1i c3yajh qgmk

Negotiating Moves:Problem Presentation and Resolution inJapanese Business Discourse

Related Elsevier Books

CUTTING Analysing the Language of Discourse Communities

GHAURI (ed.) International Business Negotiations

JASZCZOLT (ed.) Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions: Semantic Defaultsand Propositional Attitude Ascription

KAMP & PARTEE (eds.) Context-Dependence in the Analysis of LinguisticMeaning

MOROSINI (ed.) Managing Cultural Differences

SAKITA Reporting Discourse, Tense and Cognition

Related Elsevier Book Series

Current Research in the Semantics Pragmatics Interface (CRiSPI)Series editors: K.M. Jaszczolt and K.Turner

International Business and Management SeriesSeries editors: P. Ghauri

Related Elsevier Journals

Journal of PragmaticsEditor. Jacob Mey

Language & CommunicationEditors: Roy Harris and Talbot J. Taylor

LinguaEditors: Johan Rooryck, Diane Blakemore and Neil Smith

Journal of International ManagementEditor: Masaaki Kotabe

On-line journal sample copies and book sample chapters (where available) atwww.SocSciNet.com/linauistics

Nettcri

Access to more than 60 million free journal abstracts in addition to full-text articlesavailable at www.ScienceDirect.com

—•#SCIENCE (CD DIRECT

Negotiating Moves:Problem Presentation and Resolution inJapanese Business Discourse

BY

Lindsay Amthor YotsukuraCollege of Arts and Humanities, University of Maryland, USA

2003ELSEVIER

Amsterdam - Boston - London - New York - Oxford - Paris - San DiegoSan Francisco - Singapore - Tokyo

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LtdThe Boulevard, Langford LaneKidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK

© 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

This work is protected under copyright by Elsevier Science, and the following terms and conditions apply to its use:

PhotocopyingSingle photocopies of single chapters may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. Permission ofthe Publisher and payment of a fee is required for all other photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying,copying for advertising or promotional purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. Special rates are available foreducational institutions that wish to make photocopies for non-profit educational classroom use.

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone:(+44) 1865 843830, fax: (+44) 1865 853333, e-mail: [email protected]. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier Science homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting 'Customer Support' and then 'ObtainingPermissions'.

In the USA, users may clear permissions and make payments through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 RosewoodDrive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; phone: (+1) (978) 7508400, fax: (+1) (978) 7504744, and in the UK through theCopyright Licensing Agency Rapid Clearance Service (CLARCS), 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P OLP, UK;phone: (+44) 207 631 5555; fax: (+44) 207 631 5500. Other countries may have a local reprographic rights agency forpayments.

Derivative WorksTables of contents may be reproduced for internal circulation, but permission of Elsevier Science is required for externalresale or distribution of such material.Permission of the Publisher is required for all other derivative works, including compilations and translations.

Electronic Storage or UsagePermission of the Publisher is required to store or use electronically any material contained in this work, including anychapter or part of a chapter.

Except as outlined above, no part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any formor by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of thePublisher.Address permissions requests to: Elsevier's Science & Technology Rights Department, at the phone, fax and e-mailaddresses noted above.

NoticeNo responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of productsliability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained inthe material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnosesand drug dosages should be made.

First edition 2003

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataA catalog record from the Library of Congress has been applied for.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record from the British Library has been applied for.

ISBN: 0-08-044165-3

© The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).Printed in The Netherlands.

"Chapter 3, section 3.5, is a modified version of "Topic initiation in Japanese business telephone conversations," whichfirst appeared in Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12 edited by William McCure, © 2003 by CSLI Publications. This modifiedversion of the paper is printed with permission from CSLI Publications. © 2003 by CSLI Publications, StanfordUniversity, Stanford,CA 94305-4115."

For Vince

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments xiii

Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations xvii

List of Figures xxi

1. Introduction1.1 Objectives 1

1.2 Related linguistic studies on Japanese business discourse and negotiation 4

1.2.1. Studies on Japanese business discourse 41.2.2. Linguistic studies on negotiation 5

1.2.3. Studies on negotiating moves in Japanese 6

1.3. Motivation for the study 7

1.3.1. The importance of role relationships 8

1.3.2. The importance of genre 10

1.3.3. Initial aims of the investigation 12

1.4. Identifying and describing a genre:

Japanese business transactional telephone conversations 12

1.4.1. Sample conversation from Kanto 13

1.4.2. Sample conversation from Kansai 231.5. Bakhtin and the notion of speech genres 331.6. Focal exchange: Problem presentation and resolution 36

1.6.1. The maeoki as a prefatory move in presenting problems 37

1.6.2. Working definition of offers 371.6.3. Moves adopted by service providers to offer assistance 38

1.7. Specific goals of the study 48

1.8. Overview of subsequent chapters 5 0

2. Data and Methodology2.1. Introduction 532.2. Recent methods for data elicitation 542.3. Rationale for an ethnomethodological approach 57

2.3.1. Tape-recorded versus hypothetical or recalled data 58

2.3.2. The importance of telephone conversations 59

2.4. Data collection methods for this study 60

2.5. Description of the JBC corpus 61

2.6. The genre of Japanese business transactional telephone conversations 63

2.6.1. Defining genre according to Bakhtin (1986) 63

viii Contents

2.6.2. Other definitions of genre 652.6.3. Genre, register, and style 68

2.7. Relevant findings from Conversation Analysis 742.7.1. Adjacency pairs 752.7.2. Preference organization 802.7.3. CA studies in Japanese 84

2.8. Previous studies on offers in Japanese 842.8.1. Fukushima and Iwata( 1987) 842.8.2. Matoba(1989a,b) 87

2.9. Concluding remarks 89

3. The Structure of Japanese Business Transactional Telephone Conversations3.1. Introduction 953.2. Business transactional calls vs. service encounters 963.3. Overall structure and identifying register features 97

3.3.1. Overview of JBC structure 983.3.2. Register features of JBCs 993.3.3. Recipient design and the addressivity of the utterance 102

3.4. Call openings 1043.4.1. Self-identification by both parties 106

3.4.1.1. Self-identification in response to outside calls 1063.4.1.2. Self-identification in response to in-house calls 1083.4.1.3. Opening greeting vs. personal greetings 1093.4.1.4. The use of most mosi 1103.4.1.5. Confirmation of recipient's self-identification 1113.4.1.6. Self-identification by caller 112

3.4.2. Business salutations 1153.4.2.1. Inter-organizational salutations 1153.4.2.2. In-house salutations 121

3.4.3. Personal greetings 1223.4.4. Summary: "Routine" call openings in JBCs 1243.4.5. Switchboard requests 124

3.4.5.1. Linguistic forms used for switchboard requests 1273.4.5.2. Pre-empting the canonical sequential organization 1303.4.5.3. Three scenarios in responding to switchboard requests 1313.4.5.4. Indicating that someone is not available 1343.4.5.5. Offer by the caller to call back 1363.4.5.6. Offer by the call recipient to have someone call back 1383.4.5.7. Resuming a call after a completed switchboard request 140

3.5. Transition section 1413.5.1. First-topic initiation and the maeoki 1413.5.2. Possible elements of a maeoki 142

3.5.2.1. General maeoki inquiries 145

Contents ix

3.5.2.2. More specific maeoki between non-acquaintances 1463.5.2.3. More specific maeoki in follow-up calls 1473.5.2.4. More specific maeoki between regular business contacts 1483.5.2.5. Maeoki as "formulations of place" or person 151

3.5.3. Maeoki variation according to role relationships 1533.5.4. Illustration of Extended Predicate (EP) usage in Kansai

problem report maeoki 1543.6. Matter(s) for business discussion 1563.7. Pre-closing devices 156

3.7.1. Making a pre-closing bid without explicit referenceto the prior discourse 156

3.7.2. Using l-masu no del as a pre-closing device 1583.8. Discussion of other issues or transactions 1593.9. Closings 162

3.9.1. Reiterating agreed-upon matters 1633.9.2. Promising future contact 1643.9.3. Requesting or providing identification details 1653.9.4. Terminal exchange 167

3.10. Concluding remarks 168

4. Types of Japanese Business Transactional Telephone Calls4.1. Introduction 1734.2. General toiawase inquiries 1734.3. Merchandise orders 1804.4. Shipping confirmations 1884.5. Problem reports 1994.6. Concluding remarks 200

5. Problem Presentation and Resolution inJapanese Business Transactional Calls

5.1. Introduction 2035.2. Problem presentation and resolution in JBCs: Two examples 204

5.2.1. Reporting that a package did not arrive, without actually saying so 2045.2.2. Reporting an incomplete merchandise delivery 2135.2.3. Comparing the two calls 224

5.3. Interactional asynchrony in JBCs 2265.3.1. Reporting an incomplete shipment: The Hahaha no hanasi call 2285.3.2. Reporting an incomplete delivery: The Master Electric call 230

5.4. Problem reports in English 2305.4.1. Reporting a missed delivery 2305.4.2. Reporting telephone billing problems 2345.4.3. Reporting problematic merchandise or shipments 2365.4.4. Additional telephone billing problem examples 237

x Contents

5.5. Problem reporting sequences in English vs. Japanese service encounters 2385.5.1. Relational vs. task goals in accounts 2385.5.2. Opening sequences in English calls to service institutions 2395.5.3. Problem reports by Japanese customers to service institutions 2405.5.4. Example of a "reduced" opening in a call by a Japanese customer 243

5.6. Interactional asynchrony in English:Service recipients' accounts vs. service providers' formulations 245

5.7 Problem resolution in English vs. Japanese 2465.7.1. Using formulations to achieve goal synchrony in English 2465.7.2. Using formulations to achieve goal synchrony in Japanese 247

5.7.2.1. Using the EP (no desu) to create a "common ground" 2475.7.2.2. The role of/-masyoo ka?l in formulating

service recipients' preferences 2495.7.2.3. The role of/-masu n(o) del in formulating

service providers' intentions 2505.8. Concluding remarks 250

6. Cultural and Sociolinguistic Considerations6.1. Introduction 2556.2. Metalanguage regarding communication in Japanese 255

6.2.1. Kiandsassi 2556.2.2. Omoiyariand kikubari 2576.2.3. Ma 2626.2.4. Enryo-sassi communication 263

6.3. Ellipsis and uti/soto deixis 2646.4. Japan as a high context culture 2666.5. Concluding remarks 272

7. Conclusions7.1. Strategies for reporting problems 2757.2. The function and distribution of moves toward problem resolution 2797.3. Role relationships, genre, and cultural norms 2817.4. Putting genres to use 2837.5. Areas for future research 285

AppendixesAppendix 1 Participating subjects at the Kanto and Kansai sites 287Appendix 2 Transcript of TB #lA-44: Reporting an incomplete shipment 289Appendix 3 Transcript of KI #9-1: Requesting information 299Appendix 4 Transcript of TB #16-22: Inquiring about book availability 307Appendix 5 Transcript of TB #1B-13: Ordering merchandise 311Appendix 6 Transcript of KI # 1 A-11: Confirming a delivery 315

Contents xi

Appendix 7 Transcript of KI #3B-11: Reporting a missed delivery 325Appendix 8 Transcript of KI #16-6: Reporting an incomplete delivery 331

References 339

Author Index 359

Subject Index 363


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the process of researching, writing, and editing this book, I have become deeply indebted tomany colleagues, friends and family members. Their advice, support and kindness has buoyedme through many a rough patch on the road to publishing what originally began as my dissertation.The project would also never have been possible without the generous cooperation of nearly20 Japanese informants in the greater Tokyo and Osaka areas who agreed to have their incomingand outgoing telephone calls recorded over a period of several months in 1994 and 1995. It ishoped that the description presented on these pages is an accurate reflection of their "talk atwork," which may serve as a useful reference for linguists, educators, learners, and businessprofessionals interested in the topic of Japanese business discourse.

My dissertation advisors at The Ohio State University have had a significant impact on theperspectives I have adopted here with respect to the analysis of conversational interaction.Through many enlightening discussions, Charles Quinn helped me to better understand theways in which the notion of genre might be used both as a theoretical framework and as anheuristic for understanding how individuals in a particular speech community perform thevarious tasks of their everyday lives. He also provided innumerable comments on several draftsof the thesis which I have incorporated in the book as well. Mari Noda shared her invaluablelinguistic expertise as to the situated use of the Japanese language, and helped to refine myunderstanding of the function of the extended predicate (no desu) construction. She also kindlyhelped to arrange for my affiliation with Keisuke Maruyama at Doshisha Women's Universityin Japan during my fieldwork there in 1994-95. Mike Geis introduced me to speech act theory,conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, and made insightful comments and criticisms on apaper which later became the foundation for several articles and, ultimately, this book.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Yoshiko Matsumoto, who piqued my interest inpragmatics through a course she taught at Ohio State in the fall of 1989, and guided me in thepractice of transcription when I served as her graduate assistant. Since her departure for Stanford,she has continued to encourage me in my research over the years, and I gratefully acknowledgeher support.

Thanks to the generous financial assistance of the Japan-United States Educational Commission(JUSEC), I was able to spend 17 months in Japan collecting data and conducting relatedresearch as a Fulbright Graduate Research Fellow. During that time, I benefited greatly from theguidance of Keisuke Maruyama at Doshisha Women's University, who served as my primarysupervisor. His assistance was instrumental in making the arrangements for data collection atnumerous locations in Kansai and Kanto, and enabled me to assemble a corpus of data which Iwill no doubt draw upon for many years to come. The many kindnesses he and his family

xiv Acknowledgments

extended to me and my husband also deeply enriched our stay in Japan. During my visits toTokyo, Yoshikazu Kawaguchi at Waseda University shared his boundless energy and dedicationto the craft of teaching, and gave unstintingly of his time and advice. He also helped me tosecure permission for recording at one additional site. The staff of the JUSEC office also helpedin countless ways with the arrangements for my residence and research, and I wish to expressmy thanks in particular to Samuel Shepherd and Mizuho Iwata.

This project has also been funded by two grants from the General Research Board of theUniversity of Maryland, College Park. The first grant supported the digitization and additionalanalysis of my tape-recorded data in the summer of 2000, and the other provided a booksubvention for publication by Elsevier Science. The School of Languages, Literatures and Culturesand the Department of Asian and East European Languages and Cultures also granted me aresearch leave in the fall of 2002. Without these gifts of funding and time, the book would neverhave come to fruition.

My colleagues in the Japanese program have graciously shouldered the burden of extra teachingand administrative responsibilities during my absence for the research leave, and during mymaternity leave in 2000 as well. In particular, I wish to thank Gretchen Jones, who kindlyagreed to become undergraduate advisor shortly after her arrival on campus, and to Bob Ramsey,who took the job on after Gretchen. Eleanor Kerkham became advisor for the new Citationprogram which Gretchen proposed, and no doubt also took on committee responsibilities thatwould otherwise have fallen on my shoulders. Many thanks also go to Eiko Miura, TomokoSano, Kazuo Yaginuma, Shinobu Anzai and Etsuko Yamakita, who developed a comprehensivelanguage placement examination and managed course scheduling arrangements during my absence.

I am also grateful for the intellectual support of my colleagues in the new Second LanguageAcquisition and Application program at the University of Maryland. My discussions with BobRamsey, Roberta Lavine, Cindy Martin, Kira Gor, Mel Scullen, Alene Moyer, Teresa CabalKrastel, Manel Lacorte, and Brett Wells have been a source of much inspiration.

A few current and former University of Maryland students have played instrumental roles inthe compilation of this book. Mieko Kawai has spent literally hundreds of hours transcribingthe data and providing useful comments on participant behavior in the process. Kaori Nakamurahas assisted with transcription as well, and has conducted a range of searches on the data usingconcordance software. Ji Oh, Ann Damon, and Mengji Hsieh also made significant contributionsin the form of bibliographical searches and the photocopying of numerous articles for reference.

Several anonymous reviewers also provided helpful comments on drafts of recent publicationsas well as my book proposal to Elsevier Science, and I wish to thank them for their time andadvice. Portions of chapters 1, 3 and 5 are based on three articles I have published and severalconference papers, although much of the material has since been extensively rewritten andrearranged. The first publication appeared as "Bakhtin's speech genres in a Japanese context:Business transactional telephone calls," in Bakhtinian Theory in Japanese Studies (J. Johnson, ed.,Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), and the second as "Reporting problems and offering assistance in

Acknowledgments xv

Japanese business telephone conversations," in Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity ofConversational Structure across Languages and Cultures (K. K. Luke and T. Pavlidou, eds.,John Benjamins, 2002). Section 3.5. of chapter 3 is a modified version of material published as"Topic initiation in Japanese business telephone conversations," in Japanese/Korean LinguisticsVol. 12 (CSLI Publications, 2003). I am grateful to The Edwin Mellen Press, John Benjamins,and CSLI for kindly allowing me to use this material in the book.

Comments and suggestions I have received during conference presentations have also helped toshape the book, and I would like to acknowledge in particular those from Susan Ervin-Tripp,Shigeru Miyagawa, Noriko Watanabe, Eleanor Olds Batchelder, Allan Bird, Jill Kleinberg, JeanRenshaw, and Herm Smith. Discussions with Mieko Kawai, Shizuka Lauwereyns, K.K. Luke,Kaori Nakamura, Yuko Okutsu, Yong Yae Park, Soula Pavlidou, Tomoko Sano, and KathyWinsted have also provided illuminating ideas throughout my research. Any errors or omissionsthat remain are of course my responsibility.

The actual production of this book has proven to be quite a challenge, due to many technicalmishaps along the way. I am grateful to John McGhie and Clive Huggan for assistance withMicrosoft Word, and to Mark Hurvitz for help with NisusWriter, which is the program Iultimately adopted for word processing. Jimmy McColery at ISI ResearchSoft also assistedwith questions I had in regard to the use of EndNote bibliographical software. At Elsevier,Sarah Dates and Julie Neden have patiently responded to countless questions I had regardingformatting and style requirements, and have been extremely understanding as I have worked tocomplete the manuscript for publication.

Without the unflagging support of my friends and family, I would probably have abandonedthis project long ago. Deb Simmer, Dolores Ford, Meg Whitlock Clark, and Linda Lebron havecome to the rescue on many a trying day. My father and stepmother, Carl and Jackie Amthor,together with my brother Geoff and his wife Emily, have provided constant love, good cheerand moral support. My husband Vince, who has been at my side every step of the way since Iembarked on this journey, has helped me to navigate occasional rough seas and keep things inperspective. Together, we have shared in the delight of our two-year-old twins Ken and Sumie,whose bright smiles and exuberance for life have made every day a true blessing.


TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS ANDABBREVIATIONS

Excerpts from the data corpus presented in this book have been romanized according to thesystem adopted in Jorden and Noda (1987), with these exceptions: (a) accent is not marked; (b)no macron appears above syllabic n and nasalized g; (c) in cases in which a slight rise in pitchfollows the question particle ka (as opposed to falling intonation), this is indicated with aquestion mark, rather than the usual check mark or "rising hook"; and (d) a regular questionmark has been used following the sentence particle ne when it is uttered with rising intonation,rather than the reversed question mark.

Other Japanese words and phrases appearing within the English text, including those in quotationsfrom other sources, have also been romanized in this fashion. However, the Hepburn systemhas been adopted for the proper names of Japanese people and places in the English text, aswell as for the presentation of Japanese reference materials cited in the bibliography, with onesignificant change due to typographical limitations: long vowels in reference titles are writtenout rather than being indicated indicated with a macron.

Each romanized example from the data corpus is accompanied by both a word-for-word, literalgloss as well as an English translation. In the latter, an attempt was made to remain as faithfulas possible to the Japanese while still maintaining a natural English translation. Brackets in theEnglish translations indicate material that would sound odd or be omitted in English, whileparentheses indicate material that would sound odd or be omitted in Japanese but is necessaryfor a smooth English translation.

The abbreviations used for grammatical and stylistic information in the word-for-word-glosseswere for the most part adapted from Noda (1990) and Bachnik and Quinn (1994); these aresummarized on pages xix-xx. In both the text and the transcripts, reference is often made to"distal-" vs. "direct-" style. "Distal-" style, often referred to in the literature as "desul-masuform" or "formal style," is a term used in Jorden with Noda (1987) to indicate a style of speechadopted by conversationalists who maintain a degree of linguistic distance and display a degreeof deference and solicitude toward their addressees, such as colleagues or acquaintances, and/ortoward the topic of discussion. Distal-style is contrasted with "direct-" style, which refers to avariety of speech usually adopted by conversationalists in more informal contexts, toward closefriends or intimates. The use of these styles is not necessarily reciprocal; for example, asuperior may address a subordinate using direct-style, but the subordinate would probablyadopt distal-style in response. Since the majority of the utterances presented in this book are indistal-style, only utterances which end in direct-style will be marked with the symbol "->" todistinguish them from the distal examples.

xviii Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations

Other transcription notation I have used is adapted from that of Atkinson and Heritage (1984).This includes the use of":" to indicate lengthening of a vowel or consonant; "(hhh)" to mark anaudible aspiration of breath, "'hhh" to indicate audible inhalation, and "//" to show the point atwhich the following utterance by a different speaker begins to overlap with that of the presentspeaker. "Latching," or utterances which run together with no gap in-between, are indicated byan "=" sign at the end of the first utterance and again at the beginning of the next. Timedpauses of 0.3 seconds or longer are indicated in parentheses. English syllables which weregiven additional emphasis or stress by a speaker are underlined. Japanese mora and Englishsyllables which were of a higher pitch or loudness appear in CAPS. A summary of these andother transcription symbols appears on page xx.

Despite repeated reviews of the data, which was originally in audiotaped form and has subsequentlybeen digitized, some portions of talk remained incomprehensible or unclear to the investigatorand native informants who assisted in the transcription process. These sections of the data areindicated with the mark "XX."

In the discussions of the data throughout the book, the forms "s/he" and "his/her" have beenadopted to avoid sexist usage. For cases in which repeated usage of this sort would have beentoo cumbersome, one or the other form is used alone. In order to protect the privacy of theindividuals who participated in this study, personal and company names, telephone numbers,addresses, and invoice numbers for shipments mentioned in the transcripts have been changed.

Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations xix

TRANSCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ACKITB

ACK

ATF

BC

CAU

CN

CND

CNS

COP

CP

DES

EP

FS

GER

GL

HES

IMP

INF

INST

IPF

ITJ

KS

LOG

NEC

NOM

OBJ

PAS

PF

POT

PRV

Q

QT

SP

SUB

TENT

TOP

Answerer (A2 is used after a transfer to a second person)CallerKansai ImportsTokyo Bookstore

acknowledgmentattention focuser (e.g., ne! or ne? in maeoki utterances)back-channelcausativeconnective particleconditionalconsultativecopulaclause particledesiderativeextended predicate, or n(o) desufalse startgerundgoal particlehesitation noise (e.g., ano or eeto)imperativeverbal infinitive (stem)instrumental particleimperfectiveinterjectionKansai dialectlocative particlenegativenominalizer noobject particlepassiveperfectivepotentialprovisionalquestion particlequotative particlesentence-final particlesubject particletentativetopic particleneutral-polite style (e.g., gozaimasu)

xx Transcription Conventions and Abbreviations

•1s Honorific-polite style (e.g., irassyaimasu)

4-1 Humble-polite style (e.g., itadakimasu)

-> Direct-style (e.g., iku), when in an utterance final position(The same symbol is also used before line numbers ofdata that are the focal point of discussion in the text)

[ ] Brackets surround Japanese material that would soundodd or be omitted in English.

(()) Double parentheses surround comments supplementingthe transcript, e.g., ((laughs)).

( ) In English glosses, indicates material that would soundodd or be omitted in Japanese. Within Japanese phrases,indicates optional material, e.g., (itumo) osewa ninatt(e)-(ori)masu.

? Rising intonation, as in "Ano ne?", "Ikimasu ka?"

Falling intonation, as in "Soo datta no yo."

! Sharp falling intonation, as in "Kyoo wa konaiyo neT

: Lengthening of the previous vowel or consonant sound.When used after the utterance-final morasw, this indicatesthat the vowel is not whispered, but rather is given fullvoicing (e.g., desu:).

(hhh) Audible aspiration

' hhh Audible inhalation

(0.3) Timed pause (here, of 0.3 seconds)

= Latched utterances

// Next utterance begins to overlap with current utterance atthis point

' Contracted expression

# Pragmatically incorrect utterance

* Ungrammatical utterance

— Abrubt cutoff of current utterance

Indicates stress or emphasis, as in Hello

CAPS Indicates louder or higher pitch, as in HeLLO

XX Portion of talk that was incomprehensible or unclear

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Figure 1 Overall sequential organization of Japanesebusiness transactional telephone conversations 100

Figure 2 Register features of Japanesebusiness transactional telephone conversations 101

Figure 3 Overall maeoki structure: (Possible elements and approximate order) 144

Figure 4 Illustration of extended predicate (EP) usagein Kansai problem report maeoki 155


INTRODUCTION

1.1. OBJECTIVES

Numerous studies that have examined conflict in United States-Japan relations point to awealth of cultural differences as potential causes. But these accounts rely heavily on anecdotalevidence to make their claims. This book aims to redress that imbalance. It will provide acrucial empirical foundation for a deeper understanding of Japanese negotiation strategiesthrough the presentation and analysis of negotiating moves actually used by native Japanesespeakers to report and resolve problems in authentic business transactions on the telephone. Italso offers a new analytical framework that goes beyond conversation analysis, and that may beapplied not only to Japanese telephone calls, but also to calls in other languages.

In the field of conversation analysis (CA), English telephone conversations have been theobject of much investigation as researchers have sought to uncover and describe fundamentalrules of turn-taking, overall conversational organization, and ways in which participantssequentially co-construct the roles they adopt within a given conversation (Sacks et aL, 1974;Schegloff, 1988b, 1990, 1995). While many of the initial studies focused on the opening andclosing segments of telephone calls (Schegloff, 1972b, 1979; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973;Clark and French, 1981), more recent work has examined the body of conversations in order toanalyze participants' negotiation of communicative problems such as "troubles talk" and the"delivery of bad news" (Jefferson, 1988; Jefferson and Lee, 1981, 1992; Maynard, 1992).Research on Japanese telephone conversations has generally followed the lead and direction ofthe English research, although most studies to date have been limited to analyses of openingsand closings (Okamoto, 1990, 1991; Kumatoridani, 1992; Yoshino, 1994; Okamoto andYoshino, 1995). There are a few notable exceptions to this trend, such as the substantial workby Szatrowski on invitations (Szatrowski, 1986a, b, 1987a, b, 1992a) and sales conversations(Szatrowski, 1992b), and Tanaka's (1999) study on turn-taking.

1

2 Negotiating Moves

In much of the English CA literature, analysts have sought to develop an account of thesequential organization of turn-taking which is presumably "context-free" and independent ofcultural and situational factors.1 Researchers have also taken the position that there are certainunderlying commonalities to all telephone conversations, such as the need for identification ofparticipants, which are fundamentally linked to the overall structural organization of telephoneconversational practice. In the process of developing these insights, CA analysts have explicitlyeschewed the use of theory when examining conversational data, arguing that it may undulyprejudice the analyst's perspective and lead to unnecessarily "restricted theoretical agendas"(Heritage, 1995; see also Levinson, 1983; Hopper, 1989). Instead, the field has developed whatHeritage calls "a less concise, but more multivalent and multidimensional, perspective on thetask of conceptualizing conversational action" (Heritage, 1995:397).

Yet it can be argued that there is much to be gained by examining telephone conversations inparticular contexts in order to provide a maximally informed, "thick description" (Geertz, 1973)of the ways in which conversational practice might reflect, or at least be consonant with,indigenous cultural beliefs and participant roles. Indeed, research on telephone calls in a varietyof languages other than English suggests that although these calls may share the same basicoverall structure, they also demonstrate a certain degree of cultural or linguistic variation(Godard, 1977; Sifianou, 1989; Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Pavlidou, 1994, 1998; Luke andPavlidou, 2002). Moreover, it is possible that certain theoretical applications may reveal additionalinsights that are useful for the understanding of participant behavior in telephone conversationsin different cultures.

This book will therefore depart from CA tradition by adopting Bakhtin's (1986) notion ofspeech genres as an heuristic in order to analyze a variety of telephone conversations whichexhibit certain commonalities of compositional structure, style and thematic content. Samplesof naturally occurring, unscripted telephone conversations from a corpus of over 540 callsrecorded with permission at two commercial locations in the greater Tokyo and Osaka areas ofJapan will be presented and discussed in order to highlight the rhetorical strategies whichnative Japanese speakers who are experienced in a particular genre of negotiation use toeffectively convey their intentions and achieve their business goals. These "negotiating moves"illustrate how participants shift from self-identifications and greetings into the actual issue(s) tobe negotiated; what discourse strategies and linguistic forms they use in order to presentproblems, and how they propose and negotiate solutions. Once they have reached a solution,one of the participants may make a "pre-closing" bid (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). If the otherspeaker accepts this bid, thereby agreeing that no further topic is to be discussed, the participantsmove into a closing section, which in business contexts usually includes a reiteration of anyagreed-upon solutions and/or promises for future contact, as well as a leave-taking exchange. Ifthe pre-closing bid is not accepted, however, perhaps because there is another, sometimesrelated topic that one of the speakers wishes to propose, the participants will collaborativelynegotiate a shift into this and perhaps yet other topics, until both parties agree that they haveconcluded their discussions, and move toward closing down the conversation.

Introduction 3

Contrary to the "direct plan" approach said to be advocated by American businessmen(Victor, 1992; see also Graham and Herberger, 1983; Graham, 1985, 1990, 1993; Halmari,1993), the Japanese speakers in this corpus usually adopt a more indirect style as they initiatethe first topic for discussion. Most speakers avoid explicit reference to problems at the outset,and instead move from general to specific terms. To the degree possible, speakers also withholddirect requests for resolution of those problems, with the expectation that the empathic listenerwill attend to the details being presented and propose a solution without being prompted to do

But conflict can and does arise even among native speakers because co-participants do notalways share an equal familiarity with the negotiating moves for a particular kind of transaction.As a result, misalignments develop in which listeners misperceive callers' intentions. This inturn forces callers to be more direct than is perhaps culturally appropriate—a move whichthreatens the face of both parties to the negotiation. As our analysis of these calls will reveal,resolution of these conflicts can depend upon the listener's ability to "read" and act upon theseincreasingly explicit cues before the situation escalates to the point of impasse.

Throughout the discussions of these interactions, background information regarding the degreeof familiarity among participants, points of shared knowledge, and other situational factors willbe included in order to demonstrate that context should indeed be taken into account whenanalyzing this type of data. Particularly in Japan, where group affiliation, degree of familiaritybetween participants, differences in status, and other factors are often manifested linguistically,such an analysis is essential.

In this respect, Bakhtin's notion of speech genres is especially suitable for our purposes:

We choose words according to their generic specifications. Aspeech genre is not a form of language, but a typical form ofutterance....In the genre the word acquires a particular typicalexpression. Genres correspond to typical situations of speechcommunications, typical themes, and, consequently, also toparticular contacts between the meanings of words and actualconcrete reality under certain typical circumstances.(Bakhtin, 1986:87)

That is, to Bakhtin, this "actual concrete reality" includes the addressees for whom our utterancesare intended. The concept of "addressivity" is central to Bakhtin's definition of the utterance inparticular and of speech genres more generally. He notes,

Both the composition and, particularly, the style of the utterancedepend on those to whom the utterance is addressed, how thespeaker (or writer) senses and imagines his addressees, and theforce of their effect on the utterance. Each speech genre in eacharea of speech communication has its own typical conception ofthe addressee, and this defines it as a genre. (Bakhtin, 1986:95)

4 Negotiating Moves

Bakhtin's perspective is therefore one which examines speech as it is situated in the particularitiesof a given context; to borrow a phrase from Bachnik and Quinn (1994), it is concerned with"situated meaning." As such, it is well suited to the Japanese context.

1.2. RELATED LINGUISTIC STUDIES ON JAPANESEBUSINESS DISCOURSE AND NEGOTIATION

In the sections below, I present and briefly discuss several recent works which treat subjectsgermane to this investigation, namely studies on Japanese business discourse, linguistic analysesof negotiation, and studies of other types of "negotiating moves" in Japanese. Some of theways in which these studies differ from my own, particularly in terms of their methodologicalapproaches, will be highlighted in the process so as to situate the book in the relevant literature.

1.2.1. Studies on Japanese business discourse

Aside from Haru Yamada's (1992) study of Japanese face-to-face business meetings, Tanaka's(1999) analysis of turn-taking in mostly informal Japanese business interactions, andSzatrowski's(1992b) article on the structure of invitations in Japanese sales discourse, thereare few studies which examine Japanese business discourse in any detail. Yamada (1992)compares American and Japanese interactional styles in face-to-face, intra-cultural encounters.Using a theoretical model called "cross-talk," she examines differing expectations amongAmericans vs. Japanese prior to business meetings, topic-management strategies used byparticipants during those meetings, and quantitative comparisons of turn and back-channeldistribution. The primary data consist of two inter-cultural meetings between American andJapanese bank officers, the first conducted in English, and the other in Japanese. A second setof two meetings is used for what Yamada refers to as "back-up" data; both of these meetingswere conducted in English and are inter-cultural in nature.

This book differs from Yamada's in that it does not take a fully comparative perspective(although in chapter 5 a few examples in English are presented in order to suggest that Americansmay adopt differing strategies from their Japanese counterparts when presenting problems onthe telephone). Instead, Japanese discourse is examined at a much finer level of detail, andfindings are based on a much broader database of over 50 hours of conversation.

Tanaka (1999) looks at turn-taking mechanisms in Japanese in an attempt to compare andcontrast conversationalists' behavior in that language with the findings reported on English inSacks et al.'s (1974) seminal paper, as well as in Ford and Thompson's (1996) study ofsyntactic, interactional and pragmatic completion points in English. The latter study sought togo beyond Sacks et al. 's syntactically based notion of transition relevance places (TRPs) inorder to also examine the role of intonation and interaction at these junctures, proposing thatparticipants orient to so-called "complex transition-relevance places" (CTRPs). Following Fordand Thompson's lead, Tanaka incorporates a statistical approach in her analysis, "to gain anoverall distributional sense of how syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources are mobilised

Introduction 5

for localising TRPs in Japanese conversation through a comparison with Anglo-AmericanEnglish" (Tanaka, 1999:61). Quantitative data are also used to categorize turn-ending typesassociated with potential TRPs and to suggest that pragmatic completions in particular arehighly correlated with points at which speaker-change occurs in Japanese.

The present investigation does not analyze turn-taking mechanisms and completion points asthe locus of research. Instead, it examines longer stretches of discourse across turns in order toreveal how speakers present and resolve problems in business discourse.

Tanaka's data consist of several corpora, some of which are audiotaped, naturally occurringtelephone conversations, while others are videotaped face-to-face conversations. The largestcorpus is a set of 50 hours of videotaped, informal multi-party interactions, staff meetings, andseminars. Thus Tanaka's analyses are largely based on a set of informal, face-to-face encounters,as opposed to the more formal business telephone conversations which form the basis of thisstudy.

1.2.2. Linguistic studies on negotiation

Two important book-length works have appeared recently which examine the concept ofnegotiation from a linguistic perspective: Firth (1995) and Ehlich and Wagner (1995). Firth's isan edited volume of collected papers on actual and simulated negotiations in various languages;it includes one paper, Jones (1995) on Japanese, which I discuss in more detail in the nextsection.

Ehlich and Wagner's (1995) contribution to the literature is also an edited collection of articleson actual and simulated negotiations which includes a paper relevant to Japanese. This is a casestudy by Marriott (1995) of a videotaped, 40-minute inter-cultural negotiation in English betweenan Australian seller and a Japanese buyer. Marriott focuses on topic management within thisnaturally occurring sample of business discourse, analyzing how the participants develop topicsas well as their evaluative behavior regarding those topics. She also examines features whichshe claims arise from the particular intercultural nature of the interaction.

In terms of approach, Marriott draws from several sources, which she notes are more functionalor schema-oriented than traditional CA studies. First, she adopts Ventola's systemic perspectivefrom her research on service encounters (Ventola, 1983, 1987), identifying 15 structural elementsfrom greeting through closing for this particular negotiation. Secondly, she borrows Sacks'distinction between boundaried and stepwise topical movement (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984)in order to discuss topic transition, and Gardner's (1985, 1987) distinction between topicmaintenance (consisting of continuation, shift, and recycling) versus topic change (reintroductionand full-blown change) in her discussion of topic development. Thirdly, she adopts Neustupny'smodel of language management in intercultural contact situations (Neustupny, 1985a, 1985b,1987, 1989) and employs the follow-up interview method with participants in order to capturetheir evaluative stance toward the interaction.

6 Negotiating Moves

Marriott's analysis contrasts with that of this book in large part due to the differing length ofthe representative interaction to be examined: a 40-minute meeting versus a telephone callaveraging one to two minutes. As a result, she conducts a relatively macro-level analysis of theinteraction, looking at topic maintenance and topic shift from one topic to another, rather than amore micro-level linguistic analysis of one particular topic. Marriott does, however, acknowledgethe need for more intra-linguistic, intra-cultural studies using large samples of naturally occurringbusiness discourse drawn from companies of differing sizes and industry types. This bookaddresses that need directly through its broad database of calls and interactants.

1.2.3. Studies on negotiating moves in Japanese

Very few studies have been published to-date that investigate what I refer to as "negotiatingmoves" in Japanese. These include Mori's (1999) book-length study on negotiating agreementand disagreement, and Jones' (1995) paper on "masked" negotiation in an office setting. BelowI compare and contrast aspects of those two works with the methodology and goals of thisbook.

The focus of Mori's analysis is on connective expressions and turn construction within whatshe calls "opinion-negotiation sequences." The book draws primarily upon researcher-eliciteddata, which consist of a set of six audiotaped, casual, multi-party, face-to-face conversationsamong 18 native Japanese peers in their 20s or early 30s. For five of the six encounters,speakers were asked by the author to record a 20-30 minute conversation at a time and locationof their choice; the author also suggested the topic of "Japanese women versus Americanwomen" for three out of those five conversations, although speakers apparently strayed to othertopics as well. The sixth encounter was recorded with the participants' permission at a party,with no restrictions on topic or specifications for a particular "gathering." Compared to theJapanese business call corpus, therefore, this represents a relatively more informal and lessspontaneous (at least in the case of the first five encounters) set of data.

Mori's book is closely allied with the research on "interaction and grammar" begun by Ochs,Schegloff and Thompson (Ochs et al., 1996), and more specifically with the CA tradition. Afterdefining "opinion-negotiation sequences," she identifies five Japanese connective expressions,dakara, datte, demo, kara and kedo, and then presents a qualitative, structural analysis of theiruse in the delivery of agreement and disagreement turns and sequences in the corpus. In theprocess, she is able to illustrate the ways in which conversationalists employ these connectivesin order to provide differing degrees of support for prior speakers' talk. Comparing thesefindings to those in C A studies of American English conversations, Mori claims that there areparallels between the two which might support "some potentially universal aspects of humaninteraction" (Mori, 1999:190).

Mori notes in her conclusion that her database could be usefully expanded through the addition,among other things, of more formal situations. Moreover, she admits that the scope of analysiscould be broadened beyond the shorter segments examined in her study to include, for example,"how a particular way in which a participant initiates a preferring of an opinion or an evaluation

Introduction 1

may affect the subsequent course of negotiation" (Mori, 1999:196). It is hoped that the presentbook will make a contribution in both respects, in that it examines more formal businessdiscourse, and also analyzes the ways in which a variety of topics and problems are presentedand solutions proposed over the longer stretch of an entire conversation.

Jones' (1995) chapter examines "masked" conflict in a single face-to-face, informal encounterbetween two Japanese colleagues at an American university who are discussing a memorandumrecently issued by their supervisor about recommended office procedures. Based on the datashe obtained through a tape-recorded conversation as well as in interviews with the participantsin the interaction, Jones is able to show that despite the fact that one of the interactants is quiteangry about the memorandum, the linguistic strategies he employs seem to be aimed at minimizingthe appearance of conflict and maintaining harmony with his colleague, whom he approachesas a potential intermediary in the situation. His colleague likewise seems intent on maintaininggood office relations with the supervisor while also sympathizing with her male colleague,whom she outranks.

In a notable departure from typical CA methodology, Jones cites Moerman (1988) andBilmes (1992) in order to justify the use of information sources beyond the conversation itselffor one's analysis. She notes that, for example, background knowledge about the participantscan be useful in gleaning a more complete understanding of the interaction. Such information iscritical to the present analysis as well, since I will argue that the degree of experience aparticular conversationalist has in discharging his/her role in the interaction influences theeffectiveness with which s/he can present and resolve problems.

Jones' and my approach also diverge from traditional CA studies in that we do not refrain frommaking references to the ways in which participant behavior is reflective of certain elements ofJapanese culture. The point in doing so is not to rely on such cultural notions as justification forparticipant actions, nor to argue that this behavior is unique to the Japanese (as some studies inthe field would seem to suggest is the motivation for this approach), but rather to acknowledgeand discuss certain cultural concepts which are consonant with participant behavior. For Westernreaders who are unfamiliar with Japanese language and culture, such discussions can enrichtheir understanding of the cultural milieu in which these conversations take place. This isparticularly critical given the relative paucity of CA-related studies about Japanese as comparedto those that treat Indo-European languages.

This book differs from Jones' paper primarily in that hers is a single-case analysis of aninformal face-to-face interaction, whereas mine examines numerous samples of more formalconversations from a broader corpus of more than 540 telephone calls.

1.3. MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY

In this section I will explain the background to this study in terms of the overall motivation forundertaking the investigation, as well as its initial focus.

8 Negotiating Moves

Much of the language we use everyday escapes our notice. As Ludwig Wittgenstein notes inhis Philosophical Investigations (1953:50e),

The aspects of things that are more important for us are hiddenbecause of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable tonotice something because it is always before one's eyes.) Thereal foundations of his enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unlessthat fact has at some time struck him. And this means: we fail tobe struck by what, once seen, is most striking and powerful.

One of the ways in which some of the hidden aspects of language may come to light is throughthe mistakes that we make, either as native speakers or as learners of another language—that is,when these mistakes are brought to our attention. The present study was in fact motivated bytwo such mistakes, one made by a bilingual speaker of English and Japanese, and the other by astudent of Japanese whose native language is English. By way of introduction to this book, Iwould like to relate the stories of those two mistakes here.

1.3.1. The importance of role relationships

In the summer of 1991,1 served as a Japanese instructor in a language orientation program forAmerican students who were about to study for a year at a Japanese university. The entire staffconsisted of a group of five full and part-time native Japanese teachers, as well as a youngwoman named Etsuko2 who was working as our office assistant. Etsuko had grown up bilinguallyin the United States; she spoke Japanese at home with her parents, who are both nativespeakers, but used English at school and with her friends.

Etsuko's job description as office assistant included photocopying handouts, helping in thepreparation of teaching materials, and running errands to purchase supplies and other itemsdeemed necessary for the smooth operation of the program. One day over lunch, while the staffmembers were discussing materials preparation for upcoming lessons, several of the instructorsindicated a need for some office supplies, and a list was drawn up of these items. Just at thatmoment in the conversation, another instructor suggested that they also needed some stamps.Etsuko, who was probably already assuming that she would soon go out to purchase thesupplies, offered to go buy the stamps as well, saying,

(1) #Katte kite agemasyoo ka?}

buy-GER come-GER give to out-group4-CNs Q

'Shall (I) go buy (them) for you?'5

Etsuko's mother, who happened to be one of the teachers on our staff, immediately correctedher, saying that the following utterance would be more appropriate in that context:

Introduction 9

(2) Katte mairimasyoo ka?buy-GER come-CNs, Q4 Shall (I) go buy (them)?'

From my own English base-language perspective, Etsuko's mistake seemed to be perfectlyunderstandable. After all, offering to do someone a favor in English often includes the phrase,'for you' as an indication of one's willingness to do something of benefit for one'saddressee—consider examples such as 'May I get the door for you?' and 'I can have that foryou right away.' Moreover, a few of the Japanese textbooks I had used in the past indicatedthat the donatory verb ageru ('give to out-group') is equivalent to 'for you' when used as anauxiliary in combination with other verbs.6 This is exactly the kind of pattern which Etsukoemployed in example (1) above. So why was this usage inappropriate in this context?

There were two problems with Etsuko's utterance. The first relates to the pragmatic constraintson the use of the donatory auxiliary pattern, l-te ageru/.1 Japanese speakers frequently employthis donatory auxiliary verb among equals or with subordinates in order to suggest that theaction of the main verb is being undertaken as a favor to the addressee. For example, if a groupof students is traveling together on a field trip and they want to take a souvenir photograph infront of a famous spot, their teacher might offer to take the picture for them, saying:

(3) Totte ageyoo ka?take-GER give to out-group- CNS-> o

'Shall I take (it) for you?'

Taking pictures is not normally something that teachers are obligated or expected to do fortheir students on a regular basis. In this particular case, however, it is a task the teacher caneasily perform which would otherwise be difficult for the students who are to be in the pictureto do themselves. Therefore the teacher's use of ageru here to express a favor is pragmaticallyacceptable. The teacher adopts the direct-style of the auxiliary, ageyoo, because she is addressingher subordinates.

If the situation were to change slightly such that one member within the group of students wereto offer to take the picture for the others, that student would most likely say:

(4) Boku ga toroo ka?I SUB take-cNs-> Q

'Shall I (be the one to) take (it)?'

As the English gloss indicates, the student is essentially asking if he, rather than anothermember of the group, should be the one to take the picture. Because he is a member of thegroup, it would be odd for him to offer the taking of the picture as a favor; this is why he doesnot use the auxiliary ageru. Rather, he uses the consultative form of the main verb in direct-styleas he addresses his peers.

10 Negotiating Moves

When speaking to superiors, Japanese will usually avoid using the auxiliary ageru (or itshonorific-polite equivalent, sasiageru) because it can sound condescending. As Alfonso (1966)and Maruyama (1994:154) have noted, the auxiliary makes explicit the idea that the speaker isundertaking something as a favor for the interlocutor. Such an explicit reference is consideredto be in poor taste, particularly if the action involves something that the superior is capable ofdoing by him or herself. Moreover, if the action in question is something which the subordinateis expected to do in any case, the use of the auxiliary incorrectly indexes the current rolerelationship between the subordinate and the superior. In the case of example (1), Katte kiteagemasyoo ka?, since it was part of Etsuko's normal range of duties to run errands, the fact thatshe was offering to go buy the stamps as a favor to her superiors, using the donatory auxiliary,was pragmatically inappropriate.

The second problem with Etsuko's utterance involves the level of politeness which she adoptedwhen addressing her superiors. She extends her offer in (1), Katte kite agemasyoo ka? in distal(formal) and plain (non-polite) style; the utterance indexes (through the morpheme /-mas-/) acertain measure of formality or social distance between Etsuko and her addressees, but lacksthe sense of deference toward a superior which is indexed by the humble-polite auxiliary maimin (2), Katte mairimasyoo ka?

We might imagine one other alternative response for Etsuko in this situation, and that is asfollows. Had the discussion over lunch only involved the matter of buying supplies, without theadditional mention of stamps, Etsuko might instead have replied,

(5) Zyaa, katte mairimasu.in that case buy-GER

'In that case, (I)'ll go buy (them).'

By responding in this manner, Etsuko would be able to indicate that she is aware of the needsexpressed by the teachers and could assure them of her willingness and intention to completethe errand.

These examples illustrate the crucial importance of role relationships among participants to thelexical, syntactic, and pragmatic appropriateness of a given utterance in Japanese. We willexplore this issue in more detail in this and subsequent chapters as we consider examples fromthe data corpus.

1.3.2. The importance of genre

The second story I will relate took place in a first-year Japanese class at a small liberal artscollege in the United States. Two students, one male and one female, had been selected by theinstructor to perform the roles of waiter and customer, respectively, in a service encounter in arestaurant. Prior to this class exercise, the ways in which orders for food and drink are made inJapan had been modeled, discussed, and practiced with the students, and as a result, thestudents were able to perform this aspect of the interaction easily and naturally, in a manner

Introduction 11

that would have been acceptable to native speakers in Japan. However, when the students wereencouraged to continue the interaction beyond the point at which the food was presented to thecustomer, problems ensued. The student who was playing the role of the waiter, after havingleft the customer momentarily, returned to the table and inquired:

(6) #Zenbu ikaga desu ka?all how COP-IPF Q

'How about everything?' ((literal translation of the Japanese))

Although his utterance was grammatically correct, in the context of what we might call the"Japanese restaurant service encounter," it was pragmatically inappropriate. Had a native Japanesespeaker been playing the role of customer, s/he might have been perplexed as to the point of thewaiter's utterance, which in Japanese conveys something to the effect of 'How about (having)everything?' (i.e., in the restaurant, or that is in stock).

The student's mistake clearly stems from the fact that while the English utterance, 'How iseverything?' is a pragmatically appropriate utterance in a parallel American context, its word-for-word translation represents an inappropriate move in Japan. In the United States, waiterstypically return to the table to check with their customers to make sure that "everything" is totheir satisfaction. By doing so, they indirectly offer assistance to their customers; if somethingis amiss, they will attempt to rectify the situation. However, an inquiry of the same sort wouldbe almost unimaginable in Japan. In most Japanese restaurants and coffee shops (with theexception of more formal establishments), waiters usually do not return to the table afterserving food to their customers, except perhaps to pour water. Customers will call out forassistance if there is a problem with the meal, or if they wish to order additional items. Uponcompletion of the meal, customers are expected to take the bill that has been left on the tableand pay at the register, which is usually located near the entrance of the restaurant.8

Comparing these two contexts, it becomes clear that what is said and left unsaid, done and notdone, by waiters and customers in Japan and the United States differs significantly. In otherwords, what we might call the "restaurant service encounter genre" would seem to encompassdifferent verbal and non-verbal behavior in the two cultures, and indeed, the results of a recentseries of cross-cultural studies on the restaurant service encounter in Japan vs. the United Statesbear out this observation (Winsted, 1997a, 1997b).

This story underscores the fact that Americans cannot hope to rely on their native Englishintuitions and merely translate what they would say in the United States into Japanese if theyexpect to act successfully in the Japanese context. Recognition of the fact that one word orstring of words might be used in more than one context is an important step in the rightdirection. Wittgenstein once noted, "Don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use," and this isadvice we might pass on to professionals and students alike as they grapple with a truly foreignlanguage and culture such as Japanese.


Such an approach reflects a larger, more holistic notion of language as a way of being in aworld. Worlds differ from culture to culture and even from one discourse community toanother, but they are alike in that they represent "a structure of knowledge that permits anindividual to predict behavior, understand intention, and share meaning" (Walker. 2000).

1.3.3. Initial aims of the investigation

Based on my observations of the difficulties faced by learners in moving from one world toanother—that is, between the United States and Japan, I initially intended to undertake aninvestigation that would seek to identify the range of forms of offers of assistance in Japaneseand the ways in which these might be pragmatically constrained by situational factors such asthe age, sex, relative status and roles of participants in a variety of interactions. The socialaction of offering services in Japanese has not been addressed in much detail in the literature;such an investigation therefore seemed to be warranted.

In order to obtain samples of naturally occurring data from different contexts, I decided torecord telephone conversations at two different types of organizations in Japan—commercialand educational—in two different geographical locales, namely Kanto and Kansai.9 Becauseoffers of assistance frequently arise spontaneously in service encounters, customer service-oriented sites were chosen for data collection. (At the educational locations, this meant that thetelephone lines through which toiawase 'inquiries' were handled were selected for recording.)Over a period of several months, I was able to collect over 100 hours of conversations from atotal of six different organizations. (Details concerning methodology are discussed in chapter 2.)

Since many of the audiotape recordings were of relatively formal business or education-relatedconversations, I also collected over 100 hours of videotape recordings of Japanese televisiondramas which focus on family life and young people in order to obtain a wider variety of bothformal and informal social occasions and interactions.

However, after repeated listenings and careful transcription of relevant portions taken fromover 50 hours of the audiotaped data from the commercial sites, it became clear that the waysin which participants extended offers in Japanese exhibited a clear pattern within a particularsituational and generic10 frame. Based on these findings, I decided to narrow the scope of theinvestigation in order to focus on business conversations at one Kanto and one Kansai site, asdescribed in the following section.

1.4. IDENTIFYING AND DESCRIBING A GENRE:JAPANESE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONAL TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

In the data that were transcribed and analyzed for this study, it was found that offers ofassistance were especially likely to occur within the context of telephone conversations thatinvolved the initiation, continuation, or completion of business transactions such as the purchaseof food, books, airline tickets, and the like. These offers were of three general types: (a) offers

Introduction 13

to have a particular person return a phone call in response to switchboard requests; (b) offers tolook into a service problem and (in some cases) call back; and (c) offers to remedy serviceproblems "on the spot." Offers of type (a) tended to occur during the opening section oftelephone conversations and overlap in form and function with those found in everyday, non-business calls. They are therefore not taken up in detail in this investigation, but an example ispresented in section 1.6.3 below, and a discussion of the structure of switchboard requestsegments in JBCs is included in chapter 3. Offers of type (b) and (c) occurred during the mainbody of the conversation, and appear to have been motivated by the reporting of service-relatedproblems by the caller. These types of offers of assistance are the primary focus of this book.

In addition to displaying similarities in thematic content, the conversations in which offerswere observed also exhibited a remarkable consistency in terms of overall compositional structureand style. For the purpose of illustration, let us consider two such conversations here. Otherexamples will be discussed and compared in more detail in chapters 3, 4, and 5.

1.4.1. Sample conversation from Kanto

In the first conversation, a female member of the Sales Department of Tokyo Books1' calls abook publisher to inquire about an incomplete shipment which she recently received. Thecomplete conversation appears in appendix 2; excerpts are reproduced below and individualutterances are interspersed within the text for ease of reference.

The conversation opens as illustrated in (7) below as a male employee of Fukuda Booksanswers the telephone and provides his company name and section affiliation (Hai, Hukudasyoten hanbai-ka desu), but does not identify himself personally. The caller, in response,identifies herself very generally as 'a book company' (Ano, syoten desu ga). Following thisidentification, the caller utters the business salutation, osewa ni natte 'masu, which looselytranslated means 'Thank you for your continued support/assistance.' The clerk of FukudaBooks simultaneously reciprocates, providing an identical salutation.

(7) Opening to Fukuda Books call [TB # 1A-44]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Hukuda Syoten hanbai-ka desu:.ACK. Fukuda Books sales section COP-IPF

'Yes, Fukuda Books, Sales Section.'12

3 C Ano,syoten desuHES book company COP-IPF CP

'Uh, (this) is a book company;


4 C osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF

[thank you for your continued assistance.]'

5 A Osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF

[Thank you for your continued assistance.']

After this opening exchange, the Tokyo Books employee begins to explain the reason for hercall through a prefatory statement or maeoki, as shown in (8) below. Her first utterance Anodesu nee! in line 6 is very brief, but functions to focus the listener's attention on what is tocome. Following an acknowledgment by the clerk, the caller explains in line 8 that she wouldlike to have him look into something (Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu go), and is given ago-ahead (Hai) to continue.

(8) Reason-for-call [TB # 1 A-44]

6 C Ano desu nee HIHES COP-IPF SP

'Well, you see!'

7 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

8 C Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu gajljust looking up^ receive-fr-out-grp-DES-ipp4' EP CP

'It's that (I/we)'d just like to have you look (something) up, but....'

9 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

In the next portion of the call, the caller provides a series of details relating to the incompleteshipment. In line 1 0 she mentions the date and the place from which the books were ordered(E:to: si-gatu nizyuusiti no hi ni, sotira DE). The word sotira anaphorically refers to 'that side(of the conversation)' or 'that place (nearer the addressee),' so the caller is using a form ofspatial deixis to refer to Fukuda Books, in lieu of a personal referent or name. Then in lines11-13 she tries to clarify her explanation by pointing out that it is a telephone order to whichshe has been referring, and adds that she ordered four picture books (e:to desu ne, denwatyuumon na n desu ga, yon-satu hodo, e-HON o tyuumon sasite itadaita n desu yd).

Introduction 15

(9) Details about the order [TB # 1A-44]

IOC e:to: si-gatu nizyuusiti-niti no hi ni, sotira DE,HES April twenty-seventh CN day GL that place LOG

'Um, on the 27th of April, at your loCATION,'

11C e:to desu ne, denwa tyuumon na n desu ga,HES COP-IPF ATF telephone order COP-IPF EP CP

'you see, it's that (I/we mean) a telephone order, but....'

12C yon-satu hodo," e-HON o tyuumonfour volumes approximately picture books OBJ order

13 C sasite itadaita n desu yo.do-CAu-GER receive-fr-out-grp-pFvP EP SP

'it's that (I/we) took the liberty of ordering about four pictureBOOKS, you know.'

14 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

The clerk does not respond aside from his acknowledgment in line 14, so in lines 15-18 below,the caller begins to specify the problem, namely that of those four volumes, only three havearrived (YON-satu no uti no, SAN-satu sika tyotto halite kit[e]-orimasen no de). It is noteworthythat although the caller utters the numerals with greater stress and at a higher pitch (representedin CAPS) for additional emphasis, the clerk still merely responds with a continuer (Hai). Thecaller then starts to ask the clerk if he could find out whether or not the remaining volume hadbeen sent out (is-satu dasite itadaketa ka doo ka, osirabe—). This represents a reformulation ofher earlier, more general request for assistance in line 8, Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga.Before she can finish, however, the clerk interrupts, claiming that he has understood what isbeing requested of him by saying Kasikomarita (sic) in line 20.14

(10) Specification of the problem and initial request for assistance[TB #lA-44]

15 C YON-satu no uti no, SAN-satu sika tyotto haittefour volumes CN among three volumes only just enter-GER

16C kit[e]- orimasen// node,come-GER be-NEG-iPF^ EP-GER

'Of the FOUR volumes, it's just that only THREE volumes havecome in, so...'


17 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

18C is- satu dasite itadaketa ka// doo ka,one volume send-GER receive-fr-out-grp-POT-pF^ Q how Q

19C osirabe —looking up^

'whether or not (you) were able to send us one volume, a look-up...'

20A Hal Kasikomari//ta. ((sic))BC

'Mhm.' 'Cert'nly.'

Without any prompting at this juncture, the caller provides her company name, Tookyoo Syoten'Tokyo Books,' perhaps because she realizes that the clerk will need this information in orderto make the appropriate inquiries. The clerk immediately and politely acknowledges this bysaying Hai but does not respond otherwise. No offer of assistance is as yet forthcoming, so thecaller goes on to specify the title of the missing book, which is Hahaha no hanasi, or 'The Taleof Ha-ha-ha' (DE, ano desu nee, taitoru, yot:TU:: no uti no desu NE! Haitte kite nai mono ga,Hahaha no hanasi: to in taitoru no mono na n desu ga). The clerk confirms that it is one copythat she needs (Go-is-satu de), and asks her to wait a moment.

(11) Company identification and title of missing item given by caller[TB #lA-44]

21 C ano:, Tookyoo Syoten to moosimasu:.HES Tokyo Books QT be called-iPF^

'Uh, (this is) Tokyo Books.'

22 A (1.3) A, Tookyoo Syoten- sama// de.(1.3) ah M(r)s. Tokyo Books CP-GER(1.3 second pause) 'Oh, Ms. Tokyo Books...'

23 C Halyes

'Yes.'

24A HalBC

'Mhm.'

Introduction 17

25 C DE, ano desu nee, taitoru, yot: TU:: no uti no desu NE!and HES COP-IPF ATF title four units CN among COP-IPF ATF

'AND, you see, (the) title, among (the) FOUR, YOU KNOW!'

26 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

27C Haitte kite nai mono ga, Hahaha no hanasi://enter-GER come-GER be-NEG-iPF thing SUB Ha-ha-ha CN tale

'the one that hasn't arrived, The Tale of Ha-ha-ha'

28 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

29 C to in taitoru no mono na n//desu ga,QT be called-ipp title CN thing COP-IPF EP CP

'it's that it's a thing with that title.'

30A Go- is- satu de.(polite prefix) one volume CP-GER

'One copy'

31C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

32 A Hai. Syoosyoo omati kudasai:.//yes moment waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMp/|s

'Okay. Please wait a moment.'

33 C Hai.yes

'Okay.'

After the clerk returns to the phone and apologizes for the delay in line 34, he reconfirms that itis one copy of Hahaha no hanasi to which she is referring (Zya, Hahaha no hanasi o is-satu toiu koto de). The caller acknowledges this with some hesitation, saying A, hai. The clerk thenrequests the agency number, which is a code used among bookstores for ordering purposes.


(12) Confirmation by clerk of item and number of volumes to be ordered,and request for agency number [TB #lA-44]

34 A Omatase des— itasimasita.causing-waiting^ COP-IPF-FS do-PF^

'[S—Sorry] to have kept you waiting.'

35 C HalBC

'Mhm.'

36 A Zya, Hahaha no hanasi o is- satu to in koto de,so ha-ha-ha CN tale OBJ one volume QT be called-iPE thing CP-GER'So it's a matter of one copy of The Tale of Ha-ha-ha.'

37 C A, hai:.ah yes

'Ah, yes.'

38A Zya, bansen onegai-simasu:.so agency-number beg-iPF1^

'So please (give me) the agency number.'

Judging by the caller's subsequent reaction in lines 39-42 below, it would seem that sheinterprets the clerk's utterance Zya, bansen onegai-simasu as a move toward re-ordering themissing book. First, she attempts to renegotiate her intentions with the clerk by restating moretentatively, and in very careful, formal language, her question as to whether it is possible themissing book was never sent out (A, ano: sono mae NI: ZENkai tyuumon sita toki ni, ano:ukete itadakemasen desita n desyoo ka.). Yet again, there is no uptake. So she repeats the factthat among the four books ordered, it was The Tale of Ha-ha-ha which did not arrive. Althoughthe clerk does formally acknowledge that she has spoken by saying Haa, haa^ he still does notadmit to a disparity in understanding between them, despite the fact that the caller hassuprasegmentally highlighted key information providing salient cues to the problem throughstress and higher pitch. So the caller moves to explicitly enlist his help to an even greater extentin line 48-49, saying that she had wanted to have him check whether or not the book had beenshipped (De dasite itadaketa ka doo ka, osirabe-itadakitakatta n desu ga.).

(13) Clarification of problem and request for assistance by caller[TB#lA-44]

39C A, ano: sono mae NI:ah HES that before GL

'Oh, um, before THAT,'

Introduction 19

40 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

41C ZENkai tyuumon sita toki ni, ano: uketeprevious order do-pp time GL HES receive-GER

42 C itadakemasen desita ndesyoo: ka.receive-NEG-iPp4' CP-PF EP-TENT Q

'at the time of the PREvious order, um, might it have been that wecouldn't receive it from you?'

43 C YON-satu tyuumon siTE:four volumes order do-GER

'having PLACED an order (for) FOUR volumes,'

44 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

45 C sono uti, Hahaha no hanasi dake haittethose among ha-ha-ha CN tale only be included-GER

46 C konakatta n desu yo.COme-NEG-PF EP SP

'it's that among those, only A Tale of Ha-ha-ha was not included,you know.'

47 A Haa haa.yes yes

'Yes, yes.'

48 C De dasite itadaketa ka doo ka,and send-GER receive-por-PF^ Q how Q

49 C osirabe itadakitakatta n//desu ga.looking up'h receive-DES-PF EP CP

'And whether or not (you) were able to send it for us, it's that (I/we)wanted to have you look into it, but....'

Finally the clerk appears to realize the point of her call, for he asks in line 50 if she means'confirmation' of the shipment (A, kakunin de:su ne?). (The initial 'A ' of his utterance, togetherwith the elongated vowel inde:su, seem to suggest this interpretation.) The caller acknowledges


the clerk's response, and perhaps due to his subsequent silence in line 52, she offers him thereassurance that if it seems the book has not been sent out, she will place an order for anothercopy (Sore de, dasite naiyoo desitaRA: moo it-tuu tyuumon itasimasu no DE:}.

(14) Further attempts at clarification by both participants [TB #lA-44]

50A A, kakunin de:su ne?ah confirmation COP-IPF SP

'Oh, you mean confirmation, right?'

51C HalYes.

'Yes.'

52 A ((0.3 second pause))

53C Sore de, dasite nai yoo desitaRA://and then send-GER be-NEG-ipp seem CP-CND

'And then, IF it seems that it hasn't been sent,'

54 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

55 C moo it- tuu tyuumon itasimasu no DE://more one copy order do-ipp^ EP-GER

'it's that (I/we)'ll order one more copy, SO....'

This sufficiently clarifies the situation for the clerk, who then offers in lines 56, 57 and 59 tofind out whether or not there is a form indicating completion of the delivery (De wa itiooden:pyoo-si — hakkoo-si aru ka doo ka:, sirabemasu no de...). In response, the caller reiteratesin line 60 the crucial information that the order was placed on the 27th of April (Hai, si-gatunizyuusiti-niti ni tyuumon itasimasita). In subsequent turns not reproduced below, the clerkconfirms this and then requests the agency number, the agency name, and location information.

(15) Offer of assistance by call recipient [TB #lA-44]

56 A Hai. De wa itioo den:pyoo-si— hakkoo- siyes well then anyhow invoice-sheet-FS completion-sheet

Introduction 21

57A am ka doo ka:,//have-iPF Q how Q

'Yes. Well then anyhow, whether or not there's an invoice sheet—acompletion sheet,'

58 C HalBC

'Mhm.'

59A sirabemasu no//DE:look intO-IPF EP-GER

'it's that (I/we)'ll look into it, SO....'

60 C Hai, si-gatu nizyuusiti-niti ni tyuumon itasimasita.yes April twenty-seventh GL order do-ppvU

'Yes, (I/we) placed the order on April 27th.'

After a pause while he presumably takes down the information, the clerk attempts an initialpre-closing move in line 73 by checking to be sure that this is all that the caller needs (Izyoode:). The caller agrees, so the clerk then offers in lines 75-76 to confirm the delivery and callback (E: de wa, ka—kakunin simasite:, odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de). The caller acknowledgesthis by saying Hai, and then the clerk requests her phone number and name (odenwa-bangoo toonamae onegai-simasu). The caller provides the number (not reproduced below), and then hername (watakusi, Yamada to moosimasu no de).

Pre-closing: Checking to see if there are other topics of discussion,restating action to be undertaken, and promise of future contact[TB #lA-44]

73A (3.3) Ha:i. Izyoo de:(3.3 second pause) yes all CP-GER

(3.3 second pause) 'Oo-kay. That's all...'

74C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

75A Hai. E: de wa, ka—kakunin simasite:,yes HES well then con—confirmation do-GER


76A odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de,//telephone do-CAU-GER receive-ippvU EP-GER

'Yes. Um, well, (I/we)'ll con~confirm(the delivery), and take theliberty of calling (you) back, so....'

77C HalBC

'Mhm.'

78A odenwa-bangoo to// onamae onegai-simasu:.telephone-number and name beg-ipp^

'Your telephone number and name, please.'

((customer provides in lines 79-82, with clerk's back-channel))

83C no watakusi, Yamada to moosimasu no de.CN I Yamada QT be called-iPF^ EP-GER

'and I, (I)'m called Yamada, so....'

In line 84 the clerk indicates he has understood what it is he must do by uttering Kasikomasita(as he also did earlier but rather prematurely in line 20), and thereby moves into the closing ofthe conversation. The two take their leave of each other through a ritual exchange in whicheach politely requests favorable treatment by the other party.

(17) Closing the conversation [TB # 1A-44]

84A Hai, kasikomasita. ((sic))yes make clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

85C Hai, yorosiku// onegai-simasu::yes well

'Yes, please [take care of it for me].'

86A Hai, yorosiku onegai-simasu: . Situree simaSU:.yes well beg^F'J' rudeness do-iPF

'Yes, [may things go well.] Good-bye.'

What is perhaps most striking about this conversation is how difficult it is for Ms. Yamada toconvey to the clerk what it is she would like him to do — or conversely, how difficult it is forthe clerk to understand what it is that she is requesting. The miscommunication would appearto stem from the clerk's mistaken assumption that Yamada is calling to order a book. This is anatural assumption for an employee of the sales section of a publishing company to make;

Introduction 23

indeed, on the same tape from which this conversation was taken, there were numerous otherconversations in which Yamada placed calls to other publishers. In these calls, she introducedherself in identical fashion (i.e., merely as asyoten, 'book company'). She then made a briefstatement that she was calling to place an order, mentioned the title of the book, and eithervolunteered or was asked to present the same details about the agency name, number, and herown company name and location. Except for the fact that the title of the books and sometimesthe agency name and number differed, these conversations proceeded in an almost verbatimfashion. (Book order calls will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4.)

From this observation, we can hypothesize that the people who place and receive these types ofcalls on a regular basis are not only familiar with the specific vocabulary necessary to achievetheir goals—in this case, to place book orders—but also that through experience, the participantsin these conversations have built up a set of expectations as to when, how, and what theyshould say in order to go about their business. Likewise, they have also developed assumptionsabout what will be asked of them at certain points in a conversation, provided that the conversationinvolves the type of transaction they are accustomed to handling. This is not to say thatconversationalists follow "scripts" verbatim as they negotiate their intentions, but rather thatthey have a sense for the way a particular genre of interaction might unfold based on priorexperience in their professional roles.

1.4.2. Sample conversation from Kansai

To underscore this point, let us consider a second call which involves a similar misunderstandingto that of the first. In this conversation (the full text of which appears in appendix 3), a femaleoperations staff member of an import company in Kansai places a call to one of the bankswhich handles their business. The opening section unfolds in a slightly different fashion fromthat of the call we have just examined, because the initial recipient is the bank's automated,push-button-activated response system. The system presents the caller with a series of options,from which she selects 'services in Japanese' and then 'customer service.'

(18) Opening of call to bank via automated menu [KI #9-1]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kotira wa, pinpon bankingu de gozaimasu.this TOP pushbutton banking CP-IPF (+)

This is pushbutton banking.'

3 A Nihongo gokiboo no kata \va, kono mama,Japanese wish (+) CN person(s) (+) TOP as is


4 A iti osite kudasai.one push-GER give-to-in-grp-iMp/|s

'Persons wishing (to hear) Japanese, please push one (and remain) asis (on the line).'

5 A ((different voice)) "For services in English, please press '2' now."((Machine BEEP))

6 C ((caller pushes button, another BEEP))

7 A Gaikoku kawase reeto, oyobi, kinri noforeign exchange rate(s) as well as interest rate CN

8 A syookai wa, iti.inquiries TOP one

'For foreign exchange rates, as well as inquiries about interest rates,(press) one.'

9 A Kooza zandaka no syookai wa ni.account balance CN inquiries TOP two

'For account balance inquiries, (press) two.'

10 A Suupaamaneii torihiki wa san. Huakusimirii saabisu wa, yon.Supermoney transactions TOP three facsimile service TOP four

'For Supermoney transactions, three. For facsimile service, four.'

11A Kasutomaa saabisu sutahu to, tyokusetu ohanasi ni naritaicustomer service staff with directly speak-DES^

12A kata wa, kyuu o osite kudasai.person(s) TOP nine OBJ push-GER give-to-in-grp-iMP/ts

'For persons wishing to speak directly with customer service staff,please push 9.'

13 C ((pushes button, BEEP sound))

14 A Omati kudasai. Otunagi simasu.waiting't1 give-to-in-grp4MP'ts connect-ipp^

'Please wait. (I/we) will connect (you).'

After a pause while the call is connected, a tantoo or 'person in charge' (not necessarily asupervisor) answers, apologizes for the delay, and identifies herself by name. She then proceedsto ask the caller for certain identification information, i.e., the number and name on the account.

Introduction 25

The particular way in which she requests this information is noteworthy, in that she asks Omotidesitara, kooza bangoo kara, onegai-itasimasu. She is thus directing the caller to begin herbusiness 'from the' identification details. As we will see in other JBC calls discussed in laterchapters, most business professionals and many Japanese customers in the corpus normallyprovided a self-identification without prompting, in response to the call recipient's initialutterance which was also usually a self-identification in the form of a company name. Theexplicit request for identification information in the present conversation is perhaps due to theautomated nature of the call opening, and also to the fact that the call has already beentransferred to a particular department of the bank rather than first coming into a generalswitchboard. In any event after the caller provides the requested information, the representativethanks her for the information, and in response the customer extends a salutation that is similarto that which we saw in the opening of the previous conversation: Osewa ni narimasu '(I) amobliged (to you) for your assistance.'

(19) Request by service representative for identification information[KI#9-1]

15 A Taihen nagaraku omatase site orimasu,quite lengthy waiting-CAU do-GER be-iPF^

16 A tantoo lida desu:.person in charge lida CP-IPF

'(I/we)'ve kept (you) waiting a long time. (I)'m (Ms.) lida, theperson in charge.'

17A Omoti desitara, kooza bangoo kara, onegai-itasimasu.holding^ CP-CND account number from request-iPF^

'If (you) have (it), please (begin) from (your) account number.'

18C A, hai, e:to kooza bangoo GA,Oh yes HES account number SUB

'Oh yes, um, (the) account number IS'

((caller provides account number in lines 19-21))

22A Hai. Onamae itadakemasu ka?ACK name receive-fr-out-grp-iPF-poi^ Q

'Okay. May (I) have your name?'

23 C Yuugen-gaisya Kansai Yunyuu to moosimasu:.limited corporation Kansai Imports QT be called-iPFvl'

'This is Kansai Imports Co., Ltd.'


24 A Arigatoo gozaimasu:.//thank you (+)'Thank you.'

25 C Osewa ni narimasu:assistance GL become-ipp

['(I) am obliged (to you) for your assistance.']

The representative then asks the caller in line 26 for the four-digit personal identificationnumber (PIN) for transactional use, which she provides, then thanks her once more and asksher to wait a moment (presumably as she brings up the account information on her computerscreen; she can be heard typing in the background). After apologizing for the delay, sheacknowledges the caller (Kansai Yunyuu-sama, 'Ms. Kansai Imports'), and in line 34 offers toprovide the current balance on the account (Genzai no zandaka de yorosii desu ka?}

(20) Request for PIN number, acknowledgment of caller's identity, andinitial offer of assistance by customer service representative[KI#9-1]

26 A Hai, yonketa no denwa torihiki-yooACK. four-digit CN telephone transactional use

27A ansyoo-bangoo itadakemasu ka:?PIN number receive-fr-out-grp-iPF-poi^ Q

'Okay, may (I) have your four-digit PIN number for telephonetransactions?'

28 C Hai, ####.yes, ####

'Yes.' ((provides number))

29A ((noise of typing)) Ha:i. Arigatoo gozaimasu: Syoo syoo omatiACK thank you (+) a moment waiting^

30 A itadakemasu ka:?receive-fr-out-grp-ipF-POT Q

'Oo-kay. Thank you. Could you wait one moment, please?'

31C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

Introduction 27

32 A Omatase simasita. Kansai-Yunyuu-sama.wait-pF-CAUvl' Ms. Kansai Imports

'(Thank you for) waiting. Ms. Kansai Imports.'

33 C Halyes

'Yes.'

34 A Genzai no zandaka de yorosii desu ka?//current CN balance CP-GER fine CP-IPF Q

'Is it all right (to give you) the current balance?'

In response, the caller from Kansai Imports apologizes, and explains that it is in reference tothe transaction report form that she would like to make an inquiry (A, gomen nasai, ano: soozya nakute:, ano: otorihiki hookokusyo tte arimasu yo ne! Sono ken de oukagai sitai n desukeredomo}. Upon hearing this, the customer service offers to handle the matter, saying Oukeitasimasu no Je....(Note that this call represents what is called a toiawase or 'inquiry' inJapanese; we will examine other examples of these types of calls from the corpus in chapter 4.)

(21) Clarification of reason-for-call by caller, and offer to assist byrepresentative [KI #9-1]

35C A, gomen-nasai, ano: soo zya nakute:,oh excuse me HES that CP-NEG-GER

'Oh, excuse me, um, not that,'

36A Hal.BC

'Mhm.'

37C ano:, otorihiki hookokusyo tte arimasu yo ne!HES transaction report form QT exist-ipp SP ATF

'Um, there's (the thing) called (a) transaction report form, right?'

38 A Halyes

'Yes.'

39C Sono ken de oukagai sitai n desu keredomo.//that matter CP-GER ask-iPF-DES^U EP CP

'It's that (I)'d like to ask about that matter, but....'


40 A Hal Ouke itasimasu no de.ACK receive-IFF 4^ EP-GER

'Okay. It's that (I)'ll handle (it), so.../

In a similar manner to that of the first conversation, the caller relates certain details that willhelp the customer service representative identify the particular transaction she is inquiringabout. First in line 41, she explaines that she is talking about the transaction advice form datedthe 24th of November (Hai, e:to zyuuiti-gatu nizyuuyokka-zuke de kite ru bun na n desukeredoMO:). Then she notes that there was a wire transfer appearing within that particulartransaction advice form from someone named Mr. Greg Smith (sono naka NI:, e:to, MisutaaGureggu Sumisu-san tte iu kata kara ohurikomi ga atta n desu go).

(22) Details about the transaction to be discussed [KI #9-1]

41C Hai, e:to zyuuiti-gatu nizyuuyokka-zuke deACK HES November 24th dated CP-GER

42 C kite -ru bun na n desu keredoMO:come-iPF-GER be-ipp-> portion CP-IPF EP CP

'Okay, um, it's that it concerns the one that's arrived which is datedNovember 24th, BUT...'

43 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

44 C sono naka NI:, e:to, Misutaa Gureggu Sumisu-santhose among LOC HES Mr. Mr. Greg Smith

'AMONG those, um, Mister Mr. Greg Smith'

45 A Haihai.ACK ACK

'Mhm, mhm.'

46 C tte iu kata kara, ohurikomi ga atta n desu gaQT be-called-> person from wire transfer SUB exist-PF EP CP

'from a person of that name, it's that there was a wire transfer, but'

47 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

Introduction 29

The caller then points out her problem in line 48, namely that this person does not appear onher company's list of (customer) names, so she would like to have the bank look up his contactinformation (tyotto, \vatasi-domo no, ano: meeboo no naka ni, kono kata ga miataranai no de,ano: gorenraku-saki o sirabete itadakitai: n desu ga). In response, the customer servicerepresentative seems a bit hesitant as to what details are being requested, because she first givesa rather noncommittal response (A soo desu kd), followed by a tentative formulation of whatmight be needed (Kotira no kata no, ano: denwa-bangoo desu to kd). So the caller affirms thatshe is requesting the telephone number, adding more specifically that it is for 'this Mr. Smith'(Denwa-bangoo desu. ..Kono Gureggu Sumisu-san ni kansite desu ne?).

(23) Specification of the problem and request for assistance [KI #9-1]

48 C tyotto, vaatasi-domo no, ano: meeboo no naka ni,just we CN HES name list CN within LOG

49 C kono kata ga miataranai no dethis person SUB be found-NEG-iPF EP-GER

'it's just that, um, on our name list, this person can't be found, so...'

50A HalBC

'Mhm.'

51 C ano: gorenraku-saki o sirabeteHES contact information OBJ look for-GER

52 C itadakitai: ndesu ga.EP CP

'it's that (I/we)'d like to have (you) look up the contact information,but'

53 A A soo desu ka.oh so CP-IPF o

'Oh, is that so.'

54 C Halyes

'Yes.'

55 A Kotira no kata no:this CN person CN

'This person's...'


56 C /far/.BC

'Mhm.'

57A ano:HES

Urn.'

58C denwabangoo desu to ka,telephone number CP-IPF etc.

'(The) telephone number and so forth.'

59A Denwa-bangoo desu ... kono Sumisu-samani kansite desu ne?telephone number COP-IPF this Mr. Smith GL regarding COP-IPF ATF

'(The) telephone number...for this Mr. Smith, right?'

60 C Soo desu.so COP-IPF

The participants then shift into the pre-closing section of the call, which in many respectsparallels that of the first call. The customer service representative indicates that she has understoodwhat she is being requested to do (Hal, wakarimasita), and promises to call back (E:to sore dewa, orikaesi odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de). It is notable that the structure she adopts forthis latter "move" is nearly verbatim to that of the Fukuda Books clerk, who likewise promiseda return call by saying odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de. In fact, the l-masu n(o) de/ patternwas observed in many types of calls throughout the corpus at precisely this juncture, and wasadopted by service providers in order to promise some sort of future contact (a call or fax) or tooffer assistance, for example to look into something for the caller. We will therefore take acloser look at this pattern in section 1.6.3. below as a preface to later discussions.

In preparation for the proposed return call, the customer service representative requests thecaller's telephone number, which the caller provides together with her name. The representativepolitely confirms the information, and indicates once more that she has understood what shehas been asked to do (Kasikomarimasita). She then restates her own name, which she hadmentioned once already near the outset of the call in line 16 (tantoo lida desu). Her use of theperfective lida to moosimasita in line 76 is interesting but not unusual in this context at the endof a customer service call; other speakers in the corpus serving in the same capacity sometimesuttered the same form, rather than adopting the more typical to moosimasu used in self-introductions and call openings. Loosely translated, the perfective utterance conveys the notionin English of 'lida was your representative today.'

Introduction 31

(24) Pre-closing section [KI #9-1 ]

61A Hai, wakarimasita.ACK become clear-pp

'Okay, I see.'

62 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

63 A E:to sore dewa, orikaesi odenwa sasite itadakimasu node,HES well then return phone call do-CAU-GER receive-iPF^ EP-GER

'Urn, well then, it's that (I/we)'ll take the liberty of giving (you) areturn phone call, so....'

64 C Hai. Yorosiku onegai-itasimasu:.yes well beg-iPF1^

'Yes. Please [take care of it for me].'

65 A Odenwabangoo o itadakemasu ka?telephone number OBJ receive-iPF-poi Q

'May (I/we) have your telephone number?'

((Caller provides number and clerk repeats in lines 66-72))

73 C Hai. Sasaki to moosimasu.yes oasaKi QT be caiied-iPF^

'Yes, I'm Sasaki.'

74 A Sasaki-sama.Ms. Sasaki (+)

'Ms. Sasaki.'

75 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

76 A Kasikomarimasita. lida to moosimasita.^ lida QT be

'Understood. (This) was lida.'


Finally, as in the first conversation the caller makes a general request that the representativetake care of the matter (yorosiku onegai-simasu), and the two take their leave of each other.

(25) Closing section [KI #9-1]

77 C Hai, yorosiku onegai-simasu.yes well beg-ipp vU

'Yes, may things go well.'

78 A Hai arigatoo gozaimasu:.ACK thank you (+)

'Okay, thank you.'

79 C Hai, situree simasu.ACK excuse me

'Okay, good-bye.'

In this conversation, as we saw in the first, a misunderstanding has arisen regarding the caller'sintentions. Here again, the call recipient appears to have made an assumption which she mighthave developed through experience in her normal range of duties—in this case, that callers toher line are interested in receiving their current account balances. By asking for permission toprovide that information—no doubt a service of benefit to the addressee—she also extends anoffer of assistance. Although the pattern which the representative adopts, /(X) -te/de yorosiidesu ka?l, is comparable to the request for permission in English, 'Is it all right if (I) (do) X?,'it is also frequently used in face-to-face service encounters in Japan to offer assistance. Forexample, a waiter or waitress can offer to clear the table for a customer by saying, Osage siteyorosii desu ka?, 'Is it all right if (I) withdraw (the dishes from the table)?'

What the caller from Kansai Imports is inquiring about, however, is a more unusual procedurefor the bank; the transaction report forms to which she refers have been developed through aspecial arrangement between the two organizations. As a result, all of the customer servicerepresentatives at this bank are not equally familiar with these documents. Yet once the callerhas clarified what she needs, the customer service representative is able to respond appropriately,offering to call back once she has the requested information.

While these two conversations would seem to illustrate cases in which participants are initiallyunfamiliar with what is expected of them, there were also many conversations in the datacorpus which demonstrated how smoothly an interaction can proceed between two speakerswho are in regular contact with each other, even when a problem is being reported. We willanalyze one such example in detail in chapter 5; for reference the full text also appears inappendix 7.

Yet despite the differences among these conversations in terms of the participants' familiaritywith the service-related problems which callers have experienced, as was suggested earlier, in

Introduction 33

terms of compositional structure, theme, and style the conversations actually exhibit strongsimilarities. Each call appears to be divided into an opening section, a transition section, adiscussion of a business transaction-related matter followed by a promise of future contactand/or an offer of assistance in a pre-closing section, and a closing section which consists ofleave-taking rituals. In terms of theme, all calls considered here involve the discussion ofbusiness transactions of some sort, either initiated in the past or, as we will see in other calls, tobe undertaken in the future. Many of the calls, such as the two presented in this section,specifically involve the reporting of problems in connection with certain business transactionsand the offering of assistance toward their resolution. Others are more straightforward toiawaseinquiries from customers or businesses, merchandise orders, shipping confirmations, orswitchboard requests made prior to a discussion of business matters. As for style, there isconsistency among these conversations as well; as illustrated through abbreviated notation inthe transcripts, participants address each other using distal-style predicates, and often adopthonorific- and/or humble-polite forms. Contractions, sentence fragments or inverted sentences,which are characteristic of casual-style, are relatively unusual. Taken together, this indicatesthat speakers in this corpus are adopting a careful, formal style of speech in their conversations(these styles are discussed in more detail in chapter 2).

