Reshaping the response space with kulenikka in beginning to respond to questions in Korean conversation

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Reshaping the response space with kulenikka in beginning to respond to questions in Korean conversation§ Hye Ri Stephanie Kim * Writing Programs, UCLA, USA Received 23 February 2012; received in revised form 10 March 2013; accepted 11 April 2013

Abstract Respondents have various ways of resisting the constraints that questions impose on them. In this article I show one way in which Korean speakers deal with trouble of responding to questions as put when beginning to respond: Prefacing their responses with kulenikka. The analysis shows that kulenikka marks the response as departing from the question’s terms and signals a reshaping of the response space. Three common contexts for this departure are: Respondents (1) cannot conform to the question’s terms due to the question’s inadequate presuppositions; (2) defer a straightforward or type-conforming answer; and (3) evade the question. The findings contribute to a developing body of conversation analytic research on how question recipients display resistance to questions, and more generally how turn-beginnings serve as an important place in interaction. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Conversation analysis; Question and answer; Response design; Kule-nikka; Turn beginning; Discourse marker

1. Introduction This article focuses on the use of one turn-initial token in response to questions in Korean conversation: kulenikka. Here is an example from a face-to-face conversation between five friends. Soo has just told her friends about her father’s wish for her to get married and a recent blind date with a ‘short, bald, and old’ man. In response to this telling, Min asks a question (line 1).

2!02

03

Soo:

[apenim-i hay cwusi-n] ke-ya? father:HON-NOM do:CONN give:HON-ATTR thing-INTERR Did {your} father set up {the date}? >kukka< appa:: chinkwu-pwun-i cak:kwu ha-la kulayse: kukka dad friend-HON-NOM repeatedly do-QUOT because >kukka< Da::d’s friend repeatedly told {my Dad/me} to do {it} ?

(1) [blind date]1 1!01 Min:

han ke-ntey:, (.)i:-salam-i na-lul cal molla-ss-e do:ATTR thing-CIRCUM this-person-NOM I-ACC well don’t:know-PST-IE so: {I} did {it}:, but (.) thi:s person didn’t know me well ?

§

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2009 conference of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA. * Correspondence address: University of California, Los Angeles, Writing Programs, 146 Humanities Building, P.O. Box 951384, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1389, USA. Tel.: +1 310 228 7786. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.006

304

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

04

>appa chinkwu-pwun-i. dad friend-HON-NOM >my dad’s friend.

05


06

nay-ka com nai-ka toyss-unikka, but I-NOM little age-NOM become:PST-because but because I’ve become pretty old {for marriage},

07

toyn cwul al-ko. become:ATTR as:if know-and {he} thought {I}’ve become {the age}.

08

(.)

09

kulayse i saram-ul sokay-sikhye cwess-nuntey, so this person-ACC introduce-PASS give:PST-but so {he} introduced this person, but

10

(.) nemwu phaak-ul cal-mos-ha-n kevery grasp-ACC well-NEG-do-ATTR thing (.) didn’t grasp the situation well-

11

wuli appa kicel-hayss-canh-a. 8ku-ke po-ko. we dad faint-do:PST-you:know-IE that-thing see-and my dad fainted, you know. 8when {he} saw that.

Here are a few initial observations: (1) Min asks a simple yes/no polar question, which seeks to confirm the proposed understanding that Soo’s father arranged the date; (2) Soo does not respond to the question as framed (i.e., with a yes or a no) but prefaces her response with kukka (a compressed version of kulenikka); and (3) the ensuing response is expanded. As we discover in Soo’s response turn, the suggestion underlying Min’s question that the father was the primary agent behind the arranged date turns out to be imprecise.2 This mismatch of expectation and reality is resolved in the response turn. Such kulenikka-prefaced responses to questions, which recurrently involve some form of sequential departure, are the focus of this study. Kule-nikka (often contracted to kunikka or kukka in colloquial speech) is composed of two elements, ‘like that’ (kule) and ‘because/so’ (nikka), and is a logical connective which could be translated into ‘so’ or ‘that is why’ in conversation. Among the few studies that describe the interactional functions of this connective, Kim and Suh (1994: 124, 1996) note that kulenikka is a discourse marker roughly similar to ‘I mean’ in English when used in turn-medial position and describe its use as a repair initiator in reformulating the speaker’s prior talk to handle the recipient’s projected disagreement. While Kim and Suh (1994, 1996) examined the turn-medial kulenikka used in initiating the repair of the speaker’s prior talk, the present study focuses on the token specifically as it occurs at the beginning of a response to a question. The analysis of kulenikka will demonstrate that the token’s turn-initial usage is connected to, yet interactionally distinctive from, its use in mid-turn position. In brief, with the turn-initial kulenikka, the speaker does not index a reformulation of his own talk (as it does not follow the speaker’s own prior talk), but addresses the constraints embodied in the prior turn (question) by projecting a reshaping of the terms of the question. The study is based on approximately 25 h of video data with eight different groups of participants and 11 h of audiorecorded telephone data (53 different calls). All are ordinary conversations among persons who know each other as friends or family members. I also used approximately three hours of telephone conversations provided by the National Institute of the Korean Language as well as opportunistically collected extracts from TV shows with naturally occurring interaction.

1

In the transcripts, 1! denotes a question and 2! a response beginning prefaced by the target token ku(leni)kka. In three-line transcription, the first line is actual Korean words spoken; the second line is morpheme-by-morpheme glosses; the third line is an idiomatic English translation. The curly brackets { } in the third line indicate unsaid words necessary for smooth translation into English. The transcription conventions can be found in Appendix A. 2 That Min is strongly committed to the likelihood of this being true is evidenced by the use of the -n ke- (-ATTR thing-) construction, which is found to be used by speakers when they are more certain about the proposition in the utterance, compared with another possible construction, -ess-e (Noh, 2009).

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

305

As the token kulenikka discussed in this paper follows a question and prefaces a response, in Section 2, I will begin by briefly describing previous research on the practices of questioning and responding, and then, in Section 3, will examine three common response contexts prefaced by kulenikka. I will show that kulenikka is selected among other resources available in Korean (e.g., ani or repeating an element from the prior turn) to resist responding and to signal that the response space is being reshaped in some way. By examining the use of kulenikka in response-initial positions following a question, this study contributes to an understanding of the use of turn-initial discourse markers in naturally occurring talk and of the fit between a question and a response. 2. Questioning and responding to questions A question is commonly understood to be the action of requesting information to which the asker has less epistemic access than the recipient. Thus, by asking a question, the questioners display that they lack the knowledge had by the recipient (Heritage and Raymond, 2012). Questions do not, however, always only request information, but can implement other social actions, such as complaining or challenging, as has been documented in various studies (Schegloff, 1984; Heritage and Roth, 1995; Clayman and Heritage, 2002a,b; Heritage, 2002b; Koshik, 2003; Heinemann, 2006, 2008; Yoon, 2006; Egbert and Voge, 2008; Steensig and Drew, 2008; Raymond, 2010, among others). Thus, ‘question’ in the present study is defined as an utterance that primarily implements, but is not limited to, a request for information. In addition to making an answer (i.e., the provision of requested information) relevant, questions ask the recipient to assent to the preferences, presuppositions, and agendas set in the question. A central finding about questions is that they can incorporate preferences (Heritage, 1984; Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987; Schegloff, 2007). Responses that disalign with the question’s preference (dispreferred responses) are frequently delayed with hedges, turn-initial gaps, and inbreaths (Pomerantz, 1984; Schegloff, 2007: 63--78), and are usually accompanied by accounts or elaborations (Heritage, 1988), whereas preferred responses tend to be unelaborated and immediate. Questions also convey a speaker’s presuppositions (Clayman and Heritage, 2002b; Heritage, 2002a; Heritage and Clayman, 2010). For examples, the presupposition under the polar question ‘‘Are you using any contraception?’’ (Heritage, 2010:47) is that the recipient is sexually active, while that of the wh-question ‘‘What’s the difference between your Marxism and Mister McGarhey’s communism’’ (Heritage, 2002a: 73) is that the recipient is a Marxist. Thus, questions do not simply request information, but convey and impose on respondents the questioners’ beliefs and views. Another way questions constrain recipients is by setting topical and action agendas (Boyd and Heritage, 2006; Clayman and Heritage, 2002b; Heritage, 2002a, 2010). A topical agenda constrains recipients to respond within the proposed topic, and an action agenda to the action that the question solicits. Specifically, Raymond (2003) discusses how an action agenda is either accepted or resisted through the form of the answer for English yes/no interrogatives. Simply put, ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers are type-conforming answers to yes/ no questions. Raymond has demonstrated that for English there is a strong preference for type-conforming answers to yes/no interrogatives and that non-type conforming answers (such as repeats) are involved in showing more agency or authority of the responding speaker (Heritage and Raymond, 2012).3 Such strict type-conformity is not expected of a response to a wh-question; however, the question-word in a wh-question (e.g., what, where) also constrains the type of response that a recipient is expected to provide (see Schegloff et al., 2009; Fox and Thompson, 2010). For example, a where-question is designed to receive location information (a place formulation) in response. As a second pair part action, responses to a question can either embrace or resist the question’s various constraints, and the respondent’s stance vis-à-vis the question will be evident in the design of the response turn. When the recipients of a question resist the question’s constraints, or have more or other things to say than what is asked for, such resistance is marked in their response turns (Heritage, 1998; Stivers and Heritage, 2001; Raymond, 2003; Golato and Fagyal, 2008; Bolden, 2009; Heinemann, 2009; Stivers and Hayashi, 2010). A common place in a response turn to show the respondent’s resistance is turn-initial, as shown in previous studies (Heritage, 1998; Sorjonen, 2001; Stivers and Heritage, 2001; Sidnell, 2009; Bolden, 2009; Schegloff et al., 2009). For examples, oh prefacing in response to a question in English implies that the question was ‘‘out of left the field’’ and thus inappropriate (Heritage, 1998), and well in response to wh-questions displays that the response will not be straightforward (Schegloff et al., 2009). Similar studies of response design have been conducted in languages other than English, such as the use of Swedish ‘‘curled ja’’ (Lindström, 1997), Japanese ‘‘eh’’ (Hayashi, 2009), and multiple response particles in German and Danish (Golato and Fagyal, 2008) in response prefaces.

3 In her overview of the Korean question--response system, Yoon (2010) briefly notes that yes/no questions in Korean also seem to show a preference for type-conforming answers. However, this needs further examination. Both Park (2008) and Yoon (2010) find that a ‘no’ response very infrequently occurs (13% and 12%, respectively) in question--response sequences in Korean ordinary conversation in comparison with other languages. Also Seung-Hee Lee (personal communication, January 25, 2013) has raised a possibility that a no may not be a type-conforming answer in Korean because so few dispreferred responses are answered with a no.

