Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Differential Use of Reactive Tokens
in Japanese In Turn Management and by Gender
by
Kiyomi Tanaka
DISSERTATION.COM
Boca Raton
Differential Use of Reactive Tokens in Japanese In Turn Management and by Gender
Copyright © 2007 Kiyomi Tanaka All rights reserved.
Dissertation.com
Boca Raton, Florida USA • 2007
ISBN: 1-58112- 354-X
13-ISBN: 978-1-58112-354-8
DIFFERENTIAL USE OF REACTIVE TOKENS IN JAPANESE
IN TURN MANAGEMENT AND BY GENDER
__________________________
A Dissertation Submitted to
The Temple University Graduate Board
__________________________
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
__________________________
by Kiyomi Tanaka January, 2007
ii
ABSTRACT
Differential Use of Reactive Tokens in Japanese in Turn Management and by Gender
Kiyomi Tanaka
Doctor of Education
Temple University Japan, 2007
Doctoral Advisory Committee Chair: Dr. Noël Houck
This study investigated the distribution of Reactive Tokens in natural
conversation by male and female speakers of Japanese. According to Clancy et al. a
reactive token (RT) is �a short utterance produced by an interlocutor who is playing a
listener�s role during the other interlocutor�s speakership� (1996, p. 355). Clancy et al.
classify RTs into five types: backchannels, reactive expressions, collaborative
finishes, repetitions, and resumptive openers. This study investigated the distribution
of these five types of RTs. In particular, it studied their use in turn management and
their distribution by gender. To identify the distribution of the five types of RTs more
clearly, all five types of Reactive Tokens were divided into two levels: those that
occurred at the boundary of a Pause-bounded Phrasal Unit (PPU) and those that
occurred within a PPU.
The participants in this study were 82 pairs of native speakers of Japanese: 82
female and 82 male native speakers of Japanese between 18 and 22 years of age. All
pairs consisted of classmates or friends in the same university.
Participants were audiotaped during 20 minutes of natural conversation. Six
minutes from each conversation were extracted, and RTs were identified and coded
iii
using WaveSurfer (Sjölander & Beskow, 2000). Frequencies of RTs per minute were
then calculated for each participant.
Using principal components analysis, three coherent components were identified
among the ten categories (five RT types each at two different levels). These three
components were labeled sequential RTs, accompanying RTs, and repetitive RTs.
Also, MANOVA and ANOVA revealed significant differences between Japanese
male and female RT use, with females using more accompanying RTs than males.
These findings suggest that different types of Reactive Tokens serve different
turn-taking functions in Japanese, and that factors besides language, such as gender,
may affect a speaker�s choice of a particular type of Reactive Token.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank my dissertation committee at Temple University for
their support, guidance, and encouragement, which were critical to the completion of
this dissertation. Especially, I greatly appreciate the assistance provided by Dr.
Kenneth Schaefer. He arranged my doctoral level courses so that I could complete
this dissertation in the best manner. I also extend my great appreciation to Dr.
Marshall Childs who helped me to complete the text with precious advice and
suggestions.
I am very grateful to my outside committee members. First, my profound thanks
go to Dr. Noël Houck at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. She
encouraged me and inspired this study by making a number of valuable suggestions
from the viewpoint of conversational analysis. My great thanks also go to Dr. James
Dean Brown at the University of Hawaii whose help was invaluable in bringing this
work to completion. He gave me precious and careful advice from statistical points of
view, which greatly contributed to constructing the statistics needed for this study. I
must also express my great appreciation to Dr. Shosuke Haraguchi at Meikai
University who gave me invaluable advice on the workings of the Japanese language
from Japanese linguistic points of view.
I am very much obliged to Dr. Yasuharu Den at Chiba University, who offered
advice on categorization of the Japanese Reactive Tokens using WaveSurfer
(Sjölander & Beskow, 2000). My sincere thanks also go to Dr. Gary Greer at the
University of Houston Downtown, whose review and insightful comments on my
v
statistical analysis led to what is presented here. I extend my great thanks to my
friend, Mayumi Shono, who generously provided the time and helped me with the
data analysis. I am also very grateful to the Temple University librarian, Chiyo
Watabe, who collected the literature that I would never have obtained otherwise.
