In Pursuit of Alignment and Affiliation: The Practice of Anchoring Shared Knowledge in Japanese Conversation

References

• Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1954).
   Google Scholar
• Asmuß, B. (2011). Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 207–234). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2016). A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996a). CALLFRIEND Japanese LDC96S53. Web download. Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996b). CALLHOME Japanese speech LDC96S37. Web download. Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00036-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H., & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeRienzo, H. (2008). The concept of community: Lessons from the Bronx. IPOC di Pietro Condemi.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (2018). Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1983). Felicity’s condition. American Journal of Sociology, 89(1), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1086/227833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2011). Ways of agreeing with negative stance taking. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 235–256). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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 University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Radboud University Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• Hayashi, M. (2012). Claiming uncertainty in recollection: A study of kke-marked utterances in Japanese conversation. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.673845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huth, A. G., Nishimoto, S., Vu, A. T., & Gallant, J. L. (2012). A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron, 76(6), 1210–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iori, I. (2009). Suiryoo no ‘deshoo’ ni kansuru ichi koosatsu – Nihongo kyooiku bunpoo no shiten kara [A study on conjectural ‘deshoo’ – From the perspective of Japanese learners’ grammar]. Nihongo Kyouiku, 142, 58–68. http://hdl.handle.net/10086/22081
   Google Scholar
• Iwasaki, S. (2013). Japanese, Revised Edition. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaneyasu, M. (2020). Interactional relevance of linguistic categories: Epistemic modals daroo and deshoo in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karatsu, M. (2004). A study of storytelling in Japanese conversation [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2011). The terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 184–206). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M. S. (2011). Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker –tamye. Discourse Studies, 13(4), 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611403259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushida, S. (2011). Confirming understanding and acknowledging assistance: Managing trouble responsibility in response to understanding check in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2716–2739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, B. P. H. (2001). Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs: Their roles in establishing common ground. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00128-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindström, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 350–369). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, S. (1990). An introduction to Japanese grammar and communication strategies. The Japan Times.
   Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Miyake, T. (1995). ‘Suiryoo’ ni tsuite [Regarding conjecture]. Kokugo-gaku, 183, 76–86. https://bibdb.ninjal.ac.jp/SJL/view.php?h_id=1830860760
   Google Scholar
• Mizutani, O., & Mizutani, N. (1987). How to be polite in Japanese. The Japan Times.
   Google Scholar
• Nakakita, M. (2000). Danwa ni okeru daroo · deshoo no sentaku-kijun [Appropriate choices between daroo and deshoo in discourse]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 107, 26–35.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device’. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–49). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. II). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse (pp. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150–171). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. https://doi.org/10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Seger, C. A., & Miller, E. K. (2010). Category learning in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33(1), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135546
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Introduction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–26). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szatrowski, P. (1994). Discourse functions of the Japanese epistemic modal DESYOO. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20(1), 532–546. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1449
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, H. (2000). The particle ne as a turn-managing device in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(8), 1135–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00087-9
   Google Scholar
• Usami, M. (2018). BTSJ-Japanese natural conversation corpus with transcripts and recordings, NINJAL Institute-based projects: Multiple approaches to analyzing the communication of Japanese language learners, Sub-project: Studies on the language use of Japanese language learners, leader. Mayumi Usami.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2003a). Knowledge in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 2(1), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.06dij
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2003b). The discourse-knowledge interface. In R. Wodak & G. Weiss (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis. Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 85–109). Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Vatanen, A. (2018). Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: Mä tiedän ‘I know’ responses in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, R. R. (2004). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar