ｒ９ｌ０︲ｒｐ０１．．００１トーＰ０ｂｌ

BINDERANDMoRRIs

O'Brien,E・J.,AlbI巳chLJ.E.,Hakala,C.M.,&Rizzella,M.L. (1995).Activanonandsuppmssion
ofantecedentsduringIeinstatement.Jb"""qfExpe'fme""IRS)'c"lOgy:とαm"8,MemoOt&のg""わ"

2ﾉ,626毛34．

ｐＵａⅡ１日ｌ■Ｊ﹄！︲■Ｐ９︲ＩｄＤＬＩｌｈｌ︲ｈｑｄｉｆ︲１１トーｌｌｌ０ｌ

330

O'Brien,E. J.,Plewes,S.,&Albrechl,J.E. (1990).AntecedentIetrievalprocesses.Jblj''mlq/
E叩eFfm"IzzIPsyc伽わgy:陸αmmg,"emoJM&"g""わ",ノ6,241‑249.
O'Brien,E.J.,Raney,G.E.,Albrecht,J.,&Raynel;K・ (1997).Processesinvolvedintheresolution
ofeXplicitanaphors・DiS 切蹄ePro""",23, 1‑24.
Rayner,K.,&Frazier,L･ (1989).Seleclionmechanismsinl℃adinglexicallyambiguouswolds.
"脚m"Iq/EXpe'fme""IRsychOlogy:陸αmj"8,Mmonf&Cog""わ",ﾉ5,779‑f790.
RaynerbK.,Pacht,J.M.,&Dury,S.A.(1994).Effectsofpriorencounterandglobaldiscoursebias
onthepmcessingoflexicallyambiguouswords:Evidencefmmeyefixations.JDwTmlqf"emon'@"dZa"g age,.33,527‑544.
RayneriK.,&Pollatsek,A.(1989).7We"syc加ﾉogyqfIFading.EnglewoodCliiTS,NJ:PrenticeHall.
RayneriK.,Warren,T,Juhasz,B.J.,&LiverSedge,S.R(2004).T11eeffectofplausibilityoneye
movementsinreading.""m"qfExperime""ﾉAyc加わgy:陸αmmg,Memonl&mg""わ",30,

D応co""eP"""",48:331‑354,2011

Copyrighi@Thylor&FrancisGmup,LLC
ISSN:0163‑853Xprintﾉl532‑6950online
DOI： 10.1080幻l638S3X､2011.558

謀 Routledge

1aylor&FrandsCroup

2

JudgmentsConcerningtheValenceof
Inter‑TurnSilenceAcrossSpeakersof
AmericanEnglish,Italian,andJapanese

129俳1301．

Simpson,G.B.,&Adamopoulos,A.C.(2001).RepealedhomogmphsinwoIdandsentencecontexts:
Multiplepmcessingofmultiplcmeanings.InD.S.Gorfbin(Ed.),O""eco"e9""cesqfm"""gselec"o""'Wecm'"o"'"oM"glExi"Inmbig"i"(pp. 105‑117).恥shington,DC:American
PsychologicalAssociation.
Simpson,G.B.,&Kang,H･ (1994).Inhibitoryprocessesinlherecognitionorhomographmeanings.
InD.Dagenbach&TH.Carr(Eds.),"A的"o〃〃!〃α"e""o",畑e剛o帆α"。〃"g ge(pp.359‑378).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPIess.
Simpson,G.B.,&Kellas,G. (I989).Dynamiccontextualprocessesandlexicalaccess. InD.S・Gorfein(Ed.),Re"IWhg"mα〃たα'"big''ily(pp､40‑56).Newnrk,NY:Springem
TIaXlel;M・ J.,Rss,D.J.,Seely,R､E,,Kaup,B.,&Moms,R､K・ (2000).Riminginsentence

pmcessing:Intralexicalspreadingaclivation,schemas,andsituationmodelS.JD"""Iq/Psycho"ルgIj応"cRes 庇ﾉi,29,581‑595.
･IWilley,L.C.,Dixon,R,ThyloriD.,&Clark,K・ (1994).UniveIsiWofAlbenanonnsofI℃lative
meaningrequencyfbr566homogmphs.Mどmo〃＆ag""わ",22,111‑126.
WnGompel,R.RG.,LiveIsedge,S､R,&PeaIson,J. (2004).Antecedenttypicalityenects intheprocessingofnounphmseanaphors. InJ.M.Can℃iras&C.Clifton(Ed.), 7yieo"‑""ぜs"dy"""re"cecomp肥Ae"sio":B'e""cMIg,ERA,α"dbeyo"d(pp.119‑137).Brighton,UK:
PsychologyPIEss・Yang,C.L.,GoIdon,RC.,Hendrick,R.,&Hue,C.W(2003).ConstrainingthecompIchensionof
pmnominalexpressionsinChinese."g""わ",86,283‑315.

FeliciaRoberts
11

1D"α廊加e"rqfCom腕脚"ic"io"
PE"tf腿e""ive""wtsrIMzye"e,IN

PieraMargutti｜
I

Dep"""e"rqfLcMg"geScie"cesU""e応雌pe｢S""ieridi"r"gia,""giq,ﾉ"bノ

ShQjiTakano
D"qFT"ze"rqfE)'8"shHひk"eiGak"""""e応 地坪ﾌom,""α〃Thefact thatpeoplewithminimal linguisticskillcanmanageinunfammaror

IeducedlinguisticenvironmentssuggeststhattheI℃areuniveIsalmechanismsof
meaningconstructionthatopemteatalevelwellbeyondtheparticularstrucmleor
semanticsofanyonelanguage.TheauthoIsexamnethispossibintyinthedomain
ofdiscoursebyfbcusingonhowgapsarisingatthejunctuI℃between2persons'tums‑at‑talk(intersmmsnences)aleevaluatedbyspeakersoftypologicallydistinct

languages:English,Italian,andJapanese・Thiscmss‑linguisticdesignallowsthe
testingofbothuniversalandrelativeaspectsinorientationtosilence.Rrthis
study,theeHEctsofinterEmmsilenceaI℃testedusingsmdypaIticipants' ratings
ofspeakeIs'willingnesstocomplywithIEquestsoragleewithassessmentsthat
weIEembeddedmconversations・Ina3×2×3between‑gmupsdesign,3silence

lenglhs(0ms,600ms,orl200ms)wel℃cmssedwith2speechacttypes(I℃quests
CoITespondenceconcemingthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoFeliciaRoberts,Departmenlof
Communicanon,PurdueUniveIsity,2170BeeringHall,WestLafayelle,IN47907,USA.EPmail:froberts@purdue・edu

332

RoBERTs,MARGuTTI, 'IHKANo

andassessments)inmanipulationsoftelephoneconversationsthatweremodeled

onanacmaltelephonecallbetweenftiends・Nanve‑speakingsmdypaIticipants, intheirhomecounmes,pmvidedIatingsonLikert‑typescales・Ratingssignificantly
decreasedwithineachlanguagegmupallongerinteratumsilences, indicatinga
genemlizedresponsetothegaps;howeverbmeansweI℃alsosignincantlydi錠唾nt
betweengmups, indicatingdiHeIEntexpectationsfbragreement.

PERcEPIToNoFINIER･TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

333

glitchesassomefbrmoftrouble,asdisplayedintheirpursuitofresponsesor
refbrmulationsofpriortalk(Davidson, 1984;Pomerantz, 1984).
ThisprOjectisgroundedinthesedescriptivefindingsandbuildsonthemto
developanexpedmentalapproachthatisbasedonactualinteraction.Theaimis
tocaptureapossibleoverhearer'sperceptionofothers'conductwithregardto
interammsilence(cf.,Ibx'Iree,2002)andtodirectlycompaI℃mesejudgments

acrosslanguagegroups. 'ITliscanhelpinfbnnusastomegenerality(ornot)ofGatheringmeaningfromothefgtalkandembodiedactionistheongoingbusi‑

overhearergresponsestodisruptionsinthefbrwardmotionoftalk.'Admttedlyb

nessofdailylife.Thefactthatpeoplewithminimallinguisticskillcanmanage
eveninveryunfamiliarorreducedlinguisticenvironmentsatteststomeseamlessintegrationofsocialandcognitiveskillsfbrhumanmeaning‑making(Goodwin,
2002;Levinson,2006).Italsosuggestsmattherearemechanismsfbrmeaning
constructionthataresharedacrosslanguagesandthatoperateatalevelbeyond
theparticularstructureorsemanticsofanyonelinguisticsystem.Inthisarticle,
weexamineonesuchmechanisminthedomainofdiscourseprocessingby
fbcusingonhowgapsarisingatthejunctureofturns‑at‑talk(inteFtumsilences)
a1℃evaluatedbothsimlarlyanddifferentlybyspeakersoftypologicallydistinct
languages・Thisapproachallowsustoengagebothsocioculturalandcognitive
perspectives,providinganecessaryy, ifasyetprelimnary, steptowardfilller
studiesoftherelationbetweeninteractionalnormsandcognitiveprocessing

thisisan"extemalview''ofthephenomenon(Heritage, 1995,p.406),notananalysisofmembers'methodsfbrorganizingthe..occasionsandresouI℃es
ofunderstanding''(Schegloffl992,p.1299).Nonetheless, thecross‑linguistic

ofspeech.
ThisprqjectextendsnndingsfiPomaseriesofexperimentsoninterbturn

silenceandprosodyinAmericanEnglish(Roberts,Francis,&MoIgan,2006)
byreplicating,fbrnativespeakersofltalianandJapanese, thedesignofthe
finalexperimentintheEnglishlanguageprqject.Althoughadditionalprosodic
variableswereofinterestandwerecollectedinthefilllreplication,thosefindings
arereportedelsewhere(Roberts&Margutti,2008;Roberts&Takano,2007).Our
mainconceminthisanalysisiswithperceptionsofinteFtumsilence,asthatisa
robustlymeaningfUlcueacrossthelanguagesstudied・Thus,thisarticledrawson
subsetsoftheoriginal(AmericanEnglish)dataandsubsequentreplicationefforts
inltalianandJapanese・Thisallowsustomakecross‑linguisticcomparisonsthat
mcusoninteFtumsilence.