Finally, I would like to express my profound appreciation to other faculty
members of Temple University, Dr. David Beglar, Dr. Dwight Atkinson and Dr. Mark
Sawyer, who, through their courses, have inspired me to develop this study.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
The Impetus of the Study..............................................................................1 Background of the Problem ..........................................................................2 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................5
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................................7 Introduction ..................................................................................................7 Turn-taking...................................................................................................7 Japanese Backchannels and their Functions and Forms ...............................19 Gender Differences in Conversational Interaction Styles.............................32 Gender Differences in Japanese Conversational Interaction Styles ..............40 Transcription Systems.................................................................................46 Units of Analysis ........................................................................................48 Categorization of Reactive Tokens..............................................................52 The Implications of Previous Studies ..........................................................55 Research Questions.....................................................................................57
3. METHOD ........................................................................................................59 Participants and Data Gathering Procedures................................................59 Data Processing Procedures ........................................................................61 Transcription Style and Unit of Dialog ............................................61 Categorization.................................................................................62 Categorized Examples of Reactive Tokens ......................................65
Backchannels.......................................................................66 Reactive Expressions ...........................................................80
Collaborative Finishes .........................................................92 Repetitions ..........................................................................95
vii
Resumptive Openers.......................................................... 105 Measurements of Reliability Estimates.......................................... 110 Data Analyzing Procedures....................................................................... 111 Principal Components Analysis ..................................................... 113 Assumptions of PCA ......................................................... 113 Rotation and Extraction Methods of PCA .......................... 115 Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance
(MANOVA and ANOVA).............................................................. 117 Assumptions of Multivariate ANOVAs .............................. 119 Assumptions of Univariate ANOVA .................................. 121
4. RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 123 Reliability Estimate ................................................................................ ..123 Exploration of Common Components Related to Japanese Turn Management ........................................................................................... ..124
Data Processing Procedures......................................................... ..125 Outliers.............................................................................. 125 Sample Size....................................................................... 128
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation ................................ 129 Principal Components Analysis................................................... 132 Rotation............................................................................. 132 Extraction Methods ........................................................... 132 Creating a Reactive Token Model on a Functional Level ........... 134 Examination of Research Question 1 ......................................... 140 Exploration of Gender Effect on the Reactive Tokens ............................... 140 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................. 141 A Multivariate Analysis of Variance .......................................... 143 A Univariate Analysis of Variance ............................................. 145
Examination of Research Question 2 ......................................... 146 5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 148
Creating a Reactive Token Model on a Functional Level........................... 148 Reflections on Variables Excluded from Statistical Analyses..................... 153 Gender Effect on the Reactive Tokens on a Functional Level .................... 154 Comparison with Preliminary Studies on Gender Differences ................... 156 Reflections on Quantification.................................................................... 158
viii
6. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 161 Summary of Findings ............................................................................... 161 Limitations ............................................................................................... 163 Limitation of Sampling ................................................................. 163 Limitations of the Methodology .................................................... 163 Significance of This Study and Implications ............................................. 165
REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................ 166 APPENDIXES A. GAIL JEFFERSON�S TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS .......................... 181 B. MAYNARD�S ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................. 182 C. TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS STUDY ...................... 184 D. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN INTERLINEAR GLOSS
USED IN THIS STUDY ................................................................................ 185 E. WAVE SURFER CONFIGURATION ............................................................ 186 F. WAVE SURFER CONFIGURATION 1............................................................ 187 G. WAVE SURFER CONFIGURATION 2 ........................................................... 188 H. FREQUENCY OF REACTIVE TOKENS PER MINUTE ............................... 189 I. FREQUENCY OF REACTIVE TOKENS PER MINUTE (N = 16)................... 195 J. AN EXAMPLE OF A SIX-MINUTE MALE-MALE
