. I will suggest that differences in the distribution of types of initiations between male and female speakers in L1 and L2 are related to their conversational styles. The male speakers tend to use self-oriented initiations to develop chains of initiations on topics that they wish to develop, while the female speakers tend to use ‘other-oriented’ initiations to help their interlocutors develop those topics. The differences in the distribution of types of initiations will also be related to the different conversational goals of the speakers. The male speakers in the two dyads examined tend to use initiations to attain the conversational goals of telling a story about self (Dyad 1) or claiming expertise (Dyad 6). In contrast, the female speakers tend to use initiations to attain the conversational goal of collaborating with the male interlocutor. The pattern of reversal of relationships of dominance from L1 to L2 in these two dyads will be discussed in terms of different degrees of transferability of the conversational strategies employed within these styles.
131
132
Conversational Dominance and Gender
6.2 Gender differences in the use of initiations in L1 and L2 In order to find out whether different types of initiations are differently distributed between M and F in Dyads 1 and 6, the initiations produced by each speaker in L1 and L2 are categorised in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 according to the system developed by Tsui (1994). Table 6.2Categorisation of initiations produced by M and F in L1 and L2 in Dyad 1 M1’s no. of initiations
F1’s no. of initiations
L1
L2
Difference [L2−L1]
L1
L2
Difference [L2−L1]
Elicit:agree Elicit:inform Informative Others
8 4 8 4
0 2 5 4
−8 −2 −3 0
5 7 4 1
0 7 8 7
−5 −0 −4 −6
Total no. of initiations
24
11
−13
17
22
−5
In Dyad 1, M1 makes 24 initiations in L1 and 11 in L2, while F1 makes 17 in L1 and 22 in L2. M1 makes 13 fewer initiations in L2, while F1 makes 5 more initiations in L2. Three major subcategories, two types of ‘elicitations’ (elicit: agree and elicit:inform) and ‘informative’ are found. Elicitations are described by Tsui (ibid.: 65–89) as utterances which prospect an obligatory verbal response or non-verbal surrogate, while informatives are described as utterances that not only provide information, but also report events and states of affairs, convey evaluative judgements, and express feelings and attitudes (ibid. 135–155). Elicit:agrees invite the addressee to agree with the speaker’s assumption that an expressed proposition is self-evidently true, while elicit:informs invite the addressee to supply a piece of information. Other subcategories of initiations such as ‘elicit:repeat’ and ‘elicit:clarify’ (see ibid.: 88–89 for their definitions) and advice moves (ibid.: 122–123) are grouped together as ‘others’ because they are not frequent in the data. Table 6.2 shows that the behaviour of M1 and F1 across L1 and L2 shows similarity in terms of their use of elicit:agrees. M1 makes 8 elicit:agrees in L1 but none in L2. Similarly, F1 makes 5 elicit:agrees in L1 but none in L2. M1 and F1 differ, however, in terms of their use of elicit:informs and informatives. M1 makes 4 elicit:informs in L1 and 2 in L2, while F1 makes 7 in both L1 and in L2.
Conversational dominance: Informatives
M1’s number of elicit:informs is therefore greater in L1 than in L2, while F1 makes an equal number in L1 and L2. It is also noted that M1 makes a smaller number of elicit:informs than F1 in both L1 and L2. M1 has 4 and F1 has 7 in L1, while M1 has 2 and F1 has 7 in L2. As for informatives, M1 makes 8 in L1 and 5 in L2, while F1 makes 4 in L1 and 8 L2. M1’s number of informatives is greater in L1, while F1’s number is greater in L2. In sum, 1. Both M1 and F1 make several elicit:agrees in L1 but they do not produce any in L2. 2. M1 makes fewer elicit:informs in L2 than in L1 while F1 makes the same number of elicit:informs in L1 and L2. Also, M1 makes fewer elicit:informs than F1 in both L1 and L2. 3. M1 makes fewer informatives in L2 than in L1 while F1 makes more in L2 than in L1. The reason why M1 is dominant in L1 but F1 is dominant in L2 may, therefore, be explained as follows. 8 out of M1’s 24 initiations in L1 consist of elicit:agrees but he does not produce any at all in L2. He also makes fewer elicit:inform and informative moves in L2 than in L1. F1 is similar to M1 in that she does not produce any elicit:agrees in L2. However, despite her non-production of elicit:agrees, her total number of initiations in L2 is greater than in L1 because she produces more of other types such as informative moves. In addition, her number of elicit:informs, which comprise the largest group of her initiations in L1, is not reduced in L2. Table 6.3 shows the same categorisation for Dyad 6. In Dyad 6, M6 makes 26 initiations in L1 and 14 in L2, while F6 makes 11 in L1 and 15 in L2. As in Dyad 1, M6 makes more initiations in L1 than in L2, while F6 makes more
Table 6.3Categorisation of initiations produced by M and F in L1 and L2 in Dyad 6 M6’s no. of initiations
F6’s no. of initiations
L1
L2
Difference [L2−L1]
L1
L2
Difference [L2−L1]
Elicit:agree Elicit:inform Informative Others
6 0 16 4
0 2 10 2
−6 −2 −6 −2
3 3 4 1
0 3 6 6
−3 −0 −2 −5
Total no. of initiations
26
14
−12
11
15
−4
133
134 Conversational Dominance and Gender
initiations in L2 than in L1. As for each category of initiations, Table 6.3 shows that: for elicit:agrees 1. Both M6 and F6 make several elicit:agrees in L1 but they do not produce any in L2. for informatives 1. M6 makes 16 informatives in L1 and 10 in L2, while F6 makes 4 in L1 and 6 in L2. M6 therefore makes fewer informatives in L2 than in L1 whereas F6 makes more in L2 than in L1. 2. To compare the relationship between M6 and F6 in each language, M6 and F6 make 16 and 4 in L1 and 10 and 6 in L2, respectively. M6 therefore makes considerably more informatives than F6 in both L1 and L2. 3. Informatives are prominent in M6’s L1 (16 out of 26) and L2 (10 out of 14), while they are less prominent in F6’s L1 (4 out of 11) and L2 (6 out of 15). for elicit:informs 1. M6 makes no elicit:informs in L1 and he makes 2 in L2 while F6 makes 3 in L1 and 3 in L2. M6 therefore makes more elicit:informs in L2 than in L1 whereas F6 makes the same number in L1 and L2. 2. To compare the relationship between M6 and F6 in each language, M6 makes no elicit:informs and F6 makes 3 in L1. In L2, M6 makes 2 and F6 makes 3. F6 therefore makes more elicit:informs than M6 in both L1 and L2. The reversed relationship between M6 and F6 across L1 and L2 may, therefore, be explained as follows. M6 dominates F6 in L1 but is dominated by her in L2 because he produces 12 fewer initiations in L2 while she produces 4 more. Both M6 and F6 make elicit:agrees in L1 and neither makes any in L2. However, while this reduces M6’s total number of initiations (from 26 in L1 to 14 in L2), it does not lead a reduction in the total number of F6’s initiations (from 11 in L1 to 15 in L2). The fact that non-production of elicit:agrees leads to a reduction in M6’s total number of initiations, but does not do so in F6’s total number in L2 can be explained as follows. While M6 produces no elicit:agrees in L2, he also produces 6 fewer informatives. Although he makes 2 more elicit:informs in L2, this is not enough to maintain the same total number of initiations in L2. In contrast, although F6 does not produce any elicit:agrees in L2, her total number of initiations in L2 (15) is greater than in L1 (11) in part because she produces 2 more informatives in L2 (4 in L1 and 6 in L2).
Conversational dominance: Informatives
Tables 6.2 and 6.3, therefore, show two striking differences between L1 and L2 in both dyads. First, elicit:agrees for both male and female speakers are confined to L1. This, combined with fewer informatives leads to the reduction in the male speakers’ controlling moves in L2. Second, the non-production of elicit:agrees in L2 does not lead to a reduction in the female speakers’ controlling moves because they produce other types of initiations such as informative and elicit:informs. In this and the following chapters, I will argue that (1) the male and female speakers’ different use of informatives, elicit:agrees and elicit:informs is related to their different interactional styles (self- and other-oriented, respectively), (2) the speakers’ use of informatives, elicit:agrees or elicit:informs to attain their interactional goals can be seen as a basis for dominance in these conversations, and (3) the strategy of using elicit:informs is more likely to be transferred to L2 than that of using informatives and elicit:agrees. I will proceed with this by examining how the following moves are produced and used during L1 and L2 in Dyads 1 and 6: informatives (Section 6.3), elicit:agrees (Section 7.1) and elicit:informs (Section 7.2).
6.3 Informatives 6.3.1 Introduction Informatives are defined by Tsui as a broad category of initiation moves which “covers not only utterances which provide information, but also those which report events or states of affairs, recount personal experience, and express beliefs, evaluative judgements, feelings, and thoughts” (1994: 135). Below are some examples of informatives from Tsui (ibid.: 135): (a) Æ S: John Fraser is a personal friend of ours, Michael went to school with him. G: Oh really. (b) Æ K: I think he’s a y’know serious scholar, he’s got his own little thing. X: Yeah, he’s he IS very scholarly.
135
136 Conversational Dominance and Gender
(c) Æ A: I I still feel very embarrassed about the fact that you weren’t introdu- introduced to him. B: Mm - well, well, no worry, that’s that’s the way, = [ () B: = yeah. A: Alright.
The arrowed utterances in these examples are described as (a) a piece of factual information, (b) the speaker’s evaluative judgement of the referent ‘he’ and (c) the speaker’s feeling towards a past event. Although informatives can have various contents, all proffer a proposition which has not been prospected rather than a proposition given as a response to a preceding elicit:inform. Stenström (1994: 51–52) states that statements (informatives) can form ‘chaining sequences’ or ‘supporting sequences’ and gives the following examples (with simplified transcription): (d) chaining sequence A: not only is there a green light showing up a man - walking but there’s pip pip pip pip pip pip pip pip pip B: That’s true I’ve come across those I didn’t know what they were for A: Well that’s it they’re for people with poor sight B: Yeah (e) supporting sequence A: … and I was quite honest about it I said you know I I haven’t used one for years and they said you’re just the person we want because ((the)) person who hasn’t used one ((and)) B: M A: Has to have it all demonstrated will understand the problems B: M A: Better than an expert so I did the thing… B: mm
In a ‘chaining sequence’, the same speaker (A) makes a series of statements (informatives) and the other speaker (B) responds to them. In a ‘supporting sequence’ the speaker (A) makes a series of statements, which the interlocutor (B) supports with backchannel expressions (Goffman, 1974). According to Stenström, the two speakers’ contributions in chaining sequences tend to be fairly equal in length. However, Speaker A can be seen as
Conversational dominance: Informatives
playing the more dominant role in terms of topic development by making initiations. A ‘supporting sequence’ is described as the clearest case of the storyteller’s domination, because, although expressions such as ‘mhm’ and ‘uhhuh’ are ambiguous in the sense that the recipient during story telling may either be collaborating with the storyteller or withholding collaboration (Schegloff, 1982: 86), the story-teller clearly controls the topic. I will use the term ‘chain’ to refer to informatives used in both chaining and supporting sequences. Because such chains are an effective way of keeping the topic to subjects that the speaker wishes to develop, I will describe the initiations used to produce them as self-oriented. In the following sections, I will discuss the L2 data before the L1 data because the L2 conversations took place before the L1 conversations and in some cases this is relevant to the flow of topic across the two conversations. 6.3.2 Dyad 1 In dyad 1, the speakers first talked about their travelling experiences in L2. In L1, they switched to the topic of their university life, which they had started a few months prior to the recording. They discussed various issues, including problems with their courses and with commuting to the university. Although M1 uses chains of self-oriented informatives to develop and control topic in L1, he is less able to do so in L2, where he relies upon F1’s other-oriented initiations. This difference appears to explain M1’s weaker dominance in L2. 6.3.2.1L2 In L2, M1 makes 5 informatives out of a total of 11 initiations, while F1 makes 8 informatives out of a total of 22 initiations. M1, therefore, makes fewer informatives than F1, but they represent a larger proportion of his initiations. M1 uses most of his informatives to tell a story about his travel experiences, which are directly relevant to the topic of conversation they have chosen. M1’s use of informatives reminds us of the point made by Tannen (1990; see Section 2.2.4) that men tend not to support the interlocutor but to lead the conversation so that they can take the centre stage by telling a story. His use of informatives is limited, however, to recounting the facts of past experiences (see Tsui’s definition above).
137
138
Conversational Dominance and Gender
(1) M1 is telling F1 about his school trip1 [English] 20M1: el:inf
21F1: R 22M1: inf 23F1: ack el:inf 24M1: R 25F1: F 26M1: inf 27F1: el:cla 28M1: R 29F1: ack el:inf 30M1: R 31F1: 32M1: 33F1: 34M1: 35F1:
el:conf R F inf ack
Mm my interesting experiences about travel is erm when I was mm 16 - mm 16 erm I ah do you know Kasukabe? Yes! I know very much because I live in Saitama ((laughs)) Ah I, I go to ah I went to Kujuukuri. Yes. Att in Chiba Prefecture? Mm mm from Kasukabe. Oh. By bicycle. Bicycle!? Haa (=yes) Haa (=oh I see) Ah how long did you take from your house to Kujuukuri? Kujuukuri mm it takes mm ah three a.m to three p.m. ((pause)) Twelve hours? On (=yes) ah with some ah stop. Ah yeah yeah yeah ah. But twelve hours. It’s too long!=
In this excerpt, M1 develops the topic of his travel experiences by creating a chain of self-oriented ‘report’ informatives2 (turns 22, 26 and 34) and response to F1’s elicitations (turns 23 and 27, 29 and 31), stating the facts of what happened. M1’s story telling is facilitated by F1’s elicitations, which provide him with the chance to report his past experiences in the form of responses and can therefore be described as other-oriented.
1.Numbering of turns from this chapter onwards corresponds to the location within the 100 turns of the conversation, which were used for the quantitative analysis in Chapter 4, in order to retain sequential significance. 2.Report is defined by Tsui (1994: 138) as a type of informative that gives “account of certain events, states of affairs, or personal experiences in the past, present, or future”.
Conversational dominance: Informatives 139
In contrast to M1, F1 includes her personal feelings and opinions in her reports of her own past experiences in addition to the facts of what happened. However, F1’s way of recounting her experience does not receive M1’s support with consequence that her informatives are not developed into chains, which also reminds us of the point made by Tannen (1990) that men tend not to support their interlocutors: (2) M1 and F1 are discussing their travel experiences. [English] 53F1: inf
I don’t have such experience but - mm last, last winter? I went to Nagano? Nagano to ski with my friend. It is very good. It was very good. 54M1: ack Ah. ((pause)) 55F1: X Ah… 56M1: el:inf Att where do you ah where did you go ah high school erm graduating travel? (continued in Excerpt 3)
In turn 53 in this excerpt, F1 gives a report of her trip to Nagano. In contrast to M1, F1 uses rising intonation during her turn, which suggests that she is checking whether she is gaining M1’s attention and therefore trying to involve M1 in the telling of her story (for the use of rising intonation, see Britain, 1992). However, M1 does not provide ‘other-oriented’ questions to invite F1 into talk and extend the topic under discussion (Coates, 1996, Holmes, 1984, 1995). He instead produces an elicitation which shifts the topic (turn 56). F1’s informative in turn 53 is therefore not further developed. Excerpts 3 and 4 show a similar pattern: (3) (continued from Excerpt 2) F1 is talking about Toba (a place in Japan), where she visited for her graduating trip. [English] 56M1: el:inf 57F1: el:rep 58M1: ReI 59F1: R el:inf 60M1: el:cla
Att where do you ah where did you go ah high school erm graduating travel? Yes yes yes yes, att where? Where? Kyoto? Att Kyoto and Toba. Do you know Toba? Toba Toba Fushimi no Toba (=Toba, Toba, you mean Toba in Fushimi?)
140 Conversational Dominance and Gender
61F1: R 62M1: F 63F1: inf
Ah near Ise, near Ise. Ah Ise. Ah Toba has a Pearl, Pearl Island, Mikimoto Pearl Island. 64M1: ack Mm. 65F1: el:inf Yes where did you go? 66M1: R I, I went to Nara, Kyoto, Osaka, Kobe. 67F1: inf Ah Kansai area. 68M1: ack Kansai area. (continued in Excerpt 4)
In turn 63 in this excerpt, F1 uses an informative to give a report of her graduation trip. However, she does not receive any encouraging move from M1which would allow her to expand on her story (turn 64). F1 then makes an elicitation to switch the topic from her travelling experience to his (turn 65). A similar pattern is observed in Excerpt (4), which is a continuation from Excerpt (3): (4) (continued from Excerpt 3) F1 is talking about different experiences of school trip at junior high school and senior high school. [English] 69F1: inf
70M1: 71F1: 72M1: 73F1:
ack F TP inf
74M1: inf
Ah so erm but er in junior high school I went to Kyoto and in high school I went to Kyoto too but there were very difference because in junior high school we have to ah we had to go somewhere with class. Class. Yes. Ah. But in high school we could go everywhere we want to with my friends? so ah it’s good. ((pause)) I, I went - I went Kooshien stadium on (=yes) erm without erm no, no, no, erm it is - ah…
In turn 69, F1 introduces the topic of her school trips at junior high school and senior high school. Following this, M1 does not produce an ‘other-oriented’ elicitation to encourage her to give further details. In turn 73, F1 uses an informative to talk about her school trip at senior high school. As in turn 53, her rising intonation at the end of the first clause suggests that she is checking whether the interlocutor is with her or not and she also adds her evaluation of her experience. However, F1’s topic is not developed because it does not receive
Conversational dominance: Informatives
any acknowledgement from M1. Instead of acknowledging F1’s informative or giving an elicitation that might allow her to expand on her story, M1 in turn 74 uses a new informative to switch the topic to his own travelling experiences. In addition to recounting past experiences, F1 also makes ‘assessments’, which are defined by Tsui (1994: 142) as “a subclass of informatives in which the speaker asserts his judgement or evaluation of certain people, objects, events, states of affairs, and so on”. Assessments are often used to relate the speaker’s turn to the interlocutor’s story, or expand on it. Assessments of this kind can be described as ‘other-oriented’ in the sense that they support the interlocutor’s control over topic development. F1 uses two kinds of assessments: assessment of third persons appearing in the interlocutor’s story and friendly criticism of the interlocutor: (a) Assessment of third persons appearing in the interlocutors’ story (5) M1 and F1 have been talking about M1’s long distance cycling trip. [English] 41F1: el:inf 42M1: R 43F1: inf 44M1: ack
Did you do by att with your friends? With my gymnastics club friend, five people mm. But I think gymnastic members tough? Tough and strong, so they, they I think they could easily. Mm.
In turn 43, F1 makes an assessment of M1’s friends: since they belong to the gymnastic club, they should have been able to complete the cycling tour easily. Her informative helps M1 to expand on his story. (b) Criticism (6) M1 and F1 are discussing their experiences of school trips. Prior to this excerpt, M1 has told F1 that he and his friends did not follow their teacher’s instruction to visit places within Kyoto but instead went to Koshien (= a baseball stadium) in Kobe to watch a baseball game. [English] 81M1: X 82F1: CO 83M1: CO 84F1: ack el:inf 85M1: R
Att teacher says ah you go, you and group, you go only in Kyoto but ah-ah we you went to-Kooshien. Kooshien. Att where is the Kooshien? Erm Kobe.
141
142 Conversational Dominance and Gender
86F1: F inf 87M1: ack 88F1: F
Kobe mm. Ah you are bad student ((laughs)) On (=yes). Haan (=I see).
In Excerpt (6), M1 is telling a story about his school trip. Despite his teacher’s instruction to arrange trips within Kyoto in groups, his group went to see a baseball match in Kooshien stadium in Kobe. In turn 86 F1’s critical comment ‘You are bad student’ is conveyed through an informative which is acknowledged by M1. F1’s assessment can again be seen as contributing to M1’s story about his school trip. These assessments show that F1 both orients towards and evaluates the details of her interlocutor’s story. There are no corresponding examples of assessments found for M1. F1 also uses informatives in order to reinforce advice: (7) M1 and F1 are discussing their travel experiences. [English] 3M1: inf 4F1: 5M1: X 6F1: ack adv 7M1: comp 8F1:
inf
I want to go to Rome. ((laughs)) On (=yes). Yes. Oon (=right) Roma but un (=yes) if you want to go to Italy, you have to study Italian? Oon (=right). ((pause)) Fortunately this college has-, have a Italian course, a course ah - second and third st-, for second and third student - ah second language yeah.
In turn 6, F1 gives an ‘advice’ move, which is defined by Tsui (1994: 122) as “a directive which advocates a course of action for the benefit of the addressee, and in which the consequence of compliance is desirable”. With a rising intonation, she suggests that he should learn Italian if he wants to visit Rome. F1’s informative in turn 8 supports the earlier advice move by giving information which may help M1 to do this (he can take an Italian course offered at the university). F1 again relates her informatives to M1’s preceding utterances. Both the advice and informative moves are other-oriented in the sense that they encourage M1 to continue to talk about his trip to Italy.
Conversational dominance: Informatives 143
M1’s and F1’s use of informatives in L2 can be said to illustrate a distinction between men’s and women’s conversational style. The discussion in this section suggests that self-oriented initiations enable the speaker to raise or continue to speak on a topic that he or she wishes to develop, while other-oriented initiations support the interlocutor’s development of the current topic. M1’s informatives are chained together to create a story about his experience by recounting the facts of his past experiences. However, the chain depends upon F1’s elicit:informs or other-oriented questions. In contrast, F1’s informatives tend to have rising intonation, which suggests that she wishes to collaborate in M1’s story telling, or are assessments which expand on M1’s story. Unlike M1, F1 does not attempt to create chains of informatives to shift the topic to her own concerns but rather uses informatives to expand on M1’s story. M1’s style may be described as self-oriented because he tends to use initiations, if only in a limited way, to pursue the construction of his story. F1’s style may be described as other-oriented because she tends to use informatives to help her interlocutor develop topics by expanding on them. F1’s dominance in L2 can be seen as being partly based on her strategy of using informatives in this way. On the other hand, M1’s non-dominance in L2 seems partly to be related to the fact that the chain of informatives that holds his story together is created with the assistance of F1’s informatives and elicit: informs. I will elaborate on this distinction in the following sections. For the moment, I will note that F1’s dominance over M1 in L2 appears to be partly related to her ‘other-oriented’ style and her successful use of a strategy of using a variety of initiation types in collaborative topic development. 6.3.2.2L1 In L1, M1 produced 8 informatives out of a total of 24 initiations (3 more than in L2) and F1 produced 4 out of a total of 17 initiations (4 less than in L2). As in L2, M1’s informatives tend to be self-oriented. However, in contrast to L2, where M1’s informatives tend to be short, simple in grammatical structure and limited to recounting factual information, in L1 he uses longer informatives with more complex grammatical structures and with a wider range of functions (including complaints and expressions of personal difficulties) in L1. For example:
144 Conversational Dominance and Gender
(8) In response to F1’s question about whether he intends to attend his classes regularly: [Japanese] 72M1: inf … Dakara ie toka, nani, ie toka de sa “Ee yooshi kyoo wa iku zoo. Ganbaru zoo” toka tte omotte. Dakara ie de 1 nichi no koto kangaeru to “Ganbareru ganbatte iku zo” to omou n da kedo jissai ne tsugi, tsugi jugyoo ni naru to ne “Aa doo shiyoo ka naa. Bootto shite yoo ka na” ttee. Ikenai ne. Yokunai yo. [translation] 72M1: inf … So at home er at home I swear to myself, “Yes! I am going to attend. I will do my best” or something like that. I mean, when I think about a stretch of my day at home, I feel I want to do my best and attend but when the time comes to attend the next, next class, I feel, “Well, what shall I do? Maybe I just daydream” or something like that. It’s bad, isn’t it? It’s not good, you know.
In this excerpt, M1 expresses his personal feelings and thoughts about his attendance at classes. We may also note that, in comparison to his reports of his travelling experiences in L2 (e.g., Excerpts 1 and 7), this is a long turn including reported speech, complex sentences (e.g., “Dakara ie de 1 nichi no koto kangaeru to…” (English translation: “when I think about a stretch of my day at home…”) and compound sentences (e.g., “kedo jissai ne tsugi tsugi jugyoo ni naru to…” (English translation: “but when the time comes to attend the next, next class …”). M1 also controls the development of the topic by expressing his feelings and thoughts, for example: (9) M1 and F1 are discussing a teacher at their university who says that students’ attendance at his lectures is voluntary but nonetheless checks their attendance by giving them occasional essays that count as attendance. [Japanese] 16F1: inf
17M1: inf
Ato nanka shakaigaku no sensee ne, nanii, “Daigakusee da kara sabotte mo ii desu” toka itte n noo. Demoo tama ni shooronbun o kaitt-, nukiuchi ppoku yatte sore ga shusseki ni narimasu toka itte wake wakannakute saa. Itteru koto to chigau yonaa.
Conversational dominance: Informatives
18F1: ack X 19M1: inf
20F1: ack 21M1: el:agr 22F1: agree [translation] 16F1: inf
17M1: inf 18F1: ack X 19M1: inf
20F1: ack 21M1: el:agr 22F1: agree
Nn. Dakara sensee ga nee… [ Deteru bun ni wa ii n daroo kedo saa. Maa nee. Taihen da yo nee, honto ni. Nn. And er sociology teacher, you know, er he said, “Since you are university students, it’s up to you whether you attend my lectures or not”. But he sometimes writ(e)-, gives a short essay without any advance notice, and says that it counts as the attendance. I can’t make any sense of it. It’s really different from what he says. Yes. So teachers… [ It will probably be all right if you are already attending his lectures, though. That’s right. It’s hard, isn’t it?, really hard. Yes.
In Excerpt (9), M1 begins to complain about the teacher via an informative in turn 17. In turn 18, F1 makes an acknowledgement and begins to make her own initiation, but in turn 19, M1 interrupts with another informative to continue his complaint. Thus, M1 uses an informative to keep the topic to his concerns. His control over the development of the topic is achieved by making informatives of this kind that are followed by acknowledgements and an elicit:agree, through which he creates a chain of informatives. While M1 frequently uses informatives in this way, F1’s use of informatives is more limited. The largest group of F1’s initiations in L1 consists of elicit:informs that help M1 to talk about himself. As in L2, M1’s use of informatives in L1 may be described as ‘self-oriented’. But in L1, his ability to use the strategy of chaining informatives means that he also dominates the conversation in interactional terms. In contrast, F1’s more ‘other-oriented’ style seems to lead her to give acknowledgements to M1’s informatives and make fewer informatives of her own.
145
146 Conversational Dominance and Gender
6.3.2.3Summary In both L1 and L2, informatives are prominent among M1’s initiations and he uses them to develop topics related to his experiences. This supports the point made by Tannen (1990; 1994) and others that men tend to create stories about themselves rather than help their female interlocutors to create their stories. M1’s interactional style can, therefore, be characterised as ‘self-oriented’ in both L1 and L2. However, M1 uses informatives in different ways in L1 and L2. While he relies on F1’s other-oriented initiations to develop his story in L2, in L1 he is able to create chains of informatives without their help. M1 also uses functionally and syntactically more complex informatives in L1. M1’s dominance in L1 is, therefore, related to his self-oriented interactional style and specifically to his use of the strategy of chaining informatives to maintain topics. It may also be related to his strategy of interrupting F1’s informatives with his own and his ability to formulate syntactically and functionally complex informatives expressing his feelings and thoughts, which may be more effective in creating chains of informatives than those that simply report past events. Although M1 exhibits a similar self-oriented interactional style in L2, he appears unable to make use of the same strategies to dominate the conversation. F1’s dominant status in L2 appears to be partly related to her ‘otheroriented’ style of making informatives that expand on the interlocutor’s story and of making elicit:informs to encourage the interlocutor to expand on his story. Her non-dominance in L1 also seems to be related to her ‘other-oriented’ interactional style of collaborating with M1’s story-telling. She tends to make acknowledgements in response to his preceding informatives and make informatives of her own only to the extent that she does not inhibit the development of M1’s story. In other words, in L1 conversation M1 talks while F1 listens, but in L2, M1’s talk must be drawn out by F1, which allows her much more control over the development of the topic. 6.3.3 Dyad 6 Dyad 6 is similar to Dyad 1 in that change in the relationship of dominance between the male speaker and the female speaker across L1 and L2 appears to be related to M6’s tendency to use self-oriented informatives. In this dyad, the speakers are concerned with the topic of how to improve their English in both their L2 and L1 conversations. This mutual concern leads to their comparing travelling experiences in L2, where it is revealed that M6’s length of stay abroad is longer than F6’s. This gives M6 a basis to play the role of ‘expert’, which has
Conversational dominance: Informatives 147
been described as characteristic of men’s conversational style (Section 2.2.4). While he tends to use informatives successfully to play this role in L1, his attempts to claim expertise are less successful in L2. 6.3.3.1L2 In L2 conversation, M6 produced 10 informatives out of a total of 14 initiations and F6 produced 6 out of a total of 15. As in Dyad 1, informatives represent a higher proportion of the total initiations for M6 than for F6. M6 uses informatives mainly to relate his experience of learning English to his experience of travelling abroad, especially his encounters with native speakers of English: (10) Prior to this excerpt, M6 has talked about his plan to travel in Australia in the upcoming summer holiday and his economical way of travelling in Australia (by staying in cheap hotels and cooking for himself). [English] 90F6: el:inf 91M6: X 92F6: ReI 93M6: R inf 94F6: ack 95M6: inf
96F6: ack 97M6: inf 98F6: ack
So no Japanese? ((pause)) Erm… Except you. I don’t think so. Many Japanese people there, but depends, depends how you live there. Mm. Mm if you try to talk to western people, they are very friendly, but if you don’t say, “How are you?” to them, they don’t open their mind. Once they open their mind, they’re really, can, can be good friend to you because I used to play baseball with Australians or some people and if I didn’t say, “Nice to meet you”, they didn’t say, they never said, they never said, “Hello!” or anything but once I said, “Nice to meet you”, they can be really good friend of you. Oh really? Mm nice nice people. Ah.
In turns 90 and 92, F6 asks M6 whether there will be Japanese people in the place he plans to visit (a common concern for Japanese learners of English who wish to travel abroad to improve their English). In turn 93, M6 states that he
148 Conversational Dominance and Gender
thinks that there willl be. But in the following initiations he says that this is not necessarily a disadvantage if the Japanese learners of English are prepared to open themselves up to native speakers of English. In turn 93, he therefore uses an informative to switch the topic from ‘the places he plans to visit in Australia’ to ‘how to increase opportunities to use English’, which can be seen as the beginning of establishing his expertise on the topic of ‘how to improve English’. In turn 95, M6 uses another informative to develop the topic of his past experience of contact with native speakers of English, which can be seen as a continuing attempt to construct expertise. His claim to expertise appears to be accepted by F6 in the following turns (96 to 98). Although M6 successfully uses self-oriented informatives to develop topic in Excerpt (10), his attempts earlier in the conversation tend to fail due to (a) his failure to create chains of informatives and (b) F6’s challenging moves as can be seen from the following:
Failure to create chains via informatives (11) Prior to this excerpt, M6 has been talking about his travel experience in Australia. [English] 46F6: X
47M6: 48F6: 49M6: 50F6: 51M6: 52F6:
el:inf R F inf ack F inf
53M6: 54F6: 55M6: 56F6: 57M6:
inf ack F adv inf
58F6:
Ah my experience is very good, in Canada um just… [ Which part of Canada did you go, Toronto? North Vancouver, British Columbia. Ah. It’s the sister city of Chiba city. I see. Yes. And everyone is very good to me ((laughs)) because there is only four students go to the Vancouver. I’ve got a friend in Vancouver. Really. Mm. Vancouver is very good. I can recommend it ((laughs)) No, I’ve never been there so I’m, I’d like to go if am staying at university, if I get money. ((laughs))
Conversational dominance: Informatives 149
59M6: el:inf
But this time of ( ? ) what are you going to do summer holiday?
In turn 53, M6 shifts the topic from F6’s experience of travelling in Vancouver to his friend there. But, in turn 55 he gives only a follow-up move to F6’s acknowledgement rather than an informative which would allow him to develop this topic. In turn 56, F6 then makes an advice move, thus claiming her own expertise on the best places to travel abroad based on her past experience. Her claim is not developed, however, because of a further topic shift by M6 (turn 59). Prior to this excerpt, M6 has described his experience of staying abroad as ‘hard’. F6 in turn 46 describes her own experience as ‘good’. This may have given her the confidence to attempt to create a chain of informatives around her travelling experience.
Challenging moves F6’s challenging moves in L2 also inhibit M6 from creating chains of informatives. In Excerpt (12), for example, F6 prevents M6 from developing a topic by using a challenging move: (12) M6 and F6 are talking about their summer plans. [English] 64F6: inf 65M6: ack inf
66F6: 67M6: 68F6: 70M6: 71F6: 72M6:
ch {?} inf ack inf ack
I want to go abroad but - when my English ability is getting better ((laughs)) Yeah yeah, I think you should go to - abroad - yeah I think best way to improve your English is to - me too, you know, this summer holiday I’m going to Australia again for one and a half month - will help me to improve my English again. But it costs ((laughs)) ( ? ) So, so first I should work this summer and next summer. Yeah, will do. Next summer. Yeah.
In turn 65, M6 shifts the topic from F6’s travel plans to his own and begins to comment on the best way to improve English, but F6 responds with a challenging move. In turn 68, F6 continues to talk about her own plans for the summer. M6 is therefore prevented from developing the topic on this occasion.
150 Conversational Dominance and Gender
M6’s attempt to develop topic is also prevented by a challenging move that disagrees with the propositional content of his previous informative: (13) M6 is describing a remote area in Australia where he stayed. [English] 22M6: inf 23F6: ch 24M6: R 25F6: inf
Not entertainment there. ((laughs)) But it’s good because there is great nature. Mm. I love it.
M6’s informative (assessment) in turn 22 expresses a negative view of a remote area where he stayed. However, this is followed by F6’s challenging move, which appears to discourage M6 from developing the topic. In sum, the fact that the largest group of initiations for M6 consists of informatives, which he tends to use to play the role of expert on learning English, shows that he employs self-oriented conversational style. This exemplifies the point made by Tannen (1990; 1994) and others (see Section 2.2.4) that men tend to exhibit knowledge and skill to reinforce hierarchical order and boundaries between speakers. The analysis also suggests that M6 tends to use informatives to keep the topic within the area of his claimed expertise. But, although he uses informatives in order to claim expertise, he is often prevented from doing so by his failure to create chains of informatives and also because of F6’s resistance to his control, which may be related to her confidence resulting from her positive evaluation of her experience abroad. His non-dominance in L2 can, therefore, be seen as being related to his self-oriented interactional style and to his not using strategies necessary for attaining his interactional goal. 6.3.3.2L1 In L1, M6 produced 16 informatives out of a total of 26 initiations (6 more than in L2), while F6 produced 4 out of a total of 11 (2 less than in L2). As in L2, informatives represent a higher proportion of the total initiations for M6 than for F6. Also, as in L2, M6 uses informatives to play the role of expert on the subject of learning English but with greater success. Towards the beginning of their L1 conversation, M6 and F6 reintroduce the length of time they have spent abroad as a topic from their earlier L2 conversation.
Conversational dominance: Informatives
(14) [Japanese] p53 F6: p6M6: p7F6: p8M6:
Are nani, nan nen kan itta n datt-, san nn… N. 2 nen han ijoo. 2 nen han ijoo. 3 nen miman.
[translation] p5F6: Er mm how long was it, that you went, three, mm… p6M6: Mm more than two and a half years. p7F6: More than two and a half years. p8M6: Less than three years.
The interaction from turns p5 to p8 suggests that the two speakers are cooperating to establish an asymmetrical relationship of ‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’ as a basis for the development of the topic. In turn p7, F6 accepts M6’s positive presentation of the length of his stay in Australia (i.e. “more than”), while in p8 M6 ‘downgrades’ it in relation to F6’s previous turn. By using devices that are typically used in Japanese communication for complimenting, F6 indicates her respect for M6 as ‘a person who has spent a longer time abroad’ while M6 implicitly accepts it. After asking M6 about the length of his stay abroad, F6 reintroduces her own experience: (15) [Japanese] p57F6: Eego atashi wa zenzen sono nani, shimaitoshi no are ni itta tte yuu no mo, nani, shiken ga atta n da kedo nanika “Maakushiito, lucky!” toka “Nihongo no mensetsu, lucky!” toka. De Eego hotondo nakatta no ne. Dakara “Ukatta. Waa” tte itte anma shaberenakatta shi ((laughs)) p58M6: Demo 1 ka getsu ja muzukashii yo ne, nakanaka ne, Eego o masutaa shiyoo to… p59F6: [ 1 ka getsu ja nanka nantonaku nareta yoo na ki ni natta tokoro de…
3.Letter p (= prior to the corpus) is used to indicate that the excerpt is not part of the 100 turns that are used for the quantitative analysis used in Chapter 4.
151
152
Conversational Dominance and Gender
[translation] p57F6: English, for myself, no er, what can I say, I went there in connection with the sister cities. There was an exam but luckily it was a multiple choice and also luckily interviewing was in Japanese and hardly any part of it was in English, you see. So I was very happy that I passed it and went there but I couldn’t speak much ((laughs)) p58M6: But one month is difficult, isn’t it?, I mean, English, if you try to master it… [ p59F6: If it is one month, when we sort of begin to feel like getting used to the place…
Following Excerpt (14), where M6 restates that he has between two-and-a half to three years’ experience of staying abroad, F6 elaborates on her experience of visiting North Vancouver in turn p 57 but presents it in rather a negative way: she was not able to ‘speak much English’ during her stay. In turn p58, M6 recalls from their previous L2 conversation that she stayed in Canada for one month and expresses his opinion that this may be too short to improve her English. F6 agrees to this in turn p59, which implies that she also agrees that one month is not enough to have any real effect on her English because foreign students have to go back home just when they begin to get used to the environment. This contrasts with the more positive evaluation of her stay abroad given in the course of their L2 conversation (see Excerpt 11). F6’s different evaluations on the same travelling experience in L1 and L2 may be related to the fact that in L2, F6 talked about her travel experience before they began to relate the differences in the length of time they had spent abroad to their evaluations of each other’s English. In the L1 conversation, which followed their L2 conversation, F6 had become aware that her stay abroad was shorter than M6’s, who described it as not long enough to improve her English. After restating that he has a longer experience of staying abroad (Excerpt 14) and gaining F6’s agreement that her experience is too short to have any real effect on her English (Excerpt 15), M6 uses various strategies to reinforce his claim to ‘expertise’ on learning English. First, M6 relates the experience of staying abroad to good English performance by praising some of his classmates who have a number of years of experience abroad:
Conversational dominance: Informatives
(16) [Japanese] 5M6: el:agr 6F6: agr 7M6: inf 8F6:
ack
[translation] 5M6: el:agr 6F6: agree 7M6: inf 8F6:
ack
Uchi no kurasu sugee yo, nanka kikokushijo bakka jan. Nn. 10 nen ka nanka ( ? ) sundeta. 7 nen kan New York ni sundeta toka perapera nan da mon. Ett! My class is amazing, you know, er lots of kikokushijo (=returnees), you see. Yes. 10 years in ( ? ). 7 years in New York and things like that, very fluent. Wow!
Here, M6 implies that there is a correlation between students’ length of stay abroad and their fluency in English (turn 7), which is supported by F6’s expression of surprise in turn 8 (‘Ett!’ (Wow!)). In Excerpt (17), M6 also implies that ‘losing’ one’s native language during a stay abroad is related to one’s improvement of English. (17) [Japanese] 9M6: inf 10F6: X 11M6: inf
12F6: X 13M6: X 14 M6: inf 15F6 ack el:inf 16M6 R [translation] 9M6: inf 10F6: X 11M6: inf
Maitchau yo. Yatsu mo umai shi, suggee. Nn demo ( ? )… [ Yatsu ne Nihongo shaberenakute ijimerareta tte n da, mukashi. Att demo are da yo nee… [ Kaette ki-, Kaette kita bakka n toki. Fuun. A chiisai koro itteta no ka na, jaa Aa chuugakusee n toki. It’s astonishing, you know. That fellow is also really excellent. Yes, but er ( ? ) … [ He apparently got bullied because he couldn’t speak Japanese in the past.
153
154
Conversational Dominance and Gender
12F6: X 13M6: X 14M6: inf 15F6: ack el:inf 16M6: R
Well but er you know… [ Return… Just after he returned. I see. I wonder if he stayed abroad in his childhood. Ah when he was at junior high school.
By creating chains of informatives (turns 11 and 14), M6 is able to maintain control of topic and play further the role of expert. M6’s turns 9, 11 and 14 suggest that his classmate’s experience of not being able to speak Japanese is related to his excellence in English and tend to confirm their earlier agreement that F6’s short stay abroad could not have had much impact on her English (Excerpt 15). M6’s assertion of the importance of length of stay abroad leads F6 to evaluate her own experience even more negatively than earlier (Excerpt 15): (18) [Japanese] 17F6: I … Hee. Nihongo shaberenai. Sugoi yo ((laughs)) watashi nanka4 itte kaette kite mo nani goto mo nakatta ka no yoo ni. Maa 1 ka getsu da kedo Eego mo zenzen are datta shi demo sonna, nani, 1 nen ya 2 nen gurai ja nai hito mo iru n da. [translation] 17F6: I … Mm. Can’t speak Japanese. Astonishing, you know ((laughs)). Such an inadequate person like myself went and came back as if nothing had happened. Well, I went for one month but my English did not improve at all - but I see there are some students who stayed overseas for more than one or two years.
