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