P r a g m a t i c4 s:1.

31-61 InternationalPragmaticsAssociation

CAUSALMARKERS IN JAPANESEAND ENGLISH CONVERSATIONS: A CROSS.LINGUISTTC STUDY OF INTERACTIONAL GRAMMAR

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Mori

1. Introduction The relationship betweenlinguistic structure and the structure of socialinteractionhas becomethe focus of a growing body of research(Duranti and Ochs 1979;Fox 1987; Ford 1993;Ono and Thompson to appear; Ochs,Schegloff,and Thompson in press, to namea few).l This research has been facilitatedby the carefulwork of conversation analysts in defining the sorts of actions accomplished in human interaction and the recurrentshapes which those actions take (for reviewssee Levinson 1983;Heritage 1984; Schiffrin1988; recentcollections includeAtkinson and Heritage 1984;Button and Ixe 1987;Pomerantz 1993).The present study is a contribution to that research pro$am. We consider grammar in interaction from a cross-linguistic perspective, the use of causalconnectorsin the managementof disagreementin two comparing which are distinctin their basicsentence languages structure:English,with SVO word orderand Japanese, with SOV. Given the fundamental nature of many of the findings coming out of conversation analysis (CA), it is difficult to imagine a community of interactantsthat wouldnot need to accomplish similar conversational tasks.Thus, it is likely that every linguistic communityhas a set of regularpractices for achieving turn-transfer(Sackset al. 1974), for indicatingattention and readiness for continuation(Schegloff1982),for initiatingand completingrepair (Schegloffet al 7977;Fox, Hayashi and Jasperson 1993), and for agreeingor disagreeing (Pomerantz 1984a;Levinson 1983: 332-339; What is not yet understoodis to what degreethere existsimilar strategies Sacks 1987). for performingthesefunctionsin different languages. Are there universalneeds and which, by force of the work to be done in interaction,have comparable constraints realizationsin any linguistic community regardless of typological and cultural differences? CA, of the ethnomethodological variety,has been criticizedas too heavily English-based, and therefore,too closelytied to culture-specific interactionalpatterns to be a valid sourcefor cross-linguistic and crclss-cultural generalizations (Gumperz
1 For helpful discussions of this work, we are grateful to Babara Fox, Naomi McGloin and SandyThompson as well as to our receptive and challenging audience at the International Pragmatics Conferencein Kobe, Japan, July 25-30, 1993.We also thank the Graduate School of the Universityof Wisconsin-Madisonfor supporting this research.

32

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

1982; Duranti 1988). Given that CA researchhas, in large part, concentrated on English and other European languages, this criticism is valid. However, much work clearly remains to be done in order to determinethe strengthof CA's claims.In the present researchwe are concernedwith the potentiallyuniversalconversational tasks of managing agreement and disagreement(Sacks 1987; Heritage 1984; Pomerantz 1984a,, we examinethe similaritiesand differencesin the use of 1984b).Specifically, Japaneseand English causalconnectorsin sequences of talk where agreementis at issue. It has previously been demonstratedthat English because has a role in such conversational environments (Ford 19%).2 It was our expectation that Japanese speakerswould use similar connectorsto do the same type of work, but that, as Japanese syntaxoffers different optionsand constraints, the patternsof usewould likely differ in notable ways as well. an hour Our data consistof conversations betweenfriendsand acquaintances, and a quarter in both Englishand Japanese (a total of two and a half hours of talk). The English participantsare of agesrangingfrom 20 to 35 using StandardAmerican at dinner, over drinks, English.The recordingstook place in variouscasualsituations: participantsare between the on a picnic, and visiting over the phone. The Japanese ages of 26 and 34 and are graduatestudentsat the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They are conversingin Hyoojun-go,the standarddialect.The Japanese conversations were recordedon variousoccasions in a T.A. office where the studentsregularlygather were in a potentially formal context, during the day. Although the Japanese speakers their talk is chatty and casual;the recordings were not made during official office hours or at meetings. Both sets of conversations are transcribedaccording to the conventions of conversationanalysis.The following are the devicesthat are most relevant to the concernsof our study: Symbol Interpretation A short, untimedpause A timed pause Audible breath Hyphen indicatesa sound cut off latching,a next speakerbeginswithout a normal beat of silence between turns Bracketsindicate the onset of overlap Prominent stress(Englishexamplesonly) Louder Soundstretch Ending, low falling, intonation High rising intonation

(.) (0.3)
hhh thi-

she SHE sh e : ?

2 Kim and Suh (to appear) are exploring the functions of the Korean connective nikka in conversation.

Causal nnrkers in Japanese and English conversations

33

romake our examp,:':::;.'ilffi

notations in some examples and kept specialcharacters and detail to a minimum. We beginby looking at because (and 'cause) in American Englishconversations. We examineplacementpatterns (2.1) and then demonstratethe functions of because in pursuing agreement and accounting for disagreement (2.2). Followingthe discussion of our Englishconversations, we look at the Japanese causalconnector t koro anddatte, outlining their placement patterns(3.1) and examining their functions with respectto incipient or actualdisagreement (3.2). Thesetwo connectors are used in distinit ways by Japanese conversationalists in marking connections that seem to be subsumedin English by the singleconjunctionbecause. We, then, draw explicitcomparisons between causaluse in English and Japaneseinteraction and suggestareas of similarity and divergence (4).

;:.

ffi#:

transcription

2. Englishbecause

2.1. Placement and intonation in conversation A becattse-clause, like other adverbialclauses in English,ffi&ybe placed either before or after a main clause.However, the speakersin our databar" of American English conversations never opt for initial placement.All of our because-and 'cause-clauses followtheir main clauses. While this pattern doesnot violate any expectationwe would haveregarding what is possiblein English syntax,the pattern is significantlydifferent from thoseof other adverbialclauses in the corpus.In light of the lutg" proportion of temporal and conditionalclauses which are usecl in initial position,it islemarkable that causalclausesare never used in that position.3Table 1. displays the placement patterns of causalas comparedwith temporal and conditionalclauses.

TABLE 1: The placement of English adverbial clauses

conditional/temporal causal

initial final total

47 (asVo)

s8 (ss%)
105(r007o)

7a Q00Vo) 7a Q00%o)

3 Schiffrin 1985reports a similarfinding.

34

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

This skewedplacementpattern alone raisesa questionas to what specialtunctions causalconnectors are performingin theseconversations.a In addition,however,of the l4 final causalconnectors, just over half (53%, n:39) follow main clauses which have been completedwith endingintonation(either high risingor low falling). In suchcases, causalconnectorsintroduce separateintonation units, following main clausematerial that has been presentedas both grammatically and intonationallycomplete. This intonationpatternhassignificant interactionalconsequences in termsof turn takingancl specific turn shapes(Ford 1993;ForcJand Thompson in press). For exampte,in (t) below,speakerA comesto a point of grammatical and intonational completionat the end of the first line.At the arrow,he addsan intonationally separate causal clause onto the previous turn unit.

(1)

(YGee)
A: .hhh Well do you think it's umm (0.2) ahm (0.2) stress? 'cause a lot of back- I know back pain, (0.2) comeswith stress.

In contrast,conditionaland temporal connectors introducefinal and intonationally separateunits only 22% of the time in the samecorpus.