CONVERSATION ......................................................................................... 197 K. AN EXAMPLE OF A SIX-MINUTE FEMALE-FEMALE
CONVERSATION ......................................................................................... 211 L. CONSENT FORM........................................................................................... 231 M. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CONSENT FORM ....................................... 232
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Backchannels in Japanese.................................................................................29 2. Typical Reactive Tokens in Japanese ................................................................31 3. Female and Male Lexical Forms in Japanese ....................................................41 4. Typical Japanese Backchannels ........................................................................66 5. Typical Japanese Reactive Expressions.............................................................80 6. Typical Japanese Resumptive Openers............................................................ 105 7. Interrater Reliability for Frequency of Ten Types of Reactive Tokens ............. 123 8. Outlier Statistics ............................................................................................. 128 9. Descriptive Statistics for Frequency of Reactive Tokens per Minute ............... 129 10. Intercorrelations Among Variables.................................................................. 131 11. Component Correlation Matrix ....................................................................... 132 12. Total Variance Explained ................................................................................ 133 13. Component Loadings For Varimax Orthogonal Three Factor Solution
(reordered)...................................................................................................... 137 14. Descriptive Statistics of the Component Score for the Three
Dependent Variables ...................................................................................... 142 15. Multiivariate Analysis of Variance of Accompanying, Sequential, and
Repetitive Reactive Tokens as a Function of Gender....................................... 144 16. Univariate Tests for the Three Dependent Variables ........................................ 146
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1. An Example of Japanese Conversation .............................................................23 2. First-person Singular Pronouns and Sex of Speaker ..........................................42 3. Second-person Singular Pronouns and Sex of Speaker......................................42 4. Distribution of Backchannels at a PPU Boundary ........................................... 125 5. Distribution of Collaborative Finishes at a PPU Boundary ............................. 127 6. Mean Scores of the Frequency of Reactive Tokens per Minute ........................ 130 7. Scree Plot for Components ............................................................................. 134 8. Loading Plot of Three Components in Rotated Space ..................................... 135 9. Component Scores.......................................................................................... 143
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Impetus of the Study
Since the earliest times, biological differences between men and women have
created different social expectations in terms of their social roles, which in turn have
produced various types of gender norms. The use of language has comprised a part
of this and has drawn the attention of a number of sociologists and linguists alike.
Early feminist researchers (e.g., Fishman, 1983; Lakoff, 1975; Spender, 1980)
identified various levels of gender linguistic differences. The most cited gender
differences in language use are, for example, women�s tendency to use (hyper-)
correct grammar (Cameron & Coates, 1988; Labov, 1972) and tag-questions (e.g.,
�isn�t it?� �does she?� �are you?�) (Cameron, McAlinden, & O�Leary, 1988; Dubois
& Crouch, 1975; Holmes, 1986; Lakoff, 1975), as well as men�s dominance,
competitiveness, and tendency to interrupt in conversation, especially with women
(Tannen, 1994a; West & Zimmerman, 1983). Although some of these findings are
controversial, gender-linked differences in language use still are widely
acknowledged.
These gender-linked differences, which may be fundamentally attributed to
roles or expectations for the two genders, have been studied from various
sociolinguistic points of view. Some researchers such as Lakoff and Fishman argued
that the differences are partly due to men�s social dominance over women, and other
2
researchers such as Maltz and Borker (1982) and Tannen (1986) have taken the
standpoint that they are due to cultural differences between men and women. The
former perspective is commonly referred to as the psychological approach, and the
latter is referred to as the cultural approach.
However, as Philips and Reynolds (1994) argued, the relation between gender
and language use is variable across social contexts (p. 72). That is, although gender
differences in language use are probably universal, the different ways in which men
and women speak and behave may also be affected by social norms differing across
cultures. Also, the degree to which these gender differences occur may vary across
linguistic genres in one language. For example, for some linguistic features, such as
final particles in Japanese, gender differences are conspicuous, while for other
linguistic features, such as hedges in Japanese, differences are not clearly observed.
These and other issues make gender-based language variation diverse and complex.
Background of the Problem
Over the last thirty years, a great deal of research on language variation and
gender has been published. In 1975, Lakoff presented a number of linguistic forms
marking certain kinds of social identities related to gender. Lakoff, whose standpoint
was adopted by many later feminist researchers, argued that women�s language
reflects their subordinate status in society.
In contrast to Lakoff�s (1975) negative approach to women�s language, Kalcik
(1975), Troemel-Ploetz (1992), and Johnstone (1993) adopted an affirmative
perspective. They reported that women are superior to men in conversational
3
strategy use, which is characterized by supportive and cooperative utterances to
others in conversation. Troemel-Ploetz (1992) reported that women are likely to
refrain from criticism, depersonalize an attack, or modify a correction or objection,
even when the high status person is speaking to the lower status person (p. 585).