Thereasonfbrthisfbcusisthatinter‑turnsilenceisakeycomponentinthe
constructionanddisplayofintersubjectiveunderstanding.Thisisparticularly
salientinthecontextof"conditionalrelevance'' (Schegloffl972),thosepoints
inconversationwhereahrstaction(e.g.aninvitation)establishestheexpectation
ofsomenextactionorresponse(e.g.,acceptance,rQjection).Whenseamlessly
producedthismachineryofmutualunderstandinggoesunnoticed.Froman
ethnomethodologicalstandpoint,theaccomplishmentofintersubjectivityis,thus,an"operation"(Gar6nkel, 1967,p.30);whenthereisevenabriefgapbetween
twomutuallyrelevanttums, intersubiectivityisnolongerinvisible.Asdemon‑
stratedinqualitativeanalysesoftalk‑in‑interaction,participantsodenttotheseapproachtothestudyofinteretumsilenceaifordsaglimpseatonepossibleentry
pointfOrunderstandingtheseamlessinterrelationofthesocial/relativeandthe
cognitive/universal inlanguageuse(Levinson&Enfield,2006).Webeginby
reviewingthesetwoapproachestosilence,thenpmvidearationalefbrthechoiceoftheadditionallanguagesunderstudy(ItalianandJapanese),and6nallytum
totheexperimentaldesignandstudyresults.

CULTURAL,COGNITIVE,ANDCONVERSATIONANALYTICCONTRIBUTIONSAnthropologistsandsociolinguistshavedescribedculturaldifferences inthe
tolerancefbrsilenceinconversation,demonstratingandtheorizinghowthosediHerencescanaffectinterculturalinteractions(e､g.,Basso, 1970;Clancy, 1986;
Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1984;Nakane,2006;Nwoye,1985;Scollon&Scollon,
1979;Tryggvason,2006; fbreditedcollectionsaboutsilenceinconversation,
seeJaworski, 1997,andTannen&Saville‑TiFoike, 1985).Viewingorientations
tosilencefiPomtheperspectiveofnormsthatareculturallyrelativeanddistinct,
thesestudiesprovidegroundsfbranassumptionthatmembersofdifferent

languagegroups(asasurrogatefbrculturalgroups)willdiffercntiallyperceive
thevalenceofinteFturnsilence(i.e.,thedegl℃eofnegativeorpositiveattribution
togapsinconversation).

Conversely,psychologistsandpsycholinguistshavestudiedsilenceinterms
ofresponselatency,primarilyinthecontextoffactualquestions. Inthispro‑
cessingparadigm, latencyisconsideredacuetouncertaintyordeception(fbranoverviewiseeAndersen, 1999).Thiscognitiveapproach,builtonthecon‑
ceptualizationoflatencytorespondasasymptomorsignalofprocessingeffort'Ouraimshouldnotbeconfilsedwithananalysisofthe｡･meaning''ofsilence・Silenceitselfis
feamreless(Levinson, 1983),takingonshadesofmeaningonlyinthecontextofsocialinにIacUon．

〃︒︑

グーｒＥｉ戸劣Ｅｔ︑毎ｒａｌ−ｌＳＥ
S334

RoBERIS,MARGuTn,'IMKANo

innndingananswer(GlucksbeIg&McCloskey, 1981;Smith&Clark, 1993),
assumesthatanswerers, inthemomentsofhesitancy,arebothdoingasearchandmonitoringthesearchprocess(Nelson, 1993).Theoutwardappearanceof
thissearching/monitoringprocesscanbecharacterizedasuncertainty(Brennan&Williams, 1995)possiblyconstruedbylistenersasacluetodeceptioninthe
making(Andersen,1999)orconverselylsimplythoughtfUlness(Burgoon,Bulleri&Guerrero, 1995).Thisresearchsuggests,althoughitislesscross‑culturallyrobust, thatintemretationsofinteFsilenceas｡.trouble''orthoughtfillnessmay
begroundedingeneralizedcognitiveprocessesrelatedtomemory, I℃trieval,integrationofcues,andsoon・Mostofthiscognitivelyorientedresearchhasstudiedsilence(anddisfluency)intennsofindividualramerthancollaborative
activity,althoughalternativeapproacheshavebeenadvocated(cf,Clark, 1994;
Schober&Bloom,2004).

Whatdirerentiatesthisstudyfrombothanthropologicalandpsychologicalstudiesisthatitentertainsthepossibilityofaculturaldifferenceinorientation
tosilence,butexamnesitatthelevelofspecificcollaborativeconversational
activities(i.e.,requestsandassessments).Ratherthanaddressingtheorientation
tosilencease"ﾉierculturallyspecificorcognitivelygeneralized,weaddress

perceptionofsilenceintennsofbothand,moreimportant, intennsofpar‑
ticulardiscourseenvironmentswherespecificsociallyappropriateactionsare
expected.Thisisdistinctfromresearchonresponselatencyandfilledpauses
inwhichstudyparticipantsareevaluatingresponsestofactualquestions(e.g.,
Brennan&Williams, 1995)ordirectinterrogativesconcerningbeliefS(e､g.,Fbx

上'Ii℃e,2002).

f

Webaseourdesignontheturn‑takingmodel asempiricallyderivedby
Sacks,SchegloffandJeHerson(1974).Fromthatvantagepoint,itisclear
thatSilenceinconversationisagreatdealmorethananabsenceofspeech.

，

a

r

Indeed,ConversationAnalysts2havedemonstrated,asbrienynotedearlie喝thatr

wheninteFmmsilencegrowssubsequent toaspeaker'sutterancematsets
upconditionalrelevance, it is indicativeofpossibletroubleat thatpoint intheinteraction(Davidson, 1984;Pomerantz, 1984).Thistroubleisempiricallyavailablethroughspeakers'routinepracticeofproducing.@subsequentversionf(Davidson,1984,p.104)oftheirturnattalk.ThegeneralizationthatdisprefeITed
actionscanbestructuledaroundinteFtumsilence(i.e､, realizedasdelaysin
launchingtumsat talk)isborneoutinqualitativestudiesofconversationin
typologicallydisparatelanguagessuchasJapanese(e.g.,Mori, 1999;Tanaka,
2005),Finnish(e.g.,Soljonen, 1996), andItalian(e.g.,Monzoni,2007), to

S

i

f

ＣＳｏⅢＣＦｅａｔＳ

nameatw.

2WecapilalizeConversanonAnalysI Io,℃p1℃sentthosescholarsworkingwithinapanicular
Uaditionthat isrootedinphenomenologicalsociologyandethnomethodology.Heritage(1984)
explicatestheseinにⅡeclualmolsandconnections(seealsoMaynard&Clayman,1991).

PERcEFrloNoFINTER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

335

Whatisnotknown,howeverbishowparticularcoursesofactioninthecontext

ofparticularinterbturnsilencelengthsareperceivedbynativespeakersofdi鮭鵬
entlanguages・Suchcomparativeresearchwillhelpusrefineourunderstanding
oftheextenttowhichinteractionalnonnsarepartofthevariable@.vocabulary''

oflanguage(Chomsky, 1995)orwhethertolerancesfbrspecificlengthsof
silenceareuniversaland, therefbre,haveimplicationsfbrunderstandingthe
social(aswellascognitive)processingofspeech.Tbexplol℃thesepossibilities,
weproceededwiththedesignandimplementationofthisstudybasedonthe
fbllowingexploratoryquestions:1.Dolinguistic/cultumlgroupsdifWHersignincantlyintheirjudgmentsof
addressees'willingnesstocomplywithrequestsoragreewimassessments
asafUnctionofinteFsilence？

2.Dogroupsdifferintheirjudgmentsofaddressees'willingnesstocomply
withrequestsoragreewithassessmentsbasedonthesequentialenviron‑ment(i､e,,requestsvs,assessments)inthecontextofinteI廷tumsilence？
Thesecondquestionbringsauniqueperspectivetothestudyofinterrtumsilence.
Becausewechoose"adjacencypair"astherelevantlevelofanalysis,wemove
thestudyofsilenceawayfiPomdescriptionsofgeneralizednonnsandtowarda
comparativeinvestigationbasedonjudgmentsconcemingthesamecoursesof
action(requestsandassessments).Weare, therefbre,betterpositionedtodraw
conclusionsabouttheorientationtointeIEturnsilenceatinteractionallyrelevant
andcomparablemoments.