In turn 17, F6 supports M6’s correlation of the length of stay abroad and excellence in English by stating that she is amazed by M6’s classmate’s experience of not being able to speak Japanese on his return to Japan (‘Nihongo shaberenai sugoi yo’). Moreover, her use of ‘nanka’ in ‘watashi nanka itte kaette…’, which implies self-criticism, suggests that her assessment of her own
4.In Japanese, ‘nanka’ is often used after ‘watashi’ (‘me’) to provide the additional meaning of “such an inadequate, incapable or hopless person”.
Conversational dominance: Informatives
stay abroad has been lowered. In this way, M6 and F6 seem to collaborate in constructing the relative length of their stay abroad as a basis for M6’s expertise. F6 does not talk further about her experience abroad, but as the conversation develops, M6’s expertise appears to become an implicit assumption within the conversation that allows him to develop the topic of learning English without challenge from F6 or to speak with authority on the subject. This is seen when F6 asks him to confirm her assumption that learning English in Japanese schools does not help the students to speak English: (19) [Japanese] 29F6: el: conf … Nihon ja shaberenai deshoo. 30M6: el: rep N? 31F6: ReI Nihon no kookoo no jugyoo sonomama uketete daigaku juken no benkyoo shita dake ja shaberenai deshoo. 32M6: CO [ - muri da ne. 33F6: R Nee. 34M6: el:agr Hotondo muri da ne. Ore mo ichioo daigaku juken shita kara aru teedo tango wa motteta kedo mukoo iku mae ni shaberenakatta mon ne. 35F6: agr Nee. [translation] 29F6: el:conf 30M6: el:rep 31F6: ReI
32M6: CO (31F6:) 33F6: R 34M6: el:agr
35F6: agr
…We won’t be able to speak in Japan, right? What? Just receiving English classes at school in Japan and studying for university examinations does not help the students to be able to= [ - offers no chance, you see. =speak English, right? Right. It offers us almost no chance to improve our oral skills, you see. I took university entrance examinations so I guess I knew some English vocabulary but I could hardly speak any English before I went there (=Australia), you see. Right.
155
156 Conversational Dominance and Gender
F6’s turn 31 is an elicit:confirm, which implies that the speaker recognises that the interlocutor possesses better knowledge of the subject matter in seeking confirmation for an assumption (Tsui, 1994: 82–85). It may also be significant that M6’s expert commentary is offered via an interruption (completion offer): M6 starts his utterance before F6 finishes hers. His claimed expertise may be related to his violation of the turn taking rules at this point. M6 further reinforces his claim to expertise by criticising English education in Japan: (20) F6 and M6 are discussing the uselessness of derutan, a name widely used for exercise books for learning English vocabulary that list English words with Japanese equivalents. [Japanese] 53M6: inf
54F6: ack 55M6: inf
56F6: ack 57M6: F [translation] 53M6: inf
54F6: ack 55M6: inf
56F6: ack 57M6: F
Regret tte ttatte Eego ( ? ) shika tsukawanai kedo Nihongo de benkyoo shite repent toka. Soo yatte repent nante iwanee yo, zettai. Repent tte ittara ne, chotto furui iikata da sutta yoo, kodaiteki na saa. Nn. Demo soredemo repent tte futsuu ni kookai suru tte kaite aru shi saa. Ore repent tte mite “Kore nan jaro na” tte omotte saa. Fuun. Nn. In English ‘regret’ is only used in ( ? ) but in Japanese we are taught a word like ‘repent’. They never use ‘repent’, you know, never. I was told that it’s old fashioned, you know, sort of archaic. Yes. But er derutan explains the meaning of the word as meaning ‘to regret’, you know. When I found ‘repent’ mentioned in derutan, I had no idea of why the word is there. Oh I see. Right.
In this excerpt, M6 uses informatives to display his expertise on the English lexical items ‘regret’ and ‘repent’ and his ‘I was told that it’s old fashioned, you know, sort of archaic’ in turn 53 implies that his claimed expertise is supported by his past experience of having found out about those lexical items from some expert speaker.
Conversational dominance: Informatives
M6 also uses his claimed expertise to give informatives that are implicitly advice moves. (21) F6 has never studied in Australian university and she wants to try. M6 discourages her from trying by telling her his experience at an Australian university where he stayed. [Japanese] 83F6: el:agr
Mukoo no daigaku to kotchi no daigaku to wa chigau yo ne, nanka= 84M6 agr/inf =Nn zenzen chigau. Hairu no wa kekkoo ka-, kantan da kedo moo. [ 85F6: X Haitta are de… 86F6: ack Nn. 87M6: inf Sotsugyoo suru no wa yappa taihen da naa, yapparii shiken ji ( ? ) nn. 88F6: inf Itte mitai naa. 89M6: inf Kitsui naa yapparii - nan nin ka daigaku no itteru Nipponjin toka shitteru kedo saa, shiken mae ni naru to maji de sugoi yo. 90 ((pause)) [translation] 83F6: el:agr
Universities overseas and universities in Japan are different, in a way, aren’t they?= 84M6: agr =Yes, absolutely different. Entering is quite ea-, easy, though. inf [ 85F6: X Entering er… 86F6: ack Yes. 87M6: inf Graduating from it is hard, you know, as you might have expected - examination time ( ? ) mm. 88F6: inf I would like to go. 89M6: inf Hard - I mean I know a few Japanese who study in a university over there but, honestly, they work astonishingly hard before the exams, you know. 90 ((pause)) (continued in Excerpt 22)
Following F6’s indication given earlier in their conversation that she wanted to visit Australia, M6 in turns 84, 87 and 89 uses informatives to report on
157
158
Conversational Dominance and Gender
university life there. M6’s utterances are informatives rather than advice moves. However, they are implicitly advisive in that they suggest that it may be difficult for her to keep up with her study in an Australian university. Thus, based on the ‘expertise’ implicitly constructed from his past experience in Australia, M6 advises whether she should go or not via informatives (see also turns 100–101 below). On the other hand, F6’s contributions are prevented from controlling topic because M6 completes his turn following the overlap in turns 84 and 85, and also in turn 89 he does not respond to her preceding utterance. It should also be noted that M6 claims to know some people in Australia who are in the situation that F6 wants to be in. Reference to this acquaintance reinforces his claim to expertise. Having claimed expertise by imparting knowledge of university life in Australia, which F6 lacks, and in a way which may affect her future plan to enter an Australian university, M6 again reinforces his expertise by interrupting F6 when she gives her own comments on English education in Japan: (22) (continued from Excerpt 21) [Japanese] 91M6: inf
92F6:
ack
93M6:
F el:agr
94F6: 95M6: 96F6:
agr inf ack/inf
97M6:
ack el:agr
Gakkoo datte moo asa 8 ji goro itte, de 8 ji goro made gakkoo nokotte benkyoo shite, de kaette kite chorochoro tte tsumande 1, 2 ji made benkyoo shiteru tte kanji da na. Hee nan daroo, moo sore ga nante yuu n daro, shuukan no are de. Nn. Minna ga yaru kara soon fun’iki ga aru kara yaru n da. Nippon te sooyu fun’iki ga nee jan. Nee. Moo ike ikee mitai na. Ne. Are ka na, Nihon no daigaku juken mitai ni tsurakutemo ichioo nanka ( ? ) yatteru karaa. [ Soo minna ga yatteru kara toriaezu dekichau, sore nan da yo. De mukoo wa sore 4 nen kan da kara ne. ((pause))
Conversational dominance: Informatives 159
98F6: 99M6: 100F6: 101M6:
agr/X
Sugoi yo nee. Ett ja ryuunen toka soo yuu no… [ CO -aru yo mochiron. Hanbun ga ochi n janai. Nn bishibishi. inf Dame da, zettai atashi wa. ack Nn moo mukoo dakyoo nai kara ne.
[translation] 91M6: inf
92F6: ack 93M6: F el:agr
94F6: agr 95M6: inf 96F6: ack inf
97M6: ack/ el:agr
98 F6: agr X 99 M6: CO
100 F6: inf 101 M6: ack
They go to school at 8 in the morning and stay until 8 at night to study. They come home and have something to eat and study something like until 1 or 2 o’clock. Really er how can I put it, that’s sort of normal state for them. Yes. Because there is an atmosphere that since everybody else does that, I also do it. There isn’t any atmosphere like that in Japan, is there? Right. I mean, there is no atmosphere that makes everybody feel “I’m gonna do it following everybody else!” Right. It might be because it’s like entrance examinations for universities in Japan and students do it no matter how hard it is because others are also doing it so. [ Right, because everybody does it we can also do it, that’s it, you know. The thing is it lasts for four years over there, you see. ((pause)) Amazing. Mm? in that case, students who fail to go on to the next grade[ -exist, of course. Maybe half will fail, very hard. Absolutely no hope for me. Yes, because there is no compromise in university over there.
160 Conversational Dominance and Gender
Following his report on student life in Australia, M6 criticises English education in Japan (turn 93). When F6 joins in by comparing students in Australia and in Japan, she is interrupted (turn 96). M6 also interrupts F6 in turn 99 (completion offer) when she begins to join in the discussion of university students’ life in Australia. M6 may therefore be seen as creating chains of informatives by asserting his right to speak through interruptions, which are legitimised by his expertise. Turn 100 suggests that F6 again acknowledges M6’s expertise and authority to speak on this matter. Although she has expressed her wish to study in Australian university earlier (see turn 88 in Excerpt 21), in turn 100 in this excerpt she states that she has given up on her hope. In addition to producing informatives by exploiting his past experience, M6 also ignores informatives produced by F6 so that she is prevented from creating chains of informatives to develop a story about her own experiences. For example: (23) Prior to this excerpt, M6 has been describing his class in some detail. [Japanese] 24F6: inf
25M6: ch 26F6: R
… Hee uchi nanka demo ne, uchi no kurasu mo ne, ii kurasu tte iwareteru n da yo. Sensee ga are kamoshinnai kedo, hagemasu tame ni itteru dake kamoshinnai kedo. Hoka no kurasu ga doona no ka wakannai kara saa. Aa sore mo aru yo nee.
[translation] 24F6: inf … Mm but my class er my class is also said to be a good class, you know. Some teacher said so, although he may have just meant to be encouraging. 25M6: ch I don’t know what other classes are like. 26F6: R Oh that’s right.
In Excerpt (23), after having listened to M6’s detailed description of his class, F6 attempts to raise the topic of her class in turn 24. However, her attempt to shift the topic from M6’s class to her own class is unsuccessful because M6 responds to F6’s initiation with a challenging move, which appears to express a lack of interest in listening to F6’s report. Similarly, in Excerpt (21) (see above), F6’s informative attempts to shift the topic from M6’s story on university life in Australia to her wishes for the future. However, the informative is unsuccessful because M6 does not acknowledge it, but instead continues with his story. F6’s informative is again unsuccessful because of the way M6 uses his own informative to prevent her from developing the topic.
Conversational dominance: Informatives
6.3.3.3Summary In both L1 and L2 the majority of M6’s initiations are self-oriented informatives, which allow him to display his expertise on English learning. His interactional style can, therefore, be characterised as self-oriented in both L1 and L2. However, he uses informatives in different ways in L1 and L2, which are related to his dominance in L1 and non-dominance in L2. In L1, M6 is able to create chains of informatives using strategies related to his playing the role of expert. These chains differentiate his longer travelling experience from F6’s shorter period abroad, propose a correlation between the length and experience of period abroad and excellence in English and claim membership of a group of ‘better English learners’, possession of a superior source of knowledge of English vocabulary and a personal association with the place that his interlocutor is interested in staying. They also prohibit F6 from constructing her own expertise. F6 tends to give acknowledgements to his informatives, thereby making his claim to expert role a jointly constructed one. M6’s claimed expertise is reinforced in the course of the conversation as he criticises English education in Japan, inhibits F6 from making comments, advises F6 on her future course of action and violates turn-taking rules. Like M1 in Dyad 1, M6 does not create similar chains of informatives in L2, which suggests that he is less able to use these strategies that he uses in L1. F6’s challenging moves also contribute to M6’s failure to create chains of informatives.
6.4 L1 to L2 transfer of informatives The different relationship between male and female speakers in L2 and L1 in Dyads 1 and 6 may be explained as follows. Both male speakers display selforiented interactional styles and interactional goals in both languages. They therefore reflect the characterisations of men’s interactional style discussed in Section 2.2.4. In L1 they are successful in their use of strategies such as formulating informatives in chains, interrupting the interlocutor’s control over topic development and ignoring the interlocutor’s preceding informatives. Their ability to present their past experiences as relevant to the ongoing topic, or as superior to those of their interlocutors also seems to facilitate their dominance. In L2, on the other hand, it appears that the two male speakers experience difficulty in using these strategies. Formulating chains of informatives involves relatively complex linguistic and interactional skills such as preserving coherence among informatives and
161
162 Conversational Dominance and Gender
producing informatives so as to make them relevant to the interlocutor (Stenström, 1994: 14–16 and 19–20). Producing chains of informatives that formulate the speaker’s feelings and thoughts during story telling may also require a higher level of pragmatic competence than producing informatives that recount factual information. The difficulty of producing such chains of informatives, lack of competence in interrupting, inability to use initiations strategically to claim expertise and failure to exploit their past experiences may have led to the effect that M6’s dominance was inhibited in L2. A close examination of the female speakers’ dominance reveals that they are more concerned with the interlocutor’s experiences and concerns and that their initiations are often strategies to attain their interactional goal of collaborating with their male interlocutors’ topic. For example, by giving other-oriented informatives, or by using assessments to expand on the interlocutor’s story (F1) and by using challenging moves to express evaluative judgements on the interlocutor’s story (F6), the female speakers are able to participate in the male speakers’ story telling. The female speakers’ informatives are, therefore, different from those of the male speakers in that they are ‘other-oriented’. They also differ from those of their male interlocutors in that they are inserted into the chain of their male interlocutors’ stories. They are therefore likely to be shorter and to require less in terms of maintaining coherence than self-oriented chains of informatives. Informatives used to tell stories may also be more difficult to produce than informatives used to express value judgements on the interlocutor’s story. The female speakers’ dominance in L2 is also related in different ways to the male speakers’ failure to use strategies necessary for achieving their interactional goals. In Dyad 1, this creates the need for the female interlocutor to assist the male speaker by making informatives that expand on his stories and by making elicit:informs that provide him with the chance to develop his story via responses. In Dyad 6, the female speaker’s positive evaluation of her past experience of staying abroad may also have given her the confidence to participate in L2 interaction and have led her to be less willing to accept her male interlocutor’s dominance.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 7
Conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer Elicitations
Following the examination of L1 to L2 transfer of informative moves, I will analyse how two types of elicitations, elicit:agree and elicit:inform, are used differently by male speakers and female speakers in L1 and L2 conversations.
7.1 Elicit:agree 7.1.1
Introduction
Elicit:agree is characterised by Tsui (1994: 86; see also Brazil, 1984) as: …those elicitations which invite the addressee to agree with the speaker’s assumption that the expressed proposition is self-evidently true…It is most commonly realized by tag interrogatives and negative polar interrogatives, both spoken with a falling tone.
Tsui gives the following examples of tag questions and negative polar interrogatives (1994: 86): Tag question B: //r I supPOSE he’s a bit SENile now // p Isn’t he// C: He LOOKS it.
Negative polar interrogative G and S are talking about a kind of bread made by the Hopi. S: It’s just, oh, the taste is, it’s the most delicious thing that I’ve ever had, light blue, translucent. Æ G: //r+ doesn’t that SOUND like a NICE name for bread // // p Hopi BLUE bread// S: ((laughs))
164 Conversational Dominance and Gender
G: It’s like something you get from a health foodstore, Hopi blue bread ((laughs))
These examples illustrate Tsui’s point that elicit:agree acts in English require the speaker to present propositions which he or she assumes will be acceptable as self-evident for the interlocutor (‘he is a bit senile’ and ‘that sounds like a nice name for bread’, respectively, in the examples above). In addition, the examples show that an English elicit:agree move also requires the speaker to pay attention to the appropriate auxiliary verb (‘be’ or ‘do’), its tense, number, person, word order change, and so on. In Japanese, utterances that seek agreement are typically made by attaching a particle ne or nee, usually to the end of an utterance (Ijima, 1999; Itani, 1996; Izuhara, 1993; Kamio, 1990; Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Maynard, 1990, 1997; Minegishi Cook, 1990, Nonaka, 1996). Like elicit:agree in English, moves appended with ne or nee can be used to seek agreement when the topic and information are already shared between the two speakers (Izuhara, 1993; Kamio, 1990). Elicit:agrees can also be made by appending the clipped verb forms janai or jan. These are clipped forms of dewa nai, which can be translated as ‘isn’t it?’ or ‘don’t you think?’. They are invariable for number and person, and can be used to elicit agreement from the addressee. For example, (1) M1 and F1 are discussing the point of attending classes at university. 44M1: [Maa demo kane harattee saa yatteru n da kara nee. [well but money pay IP do NM BE since IP] 45F1: [Nn. [yes] 46M1: [Ichioo motte kaeritai jan, nanka iroiro. [somehow bring want to return IP sort of various things] 47F1: [Soo soo soo soo soo [right right right right right] [translation] 44M1: Well but we pay school fee, don’t we? 45F1: Yes. 46M1: *(We)1 want to gain something, don’t we?, various things= 47F1: =Right right right right right.
1.Only implicitly suggested by the speaker (recovered from the context).
Conversational dominance: Elicitations 165
Nee in M1’s turn 44 (a lengthened form of ne) and jan in turn 46 both change the preceding clauses into elicit:agree. Apart from syntactic characteristics, Japanese elicit:agrees also differ from English elicit:agrees in that agreement may be sought for propositions that are not self-evidently true. Ne or nee is frequently used by Japanese speakers for this purpose and this seems to be related to a characteristic of Japanese communication, which places importance on creating shared feelings and empathy (Izuhara, 1993), ‘emotional engagement’ (Maynard, 1997), ‘affective common ground’ (Minegishi Cook, 1990). Ne/nee has also been described as ‘a highinvolvement strategy indicator’ (Nonaka 1996: 153). Japanese speakers tend to use ne or nee to seek an agreement, engagement or empathy token and to check whether what they say is mutually shared and agreed upon by the other speaker, even when propositions are not obvious to the other speaker. Itani (1996: 164) in this regard states “ne communicates explicitly the speaker’s desire to establish that she and the hearer share an idea/opinion with the hearer. From this it follows that the speaker is seeking agreement”. Similarly Minegishi Cook (1990: 41) remarks that “ne indicates a common ground between the speaker and the addressee by eliciting the addressee’s involvement with the speaker.” (see also Ijima, 1999; Tanaka, 2000). Excerpts (2) and (3) are examples of this: (2) F1 is describing a statement written by a university student, who says that she does not skip classes because, if she did, she would feel sorry for those who could not get into their university. [Japanese] 94F1: el: agr 95M1: agr [translation] 94F1: el:agr 95M1: agr (3) [Japanese] 34M6: el:agr
35F6: agr
… Dakara watashi wa detemasu toka itte kaite atte “Oo subarashii kangae da” toka omotta no nee. Soo da yo naa… … It said “That’s why I attend “, and I felt “Oh this is an impressive attitude” you see. That’s really true… Hotondo muri da ne. Ore mo ichioo daigaku juken shita kara aru teedo tango wa motteta kedo mukoo iku mae ni shaberenakatta mon ne. Nee.
166 Conversational Dominance and Gender
[translation] 34M6: el:agr
35F6: agr
It offers us almost no chance, you see. I took university entrance examinations so I guess I knew some English vocabulary but I could hardly speak any English before I went there (= Australia), you see. Right.
In Excerpts (2) and (3), the propositions given in elicit:agree cannot be assumed to be self-evident to the interlocutor because they are about the speakers’ inner feelings or personal situations. However, they are both followed by ne or nee. In Excerpt (3), ne is also used in a response move (turn 35) to show that the speaker is in agreement with the preceding speaker’s proposition for which agreement has been elicited. English elicit:agree and Japanese elicit:agree are, therefore, similar in that both can be thought of as consisting essentially of an informative, where the speaker makes some proposition, and an additional syntactic element (tag question or word order change in case of English) or interactional particle (ne or jan in case of Japanese). They differ in that English elicit:agree moves involve syntactically more complicated production mechanisms than Japanese and in that Japanese elicit:agrees may seek agreement or solicit empathy for or involvement in a proposition which cannot be assumed to be self-evident to the interlocutor. However, while English elicit:agree moves are unlikely to solicit an explicit agreement or empathy token for the propositions that are not obvious to the other speaker, they can also be used to establish the common ground between the two speakers (see Tsui, 1994: 86–87). In the present analysis of Japanese data, therefore, utterances that seek agreement for the proposition which is not obvious to the interlocutor and facilitate to create shared empathy will also be classified as elicit:agree (see page xiii for the convention of translation of ne and jan and their variants adopted in the current analysis). 7.1.2 Dyad 1 In Dyad 1, neither speaker uses elicit:agrees in L2. In L1, however, elicit:agree represents 8 out of M1’s total of 24 initiations and 5 out of F1’s 17 initiations. Like his informatives, M1’s elicit:agree moves tend to form part of initiation chains that are used to control the topic as Excerpt (4) illustrates: (4) M1 and F1 are discussing a teacher at their university who says that students’ attendance at his lectures is voluntary but nonetheless checks their attendance.