Maltz and Borker (1982) brought a new perspective to the established finding
that women and men often speak differently. They suggested that differences
between men and women should be attributed to cultural differences rather than to
men�s social dominance over women. They argued that men and women are likely to
interpret each other�s responses and behaviors in light of their own cultural
experiences and social contexts (p. 200). Different social needs of men and women
have led them to sexually differentiated communicative cultures, with each gender
learning a different set of skills for manipulating words effectively (p. 200). As a
result, men and women interpret language behaviors in different manners. For
example, women see questions as a part of conversational maintenance, interpret
overt aggressiveness as personally directed, negative, and disruptive, and discuss
problems by sharing experiences and offering reassurances, while men view
questions as requests for information, view aggressiveness as one conversational
organizing structure for conversational flow, and regard problems as explicit requests
for solutions and therefore respond by giving advice, acting as experts, and lecturing
(p. 213). Their model was based on Gumperz�s work on cross-ethnic communication
(1982). In his view, problems of interpreting mainly stem from the different cultural
upbringing of interlocutors. Gumperz noted that neither of the parties is to blame
4
when such miscommunication occurs. Maltz and Borker argued that this approach
can also be applied to cross-gender communication (1982, p. 196). They claimed that
American men and women who come from these different sociolinguistic
subcultures are likely to experience cultural miscommunication, even if both parties
are attempting to treat one another as equals (p. 200).
This dual culture model was followed by Tannen (1991), who argued that the
meaning of conversation for men differs from that for women. She asserted that for
men, conversations are negotiations in which one individual confronts the other
party and promotes himself, while for women conversations are negotiations in
which the goal is to attain closeness with confirmative and supportive talk (pp.
24-25).
One of the main criticisms of the dual cultural model is that it is based on an
inter-ethnic model. That is, although these researchers extended gender differences
from lexical choices to interactional styles, they paid little attention to how gender
differences in interactional styles has been shaped in relation to other factors such as
cultural context. In Japanese, for example, it is generally observed that women are
likely to produce the sentence final particles ne or wa, and refer to themselves using
specific subject pronouns such as watashi or watakushi, while in English such
differences are not so clearly marked. Also, although gender differences in the
language may be observable across other linguistic spheres of language use such as
turn-taking or backchannel behaviors, very little attention has been paid to them.
A final impetus for this research comes from the work of Clancy, Thompson,
5
Suzuki, and Tao (1996) who proposed the use of the term reactive token (RT) for
minimal verbal responses, which are brief comments like �umhm� and �yes� that
occur frequently in conversation. They defined reactive token (RT) as �a short
utterance produced by an interlocutor who is playing a listener�s role during the
other interlocutor�s speakership� (p. 355). Although they investigated the differences
in Reactive Token use across three languages, English, Mandarin, and Japanese, they
did not indicate how gender affected the use of use of Reactive Tokens in the three
languages. Although they suggested that Reactive Tokens are part of a distinct set of
turn-management strategies, they did not clearly indicate how Reactive Tokens
function in turn-management. They noted, �One obvious question for further
research relates to the factors underlying the variation in Reactive Token use across
conversations within one language� (p. 387). This suggestion inspired the present
investigation of how Japanese Reactive Tokens function as a turn-management
strategy and how gender affects their use.
Statement of the Problem
The present study was designed to examine functions of Japanese Reactive
Tokens in relation to turn-management and gendered differentiation in Reactive
Token use. Audio-tape recorded data obtained from 162 Japanese students aged from
18 to 21 who were attending a university located in eastern Japan were analyzed.
In Japanese, the most commonly observed gendered differentiations are the use
of specific lexis, such as polite forms of nouns, specific subject pronouns, and
syntactic forms such as sentence final particles. While these differences are heavily
6
emphasized as gender-related variation, little attention has been paid to other
Japanese linguistic features that may be potentially gender-linked. One of them
concerns the use of minimal responses, which are the nods and brief comments like
�umhm� and �yes� that occur in conversational interaction (Freeman & McElhinny,
1996). Although some researchers (Furo, 2000) have reported gender differences for
Reactive Tokens, which are short utterances produced by a non-primary speaker
(Clancy et al., 1996, p. 355), emphasis was placed on various forms and the
frequency of Reactive Tokens used by different genders. However, previous
researchers have not fully investigated Reactive Token use at the level of functions
related to the turn-management system. Also, though the frequency was measured in
terms of percentages in earlier research, whether the finding was significant or
non-significant was sometimes left to be verified (i.e., Clancy et al., 1996; Furo,
2000).
7
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The overall goal of this chapter is to develop an understanding of the
fundamental issues directly related to this study by examining the following topics:
(a) turn-taking, (b) backchannels, (c) turn-taking and backchannels in the Japanese
language, (d) gender differences in conversational interaction styles, and (e) gendered
differences in Japanese conversational interaction styles.