IntonationuI f. ut,;*8,,??,3", o'. rbiaI cIauses "

bound separated Tcltal conditional/temporal 4s (78Vo) 1 3 (2 2 Va ) s8 (100%)
causal

3s (47Va) 39 (53Vo) 74 (r00%)

In termsof placement and intonational connectedness, then,we tlnd two striking patternswith regard to causalconnectors. First, unlike other adverbialconnectors in the data, they are used exclusively in final position.And second,as introducersof elaboration for main clauses, they commonly appear after the main clausehas been presentedas not just grammatically but also intonationally complete.That is, English because and'causeregularlybeginseparate intonationunits. Interestingly, in terms of traditional rules for written English,suchseparate adverbialclauses are not acceptable; if punctuatedas new units,followinga period (full stop) at the end of the main iluur., these causalelaborations would be considered (Danielewiczand Chafe "fragments"
a Ford (1993) examines the functions of temporal, conditional, and causal coniunctions in Amcrican English convcrsations.

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

35

1985;Ford 1992). The functionsof initial and final adverbialclauses under continuousintonation contours havebeen examinedin Englishin terms of foregroundingand backgrounding (Ramsay 1987), topic continuity (Schiffrin 1985), and their roles in the thematic progression of texts (Linde and Labov I975; Chafe 1984;Ford and Thompson 19g6). However, the f unctionsof separated, final adverbialclauses is lesswell-understood. This is probablybecause studiesof adverbialclauseplacementin spoken discourse have tendedto concentrate on the flow of information rather than the interaction between speakers. Ford (1992, 1993)has,to our knowledge, been the first to suggest that final adverbial clauses presentedafter ending intonationcommonly result from interaction between speakerand addressee rather than as afterthoughts, u tuU"t implying that such clauses are productsof a singleindividual's cognitive processes. In the next section, we will examinethe partiiular interactional functionsfor which speakersin these conversations are uiing intonationallyseparate causal elaborations.

2.2. Because in-environmentsof actual or incipient disagreement As background for a discussion of the interactionalemergenceof because,a brief reviewof some basic principles of conversational structure is in order. A pervasive featureof the sequentialdevelopmentof conversation is the manner in which each individual turn is oriented to or directly responsive to a previous ^Sacks turn (Scheglofft97Z; Sacks and Schegloff1973;Pomerantz 1978,1984a&b; I9g7).In faci a strong tendency hasbeen observedfor interlocutorsto work toward affiliation, alignment,oi agreement with one anotherand to systematically avoid disagreement, which is treated astroubleand requiresexplicit accountsand excuses. A term used by CA researchers to encompass this pattern ispreference organizatiort.The word preference here is meant to denotea normativepattern rather than a psychological stance,though it is difficult to understand the pattern without sensing the operation of some attitudinal bias. put as simplyas possible, researchon preferencestiucture has found that particular turn typessuchas questions, requests, invitations,assessments, complaintr, io nu-e a few, makecertainnext turns expectable. More precisely, they make i certain range of next turnsrelevant(adiacency pairs, Schegloff and Sacks1973;lrvinson 1gg3:303--30g). So, for example, a requestfor information may be followed by an answercontainingthai intbrmation or by some declinationplus an accountfor that declination. Preference organization predictsthat there are typicallypreferred and typically dispreferred responses to given turn types.Preferred responses are delivered with a minimum of delay,without particularhesitation s (tth, uhm) or reluctancetokens (well), and preferred responses are typically direct and unmitigated. On the other hand, dispreferred responses are treatedas "to be avoided". This qualityis exhibitedin several recurrent characteristics of dispreferreds: They are often precededby pauses. They are initiated with hesitations ancldisplays of reluctance. Theiimesrug" oi disaffiliationwith a stance taken by the previousspeakeris typicallyclothed in mitigation, indirectness,

36

Moi E. FordandJunko Cecilia

and sometimes, displays of partial agreement (Pomerantz 7984a; Sacks 1987). (Levinson 1983: Dispreferred turns are also regularly followed by accountsor excuses 332-338; Heritage 1984: 269-273; Firth to appear). Heritage, using the case of invitations, offers the following contrastingexamples:

(SBL:10:12) no delay(in fact, overlappingresponse) (2) Preferred: Simple acceptance,

B: A:

Why don't you come and see me some [times [I would like to

(3) Dispreferred: Delay, preface,show of appreciation,indirect refusal,and account (SBL :10: 14) B: A: Uh if you'd care to come over and visit a little while this morning I'll give you a cup of coffee. hehh Well that's awfully nice of you, I don't think I can make it this morning .hh uhm I'm running an ad in the paper and-and uh I have to stay near the phone.

reflect their shapesof responses What we see, then, is that the characteristic feature little or no delay,direct Preferredresponses statusas preferred or dispreferred. mitigations, hesitations, displaydelays, and dispreferreds and no accounting, statements, and accounts. The characteristicaccount portion of dispreferred responsesis one of the is usedto introducean independentintonation locations,in our data, in which because at the arrow emergesspecifically suchas that in (4) below, the 'cause unit. In sequences in the context of a dispreferredresponse.

(4) (AR97) Becauseintroducingthe accountcomponentof a dispreferredresponse A: A: R: A: A: R: A: Did you get your (.) your first pay check from it? ( .) I at least? [NO: I won't get that for a couple of weeksyet.: Oh. (.) [Well ['causeit takes a long time. At least it's in the bank

(0.s)

Causal nnrkers in Japanese and Engtish conversations

37

R: R:

Yeahit will be. (0.4) It will be.

At the first arrow, R disagrees with the positivepolarity of A's original question.At the second arrow, R providesthe accountfor that disagreement. The because elaboration emerges from the orientationof both R and A toward the expectedagreeingresponse. The next examplealsocontainsa causalconjunctionintroducingthe accountfor a dispreferred.Notice that A's response also shows hesitation, prefacing, and indirectness.

(5) (TG682)Because introducingthe accountcomponentof a dispreferred. A is inviting B to go to the city the next day. A: B: Maybe if you come down, I'll take the car. t-'We:ll, uh - p know I-I don,t want to make anything today all day riding on the trai:ns , hhuh-uh Thus, we find that causalclauses emergeinteractionally as introducersof accountsand excuses for dispreferredresponses. Because alsoemerges interactionally in relation to another aspectof preference structure.This aspect involves one of the motivations for the observed delays, hesitations, and prefaces which precede the delivery of the actual disagreeing component of a dispreferred response. When one deliversan affiliative ."rpon* in ai immediateand unmitigated way, form and messagecoincide: not only does the respondent claim agreement,but that agreementis embodied in the directnessand immediacy of the turn in which it is delivered.Overtappingresponses such as that in example(2) are particularly nice illustrations of this iconicity. Conversely, the hesitations and prefaces associated with disagreement are in themselves displaysof the reluctance of a speaker to deliver a dispreferred response.Importantiy, for our discussion of becaise, the pauses, hesitationi,and prefacesthat come before the actual disa,greement componentalso allow the previousipeaker an opportunity to add on to her/histurn in order to save both speakersfrom the "facei problems inherent in disagreement (Goffman 1955;Brown and Levinson 197g) In the following example, note that the pause after A's first offer could foreshadow upcomingdisagreement from B. In the light of this interpretation,A adds another incrementto the turn, an incrementthat could encourageog.""-ant from B.

38

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

(6) (Davidson 1984) A: oh I was gonna sa:yif you wantedto:, you could meet me at UCB and I could show you some of the other thingson the compu:ter,

B:

(0.6) Well I don't know if I'd want to get all that invo:lved,

In the next example, we see that an addition in the t'ace of possible disagreement can be successful in creatinga contextfor agreement.

(7) (Levinson 1983:335) R: What about cominghere on the way

C:

Well no I'm supervising here.