Conversational dominance: Elicitations 167
[Japanese] 17M1: inf 18F1: ack/X 19M1: inf 20F1: 21M1: 22F1: 23M1:
ack el:agr agr el:agr
24F1: 25F1: 26M1: 27F1: 28M1:
CO agr inf ack F
[translation] 17M1: inf 18F1: ack/X 19M1: inf 20F1: 21M1: 22F1: 23M1:
24F1: (23M:) 25F1: 26M1: 27F1: 28M1:
ack el:agr agr el:agr
CO agr inf ack F
Itteru koto to chigau yo naa. Nn. Dakara sensee ga nee… [ Deteru bun ni wa ii n daroo kedo saa. Maa nee. Taihen da yo nee, honto ni. Nn. Datte yappa kekkoo saa, nanii, tooi toko kara kuru hito ni totte saa 1 nichi 24 ji kan daroo kedo idoo no 5 ji kan toka attara moo nakitaku natte kuru jan, honto ni. [ -mottainai yo nee. Hontoo. 5 ji kan da yoo, idoo ni. Mottainai yo ne. Iiyaa. It’s really different from what he says. Yes. So teachers… [ It will probably be all right if you are already attending his lectures, though. That’s right. It’s hard, isn’t it?, really hard. Yes. Because, you know, er for people who come far away, it’s 24 hours per day, if we spend 5 hours on commuting, it really makes us feel like= [ -it’s a waste, isn’t it? =crying, doesn’t it?, honestly. Right. 5 hours, you know, on commuting. It’s a waste. Yes.
By interrupting F1’s utterance 18, in which it seems that she intends to pursue the topic of teachers at their university, M1 attempts to shift the topic to his
168 Conversational Dominance and Gender
commuting difficulties by an informative in turn 19. This attempt to shift topic succeeds through his further use of elicit:agrees in turns 21 and 23, which both receive agreements from F1. In addition to ne and jan, other particles are also used by M1 in this excerpt to strengthen his statement. Naa (lengthened form of na) (turn 17) is described as an exclamatory particle often used in informal male speech (Makino and Tsutsui, 1995) and as a particle that the speaker uses to convince himself or the interlocutor of his or her opinion (Shinmeikai, 1981). Saa (turn 19) is a particle used to strengthen one’s assertiveness (Makino and Tsutsuii, 1995), while yoo (lengthened form of yo) in turn 26 is a particle that expresses the speaker’s intention to strongly impose his or her intentions, emotions, opinions, and so on (Inoue, 1997; Izuhara, 1993). The use of various particles to emphasise the points made in his utterances helps M6 to create chains of informatives and elicit:agrees that control the topic progression. M6’s elicit:agrees are, therefore, similar to informatives, especially to those that are accompanied by particles that emphasise the speaker’s attitude towards his proposition. Thus, M6 succeeds with topic control along the line of his own propositions by forming chains of these two types of moves. In contrast, F1’s elicit:agrees do not form chains with other elicit:agrees or informatives. For example: (5) M1 and F1 are talking about how many classes they are attending. [Japanese] 50M1: el:inf 51F1: R el:inf 52M1: R inf 53F1: ack el:agr
55F1: el:inf
Nan tan’i totteru? Ima ne 53 tan’i. Nan tan’i totta? Ore mo 50 chotto itteru gurai. 70 toka yuu hito iru yo. Iru yo nee. De nanka saa sooyuu ko tte saa, nanii, ichioo zenbu dete mitee maa nanka dattara sutechaeba ii jan toka itteru jan. Mottainai jan nee (?) Nee. ((2 sec)) Doyoobi totteruu?
[translation] 50M1: el:inf 51F1: R el:inf
How many modules are you taking? Now 53 modules. How many did you take?
54M1: agr
Conversational dominance: Elicitations 169
52M1: R inf 53F1: ack el:agr
54M1: agr 55F1: el:inf
Me, also a little over 50. Some people are taking 70 or something, you know. That’s really true. And you know, er, how can I put it, those kinds of people er their attitude is, they say “I try to attend all the classes and if I don’t’ like any of them, I can just drop it, can’t I?”, don’t they? It’s a waste, isn’t it? ( ? ) Right ((2 sec)) Do you have any classes on Saturdays?
In contrast to M1’s elicit:agrees in Excerpt (4), F1’s elicit:agree in Excerpt (5) is not used with other elicit:agrees or in a chain to control the topic. It is instead used to expand on the topic introduced by M1 (i.e. the number of modules that the students are taking). It can, therefore, be seen as manifesting her otheroriented or collaborative interactional style. Excerpt (6) is a similar example: (6) M1 and F1 are talking about the difficulty of commuting. Both take a few hours and come home very late. [Japanese] 82M1: el:agr 83F1: agr el:agr 84M1: agr 85F1: F [translation] 82M1: el:agr 83F1: agr el:agr 84M1: agr 85F1: F
… Dakara chotto nanka meshi kutte, kutte nanka ittara saa, moo ashita ni natchau jan. Tondemo nai yo ne. Moo hizukehenkoosen koechau yo nee. Koechau yo, moo. ((pause)) Soo. … I mean if we have, have a quick dinner and do this and that, it’s already tomorrow, isn’t it? It’s really outrageous. We cross the international date line (= pass the midnight), don’t we? We do cross the international date line, you know. ((pause)) Right.
As in turn 53 in Excerpt (5), F1’s elicit:agree in turn 83 is not used in a chain to control the topic but to allow M6 to expand on his preceding utterance. M1’s elicit:agrees are, therefore, related to his ‘self-oriented’ interactional
170 Conversational Dominance and Gender
style in that he tends to use them in conjunction with other elicit:agrees and informatives to form chains of initiations. On the other hand, F1’s elicit:agrees tend not to lead to the formation of such chains, which may reflect M1’s reluctance to allow her to control their topic. F1’s elicit:agrees are also used to encourage M1 to expand on some point which he has already made. The two speakers’ use of elicit:agrees, therefore, seems to be related to their use of informatives in that M1’s use of both move types tends to reflect his ‘selforiented’ style while F1’s use of both move types tends to reflect her ‘otheroriented’ interactional style. 7.1.3 Dyad 6 As in Dyad 1, neither M6 nor F6 makes any elicit:agree move in L2. In L1, elicit:agree represents 6 out of 26 initiations for M6 and 3 out of 11 initiations for F6. I will focus on whether the reduction in the male speaker’s number of elicit:agrees can also be explained in terms of his interactional styles. As in the case of informatives, elicit:agrees tend to be used by M6 in chains of initiations, which facilitate his claim to expertise (see Section 6.3.3). For example, (7) M6 is talking about his experience of not being able to understand English (including the expression ‘see you soon” when he first visited Australia. [Japanese] 38M6: el:agr 39F6: agr 40M6: inf 41F6: ack el:agr 42M6: agr el:agr 43F6: agr 44M6: inf [translation] 38M6: el:agr 39F6: agr
See you soon te sonna no benkyoo shinee jan, Nippon ja. Ne, detekuru mon ja nai shi ne. “Nan da yo, sore” tte omotte yoo. Nn. Henna sa myoona tango shitteru n da yo ne, sorede ne= =Soo. Imi nai no ne. Soo soo. Zenzen tsukawanai no. Daara saa tatoeba saa - nan da, tatoeba saa - soo da na… We never learn anything like “See you soon” in Japan, do we? Right, that kind of expressions never appear in textbooks.
Conversational dominance: Elicitations
40M6: inf 41F6: ack el:agr 42M6: agr el:agr 43F6: agr 44M6: inf
I had no idea what it meant, you know. Yes. The Japanese students know peculiar vocabulary, don’t they?= =Right. They know useless vocabulary, don’t they? Right right. They know some vocabulary items that are never used er, for example, er mm, for example well…
In turn 38, M6 begins to criticise English education in Japan by stating via an elicit:agree that common expressions such as ‘see you soon’ are not taught. The elicit:agree is linked to his informative in turn 40 and to his elicit:agree in turn 42, thereby forming a chain of initiations. This helps him to reinforce his claimed expertise. It should be noted that M6’s informative in turn 40 is accompanied by the particle yoo (lengthened form of yo), in other words, it consists of an informative and a particle that emphasises the speaker’s intentions, emotions and opinions (see above). In contrast, although F6 in turn 41 also uses elicit:agree in a way which suggests that she too intends to claim expertise on Japanese learners of English, she fails to do so because M6’s elicit:agree in turn 42 makes a similar point, but more strongly, and further links it to his informative in turn 44. This example illustrates that M6’s use of elicit:agree moves is similar to his use of informatives in that they contribute to chains of initiations that facilitate his control of the topic. Like his use of informatives, M6’s use of elicit:agree moves manifests his self-oriented interactional style. In Excerpt (8) F6’s elicit:agree again leads to her failure to claim expertise due to M6’s inhibition: (8) M6 has been talking about his experience of university life in Australia. [Japanese] 83F6: el:agr
Mukoo no daigaku to kotchi no daigaku to wa chigau yo ne, nanka= 84M6: agr/inf =Nn zenzen chigau. Hairu no wa kekkoo ka-, kantan da kedo moo. [ 85F6: X Haitta are de… 86F6: ack Nn. 87M6: inf Sotsugyoo suru no wa yappa taihen da naa, yapparii shiken ji ( ? ) nn.
171
172 Conversational Dominance and Gender
[translation] 83F6: el:agr
Universities overseas and universities in Japan are different in a way, aren’t they?= 84M6: agr/inf =Yes, absolutely different. Entering is quite ea-, easy, though. [ 85F6: X Entering er… 86F6: ack Yes. 87M6: inf Graduating from it is hard, you know, as you might have expected - examination time ( ? ) mm.
In turn 83, F6’s elicit:agree compares universities in Japan and overseas, which shifts the context from one in which M6 claims expertise on life in Australian universities to one in which F6 begins to claim expertise on differences between Japanese and Australian universities. However, her attempt fails because M6 proffers a similar proposition, but more strongly, via an informative in turn 84 and also makes a new informative to switch the topic from comparison of universities in Australia and Japan to universities to university life in Australia. It should also be noted that M6’s informative is given through an overlap. While M6’s successful overlap disrupts F6’s turn and prevents her from claiming expertise, M6 reinforces his own claim to expertise by linking the informative to another informative (turn 87). M6 can, therefore, again be seen as succeeding in controlling the topic by making chains of propositions via elicit:agrees and informatives. Elicit:agree moves can, again, be seen as similar to informatives in that both lead to topic control if the speaker succeeds in making chains of initiations from them. M6’s use of elicit:agrees is, like his use of informatives, related to his selforiented interactional style. His dominance in L1 is related to his interactional goal of claiming expertise and his successful use of strategies for attaining this goal by using elicit:agrees and informatives in chains and making a new informative following the female interlocutor’s to prevent her from forming sequences of elicit:agrees and/or informatives. F6’s non-dominance in L1, on the other hand, can be related to her more other-oriented interactional style in that she tends to support M6’ story telling by giving agreements and acknowledgements to his initiations. It can also be related to M6’s initiations which prevent her from claiming expertise.
Conversational dominance: Elicitations
7.1.4 L1 to L2 transfer of elicit:agrees Elicit:agrees and informatives are similar in that both express the speaker’s proposition and prospect an appropriate response. However, they differ in that elicit:agrees seek to create shared feelings or affective common ground (Minegishi Cook, 1990, see above) between the speaker and the interlocutor, which informatives do not do to the same extent. While the male speakers and the female speakers in this study differ with respect to their use of elicit:agrees in L1 in terms of frequency and interactional style, they are similar in that neither speaker makes elicit:agrees in L2. This suggests that while Japanese speakers tend to create shared feelings or affective common ground through elicit:agrees in L1, they tend not to do so in L2 (see Hosoda, 1998). This may be related to the fact that elicit:agrees have a more complex production mechanism in English than in Japanese, for example, using tag questions that require the speaker to choose some appropriate auxiliary verb. The Japanese speakers may therefore find it difficult to create close affinity through elicit:agrees and instead make propositions through informatives. If so, the number of instances of informatives should perhaps be greater in L2 than in L1. However, this is not the case for any of the four speakers. In fact, the two male speakers make fewer informatives in L2 than in L1, while the two female speakers make more informatives in L2 than in L1, although the differences are not very great. This suggests a second reason for the speakers’ non-use of elicit:agrees in L2, which is the difficulty of producing chains of informatives and elicit:agrees. Table 7.1 shows the total number of informatives and elicit:agrees.
Table 7.1Number of informatives and elicit:agrees in Dyad 1 and Dyad 6 in L1 and L2 Dyad 1 M1
Dyad 6 F1
M6
F6
L1
L2
L1
L2
L1
L2
L1
L2
8 8
0 5
5 4
0 8
6 16
0 10
3 4
0 6
total of (el:agree + inf) 16
5
9
8
22
10
7
6
total no. of initiations 24
11
17
22
26
14
11
15
Elicit:agrees Informatives
173
174 Conversational Dominance and Gender
M1 produced 11 more elicit:agrees and informatives in L1 than in L2 (16 in L1 and 5 in L2), while F1 produced 1 more (9 in L1 and 8 in L2). In Dyad 6, M6 produced a total of 22 and 10 in L1 and in L2, respectively, while F6 produced a total of 7 and 6. For all the four speakers, therefore, the total number of informatives and elicit:agrees is smaller in L2 than in L1, but the difference is larger for the male speakers than for the female speakers. This suggests that it may be more difficult to make chains of these two types of moves to control topic in L2 conversations than in L1 conversations. Producing chains of elicit:agrees and informatives requires speakers to develop topics on the basis of their own experiences and feelings rather than those of their interlocutor. It also requires the speaker to be able to make long utterances coherently and in an interesting way so that they can keep the interlocutor’s attention and receive acknowledgements. This may be more difficult to perform in L2 than in L1. Third, the fact that the male speakers’ drop in the total number of informatives and elicit:agrees from L1 to L2 is greater than that for the female speakers supports the hypothesis that the male speakers’ dominance in L1 is related to their self-oriented interactional style, because their informatives and elicit:agrees tend to be used as strategies for creating stories about themselves. The male speakers’ self-oriented interactional style may lead them to use elicit:agrees or informatives more frequently than other types of moves such as elicit:informs that are used to invite the interlocutor to continue with her topic. As the male speakers are self-oriented in L2 as well as in L1, the difficulty of producing chains of elicit:agrees and informatives is likely to result in a greater loss in the total number of initiations for the male speakers than for the female speakers. This is because the female speakers are more other-oriented and tend to use more elicit:informs, which may be easier to produce than chains of informatives in L2. Fourth, the two speakers in a dyad may engage in different kinds of relationships in their L1 and L2 conversations. Their frequent use of elicit: agrees in L1 suggests that Japanese speakers tend to develop topics by checking that the interlocutors are in agreement throughout the conversation. The fact that none of the speakers make any elicit:agrees in L2 suggests that they may not create such close relationships in their L2 conversation.
Conversational dominance: Elicitations
7.2 Elicit:inform 7.2.1 Introduction An elicit:inform, or question, invites the addressee to supply the missing information indicated in an initiation (Tsui, 1994: 81). For example, H: What time will you be finished? X: Lecture finishes at about quarter past twelve. (Tsui, 1994: 81)
Table 7.2 is based on Table 6.2 and 6.3 and shows the number of instances of elicit:informs for each speaker in Dyads 1 and 6. Table 7.2Number of elicit:inform in Dyad 1 and Dyad 6 in L1 and L2 Dyad 1 L1
Dyad 6 L2
L1
L2
M1
F1
M1
F1
M6
F6
M6
F6
4
7
2
7
0
3
2
3
total no. of initiations 24
17
11
22
26
11
14
15
Elicit:inform
In Dyad 1 M1 makes 4 elicit:informs and F1 makes 7 in L1, while he makes 2 and she makes 7 in L2. In Dyad 6, M6 makes none in L1 and F6 makes 3 in L1, while he makes 2 and she makes 3 in L2. In both dyads, therefore, the female speaker makes more elicit:informs than the male speaker in both L1 and L2. However, while in Dyad 1, F1’s elicit:informs are around a third of her total number of initiations (i.e. 7 out of 22) in L2, F6’s elicit:informs are a fifth of her total number of initiations (i.e. 3 out of 15). Although F1’s greater number of elicit:informs can be seen as contributing to her dominance in L2, F6’s elicit: informs do not appear to contribute greatly to her dominance in L2. I will, therefore, analyse Dyad 1 as a case which illustrates how elicit:inform moves may contribute to the female speaker’s dominance in L2. I will then relate the findings to those from earlier sections on informatives and elicit:agrees.
175
176 Conversational Dominance and Gender
7.2.2 Dyad 1 7.2.2.1L2 In L2, M1 makes 2 elicit:informs out of a total of 11 initiations whereas F1 makes 7 out of a total of 22. F1’s elicit:informs tend to encourage M1 to develop topics on which M1 is speaking. By using elicit:informs, F1 controls the direction of development of M1’s statements via response moves. (9) M1 is telling a story about his bicycle trip. [English] 20M1: el:inf
21F1: R
Æ 29F1: el:inf 30M1: R
31F1: 32M1: 33F1: 34M1: 35F1: 36M1: 37F1: 38M1: Æ 39F1: 40M1: Æ 41F1: 42M1: 43F1:
el:conf R F inf R X CO R el:inf el:rep el:inf R inf
44M1: ack Æ 45F1: F el:inf 46M1: R 47F1: F
Mm my - interesting experiences about travel is erm when I was mm 16 - mm 16 - erm I ah do you know Kasukabe? Yes! I know very much because I live in Saitama ((laughs)) (8 turns omitted) Ah how long did you take from your house to Kujuukuri? Kujuukuri mm it takes mm - ah three a.m to three p.m. ((pause)) Twelve hours? On (=yes) ah with some ah stop. Ah yeah yeah yeah ah. But twelve hours. It’s too long!= =Oh and summer, in summer-hot. Hot. Ett! (=What?) did you do by yourself? Mm? Did you do by att with your friends? With my gymnastics club friend, five people mm. But I think gymnastic members tough? tough and strong, so they they I think they could easily. Mm. Haa? (=oh I see) Ah is this a good ex-, experience?= =Mm good experience= =Ah?
Conversational dominance: Elicitations 177
In Excerpt (9), F1’s elicit:informs in turns 29, 39, 41, and 45 prospect the details of M1’s travel experience, thereby facilitating the expansion of M1’s story. The chains formed by F1’s elicit:informs and M1’s responses allow M1 to develop his topic. F1’s elicit:informs, therefore, appear to be related to her ‘otheroriented’ interactional style. ‘Other-oriented’ elicit:informs are similar to ‘addressee-oriented’ questions or questions that are said to be used by women mainly in order to draw others into talk (Section 2.2.4). Unlike M1’s and M6’s self-oriented informatives (which prospect acknowledgement or agreement responses providing little or no new semantic content), F1’s other-oriented elicitations encourage her interlocutor to supply new semantic content, on which she can build her following utterances (e.g., M1’s response ‘With gymnastics club friend…’ in turn 42, on which F1 builds her next utterance “But I think gymnastic members tough?…”). Other-oriented elicitations therefore seem to enable the speaker to share the conversational work of topic development to a greater degree than self-oriented informatives. While F1 tends to use elicit:informs to facilitate M1’s story telling, M1’s elicit:informs tend to prevent F1’s story telling. For example, (10) (Continued from Excerpt 9) (5 turns later). [English] 53F1: inf
54M1: ack 55F1: X Æ 56M1: el:inf 57F1: el:cla 58M1: el:inf 59F1: R el:inf 60M1: el:cla 61F1: R 62M1: F 63F1: inf 64M1: ack
I don’t have such experience but - mm last, last winter? I went to Nagano? Nagano to ski with my friend it is very good. It was very good. Ah. ((pause)) Ah… Att where do you ah where did you go ah high school erm graduating travel? Yes yes yes yes, att where? Where? Kyoto? Att Kyoto and Toba. Do you know Toba? Toba Toba Fushimi no Toba? (=Toba, Toba, you mean Toba in Fushimi?) Ah Near Ise, near Ise. Ah Ise. Ah Toba has a Pearl, Pearl Island, Mikimoto Pearl Island. Mm.
178 Conversational Dominance and Gender
Æ 65F1: 66M1: 67F1: 68M1:
el:inf R inf ack
Yes, where did you go? I, I went to Nara, Kyoto, Osaka, Kobe. Ah Kansai area. Kansai area.
