Overlapping in Japanese Conversation

Communication styles of Japanese long-term residents of Australia in

terms of Japanese socio-cultural/gender norms

Sumiko Iida

A thesis submitted in fulfilment

of the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Linguistics University of New South Wales

October 2005
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my great appreciation to my first supervisor, Dr. Rod Gardner,
who constantly gave me countless valuable comments and feedback on my thesis in the
field of Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis, and patiently guided me to
complete the thesis. Had I not met him, this thesis would not have existed. His
question, “Where is the evidence?”, will be with me for the rest of my academic life.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my second supervisor, Dr. Chihiro

Thomson who first inspired me to start my research career, and not only gave me
constructive comments on my thesis in the field of gender and Japanese language and
culture, but also mentally supported me ever since my enrolment as a PhD student.

I also thank my colleagues in the Department of Japanese and Korean Studies for their
constant support, and Dr. Scott Kiesling who helped me in constructing the prototype of
the thesis.

I must also mention the University of New South Wales Equity and Diversity Unit for
financial support provided to me as a “PhD Writing up Grant.”

Finally, I would like to thank my dearest daughter Viola for her invariable
encouragement and love, and my parents in Japan who always warmly watch over my
life.

i
Abstract

This study analyses overlaps in naturally occurring multi-party conversations among

Japanese long-term residents of Australia, to investigate how Australian culture
influences their Japanese communication style. One of the study’s interests is how their
gendered communication styles appear in Australian English culture. Japanese gendered
communication styles have been discussed in the literature, for example that males
interrupt females more than vice versa; active participation by males versus passive
participation by females in mixed-gender conversations; self-oriented topic initiation by
males versus other-oriented topic initiation by females etc. These styles were assumed
to be rarely observed in their L1 communication styles in Australia, where English, in
which gendered language is less distinctive than Japanese, is spoken, and gender-free
society has been more emphasised and practised than in Japan. Among conversations
recorded by the two informants, three multi-party conversations per informant (i.e. six
in total) were selected, in which over 2000 overlaps are observed. The study first
established a framework of functional overlap classification in terms of the ownership
of the conversational floor. Then, based on this frame, all overlaps were classified into a
number of functional categories, and were analysed qualitatively as well as
quantitatively. The results showed little differences in the Japanese communication
styles of the long-term residents of Australia from the Japanese communication styles
which have been discussed in the literature, such as frequent use of aizuchi and other
cooperative overlaps at and other than at Transition Relevance Places. As for gendered
communication style, at least socio-cultural norms between traditional Japanese
husband and wife are observed in the informants’ communication style. Although a
number of variables that surround the informants need to be considered, the results may
suggest that Japanese socio-cultural norms are, at this stage, more stable and they
maintain the communication style of the Japanese long-term residents of foreign culture
in their first language communication more strongly than was expected. However,
different trends may be observed in future.

ii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgement i

Abstract ii

Transcript Conventions and Abbreviations xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Background of the study 10

1. Introduction 10

2. Interactional sociolinguistics and its applications 13

2.1 The contribution of Gumperz 13

2.2 The contribution of Goffman 16

2.3 Interactional sociolinguistics: its applications 20

2.4 Interactional sociolinguistics approach to the study of 22

Japanese discourse

3. Communication style of the Japanese 24

3.1 Stereotype of the Japanese 24

3.2 Anthropological and sociological views of the Japanese 26

3.2.1 Amae 26

3.2.2 Giri and Ninjoo 28

3.2.3 Tate and Yoko 30

3.3 Communication style of the Japanese 33

3.4 Japanese communication style in cross-cultural studies 37

3.5 Involvement of other cultures in one’s communication 40

style

4. Language and gender issues 44

4.1 Language and gender studies in the United States 45

4.2 Language and gender studies in Japan 48

4.2.1 Overview 48

iii
 4.2.2 Beginning of language and gender studies: 50
Jugaku and Ide

4.2.3 Language and gender studies since the mid 1980s 51

5. Conclusion 58

Chapter 3: Data 61

1. Introduction 61

2. Natural data 61

3. Data collection and the participants 63

4. Conversational data used for the study and their participants’ 66

profiles

5. Method of transcription for the study 67

6. Conclusion 71

Chapter 4: How to understand turn, floor and overlap in natural 73

conversation

1. Introduction 73

2. What is turn and what is floor? 77

2.1 Discussions of turn and floor in 1970s and 1980s 78

2.2 Discussion of turn and floor in recent studies 87

2.2.1 What is a turn? : Studies by Ford and Thompson, 88

and Tanaka

2.2.2 “Floor” as a dynamic cognitive entity: 91

study by Hayashi

2.3 Turn and floor in this study 94

2.3.1 “Utterance” and “talk” 95

2.3.2 “Floor” and “turn” 95

3. Definition and nature of overlap 98

4. The distinctiveness of overlap in a multi-party conversation 101

4.1 One floor-holder targets all of the other participants 102

4.2 Talk targeting a specific person 105

4.3 More than one participant holding a floor 111

iv
 5. Classifying overlaps 114

5.1 Features of Japanese language 115

5.2 Overlap classification in previous studies 121

5.3 Classification problem 123

5.4 Studies focusing only on overlaps: three different approaches 125

in Japanese discourse analysis

5.4.1 Honda’s overlap classification 126

5.4.2 Fujii’s overlap classification 131

5.4.3 Ikoma’s overlap classification 135

6. Conclusion 140

Chapter 5: Overlap classification in this study 143

1. Introduction 143

2. Overlap classification: Formal vs Functional 144

3 Method of classification 150

3.1 Overlap by non-floor holder and floor holder 150

3.2 Bottom up functional classification 151

4. Overlap category 152

4.1 Overlap by non-floor holder 152

4.1.1 Cooperative overlap 153

4.1.1.1 aizuchi 153

4.1.1.2 Clarification question 175

4.1.1.3 Information supply 178

4.1.1.4 Early reply 182

4.1.1.5 Other completion 188

4.1.1.6 Aizuchi follower 191

4.1.2 Competitive overlap 192

4.1.2.1 Floor bidding 192

v
 4.1.2.2 Interruption 194

4.1.3 Neutral overlaps 196

4.1.3.1 New turn at TRP 196

4.1.3.2 Misjudging turn completion 199

4.1.4 Miscellaneous 201

4.2 Overlap by floor holder 208

4.2.1 Non-competitive overlaps 208

4.2.1.1 Reconfirmation 209

4.2.1.2 Self clarification 210

4.2.1.3 Floor continuation 212

4.2.1.4 Other non-competitive overlaps 214

4.2.2 Competitive overlap 215

4.2.2.1 Floor hold 215

4.3 Other types of overlap 218

4.3.1 Starting to talk at a floor-free zone 218

4.3.2 Overlaps between non-floor holders 220

4.4 Types of overlap that are not discussed in this study 221

5. Conclusion 221

Chapter 6: Conversational style 1: Overall observation 224

1. Introduction 224

2. Quantitative observations on overlap 225

2.1 Total overlap distribution 225

2.1.1 aizuchi 226

2.1.2 Competitive overlaps by non-floor holder 231

2.1.3 Overlaps by floor holder 233

2.2 Frequency of overlap and variables that construct conversation 237

2.2.1 Number of participants and overlap 237

vi
 2.2.2 Participants’ social distance and overlap 241

2.2.3 Setting and overlap 248

2.2.4 Genre and overlap 251

2.2.4.1 Observations in Set 1 conversations 253

2.2.4.2 Observations in Set 2 conversations 258

2.2.5 Topic and overlap 262

2.2.6 Style and overlap 264

2.2.7 Summary 268

3. Qualitative observations on overlap 270

3.1 Complexities of overlap functions 270

3.1.1 aizuchi as a floor-bidding 270

3.1.2 Talking for other: Third-party approach by overlap 286

3.2 Cultural adjustment and transfer of overlap use: aizuchi 293

4. Conclusion 304

Chapter 7: Conversational style 2: Gender implications 308

1. Introduction 308

2. Participation in talk as a floor holder 309

2.1 Floor management in the Business Talk 310

2.2 Floor management in the Chat at Work 325

2.3 Floor management in the Family Talk 332

3. Participation in talk as a non-floor holder 340

3.1 Non-floor holder’s overlap in Business Talk 340

3.2 Non-floor holder’s overlaps in other talk 347

3.3 Communication style shift of Masao and Sachiko 348

4. Conclusion 350

Chapter 8: Conclusion 352

1. Introduction 352

vii
 2. Definition of overlap and its classification 353

3. Overlap frequency 356

4. Complexity of overlap function 359

5. Cultural adjustment and cultural transfer of one’s communication style 361

6. Gender 362

7. Conclusion and future direction 363

Bibliography 366

Appendix
1. Reference of Overlap functions 382

2. Tables of number of functional overlap by individual participant per 383

conversation

3. Charts of floor and topic shifts in the conversations Sachiko is 405

involved (Sa-1, Sa-2 and Sa-3)

viii
List of Tables

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Total number of overlaps per function 226

Table 6.2 Order of aizuchi frequency per function 229

Table 6.3 Order of aizuchi frequency per function (+ form) 230

Table 6.4 Number of Participants and overlap frequency 238

Table 6.5 Overlap frequency per function in H-2 and H-3 239

Table 6.6 Sachiko's overlap 242

Table 6.7 Masao's overlap 242

Table 6.8 Yoshida's overlap 243

Table 6.9 Participants' aizuchi frequency towards their social distant 246

Table 6.10 Number of overlaps in Sa-2 (Chat at Work) 249

Table 6.11 Number of overlaps in Sa-3 (Family Talk at Breakfast) 249

Table 6.12 Total number of overlaps in H-1 and H-2 253

Table 6-13 Number of overlaps per participant in Academic Meeting (H-1) 256

Table 6.14 Number of overlaps per participant in Café Chat (H-2) 257

Table 6.15 Total number of overlaps in Sa-1 and Sa-3 258

Table 6.16 Total number of overlaps per person per minute 261
in Business Talk (Sa-1)

Table 6.17 Total number of overlaps per person per minute 261
in Family Talk (Sa-3)

Table 6.18 Order of overlap frequency per conversation (Sachiko) 265

Table 6.19 Order of overlap frequency per conversation (Harue) 265

Table 6.20 Harue's overlap frequencies in three conversations 266

Table 6.21 Detail of Harue's cooperative overlaps other than aizuchi 267

Table 6.22 Overlap onset of aizuchi that initiates speaker shift 283

Table 6.23 Aizuchi frequency when Bob talks in English (H-1) 296

ix
Table 6.24 Number of aizuchi frequency in Japanese talk 298
in the Academic Meeting

Chapter 7

Table 7.1 Topic initiation per participant 310

Table 7.2 Main topic contents initiated by Sachiko and Masao 311

Table 7.3 Sub-topic contents initiated by Sachiko and Masao 312

Table 7.4 Number of floors taken by individual participant 313

under each topic

Table 7.5 Number of floor shift with cooperative and competitive overlap 321
per participant

Table 7.6 Topic initiation per participant 326

Table 7.7 Number of floors taken by individual participant 327

under each topic

Table 7.8 Topic contents initiated by the participants (Family Talk) 334

Table 7.9 Number of floor shift with cooperative and competitive overlap 335
per participant

Table 7.10 Masao and Sachiko's overlapped floor shifts in Business 336
and Family Talk

Table 7.11 Overlap as a non-floor holder: Business Talk 341

Table 7.12 Overlap as a non-floor holder: Chat at Work 347

Table 7.13 Overlap as a non-floor holder: Family Talk 347

Table 7.14 Sachiko and Masao's non-floor holder's overlap frequencies 349
in the three conversations

x
List of Figures

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 Doi’s Interpersonal Relation of Amae (Sahashi, 1980) 30

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Classification of Floor (Hayashi, 1996) 92

Figure 4.2 Relation of overlap and Interruption 125

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Proportion of aizuchi (+aizuchi followers) 227

and aizuchi terms used in total number of overlaps

Figure 6.2 Overlap by Non-floor holders 232

Figure 6.3 Non-aizuchi overlap by Non-floor holders 232

Figure 6.4 Overlap Initiator 234

Figure 6.5 Floor holder’s overlaps 235

Figure 6.6 Participants’ interaction in Business Talk (Sa-1) 245

List of Charts
Chapter 7

Chart 7.1 Floor shift in topic 9.3 (UniLodge) introduced by Sachiko 319

xi
Transcript Conventions and Abbreviations

alphabet speaker’s initial (e.g. S for Sachiko, H for Harue etc.)

~ inbreath or inhalation

 rising intonation

falling intonation

[ overlap onset (appears on the speech line of the all participants

who are involved in the overlap)

] overlap resolution (appears in the same manner as overlap onset)

= “latching” (appears only in ‘vertical” style of transcript, or

continuous talk (appears at the end of line and at the beginning of
the same participant’s next speech line)

(numeral. numeral) e.g. (0.5)

length of a pause or silence measured in the method of
“interactional seconds” or “rhythm-sensitive timing” (Have, 1999:
Jefferson, 1989; Psathas and Anderson, 1990) as in the following way of
counting.

n | o | o | ne | th | ou | s | a | n | d |
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 (second)

Length longer than 1.0 second is measured in the same manner as

in “one one thousand, two one thousand and so on” At first, I used
a stopwatch. However, considering the time of pressing start/stop
button, it turned out to be much easier and more accurate to use
this measuring system once I practised and became used to it.

/ utterance / the utterance within the two slashes indicates uncertainty in

hearing.

/ ? / the utterance was not understood

<action> non-verbal action to supplement verbal transcript. “laugh” is also

indicated as <laugh>

: or :: or ::: etc.
sound stretch. : is equivalent of one mola (or syllable in English)

utterance underlined utterance indicates accompanying of laughters (i.e.

laughing while talking)

xii
utterance bold utterance indicates it is uttered at a louder amplitude

utterance small font indicates tongue slip

the arrow indicates the utterance(s) on which the discussion

focuses (appears between the participant’s initial and the beginning
of her/his utterance on the left hand side of each speech line)

Abbreviations used in the transcripts

ADD: addressing term INT: interjection

AN: adjectival nominaliser MIM: mimetic word

AP: appositional (e.g. nanka) N: nominaliser

COM: command PL: plural

CON: conditional PS: passive

COP: copula (e.g. desu/deshoo) Q: question

CTR: counting unit QUOT: quotative particle

EMP: emphasis (moo) REC: reconfirmation

EX: exclamation (e.g. aa) VN: verb nominaliser

(e.g. no, koto)
FP: final particle

HES: hesitation (e.g. ano) VOL: volitional

HON: honorific

xiii
 Chapter 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

In communication, language is not merely a set of linguistic symbols. Its meaning,

structure, and usage are deeply related to society and culture. This assumption, which

has been argued by many researchers, is well represented by John Gumperz, a linguistic

anthropologist who made a great contribution to interactional sociolinguistics: "mere

talk to produce sentences, no matter how well formed or elegant the outcome, does not

by itself constitute communication" and "only when a move has elicited a response can

we say communication is taking place" (Gumperz, 1982:1). In order to maintain

conversational involvement and make the communication successful, participants in a

conversation are required to share knowledge which goes beyond linguistic

competence: that is, of social and cultural experiences or socio-cultural norms. They

are necessary to contextualise ongoing interaction. Without shared socio-cultural

knowledge, an utterance can be no more than an aggregate of words, which does not

produce any meaningful message. Such norms vary from culture to culture or society to

society. Thus, in different societies or cultures, people use different languages in

different ways. Even within the country where the same language is spoken, the way

people communicate may be very different from one sub-culture to another (Tannen,

1981).

In the past few decades, as science and technology have enabled us to move around the

world with more ease, opportunities have increased to interact with people from

different cultures in different languages. Accordingly, studies of cross-cultural

1
 Chapter 1

communication and intercultural communication1 have become a focus of attention for

linguists and researchers.

Regarding intercultural and cross-cultural communication which involve the native

speakers of Japanese, research has been mainly focused on Japanese and American (e.g.

Hayashi, 1988, 1996; Klopf, 1991; Maynard, 1986, 1989, 1993, 1997; Szatrowski,

1993; Watanabe, 1993; Wetzel, 1991; Yamada, 1992, 1997) and in the case of

intercultural communication studies, English language communication has primarily

been investigated (e.g. Maynard, 1993; Murata, 1994; Yamada, 1992). In these studies,

differences in communication style between Japanese and native speakers of English

(Americans and British) are discussed extensively.

Since the late 1980s, during which Japan achieved record-breaking economic boom, the

foreign population residing in Japan, and the population of Japanese living abroad have

increased. As a result, learning the Japanese language has become very popular, not

only in Japan, but also in many other countries, including Australia. Consequently

research into Japanese language education,2 and into communication styles of the

Japanese when interacting with non-native speakers of Japanese in Japanese has

become quite popular (e.g. Fukazawa, 1999; Ijuin, 2004; Matsuda et al., 1995).

1 Although these terms are often interchangeably used with a different meaning by researchers, I follow
Hashimoto et al (1993) and Matsuda et al (1995) for the definition of these two terms: Cross-cultural
communication studies which investigate the similarities and differences in the organisation of
communication by looking at different speech communities, and comparing them to each other;
Intercultural communication studies which look at communication in a native speaker - non-native
speaker contact situation.
2 A variety of studies on Japanese language education are published in Nihongo Kyooiku (Journal of
Japanese language teaching)

2
 Chapter 1

While the level of the foreign population in Japan has increased, the population of

Japanese residents overseas has also increased substantially.3 Accordingly, Japanese

communities overseas have become larger, and nowadays it is not uncommon to

observe Japanese people and hear them talking in Japanese in many countries

throughout the world.

In regard to the Japanese language that those communities use, what needs to be

considered is that the Japanese speakers’ communication take place within a different

culture/society than their own. Given that language and culture/society are closely

related, a question arises: what happens to the language when it leaves its original

culture/society and is spoken in a different environment? Do Japanese communication

styles shift under the new culture/society?

It could probably be said that, for short-term residents who have lived in the country for

less than a year, the language of Japanese individuals may not become so affected by

culture/society of the country. However, in the case of long-term residents, by living in

the country for a certain period, their life style may be affected by the culture, and their

Japanese may also shift towards it.

Studies on styles of one’s first language (i.e. Japanese) in her/his second culture have

mainly focused upon lexical choice (i.e. loan words from one’s second language)

(Hibiya, 2000; Kuyama, 2000; Masumi-So, 1983). These studies report different styles

of long-term residents’ Japanese in terms of loan word use. However, regarding their

participation style in conversation, although there are studies that investigate Japanese

communication style shift from Japanese to English (e.g. Itakura, 2001; Ohara, 1997),

3 According to the bureau of Statistics in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the
population of Japanese overseas residents (including permanent and long-term residents) in 1995 was
about 730,000, which had increased by 110,000 from 1980. In 2003, it had further increased to 930.000.

3
 Chapter 1

few studies investigate the Japanese communication style in the second culture (e.g.

Krause-Ono, 2004). Murata (1994), in her study of interruptions in the UK, observed

one of her Japanese informants’ discourse style, which she speculates was influenced

by British culture, but this was not backed up by the data. In other words, the issue has

yet to be empirically explored. Thus, this study aims at investigating participation styles

in conversation in the first language within a second culture. The second culture here

refers to Australia, to be precise Sydney, where the researcher has lived since 1989. The

population of Japanese residents in Sydney is approximately 10,000 (excluding the

transient population of tourists and short-term residents) out of a total of 4,000,000 at

the time of data collection.4 The Japanese population is concentrated in a few areas,

including northern Sydney and the eastern suburbs. Together with tourists and short-

term residents, in these areas and the city centre, there are more opportunities of

encountering the Japanese.

In this study, I will investigate participation styles in Japanese living in Sydney, and

discuss this from two dimensions; gender and overlap. Gender differences in a

language (most clearly viewed in spoken interaction), which have been constructed

within the society and culture, are observed in most languages (Abe, 1998). Among all

languages, Japanese is one of the languages in which gender differences appear most

distinctively (Abe, 1998). The gender differences in the Japanese language, unlike

English, are semantically (e.g. lexical choices such as first and second person pronouns)

and syntactically (e.g. sentence-final forms) marked. More recently, some studies

(Ehara et al., 1984; Iida, 2000; Itakura, 2001; Matsuda et al., 1995; Uchida, 1997) argue

4 According to the Census in 2002, which was taken 4-5 years after the data was collected for this study,
the population of Japanese residents was 15,000 out of a total population of 4,150,000 in Sydney.

4
 Chapter 1

that the differences are also observed at the discourse level. Such differences have been

preserved as one of the Japanese socio-cultural norms. The variety of gendered

language that women are expected to use is far more limited than men. Thus, when a

Japanese woman participates in communication, both gender norms as a female and

other general socio-cultural norms are intricately involved in determining her

communication style. Thus, it is interesting to explore how gendered language in

Japanese occurs when it is spoken within a different culture/society that does not

restrict women from using certain communication styles to the same degree as in

Japanese culture/society.

Regarding language and gender studies in the Japanese language, compared with the

studies that discuss the issue at the semantic or syntactic levels, there are few studies

that focus upon the discourse level or participation style. It is probably because, in

Japanese, gendered differences at the discourse level are not as clearly marked as at the

semantic and syntactic levels, hence they are less obvious on the surface. However, as

previous studies argue, gender differences have been observed at the discourse level,

thus further study is necessary to understand the mechanisms by which gender

contributes towards the construction of communication in Japanese.

The second key dimension, overlap, is a common phenomenon that is observed in daily

communication in most languages. However, frequency of overlap is different from

language to language, and culture to culture (e.g. Cowie, 2000; Deng, 1998; Mullan,

2001). In the case of Japanese, due to its syntactical order (i.e. SOV) and conventional

participation styles in conversation (i.e. active participation as a listener), overlaps

appear to be observed more frequently than in English conversation (Maynard, 1986,

5
 Chapter 1

1993; Tanaka, 1999).5 On the other hand, overlap has also been discussed for its

gendered features; e.g. frequent cooperative overlaps by females (e.g. Coates, 1996;

Honda, 1997), and more interruptions6 by males (e.g. Ehara et al., 1984; Matsuda et al.,

1995; Uchida, 1997; Yamazaki and Yoshii, 1994; Zimmerman and West, 1975). Thus,

analysing Japanese discourse styles of Japanese residents in Sydney (an English

language-oriented culture) in terms of overlap brings a number of potentially valuable

observations. However, there is one obstacle for the investigation of overlap in

Japanese conversations, that is, although there have been a number of research projects

on brief listener responses (referred to as aizuchi in Japanese) many of which appear in

the form of overlap (Clancy et al., 1996; Horiguchi, 1997; Ikeda, 2004; Komiya,

1986;Matsuda, 1988; Maynard, 1993; Maynard, 1986; Mizutani, 1988; Sugito, 1987;

Szatrowski, 1993), or overlap itself (e.g. Fujii, 1997; Honda, 1997; Ikeda, 2004; Ikoma,

1996), there has been little concrete agreement between researchers regarding the

definition of listener responses, or classification of overlaps. Consequently, overlap in

Japanese conversation has been discussed only in part by focusing on a certain form or

function, and, hence its comprehensive analysis in terms of quantity and quality has

been somewhat lacking. With these reasons in mind, in order to pursue the overlap

analysis, previous understanding of overlap in terms of its definition and its

classification needs to be revised, based on which a fundamental or comprehensive

frame of overlap classification is required.

5 See also Ikeda (2004) who discusses lack of overlapping listener responses by non-native speakers of
Japanese in a Japanese conversation.
6 Though there are interruptions that do not appear as overlap (“silent interruption” by Ferguson (1977)),
the majority of them take the form of overlap.

6
 Chapter 1

Bearing in mind the above discussion, I set the objectives (or research questions) of the

study as follows:

1. Setting up a comprehensive classification of overlaps in Japanese

conversation by:

1.1 revising previous studies in terms of definitions of overlap and

their classification.

1.2 classifying overlap functionally for qualitative analysis.

2. Using the frame established in 1, investigating participation styles of

Japanese female long-term residents of Sydney in Japanese

conversation to explore:

2.1 how they participate in Japanese communication in Sydney:

2.1.1 what functions of overlaps they use.

2.1.2 how overlap frequency is affected by a number of

conversational aspects.

2.1.3 how different/not different their communication

style is compared to the Japanese communication

style discussed in previous studies.

2.2 how Japanese gendered communication styles appear/do not

appear.

7
 Chapter 1

To investigate these questions, I will discuss communication styles of two Japanese

women who have been long-term residents of Australia in a number of naturally

occurring multi-party conversations with other Japanese residents in different situations.

For the analysis frame, due to the large socio-cultural involvement in one’s style of

communication, I primarily use an interactional sociolinguistic approach, which has

been developed by Gumperz (1982), Goffman (1974, 1981) and Tannen (1989).

However, in order to avoid more subjective observation, the data will be transcribed as

accurately as possible by following Conversation Analysis methods, and the discussions

will be strictly data-driven.

Before concluding this chapter, I present the chapter organisation for the rest of the

thesis. In Chapter 2, I will discuss the background of the study, by first outlining the

theoretical background of the study, that of Interactional Sociolinguistics, and then

discussing the characteristics of the communication style of the Japanese by reviewing

previous research on cross-cultural communication and intercultural communication.

Thereafter, I will review previous studies on language and gender in Japan. It should be

noted that there are slight differences between the Western and Japanese views of

language and gender issues. With this in mind, I will briefly look at the research in

Western countries, primarily the United States, where language and gender studies

began, and then examine the research in Japan. In Chapter 3, I discuss the methodology

of the study by focusing on the data in terms of its significance, the method of

collection, participants’ profiles and the details of each conversational data set. Chapter

4 and 5 discuss overlaps from a theoretical basis. In chapter 4, I discuss the theoretical

frame of analysing overlaps in this study, first by defining key terms including turn,

8
 Chapter 1

floor and overlap, and second, by discussing how overlap has been discussed in English

discourse and Japanese discourse in the research body. In Chapter 5, grounded on the

discussion in Chapter 4, I discuss overlap classification. First, I will discuss the

significance of a functional classification of overlap, then present an overlap

classification, which has been constructed by analysing all overlaps in the complete

data set one by one (i.e. bottom-up method), and I discuss individual function, using the

data. Chapter 6 and 7 summarise a number of observations and analyses from the

overlaps. Chapter 6 presents a comprehensive discussion of overlaps. The chapter is

divided into two parts. The first part discusses quantitative observation of overlaps in

the data; first, I discuss how overlaps are distributed in each function, then, I investigate

the relation between overlap frequency and a number of factors that may affect one’s

communication style. The second part discusses, from a qualitative perspective, some

overlaps and participants’ discourse styles in terms of their strategic use and the effect

of a second culture. Chapter 7 focuses exclusively upon gender issues. By analysing

three conversations in which one of the two informants participated, I discuss the

discourse styles of the informant and the other participants and their style shift from one

conversation to another in two phases; first, their floor management when taking a floor

holder’s role, second, their participation as non-floor holders. Then I compare their

discourse styles with the literature that discuss gender and communication styles in

Japanese. The final chapter (Chapter 8) briefly summarises the study and presents a

perspective for future research into the field of study.

9
 Chapter 2

Chapter 2 Background of the Study

1. Introduction

This chapter discusses the theoretical framework of the current study by reviewing the

literature. The aim of the study is to investigate participation styles of the Japanese in

Japanese communication in their second culture (i.e. Australia) in terms of “overlap”

and “gender.” Overlap has been discussed broadly speaking from two perspectives.

One is analysing overlap itself, i.e. how overlap occurs and/or what happens after

overlap takes place (Jefferson, 1973, 1975, 1983; Schegloff, 2000, 2002). The other is

focusing on the point of overlap onset, which distinguishes interruptions from overlaps,

and discusses the communication style of the participants in the talk. The latter type of

study mostly contrasts the different communication styles of the participants, and

attempts to reflect the difference in the power relationship between the participants (e.g.

male-female, senior-junior, doctor-patient, native speaker-non-native speaker of a

certain language, etc.). This type of study—that examines interruptions in discourse—is

overwhelmingly concentrated on gender issues, and extensively discusses different

communication styles of males and females (e.g. Beattie, 1981; Cameron, 1992; Cowie,

2000; Dindia, 1987; Ehara et al., 1984; Ferguson, 1977; Itakura, 2001; Marche and

Peterson, 1993; Matsuda et al., 1995; Murray and Covelli, 1988; Nordenstam, 1992;

Smith-Lovin and Brody, 1989; Uchida, 1992; Uchida, 1997; West and Zimmerman,

1983; Zimmerman and West, 1975). However, the findings of these studies vary, which

results in different conclusions from study to study. The reason for such arbitrary results

may be due to methodological differences (James and Clarke, 1993). For example,

difference in understanding of “interruption” leads to different results. Among

overlapping utterances that are defined as interruptions, some may be uttered

10
 Chapter 2

cooperatively to the current speaker. Apart from methodology, it should also be noted

that the participants’ culture needs to be considered, since there are cultures where

overlap (or interruption) is more frequently observed than other cultures (Cowie, 2000;

Deng, 1998; Mullan, 2001). As this study focuses on the communication style of the

Japanese, it falls into the latter type of the above mentioned overlap studies.

Considering methodological problems and the cultural issues raised in these studies, a

concrete and fair methodology needs to be established to explore the research topic.

Thus, in this chapter, I will review literature that I believe to be essential for the

foundation of the methodology of this study. There are four issues that are the focus of

the literature review. They are an overall approach to discourse analysis,

communication style of the Japanese in general, gender studies—particularly the ones

that look into Japanese discourse—and the technical method of overlap analysis.

Among these issues, “overlap” will be fully discussed in the next two chapters as an

analytical framework. Thus, this chapter discusses the other three issues, each of which

builds a number of crucial frames of reference for overlap analysis in the Japanese

discourse.

In the rest of the chapter, I first summarise one discourse analysis framework,

“Interactional Sociolinguistic,” which I believe to be the most applicable approach to

the analysis of conversational data in this study, since it extensively takes account of the

culture that underlies their participant discourse. I will first review its literature by

focusing on Gumperz (1971, 1982, 1996) and Goffman (1967, 1974, 1981), then will

discuss the feasibility of the approach to discourse in this study. Secondly, I will review

how the communication style of the Japanese has been discussed in literature. In early

literature (e.g. Benedict, 1954; Doi, 1971, 1973; Nakane, 1967, 1973), the Japanese and

11
 Chapter 2

Japanese culture were discussed as unique and homogenic, which is not observed in the

West, with several key notions such as uchi/soto (inside/outside), giri/ninjoo (social

obligation/human feeling), tate/yoko (vertical/horizontal), amae (dependency).

However, more recent literature (e.g. Sugimoto, 1997; Tai, 2003) points out that the

discussions in the early days do not precisely apply to contemporary Japan due to its

internationalisation. Rather, they argue that contemporary Japan is diverse and dynamic,

being multi-cultural and heterogeneous. While admitting this, it is also true that those

key notions have not completely disappeared. Indeed, among the collected data for this

study, reflections of these notions have been observed. Thus, I consider it to be worth

presenting them in this chapter. In this section, I will also review several studies that

discuss the communication style of the Japanese in cross-cultural and intercultural

communications, or other communications involving cultures other than Japan. Lastly, I

will review the literature in language and gender studies. Language and gender studies

flourished in the United States and other Western countries along with the feminist

movement. In the case of the Japanese language, language and gender studies were not

necessarily engaged with feminism. Due to the nature of the language where gender

differences are more obviously marked lexically and syntactically, the language of

women has been studied in the history of literature (e.g. Morino, 1975). Japanese

language and gender studies based on empirical data appeared in the mid-1980s (e.g.

Ehara et al., 1984; Ide et al., 1986). Since then, studies in this field have been

developed. However, compared with the studies in the West, the number of language

and gender studies in Japan is still few. Particularly, research on participation styles in

conversation, in terms of gender differences based on actual discourse data, are yet to be

thoroughly explored, though stereotypical gender behaviours in conversation have been

noted by a number of scholars (Mizutani and Mizutani, 1987; Kindaichi, 1988). In the

12
 Chapter 2

gender section, I will review how language and gender studies have been developed,

and will discuss particularly the studies that focus on participation style in conversation.

2. Interactional sociolinguistics and its applications

The analysis of the recorded conversational data in this study mainly follows the

framework of interactional sociolinguistics, which is concerned with language in

relation to the participants’ culture and society when analysing discourse. It combines

interests of anthropology, sociology and linguistics. A founding contribution was made

to interactional sociolinguistics by the linguistic anthropologist John Gumperz and the

sociologist Erving Goffman. Their ideas have been employed and extended by linguists

such as Brown and Levinson (1987), Tannen (1989) and Yamada (1992). Interactional

sociolinguistics has as its basic axiom that the meaning of language use in any

interaction is based on socially and culturally shared knowledge and it is understood

only in the context of interaction (Yamada, 1992). In other words, the meaning is

situated (Garfinkel, 1986; Sacks, 1986). In this section, I present a number of principal

discussions on interactional sociolinguistics, then argue its feasibility in analysing

conversational data in this study.

2.1 The contribution of Gumperz

In communication, there is always context to one's utterance. In order to make

interaction successful, participants not only understand the linguistic meaning of a

sentence but also contextualise the meaning of the utterance. It has been only a few

decades since the study of speech in relation to context became an interest of

anthropologists, sociologists, psycholinguists and sociolinguists. John Gumperz, whose

work founded interactional sociolinguistics, claimed that the meaning, structure and use

13
 Chapter 2

of language are socially and culturally relative. He extensively studied code-switching

in multilingual communities to discover the way switching occurs in social interaction.

This led him to a definition of a speech community as "any human aggregate

characterised by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal

signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language usage"

(Gumperz, 1971:114). Gumperz focuses not only on macro level analysis with social

and cultural emphasis, but also looks into individual expression, and later, in his

Discourse Strategies (Gumperz, 1982), he develops "interpretive sociolinguistic

approaches to the analysis of real time processes in face-to-face encounters." In

Discourse Strategies, he argues that "communication is a social activity requiring the

coordinated efforts of two or more individuals"(1982:1). In interaction, people always

infer unsaid meanings from each other's utterance so that they can successfully reach

their communicative goals. But in what way do people infer the context of an utterance?

Gumperz argues that there are signals in the surface features of a message by which

listeners interpret "what the activity is, how semantic content is to be understood and

how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows"(1982:131). Gumperz referred to

these signals as "contextualisation cues," which could be any feature of linguistic form

(e.g. intonation, speech rhythm, choice among lexical, phonetic and syntactic options).

Gumperz shows the following example of a contextualisation cue, in this case a rising

intonation:

Teacher: James, what does this word say?

James: I don't know (in rising tone).

Teacher: Well, if you don't want to try someone else will. Freddy?

Freddy: Is that a "p" or a "b"?

Teacher: (encouragingly) It's a "p."

14
 Chapter 2

Freddy: Pen.

(Gumperz, 1982:147)

In this exchange, the teacher interpreted James' "I don't know" not only as its literal

meaning but also as his lack of interest in the question. However, Gumperz notes that in

the African American community from which James comes, "I don't know" said with a

final rising tone is understood as showing one's desire for encouragement.

Unfortunately, the teacher who was not from the same community as James, missed

interpreting James' rising tone accurately and gave a turn to the other student despite

James' wish to answer the question.

As the above example shows, through contextualisation cues, people obtain or miss

clues about how to decode the meaning of the utterance, which Gumperz calls

"conversational inference." So how do people reach conversational inference through

such cues? They use means of "understanding" to make a presupposition. Such means

of "understanding" are "interpretive frames." Frame is used in many ways,1 but in

interactional sociolinguistics terms, it is "a set of expectations which rests on previous

experience"(1982:102). Such experience or knowledge includes socio-cultural norms or

conventional standards. Gumperz states that similar past experiences motivate similar

interpretive frames. Thus, if the participants of the conversation share the same

interpretive frames, the communication becomes smooth and successful. On the other

side of the coin, if they do not share such frames, there may be communication

breakdown. Later, Gumperz developed the notion of contextualisation cues more

1 The term “frame” is first used and discussed by Bateson (1972), in which he demonstrates
communication is not possible without reference to a metacommunicative message or metamessage about
what is going on.

15
 Chapter 2

systematically by employing the conversation analysts’ approach (i.e. sequential

ordering of talk with accurate transcripts), and discusses it in depth (Gumperz, 1992,

1996). While admitting the interpretation of conversation always depends upon how

acts are positioned within the stream of talk, Gumperz argues that positioning alone is

not enough and stresses the significance of reference to shared frames or common

ground to assess the propositional content of even a short utterance (Gumperz, 1996).

In summary, Gumperz’ view of interpersonal communication is "a view of language as

a socially and culturally constructed symbol system that is used in ways that reflect

macro-level social meanings (e.g. group identity, status differences) and create micro-

level social meanings (i.e. what one is saying and doing at a moment in time)"

(Schiffrin, 1994).

2.2 The contribution of Goffman

Although his approach is different from that of Gumperz, Erving Goffman also focused

his research on social interaction. His analysis of forms and meanings in relation to

context further contributes to the decoding of meaning in interpersonal communication.

In analysing social interaction, Goffman emphasises the notion of self as a public

interactive construction which could be viewed through "face," which is "something

that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter and becomes manifest

only when these events are read and interpreted for the appraisals expressed in them"

(Goffman, 1967:5). He argues that the maintenance of face is a condition of interaction

(1967:12). As in Gumperz' view, Goffman also sees the interpersonal maintenance of

face as backed up by linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge. To understand its

organisation, Goffman builds a number of concepts which become a key to decoding

16
 Chapter 2

the meaning of interpersonal communication. In relation to what I am trying to

investigate in this study, of these concepts I particularly focus on "frame," "footing" and

"participation framework." These are not independent concepts, rather they are

interrelated. Below is a brief explanation of each term and its function.

Although the term "frame" is used by a number of scholars in slightly different senses,2

for Goffman, it is something through which people structure their experience. It is

viewed as an "interpretive frame" with which we can understand what is going on in

interaction. Goffman argues that such a frame is socially situated. Thus, in daily

interaction, people constantly use their socially- and culturally-determined frames to

infer what the speaker means by her/his utterance. The following exchange is an

example of misunderstanding due to misframing of numbers:

A tourist walked into a jewellery shop, looked at a jade bracelet, and asked the
manager:

Tourist: How much?

Manager: One fifty.

Tourist: (laying down a dollar bill and two quarters)

I'll take it!

(Goffman, 1974:497)3

In this exchange, the tourist misunderstood the actual price of the jade bracelet by

taking the manager's "one fifty" literally. The cause of misunderstanding can be

explained, first, by the tourist not knowing how price is stated in daily shopping

situations, which is generally known to those who live in the country, second, he does

2 See Tannen (1993c) for further discussion of “frame.”

3 The original text appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle June 26 1968.

17
 Chapter 2

not seem to possess any knowledge of jewels nor be aware of the status of the jeweller.

In other words, the tourist used her/his own frame to interpret "one fifty," and failed to

understand what the manager meant by "one fifty." This is an example of intercultural

misframing. But it could have taken place intra-culturally, if a knowledge of jewels or

the formal attitude taken by the jeweller is not shared.

In relation to the notion of frame, Goffman introduced the term "footing." Footing is

the way in which framing takes place in verbal interaction. It concerns "the alignments

we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the

production or reception of an utterance" (Goffman, 1981:128). Thus, "a change in our

footing is another way of talking about a change in our frame for events" (Goffman,

1981:128). Footing is observed through paralinguistic cues such as pitch, volume,

rhythm or lexical or syntactic cues and it often involves code switching (or code

switching-like behaviour). For example, the following is a schoolteacher's utterance to

a group of first-graders, in which three different stances are involved:

1. Now listen everybody.

2. At ten o'clock we'll have assembly. We'll all go out together and go to
the auditorium and sit in the first two rows. Mr. Dock, the principal, is
going to speak to us. When he comes in, sit quietly and listen carefully.

3. Don't wiggle your legs. Pay attention to what I'm saying.

(Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz, 1976: cited in Goffman, 1981:127)

The first is a claim on the children's immediate behaviour, the second is a review of

experiences to come, and the third is a side remark to a particular child (Goffman,

1981).

18
 Chapter 2

As a participant's stance in an interaction frequently changes, as in the above example,

footing is central in understanding the change in frame. Another device used to analyse

changes in footing is "participation framework."
In his discussion of footing, Goffman

(1981) defines several types of hearer and speaker. He points out that among hearers of

the same utterance, there might be only one or a few direct addressees. Goffman defines

such hearers as "ratified participants" and those who are hearing, but are outside the

communicative event, he defines as "unratified participants." He argues that such

"unratified participants" take important roles in constructing the speaker's utterance in

context. Thus, he emphasises that "in any case, the whole social situation, the whole

surround, must always be considered" (1981:144). For speakers, he argues that the first

person pronoun "I" uttered by a speaker could refer to three distinct roles: "animator,

author, and principal." The animator produces talk as a "sounding box," the author

creates talk by selecting sentiments and words that are being expressed, and the

principal is someone whose position or beliefs are presented. It is often the case that one

person takes all three roles but there are cases in which they are not (e.g. quoting

somebody else's words).

Animator, author and principal are constituent of what Goffman calls the "production

format" of an utterance. This format conforms with the status of the recipient of the

utterance. Thus, the relation between speakers and hearers takes on a significant role in

analysing what is going on in an interaction. This participation status of speakers and

hearers in relation to the production and reception of an utterance is referred to as

"participation framework." The status or stance of the participants changes all the time

during an interaction: ratified hearer could become unratified hearer or vice versa, or the

production format which the speaker selected may change as the interaction proceeds.

Such changes in the participation framework index changes in footing. Thus, to look at

19
 Chapter 2

these shifts in interaction is essential to understanding its context. To sum up, Goffman

focuses on the self and social context, and suggests a framework for describing and

understanding the meaning of interaction in context. With frame, footing and

participation framework, we can further analyse the context of interaction and reach an

in-depth understanding of the meaning of utterances in daily communication.

2.3 Interactional sociolinguistics: its applications

So far, I have presented some of the key ideas of Gumperz and Goffman which have

grounded interactional sociolinguistics. These frameworks have been followed and

extended by other researchers for analysing interaction. For example, Brown and

Levinson (1987) took Goffman's notion of face and applied it to build a theory of

politeness. Tannen (1989) uses Gumperz's idea of "conversational involvement"4 in her

discussion of conversation as a "joint production." There are also Japanese scholars,

Maynard (1989), Yamada (1992, 1997) and Watanabe (1993), who have followed the

framework of interactional sociolinguistics in their discourse analytic studies. They all

compare the conversational style or discourse organisation of Japanese and American

English to discover the characteristic communicative strategies of the two communities.

In their analyses, they particularly focus on "context" and "interpretive frame." Maynard

(1989) argues that in conversation, the participants "properly place themselves in a

context by perceiving, identifying, and evaluating the overall as well as immediate

context of the conversation as they interact" (1989:4). She terms this ongoing process of

the participants' contextualisation in relation to their interactional environment as "self-

contextualisation." Maynard divides "self-contextualisation" into two interacting stages:

4 Gumperz (1981) discusses "conversational involvement" as being fundamental to inferring what the
conversation is about.

20
 Chapter 2

"contextual interpretation" in which the participants understand "the actual signs and

other abstract structural and interactional knowledge labelled as elements of

conversation"; and "contextual transformation," in which the participants process their

ideas to suit each situation of talk by transforming information to conform with the

context. Maynard argues that the mechanism of self-contextualisation is backed up not

only by linguistic knowledge but also by social and environmental information,

including immediate physical setting and socio-cultural assumptions. Yamada (1992),

who also tries to analyse the mechanism of meaning in context, deconstructs it into

three spheres: the "cultural context," through which people historically inherit

conceptions or knowledge about life, and which is at the core of interactional context;

the "context of encounter," in which "interactants experience and make use of their

know-how of a particular socio-cultural milieu, and participate in the interaction

through meaningful presentation of the self"(1992:7); and the "context of conversation,"

in which "interactants associate with informative pieces of conversational

data"(1992:7), including verbal and nonverbal information. Yamada argues these

spheres are intricately linked to each other and people dynamically use them in

interaction.5 Thus, she stresses the importance of the analysis of these spheres to define

and interpret the participants' ongoing interaction.

Following the notion of "frame" by Bateson (1972), Goffman (1974), Gumperz (1982)

and Tannen (1984, 1986), Watanabe (1993) discusses a cultural aspect of framing by

investigating Japanese and American students in their framing of one speech event, the

group discussion. She suggests that frame analyses of various speech events are useful

5 Yamada exemplified the three contexts in a short exchange between two American bank officers
(1992:14).

21
 Chapter 2

in intercultural communication6, where the participants are likely to interpret the

situated meaning of what is said differently due to different expectations about how to

interact.

2.4 Interactional sociolinguistics approach to the study of Japanese discourse

Interactional sociolinguistics seems to be quite suited to analysing interaction in which

Japanese speakers are involved. Although the communication style of the Japanese will

be discussed in depth in the next section, Japanese is one of the languages that is used

more indexically than referentially in communication (Bachnik, 1994). Also, spoken

Japanese allows a number of semantic/syntactic ellipses (e.g. a person pronoun as a

subject).7 Thus, communication in Japanese relies on context of situation to a greater

extent than communication in English. In order to decode the meaning of the message,

one has to rely on socio-cultural conventions, which have accumulated through history.

There have been a number of discussions about the behaviour of Japanese speakers

reflected in their communication (Benedict, 1954; Doi, 1971, 1973; Nakane, 1967,

1973, 1987). These sociological and anthropological studies of Japanese behaviour

apply to Maynard’s (1989) discussion of self-contextualisation. After a number of

studies, she concluded that self-contextualisation well describes the fundamental

principles of social conceptualisation among the Japanese since: a) the Japanese

language itself is structured to facilitate the process of self-contextualisation; b)

Japanese discourse strategies (e.g. frequent back-channel use) encourage and facilitate

self-contextualisation; c) Japanese behaviour in communication is sensitive to the

6 Here, I use the term "intercultural communication" rather than using the term Watanabe (1993) used as
"cross cultural communication" in her original text. See the definition of "intercultural communication"
and "cross-cultural communication" in Chapter 1.

7 See Kusanagi (1983) and Yano (1981) for further discussion.

22
 Chapter 2

surrounding context to a greater degree than Western (namely American)

communicative behaviours. Later, Maynard (1997) further expands self-

contextualisation and develops the notion of relationality (i.e. the “mutual relationship

that language—as well as thought—comes into contact with in socio-cultural and

situational context” (1997:17)), by which she discusses how clearly Japanese language

and thought reveal their characteristics when being examined in terms of the mutual

influence shared with the social context. Considering this, I believe it to be useful to

apply the insights and techniques of interactional sociolinguistics to analyse talk of

Japanese residents of Australia.

This section discussed the basic idea of an interactional sociolinguistics approach to

discourse and its feasibility to analyse Japanese communication. While the approach is

suited to Japanese discourse analysis in terms of the participation style of the Japanese

in communication, there lies an analytical problem in this approach. That is, how could

it be argued that an utterance conveys a different message from what is linguistically

referred? For instance, if contextualisation cues are subtle enough to cause

misunderstanding in intercultural communication, then there may be cases where even

people who belong to the same culture or community may interpret the utterance

differently (Levinson, 2003). This argument seems to strike at the weakest point of the

interactional sociolinguistics approach. It points out the danger of using cultural frames

to interpret an utterance without any evidence from the actual interaction.8 Given this,

discussion in this study will be thoroughly data-driven; any discussion will be backed

8 In the Ethnography of Communication approach, cultural scripts of Japan, proposed by Goddard and
Wierzbicka (1997), are made not by basing them on the actual conversational data but by thoroughly
relying on literature. Thus, it seems to be problematic to use such scripts to decode Japanese utterances.
Note, however, as previously mentioned, more recent studies by Gumperz (1992, 1996) employ a
Conversation Analysis approach for a clearer focus on evidence to back up his argument.

23
 Chapter 2

up by the evidence in the data. There are, of course, utterances that seem to be culturally

framed. However, unless there is any evidence to prove it, they will be left out of the

discussion. In order to achieve the task in this manner, it is essential to describe what

was going on in the interaction in the transcript as accurately as possible. Thus, the

transcripts for the study were carefully made to present the details of the conversation in

terms of pause, overlap onset and resolution, phrase or sentence final intonation,

stretching sound and so on. The transcribing method will be discussed in Chapter 3.

3. Communication style of the Japanese

3.1 Stereotype of the Japanese

Bachnik (1994) argues that Japanese is a language that is more indexical than referential

in her discussion of uchi/soto, or inside and outside, through which self and society are

represented. This section discusses some characteristics of the communication style of

the Japanese, which relies on pragmatic meaning relatively more than English

communication. However, I have to note that what I discuss below is a stereotypical

Japanese style of communication. Theses about Nihonjinron or Japanese National

Character in the post-war period (e.g. Benedict, 1954; Doi, 1971, 1973; Nakane, 1967,

1973) are closely related to domestic and international politics and power relations

(Kubota, 2003). For example, Benedict’s study (1954) was commissioned by the US

government for the purpose of ruling Japan after WWII. Nihonjinron in the 60s and 70s

focused on the uniqueness of the Japanese that was believed to be the source of Japan’s

economic success (Kubota, 2003). Also, in the 80s, Nihonjinron became “a nationalistic

pursuit of maintaining Japanese identity against the tide of internationalisation that had

been penetrating into everyday life in Japan” (Befu, 1983 cited in Tai, 2003). Under

such political circumstances, the uniqueness of the Japanese, in terms of mono-

24
 Chapter 2

ethnicity, and homogenic and harmonic culture/society, has been emphasised from time

to time. But as Sugimoto (1997) argues, contemporary Japan is more diversified,

heterogeneous, and multicultural (e.g. the physically impaired, women, Korean

residents in Japan, etc.) than is recognised in a number of Nihonjinron. As culture is

always shifting and reshaping itself into new forms (Kubota, 2003), it is important to

keep in mind that Japanese culture is now seen as diverse, unbounded, dynamic and

politically charged (Tai, 2003).

Nevertheless, review of the literature of Nihonjinron is still significant to studies of

communication, since various kinds of homogenising forces operate to produce and

reproduce a certain level of cultural homogeneity in society through media and a

national education system (Tai, 2003). Being in a small island country, the whole

nation is in the same time zone, hence they watch the national news or other nation-

wide programs at the same time. In this way, media promote the rapid circulation of the

same information. Also, the national education system strongly focuses on the

curriculum guidelines under which all Japanese primary and secondary schools teach

the same content to children/students. Nihonjinron through quick media distribution and

the national education system, seem to influence the Japanese to behave in certain ways.

Thus, although the rest of the discussion in this chapter may be partly stereotyped or

out-of-date and mostly discusses the dichotomy between Japan and the West (namely

the US), it is still useful for understanding and analysing the Japanese way of

communication in contemporary society.

Below, I first present a number of anthropological and sociological views of

interpersonal relations in Japanese society and how they affect the communicative style

25
 Chapter 2

of the Japanese. Then I move on to review some sociolinguistic analyses of cross-

cultural and intercultural communication in which the Japanese are involved.

3.2 Anthropological and sociological views of the Japanese

In this sub-section, I will mainly follow Kitade’s (1993) discussion of Japanese

interpersonal relations and their styles of communication. Kitade points out that there

are several key concepts which describe the characteristics of Japanese interpersonal

relations, which ground the communication style of Japanese. Among these concepts,

"amae or dependence," "giri-ninjoo or social obligation-human feeling" and "tate-yoko

or vertical-horizontal" are the most obvious and have been discussed by many scholars.

Compared to Western societies, these concepts seem to be much more distinct to

Japanese society and amae and giri-ninjoo are somewhat difficult to translate to other

languages. Following Kitade (1993), I present a brief description of each concept and its

relation to Japanese communication style below.

3.2.1 Amae

The concept of amae was raised and discussed by a psychiatrist, Takeo Doi (1971,

1973), and it has been frequently referred to by many anthropologists, sociologists, and

sociolinguists in their discussions of Japanese culture, society and people's

communicative style ever since.

The word, amae does not have a direct translation in to English9. It comes from the verb

amaeru, which roughly means "to behave like a baby" or "to depend on others'

kindness." According to Doi, developmentally, the psychological prototype of amae lies

9 Rosenberger (1994) uses this term as it is, even add “ing” to the term—“amaeru-ing.”

26
 Chapter 2

in the psychology of the infant in its relation to its mother. When the infant's mental

development has reached the stage at which it realises that its mother exists

independently of itself, it comes to feel the mother as something indispensable to itself

and tries to depend on the mother. Doi argues such a baby's want of dependence on the

mother is amae. In this sense, amae should be universal. But Doi points out that its

application to the relationship between people other than a mother and baby may be

particular to the Japanese. According to Doi, the mother understands the baby's want

through the notion of amae and responds accordingly. This mother's psychology has

been shared by the people in Japanese society, and the notion of amae has come to take

an important role in maintaining interpersonal relations. Doi mentions that the creation

of the term amae is due to this unique phenomenon in Japanese society. Doi

alternatively states that there is no existence of such terms particularly in Western

societies, where the notion of amae plays no role in quotidian life. Doi (1971) presents

an example of how amae underlies Japanese behaviour from his own experience in the

United States. At a house of an American he visited for the first time, he missed an

opportunity to eat an ice-cream because he deferred the host’s offer. Doi recalls that

when he deferred the offer of ice-cream, he held a feeling of amae towards the

American host that he would understand the Japanese socio-cultural norm to defer the

first offer, and relied on the host's kindness to push him into having ice-cream.

However, the American host did not understand Doi's amae. Instead, the host took Doi's

reaction literally and did not press the offer. If this exchange had taken place with a

Japanese host, it would have been no problem for Doi to receive ice-cream, since

Japanese culture publicly approves one's feeling of dependence upon the others. Thus,

the Japanese host would have immediately understood what Doi wanted and offered

him ice-cream one more time so that he could accept it in a more deferential manner. As

27
 Chapter 2

this example shows, Japanese communicative behaviour is unconsciously framed with

the notion of amae and because it is not readily understood by people who do not share

this culture10 (i.e. Western culture represented by the United States), it often results in

miscommunication with them.

3.2.2 Giri and Ninjoo

The second key concept to understanding Japanese interpersonal relations is giri -

ninjoo or "social obligation" - "human feeling,"11 which are also not easy to translate to

other languages appropriately. Native Japanese speakers find it especially difficult to

explain giri even in Japanese, despite the fact that they use the term quite often in daily

life. The definition of giri is also ambiguous even in comprehensive dictionaries. Thus,

there have been various discussions and arguments about the concept of giri and its

relation to ninjoo. In discussing giri and ninjoo in relation to Japanese communication

behaviour, Kitade (1993) follows the idea of Minamoto (1969: cited in Kitade, 1993).

Minamoto discusses the original types of giri as: 1) to return a favour; 2) to respond to

another’s trust; 3) face-saving. According to Kitade, although the second and the third

type of giri are becoming less common, the first type of giri is still commonly observed

in contemporary Japanese society. The first type of giri is, for example, if one does

somebody a favour, the one who receives the favour feels that s/he has to return it. At

the same time, the one who does a favour has some expectation that the receiver will

return the favour. According to Minamoto, this was a convention in ancient farm

villages where people worked in cooperation with their neighbours. This feeling of

10 Doi (1971) emphasises that amae is unique to Japanese, however, recent studies recognise that this
notion is shared by other collectivist cultures (e.g. other Asian cultures and some Latin American
cultures) (Ho, 1998;Markus and Kitayama, 1991;Triandis, 2000).
11 John Bester’s (1973) translation.

28
 Chapter 2

returning a favour became a social obligation, which still remains in current Japanese

society. As for ninjoo or human feeling, Minamoto argues that it is "to understand

somebody's sorrow, feel for the person, and sympathise with the person" (1969: cited in

Kitade, 1993:28).

There are various views of the relationship between giri and ninjoo. Some scholars

argue that one is contrary to the other (Ariga, cited in Kitade, 1993; Benedict, 1954) and

some argue that they are based on the same ground (Doi, 1971, 1973; Itasaka, 1969;

Kitade, 1993; Minamoto, 1969). The former argument is to see them as incompatible

notions because giri is "public" and ninjoo is "private." The latter argument is that in

maintaining relations with others, giri is the norm and ninjoo is the feeling of one's own

to support giri (Minamoto, 1969: cited in Kitade, 1993). In other words, giri and ninjoo

complement each other, and maintain smooth social relations (Itasaka, 1969). Doi

(1971, 1973), who discusses the notion of amae discussed above, also looks at giri and

ninjoo in the same way. He argues that both giri and ninjoo have their roots deep in

amae: although many people do not realise it, amae is the central emotion in ninjoo, and

to emphasise ninjoo is to affirm amae, to encourage the other person's sensitivity

towards amae. "To emphasise giri, on the other hand, is to stress the human

relationships contracted via amae" (Doi, 1973). Doi further argues that if the term amae

is replaced by the more abstract term, "dependence," then ninjoo welcomes

"dependence" and giri binds people in a dependent relationship. Based on this notion,

Doi categorised the interpersonal relationship of the Japanese in three concentric circles

as Figure 2.1 shows. The world of ninjoo, in which amae naturally occurs (e.g. family

members), is the centre circle. The world of giri, in which ninjoo is artificially brought,

is the middle circle, and the world of tanin or "persons unconnected to oneself," to

29
 Chapter 2

which neither giri nor ninjoo reach, is the outside circle. Communication in Japanese

culture always takes place in one of these circles. It is, thus, significant to observe in

which circle a person is communicating to understand his/her communication

behaviour.

Figure 2.1 Doi’s Interpersonal Relation of Amae (Sahashi, 1980)

World of tanin

World of giri

World of ninjoo

Although Benedict points out that giri is a moral obligation that is peculiar to Japan, it

is also observed not only in other Asian societies but also in Western societies (e.g. buy

sweets from a child of an acquaintance for fundraising) (Itasaka, 1969). Empirical

studies (Kikuchi, 1975; Ishii, 1985: cited in Kitade, 1993) proved that giri-ninjoo

functions as an interpersonal value in a number of societies (e.g. China, Philippines,

India, America) but it appears to function significantly more in Japanese society.

3.2.3 Tate and Yoko

The third key concept of Japanese communication style is based on the social structure

of Japan, which is described as tate-yoko or vertical-horizontal. To characterise

30
 Chapter 2

interpersonal relations, Nakane (1967, 1973) presents two contrasting criteria: shikaku

or “attribute” and ba or “frame.”12 According to Nakane, shikaku is the individual's

attribute which distinguishes one from others. It is acquired not only by birth (e.g.

family roots, or caste) but also by achievements such as academic background, social

status, occupation and so on. And ba is, contrary to shikaku, a locality, an institution or

a particular relationship (e.g. industry, university, club etc.), which binds a set of

individuals into one group. These criteria are used to identify the individuals in the

whole society. For example, in my case, I am a lecturer/postgraduate student at the

University of New South Wales. Here, "lecturer" and "postgraduate student" are shikaku

and "the University of New South Wales" is ba. Nakane argues that in any society,

individuals are gathered into social groups or social strata based on these shikaku and

ba, in which they establish and maintain their relations. However, in some societies, the

function of these two criteria is not well balanced, in other words, one of them is more

valued than the other. Nakane cites a case of India as an example, where shikaku is

more valued within the caste system. She then argues that Japan is the society where ba

is more esteemed than shikaku. When the Japanese identify themselves, they always

introduce what ba they belong to (e.g. I am Sumiko Iida from the University of New

South Wales). For the Japanese, what one does is not as important as one’s institutional

membership. Thus, in this ba-oriented society, individuals have a strong sense of

belonging to their group, and this promotes a strong sense of unity, and strengthens

group solidarity. Nakane (1967, 1973) further argues that, theoretically, human relations

can be divided, according to the ways in which ties are organised, into two categories:

12 The English translations of these terms are from Nakane’s (1968) original translation, "Japanese
Society" (1970). To distinguish the meaning of the "frame" from what I have been discussing as the key
notion of the interactional sociolinguistics, I use the Japanese term ba hereafter.

31
 Chapter 2

tate or “vertical” and yoko or “horizontal.” For instance, the "parent-child" relation or

"superior-inferior" relation is tate, and that of "siblings" or "colleagues" is yoko.

Nakane argues that within a group of ba, members are tied vertically into a delicately

graded order. In the case of Japanese society, this order is based on seniority, which

means the longer one serves the group, the more power and benefits s/he gets. Even in

horizontal relations, when necessary, members are ranked according to their seniority.

Thus, Japan is identified as a tate-oriented society where vertical relation functions

significantly within a group.

Since Nakane (1967), Japanese society has changed dramatically due to the economic

transition that has brought a new family structure (i.e. more women working after their

marriage, housework is shared more with husbands, and young couples tend to have

separate households from their parents) and a new management system (e.g. voluntary

retirement, job assignment system, mid-carrier employment/resignation) are replacing

lifetime employment, and the seniority system is shifting towards a merit payment

system, a qualification system and so on.13 Considering this, the tate society which

Nakane discusses may not apply to current Japanese society. However, according to

Nakane (1967, 1970), the longer history the society has, the larger the population and

the higher the population density, the stronger the persistence of its social structure. She

argues that it is because the society itself is highly integrated with high quality, this

makes its structure persist further. If this is the case, then, with a population in Japan of

over 120 million and over 1600 years (since unification by the Yamato Imperial Court)

of history, Nakane's theory is perhaps still valid when discussing Japanese interpersonal

relations.

13 See Hayashi (1999) for the transition of Japanese management system.

32
 Chapter 2

3.3 Communication style of the Japanese

I have so far discussed three key concepts used to understand the way the Japanese

communicate. There are, of course, more concepts to describe the Japanese, such as haji

no bunka or "shame culture," and the notion of uchi and soto or "inside" and "outside,"

and so on. However, what we need to bear in mind is that even though each key concept

can be explained separately, they are not independent. Rather, they are overlapping and

dependent upon each other. For example, giri and ninjoo have already been discussed in

relation to amae. As for haji no bunka or "shame culture," which describes the Japanese

as those who do good deeds as a way of showing shame, its origin can be seen in the

notions discussed above. Showing shame towards others comes from the strong

Japanese identity as a member of ba. Thus, to commit a sin means to betray the other

members of the ba. However, if everybody in the ba does the same thing, then nobody

feels shame for whatever they do. This could be exemplified by a popular comic poem,

“akashingoo, minna de watareba kowakunai” (it's okay to cross at a red light if

everybody does). Also, the ba in which one feels shame often exists within a circle of

giri where one cannot hold a feeling of amae towards anybody (Doi, 1971). Contrary to

the circle of the parent-child relation, where amae is naturally observed and where sin

and shame are tacitly forgiven, in a circle of giri, shame could lead to a loss of face for

the other member of the same circle and easily cause a breakdown in interpersonal

relations. The notion of uchi and soto or "inside" and "outside" could also be explained

in the same way.14 When a Japanese person is involved in communication, s/he

consciously or unconsciously labels the other party as a member of their inside group,

or not, by putting herself/himself in the centre of the uchi circle. From the viewpoint of

14Bachnik (1994) argues that all of these terms are indices of self and society but uchi/soto is the most
basic in describing indexical organisation, since it is most explicitly associated with the deictic anchor
point.

33
 Chapter 2

amae, the inside circle is the area where the members can hold a feeling of amae, and

outside this circle is the area where one cannot hold it. After assigning the other party,

s/he decides the most appropriate communicative strategy for the situation.

Interestingly, the distinction between uchi and soto shifts depending on the situation.

For instance, when someone is interacting with their company senior, they regard the

senior as a member of the outside circle, based on the fact that the senior is in a higher

position than they are. Then they show their politeness in their communicative

behaviour. On the other hand, when such a person and the same senior represent their

company and carry out a negotiation with their client, the border of uchi and soto for the

person shifts. This time both this person and the senior become a member of uchi as

representing the same company, and make a distinction between themselves and their

client as an outside member. Thus, in their communication with their client, whatever

their relationship is, they show respect towards their client, a member of the outside

group, by putting down themselves and their other company colleagues as they are

regarded as in-group members. This border shift, I argue, comes from strong Japanese

ba-oriented society where group identity or group harmony takes precedence over

individual freedom.

Based on these key concepts, Japanese interpersonal communication style has been

argued as communication of enryo or "reserve" and sasshi or "consideration"

(Kindaichi, 1975; Kitade, 1993; Mizutani, 1979).
Kindaichi (1975) also suggests that

silence is a virtue in Japanese daily communication behaviour. It is because Japanese

people traditionally believe that displaying one's opinion too much may offend the other

party, which may cause trouble in interpersonal communication. Thus, it is best to say

less. And if one has to speak, one tries to be as brief as possible. Kindaichi (1975) also

34
 Chapter 2

argues that the Japanese tend to avoid direct and decisive expressions for the same

reason. Such a preference for indirect expression is also mentioned by Mizutani (1979).

Mizutani points out some15 Japanese use of “gurai/hodo” or “about” to indicate the

quantity of something that does not require the term to indicate approximation in a

shopping situation (e.g. “apple” in “Could I have about 5 apples?”). Declining the offer

by saying “~ wa chotto (~ is a little bit)” may be a typical example of these arguments.

While the message sender is sending such a short and indecisive message out of enryo,

the receiver considers (sasshi) what the sender encoded into the message by using all of

her/his knowledge gained from his/her own experience. In doing so, the receiver

decodes the sender’s message and reacts promptly, even in a complicated situation

where the speaker says the contrary to what s/he actually thinks in order to avoid direct

conflict with the other party. In the example of in 3.2.1 above, the reason Doi did not

have ice-cream can be explained by this mechanism of Japanese communication.

The reason why this kind of ambiguous oral communication has worked without any

problem in Japan can not just be rooted in its culture in which people depend highly

upon their socio-cultural norms, such as sasshi or enryo, in order to encode/decode a

message (e.g. high-context culture argued by Hall (1976)), but can also be linguistically

grounded. Bachnik (1994) criticises the traditional ideology of language that focuses on

reference and puts indices aside, and discusses the significance of the indices that relate

referential meaning to the social context. Bachnik especially paid attention to the

indexical terms uchi/soto in Japanese and argues that indexical meaning should be the

primary focus in the case of Japanese communication. Maynard (1997) similarly, but

more linguistically, discusses the issue. Maynard suggests the term “relationality,”

15 Mizutani (1979) emphasises that there are individual and regional differences in the use of “about.”

35
 Chapter 2

which refers to “the mutual relationship that language – as well as thought— comes into

contact with in socio-cultural and situational contexts” (1997:17). She argues that, in

general, the Japanese are “society-relational,” meaning that self is directed by society in

terms of social accommodation, responsiveness, and cooperation. Whereas, the

Americans (middle-class Americans with a European cultural background) are “self-

relational,” meaning that they focus more on exercising individuality than learning to

accommodate others. Maynard discusses a number of linguistic features of the Japanese

language that endorses the idea that Japanese people are “society-relational.” She points

out that Japanese is a language:

(1) that prefers to structure information according to topic (topic-comment

structure oriented, thus grammatical subject is not always necessary)

compared to English which is a “subject-predicate” language;

(2) that frequently uses nominalisation and nominal predicates that propel

the language towards a state-oriented, comment-centred mode of

communication;

(3) in which some verbs, like giving/receiving, explicitly indicate how the

transaction influences each person’s interest in interpersonal

relationships;

(4) in which use of intransitive verbs or passive sentences is popular due to

the tendency of viewing events as occurring by themselves.

From these features of the Japanese language, Maynard claims:

The Japanese mode of linguistic expression requires that the speaker (1) place
himself or herself as an observer of the event and (2) assume the role of

36
 Chapter 2

conveying his or her response to the event. In ordinary language use, Japanese
speakers cannot escape from identifying themselves in relation to their context.
This contrasts with American English, which encourages the speaker to (1)
identify himself or herself as a human agent and (2) express himself or herself as
one who constructs a propositional structure. (…) In Japanese the information is
viewed through the eyes of the experiencer-speaker more extensively than it is
in English. (1997:132)

Maynard’s “social-relationality” of the Japanese, which focuses on cooperation or

harmony with the others, is also observed in a number of their communication

strategies. For example, frequent use of aizuchi or backchannels and constructing an

utterance by kyowa16 or jointly constructed talk are among them (see also pp139 in

Chapter 4). The Japanese's high frequency of aizuchi17 and overlaps18 shows the hearer's

active participation in communication, which helps the speaker to proceed the talk

smoothly. Kyowa may be categorised as a kind of aizuchi, but its function is for the

hearer to supplement the speaker's incomplete utterance with a word or a phrase to

make it a complete utterance. In order to supplement the speaker's utterance, the hearer

uses sasshi (consideration) for the speaker and attempts to choose the most appropriate

word or phrase. When a Japanese speaker is sending a message, while paying due

respect to the other party, by using these strategies, s/he has a strong expectation that

the other party will understand what s/he means as a member of the same group, the

Japanese society.

3.4 Japanese communication style in cross-cultural studies

The characteristics of the Japanese communication style become more obvious when

comparing it with the communication styles of other cultures. Watanabe (1993)

16 The term kyowa is originally used by Mizutani (1988).

17 See Horiguchi (1988, 1991, 1997), Imaishi (1994), Komiya (1986), Matsuda (1988), Maynard(1986,
1989, 1993), Mizutani (1988), Szatrowsky (1993), Sugito (1987), for further discussion of aizuchi.
18 See Fujii (1997) Honda (1997) and Ikoma (1996) for the discussion of overlap. They will be reviewed
in Chapter 4.

37
 Chapter 2

investigated some governing principles of group discussion shared among Japanese

students and compared them to an American student group. She observed that Japanese

talked about the order of turns and the discussion procedure at the beginning, they

cooperated with each other and avoided confrontation during the actual discussion, and

concluded the discussion after having assured themselves that the discussion had been

completed. Throughout the discussion, she recognised their tendencies towards group

orientation and social hierarchy in the systematic organisation of discussion. She found

American students, on the other hand, immediately started the discussion and stated

their opinions concisely and discussed freely to get to the point. Watanabe argues that

the differences observed between the Japanese group and the American group are

partially due to cultural differences in their expectations about interaction in a group

discussion. Consideration of group orientation and social hierarchy are "always in the

minds of the Japanese when communicating among themselves, whatever the situation"

(1993:191). Similar approaches to the comparative study of communication styles are

taken by other researchers: Yamada (1992, 1997) and Maynard (1989, 1993) compared

the communication style of Japanese and Americans by looking at backchannels, topic

organisation, head movement and so forth. Although their target informants and

research methods are different, they both show communication style differences

between the two cultures. Yamada, who analysed the discourse of Japanese and

American business meetings, argues that the communication style of the Japanese is

“non-confrontational”: they opened and shifted the topic collectively, distributed their

talk relatively evenly and arranged exemplified points only so that everybody could

participate in the discussion under the sharedness of their experience. On the other

hand, the Americans' communication style, she argues, is “within-group independence”:

they talked most about their own business matters by individually delivering the initial

38
 Chapter 2

and final points in them, although they negotiated an understanding if necessary.

Maynard (1993), who focused on “self-contextualisation,” argues that the Japanese are

more sensitive to self-contextualisation during communication, which makes them take

more of a hearer-dependent communication style than the Americans. Her discussion of

Japanese communication style in comparison with that of American English is further

developed under the notion of “relationality” (1997) as presented in the previous

section.
Szatrowsky (1993) also points out the “other-oriented” communication style

in Japanese. She analysed invitation strategies of the Japanese in 25 hours of dyadic

telephone conversations of 13 Japanese, and compared the results with Drew (1984) and

Davidson (1984), who looked at invitation strategies in English. She discusses a

situation in which there is a possibility for the other party to decline the invitation. No

matter how much expectation the inviter has for the invited to accept the offer, a

Japanese inviter shows sympathy for the invited by not pushing her/him too much, and

creates an atmosphere for the invited to reject the invitation without suffering (e.g.

saying some demerit that the invited may face in case of accepting the offer).

Szatrowsky contrasts the Japanese style of invitation with the English style of

invitation, referring to Davidson (1984). In English, even after the inviter notices the

invited is unlikely to accept the invitation, the inviter continues inviting (subsequent

version) by adding more information or explaining the benefit of accepting the

invitation.

Communication styles of the Japanese have also been discussed in terms of

interruptions. Murata (1994) analysed interruptions in 16 dyadic interactions19 of native

19Of 16 interactions, 7 are Japanese-English dyads, 7 are Japanese-Japanese dyads and 2 are English-
English dyads. Informants are 7 English learners of Japanese. They conversed with one of the two

39
 Chapter 2

Japanese speakers and British English speakers. She observed that there are more

interruptions in English conversations than in Japanese conversations.20 Given this

result, Murata suggests the different conversational styles reflect two different cultures:

that is, to use interruptions as a vehicle to show high involvement, solidarity and

cooperation in English on the one hand, and to avoid interruptions, deferring more to

the “territorial imperative” in Japanese, on the other. Klopf (1991) summarises several

studies of Japanese communication practices looking at interactions between multiple

combinations of Japanese and Americans of both sexes. According to Klopf, the

Japanese use less emotion, avoid controversy, dominate conversation less, are less

inclined to talk and are less assertive. From these results, he concluded, "silence or

reserved and restricted communicative behaviour is prized in Japan and the fundamental

values on which such feelings are based will probably remain unchanged" (1991:138).

Although the research base of the above studies is different, it is obvious that their

results are all reflecting the key notions of Japanese communicative behaviour.

Considering these studies reflect ideas that appeared during the late 1960s and the early

1970s, it is arguable that despite the rapid changes in economics and society, Japanese

socio-cultural norms such as amae, giri-ninjoo and tate-yoko still appear to be persistent

in the minds of the Japanese.

3.5 Involvement of other cultures in one’s communication style

I have so far discussed the persistent Japanese socio-cultural norms which affect their

communication style. But what happens to the communication style of the Japanese

Japanese postgraduate students and one of the two British postgraduate students as a fixed partner. For
English- English dyads, two more British postgraduate students are involved.
20 See Chapter 3 for how Murata understands interruptions.

40
 Chapter 2

when they are involved in other cultures? Does their communication style change? This

is what the current study aims to investigate.

There are two types of Japanese communication that involve cultures other than the

Japanese culture. One is intercultural communication, where a Japanese communicates

with a non-Japanese person in any language. In the case of Japanese language being

used for communication, the Japanese, as a native speaker, adjusts his/her

communication style for the other party, who is a non-native speaker of Japanese, by

slowing down the rate of talk, using more simple expressions, and avoiding topics

which are taboo in the other culture etc. This is referred to as “foreigner talk” (Matsuda

et al., 1995). In intercultural communication, there are also cases where Japanese

communicate in languages other than Japanese. Of the above-mentioned studies, some

also look at situations of intercultural communication in English (Klopf, 1991;

Maynard, 1993; Murata, 1994; Yamada, 1992). Maynard (1993) and Klopf (1991)

argue that Japanese communication style in intercultural communication would cause

misunderstanding with the other party by transferring their native communication style

to English conversation (e.g. frequent aizuchi use), though their arguments are not

based on empirical data. On the other hand, Yamada (1992) and Murata (1994) observe

that Japanese participants adjust their communication style to an English style. Yamada

(1992) found that Japanese bank officers used both Japanese and American

communication styles in a meeting with American colleagues. Murata (1994) shows

that the number of interruptions by Japanese subjects speaking English to native

speakers of English increased considerably compared to interactions among native

speakers of Japanese. She suggests "the subjects somehow adjusted their conversational

style to that of English" (1994:392). There are also some studies that consider the

41
 Chapter 2

participants' gender apart from their cultural background (Matsuda et al., 1995; Ohara,

1992, 1997). These studies also report the participants' cultural adjustment, but I will

discuss this in the next section.

The other type of Japanese communication that involves cultures other than the

Japanese is a native situation, where the Japanese communicate with other Japanese in

the Japanese language, but the communication itself takes place outside Japan (i.e.

another country). Thus, the culture of the country where the Japanese participants live

is somehow assumed to influence their communication style. Studies of this type of

communication have been focused on the use of loan words from the language of the

country, mainly by the first generation of Japanese immigrants to the country in the late

19th to mid 20th centuries (e.g. Hibiya, 2000; Kuyama, 2000). For the communication

style of Japanese long-term residents who came to the country more recently, few

studies have been done empirically, but see Masumi-So (1983) and Krause-Ono (2004).

Masumi-So (1983) investigated the use of English words in the speech style of Japanese

residents of Australia whose lengths of residency vary from a few years to over 10

years. Krause-Ono (2004) examined frequency of aizuchi or listener responses by

Japanese long-term residents of Germany, and German long-term residents of Japan, in

comparison to their short-term residency counterparts. Both studies assumed that the

longer the person lived in a culture, the more cultural influence would be observed in

her/his speech style. However, the results were not what had been expected and were

more complicated. In Masumi-So (1983), though the majority of the participants

supported the assumption, there were two participants who did not use English words

much despite their long-term residency. Further, in Krause-Ono (2004), while German

residents of Japan showed Japanese cultural influences in their communication style

42
 Chapter 2

(i.e. more frequent use of listener responses in their German discourse than their short-

term residency counterparts), the communication style of the Japanese long-term

residents of Germany, in terms of aizuchi frequency, were much the same as the

Japanese who lived in Japan.

