Using Names for Referring without Claiming Shared ...

This article was downloaded by: [Osaka Kyoiku University] On: 22 May 2015, At: 23:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research on Language and Social Interaction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrls20

Using Names for Referring without Claiming Shared Knowledge: NameQuoting Descriptors in Japanese a

Shuya Kushida a

Department of Education, Osaka Kyoiku University, Japan Published online: 11 May 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Shuya Kushida (2015) Using Names for Referring without Claiming Shared Knowledge: Name-Quoting Descriptors in Japanese, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48:2, 230-251, DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2015.1025508 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025508

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, 48(2), 230–251, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0835-1813 print / 1532-7973 online DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2015.1025508

Using Names for Referring without Claiming Shared Knowledge: Name-Quoting Descriptors in Japanese Shuya Kushida

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

Department of Education Osaka Kyoiku University, Japan

When a speaker refers to someone or something in talk-in-interaction, s/he may be doing more than simply referring with a reference form. This article examines a type of reference form, “name-quoting descriptor” (e.g., “person named X”), used in Japanese. I show that the name-quoting descriptor is used for claiming the referent’s “epistemic distance,” i.e., for claiming that the referent is not within the shared territory of knowledge between speaker and recipient, and thereby carries out several interactional tasks in addition to referring. This finding contributes to research on reference practices and epistemics. Data are in Japanese with English translation.

The aim of this study is to describe a reference practice used by parties to talk-in-interaction to do something in addition to referring. To that end, I focus on a particular reference form employed by Japanese speakers, which I call the “name-quoting descriptor (NQD).” It is a noun phrase that contains a name, e.g., X tte yuu hito (“person named X”).1 Using the methodology of conversation analysis, I show that the NQD is used for claiming the referent’s “epistemic distance” from the participants and thereby carries out several interactional tasks in addition to referring. When parties to talk-in-interaction implement some action through their talk, this action typically involves references to someone or something in the world. Other than for references to what is copresent, for which body movements are available, referring is chiefly done by selecting one from among many (or rather, an infinite number of) linguistic forms that can correctly refer to the intended referent (Sacks, 1972). How such selection is done is one of the basic questions related to the study of talk-in-interaction. Since mere denotative correctness does not account for such selection, research has to take into consideration how the reference form is used in the interaction, rather than focusing only on its semantics. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 12th International Pragmatics Conference in Manchester, England (July 8, 2011), and the 108th American Sociological Association Annual Meeting in New York, USA (August 10, 2013). I am grateful to the audiences at these meetings for their constructive criticism and feedback. I also thank Makoto Hayashi, Kaoru Hayano, Charles Antaki, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier manuscripts. Finally, I appreciate Allison Adelman, Eric Hauser, and Donna Fujimoto for their editorial assistance. Correspondence should be sent to Shuya Kushida, 1-4-31 Mayumi, Ikoma, Nara 630-0122, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] 1 The translation “person named X” might not always be satisfactory. British usage might favor “person called X” in at least some of the translations.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

231

Previous studies on person reference have distinguished between two basic uses of reference forms: simple reference and more than simple reference (Schegloff, 1996). “Simple reference” means the use of reference forms only for making a reference. For example, when referring to a nonpresent person who has already been mentioned in the proximate sequential environment (i.e., referring in a “locally subsequent reference position” in Schegloff’s [1996] term), the use of the pronoun “s/he” is the default way for simply making a reference in English (Fox, 1987; Schegloff, 1996). “More than simple reference” means the use of reference forms for doing something in addition to making a reference. For example, by referring with the pronoun “s/he” to a nonpresent person who has not been mentioned in the proximate sequential environment (i.e., referring in a “locally initial reference position” in Schegloff’s [1996] term), a speaker can claim either that s/he is maintaining a shared prior focus or that the referent’s identity is relatively unimportant for his/her action (Kitzinger, Shaw, & Toerien, 2012). The growing body of research on person reference has shown that departures from unmarked reference forms for simply referring to the speaker (i.e., “I/me”), the addressee (i.e., “you”), and a nonpresent person (i.e., “s/he” and names as discussed in the following) are usually tailored for practical actions the speaker is implementing (Hepburn, Wilkinson, & Shaw, 2012; Kitzinger et al., 2012; Land & Kitzinger, 2007; Lerner, Bolden, Hepburn, & Mandelbaum, 2012; Oh, 2007a, 2007b, 2010; Schegloff, 1996, 2007b; Stivers, 2007c). Concerning reference to nonpresent persons who have not been referred to in the proximate sequential environment, names have been shown to be the unmarked reference form based on two distinctions of reference forms (see Table 1). The first distinction is between “recognitionals” and “non-recognitionals” (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979). “Recognitionals” are those reference forms that invite and allow the recipient to find who, that the recipient knows, is being referred to. They include personal names (e.g., “John,” “Mr. Smith”) and descriptors such as “the guy you bought your car from” (Schegloff, 1996). “Non-recognitionals” are reference forms other than recognitionals, including such expressions as “someone,” “this guy,” etc.—which appear to do just “referring-as-non-recognizable”—and more elaborate descriptors such as “a guy at work” (Schegloff, 1996). Based on this distinction, Sacks and Schegloff (1979) and Schegloff (1996) propose that “preference for recognitionals over non-recognitionals” operates in the selection of reference forms. If speakers can suppose that the recipient knows the person, and that the recipient also knows that the speaker can suppose so, then they can use a recognitional for simply making a reference. Names are thus among the preferred reference forms. Second, within the class “recognitionals,” Schegloff (1996) distinguishes names from recognitional descriptors and proposes that names are the preferred reference forms within the TABLE 1 Types of Reference Forms for Nonpresent Persons Recognitionals

Names Recognitional descriptors

Nonrecognitionals

Note. Based on Schegloff (1996).

e.g., “John,” “Mr. Smith” e.g., “the guy you bought your car from,” “your guy” e.g., “someone,” “this guy,” “a guy at work”