A1-terthe pause (first arrow), R revisesthe polarity of what would constitute an agreeingresponse. At the secondarrow, R's turn anticipates a negativeresponse.The fact that declinationis now made expectable and affiliativeremovessome of the force from this potentially face threatening interchange.Thus, the delay and prefacing jointly avoid characteristic of dispreferred turns work very nicelyto help interlocutors outright disagreement. in the extensionof turns in pursuit of Now let us look at the work of becattse agreement. First, we will look at a longerversionof example(1):

(1) (YG99) Becauseprompted by pause A: .hhh Well do you think it's umm (0.2) ahm (0.2) stress/ (.) .hhh We:ll I'm thinking it might be uhh (0.2) I um: (0.5) I haven'tever had ahh directly related plpical symptomsof stressbefore and it could easilybe that (0.2) [ but thatthough. I Yeah but look what'shappening

R:

A:

As in examples(6) and (7), the fragmentin (1) contains a turn that is extendedafter a pause, a pause that could well be an indicator of incipient disagreement. A's

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

39

extension at the arrow is introducedby because. It adds support to the previous turn increment, thus possiblyimproving the chances of its receivingan agreeingresponse. Note that R's response does indeed display features of disagreement:hesitation, preface, mitigatedagreement"yesbut.." format (see Pomerantz1984for more on the rofeof partialagreement plus bttt in disagreeing sequences). Example(8) showsturn extensions prompted by a pause and a repair initiator (Levinson 1983:339-342; Schegloff, Jefterson,and Sacks 1977).In this fragment,A is describing his new job at a television studio:

(8) (AR263)Because prompted by pauseand repair initiator (at third arrow) A: .hhh but the thing is, the- they might get thei:r (0.2) the project
ca:ncelled.

[ (they I What this (.) wa:r project: Yqah because ABC got boughtou:t? (0.2) Did you hear about tha:t?: : Y eah , And that they'rereal tight wa:ds?

( 0. 2) becau:se

We see again in (8) that causalextensionis prompted by interactional trouble and delivered in pursuit of alignmentbetweenspeakerand recipient.The first indication of potentialtrouble is the pause (at the first arrow), after which A begins a causal extension. R's repair initiation (at the third arrow, overlappingwith A's first attempt at a because elaboration)targets the specificproblem he is having with A's original turn:R was not clear on the referent of theproject,which, given the definite article, is presented as shared information.Note the rising intonation on each of A's turns beginning at the fourth arrow. This is referred to as try marking in CA, and is found wheresharedreferenceis at issue.Thus A's causalelaboration initiates a series of understanding checks aimedat establishing mutual understanding in order for the A's larger agenda, reportingon his job situation, to continue. What we have seen in this section is that the use of becauseand 'couseas separate intonationunits is associated with speaker-addressee interaction.S5Va (n:33) of the cases of causalelaborations presented under independent intonationcontours in the present corpus are best understood as emerging from negotiation between speakers and recipients and primarily aimed at achieving affiliation or shared understanding, as well as at accountingfor disagreement when it is not avoided.s
5 Of the total of 33 interactionally emergent causal extensions,9 are accounts, l8 are pursuits, and 6 are collaborativelyachieved.In the latter cases,the production of the clause complex is sharedby two speakers,the causal extension being added by a next speaker. Such co-constructed

40

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

Given the regular emergence of English causalextensions in the environments of actual or potential disagreement, we posedthe questionwhether causalconnectors might function in a similar manner in a language whosesyntaxfavorsinitial placement of adverbial clauses. Do Japanese conversationalists use causalextensions to account for dispreferreds and pursue agreement? What structural configurationsdo such extensions take given the expecteddifferences in "branching" direction for dependent clauses?In the next two sections, we explore the placementand functions of causal connectorsin Japaneseconversations.

3. Japanesecausal connectors

3.1. Canonical order and postposingin conversation Typologically Japanese is a head-final language while English is head initial. Accordingly,the structureof a sentence which containsthe causalconnectiveparticle kara differs from one with becausein English.

(9)u Peepaa kaite nai kara watashi wa dame nan paper write N"g because I Top not-good "BecauseI haven't written any paper, I have little chance." desu yo. Cop FP

The connectiveparticle comesat the end of the clauseand marks the precedingpart as a causalclause. Further, in the canonical order, the main clauseis expectedto follow the causalclause.Thus, unlike English,final causalclauses are not used in Japanese expositorywriting. What is interesting is that, despite this typologicaldifference, we observe a similar tendency in the placement of causal clauses in English and Japanese

extensions are by definition interactionally achieved;however we do not discussthese casesfurther in the present article (see Ford 1993; lrrner 1987, 1991; Ono and Thompson forthcoming). The following is an example of collaboratively produced causal extensions.At the arrow, H adclsa causal extension to D's previous turn: D: They don't like the taste of boiled water ya know they you offer them boiled warer, (ah.) W: [The ta- what ta-? D: [There's no ta- there's no ta:ste to it.= D: :Yeah.

6 See appendix for key to Japanesemorpheme-by-morpheme abbreviations.

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

41

conversations. That is, a tlnal kara-clause, which is considered non-canonical in traditionalgrammar, is also used frequentlyin Japanese conversation. Table 3 shows the placement pattern of causalas opposedto conditionaland temporal clausesin Japanese.

TABLE 3: The placementof Japanese adverbialclauses conditional/temporalT 178 (9lo/o) 1 7 (e % ;o ) 195 ( 1007a) causal 61 (537o) s4 (47% ) 132 (100%)

initial final total

Althoughnot all the causalclauses are placed finally in Japanese, final placementof the causal clauses, i.e.,, kara-clauses, constitutes almost half of the cases(47Vo,n:54). This is significantly more trequent than the final placement of conditional/temporal clauses (9Vo,n=17). Further, as seen in Table 4, a greater number of final causal clauses (93Vo, n=50) are intonationally separated from their main clauses, as compared to the final conditional/temporal clauses (42Vo, n=7).

TABLE 4: Intonationalfeaturesof final adverbialclauses conditional/temporal 10 (597o) 7 (azVa) causal 4 (7Vo) 50 (e3Vo)

bound separated total

r7 (r00%)

54(r00vo)

These facts, alongwith our findingsfor the Englishcounterpart, because,lead, us to the followingquestions: in what environmentsare these final kara-clauses used? What interactional f'unctions do these clauses perform? The frequent use of non-canonicalorder in spoken Japanese,has been the subject of several recentstudies(Ono and Suzuki 1992;Fujii 1992;Simon 1989,among others). Fujii, for instance,claims that main clausesare assertedfirst to accomplish pragmatically markedfunctionsin discourse, and that postposed adverbialclauses have an informational functionwith respectto main clauses, i.e. the speakeradds,confirms, or emphasizes backgroundinformation. While her study deals with the pragmatic

7 The conditionalitemporal clauses here include ba, tara, to, toki.

42

Cecitia E. Ford and Junko Moi

motivation of the speaker's use of the non-canonical order, it is basedon a quantitative analysis8and <Joesnot eiaborate why the speaker needs to have the postposed adverbial clauseto add, confirm, or emphasize backgroundinformation in particular environments. In the next section, we will examine the interactional functions of these intonationallyseparated,final kara-clauses. Before movingon to that section,however, it is necessaryto introduce another connectorwhich is comparableto because,the connectivedatte. Datte is different from the connectiveparticle kara in terms of its locationin a clause. That is,whilekara is placedat the end of the clause and marksthe precedingclauseas causal, datte is usuallyin sentence-initial positionand marks the following part as its domaine. The following examplesillustrate the differencesbetweenkars and datte with respectto placementand domain:

(10) Tore masu yo can-take FP

da Cop kara. because demo. Linguistics but
dat Cop tara if juuhachi eighteen taNi credit

"You can. though.Because Linguistics only requireseighteencredits."

(11) Kimete decide da Cop tte QT nai N"g iu say yo. FP shi Datte because kaanegiimeron CarnegieMellon n a n t ei t s u t s u five

"I haven't decided. Because Carnegie Mellon for instance requires tlve (ret'erences)."