Following Masumi-So (1983) and Krause-Ono (2004), in order to clarify such complex

results, more empirical studies are required, particularly as in Krause-Ono (2004) the

study of the participation style of Japanese long-term residents in conversation still

requires further exploration.

In Australia, which is a country of cultural diversity where over 200 languages are

spoken, there has been a number of studies that investigate community languages in

terms of language shift and language maintenance (e.g. Clyne, 1991, 1997; Clyne and

Kipp, 1999). These studies concentrate on relatively major community languages such

as Greek, Polish, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and German. Japanese migrants to

Australia became more noticeable since mid 1990s (Clyne, 1997), hence the studies on

this issue have only recently begun for Japanese communication in Australia. For the

Australian cultural influence on one’s communication style in community languages,

following Wierzbicka (1985) in Polish examples, Clyne (1991) briefly discusses a

greater use of pronouns of solidarity in Italian, German and Russian communication in

Australia than in comparable situations in the country of origin, which is due to the

adoption of an Australian style of addressing others by their first names in English

communication. In the same study, Clyne also mentions the use of “danke, thank you”

in German communication in Australia (i.e. it conveys an acceptance of an offer), which

is used differently in original German communication (i.e. it normally conveys decline

43
 Chapter 2

of a similar offer). However, these arguments are not endorsed by quantitative data nor

qualitative exemplification, though Clyne states that the study is based on the actual

recordings of 860 pre-war and post-war migrants of German and Dutch origin and their

children, including those who were born in Australia. In Clyne and Kipp (1999), which

investigates Spanish, Arabic and Chinese, changes in the community languages after

migration to Australia is mentioned. However it is not based on the conversational data,

but on interviews with the migrants.

In this sense, the current study, which investigates communication styles of the

Japanese long-term residents of Australia through overlaps in their discourse, is

significant in contributing to the research in this under-developed field.

4. Language and gender issues

The previous section focused its discussion on Japanese communication style in general

in relation to Japanese society and culture. There are a number of aspects that construct,

or are constructed by, the society and culture. Of these, this section concentrates on

gender issues, which is another focal point of the analysis in this study.

Language and gender studies bloomed in the 1970s, following the second feminist

movement in the United States. Such studies gradually spread to the rest of the world.

The noticeable women’s liberation movement in Japan, led by Hiratsuka Raicho, first

emerged in the early 1920s (Danaher, 2003). However, it has only been in the last few

decades that attention to language and gender issues has become a focus of

sociolinguists in Japan. In this section, first, I will briefly review how it has been

discussed in the United States, then look at its application and development in Japan.

44
 Chapter 2

4.1 Language and gender studies in the United States

To begin with, language and gender studies were deeply related to the second feminist

movement in the United States in the late 1960s. In this movement, not only the unequal

treatment of women in society, but also the existing socio-cultural norms, which were

seen to be the cause of sexual inequality, were criticised. Language was amongst them.

In this case, this was limited to American English. The English language was said to be

a "sexist language," "Man-glish" or "man-made language" (e.g. the meaning of "man"

covers woman and the representative pronoun of human being is "he") in which sexual

inequality was unconsciously reflected.21 Thus, feminists believed that it would be

effective to create equality by eliminating sexist expressions (Nakamura, 1995, 2001).

This particular feminist movement had a great impact on linguists who began studying

language and gender. Before feminism, academic research had been carried out through

the male’s point of view. This fact was taken seriously by female linguists and they

began to review the studies from the female view point (Ide, 1992). Among these

linguists, Robin Lakoff (1973, 1975) erected a monumental landmark in language and

gender studies. In this work she discusses how women are viewed in society by looking

at a number of daily expressions which are particularly used by/for women in American

English. Lakoff arrays the differences of men's and women's speech at the lexical,

syntactic and intonation levels, as well as examining expressions used about women and

men, with which she emphasises women's low status in society reflected in their

language use. Although a number of criticisms of Lakoff have been raised due to her

unsystematic methodology based not on empirical data but merely on her observations

(e.g. Dubois and Crouch, 1975; O'Barr and Atkins, 1980; Reynolds, 1985; Uchida,

21 For further discussion of the "he-man" issue, see Lakoff (1975), Coates (1986) and Nakamura (1995).

45
 Chapter 2

1992), her study made a great contribution in breaking the ice for language and gender

studies subsequently.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, language and gender studies were extended to the area of

discourse analysis in which researchers attempted to uncover the difference in language

use between men and women. The approaches to language and gender studies are

roughly divided into two streams: the difference approach and the dominance

approach. The "difference" approach proposes that males and females belong to two

different cultural groups, since they have learnt their conversational styles by interacting

with same-sex peers during childhood and they carry these over to adulthood. Thus,

communication between men and women is like intercultural communication, where

members of different cultural groups bring their own communication rules to the

conversation, which causes miscommunication. This approach was originally proposed

by Maltz and Borker (1982), and is deeply associated with Tannen (e.g., 1990, 1993b).

Contrary to the difference approach, the dominance approach focuses on male-female

differences in communication styles and their power relations in society. It claims that

male dominance in the social structure is not only reflected in male and female language

use, but the differences in their language use to maintain male dominance in society.

Amongst those who hold this view are West and Zimmerman (1983, 1997),

Zimmerman and West (1975) and Fishman (1978). However, both of the approaches

have problems. For example, Uchida (1992) argues that the concepts of gender, power

and culture are intertwined, hence it is not possible to discuss language and gender

issues from just one perspective (i.e. either difference or dominance). Cameron (1992)

also points out that these concepts are so rigid that they prevent the researchers from

46
 Chapter 2

understanding the subtle complexity of what is going on in talk. Indeed, several

researchers who follow the difference approach do not negate the dominance approach

(Coates and Cameron, 1988; Tannen, 1993a, 1994). There are also suggestions that

language and gender issues should be viewed holistically by looking at every aspect of

gender, power and subculture rather than these two different and independent premises

(Cameron, 1992; Uchida, 1992).

Nakamura (2001) argues that historical language and gender studies mentioned above

are founded on essentialism; that is:

i) gender constructs a men/women dichotomy, in other words, there are

two and only two gender categories;

ii) gender is an attribute; being male or female cannot be shifted to the

other by one’s experience; therefore

iii) gender exists before language

Following such criticisms of the approach of historical language and gender studies,

most recent approaches to language and gender studies have been shifting towards

constructionism. The idea of constructionism is that knowledge in society and

individual identity do not simply exist but are socially and historically constructed, and

discourse largely contributes to it (Nakamura, 2001). Thus, gender identity does not

innately exist, but is produced and reproduced in a “community of practice” (Eckert and

McConnell-Ginet, 1992). Eckert and McConnel define a “community of practice” as

follows:

47
 Chapter 2

A community of practice is an aggregate of people who come together around

mutual engagement in an endeavour. Ways of doing things, ways of talking,
beliefs, values, power relations – in short, practices -- emerge in the course of
this mutual endeavour.
(1992:464)

As such, in a community of practice, women define themselves in respect to other

women, men to men (Wodak, 1997). In other words, gender is not a given, but is

performed (Butler, 1993; Mills, 2003). Thus, as Weatherall (2002) points out, the

importance of the treatment of cultural beliefs and values about women’s and men’s

speech is something distinct from, but influential on, the language used by women and

men “during interaction.” Under such a notion of constructionism, current research on

language and gender concentrates more on a construction of gender identity or gender

ideology in discourse.22

4.2 Language and gender studies in Japan

4.2.1 Overview

I have so far discussed the history of language and gender studies in the West. The

movement towards language and gender studies in relation to feminism quickly spread

from the US to other Western countries. However, this was not the case in Japan. The

feminist movement also came to Japan in the early 1970s, but it did not grow as

dramatically as in Western countries, nor was Japanese language in relation to gender

issues deeply discussed. Several reasons for this have been discussed. Ide (1997) argues

that there is a strong ideology in Western society that the individual deserves equal

rights regardless of gender. Thus, it is understood that differences (of the language use

according to one's gender) which cause discrimination should be mitigated. However, in

22 See Kiesling (1997), Mills (2003), Cameron (1997) and studies in Gender and Discourse in Wodak
(ed) (1997) for more information.

48
 Chapter 2

Japanese society, interpersonal relation in "ba" is regarded as important, and although

the individual rights are deserved, one's right is preserved within a social role of the

individual in relation to others. The role of men and women is recognised to be different

in Japanese society. Thus, while the notion of "women = inferior" does not exactly

apply to Japanese society, nor is the insistence on gender equality in obtaining equal

rights as in Western societies very strong (Ide, 1992, 1997). On the other hand, Yukawa

and Saito (2004), who criticise Ide, stress that there were active movements to change

sexist language practices in the 1970s, but lack of development in language and gender

studies is due to the failure of sociolinguists to shift their research focus from abstract

sex differences to examining language in actual interaction through which gender and

identity are constructed.

In relation to the above argument, Yukawa and Saito (2004) point out that, until quite

recently, language and gender studies that are based on the tape-recorded data of social

interaction and their detailed analyses have hardly ever been undertaken, but they rely

instead on the speaker’s knowledge of and attitudes towards normative usage of

language, or their language ideologies. This methodological problem also seems to be

due to the nature of the Japanese language in which gender differences are syntactically

and semantically encoded. Gender differences are not as obvious in English as in

Japanese. Thus, in language and gender issues in English, the relativity of use of certain

expressions or strategies between men and women are discussed. Such gender

differences in English, which do not involve syntactic differences, may be relatively

easy to shift and be neutralised if they are considered to cause gender inequality in the

society. However, in the case of the Japanese language, which has absolute gender

49
 Chapter 2

differences, it may not be easy to discuss neutralisation (Reynolds, 1997). As a result,

the Japanese language in relation to gender equality has not been actively discussed.

For the above reasons, Japan deviated from the Western mainstream of language and

gender studies in the 1970s. Linguists and feminists have recently focused on language

and gender studies due to a rapid change of the role of women in Japanese society.

Language and gender studies in Japan are thus 10 to 15 years behind Western countries,

hence the number of available studies is relatively small. However, I will summarise

below how language and gender studies have been discussed in Japan so far.

4.2.2 Beginning of language and gender studies: Jugaku and Ide

One of the first publications about Japanese language and gender in the 1970s is Jugaku

(1979). Jugaku discusses how the language of women reflects women's life in Japanese

society by looking at various phenomena such as speech tone, expressions for women

appearing in songs or magazines, address terms and so on. It is more of an essay for the

general public than research focused on a specific field. But by bringing attention to

these phenomena, Jugaku casts a question over a stereotypical image of the Japanese

women which may prevent them from greater freedom in life. In this sense, this work

seems to have been influenced by the feminist movement in the 1970s, and although

Jugaku does not mention Lakoff (1973,1975), some common discussion points are

observed between the two studies. However, as mentioned above, Jugaku's work did not

stimulate linguists much to pursue language and gender studies further, in confront to

Lakoff’s work. Research on language and gender based on empirical data began in

earnest in the mid to late 1980s. One of the studies that took the initiative in the research

on language and gender is Ide, et al. (1986). Ide, et al. studied women's politeness as a

50
 Chapter 2

part of a national project supported by the government.23 The study focused on women's

language use based on an enormous amount of data (but not based on the conversational

data as mentioned above). As this kind of research on women's language had never been

carried out on such a large scale, it caught other researchers' attention and inspired them

to follow. Since Ide, et al., language and gender studies in Japan have gradually become

more popular.

4.2.3 Language and gender studies since the mid 1980s

Gender differences in language can be categorised into two types (Bodine, 1975). One

is "sex-exclusive difference," which means there are expressions that are used only by

males or only by females.24 The other type is "sex-preferential difference," which

concerns the tendency to use certain linguistic features or communicative strategies

according to gender. In the case of Japanese language, both sex-exclusive differences

and sex-preferential differences exist. According to Raynolds (1997), first person

pronouns such as “boku” and “ore” are sex-exclusive since they are allocated only for

male use. Some young females may use them for addressing themselves but it does not

mean they do not know these terms are for male use (Satake, 1998). On the other hand,

a sentence-end particle that shows the speaker’s intention towards the listener, such as

“no” in “iku no” (I am going/you are going etc.) is sex-preferential since it is used by

both males and females, but it tends to be used more frequently by females. Since such

syntactical and lexical sex-preferential differences were also believed to be so

23 In this study (1984, 1985), Ide, et al. study the mechanism of women's politeness in Japanese society.
It was concluded that the reason why women are more polite than men is not because they are inferior to
men but their role in the society (to socialise with neighbours) is different from men's role (work). This
study negates the universality of the stereotypical notion of "women as subordinate to men" proposed in
the United States. However, note that the targeted informants in the study are limited to housewives.
24 There are several other terms such as "absolute gender differences" (Ide, 1997) or "male/female
exclusive use" (Ozaki, 1997) to refer to the same type of gender differences in language.

51
 Chapter 2

distinctive in Japanese language, both sex-exclusive difference and sex-preferential

differences in grammar and vocabulary choice came to construct stereotypical gender

differences in Japanese language. Although sex-exclusive expressions exist much less

than sex-preferential expressions (Raynolds, 1997), these stereotypical gender

differences in language use have been conventionally preserved as if they are sex-

exclusive differences and taught to children or learners of the Japanese language.25

Some of these stereotypical gender differences 26 are:

1. "sentence-end particles," which show the speaker's intention towards the

listener. Traditionally, "wa," "no," "yo," "wayo," "noyo" etc. are regarded

as female and "ze," "zo," "daze," "dazo" etc. are regarded as male. 27

2. In informal conversation, different "person pronouns" and "addressing

terms" are used according to the gender of the people concerned.

e.g. first person pronoun: "ore," "boku," "washi" etc. for male

"watashi," "atashi" etc. for female

second person pronoun: "kimi," "omae," "kisama" etc. for male

"anata," for female,

25See Kubota (2002, 2003b), Kubota et al. (2003) and Ohara and Saft (2001) concerning this issue.
26See Okamoto and Sato (1992) and Okamoto (1995) for further examples of male/female speech
differences.
27See also Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) for the male/female styles of sentence ending in a familiar
speech.

52
 Chapter 2

addressing terms: name + "kun" for male addressee

name + "san" for female addressee

These features are so obvious that not only sociolinguists but also teachers and learners

of the Japanese language are aware of them immediately when they are asked about the

gender differences in Japanese (Iida and Thomson, 1999; Thomson and Iida, 2002).

Among studies of language and gender in the Japanese language, some analyse the

function of these features (e.g. sentence-end particles) (McGloin, 1991, 1997; Usami,

1997), but most studies look at current use of these features in different age groups

when investigating the validity of the traditional categorisation (e.g. Abe, 1994;

Kanemaru, 1997; Kawaguchi, 1987; Kobayashi, 1997; Matsumoto, 2002, 2004;

Miyazaki, 2004; Okamoto, 1995; Okamoto and Sato, 1992; Ozaki, 1997). These

studies find that the traditional paradigm of male/female language has gradually

changed and the above mentioned gender distinctions have become less obvious,

especially in the younger generation.28 However, this may not simply lead to the

conclusion that few gender differences exist in contemporary Japanese language use. In

fact, while gender neutralisation is observed in some communications, a number of

recent studies discuss how gender is constructed under the social and cultural ideology

of Japan in daily communication (e.g. Ohara and Saft, 2003; Okamoto and Shibamoto,

2004).

As mentioned above, language and gender studies in Japan are still premature compared

with research in the West, and there are many research areas in this field that are yet to

28Matsumoto (2004, 2002) observes variation in the use of gendered form in conversations among
middle-aged, middle-class Japanese women.

53
 Chapter 2

be explored. Among available studies, there have been a number of studies that

investigate gender in lexical and syntactical features in communication. Apart from the

studies already mentioned, these studies explored the use of honorific expressions

(Endo, 1997; Katagiri, 1990), syntactic ellipsis and inversion (Shibamoto, 1987, 1990;

Smith, 1992), lexical choice to describe women (Endo, 1997), and so on. However,

compared with studies of gender in communication in terms of lexicon and syntax, the

number of studies that investigate gender in non-syntactical and non-lexical features in

communication is very small. These studies include pitch level analysis (Ohara, 1992,

1997, 2004), laughter (Hayakawa, 1997), topic orientation (Itakura, 2001; Usami,

1994), topic shift, topic floor (Ehara et al., 1984; Itakura, 2001; Matsuda et al., 1995),

backchannels (Ehara et al., 1984), overlap (Honda, 1997) and interruptions (Ehara et al.,

1984; Itakura, 2001; Matsuda et al., 1995). Apart from these studies, which are based on

natural conversational data, there are studies that investigate talk on TV variety shows

in terms of turn-taking, overlap and interruptions, backchannels (Tanaka, 2004), or

membership category analysis and sequential structure (Ohara and Saft, 2003). The

features on which these studies focus can be labelled "discourse strategies" or

“participation style,” which a speaker consciously or subconsciously uses depending on

the context of the situation. Language and gender studies in this perspective have

become popular only recently in Japan, since the development of "conversation

analysis" and "discourse analysis." Compared to the studies of language and gender in

terms of syntactical and/or lexical use, many of these studies seem to show not just

gender differences, but gendered features that are more clearly built on socio-cultural

ideology. For example, Ohara (1992, 1997), who compared voice pitch level of

bilingual Japanese women and men, finds that while the pitch of Japanese men did not

vary between the two languages, the female voice pitch of females is higher when

54
 Chapter 2

speaking Japanese than when speaking in English. From this she argues that Japanese

women are expected to show femininity through a high-pitched voice under the

Japanese socio-cultural norms.29 Ehara et al. (1984) find that in Japanese conversation,

men tend to dominate the floor by interrupting, asking questions which lead to the topic

of their preference, and remaining silent (i.e. not uttering aizuchi) when not interested.

For interruptions, similar findings are reported by Matsuda et al (1995). On the other

hand, Itakura (2001), who compared conversations of eight same, mixed-sex dyads in

both English and Japanese to investigate pragmatic transfer of conversational

dominance between male and female, finds that there is no obvious male dominance in

Japanese conversation, and men become even less dominant in English conversation.

Among studies that analyse TV variety shows, Ohara and Saft (2003), by employing the

analysis method of turn structure and membership category from Conversation

Analysis, demonstrate how the sequential structure of the interaction is used by the host

and the panellists on a telephone consultation program to reinforce ideology about

women in Japan (i.e. it is a woman’s job is to take care of the home; women have to

maintain their attractiveness for men), and to shift responsibility for all the problems to

women.

Whatever the approach, the significance of the studies of language and gender from

non-grammatical features of interaction is that it allows us to compare studies of the

Japanese language with studies in Western countries, mainly in English. Since English

does not have such obvious grammatical gender differences as Japanese, gender

29Ohara (2004) further investigated the issues in daily interactions of the Japanese men and women, and
found that usage of voice pitch by men and women is both dynamic when speaking in Japanese, but
women (not men) used a considerably higher pitch when speaking to customers than when talking to
acquaintances. From this fact, while suggesting voice pitch is not just related to femininity but also to
politeness, Ohara stresses that in that particular situation, when interacting with customers, it is women
who are expected to use a high-pitched voice to express politeness.

55
 Chapter 2

differences in language have been discussed mainly from the perspective of sex-

preferential differences in Western countries. Thus, an enormous amount of research in

this field is available. In contrast, for the analysis of gender differences in Japanese

discourse strategies (or participation style), as presented above, there is still much to

explore. It would be interesting to compare the results with other countries to see

whether gender differences in language are universal or not. From previous studies,

some of the sex-preferential differences in Japanese are observed to be similar to

differences in Western society (e.g. women's indirectness or politeness, women's

tendency to take the part of the listener in conversation with men). However, in order to

discuss this issue fully, more data needs to be collected.30

In this section, I have reviewed how language and gender studies have developed since

the 1970s in the United States and Japan. There were significant differences in people's

perceptions of gender differences between the West and Japan. Consequently,

approaches to language and gender studies were also different. Because of the existence

of sex-exclusive differences in Japanese language, and not much concern about the

language from a feminist perspective, language and gender studies in Japanese did not

grow as much as they did in the West in the 1970s. However, the economic growth in

the late 80s and the introduction of Equal Employment Opportunity Law between men

and women have made an impact on the society to reconsider the social role for women.

This has also brought about a new research field in Japan, that is, “gender studies.”

Gender studies sections started to appear at bookstores in the 1990s, and courses on

30 For the universality of gender differences in language, although different language is used, common
phenomena are observed in countries where Western culture is shared. But for languages other than those
from Western cultures (e.g. Asia, Africa), it may not be the case. At the moment, due to the lack of data,
it is difficult to discuss this fully. For discussions of the universality of women's language, see Holmes
(1998) and Ide (1997).

56
 Chapter 2

gender studies are now available at most universities. With this movement, studies on

language and gender in Japanese also became more active. However, compared to the

West, fewer studies on language and gender are available to this day. In particular,

studies on the participation style of the Japanese in interaction in relation to gender have

not been sufficiently explored. Thus, it is necessary to investigate how people

communicate differently according to their gender. This study therefore investigates

participants’ communication style in terms of a non-grammatical features of gender –

overlap in interaction. Both in the West and in Japan, overlap has been discussed from

time to time as interruptions in language and gender studies to investigate the power

relation between men and women. While significant numbers of studies of overlaps or

interruptions are available in English interaction, where various results and discussions

came out (i.e. men interrupt women more than women interrupt men; women interrupt

men more than men interrupt women, no significant gender differences), studies on

overlaps and interruptions in terms of gender are few in Japanese interaction. A few

available studies (e.g. Ehara et al., 1984; Itakura, 2001; Matsuda et al., 1995) discuss

male dominance in Japanese interaction in terms of interruptions. However, as

discussed in the previous section, the structure of the language and a socio-culturally

established communication style (e.g. ellipsis of the main verb, frequent use of

backchannels or aizuchi) allow overlaps more frequently in Japanese communication

than in English communication. Thus, the study of overlap in Japanese has not been

necessarily linked to gender issues. In other words, there seem to be many overlaps that

may not be interruptions, which makes it difficult to explore this field of study. This

study, thus, first clarifies the function of each overlap, then investigates how gender is

related to this feature of discourse. I believe the study will contribute to the insight of

57
 Chapter 2

the mechanism of gendered participation style in communication among Japanese,

although second culture is involved in this particular study.

5. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed, first of all, how people encode and decode a message

in daily communication from the interactional sociolinguistic perspective, and secondly,

how one's communication style (particularly focused on the Japanese) is constructed

from a sociological viewpoint, then from language and gender studies view point. From

this review, it is argued that one's communication style is constructed in the context of

situation, backed up by one's culture, and by gender.

Both cultural studies and gender studies can be discussed independently: people from

different cultural backgrounds communicate differently, and men and women

communicate differently and so forth. However, when we view communication style

holistically, these two perspectives sometimes conflict with each other (Matsuda et al.,

1995). For example, the claim that American women are more cooperative than men in

communication in language and gender studies (Coates, 1986; Tannen, 1993b) is

incompatible with the claim, found in cross-cultural studies, that Americans try to

communicate more actively by pushing themselves forward, which is in contrast to the

Japanese cooperative communicative style (e.g. Watanabe, 1993; Yamada, 1992, 1997).

Matsuda, et al. (1995) argue that this incompatibility is due to the different points of

focus in the analyses; cultural analyses which focus heavily on cultural differences miss

out on gender issues, and vice versa. Indeed, in reality, one's communication style is

governed not only by culture or gender, but also by a number of factors (e.g. age, social

status, context of situation, objectives, role, setting, genre etc.). They are intricately

58
 Chapter 2

involved in constructing one's communication style in actual communication.

Considering this, it is more relevant to see a communication style holistically by

looking at more than one factor. However, such studies are few.31 Waldron and Di

Mare (1998) took notice of it and reviewed previous studies on language and gender, in

Japan and in the United States, in intra-cultural and cross-cultural situations, in order to

find out whether it is biological sex or gender which is formed by culture, or a

combination of both that best accounts for differences in communication between Japan

and the United States. The study found that previous studies showed few gender

differences in Japanese communication styles, but significant differences of

communicative styles between Americans and Japanese. However, Waldron and Di

Mare argue that the result is attributable to the partial methodologies used in language

and gender studies (e.g. American scales were used for measuring Japanese gender

roles, nearly every study used college students to get samples, and mistook culture as

nationality) and stress the necessity "to be more sensitive to the cultural and contextual

factors that can distort gender difference" (1998:198).

In current internationalised society, it is common to see a man and a woman from

different cultural backgrounds communicating in other than their first language (e.g. a

Japanese woman talks to a French man in English). Thus, Waldron and Di Mare's points

need to be seriously taken into account when studying communication with the

complexities of a situation such as this example.

Having focused on culture and gender as variables in establishing one's participation

style in conversation, I will look at the Japanese communication styles in Australia. In

31 See Matsuda et al (Matsuda et al., 1995) for example.

59
 Chapter 2

section 3, I have discussed how the Japanese do make some adjustments to, or they are

affected by, the second culture in their communication styles. I will apply this to the

Australian context and look at the Japanese communication styles in their mother

tongue in relation to the Australian culture. Unfortunately, few studies discuss one’s

communicative style in terms of Australian culture (e.g. Masumi-So, 1983). As

Australia is a young country with numerous immigrants from various countries, it may

be difficult to define Australian culture and what communication style reflects

Australia. However, it is certainly different from Japanese culture. Thus, if Waldron and

Di Mare's (1998) argument, that gender issues are sensitive to culture and context, is

valid, then the result of Japanese language and gender studies in Australia may be

different from the those found in Japan.

Communicative style is not constructed by a single factor, but by multiple factors that

are intertwined with each other. Thus, to analyse communicative style from these

perspectives is a very complicated task. However, such multiple analyses, as I

understand it, are the most effective and significant in investigating communication

styles in the current internationalised society. Because gender and culture are vital

variables in constructing one's communicative style, and have been discussed actively

by many scholars, I believe the combination of these two will cast a new light on

communication studies.

60
 Chapter 3

Chapter 3 Data

1. Introduction

This chapter presents the data used in this study. First, it discusses natural data and its

efficacy for this study. Information relating to the informants, methods of data

collection, the type of each of the conversations used, and participants’ profiles will be

presented accordingly. Finally, the transcription method and data processing will be

presented.

2. Natural data

When analysing spoken discourse, one of the first issues to consider is the data that is

most appropriate for the study at hand. Depending on the objectives of the study, the

feasibility of the data may change. For the investigation of social interaction of human

beings in their daily communication, it is best to use natural conversational data.

However, what type of talk is regarded as natural raises issues. Have (1999) describes

“natural data” as, from a Conversation Analysis perspective, interaction that has

“naturally occurred,” which is “non-experimental,” not co-produced with or provoked

by the researcher (1999:48). However, he points out the impossibility of observation of

the interaction without observation (i.e. the researcher’s physical attendance to observe

the interaction or even setting the audio-recorder can be a provocation).1 Have goes on

to discuss how “artificial” data, in which the researcher provokes its content, can be

feasible “depending on the way it is analysed” (1999:49).2 Regarding the method of data

collection, apart from using publicly available data (i.e. recording TV or radio

1
See also the discussion on the “observer’s paradox” in Labov (Labov, 1972a, 1972b).
2
Have presents an example of Shegloff’s data that looks artificial since participants mention being
recorded during the talk. According to Have, Shegloff regarded this as natural, for the participants seemed
to talk in an ordinary fashion.

61
 Chapter 3

programs) and the data collected in institutional settings (e.g. doctor-patient

interaction), there are basically two types of methodologies that are commonly used.

The one is recorded in a laboratory setting, where the researcher calls in the informants

and records their talk. The other data type is that the researcher leaves the recording

facility (which is usually a portable small tape-recorder) with the informant for a certain

time to record conversation any time s/he likes. Both methods have drawbacks and

advantages in terms of the resultant data, The former method allows the researcher to

control variables such as informants’ profile or conversational topic, in order to allow

concentration upon a certain variation that is directly linked to the research objective.

For example, if the research objective is to explore discourse style differences in age,

the researcher can select the informants who have the same profile (e.g. gender, place of

birth, occupation, social distance etc.) apart from age, thereby making the research

result more reliable (i.e. it is not affected by other variables of the participants, but only

by age). On the other hand, although researchers try their best to cater for a relaxed

atmosphere for the participants to obtain more natural data, a laboratory setting is more

artificial and the informants may feel odd or they may hesitate if they are asked to talk

on whatever they wish to a person whom they have never met before.

With the above in mind, the latter method, that is to leave the recording facility with the

informant, would appear to enhance the authenticity of the data to be collected, as it

records naturally occurring conversation in a natural setting without the participants

being influenced by a third party observing them, though they may be conscious of

being recorded at the very beginning of the recording. On the other hand, relying

entirely on the informant for the recording, the researcher may not obtain the data

required for the study at hand. For example, there may not be a sufficient number of

conversations recorded; the length of each conversation may be different; participants’

62
 Chapter 3

number and their profile (e.g. gender, age, social distance etc.) may vary from one

conversation to the other. As a result, with this method, the researcher may not be able

to obtain a reliable result due to the involvement of a number of variables. Thus, in the

end, it is up to the researcher whether s/he is emphasising more the naturalness of the

data or more the variable-focused data.

In the case of this study, as it investigates overlaps in daily interaction, I have assumed

the availability of the data, including a variety of overlaps, would increase in a more

natural setting. Thus, I chose the latter method of data collection, that is, to leave the

informant to record any conversation.

3. Data collection and the participants

To answer the research questions presented in Chapter 1, I aimed at investigating the

discourse style of several women by examining their interaction in a number of

different conversational settings. Thus, a range of conversational data per informant was

required for this study. For the informants, I looked towards recruiting Japanese

working women, as it could be the case that other groups of women, such as non-

working housewives of Japanese businessmen, are more likely to be limited in their

interaction within the Japanese community. Japanese working women, on the other

hand, a) are likely to have to have more Australian cultural contacts through work, and

b) their daily interaction is likely to have more variety (i.e. talk at work, talk at home,

talk with friends, work related talk etc.).

Initially I aimed at investigating the discourse styles of five or more informants’ in

about 12 conversations. However, in reality, it was extremely difficult to find women

who were working and could cooperate with the study. Furthermore, there were cases

where an informant agreed to participate, but the other people with whom the informant

63
 Chapter 3

would interact refused to be recorded, leading to the person deciding to cease their

involvement with the study. It has been observed that many Japanese have particular

concerns relating to their conversations being recorded, particularly in the working

context. Having noted that Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuu kai (Research group of

Contemporary Japanese Language) (1997) also had problems in relation to data

collection from the work place, the difficulty of Japanese conversational data collection

appears to be quite common. With the number of difficulties as such, I only obtained

four informants.

For each informant, in order to avoid her becoming conscious of her particular

discourse style (i.e. overlaps), I explained only that I was going to analyse conversations

in which working Japanese woman were involved. After receiving agreements through

the individual informants signing the consent forms, I left them with an individual small

tape-recorder (with a built-in microphone), a few audio cassette tapes and a small

microphone (in case the informants wanted to use it), with the request that the

informants record any conversation where convenient. I also left the informant a

recording log to fill in the date and time, venue, participants’ names or pseudonyms and

brief profiles of the participants (i.e. gender, age and number of years residing in

Australia).

Two weeks after this briefing, I contacted the informant and asked how the recording

had been progressing. Then, depending on the circumstances, I either collected the

recordings or scheduled more time for further recording. The recordings took place

during 1997-1998.3

3
All conversational data is collected under ethics clearance by University of Sydney, where I was
enrolled in MPhil in Linguistics.

64
 Chapter 3

When the tapes were returned from each informant, I listened to all of the recorded

conversations and selected a few conversations with different genres or settings, each of

which I subsequently transcribed. During this process, I realised that multi-party

conversations were much more lively, with a greater variety of overlaps, than dyadic

conversations, thus, I decided to focus on multi-party conversations for this study.

Given this, two of the informants, who had exclusively recorded dyadic conversations,

were excluded from further analysis, leaving the remaining two informants’ discourse

styles in a total of six conversations (three conversations each). However, as these

conversations contain over 2000 overlaps (2385) altogether and twelve different

speakers, it was considered satisfactory for this study. The profiles of the two

informants used for this study is as follows:4

Informant 1

Name: Sachiko
Age: late 40s
Period residing in Australia: 8 years
Occupation: Managing director of a Publisher of a major monthly
Japanese
community magazine.
Live with family: Yes

Informant 2

Name: Harue
Age: early 30s
Period residing in Australia: 10 years
Occupation: University Academic
Live with family: No

4
To protect the participants’ privacy, all names of the informants and participants have been changed to
fictional names.

65
 Chapter 3

In addition to the above two informants, another 10 individuals (including the author)

were involved in the recorded conversations as subsidiary informants.

4. Conversational data used for the study and their participants’ profiles

As mentioned in the previous section, three conversations from the total number of

recorded conversations by each participant were selected, and total of six conversations

were analysed by focusing on overlaps. The details of each conversation are

summarised in the following:

Conversations in which Informant 1(Sachiko) is involved

Conversation Sa-1 (Business Talk) 30 minutes 14 seconds

Participants:
Name Sex Age group Years in Australia Relation to Sachiko
Sachiko (informant)
Masao M late 50s 8 years husband and colleague
Yoshida M mid 30’s unknown client (real estate broker)

Recording date: September, 1997 Venue: Yoshida’s office

Conversation Sa-2 (Chat with Colleagues/Family at Work) 4 minutes 33 seconds

Participants:
Name Sex Age group Years in Australia Relation to Sachiko
Sachiko (informant)
Masao M late 50s 8 years husband and colleague
Chie F mid 20s 8 years daughter and colleague

Recording date: September, 1997 Venue: Their office

Conversation Sa-3 (Family Talk at Home at Breakfast) 9 minutes 15 seconds

Participants:
Name Sex Age group Years in Australia Relation to Sachiko
Sachiko (informant)
Masao M late 50s 8 years husband
Eiji M late teens 8 years son

Recording date: September, 1997 Venue: Their home

66
 Chapter 3

Conversations in which Informant 2 (Harue) is involved

Conversation H-1 (Academic Meeting regarding a course the participants were

involved in) 22 minutes 41 seconds

Participants:
Name Sex Age group Years in Australia Relation to Harue
Harue (informant)
Bob M late 30s n/a (Australian) Senior colleague
Natsuki F late 30s 10 colleague (casual)
Suwako F late 30s 9 colleague
Fumie F mid 40s 17 colleague

Recording date: April, 1998 Venue: Meeting room at University

Conversation H-2 (Chat with Colleagues at Café) 24 minutes

Participants:
Name Sex Age group Years in Australia Relation to Harue
Harue (informant)
Suwako F late 30s 9 colleague
Fumie F mid 40s 17 colleague

Recording date: April, 1998 Venue: Café at University

Conversation H-3 (Chat with Colleagues at Work) 11 minutes 12 seconds

Participants:
Name Sex Age group Years in Australia Relation to Harue
Harue (informant)
Eri F early 30s 4 colleague (casual)
Natsuki F late 30s 10 colleague (casual)
Keiko F early 30s 2 colleague (casual)

Recording date: April, 1998 Venue: Office for casual teaching staff

5. Method of transcription for the study

This section presents the methods by which the recorded conversations were

transcribed. Edwards (1993) discusses three ways of transcribing conversations. The

first being the “vertical” or Jefferson system, where utterances by each participant

67
 Chapter 3

appear in order of being spoken, which is commonly used by Conversation Analysts.

Note the following example of vertical transcript:5

i) Vertical style

1 E: Moo tomato nai no

more tomato none FPQ
Are’t there any tomato left?

2 M: N

whatQ
what (did you say)?

3 Sa: Aru wa yo.

exist FP FP
There are.

4 (0.6)

5 E: Iyat sonot n itarian tomato.

no HES Italian tomato
I mean, Italian tomato (I am asking for).

6 (1.0)

7 Sa: Aa aret=
EX that
Oh that one.

8 M: = Soore daikoohyoo da yo Itarian tomato=

that very popular COP FP Italian tomato
Everybody loves it, Italian tomato.

9 Sa: = Iya datte otoosan yada yada tte tteta kara.

no since father dislike dislike QUOT said since
But you said you did not like it.

10 M: Iya yada tte wake demo [nai.

no dislike QUO reason P not
No I did not mean it.

11 E: [Zurui naa.
cunning FP
You are cunning.

The second is “column,” where each participant is assigned to a column in which their

own talk is presented, as in the following example:6

5
The example used is from Sa-3 (Family talk at home with breakfast).
6
As the translation is presented in the “vertical” transcript, it is omitted for this style of transcript and the
next one.

68
 Chapter 3

ii) Column style

Sa M E

Moo tomato nai no

N

Aru wa yo.
(0.6) (0.6) (0.6)
Iyat sonot n Italian
tomato.
(1.0) (1.0) (1.0)
Aa aret=
=Soore daikoohyoo dayo
Itarian tomato=
=Iya datte otoosan
yada yada tte tteta
kara. Iya yadatte wake demo
[nai [/zurui/naa.

The column style of transcript may be effective for comparing the individual

participant’s style of talk, amount of talk or floor held. This transcript style is used by

researchers such as Bloom (1993) and Hayashi (1988, 1996).7 However, as in the above

example shows, with this style, it is difficult to follow the flow of talk or overlapped

talk.

The third transcript style is referred to as “partiture,” where each participant is allocated

to a line on which her/his utterances are presented from the beginning of the talk until

the end, and each participant’s line as such is presented along with the others’ lines as in

the musical scores, as in the following example:

iii) Partiture style

1 Sa: Aru wa yo.

M: N

E: Moo tomato naino

7
However, the format used by these researchers is not exactly the same. In the case of Bloom, the
recorded conversation was electronically stored, hence the computer is used for data output. In the case of
Hayashi, the pause is shown only in one of the participant’s columns whom she believed it belongs to.

69
 Chapter 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 (0.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa:

M:

E: Iyat sonot n Itarian tomato.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 (1.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa: Aa aret Iya datte=

M: Soore daikoohyoo dayo Itarian tomato.

E:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sa: = otoosan yada yada tte tteta kara.

M: Iya yadatte wake demo=

E:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Sa:

M: = [nai

E: [/zurui/naa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Although this style of transcript consumes more space than the other styles, and it is

“less easy to refer to particular turns in a transcript” (Have, 1999:89), for a conversation

with many overlaps, it is more appropriate since it is particularly good at visually

presenting overlapping talk as well as who is or who is not talking. Thus, this type of

transcript seems to be particularly effective when analysing a multi-party conversation.

Researchers, including Labov (1972b), Coates (1996), and Eckert (1993), have made

use of this system for analysing chat among friends. As for Japanese scholars, Ehara et

al. (1984) has used this transcript style for dyadic conversations.

As this study not only focuses on overlaps, but also investigates multi-party

conversations, the “partiture” style is used extensively. However, in the case of one

particular conversation, Sa-3 Family Talk, the “vertical” style (i.e. Jefferson system) has

70
 Chapter 3

been used. The reason for this is that this talk contains of relatively fewer overlaps and

relatively more pauses, despite being a multi-party conversation.

All of the transcripts were originally made in the language the participants used (i.e.

mostly Japanese, with some limited use of English). The total of six transcripts made

with the “partiture” style are not only too large per se to present in the Appendix, but

also take enormous amount of time to convert all transcripts to their Romanised version

with translation. Thus, I have decided that the part of transcript in focus for discussion

will be Romanised and presented together with a grammar translation (i.e. morpheme

by morpheme glosses) in the line below the Romanised transcript, and vernacular

translation of the utterance into English on the third line, as in the example of the

“vertical” style above. Also, for each extract, the context in which the extracted talk

took place is presented above the transcript. For the convenience of presenting overlap

onset and its resolution accurately, the “Courier New” font, which presents each letter

in fixed width, is used for the transcription, but the “Time” font is used for its

translations in order to distinguish them from the main transcript line. The participants’

names in the transcript are presented by their initials only, to save space on each line,

and are referred to by their names in the discussion. The transcript conventions and

abbreviations I used in the transcripts are presented at the beginning of this thesis (see

xii). Some of the conventions and abbreviations follow Tanaka (1999).

6. Conclusion

This chapter has presented the details of the data used in this study. First the nature of

the data required for the study was presented, along with discussion on “natural data”

by Have (1999) (section 2). Then, the methodology of data collection including method

71
 Chapter 3

by which the informants were recruited was discussed (section 3), followed by detailed

information on each conversation selected for the investigation (section 4). Finally, the

transcription methodology used for the study was considered by comparing three styles

of transcript discussed by Edwards (1993) and Have (1999) (section 5), which is

followed by the presentation of transcript conventions and abbreviations used in the

transcripts.

Using the transcripts, overlaps are analysed on the basis of who overlapped whom.

Then overlaps caused by each participant are classified and summarised in a table (see

Appendix 2 for full tables). For theoretical discussion of overlaps and their

classification, see the following chapters 4 and 5.

72
 Chapter 4

Chapter 4 How to understand turn, floor and overlap in natural

conversation

1. Introduction

This chapter discusses how overlap is understood in this study. The data for the study is

limited to naturally occurring multi-party conversations. Before the discussion of

overlaps, I would like to consider what a natural conversation is by examining the

following exchange.

Embezzlement

1 B(f): Ne, hontoni Ohshiro san, anata no heya ni

listen really Ohshiro ADD you P room PQ
Listen. Was Mr Ohshiro really in your room?

2 E(m): Doo nandesu ka

how COP Q
How do you answer this?

3 D(m): Kotae nasai Yumi kun. Hontoni honto nano ka ne

Answer COM Yumi ADD true true COP Q FP
Answer that Miss Yumi. Is that true?

4 Yumi(f): Issho jaarimasen deshita.

together COP not COP
No, I was not with him.

5 F(f): Yappari.
as expected
I thought so.

6 A(f): Ohshiro san ga keisatsu ni uso o tsuiteta n da.

Ohshiro ADD P police P lie P told VN COP
Mr Ohshiro told a lie to the police.

7 B(f): Kitto ura o torarere ba uso dat te bareru wa.

definitely back P taken CON lie COP QUOT proved FP
If (the police) looks for the evidence, it will turn out to be a lie.

8 Yumi: Soo nat tara Ohshiro san utagawareru. Doo shiyoo?

so become CON Ohshiro ADD suspected how do shall
Then, Mr Ohshiro will be suspected (by the police). What shall I do?

9 A(f): Nani itteru no senpai.

what saying FP senior colleague
What are you talking about, Yumi?

73
 Chapter 4

10 C(m): Soo desu yo.Ohshiro san no shinpai bakkari shiteiru

that COP FP Ohshiro ADD P worry only doing
Indeed, we are not in the situation of worrying about Mr Ohshiro only

baai ja nai deshoo.

occasion not COP
any more, are we?
(...)

12 Yumi: Damare!
silence COM
Shut up!

13 <Everyone stops talking>

14 Yumi: Minna hidoi yo. Shooko mo nai noni utagatte bakkari.

everybody horrible FP evidence P not despite suspect nothing but
You all are horrible for suspecting Mr Ohshiro without having any evidence.

Ohshiro san wa Endo san to ooryoo no jijitsu ni tsuite

Mr Oshiro ADD P Endo ADD with embezzlementP fact P about
Oshiro was investigating the embezzlement with Miss Endo.

Shirabeteta no
was investigating FP

15 ABCDEFG(f)H(f): Ooryoo

embezzlement?

Note: “f” stands for female and “m” stands for male.

This is an extract from a scene in a mystery drama,1 in which nine people (Yumi, the

main character and persons A-H) were talking at a Karaoke bar about their colleague

Ohshiro, who is a murder suspect. We, as the audience of this drama, might accept this

scene as a natural conversational exchange without any further consideration. This is

because the audience concentrate more on the story and are trying to discover who the

murderer is. However, if we observe this scene solely from a scholarly point of view, we

notice it is somehow unnatural as compared to an everyday conversational exchange.

The reasons for its unnaturalness can be viewed from two aspects: the participants and

1 Originally from "Depaato gaaru tantei [ Depertment store girl detective]" (2000), Kinyo entateimento
[Friday Entertainment], Fuji TV inc. Japan.

74
 Chapter 4

the setting in relation to the topic of the conversation. The first aspect to look at is the

number of conversational participants. There are actually nine people involved in the

conversation. Although two of them, persons G and H (both are females and not the

principals) are only taking listener roles, the other seven obtain an equal number of

speech turns without any overlap up to Yumi’s talk in line 14, to which everyone reacts

simultaneously in line 15.
Considering Sacks et al.'s (1974) observation of the turn-

taking system, that during a conversational exchange, only one person talks at a time,

this exchange seems to be a perfect model. However, to be realistic, in a multi-party

conversation, the more participants involved, the harder it is for the individual

participant to obtain an opportunity to speak. Thus, it is quite common to observe more

than one person starting to talk at the same time, or one person overlapping another who

is currently talking. In so doing, they compete for the chance to speak (Kennedy and

Camden, 1983), and such "talking at the same time" continues until one of them

successfully gains the floor, (though usually quite quickly).

Secondly, the topic and the setting need to be considered. Obviously, the topic in the

above conversation is Ohshiro, who is a murder suspect. Whilst it may be unusual to

talk seriously about such a topic in an informal setting such as a Karaoke bar, we could

accept the scene as natural if we take the participants to be gossiping. When people are

gossiping, they are commonly excited in talking about somebody and try to be highly

involved in the conversation (Eggins and Slade, 1997). However, we observe this

conversational example as not as lively as one might expect. Although the actors (the

participants) are using facial expression and gesture in order to be more natural in the

situation, the flow of their discourse does not seem to fit this well. Despite there being

75
 Chapter 4

such an exciting topic, there is no aizuchi (or brief listener responses, backchannels2),

nor are there any overlapped utterances, which is believed to show the participants' high

involvement (Coates and Cameron, 1988; Tannen, 1984) until line 14. In contrast, in

line 15, eight people abruptly produce an utterance in unison.3 They are reacting to

what Yumi said in line 14 by repeating the key word, "ooryoo" or embezzlement. This is

particularly intended to show the participants surprise as if it was a bolt out of the blue.

But this is unrealistic since it is very rare for such a high number of people to utter the

same word at the same time without being cued by another.4 From these points of view,

it is not difficult to reach the conclusion that the above conversational exchange, which

is meant to resemble authentic talk, is actually quite artificial, and dissimilar to that

which we are likely to encounter in real life outside of the theatre.

I have, so far, looked at one scene from a TV drama and discussed its artificiality
as

discourse. A conversation with regular speech turns, no brief listener responses and no

speech overlap somehow gives us an impression that the communication itself is far

from realistic, or even if such a conversation were to exist, we would no doubt feel it is

not lively communication. But if phenomena such as overlaps and listener responses are

crucial to construct a natural conversation, then what are their roles or how do they

function in the conversation? From here I will focus on "natural" conversations and will

look closer at the mechanisms of the phenomena that make a conversation natural, and

also focus on the context of conversation.

The focus of this study is overlapping talk in natural conversations. In this study, I

2 The term was used first by Yngve (1970)

3 See Kushida (1997)for discussion of “unison.’
4 For example, it is observed in some circumstances, such as classroom or religious service.

76
 Chapter 4

understand “natural conversation” to be constructed by the participants’ spontaneous

utterances without any script. Thus, for example, TV talk shows are not “natural” in this

narrow sense, since any TV/radio program has its script and there is always a producer

to control the participants’ verbal and non-verbal talk, although the degree of control

varies.

For the rest of this chapter, in section 2, I will first discuss the notion of “turn” and

“floor,” which, together with turn-taking, becomes the foundation of overlap discussion

in this study; second, I will present a definition of their terms in section 3; finally I will

discuss the nature of overlaps, particularly in multi-party conversation, in section 4. In

the final section (i.e. section 5), I will critically review previous studies on overlap in

terms of how it is understood, in order to construct the foundation of overlap

classification in this study.

2. What is turn and what is floor?

When analysing talk from the perspective of interactional structure, "turn" and "floor"

are often discussed. In Discourse Analysis (DA hereafter) work, we often observe

"number of turns" per conversational participant displayed in the research result

section.5 However, often they are simply shown numerically without sufficient

explanation. The purpose of presenting the number of turns is to show how much the

individual participant has talked in the conversation. Thus, if one participant's number

of turns is greater than another’s, then it is suggested that s/he has talked relatively more

than the other participant(s). On the other hand, the purpose of presenting the floors

(e.g. number of floors taken, length of floor held, topic floor etc) is to show how much

the individual participant became the centre of the talk. Thus, the one who has a large

5 The way they are presented vary from total number of turns to number of turn per minute.

77
 Chapter 4

number of floors (or who holds the floor for a long time) is perceived as having

controlled the conversation more than the other(s). However there are fundamental

problems here. First, not much research focuses on both turn and floor. Often, turn

seems to be the focus more than floor, or these two are simply confused. Second, what

the terms turn / floor mean is not clarified in most research. Even if they are, definitions

vary from study to study, thus, it may not be feasible to compare them quantitatively

from one study to another, unless one has an understanding of how the turn / floor is

defined in each study. Since these terms have been essential units in discussion of

overlaps, it is an important task to clarify their meaning. In this section, first I will

review how “turn” and floor” have been understood in the literature. I first look at the

early literature in 1970s and 1980s by focusing on Sacks Schegloff and Jefferson (Sacks

et al., 1974) and Edelsky (1981, reprinted in1993), then I will look at more recent

studies on the same topics, i.e. (Ford and Thompson, 1996;Hayashi, 1988, 1996;Tanaka,

1999).

2.1 Discussions of turn and floor in 1970s and 1980s

Many DA studies use the term "turn" in discussions of "turn-taking", which shows the

participants' talk distribution in the conversation. One of the most famous studies on the

turn-taking system is Sacks et al.'s paper, “A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation

of Turn-Taking for Conversation” (1974). In the paper, the authors present a number of

grossly apparent facts in terms of turn and turn-taking, which are observed in any

conversation,6 and discuss how technically the talk is distributed in orderly fashion

6 In regards to “any conversation,” the authors note that cross-cultural validity of the listed observations
can be settled only empirically, and present a few examples of cases from other languages. In the past
thirty years since the publication of this paper, many studies have empirically examined the validity of
these observations in other languages than English.

78
 Chapter 4

among the participants. Their definition of turn is "a right, duty, or opportunity that

occurs in a certain order," which is the definition in a dictionary of the English

language.7 In Sacks et al. (1974), the length of one person's talk at a time means one

turn, which consists of one or more "Turn Constructional Unit(s) or TCU(s)". The

possible point of speaker change comes at the end of each TCU. In the discussion of

the turn-taking system, this notion is essential. However, when discussing one's actual

turn (not TCU) itself, there seems to be a problem. According to Sacks et al., TCU

includes sentential, clausal, phrasal and lexical constructions. This means, for example,

utterances such as "reading (one lexical TCU)" in response to somebody's question such

as "what's your hobby?" is one turn, and a story telling (a number of sentential TCUs,)

is one turn (though it is referred to as multi-unit turn (e.g. Shegloff, 1990:lecture 9)) as

well.
Thus, when trying to display the conversational participants' amount of talk by

using the number of turns, it is possible for the one who has talked a lot to produce only

a few turns and the other who has talked less but uttered a number of short utterances to

produce many turns.

The problem is greater than just this; one of Sacks et al.’s (1974) observations of turn

and turn-taking as grossly apparent facts is that, overwhelmingly, one person talks at a

time. In the same explanation of gross facts, they also refer to overlap as common but

brief, at speaker transition. Thereafter, following Sacks et al, many researchers

regarded a turn as something that "consists of not merely the temporal duration of an

utterance but of the right (and obligation) to speak which is allocated to a particular

speaker" (Zimmerman and West, 1975:107). Based on this understanding of the turn,

many studies have picked up examples of overlap that deviate from the gross facts (i.e.

overlap that takes place other than at the speaker transition) and have discussed them as

7 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (1971) cited in Edelsky (1993).

79
 Chapter 4

interruptions, which they believe intervene into the current speaker’s territoriality of

speakership. However, in a natural conversation, among these deviations, there are a

number of listener responses from participants who take a role of listener to show their

support of the current speaker and high involvement in the conversation (Jefferson,

1983; Jefferson and Schegloff, 1975; Schegloff, 2000, 2002).8 Then, questions have

been raised on this kind of overlap, which deviates from Sacks et al.’s (1974)

observation on turn-taking, but does not interrupt the current speaker’s turn in the local

context: whether they are turns or not, or how they should be treated in DA. In order to

explore these problems, another dimension to look at in discourse, “floor,” has come to

be considered separate from turn when analysing discourse. That the one who has the

floor has the right to talk is a general understanding. However, compared to “turn,”

which is mostly relatively straightforward to identify on technical grounds, “floor” is

more notional, and it is sometimes difficult to judge who has the floor. Hence, even with

researchers who consider it locally in their analyses, “floor” itself has mostly not been

thoroughly discussed.

Edelsky (1993) is one of the few and one of the earliest researchers9 who extensively

discuss “floor.” During her analysis of discourse with transcripts, Edelsky noticed that

what is described in the transcript did not reflect what actually happened, in terms of

who is the centre of the talk.10 She presents an example where the current speaker stops

in the middle of the turn, which is taken by the other, but continues her/his talk by

overlapping the person who took the turn through self-selection. This incident is

8 It is well known that Zimmerman and West (1975) included backchannel utterances in their analysis of
interruptions.
9 Note again that Edelsky’s “who’s got the floor” was originally published in 1981 (Language in Society
10:3 pp383-421).
10 Edelsky herself was one of the participants of the talk she was analysing.

80
 Chapter 4

described as the first speaker overlapping or even interrupting the second speaker to

take a new turn in a vertical style of transcript. But, Edelsky argues that the first

speaker’s overlapping talk over the second speaker is merely a continuation of her

original turn which had stopped previously, hence the first speaker had only one turn

rather than having two separate turns in this case. While trying to explore the best way

of describing what actually happened in a conversation, Edelsky realised that having a

turn is not necessarily having the floor. Edelsky’s criticism of studies on turns or turn-

taking through the one-at-a-time view in those days, takes up the following two main

points:

i) many of the studies that extensively use the concept of “turn” depend

on data from dyadic conversations in a situated setting such as therapy

sessions, classes or laboratory experiment, hence lack of naturalness.

ii) they disregard the completeness of a turn’s content in favour of

speaker exchange (i.e. one-at-a-time), hence miss the fact that

overlaps that are regarded as interruptions in the transcript, are not

actually regarded as such by the participants (as mentioned above).

Regarding i), since 1981, when Edelsky first published the article, there have been a

number of studies that have investigated turn-organisation using multi-party

conversations and/or naturally occurring conversations (e.g. Ford and Thompson, 1996;

Schegloff, 2000, 2002; Tanaka, 1999) in a reflection of Sacks et al (1974). Also, with

the advance of technology in the past few decades (e.g. smaller but high quality

recording systems), even in a controlled setting, the recorded conversations are expected

to be more natural than they used to be. Thus, the problem she claimed seems to have

81
 Chapter 4

been resolved. Regarding ii), what concerns Edelsky can be exemplified in the

following two extracts from my conversational data:11

(1) Have you decided the baby’s name?

The participants are talking about the naming of an Australian born Japanese child. Isamu(I), who is the
father to be, is giving his opinion, where Mamiko (M), his wife joins the talk.

1 I: Yoosuruni kocchi no gakkoo ni ikaseta toki ni sa

in a word, here p school P go CAU when P FP
In a word, when putting the child in the school here (in Australia),

2 ano hatsuon shizurai toka da to ijime ni au ttari sa

HES pounce difficult etc COP CON bullying P meet etc FP
if (his name) is hard (for his classmates) to pronounce, isn’t it the case that he
might be bullied,

3
[sabetsu ni nattari suru janai].

discrimination P become do COP
or be discriminated against?

4
M: [Soo aru n da yo jissai].

aizuchi, exist VN COP FP actually.
(agreement), it actually happens.

5 Dakara <…talk continues…>

So
So

Isamu’s talk in line 3 and Mamiko’s talk in line 4 are overlapping. When Mamiko

begins to talk, although Isamu has not completed his turn, he has reached the end of a

TCU. Thus, Mamiko seems to have misjudged Isamu’s turn completion. But right after

she starts talking, she should realise that Isamu is still talking and it was her mistake to

judge that he had already completed his talk. Then, she could have stopped talking and

let him finish his talk. But she does not and, instead, continues talking. From this

observation in the transcript, it looks as if Mamiko has interrupted Isamu in line 4.

However, Mamiko is actually showing her strong alignment (soo, aru n da yo; yes, it

is.) with Isamu at that particular moment.

11 These data are from my own collection for the pilot study (Iida, 2000)

82
 Chapter 4

From Isamu’s talk, which is smooth without producing any hitches or change of

volume,12 he does not seem to feel he is being interrupted. Contrary to this example, the

following transcript contains an exchange that does not at first sight seem to have a

conflict between the two speakers, but in fact it does.

(2) Have you decided the baby’s name?

Suwako(S) and Mamiko(M) are presenting their views of naming the baby, in which they disagree with
each other.

1 S: Minna moo Nihon, moo akirakani Nihon-jin no Kao na noni

everybody EMP Japan EMP clearly Japanese P fac COP despite
Everybody in Japan, despite having a pure Japanese appearance,

2 Nandaka “Maagaretto” [toka sa, yappari / ? /]

AP “Margarette” such as FP still
(they seem to prefer to name the child) somehow (with an English name) like
“Margaret” which I still find (strange)

3 M: [Demo sore o ki ni ] sun no

but that P worry P do VN
But isn’t it strange to worry about such a thing?

4 mo hen ja nai?
P strange not

5
S: Iyaa watashi wa yappari=

no I P still
Well, I still

6 M: =Watashi ga omou ni wa
I P think P P
I think that

7 [hito sorezore iken wa aru kedo]

people each opinion P have but
people have different opinions but,

8 S: [a- - - - - - ]=
aizuchi
(continuer->understanding)

9 =Watashi wa yappari [nanka hen da na to omocchatta].

I P still AP strangeCOP FP QUOT thought
I still thought it to be strange.

10 M: [Demo watashi no shitteru hito wa]=

but I P know person P
But the person whom I know

11 = <talk continues>

12 See Schegloff (2000) on resolution of overlapping talk.

83
 Chapter 4

In this excerpt, Suwako, who had been talking about her negative opinions on giving a

Japanese child an English-like name, is first interrupted by Mamiko in line 3.13 Suwako

negates what Mamiko said in line 5. She attempts to continue her talk, but this time she

is latched by Mamiko’s counter argument in line 6. Their talk in these two lines

represents “one speaker at a time,” since they are not overlapping. But it is obvious that

Suwako intends to continue her talk, when she is latched by Mamiko (i.e. Suwako’s talk

is incompleted when it ends with yappari, or “still” which usually requires some

continuation). As a result, she temporally yields her floor to Mamiko by uttering a long

aizuchi, “a----------“ to Mamiko’s talk in line 8. This aizuchi continues until the end of

Mamiko’s talk, then immediately after Mamiko finishes, Suwako continues what she

was going to say before Mamko’s latch, in line 9. But this is also overlapped by

Mamiko to support her argument further using the example of her acquaintance, though

this time Suwako does not yield her turn but completes it.

Edelsky’s argument is that some overlaps and non-overlapping talk, as in the above

examples, have not been dealt with properly in the studies that analyse data based on the

view that one-at-a-time equals smooth speaker shift. In this way, she stresses the

importance of analysing the discourse not just technically but by “participants’ or

intentional sense” (1993:201), and there she discusses the rationale for considering floor

in discourse analysis. Based on her argument, she redefines “turn” and “floor.”

According to Edelsky, turn is "an on-record 'speaking' behind which lies an intention to

convey a message that is both referential and functional"(1993:207). By "on-record",

she tries to distinguish it from "off-record" talk, which is addressed to one or some

13 I define this overlap as interruption, since Suwako had more to say at the time of the overlap onset as
is discussed below. See she repeats the word “yappari,” “still” in line 5 and line 9 to complete her turn.

84
 Chapter 4

persons within a group rather than to all participants of the conversation (“side

comment” is her term). Because of her understanding of “turn” as referential and

functional, Edelsky excludes listener responses (or "encouragers" as her term) such as

mhm, yeah etc from turns, since, according to Edelsky, they are not referential but

merely feedback towards the ongoing speaker, though she carefully adds that such

backchannel utterances also could be turns depending upon the context of the exchange

and how it is said (e.g. volume and tone).14 After presenting her definition of turn,

Edelsky defines floor as "the acknowledged what's going on within a psychological

time / space” (1993:209). By "what's going on", she means the development of a topic

or a function or an interaction of the two. According to Edelsky, a floor may be

developed either singly by one person at a time or collaboratively by more than one

conversational participant. Being acknowledgement of what's going on among all of the

participants, a “side comment” is, once again, not regarded as floor holding.

Furthermore, Edelsky discusses having the floor as not necessarily being the same as

taking a turn or talking by showing some cases of turns without floor taking (e.g. a

question which attempts to clarify for the speaker what's going on) or holding one's

floor without talking (e.g. non-verbal action in the midst of one’s talk which is regarded

as crucial to the talk15).

The above summary of Edelsky’s discussion on “turn” and “floor,” however, seems to

be problematic in some points. First, she criticises Conversation Analysis (CA

hereafter) represented by Sacks et al., for its structural treatment of “turn” (i.e. in terms

14 For instance, she argues that "That's right" is a turn if it was said with a certain loudness and intonation
pattern so that it would be heard as "I agree with you (conveying a referential message)" but it is not a
turn if it was said more like "'ts right" which would be heard as "go on."
15 Edelsky takes an example from her data (academic meeting) in which one floor holder who has been
reporting about students, stops talking in the midst of her report and starts to count papers, which did not
cause yielding her floor since her non-verbal action was also regarded as a part of her report.

85
 Chapter 4

of one-at-a-time) without considering the speaker’s psychological completion of the

“turn.” Edelsky’s criticism comes from the treatment of the above mentioned talk that

contextually (or psychologically according to Edelsky) belongs to the speaker’s

previous turn, which has been cut off by other participant’s talk. Edelsky understands

that CA, based on Sacks et al.’s one-at-a-time, would treat it as a separate turn which is

independent from the speaker’s previous turn. However, in CA, one-at-a-time talk is not

always necessarily defined as an independent turn. For example, Schegloff

(1990:lecture 11) excludes continuers, congratulations, laughter and greetings from one-

at-a-time; and the talk such as the above mentioned example given by Edelsky, is

commonly treated as “extended turn” or “recompleter”(Tanaka, 1999) rather than as an

independent turn in CA. Also, most studies on interruptions using Sacks et al’s (1974)

turn-taking discussion as research frame, consider the function of overlapping talk (i.e.

whether the content of the overlapping talk is supporting the current speaker’s talk or

not), hence they do not automatically regard overlapping talk as interfering with the

current speaker’s talk (e.g. Drummond, 1989; Goldberg, 1990; Murata, 1994). Second,

Edelsky views “backchannel responses” such as “mhm” or “yeah” as non-referential in

general, hence they are merely encouragers.

However, recent studies (Deng, 1998; Drummond and Hopper, 1993a, 1993b; Gardner,

1997, 2001) show that backchannels or listener responses (or “acknowledgment tokens”

is their preferred term) are not merely feedback in the style of “go on”, but clearly carry

a certain message and influence the topic development. Thus, regarding them as merely

encouragers and excluding them from the turn would be problematic. Third, and the

most problematic issue in Edelsky’s “floor” discussion, is the method by which floor

boundaries are determined; according to Edelsky, the floor should be acknowledged

“within a psychological time / space”, however, how can psychological time/space be

86
 Chapter 4

judged by others than the speaker herself / himself? Edelsky herself admits that she had

problems in distinguishing single floors from collaborative floors, and ended up relying

on her intuition from having been one of the participants in the data. This implies a

difficulty of analysing discourse using Edelsky’s “floor” definition unless a researcher

participated in the conversation. Furthermore, even when participating in a

conversation, one still needs to rely on one’s intuition to judge floor boundaries, hence

the subjectivity of such an analysis can not be avoided.

Overall, Edelsky’s view on “floor” shed light on certain issues in DA at that time, in

terms of paying more attention to the content/context of talk. However, at the same

time, it carries several problems as mentioned above. Over two decades since Edelsky

first published her discussion on “turn” and “floor,” There have been more DA /CA

studies on “turn” and “floor,” which have enhanced the notion of “turn” and/or “floor”

from the early days. I will present and discuss a few more recent studies on “turn” and

“floor” in the next section.

2.2 Discussion of turn and floor in recent studies

This section discusses more recent studies on “turn” and “floor.” There have been a

number of studies on “turn” in the past few decades, among which I focus particularly

on Ford and Thompson (1996) and Tanaka (1999) to present the discussion. These

studies investigate how speaker shift takes place in conversation and try to explore what

a turn consists of by analysing samples of actual talk. Ford and Thompson's primary

interest is in the TCU within a turn-taking system. Their study is not just technically

oriented to looking at the TCU syntactically, but extends to an investigation of

pragmatic and prosodic features. As a result, they cast an interesting light on

87
 Chapter 4

understanding what the turn is. Tanaka (1999) applied Ford and Thompson’s findings to

analyse turn-taking in Japanese conversation.

Studies that extensively discuss “floor’ are not as numerous as studies on “turn.”

Hayashi (1988, 1991, 1996) is one of the few researchers who have contributed a

thorough discussion of “floor.” Following Edelsky and others who discuss “floor,”

Hayashi, who further develops the definition of “floor” and has revised it a number of

times, claims that it is “a dynamic cognitive entity that links the interactants together

socially and psychologically” (1996:32), and discusses how floor functions from

utterance level to discourse organisation level. These studies are not directly related to

this study. However, they are useful resources for establishing the definitions of “turn”

and “floor” in this study.

In the rest of the section, I first consider the discussion of turn by Ford and Thompson

(1996) and its application by Tanaka (1999), then I review the “floor” discussion by

Hayashi.

2.2.1 What is a turn? Studies by Ford and Thompson, and Tanaka

Like other West Coast functionalists, Ford and Thompson (1996) focus their study not

on a definition of turn but on the turn-taking system, in which they try to find out at

what point of one's speech the actual speaker shift may occur: in conversational

interaction, how the participants recognise the current speaker's completion of her/his

speech to start a new turn has been a question. Sacks et al. (1974) suggest that one's

speech turn is constructed from one or more TCUs, and at the end of each TCU there is

a possible speech completion point where speaker shift may occur. Sacks et al. call this

point a Transition Relevance Place or TRP and argue that TRPs are predictable, since

speaker shift in a conversation is usually smooth. Although this is widely accepted by

88
 Chapter 4

CA researchers, by what cues such a completion point is recognised has not been agreed

upon fully: Sacks et al.'s primary concern was with syntactic cues,16 other analysts also

consider the possibility of lexical, prosodic (e.g. intonation), or rhythmic cues at the end

of TCU and so on.17 Following one of these researchers (Levelt 1989, cited in Ford and

Thompson), Ford and Thompson propose that a TRP is not recognised by syntactic cues

solely, but by a combination of syntactic, prosodic and pragmatic cues, and they

analysed two multiparty conversations to investigate which cue(s) is/are included at a

point where speaker shift took place. What should be noted here is, as they also

mentioned, that while prosodic and syntactic completion can be judged technically,

pragmatic completion has to rely on the researchers' intuition. However, they dared to

include it to the analysis since they admit the importance of pragmatics in the

construction of human communication. From their investigation, they found that, as

they expected, a TRP is recognised / predicted by the conversational participants at a

point of a combination of syntactic, prosodic and pragmatic completion. They call this

point Complex Transition Relevance Place (CTRP hereafter). From this finding, it is

suggested that one's speech turn is constructed by one or more units, which is

syntactically, prosodically and pragmatically complete. One other thing to be pointed

out is how they treated backchannel utterances in their analysis. Edelsky, as discussed in

the previous section, claims that backchannel utterances are basically not turns, which is

followed by a number of researchers such as Fukazawa (1999). However, Ford and

Thompson regard backchannel utterances as turns. Since they are uttered by a

conversational participant who takes a listener's role, Ford and Thompson term them as

"backchannel turns" and distinguish them from "full turns" which belong to the person

16 It has to be noted that Sacks et al. (1974) also discuss lexical, phrasal and clausal as well as sentential
completion.
17 See Ford and Thompson (1996) for the previous discussions of possible completion cues.

89
 Chapter 4

who has primary speakership. That being said, these two types of turns are treated

equally in the study, since, according to Ford and Thompson, they seem to be involved

more or less in leading to next speaker onset. This view of the backchannel utterances is

quite interesting, as many DA studies treat them differently from "full turns" in Ford

and Thompson's term. 18

Following Ford and Thompson, Tanaka (1999) investigated how turn-taking is

organised in a Japanese conversation, and attempted to discover whether speaker shift

takes place in a similar manner to English conversation. According to Tanaka, overall,

Sacks et al.’s “turn-taking system” is observed in a Japanese conversation. However,

after the analysis of Japanese turn-taking system using Ford and Thompson’s frame,

Tanaka found that in Japanese conversation, there are not as many syntactic completions

as are observed in English conversation. She also found that apart from the CTRP,

which is recognised as turn completion in Japanese conversation as much as in English

conversation, non-syntactic completion is also recognised as turn completion if it is also

a pragmatic completion. She argues that it is because of the different syntactic order of

the sentence between the two languages: while English verbs tend to appear early in the

turn, which makes turn completion projectable, projectability of turn completion is not

easy in Japanese, where the verb appears at the end of the sentence. Thus, Japanese rely

on the current speaker’s pragmatic completion to recognise turn completion more than

its syntactic completion.

As this study looks at Japanese conversation, Tanaka’s findings may partly answer why

18 However, a number of CA studies (e.g. Drummond and Hopper, 1993a;Gardner, 1997, 2001;Jefferson,
1984) discuss backchannels, such as “mm hms,” “uh huh,” “yeah” etc in relation to turn transition and
speaker incipiency.

90
 Chapter 4

there are more overlaps in Japanese than in English.19

2.2.2 “Floor” as a dynamic cognitive entity: study by Hayashi

Hayashi’s (1988, 1996) central concern is thoroughly focused on floor. Following

Edelsky, she understands “floor” to be totally different from “turn” from the beginning.

Hayashi’s argument is that floor is a means of communicative attention orientation that

exists at a higher level of conversational structure and it is not at the level of turn or

move (1987 cited in Hayashi, 1996). Hayashi therefore defines floor as “a form of

community competence that is developed in the cognitive space naturally or by mutual

efforts when more than two persons interact with each other” (Hayashi, 1991), which is

further claimed as “a dynamic cognitive entity that links the interactants together

socially and psychologically” (1996:32). According to Hayashi, the floor is primitive at

the beginning of an interaction, but as the interaction proceeds, it is developed or

renewed by the participants’ communicative competence that provides the immediate

context of situation as well as the cultural and historical context that underlies their

relationship. Hayashi further discusses floor as being involved in a number of

interactional dimensions, from micro level, such as utterance, to macro level, such as

the cultural and social levels. Based on this notion, Hayashi proposes the types of floor

as shown in Figure 4.1 below. The multiple conversational floor includes what Edelsky

discusses as “side comment,” which indicates there may be more than one floor in a

conversation. Single conversational floor is carefully classified according to its

function. However, there lies confusion in this classification between “active

19 There is no English-Japanese comparative study in terms of overlap frequency. Although the majority
of the overlaps (55.7%) are aizuchi and other utterances that function as aizuchi, this study found that
there are still quite large number of overlaps other than aizuchi. See Chapter 6 for the discussion of
overlap frequency.

91
 Chapter 4

interaction” and “collaborative floor.”

Prime-time
at a time
floor
Less-active
interaction
Single Speaker&
Single person supporter Active interaction
Conversational floor floor
floor
Non-propositional
floor
Floor
Ensemble
Collaborative floor
Joint floor

Side floor &

Multiple main floor
conversational
floor
Main floor
in parallel

Figure 4.1 Classification of Floor (Hayashi, 1996)

While Hayashi describes active interaction in a single person floor as involving not just

supportive feedback such as backchannels, comments and questions but also more

overlaps and simultaneous talk which do not interfere with the flow of the on going

conversation, she argues that there is considerable simultaneous talk, overlap and

backchannel signals in a collaborative floor. Though it is understandable that Hayashi

recognises the participants’ effort in achieving the same goal more in a collaborative

floor, these descriptions do not seem to be much different from each other. Given that

floor changes constantly in an ongoing conversation, with this explanation, it would be

very difficult to clarify whether a part of the conversation is a single person floor or

collaborative. In a multiple conversation, as Hayashi also admits, it is difficult to point

out to whom the floor belongs and where the floor boundary lies.

Another problem is that, compared with “turn” which is often recognised based on a

92
 Chapter 4

speaker shift and therefore more straightforward, in Edelsky and Hayashi, “floor” is

discussed more cognitively. Thus, too much focus on floor may miss smaller

interactional elements. For example, according to Hayashi, Tsutomu is the floor holder

in the conversation among four people below. Hayashi argues that Fumiko’s talk in

lines 1-5 is a backchannel comment which supports Tsutomu.

“Example 47” in Hayashi (1996)

Masanori Yuki Fumiko Tsutomu


1 un
Kantoo kara

2 nishi e icchau
3 to hora zenzen
4 moo chigau kara
5 ne
6 un demo hokkaidoo-
7 ben tte aruno kotoba
8 okuretenai desho
9 arimasuyo
10 docchi
11 hokkaidooben
12 hokkaidooben
13 arimasuyo
14 arimasu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation

Masanori Yuki Fumiko Tsutomu


1 yeah
In the west from
2 Kantoo
see,
3 (language) is
4 completely
5 different.
6 Yes, but do you
7 have Hokkaido
8 dialect? Language
9 is not behind,
10 isn’t it?
11 Yes, we have.
12 Which?
13 Hokkaidoo dia-
14 lect.
15 (We) have
16 Hokkaidoo
17 dialect.
18 (You) have.
(Hayashi, 1997:187)
Note: Masanori and Tsutomu are males, and Yuki and Fumiko are females.
“  “ indicates the beginning of backchannel signal, and “
”indicates the end of backchannel signal.


indicates the position of the backchannel signal inserted.

93
 Chapter 4

As Hayashi does not mention the context of the talk or what was going on before this

exchange, it is hard to find who has the floor by only looking at the extract. Perhaps the

topic on dialect was initiated by Tsutomu, and Fumiko’s talk in lines 1-5 is a comment

to Tsutomu who has talked immediately before line 1, and Tsutomu may continue after

Masanori’s backchannel signal in line 14. However, when looking at this extract alone,

as Fumiko also replies to Yuki’s question, it appears hard to argue that Fumiko does not

hold the floor at this point. Given that Fumiko shares knowledge of the Hokkaido

dialect with Tsutomu, she may also hold the floor collaboratively with Tsutomu. This

once again brings us back to the question about what the floor is, and how to recognise

it. Hayashi’s argument on floor seems to be conclusive per se.20 However, for the

current study of overlaps, which is immediately concerned with the talk of the involved

participants, and requires them to be analysed in their local context, Hayashi’s cognitive

and dynamic definition of “floor” may be too vague to apply.

2.3 Turn and floor in this study

As discussed above, there are various ways of understanding turn and floor. It is

unfortunate that there is no universal understanding of them, but, in the end, which

notion would be best may depend upon the aims or methods of the particular study.

Considering the nature of this study, which looks at overlapping talk in daily

conversations, I now set my definitions of “turn” and “floor” together with other

necessary terms, “utterance” and “talk,” for this study.

20 For example, Iwasaki (1997) fully applies Hayashi’s notion to develop his definition of “floor” for his
study of “loop” sequence in Japanese conversation.

94
 Chapter 4

2.3.1 “Utterance” and “talk”

Before defining “turn” and “floor,” I clarify a few terms that are frequently used in this

study. First, I define “utterance” as:

Any verbal sound as well as laughter uttered as a meaningful action by the

conversational participants. Physiological sounds such as breathing, coughing

etc. are therefore excluded.

However, if one intentionally performs such physiological actions to send a signal to the

other party (e.g. a mother coughs to warn her child to behave well in public), then it

should be treated as an utterance, i.e. such an action has to constitute a meaningful

action with the conversation.

Following the definition of “utterance,” I define “talk” as:

A series of two or more utterances, which conveys connected linguistic

meaning in interaction.