LANGUAGEGROUPS:WHYITALIANANDJAPANESE？

Stereotypesaboundabout theinterpersonalstylesofmanylinguisticlcultural
goupings. IntermsoforientationtointeFmmsilence(orpropensityfbrovelz
lappingtalk)onerelativelyunexplo1℃dexplanationfbrdifferingconversational
stylesissuggestedinSchegloffOchs,andThompson(1996).Theynotedthat
structuresofp呵ectabiltyarelikelydifferentacross typologicallydisparate
languages;and, therefbl℃, theopportunitiesfbroverlapwouldbelessormore
possible(pp.28‑29).Theysuggestedapossible"connuenceofgrammaI;cultul℃
andturn‑takingoIganization;'whichcould･@raisethepossibility…ofearly
entry[intoaprecedingtum]asacommonpractice...'' (p.30).Wechose,therEfOre,tostudyspeakersoftypologicallydistinctlanguages,whichalsohave
distinctconversationalstereotypesattachedtothem,toprovideaninitialsnapshot
ofthedegreetowhichculture/languagebackgroundisal℃levantconstruct inorientationtointeretumsilence.

今つい●ず︑Ⅱ含画国Ⅱ乏曇︷︶喪︽芦＠Ⅱｓ屋⑭巳︒参の﹄⑪彦誤弐四一・コ︒罰の３月・異⑭暑●●﹄昌冒珂咋︵隅Ⅱ瞳︶５日◎琴①﹄の夢誤莨・号︒団屋属冒胃の邑出Ｅ︾︵等Ⅱ廷︶５日︒参圏の夢まＳ辱号︒勧二昌曾四目８国⑭巳く⑭昌局聖・巴⑪冒削⑪ｓも目︒冒旨⑪の⑲己巴のｓ昌弓﹄遇壱奇昌旨昌冒・潟・ぺⅡ合同↑目匡︽︵胃．︹Ⅱ︵男＠重．ＲⅡミむめ２凰昌
︷室昌一２通鵡壱ぢ目つもめ宮ｇ苗冒回︒Ｑ⑭己日易①夢Ｐ・ぢ︒ｇｏ己官︒ｐ琴⑪言︒﹄君臣ｇ﹈昌逼切昌●

ごｃ・国ⅡＱ函○○・国叩Ⅱミ首属君﹈胃債いくⅡＱ吻〆︒・色Ⅱミ首ｇこの旨く︶⑭評昌

壱⑪戸︒﹄・旦甸国甸︒︾函屋一つ﹄○○Ｑ呵で︒﹈甸画屋の︒巨再◎○つ目再つ⑭一一コ﹄︒⑲﹄の閏⑭藍一塵巨○一﹈︒⑪雪○○雨一国つ﹄○の冒垣⑪呂萄３冨員二８⑭日◎二﹄︷の這昌幽居急二君国員名忌め⑪旨弓圏響の冒二︵ｇⅡ鐘︶の３屋甸回昌つ目呵吟含卜伽Ⅱ壁︶員国司畠毎ｓ卜叩Ⅱ踵︶昌一乱自国屋毎︒一圃冒く叩巨星３房︲の星諸ｚの一匡吋ｇ○壱 匹云ロコーの・的の即甸邑即冒里の曾彊昌君昌冒﹄昌圃ｑ三二○○○ぞ夢﹄⑪当飼の︒②⑪宮○四冒弓自唱︵︒︑画○一首◎曽一二︒●急＠︒竺宮⑭臣毎．乱ぐい臼・乱飼這のエ８吻唇８匡妙﹄些巴Ｑ岩豐Ｏ二号呂︒︒㈲⑭３二一・函屋︒Ｅ甸豐○一苗一妙﹄己冒

曇巨８昌豊召︒冒匡言も豊一信○︶蚤冒君壱吻冨８め﹄ｃ巨呂昌暹ご◎曽弓馬場﹄④冒二﹄⑭蔦︒這画﹄⑲冒弓扇亘の﹄ー﹄ヨ︒冒涜つ屋飼冨︒◎吻匡３詑二②ｐ２昌興﹄里二⑳塁一屋一員︒宮呂冨壱旨甸官◎角Ｅ一巨因鴎一妙﹄⑪琶二函三．昌乏︑⑭二奇巳奇邑今つ８つ色弓２．潭旦８筐︒︒⑪参一召一︒×⑭謁弓圃己ヨＥ﹈◎屋の﹄㈲⑭３ｓ・８臣の﹄ど巴旦も乱虐も馬易﹄⑭つ宮ヨ屋︒君○参場画一の皇ぢ巨雪屋冨榿⑭︒⑫一門つ日

ぬ冨日・屋冨ｏ員君﹄昌一︒︒の万国吻話屋甸吻一の﹄の二一●

ご骨巨ｏ函８﹄も習冒Ｅ⑪二国翰飼⑪宮乞己吻の８﹈口且・８５弓ｇ屋︒冒旨の恒︒冒己百︒

・ぢ昌昌宮島﹈農彦８−⑪シの一君旨︶官︒圃冨ｏ畠甸冨﹄︒の﹄己︒．垣函屋ｏ冒旦冨旨ａも一⑪８−

畠の昌旨曽冒﹄ａｏの園８５弓ｇ眉︒胃旨呂︒﹄ｇ呂属ｏ臣﹄⑪昌農参﹄３−︒ぢ屋吻ご一ぬ⑭︒⑩崖一○屋

曇日．

・ぬ﹈胃の﹇屋叩つコーのシ潭再皿の唇一一○雪の声壼﹄旬︽８５弓屋︒的．︒巳苗昌ののの巨乱黒目呵屋属冨胃ぢめ⑪壱日的琴唱⑪呂日︒

宮．︒夢め⑪目︒房の﹄のシ三国眉漫甸弓訂一息？吻昌一首︒日８莇飼﹄＆目冒８の身の忌日易の己●㈲且一品目の﹄当︾ぬ⑬︒且乱普○面９８目星ｇ二︒︒吻両●ぬ旨の日︒冒旨画シ⑪一日函﹇冒一旨のコヶの②冨吻Ｑ甸幽属己︲届旨一

３−９

Ｓ屋員Ｂａ﹈量目旨のＥ３﹄評９

・含ｏ艶脇目普星号飼の暑言へ雲の⑪旨首磐目︒ｇ弓︒己﹄但普三︒邑巨８台扇忌８．ａの参﹂ｏ旨⑪蔓の⑪巳ｇ３君君︒⑤曾誌ヨ如属雷鬮回弓﹄旨ＣＯぢ臣つ壱の彦言色茸巴星つ望冨ぢつ圏つ㈲の一三二︒︒の︒眉の︒暉屋︒︒

９冒旨⑪−８冨８②普罠冨冒︒智︒邑函画鼻⑭閏⑪皀︒○・乱乱普ｏ宮９８胃﹄⑪一ｇ●■

辱め員声固・含苛目Ｉ○ｍ目ｄｑ令弓ｏｏＮｃ・冨芯Ｑ画つ冒国︶ぬ旨⑪日四つ︒宮③目⑪星箇廻瑁飼壹湯宮︒︒︒局呂⑪色的弓昌屋屋眉﹄畠︵誌包容園旨固⑪旨ｏｅ８５﹄豊⑪昼百日︒冒涜︒５屋島の﹄︒Ｅ画二一冒普ｏ君