306

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

Despite the continued interest in response design across languages in the past two decades, very little research has been done on Korean. The present study is among the first attempts to describe how turn beginnings are managed when Korean speakers resist answering a question as put (see also Kim, 2011, 2013). Kulenikka-prefaced responses are recurrently non-type conforming in character (Raymond, 2003), but given kulenikka’s semantic content (i.e., ‘so’ and ‘that is why’), this connective projects a somewhat narrower array of resistant trajectories. Moreover, as shown in Kim (2011), there are at least two confirmed ways of signaling the speaker’s resistance to a question’s constraints at turn beginnings in Korean: kulenikka and ani.4 Thus, it is evident that Korean speakers are engaged in distinctive interactional work by choosing kulenikka among other available options. I will show that this is projecting a reshaping of the response space. 3. Kulenikka as a resource for marking a reshaping of the response space As discussed earlier, questions as first position actions set various constraints to which respondents are normatively expected to conform, but question recipients have ways of disaligning with and resisting these constraints from second position. In Korean, prefacing a response with kulenikka is one way that allows speakers to alert recipients to this resistance. In particular, kulenikka can mark the reshaping of the response space for the following common interactional jobs: (1) to resist the question’s presuppositions, (2) to defer a straightforward answer, and (3) to evade the question. 3.1. Resisting the question’s presuppositions The most common reason that kulenikka is used at response a beginning is to index that the question’s presuppositions are being resisted and reshaped. Oftentimes, the questions are a candidate understanding of what the immediately prior conversation has been about. Extract (2), in which Sun’s yes/no question asks Mia to confirm his proposed understanding, is a case in point. On the phone are Sun, a sociology graduate student, and Mia, a researcher who works in a biology lab. Prior to the conversation, Sun mentioned that one of his superiors suggested that Sun come work at UNESCO as an intern and gave Sun his business card. After a long lapse (line 1), Sun begins a new sequence and suggests that Mia also have some business cards made for herself, to which Mia provides an account for why she does not have them (line 8). Then Sun asks a polar question at line 9, proposing a candidate understanding of Mia’s immediately prior utterance and requesting (dis)confirmation of it. (2) [business cards] 01 (12.0) 02

Sun:

03 04

(1.2) Mia:

Sun:

ne-to myengham pha-la-nikka, you-also business:card engrave-QT-because {I} told you to make business cards too, (3.0)

07 08

ung::. Yeah::. (2.2)

05 06

.hhhh yenkwuwen Kim Mia? researcher NAME .hhhh Researcher Kim Mia?

Mia:

i ccok-un, myengham ↓an ↑pha kac-kwu tanye this side-TOP business:card NEG engrave carry-CONN go:around:IE In this (=our) field, {we} don’t carry business cards

4 Ani, when used at response beginnings not as a response particle (as it also means ‘no’), is deployed to reject presupposition(s) embedded or block the action trajectory proposed by the question turn (Kim, 2011, 2013) rather than to reshape them. In contrast to ani, kulenikka frames the impending response as being reshaped, as the analysis will show.

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

1 !09

Sun:

10 2!11

307

a ku- ku:(.) ku patak-un myengham an pha-nun patak-i-ya? oh that that that area-TOP business:card NEG engrave-ATTR area-be-INTERR Oh that- that:(.) that field is where {people} don’t have business cards made? (0.3)

Mia:

kunkka a- mwe-ci? peynche, (0.2) hoysa, kunkka oh what-INTERR venture company Kunkka oh- whatchmacallit? Venture (0.2) corporations,

12

kulen tey-nun ama iss-ul kke-l? like:that place-TOP probably exist-ATTR thing-ATTR {I assume they} probably have them?

13

kuntey wuli-chele::m, but we-like But like us,

14

kule-n uitay sosok-i-myense, yenkwuso salam-tul-un::, (0.1) like:that-ATTR medical:school affiliation-be-while lab person-PL-TOP people working in a lab affiliated with the medical school (0.1) 8eps-nun ke kath-untey, don’t:exist-ATTR thing seem-but 8don’t seem to have {them},

15

It is evident in Mia’s response that Sun’s question cannot be answered as put since the ‘‘field’’ as framed by Sun does not include all possible workplaces in the field of biology which have different practices for making and carrying business cards. As Mia responds in lines 11--15, in her field, it is not the field but the type of workplace that determines the making, and carrying of, business cards. Thus, an inadequate presupposition based on which the question requests confirmation, is resisted and reshaped by the use of kulenikka. The previous case of kulenikka-prefaced response was in response to a yes/no polar question, which prefers a typeconforming response and thus constrains what specific word the responder should respond with (Raymond, 2003). Whquestions also project ‘‘the sort of thing an appropriate answer should deliver’’ by the question word, albeit less strongly (Schegloff et al., 2009). Moreover, wh-questions can embody even more presuppositions than polar questions because they are asked on the basis of the assumptions already held (Boyd and Heritage, 2006). Extract (3) is from a conversation between the same people as in (2). Unlike the target question in extract (2), which was the speaker’s candidate understanding of the immediately prior conversation, the target question here (lines 1--2) is used to begin new topical talk. They are discussing Mia’s experiences in her new lab. In lines 1--3, Sun asks about the number of experiments Mia has done in the lab. (3) [lab experiments] 1!01 Sun: ni cikum yeci-kkaci, (.) you now now-until You, so far, (.) 1!02

ku silhayngha-n silhem-i myech kay-na hay? that carry:out-ATTR experiment-NOM what CL-about do:INTERR the experiments {you} worked on, about how many do {you} do?

1!03

myech kay-na hay-ss-e? what CL-about do-PST-INTERR About how many have {you} done?

04

(1.2)

2!05

Mia:

.hh>kka< wuli-nun yucenca-lo:, ha-ketun? kka we-TOP gene-with do-CORREL .hh>kka< we work with genes?

06

Sun:

ung: Yeah:

308

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

07

Mia:

08

kukka .h nay-ka cikum math-ko iss-nun yucenca gene-i, I:mean I-NOM now take:charge-CONN PROG-ATTR gene gene-NOM ney kay-ketun? four CL-CORREL I mean .h the genes that I am now in charge of are, four?

09

Sun:

ung: Yeah:

10

Mia:

kuntey cen-ey-nun twu kay hayss-ess-kwu but before-TIME-TOP two CL do:PST-ANT-and But before {I} did two

?

?

?

?

11

.h cikum-un ney kay math-kwu iss-kwu, kulay. now-TOP four CL take:charge-CONN PROG-and like:that .h and now {I}’m in charge of four.