Hesitation markers and aizuchi (listener responses, or backchannels) also fall into this

category, since they convey a linguistic message, although there may be a different

interpretation depending upon the context of situation. However, laughter is excluded

from talk, and should be discussed separately, since it does not convey any linguistic

message, even though it has a number of functions. Often talk is confused with speech,

but in this study, speech is understood more as a monologue-type talk that takes place in

a special setting such as “Public lecture,” “public announcement” and so on.

2.3.2 “Floor” and “turn”

As I use the notion of floor to define “turn,” I define “floor” prior to the definition of

95
 Chapter 4

“turn.” As the purpose of defining these terms is for the analysis of overlaps in

conversations, “floor” is defined more locally and narrowly than Edeslky and Hayashi.

Hence it is:

Public acknowledgement of what is going on by the participants of a

conversation. The person who is in the centre of the floor is referred to as a

“floor holder,” who holds the right to talk, which is publicly acknowledged.

In regard to the above definition, there are a few points to note. First, the term “public

acknowledgement” connotes the possibility of the existence of non-floor holding

exchanges between some others amongst the participants, as in Edelsky (1993) and

Hayashi (1996). Following Hayashi, I will refer to this non-floor holding exchange as a

“side-floor,” which may possibly take over the main floor, which has been the main

focus of what is going on in the interaction. Though side-floor may be observed in a

dyadic conversation as reported by Hayashi (1996),21 it is more likely to be observed in

a multi-party conversation. Side-floor is discussed in section 4 of this chapter.

Second, as Edelsky and Hayashi discussed it, floor can be shared and developed by

more than one person (mostly by two persons). This type of floor is referred to as

“collaborative floor” or “shared floor.” The persons who share the floor are a main

floor holder, who initially introduced the floor, and a sub-floor holder, who joins the

floor introduced by the main floor holder. See section 4.2 for further discussion with

examples.

Third, a floor is not topic-oriented. In other words, floor shift is not necessarily the same

as topic shift. It is common to observe a number of participants talking about the same

21 Hayashi introduces a dyadic conversation in which one participant suddenly starts verbally spelling out
some words she has been typing while talking.

96
 Chapter 4

topic. If the topic in some talk does not directly reflect the main topic, but is nonetheless

related, then it is dealt with as a sub-topic.

In sum, “floor” in this study is limited to what is locally organised talk in public, which

acknowledges the person in the centre of the talk as having a right to talk. The concept

of the floor at a higher level than this, which involves one’s psychology, culture and

society, are excluded here.

Finally I define “turn” as:

Any utterance which conveys a substantial message. The end of each turn is

marked by CTRP or at least by pragmatic completion.

Note that one speaker can produce more than one turn coming to a CTRP without

intervening talk by another—this is a multi-unit turn. An extended turn or recompleter22

is not regarded as a full-turn, but as a part of the speaker’s previous turn. Aizuchi are

also regarded as turns, since they also convey a linguistic message. As they are non-

floor holder's turns, following Ford and Thompson (1996), I define them as "aizuchi

turns" and distinguish them from "full turn," which is a floor-holder's turn. Forms and

functions of aizuchi will be discussed in depth in Chapter 5.

Whether laughter should be treated as a turn or not is another important issue. As

laughter without other vocalisations can act as a turn, as Ford and Thompson (1996)

suggest, in this case, laughter should also be treated accordingly in the same manner as

backchannel (i.e. aizuchi) turns. However, due to their non-linguistic nature, with

various forms and functions, although this study looks at laughter that is observed in

22 See section 2.1 for its definition.

97
 Chapter 4

overlapping talk in the data, only laughter that carries a function of feedback or

evaluation will be analysed. I will discuss the issue further in Chapter 5.

This section first looked at some literature that discusses “turn” and/or “floor,” then

presented a definition of these terms used in this study. Although many researchers

seem to understand that the one who has the turn has the floor, there are cases of taking

a turn without taking the floor, such as the participants’ utterances towards the current

floor holder that function as supporting and/or clarifying contributions to the current

speaker’s talk. To make a clear distinction between “turn” and “floor” for analysing

overlapping talk is especially crucial, since non-floor holder’s overlap in the current

floor holder’s turn and the current floor holder’s overlap on non-floor holder’s turn

certainly have different functions.

3. Definition and nature of overlap

The term “overlap” is interpreted and used differently from study to study. In this study

it is defined by focusing on its formal properties, that is:

“When more than one person’s utterance is heard at one time, regardless of its

length, from the starting point to the ending point of that phenomenon is

regarded as an overlapping speech or overlap.” This “utterance” includes

laughter. However, coughs, sneezes and other vocal sounds that are produced

physiologically are excluded.

When an overlap takes place, unless two or more speakers start simultaneously, there is

one person who has been talking, and another person starts talking while the former

continues, as in the following example.

98
 Chapter 4

(3) Tokyo roll (H-1)

Harue has been talking to Suwako and Fumie about a sushi restaurant in the city which she had visited
before.

1 H:

S:

F: Demo:sore:(0.1)basu de itta n desho Kuruma da to:(0.1)=

But that bus by went VN COP Q car COP CON
But you went by bus, didn’t you? If you were driving,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: [kuruma de it]ta [toki kanaa]
Car by went when wonder.
I guess I went by car.
S:

F:= paakingu taihen[da mon ne]. [a soo]

parking difficult COP thing FP aizuchi
it would be difficult to park. (understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In example (1), there are two overlaps (line 2). In the first overlap, Harue overlaps

Fumie by responding to her question early, whereas, in the second overlap, Fumie

overlaps Harue to show her acknowledgement of Fumie’s reply. As this exchange

shows, the individual who is overlapping or the individual who is being overlapped is

not fixed in a conversation; it changes frequently depending upon the context of the

conversation.

The talk that overlaps the other is not necessarily uttered by a non-floor holder. For

instance, it is frequently observed that a floor holder overlaps the aizuchi of a non-floor

holder (who is taking a listener’s role) towards herself/himself, as in the following

example.

(4) Laundry line (H-2)

The participants have been talking about Harue hunting for a flatmate. But now the topic seems to an end
with a pause of 1.5 seconds. Harue starts and initiates the others to move back to the topic they were
talking about before, i.e. laundry line, but did not reach a conclusion with, due to an interruption by a
telephone call to Harue.

99
 Chapter 4

1 H: A sorede sono h ano sentaku mono no hanashi.

EX and that HES laundry thing p story
Oh and that well the story of laundry and stuff.
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: [Ba Baasa no] hanashi. <talk continues>
Ba Bartha p story
The story about Bartha.

S: Aa [soo soo soo] u-n.

EX aizuchi aizuchi
Oh (agreement) (continuer)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this example, Harue is a floor holder and a clarification (line 2) of her previous talk

(line 1) overlaps Suwako’s aizuchi “soo soo soo.”

When more than one person simultaneously start talking at the current speaker’s turn

completion, as in exchange (5) below, there is no distinction of the positions of the

participants as overlapping the other or being overlapped.

(5) Looking for a flatmate (H-2)

Harue has been talking to Suwako and Fumie about what sort of flatmate she wants.

1 H: Watashi mo selekuto shite (0.6) yukkuri sagasoo to =

I p select do slowly look forVOL QUOT
I will select and take time to look for (a flatmate)

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = omou kara.
think since.
I think.
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 (0.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
H: [un demo]
Yes but
Yeah but
S:

F: un (0.2) [ano jaa]Miyako san zenbu (0.6) kuruma mo=

HES HES then Miyako ADD all car also
Yeah um so Miyako has to sell all (of her belongings) such as her car.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

100
 Chapter 4

5 H:

S:

F: =
uttari toka (…)
sell etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a case in which more than one person has self-selected to be the next speaker at

TRP, according to Sacks et al. (1974). At line 4, Harue and Fumie start their turns

simultaneously after a 0.2 sec pause. When such a case occurs, one of the speakers

usually stops talking very soon after onset (Levinson, 1983;Sacks et al., 1974) and the

floor is ceded to the other person. In this example, Harue cedes the floor to Fumie.

4. The distinctiveness of overlap in a multi-party conversation

In the previous section, I discussed overlaps in relation to the conversational floor in

general terms. Whatever the number of participants, each participant takes either a role

of “floor holder” or “non-floor holder” in a conversation. In a dyadic conversation, it is

obvious who is talking to whom, since there are only two participants. However, in a

multi-party conversation, it is not as straightforward as in a dyadic conversation to

determine the target of an utterance is targeted. An utterance may be targeted at the rest

of the participants (e.g. in story telling), or may be targeted at a particular individual or

individuals within the group. Concerning the floor, although it is most likely that there

is one participant who holds a current floor and the others become non-floor holders, it

is possible that more than one person can take the floor in a multi-party conversation.

For example, when some knowledge or information is shared by two or more

participants, they may cooperatively construct a floor in order to inform the other

participant(s) who do not share the same information. Also, when a conversation

involves more than three people, there may be a case that, within the main stream of the

101
 Chapter 4

conversation in which all participants are involved, some participants independently

organise a smaller group and talk within the group temporarily without pulling

themselves out of the main conversation (Egbert, 1997). As mentioned in section 2

above, this talk in a smaller group is referred to as a “side-floor.” Depending upon the

number of participants, it is possible that more than one side-floor exist in a

conversation (i.e. the more participants, the greater the possibility for more side-floors).

As previously mentioned, a side-floor can be developed to be a main floor. An example

of a side-floor taking over the current floor is observed in my data in which one of the

participants had to pull herself away from the conversation because of a phone call

inquiring about her flat (see extract 4 above), as she was looking for a new flatmate at

that time. After she finished the phone call and rejoined the main conversation, the main

conversational topic completely shifted to her current flatmate.

Overlaps in a multi-party conversation are therefore more complicated to analyse than

in a dyadic conversation. In order to understand the mechanism of overlaps clearly, it is

important to look at who holds the floor and who does not, and who is talking to whom

at the time each overlap takes place. The rest of this section discusses a number of

overlaps that are specific to a multi-party conversation. The examples used here are

from the collected data of multi-party conversations in which three or more persons

participate.

4.1 One floor-holder targets all of the other participants

In a multi-party conversation, the most likely scenario is where one person talks as a

floor holder and the others, as non-floor holders, respond (or react) to the current floor

holder. For example, this can be observed when one person conveys information that is

102
 Chapter 4

new to the others, or gives an opinion on a topic which concerns the rest of the

participants. Non-floor holders’ reactions are mainly represented by their aizuchi and

often such aizuchi overlap in various ways. In the following extracts, Harue is a floor

holder, and Suwako and Fumie are the non-floor holders.

(6) Car park discount (H-2)

Harue has been telling Suwako and Fumie about her experience of missing out on the student discount fee at
the UXX car park.

1 H: Moshi sono soo iu UXX no gakusei dattara~issho ni mise=

if HES that kind of UXX P student COP CON together P show
They say that if one is a UXX student, unless s/he shows (student ID)
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = agenai todame nanda tte:
Give CON no good COP QUOT
it (the parking fee) will not be discounted.

S: [yaadaa:
dislike COP
Oh No!

F: [honto
true Q
Really?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an example in which the two overlapping evaluations (Suwako and Fumie) are

uttered immediately after the current floor holder (Harue) ends her turn. But there are

cases when such overlapping aizuchi further overlap the current floor holder’s speech,

as in the following example (7):

(7) Tokyo Roll (H-2)

Harue explains to Suwako and Fumie how she went to a sushi bar, Tokyo Roll. The following extract
follows exchange (3) above, where Fumie asks whether Harue went there by car.

103
 Chapter 4

1 H: Nanka yooji ga atte QVB ka nanka ni [tometa] no.

AP engagement P exist QVB or something P parked FP
I had some sort of engagement and I parked my car at QVB or something
(somewhere).

S: [u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: [u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the above extract, both Suwako and Fumie seem to assume Harue’s talk is

approaching the end of TCU and utter aizuchi. In this case, after the particle ni, which is

a location marker to indicate the preceding noun/noun phrase as the location (i.e. QVB

ka nanka, QVB or something), it is easy for the non-floor holders to assume what verb

follows (i.e. parked), hence there was no need for them to listen until the end of Harue’s

talk. The point of their overlap onset seems to be what Jefferson (1973, 1983) discusses

as “not too early not too late.” It is quite interesting to see how non-floor holders judge

the point to start their reactions towards the current floor holder in the same manner.

The examples (6) and (7) are cases in which the non floor holders utter aizuchi at the

same time. Apart from these types of overlaps, there are also cases where non-floor

holder’s aizuchi are not uttered simultaneously. Below is one of these cases 23:

(8) Laundry line (H-2)

Harue has been explaining how the residents of her block share the laundry lines.

1 H: Atashi-tachi futatsu aru kara=

I PL two exist since
Since we have two (laundry stands)
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

23 More examples of overlapped aizuchi include the one in which each aizuchi utterance starts and/or
terminates at different points.

104
 Chapter 4

2 H: = be[betsu no tokoro ni [hoshiteru n da kedo] soo(…)

separate P place P drying VN COP but REC
We dry our laundry at a separate place.

S: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(understanding / aizuchi follower)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

When non-floor holders’ aizuchi are uttered simultaneously, as in examples (6) and (7),

they can be regarded as incidental overlaps. However, in cases like (8), it may not be the

case. Although non-floor’s aizuchi are targeted at the current floor holder, the one who

utters aizuchi later than the other(s) may not just be reacting towards the current floor

holder, but may also be following the other non-floor holder to maintain the rhythm and

harmony of the conversation. For example, Fumie’s aizuchi utterance in line 2 above,

which started a while after Suwako’s aizuchi, concludes at the same time as Suwako’s

aizuchi. Furthermore, their aizuchi, which overlap Harue’s talk, also rhythmically

conclude at the same time as Harue reaches the end of TCU of her talk. As a result,

Harue, who does not need to wait for the aizuchi of the others, was able to continue her

talk immediately after the overlap resolution with her reconfirm, “soo.” Here in this

exchange, the non-floor holders’ finely timed aizuchi as well as Harue’s immediate

reconfirm seem to contribute to the harmony of their communication greatly.

4.2 Talk targeting a specific person

While there are cases when talk targets all of the other participants, there are also cases

in which talk targets a specific person in a conversation. Such talk sometimes overlaps

other participant’s talk, or causes others to overlap. This section discusses some cases of

this kind of overlapping talk. But first, consider the following exchange:

105
 Chapter 4

(9) Meal (H-2)

Observing Fumie buying a big meal, Suwako wonders whether Fumie has had lunch.

1 H:

S: F san ohiru (0.2) tabe te nakatta no

F ADD lunch eat has not FPQ
F, you have not eaten lunch, have you?
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 (1.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

S: [u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: Henna jikan ni asa-gohan o tabe[te u – n]

unusual time P breakfast P eat REC
I had breakfast at an unusual time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a case where the current speaker selects the next speaker by her/his name

directly. Although Harue is a participant in the conversation, upon Suwako’s utterance,

the right to speak next is reserved for Fumie. Thus, Harue remains silent even though

there is a long pause of 1.3 seconds, and Fumie answers accordingly. Although this

example clearly represents Sacks et al’s (1974) turn-taking organization, in a multi-

party conversation, especially when conversation is vigorous, sometimes this kind of

talk functions in a more complicated manner. The following extract is from a

conversation in which the participants talk about the laundry stands that are shared with

other residents of the same building.

(10) Missing linen (H-2)

Harue has been talking about a problem in sharing the laundry line with other residents in her block of
four units.

106
 Chapter 4

1 H: [u – n] [u n]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer)

S: [u – n]
aizuchi
(continuer)

F: Uchi nanka are ga futatsu aru no [ne da]kara [moo]=

Our place AP that P two exist FP FP so EMP
Our place has two (laundry stands), you know? So
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: [u n]
aizuchi
(continuer)
S:

F: =jiyuuni minna saa sukina toki ni:i [ano]o ~ dakedo sono=

freely everyone FP favourite time P HES but that
Everyone (uses them) freely whenever they like. But that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

S: [demo H san toko=

but H ADD place
But, H, your place

F: =yo-nin de sunderu uchi nante yamano yo[oni aru

four CTR P living house EMP mountain like exist
family of four has piles of laundry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: [futatsu aru no yo.
two exist FP FP
We have two.

S: = mo futatsu aru deshoo

also two exist COP Q
also has two, doesn’t it?

F: [futatsu aru no: 

two exist FP Q
You have two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In lines 1-3, based on her assumption that Harue’s place has only one laundry stand,

Fumie is trying to explain that, even with two laundry stands, the amount of laundry for

a family of four can be enormous. However, before she completes her turn, Suwako

points out, in overlap with Fumie, the number of laundry stands at Harue’s place is also

two. As Suwako’s talk is a question directly addressed to Harue, she answers

immediately. Upon Suwako’s question, the right to speak next is reserved for Harue.

Nevertheless, Fumie also starts her turn at the same time as Harue (line 4). The reason

107
 Chapter 4

for Fumie’s talk here seems to be due to the function of Suwako’s turn. Although this is

in question form, it is more of a confirmation request than a question, since Suwako

remembered there are two laundry stands at Harue’s place from the talk earlier in this

conversation. As Fumie does not seem to recall that Harue also has two laundry stands,

Suwako indirectly points out Fumie’s misunderstanding by asking a question to Harue.

In other words, Suwako’s utterance has a double function in that it confirms with Harue

and indicates Fumie’s misunderstanding. Fumie notices the underlying function of

Suwako’s question. Thus, although the talk of Harue and Fumie in line 4 is uttered in

unison, while Harue’s talk is a response to Suwako’s question, Fumie’s is a kind of

aizuchi to show her acknowledgement of the new information24 towards Suwako, but at

the same time it also functions to confirm the information with Harue.

As in Suwako’s talk in the above exchange, the talk which targets a specific person is

most obviously recognised when it takes a question form. However, it is not always the

case that the current speaker directly addresses the selected next speaker’s name. See

the following example:

(11) Looking for a flatmate (H-2)

The participants are talking about Harue’s attempt to find a new flatmate, since her current flat mate has
just left. Suwako has suggested prior to this exchange a student whom she indirectly knows as a potential
flatmate for Harue. There is a 0.9 second pause before the exchange starts.

1
H: ja[moshi [un kanojo kyoomi areba: =

then if aizuchi she interest existCON
Then if (agreement) she is interested in it.
S:

F: soo iu: [gakusei ga iin ja[nai u - n

that kind of student P goodN COP REC
Isn’t it good to have a student like that (for your flatmate)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

24 It is referred to as “newsmarker” in English (Heritage, 1984)

108
 Chapter 4

2 H: = [ichioo mi ni] [un

tentative see P yes
Why don’t (you suggest to her) to come and see (the unit)? Yeah.

S: [u - ]n ne[e

yes FP
OK Is that all right?

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fumie starts her turn in line 1, then is overlapped by Harue. However, Harue withdraws

her turn quickly to hear Fumie, who agrees with Suwako that it would be good to offer

the flat to a student. Then Harue overlaps Fumie again when Fumie has nearly reached

her turn completion, to continue her previous talk (note that Harue’s first piece of talk in

line 1 has a conditional marker, “mosi, if,” which is syntactically connected to a

conditional form of a verb, i.e. “kyoomi are ba, if interested in” in her second talk in the

same line). It is interesting to point out that Harue’s second piece of talk in line 1

consists of two separate parts; the first part “un” is uttered towards Fumie’s suggestion,

to show her acknowledgement, and the rest of her talk, which goes on to the end of line

2, is uttered towards Suwako. The girl who might be interested in Harue’s unit is

Suwako’s acquaintance, therefore it is obvious that Harue’s talk targets only Suwako in

asking to pass the message (to inspect her unit) to the girl. Having understood this

context, Suwako responds to Harue, and Fumie remains silent.

There are also cases in which the intention of the current speaker (in regard to the next

speaker) is not understood by the others immediately, which was the case in example

(11) above. The following extract is from a conversation that comes about a half minute

before extract (11).

(12) Looking for a flatmate (H-2, modified)

The participants are talking about Harue’s former flatmate, Miyako, who is leaving Australia for good.
This topic has branched off from the main topic, Harue’s search for a flatmate, as seen in extract (5)
above. Just before this exchange starts, Harue completes her turn followed by a 0.8 second pause.

109
 Chapter 4

1 H:

S:

F: Ano jaa Miyako san zenbu: (0.6) kuruma mo uttari toka=

HES then Miyako ADD all car also sell etc
Um, so Miyako has to sell all (of her belongings) such as her car.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: [un dakara isogashii to omouyo] [u-n ku[ruma mo=
aizuchi so busy QUOT think FP aizuchi car also
Yeah so I think she is busy (agreement) as she also

S: [u - =
aizuchi
(agreement)

F: =soo iu no[mo aru no ne taihen ja nai]. [su: go=

t hat kind VN also exist FP FP hard isn’t it very
So she should be busy. It should be very hard.. It is
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = aru] shi]
have since
has a car

S: = - n] [i Ikura gurai] yachin wa (0.5) [H san]=

h how much about Q rent P H ADD
h How much does the rent cost(?) your

F: = i] tai]hen yo [hikiageru no]. [/ ? /]

hard FP pull away VN
very hard to move back (to Japan)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: [uchi] 115.
my place
My place costs 115 (dollars)

S: = to[koro].
place
flat H?

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this extract, Fumie introduces a sub-topic about Miyako who would be very busy

finalising everything before leaving the country. Upon Fumie’s introduction of this sub-

topic, Harue expresses her sympathy for Miyako (in lines 2-3). As Harue is the person

who is most familiar with Miyako among the three participants, it is quite natural for

her to take up the turn after Fumie’s topic initiation. However, Fumie’s talk starting at

the end of line 2 (and ending in line 3) is not necessarily spoken only to Harue, since it

is common knowledge that moving is not an easy task. Also, given that Miyako is

110
 Chapter 4

known to all of the participants, it is not unnatural to think Suwako is also a qualified

participant for this particular topic. In contrast, Suwako’s turn in lines 3-4, though it is

overlapping Fumie, is meant to target Harue solely. Although Suwako does not directly

addresses Harue, the question asks how much Harue charges in weekly rent to her

flatmate. However, this question is not answered immediately. This is because in the

midst of the current topic on Miyako being busy, Suwako suddenly tries to pull the

others back to the main topic, “looking for a flatmate,” by asking about the rent. This

abrupt topic shift resulted in 0.5 second pause. Suwako, therefore ends up addressing

Harue by name so that she realises the question is directed to her. As with Suwako’s

talk in this extract, although two utterances overlap, it is not necessary for each of the

utterances to respond towards the other. In other words, overlapping talk can be targeted

at a person who is not involved in the overlap. Suwako’s overlap in line 3 is targeted not

at overlapped speaker Fumie, but at the third participant Harue.

4.3 More than one participant holding a floor

This is a case in which two persons share information / knowledge / interest regarding

the current topic and they try to convey / seek the information as much as possible to /

from the rest of the group by cooperatively constructing the floor with each other.

When two persons are sharing a floor, one of them becomes a main floor holder who

conveys the main information, and the other becomes a sub-floor holder who

supplements the information brought by the main floor holder, but these roles can be

switched within the same floor. Although floor sharing mostly involves two persons,

theoretically it is possible that more than two persons can share a floor and take the role

of floor holder.

The following example is from a business conversation in which two persons share the

111
 Chapter 4

floor.

(13) Uni Lodge (Sa-1)

Sachiko and Masao, who are representing the same company, explain to their client Yoshida how they are
involved in promoting the accommodation, Uni Lodge.

1
Sa: [un
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: Uni rojji mo uchi wa kookoku moratteru n desu [yo.

Uni Lodge also us P advertisement receiving VN COP FP
We advertise Uni lodge (in our magazine), too.
Y: a soo =
ai-
(under-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Sa: [e e [a no ] sookyaku shiteru n desu ne,=
REC HES sending guests doing VN COP FP
yes Umm we are sending guests there.

M: [ee [soo nan desu].

REC
Yes Yes we do.

Y: =
[desu[ka.
zuchi
standing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
Sa: = [uchi ga ]ano [ano: Nihon kara] ee.
we P HES HES Japan from REC
We, Um Um from Japan yeah

M: [Sookyaku] [kyaku wo okurikomu n desu].

sending guests guests P sending VN COP
Sending guests We are sending guests (there).
Y: hoee
aizuchi
(understanding)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, Sachiko and Masao cooperatively construct a floor by uttering aizuchi

to each other (i.e. Sachiko’s “un” in line 1, and Masao’s repetition of the word

“sookyaku, sending guests” in line 3), and clarifying the information about Uni Lodge

to each other (i.e. Sachiko further explains about what they do with Uni Lodge in line 2,

and Masao clarifies the term, “sookyaku” in line 3) so that they can convey the

information to Yoshida as clearly as possible. From this transcript, it is not difficult to

112
 Chapter 4

establish who takes the main floor holder’s role. Masao is the main floor holder in line

1. At the end of line 1, Sachiko takes it over to provide further information about Uni

Lodge to Yoshida. And in the middle of line 3, with the hesitation “ano,” Sachiko is

searching for an expression, at which point Masao takes over the main floor holder’s

role, then Sachiko extends Masao’s floor and so forth, so there is frequent serial change

of main floor holder.

There is also a case where two participants seek information from a certain person, as in

the following example:

(14) Laundry line (H-2)

Fumie introduces a new topic about a laundry line at Harue’s place, with which Harue seems to have had
trouble before.

1 H:

S:

F: Mae: nanka ijiwaruna obasan ga kinjo no: =

Before AP mean woman P neighbourhood P
The other day, you mentioned about a mean woman who is your neighbour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: [babaa desho[o
hag COP Q
The hag, you mean?
S:

F: =
ano[ [anoo koko ni tomecha
HES HES here P park
um um the one who said that you should not park
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: [babaa supotto][d e shoo ]
hag spot COP Q
The hag’s spot, you mean?

S: [doo natta]
how becameQ
How did you go with her?

F: = ike[naitte iu no] doo natta

no good QUOT say VN how becameQ
at the spot or something. How did you go with her?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this example, Suwako and Fumie, who know that Harue has had a problem with her

neighbour, are cooperatively constructing a floor that asks Harue to tell them how the

113
 Chapter 4

problem progressed and was resolved afterwards. By completing Fumie’s question in

line 3, Suwako is showing her participation in Fumie’s floor. After Suwako completes

her utterance, Fumie repeats what Suwako has just said, and completes her own turn.

This seems to indicate that Fumie also accepts Suwako as a co-constructor of the floor.

In this section, I have discussed several features of overlaps that are specifically

observed in a multi-party conversation. As the examples show, in a multi-party

conversation, especially in informal talk where people speak freely, who has the floor

and to whom the talk is targeted are more complicated than in a dyadic conversation.

The talk may target all other participants or only a specific individual. Depending upon

the case, overlapping talk can be intentional to a certain person but incidental to the

others as in the example (5) discussed in Section 3 above. Also overlapping talk may

take place as a result of two parties sharing the same floor. Sometimes an utterance has

dual functions that convey different messages to the individual participant. Thus, when

analysing overlaps in a multi-party conversation, rather than just looking at the

overlapping talk alone, it is important to investigate it carefully in relation to the context

of the ongoing conversation that includes non-overlapping talk.

5. Classifying overlaps

As previously mentioned, overlaps are frequently observed in natural conversation, but

they appear in a variety of forms and functions. Thus, for a clear discussion of overlap

in relation to the context of the conversation, it is useful to develop a typology of

overlaps. How to classify overlap varies among researchers. Many studies that discuss

overlap or interruption focus on the point of overlap onset for its classification.

However the majority of previous studies of overlaps / interruptions are based on

114
 Chapter 4

English conversation. Although some methodologies used in English conversation may

be applicable to Japanese conversation, due to the different nature of the languages, not

all methodologies may be entirely appropriate. So in this section, I will first discuss

some features of the Japanese language that may cause more overlaps in comparison to

those of English. Second, I review previous literature on overlap classification and

discuss their problems. I then move on to review a few studies of overlap classification

in Japanese conversation.

5.1 Features of Japanese language

The major contrast between Japanese and English appears in their syntax. Compared to

English, in which a standard sentence predominantly appears in an order of SVO,

Japanese syntax employs post positional (or head-last) or predicate final sentence

structure in which a verb or predicate appears at the end of a sentence (see for

exampleShibatani, 1990;Tanaka, 1999). Also, Japanese syntax allows flexibility of word

order of the constituents that precede the predicate, and sometimes these components

may even appear after the predicate in spoken Japanese. In addition to these points, in

spoken Japanese discourse, ellipsis of various speech parts (e.g. subject, object, particle)

is frequently observed. With these syntactic features, Tanaka (1999) argues that

compared to English, where syntax facilitates an early projection of the type of turn

being produced, “turns in Japanese do not necessarily project from their beginnings

what their ultimate shape and type will be” (1999:141). For example, see Harue’s

following talk. TRPs are shown by “
“

(15) Small fire (H-3, modified)

During the previous night, being so tired from work, Eri fell asleep without turning off the light, which
caused a small fire in her bedroom. As a result, her long-loved teddy’s arm was burnt, but she was safe
since she woke up before the fire spread. The other participants (Harue, Natsuki and Keiko) believe if she
had not woken up, she would have died.

115
 Chapter 4

1 H: [u n ]
aizuchi
(continuer)
E: [u n]
aizuchi
(continuer)

N: demo ishiki ga: hora [jibun] de ishiki ga sa[meta]=

but consciousness P look self P consciousnessP woke
But your consciousness is, look, to become conscious by=

K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: [u n ii n da [yott samete na]kat tara=
aizuchi good N COP FP wake did not CON
(agreement) it’s good. If you had not waken up,
E:

N: = tte koto [wa saa [a u - n ]

QUOT VN P FP aizuchi
yourself means, (continuer)
K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
H: = abu[nakatta Yoku saa]~ nanka saa fuyu toka de: [sekiyu]=
was danger often FP AP FP winter etc P kerosene
you would have been in danger. You know, often, in winter

E: [sonomama moo ] [u n]
as it is already aizuchi
(She would have been poisoned) without waking up (continuer)

N:

K: =
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
H: = sutoobu toka [de ne~ yoku mado koo akenai[de: yattete]=
heater etc P FP often window likethis open not P do and
(when using)a heater, often,(we hear)do (studying) without opening windows,

E:

N:

K: [u - n [u - n]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

116
 Chapter 4

5
H: = jukensei toka [ga:~ moo shi]njatte[ta toka tteiu no wa]=

test-taker etc P EMP had died etc QUOT P P
people like test takers died and so on, that is,

E:

N: u - n] [soo [yo:  ]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (agreement)

K: [u - n] [u - n]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer / follower)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6
H: = are wa na: honto [chooji]kan [kakete [saa] fut te]tte=
that P really long time take FP suddenly QUOT
that actually takes a long time, and does not
happen

E: [u n ] [u n]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (agreement)

N: [choo ji[kan kakete]

long time take
Takes a long time

K: - n u n] [u
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7
H: = iu n ja [nai karaa~ [choo-jikan kakete [s o o]=
say VN COP not since long time take REC
suddenly. So it takes a long time.

E: u - n
aizuchi
(agreement)

N: [jak kedo: [sukoshizutsu kakete [sukoshizutsu]=

COP but little by little take little by little
No, but little by little, little by little
K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8
H: = [dakatt oi]ru]sutoobu n toki wa zettai aketoku [toka saa
So oil heater VN when P a must open etc FP
So when using oil heater, it is a must to open (window) or something,, you know?

E: [u - n]
aizuchi
(agreement)

N: = s u t teru
] [u - n=
breathing aizuchi
(one) is breathing (CO2) (agreement)
K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

117
 Chapter 4

9 H:

E: [u - n]
aizuchi
(agreement/follower)

N: [Soo dakara] <talk continues>

=
so
So
K: [u - n]
aizuchi
(agreement/follower)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this excerpt, Natsuki starts to comfort Eri (line 1). Even before Natsuki has

completed her turn, Harue starts uttering aizuchi of agreement, “un” with Natsuki in

line 2, and starts her preparation for the upcoming very long turn (i.e. starting with

“yoku saa,” “often, you know”) in line 3. This preparation consists of two TCUs: the

first is to agree with Natsuki (i.e. “un iindayott, yeah it’s good”), and the second is to

provide the reason for her agreement (i.e. hadn’t she waken up, she would have been in

danger). Then, without any gaps (or with self-latching) Harue’s long new turn starts,

which turns out to be a multi unit turn. In this long stretch of talk, we would not

recognise that the talk of the first three lines (line 3-5) are the grammatical subject of

the talk until the talk reaches the subject marker, “wa” in “tte iu no wa” or “that ~ is” at

the end of line 5. The predicate comes immediately after the subject marker in line 6 as

“are wa honto choojikan kakete saa” or “that it takes long time to get poisoned.” As the

predicate ends with final particle “saa,” it appears that
Harue has eventually finished

her turn. But she extends it by giving an example which does not apply to the case (i.e.

“Fut te tte iun janai kara, It is not like (being poisoned) suddenly”), and further she

repeats the initial predicate, “it takes a long time” in line 7. This time, she utters a

reconfirming “soo” towards Natsuki, who accompanies Harue to support her talk, which

generally indicates giving up the turn, according to Imaishi (1994). However, contrary

to what Imaishi discusses, Harue further stretches her talk in line 8. At this point,

118
 Chapter 4

because of the conjunction “dakatt (dakara)” or “so,” we recognise that she has now

reached her conclusion or the main point of the talk, and realise that her talk up to this

point has functioned as an initiator to arrive at this conclusion. As this example

demonstrates, compared with English, it is relatively harder with talk in Japanese to

project how the turn will be constructed, from its onset. According to Tanaka (1999),

participants recognise the current speaker’s turn completion by either “utterance-final

elements (e.g. final verb suffixes, copulas, final particles and so on)” which highlight

the turn-final verb or predicate component, or by “pronounced prosodic contours.”

Tanaka observes that once the next speaker recognises that the current speaker’s talk has

reached utterance-final elements, they often begin their turn at the onset of the current

speaker’s utterance finals without waiting for the turn to be entirely completed.

Looking at excerpt (15) again, aizuchi by Eri, Natsuki and Keiko towards Harue are

indeed observed at or near TRPs. But they utter aizuchi at other places as well. There

are two types of aizuchi that appear at points other than TRPs. The first one is a place

where Harue seems to check the others if they are following her talk and expect their

response, by stretching and/or stressing phrase endings such as “toka gaa” in line 5 or

rising intonation as “de ne
” in line 4 or directly calling for others’ attention as

Natsuki’s interjection “hora” or “see” in line 1. These places are not TRPs, but are

phrasal completion points. The other place where we observe aizuchi is not related to

the current speaker’s prosody or syntax of the talk (e.g. Eri’s “un” in line 1, Eri’s first

“un” in line 6). Clancy et al. (1996) report that such “midstream” reactive tokens25

(therefore overlapping the current speaker’s talk) are observed more often in Japanese

conversation than their equivalent in English or Mandarin. Though the function of

aizuchi is to show the recipients’ support work towards the current speaker, in my data,

25 In Clancy et al. “reactive token” is used for aizuchi or listener responses.

119
 Chapter 4

some of the occurrences of aizuchi are observed to be used as a trigger to take the next

turn without incurring much conflict with the current speaker. Thus, aizuchi that appear

at other than the expected place in the current speaker’s talk have a potential to develop

into a full turn, which may result in speaker change. Given this, for a multi unit turn

with a number of TCUs in Japanese, due to the difficulty of projection of the turn

construction and completion at early stage, participants are likely to utter aizuchi at or

near every possible TRP as well as at the end of phrasal unit, where the current speaker

checks whether the other participants are with her/him by making a brief pause and/or

using final particle such as “ne” with a rising tone. This may be a cause of the high

number of overlapping utterances in Japanese conversation. A number of cross-cultural

studies (e.g. Maynard, 1986;Maynard, 1993;Ohama and Nishimura, 2005;White, 1989)

also report a substantial frequency difference between aizuchi in Japanese conversation

and their equivalent in English conversation. In this excerpt, it is interesting to note that

most of the aizuchi at or near Harue’s TRPs in her long multi-unit turn are “u-n,” which

primarily show agreement with what she has said in this particular talk, but this aizuchi

form can also function as continuer. Thus, it seems that non-floor holders are also

monitoring the current floor holder’s talk and attempt to project the actual turn

completion while uttering this type of aizuchi.

With these structural and discourse style differences, it is perhaps more useful to

establish a clear set of overlap classification for the analysis of Japanese conversation in

particular, rather than merely applying classifications that originated in studies of

English conversation. Furthermore, classifications of overlap in English themselves

seem to be problematic. Thus, in the next sub-section I will review the previous studies

on overlap in terms of how they are classified and clarify their problems.

120
 Chapter 4

5.2 Overlap classification in previous studies

Overlaps have been discussed from a variety of perspectives. Some studies (e.g.

Jefferson, 1973, 1983;Jefferson and Schegloff, 1975) discuss their orderliness using a

CA approach. Tannen (1981) focuses on overlaps in an analysis of discourse styles in

different cultures, and a number of scholars (e.g. West and Zimmerman,

1983;Zimmerman and West, 1975) investigate overlaps within studies of interruptions

in order to find out gender differences that reflect gender inequality in society. Among

these studies, studies on interruptions primarily concern classification of overlaps

through which researchers try to distinguish interruption from non-interruptive overlaps.

This sub-section focuses therefore on the studies of interruptions in which overlaps are

understood and defined in different ways.

Whatever the grounds, most of the research on overlaps stems from Sacks et al.’s

(1974) discussion of turn-taking organisation. Sacks et al.’s paper has had such an

impact in the field of communication analyses that it is not an exaggeration to claim that

few studies of interruptions / overlaps have not referred to the paper since then.26 As

mentioned earlier in this chapter, their argument for turn-taking organisation is that an

utterance consists of one or more “Turn Constructional Units” (TCU). The TCU is a

syntactically complete unit that is often intonationally marked, and at the end of each

TCU comes a “Transition Relevance Place” (TRP), where a speaker shift may take

place. Thus, a speaker shift that takes place at or near a TRP is regarded as a smooth

speaker shift. In other words, if the next speaker starts her/his turn well before TRP,

then there is assumed to be a turn-taking error or violation. Although Sacks et al.

26 According to an Editorial in the journal "Language" titled "Reviewing our Contents" (Language,
79(3):463), the article is “by far the most-cited article from Language, based on the citation indices, and
is near the top of both the JSTOR list for 2003 and the LSA reprint-request list.”

121
 Chapter 4

(1974) did not directly discuss “turn-taking violation” per se, based on their argument,

such violations, namely interruption, often involving more than one party’s utterance

being overlapped,27 have been investigated by many researchers since then. In studies

of interruptions, researchers therefore often focus on utterances by a non-floor holder

that take place at a point which is far from a TRP, e.g. two syllable(s) away (West and

Zimmerman, 1983). The majority of researchers nowadays agree that amongst these

utterances, there are some that function to support the current floor holder. For

example, it is obvious that backchannel utterances, such as “yeah” or “uh huh,” which

show acknowledgement towards the current floor holder are not interruptions, although

they may be uttered well before a TRP. Hence they are usually excluded from

interruptions. A number of scholars (e.g. Goldberg, 1990; Kennedy and Camden, 1983;

Murata, 1994; Smith-Lovin and Brody, 1989) argue that it is not only backchannel

utterances (as presented above) that support the current floor holder’s talk at non-TRP.

In order for a clear analysis of interruptions, these scholars have attempted to classify

these non-TRP utterances. However, the method of classification varies from study to

study: some focus on their function (e.g. Goldberg, 1990) and others focus on their form

(e.g. Ferguson, 1977). Such an inconsistent way of classification generates incoherent

conclusions among similar studies. James and Clarke (1993) critically review the

literature of gender and interruptions and argue that inconsistent results of male/female

interruptions (i.e. males interrupt more than female or vice versa) are caused by

differing methodologies of individual studies.

The methods of classifying interruptions/overlaps seem to be roughly divided into two

27 Note, however, that not all interruptions are observed in a form of overlap. See James and Clarke
(1993).

122
 Chapter 4

types. The first is to classify them by means of their form (whether the speaker-switch

took place) and reaction of the participants to the incident (e.g. whether the current floor

holder completed her/his turn after being overlapped). Ferguson (1977) devised a

Question-Answer formatted binary flow chart to narrow them down to five categories

(overlap, simple interruption, smooth speaker-switch, silent interruption and butting-in

interruption). Roger, Bull and Smith (1988) critically revised Ferguson and developed a

more detailed flowchart that led to seventeen categories. However, perhaps due to the

complexity of Roger et al.’s system, Ferguson’s method seems to have been employed

more commonly by researchers who use this type of classification (Beattie, 1981;

Marche and Peterson, 1993; Matsuda et al., 1995). The second type of classification of

interruptions / overlaps is to look at the content of the talk starting at a non-TRP and

classify it in terms of its function, i.e. whether it is supportive or negative. For example,

Goldberg (1990) sets three categories of interruptions as “neutral,” “power,” and

“rapport.” A similar approach is observed in Smith-Lovin and Brody (1989), Murata

(1994) and others. As these two types of classification focus on two contrastive aspects

of non-TRP starts, it is difficult to judge which one is more legitimate than the other.

Indeed, some researchers attempt to employ both types of approaches (e.g. Fukazawa,

1999; Smith-Lovin and Brody, 1989).

5.3 Classification problem

As discussed above, interruptions / overlaps have been classified on such different

grounds that it is very hard to compare the results of similar studies. However, the most

problematic issue in terms of classification seems to lie in the incoherent labelling of

“overlap” and “interruption”. On a number of occasions in this section, I have used an

ambiguous reference, “interruptions / overlaps.” This is because not only

123
 Chapter 4

methodologies of classification, but also these essential terms, are understood so

differently by various analysts. Researchers overwhelmingly consider the non-floor

holder’s overlapping utterance that does not intrude into the current speaker’s right of

talk as “overlap,” and the one that intrudes the speaker’s right to talk as “interruption,”

and thereby make a contrast. However, this kind of binary classification is problematic.

As Bennett (1981) argues, these categories are “of logically different types”; that is, the

term “overlap” is descriptive and “interruption” is interpretive. Unlike “overlap”/

“simultaneous speech” which are purely technical and neutral terms, the term

“interruption” itself is a more psychological term carrying a negative connotation. And

if this is the case, then “overlap” should include “overlapped utterance that takes place

in a process of a smooth speaker shift” or “backchannel utterances.” Also, an utterance

that has a supportive function should not be referred to as “interruption.” Nevertheless,

the nature of these terms tends to have been ignored and strangely, the term “overlap”

has been understood more functionally as a counterpart of “interruption” than

technically, and the term “interruption” has been understood more technically to be

picked up as a non-TRP starter than functionally. It is then obvious that the terms such

as “neutral interruptions,” “rapport interruptions” (Goldberg, 1990) or “supportive

interruptions,” “positive interruptions” (Smith-Lovin and Brody, 1989) sound illogical

since they are compound words of two contrastive terms, i.e. the term with

positive/neutral connotation is combined with the term with negative connotation.

Studies of interruptions in Japanese conversation, though few in number, are no

different. Murata (1994) uses the term, “Cooperative Interruptions” in contrast to

“Intrusive Interruptions.” Fukazawa (2000) argues that in Japanese conversation, native

speakers of Japanese tend to interrupt non-native speakers of Japanese in order to

124
 Chapter 4

support the flow of discourse, and Ehara et al. (1984) define the non-floor holder’s reply

that is overlapping the current floor holder’s extended talk, and non-floor holder’s co-

construction of the floor or early response as interruption, and argue that males interrupt

more often than females in different sex dyads. So it is obvious how arbitrary the

understanding of “interruption” and “overlap” are in studies of Japanese

communication. Using the term “interruption” for describing “support work” seems to

be odd and confusing. Thus, support work should be clearly distinguished from a face-

threatening act such as an interruption. Therefore, as defined in section 3 above, the

term “overlap” in this study is a technical term, and “interruption” is viewed as one

function of overlaps28 as shown in Figure 4.2, and should only reflect a negative, and

not a positive act in communication.

Overlap

interruption

Figure 4.2 Relation of overlap and Interruption

5.4 Studies focusing only on overlaps: three different approaches in Japanese

discourse analysis

In the previous two sections, I reviewed how researchers have understood overlaps in

studies of interruptions. However, there are studies that do not focus on interruptions

but purely on overlaps. The aims of such studies are not to prove disproportionate

28 This once again connotes the existence non-overlapping interruptions (i.e. silent interruption), hence
the interruption circle in Figure 4.2 crosses the border of overlap circle.

125
 Chapter 4

power relations between the participants upon which the ideology of current society is

reflected, but to uncover orderliness in their appearance (Jefferson, 1973, 1975, 1983),

or style of conversation by investigating frequency and/or function of overlaps (Fujii,

1997; Hayashi, 1988, 1996; Honda, 1997; Ikoma, 1996; Tannen, 1981). Honda (1997),

Fujii (1997) and Ikoma (1996) in the latter type of study focus on Japanese

conversational data. These studies, published nearly contemporaneously, employ

different typologies of overlap. Although many studies indicate that there are more

overlaps in a Japanese conversation than English (Clancy et al., 1996; Hayashi, 1988,

1996; Horiguchi, 1997; Tanaka, 1999), the studies that discuss overlap thoroughly using

Japanese conversational data are few and much is still to be explored in this field. In

this section, I will review three studies that discuss overlap in Japanese conversations,

and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of approaches adopted by the authors of those

studies. This will assist in the discussion of the categories of overlap used in this study.

5.4.1 Honda’s overlap classification

As a part of a major project on Japanese working women’s discourse style (Gendai

Nihongo Kenkyuu kai—Contemoporary Japanese Language Research Group, 1997),29

Honda analyses overlaps observed in a total of 39 dyadic/multiparty same/mixed sex

conversations in three settings (including informal chat and meetings) recorded by 13

informants for one hour, in which 10 minute extracts are used for the data analysis.

Honda defines “overlap” as a phenomenon in which voices of more than one participant

physically overlap. A sound caused by non-verbal actions, such as clapping,

eating/drinking, walking etc. are excluded. Honda also excludes laughter, talking to

oneself, side talk in a multi-party conversation and aizuchi (narrowly defined as

29 “Josei no kotoba: shokuba hen” (Language of Wemen at work)

126
 Chapter 4

“continuer”) from the analysis, and classifies all overlaps into 6 categories based on the

pattern of overlap occurrence as follows.30

i. toochi / fuka (inversion / addition)

This is caused by the current speaker’s inverted structural order of the talk or

extended talk after a possible completion point (“kekkyoku” in A’s talk in the

example below), which is not predicted by the next speaker. The next speaker

starts talking at the point where s/he judges the current speaker to have

completed her/his talk. Consequently, the beginning of the second speaker’s

talk and the current speaker’s extended talk overlap.

Example:31

A:
Chotto, iya, tsuaa da yo ne [kekkyoku

a little INT tour COP F FP in other words
So, this is a tour, in other words.

B: [a,jaa],kuukoo kara hoteru=

EX then airport from hotel
Oh, then from the airport to the hotel,

= tteiu no wa nande i / ? /
QUOT VN P by what
how are (the tourists?) transported?

A: N, kuukoo kara rentakaa karite.

HES airport from rent-a-car hire
Well, (they) hire a rent-a-car at the airport.

(Honda, 1997:201)

30 Original Japanese terms are shown in italics and my translation to English are in brackets. Explanation
of each category is according to Honda.
31 The original transcript is presented in Japanese with the author’s own transcription convention, which
is not commonly used in DA/CA. There is no context given for each exchange, nor does the author
explain how commas are used. Overlap onsets are given but their resolutions are given only in the talk by
the person who overlaps. Hence, the transcription conventions used in this study have been applied to this
transcription (e.g. overlap onset, unclear utterance etc).

127
 Chapter 4

ii. saki-dori (early completion)

This takes place when a non-speaking participant predicts what the current

speaker is about to say and completes her/his talk at the same time as the

current speaker completes her/his talk. Although Honda does not refer to him,

it seems to be similar to what Lerner calls a “joint completion” (1991).

However, Honda also shows an example in which the second speaker

misinterprets the current speaker’s talk and says something opposite to what

the current speaker was going to say, which cannot be defined as a “joint

completion.”

iii. okure (delay)

This is a case by a delayed second part of an adjacency pair that overlaps the

first part speaker’s new turn.

iv. hayasugi (early start/reaction)

This overlap is caused either by one speaker starting to talk or reacting to the

current speaker’s talk while the current speaker is still talking.

v. warikomi (interruption)

This type of overlap takes place when a current non-speaker ignores the current

speaker and starts talking for the purpose of introducing a new topic or on a

matter not related to the content of the current speaker’s on-going talk.

vi. dooji hatsuwa (simultaneous start)

This means more than one speaker starts talking simultaneously at the current

128
 Chapter 4

speaker’s turn completion point or after a pause.

Honda discusses the function of each type in terms of the construction of

“kyoowa”(Mizutani, 1988), or cooperative talk. According to Honda, “early

completion” and “early start/reaction” contribute to constructing cooperation between

the conversationalists, whereas the other types of overlap somehow concern “turn-

shift.” However, in the latter types of overlap, Honda argues that “delay” may not

contribute to the construction of cooperative talk, but it is not against it either. Also she

argues that “simultaneous start” may develop “cooperative talk.” The largest numbers of

overlaps in her data were “early start/reaction” type. Thus, while considering different

variables such as conversational settings, number of participants, participants’ gender,

relations to each other, age and so on, Honda argues that a moderate number of a certain

types of overlap, such as early completions or early start/reactions, may contribute to

indicate a person’s higher degree of empathy, understanding and interest in the current

speaker’s talk, rather than showing aggressiveness in taking the floor.

From the results of her data analysis, Honda criticises previous studies that regard most

overlaps as interruptions. However, there seem to be a number of problems in her

classification of overlaps. First, despite her definition of “overlap,” Honda does not

refer to an overlap that takes place at a TRP. Whether this kind of overlap is treated as

an “early start” type or not is unknown. If this is the case, then it turns out that Honda

does not seem to consider the issue of TRP. It is obvious that these two overlaps are

different types. Overlap that takes place at a TRP is often observed in a process of

smooth speaker shift. But an early start at well before TRP does not contribute to

smooth speaker shift in cases where it triggers speaker shift, hence should be discussed

129
 Chapter 4

separately. However, Honda appears to neglect this in favour of an argument that “early

start/early completion” overlap contributes to participants’ cooperative communication.

However, whether talk is cooperative or not depends more upon the context of the

communication and how the current speaker reacts towards the overlapping talk. Thus,

it is questionable that this type of overlap can always be regarded as cooperative.

Second, Honda argues that “inversion / tag” type of overlap is related to speaker shift.

However, it may not always be the case. For example, a clarification question type of

utterance, which does not function to take the floor, may take place in this form.

Primarily, this type of overlap is caused by a non-floor holder’s misjudgement of the

current floor holder’s turn completion point. Additionally, the incoming speakers often

do not design their turn as a bid for the floor. Since the current speaker may continue

her/his speech turn, it cannot be argued that this type of overlap is observed in a speaker

shift all the time.

Third, Honda defines “early completion” as talk that completes what the current speaker

was just about to say at the same time as the current speaker completes her/his talk.

However, “early completion” does not always take this form. For instance, it may take

place without overlap (cf: “silent interruption,” Ferguson, 1977) or the current speaker

may stop talking after being overlapped. Whether these cases are regarded as

interruptions or not is a sensitive matter, but at least they need to be discussed

separately. Also, as Honda herself (1997) and Horiguchi (1997) point out, there is a

case when a listener misinterprets the current speaker’s intention and wrongly

completes her/his speech by overlapping. In that case, the current speaker usually

corrects it immediately after the incident. In regard to this, Honda claims that for early

completion overlap, a certain degree of shared knowledge by the participants is

required; in other words, it is hard for these kinds of overlaps to take place without

130
 Chapter 4

participants’ shared knowledge. However, this claim is not supported by the data, hence

lacks authenticity. Considering that these overlaps may function in a negative manner

(i.e. threatening the current speaker’s right to talk), Honda’s argument that “early

completion” contributes to cooperative talk once again seems to have been made a bit

too hastily.

These problems seem to be rooted in the same ground. As her core argument, i.e. most

overlaps are cooperative, is related to speaker shift, it is necessary to present a

mechanism of speaker shift in a conversation. However, Honda, who refers to only a

few previous studies, ignores this issue, which weakens her argument.

To summarise, Honda’s classification of overlaps is consistent in terms of focusing on

their occurrence. However, she does not examine the variations of individual categories

in depth, nor does she present a clear view of a mechanism of speaker shift which

becomes a key to her discussion, thus it would have to be pointed out that her

observation of overlaps is imprecise in relation to participants’ cooperativeness.

5.4.2 Fujii’s overlap classification

Fujii investigated overlaps in 12 naturally occurring informal multi-party conversations

in single sex groups (male/female groups) of varying length (i.e. 4-7 minutes), as well

as several other multi-party conversations in different settings.32 Fujii’s approach to

overlap classification is very different from Honda’s (1997). The most notable

difference is that she first looked at the point of each overlap occurrence and classified

32 Fujii collected the data in order to find out how setting affects overlaps. As this section focuses on
overlap classification, her discussion of overlaps in terms of setting is not presented.

131
 Chapter 4

them into three groups: “shuuryoo minashi gata (turn-completion predicted overlap)33”,

“warikomi gata (interruptive overlap)”, and “dooji kaishi gata (simultaneous start).”

Fujii recognises that “turn-completion predicted overlap” and “simultaneous start” take

place incidentally, whereas, “interruptive overlap” involves the participant’s intention to

start a turn. Also, in her data, the most frequently observed overlap type was

interruptive overlaps (61.1%). Thus, Fujii excludes incidental overlaps together with

short aizuchi that merely function as “continuers” (e.g. uun, fuun) and focuses her

analysis only on the “interruptive overlap.” Fujii further divides the interruptive

overlaps into three functional categories:

i) choowa-kei (harmonic)

Similar to Honda, Fujii considers “kyoowa or cooperative talk” (Mizutani,

1988) in her analysis. Following Mizutani’s argument that the speaker, while

talking in a Japanese conversation, expects the listener’s immediate reaction

which supports her/his current talk, Fujii places short utterances including

repetition, unison and short aizuchi that function as agreement, understanding,

evaluation, sympathy and reply in this category. In this category, the

conversational topic and the current floor holder’s floor is maintained thus

allowing the current floor holder to complete her/his turn after being

overlapped.

ii) choosei-kei (adjusting)

In this category, an overlapping utterance seeks further information (e.g.

clarification question) or adjusts what has just been said (e.g. repair /

33 This takes the form of terminal overlap, where the next speaker overlaps the very last syllable (or two)
of the first speaker’s talk.

132
 Chapter 4

correction, supplementation) in order to contribute to the ongoing

communication for better understanding. Thus, the topic of the conversation

may slightly change but the current floor holder’s floor is maintained. Fujii

argues that making immediate adjustments is more effective in keeping the

ongoing conversational topic on track and in showing high involvement than

adjustment at the end of turn. Floor bidding such as “iya,” “dakara” etc. and

talking to oneself are also included in this category.

iii) dokuritsu-kei (independent)

This type of overlap causes floor shift (from the current floor holder to the

person who has overlapped). Longer utterances of summarising the topic, new

topic introductions, and utterances that move the conversation back to the

previous topic are included in this type. According to Fujii, they tend to be

uttered slowly at higher volume with floor bidding signals such as “dakara,”

“demo,” “ano ne” etc. These overlaps therefore appear to give a negative and

face-threatening reaction towards the current floor holder. However, Fujii

reports that most of this type of overlap (over 70%) are suggestions/summaries

/ offers that can be beneficial to the current floor holder, hence, they are

positively accepted.

Given that the Harmonic and Adjusting overlaps cover over 80 % of the total number of

overlaps in this interruptive overlap category, and that among the approximately 20 %

of independent overlaps, over 70 % of the overlaps contribute positively to the

conversation, Fujii argues that in informal conversation among friends, the majority of

the overlaps shows the participants’ solidarity, and function to promote and facilitate the

133
 Chapter 4

ongoing conversation for deeper understanding of each other.

Compared to Honda (1997), Fujii’s overlap classification, which consists of two stages

(first, distinguishing intentional overlaps from incidental ones; second, categorising

according to their functions) seems to be more consistent and straightforward. By

focusing only on one of the overlapping forms (i.e. interruptive overlap), Fujii seems to

avoid a number of problems that are observed in Honda. However, some points may

need to be considered. First, Fujii recognises “shuuryoo minashi gata (turn-completion

anticipated overlap)” and “dooji kaishi gata (simultaneous start)” as incidental.

“Simultaneous start,” can be regarded as a purely incidental overlap, since it is a result

of more than one speaker self-selecting to be the next speaker, though they can be

competitive for the next floor once it happens. But there are doubts about whether

“turn-completion anticipated overlap” is incidental. From the examples she presents of

overlap occurrences, Fujii uses this term to indicate terminal overlap. However,

considering how she labels this type of overlap, she may have included overlaps that

take place earlier than at the very end of the current speaker’s turn. If so, then there is a

greater possibility that the participant who overlaps the current speaker has strategically

started early in order to take the next floor without producing any conflict with another

speaker. In other words, smooth speaker shift does not merely occur incidentally. It may

not be an exaggeration to say that the participants who want to say something are

always seeking a chance to start talking while actively listening to the current speaker.

The best way to take the floor is in a form of smooth speaker shift. Thus, this kind of

overlap may well be intentional. Unfortunately, Fujii’s examples are not from the actual

data but ones that she created, and she does not discuss this type of overlap any further.

Second, her term of “warikomi gata (interruptive overlap)” is problematic. As discussed

134
 Chapter 4

in the previous section, the term “interruption” carries negative connotation. Hence,

using “interruption” in labelling a formal category (based on an overlap onset point) is

best avoided.

Third, Fujii argues that most of the independent overlaps are beneficial to the current

speaker, hence, they are positively accepted. A question then arises how people feel

when being overlapped? As Fujii argues, is it the case that most individuals welcome

overlap?

There may be the case that participants compete for the next floor with overlaps that

look perfectly supportive on the surface. As Ehara et al. (1984) and Yamazaki and

Yoshii (1994) point out, people are often not conscious of “interrupting” or “being

interrupted” in daily conversation, as such acts are often socially embedded.34 However,

the social structure that conditions people to automatically process such unnoticed

interruptions seems to be more problematic. Thus, we also need to be concerned about

cases in which a person expresses something or does continue her/his speech turn but is

positively overlapped by early response/reaction, before her/his turn completion most of

the time.

5.4.3 Ikoma’s overlap classification

Ikoma (1996) investigated overlaps in three informal dyadic conversations (two hours

long in total) between female friends (six participants in total). Her approach to

overlap classification is similar to Fujii in terms of focusing on the point of overlap

onset initially. Similar to Fujii, Ikoma proposes three types of overlap onset;

34 The point of their discussion is that Japanese society is male dominated, which also reflects people’s
daily communication, such as females tending to be interrupted more by males, communication often
being controlled by males and so on. Furthermore, and the most problematic issue, is that people do not
recognise such discriminative interaction between males and females, rather they feel the communication
to be quite natural.

135
 Chapter 4

simultaneous starts, starts at the end of the current speaker’s talk, and starts in the midst

of the current speaker’s talk. While Fujii focused only on the overlap that occurs in the

midst of the current speaker’s talk (i.e. interruptive overlap in Fujii’s term), Ikoma

looked at all of these types of overlaps. After classifying overlaps according to the point

of their onset, Ikoma further divided them into three groups in terms of the overlapping

participant’s awareness of causing overlap; 1) incidental overlap, 2) predictive overlap,

and 3) involuntary overlap. According to Ikoma, the incidental overlap is an overlap

that takes place without the overlapping participants predicting it; predictive overlap is

an overlap for which the overlapping person more or less has perceived that her/his start

would cause overlap prior to her/his start; and involuntary overlap is an overlap which

is caused by the overlapping participant’s talk, but does not claim the turn, hence,

according to Ikoma, is not paid great attention by the participants.

Following the two steps of classification, Ikoma presents nine categories of overlap,

each of which she further labels in terms of the overlap function as shown below35:

1. guuhatsu-teki (Incidental)

I simultaneous start

*Simultaneous start

II start at the end of the current speaker’s talk

*(current speaker’s) addition of optional talk36

III start in the midst of the current speaker’s talk

*misjudging TRP

35 Translated from the original with some modifications. The original is presented in a table.
36 This is what Honda refers to as “toochi or inversion of structural order of the talk” or “fuka or
addition” which takes place after the grammatical completion of the current speaker’s talk. Thus, the
overlap takes place by the overlapping participant’s misjudgement of the current speaker’s turn
completion, and nothing appears different from “misjudging TRP.”

136
 Chapter 4

2. yosoku-teki (Predictive)

I simultaneous start

*simultaneous start for the purpose of intervening in the

current speaker’s attempt to start talking.

II start at the end of the current speaker’s talk

*prediction of the current speaker’s end of talk

III start in the midst of the current speaker’s talk

*interruption

i. prediction of the rest of the current speaker’s talk

ii giving priority to own talk over the current

speaker’s talk

iii intervention in the current speaker’s talk

iv fukuji-teki taan (side turn)

e.g. question, comment, information supply,

paraphrasing etc. which temporally stops

the current speaker’s talk, though the talk

continues afterwards.

3. muishiki-teki (involuntary)

I, II, III Overlap that does not claim the next turn.

*backchannels

*talk to oneself

Given that the majority of overlaps in Japanese are aizuchi, which Ikoma regards as

involuntary overlaps, in order to focus her study on conscious overlap (i.e. predictive

137
 Chapter 4

overlap in her term), Ikoma excluded aizuchi from the analysis, but there were still a

total of 414 overlaps in her data set. Though Ikoma shows a number of overlaps in each

category, she does not analyse overlaps quantitatively. Rather from her qualitative

analysis, she suggests that there are two types of overlap that affect the flow of

conversation.37 The one is to promote the flow of conversation. Honda includes

predictive overlaps in this type, apart from ones that are intervening in the current

speaker’s talk. The other type of overlap negatively affects the flow of conversation in

which Ikoma lists misjudging the TRP and simultaneous start, which often stops a

current speaker’s talk or causes competition for the right to talk. From the large number

of overlaps and the friendly atmosphere of the conversations, Ikoma confirms the

claims made in previous studies (e.g. Sasaki, 1994 cited in Ikoma, 1996) that overlaps

contribute to the construction of rapport among the participants, and she argues that

even an occurrence of overlap that negatively affects the flow of conversation may

implicate an open and relaxed atmosphere in the communication. Overall, Ikoma’s

findings are similar to Fujii’s and Honda’s, that observe overlap to function positively

in Japanese language conversation.

However, we need to note that this study is once again limited to informal conversations

among close friends. Ikoma reports that she did not find any overlap that intervenes in

the current speaker’s ongoing talk in her data, which seems to be possible considering

the nature of this type of conversation. However, it also seems to be due to her

classification of overlaps. First, Ikoma does not clearly state what is regarded as an

intervention in the talk. She defines a category of overlap that gives priority to starting

one’s own talk over current speaker’s ongoing talk. This kind of overlap ignores the

37 Ikoma also mentions “neutral overlap” which does not affect the flow of the ongoing conversation. She
includes an addition of optional talk and talk to oneself in this type.

138
 Chapter 4

current speaker’s intention, hence possibly intervenes in her/his ongoing talk. Second,

Ikoma does not exemplify simultaneous starts with the purpose of intervening in the

ongoing floor. Unless there is a cue, such as audibly breathing in or eye-contact,

simultaneous starts are considered to occur incidentally. However, Ikoma does not

mention such cues, thus it is unclear what cases she thought of for this category.

Furthermore, what she defines as simultaneous talk also seems to be unclear, since one

piece of data presented as a simultaneous start is not actually a simultaneous start, as

there is a small gap between the two utterance beginnings. Without any examples, it is

hard to come to a full understanding of the nature of the overlap category, and this lack

of information weakens her argument.

One other concern with her study is once again the omission of aizuchi from the

analysis. Although Ikoma argues that aizuchi are uttered involuntarily, she does not

clarify what she defines as aizuchi, and however she defines it, it is doubtful whether all

aizuchi are involuntarily uttered. The function of aizuchi in Japanese varies (Horiguchi,

1991, 1997; Matsuda, 1988; Maynard, 1986; Maynard, 1993; Szatrowski, 1993) and it

is likely that some aizuchi are uttered intentionally (Nagata, 2004).38 If such a case is

observed, then it should be included in the analysis.

As in Honda and Fujii, Ikoma’s study also seems to be conclusive in terms of

demonstrating the contribution of overlap to communication in Japanese, but her

classification of overlaps and definition of overlap categories do not seem to be clear

and consistent.

In this section, three studies of overlaps in Japanese conversation were reviewed. The

approaches taken by Honda (1997) and Fujii (1997) are different from each other;

38 This type of aizuchl utterances will be discussed in chapter 6.

139
 Chapter 4

Honda considered almost all overlaps, whereas Fujii targeted only “interruptive

overlaps,” but they both followed the notion of Mizutani’s “kyoowa” or cooperative talk

as one of the characteristics of the Japanese conversation39, and they both reached the

conclusion that most overlaps in Japanese conversation40 function positively to promote

the ongoing conversation and enhance solidarity among participants. Indeed, it is

assumed that a large number of overlaps observed in a Japanese conversation are due to

the nature of the Japanese conversation that talk is constructed by participants’

cooperation (i.e. a current speaker expects hearer(s) to react after a short interval by

uttering aizuchi or other supportive utterances in order to confirm that everybody is

keeping on the same conversational track). To find out whether these overlaps always

contribute to the smooth flow of the conversation requires further analysis. For instance,

when categorising overlaps, not just their forms (e.g. early start) or positions of

occurrences (e.g. terminal overlap) but their functions (e.g. evaluation) and effect on the

floor (e.g. whether floor shift took place or not) need to be considered. It may also be

useful to investigate strategic usage of these overlaps.

6. Conclusion

This chapter began with a consideration of the nature of natural conversation. Natural

conversation is not like what we observe in TV drama, where each character talks in

39 This does not mean there is no or little cooperative talk in English. Indeed a number of studies in terms
of co-participant completion in English are available (e.g. Lerner, 1991). However, due to different
syntax organisation (i.e. clauses in Japanese conversation are build bit by bit) , co-participant completion
in Japanese take the form of “terminal item completion” rather than form the second part of the
syntactically defined two parts (i.e. If X, then Y). Thus, turn-projection is done bit by bit, which produces
more co-participant completion. This seems to make the researcher point out the characteristics of
Japanese conversation as cooperative talk. See Hayashi(1999) for the discussion of Japanese co-
participant completion in comparison with English.
40 Fujii ‘s study is limited to an informal chat. Honda also looked at the conversations at work related
meeting, but does not seem to find any difference from informal chats.

140
 Chapter 4

turn, rather it includes various types of vocal sounds apart from the main talk (e.g.

listener responses, laughter, coughs, sneezes etc.) and they often appear as a form of

overlap. Analysing such units of talk forming overlap is the aim of the study. In order to

analyse overlaps in a natural conversation, the first task was to define the terms “turn”

and “floor,” since it is crucial to clarify the ownership of each overlap (i.e. who overlaps

whom) to discuss its function. Unfortunately, although “turn” has been discussed by

many researchers in various ways, “floor” has not been discussed much, and many

researchers seem to confuse these two terms, which usually means that who has the turn

has the floor. In section 2, having considered previous researchers’ understanding of

these terms, such as Edelsky (1981), Hayashi (1988, 1996), Sacks et al.(1974), Tanaka

(1999), “turn” and “floor” were defined in order to make a clear distinction between

them. The definitions of these terms, however, are aiming at the overlap analysis, hence,

“floor” has been defined locally in terms of the speaker’s right to speak, and “turn” has

been defined as an utterance, including aizuchi, that conveys some message.

Based on the definitions of “turn,” “floor,” and other terms used in the study, section 3

defined “overlap” as a technical phenomenon where more than one utterance is heard

simultaneously. Then the discussion moved on to focus more on overlaps in section 4.

Section 4 focused its discussion on overlaps that are specifically observed in a multi-

party conversation. Unlike a dyadic conversation, a multi-party conversation includes

several complicated overlap types caused by, for example more than one aizuchi uttered

at the same time, an utterance being targeted at a specific party, a floor being shared by

two participants and so on. These observations indeed extended the categories of

overlaps in this study. Section 5 reviewed how overlaps had been understood and

classified in the previous literature. A problem with the previous literature is that the

majority dealt with “overlap” at the same level as “interruption.” Since “overlap” is

141
 Chapter 4

solely a technical term, it can not be in a binary relationship with “interruption,” which

is a functional term. Due to this very basic misunderstanding, overlap has been

variously understood and classified differently from study to study. Studies on overlaps

in Japanese conversations are not exceptions to this. Therefore, establishment of my

own overlap classification is necessary, rather than following others’ frameworks.

Based on the discussion in this chapter, I will present the classification of overlaps

developed for this study in the next chapter.

142
 Chapter 5

Chapter 5 Overlap classification in this study

1. Introduction

In Chapter 4, I discussed how overlaps have been understood and analysed in previous

studies. As for studies on overlap in Japanese conversation, a few available studies

(Fujii, 1997; Honda, 1997; Ikoma, 1996) have been reviewed. Although they reached a

similar conclusion that overlaps in Japanese conversation contribute to constructing a

lively conversation and promote participants’ rapport, their classification methods vary.

One of the reasons for the lack of consistency in overlap classification seems to lie in

the different focus placed upon the different overlap features. Some studies primarily

focus on where overlap occurred while others focus more on the function of overlap.

Fujii (1997) discusses three functions of overlaps, choowa-kei (harmonic), choosei-

kei(adjusting) and dokuritsu-kei (independent) but her discussion is limited to the

overlaps that take place in the midst of the current speaker’s talk. Ikoma (1996)

investigated overlaps from both their position of occurrence and their function.

However, some categories are not exemplified and all aizuchi (listener response tokens)

are excluded from her analysis since she believes them to be uttered subconsciously.

Honda (1997) discusses overlaps from the point of view of what causes them. However,

there is some inconsistency in that some categories are more focused on their function

(e.g. interruption) and some are more focused on their position of occurrence. Also, the

term interruption is narrowly understood so as to ignore the topical content of the

current speaker’s talk, and is not discussed from the point of “the right to speak” or

“floor.” Similar to Fujii, Honda excluded aizuchi from her analysis. To be precise, Fujii

states that she excluded aizuchi that functions only as a “continuer,” and Honda defines

a short utterance that functions as a “continuer” as aizuchi. In other words, while Fujii

143
 Chapter 5

seems to admit the existence of other aizuchi than “continuer,“ Honda does not seem to

allow aizuchi to have other functions than “continuer.” This is due to inconsistent views

among researchers in their understanding of aizuchi in terms of form and function. This

raises the importance of clarifying the definition of aizuchi when discussing overlaps.

As I will discuss later in this chapter, aizuchi largely contributes in promoting the flow

of conversation in Japanese. The function varies and even aizuchi that looks as if it is

functioning as a “continuer” on the surface may have a different underlying function.

Thus, rather than ignoring their occurence, it would be more beneficial to treat aizuchi

as forms of overlap and analyse each of them according to the context of

communication.

Although looking at its form (including the position of occurrence) and its function are

both important when classifying overlap, for clearer and coherent classification, the

primary focus should be given only to one of these two. Overlap classification in this

study primarily concerns its function. The rest of this chapter discusses first, the

relevance of functional-oriented classification, then, presents how overlaps are

classified. The individual category will be explained with an example from the collected

data.

2. Overlap classification: Formal vs Functional

This section discusses the relevance of focusing the criteria of overlap classification

primarily according to function. Although the form / position of their occurrence also

needs to be considered, the function of an overlap seems to precede its form in terms of

understanding what is actually going on in the interaction, with which the participants

are first and foremost concerned in conversation. To validate this argument, I will

144
 Chapter 5

present a few examples below. First, the following example concerns overlap that took

place at the end of the first current speaker’s talk, which is Suwako’s turn in line 3.

(16) Looking for a flatmate (H-2, modified)

Harue is talking to Suwako and Fumie about her former flatmate Miyako who will be temporary staying
at her unit before leaving the country and Miyako’s current position at work will be taken over by Asako
who is also an acquaintance of Harue and Suwako.

1 H: dakara:s (0.1) izure: rokugatsu no hajime kasono gurai=

so in future June P beginning or that about
So, in future, at the beginning of June or around that time
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = niwa kanojo ga uchi ni [shi shibaraku kuru no] wa[katten=
P P she P home P for a while come VN know VN
I know that she will be staying at my place for a while
S:

F: [A a s o o ka fun fun ] [A Asako=

aizuchi aizuchi EX Asako
(understanding) Oh Asako
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = no ne ] [u n s o]onano [soo nano] [ne
P FP yeah that COP P that COP P FP
you know. Yeah that’s right, that’s right

S: [Asako san tteno=
Asako ADD QUOT P
Asako is
F: = chan ga]hiki[tsugu no] [fu - n]
ADD P take over FP aizuchi
will take it over? (understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: [/ ? /]un [hotsugyoo suru no]=
yes graduate do FP
yeah she is graduating

S: = wa koko de Law yatte[ta hito] u[ - n ]

P here p Law was doing personQ aizuchi
the person who was studying Law here? (understanding)

F: [sotsu[gyoo desho kotoshi]

Graduate COP this year
She is graduating this year isn’t she?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

145
 Chapter 5

5 H: = kotoshi [soosoo [de sotsugyoo] to dooji] ni irekawarede(…)

this year yesyes and graduate P same time P take over
this year yeah, and upon her graduation, she will take over(the position)

S: [fu - n ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: [un un u n ]
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this excerpt, Harue is the main floor holder, and Suwako and Fumie have the roles of

listeners. The problematic case is Suwako’s utterance in lines 3-4. The utterance takes

an interrogative form. Suwako is asking whether Asako is the person who used to study

Law at the institution where the three participants work. The question is whether this

utterance is to be labelled as “smooth speaker shift with a terminal overlap” or not.

According to Fujii’s classification (1997), this is regarded as a “turn-completion

predicted overlap” and would therefore not be considered by her. How Honda (1997)

dealt with a case like this is unknown, since she does not discuss speaker shift in

regards to TRP. I assume she would have dealt with such case as an “early start.”

Ikoma’s (1996) classification is the same as Fujii’s: it falls into a “turn-completion

predictive overlap.” Perhaps the issue here concerns the notion of floor and turn again.

Although Suwako’s utterance is a full turn and speaker shift takes place smoothly in the

form of terminal overlap, she does not seem to compete against Harue over the

conversational floor. Rather, by this question, Suwako is trying to obtain further

information about Asako. In other words, Suwako takes a turn without claiming the

floor.1 In fact, upon Suwako’s question, Harue replies and subsequently continues with

the floor. Thus, this utterance is more appropriately labelled as a “clarification question”

which encourages the current floor holder (Harue) to confirm and explain further for

1 Of course, at the beginning of Suwako’s talk in line 3, it is not possible for the other participants to
recognise whether her turn is a floor. It is only recognised at the end of her talk that this is a clarification
question as it ends with a rising tone.

146
 Chapter 5

better understanding. In this sense, the function of Suwako’s utterance is “choosei-kei or

adjusting overlap” in Fujii (1997). As this example has shown, we may need to

recognise that utterances that appear as smooth speaker shift may not be a floor holder

shift but can have different functions. Suwako’s talk in lines 3-4 functions to support

Harue’s current floor, rather than to claim the floor. But there is also the case that this

form of overlap (i.e. one that takes place in a TRP) is regarded as smooth speaker shift,

but does not actually support the current speaker’s floor. Masao’s talk in the following

exchange in the business meeting exemplifies such a case.

(17) How to invest in Australia (Sa-1)

Sachiko and Masao, who run a community magazine, are at a business meeting with Yoshida, who is
representing a real estate agent. They have been talking about how they encourage Japanese people to
invest in a property in Australia. Sachiko says that people want to invest but do not know how to start.

1 Sa: Tada(0.1) [ano: (0.4) shiranai dakeda to omou n [desu.

only HES know not onlyCOP QUOT thinkVN COP
Only um (they) don’t know it, I think.

M: [Soo [shira=
aizuchi know
(agreement) (they)don’t
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: Minasa[n ] Shiranai [doo] yatte=
everyone know not how do
Everyone (they) don’t know how to do it.

M: = [nai/yo/ ] [shi]ranai mon [ett]

not FP know not VN aizuchi
know. (they) don’t know. (agreement)

Y: [soo desu] ne:

that COP FP
Indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = (0.3) yari [tai] keredo:~/iya/shi tara ii[no tte:
do want but but do CON good FP QUOT
(They) want to do it but do not know how to do it

M: [ee ] [De kyoo mo:=

aizuchi and today also
(agreement) And today,

Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

147
 Chapter 5

4 Sa: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(continuer)

M: = so[no sakki no] Nagoya no ne
(0.1) kanari ano: bokujoo=

that before P Nagoya P FP very much HES farm
that person in Nagoya I just mentioned, (the person) has a big =
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa:

M: = motte n desu yo. Sore Nagoya no hito de:
(…)

have VN COP FP that Nagoya P person and
farm. That person is from Nagoya.