Based on these findings, it was decided that rather than focus exclusively on the forms of theoffers in and of themselves, as well as any pragmatic factors that might constrain their use in abroad range of contexts, the present investigation would instead propose that these calls beconsidered as enactments of a certain genre of activity—namely Japanese business transactionaltelephone conversations (abbreviated henceforth as JBCs). In this way, we can not only compareand contrast the types of calls within the corpus, but also analyze the ways in which service-relatedproblems are presented, and relate them to the forms and functions of offers of assistance usedto resolve those problems within this particular context.

1.5. BAKHTIN AND THE NOTION OF SPEECH GENRES

Bakhtin defined speech genres as follows:

All the diverse areas of human activity involve the use of language.Quite understandably, the nature and forms of this use are just asdiverse as are the areas of human activity....Language is realizedin the form of individual concrete utterances (oral and written) byparticipants in the various areas of human activity. These utterancesreflect the specific conditions and goals of each such area notonly through their content (thematic) and linguistic style, that is,the selection of the lexical, phraseological, and grammaticalresources of the language, but above all, through theircompositional structure. All three of these aspects—thematiccontent, style, and compositional structure—are inseparably linkedto the whole of the utterance and are equally determined by the


specific nature of the particular sphere of communication. Eachseparate utterance is individual, of course, but each sphere inwhich language is used develops its own relatively stable types ofthese utterances. These we may call speech genres.(Bakhtin, 1986:60)

In traditional pragmatic terms, an utterance is considered to be the contextualized analogue tothe more abstract, theoretical notion of a sentence, although it can also refer to a sentencefragment.17 In this sense of the word, one speaker might produce several utterances over thecourse of his or her individual turn in a conversation; this is generally the sense in which theterm "utterance" will be used in this book as well. To Bakhtin, however, the utterance as a unitof speech communication is best exemplified by what he called "rejoinders of daily dialogue,"and he argued that the boundary between one utterance and another was marked by the changein speakers in conversation.18 This notion of rejoinder is essential to Bakhtin's view of language,for he believed that each utterance not only responds to the utterances that precede it, but alsoanticipates those that follow. In this way, he noted, "Utterances are not indifferent to oneanother, and are not self-sufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another" (Bakhtin,1986:91).

This perspective on the utterance reflects the way in which words acquire their meanings. Inselecting words to express ourselves, we first consider the entirety of our "speech plan"—ourintention. Yet despite the fact that each word may have a "neutral" form that appears in adictionary, Bakhtin claimed that we also make our selections with an eye to how the wordshave been used in other utterances, particularly those that share thematic, compositional, andstylistic similarities to what it is we are seeking to express. Therefore the meaning of a word"originates at the point of contact between the word and actual reality, under the conditions ofthat real situation articulated by the individual utterance" (Bakhtin, 1986:88).

Looking at the situation more broadly, we see that generic constraints guide us in the ways inwhich we put words to use as we participate in our daily activities:

Genres provide a specific field for future activity, and such activityis never just an "application," "instantiation," or repetition of apattern. Genres carry the generalizable resources of particularevents; but specific actions or utterances must use those resourcesto accomplish new purposes in each unrepeatable milieu. Eachutterance, each use of a genre, demands real work; beginningwith the given, something different must be created. (Morson andEmerson, 1990:291, emphasis mine)

This "real work" is performed by speakers who are familiar with the generic resources of theirlanguage. The way in which speakers acquire this familiarity with genres, Bakhtin argued, isanalagous to the way in which they acquire the structures of their native language—not througha conscious study of the rules in a grammar and vocabulary in a dictionary, but rather "from

Introduction 35

concrete utterances that we hear and that we ourselves reproduce in live speech communicationwith people around us":

The forms of language and the typical forms of utterances, thatis, speech genres, enter our experience and our consciousnesstogether, and in close connection with one another. To learn tospeak means to learn to construct utterances (because we speak inutterances and not in individual sentences, and, of course, not inindividual words). (Bakhtin, 1986:78)

This observation has significant consequences for second language learning, language pedagogy,and language usage more generally speaking. As Morson and Emerson note,

To know a language is to command a repertoire of its speechgenres, which means to understand more than "language" in thenarrow sense. Each genre implies a set of values, a way of thinkingabout kinds of experience, and an intuition about theappropriateness of applying the genres in any given context. Anenormous amount of unformalized cognitive content is acquiredeach time we learn a new kind of social activity with its attendantgenres, content whose very nature has remained largelyunexamined. (Morson and Emerson, 1990:291-292)

The explication of this "unformalized cognitive content" is no easy task. But it would seem aworthy endeavor, not only for pedagogical purposes in that we could then identify, describe,and teach various speech genres to students so that they might avoid pitfalls such as thosedescribed earlier, but also in the broader interest of narrowing the divide between members ofdifferent cultures. Although there may be parallels across languages in terms of the sorts ofsocial activities, activity types (Levinson, 1992), and therefore speech genres in which speakersparticipate—for example requesting, offering and promising—the way in which these activities"play out" within an individual culture may in fact differ. As we observed in the restaurantexample, the mere translation of the words used in one's native language to a parallel situationin a different culture often does not suffice; indeed, it can often confuse. Our approach to theanalysis and teaching of speech genres must therefore be a culturally nuanced one.

It is hoped that through a thorough examination of conversations such as those to be presentedin this book we can come to understand the various ways in which Japanese speakers in certainrole relationships in particular situations behave as they seek to achieve certain goals. In otherwords, by examining speakers' behavior in similar contexts, we might develop a betterunderstanding as to how speakers perform certain activities in a manner that is both linguisticallyand culturally appropriate.

We should also be able to observe through such an investigation what types of beliefs, expectations,and assumptions speakers share through their mutual participation in these activities. Bakhtinsuggests that although there are compositional, thematic, and stylistic similarities among texts


that would seem to exemplify a particular genre, there is always some variation. In the examplesdiscussed in this book, certain situational constraints (such as an automated push-button menu)may dictate slight additions or changes in the structure of a text. Nevertheless, each conversationcan represent an instance of a genre, because it still exhibits a certain confluence of structural,thematic, and stylistic features.

In this regard, what is particularly attractive about Bakhtin's notion of speech genres from ananalytical standpoint is the fact that they allow for—indeed, readily incorporate—a certaindegree of flexibility. Speech genres have fuzzy edges; although they represent a potentiallyinfinite number of stable forms of spoken interaction (reflecting the vast heterogeneity ofhuman activity), they ebb and flow over time, for they are inevitably grounded in speakers'own behavior. Swales has noted that "the nature of genres is that they coalesce what is sayablewith when and how it is sayable" (Swales, 1990:88). As "what is sayable" changes diachronically,genres too must change. As a result, genres represent "the residue of past behavior, an accretionthat shapes, guides, and constrains future behavior" (Morson and Emerson, 1990:290).

Genres can also expand and grow by combining with one another. Bakhtin recognized twotypes of genres—primary and secondary—and he argued that primary genres can "knit together"much like bones and form new, secondary genres (Morson and Emerson, 1990:293). We thusfind that groups of utterances, which we might call sub-genres, come together to form larger,overarching genres. This is the idea adopted in this book. Specifically, within the conversationsthat we will examine, there are recurring instances of problem reports (one type of utteranceand sub-genre), as well as offers of assistance (another type of utterance and sub-genre), whichco-occur within the larger generic frame of Japanese business telephone conversations, orJBCs.

1.6. FOCAL EXCHANGE: PROBLEM PRESENTATION AND RESOLUTION

Within the proposed genre of business telephone conversations, this investigation will primarilybe concerned with the analysis of one particular type of exchange (or sub-genre) that involvesthe reporting of problems. These exchanges may be described generally as follows.

First, a customer or intermediary ("service recipient") contacts a company ("service provider")by telephone to report a problem with a service that had been scheduled at a date and timeprevious to the present telephone conversation. In the examples observed in the data anddiscussed herein, typically this service entails the shipment of goods such as food or booksthrough parcel delivery companies; however, in some cases, other services were involved, suchas the provision of bank statements indicating receipt of wire transfers. The term ''servicerecipient" rather than "customer" has been selected here as a cover term because two types ofcalls were observed in the data. In the first, a customer contacts the company from which s/heordered certain goods (such as food or books) to indicate, for example, that a shipment neverarrived. In this type of call, the customer is the service recipient and the company contacted isthe service provider. In the second type of call, which represents a follow-up of the first, thecompany contacted by the customer calls the shipper to report the problem. In this case, the

Introduction 37

company contacted by the customer becomes the service recipient, and the shipper representsthe service provider. For clarification, in many cases the terms "caller" and "call recipient" areadopted instead. Note that the majority of the problem report calls in the corpus are inter-organizational in nature; relatively few calls were recorded that were initiated by customerswith regard to problematic transactions. As such, the focus of the discussion in subsequentchapters, as well as the examples presented, will reflect this distribution of calls.

Second, upon hearing the details of the problem, but not necessarily after having been explicitlyrequested to do so, the service provider responds by offering to take a step toward remedyingthe problem.

Third, depending upon the service provider's ability to resolve the problem immediately, asolution is either proposed or the representative indicates s/he will check into the matter andcontact the customer again.

1.6.1. The maeoki as a prefatory move in presenting problems

A significant portion of chapter 3 will be given over to a description and classification of theutterances which service recipients use to initially "announce" their reason-for-call to theservice provider. In this analysis, I will adopt the term maeoki for these utterances, followingKashiwazaki (1993). Literally speaking, the term means 'place before.' as in 'put down inplace ahead of time.' We will note through examples from the corpus that these utterancesfunction much like pre-requests or pre-announcements in other languages, and as such areuseful in "maintaining the floor" for the caller, so that s/he may proceed with an explanation offurther details about the problematic transaction.

A critical element which most of these maeoki utterances have in common is the extendedpredicate (EP) or n(o) desu construction. Over the course of the next several chapters, we willtherefore explore the function and situated use of this deictic form. Since the subjects in thiscorpus readily employed the pattern in utterances subsequent to the maeoki as part of theirexposition of problems, as well as in various moves toward resolution of the problems and inrefusals of switchboard requests, the EP will understandably loom large in our analysis of thesecalls.

1.6.2. Working definition of offers

For the purpose of identifying offers within the genre of business telephone conversations, thefollowing working definition was developed and adopted:

An offer of assistance may be said to have occurred when aservice provider either implicitly or explicitly commits him/herselfto satisfying the needs of a service recipient (either by agreeingto do so or by volunteering to do so). These needs may be perceived


by the service provider, with or without their explicit expressionby the service recipient.

1.6.3. Moves adopted by service providers to offer assistance

Service providers in the JBC corpus regularly adopted two forms in their moves to offerassistance to service recipients. In this section, I will briefly describe the meaning and functionof these forms in order to lay the groundwork for a more detailed discussion in chapters 3, 4,and 5 of their use in particular contexts.

The first form observed regularly in the data is the consultative pattern l-(mas)(y)oo ka?/,which we have already observed in excerpts (1), (2), (3) and (4). This pattern, which may occureither in distal-style l-masyool or direct-style l-(y)ool, may be used by a speaker to seekconfirmation from the addressee that s/he wishes the speaker to do the service under discussion.Recall in the case of (1), repeated below as (26), that Etsuko was already aware of the needexpressed by the teachers for the purchase of certain office supplies, but she was perhaps notcertain as to whether or not the teachers expected her to buy the stamps as well.

(26) #Katte kite agemasyoo ka?buy-GER come-GER give to out-group-CNs Q'Shall (I) go buy (them) for you?'

Etsuko's mistake, as noted earlier, relates to the pragmatic inappropriateness of the donatoryauxiliary ageru. Note, however, that the consultative l-masyoo ka?/ portion of her offer was notincorrect. In fact, the form suggested by her mother in (2), Katte mairimasyoo ka? (repeatedbelow as (27)). maintains this distal consultative ending:

(27) Katte mairimasyoo ka?buy-GER come-CNs, Q

'Shall (I) go buy (them)?'

If Etsuko had been more certain that there was an expectation on the part of the teachers thatshe should purchase not only the supplies, but the stamps as well, she might have used thedeclarative alternative presented earlier in (5), repeated below as (28):

(28) Zyaa, katte mairimasu.19

in that case buy-GER

'In that case, (I)'ll go buy (them).'

If, for example, she had purchased stamps in the past and was being requested to do so again,she might have simply stated this in a declarative form. Since the period of time in which shehad been serving as office assistant had been quite limited, however, it is possible that she didnot yet have a clear sense of the obligations which her role entailed.

Introduction 39

In the case of example (3), Totte ageyoo ka? (shown below as (29)), there were no pre-establishedrole expectations as to who should take the picture. Therefore the teacher's use of both thedonatory auxiliary ageru and the l-(y)oo ka?/ consultative pattern was appropriate, in order toseek confirmation from the students that she, and not someone else, should take the picture.

(29) Totte ageyoo ka?take-GER give to out-group- CNS-> Q

'Shall I take (it) for you?'

The use of the l-masyoo ka?/ pattern in the JBCs that have been recorded for this study isconsistent with the analysis just presented. Offers to have someone call back, look into aservice problem, or resolve a service problem on the spot were made by JBC conversationalistsas part of their regular work-related duties. As such, these offer tokens never included donatoryauxiliaries. Moreover, in response to "switchboard requests" in which callers asked to speakwith someone who was presently unavailable, JBC conversationalists most frequently adoptedthe l-masyoo ka?! form when offering a return call. By using this pattern, the call recipient canleave the final decision up to the caller, who may either confirm that s/he wishes to have therequested person call back, or indicate that s/he herself will call back at a later time. The callrecipient will not use the donatory auxiliary ageru, or the honorific auxiliary sasiagent, becausemaking such offers in response to incoming calls simply constitutes one aspect of their usualresponsibilities. Pragmatically speaking, in other words, it would be inappropriate for a callrecipient in this situation to present her offer of assistance as a favor to the caller. Note,however, that call recipients do employ the honorific-polite verbal sasiageru 'give-to-out-group'in a non-auxiliary capacity when offering the return call, as in Notihodo orikaesi sasiagemasyooka? 'Shall (I/we) give (you) a call back later?' In this context with this usage, there is nonuance of condescension, in contrast to examples discussed earlier with respect to the donatoryauxiliary.

To illustrate this usage of the l-masyoo ka?! pattern, let us consider example (30), which istaken from the Kansai data. The caller, a male bank employee, has requested to speak with thegeneral manager of Kansai Imports (KI), an international firm located in Kobe. Ms. Sasaki, thefemale employee of Kansai Imports who takes his call, indicates that the manager is away fromher seat at the moment, and offers to (have her) call back:

(30) Offering a return call with -masyoo ka! [KI #1 -10]

1 A Tadaima seki hazusite 'masite, modotte kitejust now seat leave-GER be-GER return-GER come-GER

2 A mat n desu ga:be-NEG-IPF EP CP

'It's that (she)'s away from her desk right now and hasn't returned,but..'


3 C A soo desu ka//. Wakarimasita.oh so CP-IPF Q become clear-pp

'Oh, is that so. I see.'

4 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

-> 5 A Yorosikereba, kotira no hoc kara, orikaesi:good-pay this CN side from return

6 A odenwa simasyoo ka?telephone call do-iPF-cNs Q

'If (you) like, shall (we/I) call (you) back [from this side]?'

7 C E:to: so:sita:ra:HES in that case

'Um, in that case,'

8 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

9 C Hai. A, dekimasitara, onegai dekimasu desyoo ka.yes oh be able-CND request-iPF-por 4> CP-TENT Q

'Yes. Oh, could (I) ask (you) to do (that)?'

By extending her offer in line 5 by using the consultative orikaesi odenwa simasyoo ka?,Ms. Sasaki defers to the caller's wishes regarding a call back; her use of the provisional formyorosikereba in conjunction with the consultative pattern further underscores the open-endednature of her utterance. In response, the caller confirms that he would like to receive the returncall (A, dekimasitara, onegai dekimasu desyoo ka.).

The second form which was observed to occur regularly in offers of assistance in JBCs was thedeclarative pattern l-masu n(o) del. Consider the following excerpt from another conversationin the Kansai data, in which a male customer has called Kansai Imports and makes a switchboardrequest to speak with a particular person, but the call recipient indicates that the requestedperson is unavailable to take his call. The customer offers to call back again later, saying:

(31) Offering a return call with l-masu n(o) de/ [KI #1-7]

1 C A, soo simasitara, mata ano notihodo kakesasiteoh so do-CND again HES later call-CAu-GER

Introduction 41

2 C moraimasu20 n de.get-from-out-group-iPF EP-GER

'Oh, in that case, (I)'11, um, take the liberty of calling again later,

In order to understand why this pattern is appropriate in this context, we must first examine themore general function of the nominal no and its use in what has been called the extendedpredicate construction. Ray (1989:36) has categorized the various applications of the boundmorpheme no in different syntagmatic environments as follows:

(32) Uses of the nominal no in various syntagmatic environments

Intra-phrasal:no creates a link between two nouns within a nominal phrase.

Intra-clausal:nominalizer no occurs within a clause, e.g., as head in a noun phrasethat is subject, direct object, etc.

Inter-clausal:nominalizer no participates in establishing the hypotacticrelationship obtaining between two clauses.

Intra-discourse:nominalizer no is matrix predicate final (sometimes followed bysentence particles), and links the present moment in the discourse tosome other information within the discourse, namely the content ofthe clause it nominalizes.

Let us consider examples that illustrate each of these uses in turn.

(33) Intra-phrasal use of no

Hanako no kurumaHanako car

'Hanako's car'

In its intra-phrasal application, no creates a link between two nouns in the pattern IX no Y/,which may be glossed as 'Y characterized in terms of X.' When no connects two nouns in thisway, the product is a noun phrase, hence the 'intra-phrasal' categorization. In the resultingphrase, a particular characteristic, X, is associated or identified with the head noun, Y. In Ray'swords, "Y is referred to X." Thus in example (33) above, we have an instance of a particularkind of car—that is, one owned or driven by Hanako.


(34) Intra-clausal use of no

Iku no wa Tanaka-san dake desu.go-ipp TOP Mr/s. Tanaka only COP-IPF

'It is only Mr/s. Tanaka who will go.'

When no is used intra-clausally, it functions to nominalize a verbal, adjectival, or nominalpredicate. In example (34), no nominalizes the verbal predicate iku\ the resulting nominalphrase indicates the action of going. Once this act of going has been nominalized, it may thenbe referred to. or a comment may be made about it—which is precisely what occurs in theexample above.

(35) Inter-clausal use of no (Ray, 1989:81)

Ima isogasii no de ato de denwa simasu.now is busy COP-GER later telephone do-ipp

'Being the case that (I)'m busy now, (I)'11 call (you ) later/

The inter-clausal use of no is similar to the intra-clausal use of no in that both involvenominalization. In example (35) above, no is combined with the gerund of the copula, resultingin a hypotactic or dependent relationship between two clauses, /clause 1 no de clause2/. Literallyspeaking, we may characterize expressions of this type as follows: 'Being that clause 1, clause2.'The first clause is nominalized and subordinated to the second, and the information nominalizedin that clause is presented or referred to as a given or presupposed—in other words, somethingthat is non-challengeable—in relation to the superordinate clause that follows(Ray, 1989:66ff, 82ff). What follows in the matrix clause may still be open to discussion. In(35), for example, the speaker is offering to call someone back later, due to the fact that she isbusy. It is entirely conceivable that the recipient of this offer might refuse, offering instead tocall back at a more convenient time. What she cannot do, however, is refute the informationreferred to by no—in this case, the fact that the first speaker is busy.

(36) Intra-discourse use of no [KI #5-17]

Tadaima hoka no denwa de hanasi -tyuujust now another CN telephone LC speaking in the middle of

na n desu.

COP-IPF EP

'It's that just now (she)'s talking on another line.'

This usage of no is what has been called the Extended Predicate (EP) construction (Jorden, 1963;Noda, 1981; Jorden and Noda, 1987) or the I no desu/ construction (Alfonso, 1966; Kuno, 1973).This construction may be described as follows:

Introduction 43

Japanese predicates ending with the indicative inflection (i.e.,perfective or imperfective) of verb, adjective, or copula may beextended with a noun no, or, more commonly, with its alternantn. The extended form plus a copula is a special kind of predicate,called the 'extended predicate.' The extended predicate may occurwherever its corresponding non-extended predicate may occur.21

Ray characterizes this use of no as an 'intra-discourse' pattern,

because no is sentence-final and there is no case-related or syntacticlink between no and any other element within that sentence. Rather,the link exists on the discourse level, such that some informationother than that in the NO-nominalized clause is referred to andexplained by or commented on with the information in the noclause. (Ray, 1989:9)

The "information other than that in the M9-nominalized clause" to which the speaker referswhen employing this construction is something that the speaker expects the listener to be ableto recover, either from the previous discourse, the immediate context, or perhaps even thefollowing (as yet unspoken) utterance. As both Noda (1981, 1990) and Ray (1989) haveemphasized, the underlying function of no, not only in the EP construction but in all of its usesas illustrated above, is one of pointing or referring. In the EP construction, when a speaker usesno, s/he alerts the listener to the fact that s/he is trying to connect some information presently atissue to the immediately preceding discourse or to the larger communicative context.

Let us now reconsider example (31), presented below as (37), in light of our discussionregarding the referring function of no.

(37) Offering a return call with l-masu n(o) de/ [KI #1-7]

1 C A, soo simasitara, mata ano notihodo kakesasiteoh so do-CND again HES later call-CAU-GER

2 C moraimasu n de.get-from-out-group-iPF EP-GER

'Oh, in that case, (I)'ll, um, take the liberty of calling again later,

There are (at least) two possible ways of analyzing the use of n(o) in this utterance. Onepossibility would be to consider it as an example of the inter-clausal application, and to assumethat the matrix clause has been elided. However, it can be extremely difficult to say exactlywhat a speaker might have intended in the following clause. A second possibility would be toclassify n(o) as part of the EP construction, followed by the gerund of the copula. This wouldconstitute an intra-discoursal use of no, through which the speaker seeks to connect or relatewhat immediately precedes n(o) to the larger discourse context. At the moment in which the


speaker uttered (37), he had just been told that the person he wished to speak with wasunavailable. By using the contracted form n in his offer to call back, the speaker can referdeictically to that information, which he assumes his addressee to know, and connect the newinformation in his offer that he will be calling back later to that larger discourse frame. Suchdeictic reference also signals to the listener that the speaker is sufficiently confident about theinformation that he can refer to it and thereby present it as non-challengeable, non-problematicinformation.22 Stating this more generally, we can say that a speaker who adopts the l-masitn(o) de/ form in an offer of assistance would appear to do so in order to present a groundedassurance to the addressee of his/her willingness and intention to perform the given service.

In addition, by using a non-finite form—the gerund—to predicate an offer, a speaker canconvey a nuance of open-endedness which would not have been present if the speaker hadmade a declarative assertion with the form n(o) da. In adopting this gerund form, the speakeressentially assumes that the listener will know what to do, and/or will know how to interpretthe utterance. This sense can be conveyed to some degree in English by appending '(and) so....'to the offer—hence the gloss in (37), in which the speaker says, 'Oh, in that case. (I)'11, um,take the liberty of calling again later, so....' In fact, numerous Japanese informants familiar withthe data commented that the l-masu n(o) del form in this context provides a "softer" and "lessabrupt" ending to the utterance.

More generally speaking, the use of the verbal gerund in the manner just described is not at allunusual in Japanese; indeed, gerunds are routinely used in order to conclude an utterance whenwhat they clarify or expand upon is judged by the speaker to be accessible information.Consider, for example, the following segment from a conversation in the Kanto data corpus.The caller, Mr. Kawano of the International Study Center in Saitama Prefecture, has beendiscussing a possible order he would like to place with Ms. Yamada of Tokyo Books. Aftersome deliberation, he indicates that he will go ahead and fax the information to her on an orderform. He then cautions her that this does not yet constitute an actual order, and asks if that isacceptable. Ms. Yamada reassures him that yes, it will be fine, and amplifies her acceptance byreferring to the form he will send as an "estimate," rather than an actual order.

(38) Use of the gerund to conclude an utterance which clarifies oramplifies something that is judged by the speaker to be accessibleinformation. [TB #1A-14]

1 C Zyaa, tyotto tyuumon-syo no syosiki dein that case just order form CN form INST

2 C nagasityaimasu kedo, kore mada, tyuumon zya naigo ahead and send-iPF CP this still order be-NEG-iPF

Introduction 45

3 C n desu kedo// daizyoobu desu ne:!EP CP all right COP-IPF SP

'Well in that case, (I)'ll just go ahead and send (it) along on (an)order form, but it's that this still isn't (an) order, but that's OK,right?'

4 A A, ii desu yo.oh fine COP-IPF SP

'Oh, that'll be fine, you know.'

5 A Ano: omitumori to iu katati de.HES estimate QT say-ipp form COP-GER

'Um, (it) being in the form of (an) estimate.'

The tentative nature of Mr. Kawano's order had already been established over the course oftheir conversation up to this point, and therefore represents information that is accessible toboth speakers. As a result, Ms. Yamada can use the gerund form of the copula in line 5A toclarify her acceptance, noting that the fax, "being the form of an estimate," will be fine.

In order to summarize the previous discussion, let us now consider an example from the datawhich incorporates both the l-(mas)(y)oo ka?l and l-masu n(o) del patterns. The followingexcerpt is actually a continuation of example (30), in which a male bank employee has calledKansai Imports and has asked to speak with the general manager.

(39) Sequential example of l-masyoo ka?l and l-masu n(o) del [KI #1-10]


2 A inai n desu ga:be-NEG-IPF EP CP

'It's that (she)'s away from her desk right now and hasn't returned,but...'

3 C A soo desu ka//. Wakarimasita.oh so COP-IPF Q become clear-pF


4 A HalBC

'Mhm.'


5 A Yorosikereba, kotira no hoo kara, orikaesi:good-PKv this CN side from return

6 A odenwa simasyoo ka?telephone call do-iPF-CNS Q



'Um, in that case,'

8 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

9 C Hai. A, dekimasitara, onegai dekimasu desyoo ka.yes oh be able-CND request-iPF-POT ̂ CP-TENT Q


10A Hai, e:to, Inaisi-san.yes HES Mr. Inaishi

'Yes, um, Mr. Inaishi.'

11C Igarasi to moosimasu.Igarashi QT be called-ipp

'(I)'mlgarashi.'

12 A A, Igarasi-san. Sumimasen. Situree simasita.oh Mr. Igarashi be sorry-ipp rudeness do-pp

Oh, Mr. Igarashi. (I)'m sorry. Excuse me [for what I did].'

13 A Zyaa, anoo: modorimasitara kotira karawell then HES return-CND this side from

14A gorenrakusum yooni itasimasu node:contact-iPF^ in order do-iPF^ EP-GER

'Well then, um, (we/I)'11 see to it that (she) contacts (you) once(she)'s back.'

15C A,, hai.Oh ACK

'Oh, okay.'

Introduction 47

16 A Hal.ACK.

'Okay.'

17C Sumimase:n.be sorry

'(I)'m sorry [for troubling you].

18 A Hai.ACK

'Okay.'

19 C Yorosiku onegai-simasu:.well request-iPF ̂

'Please [take care of it for me].'

Looking at this longer stretch of discourse, we see that Ms. Sasaki, the female Kansai Importsemployee, ultimately makes two offers of assistance—the second of which is really a restatementof the first. She makes her initial offer in lines 5-6 (Yorosikereba, kotira no hoo kara, orikaesi:odenwa simasyoo ka?} after telling the caller, Mr. Igarashi, that the manager is away from herdesk. Igarashi's only response to this information had been to indicate that he understood(A soo desu ka. Wakarimasita), so Sasaki could not know for sure whether he wanted a returnphone call. As a result, Sasaki uses the consultative l-masyoo ka?/ pattern in her offer, leavingopen for the moment the possibility that Igarashi might either refuse or indicate that he himselfwould call back. After Igarashi confirms in lines 7 and 9 that he would indeed like a return call,Sasaki states his name for verification purposes, and Igarashi corrects her. In lines 13-14,Sasaki then rephrases her initial offer, this time presenting it as an assurance that she will see toit that someone in the office (presumably the general manager, but this is not stated explicitly)will contact Igarashi upon the manager's return (Zyaa, ano: modorimasitara kotira kara gorenrakusuru yoo ni itasimasu no de). Due to the form l-masu no del, her assurance is grounded in—thatis, connected deictically to—the previous discourse frame, which includes the fact that Igarashihad requested to speak with the manager, the fact that the manager was presently away fromher desk, and also the information in Sasaki's first offer that she would have someone callIgarashi back. Sasaki's utterance therefore represents more than a mere offer of assistance;through the use of no de it (a) indicates an awareness on Sasaki's part of Igarashi's needs,(b) underscores the connection between the restated offer and the larger discourse frame leadingup to that offer, and (c) conveys her willingness and intention to perform this service on hisbehalf. Finally, by choosing to present her offer in the non-finite l-masu no del form, Sasakialso displays a degree of deference to her customer by leaving her utterance open-ended. WereIgarashi to have a problem with her offer, he could easily indicate this in the immediatelyensuing utterance. In actuality, however, Igarashi gratefully accepts Sasaki's offer of assistance,and their conversation comes to a close.


1.7. SPECIFIC GOALS OF THE STUDY

In undertaking this investigation, I have four specific goals in mind. First and most basically, Iseek to determine how the service recipient conveys information regarding the problem to theservice provider. Through an examination of the discourse leading up to an offer of assistance,we can uncover the range of moves which service recipients adopt in these situations in orderto enlist help from service providers. One of these moves is the way in which service recipientsintroduce the topic of the problem itself into the conversation, so we will look closely atmaeoki "prefatory statements." We might ask, for example, if service recipients initially statethe problem and follow that report with an account of the details of the transaction, or do theypresent the problem in a narrative fashion, recounting the events leading up to the problemchronologically? Do they report the details of the transaction in any particular order? To whatdegree do they explicitly mention the problem itself (e.g., "The package never arrived") and towhat degree do they explicitly request assistance? We cannot take these issues for granted norassume that there is one "script" which conversationalists will follow in any given situation. Aswe will see through further examples in the data, the way in which an interaction unfolds maydiffer depending upon the particulars of the situation. These particulars include the degree towhich the participants know each other, the beliefs and expectations of each participant regardingthe problem at various points in the interaction, the relative roles of the participants, and soforth.

The second goal is to describe the function and, if possible, distribution of the linguistic formswhich service providers employ when responding to these reports of problems. Here I amprimarily interested in the two patterns just introduced which service providers were observedto use most frequently when offering assistance—the interrogative form l-masyoo ka?l and thedeclarative form l-masu n(o) del. To what extent might the choice of these forms be a functionof the mutual expectations of the participants up to and including that point in time in theconversation? In other words, how might (a) the role relationship between the participants, thatis, service provider and service recipient, and (b) the relevance of the preceding discourse, besaid to motivate the form of an eventual offer of assistance?

My third goal in this investigation relates to the second, and that is to ascertain how thesestrategies of reporting problems and of offering assistance toward their resolution might berelated to (a) the type of genre in which the exchanges appear, namely JBCs, and (b) largercultural norms and values. My hypothesis is that the expectations that participants bring tothese encounters are shaped by roles (such as service provider and service recipient) which areestablished in and definitive of the genre, and that this may have some influence on thelinguistic means employed by the participants. Chapter 3 will therefore be devoted to a descriptionof the genre of business telephone conversations—in particular, the structural and registerfeatures of such calls. Regarding the cultural component, as Hymes (1962, 1972, 1974),Gumperz(1982a, 1982b) and others have pointed out, every speech community has certainsocially preferred "ways of speaking," and it is likely that the structure of these conversations,as well as the strategies adopted by conversationalists in the reporting of problems and theoffering of assistance, will to some degree be consonant with these larger cultural norms.

Introduction 49

Finally, the fourth goal is to present and analyze these interactions as potential resources forlinguists, business professionals, and teachers of Japanese in order to provide authentic examplesof the conversational moves that native speakers use to report problems and seek assistance inJapanese business telephone conversations. Implicit in this analysis is the assumption that thesemoves might differ from those typically employed in a similar genre in the non-native Japanesespeaker's own speech community, and moreover that by undertaking more situated (and perhapscomparative) studies, we might enable such speakers to become more culturally sensitive to thenuances of Japanese conversation.

The voluminous literature contrasting the business negotiation "styles" of Japanese and Americanshas little to say on such specifics, possibly because most negotiations are conducted in Englishor through translators, rather than in Japanese between the principals. While research based onactual or simulated negotiations suggests that there are "linguistic differences" in the moveswhich Japanese and Americans adopt over the course of a negotiation, analyses to-date havefocused on the ways in which offers in the bargaining sense are preferred and responded to inorder to achieve optimal outcomes, and also how Japanese vs. American negotiators posequestions, employ the word 'no,' display "aggressive" behavior, respond to silence, and thelike (e.g., Van Zandt, 1970; Graham and Herberger, 1983; Graham, 1985; March, 1988;Graham, 1990, 1993). Similarly, the popular press has produced quite a number of books onthe topic of "doing business with the Japanese" (e.g., Zimmerman, 1985; De Mente, 1987;Kato and Kato, 1992), but these discuss cultural differences, management strategies, the problemof trade barriers, and so forth but do not examine actual instances of discourse. As such, thesestudies are thus of limited utility in answering the sorts of questions just posed above. Inessence, what we seek to explore here is the genre of everyday negotiation through whichJapanese speakers manage the mundane but nonetheless essential responsibilities and problemsof their professional lives over the telephone.

Publications on Japanese business discourse in the pedagogical field are similarly limited inscope. Language textbooks, perhaps due to space limitations, often provide conversationalexemplars that appear to be abstracted from natural encounters; features such as back-channel,hesitation markers, and the use of minor sentences and fragments may be omitted in favor offully-formed, grammatical sentences (Yotsukura 1997). Yet as the transcripts of actualconversations presented in this study will demonstrate and as studies by Clancy (1982),Mizutani (1983), Ikuta (1988), Maynard (1989), Haru Yamada (1992), Szatrowski (1993), andKashiwazaki (1993) have shown, such features are essential to successful interactions, for theyrepresent important parameters in the mutually orchestrated dance between speaker and hearer.If a non-native speaker who is unfamiliar with the moves, tempo, and character of the danceattempts a performance with a native speaker, the result can often be clumsy and ill-conceived.This study is therefore an attempt to better identify these elements in one particular genre ofinteraction.


1.8. OVERVIEW OF SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS

In order to provide a maximally informed, "thick description" (Geertz, 1973) of the data in thisinvestigation, it will first be necessary to lay the proper groundwork. Therefore chapter 2 willconsist of the following: (1) a review of recent methods for data elicitation and analysis; (2) therationale for the ethnomethodological approach adopted in the study; (3) a description of themethods used to collect the JBC data; (4) a discussion of the terms genre, style, and register,and a description of the various stylistic choices which Japanese speakers face on an everydaybasis in their language; and (5) a summary of some of the major contributions in the field ofconversation analysis (CA), followed by a critique of recent studies of offers in Japanese.

Once this groundwork has been established, chapter 3 goes on to describe the nature of Japanesebusiness transactional telephone conversations in terms of their overall sequential organizationand register features, based on numerous excerpts from the data corpus. In chapter 4 weconsider several conversations which illustrate three of the call types which occurred mostfrequently in the corpus, namely general toiawase inquiries, merchandise (book) orders, andshipping confirmations. Chapter 5 presents two complete conversations from the data in orderto analyze the ways in which service recipients report problems and service providers offerassistance toward their resolution. A few English examples from parallel types of calls will alsobe introduced in order to consider possible cultural and/or linguistic differences in approach.Chapter 6 then concludes the study, and suggests possible areas for future research.

NOTES

1. According to a seminal study by Sacks et al. (1974:699) on this topic, one of the focal questions to beaddressed is "What might be extracted as ordered phenomena from our conversational materials whichwould not turn out to require reference to one or another aspect of situatedness, identities, particularitiesof content or context?"

2. All personal names, as well as the names of companies and other organizations, have been changedfor privacy reasons.

3. As indicated in the key to transcription conventions, the "#" symbol indicates a pragmaticallyinappropriate utterance; that is, one which is grammatically feasible but situationally inappropriate.

4. 'Out-group' here refers to soto, as opposed to 'in-group,' or uti. The uti/soto dichotomy is a fundamentalorientational concept in Japanese society. See Bachnik and Quinn (1994) for a collection of essayswhich discuss the various ways in which this orientation is expressed in relation to the Japanese self,Japanese society, and through the Japanese language.

5. In the performance of any errand, there are three basic actions involved: going, doing the action ofthe main verb, and returning (coming back). In English, we express the first two actions, as demonstratedin the English gloss for this example: '(I)'" g° buy (them).' The 'coming back' portion is inferred bythe listener. In Japanese, however, the second and third actions in the series are expressed (i.e. doing theaction of the main verb and returning), and the initial action of 'going' is left unmentioned.

6. See, for example, Mizutani and Mizutani (1977:270-273).

Introduction 51

7. That is, the gerund form of the main verb, followed by ageru, the donatory auxiliary.

8. The American custom of tipping also does not extend to Japan, although a service charge of 15 percentis sometimes added to the bill.

9. Kanto is the eastern region of Japan centered around Tokyo, and Kansai is the western regioncentered around Osaka, Kyoto, and Kobe.

10. "Generic" as the adjectival equivalent of "genre."

11. I have adopted the name Tokyo Syoten to represent the site where data was collected in the Kantoarea. The word syoten has two interpretations; one is 'bookstore,' while the other is 'book publisher.'The building where Tokyo Syoten is located actually consists of both a bookstore and a publishing house(on separate floors). As will become clear from later data samples, some calls were recorded betweenbookstore employees and staff in the publishing house; at other times, calls were recorded betweenpublishing staff members. All of these have been classified as "in-house calls." Calls to and fromwholesalers, customers, and other clients were also recorded.

12. The word Hai here acknowledges and responds to the telephone ring. In the conversation below aswell as in other calls discussed in the book, hai is glossed in a variety of ways depending upon thecontext. Sometimes it functions as aizuti (back-channel), acknowledging the interlocutor's previousutterance and/or acting as a continuer to urge the other party to go ahead. In this sense it allows theprevious speaker to maintain the "floor," so in such cases I have glossed it as 'Mhm.' At other times haimore closely approximates the word 'yes' or 'okay' as an answer to a question or assertive response tothe previous turn, so I have glossed it as such. These and other fine distinctions in the use of aizuti inJapanese have been discussed by Maynard(1986, 1988, 1989) among others.

13. The word hodo, which indicates approximation in Japanese, can also imply politeness due to itsnonspecificity. See Jorden and Noda (1987:128).

14. The complete form of this humble-polite expression \sKasikomarimasita. It is an utterance commonlyused by employees in service encounters when a customer has requested some sort of assistance. Theimperfective form kasikomaru literally means 'obey respectfully'; the perfective is used to convey thesense that one has understood what has just been requested. Martin (1994:486) provides a usefulEnglish equivalent: 'I understand and will comply (with your request).'

15. Haa is a more formal equivalent of hai, and may be used as an acknowledgement or affirmativereply. Although it sounds much like the ha ofHa-ha-ha no hanasi, there is no semantic connection.

16. Literally the phrase Situree simasu means '(I) will commit a rudeness'; in this context, it refers tothe fact that the speaker is about to hang up the phone—a potentially face-threatening act.

17. Bakhtin (1986:60). See, for example, Levinson's (1983:18) definitions of the sentence and theutterance.

18. In this respect, Bakhtin's definition of the utterance resembles Sacks et al. 's (1974) notion of a turnin conversation.

19. Zyaa, katte mairimasu no de is also possible here; the use of no de in such contexts will bediscussed further in section 1.6.3.

20. As described by Jorden and Noda (1990:128), the combination /causative gerund + itadakimasul


"occurs commonly as a ritualistic, humble-polite statement of the speaker's intention to do somethingthat reflects or assumes the permission (and power) of the person addressed, comparable to English 'I'mgoing to take the liberty of doing so-and-so' ('I'm going to accept [your] letting me to do so-and-so')."There appears to be dialectical variation in the usage of this pattern, in that speakers in the Kansairegion of Japan use the pattern l-sasete moraimasul and its variant l-sasite moraimasul (as in thisexample) more frequently in such contexts than they would the humble-polite equivalents l-saseteitadakimasul and l-sasite itadakimasul. The latter combinations are more typically used by Kantospeakers. According to a native informant, the combinations using the plain form moraimasu have arather commercial connotation that is perhaps more common to Kansai, although it is not inconceivablethat the combinations using moraimasu could also be used in Kanto. For an example of the morestandard use of/-sasite itadakimasul by a Kanto speaker, see example (9), line 13 in this chapter.

21. Noda (1981:1). The copula in Japanese is a cover term for the word desu and its many forms,including the gerund fife and the distal perfective form desita.

22.1 am grateful to Charles Quinn for this observation.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

2.1. INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, we observed that offers of assistance in the JBC corpus were ofprimarily three different types: (a) offers to have a particular person return a phone call;(b) offers to look into a service problem and (in some cases) call back; and (c) offers to remedyservice problems "on the spot." It was also noted that service providers regularly adopted twoparticular forms in offering assistance to their clients; these were the consultative patternl-masyoo ka?l and the declarative statement of grounded assurance, l-masu n(o) del.

These forms were judged to be offers because they appeared in contexts in which a serviceprovider either implicitly or explicitly committed him/herself to satisfying the perceived orexplicitly expressed needs of a service recipient, either by agreeing to do so or by volunteeringto do so. Our evaluation of these forms as offers could not be based solely upon an examinationof the utterance(s) through which the service provider indicated s/he would assist the servicerecipient. Rather, it was also necessary to consider the prior discourse, in order to ascertain thedegree to which the service recipient had made his/her needs known, as well as the subsequentdiscourse, in order to evaluate the service recipient's response. The fact that the data corpusconsists of complete, authentic, tape-recorded conversations as opposed to isolated,decontextualized utterances eases this evaluation process considerably.

Yet many studies published to date on speech acts such as offers in Japanese and otherlanguages do not draw upon naturally occurring data for their analyses. Instead, they often relyupon discourse completion tests (DCTs), multiple choice questionnaires (MCQs) and other dataelicitation techniques which focus on individual utterances rather than longer stretches ofdiscourse.

2


This chapter therefore begins with a review of various perspectives on data elicitation andanalysis in order to explain the rationale behind the ethnographic methodology adopted for thepresent investigation. In the process, we examine the advantages of using tape recorded versushypothetical or recalled data for discourse analytic research. We also note the significance oftelephone conversations in our public and private lives and in the business world. This isfollowed by a description of the methods used for data collection in this study, includinginformation regarding site locations, set-up for audiotape recordings, and the subject pool. Wethen compare and contrast the concepts "genre," "register," and "style," and review the variousstylistic distinctions which Japanese conversationalists employ in their everyday and businesslanguage. A call from the data corpus is then presented as an illustration of some of thesedistinctions. The last part of the chapter consists of a description of some of the major findingsof conversation analysis which are germane to this investigation, and a summary of previousstudies on offers in Japanese.

2.2. RECENT METHODS FOR DATA ELICITATION

Much of the previous research conducted in the fields of pragmatics and sociolinguistics,including studies on offers in various languages, has relied upon strictly invented examples ordata elicited through Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), multiple choice questionnaires(MCQs), rating scales, experimental procedures, interview procedures, or role-plays. Indeed,the authors of perhaps the largest cross-cultural study on speech acts conducted to date—theCross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project or CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), whichexamined requests and apologies made by both native and non-native speakers in a range of 10to 14 varieties of primarily West European languages—based their conclusions upon datacollected through DCT questionnaires.

The authors of the CCSARP, in their "Introductory Overview" to the study, characterize theirperspective as follows:

The view adopted here with regard to speech act theory followsBierwisch (1980) in anchoring the study of speech acts stronglyin the area of linguistic communication. We contend that there isa strong need to complement theoretical studies of speech acts,based primarily on intuited data of isolated utterances, withempirical studies, based on speech acts produced by nativespeakers in context. It is only through the study of situated speechthat we can hope to construe a theory interconnectingcommunicative functions with the contexts in which they areembedded. (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:3)

Yet despite the authors' apparent support for empirical, situated studies, the CCSARP relies ondata from DCTs, which are not entirely "situated" in naturally occurring contexts.

Data and Methodology 55

Much of the reliance upon questionnaires and similar elicitation procedures of course derivesfrom the relative ease with which data may be collected in this fashion, and the deceptivereadiness with which answers on questionnaires may be compared for statistical analysis. Onealleged virtue of this methodology is that questionnaires can be useful for the "testing ofspecific hypotheses, comparison of specific populations, easing of analysis and administration,and contextual control" (Rose and Ono, 1995:192). In addition, Rose (1992b:52), citing Wolfsonet al. (1989), points out that such questionnaires may also "be used to gather large amounts ofdata quickly, create initial classifications of formulas and strategies that may occur in naturalspeech, corroborate results of ethnographic studies, and reveal unexpected variables." Blum-Kulkaet al. further note, in defense of their methodology, that

...in CCSARP we were interested in getting a large sample, inseven countries, of two specific speech acts used in the samecontexts. This would have been virtually impossible under fieldconditions. Moreover, we wished to compare speech acts notonly cross-culturally, but also within the same language, asproduced by native and nonnative speakers. These demands forcomparability have ruled out the use of ethnographic methods,invaluable as they are in general for gaining insights into speechbehavior. (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:13)

Hill et al. (1986:353) have also defended the use of questionnaires, arguing that "the virtue ofauthenticity in naturally occurring speech must be weighed against its reflection of speakers'sociolinguistic adaptations to very specific situations." Questionnaires, they note, tend to elicitmore "stereotypical" responses, which Hill et al. claim represent "the prototype of the variantsoccurring in the individual's actual speech" (1986:353, emphasis mine). Blum-Kulka et al. seethis as an advantage for their own methodology, claiming that "It is precisely this morestereotyped aspect of speech behavior that we need for cross-cultural comparability" (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:13, emphasis mine).

These remarks raise several critical questions about goals and methodology. First, if we areendeavoring, through research, to assess the "actual speech" behavior of members of variouslinguistic communities, can we realistically depend upon data elicitation techniques that merelyproduce "stereotypical" patterns? As Rose (1992a, 1992b, 1994), Rose and Ono (1995), Kasperand Dahl (1991) and others have argued, questionnaires may not in fact be a valid measure foraccurately assessing what native speakers actually "do with words," to borrow Austin's (1962)phrase. More likely, responses on such questionnaires reflect what speakers say they do withwords.

Most, if not all of these studies follow the lead of the speech act literature, specifically thepractice of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969, 1975, 1979c) of relying upon invented examples ofsingle sentences that are usually examined in complete isolation from larger discourse contexts.Searle himself stated that "the characteristic grammatical form of the illocutionary act is thecomplete sentence" (Searle, 1969:25). The difference in the newer studies is that they employ


attested examples from native speakers, albeit those elicited through instruments such as DCTsand MCQs which are similarly based on reflective intuition. A major defect is that these DCTsand MCQs elicit reflection, which is not usually one of the live interaction choices thatconversationalists face at the spur of the moment, when formulating a response to an interlocutor'sprevious utterance(s).

Given that so many previous studies seem to have relied upon the intuitions and perceptions ofnative and non-native speakers, it would perhaps be wise at this juncture to briefly consider theappropriateness of this approach for various types of linguistic analysis. Chomsky (1957:13ff.49-50) was the first to argue that native speaker intuitions in regard to syntactic judgments canserve as a fairly reliable test of the adequacy of a proposed grammar for a given language.Moreover, he claimed that minimal pair tests can be used with native informants in order todetermine whether or not two words are phonemically distinct, and that such tests provide "aclear operational criterion for phonemic distinctness in completely non-semantic terms"(Chomsky, 1957:96-7). Finally, semanticians routinely employ entailment judgments in doingsemantic research.

However, native and non-native speaker intuitions involving pragmatic and sociolinguisticjudgments have been shown to be highly inaccurate (Labov, 1966; Blom and Gumperz. 1972;Brouwer et al, 1979; Wolfson et al, 1983; Wolfson et al., 1989). For example, Wolfsonet al. (1989) underscore the fact that in the sociolinguistic literature, native speakers' perceptionshave been shown to vary markedly from their actual speech behavior. This has been demonstratedin two ways; first, "when native speakers are asked to report what they or others would say in agiven speech situation, their responses are often very different from the speech behavior whichis actually observed," and second, "native speakers have been shown to be unaware that thereis a difference between their perceived speech behavior and their actual speech production"(Wolfson et al., 1989:181). This is probably due in no small part to the fact that it is extremelydifficult, if not impossible, to completely specify all of the features of the context of a particularsituation when asking speakers on a questionnaire how they might behave (i.e., what theymight say) in that situation. The format of questionnaires only exacerbates the problem, since ittends to elicit "short, decontextualized written segments" rather than the "longer routinestypical of actual interaction" (Wolfson et al., 1989:182-3).

Another problem that deserves mention here is the fact that DCTs and MCQs have beenemployed in cross-cultural studies that seek to compare the degree of communicative and/orpragmatic competence of native and non-native speakers. Yet Iwai and Yamada found in thedata they collected through a written elicitation procedure as well as role-plays that "bothnative and non-native speakers responded differently to the two different data collectionprocedures" (Iwai and Yamada, 1994:44). It is unclear whether these differences could havebeen attributed to the written vs. oral nature of the instruments themselves, rather than to nativevs. non-native competence and/or performance. Nevertheless, it would seem that a speaker'sperception of what he or she does or knows could differ from actual behavior, regardless ofwhether or not s/he is a native speaker. The authors conclude that "researchers should select


appropriate procedures according to whom they are collecting data from and why they areexamining their speech acts" (Iwai and Yamada, 1994:45).

This brings us to a second question that arises from the remarks of Blum-Kulka et al. andHill et al. which were cited above. The authors of the CCSARP claim that they are interested incomparing stereotypical speech behavior across cultures, but to what end? Their stated "generalgoal" is "to establish patterns of request and apology realizations under different social constraintsacross a number of languages and cultures, including both native and nonnative varieties"(Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:12). If those patterns do not stem from situated language-in-use—inthe words of Hill et al. (1986:53), if they do not reflect "speakers' sociolinguistic adaptations tovery specific situations," then they are necessarily of limited value, for as we argued in chapter 1.language means what it means in context.

A third methodological problem is the validity of using the same, or even modified. DCTinstrument in cross-cultural investigations. As Olshtain admits in regard to the data on apologiescollected in the CCSARP, "culture-specific tendencies may be an artifact of [the] data collectioninstrument." Olshtain also points out that "we need to develop a better means of collectingmrracultural data" (Olshtain, 1989:171, emphasis mine). Wolfson (1986), for example, hassuggested that researchers take a "two-pronged approach" that includes both elicitation andobservation.

2.3. RATIONALE FOR AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

Given the limitations of the DCT and similar data elicitation methods described above, andparticularly since the present investigation is not intended to be cross-cultural in nature butrather focuses on the rhetorical strategies adopted by native Japanese speakers, the decisionwas made to obtain through an ethnographic approach as much naturally occurring speech aspossible in order to ascertain how those speakers actually behave in certain contexts. In fact,the use of naturally-occurring conversation as a data source has been fundamental in morerecent research in discourse and conversation analysis, and many scholars such as Wolfsonhave noted the advantages of this approach in terms of data reliability:

Ethnographic field work is the only reliable method of collectingdata about the way speech acts function in interaction. Intuitionsabout speech usage are ... notoriously unreliable, since speakerstend to be aware of the societal norms and are too often misledinto believing that these norms represent the actual speech patternsof the community. . . . [D]ata collected by means of tapping intothe intuitions of naive native speakers, useful as they may be inpointing to some of the general outlines of differences betweennorms of different language groups, cannot, in themselves, provideus with the range of possible situations in which specific speechacts may occur or with the distribution of the various forms underinvestigation. A realistic study of speech use must involve the


actual observation of speech in use. (Wolfson, 1983:95, emphasismine)

The primary obstacle in conducting such ethnographic field work is what Labov, who advocatedthe use of one-to-one tape-recorded interviews as the optimal method of obtaining good datafor the analysis of the Black English vernacular, has called the "observer's paradox." Hedescribes this as follows:

The aim of linguistic research in the community must be to findout how people talk when they are not being systematicallyobserved; yet we can only obtain these data by systematicobservation. (Labov, 1972:209)

The problem, in other words, is that in the process of systematic observation the investigatormay affect the outcome of the results. This is a particularly troublesome matter when theinvestigator is not a member of the community being studied, and it is a primary motivation forthe use of native informants in ethnographic and anthropological research, as well as for the useof DCTs and MCQs in cross-cultural studies, since the questionnaires may be distributed andcollected by someone other than the investigator.

In order to minimize the negative effects of the observer's paradox in this study, it was decidedthat the most effective method for collecting the data would be to make audiotape recordings ofthe telephone conversations of native speakers over a period of several months. Audiotaperecordings of telephone conversations have been widely used by researchers in the field ofconversation analysis as a means of examining long stretches of discourse. Clearly in the caseof research on face-to-face interactions, videotaping is preferable to audiotaping as a methodbecause the latter does not capture mutually visible non-verbal behavior such as head nods,gaze, gestures, and the like. However, when the goal of the research is actually to investigatetelephone discourse in and of itself, audiotaping is appropriate because the mode of communicationfor participants is restricted to the aural/oral channel.

2.3.1. Tape-recorded versus hypothetical or recalled data

Tape-recorded data also have several advantages over hypothetical or recalled data, which wewill now review. First, barring technical difficulties or privacy considerations, interactions maybe examined in their entirety. This is extremely important for the analysis of contextual cuesand the co-construction of the interaction as it proceeds through the contributions of all of theparticipants.

Secondly, tape recordings may be reviewed repeatedly, by the investigator or any other personswith whom the recordings are shared. In each such review, the data remain unchanged. Repeatedreviews also allow hypotheses to evolve as the data become more familiar.

Data and Methodology 5 9

Finally, tape recordings are a more reliable source of data than are either hypothetical examplesor recalled utterances. As we have seen, what people say they do with words often contradictstheir actual performance. Furthermore, utterances recalled in retrospect frequently paraphrase,generalize, or abstract the content and form of interactions, such that finer details, such asback-channel and suprasegmental features, are usually omitted. Without these details, the overallsequential organization and collaborative nature of conversations is less likely to be revealed.

2.3.2. The importance of telephone conversations

Hopper (1992) has pointed out the importance of telephone conversations to our public andprivate everyday lives. The rapid development of superior technology in the last few decadeshas significantly improved the quality of voice transmission by telephone both domesticallyand internationally, and the instrument is now an indispensable tool for communication. Its ringis a "summons" which is difficult to ignore, despite the increased use of answering machinesand voice mail as screening devices.

Moreover, at least until the age of telex, facsimile, and electronic mail transmissions, thetelephone's convenience and practicality have been unsurpassed. Referring to telephone speakingas "a primary activity of contemporary living," Hopper points out that:

Part of the telephone's practical significance is that it extendsoccasions for speaking. Using the telephone each of us can speakacross distances, across social barriers, across barriers to mobility.Telephone conversation has occupied breadbasket provinces ofour semiotic lives. Its acoustic images knead our consciousness.Therefore the consequences of failing to understand the details oftelephone speaking grow in importance. To describe telephoneconversation is to understand ourselves better. (Hopper, 1992:3-4)

Garner (1984:23) has noted the importance of the telephone to business as follows:

Telephones are the only equipment that are found in nearly everybusiness. A store may not have typewriters, but it has telephones.An office may not have cash registers, but it has telephones. Afactory may have neither typewriters nor cash registers, but it hastelephones. It has been estimated that telephones are used at somepoint in at least 90 percent of all business transactions.

Although Garner is referring to telephone use in the United States, it is likely that usage iscomparable in Japan, particularly given the current popularity of cellular and PHS (personalhandy phone system) phones. Recent statistics on the number of telephone subscribers in Japanpublished by Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT) indicate that while there areapproximately 12 million business subscribers and 38.6 million household subscribers forgeneral (non-cellular) telephone service, there are roughly 71.6 million cellular and 5.7 million


PHS subscribers.1 Although the last two figures were not broken down for business versusprivate use, it is clear that cellular phone service has made significant inroads in the Japanesetelecommunications industry and likely represents an important mode of business communicationin addition to regular landline phones.

2.4. DATA COLLECTION METHODS FOR THIS STUDY

In this section I describe the methods used to collect data for this study. The reader will recallthat the initial aim of the investigation was to obtain naturally occurring tokens of offers in anumber of contexts and to analyze the ways in which these might be pragmatically constrainedby situational factors such as the age, sex, relative status and roles of participants in a variety ofinteractions. The resulting data corpus is therefore larger and broader in scope than the focus ofthis book, which looks only at business conversations and not at interactions in other milieu.

With the assistance of several native speaker informants, I recorded a total of 100 hours oftelephone conversations of staff members employed at three commercial and three educationalestablishments in the Kanto and Kansai regions of Japan over a period of several months in1994 and 1995.

In each location, one or more portable audiocassette tape recorders were connected directly toincoming telephone lines through the use of a special adapter; this produced extremely cleanrecordings free of background noise. Tape recorders were placed below employees' desks orotherwise out of sight in order to encourage as much natural language use as possible. Nativespeaker informants, who were employees of the companies being studied, assisted in therecording process by inserting and replacing tapes when necessary, at times when they wouldnot be observed by participating subjects. At all but one location, recording continued for atleast two months, by which time subjects reported that they had forgotten about the presence ofthe tape recorder.2

Subjects who agreed to participate were told that the recording was for linguistic analysis onlyand that they would remain anonymous, although certain ethnographic information as to thesex, approximate age, and linguistic background (i.e., where the subjects were born, broughtup, whether they had been abroad and for how long) was obtained in most cases. A total of 15men and 22 women between the ages of 20 and 60 agreed to participate, the majority being intheir 20s and 30s.3 If we consider that the recorded conversations are with countless otherpeople from outside organizations and that both incoming and outgoing calls were recorded,the resulting data in fact represent a much more far-reaching population.

Since many of the resulting audiotape recordings were of relatively formal, business-relatedconversations, I also collected over 100 hours of videotape recordings of Japanese televisiondramas which focus on family life and young people in order to obtain a wider variety of bothformal and informal social occasions and interactions. Due to the decision to focus morenarrowly on business telephone transactions in this study, however, these data will not betreated here.


Of the audiotaped corpus, 20 hours of recordings from one Tokyo company and 30 hours fromone Kobe company (a total of 541 calls) were examined for occurrences of offers. As the datawere collected from each location, I created a log file for each tape which lists an identifyingnumber for the call, tape recorder counter numbers, names and company affiliations of participants,an indication as to caller and call recipient(s), and a summary of the call content. When callsappeared to contain tokens of offers based on the working definition presented in chapter 1,those portions were transcribed and notations made as to the linguistic form of the offer(s). Asthe focus of the study evolved to include problem reports, additional relevant portions, and inmany cases entire conversations, were transcribed. Although I personally undertook most of theinitial transcriptions, subsequent drafts and additional transcriptions were completed by nativeJapanese speakers.

Portions of the original audiotapes containing JBCs from the two sites in Tokyo and Kobe weresubsequently digitized in February, 2000 at the University of Maryland's Visualization andPresentation Laboratory and burned to CD-ROM format. Brief annotations as to call type andparticipants have been added to the individual QuickTime files for ease of reference.

In order to begin to quantify the descriptive analysis presented herein, a number of concordancesearches have been conducted on some subsets of the data corpus, such as the group of problemreports that have been transcribed from the Kansai site. The software used for these searches isMonoConc Pro version 2.0, which was developed by Michael Barlow (2001) and published byAthelstan. It is hoped that once the corpus incorporates grammatical and other tags, furthersearches may be conducted which will provide a more thoroughly quantitative basis to thequalitative findings discussed here.

2.5. DESCRIPTION OF THE JBC CORPUS

The two commercial locations at which data were collected for this investigation are presentedin this book under the pseudonyms Tookyoo Syoten ('Tokyo Books,' abbreviated in transcriptnumber references as 'TB') and Kansai Yunyuu ('Kansai Imports,' abbreviated as 'KI'). TheTokyo Books site represents both a publishing house and a bookstore. Permission was grantedfor the telephone lines of nine employees to be recorded. One of these employees, Ms. Yamada,works in the sales department (eigyoo-bu), and the largest number of calls from this site wererecorded from her desk. Other calls were recorded from the bookstore, where three femaleemployees and one male staff manager worked, as well as at the desks of a male editing sectionchief, a male sales section chief, and two female editing staff members.

Kansai Imports is an international company which specializes in the sales of imported andlocally obtained goods for a largely non-Japanese clientele. The firm deals in primarily threetypes of sales: general (non-perishable) grocery items, perishable (e.g., frozen) grocery items,and books and videos. Calls at Kansai Imports were recorded on telephone lines that weredesignated for eight operations staff members who handle calls to and from suppliers, as wellas other business affiliates such as banks, post offices, and the like. Telephone lines designated


for calls to and from members (in either English or Japanese) were not recorded, because at thetime the study was conceived, there was no intention of examining cross-linguistic data.

Since the majority of the calls recorded at the Tokyo Books site were obtained through thesales department, and most of the calls from Kansai Imports were also sales- or operations-related,the decision was made in the preparation of this book to focus on these types of calls, in orderto work from a corpus of conversations that involved similar issues. Therefore the calls recordedin the editing section are not considered here. Some calls involving bookstore staff are representedhere because Yamada was often in touch with these employees with regard to book orders andhold requests.

Taken as a group, the conversations analyzed for this book consist of relatively formal, spokenJapanese interactions. Although personal calls to and from employees at the two sites appear inthe corpus and are included in the 541-call total, these were excluded from consideration. Thefocus here is thus on transactional, rather than interactional discourse (Brown and Yule, 1983);that is, on conversations "motivated by a clear pragmatic purpose, e.g., buying or selling,seeking help, or making an appointment" (Fry, 2001:18).

As discussed in chapter 1, the study concentrates in particular on inter-organizational callsinvolving problem reports and their resolution. These conversations differ in many respectsfrom those which Jefferson (1980, 1988; Jefferson and Lee, 1981) has discussed in herinvestigations of "troubles-talk" in "ordinary settings." Most importantly, with the exception ofcalls placed by customers, all other conversationalists in these JBCs are institutional employees.None of the participants, including customers, assume the role of "ordinary persons" engagingin everyday conversation with friends or family as the primary purpose of their calls.4 In thisregard, the participants also differ from most of those in Park's (2002) study of identificationand recognition sequences in Japanese and Korean telephone calls. In that study, the onlyso-called "official-type calls" are actually those of a hybrid type, between members of householdsand businesses.

Secondly, in the focal exchanges examined for this book, the essential goal of JBC callers is toreport and seek resolution of customer service-related problems, rather than to engage in"troubles-telling" in and of itself, or to seek professional advice, as in the case of calls to aradio phone-in program discussed by Collard and Pettinari (1998), calls to various helplines,for example those analyzed by Baker et al. (2001), and the like. Thirdly, in all of the JBCsexamined in the data corpus for this book that do not involve calls from customers, eachservice recipient has engaged in similar talk numerous times, if not with the same serviceprovider, then at least with other providers serving a similar capacity. Taken together, thesefactors suggest that JBC callers assume a different role (i.e., institutional) and are generallymore experienced at making such calls than are ordinary persons who place calls to, forexample, emergency services (Jefferson and Lee, 1981; Zimmerman, 1984; Whalen andZimmerman, 1987; Whalen et al., 1988; Wilson, 1991; Zimmerman, 1992; Tracy, 1997; Drew,1998).


Although calls to emergency services have often been characterized in the literature as being"institutional" in nature, they are in fact not conversations among institutional representatives.Rather, they represent a hybrid type of interaction between ordinary citizens and institutionalrepresentatives. Tracy (1997) has noted the tension resulting from participants' differinginteractional frames in such calls, in which citizen-callers assume a "customer service" frame,and emergency service calltakers speak from a "public service" frame. Similarly, Jefferson andLee (1981) have pointed out that the convergence of a "troubles-telling" and "service encounter"in such settings can be problematic for participants to manage. We will see in chapter 5 thatwhile JBCs do not share identical tensions, they can and do manifest what Jefferson and Lee(1981) call "interactional asynchrony," due to a different type of mismatch of expectationsbased on varying levels of experience among service recipients and service providers.

2.6. THE GENRE OF JAPANESE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONAL TELEPHONECONVERSATIONS

As explained in the introductory chapter to this book, Bakhtin's notion of speech genres will beused as an heuristic to explore and explain certain characteristics of a group of interactionschosen for analysis in this study. There are two purposes in doing so. The first is to point outthe advantages, for analytical purposes, in grouping spoken texts according to similarities incompositional structure, participant expectations and roles, stylistic conventions, and thematiccontent. The second is to provide a "thick description" (Geertz, 1973) of a number of conversationsas they occur in particular contexts, and which share these characteristics.

In the discussion that follows, I will elaborate more fully on Bakhtin's notion of genre, and willalso present some perspectives on genre, register, and style that have been suggested by otherresearchers in order to point out some of the ways in which these notions can enrich ourunderstanding of both conversationalists' behavior and the organization of conversation.

Although the scope of the present study will be limited to business transactional telephoneconversations, it is hoped that this method of analysis will provide a model for further explorationsin related genres, so that ultimately we might compare and contrast verbal behavior acrossgenres.

2.6.1. Defining genre according to Bakhtin (1986)

In chapter 1 we briefly discussed Bakhtin's definition of speech genres, noting that theyrepresent the confluence of particular forms of utterances with a particular theme, style(s), andcontext:

A speech genre is not a form of language, but a typical form ofutterance....Genres correspond to typical situations of speechcommunication, typical themes, and, consequently, also toparticular contacts between the meanings of words and actual


concrete reality under certain typical circumstances.(Bakhtin, 1986:87)

The notion of utterance in Bakhtin's definition refers to "a real unit, clearly delimited by thechange of speaking subjects, which ends by relinquishing the floor to the other, as if with asilent dixi, perceived by the listeners (as a sign) that the speaker has finished" (Bakhtin,1986:71-2). As such, it is a complete thought or expression of intention, grounded in actualreality. It differs from the sentence, whose boundaries Bakhtin notes "are never determined bya change of speaking subjects," and moreover "is not correlated directly or personally with theextraverbal context of reality (situation, setting, pre-history) or with the utterances of otherspeakers" (Bakhtin, 1986:73). The utterance is thus a unit of purposeful speech communication,whereas the sentence is a grammatical unit.

Bakhtin conceived of speech genres as organic entities which, in his words, "differentiate andgrow as the particular sphere [of social activity] develops and becomes more complex" (Bakhtin,1986:60). As such, we have noted that they have "fuzzy edges." In a parallel sense, Morson andEmerson note:

As individuals and cultures acquire a larger set of activities or awider compass of experience, their repertoire of genres grows.Taken as a whole, then, a culture's speech genres tend towardheterogeneity [and open-endedness] and form anything but asystem. (Morson and Emerson, 1990:292, insert mine)

The notion of speech genres thus has significant consequences for the ontogeny and phylogenyof languages.5 An individual's communicative competence is commensurate with his/herknowledge of speech genres, and the linguistic resources of a language at a certain point intime may be characterized by the vast array of speech genres in that language at that time. Weobserved in the previous chapter that the "real work" of performing genres is done by speakers,and on each occasion or enactment of a generic activity, the intersection of situational factorswith the speaker's intentions and goals, as well as thematic content, results in slightly differentbut nevertheless parallel stylistic choices and unique ("unrepeatable," to Bakhtin) utterances.This process breathes new life into an older form. But the process of enacting these activities orlanguage-games is neither random nor script-like; rather, conversationalists are guided in theirperformances of speech genres by their previous experiences in those genres, as well as by thegeneric constraints which accompany them. That is, with increasing experience in a genre ofactivity, speakers develop intuitions and expectations which help them to perform futureenactments on future occasions. These enactments will share certain commonalities of featuresin terms of structure, theme, and style, yet every enactment of a genre will have its own uniquequalities. Over time then, people, and genres, "accumulate experience" (Morson and Emerson,1990:292).


2.6.2. Other definitions of genre

Martin (1985:250) has defined genres as follows:

Genres are how things get done, when language is used toaccomplish them. They range from literary to far from literaryforms: poems, narratives, expositions, lectures, seminars, recipes,manuals, appointment making, service encounters, newsbroadcasts, and so on. The term genre is used here to embraceeach of the linguistically realized activity types which compriseso much of our culture.

At first glance, Martin's emphasis in this definition on accomplishing things through languagewould seem to parallel Austin's (1962) point about the performative uses of language andSearle's observations about speech acts. However, explaining why an activity is representativeof a certain genre is quite a different endeavor from classifying an utterance (in the traditionalpragmatic sense of the word) as a particular speech act.

To begin with, activities such as those mentioned by Martin consist of much longer stretches ofdiscourse than the single utterance, and each has its own internal structure. As Martin notes,genres and discourse structure are inherently intertwined:

All genres have a beginning-middle-end structure of some kind;these structures will be referred to here as schematic structures(equivalent to Hasan's (1977, 1979) generalized text structures).Schematic structure represents the positive contribution genremakes to a text: a way of getting from A to B in the way a givenculture accomplishes whatever the genre in question is functioningto do in that culture. (Martin, 1985:251)

Martin's definition of genres is not incompatible with Bakhtin's notion of secondary speechgenres, (that is, the larger stretches of discourse which incorporate shorter utterances or "primarygenres"). Indeed, his definition complements Bakhtin's well for our present purposes. Becauseit specifies elements of "beginning" "middle" and "end," as well as the notion of "a way ofgetting from A to B in the way a given culture accomplishes whatever the genre in question isfunctioning to do in that culture," it provides a very apt description of the "language-game" ofJBCs that we seek to explicate. In particular, the idea of "getting from A to B" in a culturallynuanced manner fits well with the focal interaction we will be describing in chapter 5, which isthe process of moving from the reporting of a problem to getting that problem closer to itsresolution.

Ventola (1987:22) has similarly commented on the way in which generic activities involve astage-like progression:


[SJocial encounters also have their specific ways of unfoldingand...this unfolding may specifically influence the way linguisticpatterns are manifested differently at each stage, when the discourseunfolds....We not only recognize social encounter types, but withinthese types there are also 'typical ways' of unfolding the socialactivity in question. Thus, our interest is not only in differentiatingbetween the types on the basis of the formal qualities, but also in'the linguistic progression of the social activity' within one type,i.e., how language is used at each stage when the unfolding of thesocial process is manifested in instances which belong to thesame type of social encounters. (Ventola, 1987:23, emphasis mine)

Ventola's definition of genres also brings to light another aspect of genres which we have notyet emphasized, which is the idea that genres are socially sanctioned ways of getting thingsdone.

Another point to mention regarding Martin's definition of genre above is that, as he suggests,the structure of a given genre may well reflect the larger culture within which it has developed.6

This aspect of Martin's definition distinguishes his perspective sharply from that of Levinson(1992), whose discussion of "activity types" does not seem to have taken the issue of culturaldifferences into account (Quinn, 2002). Levinson claims, for example, that "A very good ideaof the kind of language usage likely to be found within a given activity can...be predictedsimply by knowing what the main function of the activity is seen to be by participants"(Levinson, 1992:98). Yet we have noted how important the role of experience is in both thedevelopment of genres themselves and also in the acquisition of genres by members of a givenspeech community. Mere knowledge of the function of the activity (particularly on one singleoccasion) is not sufficient in order to acquire the intuitions necessary to perform it.

One would think that the way in which speakers go about reaching particular goals in variouscultures also might differ, but Levinson argues that "all the details of constraints on languageusage within each activity need not be taught to the foreign-language learner, or incorporatedinto a language-understanding program; it will suffice to specify the general goals and anyspecial unpredictable constraints" (Levinson, 1992:98). However, as we saw in our discussionin chapter 1 of the differences in the restaurant service encounter genre between Japan and theUnited States, there are both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects to genres which may beculturally based or at least culturally nuanced. Presenting students with a mere cataloguing of"special unpredictable constraints" as they encounter a new genre in a foreign language maynot ultimately prove to be a sufficient way of ensuring their pragmatic success in the language.

The notion of genre to be adopted here is therefore one which represents more than a set ofdiscrete vocabulary words, phrases, or other features used repeatedly on certain occasions. It ismuch like Bourdieu's (1990) notion of habitus, or 'lived habit.' By referring to a particulargenre in this way, we can move away from the concrete, reified idea of Levinson's "activitytypes," which would seem to unnecessarily consign behavior to an unchangeable pattern that


can be readily learned and which can be applied without modification or practice cross-culturally.Instead, we move toward a more flexible approach which would envision genres as sets orgroups of behavioral and linguistic dispositions which both native and non-native speakers of agiven language acquire through experience, and which can adapt to changes in the environmentover time. In other words, this is an organic, dynamic approach, as opposed to one that is static.Considering genre as "lived habit" also allows us to account for the fact that human beingsoften modify their behavior in subsequent enactments or performances of the same or similaractivity. A particular genre thus takes on meaning according to the linguistic and culturalsetting in which it is situated, and will also have certain characteristics which reflect themedium or channel through which it is enacted.

According to Threadgold (1989:108), "Genres are both 'products' and 'processes'— 'systems'and 'performances.'" He notes:

Each time a text is produced, so as to realize and construct asituation-type, it becomes the model for another text and anothersituation-type. As a model, it functions like a static, finished,product...according to which new texts can be constructed. Oncethe constructing begins it becomes again a dynamic process, a'performance' which will inevitably change the model with whichit begins. This means that we have to teach the interpersonal andtextual characteristic of genres, the probabilistic, dynamic aspectsof their performance as well as their schematic structures.(Threadgold 1989:108)

In the present investigation, for example, one of the goals is to explore the ways in whichJapanese business professionals present problems and seek their resolution on the telephone.We certainly would not and should not expect each and every problem-related conversation toproceed in an identical fashion, or to have a finite set of features which must always be presentin order for a given performance of an activity to be judged by the analyst or a member of thebase culture as being representative of the genre. Rather, there is likely to be a cluster offeatures—linguistic, cultural, and channel-related—which, when taken together, would help toidentify a given performance as being part of that genre. Some of the characteristics of onegenre might of course overlap with those of other genres. For example, a business transactionaltelephone call will share certain family resemblances with a personal telephone call, such as anopening section which might include self-identification/recognition sequences and greetings, atransitional section into the main topic or topics to be discussed, and a closing section whichmight include expressions of leave-taking. Nevertheless, there will also be certain aspects of abusiness call which set it apart from personal calls, such as register features; we will explorethese briefly in the next section and in more detail in chapter 3.


2.6.3. Genre, register, and style

We have mentioned that individual enactments of a genre share more or less commoncompositional or structural characteristics. Part of the reason that a genre has such discoursestructure is because it is performed as people pursue goals. In this connection, Bakhtin notesthat

A particular function (scientific, technical, commentarial, business,everyday) and the particular conditions of speech communicationspecific for each sphere give rise to particular genres, that is,certain relatively stable thematic, compositional, and stylistic typesof utterances. (Bakhtin, 1986:64, emphasis mine)

It is primarily this functional aspect of genres and their consequent structure which separatethem from registers, which we may define as the varieties of language use specific to certainspheres of speech communication. Recalling the observation cited in chapter 1 by Morson andEmerson (1990:292) about the "enormous amount of unformalized cognitive content" which isassociated with every speech genre, we may note that registers lack the sets of values, ways ofthinking about kinds of experience, as well as intuitions about preferred moves and situationalappropriateness which are all implied by speech genres.

Registers also lack an internal discourse structure and dynamic. Couture (1986) has pointed outthat "registers impose constraints at the linguistic levels of vocabulary and syntax, whereasgenre constraints operate at the level of discourse structure."7 She argues that "unlike register,genre can only be realized in completed texts or texts that can be projected as complete, for agenre does more than specify kinds of codes extant in a group of related texts; it specifiesconditions for beginning, continuing, and ending a text.'"* It is precisely these specificationswhich I seek to describe in the genre of Japanese business transactional telephone conversations,which indeed have distinct openings, developments, and closings.

Zwicky and Zwicky (1982:215) have suggested that we might consider registers in terms of acontinuum, with certain registers exhibiting paradigmatic associations on one end of thatcontinuum (e.g., baby talk, newspaper headlines and recipes) and more loosely defined registerssuch as the language of football or politics on the other end.

Apart from genres and registers, we may also distinguish styles, which are varieties of language"associated with the relationships between speakers and their interlocutors or audiences: thedimensions of intimacy/distance, casualness/formality, deference/dominance, peremptoriness/politeness, attention/inattention, and perhaps others" (Zwicky and Zwicky, 1982:214).

Zwicky and Zwicky have presented these styles as dimensions, and in many cases in English,at least, utterances do indeed vary widely from one another in terms of the degree to which theyillustrate a particular style. That is, some utterances will appear closer to one endpoint or otheron a continuum, while others may be classified somewhere in between.9


In Japanese, there are also some cases in which the difference between two styles can berepresented as a continuum; one example is the casual/careful dimension.10 Jorden and Noda(1987:197) have characterized this as follows:

Casual speech is marked by the frequent use of fragments withoutpredicates, particular vocabulary items (like n 'yeah'), manycontractions, and direct-style inflected forms. Careful speech hasfewer fragments without predicates and more major sentences,particular formal vocabulary items, fewer contractions, and moredistal-style inflected forms (i.e., -masuldesu forms) at least insentence-final predicates....Clearly, casual and careful styles arenot absolutes: they represent a range from maximally casual tomaximally careful, with countless degrees in between.

As opposed to such continua, there are also stylistic contrasts in Japanese, in which the choicebetween one form or the other is paradigmatic and precise. We have in fact already notedseveral examples of such stylistic contrasts through our ongoing discussion of the Japanesedata; one is the contrast between distal- and direct-style (which is sometimes also characterizedas "formal/informal" or desul-masu). Distal-style is a term Jorden and Noda (1987) have usedin order to indicate a style of speech adopted by speakers who maintain a degree of linguisticdistance and display a degree of deference and solicitude toward their addressees (such ascolleagues or acquaintances), and/or toward the topic of discussion. Distal-style is contrastedwith direct-style, which refers to a variety of speech usually adopted by speakers in moreinformal contexts, toward close friends or intimates. The use of these styles is not necessarilyreciprocal; for example, a superior may address a subordinate using direct-style, but thesubordinate would probably adopt distal-style.

A second example of a stylistic contrast in Japanese which is influenced by the relationshipbetween the speaker and addressee is the choice between a neutral-polite style or plain utterance.An illustration of this contrast from everyday conversation is the Japanese equivalent for 'Goodmorning,' which may appear as the distal, neutral-polite, careful-style utterance Ohayoogozaimasu, or the plain, casual-style utterance Ohayoo. A speaker would use the former toacquaintances, colleagues, and the like, while s/he would adopt the latter among friends. Aswas the case with the distal/direct style contrast, the speaker-addressee relationship whichgoverns the neutral-polite/plain (or more generally, the polite/plain) contrast is not necessarilyreciprocal.

It is important to note, however, that it is not always merely the relationship between thespeaker and interlocutor which determines a stylistic choice in Japanese. At any point inJapanese conversation, the deictic anchor point is not the Ego or self but rather the uti orin-group, which minimally consists of the speaker. Certain stylistic (and other linguistic)distinctions therefore index utilsoto (in-group/out-group) relationships. One such example isthe contrast between honorific-politeness and humble-politeness, which is based on therelationship between the speaker and/or the speaker's uti with the referent of the utterance. As


Wetzel (1994:83) has noted, "Honorific forms encode an implicit reference to soto or 'out-group,'and humble forms encode an implicit reference to uti or 'in-group.'"

One last point which must be emphasized with regard to these styles is the fact that it is notpossible to assume a "neutral" stance in Japanese; one must always choose one style or theother within each of the sets of stylistic contrasts (distal/direct, polite/plain, and if polite ischosen, then honorific-polite/humble-polite). According to the choices one makes among thesecontrasts, one's utterance can then be characterized overall as careful or casual. This means thata given utterance may be assigned more than one stylistic label—as was the case with thedistal, neutral-polite, careful-style utterance Ohayoo gozaimasu which we considered above.

We can illustrate the honorific/humble-polite contrast, as well as the differences we have nowidentified among styles, registers, and genres more generally, through the following examplefrom the data corpus.

(1) Example of a JBC call opening [KI #6-6]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu:.ACK Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)

'Yes, Kansai Imports.'

3 C Mosi mosi?hello

'Hello?'

4 A Hai!yes

'Yes!'

5 C A, sumimasen, ano: Watanabe-san wa irassyaimasu desyoo ka.oh be sorry-iPF HES Ms. Watanabe TOP be-iPF^ COP-TENT Q

'Oh, I'm sorry, um, is Ms. Watanabe there?'

6 A Hai, orimasu, syoosyoo omati kudasai=yes be-ipp'i' a little waiting't' give-to-in-grp-iMP/ts ->

'Yes, (she) is, please wait a moment.'

7 C =Hai.ACK

'Okay.'


8 A A, situree desu ga, dotira-sama desu// ka.oh rudeness COP-IPF CP which person (+) COP-IPF Q

'Oh, excuse (me), but who is this?'

9 C Hai, ano Nakayama to moosimasu.yes HES Nakayama QT be called-iPFsl'

'Yes, um, (I)'m Nakayama.'

10 A Hai, syoosyoo omati kudasai//maseACK a little waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMp'h

'Okay, please wait a moment.'

In the opening section of this example, a female operations staff member of Kansai Importsanswers the telephone and identifies herself by giving her company affiliation (Hai, KansaiYunyuu de gozaimasu); the caller merely says Mosi mosi? 'Hello?' in response. Each of theseutterances incorporate register features which also function as contextualization cues (Gumperz,1982a). The first utterance signals a formal, possibly business-related conversation, while thesecond would immediately signal to the call recipient that the caller may not be phoning in thecapacity of a representative from an outside organization, but rather is placing a personal call.

Since the caller has not provided a company affiliation, it is not possible (nor pragmaticallyappropriate) for the call recipient to utter a business salutation, so she simply provides ago-ahead (Hai!) in line 4. The caller then asks politely if Ms. Watanabe is in (Watanabe-sanirassyaimasu desyoo ka). The predicate of her utterance (irassyaimasu desyoo ka) displays anextremely careful style which is often adopted in business and very formal contexts, andincludes two distal-style elements: irassyaimasu and desyoo (the tentative form of the copula).The caller's selection of the honorific-polite verbal irassyaimasu, in lieu of the plain-styleimasu, also indexes her relationship at this moment to the referent—Watanabe—rather than tothe addressee. As noted earlier, the honorific form encodes an implicit reference to soto, theout-group, so the caller is indicating a group division between herself and Watanabe.

In line 6, the call recipient indicates that Watanabe is in by saying Hai, orimasu. Orimasu is thehumble-polite equivalent of imasu, so by adopting this form, the call recipient is referring toWatanabe as a member of her own uti. But in her next utterance, syoosyoo omati kudasai, shehas shifted her reference to the caller, in order to ask that she wait a moment. She thus adoptsthe honorific-polite style for this utterance, thereby indexing a group division between herselfand the caller. The call recipient is also maintaining a certain degree of social distance betweenherself and the caller through her use of the distal-style (indicated by the morpheme /-mas-/ inorimasu).

In line 8, seemingly as an afterthought, or perhaps due to the fact that the caller still has notintroduced herself, the call recipient prompts her to do so by saying A, situree desu ga,dotira-sama desu ka. The polite way in which she utters this is typical of formal encounters,


both on the telephone and face-to-face; the form dotira-sama, which literally means 'a personfrom which place,' is less specific and thereby considered more polite than either donata ordare 'who.' Moreover, the prefatory remark Situree desu ga seeks to minimize the negativeface threat inherent in the inquiry. As we will see in a different example in chapter 3, this queryis sometimes abbreviated to Situree desu ga.... The result (another register feature, this time ofbusiness conversations) is somewhat comparable in both tone and function to the phrases 'Andyou are...?' and 'And this is...?' which appear to have gained some currency in English-speakingbusiness contexts of late.

In line 9, the caller finally identifies herself by her last name, rather than by company affiliationalone or company affiliation plus her name. Because she herself is the referent of this utterance,she adopts the humble-polite moosimasu, and because she is addressing a member of theout-group whom she does not know well, she maintains the distal -masu ending for the predicate(Nakayama to moosimasu).

There are two other observations we may make here regarding the style of these participants'utterances. The first concerns the call recipient's use of the distal, neutral-polite form degozaimasu in line 2. In picking up the telephone, the call recipient does not know with whoms/he will be speaking during the first moments of the conversation; the caller could potentiallybe a friend, subordinate, superior, or stranger. As a result, this particular conversationalistchooses the neutral-polite form for her response, thereby adopting a careful-style overall. Theother likely alternative here would be the plain-style equivalent of the copula (desu). In eithercase, the choice of style (neutral-polite or plain) is influenced by the relationship of the speakerto his/her (potential) addressee, much in the same way that one chooses between distal anddirect-style utterances.