廻信石○雪飼﹄○屋読め◎一つ畳﹈宮⑪め⑭﹄・云甸︹屋﹄⑪︼

留皇３房の３屋凰昌曾ｏ冒呵旨⑪日８﹄評出巳的８巨閏坐⑪己君︒一ざ一旦具乱冒飼冒８吻■の⑪望．四画．◎冒呵シ⑪二︾自一話○屋の弓喧︺◎ぬの○国⑪閏●冑︒届ロ昌冒甸倉︒﹄国⑭這這ｇ四＄易罵昌己昌恒︒め８５２⑪凌昌呂巨◎巨冒己冒︒Ｃｓ易君冒豊８２言昌曾①彊辱め昌彦弓︵駅曾・且呂国塁乙乱一湯屋ｏ冒一の﹄君臣◎圏のｅ巴属昌●⑨昌一・昌昌５畳言・匂⑪冨雲⑪評︒函目星５苗目四目一壱８昌匂当璽翰身一冒冨吻冒⑭着の房宣⑪君函必・の一乱愚○曇︒号固巴目◎易⑪コヮｇ属冨一百︒自①２切昌Ｓｃ曾貞ョ飼幻巨里一厘割・８５弓ぢ目︒二号︒﹄乱揖︷⑪彊自扇目署﹈目己目目８画２星昌ｏ幻巳◎鐘遍彊ロのの⑭自凰異君乱昌壱冒日の彊冨昌屋◎宮島園易爵⑭乞凹名目︒塁ぢ一参毎回︒⑪弓冒号巴冨二僧．︵己言茸の臣己鬮○首ｏ乱己︒題官⑪幻冒蝿ご号雨︒ａ○雨もめ冒甲忌号忌日馨翰三﹈屋の要の旨い辱めの︒即ｏ君も●吻一⑭﹄の昌忌ｇｇｇ一言一︒つ３も昌吻君︒恒己巳の⑪函⑪昌・ののの一の畳２ｏｚ．︵ＳＲ・苛○爲辱一屋︒目︒皇︶属目異冒胃曽ｏ冒飼８５弓冒昌由且昌曽冨冒旨巨ｇ屋︒罵言⑪宮◎の日︒●．︼冒幽屋ａ号壱の妻︒８．口︒ａｇ的冒豊望昌冨昌つ目・乱臣三⑭的︻旨且︲三コ日●の昌も弓臣冒＆﹄農ｇ曾島３房胃︒即昌一冨菖官①ｇ冨二⑪ン昌宮︒◎夢⑭彦・圏の管⑭房の昌⑪量﹈昌一﹄豊富一三コ８の臣︒今号尉のの﹄︒冨冒普潭ｇｏｏ四つ目君︒乱ｏ−ｏｇ﹄昌冒臣︒ｇ四画国．⑫︼⑪望園⑲邑吻の②⑪冒画ｑ園再一コ○二国屋︒﹃ぬ．一○臣︒︒﹈臣⑭閏 贈一つ面⑭君コヮラ国﹄つ︒︾の一ｐ一ぬ翰○Ｑ翰一邑

巴⑪菅⑪房のめ⑪目乱昌冒飼・屋属冒罠目︒固の日く⑪乞ぢめ呂旨弓君︒ｇの彊﹄畠・の冨開８

５⑪昌畠 ８５﹄遇壱君８彦冒呵凶ｇ旨９８面会昌昌・＄乱︒君壱⑪彊忌冒出ｇ﹄＆◎言〆●

沼二︒︒昌鬮・ぢ﹄旨︒︒ｇ四国夢話つ昌吻翰這一四目冒碑の⑪己昌⑪麺巨皇君二・看邑屋⑪︒く

︶・切言⑪日翰３閉園昌冒８団甸﹄◎望＄弓曾昌冒ごＱＥ８ｇ・＄乱︒君君弓冒８２⑪昌昌昌彦・函＄自習冨冒・ぬ８腸⑪乞冨ぢ︵乱呂圏宕属官︒の⑪﹄ヨ︒日湯屋︒冒昌︒君凰屋︒堕爵台冨昌呂︒石目︵圏昌辱・一画﹈の国一旦巴員︒冒罵一身⑪⑪皇﹈ロ目再望宮○屋閉函の函函甸揖○の﹈めの．ご○﹄唇⑭⑪蓼﹈のいめの○宮⑪酒四宮﹄弓︾三浬と①ン○

弓竜一旨⑪コワの吻巨︒︒ざ里で邑冒︒︒

四﹄

●

●

函巨︒︻屋飼３函︒＆◎喜一呂冨も︒②農●Ｐ●望﹃己吻の觜ロの×宮屋星嵩室戸二四二．二二砲の函肖飼一○二○圏⑪望困房⑪＄一声一皇翰吻呂

⑭目飼・異つ目詞の﹄⑭望３房自雨戸君﹈目○ｚく当式Ｐ・属ト︒︒ く三舎巴屋四四○盛の③の⑪愚壷旨一︒Ｑで目固め︒昌居８︲ｇ四目至目毎日◎坦・ａ弓︒莇冨旦云ろ閏里吻湯一の苗肩身弓︒逹膚

で宮飼の富二一．参翰飼つ肖恒ｇｏ固画星︒吻一の自○曾己号一愚彦︒ｇの臣︒ａの﹄ｏ巳⑭鬮曾⑪営昌吻罵昌昌︶８５弓ぢ旨圏の一ｇ●８５弓ぢ旨圏のち︾⑭﹄ｏ日つ目①室昌︒シ⑫②の一圏冨毒⑪一戸吻冒⑪昌◎の乞い３﹄昌彦︒︵雪国

弓巴⑭旨一弓一国の巨島⑭夛昌・の閏︒参５圃冨２肖昌・め⑪農ろ閏ｇ●⑪昌芯︒菌︒⑫望邑◎冒閏⑪冒８昌呂Ｃｇ自己昌冒毎８５弓巨ｏ２昌固の皇屋属国胃●

名②⑪評乱昌一﹄のｇｏ岩閏⑪首の房烏彊声︷旨当冨鎧閏︒Ｅ号一遍ン︒昌屋◎冒巴⑪自８﹄①旨のｇ冒巴奇彊一旦一つ目８５弓９国の﹃ｇろ回︒つめ冒弓﹈胃一旦一日舅︒君︼⑭昌弘

愚己豊︒膏ｇ圏の己く・冨冨垣呂ｏ目名言肖凹一ｇご当身属﹄︒３巨昌旨の巳５輻︒め一屋示壜吻臣罵言︒︒旨い桑の︒固の一易９つ⑪急︒ものつ身四属吻胃屋Ｃａ函一念つ︒ご画この冒甸園園画国昌

農ご◎ぬの﹄ヨ甸磐﹄⑪宮呂８旨彊目弓﹈園︒＄壱且函豊Ｐ・ぬ⑪壱ヨ昌詞︒這旦日のｇの８５轌磐曾

ｄ一肖○一隅隼且一．星のキト○つ国争寸○○国編弓冒○国目︒︾声︶の︒固の一湯︒﹈﹈︒⑪・ぬ⑪﹄二一一参﹇眉豊の話翰函巨一当画一︲屋﹄ご﹈

言邑風呂の雨昌８．君彦ｏ己︵囹含・皇︒皇︒温剣四首⑪巳讐二宮詞呂の君芦︒ａつ冒朋邑函ｏ君君⑪彊ｇｐ２墨ｇ②旨乱５冒凰言昌吻爵つ豊冒﹄︒

旨の飼心旨言︒屋○の夢固冒皇目︒ｌの︒■

眉○口の⑪﹄の妾﹃﹈毎ロ属輻︸︲圏の﹄の参画⑪冒目８の冒昌﹄電昌昌＄湧与昌函旨吻の冨弓昌響⑪冒口・巳⑭昌弓彦呂昌
一呵二﹄ぬ⑪・圏⑪雪９房の屋忌屋︒﹄の蓼︒吾夢四首のつ員ぬら︷圏⑭菖目．︒函⑭冒画包昌つ冒珂白星君﹈旬冒呵昌﹄⑪日く詰幻・山里属忌當⑪②昌豐を智碧園９コＣ吻旨の弓場呂吻肖畠の冨日⑪﹄の彦乱属官８２冒動口●

壱の日﹄昌芯旦巨の暑の５参＄二四ｏ君も⑭吟の︹声冒・ぬつ冑の温輻つ⑪函呵︐⑭四の一ぢ︒屋⑪⑪参﹈のいぬ一君︒⑪自︒皇︒●

Ｑく四○ｚ四昌吻ｚ塵Ｐ岸四伊昌﹂ｏｚｏ巨邑四︒

毎つ唇呵吻湯の︒ご巴︶ぬ旨⑪冒冒◎昌彦屋⑪︒の﹄︒︒︒

首︒冒凶湯豊屋﹄島置ご冨一且つ胃湯９９号室彦

ロ○エト山乏︲⑪画意ヨ︒甸臣ｏｇｍ量の︼⑪垂亘両量目◎冒閏⑭自８⑭色︒二号画ぢの禺﹄の吻呵扇吻宮８心彦

屋︒︵翰旨の冒吻＄ぬ卜の③め四︒くつ︒ｚくヨめ画○

338

RoBERrs,MARGuTTT,TAKANo

PERcEPTIoNoFINIER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

p<.01.HoweveriasdiscussedlateLgenderdidnotarectI℃sultsacrossor
withinlanguagegroups.