Sun asks a wh-question, which requires information regarding ‘how many’ experiments Mia has done thus far. This is a question which could be answered with (or presupposes as an answer) one phrasal/sentential turn constructional unit (TCU), such as ‘four experiments’, ‘I’ve done four so far,’ etc. (cf. Fox and Thompson, 2010). However, the question does not receive an immediate response (line 4). Mia starts responding with a brief in-breath .hh and >-kka<, produced in such compressed manner that only the last syllable is hearable (line 5). These turn-beginning resources, together with the sentence-ending suffix --ketun (Kim, 2009), project that a long telling instead of a short, straightforward answer is forthcoming. Mia explicitly mentions and topicalizes the subject ‘we’ with the topic marker --nun, marking ‘the experiment done in her lab’ as different from the kind of experiments assumed in Sun’s question (cf. Oh, 2007). The assumption in Sun’s question is that an experiment is ‘‘done’’ or ‘‘finished’’ rather than being an ongoing process. However, the type of experiment conducted in Mia’s lab is the latter; thus, rather than answering how many have been completed so far, Mia informs Sun that the issue is what the load is at any given time. The unit of measurement and type of experiment presupposed in Sun’s question makes it impossible for Mia to provide a simple answer. By using (ku)kka at the beginning of her response, Mia indexes the reshaping of the presuppositions embodied in Sun’s question and responds to the question in her own terms. I have thus far demonstrated that kulenikka as a turn-beginning resource signals the response speakers’ departure from the constraints placed by questions, in particular their reshaping of the constraints to respond to the questions with more accurate information. In these examples, the response speakers do this mainly because the question embedded presuppositions are inadequate, not reflecting the truth of the matter being asked about. 3.2. Deferring an answer Kulenikka may also be used in deferring an answer (cf. delayed conformity, Raymond, 2003). In this situation, some initial background information appears to be necessary in order for the focal response to be intelligible, so speakers put that response on hold until the background is provided. Below is a case in point. Extract (4) is from a telephone conversation. Joo is talking about his part-time job, which entails watching and editing video lectures about various fields. Immediately prior to the segment, Joo said that he finds some of the lectures fun but avoids boring lectures. Lin asks a question about Joo’s job in lines 1--2. (4) [video lecture] 1!01

Lin:

ku kwamok-ul ne-ka ettehkey han-ta-nun ke-ya? that subject-ACC you-NOM how do-QUOT-ATTR thing-INTERR What are {you} saying you’re doing with the subjects (=lectures)?

1!02

2!03

.h
Joo:

.h kukka -i nao-canh-a::? kukka video-NOM appear-you:know-IE .h kukka appears, you know::?

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

04

Lin:

ung, Yeah,

05

Joo:

>tongyengsang-i nao-kwu,< ku-ey kwanleynha-n,(.) video-NOM appear-and that-about related-ATTR >the video appears, and,< {a screen} related to that,(.)

06

ku kyokwase-ka ttalo iss-nun key ani-nikka:, that textbook-NOM separately exist-ATTR thing NEG-because Because there isn’t a separate textbook for it::,

07

(.)

08

ku hwamyen-i nao-l ke ani-ya::, that screen-NOM come:out-ATTR thing NEG-IE the screen (=notes or text) will come up, you know::,

09

Lin:

um Mm

10

Joo:

kukka tongyengsang-ilang ku hwamyen-i ilchi-hay-ya toy-canh-a: so video-with that screen-NOM correspond-do-must become-you:know-IE So the video and that screen must correspond to each other, you know::,

11

Lin:

8ung, 8Yeah,

12

Joo:

>kulayse ku-< ttak ttak nem-e-ka-key hay cwu-nun ke-ya. so that DM DM go:over-CONN-go-as do give-ATTR thing-IE >So um-< {I} make {it} move {to the next screen} accurately.

309

Trying to comprehend Joo’s telling, Lin asks the question, ‘oh so, what are {you} saying you’re doing with the lectures?’ (lines 1--2). The wh-question may or may not be answerable in a single word, but still asks for specific information about Joo’s duties at work. Prefaced with a short in-breath and kukka, Joo’s response first lays out the relevant background to be able to answer the question: the lectures do not have textbooks; some text needs to be placed on each screen; and the video and the screen must correspond to each other (lines 3--10). These turns designed with the final particles --cahn-a (line 3, 10), -nikka (line 6) and --lke ani-ya (line 8) describe the information as shared with or commonsensical to the recipient, and projectably delay the answer to the question.5 Having established the relevant context that helps describe his job, Joo answers Lin’s question by saying, ‘>so um-< {I} make {it} move {to the next screen} accurately’ (line 12). In short, the response speaker Joo finds the groundwork to be necessary and lays it out before answering in a straightforward way. Using kulenikka as the first resource to project that the answer will not be straightforward (cf. well in Schegloff et al., 2009; Heritage and Clayman, 2010), Joo temporarily departs from the terms of the question and reshapes the response space. Another context for the delay of a straightforward answer is when responding speakers see the response space as an opportunity to tell a story they find more newsworthy or ‘‘storyable’’ than what the question was seeking (cf. Stivers and Heritage, 2001). Extract (5) below, where the response runs from lines 30 to 85 in a narrative format, is a case in point. It is excerpted from a video-recorded conversation of one male and four female friends. Immediately prior to the segment, Ara, the main speaker, has been telling others about the sea fishing trip with her boyfriend, Jinsoo, and bragging about her fishing skills. For this example, due to its length, only target lines will be provided with three-line transcription, and the overlaps are only roughly marked in the translations. (5) [Sea fishing] 24 25 26 27

5

Ara: Kim: Sun:

I catch fish and he can’t catch {any}. (0.2) [hhhh [hhh h ((clap))=

I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this point.

310

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

1!28

Min:

[maywunthang-un mek-ess-e? kulayse? spicy:soup-TOP eat-PAST-INTERR so Did {you} eat spicy soup? So?

1!29

Sun:

=mwe, mek-ess-e? haymwulthang? what eat-PAST-INTERR seafood:soup Did {you} eat something? Seafood soup?