Turn-taking
Conversational interaction is distinguished from other forms of discourse
activities by the alternation of speaking from one participant to another, which is
commonly referred to as turn-taking. A turn is a period of speech in which only one
person ideally talks at a time. In addition, a turn organizes conversation between at
least two people. The speaker does not start an utterance at random; he/she generally
begins when it appears that the sender has finished his/her utterance. The analysis of
this turn-taking has given rise to several questions:
1. How does the participant gain an opportunity to become the next speaker?
2. Does the receiver insert utterances into the end of the sender�s speech at random, presuming that the sender has finished the utterance at a certain point?
3. How does a participant know who is supposed to speak next in the conversation?
The ways in which such matters are regulated in conversational interactions have
8
been a topic of interest to researchers, and significant work in this area has produced
a wealth of interesting results. Turn-taking is regulated by the use of vocal cues and
gestures (Duncan & Fiske, 1977; Jaffe & Feldstein, 1970; Kendon, 1967). The
current speaker signals when he intends to renounce or hold the turn, and auditors
monitor signals for the timing of turn-transition. Kendon (1967) asserted that gaze
functions as a monitor to probe interlocutors� intentions and expectations for the turn.
Looking away for a moment by the speaker is observed before long utterances and
the speaker�s sustained gaze at the listener is observed before the end of the his/her
utterance (pp. 47-48). Jaffe and Feldstein (1970) noted that a speaker change in
English usually occurs without any overlap of utterances following a brief pause. The
utterance of each speaker is presumably terminated by a signal of �end of message�
that enhances the subsequent response (pp. 10-11). Duncan and Fiske (1977)
emphasized that signals such as gesticulation that are produced by one or two
interlocutors act as a device used to regulate turn-taking. Thus, interaction rules
within the turn system comprise permissible sequences of action such as current
active signals and certain preceding moves by one or both participants (pp. 182-185).
However, one of the problems from the perspective of researchers who emphasize
signals is that gestures such as gaze, which they regard as one of the most important
cues to yield or retain turn-transition, are limited in generalisability across contexts. It
is commonly acknowledged that, without visual cues such as gaze, people in
telephone conversations yield smooth turn-transitions in spite of the fact that no
special prosodic or intonational cues make up for the lack of visual signals (Levinson,
9
1983). Furthermore, these researchers� arguments are based on studies conducted
within a particular culture. For example, Hall (1974) reported that visual cues such as
gaze are not likely to be used by some people in non-Western cultures.
The pioneering work advanced by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974)
described a set of rules of turn-taking that is well accepted as the means by which
interlocutors regulate conversation. A summary of those rules is as follows:
1. Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs. 2. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time. 3. Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief. 4. Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are
common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions. 5. Turn order is not fixed, but varies. 6. Turn size is not fixed, but varies. 7. Length of conversation is not specified in advance. 8. What parties say is not specified in advance. 9. Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance. 10. Numbers of parties can vary. 11. Talk can be continuous or discontinuous. 12. Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker
select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or parties may self-select in starting to talk.
13. Various �turn-constructional units� are employed; e.g., turns can be projected �one word long,� or they can be sentential in length.
14. Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations; e.g., if two parties find themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble.
(pp. 700-701)
These rules specifically focus on the point of utterance transition between the
interlocutors, which is known as the Transition Relevance Place (TRP). TRPs at
10
which turn-transfer possibly occurs are indicated by interlocutors by means of
syntactic factors such as completion of sentences, paragraphs, or phrases, as well as
prosodic features such as intonation, tone, and pitch (Sacks et al., 1974, pp. 702-703).
The following is a basic set of rules governing turn construction proposed by Sacks et
al. (1974).
1. For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit:
(a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a �current speaker selects next' technique, then the party so selected has the right and is obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obligations, and transfer occurs at that place.
(b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a �current speaker selects next� technique, then self-selection for next speakership may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and transfer occurs at that place.
(c) If the turn-so far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a �current speaker selects next� technique, then current speaker may, but need not continue, unless another self-selects.
2. If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit, neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current speaker has continued, then the rule-set a-c re-applies at the next transition-relevance place, and recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until transfer is effected.
(p. 704)
Rule 1 above may be paraphrased as follows. a. The current speaker chooses who speaks next. b. If the current speaker does not choose anybody, the next speaker can
self-select. c. If nobody self-selects, the current speaker can continue.