Y: Hai
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Masao’s second utterance in line 3 starts by slightly overlapping with the end of

Sachiko’s utterance. When looking at this utterance by focusing on the overlap onset, it

looks as if smooth speaker shift has taken place. However, if we focus on the content of

Masao’s talk in that utterance, it turns out that it is not directly cohesive to what

Sachiko said right before Masao started his talk. Sachiko ‘s point was that since people

want to invest but do not know how to start, it would be beneficial to inform them about

it, though the latter part has not been said due to Masao’s overlap. Before this exchange,

there is a moment when Yoshida shows a slight concern for his name being published,

since he has disclosed some dubious tricks in terms of property investment. Thus, both

Masao and Sachiko have been encouraging Yoshida to cooperate with them for the

article. Sachiko’s talk in lines 1-3 is thus part of the encouragement. However, Masao

does not directly align with Sachiko, but introduces a new topic about a person in

Nagoya who seems to be very rich and may be interested in the investment. After this

exchange, Masao says that he informed this person about Yoshida and their project (i.e.

introducing an article about how to invest in their magazine). Although both Sachiko

and Masao are trying to explain to Yoshida how beneficial their project would be, their

approaches are totally different: Sachiko’s approach focuses on public interest and

148
 Chapter 5

Masao focuses on one individual’s interest. This difference is made not by Sachiko, but

by Masao, who talks after Sachiko. Considering Masao’s accelerated number of aizuchi

(i.e. “shiranai yo,” “shiranai mon,” “ett” and “ee” in lines 1-3, it can be assumed that

Masao is conveying that what Sachiko has said is already known to him (see his

emphasising ending such as “yo” as well as “mon”), hence is not in Masao’s immediate

interest. Note also how Masao’s aizuchi shift from the one that carry a specific

linguistic meaning (i.e. shiranai yo and shiranai mon, (they) do not know) to the form

of aizuchi term (i.e. et and ee), which may also suggest his interest in the topic becomes

weaker, and that he is waiting for the opportunity to take the next floor with these

aizuchi. In this sense, Masao’s utterance in line 3 is not functionally supportive of

Sachiko.

Similar to this example, some terminal overlaps or overlaps near turn completion point

may not contribute to a smooth development of a conversation but may be competitive

turns to what the previous speaker is saying. In order to understand what is actually

going on between the participants in a conversation, the function of each utterance

needs to be carefully examined. In studies of overlap / interruption, it is common to

investigate an overlap onset and its conclusion, and terminal overlaps and overlaps near

turn completion are regarded as taking place in a process of smooth speaker shift, hence

a closer examination is often neglected. But focusing only on their formal features and

dismissing them from further analysis may result in a misinterpretation of the

relationship between participants and the conversation itself. Therefore, though taking

account of the formal features of overlap (or position of overlap occurrence), it seems to

be more relevant to focus on their functional features when analysing overlaps.

149
 Chapter 5

3 Method of classification

3.1 Overlap by non-floor holder and floor holder

As mentioned in the previous chapter, overlap involves two or more persons: one who

overlaps and the other who is overlapped, or simultaneous start. This study focuses the

former type of overlap, and the categories in this study set out from the viewpoint the

person who overlaps, since a function of overlap is engendered by the one who overlaps

rather than by the one who is overlapped. It tends to be thought that overlaps are caused

by one or more non-floor holders who are listening to the current floor holder.

However, overlap can actually be caused by either current floor holder or the non-floor

holder, or even by both simultaneously. Cases of current floor holder overlapping non-

floor holder include for example current floor holder extending her/his turn after a brief

pause during which a non-floor holder speaks, reacting to non-floor holder’s listener

responses, or attempting to hold her/his floor in the face of competition for the floor and

so on. Thus, I first sorted all overlaps according to the overlapping person’s current

situation in terms of the ownership of the floor (i.e. whether the person holds the floor

nor not). For simultaneous starts, most cases are either simultaneous start at TRP with

more than one speaker selecting themselves as the next speaker, and/or two non-floor

holder’s listener responses. Though at first I attempted to classify these overlaps

functionally, in a multi-party conversation, the more persons participate, the more

complex it is to classify simultaneous starts (e.g. simultaneously starting does not

always involve the same number of participants; not all of the utterances in the

simultaneous start seem to carry the same function). As a result, there seemed to be no

consistency in their classification. Thus, whether the overlap took place between the

floor holder and non-floor holder or not, I have counted them but have excluded them

from the analysis. However, if the overlaps with simultaneous onset overlap the talk of

150
 Chapter 5

other participants, then each of the overlaps will be analysed. For example, in the case

of the following extract (7), discussed in Chapter 4, simultaneously started aizuchi by

Suwako and Fumie will not be analysed as a simultaneously started overlap, but each

aizuchi will be analysed as overlapping aizuchi towards Harue.

(7) Tokyo Roll

Harue explains to Suwako and Fumie how she went to a sushi bar, Tokyo Roll. The following extract
follows exchange (3) above, where Fumie asks whether Harue went there by car.

1 H: Nanka yooji ga atte QVB ka nanka ni [tometa] no.

AP engagement P exist QVB or something P parked FP
I had some sort of engagement and I parked my car at QVB or something.

S: [u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: [u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2 Bottom up functional classification

After sorting all overlaps into either non-floor holder’s overlap or floor holder’s

overlap, I classified them functionally. This study took a bottom-up method to

classifying overlap. That is, rather than setting categories based on previous literature

and examining their feasibility by applying them to the data, I analysed all overlaps in a

conversational data set and sorted them according to their functional features to set out a

number of categories. For this task, I first chose an informal multi-party conversation of

about 20 minutes, in which 569 overlaps are observed. After setting up categories of

overlaps from the selected conversational data, all overlaps in the remaining five

conversations in the data set were analysed and sorted into each category.

During this classification process, there were, of course, overlaps that did not appear to

fit with any of the set categories. Such overlaps were marked and reanalysed, and when

151
 Chapter 5

common features were observed among a certain number of overlaps, a new category

was created. This procedure was repeated until the classification was finalised. For

some functions that are realised by more than one form of overlap, formal categories are

set as a sub category of the functional category.

Although there are exceptions, I observed that there are basically two major types of

overlap that contrast with each other: the first is where a speaker cooperates with the

person being overlapped, and the second is where the speaker competes with the person

being overlapped for the floor. For overlaps that concern neither cooperation nor

competition (e.g. misjudging turn completion), I have also set a “neutral” category.

Utterances that have been initially excluded from the analysis, such as laughter, or if the

number of a certain function is extremely small (i.e. less than three), these are classified

as “others.” For the rest of this chapter, I will discuss each category with some examples

from the data.

4. Overlap category

4.1 Overlap by non-floor holder

I start with overlap by non-floor holders, since these overlaps are more often observed

than ones by a floor holder in a multi-party conversation, and there is also a greater

range of functions. Below, I first discuss cooperative types of overlap that support the

current floor holder’s talk. This type of overlaps includes “aizuchi,” “clarification

question,” “and information supply,” “early reply” and “other completion.” Then I

move on to competitive overlap that causes the involved party to compete for the floor.

This type of overlaps include “floor bidding” and “interruption.” And finally, I will

introduce a neutral category including “misjudging of turn completion” and “new turn

152
 Chapter 5

at TRP.”

There are functions that are generally understood as cooperative but can also be

competitive. However, such overlaps will be discussed in the next chapter, and in this

chapter, each overlap is discussed in its primary function only.

4.1.1 Cooperative overlap

4.1.1.1 aizuchi

A typical example of cooperative overlap is one caused by one or more non- or sub-

floor holders’ aizuchi towards the main floor holder. Though I have already used the

term aizuchi a number of times for a Japanese translation of brief listener responses or

backchannels, I hereby clarify aizuchi in terms of its definition and its role in

conversation.

Unlike “backchannels,” this term was not created by a linguist, but has traditionally

been recognised and widely used in Japan. “Aizuchi” means “hammering (tsuchi)

together (ai).” The origin of the term comes from the work of smiths who work in pairs

to make swords by hammering iron in turn. Differences in the establishment of the term

for reference to such listeners’ short utterances in Japanese and English may be

associated with their conversational style difference: aizuchi frequency in Japanese is

higher than their equivalent in English (Clancy et al., 1996; Maynard, 1986; Maynard,

1989, 1993; Ohama and Nishimura, 2005; White, 1989). As previously discussed,

aizuchi greately contribute to the development of conversation in Japanese convesation.

Aizuchi do not necessarily overlap the current floor holder’s speech as in the following

example with Yoshida’s “un” and “u-n” in lines 1-2.

153
 Chapter 5

(18) How to invest in Australia 2 (Sa-1)

In a business meeting, Masao explains to his client Yoshida how much Japanese people are currently
interested in real estate in Australia.

1 Sa:

M: Bunka-teki nimo majiwatte iku tte baai ni kiniitta=

culturely P P associate go QUOT case P liked
In the case of their getting associated(with Australian culture)they may like it.

Y: un
aizuchi
(continuer)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa:

M: = to. Ne, sorede koko ni ie o mochi tai nante =

QUOT REC and here P home P have want QUOT
You know, then, some of them might like to buy a house here

Y: u-n
aizuchi

(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa:

M: = detekuru to omou yo.

emerge QUOT think FP
I think.
Y: Sorya soo deshoo ne.
that is that way COP FP
I believe so, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this Business Talk, Yoshida’s aizuchi tends to appear without overlapping the current

floor holder’s talk. This may due to the social distance between him and the couple,

which may have made Yoshida interact in a polite manner such as listening to the other

party’s talk carefully. However, due to lack of data, its universality cannot be argued.

As this example shows, although there are overlaps that do not overlap the current floor

holder’s talk, many aizuchi do appear as overlaps. As this study focuses on overlapping

speech, aizuchi that do not overlap are excluded from the aizuchi category in this study.

There are a variety of functions in aizuchi and some aizuchi may have more than one

function or may be used strategically (e.g. to initiate a floor shift). However aizuchi

154
 Chapter 5

here are classified in their primary function, that is to support / cooperate with the

current floor holder. Those strategically used aizuchi will be discussed in Chapter 6.

What utterances are specifically regarded as aizuchi varies from study to study.2 The

term aizuchi in this study is used in a broad sense that includes “aizuchi term” and other

utterances that function as aizuchi. The form of aizuchi-term includes short utterances

such as the following:

hai, ee, un, fun / soo / sooka, haa, hee, hoo, fuun /nn, aa / soo desu ka, soo desu

ne, naruhodo, honto

Many of these terms convey various meanings depending upon the context of the

ongoing conversation and their tone and intonation. Their meaning will be discussed

under each function. Because of the lack of direct English equivalent for many of these

terms, instead of presenting a direct translation in English, the function of individual

aizuchi is presented in the transcripts for these aizuchi. Other utterance formations that

function as aizuchi include i) repetition; ii) paraphrasing; iii) unison; and iv) echo. A

brief explanation of each formation is as follows:

i) Repetition

“Repetition” refers to an utterance that repeats a part or whole of the current floor-

holder’s turn, as in Harue’s, “Mienai ka” towards Fumie in the following exchange;

(19) Missing linen (H-2)

Fumie is talking to Harue and Suwako about her linen that was taken by one of her neighbours. She
explains that she asked the neighbours about the linen without realising that it had been put on the
laundry line again, since she did not go down to the laundry line before knocking at their doors.

2 See Horiguchi (1997) how aizuchi are differently understood by researchers.

155
 Chapter 5

1 H:

S:

F:Omoshiroi no. Datte shita made ikanai to mie nai=

Interesting FP since downstairs until not going CON see not
It’s interesting since you cannot see it unless you go downstairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: [ mienai ] ka]. Aa sooka sooka.
can see not FP aizuchi
“cannot see”. (understanding)

S: [Soo da yo ne]
So COP FP FP
That’s right.

F:
= [kara ne] un.
since FP REC
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, Harue repeats Fumie’s part of talk, “mienai,” “cannot see.” In Fumie’s

talk, this “mienai” is the most critical part of the message being conveyed to the other

two. Given that, while Suwako takes an aizuchi form to support what Fumie said, Harue

repeats the key word to confirm her understanding before producing aizuchi. As in this

example, the repeated part may not be exactly what the current floor holder said. It often

appears in a slightly different form by adding a sentence-end particle such as “no” or

“ka” etc.

ii) Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing is a rephrased or a reworded utterance of a part or the whole of the current

floor holder’s turn, as Y’s utterance, “katate,” “single hand” for Sa’s “itte,” “one hand”

in the following example;

(20) Commission (Sa-1, modified)

The participants (Sachiko, Masao and Yoshida) are talking about how much commission a real estate
broker receives upon selling a property in Australia in comparison with Japan.

156
 Chapter 5

1 Sa:

M: ee
yes
Yes

Y: Nihon wa 3 desho ~de Nihon no baai wa ryoote nandesu yo.

Japan P COP and Japan P case P both hands COP FP
It’s 3% in Japan, isn’t it? And it comes from both sides (i.e.seller and buyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 (0.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: A ryoohoo kara moraeru n [desu yo ne] [Ni]hon wa=
EX both from can receive VN COP FP FP Japan P
Oh the Commission comes from both sides in Japan,doesn’t it?

M: So[o ]
yes
Yes
Y: [ H a i ]
yes
Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Sa: = ne [De kocchi wa:u ano itt itte [deshoo]
P and here P HES one one hand COP
And it comes from one side in here, isn’t it?

M: [s o o ][o
yes
Yes

Y: Ni[hon wa] [Kocchi] wa=

Japan P here P
Yes, it does. Here, it comes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Sa: [Ne ] Katate desu yo ne
you know single handCOP FP FP
You know? It’s one hand, isn’t it?
M:

Y: =katate desu [kara] ne.

single hand COP since FP
from (only) one side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Both “itte” and “katate” can be translated to as “one hand.” However in this context,

“katate” is a more appropriate and common expression to use than “itte.” As Yoshida is

a professional real estate broker who seems to be more knowledgeable on this topic than

Sachiko, he paraphrased her term “itte.” 3 Then Sachiko picks up and repeats Yoshida’s

term afterwards in line 5. Interestingly, there is no pause or hesitation observed in this

3 Jefferson (1987) refers to such a case as “embedded correction”

157
 Chapter 5

particular part of the exchange between Sachiko and Yoshida, and the conversation

flows smoothly. This possibly indicates that there is no intention for Yoshida to point

out Sachiko’s wording, rather such paraphrasing occurred naturally from his

professional nature as a real estate broker, and it is also naturally accepted by Sachiko.

“Paraphrasing” requires the speaker’s concrete interpretation of what the current floor

holder mentioned, hence it seems to show more active participation in the

communication compared with repetition and aizuchi.

iii) Unison

“Unison” (Kushida, 1997) is an identical or almost identical utterance of a part or whole

of the current floor holder’s turn uttered simultaneously with the current floor holder, as

Eri and Harue’s overlapping talk below in line 3:

(21) Plant (H-3, modified)

After the incident of the small fire in Eri’s room, she believes putting a plant in there would be good to
decrease the amount of carbone dioxide in her room, when Harue mentions the differences in how people
breathe between day and night. Then the participants start joking that rather than giving a plant to Eri,
they should just lend it to her for half day or something.

1 H: Hirei hiruma de yoru wa itt shimattoke ba ii no yo=

daytime P night P put back CON good FP FP
So use only daytime and put it away at night,
E:

N:

K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: = ne / ? / Sekkaku=
FP thanks
Right? I thought

E: [/ ? /nai to ikenai<laugh>
must
must do / ? /

N: < laugh >

K: Nani [hiru wa / ? / < laugh >

what day P
What? daytime / ? /

158
 Chapter 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
H: = kureru to [omotta nonii toka tte ne.
give QUOT thought but etc QUOT FP
it would be given to me! (you) say like this.

E: [omotta nonii toka tte /? / u – n

thought but etc QUOT aizuchi
thought!! (I) say like this. yeah (agreement)

N: u – n
aizuchi
(agreement)
K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In lines 3, Eri and Harue produce in unison “omotta nonii toka tte,” “I thought

something like” right before Harue’s sentence-end particle ne. Eri listens to the

beginning part of Harue’s talk, “sekkaku kureru to,” “thanks it will be given to me,”

which gives Eri a clue to understand what is going to follow after that. So she utters

what she assumes Harue will say next (the predictable completion) which matches with

what Harue continues. Eri’s utterance that is cued by the current floor holder Harue’s

first part of the turn is referred to as “hikitori unison” or choral completion (Kushida,

1997).4 Unlike other early predictable completions, hikitori unison does not disturb the

current floor holder’s turn, rather, such rhythmical utterance through the unison

contributes to build solidarity between the participants. Though relatively longer unison

like this is not very often observed in daily communication, unison proves closeness and

mutual understanding between the participants. The majority of unison (except the ones

appear among non-floor holders’ simultaneous start) appeared under the “other

completion” function, and there is only one example of unison that appears as aizuchi in

the data of this study, in which only sentence-end particle “nee” overlaps.

4 Lerner(2002) refers to this type of completion as “choral co-production” for in English discourse.

159
 Chapter 5

iv) Echo

The term “Echo” is used by Fujii (1997) to explain the following exchange.

Topic: The two participants are talking about a quarrel between husband and wife:

A: …baatto icchae ba [sore de sukkirisuru n da kedo saa.

strongly have said CON that P feel better VN COP but FP
If I say what I want to say, then I would feel better.

B: [icchae ba sore de sukkirisuru noni saa.

have saud CON that P feel better but FP
If (you) say what you want to say, (you) would feel better.

(1997:2705)

Fujii does not label B’s utterance as “echo” but merely describes it as “like an echo.”

Thus, it is unknown whether she uses “echo” as a specific term to label a certain group

of overlap. However, she argues that utterances such as this, as well as “unison”6

discussed above, emphasise the participants’ sharing of the same time and same context

as well as fostering the participants’ camaraderie.

Following Fujii, in this study an utterance that repeats the current floor holder’s talk in

the manner of an echo is defined as “echo.” Echo may be confused with “repetition”

because of their similar form.7 However, they are different in their appearance; while

“repetition” starts after the completion of the key word/phrase by the current floor

holder, “echo” starts before the current floor holder completes her/his turn and it

shadows the current speaker’s talk. The following is an example of an “echo.” See

Suwako’s utterance, “Terawaki Reiko san ne,” “Ms Terawaki Reiko, Oh I know” that is

shadowing Natsuki’s talk;

5 The participants’ initials have been changed in order to avoid confusion with the participants in my
data.
6 However, Fujii does not refer to the term “unison” in her paper.
7 It is uncertain whether Fujii distinguishes these two types of overlap.

160
 Chapter 5

(22) Reiko san (H-1. modified)

In an academic meeting, Natsuki has been telling of her experience (to Harue, Bob, Suwako and Fumie)
about studying Spanish for beginners in her undergraduate days when her acquaintance, Reiko, who used
to be a casual staff member whom all participants knew, advised her to learn Spanish before enrolling in
the course, since the majority of the students had knowledge of Spanish even in the beginners course.

1 H: [a - - =
aizuchi
(understanding)

B: [a - - =
aizuchi
(understanding)

N: Sore wa Rei san ni iwareta no. Rei san=

that P Rei ADD P was told FP Rei ADD
Rei told me that. Rei

S: [a - -
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: [a - - =
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = - - - - - -

B: = - - - - - - - -

N: = Terawa[ki Reiko san ne

Terawaki Reiko ADD FP
It’s Ms Reiko Terawaki, you know?

S: [Terawaki Reiko san ne

Terawaki Reiko ADD FP
Ms Reiko Terawaki, I know.

F: = - - - - - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, all participants knew Reiko with whom they had worked some years

previously. This is demonstrated by there being a similiarity in tone of the aizuchi of all

participants following Natsuki’s talk in line 1. Being in Australia, it is common for

these speakers to address each other by first names. Thus, though the hearers somehow

knew Reiko by her first name, it is doubtful as to whether everyone could state Reiko’s

full name immediately. Natsuki then reconfirms it is that particular Reiko by stating her

full name, when Suwako follows her with a delay of a few tenths of a second. Natsuki’s

161
 Chapter 5

very first utterance of Reiko’s full name triggers Suwako to recall Reiko’s full name,

and she immediately follows her to confirm. Suwako’s echoing utterance would have

been very difficult to produce if she did not know Reiko. As this example shows,

participants’ shared knowledge in the context of the communication is necessary to

produce an echo. This is what
is different from “repetition,” where such shared

knowledge may not be required in its production. Note that “Unison” is similar to echo

in terms of shared knowledge requirement. However, they are formally different; while

“unison” referts to two identical (or almost identical) utterances start simultaneously,

“echo” refers to an utterance that is identical (or almost identical) to the current floor

holder’t utterance but starts later as if it is an echo.

So far, the above four utterance formations are presented as a kind of aizuchi. Note,

however, that these formal utterances do not only appear as aizuchi, but may carry other

functions as well. For example, repetition and paraphrasing with a rising tone is

regarded as a question for clarification of what the current floor holder has just

mentioned, and it also functions as a floor holder’s reconfirmation of her/his previous

talk upon non-floor holder’s aizuchi. When echo/unison is uttered by a sub-floor holder,

it functions to emphasise a critical point of the current floor holder’s utterance. As

overlap classification in this study primarily focuses on its function, these formal

categories appear within a functional category. In other words, these formal categories

appear in several different functional categories (see the tables in the Appendix 2) and

will be discussed accordingly.

As to their formation, there is also no strong consensus among researchers in regard to

the functions of a i z u c h i (Horiguchi, 1991, 1997;Matsuda, 1988;Maynard,

162
 Chapter 5

1986;Maynard, 1989;Szatrowski, 1993). However, in principle, though different

terminology is used, they appear to generally agree that the functions of aizuchi are: i)

to encourage the current floor holder to continue her/his talk; ii) to claim understanding

of what the current floor holder has just said; iii) to claim agreement with what the

current floor holder has just said; iv) to show an emotional reaction towards what the

current floor holder has just said. Other functions of aizuchi such as disagreement,

claiming for the next floor, or filler (to fill in the pause until somebody takes the turn,

e.g. nanka, somehow, or ano ne, you know) are also discussed by some researchers,

however, there is no consensus among researchers on these functions. Thus, this study

focuses on the above mentioned four functions of aizuchi.

i) Continuer

This function is described as “I am listening to you (Horiguchi, 1988, 1997; Matsuda,

1988),” “I am following you (Matsuda, 1988),” “please continue (Maynard, 1993;

Szatrowsky, 1993).” Since all aizuchi emphasise that non-floor holders are listening to

the current floor holder’s talk, to avoid confusion, the term “continuer”8 is used for this

function. The example of aizuchi with this function is observed in the following

exchange.

(23) Location of Uni Lodge (Sa-1, modified)

Sachiko looks at the information on Uni Lodge near Central Station. Yoshida is just about to explain how
convenient the location of Uni Lodge is.

8 The term originally used by Shegloff (1982), but the function of continuer in this study is closer to
Maynard(1993).

163
 Chapter 5

1 Sa: Soo desu yo [ne].

that COP FP FP
. I agree with you.
M:

Y: Dakara moo saikoo desu yo kore. [Mo]o=

so EMP best COP FP this EMP
So this is (in) the best (location). You
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Sa: [e e] [e e]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (agreement)

M:

Y: =
n[e e] Sentoraru eki made aruite go fun de[shoo]
you know Central station to on foot five minute COP
You know that it’s only 5 minutes to walk to Central Station, don’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, Sachiko’s first aizuchi in line 2 functions as continuer, since Yoshida

has just started to talk with “Moo nee,” “you know.” This exchange is the very

beginning part of a business talk between two representatives (Sachiko and Masao)

from the publisher of a community magazine and their client (Yoshida) who is a real

estate professional. As the conversation has just begun, Sachiko and Masao, who are

visiting Yoshida’s office to get more information regarding investment property in

Australia for an article in their community magazine, try to warm up the conversation

by showing their stance as hearers. Upon Sachiko’s continuer, Yoshida, who has just

started a new turn at the end of line 1 with a prologue type of expression, “moo nee,”

“you know,” confirms his taking of the floor and continues. Continuers occur not just as

aizuchi terms but also as a form of repetition or paraphrasing, though there are not many

(only one case in each form is observed in this study).

ii) Understanding

This function is to signal that the non-floor holder understands what the floor holder

said up to the point of the aizuchi s/he utters. It is described as “signal of

understanding” (Horiguchi, 1988, 1991, 1997), “an expression that indicates

164
 Chapter 5

understanding of the content (of what the speaker said)” (Maynard, 1993), and so on.

Matsuda (1988) explains that it includes the signal of understanding the information

given by the speaker, speaker’s feeling as well as showing her/his knowledge is shared

with the current speaker. Following these definitions, understanding in this study

indicates understanding of what the current floor holder conveyed to non-floor holders

in context. This function of aizuchi has a variety of forms (e.g. un, u-n, ee, honto, fuun,

soo, and variation of soo such as sooka, soo nanda etc.) compared with continuer,

which mostly appears in a form, “un,” or “u-n,” or “ee.” One problematic issue

regarding this function is how we identify the forms of aizuchi such as “un” or “u-n” or

“ee” that are shared by more than one function. For example, note the following

exchange:

(24) Looking for a flatmate (H-2, modified)

Harue is talking to Suwako and Fumie about how her flatmate hunting has been going so far.

1 H: Hitori mini kite nu: henji konai keredo[mo mata sono ko wa=
a person see come reply come not but again that girl P
A girl came for the inspection, but has not replied. But I think

S: [u - =
aizuchi
(understanding)
F:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = zettai koto]waroo kana [tte iu atashi ke]k[koo] sereku[shon]=
absolutely decline VOL wonder QUOT say I seriously selection
I (think) that I will definitely decline her. I am thinking of selecting (a flatmate)

S: = n ]

F: [a t t s o o ] [ n ] [ n ]
aizuchi aizuchi aizuchi
(understanding) (continuer) (continuer)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = shiyoo kana tte [omotte:] <talk continues>
do VOL wonder QUOT think
seriously.
S:

F: [un un ]
aizuchi
(understanding)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

165
 Chapter 5

In this exchange, Suwako and Fumie produce aizuchi towards Harue’s talk. It is not

difficult to identify the function of Fumie’s “att soo” as understanding from its form.

The problematic ones are the rest of aizuchi. As the English translation shows, Harue’s

talk has three possible turn completion points (i.e. keredomo in line 1 and kana tte iu in

line 2, and omotte: in line 3). However, she continues talking without any pause or even

breathing in. Interestingly, both Suwako and Fumie utter aizuchi at or near Harue’s

possible turn completion points: first by Suwako (u-n in lines 1-2), then by Fumie (i.e.

att soo in line 2, and un un in line 3). As the information given is new to Suwako and

Fumie, these aizuchi function to claim understanding of what Harue said. However, at

the same time, there is no evidence that these aizuchi do not carry continuer funcion.

Among the researchers mentioned above, while other researchers take examples from

other forms than these ambiguous forms, Horiguchi (1997) explains this function using

“ee” as in the following interview in a TV variety show:

A: De ano kata tachi wa hora aa iu kata da kara

and that person PL P INT that say person COP since
And since they are, you know, that kind of people

B: ee

A: moo Tora san no fan de

EMP Tora ADD P fan and
they are fans of Tora san* and

B: ee

A: moo Bon to shoogatsu wa tanoshimi ni shiteimasu tte

EMP Bon and new year P enjoyment P doing QUOT
They look forward to (seeing Tora san’s new film) in Bon** and New Year,

B: ee

A: yoku iware masu.

often say COP
(they)often say.

*Tora san is a very popular Japanese film character.

**Bon is a Buddist festival in mid August.
(Horiguchi 1997:54)

166
 Chapter 5

According to Horiguchi, all of these aizuchi are understanding aizuchi. Though she

points out that many of these aizuchi are hard to distinguish from continuers, she

explains that B in this exchange understands the content of A’s talk up to the point of

A’s clause ending, hence, the functions of these aizuchi are understanding. In other

words, according to Horiguchi, if what A says is not understood by A at the point of

aizuchi production, and further information is required to understand A’s talk, then the

function of aizuchi is continuer. This means that understanding may also carry a

function of continuer if the aizuchi is produced during the current floor holder’s turn,

but not vice versa. Given this, I define understanding aizuchi further as aizuchi that is

most likely to be produced at or near the current floor holder’s possible turn completion

(CTRP) to signal at least the content of her/his talk up to the point is understood as new

information. This function may also include continuer as its sub-function, but the study

interpretes aizuchi by their primary function.

Going back to Exchange (24) above, based on the above interpretation of understanding

aizuchi, aizuchi other than Fumie’s “att soo” are recognised as labelled function. Note

that Suwako’s aizuchi at Harue’s first possible turn completion in line 1 is stretched and

almost reaches Harue’s second possible turn completion; i.e. “koto]waroo kana tte iu,”

“that I will decline her.” It seems that once Suwako reaslised that Harue is still

continuing to talk, by stretching her aizuchi, she makes an adjustment to her aizuchi to

show her understanding of not just what she has heard prior to her aizuchi onset, but of

what she is currently hearing while uttering aizuchi. On the other hand, in a similar

occasion to this, Fumie uses more than one aizuchi (i.e. line 2). Upon Harue’s talk,

“kotowaroo kana tte iu,” “that I will decline her,” Fumie appears to predict that Harue

might end her turn and utters “att soo,” “I see.” However Harue still holds the floor and

167
 Chapter 5

starts providing new information about “serious selection.” Once Fumie has noticed that

Harue has not stopped, she quickly adjusts her reaction towards Harue by switching her

aizuchi function from understanding to continuer and prepares to listen to Harue’s new

information.

Understanding aizuchi appear mostly as aizuchi terms. However, they also appear as a

form of repetition, paraphrasing and echo of the current floor holder’s talk. Though

these forms of understanding aizuchi are few in number compared with continuers, they

appear more frequently in this function. Line 2 of the exchange (19) above shows an

example of understanding aizuchi that takes the form of a repetition, and there is an

“echo” in line 2 of the exchange (22), which takes up the understanding function. An

example of paraphrasing in this function is observed in the following exchange:

(25) Collapsed in bed (H-3, modified)

The participants are talking about a small fire incident Eri had on the previous night. Eri explains the
others (Harue, Natsuki and Keiko) how she went to sleep before the incident took place.

1 H: [un u - n ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

E: Daka: futsuu wa koko de kasha tte keshite [neru nda kedo:]=

So usually P here P click QUOT turn off sleepVN COP but
So usually, I turn off the light at this point and sleep, but

N:
K: /un/
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: [u - n a - =
aizuchi
(understanding)

E: = sore o kasshan o shinaide kuzurechat[ta no].

that P click P do not collapsed FP
I collapsed in bed without doing this.

N: shina[ide: [sono ]mama=

do not and as it is
Without doing it, you fell

K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

168
 Chapter 5

3 H: = - - ]

E:

N: = nechatta no] un.

slept FP aiuzchi
asleep as you were (understanding)

K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In line 2-3, Natsuki paraphrasing Eri’s words “kuzure chatta no,” “I collapsed” as

“sonomama nechatta no,” “you fell asleep as you were,” then immediately after this she

utters the aizuchi term “un” to claim her understanding of Eri’s explanation of how tired

she was and how she fell asleep. As this example shows, it is not uncommon to observe

an aizuchi term following paraphrasing (as well as other non-aizuchi terms).

iii) Agreement

The definition of agreement aizuchi varies slightly among researchers. Generally they

concur that its function claims agreement and empathy for what the current floor holder

says. Among agreement aizuchi, soo or a series of soo (e.g. soo soo, soo soo soo etc.)

are typical formations for indicating agreement. However, as discussed in understanding

aizuchi above, aizuchi terms such as un and ee are once again problematic in terms of

their interpretation. Horiguchi (1997) points out some difficulties in assigning aizuchi

function. According to Horiguchi, agreement aizuchi is signalled on the ground of

understanding of the current floor holder’s talk. Thus, she argues that sometimes it is

difficult to distinguish agreement aizuchi from understanding aizuchi unless the

participants’ background knowledge is understood. For example, Fumie’s aizuchi in the

following exchange can be understood both as understanding aizuchi and agreement

aizuchi.

169
 Chapter 5

(26) Tokyo Roll (H-2)

Harue is talking to Fumie and Suwako about her experience at a sushi shop in the downtown area in
Sydney.

1 H: Nanka sh ts Sentaa Pointo no shita [ni] hontoo=

AP Centre Point P under P indeed
It’s under Centre Point, indeed
S:

F: [un]
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = tachi[gui mitai da yo patto] taberu shi nanka.
buffet like COP FP quickly eat and AP
it’s like a buffet since people eat quickly.
S:

F: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, however, it is known that Fumie was familiar with the sushi shop

about which Harue had been talking. Thus, Fumie’s aizuchi functions to convey her

agreement with Harue’s explanation regarding the restaurant. As in understanding

aizuchi, agreement aizuchi may also carry a function of continuer depending on its

position. For example, Fumie’s aizuchi in line 1 in the above exchange can also be

recognised as a continuer. Fumie may be indicating both that she agrees that the sushi

shop is at the bottom of Centre Point, and urging Harue to continue at the same time.

However, as mentioned in the discussion of understanding aizuchi, aizuchi is interpreted

by its primary function in this study.

Agreement aizuchi with other forms than aizuchi terms include repetition, echo,

paraphrasing and unison. However, once again the number of aizuchi terms is the most

frequently observed in this function. Among the other four types, repetition is the most

frequently observed and the least observed is unison (only one case) in the data of this

study. Comparing their numbers with the ones in understanding aizuchi, while

170
 Chapter 5

paraphrasing appeared the same number of times in the two functions (6 cases),

repetition and echo in agreement aizuchi

appear more than twice as often as in

understanding aizuchi (i.e. 19 repetitions and 6 echos in agreement aizuchi, and 9

repetitions and 2 echos in understanding aizuchi). Compared with continuer and

understanding types, that are uttered in response to unknown or newly obtained

information, agreement aizuchi are uttered in response to the floor holder’s information

that non-floor holders can share because of her/his experience. Thus, the participants’

involvement in the exchange may become more enthusiastic. Aizuchi formation such as

soo or multiple soo per se conveys stronger agreement than “ee” or “un.” But by

repeating, echoing or even uttering the same talk at the same time as the current floor

holder, non-floor holders seem to show strong alignment/support to a greater degree

towards the current floor holder.

iv) Evaluation

Evaluation is a relatively short utterance that reacts to what the current floor holder has

said with some kind of emotively coloured judgement or response. Japanese researchers

seem to agree in referring to this type of aizuchi as “emotional expressions.” However,

in order to limit them to the ones that are uttered as a reaction towards what the current

floor holder has said, the term “evaluation” is used in this study. The following

utterances are some examples that fall into this category:

Surprise: h  
, h  tt
, aratt, m a a, g   , u s o (can’t be true),

honto
(really?)

Judgement: hidoi (awful), erai (good), iyada (no), kimochi waru (yuk)

171
 Chapter 5

Compared with other type of aizuchi, evaluations include a number of terms that carry

an independent specific linguistic meaning (see the translation in the brackets next to

the word in italic). Whether these terms are to be regarded as aizuchi or not may be

argued. However, considering that the non-floor holder who utters an evaluation

generally does not subsequently take the floor from the current floor holder, it is more

appropriate to understand these evaluative terms as aizuchi. The following exchange

shows an example of such aizuchi.

(27) Pushed aside laundry (H-2, modified)

Suwako was telling of her experience that her clothes were dropped off the laundry line by her
neighbours. Fumie agrees and tells similar experience she had.

1 H:

S: u-n [nokerareteru [no

aizuchi be removed FP
(continuer) are (they) removed it?

F: Anone watashi no nee ano [n: [n jibunno wo=

INT I P FP HES own P
You know what? My laundry was, um, in order to put up,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: [u n ] [uso:sonna=
aizuchi lie such
(continuer) You’re kidding

S: [u n ] [soo yo
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (agreement)

F: =
nee [yaru] tameni [watashino] wo gu:n nan[te yatte =
FP do for mine P MIM QUOT do
their own laundry They shoved mine aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
H: = koto suru [no:] [uso: -
thing do FP lie
They would do such a thing? unbelievable

S: [soo yo: yajanai [datte <talk continues>

aizuchi dislikeCOP since
(agreement) Don’t you care since…

F: =
shiwashiwa toka [saa].
ruck up etc. FP
Mine became rucked up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation, especially of the surprise type, is often uttered at a higher volume, as in this

172
 Chapter 5

exchange (in bold). Harue’s utterance from line 2 to 3 is relatively long. One may argue

that only the first part, “uso,” is evaluation and the rest is substantial talk. But first,

Harue’s higher volume continues until the end of her talk; and second, once again, she

does not take the next floor (or even turn) with this utterance. Instead Suwako starts

talking, and Harue continues to show her surprise. Thus, though her turn is rather long,

it seems to be more natural for this talk to be classified as an evaluation.

Apart from these utterances, evaluation can be expressed by laughter as in the following

example:

(28) Laundry line (H-2, modified)

Harue was telling a story of her old neighbour who had a dispute with a Spanish woman in the next block
over a laundry line, in which she ended up calling the police. She tells about the problem of the woman
who sneakingly used the old neighbour’s laundry line, which seemed to be over after the police came. But
there is a punch line after that.

1 H: De ushiro z keisatsu ga no ushiro de “moshi mokkai=

and behind police P behind at if once more
And behind, behind the plice (man), “if this happens once more,

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = at tara mata yobu kara ne” toka [tte itte saa.
happen (con) again call since FP etc. QUOT said FP
I will call the police again, you know, “ or something she said.

S:

F: [Nanka moo bijuaru de=

AP EMP visual in
Oh I can visually (clearly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: [/ ? /] soo soo soo n de saa ~ anoo u soshitaraa ~
REC and FP HES then
That’s right. And, you know, um then

S:

F: = [ukabu wa] <starts to giggle>

imagine FP
imagine (the scene)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

173
 Chapter 5

4 H: soo (0.2) soosuto koo “Sono ato doo natta no” tte=
yeah then HES that after how became FPQ QUOT
Yeah Then, um I asked what happened after that

S:

F:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H: = kiita no ne Soshitara “moo jibun no koko ni wa=
asked FP FP then anymore self P here P P
you know Then “(The Spanish woman) no longer

S:

F: <laugh>u n
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 H: = kakenaku natta kedo ‘But now she hangs yours=
not hang became but
hangs (her laundry) here, but ‘But now she hangs yours’ “
S:

F:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 H: = toka tte <laugh>
etc. QUOT
or something (she said).

S: <laugh>

F: <laugh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The laughter by Suwako and Fumie in line 7 is triggered by Harue’s punch line. In other

words, Suwako and Fumie reacted towards Harue’s talk by laughing to convey their

appreciation of the humour in Harue’s story. The laughter is therefore regarded as a type

of evaluation. However, as mentioned in the previous chapter, not all laughter need to

be evaluative. For example, Fumie’s laughter in line 5 does not seem to react directly to

what is said by Harue, since her talk to which Fumie reacts is a prelude to her next turn

(i.e. “Then I asked what happened after that, you know.”). Rather, she is likely to

extend her laughing emotion by imagining the old woman’s excessive attitude against

the Spanish woman, as Fumie had said in line 2. Thus, it seems to be more natural to

regard this as a non-evaluative laughter.

174
 Chapter 5

This small section has introduced a definition of aizuchi and its four functions and

discussed how they contribute to the conversation. Though there are a few other

functions (e.g. negation by Horiguchi, 1997 and Szatrowsky, 1993; pause filler by

Matsuda, 1988 etc.) which have been recognised by a few researchers, these are either

not agreed on by other researchers (pause filler), or the number of the samples that were

observed in the data was extremely small (negation). They are thus excluded from the

functions of aizuchi in this study. Of the total number of overlaps in the data, the

majority are aizuchi. If non-overlapping aizuchi are included, the number further

increases. Because of this aizuchi dominance in overlaps, they tend to be excluded in

many studies from the analysis of the data. However, once aizuchi is understood in a

wider sense, with a number of functions and various formations, it brings about many

interesting insights, which will be discussed in Chapter 6.

4.1.1.2 Clarification question

In order to seek further information regarding what the current floor holder has said, a

non-floor holder may ask a question. This question is referred to as a “Clarification

question.” Clarification questions do not necessarily appear as an overlapping utterance

with the current floor holder’s talk, but often do so, as in the following example:

(29) Auction? (H-2, modified)

The participants are talking about a number plate which a green grocer attaches to the front of her/his cap
on the occasion of an auction at a wholesaler’s.

1 H:

S:

F: Ano: are tte nani ookushon no toki ni kooiuno =

INT that QUOTwhat auction P when P like this
Well, that one is attached at the time of auction,

175
 Chapter 5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: [He e  ]
aizuchi
(evaluation)

S: [E ookushon mo soo na no]
EX auction also so COP FP Q
What? Is it also for an auction?

F: =
tsuke n [no yo ne bangoo un ] (0.3)[tsukete n da yo]=
attatch VN FP FP FP number yes attach VN COP FP
You know, the number. Yeah they put it on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
H: [Ie no [Nan no=
House P what P
For property? For what
S:

F: =ookushon no toki ni [ne. (0.2)Chigau chiga[u

auction P time P FP incorrect incorrect
at the time of auction. No no
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = ookushon
auction Q
auction?

S:

F: Sakana o kattari toka.

fish P buy etc.
Buying fish or something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fumie used the term “auction” for auction in general. However, Suwako and Harue

believe that the term is limited to a property auction in Japan, since there is another term

“seri” to indicate “auction” that is more likely to be used for vegetables and fish. So

they wonder whether people at a property auction also wear cap and attach that kind of

number plate on the cap. After this exchange, Harue also asks Fumie whether it is for a

house auction (line 3). As this example shows, a clarification question functions to

avoid misunderstanding the content of the current floor holder’s talk. Perhaps the reason

underlying the frequent overlap of clarification questions is the non-floor holder’s

intention to resolve any problem that may cause misunderstanding as early as possible.

Clarification question can also appear in a form of repetition as in the following

example:

176
 Chapter 5

(30) Flatmate has left (H-2)

The participants are talking about Harue’s flatmate. Harue is looking for a new flatmate due to her current
flatmate’s departure. Prior to the following exchange, Suwako told her that she knew a girl who might be
interested in Harue’s flat, then Harue suggested that she should come and see the flat. After the topic
reached a conclusion, a new sub-topic began, which is about Harue’s current flatmate. The new exchange
starts after 1.1 seconds pause.

1 H: [kyoo moo] dete [kyoo asa=

today already leave today morning
She has left today, this morning

S: (0.3)

F: De ima iru ko wa itsu made [mada iru] [A moo =

and now stay girl P when until Q still stay EX already
So until when is (your) current flatmate staying? She is still staying? Oh (she has)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = deta hazu] [Soo -]
left must REC
she must have left.

S: A[a soo - - ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: = dete itta] [A asa deta [no: ]

leave went EX morning left FP
already left? Oh she left in the morning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

After Fumie asks Harue a question in line 1, there is a 0.3 second pause, which is quite

a long time-gap in normal speaker shift. Due to this pause, it is assumed that Fumie

selects herself to continue speaking and tries to modify her previous talk, when Harue

replied to her question. As a result, Harue and Fumie start talking simultaneously.

However once Harue starts her reply, Fumie stops talking; i.e., after “mada iru,” “still

stays” quickly, and concentrates on listening to what Harue says. At Harue’s first

possible turn completion point; i.e., Harue’s “Kyoo moo dete,” “she has left today,”

Fumie asks for Harue’s reconfirmation by repeating part of Harue’s talk; i.e., “moo

dete,” “has already left,” in a rising tone at the end. However, Harue does not terminate

her talk at that point. Thus, Fumie’s clarification question once again started

simultaneously as Harue’s additional information about when her flatmate had left from

177
 Chapter 5

the end of line 1 to the beginning of line 2. This Harue’s additional information seems

to have answered Fumie’s question. Consequently, she once again repeats a part of

Harue’s talk, “asa deta,” “left in the morning.” But this time Fumie’s talk ends in a

falling tone. Therefore, this is not a clarification question but a non-overlapping aizuchi

to claim her understanding with a bit of surprise (in a larger volume). As the example in

this exchange shows, it is assumed that a clarification question in the form of a

repetition mostly appears in a slightly changed version of the original that is uttered by

the current floor holder. In the data of this study, the clarification question that exactly

repeats what the current floor holder has said is not found. Only 7 cases of clarification

questions in the form of a repetition are found in the data.

Apart from repetition, clarification questions appear in the form of paraphrasing as well.

However, it seems to be far less frequently observed than in a form of repetition (only 2

examples are found in the data).

4.1.1.3 Information supply

Sometimes we observe that a current floor holder searches for a word in the middle of

her/his turn. In cases in which the other participant(s) share(s) the knowledge with the

current floor holder, it is possible for the other participant(s) to support her / him by

supplying the right word / phrase. With this help, the current floor holder can construct

the ongoing floor and may continue her / his talk. Information supply is not necessarily,

but often, observed in an overlapped form as in the following example:

(31) Looking for a flatmate (modified) (H-2)

Harue has been talking about her former flatmate Miyako who is leaving Australia soon. As she has to
vacate her current apartment very soon, Harue thinks about offering temporary accommodation to
Miyako.

178
 Chapter 5

1 H: Kanojo ga apaato hikiharau tte koto wa yappa=

she P apartment move out QUOT thing P as you know
That she is moving out of her flat (soon) means, as you know,

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: hitsuyoona wake [yo oheya ttemo sono tomaru] tokoro

necessary reason FP room QUOT P HES stay place
She needs a room. The room, I mean, place for her to stay.

S: [u – nn – nn – nn – nn – n ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: dakatt kanojo ni (0.2) [ mata ] [kite u-n /shite/]=
so she P again come REC do
So (I would like to ask)her to come again yeah

S: [chotto] ki[te m o r a tte ]=

a bit come receive
wil call her (to your place to stay)

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = ageru a demo] sore okane morau n janakute <talk continues>
give EX but it money receive VN COPnot and
offer (her). But I don’t mean to receive money from her and

S: = ne
u - n ]
FP aizuchi
won't you? (understanding)

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, Harue, who is talking about her thoughts on Miyako, is stuck in her

talk and makes a very short pause of 0.2 second, when Suwako supplies the missing

information with “chotto kite,” “call her to your place.” In fact, after the pause, Harue

also starts at the same time as Suwako, but what she is saying is still unclear. Rather, she

listens to what Suwako says, then employs her expression, “kitte,” “come,” to continue

her talk. As for Suwako, no sooner does Harue begin the continuation of her talk, when

she utters aizuchi and resumes her primary role of a non-floor holder, that is “listening.”

Thus, in Suwako’s talk, there is no intention to threaten Harue’s floor, but rather to

support her in constructing her turn. As in this example, information supply by a non-

179
 Chapter 5

floor holder takes place in the current floor holder’s floor. Thus, it is possible for the

non-floor holder to supply information while the current floor holder stops to search for

the word/phrase. Often, the current floor holder continues her/his talk once s/he gets a

clue or hears sufficient. In other words, the current floor holder does not necessarily

listen to the whole word/phrase that is supplied by the non-floor holder. Therefore,

information supply tends to appear in overlap. In a multi-party conversation, when more

than one person (usually two) hold the floor, information supply may take place

between the two floor holders as in the following example:

(32) Sookyaku (Sa-1, modified)

The participants (Sachiko, Masao and Yoshida) are talking about Uni Lodge, some accommodation in
city.

1 Sa:

M: Yuni rojji mo uchi wa kookoku moratteru n desu=

Uni Lodge P we P ads receive VN COP
We put an ad for Uni Lodge in our magazine.

Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: [un] [E [e [a no ] sookyaku shiteru=
aizuchi aizuchi HES sending guest doing
(agreement) (agreement) Well we are sending guests

M: = [yo] [ee [soo nan desu].

FP REC

Y: A soo [desu [ka.

aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = n desu ne [/uchi ga/]ano [ano okyaku san o Nihon kara].
VN COP FP we P HES HES guest ADD P Japan from
there. /we are/ uhm hum guests from Japan.

M: [sookyaku ] [Kyaku o okurikomu no ].

sending guest guest P sending in FP
Sending guest We are sending guests in (there).

Y: Hoee
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sachiko and Masao cooperatively explain to Yoshida that they have been associating

180
 Chapter 5

with Uni Lodge by not only putting its advertisement in their community magazine but

also sending guests from Japan there. The term “sookyaku, sending guest” is mostly

used in the travel industry. Thus, after reaching her possible turn completion with the

final particle ne in line 3, rather than terminating her turn, she continues to explain

further about the issue. However, she seems to be still considering how she should

explain it, which is indicated by her two hesitations, “ano.” Masao has been aligning

with Sachiko, since she used the term “sookyaku” in line 2. Masao also seems to be

concerned whether the term is understood by Yoshida. Thus, first he emphasises the

term for Yoshida by repeating it. Then once he realises that Sachiko is starting to search

for an appropriate expression to explain the term (Sachiko’s first ano in line 3), he

promptly provides a description of the term (line 3). Meanwhile, after her hesitations

and immediately after Masao has started to talk, Sachiko resumes her turn. As in

Harue’s talk in line 3 in example (31) above, this time, Sachiko too starts with a word

“kyaku,” “guest,” which was prompted by Masao. This indicates that Sachiko gained an

insight through Masao’s support. But her talk is not a direct explanation of the term, in

the way that Masao’s is, but adds more information to her previous talk, that is, sending

“guests from Japan” there. As “sookyaku” is a sound reading of a kanji (Chinese

character) compound word, it may be hard to understand if it is uttered without context

or any other information. However by adding “guests from Japan,” the term becomes

easier to understand. Consequently Sachiko and Masao’s second overlap in line 3 ends

up in carrying different content, but they still function in the same way, that is to clarify

the term “sookyaku.” Interestingly, this overlapping talk concludes at the same time as

if they are uttered by one person. As for Yoshida, he utters an understanding aizuchi,

“hoee,” a variation of hee, right away. Yoshida’s aizuchi makes sense whichever person

he directs it to (or it may have been directed to both of them). Thus, from looking at this

181
 Chapter 5

excerpt (at a micro level analysis), it can be argued that Sachiko could complete her

floor successfully because of Masao’s supply of information. Indeed, in this excerpt, it

is observed that Sachko and Masao hold the main floor in turn, and cooperate with each

other in a contribution to the smooth flow of the conversation with Yoshida.

4.1.1.4 Early reply

When a person’s talk somehow expects a reaction from the other party (e.g. a question

expects an answer), it is not uncommon that the response begins before the completion

of the question turn, hence it appears as a form of overlap. This study refers to this as an

“early reply.” Most early replies appear near the turn completion of the question turn,

as in the following examples (33) and (34):

(33) Chinese client (Sa-1, modified)

The participants are talking about buying property “off the plan.” Sachiko thinks Japanese would be
concerned about buying a property without looking at a model room if they are going to live there. Then
Yoshida mentions one of his Chinese clients who recently bought a million dollar property for himself
“off the plan,” which amazes Sachiko and Masao. Following this, Sachiko asked whether the client is
from HongKong.

1 Sa: A sore Honkon Chainiizu desu [ka Aa – u [ - - =

EX that Hong Kong Chinese COP FP Q aizuchi
Ah is that a Hong Kong Chinese? (understanding)

M:

Y: [e e [Moo sonna kanji=

yes EMP such condition
Yes Like that (I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: = - - n]

M:

Y: =
de ne jubun de sumu] tame ni ne.
P FP self by live for P FP
just explained) you know, (he bought it) to live.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, there is no time gap between the turns of Sachiko and Yoshida. She

asks a question, to which Yoshida replies in overlap with the very last question particle

182
 Chapter 5

“ka.” Then Sachiko, without any time gap, utters a very long aizuchi to show her

understanding, to which Yoshida reconfirms his answer by adding more information by

overlapping her aizuchi. Replying by terminal overlap, as in this example, creates a

rhythm that contributes to a lively conversation.

Early reply also appears slightly before the turn termination but still within the current

speaker’s TRP as in the following example:

(34) Tax levy for overseas property (Sa-1, Modified)

The participants are talking about overseas property investment. Sachiko and Masao ask several questions
of Yoshida, who is a real estate broker.

1 Sa: Gaikoku ni aru (0.3) bukk n: to u shisan ni kanshite no=

overseas P exist pro(perty) HES asset P about P
About the asset overseas,

M:

Y: Hai
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: = kazei wa doo natteru n [desu ka] Aa kakaru=
tax levy P how become VN COP FP Q EX take
what is it's the tax levy like? Oh it

M:

Y: [ Kazei ] kakari masu yo.

tax levy take COP FP
The tax levy needs to be paid..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = n desu [ka. Ha a [ - n]
VN COP FP aizuchi
is tax levied. (understanding)

M:

Y: [Ee kakari masu yo [Oosutoraria de mo]

REC take COP FP Australia in also
Yes, it is taxed. In Australia,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa:

M:

Y: =
onnnaji desu.
same COP
it’s the same
----------------------------------------------------------------------

183
 Chapter 5

Yoshida’s reply to Sachiko’s question whether one has to pay tax for overseas

investment properties (line 2) begins by overlapping Sachiko’s turn ending part, “desu

ka,” which is copula plus final question particle. This way of overlapping may not be as

well timed as the terminally overlapping example in (33). However it is very predictable

and still does not affect the smooth turn shift between the participants. In fact, after

Yoshida’s reply to Sachiko in line 2, the exchange between the two falls into a rhythm.

Sachiko immediately utters aizuchi by repeating the key verb “kakaru,” “takes,” to

which Yoshida reconfirms once again by repeating the word in terminal overlap (line 3).

Then further understanding aizuchi is uttered by Sachiko promptly to which Yoshida

adds further information (i.e. “Oosutoraria demo onnnaji desu,” “it’s the same in

Australia,”) to endorse his reconfirmation.

The majority of early replies in the data of this study appear to be one of the above

formations. But there are cases when such a reply begins much earlier than the ending

part of question turn as in the following example:

(35) Off the plan (Sa-1, modified)

Sachiko mistook the term “off the plan” as “oft plan,” and asked Yoshida whether it is spelled as O-F-T,
and Yoshida and Masao both corrected her misspelling. While Masao is talking to himself that he has to
write down what they are saying, Sachiko sticks to “off the plan” and starts asking whether the system
exists in Japan.

1 Sa: Aa naruho[do ne.

EX I see FP
Oh I see.

M: [soo off the plan (0.8) [Korya=

aizuchi this
(agreement) Off the plan This

Y: Off the plan desu [kedo.

COP but
It’s “off the plan.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

184
 Chapter 5

2 Sa: [Nihon ni wa aru no ka]naa=

Japan in P exist FP FP
I wonder if it exists in Japan.

M: = moo konkai wa chotto memo shi[tokanakya/ ? / ]

EMP this time P a little memo do must
time I have to write down (what we just talked about).
Y:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = [konnano Nihon niwa aru no kashira koo[iu shisutemu
such thing Japan in P exist FP wonder this say system
like this. I wonder if a system like this exists in Japan.

M: [e t t  (0.2) [Iya Nihon no=

what Q no Japan P
What? No in the case of=
Y:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: [Chigau chigai masu yo ne.]
different different COP FP FP
No, It does not, does it?

M: = baai sore wa [iya nai amari kiita koto nai ne.]

case that P no none often heard thing not FP
Japan, I have not heard of this much.
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

After Yoshida and Masao told Sachiko the right spelling of “off the plan,” while

Sachiko shows her understanding of her misspelling (line 1), Masao starts to mutter to

himself that he would have to write down what they have just talked about (line 1-2).

Upon Masao’s talk, the topic of “off the plan” seems to have been resolved. However,

the issue clearly remains unresolved as Sachiko starts a new turn regarding “off the

plan” (line 2) in the midst of Masao’s talk to himself. As Masao’s talk is targeting

nobody (i.e. nobody holds a conversational floor at this particular moment), Sachiko’s

new turn is not regarded as an intervention of his turn. However, Masao, who either did

not expect Sachiko to stick to the topic of “off the plan” or did not simply hear what

Sachiko said, immediately reacts to her new turn by asking her back, “ett,” “what?” in

line 3. Then Sachiko repeats her question but makes a slight modification (i.e. from an

informal speech style, “aru no ka na,” “whether (it) exists,” with a pronoun, “konnano,”

“like this” to more formal speech style “aru no kashira” with a clear reference, “kooiu

185
 Chapter 5

shisutemu,” “a system like this”). But to her repeated question, Masao replies early by

overlapping her in line 3.9

According to Jefferson (1973), when overlap takes place, the overlap onset seems to

appear in a certain position of the current floor holder’s talk. Jefferson argues that it is

the point where the non-floor holder recognises that s/he had received enough

information to react, hence she describes this point as to be “not too early, not too late.”

The following exchange (emergency call) is an example from Jefferson (1973):

Caller: Fire department, out at the Fairview Food [mart there’s a

Operator: [yes.

We’ve already got the uh call on that ma’am,

(1973:57)

This is an example of early reply by a telephone operator at the fire department to a

caller who is reporting a fire. According to Jefferson, the operator understands the

message that the caller wants to convey by listening up to the word, “Food.” As s/he did

not need to hear the rest, s/he started her turn. Jefferson argues that this is the right spot

to start talking since the word, “Fairview,” is not yet giving accurate information about

the location of the fire.

Having looked at Masao’s early reply in (35) above, he starts right after Sachiko’s

“koo,” “this.” In Japanese, koo can be used independently. But in this case, it is a part of

an expression, “koo iu,” “like this.” In this sense, the point where Masao started may be

9 As Sachiko’s question is structurally inverted its subject-predicate, one may argue it is rather late reply
than early reply. However, Sachiko’s question is repeating her previous question almost in the same
manner, I regard it to be an early reply.

186
 Chapter 5

a bit too early. However, Sachiko has already asked this question (line 2-3) before.

Thus, although Masao is asking her back “ett
,” ‘what?” to urge her to clarify her

question, it seems that by the time Sachiko repeated her question more clearly, he had

understood her point, though he might not be confident in what he understood. Thus,

Sachiko’s second question functions to confirm his understanding. Considering this, the

point Masao starts his talk at Sachiko’s second question is understandable.

Does early reply ever intervene in the current speaker’s floor? In (35), after Masao

replied to Sachiko’s question by overlapping her, Sachiko still completes her question

turn, then shows her understanding by overlapping Masao’s reply. In fact looking at the

overlap onset (i.e. after Masao’s “sore wa,” “that is,” which calls for a predicate to

follow), and the length of her talk which follows Masao’s talk and ends at the same time

as he does, the way Sachiko reacts to Masao’s reply shows them contributing well to

construct their talk. Therefore, in this case, early reply does not function negatively in

the flow of conversation. Though there does not appear to be an example in the

collected data, I speculate that there may be cases where an early reply functions as true

intrusion into the current floor holder’s turn, especially when it starts much earlier than

the current floor holder’s TRP. Thus, when analysing early reply, the context of the

exchange and how the exchange continues after the early reply needs to be considered.

Finally, though this function is set under non-floor holder’s overlap, early reply is not

necessarily uttered by non-floor holder only. It is also common that the current floor

holder replies to the non-floor holder’s clarification question in overlap. Being a

current floor holder, it seems to be natural to reply to the non-floor holder’s question as

quickly as possible and continues her/his floor.

187
 Chapter 5

4.1.1.5 Other completion

When a current floor holder talks, sometimes a non-floor holder assumes the rest of the

current floor holder’s talk and completes her/his turn. This verbal action is referred to

as “Other completion” in this study. Unlike information supply, in this case, the current

floor holder does not have any problem in continuing her/his talk. Thus, it often appears

by overlapping the current floor holder’s talk. In other completions, there are cases

where both the current floor holder and the non-floor holder talk and finish at the same

time. “Choral completion,” discussed in “unison” under aizuchi section above, is one of

them. Kushida (1997) seems to include only two overlapped identical talk in the choral

completion. But among other completions where both the current floor holder and the

non-floor holder finish at the same time, there are cases where the two utterances are

not identical in their form but are identical in their content. Consider the following

example:

(36) Neighbour dispute (H-2, modified)

Harue is on the phone. Suwako and Fumie are talking about a dispute between neighbours. Fumie says
that as Australians frequently move, the problematic neighbour may also move someday.

1 H: <on the phone>

S: N

- u n u n u - n u n mata=
aizuchi aizuchi again
(agreement) (agreement)

F: Soo na no yo. Sono hito to wa awanaku temo sa:aru kara sa:=

yes COP FP FP that person with P meet not even FP exist since FP
That’s it. Even though you can’t get on well with somebody, there are (other person(s)
you will get on well with)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: <on the phone>

S: = dete iku kamoshirenai ja[nai]sooiu [hitotachi wa u - =

leave go may COP such people P REC
Such people may be going out again,

F: [soo] [soonano yo demo=

aizuchi aizuchi but
.(agreement) (agreement) Anyhow
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

188
 Chapter 5

3 H: <on the phone>

S: = - n ] [shocchuu kawaru mon u – n].

all the time change thing aizuchi
They often move, (agreement)

F: =kocchi no]hito tte: [idoo ga hageshii kara ne ].

here P person QUOT moving P heavy since FP
people here move very frequently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Suwako and Fumie’s second overlapping talk, “shocchuu kawaru mon,” “move often”

and “idoo ga hageshii kara ne,” “move very frequently,” are identical in their content.

Sachiko’s reaction to Masao in line 4 in (35) also belongs to this category. Although this

kind of completion is not as perfect as a form of “unison,” it still creates a rhythm of

working well together and greatly contributes to build rapport among the participants.

Thus, this study includes such non-unison type of completion in “choral completion.”

While there are completions that greatly contribute to the participants’ rapport

construction, there are cases that hold up the flow of conversation. See the following

for Masao’s completion for Yoshida:

(37) Consumer Price Index (Sa-1, modified)

The participants are talking about the tax on real estate when buying and selling. Yoshida is trying to
explain this by taking as an example when he wants to use the term “Consumer Price Index.” But he
wonders whether Sachiko and Masao know the term.

1 Sa: Hai
yes
Yes
M:

Y: Anoo: konshuumaa praisu indekkusu tte gozonji desu ka

HES consumer price index QUOT know COP FPQ
Um Do you know Consumer Price Index?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa:

M: ee [shoohisha] zei [anott ]=

yes consumer tax INT
Yes, it’s Consumer tax. Well

Y: shoo[hi sha] ee shoohi sha: ano: doo[shisuu]

consumer yes consumer HES stream index
Consumer, yes, consumer umm current index.

189
 Chapter 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa:

M: = soo soo soo soo soo hai

aizuchi yes
(agreement) yes

Y: ne

EMP
You know?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In this exchange, upon Yoshida’s question whether Masao and Sachiko know

“Consumer Price Index (line 1),” both Sachiko and Masao reply with a short utterance,

“hai/ee (line 1/2).” After hearing responses from the two, Yoshida tries to continue by

giving them its Japanese translation, (line 2).” But his talk is overlapped by Masao who

hears the beginning of Yoshida’s talk (i.e. “shoo” for “shoohi sha,” “consumer”) and

attempts to give the Japanese translation, which Yoshida did not expect. Thus, he

stopped talking. However, Masao wrongly translated it as “shoohi sha zei,” “consumer

tax),” for “shoohisha bukka shisuu.” Upon Masao’s wrong translation, Yoshida first

accepts it as “ee,” “yes,” then tries to say the correct translation. But Yoshida too seems

to be stuck in finding the right translation by showing hesitation, such as stretching the

ending of shoohi sha, as well as uttering a hesitation marker, “ano (line 2),” and he ends

up providing a wrong translation (i.e. “shoohi sha doo shisuu,” “consumer stream

index.” It is not known whether Yoshida actually knew its Japanese translation.

However, as the term is well known to the general public, it is speculated that it slipped

Yoshida’s mind. Interestingly, Masao, who also should have known the term, actively

agrees with Yoshida’s wrong Japanese translation (line 2-3). Though Yoshida uses the

wrong translation once more shortly after this exchange, the rest of the talk on this

topic, the participants use the English term, CPI. Thus, in the end, as all participants

understand what CPI means, Yoshida’s mistranslation did not really affect the flow of

conversation in the end. Even so, Masao’s other completion in line 2 triggered Yoshida

190
 Chapter 5

to stop talking temporarily, which disrupted the rhythm of the conversation. However,

note that such examples that function negatively to the flow of conversation are few in

the data, and the majority of other completion examples nicely cooperate with the

current floor holder’s talk.

4.1.1.6 Aizuchi follower

In a multi-party conversation, as explained in the previous chapter (4.1), it is frequently

observed that more than one non-floor holder utter aizuchi to the current floor holder’s

talk. Such multi-aizuchi often start simultaneously, but it is also common that some

aizuchi start later than the other, as in the following excerpt (8), which was discussed in

the previous chapter.

(8) Laundry line (H-2)

Harue has been explaining how the residents of her block share the laundry lines.

1 H: Atashi-tachi futatsu aru kara=

I PL two exist since
Since we have two (laundry stands)
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = be[betsu no tokoro ni [hoshiteru n da kedo] soo(…)
separate P place P drying VN COP but REC
We dry our laundry at a separate place.

S: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(understanding / aizuchi follower)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously discussed, aizuchi like Fumie’s in line 2 above is directly uttered towards

Harue to show her understanding of what Harue has just mentioned. However, it can

also be considered to follow Suwako’s aizuchi to contribute to maintain the harmony of

191
 Chapter 5

the ongoing conversation. In fact aizuchi by Suwako and Fumie in this exchange end at

the same time, which also coincide with a TRP in Harue’s talk, hence contribute to

create a rhythmical conversation. Such an aizuchi that follows the other’s aizuchi is

referred to as “aizuchi follower” in this study. Since it is not directly targeted at the

current floor holder, it is separately presented from the aizuchi group discussed earlier

in this section. Aizuchi follower is merely a secondary function of aizuchi utterance. In

other words, the same utterance functions on the one hand as aizuchi towards the

current floor holder’s talk, and functions as aizuchi follower, on the other, for the other

non-floor holder who has uttered aizuchi towards the current floor holder earlier. As this

study looks at the function of each overlap in relation to who overlaps whom, such an

utterance is counted towards both aizuchi and aizuchi followers.

4.1.2 Competitive overlap

Although non-floor holder’s overlaps overwhelmingly function to support the current

floor holder’s talk, there are overlaps that function to compete against the current floor

holder for the next floor. A typical example of this kind of overlap is an “interruption,”

with which a non-floor holder attempts to take the conversational floor from the current

floor holder. Besides “interruption,” “floor bidding,” a non-floor holder’s short

utterance that signals her/his intention to talk, is included in this category. I will explain

each type of competitive overlap with examples below.

4.1.2.1 Floor bidding

Floor bidding is a non-floor holder’s short utterance that takes place in the midst of the

current floor holder’s talk. It shows a non-floor holder’s intention to start her/his floor.

The floor bidding utterances include:

192
 Chapter 5

Anoo (ah), chotto (a little bit), nanka (somehow), iya (no / well), demo (but), dakara

(so, that is why) etc…

(38) Laundry line (H-2, modified)

Suwako is talking about her experience with her clothes on the laundry line being thrown away by her
neighbour.

1 H: [Uso[ -
- ]
lie (aizuchi)
You are kidding (evaluation)

S: [Minna ya[ru no yo: honttoni] H ]san mo soo =

everybody do FP FP really H ADD also so
Everyone does, indeed. Why don’t you also do

F: Sore [nani [A sooka soo nano ] ka]

that what EX so FP So COP FP
What does it mean? Oh I see, I got it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H:

S: = sure ba:  kondo wa: [tonari no]hito ga kake tara ~=

do if next P next door P person P hang CON
(it) next time when (the person) next door hangs out her (clothes)?

 F: [na n ka]
AP
Well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: [ya: <laugh> [So: <laugh>
no so ( aizuchi)
No su(ch a thing) (evaluation)

S: = pya-[tt toka tte <laugh> ~

MIM etc. QUOT
throw (them away).

F: [Naa nan anone watashi no nee <talk continues>

AP INT I P FP
Well Um My..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In relation to the topic Suwako has introduced, Fumie wants to talk about an experience

she had that was similar to Suwako’s. Fumie’s “Nanka” indicates that she has

something to tell. As Suwako continues talking, Fumie waits for her and Harue bursts

into laughter when the floor becomes free, then takes the new floor with her new turn.

As floor bidding merely signals one’s intention to talk to the rest of the party, it is less

competitive than an interruption. The degree of one’s intention to talk by floor bidding

193
 Chapter 5

may be assumed from its volume and its frequency. When it is uttered at a larger

volume and/or it is repeated a few times, then the degree of her/his intention to take the

floor is assumed to be higher. After floor bidding, floor shift may take place smoothly if

the current floor holder recognises it and cedes the floor shortly after the bidding. But if

the current floor holder ignores it, then the floor bidder may end up starting her/his floor

without the current floor holder’s completing her/his turn (i.e. by interrupting the

current floor holder).

4.1.2.2 Interruption

As discussed in the previous chapter, an “interruption” in this study is a non-floor

holder’s talk that starts in the midst of the current floor holder’s ongoing talk for the

purpose of gaining the floor, thus, it is a threatening action for the current floor holder.

A typical example of interruption is observed in the following excerpt which is at the

very beginning of some informal talk.

(39) Meal10 (H-2)

After the purchase of food/drink, Harue, Suwako and Fumie sat around the table at café. Observing
Fumie buying a big meal, Suwako wonders whether Fumie has had lunch.

1 H:

S: F san ohiru (0.2) tabe te nakatta no

F ADD lunch eat has not FPQ
F, you have not eaten lunch, have you?
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 (1.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

S: [u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: Henna jikan ni asa-gohan o tabe[te u – n]

unusual time P breakfast P eat REC
I had a breakfast at unusual time.

10 Lines 1-3 have been discussed as excerpt (9).

194
 Chapter 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 (0.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H:

S: Watashi kyo[o ne ] a - [soo=

I today FP aizuchi
Today I (understanding)

F: [Hoka ni tabemo]no nai no yo ne kore [ne-

other P food none FP FP FP this FP
No other food (than this)is available. This one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6 H:

S: = nan[nimo nai yo ne - ]
anything none FP FP
there is nothing.

F: [un
nee kore shika na]i no.
REC
INT this only none FP
only this one is available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The two relatively long pauses in lines 2 and 4 indicate that Fumie does not seem to be

interested in the topic Suwako has introduced (i.e. meals). Thus, after the second pause

in line 4, Suwako tries to introduce a new topic about what she did that morning, but her

attempt is interrupted by Fumie who, surprisingly, still sticks to the previous topic. As a

result, Suwako gives up her floor and takes the role of listener by uttering aizuchi

towards Fumie. Fumie’s attitude in this exchange is not regarded as cooperative, since

she ignores Suwako’s delicate attention to the others and her attempts to facilitate the

conversation.

There are several causes of interruptions. Interruption, in this example, is caused by a

neglect of the current topic. Other causes can be enthusiasm for talk or disagreement /

disapproval of the ongoing talk. Compared with the other causes, one might feel that an

interruption caused by enthusiasm for talk could be contributing toward vigorous

conversation. However, all the same, if it intervenes into a current floor holder’s floor

which causes her/him to stop talking, then it is regarded as an interruption.

195
 Chapter 5

When interruption takes place, the reaction of the one who is being overlapped, namely

the current floor holder, varies. As with Suwako’s reaction in this example, one may

immediately give up the floor, or the speaker at least finish her/his turn before giving up

the floor, or also compete back for retaining the current floor. The first reaction may

minimise the conflict among the participants, but the third reaction may interfere with

the smooth flow of the ongoing conversation to a large extent.

4.1.3 Neutral overlaps

Among non-floor holder’s overlaps towards the current floor holder, there are overlaps

which do not support the content of the current floor holder’s talk as a non-floor holder

nor compete against the current floor holder for getting the floor. I term these overlaps

as “neutral overlaps.” Neutral overlaps include “new turn at TRP” and “misjudging

turn completion.” Though, neutral overlaps take a neutral stance at the overlap onset,

some may turn to be competitive afterwards. For example misjudging turn completion

can be intrusive if a person, who starts her/his turn by misjudging the current floor

holder’s turn completion, does not stop talking even after realising the current floor

holder’s talk continues. Similarly, although excluded from the data analysis,

simultaneous start can be understood as neutral in this sense, since there will be a

competition betweeh the two speakers for gaining the floor after the overlap onset.

Below are the explanations of “New turn at TRP,” and “misjudging turn completion.”

4.1.3.1 New turn at TRP

Turn in this category indicates a full turn that excludes non-floor holder’s supportive

turn for the current floor holder’s talk which have been discussed above. This kind of

overlap exactly follows one of Sacks et al.’s (1974) gross facts that overwhelmingly one

196
 Chapter 5

speaker talks at a time, and speaker transition may take place at a TRP which is

predicted by the non-floor holder (cf. CTRP, Ford and Thompson, 1996). The initial

purpose for the non-floor holder is to start a new full turn, i.e. floor, rather than uttering

a supportive utterance for the current floor holder as a non-floor holder as Suwako’s

talk in the following exchange:

(40) Students at a different proficiency level (H-1, modified)

The participants are discussing a problem they encounter, that is, students with different proficiency
levels in Japanese communication are enrolled in the same class, which makes them hard to teach. A
suggestion, to distinguish students with some experience of studying Japanese from total beginners, and
teach them accordingly, was raised. But the participants were all finding it difficult to do so and were
starting to express their views:

1 H: Yappari sono yattenai hito no naka kara ne, yappa sa=

as we know HES doing not person P inside from FP as we know FP
As we expect that from students without experience (of studying Japanese),
B:
N:
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = fainaru asesumento ga /yap/pa onnaji nanda kara sugoku=
final assessment P as we know same COP since lots of
since (they are taking) the same final assessment, lots of

B:
N:
S:

F: u – n
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = konpurein deru to hontoni kurasu no naka [de kooiu chigau]=
complaint out QUOT indeed class p inside in this kind of different
complaints will come out, indeed different things in class like this,

B:

N: [u - n]
aizuchi
(agreement)

S: [u - n]
aizuchi
(agreement)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

197
 Chapter 5

4 H: = koto wa zettai dekinai to omo[u.

thing P absolutely cannot QUOT think
we absolutely cannot do this, I think.

B:
N:

S: [Demo raitingu no kurasu=

but writing P class
But the writing class is
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H:

B: [ u n ]
aizuchi
(agreement)

N: [u - n]
aizuchi
(agreement)

S: = wa ne muzukashii desu [yo ne] [hon[toni.u–n kore wa]

P FP difficult COP FP FP indeed REC this P
is,you know,difficult, isn’t it? Indeed, yeah, this is,

F: - [u
n]
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 H:
B:
N:

S: = hora <talk continues>

INT
you know

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The beginning of Suwako’s talk in line 4 is overlapping the terminal part of Harue’s

talk. Following Harue’s opinion, Suwako tries to explain how serious the problem is by

telling of her experience in a writing class, since Harue is not involved in teaching these

classes. After this point, Suwako gains the floor and develops her argument. In order to

gain the floor, Suwako does not just wait for Harue until her talk almost reaches a

CTRP, but also utters agreement aizuchi towards Harue prior to her new turn (line 3).

Agreeing with the current floor holder before developing a new argument, seems to

contribute to a smooth floor shift. Although there are new turns starting at CTRPs

198
 Chapter 5

without such a prologue of aizuchi utterances, this way of floor shift may be more

commonly observed in a formal setting where harmony and cohesion of the

participants’ talk are more expected, than in an informal setting. However, with such a

limited data set, it is hard to argue this.

4.1.3.2 Misjudging turn completion

It is not necessary for a current floor holder to complete her/his turn at CTRP. However,

a non-floor holder often expects the current floor holder’s turn completion when her/his

talk reaches to a CTRP and starts talking. In cases where current floor holder keeps

talking after the CTRP, a non-floor holder’s new turn overlaps the continuation of the

current floor holder’s talk. An example is observed in the following exchange from the

informal chat:

(41) Parking fee (H-2, modified)

Harue has been telling of her experience that she had to pay more for parking because she missed the
timing of showing her student ID at the gate. Suwako wonders whether it was because the ticket had
already been processed when Harue claimed to be a student.

1 H: Sorede hachi-doru to Juugo-doru de zen[zen chigau=

and 8 dollars and 15 dollars P totally different
And 8 dollars and 15 dollars would make a big difference,

S: [ d e m o =
but
But

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = j a n a i]
COP not
isn’t it?