2!30

Ara:

hay-ss-ul ttay-nun kunkka-TOP last:year-TEMP do-PAST-ATTR time-TOP when {we} did {it}

31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

nay-ka wulek yel mali cap-ass-ket[ung?= I-NOM rockfish ten CL catch-PAST-CIRCUM I caught rockfish, ten of them? Ami: Ara: Sun: Kim: Min: Ami: Ara:

Sun: Kim: Ami: Ara: Kim: Sun: Ara: Sun: Ara: Ara: Ami: Min: Ara: Sun: Ara: Min: Ara:

Kim: Ara: Sun: Ara: Sun: Min: Ara: Sun: Ara: Kim: Ara:

[.hhhhh But >this time {I} caught one fish.< [wo:::w ] [WO:::::::::::::::::::::: W ] [Rockfish? 8Wow:. I mean, not only him, but people around us asked me whether {I} went to a fishing academy in Seoul or something? [ha ha hha ha hhh hh] [hhhhh hhhh hh [hhhh hhhh (h)ser[iously? [hahah Wow, really? Yeah:. {I} caught {fish} very well::.= [Was {it} sea fishing? [IYeah, like this, a feeling comes? >then< w(h)hen I c(h)atch it, [it just(h) comes(h). hhhh= [hhh hh haha hhhh [hahahha ha hhh =hh hahahahh ((clap))= Wow: {that}’s amazing. =.h hhhh Other peopleso< I {ended up} catching ten [fishes, and= [W:ow::. Jinsoo didn’t catch {any}? ={We} prepared and ate raw fish. .hhhhhhhhh So, {I} gave {sashimi} to all the people at the [homestay, I did= [wow =So {we} ate all of it::, but,(.) [.hh this time::

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

311

((8 lines of question and answer sequences in which Hee asks who prepares raw fish is deleted)) 81

<.hh kuntey i-pen-ey-nun Wui-to-eyse:: but this-time-TEMP-TOP PLACE-island-LOC <.hh But this time, in Wui island::

82

koki:-tul-i cal an caphi-ntay: fish-PL-NOM well NEG catch-hearsay {I} heard fish: doesn’t catch well:

83

[kuntey ttak han mali] cap-ass-e. but just one CL catch-PST-IE but, {I} caught just one {fish}.

84

Sun:

[a::: oh:::

85

Ami:

um:::: ((nodding)) Um::::

86

Ara:

han mali cap-ase, kunyang han mali tte-se mekki-n mek-ess-e. one CL catch-so just one CL filet-CONN eat-TOP eat-PST-IE Caught one fish, just did filet of one fish and ate one raw fish.

]

Hearing that the couple went fishing, Min and Sun make similar inquiries regarding the fish Ara possibly ate after fishing. Min first asks, ‘So, did {you} eat spicy soup?’ and Sun asks a similar question, ‘Did {you} eat something? seafood soup?’.6 Both polar questions seek a ‘yes/no’ type response; Sun’s question in particular provides a candidate answer, providing a model for the answer and seeking specific information (Pomerantz, 1988). Moreover, they prompt Ara to skip to the endpoint of the narratable events Ara has been engaged in (more so with the design of Min’s question with kulayse ‘so’ as a turn increment), which is often constituted with the mention of how the fish was consumed in the Korean fishing context.7 In response Ara engages in lengthy storytelling instead of providing a type-conforming answer. The turn-initial kunikka indexes that, as it did in previous examples, the speaker will not be bound to the terms that the question has set, that is, whether the couple ate spicy or seafood soup after fishing. After indexing this departure with kunikka-n, Ara begins a story about last year’s fishing trip in which she caught ten rockfishes, projecting further talk with the sentence-ending suffix --ketun(g) (line 31) (Kim, 2009). As the story retroactively shows, this year she was able to catch only one fish (line 33), far insufficient compared to last year’s abundance. Notice is that Ara departs from simply answering the question and uses this response space to provide a more ‘‘storyable’’ telling (cf. Sacks, 1992): catching enough fishes by herself to go around everyone at the home stay. Additionally, as Min and Sun’s questions have set the direction of the narrative, with the use of kunkka Ara reshapes the response space and maintains the previous line of telling geared toward highlighting her fishing skills. Having told the more ‘‘interesting’’ event, Ara successfully returns to the topical agenda of the question in line 81. The contrastive marker kuntey ‘but’ and the topicalization of ‘this time’ both indicate that Ara’s subsequent telling will differ from the telling thus far: Ara was able to catch only one fish this year due to the current state of the sea, but did eat something of the fish caught (line 86), which answers the questions asked earlier. This extract, like the earlier extracts, shows that kulenikka projects more than the simple response sought by the question; it marks that the response will not be bound by the terms of the question and reshapes the frame of reference in which the response will be understood. Ara temporarily departs from both the topical and action agendas of the questions and takes the response turn space as an opportunity to tell a more storyable telling than what was asked for (Sacks, 1992). A questioner and a respondent are in different knowledge states and have different experiences of the event asked about. Thus even when a questioner seeks specific information about the event, a respondent, who has actually experienced the event asked about, can see this space as an opportunity to tell ‘his/her side’ (cf. Pomerantz, 1980), which he/she finds more storyable. The example shows that a speaker can take advantage of the turn space given and manipulate it to do something other than, or more than, what is asked for, and alert the recipients to this resistance with kulenikka.

6 There are two typical ways to cook fish caught from sea fishing in Korea. One is to have it raw, and the other is to cook it in spicy soup (as Min and Sun ask). Sometimes when people catch enough amounts of fish, they eat them raw and put the rest of the fishes (e.g., head, tail) with the other whole fishes to cook spicy fish soup. 7 I thank Kyu-hyun Kim for pointing this out to me.