In turn 53, F1 begins to talk about her skiing trip but M1 does not offer an elicit:inform that would encourage her to expand on her experience. Instead, M1’s elicit:inform in turn 56 puts an end to F1’s story telling about her skiing trip and shifts the topic to her graduation trip. M1’s elicit:inform is, therefore, related to his ‘self-oriented’ interactional style. In turn 63, F1 begins a story about her travelling experiences but this topic is not further developed and there is no facilitation from M1 to develop the topic. This seems to lead to F1’s elicit:inform move in turn 65, which shifts the topic from her past experiences to M1’s travelling experiences. F1’s elicit:inform move can, therefore, again be seen as being related to her ‘other-oriented’ interactional style. In sum, F1’s elicit:informs tend to encourage M1 to develop topics on which he is speaking. Her dominance in L2 is therefore related to her otheroriented interactional style and to her successful use of the strategy to encourage the interlocutor to develop his story through using elicit:informs to invite her male interlocutor to provide further details of his story and informatives to expand on his story. It can also be related to M1’s failure to create chains of informatives which create the need for F1 to help him to expand on his story through elicit:informs. In other words, F1’s other-oriented interactional style appears to interact with M1’s self-oriented interactional style to produce her dominance in L2. In contrast, M1 tends not to make elicit:inform moves in a similar way. 7.2.2.2L1 In L1 conversation, M1 makes 4 elicit:informs out of a total of 24 initiations while F1 makes 7 out of a total of 17 elicit:informs. As in their L2 conversation, elicit:informs are more prominent among the total number of initiations for F1 than for M1. Also as in L2, M1 tends not to make elicit:informs when these would facilitate F1 to develop a topic. For example, (11) M1 and F1 are discussing commuting problems. Both speakers live far away from home. [Japanese] 35F1: inf Dakara saisho atashi ne, mukashi oya ni, nanii 2 ji kan han kakete kayotte, nani, jugyoo toka tsukarete
Conversational dominance: Elicitations 179
36M1: ack 37F1: F 38M1: TP 39F1: 40M1: 41F1: 42M1: 43F1: 44M1: 45F1: 46M1: 47F1: 48M1:
X CO R {?} inf el:agr agr el:agr agr el:agr
49F1: agr inf
50M1: el:inf [translation] 35F1: inf
36M1: ack 37F1: F
derenaku derenakatta toka sonnara hen da kedo. De nee “Ten otoshichattara hitorigurashi sasete yo” toka itta kedoo ima wa moo dotchi demo issho da naa toka omou nn. Maa soo, soo da yoo. Nee. Oo ((pause)) Dakara nee, demo yappa-taihen da yoo. Nn. ( ? ) Majime ni naritai wake janai kedoo. Maa demo kane harattee saa, yatteru n da kara nee. Nn. Ichioo motte kaeritai jan, nanka iroiro= =Soo soo soo soo soo. Tebura de kaeritakunai jan, mottainai yo nee, tada de sae nee okane nee. ((pause)) Soo da yo nee. Mikaeri tteka chanto jibun de mini tsukenakya mottainai mon ne, kono okane ga. Dakara ne, watashi majime janakutemo ii kedo chanto jugyoo watashi dete-, deru hoo ga suki. Deru hoo ga tte yoku wakannai kedo ((laughs)) demo sensee mo tanoshii hoo ga ureshii kedoo. ((2 sec)) Nan tan’i totteru? So when I first started university, a long time ago, I asked my parents, since it takes two and a half hours to commute and er it does not make sense if I will be too tired to attend my classes or if my grades go lower, I asked my parents to let me live near the university on my own but now I feel that it does not make much difference. Well right, that’s right, you know. Right.
180 Conversational Dominance and Gender
38M1: TP
Mm ((pause)) 39F1: X So mm er well after all 40M1: CO -it’s tough, you know. 41F1: R Yes. 42M1: {?} ( ? ) 43F1: inf It’s not that I want to become particularly studious. 44M1: el:agr Well but er we pay school fee, don’t we? 45F1: agr Yes. 46M1: el:agr (We)2 want to gain something, don’t we?, various things= 47F1: agr =Right right right right right. 48M1: el:agr We don’t want to leave university empty-handed, do we?, that would be a waste, especially when money is at issue, wouldn’t it? ((pause)) 49F1: agr That’s right. inf Some gain or how can I put it, unless we gain something, it will be a waste, this money er, you know, I may not wish to become studious but attending classes properly, I prefer to attend. I don’t quite know what I mean ((laughs)) but of course I’d be happier if the teachers make their classes interesting. ((2 sec)) 50M1: el:inf How many modules are you taking? (continued in Excerpt 12)
In turn 35, F1 uses an informative to talk about her past experience of asking her parents to let her live on her own because of the long commuting hours. Her informative is responded to by M1’s acknowledgement. However, it is not developed further partly because M1 does not provide any other-oriented initiations, which seems related to the sluggish interaction in turns 39 to 43. In the following part of the interaction (turns 44 to 48), instead of encouraging F1 to expand on her topic via other-oriented elicitations, M1 uses elicit:agrees to shift the topic from ‘living without parents’ to his opinions about school fees. In turn 49, F1 also makes a long informative but M1 does not respond to it with an acknowledgement, or by making an elicit:inform to invite her to give more
2.See note 1 (Excerpt 1).
Conversational dominance: Elicitations
details. He instead makes an elicit:inform to shift the topic (the number of classes that F1 is taking), leading to F1’s loss of opportunity to develop her topic. While M1’s elicit:informs tend to lead to F1’s failure to develop topics, F1’s elicit:informs tend to facilitate M1’s developing topics. For example, (12) M1 is asking F1 how many classes she is taking. [Japanese] 50M1: el:inf Æ 51F1: R el:inf 52M1: R inf 53F1: ack el:agr
54M1: agr Æ 55F1: 56M1: 57F1: 58M1: Æ 59F1: 60M1:
el:inf R el:agr {?} el:inf R
[translation] 50M1: el:inf Æ 51F1: R el:inf 52M1: R inf 53F1: ack el:agr
54M1: agr Æ 55F1: el:inf 56M1: R
Nan tan’i totteru? Ima ne 53 tan’i. Nan tan’i totta? Ore mo 50 chotto itteru gurai. 70 toka yuu hito iru yo. Iru yo nee. De nanka saa soo yuu ko tte saa, nanii, “Ichioo zenbu dete mitee maa nanka dattara sutechaeba ii jan” toka itteru jan. Mottainai jan nee ( ? ) Nee. ((2 sec)) Doyoobi totteruu? Tottenai doyoobi wa kyuusoku da yoo. Atashi totten no nee ( ? ) Ee doyoobi saakuru nai no, tteka bukatsu. Nai nai nai. How many modules are you taking? Now 53 modules. How many did you take? Me, also a little over 50. Some people are taking 70 or something, you know. That’s really true. And you know, er, how can I put it, those kinds of people er their attitude is, they say, “I try to attend all the classes and if I don’t like any of them, I can just drop it, can’t I?”, don’t they? It’s a waste, isn’t it? ( ? ) Right ((2 sec)) Do you have any classes on Saturdays? No, Saturday is for resting, you know.
181
182 Conversational Dominance and Gender
57F1: 58M1: Æ 59F1: 60M1:
el:agr {?} el:inf R
I have some classes, you see. ( ? ) Er you don’t have any ‘circle’? I mean ‘club activity’ No no no.
In turn 51, F1 makes an elicit:inform after she has given a response to M1’s preceding elicit:inform. By making an elicit:inform after her response, she collaborates with M1 to expand on the topic he has initiated. F1’s elicit:informs in turns 55 and 59 also prospect M1’s elaboration on the topic that he has initiated earlier (turn 50). The chain of F1’s elicit:informs in turns 51, 55 and 59 therefore helps M1 to develop his topic. In sum, F1’s elicit:informs represent a larger proportion of her initiations than for M1 in both L1 and L2. Her elicit:informs, together with other elicitations such as elicit:confirm and elicit:clarify, help M1 to develop topics and facilitate his storytelling. They are collaborative in that they facilitate the interlocutor’s story-telling. Her elicit:informs can therefore be related to her otheroriented interactional style. In contrast, M1’s elicit:informs in both L1 and L2 represent a smaller portion of his initiations. They are also different from F1’s in that they tend to be used to prevent F1 from developing her own stories. 7.2.3 L1 to L2 transfer of elicit:informs The fact that F1 makes the same number of elicit:informs in L1 and L2 suggests that they may be more easily transferred than self-oriented informatives and elicit:agrees. First, the former are generally shorter and linguistically less complex than the latter. Second, self-oriented informatives and elicit:agrees tend to require the speaker to develop topics single-handedly, while the interlocutor provides agreements or acknowledgements which do not substantially contribute to the semantic content of the topic (see Section 6.3 for a discussion on chains of informatives). In contrast, a speaker using other-oriented elicit: informs is able to control the topic while depending on the interlocutor to make substantial contributions to the topic through responses that provide the first speaker with a basis on which to make the next elicit:inform. Self-oriented and other-oriented interactional strategies may therefore involve different kinds of interactional work and the former may involve more interactional work. This may lead to their different degrees of transferability. A speaker who tends to use self-oriented interactional strategies may therefore dominate the interlocutor in L1, but not in L2, because of the difficulty of transferring these interactional strategies. On the other hand, a speaker who
Conversational dominance: Elicitations 183
tends to use other-oriented interactional strategies may not dominate the interlocutor in L1, but is likely to dominate in L2 because she does not encounter the same degree of difficulty in transferring these other-oriented strategies.
7.3 Conclusion In Chapters 6 and 7, I have argued that (1) the male and female speakers’ different use of informatives, elicit:agrees and elicit:informs is related to their different interactional styles (self- and other-oriented, respectively), (2) the speakers’ strategies of using informatives, elicit:agrees or elicit:informs to attain their interactional goals can be seen as a basis for dominance in these conversations, and (3) the strategy of using other-oriented elicit:informs is more likely to be transferred to L2 than that of using self-oriented informatives or elicit:agrees. The male speakers’ initiations are characterised by self-oriented informatives and elicit:agrees in both L1 and L2. On the other hand, the female speakers do not tend to use self-oriented informatives. F1’s initiations are characterised by other-oriented informatives that she uses to relate herself to her male interlocutor’s story and other-oriented elicit:informs that support the development of topics by her male interlocutor. F6 tends to support her interlocutor’s self-oriented informatives through acknowledgements and agreements, although she seems less willing to do so in L2. The analysis, therefore, tends to reflect the points made in earlier studies on differences in conversational styles between men and women, in particular that men tend to talk about themselves, including areas of their expertise, and downgrade other speaker’s concerns, while women tend to be collaborative and show direct concern for what other speakers have to say (e.g. Coates, 1996, 1997; Maltz and Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1990, 1994). Second, I have shown in my data that different interactional styles are related to conversational dominance in different ways. The male speakers tend to have self-oriented interactional goals and make use of informatives and elicit:agrees in conjunction with other initiations in order to attain goals such as telling stories about themselves or claiming expertise in both L1 and L2. In order to achieve their interactional goals, they need to form chains of informatives and elicit:agrees. Their strategic use of informatives and elicit:agrees can, therefore, be seen as constituting their dominance in L1. On the other hand, the male speakers’ failure to use informatives and elicit:agrees coherently to attain similar goals can be seen as being related to their non-dominance in L2.
184 Conversational Dominance and Gender
In contrast, the female speakers tend to have other-oriented interactional goals and to use elicit:informs to assist their male interlocutors’ topic development. The female speakers’ non-dominance in L1 appears to be related to this tendency. By acknowledging the preceding male speakers’ informatives or elicit:agrees which are used to create their story or claim expertise, and not making their own initiations, the female speakers help their male interlocutors to attain their self-oriented goals and dominate the conversation. The female speakers’ non-dominance in L1 is therefore related to their male speaker’s competence in using informatives strategically. The female speakers’ other-oriented interactional styles also account for their dominance in L2. First, their dominance in L2 appears to be related to the male speakers’ failure to use informatives strategically, which creates a need for the female speakers to do facilitatory work so that the male interlocutors’ topics will be developed. The female speakers tend to do this by using other-oriented elicit:informs. Their other types of initiations, that is, informatives and elicit: agrees also tend to be used to expand on their male interlocutor’s story or support its development. The analysis, therefore, supports the point made by Coates (1996) and others that men tend to talk about themselves and use questions to seek information, while women tend to show concern for what other speakers have to say and use questions to invite the others to talk and expand the other speaker’s story (see Section 2.2.4). The male and female speakers’ different interactional styles can, therefore, be seen as interacting with each other such that the female speakers regulate their use of initiations according to the male speakers’ pursuit of and competence in pursuing their interactional goals. They tend to accommodate the male speakers by not making initiations when the male speakers are capable of using informatives strategically to attain their interactional goals in L1, but they tend to produce supportive initiations when the male speakers are less capable of using such strategies in L2. Third, I have attempted to answer the question of why the relationship between the male and the female speakers in these two dyads is reversed between L1 and L2 in terms of the transferability of different interactional strategies. It is possible that self-oriented strategies based on informatives and elicit:agrees are less likely to be transferred than other-oriented strategies based on elicit:informs because they require the speaker to work single-handedly to develop topics without gaining any substantial contribution to the topic development from the interlocutor.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Conclusion"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Chapter 8
Conclusion
This book has attempted to answer three questions: 1. How can conversational dominance be analysed? 2. Do Japanese men tend to dominate Japanese women in L1 (Japanese) conversation? 3. Are patterns of gender dominance in Japanese L2 (English) conversation similar to those found in L1 (Japanese) conversation? In this concluding chapter, I will discuss each of these questions in turn. I will first re-examine the validity of the analytical framework proposed in this study.
8.1 Re-examination of the analytical framework 8.1.1 Analysing conversational dominance In Chapter 4, two hypotheses regarding Japanese male speakers’ dominance over Japanese female speakers were tested on the basis of recorded conversations from 8 dyads in L1 and L2 using the analytical framework established in this study. No major pattern was found in terms of Japanese male speakers’ dominance in L1 and L2 conversations, except that they tended to be less dominant in L2 than in L1. In this section, I will examine, in the light of the qualitative analysis on conversational dominance, styles, strategies and pragmatic transfer, whether the fact that the two hypotheses were not supported means that the validity of the framework needs to be questioned. Conversational dominance was defined as one speaker’s tendency to control the other speaker’s conversational actions over the course of an interaction. In the case of sequential dominance, controlling actions consist of initiations, which constrain the other speaker to make prospected responses. The detailed analysis of two dyads of conversation in Chapters 6 and 7 showed that in general the speaker who has the larger number of initiations also tends to control the topic, which suggests that the sum of local instances of controlling
186 Conversational Dominance and Gender
actions is indeed likely to correspond to an overall pattern of dominance. However, the analysis also showed that initiations can be subdivided according to whether they contribute to self-oriented or other-oriented conversational styles and goals. Self-oriented and other-oriented styles and goals cut across initiation types so that any particular type (e.g. informative or elicit:inform) can be either self-oriented or other-oriented according to whether it constrains the second speaker to stay on a topic that is initiated by or about the first speaker or not. While it seems clear that self-oriented initiations contribute to the dominance of the speaker who produces them, because the interlocutor is constrained to make responses that support the first speaker’s topic, it is less clear that other-oriented initiations contribute to dominance if the speaker is encouraging the interlocutor to continue topics. The problem, therefore, is whether self-oriented and other-oriented initiations count equally towards sequential dominance, whether otheroriented initiations count to a lesser degree, or whether they should not be counted towards sequential dominance at all. The significance of this point for the results of the quantitative analysis in Chapter 4 is that in the two dyads analysed, the female speakers both tended to manifest other-oriented interactional styles and goals in L1 and L2. If other-oriented initiations were treated as having less value in terms of dominance than self-oriented initiations, the dominance of the male speakers in L1 would be increased and the possibility that Hypothesis 1 (Japanese male speakers will dominate Japanese female speakers in L1 conversation) would be supported would be greater. Similarly, it was suggested that female speakers may be more dominant in L2 than in L1 because interactional strategies based on other-oriented initiations are more likely to be transferred than those based on self-oriented initiations. However, if other-oriented initiations do not contribute to dominance to the same degree as self-oriented initiations, the finding that female speakers are more dominant in L2 than in L1 may also be invalid. In order to understand the difference between self-oriented and otheroriented initiations in terms of dominance, it is necessary to understand how exactly each type of initiation controls the following speaker’s conversational action. An initiation can be described as controlling in three ways: (i) constraining the following speaker to make a certain kind of move (i.e. response) (sequential dominance) (ii) constraining the following speaker to make a response whose content is relevant to the initiation (topic dominance) and (iii) constraining the length of the response or the other speaker’s participation on the floor (quantitative dominance).
Conclusion 187
Below I will re-examine some examples of self-oriented and other-oriented initiations cited earlier in order to find out whether there is any difference between them in terms of these three levels of control. 8.1.2 Self-oriented initiations vs. other-oriented initiations Excerpt (1) is an example of the use of self-oriented initiations by a male speaker. (1) F6 and M6 are discussing the uselessness of derutan, a name widely used for exercise books for learning English vocabulary that list English words with Japanese equivalents. In the following conversation, aikokushin is the Japanese equivalent of patriotism. [Japanese] 44F6: inf 45M6: 46F6: Æ 47M6: 48F6: Æ 49M6:
ack F el:agr agr el:agr
50F6: agr Æ 51M6: inf
52F6: ack Æ 53M6: inf
54F6: ack 55M6: F [translation] 44F6: inf 45M6: ack 46F6: F
Nanka derutan toka no sa, saisho no hoo ni aikokushin ka nanka no sooyuu tango ga aru toka kiita n da kedo. Aikokushin atta, ee patriotism. Zenzen shiranai n da kedo, atashi. Nn nan tsukawanai yo ne. Nee zettai tsukawanai. Donna toki ni tsukau n da tte yuu. Ato tsukaikata ni shita tte saa, tango ni shita tte saa. Soo da naa, att dakara regret toka no an jan. N. Regret tte ttatte Eego ( ? ) shika tsukanai kedo Nihongo de benkyoo shite repent toka soo yatte repent nante iwanee yo zettai. Repent tte ittara ne, chotto furui iikata da sutta yoo, kodaiteki na saa. Nn. Demo soredemo repent tte futsuu ni kookai suru tte kaite aru shi saa. Ore repent tte mite “Kore nan jaro na” tte omotte saa. Fuun. Nn. Well I heard that at the beginning of derutan, such words as aikokushin are listed. Aikokushin that’s right er patriotism. I don’t know the word at all
188 Conversational Dominance and Gender
Æ 47M6: el:agr 48F6: agr Æ 49M6: el:agr
50F6: agr Æ 51M6: inf
52F6: ack Æ 53M6: inf
54F6: ack 55M6: F
These kinds of words are never used in everyday English, are they? Right, never used. They have no idea that such words are never used. And also explanation about how words are used given in such books, are, well, let me see, er well you know the word ‘regret’, don’t you? Yes. In English ‘regret’ is only used in ( ? ) but in Japanese we are taught a word like ‘repent’. They never use ‘repent’, you know, never. I was told that it’s old fashioned, you know, sort of archaic. Yes. But er derutan explains the meaning of the word as meaning ‘to regret’, you know. When I found ‘repent’ mentioned in derutan I had no idea of why the word is there. Oh I see. Right.
F6’s turn 44 is an example of a self-oriented informative because it is used to initiate a topic with which she is concerned. Similarly, M6’s elicit:agrees in turns 47 and 49 and informatives in turns 51 and 53 are used to establish the speaker’s expertise and are therefore examples of self-oriented initiations. All of these moves control the interlocutor’s following actions by prospecting appropriate moves (i.e. responses) for the following turns (sequential dominance). They also constrain the interlocutor to make the content of the responses relevant to the speaker’s preceding initiations (topic dominance). In addition, the selforiented informatives and elicit:agrees tend to control the length of the interlocutor’s following turn to a minimum (see turns 48, 50, 52, and 54) (quantitative dominance). They also limit the interlocutors’ semantic contribution (or number of new lexical items) to a minimum level, as indicated by such expressions as “yes” (turn 50 and 52) and “Oh I see” (turn 54), which do not add any new significant semantic element to the topic. In sum, self-oriented informatives tend to control the interlocutor in three major ways: sequentially, topically and quantitatively, which includes both the total number of words and the number of new lexical items. Excerpt (2) contains examples of other-oriented initiations:
Conclusion 189
(2) M1 is telling a story about his bicycle trip. [English] 20M1: el:inf
21F1: R
Æ 29F1: el:inf 30M1: R
Æ 39F1: 40M1: Æ 41F1: 42M1: 43F1:
el:inf el:rep el:inf R inf
44M1: ack Æ 45F1: F el:inf 46M1: R 47F1: F
Mm my - interesting experiences about travel is erm when I was mm 16 - mm 16 - erm I ah do you know Kasukabe? Yes! I know very much because I live in Saitama ((laughs)) (8 turns omitted) Ah how long did you take from your house to Kujuukuri? Kujuukuri mm it takes mm - ah three a.m to three p.m. (8 turns omitted) Ett! (= What!) did you do by yourself? Mm? Did you do by att with your friends? With my gymnastics club friend, five people mm. But I think gymnastic members tough? tough and strong, so they, they I think they could easily. Mm. Haa? (= oh I see) Ah is this a good ex-, experience?= =Mm good experience= =Ah?