The meaningof datte has been controversial as it can be translatedeither as but or because dependingon the context.

8 She measuresscope, foreground versus background, comprehensibility,ancl pragmatic markednessof each clause. 9 Datte can also appear sentence-internal position like the English however or therefore.

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

43

( 1 2 ) K:

Tte boku mo iwareru yo I also told FP QT "l will be retused, too, perhaps."

kitto. perhaps

N:

jan. Datte ima totteru but now taking Tug "But you are taking (his class)now, right?"

Nevertheless, what is common betweenthe cases where datte is translatedas because and bttt is that in both casesdatte is used "to introduce an utterance in which the justifieshis or her behavior or opinion (Matsumoto 1988)." Maynard (1992: speaker 83) alsosuggests that "datteprefacessupport for position in conversation when one is challenged or when one challenges." These functionaldefinitionsof datte suggest that this term is responsive to an immediate problem in interactionas is the English conjunction because. Then, how are these two alternatives used differently in Japaneseinteraction? The interactional functionsof kara and datte will be addressed in the next section.

3.2,Japanese causal connectors on a continuum of disagreement In section2.2, we discussed the use of English causal elaborationsin negotiating agreementand shared understanding.Final because clauses are used to shape dispreferred responses by providing accountsor excuses, or to pursue a recipient response by introducing more background information for understanding.In our database, we also find that Japanese speakersuse final kara-clauses presentedunder separate intonationcontoursas well as the sequences introduced by datte to manage interactional problems.A difl'erenceis that the Japaneseconversationalists use two differentconnectors, the choice of which seemsnot random but determined by the interactional environment. Maynard (1992,1993)has also observedthe use of datte in introducing dispreferredresponses, but our interpretationdivergessignificantlyfrom hers(section 4). First let us look at the caseswhere the speaker is handling a dispreferrecl resp()nse.

(13) r:

josei ja Amerika wa ikaga doo America women Top then how how "What do you think of Americanwomen then?" (0.8) Nakanaka not-easily hitokoto one-word
de

desu ka? Cop O

S:

by

iemasen can't-say

nee. FP

44

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

Ano: boku no: well I Gen k ar a:. because

un honto iroNna hito yeah really various-kind people

iru exist

"(0'.8) I can't say so easily. Well, my, yeah because really there are variouskinds of people."

A_preferred responsein this casewould be a straightforward answer to the question. Therefore, speaker S, who cannot provide such an answer immediately, faces the problem of how to appropriatelydeliver a dispreferredresponse. He delayshis reply, shows his reluctance,and shapesthe r"rponi. towards ugr."-"nt by providing an account marked with the conjunctionkara (at the arrow). As we mentibned accountsare typical featuresof dispreferreds. "uili"r, Kara,like because, is associated with the account portion of dispreferredresponses. The connective datte is also used in disagreementsituations to introduce accounts.However, there is a differencein the shapeof dispreferredturns with datte as opposedto kara. Comparethe next exampleto (13). (14) N:

... Kimeta no? Ikutsuka apurai-suru tokoro decided several O apply place "Have you decidedseveralplacesto apply?" Kimete decide itsutsu five nai N"g da Cop yo. FP tte QT Datte kaanegii becauseCarnegie iu say shi. meron Mellon

wa. Top

K:

na nte five

"I haven't. Becausecarnegie Mellon, for instancesavsfive." N:

E?
what "What?"

K:

Refarensu reference refarensu. reference

ga. Dakara Nom so

muri impossible

desho. Tag

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

45

"References. So it's impossibleto get those references, right?"

In (14),K's dispreferredresponsedoesnot have any prefaceand follows immediately after N's question.That is, unlike the typical shapeof dispreferredturns, there is no delay or mitigation of the disaffiliative force. Japanesespeakers seem to choose betweenthe two alternativesfor causal elaboration depending on the degree of disagreement they are expressing. The followingexamplewhich hasboth datte andkara in a continuous sequences may clarifyhow thesetwo connectors are usedin negotiation towardagreement. (1 5 ) N: Tatoeba nan toka for-example something sono kyookasho that textbook kaku n write da Cop no Gen tte. QT ni tsuite toka about sono koto ni tsuite that thing about it say tara if saa, FP

zenbu zenbu all all

"For example, if there is a question about something, she says she writes everything, everythingabout the issuein the textbook."

K:

Hee. huun "Huun,t'

N:

Ii ten toru wa na korya. h h h h h good grade receive FP FP this-Top "No wonder she can get good grades,in this way. Well"

Maa: well

but ko child

disagree ni to wa Top

Cop

FP

Cop

if

such

warui ten ageru ne. bad grade give FP

"But I disagree. As for me, I would give a bad grade to such a child."

46

Cecitia E. Ford and Junko Moi

N:

Hee huun " Huun, "

because nal Neg Janal. Tog

self

Gen

opinion

at-all

contain

"Because there is no opinion of his own."

N:

Naruhodo I-se e ni on mo also

nee. Demo maa FP but well yoru depend yo. FP

sore wa that Top

kuizu no quiz Gen

mondai question

"I see.But well it also depends on the kinds of questions in the quiz."

well wa Top

question docchi which hoo type

on also depend ka O da Cnp tte QT iu say

may to if

although originaritii originality

I o Acc

motomeru desire

kara. because

"Well, even though it may depend on the question,(l still disagree) becauseI'm the kind of personwho prefersoriginality."

At the first arrow, K directlystateshis disagreement with N's assessment of her friend's story.Again there is no signof reluctance prefacing thisdisagreement. Then, prompted by the N's back-channelhee (which typically marks surprise)r0,K introduces an accountfor his disagreement (second "(not) arrow).Noticethereis an intensifier zenzen
10 While the back-channel token un signatsthe recipient's acknowledgementand invites the speaker's continuation of the current turn, hee shows the recipient's surprise, disagreement,or lack of understanding. Further study is required with regard to such recipient responsesin Japanese.

Causal nmrkers in Japanese and English conv,ersations

47

at all" whichenhances the strengthof his claim. In the next turn, N first showsher acknowledgement of K's opinion and then suggests a contrastingidea. Pomerantz (1984a: 74) categorizesthis kind of turn, constructed of partial agreement and partial disagreement, as "weaker"disagreement comparedwith to those which are exclusivelydisagreeingwithout any agreeing components. Interestingly, N's weakerdisagreement invitesanotherturn of its kind, this time by K. That is, K first repeatsthe last half of N's precedingturn to show partial agreement which presentsanother and only after that producesthe final kara-clause accounttbr K's original contrastingposition. Both the first and second causal elaborations are addressed to the samemain clause(at the first arrow), yet the context of K's display of disagreement is transformed and weakened by N's partial agreement/partial disagreement which intervenes. In other words, K first assertshis position in the useof datte,and later, after N's partial agreement, makesa shift toward alignment with the recipient in the use of kara. Thus, in the choice of the causal connector, we observed the useof dattefor strongerdisagreement andkara for weaker. Another aspectin the use of causalelaborationwe discussed in 2.2. is the extension of a turn pursuing a recipient's preferred response.Kara and datte in Japanese are alsousedfor this purpose, but againthere is a differencein the kind of interactional problemfor which each connector is used. Accordingto Pomerantz(1984b: 152-753), there are three types of problems whichpromptspeakerpursuit: 1. A recipientmay not understand because a referenceis unclear or a term unknown. 2. A recipientmay be confusedbecause a speaker,in referring to a matter, presumes that the recipientknowsabout it when he or she does not. 3.A recipient may be hesitant to respondcoherently because he or shedoesnot support, or agreewith the speaker's assertion. Of thetwo connectors, karo seems to be associated with the first two problemswhereas datte with the third. Example(16) is a caseof the secondproblem,where is associated thereis an information gap betweenthe speaker and the recipient. Here N and K are talking abouta 1obapplication which requiresa description of coursework. (16) N:

Ja donna koosu then which course mo also hitsuyoo necessary na Cop

o Acc

totta ka took O

tte QT

iu say

no Cp

wake?