312

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

The cases shown in this section shows that response speakers use kulenikka to index their resistance to a question’s action agenda for the purpose of deferring a straightforward answer. This work is done mainly because the respondents need to provide some information before giving an answer. Kulenikka indexes the reshaping of the immediately imposed constraints so a straightforward answer can be postponed until the basis for that answer has been introduced. 3.3. Evading the question The examples shown thus far have been kulenikka-prefaced responses that resist and reshape the terms of a question to address primarily the complexity of the situation. As discussed above, questions, among other things, set particular action/topical agendas for responses (Clayman and Heritage, 2002b; Boyd and Heritage, 2006; Heritage, 2010). Thus, recipients of a question can either engage the topical and action agendas, or resist them. In the previous examples, despite departures from type-conformity at the response beginnings, the respondents were oriented to fulfilling the questions’ topical or action agenda; that is, even when they did not immediately respond within the terms provided, they provided an extended response to address the project of the question (3.1), or gave a straightforward answer later in the response (3.2). However, there are cases in which response speakers resist abiding by proposed action and topical agendas altogether, thereby evading the question in order to conceal something. This is also signaled by the use of kulenikka. For example, the doctor in (6) below strategically and deliberately evades answering by working around the issue addressed in the question. The segment is from a Korean version of 60 Minutes, a TV news report with investigation and interviews. The episode investigated the existence of a pill that makes students concentrate better (or ‘‘smarter’’) because there was a craze for such pills in Korea at the time of the broadcast. The excerpt below is from a part of an interview with a psychiatrist. The interview takes place after the interviewer has discovered that the psychiatrist is prescribing ‘‘smart’’ pills without actually seeing or examining student patients; the pills turned out to be for children who have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and taking them could lead to addiction. Thus, a serious examination of the patient is necessary prior to a prescription. (6) [60 minutes_2008: 0:21:07] 1!01

I:

1!02

cikcep ha-sye-ss-sup-ni-kka? directly do-HON-ANT-POL-DET-INTERR Did {you} yourself examine all the students? (0.3)

03 2!04

ku:: haksayng-tul-un kemsa-lul ta: (.) that student-PL-TOP examine-ACC all

D:

kunikka kemsa-lul< ADHD yay-tul-ul, examination-ACC ADHD kid-PL-ACC

05

ta kemsa-lul ha-nun key ani-ey-yo. all examination-ACC do-ATTR thing NEG-CP-POL Kunikka {it} is not the case that examination< {we} examine all ADHD kids.

06

(0.2)

07

D:

kunikka-n cengsinkwa-eyse-nun-yo? I:mean-TOP psychiatry-at-TOP-POL I mean in Psychiatry?

08

I:

ney yes-POL Yes

09

D:

ile-n simli-kemsa-nun celtaycekin kemsa-ka ani-p-ni-ta. like:this-ATTR psychology-exam-TOP absolute exam-NOM NEG-POL-DET-DECL Psychological examination like this is not absolute.

10

I:

ku haksayng-tul-ul cikcep po-syess-na-yo? that student-PL-ACC directly see-HON:PST-INTERR-POL

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

313

Did {you} see the students yourself? 11

D:

12 13 1!14

kulem-yo. of:course-POL Of course. (0.1)

D:

kuliko, e:: And, uh::

I:

motun haksayng-tul-ul ta cikcep po-si-ko, (.) all student-PL-ACC all directly see-HON-and Are {you} saying that {you} saw all the students yourself and,

1!15

myentam-ha-si-ko na-se, (0.1) meet-do-HON-and after-and after (.) meeting with {the students/patients} (0.1)

1!16

kulehkey yak-ul cwu-syess-ta-ko-yo? like:that pill-ACC give-HON:PST-DECL-QT-POL and then {you} prescribed the pills?

2!17

18

D:

kulenikka-n kukey- cehui-kakulenikka-TOP that we:HON-NOM kulenikka-n that’s- we are-

I:

ani i pwupwun pwunmyeng-hakey no this part clear-as No, to this part (=issue) clearly

19

20

[malssum-hay-cwu-si-p-si-o. tell:HON-do-give-HON-POL-JUSS-POL respond. D:

21 22

23

[((moves away from the interviewer with a faint sigh)) (4.2)

D:

cehui-ka (0.3) we:HON-NOM We (0.3) an po-n kyengwu-ka iss-ul-- iss-ul ke-p-ni-ta. NEG see-ATTR case-NOM exist-VOL- exist-VOL thing-POL-DET-DECL There possibly are cases that {we} haven’t seen.

The segment begins with a question by the interviewer, ‘did {you} yourself examine all the students?’, a polar question that makes relevant a ‘yes/no’ answer. The uses of ‘yourself’ and ‘all’ make pertinent every one of the student patients to whom the doctor has prescribed the pills. D’s pause (line 3) is an initial sign of trouble. Then, in line 4, D prefaces his response with kunikka. D subsequently produces kemsa-lul (examination-ACC), but soon repairs himself to insert ADHD ay-tul-ul (ADHD kid-PL-ACC) ‘ADHD kids’ and ‘all’ before kemsa-lul. This insertion re-designs the presumed terms of the question as well as the topical agenda of the question somewhat; if the object ‘ADHD kids’ were not inserted, the zero anaphora of the object (a possible construction in Korean) would have made D’s response applicable to ‘students’ as stated in the question. However, the self-repair makes his statement applicable to ‘ADHD kids’ and no longer indicates ‘students’ as the recipients of the ‘medical examination.’ This is consequential for D since the accusation here is with regards to prescribing the pills to regular students, not to children and adolescents with ADHD. Also, D, by borrowing the word ‘all’ from the question, strategically re-designs his response turn not to include all patients. D then further reformulates his talk (line 7), indexing this with kunikka ‘I mean’ (Kim and Suh, 1994, 1996), to topicalize the common practice in the field of psychiatry, thereby standardizing and generalizing the practice of not examining all patients (line 9). However, D never answers the question about his own practice with student patients. In lines 14--16, as the interviewer interrupts D and re-designs his question in pursuit of an answer (cf. Clayman and Heritage, 2002a), there are upgraded formulations, such as ‘all’, and ‘after meeting {with the students/patients}’, which