S: = kikai ni ] kakechau wake
saki ni.

machine P put through reason first P
is it (the ticket) scanned, first?
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 (0.7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

199
 Chapter 5

4 H: Wakanna:i [demo soko de ] jikan o mite [ikura tte]=

know not but there at time p see how much QUOT
I don’t know, but they look at the time there and charge,

S: [demo kono shita datte] [u - n]

but this below even aizuchi
But (parking) down here also (understanding)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H: = yaru n janai
do VN COPnotQ
don’t they?

S: Un demo nanka (…)

aizuchi but AP
(understanding) but somehow
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon Suwako’s question in lines 1-2, Harue replies that she does not know, following

0.7 seconds pause. Harue’s reply itself is regarded as a grammatically completed

utterance. Thus, assuming Harue would finish her turn at the end of her reply, Suwako

commences her turn. However, as Harue continues talking, Suwako’s talk turns to

overlap Harue’s talk. In this exchange, Suwako immediately withdraws once she

realises that Harue has not finished her turn, since the floor is still held by Harue. But

contrary to this example, there are cases in which the paticipant who overlaps the

current floor holder by misjudging turn completion, ignores whomever has the floor and

continues talking as in the following example.

(42) Small fire (H-3, modified)

After the participants have heard about Eri’s bad experience with a small fire the previous night, Harue
asks Eri if she feels disoriented.

1 H: Ja kyoo demo: atama ga ooot tte [kanji

then today even head P MIM QUOT feeling
So you feel disoriented even today?

E: [Hotondo:[nanka ~ dakara:=
almost AP so
Almost, somhow so

N: [Nanka nee hidoi=

AP FP serious
Somehow, you know,

K:

200
 Chapter 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H:

E: = : : u n]
aizuchi
(continuer)

N: = no wa yappari hora] hakike toka saa <talk continues>

N P as you know INT nausea etc. FP
(with a) serious case is, as we know, (one feels), see, for example nauseous,

K:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Harue’s question in line 1 is directed at Eri, thus Eri has been selected to be the next

speaker. To Harue’s question, Eri starts answering with “hotondo,” “almost.” However,

she stretches the end of the word as “hotondo:,” rather than immediately continuing her

turn. Natsuki, who judged that Eri’s reply to Harue had been completed (i.e. a lexical

turn), starts talking, but simultaneously, Eri continues her talk. At this point, Natsuki

should have realised that she had misjudged Eri’s turn completion and stopped, since

the floor was still owned by Eri. However, Natsuki does not stop, but continues talking.

As a result, Eri stops once, and tries to restart her turn after an inbreath with “dakara:,”

“so,” but fails to stop Natsuki. Thus, she ends up giving her floor away and taking a

non-floor holder’s role with a continuer, “un.” In this particular case, after Natsuki,

Harue took the next floor, and Eri never regained her floor.

As this example shows (though there are few such cases in the data), misjudging a turn

completion may lead to a competition between the involved parties. Therefore, when

this kind of overlap took place, how it is processed needs to be considered.

4.1.4 Miscellaneous

For some functions of overlaps, the sample is too small (only a few cases are observed)

to form a category. They include “aizuchi combination,” “delayed reaction,” “delayed

self-completion,” “hesitation filler” and “negative aizuchi.”

201
 Chapter 5

Aizuchi combination consists of two aizuchi. There are only three cases in the data and

all of them start with evaluation followed by other aizuchi. In fact each of them is

followed by a different aizuchi function in the data. Delayed reaction includes delayed

reply and delayed aizuchi. The majority of aizuchi are uttered within the current floor

holder’s turn or right after the turn rhythmically. There were only four cases of delayed

reaction found in the data.

Delayed self-completion is to complete non-floor holder’s previous talk that is followed

by the current floor holder’s talk as in the following example (43):

(43) Exporting money (Sa-1, modified)

Sachiko and Masao ask Yoshida whether it is possible for the investor to take (a large amount of)
Australian dollars back to Japan.

1 Sa:
M:

Y: Deki masu yo. Tada ano: Nihon itt s tashika issen man=
can COP FP but HES Japan as I recall ten million
Yes you can. But um Japan, as I recall, in the case of taking out

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa:

M: [soo desu [Nihon wa go]-hyaku man [made]

that COP Japan P five million up to
Yes Japan allows up to five million.

Y: = ijoo [no ~ mochidashi [no baai wa] ee [shitt]=

above P take out P case P aizuchi
over ten million (yen),in the case of taking (money) out (of country) (agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa:

M: [soo soo] soo

aizuchi
(agreement)

Y: = shinkoku ga arimasu [kedo nee].

declaration P exist but FP
you have to declare, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Masao’s “made, “ “up to” at the end of line 2 is the completion of his previous talk.

However, his previous talk, “Nihon wa go-hyaku man,” “Japan is five million” is

actually interrupting Yoshida’s talk. In fact Yoshida stopped upon Masao’s interruption,

202
 Chapter 5

and even utters aizuchi to acknowledge Masao’s talk. Right after this aizuchi, Yoshida

attempts to resume his floor, but Masao’s “made” starts at the same time. As a result,

Yoshida once again stopped talking and restarted after Masao’s completion. The reason

for Masao’s interruption seems to correct Yoshida’s information regarding the amount

of money that requires declaration. Interestingly, Yoshida does not seem to fully

appreciate Masao’s correction, since he merely utters a short aizuchi, “ee,” and

continues his talk. This aizuchi function is understood as agreement on the surface.

However, as Yoshida’s understanding of the amount that can be taken out without tax,

which does not agree with Masao, this “agreement” seems to be only a “social

agreement” for the purpose of smooth communication. If Yoshida admitted Masao’s

understanding was correct, then he would probably have uttered stronger understanding

aizuchi such as “aa soo desu ka,” “Oh I see.” Having searched for which of the two is

right, it turned out neither information seems to be correct. Whatever the true case is, at

this particular point, there seems to be some miscommunication between the two

participants, hence the flow of conversation is disrupted. This was the only example

found of non-floor holder’s self-completion11 in overlap with the current floor holder’s

talk.

Hesitation filler is to fill the current floor holder’s hesitation with an utterance that

contextually aligns with the current floor holder. See the following example:

(44) Publishing article (Sa-1)

Yoshida is concerned whether his name will also be disclosed when the article based on what they have
discussed in the meeting is published.

11 Thourh non-floor holder self claimed for the next floor upon interruption, the floor is not publicly
acknowledged.

203
 Chapter 5

1 Sa: Waa - u h u
EX <laugh>
Wow

M: Iyat desu=
INT so
Well so

Y: Kore ichioo watashi no namae deru n desu ka

this suppose I P name out VN COP FP Q
Is my name supposed to be published?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Sa: [u - n] Doshitara [ii=
aizuchi how do CON good
(continuer) I wonder how we

M: = kara [ne [chotto sore mo] are de (0.5) anoo - [gen=

FP little that P that P HES draft
you know that is a little bit that Umm I will

Y: e[e
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
Sa: = kana ] [u n]
wonder aizuchi
could do that. (agreement)

M: = koo o] omise shimasu [kara]

P show do COP since
show you the draft.

Y: ee
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Yoshida has been telling Sachiko and Masao a business secret, both Masao and

Sachiko understand how Yoshida feels if it is to be published. In replying to Yoshida’s

question, Masao is trying to solve the problem, but could not think of any solution

immediately, hence his very ambiguous reply with “that,” and ends up his talk followed

by a hesitation, “anoo” (line 1-2). Then Sachiko quickly starts her talk (end of line 2) as

if she is filling the space, which is created by Masao’s hesitation. From the way Sachiko

starts, it looks like information supply. However, Sachiko does not really give Masao

the information, rather she is also considering the situation. Thus, Sachiko’s utterance,

“doo shitara ii kana,” “I wonder what we could do” is to show her alignment with

204
 Chapter 5

Masao as a company colleague and to try to solve Yoshida’s concern together. As

Yoshida’s question (line 1) is a very sensitive one, it should be more effective for Masao

and Sachiko not to produce any pause, which might give Yoshida an impression that

they are not being considerate. Given this, this type of overlap should be separated from

information supply. However, this is the only example of this kind found in the data.

For negative aizuchi, as Horiguchi (1997) discussed, two different types of aizuchi were

found. One is to show non-floor holder’s humble attitude towards the current floor

holder’s compliment, as with Masao’s negation in the following exchange:

(45) Ultra-high-risk (Sa-1, modified)

Masao has been talking about how much risk would be taken if one takes money (for investment) to
Hong Kong, since its economic situation is currently not very active. He then describes such as risk as
“ultra-high-risk,” which made the participants burst into laughter since the term he created sounds funny
as well as witty.

1 Sa: <laugh> =

M: <laugh> ne ha iyaiya =
INT < laugh> INT
Well

Y: Urutora hai risuku <laugh> omoshiroi koto ii=

Ultra high risk funny thing say
Ultra high risk What a funny word

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: = <laugh>urutora hai risuku - =
ultra high risk

M: = ieie<laugh> iyaiya =
no no no no

Y: = masu ne. <laugh> nee hee sasuga=

COP FP INT aizchi expected
you said. (understanding) As I

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = =

M: ie ~
no

Y: = wa moo nee moo nyuu ironna atarashii nihongo o tsukutte=

EMP FP EMP new various new Japanese P create
expected, you are (witty for ) creating various new Japanese

205
 Chapter 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: =

M: iya iya
no no

Y:
= shimau /n desu/ nee ~
complete VN COP FP
words, aren’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this example, while laughing over the funny term, “ultra-high-risk,” Yoshida also

admires Masao for being witty in producing such a term. But Masao, who wants to

show his humble attitude towards his client, literally negates it rather than accepting

Yoshida’s admiration directly (lines 2-4).12

In contrast, the other negative aizuchi indicates unsatisfactory agreement or

understanding towards the current floor holder as Suwako’s aizuchi in the following

example:

(46) Price of Knickers (H-2, modified)

After Fumie’s unfortunate story about her lingerie being stolen, the participants shifted the topic to a
Japanese black market that sells girls used nickers.

1 H: Kore [ga: k a n gofu] san toka kore ga schuwaadesu toka=

this P nurse ADD etc. this P stewardess etc.
This is nurse’s and this is stewardess’ or something like that

S:

F: [aa kimochi waru]

EX feeling bad
Oh yuk!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = tte itte [su - goi ]dakara
QUOT say very much so
they say very much So

S: ureru n da tte [pantsu ichimai]ne: un zen en=

can sell VN COP QUOT nickers a piece FP some thousand yen
I hear that one pair of knicker can be sold at some thousand yen.

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

12 “Iyaiya”in line 1 is not negation but an interjection, which is common to insert in the middle or at the
end of laughter.

206
 Chapter 5

3 H: A iyat[iyat takai no wa] man made [da t]toka [tte:]=

EX no no expensive N P ten thousand to COP etc. QUOT
Eh no no. The expensive ones cost up to 10,000 yen I heard and

S: = [de

F: [Att utte[ru no ka koree ] [h h] [arat]

EX sold VN FP this one <laugh> EX
Oh they are for sale! What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = ichi [ban takai] no ga juunana [sai no nantoka tte ]
the most expensive one P seventeen age P something QUOT
the most expensive one is a seventeen-year-old-girl’s, I heard.

 S: [So
- o ] [nan de nedan o kimeru no]=

aizuchi what by price P decide FP
(negation) What decides the price?
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H: [Chigau] <continues talking>
different
No

S: = yaa [da ]
dislike COP
Noooo
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Suwako, who was negated by Harue in regard to the price of girls’ used knickers (line

3) cannot really believe that they are sold for that much. Her aizuchi in line 4, which

presents a different tone from the ordinary understanding aizuchi (i.e. rising ending),

shows her doubt. Suwako also lost her floor through Harue’s silent interruption (i.e.

start of new turn by latching Suwako’s talk in line 3). Thus, after this aizuchi, she

interrupts Harue back by questioning how the price of knickers is decided with an

exclamation, “Yaa daa,” “Nooo.” But despite Suwako’s small resistance, Harue again

takes the floor from her (line 5) and continues talking. As this example shows, this type

of unsatisfactory aizuchi literally approves the current floor holder, though the tonic

pattern is different from ordinary aizuchi. As discussed in excerpt (42) above,

Yoshida’s agreement aizuchi, “ee” towards Masao in line 2 also belongs to this type of

aizuchi. It is interesting to note that two negative aizuchi convey totally contrastive

meaning (i.e. welcome vs unwelcome) and formation (literally negate vs literally

207
 Chapter 5

approve). It can be argued that the choice of formation is controlled by politeness

(Brown and Levinson, 1987;Leech, 1983) (i.e. the negative form for a compliment, and

approval form for counter argument etc.) The only negative aizuchi observed in the

data were the above three cases.

4.2 Overlap by floor holder

A considerable number of overlaps in conversation are uttered by non-floor holders.

However, there are overlaps that are uttered by the current floor holder. Since current

floor holder’s talk is secured under the publicly approved right to talk, overlaps the

current floor holder causes are mostly non-competitive. However, when a non-floor

holder threatens her/his right to talk for attempting to gain the floor, sometimes the

current floor holder protects her/his floor against the non-floor holder’s attempts to talk,

which causes competition between the two parties for the floor. Thus, in this section, I

will discuss non-competitive overlaps first, then move on to the competitive overlaps.

4.2.1 Non-competitive overlaps

The term “non-competitive overlap” is used rather than “cooperative overlap,” since

under the right of talking, the current floor holder can lead the ongoing conversation.

However, this does not mean overlaps that the current floor holder causes are not

cooperative. For example, “reconfirmation,” and “self-clarification” are made for the

non-floor holder to understand the current floor holder’s talk better, hence, are

cooperative. On the other hand, to continue talking at non-floor holder’s aizuchi is not

necessarily to be cooperative unless the function of aizuchi is a continuer. To keep

talking may lead to domination of the conversational floor, which is not regarded as

cooperative, although neither is it competitive.

208
 Chapter 5

4.2.1.1 Reconfirmation

There is a case where a current floor holder reconfirms what s/he has just mentioned by

uttering a short utterance towards one or more non-floor holders’ aizuchi towards

herself / himself like the following example:

(47) Missing linen (H-2, modified)

Fumie is telling about her experience of missing her linen, which was mistakenly taken by one of her
neighbours. It eventually turned up on the laundry line, and Fumie assumes whoever took it returned it.

1 H:

S:

F: Demo dareno ka wakannai mon de mata hoshite atta =

but whose Q know not thing since again dry existed
But as (the person) could not work out whose linen it was, (s/he)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H:

S: (0.3) Aa [soo]ka [h a a ha a]
aizuchi aizuchi
(understanding) (understanding)

F: =
wake yo. [u n] [hoshite oite] atta wake.
reason FP REC dried put existed reason
put it back (on the line) It was put and left (on the line).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In line 2, by overlapping Harue’s aizuchi towards Fumie, Fumie utters “un,” then

repeats what she has just mentioned to Suwako. As Suwako has already shown her

understanding of what Fumie said by her aizuchi, Fumie’s repetition of the former

utterance is not for seeking Suwako’s understanding but reconfirming what she

previously said to Suwako. Reconfirmation seems to contribute in keeping harmonious

atmosphere of the communication by making ongoing talk rhythmic and active. 13

As the above example shows, reconfirmation appears as a combination of aizuchi term

and a substantial talk or as an aizuchi term solely. Because of its formation, this

13 See Iwasaki (1997) for the discussion of “loop sequence” in relation to “mutual dependency” in
communication among Japanese.

209
 Chapter 5

phenomenon tends to be described as “uttering aizuchi towards aizuchi,” or “back-

backchannel (Iwasaki, 1997).” However, Imaishi (1994) observed in her data that a

speaker shift takes place mostly after this kind of utterance. With this observation, she

argues that it is a signal to give up the floor hence it should be distinguished from

aizuchi. Although my data did not prove it to be a signal to give up one’s floor like

what Imaishi argues, considering the nature of aizuchi, that is a non-floor holder’s

supportive utterance towards the current floor holder, this study consistently uses the

term reconfirmation for this kind of overlap caused by a floor holder and distinguishes it

from aizuchi.

4.2.1.2 Self clarification

There is an occasion where the current floor holder notices that s/he has just mentioned

something vague or unclear which might not have been understood by non-floor

holders, and quickly clarifies it by using an alternative expression as in the following

exchange:

(48) Tax strategy (Sa-1, modified)

Sachiko and Masao are interested in a tax strategy in the case of a Japanese person making a property
investment in Australia while living in Japan. Yoshida, who is a real estate broker, explains the way,
which is to establish a dummy company and open a bank account for the company.

1 Sa:

M:

Y: Tatoeba okyaku sama no~bukken o maneeji shita: rento=

for example client ADD P property P management did rent
For example, for the rent we managed for our client’s property,
----------------------------------------------------------------------

210
 Chapter 5

2 Sa: u - n
aizuchi
(continuer)

M: [a a ]
EX
Oh

Y: =
zenbu sono hito no:~ Oosutoraria no da[miigaisha] no=
whole that person P Australia P dummy company P
we put the whole amount in the person’s account for the dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: Kooza ni ne a - -

account P FP aizuchi
To the account. (understanding)

M: [Soo ]
aizuchi
(agreement)

Y: =
[kooza] irechau n desu. Soo sure ba uzd kireru=
account put VN COP that do CON HES can cut
company in Australia. In doing so, that with Japan,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: [a - soode[su yo ne] u-n
aizuchi aizuchi
(understanding) (understanding)

M: Soo
aizuchi
(agreement)

 Y: =
deshoo Nihon to [no are ga [setten ga] <talk continues>
COP Japan with P that P contact P
can be cut off.. (I mean) the contact (with Japan).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In line 3-4, Yoshida meant to say that contact with Japan would be cut off by using a

bank account for a dummy company. But he could not say the right word, “setten,”

“contact” at first. Instead, he used pronoun, “are,” “that” to refer to this word. Using the

pronoun “are” is not uncommon in conversation among Japanese. The participants

mostly understand what the pronoun refers to out of context. This case is no exception.

It does not seem to be difficult to track down the reference of “are” since Yoshida has

given out enough information to understand the content of his talk. In fact Sachiko

utters understanding aizuchi. But to make sure that Sachiko and Masao understand what

he is saying, Yoshida clarifies the pronoun by providing the exact term.

211
 Chapter 5

Clarification is often requested by a non-floor holder (i.e. clarification question) when

the current floor holder is not aware of being unclear in her/his talk. Compared with the

clarification question by a non-floor holder, a floor holder’s self-clarification is not

frequently observed. Actually, the number of instances of self-clarification in the data

for this study was less than 10.

4.2.1.3 Floor continuation

This is an overlap caused by a current floor holder continuing her/his talk while non-

floor holder(s) are uttering aizuchi towards herself/himself. There are two types of floor

continuation by overlapping non-floor holder’s aizuchi: one is to continue her/his

previous talk that was grammatically incomplete and was encouraged by non-floor

holder’s continuer; and the other is to keep talking after reaching a possible turn

completion which is at least grammatically completed. Floor continuation is commonly

observed when one is telling a story as in the following example:

(49) Stood up by a supervisor (H-2, modified)

Harue is telling Suwako and Fumie about the day she was stood up by her supervisor.

1  H: Hode sensei ni ichi-jikan matasarete sa [doo=

and teacher by one hour wait CAU PS FP how
And I was waiting for the teacher for one hour I

S: u
-[n

aizuchi
(evaluation)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2  H: = shiyoo kaeroo kana to omotte kita wake. [De watashi mo=
do VO go home VOLwonderQUOT think come reason and I also
thought what I should do, and I started to think of going home. And I

S: u[ - =
aizuchi
(understanding)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

212
 Chapter 5

3 H: = koko] no sukuuru miitingu san-ji kara aru tte itteta=

here P school meeting 3 o’clock from exist QUOT said
knew there would be our school’s meeting from 3pm (…)

S: = n ]

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = kara <talk continues>
since
S:

F:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In line 1 and 2, Harue continues talking over Suwako’s aizuchi, which functions as her

sympathetic evaluation (note her up and down intonation of her aizuchi) and may well

as continuer. Both of Harue’s utterances prior to Swauko’s aizuchi are grammatically

complete, but they are not pragmatically complete. Harue’s first continuation in line 1 is

overlapping only at the end of Suwako’s aizuchi, whereas, the latter continuation in line

2 overlaps at the very beginning of Suwako’s aizuchi. It is assumed that the latter type

of utterance may show more enthusiasm in the telling of a story. It is sometimes

difficult for a non-floor holder to judge whether the current floor holder is about to

conclude her/his talk. See the following exchange:

(50) Decent Thai family (H-2, modified)

The participants have been talking about Harue’s neighbour sneakily using the laundry stand which
belongs to the building Harue lives. Harue compares the neighbour with a Thai family who live above her
flat, and decently use only one side of the laundry stand whether or not the other sides are available.

1 H: Demo sugoku erai naa toka saa omotta no ga saa ~ =

but very admirable FP etc. FP thought VN P FP
But what I thought (how) admirable they are is that
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = nanka (0.2) Yon Yon men Yon (0.3) shi-hoo aru wake=
AP four four side four four direction exist reason
Something like, four, four sides, it has four sides,
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

213
 Chapter 5

3 H: = ja[nai [takusan aite temo hitotsu shika ] tsukawanai=

COP much vacant even one only use not
you know? Although there are much space, they use only one side.

S: [u – n [sono futatsu shika tsukawanai n sho]

aizuchi that two only use not VN COP
(agreement) only two sides they use, don’t they?

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
H: = no yo. De ~ daitai] (0.5) re erai hito da na to omotta=
FP FP and originally admirable personCOP FP QUOT thought
And I originally thought that they are admirable.

S: u n u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)

F: u - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H: = no ne.
FP FP
S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the beginning of line 4, Harue seems to have concluded her talk, and the other two

utter understanding aizuchi. However, immediately after the others started their aizuchi,

Harue resumes her talk with conjunction “de,” “and” at high volume, followed by her

breathing in, which seems to declare that she still wants to hold the floor. After

breathing in, Harue starts with “daitai,” “originally” but ceases and causes a relatively

long pause of 0.5 seconds. After the pause, she continues her turn, but the information

given in the talk is nothing new. After this talk, Harue holds the floor quite a while to

talk about the Thai family. So her continuation in line 4 seems to be rather strategic to

keep her floor. However, as the other two merely utter aizuchi, Harue’s action cannot be

regarded as competitive.

4.2.1.4 Other non-competitive overlaps

Apart from the overlaps discussed above, as I mentioned in the previous section, early

214
 Chapter 5

reply and misjudging turn completion (e.g. towards non-floor holder’s support work

such as a clarification question) are also caused by the current floor holder. Since they

have already been discussed, I refrain from further discussion here.

4.2.2 Competitive overlap

The only competitive overlap caused by the current floor holder is “floor hold.” Unlike

floor continuation, it causes competition with non-floor holder for the floor.

4.2.2.1 Floor hold

When a current floor holder wants to retain her/his floor upon an occasion when another

participant is about to take it, s/he occasionally signals that s/he has more to say. I refer

to this as “floor hold.” As discussed in the interruption section, “to compete against the

interrupter for retaining the floor” is one kind of floor hold, as in the following example:

(51) Girl’s undies (H-2, modified)

Harue is talking about a shadowy business that buys undies from high school girls and sells them to
sexual perverts secretly.

1 H: Sorede~ go - sen yen toka de uridashi tari nanka=

and five thousand yen etc. at sell and so on somehow
And sell (them) at something like 5.000 yen, and somehow
S:

F:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
H: = sugoi hai benefitto mitaina koto yattete:~ [de tekihatsu=
very high benefit like thing do and and charge
it made a high profit or something and was charged
S:

F: Sono[ato ne :
that after FP
After that you see
----------------------------------------------------------------------

215
 Chapter 5

3 H: = sareta no yo sono bijinesu ga <talk continues>

do PAS FP FP that business P
was made you know, to that business
S:

F:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When Harue stopped talking to breath in to continue her story, Fumie takes a new floor

(line 2). Before this topic, the participants had been talking about Fumie’s stolen

underwear, and Fumie’s utterance, “sono (that) ato (after)” indicates “after the incident

of her underwear being stolen.” Although Fumie starts after Harue has stopped, Harue’s

talk is yet to finish (i.e. it is grammatically and pragmatically incomplete), hence it is

regarded as a silent interruption (i.e. interruption without overlap). Immediately after

Fumie started, Harue interrupts her and continues her talk. As the conversational floor

was originally owned by Harue, and she has not finished her talk when Fumie started,

Harue’s action was for “holding her ongoing floor” by counter-interrupting Fumie.

Floor hold also takes place without there being interruption. The following example is

from the missing linen exchange, which took place right after the exchange in (19)

above:

(52) Missing linen (H-2, modified)

Fumie is telling about her experience when she found her missing linen, which was accidentally taken by
one of her neighbours. Before finding it, she asked all her neighbours about it.

1 H:

S:

F: Shitara~ “aa sore wa ne nantoka ga machigaete=

then EX that P FP something P mistake
Then (the neighbour) said “ Oh someone made a mistake and
----------------------------------------------------------------------

216
 Chapter 5

2 H: [u-n un un /de]/
aizuchi and
(understanding)
S:

F: =
[mottetta” tte yutte: so]ide:(0.6)soshite ittara saa pott=
took QUOT said and then wentCON FP MIM
took (it)” And when I went there, suddenly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: /ji[shin/ga:=
confidence P
But (he was)
S: (0.6)

F: = mata modoshite atta wake yo. dakara soo [dakara =

again return existed reason FP so REC so
I found it returned, you know. So that’s it, So
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = demo aru [aru kara ne un so]re wa aru to [omou.
but exist exist since FP aizuchi that FP exist QUOT think
but as (he had) a confidence, you know, (agreement), I think (he) had.
S:

F: = soo soo [a aru n da keredomo] [demo=

REC exist VN COP but but
that’s right. (he had) but but
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H:

S:

F: = <talk continues>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

After talking about how she found the missing linen, Fumie stops in line 3. Her

reconfirmation utterance “dakara soo” “that’s it” after 0.6 second pause seems to

indicate the end of her talk, and Harue starts talking. But right after Harue has started,

Fumie repeats the previous utterance with one more “soo,” which makes the expression

stronger. This utterance can be understood as Fumie’s intention to talk further. Harue’s

talk in line 3 and 4 is supportive of what Fumie had said, rather than competing against

her. However, Harue’s turn is long enough to threaten Fumie’s right to talk. As a result,

Fumie once again had to stop in line 4, making another floor hold by repeating “but”

until she regains her floor.

217
 Chapter 5

4.3 Other types of overlap

There are other types of overlap that belong neither to non-floor holder’s overlap

towards the current floor holder, nor to the current floor holder’s overlap towards non-

floor holder. They include a participant’s legitimate start at floor free zone, overlaps

between non-floor holders, and ones where the number of samples in the data is too

small to create a category.

4.3.1 Starting to talk at a floor-free zone

In a conversation, there are places where one may start her / his floor freely. I call this

place as “floor free zone.” The most obvious floor-free zone is a pause after the current

floor holder has released the floor. Apart from a pause, there are two other floor-free

zones. One is during aizuchi or reconfirmation after the current floor holder completes

her/his floor, as in the following example:

(53) Stolen undies (H-2, modified)

The participants are talking about Fumie’s experience of her underwear being stolen.

1 H:

S:

F: Demo ne: zenbu ii no datta no yo: daka hentai ga =

but FP all good one COP FP FP so fixation P
But all of my undies were good ones. So a fixation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2  H: un [n: s o o ] [u - n ] [De nihon de=
aizuchi aizuchi aizuchi and Japan in
(continuer) (understanding) (understanding) And in Japan

S: [u
 -[ n
- =
aizuchi
(evaluation)

F: =
nee~ [yonayona ha]ite n no ka[moshire[nai].
FP every night wear VN may
may wear them every night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

218
 Chapter 5

3 H: = sore: de] sugoku shoobai ga monosugoku hagatta jiki ga=

and very business P very much boomed time P
And there was a period when this kind of business boomed.

S: = -
]

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = <talk continues>

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In line 2, Fumie’s floor concludes with an understanding aizuchi by Harue and

evaluation by Suwako. Harue utters her aizuchi early and introduces a new floor during

Suwako’s aizuchi towards Fumie. Precisely speaking, upon Suwako’s aizuchi towards

Fumie, the floor still belongs to Fumie. However, since she has obviously concluded her

floor prior to Suwako’s aizuchi, it is legitimate to interpret this area of Suwako’s

aizuchi as a floor-free zone, where anyone (except Suwako herself who is uttering an

aizuchi) can freely start talking.

Another floor-free zone is observed in laughter. There are various types of laughter

observed in a conversation; some are lengthy, some are accompanied by a substantial

talk and so on. The laughter that can be regarded as floor-free is the one that is observed

at the end of someone’s floor (e.g. the floor holder bursts into laughter to which the

others follow or vice versa). The laughter by Harue and Suwako in the exchange (38)

above (in line 3) creates a floor-free zone,

(38) Laundry line (H-2, modified)

Suwako is talking about her experience with her clothes on the laundry line being thrown away by her
neighbour.

219
 Chapter 5

1 H: [Uso[ -
- ]
lie (aizuchi)
You are kidding (evaluation)

S: [Minna ya[ru no yo: honttoni] H ]san mo soo =

everybody do FP FP really H ADD also so
Everyone does, indeed. Why don’t you also do

F: Sore [nani [A sooka soo nano ] ka]

that what EX so FP So COP FP
What does it mean? Oh I see, I got it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H:

S: = sure ba:  kondo wa: [tonari no]hito ga kake tara ~=

do if next P next door P person P hang CON
(it) next time when (the person) next door hangs out her (clothes)?

 F: [na n ka]
AP
Well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: [ya: <laugh> [So: <laugh>
no so ( aizuchi)
No su(ch a thing) (evaluation)

S: = pya-[tt toka tte <laugh> ~

MIM etc. QUOT
throw (them away).

F: [Naa nan anone watashi no nee <talk continues>

AP INT I P FP
Well Um My..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Suwako had already come to the end of her story at which there was laughter, no

more talk is expected to continue. Fumie, who has already indicated her intention to talk

next in her floor bidding, therefore successfully takes this opportunity and starts her talk

legitimately. At the floor free zone, it is also possible for more than one participant to

self-select to be the next speaker, which causes a simultaneous start.

4.3.2 Overlaps between non-floor holders

In multi-party conversations, there are overlaps between non-floor holders caused by

the followings:

220
 Chapter 5

*Simultaneous aizuchi by non-floor holders.

*An utterance that is targeted at other than the person who is being overlapped.

The latter overlap includes the sub-floor holder talking to the non-floor holder(s) for the

main floor holder by overlapping the main floor holder’s talk.

These overlaps have already been discussed in section 4 in Chapter 4. Overlap that a

non-floor holder targets another non-floor holder will be further discussed in Chapter 6.

4.4 Types of overlap that are not discussed in this study

Apart from the all presented types of overlaps, there are a few other types of overlaps

that are observed in the collected data but are not discussed in this study. They are: 1.

one’s talk to herself / himself overlapping another’s talk, and 2. one’s laughter

overlapping the other’s talk or laughter. “Talking to oneself” is not regarded as an

interpersonal utterance, and the samples of this kind of utterance in the collected data

are very few. For laughter, as discussed in Chapter 4, laughter itself is not substantial

talk, and can solely be discussed in deeper level in studies of communication (e.g.

Jefferson, 1984, 2004), hence it is excluded from discussion in this study. However, as

previously mentioned, evaluative laughter and laughter that is accompanied by

substantial talk are subjects for discussion.

5. Conclusion

This chapter began by pointing out the problem that lies in previous studies of overlap,

that is, exclusion of aizuchi from analysis. As some scholars argue, the majority of

overlaps in Japanese conversation are aizuchi, which is also demonstrated by the data of

this study. There is an opinion that including such a large number of aizuchi, which

merely conveys non-floor holder’s acknowledgement towards the current floor holder’s

221
 Chapter 5

talk, may prevent researchers from analysing non-aizuchi overlap carefully. However,

the form and function of aizuchi vary, and sometimes they function to do more than just

show acknowledgment. Also, what function and form are observed in conversation is

quite interesting. Thus, this study primarily analysed all overlaps in terms of their

function and form. Secondly, the approach and the method of classification were

discussed. In overlap classification, there are two approaches; the one is classifying

overlap by form, and the other is by function. The overlap classification in this study is

primarily functionally based, since formal classification may cause misinterpretation of

the context of communication (e.g. a terminal overlap which is usually regarded as a

part of smooth turn shift and is excluded from the discussion may functionally deliver a

meaningful signal such as encouragement / discouragement to the current floor holder).

The classification of overlap in this study took has been done by analysing each overlap

in terms of who overlaps whom and how it functions. The overlaps are divided into

three groups; non-floor holder’s overlap towards the current floor holder, current floor

holder’s overlap towards non-floor holder and other types of overlap. The first two

groups are further divided to cooperative overlap and competitive overlaps. Cooperative

overlaps are aiming at supporting the current floor holder’s talk, which include aizuchi,

“clarification question,” “information supply,” “early reply,” “other completion” and

“aizuchi follower” for non-floor’s overlap and “reconfirmation” and “self-clarification”

for the floor holder. Competitive overlaps cause the involved participants’ competition

over the right to talk, which includes “floor bidding” and “interruption” for the non-

floor holder and “floor hold” for the floor holder. It was also suggested that these

overlaps are classified only by their surface function. In other words, some overlaps

may work differently from what would be expected from their surface function. There

are overlaps that are neither cooperative nor competitive in nature, hence neutral (e.g.

222
 Chapter 5

“turn completion misjudgement”). There are also overlaps that neither belonging to

floor holder nor non-floor holder, and that are excluded from the analysis (e.g. talking to

oneself, overlapping laughters etc.) Based on this method, all overlaps in the collected

data are classified. The next two chapters will discuss the conversational style of the

participants based on the results of functional classification of overlaps. In Chapter 6, I

will first discuss participants’ communication style by looking at quantities of overlap

functions. These quantities suggest not just overall tendencies of the participan’s

communication style, but also clarify what elements are related to create overlaps. Then

I will shift the discussion from quantitative to qualitative, and will investigate

participants’ strategic communication style and their sociocultural transfer and

adjustment in their Japanese communication in Australia through transcripts of the data.

Chapter 7 will discuss how gendered communication style appeared in communication

by the participants. For this investigation, from a variety of data sources, the first

informant, Sachiko’s conversational data will be closely analysed.

223
 Chapter 6

Chapter 6 Conversational style 1: Overall observations

1. Introduction

In Chapter 5, I argued the significance of a functional classification of overlap, and

presented the method of classification of overlap in this study. I then discussed each

overlap category with actual examples. From the classification, the following points

were noticed:

i) There is a rich variety of functions of overlap.

ii) Overlaps are not always initiated by a non-floor holder; there are overlaps

that are initiated by the floor holder.

iii) Overlaps of both floor holder and non-floor holder include cooperative

overlap type and competitive overlap types, and there are overlaps that are

neither cooperative nor competitive (i.e. neutral overlaps).

iv) In a multi-party conversation, the participant’s talk that overlaps the current

floor holder’s talk is not necessarily targeted at the current floor holder.

Based on the classification, all overlaps were classified and summarised in tables. These

tables show each participant’s overlap per function towards the rest of the parties in the

conversation.1 Such tables are presented for each participant in each conversation.

Hence, in total, there are 21 tables from the data (i.e. 3 participants x 3 conversations =

9 tables in which the first informant, Sachiko, is involved, and 3 participants + 4

participants + 5 participants = 12 tables in which the second informant, Harue, is

1
These tables are at times complex. The explanation on how to read the tables is in the Appendix 2.

224
 Chapter 6

2
involved). By examining the number of overlaps and functions, this chapter first

discusses the quantitative aspects of overlap in the data. In this first part, I will first

discuss overall observations of overlap in these conversations in general by looking at

the quantity of each function amongst all the overlaps appearing in the data. Then I will

investigate how overlap frequency is related to the number of participants, the

formality, the genre, the topic and the setting of the conversations. The second part of

this chapter will discuss two issues qualitatively. First, it will focus on a few

complexities of overlap function by investigating selected overlaps. The complexities in

this discussion include the strategic use of aizuchi and “third-party approach,” in which

talk cooperatively overlaps the current floor holder, and conveys a message to the other

person at the same time. Second, cultural adjustment and cultural transfer in one’s

discourse style will be discussed using examples from the data. Investigation of overlap

in terms of gender will be discussed in Chapter 7.

2. Quantitative observations on overlap

2.1 Total overlap distribution

After completing all the tables, the numbers of overlaps in each function were
3
summated. The table below shows the total number of overlaps per function. This

section discusses some trends in overlap frequencies observed in the data, which have

not been discussed much in previous studies. Therefore there will be no comprehensive

2
As there are many tables, they are placed in the Appendix 2 and are referred to when discussed.
3
Note that the total number of overlaps shown in the table does not match the actual number of overlaps
in the data. This is because: a) simultaneous starts have been excluded; b) in cases where an utterance
overlaps more than one person, its function is counted plurally since the function of overlap in this study
is examined on the basis of participant (who overlaps) to participant (who is being overlapped). As this
study discusses overlaps in terms of its function, the number used in the discussion hereafter indicates the
quantity of overlap per function.

225
 Chapter 6

discussion of cooperative overlap. The focused trends include aizuchi frequency,

competitive overlap frequency, and overlap by floor holder.

2.1.1 aizuchi

Table 6.1 summarises total number of overlaps per function.

Table 6.1 Total number of overlaps per function

function form frequency ratio (%)

continuer aizuchi T 239 9.2
others 2 0.1
understanding aizuchi T 335 12.9
aizuchi

others 17 0.7
agreement aizuchi T 399 15.4
others 33 1.3
evaluation aizuchi T 15 0.6
others 80 3.1
non-floor holder

clarification Q
47 1.8
info. supply
21 0.8
early reply
72 2.8
other completion early 37 1.4
choral 13 0.5

aizuchi follower aizuchi T 162 6.3

others 6 0.2
floor bidding
32 1.2
interruption
103 4.0
new turn at TRP
27 1.0
TC misjudge
53 2.0

miscellaneous
16 0.6
reconfirmation aizuchi T
138 5.3
Ohers 19 0.7
floor holder

self clarification
9 0.3

early reply
12 0.5
floor continuation (NC)
155 6.0
floor continuation (C )
156 6.0


floor hold
64 2.5
floor free
125 4.8
others
to the other
58 2.2
excluded
147 5.7
Total
2592 100

226
 Chapter 6

As the table shows, the first three major overlap functions in terms of their frequency

are all aizuchi overlaps that take the form of an aizuchi term (1st. 399 agreements, 2nd.

335 understandings, and 3rd. 239 continuers), which total 37.5% of all overlaps. The

next two most frequent overlap functions are aizuchi follower and reconfirmation with

aizuchi terms (162 aizuchi followers and 138 reconfirmations).

When the numbers of these two types of overlap and evaluations that appear as aizuchi

terms are added to the first three, the total number of overlaps that take the form of an

aizuchi term is 1288, which is 49.7% of all overlaps. This result indicates that Japanese

use a large number of aizuchi terms in these conversations. When focusing on non-floor

holder’s direct aizuchi towards the floor holder, which includes both aizuchi terms and

other forms such as repetition or paraphrase, the total number of aizuchi overlaps

reaches 1120 (43.2%). If aizuchi follower, which is a non-floor holder’s indirect aizuchi

towards the current floor holder, is also included, the number increases by 168 (6.5%)

and reaches 1288 (49.7%), which is almost half of the total number of overlaps. The

results follow arguments in previous studies that a large proportion of overlaps in

Japanese conversation are aizuchi (e.g. Fujii, 1997; Honda, 1997; Ikoma, 1996). The

above quantitative analysis of aizuchi terms and aizuchi functions can be summarised in

the following figure:

Figure 6.1 Proportion of aizuchi (+aizuchi followers) and aizuchi terms used
in total number of overlaps

Total number of overlaps

aizuchi +aizuchi follower

aizuchi term

reconfirmation

227
 Chapter 6

Both of the number of aizuchi terms and the number of aizuchi (including aizuchi

follower) are almost half of the total number of overlaps, though aizuchi terms and

aizuchi do not exactly match, as Figure 6.1 shows. Previous studies of Japanese

overlaps have either totally excluded aizuchi or have excluded aizuchi that take the

form of an aizuchi term. Furthermore, overlap that is initiated by the current floor

holder, such as a reconfirmation, has hardly ever been discussed. This is because

overlap in Japanese conversation is mostly discussed based on the “turn-taking system,”

and no consensus has been reached among scholars about how to deal with aizuchi (i.e.

what aizuchi is and whether aizuchi is a turn or not).4 Reconfirmation seems to have

been dealt with in such studies as aizuchi. If the number of reconfirmation is also

included in the number of aizuchi and aizuchi follower, then the total becomes 1445

(55.7%). Considering the frequencies of other overlap functions, this proportion is very

large. Thus, it is understandable that scholars remove them from their analyses in order

to place a clear focus on the analysis that involves substantial talk. However, as aizuchi

is rich in context and carries a number of functions, it would provide a more

comprehensive picture if it was included in the functional analyses of overlap in

Japanese conversation. In this regard, I will examine the result of each function of

aizuchi further below.

In the data, aizuchi frequency per function is ordered (from the most frequent to the

least frequent) as follows:

4
See the discussion of turn and floor in Chapter 4 and discussion of aizuchi in Chapter 5.

228
 Chapter 6

Table 6.2 Order of aizuchi frequency per function

Most frequent 1. agreement (432)

2. understanding (352)

3. continuer (241)

Least frequent 4. evaluation (95)

Total (1120)

In Table 6.2, the combined number of agreement aizuchi and understanding aizuchi

(784) occupies over two-thirds of the total number of aizuchi. The number of

continuers is also large, but they are much fewer than the first two aizuchi functions. As

for evaluation, the number is relatively small compared with the other functions. This is

probably because evaluative aizuchi is directly related to the non-floor holder’s high

involvement in the conversation, more so than with the other functions, and its

frequency in a conversation varies depending upon what the participants talk about and

how they are involved in the conversation (e.g. whether the topic is attractive/surprising

enough for the participant(s) to utter evaluations). Also, as discussed in the previous

chapter, compared with other aizuchi functions, evaluation appears in a variety of

forms. This is demonstrated in the following table that shows the order of aizuchi

frequency per function and form.

229
 Chapter 6

Table 6.3 Order of aizuchi frequency per function (+ form)

Most frequent 1. agreement (aizuchi term 399)

2. understanding (aizuchi term 335)

3. continuer (aizuchi term 239)

4. evaluation (other form 80)

5. agreement (other form 33)

6. understanding (other form 17)

7. evaluation (aizuchi term 15)

Least frequent 8. continuer (other form 2)

Table 6.3 shows that while the majority of agreement, understanding and continuer

appears in a form of aizuchi terms (see the top three most frequent aizuchi), evaluation

is the only one that appears more frequently in forms (80) other than aizuchi terms (15).

In contrast, when looking at the appearance of continuers, interestingly the proportion

of its appearance in forms other than aizuchi terms is extremely small (2 out of 241;

0.8%) compared with agreement (33 out of 432; 7.6%) and understanding (17 out of

352; 4.8%) aizuchi. This may be explained by the function of a continuer. Continuers

encourage the current floor holder to continue talking in order for the non-floor holder

to more fully understand what the talk is about, or to at least acknowledge that more

talk is to come. In other words, at the time of uttering a continuer, the non-floor holder

is in the process of obtaining information from the current floor holder. Thus, it seems

to be more rational for the non-floor holder to react with a short aizuchi term such as

“un” or “u-n” than with other forms such as repetition or paraphrasing and so on, so

that the current floor holder can continue talking smoothly.

230
 Chapter 6

Overall, though aizuchi frequency in an individual conversation varies, it is observed

that the large number of agreement and understanding aizuchi show the participants’

intention to be involved in the ongoing conversation more actively than just listening to

the current floor holder’s talk.

2.1.2 Competitive overlaps by non-floor holder

As discussed in the previous chapter, non-floor holder’s overlap type is divided into two

major functional categories, that is, cooperative overlap which supports the current floor

holder’s talk and competitive overlap by which a non-floor holder competes for the

floor against the current floor holder. Among 14 functional categories of non-floor

holder’s overlap, competitive overlap includes only floor bidding and interruption. The

number of interruptions is 103. This number shows a relatively high frequency as an

individual function. Of all overlaps in the data, it constitutes 4.0% of total overlap

frequency. However, if this is recalculated within the number of non-floor holder’s

overlaps, the frequency goes up to 6.0%, as shown in Figure 6.2. Furthermore, when

the number of aizuchi and aizuchi follower are excluded from the calculation, the

frequency of interruption reaches 24.5%. This means, among non-floor holder’s non-

aizuchi overlap, almost one in four overlaps is an interruption, as Figure 6.3 shows. This

indicates that, from research on conversation such as this, a considerable difference in

findings may be expected according to whether or not the data includes aizuchi.

Previous studies that exclude aizuchi5 from the analysis suggest that there are few

interruptions in terms of disrupting the current speaker in Japanese conversations (e.g.

Fujii, 1997; Honda, 1997; Ikoma, 1996). Rather, they point out that most interruptive

5
Note that the definitions of aizuchi are slightly different in each of these studies.

231
 Chapter 6

overlaps contribute to creating harmony and promoting solidarity among the

participants and vitalising the ongoing conversation (Fujii, 1997).

0.9%
Figure 6.2 3.1%
Overlap by non-floor holders
1.6%
6.0%
1.9% aizuchi (65.4%)
clarification Q (2.8%)
info. Supply 1.2%)
9.9%
early reply (4.2%)
early completion (2.2%)
0.8% Choral completion (0.8%)
2.2% aizuchi follower (9.9%)
4.2% floor bidding (1.9%)
1.2% interruption (6.0%)
65.4% new turn at TRP (1.6%)
2.8%
TC misjudge (3.1%)
miscellaneous (0.9%)

Figure 6.3 Non-aizuchi overlap by non floor holders

3.8%
11.2%
12.6%
5.0%

clarification Q (11.2%)
6.4%
info. Supply (5%)
early reply (17.1%)
17.1%
early completion (8.8%)
choral completion (3.1%)
floor bidding (7.6%)
interruption (24.5%)
24.5% new turn at TRP (6.4%)
8.8%
TC misjudge (12.6%)
3.1% miscellaneous (3.8%)
7.6%

As discussed in Chapter 4, whether an utterance is regarded as an interruption or not is

different from study to study. Whether such an interruption is judged as disrupting the

other or as promoting the conversation seems to rely more on one’s subjective view.

There may be a case where a participant feels rather uncomfortable about being

232
 Chapter 6

interrupted throughout the conversation, although the conversation itself flows actively.

Because of such different ways of understanding interruptions, it may not be feasible to

compare the results of this study with previous ones. Despite excluding some

cooperative functions from the data, which are often dealt with as interruptions, the

number of interruptions in the data is large. This number is larger compared with Honda

and Fujii, who also investigated multi-party conversations (12.3% in Honda and 18.7%

in Fujii). Furthermore, if the number of interruptions is combined with other

competitive functions, such as floor bidding, the proportion of competitive overlaps by

non-floor holders increases to 7.9% in all of their overlaps, and to 32.1% in overlaps

without aizuchi overlaps. Apart from the definition of interruption, the reason for the

difference in its frequency seems due to other elements that construct a conversation,

such as setting, genre, participants’ social distance, etc. This will be discussed in section

2.2 below.

2.1.3 Overlaps by floor holder

The number of overlaps initiated by floor holders is 553 in total, which is about 21.3%

of the total number of overlaps as shown in Figure 6.4 below. This means that

approximately one in five overlaps is initiated by the current floor holder, and it shows

that overlaps in conversation are not only initiated by non-floor holders.

233
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.4 Overlap Initiator

5.7%
7.1%

Non-floor holder (65.9%)

Floor holder (21.3%)

21.3% Others (7.1%)

Excluded (5.7%)

65.9%

The overlap function used by floor holders is shown in Figure 6.5 below. The figure

clearly shows three functions that appeared most in almost equal frequency. They are

reconfirmation (157) and two types of floor continuations (155 and 156).

Reconfirmation is uttered at a non-floor holder’s aizuchi towards the floor holder to

reconfirm what s/he previously mentioned and to accept the non-floor holder’s aizuchi.

This has not been extensively discussed in previous studies, with a few exceptions (e.g.

Imaishi, 1994; Ikeda, 2004; Iwasaki, 1997). Thus, it is assumed that reconfirmation is

regarded as one of aizuchi. The proportion of its frequency in the floor holder’s

overlaps (28.4%) may suggest a certain conversational style of Japanese. That is, even

when holding the floor (i.e. having the right to talk), while proceeding with her/his talk,

the current floor holder constantly monitors non-floor holder’s reactions to check

whether her/his talk is being followed by the non-floor holder, and actively interacts

with her/him by uttering a signal of confirmation. Most of previous studies on aizuchi

discuss that the floor holder claims non-floor holder(s) for aizuchi. However, the floor

holder’s signal towards non-floor holder’s aizuchi has not been discussed much until

234
 Chapter 6

quite recently (Ikeda, 2004;Iwasaki, 1997).6 It is, thus, interesting to see in the data the

mutuality of the interaction between Japanese.

Figure 6.5 Floor holder's overlaps

11.6%
reconfirm (28.4%)
28.4%
self clarification (1.6%)

early reply (2.2%)

28.2%
1.6% floor continuation (NC)
2.2% (28.0%)
floor continuation (C )
(28.2%)
28.0% floor hold (11.6%)

Floor continuation is to continue talking at non-floor holder’s aizuchi. It is divided into

two types: that is, to continue talking in order to complete previous talk (shown as NC,

i.e. not completed), and to continue one’s floor by introducing another turn after

completing her/his previous turn upon which the non-floor holder uttered aizuchi

(shown as C, i.e. completed). While a non-floor holder expects the current floor holder

to continue after her/his aizuchi in the former type of continuation, it is not always the

case in the latter type of continuation (see 4.2.1.3 in Chapter 5). Hence, the latter type of

continuation sometimes causes competition against a non-floor holder who believes the

current floor holder’s turn is over and tries to start a new turn to take the next floor.

Coincidentally, the frequency of the two functions in the data turned out to be almost

the same (155 and 156). However, the two types of floor continuations do not

6
As presented in the previous chapter, Iwasaki (1997)refers to the floor holder’s signal as back-
backchannel and extensively discusses interactional sequences, or “loop” in his terms, by the participants.
Ikeda (2004) also discusses it as “three-turn sequence.”

235
 Chapter 6

necessarily appear with similar frequency. The proportion of their appearance varies

among participants. Thus, it seems to be related more to individual conversational style.

After the three main functions used by the floor holder, floor hold is the next most

frequent function (64, 11.6%), though it is not as frequent as the previous three

functions. Floor hold is a current floor holder’s action to retain her/his floor when a

non-floor holder starts a full turn before the current floor holder has completed her/his

floor. Floor hold can be compared with floor continuations in terms of the floor

holder’s intention to keep her/his floor. However, it is regarded as competitive since it

appears in the midst of the other party’s full turn. Where the number of floor hold is

added to floor continuation (C), which may cause competition against the non-floor

holder, the number is 220 and 39.8% of total overlaps by floor holders. This ratio

reflects the floor holder’s attempts to talk for a long time. However, the number does

not represent the conversational style of Japanese in general, since it is assumed to be

affected by a number of variables that construct the conversation (e.g. topic, number of

participants, genre etc.), as well as by individual participant’s conversational style.

These variables, in relation to overlaps, will be discussed in the next section.

Overall, how floor holders act in conversation can be observed from the data. Though

these observations are limited to the conversational data in this study only, they suggest

that the floor holder does not just say what s/he wants by taking advantage of holding

the current floor, but constantly monitors non-floor holders’ reactions and deals with

them accordingly, whether it ends with cooperation or competition.

236
 Chapter 6

2.2 Frequency of overlap and variables that construct conversation

The previous section discussed overall frequency of overlap in the data. However, as

already mentioned, the frequency of overlap may be affected by a number of variables

that construct conversation. These variables include the number of participants, social

distance of the participants that creates a level of formality, the setting (in a meeting

room, at a café etc.), the genre (e.g. interview, informal chat, buying and selling,

business meeting etc.), the topic, and the individual’s style of participation. This section

investigates how overlap frequency relates to these variables by comparing individual

data.

2.2.1 Number of participants and overlap

In a dyadic conversation, it is generally obvious who is talking to whom unless there is

any side floor.7 Thus, whether it is cooperative or competitive, any overlap will always

take place between the same participants. On the other hand, in a multi-party

conversation, it is possible that more than one person self-selects to be the next speaker

when the current floor holder does not select the next speaker. This may cause overlap

between the self-selectors. Thus, it is assumed that overlap frequency increases with the

number of participants. Honda (1997) reports in her data that overlaps in a multi-party

conversation with three or more participants appeared more than twice as frequently as

in a dyadic conversation. As dyadic conversation is not included in the data set for this

study, two multi-party conversations with a different number of participants are used to

investigate the relation between the number of participants and overlap frequency. To

minimise the affect of other factors, two conversations with a similar genre (i.e.

7
For example, one of the participants starts verbally counting number of pages, or order drink to the
waiter at the café while talking to the other party.

237
 Chapter 6

informal chat among colleagues) and similar participants were chosen. They are the

second informant’s (Harue) two informal chats with her colleagues (conversation H-2

and H-3). Though there are differences in some of the variables that construct the

conversations, these two have been chosen because they are the most similar in the

collected conversational data. The following table shows the detail of the conversations

and their overlap frequency.

Table 6.4 Number of Participants and overlap frequency

detail \ Conversation ID(genre) H-2 (informal chat) H-3 (informal chat)
Topic various (neighbour dispute) small fire
No of participants 3 4
Duration 24 mins 11.2 mins
Total no of overlaps* 569 431
No of overlaps per minute* 23.7 38.5
Total no of functional overlaps 569 556
No of functional overlap per minute** 23.7 49.6

*Raw number of overlaps, hence simultaneous starts are included.

Harue participated in both of the conversations. However, the same colleagues did not

participate in both conversations. The topic of conversation in H-2 varies, but it mainly

focuses on a dispute with neighbours in which Harue was involved. The topic of

conversation in H-3 is about an unfortunate incident with a small fire experienced by

one of the participants, Eri, the previous night. Although the topics of each conversation

are different, they are similar in terms of their focus on one person’s unwelcome

experience, and other participants sympathising or aligning. The difference in the

number of participants between the two conversations is one. The table shows two

different total numbers of overlaps: the one with the asterisk shows the raw number of

overlaps, including simultaneous starts; and the other numbers in the shaded cells show

the functional overlap frequency (see footnote 3 in this chapter). As duration of the two

238
 Chapter 6

conversations is substantially different, these overlaps were recalculated per minute and

presented below the total number of overlaps.

The overlap frequency for both categories is larger in conversation H-3 than in

conversation H-2. This result indicates the relation between the number of participants

and overlap frequency. Looking at the increasing rate of overlap from conversation H-2

(three participants) to conversation H-3 (four participants), the raw frequency of overlap

increases by 62.4% (from 23.7 to 38.5 per minute) and the frequency of functional

overlaps increases by 109.3% (from 23.7 to 49.6 per minute). To show more detail,

overlap frequencies in the two conversations were summarised per function as in the

following table.

Table 6.5 Overlap frequency per function in H-2 and H-3

function\conversation H-2 H-2 /min H-3 H-3 / min increased by (%)
non-floor holder

aizuchi 269 11.2 218 19.5 74.1

other cooperative overlaps 53 2.2 51 4.6 109.1
aizuchi follower 22 0.9 39 3.5 288.9
competitive overlaps 36 1.5 22 2.0 33.3
neutral 30 1.3 21 1.9 46.2
miscellaneous 4 0.2 2 0.2 0.0
floor holder

reconfirmation 33 1.4 25 2.2 57.1

other non-competitive overlaps 11 0.5 4 0.4 -20.0
floor continuations 59 2.5 31 2.8 12.0
competitive overlaps 12 0.5 9 0.8 60.0

Table 6.5 shows a substantial increase of overlaps in a number of functions. Functions

in which the number of overlaps has increased by over 50% include aizuchi, other

cooperative overlaps (i.e. clarification question, information supply, early reply and

early and choral completions), reconfirmation and floor holder’s competitive overlaps

(i.e. floor hold). Among these functions, the rate of increase is particularly high in non-

239
 Chapter 6

floor holder’s other cooperative overlaps and aizuchi followers. This indicates not just

non-floor holders’ more cooperative overlaps with the current floor holder, but also

their stronger harmonic contribution to the other non-floor holders. It is interesting to

note that competitive overlaps did not increase as much as cooperative overlaps.8

Another thing to point out is the low rate of increase of floor holder’s overlaps in floor

continuations. This may be because no matter how many people participate in a

conversation, there is only one floor holder (or two in the case of a shared floor). Thus,

the number of floor continuations by the current floor holder is not affected by the

number of participants. However, this may not be the case for reconfirmation, since it

is an acknowledgment of non-floor holder’s aizuchi, thus, its number seems to be

synchronising with the number of non-floor holder’s aizuchi.

In summary, overlap in a multi-party conversation with more participants appears to be

more complicated, since the more people involved in the conversation, the larger the

number of non-floor holders. Hence, there will be more cooperative overlaps including

aizuchi directed at the current floor holder, as well as more aizuchi followers to other

non- floor holder’s aizuchi. However, the number of competitive overlaps does not

seem to be as closely linked to the number of participants as the number of cooperative

overlaps. In her discussion of the number of overlaps, Honda (1997) only distinguishes

dyadic conversations from multi-party conversations, and is not concerned with the

number of participants in multi-party conversations. Thus, the result of this study may

add to Honda’s findings that in multi-party conversations, the number of overlaps

(particularly cooperative overlaps) increases with the number of participants. Note,

however, this formula may not always apply to any multi-party conversation, since

8
Although the number of floor holder’s competitive overlaps has increased by 60%, their overlap
frequencies are very low. Thus, this ratio is not feasible for any argument. This also applies to floor
holder’s other non-competitive overlaps (i.e. early reply and self clarification).

240
 Chapter 6

there are multi-party conversations that take place in the form of formal meetings,

where a convenor controls turn-taking or summarises what has been discussed, and so

on. In such a case, there will be less overlap. Thus, the result is most likely to be

applicable for informal chat, which is not officially controlled by any of the

participants.9

2.2.2 Participants’ social distance and overlap

In Chapter 2, I presented a number of elements that construct a style of Japanese

communication. Although those elements are intertwined, researchers argue that the

communication style of the Japanese is primarily concerned with the participants’ social

distance. Uchida (1997) refers to this as a psychological distance determined by the

participants’ social relation (e.g. age, status etc.), and argues that it is this distance that

primarily determines one’s communicative action. Usami (1994) also argues that the

social status or the age of the participants that creates power in relation with others,

largely contributes to one’s communication style. Communication style here concerns

the level of formality or politeness. Both Uchida and Usami report salient

communication strategies (topic initiation by Usami; interruption by Uchida) of older or

socially superior people when communicating with a person who is younger than, or

socially inferior to, the current speaker.

With this in mind, I make an assumption that there is a difference in the number of

overlaps between conversations with a person who is socially distant, and talk to a

person who is socially close. However, unfortunately, in my data the majority of the

9
See Drew and Heritage (1992) for discussion of “institutional talk,” where organisation of interaction is
different from ordinary conversation.

241
 Chapter 6

participants’ social distance is close or relatively close (i.e. family members and

colleagues who have known each other many years) to the informants. There is only

one person who is regarded as distant to one of the informants, namely Yoshida, who

appears in one of Sachiko’s (the first informant) conversations (conversation Sa-1).

Yoshida is a client of a publisher of a community magazine run by Sachiko and her

husband Masao. In the conversation, Sachiko and Masao seek information from

Yoshida for an article to be published in the next issue of their magazine. This small

section examines the participants’ overlaps in this triadic conversation. The three

participants’ overlap frequencies are summarised in the following tables. In order to

make a clear contrast, only cooperative and competitive overlaps were focused on, and

other types of overlap (e.g. misjudging turn completion, miscellaneous and others) are

excluded from the table. Floor holder’s floor continuations may not precisely fall into

any of the two overlap types, hence are marked as “neutral” in the tables. However, they

give a rough idea of an individual participant’s amount of talk.

Table 6.6 Sachiko's overlap

function to Masao to Yoshida
aizuchi 49 130
cooperative
non-floor holder others 20 11
competitive --- 7 3
cooperative --- 2 6
floor holder competitive --- 12 0
neutral floor continuation 2 11

Table 6.7 Masao's overlap

function to Sachiko to Yoshida
aizuchi 43 77
cooperative
non-floor holder others 25 14
competitive --- 26 11
cooperative --- 32 10
floor holder competitive --- 8 1
neutral floor continuation 9 49

242
 Chapter 6

Table 6.8 Yoshida's overlap

function to Sachiko to Masao
aizuchi 24 49
cooperative
non-floor holder others 11 16
competitive --- 0 0
cooperative --- 17 11
floor holder competitive --- 1 6
neutral floor continuation 54 15

In Sachiko’s overlap (Table 6.6), the most prominent number is her aizuchi towards

Yoshida (130). When this number is recalculated per minutes, Sachiko utters aizuchi

towards Yoshida 4.3 times per minute, or every 14 seconds. Compared with other

participants’ aizuchi frequency per minute, which is about 2 in the Academic Meeting

and 3+ in the lively conversation among colleagues (i.e. H-2 and H-3), this number

indicates a very high frequency of aizuchi. When the number is combined with other

cooperative overlaps, as a non-floor holder, Sachiko’s cooperative overlaps to Yoshida

further increase to 141. This number is a clear contrast to her overlap towards Masao.

She overlaps Masao 69 times, which is less than half the amount of her cooperative

overlaps towards Yoshida. Sachiko’s competitive overlaps as a non-floor holder are not

many. But still, the number of her competitive overlaps towards Yoshida is half of her

overlaps to Masao. As a floor holder, there is not much difference in her cooperative

overlaps to the other two participants. Sachiko’s cooperative overlap towards Yoshida

(6) are slightly more than her overlaps towards Masao (2). However, looking at her

competitive overlap, Sachiko, when holding the floor, does not overlap Yoshida

competitively. In contrast, she competes against Masao 12 times in order to maintain

her floor. From these numbers, Sachiko’s communication style to Yoshida, who has a

certain social distance to Sachiko, is more cooperative and less competitive than her

communication style towards her husband, Masao.

243
 Chapter 6

To find out whether Sachiko’s “more cooperative/less competitive” style is a general

practice towards somebody who is socially distant, Masao’s overlap data is also

examined. Being a married couple and company colleagues, the relationship between

Sachiko and Yoshida is regarded to be comparable to that between Masao and Yoshida.

Though not as prominent as Sachiko’s overlap, as a non-floor holder Masao overlaps

Yoshida (91) more cooperatively than he does Sachiko (68), which is approximately 1.3

times more frequently. As for competitive overlap, his overlap frequency towards

Yoshida (11) is less than half of that to Sachiko (26). Thus, it can be argued that

Masao’s cooperative and competitive overlap takes a similar style to Sachiko’s.

On the other hand, his overlap pattern as a floor holder is slightly different from

Sachiko’s. While taking a similar style of competitive overlap to Sachiko, Masao’s

cooperative overlap frequency towards Sachiko (32) well exceeds that to Yoshida (10).

This can be explained by looking at the frequency of non-aizuchi cooperative overlaps

by Masao and Sachiko, and the number of floor continuations. Both Sachiko and

Masao’s non-aizuchi cooperative overlaps show more frequency to each other than to

Yoshida. This seems to be due to their role in the conversation. They both represent the

same company and share the most information passed on to Yoshida. What Sachiko and

Masao do in the conversation can be informed by looking at the frequency of floor

continuations. Their much larger numbers of floor continuations to Yoshida than to

each other indicate that they talk to Yoshida more than talking to each other. This is

because the purpose of the talk for Sachiko and Masao was to get information from

Yoshida for their next publication, hence their talk mostly goes two ways rather than

three ways as in the following figure. The thick arrow indicates the direction of the

main talk.

244
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.6 Participants’ interaction in Business Talk (Sa-1)

Masao

cooperate Yoshida

Sachko

Note: Thick arrow: direction of the main talk (i.e. between the couple and Yoshida).
Thin arrow: direction of talk for building the main talk (i.e. between Masao and Sachiko).
Broken arrow: direction of talk between the individuals, (i.e. between Masao and Yoshida, and Sachiko and
Yoshida).

The thick arrow is slightly closer to Masao because he mainly talks to Yoshida by

representing the couple. Thus, the larger quantity of their cooperative overlaps with

each other rather than to Yoshida is due to their cooperation in building up more

concrete information or queries for better communication with Yoshida. For this reason,

cooperative overlap frequency does not seem to be directly related to the participants’

social distance. Given this, and with only one competitive overlap to Yoshida, it is

feasible to say that Masao’s overlap style to Yoshida is also more cooperative and less

competitive.

For Yoshida, both Sachiko and Masao are socially distant. In order to find out how he

communicates with the two of them, his overlap frequency is now examined. Since

social distance between Yoshida and Sachiko is the same as between Yoshida and

Masao, if a more cooperative/less competitive style is feasible for the socially distant

person, then it can be assumed that Yoshida’s overlap frequency towards the two people

would be similar. However, as Table 6.8 above shows, the reality does not meet this

expectation. Apart from his competitive overlap quantity (zero) as a non-floor holder,

Yoshida’s overlap frequencies towards the other two participants are uneven. The

reason for these uneven frequencies once again seems to be related to the amount of talk

245
 Chapter 6

assigned to each individual participant. For example, Yoshida’s larger number of floor

continuations to Sachiko matches Sachiko’s frequent aizuchi towards Yoshida. Also,

Yoshida’s larger quantity of aizuchi towards Masao matches Masao’s larger quantity of

floor continuations to Yoshida. Thus, these numbers do not seem to be directly related

to their social distance either. However, his zero quantity of competitive overlaps as a

non-floor holder seems to suggest a less competitive style to the person who is socially

distant.

From these participants’ overlap styles, it is suggested that for a person whom one

regards to be socially distant, her/his communication style seems to adjust itself to

uttering more cooperative overlaps and fewer competitive overlaps (rather than

decreasing the overall number of overlaps) to show her/his politeness. For cooperative

overlaps, aizuchi in particular seems to take an important role in demonstrating one’s

politeness. The breakdown of the participants’ aizuchi frequency towards their socially

distant partner is summarised in the following table.

Table 6.9 Participants' aizuchi frequency towards their social distant

Function Sachiko->Yoshida Masao->Yoshida Yoshida->Sachiko Yoshida->Masao

Continuer 54 27 4 12
understanding 50 14 11 21
agreement 24 32 9 14
evaluation 2 4 0 2

First, apart from understanding, Yoshida’s aizuchi frequencies are small. As already

explained, the reason for the low quantity seems to relate to his amount of talk (i.e. he is

a provider of information what the couple seek throughout the conversation). Thus,

putting aside Yoshida’s data, discussion concentrates on Sachiko and Masao’s aizuchi.

In this table, Sachiko and Masao’s frequency of use of continuers is striking. Indeed,

among all participants’ data belonging to continuer use, these are the top two

246
 Chapter 6

frequencies.10 Sachiko’s understanding and Masao’s agreement are also rated amongst

the top frequencies (i.e. Sachiko’s is the second and Masao’s is the fourth) in the same

function among the collected data. However, given that there are other examples of

similar frequency in an informal chat, it cannot be argued that more aizuchi are used for

the socially distant person. In my data, in which 4 out of 6 conversations are informal,

compared with understanding and agreement, there are not many continuers observed.

Although the course each conversation ran needs to be considered (e.g. where there is

more story telling, the frequency of continuers may increase), perhaps uttering

continuers more often may be a kind of good strategy to demonstrate one’s humble

attitude to give the other party freedom to talk. It is assumed that, by this strategy, one

tries to create a more comfortable atmosphere for the other party so that their social

distance becomes closer for better communication. For closer friends whose social

relationship has already been established, such a sensitivity or consideration for the

others would not be needed that much, hence it seems to be allowed to skip this kind of

aizuchi.

This section has discussed how overlap appears in relation to the participants’ social

distance using the Business Talk example. It should be noted that what this section has

discussed are limited to suggestive trends, since it is very difficult to make strong

claims due to the possible influence of social variables such as gender, age, social

status, genre etc. Before concluding this section, one more thing needs to be pointed

out from the data. That is, the couple’s substantial difference of aizuchi frequency to

Yoshida. Both are the same social distance from Yoshida, so what can be the reason for

10
Due to differences of their recording duration, the overlap frequencies discussed here are recalculated
per minute.

247
 Chapter 6

such a big difference? Two issues come up. The first is their age difference and the

other is their gender difference. As this involves more gender issues, I will discuss it

fully in the next chapter.

2.2.3 Setting and overlap

Where a conversation takes place also affects conversational style. For example, even

in informal conversations, one’s conversational style at home would be different from

the work environment. Similarly, how the participants participate physically in the

conversation (e.g. seating, physical distance between the participants etc.) may also

affect the style. To find out how conversational style changes in different settings, it is

preferable to investigate two or more conversations with a similar genre and the same

participants, but in a different setting. Unfortunately, the collected data does not

perfectly satisfy these conditions. Thus, here, I chose two conversations among the

collected data that carry the most similar conditions but different settings. They are

Sachiko’s two informal conversations (conversations Sa-2 and Sa-3) in which Sachiko

and Masao are involved. Though they are both informal chats, the genres of these

conversations are not precisely the same, since Conversation Sa-3 is Family Talk, which

is almost always informal. Furthermore, there is a substantial difference in the time of

recording between the two. However, given that the all participants in the informal Chat

at Work (conversation Sa-2) are from the same family, I regard them to be more

appropriate for the investigation than the other collected data. The frequency of overlaps

by participants in each conversation is summarised in the following tables:

248
 Chapter 6

Table 6.10 Number of overlaps in Sa-2 (Chat at Work) 4mins 33 secs

floor holder

No of overlap* non-floor holder (aizuchi) (competitive) (competitive)
Sachiko 10 3(3) (0) 7(0)
Masao 7 6(0) (5) 1(1)
Chie 4 4(4) (0) 0(0)
*total number of overlap - (excluded + others)11

Table 6.11 Number of overlaps in Sa-3 (Family Talk at Breakfast) 9mins 15secs

No of overlap* non-floor holder (aizuchi) (competitive) floor holder

Sachiko 10 9(1) (7) 1(1)
Masao 10 6(3) (3) 4(2)
Eiji 8 8(2) (4) 0(0)
*total number of overlap - (excluded + others)

At first glance, the frequencies of overlap in these conversations look similar. However,

it has to be noted that the length of conversation in Sa-3 (9 mins 15 secs) is almost

double the length of Sa-2 (4 mins 33 secs). Compared with other informal chats in

which the second informant, Harue, is involved (see the tables in the Appendix 2), 10

overlaps in 4.5 minutes of conversation is not many. Furthermore, it indicates extremely

low frequency of overlap in Sa-3. The reason for such a low frequency of overlap in

these conversations seems to be due to how the participants participated in the

conversation. The participants in both conversations were not just talking. In

Conversation Sa-2, all of the participants were sitting in the office, facing their desks

when they were talking. It is likely that they could not always see the others unless they

moved their heads. In fact, this conversation suddenly concludes without being noticed

by Sachiko and Chie, since Masao abruptly withdraws himself from the conversation

11
For the detail of “excluded overlaps” and “others,” see Chapter 5.

249
 Chapter 6

and starts making a phone call.12 Given this, the participants did not seem to concentrate

just on talking, which may have caused the low frequency of overlap. As for

Conversation Sa-3, at first all three participants were sitting at the dining table and

eating breakfast. However, they left the table one by one soon after they had finished

eating and moved from one place to another for a number of purposes such as washing

plates or tidying up the things around them. This is probably a typical family scene that

is observed in the morning. Each person is engaged in different activities after breakfast

to get ready for the day. Thus, in this conversation too, the participants did not

concentrate just on talking. In contrast, in the two other informal chats in which Harue

is involved, the participants sit facing each other throughout the talk. Thus, it is

assumed that the way one physically participates in the conversation affects overlap

frequency.

One other observation from these conversations is the different conversational styles of

the same person (namely Sachiko and Masao) in the two conversations. For instance, all

of Sachiko’s overlaps as a non-floor holder in the talk at work are aizuchi. On the other

hand, her overlaps as a non-floor holder in the Family Talk records only one aizuchi out

of 9 overlaps. Furthermore, 7 of them are competitive overlaps. In contrast, Masao’s

aizuchi as a non-floor holder in talk at work is nil and 5 out of 6 overlaps are

competitive. But his non-floor holder-overlap in the Family Talk includes 3 aizuchi

with 3 competitive overlaps. As a floor holder, though Masao’s stance does not seem to

change much, Sachiko’s cooperative overlap in the Chat at Work drops to nil in the

Family Talk. Because of the uneven and short length of the conversations, it is very

difficult to argue, but it seems that these shifts are related to the venue of the

12
This part of conversation will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

250
 Chapter 6

conversation: the work place, which is regarded to be a public place on one hand; and

home, which is a private place. The ways Sachiko and Masao shift their conversation

are, however, different. This seems to concern their gender, hence the issue will be

discussed further in the next chapter.

In this section I have discussed how overlap frequency is related to the setting of the

conversation using Sachiko’s two informal conversations (Sa-2 and Sa-3). As there is

too little data for a generalisable argument, two things are noted. First, how participants

participate in the talk (e.g. sitting arrangement, involvement of other activities than talk)

seems to affect overlap frequency. Compared with Harue’s informal conversations, in

which the participants concentrate on just talking, these informal chats produced

extremely few overlaps. Second, both Sachiko and Masao shifted their participation

style, though in different ways, between the two conversations (Sa-2 and Sa-3), which

seems to be related to where the conversation takes place: “home” is regarded as private

space and “work” is a public space.

2.2.4 Genre and overlap

The term “genre” is understood in various ways.13 This study uses the term to refer to

what the participants are doing by using a particular communication. The genres of the

collected data include Business Talk, an Academic Meeting, Chats with Colleagues and

Family Talk. Different genres employ different levels of formality and setting. Thus,

one’s conversational style changes, depending upon the genre of the conversation. In

this small section, I will compare the participants’ overlap functions and their frequency

13
It is extensively discussed in Systemic Functional Linguistics. See Eggins (1994).

251
 Chapter 6

in conversations in different genres. For this investigation, I will look at the following

two sets of conversational data.

Set 1: Conversation H-1 (22 mins 41 secs)

Genre: Academic Meeting

Participants: Harue, Bob, Natsuki, Suwako, Fumie

Conversation H-2 (24 mins)

Genre: Chat with Colleagues at Café

Participants: Harue, Suwako, Fumie

Set 2: Conversation Sa-1 (30 mins 14 secs)

Genre: Business Talk

Participants: Sachiko, Masao, Yoshida

Conversation Sa-3 (9 mins 15 secs)

Genre: Family Talk

Participants: Sachiko Masao, Eiji

In Set 1 conversations, all of the participants in Conversation H-2 also participate in

conversation H-1, and the length of the recording time of the two conversations is

similar. Thus, they may present some clear differences in the use and frequency of

overlap. However, the number of the participants in the two conversations is not equal.

In contrast, the two conversations in Set 2 are both triadic. However, the length of the

two conversations is substantially different. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to

compare the conversations in each pair, so I will discuss overlap frequency and how

they are used in Set 1 first.

252
 Chapter 6

2.2.4.1 Observations in Set 1 conversations

The following tables show overlap frequencies in Conversation H-1 and H-2.