232

KUSHIDA

class (see also Downing [1996]). One kind of evidence for the proposal is provided by Stivers’s (2007) finding that speakers can do something in addition to referring when they use recognitional descriptors to refer to someone whose name is known to the recipient, as in Extract (1). Stanley is preparing to sit next to Deborah and asks where her partner, Clive, is sitting.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

(1) [Stivers, 2007, pp. 82–83] 3 STA: Where’s uh: Where’s your guy sittin(g). 4 DEB: ((body gesture to chair on opposite side of her))/ (1.0) 5 STA: Okay. 6 (0.5) ((Stanley begins to take seat next to Deborah))

Stivers argues that “asking where ‘your guy’ is sitting explicitly associates the referent to the addressee and in this way shows the question to be not just one about whether Stanley can sit in a particular seat but as one that actively respects their rights as a couple to sit together” (p. 83). The following statement by Stivers, Enfield, and Levinson (2007) sums up succinctly the reason why names can be used as unmarked reference forms: “When we describe a person, we commit to selecting some features and not others as constituting ‘the description.’ Names give us a way to refer by specifically AVOIDING committing to one or another description of the referent” (p. 4; emphasis in original). In short, names can be used for simply referring to a nonpresent person in that they achieve recognition, and do nothing more than achieving recognition, of the referent. The present study builds on and extends this body of research by examining the NQD in Japanese, whether it is used for reference to persons or other kinds of objects that have their own proper names (e.g., places, pieces of music, TV programs, and commodities). What is interesting about this reference form is that it seems to fall within both sides of the two distinctions introduced earlier. First, it is a type of descriptor that contains a name; it can achieve recognition by virtue of the name embedded in it. Still, as a kind of descriptor, it is an alternative to a bare name. Second, it can be used both as a recognitional and as a nonrecognitional, depending on the context. Because of this multifaceted nature, it is interesting to investigate how the NQD is used in talk-in-interaction to see whether its use is compatible with the account of the selection of reference forms proposed in previous studies. I will argue that the NQD provides further evidence for the earlier account in that it is a kind of marked reference form with which speakers claim the referents’ “epistemic distance” and as such is used to do more than simple reference.

THE NQD AND EPISTEMIC DISTANCE Before I explicate this notion of “epistemic distance,” however, a more detailed description of the NQD and a brief discussion of previous studies relevant to this particular reference form is in order. By “name-quoting descriptor (NQD),” I mean a noun phrase whose canonical form is [name + quotative particle tte/to + verb yuu (“say”) + noun/nominalizer]. And by “name,” I mean not only first name, last name, or full name but also [name + title]. For example, Extract (2) is an NQD that refers to a person.2

2 The data for this study were transcribed using the conventions widely used in conversation analysis (see Schegloff, 2007a). The abbreviations used in the interlinear glosses are as follows: C = copula; FP = final particle; LK = linking

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

(2) Tachikawa-san tte yuu Tachikawa TL QP say person named Mr. Tachikawa

233

hito person

The canonical form can be expanded or truncated. Typical ways for expanding it are to insert a demonstrative before the name (e.g., ano Aoki-san tte yuu hito (“that person named Mr. Aoki”) and to insert some description in the phrase (e.g., Menderusuzoon no Oobatyuafoobando tte yuu kyoku [“Mendelssohn’s tune called ‘Overture for Band’”]). Typical ways for truncating it are to omit the verb yuu (e.g., Shibunooru tte ø toko [“place called Cibnor”]). In Kansai dialect, omission of the quotative particle tte/to is also typical (e.g., Fujimoto ø yuu hito [“person named Fujimoto”]). In some contexts, both the verb yuu and the noun/nominalizer can be omitted (e.g., Mukai Kyooko tte ø ø shitteru? [“Do you know a person named Mukai Kyooko?”]). The core feature common to all of these forms is that first, the speaker’s knowledge of the referent’s name is displayed, and second, the “mediated access” to the referent is encoded by the grammatical devices for quotation (the quotative particle tte/to and/or the verb yuu).3 Japanese linguists have observed that uses of bare names and NQDs are differentiated. For example, Kamio (1990, 2004) has argued that NQDs signify that the information expressed by them falls outside the speaker’s territory, hearer’s territory, or both (see Table 2). Takubo and Kinsui (1997) and Takubo (2010) have made similar points. First, speakers have to use an NQD rather than a bare name when they introduce a piece of information unknown to the recipient or inactivated in the recipient’s mind. Second, when a speaker has introduced the name of a referent, the subsequent speaker who does not know the referent has to refer to it with an NQD rather than its bare name at least until the end of that particular discourse. Though their theoretical framework is different from Kamio’s, these arguments may be regarded as elaborating upon domains B and C in Table 2 respectively. The observations in previous studies can be viewed from another perspective: The NQD is used to claim the referent’s epistemic distance. By “epistemic distance,” I mean that a referent is not within the shared “territory of knowledge” (Hayano, 2013; Heritage, 2012a) between the TABLE 2 NQDs and the Territory of Information When the Referent Is: Within speaker’s territory Outside speaker’s territory

Within Hearer’s Territory

Outside Hearer’s Territory

(A) Bare name “Mr. Tachikawa” (C) NQD “person named Mr. Tachikawa”

(B) NQD “person named Mr. Tachikawa” (D) NQD “person named Mr. Tachikawa”

Note. Adapted from Kamio (1990).

particle; N = nominalizer; OP = direct object particle; Q = question particle; QP = quotative particle; SP = subject particle; TAG = tag question; TL = title; TP = topic particle. On occasion, double parentheses are used in the translation line to provide elements that are not overtly expressed in the original utterances in Japanese but which can be inferred from the context. 3 In his overarching study on the expression to yuu, Niwa (1993) argues that basic distinction should be made between its uses after a noun and after a clause. The NQD construction is one of its uses after a noun. He also argues that a variety of its uses can be interpreted as derived from its primary job of indicating quotation.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