314

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

prevent D from generalizing the practice or evading answering and serve to accuse D. Moreover, the quotative construction --ta-ko shows that the interviewer challenges D based on the grounds of what D has already claimed in his responses to the earlier questions. In response to this aggressive question, D again prefaces his response with kulenikka-n (line 17). However, hearing kulenikka as well as restarts of the response, the interviewer projects that D is again reshaping the terms of, and evading, the question, and thus interrupts (lines 18--19) and pursues from D a straightforward/type-conforming answer. As this request is in progress, D moves his body away from the interviewer with a faint sigh and then leaves a long pause (lines 21), which display difficulties of fitting his answer to the constraints set by the question, but finally acquiesces to the request by weakly admitting the truth (lines 22--23). In summary the example shows the most extreme case of disalignment indexed by kulenikka in that the speaker evades answering the question by reshaping both topical and action agendas proposed. It also shows that kulenikka itself is hearable as projecting some form of disalignment. 4. Conclusions In this article, I have examined one way Korean speakers handle trouble in conforming their responses to questions: kulenikka prefacing. The analysis has shown that speakers can use this practice when their response is deferred, ill-fitted to the question’s presupposition, or evasive. In brief, kulenikka alerts that a sequential departure of some sort is forthcoming. The findings contribute to a developing body of conversation analytic research on how question recipients display and enact resistance to questions. Because turn-initial position is the first place that evidences the trajectory of a turn (Schegloff, 1996; Heritage, 1998), this is where question recipients commonly display resistance to questions, as shown by a number of studies across different languages (e.g., Heritage, 1998; Bolden, 2009; Hayashi, 2009; Schegloff et al., 2009). The present study, on the one hand, adds to this line of research, examining one turn-initial token Korean speakers deploy to do similar interactional jobs, and explicates the specific trajectories that reshape the constraints embodied by the question. On the other hand, the analysis has suggested that speaker is allowed a resource to index quite a specific trajectory of a response turn with kulenikka, which I have called ‘reshaping’ (cf. well in English, Schegloff et al., 2009).8 Kulenikka is also observed in turn-medial position (Kim and Suh, 1994, 1996), and the turn-medial and turn-initial kulenikkas appear to accomplish broadly similar interactional actions. As discussed earlier, in turn-medial position kulenikka is used as a repair initiator (similar to ‘I mean’ in English) to mark the reformulation of the speaker’s prior utterance (Kim and Suh, 1994, 1996). Thus, in both positions the token is used in changing prior constraints and in handling the interactional trouble the speaker faces because of prior talk. The turn-medial kulenikka is deployed to address a problem displayed in the prior talk, while the turn-initial kulenikka is deployed to reshape the terms put forth by the prior question. Further research on how one token is deployed in different interactional environments to solve their respective interactional problems will contribute to an understanding of the relationships between form and function. More broadly this study has shown that speakers of Korean utilize turn beginnings to show their analysis of a question (i.e., the prior turn) and project the trajectory of their response (i.e., the impending turn), and turn beginnings serve as an important sequential place in displaying a speaker’s attitude toward the questions addressed to them. Such an understanding and use of turn beginnings in interaction seems universal across different languages and cultures, regardless of their typology and different lexis deployed because turn beginnings are a sensitive place that begins to reveal or project the speaker’s stance (Schegloff, 1987, 1996). Sidnell (2009) notes that in comparing the various ways people in different socio-cultural and linguistic communities interact, two things emerge: commonalities and diversity. Commonalities exist because in every linguistic community, turns-at-talk are constructed, courses of action are launched and managed collaboratively, and troubles of speaking are repaired. But diversity exists in the varying ways that syntax, lexis, and prosody are mobilized to address these basic interactional problems. By providing an example from Korean, the present study has shown one way interactants handle response beginnings when encountering the problem of fitting their response to a prior question. Acknowledgements I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful and detailed feedback, and to John Heritage, Manny Schegloff, Steve Clayman, and Satomi Kuroshima for their constructive comments. Any remaining errors are my own.

8

The distinctive work of kulenikka can be more highlighted when it is compared to ani in the same sequential position (Kim, 2011, 2013). Both are methods of responding to a question in a non-conforming manner, but differ in which action each indexes to the recipient and how the rest of the response turn is constructed and aims to deal with the question’s terms. As discussed here, kulenikka indexes a ‘reshaping’ of the terms placed by the questions, thereby setting a new agenda or trajectory for the response. On the other hand, ani indexes a rejecting and blocking of the possible assumption(s) implied in the prior question. Then perhaps it could be argued that the Korean language has two tokens available for the work of well in English since well has a broader range of uses that subsume the uses of kulenikka and ani. This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper and needs further empirical investigation.

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

Appendix A. Transcription conventions [] = (0.5) (.) ? / , /. ? : word WOrd 88 ↑↓ < >< <> hhh .hhh (( )) (word) {}

overlapping utterances contiguous utterances silence represented in tenths of a second micro-pause rising/continuing/falling intonation a rise stronger than a comma but weaker than a question mark sound stretch cut-off or self-interruption underlining indicates some form of stress or emphasis upper case indicates especially loud talk portions quieter than the surrounding talk Sharper rise or down in pitch jump-started talk compressed or rushed talk a stretch of talk that is markedly slowed or drawn out laughter or breathing Hearable inhalation or in-breath transcriber’s remarks uncertainty on the transcriber’s part words unsaid in Korean but necessary in English for smooth translation

Appendix B. Abbreviations in Korean transcripts ACC ATTR CL CONN CORREL CP DECL DET DM HON IE IMPER INTERR INTROS LOC NEG PASS PL POL PROG PST QT/QUOT RT TOP VOL NOM

Accusative Attributive Classifier Connective Correlative Complementizer Declarative suffix Determinative Discourse Maker Honorific Informal Ending Imperative Interrogative Introspective Locative Negative Passive Plural suffix Polite speech level Progressive Past suffix Quotative particle Retrospective Topic marker Volitional Nominative