Table 6.12 Total number of overlaps in H-1 and H-2

function H-1Meeting H-2 Chat

aizuchi 248 269
cooperative
others 95 75
non-floor holder
competitive --- 11 36
others* --- 8 34
cooperative --- 23 44
floor holder competitive --- 10 13
neutral floor continuation 77 59
others 30 27
excluded 20 12
Total 524 569

Others with * include new turn at TRP, Turn Completion misjudge and
miscellaneous

The total numbers of overlaps are 524 in Conversation H-1 (“Academic Meeting”

hereafter) and 569 in Conversation H-2 (“Café Chat” hereafter). The number of

overlaps in these two conversations does not differ much if taking the number of

“others” and “excluded” overlaps shown at the bottom of each table.14 In 2.2.1 above, I

discussed the number of overlaps in relation to the number of participants in the

conversation. It is observed that the more participants in the conversation, the more

overlaps are observed. However, having looked at the number of overlaps in the tables,

the number is larger in Café Chat with three participants than in Academic Meeting

with 5 participants. The reason for this apparently contradictory result can be seen in the

two conversations’ contrasting genres, which led the participants to use a different style

of talk. First, regarding the level of formality of the talk, Academic Meeting is socially

14
The fraction of Academic Meeting/Café Chat is 0.92 in total and 0.89 if excluding “others” and
“excluded.”

253
 Chapter 6

regarded to be more formal, but a chat as the one at the Café is understood to be less

formal. Such levels of formality create an immediate social distance between the

participants. For example, in informal talk with close friends or colleagues, there is less

social distance created between the participants. They are regarded to be socially equal

in such circumstances. In contrast, formal talk as in Academic Meetings often involves

a hierarchy of participants related to their age and status (e.g. academic/employment

status such as senior lecturer/lecturer or full-time staff/part-time staff etc). Comparing

the number of overlaps between the two conversations, it is noticeable that the number

of non-floor holders’ competitive overlaps in the Café Chat (36) is more than triple the

number of competitive overlaps in the Academic Meeting (11), while the number of

non-floor holders’ cooperative overlaps in the two conversations is similar. Also,

though there are individual differences, there seems to be a tendency for participants in

the Academic Meeting to get their talk done through floor continuations (77 in total)

rather than by competing for the floor against the others. These differences indicate the

participants’ more cooperative and less competitive communication style as a result of

constructing immediate social distance in order to comply with the genre of the

conversation. That is, one adjusts style for more formal communication (Academic

Meeting), which avoids conflict with the other participants. Although the main concern

in this chapter is overlap, the nature of Japanese language that preserves different levels

of formality in various speech levels (phonetically, semantically, syntactically and

pragmatically) should be also noted. Because of this, even among the participants who

are socially close and have a similar social status, more formal speech style is employed

on such a formal occasion (e.g. use of more polite endings, “desu yo, copula + particle,”

rather than informal endings such as “da yo” or “no yo”). Second, in relation to the

formality of the conversation, the structure of the conversation needs to be considered.

254
 Chapter 6

While this kind of chat generally takes place without a generic structure, the Academic

Meeting is strongly structured. For example, a chat such as this normally does not have

any specific goals. The participants just enjoy or appreciate talking as a social activity,

moving from one topic to another freely.15 Hence, it usually concludes when the talk

slows down after a while and one of the participants moves towards closing the

conversation or withdrawing from the conversation because of another commitment. On

the other hand, a conversation such as an Academic Meeting is almost always more or

less structured. First of all, such a meeting has set goals. Second, the schedule of the

meeting (i.e. time and venue) and the agenda are planned and usually distributed to the

participants before the meeting, which gives them time to prepare what they are going

to say. Third, such a meeting is normally held in a meeting room or a small classroom

to provide a suitable environment for the participants to concentrate on the agenda.

Fourth, in such a meeting, one of the participants often takes the role of chair so that the

talk will reach a certain conclusion by the end of the scheduled time. Thus, the meeting

is controlled by the chair. In such controlled talk, it is likely that one participant talks at

a time and others listen to the person more often than in freer conversation, such as Café

Chat. Hence it is expected that there will be fewer overlaps.

So far I have discussed the genre of the talk in terms of total number of overlaps. Next, I

will look into the individual participants’ overlap frequency to discuss how

appropriately the participants fit into the genre of the talk. Tables 6.13 and 6.14 below

summarise individual functional overlap distributions in the two conversations. From

Table 6.13, it is noticeable that all of the participants in the Academic Meeting show

very similar frequency of non-floor holder overlap. Also, floor holder overlap

15
One might argue that the goals for a chat like this are something like “maintaining social bonds.”

255
 Chapter 6

frequencies show that, although not all participants hold the floor equally, no person

dominates the floor all the time. In fact, although Fumie’s low overlap frequency as a

floor holder (only 1) reflects her rather passive participation, Bob’s low frequency of

overlap does not depict his participation in the conversation. It is he who called the

meeting and took the role of the chair, hence he participated actively in the

conversation.

Table 6.13 Number of overlaps per participant in Academic Meeting (H-1)

function Harue Bob Natsuki Suwako Fumie Total
aizuchi 56 59 44 49 40 246
cooperative
others 18 15 21 19 22 95
non-floor holder
competitive --- 4 1 1 4 1 11
others* --- 2 0 1 3 2 8
cooperative --- 6 1 5 10 1 23
floor holder competitive --- 3 0 3 4 0 10
neutral floor continuation 20 6 32 19 0 77
others 8 1 4 9 8 30
excluded 5 2 1 8 4 22
Total 122 85 112 125 78 522

Others with * include new turn at TRP, Turn Completion misjudge and miscellaneous

The reason for this incompatibility seems to be due to the language Bob used. In the

meeting, being a native Australian English speaker, he mostly talked in English while

the others, who are native speakers of Japanese, talked in Japanese. Thus, his English

communication style when talking seems to have affected his overlap frequency as a

floor holder.16 Also, Fumie’s passive involvement in the conversation seems to be due

to her lack of experience in the teaching of the course, which the participants discussed.

Otherwise, her overlap frequency as a floor holder may have been different. Given this,

in the end, all participants except Fumie managed to present their opinions during the

16
Although whether English communication produces less overlap than Japanese communication or not
has not been empirically proved, at least differences in the use of “reactive tokens” (equivalent to aizuchi
ih this study) in terms of their frequency and appearance are pointed out by Clancy et al. (1996.)

256
 Chapter 6

meeting. This reflects the nature of such a meeting that is publicly structured17 to give

everyone the opportunity to talk.

On the other hand, in the Café Chat, overlaps by the individual participants are not

distributed as in the Academic Meeting, as shown in Table 6.14 below. Comparing their

overlap frequencies as a non-floor holder and floor holder, it is noticeable that one

participant (i.e. Harue) mainly talks and the others mainly listen. Being a free

conversation, such uneven distribution of overlap is not surprising.

Table 6.14 Number of overlaps per participant in Café Chat (H-2)

function Harue Suwako Fumie Total
aizuchi 80 119 70 269
cooperative
others 32 20 23 75
non-floor holder
competitive --- 10 11 15 36
others* --- 11 9 14 34
cooperative --- 24 9 11 44
floor holder competitive --- 9 1 3 13
neutral floor continuation 35 8 16 59
others 7 9 11 27
excluded 4 3 5 12
Total 212 189 168 569

Others with * include new turn at TRP, Turn Completion misjudge and
miscellaneous

The interesting point here is that all of the participants (Harue, Suwako and Fumie) also

participate in the Meeting. Thus, their different overlap frequencies in the two

conversations indicate their style shift from one genre to the other. In this case, these

conversations took place on the same day; the Meeting in the morning is followed by

the Chat at lunch. All three participants’ overlap frequencies dramatically increase in

the Café Chat (increase by 73.8% for Harue, 51.2% for Suwako and 115.4% for Fumie).

Their frequent overlaps, which are not only cooperative but also competitive, suggest

their relaxed mood after the official meeting in which they were required to focus only

17
“Publicly structured” does not just refer to the convenor’s role but the participants’ acknowledgement
of their equal right and duty of the involvement in the talk.

257
 Chapter 6

on work-related topics. As this example shows, the genre of the talk largely affects

one’s communication style. To look at other examples of genre and overlap, I will

examine another pair of conversations in Set 2 below.

2.2.4.2 Observations in Set 2 conversations

Conversations in Set 2 represent two genres: Business Talk (Sa-1) and Family Talk (Sa-

3). Sachiko and Masao, who are also husband and wife, participate in these

conversations. As in Set 1, the total number of overlaps in the two conversations in Set

2 is summarised in the Table 6.15 below. As the length of the Family Talk (9 mins 15

secs) is about one third of the Business Talk (30 mins 14 secs), total numbers of

overlaps per minute are presented in the bracket next to the number of overlaps.

Table 6.15 Total number of overlaps in Sa-1 and Sa-3

function Sa-1 Business (per min) Sa-3 Family (per min)

aizuchi 372 (12.3) 6 (0.6)
cooperative
others 97 (3.2) 1 (0.1)
non-floor holder
competitive --- 47 (1.6) 14 (1.5)
others* --- 27 (0.9) 3 (0.3)
cooperative --- 78 (2.6) 0
floor holder competitive --- 28 (0.9) 3 (0.3)
neutral floor continuation 140 (4.6) 1 (0.1)
others 53 (1.8) 4 (0.4)
excluded 32 (1.1) 7 (0.8)
Total 874 (28.9) 39 (4.2)

Others with * include new turn at TRP, Turn Completion misjudge and miscellaneous

Following the presentation of Set 1 conversations, the numbers of overlaps per minute

are also recalculated without “others” and “excluded” overlaps in order to compare the

proportion of overlaps between the two conversations. The total number of overlaps in

the Business Talk is 6.9 times as many as in the Family Talk, and if “others” and

258
 Chapter 6

“excluded” overlaps are removed, it is 8.7 times as many, which suggests a substantial

difference in “others” and “excluded” overlaps between the two conversations (i.e. more

overlaps are classified as “others” or “excluded” in the Business Talk).

Even after recalculating the overlap frequencies per minute, the difference between the

two conversations is still huge. In particular, cooperative overlap frequencies that

occupy the majority of overlaps in the Business Talk dramatically drop in the Family

Talk. As non-floor holder overlap, the number of cooperative overlaps per minute in the

Business Talk is 15.5, but it is only 0.818 in the Family Talk. Furthermore, floor-holder’s

cooperative overlap in the Family Talk is zero, while the participants in the Business

Talk produce 2.6 floor holder’s cooperative overlaps per minute. To explain such a

significant drop in overlap frequencies in the Family Talk, the nature of cooperative

overlap needs to be considered. This leads us to the primary question about why we

cooperatively overlap when communicating with others. The reasons for cooperative

overlap are, whether consciously or not, assumed to show one’s involvement in the on-

going conversation, and to create harmony with the other participants or a comfortable

atmosphere for everyone to enable successful communication. By cooperatively

overlapping, the participants show their empathy in order to socially or emotionally get

closer to the others. This is particularly important when the participants have a certain

social distance. In 2.2.2 above, by comparing the number of cooperative overlaps

between Sachiko and Masao, and their cooperative overlaps to Yoshida in the Business

Talk, I demonstrated that cooperative overlaps are produced more frequently to the

person who is socially distant than to the person who is socially close. In the Business

Talk, Masao and Sachiko participated as representatives from the same company, which

18
The formula is (372+97)/30.23 mins for the Business talk and (6+1)/9.25mins for the Family Talk.

259
 Chapter 6

regards them as belonging to the in-group (i.e. uchi) members. Furthermore, they are

husband and wife whose social relationship is even closer than colleagues. Husband and

wife normally may not need frequent cooperative overlaps since they already know

each other by being the closest family members.19 Considering this, it is quite

understandable that there are such low frequencies of overlap in the Family Talk.
20
Similar to husband and wife, a child too is placed in one of the closest positions to self

in the circle of interpersonal relationships by being a family member. Although there

may be exceptions, perhaps Family Talk is a prototype of the conversation that is fully

built on amae or dependency, where the participants relax the most and do not need any

feeling of enryo or reserve. In the Family Talk, beside the very low frequency of

overlaps, it is noticeable that the most frequently observed overlap function is

competitive overlap. When combining all competitive overlaps, the number reaches 17,

which is close to half of the total of overlaps, and the frequency per minute is 1.8

compared with 0.8 in cooperative overlaps. If “others” and “excluded” overlaps are

omitted, the ratio goes up. This numbers suggest that, within the family, even

competitive overlaps are allowed by family members under the umbrella called amae.

One other thing to point out is the shift of overlap frequencies by the couple from one

conversation to the other. Note the following tables that present the individual

participant’s overlap frequency per minute per conversation.

19
See uni/soto discussion in “Communicative style of the Japanese” in Chapter 2.
20
As discussed in Section 2, note that the low frequency in the Family Talk is, of course, not just due to
its genre but also due to other morning activities involved.

260
 Chapter 6

Table 6.16 Total number of overlaps per person per minute in Business Talk (Sa-1)

Participant overlaps /min overlap without others and excluded/min

Sachiko 9.6 8.7
Masao 11.7 10.6
Yoshida 7.6 6.8
Total 28.9* 26.1*
*The number is directly calculated from the total number of overlap frequency

Table 6.17 Total number of overlaps per person per minute in Family Talk (Sa-3)

Participant overlaps /min overlap without others and excluded/min

Sachiko 1.4 1.1
Masao 1.5 1.1
Eiji 1.3 0.9
Total 4.2* 3*
*The number is directly calculated from the total number of overlap frequency

In 2.2.2 I showed that Masao and Sachiko did not cooperatively overlap each other as

frequently as they did to Yoshida in Business talk, and discussed that this is due to their

close social distance as in-group members (i.e. family members and colleagues).

However, as Tables 6.16 and 6.17 show, their overlap frequency in the Business Talk is

still much higher than in Family Talk. Unlike Set 1 conversations in which both

colleagues participate, these two conversations are different, not just in terms of genre,

but also in terms of the involvement of people belonging to different interpersonal

levels: another family member, Eiji in the Family Talk, and the couple’s client,

Yoshida in the Business Talk. Involving a soto person in the conversation may have

built an atmosphere where amae that the couple have towards family members lessens

and feeling of enryo increases instead. Being in such an atmosphere, it is quite natural

for the couple to cooperatively overlap with each other rather than exclusively preserve

their amae between them and omit cooperative overlaps, and show empathy only to

261
 Chapter 6

Yoshida. However, in the end, “Business Talk” is a genre that often involves soto

person, or a person belonging outside the in-group boundary.

This section has discussed overlap frequency in terms of genre. Though some data

showed differences in overlap frequency depending upon the genre of the conversation,

genre also involves other elements such as participants’ social distance. Also, I have to

point out the danger of regarding any conversations between family members as Family

talk of the kind discussed here. The Family Talk used in the data is a chat at breakfast,

which involves various morning activities while talking (e.g. eating, tidying up the

table, washing plates, getting ready for work, etc.), hence the participants do not just sit

and talk. Obviously, there are other types of family talk, such as discussing a serious

topic (e.g. a child’s problem). The result may have been different if such a conversation

had been analysed. It would be interesting to collect more family conversation and

compare the use of overlaps therein.

2.2.5 Topic and overlap

What the participants talk about in the conversation may also affect the individual

participant’s overlap frequency. If the topic raised by the current speaker is interesting

to the others, then their involvement in the talk is likely to become high with more

overlaps. If the conversation includes a number of story tellings, there should be more

aizuchi by the participants who listen to it, or if one is keener on the current topic than

the others, then s/he may keep the floor longer to explain her/his thoughts on the topic

to which the others would then react. Indeed, half of the conversations used for this

study focus on one of the participant’s recent experiences throughout the talk

(Conversation Sa-2, H-2 and H-3), hence a considerable amount of story telling is

262
 Chapter 6

observed. Also, two conversations are work-related talk (Sa-1 and H-1) in which a

participant who is keener on the subject (not necessarily the same person) talks, thus a

number of extended floor holdings by a single speaker are observed. All of these

conversations show over 100 overlaps per person, except for two cases.21 On the other

hand, Conversation Sa-3 (i.e. Family Talk over breakfast), in which the topic frequently

changes from one to another, shows very low frequency of overlap. Perhaps the topics

talked about over breakfast are generally light and are not the type on which everybody

concentrates, since it is the beginning of the day and a number of activities accompany

breakfast. Thus, to be precise, it is not merely a matter of topic, but in fact the setting

(that is, morning) that somehow helps select the topic.

For the former group of conversations with frequent overlaps, I made an assumption

that the functional distribution of overlap frequency by individual participants is related

to the amount of talk as a floor holder. In other words, it is assumed that the person who

takes the floor longer would overlap less (especially non-floor holder’s overlap) and

those who take a listener’s role would overlap more. To investigate the feasibility of

the assumption, I compared the individual participant’s number of floor continuations

and non-floor holder overlaps in these conversations.22 However, contrary to what was

expected, no pattern in the distributions was revealed. In most cases, participants who

mainly held the floor also frequently overlapped as a non-floor holder (though no

person overlapped most frequently). There is only one person (namely Yoshida in

Conversation Sa-1, the Business talk) who took the floor most often and produced the

fewest non-floor holder overlaps. Therefore, the assumption could not be verified from

21
Bob and Fumie in Conversation H-1, see the genre discussion in the previous section.
22
Conversation Sa-2 is excluded due to its shorter length compared to the others.

263
 Chapter 6

the data. Perhaps more data are required to answer this question. However, from my

data analysis, topic is probably the least significant factor to discuss solely in terms of

overlap. Thus, it may be difficult to reach any definite conclusions, even with more

data.

2.2.6 Style and overlap

So far, I have discussed several variables that may affect the frequency of overlap. The

final focus is on style. Style is probably the most obvious factor that is observed

publicly. Through daily communication, we somehow recognise a certain

communication style of an individual and describe it as “aggressive” or “passive” or

“lively” etc. Such descriptions are based on how the person talks in terms of

vocabulary, expression, syntax, pitch level, intonation, volume, speed etc. Overlap is

regarded to be one of them. Of course, we cannot describe somebody’s communication

style from one conversation only. After a number of conversations, if some common

tendencies are noticed in the person’s way of communicating, then we may refer to this

as her/his communication style. This section therefore looks at the two informants’

overlaps in the conversations in which they participated and examines whether there is

any tendency observed reflecting individual style. Thus, I considered the total overlap

frequency of these informants compared with other participants in the conversation. The

following tables show the individual participant’s total overlap frequency in descending

order. The informants’ cells are shaded.

264
 Chapter 6

Table 6.18 Order of overlap frequency per conversation (Sachiko)

conversation\order 1 2 3
Sa-1 Business Talk Masao(354) Sachiko(291) Yoshida(229)
Sa-2 Chat with Colleagues Sachiko(17) Masao(11) Chie(4)
Sa-3 Family Talk Masao(14) Sachiko(13) Eiji(12)

Table 6.19 Order of overlap frequency per conversation (Harue)

conversation\order 1 2 3 4 5
H-1 Academic Meeting Suwako(125 ) Harue(122) Natsuki(112) Bob(85) Fumie(78)
H-2 Chat at Café Harue(212) Suwako(189) Fumie(168)


H-3 Chat with Colleagues Eri(172) Harue(144) Keiko(129) Natsuki(111)

From these tables, we notice that both of the informants overlap either the most or the

second most frequently. However, given that Conversation Sa-2 is very short and only a

small number of overlaps are observed, and that the number of overlaps by the

participants are few and almost the same quantity in Conversation Sa-3, for Sachiko, it

is very difficult to argue that she overlaps more frequently than the others from these

data only. In contrast, Harue’s case seems to be obvious. In conversation H-1, Harue’s

overlap frequency (122) is the second highest. But the most frequent overlapper,

Suwako, produced only three more overlaps than Harue (125). Thus, in the end, their

overlap frequency is almost identical. In conversation H-2, in which Harue is the focus

of the topic, she overlaps most frequently, and in Conversation H-3, in which the main

topic was a small fire Eri had experienced, Harue’s overlap frequency was the second

highest after Eri. From these numerical observations, it is suggested that Harue tends to

overlap relatively more than the other participants in any communication, whether she

is the focus of the main topic or not. The next question is whether Harue has any

tendency to use a particular type of overlap function in communication. To find out, I

summarised her functional overlap frequencies in all three conversations, as in Table

265
 Chapter 6

6.20 below. The numbers in brackets show the average frequency of the overlap

function by the participants in each conversation. The numbers that exceed the average

of the function in the conversation are shown in colour, as indicated below the table.

In Table 6.20, many of the functions show more than average frequency (coloured in

blue and pink), though the differences are not that extreme. This means that Harue

overlaps in many functions more often than the other participants, rather than more

frequently overlaps in a few particular functions.

Table 6.20 Harue's overlap frequencies in three conversations

Con.H-1 ConH-2 Con H-3 Chat with

function Meeting Café Colleagues
aizuchi 56 (49.6) 80 (89.7) 52 (54.5)
non-floor holder cooperative others 18 (19) 32 (25) 29 (22.5)
competitive
4 (2.2) 10 (12) 9 (5.5)
cooperative
6 (4.6) 24 (14.7) 3 (7.3)
floor holder competitive
3 (2) 9 (4.3) 3 (2.3)
neutral floor continuations 20
(15.4) 35 (19.7) 10 (7.8)
Total* 109 (97) 201(176.7) 112 (105.5)
*The table concentrates on cooperative/competitive overlaps and floor continuations only,
hence the total number of overlaps includes functions that appear in the table only.

average+1~4,9 ->

average+5~ ->

Focusing on her overlaps as a floor holder, she overlaps more often than the average in

all functions in all conversations. The exception is cooperative overlap in Conversation

H-3, which is 4.3 less than the average overlap frequency. However, examining the

individual participant’s frequency in this function in the conversation, it turns out that

the average frequency is raised by a single person (Eri), who is the centre of the topic of

the conversation (19 overlaps), and the frequencies of the other participants are not that

high (i.e. 1 by Keiko and 6 by Natsuki). Given this, it can be argued that Harue tends to

hold the floor, though not extremely, more often than the others in conversation. This

tendency may be endorsed by her overlaps as a non-floor holder. In her cooperative

overlaps, while Harue’s aizuchi frequency goes over average only in one conversation

266
 Chapter 6

(meeting), her overlaps in other than aizuchi function exceed the average frequency in

two conversations (Café Chat and Chat with Colleagues). As “other” cooperative

overlaps include several different functions, I also looked at the detail of her

cooperative overlaps in other function than aizuchi as summarised in the following

table.

Only a frequency of 5 and over is presented, with the average in the bracket, and is

shown with colour if it exceeds the average as in the above Table 6.20.

Table 6.21 Detail of Harue's cooperative overlaps other than aizuchi

function ConH-1 Meeting ConH-2 Café ConH-3 Chat with Colleagues
clarification Q
2 14 (9) 5 (4)
info. Supply
1
3
early reply

14 (7.3) 6 (5)
completion early 7 (2.6)
1
choral



aizuchi follower
8 (13.2) 4(7.3) 14(9.8)
Total 18 (23.8) 32(25) 29(22.5)

Table 6.21 explains the reason for Harue’s less-than-average frequency in her

cooperative overlap other than aizuchi as a non-floor holder in the Academic Meeting.

It is due to her low frequency of aizuchi follower (5.2 less than average) and,

apparently, her other completion in the meeting is more frequent (7) than average (2.6).

As discussed in the previous chapter, aizuchi follower is aizuchi uttered following the

other non-floor holder’s aizuchi towards the current floor holder. Thus, it is regarded to

be less direct than the other overlaps in terms of cooperation. For this reason, even

though the total number of her cooperative overlaps is less than average in the meeting,

Harue’s more frequent other completion than average suggests her direct interaction

with the current floor holder. Thus, overall, Harue’s communication style as a non-

floor holder is slightly more active than the other participants, in terms of using

cooperative overlap such as asking for clarification or replying/completing the current

267
 Chapter 6

floor holder’s talk early, as well as uttering aizuchi. And it seems that her active

communication style as a non-floor holder also leads her to be an active floor holder

(i.e. more floor holder’s overlaps). The link between non-floor holder overlaps and floor

holder overlap concerns a “strategic way of obtaining the floor.” I will discuss the issue

qualitatively in the next section.

This small section has focused its discussion on how one’s communication style may

affect overlap frequency in conversation, using Harue’s data. From all of the

conversations she is involved in, it is observed that Harue tends to overlap relatively

more frequently than the other participants. Furthermore, by investigating overlap

functions in Harue’s talk, it turned out Harue tends to overlap slightly more when

holding floor, and as a non-floor holder her cooperative overlaps are more concentrated

on non-aizuchi functions. Given this, it can be suggested that Harue’s communication

style is more active in that she uses more direct cooperative overlaps, such as

clarification question, early reply, and other completion as a non-floor holder, as well

as holding the floor slightly longer than the others.

2.2.7 Summary

This section has focused on a number of variables that construct the conversation in

relation to overlap frequency. These are: number of participants, social distance, setting,

topic, genre, and communication style. For the number of overlaps in relation to the

number of participants, as expected, a conversation with five participants produced

more overlaps than a conversation with four participants. It is interesting to know that

the main function that contributed to the increasing number of overlaps is not

competitive overlaps such as floor bidding or interruption, but cooperative overlap (i.e.

268
 Chapter 6

aizuchi followers). I assumed that a conversation with more participants would cause

more conflict over the right to talk. However, contrary to what was expected, turn-

taking seems to be relatively smooth even with five participants. The participants seem

to be contributing to maintain the harmony between the non-floor holders by uttering

aizuchi followers, rather than conflicting against each other over the floor. This suggests

that one of the Japanese socio-cultural norms—respecting harmony in a

communication—is well kept in the collected data. The participants’ overlap frequency

in the Business talk (Sa-1) also suggests a close link between overlap frequency and the

participants’ social distance: aizuchi by Sachiko and Masao (who are in-group members

as family members as well as colleagues) towards Yoshida, who is socially distant from

the couple (as their client) is much more frequent than the couple’s aizuchi to each

other. Genre of the talk, which determines the participants’ communication style (e.g.

formal and informal), and individual participants’ style also showed some link to

overlap frequency. However, for setting and topic, due to lack of data, their relation to

overlap frequency could not be presented clearly. As noted above, these variables do not

independently function to determine the participants’ overlap frequency. Rather, they

are intertwined with each other and contribute in constructing the style of

communication, where some variables may appear more obviously than the others.

There are so many variables and contributing factors in conversation that it is difficult

to determine which variables/factors are particularly important in trying to account for

overlap. Thus, it is important to investigate a number of different types of conversation

in terms of these variables when analysing overlaps in naturally occurring talk without

an experimental setting.

269
 Chapter 6

3. Qualitative observations on overlap

The previous section discussed overlaps quantitatively in terms of what sort of function

is used and how their frequencies are related to a number of variables that construct

talk. The quantitative analyses have already given much information. But there are

further interesting observations that cannot be discussed quantitatively. Thus, this

section presents several cases of overlap and discusses them qualitatively. First, I will

discuss a few complexities of overlap function in which some overlaps carry more than

their surface function. Then, I will look into the use of particular overlap function,

aizuchi, in terms of culture.

3.1 Complexities of overlap functions

In Chapter 5, I showed how overlaps are functionally classified and defined each

function. As already mentioned, overlaps are classified according to their surface (or

main) function. The reason for referring to this is because there are overlaps that have

functions other than those that were defined in Chapter 5. Some examples of such

overlaps seem to be used strategically in the data. Though it may be possible for any

overlap to carry more than one function, the focus of the discussion in this section is on

aizuchi that are related to speaker shift, and cooperative overlap that carries another

cooperative function to the person to whom the talk is not directly overlaps, “third party

approach.”

3.1.1 aizuchi as a floor-bidding

As discussed in the previous chapter, the primary function of aizuchi is to support /

cooperate with the current floor holder. However, sometimes they seem to be

strategically used as a floor bidding. In the data, it is observed that such aizuchi mostly

270
 Chapter 6

convey an agreement function. In other words, by agreeing with the current floor

holder’s talk, one attempts to take the next floor more cohesively (or without causing

much conflict) with the current floor holder’s talk. This small section discusses this

aizuchi use that shows an intention to take the next floor.

Horiguchi (1997) argues that a floor shift takes place smoothly when the listener begins

with a marker that is linked to what the current speaker said. Such markers include a

repetition of part of the current speaker’s speech, a conjunction that logically develops

the ongoing speech, and aizuchi, although Horiguchi does not discuss it in more detail.

For example, the speaker shift in the following exchange takes place smoothly after

Sachiko’s aizuchi –“Soonee”—to show her agreement with Yoshida.

(54) Off the plan (Sa-1, modified)

Yoshida has been explaining what “off the plan” is and how the buyers think of it.

1 Sa: [u n]
aizuchi
(continuer)
M:

Y: Desukara tooshi no baai tte no wa [zenzen chigai masu]=

So investment P case QUOT N P totally different COP
So, in the case of investment (the things would be) totally different
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: [Soonee, jibun ga sumu ie dattara yappari minna=
aizuchi self P live home COPCON as we expect everybody
(agreement), if it were for one’s own home, then everybody would be

M:

Y: =
kara [ne.
since FP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = konsaan yo ne.
concern FP FP
concerned, wouldn’t they?

M:

Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

271
 Chapter 6

In this exchange, Sachiko indeed agrees with what Yoshida has said. However, there are

also cases where a non-floor holder utters agreement aizuchi to the current floor

holder’s talk even though s/he is not really satisfied with what the current floor holder

has mentioned, or her/his talk is not what the non-floor holder expected, as in the

following example.

(55) Foreign investment (Sa-1, modified)

Sachiko and Masai are asking Yoshida about tax on foreign investment property. Sachiko asks if one can
avoid paying accession tax by borrowing money from a bank in Japan and buying property in Australia.

1 Sa: nee
REC

M: [seiritsu shimasu]
form do COP Q
Does it work?

Y: Sore [wa deki masu ne ] Tada sono Nihon de okane o=

that P can COP FP though HES Japan in money P
That is possible. Though in case of borrowing money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa:

M: ee
aizuchi
(continuer)

Y:= karita baai toozen kaigai: e-u tooshi bukken=

borrow case by necessity overseas HES investment property
in Japan, by necessity as a foreign real estate investment,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: ee
aizuchi
(continuer)
M:

Y: = toshite (0.7) sono:~e- zeikin (0.1)no kazei taishoo ni=

as HES tax p taxable object p
tax it becomes taxable object.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Sa: [ee (0.2) tada ~ sono (0.1)go-jibun ga=
aizuchi though HES self P
(agreement) but if one

M:

Y: = nari masu yo [ne.

becomes COP FP FP

----------------------------------------------------------------------

272
 Chapter 6

5 Sa: = motte rassharu tochi o [tanpo ni okane o kari=

have HON land P collateral P money P borrow
borrows money by putting own property for a land collateral

M:

Y: hai ha[i
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sa: = [te de <talk continuers>
and and
and

M:

Y:[hai
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sachiko’s aizuchi (ee) in line 4 is an agreement with what Yoshida has just mentioned.

However, her aizuchi is followed by “tada,” or “though” which is a conjunction that

introduces something that is the opposite to what has been said. This style indicates that

she is not satisfied with Yoshida’s reply to her question. It seems that she already knew

what Yoshida mentioned and what she wanted to ask him was whether it would work

should one borrow money from a bank without informing them what the money would

be used for. However, due to lack of information in her question to Yoshida prior to his

reply starting in line 1, Sachiko fails to receive the answer she wanted. But rather than

starting her talk negatively in response to what Yoshida had said, Sachiko first agrees,

then starts to modify her previous question to him. This discourse style is regarded to

be a face-saving strategy which avoids unnecessary conflict between the two

participants who have a certain social distance to each other. Though this style is also

observed in English communication (e.g. “yeah but”), due to the other-oriented nature

of Japanese communication style,23 “taking the floor with agreement” style seems to be

very strong in Japanese communication where an other-oriented way of communication

23
See Chapter 2 for communication styles of the Japanese.

273
 Chapter 6

is socio-culturally expected.24 For this kind of smooth speaker shift, perhaps we use

aizuchi in these occasions mostly subconsciously. Szatrowsky (1986, 1987, sited in

Horiguchi) reports that when speakership shifts, or topic change is about to take place,

more aizuchi are observed. This has the implication that a number of aizuchi are uttered

before the current floor holder ends her/his talk and gives away the floor. Such aizuchi

may be regarded to be a strategy for the non-floor holder to take the next conversational

floor without conflicting with the speaker (Iida, 2001). This function of aizuchi has also

been pointed out by Nagata (2004). Nagata, who examined five dyadic conversations by

university students, reports that the proportion of speaker shifts increases when

repetitive aizuchi (e.g. soo soo ) is uttered in the midst of the current floor holder’s turn.

He argues that by utilising the supportive function of aizuchi, a non-floor holder also

attempts to control the development of the on-going talk. Iida (2001) reports that

aizuchi that attempts to take the next floor is mostly agreement aizuchi and there is a

tendency that such aizuchi take a multiple form (i.e. aizuchi xN) as in soo soo soo.

Although Nagata focuses the study on the form of aizuchi (i.e. repetitive aizuchi in

comparison with single aizuchi or the ones that convey a substantial content such as soo

desu ka, or “I see”), he also refers to such repetitive aizuchi as a strong representation of

understanding or agreement. So I will examine several examples of aizuchi in the data

that seem to be a bid to subsequently take the next floor.

(56) Placement of student (H-1, modified)

The participants are discussing the problem of how students with different proficiency levels sit in the
same course. Harue points out that some students’ Japanese proficiency is too high for level 1A but not
high enough to enter level 1B. Then S agrees with her by summarising what H said.

24
Though this tendency may be stronger in Japanese communication than in English, it is not possible to
argue since there is no empirical evidence in English communication to compare with.

274
 Chapter 6

1
H: [soo soo soo iru shi=

aizuchi exist P
(agreement) there are
B:
N: [aa soo ne / ? =
aizuchi
(agreement)

S: Chuutohanpana hito ga iru n da yo [ne.

half way person P exist VN COP FP FP
There are students who are in the middle.

F: [so chuukan gurai =

aizuchi middle about
(agreement) there are students
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = ne s o o 1B to hanbun gurai no hit me =
FP aizuchi 1B and half about P per(son)
you know, (agreement) Even students with about 1B and

B:

N: = ? /

S:

F: = no hito ga iru n da yo ne.

P person P exist VN COP FP FP
In the middle, you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = re[beru demo kekkyoku] [hairete nai wake] da kara <talk continues>
level even in the end can enter not reason COP since
half proficiency could not enter (in level 2)

B: [u n ]
aizuchi
(agreement)
N:

S: [u n ]
aizuchi
(agreement)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Following Suwako’s comment in line 1, three participants utter aizuchi at the same

time. All of the participants’ aizuchi functions are agreement. They all continue talking

after their aizuchi to Suwako. But only Harue utters multiple aizuchi which is followed

by another single agreement aizuchi (line 2). Then she successfully obtains the next

floor and continues her talk. This case may suggest that the form of multiple aizuchi is

more powerful than other agreement aizuchi in gaining the next floor. However, it does

275
 Chapter 6

not mean aizuchi other than multiple form are weak as a floor-taking signal. For

example, see how Suwako takes the next floor in the following exchange.

(57) Missing laundry (H-2)

The participants have been talking about Fumie’s experience of missing linen from her laundry line.
Fumie mentions that there are people who steal laundry and sell it.

1 H:
S:

F: Demo ne ano sentaku mono o nee (0.5) nanka shiitsu toka=

but FP HES washing item P FP AP linen ect.
But you know that there are people who steal laundry such as linen or something
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H:

S: [s o o y o]
aizuchi
(agreement)

F:= nusumu hito iru n da tte. sore wa ne[e ni doru] shoppu=

steal person exist VN COP QUOT that P FP two dollar shop
and they sell them at a 2 dollar shop
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

S: [s o o] [Datte nee <talk continues>

aizuchi since FP
(agreement) You know?

F:= ka nanka de [ureru] n da t[te

or something at can sell VN COP QUOT
or somewhere like that, I heard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Suwako first produces an agreement aizuchi, “soo yo” in line 2. It agrees with Fumie’s

previous talk that has reached its turn completion point at the end of “datte,” though

Fumie continues her floor after that without producing any pause. Considering this, the

position of Suwako’s aizuchi, which is produced after Fumie has started her second

turn, does not seem to be precisely placed (i.e. it is late). Furthermore, it is produced in

a high volume. These two points suggest that the aizuchi is used as other than merely

agreeing with the current floor holder. Interestingly, Suwako does not take the floor

immediately after this aizuchi. She produces another one, “soo” in line 3. Up to the

position of Suwako’s second aizuchi, Fumie only added “at a 2 dollar shop or

276
 Chapter 6

somewhere,” and she did not reach the main verb “can sell.” This means that Suwako

produces aizuchi early by predicting what Fumie was going to say next, which is not

difficult since Fumie has already talked about people who sell clothes they have stolen

from a laundry line, in her first turn (i.e. lines 1-2). In addition to this, her second

aizuchi is also produced at relatively high volume. Thus, her second aizuchi seems to

carry a similar function to her first one. Then soon after her second aizuchi, Fumie

completes her turn, and Suwako starts her talk by terminally overlapping Fumie at high

volume once again. By looking at Suwako’s series of actions, it is suggested that: 1)

Suwako informs Fumie that she wants to talk while agreeing by producing aizuchi in

high volume; and 2) Suwako waited until Fumie recognises her aizuchi as a floor

bidding and ends her turn by producing such an aizuchi more than once. From this

observation, aizuchi that is not just a multiple form, but also at a relatively high volume,

seems to be used as a floor taking move.

As I discussed at the beginning of this section and as exemplified by the examples, the

strategy of using aizuchi to take the floor is aiming at smooth speaker shift by showing

strong support and avoiding conflict with the current floor holder. However, in the data,

there are cases in which a small conflict is observed, as in the following exchange that

took place a few minutes before the above exchange (56).

(58) Problem in classes (H-1, modified)

The participants have been discussing the variation in Japanese proficiency levels among students in class
by reviewing their homework. Natsuki pointed out a few students’ considerably high proficiency level for
the beginners’ course by exemplifying the amount of kanji (Chinese characters) or amount of writing they
submmitted, when Suwako commented that it may be due to lack of accuracy in the instruction of the
homework: students were initially expected to compose 4 to 5 sentences only. Thus, Suwako said that it is
not possible to measure students’ ability only by the amount of writing.

277
 Chapter 6

1 H: A ja motomoto yon yon kara go no bunshoo o tsukuri=

EX then originally 4 4 from 5 P passage P make
Oh, then it was originally (asked of students) to write 4-5

B:

N:

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = nas[ai tte i[u un a a s o o na da][t a] soo [kaa
COM QUOT say aizuchi auzuchi aizuchi
sentences. (understanding) (understanding) (understanding)

B: [ee: / ? / [u-n]
aizuchi aizuchi
(agreement) (agreement)
N:

S: [soo tte [iu no ga shukudai datta u –n ] [toko=

yes QUOT say P P homework COP REC but
Yes, that’s the homework. But

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

B: [And I ] [hahha ]

N:

S: = roga [sore ni] taishite [kaite][kita no]de [do-]nto kaite=

that P against write came P P much wrote
for this (task), among (submitted) written (assignments), some students wrote

F: [aa: ] [un ]
aizuci aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
H: [soo [soo soo ] [un soo [ ne ]ekusupe[kuteeshon]ga=
aizuchi aizuchi expectation P
(agreement) (agreement) (our) expectation was

B: [u – [n [ee
aizuchi aizuchi
(agreement) (agreement)

N: [s o o ]
aizuchi
(agreement)

S: = [kita gakusei mo] ita [shi [ekusu] [u - n]

came student also exist P ex(pectation) aizuchi
much ex(perience) (continuer)
F: un
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

278
 Chapter 6

5 H: = koo kuria denakatta <talk continues>

HES clear COP not
was somehow unclear.
B:

N:

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before this exchange, Suwako was explaining the problem of assessing students only by

their homework. Thus, after responding to Harue’s question in line 1-2, she continues

her talk at the end of line 2 with “tokoroga,” “but.” Then Harue utters aizuchi, “soo soo

soo” in line 4 where Suwako has nearly reached her TRP at “shi.” “Shi” is a particle

that carries a number of functions, such as a reason marker or a listing marker, and it

can also be used as a sentence-end marker in spoken Japanese. Looking at the position

of Harue’s second agreement aizuchi, “un soone,” it overlaps with Suwako’s “shi.” It is

common to overlap one’s aizuchi at the end of the current speaker’s speech turn. Thus,

smooth speaker shift (from Suwako to Harue) was expected here. However, Suwako

starts her talk again at the end of Harue’s second aizuchi with “ex” (for expectation),

which causes a small conflict with Harue who has already started. Suwako immediately

realises this and withdraws her turn by uttering aizuchi to Harue. Although there is not

any serious competition between the two participants, the speaker shift does not seem to

be as smooth as in the previous exchange (56). There is a case of agreement aizuchi not

being recognised or approved by the current floor holder, hence this causes more

serious conflict than the above example. See also the interaction between Sachiko and

Masao in the following exchange.

279
 Chapter 6

(59) How to attract the reader (Sa-1, modified)

Masao (occasionally supported by Sachiko) has been telling Yoshida about the problem expatriate
employees face after going back to Japan upon completion of the term of the dispatch, such as being
degraded or sent to one of the affiliated companies, etc. They are thinking of attracting these people to
buy an investment property in Australia. The following exchange starts with Yoshida’s evaluation to what
Masao has explained in a long multi-unit turn.

1 Sa: [u - n] [daka=
aizuchi that’s=
(agreement) that’s

M: [aa anmari ienai] kedo [ee

HES much can say not but REC
Uh we cannot say it publicly but

Y: Kibishii desu ne genjoo wa [ne

hard COP FP current P FP
It’s hard, isn’t it? the current situation, you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: = ra (0.2) [sooiu] no wo (0.5) too[mawashi ni] kaite koo=
why that VN P indirect P write this
why that issue (we should)indirectly write

M: [a a ] [e e ]
HES aizuchi
(agreement)
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: = iu iki[kata mo] ari masu [yo tte]iu [yoona sajesu]=
live way also exist COP FP QUOT like sugges-
by suggesting there is also a life like this or something.

M: [ y e s ] [soo soo] [dakara ne ]

aizuchi that’s why FP
(agreement) That’s why you know
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: = chon soo[suru to aa] sooka tte [omou hito iru] n=
tion that do CON EX I see QUOT think person exist VN
Then there should be people who understand it

M: soo [a no ne] [soo soo ]

aizuchi INT aizuchi
(agreement) you know? (agreement)

Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa: = [janai kashira ] [u - n]
COP not wonder aizuchi
I guess. (continuer)

M: [raifu sutairu no] mondai de ne korekara] sa <talk continues>

life style P issue P FP from now FP
It’s a matter of lifestyle, you know? From not on

Y: [u - n]
aizuchi
(continuer)

280
 Chapter 6

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this excerpt, Masao produces a number of floor biddings, including agreement

aizuchi, to Sachiko in an attempt to take the floor (lines 2-4), but Sachiko keeps talking

without reacting to his attempt. At the end of Yoshida’s talk in line 1, which is an

extended turn of his previous talk (i.e. kibishii desu ne, “it’s hard, isn’t it?”), Masao and

Sachiko simultaneously overlap Yoshida. Masao’s reconfirmation may indicate the end

of this topic (Imaishi, 1994). On the other hand, with “dakara,” “that is why,” Sachiko

initiates a new topic on how the article (on buying investment property in Australia)

they are planning to publish in their community magazine can attract them. Masao, who

has been mostly initiating the topic, does not seem to have given up his floor yet at the

point of this overlap, which is retrospectively recognised by a series of his floor

biddings in lines 2-4. However, due to Schiko’s new topic initiation, he missed the

timing to start a new turn. Thus, his number of aizuchi and floor biddings (i.e. aa,

dakara ne, ano ne) show his struggle to obtain the floor, which is described by his

aizuchi shifting from mild agreement, “ee” to strong agreement, “soo soo,” and this

strong aizuchi is repeated until he finally obtains the floor in line 5. It is interesting that

he produces aizuchi in English as well. Since this is the only example in the data in

which he used English aizuchi, it is not possible to argue. However, given that it has a

linguistic meaning, I assume that it carries stronger agreement than “ee,” but may not be

as strong as the multiple form of aizuchi, “soo soo.” Despite his series of aizuchi and

floor biddings, which become stronger, Sachiko keeps talking until line 5 without

reacting to them. This indicates her strong intention to complete her talk. At the point

where Masao can finally start his talk by overlapping Sachiko in line 5, her talk almost

comes to an end. However, the onset of his talk seems to be at a border between

legitimate start (i.e. within a TRP of Sachiko’s talk) and illegitimate start (interruption),

281
 Chapter 6

which gives an impression that Masao obtained the floor by hastily starting his turn so

that he would not fail this time.25 As this example shows, agreement aizuchi do not

always work for a smooth speaker shift. This is more likely when it is produced in the

midst of the current floor holder’s turn than at around her/his TRP. However, in

comparison with interruption, aizuchi hold a legitimacy of being produced within the

current floor holder’s turn whether it is overlapping or not. Therefore, it is regarded to

be a better strategy when attempting to take the floor than to simply start talking by

interrupting. Particularly when there is a certain social distance between the

participants, or the talk takes place in a more formal manner such as a work related

meeting, this strategy is assumed to be effective. In order to find out the relation

between the number of strategic aizuchi and formality of talk, I compared the number of

such aizuchi in the Business Talk (Sa-1), the Academic Meeting (H-1), the Chat at Café

(H-2) and the Chat with Colleagues about a small fire (H-3), as shown in Table 6.12

below. Note that the Family Talk (Sa-3), as discussed in the previous section, originally

produced very few aizuchi, which was considered to be due to the participants’ almost

zero social distance (being in the same family), and the length of the Chat with

Colleagues (Sa-2) is too short to analyse (there are few aizuchi as well), hence are

excluded from this analysis. Due to the different length of recording times, each

quantity has been recalculated as per minute (shown in brackets), in order to compare

the number with each other.

25
Before obtaining the floor, Masao fails it three times: first, with aa in line 2; second, with dakara ne in
line 3; and third, ano ne.

282
 Chapter 6

Table 6.22 Overlap onset of aizuchi that initiates speaker shift

middle of CFH's turn* at TRP of CFH's turn Total

Business Talk (Sa-1) 6 (0.2/m)** 11(0.4/m) 17 (0.6/m)
Academic Meeting (H-1) 9 (0.4/m) 15 (0.7/m) 24(1.1/m)
Chat at Café (H-2) 6(0.25/m) 18(0.75/m) 24 (1/m)
Chat with Colleagues (H-3) 8(0.7/m) 21(1.9/m) 29(2.6/m)
Total 30 65 95

*CFH =Current floor holder

**Number in brackets is calculated per minute.

Table 6.22 shows a similar quantity of strategic aizuchi in each talk, but it turns out to

be different when they are presented per minute. Interestingly, all of these conversations

show two to three times more aizuchi at the current floor holder’s TRP than in the

middle of her/his turn. Following Horiguchi (1997), this suggests that speaker shifts in

these conversations are smooth by following turn-taking rules as well as using aizuchi,

which contributes to cohesion of the talk by the previous speaker. As for the link

between the level of formality and the frequency of strategic aizuchi use, contrary to

what was expected, the talk which shows most frequent strategic aizuchi (shaded cells

in the table) is the Chat with Colleagues (H-3), in which four people talk about a small

fire experienced by one of them. On the other hand, Academic Meeting and Chat at

Café show a similar quantity per minute, despite carrying different formality levels.

These results indicate no significant correlation between the use of strategic aizuchi to

gain the floor and the level of formality. If not the level of formality, then what factor is

related to the frequency of such aizuchi use? Due to overall low frequency of this type

of aizuchi, it is very difficult to argue anything. But considering the nature of such

strategic aizuchi, which shows one’s intention to the current floor holder, this type of

aizuchi may appear more often in a multi-party free conversation (or a chat), where

topics and speech turns are not controlled. With over three participants, sometimes it

283
 Chapter 6

may be difficult for a non-floor holder to obtain the opportunity to talk in such

uncontrolled talk. Thus, taking the next floor by showing one’s cooperation with the

current floor holder by using aizuchi seems to be a good strategy in terms of its

contribution to maintain the harmony being created by the participants. In this sense, it

is understandable that the Chat with Colleagues, where four people participated,

produced more strategic aizuchi than the Café Chat where three people participated. On

the other hand, in a conversation which is controlled more or less in terms of speaker

shift and conversational topic, as in the Business Talk and the Academic Meeting,

strategic aizuchi may not be necessary as much as in uncontrolled conversation, though

the number of participants may affect the use of such aizuchi as well (i.e. their

frequency is more in the Academic Meeting with five participants than in the Business

Talk with three participants). Apart from these factors, personal conversational style

may also be related to the use of this type of aizuchi. Among all participants in the data,

though the numbers are small, Masao and Harue used relatively more of this strategic

aizuchi (8 by Masao and 5 by Harue) than the other participants. Overall, the data is so

small that these points are limited to my observation and assumption only. In order to

explore this further, more conversational data is needed. However, the frequency of this

type of overlap seems to be very low compared with other functions, hence, their

quantitative analysis may not be possible.

This section has introduced several examples of aizuchi that initiate a speaker shift. As

Horiguchi (1997) mentions, in general, aizuchi contributes for a smooth speaker shift.

Thus, while the majority of such aizuchi seem to be used subconsciously, it is not

surprising that some seem to be intentionally used to express one’s wish to take the

floor, rather than simply interrupting the current floor holder’s talk, since aizuchi carries

284
 Chapter 6

a cooperative function. Given this, the use of such aizuchi was hypothesised to be

related to the formality level of the conversation. However, the data showed no

distinctive pattern except that the Family Talk, where the number of aizuchi is

extremely low, showed almost no strategically used aizuchi. As discussed in the

previous section, it is related to the nature of Family talk where amae, or dependency, is

allowed and no enryo, or feeling of reserve, is necessary (see the previous section).

Among other conversations (excluding the Chat with Colleagues, Sa-2), the one that

produced this type of aizuchi the most is the informal Chat with Colleagues, in which

four people talk about a small fire experienced by one of them (H-3). Also, their

frequency tends to increase according to the number of participants in both formal and

informal conversations. Furthermore, the use of such aizuchi is limited to a few certain

persons in the data. From these results, though the data is very small, it is likely that the

uses of strategic aizuchi as a floor bidding are more closely related to the number of

participants in the talk, or whether the talk is controlled (i.e. speech turn is mostly

organised) or uncontrolled (i.e. floor-taking is mostly first-come-first-served basis,

hence sometimes it is more difficult to gain the opportunity to talk), or one’s style, than

formality of the talk itself.

Though Nagata (2004) focuses his discussion only on repetitive form of aizuchi for this

function, the data of this study observed that other forms of aizuchi are also used. Also,

it is observed that aizuchi with such a function tends to be presented at a high volume.

Finally, even though there are understanding aizuchi that are used for this function, the

majority of them are concentrated on agreement aizuchi in the data.

285
 Chapter 6

3.1.2 Talking for other: Third-party approach by overlap

In Chapter 4, I discussed several features observed in a multi-party conversation. One

of its features is talk that is targeting someone other than the person whose talk is being

overlapped. In the case of the example (10) used in the discussion (duplicated below),

Suwako’s talk in line 3, which is directly targeting Harue, is actually interrupting Fumie

who is being overlapped, even though it has a function of clarification for Fumie to

understand the situation of Harue’s laundry line (on her behalf). Thus, Suwako’s

interaction with Fumie is regarded as competitive to gain the floor on the surface

observation.

(10) Missing linen (H-2)

Harue has been talking about a problem in sharing the laundry line with other residents in her block of
four units.

1 H: [u – n] [u n]
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer)

S: [u – n]
aizuchi
(continuer)

F: Uchi nanka are ga futatsu aru no [ne da]kara [moo]=

Our place AP that P two exist FP FP so EMP
Our place has two (laundry stands), you know? So
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: [u n]
aizuchi
(continuer)
S:

F:
= jiyuuni minna saa sukina toki ni:i [ano]o ~ dakedo sono=
freely everyone FP favourite time P HES but that
Everyone (uses them) freely whenever they like. But that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

S: [demo H san toko=

but H ADD place
But, H, your place

F:
= yo-nin de sunderu uchi nante yamano yo[oni aru
four CTR P living house EMP mountain like exist
family of four has piles of laundry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

286
 Chapter 6

4 H: [futatsu aru no yo.

two exist FP FP
We have two.

S: = mo futatsu aru deshoo

also two exist COP Q
also has two, doesn’t it?

F: [futatsu aru no:

two exist FP Q
You have two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

However, in a multi-party conversation, there are cases of talk that cooperatively

overlaps the current floor holder, and conveys a message to the other person (non-floor

holder) at the same time. I refer to this as “third-party approach.” There seem to be two

different conditions in which third-party approach may be observed. The first condition

is that the floor is shared by more than one person (realistically, it is most likely by two

people), as also introduced in Chapter 4. When two people are sharing the floor for the

purpose of conveying certain information to the other(s), as with Sachiko and Masao in

the Business Talk in the data (Sa-1), they cooperatively construct the floor by

supplying/correcting/adding/clarifying what the other floor holder is saying in order to

convey the information more accurately, clearly or specifically. For example, in the case

of the extract (13) in Chapter 4 (duplicated below), Masao’s cooperative overlap

(information supply), “Kyaku o okurikomu n desu,“ “we are sending guests (there)”

with Sachiko’s talk in line 3 is actually targeting Yoshida. This is obvious from

Masao’s speech style, that employs the polite ending “desu,” which he does not use

when talking to his wife, Sachiko.

(13) Uni Lodge

Sachiko and Masao, who are representing the same company, explain to their client Yoshida how they are
involved in promoting the accommodation, Uni Lodge.

287
 Chapter 6

1
Sa: [un
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: Uni rojji mo uchi wa kookoku moratteru n desu [yo.

Uni Lodge also us P advertisement receiving VN COP FP
We advertise Uni lodge (in our magazine), too.
Y: a soo =
ai-
(under-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Sa: [e e [a no ] sookyaku shiteru n desu ne,=
REC HES sending guests doing VN COP FP
yes Umm we are sending guests there.

M: [ee [soo nan desu].

REC
Yes Yes we do.

Y: = [desu[ka.
zuchi
standing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3
Sa: =[uchi ga ]ano [ano: Nihon kara] ee.

we P HES HES Japan from REC
We, Um Um from Japan yeah

M: [Sookyaku] [kyaku wo okurikomu n desu].

sending guests Guests P sending VN COP
Sending guests We are sending guests (there).
Y: hoee
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The participant who initiates such a third-party approach under this condition is

regarded as a ratified speaker by the participants since s/he is known to be involved in

constructing the floor. In other words, such an approach is predictable and

acknowledged by the participants.

The second condition, on the other hand, is the case where the approach is carried by

one of the non-floor holders, who is observing interaction between others (referred to as

a “third-party”), thus, the person who overlaps the current floor holder with a third-

party approach is regarded by the participants as an unratified speaker since s/he is not

holding the floor at the time of the approach. Hence, this kind of third-party approach is

288
 Chapter 6

not predictable by the other participants. This small section focuses its discussion on

third-party approach in the latter condition. The following is the exchange where the

third-party approach is observed in Suwako’s talk. As the context is slightly

complicated to understand, it is nevertheless essential to discuss this function, using a

longer extract is presented.

(60) Missing linen (H-2, modified)

Fumie has been explaining her recent experience of missing her linen that was taken by one of her
neighbours by mistake. While Suwako understands exactly what happened in the process of Fumie
finding her linen, Harue does not seem to follow Fumie’s explanation and produces a number of turns,
which misunderstood what actually happened. In fact, Fumie found her linen after making an inquiry to
the neighbour, which Harue mistook as Fumie finding it before visiting them.

1 H: A soide: “aa” toka “koko ni aru yo” tte iufuuni natta=

EX and EX or here in exist FP QUOT say like became
Oh then did it go like (they said) something like “Oh” or “here

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = wake
Kiki ni itte
reason ask P go and
you go” went to ask and

S: (0.3)

F: uuun (0.1) ano: n (0.1) hoshite ho=

no HES HES dry and dry
No, um It was dried
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: atta kara “sore aa anata ga=
existed since that EX you P
(it) was, then “Oh You did it

S:

F:= shite modoshitte aru

and return exist
and put back (to the laundry line)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = yat[te kureta no” tte kanji de kiita wake ne] un
do receive FP QUOT feeling P asked reason FP REC
for me?” you said something like that when you talked to them?

S: (0.7)

F: [so o u - n u Yatte= n]
yes yes yes
do and
Rather
----------------------------------------------------------------------

289
 Chapter 6

5 H:

S:

F:= kureta tte iu ka sono: hora mata modoshita n janai=

receive QUOT say or HES INT again returned VN COPnot
than they did that for me, you know, it was returned (to the
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 H: [u n] Dakara tku jibun=
aizuchi So self
(understanding) So you found your

S: (0.2)

F:= machigaete motte ki [chatta] kara

make mistake have came complete since
laundry line) since they took it by mistake
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 H: = no shiitsu mitsukete: de: soide aa ko tonton tte itte:=
P linen find and and then EX knock QUOT go and
linen and Oh then you went to knock on(the door of the neighbour)

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 H: = “asoko ni atta n da ke[do:
there P existedVN COP but
and said “I found (it) there but”

S: [yunde tada ho=

say and merely
(did not) say, it

F: [uuun yutte ko[nai watashi ga=

no say come not I P
No,they did not come to say (so). It is I who
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 H: [u n] de=
aizuchi and
(understanding and

S: = shite atta dake] nan da yo [ne [u - n

dry existe only COP FP FP aizuchi
was only dried (in the line) wasn’t it? (agreement)

F:= yatt yatta no] [hoshiteta dake[na no]

di did FP dried only N FP
did it. it was only dried (in the line)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 H: = <talk continues>

S:

F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

290
 Chapter 6

From line 1 through to the beginning of line 8, Harue tries to capture what actually

happened by paraphrasing Fumie’s explanation. However, even after three exchanges

with Fumie, she still misunderstands the fact that Fumie did not know where her linen

was at the time of asking her neighbour. It is partly Harue’s impatience, which caused

two silent interruptions without waiting for Fumie to complete her talk (“kikini itte,

went to ask” in line 2, and “atta kara (…),” “it was (…)” in line 3). On the other hand,

it is also due to unclear information given by Fumie, who incorrectly approves Harue’s

incorrect statement in lines 3 and 4 that the neighbour put the linen back as a way of

doing her a favour. In so doing, miscommunication between Harue and Fumie continues

and reaches its peak when Harue says, “tonton tte itte,” “go and knock (on the

neighbour’s door)” in line 7. This expression is ambiguous since itte can mean “say,”

hence the whole expression can be understood as “said knock knock.” But

problematically, it misses out who said this. From the development of her discourse, it

is obvious that Harue knew Fumie visited the neighbour (see Harue’s talk in line 2).

Therefore, whichever interpretation of “itte” is taken, the subject of this expression is

Fumie. However, Fumie mistook Harue’s words as the neighbour came to her and

talked about the linen, and starts negating Harue’s talk in line 8.26 It is frustrating when

misunderstanding goes on as long as in this exchange (i.e. Fumie’s reaction towards

Harue in each turn shifts from mild disagreement, “uuun ano:,” “no um” -> hesitation,

“n”-> yatte kureta tte iuka,” “rather than they did that for me,” to strong disagreement,

“ uuun yutte k o n a i ,” “no, they did not come to say”). Having observed

miscommunication between Harue and Fumie for three exchanges, Suwako realises that

the missing point is where the laundry was. Thus, immediately after she recognises that

26
“yutte” is a colloquial form of “itte.”

291
 Chapter 6

their fourth exchange will also fail, Suwako at last intervenes27 with a clarification

question to Fumie (line 8) that the linen was simply put up on the line. By this

clarification question, rather than urging Fumie to clarify her talk, Suwako seems to

indicate to Harue her misunderstanding by supplying the correct information. Why did

Suwako use such an indirect form to pass the information to Harue, where she could

have directly pointed out the misunderstanding to Harue herself? It is probably because,

first, she did not directly observe what was going on between Fumie and her neighbours

and, second, if she had directly talked to Harue she would have ignored or interrupted

Fumie’s talk. Considering the situation that Harue and Fumie are in the chaos of

misunderstanding for long enough, even interruption would have been acceptable at this

point. Therefore, it is understood that such a clarification question is a good strategy to

solve the problem without causing competition with either of the other participants.

As in the above example, such a third-party approach seems to be used only in the case

of an emergency (i.e. to rescue the others from the chaos of misunderstanding with each

other), hence it is not much observed in the data. Indeed, it would be unnatural for an

unratified speaker to use this approach where the context of communication does not

need it.

This section has discussed the third-party approach in which two layers of function are

observed: direct supportive function towards the current floor holder’s talk, and indirect

function to the other non-floor holder. Third-party approach by a non-floor holder

seems to be a very smart strategy in a multi-party conversation where the turn-taking

27
Suwako’s talk is not an interruption, since Fumie’s possible turn completion (after “konai,” “not
come”) comes near the overlap onset, and Suwako does not take the floor after this turn.

292
 Chapter 6

organisation becomes more complicated than in a dyadic conversation, since it conveys

a certain message to other non-floor holders by cooperatively overlapping the current

floor holder’s talk. However, when one uses the third-party approach, it is probable that

s/he employs it almost intuitively rather than carefully selecting it as a strategy. It is

because, realistically, unlike floor bidding aizuchi that involves only a non-floor holder

and the current floor holder, the third-party approach involves one more participant.

Hence it is too complicated to choose it instantly as the most appropriate strategy upon

consideration of the condition of the involved participants. For this reason, I assume the

strategy lies in the norms of Japanese communication that is strongly “other-oriented”

in favour of avoiding conflict rather than being consciously selected “on line.”

3.2 Cultural adjustment and transfer of overlap use: aizuchi

In Chapter 2, I introduced some previous studies on cultural adjustment/transfer of

one’s first/second language when involved in her/his second culture, namely, the

Japanese talking in English or talking in Japanese in English speaking countries.28 The

majority of the studies discuss how the Japanese communicate in English and not much

is discussed about their communication style in their native tongue. Furthermore,

studies which are backed up by data are even fewer. As the data of this study found a

few interesting points regarding aizuchi use, this section investigates how the

participants use aizuchi in a different context of communication, which may be related

to their cultural adjustment.

First, the communication to be focused on for the discussion is the Academic Meeting

(H-1), where one native English speaker, Bob, is involved. Although his Japanese

proficiency level is nearly native, Bob mainly talks in English, while the others, who are

28
Most of the research has been conducted in the US.

293
 Chapter 6

native speakers of Japanese, talk in Japanese. See how the Japanese participants change

their use of aizuchi when the talk is switched to English.

(61) Level of Students (H-1, modified)

The participants are talking about how their students worked on the recent writing homework. They
agreed that there are considerable differences in the amount writing among the students. Some students
mistook the aim of the homework and wrote a dialogue instead of writing a passage.

1 H: Demo kaiwa o ne [tsukut]te ki daialoogu tsukutte kiteru=

but dialogue P FP make and come dialogue make coming
But (they) made a dialogue and ca(me), made a dialogue and came,

B:
N:

S: / ? / o / ? /
P

F: [u n ]
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = ka[ra sono: [shuku]dai no moku[teki/to chigau/=
since HES homework P goal from different
So it is different from the goal of the homework,

B:
N:

S: [a - t kanchigai=
EX mistake
Oh, so it was mistake

F: [a - machigae[te ]
EX mistaken and
Oh, so they mistook (it).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = jana]i [u – n] [zenzen ] u[n] takusan kaite=
COP not REC at all yes much write
isn't it? at all If (they)wrote

B: [u – n]
aizuchi
(agreement)

N: u [n
aizuchi
(agreement)

S: = ne ] [u – n]
FP aizuchi
isn't it? (agreement)

F: [A - ]kanchigai [/na no/] [u] n

EX mistake COP FP aizuchi
Oh I see. It was mistake. (understanding)

294
 Chapter 6

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = ru n dattara mata/ ? /
VN COP CON then
more then enough, then

B: Well it seems that um=

N:

S:

F: u – n
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H:

B: = looking at mine um there were students who just re re=

N:
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. H:

B: = produced the textbook.

N:
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. (0.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H:

B: Right? So I had a group of <talk continues>

N:
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Up to the middle of line 4, the talk is conducted in Japanese. It is obvious that

everybody is actively involved in the talk by using aizuchi. Then, after Harue’s talk in

line 4, Bob, the native English speaker, starts his turn when the others suddenly stop

producing aizuchi. After this extract, Bob continues his talk for almost 2.5 minutes with

a number of pauses but without receiving much aizuchi. According to Maynard’s

(1993) study on intercultural communication between Japanese and American students

(communication took place in English), the number of aizuchi that were produced by

Japanese students were more than twice as many as those produced by American

295
 Chapter 6

students. If this observation applied to English communication between Japanese and

native speakers of English in general, then the participants in this data should have

produced more aizuchi to Bob. However, they did not. The following table

summarised the participants’ aizuchi when Bob talks in English.

Table 6.23 Aizuchi frequency when Bob talks in English (H-1)

No of turns aizuchi in mid-turn aizuchi at the end of turn No of pauses

overlap non-overlap overlap non-overlap
33 (3.98mins) 5* 6 1 27 26 (13MTPs**)
*Among five overlaps, two are uttered towards Bob’s previous turn, which incidentally
overlap his next turn due to their delayed timing.

**MTPs: Mid-Turn Pause

The number of aizuchi that are uttered to Bob is 39, including both overlapping and

non-overlapping aizuchi. Its frequency is 9.8 per minute. On the other hand, when the

conversation is in Japanese, the frequency of aizuchi (including 153 non-overlapping

aizuchi) goes up to 21.4 per minute.29 This large difference shows that the Japanese

participants somehow switch their Japanese communication style to English

communication style. Furthermore, it is interesting to point out that the majority of

aizuchi (33 out of 39) towards Bob are not overlapping his talk, as in the following

extract which comes after the above exchange.

(62) Level of Students (H-1)

1 H:

B: And then I have a group of students who are advanced=

N:
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

29
The formula is (total number of overlapping aizuchi – overlapping aizuchi to Bob + non-overlapping
aizuchi in Japanese talk) ÷ (total length – the length of English talk), i.e., (248-6+153)÷(22.14 – 3.98)
=21.43

296
 Chapter 6

2 H:

B: = in terms of (0.8) vocabulary and stuff. (0.2) So they=

N:
S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H:

B: = used more than /what they learnt/ <talk continues>

N: [u – n]
aizuchi
(understanding)
S:

F: u [n
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As aizuchi in (62) show, non-overlapping aizuchi to Bob mostly appear at the end of

Bob’s turn (27 out of 33), which is Complex Transition Relevance Place, or CTRP

(Ford and Thompson, 1996). Clancy et al. (1996) find that English speakers place a

higher percentage of their “reactive tokens” (equivalent to aizuchi in this study) at

CTRP than Japanese speakers. The aizuchi here are produced in a low, flat tone, thus it

is difficult to know whether they are produced in English “mm” or Japanese “u-n” that

is actually pronounced as “nn.” Whatever they are, taking account of Clancy et al., their

appearance when Bob talks in English is more like an English communication style,

considering that many aizuchi appear to be overlapping the current floor holder in a

Japanese conversation (242 overlapping aizuchi and 153 non-overlapping aizuchi in the

Japanese talk part of the Academic Meeting). Thus, it can be argued that the Japanese

participants somehow shift their communication style in terms of aizuchi use when

communication takes place in English.30

30
It is necessary to point out that in the Academic Meeting, Bob is not just the only native speaker of
English but also the only male. Although the Japanese participants’ style shift is more likely to be due to
the language spoken in the communication, there is no evidence that gender may not affect their style
shift.

297
 Chapter 6

Though overlapping aizuchi frequency far exceeds non-overlapping aizuchi, as the

frequency of 153 is not that small, distribution of non-overlapping aizuchi by individual

participants has been further investigated. The following table summarises aizuchi

frequency for both overlapping and non-overlapping aizuchi by individual participants

when talking in Japanese in the Academic Meeting.

Table 6.24 Number of aizuchi frequency in Japanese talk in the Academic Meeting

type\participant Harue Bob Natsuki Suwako Fumie Total

overlapping 56 59 44 49 40 248
non-overlapping 30 53 19 20 31 153
Total 86 112 63 69 71 401

Table 6.24 presents a few interesting facts. First, though there are individual

differences, while all Japanese participants’ non-overlapping aizuchi are around 20 and

30, Bob’s non-overlapping aizuchi exceeds 50. Second, when comparing individual

aizuchi frequency between overlapping and non-overlapping, while the Japanese

participants (except Fumie) show a substantial difference between the two, Bob’s

aizuchi is almost equally distributed to the two types of overlap. This seems to suggest

that whilst shifting his speech style to more Japanese style in terms of aizuchi

frequency, the way of their presentation (i.e. overlapping and non-overlapping) is not

completely shifted to a Japanese style (for producing significant number of non-

overlapping aizuchi). Third, Fumie, who also shows less obvious difference between the

two types of aizuchi, has lived in Australia the longest (17 years) of the four Japanese

participants, though it cannot be proved whether Fumie’s aizuchi pattern is related to

the length of her residency in Australia or not, due to lack of data. However, overall,

the participants’ style shift between English talk and Japanese talk, which is not

observed in Maynard (1993), seems to be due to the participants’ background. While

Maynard’s informants seem to be university students who are temporarily staying in the

298
 Chapter 6

US,31 all of the Japanese participants in this conversational data are permanent residents

of Australia who have lived in the country for over 8 years. Given this, the difference

between the participants of this conversational data and Maynard’s informants seems to

lie in the length of their residency in English-speaking countries. The longer one stays

in an English-speaking country, the more likely s/he is to gain an understanding of the

socio-cultural norms and pragmatics that are used in communication and apply them to

her/his daily communication. Therefore, it seems that the participants in this data are

able to switch their communication style (but perhaps without noticing much or at all)

between Japanese and English in order to adapt themselves for smooth communication.

On the other hand, though their English proficiency level is high enough to study at the

university in the US, it is assumed that Maynard’s informants had not gained pragmatic

competence in English communication due to a shorter length of stay in the country at

the time the study was conducted. As in Ohara’s (1992, 1997) finding (introduced in

Chapter 2), that bilingual Japanese women speak English in a lower pitch level

compared to their pitch level when speaking in Japanese, such a style switch in terms of

aizuchi use can be regarded as one of socio-cultural adjustment.

While long-term Japanese residents of an English-speaking country seem to be able to

switch their communication style to that of English well, they also seem to adapt some

English communication style to their Japanese communication. For example, it is

common for a long-term Japanese resident of an English-speaking country to use more

31
The detail of the informants is not clearly mentioned in her intercultural communication study, except
to say that the informants are close to each other. However, from the transcript and her remark that the
recording took place in a similar manner to her cross-cultural study, it is assumed that the informants are
in their twenties, studying at the university. One transcript presents a talk about changing jobs. Thus, non-
university students may also have participated. But even so, their profiles should not make much
difference to the students’.

299
 Chapter 6

English words instead of commonly used Japanese equivalents.32 Apart from this style,

interestingly, a similar listening style by the Japanese participants to their English

communication is also observed in some parts of their Japanese communication. That is,

once again, the frequency of aizuchi use by the participants is extremely low in some

parts of the conversation, as in the following example.

(63) Parking problem (H-2)

Harue has been telling of her unfortunate experience about not getting a student discount on a parking fee
because she showed her student ID to the parking attendant too late.

1 H: Sono (0.1) /no hi/ suupaabaizaa no sensei to apointomento=

that day supervisor P teacher with appointment
That day, I had an appointment with my supervisor.

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 H: = atta no. (0.2) De shiti kyanpasu de ii tte iu kara [sore=
had FP and city campus at OK QUOTsay since that
And (he) asked if we could see in City Campus,

S: [u-=
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 H: = de ii tte].~Hoide~ demo watashi mo okure soo datta kara=
P OK QUOT and but I also late likely COP since
so I accepted. And, but I was going to late, so

S: = - n]
aizuchi
(continuer)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 H: = (0.4) nde (0.3) /sono/ UXX no mae no (0.1) tokoro ni=
and HES UXX P front P place at
So I parked (my car) in front of

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 H: = tometa wake.(0.2) Zoko wa fudan wa juu-go doru toka=
parked reason there P usually P 15 dollars etc.
University XX. That place usually cost 15 dollars or

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

32
See Masumi-So (1983) for a detailed investigation of the use of English words by Japanese residents of
Australia (Melbourne) in their Japanese communication.

300
 Chapter 6

6 H: = naga ni jikan: made (0.1) nanka ni jikan kadooka=

AP 2 hours until AP two hours whether
Something per 2 hours. Whether it is per 2 hours,

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 H: = wakaranai kedo ichi jikan koe tara juu-go doru ka=
know not but one hour over CON 15 dollars or
I don’t know, but if it goes over 1 hour, then it costs

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 H: = nanka nanda kedo (0.7) demo (0.2) UXX no gakusei wa=
AP COP but but UXX P student P
15 dollars or something.. But For UXX student,

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 H: = hachi doru ka nanka de ii no yo.sh nana doru ka hachi=
eight dollars or something P OK FP FP seven dollars or eight
it’s only 8 dollars or something. Seven or eight

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 H: = doru ka gakusei shoo misere ba ii tte nna kaitatta=
dollars or student ID show CON OK QUOT written
dollars if showing student ID, that’s what (the sign) said.

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 H: = wake. (0.2) Dakara maa iiya toka tt omotte (0.3) nde =
reason so its OK etc. QUOT thought and
So it’s OK (to park there), I thougt. And

S:
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12 H: = (0.8) hode sensei ni ichi jikan matasarete saa [doo=
and teacher by one hour wait CAU FP how
And I had to wait for the teacher for 1 hour. And

 S: u
-[n

aizuchi
(evaluation)
F:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
13 H: = shiyoo kaeroo kana to omotte kita wake [De <talk continues>
do shall go back wonder QUOT think came reason and
I started to wonder what I would do like going home. And...

 S: u [- n
aizuchi
(understanding)

F:

301
 Chapter 6

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The length of the talk from line 1 to 13 is 30.2 seconds, in which Suwako produces only

three aizuchi and Fumie produces none. Fumie’s aizuchi appears another 32 seconds

after this extract, when Harue has reached the conclusion of her story (that one should

show student ID before the parking attendant processes the fee). In other words, Fumie

produced only one evaluation aizuchi, “honto” during Harue’s long talk for over one

minute. For Suwako, she produces another four aizuchi in this 32 seconds. Thus, it

turns out that Suwako produced aizuchi every 8.9 seconds. According to Maynard

(1993), Japanese produce aizuchi every 2 to 3 seconds when communicating in

Japanese.33 Comparing aizuchi frequency of Suwako and Fumie with the results in

Maynard, the differences are enormous. The tendency to produce less aizuchi is also

observed in other participants’ communication, especially in story telling. Having

looked at Suwako’s aizuchi, it is interesting to see that the differences appear not just in

aizuchi frequency, but in how aizuchi is produced. Six out of seven aizuchi by Suwako

are produced in response to Harue’s cue by a sentence-end particle or rising intonation,

and the remaining aizuchi is the only one that appears by overlapping Harue’s talk.

Such aizuchi use is quite similar to English conversational style. Where do these

differences come from? It is probably, once again, due to the length of the participants’

experience of English culture. Having used English communication and its style after

living in Australia for a while, the participants may have employed their English

communication style to their Japanese communication. In other words, in contrast to the

previous example of socio-cultural adjustment, this may be regarded as an example of

reverse socio-cultural transfer due to long-time experience of another culture. In fact, at

33
The results of her cross-cultural communication study and intercultural communication study are
different, and there are also individual differences in intercultural communication. Hence the approximate
frequency is presented here.

302
 Chapter 6

the time of the data collection, Fumie, who had been in Australia the longest of the

participants ( i.e. 17 years compared with 9 years on average for the other two

participants), produced only one aizuchi for over 1 minute of talk. However, it is not

certain how much the 8 years’ difference affects one’s communication style from only

this data. Also, note that what seems to be a socio-cultural transfer is observed only in a

story telling part of this conversation and the Business Talk, by a few participants. In

other words, in the majority of the data, all of the participants produce many aizuchi and

their interactional style does not seem to be any different from what we observe in

Japanese communication in Japan, apart from using slightly more loan words. Thus, the

example presented here is a deviation from an ordinary Japanese communication style.

Whether this deviation will expand to more than story telling in the future (then it will

no longer be a deviation), is very difficult to argue at this stage. Krauze-Ono, (2004)

compared aizuchi (or backchannels) frequency of German residents in Japan and

Japanese residents in Germany, all long-term residents of the country, in their first

language communication. According to Krauze-Ono, although German residents in

Japan show far more frequent backchannels in their German communication than in

ordinary German communication observed in Germany, aizuchi frequency of Japanese

residents in Germany showed no difference to what is observed in Japanese

communication in Japan. Masumi-So (1983), who investigated the use of English loan

word use by Japanese long-term residents in Melbourne, found a few Japanese

informants’ loan word use is very low despite living in Australia for a long period.34

Masumi-So argues that the cause of their low frequency is their strong networking to a

Japanese community, and/or their desire for maintaining Japanese identity. As the

34
However, among these cases, two had lived in Australia less than 6 years, and there was only one who
had lived in the country for over 10 years.

303
 Chapter 6

research method of these studies, including this study, is totally different,35 it may not be

appropriate to compare the results. However, in terms of networking to a Japanese

community, the informants of all three studies have a close link to it. Thus, it seems that

this link largely contributes to their stability in their participation style in Japanese

communication. Also, given that not all participants show this shift, once again

individual communication style may also contribute to this style shift.