The second stylistic observation concerns the call recipient's last utterance in line 10 (Hai,syoosyoo omati kudasaimase). If we compare her request for the caller to wait at this juncturewith her request in line 6 (syoosyoo omati kudasai), we note that the speaker has added thedistal imperative morpheme l-masei to the later utterance. There are various possible reasonsfor this, but it is likely that this was motivated by the fact that the utterance in line 10constitutes part of the outer frame of this conversation. Often the initiating and concludingutterances in a conversation will be more formal and ritual in nature than those within the bodyof that conversation. The contrast is most striking when participants are well-acquainted, suchthat there may be a shift within the opening section from distal to direct-style forms, as well asa possible shift from polite to plain forms, followed by a return to distal and polite forms at theclose of the call.

This brings us to the other purpose for presenting the conversation in (1), and that is tosummarize the differences between styles, registers and genres. First, we have seen that stylisticchoices in Japanese do not just reflect the relationship or social distance between a speaker andhis/her addressee.1' In the case of the honorific/humble polite contrast, for example, what isgermane to the choice is the relationship between the speaker and the referent of the utteranceat the moment.12 Example (1) illustrates how references to the same person were made by


different participants in the conversation using different styles; the caller (an out-group memberto employees of Kansai Imports) refers to Watanabe (an employee of Kansai Imports) usinghonorific-polite style, while the call recipient (an employee of Kansai Imports) uses humble-politestyle to refer to her colleague. In the case of the distal/direct and the neutral-polite/plaincontrasts, however, the selection is dictated by the degree of distance which the speaker choosesto place between him/herself and the addressee.

Secondly, we have claimed that registers represent a variety of language use. Had the callerintroduced herself as a representative or service provider of a company, she and the callrecipient at Kansai Imports would most likely have exchanged salutations (e.g., Osewa ni natteimasu). This particular utterance constitutes a contextualization cue in telephone and face-to-facebusiness conversations, and we will see numerous examples of its use in later examples fromthe JBC corpus.

Halliday's notion of the Context of Situation (CoS) can be useful here in order to represent theconfluence of situational factors affecting the register(s) used in a particular interaction.1" Asdescribed by Halliday and Hasan (1985), CoS consists of the following three features:

(a) The FIELD of discourse, which addresses the questions, "Whatsocial action is taking place?" and "How does where we are(i.e., the physical location of the participants) impact on whatsocial action is taking place?"

(b) The TENOR of discourse, which addresses the questions, "Isthere a socially defined role relationship that applies to theparticipants while they are engaged in this social action?"and "What is the interpersonal relationship between theparticipants?"

(c) The MODE of discourse, which addresses the questions "Doesthe social action appear in written or spoken form?" and"What channel is used to communicate the social action?"Examples of channel are telephone, letter, face-to-facecommunication, and so forth.

If we consider the three CoS factors with respect to the conversation in (1), for example, wemay conclude that the FIELD is a situation that, at least in the opening section we havepresented, involves the social action of requesting to speak with another person. Moreover, thefact that the caller says Mosi most? in her first utterance suggests that this will be a personal,rather than business conversation, and this will have an impact on the register features usedthroughout the call (for example, the participants do not exchange business salutations in theopening section, as they might in a business conversation).

As for the TENOR of the discourse, these participants do not have a regular role relationshipwith each other (e.g., service provider and service recipient); all that we may say is that they


are presently speaking to each other as call recipient and caller, and further that the caller'sgoals are personal (to speak with an acquaintance) rather than business-related (e.g., to report atransaction-related problem). In addition, it is likely that the participants do not know eachother, since the call recipient asks the caller to identify herself in line 8. This influences thestyle of the conversation; the participants choose distal-style, polite predicates, which whentaken together convey the impression of a careful- (as opposed to casual-) style conversation.

Finally, in terms of the MODE of the discourse, this is clearly a spoken conversation, whichtakes place through the medium or channel of the telephone. This has certain consequences forthe amount of information which must be specified verbally, instead of through non-verbalgestures or actions as would be the case in face-to-face conversations.

While Halliday's CoS features are useful in presenting variables which influence the registerand even style of a conversation, there are other factors which we must take into considerationtogether with these features in order to determine the genre of a conversation. These includethematic content, overall structure, and participant expectations and values which are shapedthrough the role relationships obtaining in the conversation. Genre is thus the most broad,overarching category which subsumes that of register and style.

2.7. RELEVANT FINDINGS FROM CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

In the previous section, we have reviewed the distinctions between genre, register and style inpreparation for our analysis of JBCs in subsequent chapters. Since the analysis is also in manyways rooted in the practices of conversation analysis, in this section I present some of themajor findings of research in that field. Some examples from the JBC corpus are also includedhere as illustrations.

Ethnomethodologists and conversation analysts take as their focus of investigation "action-in-interaction."14 Researchers in conversation analysis (hereafter, CA) claim that mundane, everydayinteractions can serve as a revealing source of the ways in which members of a given societycontribute to, or more precisely, co-construct15 social structure through their talk with eachother.16 These procedures, CA analysts argue, can be identified and even described as a set ofrules—for example, rules for sequencing and turn-taking in conversation (Sacks et al., 1974).As Garfinkel (1967:1) notes, "the activities whereby members produce and manage the settingsof organised everyday affairs are identical with members' procedures for making those settings'account-able.'" By "account-able," Garfinkel meant "observable-and-reportable, i.e., availableto members as situated practices of looking-and-telling" (Garfinkel, 1967:1).

As a consequence of this perspective—by examining conversational sequences in telephoneconversations, for example—conversation analysts have succeeded in identifying and describingtwo different types of actions. The first type is what we might call "discourse actions," that is,procedures such as "openings" and "closings" (Schegloff, 1972b, 1979; Schegloff and Sacks,1973; Button, 1987, 1990), sequence expansion (Jefferson and Schenkein, 1978; Schegloff,1980, 1988a, 1990), and turn expansion (Zimmerman, 1984; Schegloff, 1991). Much of the


research on openings and closings followed Goffman's (1971) seminal work on ritual exchanges,such as greetings. The second type involves actions within sequences, such as announcements,requests, and offers (e.g., Davidson, 1984), as well as the pre-announcements, pre-requests,pre-offers which may precede and hint at them (Terasaki, 1976; Schegloff, 1980, 1988b). Thusas Heritage (1984:245) notes, ''it is sequences and turns-within-sequences which are the primaryunits of analysis for CA research."

Two important CA contributions in this regard are the notions of adjacency pairs and preferenceorganization. Let us consider each of these here briefly, because they will be useful to our laterdiscussion of the compositional structure of JBCs and the flexible nature of speech genres,which can accommodate the addition of certain insertion sequences without risking their structuralintegrity. Also, the concept of conditional relevance in connection with preference organizationis helpful not only in identifying the range of possible second parts for a particular sequence,but also in identifying speaker expectations—a skill which is arguably useful for non-nativespeakers to develop in Japanese.

2.7.1. Adjacency pairs

Conversation analysts observed that one of the basic units of conversation is a pairing ofutterances, such as question—answer, request—acceptance/refusal, offer—acceptance/refusal,and the like. Schegloff and Sacks (1973) called these adjacency pairs, and characterized themas follows:17

(2) Adjacency pairs are sequences of two utterances that are:

(i) adjacent(ii) produced by different speakers(iii) ordered as a first part and a second part [and](iv) typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second

(or range of second parts)—e.g., offers require acceptances orrejections, greetings require greetings, and so on.

Schegloff and Sacks (1973) further stipulated that speakers enact these pairs according to thefollowing rule: "Having produced a first part of some pair, current speaker must stop speaking,and next speaker must produce at that point a second part to the same pair" (Levinson, 1983:304).

However, within a given adjacency pair, analysts also noted that one or more of what theycalled insertion sequences could intervene; the insertion sequence itself usually consists of apair of utterances. For example, in a sequence recorded by Merritt (1976b) in her study ofEnglish service encounters, a customer's request for a bottle of beer elicits a question, whichmust be answered before a reply can be given to the original question:


(3) Merritt 1976b:333

A: May I have a bottle of Mich? ((Ql))B: Are you twenty one? ((Q2))A: No ((A2))B: No ( (Al) )

Such insertion sequences were found to involve discussions of preliminary matters that neededto be settled before a second (or "next") speaker could issue a response to the original first partof the adjacency pair. Yet in some conversations, analysts discovered that responses to theinitial first parts were never actually made; instead, conversationalists would provide anexplanation (known as an "account" in CA) for the failure to respond.

In order to explain this variation in response behavior, Levinson (1983:306) has suggested thatthe strict requirements which Sacks and Schegloff proposed for adjacency be replaced by themore flexible notion of conditional relevance, which was first formulated by Sacks and developedfurther by Schegloff (1972b). Conditional relevance refers to the fact that within adjacencypairs, once a first part is uttered, the second part is not only immediately relevant but alsoexpectable. As Levinson (1983:306) puts it, "what binds the parts of adjacency pairs together isnot a formation rule of the sort that would specify that a question must receive an answer if it isto count as a well-formed discourse, but the setting up of specific expectations which have tobe attended to."

By speaking of expectations that are set up by first parts, rather than of required second parts,we can then successfully include conversations in which, for example, an account is substitutedfor an expected second pair part. We may also shift our focus from an analysis of parts alone toan analysis that also takes participant expectations into consideration.

These CA findings regarding adjacency pairs have useful applications to our study of JBCs. Aswe saw briefly in chapter 1 and will explore in more detail in chapter 3, the structure of JBCscan be analyzed as a series of sections, within which there are often paired sequences ofutterances. For example, during the opening section of a call, almost without exception, boththe caller and the call recipient will exchange self-identifications, minimally providing a companyaffiliation, but also sometimes a section name and/or surname. This is typically followed by anexchange of salutations, in which the participants acknowledge the ongoing business relationshipbetween their two companies. Through experience in participating in this genre of activity,business conversationalists have learned to "present" themselves verbally in this way, to thepoint that they have developed expectations that others in such circumstances will do the same.An example of such an opening segment may be seen in the following excerpt, taken from theKanto data:

(4) "Canonical" JBC call opening with switchboard request [KI #5-17](includes exchange of self-identifications and business salutations)

1 ((phone rings))


2 A Hai, Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu.ACK Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)


3 C Kantoo-ginkoo no Kawabe de gozaimasu:Kanto bank CM Kawabe COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Kawabe of Kanto Bank.'

4 A Itumo osewa ni natte orimasu:always assistance GL become-GER be-ippvl'

['Thank you for your continued assistance.']

5 C Osewa ni narimasu:.assistance GL become-ipp


6 C Saitoo-san irassyaimasu desyoo ka.Mr/s. Saito be-iPF^ COP-TENT Q

'Is Ms. Saito (there)?'

7 A Hai, omati kudasai.yes waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMpT"

'Yes, please wait (a moment).'

8 C Hai, sumimasen.yes be sorry -IPF

'Okay, (thank you).'

On occasion, however, there may be situational factors or constraints such that an immediatelyrelevant and expectable first or second part may not be forthcoming. Precisely this kind ofsituation developed in the conversation discussed in the previous chapter between Ms. Sasakiof Kansai Imports and Ms. lida, the customer service representative of Worldwide Bank. Theopening of the call is reproduced below, and the full text appears in appendix 3.

(5) Opening of call to bank via automated menu [KI #9-1]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kotira \va, pinpon bankingu de gozaimasu.this TOP pushbutton banking COP-IPF (+)

'This is pushbutton banking.'


3 A Nihongo gokiboo no kata wa, kono mama,Japanese wish (+) CN person(s) (+) TOP as is

4 A iti osite kudasai.one push-GER give-to-in-grp-iMp/Ts


5 A ((different voice)) "For services in English, please press *T now."((Machine BEEP))









11 A Kasutomaa saabisu sutahu to, tyokusetu ohanasi ni naritaicustomer service staff with directly speak-DEs'h

12 A kata wa, kyuu o osite kudasai.person(s)TOP nine OBJ push-GER give-to-in-grp-iMp^



14 A Omati kudasai. Otunagi simasu.waiting^ give-to-in-grpHMp^ connect-IPF^



Excerpts (4) and (5) are similar in that they each represent call openings in which a callermakes a switchboard request, and the call recipient agrees to transfer the call to the appropriateparty. The two examples differ, however, in how these actions are collaboratively achieved or"co-constructed." First and most obviously, the call recipient in (4) is human, whereas therecipient in (5) is the bank's automated push-button response system. Secondly, in the "canonical"opening in excerpt (4) the caller responds to the call recipient's company affiliation (KansaiYunyuu de gozaimasu) by reciprocating with his self-identification, Kantoo-ginkoo no Kawabede gozaimasu. In example (5), however, the caller does not provide a self-identification followingthe bank's automated self-identification, Kotira wa, pinpon bankingu de gozaimasu. Instead,the caller is instructed via recorded "utterances" how to select her preferred language of serviceand how to indicate the general reason-for-call. The caller's self-identification is thus significantlydelayed until line 23, shown in the next segment of the call below:

(6) Request by service representative for identification information

ISA Taihen nagaraku omatase site orimasu,quite lengthy waiting-CAU do-GER be-iPFsU


'(I/we)'ve kept (you) waiting a long time. (I)'m (Ms.) lida, the personin charge.'

17 A Omoti desitara, kooza bangoo kara, onegai-itasimasu.holding^ COP-CND account number from request-ippvU

"If (you) have (it), please (begin) from (your) account number.'

18 C A, hai, e:to kooza bangoo GA,Oh yes HES account number SUB

'Oh yes, um, (the) account number IS'


22A Hai. Onamae itadakemasu ka?ACK name receive-iPF-poi^ Q


23 C Yuugen-gaisya Kansai Yunyuu to moosimasu:.limited corporation Kansai Imports QT be



24 A Arigatoo gozaimasu:.//thank you (+)

'Thank you.'



The reason for this delay is as follows. After the call recipient identifies herself in line 16(tantoo lida desn), she also immediately requests the caller's account number in line 17 (Omotidesitara, kooza bangoo kara, onegai-itasimasu) and then, in line 22, requests her name (Onamaeitadakemasu ka?). Thus it is not until line 23 that Sasaki provides her self-identification.Recalling our earlier discussion, the utterances which intervene between lida's self-identificationin line 2 and Sasaki's self-identification in line 23 can be seen as a series of insertion sequences.This type of interactional organization in which an expectable second part is delayed while theanswering party requests certain requisite information is quite common in other types oforganizational discourse, such as calls to emergency services. The set of insertion sequenceshas been referred to as an "interrogative series" (Zimmerman, 1984). What is notable in thisparticular conversation, due to the automated nature of the opening, is that the caller has not yethad a chance to indicate a specific reason for her call, aside from pushing the button forcustomer service. Thus whereas the usual purpose of one or more insertion sequences is to treatvarious "contingencies" related to a "base" or initial question posed in a prior turn (Schegloff,1972b), here there is no explicit "question" posed at the outset. Nevertheless, the "interrogativeseries" adopted by this customer service representative probably serves as an institutional filterof sorts, enabling her to bring up the customer's information on her computer and betterrespond to the projected question or reason-for-call which the representative might anticipatewill follow in a subsequent turn.

2.7.2. Preference organization

Another benefit that results from incorporating the notions of conditional relevance and speakerexpectations in an analysis of adjacency pairs is the fact that we can then better account for therange of possible second parts that may occur in response to a given first part. Moreover, froma pedagogical perspective, identifying such speaker expectations can be useful because theseare precisely what second language learners need to develop in order to perform in a pragmaticallyappropriate manner, especially for a truly foreign language such as Japanese.

Let us consider offers as an example. If a speaker makes an offer, the addressee may accept,refuse, protest mildly or strongly, or merely acknowledge the offer in passing (the last responsemight occur if the offer concerned something that was perhaps already anticipated or expected).Conversation analysts have noted that among these options, there will be at least one type ofpreferred and one type of dispreferred response.


The notion of preference, it should be stressed, relates not to the psychological desires ofspeakers or hearers but rather to the linguistic notion of markedness. That is, preferred responsesare those which occur in turns that are unmarked or relatively simple in structure, as comparedto dispreferred responses, which occur in turns that are marked by features such as delays,prefaces, accounts, hedges, and the like. In the case of offers, an acceptance is considered to bea preferred response, whereas a refusal would be a dispreferred response.

Preference organization also helps to account for the fact that speakers will use what conversationanalysts call pre-sequences, such as pre-requests or pre-offers, in order to avoid receivingdispreferred responses. For example, by first asking about someone's availability before extendingan invitation, a speaker can find out whether or not that person is likely to be able to participatein the activity. If the person will not be available, the first speaker can either revise theinvitation to accommodate the other person's schedule, or decide against making the invitationentirely. We will see in subsequent chapters that pre-sequences figure in the presentation ofproblems in JBCs, since the initial maeoki uttered by callers often functions as a "pre-request"to elicit the call recipient's permission and/or attention before proceeding with further details.

Taken together, these observations about adjacency pairs and preference organization haveenabled conversational analysts to account for recurring patterns in conversation. For example,in refusing a request, invitation, or offer, conversationalists typically employ utterances markedwith the dispreferred features mentioned above; in contrast, when accepting a request, invitation,or offer, conversationalists tend to adopt an unmarked format. Moreover, conversationaliststend to modify their stances on-line, so to speak, in response to dispreferred feedback fromtheir addressees. That is, by including inducements, subsequent versions of first parts, and soforth, conversationalists often try to obtain preferred responses from their addressees. Davidson(1984) found this to be the case among conversationalists of American English when makingoffers and invitations, for example. However Szatrowski (1993) has found that this tendencydoes not extend to Japanese, at least in the case of invitations.

Before closing this section, it is worth noting that the way in which offers are treated in CAdiffers fundamentally from the way in which they have been treated in speech act theory.18 Aswe have seen in CA, offers are usually analyzed as possible first parts in adjacency sequences,to be followed by, for example, an acceptance or other response. Therefore offers would appearto be considered as actions that initiate a sequence of interaction. In speech act theory, incontrast, offers have been seen as response items, uttered on the basis of the perceived orexpressed needs of an interlocutor. There is something to be gained from both accounts. On theone hand, it cannot be denied that the person who extends an offer must have some basis fordoing so. On the other hand, it is frequently the case that a response such as an acceptance orrefusal will follow an offer (although it is not necessary for a response to occur in order for theoffer to be made successfully). Therefore in order to adequately account for the behavior ofconversationalists in making offers, it will be necessary to include the observations of bothspeech act-theorists and conversation analysts in any future theory.


We may illustrate this point with an example from the JBC data, which is an extended versionof excerpt (4) above.

(7) Switchboard request with subsequent offer by caller to callback later [KI #5-17]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu.ACK Kansai Imports CP-IPF (+)


3 C Kantoo-ginkoo no Kawabe de gozaimasu::.Kanto bank CN Kawabe COP-IPF (+)


4 A Itumo osewa ni natte orimasu::.always assistance GL become-GER be-ippvU


5 C Osewa ni narimasu:.assistance GL become-ipp


6 C Saitoo-san irassyaimasu desyoo ka.Mr/s. Saito be-iPF^ COP-TENT Q

'Is Ms. Saito (there)?'

7 A Hai, omati kudasai.yes waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMP/ts

8 C Hai, sumimasen.yes be sorryHPF


((caller is put on hold for 6 seconds))

9 A Mosi most:.hello

'Hello.'


IOC Halyes

'Yes.'

11 A A, 'hhh moosiwake nai n desu keredoMO:oh 'hhh excuse have-NEG-iPF EP CP

'Oh,lihh it's that (I)'m sorry, BUT'

12 C Ee.BC

'Mhm.'

13 A tadaima hoka no denwa de hanasi -tyuujust now another CN telephone LC speaking in the middle of

14 C no// n desu:.COP-1PF EP

'it's that just now (she)'s talking on another line.'

15 C A soo desu ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that so.'

16 A Hai.yes

'Yes.'

17 C E://BC

'Mhm.'

I S A Ano:, owari -sidai odenwa sasiagemasyoo ka?HES finishing upon telephone give-to-out-group-CNS^ Q

'Um, shall (we) give you a call back as soon as (she) has finished?'

19 C Ee, most yorosikereba..yes if good-PKv

'Yes. if (that) would be all right (with you).'

In line 6 of this segment, the caller asks to speak with Ms. Saito (Saito-san irassyaimasudesyoo ka.). The call recipient is apparently under the impression that Saito is available, for sheasks the caller to wait and puts him on hold as though she will connect the call. However, in


line 9 she comes back to the phone and in lines 11,13 and 14 explains that Saito is talking onanother line (A, 'hhh moosiwake nai n desu keredoMO: tadaima hoka no denwa de hanasi-tyuuna n desu:). The caller simply acknowledges what the call recipient has told her by saying Asoo desu ka. followed by a continuer in line 17, so the call recipient offers to have Saito callback when she is finished (Ano: owari-sidai odenwa sasiagemasyoo ka?). The caller thenindicates his provisional acceptance of her offer in line 19 (Ee, mosi yorosikereba.).

In this situation it would be difficult to take a purely CA stance and say that the secretary'soffer in line 18 was an initiating sequence. Once again, Bakhtin's remarks on the responsivenature of the utterance are germane to our discussion; the secretary was clearly responding tothe caller's earlier request to speak with Saito, as well as to the fact that he did not propose analternate solution to the situation (by offering to call back himself). Yet once the secretary hasuttered her offer, this is not the end of the story either; she must await the caller's response toensure that her solution is acceptable to him.

2.7.3. CA studies in Japanese

Many recent CA studies in Japanese have examined openings and closings in telephoneconversations (Okamoto, 1990, 1991; Kumatoridani, 1992; Yoshino, 1994; Okamoto andYoshino, 1995). Most focus on the sequential organization of utterances within openings andclosings, and in particular, the fact that openings and closings are characterized by the use ofadjacency pairs such as "summons—response" and "greeting—greeting." In chapter 3 we willexplore in more detail how openings and closings unfold in various types of JBCs. One goal indoing so is to explain their sequential organization in CA fashion. A second goal is to indicatewhat type of language is used in these exchanges and how conversationalists "co-construct"their interactions on the telephone.

As noted in chapter 1, there are a few significant exceptions in the Japanese CA literaturewhich go beyond a narrow focus on boundaries and turn-taking to look at longer stretches ofdiscourse. These include the substantial work conducted by Szatrowski on invitations (1986a,b, 1987a, b, 1992a, 1993) and sales conversations (1992b), as well as various studies onconflict resolution and negotiation such as Noda(1990) and Jones (1990, 1995). Yet despite arecent surge in the number of such conversation-analytic investigations, to my knowledge nonehave been conducted which deal with the subject of offers in Japanese. Those studies whichhave examined offers in Japanese are based on DCTs and/or MCQs, and are reviewed below.

2.8. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON OFFERS IN JAPANESE

2.8.1. Fukushima and Iwata (1987)

This study examines requests and offers made by native speakers of English and Japanese; theportion devoted to offers focuses on hospitality-oriented offers of food and drink. The findings


are therefore of limited applicability to the present investigation, but will be included here inorder to illustrate the way in which questionnaires have been used to analyze offers in Japanese.

Using Discourse Completion Test (DCT) questionnaires to collect their data, the authors comparedresults from two groups of English native speakers with those of Japanese native speakers.Fourteen of the English-speaking subjects were living in Japan at the time of the study, and 14were living in the United States. As for the Japanese speakers, all 18 were living in Japan.

On the DCT, the authors asked subjects to write down what they would say in the followingsituations:

(8) Contexts provided for DCTs in Fukushima and Iwata (1987)

(1) Suppose you invite your friends to your apartment or your house.You noticed that your friends were still standing. You offer themseats.

(2) Suppose you are a good cook and cooked beef stewfor your friends. You serve it to them.

(3) Suppose you noticed that your friends have not tastedyour beef stew yet. You offer it again.

(4) Suppose you baked cookies. You give them to yourfriends.19

As is clear from the contexts provided, the focus of the study was on interactions amongstatus-equals.

Interestingly, however, despite these instructions the authors found that 10 of the 18 Japanesesubjects made clear distinctions in strategies and expressions, depending upon the degree ofcloseness they perceived with their friends. Respondents appear to have provided these distinctionsvoluntarily, rather than being asked to do so, for the authors note that subjects "wrote two ormore different expressions: to close friends casual expressions, and to acquaintances a littlemore formal expressions." Native English-speakers made fewer such distinctions. Japaneserespondents also were more likely to include prefatory remarks of an apologetic or self-deprecatorynature to "acquaintances," as opposed to close friends. The authors attributed this to modesty inthe interest of being polite. More specifically, the authors argued that Japanese speakers wereemploying the "Modesty Maxim" proposed by Leech (1983:132), i.e., "Minimize praise ofself and "Maximize dispraise of self."

For example, in situation (1) when offering a friend a seat, two Japanese respondents apologizedfirst about not having noticed that a friend was standing, and said:


(9) Offering a friend a seat

Ara ki ga kikanakute gomen-nasai. Doozo.oh notice-NEG-GER be sorry please

'Oh, (I)'m sorry (for) not noticing. Please (have a seat).'

In situation (2) when offering the stew, ten of the Japanese subjects prefaced their offer withexpressions such as:

(10) Offering stew

Oisii ka doo ka \vakaranai kedo.delicious Q how Q be clear-NEG-> CP

'(I) don't know if (it)'s good or not, but...(please have some).'

Finally in situation (3), when asked to urge friends to try the stew, many subjects used one ofthe following phrases:

(11) Urging friends to try one's stew

(a) Hon no sukosi desu ga....mere CN little COP-IPF CP

'It's just a little, but...(would you like some?)'

(b) Okuti ni au to yoi no desu ga...mouth GL suit good EP CP

'It's that it would be good if (it) suited (you), but...(would you likesome?)'

Fukushima and Iwata do not address the fact that subjects adopted the distal form of the copula(desu} in this context, although they were said to be addressing their friends. We might speculatethat such formality arises from the ritualistic nature of the situation, in which the speakerassumes the role of hostess to her guests.

As for any similarities between English and Japanese responses, the authors found that allsubjects used set phrases frequently, such as Doozo ('please' or 'go ahead') in Japanese, or'Please have/take a seat' in English for the first situation. The authors seem to have concludedthat these were 'set' phrases based on the fact that they recurred frequently as responses.

The authors also compared responses between the two groups of English speakers, and foundthat there was a slight tendency within the group living in the United States to use expressionswhich were interpreted as lessening the perceived distance between speaker and addressee. Forexample, in situation (2), one speaker said 'This will probably be the best stew you've had in


your life.' In situation (3), another said, 'You'd better eat. If you don't, you don't know whatyou're missing.'

The primary shortcoming of this study is that the methodology and results are presented in anextremely vague fashion, such that it is impossible to tell why (and how) only the Japanesesubjects drew distinctions between levels of social distance in their responses. It is possible, forexample, that there might have been three different versions of the questionnaire, each of whichspecified a level of perceived distance (e.g., conversation among friends, to a superior, to asubordinate); however, only the version describing conversation among friends appears in theappendix to the study. Without a more precise description of these aspects of the study, it isdifficult to draw any conclusions from the findings reported therein. Nevertheless, the resultsare interesting in that Japanese respondents did in fact draw such distinctions. If we recall thediscussion in chapter 1 about the variety of linguistic forms of offers available to Japanesespeakers depending upon the relative role relationship obtaining between them (e.g., Katieagemasyoo ka? versus Katie mairimasyoo ka? and so forth), the importance of specifying suchroles in a questionnaire on the one hand, and considering such roles when interpreting data onthe other, becomes even clearer.

2.8.2. Matoba(1989a, 1989b)

In a study that was based entirely upon data elicited through questionnaires, Matoba sought todetermine the perceived degree of politeness (teineisa) employed in speaker-oriented (hanasite-tyuusiri) versus addressee-oriented (kikite-tyuusiri) offers in Japanese and German. An examplefor each type of utterance in Japanese appears below.

(12) Speaker-oriented offer

Agemasu yo.give-to-out group SP

'(I)'ll give (you) (this).'

(13) Addressee-oriented offer

Omoti kudasai.holding^ give-to-in-group-iMP ̂

'Please take (this).'

In addition to the speaker- versus addressee-oriented offer distinction, Matoba further classifiesoffers according to the following three categories:


(14) Possible types of offers

(a) temporary shift of possession of an object(b) permanent shift in possession of an object(c) offers "in the broad sense"

Offers of type (c), i.e., those "in the broad sense," are not treated in his study. Instead, the focusis on the offering of things in two differing contexts: (a) lending an umbrella to someone whois visiting one's house, presuming that it has started to rain; and (b) giving one's own book as apresent to someone.

Matoba distributed two separate questionnaires for his study to 160 Japanese students (105females, 55 males) who were between the ages of 18 and 23. The first questionnaire askedstudents what they would say in the two contexts just described; students were asked to provideanswers which would be appropriate if the addressee were (a) a college professor; (b) a schoolsenpai (an older student); and (c) a close friend. This enabled the investigator to consider thedegree to which linguistic form might vary depending upon differing social distance betweenspeaker and addressee, based on their relative roles.

The second questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first asked students to indicate, in thebook-offer context, what they would say if (a) they were to assume a very formal attitude orstance, and (b) a very relaxed attitude.20 They were then to assign a value of 5 for their (a) typeanswers, and a value of 1 for their (b) type answers—that is, in order to establish endpoints ona scale of 1 to 5. In the second section, students were asked to locate each of 18 separateutterances (provided by the investigator) within those two endpoints on the scale, according tothe perceived formality of each. This list of utterances included both speaker-oriented andaddressee-oriented offers.

Matoba's hypothesis was that addressee-oriented offers would be considered more polite inboth Japanese and in German; however, the results seemed to suggest that this was the caseonly for Japanese. Specifically, Matoba found that in the permanent transfer of a book contextsfor which formal (aratamattd) behavior was called for in the first questionnaire, addressee-orientedutterances were preferred.21 In the case of temporary transfer of the umbrella, regardless of thelevel of formality, addressee-oriented utterances were preferred.22 In both cases in German, theopposite results were found.

Based on the results to the first part of the study, Matoba observed that just because addressee-oriented offers were preferred does not mean that we can say they are more polite. However, henoted it might be possible to argue that given the low number of speaker-oriented responses inJapanese, regardless of the context, these were considered by respondents to be relativelyimpolite or inappropriate. He also speculated that since addressee-oriented forms allowconversationalists to avoid referring explicitly to the act of giving or lending, they mightminimize the perceived burden on the addressee, thereby rendering them more polite.23


Results for the second part of the study were not reported in Matoba (1989a) and will not betreated here.24 What is interesting to note in regard to this part of his investigation, however, isthat two of the speaker-oriented utterances included in the list for the subjects' evaluation aresimilar in syntactic form to those which have already been introduced in the context of Japanesebusiness telephone calls—namely l-masu n(o) del and l-(mas)(y)oo ka?l. Matoba classified theformer pattern within the category of permanent shift of possession, and the latter withintemporary shift of possession. We might hypothesize that there is a fundamentally differentassumption or motivation underlying the use of these forms which correlates with the differencesin context specified in Matoba's study. In fact, we will find that the distribution of these twopatterns of offers differs in JBC contexts as well.

Matoba's study has a number of limitations relating to methodological issues and researchdesign. First, the questionnaire given to students is quite complex in terms of what type ofresponse is to be given and how evaluations are to be made. This probably only exacerbates thealready potentially artificial nature of data collected through questionnaires. Moreover, giventhe limited specification of context in the elicitation instrument, we should be cautious whenconsidering the reported results. Also, the fact that the basic unit of investigation is the singleutterance suggests that we are looking at an abstracted, possibly simplified version of whatactually happens in naturally occurring conversation. One final limitation is that the study doesnot address offers of assistance, so that the findings are therefore of somewhat limited applicabilityto the present investigation.

2.9. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the beginning of this chapter, we reviewed various methods for data elicitation and presentedthe rationale for using an ethnographic methodology in this study, arguing that the use of taperecordings of telephone conversations enables the investigator to minimize the effects of the"observer's paradox," allows us to examine and repeatedly review conversations in their entiretyin precisely the same form on each occasion, and provides a source of data which reflects thefiner details of conversational interactions such as back-channel features which are usuallyabsent in recalled or hypothetical examples. Moreover, recorded data are not the product ofspeaker reflection, but are rather the actual utterances produced by speakers in particularcontexts on particular occasions. Finally, telephone conversations represent a significant aspectof speakers' everyday lives, particularly in the world of business.

Following a summary of the details relating to data collection, a more detailed account ofBakhtin's notion of speech genres was presented and considered in conjunction with severalother definitions of genre which have been proposed by other scholars. We noted that Bakhtin'sdefinition of genre depends upon his definition of the utterance as a complete thought orexpression of intention, grounded in reality and bounded by a change in speakers. Theseutterances or primary genres are dynamic entities which can adapt to changes in speakerbehavior within a given activity and as such have fuzzy edges. Moreover, due to the vastnumber of activities in a given culture, the number of primary genres in a given language is


potentially infinite. As speakers combine utterances within conversational exchanges for particularpurposes, complex genres emerge which reflect speaker goals and exhibit a particular constellationof thematic content, stylistic choices, and compositional structure. In the present study, we areproposing that the texts under consideration represent one such complex genre which we maycall Japanese business transactional telephone conversations (abbreviated herein to "Japanesebusiness conversations" or JBCs), and within that genre we have identified two sub-genres,namely problem reports and offers of assistance. In chapter 4 we will also consider tokens oftoiawase inquiries, merchandise orders, and shipping confirmations, which represent othercommon call types in the corpus.

Martin's (1985) definition of genre, which refers to "a way of getting from A to B in the way agiven culture accomplishes whatever the genre in question is functioning to do in that culture,"was contrasted with Levinson's (1992) notion of activity types, and it was argued that thelatter's focus on the mere function of a given activity overlooks the fact that there are certainlinguistic and non-linguistic aspects to genres which may be culturally-based or at least culturallyinfluenced. Moreover, it does not account for important factors such as the intuitions andexpectations which speakers develop through experience in performing a given genre of activity.Our proposed approach therefore considers genre to be a form of habitus or 'lived habit,' a setof linguistic dispositions which both native and non-native speakers of a given language acquirethrough experience and which can adapt to changes in the environment over time. As such, agenre is far more than the sum of its parts (i.e., more than a discrete set of vocabulary words,phrases, or other features used repeatedly on certain occasions). Each enactment of a genre willtake on the color of the particular linguistic and cultural context in which it is performed, whichmeans that every individual performance of a genre is unique.

In this chapter we also compared the notions of genre, register, and style with reference to asample conversation from the corpus in order to illustrate the differences among these concepts.Genres were shown to have a particular functional purpose and discourse structure not sharedby registers, which are a particular variety of language with constraints in terms of vocabularyand syntax. A given register may appear in a variety of genres (for example, the language offootball could appear in a casual conversation or in a sports broadcast), but need not represent acomplete text. Styles, on the other hand, are varieties of language which are associated withrelationships among speakers. Examples which were considered in Japanese in relation to thedata for this study are the higher-order continua of careful/casual and masculine/femininestyles, as well as the paradigmatic contrasts of distal/direct and polite/plain styles. It was alsonoted that the determination of humble- versus honorific-polite style in Japanese hinges on theutilsoto deictic anchor point, a notion which differs fundamentally from the distinction ofself/other in Indo-European languages.

Toward the end of the chapter we reviewed a number of contributions from the field ofconversation analysis (CA), including the notions of adjacency pairs and preference organization.We noted how the second part of an adjacency pair is "expectable" but on occasion absent and"noticeable," due to the particulars of the situation. Also, we observed that insertion sequencesmay intervene within a given adjacency pair, and that a series of such sequences, called an

"interrogative series," has been identified in certain genres of calls such as calls to emergencyservices.

Finally, we concluded the chapter with a summary of the studies which have been conductedon offers in Japanese. Although none of these involve offers in business contexts, some of thefindings are nonetheless relevant to the present study. For example, Fukushima and Iwata(1987) noted the importance of role relationship and degree of intimacy between participants interms of the linguistic forms used when offering food, drink and the like in hospitality-relatedencounters. Matoba's (1989a, 1989b) studies are also useful in that they identified two of thesame patterns found in the JBC data for offers of assistance, namely l-(mas)(y)oo ka?l andl-masu n(o) del. We will revisit both of these issues in subsequent chapters as we analyze callsfrom the Kanto and Kansai sites.

NOTES

1. Statistics Bureau/Statistical Research and Training Institute (2002). Monthly Statistics of Japan,October 2002. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, Ministry of Public Management, HomeAffairs, Posts and Telecommunications, Tokyo.

2. Hopper (1992:225, fin 8) cites Wiemann (1981) in support of the claim that "People quickly forgetthey are being recorded."

3. Of this group, 14 women and 3 men represent the subjects who agreed to be recorded at the Tokyoand Kobe companies described in this book. See Appendices A and B for a list of these participants,their job descriptions, and biographical information. Actual names have been changed to protect theidentity of these participants.

4. Between close colleagues, there were occasions in which a call opened or closed with more personaldiscussions, but in the set of calls analyzed for this book, the reason-for-call was strictly transactional innature.

5. Charles Quinn, personal communication.

6. Martin and Rothery (1986:243) have put this another way, stating that genre "refers to the stagedpurposeful social processes through which a culture is realized in a language."

7. As paraphrased in Swales (1990:41).

8. Couture (1986:82, emphasis mine). A "text" in this sense simply refers to a bounded stretch ofconnected linguistic activity.

9. It is not clear from Zwicky and Zwicky's (1982) discussion of styles whether or not they areattempting to claim that their characterization applies to all languages universally, or just to English.

10. Other examples are the gentle/blunt and feminine/masculine dimensions. Although these twodimensions may be analyzed separately, "feminine" and "masculine" actually represent the maximalendpoints of a continuum which subsumes the gentle/blunt dimension.


11. The situation in Japanese therefore contradicts Zwicky and Zwicky's (1982:214) generalizationregarding stylistic continua.

12. Because English has few, if any cases in which the relationship between the speaker and the referent(as opposed to the addressee) is grammatically encoded, this aspect of the politeness system in Japaneseoften presents problems for English native speakers.

13. As Halliday and Hasan (1985) have pointed out, the term 'Context of Situation' was actually firstcoined by Malinowski (1923) and was then developed more fully by other scholars such as Firth andHymes.

14. According to Heritage (1989:21), conversation analysis developed as a "distinctive research streamof the wider intellectual programme of ethnomethodology." Heritage dates the "public existence" ofconversation analysis "either from the publication of Schegloff (1968) or from the earlier widespreadcirculation of Sacks' unpublished lectures (Sacks, 1964-72)" (Heritage, 1989:37n). Various papers inthe field of conversation analysis may be found in the following collections: Atkinson and Heritage(1984), Button and Lee (1987), and Schenkein (1978), as well as the studies published in the specialdouble issue of Sociological Inquiry (1980) edited by Zimmerman and West, and in the special issue ofHuman Studies (1986) edited by Button, Drew, and Heritage. Research in conversation analysis as itapplies to institutional contexts has appeared in Atkinson (1984), Atkinson and Drew (1979), Maynard(1984), and Drew and Heritage (1992), among other sources.

15. For a discussion of the notion of "co-construction," see Jacoby and Ochs (1995), Schegloff (1995).and other papers in the journal Research on Language and Social Interaction, volume 23 number 3,which is devoted to this topic.

16. From Schegloff's perspective, "in many respects, the fundamental or primordial scene of social lifeis that of direct interaction between members of a social species, typically ones who are physicallyco-present. For humans, talking in interaction appears to be a distinctive form of this primary constituentof social life, and ordinary conversation is very likely the basic form of organization for talk-in-interaction.Conversational interaction may then be thought of as a form of social organization through which thework of the constitutive institutions of societies gets done....It is, so to speak, sociological bedrock"(Schegloff, 1995:186-7).

17. As paraphrased in Levinson (1983:303-4).

18. Yotsukura (1997) includes a detailed comparison of how offers have been analyzed from a speechact-theoretic versus conversation-analytic perspective.

19. Fukushima and Iwata (1987:46-7). Only an English version of the DCT was provided in an appendixof the paper, so it was not possible to ascertain how these situations were described in Japanese. Asidefrom this list of situations, the only other information provided was the directions: "What would you sayunder the following situations?"

20. In Japanese, "mottomo aratamatta taido de iru toki ni tukau hyoogen," and "mottomo kirakuna taidode iru toki ni tukau hyoogen" respectively.

21. To a professor, 37.4% of the subjects chose speaker-oriented utterances, whereas 56.5% choseaddressee-oriented utterances. To asenpai, 'one's senior (in a group),' 41% adopted speaker-orientedmoves, while 25.5% gave addressee-oriented responses. Finally, to a close friend, 80.5% of the subjectspreferred speaker-oriented utterances, as compared to 9.1% who preferred addressee-oriented utterances.Examples of speaker-oriented utterances included: Kono hon, sasiagetai to omou n desu ga.... ('It's that


I'd like to give you this book, but.../ using a humble-polite verbal, distal-style, and the extendedpredicate), Kono hon, sasiagemasu no de... (Til give you this book, so...,' using a humble-polite verbaland distal-style with the gerund form of the EP), and Kono hon, ageru yo (Til give you this book,"using a plain, direct-style verbal without the EP). Examples of addressee-oriented utterances included:Kono hon, omoti ni natte kamaimasenyo('\ don't mind if you take this book,' using an honorific-politeverbal and distal-style), Kono hon, omoti kudasai ('Please have this book' using the imperative requestform of an honorific-polite verbal), and Kono hon, motte te mo ii wayo ('It's fine if you take this book,'using a plain, direct-style verbal).

22. To a professor, 9.8% of the subjects used speaker-oriented utterances, while 85.3% chose addressee-oriented utterances. To asenpai, 9.4% adopted speaker-oriented moves, while 68.1% gave addressee-oriented responses. Finally, to a close friend, 19.5% of the subjects preferred speaker-oriented utterances,as compared to 70.4% who preferred addressee-oriented utterances. Speaker-oriented utterances in thecase of temporary transfer included: Kono kasa, okasi simasyoo ka? ("Shall I lend you this umbrella?'using the consultative, distal-style form of a humble-polite verbal), Kono kasa, kasite agemasu yo (Tillend you this umbrella,' using the gerund of a plain verbal together with the distal-style form of theplain donatory auxiliary), and Kono kasa, kasite ageru (Til lend you this umbrella,' using the gerund ofa plain verbal together with the direct-style form of the plain donatory auxiliary). Addressee-orientedutterances included: Kono kasa, omoti ni narimasen ka? ('Won't you take this umbrella?' using anhonorific-polite form in distal-style), and Kono kasa, tukaimasu ka? ('Will you use this umbrella?'using a plain, distal-style verbal.)

23. Matoba bases his discussion of politeness on Leech's (1983) maxims of politeness. This will not bediscussed here because it is beyond the scope of this investigation.

24. The results I discuss here are a synthesis of the findings in two reports, the longer and potentiallymore useful of which is in German (Matoba, 1989b). This summary is somewhat limited by my readingknowledge of German. However, since a copy of the Japanese questionnaire appeared in the appendixto the (1989b) study, I have been able to describe the methodology and some of the content of theinvestigation here.


THE STRUCTURE OF JAPANESE BUSINESSTRANSACTIONAL TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

3.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, I describe the overall sequential organization of Japanese business transactionaltelephone conversations (JBCs hereafter). This description will include a detailed account ofthe compositional structure of these conversations in terms of a series of steps within largersections. In the process of describing these steps, I will also point out certain stylistic andregister features of JBCs, such as the ways in which speakers express self-identifications andsalutations. It is through the overall confluence of these structural, stylistic, and register features,in addition to the presence of certain thematic content (i.e., discussion of business transactions)that we may identify a call as a member of this genre, although it is not necessary for everyfeature to be present in order for a call to represent the genre. Moreover, certain registerfeatures that will be identified may also appear in non-business (e.g., personal) conversations.We can therefore postulate a more general ''telephone register" which subsumes the morespecific "business transactional telephone register" that I describe here.

This point leads to another, mentioned briefly in chapter 1 but worth reiterating here, which isthat the genre described herein, Japanese business transactional telephone conversations,represents a sub-genre of a larger generic category, namely everyday Japanese telephoneconversations. There will of course be many similarities in compositional structure, register andeven style between the two; however, there are also important differences, which I will pointout over the course of the analysis below. The entire discussion will be supported with numerouscontextualized examples from the Kanto and Kansai data corpus.

Business-related calls in the corpus may generally be divided into two types: (1) in-housebusiness discussions, and (2) transaction-oriented business conversations between eitherindividual (non-commercial) customers or commercial service-recipients, and service-providers.Commercial service recipients are defined here as companies that have requested or are about

3


to request goods or services, often on behalf of their customers. As noted earlier, this study isprimarily concerned with calls of the second type.

Issues discussed in the first type, in-house calls, included details of the initiation, maintenance,and/or conclusion of business transactions with customers and other service providers, as wellas arrangements for meetings, publications, and other ongoing cooperative projects that are notnecessarily transaction-related. Other conversations touched upon in-house preparations forshipments, such as the production of labels, packing of boxes, and the like.

Calls of the second type between customers or commercial service recipients and serviceproviders included:

(a) "switchboard requests" for a different person;

(b) general toiawase inquiries regarding prices, availability, and otheraspects of goods and services;

(c) orders of goods such as books and food;

(d) status updates concerning backordered goods;

(e) confirmations of the delivery of goods (which sometimes proved tobe a form of problem reporting);

(f) reports of problems concerning the delivery of goods and theprovision of services such as bank statements;

(g) requests for (re)shipment or pickup of goods; and

(h) inquiries regarding payments for goods and services, credits forreturned shipments, and problems with account balances.

While most of these varieties calls will be discussed to some degree over the course of this andthe next two chapters, I will treat those of type (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) in more detail. I considerthese as a subset of the larger group of possible business transactions that may be handled bytelephone, and propose that each might constitute a sub-genre unto itself.

3.2. BUSINESS TRANSACTIONAL CALLS vs. SERVICE ENCOUNTERS

In discussing business transactional telephone conversations as a genre, I am proposing toidentify what some might consider to be a rather narrow discourse community, that of Japanesecallers and call recipients who interact on the telephone in order to initiate, maintain, and/orconclude matters relating to business transactions such as the purchase of food, books, airlinetickets, and the like. Yet the genre of business transactional telephone conversations clearlyshares certain elements with the type of interactions found in the larger genre of service

The Structure of Japanese Business Telephone Calls 97

encounters, since the latter represent transactions between customers and service providersinvolving goods and services provided at locations such as post offices, banks, travel agencies,or train station ticket windows.'

There are also fundamental differences between the two types of encounter. First, although themode of interaction in both cases is oral, the channel of interaction differs; that is, speakers inJBCs interact via the telephone, whereas those in service encounters meet face-to-face.2 Thishas significant consequences for the way in which the interaction unfolds. For example, in thecase of service encounters a customer may initiate a transaction by attracting a clerk's attention,either by approaching a clerk in person and/or by requesting assistance verbally. Alternatively,a clerk may offer assistance in a verbal bid for service,3 or may indicate his/her availability forservice through eye contact with the customer. In JBCs, however, the customer or servicerecipient must initiate the transaction by placing a telephone call to the service provider, andwill also sometimes specify the person or department s/he wishes to contact, if known. Inservice encounters, the customer can often accomplish this selection process non-verbally,merely by walking up to the particular window at a bank or post office that handles the type oftransaction s/he wishes to initiate.4

Similarly, in face-to-face service encounters a customer can sometimes indicate the purpose ofhis/her visit nonverbally, for example through the proffering of a cash withdrawal slip at a bankteller window or a claim ticket for pictures at a film processing shop. Sugito and Sawaki (1977)have pointed out that Japanese customers can complete rudimentary shopping tasks such as thepurchase of cigarettes, newspapers, or even groceries without uttering a single word.3 Uponcompletion of the transaction, customers also need not respond to a clerk's utterance of thanks.6

Taken together, this indicates that many elements of a service encounter, but particularly theopening and closing, may be realized non-verbally. In business transactions on the telephone,however, these are almost always given verbal expression. The primary goal of this chapter istherefore to examine the beginnings, middles, and ends of actual telephone calls from thecorpus in order to identify structural similarities among these calls and to point out the particularverbal means which customers/service recipients and service providers employ as they interact.

One final way in which business telephone transactions differ from face-to-face service encountersis that speakers cannot rely on non-verbal cues such as head nods and head shakes from theirinterlocutors for feedback throughout the conversation. We might therefore predict that verbalaizuti ('back-channel') cues assume a more important role in telephone discourse, and indeed,we will see in the JBCs which I discuss in this and the next two chapters that participantsactively and mutually elicit and produce aizuti.

3.3. OVERALL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFYING REGISTER FEATURES

Most of the business transactional telephone conversations examined for this study were foundto have four distinct sections, which I will first outline and then describe in more detail below.The reader is encouraged to refer to Figures 1 and 2 while following this description. Figure 1


on page 100 summarizes the overall structure of JBCs; optional steps or moves are indicated inparentheses. Figure 2 on page 101 identifies register features observed in the JBC corpus thatset these calls apart from Japanese personal calls and/or calls in other languages.

3.3.1. Overview of JBC structure

The overall JBC sequential organization can be summarized as follows. First, conversationsbegin with an opening section that may include an opening greeting, a self-identification by oneor both parties, a request for confirmation of self-identification, salutations acknowledging theongoing business relationship between the two companies, an exchange of "personal greetings,"and, in some cases, a "switchboard request" by the caller to speak with a different person. Sucha request is often followed by an indication that the requested person is not available; if so, thecall recipient may offer to have someone call back, or the caller may offer to call back againlater. The participants will then usually move into a closing section of the conversation inwhich they take their leave of each other. However, if the requested person is available, the callrecipient transfers the call to a different person, and there may be a recursion to the self-identification, greetings, and/or saluation steps.

The second section is a transition section, which the caller sometimes initiates with an attentionfocuser and then states the general nature of the business transaction that s/he would like todiscuss. I will refer to this general prefatory statement as the maeoki, after Kashiwazaki (1993).

The third section consists of the actual discussion of one or more business transactions. It is inthis section that problem reports and moves toward their resolution appear. (Technically speaking,of course, when the problem report is the first or only issue under discussion, such a reportbegins in the transition section with the maeoki.)

As the discussion of a particular transaction draws to a close, one of the two participants mayutter what Schegloff and Sacks (1973) have termed a "possible pre-closing device." In English,speakers commonly use "Okay" (with falling or rising intonation), "We-ell,..." or other similarutterances at this juncture as a pre-closing bid. In JBCs, we find that Hai performs a similarfunction, as well as several other utterances that are likewise not specifically tied to the contentof the previous discourse. Another strategy which JBC conversationalists use to propose a"shutting down" of the conversation is to restate matters agreed upon in the previous topic talk,in such a way that they are presented as something the speaker will do in the future. Alinguistic "device" often used to accomplish this is the l-masu n(o) de/ pattern which wasdiscussed in chapter 1 with respect to offers.

If this "possible pre-closing" bid is not accepted by the interlocutor, perhaps because s/hewishes to move on to a different or related matter of business, there may be a recursion to thetransition, discussion, and pre-closing stages of the call. However, if a pre-closing bid is"accepted" by the interlocutor, then it, together with the accepting response, can be analyzed asthe initial exchange in the closing section of the conversation.


The fourth and final section, namely the call closing, may begin as just outlined through asimple exchange of 'okays' using Hai or the like; through a restatement of agreed uponmatters; or perhaps through a promise of future contact in connection with business discussedearlier in the conversation. There also may be a request for self-identification, usually if one orboth of the parties have not provided their names in the opening section of the call. Alternatively,a participant may volunteer a self-identification, either because s/he has not produced one at aprior point, or as a convenient restatement for the addressee's future reference. The conversationthen concludes with leave-taking by both parties.

The overall structure of JBCs clearly shares numerous family resemblances with Japanesepersonal telephone conversations, and with telephone conversations in other languages. Someof these similarities are due to the medium or channel through which the conversation takesplace. The opening section is one illustration of this. Because the participants in these varioustypes of JBC calls are not engaged in a face-to-face interaction in which they might recognizeeach other non-verbally, i.e., on sight, at least one party may produce or request a verbalself-identification, often prior to any exchange of greetings.7 (In contrast, in many everydaytelephone conversations, especially in English, participants display mutual recognition throughgreetings and the like, as opposed to producing self-identifications as a matter of course.)Moreover, whereas in a face-to-face encounters participants may indicate with whom they wishto speak by addressing that person directly, on the telephone a caller must interact with theinitial call recipient, whoever that may be, and then if necessary may request to speak with adifferent party—that is, perform a switchboard request.8 If so, a second exchange of greetingsand self-identification(s)/recognition sequences between the caller and the requested personmay follow the initial exchange.

3.3.2. Register features of JBCs

On the other hand, what often distinguishes JBCs from Japanese personal telephone conversationsand conversations in other languages are utterances that I call "register features," since theyconstitute a certain variety of language that is used among speakers in this specific businesscontext. Figure 2 on page 101 provides a summary of such features that appeared regularly inthe data corpus for this study. These include an opening greeting, a categorial or "group"self-identification, an exchange of business salutations, particular phrases indicating an employeeis not available, formal terms of address, requests for self-identification, and call-finalidentification-related utterances. Many of these types of utterances may of course appear inother contexts in Japan (for example, in face-to-face interactions) as well as in calls in otherlanguages, but following Bakhtin, I would argue that it is the confluence of many of thesefeatures, within the overall call framework outlined above, that suggests a given call may beconsidered a JBC.


I. Opening

1. (Opening greeting and) Self-identification by both parties,often followed in caller's case by kedo or ga

(Exchange of personal greetings)

(Request for confirmation of self-identification)

2. Exchange of business salutations

3. (Switchboard request to speak with different person)

(Indication that requested person is not available)

(Offer to have requested person call back)

(Offer by caller to call again later)

(Transfer to requested person)

(Recursion to self-identification, greetings, and/or salutation steps)

II. Transition to discussion of business transaction(s)

4. Attention focuser

5. General statement of business matter to be discussed, usually framed throughthe EP (= maeoki)

6. Clause particle (kedo or ga}, which may be given greater stress and higher pitchin order to signal a transition relevance place (TRP)

III. Discussion of business transaction(s)

IV. Summary of agreed-upon matters (pre-closing bid)

7. Summary/restatement of matter(s) agreed upon within the conversation

(Recursion to Section II and/or III)

(Promise of future contact)

V. Closing

8. (Request for identification details such as phone number, agency code)

9. (Request for name of one or both parties)

(Self-identification by one or both parties)

10. Leave-taking

Figure 1: Overall sequential organization of Japanese business transactionaltelephone conversations (Optional portions appear in parentheses)


(1) (Opening greeting and) Self-identification by call recipient

For outside calls: (Ohayoo gozaimasu.)[company name] de gozaimasu Idesu

For in-house calls: [last name] desu

(2) Self-identification by caller

Unfamiliar caller: [company name] no [branch/location name]no [last name] to moosimasu ga...

Familiar caller: [company name] no [last name] desu ga...

(3) Salutations

To out-group interlocutors: Osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu.Osewa ni narimasu.Osewasama desu.

To in-group interlocutors: Otukaresama desu.

(4) Expressions used to indicate that employees are not available(a) gaisyutu site orimasu(b) seki hazusite 'ru n desu ke(re)do(mo)...(c) sekkyaku-tyuu (na n) desu (ga)...(d) hoka no denwa de hanasi-tyuu (na n) desu(e) mada syussya site (i)nai n desu ke(re)do(mo)...(f) oyasumi o itadaite (i)masu

(5) Terms of address(a) [last name]-sama(b) [company name]-sama

(6) Business terminology (examples)(a) denpyoo bangoo(b) kanryoo(c) bansen(d) hannyuu

(7) Inquiry regarding addressee's identity(a) Situree desu kedo....

(8) Self-identification in pre-closing section(a) [last name] to moosimasu/moosimasita (no de).(b) [last name] desu (no de).

Figure 2: Register features of Japanese business transactionaltelephone conversations


3.3.3. Recipient design and the addressivity of the utterance

It is important to note here that such register features are useful not only to analysts evaluatingthe type of call, but also to conversationalists participating in the call itself. As Schegloff(1986:122) notes, for example, "The use of a self-identification or self-formulation as a responseform [to the telephone ring] is most conventionally understood as a 'business' or 'office' form.This convention can operate so robustly that just hearing a different answer-form can suggest toa caller that a wrong number has been reached." He cites the following example from Jefferson'sresearch as an illustration:

(1) Call to wrong number that was intended to reach an office(Approximate transcript)

1 ((phone rings))2 A Hello?3 C 'HeLLQ'!"4 A Yeah. 'Hello/5 C Wuh —Is this 657-6850?6 A No, this is 657-6855.7 C Oh. Well, you have a very lovely voice.8 A Why thank you. Am I supposed to be a business firm?9 C Yes, that's right, that's exactly right. I'm calling my office. TheyIOC never answer with 'hello.'

A similar example from the JBC corpus illustrates how a lack of initial company identificationby the call recipient during the opening of a business call can result in a confirmation requestfor the call recipient's identity:

(2) Request for confirmation of call recipient's identity [KI#11-07]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Mosi mosi.hello

'Hello.'

3 C A, mosi mosi.hello

'Hello.'

4 A Hai.yes

'Yes.'


-> 5 C Matida-san desu KA?Mr. Machida CP-IPF Q

'Is (this) Mr. Machida?'

6 A Soo desu.so CP-IPF

'That's right.'

7 C Kansai Yunyuu no Watanabe desu.Kansai Imports CN Watanabe CP-IPF

'(This) is Watanabe of Kansai Imports.'

8 A A, doo mo osewa ni narimasuoh in many ways assistance GL become-iPF

'Oh, in many ways [(I) am obliged (to you) for your assistance.]'

9 C Osewa ni narimasu. Gomen-nasai idoo -tyuu ni.assistance GL become-iPF excuse me moving middle LOC

'[(I) am obliged (to you) for your assistance.]Excuse me (for calling) in the middle of (your) move.'

Schegloff (1986:123) points out that using a self-identification as a response form therefore"appears to be related to an orientation by answerers of the phone to the caller's interest in,and monitoring for, confirmation of having reached the right destination.'" As a result, whereasin everyday calls an answer-form of 'Hello' in English (or mosimosi in Japanese) is oftenadopted in order to provide a voice sample for recognition by the caller, in business contexts,answerers are aware of the critical importance to potential callers that they receive an indicationas to whether they have reached the intended destination of their call, so a company self-identification is preferred.

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974:727) coined the term "recipient design" to describe suchdistinctions, noting that "the talk by a party in a conversation is constructed or designed inways which display an orientation and sensitivity to the particular other(s) who are the co-participants." They found that recipient design applied not only to word choice, but also to"topic selection, admissibility and ordering of sequences, options and obligations for startingand terminating conversations, etc." and claimed that the concept "is a major basis for thatvariability of actual conversations glossed by the notion 'context-sensitive.'" This notion ofrecipient design is essentially what Bakhtin has referred to as the "addressivity" of the utterance,which we discussed briefly in chapter 1 but which bears repeating here:

Both the composition and, particularly, the style of the utterancedepend on those to whom the utterance is addressed, how thespeaker (or writer) senses and imagines his addressees, and the


force of their effect on the utterance. Each speech genre in eacharea of speech communication has its own typical conception ofthe addressee, and this defines it as a genre. (Bakhtin, 1986:95)9

I point this out not to take issue with the notion of recipient design which is central to CA, butrather to show that Bakhtinian theory actually dovetails nicely with the findings and perspectivesof CA, and may be used in a complementary fashion.

3.4. CALL OPENINGS

Japanese business transactional telephone conversations may be partially identified by theiropening sections—that is, by the ways in which participants identify themselves, greet eachother, exchange salutations, and so forth. In this section, we will examine the steps that speakerstypically follow in the opening segments of these conversations.

Before doing so, however, as a point of comparison let us consider the set of "core sequences"which Schegloff has identified for ordinary or "routine" telephone calls in American English.These are as follows:

(3) Core sequences in American English call openings (Schegloff, 1986)

(a) The summons—answer sequence(b) The identification (and/or recognition) sequence(c) The greeting sequence(d) The 'how are you' sequences

The first sequence, summons—answer, functions as a means for conversationalists to confirmthat the "channel of communication," i.e., the telephone line, is clear and that there is indeed aperson ready and able to respond to the summoning ring of the telephone.

The second sequence stems from the basic need in non-face-to-face encounters to identify anddisplay recognition of the parties engaged in the conversation. In everyday American Englishconversations, Schegloff and others have demonstrated that there appears to be a stronginteractional preference for recognition over identification. As a result, utterances which provide"voice samples" for recognition (such as "hello") are more common than self-identifications.

The third sequence, greetings, serves "to put the parties into what Goffman (1963:100) hascalled a ritual state of ratified mutual participation, and in doing so may accomplish other workfor the interaction and its parties as well" (Schegloff, 1986:118).

The fourth set of sequences overlaps somewhat in purpose with the greeting sequence, but goesone step further in that it explicitly provides an opportunity for one party's "state of being" tobecome the topic of conversation.


The following English conversation will serve as an illustration of these four sequences:

(4) Sample ordinary English call (Schegloff, 1986:115)

12 R3 C4 R5 C6 R7 C8 R9 R9 C10R

((phone rings))Hello::,H'llo, Clara?Yeh,Hi. Bernie.Hi B_ernie.How're you.I'm awright,How're you.Okay:?Good.

Schegloff refers to these types of openings as "routine" in the sense that they are the defaultcase when nothing out of the ordinary happens to change their usual sequential organization.This of course does not and should not imply that conversationalists participating in these''routine" segments are merely following some sort of script. Rather, as Schegloff argues, suchsegments should be seen as carefully articulated "achievements," collaboratively produced byco-participants who face a number of possible options at each turn in conjunction with theissues at hand in the discourse context.

Zimmerman has made a similar case for calls to emergency services, which he has analyzed asa subset of the larger genre of "service calls":

The overall organization of the calls and their contextualfeatures...along with their observed similarity to 'service calls' ingeneral, is viewed as the contingent accomplishment of unnoticedbut nevertheless skilled work by callers and service personnel.That is, the calls' evident orderliness is not the product of followinga known-in-common prespecified format or plan. Rather, theorganization emerges as the working through of issues—bothinternal to the discourse and resident in the affairs to which thediscourse is addressed—using culturally distributed proceduresas ordinary and pervasive means of getting on with and gettingthrough the call. (Zimmerman, 1984:211, emphasis mine)

Zimmerman's words are reminiscent of a quote cited earlier in chapter 1 by Morson andEmerson with regard to Bakhtin's notion of speech genres:

Genres provide a specific field for future activity, and such activityis never just an "application," "instantiation," or repetition of apattern. Genres carry the generalizable resources of particular


events; but specific actions or utterances must use those resourcesto accomplish new purposes in each unrepeatable milieu. Eachutterance, each use of a genre, demands real work; beginningwith the given, something different must be created. (Morson andEmerson, 1990:291, emphasis mine)

Here again, we observe a point in common between CA perspectives and Bakhtinian theory.The "core sequences" proposed by Schegloff may be seen as the "generalizable resources ofparticular events," the primary genres of which larger secondary genres such as JBCs arecrafted. What I would like to emphasize in particular from Zimmerman's observations is hisallusion to "culturally distributed procedures." It is precisely these procedures which 1 seek tooutline and describe in this book. Clearly there will be parallels with ordinary conversations inJapanese and in other languages. But it is hoped that the findings here will be of particularinterest to non-native speakers of Japanese—business professionals, linguists, and laypersonsalike—who are perhaps as yet unfamiliar with the ways in which these resources are put tovarious purposes in the Japanese business context.

In the description of JBC call openings below, we will find that most of the core sequencesoutlined by Schegloff have parallels in the Japanese data. What is most noticeably absent arethe fourth 'how are you' sequences. However, as Schegloff (1986), Button and Casey (1984),Hopper et al. (1990) and others have observed, in certain contexts, due to the contingencies ofthe moment, sometimes one or more of these sequences may be "pre-empted" in order to movemore quickly to the "anchor position," which normally follows the core sequences and consistsof the reason-for-call. Thus in calls to emergency services, for example, neither greetings nor"how-are-you's" are exchanged. Instead, an opening/identification sequence which combineselements of the summons—answer sequence and the identification/recognition sequence isfollowed immediately by the caller's "complaint" or request for assistance vis a vis the emergency.As a result of this pre-empting of sequences, the opening segment appears "reduced" withrespect to the "routine" or canonical structure proposed by Schegloff.

3.4.1. Self-identification by both parties

In the JBC corpus, call recipients always spoke first in response to the summons of thetelephone ring, and typically opened the call with some form of self-identification.10 However,the actual form of that self-identification differed according to whether the call came in on anoutside line, or from within the call recipient's organization.

3.4.1.1. Self-identification in response to outside calls. When responding to outside calls, theminimal form of self-identification by the call recipient is the name of the company, usuallyaccording to the pattern /[company name] de gozaimasu/, as in excerpt (5). Sometimes the plainimperfective copula desu is substituted for the neutral-polite form de gozaimasu.


(5) Initial segment of a call from an outside organization [KI #11-14]

1 ((phone rings))



3 C Hai, e:, Nitibei Toraberu SaabisuACK HES Japan-U.S. Travel Service

to moosimasu keredoMO:QT be called-ipp, CP

'Yes, um, (I)'m (with a company) called U.S.-Japan Travel Service,BUT../

Call recipients at the Kanto and Kansai sites used this form of company-affiliation-as-self-identification most regularly, so it will be treated here as a common register feature of businessconversations. It is important to note, however, that this type of "group" or categorial identificationis neither limited to business telephone conversations nor to business circles more generally,but rather appears throughout Japanese society, for example through school, club, and otheraffiliations. As a result, the presence of this categorial self-identification patterns/owe wouldnot serve to identify a business transactional telephone conversation. Rather, its use in conjunctionwith other features described herein is what constitutes business-type usage.

Often in calls with outside organizations, the call recipient will also provide more specificinformation such as the section name or the company's branch location, as well as his/her ownlast name as part of the self-identification. The call recipient announces this modifying informationin decreasing order of scale, that is, from company name to section/branch name to the individual'sname, according to the patterns in (6a) and (6b) below. As we will see later in an actualexample, the connective no is sometimes dropped, especially between the company name andthe section/location information.

(6a) Self-identification pattern by outside call recipients (p/ow-style)

[company] (no) [section/location] (no) [last name] desuCN CN COP-IPF

'(This) is [last name] (of) [section/location] (of) [company].'

(6b) Self-identification pattern by outside call recipients (neutral-polite)

[company] (no)[section/location] (no) [last name] de gozaimasuCN CN COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is [last name] (of) [section/location] (of) [company].'


Thus, for example, an employee named Sato of the Ginza branch of Kanto Bank might introducehimself in one of the following ways:

(7) Illustrations of self-identification patterns by outside call recipients

(a) Kantoo ginkoo no Ginza siten no Satoo de gozaimasuKanto bank CN Ginza branch CN Sato COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Sato of the Ginza branch of Kanto Bank.'

(b) Kantoo ginkoo no Satoo de gozaimasuKanto bank CN Sato COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Sato of Kanto Bank.'

(c) Kantoo ginkoo de gozaimasuKanto bank COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Kanto Bank.'

The order in which these elements are presented is consonant with Nakane's (1972) observationthat the Japanese tend to emphasize situational position rather than individual attributes in agiven frame:

[WJhen a Japanese "faces the outside" (confronts another person)and affixes some position to himself socially he is inclined togive precedence to institution over kind of occupation.... In groupidentification, a frame such as a 'company' or 'association' is ofprimary importance; the attribute of the individual is a secondarymatter....Such group consciousness and orientation fosters thestrength of an institution, and the institutional unit (such as theschool or company) is in fact the basis of Japanese socialorganization. (Nakane, 1972:2-3, emphasis mine)11

Of course English speakers may also identify themselves in business calls with a similarformat, for example 'Sales Department, John Brown,' but especially in face-to-face conversations,the categorial identification is perhaps more common in Japanese than in English.

3.4.1.2. Self-identification in response to in-house calls. The qualification "faces the outside" isimportant to our discussion here, for call recipients in this corpus adopted different openingstrategies when taking calls from fellow (i.e., uti or 'in-group') employees. That is, in-housecalls are handled somewhat differently from outside calls. Call recipients might respond to aspecial ring indicating an incoming call on an inside line with Mosi mosi ('Hello') or Hal('Yes'), and/or might identify themselves by last name only (e.g., (Hal,) Satoo desu).12 In thissense, in-house calls more closely resemble personal telephone calls, in which the call recipientmay answer saying (Hai,) mosi mosi, or (Hai,) [last name] desu/de gozaimasu ga.... Compare(8), in which a staff member of the Sales Department of a Tokyo book publishing company


receives a call from an outside organization, with (9), in which the same speaker receives a callon an inside line from a colleague in the bookstore of her own company:

(8) Initial segment of call from an outside organization [TB#1 B-34]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Tookyoo Syoten de gozaimasuACK Tokyo Books COP-IPF(+)

'Tokyo Books.'

3 C A, hhh e:eto:, Ee-bii-sii Kyooiku Kyookaioh 'hhh HES ABC education association

4 C to moosimasu keredoMOQT be called-ipp 4> CP

'Oh,'hhh um, (I)'m (with a group) called ABC EducationalAssociation, BUT'

(9) Initial segment of call from within an organization [TB#1 A-13]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Yamada desuACK Yamada COP-IPF

'(This) is Yamada.'

3 C Omise desustore COP-IPF

'(This) is (the) (book)store.'

These two examples demonstrate that varying forms of self-identification patterns in JBCsindex the uti/soto or 'inside' vs. 'outside' distinction in Japanese (see Bachnik and Quinn, 1994for other examples of this type of indexicality). This is not to say that similar distinctions arenot made in other languages. Schegloff (1972b:352) has noted, for example, that intercom callsin English are usually answered with a 'yeah' or a 'yes,' in contrast to other response formsused with incoming outside calls. All of these examples reflect the concepts of recipient designand addressivity discussed earlier.

3.4.1.3. Opening greeting vs. personal greetings. If the call occurs in the morning, the recipientmay also precede the self-identification with an opening greeting, such as Ohayoo gozaimasu'Good morning.' Some call recipients at a shipping company contacted by Kansai Imports usedArigatoo gozaimasu 'Thank you (for your call/your patronage)' as an opening greeting. Ineither case, the JBC call recipients' usage of the sequence /opening greeting + categorial


self-identification/ contrasts with behavior of call recipients in personal telephone conversations,since in the latter context, such opening greetings and categorial self-identifications might seemrather formal and inappropriate.13

In addition to or apart from this initial greeting, a separate exchange of personal greetings mayoccur later in the conversation after the participants have identified themselves. I use the term"personal greeting" for these because such an exchange frequently occurs in everyday, personalcalls as well. We will discuss personal greetings in more detail in section 3.4.3, but for nowexample (10) below will serve as an illustration of both types of greeting:

(10) Opening greeting and self-identification by call recipient and caller;exchange of personal greetings [KI#5-2]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:. Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu:.early (+) Kansai Imports COP-IPF(+)

'Good morning. Kansai Imports.'

3 C A, Nomura Syookai Nakagawa desu kedomo.oh Nomura company Nakagawa COP-IPF CP

'Oh, (this) is Nakagawa (of) (the) Nomura Company, but....'

4 A A, osewa// ni natte 'masuoh assistance GL becoming be-ip?

['Oh, thank you for your continued assistance.']

5 C Ohayoo gozaimasu:.early (+)

'Good morning.'

6 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:.early (+)

'Good morning.'

3.4.1.4. The use of mosi most. As demonstrated in the excerpts above as well as in mostexamples throughout this book, there appears to be a strong interactional preference in JBCsfor the exchange of self-identifications as the opening moves for call recipient and caller. Atleast as far as call recipient behavior is concerned, this would appear to parallel the usage inEnglish institutional calls of an 'office answer-form' (Schegloff, 1986) and may also be consistentwith a possible interactional preference in Japanese everyday calls for self-identification overrecognition.14 However, it contrasts with the apparent interactional preference for an exchangeof "hello's" at the outset of everyday American English calls. Nevertheless, despite the overall


interactional preference for self-identification in JBCs, there were some cases in which mosimosiwas used by callers and/or call recipients, as illustrated in (11); see also example (2) above.

(11) Use of most mosi by caller in JBC [KI #11-2]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu:.ACK Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)


3 C Mosi mosi?hello

'Hello?'

4 A Mosi mosi:.hello

'Hello.'

5 C E: Sannomiya yuubinkyoku no Ooisi to iimasu.HES Sannomiya post office CN Oishi QT be called-ipp

6 C Doo mo osewa ni narimasu.in many ways assistance GL become-iPF

'Um, (I)'m called Oishi of the Sannomiya Post Office. In manyways, [(I/we) are obliged (to you) for your patronage.]'

7 A Kotira koso:.this side precisely

['Precisely the reverse.'] ((This utterance conveys the sense that tothe contrary of what the caller just said, it is 'this side,' i.e., thespeaker, who is indebted to the caller.))

3.4.1.5. Confirmation of recipient's self-identification. If for some reason the caller needsclarification of the party s/he has reached (for example, if the self-identification was difficult tohear, if the caller wants to confirm that s/he is speaking with a particular person, or if mosi mosiwas used in lieu of a company identification), the caller may request confirmation of therecipient's company affiliation or identity, as in (12). Another example appears in excerpt (2)above.

(12) Request for confirmation of self-identification [KI# 16-6]

1 ((phone rings))


2 A Mosi most, XX desu ((spoken quietly; name is inaudible))hello XX COP-IPF

'Hello, (this) is XX.'

3 C A, mosi mosi,oh hello

'Oh, hello?'

4 A Hal.yes

'Yes.'

-^ 5 A Et:to: sotira wa Masutaa Denki desyoo ka.HES that side TOP Master Electric COP-TENT Q

'Um, might this be Master Electric?'

6 C Hai, soo desuyes so COP-IPF

'Yes, it is.'

3.4.1.6. Self-identification by caller. In response to the call recipient's self-identification, mostalthough not all callers in the corpus reciprocated with their own self-identification. (On occasion,an opening greeting such as Konniti wa was used instead, for example.) Generally speaking,callers in the corpus adopted the same elements in their self-identifications as did call recipients.That is, they minimally provided a categorial identification as to company affiliation, togetherwith, in some cases, a section or location name and/or a surname.

(13) Self-identification patterns adopted by outside callers

(a) Kantoo ginkoo no Ginza siten no Satoo de gozaimasuKanto bank CN Ginza branch CN Sato COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Sato of the Ginza branch of Kanto Bank.'

(b) Kantoo ginkoo no Satoo de gozaimasuKanto bank CN Sato COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Sato of Kanto Bank.'

(c) Kantoo ginkoo de gozaimasuKanto bank COP-IPF (+)

'(This) is Kanto Bank.'


Moreover, both callers and call recipients frequently drop the connective no between theelements [company-section] and [last name] when uttering these self-identifications. The resultingstring of information functions much like a name, as in the example Nomura Syookai Nakagawadesu kedomo which appeared earlier in excerpt (10), line 3C, and is repeated below:

(14) Opening greeting and self-identification by call recipient, caller[KI#5-2]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:. Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu:.early (+) Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)


-^ 3 C A, Nomura Syookai Nakagawa desu kedomo.oh Nomura company Nakagawa COP-IPF CP


However, callers and call recipients diverge in terms of the predicates they adopt for theirself-identifications, as shown in patterns (15) and (16):

(15) Self-identification pattern used by callers (plain-style)

[company] (no) [sec./location] (no) [last name] desu kefre)do(mo)CN CN COP-IPF CP

"(This) is [last name] (of) [section/location] (of) [company], but....'

(16) Self-identification pattern used by outside callers (humble-polite)

[company] (wo)[sec./location] (no) [last name] to moosimasu ga...

CN CN QT be called-ippvU CP

'(I)'m called [last name] (of) [section/location] (of) [company],but....'

That is, callers will typically identify themselves using a form of the copula plus a clauseparticle (e.g., desu keredomo...) as in (15), or with a sequence that combines the quotativeparticle to, the distal-style form of the humble-polite verbal moosu ('to be called'), and a clauseparticle (e.g., to moosimasu ga...) as in (16). Callers usually employ the second of these twooptions when they are unfamiliar with the call recipient or are calling for the first time. In thisway, the utterance functions not only as a self-identification but also as a self-introduction.15

The caller's selection of the /-to moosimasu/ form therefore represents a contextualization cuefor the call recipient that indexes the degree of familiarity in their relationship; this in turnhelps the call recipient to respond in a style appropriate to that relationship.


In both patterns illustrated in (15) and (16), the addition of a clause particle (e.g., ga orkeredomo) provides a pause during which the call recipient may respond, usually with briefaizuti that accomplishes one or more of the following: (a) it indicates that the recipient islistening; (b) it acknowledges the caller's previous utterance; and (c) it encourages the caller tocontinue. Park (2002) has also found in her research on Japanese telephone conversations thatkedo following a self-identification can function to reserve the next turn space for the caller, sothat he or she may provide the reason-for-call or a switchboard request, as shown in thefollowing example:

(17) Japanese kedo after self-identification and prior to reason-for-callin ordinary conversation (Park, 2002, conversation between T&I)16

1 ((phone rings))

2 I Hai, Isii desuyes Ishii COP-IPF

'Hello, (this) is Ishii.'

3 T A most mosi=ano Tanaka desu kedo Atuko-san wa imasu ka?oh hello HES Tanaka COP-IPF CP Ms. Atsuko TOP be-ipp Q

'Oh hello. Um (this) is Tanaka kedo Is Atsuko there?'

4 I //a/-yes

'Yes.'

Some of the data in Park's corpus also consist of what she refers to as "official-type calls"placed by businesses to households. As pointed out earlier, these are really actually hybrid callsin that only one party represents an institution. Nevertheless, in the case of kedo usage followingself-identifications, Park found similar results to those observed in ordinary conversations:

(18) Japanese kedo after self-identification and prior to reason-for-callin "official-type" conversation (Park, 2002, conversation betweenT&A)

1 ((phone rings))

2 T Most mosthello

'Hello.'


3 A Mosi mosthello

'Hello.'

4 T Halyes

'Yes.'

-> 5 A Ano: Hutamataga no gozyokai na n desu kedomoHES Futamataga CN gojokai COP-IPF EP kedo

'Urn. (This) is gojokai ((an insurance-like organization in whichpeople pay a certain amount of 'premium' for such services asweddings and funerals)) at Futamataga kedo'

6 T Halyes

'Yes.'

7 A Otakusama no hoo de wa mada ohairi de wa nai desyoo ka.you (+) CN side LOG TOP yet enter COP-NEG-IPF COP-TENT Q

'Have you joined yet?'

We will see in the next section that the sequential organization of JBCs differs slightly, sincean exchange of business salutations intervenes between the pair of self-identifications and thereason-for-call. Note that in the call above, no such exchange occurs.

3.4.2. Business salutations

One of the distinctive register features of JBCs is the exchange of business salutations. Thisrepresents the third adjacency pair or "core sequence" (Schegloff. 1986) in the opening of aJBC call, appearing after the summons—answer and self-identification sequences. As such, itoccupies the same position as the greeting sequence in ordinary American English calls. In theJBC corpus, two different types of salutations were observed, depending upon whether the callswere between members of different organizations, or between colleagues in the same company.

3.4.2.1. Inter-organizational salutations. Salutations exchanged in inter-organizational calls weretypically of the form (Itumo) osewa ni natte (or)imasu or Osewa ni narimasu. Excerpt (19)illustrates both patterns:


(19) "Canonical" JBS call opening [KI#5-17](includes exchange of self-IDs and business salutations)

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hal, Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu.ACK Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)


3 C Kantoo-ginkoo no Kawabe de gozaimasu::.Kanto bank CN Kawabe COP-IPF (+)


-> 4 A Itumo osewa ni natte orimasu::.always assistance GL become-GER be-ipp^


-^ 5 C Osewa ni narimasu:.assistance GL become-ipF


Linguistically speaking, there is a difference between the two salutations in lines 4 and 5which, if interpreted literally, suggests a different perspective on the relationship between thetwo parties, and/or a difference in how they potentially view the topic(s) to be discussed. Thatis, when a speaker opts to use a l-t(e) (ori)masu/ form of this salutation, e.g., (Itumo) osewa ninatte orimasu or (Itumo) osewa ni natte (i)masu, s/he acknowledges and expresses gratitude forthe ongoing relationship between her company and that of the interlocutor, in essence saying'Thank you for your continued assistance/patronage.'17 On the other hand, when using theimperfective form Osewa ni narimasu, a speaker simultaneously acknowledges that s/he has animminent need for some form of assistance or perhaps information, and also expresses gratitudein advance for that help, literally saying '(I) will become obliged (to you) for your assistance.'

It would thus seem appropriate if callers were to use Osewa ni narimasu regularly (sincepresumably they have a reason for calling that potentially obliges them in some way to the callrecipient), and if call recipients were to use (Itumo) osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu with callersthey recognize as regular business acquaintances. However, the behavior of conversationalistsin the JBC corpus does not fall into such a simple, neat pattern. Some participants adopt theform Osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu even when they are in contact with an interlocutor for the firsttime. However, in the case of problem report calls, it is not likely to be the first time that acaller has contacted the call recipient's company, regardless of whether or not the two speakersof the moment are acquainted with each other. So many such "deviant cases" can actually beexplained.18


The exact translation for and interpretation of osewa in the phrase Osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masuwill also depend upon the nature of the relationship between the two companies or organizations.In (19) above, the caller represents one of the banks whose services Kansai Imports dependsupon regularly. In that case, the call recipient would most likely be acknowledging that bank's'assistance,' rather than 'patronage.' On the other hand, in example (20) below, the caller is aperiodic customer of Tokyo Books; therefore the call recipient is probably acknowledging thecaller's continued 'patronage.' Note that in this excerpt, both caller and call recipient opt forthe humble-polite form of the salutation, substituting orimasu for the plain form imasu.

Exchange of salutations that index an ongoing business relationship[TB#1A-14]

((This portion follows a transfer from the previous call recipient))

1 A Most most, odenwa kawarimasita.hello phone change-pr

'Hello. [(I)'ve (ex)changed (phones with someone else).]'

2 C Mosi mosi. Saitama-ken no Kokusai Kensyuuhello Saitama prefecture CN International Study

3 C Sentaa no Kawano to moosimasu//Center CN Kawano QT

'Hello. (I)'m called Kawano of (the) International Study Center ofSaitama Prefecture.'

4 A Osewa ni natt'- orimasuassistance GL become-GER be-iPFvi'

['Thank you for your continued patronage.']

5 C Osewa ni natte orimasu.assistance GL become-GER be-ippsl/


6 C E:to mata kotosi mo desu ne:HES again this year also COP-IPF ATF

'Um, again this year also, you see,'

7 C Hal.BC

'Mhm.'


-> 8 A ano: Eigo kyoozai no hoohes English language teaching materials CN alternative

-> 9 A hattyuu sitai to omou n desu ga,place order-ipp-DEs QT think EP CP

'um, it's that (I) think (we)'d like to place an order for Englishlanguage teaching materials, but....'

Since Mr. Kawano indicates in lines 6 and 8-9 that his organization is once again interested inordering some English language teaching materials, we can be sure that he or some otherrepresentative has contacted Tokyo Books regarding orders on some previous occasion.Mr. Kawano's salutation in line 5 is therefore appropriate, confirming as it does the existing,ongoing relationship between the two organizations. Alternatively, it is of course possible thatMr. Kawano could have said Osewa ni narimasu in order to emphasize the fact that he wouldbe requesting the call recipient's assistance in this call, as evidenced in his maeoki in lines 6-9(E:to, mata kotosi mo desu ne: ano: Eigo kyoozai no hoo hatyuu sitai to omou n desu ga).However, underscoring the ongoing business relationship through the use of the phrase Osewani natte orimasu has its advantages; it establishes Mr. Kawano and/or his organization as aregular customer of the book company. It is perhaps for this reason that there appears to be arecent trend toward nearly formulaic usage of the l-t(e) (ori)masul form of the salutation bycallers.19

This practice is similar to the use of the phrase Xga (itumo) osewa natt(e)-(ori)masu ('X is(always) obliged to you for your help') in face-to-face personal introductions, where X is afamily member of the speaker. For example, a mother, upon meeting her daughter's teacher forthe first time, might say Musume ga itumo osewa ni natte orimasu ('My daughter is alwaysobliged to you for your help.'). Although the mother and the teacher are meeting for the firsttime, the mother's utterance acknowledges the ongoing relationship between her daughter andthe teacher, as well as the larger relationship between her family and the daughter's school.

Another shift in usage observed in the data is the fact that numerous call recipients will use theimperfective osewa ni narimasu, rather than the more usual osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu, as asalutation. The following excerpt from a call to Kansai Imports by the company's regular localbanker serves as an illustration. It also nicely demonstrates the "full" format of a caller'sself-identification in line 3.

(21) Opening of call by banker to Kansai Imports [KI #1-7]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu.Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)

'Kansai Imports.'