315

316

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

References Bolden, Galina B., 2009. Beyond answering: repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs 76, 121--143. Boyd, Elizabeth, Heritage, John, 2006. Taking the patient’s medical history: questioning during comprehensive history taking. In: Heritage, J., Maynard, D. (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interactions Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 151--184. Clayman, Steven, Heritage, John, 2002a. Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conference of Eisenhower and Regan. Journal of Communication 54 (2), 749--775. Clayman, Steven, Heritage, John, 2002b. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Egbert, Maria, Voge, Monika, 2008. WH-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. Discourse Studies 10 (1), 17--36. Fox, Barbara A., Thompson, Sandra A., 2010. Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2), 133--156. Golato, Andrea, Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, 2008. Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: a conversation analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41, 1--30. Hayashi, Makoto, 2009. Marking a ‘noticing of departure’ in talk: eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 2100-2129. Heinemann, Trine, 2006. Will you or can’t you?.: displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1081--1104. Heinemann, Trine, 2008. Questions of accountability: yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies 10 (1), 55--71. Heinemann, Trine, 2009. Two answers to inapposite inquiries. In: Sidnell, J. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 159--186. Heritage, John, 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Heritage, John, 1988. Explanation as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective. In: Antaki, C. (Ed.), Analyzing Everyday Explanation. Sage, London, pp. 127--144. Heritage, John, 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27, 291--334. Heritage, John, 2002a. Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In: Glenn, P., LeBaron, C., Mandelbaum, J. (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 57--90. Heritage, John, 2002b. The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1427--1446. Heritage, John, 2010. Questioning in medicine. In: Freed, A.F., Ehrlich, S. (Eds.), ‘‘Why Do You Ask?’’: The functions of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 42--68. Heritage, John, Clayman, Steven, 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Wiley-Blackwell. Heritage, John, Raymond, Geoffrey, 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In: de Ruiter, J.-P. (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 179--192. Heritage, John, Roth, A.L., 1995. Grammar and institution: questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (1), 1--60. Kim, Kyu-hyun, 2009. ‘‘Ketun’’ in conversation: soliciting news receipt as sequentially-motivated action. In: Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P.M., Sohn, S. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 17. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 423--437. Kim, Hye Ri, 2011. Beginning an Action in English and Korean: Turn Design and Action Projection. University of California Los Angeles, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, 2013. ‘‘Ani’’-prefaced responses to wh-questions as challenges in Korean. In: Sells, P., Frellesuig, B. (Eds.), Japanese/ Korean Linguistics Vol. 20. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 383--398. Kim, Kyu-hyun, Suh, Kyung-Hee, 1994. The discourse connective ‘‘nikka’’ in Korean conversation. In: Akatsuka, N. (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 4. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 113--129. Kim, Kyu-hyun, Suh, Kyung-Hee, 1996. Dealing with prior talk: discourse connectives in Korean conversation. In: Akatsuka, N., Iwasaki, S., Strauss, S. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 5. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 83--99. Koshik, Irene, 2003. Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies 5, 51--77. Lindström, Anna K.B., 1997. Designing social actions: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. University of California Los Angeles, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Noh, Jini, 2009. The deployment of Korean negative interrogatives in conversational discourse: a sign-based approach. In: Takubo, Y., Kinuhata, T., Grzelak, S., Nagai, K. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 16. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 304--318. Oh, Sun-Young, 2007. Overt reference to speaker and recipient in Korean. Discourse Studies 9 (4), 462--492. Park, Ji Seon, 2008. Negative yes/no question--answer sequences in conversation: Grammar, action, and sequence organization. University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Pomerantz, Anita, 1980. Telling my side: ‘‘Limited access’’ as a ‘‘fishing’’ device. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3--4), 186--198. Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57--101. Pomerantz, Anita, 1988. Offering a candidate answer: an information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs 55. Raymond, Geoffrey, 2003. Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68, 939--967. Raymond, Geoffrey, 2010. Grammar and social relations: alternative forms of yes/no type initiating actions in health visitor interaction. In: Freed, A.F., Ehrlich, S. (Eds.), ‘‘Why Do You Ask?’’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 87--107. Sacks, Harvey, 1987. On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In: Button, G., Lee, J.R.E. (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation. Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, England, pp. 54--69.

H.R.S. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 57 (2013) 303--317

317

Sacks, Harvey, 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell, Cambridge. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1984. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 28--52. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1987. Recycled turn beginnings: a precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In: Button, G., Lee, J. R.E. (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters Ltd., Clevedon, England, pp. 70--85. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1996. Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 52--133. Schegloff Emanuel, A., 2007. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schegloff Emanuel, A., Lerner Gene, H., 2009. Beginning to respond: ‘‘well’’-prefaced responses to WH-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (2), 91--115. Sidnell Jack, 2009. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sorjonen, Maria-Leena, 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Steensig, Jakob, Drew, Paul, 2008. Introduction: questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies 10 (1), 5--15. Stivers, Tanya, Hayashi, Makoto, 2010. Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39, 1--25. Stivers, Tanya, Heritage, John, 2001. Breaking the sequential mold: answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text 21 (1/2), 151--185. Yoon, Kyung-Eun, 2006. Complaint Talk in Korean Conversation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Yoon, Kyung-Eun, 2010. Questions and responses in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10), 2782--2798. Hye Ri Stephanie Kim (PhD in Applied Linguistics, UCLA) is Lecturer in Writing Programs at UCLA. Her research interests center around situated uses of language in everyday life and institutional settings and their applications to language teaching and learning. Her dissertation work was a collection of studies on turn-beginning tokens in English and Korean. She has published her papers in Journal of Pragmatics and Research on Language and Social Interaction, and is currently co-authoring a chapter on conversation analysis for The Handbook of Korean Linguistics.