This section has presented two observations regarding the participants’ aizuchi

frequency. The one is the shift of their communication style to adjust themselves to be

socially and culturally appropriate in the language they are using (English and

Japanese). The other is their style of first language communication (Japanese) being

somehow affected by the style of their second language communication (English).

These two observations contradict each other at first glance. But they seem to represent

the communication style of long-term Japanese residents of an English-speaking

country who are partly floating between two different types of communication. Note,

however, these are only observations that fall out in the process of data analyses, and

these phenomena are not observed throughout the data but in part of the data only.

Thus, at this stage, these style shifts by the Japanese are yet subtle and further

investigation with more data collection is necessary to argue the issues.

4. Conclusion

This chapter began by analysing overlaps quantitatively. By investigating overlap

frequencies, a number of interesting points were revealed. First, from the total number

35
Krauze-Ono collected data in controlled conversation and Masumi-So used sociolinguistic interview
for her data collection.

304
 Chapter 6

of overlaps, it is confirmed that Japanese overlap very frequently in daily

communication. And as previous studies claim, a large part of overlap is occupied by

non-floor holder’s aizuchi. Continuer is known as a popular function of aizuchi. But in

fact, aizuchi are used more in agreement and understanding functions than in continuer.

Also, compared with other functions that also appear in form other than aizuchi term,

continuer mostly appears in the form of aizuchi term. Second, compared with the

previous studies’ claims, despite excluding some cooperative overlaps that are

sometimes regarded as interruptions, the number of interruptions in the data was

relatively larger. Third, the result shows that overlaps are not just initiated by a non-

floor holder, but also by the floor holder. This indicates that the floor holder does not

just talk, but constantly monitors the non-floor holders’ reactions. Fourth, the overlap

frequencies seem to be related to a number of variables that construct communication.

Such variables include number of participants, participants’ social distance, setting of

the talk, genre of the talk, topic of the talk, and the individual style. Among these

variables, the relation with setting and topic were not clarified due to lack of data. But

the other variables reveal the following link with overlap frequency,

a) the more participants are involved the more overlaps tend to be produced, but

this formula seems to apply in uncontrolled informal chat.

b) more cooperative overlaps and less competitive overlaps tend to be produced to

the person who is socially distant.

c) though there are more obvious and less obvious examples, overlap frequency

changes depending upon the genre of the talk. Especially in family talk, where

305
 Chapter 6

no reserve for the other participants who are family members is necessary,

competitive overlaps were frequently observed.

d) whether producing more or less overlaps seems to depend upon the individual

conversational style.

In the end, these variables intertwine with each other to affect one’s communication

style. Thus, it is not possible to link only one of them to overlap frequency. Yet, by

focusing on one variable of the talk, at least some mechanisms of constructing one’s

communication style are observed.

The second part of the chapter discussed the data qualitatively. In doing so, a few

functions that did not appear on the surface level are revealed. One is a strategic use of

aizuchi in order to take the next floor. According to the data, such aizuchi mostly carry

an agreement function. For Japanese communication that highly values harmony, this

seems to be a very good strategy to take the next floor cohesively, which avoids conflict

with the current floor holder. The other function is, though specific to a multi-party

talk, third-party approach to the other non-floor holder by overlapping the current floor

holder’s talk. The examples observed in the data were produced for the purpose of

settling down the chaos of misunderstanding of the current floor holder’s talk by the

other non-floor holder. Though this may not be regarded as a strategy, indirectly

suggesting the other non-floor holder’s misunderstanding seems to reflect the Japanese

way of communication well for the same reason for using aizuchi to take the floor.

306
 Chapter 6

Finally, two observations on aizuchi use that seem to be uncommon for a Japanese

communication style were presented. Significantly less use of aizuchi when the talk is

switched to English seems to show that the participants adjust their communication

style to that of English. One’s second cultural affect on her/his first language

communication has not been discussed much. But given that previous studies on

intercultural communication report frequent aizuchi use by the Japanese informants in

both Japanese and English conversation, this switch seems to be related to the

participants’ long-term experience of being in another culture (i.e. Australia in this

case). Conversely, such long-term residents of an English-speaking country seem to

transfer the English communication norms back to their Japanese communication

occasionally. The data found far less use of aizuchi to the current floor holder’s talk in a

few story telling situations. However, more data is necessary to investigate the issue

further. In summary, by investigating overlaps quantitatively and qualitatively, a

number of interesting issues were uncovered in terms of how Japanese communicate in

daily talk. This tells how rich information overlap carries, which gives us clues to

understand the mechanism of Japanese communication.

307
 Chapter 7

Chapter 7 Conversational style 2: Gender implications

1. Introduction

In the last chapter I discussed how the participants communicate in general in terms of

their overlap use. The discussion considered several variables that appear to contribute

in constructing a style of talk, which include number of participants, social distance,

genre, setting, topic and individual style. However, there remains an additional aspect

that was not discussed in chapter 6.

As “gender” directly relates to the research question as to whether the communication

style of Japanese women residents of Australia has changed after living in the country

for a number of years, this chapter extensively discusses the participants’

communication style in relation to their gender. As discussed in Chapter 2, previous

research into language and gender has been more focused on the syntactic and semantic

levels, and research on how people are involved (or acting) in talk has yet to be

explored extensively. With this in mind, this chapter focuses upon the latter, people’s

actions during conversation, to explore whether there are any gender traits observed in

the participants’ involvement in talk.

Participation in talk can be viewed from two contrasting roles; that of a floor holder and

that of a non-floor holder. First, the discussion focuses on their participation style as a

floor holder by investigating floor management, including topic initiation and floor

shift, which sometimes accompany overlaps. Thereafter, the discussion moves to their

participation style as a non-floor holder, wherein an investigation will be made as to

whether there are any gender differences in the manner by which the participants

support and compete against the current floor holder.

308
 Chapter 7

In order to provide a clear gender contrast, the data of the first informant, Sachiko, all of

which are from mixed-gender conversations, will provide the primary basis for the

following discussion.

2. Participation in talk as a floor holder

This section discusses how the informants participate in each conversation in the role of

floor holder. The style of their participation will be investigated through their floor

management, including topic initiation and topic shift, some of which took place in the

form of overlap.

As stated above, the investigation will focus on the talk in which Sachiko participated.

The flow of topic and floor shift in each conversation is shown in a chart (see the

Appendix 3). The chart shows, i) a list of main topics and their initiators, ii) a list of

sub-topics, if any, and their initiators, iii) floor shift in each topic. Floors that are

cooperatively/competitively overlapped by the next floor holder and floors that are not

cohesive to the previous floor are marked accordingly.

The three conversations show totally different flow of talk. As in the overlap

distribution discussed in the previous chapter, the differences also appear to be related

to several factors such as genre, topic, formality and so on. Given that Sachiko and her

husband, Masao, participated in all three conversations, the discussion concentrates on

the couple’s communication styles by investigating the areas in which the two differ

from one another in each conversation and how they shift their style from one

conversation to another.

309
 Chapter 7

2.1 Floor management in the Business Talk

First, the initiators of each topic type (i.e. phatic, main topic and sub-topic) are

summarised in the following table.

Table 7.1 Topic initiation per participant

Phatic talk Main topic sub-topic total

Sachiko 1 5 7 13
Masao 1 5 9 15
Yoshida 0 0 2 2
Total 2 10 18 30

The majority of the topics are initiated by either Sachiko or Masao. Given that the

objective of the talk was to obtain information from Yoshida for the purposes of their

writing a special article in the next issue of their community magazine, his significantly

low frequency of topic initiation is not surprising. Comparing initiations between

Sachiko and Masao, despite there being a difference in the frequency of sub-topic

initiation, their topic orientations are otherwise almost even. This implies that the two

participants are equally active in leading the talk, and there is no apparent imbalance

between them.

However, a very interesting point is revealed when investigating type of topic they

initiated. Table 7.2 below is a summary of the topics Sachiko and Masao initiated. The

table clearly distinguishes topics into two types: “self-oriented type,” which leads the

topic initiator to become the centre of the talk, and “other-oriented type,” which

encourage others to talk. Interestingly, each type is solely initiated by one participant.

The topics that Sachiko initiates are either targeting Yoshida by questions or

compliments, or suggestions for the article they are working on.

310
 Chapter 7

Table 7.2 Main topic contents initiated by Sachiko and Masao

Topic No. Content

1 Asking Yoshida about Tax strategy
3 Asking Yoshida about the commission
Sachiko 5 Asking the meaning of OFT(off the) plan
8 Suggesting promotion of retirement life in the article
9 Praising the property Yoshida deals in the booklet
2 How the article will be published
4 The objectives of the article
Masao 6 Economic crises in Hong Kong
7 Current situation of Japanese businessmen in Sydney
10 How to proceed with the article as a series

From this content, her way of topic initiation seems to follow the objective of the talk,

that is to collect information from Yoshida, in which she shows her politeness by

praising the work of Yoshida and indirectly mentions her opinion by a form of

suggestion. In other words, with her topic initiation, she mainly approaches Yoshida to

seek information, rather than to explain or give her opinion. Thus, her style is other-

oriented. On the other hand, Masao’s topic initiations make a clear contrast with

Sachiko’s. The topics Masao initiated do not include any questions. They are instead

explaining what he is doing or giving his opinions rather than urging his (or their) client

Yoshida to talk. Thus, his topic initiation style is self-oriented. The two contrasting

tendencies are also observed in their sub-topic initiations as shown in the following

Table 7.3.

311
 Chapter 7

Table 7.3 Sub-topic contents initiated by Sachiko and Masao

Sub-topic No. Content

1.1 Asking Yoshida about bringing foreign currency out of country
1.2 Asking Yoshida about sales tax
1.4 Asking Yoshida about the tax for owner-occupied property
Sachiko 8.1 Suggestion for the article
9.1 Suggestion for Okaya city
9.2 Asking about the unit Yoshida is dealing
9.3 Explaining Unilodge near the property Yoshida is dealing
1.4 Asking Yoshida about property tax
2.1 Concerns about the article
2.3 How he promotes the article
8.2 Importance of second life development
Masao 8.3 Example of Okaya city's project
8.4 Promotion extends to nationwide (in Japan)
8.6 Experience in talking to a politician in Nagano
10.1 About introducing tax strategy in the article
10.2 Continuation of the article as a series in colour pages in future

Although there are counter-examples, as in cases where Sachiko is providing

explanations (9.3) and Masao is asking (1.4), the majority of the topics each participant

introduced are of the same nature as in the individual tendencies shown by their main

topic initiations.

Ehara et al. (1984), who investigated 12 mixed-gender and 20 same gender (10 each)

dyadic conversations, discuss several style differences in conversation between male

and female. One of their arguments is that while males tend to concentrate on the topic

in which they are interested, and are less concerned with the development of the talk,

females pay more attention to the development of the talk, and show interest in topics

introduced by other parties through support. Similar observations to Ehara et al. are

also reported by Matsuda et al. (1995). Such communication style differences appear to

represent the male’s “self-oriented” style and female’s “other oriented” style, though the

researchers do not directly refer to these terms.

312
 Chapter 7

Given that Sachiko and Masao’s communication style in terms of topic initiation is no

different from what Ehara et al. and their followers argue, it seems that Sachiko and

Masao preserve a typical Japanese gendered communication style.

As a second focus, to find out more in regards to gender differences, the floor shifts in

each topic are examined. Number of floors per participant are summarised in the

following table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Number of floors taken by individual participant under each topic*

Main topic and Sub-topic and its No of floors taken No of floors No of floors
its initiator initiator by Sachiko taken by Masao taken by Yoshida
1(Sachiko) 1.1(Sachiko) 0 3 3
1.2(Sachiko) 0 0 1
1.3(Masao) 0 0 1
1.4(Sachiko) 0 0 1
2(Masao) 2.1(Masao) 2 3 1
2.2(Yoshida) 1 2 1
2.3(Masao) No development
3(Sachiko)
0 2 2
4(Masao)
0 1 1
5(Sachiko)
1 2 3
6(Masao)
No development
7(Masao)
2 2 1
8(Sachiko) 8.1(Sachiko) No development
8.2(Masao) No development
8.3(Masao) 3 2 0
8.4(Masao) No development
8.5(Yoshida) No development
8.6(Masao) No development
9(Sachiko) 9.1(Sachiko) 1 2 0
9.2(Sachiko) 2 4 2
9.3(Sachiko) 5 4 1
10(Masao) 10.1(Masao) 1 1 0
10.2(Masao) No development
Total ** 18+9=27 28+12=40 18+2=20
*For shared floor, only main floor holder is counted.
**Total number of topic initiations is added to the total number of floors. Main topic initiator
and its first topic initiator are overlapping hence is counted as one.

313
 Chapter 7

There is another striking feature in the flow of the topic and floor. The shaded topics in

Table 7.4 (four in total1) indicate that they are initiated without being directly cohesive

to the previous topic content. The fact that all of these topics are initiated by Masao

suggests he has less concern about cohesiveness with the ongoing topic.

Interestingly, not all of these topic initiations took place by interrupting the previous

floor holder. Topic 8.6, for example, is initiated in a rather cohesive manner, on the

surface, which seems to be a strategy to move the topic to an area of Masao’s interest,

without causing a conflict with the current floor holder. See Masao’s reaction to

Yoshida in lines 5 and 6 in the following extract.

(64) Nagano (Sa-1)

The participants are talking about internationalisation of the Nagano prefecture. Having heard from the
Okaya city, where the council promotes a long-stay holiday program in Australia, which is located in
Nagano prefecture, Yoshida refers to a housing distributor that sells Australian houses, which he believes
attracts the local residents.

1 Sa: [fu - =
aizuchi
(understanding)

M:

Y: XXXX tte kaisha tashika Gifu desu ne (0.6)[Ee watashi=

QUOT company correct Gif COP FP REC I
It’s company called XXXX if I’m correct, and is located in Gifu. I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: = n ]

M: [ e e ]
aizuchi
(continuer)

Y:
= mo konaida: kaetta toki ni: i][koo to] omotte=
P the other day returned when P go VOL QUO thinking
was thinking of visiting them when I went back to Japan the other day,
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1
Masao’s topic initiation in the main topic 10 is overlapping sub-topic 10.1, hence these two are counted
as one.

314
 Chapter 7

3 Sa: fuu[ - n]
aizuchi
(understanding)
M:

Y:= ikenakatta n desu kedo ne [desukara: yappari:]are=

could not go VN COP but FP so as you see that
but I could not. So, as you see, it would be
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: u [ n]
aizuchi
(continuer)
M:
Y: = janai desu ka nee soo itta imi dewa ~[kanari]=
not COP Q FP that said meaning P largely
something like, in this sense, it (Australian house) largely
------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa: [u - =
aizuchi
(understanding)

M: [e e ] [Soo nandesu=
aizuchi that COP
(agreement) Indeed

Y:= eikyoo aru a [shite n ja]nai desu ka [nee

influence exist HES do VN not COP Q FP
influences (the local residents in Nagano), I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sa: n ]

M: = yo] Sorede boku wa ne kore asoko Shinano-Mainichi=

FP and I P FP this there
And, you know I, it There is Shinano Mainichi
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Sa: u[- n]
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: = desho Shinano-Mainichi shinbun tte iu (0.2)

COP Q Shinano-Mainichi newspaper QUOTsay
you know? It’s called Shinano-Mainichi newspaper

Y: [hai]
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Sa: [u [- n]
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: Kosaka ichizoku desu yo. [Ano:] ~ gaimu=

family COP FP HES foreign affair
(run by) Kosaka family. The one

Y: [ho [ - ]
aizuchi
(understanding)

315
 Chapter 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Sa: un
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: = daijin
yatta (0.8) [Sugoi] n desu yo.

minister did great VN COP FP
who used to be a Foreign miniser. (They are) powerful.
.

Y: haihai ho[ - ] hoe=

aizuchi aizuchi aizuchi
(understanding) (understanding) (evaluation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Sa:

M: [Sore tsunagatte ne de (...)

that connect FP and
(I have) a connection (with them) and ...

Y: = he[hee
ee
aizuchi
(continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As the extract above shows, before initiating a new topic of interest to him (i.e. about

his personal connection to a powerful politician’s family), Masao first agrees with

Yoshida with a terminal overlap in line 5. Thus, the turn shifts smoothly. However,

despite his strong agreement, “soo nan desu yo, indeed,” the topic initiated by Masao

does not directly cohere with Yoshida’s opinion that the selling of Australian houses

seems to be promoting Nagano’s project for an association with Australia.

It is interesting to note that such a strategic topic initiation is used with Yoshida but not

with Sachiko. Three out of four full-blown topic changes by Masao took place by either

interrupting Sachiko (2) or ignoring her talk (1). In particular, his initiation of Topic 10

shown in the following extract (line 9) is a serious interruption of Sachiko’s talk, as he

actually interferes with the talk between Sachiko and Yoshida.

(65) UniLodge (Sa-1)

Sachiko and Masao are explaining to Yoshida about UniLodge, which is located near the properties that
Yoshida is dealing with.

316
 Chapter 7

1 Sa:

M:

Y: Are tashika nee u watashi no shitteru no dewa tashika=

that sure FP HES I P know VN P sure
That is, um as far as I know, (UniLodge) is,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: ieie futsuu no
no no ordinary P
Nono, (it’s for) ordinary (people)
M:

Y:= gakusei janakya tomare nai tte iu dai=

Student not CON stay not QUOT say all-
not open for other than students to stay, that(I heard) Is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: [e e [Gakusei no mo aru n desu. (0.2)
yes student P also exist VN COP
Yes, there are also ones for students.
M:

Y:= joobu desu [ka. Hoe[e

-right COP Q aizuchi
that right? (understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: [Eeto ni-kai ] san-kai kana. [De yon-kai go-kai]=
HES 2 floor 3 floor wonder and 4 floor 5 floor
Um,(it’s on) the second and third floor, I think.. And(on)the fourth and fifth floor

M: (0.3)

Y: [a naruhodo na] [hee - ]

EX I see FP aizuchi
Oh I see. (understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa: = (0.2) ka nanka ni [futsuu no ippan no hito ga =
or AP P ordinary P ordinary P people P
or something like that, ordinary, ordinary people
M:

Y: ha[i hee=
aizuchi aizuchi
(continuer) (continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sa: = [tomareru no de] famirii de~ ippaku ni-hyaku doru=
can stay FP and family P one night 2 hundred dollars
can stay. And for a family, at about 200 dollars per night
M:

Y: = -[ - - ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Sa:= gurai de tomareru n desu yo. [Dakara] (0.3) sootoo=
about at can stay VN COP FP So very
(one) can stay. So(it’s) very
M:

Y: hee [ - -]
aizuchi
(understanding)

317
 Chapter 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Sa:= yasui [shi gaku[sei no wa] yasui n da yo ne hyaku-
cheap P student P P cheap N COP FP FP hundred
cheap and <to M> It’s cheap for student, isn’t it? At

M: [ne [c h o tto]
INT little
Hey excuse me
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Sa: = roku[juu k u r a i] de /?/[tomareru
sixty about at can stay
about 160, (one)can stay

M: [mada roku ban] [Gomennasai ne hanashi ga=

still 6 number sorry FP talk P
(We are)still on item 6 Sorry, but it’s no good
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Sa:

M: = kawacchau to ikenai (0.2) iya kore daijina kore kore=

change CON no good EX this important this this
if we go off the track. Well this is important.
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Sa:

M: = doo suru (...)

how do Q
What should we do?
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to note that the number of times that Sachiko holds the floor in Sub-topic

9.3 before Masao’s new topic introduction in line 8 is five (see Table 7.4), which is

more frequent than in any other topics. This implies that, unlike in the other topics,

Sachiko led the talk as a floor holder in this topic. Masao also held the floor the same

number of times in this topic as in the other topics, but as Chart 7.1 below shows, the

length of each of his floor holds is relatively short, and confined to the first half of this

topic (46 seconds). Masao halts his active involvement as a floor holder in the latter half

of the topic, resulting in Sachiko leading the topic for 47 seconds. Masao cooperatively

overlaps Sachiko only once at the very beginning of the second half, and after inactively

(in low volume) responding to Yoshida’s inquiry, he completely withdraws from the

318
 Chapter 7

talk and it becomes dyadic talk between Sachiko and Yoshida as shown in the above

extract.

Chart 7.1 Floor shift in topic 9.3 (UniLodge) introduced by Sachiko

->(Masao)-> (Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)

46 sec 

->(Sachiko)->(Yoshida)->(Sachiko)

47 sec 

extract (65) 

NB:Underline indicates that the speaker is overlapped by the next speaker. Single underline indicates
cooperative overlap and doubled underline indicates competitive overlap (i.e. interruption).

Throughout the 30 minutes 14 seconds talk, this is the only occasion where Masao

becomes inactive. The reason for him becoming inactive can be either Sachiko’s

domination of the floor or Masao’s lack of interest in the topic. Considering Sachiko’s

low participation in other topics in terms of floor holding, the former does not seem

likely. The key to understanding this is revealed when investigating the content of the

talk when holding the floor. In the first 46 seconds, Masao and Sachiko are

cooperatively explaining several merits of Unilodge, followed by Masao’s information

that they had introduced the accommodation to a movie director. It is when Sachiko

provides Yoshida with further details of Unilodge in terms of facilities and floor plan (at

the beginning of the second half of the talk) that Masao withdraws. The virtues of

Unilodge have already been mentioned at the beginning of the topic. Thus, perhaps for

Masao, the topic has already been concluded, hence has lost his interest in detailed

information such as the floor plan or the price of the accommodation. Otherwise, he is

more likely to have been participating more actively, as in the first half of the talk.

Ehara et al. (1984), report a case of mixed-gender conversation in which a male

informant does not react to his female partner if the topic she introduced does not

319
 Chapter 7

interest him, and introduces a topic of his own interest after the current topic fades, due

to inactivity. As their data was collected from a pair who had never met before, the

male appeared to show some politeness in having waited until the topic he is not

interested in fades. In the case of Masao in this data, however, he forcibly introduces a

new topic by interrupting Sachiko in the midst of her animated talk with Yoshida. It is

probably the case that Masao thought it would not be problematic to interrupt Sachiko,

as she belongs to the same uchi (inside) group, in this case family as husband and wife

where amae (dependency) is allowed.

Earlier in this section, I discussed that Sachiko’s communication style, as previously

discussed by other researchers, is other-oriented and pays more attention to developing

the talk with questions and compliments. From Masao’s talk in lines 8-10 in the above

extract, although he indicates his concern with the organisation of the talk, his

communication style still appears to be self-oriented, since in contrast to Sachiko, who

brings the talk back from tangential side-topics, Masao makes direct reference to the

irrelevance of the current talk to their task, and does this even by interruptions. From

these observations, it seems that the communication styles of Sachiko and Masao still

seem to preserve the gendered characteristics discussed above, and traditional amae

within uchi group such as a family.

Masao and Sachiko’s traditional gendered communication style can also be recognised

by investigating how they take the floor in terms of overlap. The following table

summarises the numbers of floor shifts with cooperative and competitive overlap by

individual participant and the person from whom the floor is taken.

320
 Chapter 7

Table 7.5 Number of floor shift with cooperative and competitive overlap per participant2

Cooperative overlap Competitive overlap Total

Sachiko->Masao* 5 3 8
Sachiko->Yoshida 1 0 0
Masao ->Sachiko 7 7 (3)** 14(3)**
Masao ->Yoshida 2 (2)** 1 3(2)
Yoshida->Sachiko 0 0 0
Yoshida->Masao 0 0 0
Total 15(2)** 11 (3)** 26(5)**

* The arrow indicates who overlaps whom. For example in “X->Y” means X overlaps Y.
** The numbers in the brackets indicate a floor that is not cohesive to the previous floor.

Although both Masao and Sachiko overlap Yoshida a number of times, the frequency is

low. This indicates that Sachiko and Masao have little conflict with Yoshida. In

contrast, frequent overlaps between the couple are observed (see the shaded parts in the

table above). In terms of cooperative overlaps, Sachiko and Masao are not very

different from each other. In terms of competitive overlap, however, Masao overlaps

Sachiko (7) more than twice as frequently as Sachiko overlaps Masao (3). In Sachiko’s

three competitive overlaps with Masao, all of them are made in order to develop the

main talk by moving back from a tangent initiated by Masao to the main topic of the

talk.

One such example is shown below. Note how Masao creates a tangential line by

playing on a word (i.e. creating the word, double-harvesting industry, with self-

satisfaction) in lines 3-6, and how Sachiko copes with that in lines 4-6.

(66) Okaya city should buy property like this (Sa-1)

Masao has been expressing his opinion about how society in the near future will be filled with middle and
old aged people, thus selling them a property for foreign investment (for their second life) becomes big
business.

2
The numbers in the table focus on main floor shift only. In other words, if a participant overlaps the
other whose utterance is not regarded as a main floor or not developed to be a main floor (e.g. stops
talking), or when a non-floor holder overlaps the current floor but the current floor ignores it and keeps
talking, these overlaps are not counted, hence the numbers presented in the table do not match the total
number of overlap per category tables presented in the Appendix 2.

321
 Chapter 7

1 Sa:

M: Korekara anata (0.1) chuu-koo nen no uzu desu yo.

from now you middle-high age P swhirl COP FP
From now on, you know, there will be a whirl of middle and old age.
Y: ee
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa:

M: Seifu dekinai n da mon. (0.6)

government cannot VN CO thing
The government cannot do anything.

Y: (0.5)soo deshoo nee. ee:

that COP FP aizuchi
I guess so. (agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: u – [n
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: kore okane ni narimasu yo. [Jinsei ni-moosaku=

this money P become FP life double-cropping
This becomes profitable. Life is a double-harvest-

Y: ee
aizuchi
(agreement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: huhu Oka=
<laugh> Oka=
Oka=

M: = sangyoo da yo. <voiceless laugh> <laugh=

industry COP FP
-ing industry.

Y: Ni-moosaku sangyoo<laugh>
double cropping industry
Double-harvesting industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa:= ya mo kae ba ii no yo [ne.
ya P buy CONgood N FP FP
Okaya could buy it, I guess.

M: = l a u g h > [Moosamu [moo <laugh> =

harvesting

Y: = [hee ni-moosa hah=

aizuchi doublecrop <laugh>
(understanding) double harves(ting)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

322
 Chapter 7

6
Sa: [Konna tokoro sa Okaya ga=

such place FP Okaya P
Such a place, Okaya could

M: = Bakana koto itte n ja[nai ne

foolish thing say VN COP not FP
I should not say such a foolish thing.

Y: = hee:
aizuchi
(understanding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Sa: = [kae] ba ii noni ne. [Shi ge shi ga katte
buy CON good P FP city city P buy and
buy I wonder. City, city government buys and

M: [iya] [da[kara ne dakara=

no that’s why FP that’s why
Look So So

Y: hee[: hee
aizuchi aizuchi
(understanding) (continuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Sa: [soo i]u no o [sa
that say VN P FP
such kind (of property)

M: = [sore sa] [chotto matte matte ore ga kaite (...)

that FP little wait wait I P write
that is wait wait I will write and (...)

Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

After listening to Masao’s word play, which is followed by laughter, Sachiko introduces

a new topic which returns the conversation to the main topic, the property with which

Yoshida is working (starting in line 4). Sachiko starts talking at a floor free zone (i.e.

Masao and Yoshida are laughing, hence nobody holds the floor at that point), which

seems to be a convenient point at which the conversation may be retrieved from the

tangential distraction. However, Masao appears not to be listening to Sachiko, and is

excited by the word he has created (lines 5-6). As a result, Sachiko has to interrupt

Masao at the end of line 6 in order to reintroduce the new topic. Her other interruptions

also take place in similar situations. It is important to note that Sachiko does not

interrupt Masao earlier in his tangential talk. Rather she first listens to him and only

323
 Chapter 7

when he continues talking off track, does she take action. Thus, her interruptions seem

to be necessary in order to develop the talk and to keep it to the main topic.

As discussed in Chapter 5, interruption is a threatening action for the current floor

holder, as it is possible that s/he may lose the floor and lose the opportunity to say what

s/he wants. However, having observed Sachiko’s interruptions, it seems that, depending

upon the situation (i.e. here Business Talk with limited time), even interruption may

become legitimate in order to meet the objectives of the talk.3 Therefore, it seems that

Sachiko’s communication style in terms of her floor taking, including her interruptions,

is other-oriented.

On the other hand, it appears that Masao’s competitive overlaps are overwhelmingly

due to his desire to talk, or desire to lead the talk, as discussed in relation to (64) above.

This particular communication style of Masao is also observed at line 8 at the end of the

above extract (65), where he attempts to decline Sachiko’s topic initiation about Okaya

by stopping her with “chotto matte matte, wait wait,” to prioritise his desire to write a

note. Thus, once again, his communication style can be described as self-oriented.

This section has investigated the communication styles of Masao and Sachiko in terms

of topic initiation, topic shift, as well as floor shift, and compared their styles with the

gendered communication style previously discussed by other researchers. Overall, the

communication styles of the couple appear to follow what has been discussed, that is,

women seem to pay more attention to the development of the talk, and men seem to

concentrate on the topic in which they are interested more than on the development of

the on-going talk or a topic in which they have little interest.

3
However, once again, this legitimacy thoroughly relies on amae of being uchi, in-group members, and it
would not be legitimate to interrupt one who is socially distant.

324
 Chapter 7

Sachiko seems to concentrate more on the development of the talk by introducing topics

that accord with its objectives and on redirecting the talk if it becomes tangential by

introducing a more appropriate topic for the talk, or even interrupting Masao. In

contrast, Masao seems to be more active in the talk that interests him than in the

developing the talk: he introduces topics of his own interest rather than topics that are

core to the talk, and seems to prefer to lead. As a result, he often tangentially departs

from the main track of the talk, and occasionally interrupts Sachiko, because of his

desire to develop his own talk. From what is shown in their styles of communication,

despite their relatively long residence in Australia, it seems that their communication

style preserves the traits of gendered communication style generally observed in

Japanese communication among native Japanese in Japan (see Chapter 2), though such

a gendered communication style may also observed in many other languages.

2.2 Floor management in the Chat at Work

This small section discusses the Chat at Work in which the same couple and their

colleague (who is also their daughter) participate. Compared with the Business Talk,

this talk is very short, and as Table 7.6 shows, there are a total of six topics in which

two constitute side talk. Unlike a business meeting, in which participants tend to be

physically isolated to concentrate on the matter at hand, talk such as this Chat at Work

does not necessarily physically isolate participants from other possible participants,

hence it is more likely to involve temporary participation by a third party.

Among the four main topics, only one topic, which is the focused topic of the talk, is

developed into sub-topics (see the Appendix 3 for the detail of its topic and floor shift).

Although the table shows that Sachiko introduces more main topics and sub-topics than

Masao, the numbers are so small that it is difficult to interpret them. For example, in the

325
 Chapter 7

case of main topic introduction, though Sachiko introduced topics twice as often as

Masao (i.e. Sachiko introduces two, and Masao one), the differences are only one.

Table 7.6 Topic initiation per participant

Main topic Side topic sub-topic Total

Sachiko 2 1 5 8
Masao 1 1 2 4
Chie 1 0 0 1
Total 4 2 7 13

Similar to the above, due to the small number of topics in total, it is not possible to

show whether there are any gender traits in terms of the type of topic initiation by

Masao and Sachiko, as it was in the case of the Business Talk. In order to obtain a more

comprehensive picture of floor management by participants, the number of floors taken

by each participant under each topic are summarised in the table 7.7 below, as was done

in the discussion of the Business Talk.

Table 7.7 below shows Chie’s extremely low involvement in the Chat as a floor holder

(one floor taking and one topic initiation only) compared with Sachiko and Masao. In

this chat, the main topic is about an old couple in their late 80s who once had a serious

health problem, but they are now healthy and well despite their age. The couple are well

known to Masao and Sachiko, but not to Chie. Thus, the pair are actively talking about

the couple to Chie. As Chie is mostly listening to them, she ends up being a less active

floor holder, but remains involved as a non-floor holder. Such a clear distinction

between the couple and Chie in terms of active participation as a floor holder is not

observed between Sachiko and Masao. Rather, the table shows Masao and Sachiko are

equally involved in terms of the numbers of floors taken (9 each). When the number of

topic initiations is considered, it becomes evident that Sachiko initiates more topics (8)

326
 Chapter 7

than Masao (4). However, the difference between the couple is not that distinct, and it is

not clear enough to argue that Sachiko seems to care about the development of the talk

more than Masao in terms of initiating more topics or vice versa.

Table 7.7 Number of floors taken by individual participant under each topic

Main topic Side topic No of floors No of floors

and its and its Sub-topic and No of floors taken by taken by
initiator initiator its initiator taken by Sachiko Masao Chie
1(Sachiko)

incomplete
2(Masao)

no development

3(Sachiko)
1 1 1
4(Sachiko)
4.1 (Masao) 4 4 0

4.2 (Sachiko) 0 1 0

4.3 (Sachiko) 1 1 0

4.4 (Sachiko) no development

4.5 (Sachiko) no development

4.6 (Sachiko) no development


4.7 (Masao) 3 2 0

5(Masao)
no development,Masao withdraws
6(Chie)

no development
Total* 9+8=17 9+4=13 1+1=2

* Total number of topic initiations is added to the total number of floors. Main topic initiator and its
first topic initiator are overlapping hence is counted as one.

One point that stands out in such a short chat is Masao’s full-blown topic change. Right

after Sachiko starts a new topic about the old couple, Mr and Mrs D4, Masao introduces

a new topic by interrupting Sachiko, as shown in the following short extract.

(67) Misunderstood the date (Sa-2)

Sachiko has introduced a new topic about a healthy couple in their 80s, when Masao suddenly interrupts
her and introduces a totally different topic about his misunderstanding of the date, related to a published
article.

4
The talk before Sachiko starts is not recorded (the informant seems to have erased it), but it is assumed
that the topic related to old age (80) has already been in focus, since it is unlikely that Sachiko would
have started with the conjunction “demo, but” followed by a specific age without any previous context.
Actually, after Masao changed her topic, she reinitiates the topic, and from her talk, it is possible to
assume what the participants were talking about before and what Sachiko was going to talk about.

327
 Chapter 7

1 Sa: Demo hachi-[juu

but eighty
But eighty(year old)

M: [Att (0.5) wakatta kore juu-gatsu tooka=

EX understood this October tenth
Oh I see this (date) October 10th

C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: aa
aizuchi
(understanding)

M: = oi /rei no/ kanchigai shite saa (0.3) juu-gatsu tsut=

look exampleP misunderstand do FP October
look, the date for the one, I misunderstood (the date). October

C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa:

M: = kokono (0.8) kokonoka o tooka tte kaite yokatta.

ninth ninth P tenth QUOT write good
ninth I was lucky to mistake the date and wrote it as the tenth.

C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the beginning, it would appear that Masao was talking to himself. However, his use

of “oi, look5,” obviously shows that he wants to share the information with other

participants (i.e. that he mistook the date of a certain event as October 10 for October 9

and printed it, which ended up working better since October 9 was already fully

booked). It should be noted that while chatting, the participants are sitting at their own

desks. It appears that Masao’s attention is not just focussed on the talk at hand, but also

on the paper document on his desk. Whether he noticed that Sachiko was initiating a

new topic can not be known. However, it is certain that he has been participating in the

talk before the recording started. Thus, if he did not notice Sachiko’s topic initiation, it

seems that he had already lost interest in the topic and paid more attention to the

document on his desk. Whatever the case, Masao happened to interrupt Sachiko and, as

5
Japanese traditional gender-preferential term for calling for attention by male.

328
 Chapter 7

a result, Sachiko had to stop and switch her role to a non-floor holder and wait for the

next chance to reinitiate the topic.

After Masao’s topic came to a conclusion, there was a moment of side talk, when

Sachiko (who is followed by the other participants) sent a junior staff member off to

work outside, after which Sachiko successfully reinitiates the topic (topic 4, about the

old couple in their late 80s who are still healthy) that she had attempted to introduce at

the beginning of the above extract. The topic then attracts the others and the participants

start to be involved in the talk actively and develop the topic (sub-topics 4.1-4.7,see the

topic and floor shift of this Chat in the Appendix 3). However, in the midst of the

development of the topic, Masao suddenly withdraws himself from the talk without

informing the others. Note how he withdraws and how the others notice it in the

following extract.

(68) Why is he on the phone? (Sa-2)

The participants have been talking about an old couple who are still well and healthy in their late 80s.
Masao points out that they are the descendants of a prestigious family.

1 Sa: [u - n ]
aizuchi
(agreement)

M: [Sugoi ] m [meike no] (0.4) masshoo=

great noble family P descendent
He is a descendent of a great noble family.

C: Hontoo ge[nki da] nee.

indeed well COP FP
They are really well, aren’t they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sa: Soo (0.1) anoo
aizuchi HES
(agreement) Well

M: = nanda.(0.3) Moori Motonari no.

COP Moori Motonari P
of Moori Motonari*
C:

*Moori Motonari is a well-known Japanese medieval warlord

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 (1.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

329
 Chapter 7

4 Sa: Yamaguchi-ken no saa (1.2) [san dai ]

Yamaguchi prefectureP FP three big
It is Yamaguchi’s three big

M: [Meimon yo] nt ano hito (1.1)

noble FP that person
He is from a noble family.
C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

5 Sa: Soo Kitsukawa-ke to:(0.8) Mo=

aizuchi Kitsukawa family and
(agreement) the Kitsukawa and

M: Kitsukawa ttstta no. (0.3)

Kitsukawa QUOT FP
It’s called Kitsukawa.

C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sa: = o[ri-ke] to: [moo hitotsu no]
Moori family and more one P
Moori familyand another one is

M: [Hai ] ee: [to Satoo san ira]sshai masu ka

yes HES Sato ADD stay COP Q
Yes umm Could I speak to Mr. Sato?
C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 (0.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Sa: [huh huh hah hah hah hah ha

M: / ? / Eeto/?/=
HES
umm

C: <laugh> sho hanashi [no nande denwa shiten no

talk P why telephone doing FP
(in the middle of the)talk why is he on the phone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Sa: = ~ a ahatt ~ ho-nt okashii wa [nee
indeed funny FP FP
It’s funny indeed.

M: = xxx puresu no M to mooshi masu ga.

Press P QUOT say COP but
I am M from xxx press.
C: [nett=
FP
Isn’t it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Sa: [huh hah hah huh huh huh huh hah=

M:

C: = “Att Satoo san onegai [shi masu”

EX Sato ADD ask do COP
“ Oh, Could I speak to Mr Sato please?”

330
 Chapter 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Sa: = hah hah

M: (0.2) [att Satoo san de irasshai masu ka]

EX Sato ADD P stay COP Q
Oh is that Mr Sato?

C: n [nani goto ga okotta

ka to omou ]yo ne.
what thing P happened Q QUOT think FP FP
We would wonder what happened to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Sa:

M: <Masao continues talking over the phone>

C:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting that Masao was actively involved in the talk up to the moment when he

called his client, Sato (see lines 4-5). This results in the others having the impression

that he is still with them, even after Masao has been talking on the phone for a few

moments (Masao’s first two utterances in line 6, “hai,” “yes” and “ee” as a part of

hesitation marker “eeto,” can be understood as aizuchi), and when Masao starts to ask

for Sato, Sachiko and Chie come to realise Masao’s abrupt withdrawal (end of line 6 to

a pause in line 7). Due to his unexpected withdrawal, the other participants lose their

eagerness to continue talking and, before long, the talk ceases. Whether Masao

considered what would happen to the talk or not after his sudden withdrawal is not

known. However, given that Chie indirectly accuses him (though in a comical way) for

not informing her and Sachiko that he intended to withdraw (lines 10-11), it seems that

his act is recognised as irrelevant in terms of cooperation even by uchi or in-group

member (i.e. colleague as well as family members in this case where amae is usually

admitted).

As discussed in the previous section, Masao’s self-oriented act as such is also observed

in the Business Talk. Thus, this seems to be an aspect of his communication style.

Although it is not certain whether the style comes from his own personality, the style

331
 Chapter 7

matches closely with what has been discussed by a number of researchers as Male

discourse style.

2.3 Floor management in the Family Talk

It is very interesting to point out that the topic and floor management in the Family Talk

is significantly different to that found in the other two conversations as discussed above

from the other two conversations. First, there are as many as 27 topics in 9 minutes 15

seconds of conversation (see the Appendix 3 for its topic and floor shift), in which more

than half of the topics (19) are not cohesive to the previous topic. Second, none of the

topics are developed to sub-topics. As the talk is not goal-oriented, as in the way the

Business Talk is, the participants are free to introduce any topic of their choice.

However, even so, compared with the Chat at Work, which was discussed in the

previous section, the topic and floor management are very different in this talk.

The reason for the differences explained above seems to lie in the venue and time of the

talk. As discussed in Chapter 6, the talk takes place at the participants’ home at the end

of breakfast. In general, the home is a place where one can be at one’s most informal,

and amae, or dependency towards the other family members, is commonly observed.

Also, talk at breakfast would most typically involve number of morning activities, such

as eating, tidying up the table, washing up, getting ready for work or school and so on,

as in the following extract.

(69) From the breakfast talk (Sa-3, modified)

This is a part of the Breakfast Talk, where the topics change frequently.

1 Sa: Aaa Eiji Kore mottette.

EX this take
Hey Eiji, take this away.

2 (2.5)

332
 Chapter 7

3 E: U-n kyoo eiga mite ne / ? /.

INT today movie see FP
Well, today I am going to see a movie and / ? /.

4 (6.1)

5 M: Hai kore (0.7) are aratta kara na.

INT this that washed P FN
Here you are. I washed them.

6 (1.6)

7 Sa: [Nani ga]

what P
What (did you wash)?

8 M: [/ ? / ] Ett
(0.6) are (1.2) fuku.

what? that clothes
What? that one. Clothes.

9 E: <burping>

10 Sa: A ki[tanaai]
EX dirty
Oh dirty!

11 M: [Kita a]nai ~ moo hin [ga nai n] da kara naa.

dirty INT elegance P no VN COP P FP
Dirty! You are as common as dirt.

12 E: [ haha ]
<laugh>

13 Mada gohan nokotteru n da ne

yet meal left VN COP FP
The food is still left, isn’t it.

14 Sa u-n
yes
yeah
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, most of the topics are activity-oriented, and lack complexity and therefore do not

require development to sub-topics. For these reasons, it is understandable that the

participants freely introduce these topics one after another without putting thought to

extended topic organisation.

In order to explore whether there are any gender specific topic orientations in the talk,

the topic initiations per participants are summarised in table 7.8 below. As for the

number of topic initiations, Eiji initiates marginally more topics than the other

333
 Chapter 7

participants. However, if his last two topic initiations after Masao’s withdrawal (11-

2=9) were excluded, it turns out that the participants initiate topics almost equally.

Table 7.8 Topic contents initiated by the participants (Family Talk)

Topic No. Content

Sachiko (8 topics) 4 Asking Masao/Eiji to wait.
7 Asking about TV program tonight
12 Scolding Masao and Eiji for making mess
13 Respecting parents
14 Asking Eiji to take the plate away
17 Burping is a bad manner
20 Eating small fish is good for health
23 How to cook noodle
Masao (8 topics) 3 Eiji's exercise
5 Declaring finished eating
6 No bottle
9 Eiji's problem
16 Washing clothes
19 Warning Eiji to change his behaviour
22 Asking Sachiko not to feed the dog
24 Honey
Eiji (11 topics) 1 Italian tomato
2 Asking the time
8 People at the hospital
10 Bottle
11 Accusing Masao
15 Today's plan
18 Food is still remaining
21 Not satisfied with life
25 Asking Masao where he is going
26 Asking Sachiko whom Masao meets with
27 Lost interest

Note: Shaded topics are not cohesive to the previously initiated topic.

In terms of the content of the topics, no particular tendency amongst participants is

observed to initiate topics of a particular nature, which contrasts with the Business Talk.

Rather, the content of the topics they initiate are very similar to each other (asking,

accusing, arguing among others), and all participants appear to initiate full-blown topic

changes.

334
 Chapter 7

When comparing the communication styles of Masao and Sachiko in terms of topic

initiations in this talk with the other two conversations, it is interesting to note that,

while Masao’s style appears consistent across all three occasions, Sachiko’s style shifts

dramatically, particularly when compared with her style in the Business Talk. With

regards to this difference observed in Sachiko, it is obvious that the type of topic

initiations made by her are totally different in that she does not appear to display such a

marked other-oriented style.

To investigate the couple’s communication style in this Family Talk further, as was

done for the Business Talk, the number of floor shifts with cooperative and competitive

overlap by individual participant is summarised in the following table. As in Table 7.5,

Sachiko and Masao’s sections are highlighted with shading.

Table 7.9 Number of floor shift with cooperative and competitive overlap per participant

Cooperative overlap Competitive overlap Total

Sachiko->Masao* 0 7(1)** 7
Sachiko->Eiji 0 1 1
Masao ->Sachiko 2 3 5
Masao ->Eiji 0 2 2
Eiji->Sachiko 0 2 2
Eiji->Masao 0 3(1)** 3
Total 2 18 20

* The arrow indicates who overlaps whom. For example in “X->Y” means X overlaps Y.
** The numbers in the brackets indicate the floor that are not cohesive to the previous
floor.

Overall, as observed in the topic initiation, the Family Talk shows a remarkably

different pattern of floor shifts with overlap from the Business Talk (i.e. few

cooperative overlaps and a considerable number of competitive overlaps). Considering

the length of the two conversations, the differences become even clearer: while there are

11 competitive overlaps in over half an hour of the Business Talk, as many as 18

335
 Chapter 7

competitive overlaps are observed in the less than 10 minutes of the Family Talk. If we

were to consider only this data, it would give the impression that the participants are

arguing without understanding each other, or are encountering other similar disorderly

relations.

As mentioned above, it seems that the talk in which participants freely interrupt one

another without offending is limited to uchi, in-group members’ communication.

Moreover, talk without cooperatively overlapped floor shift is perhaps further limited to

the participants who are at the very centre of an in-group environment, that is Family,

where the maximum amae is allowed.

In order to provide a comparison between Sachiko and Masao’s overlapped floor shifts

in the Business Talk and the Family Talk, their data in Table 7.5 and 7.9 above are

combined in Table 7.10, below.

Table 7.10 Masao and Sachiko's overlapped floor shifts in Business and Family Talk

Cooperative Competitive

Business Family Business Family
Sachiko->Masao 5 0 3 7
Masao->Sachiko 7 2 7 3

Masao’s overlap frequency in each talk appears more or less balanced in both

environments between cooperatively overlapped floor shifts and competitively

overlapped floor shifts. Considering that the length of the Business Talk is

approximately three times that of the Family Talk, the frequency of Masao’s overlapped

floor shifts seems to be similar in the two conversations. In other words, similar to the

style of his topic initiation, Masao’s style and frequency of taking the floor appears

consistent in these two conversations. On the other hand, Sachiko’s floor-taking styles

in the two conversations are completely different. In the Business Talk, as discussed in

1.1, her style is more cooperative and other-oriented when taking the floor. When

336
 Chapter 7

interrupted by Masao, she mostly relinquishes the floor to allow Masao the opportunity

to talk. In the Business Talk environment, even her competitive overlaps had the

underlying purpose of moving the conversation back from tangential topics of

conversation. In contrast, in the Family Talk, she takes a floor with as many as seven

competitive overlaps, but not with a single cooperative overlap. In other words,

Sachiko’s floor-taking style seems to have shifted to a self-oriented (i.e. say whatever it

is she wants to say) style in the Family Talk. Furthermore, compared with Masao and

Eiji’s competitive overlap frequencies (5 each, See Table 7.9), Sachiko’s high

frequency of competitive overlaps (9) indicates that her floor-taking style is

proportionally more self-oriented than the other participants. Particularly, her target of

competition is focused on Masao, with 7 overlaps. To further illustrate this point, note

how she interrupts Masao in the following extract.

(70) Italian Tomato (Sa-3, modified)

Eiji asked Sachiko whether there are any Italian tomatoes left. Sachiko said there are, when Masao started
his talk.

1 M: Soore daikoohyoo da yo Itarian tomato=

that very popular COP FP Italian tomato
Everybody loves that, Italian tomato.

2 Sa: =Iya datte otoosan yada yada tte tteta kara.

but since father dislike dislike QUOT said since
But you said you did not like it.

3 M: Iya yada tte wake demo [nai.

no dislike QUOT reason P not
No, I did not mean it.

4 E: [Zurui naa.
cunning FP
You are cunning.

5 M: Iya yana wake [de nai yo].

no dislike reason P not FP
No I did not mean I dislike it.

6
Sa: [Henken yo]henken.

prejudice FP prejudice
It’s prejudice.

7 (2.1)

337
 Chapter 7

8 Sa: Tomato wa maru janakuchaikenai yo mitaini omotteru

tomato P round must be FP like thinking
You think that tomato should be round or something like that.

9 yo. Soreni=
FP moreover
Moreover

10 E: un
aizuchi
(agreement)

11. M: =Sooiufuu ni omoikomi to[ka saa henken tte=

that way P false belief etc. FP prejudice QUOT
The way you say that I have a false belief or prejudice

12
Sa: [Omoikomi
false belief
False belief

13 M = iu tt doh:tt (0.2) / ? /chau naa.

say how FP
/I don’t like /.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As in lines 6 and 12, Sachiko’s competitive overlaps observed in the Family Talk do not

seem to be just for the sake of talking, but to be directed against Masao. Interestingly,

Masao’s superior attitude to Sachiko, which he showed in the Business Talk, is not at all

observed in the Family Talk. Ueno (Buckley, 1997)6 points out that Japanese women

enjoy a certain amount of power within the family home, but this exists in balance with

their powerlessness outside the home environment. Sachiko’s communication style shift

in terms of topic initiation and floor-taking between the Business Talk and the Family

Talk seems to show close correspondence with the idea put forward by Ueno. Although

recent women’s advancement in the business world is prominent,7 the proportion of

women executives in listed companies in Japan is a mere 0.73% (Toyo keizai shimpo

sha, 2004), hence, it is still quite clearly the case that Japanese business is

overwhelmingly male-dominated.

6
Ueno answered in an interview, which is reported in Buckley (1997).
7
According to Toyo keizai shimpo sha (2004), the proportion of women executives in listed companies
in Japan in 2004 was 0.73%, which had increased from 0.15% in 1995.

338
 Chapter 7

In the case of Sachiko, despite her higher status in relation to Masao within their

working environment, when they meet with their clients, she holds back and leaves

Masao to lead the talk, as seen in the Business Talk discussed above. According to

Sachiko, whom I had the opportunity to ask several questions regarding the recorded

data (e.g. the context of the talk), business seems to conduct itself more smoothly when

Masao leads the negotiation with a male client.8

A number of previous studies (e.g. Jugaku, 1979; Reynolds, 1990; Ohara, 1992, 1997)

point out Japanese society’s strong expectations towards women in their use of

language. It is a quarter of century since Jugaku first discussed this issue. Though

women’s language has been changing (Okamoto, 1995) and society itself has shifted

towards more gender equality, as Sachiko exemplifies, society’s expectation in the

business world still seems to be male-oriented.

On the other hand, however, Sachiko’s communication style can also be viewed as

powerful, since she indirectly controls Masao in the Business Talk to keep him to the to

the main purpose of the conversation. The Family Talk provides another example in

which she has a power relationship over Masao, which she appears to directly exhibit in

her talk.

It is often said that walking three steps behind one’s husband outside whilst enjoying

some power at home seems to be a typical style of Japanese housewives. In this sense,

Sachiko’s Japanese communication style is observed to strongly preserve Japanese

socio-cultural norms of husband and wife relations even after living in Australia for 8

years.

8
She mentions that it also applies to an Australian male client. However, the latter case seems to involve
not just gender issues but also ethnic and racial issues.

339
 Chapter 7

3. Participation in talk as a non-floor holder

The previous section discussed the participation styles of Sachiko and Masao from their

point of view as producers of overlap as floor holders, and investigated, how they

initiate topics and how they take the floor in each conversation. From the data, both

Masao and Sachiko seem to display some traditional gender norms previously discussed

in the literature; that is, female as other-oriented and male as self-oriented in their styles

of participation in conversations outside the home, but females (housewives) seem to

feel free to use their power at home over their family members. This section will focus

on the participants’ communication style when they are taking a non-floor holder’s role,

and will investigate whether similar gender traits to their participation styles as a floor

holder are observed in their non-floor holder cooperative and competitive overlaps. The

participants’ frequency of aizuchi, other cooperative overlaps, and competitive overlaps

are summarised per conversation9 and will be discussed individually, then Sachiko’s

and Masao’s style shift will be investigated by comparing three data fragments.

3.1 Non-floor holder’s overlap in Business Talk

In chapter 6, under the discussion of overlap and the participants’ social distance,

discussion was extensively focused on the Business Talk. At the end of discussion, I

pointed out that Sachiko exhibits higher frequency of aizuchi production towards

Yoshida relative to Masao (see Table 7.11 below), despite their both having the same

social distance from Yoshida. In regards to this, I raised two issues that may be

associated with uneven aizuchi distribution; that is, the individual’s age and gender.

9
Note that some of the overlaps with which the participant takes the next floor appeared in the tables
presented in the previous section.

340
 Chapter 7

Table 7.11 Overlap as a non-floor holder: Business Talk

aizuchi other cooperative competitive Total

Sachiko->Masao 49 20 7 76
Sachiko->Yoshida 130 11 3 144
Masao->Sachiko 43 25 26 94
Masao->Yoshida 77 14 11 102
Yoshida->Sachiko 24 11 0 35
Yoshida->Masao 49 16 0 65

As discussed by Uchida (1997) and Usami(1994), age is one of the elements that plays a

role in the construction of social relations with others. Socially the more senior

individuals possess more power than younger individuals, hence initiate topic more

often (Usami, 1994), or interrupt more often (Uchida, 1997). If this is the case, Masao,

who is in his late 50s would be in a greater power position than Sachiko, who is in her

late 40s, and Yoshida who is in his mid 30s, hence these age differences may have

affected his aizuchi frequency.

There are a few studies that focus on participants’ age in relation to aizuchi frequency

(e.g. Kurozaki, 1987). In regards to power related to age, Mizutani (1988) reports that

the junior seems to utter less aizuchi towards the senior.10 Another study of aizuchi

frequency in terms of social distance (Sugito, 1987), observed more frequent aizuchi in

talk between persons who are socially distant than in talk between persons who are

socially close. Age, power and social distance are linked in terms of politeness (i.e. one

is socially expected to show politeness towards the older, the senior and the person who

is socially distant). In this sense, Mizutani (1988) and Sugito (1987) seem to contradict

one another. Furthermore, if age plays a strong role in aizuchi production frequency,

then it should also be shown in Sachiko’s aizuchi frequency as she is more than 10

10
However, the study does not extensively focus on power relations or age of the participants nor does it
mention how the participants’ hierarchy is defined (i.e. whether by their age or by their occupation).
Thus, it does not go beyond anecdotal observation.

341
 Chapter 7

years older than Yoshida. However, the age rule (if any) does not seem to apply to her,

since she produces an extremely large number of aizuchi. For these reasons, age seems

to be a weak factor in explaining the couple’s uneven aizuchi distribution. Thus, the

other factor, gender, needs to be considered.

Regarding gender and one’s communication style, more research has been produced

than that focused on age, and a number of studies have observed a few similar

tendencies, such as Japanese women being more frequent users of aizuchi than men

(Horiguchi, 1991; Kurozaki, 1987), different functions in aizuchi use by gender

(i.e.supportive use by female, and non-supportive use by male) (Ehara. et al, 1984), and

strong social expectations for women to use aizuchi (Ehara, 1984; Reynolds, 1993). The

findings and observations seem to be consistent across these studies, which take the

same stance regarding aizuchi use in relation to gender. For example, a strong social

expectation for women to use more aizuchi (i.e. to be supportive) causes women to use

aizuchi more frequently, and the fact that women utter more aizuchi further confirms

social expectation.

Considering the above, it seems to be more natural and more likely that the substantial

difference in aizuchi frequency between Sachiko and Masao is due to their gender

difference rather than their age difference. If this is the case, then Sachiko’s extremely

frequent aizuchi towards Yoshida turns out to be complementing her communication

style, which is observed in her talk as a floor holder: namely, other-oriented style. On

the other hand, in the case of Masao’s aizuchi, it may not be argued that his

communication style is self-oriented when taking/holding the floor, as he also produces

aizuchi very frequently. The style differences in this couple are also observed in other

cooperative overlaps and competitive overlaps towards Yoshida. Regarding other

342
 Chapter 7

cooperative overlaps, the difference between Sachiko and Masao is very small with

Masao producing slightly more (3). Considering the great difference in their aizuchi

frequency to Yoshida, this is interesting. Moreover, in this overlap category, Masao

overlaps Yoshida slightly more than Sachiko. In other words, although Sachiko shows

her high involvement to Yoshida by uttering aizuchi frequently, her style of

involvement as a non-floor holder is not as active as cooperatively overlapping Yoshida

with substantial talk (e.g. clarification questions, other completions), hence her

involvement style can be described as a “passive high-involvement.” In contrast, Masao

seems to be more keen to join Yoshida’s talk by overlapping him with substantial talk,

and not merely uttering aizuchi, hence his involvement style can be described as “active

high-involvement.”

This style difference becomes even clearer in their use of competitive overlaps. In

competitive overlaps, the couple’s overlap frequencies to Yoshida invert, and the

difference between the couple becomes more obvious (11 overlaps by Masao and 3

overlaps by Sachiko). Compared with Sachiko, whose involvement style is less

competitive, Masao’s active involvement style is so high that it goes to the point where

it involves taking the next floor from Yoshida. Their communication style as non-floor

holders (Sachiko as “passive high-involvement” and Masao as “active high-

involvement”) therefore agrees with their style as a floor holder (Sachiko as “other-

oriented” and Masao as “self-oriented).

Furthermore, in regard to Sachiko and Masao’s different involvement styles in talk with

Yoshida, how Yoshida communicates with the couple is also interesting to view. As

Table 7.11 shows, Yoshida’s involvement style towards the couple is different in his

aizuchi frequency (i.e. 49 to Masao and 24 to Sachiko). In Chapter 6, I discussed the

343
 Chapter 7

difference in relation to their floor continuations, and suggested that the difference in

Yoshida’s aizuchi is due to how long Masao and Sachiko held the floor. However, it

may not simply be a matter of the length of time during which the floor was held but

may also be due to their gender. Of course, when either Sachiko or Masao talks alone,

Yoshida reacts to the current speaker, whoever that person may be. However, when

both Sachiko and Masao talk at the same time, Yoshida tends to react to Masao’s talk

rather than to Sachiko’s, as in the following extract.

(71) How to proceed the project (Sa-1)

Masao started to talk about how the series of magazine articles should be organised. He wonders when
the article on tax system should be introduced.

1 Sa:
M: Kore doo shiyoo.
this how do VOL
What shall we do with this?
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 (0.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Sa: u n
aizuchi
(continuer)

M: Gutaitekina ne zeisei no are ni tsuite wa jikai=

detail FP tax system P that P about P next time
The detail of tax system should be (introduced) next time.
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Sa: Aa, [soo] desu ne. u [- n ]
aizuchi aizuchi
(agreement) (agreement)

M: = da yo. [ne
] ne
[jikai de] konkai wa (1.2)

COP FP REC REC next and this time P
We do it next time, and this time
Y:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sa: [K o o i u ] [Kooiu kaikata=
such such buy way
Such (what about saying)

M: [korekara zutto] iki masu kara ne. [Onegai shi masu=

from now till end go COP since FP please do COP
We keep on going. Please (support us)

Y: Aa - [-
aizuchi
(understanding)

344
 Chapter 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sa: = ga a r i m a s u yo t]te [iu
P exist COP FP QUOT say
there is a way of buying (a property) like this?

M: = ne. Zutto tsuzuke na kya dame]

FP till end continue not CON no good
We must continue.

Y: [Aa soo nan desu ka.
aizuchi
Is that so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The topic Masao introduced at the beginning of this extract is what should be done

regarding the article on the tax system. After suggesting putting it off for a later issue,

Masao was intending to talk of the plan for this coming issue, when he halts and causes

a pause of 1.2 seconds (at the end of line 4) at a non-TRP. Thus, Sachiko’s talk in line 5

is to supply Masao’s truncated talk for his sake, and also for Yoshida, who is keen to

know more about the publishing of the article with which he is involved.11 However,

instead of taking up Sachiko’s attempt at support and continuing his talk about the plan

for this coming issue, Masao abruptly abandons the topic and introduces another one,

that is, the article series must continue (line 5). At the end of line 5, Sachiko tries to go

back to the original topic by repeating what she supplied to Masao, but Masao

simultaneously starts his new talk, which is oriented to a new topic (lines 5-6). Thus, the

pair talk of different topics simultaneously through lines 5-6.

The interesting point here is that Yohida’s aizuchi is aimed at Masao’s talk, rather than

that of Sachiko. Of course, compared with Sachiko’s talk, Masao’s talk clearly targets

Yoshida through the use of final particles, “ne” or a direct expression, “onegai shimasu

ne,” “please support us,” However, considering the content of the original topic,

Sachiko’s talk is more valid and should have been useful to Yoshida. Even so,

Yoshida’s attention seems to align with Masao. As a result of her being ignored,

11
Earlier in this talk, Yoshida expresses his concern about how the information he gives to the couple
will be used in the publication. See the extract (44) in Chapter 5.

345
 Chapter 7

Sachiko withdraws from reintroducing the original topic, and the plan for the coming

issue remained undiscussed till the end of the recording of the conversation. From their

communication style as a floor holder, it is clear that Masao is the centre of the talk.

However, even when the topic leaves on a tangent or changes without reaching its

conclusion, as in the above example, the reason appears to be that Yoshida‘s attention is

more focused on Masao.

It could be the case that this is because Yoshida regards Masao as being the authority in

this particular conversational context. If this is so, one must enquire as to what it is that

resulted in Yoshida recognising Masao as holding authority, where Sachiko’s social

status at the company is ranked higher.12 Whether Yoshida had the perception for

Masao and Sachiko that males are still regarded as having higher social status than

females is unknown. However, further discussion may suggest Yoshida’s

communication style difference towards them.

Table 7.11 shows Yoshida does not have a single competitive overlap with either of

Sachiko or Masao. This indicates that Yoshida’s communication style is more

cooperative and less competitive (see Chapter 6). However, when considering Sachiko

and Masao’s competitive overlaps towards Yoshida, while Masao failed only once to

take the floor out of 9 interruptions13 (another two competitive overlaps are floor

bidding), Sachiko failed in all of her attempts (two interruptions and one floor bidding)

12
This reminds me of an incident experienced by my female senior colleague (who is Japanese and
worked as a Head of our department at that time) when she met somebody for the first time for a work-
related issue. At that moment, she was with her husband in her office. When the guest (male) knocked on
her door and came in, without hesitation, he walked towards her husband and started his self-introduction
(n.b. in this case, both her husband and the guest were Westerners, hence a racial issue might have also
been involved in causing the incident. Obviously, underneath the mistake made by the guest, there must
have been an unconscious belief that the person who carries a title as Head would be a male. As already
mentioned in the previous section, this story also suggests that despite recent advancement of women in
society, general perceptions of people with a higher social title seems to be still focused on males.

13
The number includes one in the phatic talk which is not counted in the discussion as a floor holder in
the previous section. See the detail of their competitive overlaps in the tables attached in the Appendix 2.

346
 Chapter 7

to take the floor. In other words, while yielding the floor to Masao easily, Yoshida does

not seem to relinquish his floor to Sachiko. From these observations, though it is not

that obvious as Masao and Sachiko’s communication style, Yoshida too shows some

communication styles that seems to be related to his gender. The results may have been

more clear if the social distance between Yoshida and the couple were closer.

3.2 Non-floor holder’s overlaps in other talk

The following two tables summarise the participants’ overlap as non-floor holders in the

Chat at Work and in the Family Talk.

Table 7.12 Overlap as a non-floor holder: Chat at Work

aizuchi other cooperative competitive Total

Sachiko->Masao 2 0 0 2
Sachiko->Chie 1 0 0 1
Masao->Sachiko 0 0 4 4
Masao->Chie 0 0 1 1
Chie->Sachiko 4 0 0 4
Chie->Masao 0 0 0 0

Table 7.13 Overlap as a non-floor holder: Family Talk

aizuchi other cooperative competitive Total

Sachiko->Masao 1 0 6 7
Sachiko->Eiji 0 0 1 1
Masao->Sachiko 3 1 2 6
Masao->Eiji 0 0 1 1
Eiji->Sachiko 1 0 2 3
Eiji->Masao 1 0 2 3

As the tables show, the non-floor holder’s overlap distributions in these conversations

are substantially different from the Business Talk (i.e. the participants hardly produce

cooperative overlaps). In regards to the Chat at Work, Masao has no cooperative

overlaps but a small number of competitive overlaps. On the other hand, though there

are few, Sachiko and Chie use aizuchi, but no competitive overlaps. However, due to its

347
 Chapter 7

short length, it is not known whether overlap distributions would have been different

had the conversation been longer. From what is observed in their communication style

as floor holders (see section 2.2 in this chapter), although it may be possible to regard

even such a small body of data as a reflection of their different communication styles,

the participants’ style cannot safely be argued with such a small amount of data.

In regard to the Family Talk, despite its length (9 mins 15 secs), cooperative overlap

frequency by the participants is as low as in the Chat at Work, and there are more

competitive overlaps than cooperative overlaps. As seen in the previous section, when

the participants take the floor through interrupting others, rather than cooperatively

overlapping the current floor holder, which means the participants freely take the floor.

This self-oriented style is synchronised with the participants overlap as a non-floor

holder. As for the individual overlaps, it is interesting to note that while Sachiko

produces only one cooperative overlap out of her eight overlaps, Masao produces four

cooperative overlaps out of his seven in total. As they do not produce any cooperative

overlaps to Eiji, it indicates that Masao is more supportive of Sachiko than vice versa,

or it is probably more appropriate to describe Sachiko’s style as far more competitive to

Masao than Masao’s to Sachiko. These style differences are similar to what is observed

in their style of taking the floor as discussed in 2.3 above. Thus, overall in the Family

Talk, Masao and Sachiko’s communication styles are reversed from their styles in the

Business Talk.

3.3 Communication style shift of Masao and Sachiko

The above sections looked at Masao and Sachiko’s communication style as non-floor

holders in each conversation. This section compares their communication style with

348
 Chapter 7

each other and sees whether they shift their style from one conversation to another.

Following Table 7.10 above, their non-floor holder’s overlap frequencies in all three

conversations are summarised in the following table. In each conversation, the larger

number is shaded, except for cooperative overlaps in the Business Talk, in which

Sachiko and Masao show almost the same frequency.

Table 7.14 Sachiko and Masao's non-floor holder's overlap frequencies in the three
conversations

Cooperative Competitive
Business Chat Family Business Chat Family
Sachiko->Masao 69 2 1 7 0 6
Masao->Sachiko 68 0 4 26 4 2

From Table 7.14, Masao and Sachiko’s contrastive style shifts are observed. First, in the

Business Talk, they produce almost equal numbers of cooperative overlaps to each

other, which is assumed to be related to the genre of the talk and the involvement of a

socially distant participant, as discussed in Chapter 6. Yet, Masao’s competitive

overlaps are substantially larger in number than those of Sachiko, which implies that the

business world is still male-oriented. Though the length is very short, Masao’s self-

oriented style is observed in the Chat at Work, where he does not show his involvement

as a non-floor holder when Sachiko talks, and interrupts her when he wants to talk.

However, in the Family Talk, he shows his support of Sachiko and interrupts her less. In

contrast, Sachiko is still cooperative with Masao, but her style shifts to be more

competitive in the Family Talk. Considering that the length of the Family Talk (9 mins

15 secs) is approximately twice that of the Chat (4 mins 33 secs), Sachiko and Masao’s

communication styles as a non-floor holder in the Family Talk is reversed, with

approximately the same proportion of overlap frequency (i.e. for excample, if the

frequency in the Chat is doubled, the occurrence of cooperative and competitive overlap

349
 Chapter 7

become even more comparable). It is interesting to point out that their contrastive style

shift as such is not observed in their topic initiations or floor taking. This may be

because Masao’s style in the Family Talk represents men’s domestic attitudes towards

their wives to approve their authority in this situation.

4. Conclusion

This chapter has investigated the same data as was used in the discussion in Chapter 6,

but has been more focused on the communication styles of Sachiko and her husband

Masao in three different conversations to explore whether there are any characteristics

that may be related to gender, as has been discussed in the literature. First, their styles in

floor management were investigated in terms of topic initiations and floor shifts. From

their topic initiations and floor taking style, Masao’s style in the Business Talk and the

Chat at Work is observed to be self-oriented, as he introduces topics that are more

related to his interests and participates in the talk if ongoing talk is of interest to him.

On the other hand, Sachiko’s style in these conversations is observed to be other-

oriented, since she pays close attention to the development of the talk by introducing

topics that seek information from the other participant (i.e. Yoshida) or that would

interest the other participants (in Chat at Work), and returning the talk from tangential

topics (in the Business Talk). Their communication styles follow the male/female

communication styles discussed in previous studies (Ehara. et al, 1984; Matsuda.et al,

1995).

In contrast, in the Family Talk, though Masao’s style appears consistent with his

language use elsewhere, Sachiko’s style shifts dramatically towards a self-oriented

style. This seems to be represent Sachiko’s authority within the in-group, i.e., family, at

home where no reserve is required. Sachiko’s style, that is, standing behind her husband

350
 Chapter 7

outside and enjoying her authority at home, is observed to be what Ueno says (in

Buckley, 1997), a typical communication style of Japanese females (housewives).

Second, their communication styles were investigated from their overlaps as a non-floor

holder. From their overlap frequency, not just similar trends are found to their floor

management again, it is also observed that Masao’s style shifts slightly towards other-

oriented from the Business Talk and the Chat to the Family Talk, which made a clear

contrast with Sachiko’s style shift.

The observations of Sachiko and Masao’s communication styles suggest that Japanese

traditional gender norms seem to be preserved between husbands and wives even after

living in Australia for some time. Of course, this is the only example available in this

study, hence it is not possible to claim its application to all Japanese couples in the same

situation. Indeed, Sachiko and Masao are in their 40s and 50s, and have spent four to

five decades in Japan before coming to Australia. Considering the Japanese historical

trends over the past 50 years, it is not difficult to presume that the society and culture in

which they lived in their youth had more emphasis on the hierarchy and gender

distinctions. Thus, if the investigation had been of the communication styles of younger

couples (in their 20s), who have not experienced old Japanese society and culture, the

results may well have been different. If this is the case, then a similar study to this will

probably bring different results in 20 years time, when they reach their 40s and 50s.

351
 Chapter 8

Chapter 8 Conclusion

1. Introduction

This study was motivated by the question of how Japanese long-term residents of

Australia communicate in their first language, based on an assumption that their

communication style is affected by Australian culture. Previous studies discuss this

issue mainly by focusing on lexical use (i.e. use of loan words in one’s first language)

(Hibiya, 2000; Kuyama, 2000; Masumi-So, 1983), but studies that discuss the issue

through one’s participation style in conversation are few (e.g. Krause-Ono, 2004). Thus,

this study focused on the latter, and investigated speakers’ first language

communication style in the second culture, namely in Sydney, Australia, and discussed

this from two key dimensions: gender and overlap. In Japanese, where gender

differences appear distinctively at semantic and syntactic levels, the differences in

discourse level are not clearly marked. However, as some studies claim (Ehara et al.,

1984; Iida, 2000; Itakura, 2001; Matsuda et al., 1995; Uchida, 1997), the gender

differences are also observed at the discourse level. Such differences have been

preserved as one of the Japanese socio-cultural norms, hence it was assumed that they

would appear differently in a communication that takes place within a different

culture/society.

The second key dimension, overlap, is observed more frequently in Japanese

conversation than in English, due to different ordering of syntactic elements.

Furthermore, overlap has been discussed for its gendered features, such as frequent

cooperative overlaps by females (e.g. Coates, 1996; Honda, 1997), and more

interruptions by males (e.g. Ehara et al., 1984; Matsuda et al., 1995; Uchida, 1997;

Yamazaki and Yoshii, 1994; Zimmerman and West, 1975). Thus, analysing Japanese

352
 Chapter 8

discourse styles of Japanese residents in Sydney (an English language-oriented culture)

in terms of frequencies and functions of overlap was expected to bring a number of

notable observations. In light of this expectation and the importance of exploring a new

research field, I found several Japanese female residents of Sydney who tape-recorded

their talk with other Japanese residents. Two informants’ six multi-party conversations

(each informant was involved in three conversations), where a total number of 10

people participated, were selected for the analyses (see Chapter 3). However,

problematically, there has been little concrete agreement between researchers regarding

the definition of overlap and its functional classification, so that analysis of overlap in

Japanese conversation is somewhat inconsistent in terms of its quality and quantity.

Therefore, in order to conduct the study, a fundamental frame of overlap definition and

its functional classification was required.

Following the objectives of the study set out in Chapter 1, I will first summarise the

process of establishing a comprehensive frame of overlap classification (Chapters 4 and

5). I will then summarise the findings from the investigation of the participation styles

of Japanese long-term residents of Sydney in Japanese conversation in terms of their

overlap use (Chapter 6) and its application to gender (Chapter 7). Finally, I will discuss

some future directions of the study.

2. Definition of overlap and its classification

Chapter 4 discussed how overlap is understood in this study in relation to turn and floor

by critically reviewing the literature. When analysing overlap, who overlaps whom is

the researchers’ primary focus. This is also the case with this study. Overlap, however,

has been discussed mainly in the study of interruptions. Following one of Sacks, et al.’s

gross facts that “overwhelmingly one person speaks at a time,” many researchers regard

353
 Chapter 8

a turn that starts earlier than the current speaker’s Transition Relevance Place (TRP

hereafter) as “interruption,” because it intrudes into the current speaker’s right to speak.

These researchers leave overlap for overlapping talk other than “interruption.”

However, while overlap is a “descriptive” term, “interruption” is an interpretive term,

hence the labelling of these two are not commensurate (c.f. Bennet, 1981). Furthermore,

in reality, overlapping talk other than at TRP is not always intrusive on the current

speaker’s talk. Rather, many overlaps are uttered to support the current speaker’s

ongoing talk, rather than attempting to take over the right to speak from her/him. This

suggests that having a turn is not the same as having the floor (Edelsky, 1993). Thus,

when analysing overlap, who has the floor of the ongoing talk and what function the

overlap carries has to be taken into consideration. Given this, the first task was to define

“floor” and “turn.” Based on Edelsky (1993) and Hayashi (1996), I defined “floor” as

“public acknowledgement of what is going on by the participants of a conversation,”

and “floor holder” as “the person who is in the centre of the floor and holds the right to

talk, which is publicly acknowledged.” Also, based on Ford and Thompson (1996) and

Tanaka, I defined “turn” as “any utterance which conveys a substantial message and its

ending is marked by a Complex Transition Relevance Place (CTRP) or at least by

pragmatic completion (which includes aizuchi),” and distinguished it from the “floor.”

While defining overlap itself from its formal properties (or in a more technical manner)

as “more than one person’s utterance uttered at one time,” functions of overlap need to

be labelled according to who has the floor, or who has the right to talk. This was the

second task.

Based on the notion of overlap in relation to “floor” and “turn,” which was discussed in

Chapter 4, Chapter 5 demonstrated how overlaps are classified into each functional

354
 Chapter 8

category. Using one conversation (i.e. H-2), every single overlap was identified, and

based on who overlaps whom, it was first sorted into either “floor holder’s overlap” or

“non-floor holder’s overlap.” Each group of overlaps were then further sorted into a

certain function. In doing so, the study came up with a set of functional categories of

overlap (see Appendix 1).

In regard to the classification of overlap, there are a few things to note. First, as the

above classification shows, there are many overlap functions, which indicate the various

messages an overlap carries in conversation. However, overlaps by both non-floor

holder and floor holder can be sorted into “cooperative,” “competitive” and “neutral”

functions. In this study, non-floor holder’s cooperative overlaps include aizuchi.

Previous studies of overlap in Japanese conversations exclude aizuchi (in the form of

aizuchi terms, such as un, aa, fuun etc.) from the analysis since they merely signal that

the current floor holder is continuing the talk (Fujii, 1997; Honda, 1997) or they are

uttered involuntarily and including such aizuchi in the analysis would distract from its

focus due to their large number (Ikoma, 1996). However, as discussed in Chapter 4, this

study regards aizuchi as a “turn.” Furthermore, from the above functional categories, it

is obvious that aizuchi do not just function as continuers but convey a variety of

meanings. For these reasons, the study includes aizuchi and analyses them qualitatively

as well as quantitatively.