F1’s elicit:informs in turns 29, 39, 41 (re-initiation of 39) and 45 are otheroriented because they are used to encourage her interlocutor to expand on his story about his travelling experiences initiated in turn 20. They prospect appropriate responses (sequential dominance), and like the self-oriented informatives and elicit:agrees in Excerpt (1), they also control the topic, although they differ in that they do so by requiring the interlocutor to supply information rather than acknowledgement or agreement. For this reason, F1’s other-oriented elicit:informs in Excerpt (2) differ from the self-oriented informatives and elicit:agrees in Excerpt (1) with respect to quantitative dominance in that they do not constrain the length of the interlocutor’s response to the same degree. M1’s responses in Excerpt (2) not only contain a similar number of words to F1’s initiations, they also contribute new lexical items (e.g. “three a.m. to three p.m.” in turn 30 and “gymnastic club friend, five
190 Conversational Dominance and Gender
people” in turn 42). If a speaker uses elicit:informs to prompt the interlocutor to tell a story, a similar pattern is likely to be seen. The comparison of self-oriented informatives or elicit:agrees and otheroriented elicit:informs therefore suggests that the former may have a stronger degree of control than the latter. If so, the degree of dominance for the two male speakers, who tend to use self-oriented informatives, in L1 may in fact be stronger than the results of my quantitative analysis suggest, while the degree of dominance for the two female speakers, who tend to use other-oriented elicit:informs, in L2 may be weaker. However, it is not clear how different degrees of control for self-oriented initiations and other-oriented initiations can be assigned different points on a scale of control. There also appear to be different degrees of control within self-oriented initiations and within otheroriented initiations, which means that self-oriented initiations are not necessarily more controlling than other-oriented initiations. I will discuss these difficulties in the following sections. 8.1.3 Degrees of control for self-oriented initiations In relation to Excerpt (1), it has been argued that F6’s informative in turn 44 and M6’s elicit:agrees (turn 47 and 49) and informatives (turn 51 and 53) are examples of self-oriented initiations. However, although F6 in turn 44 initiates a topic based on her experience, she is prevented from pursuing it by M6’s informative in turn 51, which shifts the topic to the display of his expert knowledge. In contrast, M6’s informatives and elicit:agrees successfully pursue the topic concerning himself. This raises the question of whether all selforiented initiations represent the same degree of control. In addition to informatives and elicit:agrees, elicit:informs can also be selforiented, as the following Excerpt (3) illustrates: (3) [Japanese] 48M1: el:agr
49F1: agr
Tebura de kaeritakunai jan, mottainai yo nee, tadade sae nee, okane nee. ((pause)) Soo da yo nee. Mikaeri tte ka chanto jibun de mini tsukenakya mottainai mon ne, kono okane ga. Dakara ne, watashi majime janakutemo ii kedo chanto jugyoo watashi dete-, deru hooga suki. Deru hooga tte yoku wakannai
Conclusion
50M1: el:inf 51F1: R el:inf 52M1: R inf 53F1: ack [translation] 48M1: el:agr
49F1: agr inf
50M1: el:inf 51F1: R el:inf 52M1: R inf 53F1: ack
kedo ((laughs)) demo sensee mo tanoshii hoo ga ureshii kedoo. ((2 sec)) Nan tan’i totteru? Ima ne 53 tan’i. Nan tan’i totta? Ore mo 50 chotto itteru gurai 70 toka yuu hito iru yo. Iru yo nee… We don’t want to leave university empty-handed, do we?, that would be a waste, especially when money is at issue, wouldn’t it? ((pause)) That’s right. Some gain or how can I put it, unless we gain something, it will be a waste, this money er, you know, I may not wish to become studious but attending classes properly, I prefer to attend. I don’t quite know what I mean ((laughs)) but of course I’d be happier if the teachers make their classes interesting. ((2 sec)) How many modules are you taking? Now 53 modules. How many did you take? Me, also a little over 50. Some people are taking 70 or something, you know. That’s really true…
M1’s elicit:inform in turn 50 is self-oriented in the sense that it does not provide an acknowledgement to the interlocutor’s preceding informative and prevents her from expanding on the topic she has raised in her previous utterance (49). In addition, it initiates a new topic that he is concerned to develop. Although M1’s self-oriented elicit:inform controls F1’s conversational action in terms of sequential relevance and topic dominance (i.e. to give an appropriate response to the type and content of the preceding initiation), it does not appear to constrain F1’s quantity of speech to the same degree as self-oriented informatives [compare F1’s response in turn 51 with F6’s responses following M6’s
191
192 Conversational Dominance and Gender
self-oriented informatives in turn 48 (“Right, never used”), 50 (“Yes”), 52 (“Yes”) and 54 (“Oh I see”) in Excerpt 1]. This suggests that self-oriented elicit:informs may be less controlling than self-oriented informatives or elicit:agrees, in terms of restricting the length of the other speaker’s following turn. In addition, it suggests that there may be little difference in the degree of control between self-oriented elicit:informs (M1’s turn 50 in Excerpt 3) and other-oriented elicit:informs (e.g. F1’s turns 29, 39 and 45 in Excerpt 2 and F1’s turn 51 in Excerpt 3). I will now turn to the different degrees of control within other-oriented initiations. 8.1.4 Degrees of control for other-oriented initiations Other-oriented initiations can take the form of informatives as well as elicit: informs as in Excerpt (4). (4) F1 and M1 have been talking about M1’s long distance cycling trip. [English] 41F1: el:inf 42M1: R Æ 43F1: inf 44M1: ack
Did you do by att with your friends? With my gymnastics club friend, five people mm. But I think gymnastic members tough? tough and strong so they, they, I think they could easily. Mm.
F1’s informative in turn 43 is other-oriented in that it expands on M1’s preceding utterance and facilitates the development of his story about his cycling trip. However, unlike other-oriented elicit:informs, which do not tend to constrain the interlocutor’s next contribution (see Excerpt 2), F1’s other-oriented informative in turn 43 limits M1’s contribution to a minimum (“Mm”). In other words, compared to responses following other-oriented elicit:informs (e.g., M1’s response in turn 42 in Excerpt 2 “With My gymnastic club friend, five people mm”), responses following other-oriented informatives (e.g., M1’s response “Mm” in turn 44 in Excerpt 4) can be seen as being more constrained in terms of quantity in similar ways to responses following self-oriented informatives (e.g. F6’s turn 48 (“Right, never used”), 50 (“Yes”), 52 (“Yes”) and 54 (“Oh I see”) in Excerpt 1). It is therefore difficult to determine different degrees of control within other-oriented initiations depending on the type of initiation (e.g. elicit:inform or informative). It may also be difficult to determine whether a given initiation is selforiented or other-oriented as the following Excerpt (5) illustrates:
Conclusion 193
(5) [English] 46F6: X 47M6: el:inf 48F6: 49M6: 50F6: 51M6: 52F6:
R F inf ack F inf
53M6: inf 54F6: ack 55M6: F
Ah my experience is very good, in Canada um just[ Which part of Canada did you go, Toronto? North Vancouver, British Columbia. Ah. It’s the sister city of Chiba city. I see. Yes. And everyone is very good to me ((laughs)) because there is only four students go to the Vancouver. I’ve got a friend in Vancouver. Really. Mm.
M6’s elicit:inform (turn 47) appears to be other-oriented in the sense that it is used to encourage F6 to expand on her story about her travelling experiences in Canada. However, it can also be seen as a self-oriented elicit:inform which is used to shift the topic from her experience of travelling in Canada to his own interest in Canada. Following an overlap in turn 46, M6 does not withdraw his utterance to let her complete the utterance so that she will be able to elaborate on her experiences in Canada. M6 instead focuses on a particular location in Canada by making an elicit:inform (turn 47). This can be seen as manifesting his wish to shift the topic to one concerning his experience or contact with the location in Canada. In contrast to the clearer case of self-oriented informative in turn 53, it is more difficult to determine whether M6’s elicit:inform in turn 47 is self-oriented or other-oriented. 8.1.5 Summary In sum, the re-examination of self-oriented and other-oriented initiations suggests that the degree of control may be stronger for self-oriented than for other-oriented initiations if we take into account the degree to which each type of initiation controls the length of the second speaker’s following response (both in terms of the total number of words and the number of new lexical items) as well as the type of the following move (sequential dominance) and its content (topic dominance). However, the analysis also suggests that it is difficult to determine different degrees of control within a given initiation type
194 Conversational Dominance and Gender
or between initiation types. In addition, it may be difficult to determine whether a given initiation is a clear-cut example of self- or other-oriented initiation. This suggests that a quantitative analysis of conversational dominance which takes account of interactional goals and styles would be problematic because we would have no principled basis on which to assign values to different types of initiations. The results of my quantitative analysis, which treats all instances of controlling actions as having an equal degree of control, therefore appears to be valid in as much as it captures one speaker’s overall tendency to control the development of the topic by restricting the other speaker to make appropriate moves. However, the results do not take account of the different degrees of control that may be related to such factors as different interactional goals and styles, types of initiations and violations of turn-taking rules. As a result it is possible that male dominance in L1 is underestimated and female dominance in L2 is overestimated to some extent. However, because of the difficulty of assigning values to different types of initiations it is difficult to say reliably to what extent this is so.
8.2 Gender dominance in Japanese conversation The results of the empirical analysis reported in Chapter 4 did not show any clear pattern of dominance in relation to gender in the Japanese conversation by Japanese speakers. At least two explanations are possible for this. First, the likely influence of the problems in the analytical framework discussed in Section 8.1 is an underestimation of male dominance. If selforiented initiations are to be treated as counting more towards sequential dominance (to reflect the fact that they are more controlling than otheroriented initiations), the male speakers in this study may be more dominant than they appear to be from the results presented in Chapter 4. This is because they tend to make more self-oriented initiations than the female speakers, who tend to use more other-oriented initiations. Second, gender differences within the group of university students studied may assume different functions from those that it has been said to have in more traditional groupings. Gender has been said to be one of the most influential factors, together with social position and age, determining relative status and leading to unequal relationships in Japanese society. However, as I noted in Section 2.1, the observation that Japanese male speakers dominate Japanese female speakers tends to be based on observations about Japanese women that
Conclusion 195
do not necessarily take account of the compounding effect from other variables such as age and social position, or of the context of the relationship (e.g., workplace or outside workplace). Where the identity of the speakers is specified, the assertion of male dominance tends to be based on the description of traditional working relationships (Japanese male speakers typically hold higher positions and are older than Japanese female speakers in the same workplace; see Moeran, 1988), or on the traditional relationship between a Japanese husband and a wife (see Pharr, 1976). In work situations they are also said to share strong common goals for the benefits of their company, which assign clear-cut roles among the members and create hierarchical relationships among them. The view that Japanese male speakers dominate female speakers has not tended to take account of less typical situations. For example, gender may have a less strong or different influence where Japanese male speakers do not hold higher positions than Japanese women, which is becoming increasingly common in working situations. In addition, it is not known whether Japanese male speakers dominate Japanese female speakers when they do not have any working relationship: for example, when they meet in interest groups (e.g., for hiking and poetry writing), when they are classmates from former school days, or when they are from the same university but do not belong to a hierarchically bound group (e.g., a sports club). The influence of gender in mixed gender groups outside the context of conventional company hierarchies is especially unpredictable in Japanese society, where mixed gender groups outside the workplace are traditionally less common than single gender groups and have not been studied from the point of view of gender and language. According to the literature, intimate groups, or uchi, outside the workplace are commonly formed among members of the same gender and it is less common for male students and female students to mix in Japanese universities than in Western universities (see Loveday, 1986b). My empirical study did not find any clear pattern of male dominance among the subjects. This could be explained as follows. The male and female speakers who participated in this study were students in the same academic year of the same Japanese university taking the same course (English). They can therefore be seen as being of equal status in terms of major social variables other than gender (i.e. social position and age). In addition, they were not related to each other through hierarchical working relationships. The absence of male dominance among the subjects therefore suggests that the traditional view on gender dominance in Japanese language and society should be questioned. Gender may not have strong influence in isolation from other variables, and
196 Conversational Dominance and Gender
particularly, when the traditional combination of male gender, higher position, and greater age in a workplace is not present. It also suggests that gender may not have a strong influence in terms of determining relative status among the participants when they are not bound within uchi. Future studies examining conversational dominance in less traditional situations and of mixed gender groups outside the workplace (friendship groups, interests groups, etc) would further elucidate our understanding of the influence of gender on interaction in contemporary Japanese society.
8.3 Gender and pragmatic transfer The empirical study suggested one possible relationship between L1 and L2: male speakers tended to be less dominant in L2 than in L1. The subsequent qualitative analysis of data from the two dyads suggested that the different patterns of dominance in L1 and L2 may be generalisable, if reduced male dominance in L2 is related to differences in interactional styles (i.e. men tend to be self-oriented and women tend to be other-oriented) and strategies that are used to achieve different interactional goals, if these are susceptible to different levels of transferability. Male dominance in L1 tends to be established through a combination of the use of self-oriented styles and strategies by the male speakers and the use of supportive other-oriented styles and strategies by the female speakers. Men may become less dominant in L2 if they are self-oriented, while women may become more dominant if they are other-oriented because self-oriented strategies appear to be less readily transferred than other-oriented strategies. The former involve the skills of creating chains of informatives coherently, handling longer and linguistically more complex structures and presenting details of personal accounts while maintaining the other speaker’s interest during the speaker’s story-telling. On the other hand, other-oriented strategies involve asking questions that draw others into talk, which are shorter and linguistically less complex. While responses to self-oriented informatives require the speaker to develop the topic single-handedly, responses to other-oriented questions provide new semantic content on which the speaker’s following questions can be built. In other words, while self-oriented strategies appear to require the speaker to take on most of the work of developing topic, other-oriented strategies allow the work to be shared between the speaker and the interlocutor.
Conclusion 197
In addition, self-oriented strategies in L1 seem to make more extensive use of elicit:agrees in which the interactional particle of ‘ne/nee’ is used to signal shared feelings and empathy (Izuhara, 1993) and ‘affective common ground’ (Minegishi Cook, 1990). The fact that no instance of elicit:agree was found in the L2 data used in the present study suggests that Japanese speakers interacting in L2 may encounter difficulties in expressing the affective engagement characteristic of L1, due to the difficulty of constructing the English tag questions needed for elicit:agrees. The use of other-oriented strategies in L2 may therefore be less demanding in terms of the speaker’s proficiency than the use of self-oriented styles. Thus, if it is assumed that the male and female speakers in the study were approximately equal in L2 proficiency, the female speakers would find themselves at an ‘advantage’ in terms of dominance, since their other-oriented strategies are more easily transferred to L2. However, this suggests that differences in proficiency levels may also influence dominance in L2. We could hypothesize, for example, that a lower proficiency level will increase the likelihood that a speaker who tends to use self-oriented strategies will be dominated. Similarly, if it is the case that female learners tend to have higher proficiency levels than male learners generally (Boyle, 1987; Nyikos, 1990; but see also Bacon, 1992), we could also hypothesise that differences in proficiency level are likely to be a relevant factor in any general tendency for female learners to be more or less dominant in L2 interaction. Although differences in the degree of transferability of self-oriented and other-oriented strategies offer a possible explanation for the male speakers’ reduced dominance in L2, this aspect of transfer still awaits further investigation. In depth comparison of the linguistic complexity and conversational work required for producing different strategies is needed, for example: (a) across different types of initiations (e.g., informatives, elicit:agrees and elicit:informs) (b) between self-oriented informatives (e.g., used for story telling and for claiming expertise) and other-oriented elicitations (e.g., used to draw interlocutors into talk) (c) between self-oriented elicit:informs (e.g., used to switch the topic) and other-oriented elicit:informs (used to facilitate the interlocutor to develop his topic) (d) between self-oriented elicit:informs and other-oriented informatives (e.g., making evaluative comments and judgements) (d) between self-oriented informatives used to express personal feelings and thoughts and those used to report factual information.
198 Conversational Dominance and Gender
8.4 Concluding remarks This study has addressed the implications of the interaction of gender dominance and pragmatic transfer for Japanese speakers on the basis of developing and applying a framework for analysing conversational dominance. I hope this volume has contributed to our understanding of gender and interaction in three main ways. Firstly, the treatment of conversational dominance as both an effect and observable feature of interaction opens up two possibilities. Not only does this integrated treatment make it possible to investigate the relationships between pragmatic features of interaction and social variables but also it helps attain a better understanding of L1 to L2 pragmatic transfer. One needs to remember that in proposing a simplified framework for the quantitative analysis of conversational dominance, there is always a risk of losing the delicacy achieved in more complex frameworks. At the same time, it can be argued that greater delicacy is virtually impossible to achieve through quantitative analysis alone. In the sense that I have used the term in this study, conversational dominance is a technical construct related to topic control. However, a speaker who achieves dominance in this sense, for example by asking short questions that lead the interlocutor to develop a story, may also be considered as a ‘co-operative’ conversationalist or a ‘good listener’. In addition, a speaker who interrupts frequently may, in fact, be showing her involvement in the interlocutor’s talk. This suggests that quantitative data in regard to conversational dominance needs to be interpreted in the light of qualitative analysis concerned with the speakers’ conversational styles, goals and strategies and with social and cultural aspects of the mutual construction of meanings in everyday conversation. Secondly, the present study has provided empirical evidence on gender and interaction on the basis of recorded conversation that is lacking in studies of Japanese women’s language to date. The results call into question the widely held assumption that Japanese women’s language is indicative of their lower social status and suggests an alternative view that gender is a social variable that leads to dominance only when it is compounded with other social variables such as social position and age, as well as within uchi, or in-group relationships. As mentioned above, the present study clearly points to the fact that quantitative analysis would benefit substantially from its integration with qualitative analysis if a systematic understanding of the multi-faceted role of gender in interaction were to evolve. I have been able to capture gender differentiated conversational style as observable features and thus to complement broad
Conclusion 199
accounts on gender differentiated conversational styles with more micro-level analysis providing finer details. By adopting the integrated approach, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the construct of conversational dominance is in fact closely related to the notion of conversational styles, although the two concepts are often seen as in dichotomous. Conversational dominance can be seen as a product of the interaction of self-oriented and other-oriented conversational styles in the sense that the other-oriented speaker seems to produce initiations only to the extent to which her self-oriented interlocutor requires. The proposed framework proved workable for the analysis of both Japanese L1 and EFL conversation, and it was revalidated by the synthetic approach taken in the present study. Further research would, of course, be necessary to establish the range of applicability of the framework in other conversational contexts. It is also acknowledged that the nature of the data collection method may have some effect on the wider applicability of the framework described in this book. For example, the data contain a relatively high proportion of question-answer sequences and a relatively low proportion of sequences in which topics are developed through successive mutual commenting. Lastly, the present study has attempted to contribute to research on pragmatic transfer in two respects. It has investigated transfer of interactional norms, in particular, patterns of dominance, which has not been studied as extensively as the transfer of speech act behaviours. In addition, it has investigated pragmatic transfer on the basis of direct comparison of L1 and L2 conversations involving the same pairs of speakers, which, according to Ellis (1994: 162–165) is the only reliable way to determine the extent of L1 to L2 transfer. Indeed this study may have only begun to address a number of potentially important implications of dominance in L2 interaction. Although more thorough analysis is required, the findings from the present study point to a number of areas which research in second language acquisition may find valuable to pursue. First, the proposed analytical framework could open up the possibility of investigation of inequalities in learning opportunities for different types of learners associated with social variables such as gender, social position or ethnicity. This in turn suggests that learners may need to learn and be taught the pragmatic skills necessary to benefit most from participation in L2 interaction while minimising the disadvantages they may encounter in terms of participation level. For example, learners may need to learn how to produce both (self-oriented and other-oriented) types of initiation, regardless of their gender. This would include, for example, an understanding of the organisation
200 Conversational Dominance and Gender
of story telling (Labov, 1972), devices to develop topic within a turn and across turns, such as the use of different types of repetition (McCarthy, 1988, Tannen, 1989, McCarthy 1991, McCarthy and Carter, 1994: pp. 144–149), backchannel expressions (Gardner, 1998; White, 1989), and self-oriented and other-oriented questions. In other words, learners may need to learn skills required to tell stories as well as to collaborate with the other speaker’s story telling as part of their pragmatic competence. Although learners may be oriented towards the use of a particular conversational style as a consequence of their gender, they should still be able to acquire strategies associated with different styles if their second language proficiency is to be fully developed. This study has taken a serious step towards revisiting some of the common constructs of gender and dominance and in so doing it has brought together important concepts within one coherent analytic framework. I hope that the study presented in this volume will also be able to make some useful contribution to pragmatic transfer and language learning and teaching.
DOCINFO
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Appendix 1"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Appendix 1 Topic sheet
Instructions: You are going to have a short conversation (about 10 minutes) in English. The following are possible topics. Please put a circle for topic that you are interested in and a cross for topic(s) that you are not interested in: (A) Part-time job (arubaito) [] Talk about your and your partner’s part time jobs. Any interesting experience, problems. (B) Marrying a foreigner (kokusai kekkon) [] Would you like to marry a foreigner? Any problems? (C) Food [] Talk about where you usually eat, what you like to eat, food on campus, etc. (D) Your classes at university [] Some students are very serious (majime) and go to all the classes but other students skip classes (saboru). Talk about your situation and experiences? (E) Comic books (manga) [] Comic books that you like to read. Some people say that comic books are not good for you. What is your opinion about this?