234

KUSHIDA

speaker and the recipient. One way in which a referent is epistemically distant is that either the speaker or the recipient (or both) does not know, or does not have independent knowledge of, the referent. However, even when both the speaker and the recipient have independent knowledge of the referent, a referent can still be epistemically distant if either the speaker or recipient is not familiar enough with it for the speaker’s purpose at hand. For example, when doctors provide an explanation about the side effects of the drug that their patient is taking, they can assume that the drug is epistemically distant from the patient although s/he has independent knowledge of it. Although Japanese is well known for various grammatical resources that index “social distance” between the speaker, the recipient, and third parties, the notion of epistemic distance should not be confused with that of social distance. It refers to the participants’ state of knowledge of the referent and does not necessarily mean that the person being referred to is “not intimate with” or “superior to” the participants. While speakers can display the referent’s social distance from themselves by using (or not using) different titles as well as different head nouns in the NQD, such as Tachikawa-san tte yuu hito (“person named Mr. Tachikawa”), Tachikawa-sensee tte yuu hito (“person named Professor Tachikawa”), and Tachikawa tte yuu yatsu (“guy named Tachikawa”), these forms can nonetheless all be used to claim the referent’s epistemic distance. Moreover, the notion of epistemic distance applies not only to people but also to other kinds of referents (e.g., towns, pieces of music, medicine, etc.), about which the notion of social distance is irrelevant in its usual sense.4 Speakers claiming referents’ epistemic distance is not unique to Japanese. Downing (1996) has argued that expressions in English such as “somebody called Susan Potter,” “a guy named Jack,” “this Jack,” “this Jack guy,” “your friend Kath,” “this fellow Hart,” etc., are used in similar ways to that of the NQD described by Kamio in terms of his theory of the territory of information. And she concludes that: Bare proper names are appropriate only when the referent is present in the territories of information of both participants. In other words, these terms are co-recognitionals. It is also apparent that in case of a striking disparity in the territorial affiliation of a given referent, the overall preference for proper names may give way to the use of forms (such as anchored kinterms, first or second person pronouns, or proper noun phrases containing the demonstrative article this) which can display (or claim) the speaker’s awareness of this discrepancy. (pp. 130–131)

By examining how speakers use the NQD to claim a referent’s epistemic distance, this study intends to contribute to a growing body of research conducted under the rubric of “epistemics” as well (Hayano, 2013; Heritage, 2002, 2012a, 2012b; Heritage & Raymond, 2005, 2012; Raymond & Heritage, 2006; Stivers, 2005; Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011a). This body of research has described practices with which speakers display and negotiate the relative distribution of knowledge between their recipients and themselves. Various kinds of turn constructional devices such as verbs, adverbs, interjections, and particles have been examined for their workings as 4 Certainly, when referring to a nonpresent person, NQDs are sometimes used for claiming one’s social distance as well, since one’s having knowledge of a person is an important aspect of one’s intimacy with that person. However, a fuller argument of the relationship between epistemic distance and social distance is beyond the scope of this article. By the same token, although an examination of how head nouns in the NQD are selected is a very important topic, it is beyond the scope of this article.

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

235

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

epistemic resources. However, while the distribution of knowledge between speaker and recipient forms the basis for the distinction between recognitionals and nonrecognitionals, reference forms have been relatively underinvestigated in the literature of epistemics (however, see Kitzinger & Mandelbaum, 2013; Oh, 2007a, 2010; Stivers, 2007).5 This article is an attempt to develop research related to the intersection of reference practice and epistemics. In what follows, after providing an overview of my data, I analyze four cases from different contexts to show that the NQD is used for claiming the referent’s epistemic distance in all contexts and that it is used to carry out different types of interactional tasks, depending on the context.6

OVERVIEW OF DATA The data for this study come from approximately 20 hours of video recordings of face-to-face conversations and institutional interactions and approximately 5 hours of audio recordings of telephone conversations and business calls. The telephone conversations are drawn from the CallFriend corpus of the TalkBank database (www.talkbank.org). Excerpts from CallFriend have been retranscribed by the author. For all of the transcripts, names of the speakers and other identifiers have been anonymized. I identified 115 instances of the NQD used for referring in this data.7 They can roughly be classified into two groups regarding the speaker’s displayed orientation to the participants’ knowledge states related to the referent (see Table 3). One group includes cases where the speaker and the recipient do not share knowledge of the referent, or more precisely, where the speaker supposes or suspects that either one or both of them does not have independent knowledge of the referent. The other group includes cases where the speaker and the recipient have shared knowledge of the referent, or more precisely, where the speaker supposes that both s/he and his/her recipient have independent knowledge of the referent. In the two sections that follow, I examine two cases from each group.

TABLE 3 Presumed Knowledge States When an NQD Is Used Not shared Shared Total

5 The

99 (86.1%) 16 (13.9%) 115 (100.0%)

notion of epistemic distance basically applies to those referents that are not copresent, regardless of whether the speaker supposes they are known or unknown to the recipient. In this respect, it is different from the distance displayed by the “demonstrative prefaced descriptions,” a type of recognitional reference form (Stivers, 2007), and from the one displayed by the “distal demonstrative-based quasi-pronoun,” a practice for referring to a copresent person in Korean (Oh, 2010). 6 The interactional tasks illustrated in the following sections are four of the five major ones found in my database. The one that could not be included in this article is the task of retracting an unwarranted claim of recognizability, which is carried out by self-repairing a bare name into an NQD. 7 NDQs are used not only for referring but also for describing (see Schegloff [2007c] for the distinction between “referring” and “describing”). I excluded instances of NQDs used for describing.