339

theqmm'α"yefbrbothsequencetypes: InEnglish, thetoken@@suIE'' fbllowed

requests,and@.yeah''displayedagreementwiththeassessments.Theroughly
equivalenttokensusedfbrltalianwerece"ofbr..sure''andsifbr.@yeah.''I℃r
Japanese,")uwasusedfbr..sure''andsoo血刀efbr･Gyeah;'AppendixA
containsexamplesinEnglishandAppendixBcontainsthetargetedtranslatedsequencesalongwithnotesonsimlarityofsyntacticprOjectablity.
Allofthedialogues(targetandlure)wereenactedbynative‑speakingstudents
inthesameagerangeasthetargetstudypopulation・ 'Ibcontrolfbrgenderandvoicequalitybthetargetstimuli ineachlanguagewel℃performedbythesame
twowomen,whomaintainedthesamecalleFcallrecipientidentity・Familiarity

Materials

TbfilllyreplicatethedesignoftheearlierstudyofAmericanEnglish(Roberts
etal.,2006), thesameninedialogueswereusedasthefbundationfbrthe
Japaneseandltalianstudymaterials.Thedialoguesarebasedonthetranscription
oftheopeningofanactualtelephoneconversationbetweentwofemaleAmericancollege‑agedfi･iends(Roberts&Robinson,2004).Fbrthisstudy,onenative
speakerfbreachlanguagegrouptranslatedthedialoguesfromEnglishintothetargetlanguages.Thesewerethenback‑translatedintoEnglishbyasecond

inalloftheconversationswasmaintainedbyfeaturessuchasomissionofthe

caller'sname,useofaninfbnnal1℃gisteIjand/ortruncatingthegreetingsequence(Hopperil992;Schegloffl979).ThepersonportrayingthecallI℃cipient in

nativespeakerfromthetargetlanguagegroups.Thiswastocheckthatthe
dialogueswereroughlyequivalentinthedifferentlanguages,yetstillidiomatictherecordingwasdirectedtomakeresponsestorequestsandassessments

andcomprehensiblefbrtheirlocalcontexts.Eachconversationculmnatedwitharequestoranassessmentbythecaller; thecallrecipientrespondedwithansoundagreeable,butnotunusuallyenthusiastic.Thesmdentactorwasinstructedaffinnativeone‑wordresponse(filrtherdetailsfbllow).
Oftheninedialogues,sixweremanipulatedfbrpurposesofthestudyand
threeremainedastheyhadbeenproducedbytheactors.Thesethreedialogues("luI己s")wereinterspersedamongthesixtargetstimulitomaskthemanipula‑tions.Althoughthestimuliwithlonggapsclearlyhadadiffel℃ntHavorthanthe

hesitation(i.e.,tosoundwillingandagreeableinaneverydaysortofway).
Clearly,onecannotcontrolfOrall interveningvariableswhenusinghumanvoices;somevoicesjustsoundfi･iendlierormoresincereormoreneedyand
thosequalitiescaninnuencejudgments.Howeveritoperfectlymatchtheacoustic
characteristicsthroughmachineproducedlanguagewouldseriouslyundercut
facevalidityand,asmentionedearlieIBamatched‑guiseapproachwasneither
possiblenorcompletelyreliable.Ourbestapproachwastocompetentlydirect
actorsintheirnativelanguagestoproducethekindoffriendly,familiardemeanor

tomaintainanormdregisterandtorespondaf6rmativelyiwithnosenseof

un‑manipulatcddialogucs,studyparticipantshadavarietyofgucssesconcerning
thepurposeofthestudy:Inresponsetoourverballyposeddebriefingquestion,"Whatdoyouthinkthisstudywasabout?;'studyparticipantsmostlysaid"toneofvoice"or"emotioninconversation;'butsome(roughlyM4)weleableto

wewereseeking.Wedidnotundertakeafilllstudy,eitherbefbreorafter
choosingouractors,ofwhethertheirvoicesweIBconsideredG.fiFiendly''within
theirownculturalcontexts.Suchastudymightyieldsomereassurancethateachofthevoiceswas, indeed,friendlybwhateverthatwouldmeanineachculture,butwhethertheywe1℃equallysoacrossthegroupsissimplyimpossibleto
calibrateorcontrol.Readersconcernedwithissuesofvoicequalityareinvited
torequestdigitalfilesoftheexperimcntalstimulibycontactingFeliciaRoberts.

pinpointthat itwasabout6@pauses'' inspeech.Thiselicitationofstudyaims
wasdoneasaprecursortodisclosingtheactualaimsofthestudyandwasnot
designedaspartofthedatacollection・Thus,althoughourconclusionabout
studyparticipantgawarenessofstudyaimsisimpressionistic,wecansaythat
itwasnotgenerallyobvioustoparticipantsthatthestudyhadtargetedgapsin
conversation.
1

Agﾉeementiokenma"ubijOns. Tbcontrol fbrpossibleconfbunding

１１１１１

COnsmJcibnandJecoﾉ鋤ngof媚bgues. Eachconversation,whether
targetorlul℃, includedamundanerequestorassessmentmadebythecaller.
ThesewereabouteverydaytopicsconcerningschoolHyers,goingtothegym,
orpickingupanewcomputer. 1n1℃sponsetothel℃questsandassessments
surroundingthesethreethemes, thecallrecipientrespondedintheafiirmative.
Thetarget stimuli controlledfOrtheme, butdiiYeredonspeechact.For
example, ifthethemeofthecallconcemedHyersfbraschool fimction, it
endedwiththecallereitherfOrmulatingal℃quest intermsofthattopic(e.9.,
gettingaridetopickupthenyers)orofferinganopiniononthetopicathand(e.9.,reportingthatthenyerslookgood).Thecall recipientansweredin

1

1

1
I

fromtheacousticqualitiesoftheactordslightlydiffel℃ntagreement token
pronunciations(duringrecording)weidentified,fbllowingproceduresdetailedinRobertsetal.(2006),twomedianagreementtokens(l"yeah''andl@@sure''
andtheirequivalentsintheotherlanguages)fifomalloftheagreementtokens
producedbyeachactor・The''sure''tokenandthe''yeah''token,whichfellinthe

middleintermsofduration,pitchrange,andpitchchange,werechosenasthe
defaultagreement tokensandeditedintotheappropriatedialogues・ Inotherwords,withineachlanguageconditiontheagreement tokenswereidenticalineachdialoguesothatonlytheinteFturnsilencebetweenthel℃questor

340

RoBERTs,MARGuTIT,TAKANoassessmentandtheresponsediffered.Thus,theacousticqualityoftheresponses
wasfUllycontrolled.

ノnie据如ms"encema""危加ns. Oncethemedianagreementtokenswereeditedintothedialogues, silenceswereinsertedbetweentheiirstpairpart(merequestorassessment)andtheagreementtoken("sure"or@･yeah").Three

PERcEFIToNoFINTER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

341

Thedialogues intendedtomaskthepurposeofthestudy(lures)always

appearedinthesameplaceintheaudiopresentation.Eachpresentationorderbeganwithamaskingdialoguetogetstudyparticipantsorientedtothetask.
Theothermaskingdialoguesappearedfburthandseventhintheseriesofnine
conversations.

EachofthethreeaudiopIesentationordersconsistedofnineconversations:lengthsofinteFmmsilencewereusedtotesttheinteractionbetweensilenceand

Threeendedwiththeassessment/responsepairing(..Ithinkit/thWlook[s]pretty

sequencetype:0ms(nolagtime),600ms,andl200ms.Theselengthswerecho‑
sentoprovideabaselinesimulationofnogapbetweentherequest/assessment

good;'fOllowedby"Yeah"),whichwasseparatedbyoneofthethreeinteFturn
silencelengths(0ms,600ms,orl200ms); threeconversationsendedwith
therequest/responsepairing("Canyougivemearideoverthere;' fbllowedby"Sure"), separatedbythethreeinteratumsilencelengths;andthI℃enon‐
targetconversationsendedwithanassessmentorrequest(JsopailEdwiththeaffinnativeresponsetokens"sure"and..yeah''),butth可wereun‑manipulated.

andtheaffinnativeresponse,andthenequalincrementsleadinguptoJeHerson's(1989)proposedlimitof"approximatelyl3asastandardmaximumofsilence

inconversation.Silencewastakenfromotherdeadspaceinthedialogue(i.e.,
itwasnotamachine‑producedsilence)tobestmaintainthenaturalacoustic

environment.TYlesenaturalsilencesweresplicedtotheendofphonationonthe
1℃quest/assessmentutteranceasvisuallyapparentfromthesoundwave.

Thenatural inter‑tumsilence,asoriginallyproducedbytheactors,wasleft
intactfbrthenon‑targetstimuli・Thus,ninestimuliwereheardbyeachstudy

participant,andeachSilenceLength×SpeechActtypemanipulationwas
heardonce.

DesignIna3×2×3mixedmodelwithrepeatedmeasures, sile"cele"grh(0msgap,600ms,andl200ms)andse9"e"ce"e(requestandassessment)weI℃
within‑groupfactors; Iα"8脚αgegm"p(English, Italian,orJapanese)wasthe
between‑groupsfactorbT11eseindependentvariablesweremanipulatedinthe
contextofconstructeddialoguesthatsimulatedtelephoneconversationsbetween

twocollege‑agedfemalefriends・Thedependentvariablewasraterperceptions
ofanaddrEssee'swillingnesstocomplywithrequestsoragreewithassessments
aselicitedfiFomawrittenquestionfbllowingeachdialogue. Judgmentswere
capturedusinganorderedscalerangingfroml("orw"""gor"o"〃α8花e碗e"r)
to6(veJyw"""gandve〃""chj〃α8"eme"r).Raterswereencouragedtouse
thewholescale,andsomestudyparticipantsciI℃ledadjacentvalues(i.e., they
couldprovidearatingof2.5bycirclingthe2andthe3onthescale).
Threedifferentordersofpresentationwereused・Thesewerecounterbalanced

basedontheinter造tumsilencemanipulationsofthetargetstimuli.Admttedly,
thiswasnotahlllcounterbalancingofsequencetypes(21evels)andinterstum
silencelength(31evels),whichwouldhaveproducedsixpl℃sentationordeIs.
Givenourecruitmentandadmnistrationpmcedure(inclassroomsofconsenting
instructors;seetheProceduresection)andnoevidencefromanitemanalysis
thatratingsbetweenthesixcounterbalancedordersweresignificantlydifferent
fbrEnglish(seeRobertsetal.,2006,Experiment l),wechosetotakethis

Procedure

Studyparticipantswererecruitedbythestudyauthorsftomclassroomswhe1℃
instructorshadgivenpermissionfbrthelastlOmnofmeclasstobeused

fbrstudentparticipationin@Gastudyaboutconmnunicationj'Smdentswhowere
willingI巳mainedintheclassmomandwer巳givenconsentfbrmstoreviewand
sign・Thus, fi9omtheseclassrooms, independentsamplesofconveniencewere
drawn・DiHerentclassroomswereusedfbreachadministrationsuchthatno

studenteverparticipatedtwice.