DOCINFO
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Appendix 2"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Appendix 2 Number of turns used for quantitative analysis
Japanese data Dyad D1 MF D2 MF D3 MF D4 MF D5 MF D6 MF D7 MF D8 MF
100 100 101 101 99 101 99 99
Total
800
English data Dyad D1 MF D2 MF D3 MF D4 MF D5 MF D6 MF D7 MF D8 MF
99 101 99 101 100 98 100 100
Total
798
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "References"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
References
Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L. and Linell, P. 1987 ‘The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction’. Text 7(4), pp. 313–346. Agar, M. 1985 ‘Institutional discourse.’ Text 5, pp. 147–168. Ahrens, U. 1997 ‘The interplay between interruptions and preference organization in conversation. New perspectives on a classic topic of gender research’. In H. Kotthoff and R. Wodak (eds.) Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–106. Aries, E. J. 1982 ‘Verbal and non-verbal behavior in single-sex and mixed-sex groups: Are traditional sex roles changing?’. Psychological Reports 51, pp. 127–134. Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1984 Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Bacon, S. 1992 ‘The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in second-language listening’. Modern Language Journal 76, pp. 160–178. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. 1990 ‘Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session’. Language Learning 40, pp. 467–501. Beattie, G. 1981 ‘Interruption in conversational interaction, and its relation to the sex and the status of the interactants’. Linguistics 19, pp. 15–35. 1982 ‘Look, just don’t interrupt’. New Scientist 95, pp. 859–860. Beebe, L. and Takahashi, T. 1989 ‘Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition’. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston and L. Selinker (eds.) Variation in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 103–125. Beebe, L., Takahashi, T. and Uliss-Weltz, R. 1990 ‘Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals’. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, and S. Krashen (eds.) Developing Communicative Competence. New York: Newbury House, pp. 55–73.
206 References
Benjamin, G. R. 1997 Japanese Lessons. New York: New York University Press. Bennet, A. 1981 ‘Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation’. Discourse Processes 4, pp. 171–188. Bergmann, J. R. 1990 ‘On the local sensitivity of conversation’. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 201–226. Berry, M. 1981 ‘Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure’. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 120–145. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. 1989 Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Bonikowska, M. 1988 ‘The choice of opting out’. Applied Linguistics 9, pp. 169–181. Boyle, J. 1987 ‘Sex differences in listening vocabulary’. Language Learning 37, pp. 273–284. Britain, D. 1992 ‘Linguistic change in intonation: The use of High Rising Terminals in New Zealand English Language’. Variations and Change 4/1, pp. 77–104. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1979 ‘Social structure, groups and interaction’. In K. R. Scherer and H. Giles (eds.) Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge University Press, pp. 291–333. Brown, R. and Gillman, A. 1968 ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity’. In J. Fishman (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 252–275. Burton, D. 1981 ‘Analysing spoken discourse’. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 61–81. Button, G. and Casey, N. 1984 ‘Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors’. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action, Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–190. Cameron, D. 1997 ‘Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity’. In S. Johnson and U. H. Meinhof (eds.) Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47–64. Chafe, W. C. 1988 ‘Linking intonation units in spoken English.’ In J. Haiman & S. Thompson (eds.) Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–27.
References 207
1993 ‘Prosodic and functional units of language’. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lambert (eds.) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33–43. Coates, J. 1987 ‘Epistemic modality and spoken discourse’. Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 110–131. 1993 Women, Men and Language (2nd edition). London: Longman 1994 ‘No gap, lots of overlap: turn-taking patterns in the talk of women friends’. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin and B. Stierer (eds.) Researching Language and Literacy in Social Context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters in association with the Open University, pp. 177–192.. 1996 Women Talk Oxford: Blackwell 1997 ‘One-at-a-time: The organization of men’s talk’. In S. Johnson and U. H. Meinhof (eds.) Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 107–129. Coulthard, M. and Brazil, D. 1981 ‘Exchange structure in M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery’ (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis . London: Routledge, pp. 82–106. Coulthard, M., Montgomery, M. and Brazil, D. 1981 ‘Developing a description of spoken discourse’. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 1–50. Covelli, L. H. and Murray, S. O. 1980 ‘Accomplishing topic change’. Anthropological Linguistics 22, pp. 382–389. Doughty, C. and Pica, T. 1986 “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition?’. TESOL Quarterly 20(2), pp. 305–325. Drew, P. and Heritage, J 1992 ‘Analysing talk at work: an introduction’. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65. Du Bois, J. D., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S. and Paolino, D. 1993 ‘Outline of discourse transcription’. In J. A. Edwards and M. D. Lambert (eds.) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 45–89. Duff, P. A. 1986 ‘Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task’. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn. Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 147–181. Eakins, B. W. and Eakins, R. G. 1978 Sex Differences in Human Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Edelsky, C. 1981 ‘Who’s got the floor?’. Language in Society 10(3), pp. 383–421. Ehara, Y., Yoshii, H., and Yamazaki, K. 1984 ‘Seisabetsu no esunomesodorojii: Taimen komyunikeeshon jookyoo ni okeru kenryoku’ [Ethnomethodology of Sexism: Power in face-to-face communication]. Gendai Shakai Gaku [Contemporary Sociology] 18, pp. 143–176.
208 References
Ellis, R. 1994 The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Fairclough, N. 1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity press. Ferguson, N. 1977 ‘Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance’. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16, pp. 295–302. Fishman, P. 1978a ‘Interaction: the work women do’. Social Problems 24, pp. 397–406. 1978b ‘What do couples talk about when they’re alone?’. In D. Butturff and E. L. Epstein (eds.) Women’s Language and Style. Akron, OH: L & S Books, pp. 11–23. 1983 ‘Interaction: The work women do’. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and N. Henley (eds.) Language, Gender and Society. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, pp. 89–101. Foppa, K. 1990 ‘Topic progression and intention’. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 178–200. Francis, G. and Hunston, S. 1992 ‘Analysing everyday conversation’. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 123–161. Futaba, T. 1994 Second Language Acquisition through Negotiation: A Case of Non-native Speakers who Share the Same First Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Gardner, R. 1998 ‘Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings’. Applied Linguistics 19(20, pp. 204–224. Garfinkel, H. 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gass, S. M. and Varonis, E. M. 1985 ‘Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning’. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, pp. 149–161. 1986 ‘Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions’. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn. Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House, pp. 327–351. Giles, H., Scherer, K. R. and Taylor, D. M. 1979 ‘Speech markers in social interaction’. In K. R. Scherer and H. Giles (eds.) Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge University Press, pp. 343–381. Goffman, E. 1974 Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Goodwin, C. 1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
References 209
Goodwin, M. H. 1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Grimshaw, A. D. 1987 ‘Finishing other’s talk: Some structural and pragmatic features of completion offers’. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (eds.) Language Topics, Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–235. Halliday, M. A. K. 1961 ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’. Word 17/3: 241–92. Reprinted in G. R. Kress (ed.) 1976 Halliday: System and Function in Language. Oxford University Press, pp. 52–72. Henley, N. M. and Kramarae, C. 1991 ‘Gender, power and miscommunication’. In N. Coupland, H. Giles and J. M. Wiemann (eds.) Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 18–43. Heritage, J. 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press Holmes, J. 1984 ‘Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures’. Te Reo 27, pp. 47–62. 1992 An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman. 1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman, Chapter 3. Hori, M. 1986 ‘A sociolinguistic analysis of the Japanese honorifics’. Journal of Pragmatics 10, pp. 373–386. Hosoda, Y. 1998 “What does ne mean? Characteristics of the Japanese particle ne and its transfer”. Paper presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Reims, France. Ide, S. 1982 ‘Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women’s language’. Lingua 57, pp. 357–385. 1992 ‘Gender and function of language use: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from Japanese’. Pragmatics and Language Learning 3, pp. 117–129. Ide, S., Hori, M., Kawasaki, A., Ikuta, S. and Haga, H. 1986 ‘Sex difference and politeness in Japanese’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58, pp. 25–36. Ijima, M. 1999 ‘Shuujoshi/kantoojoshi aruiwa komyunikeeshon kooi koozoo’ [Shuujoshi/ kantoojoshi or the structure of communication behaviour]. Gengo 5/28, pp. 115–119. Inoue, M. 1997 ‘Moshi moshi, kippu o otosaremashita yo — shuujoshi o tsukau koto no imi’ [“Excuse me, you’ve dropped your ticket”: the meaning of using sentence-final particle]. Gengo 6/2, pp. 62–67.
210 References
Itani, R. 1996 Semantics and Pragmatics of Hedges in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Izuhara, E. 1993 ‘Ne to yo saikoo. Ne to yo no komyunikeeshon kinoo no koosatsu kara’ [Reexamination of ne and yo. Communicative function of ne and yo]. Nihongo Kyooiku [Education of Japanese Language] 80, pp. 103–114. James, D. and Clarke, S. 1993 ‘Women, men, and interruptions: a critical review’. In D. Tannen (ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford University Press, pp. 231–280. James, D. and Drakich, J. 1993 ‘Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research’. In D. Tannen (ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford University Press, pp. 281–312. Jefferson, G. 1973 ‘A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences’. Semiotica 9, pp.47–96. 1984a ‘Transcription notation’. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action, Cambridge University Press, pp. ix-xvi. 1984b ‘On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately nextpositioned matters’. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–222. 1987 ‘On exposed and embedded correction in conversation’. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 86–100. Jefferson, G. and Schenkein, J. 1978 ‘Some sequential negotiations in conversation: unexpanded and expanded versions of projected action sequences’. In J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 155–172. Jespersen, O. 1922 Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen and Unwin. Jorden, E. H. 1983a ‘Feminine Language’. Kodansha Encyclopaedia of Japan vol 2, pp. 251–252. 1983b ‘Masculine Language’. Kodansha Encyclopaedia of Japan vol 5, pp. 124–125. Kamio, A. 1990 Joohoo no Nawabri Riron: Gengo no kinoo bunseki [Territory of Information: Functional Approach to Language]. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Kasper, G 1996 ‘Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, pp. 145–148. Kasper, G. 1992 ‘Pragmatic transfer’. Second Language Research 8, pp. 203–231.
References
Kiesling, S. F. 1997 ‘Power and the language of men’. In S. Johnson and U. H. Meinhof (eds.) Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 65–85. Kodansha, 1995 Japan-Profile of a Nation. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Käsermann, M. L. 1991 ‘Obstruction and dominance: uncooperative moves and their effect on the course of conversation’. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 101–123. Labov, W. 1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1972a Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1972b ‘The transformation of experience in narrative syntax’. In Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 354–396. Lakoff, R. 1973 ‘Language and women’s place’. Language and Society 2, pp. 45–79. 1975 Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper Colophon. Lebra, T. S. 1976 Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. Honolulu: University of Hawaii press. 1984 Japanese Women: Constraint and Fulfilment. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lee, J. R. E. 1987 ‘Prologue: Talking organisation’. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 19–53. Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. 1980 ‘Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise’. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson and P. M. Smith (eds.) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 97–104. Levinson, S. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Linell, P. 1990 ‘The power of dialogue dynamics’. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 147–177. Linell, P. and Luckmann, T. 1991 ‘Asymmetries in dialogue: some conceptual preliminaries’. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 1–20. Linell, P., Gustavsson, L. and Juvonen, P. 1988 ‘Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiativeresponse analysis’. Linguistics 26, pp. 415–442. Linell. P. and Jönsson 1991 ‘Suspect stories: on perspective-setting in an asymmetrical situation’. I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 75–100.
211
212 References
Long, M. H. and Porter, P. A. 1985 ‘Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition’. TESOL Quarterly 19(2), pp. 207–228. Long, M. H., Adams, L., McLean, M., and Castaños, F. 1976 ‘Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations’. In R. Crymes and J. Fanselow (eds.) On TESOL ’76. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, pp. 147–153. Loveday, L. 1984 ‘The ecology of designatory markers’. In W. Enninger and M. L. Haynes (eds.) Studies in Language Ecology. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, pp. 83–93. 1986a ‘The ethnography of ritual and address at a Japanese wedding reception’. In Explorations in Japanese Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Chapter 2, pp. 33–55. 1986b ‘Japanese sociolinguistics’. Journal of Pragmatics 10, pp. 287–326. Luckmann, T. 1990 ‘Social communication, dialogue and conversation’. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 45–61. Lumley, T. and Brown, A. 1998 ‘An investigation into the authenticity of discourse in a specific-purpose language performance test and its relevance to test validity’. In E. S. Li and G. James (eds.) Testing and Evaluation in Second Language Education. Language Centre, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, pp. 22–33. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. and Ross, S. 1996 ‘Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing’. In S. Gass and J. Neu (eds.) Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 155–187. Makino, S. and Tsutsui, M. 1995 A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Makri-Tsilipakou, M. 1994 ‘Interruption revisited: Affiliative vs. disaffiliative intervention’. Journal of Pragmatics 21, pp. 401–426. Maltz, D. N. and Borker, R. A. 1982 ‘A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication’. In J. J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–216. Marková, I. and Foppa, K. 1991b ‘Conclusion’. In Marková, I. and Foppa, K (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 259–272. Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.) 1990 The Dynamics in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 1991a Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Marková, I. and P. Linell 1996 ‘Coding elementary contributions to dialogue: Individual acts versus dialogical interactions’. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour 26 (4):353–373
References
Matsumoto, Y. 1989 ‘Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese’. Multilingua 8:2/3, pp. 207–21. Maynard, S. K. 1990 An Introduction to Japanese Grammar and Communication Strategies. Tokyo: The Japan Times. 1993 Discourse Modality. Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1997 Japanese Communication. Language and Thought in Context. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. McCarthy, M. J. 1988 ‘Some vocabulary patterns in conversation’. In R. A. Carter and M. J. McCarthy Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman, pp. 181–200. 1991 Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. J. and Carter, R. 1994 Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Langauge Teaching. London: Longman. McNamara, T. F. and Lumley, T. 1997 ‘The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings’. Language Testing 14(2), pp. 140–156. Milroy, J. and L. Milroy 1978 ‘Belfast: Change and variation in an urban vernacular’. In P. Trudgill (ed.) Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. Edward Arnold, pp. 19–36. Milroy, L. 1980 Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Minegishi Cook, H. 1990 ‘The Sentence-final Ne as a tool for cooperation in Japanese conversation’. In H. Hoji (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Leland Stanford Junior University, pp. 29–44. Mizutani, O and Mizutani, N. 1977 Introduction to Modern Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Mizutani, O. 1981 Japanese: The Spoken Language in Japanese Life. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Mizutani, O. and Mizutani, N. 1987 How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Moeran, B. 1988 ‘Japanese language and society’, Journal of Pragmatics 12, pp. 427–43. Murata, K. 1994 ‘Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption’. Journal of Pragmatics 21, pp. 385–400. Murray, S. 1985 ‘Toward a model of members’ methods for recognizing interruptions’. Language and Society 14, pp. 31–40. 1988 ‘The sound of simultaneous speech: The meaning of interruption’. Journal of Pragmatics 12, pp. 115–116.
213
214 References
Nakane, C. 1970 Japanese Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Neustupný, J. V. 1978 Post-structural Approaches to Language: Language Theory in a Japanese Context. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Nonaka, K. 1996 ‘Cross-cultural differences in involvement strategies: A case study of English and Japanese spoken discourse’. JACET Bulletin 27, pp. 143–167. Nyikos, M. 1990 ‘Sex related differences in adult language learning: Socialization and memory factors’. Modern Language Journal 3, pp. 273–87. Ogino, T. 1986 ‘Quantification of politeness based on the usage patterns of honorific expressions’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58, pp. 37–58. Pharr, S. 1976 ‘The Japanese woman: Evolving views of life and role.’ In L. Austin (ed.) Japan: The Paradox of Progress. New Haven, CT: Yale University, pp. 301–27. Pica, T. and Doughty, C. 1985a ‘Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities’. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 377–393. 1985b ‘The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(2), pp. 233–248. Pomerantz, A. 1975 Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 1978 ‘Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints’. In J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–112. 1984 ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101. Pomerantz, A and Fehr, B. J. 1997 ‘Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices’. In T. A. van Dijk (ed) Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage, pp. 64–91. Preisler, B. 1986 Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation. Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Preston, D. 1989 Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. Reischauer, E. O. 1977 The Japanese Today. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
References
Richardson, K. 1981 ‘Sentences in discourse’. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 51–60. Riley, P. 1989 ‘Well don’t blame me! On the interpretation of pragmatic errors’. In W. Olesky (ed.) Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 231–249. Rintell. E. and Mitchell, C. 1989 ‘Studying requests and apologies’ . In S. J. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, pp. 248–272. Robinson, M. A. 1992 ‘Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research’. In G. Kasper (ed.) Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language (Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center Technical Rep. No. 3). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 27–82. Roger, D. 1989 ‘Experimental studies of dyadic turn-taking behaviour’. In D. Roger and P. Bull (eds.) Conversation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 75–95. Roger, D. B. and Schumacher, A. 1983 ‘Effects of individual differences on dyadic conversational strategies’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45/ 3, pp. 700–705. Roger, D., Bull, P. E. and Smith, S. 1988 ‘The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions’. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7, pp. 27–34. Rogers, W. T. and Jones, S. E. 1975 ‘Effects of dominance tendencies on floor holding and interruption behaviour in dyadic interaction’. Communication Research 1, pp. 113–122. Rulon, K. and McCreary, J. 1986 ‘Negotiation of content: teacher-fronted and small group interaction’. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 147–181. Sacks, H. 1984 ‘Methodological remarks’. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–27. 1987 ‘On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation’. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon & Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69. (a public lecture at the 1973 Linguistic Institute at the University of Michigan) 1992a in G. Jefferson (ed.) Lectures on Conversation vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell. 1992b in G. Jefferson (ed.) Lectures on Conversation vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974 ‘A simplest system for the organization of turn-taking for conversation’. Language 50/4. pp 696–735.
215
216 References
Scarcella, R. 1983 ‘Discourse accent in second language performance’. In S. M. Gass and L. Selinker (eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 306–326. Schegloff, E. A. 1968 ‘Sequencing in conversational openings’. American Anthropologist 70, pp. 1075–95. 1982 ‘Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences’. In D. Tannen (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–92. 1987 ‘Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections’. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch and N. J. Smelser (eds.) The Micro-Macro Link, Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 207–234. 1992 ‘On talk and its institutional occasions’. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–134. Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973 ‘Opening up closings’. Semiotica 7/4, pp. 289–327. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. 1977 ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language 53(2), pp. 361–382. Schwartz, J. 1980 ‘The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English’. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.) Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 138–153.. Shibamoto, J. S. 1985 Japanese Women’s Language. New York: Academic Press. 1987a ‘The womanly woman: Manipulation of stereotypical and nonstereotypical features of Japanese female speech’. In S. U. Phillips, et al. (eds.) Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–49. 1987b ‘Japanese sociolinguistics’. Annual Review of Anthropology 16, pp. 261–78. 1992 ‘Women in charge: Politeness and directives in the speech of Japanese women’, Language in Society 21, pp. 59–82. 1997 Review of J. Hendry. Wrapping culture: Politeness, presentation and power in Japan and other societies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993, Language in Society 26/2, pp. 312–17. Shibatani, M. 1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press. Shinmeikai Kokugo Jiten (Shinmeikai Japanese Dictionary) 1981 (3rd edition). Tokyo: Sanseido.
References 217
Shuy, R. W. 1982 ‘Topic as the unit of analysis in a criminal law case’. In D. Tannen (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 113–126. Sinclair, J. McH. and Coulthard, M. 1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils: Oxford University Press. Smith, P. 1979 ‘Sex markers in speech’. In K. R. Scherer and H. Giles (eds.) Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–146. Stenström, A-B. 1994 An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman. Stubbs, M. 1981 ‘Motivating analyses of exchange structure’. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 107–119. 1983 Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Takahashi, S. 1996 ‘Pragmatic transferability’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2), pp. 189–223. Takahashi, S. and DuFon, M. 1989 Cross-linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 439) Takahashi, T, and Beebe, L. M. 1987 ‘The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English’. JALT Journal 8, pp. 131–155. Takahashi, T. and Beebe, L. M. 1993 ‘Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction’. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, pp. 138–160. Talbot, M. 1992 ‘‘I wish you’d stop interrupting me!’ Interruptions and asymmetries in speakerrights in equal encounters’. Journal of Pragmatics 18, pp. 415–466. Tanaka, H. 2000 ‘The particle ne as a turn-management device in Japanese conversation’. Journal of Pragmatics 32, pp. 1135–1176. Tannen, D. 1982 ‘ Ethnic style in male-female conversation’. In J. J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–231. 1984 Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1986 That’s not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks your Relations with Others. New York: William Morrow.
