In the preceding discussion, we have illustrated the use of response tokens shi-o and o in MSN conversations in terms of their sequential environments and the conversational functions they perform. To recapitulate, a summarizing table of their distribution is given in the following:
Table 1. Distribution of shi-o and o in the MSN talk
Sequential context Shi-o O
Neg.* Other Neg.* Other
51 (15.5%) 46 (13.9%) 188 (32.8%) 41 (7.1%) With an assessment
97 (29.4%) 229 (39.9%)
With a question 93 (28.2%) 59 (10.3%)
With a dispreferred response
20 (6.1%) 0%
Transition marking 23 (7.0%) 58 (10.1%)
Free-standing 97 (29.4%) 228 (39.7%)
Total 330 (100%) 574 (100%)
*With negatively evaluative prosody.
Several points can be highlighted from the preceding discussion and from Table 1.
First, both shi-o and o emerge as “response cries” (Goffman 1981) to the situation of talk and betoken a change of the speaker’s cognitive state to signal that an informing has been received (Heritage 1984, 2005, Schiffrin 1987, and Wu 2004). They may facilitate a subsequent storytelling or the alignment of speakers in their specific conversational roles.
However, the news which shi-o and o respond to differs with regard to their information state. Whereas shi-o unanimously acknowledges the announcement of fully new information, o responds to both new and given information. The receipt of given information sometimes gives rise to a cognitive state of remembering or a sense of “epistemic superiority” which is also observed in the use of English oh (Heritage 2005).
Another major distinction between the shi-o and o concerns the degree of topic alignment/disalignment conveyed by different sequential components. Although both shi-o and o occur with additional moves that seemingly promote topical development, shi-o conveys a softer tone toward the news received compared with the abrupt and less friendly tone of o. Furthermore, the topic accompanying the o response is usually curtailed soon, as manifested by the lack of substantial propositional content in the
additional moves following o (188 among 229 tokens). These varying emotive functions may well arise from the forms these two RTs take. That is, shi-o is tagged with a final o with a confirmation seeking and mitigating function (cf. Section 2), whereas o as a lone item in the response sounds brief and abrupt and thus creates a stronger distancing effect.
Despite the different tones conveyed by the use of shi-o or o alone, as shown throughout the preceding discussion, the two RTs carry a strong negative prosody and dissociative attitude concerning topical development. Specifically, if we sum up the occurrences of shi-o and o with additional moves pertaining to negative evaluation, together with free-standing, transition marking shi-o and o, and those with a dispreferred response, we find seventy percent of shi-o uses and eighty-two percent of o uses that either point to a chatter’s negative attitude or that effect a termination of the topic in focus. In a nutshell, we believe that o figures in MSN conversations as a strongly dissociative response particle, whereas shi-o is a moderately dispreferred response token recruited in MSN for indexing of “small surprise” or
“unexpectedness”.
The functional distributions of the RTs shi-o and o shed light on their preponderance in MSN conversations. The motivation for using a topic curtailing RT or for expressing “small surprise” may stem from the nature of the conversation in MSN. That is, at work or after work/school, some young people have made it a habit to use MSN to chat with friends or family about studies, friends, family, life, etc.
while being engaged in more important activities such as studying, working, or processing documents with the computer. As the chat does not take place face-to-face, the chatter may exit anytime (e.g. to take a shower) and come back on line later. These facts contribute to an on-line chat environment which mostly involves light, casual topics or short problem-solving sequences (e.g. asking for a file). The news announced or an informing made, therefore, tends to be short-lived and less serious in nature. Furthermore, when a new message is sent in, the window icon (beeps and) keeps blinking, which seems to urge the recipient to respond. In order to show participation, the receiver thus frequently resorts to shi-o or o to signal that the message is received. When it is intended as a more polite reply, shi-o is used for mitigation. This may in turn account for the predominance of shi-o and o to be topic curtailing on the one hand and the implication of the chatter’s dissociative or detached attitude on the other.
6. Conclusion
Since its debut in 1999, MSN instant messaging has become popular among
young people (cf. Footnote 5). Drawing on data from MSN conversations, this paper explores the sequentiality and interactive functions of shi-o and o. This study is significant in several ways. First, we have shown that shi-o is used recurrently in this new speech genre as an emblem of information receipt. Second, we have provided a unified account of shi-o and o in terms of the turn components surrounding them and their affective values. Third, we have made a systematic comparison among the nuances of these two response particles and their synonyms in spoken Chinese and English.
There are, however, several issues that call for future research. For example, we do not examine the functions of shi-o and o as RTs in spoken Chinese conversations.