FOreachsamplegroup,studentsweregiventhesamerecordedinstructions:thattheywouldbehearing.@severaltelephoneconversationsamongagroupof
friends''andthateachfriend.Wasjustrelaxingathomej'Therecordingalso
saidthataftereachconveIsationtherewouldbeaquestiontoanswerabout

meconversation・Includingtheconsentprocessanddebriefing,theprocesstook
aboutl5min・About6mnwererequiredfbrtheacmaladmnistrationofthe

experimentalprotocol・Studyparticipants(andthesmdentactorswhorecorded
thedialogues)we1℃compensatedfbrtheirtime.
RESULTS

mo1℃economcalpath.Thus,acrossthethreepresentationorders,eachinteF

Thefactthatthestudyparticipantswerehomogenousintennsofage(seethetumsilenceappearedineachpositionanequalnumberoftimes,butnotevery
SpeechAct×Gapcombinationwasheardineverypossibleposition.

Participantssection)andthatexploratoryanalysisrevealedthattheirgenderhad
nosignificanteffectontheirjudgmentsofthesilences‑FI1,218)=0.896,

fbrrelevantvariables.Keyinteractionsandmajor6ndingsarethenexploredin
subsections. Ibreaseofpresentation, theinteIatumsilencelengthvariableis
rei℃rredtoas"gap;'andthesequencetype(requestorassessment) isreferredtoasspeechacピ，
TheANOVAindicatedstatisticallysignificantmaineffects fbrthethree

independentvariables:gap,F(2,438)=529.76,p<.011 1anguagegoup,F(2,219)=51.82,p<.01; andspeechact,FI1,219)=50.32,p<.01.Theinteractionofgapandlanguagegroupwasstatisticallysignificant,FI4,438)=
10.57,p<.015asweretheinteractionsofspeechactandlanguagegroup,FI2,219)=44.54,"<.01; andgapandspeechact,F(2,438)=3.21,p<.01.

着①ｇのｇ静図協⑳習二冒も品星話﹄馬①富〃s‑analysesreportedheredonotincludegenderorageascovariates､41nthe
remainderofthissection, therefbre,wereportresultsfifomanomnibusanalysis
ofvariance(ANO,瓜), includingcalculationandinterpretationofeffect size

５４３２１

ジグZ

タダノ

一子

一壬

I

一子

□0，s

I
600ms

‐T̲．

I

■1200，sT，

丁Therewasnothree‑wayinteraction(p=.381).

EfMectsizeisonewayofestimatingthecontributionofaparticularfactorto
anobservedeffect.AlthoughdleANOVAindicatedstatisticallysignificantmain
andtwo‑wayinteractioneffectsfbrall threeindependentvariables, theeffectsizes,calculatedusingpartialeta‑squared(り;),fbrGap×Language(り;=.08)
andGap×Act (";=.01),weresmall.Althoughinterpretationofeffectsizes

japaneSe

AmericanltalianLanguageGroup

FIGURE1 Effbctofinlel>tumsilencelengUlonjudgmen1sofspeakers'agreemenlandcompliance(errorbarsrepresentslandarderrorofthemean).

ismadecautiouslylsubjecttoseveral limitations(Cohen, 1988), itdoesappear

thatgaplength(17;=.70)andlanguagegroup(り;=.32)confributelarge
percentages(70%and32%,respectively)oftheoverallvariance・Speechactaccountsfbr19%(り;=19)andSequence×LanguageGIFoupis29%(り:=.29)

Althoughthesevaluesarenotadditive(i.e､,partialeta‑squareddoesnotprovide
estimatesthatsumto100%), theynonethelessprovideanindicationofthe

contributionofeachfactor(orinteraction)asifitweretheonlyvariable(Ybung,1993).ThesalientresultfromtheeffbctsizecalculationsisthatinteFmmsilence

length(gap)has,byfal;thestrongesteffectonstudyparticipants'ratingsofan
addressee'swillingnesstocomplywithrequestsandagreewithassessments.

American, ltalian,andJapaneseRatersAIIJudgedLonger

SilencesMoreNegatively,butDifferedSufficientlytoSuggest
DisparateCulturalOrientationstothelnter‑TumSilences

AsFigurel illustrates,regardlessoflanguagebackground, all ratersjudged
speakerstobelesswillingtocomplywithrequestsoragreewithassessmentsthe
longerthespeakerpausedbefbreagreeing:lineartrend,FI1,219)=794.08,p<.01.Thisindicatesthat,acrossall threelanguagegroups, thereisadecreasing
senseofspeakeragreementorcompliancewithincreasedsilence.

4WetestedlhisusingananalysisofcovariancemodelwiUlall levelsofsilencelengthandspeech
actaswithin‑SuhiectSvariableS, 1anguagegroupasabetween‑subiectvariable,andgenderandage
ascovariates．

TheeffectoflanguagegoupisalsosalientinFigurel.Overall, IheJapanesesmdyparticipantsratedthespeakersasmoreagreeablethaneithertheltalianor
theAmericanparticipants.Between‑groupsdifferenceswerestatisticallyreliableinpo砿hoccomparisons(Bonferroni‑corrected)acrossallgapconditionswhen
comparingtheJapaneseandAmericangroups(Mdif｢=0.721,p<.01)andtheJapaneseandltaliangroups(Mlim=0.935,p<.01)TheonlystatisticallyreliablemeandifferencebetweentheAmericanandItalianraterswasinthe

600msgapcondition(Mdiil･=0.46,"<.01).
ThedistinctlydifferentratingsbetweentheJapaneseandtheothergroups
suggeststhatwhatconstitutesG6agreeable'' inthecontextofconversationalgaps
iscalibratedslightlydifferentlyfbrthem, andthat theymaybeenteringthe
scaleatadifferentpoint.Thestatisticallyreliabledifferencesbetweenallthreegronpsinthe600msgapconditionsuggeststhataroughlylbsgapmaybe
enoughtodistinguishculturaldifferences inorientationtointer‑mrnsilence.
ltalianRatersJudgedtheSmaller lnter‑TurnGapsasMore
Problematic,WhereastheJapaneseJudgedtheLonger
Inter‑TumGapsasMoreProblematic
Tbfilrtherexploretheinteractionofgaplengthandlanguagegroup,weexaminedratergjudgmentsoftheinteFturnsilenceswithintheirlanguagegroupandthen
comparedthegroupsdescriptively.Mostnotableisthecomparisonbetweenthe

344

RoBERTs,MARGuTTI,TnKANo

PERcEPTIoNoFINIER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

JapaneseandtheItalianraters.AsvisualizedinFigurel, themagnitudeofthe
drOpinratingsbytheItaliansfromOmsto600msisdoublethatoftheJapanese,
whereasthedropinratingsfbrtheJapaneseisdoublethatoftheltalianswhen

comparingthe600msandl200msgaps.Thispattemofdifferenceratings
pointstothepossibilitythatthedifferentlanguagegroupsdonotsimplydiffbr
inwheretheyenterthescaleof"agreeableness;'butmayalsohaveMferent
thresholdsatwhichtheyfindsilenceproblematic.

345

Althoughthecomparisonofraters'judgmentsofthespeechacttypesmay
beobscuredbythesemanticsofthediHeI℃ntresponsetokens, theresultfbr
therequestconditionberwee"thethreelanguagegroupsisclear: articipants'
ratingsaresignincantlydifferent,FI2,221)=102.731,p<.01‑afindingthat
wasreliableinallposthocpairwisecomparisons.ThismaylenectdiHerent
underlyingculturalorientationstocompliancewimrequestsingeneral,butthis
isaninitialspeculationandremainstobesystematicallyexploredinfilrther
studies.

Insum,whatseems;tobedrivingtheinteractioneHectofsequencetype4mericans, ltalians,andJapaneseRespondSlightly
DifferentlytotheSequenceTypes(Requestsvs.ASsessments)
AumqueconmbutionofourapproachtothevalenceofinteFtumsilencewas

andlanguagegloupisthefactthat(a)meJapaneseparticipantsratedrequests
andassessmentsquitedifferently;and(b)betweenthethreelanguagegroups,
primarilyI℃questswereratedsignificantlydifferentlyhPomonegrouptothenext.

toexaminetheeffectsofsequencetype("speechact'')onratergjudgments・Be‑
causemostprior1℃searchongapsinconversationissituatedintheenvironment●

ofquestion‑asking(factual/triviaquestions),wechosetomanipulatethestakes
ofthefacethI℃atbyusingmorenaturalistic,collaborative,andconsequentialsocialactions.TbfUrtherre6neourunderstandingofthesignificantmaineffectofspeechactandtheinteractionofspeechactandlanguagegroup,weexplored
diMr℃ncesandsimlaritieswithineachcondition.

