Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction (review)

This book, the core of which derives from the author’s doctoral dissertation (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996), is one of only a handful of studies applying the framework of conversation analysis (CA) to data from a language other than English. The book is divided into two main parts. The first three chapters (‘Introduction’; ‘Overview of the data’; and ‘Connective expressions in Japanese’) provide the theoretical, methodological, and empirical background of the study. The following three chapters (‘Delivery of agreement’; ‘Delivery of disagreement’; and ‘Pursuit of agreement’) offer a CA analysis of how Japanese speakers negotiate agreement and disagreement in face-to-face conversation. The principal findings of the study are summarized in the final chapter (‘Conclusion’). In this book notice, I will concentrate my discussion on the second part of the book, Chs. 4–6, since these, in my view, present the most significant—and most novel—results of Mori’s study. In each of these chapters, she analyzes the role of five connective expressions in interaction: the causal connectives dakara ‘so, therefore’; datte ‘because, but’; kara ‘because’; and the contrastive connectives demo ‘but’ and kedo ‘but, although’.

In Ch. 4 (‘Delivery of agreement’) M provides evidence from Japanese conversation showing that timing of turn delivery is an important indicator of the degree of agreement between interlocutors. In general, she finds that the more precise the timing of agreement between interlocutor turns, the greater the degree of agreement; the more delayed the timing of agreement, the less the degree of agreement. M also shows that recipients construct agreement through the use of ‘agreement-plus-elaboration’ structures using the three causal connectives listed above. However, the choice between causal connectives is closely related to the kind of agreement established between interlocutors. Most significantly, it is shown that datte, normally considered a ‘disagreement’ connective, can also be used to mark strong agreement among participants.

In contrast to the findings for agreement, in Ch. 5 (‘Delivery of disagreement’), M shows that disagreeing turns tend to be preceded by pauses which often prompt speakers to modify their previously- stated positions. The characteristics of disagreeing turns, and the ways in which they differ from agreeing turns, are similar to what has been found in CA studies of English conversation. As regards the use of connectives, M shows that ‘contrastive’ demo and kedo are used to carry out very different functions in the delivery of disagreement: The former is found clause-initially to indicate disagreement or lack of complete agreement; the latter occurs clause-finally at the end of a disagreeing response and works to mitigate the degree of disagreement.

A different perspective is offered in Ch. 6 (‘Pursuit of agreement’), which focuses not on recipients’ reactions to opinions but rather on speakers’ techniques for eliciting agreement from their interlocutors. M shows that speakers modify their assertions in several ways in reaction to recipients’ indications of potential disagreement or partial disagreement. These modifications constitute speaker attempts to elicit agreement. Both the contrastive and the causal connectives figure prominently in these strategies as they provide different means for speakers to qualify assertions or reaffirm them, to rephrase their opinions and display reactions to perceived disagreement, or to invite collaboration on the part of recipients.

Overall, this book provides an excellent model for CA-inspired analyses of the role of grammar in interaction.