"You mean you need to write what kind of courses you've taken?"

48

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Mori

K:

Soo. [D" right and "Right. And" N: [Koko de? here at "Here?"

FP I few and here only Cop if "And if it's only here, I don't have many, right?"

Tug

for-the-time-being twenty-four credits sotsugyoo suru graduate kara. because

minimum

with

"Because for the time being I'm going to graduatewith the minimum twenty-four credits." N: Un. un-huh " Un hu h ."

In K's turn at the first arrow, he seemsto presumethat N knows the condition of his (K's) coursework, and he invites acknowledgement from N (desho?). But the lack of Thus, the pauseprompts response alerts K to a potentialproblem of understanding. an elaboration which takes the form of a kara-clause. On the other hand, the problem in example (17), below, is not merely an informational gap but a potential disagreement. This time K is explaininghis attitude which is a trend in Japanese education. against"rote memorization" What we focus on in this exampleis the use of datte toward the end of K's turn which seems the recipientprovides. Although to be relatedto the kind of back-channels K frequently useskora in this turn, most of theseclausesare placed before the main clauseand are, therefore,not in questionat the moment.

(17)

K:

... Dakara so

tokuni especially

boku ga sukina I Nom favorite

kamoku subject

Causal nnrkers in Japanese and English conversations

49

wa Top

rekishi toka datta kara, history Cop because mono ja thing Cop [Nengo year N: nai N.g tte QT

sono nengo wa well year Top iwareta no told ne FP mire look

oboeru memorize mazu. tirst

nante no wa such thing Top

kyookasho textbook

t
[un da Cop kara, because ii OK tte QT soNna such bakana stupid ga. Nom

ba if

wakaru n find-out

koto shi thing do

nakute N.g

iu no sensei say teacher to. QT. N:

o [Demo nagare but consequence Acc

N:

oboenasai memorize

[Dooiu what-kind

t
[unun doo what natta no happened

t
[.rn

geNin de cause with

ka O

toka, [socchino hoo like that N:

t
Iun de with zutto all-ttrc-way

ga motto taisetsuna n da Nom more important Cop naratte learn kichatta came

karall tte, sore becauseQT that

wake. [Mochiron of-course N:

ga shakaika social-studies Nom

t
[au benkyoo study shakaika soc.-st. kara, because

sukidatta liked

kara, because

itsumo always iu say

ga ichibannan te Nom most what QT

no juuyooshi-shiteta emphasized O

1l i s i n finat, but as it is used in quoted speech (attributed Thi. kara-ctause speakerrs teacher), it is outside of our present focus-

to the

50

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Mon

Idakara
SO

boku I

socchi no that

benkyoo no hoo study

ga Nom

N:

t
[un
kara, dakara because so

sukidatta liked oboe memorize

komakai detail ii OK tte QT

koto wa things Top

ll

naku temo N.g even-if

say wakaru n find-out da Cup

tachi na no. personality Cnp N: kara, because soNna such

IDatte
because

mtre ba look if

t
Ih e e oboeru memorize hitsuyoo necessity nai Neg janai. Tag

"So especially my favorite subjectwas like history,so first we were told that the years are not the things to memorize.(N: un) My teacher says that we can find out things like the yearsif we look at the textbook, so we don't have to do suchstupid things.(N: unun) But he sayswe should memorize the consequences. (Nr un) Stuff like what caused what happened,(N: un) becausethat's more important. I've learned things with that kind of attitude all the way through.(N: aa) Of coursebecause I liked social studies,becauseI have always put emphasis on social studies, (N: un) I mean,because I liked that kind of studybetter, that's why I tend to think that we don't have to memorize details. we can find out if we look them up, so there is no need (N: hee) Because to remember."

K starts his turn by providing information on his educationalbackgroundwhich might teachers'attitudes.Toward the end of K's be a little different from typical Japanese extendedturn, at the first arrow, he asserts that his attitude againstrote memorization is a consequence of his past experiences and preferences. Notice that immediatelyafter this assertion,there is a significantchangein N's back-channel(as in example (15) what his teachersaid to the students, above). While K was describing his explanation was supportedby N's constantback-channeling with tut, tutLut, or ua, all of which show N's acknowledgement and encourage continuationof the turn. But after the assertion changes to hee,, which signals of his opinion, N's back-channel N's surpriseor a possible upcoming disagreement. K then extendshis turn with dattewhich providessupport for his position. What is introducedby datte in this caseis not information needed but a

Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations

51

justification, the content of which has alreadybeen assertedpreviously (as reported between(16) and speech, attributed to K's former teacher). Thus,there is a difference (17):the formerrepresents while the latter represents a problemin shared information with the interlocutor's a problemin agreement assertion. The choicebetweenkara anddatte,then, involvesthe stancea speakertakes as he he or sheaddsfurther support.When a speakernoticesan upcomingdisagreement, or she in fact has a choice of solutionsfor this problem. That is, the speaker may reviewand evaluatehis or her assertionand, if evaluatedas wrong, appropriately modifythe previousturn unit with an added increment(Pomerantz 1984b:153).With the useof datte,however,the speakerdoesnot modiff his or her assertion but provides justification turther at that moment, is displaying for it. This meansthat the speaker, more concernfor making a particular point or savinghis or her own face, than for maintaining the solidarityamong interlocutorsthat might be better servedby a more mitigated dispreferredturn shape (delay,partial agreement,and account with kara). Interestingly, Maynard(1992,1993)hasalsodiscussed datteand the presentation of disagreement. Maynard was not, however, examining datte relative to other connectors that functionin the contextof dispreferred Thus, as mentioned responses. above, her interpretationdivergesfrom ours. Maynard sees datte as "a deviceto warn the listener that the upcomingturn contains self-justifying informationin the context rapport betweenparticipants of opposition" and that the "useof datte helpsencourage (1992:80)." As for the Englishcounterpart, she saysthat Englishdoes not have this warning deviceand that use of because is not a deviceto warn the listener but rather onewhichemphasizes the speaker's opposition(1993:198). of turn shapes and interactional in the use In contrast, our comparison contexts of datteand final kara-clauses leadsto another,quite different analysis. It is difficult for us to interpret dstte as "warning the listener"or "encouragingrapport". lf datte werefunctioning as a warning to the previousspeakerthat the recipient was about to we would expectdelayand hesitationto accompany the deliver a dispref'erred response, connector. This would allow the previousspeakera chanceto fbrm a preemptive and possibly addition avoid disagreement. But in our corpus,datte is never delayednor with hesitations. is it associated On the contrary,it is deliveredwithout pause or hesitation. If datte were used to encouragerapport or affiliation, the recipient would and would certainly ottermoreopportunity for avoidingdeliveryof the disagreement of turns with datte in not deliverit in the unmitigatedmanner which is characteristic our database. If we look in detail at the shapeof the dispreterred turns where either kara or presentweaker disagreements datte is usedin clurdatabase, the final kara-clauses than with hesitationand prefacing, do dattes. Kars-additions follow pauses, are associated andcontain disagreement that are indirect. components of our data suggests that kara-clauses tend to be used when a A closeanalysis speaker is reporting experiences or events,while dattes tend to be used when the is asserting speaker his or her personal opinion, or when there is a shift from agreement to disagreement on the part of the recipient (as in the case of the backchannel shiftin example(17)).Theseobservable features in interactionlead us to

52

Cecitia E. Ford and Junko Moi

posit a continuum of disagreement, with the two connectors tendingtoward its different ends. The following chart summarizes the tendencies we observein the useof kara and datte.