-^ 3 C A, e: Kansai-ginkoo no Sannomiya-siten no Igarasi desu GA:oh HES Kansai bank CN Sannomiya branch CN Igarashi COP-IPF CP

'Oh, uh, (this) is Igarashi of the Sannomiya branch of Kansai Bank,BUT,'

-^ 4 A A, hai, osewa// ni narimasu:.oh yes assistance GL become-ipp

Oh, yes, ['(I) am obliged (to you) for your assistance.']

5 C Osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF


While it is conceivable, as already noted, that either the caller or the call recipient might useosewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu to refer to an ongoing relationship, literally speaking it is odd forthe recipient to use the phrase osewa ni narimasu as this one does in line 4 in order to indicate aneed for assistance or information at the outset of the call. Such usage could be understandable,however, if the recipient is presently receiving a return call that s/he had at some previous pointin time requested from the caller and/or his/her company. In any event, this kind of non-literalusage of the salutations may have arisen over time because speakers unconsciously blur thetraditional distinction between the two phrases. Given that in actual practice these expressionsare often used interchangeably. I have thus translated Osewa ni narimasu as '(I) am obliged (toyou) for your assistance/patronage' in order to convey its likely intended meaning.

Some speakers employed another related business salutation: osewasama desu. This expressionemploys the honorific-polite pattern lo + (verbal stem/noun) + desu/ and as such it does notcarry the l-t(e) (i)rul aspectual marking. Instead, aspect is determined through the utterancecontext. Makino and Tsutsui (1995) provide the following examples of this honorific pattern inother contexts:

(22) Examples of the pattern lo + (verbal stem/noun) + desu/

(a) Okyakusama ga moo sugu okaeri desu.guests (+) SUB more soon leaving't COP-IPF

'(The) guests are leaving soon.'

(b) Ima nani o oyomi desu ka?now what OBJ reading^ COP-IPF Q

'What are (you) reading now?'

(c) Kopii wa moo osumi desu ka?copying TOP already finishing^ COP-IPF Q

'Have you already finished copying?'


Thus in the case of osewasama desu, depending upon the context the expression could beinterpreted as 'Thank you for your patronage/assistance' in the past, in an ongoing sense, or ina future-oriented sense in terms of what the recipient of the phrase might do on behalf of thespeaker.

One final exception to the description of the "routine" exchange of salutations provided here isthe fact that some conversationalists do not reciprocate with the "second part" of this adjacencypair. As example (23) demonstrates, a speaker may employ an individual salutation to acknowledgethe other party's self-identification, in lieu of simply responding with 'Hai.' Based on a reviewof business salutations in the JBC data, although the absence of the second part of the pair istechnically "marked" with respect to the canonical opening format, it does not always appear tobe "noticeable" in terms how conversationalists respond to it. In some cases, for example, thesalutations are not reciprocal because there is not an ongoing business relationship establishedbetween the participants, for example in toiawase "cold call" inquiries. On other occasions, aninterlocutor may reply with a different greeting instead of the salutation, as shown below:

(23) Business salutation (non-reciprocal) [KI#5-2]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:. Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu:.early (+) Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)




-^ 4 A A, osewa// ni natte 'masuoh assistance GL becoming be-ipp


5 C Ohayoo gozaimasu:.early (+)

'Good morning.'

6 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:.early (+)

'Good morning.'

Of all of the register features listed in Figure 2 on page 101, these salutations are perhaps themost indicative of the fact that the call is business-related. Such salutations would be out ofplace in a Japanese personal telephone call. Moreover, as the square brackets around the


English translations for these salutations suggest, such expressions would probably not appearin parallel business contexts in English, either.

Before moving on to discuss in-house salutations, we should return to the question of thefunction of kedo in call openings. As mentioned previously. Park (2002) has demonstrated ineveryday and hybrid "official-type calls" that callers use kedo in utterance-final position withself-identifications in order to save the next turn space for the reason-for-call. She has alsopointed out that kedo can have the "function of projecting the following main action." What isinteresting in JBCs is that kedo and other clause particles such as ga appear to assume a similarfunction in terms of saving the next turn space for the current speaker and projecting the likelynext action by that speaker, but since business salutations intervene between self-introductionsand reason-for-call, kedo functions as a way of projecting the imminent onset of those salutationsrather than the reason-for-call. This becomes especially clear when we examine the timing ofthe exchange of salutations; often following a caller's /self-introduction + kedo/, both caller andcall recipient will launch simultaneously into the exchange of salutations, producing overlappingtalk.

3.4.2.2. In-house salutations. While the salutations discussed above pertain to inter-organizationalcalls, conversationalists in the Kanto corpus adopted a different salutation for in-house calls,namely Otukaresama desu (literally, 'You must be tired.'). Both caller and call recipient mayexpress this reciprocally, as shown below:

(24) Exchange of salutations, in-house call [TB#1A-13]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Yamada desu.ACK Yamada COP-IPF

'(This) is Yamada.'

3 C Omise desu. =store COP-IPF

'(This) is (the) (book)store.'

-^ 4 A =Otukare -sama desu. =tired person COP-IPF

['You (must) be tired.']

-^ 5 C =Otukare -sama desu.tired person COP-IPF

['You (must) be tired.']

The English equivalent 'You must be tired' sounds awkward in this context; indeed, this seemsto be another register feature in JBCs much like the business salutations that does not have a


literal English counterpart. The Japanese phrase is also commonly used in face-to-face workplaceinteractions as a ritual greeting to acknowledge the efforts of fellow employees.20 As Jordenand Noda (1988:125) have noted, "in a society of hard work, once described as 'a nation ofworkaholics,' being tired is often regarded as one proof of serious endeavor." The phrasetherefore has a positive connotation. The perfective equivalent, otukaresama desita, is anexpression typically used upon the completion of a task, or at the end of a workday as afarewell expression to colleagues leaving the office.21

It should be noted that I am using the term "in-house" in this book to refer not only to callsunder one roof, but also more generally speaking to calls between participants who are part ofthe same in-group, or uti. For example, when a member of a particular company (= one type ofuti) is away from the office on business and phones in to get his/her messages or to indicatewhen s/he might return to the office, the call recipient at the company may use otukaresamadesu as a salutation during the opening section of the call.

Taken together, the inter-organizational and in-house forms of business salutations reveal yetanother indexing of the uti/soto distinction by certain speakers. That is, while the Kantoconversationalists use the ritual phrases osewa ni narimasu and (itumo) osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masuwhen interacting with individuals on the outside (soto), they employ otukaresama desu withindividuals who are members of their own organization (uti).22

3.4.3. Personal greetings

As mentioned earlier, conversationalists in the JBC corpus used greetings related to the time ofday, such as Ohayoo gozaimasu 'Good morning,' in two places in call openings; at the outsetof the call prior to the call recipient's self-identification, and following the self-identification ofthe caller, as illustrated in the following example:

(25) Opening greeting and self-identification by call recipient, caller;exchange of personal greetings [KI#5-2]

1 ((phone rings))

-> 2 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:. Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu:.early (+) Kansai Imports COP-IPF(+)





4 A A, osewa// ni natte 'masuoh assistance GL becoming be-ip?


-> 5 C Ohayoo gozaimasu:.early (+)

'Good morning.'

-^ 6 A Ohayoo gozaimasu:.early (+)

'Good morning.'

In order to more clearly distinguish between greetings of the type that appear in line 2 versusthose which appear in lines 5 and 6 of this excerpt, I refer to the latter as personal greetings,since they could occur in ordinary calls of a more personal nature. For example, if a caller wereto phone a friend at work, that friend might still answer the phone as in line 2, using thedistal-style Ohayoo gozaimasu because this neutral-polite form is appropriate as an openinggreeting to any and all callers. However, in lines 5 and 6, the two friends would most likelyadopt the more familiar, direct-style form Ohayoo instead. The form of self-identification usedby the caller would likely change as well to a more informal equivalent.

In some cases in the JBC data, personal greetings were not offered reciprocally. For example,some callers occasionally uttered Konniti wa 'Good afternoon' in response to the call recipient'sself-identification. (In the following example, note that the caller uttered lines 3-5 withoutpausing; typographical limitations prevented presentation of these "latched" utterances on asingle line.)

(26) Opening segment with personal greeting by caller only [KI #3-9]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A XX -gaisya de:su.XX company COP-IPF

'XX Co-ompany.'

3 C Osewa ni narimasu: =assistance GL become-ipp


4 C =Kansai Yunyuu no Aikawa desu.=Kansai Imports CN Aikawa COP-IPF

'Kansai Imports, Aikawa.'


-> 5 C =Konniti// wa.this day TOP

'Good afternoon.'

6 A Hai, osewa ni narimasu:.ACK assistance GL become-ipp


$.4.4. Summary: "Routine" call openings in JBCs

We have observed in our discussion about opening sequences in JBCs that as compared to"routine" ordinary calls in English, for the most part there are parallel tasks for conversationaliststo accomplish, namely responding to the summons of the telephone ring, ascertaining participantidentities, and establishing a "ritual state of ratified mutual participation" (Goffman, 1963:100).We also noted that in strictly business-related calls in the JBC corpus, no precise equivalent forthe fourth "how-are you" sequences were observed, in that there was no question—answer,question—answer sequence of adjacency pairs of the sort seen in everyday English 'how areyou?' exchanges. However, one could view the optional exchange of declarative Ohayoogozaimasu phrases in JBCs as a second set of greetings following the exchange of businesssalutations. The primary difference with the canonical 'how-are-you' sequence discussed bySchegloff then would be that in Japanese, the ritual exchange of statements does not technicallyallow for variable responses (aside from stylistic variants such as Ohayoo). As a result, it is lesslikely that the "state of being" of one of the conversationalists would become the topic ofdiscussion in the immediately following "anchor position" or first topic slot.

We can summarize our discussion in the previous sections by outlining the core sequences forcanonical or "routine" JBC opening segments as follows:

(27) "Routine" call opening sequences in JBCs

(a) Summons—answer (with optional opening greeting)(b) Exchange of self-identifications(c) Exchange of business salutations (= "Greeting" sequence)(d) Exchange of personal greetings (optional; in lieu of how-are-you's)

3.4.5. Switchboard requests

Switchboard requests have been categorized by Schegloff and others as one type of first topicinitiation, under the general heading of "reason-for-call." This is partly because from the pointof view of sequential organization, switchboard requests usually occupy the same "anchorposition" as other reasons-for-calls. That is, they normally follow the set of core sequences in acall opening. Compare the English examples (28) and (29), in which a switchboard request or


other reason-for-call appears in line 11 after the summons—answer, identification/recognition,greeting, and 'how-are-you' sequences:

(28) Switchboard request (Schegloff, 1986:115, #123)

12 A3 C4 A5 C6 A7 C8 A

9 C10A

11C

((phone rings))Hello::,H'llo, Clara?Yeh,Hi. Bernie.Hi Bernie.How're you.I'm awright,How're you.Okay:?Good.

First topic'Laura there?'

(29) Other reason-for-call as first topic (Schegloff, 1986:115, #247a)

1 ((phone rings))2 A Hallo,3 C Hello, Jim?4 A Yeah,5 C 'S Bonnie.6 A Hi,7 C Hi, how are yuh.8 A Fine, how're you.9 C Oh, okay I guess10A Oh okay.

-> 11C First topic;Uhm (0.2) what are you doing New Year's Eve?'

A similar sequential organization obtains with switchboard requests and other reasons-for-callsin the JBC data. Compare (30) and (31), where the anchor position appears in line 6 for bothcalls, following the summons—answer, self-identification, and business salutation sequences:

(30) Opening with switchboard request [TB#lB-34]

1 ((phone rings))


2 A Hai, Tookyoo Syoten de gozaimasu.ACK Tokyo Books COP-IPF (+)

'Yes, Tokyo Books.'

3 C A, Wih e:to:, Ee-bii-sii Kyooiku Kyookaioh'hhh umm ABC education association

to moosimasu keredomoQT be called-ipp^ CP

'Oh,'hhh um, (I)'m (with a group) called ABC EducationalAssociation, but'

4 C Osewa ni natte orimasu::.assistance GL become-GER be-ipp^


5 A Osewa -sama desu:.assistance person (+) COP-IPF

['Thank you for your assistance.']

6 C 'hhh Yamada-san irassyaimasu ka.'hhh Ms. Yamada be-iPFT* Q

'hhh Is Ms. Yamada (there)?'

7 A A, -watakusi desu ga.oh I COP-IPF CP

'Oh, it is I, but....'

(31) Opening with other reason-for-call [TB #lA-26]

1 ((phone rings))


'Yes, Tokyo Books.'

3 C Tsunoda Syuppan Hanbaito moosimasu =Tsunoda publishing sales QT be called-iPF 4>

'(I)'m (with a company) called Tsunoda Publishers andDistributors.'


4 A =Osewa ni natte orimasu::.=assistance GL become-GER be-ippsp


5 C =Osewa ni natte orimasu::.=assistance GL become-GER


-> 6 C =Ano: syoseki ni tuite oukagai-sitai koto gaHES book concerning inquire-iPF-DES^ matter SUB

aru n desu keredomo,have-ipp EP CP

'Urn, it's that there's a matter (I)'d like to inquire about regardingbooks, but...'

7 A A, hai, hai doozo!oh ACK yes please (go ahead)

'Oh, okay, yes please go ahead!'

For expositional purposes in outlining the structure of JBCs, I will include switchboard requestsin this section on call openings and treat other reasons-for-calls in a separate, subsequentsection on the transition to the matter of business. I choose to do so partly because the "flow"of the conversation after a switchboard request differs significantly from that which followsother types of reason- for-call. Offers for a return call, for example, often appear after switchboardrequests that have been refused, but would not appear after most other reasons-for-calls. Moreoverin JBCs, the initial prefatory statement describing the general reason-for-call, which I refer toin this book as a maeoki, usually differs markedly in linguistic structure from that of switchboardrequests. For example, the maeoki in excerpt (31) above is the relatively complex utteranceAno: syoseki ni tuite oukagai-sitai koto ga aru n desu keredomo, whereas the switchboardrequest in line (6) of excerpt (30), Yamada-san irassyaimasu ka? represents a more straightforwardpattern. Thus I will first discuss various aspects of switchboard requests below, and then moveon to a detailed discussion of the function and form of maeoki in JBCs.

3.4.5.1. Linguistic forms used for switchboard requests. In this section I will briefly summarizethe linguistic forms or patterns employed by JBC conversationalists when making switchboardrequests. This review is the result of concordance searches conducted on the data and istherefore representative of the corpus.

By far the most common expression adopted by callers when making a switchboard requestwas a combination of the requested person's name with the suffix -son or title such as -butyoo('department chief), followed by an honorific-polite equivalent of the verbal iru 'be,' such asirassyaru or oide ni naru.


The switchboard request presented in excerpt (30) and repeated below as (32) is one example.The caller uses the honorific-polite verbal, irassyaru, which conveys respect with regard to theperson being requested.

(32) Switchboard request [TB #18-34]

6 C 'hhh Yamada-san irassyaimasu ka.hhh Ms. Yamada be-ipp'T* Q

'hhh Is Ms. Yamada in?'

A similar example appears below; this time the caller uses aide ni naru:

(33) Switchboard request using aide ni naru [TB #18-5]

7 C Hirano-san oide ni narimasu ka?Mr. Hirano be-iNF'h GL become-iMP Q

'Is Mr. Hirano in?'

Kansai speakers frequently substituted the dialectal form oraremasu ka? (or simply oraremasu?)in their switchboard requests. The following is an illustration of such usage:

(34) Kansai speaker's switchboard request [KI #1-1]

5 C Yamamoto-san oraremasu ka?Ms. Yamamoto be-PAS-iPF-icsT* Q

'Is Ms. Yamamoto in?'

Variations on these "basic" honorific-polite patterns were also observed. For example, speakerssometimes mitigated their requests by adding an apology and/or the tentative form of thecopula (desyoo), as shown in the next three examples:

(35) Switchboard request with irassyaru and tentative desyoo [TB #lB-7]

7 C Osore irimasu ga, Tanizaki-san irassyaimasu desyoo ka.excuse me CP Mr. Tanizaki be-iPF't" COP-TENT-IPF Q

'Excuse me, but might Mr. Tanizaki be in?'

(36) Switchboard request with oide (honorific stem) and tentative desyoo[KI#9-10]

5 C Huziwara-butyoo oide desyoo ka?department chief Fujiwara be-iNft^ COP-TENT Q

'Might Department Chief Fujiwara be in?'


(37) Switchboard request with orareru and tentative desyoo [KI #9-6]

7 C Gaikoku gyoomu -ka NO:, Kawabe-san oraremasuforeign transactions section CN Mr. Kawabe be-PAS-iPF-Ksf"

desyoo ka.COP-TENT Q

'Might Mr. Kawabe of the Foreign TransACTions section, be in?'

The other fundamental strategy adopted by callers for their switchboard requests was to use apattern incorporating the humble-polite form onegai-simasu to ask for a particular person:

(38) Switchboard request with onegai-simasu [TB #16-9]

6 C Ano, Takeda-syatyoo onegai-simasu.HES company president Takeda beg-iPF^

'Um, President Takeda, please.'

As was the case with the honorific verbals, a number of variations on this basic humble-politeform appeared as well. For example, instead of using simasu, speakers substituted the potentialform dekimasu to convey the sense of 'May I request....?' or 'May I have....?, as in (39):

(39) Switchboard request withonegai-dekimasu [KI #13-18]

6 C Eetto::, hassoo no Kaneda-san onegai-dekimasu ka?HES dispatch CN Mr. Kaneda beg-ipp-poivp Q

'Umm, may (I) have Mr. Kaneda of the Dispatch section, please?'

Callers also frequently used the desiderative form onegai-sitai in conjunction with the extendedpredicate (EP) and a following clause particle, as illustrated in (40):

(40) Switchboard request with onegai-sitai plus the EP [KI #11-11]

7 C Huzi\vara-butyoo-san onegai-sitai n desu gaMs. Department Chief Fujiwara beg-DES-ipp EP CP

'It's that (I)'d like to request Ms. Department Chief Fujiwara, but...'

With the exception of the Kansai forms using oraremasu, there did not appear to be anyregional difference in terms of the usage of these switchboard request patterns. For the mostpart there also did not appear to be many distinctions in usage according to differing rolerelationships, e.g., in calls by subordinates requesting superiors vs. calls between equals. Thisis probably because all of the forms described above already express deference through eitherhonorific or humble-polite forms. However, status differences did appear in a few in-housecalls, for example in (41) when a superior made a switchboard request for a subordinate:


(41) Switchboard request by superior for subordinate(and to a subordinate) [TB #18-2]

4 C Tanabe-kun imasu ka:?Tanabe (familiar) be-iPF Q

'Is Tanabe in?'

The caller's utterance indexes the superior—subordinate relationship in two ways. First, thecaller refers to Tanabe-kun rather than Tanabe-san. Japanese speakers use the -kun suffix in avariety of contexts when referring to male (and sometimes female) equals and subordinates bytheir first or last names. The sense of familiarity conveyed in Japanese by the suffix is difficultto translate into English, but it is somewhat akin the way in which American superiors in acompany will sometimes refer to subordinates solely by their last name.

The other way in which the caller's utterance indexes his relationship with Tanabe (and hisaddressee, a subordinate) is through the use of the plain, distal form imasu rather than thehonorific irassyaru or oide ni naru. Other switchboard requests in the corpus placed in similarcontexts sometimes included the direct form iru instead.

3.4.5.2. Pre-empting the canonical sequential organization. Before moving on to discuss theways in which call recipients may respond to these switchboard requests, we should note thaton occasion conversationalists do not observe the canonical order of sequences leading up to aswitchboard request, and instead issue one at a point preceding the anchor position, as in thisexample:

(42) "Deviant" case call opening with early switchboard request[TB #lA-24]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Tookyoo Syoten de gozaimasu.ACK Tokyo Books COP-IPF

'Yes, Tokyo Books.'

3 C A, osore iremasu ga:, =oh excuse me-ipp CP

'Oh, excuse me, but'

4 A =Hai?yes?

'Yes?'


5 C Simanaka Masako-san irassyaimasu ka? =Ms. Masako Shimanaka be-ipp^ Q

'Is Ms. Masako Shimanaka in?'

6 A =(hhh) Moosiwake gozaimasen, gaisyutu site ru n desu ga.(hhh) excuse have-NEG-ipp (+) be out-GER EP CP

'(hhh) (I)'m very sorry, it's that (she)'s out, but...'

In this conversation, the caller provides neither a self-identification nor a business salutation,and instead launches immediately into a switchboard request. This seemingly "deviant" casecan be explained, however, if we consider the circumstances of the call. Apparently the callerhad received a rather urgent message from Ms. Shimanaka about an advertisement the callerhad intended to place in a Tokyo Books publication. According to the caller, Shimanakaindicated in her message that Tokyo Books had not yet received the draft of the advertisement,so she was wondering what had happened to it and requested a call back. The caller wasflustered because she consequently realized she had not actually sent out the draft, and wasnow calling Tokyo Books from the post office, where she was about to mail the requestedmaterial. It is therefore possible that given the situation, the caller may have handled theswitchboard request in a different manner than she might have in other circumstances. Thisexcerpt thus illustrates how the "contingencies of the moment" can pre-empt the expectedsequences in a call opening, and how a conversationalist (in this case, the caller) can bring upfirst topic matters such as a switchboard request prior to the usual anchor position. It alsodemonstrates the fact that despite such short-circuiting of normal "routines," conversationalistsare clearly flexible and articulate enough to adapt to such changing circumstances, and are notsimply performing in "auto-pilot" mode, according to a pre-determined "script."

3.4.5.3. Three scenarios in responding to switchboard requests. After a caller has made aswitchboard request to speak with someone, we can imagine three scenarios that might develop.First, it may be that the call recipient is actually the requested person, and the caller has simplynot recognized his/her voice:

(43) Opening with switchboard request [TB #18-34]

1 ((phone rings))


'Yes, Tokyo Books.'

3 C A, hhh e:to:, Ee-bii-sii Kyooiku Kyookaioh'hhh umm ABC education association


to moosimasu keredomoQT be called-ipp 4> CP

'Oh,'hhh um, (I)'m (with a group) called ABC EducationalAssociation, but'

4 C Osewa ni natte orimasu::.assistance GL become-GER be-ippvl'


5 A Osewa -sama desu:.assistance person (+) COP-IPF

['Thank you for your assistance.']

6 C hhh Yamada-san irassyaimasn ka.'hhh Ms. Yamada

'hhh Is Ms. Yamada (there)?'

-> 7 A A, watakusi desu ga.oh I COP-IPF CP

'Oh, it is I, but....'

In such situations, a response such as Yamada' s in line 7, A, watakusi desu ga, is appropriate.

The second scenario involves a move toward granting of the switchboard request by the callrecipient, either because s/he knows that the requested person is available, or is at least underthe impression that s/he is. Excerpt (44) is an example:

(44) Granting a switchboard request [KI #2B- 1 5]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kobe Unyu desu:.Kobe shipping COP-IPF

'Kobe Shipping.'

3 C Most most:, Kansai Yunyuu desu keredomo:.hello Kansai Imports COP-IPF CP

'Hello, (this) is Kansai Imports, but...'

4 A Itumo osewa// ni narimasu.always assistance GL become- IFF

['(I) am always obliged (to you) for your patronage.']


5 C Osewa ni natte orimasu.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF^


6 C Etto:, hassoo NO, Yoneda-san oraremasuHES dispatch CN Mr. Yoneda be-pAS-iPF-Kst" Q

'Um, is Mr. Yoneda of (the) DISpatch (section) in?'

-> 7 A Hai, syoosyoo omati kudasai.yes a little (+) waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMp/ts

'Yes, please wait a moment.'

((brief pause))

8 A A, suimasen, tadaima denwa- tyuu na n desu kedomo.oh be sorry-iPF right now phone in the middle COP-IPF EP CP

'Oh, (I)'m sorry, right now he's in the middle of a call, but...'

9 C A, soo desu ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that right.'

10A Hai, ...a, owarimasita.yes oh finish-pp

'Yes, ... oh, (he)'s finished.'

11C A, ovcarimasita?oh finish-PF

'Oh, (he)'s finished?'

-> 12 A Omati kudasai.waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMp/|s

'Please wait a moment.'

In this example, the call recipient initially puts the caller on hold so that she can transfer thecall, only to discover that Yoneda is on another line. As the call recipient explains this to thecaller, Yoneda wraps up the call, so the call recipient is ultimately able to grant the request,using a similar form in line 12 (Omati kudasai) to the one she initially used in line 7 (Hai,syoosyoo omati kudasai).

The third possible scenario is one in which the call recipient either knows the requested personis unavailable, or at least suggests that this is the case (for call screening purposes, for example).


(45) Refusing a switchboard request [KI #11 -08]

1 ((phone rings))



3 C A, sumimasen, Wakayama tuusin desu kedomo.oh be sorry-iPF Wakayama communications COP-IPF CP

'Oh, I'm sorry, (This) is Wakayama Communications, but...'

4 A Osewa ni narimasu=assistance GL become-ipp

['(We are/I am) obliged (to you) for your assistance.']

5 C =Osewa ni narimasu=assistance GL become-iPF

['(We are/I am) obliged (to you) for your assistance.']

6 C =Ano, Huziwara-san, oraremasu ka?HES Ms. Fujiwara be-pAS-iPF-KS^ Q

'Is Ms. Fujiwara in?'

-> 7 A A, sumimasen. Ima tyotto seki hazusite orimasu ga.oh be sorry-ipp now a little seat vacate-GER be-ippvl' CP

'Oh, (I)'m sorry. Now (she)'s away from (her )desk for a moment,but...'



Tokens of such "refused" switchboard requests occurred very frequently in the corpus, so in thenext section, we will consider the forms which call recipients used to express those refusals.

3.4.5.4. Indicating that someone is not available. As one might imagine, there are quite anumber of reasons as to why a particular employee might not be able to come to the phone.Consequently, call recipients used a wide variety of forms to indicate that the requested personwas unavailable at the moment. The most common of these are presented in (46) below.Although (a) may also be used in non-business calls, the remainder are used exclusively inbusiness or other institutional contexts, and therefore represent additional identifying registerfeatures of JBCs.


(46) Expressions JBC call recipients used to indicate that an employee isnot available

(a) gaisyutu site -orimasube out-iPF ̂

'(s/he) is out (e.g., of the office)'

(b) seki hazusite -ru ndesukeredomo...seat vacate-GER be-ipp EP CP

'it's that (s/he) has left (his/her) seat'

(c) sekkyaku -tyuu na n desu ga:meeting customers in the middle of COP-IPF EP CP

'it's just that (she)'s busy meeting customers, but...'

(d) hoka no denwa de hanasi -tyuuanother CN telephone INST speaking in the middle of

na n desu:.COP-IPF EP

'it's that (s/he) is talking on another telephone (line)'

(e) mada syussya site 'nai n desu keredomonot yet go/come to office do-GER be-NEG-iPF EP CP

'it's that (s/he) has not yet arrived at (the) office, but....'

(f) oyasumi o itadaite 'masuvacation OBJ receive-GER^ be-iPF

'[s/he]'s on vacation'

As indicated in examples (b), (c), (d) and (e), JBC conversationalists conclude many of theseexpressions with the EP construction and/or a clause particle such as ga or ke(re)do(mo). Wecan understand why speakers employ the EP so frequently by considering the discourse contextmore closely. First, we know that each of the utterances in (46) typically follows a request by acaller to speak with someone. Thus the situational context of the moment is that the caller iswondering whether or not that person is available. After this request, the call recipient may putthe caller on hold in order to locate the requested person, or perhaps s/he may already knowthat the person is unavailable. When the initial call recipient returns to the line (or never leavesthe line, as the case may be), this signals to the caller that the requested person is not available.We note, however, that the call recipient does not state this information explicitly. Rather, sherecharacterizes the situation by providing the reason for that person's unavailability. Byjuxtaposing this new information against the larger situational frame which includes all of thedetails we have just described, the call recipient essentially draws the caller's attention to the


connection between the two and suggests that the caller should be able to interpret, or access,this newly reframed situation. The role of n(d) in such utterances, as Noda (1990:24) haspointed out, is to encode the existence of the larger frame and demand interpretation of the(new) characterization within it. She calls this function "double-framing," after Bateson (1972).

Noda provides two useful analogies for the double-framing function of the EP, noting that it issimilar to the opening of a window on a computer screen or the enlargement of a sub-section ofa map (Noda, 1990:27). In both situations, the newly opened or enlarged focal section remainsjuxtaposed against a larger backdrop, be it the windows which were opened previously on thecomputer desktop, or the larger area on the map in which the blown-up portion is located. Whatthe two analogies have in common is the fact that a new perspective on a situation has beenafforded by the double framing effect.

As for why speakers conclude so many of the phrases in (46) with a clause particle such as gaor ke(re)do(mo), in contrast to the use of ke (re)do (mo) andga following self-identifications, theclause particles here do not appear to save the next call space for the current speaker. Rather,by using a clause particle the recipient of the call can leave her utterance open-ended and mayalso provide a pause during which the caller can respond. In CA terms, this juncture representsa transition relevance place or TRP, where the caller may opt to, but is not obligated to, take aturn in the conversation.

3.4.5.5. Offer by the caller to call back. Once the call recipient has indicated that the requestedperson is not available, the caller may offer to call back later. Consider excerpt (47) below,which illustrates a complete opening exchange, including the core sequences ofsummons—response, self-identifications, and business salutations, followed by a switchboardrequest in anchor position in line 6, and an offer by the caller to call back later. The recipient ofthis call is Ms. Sasaki, an operations staff member at Kansai Imports; the caller is Mr. Igarashiof the local branch of Kobe Bank, which handles some of Kansai Imports' banking needs.

(47) Opening exchange with switchboard request; caller offers to callback [KI#l-7]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kansai Yunyuu de gozaimasu.Kansai Imports COP-IPF (+)

'Kansai Imports.'

3 C E: Kobe Ginkoo no Sannomiya-siten no Igarasi desu GA:HES Kobe Bank CN Sannomiya branch CN Igarashi COP-IPF CP

'(This) is Igarashi of the Sannomiya branch of Kobe Bank, BUT...'


4 A A, hai, osewa ni narimasu:.oh yes assistance GL become-ipf

Oh yes, ['(We are/I am) obliged (to you) for your assistance.']

5 C Osewa ni natte orimasu.assistance GL become-GER b


6 C E:to Huziwara-butyoo irassyaimasu desyoo ka.HES Department chief Fujiwara be-iPF't" COP-TENT Q

'Is Department Chief Fujiwara in?'

7 A Sumimasen, ima tyotto sekkyaku -tyuube sorry 4PF now just meeting customers in the middle of

8 A no ndesugaCOP-IPF EP CP

'(I)'m sorry, it's just that (she)'s busy meeting customers now,but...'


'Oh, is that so.'

10A Hai.yes

'Yes.'

->1 1 C A, soo simasitara, mata ano notihodo kakesasiteoh so do-iPF-CN again HES later call-GER-CAU

->12 C moraimasu n de24

get-fr-out-grp-ipp EP-GER

'Oh in that case, (I) '11, urn, take the liberty of calling again later.'

13 A A, hai, sumimasen.//Yorosiku onegai- simasu.OH ACK be sorry-ipp WELL beg-iPF vU

'Oh okay, (thank you). Please [do so].'

14C Hai, sumimasen.ACK be sorry-ipp



Igarashi indicates that he will call back through what appears to be a statement of intention: soosimasitara, mata ano notihodo kakesasite moraimasu n de. However, the fact that Sasakiresponds by saying A, hai, sumimasen suggests that she is interpreting his statement as an offeror a promise, indicating her gratitude in return. Let us consider Igarashi's utterance in moredetail.

The use of the gerund form of the extended predicate, n(o) de, is extremely common in thiscontext in JBCs. As has been argued throughout this analysis, the contracted form n of thenominal no functions to nominalize the information that precedes it, connect it to the largerdiscourse frame, and point or refer to that connection as a something that is shared or sharable.

In order to ascertain precisely what the larger discourse frame is for Igarashi's utterance, wemust back up a few lines in the conversation to Igarashi's request to speak with Fujiwara in line6 (E:to, Hujiwara-butyoo irassyaimasu ka?), and to Sasaki's response in line 7-8 (Sumimasen,ima tyotto sekkyaku-tyuu na n desu ga). By using the EP when she states that Fujiwara is busymeeting customers, Sasaki draws a connection for the caller between this newly reported factand the present situation, i.e., that Fujiwara has not come to the phone (and Sasaki has returnedto the line instead). But the question as to what Igarashi will do about this is left open fordiscussion. At first, Igarashi merely takes in the information, responding A soo desu ka. Inresponse in line 10, Sasaki could conceivably have offered to have Fujiwara return Igarashi'scall, but she does not. So once again Igarashi is left with the option of what to do. He is underno obligation to call back, of course, since he was the one to initiate the call in the first place.But given the fact that Sasaki has not yet taken the initiative to offer a return call, it seemslikely that Igarashi will have to make a decision—which he does in line 11-12. Using thegerund form of the extended predicate, he states that he will take the liberty of calling backagain later (A, soo simasitara mata:notihodo kakesasite moraimasu n de:.). He presents thisnew information to Sasaki against the larger ground of the preceding discourse, which nowincludes the fact that Fujiwara cannot come to the phone. Announced in this fashion, his offerto call back provides reassurance to Sasaki that the situation has been resolved. Sasaki thankshim and requests that he do so, and Igarashi thanks her in return.

3.4.5.6. Offer by the call recipient to have someone call back. Another alternative after aswitchboard request has been denied is for the call recipient to offer a return call. In the corpus,JBC conversationalists frequently expressed this type of offer by using a humble-polite verbalin the consultative form, such as Ano: owari-sidai odenwa sasiagemasyoo ka? in (48) below. Inthe opening of this conversation (part of which was presented earlier), the caller, Mr. Kawabeof Kanto Bank, has asked to speak with Ms. Saito of Kansai Imports. Thinking she wasavailable, the call recipient has put the caller on hold, but she returns to the phone in line 10:

(48) Offer by call recipient to call back [KI #5-17]

10 A Most most:.hello

'Hello.'


11C Halyes

'Yes.'

12 A A, 'hhh moosiwake nai n desu keredoMO:.oh 'hhh excuse have-NEG-iPF EP CP

'Oh/hhh it's that (I)'m sorry, BUT'

13C Ee.BC

'Mhm.'

14 A tadaima hoka no denwa de hanasi -tyuuright now other CN phone LOC speaking in the middle of

ISA no// n desu.COP-IPF EP

'it's that just now (she)'s talking on another line.'

16C A soo desu ka.oh so COP-IPF Q


17A Halyes

'Yes.'

18C E:=BC

'Mhm.'

-^ 19A =Ano: owari -sidai odenwa sasiagemasyoo ka?HES finishing upon phone give-to-out-grp-CNS^ Q

'Urn, shall (we) give you a call back as soon as (she) has finished?'

20 C Ee, most yorosikereba.yes if good-pRv

'Yes, if (that) would be all right (with you).'

By using the humble-polite form sasiagemasyoo ka? in her offer, the call recipient suggeststhat someone in her immediate in-group (uti)—not necessarily the call recipient herself—willreturn the call. While this is likely to be the requested person, it is important to note that this is


not overtly specified, as might be the case, for example, in an English equivalent such as 'ShallI have her call you back?' In other words, in Japanese it is not necessary for the speaker to usea causative form of the verb in order to indicate the sense of Til have (him/her) call (you)back.' There are cases in Japanese, of course, in which speakers do employ the causative form,but such an explicit rendering of the situation is really unnecessary. This was borne out by therelatively infrequent appearance of causative forms such as orikaesi sasemasyoo ka? in thiscontext in the data.

3.4.5.7. Resuming a call after a completed switchboard request. In the second scenario outlinedearlier, if a switchboard request is granted and the call transferred, the requested person willcome to the phone and announce his presence on the line, as illustrated in the followingexamples. Usually this new call recipient will identify him or herself by name; the companyaffiliation would be redundant at this point. In excerpt (50), the recipient actually does notprovide a self-identification, presumably because the caller is returning her call and may alsorecognize her voice.

(49) Resuming a call after it has been transferred, with self-identification[TB #4B-6]

1 A Most mosi.hello

'Hello.'

2 C Halyes

'Yes.'

3 A Odenwa ka\varimasita=phone change-pp

['(I)'ve (ex)changed phones (with someone else).']

4 C =A:—, =ah

'Oh,—

5 A -Horie desu.Horie COP-IPF

'It's Horie.'


(50) Resuming a call after it has been transferred, without self-identification [KI #2B-15]

1 A Mosi most.hello

'Hello.'

2 C Mosi mosi.hello

'Hello.'

3 A Halyes

'Yes.'

4 C Kansai Yunyuu no Satoo desu:.Kansai Imports CN Sato COP-IPF

'It's Sato of Kansai Imports.'

5 A A, doo mo suimasen.oh in many ways thank you

'Oh, thank you very much (for your return call)

6 C Ano: sakihodo odenwa itadaita kenHES a little while ago phone receive-fr-out-grp-pF^ matter

7 C na n desu keDO:COP-IPF EP CP

'Um, it's that (I'm calling about) the matter of the call (I/we)received a little while ago, but...'

3.5. TRANSITION SECTION

3.5.1. First-topic initiation and the maeoki

Once callers reach the person with whom they wish to speak, they will initiate a transition tothe first (and sometimes only) topic of business. In nearly every inter-organizational call, aswell as in many in-house business discussions and personal conversations, callers accomplishedthis transition by providing an initial, general reason-for-call through a prefatory statement orquestion, which I will call a maeoki after Kashiwazaki (1993). As the subsequent discussionwill demonstrate, maeoki are similar in function to pre-sequences such as "pre-announcements"


and "pre-requests" in ordinary English conversations as described by Terasaki (1976),Schegloff(1979, 1980, 1988b), Levinson (1983) and others. That is, they serve to ascertainwhether certain conditions exist that are favorable for a potential "next action." In the case ofJBCs, such conditions might be the availability of the call recipient to enter into a conversationof some length, the call recipient's familiarity with a particular business transaction mentionedin the maeoki, and so forth. In many ways maeoki also parallel the prefaces speakers use innarratives such as stories or jokes, in that they alert listeners to the fact that the usual conversationalturn organization will be "suspended" and that the current speaker is thereby asserting the rightto a multi-turn utterance.

What is especially notable about these transitional utterances in the JBC corpus is that regardlessof the call type (that is, whether it was a toiawase inquiry, merchandise order, shippingconfirmation, or problem report), each maeoki typically exhibited a similar discourse structure.In the following section, I describe these maeoki in terms of a series of possible componentsarranged in their approximate order of occurrence. These are also summarized in figure 3 onpage 142.

3.5.2. Possible elements of a maeoki

First, callers sometimes begin their maeoki with a hesitation marker such as ano or eeto ('um'or 'ah'), and may follow this with the attention-focusing particle ne, possibly uttered withexclamatory or interrogative intonation (i.e., ne! or ne?).25 This initiates the transition from theopening of the call to the first topic of business. Often callers also include an apology such asmoosiwake gozaimasen (literally, 'I have no excuse') and/or mitigating device such as tyotto('just' or 'a little'). Consider the following examples, which illustrate the "opening" of amaeoki (line numbers are taken from the complete transcript):26

(51) Maeoki from a book order call [TB # 1B-24]

11C Ano, tyotto oukagai-sitai n desu keredomoHES just inquire-DEs-iPFvl'EP CP

'Um, it's that I'd just like to ask (you) a question, but....

(52) Maeoki from a call regarding tickets for travel [KI #3-4]

30C Tyotto NE, onegai ga aru n desu ga,just ATF request SUB have-iPF EP CP

32C moosiwake nai n XX ((spoken too softly to hear))excuse have-NEG-ipp-> EP

'You see, it's just that (I)'ve got a request (to ask of you) but, it'sthat it's inexcusable....'


(53) Maeoki from a problem report [TB #1A-44]

5 C Ano desu nee!HES COP-IFF ATF

7 C Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga,just looking't receive-fr-out-grp-DEs-iPF EP cp

'Um, well you see! It's that (I)'d just like to have (you) look(something) up for me, but....'

Next, as illustrated in these examples, a caller may issue a polite, rather formulaic pre-requestsuch as oukagai-sitai ('I'd like to ask a question') or onegai ga aru ('I have a request'),followed by the extended predicate (EP) and a clause particle such as kedo or ga. What isfascinating about such pre-requests is that they often preface what turn out to be reports ofproblematic transactions or shipments; such was the case with the maeoki in (53), Ano desunee! Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga. Thus, rather than mentioning any hint of trouble at theoutset, many callers begin their problem reports with a ''masked" (Jones, 1990) introduction.While it is possible to interpret such indirectness as perhaps being motivated by a desire on thepart of business professionals to maintain positive ties with their regular clients and othercontacts, this strategy was actually often adopted not only by employees at the two commercialsites, their suppliers and shippers, but also occasionally by some customers.

In other maeoki, there is a more explicit indication of the reason-for-call than there was in therelatively formulaic utterances just described. These types of maeoki may begin with a temporalmarker of a general nature (such as sakihodo 'a little while ago' or kono aida 'the other day'),or with a more specific one (such as kinoo 'yesterday,' kayoobi 'Tuesday,' or a particular datesuch aszyuugatu no zyuu-hati-niti 'October 18th'). In some cases callers will also indirectlyindex the fact that they have an ongoing relationship with the call recipient's company by usinga temporal marker such as mata 'again' or itumo 'always.' This is in addition to the ritualexchange of business salutations that occur in the opening of the call.

In the next portion of these more specific maeoki, callers introduce the item of business to bediscussed. Sometimes they do this indirectly by referring to the channel through which aprevious transaction, discussion, or contact took place—that is, by phone (denvva), fax(huakusimirilhuakkusu) or letter (otegami). At other times, they mention more specificallywhat is at issue, such as tyuumon 'order,' nimotu 'package,' haitatu 'delivery,' and so forth.Despite the fact that many of these transaction-related words are nominals, callers often add anominalizing phrase such as to iu koto, no ken, no koto, or no bun, and then frame the entirereason-for-call using the no desu (EP) pattern. Callers then typically conclude their maeoki asin the earlier examples, with a clause particle such as ke(re)do(mo) or, less frequently, ga,which leaves the statement open-ended, provides an opportunity for aizuti (back-channel)feedback from the addressee, and reserves the next turn space for the caller (Park, 2002).


(1) Apology and/or mitigating device

sumimasen, moosiwake nai (n desu ga)

tyotto, syoosyoo, nanka

(2) Hesitation marker

ano, eeto

(3) Attention-focusing sentence particle

ne! ne? ne,

(4) Formulaic pre-request (followed by #7-8)

oukagai-sitai, okiki-sitai

(5) Temporal marker

General: sakihodo, kono aida

More specific: kinoo, kayoobi, nizyuu-siti-niti ni

Indexing business relationship: mala, itumo, nan-kai ka

(6) Reference to item of business/issue

(no) denwa, h(u)akusu, tyuumon, nimotu, haitatu etc.

(7) Nominalizer and/or no desu (extended predicate/EP) construction:

to iu koto, no ken, no koto, no bun, or simply no by itself

(na) n desu (may be used alone or in addition to other nominalizers above)

(8) Clause particle

ke(re)do(mo) or, less frequently, ga

Figure 3: Overall maeoki structure: (Possible elements and approximate order)


Callers' use of the EP in these and the more general, formulaic maeoki is frequent and significant.As explained earlier, the EP functions deictically to tie what immediately precedes the EP (inthis case, the content of the maeoki) to the present situation (here, the fact that the caller hasjust contacted the call recipient) as well as to the larger discourse context (Noda, 1981, 1990;Ray, 1989). The resulting message which a caller conveys can be roughly translated as 'Thereason I called is that [content of the maeoki], but....'

It is important to note here that the exact interpretation of the EP will vary from one situation toanother because the details of those situations differ. In other words, when the EP "encodes theexistence of [the] background frame and demands interpretation of the [newly double framed]characterization within it" (Noda, 1990:24), the shifts in the background frame from onemoment to another in a conversation mean that the resulting interpretation will necessarily shiftas well. Thus at the juncture we are now considering, namely a transition from the opening ofthe conversation to the first topic of business, the speaker's "present situation" is that ofexplaining the reason for the call. Although the information marked by n(o) in that explanationmay be new to the listener, the EP functions to mark it as information that is non-problematic.Moreover, the connection between that information and the discourse context may now beconsidered to be shared between two participants. In this way, the EP serves to broaden the"common ground" between them.27

Let us now take a moment to consider several examples of these different types of maeoki fromthe corpus. In the sections below, I have grouped them according to degree of specificity anddegree of familiarity between interlocutors, and have also included an indication as to the typesof calls (in terms of content) in which they appear.

3.5.2.1. General maeoki inquiries. The first group of maeoki (Type 1) consists of generalinquiries used as a prefatory request or pre-announcement. Typically these appeared in twotypes of interactions: (a) toiawase-type "cold calls" in which the caller had no previous relationshipwith the company s/he was trying to reach (as in (54) below); or (b) "masked" problem reports,as illustrated in (55).

(54) Maeoki from a toiawase-typz "cold call" [KI#8-12]

5 C Sumimasen, tyotto oukagai-sitai n desu keredomobe sorry4PF just inquire-DEs-ippvU EP CP

'(I)'m sorry, it's just that (I)'d like to make an inquiry, but....'

(55) Maeoki from a problem report by a customer [KI #7-3]

3 C A, sumimasen, tyotto okiki-sitai koto ga aruoh be sorry-iPF just ask-DES-ipp^ matter SUB be (inanimate)-iPF


4 C n desu keredomoEP CP

'Oh, (I)'m sorry, it's just that there's something (I)'d like to ask(about), but....'

In these relatively general maeoki, the fact that the speaker is calling is already known andavailable to both participants; this represents the "present situation." What is not known is thereason for the call. Once this has been presented in the discourse, however, this informationbecomes part of the public domain, so to speak, such that henceforth it may be referred to forother purposes if necessary.

3.5.2.2. More specific maeoki between non-acquaintances. A related group (Type 2) includesmaeoki that exhibit a similar overall structure to those in the first group. However, thesemaeoki are slightly more explicit in that the callers who employ them are requesting a particularitem such as a catalog (example (56) below) or service (example (57)). Often these maeokiappeared in "cold calls" placed by customers or employees who had no prior relationship withthe company they were contacting.

(56) Maeoki from a toiawase-type "cold call" [KI#l-2]

3 C A, sumimasen, ano, katarogu, okutte itadakitaioh be sorry-ipp HES catalog send-GER receive-fr-out-grp-DES-iPF

4 C n desu kedo.EP CP

'Oh, (I)'m sorry, um, it's that (I)'d like to have (you) send (me) acatalog, but...'

An interesting subset of these Type 2 calls in the JBC corpus are the many book orders placedby a sales employee of Tokyo Books (Ms. Yamada). In these calls, she refrained from identifyingherself by name or providing her company affiliation during the opening of the call, and insteadintroduced herself rather anonymously as Syoten desu ga....'This is a book company, but....'Caller and call recipient then exchanged business salutations, followed by the caller's maeoki.Example (57) below illustrates the opening of such a call followed by a maeoki:

(57) Maeoki from a book order [TB #1B-14]

1 A Hai, Kuroda-syuppan de gozaimasu.ACK Kuroda publishing COP-IPF (+)

'Yes, Kuroda Publishing.'

2 C Ano, syoten desu ga, =HES book company COP-IPF CP

'Um, (this) is a book company, but,'


3 C =osewa ni natte -orimasu:.=assistance GL become-GER be-iPF^


4 A =A, hai, osewa -sama de gozaimasu.oh yes assistance person (+) COP-IPF (+)

'Oh yes, thank you for (your) assistance.'

-> 5 C Ano: tyuumon it- ten onegai-sitai n desu keredomoHES order one item beg-DES-ippvP EP CP

'Um, it's that (I)'d like to request an order, but.

3.5.2.3. More specific maeoki in follow-up calls. Type 3 maeoki are similar to those of Type 2in that they are of a more specific nature than the formulaic pre-requests of Type 1. However,Type 3 maeoki appeared in calls between speakers who had shared at least one previousencounter on the telephone, or who were already engaged in an ongoing business relationship.Some of these maeoki refer to a previous conversation (as in examples (58) and (59)), whileothers begin to bring up matters to be discussed in the present call (as in (60) and (61)). Interms of call content, many of these maeoki preceded problem reports, while others prefacedinter- or intra-organizational business discussions, which sometimes involved problematicsituations.

(58) Maeoki from a follow-up call regarding a shipping problem[KI #6-5]

13 C Ano: sakihodo no ken na n desu gaHES a little while ago CN matter COP-IPF EP CP

"Um, it's that (it's about) the matter (we discussed) a little whileago, but....'

(59) Maeoki from a discussion of directions for C's visit to A's company[KI #11-14]

IOC Senzitu no odenwa itadaita ken na n desu gaother day CN phone receive-pps!/ matter COP-IPF FP CP

'It's that (I)'m (calling about) the matter of the telephone call (I)received the other day, but....'

(60) Maeoki from a problem discussion with a supplier [KI # 1 -15 ]

13 C Ano neE: tyotto moosiwake nai n desu kedoHES ATF just excuse have-NEG-iPF-> EP CP


15 C mata onegai -goto na n desu kedoagain request thing COP-IPF EP CP

'Um you see, it's just that it's inexcusable but again it's that it'ssomething (I have to) request (of you), but....'

(61) Maeoki from a problem report by a shipping company [KI #5A-7]

8 C Ano ne! Kinoo: tyotto: huakusu itadaita nee!HES ATF yesterday just fax receive-ppvU SP/ATF

'Um you see! Yesterday, well, (I/we) received your fax, youknow!'28

In these follow-up calls, the information presented by the caller in the maeoki may in factalready be shared because the two participants have discussed the matter in a previous conversation.In such cases the caller, anticipating that the recipient will be able to recall that information, isrefraining it as a topic for today's conversation.

3.5.2.4. More specific maeoki between regular business contacts. Type 4 maeoki contain evenmore specific references to business transactions than those in Type 3. and appear in callsbetween regular business acquaintances. Because the interlocutors are in frequent contact witheach other, it is possible for callers to make a fairly explicit reference to a transaction, with theexpectation that the call recipient will understand what is being brought up for discussion.

Callers make these maeoki more explicit in a variety of ways. First, rather than only including ageneral temporal marker such as sakihodo 'a little while ago' or kono aida 'the other day,'callers may also include a particular day of the week or date, as seen in (62), (63), and (64)below. Second, as is also clear from these examples, callers may specify the type of transactionor business to be discussed, such as tyuumon 'order,' hassoo 'dispatch,' nimotu 'package,' andso forth.

(62) Maeoki from a follow-up call by a wholesaler regarding a book orderproblem [TB #1A-61]

6 C Ano sakihodo desu nee, si-gatu no nizyuu-iti-nitiHES a little while ago COP-IPF ATF April CN 21st

7 C tyuumon no bun no kenorder CN portion CN matter

'Um, a little while ago, you see, the matter of the portion of the April21st order'

The Structure of Japanese Business Telephone Calls 1 49

(63) Maeoki from a problem report to a shipper (follow-up to an order)[KI #5A-4]

7 C Eeto, gomen-nasai, kono aida no kayoobi ni hassoo sitahes excuse me-iMp the other day CN Tuesday LOG dispatch do-pp

8 C bun no nimotu no kakunin o tyotto:portion CN package CN confirmation OBJ just

9 C onegai-sitai n desu keDOEP CP

'Um, excuse me, it's that (I)'d like to just, confirm a packagedispatched as part of the order on Tuesday the other day, but. . . .'

Third, many callers in follow-up calls may use the maeoki to indicate what sort of assistancethey will be requesting. Often they do so by using the desiderative l-tail form as in (63) above,or through the l-te hosiil pattern as in (64):

(64) Maeoki from a problem report to a shipper (follow-up to a "general-type" order) [KI#1-11]

11C Eeto:, ippan de kakunin site hosii no gaHES general LOC confirmation do-GER desire NOM SUB

aru n desu kedomobe (inanimate)-ipp EP CP

'Um, it's that there's something (I)'d like to have (you) confirm inthe general (side/type of the orders), but....'

On occasion, callers will also mention the specific item or category of item(s), for example thetype of food or books that they would like to discuss:

(65) Maeoki from a problem report to a shipper (follow-up to an order)[KI#3B-11]

14C Eeto desu ne? Kono mae, ano: e:: ohuisu kara okutta,HES COP-IPF ATF the other day HES HES office from send-PF

16C bukku no bun nan desu kedoMO:book CN portion COP-IPF EP CP

'Um you see? The other day, um, ah, it's that (I'm calling about) thebook portion (of an order) sent from the office, BUT. . . .'


(66) Maeoki from a toicrwase inquiry about bagels, which the caller hadinquired about previously [KI #3B-12]

8 C E:to, beeguru-pan no ken na n desu keredoMOHES bagel bread CN matter COP-IPF EP CP

'Um, it's that (I'm calling about) the matter of bagels, BUT....'

(67) Maeoki from an in-house problem report regarding an orderpreviously placed by the call recipient [TB #lA-7]

5 C Sumimasen, Kankokugoyaku na n desu kedo.be sorryHPF Korean language translation COP-IPF EP CP

'(I)'m sorry, it's that (I'm calling about) the Korean languagetranslation, but....'

A fourth way in which callers provide more specifics is to mention the name of the person(s)involved in a particular transaction:

(68) Maeoki from a follow-up call and shipping request [KI #5A-18]

15 C E:to kesa denwa itadaita P-san no koto desu kedomoHES this morning phone receive-ppvU Mr. P CN matter COP-IPF CP

'Um, it's (about) the matter of Mr. P (that you inquired about in) thismorning's call, but....'

(69) Maeoki from a follow-up call to a previous problem report [KI #8-7]

5 C A, ano: sakihodo no: J-san no: nimotu no kenoh HES a little while ago CN Mr. J CN package CN matter

6 C na n desu keredoMOCOP-IPF EP CP

'Oh, um, it's that (I'm calling about) the matter of Mr. J's package ofthe other day, BUT....'

Finally, some callers use a more specific maeoki in order to report on something they havedone on behalf of the call recipient and/or the call recipient's company, as in (70) below, or elseto indicate something that will be or can be done for them, as in (71). These types of maeokiwere especially common in intra-organizational calls, but were also observed in some inter-organizational conversations.


(70) Maeoki from an in-house call following up on something the callrecipient had asked the caller to do for him [TB #lB-36]

12 C Ano: desu ne!HES COP-IPF ATF

'Um, you see!'

16C29 Ima, anoo, syuuhon onegai-sita risuto onow HES compiled books beg-PF^ list OBJ

17 C nagasita n desu keredoMO,fax-pF (lit., let flow) EP CP

'Now, urn, it's that (I) now faxed the compiled requested list ofbooks, BUT....'

(71) Maeoki from a follow-up call by a book wholesaler [TB #1B-40]

5 C Aa aa, ... suimasen!ah oh be sorry-IPF

'Ah, oh, .... (I)'m sorry!'

7 C E:to! ano:, ni -satu, maniaimasu n delHES HES two volumes be on time-iPF EP-GER

'Um, uh, it's that (I/we)'ll be on time (with the) two volumes, so...!'

To summarize, then, the more specific "Type 4" maeoki discussed in this section have incommon the fact that they are all taken from follow-up calls between regular business contacts,many of whom are particularly well-acquainted, as in the in-house call in (70). Through someof these maeoki, callers are introducing relatively straightforward toiawase inquiries or areessentially reporting or updating information for the call recipient, as in (71). In other exampleswe have considered, callers are prefacing problem reports. Yet while these callers are beingmore specific than were callers who employed the relatively more general Type 3 maeoki, themaeoki they adopt in this Type 4 group are nonetheless not so explicit as to reveal the truenature of the problem to be discussed. Rather, through this type of maeoki, the caller providessome specifics such as the date of a shipment, the name of a customer, the transaction categoryor food type, or the nature of the assistance to be requested. In subsequent turns, as we will seein our in-depth discussion of problem reports in chapter 5, the caller provides additionalinformation. But at this transitional stage in the call when moving from the opening into thematter of business, well-acquainted callers who are about to present a problem to the callrecipient usually do not bring that problem immediately to the fore.

3.5.2.5. Maeoki as "formulations of place" or person. The last group of maeoki we willconsider are those I will call "formulations of place" or "formulations of person" after


Schegloff (1972a). These sorts of maeoki typically appear in intra-company calls, calls fromcustomers, or sometimes in follow-up calls related to problem reports. The point of these"formulations" is to describe, in a way that will make sense to the call recipient, where thecaller is located at the moment or who the caller is with respect to the call recipient's company,and how that information relates to the fact that the caller is now contacting the call recipient'scompany. A few examples will serve as illustrations:

(72) Maeoki from a call between colleagues, one of whom (the caller) ispresently out of the office on an errand [KI #5A-3]

7 C Watasi ne, ima ginkoo ni yotte -n -nen keDO:I ATF now bank LOG drop by-GER be-ipp-KS EP-KS-> CP

'Y'know I, it's that I've dropped by the bank now, BUT.. ..'30

The caller in this first example is the butyoo (department head) at Kansai Imports. While out onan errand, she has stopped by the bank to arrange for a payment of funds (hurikomi) on thefollowing day, and is presently contacting Kansai Imports to ask one of her subordinates to gowithdraw some money from their postal savings account in preparation for that payment. Shetherefore begins her "story" by explaining where she is "now" (ima). This "place formulation"functions to set the stage for the more specific information she will provide in subsequentutterances. Note that the EP plays a critical role here, deictically underscoring the connectionfor the listener between the information immediately preceding the EP (i.e., the fact that thecaller has stopped by the bank) and the larger discourse context, which is the fact that thebutyoo is calling from a location out of the office. Thus the full import of what she is sayinghere is something to the effect of "Y'know the reason why I'm calling you is that I've stoppedby the bank, BUT....' The call recipient might already be aware, or perhaps might rememberonce the caller utters this maeoki, that there is a hurikomi to be effected the following day.Even if this is not the case, however, by presenting her location at the bank, the caller helps thecall recipient to project what the caller's next action (and utterance) might be. The followingtwo examples represent "formulations of person," and are taken from calls by customers toKansai Imports.

(73) Maeoki from a customer who had just contacted KI about aproblematic shipment a few moments prior to this call [KI #1-17]

3 C Mo' ik -kai suimasen, =more one time be sorry-ipp

'One mo' time, (I)'m sorry,'

5 C =Ima denwa sita mono na n desu kedomo.now phone do-pp person COP-IPF EP CP

'It's that (I)'m the person (who) called (you) now, but....'


In this example, which follows the call recipient's self-identification, the caller immediatelyissues an apology, and then explains that she is the person who contacted the call recipient'now,' i.e., a few moments ago. Essentially the caller is picking up the conversation where sheleft off, so her "formulation of person" helps the call recipient to connect the fact that she hadcalled shortly before with the fact that she is now on the line again. As with most of theprevious maeoki examples, the caller here uses the EP for its "double-framing" effect in orderto zoom in on the new information being provided.

(74) Maeoki from a customer about to make a problem report [KI #13-13]

14C Eeto desu ne, ano:, nan-kaika oodaa site -ruHES COP-IPF ATF HES many times order do-GER be-iPF

n desu kedomoEP CP

'Um you see, uh, it's that (I)'ve ordered many times (from you),

Example (74) is similar to (73) in that a customer is presenting a recharacterization of who sheis vis a vis the call recipient (and/or her company) through a maeoki. During the opening of thiscall, the caller had explained that she was a "member" of Kansai Imports (the term used forcustomers), and had also provided her membership number and full name. Then through hermaeoki in line 14, the caller reframes or reformulates who she is, or more specifically what sherepresents to the call recipient's company. That is, she is not "just any old member," so tospeak, but rather someone who has placed "many orders"—in short, a regular customer. Sheprovides this information as a prefatory remark before later informing the call recipient in amulti-turn sequence of the problem, namely that three shipments of the same books had beensent to her by mistake.

3.5.3. Maeoki variation according to role relationships and topic

In sum, then, callers in this corpus appear to vary the degree of specificity of their maeokiaccording to at least three factors: (1) the degree of familiarity between caller and call recipientin terms of whether there is already an ongoing business relationship between them; (2) theextent to which the call recipient can be expected to know about the topic to be discussed (i.e.,whether this represents a "cold call" or not); and (3) the degree to which the topic is of apotentially face-threatening nature to the call recipient and/or that company. For example,when a caller is about to make a toiawase inquiry to a company with which she has no priorcontact, or at least not an established business relationship, she is likely to adopt a Type 1general utterance such as Sumimasen, tyotto oukagai sitai n desu keredomo. Similarly, in thecase of book orders, catalog requests, and the like between non-acquaintances, callers appear touse Type 2 maeoki on a regular basis. However, in conversations between professionals whoare in frequent contact about business transactions, callers often employ more specific maeoki


such as those of Type 3 or 4. By mentioning one or more salient details about a particulartransaction in these maeoki, in conjunction with the EP, callers can focus the recipient'sattention on what is likely to be the "first topic" for discussion. Especially if the call recipient issomeone with whom the caller interacts regularly by phone, it is possible for a caller to assumethat the recipient can and will make a connection between the details presented in the maeokiand the larger discourse context—which not only includes the fact that the caller has justcontacted the recipient, but also, more broadly speaking, the "prior text" between theseconversationalists, which would include any and all previous conversations, faxes, and othercorrespondence. As mentioned earlier, the EP has an essential deictic function here, and itsimportance is underscored by the frequency with which callers employ it in their maeoki.

When the topic to be discussed involves a problematic, potentially face-threatening issue, manyJapanese callers adopt a formulaic Type 1 maeoki such as Tyotto oukagai-sitai n desu ga ['It'sthat (I)'d just like to inquire (about something) but....'] or a slightly more specific Type 4utterance such as Eeto:, ippan de kakunin site hosii no ga aru n desu kedomo ['Um, it's thatthere's something (I)'d like to have you confirm in the general (side/type of the orders),but....']. In this way, callers initially "mask" (Jones 1995) problem reports in the guise ofshipping confirmations or more general requests. In subsequent turns (which we will explore inmore detail in chapter 5), callers then provide more specific but salient details such as shippingorigin and destination information or an invoice/tracking number, through which a co-participantexperienced in this genre of call and perhaps also acquainted with the particular shipment cansurmise that the topic involves a potentially problematic transaction.

3.5.4. Illustration of Extended Predicate (EP) usage in Kansai problem report maeoki

Given that so many of the maeoki discussed above incorporate a form of the extended predicate(EP), it may be useful at this juncture to provide an illustration of EP usage obtained throughconcordance searches conducted on the data corpus. For this example, a search was conductedon 44 maeoki utterances which have been transcribed to date from problem reports and follow-updiscussions in the Kansai Imports data. These include maeoki in calls placed by both customersand business professionals. It should be noted that this is only one subset of the larger set ofproblem-report maeoki; there are more problem reports in the Kansai corpus that have beenlogged but not yet transcribed, and the Kanto data are also not included here. Moreover, somerecordings began after the call opening and therefore cannot be used for maeoki analysis.Despite these caveats, however, the results should be helpful in showing a subset of EP usagepertaining to a particular context (i.e., problem reports) from the larger corpus.

The purpose of the search was thus to locate all tokens of the extended predicate in this set ofdata. An initial search for the string ln(o) desu/ yielded partially imperfect results, in that it alsopicked up tokens of the attention-focusing phrase lano desu ne(e)l. It also did not pick uptokens in direct-style (i.e., ln(o) da/, so a separate search was conducted, yielding one additionalmaeoki. The composite results as generated by the concordance software are shown on the nextpage in figure 4, and illustrate the linguistic context in which the EP appeared.


File# Maeoki excerpt including Info] da/ or/n(o) desul

KI 01-11: ... ippan de kakunin site hosii no ga aru[[n desu]] kedomoKI 01-15: ... Ano neE:, tyotto moosiwake nai ffn desu]] kedoKI 01-15: ... moosiwake nai n desu kedo mata onegai-goto naffn desu]] kedoKI 01-25: ... kyoo no NE: syukka no yatu naffn desu]] kedoKI 02-05: ... toranzuakusyon adobaisu na[[n desu]] keredoMOKI 02-09: ... syoohin de, ii desu ka, tyotto toiawase na [[n desu]] kedoKI 02-14: ... Tyotto oukagai-site ru [[n desu]] keDOKI 02-15: ... Ano: sakihodo odenwa itadaita ken na ffn desu]] keDOKI 02-17: ... kotira no hoo wa kesa no gozen, kesa onegai-sita[[n desu]] kedoKI 02-18: ... sakihodo nooki no koto de otoiawase ga attaffn desu]] kedoKI 03-09: ... E:to, kayoobi da to omou [[n desu]] keredomoKI 03-11: ... ohuisu kara okutta, bukku no bun na [[n desu]] kedoMOKI 05-04: ... nimotu no kakunin o tyotto: onegai-sitai ffn desu]] keDOKI 05-16: ... hitotu:, tyotto kore, daibu mae ni naruffn desu]] kedoMOKI 05-20: ... Ano: zyu--kyonen no zyuunigatu na [[n desu]] keDOKI 05-20: ... nel Ano nootobukkupasokon o katta [[n desu]] keredoMOKI 06-10: ... Ano, keesu no gotyuumon na[[n desu]] keredomoKI 08-06: ... ikken, takuhai de kakunin onegai-sitai ffn desu]] keredomoKI 13-13: ... eeto desu ne, ano:, nan-kai ka oodaa si tern ffn desu]] kedomoKI 13-19: ... on- onegai-simasite, kyoo todokimasita ffn desu]] kedomoKI 13-20: ... no koto de: tyotto ota- otazune-sitai [[n desu]] kedoKI 15-02: ... ano: haitau sitee o: sita bun na[[n desu]] kedomoKI 15-12: ... no de kakunin site itadakitai no ga aru[[n desu]]keredoMOKI 15-13: ... tyotto kakunin site itadakitai no aru [[n desu]] kedoKI 15 -17: ... A no desu ne, sakihodo no I-san no ken na [[n desu]] keDOKI 16-02: ... in no wa sono uti okurarete kuru to omou [[n desu]] keredoMOKI 16-11: ... K-XX? no huakusu na ffn desu]] keDOKI 16-16: ... kingaku no kakunin no koto de den\va sita [[n desu]] keDOKI 16-16: ... Ano: desu ne, e:, kyanpeen no ken naffn desu]] keredomoKI 20-05: ... koto de: hhh denwa haitte te ta [[n desu]] keredomoKI 01 -04 ... -son ga NE, todokete kureta [[n da]] keDO

KI 05-09: ... zyuuitiigatu kokonoka hassoo no kazu o siritai [[n desu]] gaKI 06-05: ...A, ano, sakihodo no ken na [[n desu]] gaKI 11-15: ... todoite masite, tyotto otazune sitaiffn desu]]gaKI 16-06: ... toransuhuoomaa O: ano: tyuumon site ta ([n desu]] GA

KI 02-03: ... tyotto ne:, Ikken mata, ano ziko na[[n desu]]yoKI 09-14: ... hontai o tunagu keeburu ga nai[[n desu]] yo

Figure 4: Illustration of EP usage in Kansai problem report maeoki

15 6 Negotiating Moves

Note that only a portion of the utterance to the "left" of the search string is normally presentedas the result of a concordance search. For ease of reading, I have provided complete words incases in which they were cut off by the software's search function. A total of 37 tokens of theEP appeared in this set of 44 maeoki. Interestingly, the EP actually occurred twice within twomaeoki, since these were multi-turn utterances (KI #1-15 and KI#5-20). Thus technically speaking,35 rather than 37 of 44 maeoki (79%) contained one of more tokens of the EP.

As the list graphically demonstrates, callers who used the EP in their maeoki did so predominantlyin conjunction with the clause particle ke(re)domo', in fact, this combination occurred in 31 outof 36 EP tokens (86%). The next most common combination was the EP followed by clauseparticle ga, in 4 tokens (11%). Finally and somewhat surprisingly, there were also 2 tokens ofthe EP followed by the assertive sentence particle yo (6%).

3.6. MATTER(S) FOR BUSINESS DISCUSSION

After indicating a shift from the opening of the call through their transitional maeoki utterancessuch as those illustrated in Figure 4, callers will move into the main point(s) of business. Toillustrate how conversationalists achieve this in JBCs, we will briefly consider examples ofthree types of calls in the next chapter: (a) general toiawase inquiries, (b) merchandise orders(e.g., book orders), and (c) shipping confirmations. Problem reports will be the subject of amore detailed discussion in chapter 5.

3.7. PRE-CLOSING DEVICES

JBC conversationalists employ a range of devices which signal that they might be considering a"shut down" of the current topic, and potentially thereby, a closing of the conversation. Someof these devices or pre-closing "bids" make no reference to the previous topic(s) under discussion,while others in one way or another make use of "topic talk" to move toward closing. Let usconsider a few examples taken from the JBC corpus.

3.7.1. Making a pre-closing bid without explicit reference to the prior discourse

As Schegloff and Sacks (1973) have observed in their research on ordinary calls in AmericanEnglish, often conversationalists will utter what constitutes a "possible pre-closing" move byuttering words such as 'We-ell,' '<9.K,' 'So-oo,' and the like, sometimes with falling intonationand elongated articulation. Although these types of utterances do not make explicit reference tothe prior talk, they nonetheless may function as a "pass" on further discussion of the currenttopic if they appear at a point in the discussion which the participants themselves wouldrecognize as the end of a topic.

The Structure of Japanese Business Telephone Calls 1 57

In the JBC corpus, these types of closing "bids" include the following utterances:'1

(75) Utterances signaling a possible pre-closing bid

(a) Hai, wakarimasita.ACK become clear-pp

"Okay, I see/understand (what you've said, or what I'm to do).'

(b) Hai, kasikomarimasita.ACK

"Okay, I see/understand (what I am to do for you).'

(c) De wa, .... (or its contracted form, Zya(a), ....)well (then)

'Well then, ....'

(d) Sore de wa .....that well

"Well in that case, ....'

(e) Soo simasitara, ....(or the direct-style equivalent, soo sitara)so do-CND

'If that's the case, ....' (standard form)

(f) Honnara, .... (orHonzya)SO-CND-KS

'If that's the case, ....' (Kansai form)

The following example illustrates how a particular JBC conversationalist used one of thesepre-closing devices to begin to negotiate a close to a conversation. Prior to this segment, thecaller had made a switchboard request for someone, and the call recipient had indicated thatthat the person was unavailable.

(76) Moving toward closing [KI#5-17]

19 A Ano: owari -sidai odenwa sasiagemasyoo ka?HES finishing upon phone give-to-out-grp-CNSvU Q

'Um, shall (we) give you a call back as soon as (she) has finished?'

20 C Ee, mosi yorosikereba.yes if good-FRv

'Yes, if (that) would be all right (with you).'


-> 21A Hai, wakarimasita.yes become clear-pp

'Okay, certainly.'

22 C Hai, sumimasen.yes thank you

'Okay, thank you.'

Note the use of hai by both speakers, which is rather comparable to the use of 'okay' byconversationalists in parallel junctures in American English telephone calls. In either language,conversationalists use these types of utterances to reinforce the agreement(s) they have reachedand to collaboratively indicate that there is no other issue they wish to discuss. In this example,the call recipient indicates her understanding of what she is to do for the caller, and the callerthanks her (literally by apologizing) in response. His affirmative reply thus functions as anacceptance of the call recipient's pre-closing bid. So what was originally extended as a "possible"pre-closing device becomes, in retrospect, a successful one. According to Schegloff andSacks (1973:309), once such a bid is accepted, the bid and the response are then analyzable asan adjacency pair representing the initial sequence of the closing section of the conversation.

3.7.2. Using l-masu n(o) del as a pre-closing device

Another very common way in which JBC conversationalists moved toward closing down aconversation was through the use of the pattern l-masu n(o) del in order to reiterate thespeaker's understanding of an agreement collaboratively reached by both parties at a previouspoint in the conversation. Sometimes these utterances followed an initial exchange of 'okays'of the sort illustrated in the preceding section. Consider this example, taken from a problemreport call:

(77) Pre-closing: Checking to see if there are other topics of discussion,and restating action to be undertaken [TB #1A-44]

75A (3.3) Ha:i. hyoo de:(3.3 second pause) yes all COP-GER


76C Halyes

'Yes.'

77A Hai. E: de wa, ka—kakunin simasite:,yes HES well then con—confirmation do-GER


78A odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de,//telephone C!O<AU-GER receive-iPF^ EP-GER

'Yes. Um, well, (I/we)'11 con--confirm(the delivery), and take theliberty of calling (you) back, so....'

79C Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

The call recipient's first utterance in line 75, Ha:i. Izyoo de. ('Oo-kay. that's all....') explicitlyseeks confirmation from the caller that there are no other topics or issues for discussion. Thecaller confirms this in line 76 with a simple Hai response. Next, the call recipient reiterates hisunderstanding of what he is to do for her, and also promises a return call, saying Hai. E: de wa,ka—kakunin simasite:, odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de. In response, the caller indicates heragreement with that reformulation, thereby reconfirming or reaffirming the call recipient'spre-closing bids in lines 75 and 77-78. The conversation then shifts into a closing section inwhich the call recipient requests the caller's name and phone number, and the conversationaliststake their leave of each other.

Note that the clerk's utterance, E: de wa, ka—kakunin simasite:, odenwa sasite itadakimasu node employs the gerund of the EP. In our discussion in chapter 1, the l-masu n(o) de/ pattern wasanalyzed as a form that enables a speaker to provide a statement of grounded assurance to theinterlocutor as to what he intends to do. A speaker using this pattern also leaves his utteranceopen-ended, providing an opportunity for the interlocutor to accept or refuse the offer ofassistance being presented. In this conversation, the sense conveyed by the call recipient'sutterance is therefore something along the lines of "Well, (I/we)'ll confirm it and take theliberty of calling (you) back, so [unless you have any objections, (I/we)'ll take care of it.]'

3.8. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ISSUES OR TRANSACTIONS

In some cases, of course, one or both conversationalists may have additional issues they wouldlike to discuss, so they will "co-construct" a transition section in order to deal with a differentor related topic. The following is an illustration of such a situation:

(78) Initiating another topic after a pre-closing move [TB #lB-34]

50C Desu kara sore desu ne!therefore that COP-IPF ATF

'So those, you see,'

51A Hai.//ACK

'Mhm.'


52C maa, kookan: u: site// itadakitaiwell exchange HES do-GER receive-fr-out-grp-ipp-DES,

53 C n desu keredoMO:EP CP

'well, it's that (I/we)'d like to have (you) exchange it, BUT....'

54A Hai, sugu sasite itadakima//su no DE:yes right away do-CAU-GER receive-fr-out-grp-ipp, EP-GER

'Yes, it's that (I/we)'ll (take the liberty of doing so) right away,SO....'

55 C EeACK

'Mhm.'

56A De, roomazi- ban no hoo wa tyaku-barai deand romanized edition CN alternative TOP C.O.D COP-GER

kekkoo desu no DE://fine COP-IPF EP-GER

'and as for the romanized versions, it's that it's fine as C.O.D, SO,'

57 C HaiACK

'Mhm.'

58 A ano watakusi -ate ni okutte itadakemasu// ka?HES I addressed GL send-GER receive-fr-out-grp-iPF-por, Q

'um, could you send it addressed to me?'

59C Soo desu ne, hai.so COP-IPF SP yes

"Oh that's right, yes.'

60 A HalACK.

'Mhm.'

-> 61C Ato desu ne!remaining COP-IPF ATF

'And then, you see,'


62 A HalACK

'Mhm.'

-̂ 63 C E: maa, aratama—, ano:, tuide ni: desu kedomo:HES well new— FS HES addition GL COP-IPF CP

"um, well, a new, um, it's in addition, but'

64 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

-̂ 65 C tyuumon://itasimasu no DE,order do-iPF, EP-GER

"(I/we)'11 place an order, SO....'

66 A A, tuika to in koto de, hai.//oh addition QT say-ipp thing COP-GER yes

"Oh, something in addition, yes.'

67 C Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

68 Nan desyoo.what COP-TENT

'What would (that) be.'

Here again, we see that one conversationalist uses the l-masu n(o) del pattern to indicate herunderstanding of what she is to do for her interlocutor (Hai, sugu sasite itadakimasu no de),and in the process, she signals a possible pre-closing to the conversation. She follows this witha reassurance that sending the package by "cash on delivery" (C.O.D) will be acceptable, andrequests that the caller send it it her attention. In lines 59 and 60, through their exchange of Soodesu ne, hai and Hai, it would seem that the pair have concluded their current discussion.However, in lines 61, 63 and 65 the caller makes a bid to continue, using an attention-focusingutterance Ato desu ne! followed by an explanation that he will make a new, or rather addition tothe present order (E: maa, aratama—, ano:, tuide ni: desu kedomo: tyuumon: itasimasu noDE). The format he adopts for what is essentially a transitional utterance reflects the patternoutlined earlier for a maeoki, in that it includes the attention-focusing utterance, some hesitationmarkers, and the EP plus a clause particle. The call recipient recognizes his intention andconfirms it through a reformulation (A, tuika to iu koto de, hai), and then offers to take hisorder in line 68 by saying Nan desyoo 'What would it (i.e., the additional order) be.'


Thus although it had seemed in lines 59 and 60 in the above excerpt that the parties hadreached a tentative conclusion to their discussion, the caller is able to re-open or continue thatdiscussion by negotiating a transition section with his interlocutor, accomplished through amaeoki utterance.

3.9. CLOSINGS

In its most minimal form, the closing of a conversation consists of what CA analysts refer to asthe "terminal exchange," which in ordinary English telephone calls often involves a pair ofleave-taking utterances such as "Bye" or "See you." In JBCs, one or both utterances may notliterally be farewells, however, as shown in lines 43 and 44 of (79), which is a conversationbetween colleagues at Tokyo Books:

(79) Closing a conversation (in-house call) [TB #lB-36]

39C Ano, is -satu -zutu, ... no o ni -ken am ndesuGAHES one volume each NOM OBJ two items be-iPF EP CP

"Urn, it's that there are two items, (for which I need) one of each,but....'

40 A Un.BC

'Yeah.'

41C sore o dekireba asita onegai-sitai// to in koto—that OBJ be possible-pRV tomorrow beg-DEs-iPFsl' QT say-ipp matter

'it's that if possible (I)'d like those (for) tomorrow—'

42 A A, wakarimasita.oh be clear-pp

'Oh, I see.'

-> 43 A Zya tyaka tyaka to yattyaimasu// no de ne, hai.well then with alacrity do completely (colloquial)-iPF EP-GER SP yes

'Well then, it's that (I)'ll wrap it up snappily so you see, okay.'

-> 44C Ha:i, onegai-simasn.yes beg-iPF^

'Oo-kay, please do.'

((phone is hung up))


Often the closing section takes on an more extended form than a simple terminal exchange,since it may include a variety of elements, such as the reiteration of agreed-upon matters,promises of future contact, the provision of identification details and/or dates and times relatedto a promised future contact. Below we will consider some examples of each of these types ofexchanges.

3.9.1. Reiterating agreed-upon matters

As discussed in section 3.7.2, conversationalists may use the l-masu n(o) del pattern torecharacterize or reframe their understanding of what has been agreed to in the previousdiscourse, and present that understanding as a reassuring statement of intention to their interlocutor.As such, the utterance can also function as a pre-closing bid. When these bids are successful,they represent the first utterance in the closing section of the conversation. One example ofsuch a restatement is line 43 in excerpt (79) above; another is shown in (80) below as part of aslightly longer closing section. Prior to this in-house call, Ms. Yamada of the Sales Departmentof Tokyo Books had contacted the firm's bookstore to find out if two copies of the Koreantranslation of a particular book might be available. A clerk from the bookstore then returnedher call and reported that there were two copies in stock, but they were slightly waterlogged.Yamada asked the clerk to bring them by her office, and offered to take a look at them andevaluate their condition. After some further discussion as to the nature of the water damage, theend of the call proceeded as follows:

(80) Reiterating agreed-upon matters [TB #lA-7]

30A A, zyaa, itioo mawasite -moraemasu?' =oh well then for now pass along-GER receive-fr-out-grp-poi

'Oh, well then could (I) have (you) pass it along (to me) for now?'

=Soo desu ne!=so COP-IPF SP

32 A =Sore de handan simasu no de =then evaluation do-ipp EP-GER

'It's that then (I)'11 evaluate it, so....'

33 C =Hai! Onegai-simasu. =yes beg-iPF^

'Okay! Please do.'


34 A =Hai! Onegai simasu. Situree simasu. =yes beg-ipp^ rudeness do-iPF

'Okay! Please (send it along). Good-bye.

35C =Situree simasu.rudeness do^F

'Good-bye.'

3.9.2. Promising future contact

Closings in JBCs also frequently include promises of future contact, usually by phone or fax.Sometimes these promises are in addition to reiterations of agreed upon matters; in other cases,the promises themselves reformulate an offer for a return call or a fax made earlier in theconversation. In the conversation from which the excerpt below was taken, a shipper hadcontacted Kansai Imports to notify them that a package that was to have arrived the day of thecall had been delayed. Prior to this excerpt, the shipper had offered to arrange things so that thepackage would arrive the following day. Below in line 68, he restates his offer (in this case,using the plain l-masul form without the EP: ano: asita ni wa kakuzitu ni tukuyoo ni itasimasu).He then promises to get in touch with the call recipient by fax should he receive any additionalinformation about the flight carrying the package (De, ano: [shipper X] no dore de okutta ka toiu no mo tyotto wakarimasitara, ano: huakkusu de gorenraku itasimasu no de.)

(80) Reiterating agreed-upon matters [KI #6-5]

63 C Tyotto nanka iti -niti okurete -ta yoo desu ne,just somehow one day be delayed-GER be-PF seem COP-IPF SP

64 C mukoo no hoo de.overseas CN side LOG

'Somehow it just seems to have been delayed, you see, on theoverseas side.'

65 A A, a soo desu ka.oh oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, oh, is that right.'

66 C Halyes

'Yes.'


67 A Wakarimasita.be clear-PF

68 C Hai, ano: asita niwa kakuzituni tuku yoo ni itasimasu:.yes HES tomorrow GL TOP certain GL arrive so as to do-ipp^

'Yes, urn (I)'ll see to it that it arrives for certain by tomorrow.'

69 A A, arigatoo gozaimasu.oh thank you (+)

'Oh, thank you.'

70 C De, ano:[shipper X] no dore de okutta ka to iuand HES CN which one INST send-pp Q QT say-iPF

71 C no mo tyotto wakarimasitara, ano: huakkusu deNOM also a little be clear-cND HES fax INST

72 C gorenraku itasimasu no decontact do-iPF 4* EP-GER

'And, um, if (I) get any information on which (flight) (X shipper)sent it, um, it's that (I)'11 contact you, so....'

73 A A, arigatoo gozaimasu.oh thank you (+)

'Oh, thank you.'

3.9.3. Requesting or providing identification details

Over the course of a given conversation, if one or the other party never provided a self-identification, a conversationalist might request a person's name by using a conventionalizedprompt, Situree desu kedo..., 'It is rude (of me to ask), but... (what is your name)?' Thefollowing is an example of one such closing observed in the data.

(81) Requesting someone's name [KI # 16-6]

69C Hai, situree desu kedo:ACK rudeness COP-IPF CP

'Okay, it's rude (of me to ask), but, ... (what is your name)?'


70A A, Masutaa Denki, Hasimoto desu:.oh Master Electric Hashimoto COP-IPF

'Oh, (I)'m Hashimoto (of) Master Electric.'

71C Hasimoto-san desu ne?//Hai, yorosiku//onegai-simasu:.Mr. Hashimoto COP-IPF SP ACK well beg-ipp vU

'Mr. Hashimoto, right? Okay, please [take care of it for me].'

72 A Hai! Yorosiku onegai-simasuyes well beg-iPF sp

'Okay! May things go well.'

In Japanese, the elliptic utterance Situree desu kedo... has been used to such a great extent inboth face-to-face and telephone interactions that most participants, when prompted in this way,will provide a self-introduction as in (81) above without hesitation. The prompt is somewhatakin to the slightly more explicit English utterance 'And you are...?' which has become a stockphrase in American business contexts. However, the English utterance tends to appear at thebeginning rather than at the end of conversations (for example, a receptionist may use thephrase in response to a switchboard request by an as yet unidentified caller).

Another alternative which was observed frequently in the JBC corpus was for one or bothparticipants to volunteer their name(s), in some cases because they had not yet done so, or inothers because they wished to reiterate the information for the interlocutor's convenience. Thelatter type of exchange occurred in the excerpt below, which is taken from a conversation inwhich the caller had asked the call recipient to send a case of delivery-date stickers to hercompany, and the call recipient promised to do so. (Kansai Imports used these stickers toinform the shipper as to the type of delivery service for a given package, e.g., "next-dayservice," "three-day service," and so forth.) Note that the closing section also includes asegment in which the call recipient requests the caller's telephone number for future reference.