236

KUSHIDA

NQD USED FOR REFERENTS UNKNOWN TO RECIPIENT OR SPEAKER

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

In this section, I examine cases in which the speaker and the recipient do not share knowledge of the referent. First, I show that when referring to a referent that the speaker knows but supposes his/her recipient does not know, the speaker uses an NQD to claim the referent’s epistemic distance from the recipient and thereby withholds an unwarranted claim of recognizability. Second, I show that when referring to a referent of which the speaker does not—but supposes his/her recipient does—have independent knowledge, the speaker uses an NQD to claim the referent’s epistemic distance from him/herself and thereby withholds an unwarranted claim of independent knowledge. Using Names without Claiming Recognizability In using a bare name, speakers are usually regarded to be claiming its recognizability (Schegloff, 1972). If they presume that their recipients do not recognize a referent with its name but still want to use the name in referring, they need resources with which they can withhold an unwarranted claim of recognizability. The NQD is one such resource because it encodes “mediated access” to the referent. By referring with an NQD, a speaker can claim the epistemic distance of the referent from the recipient, unless otherwise marked.8 In other words, one context in which speakers use the NQD is when they make a nonrecognitional reference, as in Extract (3). In Extract (3), Hiro calls his cousin Ryo. Hiro has recently moved to Boston, and Ryo lives in San Diego. After some opening talk about the call being recorded for purposes of research, Ryo asks where Hiro lives now and adds a candidate answer “In Boston” (line 01). By completing the turn with the turn-final particle kke, which indexes “uncertainty in recollection” (Hayashi, 2012), Ryo displays the stance that he may probably have heard about Hiro’s whereabouts but does not remember it well. In response, Hiro first treats Ryo’s memory as basically correct and then goes on to provide a more precise formulation of his location (lines 02–06). In that formulation, he uses an NQD bosuton kara kuruma de yuu to dauntaun kara juugo hun ka niju ppun gurai hanareta aarinton tte yuu machi (“suburb called Arlington which is about fifteen to twenty minutes by car from downtown Boston”) to refer to the place where he lives (lines 04–06). (3) [JAPN4573 2:02.5 (audio-recorded telephone conversation)] 01 Ryo: .hh ima doko ni >iru no≤ bosuton ni i n da k[ke. now where P exist FP Boston P exist N C FP .hh Where do you live now? = In Boston ((as I recall))? [ 02 Hiro: −> [ima ne: now FP 8 For example, Kamio (1990) points out that when an NQD is used for a referent presumably unknown to the recipient, it can also indicate the referent’s epistemic distance from the speaker if the particle toka (“etc.”) is used in place of tte/to (e.g., Matsui-san toka yuu no [“guy named Mr. Matsui or something”]) and if the particle nanka (“like”) is inserted somewhere in the NQD (e.g., nanka Chan-san tte yuu hito [“person named, like, Mr. Chan”]).

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

03

−> etto: : : : bosuto:n na n desu kedo uhm Boston C N C though Well, uh: : :m Boston but,

04

−> bosuton kara ne: : kuruma de: Boston from FP car with

yuu to: : : say if

05

−> .hhh dauntaun kara: : : : juugo downtown from fifteen

hun minutes

06

−> hanareta: : aarinton tte yuu machi ni iru n >desu yo sore wa nani< gakusee no machi? hm mm that TP what student LK town ◦ Hm mm.◦ = Is it a university town? .hh iya koko wa: : : : : : beddotaun desu ne: : . no here TP residential.area C FP .hh No, it’s a residential area.

When he answers the question, Hiro treats Ryo as ignorant of the geography around Boston by describing how far Arlington is from downtown Boston (lines 04–06). He is thus recognizably referring to a place which he supposes his recipient does not know. By referring to such a place with an NQD, the speaker is claiming the referent’s epistemic distance from the recipient. And the speaker thereby withholds an unwarranted claim of recognizability while using the referent’s name. When a speaker refers to a referent unknown to the recipient, however, a simpler nonrecognitional reference form without the name is available. For example, Hiro could refer to his location with such expressions as “a suburb of Boston” or “a suburb about 15 to 20 minutes from downtown Boston.” What are speakers doing in addition to referring when they use an NQD? On the most basic level, NQDs are resources for speakers to introduce names “for subsequent use when not already known to recipient, thereby arming [the recipient] with the resources he may thereafter be supposed to have” (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979, p. 17; see also Downing, 1996, pp. 109–112). Given its capacity to withhold a claim of recognizability, the NQD is a powerful resource for introducing the referent’s name on a variety of occasions when speakers want to do so for the purpose at hand.9 Thus, the NQD provides further evidence for Sacks 9 Though I cannot take up the matter further here, names appear to be introduced into talk-in-interaction for a variety of practical purposes. For example, when a speaker is telling a story, a name may be introduced for highlighting the referent as a principal character and inviting the recipient to track him/her (Downing, 1996; Sanford, Moar, & Garrod, 1988). Or, when a speaker provides information to a skeptical recipient, a name may be introduced for reinforcing credibility of the information.

238

KUSHIDA

and Schegloff’s (1979) argument that the “strength of the preference [for recognitionals] should . . . be appreciated to involve . . . an interest in expanding the scope of possibility [of using recognitionals]” (p. 17).