FIGURE 1: Continuum of disagreement KARA Degree of disagreement: Environment: weaker providing "objective" information information gap delay,hesitation, mitigation stronger asserting personal opinion,assessment differencein opinion no delay, hesitation, nor mitigation

Problem: Turn tormat:

We have seen in this section that two causal connectors in Japanese are associated with similar interactionalenvironments as is the Englishbecause.Inthe case o_f kara^,8^0Va (40150) emergefrom speaker-recipient negotiation, and in the caseof datte, S3Vo(34141) arise from such interactionrz. 4. Japaneseand English causal connectors In this section,we summarizeour findingswith a comparisonof Japanese and English, discussingassociationsbetween distinct grammatical structures and their stralegic potentials in interaction.Despite the fact that Japanese and English are typologicaily divergent,we find a distributionalsimilarity involving the frequent use of the causal clausesplaced after their associated main clauses. The fact thit Japanesesharesthis tendencyis especially significantas the canonicalorder for causalabverbialclauses in that languageis before main clauses. A further similaritybetweenJapanese and English is found in the tendency for finally placed causalclausesto appear under sepa"rate intonation contours. In addition to showing like tendencies with respect to clause placement and intonation patterns, causal connectors in Japaneseind English share tunctional characteristics.In both languages,causal connectors are used in the service of

tt-l*ln the kara extensions, 16 were accounts and 12 *ere pursuits. Datte was used fon a c c o u n t s 1 0 t i r p s a n d f o r p ' r . r r s u i t s1 2 . A s w i t h - b e q a u s e ( f o o t n o t e 3 ) n e i n c l . u d e - i ! interactional. l.y emergent cases of cotlaborative construction (12 for a n d 1 2 f o r d a t e ) . lgrq

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

53

negotiating agreement(or managingdisagreement) between interlocutors. In some cases, causalconnectorspresent accountstbr disagreement; in other cases,they are prompted by cues of emerging disagreementand are used to extend previously completedturns to avoid upcoming dispreferred responses.We believe that the convergent distributionaland functionalpatternswe have found with regard to causal clauses in Japanese and Englishsupport the claim that some conversational structures and strategies, as well as their characteristiclinguistic realizations,may well be universal. Aspectsof the structure of social interaction seem to influence sentence construction beyond what we have come to expect based on the empirical methods commonly employedin linguistic analysis, i.e.,inventedexamples and grammaticality judgements. Along with the similaritiessummarizedabove,we have also observednotable dift-erences. While English speakersexclusively usebecau.re as a causal connector in thesesequences, Japanesespeakers have a choice of two connectors in similar environments. On a continuum of disagreement, the connectiveparticle kara tends to be usedwith information gaps and weaker disagreements, whereasdatte introduces disagreements in personal opinion and hasstronger contrastive force. It is interesting to ask why Japanese has these options for distinguishing level of disagreementand whetherEnglishoffers any alternativeways of making like distinctions.Cultural and social differences surelyplay a part in accountingfor the differencesbetween English and Japanesewhere the potentially delicate conversational act of expressing disagreement is concerned. However, we think it is also crucial to consiclerthe basil structural propertiesof the two languages as fruitful sourcesof explanation.Let us, therefore, discussthe dynamicsof structural options and restrictionsas well as interactional needs. Of the two Japanese connectors considered here,kara is most clistinctfrom the English conjunctionbecause in its placement.Kara is placed at the end of a causal clause. This meansthat whether a kara-clause precedesor tbllows its main clause,the connector alwaysoccupiesa position different from Englishbecause.

FIGURE2:
Placement of kara vs. because

(m a i n c l a u s e ) (m a i n c l a u s e ) Because

kara.

The existenceof this exclusivelyclause-finalconnector in Japanese offers both advantages and disadvantages for achievinginteractionalends.A disadvantage is that it is not until the end of the adverbialclausethat the speakercan mark the cohesive tie or the logicalconnection to the main clause.In the contextof an initial speaker finding the need to extend a possiblycompleteturn, later placementof the logical

54

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

connectormeansthat the speakercannotdisplayhis or her stanceright at the moment when the interactional problem arises,that is, just after a delay or preface by the recipient.But this samelate placement of the connector alsooffersan advantage if the speakerwants to mitigate the force of his or her disagreement.Thus, the delayed placementof kara in its clausemakesit ideal for the presentation of weak or downgraded disagreement. This analysis also shedslight on another pattern found in our Japanese data. Final placement of a logical connector can facilitate collaboration between speaker and recipient. Severalcasesin our data involve final kara-clauses which are reinterpreted by next speakers. What starts out as a final causal clause delivered by one speaker is built upon by the next speaker and thus transformed into an initial modificationof a collaborative The tollowingexamplecontainsjust such extension. collaboration betweena speakerand recipient.

(18)

M:

De and

dakara so

saikaku wits

no Gen

oNna-no-ko wa aru have girls Tnp wake [yoo-to-shita intend

moo already

tenshoku o job-switching Acc

hajime start

"And so some shrewdgirls have started to changetheir job." E:

t
[U::n. ituun "Huun."

E:

Aru no? Kekkoo tenshclku tte? job-switchingQT exist O very-well "Are there manyjobs available?"
U::n. yeah Sono tomodachi that friend wa: koto Top

M:

kotoshi this-year

sanjuuni thirty

natta ko da became child Cop

kedo:, although

kanojo wa she Top

maa keiri well accounting iu say

no Gen

puro da professional Cop

kara:, because

[nan te what Qf

no

"Yea:h, that friend, she becamethirty this year, but well because she is a professional accountant, so what can I say" Y:

t
[Aa:

Causal ntarkers in Japanese and English conversations

55

oh

"oh."
E:
boki toka mo bacchiri Nanka something book-keeping like also perfect "She can do things like book-keepingperfectly." shite. do

M:

Un. Boki nan-kyuu ni-kyuu toka yeah b.k. what-grade second-srade like
da

motteru have no o ne FP

taipu type

shi,

dakara
SO

cop
de at wa Tup

nan te what QT ikeru no can-go

lu

say yo FP

sono michi that way

tabete eat

"Yeah.sheis a kind of personwho hasthingslike certification for bookkeepingability,what rate, secondrate, so what can I say,she can earn somebread in that area."

M'sturnat the tirst arrowwaspromptedby the E's previous question. Her answer, u::n (yea::h) with the lengthenedvowel indicatesher hesitationto clearly say "yes". She elaborates on her hesitationby giving information on her friend who might be an exception of her ability. This final kara-clause is turned into an initial causal because clause by E,who addsa main clauseshowingher understanding. Thus,a final kara clausenot only postpones the displayof stancebut can also create a sense of incompletion. The canonical order can then be exploitedas a clause recipient work with the addsanothermain clause, therebydoing further interactional same kara-clausels. In contrast with the clause-final connector kara,datte,like because, comesat the beginning of a causalclause.This offers the advantageof displayingthe speaker's just at the point of disagreement. attitude This immediacyhelpsthe speakerdisplay stronger disagreement than is displayedwith the use of clause-final kara. In addition to the benefitof early placement, datte also carriesan adversative meaning,whereas kara,in itselt,does not. Recall that there are caseswhere datte is more likely to be translated as but. In these cases,datte is still associatedwith justification of the speaker's position,but this justificationis now introducedwith the expectationof contrast with someprior claim.In fact,Japanese hasthe connector demo which has a
13 rhi, cotl.aborative u s e o f c a u s a I e x t e n s i o n s m e r i t s m o r e d e t a i t e d e x a m i n a t i o na s w e t I a s a thorough comparison Hith the finrCings of Lerner (1987, 1991). The cottaborative use of datte in J a p a n e sc eo n v e r s a t i o n i s d i s c u s s e d i n l t l o r i ( t o a p p e a r ) . l l e i n t e n d t o f o t t o w t h i s t i n e o f s t u d y a s o u r rork continues.

56

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Mori

simple adversative meaning,whereasdatte is probablybest interpretedas having both causal and adversative meaning Qto because). Thus datte by itself indicates with, disagreement, and its placement, immediately after the elementto be disagreed works in tandemwith its inherentadversative meaning.lo in the previous As discussed section,the work of datte in disagreeing turns is also exploredby Maynard ( 1992).She describesa function of datte appearing in clause-and/or turn-initial position as "declaringthe speechact of justifyingone's positionin an environmentof actual or suggested challenge(p.80)."However, she seesit as working to mitigate disagreement we have made about the and, as we have noted, this is not in line with observations shapesof turns associated with datte (see section3.2, abclve). in Now let us consider the structural as well as functionalpropertiesof because ol dalte and kara. The placement of becauseis relation to the previous discussion differentfrom kara in two distinct ways. in our database, Relativeto their main clauses, because-clauses are always placedfinally.lMhereas, data,kara is placed in our Japanese both initially (53Vo)and finally (41%)." In addition to the differencein placement relativeto main clauses, because is alsodistinctfrom kara in its positionin the clausal clauseproper. While because comesat the beginning of a causalclause, kara marks its patternshave consequences completion.Both thesedifferences in placement for the interactionalfunctions of because as comparedwith those of kara. Japanesespeakersare flexible in their interpretationof kara-clauses as either initial or final. Thus, what is, in the first place,deliveredas a final kara-clause can be transformed into an initial subordinate clause through a recipient's collaborative extension. The final placement of kara within the causalclauseitself also makessuch a causeamenableto reinterpretation. by a recipientas Thus, it can be reinterpreted a medial rather thanfinal connectorin a clausecomplex.,i.e. it can be changedinto a connectorbetweett a causalclauseand its main clause(now deliveredby the next speaker). In contrastto the flexibilityshownin the useof kara,hecause-clauses, in our postposed, data, are exclusively and neverreinterpreted a.s initial by next speakers. By appearingat the beginningof causalclauses, which tend to be quite long relativeto (Ford 1993),because other adverbial clzruses is less availablefor reuse than is the clause-finalkara. Our analysis, thus, showsstriking differencesbetweenbecauseand kara, both in structuraldistribution, frequencypatternsof clauseplacement,and in with thesepatternsof structureand use. interactionalfunctionsassociated Becouse is also distinctfrom the Japanese causalconnectordatle. While because and datte occupy the same location in a clause,they have different semanticand interactional interpretations.The English conjunctiondoes not carry the strong with its Japanese implication of disagreement associated counterpart.Unlike datte, which can be translated tto because, asbut or possibly Englishbecuuse doesnot in itself

14 l.torita (1980) discusses the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e nd a t t e and demo. 15 A, di..ursed in section 3.1, t h e f r e q u e n c yo f f i n a I p t a c e m e n t o f k a r a c t a u s e s i n J a p a n e s e i s s t i l .L q u i t e h i g h r e l a t i v e t o t e m p o r a t a n d c o n d i t i o n a l c t a u s e s , w h i c h a r e u s e d f i n a t t y o n l . y 9 % o f t h e t i m e i n t h e s a m ed a t a b a s e .

Causal ntarkers in Jnpanese and English conv'ersalions

57

express contrast or disagreement.l6 It is assumed, however, that there also exists a continuumof disagreementin English conversation.Pomerantz (1984a) explicitly mentions strongand weak shapesof dispreferredresponses, though that difference is not the primaryfocusof her study.To our knowledge, the management of the strength of disagreement in English is done not by the choice of connector but with other devices suchas timing of turn onset,stress, use of intensifiers, choice of evaluative language, directness of the disagreeing component, and, of course, non-verbal expressions. The following is an exampleof becattse in what we believe is a possible environment for the use of dafte in the expression of strongerdisagreement. (19)Because accounting for a dispref-erred response. of V's father'sknee Discussion o p e r at ion. ( V 116) V: C: C: V: So it's straight-it's- [it's- it's out like that now. [That'sama:zing. ls that what your mom thoughtwas unnecessary

[now? INo she: thinks that the whole thing'sunnecessary. Cause he- he's in so much pain, that it seemslike he's nevergoing to walk again.

(19), V's disagreement In example is not delayedbut is, in fact, overlappingwith C's question.Furthermore, the no is delivered directly, without mitigation, and is accompanied by intensiflcation (wlrcle,so, never)as well as emphaticstress(on thing's, so, and walk). Thus, while English does not seem to offer a connector with the equivalent adversative force of Japanese datte,Englishconversationalists can make use of timing,directness, intensifiers, and stress to achieve a similar type of strong 18. disagreementlT In sum, Japanesehas two different causal connectorswhich offer speakers options for displaying disagreement. The connectivedatte communicatesa different speaker attitude, i.e.,stronger disagreement, in additionto the logicalconnection which is expressed with kara alonete. On the other hand, English grammar, which has only
16 tuking t h e i s s u e o f e a r t y o r I a t e r p l a c e m e n ta t o g i c a t s t e p f u r t h e r , w e s p e c u t a t e t h a t d u e t o i t s i n i t i a I p t a c e m e n t , b e c a u s em a y b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t r o n g e r d i s a g n e e m e n tt h a n t h e f i n a t J a p a n e s e connector kara. 17 lnterestingty, Susanne G u n t h n e r( 1 9 9 3 ) h a s f o u n d s i m i t a r n o n - d e t a y e d ,u n m i t i g a t e d disagreemep na t tterns used by German s p e a k e r s i n a r g u m e n t a t i v ei n t e r c h a n g e s . r r D i s s e n tf o n m a t r r i s t h e [abe[ she offers for a pattern rhereby disagreeing turns are detivered in preferred turn shapes. 18 I t i , n o t c t e a r t o u s h o l t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e np e r s o n a l o p i n i o n a n d i n f o r m a t i o n g a p s i s c a p t u r e di n r e s p o n s e st o p a u s e s a n d p r e - d i s p r e f e r r e d m a r k e r s i n E n g t i s h c o n v e r s a t i o n s ( s e e d i s c u s s i o n of datte and kara above). 19 il.ynu.d (1992) ctaims t h a t t h e m e a n i n go f d i s c o u r s e c o n n e c t i v e s f a l . l . s o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f r e f e r e n t i a I s e m a n t i c s , b a s e d o n t h e a n a t y s i s o f J a p a n e s ec o n n e c t i v e s . S h e u s e s t h e t e r m r r D i s c o u r s e l,lodalityti t n a b r o a d s e n s e t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h i s e x p a n s eo f m e a n i n g .