11
When a turn is given to a participant, the participant controls the length of the
turn by means of completing or prolonging sentence, paragraph, or phrase, as well as
prosodic devices, such as falling or raising intonation, change in pitch, and pausing,
and at the first TRP, the alternation of speakers potentially occurs. Also, interlocutors
must eliminate any gap and overlap at the TRP so as to accomplish smooth
turn-transfer (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 704).
Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson�s analysis, however, has been challenged by
some researchers. Edelsky (1993) defined a turn as an on-record �speaking� (which
may include nonverbal activities) by which an interlocutor�s referential and
functional message is conveyed (p. 207). Edelsky defined the floor as �the
acknowledged what�s-going-on within a psychological time/space� (p. 209). It can be
developed or controlled by one person at a time or by several simultaneously or in
quick succession (p. 209). She also distinguished between a turn opportunity that is
open to all in multiparty speech, where a joint answer to a question or collaboration
on developing ideas is built, and a turn that is open to a single speaker, where an
answer or idea is developed by a single speaker. She termed the former collaborative
floor and the latter singly-developed floor. Though she initially intended to examine
gender role differences by examining floor types in mixed-sex conversations in
university committee meetings, she had difficulty analyzing who had the floor and
what constituted a turn in such multiparty informal conversations. Consequently, she
found it difficult to apply the turn-taking rules presented by Sacks et al. (1974) to
such conversations. In her view, Sacks et al.�s (1974) turn-taking system, which is
12
premised on one-at-a-time talk, sees conversational behaviors in terms of overly
objective mechanical systems and, therefore, is neither universal nor essential for the
communication of messages (p. 201).
Goffman (1981) defined turns as �an opportunity to hold the floor, not what is
said while holding it� (p. 23). He claimed that the talk during two different turns
could function as one unit, combining two different parties� contribution to the
dialogue in one turn at talk. He argued that the organization of turns and the sequence
of interaction should be discriminated. He also proposed two types of constraints that
affect turn-taking management, ritual constraints and system constraints. In ritual
constraints, talk does not always coincide with a sentence or a speaker�s talk but
features an orientation to answering and replying to other parties� intent, not to their
sentences. For example, Japanese have a conversational interaction style, in which a
speaker reduces, formulates, and obscures the message and a listener decodes it with
conjecture to fit the effect of the speaker�s intent sometimes without the provision of
the speaker�s complete sentences (Ishii, 1984). Therefore, ritual constraints are likely
to function as one way to control turn-taking management, the means of which may
vary according to culture or context. System constraints, which fundamentally have
the same basis as Sacks et al.�s (1974) turn-taking system, is the fundamental system
involved in controlling the structural mechanism of conversation (pp. 24-27). This
constraint is built on the basis of the proposition of sentences and may be obvious in
conversational interactions such as assertions followed by direct denials, questions by
questioning the questioner, accusations by counter-accusations, and disparagement by
13
insult. In Goffman�s (1981) view, both ritual constraints and system constraints affect
the turn-taking system.
Philips (1976) also noted that some non-western cultures have ways of taking
turns that challenge Sacks et al.�s (1974) turn-taking rules. She examined the Warm
Spring Indians� turn-taking rules and reported that their conversational interaction
style was such that speakers did not influence who would speak next because as they
spoke, both speakers and hearers spent more time looking away from their partner
and used less arm and hand gesturing than Anglos (p. 89). Also pauses were not
likely to be immediately filled by the Indian listeners, a conversational feature that
sometimes resulted in long silences, which implied that Indian listeners did not
control who would be selected as the next speaker (pp. 88-93).
Ervin-Tripp (1979) also noted that Sacks et al.�s (1974) turn-taking rules could
not always apply to Indian-English colloquial conversations. She reported that in
Indian-English colloquial conversations, interruptions were not regarded as offensive
but as an attitude of cooperative talk, a kind of way to supply more information and to
indicate attentive listening. Interlocutors interrupted each other and expected to be
interrupted when they were speaking in some cases (p. 395).
O�Connell, Kowal, and Kaltenbacher (1990) also criticized Sacks et al.�s
turn-taking management system, arguing that their analysis did not adequately
account for cultural differences, temporal organization, the relationship of
interlocutors, and contractual determinations varying across different contexts. In
their view, Sacks et al.�s mechanical turn-taking management system �excluded