(82) Providing one's name and phone number [KI #2A-6]

ISA Odenwa-BAngoo, nen no tame//onegai-dekimasu?phone number just in case beg-iPF-poivP

'Just in case, may I request your phone number?'

16C Hai hai. Iti ni san no,yes yes one two three CN

'Yes, sure, (it's) 123-'

17 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'


18C Rokunana hati kyuudesu:.six seven eight nine COP-IPF

'6789.'

19A Rokunana hati kyuu. Yosida desu:.six seven eight nine Yoshida COP-IPF

'6789. I'm Yoshida.'

20C Watanabe to moosimasita.WatanabeQT be called-ppvl'

'(The representative you spoke with today was) called Watanabe'

21A Halyes

'Okay.'

22C Hai,//onegai-simasu::.yes beg-ippvl'

'Okay, please (take care of my request).'

23 A Hai, arigatoo gozaimasu:.yes thank you (+)

'Okay, thank you (for your call).'

3.9.4. Terminal exchange

CA researchers use the phrase "terminal exchange" to indicate the final adjacency pair sequencein a conversation, in which conversationalists take their leave of each other and "terminate" theturn-taking mechanisms normally in operation over the course of the call (Schegloff andSacks, 1973). We have already seen several illustrations of these exchanges in the examplesdiscussed above. Here I will provide one additional excerpt which includes the utterance Doomo. Depending upon the context, this expression can be used in a variety of ways in Japanese.For example, one might use it in face-to-face interactions to acknowledge a colleague with apassing greeting when meeting up in the hallway. In (83) below, it might be interpreted as botha farewell and an expression of thanks.

(83) Terminal exchange [KI #6-5]

76 C Doo mo, situree itasimasu, doo mo.thanks rudeness do-ipp^ good-bye

'Thanks, excuse me, good-bye.'


77 A Situree simasu. Doo mo.rudeness dcHPF good-bye.

'Excuse me. Good-bye.'


From opening to closing, we have now considered the sequential organization of Japanesebusiness transactional telephone calls. Within each section of these calls, we have observed thatconversationalists employ particular stylistic and/or register features that essentially function ascontextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982a). These cues aid listeners in their interpretation of theprevious utterance, project possible next actions, help them to gauge their relationship with theinterlocutor on a moment-by-moment basis, and enable them to respond in a manner appropriateto that relationship.

A significant degree of optionality is included in the structure of the interaction as a whole,allowing for speaker choice and preference, and accommodating potential problems, such as arequested person's being unavailable. Certain aspects of the interaction may be repeated, suchas self-identifications, while others such as personal greetings may be left out. One or morespeakers may extend offers of assistance, and business matters of various sorts may be broughtup for discussion. Yet due to the inherent flexibility of the genre as a whole, its integrity is notat risk should some of these elements be missing. The fact that speakers will minimallyprogress through the opening and closing stages gives shape to the interaction and signals thateach call is one instantiation, or one unique text, exemplifying the JBC genre.

NOTES

1. For a discussion of the use of directive speech acts in these types of encounters in Japan, seeSukle(1994). The number of studies regarding service encounters in Japanese is generally limited: seefor example Sugito and Sawaki (1977, described below); Tsuda (1984), which compares sales talk inboth Japan and the United States; and N. Yamada (1992), which compares sales talk in Japanese bynative and non-native speakers in Australia. Szatrowski (1992a, 1992b, 1993) has analyzed the use ofinvitations within sales-related conversations on the telephone, but these conversations are not customer-initiated service encounters. The literature concerning service encounters in English is more substantial;see Merritt(1976a, 1976b); Coupland (1983); Ventola(1983, 1984, 1987), and Kipers (1986).

2. The terms "mode" and "channel" are adopted from Halliday and Hasan (1976).

3. Examples of service bids are 'May I help you?' in English, and irassyaimase in Japanese. However,the latter is sometimes used more generally as a welcome when customers enter a store, as opposed to aspecific bid for service in one-on-one encounters.

4. As we saw in the call to Worldwide Bank in the previous chapter, it is possible to accomplish thisselection non-verbally on the telephone if an automated push-button menu is available.

5. Note that this might not be true in the case of transactions at a neighborhood market, where the


participants are likely to be well-acquainted and would therefore probably engage in some sort ofconversation. See Sukle (1994).

6. Since this is not always the custom in the United States, Japanese non-native speakers whose baselanguage is American English often find that adjusting to this practice takes a conscious effort.

7. See Schegloff (1968, 1979) and Park (2002) for further discussion on the subject of self-identificationand recognition in everyday and institutional conversations.

8. Although callers to various institutions these days in the United States face an increased likelihood offirst reaching a computerized voice menu from which they must make a selection, in the Japanese datacollected for this study, there were only a handful of such calls.

9. Although the publication date for Bakhtin's work on speech genres is 1986, this is for the translatedversion; his original work was written in 1952-53.

10. This finding was observed with notable regularity throughout the data corpus. Hashiuchi (1985)found in an ethnographic study conducted in 1983 that in 47.7% of calls placed to residences, callrecipients spoke first, whereas in 34.2% of the calls, callers spoke first, and in 18.1% of the calls, bothparticipants spoke simultaneously. However, Hashiuchi's findings may be due to the particular nature ofthe data elicitation methods adopted for his study, in that the calls being recorded were requests by-callers for the call recipients' support of a special mayoral candidate.

11. Nakane (1972) appears to treat the reference point of a particular speaker's uti as something that isestablished and unchanging. However, as Bachnik and Quinn (1994) and Wetzel (1994) have noted, thereference point is constantly shifting, depending upon when, where, to whom, and of whom that personis speaking.

12. Call recipients would also likely utter the same self-identification after being notified by a colleaguethat s/he has a call from a fellow employee.

13. Although the same structure of opening greeting obtains in English-speaking business contexts, thetype of greeting used appears to be far more flexible. That is, greetings related to any time of day, ratherthan just the morning, are acceptable. For example, call recipients may answer the telephone by saying,'Good afternoon [or Good evening]. ABC Communications.' Garner (1984:104) notes that 'Hello' isalso acceptable in business offices, "but the preferred greetings are the more formal good morning, goodafternoon, and good evening." Such flexible usage contrasts markedly with what was observed in theJapanese data for this study, where there were few cases in which a call recipient answered the phone bysaying Konniti wa ('good afternoon') or Konban wa ('good evening').

14. Park (2002) includes examples in her everyday Japanese call data of both most most and (Hai,)(name) de(gozaima)su by call recipients. She appears to conclude that there may be a slight interactionalpreference among Japanese everyday interactants for self-identification over recognition. Additionalresearch is necessary in this context to evaluate usage more conclusively.

15. An example of this type of self-identification by the caller appears in excerpt (5), line 4. The plainform iimasu instead of the humble-polite moosimasu was also observed in the data as part of callers'self-identifications/introductions, as in example (11).

16. While the content of this conversation remains the same as it appears in Park (2002), I have adoptedmy own typographical format and transcription conventions for consistency's sake.


17. The parentheses in phrases such as osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu are intended to show that other,sometimes contracted forms are used instead, e.g., osewa ni natte imasu or osewa ni natt 'masu.

18. Another possible interpretation here is that a business caller who contacts a company for the firsttime but who uses a form of osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu rather than the imperfective osewa ni narimasuis "simulating intimacy" for strategic purposes later in the call (Hopper et al., 1990).

19. I am grateful to Professor Suzuko Nishihara for bringing this to my attention. This type of usageindeed occurred repeatedly in the data.

20. In example 24, the two participants are colleagues of approximately equal status. However, the samecall recipient (Yamada) also used the same salutation Otukaresama desu to her superiors in otherin-house conversations recorded at the Kanto site.

21. See McClure (2000:276). A similar phrase, gokuroosama (desita), 'thanks for your trouble(s)' istypically used "to thank a subordinate for effort expended in behalf of the speaker, or to commentpolitely to equals or superiors on their toils, performed for themselves or for others" (Jorden andNoda, 1988:125).

22. It is possible that the custom of using Otukaresama desu as an in-house salutation is limited to theTokyo Books site; the phrase was not used by subjects at the Kansai site in similar contexts. Furtherresearch at other locations is therefore necessary to make a conclusive evaluation as to more generalconversational practice with regard to this expression.

23. Note that the caller's use of oraremasu ka? in her switchboard request is an instance of Kansaidialect. While speakers in the Kansai portion of the corpus appeared to use "standard Japanese" inmuch of their discourse, dialectal use was common in switchboard requests such as this one. However,it was noted that a few suppliers who worked with Kansai Imports used dialectal forms more regularly.

24. This is the same utterance which we considered earlier in our discussion of forms of offers inchapter 1; here it is being presented in the full discourse context.

25. Ne is usually classified as a "sentence particle" or "final particle" since it often concludes a fullsentence in Japanese. However, in the case ofmaeoki transitional utterances it appears to have a morespecific function, namely that of focusing the attention of the listener on what the speaker is about tosay. Since in the case ofmaeoki, ne often follows a single hesitation marker such as ano (as in Ano ne!'Well you see!'), I have marked such tokens in the word-for-word gloss segment of the transcripts as"ATF" for "attention-focuser," rather than "SP" for "sentence particle." Technically both uses of necould be categorized as "utterance-final," but I have employed these transcription distinctions to emphasizethe attention-focusing function of ne in maeoki.

26. In some cases, the line number is significantly higher than seen in previous examples of reason-for-call/maeoki; this is because there has often been a switchboard request or other discussion prior to themaeoki. Also, as in examples 52 and 53, aizuti by the call recipient intervenes between multi-turnmaeoki.

21. Charles Quinn (personal communication) has pointed out that this manner of presentation of newinformation as though it was already given information, through the use of the extended predicate,functions in the discourse as the introduction of an 'instant fact.'

28.1 have translated tyotto here as 'well' in order to convey its mitigating force, and also to avoid a fullEnglish gloss that conveys the sense of a fax 'just received' (as in 'just now received').


29. After the caller began her maeoki in line 12C, the call recipient (whom she knows well) initiated ashort joking interlude (not transcribed here), hence the gap in numbering.

30. As is evident from the dialectal forms appearing in this example, the caller is a native of the Kansai(specifically, Kobe) area. While dialectal forms did not often appear in the other four types of maeokiintroduced, they did sometimes appear in the "formulations of place" or "formulations of person" typemaeoki such as this one, which prefaced intra-company calls between colleagues who normally conversedin Kansai dialect.

31. See Kumatoridani (1992) for a detailed discussion of these cues in casual Japanese conversationsbetween friends.


4

TYPES OF JAPANESE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONALTELEPHONE CALLS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Now that we have taken a detailed look at the sequential organization of JBCs and someillustrations of the individual utterances which conversationalists use in call openings, transitionalsections, pre-closing bids and closing sections, we can take a step back and compare participantbehavior across a number of call types or sub-genres that were frequently observed in thecorpus. Therefore in this chapter and the next, we will consider the following types of calls:(1) general toiawase inquiries, (2) merchandise orders, (3) shipping confirmations, and(4) problem reports. The first three types are the focus of this chapter, since they have incommon the fact that the caller usually provides a maeoki at the outset of the transition sectionwhich indicates the purpose of the call. This was not often the case in problem reports, so wewill treat these as a separate group in chapter 5, comparing two examples of such calls from theKansai Imports recordings.

4.2. GENERAL TOIAWASE INQUIRIES

In the JBC corpus, many calls were identified which involved inquiries of a general sort bycustomers or commercial service recipients to service providers. For example, Kansai Importscustomers sometimes contacted the company to inquire about the availability, price, or specificfeatures of items in the company catalog, or with questions about order and shipping policies.Customers of Tokyo Books often made similar inquiries, and also asked about the requirementsfor various categories of discounts. Representatives of Kansai Imports and Tokyo Books alsoplaced general inquiry-type calls, usually to their suppliers and other regular contacts in orderto ascertain the availability of merchandise or services. Such routine inquiries are known astoiawase in Japanese, so I have adopted the term here for these types of calls.


Recall that we have already considered one example of a toiawase call in chapter 1, through theconversation in which Ms. Sasaki of Kansai Imports requests contact information for a customerwhose name is on a "transaction advice" form they had recently obtained from a bank. (Seeappendix 3 for the full text of that call.) Below we will examine another toiawase call, whichwas placed by Ms. Yamada of the Sales Department of Tokyo Books to one of the wholesalerswhich her company regularly contacts when purchasing books for their bookstore and mail-ordercustomers. (The complete text of this call appears in appendix 4.) The following segmentrepresents the opening of the conversation.

( 1 ) Opening of a toiawase inquiry [TB # 1 B-22]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Sasaki Syoten desu.Sasaki Books COP-IPF

'Sasaki Books.'

3 C A ano, syoten desu ga,.=oh HES book company COP-IPF CP

'Oh, um, (I)'m (with a) book company, but

4 C =osewa ni natte orimasu::.=assistance GL become-GER


5 A =Hai.=ACK

'Mhm.'

6 C =Ano desu ne, zaiko no kakunin o it -ten onegai-sitaiHES COP-IPF ATF stock CN confirmation OBJ one item beg-ipp-DESvl'

7 C n desu ga, yorosii desu ka?EP CP good (+) COP-IPF Q

'Um, well you see, it's that (I)'d like to request confirmation of(your) stock of one item, but is it all right (to ask)?'

8 A Hai, doozo.yes please (go ahead)

'Yes, please go ahead!'

The call recipient opens the call with his company identification in line 2 (Sasaki Syoten desu),and Yamada responds with a more generic and anonymous form, simply noting that she is

Types of JBCs 175

(with) a book company (A, ano syoten desu go). She also extends a business salutation, osewani natte orimasu. In this particular conversation, the call recipient does not provide a reciprocalsalutation, perhaps because he does not yet know the identity of the caller. In other parallelcalls, however, some call recipients did reply in kind. For example, in the many toiawase andbook order calls which Yamada placed that appear in the corpus, she typically introducedherself as a syoten and then provided a salutation, which many call recipients returned.Interestingly, it was revealed in another call not discussed here that by providing the categorialidentification, syoten 'book company,' callers such as Yamada may present themselves asmembers of a particular group of clients who are eligible for a discount on purchases. The callrecipient's return salutation in such cases therefore may be one way of displaying recognitionof the caller as a member of that group. Alternatively, the caller's generic company identificationmay enable the call recipient to project a likely reason-for-call, such as a toiawase, book order,or even a problem report from a client with whom they have an established business relationship.But even if neither of these applies, as we noted in chapter 3 the exchange of salutations hasbecome a typical ritual between business professionals, so it may simply be that theconversationalists who utter them do so as a matter of course, without making distinctionsbetween regular contacts and those with whom they have no prior relationship.

In line 6, which we have previously noted is the "default" anchor position for the reason-for-callin JBCs, Yamada begins the transition into the matter of business through a maeoki that startswith the attention-focusing utterance Ano desu ne. She then indicates why she is calling,namely that she would like to have the clerk confirm their stock for an item, and frames herutterance with the EP (zaiko no kakunin o it-ten onegai-sitai n desu go). The maeoki shepresents thus conforms to the general pattern we outlined in chapter 3 for these types ofutterances.

What is different in this transition section from the examples we have seen so far is the fact thatYamada also adds a permission request in line l,yorosii desu ka? This kind of caller behaviorwas regularly observed in toiawase and shipping confirmation calls in the corpus, on the part ofboth non-commercial and commercial service recipients. It was also occasionally observed inmerchandise orders. Such permission requests may be motivated by a variety of situationalfactors, for example the need to ascertain whether the call recipient is prepared to handle such arequest. In the case of shipping confirmations, at least, it is usually necessary for the callrecipient to look up a tracking number on the computer, so callers familiar with this routinewill make such a "pre-request" in order to inquire whether the call recipient is ready for thatnumber. Another possible rationale for such a permission request might be that a differentrepresentative of the company being contacted is the person who handles the type of inquirybeing proposed. In fact, in many of these types of calls it was found that after the callerpresented his or her maeoki, the call recipient would ask the caller to wait for a moment andwould then transfer the call to another person or department at their company. In the presentcall, however, the representative is clearly willing to take the caller's inquiry, since he respondsaffirmatively by say ing Hai, doozo in line 8.


In the next portion of the conversation, Yamada provides the publisher's name and title of thebook she is inquiring about, and the clerk repeats the title. Without prompting, Yamada thenspecifies how many copies she would like, and requests that the clerk look into it (Hai, kotira,zyus-satu na n desu ga mite itadakemasu ka?}. Here again Yamada employs the EP, whichfunctions to recharacterize or reformulate her earlier, more general request as a more specificone for ten volumes. The clerk reiterates the number alone (zyuu) and then asks her to wait amoment.

(2) Specifying a stock availability request [TB #18-22]

9 C E: Sansee-doo NO,HES Sanseido CN

'Urn, from SanSEIDO'

10 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

11C ((book title))

12 A ((repeats book title))

13 C Hai, kotira zyus-satu na n desu ga//yes this one (+) ten volumes COP-IPF EP CP

14C mite itadakemasu ka?see-GER receive-iPF-POTvP Q

'Yes, it's that it's ten volumes (I/we need of) this one, but could (I)have you look (into it)?'

ISA Zyuu. Tyotto omati kudasa:i.ten a little waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMp^

'Ten. Please wait a minute.' ((puts caller on hold))

After the clerk returns to the phone, he indicates that they have no inventory of the item, sayingKore \va zaiko uti ni oite nai desu ne! His usage of the term uti here is interesting but notunusual; while uti in some contexts refers to the 'inside' of something, in this case it representsthe company itself, so the clerk is setting up an implicit contrast between his own firm andothers elsewhere (that might have the books in stock). Yamada then repeats part of his utteranceand concludes it with the EP, essentially summing up the results of her inquiry (A, oite nai ndesu ka!). In response, the clerk confirms this characterization of the situation by saying Hai:

Types of JBCs 177

(3) Indicating the results of an inventory search [TB #18-22)

ISA Kore wa zaiko uti ni oite nai desu ne!this one TOP stock inside LOC be on-hand-GER be-NEG-iPF COP-IPF SP

'As for this one, we don't have it in stock, you see!'

19C A, oite nai ndesuka!//oh be on-hand -GER be-NEG-iPF EP Q

'Oh, (so) it's that (you) don't have it!'

20 A Hai.yes

'Yes.'

The ball is now in the caller's court, so to speak, and if Yamada were to have other requests,she might make them at this juncture in the conversation. She apparently does not, however, soshe makes a "pre-closing bid" as shown in (4) by indicating she has understood the situation(A, wakarimasita). She also thanks the clerk for his assistance and apologizes for troublinghim, saying Doo mo sumimasen desu. The clerk accepts her bid for a close to the conversationby replying Hai, doo mo, hai, and the caller takes her leave, saying situree itasimasu.

(4) Closing of a toiawase call [TB # 1B-22]

21C A wakarimasita. Doo mo suimasen desu: =oh be clear-pp thanks be sorry-iPF COP-IPF

'Oh, I see. Thanks, (I)'m sorry (to trouble you).

22 A =Hai doo mo, hai. =yes thanks yes

'Okay, thanks, okay.'

22 C =situree itasimasu:.rudeness do-jpFsl'

'Good-bye.'

Toiawase calls placed by other commercial service recipients and customers unfolded in asimilar manner to this conversation, with callers presenting an initial, general maeoki followedby a more specific one in a later turn in order to explain their reason-for-call. In the openingsegment of a different call presented in (5) on the next page, a representative from a publishingand distribution company contacts Tokyo Books to inquire about the price of one of theirbooks. Note that here too the caller utters a permission request after her initial maeoki, beforefurther specifying the purpose of her call.


(5) Maeokifrom a commercial service recipient's toiawase about bookprices [TB#lA-26]

5 C Ano: syoseki ni tuite oukagai sitai koto ga antHES books concerning inquire-DES-iPF^ matter SUB be-ipp

n desu keredomoEP CP

'Um, it's that there's a matter (I)'d like to inquire about concerningbooks, but....'

6 A A, hai, hai doozo!oh ACK yes please (go ahead)

"Oh, okay, yes please go ahead!'

8 C Yorosii desu ka?good (+) COP-IPF Q

'Is it all right (to ask)?'

9 A Hai.yes

'Yes.'

IOC Ano: [book title] tte iu syoseki NO:HES QT say-iPF book CN

'Urn, for a book called [BOOK TITLE],'

11A Ee.yes

'Yes.'

12C teika to hontai teika oukagai sitai n desu keredomo.price and base price inquire-DEs-iPF^ EP CP

'It's that (I)'d like to ask the (total) price' and base price, but....'

In another example from the data presented in (6) on the next page, a customer explains that hewould like to place an order for English language-teaching materials. As we noted previouslyin chapter 3, by using the phrases mata 'again' and kotosi mo 'this year also,' the callerpresents himself as a regular customer of the company. His utterance is therefore an example ofa "formulation of person" type maeoki. The customer then recharacterizes his initial request byindicating that he would like to confirm something, and asks about the requirements for a

Types of JBCs 179

discount on purchases. As in the other multi-turn maeoki we have considered in this chapter,the caller uses the EP for these successive approximations of his reason-for-call.

(6) Maeoki from a customer's toiawase about discounts on bookpurchases [TB #1 A-14]

8 C E.tomata kotosi mo desu nee: =HES again this year also COP-IPF ATF

'Um, again this year also, you see,'

9 A Halyes

'Yes.'

IOC ano: Eigo kyoozai no hoohes English language teaching materials CN alternative

hattyuu sitai to omou n desu ga,place order-iPF-DES QT think EP CP

'um, it's that (I) think (I/we)'d like to place an order for Englishlanguage teaching materials, but....'

11A Halyes

'Yes.'

12C tyotto kakunin sasete itadakitai ndesukedone?just confirm do-cAu-GER receive-DES-iPF EP CP SP

'it's just that (I)'d like to take the liberty of confirming (something),but you see?'

13 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

14C Tookyoo-syoten-san tte ano: ikura-ka izyoo, tairyoo niTokyo Books (+) QT HES some amount above large quantity GL

tyuumon sum to, zyuppaassento waribiki ni narimasita kke.order do-ipp QT ten percent discount GL become-PF Q (colloq.)

'with Tokyo Books, was it that if you order above some amount, in alarge quantity, there's a 10 percent discount?'


These examples as well as other toiawase not shown here demonstrate that customers andcommercial service recipients alike frame a variety of reasons-for-call in a consistent manner.In straightforward inventory confirmation requests, callers such as Yamada can make theirneeds known in a single turn maeoki. In more detailed inquiries, callers employ a multi-turnmaeoki. In either case, the explanations are typically framed by the EP, and callers will frequentlyincorporate a permission request before proceeding beyond the initial, general reason-for-call.Of course, depending upon the nature of the toiawase, the remainder of the call is sometimesmore complex than the basic example discussed at the outset of this chapter. For example, thecall recipient may initiate an "interrogative series" of insertion sequences in order to obtainadditional information necessary to respond to the customer's inquiry. In other cases, the callermay volunteer information such as a membership number, product number, or the like whichserves the same purpose. But these calls are alike in that customers share a common overallpurpose for the call (to obtain information), and they present that reason in a strikingly similarfashion.

4.3. MERCHANDISE ORDERS

The next type of call we will consider are merchandise orders. In the Tokyo Books recordings,there are a few examples of book order calls placed by customers as well as at least 25 tokensof book orders and hold requests made by Ms. Yamada to book publishers, wholesalers, thecompany's own bookstore, and their warehouses. In the Kansai Imports data, orders placed bycustomers came in on a different line from those being recorded for this study, so these are notrepresented in the corpus. However, there were a few calls in which Kansai Imports representativescontacted their regular shippers in order to request supplies such as boxes, labels, and the like.The conversations presented below are taken from the group of calls placed by Ms. Yamada atTokyo Books.

While one could claim that any similarities in this subset of the data arise from the fact thatthey involve only one caller, it should be emphasized that these calls involve a wide range ofcall recipients. Some were book wholesalers with whom Tokyo Books had a previously establishedbusiness relationship. Others were companies that Yamada was contacting for the first time.Yet others were in-house Tokyo Books employees, located in the same building as Yamada orat a location removed from her office. As we will see, while there is an underlying similarity tothese calls, there are also some interesting variations due to "local" considerations and thenature of the caller-call recipient relationship.

The first example we will consider represents one of the most common sorts of calls in theTokyo Books data, namely one in which Ms. Yamada contacts a publisher to place a bookorder (the complete text appears in appendix 5):

(7) Opening of a book order call to a publisher [TB #1B-13]

1 ((phone rings))

Types of JBCs 181

2 A X-syuppan -sya de gozaimasu.X Publishing Company COP-IPF (+)

'X Publishers.'

3 C Syoten desu ga,.=book company COP-IPF CP

'(I)'m (with a) book company, but

4 C =osewa ni natte orimasu::.=assistance GL become-GER


5 A Osewa -sama de gozaimasu.assistance person (+) COP-IPF (+)['Thank you for your patronage.']

6 C Tyuumon it -ten onegai-sitai n desu keredomo.order one item beg-iPF-DESvl' EP CP

'It's that (I)'d like to request an order for one item, but....'

7 A Hal, doozo.yes please (go ahead)


8 C E: taitoru ga [title name].HES title SUB

'Urn, (the) title (is) [title name].'

As we saw earlier in the inventory confirmation example, Yamada identifies herself only as "abook company." In contrast to that call, however, she and the call recipient exchange businesssalutations. Then in line 6 — again, the usual anchor position — she presents her maeoki: Tyuumonit-ten onegai-sitai n desu keredomo. In other calls of the same type which Yamada placed topublishers and wholesalers whom she contacted regularly, she varied her maeoki only slightly,perhaps adding a hesitation marker or specifying the type of order, i.e., hon no tyuumon, 'abook order' vs. e-hon no tyuumon 'a picture book order.' On occasion she also adopted adifferent, non-EP form of the predicate, such as onegai-itasimasu rather than the desiderativeonegai-sitai n desu ga which she used above. Then following the call recipient's go-ahead(such as Hai, doozo in line 7 of the excerpt above), she either provided the title of the book shewanted to order, or specified the number of volumes before going on to indicate the title. Asidefrom these small changes and the expected variation in titles and number of volumes requested,however, these calls proceeded in an almost identical fashion.


However, if we consider the following segment from a call in which Yamada was contacting aparticular firm with whom she did not have a regular business relationship, we may observesome of the adjustments she makes to her "exposition" based on these differing circumstances:

(8) Opening of call to a service provider with whom the caller does nothave an established relationship [TB #18-37]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A T-syuppan hanbai desu.T-publishers and distributors COP-IFF

T-Publishers and Distributors.'

3 C Ano, kotira syoten de Tookyoo Syoten toHES this side book company COP-GER Tokyo Books QT

moosimasu: osewa// ni natte orimasu:.be called-iPF 4" assistance GL become-GER be-ipp 4>

'Um, this [side of the conversation] is a book company, and (we)'recalled Tokyo Books. [Thank you for your continued assistance.]'

4 A Hail Osewa (ni) narimasu.yes assistance GL become-iPF

'Yes! [ 'Obliged to you for your patronage.]'

5 C Ano desu ne, onsya de dasarete orimasu syoseki oHES COP-IPF ATF your company INST publish-pAS be-iPF (+) books OBJ

6 C desu ne, tyuumon sasete itadakitaiCOP-IPF ATF order do-CAU-GER receive-DES-ipp^

7 C n desu keredoMOEP CP

'Um, well you see, a book published by your company you see, it'sthat (I)'d like to take the liberty of ordering it, BUT.../

8 A Hailyes

'Yes!'

9 C yorosii desyoo ka.good (+) COP-TENT Q

'Would it be all right?'

10 A Eeto kotira no hoo, ... hazimete desyoo ka.hes this side first time COP-TENT Q

'Um, might it be....the first time (you're ordering from) us?'

11C Hai? A, nido-me desu.pardon? oh second time COP-IPF

'Pardon? Oh, it's the second time.'

After the call recipient opens the call with a statement as to her department and companyaffiliation, in an unusual move Yamada identifies herself not only as a book company, butmore specifically by her own company name (Ano, kotira syoten de Tookyoo Syoten to moosimasu).By completing the utterance with the predicate to moosimasu, rather than with desu as istypical of her other routine book order calls, Yamada also signals to the call recipient that thisis perhaps the first time she has contacted that recipient and/or that company—in short, sheperforms a self-introduction, rather than simply a self-identification. But despite heracknowledgment that this is not a call between regular business acquaintances, Yamadanonetheless extends the ritual business salutation osewa ni natte orimasu, and the call recipientreciprocates with the slightly reduced form osewa narimasu.

Yamada then begins her transitional maeoki utterance with the attention-focusing phrase anodesu ne, and explains that she would like to order a book published by the call recipient'scompany (pnsya de dasarete orimasu syoseki o desu ne, tyuumon sasete itadakitai n desukeredoMO). The tone she adopts here is quite formal, especially as compared to her other callsin this group of data. For example, she uses the phrase onsya for 'your [esteemed] company'and substitutes tyuumon sasete itadakitai for her more usual tyuumon onegai-sitai', the phrasedasarete orimasu also incorporates a neutral-polite ending.2 In response to her maeoki, the callrecipient provides a continuer (Hai!), probably with the expectation that Yamada would thenidentify the specific book that she would like to order. This is in fact what Yamada did at thesame juncture in the first book order call presented in example (7) above, as well in many othersimilar calls in the corpus.

Here, however, Yamada responds to the continuer with a tentative permission request: Yorosiidesyoo ka. The call recipient, hearing this in addition to the other formal language whichYamada adopts, appears to have surmised that Yamada is not a regular customer, for she asksEeto kotira no hoo, ...hazimete desyoo ka 'Um, might it be...the first time (you're orderingfrom) us?' Yamada seems somewhat taken aback by the question, replying initially with theutterance Hai? which in this context is akin to 'Pardon?' in English. She then admits that it isher second time.

This call opening illustrates the interactional import and consequences of a shift in linguisticusage on the part of the caller. By using the stylistic distinctions available to her in Japanese,Yamada can present herself in a different way than she would in more routine calls to regularbusiness acquaintances. The call recipient's question to Yamada about whether she was afirst-time customer also functions to display her recognition of those signals. Clearly these


conversationalists are working collaboratively to co-construct their present reality—that is, towork out the details as to their role-relationship of the moment.

Returning now to the initial book order call that was presented in (7), in a subsequent segmentof the call we can observe a collaborative effort between the conversationalists of another sort.Recall that Yamada had just specified the title of the book she wished to order. On hearing this,the call recipient responds as follows:

(9) Discussing prices [TB #1B-13]

9 A Teika no hoo, owakari ni narimasu ka: ?price CN alternatives be clear-ipft* Q

'Are you aware of the price choices?'

IOC A, anoo, osiete itadakemasu ka?oh HES tell-GER receive-iPF-por*!' Q

'Oh, um, could you tell me?'

11A Eto, nana -sen -en TO,hes seven thousand yen and

'Um, ¥7000 AND,

12C HalACK

'Mhm.'

13 A sen nihyaku sanzyuu-roku -en TO,one thousand two hundred thirty -six yen and

'¥1236 AND,

14C HalACK

'Mhm.'

ISA mini-ban no roppyaku nizyuu-en to,=mini version CN six hundred twenty yen and

16 A =san-ten aru ndesuga.three items be-ipp EP CP

'the ¥620 mini-version, it's that there are three of them, but....'

Types of JBCs 185

17C A, soo desu ka=.oh so COP-IPF Q


1 8 C =Zya, sen nihyaku sanzyuu roku -en no mono o,well one thousand two hundred thirty-six yen CN thing OBJ

19C is -satu onegai-itasimasu:.one volume b

Well then, (I)'d like one volume of the one (that is) ¥1236.'

At first glance (to the reader) and perhaps on first hearing to a layperson unfamiliar with suchtransactions, a question such as Teika no hoo, owakari ni narimasu ka? in line 9 might seempuzzling. While one might not expect a caller in Yamada's situation to know the prices for abook she is ordering, judging by other book order and toiawase calls in the corpus, it is usuallythe service recipient or customer who initiates a query about price (as in the toiawase examplein (5) above) rather than the call recipient. But as the subsequent interaction in (9) makes clear,the reason behind the call recipient's question is the fact that there are various versions of thebook, with corresponding differences in price. In a sense, then, the service provider is extendingan offer of assistance by asking if the caller is aware of the price choices. Yamada accepts theoffer by asking the call recipient to inform her of those options, which she does in lines 11-16,concluding the utterance with the EP and a clause particle (san-ten am n desu go). This leavesher explanation is open-ended; it is not necessary for the call recipient to explicitly ask Yamadawhich book she would like to order. In response, Yamada requests the book priced at ¥1236.

What follows is a typical wrap-up to a call between Yamada and a book supplier. First, theclerk indicates she has understood the content of the order by saying Hal, wakarimasita, andthereby provides what could be interpreted as a pre-closing bid. However, she does not wait forYamada to reply, and instead continues without a pause to request the bansen or 'agency code'which bookstores use to refer to the intermediaries who process these orders. (Recall that theFukuda Books clerk also used this term in the conversation we considered in chapter 1.)Yamada obviously knows from experience what is expected of her here, for in lines 21-33 sheprovides that number as well as the name of the Tokyo ward in which her company is located,together with her company name, all at a rapid clip. The call recipient responds to each of theseelements with back-channel aizuti, which serve as go-ahead signals for Yamada to continue. Inline 33, Yamada also performs a ritual well-known to Japanese speakers, which consists ofexplaining the Chinese characters (kanzi) which are used to write her (actual) company name.

(10) Requesting identification details [TB #18-13]

20 A Hal, wakarimasita. Bansen onegai-itasimasuyes beclear-pp agency code beg-ipp^

'Okay, understood. (The) agency code, please.'


21 C Hai. [Agency name] de:,yes INST

'Okay, (it's) through [agency name],'

22 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

((in lines 23-27, Yamada provides the number in three parts, with theclerk confirming each in turn))

2 9 C Sinzyuku-ku. .Shinjuku ward

'Shinjuku [ward].'

30 A Sinzyuku-ku, hai.Shinjuku ward yes

' Shinj uku [Ward] , okay . '

3 1 C Tookyoo Syoten to moosimasu,Tokyo Books QT be called-ipp 4>

'(I)'m (with a company) called Tokyo Books.'

32 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

33 C ((caller then explains the way to write the kanzi characters in hercompany name, i.e., in the original name, which is withheld here))

In line 34 below, the clerk again says Hai, wakarimasita, which she likely intends as a pre-closingbid this time because she leaves room for Yamada to respond. Instead of accepting the bid,however, Yamada initiates an insertion sequence in which she requests that the book be sent to'Yamada's attention' (De, Tookyoo Syoten no Yamada-ate ni site moraemasu ka?). The callrecipient confirms the name, and Yamada acknowledges and affirms her confirmation bysaying Hai in line 38.

(11) Attempting to close the call [TB #1B-13]

34 A Hai, \vakarimasita.yes be clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

Types of JBCs 187

35C De, Tookyoo Syoten no Yamada-ate ni siteand Tokyo Books CN Yamada addressed to do-GER

36 C moraemasu ka:?receive-fr-out-grp^F-POT Q

'And, could (I) have you address it to Yamada of Tokyo Books?'

37 A Yamada-sama desu ne!=Ms. Yamada (+) COP-IPF SP

'It's Ms. Yamada, right!'

38 C =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

In line 39, the call recipient issues a third pre-closing bid of Hai, wakarimasita, and in responseYamada inserts yet another question, asking when the package is likely to arrive (Hannyuunan-niti ni narimasu desyoo?). After providing the answer (Eeto, suiyoobi ni narimasu). withouta following pause the clerk introduces herself, saying Yamazaki to moosimasu. Yamadaacknowledges the self-identification with Hai, but does not reciprocate because her earlierrequest to send the package to her attention functions as an indirect self-identification. Once allof these identifying details have at last been settled, the two take their leave of each other inlines 42 and 43.

(12) Closing a book order call [TB #18-13]

39A Hai, \vakarimasita.yes be clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

40C Hannyuu nan -niti ni narimasu// desyoo?incoming shipment what day GL become-ipp COP-TENT

'What might the shipment arrival date be?'

41A Eeto, suiyoobi ni narimasu, Yamazaki to moosimasu.HES Wednesday GL become Yamazaki QT be called-ippvl/

'Um, it'll be on Wednesday, (I)'m called Yamazaki.'

42 C Hai. Zya yorosiku onegai-itasimasu, situree// itasima:su.ACK well then well beg-ippvl/ rudeness d

'Okay. Well then, please do (this for me). Good-bye.'


43 A Arigatoo gozaimasita.thank you (+)

'Thank you.'

Of course, not every merchandise order in the corpus included such an extended pre-closingand closing section. In-house calls placed by Yamada to her colleagues at the bookstore, forexample, were often simpler because they consisted of a hold request such as torioki onegai-sitain desu ga and an indication of the title(s) and number of copies she wanted put aside for acustomer. Calls placed by customers did not usually involve the bansen codes discussed earlier,but they might instead include an "interrogative series" of questions and answers initiated bythe call recipient about the customer's address, telephone number, fax number, and so forth.Despite these adjustments that reflect situational particulars, however, the overall sequentialorganization of these calls was similar. In addition, within the inter-organizational merchandiseorders, conversationalists clearly displayed their knowledge of register-specific terms such asbansen, hannyuu, and the like by using them on a regular basis, and service recipients alsodemonstrated their understanding of how to perform this sub-genre of call by frequentlyvolunteering the information needed by service providers to accommodate their requests.

4.4. SHIPPING CONFIRMATIONS

In this section, we shift our discussion to a group of calls that were superficially straightforwardin their opening and transition sections, but which usually developed into more complicateddiscussions. The example we will consider from this group is a call from a Kansai Importsrepresentative to a company called Kobe Shipping. A bit of background information is in orderhere, since these shipping confirmations appeared frequently in the Kansai data. In contrast,few such calls have been found in the Tokyo Books recordings. One example that did appear inthat group has already been discussed in chapter 1, namely the "Ha-ha-ha no hanasi" conversationbetween Ms. Yamada and the clerk at Fukuda Books. However, Yamada did not explicitlypresent that call as a "shipping confirmation" in her maeoki; instead, she simply said shewanted to have the clerk look into something for her (tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga).

As has been mentioned previously, Kansai Imports is an international company that importsfood, books, and general merchandise from the United States to Japan for primarily non-Japanesecustomers. Kobe Shipping is one of two companies in the Kansai area that regularly provideregional delivery services for Kansai Imports; their business is comparable to that of UnitedParcel Service (UPS) in the United States.3

As often happens with deliveries in the United States, customers may not be home when adelivery attempt is made. In such situations, Kobe Shipping typically leaves a delivery noticefor the customer, but since their service is not bilingual, the message is written in Japanese.Many Kansai Imports customers cannot read Japanese well enough to understand these notices,so they often contact Kansai Imports, rather than Kobe Shipping directly, to report or in manycases complain that they did not receive their merchandise. As a result, Kansai Imports then

Types of JBCs 189

must act as an intermediary on behalf of the customer in order to arrange for Kobe Shipping tomake another delivery. This type of situation transpired quite frequently; according to the staffat Kansai Imports, delivery-related problems occurred at least once a day. (This figure alsoincludes arrangements for pick-up of damaged or otherwise problematic merchandise to bereturned.)

Two members of the operations staff at Kansai Imports regularly contacted Kobe Shippingwith regard to these delivery arrangements. One is Ms. Watanabe, who appears in the call to bediscussed here. The other representative is Ms. Yamamoto, who appears in the problem reportcalls to be discussed in the next chapter. At Kobe Shipping, there are three or four clerks in thedispatch section who typically handle these calls. In the following conversation, however, sincethe recording began after Watanabe had made a switchboard request, and the requested personnever provides his name, it is not possible to clearly ascertain his identity.

(13) Opening of a shipping confirmation call [KI # 1 A-11 ]

1 ((recording begins after call is transferred to A))


'Hello/

3 C Mosi most: =hello

'Hello.'

4 A =Hai, oden\va//kawarimasita:.yes phone change-PF

'Yes, [(I)'ve (ex)changed (phones with someone else).]'

5 C A, osewa ni natte 'masu:. =oh assistance GL become-GER be-iPF

'Oh, [thank you for your continued assistance.]'

6 C =Kansai Yunyuu no Watanabe to moosimasu:. =Kansai Imports CN Watanabe QT be called-ippvp

'(I)'m called Watanabe of Kansai Imports.'

7 A =A, (osewa ni) natte 'masu:.oh assistance GL become-GER be-iPF

'Oh, [thank you for your continued patronage.]'


8 C Osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF['Thank you for your continued assistance.']

9 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

The call begins with what should now be a familiar routine to the reader. The call recipient usesMosi mosi to indicate his presence on the line after being called to the phone, and Watanabemirrors his utterance. Then the call recipient announces that he has 'changed phones withsomeone else' (Hai, odenwa kawarimasita), and Watanabe responds with a ritual businesssalutation and a self-identification/introduction. The call recipient gives a reciprocal salutation,which, in an unusual variation on the typical routine, is followed by a second, repeated utteranceof the same salutation by Watanabe. Finally, the call recipient's back-channel utterance (Hai)in line 9 functions as a "passing move," displaying his understanding that Watanabe likely hassome business to discuss.

In the next segment of the conversation, Watanabe provides a single-turn maeoki utterance:Eeto, ippan de kakunin site hosii no ga am n desu kedomo. The ippan de phrase refers to the'general,' non-perishable grocery items side of Kansai Imports' business, as opposed to theirother two divisions which deal with perishable grocery items and books and videos. Watanabethus presents her maeoki as a confirmation request regarding this side of the business. The clerkquickly encourages her to go ahead through his latched utterance A, doozo: in line 12, butWatanabe nonetheless produces a permission request, which the clerk accepts by saying Hai.The rapid-fire exchange of their latched utterances suggests that these participants are familiarwith the type of interaction in which they are engaged, and that such shipping confirmations aretherefore a "routine" procedure for these conversationalists.

IOC Eeto:, ippan de kakunin site hosii no gaHES general LOC confirmation do-GER desire MOM SUB

11 C aru n desu kedomo: =be (inanimate)-ipp EP CP


12 A —A, doozo:.=oh please (go ahead)

'Oh, please go ahead.'

Types of JBCs 191

13 C =Ii desu ka:?=gOOd COP-IPF Q


14 A =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

In subsequent lines not reproduced here (but shown in the complete transcript of the call inappendix 6), without any kind of prompt from the clerk's side. Watanabe provides the denpyoo-bangoo or tracking number which the shipping company uses to trace shipments. Watanabebreaks down the 10-digit number into manageable chunks of three or four digits at a time, andthe clerk repeats each group in turn. Once he has the complete number, he asks Watanabe towait a moment, and apparently enters the number into his computer, since the noise of keyboardpunching is audible in the background. When he comes back onto the line, he announces hewill confirm the number, and as he does so Watanabe corrects one of the digits. It is interestingto note here that although Watanabe is actually the one who mistakenly uttered the wrongnumber, it is the clerk who apologizes for the miscommunication.

Finally he tracks down the shipment, for he returns to the phone and explains that on the 14ththe package apparently went out on a truck for delivery from the shipper's Osaka office (Ee:tto,kotira no hoo zyuu-yokka no hi desu NE, anoo Oosaka-siten no hoo de haitatu motidasi:kakatte orimasu kedoMO:). He breaks up these and subsequent explanations into a series ofshorter phrases, each of which he concludes with either the attention-focusing phrase /desu nel,the gerund (-te/-de) form, or the /EP + clause particle/ pattern we have observed so many timesbefore in a wide variety ofmaeoki and related topic-developing utterances. He also utters thefinal mora of each of these concluding forms at a higher pitch and with additional stress inorder to signal the end of each of these phrases. In response, Watanabe simultaneously displaysa recognition of these junctures, acknowledges the information he is giving her, and provides acontinuer through her collaborative aizuti ('back-channel') utterances.

(14) Explaining the status of a delivery [TB # 1 A-11 ]

38 A Ee:tto, kotira no hoo zyuu-yokka no hi desu NE,=HES this CN side 14th CN day COP-IPF ATF

'Urn, (on) this end, (on) the 14th, you see,'

39 C =Hai:.ACK

'Mhm.'


40 A anoo Oosaka-siten no hoo de haitatu motidasi:HES Osaka office CN side INST delivery take out-iNF

41A kakatte orimasu kedoMO:be showing-IFF ̂ CP

'um, we're showing it's been taken out for delivery via the Osakaoffice, BUT'

42C A, hai.//De—oh yes and

'Oh, yes. And—'

43A Hal, tabun iti -do: moti:dasi:TE, nanka huzaiyes probably one time take out-GER somehow not there

44 A ka nanka de moti:kaette 'ru nzyanaikanaor something COP-GER bring back-GER be-ipp EP-NEG-> Q SP

45 A to omou n desu kedoMO, -QT think EP CP

'Yes, I think (they) probably took it out once (for delivery) and,given that (the customer) wasn't there or something, (I)'mwondering if it isn't that they've brought it back, BUT....'

46 C -A soo desu ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, really.'

47A haitatu no kanryoo no hoo wa natte- 'masen no DE:.=delivery CN completion CN side TOP become-GER be-NEG-iPF EP-GER

'it's that (we're showing) there's no completion of delivery, SO....'

48 C =A soo desu ka.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, really.'

49 A =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

In response to the clerk's comment in lines 40 and 41 that the package was taken out fordelivery on the 14th, Watanabe not only provides aizuti but also makes a bid for a turn in theconversation, saying De— 'And—.' She breaks off her utterance abruptly, however, when she

Types of JBCs 193

sees that the clerk has more to say. In lines 43-45 he speculates that the driver probably tookthe package out for delivery, but on discovering that the customer was not at home 'or something'(e.g., did not hear the doorbell or could not come to the door), he thinks that the driver mighthave brought the package back (tabun iti-do: moti:dasi:TE, nanka huzai ka nan ka de moti:kaette'ru n zya nai ka na to omou n desu kedoMO). Watanabe merely responds by saying A, soo desuka 'Oh, really' without any uptake, and the clerk continues with his explanation, finally notingthat there is no indication of a completed delivery (haitatu no kanryoo no hoo wa natte 'masenno DE:). In response, Watanabe again says A soo desu ka, and the clerk confirms the situationby saying Hai, thereby providing Watanabe with an opportunity to take the floor.

She does so in line 50 by first acknowledging her understanding of the situation (Wakarimasita).Then she provides a series of utterances which essentially reframes or recharacterizes what hashappened, but which also provides a rationale for the instructions she is about to give him withregard to the package. Structurally these utterances are similar, in that she concludes almost allof them with the gerund form of the EP (no de), which evokes the sense in English of 'Giventhat (X)...' or "It's that (X). so....' She also suprasegmentally highlights the last mora of herfirst two utterances in order to elicit aizuti from the clerk as she continues with her explanation(..noDE).

(15) Reframing the situation in preparation for a request for assistance

50 C Wakarimasita. Anoo, haitatu-sitee[bi] ga sakuzitu desita no DEbe clear-pF HES set delivery (date) SUB yesterday COP-PF EP-GER

'I see. Um, given that the day it was to be delivered was YEsterday,'

51 A =A, hai:.oh yes

'Ah, yes.'

52 C de: kyoo: moo zyuugo-niti ni natte simaimasita no DE:,=and today already 1 5th GL end up being-pp EP-GER

'and today it's already [ended up being] the 15th, SO,'

53 A =A, hai:.=oh yes

'Ah, yes.'

54 C =huzai de mo kekkoo desu no — doa no tokoro ninot there COP-GER even fine (+) COP-IPF EP door CN area GL


55 C oite itte hosii to iu koto de.leave-GER go-ona desire QT say-ipp matter COP-GER

'even if they're not there, that's fine—they said they wanted (theshipper) to leave it near the door,'

56A A soo desu ka:.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, I see.'

57C =senpoo kara renraku hairimasita no de.other party from contact come in-pp EP-GER

'it's that the information came in from the customer, so'

58A A soo desu ka.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, really.'

59C =Ee.yes

'Yes.'

60 A HalACK

'Okay.'

In this explanation, Watanabe first points out that the projected delivery date which had beenset for the package was the previous day (Anoo, haitatu-sitee[bi] get sakuzitu desita no DE).She then uses the EP to underscore the fact that today is 'already' the 15th (de: kyoo: moozyuugo-niti ni natte simaimasita no DE:}. Her next move is particularly interesting in that itindirectly reports a request made by the customer (who is not explicitly mentioned until line57) as to how to handle the delivery. The instructions are that the driver is to leave the packagenear the door, even if (the customer) is not at home: huzai de mo kekkoo desu no— doa notokoro ni oite itte hosii to iu koto de}. The clerk responds to this information by saying A soodesu ka:, and Watanabe immediately continues by explaining that this information came infrom the customer, or literally speaking, 'the other party': senpoo kara renraku hairimasita node. Again, the clerk responds with A soo desu ka but no further uptake, and the two thenacknowledge their understanding of what has been said thus far, using Ee and Hai.

In lines 61-62, Watanabe resumes the discussion by reiterating her request that the shipperleave the package for the customer, explaining that her company would take full responsibilityfor their doing so. (Her reformulation of her earlier, more indirect request for this action mayhave become necessary because the clerk had not yet made a move toward indicating he would

Types of JBCs 195

follow up on the matter.) The clerk then acknowledges Watanabe's instructions a bit moreexplicitly by saying Hai, wakarimasita in line 63, and goes on to discuss what needs to be donein order for his company to fulfill Watanabe's request:

(16) Negotiating delivery arrangements [KI # 1 A-11 ]

-> 61C Anoo kotira no sekinin de:, anoo,HES this side CN responsibility COP-GER HES

-> 62C oil' oite itadakemasu ka:?leave-GER do for future USC-POT-GER Q

'Urn, with our taking responsibility, um, could (we) have you leaveit?'

63 A A, wakarimasita:.=oh, be clear-pp

'Oh, understood.'

64 C =Hai.ACK

'Okay.'

-> 65 A Itioo, anoo:, anoo:, (so)sita(ra) doo siyoo ka na, itioo,for now HES HES (so) do-cND how do-CNS-> Q SP for now

-^ 66 A maa genkan no mae ni de mo:, ano,well entryway CN front LOC COP-GER also HES

-> 67 A huzai-renraku: arimasuyo ne? =absence notice be-iPF SP SP

'For now, um, ah, in that case I wonder what we should do, for now,well, in the front of the entryway or something, um, you knowthere's (those) absence notices, right?'

68 C =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

-> 69A sonobun anoo:, hanko osite moratte:,=that portion HES stamp push-GER receive-GER

'have (them) stamp that (with their personal seal), and'


70 C =Hai.ACK

'Okay.'

-> 71A anoo:, hatte morattara:,//hes stick-GER receive-CND

'um, if you'll have them stick it (on the door),'

-> 72 A anoo, oit' okimasu: n DE.HES leave-GER do for future use-ipp F.P-GER

'um, it's that (we)'ll leave it for (them), SO...,'

73C A, soo destine!oh so COP-IPF SP

'Oh, right!'

74 A =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

The clerk initially displays some hesitation and uncertainty as to how best to handle thesituation (Itioo, anoo:, ano:, (so)sita(ra) doo siyoo ka na, itioo), and then proposes a solution,which involves the delivery notice slips (huzai-renraku) used by shippers when customers havemissed a delivery. Tentatively he begins to suggest 'in the front of the entryway or something'(maa genkan no mae ni demo:}, but then shifts gears and checks to be sure that Watanabeknows about the existence of the delivery slips (ano, huzai-renraku: arimasuyo ne?). Once sheacknowledges this, he goes on to request that she have (the customer) stamp the form with hisor her hanko or 'personal seal' (used in Japan in lieu of a signature in such situations), andexplains that if (the customer) would leave the form for them (e.g., in the front of the entrywayor on the door), they would leave the package there (sono bun anoo: hanko osite moratte:,ano:, hatte morattara:, anoo, oit 'okimasu n DE) The number of hesitation markers which theclerk incorporates in these utterances, together with other discourse markers such as maa anditioo, conveys a non-threatening, unassertive tone to his explanation overall.

In response, Watanabe enthusiastically agrees with his suggestion, saying^, soo desu ne! andindicates her understanding of what the shipper has just asked her to do by saying Wakarimasita. Byway of summarizing the previous discussion, she promises to tell the customer to handle thesituation 'in that way,' in other words, in the manner proposed by the clerk (sono yoo ni suruyoo ni s(o) yuutte okimasu no DE:). She concludes this utterance by using the gerund of the EP,and gives it the same kind of suprasegmental highlighting that both conversationalists had usedin previous utterances. Both what she is saying here and how she delivers that informationlinguistically function together as a pre-closing bid to the conversation, and the clerk acceptsthis with an apology for troubling her (Hai, sumimasen ga:). Watanabe quickly inserts another

Types of JBCs 197

request, however, asking that he also put in a word to the driver 'over there' about the situation(Anoo, mukoo no doraibaa no kata ni mo itioo hito-koto itt'oite itadakemasu ka?). The clerkagrees to do so, and through an exchange of Hai's the conversationalists acknowledge that theyhave concluded their discussion.

(17) Wrapping up the discussion [KI # 1 A-11 ]

-> 75 C Wakarimasita, sonoyoo ni suruyoo nibe clear-PR that way GL do in such a way GL

-^ 76 C s(o) yuutte okimasu noDE: =that say-GER do for future use-IFF EP-GER

'Got it, it's that I'll tell (them) that, to do it in that way, SO....'

77A =Hai, sumimasen ga:.=ACK be sorry-ipp CP

'Okay, (I)'m sorry (to trouble you), but....'

78 C -Anoo, mukoo no doraibaa no kata ni mo itioohes over there CN driver CN person (+) GL also for time being

79C hito-koto itt' oite itadakemasu ka?=one thing say-GER do for future USC-GER receive-por IFF Q

'Um, could (we) have you put in a word for the time being to thedriver over there, too?'

80A =A, \vakarimasita=.oh be clear-pF

'Oh, understood.'

81C =Hai.ACK

'Okay.'

82A Hai=.ACK

'Okay.'

The final portion of the closing to the call consists of a series of ritual utterances, in whichWatanabe requests that things go well (Yorosiku onegai-simasu), the clerk expresses his thanksfor her assistance in making the requested arrangements (Hai, doo mo), and the two take theirleave of each other (Situree simasu).


(18) Terminal exchange [KI # 1 A-11 ]

83 C =Yorosiku onegai-// simasu:.well beg-ippvl'

['May things go well.']

84A Hal, doo mo:. Situree//simasu:.yes thanks rudeness do-ipp

'Yes, thanks. Good-bye.'

85 C Situree simasu:rudeness do-iPF

'Good-bye.'

Clearly the conversation we have just considered represents a more delicate interaction than thetoiawase inquiries and merchandise orders we discussed earlier in this chapter. Let us brieflyrecap the moves which these participants use to present and resolve what ultimately turns out tohave been a delivery problem. First, the caller provides her reason-for-call using terms thatmight suggest a straightforward matter of business, namely a 'confirmation' of a generalmerchandise order (Eeto:, ippan de kakunin site hosii no ga aru n desu kedomo:). She knowsfrom experience with similar calls that the shipper will need the tracking number to trace theshipment, so after asking for and receiving permission to proceed, she provides the number. Inthe process of confirming that number, the clerk discovers an inconsistency between what hehas heard and what the caller had said, but he is the one to apologize. After locating therelevant information on his computer, the clerk reports the status of the shipment, but in a waythat does not immediately present the "bottom line," i.e.. that the shipment is as yet incomplete.Rather, he takes a narrative approach, explaining that he is 'showing' on his computer that thepackage in question went out on a truck for delivery, but that, perhaps due to the customer'sabsence or some related reason, the driver may have brought the package back to the shippingcompany. Only then does he acknowledge to the caller the official status of the delivery.

In a rather similarly indirect fashion, the caller then responds by explaining that since 'yesterday'was the designated shipping date and since it is 'already' the 15th, i.e.. a (full) day later, itwould be fine if the shipper were to leave the package near the door, even if the customer isn'thome... since the customer had contacted her company with this information. Here again, somecritical information—in this case the fact that the customer had authorized Kansai Imports tohave the package left in his/her absence—has been withheld until the end of the explanation.From a certain perspective, this might appear to be a rather "inefficient" and perhaps "ineffective"rhetorical strategy, since one might consider that the main informational point to be conveyedon the shipper's part is that the delivery is still incomplete, and on the caller's part that thecustomer had asked her to arrange for a re-delivery. However, based on a review of a numberof similar calls in the corpus which were placed for the same purpose (ostensibly to "confirm"a delivery), it appears that the usual strategy adopted by conversationalists such as these who

Types of JBCs 199

are engaged in a regular business relationship with each other is not to present these details atthe outset, but rather to explain the background to the situation instead. This approach clearlyhas interactional advantages, in that it does not place blame on one or the other conversationalistor their respective companies.

The next segment of the conversation likewise demonstrates a concern for interactionalconsequences, when the clerk asks Watanabe to have the customer stamp the delivery noticewith a hanko and post it near the door so that the shipper can leave the package. Although theconversationalists would probably not recognize this as such, what they essentially are engagedin is an everyday negotiation of the details necessary for the fulfillment of a service request.While the stakes may not be as high as those in formal negotiations of the sort conductedbetween diplomatic or corporate representatives from two different countries, the need toproceed cautiously is nonetheless understandable. Ultimately in this case, the participants areable to co-construct a successful outcome for what had developed into a problematic situation.

4.5. PROBLEM REPORTS

We thus see that shipping confirmations of the sort presented in the previous section mayfunction as problem reports. Whether or not the caller intended to "disguise" her call as ashipping confirmation is neither clear nor necessarily relevant. The point here is that takentogether, the moves that Watanabe adopts in presenting her reason-for-call and in providinginstructions for a re-delivery, and the moves which the clerk employs in responding to hershipping confirmation request, reflect a sequential organization in which problematic and/orface-threatening information is downplayed rather than being presented "up-front." In the nextchapter, we will consider two more examples of calls in'which a service recipient contacts aservice provider in order to investigate a problematic situation. In these conversations, theinitial maeoki utterances which the callers provide neither explicitly request the assistance ofthe service provider nor specify some sort of problem. Rather, they initiate a narrative in whichthe caller provides salient details such as the type and number of goods involved, a reference tothe date of the transaction in question, and in one call, the tracking number of a package. Themaeoki utterances in these problem report calls thus contrast with the maeoki in the shippingconfirmation we have just considered (Eeto, ippan de kakunin site hosii no ga aru n desukedomo) and with that of the Hahaha no hanasi conversation discussed in chapter 1 (Ano desunee! Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga).

Both of these strategies, namely the general request for assistance and the narrative-launchingmaeoki, were observed with notable regularity in the JBC corpus in calls by customers andcommercial service recipients to service providers (Yotsukura, forthcoming). Of the calls thathave been transcribed, there were only two conversations in which JBC conversationalistsexplicitly mentioned a problem at the outset of the call. In both of these conversations, thecallers announced that an 'accident' (ziko) had occurred such that a shipment of goods hadbeen damaged. Given the urgent nature of this particular kind of problem, such a shift in callerstrategy from the more usual indirect approach seems understandable.


While it is certainly possible that the behavior of JBC conversationalists in this corpus may notreflect that of service recipients and service providers more generally throughout Japan, basedon the large number of calls involving problematic transactions in the data, this behavior doesappear to represent interactional patterns for these particular communities of speakers. In thenext chapter, after considering the two problem reports from Kansai Imports, we will considera few examples of problem reports in English in order to suggest that the strategies adopted insomewhat parallel circumstances in that language, at least by some speakers, are more direct innature.


In the JBC corpus, some of the most easily identifiable calls were those of the types cited inthis chapter. The reason for this is that the maeoki for each tended to reflect a similar pattern.For example, the purpose of the toiawase inquiries was to obtain information, such as prices,specifications on items in a catalog, contact information for a particular person, and so forth.Another sub-group of toiawase calls are stock or inventory inquiries, such as the one placed byMs. Yamada which is discussed here. Despite the variation in the specific kind of informationsought, however, the form of the maeoki used to initially request that information was usuallyof a general nature, particularly in cold calls where there was no prior relationship between thecaller and call recipient. Some were very broad, such as tyotto oukagai sitai n desu ga (literally,'I'd like to make an inquiry'), whereas others specified the general class of information, suchzaiko no kakunin o it-ten onegai-sitai n desu ga ('I'd like to request confirmation of your stockof one item, but'). In a later turn, callers would then provide more specifics as to the kind ofinformation they were seeking.

Another feature of toiawase calls that we observed, which is shared with shipping confirmationsand also, on occasion, with merchandise orders, is the permission request. We pointed out thatthe purpose of this request was to ascertain whether the call recipient was ready to accommodatea toiawase kind of call, either in terms of the time it might require or in terms of access to acomputer or database to check on the information being requested. Once the caller receivedpermission from the call recipient to proceed, we found that some callers such as Ms. Yamadawho make stock confirmations on a regular basis would provide various information over aseries of turns in order to specify what they were looking for, without any prompting from thecall recipient.

Merchandise orders (e.g., book orders) unfolded in a similar fashion, except that the maeokivaried very little, with the caller simply specifying tyuumon 'order' or perhaps hon no tyuumonas an indication of the nature of the transaction being sought, as in Tyuumon it-ten onegai sitain desu keredomo. Where there were significant shifts in the maeoki presentation, such as a shiftin style to a more formal register, we observed that these were "noticeable" by clerks receivingsuch calls and might be commented upon through questions about the caller's order historywith the company. We also pointed out that these stylistic distinctions, as well as the ways inwhich callers present themselves (e.g., syoten desu ga) help the parties in the conversation to

Types ofJBCs 201

achieve a proper alignment at the outset of the call in terms of their role relationship so thatthey can then proceed with the business being specified by the caller. In cases in whichidentities were not made clear at the outset through a self-identification or company affiliation,they were typically revealed at the ends of calls, through an "interrogative series" of questionswhose purpose was to ascertain particulars for processing the book or other merchandise order.

Shipping confirmations, although clearly presented as such at the outset, proved to be what wemight call a "masked" form of problem report (after Jones, 1995), since these calls wereusually prompted by contact from a customer who claimed to have missed a delivery. KansaiImports staff members who dealt with such problems on a regular basis were aware that suchsituations did not always turn out to be a matter of the shipper having returned a package to theshipping company. For example, sometimes a package had been left with a neighbor, who hadsigned for it, but the package recipient was unaware of this. So for Kansai Imports to presentthe call at the outset as a problem report, saying that a package had not been delivered, wouldbe problematic on an interactional level—hence the convenience of a neutral request such as ashipping confirmation. (Of course, the very fact that a caller makes such a confirmation requestmay nonetheless signal to the service provider that there could be a potential problem with adelivery.)

We noted that the way in which these shipping calls developed displayed a tendency for"critical" information to be held back if it was of a potentially negative or face-threateningnature. Thus Watanabe did not inform the shipper at the outset of her call that she wascontacting him on behalf of a customer. Likewise, although the shipping clerk was able todetermine the status of the order on his computer, he did not convey that actual news until alater point in the call, after his explanation as to what likely had happened to the package.These conversations therefore seem to require a great deal of care and interactional "work" onthe part of the service provider and the service recipient, in order to maintain good relationsessential to their ongoing business.

In the next chapter we will consider two examples of Japanese problem reports which relate toshipping issues. We will also compare several contrasting samples of calls in both English andJapanese from non-commercial customers making problem reports to customer servicerepresentatives. We will see that these problems similarly demand the attention of both participantsin order to keep the call "on-track."

NOTES

1. The distinction being made here is between a 'total price' that includes a three percent nationalconsumption tax, and the 'base' or 'pre-tax' price.

2. A non-commercial customer of Tokyo Books produced a similar but slightly less formal maeoki in adifferent call: Ee, sotira kara, sotira-sama ano, dasite orimasu:, eeto kyoozai o: koonyuu sitai n desukeredoMO,yorosiidesuka:? [TB #lB-44]


3. In Japan, this service is referred to as either takuhaibin or takkyuubin, 'residential delivery.' The latterterm was originally used exclusively as part of one of the more well-known companies' name (KuronekoYamato no takkyuubin), but the term has become a common noun, much like "Xerox" in AmericanEnglish.

PROBLEM PRESENTATION AND RESOLUTION INJAPANESE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONAL CALLS

5.1. INTRODUCTION

In chapter 4, we considered three of the types of conversations which are most representative ofthe JBC corpus, namely general toiawase inquiries, merchandise orders, and shippingconfirmations. The first two types are relatively straightforward in nature and we observed thatthe participants in the calls presented were clearly familiar with the usual procedures for thesetypes of interactions. Although the shipping confirmation example was also relativelystraightforward at the outset, it became more complicated later in the call as the participantsnegotiated arrangements for a re-delivery. We concluded that maeoki utterances which suggestthat a call may involve a "shipping confirmation" may be used for inquiries into a problematicsituation, so that potentially face-threatening details may be withheld until later in the call.

In this chapter, I will present and describe two conversations from the data corpus whichillustrate other ways in which service professionals present problems and collaboratively seektheir resolution. Each description will be preceded by an explanation of the nature of therelationship between the participants involved in the interaction. (For ease of reference, the fulltext for these conversations appears in appendixes 7 and 8.) The critical role of the extendedpredicate (EP) as a device in producing formulations (Heritage and Watson, 1979) will also benoted in the context of these calls. The first example illustrates a case in which a serviceprovider and service recipient display what Graham (1985) has described as "interactionalsynchrony," working smoothly together to take care of an incomplete delivery. The secondexample demonstrates how speakers who are not in regular contact with each other through aservice provider/service recipient role relationship may encounter difficulties in theircommunication. Their interaction displays tensions similar to those which Jefferson andLee (1981) have described as "interactional asynchrony" in the "convergence of a 'troubles-telling' and a 'service encounter.'"

5


Following this discussion, we will move on to consider a few examples of problem reports inEnglish from similar contexts, in that they represent calls by customers to commercial serviceproviders. One of these conversations was recorded at Kansai Imports, and is one of the fewbusiness-related English calls in the corpus (most of the others were personal calls from friendsof Kansai Imports operations staff members, since customer inquiries and orders in Englishusually came in to a "members-only" line that was not recorded for the study). Additionalexamples are taken from an investigation by lacobucci (1990) which examines reports aboutbilling problems by customers to customer service representatives at an American telephonecompany. Two prescriptive examples from an English business etiquette manual for customerservice representatives will also be presented as a point of comparison.

We will then consider possible differences in problem reporting strategies among the Japaneseand English speakers in these calls, and will propose that there may be a certain degree ofculture-specificity in the form and content of accounts (Scott and Lyman, 1968; Buttny, 1993).We will also examine lacobucci's (1990) findings with respect to the use of formulations byAmerican service providers in ascertaining and responding to callers' reports of problems, aswell as her suggestion that there is often an asymmetrical disparity in the understanding anduse of "acculturated practices" between customers and service providers in such service encounterson the telephone.

Finally, we close the chapter with a summary of the negotiating moves which Japanese speakersemploy in resolving problems. We first reiterate the importance of the EP to formulations in avariety of contexts in problem presentation and resolution. Next, we illustrate how serviceproviders employ the consultative l-masyoo ka?l form in formulating service recipient preferences.Lastly, we observe how service providers use the l-masu n(o) del form as a statement ofgrounded assurance in order to display their willingness and intention to undertake steps towardresolving the problem for the service recipient.

5.2. PROBLEM PRESENTATION AND RESOLUTION IN JBCs:Two EXAMPLES

5.2.1. Reporting that a package did not arrive, without actually saying so

This conversation is an interaction between representatives of Kansai Imports and KansaiShipping who have a previously established business relationship. As was pointed out inchapter 4, two particular Kansai Imports representatives are in charge of contacting their usualshipping companies on behalf of non-Japanese speaking customers in order to make inquiriesabout incomplete deliveries. One of those representatives is Ms. Watanabe, who appeared inthe shipping confirmation call in the previous chapter. The other representative is Ms. Yamamoto,who appears in this conversation. In the opening segment below, Yamamoto makes a switchboardrequest to speak with Mr. Kaneda, one of the employees whom she contacts regularly in KobeShipping's dispatch division.

Problem Presentation and Resolution in JBCs 205

This particular conversation concerns a shipment of books that was made on the 16th ofNovember, from the Kansai Imports office to a customer. Prior to this conversation, the customerhad contacted Kansai Imports to indicate that the shipment had not yet arrived.

(7) Opening of a problem report call [KI #3B-11]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kobe Unyu desu.Kobe Shipping COP-IPF

'Kobe Shipping.'

3 C =Kotira, Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamoto desu. =this Kansai Imports CN Yamamoto COP-IPF

'This (is) Yamamoto of Kansai Imports.'

4 A =Hai, osewa// ni natt' orimasu:.yes assistance GL become-GER be-iPF sU


5 C Doo mo, osewa ni natte orimasu:.in many ways assistance GL become be-ipp vU

'In many ways, [thank you for your continued assistance.]'

6 C E:to:, hassoo no Kaneda-san, onegai-dekimasu ka?HES dispatch CN Mr. Kaneda beg-iPF-poi^ o

'Um, may (I) have (Mr.) Kaneda of (the) dispatch (section)?'

7 A Hai, syoosyoo omati kudasai=yes a little waiting^ give-to-in-group-iPF^


8 C =Hai.ack'Okay.'

((call recipient puts caller on hold))

9 A2 A, mosimosi.oh hello

'Oh, hello?'


IOC A, mosi most?//Kotira, Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamoto desu:.oh hello this Kansai Imports CN Yamamoto COP-IPF

'Oh, hello? This is (Ms.) Yamamoto of Kansai Imports.'

11A2 Kawarimasita.change-pp

['(I)'ve (ex)changed (phones with someone else).']

12C Doo mo,// osewa ni narimasu:.in many ways assistance GL become-ipp

'In many ways, [(I) am obliged (to you) for your assistance.]'

13A2 Osewa ni narimasu:.assistance GL become-iPF

['(I) am obliged (to you) for your patronage.']

The call begins in a manner which we have seen is typical for JBCs, with an initial exchange ofcompany identification/self-identifications, followed by business salutations. Yamamoto makesher switchboard request in line 6 (E:to, hassoo no Kaneda-san, onegai-dekimasu ka?), andKaneda comes to the phone in line 9. After another exchange of identifications and salutations,Yamamoto then presents her initial maeoki, as follows:

(8) Initial maeoki in a problem report [KI #3B-11 ]

14C E:to desu ne? Kono mae, ano: e:: ohuisu kara okutta,HES COP-IPF ATF the other day HES HES office from send-pp

15C BUkku no bun na n desu kedoMO:book(s) CN portion COP^F EP CP

'Um, you know, it's that (I'm calling about) um, (a) BOok order(we) sent from (the) office the other day, BUT...'

16A2 Hai=BC

'Mhm.'

Using the attention-focuser E:to desu ne? Yamamoto creates a break between the openingsection and the main business portion of the call. She then gives a preliminary indication of thematter she wishes to discuss, setting the current (preliminary) frame through her use of the EP.As we have seen in previous chapters, the EP establishes this information as immediatelyrelevant, because the nominal no, contracted here to n, deictically connects the information justpreceding the EP (i.e., the fact that books were sent from the office the other day) to thespeaker's present situation (her making the call). The utterance as a whole thus functions as the


background for her call and as a frame for the upcoming discourse. Kaneda then responds toYamamoto's utterance with a continuer (Hai) in line 16.

Yamamoto then proceeds with her explanation, this time providing more specific informationas to the exact date of the book shipment (zyuuiti-gatu zyuuroku-niti: okutta bun na n desukedoMO). Here again she concludes her utterance with the EP, reframing and therebyrecharacterizing the nature of the information she has presented in the discourse thus far. Notethat she repeats the verbal okutta 'sent,' which she also used in her initial maeoki, possibly inorder to emphasize that the shipment went out, but does not yet seem to have reached itsdestination:

(9) Reframing of information through the EP [KI #3B- 1 1 ]

1 7 C ^zyuuiti-gatu zyuuroku-niti: =November 1 6th

'(on) November 16th'

18A2 =Hai, hai.Yes yes

'Yes, yes.'

19C okutta bun na// ndesukedoMO:send-pp portion COP-IPF EP CP

'it's that (I'm talking about) part of the order sent (on that date),BUT'

In response, Kaneda confirms this new information about dates — which is critical to theidentification of any delivery — with Yamamoto, who then adds that the shipment went out viatakuhai 'residential delivery':

( 1 0) Confirming date information [KI #38-11]

20 A2 Zyuuiti-gatu desu ka?November COP-IPF Q

'Is it November?'

21 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

22 A2 Zyuuroku, hai!sixteen ACK

'(the) 16(th), okay!'


23 C Hal E:: takuhai DE:yes HES residential delivery INST

'Yes, um, by residential DELIVERY(service).'

24 A2 HalBC

'Mhm.'

Next. Yamamoto volunteers additional information which she anticipates that Kaneda will needin order to resolve the problem (which still remains unmentioned); this is the tracking number.Recall that in the shipping confirmation call we discussed in the last chapter, Ms. Watanabelikewise volunteered this information.

(11) Providing a tracking number [KI #3 B -11 ]

25 C e: nanbaa ga iti ni san NO:HES number SUB one two three CN

'Um, (the) number (is) one two three DASH'

26A2 HalBC

'Mhm.'

27 C yon go rokuNO:four five six CN

'four five six DASH'

28 A2 HalBC

'Mhm.'

29 C nana hati kyuu kyuu.seven eight nine nine

'seven eight nine nine.'

30A2 nana hati kyuu kyuu!seven eight nine nine

'seven eight nine nine!'

31C Halyes

'Yes.'


The fact that Yamamoto provides the tracking number without being prompted to do so, as wellas the fact that she simply refers to it as the nanbaa ('number'), rather than the more technicalor register-specific term denpyoo nanbaa or denpyoo bangoo (literally, 'voucher' or 'chit'number), suggests that in this particular situation further specification is unnecessary. Throughprior encounters of a similar nature, the two participants have become sufficiently familiar withthis routine that they need not employ more explicit language to clarify what they are talkingabout. Putting it another way, experience with the genre enables participants to "short-circuit"portions of their talk.

This familiarity is confirmed with Kaneda's response in line 32 below, in which he asks if it(i.e., the shipment which Yamamoto has identified) has not arrived. In essence, he has surmisedthe nature of the unmentioned problem, and is asking if that is why Yamamoto has called:

(12) Seeking to identify the unmentioned problem [KI #3B-11]

32A2 Mityaku desu ka?not yet arrived COP-IPF Q

'It's not yet arrived?'

33 C (0.3) E:to mityaku rasii// ndesu:.HES not yet arrived seems EP

(0.3 second pause) 'Um, it's that it seems (it)'s not yet arrived.'

34A2 Mityaku=not yet arrived

'not yet arrived.'

35 C =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

36A2 Tyotto matte kudasai//, yo.a little wait-GER give-to-in-group-ipp't* SP

'Wait a minute, okay?'

37C Hai.ack

'Okay.'

Yamamoto, no doubt hesitant to place the blame on Kobe Shipping prematurely, responds inline 33 by saying that it seems that the package has not arrived (E:to mityaku rasii n desu:}. Byusing the evidential rasii, which marks information obtained through aural or visual input,together with the EP, Yamamoto recasts what Kaneda has suggested in a new light (i.e., a new


frame). In other words, rather than acknowledge that the problem is indeed that the package hasnot yet arrived, Yamamoto instead suggests a different interpretation, namely that 'it's that itseems (perhaps based on information provided through a call from the customer) that thepackage has not yet arrived.'

Yamamoto's use of the evidential here clearly stems from interactional motivations. Up untilthis point in the conversation, she has been able to avoid committing what Brown and Levinson(1987) have called a face-threatening act (FTA) by not explicitly mentioning that there was aproblem with the shipment. When Kaneda guesses the nature of the problem, Yamamotoattempts to mitigate the face threat by using the evidential. Indeed, she may not actually knowfor certain that the delivery was incomplete; it could be, for example, that Kobe Shipping leftthe package with a neighbor, and the customer was unaware of this. Genuine lack of certaintyon Yamamoto's part is therefore another possible reason behind her use ofrasii in this utterance.

Nevertheless, Kaneda interrupts in line 34 to confirm that what Yamamoto's query refers to is acase of mityaku, something that 'hasn't arrived.' Yamamoto acknowledges this minimally inline 35, saying only hai, and Kaneda puts her on hold, presumably to check on the shipment viahis computer. Returning to the phone about 40 seconds later, Kaneda reports what he hasfound, as follows:

(13) Results of checking into the problem [KI #33-11]

41A2 E: nizyuuiti-niti desu ne!HES 21st COP-1PF ATF

'um, (on) the 21st, you see,'

42 C Hai!BC

'Mhm!'

43 A2 kanryoo \va nee, dete oru n desu yo.completion TOP ATF show up be-ipp(+) EP SP

'it's that (we)'re showing completion (of delivery), you know.' ((onthe computer))

44 C Dete 'masu ka? =show up-GER be-iPF Q

'(It)'s showing up?'

45 A2 =Dete 'masu.show up-GER be-iPF

'(It)'s showing up.'


46 C Nizyuuiti-niti ni. =11 St LOC

'on (the) 21st'

47 A2 =Nizyuuiti-niti, hai.21st yes

'(on the) 21st, yes.'

In lines 41 and 43, Kaneda says that their system is showing 'completion (of delivery)' on the21st (E: nizyuuiti-niti desu ne! Kanryoo wa nee, dete oru n desuyo). Note that his use ofdeteoru here demonstrates his familiarity with register-specific vocabulary,1 and that he conveys thenew information through the EP, thus reframing or recharacterizing information that Yamamotohad given him earlier. Yamamoto then seeks confirmation that the completion of delivery is'showing up' for the 21st through two short utterances: Dete 'masu ka? and Nizyuuiti-niti ni,and Kaneda affirms that information in his responses.

If we now take a moment to consider the conversation as it has proceeded thus far, we mayobserve that the participants are actually interactively co-constructing a picture of reality througha series of frames. It is as though one snapshot is presented, followed by another taken at aslightly different angle (reflecting different surroundings, or context), followed by another, andso forth. The EP, or more specifically, the nominal no (or n) functions to point to elements inthe context that are essential to these angles and anchors them to the present situation, that is,the discourse situation at the time of the utterance containing the EP. That situation may ofcourse shift from moment to moment, as we have observed in this conversation as new informationis presented in a step-by-step manner by the two participants. But the purpose of employing theEP is nonetheless constant, despite the changes in situation or context.

In short, the EP functions as a device for presenting what Heritage and Watson (1979), afterGarfinkel and Sacks (1970), have called "formulations." Formulations function as "glosses" or"recastings" of previous talk, elements of the discourse context, and understandings held incommon between conversationalists. As such, they provide a picture of the "gist" or the"upshot" of the present situation, and conversationalists use them for the "practical managementof sense"— i.e., as a way of demonstrating their comprehension of the current talk and/orsituation (lacobucci, 1990:93). What is particularly notable with respect to our discussion hereregarding problem reports is that formulations have been found to occur frequently in "troubles-talk" in which the participants need to confirm or disconfirm what is being presented by aspeaker as something problematic (lacobucci, 1990:93; Heritage and Watson, 1979).

Returning now to the ongoing conversation, we see that in line 48, Yamamoto haltingly asksKaneda if he knows who signed for the package (E:to, sain ... wakarimasu ka?}. Before shecan even finish her utterance, Kaneda cuts in and offers to obtain the signature for her:


(14) Request for information and ensuing offer of assistance [KI #3B-11]

48C E:to, sain...// wakarimasu ka?HES signature be clear-ipp Q

'Um, is it clear (whose) signature (was used to accept the delivery)?'

49 A, Sain torimasyoo ka?signature take-ens Q

'Shall (I/we) get (the) signature?'

Yamamoto's question is based on her knowledge of company procedure in such situations.Once Kobe Shipping has completed a delivery and has obtained a signature from a customer,neighbor, or other responsible party, on request they will fax a copy of the signature releaseform to Kansai Imports as proof that the package was indeed delivered. Note that Yamamotodoes not explicitly request that Kaneda fax the signature, however; she only asks if it is clearwho signed the form (sain ... wakarimasu ka?).

When Kaneda takes the initiative in line 49 and offers to obtain the signature for her, he usesthe consultative l-masyoo ka?/ pattern, which we discussed earlier in chapter 1 in the context ofoffers for return telephone calls. This is an interrogative form, and as such it provides theinterlocutor—in this case, Yamamoto—with the opportunity to refuse. The fact that Kanedahas selected this form suggests that perhaps he is unsure whether or not his offer will beacceptable to Yamamoto. In a parallel situation in English, one might ask, 'Would you like meto get the signature for you?' In Japanese, however, it is not pragmatically acceptable to askabout the needs and desires of one's interlocutor (Hoshino, 1991), so the l-masyoo ka?I form ispreferable here.

As it turns out, Yamamoto accepts Kaneda's offer by politely asking if she could have him getthe signature (Hai, onegai-dekimasu ka?), and he agrees to do so by saying Hai, wakarimasita.

(15) Acceptance of Kaneda's offer [KI #3B-11]

50C Hai. Onegai-dekimasu ka? =Yes beg-iPF-POT^ Q

'Yes. Could (I) ask (you to do that)?'

51A2 =Hai, wakarimasita. =yes become clear-pp

'Yes, understood.'

52 C =Onegai-simasu:.=beg-iPF'J'

['Please do so.']


53A2 =Kiite okimasu nde:ask-GER do for future USC-IPF EP-GER

'It's that (I/we)'11 ask about (it), so....'

54C Doo mo.thanks

'Thanks.'

55A2 Halyes

'Sure.'

In line 52, it is possible that Yamamoto might have raised further concerns about the matter, orperhaps inquired about other shipments. Instead, however, she reiterates her request, this timein the plain, non-potential form onegai-simasu. In doing so, she is able to bring closure to thediscussion. Kaneda senses this and responds with a pre-closing bid, restating what it is that hewill do: Kiite okimasu n de ('It's that (I/we)'ll ask about it, so...'). Given that this is a newcharacterization of his offer of service, it is not surprising that he concludes it with the gerundform of the EP. The effect of his doing so is at once to (a) state his intention and express hiswillingness to look into the matter for Yamamoto, (b) reassure her that she need not worry(since he will take care of it), and (c) move toward "shutting down" the conversation. Yamamotothanks him for his assistance in line 54 with a simple Doo mo. and the conversation ends withKaneda's acknowledgment (Hai) in line 55.

5.2.2. Reporting an incomplete merchandise delivery

The caller in the second example we will now consider is also Ms. Yamamoto of KansaiImports. Prior to this interaction, Kansai Imports had placed an order for five transformers froma small electrical appliance shop in Osaka named Masutaa Denki ('Master Electric'). On theSaturday preceding the day this call was made, a representative from Master Electric deliveredthree of the transformers to Kansai Imports; for some unidentified reason, the other two weremissing. Yamamoto therefore places this call in order to inquire about the situation.

Master Electric is not a company that Kansai Imports deals with regularly. We note in theopening segment of the call that Yamamoto does not make a switchboard request to speak withanyone in particular, and instead she addresses the (unidentified) person who answers thephone:

(16) Opening of the problem report [KI # 16-6]

1 ((phone rings))


2 A Mosi most, [Masutaa Denki] desu. ((said very quietly))hello [Master Electric] COP-IPF

'Hello, (this) is [Master Electric].'

3 C A, most most?oh hello

'Oh, hello?'

4 A Halyes

'Yes'

5 C Et:to: sotira wa: Masutaa Denki desyoo ka.HES that side TOP Master Electric COP-TENT Q

'Um, would this be Master Electric?'

6 A Hai, soo desu:.yes so COP-IPF

'Yes, (that)'s right.'

7 C A, 'hhh ano desu nee,Oh HES COP-IPF ATF

'Oh, 'hhh well you see,'

8 C Et:to: kotira Kansai Yunyuu to iimasu keredoMO:,HES this side Kansai Imports QT be called-ipp CP

'Um, this is Kansai Imports but,'

9 A Kansai Unyu? ((Call recipient mispronounces the real name ofC's company; the Japanese transcript hereconveys a similar mistake for "Kansai Yunyuu "))

Kansai Shipping

'Kansai Shipping?'

IOC YUim-

11A Kansai Yunyuu.Kansai Imports

'Kansai Imports.'


12C Halyes

'Yes.'

13 A HalACK

'Okay.'

The opening of this call differs markedly from that of the first conversation in this chapter, aswell as from those we have seen in other opening excerpts. To begin with, the female clerk atMaster Electric who answers the telephone prefaces her company identification with Mosi most('Hello'), which as we have noted is quite unusual in JBCs. That is, typically call recipientswill say Hai or extend an opening greeting, rather than use mosi most at the outset of a call.Furthermore, the clerk does not speak loudly enough for Yamamoto to hear her, so Yamamotomust confirm that she has reached the correct company (Et:to: sotira wa: Masutaa Denkidesyoo kd). Upon receiving confirmation that it is indeed Master Electric, Yamamoto utterswhat could be the beginning of a maeoki, using the attention-focusing phrase Ano desu ne inline 7, but then provides her company identification (Ef.to: kotira Kansai Yunyuu to iimasukeredoMO) instead of a reason-for-call. The clerk does not appear to recognize the name"Kansai Yunyuu" for when she repeats it in her reply, she pronounces it as "Kansai Unyu"instead. Yamamoto corrects her very tersely by providing only the correct syllable, "Fw." Theclerk responds in line 11 by giving the correct name, Kansai Yunyuu, and Yamamoto acknowledgesthis by saying Hai in line 12.