Overall,ratersjudgedthe1℃questsequencesassoundingmoreagreeable(i.e､，
theratingsweregenerallyhigherinthiscondition;seeThblel),butonlythe
Japaneseratedequestssubstantiallyhigherthanth可didassessments(MdifT=

1.04,p<.01).Ibrallofthegroups,thisislikelyduetothe1℃lativestl℃ngthof
theagreementcarriedinthedifferenttokens(.Gsure''vs. .@yeah;'aswediscuss
furtherlater).

TABLE1

andforEachSequenceType
Assess伽e"魅S"""陸"g油
0，s

600，s

l200ms

T11isstudywasdesignedtoexaⅡmetheerectofinteFtumsilenceandsequencetype(speechact)onnativespeakers'judgmentsofanaddressee'swillingness
tocomplywithrequestsoragrEewithassessments.WetestedmrtheseeHects
acrossidentical .Cfriendlytelephoneconversationg'whichweIcidiomaticallytranslatedfiOmAmericanEnglishfbrItalianandJapanesestudyparticipants.
Thelimtationsofthisexploratoryexperimentalapproachareacknowledgedandaddressed,butwebeginwiththestrengthsofourdesign,adiscussionofthemain

6ndings,andtheirrelevancefbrbuildingI℃searchthatcouldhelpsynthesizethe
contributionsofcognitiveandsocialapproachestodiscoursesmdies.
T11ebasisfbrtheexperimentaldesignwastheempiricallyderivedmm‑taking
modelasdescribedinSacksetal. (1974).Empmcal esearchbasedonthat
modelindicatesbothapreferencefbrprogessivityintalk(Stivers&Robinson,2006)andthatgapsarisinginthecontextofconditionalrelevance(utterances
designedfbIjandexpecting,responsesofsomesort)willproveproblematicfbr

MeanRatingsfOrEachLanguageGroupatEachinter‑TurnSilenceLength
REq町錨応伽花展励mDISCUSSION

speakers(Davidson,1984;Pomerantz,1984).Whatthepriorresearchcouldnot
helpustoteaseapartistheextenttowhichthisperceptionof.Gtrouble"wouldbe
trulyuniversal(allspeakersrespondingthesametothesamesilencelengths)or
relative(culturalgroupsdisplayingdifferentnonns),orwhethertherewassome"gnage〃〃SD

Japanese
English

80

4．08

1．61

5.26

0．70

70

3．96

1．05

4.14

0．98

ltaIian

72

3．92

1．15

4.21

0．96

Japanese
English

80

3.56

1．07

4.40

1.20

70

2.89

0．99

3.04

0.73

control fbravarietyofacoustic, thematic,andspeechactfactorssothatwe
couldexplorepotentialrelationsamonglanguage/culturalgroup,sequencetype,

1曲1i釦n

72

2.63

0.83

2.38

0.99

andintersturnsilence.

Japanese
English

80

2.10

0.93

3.23

1.22

70

2.10

0.75

2.17

0.85

I哩lian

72

2.01

0.79

1.82

0.90

AmongtheAmerican, Italian,andJapaneseundergraduatesmdentsinour
sample, lengthoftheinteFtumsilentgapmatters・Acmsslanguagegroups,thelongertheinterztumsilencelength,thelowerthemtingsofwillingnesstocomply〃SDintersectionofthesetwodimensions.Ouraim, therefbre,wastomaximally

346

RoBERTs,MARGuTn,TnKANo

withrequestsoragreewithassessments.Thissupportsemergingevidenceofa
widelysharedsocialorientationtosilenceasproblematic(Stiversetal.,2009).
AsociallyorientedtheoIymightpositthatapreferencefbrprogressivityinconversationiswhatunderliesthisGcdistaste''fbrthegrowingsilence.AmoI℃
individualistic(cognitive)theorywouldclaimthatelapsedtimereHectssearching
andmonitoringactivityasparticipantsspinoutatmbutionsintheirmnds.We
underscol巳theargumentpresentedelsewhere(e.g.,Clark,1996;IEvinson,2006)
thatthesearecomplementarydimensionsofanalysisandshouldnotbeeitheIOr
explanations・Theselevelsmustbeintegratedinfiltureresearchasdiscourse
scholarsbecomemorefamiliarwithandfindwaystoexploreandtestthenotion
ofasociallyembeddedinteractionengine(Levinson,2006).Thisstudyprovides
aninitialstepinthatdirection.
Despitethenegativejudgmentsoflongersilencesacrosslanguagegroups,
resultsalsoindicatethattheAmerican,Italian,andJapaneseratersdifferedin
theirtolerancefbrthedifferentgaps.Byroﾉem"ce,wesimplymeanthatratings
differbetweenlanguagegroupsinawaythatrenectsslightlydiHel℃ntunderlying
expectationsfOragreement(amongpeers, inthisstudy)andfbrtherapiditywith
whichagreement isoffered.TheJapaneseaverageratingswereconsistently
highestonratingsofwillingnessandagreement, theltalianstendedtogivethe
lowestratings,andtheAmedcanjudgmentsweregenerallyinbetween(althoughtendingclosertomeltaliangoup'sratings).
Analternativeexplanationfbrthedifferentratingsamonggroupswouldbe
basedonanassumptionthatthedifferentlinguisticstructuresofthelanguages
diHerentiallystallap呵ectablepossiblecompletionpoint(Schegloげetal.,
1996).Brienyjp呵ectabilityrefers tothehearer'sabilitytoanticipatethat
aparticulartypeofutteranceisunfOlding.Becausethet"getstimuli inall
ofthelanguagesweresimilaronthisdimension(seeAppendixB),wewere
confidentthatresponsestotheinteraturnsilenceswerenotbasedondiHerential
syntacticprocessingoftheutteranceunderway.Wesuggest, therefOre, that
prqjectabilitybeingequal inmesedialoguesitistheintefmmsilenceitself
thatisdrivingthedisparityinjudgments,nothesitationduetocompletionof
syntacticprocessing.
Thus,anygoupdistinctioninodentationtosilenceisnotaboutdifferential
needfbrsyntacticprocessingbasedonfbnnalfeaturesofthelanguage,butabout
culturalexpectationsfbrthespeedwithwhichagreementisoffered.Ifthereis
abaselinesensethatagreement isexpected(e.g., intheJapanesecontext), it
makessensethatmtingsofwillingnessandagreementamongtheJapanesearelessattenuated,aswefbund,fiPomOmsto600ms.Conversely,ifthereisless
expectationofagreement,thenassoonassomesilenceisheard,judgmentsare
aHectedandanyadditional increments,althoughstillnegativelyvalenced,are
perhapslessmarked(e.g.,intheItaliancontext,aswefbund).Thispatternmerits
filrtherinvestigationusingadditional,andincremental,lengthsofsilence.Inthis

PERcEFIToNoFINTER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

347

wayj itmghtbepossibletogetasenseofadoseresponseandtomo1℃finely
tunetheoverallnndingofculturallydifferentiatedresponsepatternswithina
universallyobvioussenseofdecreasingagreement.
Thefactthataddresseegresponsestorequestswe1℃ratedasrefiectinggreater

willingnessthanresponsestoassessments isbestexplainedbythefact that
theirresponsetotherequests("sure'') isastrongerfbrmofagl℃ementthzm
meresponseusedfbrtheassessments(@.yeah'';onthefilllcharacterofweak
ageements,seeDavidson,1984,andPomerantz,1984).Thus,althoughthe

responsetokenswereprosodicallysimilal;theyweresemanticallydistinct・We
cannotconclusivelystatethat itwas thesequentialenvironment itself(theconditionalrelevancesetupbytherequestortheassessment)thatwasdriving

theperceptions・ Itcouldwellbethattheweakerfbrmofagreement,whichis
broaderinscope, isalsomoreambiguousand,thelEfbre,didnotelicitequallystrongpositiveresponses.

ItisalsopossiblethattheJapanesestudyparticipantSsignificantlyhigher
ratingsofthe.@sure"condition("yoinJapanese)issimplyreflectinganevenstrongerdistinctionbetweenthetokens"yoandso血〃ethanfbrtheEnglish.@sure''and@Gyeah''orItaliance"oandsi. Itwouldbepossibletoretestthe
findingsaboutsequencetypeusingparalleltennsfbrEnglishandltalian(e.9.,･､yeah''and"si"fbrbothrequestsandassessments),butitwouldbeharderto
matchthemprosodically.FbrJapanese,othertokenssuchas@@eh''mghtbe
appropriatefbrgaugingresponsetosequencetypewithoutriskofconfbunding
fromthesemanticsoftheagreementtokens・ThisisclearlyanareafbrfUrther
explorationwithineachlanguage.