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

Using Names without Claiming Independent Knowledge of the Referent As Takubo (2010) has argued, when speakers use a bare name to refer in Japanese, they are heard to be claiming independent knowledge of the referent. However, people sometimes find themselves knowing a referent’s name without having independent knowledge of the referent. A typical situation in which this occurs would be for second speakers who, after a first speaker has introduced a new referent unknown to them using its name (either with a bare name or an NQD), subsequently refer to the same referent. If those second speakers want to use the referent’s name for referring, they need resources that enable them to withhold an unwarranted claim of independent knowledge of the referent. NQDs are used in such contexts. By referring with an NQD, second speakers can claim that the referent is epistemically distant from themselves, as in Extract (4). In Extract (4), taken from a conversation by six members of the same research group, Dan is initiating an extended “story preface” sequence (Sacks, 1992) for a story about how he was shocked when another member, Mr. Yamazaki, who is not copresent, talked about bald heads in the presence of (bald) Professor Tachikawa several days earlier. The relevant background information is that the recipients’ knowledge about this bald professor is heterogeneous: Fuji is his student; Itoo and Yano also know him in person; Suda and Tani, however, do not know him. (4) [Jaist 180–4 11:22:9 (video-recorded conversation)] 01 Dan: ↓nan no hanashi shiteta ka. what LK talk doing Q ((Guess)) what he ((=Mr. Yamazaki)) was talking about. 02

(0.7)

03 Dan:

nande ↑ano hito wa: :,(1.0)ko: : :o why that person TP like.this

04

Tachikawa-san ga: me no mae ni iru toki ni kagitte: :, Tachikawa TL SP eye LK front at exist time at limit Why on earth (1.0) uh: :m only in front of Mr. Tachikawa,

05 Itoo:

haha[haha [ha [ [ [hage [no hanashi o suru [(no ka)] bald LK talk OP do FP Q does he talk about bald heads? [ [ ] [AH HAH HAH [HAH ] . hhh[ .hhh. hhh [ ] [hah ] hah [hah hah hah hah hah = [ [((Drops to the table in laughter.))

06 Dan:

07 Yano: 08 Fuji: 09 Itoo:

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

10 Fuji: 11 Suda:

12 Fuji: 13 Dan:

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

14 Fuji: 15 Yano: 16 Suda:

= hah [hah hah ]hah hah hah hah hh. hhh = [ ] [na(h)ni(h)so(h)re(h) ] what that Sa(h)y wha(h)t? = hh.hhh [hh.hhh hah hah ]= [ ] [ichido nara zu nido made mo.] once C not twice even also Not only once but twice. = hah [hah hah hah [hah [ [ [hah hah hah [ [ (e:) yamazaki-san (ga?) huh Yamazaki TL SP (Huh) ((y’mean)) Mr.Yamazaki ((did that))?

17 Dan:

((Nods.))

18 Suda:

hah [hah hah ((Throws his head back.)) [ [iya o hito ni wa no Tachikawa TL OP know not person at TP

19 Dan: 20

21 Tani:

22 Suda: 23

24 Itoo: 25

26 Dan:

wakara nai ◦ (to omou n ya kedo.)◦ understand not QP think FP C though Well, but I don’t think you can fully appreciate this unless you know Mr. Tachikawa. [? ] Tachikawa Ken’ichi TL ((Y’mean)) Mr. Ken’ichi Tachikawa? [ ] −> [>(iya) demo yoosuruni tachikawa-san tte] yuu hito wa no but in.short Tachikawa TL QP say person TP −> hageteru [wake ya na. [so: shi- soo da ne: . ] [◦ nn.◦ ] [so ]rede ma:hh so do so C FP yeah so well So- I understand. Yeah. So, 42

−> sooyuu toki ni izon ni nara nai yooni that . sort time at dependence at become not so.as.to

43

−> to yuu imi de, QP say meaning with

44

−> tsukatten no ga rebotomin to yuu okusuri de ne, be. using N SP Levotomin QP say drug C FP that’s why we use ((the)) drug called Levotomin when that symptom occurs, while at the same time avoiding dependence, y’know,

45 Pat:

hai. Uh huh.

46

(0.8)

47 Doc: −> de kono okkusu↑ri wa,(0.3)◦ .hhhhh◦ tsukatte mo: :,(0.5) and this drug TP use if 48

−> karada ga izon ni nachattarishi nai kara: :,◦ .hhhhhhhh◦ body SP dependence at become not ‘cause and because this drug does not cause dependence,

49

−> dakara narubeku kono okusuri o tsuka↑tte sooyuu so preferably this drug OP use that.sort

50

−> shoojoo o,(0.4)osaeru yooni (0.5)shite iki mashoo? symptom OP control so.that do go let’s let’s control that kind of symptom with this drug as much as possible, okay?

243

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

244

KUSHIDA

Since Levotomin is one of the drugs that the patient is currently taking, the doctor can presume that the patient can recognize it by name. Although it is true that not all patients can recognize the drugs they take by name, this particular patient displays his knowledgeability of drugs in this consultation. Prior to the excerpt, he complained about one of the drugs he has been prescribed by referring to it by name; moreover in line 06, he displays his knowledgeability by giving the name of a candidate drug. Addressing his utterance to such a patient, the doctor appears to use the NQD for a recognitional reference; he designs his turn in such a way as to display his understanding that it is only the reasoning behind why he is prescribing Levotomin that is unknown to the patient (“that’s why we use”; lines 42–44). Subsequently, the patient makes a tacit claim of recognition of the drug by producing a continuer (line 45). However, at the same time, the doctor treats the patient’s knowledge of the drug as less authoritative. Having been asked to change the drugs he had been prescribing, the doctor not only rejects the request and provides a reason (lines 01–15) but also explains why he is currently prescribing Levotomin in the first place (lines 41–44). Embedded in an explanation of an as-yet-unknown aspect of the drug the patient is taking, the NQD is clearly used to claim the referent’s epistemic distance from the recipient. The doctor thereby treats the patient as having made a request based on an inaccurate understanding of the drug he is currently taking. In short, he is downplaying the patient’s knowledge of the drug Levotomin by referring to it with the NQD. Such downplaying works as a resource for the additional action the doctor is implementing through his explanation. In medical consultations, patients’ request for treatment can be a potential challenge to the doctor’s professional authority (Gill, Halkowski, & Roberts, 2001). As a response to this potential challenge, the doctor is defending his authority through his explanation. The use of an NQD can assist with his defense because it highlights the “esoteric” nature of the knowledge about the drug through claiming its epistemic distance from the patient. Downplaying the Speaker’s Knowledge of a Referent Just as speakers sometimes treat their knowledge of a known-in-common referent as more authoritative than that of their recipients, they may also treat it as less authoritative on other occasions. Again, a typical situation in which this occurs takes place in interactions between experts and nonexperts, such as when a nonexpert speaker asks a question about a known-in-common referent within the expert’s professional territory. By claiming the referent’s epistemic distance using an NQD, a nonexpert speaker downplays his/her knowledge of the referent. This type of NQD use, however, is seen in casual conversations as well. For example, when a speaker invites more authoritative talk about a known-in-common referent from his/her recipients, s/he downplays his/her own knowledge of the referent with an NQD, as in Extract (6).13 Extract (6) is taken from a conversation between two couples, Masa and his wife Sari and Koji and his wife Yuki. Masa and Koji work at the same company; Yuki has also worked there before. They know well the focal person, Aoki, who also works at the same company. As for Sari, however, she only recently met Aoki for the first time at a dinner gathering she attended with Masa several days earlier. Prior to this fragment, the participants have been gossiping about Aoki’s marriage. Here, Koji is shifting the focus of topic by announcing some news about Aoki (line 01). 13 The

author is grateful to Makoto Hayashi for sharing this data.

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

245

(6)[TYC 11 (video-recorded conversation)] 01 Koji: >saiki[n aoki-< paama ateta n ya.((To Yuki)) recently Aoki perm had FP FP Recently Aoki got his hair permed. [ 02 Masa: [hhma((Lines 03–08 omitted where Yuki frowns, expresses concern about it being video-recorded, and everyone laughs.)) 09

Masa:

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

10

11

Koji:

12

Sari:

13

Masa:

ima nan- kono hen kurikurikurikuri tte now what this around MIM QP shite [te: : do and ((His hair)) is curly around here. [ [u:::::n. Yeah. [ [e! konaida-(0.2) kaket enakat[ta: :? huh the . other . day had . not Huh? He didn’t have it the other day, did he? [ [k(H)ak(h)etet(h)a had

14

y(h)ohh! £kigatsukanakatta ka:?£ FP didn’t.notice Q Ye(h)s, he(h) di(h)d. £Didn’t you notice it?£

15

(0.2)

16

Masa:

[.hhhhh [

17

Sari:

18

Yuki:

[u: :: :n henka wa chotto ne: = [attenai kara: : wakan nai na: : . yeah change TP little FP see.not ‘ cause know not FP No, I couldn’t tell his change ‘cause I hadn’t met ((him before)). [ [u:e:::::::::::::: ue::::::: wow wow

19

20

Masa:

21

[shinjirarena:::i unbelievable Yuck, ((that’s)) unbelievable. [ [u: :n maa jikkuri miru to oka- okashii yo. yeah well closely look.at if funny FP We: :ll, anyway it’s funny if you look at ((him)) closely. (0.5)

22

Koji

23

Sari: −>

u: :[: :n. Yeah. [ [maa ano aoki - san tte yuu hito mo well that Aoki TL QP say person also

246

KUSHIDA

24

−> kekkoo ochitsuiteru na to omou kedo, rather calm FP QP think but Well, that person named Mr. Aoki seems rather calm, too, but,

−> .hh ano::: hora!kekkon [kimat(.)teru kedo: : uhm see marriage decided but .hh uh: :m, y’know, ((that person who)) is going to get married, but, [ 26 Yuki: [◦ (eh) ochitsuiteru◦ = huh calm Huh? Calm? 25

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

27 Masa:

28 Koji:

29 Sari:

= ◦ ochitsuite (nai)◦ = calm not He’s not calm = [ochitsu(ki nai na) calm not FP He’s not calm. [ −> [hora ano hito me no ookii hito nante yuu n da kke. see that person eye LK large person what say FP C FP y’know, that person, the one with big eyes, what’s his name?

30

(.)

31 Masa:

n- tsuji: :? Tsuji: :?

32 Sari:

−> soo! tsuji to yuu hito no hoo ga- .hh ano::: nanka so Tsuji QP say person LK side SP uhm like

−> saitaisha zen to shiter(h)u [n(h)a: : toka omotte, = married.man appear QP do FP etc. thought Right! ((That)) person named Tsuji behaved .hh uh: :m like, like a married man, I thought. [ 34 Koji: [a:::::::::::::::::: Oh:::::::::::::::: [ 35 Yuki: [hhhhh heheh! hhhhh heheh!

33

Sari: −> = .hh de ze- ato kara: nanka kek[kon kimatteru and after from like marriage decided [ 37 Yuki: [.khuhh 36

Sari: −> = tte [kiite. QP heard But ((actually)) it’s later that I heard he’s getting married. [ 39 Koji: [iya: demo:- (0.2) ↑kare wa ne mae kara no but he TP FP before from 38

40

anna kanji na n desu yo: . that.kind feeling C FP C FP Well, but he has always been like that.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