Clearly there is no established business relationship between these participants, as underscoredby the fact that neither of them extends a business salutation by way of greeting. In a "routine"JBC call, we have found that conversationalists in regular contact are able to handle the issuesof self-identification, business salutations, and initial reason-for-call in the span of six shortutterances. Yet here it has taken these participants 12 utterances (or roughly six turns each)merely to establish their respective corporate identities. Moreover, the clerk at Master Electricseems to be relatively unfamiliar with the behavior typical of conversations in the JBC genre,since in addition to leaving out a salutation, her subsequent utterances are merely a series ofacknowledgments, nothing more. As a result, the first part of the conversation proceeds in arather awkward fashion, and by line 10 Yamamoto reveals some irritation with the situation inher terse correction, which does not include a predicate of any sort, be it distal- or direct-style.

After Yamamoto has been able to clarify for the clerk what company she represents, beginningin line 14 she introduces her reason-for-call. She speaks very slowly and deliberately, based onthe difficulty she had in communicating with the clerk during the opening of the conversation:


(17) Transition to matter of business [KI #16-6]

14C Ano: kon'aida toransuhuoomaa O: ((said slowly))HES the other day transformers OBJ

'Um, (the) other day, transFORMERS'

15 A HalACK

'Mhm.'

16C ano: tyuumon site 'ta n desu GA: ((said slowly))HES order make-GER be-PF EP CP

'Um, (it)'s that (we) ordered (some), BUT...'

17A HalACK

'Mhm.'

18C E:to: MIttu doYOObi ni motte kite itadaite we? ((slowly))HES three Saturday LOG bring-GER receive-GER, ATF

'Um, (we) had (you) bring three on Saturday, you see?'

19 A HalACK

'Mhm.'

20 C De: nokori no hutatu o, e: kinoo ((said slowly))and remainder CN two OBJ HES yesterday

21C motte kuRU tte iwarete ta n desu keDO: ((said slowly))bring-ipp QT be told-GER be-PF EP CP

'And (it)'s that (we)'d been told that the remaining two, um, (you)'dbring (them), BUT...'

22 A Halyes

'Yes'

23 C konakatta n desu kedo.COme-NEG-PF EP CP

'it's that (they) didn't come, but....'


24 A A, tyotto omati kudaSAi.oh a little waiting give to in-

'Oh, please wait a MOment.'

Yamamoto begins her narrative of the problem with a general explanation that she orderedtransformers the other day (Ano: kon 'aida toransuhuoomaa o:, ano: tyuumon site 'ta n desuGA). Then after acknowledging that three were brought (by Master Electric) on Saturday (E:to:MIttu doYOObi ni motte kite itadaite ne?), she points out that they had been told the remainingtwo would be brought to them 'yesterday' (De: nokori no hutatu o, e: kinoo motte kuRU tteiwarete ta n desu keDO:). By ending this clause with the contrastive particle kedo, Yamamototries to imply that the situation is other than might have been expected—that is, the other twonever arrived. Moreover, the order in which she provides the elements of her description ismarked linguistically. While an unmarked or "default" sequence in this situation would be tomention the day (doyoobi) first and then the number of items (mittu), Yamamoto reverses theorder. By placing the number at the outset of her utterance, she is able to emphasize itsimportance. Given that the nature of the problem which she is trying to relate revolves aroundthe fact that three rather than five transformers were delivered, such a marked order is notsurprising; indeed, it is an important contextualization cue which she sends to her listenerregarding her intended message.

But the clerk continues to respond merely with back-channel Hai acknowledgments, and makesno offer of assistance, so Yamamoto is forced to state explicitly that the transformers did notcome (konakatta n desu kedo). This is a face-threatening act (FTA). In Brown and Levinson's(1987) terms, the caller has gone "bald on record" and stated matter-of-factly (albeit with akedo 'but,' which leaves the sentence open-ended), that the supplier did not provide the promisedservice. The clerk, after hearing this information, asks Yamamoto to wait a moment.

The second stage of the interaction begins in line 26, when a different, male clerk appears onthe line, and Yamamoto introduces herself again (this time with more success):

(18) Yamamoto's self-introduction to the second clerk [KI #16-6]

26 A, Mosi most?hello

'Hello?'

27C A, most mosi?=oh hello

'Oh, hello?'

28A2 =A doo mo, odenwa kawari//masita.oh hello telephone change-PF

'Oh hello, [(I)'ve exchanged phones (with someone).]'


29C A doo mo, kotira Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamotooh thanks this side Kansai Imports CN Yamamoto

30C to moosimasu GA:=QT be called-ipp CP

'Oh, thank you. This is Yamamoto of Kansai Imports, BUT...'

31A2 =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

While neither participant displays a recognition of the other as a regular business acquaintancethrough a business salutation, this time Yamamoto is able to convey her company name as wellas her own name without any misunderstanding.

Because Yamamoto cannot be sure that the information she provided to the first clerk has beenrelayed to the second clerk, she explains the problem for a second time, as shown in (19). Hereshe constructs a narrative that is remarkably similar in structure to the first, by distributing theessential information—i.e., temporal reference, item in question, number ordered and soforth—over a series of phrases ending with conjunctive particles that are given additional stressand higher pitch, which prompts aizuti from the clerk. Moreover, she starts out with a generalstatement about having ordered the transformers, and then moves on to specify the number ofunits that were actually delivered:

(19) Re-presenting the problem to a second clerk [KI #16-6]

32 C 'hhh Ano: kono aida toransuhuoomaa O:HES the other day transformers OBJ

'hhh Uh, the other day, transFORMERS'

33A2 (0.3)

34C oodaa sita ndesu keredoMO:order do-pp EP CP

'(it)'s that (we) ordered (some), BUT...'

35A2 HalACK

'Mhm.'

36C (1.0) E: doyoobi ni:, mittu— nanka itutu oodaa siTE:,HES Saturday LOG three-ps somehow five order do-GER

'Um, on Saturday, three—somehow, having ordered FIVE,'


37 C ano: saisyo itutu haitatu surareru ((sic))2 to iwarete 'toHES first five deliver *do-PAS-iPF QT tell-PAS-GER be-pp

38C ndesuGA: =EP CP

'um, it's that first, (we) were told (that) you would deliver five,BUT'

However, her second explanation does differ in a few significant ways from the first. Forexample, although she begins to explain in line 36 that on Saturday, three [transformers arrived](E: doyoobi ni:, mittu—) in an utterance reminiscent of what she had said earlier to the firstclerk in line 18 (E:to: Mittu doYOObi ni motte kite itadaite ne?\ the sequencing of elements isdifferent. That is, the more recent of her two utterances reflects the default, unmarked sententialorder in which a temporal marker precedes the topic, as well as any specification of number.Moreover, we note that Yamamoto appears to stop herself just after having said E: doyoobi ni:,mittu— and adopts a different approach to her explanation, using a hedge (nankd) as a softeneror filler before adding they had ordered five transformers.3 Part of her rationale for changingher approach here may be that the unmarked sequence in the earlier part of her utterance(E: doyoobi ni:, mittu} did not sufficiently emphasize the problem, namely that there is adiscrepancy in the number of transformers ordered vs. the number received. To emphasize thispoint even further, she moves quickly to provide yet another recharacterization of the situationin lines 37-38, this time using the EP (ano: saisyo itutu haitatu surareru to iwarete 'to n desuGA). As she did in her first explanation, she concludes this utterance with the conjunctiveparticle ga, seeking to imply a situation contrary to expectation.

The clerk either perceives the contrast which Yamamoto is trying to convey, or has alreadybeen apprised of the details by the first clerk, because in line 39 he comes forward in acontiguous or "latched" utterance in order to present what he perceives may be the problem:

(20) Perceiving the problem [KI # 16-6]

39A2 =A, mittu sika nakatta// desu ne?oh three only be-NEG-pp COP-IPF SP

'Oh, there were only three, right?'

As shown in (21) on the next page, Yamamoto responds with a hearty agreement of hisassessment of the situation, saying Ee, ee, ee, and then goes on to explain that the delivery wasmade on Saturday, and they had been told that the remaining two transformers would come onThursday (De doyoobi haitatu site itadaiTE: De nokori no hutatu ga nanka mokuYOObi nikimasu tte iwarete 'to n desu keredomo). The clerk seems well aware of the portion of herexplanation concerning the Saturday delivery, for he responds to it by saying Hai, hai, hai, haiin line 41, yet he gives a rather non-committal response in line 44 (A, soo desu kd) after she hascompleted her utterance. But when Yamamoto provides no further details, he offers to checkinto the situation, saying Tyotto sirabemasu wa nee! By using a declarative form for his offer,


the clerk would seem to be acknowledging some responsibility for doing something about thesituation; in other words, he is taking a stand on the issue rather than adopting, for example, themore tentative, open-ended and consultative l-masyoo ka?l pattern.4

(21) Moving toward resolution of the problem [KI #16-6]

40 C Ee, ee, ee. De doyoobi haitatu site itadaiTE:=yes yes yes then Saturday delivery do-GER receive-GER^

'Yes, yes, yes. Then Saturday, having had (you) deliver (the three),'

41A2 -Hai, hai, hai, hai.yes yes yes yes

'Yes, yes, yes, yes.'

42C De nokori no hutatu ga nanka mokuYOObi ni kimasuand remainder CN two SUB somehow Thursday LOG come-iPF

43 C tie iwarete 'ta n// desu keredomo.QT be told-pp be-pp EP CP

'And (it)'s that (the) other two, somehow, we were told (they) wouldcome on Thursday, but....'

44 A2 A soo desu ka. ((Kansai intonation))oh so COP-IPF Q


45 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

46A2 Tyotto, sirabemasu \va nee!a little look into-ipp SP-KS SP

'(I)T1 just look into it, you know, okay?'

For the next minute or so, the clerk consults with one or more of his colleagues; since he hasnot put Yamamoto on hold but rather appears to have simply covered the receiver with hishand, he can be heard mentioning the model number of the transformer that was apparentlyordered: 'MF 500 UU.' When he returns to the phone in line 47, he says that given whatYamamoto has told him, he will look into the matter, and offers to call back (Sositara ano imasirabemasite tyotto, odenwa sasiagemasyo ka?)* Yamamoto accepts (or perhaps merelyacknowledges) the offer by saying A soo desu ka in line 51.


(22) Offering assistance [KI #16-6]

47 A2 Mosi mosi!hello

'Hello?'

48 C Hai! =yes

'Yes!'

49 A2 =Sositara ano ima sirabemasitein that case HES now look into-GER

50 A, tyotto, odenwa sasiagemasyo// ka?= ((Kansai intonation))just telephone give to out-grp-CNS^ Q

'In that case um, shall I look into (it) now and just give (you) a call?'

51C A soo desu// ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is (that) so.'

The clerk then goes on to confirm precisely what he will be 'looking into' through a series offormulations. Summarizing his understanding of what she has told him thus far, he checks thatit is in fact two more transformers she needs (Kore, ato: ni-ko: goiriyoo desu ne?). Yamamotoreplies by saying that if possible they would like (a total of) three transformers: Ano: dekitara,ne? San-ko ni site itadakitai n desu keDO. The clerk confirms this information once through aninitial formulation (Moo san-ko, ne?), and then reconfirms it in a longer reformulation thatreviews the specifications for the type of transformer that Kansai Imports had ordered, and alsonotes that there is now an additional transformer being added to the original two, bringing thetotal to three (Zyaa, emu effu gohyaku yuu yuu gohyaku watto no toransu O, ato ni-ko no bunwa moo ik-ko tuika, san-ko to iu koto desu ne?).

(23) Confirming the final order [KI #16-6]

52 A2 Kore, ato: ni-ko: goiriyoo desu ne?these remaining two-items need (+) COP-IPF SP

'You need two more of these, right?'

53 C Ano: dekitara, ne?=HES be possible-CND ATF

'Um, if possible, you see?'


54 A2 Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

55C =San-ko ni site itadakitai ndesu//keDO:three GL do-GER receive-DES^ EP CP

(It)'s that (we)'d like to have you make it three, but....'

56A2 A soo desu ka.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that so.'

57C =Hai.=yes

'Yes.'

58A2 =Moo san-ko, ne?more three-items SP

'Three more, right?'

59 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

60 A2 Zyaa, emu effu gohyaku yuuyuuwell then M F 500 U U

61A2 gohyaku watto no toransu O:500 watt CN transformers ((abbreviated)) OBJ

'Well then, MF 500-UU 500-watt transformers,'

62 C Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

63 A2 ato ni -ko no bun wa moo ik-ko tuika,remaining two items CN portion TOP more one-item in addition

64A2 san-ko to in koto desu ne?three-items QT say-ipp matter COP-IPF SP

'adding one (to) (the) remaining two, so it's three, right?'


Note here that the device the clerk uses for the first two formulations is the confirmation-seekingparticle ne; in the third he uses the phrase to in koto, which can be roughly glossed as 'So it'sthat...' or 'So it's a matter of....' Recall also that we pointed out in the context of Yamamoto'sfirst problem report that the EP is another device which is very frequently employed when"doing formulations" in Japanese. We should emphasize that such usage is not limited toproblem reports, for we have already seen the EP used to similar effect in other (non-problem-reporting) maeoki utterances, in refusals of switchboard requests (e.g., tadaima sekkyaku-tyuuna n desu ga....'~) and in offers of assistance which restate matters agreed upon at an earlierpoint in a call (e.g., sirabemasite, odenwa sasiagemasu no de...).

Following an exchange of 'okays,' through which Yamamoto and the clerk signal to each otherthat they have settled the order under discussion, Yamamoto requests a return phone call,despite the fact that the clerk had already offered to call back at an earlier point in theconversation. In response, the clerk restates and reassures her of his intention to do so, by wayof signalling a close to the call: Hai, sirabete:, odenwa sasiagemasu:. Once these matters havebeen settled, the participants move into the closing section of the call:

(24) Confirming the request for a return phone call [KI #16-6]

67C =Ano: orikaesi, zyaa, odenwa itadakemasu// ka?HES return call in that case telephone receive-ippvU Q

'Um, in that case, could (we) receive a call back?'

68 A2 Hai, sirabete:, odenwa sasiagema//su:.yes look into-GER telephone give to out-group-iPF ̂

'Yes, we'll look into it and (we/I)'ll call (you).'

(25) Closing the conversation [KI #16-6]

69 C Hai, situree desu ke//do:ACK rudeness COP-IPF CP

'Okay, excuse me, but....'

70 A2 A, Masutaa Denki, Hashimoto desu:. =oh Master Electric Hashimoto COP-IPF

'Oh, (I)'m Hashimoto, Master Electric.'

71C =Hashimoto-san desu ne=Mr. Hashimoto COP-IPF SP

'It's Mr. Hashimoto, right?'


72 A2 =Hai!yes

'Yes!'

73 C Hat, yorosiku// onegai-simasu:.ACK well be

'Okay, please [take care of it for me].'

74 A2 Yorosiku onegai-simasu.well beg -IFF ̂

'May things go well.'

Note that Yamamoto's inquiry about the clerk's name would not have been necessary hadHashimoto provided it when he first picked up the phone. Knowing that she may need thisinformation later, however, Yamamoto uses the ritual request form Situree desu kedo... toprompt a self-identification, and then the two take their leave of each other in lines 73 and 74.

5.2.3. Comparing the two calls

Structurally speaking, the two conversations we have just considered share a similar sequentialorganization, in that they consist of an opening section, a transition to and discussion of amatter of business, a pre-closing bid in which the business matter agreed upon in the previoussection is restated or summarized, and a closing section in which the participants take theirleave of each other. The conversations thus illustrate the generic structure of JBCs that wasoutlined in chapter 3.

Moreover, there are similarities between the two conversations in terms of the way in which thecaller/service recipient (Yamamoto) initially presents the problematic transaction, as well as inthe moves through which two of the call recipients/service providers extend offers of assistancein response. Let us first consider the opening segments of the calls.

In both conversations, Yamamoto begins by providing a preliminary indication as to the timingand nature of the transaction to be discussed; this functions as the maeoki, or transitionalutterance from the opening of the call to the matter of business. The temporal marker sheintroduces in each maeoki is a general one—kono mae and kon 'aida. As for the type oftransaction, she characterizes the first one in her conversation with Kaneda of Kobe Shippingas 'a book order that (we) sent from the office' (ohuisu kara okutta, BUkku no bun na n desukedoMO); in the call with Master Electric, she indicates that her company had ordered transformers(toransuhuoomaa O: ano: tyuumon site 'ta n desu GA). She concludes the predicates of bothmaeoki utterances with the EP followed by a conjunctive particle (In desu kedoMOl and In desuGA:/, respectively). The n portion of the EP in both maeoki utterances functions to anchor theinformation being presented about the transaction to the present discourse situation, namely


that the service recipient is contacting the service provider by telephone. Furthermore, byuttering the final mora of these conjunctive particles at a higher pitch and with greater stress,she indicates to her interlocutors that she has concluded this initial description but likely hasmore to say, thereby signalling that this is an appropriate juncture for the call recipient torespond with aizuti. Both call recipients indeed reply by saying Hai, and do not attempt to takethe floor.

Following her maeoki, Yamamoto moves on to the second stage of her problem reports in orderto provide more specific details. Since these calls involve two unrelated transactions, it is onlynatural that the type of information to be reported in each differs somewhat. In the first case,what Yamamoto mentions next is the exact dispatch date of the shipment, followed by the EP.In the second conversation, she states the number of items and the day they were delivered,followed by an attention focuser (ne?). We also pointed out that the order in which shementions these details in the second call is linguistically marked, in that it reverses the usualsequence of /date + (item or topic, which are not mentioned in this case) + number of items +predicate/.

In the third stage of reporting, Yamamoto states in the first call that the means of shipment wastakuhai, or residential delivery (as opposed to commercial), and then gives the service providerthe tracking number, which he repeats. In the second conversation, Yamamoto mentions theywere told that the service provider would bring the two remaining transformers 'yesterday.'She frames the predicate of the latter utterance with the EP and a conjunctive particle.

At this point, the service provider in the first conversation (Kaneda) perceives that the problemmay be an incomplete delivery (mityaku). It is possible that Yamamoto's mention of thetracking number (which is a common register feature of business conversations and therefore acontextualization cue) sufficiently hints at the problem, since incomplete shipments had occurredbefore in Kansai Import's transactions with Kobe Shipping. In Yamamoto's first version of theproblem report in her call to Master Electric, however, she is forced to continue her descriptionof the problem and actually specify that the transformers never came (konakatta n desu kedo}.It is only after she has described the situation explicitly that the female clerk puts her on hold tolook into the situation.

Note that this is reminiscent of the situation we observed between Ms. Yamada and the clerk atFukuda Books in chapter 1, when it became necessary for Yamada to provide increasinglyexplicit descriptions of the problematic book shipment she had received in order to obtainassistance from the clerk. The relative delay in the reactions of these clerks at Master Electricand Fukuda Books may be at least partially attributable to the fact that they did not have anongoing business relationship with the caller's company. Thus such a problematic situationmay have been without precedent.

If we consider the second half of these two calls, in which Kaneda and Hashimoto (the second,male clerk) offer assistance, we see that in both cases once the service provider becomes awareof the problem, he extends an initial offer of assistance using the l-masyoo ka?l form, which


Yamamoto responds to affirmatively. The service provider then restates his offer at a laterpoint in the conversation, adopting either the plain declarative (l-masul) form or the declarativeplus the gerund of the EP (l-masu no del) in order to reassure the service recipient of hiswillingness and intention to undertake the service under discussion.

Let us now take a closer look at Yamamoto's explanation of the problem to the second MasterElectric clerk, in order to consider some of the differing ways in which conversationalists mayparticipate in the same generic activity. Recall that the initial (female) call recipient at MasterElectric, perhaps due to a lack of experience or a lack of knowledge about encounters such asthis one, had barely responded to Yamamoto's inquiries and explanation of the problem. Oncethe second clerk takes over, however, the interaction proceeds much more smoothly.

In Yamamoto's second, nearly identical report, she presents the information about the missingtransformers in a series of phrases marked by the EP, providing successive but more specificrecharacterizations or (re)formulations of the situation. In her maeoki, she gives a generalindication of the date (kono aidd) and the nature of the transaction, namely that Kansai Importshad ordered some transformers (Ano: kono aida toransuhuoomaa O: oodaa sita n desukeredoMO:). In the second stage of her exposition, she makes a false start of sorts by firstindicating the day (doyoobi ni) and the number of items actually delivered (mittu), and thenchanges her mind, stating instead that they had ordered five (transformers) and were told at firstthat Master Electric would deliver five (nanka itutu oodaa siTE:, ano: saisyo itutu haitatusurareru to iwarete 'ta n desu GA). She frames this information with the EP and a conjunctiveparticle. At this point, the clerk perceives the problem before it becomes necessary for Yamamototo spell it out fully (as she had been forced to do in her first report). As a result, Yamamotoavoids making a potentially face threatening utterance to her interlocutor (Brown andLevinson, 1987).

The perceptiveness on the part of this clerk echoes that of Kaneda in the first problem reportcall. The quick "uptake" displayed by these two service providers likely hinges in part on anunderstanding of role, obligation, and expectations pertaining to the situation at hand. Moreover,it is probably a product of experience, shaped over time. Through their participation in recurringencounters such as this one, speakers such as the two male clerks and Yamamoto acquire aparticular "feel for the game" in this genre of call, based on the types of problems that tend toarise in their respective businesses. They also share a mutual concern for maintaining andprotecting an ongoing business relationship. Thus once they have developed reliable intuitionsas to what type of verbal behavior is effective in achieving their business goals, it becomespossible for them to respond in these situations in a natural and appropriate fashion that is moreaccommodating and considerate of the interlocutor. In short, these speakers know how toeffectively perform this genre of conversational activity.

5.3. INTERACTIONAL ASYNCHRONY IN JBCs

Another way we might describe the smooth interaction between these speakers is to use thephrase "interactional synchrony," which Graham (1980, 1985) has defined in the context of


international business negotiations as "the unconscious coordination of verbal and nonverbalbehaviors of two or more participants in a conversation" (Graham, 1985:90).

In contrast, the conversation between Yamamoto and the first clerk at Master Electric, as wellas the "Hahaha no hanasi" conversation between Yamada of Tokyo Books and the clerk atFukuda Books, would seem to manifest what Jefferson and Lee (1981:402) have described as"interactional asychrony":

Interactional 'Asynchrony' involves, roughly, that coparticipantscan be characterized as improperly aligned by reference to thecategories provided for by and crucial to the orderly progressionof a sequence.

In their discussion of a variety of excerpts from both everyday conversations and a few institutionalcalls, Jefferson and Lee distinguish "troubles-telling encounters" from service encounters inseveral ways. First, they note that whereas the "focal object" in a service encounter is "theproblem and its properties," in a troubles-telling encounter, the focal object is "the teller andhis experiences" (Jefferson and Lee, 1981:411). Secondly, they point out that while advice-givingis seen as a "proper component" of service encounters, it may not be a welcome element in"troubles-telling" encounters, in which the troubles-teller is seeking "emotional reciprocity"(Jefferson and Lee, 1981:421). This latter distinction accounts for the frequent rejection ofadvice by troubles-tellers when it is provided in non-service-encounter contexts. Thirdly, theyobserve that whereas "affiliations" are normally viewed as appropriate responses by "troubles-recipients" in everyday troubles-tellings, such utterances normally would be seen as out ofplace or "soft" in service encounters, in which the "ubiquitous, perhaps definitive" responseson the part of advice-givers are "Uh-huh" and "I see" (Jefferson and Lee, 1981:418).

Jefferson and Lee also identify a number of situations in which there appears to be a "convergence"between a troubles-telling encounter and a service encounter, which results in a misalignmentbetween the participants. On the one hand, the troubles-teller is focused on relating her troublesand experiences as a. per son, whereas the advice-giver or service provider is primarily concernedwith the "problem and its properties" and the "despatching of a task" (Jefferson and Lee,1981:416). In such cases, the advice-giver has an "essential interest" in the "problem and itsproperties," but displays an "essential indifference" to the troubles-teller and herpersonal/emotional concerns.

Although there are not precise parallels in our Japanese examples (which are clearly serviceencounters as opposed to troubles-tellings or a convergence of the two), we may observesimilar tensions between the callers and call recipients. That is, both callers, i.e., Yamada andYamamoto, attempt to draw the call recipient's attention to particular aspects of the problemthey are reporting, but these "expositions" are met with "essential indifference" by the callrecipients.


5.3.1. Reporting an incomplete shipment: TheHahaha no hanasi call

In the case of the Hahaha no hanasi conversation (shown in appendix 2), Yamada seeksassistance from the Fukuda Books clerk in order to ascertain whether a book she had orderedwas dispatched or not. Recall that she presents her maeoki as a request for confirmation or a'look-up': Ano desu nee! Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga 'Well, you see! It's that (I/we)'djust like to have you look (something) up, but.

In subsequent turns, Yamada explains when and how she had placed her order (e:to: si-gatunizyuusiti-niti no hi ni, sotira DE, e:to desu ne, denwa tyuumon na n desu ga), and points outthat she had requested four books (yon-satu hodo, e-HON o tyuumon sasite-itadaita n desu yo).Of those four, she notes that she had only received three (yon-satu no uti no, SAN-satu sikatyotto haitte kite orimasen no de). At this point, the clerk might have stepped forward andoffered to check into what happened to the missing fourth book, but he does not. So Yamadabegins to make an explicit request that he do so (is-satu dasite itadaketa ka doo ka, osirabe—).Before she can finish, however, he cuts her off, suggesting that he has understood what she hasasked him to do (Kasikomaritd).

Yamada then volunteers additional information which she surmises may be of use to the clerkin looking up the problem, namely her company name and the title of the missing book. Theclerk then confirms that it was one copy she had requested, and goes to check.

When the clerk returns to the phone, however, it appears that he has checked on the availabilityof the book, rather than on the particulars of the original shipment, for he provides a formulationin line 36 to confirm his understanding of the situation:

(26) Misalignment or asynchrony between call recipient and caller'sunderstanding of the "task" to be performed [TB #1A-44]

34 A Omatase des— itasimasita.causing -waiting^ COP-IPF-FS do-PF^

'[S—Sorry] to have kept you waiting.'

35 C HalBC

'Mhm.'

-^ 36 A Zya, Hahaha no hanasi o is- satu to in koto de,so ha-ha-ha CN tale OBJ one volume QT be called-ipp thing CP-GER'So it's a matter of one copy of The Tale of Ha-ha-ha.'

37C A, hai:.ah yes

'Ah, yes.'


-^ 38A Zya, bansen onegai-simasu:.so agency-number beg-ipp 4>




40 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

41C ZENkai tyuumon sita toki ni, ano: uketeprevious order do-p? time GL HES receive-GER

42 C itadakemasen desita ndesyoo: ka.receive-NEG-iPF^ CP-PF EP-TENT Q

'at the time of the PREvious order, um, might it have been that wecouldn't receive it from you?'

Yamada hesitantly acknowledges the formulation by saying^, hai, but when the clerk requeststhe bansen or 'agency number,' which as we saw in chapter 4 is the standard code used forprocessing book orders through intermediaries, Yamada realizes that the clerk is responding toher request for confirmation as though it were a request to re-order the book. We suggested inour earlier analysis of the call in chapter 1 that the clerk's familiarity with his role as "order-taker,"but relative unfamiliarity in the role of what we might call "problem-report recipient" (in lightof Jefferson and Lee's discussion), has resulted in an "essential indifference" on his part to theparticulars of her request. In other words, in his role as service provider in encounters whichare normally focused on merchandise orders, his primary responsibility or task goal is to checkon the availability of items and make arrangements for their shipment, the latter of which maybe accomplished through an interrogative series of questions about the agency code, agencyname, name of the bookstore placing the order, and so forth. Yamada, on the other hand, has agreat deal of experience in ordering books as well as in placing calls to inquire about problematicsituations regarding those orders, so she is able to recognize when the call has gone "off-track."Over a subsequent series of turns oriented at "re-aligning" the task goals of caller and callrecipient, she uses the EP to redirect the clerk's attention to what it is she is requesting of him.Finally the clerk displays an understanding of her original intentions through his utterance inline 50, A, kakunin de:su ne? and Yamada then reassures him that if it turns out that the bookhas not been sent out, she will order another copy. Here at last, then, the participants havecollaboratively achieved a re-alignment, and the remainder of the call "runs off in a mannertypical of book order calls.


5.3.2. Reporting an incomplete delivery: The Master Electric call

The second Japanese problem report between Yamamoto and the female clerk at Master Electriclikewise represents an example in which the call recipient/service provider displays "essentialindifference" to the caller's request for assistance (see appendix 8 for the text of the call). Here,however, it is not a matter of a misunderstanding between the two conversationalists. Rather,the clerk simply does not appear to respond in a manner appropriate for a "problem-reportrecipient." First, as we noted previously, at the opening of the call she answers with Most mosi.produces a company identification in a very quiet voice, and does not exchange the usualsalutations, which we have noted are often extended even in the absence of a regular businessrelationship. Then she fails to recognize the caller's company name, which in some respects isunderstandable since Kansai Imports is not a regular client of Master Electric. But Yamamotomay have had an expectation—based on the fact that Kansai Imports had recently placed anorder and was awaiting the balance of a shipment—that her company name would be recognizedby the staff at this small company. Finally, as Yamamoto provides a series of increasinglyspecific utterances describing the "problem and its properties," she receives no "uptake"whatsoever, but rather mere acknowledgment tokens from the clerk. (The clerk uttered theseacknowledgments with a flat, non-committal intonation which would seem to conveysuprasegmentally what Jefferson and Lee (1981:411) have called "an utterly bland, continuingattention."

While Yamamoto probably was not anticipating or seeking an "affiliation" in response, giventhe recent nature of the order she again might have expected some sort of display of recognitionon the part of the call recipient about the order in question. However, the clerk's only responseaside from her acknowledgments is to put the caller on hold to find someone else who canmanage the problem. While this does ultimately resolve the problem, in that the second clerk(Hashimoto) is more familiar with the transaction and is much better "aligned" with Yamamotoin their interaction, the tension which develops between the two initial participants is evident inYamamoto's terse correction in response to the clerk's mispronunciation of her company name,and in her deliberate, slow enunciation in her account of the problem.

5.4. PROBLEM REPORTS IN ENGLISH

Now let us turn to some examples of problem reports in English, in order to provide a point ofcomparison with the Japanese calls we discussed in the previous section. While I have not yetbeen able to collect a sufficient number of problem reports in English to form the basis for atruly contrastive study, I hope that the examples I present here might represent the beginning ofa larger, cross-linguistic, cross-cultural comparison of the ways in which problems are presentedand their resolutions negotiated in the two languages.

5.4.1. Reporting a missed delivery

The first example is taken from the JBC data, and is the only one of its kind in the corpus; aswas noted previously, most business-related English calls at Kansai Imports came in on a


"member line" which was not recorded for this study. There were no English calls recorded atTokyo Books.

In the call below, a female American customer calls Kansai Imports to report a problemregarding a shipment she had expected to receive that day:

(27) English problem report to Kansai Imports [KI #8-5]

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Kansai Yunyuu desu:.ACK Kansai Imports COP-IPF


3 C A, yes, do you speak English?4 A Yes.5 C Yes, um: someone tried to deliver something today, euh:6 C we were home but we didn't hear the doorbell.7 A Right.8 C Um, can: an' I had asked to have them leave it.9 A Uh-huh// uh-huh.10 C Um: but they didn't.11 A Oh, sorry 'bout that!//12 C That's ok, it was just one box.13 A Okay.14 C So, how can we have it delivered, then.15 A Okay, lemme ask your membership number first?

The opening of the call (lines 2-4) is notably different from the openings we have discussed inthe Japanese data. We note that the customer does not provide her name, affiliation, membershipnumber, or any other self-identifying information, but instead launches immediately into anarrative account (Scott and Lyman, 1968) of what happened. Neither party provides anysalutations, either, but this is expectable because the caller is an individual (non-commercial)customer rather than an organization that does regular business with Kansai Imports. In line 5,the caller does hesitate by saying 'Um' before beginning her account of the problem, butotherwise there is no indication of a transitional section or other preliminaries which mightalert the clerk that the caller is about to make an account (e.g., in Japanese, attention-focusingutterances such as Ano desu ne! as well as the use of the EP, which is another indirect way ofleading the listener to the "right" or intended construal of the present situation).

The caller does recount the information about the missed delivery in a chronological fashion, aswe observed to be the case in the Master Electric problem report discussed earlier. But unlikeher Japanese counterparts, the English-speaking caller does not volunteer any identifyinginformation about the shipment itself (such as the type of product she expected to be delivered


or the date she placed the order) which might assist the clerk in remedying the problem.Moreover, in saying 'we were home but we didn't hear the doorbell' (line 6), and 'I had askedto have them leave it...um: but they didn't' (lines 8 and 10), the customer appears to beindicating rather directly that (a) she is not responsible for the problem, and (b) the shipper isresponsible. As Scott and Lyman (1968) have noted, this is typical of accounts, which serve tojustify or explain personal circumstances related to some sort of trouble which the speaker oranother party has experienced.

The only mitigating part of this caller's account is her hesitation, 'um,' at the beginning of line10, and her reassuring response to the clerk's apology in line 12 ('That's ok, it was just onebox.'). Although such behavior might be considered fairly hesitant for an American Englishtelephone call, if an English speaker were to attempt the same type of account in Japanesewithout modification, it would probably leave an unfavorable impression on the listener (inmuch the same way that the student waiter described in chapter 1 might make a Japanesecustomer uneasy if he were to say Zenbu ikaga desu kal in a restaurant service encounter).

It may be useful to point out here that Kotani (1999) has found that Japanese and Americansemploy different accounting strategies in inter-cultural conversations in the United States.Further, Scott and Lyman (1968:46) have claimed that accounts are "standardized within cultures,"arguing that "the types of accounts appropriate to each speech community differ in form andcontent" (Scott and Lyman, 1968:62).6 Buttny (1993) likewise claims that "accounts offer avaluable site for uncovering a culture's taken-for-granted assumptions and folk logic of rightactions." We will explore other ways in which certain Japanese linguistic patterns might beconsistent with such "folk logic" when we examine some metalinguistic expressions regardingcommunication in Japanese in the next chapter. For now, however, we may note that furtherresearch is obviously necessary in order to better evaluate the patterns of interaction operativein both inter- and intra-cultural problem report calls such as the ones presented in this book.

Returning now to the Kansai Imports example, we observe in line 8 that the customer begins toissue what appears to be a request ('Um, can:'), but changes Her mind and waits to do so untilline 14 ('So, how can we have it delivered, then'). The customer is thus explicitly requestingassistance in order to resolve the problem. This type of behayior was sometimes observed inthe Japanese data, but would typically occur later in the call. Consider the following Japaneseexample, which appeared in a call placed by a customer of Tokjyo Books:

(28) Request by Japanese customer for assistance in a problem report[TB #18-34]

49C Desu kara sore desu ne!therefore that COP-IPF ATF

'So those, you see,'


50A Hai.=ACK

'Mhm.'

51C maa, kookan: u: site itadakitaiwell exchange HES do-GER receive-ipp-DESvl'

n desu keredoMO:EP CP

'well, it's that (I/we)'d like to have (you) exchange them, but.... '

Prior to this excerpt, the caller had already provided his company affiliation and exchangedbusiness salutations with the call recipient (Ms. Yamada) during the opening section of the call,and only then went on to provide an account of the problem. He began that account with aninitial, general utterance that he had received a shipment (Ano: noohin itadakimasite ne!). Afterthat, he initiated a multi-turn explanation of the problem (ma—naiyoo ga desu ne! tyotto,matigatt—okurat:te kita mono ga aru mon desu kara), which was that the package containedsome items which had mistakenly been sent to him. Note that he prefaced each of theseutterances with a hesitation marker or mitigating device: Ano: in the first, ma(a) 'well' in thesecond, and tyotto 'just' in the third. Moreover, since the customer had already provided hiscompany identification, Yamada was able to readily offer assistance, asking him to wait amoment so that she could 'bring up the list' on her computer of the items he had ordered(E:, tyotto matte kudasai, ne? Risuto ima odasi simasu no DE). Once Yamada had the list infront of her, the customer proceeded to relate further details about what he had ordered, howmany volumes, and what the incorrectly shipped items were. None of this required any prompting;the customer initiated all of the information from his 'side' of the conversation.

Comparing these two calls, we may make the following observations. First, the sequentialorganization of problem reporting is different, in that the English-speaking caller does notprovide her name or membership number first, but instead announces the problem at the outsetof the call. The reverse seems to be true in Japanese; as we have seen in many of the JBCexamples, self-identification at the outset of the call appears to be the norm, both for individual(non-commercial) customers and commercial service recipients.

Secondly, after the American caller has initiated her problem report, the service representativemust prompt her for her membership number. This parallels the findings in the literature oncalls to emergency services, which have documented the regular use of an "interrogativeseries" initiated by the call recipient in order to obtain identification and location informationfrom the caller. Given the urgent nature of those types of conversations, it is understandablethat callers would begin with a description of the 'problem,' i.e., the emergency. Yet it may bethat the same prompting is sometimes necessary in English problem reports placed to commercialorganizations on an everyday basis as well; further research is again necessary to fully explore


this possibility.7 Finally, we may note that the English-speaking caller employed relativelyfewer hesitation markers, mitigating devices, and transitional utterances prior to initiating herproblem report than did the Japanese caller.

5.4.2. Reporting telephone billing problems

Few studies in the literature on English telephone service encounters specifically address theissue of problem reports to commercial service institutions. Phillips and Riley (2000), forexample, do discuss the sequential organization of business telephone conversation openings,but their observations are based on calls that are perhaps best described as general inquiries, inthe sense of the toiawase calls which we discussed in chapter 4. Aside from Jefferson andLee's (1981) paper which was already mentioned above, I was able to find only one otherstudy, lacobucci (1990), that includes data which parallel the kinds of problem reports found inthe JBC corpus. Below I will present a few examples and some of the findings from herinvestigation.

lacobucci examines calls placed by customers to an American telephone company regardingbilling problems they were seeking to have resolved. The data for the study consisted of 40calls which were part of a larger corpus of conversations recorded "by the company forin-house analysis" (lacobucci, 1990:86). Apparently neither the call recipients nor callers wereaware that these conversations were being recorded. (Note that this study was published in1990, so the data collection likely pre-dates many of the recent laws in the United Statesgoverning such recording.)

Consider the following excerpts from lacobucci's data:

(29) (lacobucci, 1990:89) (R=customer service representative)

1 R [Company Name] billing. This is Mark. May I help you?-> 2 C Yes. I would like to ask about an adjustment for my bill please.

3 R Okay. What is your phone number?


1 R Okay, what can I do for you?-> 2 C We got a few phone calls we never riade.

3 R Okay. What are the dates of the calls"


1 R Okay, how can I help you?-> 2 C On the current bill there are some phone numbers that I haven't been

able to identify. I wonder if I could talk to somebody to tell me whothey went to.


3 R Okay. If you give the dates and places called I can go ahead and tryto figure out which ones you are talking about.

First, a few caveats are in order about these examples. lacobucci does not specify whether ornot the billing problem calls were first routed through a general switchboard, be it an automatedone (as we saw in the Worldwide Bank call in chapter 1 of this book), or through an operator.If they were indeed routed through some central location, it is likely that the callers would havebeen able to specify some aspect of their reason-for-call through a switchboard request, andthereby reach a specific department or section, e.g., 'billing' as in (28). Alternatively, it ispossible that the callers dialed a customer service-specific number, but again, this is not explainedin the paper. Moreover, in (29) and (30), it appears that there may have been some previoustalk between the conversationalists at the outset of these calls, as evidenced by the fact that thecall recipients begin their turns with the acknowledgment token 'Okay.' It may well be, then,that the call recipient and perhaps even the caller have identified themselves at a point prior tothe excerpts shown. In contrast, in (28) it is at least clear that the call recipient's sectionidentification '[Company Name] billing' represents the inital utterance on his part.

These caveats aside, we may observe that all three excerpts have the following features incommon. First, the call recipient invites the caller to present a reason-for-call with an explicitoffer of assistance, e.g., 'May I help you?' in line 1. Second, the caller responds directly withthat reason-for-call in line 2, i.e., in the customer's first turn (of these excerpts). Note that thesecallers do not employ any hesitation markers or other utterance-initial mitigating or transitionaldevices which might minimize the force of their requests/complaints. Instead, they get right tothe point. This is consistent with our observations regarding the English problem report toKansai Imports discussed earlier.

But while these American callers to the telephone company did not preface their problemreports with hesitation markers or utterance-initial mitigating devices, we should note that thecallers in (28) and (30) did incorporate other strategies which likely function to minimize theface threat of their requests to the call recipient. In fact, these utterances seem relatively politein comparison to the blunt statement made by the second caller in (29). The first caller uses theforms 'would like to' and 'please,' and the third caller provides a hedge by indicating that'there are some numbers that I haven't been able to identify.' This allows for the possibilitythat the call recipient or someone else might be able to this for him. He also prefaces hissubsequent request for such assistance with the phrase "I wonder if I could....' Thus whilethese two English speaking callers employ different linguistic strategies within their problemreports as compared to those used by Japanese callers, the underlying motivation for thosestrategies may be similar.

The fourth feature in common among these excerpts from lacobucci's study is the fact that thecustomers do not volunteer any identifying information, such as their telephone number ordates of the problematic calls, to assist the clerk in remedying the problem. Instead, it isnecessary for the representative in (28) to prompt the customer for his phone number, and in(29) and (30) the representative must ask for the dates of the calls in question. Recall that in


many of the Japanese calls we have considered over the past few chapters, experienced servicerecipients volunteered information which they perceived might be relevant for the serviceprovider.

5.4.3. Reporting problematic merchandise or shipments

Given these observations, let us now consider two additional examples of English problemreports. These appeared in a manual which describes recommended telephone techniques forcustomer service personnel who handle customer complaints in American companies. As such,we note that they may not represent naturally-occurring data. However, they are included hereas examples of prescriptive attitudes toward proper verbal behavior in English in such contexts.

(32) Simulated example of an English problem report (Garner, 1984)(R=Receptionist, C=Caller)

1 R Good morning, Sims Products. May I help you?2 C May I speak to the president, please?3 R I'm sorry, Mr. Sims is not available right now.

Can someone else help you?4 C I want to talk to him about some trouble I'm having

with my toaster.5 R I'm sure Ms. Green, our Appliance Sales Manager,

can help you right away. Just a moment and I'llconnect you.

The secretary's opening in line 1 exhibits similar characteristics (greeting and self-identification)to the examples we have considered from the JBC corpus. Note, however, that it also includesthe same type of explicit offer of service as in the calls cited by lacobucci, i.e., 'May I helpyou?' This type of offer was observed only once in the Japanese corpus, and was uttered by acustomer service representative at Kanto Bank. Her utterance, Honzitu wa dono yoo ni itasimasukal may be translated as 'How shall (I/we) help (you) today?'

As was the case in the other English examples, the customer in (32) does not provide aself-identification, but rather makes an immediate switchboard request for the president of thecompany. Following the receptionist's response that the president is not available and uponhearing her offer to transfer him to someone else, without any transition or hesitation the callerstates his reason-for-call rather explicitly in line 4: 'I want to talk to him about some troubleI'm having with my toaster.' This enables the receptionist to transfer the call to an appropriaterepresentative, whose name she provides for the customer.

A second example from this customer service manual is even more extreme in its directness. Inthe opening of this call (not reproduced here), the customer requests to speak with the same'Mr. Sims' about a different problem. The receptionist then attempts to "screen" the call byinquiring about the problem, as shown in the excerpt on the following page:


(33) Second simulated example of an English problem report(Garner, 1984) (R=Receptionist, C=Caller)

R What sort of problem are you having?C Well, I need to talk to him right away. You people shipped us 3000

of these things, and they don't fit our product. What's more, we onlyordered 300.1 want him to know about this kind of efficiency.

Obviously this type of call may not represent the norm in English problem-reporting situations;the manual refers to such callers as "those 'I-must-go-to-the-top' callers." Yet other manualssuch as Farrell (1994) have similarly noted the tendency of some American callers to adopt adirect strategy so that they may get beyond "protective screens" set up by customer servicerepresentatives to "save their supervisor's time, obtain information from you, or block your callentirely" (Farrell, 1994:73).

Moreover, the caller's complaint in (33) does echo certain characteristics we observed in theEnglish call recorded at Kansai Imports in (27), and in the relatively more blunt problem reportcall to the telephone company appearing in (29). That is, there is an explicit placement ofblame or responsibility on the service provider ('you people shipped us 3000 of these things,and they don't fit our product'). Moreover, the customer tries to avoid responsibility for theproblem by stating, 'we only ordered 300.' Again, this is said to be typical of accounts.

5.4.4. Additional telephone billing problem examples

lacobucci's study includes these additional, authentic examples, which are similar to those inthe previous section in their directness. These are naturally-occurring examples, however.


-> 1 C My phone was shut off (2.0) I'd like to know why.2 R Okay, have you verified this with repair ma'am?


1 R You don't know who that call belongs to?-> 2 C What do you mean, I don't know who that call belongs to? I've got a

bunch of things here I don't know who it belongs to. I think there'ssome problem somewhere with your computer, or (.) with my line.8


1 R Okay, how may I help you.


-> 2 C Well, I just received my bill, and there is a call on here (.) looks likeI made it from Cleveland, Ohio, and I did not, for thirty seven dollarsand fifty cents.

5.5. PROBLEM REPORTING SEQUENCES INENGLISH vs. JAPANESE SERVICE ENCOUNTERS

Based on this admittedly limited set of data, it does seem that the "moves" adopted by theAmerican callers in presenting their problem reports may be more direct and to the point ascompared to the maeoki we have considered from Japanese problem reports in this and otherchapters. If we consider these utterances within their respective sequential contexts, some ofthe apparent contrasts in the features of the reasons-for-call in American English vs. Japanesemay actually be partially explained, however. That is, the maeoki utterances by Japanese callersin problem reports as well as in other types of calls in the JBC corpus typically occur in the"anchor position" after the conversationalists have completed what is usually a "routine" openingsequence, namely the exchange of company and/or self-identifications and, in the case of callsfrom commercial service recipients, an exchange of business salutations. Thus it is the caller inJapanese who typically initiates the next adjacency pair after the opening sequence. In otherwords, the caller's maeoki represents the opening move of a new sequence, and as such itunderstandably incorporates more linguistic devices intended to signal the onset of what representsa transitional phase in the conversation. In contrast, in the English conversations we havediscussed, the customer service representative announces a shift to the matter of businessthrough an explicit offer of service such as 'How can I help you?' The service recipient'sreason-for-call thus represents the second part of an adjacency pair as opposed to the first. As aresult, it may be less critical that the caller preface his or her account with mitigating devices,hesitation markers, and so on.

5.5.1. Relational vs. task goals in accounts

I would now like to return to a discussion of lacobucci's study in order to highlight some of heranalyses with respect to the accounts being presented by callers, and the formulations used bycall recipients to respond to caller inquiries. lacobucci points out that accounts have traditionallybeen viewed as "face-work devices," aimed at achieving relational as opposed to task-orientedgoals (e.g., Blatz, 1972; Blumstein, 1974; Goffman, 1971; Shields, 1979).9 However, morerecent studies have suggested that "social actors" seek both relational (viz., face) and task wantsas concurrent but separate goals (O'Keefe and Shepherd, 1987; O'Keefe, 1988) that may beaddressed during the same turn in the discourse (lacobucci, 1990:87).

But lacobucci also notes Goffman's (1967) observation that face-work is not necessarily a goalin and of itself, despite its integral and essential nature hi interactions. She also cites Fisher's (1980)suggestion that previous attempts by scholars to distinguish between relation and task as separatedimensions may be problematic. lacobucci thus proposes that:


[A]n equally possible explanation of the customers' use of accountsin presenting troubles to representatives is that rather than havingmultiple goals, customers have only one overarching goal whichis task-oriented and which is generally the complement of thecompany representatives' goal, namely to solve the customers'trouble, though within the structure provided by the company.The customers' strategy could be understood as including the useof accounts to establish injury, innocence, etc., to justifyremediation as the outcome of work on the task, not primarily inresponse to the face-threat posed by the billing trouble. From thisperspective, seemingly relation-oriented talk would occurreflecting the customers' understanding of how to go aboutachieving the task-goal, even though this understanding differsfrom that of the company representative. (lacobucci, 1990:88,emphasis mine)

What lacobucci appears to be describing here would seem to parallel some of the kinds of"interactional asynchrony" which Jefferson and Lee (1981) identified with respect to serviceencounters, although lacobucci uses the term "trouble" for customer concerns whereas Jeffersonand Lee reserve that term for everyday tellings.

5.5.2. Opening sequences in English calls to service institutions

I will return to this notion of asynchrony shortly, but first I would also like to note lacobucci'sclaim, citing Whalen and Zimmerman (1987), that "the opening sequence of a telephone call toa service institution constrains the caller's first turn to a first topic or 'reason for call.'"Whalen and Zimmerman have made this observation based on calls placed in English toemergency services and other institutions. Regarding the sequential organization of these calls,I fully agree with their point that there is a "reduction" in the opening sequence due to theroutine absence of "recognitionals, greetings and 'howareyous" as well as the feature of "pre-beginnings" through which callers pre-select the intended type of call recipient/help-providerby choosing an appropriate number and dialing it prior to the conversation. As a result, thetypical format of a call to an emergency service parallels the excerpts we have considered fromlacobucci's data. For example:

(37) (Whalen and Zimmerman, 1987:174 , example MCE/21-9/12/simplified) [D = Dispatcher]

01D Mid-City Emergency02C Um yeah (.) somebody jus' vandalized my car,03 D What's your address.04C Thirty three twenty two: Elm.05 D Is this uh house or an apartment


06 C Ihtstuh house07 D Uh-your las' name.08 C Minsky,09 D How do you spell it.IOC M. I.N. S. K. Y.11D Wull sen' somebody out to see you.12C Than' you.13D Umhmbye.14C Bye.

However, I would argue based on my analysis of the JBC corpus, which includes calls bycustomers and commercial service recipients alike to two different types of institutions, that thesequential organization appears to differ in a significant way in Japanese. That is, whereas inthe English "institutional" (emergency and non-emergency) encounters discussed by Whalenand Zimmerman (1987), Zimmerman (1984) and others there is a "summons/answer/acknowledgment sequence" followed by the reason-for-call in the caller's first turn, inJapanese openings in the JBC data, the reason-for-cail appears at a later point, and thereforedoes not usually represent a direct response to an 'office form' or 'institutional form' ofidentification. Rather, there is typically a more extended opening sequence following the callrecipient's identification which would likely, in the case of "cold calls" by customers, at leastinclude a self-identification or "formulation of person" maeoki by that customer and anacknowledgment by the call recipient, followed by the reason-for-call.

5.5.3. Problem reports by Japanese customers to service institutions

To illustrate these points, let us consider the following example, in which a Japanese acquaintanceof an American customer contacts Kansai Imports about a damaged shipment. The call hasbeen transferred from another line at the company; recording begins when the call is picked upby an operations staff member.

(38) Problem report by Japanese acquaintance of an American customer[KI #01A-4]

1 ((call is transferred from another line; phone rings))

2 C10 A, ano NE:,Oh HES ATF

'Oh, you SEE,'

3 A Halyes

'Yes.'


4 C Ano: (name ofcity)-si NO,hes -city of

'urn, of X-CITY,'

5 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

6 C ano:: eetto, Buraian Sumisu na n desu keredoMO,HES HES Brian Smith COP-IPF EP CP

'Um, ah, it's that (I'm calling about) Brian Smith, BUT.

7 A Hai.//Konniti wa:.yes good-day

'Yes. Hello.'

8 C ota—otaku kara NE,you(+) from ATF

'You see, from YOU (all)'

9 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

IOC nankaare, ano, mizu desu KA?like that thing HES water COP-IPF Q

'like, that, you know, um, is it WATER?'

11A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

12C are ga todoiTE,that thing SUB be delivered-GER

'that arrived AND'

13 A Eeto, gomen-na(sai)=HES excuse me

'Um, excuse—'


14 C =saisyo, (shipper name)-san ga NE!~first Mr. (shipper) SUB ATF

'first, the shipper, you SEE!'

15 A Haihai.ACK ACK

'Mhm, mhm.'

16C todokete kureta nda keDO,deliver-GER give-to-in-grp-pp EP-IPF-> CP

'it's that (he/they) delivered (it), BUT...'

17 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

18C mizu ga moru tte iu no.water SUB leak-iPF-^ QT say-iPF-> EP-IPF

'it's that (Brian)'s saying the water leaks.'

19C Sonde akete mitaraBA,and then open-GER SCC-CND-PRV

'And then once we opened it and took a LOOK (inside),'

20A Hai.ACK.

'Mhm.'

21C ano: ip -pan hutaga site nakatta waYO!HES one -bottle lid SUB be fastened-GER be-NEG-PF SP SP

'um, one bottle, the lid wasn't fastened, you KNOW!'

22 A Aa, soo desu ka::.oh so cop4PF q

'Oh,re:ally!'

Despite the rather urgent tone which this caller assumes in her problem report (note that she isactually the first to speak, in line 2, after the call is transferred) the caller nonetheless providessome preliminary utterances in the form of an attention-focuser (A, ano NE:), a geographicalpoint of reference (Ano:(name ofcity)-si NO) and the name of the customer on whose behalfshe is calling (ano:: eetto, Buraian Sumisu na n desu keredoMO). The city name together withthe customer's name function as a formulation of place and person simultaneously, much like


the /company affiliation + name/ self-identification sequences we saw in other JBC calls bycommercial service recipients. In line 8, in response to the call recipient's acknowledgment andgreeting, she begins her account of the problem in a semi-chronological fashion. First sheindicates where the package originated (ota—otaku kara NE), what the package contained(nanka are, ano, mizu desu KA?), and the fact that it was delivered (are ga todoiTE). At thispoint in line 13 the call recipient tries to cut in, possibly to ask for the customer's membernumber, but the caller resumes her account, noting the name of the shipper and the fact that thecompany had delivered the shipment. Then she at last comes to the problem in line 18. namelythat the customer said that water was leaking from the package. She also goes on to explain thatthey opened up the box and found that the lid was not fastened. The call recipient then respondswith an affiliation of sorts, A soo desu ka:.

5.5.4. Example of a "reduced" opening in a call by a Japanese customer

As was noted earlier, only one service representative in the JBC corpus was observed toexplicitly "invite" a maeoki at the outset of a call through an explicit offer of assistance. In theabsence of such offers, very few callers presented a reason-for-call in their first turns. Thefollowing call is one of the exceptions (the first portion is reproduced in (39) below). Note thehesitation and apology which precede the maeoki in line 3 (the caller's first utterance), as wellas the permission request in line 5. The call also nicely illustrates a Japanese "interrogativeseries" that occurs in cases in which a representative requests an address (i.e., when thecustomer does not volunteer the information). The address is given in the order of largestgeographical area to smallest geographical area, followed by the customer's name (this customerforgot to mention the postal code at the outset and was prompted for it later in the call). Alsoobserve the representative's question regarding how to write the customer's name; as we notedin an earlier book order call, this relates to the need to explain which Chinese characters (kanzi)are used in the writing of one's own name or company affiliation in Japanese.

(39) Call from customer requesting a catalog [KI #1A-2]((Opening segment through address and name details))

1 C ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Kansai Yunyuu desu.yes Kansai Imports


3 C A, sumimasen. Ano, katarogu, okutte itadakitai n desu kedo. =oh be sorry-iPF HES catalog send-GER receive-DES-ipp EP CP

'Oh, excuse me. Urn, it's that I'd like to order a catalog, but....'


4 A =Hai. Etto. =ACK HES

'Okay. Urn....'

5 C Yorosii desu ka?good (+) COP-IPF Q

'Is it all right (to request one now?)'

6 A Hai, de wa, gozyuusyo itadakemasu ka?yes well then address (+) receive-POT-iPF Q

'Yes, well then, may I have your address?'

7 C Hai, (prefecture name)-ken, (county name)-gunACK -Prefecture -County

'Okay, X-Prefecture, X-County,'

((in lines 8-18 the rest of the address is given and confirmed))

19C Hai. Suzuki:yes

'Yes. Suzuki:'

20 A Suzuki, hai,ACK

'Suzuki, okay,'

21C Hitomi to iimasu.QT be called-ipp

'Hitomi is my name.'

22 A Hitomi-san.Ms. Hitomi (Suzuki)

'Ms. Hitomi (Suzuki).'

23 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

24C ...tto, Hitomi-san \va, donoyoo ni okaki simasu ka?HES Ms. Hitomi TOP in what manner write-ippvl/ Q

'Um, as for Ms. Hitomi, how shall I write it?'


5.6. INTERACTIONAL ASYNCHRONY IN ENGLISH: SERVICE RECIPIENTS'ACCOUNTS vs. SERVICE PROVIDERS' FORMULATIONS

In her study investigating billing problem calls to an American telephone company, lacobuccipoints out that while a great deal of analytical attention has been focused on the openingsequences of telephone conversations in order to ascertain how "caller and answerer align theirrespective identities" during those segments (lacobucci, 1990:90), little research has beenconducted with respect to the development of what she terms "non-alignment" or "coordinationproblems" between the conversationalists at later points in the call as the service provider andservice recipient negotiate solutions to the caller's reported troubles. In short, what she isreferring to here is a matter of asynchrony.

lacobucci suggests that non-alignments may develop in situations in which the caller/service-recipient, who is not an "acculturated member of the telephone service community," mustcollaborate with the service provider, who is well-versed in institutional practices and policies,in order to achieve his/her task-goals.

Using Goffman's (1967) concepts and terminology regarding identity management and itsinfluence on interactional outcomes, lacobucci (1990:90) notes that the institutional representativepresents the "company line," which establishes the situation and represents the point of referenceto which the service recipient must "align his/her action." Accounts are thus a way for customersto justify their problems in the interest of receiving validation of their worth and achieving theirgoals. Much in the same way that Jefferson and Lee (1981) noted that it would be inappropriateor "soft" for a service encounter representative to offer affiliations—in other words, sympatheticor empathetic utterances—in response to troubles-tellings or problem reports, lacobucci likewisenotes that "the company representative presents a wholly task-oriented posture, most typicallya uniform bureaucratic presentation which rigidly sets the tone for the interactional protocol"(lacobucci, 1990:91). Customers, on the other hand, think that they should provide seeminglyrelevant information in order to either "prove innocence" or "develop a case for justification,"working under the assumption that someone must be accountable for their problems.

To illustrate this, she provides this example:


1 C I've got a bill of a hundred and seventy one dollars and somechange, and my oldest has to go into the hospital (.) and I won't havethe money until the ninth and I will be in on the ninth to pay thewhole thing,(untimed gap)

2 R This will be until March the ninth?3 C Yes.4 R Okay, and this will be for the full amount of one hundred seventy

one dollars and forty one cents?


5 C Yes, that's correct.6 R Okay, that would be fine. I'll go and make the arrangements for you

to make that payment on March the ninth.

Despite the customer's rather detailed account of her reason-for-call, the representative respondsonly to the factual, date-oriented information about the payment, formulating or recasting whatshe has heard from the caller in order to confirm her own, and also the caller's, understandingof what is being collaboratively negotiated. In her first two formulations in lines 2 and 4, sheuses an interrogative form to seek confirmation from the service recipient about how best toresolve the situation. Finally, however, once she has ascertained and also displayed the detailsof their understanding, she agrees to assist the service recipient and states, using a declarativeform of an offer, that she will go take care of the arrangements for the payment. Her utterancethus functions as a statement conveying her willingness and intention to help the service.recipient. lacobucci also notes that this final, declarative form in the sequence of successiveformulations signals to the caller that s/he may go ahead and introduce other problematic callsif there are any more to discuss.

5.7. PROBLEM RESOLUTION IN ENGLISH vs. JAPANESE

5.7.1. Using formulations to achieve goal synchrony in English

There are a number of devices which may be used in English to present formulations; thefollowing are a few examples from lacobucci's data:

(41) Examples of English formulations in billing problem reports(lacobucci, 1990: 93-95)

1. So all these numbers are unrecognisable then?2. Oh, so you thought the call was coming TO you.3. Okay, do you want listings that will tell you who they belong to

then?4. Okay, would you like credit for these calls then?5. Okay, what I can do is to have it investigated for you, and in the

meanwhile, let me deduct it, okay?6. Okay, let me go ahead and send you the listing.7. Okay, hold on for just a moment. I'll go ahead and give your credit

and let you know what you need to deduct.

Similar features we may observe among some of these utterances are (1) the use of 'so' as anutterance-initial signal of a formulation as an imminent "next-action"; (2) the use of 'okay' asan acknowledgment of the service recipient's previous utterance, and as a way of introducingthe formulation; (3) the use of interrogative utterances inquiring about the call recipient'spreferences or goals, e.g., 'do you want...?' and 'would you like...?'; and (3) the use of the


phrase 'let me...' in order to specify what it is the service provider will undertake in terms ofassistance.

5.7.2. Using formulations to achieve goal synchrony in Japanese

If we now compare the moves and devices we have identified over the course of this bookwhich Japanese service recipients use to report problems and Japanese service providers use tooffer assistance, we note there are significant parallels in terms of the form and function ofthese formulations in Japanese with those just presented in English.

5.7.2.1. Using the EP (no desu) to create a "common ground. " We have noted very frequentlyin previous chapters how essential the EP or n(o) desu construction is to the negotiation ofmeaning and intention in the JBC calls presented here. Noda (1981, 1990) has proposed thatone of the underlying functions of this form is one of achieving linguistic "common ground" inthe sense of the Japanese term nemawasi.

Nema\vasi is a compound of two Japanese words, ne ('root') and mawasi ('wrap around'). Theexpression originated as a gardening term meaning 'spadework,' which referred to the pruningback of the root ball of a tree one or two years prior to its transplanting. The completion of this'preparation work' or 'groundwork' in advance makes it possible to transfer the root ballwithout injuring the tree.

The word nemawasi is now also used in the business world to refer to the 'groundwork' thatprecedes formal decision making in Japan. By obtaining the consensus of all parties involvedprior to the conclusion of an issue, a common ground is established among those involvedwhich helps to maintain harmony.

As an illustration, let us now consider the sequences containing the EP from the call wediscussed earlier between Ms. Yamamoto of Kansai Imports and Mr. Kaneda of Kobe Shipping:

(42) Sequences containing EP in KI #3B-11

14C E:to desu ne? Kono mae, ano: e:: ohuisu kara okutta,HES COP-IPF ATF the other day HES HES office from send-pp

15C BUkku no bun na n desu kedoMO:book(s) CN portion COP4PF EP CP

'Urn, you know, it's that (I'm calling about) um, (a) BOok order(we) sent from (the) office the other day, BUT...'

17 C =zyuuiti-gatu zyuuroku-niti: =November 16th



19C okutta bun no// ndesukedoMO:send-pp portion COP-IPF EP CP

'it's that (I'm talking about) part of the order sent (on that date),BUT'

33C (0.3) E:to mityaku rasii/l ndesu:.HES not yet arrived seems EP

(0.3 second pause) 'Um, it's that it seems (it)'s not yet arrived.'

41A2 E: nizyuuiti-niti desu nelHES 21st COP-IPF ATF

'um, (on) the 21st, you see,'

43 A2 kanryoo \va nee, dete oru n desu yo.completion TOP ATF show up be-ipp(+) EP SP


53A2 =Kiite okimasu n de:ask-GER do for future use-iPF EP-GER

'It's that (I/we)'ll ask about (it), so....'

Essentially what we have here is an outline of most of the critical elements and moves in thecall. In the first sequence (lines 14-15), Yamamoto provides the initial formulation of thesituation through her maeoki about the books having been sent from her office the other day(kono mae, ano: e:: ohuisu kara okutta, BUkku no bun na n desu kedoMO). This is followedshortly thereafter by her reformulation in lines 17 and 19, which incorporates a more specificdate (the 16th): zyuuiti-gatu zyuuroku-niti: okutta bun na n desu kedoMO. Next, we seeYamamoto's response to, or recharacterization of, Kaneda's inquiry as to whether the packagedidn't arrive: E:to mityaku rasii n desu. ThenkKaneda reformulates that proposed understandingof the situation with the new news in lines-4kand 43 that the computer is showing completionof delivery on the 21st: E: nizyuuiti-niti deswne! kanryoo wa nee, dete oru n desu yo. Finally,we have the "last word" in the discussion,' in which Kaneda offers to look into getting a copy ofthe signature release form, which Yamamot&;had requested: Kiite okimasu n de.

Recall that often the EP functions to mark ;any information that appears just before it in theutterance as given and nonchallengeable, even though that information may appear to be"news" to the interlocutor. The EP also anchors that information to the larger discourse context.It is through these two functions that the EP serves to broaden the 'common ground' betweenthe participants. One of the most common glosses used in English for the EP is a cleft construction:'it's that....' The EP is thus often described as having an underlying function of explanation.As we have seen, formulations are a type of explanation; 1ljey serve to display the speaker'sundertanding of the present discourse situation.


Noda (1981) and Ray (1989) have emphasized that it is actually the nominal no (or its alternant«)which alerts the listener to the fact that the speaker is trying to relate the new informationmarked by the EP to the immediately preceding discourse or the larger communicative context.By using n(o), the speaker can therefore recharacterize the immediate discourse situation.Noda (1990:95) notes,

The use of the extended predicate nurtures ... solidarity by encodingthe speaker's re-characterization of a specific situation shared byother conversation participants. It is a strategy like others thatBrown and Levinson include in 'positive politeness.'...Theextended predicate is used as a strategy of nemawasi when it isused with an immediately following clause particle ga, ke(re)do,or ke(re)domo, all of which have the same basic function ofmaking the preceding proposition open-ended.

Of the examples presented in (42), we note that it is the earlier sequences in the call whichincorporate both the EP and the clause particle, namely Yamamoto's opening statements aboutthe apparent incomplete delivery. As the situation becomes increasingly clear over the courseof the conversation, the markings on the EP shift from open-ended clause particles to nomarking (mityaku rasii n desii) to the use of the sentence particle yo, which signals newinformation. Finally, we have Kaneda's offer in line 53 which, although it does not include aclause particle, is nonetheless open-ended due to its utterance-final gerund form.

Noda's (1990) discussion of nemawasi and the extended predicate is primarily concerned withconflict situations that are characterized by 'attack' and 'defense' discourse; her data samplesare taken from student conversations, a Diet (Japanese parliament) session, and an academicsymposium. However, her analysis is also applicable to the reporting and resolution of problemsin business transactional telephone calls, because such reports are potential sources of conflictbetween service recipients and service providers. Indeed, nemawasi is a strategy which theJapanese are likely to employ in any negotiation, not just those involving conflict.

5.7.2.2. The role of /-masyoo ka?/ in formulating service recipients' preferences. We noted insection 5.7.1. that a common strategy in the English calls at the telephone company was for therepresentative to first use an interrogative form to propose an initial, tentative formulation ofthe service recipient's needs or goals vis a vis the billing problem, and if this were accepted bythe service recipient, the representative would then follow this with a more definitive formulationin the declarative form.

We find exactly the same pattern in the behavior of many of the service providers in the JBCdata. That is, if a service provider has some information that needs to be confirmed with theservice recipient prior to the service provider's undertaking some form of assistance regardinga problem, the service provider will use the consultative /-masyoo ka?/ form for his initial offerof service. One example of this is Kaneda's offer Sain... torimasyoo ka? in his conversationwith Yamamoto. Since he is not yet sure whether Yamamoto wants him to actually get the


signature for her, he checks with her first. Then, once she has confirmed his tentative assessmentthat this would be an appropriate "move" for him to undertake, he restates his intention toinquire about the signature in his subsequent utterance, Kiite okimasu n de:.

Another use of the l-masyoo ka?l pattern we have observed in the data is for offers of a returncall during the opening segment of conversations. The underlying function of the form isnonetheless constant, in that it serves to ascertain the preferences of the interlocutor withrespect to the return call in a tentative, consultative fashion.

5.7.2.3. The role of /-masu n(o) de/ in formulating service providers' intentions. We noted inthe previous section that service providers in the JBC corpus will employ the /-masu n(o) delform in a sequential fashion, after the l-masyoo ka?l form. Their purpose in making a secondoffer of assistance this way is usually to reiterate an earlier suggestion of service, or to reassurethe service recipient that the service provider will take care of the matter under discussion. Wehave also observed yet another function of the /-masu n(o) de/ form, and that is its use as apossible pre-closing bid. Since the pattern is employed to restate previously agreed-upon matters,it can signal the speaker's willingness to end the discussion of current topic(s), and movetoward the close of the conversation. Should the interlocutor have another issue or topic to raiseat that juncture, we have seen that the conversationalists will co-construct a transition into thatnew topic, rather than move into the closing section of the call. It is interesting in this regardthat lacobucci has identified a similar function for the declarative English formulation utterancesin her data (e.g., 'Okay, let me go ahead and send you the listing'), in that they can signal that"the customer is free to introduce a new problem" in the next turn (lacobucci, 1990:94).

It was also found in the JBC corpus that it is not always necessary for a service provider to firstproduce a tentative formulation prior to making a definitive offer of assistance. In these cases,the service provider might already have obtained a sufficient indication from the service recipientor other sources as to what sort of remedy would be appropriate. The ensuing offer of servicewould then likely take either the simple declarative form ending in /-masu/, or the declarativefollowed by the EP gerund form, /-masu n(o) del. The latter form would be preferred if theservice provider is attempting to reformulate his understanding of the present discourse situation.


In this chapter, we initially considered two problem reports in Japanese. The first was presentedas an example of "interactional synchrony" in that the participants, Yamamoto of KansaiImports and Kaneda of Kobe Shipping, display an understanding of each other's intentions andneeds through their talk. We noted that Yamamoto uses the EP to frame her maeoki andsubsequent utterances as she presents new information as recastings or formulations of thepresent situation to be viewed as nonchallengeable by Kaneda. Kaneda, in turn, responds byperceiving the possible problem before it becomes necessary for Yamamoto to state it explicitly.He also offers assistance in resolving the question of the signature—first in a tentative fashionwith the l-masyoo ka?l form, and again after Yamamoto has concurred, in a statement ofgrounded assurance with the /-masu n del form.


In contrast, the second call between Yamamoto and two clerks at Master Electric would seemto reflect some of the tensions indicative of what Jefferson and Lee (1981) have called"interactional asynchrony." Various features of the initial call recipient's talk were identified asbeing atypical of the types of utterances adopted by conversationalists such as Yamamoto andKaneda who have a better feel for their roles in such problem-reporting situations. The seeming"essential indifference" of the first Master Electric clerk to Yamamoto's attempts to provide anaccount of the problem in order to resolve a delivery issue contrasts with the behavior of thesecond clerk, Hashimoto. Like Kaneda, Hashimoto is able to perceive (or perhaps has beeninformed of) the discrepancy in the transformer order vs. what has been delivered, and throughhis talk he demonstrates an appropriate "essential interest" in the "problem and its properties"as they are presented by Yamamoto. Although he is unable to resolve the problem on the spot,he does offer, initially through a l-masyoo ka?l utterance, to look into the matter and callYamamoto back. He then displays his familiarity with the moves appropriate to a clerk in thiscontext by carefully confirming the number of transformers which Yamamoto still needs. Heaccomplishes this through a series of formulations and reformulations to demonstrate hisunderstanding of the situation. Collaboratively, then, these two conversationalists are able toachieve a mutually satisfactory resolution to a problematic situation, and Hashimoto signals anend to their discussion with a restatement of his offer of assistance, this time in the plaindeclarative l-masul form.

We also reconsidered the call by Ms. Yamada of Tokyo Books to the clerk at Fukuda Books,which had been discussed initially in chapter 1 (the "Hahaha no hanasi" call). This call hasmany parallels with the Master Electric call, in that the participants initially find themselves ina misaligned position, with the clerk attempting to place an order for the missing book, andYamada trying to redirect his attention to the request for a "look-up" on an incomplete shipmentwhich she had initially provided in her maeoki at the outset of the call. Ultimately, againthrough a series of formulations concluded with the EP, Yamada is able to clarify her intentionsfor the clerk. Once they have re-aligned their identities and task responsibilities, the clerk isable to assist by offering to look into the matter, in this case through two sequential utterances,both in the l-masu no del form.

Finally, we examined a number of problem report calls in English with some contrastingexamples in Japanese in order to raise several issues for future research. First, in the Englishcalls it appears that service recipients present their reasons-for-call immediately following anexplicit offer of assistance by the service provider, parallelling the sequential organization thathas been demonstrated in English calls to emergency services, as well as to certain other"service institutions." In contrast, Japanese customers and commercial service recipients alikepresented self-identifications and other information prior to proceeding with an account of theirproblems. As a result, "reduced" openings of the sort observed by Whalen and Zimmerman (1987)and others were noted to be the exception in Japanese, at least in calls in this corpus.

Another apparent difference between call openings in the two languages is the fact that themaeoki is a sequence-initial utterance, rather than a response to an explicit offer of service. Infact, we noted that such explicit offers of service were extremely rare in the JBC corpus.


A brief discussion of accounts, primarily with respect to their use by English-speaking callers,revealed that there is perhaps a tendency for English conversationalists to present their problemsin a more direct fashion, with fewer hesitation markers, preliminary statements, and othersofteners. It was acknowledged, however, that other strategies were possibly employed by theEnglish callers to achieve face-work goals. In view of findings by Buttny (1993) and Scott andLyman (1968), we suggested that the way in which speakers produce and manage accountsmay differ cross-culturally and cross-linguistically, and that further exploration of these sorts ofinteractions would be helpful in order to better identify any contrasting approaches.

In the last part of the chapter, we discussed formulations in English and Japanese, and foundthat at least in terms of function and also often in terms of form, there are parallels between thetwo languages. In particular, the sequencing of an interrogative formulation followed by adeclarative formulation, which lacobucci (1990) observed in the speech of English-speakingservice providers attempting to resolve customer problems, echoed a similar pattern observedon a regular basis in the JBC corpus, with the l-masyoo ka?l form being used intially to proposea tentative offer of service, followed by an offer in the declarative l-masu no del form toreiterate an intention to assist the caller. We also underscored the ubiquitous nature and criticaldeictic function of the extended predicate (EP) in these calls.

NOTES

1. It is likely that similar language would appear in other types of service encounters as well—forexample, travel agency service encounters, in which agents indicate that they are 'showing' availabilityfor various flights. See Geis (1995:45) for a discussion of such register features in American Englishtravel agency encounters.

2. Yamamoto probably intended to say sareru here, adopting a passive form as an honorific-politeutterance in referring to the shipper.

3. See Maynard (1989:30-31) on the use ofnanka as a filler. She argues that such fillers "can create anatmosphere in which the speaker shows some hesitancy and less certainty about his or her messagecontent, and, therefore, gives an impression of being less imposing" (Maynard, 1989:31).

4. In standard Japanese, the sentence particle wa is usually uttered by women to convey a mild assertivetone, but in Kansai it is used by both sexes for similar effect.

5. The Isasiagemasyo ka?l portion was uttered with the slightly flat intonation common among Kobespeakers; note also the shortened vowel in sasiagemasyo.

6. Hymes (1974:51) has defined "speech community" as "a community sharing knowledge of rules forthe conduct and interpretation of speech."

7. In a recent discussion about this issue with Noriko Watanabe, we considered the possibility that thereare perhaps culturally-nuanced notions of what constitutes "rhetorical" or "narrative efficiency" in thesecustomer service contexts. Japanese callers might volunteer identifying details at the outset of the call,thinking that this would be a considerate or helpful gesture to the customer service representative, yetthey might also begin an account of the problem in a general way, only later moving to specifics. The


latter rhetorical pattern would be consistent with other such patterns in Japanese, such as the orderusually observed in self-introductions of company name/section name/surname, and in addresses ofpostal code/(country name)/prefectural name/county or city name/street address/addressee's name. (Apartial illustration of the way in which addresses are "announced" appears in example 39 in thischapter.) With respect to calls in English, Eleanor Olds Batchelder has suggested to me that someAmerican callers might think it "pushy" to provide one's account or membership number during theopening of a call, thinking that the customer service representative might not yet be ready to take downthose details. She also proposed that differences in corporate training practices might partially accountfor the varying ways in which customer service representatives respond to and request such identifyinginformation in Japan vs. the United States.

8. The symbol (.) in this and the next example from lacobucci indicates a brief pause.

9. The distinction between relation-oriented and task-oriented talk to which lacobucci refers parallelsthat of interactional vs. transactional discourse (Brown and Yule, 1983) which was mentioned earlier inthis book.

10. Note that this is one call in which the caller spoke first; however, the call was transferred fromanother line.


6

CULTURAL AND SOCIOLINGUISTICCONSIDERATIONS

6.1. INTRODUCTION

At several points in our analysis of JBC calls we have noted ways in which conversationalistsappear to behave in a manner that is perhaps consonant with larger cultural norms and valueswhich are positively viewed in Japan. In this chapter, we will consider some of the metalanguageused by speakers of Japanese to describe what some scholars have described as socially preferredmeans of communication. We will also briefly examine how ellipsis and uti/soto deixis functionin Japanese. Finally, we will discuss Hall's (1976) characterization of Japan as a "high contextculture" and explore some of the ways in which this notion may apply to JBCs.

The purpose of this chapter is to present and reflect upon some of the notions said to becollectively shared by Japanese native speakers, in particular for the benefit of readers whomay not be familiar with these concepts. It should be emphasized that the objective is not toclaim that these notions have a causal effect on linguistic behavior, nor that the conceptsdescribed below are necessarily "unique" to Japanese culture or to the Japanese language.Rather, it may be that the existence of these "folk terms" to some degree influence the beliefsand expectations that many Japanese conversationalists bring to their interactions, and these inturn may partially affect the way in which certain encounters unfold.

6.2. METALANGUAGE REGARDING COMMUNICATION IN JAPANESE

6.2.1. Ki and sassi

There are numerous commonly used phrases in Japanese which have a positive connotation andare used to describe the perceptiveness of an individual in interactional situations. Many of


these include or are related to the term sassi, which is equivalent to 'judgment,' 'understanding'or 'comprehension.' For example, describing a person as sassi ga ii, 'being considerate' or'sympathetic' is very complimentary. As Ishii (1984:55) notes, "in Japanese society, a personwho is good at.. .perceiving intuitively another person's thoughts and feelings is highly appreciatedfor having what is called sassi competence."1 The verb sassuru, which can be glossed as 'catchon to (the meaning),' 'sympathize with,' or 'feel for,' also appears in a related expression mimeno uti o sassuru, meaning 'read (a person's) mind (or thoughts).' The verb satti sum, whichshares the same initial Chinese character (§||) with sassi and sassuru, is equivalent to 'perceive,''observe,' or 'sense.' One other term with a similar meaning but unrelated morphology isosihakaru, 'enter into (a person's) feelings.'

The term ki, which may be glossed as 'energy,' 'spirit,' or 'mind,' also figures in numerousmetalinguistic or folk expressions. Rosenberger( 1994:110, fn. 6) describes ki as follows:2

The basic spiritual energy is called ki which in its original meaningin China and Japan conveyed the idea of a power of the universethat inhered in people's bodies as well as other objects. Incontemporary Japan, Japanese use ki in relation to a person todescribe an energy that is of the spirit or the heart, rather than thebody or universe. The ki reaches out and meets with the ki ofother people, and is easily influenced by the environment.

The phrases ki ga kiku, 'have good judgment,' ki o kikasu and ki o kikaseru, 'consider voluntarily,'are used as indications of approval. The verb kiku means 'take effect,' or 'operate,' so thesephrases convey the sense that a person's ki is 'taking effect.' The phrase ki o tukau, literally to'use ki,' describes a person who is alert and solicitous of others' needs.

In contrast with these expressions of positively valued traits, there are also correspondingexpressions with negative connotations. For example, describing a person as sassi ga warui(literally, the 'sassi is bad') suggests that s/he is 'inconsiderate' or 'unsympathetic.' Saying thathito no kimoti ni taisuru sassi ga nai indicates that a person 'lacks consideration for thefeelings of others.' The label ki ga kikanai (literally, the 'ki does not take effect') describessomeone who is 'dull, awkward, unrefined.' A ki no tukanai hito is 'a person whose ki is noteffective' — in other words, a 'thoughtless, inconsiderate person.'

Tsuruta et al. have suggested that the notions of osihakaru and ki o kikaseru are visible in theexpression of offers of assistance (zyoryoku no moosiide) in Japanese:

In various aspects of interpersonal relationships in Japanese society,perceiving what is in the mind of the other person and behavingaccordingly, without a word to the other person, is generallyconsidered to be a good thing. In particular, this tendency isrevealed most strikingly in offers of assistance [zyoryoku nomoosiide}, which are usually made on behalf of the other person;sensing the immediate needs of the other person and taking these

Cultural and Sociolinguistic Considerations 257

as a cue for one's own behavior [ki o kikaseru koto] is valuedhighly in [Japanese] society. Although to some extent this maybe pushy [tasyoo no osituke], such actions are interpreted asdemonstrations of empathy [omoiyari} (Tsuruta et al., 1988:138,my translation).

6.2.2. Omoiyari and kikubari

In speaking of the positive value accorded to offers of assistance in Japanese, Tsuruta (in thequotation above) refers to the notion of omoiyari. Omoiyari, 'empathy,' is a noun form of theverb omoiyaru, which may be glossed as 'guess,' 'sympathize,' or 'put oneself in someone'sshoes.' Both words are actually compounds, based on the noun omoi 'thought' or 'feeling,' andthe verbyaru 'give,' or 'do (for someone).' In effect, then, a person who demonstrates omoiyariis one who gives thought or consideration for the feelings of others.

Lebra(1976) describes the concept of omoiyari as follows:

the ability and willingness to feel what others are feeling, tovicariously experience the pleasure or pain that they are undergoing,and to help them satisfy their wishes. Kindness or benevolencebecomes omoiyari only if it is derived from such sensitivity tothe recipient's feelings. The ideal inomoiyari is for Ego to enterinto Alter's kokoro, 'heart,' and to absorb all information aboutAlter's feelings without being told verbally (Lebra, 1976:38,emphasis mine).

Lebra's point that the ideal situation is one in which a listener will "absorb all information...withoutbeing told verbally" echoes Tsuruta's remarks, and emphasizes the degree to which Japaneselisteners are expected to perceive and act upon their interactants' feelings and needs.

Lebra also claims that omoiyari is expressed in conversation when

the speaker does not complete a sentence but leaves it open-endedin such a way that the listener will take it over' before the formerclearly expresses his will or opinion. This is possible because, inJapanese, the verb expressing the speaker's will comes at the endof the sentence. By letting a sentence trail off before coming tothe verb, the speaker can avoid expressing and imposing his ideasbefore knowing the listener's response (Lebra, 1976:38-9,emphasis mine).

In support of her argument, Lebra paraphrases a remark by Seidensticker that "the Japaneseattach importance to nouns and pronouns perhaps because they mistrust the definitiveness ofverbs" (Lebra, 1976:39). Clearly this is an overstatement; Japanese of course regularly employ


verbs to predicate their utterances. However, as we have observed in numerous excerpts fromthe data, much of Japanese conversation is indeed characterized by minor sentences whichcontain noun phrases, often followed by particles but without a predicating verb. This is theopen-endedness to which Lebra refers.

Smith (1983:57) cites a similar quotation from Reischauer (1977:136), who claims that theJapanese "have a genuine mistrust of verbal skills, thinking that these tend to show superficialityin contrast to inner, less articulate feelings that are communicated by innuendo or by non-verbalmeans." According to Smith, "This means that many messages are not only minimal butactually obscure as well, so that the success of communication depends as much on the sensitivityof the recipient as on the quality of the message sent. Indeed, failure of communication, whichis not uncommon, is generally blamed on the receiver. It follows, therefore, that the moreexperiences sender and receiver have shared in repeated encounters, the greater the likelihoodof successful communication (Smith, 1983:57).

While Reischauer's statement, like Seidensticker's, overstates the case considerably, Smith'scomments about the importance of mutual, "repeated encounters" in the role relationship of"sender and receiver" parallel the points which have been made in this book about the relationshipbetween established role relationships and smooth interactions in JBCs.

Szatrowski (1992a) has suggested that omoiyari is a strategy used by Japanese participants ininvitation sequences in order to show compassion or sympathy. This occurs "when the invitee,whose goal may be to refuse, leaves the possibility of acceptance open while developing theconversation in the direction of a refusal, thus showing sympathy and compassion for theinviter" (Szatrowski, 1992a:l).

Another strategy which Szatrowski argues that Japanese speakers adopt in the context ofinvitations is that of kikubari:

which literally means to distribute ki, energy or attention or showingconsideration. I have observed this strategy when an inviter showssensitivity for the invitee. An example is when an inviter makes iteasier for the invitee to refuse after the invitee has indicated thepotential for refusal (Szatrowski, 1992a:l).

