Talking about children in an extended-family setting can sometimes be challenging in Japanese culture due to the highly developed system of grammatical marking for epistemic stance. Parents of a child typically hold epistemic authority regarding the child, which makes non-parent participants cautious about how they speak. At the same time, asserting oneself as more knowledgeable, especially in front of older parents-in-law, may be perceived as face-threatening. Drawing on videotaped, naturally occurring conversations, this study investigates how participants position themselves when engaging in talk about children. By analyzing conversations among participants with both intra- and intergenerational relationships, this study demonstrates how grammatical resources, membership category, and the participation framework contribute to the negotiation of family relations and epistemic status.
AritaY (2025) Uso “lie” or hontoo “truth”?: Two lexical response tokens in Japanese informings. Journal of Pragmatics235: 182–202.
2.
BachnikJMQuinnJJr (eds) (1994) Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society and Language. Princeton University Press.
3.
BrownPLevinsonSC (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
4.
ButlerCWFitzgeraldR (2010) Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. Journal of Pragmatics42: 2462–2474.
5.
ClarkHH (1996) Using Language. Cambridge University Press.
6.
EndoT (2023) Recipient design and collaboration in language socialization: Multimodal analysis of a Japanese household religious ritual. Research on Children’s Social Interaction7(1): 119–153.
7.
EndoTYokomoriD (2020) Self-addressed questions as fixed expressions for epistemic stance marking in Japanese conversation. In: OnoTLauryR (eds) Fixed Expression in Interaction: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Mouton de Gruyter, pp.203–236.
8.
GoffmanE (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. Doubleday Publishing.
9.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
10.
GolatoA (2005) Compliments and Compliment Responses. John Benjamins.
11.
GoodwinC (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press.
12.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (2004) Participation. In: DurantiA (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, pp.222–224.
13.
HayanoK (2011) Giving support to the claim of epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In: StiversTMondadaLSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge University Press, pp.58–81.
14.
HayanoK (2012) Question design in conversation. In: SidnellJStiversT (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley Blackwell, pp.395–414.
15.
HayanoK (2017) When (not) to claim epistemic independence: The use of ne and yone in Japanese conversation. East Asian Pragmatics2(2): 163–193.
16.
HayanoK (2023) Child-addressed talk as an interactional resource: The management of (non-)seriousness in talk between nursery schoolteachers and parents. Research on Children and Social Interaction7(1): 38–64.
17.
HayashiM (2004) Projection and grammar: Notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics36(8): 1337–1374.
18.
HeritageJ (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(1): 1–29.
19.
HeritageJ (2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(1): 30–52.
20.
HeritageJRaymondG (2005) Terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology68(1): 15–38.
21.
HousleyWFitzgeraldR (2009) Membership categorization, culture and norms in action. Discourse & Society20(3): 345–362.
22.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerG (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John Benjamins, pp.13–31.
23.
KamioA (1997) Territory of Information. John Benjamins.
24.
KoisoHAmataniHDenY, et al (2022) Design and evaluation of the corpus of everyday Japanese conversation. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on language resources and evaluation, Marseille, France, 20–25 June 2022, pp.5587–5594. European Language Resources Association.
25.
LebraTS (2004) The Japanese Self in Cultural Logic. University of Hawai’i Press.
26.
LernerGH (1993) Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text13(2): 213–245.
27.
LevinsonSC (1988) Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In: DrewPWoottonA (eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Northeastern University Press, pp.161–227.
28.
LiuZ (2026) Displaying entitlement in sister talk: Invoking affection and third-party authority in guan sequences. Discourse Studies28(4).
29.
MondadaL (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(1): 85–106.
30.
MoritaE (2005) Negotiation of Contingent Talk: The Japanese Interactional Particle ne and sa. John Benjamins.
31.
NguyenN-MN (2020) Power and solidarity in moral, affective, and epistemic positioning: Constructing identities in everyday Vietnamese family discourse. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University.
32.
OnoT (1992) The grammaticization of the Japanese verbs oku and shimau. Cognitive Linguistics3(4): 367–390.
33.
PomerantzA (1978) Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In: SchenkeinJ (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press, pp.79–112.
34.
PomerantzA (1980) Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry50(3–4): 186–198.
35.
PomerantzA (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Maxwell AtkinsonJHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, pp.57–101.
36.
RaymondGHeritageJ (2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society35(5): 677–705.
37.
RodriguezASinkeviciuteV (2023) (Relational) epistemics in indirect complaint sequences in Spanish and English family talk. Contrastive Pragmatics2023: 1–44.
38.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. I.Cambridge University Press.
39.
ShawCPotterJHepburnA (2015) Advice-implicative actions: Using interrogatives and assessments to deliver advice in mundane conversation. Discourse Studies7(3): 317–342.
40.
SidnellJStiversT (eds) (2012) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley Blackwell.
41.
StiversT (2001) Negotiating who presents the problem: Next speaker selection in pediatric encounters. Journal of Communication51(2): 252–282.
42.
StokoeE (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies14(3): 277–303.
43.
Strubel-BurgdorfS (2018) Compliments and Positive Assessments: Sequential Organization in Multi-party Conversations. John Benjamins.
44.
SuzukiR (2022) Creativity in compliment responses in Japanese everyday talk. East Asian Pragmatics7(3): 365–394.
45.
ThomsonDF (1935) The joking relationship and organized obscenity in North Queensland. American Anthropologist37(3): 460–491.
46.
VatanenA (2018) Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(2): 107–126.
47.
VatanenAEndoTYokomoriD (2021) Cross-linguistic investigation of projection in overlapping agreements to assertions: Stance-taking as a resource for projection. Discourse Processes58(4): 308–327.
48.
WhiteheadKAStokoeERaymondG (2025) Categories in Social Interaction. Routledge.
49.
WolfsonAManesJ (1980) The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics13(3): 391–410.
50.
WolfsonN (1981) Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly15(2): 117–124.