A related study concerns how the prosodic realizations of shi-o and o interact with their discourse functions. If a study on RTs in oral conversations is to be undertaken, these factors need to be taken into consideration.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1987. Oh and ah in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Beyond, ed. by W. Meijs, 61-86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G., and N. Casey. 1985. Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies 8:3-55.
Chao, Yuan Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clancy, Patricia, Sandra A. Thompson, Ryoko Suzuki, and Hongyin Tao. 1996. The conversational use of reactive token in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.
Journal of Pragmatics 26:355-87.
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drummond, Kent, and Robert Hopper. 1993. Some uses of yeah. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26:203-12.
Fishman, Pamela. 1983. Interaction: The work women do. Language, Gender and Society, ed. by Barry Throne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, 89-101.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, Rod. 2001. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Greenfield, P. Marks, and Kaveri Subrahmanyam. 2003. Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Applied Developmental Psychology 24:713-38.
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of state token and aspects of its sequential placement.
Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell and John Heritage, 299-347.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 2005. Cognition in discourse. Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 184-202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, Susan. 1999. Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4.4. (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html) Jefferson, Gail. 1981. The abominable “Ne?”: A working paper exploring the
phenomenon of a post-response pursuit of response. Manchester Sociology Occasional Papers 6:1-82.
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens Yeah and Mm hm. Papers in Linguistics 17:197-216.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, Shin-Yi. 2004. Shi o as a discourse marker: Evidence from dialogue in MSN.
Paper presented at the 2004 National Conference on Linguistics, National Chung Cheng University.
Lin, Yi-Yi. 2002. The pragmatic marker shi-ou in Mandarin Chinese. Ms. National Taiwan Normal University.
Liu, Yue-hua, Wen-yu Pan, and Wei-hua Gu. 1983. Practical Contemporary Chinese Grammar. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan.
Mey, Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell and John Heritage, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pudlinski, Christopher. 2005. Doing empathy and sympathy: Caring responses to troubles tellings on a peer support line. Discourse Studies 7:267-88.
Reid, Julie. 1995. A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics 24:489-512.
Sacks Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696-735.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Shie, Chi-chiang. 1991. A Discourse-functional analysis of Mandarin sentence-final particles. MA thesis, National Chengchi University.
Stubbe, Maria. 1998. Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 29:257-89
Wang, Chi-chiang. 1998. Xian Dai Han Yu Xu Ci Ci Dian [Dictionary of Modern Chinese Function Words]. Shanghai: Cishu Publishing Co.
Wang, Li. 1987. Zhong Guo Xian Dai Yu Fa [Contemporary Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan.
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina. 2004. Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[Received 4 July 2008; revised 24 November 2008; accepted 6 January 2009]
Department of English
National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, TAIWAN
Miao-Hsia Chang:mhchang@ntnu.edu.tw
National Feng-Yuan Senior High School Taichung, TAIWAN
Shin-yi Lin: t-224@fysh.tcc.edu.tw
國語即時通對話的回應標記 國語即時通對話的回應標記 國語即時通對話的回應標記 國語即時通對話的回應標記
張妙霞 林欣怡 國立台灣師範大學 國立豐原高中
本文研究國語回應標記「是哦」及「哦」在即時通上的言談功能。
兩者均用來回應訊息告知，並且反映談話者認知狀態的改變。另一方 面，談話者所要表達的語意，與上下語境息息相關。兩個回應標記的
主要功能如下：第一、兩者都引出敘述句。不同的是，「是哦」所回應
的是新訊息，而「哦」則可回應新舊兩種訊息。第二、兩者都可被使 用成為所在話輪的唯一成份，暗示談話者有意結束進行中的話題。第 三、兩者都可直接在其後引出新話題。第四、兩者都可引出問句，以
詢問與目前話題相關的訊息。此外，「是哦」可出現在隱含負面語意的
語句之前，以緩和談話語氣。雖上述功能的語境類似，總體而言，「是
哦」語氣較「哦」緩和而禮貌。另外，除了第二、三類的用法表示談 話者有意結束進行中的話題之外，第一、四類的語境也時常暗示談話
者對話題的負面態度。兩者各類功能的分佈情形顯示，「哦」是即時通
上常出現的暗示疏離態度的回應標詞；而「是哦」則是一個較緩和的
回應標記，用來表達「小驚訝」，並經常用來暗示談話者疏離的態度。
關鍵詞：MSN 會話、國語、是哦、哦、回應標記、上下語境、狀態改 變標記