218 References
1989 Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990 You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow. 1994 Gender and Discourse. Oxford University Press. ten Have, P. 1991 ‘Talk and institution: a reconsideration of the “asymmetry” of doctor-patient interaction’. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds.) Talk and Social Structure, Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, pp. 138–163. Thomas, J. 1985 ‘The language of power: Towards a dynamic pragmatics’. Journal of Pragmatics 9, pp. 765–783. Thorne, B., Kramarae, C. and Henley, N. 1983 ‘Language, gender and society: Opening a second decade of research’. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and N. Henley (eds.) Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 7–24 Trosborg, A. 1994 Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Trudgill, P. 1974 The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press. 1975 ‘Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich’. In Thorne, B. and N. Henley (eds.) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 88–104. 1983 On Dialect. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Trömel-Plötz, S. 1991 ‘Review essay: Selling the apolitical’. Discourse and Society 2(4), pp. 489–502. Tsui, A. 1993 ‘Interpreting multi-act moves in spoken discourse’. In M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds.) Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–94. 1994 English Conversation. Oxford University Press. Tsujimura, N. 1996 An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Uchida, N. 1997 ‘Kaiwa koodoo ni mirareru seesa’ [Gender differences in conversational behaviour]. In S. Ide (ed.) Nihon no Joseego [Women’s Language in Japan]. Tokyo: Meeji Shoin, pp. 74–93. Ueno, C. 1994 Kindai kazoku no seiritsu to shuuen (“The Establishment and end of the modern family”). Tokyo: Iwanami, pp. 303–340. van Dijk, T. A. 1989 ‘Structure of discourse and structures of power’. In J. A. Anderson (ed.) Communication Yearbook 12. London: Sage, pp. 18–59.
References 219
Varonis, E. M. and Gass, S. 1985 ‘Nonnative/nonnative conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning’. Applied Linguistics 6(1), pp. 71–90. Walters, J. 1980 ‘Grammar, meaning and sociocultural appropriateness in second language acquisition’. Canadian Journal of Psychology 34, pp. 337–341. West, C. 1992 ‘Rethinking sex differences in conversational topics’. Advances in Group Processes 9, pp. 131–162. 1995 ‘Women’s competence in conversation’. Discourse and Society, 6(1), pp. 107–131. West, C. and Garcia, A. 1988 ‘Conversational shift work: A study of topical transitions between women and men’. Social Problems, 35(5), pp. 551–575. West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. 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. Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House, pp. 102–117. 1985 ‘Gender, language and discourse’. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 4: Discourse Analysis and Society, pp. 103–124. West, C., Lazar, M. M. and Kramarae, C. 1997 ‘Gender in discourse’. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 119–143. White, C. J. 1989 ‘Negotiating communicative language learning in a traditional setting’. ELT Journal 43 (3), pp. 213–220. White, S. 1989 ‘Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese’. Language in Society 18(1): pp. 59–76. Wiemann, J. M., 1981 ‘Effects of laboratory videotaping procedures on selected conversation behaviors’. Human Communication Research 7(4), pp. 302–311. Wolfson, N. 1983 ‘Rules of speaking’. In J. Richards and J. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 61–87. 1989a ‘The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior’. In M. Eisenstein (ed.) The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 219–236. 1989b Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, Mass: Newbury house. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T. and Jones, S. 1989 ‘Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures’. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 174–196.
220 References
Woods, N. 1988 ‘Talking shop: Sex and status as determinants of floor appointment in a work setting’. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.) Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, pp. 141–157. Zimmerman, D. H. and West, C. 1975 ‘Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation’. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds.) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, pp. 105–29.
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Name index"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Name index
A Arhens, U. 18 Aries, E. J. 19–20 Atkinson, J. M. 67 B Beebe, L. 33–35 Benjamins, G. R. 5, 11 Bennet, A. 62 Bergmann, J. R. 64, 69 Berry, M. 42 Borker, R. A. 23–24 Brazil, D. 42, 45 Brown, P. 15 Button, G. 66 C Cameron, D. 26–27 Casey, N. 66 Coates, J. 15, 25–26, 64 Coulthard, M. 41, 42, 45–46 Covelli, L. H. 66 D Drew, P. 41–42 Duff, P. A. 30, 106–107 E Eakins, B. W. and Eakins, R. G. 19 Edelsky, C. 19, 64 Ehara, Y. 13–14 Ellis, R. 31, 33 F Fairclough, N. 56 Ferguson, N. 60–62
Fishman, P. 18–19, 27 Foppa, K. 42, 64–65, 69, 116 G Garcia, A. 19, 65–66 Gass, S. M. 29–31, 107 Giles, H. 15 H Heritage, J. 41–42, 67 Hosoda, Y. 173 I Ide, S. 9, 12 Itani, R. 165 Izuhara, E. 165, 197 J Jefferson, G. 57–58 Jespersen, O. 14 Jorden, E. H. 8, 11, K Kasper, G. 31 Kiesling, A. 22, 26 Koodansha, 8 L Labov, W. 63–64 Lakoff, R. 14–15 Lebra, T. S. 7–8 Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. 21, 89 Levinson, S. 15, 53 Linell, P. 13–44, 49–51, 64, 105 Loveday, L. 8, 11 Luckmann, T. 43–44
222 Name index
M Makri-Tsilipakou, M. 62 Maltz, D. N. 23–24 Matsumoto, Y. 5 Maynard, S. K. 165 Minegishi Cook, H. 165, 173, 197 Mizutani, O. and Mizutani, N. 5–7, 11–12, Moeran, B. 11- 12, Murata, K. 62 Murray, S. 66 N Nonaka, K. 165 O Ogino, T. 9 P Pharr, S. 8 Preisler, B. 21 Preston, D. 35 R Riley, P. 31 Roger, D. 62 S Sacks, H. 37–38, 47–49, 52–56, 58, 66–69 Scarcella, R. 32
Schegloff, E. A. 37- 39, 40, 47–48, 58 Shibamoto, J. S. 8–10, 13 Sinclair, J. McH. 41, 45–46 Smith, P. 15 Stenström, A–B. 67, 136–137 T Takahashi, S. 34–35 Takahashi, T. 33–35 Talbot, M. 18 Tannen, D. 25–27, 62, 64, 137 Thomas, J. 56–57 Thorne, B. 22 Trosborg, A. 32, 35, 41 Trömel-Plötz, S. 27 Tsui, A. 46–47, 51–52, 74–76, 135–136, 141–142, 163–164, 175 (n. 138) V Van Dijk, T. A. 1 Varonis, E. M. 29–31, 107 W West, C. 15–18, 19, 22–23, 27 39–40, 59–60, 65–66, 117 Wolfson, N. 31 Woods, N. 20 Z Zimmerman, D. H. 15–18, 39–40, 59–60, 117
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Subject index"
SUBJECT "Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, Volume 89"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Subject index
A addressee oriented questions 26, 177 see also questions; other-oriented questions adjacency pairs 47–49, 52–54 advice 75, 77–78, 142 agreement and Japanese speakers 164–166, 173, 197 see also disagreement ambiguity and different conversational strategies 25 appendors see completion offers assessments 76, 141–142 asymmetries analytical framework 70–86 as an ubiquitous feature of interaction 42–44 in everyday conversation 1–2, 46–47 in institutional talk 1 interactional features 44–69 attempted controlling action 70–71 causing inconsistency between sequential dominance and quantitative dominance 110–112 identification for participatory dominance 81–83 identification for sequential dominance 77–80 B Birmingham school of discourse analysis 41–42, 49 C chaining sequences 136–137 challenging moves 52, 149–150
Chinese speakers of English 30–31, 106–107 collaborative production see completion offers completion offers 54–55, 76–77, 118–119 complying action 70–71 control in conversation see conversational control controlling action 2, 47, 70–71 see also successful controlling action; attempted controlling action conversation everyday conversation 1–2, 46–47 vs. institutional talk 1–2 Conversation Analysis 37–40 approach to asymmetries in conversation 39–40 approach to conversational control 48–49 approach to gender as a social variable 39–40 criticism from dialogical analysis 43–44 speakers’ right and turn-taking 38 conversational competence and gender 27–28 conversational control 48–51 and adjacency pairs 49 and initiations 49 and interruptions 124–126 and questions 48–49 in Conversation Analysis 48–49 see also conversational dominance conversational dominance 2, 70, 198 analytical framework 70–86, 199
224 Subject index
and ethnicity 30–31, 106–107 and gender 14–29 and pragmatic transfer 29–36, 97–100 different dimensions of 30, 71–72, 95–96, 101–102, 105–128 in L2 interaction see L2(English) interaction interactional features of dominance 16–22, 44–86 see also sequential dominance; participatory dominance; quantitative dominance; topic(al) dominance conversational goals 130–131 conversational orientation see conversational style conversational strategies 24–27; and conversational work 182–183, 196–197 and degrees of L1 to L2 transfer 182–183, 196–197 see also conversational style conversational style and gender 23–27, 130–131 and joking 24 and story-telling 24–27 and topic development 24–27 see also self-oriented conversational style; other-oriented conversational style conversational work 182–183, 196–197 culture boys/men’s culture 23–24 girls/women’s culture 23–24 D Danish speakers of English 32–33, 41 dialogical analysis 42–44, 48–51 approach to topic in conversation 64–65, 69 disagreement and Japanese speakers 33–34 discourse accent 31–32 discourse analysis see Birmingham school of discourse analysis; dialogical analysis
discourse completion tests (DCTs) 32–35 dispreferred responses 52–54 dominance in conversation see conversational dominance E elicitations 74–75 (definition), 132, 163–184 see also elicit:agrees; elicit:informs elicit:agrees 132–135, 163–174 in Japanese conversation 164–166 elicit:informs 132–135, 175–183 ethnicity influence on NNS-NNS interaction 30–31, 106–107 exchange structure 41–42, 45–51 expertise 21, 26, 89, 142, 147–161, 170–172 interaction with gender 21 F femininity training 8 formulation 55–57 G gender and conversational competence 27–28 and conversational dominance 14–29 and expertise 21 and initiations 132–135 and interruptions 14, 16–18; and joking 24 and learning opportunities 29–31, 199–200 and occupational status/roles 20–21 and pragmatic transfer 196–200 and questions 14, 24, 26, 139, 177 and story-telling 24, 26 and topic development 18–19, 23–27, 30 and turn length/distribution 19–20 as a social variable in Japanese language 7–11
Subject index 225
as constructed during interaction 22–23 as cultural/style differences 23–27 as reflection of social inequality 15–22 gender dominance in Japanese conversation 13–14, 194–196 in L2 interaction 29–31 gender markers 15–16 Greek conversation 63 I informatives 76, 129–162 initiations 45–51, 74–80, 108–115, 132–135 initiatives 49–51 institutional talk and its asymmetrical nature 1 interaction definition 1 in L2 see L2 interaction interactional dominance 43–44, 49–51 interlanguage pragmatics 31 see also L1 to L2 transfer interruptions 31, 39–40, 59–63, 82–83, 117–119, 120–127 and gender 16–18, 24, 39–40 in Japanese conversation 14 IRF structure see exchange structure J janai, jan (dewa nai) 164–166 see also elicit:agree Japanese conversation agreement seeking behaviour 164–166, 173, 197 disagreement (L2) 33–35 gender differences 14 (questions, interruptions) gender dominance 13–14, 194–196 giving embarrassing information (L2) 33–35 university students 11–14 Japanese language
hierarchical relationships see relative social status (below) honorifics 6–7 see also polite speech polite speech 5–14 social variables: gender 7–11 uchi-soto relationships 11–14 relative social status 5–7, 11–14 see also Japanese men; Japanese women Japanese speakers of English L2 interaction 29–32, 106–107, 197 speech acts 33–36 Japanese men and interruption 14 and question giving behaviour 14 feminization of Japanese men’s speech 11 see also Japanese women Japanese women: femininity training 8 linguistic characteristics 7–11 Motherese Strategy 10 segregation between boys and girls 8 social status 7–11 sociolinguistic studies 9–11 joint production see completion offers joshi 164–168 K knowledge see expertise L learning opportunities 29–31, 199–200 L1 to L2 transfer 31–35 and different conversational strategies 182–183, 196–197 elicit:agrees 173–174 elicit:informs 182–183 informatives 161–162 see also pragmatic transfer L2 (English) interaction and ethnicity dominance 30–31, 106–107 and gender dominance 29–31
226 Subject index
and learning opportunities 29–31 Chinese speakers 30–31 Danish speakers 32–33, 41 Japanese speakers 29–30 Spanish speakers 31–32 M Men’s talk and men’s culture see culture expertise 26, see also expertise male-male interaction 22 speaker-orientedness 26 see also conversational style meta-interactional moves 79–80 Motherese Strategy 10 N na, naa 168 ne, nee 164–166, 197; see also elicit:agrees (Japanese) negative responses 51 NNS-NNS interaction see L2 (English) interaction non-complying action 70–71 number of words 30–31, 63–64, 83–85 see also quantitative dominance O other-correction 57–59, 77 other-oriented conversational style 130–131, 143, 145–146, 161–162, 172–174, 178, 182 other-oriented conversational strategies and L1 to L2 transfer 182–183, 196–197 see also other-oriented conversational style other-oriented elicit:informs 177, 182 other-oriented initiations 143, 146, 180, 187–190, 192–194, 199 see also self-oriented initiations other-oriented informatives 162, 182 other-oriented questions 26, 139; see also addressee oriented questions
overlaps 30, 59–63, 81–82, 112–115, 119–120 see also interruptions; participatory dominance P participation 59–63 participatory dominance 70–72, 80–83, 93–94 and sequential dominance 116–127 definition 70 empirical study 93–94, 99 polite speech in Japanese language 5–14 positive responses 51, 54 pragmatic transfer 97–100, 199; see also L1 to L2 transfer preferred responses 52–54 and sequential dominance 106–116 see also quantity of talk quantitative dominance 43–44, 70–73, 83–85, 94–95, 100 Q quantity of talk 19–20, 30, 63–64 see also quantitative dominance questions and conversational orientation 26, 131 controlling nature of 48–49 gender differences 14, 24, 26, 139, 177 in L2 interaction 30–31 R reformulation 55–57 report 138 responses 51–54 see also initiations right, speaker’s right and level of participation 19 and questions 48–49 and turn-taking 38 violation of 16–17 S sa, saa 168 self-oriented conversational strategies
Subject index 227
and L1 to L2 transfer 182–183, 196–197 see also self-oriented conversational style self-oriented conversational style 130–131, 143, 145–146, 161–162 172–174, 178 and pragmatic transfer 196–197 self-oriented elicit:agrees 182 self-oriented informatives 145, 161–162, 171–172, 182 self-oriented initiations 143, 199 vs other-oriented initiations 187–190 degrees of control 190–192 sequencing 45–59 sequential dominance 70–80 and participatory dominance 116–128 and quantitative dominance 106–116 definition 70 empirical study 92–93, 97–98 social status influence on English language 19 interaction with gender 20–21 of Japanese women 7–11 relative social status and Japanese language 5–7, 11–14 Spanish speakers 31–36 speech acts 32–35 story-telling 63–64, 143, 146, 177–182, 200 and gender differences 24–27 successful controlling action definition 70–71
empirical study 92–103 identification for sequential dominance 75–80 identification for participatory dominance 80–82 supportive sequences 136–137 T topic 64–69 and gender 18–19, 23–27, 30 stepwise topic change 67–69 topic boundaries 65–67 topic change 18–19, 30–67 topic(al) dominance 43–44, 64–69 topic marker 67 transfer see L1 to L2 transfer turn incomplete turn 112–115 turn length/distribution 19–20, 30, 63–64 see also quantitative dominance U uchi-soto relationships 11–14 W women’s talk norms for female-female interaction 24 see also culture; Japanese women Y yo, yoo 168
In the PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. WALTER, Bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre: An Ethnographic Study of What it Means to Those who Use it. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988. 2. BARTON, Ellen: Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 3. OLEKSY, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 4. RAFFLER-ENGEL, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor-Patient Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 5. THELIN, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 6. VERSCHUEREN, Jef (ed.): Selected Papers from the 1987 International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. I: Pragmatics at Issue. Vol. II: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Vol. III: The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication (ed. with Jan Blommaert). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 7. LINDENFELD, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Market Places. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 8. YOUNG, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code: A Study of Academic English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 9. LUKE, Kang-Kwong: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 10. MURRAY, Denise E.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 11. LUONG, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 12. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 13. NUYTS, Jan, A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN and Co VET (eds): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: a functional view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 14. SCHWARTZ, Ursula: Young Children’s Dyadic Pretend Play. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 15. KOMTER, Martha: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 16. MANN, William C. and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 17. PIÉRAUT-LE BONNIEC, Gilberte and Marlene DOLITSKY (eds): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 18. JOHNSTONE, Barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 19. BAKER, Carolyn D. and Allan LUKE (eds): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 20. NUYTS, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 21. SEARLE, John R. et al.: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992.
22. AUER, Peter and Aldo Di LUZIO (eds): The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 23. FORTESCUE, Michael, Peter HARDER and Lars KRISTOFFERSEN (eds): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 24. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 25. COUPER-KUHLEN, Elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 26. STYGALL, Gail: Trial Language. A study in differential discourse processing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1994. 27. SUTER, Hans Jürg: The Wedding Report: A Prototypical Approach to the Study of Traditional Text Types. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 28. VAN DE WALLE, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 29. BARSKY, Robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other: Discourse theory and the convention refugee hearing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 30. WORTHAM, Stanton E.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 31. WILDGEN, Wolfgang: Process, Image and Meaning. A realistic model of the meanings of sentences and narrative texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 32. SHIBATANI, Masayoshi and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 33. GOOSSENS, Louis, Paul PAUWELS, Brygida RUDZKA-OSTYN, Anne-Marie SIMONVANDENBERGEN and Johan VANPARYS: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 34. BARBE, Katharina: Irony in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 35. JUCKER, Andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 36. CHILTON, Paul, Mikhail V. ILYIN and Jacob MEY: Political Discourse in Transition in Eastern and Western Europe (1989-1991). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 37. CARSTON, Robyn and Seiji UCHIDA (eds): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 38. FRETHEIM, Thorstein and Jeanette K. GUNDEL (eds): Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 39. HERRING, Susan (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 40. DIAMOND, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a closeknit social network. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 41. VENTOLA, Eija and Anna MAURANEN, (eds): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 42. WODAK, Ruth and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds): Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 43. JANSSEN, Theo A.J.M. and Wim van der WURFF (eds): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 44. BARGIELA-CHIAPPINI, Francesca and Sandra J. HARRIS: Managing Language. The
discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 45. PALTRIDGE, Brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 46. GEORGAKOPOULOU, Alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 47. CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 48. KAMIO, Akio: Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 49. KURZON, Dennis: Discourse of Silence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 50. GRENOBLE, Lenore: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 51. BOULIMA, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 52. GILLIS, Steven and Annick DE HOUWER (eds): The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1998. 53. MOSEGAARD HANSEN, Maj-Britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 54. HYLAND, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 55. ALLWOOD, Jens and Peter Gärdenfors (eds): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 56. TANAKA, Hiroko: Language, Culture and Social Interaction. Turn-taking in Japanese and Anglo-American English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 57 JUCKER, Andreas H. and Yael ZIV (eds): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 58. ROUCHOTA, Villy and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 59. KAMIO, Akio and Ken-ichi TAKAMI (eds): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. 60. JACOBS, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. 61. MILLS, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. 62. TZANNE, Angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. 63. BUBLITZ, Wolfram, Uta LENK and Eija VENTOLA (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it.Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. 64. SVENNEVIG, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 1999. 65. COOREN, François: The Organizing Dimension of Communication. 2000. 66. JUCKER, Andreas H., Gerd FRITZ and Franz LEBSANFT (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. 67. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma, Gunnel MELCHERS and Päivi PAHTA (eds.): Dimensions of Writing in Nonstandard English. 1999. 68. ARNOVICK, Leslie: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 1999.
69. NOH, Eun-Ju: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metarepresentation in English. A relevance-theoretic account. 2000. 70. SORJONEN, Marja-Leena: Recipient Activities Particles nii(n) and joo as Responses in Finnish Conversation. n.y.p. 71. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ, María Ángeles: The Theme-Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. 72. MARMARIDOU, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. 73. HESTER, Stephen and David FRANCIS (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. 74. TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. 75. PILKINGTON, Adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. 76. MATSUI, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. 77. VANDERVEKEN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. n.y.p. 78. SELL, Roger D. : Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. 79. ANDERSEN, Gisle and Thorstein FRETHEIM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. 80. UNGERER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. 81. DI LUZIO, Aldo, Susanne GÜNTHNER and Franca ORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. n.y.p. 82. KHALIL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. 83. MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. 84. ANDERSEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. 85. COLLINS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. 86. IFANTIDOU, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. n.y.p. 87. MUSHIN, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. 2001. 88. BAYRAKTAROGLU, Arin and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. 2001. 89. ITAKURA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. 90. KENESEI, István and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. 91. GROSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. n.y.p. 92. GARDNER, Rod: When Listeners Talk. 2001. 93. BARON, Bettina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. n.y.p. 94. McILVENNY, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. n.y.p.