Speakers may also demonstrate the same strategies of sensitivity and consideration for others inthe expression of offers. For example, Nishihara (1994) has observed that the way hosts andhostesses offer food and drink to guests differs significantly in Japan and the United States. Shenotes that a Japanese host(ess) will usually anticipate a guest's needs and provide refreshmentimmediately, without inquiring about the guest's preferences:

...in both Japanese homes and companies, drinks are often servedto visitors. In the summer this would be cold barley tea [mugitya],in the other seasons green tea [otya] would be commonly offered.It is rare that the guest be asked, "What would you like to drink?"


The host serves drinks without allowing the guest the chance toaccept or refuse. This no doubt comes from the good intentionsof the host who anticipates the situation, feeling that someonecoming from outside must surely be thirsty or would like to relaxa bit with some refreshment before getting down to business. Inan American home or company there would most likely be nosudden appearance of drinks. If there is no secretary assumingthe role of tea-server, there is no likelihood that drinks would beserved without asking the guest's preference. Here, too, is evidentthe difference in communication between Japan, where oneattempts to anticipate the other's wishes and respond to thembefore resorting to words, and America, where one responds afterascertaining another's wishes through words.

Looking at it from the point of view of a Japanese, if one asks"May I get you something?" you can't expect a guest to reply"Yes, please." It would end up with the guest being reserved andresponding, "No thank you, I don't need anything. Please don'tgo to any trouble." This is however, an expression showing concernthat the guest is thirsty and should have something to drink. AnAmerican would say that it is rude to just serve arbitrarily withouteven asking what your guest would prefer. If drinks are served, itis proper to do so after finding out what they want. To Japaneseon the other hand, being pressed to make decisions—hot or cold,coffee or tea, sugar or no sugar, if so how much, how aboutcream, or would you prefer lemon, and so on—especially whenpaying a courtesy call, is very trying. It would be much kinder tohave someone make the decision for you. Here we have a criticaldifference in communication patterns (Nishihara, 1994:6).

Doi (1973:13) has made similar observations about the expectation in Japan that hosts willshow sensitivity to their guests' needs. He recalls his difficulty in coming to terms with theEnglish phrase 'help yourself as an expression of goodwill; to him, the phrase seemed to implythat 'nobody else will help you.' He goes on to point out that

The Japanese sensibility would demand that, in entertaining, ahost should show sensitivity in detecting what was required andshould himself 'help' his guests. To leave a guest unfamiliar withthe house to 'help himself would seem excessively lacking inconsideration.

Rabinowitz (1993:96) has noted in her study of offers in American English, however, that theAmerican offer to 'help yourself is not only uttered in contexts in which the addressee mightbe expected to fend for him/herself. Rabinowitz found, for example, that a hostess might utter


the phrase 'help yourself as she extends a platter of food to a guest. Moreover, althoughRabinowitz' overall findings suggest that some of the most frequently occurring linguisticforms of offers in English are those which literally inquire as to the addressee's wants, needs,or feelings (and therefore, we note, contrast with Japanese forms), most of these offers were infact what she calls "spontaneous" offers—that is, those in which the offerer had alreadyperceived that someone might have wanted something or was in need of assistance.4 Considerthe following examples from her data (Rabinowitz, 1993:106-109):

(7) Offer uttered by a hostess to visitors who have just complained thattheir child, also visiting with them, seems ill:

'I have Benadryl, if you need [it].'

(8) Offer uttered by a salesclerk to a customer who has just paid for asmall writing pad:

'You want a bag?'

(9) Offer uttered by a customer with a shopping cart who was about toenter a narrow aisle in a small fish store where a worker wassweeping the floor:

'I can come around, if you like.'

(10) Offer uttered by a hostess to a visitor who has just admired herflowers:

'You can take some home, if you want.'

(11) Offer uttered by a guest to a hostess, who is setting out plates on thetable:

'Do you need some help?'

Clearly, then, there are parallels in American English behavior which suggest that verbal offersof assistance are often prompted by the perceptiveness of the speaker, rather than as a responseto an explicit request by the interlocutor. Nishihara and Doi probably do not intend to suggestthat the Japanese are "unique" in responding to perceived needs. Rather, it would seem they aretrying to emphasize the fact that perhaps relatively more often in Japan, such offers are notgiven verbal expression. Thus the host who perceives that a guest may be thirsty simply acts onthis perception and presents an appropriate beverage for the guest, rather than asking about theguest's preferences.

There are, of course, numerous verbal expressions through which a Japanese speaker mayprovide options to the interlocutor when making an offer, and we have already observed someof them in the data for this study. For example, prefacing an offer with the phrase, mosi


yo(rosi)kereba conveys some of the sense of 'if you like' in English. Although the Japanesephrase literally means 'if (it) would be good,' by using the polite formyorosii, rather than theplain form //', a speaker can convey the sense that 'be good' is in reference to the addressee.Another option would be for the speaker to employ the consultative form !-(mas)(y)oo ka?l'Shall I....?' in the offer. As we have seen, by doing so a speaker leaves the responsibility forthe final decision up to the addressee.

Yet the fact that either of these patterns may be used still does not mean that it is permissible atany time in Japanese to ask about the needs and desires of the addressee. As Hoshino (1991)has noted, asking if someone 'wants' something by using the form /.. .(-te) hosiil is pragmaticallyconstrained in Japanese (for example, it is inappropriate when used toward superiors). Thus if astudent wants to offer a copy of something to her teacher, instead of asking

(12) # Sensee, kono kopii hosii desu ka?Teacher this copy desire COP-IPF Q

'Do you want (to have) this copy?'

the student should instead say

(13) Kopii simasyoo ka?5

COpy do-IPF-CNS Q

'Shall I copy this?'

As Hoshino explains,

Asking the superior hearer to explicate his wants is understood as[a] lack of omoiyari ('empathy') and should be avoided in theritual situation. Instead of asking the hearer to be his beneficiary,when the speaker should detect the hearer's desire, the speakercan suggest to perform the relevant action. -Masyoo is the distal-style consultative (Jorden and Noda, 1987:175) and suggests thespeaker's willingness to do the things mentioned(Hoshino, 1991:52, emphasis mine).

By 'ritual situation,' Hoshino (following Lebra 1976) means the context ofomote ('front') andsoto ('outside, external, public'), as opposed to situations that are ura ('back') and/or uti('inside, internal, private'), i.e., hidden from public view.5 This is precisely the sort of situationdescribed above in the quotations by Nishihara and Doi, as well as in the examples of Englishoffers cited by Rabinowitz. The distinction here, as Nishihara and Doi point out, is the fact thatin polite, public situations in Japan, the expectation is that people will do things for others andanticipate their needs in advance; one shouldn't have to ask what those needs might be. Thishas significant consequences; as Mari Noda has suggested (personal communication), the verbalexpression of an offer can therefore run counter to a cultural norm.


If this is the case, then when and why would a pattern such as l-(mas)(y)oo ka?l be used inJapanese? As Hoshino observes in the quotation above, this form can indicate a speaker'swillingness to do a certain activity. Also, in situations in which it is impossible or inappropriatefor a speaker to surmise what action should be taken (as we have seen in situations involvingoffers for a return call, for example), a speaker is usually better off leaving the responsibilityfor the final decision up to the addressee. But we have also noted in the JBC data that there arecases in which a service provider will extend an offer in the l-masu n(o) del pattern withoutfirst inquiring, through a l-masyoo ka?l type offer, about the service recipient's needs. This ispossible because, sequentially speaking, the l-masu n(o) del offers typically occur near theclose of calls, by way of restating the matters agreed upon in the previous discourse. As such,these offers represent a statement of intention and willingness to assist, since at this point in theconversation the participants have already collaboratively determined the needs of the servicerecipient.

6.2.3. Ma

In addition to the high value placed on sensitivity to others' needs in Japan, there is also anemphasis on the ebb and flow of what is called ma, a term which may be glossed variously as'space,' 'room,' or 'interval.' Here again, there are many phrases which the Japanese employthat help to reveal the nature of this folk concept.

Some phrases have a positive connotation, such as ma ni au; this means literally to 'meet theinterval,' and refers to being on time. (Recall that this was employed in one of the maeokipresented in chapter 3: E:to! Ano: ni-satu maniaimasu n def). Other phrases involving ma arenegative. For example, the phrase ma ga nukeru indicates that something is 'out of tune.' Theintransitive verb nukeru means 'remove (oneself, itself),' so that the phrase ma ga nukeruliterally means 'an (appropriate) space or interval removes itself; this can result in a maladroitsituation. Likewise, if a person refers to him/herself by saying ma ga warui, that person feelsawkward, out of sync, or unlucky. For the Japanese, therefore, the maintenance or support ofma, in its proper place, would appear to be important.

The notion of ma figures prominently in the Japanese traditional arts, especially in the Nohtheater.7 As described in the Daizirin (a dictionary of the Japanese language), this type of marefers to the space in time created between beats or between steps or moves in a performance. Itcan also refer to the sense of rhythm and tempo used in turning on stage.8 A related notion, mao toru, literally means 'take ma.'9 This is a situation in which one performer leaves anotherperformer some room (ma o toru), with the expectation that the other performer will comeforward to take up or fill in the ma in response (ma ni an). When these moves are performedwell—that is, when the two performers are 'in-sync' and their timing is well-coordinated, thephrase ma no torikata ga umai (literally, 'the taking of ma is skilled') may be used to praisetheir performance.

As we have seen in examples from the data, a strikingly similar kind of 'in-sync performance'may be observed among Japanese speakers in conversation. That is, speakers will leave 'space'


for their listeners to interpret what they are saying, with the expectation that listeners will 'readbetween the lines,' perceive the import of their utterances and respond appropriately. One wayin which speakers may leave such a space is through a lack of specification of certain information;this phenomenon has been referred to as ellipsis and will be discussed in section 6.3 below.

6.2.4. Enryo-sassi communication

Ishii (1984) has referred to this delicate balance of give and take between speaker and listenerin Japanese as enryo-sassi communication. According to Ishii, speakers avoid expressing theirthoughts and feelings directly through enryo, or 'modesty,' yet sensitive listeners are able tointerpret the messages through sassi, 'consideration' or 'anticipation.' Ishii argues that enryo-sassicommunication is "one of the basic principles underlying Japanese interpersonal relations"(Ishii, 1984:49).

The findings of a study by Okazaki (1993) support this observation. Okazaki examined theconversational behavior of Americans and Japanese when stating opinions, and found thatwhile the Americans were more likely to express their opinions clearly and at the outset of aconversational turn, the Japanese preferred to adopt what she calls "listener-dependent strategies."For example, when asked the question, 'What do you think about [X]?' many Japanese subjectstended to avoid stating their opinions immediately, and would instead provide a great deal ofbackground information, from which listeners were expected to draw their own conclusions.Okazaki claims that this reflects a more general tendency in Japanese conversational structure,which is "to put a long introductory comment about a topic before the thesis statement."10 Shenotes, moreover, that when and if the thesis statement is uttered, it is usually deemphasizedparalinguistically, i.e., it is given weaker stress and may be spoken quietly."

Okazaki concludes that "in Japanese conversation, a speaker's point is frequently missing onthe surface. Listeners are expected to be sensitive enough to interpret the point and understandwhere the conversation is headed by the way the speakers use contextualization cues" (Okazaki,1993:71). In the case of problem-reporting sequences in Japanese, we have observed thatsometimes even the problem itself will not be explicitly expressed, yet the interlocutor can still'read between the lines' and perceive what was intended (as illustrated in the conversationsbetween Yamamoto and Kaneda and between Yamamoto and Hashimoto, discussed in chapter5 and presented in appendixes 7 and 8). This is not done through sheer guess-work. Rather, thelarger generic frame—transacting business in Japanese on the telephone—together with certainregister features, contextualization cues, and the fact that the participants have experiencedsimilar interactions in the past, aids in the interpretation of a given speaker's utterance andsignals to the participants what interpretation(s) would be likely in that context.


6.3. ELLIPSIS AND UTI/SOTO DEIXIS

Hinds (1982) has referred to missing elements in Japanese conversation as a form of ellipsis:

Conversational interactants require fewer overt clues in the formof spoken words to carry on successful communication. ... [T]hehigh incidence of elliptical utterances forces the addressee to bemuch more receptive to subtle and transitory clues.... [T]he typicalJapanese interactant is sensitive to conversational interaction to agreater degree than the American counterpart (Hinds, 1982:70).

Monane (1981) has argued that there are two different categories of ellipsis in the languages ofthe world, including Japanese; she refers to these as "syntactic" and "informational" ellipsis.An example of syntactic ellipsis in Japanese is the omission of the subject; Martin (1975:185)has noted that "The frequency with which a subject is NOT explicitly stated—even as asubdued theme—may be as high as 74 percent of the sentences in a discourse, though it islower in expository material such as news programs."12 Such ellipsis is possible because theunmentioned information may be recovered from contextual cues and prior text. Consider thefollowing example from the Kanto data corpus, in which a male caller to Tokyo Books hasbeen asking about the possibility of receiving an estimate for an order of books. Ms. Yamada,who takes his call, responds:

(14) Promising to take care of an estimate for a customer [TB #1 A-14]

1 A: Zyaa, ano: ima ka—ima kara nagasite itadakereba:well HES nowps now from send-GER receive-iPF-POT-pRvJ/

'Well, um, from no—from now, if (you) could send (us) (a fax),'

2 C: Ee.BC

'Mhm.'

3 A: sugu ni, omitumorisyo otukuri itasimasuimmediately estimate make-ippvU

'(we) will immediately make (an) estimate,'

4 C: A soo desu ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that so.'

5 A: de waribiki mo sasite itadakimasu no deand discount also do-iPF-CAU-GER receive-iPF vp EP-GER

'and (we)'ll also take the liberty of (giving you a) discount, so....'


6 C: A, naruhodo.oh indeed

'Oh, really.'

Note that in each of Yamada's utterances, the grammatical subjects—that is, the equivalents of'you' (anata) and 'we' (watasi-domo)—are not specified.13 This is due to several contextualfactors. First, in a telephone conversation such as this that is limited to two participants, anyrequests or questions which one speaker utters are generally addressed to the other party (or thecompany that s/he represents) on the telephone. If more specification were necessary—forexample if the request concerned a third party who may or may not be present—that informationwould of course be specified, unless reference to that third person could be expected to beunderstood because of recent focus or mention in the discourse. In this conversation, however,the only participants involved are the caller and Yamada, so it is already clear for whom therequest is intended.

Secondly, Yamada's use of the pattern l-te itadakimasul, that is, the gerund of the main verbfollowed by the distal-style, humble-polite auxiliary meaning 'receive', illustrates how Japaneseverbals of giving and receiving may be used to index uti/soto relations in Japanese. In traditionalpragmatic terms, this usage would be seen as an example of social deixis, which Levinson(1983:63) has described as "the encoding of social distinctions that are relevant to participantroles, particularly aspects of the social relationship holding between the speaker and theaddressee(s) or speaker and some referent." However, while the deictic anchor point for Indo-European languages may be the speaker, for Japanese it is the uti, which Wetzel (1994) hasaptly termed 'a movable self.' Minimally the uti includes the speaker, but depending upon thespeaker's viewpoint of the moment, it can also include members of the speaker's in-group—themakeup of which is constantly shifting. In the case of (14), Yamada is probably not referring toherself, but rather to her immediate department (Sales) or perhaps even to the company as awhole—hence the English gloss for her request, 'Well...if (you) could send (us) a fax....'

Thus while linguists studying Indo-European languages are primarily concerned with the notionof person, and subsequently also with syntactic ellipsis and the anaphoric function of pronouns,Wetzel (1994:79ff) has argued that for Japanese, the issue instead is uti/soto social deixis. Byexamining the many linguistic manifestations of the uti/soto dichotomy, we can develop abetter understanding of "the complex interrelationship between language and its socioculturalsetting" in Japanese. In terms of the present study, an analysis of uti/soto deixis can help toclarify the role relationships obtaining among speakers in conversations such as (14), which toan untrained Western eye might appear to lack a specification of person. As Wetzel (1994:84)notes, "Uti makes the link between language and social organization explicit."

The second kind of ellipsis which Monane discusses is informational ellipsis. This involves theomission of prepositional information. For example, in the utterance Otya ga hairimasitakedo.... ('The tea is ready, but....'), what is missing is an explicit invitation to the addressee(such as nomi ni irassyatte kudasai, 'please come and have some.') Monane argues that inJapanese, informational ellipsis


enables the speaker to fulfill certain obligations and expectationsthat Japanese culture demands. Informational Ellipsis enables thespeaker, particularly, to fulfill a basic Japanese cultural directive:Do not express overtly, in certain cultural situations, certain kindsof information. Signal these only, utilizing particular linguisticcues. Allow the unexpressed units of information and theirmeanings to be cognitively constructed by the listener throughthe listener's understanding, within these cultural contexts, ofthese particular linguistic cues and of the culturally-based meaningswhich they signal.14

In the example given above, Otya ga hairimasita kedo..., the "linguistic cue" is the clauseparticle kedo ('but'), which signals to the (culturally aware) listener that the information whichmight have followed (nomi ni irassyatte kudasai) has been omitted. Monane notes that wheninformational ellipsis occurs in complex sentences, "it is the subordinate clause plus a linguisticcue that is overtly expressed. The main clause, with its direct message, is the construction thatJapanese culture prescribes should be ellipted" (Monane, 1981:10).

Despite the lack of overtly specified information in such examples, Japanese native speakers(and well-trained learners) have no difficulty in recovering the speaker's intent. In the case ofOtya ga hairimasita kedo..., the listener would interpret the utterance as an invitation or offerto have some tea. (Learners who are not acquainted with this type of ellipsis in Japanese mightencounter more difficulty in comprehension, however.) Note also that several of the examplesof offers cited in the discussion of Fukushima and Iwata's (1987) study in chapter 2 representinformational ellipsis.

Whether or not the lack of complete specification in Japanese conversation actually constitutesellipsis is a question deserving of more scholarly attention. Although this is beyond the scopeof this study, I would note that labeling such behavior as "ellipsis" would seem to derive from aWestern/Romance language perspective. To speak of "ellipsis" is to suggest that somethingwhich should have been specified has been omitted; this may be misleading if in fact the"something" was not necessary in the first place.15 For example, while in English the explicitmarking/indication of the subject of a sentence is usually grammatically necessary,16 in Japanese,this is not the case. As we have seen, in many situations, the subject need not be specifiedbecause it is recoverable from context. Moreover, certain socially deictic information is encodedin Japanese verbal forms such as the humble- and honorific-polite, which would indicate to alistener familiar with the language whether the speaker is referring to him/herself (and/or anin-group member), or to an out-group member.

6.4. JAP AN AS A HIGH CONTEXT CULTURE

Taken together, the folk metalanguage and discourse moves that we have discussed in thischapter provide valuable insights into the shared expectations of the Japanese regarding thegive-and-take of conversation. As a speaker, one is expected to assume a stance of reserve, or


enryo, in making one's needs, desires and opinions known to others; yet as a listener, one isexpected to be attuned to the various messages that are perhaps stated indirectly or not at all inthe speech and behavior of others.

Hall (1976:91) uses the term "high-context" to characterize this type of interaction, noting that"a high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information iseither in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded,explicit, transmitted part of the message." More specifically, he notes:

When talking about something that they have on their minds, ahigh-context individual will expect his interlocutor to know what'sbothering him, so that he doesn't have to be specific. The result isthat he will talk around and around the point, in effect putting allthe pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing it properly—thiskeystone—is the role of his interlocutor. To do this for him is aninsult and a violation of his individuality. (Hall, 1976:113)

This description echoes that of Lebra given earlier regarding omoiyari in Japanese communication.Although Hall and Lebra may have been referring here to informal face-to-face interactions,the behavior we have observed in JBCs appears consistent with this analysis as well.

For example, when a service recipient finds it necessary to contact a service provider about aproblem—perhaps regarding the incomplete delivery of her company's goods to a customer—theservice recipient may be reluctant to verbalize the specific nature of the problem, at least at theoutset of the conversation. To do so would be face-threatening to her interlocutor,17 because itwould explicitly indicate that the service provider had failed in its duties as a company. In suchsituations callers will also often avoid making explicit requests for assistance or resolution ofthe problem. Such specificity is seen as unnecessary; instead, the preferred means by whichsuch problems appear to be communicated is by a sequential, multi-stage presentation of detailsinvolved in the transaction—for example, the dispatch date of the shipment, the customer'sname, the place from and/or to which the packages were to be sent, and so forth. Particularly ifthe business relationship between the service recipient and the service provider is wellestablished—and it is indeed common for Japanese businesses to rely, for example, upon oneor two shipping services rather than several—-the knowledge and experience already shared bythe participants regarding such transactions represent an important ground against which anynew information is understood. The burden then rests upon the shoulders of the service providerto confirm that there is a problem and to indicate that s/he (and/or members of the company)will take steps toward remedying it.

If the service recipient has explained the nature of the problem sufficiently and the person withwhom s/he is speaking is capable of handling the problem (i.e., that person does not need totransfer the call to another colleague or section of the company), an offer of assistance in thiscontext will often take the form of a statement, rather than a question. Essentially the serviceprovider, perceiving the problem and aware of his/her role relationship to the service recipient,


promises to see to it that the matter is taken care of, without asking whether or not that is whatthe service recipient would like the service provider to do. This is one example of the "keystone"to which Hall referred in the passage quoted earlier; it is the main point which the servicerecipient anticipates will be perceived. Since the service recipient expects the service providerto fill in what is implied, the declarative stance in the service provider's ensuing offer, whichappears to give the service recipient no options, is not considered pushy or ositukegamasii.™

The impact of an offer made in the declarative form can be softened through the use of n(o) de,the gerund of the EP. As we have seen, the EP essentially functions to subordinate the propositionin the preceding clause and connect it to the larger discourse context. A speaker who uses theEP assumes that this connection between the subordinate clause and the present discoursesituation is something that is shared or sharable with the interlocutor—in other words, it issomething accessible or retrievable by both participants. By using the EP, a speaker also leavesthe sentence open-ended, and defers its final interpretation to the addressee.

McGloin (1980:141) has argued that similar subordination of a proposition with n(o) desu kedo"has the function of giving background information," and she claims that as a result theutterance is more polite than the same utterance used without n(o) desu kedo. However, Noda(1990) and Takatsu (1991) have challenged McGloin's analysis, saying that kedo itself, ratherthan n(o) desu, is what signals that something more will be forthcoming in the discourse.19

Takatsu further argues that:

When the addressee hears N(O) DESU, s/he receives the signalthat the speaker is linking the present statement to what theaddressee has just been talking about.... It is not a matter ofpresenting new information as if it were known, as McGloinsuggests, but of introducing information which is linked to whathas preceded it. What is presented as 'known' is not the propositionembraced by NO DA itself..., but the particular element of thecontext which makes that proposition relevant and serves to anchorit within the discourse as a whole (Takatsu, 1991:172).

The result, Takatsu contends, is that the use of n(o) desu "gives cohesion to the discourse":

in that it draws attention to the link between the propositionembraced by it and the context in which this proposition appears.It indicates that the whole proposition is referring either to thepreceding utterance(s) in the conversation or to the situation inwhich the conversation takes place. In other words, it providescohesion with either the linguistic or the extra-linguistic context.NO DA provides cohesion not only to the previous statement orto the situation of the utterance but also, in a sense, between thespeaker and the addressee. The speaker requests the addressee's


cooperation in the interpretation of the utterance(Takatsu, 1991:168, emphasis mine).

Takatsu's point (italicized portion) about the collaborative nature of the n(o) desu constructionis consistent with the emphasis placed throughout this book on the interactive way in whichservice recipients and service providers negotiate the presentation of problems and their resolution.

In this regard, it may be useful to recall an example from the data that we considered earlier inchapter 1. For reference, the conversation is presented again below as (15):

(15) Discourse cohesion through the use of the form l-masu no del


2 A inai n desu ga:be-NEG-IPF EP CP

'It's that (she)'s away from her desk right now and hasn't returned,but...'

3 C A soo desu ka//. Wakarimasita.oh so COP-IPF Q become clear-pp


4 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

-> 5 A Yorosikereba, kotira no hoo kara, orikaesi:good-pRV this CN side from return

-> 6 A odenwa simasyoo ka?telephone call do-ipp-CNs Q



'Urn, in that case,'

8 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'


9 C Hal A, dekimasitara, onegai-dekimasu desyoo ka.yes oh be able-CND request-iPF-por <J/ CP-TENT Q


10 A Hai, e:to, Inaisi-san.yes HES Mr. Inaishi

'Yes, um, Mr. Inaishi.'

11C Igarasi to moosimasu.Igarashi QT be called-ipp

'(I)'m Igarashi.'

12 A A, Igarasi-san. Sumimasen. Situree simasita.oh Mr. Igarashi be sorry-iPF rudeness do-pp

Oh, Mr. Igarashi. (I)'m sorry. Excuse me [for what I did].

-> ISA Zyaa, anoo: modorimasitara kotira karawell then HES return-CND this side from

-> 14 A gorenraku sum yooni itasimasu node:in order do-iPF^ EP-GER

'Well then, um, (we/I) '11 see to it that (she) contacts (you) once(she)'s back.'

15C A, hai.Oh ACK

'Oh, okay.'

Here we see that an operations staff member at Kansai Imports, Ms. Sasaki, uses the forml-masu no del in order to provide an offer of grounded assurance that she would see to it thatsomeone in her office would contact the caller.

Noda's analysis ofn(o) desu is even more specific than Takatsu's, arguing that the "underlyingsingle function of the noun no seems to be that of pointing or referring" (Noda, 1981 :2 1-2). Shenotes that the sentence Haruko ga katta no desu has two possible interpretations, as follows:

(16) Haruko ga katta no desu.Haruko SUB buy-pp COP-IPF

(a) [Some thing/object X] is the one that Haruko has bought.'

(b) 'It's that Haruko has bought X.'


In the first interpretation, no refers to what Hanako has bought, while in the second, it refers tothe 'situation ofHaruko 's buying something'' (Noda 1981:22, italics mine). It is this latter usageofn(o) desu which Noda calls the extended predicate interpretation, and it is this interpretationwhich I have argued applies to the use of no in offers of assistance in Japanese.

Thus, when a service provider, after listening to a service recipient's account of the details ofthe problem, indicates that s/he will look into it by saying, for example, o sirabe itasimasu node, the use of no here functions to point to the account of the problem provided in the previousdiscourse. It also refers to the unstated but implied request for assistance made by the servicerecipient. In other words, the service provider is not only indicating that s/he (or someone in theoffice) will check into the matter, but also that they are doing so in response to the immediatelypreceding situation as presented in the discourse.

Takatsu (1991:173) has also argued that the use of n(o) desu is particularly common in theexpression of intentions or desires, noting that "if NO DA is deleted, the utterance sounds as ifthe intention or desire is being asserted one-sidedly, and as if no account is being taken of theaddressee." As an illustration of this point, she provides the following examples:

(17) Contrasting use/non-use of n(o) desu when expressingintention or desire

(a) Ano, tyotto, miti o otazune sitai N(O) DESU ga,HES just way OBJ inquire-iPF-DES^ EP CP

Nyuukassuru byooin wa dotira no hoogaku desyoo ka.Newcastle hospital TOP which CN direction COP-TENT Q

'Excuse me, it's that I'd like to ask the way, but in which directionwould Newcastle Hospital be?'

(b)?? Ano, tyotto, miti o otazune sitai desu ga,....HES just way OBJ inquire-ipp-DESvP COP-IPF CP

(c)?? Ano, tyotto, miti o otazune suru N DESU ga,HES just way OBJ inquire-iPF^ EP CP

(d) Ano, tyotto, miti o otazune simasu ga,HES just way OBJ inquire-ippvU CP

Taken together with Noda's analysis, we see that the use of no can reassure the addressee thatthe speaker is aware of the addressee's feelings.

We have seen that offers in such contexts may be responses to perceived, rather than explicitlyexpressed, needs and desires of a service recipient who has encountered a problem (but whomay be refraining from complaining about it overtly). This is one example of what Ishii calledenryo-sassi communication. When the service provider extends an offer using the pattern


l-masu n(o) del, we have a similar situation, in that the offerer is refraining from explicitlystating something, and anticipates that her interlocutor will fill in the rest. As Takatsu (1991:174-5)observes:

It is in this way that NO DA provides cohesion not only with theprevious statement or the situation of the utterance but also, in asense, between the speaker and the addressee. The speaker requeststhe addressee's cooperation in the interpretation of the utterance.It is as if to say, "You know, and I know, why I say this. I don'tneed to spell it out to you."

This too is an example of what Hall termed "high-context" communication.

In contrast, if the service provider is unsure as to whether or not the service recipient is•requesting a particular service, or if he is referring to something that is not recoverable(i.e., mentioned or assumed) in the immediately preceding discourse, the offer may take theform of a question (e.g., l-masyoo ka?/).

What is particularly notable when we examine JBCs is the relative infrequence with whichservice providers use the interrogative l-masyoo ka?/ pattern in offering assistance, aside fromcases in which they are offering a return call. This perhaps reflects the expectations that theparticipants bring to the conversation. Service recipients may well assume that service providers,when made aware of a problem, will see to its resolution, because the shared interests of thetwo parties depend upon continued successful interactions and transactions.


We have observed in this chapter that the nature of communication in Japanese appears to behighly contextualized, incorporating uti/soto deixis and responding to expectations grounded ina variety of folk metalinguistic notions, including omoiyari, kikubari, and enryo-sassicommunicative strategies. It should therefore come as no surprise that Americans accustomedto a more explicit means of communication (that is, "low-context" communication) often findinteractions with the Japanese to be perplexing. A common complaint by American listeners isthat they cannot ascertain the "point" of a Japanese speaker's discourse. This problem becomesparticularly acute on the telephone, when cues that might have been evident in the physicalcontext in face-to-face interactions are no longer accessible. Maruyama (1990) reports thatstudents of Japanese as a second language who obtained jobs in Japan upon completion of theirlanguage studies often encountered difficulties understanding the true intention of theirinterlocutors, as well as the overall structure of Japanese discourse. Many indicated that theywished they might have been given more guidance in these areas through their instruction.

It would therefore appear that more detailed, contextually-situated accounts of the nature ofJapanese discourse are in order if we are to successfully train our students, as well as businessprofessionals, to participate effectively in interactions with native Japanese speakers. The focus


in this study on the presentation of problems and offering of assistance in business transactionaltelephone conversations is an attempt toward this goal. It is important to note, however, thatour findings regarding language use in one particular context with certain types of participantsmay not extend to other particular contexts with different participants. Indeed, if communicationin a high context culture is as contextually dependent as Hall suggests, we might expectdifferent conventions of language-in-use to obtain in different situations.

NOTES

1. See Kobayashi (1980:217) on this point. Another way of describing this sort of perceptive behavior isto say that someone can gyookan o yomu, or 'read between the lines.' Of course this is a commonphrase in English as well, although it is perhaps used more frequently in that language as a suggestionrather than as a complimentary description of someone's behavior.

2. For an excellent discussion of the importance ofki to the Japanese sense of self and relations withothers, see Rosenberger(1992).

3. This, in essence, is a definition of ma o torn, a phrase which I discuss in more detail in the nextsection.

4. Rabinowitz contrasts "spontaneous offers" with "elicited offers," and explains that the latter arebased on hints or explicit mentions of need by the interlocutor.

5. Another, perhaps preferable alternative here would be to say Kopii itasimasyoo ka?, using thehumble-polite form of the verbal.

6. See Lebra (1976:112) for a discussion of various types of Japanese interpersonal relationships, whichshe characterizes according to a combination of the uti/soto and omote/ura orientations. In addition toritualistic situations (soto and omote), she suggests intimate (uti and ura) and anomic (soto and urd)situations. The situations presented in this investigation within the genre of JBCs generally fall withinthe ritualistic (soto and omote) category. See also Noda (1990:118-140).

7. I am grateful to Charles and Shelley Fenno Quinn for pointing this out to me, as well as for theirsuggestions regarding the translations for many of the concepts discussed in this section. I hope thatwhat I have presented here is faithful to their original explanations.

8. "Haku to haku (doosa to doosa) no aida no zikan-teki kcmkaku. Tenzite, rizumu ya tenpo no i ni momotirareru" (Matsumura, 1988:2257).

9. Note that this does not refer to ma being removed, as was the case in the earlier example ma ganukeru. Rather, ma o torn is the "taking up" by one actor of a pause or space in the performance.

10. Okazaki (1993:78). In support of this claim, Okazaki cites Inagaki (1988), who "points out that it isa characteristic of the Japanese to open their speech, for example, with expressions of humility, apology,excuses, and/or a course of action rather than a main point" (Okazaki 1993:78). She also cites aprevious study of her own (Okazaki, 1987) which examined the behavior of English-Japanese bilinguals,in which she argued that "Japanese speakers provide several opportunities for their listeners to build upa shared background of information by providing preliminary information including socio-culturalknowledge, context-bound suppositions, and goals of communication that interlocutors must hold incommon in order to understand the points of the messages and to proceed smoothly" (Okazaki, 1987).


Yet all of these claims are extremely general. A more cautious approach would be to situate such claimsin particular contexts or to limit them to particular conversational genres, where appropriate. Szatrowski,as we have seen, has discussed the notions of omoiyari and kikubari in the context of invitations.Likewise, in this study, the observations being made with respect to sociocultural beliefs and attitudesare restricted to the genre of business transactional telephone conversations, and more specifically, tothe reporting and resolution of problems in that context.

11. Gumperz, Kaltman, and O'Connor (1984) observed similar behavior among South Asians in thepresentation of background and new information, but contrasting behavior among Americans. Accordingto the authors of that study, "[South Asians] frequently lead up to a main point by first presentingbackground information spoken at a high pitch with rhythmic stress, then shift to lower-pitched, lessemphatic speech to make their main point. Americans generally do the reverse. That is, they signal theirmain point with emphatic rhythmic stress and deemphasize the background information, usually byshifting to lower pitch" (as cited in Okazaki, 1993:73). A study by Young (1982) also found thatChinese speakers tend to present background information about a topic prior to arriving at the mainpoint of their message. This tendency appears to apply not only to the presentation of information in, forexample, business meetings, but also in the presentation of requests.

12. Similar figures appear in Clancy (1980:133). According to Wetzel (1994:78-9), Clancy found that"Japanese speakers used ellipsis in 73 percent of the places where a nominal was possible, compared to20 percent in English."

13. Hinds and Monane would seem to suggest that the lack of specification of such subjects indicatesellipsis. Note, however, that to say there is ellipsis suggests that there is evidence supporting theexistence of such subjects in the first place—an issue which is open to debate.

14. Monane points out that informational ellipsis of course also occurs in English, as in the case of theutterance "She is a very pretty girl, but...." What has been elided here is the speaker's negativeevaluation of the girl, which the speaker expects the listener to understand.

15. Clancy (1982:65) has noted that in narratives, "by far the most common form of reference forpreviously mentioned characters in Japanese is ellipsis, i.e., complete omission"; this tendency wasparticularly pronounced in spoken, as opposed to written narratives. Clancy found that the resultingpotential ambiguity to the listener "in many cases...was either quickly resolved by the nature of theevents being recounted, or else was not important enough to concern the listener, but there were timeswhen the listener did interrupt the speaker to clarify reference" (Clancy, 1982:65-6). See also Kataoka(1989) and Wetzel (1984).

16. There are a few counterexamples, however, such as 'Hope you can come!' and 'Glad you couldmake it' (Charles Quinn, personal communication.).

17. In the sense of "institutional, status-based" face, as suggested by Harris (1984, cited in Brown andLevinson 1987).

18. The reader will recall the quote from Tsurutaef al. (1988) above regarding the notion ki o kikaserukoto and the fact that acting upon one's perceptions is not considered pushy.

19. This supports Monane's (1981) observation that clause particles such as kedo serve as contextualizationcues which signal to the listener that something has been omitted. Park's (2002) findings are consistentwith this as well.

CONCLUSIONS

In the opening chapter of this book, I described four specific goals for this study. I would nowlike to reconsider those goals in light of the analysis presented in the previous chapters. (Whenciting particular conversations in support of these conclusions, where possible I have providedthe relevant appendix numbers for ease of reference.)

7.1. STRATEGIES FOR REPORTING PROBLEMS

First, I asked how service recipients report problems to service providers. More specifically, Iinquired whether (a) service recipients initially state the problem and follow that report with anaccount of the details of the transaction, or if (b) they present the problem in a narrativefashion, recounting the events leading up to the problem chronologically. I also wondered if(c) service recipients reported the details of the transaction in any particular order. Finally, Iasked (d) to what degree do service recipients explicitly mention the problem itself (e.g., 'Thepackage never arrived,') and (e) to what degree do they explicitly request assistance. I predictedthat the way in which a given interaction might unfold would likely differ depending upon theparticulars of the situation, such as the degree to which the participants know each other, thebeliefs and expectations of each participant regarding the problem at various points in theinteraction, and the relative roles of the participants.

Perhaps the simplest way to answer the first, most general question of how service recipientspresent problems is to say "not directly." Based on the examples we have considered over thecourse of the investigation, we may make the following more specific observations.

In regard to question (a), few service recipients appear to make an explicit reference to theproblem at the very outset of the call. Rather, in the initial opening section, commercial servicerecipients identify themselves at least through a company affiliation, and then offer a businesssalutation if there is an established relationship between the two organizations. (Non-commercial

7


service recipients, i.e., general customers, typically provide their names and perhaps an identifyingmembership number, if relevant, but rarely offer salutations.) Then in a transitional section, theservice recipient provides a general utterance (maeoki) describing the purpose of the call, oftenbeginning the utterance with an attention-focusing phrase such as Ano desu ne. These maeokiutterances range from general requests for assistance (e.g., Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desuga...) to a general reference to the item(s) or service(s) to be discussed (e.g., A, ano: sakihodono: J-san no: nimotu no ken na n desu keredoMO). Almost without exception, service recipientsconclude their maeoki with the EP, which enables them to suggest to the listener a connectionbetween the information contained in the maeoki itself and the fact that they have just contactedthe service provider. In this way, service recipients may indicate the general reason-for-call,and also prepare their listeners for the next move in their problem presentation.

The type of maeoki that service recipients select also seems to be related to the degree offamiliarity or knowledge which the service provider may be expected to have regarding theproduct or service at issue. In "cold call" cases in which the service provider might not be wellacquainted with the matter, service recipients often begin with a more general maeoki (such asTyotto oukagai sitai n desu ga...). Another alternative which service recipients adopt in suchsituations is a chronological approach in which they begin by narrating the sequence of eventsthat led to the problem. Thus in the second problem report discussed in chapter 5 (that appearsin appendix 8), Ms. Yamamoto starts by describing the fact that her company had ordered sometransformers (Ano:,kon 'aida toransuhuoomaa O: ano: tyuumon site 'ta n desu GA:).

As for conversations in which the service recipient and service provider are in regular contactwith each other and the participants are therefore more familiar with the products and servicesinvolved, the service recipient will typically provide a more specific maeoki. In the conversationappearing in appendix 7, for example, when Yamamoto uses a relative clause to state, 'it'sabout the books that were sent from the office the other day...' (Kono mae, ano: e:: ohuisu karaokutta, bukku no bun na n desu kedomo...}, she not only explains the reason for her call, butalso sends a clue to the service provider, Mr. Kaneda, that the new information for him to noteis the approximate date of the shipment: kono mae. This is because the remainder of theinformation—that books were sent from her office—is presented as given information throughthe relative clause structure of her utterance. In other words, Yamamoto presumes that Kanedais already aware that some books had been sent out. She can make this assumption because sheand Kaneda are in daily contact with each other regarding such shipments.

We also noted that maeoki utterances can vary depending upon whether they represent the firstconversation with regard to a particular transaction, or are introducing a follow-up call. Follow-upmaeoki are usually more specific in nature and often include either general temporal referencessuch as sakihodo or kon' aida, or specific dates of calls or transactions. The means by which aprevious contact was made is sometimes included as well, e.g., tegami 'letter,' huakkusu 'fax,'or odenwa 'telephone (call).' Finally, we observed that another way in which callers canprovide background information in maeoki utterances is to provide a "formulation of place" or"formulation of person" which helps the caller to point out how his/her current location orsignificance to the company relates to the present phone call.

Conclusions 277

The second point, relating to question (b), is that generally speaking service recipients seem topresent the details of a problem in a chronological fashion, but the length of such accountsvaries markedly. In a problem report call between a service recipient from ABC EducationalAssociation and Ms. Yamada of Tokyo Books, for example, the service recipient begins bypointing out that he received a delivery of goods (E:to, noo— ano, noohin itadakimasite ne!\and then points out that some items had been sent to him by mistake (Sore de:: ma—naiyoo gadesu ne! tyotto, matigatt— okurat:te kita mono ga aru mon desu kard). Yet in his secondutterance he has only identified one aspect of the problem; in subsequent turns he actuallybacks up to describe what exactly it was he ordered in the first place, and only then describesthe incorrect merchandise. Thus despite a rather early indication that something was amiss, theservice recipient did not explicitly state the complete nature of the problem until he had firstprovided other significant background details about the shipment. Note also that he makesseveral attempts to mitigate the face threat of his second and third utterances, saying ma(a)('well') and tyotto ('just').

In the JBC corpus there are also some problem-reporting sequences in which the servicerecipient begins with a relatively more general maeoki, and then proceeds to relate the details ina rather lengthy chronological fashion. The "Ha-ha-ha no hanasf example in appendix 2between Ms. Yamada of Tokyo Books and the male clerk at Fukuda Books is one such case.After announcing in her maeoki that she would like to have the clerk look into something forher (Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu ga....}, Yamada explains over the course of several turnsthat on the 27th of April, from the book wholesaler, via a telephone order, she requested fourpicture books. She then notes that of these four, only three have come in. This is the crux of theproblem. Although she explicitly tells the clerk that she would like to have him look intowhether the fourth book was sent out, he at first misinterprets her query as a request to actually(re)order that book. It thus becomes necessary for Yamada to state both the problem and herrequest for assistance a second time. We concluded that the clerk's misunderstanding probablyarose from expectations he had developed through his daily work, which involves taking ordersfrom booksellers such as Yamada's company. We also pointed out that these two conversationalistsdo not have a previously established business relationship.

In contrast, in conversations between service recipients and service providers who are inregular contact (as in the examples in appendixes 6 and 7), such explicit, chronological accountsdo not seem to be as essential in communicating the main details of the problem. Rather,service recipients merely convey the pertinent details which they presume those service providerswill need—dates, tracking numbers, customer names, and the like. These are usually reportedas fragments, without complete predicates. This has implications for our fourth question (d) aboutthe degree to which a problem might be stated explicitly. Given a cluster of salient cues, suchas a dispatch date, mention of home delivery, and a tracking number, shipping clerks such asKaneda at Kobe Shipping whose business it is to arrange for deliveries and take care ofincomplete shipments for Kansai Imports can perceive the problem in a situation before it isstated. Thus between speakers who are experienced in the genre of JBCs, and particularly inthe sub-genres of problem reporting and offering assistance, knowing more about a situationmakes it possible to say less.


One of the features which calls between unacquainted conversationalists and regular businesscontacts had in common was the fact that participants regularly used suprasegmental cues tohighlight certain junctures in their narratives in order to invite aizuti (back-channel) utterancesfrom their interlocutors. Speakers commonly placed additional emphasis on the final mora ofgerund forms, clause particles, and the attention-focusing particle ne through higher pitch andgreater stress, signalling that the juncture was, in conversation-analytic terms, a transition-relevance place or TRP. We also noted, however, that the maeoki utterance functions as a"pre-request" or "pre-announcement" which hints to the listener that the speaker has more tosay in subsequent utterances. As a result, most interlocutors did not attempt to take the floor atthese junctures, and instead typically replied with Hai as an acknowledgment and/or continuer.

As for the third question (c), which inquired whether service recipients report the details of thetransaction in any particular order, we observed that the first stage of the report almost withoutexception consists of a maeoki in which the service recipient gives a general indication as towhen the transaction (as opposed to the problem) occurred and what it involved (i.e., the typeof goods, such as books). The second stage of reporting includes more specific details, but theorder in which these are mentioned seems to be dictated by the actual nature of the transaction.Since this varies widely, the sequence in which the details are mentioned changes accordingly.However,-we did note that key items are often placed in a salient (marked) position syntacticallyand are sometimes given additional stress and higher pitch, as in Yamamoto's utterance, E:to:Mttu doyOObi ni motte-kite-itadaite ne?. Such strategies serve as important contextualizationcues which aid the service provider in his/her interpretation of the problem.

Finally, we come to the fourth and fifth questions [(d) and (e)] as to how explicitly servicerecipients mention the problem itself, and how explicitly they request assistance. We havealready noted that conversationalists' familiarity with the JBC genre and with the more specificsub-genres of problem reporting and offering assistance, coupled with specific knowledgeabout the types of problems that can occur with particular products or services in a particularbusiness, enable certain service recipients to highlight the salient points related to a problem ina way that will be easily identifiable to service providers. This in turn makes it possible forservice providers to perceive that problem prior to its explicit mention by the service recipient.The converse of this also proves to be true. That is, in cases in which service providers are mostfamiliar with one kind of transaction (e.g., book ordering), expectations which they have builtup through experience about how to behave sometimes prompt them to misunderstand (orunintentionally ignore) the salient contextualization cues which the service recipient took painsto provide (viz., the conversations shown in appendixes 2 and 8). This illustrates a phenomenonwhich Gumperz(1982a:132) has identified as follows:

When all participants understand and notice the relevant cues,interpretive processes are then taken for granted and tend to gounnoticed. However, when a listener does not react to a cue or isunaware of its function, interpretations may differ andmisunderstanding may occur. It is important to note that whenthis happens and when a difference in interpretation is brought to

Conclusions 279

a participant's attention, it tends to be seen in attitudinalterms... .Miscommunication of this type, in other words, is regardedas a social faux pas and leads to misjudgments of the speaker'sintent; it is not likely to be identified as a mere linguistic error.

One such case of miscommunication was the second example we considered in chapter 5, inwhich Ms. Yamamoto, through no fault of her own, was forced to rather baldly state theproblem about the transformer shipment in order to elicit some form of assistance from aseemingly inexperienced clerk who was attempting to handle the problem in the opening of thecall. When given another chance to relate her story to the second clerk, however, Yamamotohesitated to make the same (face-threatening) point outright, and instead relied on the cooperationand collaboration of the clerk, who may have experienced similar situations in the past and wasthus able to ascertain the nature of the problem. Such reliance on the perceptiveness of aninterlocutor and a shared understanding of how business is conducted in such situations wasalso operative in the first example considered in chapter 5 between Yamamoto and Kaneda.With both Kaneda and Hashimoto (the second clerk in the second call), it was not necessary forYamamoto to explicitly request assistance in regard to a problematic transaction.

If we consider these results from the data together with the discussion of the cultural notionssuch as enryo-sassi communication in chapter 6, it becomes clear that at least in the businesscontexts we have considered in this investigation, in which speakers maintain a certain degreeof social distance (indexed through distal-style predicates) and in which the continuation of therelationship between service provider and service recipient is paramount, the avoidance ofexplicit statements of problems and requests for assistance would appear to be a preferreddiscourse strategy. However, in more casual circumstances in which a business relationship isnot at stake, the same speakers might adopt a more assertive stance. Similarly, it may be thatcustomers, whom we have also classified as one type of "service recipient" but who are less"acculturated" in business practices (lacobucci, 1990), may be more direct than commercialservice recipients in their expositions of transactional problems. Further research and collectionof such examples is necessary in order to fully explore this possibility.

7.2. THE FUNCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OFMOVES TOWARD PROBLEM RESOLUTION

The second goal I proposed was to ascertain the function and distribution of linguistic formswhich service providers employ when responding to these reports of problems. I also inquiredhow the role relationship between the participants, namely service recipient and service provider,and the relevance of the preceding discourse might be said to motivate the form of an offer ofassistance.

In situations in which service providers sought to offer assistance toward the resolution of aproblem, instances of the l-masyoo ka?l and l-masu n(o) del patterns were observed; indeed,both forms sometimes occurred within the same encounter. The difference in distributionbetween the forms would seem to be most fundamentally related to the degree of knowledge


the speaker has in regard to the problem being reported. Service providers appear to adopt thel-masyoo ka?l pattern in situations in which they are seeking confirmation from the servicerecipient about the proposed service, either because there is insufficient information to judgewhat sort of behavior would be appropriate (due to an unfamiliarity with the genre or thetransaction itself), or because they wish to leave the decision up to the service recipient as towhether or not they should perform the proposed service (as is often the case in offers forreturn telephone calls). As for the declarative l-masu n(o) del pattern, through the intra-discoursefunction of no (which we discussed in chapter 1), service providers use this form to link theinformation marked with n(o) in order to associate, refer, or even explain the present discoursesituation with that n(o)-marked information. In the process, service providers are able to reassureservice recipients of their willingness and intention to perform a particular service. The patternis typically used in situations in which the service provider already has a reasonably clear idea,based on the previous discourse and/or the service provider's experience with such transactions,as to the nature of the problem being described by the service recipient. This explains whyl-masu n(o) del type offers appear so frequently just prior to the close of JBCs, when serviceproviders wish to summarize their understanding of what they are to do for service recipients.These utterances can thus also function as pre-closing bids to signal a willingness to end thediscussion of the present topic and move toward a mutual "shutting-down" of the conversation.

In our discussions of the /-masu n(o) del pattern, we also noted that generally speaking, gerundforms enable speakers to conclude an utterance when what is being clarified or expanded uponis judged by the speaker to be accessible information. In situations in which service providersare attempting to resolve service-related problems, what is being clarified is the speaker'simplicit or explicit offer of assistance. Thus, if a service provider first explicitly offers assistanceusing the l-masyoo ka?l form, and then goes on to use the l-masu n(o) del pattern at a laterpoint in the conversation, the point in doing so is to expand upon or recharacterize the earlieroffer, and thereby reassure the service recipient of his or her willingness and intention toperform the proposed service (as illustrated in the conversation in appendix 7). The n(o) in theservice provider's move toward assistance functions to ground the new characterization of thesituation in the larger discourse context, which includes the earlier offer. In this way, theservice provider can point to the connection between the two and suggest to the servicerecipient that this is something recoverable and sharable.

At other times, a service provider may extend an offer in the l-masu n(o) del form without firstoffering assistance through the l-masyoo ka?l pattern. Such utterances may function both toimplicitly present an offer and also to reassure the service recipient of the service provider'swillingness and intention to undertake the service on the service recipient's behalf. Usually inthese cases the service recipient has already demonstrated sufficient evidence of a need forassistance, either by giving numerous details and/or by explicitly requesting that assistance.Thus, when the service provider uses the l-masu n(o) del form to present an offer, n(o) anchorsthe offer deictically in the larger discourse frame, which includes the service recipient'sexplanation of the details (and request for assistance, if there had been one). In other words,without actually explicitly saying so, the service provider can convey the sense that s/he isaware of the problem, and then reassure the service recipient of his/her intention to remedy the

Conclusions 281

situation. In the conversation appearing in appendix 2, for example, when the clerk at FukudaBooks says De wa itioo den:pyoo-si — hakkoo-si aru ka doo ka: sirabemasu no de, he isessentially saying '(It's that I'm aware of the problem,) so in that case I will check to seewhether or not there's an invoice sheet—a completion sheet.' In assuring the service recipientthat he will do so, he is also acknowledging his role as service provider in the situation.

7.3. ROLE RELATIONSHIPS, GENRE, AND CULTURAL NORMS

The third goal I established for this investigation relates to the first two, and that is to ascertainhow these strategies of reporting problems and of offering assistance might be consonant with(a) the type of genre in which the exchanges appear, namely business transactional telephoneconversations, and (b) larger cultural norms and values. I suggested that the expectations whichparticipants bring to these encounters are likely to be shaped by roles (such as service providerand service recipient) which are established in and definitive of the genre, and that this mightinfluence the linguistic means employed by the participants.

This indeed appears to be the case. As we noted in section 7.1. above, what emerged as apreferred strategy in reporting problems was for service recipients to provide a general statementregarding the nature of the transaction involved, including a general indication of the timewhen that transaction was initiated, in the form of a maeoki. Following this initial utterance,further details are added in a stage-like fashion, with pertinent information (determined by thenature of the transaction) presented in such a way that their importance may be perceived bythe service provider (i.e., as contextualization cues). We also noted that the knowledge andexperience which a service recipient has in his/her role and with respect to a particular productor service translates into a relatively more skilled performance of JBCs. Thus, the greater theservice provider's familiarity with a particular transaction, the role of service provider in termsof expected linguistic behavior, and the genre of JBCs as a whole, the more capable s/he couldbe in responding adequately and efficiently to the presentation of the problem made by theservice recipient. In an ideal situation in which service recipient and service provider are wellacquainted with their roles and JBC transactions, it would neither be necessary for the servicerecipient to explicitly state the problem nor to request assistance. This is because, in such anideal situation, the service provider would perceive the nature of the problem and offer and/orreassure the service recipient of his/her willingness and intention to resolve the problem, or atleast take steps toward resolving the problem. This "ideal" is not unattainable, however; it wasprecisely the situation we observed in the conversation in appendix 7.

We noted in section 7.2. that there were two linguistic means by which the service providercould offer assistance: the l-masyoo ka?/ and l-masu n(o) del patterns. In situations in whichthe service provider was either less sure of his/her role or less acquainted with the problem (dueto insufficient information from the service recipient or a general lack of experience in thisgenre of activity), the service provider was more likely to use the l-masyoo ka?/ form, butmight later reiterate that offer in the same conversation by using the l-masu n(o) del patternonce the necessary details had been specified, or once the service recipient had indicated that


s/he did in fact want the service provider to undertake the (tentatively) proposed service.Ultimately, however, it appears to be the latter form which is preferred, based on the fact thatservice providers repeatedly adopted this pattern in the pre-closing juncture of many JBCs.This makes sense because it assures the service recipient that the problem will soon be resolved,and it functions as a natural move toward "easing out" of that topic and moving toward closing.

Another way of looking at the preferred strategy we have outlined is to propose that theseconversationalists seek to avert a potential situation in which the service recipient might haveto threaten the face of the service provider by going 'bald on record' and stating that there hadbeen a service-related problem. This strategy is of course not unique to Japanese; studies ofrequests in other languages, including English, have suggested that offers are one way ofreverting the negative face threats posed by requests. However, our discussion in chapter 6 hassuggested that perceptiveness and consideration of the addressee are highly valued in Japaneseculture, and are reflected in metalinguistic folk terms such as enryo-sassi, omoiyari, and kikubari.The behavior we have observed in the conversations collected for this study provides evidencethat JBC conversationalists usually communicate in a manner that is consonant with thesevalues. It is important to note that we are not taking a deterministic position here, but are rathersuggesting that the negotiating moves adopted by JBC participants are "in sync" with thesepositively-viewed cultural traits. Additional studies may indeed show that the behavior of JBCconversationalists is consistent with cultural and linguistic norms in other countries andcommunities as well.

Certain characteristics of problem reports in Japanese do seem at variance with the behavior weobserved in a small number of parallel conversations in English, however. For example, thefact that most JBC problem reports begin with a very general statement as to the date andnature of the transaction, followed by a stage-like process through which details of the transactionare mentioned appears to be different from the English reports in which callers brought up theexact nature of the problem at an earlier point in the conversation, often before they hadprovided a self-identification or other details such as an account or membership number thatmight assist the service provider in resolving the problem.

We have also observed that speakers' behavior in the context of business transactional telephonecalls makes use of other linguistic and textual elements of Japanese which are not found inEnglish. The positional coordinates ofuti/soto are clearly indexed in the usage of the honorific-and humble-polite verbals, as well as through the system of giving and receiving verbals. Asnoted in chapter 2, these forms are essential to the JBC genre, in which speakers generallyadopt a careful style of speech. We have also seen that the extended predicate is a criticalelement in numerous aspects of these conversations, including the explanations of people'swhereabouts in response to switchboard requests, in the maeoki used for transitions to thediscussion of business, and in the l-masu n(o) del statement of grounded assurance that aservice provider uses to offer assistance. Finally, the preference for specifying only what isnecessary and not evident or recoverable from context or previous encounters is evidenced inboth the restraint exercised by speakers who are reporting problems, and by those who areoffering to assist in the resolution of those problems.

Conclusions 283

7.4. PUTTING GENRES TO USE

The fourth goal pertains to a desire on my part to provide situated, culturally appropriateexemplars of JBCs which might serve as resources for linguists, business professionals, andlanguage instructors. Ultimately the best judges of whether or not I have met this objective willbe Japanese native speakers who have experience in this genre of telephone call. But by way ofconcluding my remarks here, I would like to relate an interesting anecdote which one of theKansai Imports informants shared with me during my fieldwork in Japan.

As was noted in chapter 2, there were no instances of merchandise orders placed by customersin the Kansai Imports data because the designated "member lines" were not recorded. Througha conversation one day with an American customer service staff member, however, I learnedthat at one point in time the company had received a string of calls placed by native Japanesespeakers—in English—requesting catalogs. What was fascinating about these calls was the factthat nearly every single call began in an identical fashion, with the caller saying 'I would liketo obtain a catalog....' The native English speakers who staffed the "member" lines at KansaiImports were puzzled, not only by the striking similarity among the calls, but also because inAmerican English, at least, this seemed a rather formal way of stating the reason-for-call. Whatthey soon learned was that Kansai Imports had recently been featured in a promotional story bya magazine that publicizes mail-order "bargains" available from retailers both in Japan andabroad. The story apparently included a "script" for native Japanese speakers to use whencalling these companies. The script included the "lines" for both caller and call recipient, andbegan something like this:

1 A '[Company identification]. May I help you?'

2 C 'Yes, I would like to obtain a catalog from your company....'

In one of these calls to Kansai Imports, the Japanese caller apparently got confused between the"lines" intended for the company representative vs. the caller, because the caller started out bysaying 'May I help you?' In response, the quick-thinking, native-English speaking KansaiImports staffer apparently responded, 'No, may IhdpyouT The episode is an amusing reminderthat although the business calls we make on an everyday basis for a variety of purposes—be itmerchandise orders, general inquiries, shipping confirmations or even problem reports—mayappear to unfold in a similar fashion that is typical of what I have called the "transactional callgenre," as conversationalists we do not all adopt the same "script."

This underscores three points that are fundamental to the concept of genre. The first point isone we have noted already, which is the fact that genres have "fuzzy edges" which accommodatecertain variations in form, style, and even structure without jeopardizing the integrity andeffectiveness of the genre itself. Thus even though this caller's maeoki or reason-for-call wasstated in rather formal language, she was nonetheless able to achieve her intentions. In contrast,in the example related in chapter 1 about the Japanese restaurant role play, the utterance Zenbuikaga desu ka? was described as being inappropriate to that particular genre of service encounter


in Japan. Yet the English equivalent, 'How is everything?' is eminently suitable in a parallelcontext in the United States. In fact, the absence of this utterance in a particular enactment ofthe American "restaurant service encounter genre" may be recognized by some customers assignificant and could have actual consequences. Winsted (1997a, 1997b) has demonstratedthrough her empirical research on this particular genre of service encounter in Japan vs. theUnited States that customers have certain expectations as to what constitutes appropriate"behavior" on the part of waiters. For example, if a waiter does not return to the table in orderto ensure that 'everything' is to the customer's satisfaction, the customer may feel that thewaiter had not shown sufficient solicitude and was therefore perhaps "lacking" in some respects.Particularly if the customer had encountered some problem with the meal and had difficultiesconveying this due to the waiter's seeming failure to perform his regular "duties," the customermight even decide to leave a lesser tip in order to express his or her dissatisfaction with theservice received. Thus the outcome of the performance of the genre may be negatively affectedby the absence of an utterance or behavior which is viewed as being emblematic or critical tothe overall structure of the encounter. The converse may also be true, in the sense that thenoticeable presence of an inappropriate utterance or behavior might possibly "derail" theperformance of a particular genre. In the Zenbu ikaga desu ka? example, I suggested thatJapanese native speakers might be baffled by the waiter's intention in producing such anutterance: The likely outcome in such a situation is an uneasy feeling on the part of Japanesespeakers ofiwakan, or a 'sense of incompatibility' with the genre.

The second point here about genres relates to the first, and that is this: through our familiaritywith the various genres we employ in our daily lives, we are able to recognize instances inwhich our fellow conversationalists are performing a particular genre, based on a confluence ofcues that include register features (e.g., the use of particular technical terms or other specializedvocabulary or phrases), structural features (such as the "canonical" sequences of a telephonecall opening), stylistic features (for example the use of careful-style speech in JBCs) and/orthematic features (e.g., topical continuity and consistency). Thus when an employee at a bookpublishing company receives a call in which the caller identifies herself as a syoten 'bookstore,'provides a business salutation, and then states Tyuumon it-ten onegai-sitai n desu ga..., it islikely that the employee will recognize the call as a merchandise order being placed by one ofthe company's regular clients who is entitled to a wholesale discount—that is, assuming thatthe publishing firm employee has experience in taking these sorts of calls. We noted in chapter 4that it is also possible for experienced "order-takers" to identify first-time or inexperiencedclients, based on cues such as the stylistic features of the caller's maeoki utterance (e.g., Onsyade dasarete orimasu syoseki o desu ne, tyuumon sasete itadakitai n desu keredoMO). Moreover,even though a seemingly similar-sounding maeoki such as Ee, sotira kara, sotira-sama ano,dasite orimasu:, eeto kyoozai o: koonyuu sitai n desu keredoMO, yorosii desu ka:? mightsuggest that the caller is not a regular client, unless the caller has also provided some sort ofcompany or self-identification (such as Syoten desu ga) during the opening of the call, it islikely that further interactional "work" will be required on the part of both conversationalists inorder to ascertain whether the caller is a non-commercial customer, or a commercial servicerecipient. Each of these moves thus plays a critical role in signalling caller identity, ascertaining

Conclusions 285

the relevant role relationship between caller and call recipient, negotiating intention, enlistingassistance, and achieving a mutually satisfactory outcome vis a vis the stated reason-for-call.

This brings us to the third and final point about genres. Just as our experience in a particulargenre among a particular community of speakers allows us to make judgments as to whatconstitutes an instantiation of that genre, it is also our experience in these genres which enablesus to perform them. Thus the mere fact of a person's being a native speaker of a language doesnot insure that he or she may competently handle all of the genres of that language, in eitherspoken or written form. Competent performance is "commensurate with experience," so it isnecessary for both native and non-native speakers of a given language to actually practice howto go about doing business transactional calls, reading technical journals, writing businessletters, giving speeches, and so forth in order to truly achieve pragmatic competence in each ofthose genres, in that language. It is therefore hoped that this study will provide authenticmodels for native and non-native speakers of Japanese who have an interest in the performanceof business transactional telephone calls, be it from an analytical, academic, or professionalperspective.

7.5. AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There are several possible areas for future research which could build upon the findings presentedin this investigation in order to provide a more comprehensive foundation for a comparativeperspective on the issues raised here. Given that this book focuses predominantly on inter-organizational business conversations between commercial service recipients and serviceproviders in Japanese (due to the relatively smaller number of calls from customers in thecorpus, both in English and Japanese), it would be useful to develop new corpora (or locateexisting ones, if they are available) which contain a large number of calls of the followingtypes: (a) calls between customers and service providers in Japanese; (b) calls between customersand service providers in English; and (c) calls between commercial service recipients andservice providers in English. Within these subgroups, it would also be helpful if there were avariety of call tokens such that, for example, the format of toiawase inquiries, merchandiseorders, shipping confirmations, and problem reports might be compared more fully accordingto the language being spoken and the role relationship between caller and call recipient. Theproblem of course, particularly with regard to obtaining data in English, is that of securingpermission either to record calls or to be allowed to view transcripts or hear recordings whichhave already been created in these sorts of customer-service environments.

As many readers are probably well aware, in the United States one often hears a recording atthe outset of calls placed to service providers that states, "This call may be recorded for qualitycontrol purposes." There is a significant market in the business world at the moment for firmswhich specialize in what is sometimes referred to as "Customer Relations Management"; thesecompanies often work on a consulting basis with a variety of organizations in order to improvethe "interface" between customers and service representatives. Ideally if the "corpora" producedthrough such recordings were made available to linguists for analysis, all parties involved


might benefit. However, at present the legal restrictions surrounding such recordings and anytranscripts that have resulted appear to be rather formidable.

Another fruitful area of investigation would be to compare the negotiating moves adopted byparticipants in face-to-face service encounters in Japanese and English with those observed intelephone calls. For example, it might be possible as an observer (after obtaining permission) tocollect samples of interactions at a package delivery service office in order to ascertain (a) howconversationalists interact in such an environment with regard to customer complaints andproblems, and (b) how and why their behavior differs, if at all, from that of conversationalistson the telephone.

One other potential area for related research might be to consider online methods throughwhich customers register complaints with delivery companies and service providers. E-mailmessages and website bulletin boards are just two areas in which the data are already in writtenform, which eases the transcription burden on the analyst. At least in the United States, customersare often urged on company websites and print circulars to contact companies via e-mail, ratherthan opting for the more traditional route of calling the company on the telephone. As thesenew communicative methods flourish, new genres of "talk" will develop which may sharemany features of telephone calls, but that will also clearly have their own distinct characteristics.

APPENDIX 1

PARTICIPATING SUBJECTS AT THE KANTO AND KANSAI SITES

A. Kanto site (Tookyoo Syoten, 'Tokyo Books')

(1) Female sales operations staff member, age 25, native of Tokyo(2) Male bookstore staff manager, age 25-35, native of Tokyo(3-5) Three female bookstore staff members, age 22-25(6) Male editing section head, age 31, native of Tokyo(7) Male sales section head, age 31, native of Tokyo(8) Female editing staff member, age 25, native of Yamagata(9) Female editing staff member, age 26, native of Saitama

B. Kansai site (Kansai Unyuu, 'Kansai Imports')

(1) Female general manager/operations department head {butyoo}, age 33,born in Kobe, grew up Higashinada-ku, spent three years in England.

[#2-8 are all operations staff members]

(2) Female, age 32, born and brought up in Kobe, no time abroad.(3) Female, age 27-28, born and brought up in Kobe. Speaks virtually no English.(4) Female, age 27, born and brought up in Kobe, spent 1 year in the United

States (Hawaii and Washington) at age 25 on a church program.(5) Female, age 25, born and brought up in Akashi, spent one year in Vancouver.(6) Female, age 23, born in Osaka, brought up in Kobe, spent 1 month on

homestay in high school, then one year in college, both in Australia.(7) Female, age 23, born and brought up in Kobe. Parents are native Chinese but

have lived in Kobe for at least as many years. Subject went to a schoolspecifically for Chinese in Japan, but has spent no time in China. Alsoworked previously for a prominent hotel in Kobe, and underwent fairlyrigorous "politeness" training for the job.

(8) Female, approximately age 26, non-native of Kansai, has spent some time inSingapore.


APPENDIX 2

TRANSCRIPT OF TB #lA-44: REPORTING AN INCOMPLETE SHIPMENT

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Hai, Hukuda Syoten hanbai-ka desu:.ACK Fukuda Books sales section COP-IPF

'Yes, Fukuda Books, Sales Section.'

3 C Ano,syoten desu gajlHES book company COP-IPF CP

'Uh, (this) is a book company;

4 C osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF


5 A Osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-ipp


6 C Ano desu nee HIHES COP-IPF SP

'Well, you see!'

7 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

8 C Tyotto osirabe itadakitai n desu go,//just looking up^ receive-fr-out-grp-DEs-ipp^ EP CP

'It's that (I/we)'d just like to have you look (something) up, but.

9 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

290 Appendix 2

IOC e:to: si-gatu nizyuusiti-niti no hi ni, sotira DE,HES April twenty-seventh CN day GL that place LOC

'Urn, on the 27th of April, at your loCATION,'

11C e:to desu ne, denwa tyuumon na n desu ga,HES COP-IPF ATF telephone order COP-IPF EP CP

'you see, it's that (I/we mean) a telephone order, but....'

12C yon-satu hodo, e-HON o tyuumonfour volumes approximately picture books OBJ order

1 3 C sasite itadaita n desu yo.do-CAU-GER receive-fr-out-grp-PF^ EP SP

'it's that (I/we) took the liberty of ordering about four pictureBOOKS, you know.'

14 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

1 5 C YON-satu no uti no, SAN-satu sika tyotto haittefour volumes CN among three volumes only just enter-GER

16C kit[e]- orimasen// node,come-GER be-NEG-ippvU EP-GER

'Of the FOUR volumes, it's just that only THREE volumes havecome in, so...'

17 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

18C is- satu dasite itadaketa ka// doo ka,one volume send-GER receive-fr-out-grp-POT-ppvl' Q how Q

19C osirabe —looking up'h

'whether or not (you) were able to send us one volume, a look-up.

20 A Hal Kasikomari//ta. ((sic))BC

'Mhm.' 'Cert'nly.'

Appendix 2 291

21 C ano:, Tookyoo Syoten to moosimasu:.HES Tokyo Books QT be called-iPFvl'

'Uh, (this is) Tokyo Books.'

22 A (1.3) A, Tookyoo Syoten-sama// de.(1.3) ah M(r)s. Tokyo Books CP-GER(1.3 second pause) 'Oh, Ms. Tokyo Books...'

23 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

24 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

25 C DE, ano desu nee, taitoru, yot:TU:: no uti no desu NE!and HES COP^F ATF title four units CN among COP^F ATF

'AND, you see, (the) title, among (the) FOUR, YOU KNOW!'

26 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

27C Haitte kite nai mono ga, Hahaha no hanasi://enter-GER come-GER be-NEG-ipp thing SUB Ha-ha-ha CN tale

'the one that hasn't arrived, The Tale of Ha-ha-ha'

28 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

29 C to iu taitoru no mono na n//desu ga,QT be called-ipp title CN thing COP-IPF EP CP

'it's that it's a thing with that title.'

30A Go- is- satu de.(polite prefix) one volume CP-GER

'One copy'

292 Appendix 2

31C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

32 A Hai. Syoosyoo omati kudasai:.//yes moment waiting^ give-to-in-grp-iMP^

'Okay. Please wait a moment.'

33 C Hai.yes

'Okay.'

((clerk puts caller on hold))

34 A Omatase des— itasimasita.causing-waiting^ COP-IPF-FS do-ppvl'

'[S-Sorry] to have kept you waiting.'

35 C Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

36 A Zya, Hahaha no hanasi o is- satu to iu koto de,so ha-ha-ha CN tale OBJ one volume QT be called-iPF thing CP-GER'So it's a matter of one copy of The Tale of Ha-ha-ha.'

37 C A, hai:.ah yes

'Ah, yes.'

38A Zya, bansen onegai-simasu:.so agency-number beg-iPF^




40 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

Appendix 2 293

41 C ZENkai tyuumon sita toki ni, ano: uketeprevious order do-pp time GL HES receive- GER

42 C itadakemasen desita ndesyoo: ka.CP-PF EP-TENT Q

'at the time of the PREvious order, um. might it have been that wecouldn't receive it from you?'

43 C YON-satu tyuumon siTE:four volumes order do-GER

'having PLACED an order (for) FOUR volumes,'

44 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

45 C sono uti, Hahaha no hanasi dake haittethose among ha-ha-ha CN tale only be included-GER

46 C konakatta n desu yo.COme-NEG-PF EP SP

'it's that among those, only ,4 Tale of Ha-ha-ha was not included,you know.'

47 A Haahaa.yes yes

'Yes, yes.'

48 C De dasite itadaketa ka doo ka,and send-GER receive-poi-pp^ Q how Q

49 C osirabe itadakitakatta n// desu ga.looking up^ receive-DEs-PF EP CP

'And whether or not (you) were able to send it for us, it's that (I/we)wanted to have you look into it, but....'

50 A A, kakunin de:su ne?ah confirmation COP-IPF SP

'Oh, you mean confirmation, right?'

294 Appendix 2

51C HalYes.

'Yes.'

52A ((0.3 second pause))

53 C Sore de, dasite nai yoo desitaRA://and then send-GER be-NEG-ipp seem CP-CND

'And then, IF it seems that it hasn't been sent,'

54A HalBC

'Mhm.'

55 C moo it- tun tyuumon itasimasu no DE://more one copy order do-iPF^ EP-GER

'it's that (I/we)'ll order one more copy, SO....'

56 A Hal De wa itioo den:pyoo-si— hakkoo- siyes well then anyhow invoice-sheet-FS completion-sheet

57A aru ka doo ka:,//have-ipp Q how Q

'Yes. Well then anyhow, whether or not there's an invoice sheet—acompletion sheet,'

58 C HalBC

'Mhm.'

59A sirabemasu no//DE:look into-iPF EP-GER

'it's that (I/we)'ll look into it, SO....'

60 C Hai, si-gatu nizyuusiti-niti ni tyuumon itasimasita.yes April twenty-seventh GL order do-PF^

'Yes, (I/we) placed the order on April 27th.'

61A Si-gatu no nizyuu:: ?April CN twenty

'April twenty...?'

Appendix 2 295

62 C Nana-niti//desu.seventh COP-IPF

'Seventh'

63 A Nana.seven

'Seven.'

64 C Hai.=yes

'Yes.'

65 A =Hai.(1.0) De, ano bansen to otori-tugi://sosite basyo.ACK and HES agency number and agency then place

'Okay. (1.0) And, um, the agency number and the agency, then theaddress.'

66 C A, e:to de: Suzuki-syoten DE: =oh HES and Suzuki Books COP-GER

'Oh, um, and it's Suzuki Books, and'

67 A HalBC

'Mhm.'

68 C Hai, iti no iti ni sanACK one CN one two three

'Okay, one dash one two three.'

69A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

70 C Hai, koodo ga rokunana hati kyuu desu.ACK code SUB six seven eight nine COP-IPF

'Okay, the code is 6789.'

71A Rokunana hati kyuusix seven eight nine

'6789.

296 Appendix 2

72 C Hai, NO:, Sinzyuku-ku Tookyoo Syoten de gozaimasu.yes

'Yes, OF Tokyo Books in Shinjuku Ward.'

73A (3.3) Ha:i. Izyoo de:(3.3 second pause) yes all CP-GER


74C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

75 A Hai. E: de wa, ka—kakunin simasite:,yes HES well then con-confirmation do-GER

76A odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de,//telephone do-CAU-GER receive-ippsp EP-GER

'Yes. Um, well, (I/we)'11 con—confirm(the delivery), and take theliberty of calling (you) back, so....'

77C Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

78A odenwa-bangoo to// onamae onegai-simasu:.telephone-number and name beg-ipp^

'Your telephone number and name, please.'

79 C Hai. E: san yon goo gooyes HES three four five five

'Yes.' 'Um, 3455.'

80 A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

81C Iti ni san yonOne two three four

'1234'

Appendix 2 297

82 C HalBC

'Mhm.'

83C no watakusi, Yamada to moosimasu no de.CN I Yamada QT be called-iPF ̂ EP-GER

'and I, (I)'m called Yamada. so....'

84A Hai, kasikomasita. ((sic))yes make clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

85C Hai, yorosiku// onegai-simasu::yes well beg-iPFvU

'Yes, please [take care of it for me]."

86A Hai, yorosiku onegai-simasu:. Situree simaSU:.yes well beg-iPFsU rudeness do-ipp

'Yes, [may things go well.] Good-bye.'


APPENDIX 3

TRANSCRIPT OF KI #9-1: REQUESTING INFORMATION

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kotira wa, pinpon bankingu de gozaimasu.this TOP pushbutton banking CP-IPF(+)

This is pushbutton banking.'

3 A Nihongo gokiboo no kata wa, kono mama,Japanese wish CN person(s) TOP as is

4 A iti osite kudasai.one push-GER give-to-in-grp-iM?^


5 A ((different voice)) "For services in English, please press '2' now."((Machine BEEP))









11A Kasutomaa saabisu sutahu to, tyokusetu ohanasi ni naritaicustomer service staff with directly speak-DEsT"

300 Appendix 3

12 A kata \va, kyuu o osite kudasai.person(s) TOP nine OBJ push-GER give-to-in-grp-iMp'1s



14 A Omati kudasai. Otunagi simasu.waiting^ give-to-in-grp^p/Ts connect -ippvl'


15 A Taihen nagaraku omatase site orimasu,quite lengthy waiting-CAU do-GER be-ipp^


'(I/we)'ve kept (you) waiting a long time. (I)'m (Ms.) lida, theperson in charge.'

17A Omoti desitara, kooza bangoo kara, onegai-itasimasu.holding^ CP-CND account number from request-ippvU

'If (you) have (it), please (begin) from (your) account number.'

18C A, hai, e:to kooza bangoo GA,Oh yes HES account number SUB

'Oh yes, urn, (the) account number IS'


22A Hai. Onamae itadakemasu ka?ACK name receive—iPF-poT^ Q


23 C Yuugen-gaisya Kansai Yunyuu to moosimasu:.limited corporation Kansai Imports QT be


24A Arigatoo gozaimasu:.//thank you (+)'Thank you.'

Appendix 3 301


['(I) will become obliged (to you) for your assistance.']

26 A Hai, yonketa no denwa torihiki-yooACK four-digit CN telephone transactional use

27A ansyoo-bangoo itadakemasu ka:?PIN number receive-iPF-por^ Q

'Okay, may (I) have your four-digit PIN number for telephonetransactions?'

28 C Hai, ####.yes ####

'Yes.' ((provides number))

29 A ((noise of typing)) Ha:i. Arigatoo gozaimasu: Syoo syoo omatiACK thank you (+) a moment waiting1^

30 A itadakemasu ka:?receive-iPF-poi Q

'Oo-kay. Thank you. Could you wait one moment, please?'

31C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

32A Omatase simasita. Kansai-Yunyuu-sama.wait-pp-CAU'sl' Ms. Kansai Imports

'(Thank you for) waiting. Ms. Kansai Imports.'

33 C Halyes

'Yes.'

34 A Genzai no zandaka de yorosii desu ka?//current CN balance CP-GER fine CP-IPF Q

'Is it all right (to give you) the current balance?'

35C A, gomen-nasai, ano: soo zyanakute:,oh excuse me HES that CP-NEG-GER

'Oh, excuse me, um, not that,'

302 Appendix 3

36A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

37C ano:, otorihiki hookokusyo tte arimasu yo ne!HES transaction report form QT exist-ipp SP ATF

'Um, there's (the thing) called (a) transaction report form, right?'

38 A Halyes

'Yes.'

39C Sonoken de oukagai sitai n desu keredomo.//that matter CP-GER ask-iPF-DES^ EP CP

'It's that (I)'d like to ask about that matter, but....'

40 A Hal Ouke itasimasu no de.ACK receive-iPF^ EP-GER

'Okay. It's that (I)'ll handle (it), so....'

41C Hai, e:to zyuuiti-gatu nizyuuyokka-zuke deACK HES November 24th dated CP-GER

42 C kite -ru bun na n desu keredoMO:come-iPF-GER be-iPF-> portion CP-IPF EP CP

'Okay, um, it's that it concerns the one that's arrived which is datedNovember 24th, BUT...'

43 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

44 C sono naka NI:, e:to, Misutaa Gureggu Sumisu-santhose among LOC HES Mr. Mr. Greg Smith

'AMONG those, um, Mister Mr. Greg Smith'

45 A Haihai.ACK ACK

'Mhm, mhm.'

Appendix 3 303

46 C tte iu kata kara, ohurikomi ga atta n desu gaQT be-called-> person from wire transfer SUB exist-PF EP CP

'from a person of that name, it's that there was a wire transfer, but'

47A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

48 C tyotto, watasi-domo no, ano: meeboo no naka ni,just we CN HES name list CN within LOC

49C kono kata ga miataranai nodethis person sub be found-NEG-iPF EP-GER

'it's just that, urn, on our name list, this person can't be found, so...'

50A Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

51C ano: gorenraku-saki o sirabete- itadakitai:HES contact information OBJ look for-GER receive—iPF-DES^

52 C n desu ga.EP CP

'it's that (I/we)'d like to have (you) look up the contact information,but'

53 A A soo desu ka.oh so CP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that so.'

54 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

55 A Kotira no kata no:this CN person CN

'This person's...'

56 C Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

304 Appendix 3

57 A ano:HES

Um.'

58C denwabangoo desu to ka,telephone number CP-IPF etc.

'(The) telephone number and so forth.'

59 A Demva-bangoo desu ... kono Sumisu-sama ni kansite desu ne?telephone number CP-IPF this Mr. Smith GL regarding CP-IPF ATF

'(The) telephone number.,..for this Mr. Smith, right?'

60 C Soo desu.so CP-IPF

'That's right.'

61A Hai, wakarimasita.ACK become clear-pp

'Okay, I see.'

62 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

63 A E:to sore de wa, orikaesi odenwa sasite itadakimasu no de,HES well then return telephone do-CAU-GER receive-ippvU EP-GER

'Um, well then, it's that (I/we)'11 take the liberty of giving (you) areturn phone call, so....'

64 C Hai. Yorosiku onegai-itasimasu:.yes well beg-iPF ̂

'Yes. Please [take care of it for me].'

65 A Odenwabangoo o itadakemasu ka?telephone number OBJ receive—IPF-POT Q

'May (I/we) have your telephone number?'

((Caller provides number and clerk repeats in lines 66-72))

Appendix 3 305

73 C Hal Sasaki to moosimasu.yes Sasaki QT be call

'Yes, I'm Sasaki.'

74 A Sasaki-sama.Ms. Sasaki (+)

'Ms. Sasaki.'

75 C Halyes

'Yes.'

76 A Kasikomarimasita. lida to moosimasita.obey-pp^ lida QT be

'Understood. (This) was lida.'

77 C Hai, yorosiku onegai-simasu.yes well beg-iPF ̂

'Yes, may things go well.'

78 A Hai arigatoo gozaimasu:.ACK thank you (+)

'Okay, thank you.'

79 C Hai, situree simasu.ACK. excuse me

'Okay, good-bye.'


APPENDIX 4

TRANSCRIPT OF TB #16-22: INQUIRING ABOUT BOOK AVAILABILITY

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Sasaki Syoten desu.Sasaki Books COP-IPF

'Sasaki Books.'

3 C A ano, syoten desu ga,.=

oh HES book company COP-IPF CP

'Oh, um, (I)'m (with a) book company, but

4 C =ose\va ni natte orimasu::.=assistance GL become-GER


5 A =Hal =ACK

'Mhm.'

6 C =Ano desu ne, zaiko no kakunin o it -ten onegai-sitaiHES COP-IPF ATF stock CN confirmation OBJ one item beg-i

7 C n desu ga, yorosii desu ka?EP CP good (+) COP-IPF Q

'Um, well you see, it's that (I)'d like to request confirmation of(your) stock of one item, but is it all right (to ask)?'



9 C E: Sansee-doo NO,HES Sanseido CN

'Um, from SanSEIDO'

308 Appendix 4

10 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

11C ((book title))

12 A ((repeats book title))

13 C Hai, kotira zyus-satu na n desu ga//yes this one (+) ten volumes COP-IPF EP CP

14C mite itadakemasu ka?see-GER receive-fr-out-grp-iPF-poivl' Q

'Yes, it's that (I/we need) ten volumes (of) this one, but could (I)have you look (into it)?'

ISA Zyuu. Tyotto omati kudasa:i.ten a little waitingf" give-to-in-grp-iMP^

'Ten. Please wait a minute.' ((puts caller on hold))

16 A Mosimosi?hello

'Hello?'

17C Hai!yes

'Yes!'

ISA Kore wa zaiko uti ni oite nai desu ne!this one TOP stock inside LOG be on-hand-GER be-NEG-iPF COP-IPF SP

'As for this one, we don't have it in stock, you see!'

19C A, oite nai ndesuka!//oh be on-hand -GER be-NEG-iPF EP Q

'Oh, (so) it's that (you) don't have it!'

20 A Hai.yes

'Yes.'

Appendix 4 309

21C A \vakarimasita. Doo mo suimasen desu: =oh be clear-PF thanks be sorry-IFF COP-IPF

'Oh, I see. Thanks, (I)'m sorry (to trouble you).

22 A =Hai doo mo, hai. =yes thanks yes

'Okay, thanks, okay.'

22 C =situree itasimasu:.rudeness

'Good-bye.'


APPENDIX 5

TRANSCRIPT orTB #1B-13: ORDERING MERCHANDISE

1 ((phone rings))

2 A X-syuppan -sya de gozaimasu.X Publishing Company COP-IPF (+)

'X Publishers.'

3 C Syoten desu ga,.=book company COP-IPF CP

'(I)'m (with a) book company, but

4 C =osewa ni natte orimasu::.=assistance GL become-GER be-iPFsL"


5 A Osewa -sama de gozaimasu.assistance person (+) COP-IPF (+)['Thank you for your patronage.']

6 C Tyuumon it -ten onegai-sitai n desu keredomo.order one item beg-iPF-DES1^ EP CP

'It's that (I)'d like to request an order for one item, but.



8 C E: taitoru ga [title name].HES title SUB

'Um, (the) title is [title name].'