58

Cecilia E. FordandJunko Moi

one slot for the causalconnector,does not offer the structural advantageassociated with kara,,which not only delaysthe presentation of logicalconnectionbut also invites We have also suggestedthat collaboration and negotiation towards alignment20. with datte. because does not have the inherent contrastivemeaningthat is associated

5. Conclusion in both in managingdisagreement Our findings regardingthe use of causalconnectors in that there are needsand constraints Japanese and English support the hypothesis human interaction that affect the shape of turns and the use of grammar in In addition, our data suggestthat cross-linguistic typologically distinct languages.2t differencesin the options for clausecombiningallow for different realizationsof turn shapes. The Japanese clause-final causal connector kara seems well-suited for while the clausepresentingmitigateddispreferredturns and for invitingcollaboration, initial causal connector datte is better suited for presenting strong disagreement. English, with the exclusiveoption of clause initial causal connection, offers other the strengthof disagreement.While "universal" devicesfor mitigatingand intensifying forces in human interaction clearly influence the use of grammar, typological and disadvantages in the achievementof certain differencesalso create advantages interactional functions. We look forward to examiningboth structural and cultural with a particularfocuson the role of nondifferencesin more detail in future research, responses in the promptingof one verbal communication and varieties of backchannel or another choice of turn format or grammaticalconnector.

Appendix: Symbols used in Japanese examples Acc Cop Cp Gen FP Neg Nom Tag Top O QT accusative case copula complementizer genetive case sentence-finalparticle negative morpheme nominative case tag-like expression topic marker question marker quotative marker

20 ln rngtish, so or thoushmaybe ptaced ctause-finatty in conversation. The placement of these connectors in turn-finaI position catts for attention in future str.rdies, 21 R"r"u.ch by Fox et at. ( 1 9 9 3 ) s u p p o r t s t h i s s a m eh y p o t h e s i s .

Causal ntorkers in Japanese and Engtish conversations Re[erences

59

Brown, Penelope and Stephcn C. Lrvinson (1978) Politeness: Sonte universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe,Wallace C. (1984) How people use adverbial clauses.Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkelet,Linguistics Sociery. 'normal' 'erroneous' Danielewicz, Jane and Wallace L. Chafe ( 1985)How speakingleadsto punctuating. In SarahWarshauer Freedman (ed.),The acquisition of witten language.Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.213-25.

Davidson, Judy (198a) Subsequentversions of invitations, offers, requests,and proposals dealing with potentialor actual rejection. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Stntcturesof social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti,Alcssandro(1988) Ethnography of speaking:toward a linguisticsof the praxis. ln Frederick A. Newmeyer (ed.), Lingtistics: The Canbidge survey - l/olunrc M Language: The socio-cultural context. Cambridgc: Cambridge University Prcss,210-228. Duranti,Alessandroad Elinor Ochs (1979) trft-dislocation in Italian conversation. In Talmy Giv6n, (ed.),Drscourse and sy-ntar. New York: Academic Press, 377-416. Ford,CeciliaE. (1992) Variation in the intonation and punctuation ofdifferent advcrbial clause types in spokenand written English. In Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Michael Noonan (erls.), The linguistics of literacy.Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-16. Ford, Ctcilia E. (1993) Grantnnr in interaction: Adverbial clnuses in Anteican English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ford,CeciliaA., and Sandra A. Thompson (1986) Conditionals in discourse:A text-basedstudy from English.In E. Traugott, C. Ferguson, J. Snitzer Reilly, and A. ter Meulen (eds.), On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridgc University Press. Ford, Cecilia A., and Sandra A. Thompson (ln press) Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grantntar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox,BarbaraA. (1987) Discoursestntcnlre and anaphora: Written and conversationalEnglislr. Cambridge: Cambridcc Universitv Press. Fox,Barbara, Makoto Hayashi and Robert Jasperson(Manuscript). Resources and repair: a crosslinguistic s t u d y o f l h c s y n t a c l i c organization of repair. Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Bouldcr. Fujii, Yoko (1992) The order and functions of adverbialclausesin Japanese spoken discourse.In Mejiro Linguistic Sociery,109-123.

Goffman, Erving(1955) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in socialinteraction.Prychiatry 18:213-31.

60

Cecilia E. Ford and Junko Moi

Goodwin, Charles (1979) The interactive construction of a sentencein natural conversation.In George Psathas (ed.), Ev'erydtrylanguage: Studies in ethnonrcthodolog. New York: Irvington, 97-121. Goodwin, Charles (1981) Con+,ersationalorganization. Interaction between speakers nnd hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, Charles, and John Heritage (1990) Conversation analysis.Annual Review of Anthropologt 19: 283-307. Gumperz, John J. (1982) Discourse srraftgies. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Gtinthner, Susanne (1993) "No. That's not right. I see it totally different"- Differences in contextualization conventions in German-Chinese argumentations. Paper presented at the 4th International Pragmatics Conference.July 25-30,1993, Kobe, Japan. Heritage, John (1984) Garfnkel and ethnontethodolop,. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kim, Kyu-hyun and Kyung-Hee Suh (To appear) An interactional account of nikka in Korean converstion. Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics. lrrner, Gene H. (1987) Collaborative turn sequences:sentence construction and social action. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

Lerner, Gene H. (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Languagein Society20: 441-458. lrvinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragntntics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linde, Charlotte, and William Labov (1975) Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51: 924-39. Matsumoto, Yo (1988) From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: history of some Japaneseconnectives.Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linpistics Sociery,340-351.

Maynard, Senko (1992) Speech act declaration in conversation:Functions of the Japancseconnective datte. Srudiesin Language 16(l):63-89. Maynard, Senko (1993) Kaiwa no hyoogen no taishoo: setsuzokuno hyoogen o megutte. [Contrastive analysis of conversational expressions:on the expressionof conjunctions.l In Kaiwa Bunseki (ed.), [Conversation Analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.

Mori, Junko (To appear) Functions of the connective datte in Japaneseconversation. InlapaneselKorean Lingusitics, Vol. 4. CSLI, Stanford University. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff,and SandraA. Thompson (eds) (In press)Interactionand Grantmar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Ryoko Suzuki (1992) Word or<lervariability in Japaneseconversation:Motivation and grammaticization. Tert 12: 429-445.

Causal nnrkers in lapanese and English conversations

61

Ono, Tsuyoshi,and Sandra A. Thompson (Manuscript) What can conversation tell us about syntax? Departmentof Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara. Pomerantz, Anita M. (1978) Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein(ed.), Sndies in the organization of conversationalinteraction. New York: Academic Press, '19-ttz. Pomerantz, Anita M. (1984a) Agreeing and disagreeingwith assessments. In J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John C. Heritage, (eds.), Structuresof Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-101. Pomerantz, Anita M. (1984b) Pursuing a response.In J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John C. Heritage, (eds.), Stntctures of social action. Cambridge: Cambriclge University Press, 152-163. Ramsay, Violcta (1987). The functional distribution of preposedand postposed "if' and "when" clauses in written narrative. In R.S. Tomlin (ed.). Coherenceand grounding in discourse.Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sacks, Harvey(1987) On the preferencefor agreementand contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Graham Button, and John R.E. Lre (eds.), Talk and social organisation Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Sacks,Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.Language 50(4): 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972) Sequencingin conversationalopenings.In J.J. Gumperz and D.H. Hymes (eds.),Direclions in sociolinguistics.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 346-380. SchegloflEmanuel A. 1(982) Discourse as an interactional achievement:some uses of 'uh huh' and other things that come between sentences.In Deborah Tannen (ed.),Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press,71-93. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.Language 53:361-82. Schegloff. Emanuel A.. and Harvey Sacks (1973) Opening up closings.SenioticaT(4):289-327. Schiffrin, Deborah (1985) Multiple constraints on discourseoptions: A quantitative analysisof causal sequences. DiscourseProcesses 8: 281-303. Schiffrin, Deborah (1988) Conversation analysis.In Frederick Newmeyer (ed.),The Cambridge Sun,ey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss,251-276. Simon,M. E. (1989) An analysis of the postposing construction in Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Univcrsity of Michigan. Taylor,Talbot J., and Deborah Cameron (1987) Analysing conversa(ion Oxford: Pergamon Press.