A second issue that has hardly ever been discussed in previous studies of non-floor

holder’s overlap is the phenomenon of aizuchi follower. Aizuchi follower is often

observed in a multi-party conversation. It is not directly targeted at the current floor

holder’s talk but at another non-floor holder who utters aizuchi towards the current floor

355
 Chapter 8

holder’s talk. In other words, aizuchi follower follows another non-floor holder’s

aizuchi uttered at the current floor holder. Of course aizuchi follower also functions as

aizuchi towards the current floor holder (hence it has a double function), but when its

start is delayed and overlaps another non-floor holder’s aizuchi towards the current

floor holder’s talk, it can be interpreted as following the other’s aizuchi to cooperate in

creating harmony among the participants. In fact, many aizuchi followers rhythmically

conclude at the same time as the other non-floor holder’s aizuchi.

Third, as exemplified above, overlap is not just initiated by non-floor holders, but is also

initiated by the floor holder. For example, by reconfirmation, previously regarded as

aizuchi, or early reply and self clarification that may have been understood as

interruptions, the current floor holder contributes to the construction of smooth

communication (e.g. responding to non-floor holder’s aizuchi or a clarification question

immediately rather than waiting for completion of her/his talk) in cooperation with the

non-floor holder(s). At the same time, it also becomes clearer that what has been

discussed as interruption is in fact floor hold, with which the current floor holder tries to

retrieve the floor that was taken over by one of the non-floor holders illegitimately (in

terms of turn-taking rules). As these examples demonstrate, analysing overlap in terms

of “floor” reveals a number of interesting points in understanding the structure of

conversation, which needs further exploration.

3. Overlap frequency

The first half of Chapter 6 presented the results of quantitative analysis of overlap in

terms of its frequency and discussed some trends that had been little discussed in

previous studies. First, I investigated aizuchi frequency. As argued in the previous

356
 Chapter 8

studies, aizuchi accounts for a very large proportions of overlaps: 43.2% of the overlaps

were aizuchi. When focusing on the number of aizuchi terms, which includes aizuchi

follower and the floor holder’s reconfirmation, the number reaches almost half (49.7%).

Of aizuchi functions, the most frequent was agreement (432), followed by

understanding (352) and continuer (241). The least frequent aizuchi function was

evaluation (95). As discussed in Chapter 4, though agreement and understanding may

also function as continuer, from these results, it is suggested that aizuchi carries more

than continuer function. The large number of agreement and understanding indicates

the participants’ intention to be involved in the ongoing conversation more actively than

just listening to the current floor holder’s talk.

Second, I investigated functional distributions in both non-floor holder’s overlap and

floor holder’s overlap. In non-floor holder’s overlap, more than two-thirds of the total

overlaps (65.4%) were aizuchi. However, when excluding aizuchi from the data,

interestingly, the ratio of interruptions increased to 24.5%. This proportion is much

larger than previous studies have reported. Furthermore, if another competitive function,

floor bidding, is included, the ratio goes up to 32.1%, which means almost one in three

non-aizuchi overlaps are competitive overlaps. Previous studies that investigated

overlap in Japanese conversation argue that overlap in Japanese communication is

mostly cooperative and even interruptive overlap functions contribute to creating

harmony, promoting solidarity among the participants and vitalising ongoing

conversation (Fujii, 1997). However, given that this study did not view such overlaps as

interruptions, this proportion becomes even larger. Whilst it may be thought that the

increased competitive overlap found in this study would be the result of cultural

influence for Australian English, it needs also to be remembered that the data for this

357
 Chapter 8

study includes different number of participants, genres, settings and so on, which are

also likely to be related to the result.

As for floor holder’s overlap, almost equal distributions are observed in reconfirmation

and two types of floor continuations (about 28% each), followed by floor hold (11.6%).

Having the right to talk, floor continuations are observed to be a common participation

style for the current floor holder. However, the proportions of reconfirmation and floor

hold indicate that the floor holder does not just say what s/he wants by taking advantage

of holding the current floor, but constantly monitors non-floor holder’s reactions and

deals with them accordingly, whether it ends with cooperation or competition. In fact,

the data of this study shows that approximately one in five of all overlaps (21.3%) were

initiated by the current floor holder, which demonstrates that overlap is not just from

non-floor holders, but is also used by the current floor holder to show her/his active

participation in conversation.

Third, I discussed how overlap frequency is related to a number of variables that

construct a conversation. These variables include the number of participants in

conversation, participants’ social distance, setting, genre, topic and style. From the

investigation of each aspect in relation to overlap frequency, it is observed that:

i) the larger the number of participants, the more cooperative overlaps

appear, however, this is not the case for competitive overlaps.

ii) in communication between those who are socially distant, more

cooperative overlaps and fewer competitive overlaps are uttered than in

communication between those who are socially close.

358
 Chapter 8

iii) the way one physically participates in conversation affects overlap

frequency (e.g. conversation that involves activities other than talking

produces less overlap).

iv) genre of the talk is largely related to overlap frequency (e.g. both

cooperative and competitive overlaps appear more often in a relaxed

conversation such as Café Chat than in a publicly structured talk such as

Academic Meeting; few cooperative overlaps appear in conversation

where no enryo, or reserve, is necessary, such as Family Talk ).

v) although the topic of the conversation seems to be related to overlap

frequency, the data set was too small to verify this.

vi) overlap frequency varies depending on the individual participation style.

However, all of these aspects do not independently function to determine the

participants’ overlap frequency. Rather, they are intertwined with each other and

contribute to constructing the style of communication, where some aspects may appear

more obviously than others. There are more contributing factors in conversation than

just these, which makes it difficult to determine which one is more closely related to

overlap production.

4. Complexity of overlap function

In the second half of Chapter 6, I discussed a few complexities of overlap function in

which some overlaps carry more than their surface function. First, I focused on aizuchi

359
 Chapter 8

that are used as floor bidding. Using aizuchi is a good strategy to take the next floor

without causing conflict with the current floor holder, as it constructs a cohesion with

the ongoing talk and maintains harmony with other participants. Aizuchi used for this

purpose are mostly agreement aizuchi. Nagata (2004) reports that the proportion of

speaker shift increases when repetitive aizuchi (e.g. soo soo) are uttered in the midst of

the current floor holder’s turn. This study also observed a number of cases of strong

agreement aizuchi, but not always repetitive aizuchi, being used in the middle of the

current floor holder’s turn in attempting to take the floor. Given that aizuchi carries a

cooperative function, using them as floor bidding was hypothesised to be related to the

formality level of the conversation. However, the data showed no distinctive pattern

except that the Family Talk, where the number of aizuchi is extremely low, showed

almost no strategically used aizuchi. This was assumed to be related to the nature of

Family Talk where amae, or dependency, is allowed and no enryo, or feeling of reserve,

is necessary. On the other hand, among other conversations, such aizuchi use was more

frequently observed in Chat with Colleagues. Also, there was a tendency that the more

participants are involved, the more frequent strategic aizuchi appear regardless of the

formality level of the conversation. Furthermore, the use of such aizuchi is limited to a

few certain participants in the data. From these observations, it is suggested that

strategic aizuchi use is more likely to be related to the number of participants in the

conversation, or whether the talk is controlled or not (e.g. Academic Meeting vs Chat

with Colleagues), or one’s style, than formality of the talk.

Second, the discussion focused on third-party approach, a phenomenon that was

particular to a multi-party conversation. Third-party approach is talk that cooperatively

overlaps the current floor holder, and conveys a message to the other non-floor holder at

360
 Chapter 8

the same time without causing a conflict with other participants in terms of turn-taking

organisation. Third-party approach can be carried out by one of the floor holders when

the floor is shared by two persons as well as by one of the non-floor holders for the sake

of another non-floor holder. The latter case is likely to take place in order to rescue the

involved participants from a series of misunderstandings of each other, hence it is not

observed much in the data. This approach by a non-floor holder seems to be a very

smart strategy in a multi-party conversation where the turn-taking organisation becomes

more complicated than in a dyadic conversation. However, it is probable that the

approach is intuitive of the part of the participant, rather than being carefully chosen as

a strategy, since it is too complicated to select this as the most appropriate strategy upon

consideration of the condition of the involved participants. Therefore, it is more directly

related to the norm of Japanese communication that being strongly “ other-oriented” in

favour of avoiding conflict.

5. Cultural adjustment and cultural transfer of one’s communication style

Chapter 6 also discussed Australian English cultural adjustment and cultural transfer of

one’s communication style. In Academic Meeting, where Bob, a native speaker of

English, is involved, there are a number of cases in which the Japanese participants’

aizuchi pattern shifts when Bob talks in English from when they speak in Japanese.

Namely, a number of long pauses are created, the frequency of their aizuchi decreased

markedly, and a few aizuchi appear at the end of Bill’s turn (at Complex Transition

Relevance Place, or CTRP), as in the backchannel pattern in English conversation

(Clancy et al., 1996). This suggests that the Japanese long-term residents of an English

speaking country gain an understanding of the socio-cultural norms and pragmatics that

are used in communication in English and are able to apply them to their daily

361
 Chapter 8

communication when communication is conducted in English. Compared with this style

adjustment in English communication, Australian English cultural transfer to the

participants’ Japanese communication style (reverse cultural transfer) is rarely observed

despite their long-term residency. The only exception seems to be the non-floor holders’

minimal aizuchi use during story-telling. However, in the majority of the data, all of the

participants produce many aizuchi and their interactional style does not seem to be any

different to what we observe in Japanese communication in Japan. Thus, it is too

premature to argue that Japanese long-term residents’ Japanese communication style is

influenced by English at this stage.

6. Gender

In Chapter 7, discussion was focused on gendered communication style. Using

conversations in which the first participant, Sachiko, is involved (Sa-1, Sa-2, Sa-3), the

participation styles of Sachiko and Masao, who are wife and husband, were investigated

in terms of their floor management and overlaps as a non-floor holder. The couple’s

floor management was analysed by their topic initiation and floor shift. In Business

Talk (Sa-1) and Chat at Work (Sa-2), it is observed that while Masao’s style in terms of

topic initiation and floor shift is “self-oriented” (i.e. introducing topics that are his

interest, and participating in the ongoing talk if the topic is of his interest), Sachiko’s

style in these two conversations is “other oriented” (i.e. paying attention to the

development of the ongoing talk by introducing topics that are directly related to the

objectives of the conversation or that are other participants’ interest, and by returning

the talk from tangential topics). In contrast, in the Family Talk, although Masao’s style

is not different to his style in the other two conversations, Sachiko’s style shifts

dramatically towards “self-oriented” style. From the analysis of their styles in terms of

362
 Chapter 8

overlaps as a non-floor holder, not only are similar trends in their floor management

observed, but Masao’s style is also observed to be shifting slightly towards “other-

oriented” compared to the other two conversations (i.e. more cooperative overlaps),

which marks a contrast to Sachiko’s style shift. From these observations, the couple’s

participation styles in conversation do not seem to be different from what we observe in

the communication style of husband and wife in Japan. That is, while standing behind

her husband outside the home, the wife enjoys her authority at home (Ueno, 1997 in

Buckley). Hence it is suggested that Japanese traditional gender norms seem to be

preserved between husband and wife even after living in another culture (Australia) for

as long as 8 years. However, it should be noted that their styles may also result from

their age—Sachiko is in her 40s and Masao is in his 50s— and it is likely they spent

their youth in a society and culture where gender hierarchy was more strongly

emphasised.

7. Conclusion and future direction

After a number of investigations of the participation style in the communication of

Japanese long-term residents of Sydney, despite my assumptions, it turned out that their

communication styles were not very different to the styles we commonly observe

between native speakers of Japanese in Japan. This result follows Krause-Ono (2004),

who discovered that the communication style of Japanese long-term residents in

Germany in terms of aizuchi frequency does not differ from the Japanese in Japan.

Although this study did not investigate the communication style shift of native speakers

of English in their English communication, Krause-Ono’s other observation that

German long-term residents of Japan use more frequent backchannels in their German

communication than short-term residents, suggests that the participation style of the

363
 Chapter 8

Japanese in their first language communication is rigid under any culture. However, as

discussed in Chapter 6, although there are a number of aspects and variables that

construct one’s communication style, at this stage, it is still premature to argue the

universality of the rigidity. In order to pursue the issue further, I would like to focus the

investigation on the following points for possible future research on overlaps:

i) investigation of overlaps including “simultaneous start.”

ii) investigation of conversational data by groups of different

generations.

iii) investigation of overlaps in English conversation of long-term Japanese

residents of Australia.

The reason for i) is the exclusion of “simultaneous start” from the analysis in this study

due to difficulty of its classification. However, “simultaneous start” would also provide

a rich context to decode one’s participation style in conversation. Thus, it would be

beneficial to investigate overlaps in a more comprehensive manner. For ii), as this

study looked at a middle-aged couple’s discourse style only, whether the discourse

styles of other generations (particularly younger generations) would follow this result or

not is unknown. Thus, age variation is necessary in data for further investigation of this

research topic. Finally for iii), in order to find out whether the stability of

communication style of the Japanese in their first language is greater than for speakers

of other language groups, conversational data in another language in two different

cultures also needs to be investigated. To make a contrast with this study, it would be

useful to investigate overlaps in Australian’s English conversations in Sydney as well as

in Japan. To accomplish these tasks, more data is required. As I experienced in this

364
 Chapter 8

study, it is extremely difficult to obtain Japanese subjects due to their sensitivity about

disclosing their conversations. For more data access, it may be beneficial to work in

cooperation with other researchers. Also, use of some of the latest technologies (e.g.

digital audio recording that can be installed in computer for analyses) would be

advantageous for more accurate analyses.

365
Bibliography

Abe, H. N. (1994) Bunmatsushi (Shuujoshi) ni okeru Jendaa -Shakaigengogaku no

Ichikoosatsu [Gender in Sentence-Final Form (Sentence-End Particles) - a
Study of Sociolinguistics -]. Joseigaku Nenpoo, 15, 108-117.

Abe, K. (1998) Mottomo Seisa no Aru Gengo [the Language which has the Most
Gender Distinctions]. Gengo, 27, 72-76.

Bachnik, J. M. (1994) Introduction: Uchi/Soto: Challenging Our Conceptualizations of

Self, Social Order, and Language. In Bachnik, J. M. & Quinn, J. C. J. (Eds.)
Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society, and Language.
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York, Ballantine.

Beattie, G. W. (1981) Interruption in Conversational Interaction, and Its Relation to the

Sex and Status of the Interactions. Linguistics, 19, 15-35.

Benedict, R. (1954) The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Tuttle Co.

Bennet, A. (1981) Interruptions and the Interpretation of Conversation. Discourse

Process, 4, 171-188.

Bloom, L. (1993) Transcription and Coding for Child Language Research: The Parts are
More than the Whole. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.) Talking Data:
Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey,
Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Bodine, A. (1975) Sex Differentiation in Languages. In Thorne, B. & Henly, N. (Eds.)

Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass., Newbury
House.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Buckley, S. (1997) Broken Silence: Voices of Japanese Feminism, Berkeley, Los

Angeles, University of California Press.

Butler, J. (1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, London,
Routledge.

Cameron, D. (1992) 'Not Gender Difference but the Different Gender Makes' :
Explanation in Research on Sex and Language. International Journal of
Sociology of Language, 94, 13-26.

Cameron, D. (1997) Performing Gender Identity: Young Men's Talk and the
Construction of Heterosexual Masculinity. In Johnson, S. & Meinhof, U. H.
(Eds.) Language and Masculinity. Oxford, Blackwell.

366
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R. & Tao, H. (1996) The Conversational Use
of Reactive Tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics,
26, 355-387.

Clyne, M. (1991) Community Languages, Cambridge University Press.

Clyne, M. & Kipp, S (1997) Trends and Changes in Home Language Use and Shift in
Australia, 1986-1996. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
18, 451-473.

Clyne, M. & Kipp, S. (1999) Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context, Mouton

de Gruyter.

Coates, J. (1986) Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Sex

Differences in Language, New York, Longman.

Coates, J. (1996) Women Talk, London, Blackwell.

Coates, J. & Cameron, D. (Eds.) (1988) Women in Their Speech Communities, New
York, Longman.

Cowie, C. (2000) Gender Language: Interruption and overlapping: how to interpret the
two categories of simultaneous speech', Available at: http://www-user.tu-
chemnitz.de/~tina/Studium/Anglistik/Gender%20Language/Gender%20Languag
e.pdf.

Danaher, M. (2003) On the Forest Fringes? Environmentalism, Left Politics and

Feminism in Japan. Transformations. Central Queensland University.

Davidson, J. (1984) Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and

Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection. In Heritage, J. &
Atkinson, M. J. (Eds.) Structures of Social Action. New York, Cambridge
University Press.

Deng, X. (1998) Overlapping in Australian and Chinese Conversations. Australian

Linguistic Society. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Available at:
http://emsah.uq.edu.au/linguistics/als/als98/denx357.html..

Dindia, K. (1987) The Effects of Sex of Subject and Sex of Partner on Interruptions.
Human Communication Research, 13, 345-371.

Doi, T. (1971) 'Amae' no Koozoo [the Anatomy of Dependence], Tokyo, Kobundo.

Doi, T. (1973) The Anatomy of Dependence, Tokyo, Kodansha International Ltd.

Drew, P. (1984) Speakers' reportings in Invitation Sequences. In Heritage, J. &

Atkinson, M. J. (Eds.) Structures of Social Action. New York, Cambridge
University Press.

367
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In Drew, P. &
Heritage, J. (Eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Drummond, K. (1989) A Backward Glance at Interruptions. Western Journal of Speech

Communication, 53, 150-166.

Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993a) Back Channels Revisited: Acknowledgment

Tokens and Speakership Incipiency. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 26, 157-177.
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993b) Some Uses of Yeah. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 26, 203-212.

Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. M. (1975) The Question of Tag Questions in Women's

Speech: They Don't Really use More of Them, Do They? Language in Society,
4, 289-294.

Eckert, P. (1993) Cooperative Competition in Adolescent "Girl Talk". In Tannen, D.

(Ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York, Oxford University
Press.

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992) Think Practically and Look Locally:

Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice. Annual review of
Anthropology, 21, 461-490.

Edelsky, C. (1993) Who's Got the Floor? In Tannen, D. (Ed.) Gender and
Conversational Interaction. New York, Oxford.

Edwards, J. A. (1993) Principles and Contrasting Systems of Discourse Transcription.

In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.) Talking Data: Transcription and
Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Laurence Erlbaum
Associates.

Egbert, M. M. (1997) Schisming: The Collaborative Transformation from a Single

Conversation to Multiple Conversations. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 30, 1-51.

Eggins, S. (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, London, Pinter.

Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation, London, Cassel.

Ehara, Y., Yoshii, H. & Yamazaki, K. (1984) Sei Sabetsu no Esuno Mesodorojii -
Taimenteki Komyunikeeshon Jookyoo ni Okeru Kenryoku Soochi
[Ethnomethodology in Gender Discrimination - Power Device in Face to Face
Communication]. Gendai Shakaigaku, 18, 143-176.

Endo, O. (1997) Josei o Arawasu Goku to Hyoogen --Shinbun no Jinbutsu Shookai to

Zasshi Kookoku no Ran kara-- [Words and Phrases Which Describe Women --
from Introduction of a Character in News Papers, and Advertisement in
Magazines--]. In Ide, S. (Ed.) Joseigo no Sekai. Tokyo, Meiji Shoin.

368
Ferguson, N. (1977) Simultaneous Speech, Interruptions and Dominance. British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 295-302.

Fishman, P. M. (1978) Interaction: The Work Women Do. Social Problems, 25, 397-
406.

Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (1996) Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic,

Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns. Interaction
and Grammar. Cambridge University Press.

Fujii, K. (1997) Nihongo no Hatsuwa no Kasanari no Tokucho: Kasanari no Kinoo no

Bunseki kara [Characteristics of Overlap in Japanese: From Its Functional
Analysis]. Ochanomizu Joshi Daigaku Ningen Bunka Kenkyuu Nenpoo, 20, 268-
277.

Fukazawa, N. (1999) Nihongo no Kaiwa ni okeru Warikomi Hatsuwa ni kansuru

Kenkyuu-Nihongo Bogo Washa to Nihongo Gakushuusha no Gengo Koodoo to
Hi Gengo Koodoo no Kansatsu kara [Studies on Interruptions in Japanese
Conversation-from Observation of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Behaviour of
Native Speakers of Japanese and Learners of Japanese Language]. Kanazawa,
Kanazawa University, Japan.

Gardner, R. (1997) The Conversation Object Mm: A Weak and Variable

Acknowledging Token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 131-
156.

Gardner, R. (2001) When Listeners Talk, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Garfinkel, H. (1986) Remarks on Ethnomethodology. In Gumperz, J., J & Hymes, D.

(Eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication.
Ocford & New York, Basil Blackwell.

Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (1997) Discourse and Culture. In Van Dijik, T. A. (Ed.)
Discourse as Social Interaction. London, Sage.

Goffman, E. (1967) On Face Work. Interaction Ritual. New York, Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis, New York, Harper and Row.

Goffman, E. (1981) Footing. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Goldberg, J. A. (1990) Interrupting the Discourse on Interruptions. Journal of

Pragmatics, 4, 883-903.

Gumperz, J. J. (1971) Language in Social Groups, Stanford, CA, Stanford University

Press.

369
Gumperz, J. J. (1982) Discourse Strategies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1992) Contextualization and Understanding. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin,

C. (Eds.) Rethinking Context. NY, Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1996) The Linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Conversational

Inference. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.) Rethinking Linguistic
Relativity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond Culture, Garden City, NY, Anchor Press.

Hashimoto, Y., Odagiri, Y., Korenaga, R., Okano, I., Kenjo, T., Matsuda, M. & Fukuda,
M. (1993) Ibunka Sesshoku Jookyoo no Hi-Nichijoo sei --Manazashi no
Yokiteki Kajoo Choosei to Shigusa no Esunogurafii-- (Inter-Cultural Studies on
Kinesic Channels). Toodai Shakai Joohoo Kenkyuusho Choosa Kenkyuu Kiyoo
[The Research Bulletin of the Institute o Socio-Information and Communication
Studies], 3, 181-249.

Have, P. T. (1999) Doing Conversation Analysis, London, Sage.

Hayakawa, H. (1997) Warai no Ito to Danwa Tenkai Kinoo [Intention of Laugh and
Function of Discourse Development]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai (Ed.)
Josei No Kotoba, Shokuba Hen. Tokyo, Hitsuji Shobo.

Hayashi, Masaaki. (1999) Retrospect and Prospect of the Studies of the Japanese
Management System. The Society for the History of Management Theories, The
7th Annual Conference and Annals. Momoyama Gakuin University, Osaka
Japan, Available at: http://c-faculty.chuo-u.ac.jp/~hmasaki/99523jms.html.

Hayashi, Makoto. (1999) Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: A Study of Co-
Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation. Human Studies, 22, 475-499.

Hayashi, R. (1988) Simultaneous Talk-from the Perspective of Floor Management of

English and Japanese Speakers. World Englishes, 7, 269-288.

Hayashi, R. (1991) Floor Structure of English and Japanese Conversation. Journal of

Pragmatics, 16, 1-30.

Hayashi, R. (1996) Cognition, Empathy and Interaction: Floor Management of English

and Japanese Conversation, Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex.

Heritage, J. (1984) A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.

In Atkinson, M. J. & Heritage, J. (Eds.) Structures of Social Action. New York,
Cambridge University Press.

Hibiya, J. (2000) Eigo Kara no Goi Shakuyoo--Nikkei Kanada Jin 1-Sei no Jirei
Kenkyuu [Lexical Borrowing from English: A Case Study of First Generation
Japanese-Canadian]. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 3, 17-23.

370
Ho, D. Y. F. (1998) Indigenous Psychologies: Asian Perspectives. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 29, 88-103.

Holmes, J. (1998) Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals. In

Coates, J. (Ed.) Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford, Blackwell.

Honda, A. (1997) Hatsuwa no "Kasanari" to Danwa Shinkoo ["Overlap" and Discourse

Process]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai (Ed.) Josei no Kotoba, Shokuba Hen.
Tokyo, Hitsuji Shobo.

Horiguchi, S. (1988) Komyunikeeshon ni okeru Kikite no Gengo Koodoo [Listener's

Verbal Behaviour in Communication]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 64.

Horiguchi, S. (1991) Aizuchi Kenkyu no Gendankai no Kadai [Current Research on

Aizuchi]. Nihongogaku, 10, 31-41.

Horiguchi, S. (1997) Nihongo Kyoiku to Kaiwa Bunseki [Japanese Language Education

and Conversation Analysis], Tokyo, Kurosio Shuppan.

Ide, S. (1992) Joseigo Kenkyuu no Sutansu [Stance of Women and Language Studies].
Kotoba, 13, 2-9.

Ide, S. (1997) Joseigo no Sekai: Joseigo Kenkyuu no Shintenkai o Motomete [the World
of Women's Language: Quest for New Development of Language and Gender
Studies]. In Ide, S. (Ed.) Joseigo No Sekai. Tokyo, Meiji Shoin.

Ide, S., Hori, M., Kawasaki, A., Ikuta, S. & Haga, H. (1986) Sex Difference and
Politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 58,
25-36.

Iida, S. (2000) Japanese Female Discourse Style in Australia: Analysis of Overlap in a

Casual Conversation. Japanese Studies: Communities, Cultures, Critiques.
Clayton, Victoria, Monash Asia Institute.

Iida, S. (2001) Aizuchi: listener responses in Japanese as floor taking signals. Paper
presented at Discourses on discourse: The language of work & education,
November, Sydney.

Iida, S. & Thomson, K. C. (1999) Should We Teach Australian Female Learners of

Japanese to Speak and Behave Like Japanese Women? A Study of Gender
Related Perceptions of Teachers and Learners of Japanese in Australia. A paper
presented at 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Tokyo.

Ijuin, I. (2004) Bogo Washa ni yoru Bamen ni Oojita Supiichi Sutairu no Tsukaiwake
[a Comparison of Speech Style Adaptation between Native Situations and
Contact Situations]. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 6, 12-26.

371
Ikeda, K. (2004) "Listenership" in Japanese: An Examination of Overlapping Listener
Response. Honolulu, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre,
University of Hawaii, Available at: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW32.pdf.

Ikoma, S. (1996) Nichijoo Kaiwa ni okeru Hatsuwa no Kasanari no Kinoo [Function of

the Overlap Utterances in Japanese Daily Conversation]. Japanese-Language
Education around the Globe, 6, 185-199.

Imaishi, S. (1994) The Use of Aizuchi in Natural Japanese Discourse.

Nihongakuho[Journal of Japanology], 13, 107-121.

Itakura, H. (2001) Conversational Dominance and Gender, Amsterdam / Philadelphia,

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Itasaka, G. (1969) Nihon Jin No Ronri Koozoo [Logical Structure of the Japanese],
Kodansha.

Iwasaki, S. (1997) The Northridge Earthquake Conversations: The Floor Structure and
the 'Loop'sequence in Japanese Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 661-
693.

James, D. & Clarke, S. (1993) Women, Men, and Interruptions: A Critical Review. In
Tannen, D. (Ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York, Oxford.

Jefferson, G. (1973) A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped

Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences. Semiotica, IX, 47-96.

Jefferson, G. (1983) Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset. Tilburg Papers in

Language and Literature, 28.

Jefferson, G. (1984a) Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgment

Tokens 'Yea' and 'Mm Hm'. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b) On the Organization of Laughter in Talk About Troubles. In

Atkinson, M. J. & Heritage, J. (Eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1987) On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation. In Button,

G. & Lee, J. R. E. (Eds.) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon, Multilingual
matters.

Jefferson, G. (1993) Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift

Implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 1-31.

Jefferson, G. (2004) A Note on Laughter in 'Male-Female'. Discourse Studies, 6, 117-

133.

Jugaku, A. (1979) Nihongo to Onna [Japanese Language and Women], Tokyo,

Iwanami Shoten.

372
Kanemaru, F. (1997) Ninshoo Daimeishi, Koshoo [Person Pronouns, Addressing
Terms]. In Ide, S. (Ed.) Joseigo no Sekai. Tokyo, Meiji Shoin.

Katagiri, S. (1990) Keigo Hyoogen no Tsukawarekata [the Usage of Honorific

Expressions]. Kotoba, 11, 5-15.

Kawaguchi, Y. (1987) Majiriau Danjo no Kotoba [Merging Male's and Female's

Language]. Gengo Seikatsu, 429, 34-39.

Kennedy, C., W & Camden, C. (1983) A New Look at Interruption. Western Journal of
Speech Communication, 44-58.

Kiesling, S. F. (1997) Power and Language of Men. In Johnson, S. & Meinhof, U. H.

(Eds.) Language and Masculinity. Oxford, Blackwell.

Kindaichi, H. (1975) Nihon-Jin no Gengo Hyoogen [Verbal Expressions of the

Japanese], Tokyo, Kodansha.

Kindaichi, H. (1988) The Japanese Language, Tuttle.

Kitade, R. (1993) Nihon-Jin no Taijin Kankei to Komyunikeeshon [Japanese

Interpersonal Relations and Communication]. In Hashimoto, M. & Ishii, S.
(Eds.) Nihon-Jin no Komyunikeeshon. Tokyo, Kirihara shoten.

Klopf, D. W. (1991) Japanese Communication Practices: Recent Comparative Research.

Communication Quarterly, 39, 130-143.

Kobayashi, M. (1997) Jishoo, Taishoo wa Chuuseika suru ka? [Are First Person
Pronouns and Addressing Terms Neutralised?]. In Kenkyuukai, G. N. (Ed.)
Josei No Kotoba, Shokuba Hen. Tokyo, Hitsuji Shobo.

Komiya, C. (1986) Aizuchi Shiyoo no Jittai -Shutsugen Keikoo to Sono Shuuhen

[Actual Use of "Aizuchi": Tendencies Manifested in Two Conversations.
Gogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Ronsou, 43-62.

Krause-Ono, M. (2004) Change in Backchanneling Behaviour: The Influence from L2

to L1 on the Use of Backchannel. Ninchi Kagaku Kenkyuu, 3, 51-81.

Kubota, R. (2002) Japanese Identities in Written Communication: Politics and

Discourses. In Donahur, R. T. (Ed.) Exploring Japaneseness: On Japanese
Enactment of Culture and Consciousness. Westpport, CT, Ablex.

Kubota, R. (2003a) Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture. Japanese Language and

Literature, 37, 67-87.

Kubota, R. (2003b) New Approaches to Race, Class, and Gender in Second Language
Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 31-47.

373
Kubota, R., Austin, T. & Saito-Abbot, Y. (2003) Diversity and Inclusion of
Sociopolitical Issues in Foreign Language Classrooms: An Exploratory Survey.
Foreign Language Annals, 36, 12-24.

Kusanagi, Y. (1983) Rikai no Tame no Senryaku: Gengo Koodoo o Katsuyoo shita

Komyunikeeshon no Tame no Kyooju hoo [Strategy in Understanding: Use of
"External and Internal" Linguistic Behaviours for the Teaching of
Comprehension in Japanese]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 49, 49-58.

Kushida, S. (1997) Yunizon ni okeru Dentatsu to Kookan [Transmission of Message

and Phatic Communication in Unison]. In Tani, Y. (Ed.) Komyunikeeshon No
Shizenshi. Tokyo, Shinyosha.

Kuyama, M. (2000) Burajiru Nikkei 1-Sei no Nihongo ni okeru Porutogaru-Go

Shakuyoo--Sono Keitai to Unyoo [Lexical Borrowing from Portuguese by
Japanese Immigrants in Brazil: An Analysis of Its Form and Function]. The
Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 3, 4-16.

Labov, W. (1972a) Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Labov, W. (1972b) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English
Vernacular, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lakoff, R. (1973) Language and Woman's Place. Language in Society, 2, 45-79.

Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman's Place, New York, Harper and Row.

Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics, London, Longman.

Lerner, G. H. (1991) On the Syntax of Sentence-in-Progress. Language in society, 20,

441-458.

Lerner, G. H. (2002) Turn-Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction. In

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) The Language of Turn and
Sequence. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2003) Contextualizing 'Contextualization Cues'. In Eerdmans, S. L.,

Prevignano, C. L. & Thibault, P. J. (Eds.) Language and Interaction:
Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Maltz, D. N. & Borker, R. A. (1982) A Cultural Approach to Male-Female

Miscommunication. In Gumperz, J. (Ed.) Language and Social Identity.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Marche, T. A. & Peterson, C. (1993) The Development and Sex-Related Use of

Interruption Behavior. Human Communication Research, 19, 388-408.

374
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Masumi-So, H. (1983) Loanwords in Melbourne Japanese. Unpublished MA

dissertation. Melbourne, Monash University.

Matsuda, M., Sasaki, Y., Sasagawa, Y. & Yukako, O. (1995) Gengo teki
Komyunikeeshon Hooryaku ni kansuru Seisa no Ibunka kan Hikaku Kenkyuu
[Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Study on Gender Differences Regarding
Linguistic Communication Strategy]. Tokyo, Tokyo Josei Zaidan.

Matsuda, Y. (1988) Taiwa no Nihongo Kyooikugaku:Aizuchi ni kanshite [Japanese

Language Pedagogy in Dialogue: Concerning Aizuchi]. Nihongogaku, 7.

Matsumoto, Y. (2002) Gender Identity and the Presentation of Self in Japanese. In

Benor, S., Rose, M., Sharma, D., Sweetland, J. & Zhang, Q. (Eds.) Gendered
Practices in Language. Stanford, CSLI Publications.

Matsumoto, Y. (2004) Alternative Femininity: Personae of Middle-Aged Mothers. In

Okamoto, S. & Smith, J. S. (Eds.) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology.
New York, Oxford University Press.

Maynard, S. K. (1986) On Back-Channel Behavior in Japanese and English Casual

Conversation. Linguistics, 24, 1079-1108.

Maynard, S. K. (1989) Japanese Conversation: Self-Contextualization through

Structure and Interactional Management, Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex
Publishing Corporation.

Maynard, S. K. (1993) Kaiwa Bunseki (Conversation Analysis), Tokyo, Kurosio

Shuppan.

Maynard, S. K. (1997) Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context,

Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press.

McGloin, H. N. (1991) Sex Difference and Sentence-Final Particles. In Ide, S. &

McGloin, H. N. (Eds.) Aspects of Japanese Women's Language. Tokyo,
Kuroshio Publishers.

McGloin, H. N. (1997) Shuujoshi (Sentence-End Particles). In Ide, S. (Ed.) Joseigo no

Sekai. Tokyo, Meiji shoin.

Mills, S. (2003) Gender and Politeness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Miyazaki, A. (2004) Japanese Junior High School Girls' and Boys' First-Person Pronoun
Use and Their Social World. In Okamoto, S. & Smith, J. S. (Eds.) Japanese
Language, Gender, and Ideology. New York, Oxford University Press.

375
Mizutani, N. (1988) Aizuchi Ron [Discussion on Aizuchi]. Nihongogaku, 7, 4-11.

Mizutani, O. (1979) Hanashi Kotoba to Nihon-Jin -Nihongo No Seitai- [Spoken

Language and the Japanese -Life of the Japanese Language-], Tokyo,
Sotakusha.

Mizutani, O. & Mizutani, N. (1987) How to Be Polite in Japanese, Tokyo, Japan Times.

Morino, M. (1975) Oochoo Kizoku Shakai no Josei to Gengo [Women and Language in
Aristocracy in Dynasties], Tokyo, Yuseido.

Mullan, K. (2001) How the French Get Engaged: An Analysis of French Interactional
Style. Australian Linguistic Society. Australian National University, Canberra,
Available at: http://linguistics.anu.edu.au/ALS2001/proceedings.html.

Murata, K. (1994) Intrusive or Cooperative? A Cross-Cultural Study of Interruption.

Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385-400.

Murray, S. O. & Covelli, L. H. (1988) Women and Men Speaking at the Same Time.
Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 103-111.

Nagata, R. (2004) Kaiwa ni okeru Aizuchi no Kino-Hatsuwa Tochu ni Utareru Aizuchi

ni Chakumoku shite [the Function of Backchannels: The Focus of Backchannels
Occurrence During Utterance]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 120, 53-62.

Nakamura, M. (1995) Kotoba to Feminizumu [Language and Feminism], Tokyo, Keiso

Shobo.

Nakamura, M. (2001) Kotoba to Jendaa [Language and Gender], Tokyo, Keiso Shobo.

Nakane, C. (1967) Tate-Shakai no Ningen Kankei [Human Relations in a Vertical

Society], Tokyo, Kodansha.

Nakane, C. (1973) Japanese Society, Penguin Books.

Nakane, C. (1987) Tate Shakai No Rikigaku [Dynamics of the Vertical Society], Tokyo,
Kodansha.

Nordenstam, K. (1992) Male and Female Conversational Style. International Journal of

Sociology of Language, 94, 75-98.

O'Barr, W. M. & Atkins, B. K. (1980) 'Women's Language' or 'Powerless Language'? In

McConnell-Ginet, S. (Ed.) Women and Language in Literature and Society.
New York, Praeger.

Ohama, R. & Nishimura, F. (2005) Turn-Allocation and Backchannels in Japanese and

English Conversation: A Comparison between Japanese and New Zealand
Students. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 7, 78-87.

376
Ohara, Y. (1992) Gender-Dependent Pitch Levels: A Comparative Study in Japanese
and English. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.) Locating
Power. Berkeley, Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of
California.

Ohara, Y. (1997) Shakai Onsei-Gaku no Kanten kara Mita Nihon Jin no Koe no Koo-
Tei (Pitch Level of the Japanese --from Sociophonetics View). In Ide, S. (Ed.)
Joseigo No Sekai. Tokyo, Meiji Shoin.

Ohara, Y. (2004) Prosody and Gender in Workplace Interaction: Exploring Constraints

and Resources in the Use of Japanese. In Okamoto, S. & Smith, J. S. (Eds.)
Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology. New York, Oxford University Press.

Ohara, Y., Saft, S. & Crookes, G. (2001) Toward a Feminist Critical Pedagogy in a
Beginning Japanese as a Foreign Language Class. Japanese Language and
Literature, 35, 105-134.

Ohara, Y. & Saft, S. (2003) Using Conversation Analysis to Track Gender Ideologies in
Social Interaction: Toward a Feminist Analysis of a Japanese Phone-in
Consultation TV Program. Discourse & Society, 14, 153-172.

Okamoto, S. (1995) Tasteless Japanese: Less "Feminine" Speech among Young

Japanese Women. In Hall, K. & Bucholtz, M. (Eds.) Gender Articulated. NY,
Routledge.

Okamoto, S. & Sato, S. (1992) Less Feminine Speech among Young Japanese Females.
In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.) Locating Power. Berkeley,
Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California.

Okamoto, S. & Shibamoto, J. S. (Eds.) (2004) Japanese Language, Gender, and

Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People, New York, Oxford University
Press.

Ozaki, Y. (1997) Josei Senyoo no Bunmatsu Keishiki no Ima (Current Situation of

Female's Exclusive Use of Sentence-End Form). In Gendai Nihongo
Kenkyuukai (Ed.) Josei no Kotoba: Shokuba Hen. Tokyo, Hitsuji shobo.

Reynolds, A. K. (1985) Kaisetsu / Amerika ni okeru Gengo to Seisa no Kenkyuu --

Robin Reikofu o Megutte [Commentary / Language and Gender Studies in
America -- over Robyn Lakoff]. Gengo to Sei: Eigo Ni Okeru Onna no Chii.
Tokyo, Yushindo.

Reynolds, A. K. (1997) Gengo to Seisa no Kenkyuu: Genzai to Shoorai [Language and

Gender Studies: Present and Future]. In Ide, S. (Ed.) Joseigo No Sekai. Tokyo,
Meiji Shoin.

Roger, D., Bull, P. & Smith, S. (1988) The Development of a Comprehensive System
for Classifying Interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7,
27-34.

377
Rosenberger, N. R. (1994) Indexing Hierarchy through Japanese Gender Relations. In
Bachnik, J. M. & Quinn, J. C. J. (Eds.) Situated Meaning. New Jersey, Princeton
University Press.

Sacks, H. (1986) On the Analyzability of Stories by Children. In Gumperz, J. J. &

Hymes, D. (Eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of
Communication. Oxford & New York, Basil Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Satake, K. (1998) "Onna Kotoba / Otoko Kotoba" Kihan o Megutte: Discussion on

"Female/Male Language" Norm. Kotoba, 19, 53-68.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982) Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of "Uh

Huh" and Other Things That Come between Sentences. In Tannen, D. (Ed.)
Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University
Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990) Unpublished transcription of Audio recorded lecture by Rod

Gardner

Schegloff, E. A. (2000) Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for

Conversation. Language in society, 29, 1-63.

Schegloff, E. A. (2002) Accounts of Conduct in Interaction: Interruption, Overlap, and

Turn-Taking. In Turner, J. H. (Ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory. New
York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse, Oxford & Cambridge, Blackwell.

Shibamoto, J. S. (1987) The Womanly Woman: Manipulation of Stereotypical and

Nonstereotypical Features of Japanese Female Speech. In Philips, S. U., Steel, S.
& Tanz, C. (Eds.) Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Shibamoto, J. S. (1990) Sex Related Variation in the Ellipsis of Wa and Ga. In Ide, S. &
McGloin, H. N. (Eds.) Aspects of Japanese Women's Language. Tokyo,
Kuroshio Publishers.

Shibatani, M. (1990) The Languages of Japan, Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press.

Smith, J. S. (1992) Linguistic Privilege: "Just Stating the Facts" in Japanese. In Hall, K.,
Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.) Locating Power. Berkeley, Berkeley
Women and Language Group, University of California.

Smith-Lovin, L. & Brody, C. (1989) Interruptions in Group Discussions: The Effects of

Gender and Group Composition. American Sociological Review, 54, 424-435.

378
Sugimoto, Y. (1997) An Introduction to Japanese Society, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.

Sugito, S. (1987) Hatsuwa no Uketsugi [Taking over an Utterance]. In language, T. N. I.

f. J. (Ed.) Danwa Koodoo no Shosoo--Zadan Shiryoo no Bunseki [Aspects of
Discourse--Analyses of Conversational Data]. Tokyo, Sanseido.

Szatrowski, P. (1993) Nihongo no Danwa no Koozoo Bunseki - Kanyuu no Sutoratejii

no Koosatsu [Analysis of Discourse Struucture in Japanese - Strategy of
Invitation], Tokyo, Kurosio Shuppan.

Tai, E. (2003) Rethinking Culture, National Culture, and Japanese Culture. Japanese
Language and Literature, 37, 1-26.

Tanaka, H. (1999) Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia,

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tanaka, L. (2004) Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television

Interview Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing
Company.

Tannen, D. (1981) The Machine-Gun Question: An Example of Conversational Style.

Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 383-397.

Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analysing Talk among Friends, Norwood,

Ablex.

Tannen, D. (1986) Discourse in Cross-Cultural Communication. Text, 6, 143-151.

Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in

Conversational Discourse, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation., New
York, Ballanine.

Tannen, D. (1993a) Introduction. In Tannen, D. (Ed.) Gender and Conversational

Interaction. New York, Oxford.

Tannen, D. (1993b) The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and

Solidarity in Gender and Dominance. In Tannen, D. (Ed.) Gender and
Conversational Interaction. New York, Oxford.

Tannen, D. (1993c) What's in a Frame? In Tannen, D. (Ed.) Framing in Discourse. New

York, Oxford.

Tannen, D. (1994) Gender and Discourse, New York, Oxford.

Thomson, K. C. & Iida, S. (2002) Gendered Language in Japanese: Learner Perceptions

in Australia. Japanese-Language Education around the Globe, 12, 1-20.

379
Toyo Keizai INC (2004) Toyo Keizai Web. Prerelease. Tokyo, Toyo Keizai Shimpo
Sha, Available at: http://info.toyokeizai.co.jp/release/20041203.html.

Triandis, H. C. (2000) Culture and Conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35,

145-152.

Uchida, A. (1992) When "Difference" is "Dominance": A Critique of the "Anti-Power-

Based" Cultural Approach to Sec Differences. Language in Society, 21, 547-
568.

Uchida, N. (1997) Kaiwa Koodoo ni Mirareru Seisa [Gender Differences in

Conversational Interaction. In Ide, S. (Ed.) Joseigo No Sekai. Tokyo, Meiji
Shoin.

Usami, M. (1994) Seisa ka Chikara (Power) no Sa ka --Shotaimen Nisha Kan no Kaiwa

ni okeru Wadai Doonyuu no Hinndo to Keishiki no Bunseki yori [Is It Gender
Difference of Power Difference? --Analysis of Frequency and Pattern of Topic
Orientation in the Conversation of the First Encountered Dyad] Kotoba, 15, 53-
69.

Usami, M. (1997) "Ne" no Komyunike-Shon Kinoo to Disukoosu Poraitonesu [the

Communicative Function of "Ne" and Discourse Politeness]. In Gendai Nihongo
kenkyuukai (Ed.) Josei No Kotoba, Shokuba Hen. Tokyo, Hitsuji Shobo.

Waldron, V. R. & Di mare, L. (1998) Gender as a Culturally Determined Construct:

Communication Styles in Japan and the United States.

Watanabe, S. (1993) Cultural Differences in Framing: American and Japanese Group

Discussions. In Tannen, D. (Ed.) Framing in Discourse. New York, Oxford.

Weatherall, A. (2002) Gender, Language and Discourse, NY, Routledge.

West, C., Lazar, M. M. & Kramarae, C. (1997) Gender in Discourse. In Van Dijik, T.
A. (Ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983) Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-

Sex Conversations between Unacquainted Persons. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C.
& Henly, N. (Eds.) Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA, Newbury
House.

Wetzel, P. J. (1991) Are Powerless Communication Strategies the Japanese Norm? In

Ide, S. & Hanaoka, N. M. (Eds.) Aspects of Japanese Women's Language.
Tokyo, Kuroshio Publishers.

White, S. (1989) Backchannels across Cultures: A Study of Americans and Japanese.

Language in society, 18, 59-76.

380
Wierzbicka, A. (1985) The Double Life of a Bilingual. In Sussex, R. & Zubrzycki, J.
(Eds.) Polish People and Culture in Australia. Canberra, Department of
Demography, ANU.

Wodak, R. (1997) Introduction: Some Important Issues in the Research of Gender and
Discourse. In Wodak, R. (Ed.) Gender and Discourse. London, SAGE.

Yamada, H. (1992) American and Japanese Business Discourse: A Comparison of

Interactional Styles, Norwood, NJ, Ablex.

Yamada, H. (1997) Different Games, Different Rules: Why Americans and Japanese
Misunderstand Each Other.

Yamazaki, K. & Yoshii, H. (1994) Kaiwa no Junban Tori Shisutemu:

Esumomesodorojii e no Shootai [Turn-Taking System in Conversation: An
Invitation to Ethnomethodology]. In Yamazaki, K. (Ed.) Biboo no Kanesi.
Tokyo, Harvest.

Yano, Y. (1981) Danwa ni okeru Meishi-Ku no Shooryaku ni tsuite [Ellipsis of

Nominal Phrase]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 43, 89-102.

Yngve, V. H. (1970) On Getting a Word in Edgewise. The Sixth Regional Meeting of

the Chicago Linguistic Society. University of Chicago.

Yukawa, S. & Saito, M. (2004) Cultural Ideologies in Japanese Language and Gender
Studies. In Okamoto, S. & Shibamoto, J. S. (Eds.) Japanese Language, Gender,
and Ideology. New York, Oxford University Press.

Zimmerman, D. H. & West, C. (1975) Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in

Conversation. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (Eds.) Language and Sex: Difference
and Dominance. Rowley, MA, Newbury House.

381
 Appendix

Appendix 1

Reference of Overlap functions

page

function explanation reference
continuer to encourage the current floor holder to continue.
163
understanding to show understanding of what the current floor holder has
aizuchi

said.
164
agreement to claim agreement and empathy for what the current
floor holder has said.
169
evaluation
to react what the current floor holder has said.
171
clarification
to seek further information regarding what the current floor
question
holder has said.
175
to support the current floor holder's talk to construct the
information supply ongoing floor by supplying word/phrase.
178
to reply the current floor holder's question turn before its
non-floor holder

early reply completion.
182

other completion to assume the rest of the current floor holder's ongoing talk
and complete the turn.
188
to follow other non-floor holder's aizuchi towards the
aizuchi follower current floor holder's talk.
191
to show intention to start a new floor in the midst of the
floor bidding current floor holder's talk.
192
to start talking in the midst of the current floor holder's talk
interruption for the purpose of gaining the floor.
194
to start a new turn (floor) at the current floor holder's TRP
new turn at TRP (or more likely at CTRP).
196
to misjudge the current floor holder's turn completion at
turn completion her/his CTRP and start talking, but the current floor holder
misjudge continues.
199
sample is too small to form a category, which includes
"aizuchi" combination, "delayed reaction," "delayed self-

miscellaneous completion," "hesitation filler" and "negative aizuchi"
201
to utter a short utterance towards one or more non-floor
reconfirmation holder's aizuchi to reconfirm what s/he has just said.
209
to clarify what s/he has just said by using an alternative
self clarification expression.
210
to reply non-floor holder's clarification question turn before
floor holder

early reply its completion.
182/213

floor continuation to continue her/his previous talk that was grammatically
(at non-completion incomplete and was encouraged by non-floor holder's
of turn) aizuchi.
212
floor continuation
(at completion of to continue talking after reaching a possible turn
turn ) completion.
213
to signal that there is more to say when a non-floor holder

floor hold is about to take the floor.
215
to start a new floor at a floor free zone, such as during
others aizuchi or reconfirmation after the current floor holder

floor free completes the floor and during laughter.
218
talk that is targeted at other than the person who is being

to the other overlapped. 106/
112

382
 Appendix

Appendix 2

Tables of number of functional overlap by individual participant per

conversation

Abbreviations and simplified terms

aizuchi T: aizuchi term

choral: choral completion

clarification Q: clarification question

C: completion of turn

early: early completion

echo: “echo=n” means that n times of the overlaps in the

function appear as a form of “echo.”

Eng: in English

“Eng=n” means that n times of the overlaps in the

function are uttered in English.

failed: the overlapping utterance is not completed

floor free: at floor-free zone

ft: full turn

“+ft=n” means that a full turn follows for n times. For

example, “ 7 (+ft=2)” indicates that there are 7 overlaps in
the function among which 2 overlaps are followed by a
full turn.

NC: non-completion of turn

para: paraphrasing

“para=n” means that n times of the overlaps in the

function appear as a form of “paraphrasing.”

rec: reconfirmation

383
 Appendix

rep: repetition

“rep=n” means that n times of the overlaps in the function

appear as a form of “repetition”
TC: turn completion

to the other: talk that is targeted at other than the person who is being
overlapped.

Conversation Sa-1 (Business Talk)

Sachiko’s overlap towards the others (Business Talk)

function form to Masao to Yoshida total
continuer aizuchi T 9 54 63
others



understanding aizuchi T 2 48 50
aizuchi

others rep=1 rep=2 3

agreement aizuchi T 33 24(+ft=1) 57
others



evaluation aizuchi T
1 1
non-floor holder

others 4(rep=1) 1 5
clarification Q

2(rep=1) 2
info. Supply
1 1 2
early reply

5 5
other completion early 3 1 4
choral



aizuchi follower
16 2 18
floor bidding

1 1
interruption
7 2(failed=2) 9
new turn at TRP
1 3 4
TC misjudge

2 2

miscellaneous
2 2 4
reconfirmation
1 5(rep=1) 6
self clarification
1 1 2
floor holder

early reply




floor continuation
(at NC)
2 8 10
floor continuation
(at C )

3 3

floor hold
12
12
floor free
3 6 9
others to the other
3 3 6
excluded
5 8 13
Total
106 185 291

384
 Appendix

Masao’s overlap towards the others (Business Talk)

function form to Sachiko to Yoshida total
continuer aizuchi T 2 27 29
others



understanding aizuchi T 1 13(+ft=2) 14
aizuchi

others rep=1 para=1 2

agreement aizuchi T 32(+ft=5)(Eng=1) 28(+ft=3) 60
others rep=2/para=1 rep=3/echo=1 7
evaluation aizuchi T
4 4
non-floor holder

others 4(rep=1)
4
clarification Q
1 1 2
info. Supply
6 1(failed) 7
early reply
2 2 4
other completion early 2 7 9
choral 1 2 3
aizuchi follower
13(+ft=1) 1 14
floor bidding
13 2 15
interruption
13 9(failed=1) 22
new turn at TRP
5(failed=1) 2 7
TC misjudge

2 2

miscellaneous

5 5
reconfirmation
32(+ft=1) 10(rep=1/+ft=4) 42
floor holder

self clarification




early reply

floor continuation (at NC)
3 13 16

floor continuation (at C )
6 36 42
floor hold
8 1 9
floor free
12 4 16
others to the other
5 1 6
excluded
4 9 13
Total
169 185 354

385
 Appendix

Yoshida’s overlap towards the others (Business Talk)

function form to Sachiko to Masao total
continuer aizuchi T 4 12 16
others



understanding aizuchi T 11 20(+ft=1) 31
aizuchi

others
echo=1 1
agreement aizuchi T 8(+ft=1) 13(+ft=1) 21
others para=1 rep=1 2
evaluation aizuchi T
1 1
non-floor holder

others
rep=1 1
clarification Q

2 2
info. Supply
1(attpt) 1 2
early reply
6 7 13
other completion early
1 1
choral



aizuchi follower
4 5(rep=1) 9
floor bidding




interruption




new turn at TRP




TC misjudge

2 2

miscellaneous

1 1
reconfirmation
14(rep=2/=ft=4) 10(rep=1/+ft=4) 24
floor holder

self clarification
2
2
early reply
1 1 2
floor continuation (at NC)
31 9 40
floor continuation (at C )
23 6 29

floor hold
1 6 7
floor free
13
13
others to the other
2 1 3
excluded
3 3 6
Total
125 104 229

386
 Appendix

Conversation Sa-2 (Chat with Colleagues/Family members at Work)

Sachiko’s overlap towards the others (Chat with Colleagues/Family members at work)

function form to Masao to Chie total
continuer aizuchi T



others



understanding aizuchi T



aizuchi

others



agreement aizuchi T 2
2
others



evaluation aizuchi T



non-floor holder

others
1 1
clarification Q




info. Supply




early reply




other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower




floor bidding




interruption




new turn at TRP




TC misjudge





miscellaneous




reconfirmation

4(+ft=1) 4
floor holder

self clarification




early reply




floor continuation (at NC)
1
1
floor continuation (at C )

2 2

floor hold




floor free




others to the other
1
1
excluded
3 3 6
Total
7 10 17

387
 Appendix

Masao’s overlap towards the others (Chat with Colleagues/Family members at work)

function form to Sachiko to Chie total
continuer aizuchi T



others



understanding aizuchi T



aizuchi

others



agreement aizuchi T



others



evaluation aizuchi T



non-floor holder

others



clarification Q




info. Supply




early reply




other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower




floor bidding
3
3
interruption
1 1 2
new turn at TRP
1
1
TC misjudge





miscellaneous




reconfirmation




floor holder

self clarification




early reply




floor continuation (at NC)




floor continuation (at C )





floor hold
1
1
floor free
2
2
others to the other
2
2
excluded




Total
10 1 11

388
 Appendix

Chie’s overlap towards the others (Chat with Colleagues/Family members at work)

function form to Sachiko to Masao total
continuer aizuchi T



others



understanding aizuchi T 1(+ft=1)
1
aizuchi

others



agreement aizuchi T



others



evaluation aizuchi T



non-floor holder

others 3
3
clarification Q




info. Supply




early reply




other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower




floor bidding




interruption




new turn at TRP




TC misjudge





miscellaneous




reconfirmation




floor holder

self clarification




early reply




floor continuation (at NC)




floor continuation (at C )





floor hold




floor free




others to the other




excluded




Total
4
4

389
 Appendix

Conversation Sa-3 (Family Talk at Breakfast)

Sachiko’s overlap towards the others (Family Talk at Breakfast)

function form to Masao to Eiji total
continuer aizuchi T



others



understanding aizuchi T



aizuchi

others



agreement aizuchi T



others



evaluation aizuchi T



non-floor holder

others 1
1
clarification Q




info. Supply




early reply




other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower




floor bidding




interruption
6 1 7
new turn at TRP




TC misjudge
1
1

miscellaneous




reconfirmation




floor holder

self clarification




early reply




floor continuation (at NC)




floor continuation (at C )





floor hold
1
1
floor free
1 1 2
others to the other




excluded
1
1
Total
11 2 13

390
 Appendix

Masao’s overlap towards the others (Family Talk at Breakfast)

function form to Sachiko to Eiji total
continuer aizuchi T



others



understanding aizuchi T



aizuchi

others



agreement aizuchi T 1(+ft=1)
1
others echo=1
1
evaluation aizuchi T



non-floor holder

others 1
1
clarification Q




info. Supply




early reply




other completion early 1
1
choral



aizuchi follower




floor bidding




interruption
2 1 3
new turn at TRP




TC misjudge





miscellaneous




reconfirmation




floor holder

self clarification




early reply




floor continuation (at NC)




floor continuation (at C )
1
1

floor hold
1 1 2
floor free




others to the other




excluded
4
4
Total
12 2 14

391
 Appendix

Eiji’s overlap towards the others (Family Talk at Breakfast)

function
form to Sachiko to Masao total
continuer
aizuchi T



others



understanding aizuchi T



aizuchi

others



agreement aizuchi T



others



evaluation aizuchi T



non-floor holder

others 1 1 2
clarification Q




info. Supply




early reply




other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower




floor bidding




interruption
2 2 4
new turn at TRP

1 1
TC misjudge
1
1

miscellaneous




reconfirmation




floor holder

self clarification




early reply




floor continuation (at NC)




floor continuation (at C )





floor hold




floor free
1 1 2
others to the other




excluded

2 2
Total
5 7 12

392
 Appendix

Conversation H-1 (Academic Meeting)

Harue’s overlap towards the others (Academic Meeting)

function form to Bob to Natsuki to Suwako to Fumie total
continuer aizuchi T
5 6
11
others





understanding aizuchi T 4(Eng=2) 7(+ft=1) 14(+ft=1)
25
aizuchi

others





agreement aizuchi T 1 7(+ft=2) 9(+ft=4) 1(+ft) 18
others
rep=1(+ft) rep=1(+ft)
2
evaluation aizuchi T





non-floor holder

others





clarification Q


2
2
info. Supply

1

1
early reply






other completion early
1 5(failed=1) 1 7
choral





aizuchi follower
4
2 2(+ft=2) 8
floor bidding

1

1
interruption

3

3
new turn at TRP






TC misjudge

1 1
2

miscellaneous






reconfirmation
1 2 2(rep=1) 1 6
self clarification






floor holder

early reply






floor continuation
(at NC)
3 2 4 5 14
floor continuation
( at C )
1 2 1 2 6

floor hold

3

3
floor free
1 2 2 2 7
others to the other



1 1
excluded
2 3

5
Total
17 41 49 15 122

393
 Appendix

Bob’s overlap towards the others (Academic Meeting)

function form to Harue to Natsuki to Suwako to Fumie total
continuer aizuchi T 1 3 5
9
others





understanding aizuchi T 9 4 6
19
aizuchi

others





agreement aizuchi T 1(+ft=1/Eng) 7 17(+ft=1) 3 28
others

rep=1
1
evaluation aizuchi T
1

1
non-floor holder

others

1
1
clarification Q






info. Supply






early reply
1

1 2
other completion early 1


1
choral 1


1
aizuchi follower
6 3(echo=1) 1 1 11
floor bidding






interruption


1(failed)
1
new turn at TRP






TC misjudge







miscellaneous






reconfirmation


1
1
self clarification






floor holder

early reply






floor continuation
(at NC)
1(Eng)


1
floor continuation
(at C )

2 1 2(Eng=1) 5

floor hold






floor free






others to the other


1
1
excluded


1 1 2
Total
21 20 36 8 85

394
 Appendix

Natsuki’s overlap towards the others (Academic Meeting)

function form to Harue to Bob to Suwako to Fumie total
continuer aizuchi T 1 2 1 1 5
others rep=1


1
understanding aizuchi T 6(Eng=1)
1
7
aizuchi

others





agreement aizuchi T 11 4(+ft=1) 12(+ft=2) 2 29
others rep=1
rep=1
2
evaluation aizuchi T





non-floor holder

others





clarification Q






info. Supply






early reply
1
1(+ft) 1 3
other completion early 1
1
2
choral

1
1
aizuchi follower
3(para=1) 5 4(rep=1) 3(rep=1) 15
floor bidding






interruption
1


1
new turn at TRP






TC misjudge



1 1

miscellaneous






reconfirmation
2(echo=1) 1 2
5
self clarification






floor holder

early reply






floor continuation
(at NC)
2 6 4 3(+rec=1) 15
floor continuation
(at C )
4 3 5 5(+rec=1) 17

floor hold
3


3
floor free

1 1 1 3
others to the other



1 1
excluded
1


1
Total
38 22 34 18 112

395
 Appendix

Suwako’s overlap towards the others (Academic Meeting)

function form to Harue to Bob to Natsuki to Fumie total
continuer aizuchi T 4
2 2 8
others





understanding aizuchi T 3 1 8
12
aizuchi

others para=1
echo=1
2

agreement aizuchi T 8(+ft=1) 1(+ft) 7(+ft=1) 5(+ft=4) 21
others rep=2(+ft=1)
rep=1
3
evaluation aizuchi T





non-floor holder

others 1
2
3
clarification Q






info. Supply






early reply
2(+ft=1)

1 3
other completion early 1


1
choral

1
1
aizuchi follower
2 3(+ft=1) 3 6 14
floor bidding



1 1
interruption
2(failed=1)

1 3
new turn at TRP
2


2
TC misjudge
1


1

miscellaneous






reconfirmation
3 2 3 2 10
self clarification






floor holder

early reply






floor continuation
(at NC)
7
1 1 9
floor continuation
(at C )
1 5(+rec=2) 2(+rec=1) 2(+rec=1) 10

floor hold
3

1 4
floor free
2
2 1 5
others to the other
2
1 1 4
excluded
1
5 2 8
Total
48 12 39 26 125

396
 Appendix

Fumie’s overlaps towards the others (Academic Meeting)

function form to Harue to Bob to Natsuki to Suwako total
continuer aizuchi T 1
2 3 6
others





understanding aizuchi T 7 2 6 7 22
aizuchi

others





agreement aizuchi T 1
1 9(+ft=2) 11
others





evaluation aizuchi T





non-floor holder

others

1
1
clarification Q






info. Supply


1
1
early reply






other completion early


2(+ft=1) 2
choral

1
1
aizuchi follower
7 2 4 5 18
floor bidding






interruption
1


1
new turn at TRP


1
1
TC misjudge



1 1

miscellaneous






reconfirmation



1(echo) 1
self clarification






floor holder

early reply






floor continuation
(at NC)






floor continuation
(at C )







floor hold






floor free
3 1 1
5
others to the other
3


3
excluded
1
2 1 4
Total
24 5 20 29 78

397
 Appendix

Conversation H-2 (Chat at Café)

Harue’s overlap towards the others (Chat at Café)

function form to Suwako to Fumie total
continuer aizuchi T 1 14(+ft=1) 15
others



understanding aizuchi T 7 18(+ft=1) 25
aizuchi

others
rep=1 1
agreement aizuchi T 10(+ft=5) 16(+ft=11) 26
others echo=1(+ft) rep=1/para=1 3
evaluation aizuchi T 2(+ft=1)
2
non-floor holder

others 5 3(+ft=1) 8
clarification Q
4 10(rep=1) 14
info. Supply




early reply
7(+ft=3) 7(+ft=5) 14
other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower
2 2 4
floor bidding

3 3
interruption
2 5(failed=3) 7
new turn at TRP




TC misjudge
4 6 10

miscellaneous
1
1
reconfirmation
7(rep=1/+ft=4) 7(+ft=2) 14
self clarification
1 2 3
floor holder

early reply
4(+ft=1) 3(+ft=2) 7

floor continuation
(at NC)
13 6 19
floor continuation
(at C )
10(failed=1) 6 16

floor hold
6 3 9
floor free
2 1 3
others to the other
2 2 4
excluded
1 3 4
Total
92 120 212

398
 Appendix

Suwako’s overlap towards the others (Chat at Café)

function form to Harue to Fumie total
continuer aizuchi T 19 5 24
others para=1
1
understanding aizuchi T 46(+ft=5) 7(+ft=1) 53
aizuchi

others para=1
1
agreement aizuchi T 8(+ft=3) 20(+ft=1) 28
others 1 para=1/unison=1/echo=1 4
evaluation aizuchi T 2(+ft=1) 1 3
non-floor holder

others 5(+ft=3)
5
clarification Q
5(rep=1) 2 7
info. Supply
1
1
early reply
2(+ft=1) 2 4
other completion early 1
1
choral
2 2
aizuchi follower
5
5
floor bidding




interruption
6(failed=1) 5 11
new turn at TRP
1 1 2
TC misjudge
5 1 6

miscellaneous
1
1
reconfirmation
7(rep=1) 1 8
self clarification




floor holder

early reply
1(=ft)
1

floor continuation
(at NC)
6
6
floor continuation
(at C )
2
2

floor hold
1
1
floor free

1 1
others to the other
1 7 8
excluded
1 2 3
Total
129 60 189

399
 Appendix

Fumie’s overlap towards the others (Chat at Café)

function form to Harue to Suwako total
continuer aizuchi T 11 4 15
others



understanding aizuchi T 20(+ft=3) 1 21
aizuchi

others rep=1/para=2 rep=2(+ft=1) 5

agreement aizuchi T 8(+ft=1) 9(+ft=2) 17
others rep=2/echo=1
3
evaluation aizuchi T 2
2
non-floor holder

others 6 1 7
clarification Q
6(rep=3/para=1)
6
info. Supply




early reply
3(+ft=2) 1(+ft=1) 4
other completion early



choral



aizuchi follower
1 12 13
floor bidding

3 3
interruption
10 2 12
new turn at TRP
3
3
TC misjudge
5 4 9

miscellaneous
2
2
reconfirmation
4(rep=1/echo=1) 7(rep=4) 11
self clarification




floor holder

early reply




floor continuation
(at NC)
3 6 9
floor continuation
(at C )
2 5 7

floor hold
3
3
floor free
2 6 8
others to the other
2 1 3
excluded
1 4 5
Total
100 68 168

400
 Appendix

Conversation H-3 (Chat with Colleagues at Work)

Harue’s overlaps towards the others (Chat with Colleagues at Work)

function form to Eri to Natsuki to Keiko total
continuer aizuchi T 7(+ft=1) 2
9
others




understanding aizuchi T 15(+ft=3) 3
18
aizuchi

others rep=1(+ft)

1
agreement aizuchi T 5(+ft=2) 6(+ft=1) 1 12
others rep=1(+ft)

1
evaluation aizuchi T 1

1
non-floor holder

others 9(rep=1(+ft)) 1
10
clarification Q
5

5
info. Supply
3

3
early reply
5(+ft=2) 1
6
other completion early 1(failed)

1
choral




aizuchi follower
4 4 6 14
floor bidding
2

2
interruption
4(failed=3) 2(failed=1) 1 7
new turn at TRP
2

2
TC misjudge
4

4

miscellaneous





reconfirmation
2(rep=1)

2
self clarification
1

1
floor holder

early reply





floor continuation
(at NC)
3 2 2 7
floor continuation
(at C )
1 1 1 3

floor hold

2 1 3
floor free
6 9 5 20
others to the other
2 1 2 5
excluded
3 3 1 7
Total
87 37 20 144

401
 Appendix

Eri’s overlap towards the others (Chat with Colleagues at Work)

function form to Harue to Natsuki to Keiko total
continuer aizuchi T 4 8
12
others




understanding aizuchi T 5(+ft=2) 5(+ft=1)
10
aizuchi

others




agreement aizuchi T 10(+ft=3) 6(+ft=2) 5(+ft=1) 21
others




evaluation aizuchi T




non-floor holder

others 2(+ft=1) 1(+ft)
3

clarification Q
1

1
info. Supply
4

4
early reply
7(rep=1) 3 1 11
other completion early 2

2
choral 1

1
aizuchi follower
2(+ft=1) 3 4(+ft=1) 9
floor bidding

1
1
interruption
2 3
5
new turn at TRP
3 1
4
TC misjudge
5

5

miscellaneous
2

2
reconfirmation
8(rep=2) 6 3 17
self clarification





floor holder

early reply
2(echo=1)

2

floor continuation
(at NC)
5 1 2 8
floor continuation
(at C )
6 6 1 13

floor hold
3

3
floor free
7 1 6 14
others to the other





excluded
15 5 4 24
Total
96 50 26 172

402
 Appendix

Natsuki’s overlap towards the others (Chat with Colleagues at Work)

function form to Harue to Eri to Keiko total
continuer aizuchi T 1 4
5
others




understanding aizuchi T 6 7(+ft=3) 2 15
aizuchi

others
para=1
1
agreement aizuchi T 10(+ft=5) 11(+ft=2) 1 22
others echo=1

1
evaluation aizuchi T




non-floor holder

others 1 4
5
clarification Q
1 3(rep=1)
4
info. Supply





early reply

2
2
other completion early
1
1
choral
1
1
aizuchi follower
2 1 5(rep=1) 8
floor bidding
2

2
interruption
1 2
3
new turn at TRP





TC misjudge
2
1 3

miscellaneous





reconfirmation
2 1 2 5
self clarification

1
1
floor holder

early reply





floor continuation
(at NC)





floor continuation
(at C )






floor hold
1
2 3
floor free
4 3 1 8
others to the other
2 2
4
excluded
8 4 5 17
Total
44 48 19 111

403
 Appendix

Keiko’s overlap towards the others (Chat with Colleagues at Work)

function form to Harue to Eri to Natsuki total
continuer aizuchi T 5 6 1 12
others




understanding aizuchi T 1 9 2 12
aizuchi

others




agreement aizuchi T 7 10 8 25
others
rep=1/para=2
3
evaluation aizuchi T




non-floor holder

others 5 12(+ft=2) 2 19
clarification Q
2

2
info. Supply





early reply

1
1
other completion early 1 1 2 4
choral
2
2
aizuchi follower
1 1 6 8
floor bidding





interruption
2

2
new turn at TRP





TC misjudge
3

3

miscellaneous





reconfirmation


1 1
self clarification





floor holder

early reply





floor continuation
(at NC)





floor continuation
(at C )






floor hold





floor free
1 2 4 7
others to the other
4 2
6
excluded
11 6 5 22
Total
43 55 31 129

404
 Appendix

Appendix 3
Charts of floor and topic shifts in the conversations Sachiko is
involved

How to read the chart

<name>: topic initiator

(name): floor holder

-> : floor shift

(A) -> (B) means that floor holder shifts from A to B.

Numbers:

N. : main topic (e.g. 1. , 2., etc.)

N.N: sub-topic (e.g. 1.1, 1.2, etc.)

Topic : shaded topic is not cohesive to the previous topic (i.e. full-blown topic)

(name): underlined name indicates that the person’s floor is cooperatively

overlapped by the next floor holder.

(name) : double underline indicates that the person’s floor is competitively

overlapped by the next floor holder.

Topic and floor shift in the Business Talk (Sa-1)

Phatic talk i)Yoshida’s name is published in the leaflet <Masao>

ii)Development of Uni Lodge area <Sachiko>

(Yoshida)
Main talk
1. Tax strategy <Sachiko>
1.1 Bringing foreign currency out of country <Sachiko>
->(Yoshida) -> (Masao)
Clarification <Sachiko>
->(Yoshida)->(Masao) ->(Yoshida)->(Masao)
1.2 Sales tax for real estate (Capital gain tax) <Sachiko>
->(Yoshida)
1.3 Property Tax <Masao>
->(Yoshida)

405
 Appendix

1.4 Tax for owner occupied property <Sachiko>

->(Yoshida)
2. Publish the article <Masao>
2.1 Concern <Masao>
->(Yoshida)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)
2.2 Significance to the publication <Yoshida>
->(Masao)->(Yoshida)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)
2.3 Promotion to public <Masao>

3. Commission <Sachiko>
->(Yoshida)->(Masao)->(Yoshida)->(Masao)
4. The objective of the article -> Bringing foreign currency back to Japan <Masao>
->(Yoshida)->(Masao)
5. Off the plan <Sachiko>
->(Yoshida&Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Yoshida)->(Masao)->(Yoshida)
6. Economic Crises in Hong Kong <Masao>

7. Business objectives ->Current situation of Japanese businessmen

in Sydney<Masao>
->(Yoshida)->(Sachiko)->(Masao) -> (Sachiko)->(Masao)
8. Promotion of the life after retirement in the article <Sachiko>
8.1 Suggestion to the article <Sachiko>

8.2 Second life <Masao>

8.3 Example of Okaya city <Masao>

->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)

8.4 Promotion extends to nationwide <Masao>

8.5 Australian house imported to Nagano <Yoshida>

8.6 Experience in talking to a politician in Nagano <Masao>

9. Unit on the booklet <Sachiko>
9.1 Okaya should buy a unit like this one <Sachiko>
->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)
9.2 The advitised unit looks great <Sachiko>
->(Masao) ->(Sachiko) ->(Masao) -> (Sachiko) ->(Masao)
->(Yoshida)->
->(Yoshida)->(Masao)
9.3 Unilodge near the advertised unit <Sachiko>
->(Masao)-> (Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)
->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Yoshida)->(Sachiko)
10. How to proceed the project <Masao>
10.1 Whether to introduce tax strategy or not <Masao>
->(Sachiko)
->(Masao)
10.2 Using colour pages in future and keep going <Masao>

406
 Appendix

Topic and floor shift in the Chat with Colleagues/Family members at Work (Sa-2)

1. Old couple <Sachiko>

2. Misunderstood the date <Masao>

3. Sending off a colleague <Sachiko>

->(Masao and Chie)
4. Old couple Mr and Mrs D <Sachiko>

4.1 How Mr. D cheated his age <Masao>

->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->
(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)
4.2 Mrs D’s bad health condition in Japan <Sachiko>
->(Masao)
4.3 Mr D’s bad health condition in Japan <Sachiko>
->(Masao)->(Sachiko)
4.4 Mrs D’s bad health condition in her youth <Sachiko>
4.5 Australia is suit to the couple’s health <Sachiko>
4.6 The couple will visit Japan next year <Sachiko>
4.7 The couple’s noble ancestors <Masao>
->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)->(Masao)->(Sachiko)

5. (Masao abruptly makes a phone call and starts talking, which is not realised by
Sachiko and Chie)

6. Accusing Masao of his sudden withdrawal from the talk and phone call <Chie>

Topic and floor shift in the Family Talk at Breakfast (Sa-3)

1. Italian tomato <Eiji>

->Sachiko-> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao)->
(Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao)
2. Asking time<Eiji>
->( Sachiko +Masao)
3. Eiji’s exercise <Masao>
-> (Sachiko) ->[(Eiji)
->[(Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji ) -> (Sachiko)
->(Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao)
4. Asking Masao/Eiji to wait <Sachiko>
5. Declaring finished eating <Masao>
6. No bottle <Masao>
7. Asking about TV program tonight <Sachiko>
-> (Eiji)

407
 Appendix

8. People at the hospital <Eiji>

-> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao)
-> (Eiji)
9. Eiji’s problem<Masao>
-> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko)
10. bottle <Eiji>
(Masao) -> (Eiji)
(noise, something happened to the bottle)

11. Accusing Masao <Eiji>

-> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao)
(another noise, something happened to the bottle again)

12. Scolding Masao and Eiji for making mess <Sachiko>

->[ (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko)
->[ (Masao)
13. Respecting parents <Sachiko>
-> (Masao) ->(Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko)-> (Eiji) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Masao)
14. Asking Eiji to take the plate away <Sachiko>
15. Today’s plan <Eiji>
16 Washing clothes <Masao>
-> (Sachiko) -> (Masao)
(Eiji burps)
17. Burping is a bad manner <Sachiko>
-> (Masao)
18. Food is still remaining <Eiji>

19. Warning Eiji to change his behaviour <Masao>

-> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko)
20. Eating small fish is good for health <Sachiko>
-> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko)
21. Not satisfied with life <Eiji>
->(the participants hum a song)-> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Masao)-> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji)-> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Sachiko) ->
(Masao)
22. Asking Sachiko not to feed the dog <Masao>
23. How to cook noodle <Sachiko>
-> (Masao)
(Sachiko and Masao hum a song)

24. Honey <Masao>

-> (Sachiko) -> (Masao) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Masao)
25. Asking where Masao is going <Eiji>
-> (Masao)
(Masao leaves)

408
 Appendix

26. Asking Sachiko whom Masao meets with <Eiji>

-> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji)
27. Lost interest <Eiji>
->(Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) -> (Sachiko) -> (Eiji) ->
(Sachiko) -> (Eiji)

409