9 A Teika no hoo, owakari ni narimasu ka: ?price CN alternatives be clear-ipp^ Q

'Are you aware of the price choices?'

312 Appendix 5

IOC A, anoo, osiete itadakemasu ka?oh HES tell-GER receive-fr-out-grp-iPF-POT^ Q

'Oh, um, could you tell me?'

1 1 A Eto, nana -sen -en TO,hes seven thousand yen and

'Um, ¥7000 AND,

12C Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

ISA sen nihyaku sanzyuu-roku -en TO,one thousand two hundred thirty -six yen and

'¥1236 AND,

14C Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

15 A mini-ban no roppyaku nizyuu -en to,=mini version CN six hundred twenty yen and

16 A =san-ten am ndesuga.three items be-ipp EP CP

'the ¥620 mini-version, it's that there are three of them, but....'

17C A, soo desu ka=.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that right.

1 8 C =Zya, sen nihyaku sanzyuu roku -en no mono o,well one thousand two hundred thirty -six yen CN thing OBJ

19C is -satu onegai-itasimasu:.one volume b

Well then, (I)'d like one volume of the one (that is) ¥1236.'

20 A Hai, wakarimasita. Bansen onegai-itasimasuyes be clear-pp agency code beg-iPF ̂

'Okay, understood. (The) agency code, please.'

Appendix 5 313

21C Hai. [Agency name] de:,yes INST

'Okay, (it's) through [agency name],'

22 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

23 C ((gives first part of number))

24A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

25 C ((gives second part of number))

26 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

27 C ((gives last part of number))

28 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

29 C Sinzyuku-ku..Shinjuku ward

'Shinjuku [Ward].'

30 A Sinzyuku-ku, hai.Shinjuku ward yes

'Shinjuku [Ward], okay.'

31C Tookyoo Syoten to moosimasu,Tokyo Books QT be called-iPF^

'(I)'m (with a company) called Tokyo Books.'

32 A Hai.ACK

'Mhm.'

314 Appendix 5

33 C ((caller then explains the way to write the kanzi characters in hercompany name, i.e. in the original name, which is withheld here))

34A Hai, wakarimasita.yes be clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

35C De, Tookyoo Syoten no Yamada-ate ni siteand Tokyo Books CN Yamada addressed to do-GER

36 C moraemasu ka:?receive-fr-out-grp-iPF-por Q

'And, could (I) have you address it to Yamada of Tokyo Books?'

37 A Yamada-sama desu ne!=Ms. Yamada (+) COP-IPF SP

'It's Ms. Yamada, right!'

38 C =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

39A Hai, wakarimasita.yes be clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

40C Hannyuu nan -niti ni narimasu// desyoo?incoming shipment what day GL become-ipp COP-TENT

'What might the shipment arrival date be?'

41A Eeto, suiyoobi ni narimasu, Yamazaki to moosimasu.HES Wednesday GL become Yamazaki QT be called-ipp^

'Um, it'll be on Wednesday, (I)'m called Yamazaki.'

42 C Hai. Zya yorosiku onegai-itasimasu, situree// itasima:su.ACK well then well beg-iPF^ rudeness do-ippvl/

'Okay. Well then, please do (this for me). Good-bye.'

43 A Arigatoo gozaimasita.thank you (+)

'Thank you.'

APPENDIX 6

TRANSCRIPT OF KI #1 A-11: CONFIRMING A DELIVERY

1 ((recording begins after call is transferred to A))


'Hello.'

3 C Mosi most: =hello

'Hello.'

4 A =Hai, odenwa//kawarimasita:.yes phone change-pr

'Yes, [(I)'ve (ex)changed phones (with someone else).]'

5 C A, osewa ni natte 'masu:. =oh assistance GL become-GER be-IFF

'Oh, [thank you for your continued assistance.]'

6 C =Kansai Yunyuu no Watanabe to moosimasu:. =Kansai Imports CN Watanabe QT be called-ipp^

'(I)'m called Watanabe of Kansai Imports.'

7 A =A, (osewa ni) natte 'masu:.oh assistance GL become-GER be-IFF

'Oh, [thank you for your continued patronage.]'

8 C Osewa ni natte 'masu:.assistance GL become-GER be-iPF['Thank you for your continued assistance.']

9 A HalACK

'Mhm.'

316 Appendix 6

IOC Eeto:, ippan de kakunin site hosii no gaHES general LOG confirmation do-GER desire NOM SUB

11C aru n desu kedomo: =be (inanimate)-iPF EP CP


12 A =A, doozo:.=oh please (go ahead)

'Oh, please go ahead.'

13 C =H desu ka:?=good COP-IPF Q


14 A =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

15 C Iti nil san.one two three

'One two three.'

16 A Iti nii san, hai.one two three yes

'One two three, yes.'

17C Kyuu nii hati.nine two eight

'Nine two eight.'

ISA Kyuu nii hati, hai.nine two eight yes

'Nine two eight, yes'

19C Iti nii san goo desu:.one two three five COP-IPF

'One two three five.'

Appendix 6 317

20A Iti nil san goo desu ne? =one two three five COP-IPF SP

'One two three five, right?'

21C =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

22 A Hai, syoosyoo omati kudasa:ai.=yes a little waiting^ give-to-in-grp^

'Okay, please wait a moment.'

23 C =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

((pause and sound of typing on computer keyboard while he checks))

24 A A, MOsi mosi:. =oh hello

'Oh, HEllo.'

25 C =Mosi mosi.hello

'Hello.'

26A Anoo: moo iti -do bangoo no hoo kakunin simasu ne?=HES more one time number CN alternative confirm do-iPF SP

'Um, (I)'ll confirm the number one more time, ok?'

27 C =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

28 A Iti nii san NO:one two three CN

'One two three DASH'

29 C Hai:.ACK

'Mhm.'

318 Appendix 6

30A Kyuu nil hati NOnine two eight CN

'Nine two eight DASH'

31C Kyuu nii SAN desunine two three COP-IPF

'It's nine two THREE.'

32A A, kyuu nii san desu ka?oh nine two three COP-IPF Q

'Oh, it's nine two three?'

33 C Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

34 A Sumimasen!be sorry-iPF

'(I)'m sorry!'

((pause while he checks on the computer again))

35 A ((said quietly as though to himself)) Sorya NAi wa na!that one be-NEG-iPF sp SP

'That one we DON'T have, do we!'

36A A, mosi most:. —oh hello

'Oh, hello.'

37 C Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

38 A Ee:tto, kotira no hoo zyuu-yokka no hi desu NE,=HES this CN side 14th CN day COP-IPF ATF

'Um, (on) this end, (on) the 14th, you see,'

39 C =Hai:.ACK.

'Mhm.'

Appendix 6 319

40 A anoo Oosaka-siten no hoo de haitatu motidasi:HES Osaka office CN side INST delivery take out-iNF

41A kakatte orimasu kedoMO:be showing-IFF 4^ CP

'um, we're showing it's been taken out for delivery via the Osakaoffice, BUT'

42C A, hai.//De~.oh yes and

'Oh, yes. And—'

43 A Hai, tabun iti -do: moti:dasi:TE, nanka huzaiyes probably one time take out-GER somehow not there

44 A ka nan ka de moti:kaette 'ru n zya nai ka naor something COP-GER bring back-GER be-iPF EP-NEG-> Q SP

45 A to omou n desu kedoMO, =QT think EP CP

'Yes, I think (they) probably took it out once (for delivery) and,given that (the customer) wasn't there or something, (I)'mwondering if it isn't that they've brought it back, BUT....'

46 C =A soo desu ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, really.'

47 A haitatu no kanryoo no hoo wa natte 'masen no DE:. =delivery CN completion CN side TOP become-GER be-NEG-ipF EP-GER

'it's that (we're showing) there's no completion of delivery, SO....

48C =A soo desu ka.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, really.'

49 A =Hai:.yes

'Yes.'

320 Appendix 6

50 C Wakarimasita. Anoo, haitatu-siteifbi] ga sakuzitu desita no DE=be clear-pp HES set delivery (date) SUB yesterday COP-PF EP-GER

'I see. Um, given that the day it was to be delivered was YEsterday,

51A =A, hai:.oh yes

'Ah, yes.'

52C de: kyoo: moo zyuugo-niti ni natte simaimasita no DE:,=and today already 15th GL end up being-pp EP-GER

'and today it's already [ended up being] the 15th, SO,'

53 A =A, hai:.=oh yes

'Ah, yes.'

54 C =huzai de mo kekkoo desu - n doa no tokoro ninot there COP-GER even fine (+) COP-IPF EP door CN area GL

55C oite itte hosii to iu koto de.leave-GER go-GER desire QT say-ipp matter COP-GER

'even if they're not there, that's fine, they said they wanted (theshipper) to leave it near the door,'

56A A soo desu ka:.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, I see.'

57 C =senpoo kara renraku hairimasita no de.other party from contact come in-PF EP-GER

'it's that the information came in from the customer, so'

58A A soo desu ka.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, really.'

59 C =Ee.yes

'Yes.'

Appendix 6 321

60 A HalACK

'Okay.'

61C Anoo kotira no sekinin de:, anoo,HES this side CN responsibility COP-GER HES

62 C oil' oite itadakemasu ka:?leave-GER do for future USC-POT-GER receive-fr-out-grp-Poi-iPF Q

'Um, we'll take responsibility, um, could (we) have you leave it ?'

63 A A, \\>akarimasita:.=oh, be clear-pp

'Oh, understood.'

64 C =HalACK

'Okay.'

65 A Itioo, anoo:, anoo:, (so)sita(ra) doo siyoo ka na, itioo,for now HES HES (so) do-CND how do-CNS-> Q SP for now

66 A maa genkan no mae ni demo:, ano,well entryway CN front LOC even if HES

67 A huzai -renraku: arimasu yo ne?, =absence notice be-iPF SP SP

'For now, um, ah, in that case I wonder what we should do, for now,well, even if it's in the front of the entryway, um, you know there's(those) absence notices, right?'

68 C =Halyes

'Yes.'

69 A sono bun anoo:, hanko osite moratte:,=that portion HES stamp push-GER receive-fr-out-grp-GER

'having had (them) stamp that (with their personal seal), and'

70 C =HalACK

'Okay.'

322 Appendix 6

71A anoo:, hatte morattara:,//hes stick-GER receive-fr-out-grp-GER

'um, if you'll have them stick it (on the door),'

72A anoo, oil' okimasu: n DE.HES leave-GER do for future use-IFF EP-GER

'um, it's that (we)'ll leave it for (them), SO....,'

73 C A, soo desu ne!oh so COP-IPF SP

'Oh, right!'

74 A =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

75 C Wakarimasita, sonoyoo ni suruyoo nibe clear-pp that way GL do in such a way GL

76 C s(o) yuutte okimasu no DE:,=that say-GER do for future USC-IPF EP-GER

'Got it, it's that I'll tell (them) that, to do it in that way, SO....'

77A =Hai, sumimasen ga:.=ACK be sorry-ipp CP

'Okay, (I)'m sorry (to trouble you), but....'

78 C -Anoo, mukoo no doraibaano kata ni mo itioohes over there CN driver CN person (+) GL also for time being

79 C hito-koto itt' oite itadakemasu ka? =one thing say-GER do for future USC-GER receive-fr-out-grp-poi IPF Q

'Um, could (we) have you put in a word for the time being to thedriver over there, too?'

80 A =A, wakarimasita=.oh be clear-pF

'Oh, understood.'

81C =Hai.ACK

'Okay.'

Appendix 6 323

82 A Hai=.ACK

'Okay.'

83 C =Yorosiku onegai-// simasu:.well beg-ippvl'

['May things go well.']

84 A Hai, doo mo:. Situree// simasu:yes thanks rudeness do-ipp

'Yes, thanks. Good-bye.'

85 C Situree simasu:rudeness

'Good-bye.'


APPENDIX 7

TRANSCRIPT OFKI #3B-11: REPORTING A MISSED DELIVERY

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Kobe Unyu desu.Kobe Shipping COP-IPF

'Kobe Shipping.'

3 C =Kotira, Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamoto desu. =this Kansai Imports CN Yamamoto COP-IPF

'This (is) Yamamoto of Kansai Imports.'

4 A =Hai, osewa// ni natt' orimasu:.yes assistance GL become-GER be-ipp 4-


5 C Doo mo, osewa ni natte orimasu:.in many ways assistance GL become be-ipp 4*

'In many ways, [thank you for your continued assistance.]'

6 C E:to:, hassoo no Kaneda-san, onegai-dekimasu ka?HES dispatch CN Mr. Kaneda beg-ipF-poi4' Q

'Um, may (I) have (Mr.) Kaneda of (the) dispatch (section)?'

7 A Hat, syoosyoo omati kudasai=yes a little waiting^ give-to-in-group-iPF^


8 C =Hai.ACK

'Okay.'


9 A2 A, mosi most.oh hello

'Oh, hello?'

326 Appendix 7

IOC A, mosi mosi?//Kotira, Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamoto desu:.oh hello this Kansai Imports CN Yamamoto COP-IPF

'Oh, hello? This is (Ms.) Yamamoto of Kansai Imports.'

11A2 Kawarimasita.change-pp

['(I)'ve (ex)changed (phones with someone else).']

12 C Doo mo,// osewa ni narimasu:.in many ways assistance GL become-ipp

'In many ways, [(I) am obliged (to you) for your assistance.]'

13A2 Osewa ni narimasu:.assistance GL become-iPF

['(I) am obliged (to you) for your patronage.']

14C E:to desu ne? Kono mae, ano: e:: ohuisu kara okutta,HES COP-IPF ATF the other day HES HES office from send-PF

15C BUkku no bun na n desu kedoMO:book(s) CN portion COP^PF EP CP

'Um, you know, it's that (I'm calling about) um, (a) BOok order(we) sent from (the) office the other day, BUT...'

16A2 Hai=BC

'Mhm.'

17 C =zyuuiti-gatu zyuuroku-niti: =November 16th


18A2 =Hai, hai.Yes yes

'Yes, yes.'

19C okutta bun na// ndesukedoMO:send-PF portion COP-IPF EP CP

'it's that (I'm talking about the) part of the order sent (on that date),BUT'

Appendix 7 327

20 A2 Zyuuiti-gatu desu ka?November COP-IPF Q

'Is it November?'

21C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

22 A2 Zyuuroku, hailsixteen ACK

'(the) 16(th), okay!'

23 C Hai. E:: takuhai DE:yes HES residential delivery INST

'Yes, um, by residential DELIVERY(service).

24 A2 Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

25 C e: nanbaa ga iti ni san NO:HES number SUB one two three CN

'Um, (the) number (is) one two three DASH'

26 A2 Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

27 C yon go rokuNO:four five six CN

'four five six DASH'

28 A2 Hai.BC

'Mhm.'

29 C nana hati kyuu kyuu.seven eight nine nine

'seven eight nine nine.'

328 Appendix 7

30A2 nana hati kyuu kyuu!seven eight nine nine

'seven eight nine nine!'

31C Halyes

'Yes.'

32A2 Mityaku desu ka?not yet arrived COP-IFF Q

'It's not yet arrived?'

33 C (0.3) E:to mityaku rasii// ndesu:.HES not yet arrived seems EP

(0.3 second pause) 'Um, it's that it seems (it)'s not yet arrived.

34A2 Mityaku=not yet arrived

'not yet arrived.'

35 C =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

36A2 Tyotto matte kudasai//, yo.a little wait-GER give-to-in-group-ipF'Tv SP

'Wait a minute, okay?'

37C HalACK

'Okay.'


38A2 Mosimosi?hello

'Yes.'

39 C A, mo si mo si,//hailoh hello yes

'Oh yes, hello!'

Appendix 7 329

40A2 Sumimasen.be sorry^F

'(I)'m sorry (for the wait).'

41A2 E: nizyuu-itiniti desu ne!HES 21st COP-IPF ATF

'urn, (on) the 21st, you see,'

42 C HailBC

'Mhm!'

43 A2 kanryoo wa nee, dete oru n desu yo.completion TOP ATF show up be-ipp(+) EP SP


44 C Dete 'masu ka?=show up-GER be-iPF Q

'(It)'s showing up?'

45 A2 =Dete 'masu.show up-GER be-ipp

'(It)'s showing up.'

46 C Nizyuu-itiniti ni.=21st LOG

'on (the) 21st'

47A2 =Nizyuu-itiniti, hai.21 st yes

'(on the) 21st, yes.'

48 C E:to, sain...// \vakarimasuha?HES signature be clear-iPF Q

'Um, is it clear (whose) signature (was used to accept the delivery)?'

49 A2 Sain torimasyoo ka?signature take-CNs Q

'Shall (I/we) get (the) signature?'

330 Appendix 7

50 C Hai. Onegai dekimasu ka? =Yes beg^F-pOT4' Q

'Yes. Could (I) ask (you to do that)?'

51A2 =Hai, wakarimasita.=yes become clear-pp

'Yes, understood.'

52 C =Onegai simasu:. =

['Please do so.']

53A2 =Kiite okimasu nde:ask-GER do for future USC-IPF EP-GER

'It's that (I/we)'ll ask about (it), so....

54 C Doomo.thanks

'Thanks.'

55 A2 Hai.yes

'Sure.'

APPENDIX 8

TRANSCRIPT OF KI #16-6: REPORTING AN INCOMPLETE DELIVERY

1 ((phone rings))

2 A Mosi most, [Masutaa Denki] desu. ((said very quietly))hello [Master Electric] COP-IPF

'Hello, (this) is [Master Electric].'

3 C A, most most?oh hello

'Oh, hello?'

4 A Halyes

'Yes'

5 C Et:to: sotira wa: Masutaa Denki desyoo ka.HES that side TOP Master Electric COP-TENT Q

'Urn, would this be Master Electric?'

6 A Hai, soo desu:.yes so COP-IPF

'Yes, (that)'s right.'

7 C A , hhh ano desu nee,Oh HES COP-IPF ATF

'Oh, 'hhh well you see,'

8 C Et:to: kotira Kansai Yunyuu to iimasu keredoMO:,HES this side Kansai Imports QT be called-ipp CP

'Urn, this is Kansai Imports but,'

9 A Kansai Unyu? ((Call recipient mispronounces the real name ofC's company; the Japanese transcript hereconveys a similar mistake for "Kansai Yunyuu"))

Kansai Shipping

'Kansai Shipping?'

332 Appendix 8

IOC YUim

'IM.'

11A Kansai Yunyuu.Kansai Imports

'Kansai Imports.'

12 C Halyes

'Yes.'

13 A HalACK

'Okay.'

14C Ano: kon'aida toransuhuoomaa O: ((said slowly))HES the other day transformers OBJ

'Urn, (the) other day, transFORMERS'

15 A HalACK

'Mhm.'

16C ano: tyuumon site 'to n desu GA: ((said slowly))HES order make-GER be-PF EP CP

'Um, (it)'s that (we) ordered (some), BUT...'

17A HalACK

'Mhm.'

18C E:to: MIttu doYOObi ni motte kite itadaite we? ((slowly))HES three Saturday LOG bring-GER receive-GER^ ATF

'Um, (we) had (you) bring three on Saturday, you see?'

19 A HalACK

'Mhm.'

Appendix 8 333

20C De: nokori no hutatu o, e: kinoo ((said slowly))and remainder CN two OBJ HES yesterday

21C motte kuRU tte iwarete ta n desu keDO: ((said slowly))bring-ipp QT be told-GER be-pp EP cp

'And (it)'s that (we)'d been told that the remaining two, um, (you)'dbring (them), but...'

22 A Hat.ACK

'Okay'

23 C konakatta n desu kedo.COme-NEG-PF EP CP

'it's that (they) didn't come, but....'

24A A, tyotto omati kudaSAi.oh a little waiting give to in-group-iMp^

'Oh, please wait a MOment.'

25 C Hai.ACK

'Okay.'


26 A2 Mosi most?hello

'Hello?'

27 C A, mosi mosi? =oh hello

'Oh, hello?'

28A2 =A doo mo, odenwa kawari//masita.oh hello telephone change-pp

'Oh hello, [(I)'ve exchanged phones (with someone).]'

29C A doo mo, kotira Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamotooh thanks this side Kansai Imports CN Yamamoto

334 Appendix 8

30C to moosimasu GA:=QT be called-ipp CP

'Oh, thank you. This is Yamamoto of Kansai Imports, BUT...'

31 A, =Hai.yes

'Yes.'

32 C 'hhh Ano: kono aida toransuhuoomaa O:HES the other day transformers OBJ

' 'hhh Uh, the other day, transFORMERS'

33 A2 (0.3)

34 C oodaa sita n desu keredoMO:order do-pp EP CP

'(It)'s that (we) ordered (some), BUT...'

35A2 HalACK

'Mhm.'

36C (1.0) E: doyoobi ni:, mittu— nanka itutu oodaa siTE:,HES Saturday LOG three-FS somehow five order do-GER

'Um, on Saturday, three—somehow, having ordered FIVE,'

37C ano: saisyo itutu haitatu surareru ((sic)) to iwarete 'taHES first five deliver *do-pAS-ipp QT tell-PAS-GER be-pp

38 C ndesuGA: =EP CP

'um, it's that first, (we) were told (that) five would be delivered,BUT'

39A2 =A, mittu sika nakatta// desu ne?oh three only be-NEG-pF COP-IPF SP

'Oh, there were only three, right?'

40 C Ee, ee, ee. De doyoobi haitatu site itadaiTE:=yes yes yes then Saturday delivery do-GER receive-GER^

'Yes, yes, yes. Then Saturday, having had (you) deliver (the three),

Appendix 8 335

41A2 =Hai, hai, hai, hai.yes yes yes yes

'Yes, yes, yes, yes.'

42 C De nokori no hutatu ga nanka mokuYOObini kimasuand remainder CN two SUB somehow Thursday LOG come-iPF

43 C tte iwarete 'ta n//desu keredomo.QT be told-PF be-PF EP CP

'And (it)'s that (the) other two, somehow, we were told (they) wouldcome on Thursday, but....'

44 A2 A soo desu ka. ((Kansai intonation))oh so COP-IPF Q


45 C Hai.yes

'Yes.'

46A2 Tyotto, sirabemasu wa nee!a little look into-iPF SP-KS SP

'(I)'ll just look into it, you know, okay?'

((call recipient partially covers the phone receiver and speaks to acolleague for 15 seconds; can be heard mentioning the "MF 500 UUtransformer" that is discussed below))

47 A2 Mosi most!hello

'Hello?'

48 C Hai! =yes

'Yes!'

49A2 =Sositara ano ima sirabemasitein that case HES now look into-GER

50 A2 tyotto, odenwa sasiagemasyo// ka?= ((Kansai intonation))just telephone give to out-grp-CNs^ Q

'In that case um, shall I look into (it) now and just give (you) a call?'

336 Appendix 8

51C A soo desu// ka.oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is (that) so.'

52A2 Kore, ato: ni-ko: goiriyoo desu ne?these remaining two-items need (+) COP-IPF SP

'You need two more of these, right?'

53C Ano: dekitara, ne? =HES be possible-cND ATF

'Um, if possible, you see?'

54A2 HalBC

'Mhm.'

55 C =San-ko ni site itadakitai n desu// keDO:three GL do-GER receive-DEsvl' EP CP

(It)'s that (we)'d like to have you make it three, but.

56A2 A soo desu ka.=oh so COP-IPF Q

'Oh, is that so.'

57C =Hal =yes

'Yes.'

58A2 =Moo san-ko, ne?more three-items SP

'Three more, right?'

59C Halyes

'Yes.'

60 A2 Zyaa, emu effu gohyaku yuuyuuwell then M F 500 U U

Appendix 8 337

61A2 gohyaku watto no toransu O:500 watt CN transformers ((abbreviated)) OBJ

'Well then, MF 500, UU 500-watt transformers,'

62 C HalACK

'Mhm.'

63A2 ato ni -ko no bun wa moo ik-ko tuika,remaining two items CN portion TOP more one-item in addition

64 A2 san-ko to in koto desu ne?three-items QT say-iPF matter COP-IFF SP

'adding one (to) (the) remaining two, so it's three, right?'

65 C Hai!yes

'Yes!'

66A2 Hai, wakarimasita! =ACK become clear-pp

'Okay, understood.'

67C =Ano: orikaesi, zyaa, odenwa itadakemasu// ka?HES return call in that case telephone receive-iPF^ Q

'Um, in that case, could (we) receive a call back?'

68 A2 Hai, sirabete:, odenwa sasiagema//su:.yes look into-GER telephone give to out-group-iPF^

'Yes, we'll look into it and (we/I)'ll call (you).'

69C Hai, situree desu ke/ido:ACK rudeness COP-IPF CP

'Okay, excuse me, but....'

70 A2 A, Masutaa Denki, Hashimoto desu:, —oh Master Electric Hashimoto COP-IPF

'Oh, (I)'m Hashimoto, Master Electric.'

338 Appendix 8

71 C =Hashimoto-san desu ne =Mr. Hashimoto COP-IPF SP

'It's Mr. Hashimoto, right?'

72 A2 =Hai!yes

'Yes!'

73 C Hai, yorosiku// onegai-simasu:.ACK well beg-iPF 4>

'Okay, please [take care of it for me].

74 A2 Yorosiku onegai-simasu.well

'May things go well.'

REFERENCES

Alfonso, A. (1966). Japanese Language Patterns: A Structural Approach. Sophia UniversityL.L. Center of Applied Linguistics, Tokyo.

Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Our Masters' Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics.Methuen, London.

Atkinson, J. M. and P. Drew (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction inJudicial Settings. Macmillan, London.

Atkinson, J. M. and J. Heritage (eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bachnik, J. M. and C. J. Quinn (eds.) (1994). Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in JapaneseSelf, Society and Language. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

Baker, C., M. Emmison and A. Firth (2001). Discovering order in opening sequences: Calls toa software helpline. In: How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings (A. McHouland M. Rapley, eds), pp. 41-56. Continuum, London.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V. W. McGee, tr.). Universityof Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Barlow, M. (200l).MonoConcPro 2.0. Athelstan, Houston.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books, New York.

Bierwisch, M. (1980). Semantic structure and illocutionary force. In: Speech Act Theory andPragmatics (J. Searle, F. Kiefer and M. Bierwisch, eds), pp. 1-37. D. Reidel,Dordrecht, Holland.

Bilmes, J. (1992). Dividing the rice: A microanalysis of the mediator's role in a Northern Thainegotiation. Language in Society, 21, 569-602.

Blatz, C. V. (1972). Accountability and answerability. Journal for the Theory of SocialBehavior,!, 101-120.

Blom, J.-P. and J. J. Gumperz (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching inNorway. In: Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication(J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, eds), pp. 407-434. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,New York.

340 References

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics,3 (1), 29-59.

Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper (eds.) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requestsand Apologies. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.

Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olshtain (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study ofspeech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3). 196-213.

Blumstein, P. W. (1974). The honoring of accounts. American Sociological Review, 39 (551-61).

Bourdieu, P. (1990). In Other Words. Stanford University Press, Stanford. California.

Brouwer, D., M. Gerritsen and D. De Haan (1979). Speech differences between women andmen: On the wrong track? Language in Society, 8 (1), 33-50.

Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Buttny, R. (1993). Social Accountability in Communication. Sage, London.

Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In: Talk and Social Organization (G. Button andJ. R. E. Lee, eds), pp. 101-151. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Button, G. (1990). On varieties of closings. In: Interaction Competence (G. Psathas. ed.).pp. 93-148. University Press of America, Washington, D.C.

Burton, G. and N. J. Casey (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In: Structuresof Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (J. M. Atkinson andJ. C. Heritage, eds), pp. 167-190. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Button, G., P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.) (1986). Human Studies: Special Issue. MartinusNijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Button, G. and J. R. E. Lee (eds.) (1987). Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters,Clevedon.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague.

Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In: ThePear Stories (W. L. Chafe, ed.), pp. 127-202. Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.

Clancy, P. M. (1982). Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives. In: Spoken and WrittenLanguage: Exploring Orality and Literacy (D. Tannen, ed.), pp. 55-76. Ablex,Norwood, New Jersey.

References 341

Clark, H. H. and J. W. French (1981). Telephone goodbyes. Language in Society, 10, 1-10.

Collard, L. and C. J. Pettinari (1998). Presenting problems on an Egyptian radio phone-inprogramme. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics AssociationConference in Reims, France, July 1998.

Coupland, N. (1983). Patterns of encounter management: Further arguments for discoursevariables. Language in Society, 12, 459-476.

Couture, B. (ed.) (1986). Functional Approaches to Writing Research Perspectives. FrancesPinter, London.

Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealingwith potential or actual rejection. In: Structures of Social Action: Studies inConversation Analysis (J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, eds), pp. 102-128.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

De Mente, B. (1987). How to Do Business with the Japanese. NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood,Illinois.

Doi, T. (1973). The Anatomy of Dependence (J. Bester, tr.). Kodansha International, Tokyo.

Drew, P. (1998). Mis-alignments in 'out-of-hours' calls to the doctor. Paper presented at the6th International Pragmatics Association Conference in Reims, France, July1998.

Drew, P. and J. Heritage (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ehlich, K. and J. Wagner (1995). The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Mouton de Gruyter,Berlin.

Farrell, T. J. (1994). Effective Telephone Skills. The Dryden Press. Fort Worth, Texas.

Firth, A. (ed.) (1995). The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace.Pergamon, Oxford.

Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ford, C. E. and S. A. Thompson (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational,and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In: Interaction and Grammar(E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff and S. A. Thompson, eds), Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

342 References

Fry, J. S. (2001). Ellipsis and Wa-Marking in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation,Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Fukushima, S. and Y. Iwata (1987). Politeness strategies in requesting and offering. JACETBulletin, 18, 31-48.

Gardner, R. (1985). Discourse analysis: Implications for language teaching, with particularreference to casual conversation. In: Cambridge Language Teaching Surveys(V. Kinsella, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gardner, R. (1987). The identification and role of topic in spoken interaction. Semiotica, 65(1,2), 129-141.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey.

Garfinkel, H. and H. Sacks (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In: TheoreticalSociology (J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian, eds), pp. 337-366. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

Garner, P. A. (1984). The Office Telephone: A User's Guide. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, New York.

Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Godard, D. (1977). Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and theUnited States. Language in Society, 6, 209-219.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places. Free Press, New York.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Pantheon Books,New York.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Harper & Row,New York.

Graham, J. L. (1980). Cross-Cultural Sales Negotiations: A Multi-Level Analysis. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,

Graham, J. L. (1985). The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations: Anexploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies, 16 (1), 81-96.

Graham, J. L. (1990). An exploratory study of the process of marketing negotiations using across-cultural perspective. In: Developing Communicative Competence in aSecond Language (R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen and S. D. Krashen, eds).Newbury House, New York.

Graham, J. L. (1993). The Japanese negotiation style: Characteristics of a distinct approach.Negotiation Journal, 9 (1), 123-140.

Graham, J. L. and R. Herberger (1983). Negotiators abroad: Don't shoot from the hip. HarvardBusiness Review, 61 (4), 160-168.

Gumperz, J., H. Kaltman and M. O'Connor (1984). Cohesion in spoken and written discourse:Ethnic style and the transition to literacy. In: Coherence in Spoken and WrittenDiscourse (D. Tannen, ed.), Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982a). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982b). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. Doubleday, New York.

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman, London.

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language ina Social-Semiotic Perspective. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Australia.

Halmari, H. (1993). Intercultural business telephone conversations: A case of Finns vs. Anglo-Americans. Applied Linguistics, 14 (4), 408-430.

Harris, R. (1984). Truth and Politeness: A Study in the Pragmatics of Egyptian ArabicConversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Hasan, R. (1977). Text in the systemic-functional model. In: Current Trends in Textlinguistics(W. Dressier, ed.), pp. 228-246. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

Hasan, R. (1979). On the notion of text. In: Text vs. Sentence (J. S. Petofi, ed.), Buske,Hamburg.

Hashiuchi, T. (1985). 'Mosi mosi' kara yooken ni hairu made [From 'Hello' to beginning thematter of business]. Gengo seikatsu [Language Life], 407, 34-42.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge, in conjunctionwith Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

344 References

Heritage, J. (1989). Current developments in conversation analysis. In: Conversation: AnInterdisciplinary Perspective (D. Roger and P. Bull, eds), Vol. 3, pp. 21-47.Multilingual Matters, Ltd., Clevedon.

Heritage, J. (1995). Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In: Aspects of OralCommunication (U. M. Quasthoff, ed.), pp. 391-418. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

Heritage, J. and D. R. Watson (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In: EverydayLanguage (G. Psathas, ed.), pp. 123-162. Irvington, New York.

Hill, B., S. Ide, S. Ikuta, A. Kawasaki and T. Ogino (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness.Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371.

Hinds, J. (1982). Japanese conversational structures. Lingua, 57, 2-4.

Hopper, R. (1989). Conversation analysis and social psychology as descriptions of interpersonalcommunication. In: Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (D. Rogerand P. Bull, eds), Vol. 3, pp. 48-65. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone Conversation. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Hopper, R., N. Doany, M. Johnson and K. Drummond (1990). Universals and particulars intelephone openings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24(1990/1991), 369-387.

Hoshino, T. (1991). An Analysis of Hosii in Modern Spoken Japanese. M.A. thesis, The OhioState University, Columbus, Ohio.

Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991). Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations. In: Talkand Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis(D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman, eds), pp. 232-250. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In: Anthropology and Human Behavior(T. Galdwin and W. C. Sturtevant, eds), pp. 13-53. Anthropological Society ofWashington, Washington, D.C.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: Directions inSociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (J. Gumperz and D. Hymes,eds), pp. 35-71. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

References 345

lacobucci, C. (1990). Accounts, formulations and goal attainment strategies in service encounters.Journal of Language and Social Psychology: Special Issue on Multiple Goals inDiscourse, 9(1-2), 85-99.

Ikuta, S. (1988). Strategies of Requesting in Japanese Conversational Discourse. Ph.D.dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Inagaki, Y. (1988). Madarukoshisa no shuuhen [Around the Japanese sluggishness]. In: Nihongokooza [Japanese Language Courses] (T. Iguchi, ed.), Vol. 5, Taishuukan Shoten,Tokyo.

Ishii, S. (1984). Enryo-sasshi communication: A key to understanding Japanese interpersonalrelations. Cross Currents, XI (1), 49-58.

Iwai, C. and L. Yamada (1994). Methodological issues in studies of pragmatic competence.Yasuda Joshi Daigaku kiyo, 22, 37-46.

Jacoby, S. and E. Ochs (1995). Co-Construction: An Introduction. Research on Language andSocial Interaction, 28 (3), 171-183.

Jefferson, G. (1980). On 'trouble-premonitory' response to inquiry. Language and SocialInteraction, 50(3/4), 153-185.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation.Social Problems, 35 (418-41), 418-441.

Jefferson, G. and J. R. E. Lee (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematicconvergence of a 'troubles-telling' and a 'service encounter.' Journal ofPragmatics, 5, 399-422.

Jefferson, G. and J. R. E. Lee (1992). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematicconvergence of a 'troubles-telling' and a 'service encounter.' In: Talk at Work:Interaction in Institutional Settings (P. Drew and J. Heritage, eds), pp. 521-548.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jefferson, G. and J. Schenkein (1978). Some sequential negotiations in conversation: Unexpandedand expanded versions of projected action sequences. In: Studies in theOrganization of Conversational Interaction (J. Schenkein, ed.), pp. 155-172.Academic Press, New York.

Jones, K. (1990). Conflict in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Jones, K. (1995). Masked negotiation in a Japanese work setting. In: The Discourse of Negotiation:Studies of Language in the Workplace (A. Firth, ed.), pp. 141-158. Pergamon,Oxford.

346 References

Jorden, E. H. (1963). Beginning Japanese. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Jorden, E. H. and M. Noda (1987). Japanese: The Spoken Language, Part 1. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.



Kashiwazaki, H. (1993). Hanashikake koodoo no danwa bunseki: Irai, yookyuu hyoogen nojissai o chuushin ni [Discourse analysis of requests with phatic communication].Nihongo kyooiku [Japanese Language Education], 79 (3), 53-63.

Kasper, G. and M. Dahl (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 13 (2), 215-247.

Kataoka, Y. (1989). Toward Japanese Spoken Narrative. M.A. thesis, The Ohio State University,Columbus. Ohio.

Kato, H. and J. S. Kato (1992). Understanding and Working with the Japanese Business World.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Kipers, P. (1986). Initiation and response in service encounter closings. Working Papers inEducational Linguistics, 27 (27), 1-16.

Kobayashi, K. (1980). Shokuba no ningen kankei [Human relations in organizations]. In:Nihonjin no ningen kankei jiten [Handbook of Japanese human relations](H. Minami, ed.), Kodansha, Tokyo.

Kotani, M. (1999). Accounting Actions of Japanese in the United States: An Exploration ofViews and Practices in Communicating with Americans. Ph.D. dissertation,Temple University,

Kumatoridani, T. (1992). Denwa kaiwa no kaishi to shuuketsu ni okeru "hai" to "moshi moshi"to "ja" no danwa bunseki [Discourse analysis of'hai,' 'moshi moshi,' and 'ja' inthe openings and closings of telephone calls]. Nihongogaku [Study of the JapaneseLanguage], 11 (9), 14-25.

Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York. Center for Applied Linguistics,Washington, D.C.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

References 347

Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese Patterns of Behavior. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Levinson. S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In: Talk at Work: Interaction in InstitutionalSettings (P. Drew and J. Heritage, eds), pp. 66-100. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Luke, K. K. and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds.) (2002). Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity inConversational Structure across Languages and Cultures. John Benjamins,Amsterdam.

Makino, S. and M. Tsutsui (1995). A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar. JapanTimes, Tokyo.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: The Meaning ofMeaning (C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, eds), pp. 296-336. Harcourt, Braceand World, Inc., New York.

March, R. M. (1988). The Japanese Negotiator: Subtlety and Strategy Beyond Western Logic.Kodansha, Tokyo.

Marriott, H. (1995). The management of discourse in international seller-buyer negotiations.In: The Discourse of Business Negotiation (K. Ehlich and J. Wagner, eds),Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In: Systemic Perspectiveson Discourse (J. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves, eds), Vol. 1, pp. 248-274.Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.

Martin, J. R. and J. Rothery (1986). What a functional approach to the writing task can showteachers about 'good writing.' In: Functional Approaches to Writing ResearchPerspectives (B. Couture, ed.), pp. 241-265. Frances Pinter, London.

Martin, S. E. (1975). ,4 Reference Grammar of Japanese. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Martin, S. E. (1994). Martin's Concise Japanese Dictionary. Charles E. Tuttle Company.Rutland, Vermont.

Maruyama, K. (1990). Keiken no asai Nihongo kyooshi no mondaiten no kenkyuu [Research onthe Problems Encountered by Beginning Japanese Language Instructors].Sotakusha, Tokyo.

348 References

Maruyama, K. (1994). Oshieru tame no kotoba no seiri [Linguistic Structure for TeachingPurposes]. Bonjinsha, Tokyo.

Matoba, K. (1989a). Nihongo to Doitsugo no teikyoo hyoogen ni okeru shugo settei to teineisano doai: Shakaigoyooronteki koosatu to Nihongo kyooiku e no ooyoo [Referentialperspective and degree of politeness in Japanese and German offer expressions:Sociopragmatic considerations and applications to Japanese language pedagogy].Paper presented at the Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai Taikai [Conference of theSociety for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language] in May 1989.

Matoba, K. (1989b). Subjecktbestimmung bei Ausdrucken des Anbietens und ihre Beziehung zuGraden der Hoflichkeit in der Deutschen und Japanischen Umgangsprache:Eine soziopragmatische Untersuchung [Determining the Subject in Expressionsof Offers and the Relation of this to the Degree of Politeness in German andJapanese Colloquial Speech: A Sociopragmatic Investigation]. Ph.D. dissertation,Sophia University, Tokyo.

Matsumura, A. (ed.) (1988). Daijirin. Sanseido, Tokyo.

Maynard, D. W. (1984). The structure of discourse in misdemeanor plea bargaining. Law andSociety Review, 18 (1), 75-104.

Maynard, D. W. (1992). On clinicians co-implicating recipients' perspective in the delivery ofdiagnostic news. In: Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (P. Drewand J. Heritage, eds), pp. 331-358. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Maynard, S. K. (1986). On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation.Linguistics, 24, 1079-1108.

Maynard, S. K. (1988). Pragmatics of interactional signs: A case of UH-HUH's and the like inJapanese conversation. The Fourteenth LACUS (Linguistic Association of Canadaand the United States) Forum, 67-76.

Maynard, S. K. (1989). Japanese Conversation: Self-Contextualization through Structure andInteractional Management. Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.

McClure, W. T. (2000). Using Japanese: A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

McGloin, N. H. (1980). Some observations concerning NO DESU expressions. Journal of theAssociation of Teachers of Japanese, 15 (2), 117-149.

Merritt, M. (1976a). Resources for Saying in Service Encounters. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

References 349

Merritt, M. (1976b). On questions following questions (in service encounters). Language inSociety, 5 (3), 315-357.

Mizutani, N. (1983). Nihongo kyooikuto hanashikotoba no jittai: Aizuchi no bunseki [TeachingJapanese and the reality of spoken language: An analysis of back-channel]. In:Kindaichi Haruhiko hakase koki kinen ronbumhuu [Papers in Honor ofKindaichiHaruhiko 's 70th Birthday], Vol. 2, pp. 261-279. Sanseido, Tokyo.

Mizutani, O. and N. Mizutani (1977). An Introduction to Modern Japanese. The Japan Times,Tokyo.

Moerman, M. (1988). Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Monane, T. A. (1981). Discourse analysis in pedagogical perspective: The teaching of syntacticand informational ellipsis. In: Papers from the Middlebury Symposium on JapaneseDiscourse Analysis (Seiichi Makino, ed.), University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.

Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressionsand Turn Construction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Morson, G. S. and C. Emerson (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, California.

Nakane, C. (1972). Japanese Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Neustupny, J. V. (1985a). Language norms in Australian-Japanese contact situations. In: Australia,Meeting Place of Languages (M. Clyne, ed.), pp. 161-170. Pacific Linguistics,Canberra, Australia.

Neustupny, J. V. (1985b). Problems in Australian-Japanese contact situations. In: Cross-CulturalEncounters: Communication and Mis-Communication (J. B. Pride, ed.), pp. 44-64.River Seine, Melbourne, Australia.

Neustupny, J. V. (1987). Communicating with the Japanese. Japan Times, Tokyo.

Neustupny, J. V. (1989). Strategies for Asia and Japan literacy. In: Papers of the JapaneseStudies Centre, Vol. 15, Japanese Studies Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Nishihara, S. (1994). Japanese Correspondence Course for JET Participants 1994-1995: Cross-Cultural Pragmatics and the Japanese Language. CLAIR, Tokyo.

Noda, M. (1981). An Analysis of the Japanese Extended Predicate: A Pragmatic Approach tothe System and Pedagogical Implication. M.A. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca,New York.

350 References

Noda. M. (1990). The Extended Predicate and Confrontational Discourse in Japanese. Ph.D.dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning aboutcommunication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.

O'Keefe, B. J. and G. J. Shepherd (1987). The pursuit of multiple objectives in face-to-facepersuasive interaction: Effects of construct differentiation on messageorganization. Communication Monographs, 54, 396-419.

Ochs, E., E. A. Schegloff and S. A. Thompson (1996). Interaction and Grammar. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Okamoto, N. (1990). Denwa ni yoru kaiwa shuuketsu no kenkyuu [Researching telephone callclosings]. Nihongo kyooiku [Japanese Language Education], 72. 151-154.

Okamoto, N. (1991). Kaiwa shuuketsu no danwa bunseki [Discourse analysis of conversationclosings]. Tokyo Kokusai Daigaku ronsoo Shoogakubuhen [Collected Essaysfrom Tokyo International University, Commercial Sciences Division], 44, 117-133.

Okamoto, N. and A. Yoshino (1995). Denwa kaiwa no chuukan gengo kenkyuu: Danwa kanrikara mita kaishibu to shuuketsubu o chuushin ni [Research on interlanguage intelephone calls: Focusing on opening and closing segments from the perspectiveof discourse management]. Paper presented at the Nihongo Kyooiku GakkaiShunki Taikai [Spring Conference of the Society for Teaching Japanese as aForeign Language] in Tokyo (Gakushuuin Daigaku), May 27-28, 1995.

Okazaki, S. (1987). An Ethnographic Study of English-Japanese Bilingual Conversation. M.A.thesis, California State University, Northridge, California.

Okazaki, S. (1993). Stating opinions in Japanese: Listener-dependent strategies. In: GeorgetownUniversity Roundtable on Languages and Literatures pp. 69-95. GeorgetownUniversity Press, Washington, D.C.

Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In: Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests andApologies (S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, eds), pp. 155-173. Ablex,Norwood, New Jersey.

Park, Y.-Y. (2002). Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversationopenings. In: Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structureacross Languages and Cultures (K. K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou, eds), pp. 25-47.John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Pavlidou, T.-S. (1994). Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal ofPragmatics, 21, 487-511.

References 351

Pavlidou, T.-S. (1998). Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation andagreement. Pragmatics, 8 (1), 79-94.

Phillips, D. and P. C. Riley (2000). Managing telephone talk: The sequential organization oftelephone openings. The Journal of Language for International Business, 11 (2),39.

Quinn, C. J. (2002). Taking it from the top: The growth and care of genres. In: Acts of Reading:Exploring Connections in the Pedagogy of Japanese (H. Nara and M. Noda,eds), University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Rabinowitz, J. F. (1993).^4 Descriptive Study of the Offer as a Speech Behavior in AmericanEnglish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ray, Y. T. (1989). Unity in Variety: Family Resemblance in the Use of Japanese NO. M.A.thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Reischauer, E. O. (1977). The Japanese. Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Rose, K. R. (1992a). Method and Scope in Cross Cultural Speech Act Research: A ContrastiveStudy of Requests in Japanese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofIllinois, Urbana, Illinois.

Rose, K. R. (1992b). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal ofPragmatics, 17, 49-62.

Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western contexts.Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1-14.

Rose, K. R. and R. Ono (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnairetype. Language Learning, 45 (2), 191-223.

Rosenberger, N. R. (ed.) (1992). Japanese Sense of Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rosenberger, N. R. (1994). Indexing hierarchy through Japanese gender relations. In: SituatedMeaning (J. M. Bachnik and C. J. Quinn, eds), pp. 88-112. Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, New Jersey.

Sacks, H. (ed.) (1964-72). Unpublished transcribed lectures (Transcribed and indexed byG. Jefferson). University of California, Irvine, California.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974). A simplest systematics for the organizationof turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

352 References

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70,1075-1095.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972a). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In: Studies inSocial Interaction (D. Sudnow, ed.), pp. 75-119. Free Press, New York.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972b). Sequencing in conversational openings. In: Directions inSociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (J. Gumperz and D. Hymes,eds), pp. 346-380. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone openings. In: EverydayLanguage: Studies in Ethnomethodology (G. Psathas, ed.), pp. 23-78. Irvington,New York.

Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: 'Can I ask you a question?' SociologicalInquiry, 50, 104-152.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988a). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In: Erving Goffman:Exploring the Interaction Order (P. Drew and A. Wootton, eds), pp. 89-135.Polity Press, Cambridge.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988b). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinaryconversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55-62.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of "coherence" intalk-in-interaction. In: Conversational Organization and its Development(B. Dorval, ed.), pp. 51-77. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In: Talk and Social Structure:Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (D. Boden andD. H. Zimmerman, eds), pp. 44-70. University of California Press, Berkeley,California.

Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance ofaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28 (3), 185-211.

Schegloff, E. A. and H. Sacks (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.

Schenkein, J. (ed.) (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. AcademicPress, New York.

Scott, M. B. and S. M. Lyman (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33 (1), 46-62.

References 353

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 59-82.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Shields, N. M. (1979). Accounts and other interpersonal strategies in a credibility detractingcontext. Pacific Sociological Review, 22, 255-272.

Sifianou, M. (1989). On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: Englandversus Greece. Language in Society, 18, 527-544.

Smith, R. J. (1983). Japanese Society: Tradition, Self, and the Social Order. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Sugito, S. and M. Sawaki (1977). Ifuku o kau toki no gengo koodoo [Language behavior inclothes purchases]. Gengo seikatsu [Language Life], 314, 42-52.

Sukle, R. J. (1994). Uchi/soto: Choices in directive speech acts in Japanese. In: SituatedMeaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society and Language(J. M. Bachnik and C. J. Quinn, eds), pp. 113-142. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Szatrowski, P. (1986a). Danwa no bunseki to kyoojuhoo (I)—Kanyuu hyoogen o chuushin ni[Discourse analysis and teaching methods (I): Focusing on invitation expressions].Nihongogaku [Study of the Japanese Language], 5(11), 27-41.

Szatrowski, P. (1986b). Danwa no bunseki to kyoojuhoo (II)--Kanyuu hyoogen o chuushin ni[Discourse analysis and teaching methods (II): Focusing on invitation expressions].Nihongogaku [Study of the Japanese Language], 5 (12), 99-108.

Szatrowski, P. (1987a). Danwa no bunseki to kyoojuhoo (III)—Kanyuu hyoogen o chuushin ni[Discourse analysis and teaching methods (III): Focusing on invitationexpressions]. Nihongogaku [Study of the Japanese Language], 6(1), 78-87.

Szatrowski, P. (1987b). A discourse analysis of Japanese invitations. Berkeley LinguisticsSociety: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting February 14-16, 1987:General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 270-284.

354 References

Szatrowski, P. (1992a). Invitation-refusals in Japanese telephone conversations. Paper presentedat the Association of Asian Studies Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., April 2,1992.

Szatrowski, P. (1992b). Seerusu no denwa no kaiwa bunseki no kokoromi [An investigation inthe conversation analysis of sales calls]. Nihongogaku [Study of the JapaneseLanguage], 11 (9), 51-64.

Szatrowski. P. (1993). Nihongo no danwa no koozoo bunseki: Kanyuu no sutoratejii no koosatsu[Analyzing Japanese Discourse Structure: Observations on Invitation Strategies].Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Takatsu, T. (1991). A unified semantic analysis of the no da construction in Japanese. Journalof the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 25 (2), 167-176.

Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction.John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Terasaki, A. K. (1976). Pre-Announcement Sequences in Conversation, School of Social Science,University of California, Irvine.

Threadgold, T. (1989). Talking about genre: Ideologies and incompatible discourses. CulturalStudies, 3 (1), 101-127.

Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames.Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30 (4), 315-343.

Tsuda, A. (1984). Sales Talk in Japan and the United States: An Ethnographic Analysis ofContrastive Speech Events. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.

Tsuruta, Y., P. Rossiter and T. Coulton (1988). Eigo no Soosharu Sukiru: Politeness Systems inEnglish and Japanese. Taishuukan Shoten, Tokyo.

Van Zandt, H. F. (1970). How to negotiate in Japan. Harvard Business Review. 45-56.

Ventola, E. (1983). Contrasting schematic structures in service encounters. Applied Linguistics,4, 242-258.

Ventola, E. (1984). Orientation to social semiotics in foreign language teaching. AppliedLinguistics, 5, 275-286.

Ventola, E. (1987). The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semioticsof Service Encounters. Frances Pinter, London.

Victor, D. A. (1992). International Business Communication. Harper Collins, New York.

References 355

Walker, G. (2000). Performed culture: Learning to participate in another culture. In: LanguagePolicy and Pedagogy (R. Lambert, ed.), pp. 221-236. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Wetzel, P. J. (1984). Uti and Soto (In-group and Out-group): Social Deixis in Japanese. Ph.D.dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Wetzel, P. J. (1994). A movable self: The linguistic indexing of uchi and soto. In: SituatedMeaning (J. M. Bachnik and C. J. Quinn, eds), pp. 73-87. Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, New Jersey.

Whalen, J., D. H. Zimmerman and M. R. Whalen (1988). When words fail: A single caseanalysis. Social Problems, 35 (4), 335-362.

Whalen, M. R. and D. H. Zimmerman (1987). Sequential and institutional contexts in calls forhelp. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 172-185.

Wiemann, J. M. (1981). Effects of laboratory videotaping procedures on selected conversationbehaviors. Human Communication Research, 7, 302-311.

Wilson, T. P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In: Talkand Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis(D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman, eds), pp. 22-43. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, California.

Winsted, K. F. (1997a). Service encounter expectations: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal ofTransnational Management Development.

Winsted, K. F. (1997b). The service experience in two cultures: A behavioral perspective.Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 337-360.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, tr.) Basil Blackwell,Oxford.

Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English.In: Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (N. Wolfson and E. Judd, eds),pp. 82-96. Newbury House, New York.

Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 689-699.

Wolfson, N., L. D'Amico-Reisner and L. Huber (1983). How to arrange for social commitmentsin American English: The invitiation. In: Sociolinguistics and LanguageAcquisition (N. Wolfson and E. Judd, eds), Newbury House, Rowley,Massachusetts.

356 References

Wolfson, N., T. Marmot and S. Jones (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts acrosscultures. In: Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (S. Blum-Kulka.J. House and G. Kasper, eds), pp. 174-196. Ablex, Norwood. New Jersey.

Yamada, H. (1992). American and Japanese Business Discourse: A Comparison of InteractionalStyles. Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.

Yamada, N. (1992). Kaimono bamen no intaa-akushon: Ten'in no hanbai koodoo o chuushin ni[Interactions in shopping situations: Focusing on the sales behaviour of shopassistants]. Nihongo kyooiku [Japanese Language Education], 77 (July), 116-128.

Yoshino, A. (1994). Denwa no kaiwa ni okeru kakete no gengo koodoo: Kaishibu o chuushintoshite [Language behavior with respect to telephone conversations: Focusingon opening sections]. Gengo bunka to Nihongo kyooiku [Language Culture andJapanese Language Education], 7, 1-13.

Yotsukura, L. A. (1997). Reporting Problems and Offering Assistance in Japanese BusinessTransactional Telephone Conversations: Toward an Understanding of a SpokenGenre. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Yotsukura, L. A. (2001). Bakhtin's speech genres in a Japanese context: Business transactionaltelephone calls. In: Bakhtinian Theory in Japanese Studies (J. Johnson, ed.).pp. 187-220. Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York.

Yotsukura, L. A. (2002). Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese businesstelephone conversations. In: Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity ofConversational Structure across Languages and Cultures (K. K. Luke andT. Pavlidou, eds), pp. 135-170. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Yotsukura, L. A. (forthcoming). Topic initiation in Japanese business telephone conversations.In: Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 12, CSLI, Stanford, California.

Young, L. W. L. (1982). Inscrutability revisited. In: Language and Social Identity (J. J. Gumperz,ed.), pp. 72-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. In: GeorgetownUniversity Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984 (D. Schiffrin, ed.),pp. 210-228. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.

Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). Achieving context: Openings in emergency calls. In: Text in Context:Contributions to ethnomethodology (G. Watson and R. M. Seiler, eds), pp. 35-51.Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Zimmerman, D. H. and C. West (eds.) (1980). Sociological Inquiry: Special Double Issue onLanguage and Social Interaction.

References 357

Zimmerman, M. (1985). How to Do Business with the Japanese. Random House, New York.

Zwicky, A. M. and A. D. Zwicky (1982). Register as a dimension of linguistic variation.In: Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains(R. Kittredge and J. Lehrberger, eds), pp. 213-218. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.


AUTHOR INDEX

Alfonso, Anthony, 10. 42Atkinson. J. Maxwell. 5, 92Austin. John L., 55, 65

Bachnik, Jane M. 4, 50, 109, 169Baker, Carolyn. 62Bakhtin, Mikhail M.. 2-4. 33-36, 51. 63-65.

68,84.89.99. 103-106, 169Barlow. Michael, 61Bateson, Gregory, 136Bierwisch, Manfred. 54Bilmes, Jack, 7Blatz. C. V.. 238Blom, Jan-Petter. 56Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 54-55. 57Blumstein. P. W., 238Bourdieu, Pierre. 66Brouwer, Dede, 56Brown, Gillian. 62, 253Brown. Penelope, 210. 217. 226. 249, 274Buttny. Richard, 204, 232, 252Button. Graham. 74, 92. 106

Casey, Neil J., 106Chomsky. Noam, 56Clancy. Patricia M.. 49. 274Clark. Herbert H., 1Collard, Lucy. 62Coupland, Nikolas, 168Couture, Barbara, 68, 91

Dahl. Merete, 55Davidson, Judy, 75, 81De Mente. Boye, 49Doi, Takeo, 259-261Drew, Paul, 62, 92

Ehlich, Konrad, 5Emerson. Caryl, 34-36, 64. *, 105-106

Farrell, Thomas J., 237Firth. Alan. 5Firth, J. R., 92Fisher, B. A.. 238Ford. Cecilia E.. 4French, J. Wade. 1Fry, John Stephen, 62Fukushima, Saeko. 84-86. 91-92. 266

Gardner, Roderick. 5Garfmkel. Harold. 74. 211Garner. Patricia A., 59, 169. 236-237Geertz. Clifford. 2, 50. 63Geis. Michael L.. 252Godard. Daniele. 2Goffman. Erving. 75, 104. 124. 238, 245Graham, John L.. 3. 49. 203, 226-227Gumperz, John J., 48. 56. 71. 168, 274. 278

Hall, Edward, 255, 267-268. 272-273Halliday, M. A. K.. 73-74. 92. 168Halmari, Helena, 3Harris. R.. 274Hasan. Ruqaiya, 65. 73. 92. 168Hashiuchi, Takeshi, 169Herberger, R.. 3. 49Heritage. John. 2. 5. 75. 92. 203, 211Hill. Beverly, 55, 57Hinds. John. 264. 274Hopper, Robert. 2, 59. 91. 106. 170Hoshino, Takane. 212. 261-262Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke, 2Hymes, Dell, 48, 92, 252

Ikuta, Shoko, 49Inagaki, Y., 273Ishii, Satoshi, 256. 263,271Iwai, Chiaki. 56-57Iwata. Yuko, 84-86. 91-92. 266

360 Author Index

Jacoby. Sally, 92Jefferson, Gail, 1, 62-63, 74, 102-103, 203,

227, 229-230. 234, 239, 245, 251Jones, Kimberly, 5-7, 84, 143, 154, 201Jorden. Eleanor Harz, 42. 51. 69. 122. 170.

261

Kaltman, Hannah, 274Kashiwazaki, Hideko. 37, 49, 98, 141Kasper, Gabriele, 55Kataoka, Yukio, 274Kato, Hiroki. 49Kato, Joan S., 49Kipers, Pam, 168Kobayashi, Kaoru, 273Kotani, Mariko, 232Kumatoridani, Tetsuo, 1, 84. 171Kuno, Susumu, 42

Labov, William, 56, 58Lebra, Takie Sugiyama, 257-258. 261. 267.

273Lee, John R. E., 1. 62-63, 92-93, 203, 227,

229-230,234,239,245.251Leech, Geoffrey N.. 85, 93Levinson, Stephen C, 2, 35, 51, 66. 75-76.

90. 92, 142. 210, 217, 226, 249, 265. 274Luke. Kang Kwong, 2Lyman. Stanford M., 204, 231-232, 252

Makino, Seiichi, 119Malinowski, Bronislaw, 92March, Robert M., 49Marriott, Helen, 5-6Martin, James R.. 65-66, 90-91Martin, Samuel E., 51, 264Maruyama, Keisuke, 10, 272Matoba, Kazuma, 87-89, 91, 93Matsumura, Akira, 273Maynard, Douglas, 1, 92Maynard, Senko K., 49, 51, 252McClure, William Tsuvoshi, 170

McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka. 268Merritt. Marilyn, 75-76. 168Mizutani, Nobuko. 49-50Mizutani, Osamu. 50Moerman. Michael, 7Monane, Tazuko Ajiro. 264-266, 274Mori, Junko, 6-7Morson. Gary Saul. 34-36, 64, 68. 105-106

Nakane. Chie, 108. 169Neustupny, Jiri V., 5Nishihara, Suzuko. 170. 258-261Noda, Mari, 42-43. 51-52. 69. 84. 122. 136,

145, 170. 247, 249. 261. 268. 270-271.273

O'Connor, Mary, 274O'Keefe. B. J.. 238Ochs, Elinor, 6, 92Okamoto, Noriko, 1. 84Okazaki, Shoko, 263. 273-274Olshtain. Elite, 57Ono, Reiko, 55

Park. Yong-Yae. 62. 114. 121. 143. 169.274

Pavlidou. Theodossia-Soula. 2Pettinari, Catherine Johnson. 62Phillips, Diana. 234

Quinn, Charles J.. 4. 50. 52. 66. 91. 109.169-170,273-274

Quinn, Shelley Fenno. 273

Rabinowitz, Josephine Feldmark. 259-261.273

Ray, Yuko Tetsukawa. 41-43. 145. 249Reischauer, Edwin O., 258Riley, Philip C.. 234Rose, Kenneth R.. 55Rosenberger, Nancy R.. 256, 273Rothery, Joan, 91

Author Index 361

Sacks. Harvey, 1-2, 4-5. 50-51, 74-76. 92,98. 103. 156. 158, 167,211

Sawaki, Motoei, 97, 168Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1-2, 6. 74-76, 80,

92. 98. 102-106. 109-110, 115, 124-125.142, 152, 156. 158, 167, 169

Schenkein. Jim. 74, 92Scott. Marvin B.. 204, 231-232, 252Searle. John R., 55. 65Shepherd, G. J., 238Shields, N. M, 238Sifianou. Maria, 2Smith. Robert J., 258Sugito, Seiju, 97. 168Sukle, Robert J., 168-169Swales, John, 36.91Szatrowski. Polly. 1, 4, 49, 81. 84. 168.

258.274

Winsted. Kathryn Frazer. 11. 284Wittgenstein, Ludvvig. 8 ,11Wolfson, Nessa, 55-58

Yamada. Haru. 4, 49Yamada, Lynne. 56-57Yamada. Nobuko. 168Yoshino, Aya. 1, 84Yotsukura, Lindsay Amthor. 49. 92. 199Young, Linda Wai Ling. 274Yule. George. 62. 253

Zimmerman. Don H.. 62. 74. 80, 92.105-106.239-240,251

Zimmerman. Mark, 49Zwicky. Ann D., 68. 91-92Zwicky. Arnold M.. 68. 91-92

Takatsu, Tamie, 268-272Tanaka. Hiroko. 1, 4-5Terasaki, Alene K., 75, 142Thompson. Sandra A.. 4, 6Threadgold, Terry, 67Tracy, Karen. 62-63Tsuda, Aoi. 168Tsuruta. Yoko. 256-257, 274Tsutsui, Michio. 119

Van Zandt. H. F., 49Ventola. Eija, 5, 65-66. 168Victor, David, 3

Wagner, Johannes. 5Walker. Galal, 12Watson. D. R., 203, 211West. Candace, 92Wetzel. Patricia J., 70, 169, 265, 274Whalen, Jack, 62Whalen, Marilyn, 62, 239-240, 251Wiemann, John M., 91Wilson. Thomas P., 62


SUBJECT INDEX

accounts. 48. 76. 81. 204. 230-233. 237-239. 243. 245-246. 251-252. 271.275. 277. See also reason-for-call.maeoki

definition of. 232English vs. Japanese. 232. 238, 252

acknowledgments. 14-15.26-27. 183.213.215. 217. 230. 235. 240. 243. 246.278

activity types. 35. 65-67, 90adjacency pairs. 75-77, 80-81, 84, 90-91.

115. 120, 124, 158, 167-168.238aizuti('back-channel"). 51. 97, 114, 143.

170. 185-186, 190-193,218-219,225. 278. See also back-channel

assessments. 219, 250attention-focusing phrases, 98, 100. 142.

154. 161, 170. 175. 183. 191.206,215, 231. 242. 276. See also ne

back-channel. 4, 49, 51. 59, 89. 97. 185.190. 191 -192. 217. 278. See alsoaiiuti

business discoursestudies of, 4-7textbooks. 49

canonicalopening sequence, 76-77, 79, 106, 116,

120, 124.284structure

deviations from, 130-131clause particles, 100. 113-114, 121. 129,

135-136. 143-144. 155-156, 161.185, 191-192. 249, 266. 274, 278

closing sections,in related genres of call, 67. 173in service encounters. 98of JBCs. 22, 32-33. 68, 97-100,

156-159. 162-168. 177. 187-188.197-198,223-224.250.282

studies of. 1-2. 74-75. 84co-construction. 1. 58. 74, 79. 84. 92, 159,

184, 199.211.250conflict. 1 .3.7

resolution and negotiation, 84, 249contextualization cues, 71, 73, 113. 168.

217.225.263.274.278.281continuers. 15.51,84, 183, 191.207.278conversation analysis (CA), 1-2. 5-7. 50.

54,57-58,74-84.90-91.92

data collection methods. 12. 50. 51, 53-62.85.87.89. 169. 180.234,283.285-286. See also discoursecompletion tests, multiple choicequestionnaires

declarative form of offers. 38. 40. 44, 48.53. 219-220. 226. 246, 249-252.268, 280

deixis, 14, 37, 44. 47, 69-71. 90. 145. 152,154, 206, 252, 255. 264-266. 272.280. See also indexicality. uti/soto

discourse analysis. 54. 57-58discourse cohesion. 268-270discourse community, 12, 96discourse completion tests (DCTs). 53-58.

84-85. 92. See also data collectionmethods

discourse markers. 196

ellipsis, 43, 166, 255, 263. 264-266. 274enryo-sassi communication. 263, 271-272,

279,282ethnomethodological studies, 50. 57-58. 74.

92ethnomethodology, 92evidential, 209-210

364 Subject Index

expectations,and adjacency pairs, 75-76, 80and genre, 35, 48, 64, 74, 76, 90. 226,

281and role, 38-39. 48, 74, 281mismatch of, 63. 277-278regarding interactions, 23. 48. 275shared cultural, 35, 48, 255, 259.

266-267. 272, 284extended predicate (EP or n(o) desu

construction). See also n(o) dedescription of, 41-44discussion of the underlying function of.

268-272mmaeokL 37. 100, 143-145, 152-156,

161. 175-176. 179-181, 191.206-207, 223, 224, 250, 276,

in offers, 93, 159, 185,223,226in pre-closing bids, 196, 213.in re-alignment sequences, 229, 231.

251. See also misalignment, non-alignment

in recharacterizations and formulations.159. 176. 193-4.203-204,209-211,219.223,226,247-250.251

in switchboard requests, 129,in switchboard request refusals,

135-136, 138,223use when presenting new information as

given. 170

face threat, 72, 153. 154, 199. 201, 203.210. 226, 235, 267, 277, 279, 282

face threatening act (FTA), 51, 72, 210,217,226

fillers. 219, 252folk

logic, 232metalinguistic expressions, 232, 255-

256, 262, 266, 272, 282formulations. 15, 29-30, 164, 194. 221-223.

229, 251-252. See also extendedpredicate

definition of, 211in English, 204, 238, 245-247. 250. 252in troubles-talk. 211of place or person, 102. 151-153. 171,

178.240.242-243.276l-masit n(o) del in, 248-250. 252l-masyoo ka?l in. 249-250. 252ne in, 221-223EPin , 159. 176. 178-179.203-204.223.

226. 247-249. 250-252use of/o in koto in. 161, 221. 228-229

genericactivity, 64-66. 226category. 95constraints. 34, 64definition of. 51frame, 12, 36, 263resources. 34-35. 64specifications, 3-4structure. 65-66. 224

genre(s). See also speech genresacquisition and experience in using. 23.

34-35. 64-68. 76. 90. 154. 198. 209.226, 229. 236. 258. 263. 267.277-281.283-285

and diachronic change. 36and sub-genre. 36. 90as habitus ('lived habit"). 66-67. 90compositional, thematic, and stylistic

features of. 2-3. 13. 33-36. 63-74.75.76,90,95-171.224-226.283-285

culturally nuanced approach to. 2-3, 7.11-12,35,48-50,64-67,89-91.105-106. 204. 230. 232. 252. 274.279.281-283

dynamic approach to. 67-8. 75, 89-90importance of, 10-12. 35intuitions and expectations in using, 11.

23, 35, 48, 63-64, 66. 68. 74. 75-76.80, 90, 148, 226, 255, 266-267. 272.275,277-278,281,284

Subject Index 365

Martin's definition of, 65-66. 90. 91of interaction. 23, 49of negotiation. 2performance of, 34-35. 49, 64, 66-68.

80, 90. 131, 188. 226, 281, 284-285primary and secondary. 36. 65, 89-90.

106restaurant service encounter. 11, 66.

232. 284social activity and, 35, 64. 66speech. See speech genrestravel agency service encounter, 252unformalized cognitive content of, 35,

68vs. activity types, 35, 65-66, 90vs. speech acts, 53, 57-58. 65

gerund form. 51.52. 93, 191, 193, 196,213,226.250.265,278

and non-challengeability, 42-45, 138,268, 280

and open-endedness, 44, 159, 249, 268greetings, 2, 5, 67, 75, 84, 98-100, 104,

106, 115, 122, 169,215,239,243.See also salutation, business

opening, 98-101, 109-110, 112-113.120. 122-124, 169,215,236

passing, 167personal, 98, 100, 109-110, 120,

122-125, 168ritual. 122

habitus 0lived habit'), 90hedges. 81.219, 235hesitation markers, 17, 49, 142, 144, 161,

170, 181. 196,232-236,238,243,252

high context culture, 255. 266-268, 272-21'3

identification sequences. 2, 13, 16, 24-26,62, 67, 76-77, 79-80, 98-102. 104.106-109, 111-115. 118-125. 131.136. 140-141, 163. 165-166.174-175. 183. 185-187. 190.

identification sequences (cont.)200-201. 206, 215. 230. 233. 235.236, 238. 240, 242-243. 251, 283.284-285. See also self-identifica-tion, institutional affiliation

indexicality, 10,69,71, 109, 113, 117. 122.130. 143-144. 265, 279, 282. Seealso deixis, uti/soto

inquiries. 12. 24. 27, 33. 50. 78. 90, 96,120. 142. 145-146. 150, 151. 153,156. 173-180. 198-199,200,203-204. 234. 238, 283. 285.Seealso toiawase

institutionalaffiliation. 13, 16. 23, 25. 61. 71-72. 73.

74-76,79, 101-103. 106-113, 140.146, 174-176. 181-183. 185-186.200-201, 206, 215, 218. 228. 230.231. 233. 234-235. 238. 240. 243.253, 275, 283, 284-285..Vt^ alsoidentification sequences, self-identi-fication

calls, 110, 169,227.240context, 92, 134filter. 80form of identification. See institutional

affiliationface, 274practice, 245role. 62-63

intention, 2-3, 10, 12, 34, 52. 64, 89. 223.229. 246, 259. 272. 278. 283

use of the extended predicate/Y^cV Je.suconstruction to express. 44. 47, 138.161, 163,204.213,226,247.250-252, 262, 271-272, 208-281

negotiating, 2-3. 18, 23, 32, 247. 250.285

interaction. 4. 6. 97. 104, 168action-in-, 74actual vs. simulated. 49. 56-59. 89and experience, 2, 7. 10-11. 23. 32. 35.

62, 64, 66-68. 76. 90. 154, 185, 198,

366 Subject Index

and experience (conl.)209, 226, 229. 236, 258, 263, 167.277-285

and role relationship, 8-10, 73-74,87-89, 129, 153-154, 200-201. 203.258,265,275,281-282

face-to-face, 4-7, 32. 58, 72-74, 97. 99.104, 109, 118, 122, 166-167.267,272, 286

genre of, 23. 36. 48-49, 96, 145, 190,198.203

high-context. 266-268situational factors in. 2-3, 12, 60. 64,

73-74.77-80, 175,275talk-in-, 92

interactionalasynchrony, 63, 203, 226-230, 239.

245-246,251consequences, 183, 199, 261, 284discourse, 62, 253frame, 63motivations, 210, 235preference, 48, 68, 88, 92-93, 103-104,

110-111, 168-169,204,212,246,249-250, 255. 258-260. 263. 267.273,279.281-282

synchrony, 203. 226. 246-250."work," 201,284

interrogative form of offers, 48, 212, 246,249, 252, 272

interrogative series. 80. 91. 180, 188. 201,229,233, 243

intuitionand entailment judgments, 56and phonemic judgments, 56and pragmatic and sociolinguistic

judgments, 56-57and syntactic judgments, 56

iwakan ('feeling of incompatibility"), 284

Japanese business transactional telephoneconversations (JBCs), 12-33,36,61-63, 68,95-171, 173-202,

Kansaidata, features of. 107. 109. 128-129.

153. 154-155. 157. 170. 171. 173.180. 188-189

data collection sites, 12. 60-62. See alsoKansai Imports,

dialect, 52, 128-129, 157. 170. 171,220-221.252

geographical area of. 51Kansai Imports,

operational and personnel aspects of.61-62. 166. 180. 188-189. 190. 201.204. 212. 213.225.230-231. 283

Kantodata sites. 12, 51. 60-62. See also Tokyo

Booksdata, features of, 52, 121-122. 170. 173geographical area of, 51

& ('feeling'), 255-257, 273, 274kikubari ('showing consideration'),

257-258, 272, 274. 282

latched utterances, 123, 190. 219leave-taking. 2. 33, 67, 99-100, 162. See

also terminal exchange

ma (-interval'), 262-263, 273maeoki ("prefatory statements"). 14.

141-156, 170, 177-184, 188, 191.199-201. 206-207, 262. 276-284.See also accounts, reason-for-call

and Kansai dialect. 171and role relationship. 145-154and topic initiation. 48, 100. 141-142.

147. 153-154. 162. 188. 190-191.199-200.203,228

as formulations of place or person.151-153, 171, 178,240,276

definition and function of. 37, 199. 276

Subject Index 367

in merchandise orders. 181-184. 200in problem reports. 145, 188, 199-200.

201. 203. 206--207. 228, 238, 243.248-251,275-279.282

in shipping confirmations. 188-191. 199,201

mtoiawase inquiries, 177-180, 200sequential position of. 238, 251structure of, 127, 142-144, 161, 175.

181. 183,200,224.243.276use as pre-requests, 81use as pre-sequence, 37, 117-118.

141-142, 145,278use of EP in, 37, 100, 145, 154-156,

175. 179,206-207,223-224,248-251,276,282

markedness. 81marked utterance, 81, 120, 217, 225, 278unmarked utterance, 81,217,219

l(mas)(y)oo ka?l consultative form, 8-10,38-40, 45-48, 53, 83-84, 87, 89, 93,138-140,204,212,220,225,249-252,261-262,272-273,279-281

merchandise orders, 33, 50, 90, 96, 142,156, 173, 175, 180-188, 198,200,203, 229, 283-285

metalinguistic expressions, 232, 255-256,266, 272, 288

misalignment, 3. 227-230. See also non-alignment, extended predicate inre-alignment sequences

mitigating device. 128, 142, 144, 170,210.232-235,238,277

mosi most,after call is transferred, 190in business calls, 110-112, 215-216, 230in in-house business calls, 108in everyday, personal calls, 71, 73, 103,

108, 169multiple choice questionnaires (MCQs),

53-54, 56, 58, 84. See a/jo datacollection methods

n(o) de. See also extended predicate (EP)gerund of the extended predicate. 43-44.

93.138,159-160. 193, 196,213.226,248-252,268.280-281

inter-clausal use, 42n(o) desu construction. See extended

predicate (EP)narrative. 48. 65. 142. 198-199,217-219,

231.252.274,275-278.ne. See also attention-focusing phrase

use as an attention focuser (ATF). 142,144. 154. 161, 170. 175, 183.206.215.225.231,242.276,278

negotiationgenre of, 2masked. 6-7. 143, 145.201moves in. 1-4. 6-7. 37-38, 48-49. 98.

100, 110. 162. 194-195, 198-199.204.224-226.228-230,238,247-252. 266-273. 279-282.284-286

studies of, 4-7. 49. 84nominal no

uses of , 41-44non-alignment, 245

offersl-(mas)(y)oo ka?l form of, 8-10. 38-40,

45-48. 53. 83-84. 87, 89. 93,138-140.204.212.220.225.249-252,261-262.272-273.279-281

l-masit n(o) del form of. 20-21. 27, 30,40-48,51,53.89,91,93,98. 138,158-159, 161. 163-165, 196,204,213, 223, 226. 233, 248-252. 262,269-272. 279-282

definition of, in this study, 37-38of assistance, 11-13, 16, 20-23, 26,

29-33, 36-37. 38-47, 48-49, 53.89-91, 97. 159, 168, 185. 203-204,212-213,219-226,233,235.243.247-252, 256-257, 260, 267,

368 Subject Index

of assistance (cont.)271-272,277-282

studies of,in English, 259-260, 273in Japanese, 54, 84-89, 91

to call back, 13,21,30,32,39-47,53,83-84,98, 100, 127, 136-138,159, 164,220,223.250.262,272

omoiyari ("empathy"), 257-258. 261. 267.272, 274. 282

opening sectionsin English, 231-238, 239-240, 253in related genres of call, 67offers in. 13. 136-140.250of JBC calls, 13-14, 23-27, 30. 33, 68

70-74.76-80.97-140, 142-143,145-146. 151, 153. 168, 174-176,177-178, 181-184, 188-190,204-206,213-215,224.230.232-233, 238,240-244, 249,253,275-276, 284

of service encounters, 97"reduced;' 106, 243-244, 251,studies of, 1, 74-75, 84. 234. 239, 245

politeness, 51, 68. See also stylehonorific-, 69-70humble-, 69-70Japanese system of, 92Leech's maxims of. 93levels of. 10perceived degree of, 87positive, 249

pre-announcements, 37, 75, 141, 145, 278pre-closing bids, 2. 21, 30-31, 33, 98.

100-101, 156-163, 173. 177.185-188, 196,213.224.250.280-282

pre-offers, 75, 81pre-requests, 37, 75, 81, 142-144. 147, 175,

278pre-sequences, 81, 141predicate, 41-44, 69, 71, 113, 181,183,

215.224-225.258.277distal-style, 33. 72. 74. 279extended. See extended predicate (EP)polite. 74

preference organization. 75. 80-81, 90problem reports.

in English. 204. 211. 230-240. 245-246.251-252,282.285

in Japanese. 13-21. 23-29, 36-37. 61-62.90.96.98. 116. 142-156, 158. 173.175, 189. 199-201.203-212.213-220, 223-226. 230. 232. 238,240-243. 250-251. 275-279. 282.285

masked, 143, 145,201promise, 196, 268

of future contact, 2, 21. 30. 33. 99-100.138, 159, 163-164

reason-for-call, 14, 27. 37, 79-80. 91. 106.114-115, 121, 124-127, 141. 143.170, 175, 177, 179-180. 198-199,215, 235-236, 238. 240, 243, 246,276, 283, 285. See also accounts,maeoki

recharacterizations. 135, 153. 219. 226,248-249, 280

recipient design. 102-104. 109. See alsoutterance, addressh ity of

recognition sequences, 62. 67. 99. 103-104,106, 110,125. 169. 175. 183.218.239

reframing, 136, 148, 153, 163. 193. 207.211

registerand situational factors, 73-74definition of. 68features of JBCs, 48. 50. 67. 71-74. 95.

97-99, 101, 107, 115. 120-121. 134.168,188,209,211,225,263

features of travel agency encounters.252

telephone, 95

Subject Index 369

vs. genre. 68, 70.11, 74. 90vs. style. 68, 70. 72, 74, 90, 200Zwicky and Zwicky's definition of. 68

requestsfor assistance, 3. 15, 18, 22. 29,48. 51,

175, 197,267-268,276,279for identification details, 17, 20-21, 25,

30, 80, 99, 159, 166, 174, 229, 243for permission, 32, 175, 177, 180, 183,

190,200.243hold. 62, 180inventory confirmation. 180shipping. 96. 154. 185studies of. 54. 75, 84, 282switchboard. 13. 33. 37, 39, 40, 47, 73.

76.79.82.84,96, 124-125. 127-131. 134. 170223,282

ritual, 22, 33. 52, 72, 75, 86. 104, 122, 124.143, 175, 183, 185. 190, 197.224.261,273

role relationship, 8-10, 35. 48, 73-74. 87,91. 129-130, 153-154,201,203.258.265.267.279,281.285

role-plays. 54, 56. 283routine, 124, 131. 209. See also canonical

call, 104. 183,215inquiries. 173, 175. 183opening sequence. 105-106, 120. 124.

190,215,238,239

salutations. See also greetingsbusiness. 13.25.71.73.76,95.

98-101, 104, 115-122. 124-125.131, 136, 143. 146, 170. 175, 181,183, 190,206,215,218,230-231,233, 238, 275-276, 284

sassi ('understanding'), 255-256, 263,271-272,279,282

self-identification, 2, 25, 67, 76-77, 79-80,95,98-104, 106-116, 118, 120-125,131, 136. 140-141, 153, 165-166,169, 183, 187,190,201,206,215,224, 233, 236. 238, 240, 243, 251.

282, 284. See also identificationsequence

self-introduction. 30, 113. 121, 166. 183,217,253

sequential organization. 2, 50, 59. 84. 95.98, 100. 105. 115. 124-125, 168,173. 188, 199,224,233-234.239-240,251

pre-empting the usual. 130service encounter, 5. 10-12, 32. 51. 63.

65-66. 75. 96-97. 168. 204. 232.234,238.252,283-284.286

vs. troubles-telling. 203, 227. 239. 245service provider

definition of. 36-37service recipient

definition of. 36-37shipping confirmation. 33. 50. 90, 96. 142.

154. 156. 173, 175, 188-201.203-204.208.283.285

speech act(s)classification of. 65cross-cultural comparison of. 54-55. 57function of. 57samples of, 55, 57studies on. 53-55. 168theory. 54-55, 65, 81.92

speech community , 48-49. 57-58. 66. 232.285

Hymes' definition of. 252speech genres. 2-3. 33-36. 63. See also

genreand utterance meaning. 3. 34Bakhtin's definition of, 3. 33-35,

63-64consequences for ontogeny and

phylogeny of languages. 64fuzzy edges of, 36, 64

style. See also politenesscareful. 18. 33. 69-72. 74. 90, 282. 284casual, 6, 33, 68-70, 74, 85, 90, 171direct, 9, 38, 69-70. 72-73. 90. 93. 123.

130, 154. 157,25

370 Subject Index

distal, 10, 33, 38, 52, 69-74, 86, 90, 93,113, 123, 130,215.261,265,279

honorific-polite, 10, 33, 39, 69-73, 90.93, 119, 127-130,252,266.282

humble-polite, 10, 33, 51-52, 69-73. 90.93, 113, 117, 129, 138-139. 169,265-266. 273. 282

neutral-polite, 69-70, 72-73. 106-107.123,183

suprasegmental features. 59. 230suprasegmental highlighting, 18, 193. 196.

230. 278higher pitch, 18.278stress, 18.278

telephone conversationsbusiness, 5-6, 12-13. 23. 25. 33. 36-37.

48-50, 60, 63, 67-68. 72-73. 76.89-90,95-168, 170. 173-201.203-252, 275-285

hybrid, 62-63, 114, 121importance of, 54. 59-60. 89in-house. 51. 95-96, 101, 108. 121-122.

129, 141. 150-151. 162-163. 170.180. 188

everyday/ordinary. 13, 62, 92. 95. 99,103-106. 110. 114-115, 121.123-124, 156, 162, 169.227,239

personal. 62, 67. 71. 73-74, 91. 95,98-99, 108, 110, 120, 123. 141,204

to/from outside organizations, 60. 71,101, 106-109, 112-113

temporal reference, 143-144, 148,218-219.224, 276

terminal exchange, 162-163, 167, 198. Seealso leave-taking

timing, 121,262toiawase ('general inquiries'), 12, 27, 33,

50,90,96, 120, 142, 145-146,150-151, 153, 155-156, 173-180.185, 198, 200. 203, 234. 285. Seealso inquiries

Tokyo Books.operational and personnel aspects of.

51,61-62, 146. 173-174. 180transactional discourse. 62, 91, 253transcription, 12. 33, 49-50, 61, 154.

169, 170,285-286transition relevance place (TRP), 4-5. 100.

136.278transitional section. 33. 67. 98. 100, 127,

141-142. 145. 151. 156. 159.161-162. 170. 173. 175, 183. 188.216. 224. 231. 234-236. 238. 250.276. 282

trouble(s), 143. 232, 236. 239-talk, 1,62,211-telling, 62-63, 203, 227, 245. See alsoproblem reports

turn-taking, 1-2, 4-5. 51, 74-75. 80. 84.105. 114. 121, 136. 142-143. 167.192,215.250.263

uptake. 18. 193-194,226,230uti/soto ('inside/outside'), 50, 69-71. 90.

108-109. 122, 169. 176.255,261,264-265. 272-273, 282

deixis. 255. 264-265, 272, 282utterance. 3. 53-54. 65, 89

addressivity of, 102-103..SVt' alsorecipient design

and role relationship. 10. 72-73. 113.118-119. 130

meaning and speech genres. 33-36.63-65, 68. 72. 89-90. 99, 104. 106

Bakhtin's definition of, 3. 34-36. 51,63-65, 68, 84, 89-90

Levinson's definition of, 51pragmatic appropriateness of, 11, 50traditional pragmatic definition of, 34

Documents

1i c3yajh qgmk