Japanese conversations are known to contain a large amount of unexpressed information. When a speaker speaks with elliptical information, he or she assumes that the addressee will understand what is not overtly expressed based on the knowledge that is supposed to be shared textually, personally or culturally. The addressee, on the other hand, must determine what is not being expressed overtly using such shared knowledge. At the heart of this kind of communication is the existence of trust assumed among the interlocutors. Using the term ‘entrustment’, we will examine how one particular Japanese formulaic construction, [Noun (da) yo Noun], ‘It’s Noun, you know, Noun’, indexes mutual trust to manage conversational interaction. We will argue that this meta-pragmatic awareness needs to be recognized beyond surface interactional patterns identified in conversation.
AjiokaMKaneyasuMKawanishiY (2014) ‘Mikan yo, Mikan’: Formulaic constructions and their implicature in conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics21: 199–213.
2.
AllwoodJ (2014) Trust as a communicative and epistemic simplifier and facilitator. In: LinellPMarkovaI (eds) Dialogical Approaches to Trust in Communication. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., pp. 189–211.
3.
ArundaleR (1999) An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics9: 119–154.
4.
ArundaleR (2005) Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In: FitchKLSandersRE (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 41–63.
5.
BarlowM (2000) Usage, blends, and grammar. In: BarlowMKemmerS (eds) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 315–345.
6.
BrintonLJTraugottEC (2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CanavanAZipperlenG (1996) CALLHOME Japanese Speech. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
8.
ChafeW (1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse11: 21–51.
9.
ChafeW (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
ClarkH (1996) Communities, commonalities, and communication. In: GumperzJJLevinsonCS (eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–355.
11.
DąbrowskaE (2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics25(4): 617–653.
12.
DiesselH (1999) Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
13.
Du BoisJW (2007) The stance triangle. In: EnglebretsonR (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 139–182.
14.
EnfieldNJ (2003) The definition of what-d’you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis. Journal of Pragmatics35(1): 101–117.
15.
EnfieldNJ (2006) Social consequences of common ground. In: EnfieldNJLevinsonSC (eds) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers, pp. 399–430.
16.
EnfieldNJ (2011) Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In: StiversTMondadaLSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 285–312.
17.
EvanceN (1993) Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In: FoleyWA (ed.) The Role of Theory in Linguistic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–280.
18.
FillmoreCJKayPO’ConnorMC (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64(3): 501–538.
19.
FriedMOstmanJ-O (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics37(11): 1752–1778.
20.
GoldbergAE (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7(5): 219–224.
21.
GoldbergAE (2006a) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
GoldbergAE (2006b) Syntactic constructions. In: BrownK (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn.Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 379–383.
23.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics1(1): 1–55.
24.
GriceHP (1989) Logic and conversation. In: GriceHP (ed.) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.
25.
HaughM (2008) Utterance-final conjunctive particles and implicature in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics18(3): 425–451.
26.
HayashiMYoonK-E (2006) A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language30(3): 485–540.
27.
HeineB (2013) On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?Linguistics51(6): 1205–1247.
28.
HeineL (2011) Non-coordination-based ellipsis from a construction grammar perspective: The case of coffee construction. Cognitive Linguistics22(1): 55–80.
29.
HimmelmannN (1996) Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In: FoxBA (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205–254.
30.
HoltE (2011) On the nature of ‘laughables’: Laughter as a response to overdone figurative phrases. Pragmatics21: 393–410.
31.
IwasakiSHoriePI (1998) The Northridge earthquake conversations: Conversational patterns in Japanese and Thai and their cultural significance. Discourse & Society9(4): 501–529.
32.
JeffersonG (1985) An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In: van DijkT (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume 3: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.
33.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.
34.
JeffersonGSacksHSchegloffEA (1987) Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In: ButtonGLeeJRE (eds) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–205.
LakoffGJohnsonM (1980/2008) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LinellP (2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
38.
LinellPMarkovaI (eds) (2014) Dialogic Approaches to Trust in Communication. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
39.
MatsuiT (2000) Linguistic encoding of the guarantee of relevance: Japanese sentence-final particle YO. In: AndersenGFretheimT (eds) Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–172.
40.
MatsumotoY (1989) Politeness and conversational universals – Observations from Japanese. Multilingua8(2–3): 207–221.
41.
MoriJ (1999) Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
NoroK (2009) Gendai Nihongo no dooitsu dooshi hanpuku hyoogen ‘V ni V’ ni tsuite [On modern Japanese identical verbal repetitive expression ‘V ni V’]. Kotoba to Bunka [Language and Culture] 10: 45–58.
OshimaH (2001) ‘Hora’ no kinoo ni tsuite [On the function of ‘hora’]. Nihongo Kyooiku [Japanese Language Education] 108: 34–41.
46.
PawleyA (1985) Lexicalization. In: TannenDAlatisJE (eds) Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. New York: Georgetown University Press, pp. 98–120.
47.
PawleyA (1986) On speech formulas and linguistic competence. Lenguas Modernas12: 84–104.
48.
PawleyA (2009) Grammarians’ language versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In: CorriganRMoravcsikEAOualiH. (eds) Formulaic Language, Volume 1: Distribution and Historical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–26.
49.
PawleyASyderFH (1983) Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics7(5): 551–579.
50.
PrinceE (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In: ColeP (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.
51.
SacksHSchegloffEA (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In: PsathasG (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 15–21.
52.
SchegloffEA (1979) Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In: PsathasG (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 23–78.
53.
SchegloffEA (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology97(5): 1295–1345.
54.
SchegloffEAJeffersonGSacksH (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53(2): 361–382.
55.
SperberDWilsonD (1986/1996) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
56.
TakuboNKinsuiS (1997) Ootooshi/kandooshi no danwateki kinoo [Conversational function of response tokens and interjections]. In: Sound and Grammar Study Group (ed.) Bunpoo to Onsei [Grammar and Sound]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publisher, pp. 257–279.
57.
ThompsonSAFoxBACouper-KuhlenE (2015) Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
WrayA (2013) Formulaic language. Language Teaching46(3): 316–334.
59.
WrayAPerkinsM (2000) The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication20(1): 1–28.