247

Koji addresses his news announcement to Yuki, who is not working with Aoki anymore (line 01). While Yuki frowns at hearing the news, Masa displays his status as a “knowing” recipient by elaborating upon the news (line 09–10). As for Sari, given the fact that she has just recently met Aoki at a dinner gathering, she could be expected (at least by Masa) to be aware of Aoki’s perm. When she reveals that she had not noticed his perm (lines 12), Masa teases her by formulating her failure in a smile voice (“£Didn’t you notice it?£”) (lines 13–14). As a defense against being teased, Sari justifies her failure by formulating the source event as “his change,” which is inaccessible to those who “hadn’t met him before” (line 17). Masa’s response to her defense is of a mixed nature (line 20): By characterizing the source event as something difficult to notice (“if you look at him closely”), he partially backs down; on the other hand, he rejects her claim of inaccessibility of the source event through his very characterization. It is in such a sequential environment that Sari initiates a turn in which she first refers to Aoki with the NQD ano aoki-san tte yuu hito “that person named Mr. Aoki” (line 23), and subsequently refers to another person with the NQD tsuji to yuu hito “((that)) person named Tsuji” (line 32). There are two important aspects of the sequential environment. First, since Masa continues to claim accessibility of the source event, Sari’s defense has been virtually unsuccessful. It may be relevant for Sari to take other measures that could remedy her failure. Second, in defending herself against Masa’s teasing, Sari has (unwittingly) undermined the possibility of topic development. The fact that she had only recently met Aoki implies that she lacks the prerequisite to being interested in talk about a change in his appearance. By overtly mentioning this fact, Sari is presenting herself as unable to embrace the topic. Koji, therefore, appears to pass on the opportunity to further elaborate on the news (line 22). Turning to the NQDs in our target turn, they are “locally initial reference forms” used in “locally subsequent reference positions” (Schegloff, 1996). Schegloff (1996) has pointed out that by using this type of reference form in such a position a speaker can try to bring off “a new departure” in talk. This observation can be applied to this extract as well. Through her turn from lines 23 to 38, Sari is making a topic shift from Aoki’s appearance (i.e., his perm) via his demeanor (i.e., calm) to Tsuji’s demeanor (i.e., behaving like a married man).14 What remains to be cleared up, however, is that since Sari knows both Aoki and Tsuji in person and the other participants know that as well, she could refer to them with their bare names.15 Instead, she claims her independent knowledge of the referents with the distal demonstrative ano (“that” in lines 23, 29). How can we account for her uses of NQDs while she claims independent knowledge of the referents at the same time? First, Sari is demonstrating a stranger’s view as another remedy for her failure to notice. Here, she is bringing up evidence that she did notice other things about the people she first met in the dinner gathering. Interestingly, she is reporting her impression of their demeanor, not of their appearance. While people’s appearance can sometimes change and become newsworthy for 14 Since

the space here is limited, I do not investigate the “incidental sequence” (Schegloff, 2007a) that is initiated by Sari in line 25, which occupies lines 29, 30, and 31, and is brought to a closure by her Soo! in line 32, where she asks for Masa’s assistance in remembering the name of the person she is going to refer to, and Masa assists with that. See Hayashi (2012) for a detailed analysis of this sequence. 15 In fact, prior to this fragment, Sari has referred to Aoki with his bare name when she solicited Masa’s recognition of an episode of his married life: Demo Aoki-san mo hidoi janai (“But Mr. Aoki is also bad, isn’t he?”). In response, Masa gave the news to Koji and Yuki that Aoki had talked badly about his wife. Here, the use of the bare name fits her action of soliciting recognition of a piece of shared knowledge from the recipient.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

248

KUSHIDA

their long-standing friends/colleagues, etc., their demeanor is usually more stable and may not itself be newsworthy anymore for those people. It is only for a stranger or someone who has met them recently that their demeanor is specifically worth observing and reporting. By bringing up people’s demeanor in this way, Sari is demonstrating that she had been observing people in the gathering as a stranger; this can account for why she did not notice the perm feature of Aoki’s appearance. Second, through her demonstration, Sari is proposing a “recipient-oriented” topic, or “a topic about which the recipient is, or is treated as being, an/the authoritative speaker” (Schegloff, 2007a, p. 170). Since she has unwittingly undermined the development of a topic that might have been interesting to the other participants, it may be relevant for her to propose a next topic that is presumably interesting to them. By reporting a stranger’s impression about the demeanor of people who are familiar to all of the recipients, she can invite more authoritative talk from them about the referents. Using NQDs for such actions, Sari is evidently claiming the referents’ epistemic distance from herself, although she claims some knowledge of them at the same time. In other words, she is downplaying her knowledge of the referents. Such downplaying in turn assists with the action of proposing a “recipient-oriented” topic through the demonstration of a stranger’s view. Actually, her report is treated by the other participants as an unauthoritative version that they can replace with their own version, first when they question and correct her impression about Aoki (lines 26, 27, 28) in the midst of her turn, and second when Koji starts developing the new topic by presenting a more authoritative version about Tsuji’s demeanor (lines 39–40). In short, Sari is doing more than simply referring to those two people with the use of the NQDs. In this section, I have examined cases where NQDs are used to refer to referents of which both the recipient and the speaker have independent knowledge. I have shown that by referring with an NQD, a speaker claims an asymmetry of knowledge between their recipients and themselves about the known-in-common referent. When speakers implement an action that embodies their superiority or authority about the referent, they downplay their recipients’ knowledge of the referent with the NQD and thereby assist with their action. On the other hand, when speakers implement an action that embodies their recipients’ superiority or authority about the referent, they downplay their own knowledge of the referent using the NQD and thereby assist with their action. In both types of usage, the speaker does something in addition to referring by using an NQD.

CONCLUSION This study has examined a reference practice Japanese speakers use to do something in addition to referring. Since Schegloff (1996) first pointed out that reference practices are used not only for simply referring, a growing body of research has described the ways in which reference practices are used for doing more than simple reference. This study contributes to this body of research by adding to it another practice: the use of a descriptor that contains a name. In Japanese, this type of descriptor takes the form of an NQD in which a name is embedded with the quotative particle to/tte and/or verb yuu (“say”); thereby a type of “mediated access” to the referent is encoded. By referring with an NQD, speakers claim the referent’s epistemic distance.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

249

I have examined four cases from different contexts to show that the NQD is used to claim the referent’s epistemic distance in all cases and that it is used to carry out different types of interactional tasks, depending on the context. First, the NQD is used to withhold an unwarranted claim of recognizability of the referent. When referring to someone/something presumably unknown to the recipient, the unmarked practice is to use a nonrecognitional reference form that does not contain a name. By employing an NQD instead, the speaker introduces the referent’s name without claiming its recognizability and can thereby expand the scope of recognition possibility. Second, the NQD is also used to withhold an unwarranted claim of independent knowledge of the referent. When referring to someone/something that has initially been introduced into the conversation by a prior speaker, the unmarked practice is to use a locally subsequent reference form. By referring with an NQD instead, speakers highlight their lack of independent knowledge of the referent and thereby assist with the practical action they are implementing. Third and fourth, the NQD is used to downplay either the recipient’s or the speaker’s knowledge of the referent. When referring to someone/something of which both the speaker and the recipient have independent knowledge, the speaker could choose to use its bare name for simply referring to it. With the use of an NQD instead, the speaker not only makes a recognitional reference but also claims that either the recipient or him/herself has less authoritative knowledge of the referent and thereby assists with the action s/he is implementing. This finding is important in that it exemplifies one way in which names are used for more than simple reference. As Stivers et al. (2007) have argued, names are unmarked reference forms for nonpresent persons because “names give us a way to refer by specifically AVOIDING committing to one or another description of the referent” (p. 4). However, embedding a name into a descriptor changes this basic condition. NQDs enable speakers to fit reference forms to their practical purposes while at the same time achieving recognition or expanding the scope of recognition possibility. Therefore, the use of NQDs provides further evidence for preference for recognitionals as well as preference for names over descriptors. We can expect that further research on descriptors that contain a name, as well as on various kinds of names (e.g., first name, last name, name plus title, nickname, etc.), will bring about a better understanding of how names are used so as to optimize the tasks of achieving recognition or expanding the scope of recognition possibility on the one hand, and assisting with the speaker’s actions on the other. This study also contributes to research on epistemics by illustrating that reference forms are rich resources for displaying epistemic stances. The central feature of the NQD as an epistemic resource is that its primary work is to claim the epistemic distance of the referent, and only secondarily does it work to claim different knowledge states of the speaker and the recipient. Because of this feature, the NQD works as a rather unique epistemic resource in its flexibility in allowing speakers to claim various kinds of epistemic asymmetry between speakers and recipients. It is used to claim the recipient’s and the speaker’s lack of “epistemic access” (Hayano, 2013; Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011b) as in Extracts (3) and (4), the speaker’s “epistemic authority” or “epistemic primacy” (Hayano, 2011, 2013; Heritage, 2002; Heritage & Raymond, 2005; Raymond & Heritage, 2006) as in Extract (5), or the speaker’s “epistemic subordination” as in Extract (6). This article has thus demonstrated one way in which reference practices and epistemics intersect. Further research is needed to better understand other ways in which reference forms work as epistemic resources. Finally, although this study examines only the NQD in Japanese, there are several reasons to suppose that the findings may be applicable to other languages. Downing (1996) has examined

250

KUSHIDA

three examples of descriptors that contain a name in English, which are similar to those in Extracts (3), (4), and (5) in this article (see her examples: (4), pp. 100–101; (23), pp. 123–124; and (26), pp. 131–132). In addition, she suggests that cases like Extract (6) in this article can also be found in English (p. 133, p. 138 n. 10). Based on her arguments, we can make a conjecture that English descriptors that contain a name are basically used in similar ways, though they appear to be more optional than the NQD in Japanese. We can expect that further research on this type of reference form will reveal the extent to which its uses are similar and different across languages.

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

REFERENCES Downing, P. A. (1996). Proper names as a referential option in English conversation. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 95–143). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gill, V. T., Halkowski, T., & Roberts, F. (2001). Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit. Text, 21(1/2), 55–82. Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 58–81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Hayashi, M. (2012). Claiming uncertainty in recollection: A study of kke-marked utterances in Japanese conversation. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 391–425. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2012.673845 Hepburn, A., Wilkinson, S., & Shaw, R. (2012). Repairing self- and recipient reference. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2), 175–190. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.673914 Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-ininteraction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103 Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kamio, A. (1990). Joohoo no nawabari riron: Gengo no kinooteki bunseki [The theory of territory of information: A functional analysis of language]. Tokyo, Japan: Daishuukan Shoten. Kamio, A. (2004). Zoku joohoo no nawabari riron [The sequel to the theory of territory of information]. Tokyo, Japan: Daishuukan Shoten. Kitzinger, C., & Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 176–198. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.776171 Kitzinger, C., Shaw, R., & Toerien, M. (2012). Referring to persons without using a full-form reference: Locally initial indexicals in action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2), 116–136. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.673376 Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Some uses of third-person reference forms in speaker self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 493–525. doi:10.1177/1461445607079164 Lerner, G. H., Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., & Mandelbaum, J. (2012). Reference recalibration repairs: Adjusting the precision of formulations for the task at hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2), 191–212. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.674190

Downloaded by [Osaka Kyoiku University] at 23:26 22 May 2015

USING NAMES FOR REFERRING

251

Niwa, T. (1993). Innyoo o arawasu rentai-hukugoo-ji “to yuu” [The adnominal particle “to yuu” that indicates quotation]. Jinbun Kenkyuu [Studies in the Humanities], 45(1), 25–60. Oh, S. (2007a). The interactional meanings of quasi-pronouns in Korean conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds), Person reference in interaction (pp. 203–225). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Oh, S. (2007b). Overt reference to speaker and recipient in Korean. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 462–492. doi:10.1177/1461445607079163 Oh, S. (2010). Invoking categories through co-present person reference: The case of Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1219–1242. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.019 Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705. doi:10.1017/S0047404506060325 Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York, NY: The Free Press. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 5–21). New York, NY: Irvington. Sanford, A. J., Moar, K., & Garrod, S. C. (1988). Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and Speech, 31(1), 43–56. Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). New York, NY: The Free Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Schegloff, E. A. (2007a). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (2007b). Conveying who you are: The presentation of self, strictly speaking. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 123–148). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (2007c). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 433–461. doi:10.1177/1461445607079162 Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 Stivers, T. (2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 73–96). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2007). Person reference in interaction. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011a). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011b). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Takubo, Y. (2010). Nihongo no kouzou: Suiron to chisiki kanri [The structure of Japanese: Inference and management of knowledge]. Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio Shuppan. Takubo, Y., & Kinsui, S. (1997). Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 741–758. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00073-8