Whetherthesequencetypesweretappingasemanticdifference(basedon
lcsponsetoken)orapragmaticdiHerence(basedonassessmentvs. request
condition)orevenadiHerenceinfacethreat, itisimportanttonotethatthe

requestsnotonlyreceivedconsistentlyhigherratingsacrossallgroupsandgap
lengths,buttheyalsoweremoredistinctivebetweengroups.Becauserequests
canbeconsideredface‑thl巳ateningacts(i.e., inBrown&Levinson's, 1987,
terms,athreattonegativefaceorthedesirefbrautonomy),studyparticipants
mayberenectingculturalattitudesaboutnotinfringingonothers'autonomy.
Asamoreobviousthreat,thismayhavebeenamoresalientconcernthanthat

representedinthethI℃atposedbyanassessment(i.e.,agreementwithanother's
opinion).
Insum, thesomewhatmurlWresultsfbrspeechactopenupthepossibinty
fbrhlrtherclarincationoftherelativeweightofthethreatposedbytheutterance
versusthesemanticsoftheresponse・Becauseallresponseswereaffinnative,
wewereabletoisolatetheerectoftheinter‑mmsilence,whichwasclearly

themostpowerfulfactorcoloringstudyparticipants'judgments;howeveri thequestiondoesremainopenastotheroleoftheresponsetokenitselfinshading
responsetothesequencetypes.

348

RoBERIs,MARGuTn,TAKANo

Givenournndingmatratingsaremoresimlarbetweenall languagegroups
atl200msthanat600ms,thereis easontoconsiderJefferson's(1989)
proposalof"approximatelyl3(sherecognizedaspanfiomO.9s-1.2s)asa
possiblemaximumfOrsilenceinconversation・Howevel;becauseoursilences

weremachinetimed(andJeffersonwasusingananalogueprocedure,measuringsilenceinI℃lationtothesurroundingtalk),itmaybethatinabsolutetennswe
overshotthemark.InasmuchastheItalianandAmericanratingsweresimilaI;
andtheJapaneseratingsremainedsignificantlydifferentfrombothofthosegroups,wedonotyetseestrongsupportfbrtheproposal.

ChallengesforCross‑LinguisticStudyofDiscourse
Thereal巳numerousweaknessesinanyexperimentalstudyofhumansocialin‑teraction.Onecannotcontrolfbrallofthenatural,in‑the‑momentinventivenessandcomplexityofrealconversation,particularlyinacross‑linguisticstudy.One
canraisequestionsabouttherepresentativenessofthestudypopulation(un‑dergraduatestudents),voicecomparabilityoftherecordedspeakers,recognize
possiblediHel℃ncesinculturalprefeI巳nce/aversiontothetypesofrequestsand
assessmentsbeingmade,andconsiderwhethertruetranslationofbasedialogues
fromEnglishtotheotherlanguagesisevenpossible・Allofthesecaveatsare
implicitinourdiscussionof6ndingsandasUmitstotheirgeneralizability.
Indeed,onecouldarguethattherobustresultconcemingdifferentcultural
responsestosilencecouldsimplybeanartifactofthemethod;althoughthe
dialogueswereparallelintermsofsemanticcontent, thequalityofthevoices
ofthediHerentspeakersinthediffもrentlanguagesmayhavehadsomeeffect.
Unfbrtunately,thereisnobodyofacousticsliteraturecomparingissuesofc@tone''(e.g.,hiendlinessofvoice)intheselanguages,norsufficientresearchonwhat
suchacousticcorrelatesmghtbefbreachlanguage.Thus,researchersmust

PERcEFTIoNoFINTER-TuRNsIIENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

349

Japaneseisamora‑timedlanguage,Englishisstress‑timedlanguage,andltalianisgenerallyconsideredasyllable‑timedlanguage;butsuchclassificationsaI℃
notuncontroversial(seeHetch"2010).5
Fromourvantagepointasscholarsoflanguageandsocial interaction, themajorweaknessofthisstudyistheI℃lianceoncontrivedconversationsand
assessmentofexternalperceptions(listenerjudgments),ratherthanintemally
motivatedanalysesofnaturalinteraction､恥recognizethatourapproachisnot
asubstitutefbrtheintemalproofproceduresofqualitativeanalysis(Heritage,1995)andthatwetreaddangerouslybytreating"sequencetype"･(requestandassessment)asanabstractcategory(i.e.,aspeechact),ratherthanasaparticularandrealcourseofaction(seeSchegloffl995,pp.xxviii‑xxix).
Howeveriwithintheconfinesoftheexperimentalmethod,wehaveworked

togroundthedesigninnndingsfiPomsmdiesoftalk‑in‑interactionandbased
thematerialsonactualtelephonecalls.Ouraimwastoinvestigateameasurable
andmanipulableaspectoftheoperationoftheturn‑takingmachinery(gaps)
withinspecinccoursesofaction;wewerenotattemptingtoprovideanaccountoranalysisofthecourseofactionitselfWefbrced,infact,aparticularhearing
ofthesilences‑oneinwhichagreementwasatstakeratherthan,fbrexample,
friendlinessorthoughtfillnessorcomfortorcomprehension・Wemakenoclaim
thatdisagreement istheonlyinterpl℃tationthatsmdyparticipantsmghthave
conjuredfromthesilence.

CONCLUSION

Thereisastrikingoverallsimilarityofjudgmentsinresponsetointer壱tumsilenceacrossAmerican,Italian,andJapaneseraters,yettherearealsocompelling6ne‑

untilthereare, ifever, reliablecross‑culturalmeasuresoftheparalinguistic

graineddifferencesbetweenthegroups. 'IhislendssupporttofUrtheringthe
investigationofthecomplexinterrelationamongcognition,socialpractices,anddiscourseprocesses(see,加陀rα"α,Gee,1992;Lave&Wegneril991;Levinson

correlatesofspeakeraHect.

&En6eld,2006;Ochs, 1996;Rogoffl990; fbrdiscussionsofusage‑based

AsnotedintheMethodsectionoverview,onlyamatched‑guiseapproach
usingmlingualactorsmighthaveaddl巳ssedsuchconcernsaboutparalinguistic

approachestocmss‑linguisticstudiesoflanguageuniversals,seeSidnell,2007,

privilegetheirnativespeakerauditoryperceptionoveracousticmeasurements

comparabilityibuteventhat techniqueisnotpeIfect (Bradacetal.,2001).
MultilingualspeakersmaynothavefUllcommandovertheiramelctiveorientation

tothelanguagestheyspeakandmayitheI℃fbre,havedifferencesofHuencyor
vocalqualityinthevariousguisesth可a1℃askedtoperfbnn,whichthencan
afFectheaIerjudgments.

ThemostrElevantandpotentiallyfeasiblecomparisontomake,giventheaims
ofthisstudy,wouldbetoassessspeakingratesbecauseasilencemightsoundlongorshortdependingonthespeedofthesun･oundingtalk.Howev"speaking
ratesarecalculatedondifferentunitsofanalysisfbrthelanguagesinthisstudy:

andTbmasello,2003).
5BecauseltalianandEnglishaIE, theolEtically,comparableonsyllableunits,wecalculated
Speechrates,""r加c, fbrtheEnglishandllalianspeakersinourstimuli・T11eywerelCmarkably
similar:319syllablesperminuteand336syllablesperminute,respectively(usingameasureof
speaking園に,notaniculationrate.)AIthoughwecannotcompaIBthistoaJapaneSelateofspeechmeasum,wecansaythat thesamesemanlicconにntwaspmducedbylhatspeakerinmughly
thesameamounloftimeaslhellalianrateofspeech(7.35sand6.22s,IEspeclively.)UItimately,
hOweve風misanalysisisvacuousbecause山eAmericansonlyused4.8slopmducethesamesUEtch

oftalk,yettheirrateofspeechisihesameastheltalians・T11us,fiomvariousvantagepoints,speechrateisapmblemaUccomParison.

350

PERcEFTIoNoFINTER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs

RoBERrs,MARGuTrTI,TAKANo

Clearly,somethinggeneralizedabouthumanperceptualprocessinggenerates
anobservable-reportablephenomenonofsilenceas indicativeoftroublein
conversation.Intum,thevalenceofthatsilence(asgood,bad,long,orshort)is,ashasbeenaIgued,culturallyconditioned・ThistypeofPan‑human,ontologicalbasisfbrsocialcueshasbeenstronglyarguedbyresearchersofnon‑vocal

conmnunication, as in(albeitcontroversial)proposalsontheuniversalityof
several facialdisplaysofemotion(Ekman,Sorenson,&Friesen, 1969), thedeploymentofwhichisnonethelessgovernedbyculturaldisplayrules(e.g.,
Ekman&Friesen,1975;Saami,1993).

TblerancefOrsilenceis,ofcourse,adynamicfactorthatwillsignincantly
varydependingonthetypesofcommunicativeactivitiesunderwayandthe
identitiesbeingenactedinandthroughthedeploymentofsilence・Althoughweassumethatnormsareilexibleanddeployable‑avoidableonan@Gasneededbasis''asresourcesfbraccomplishingandenactingidentityandsolidarity,wealsomaintainthatthereisroomfbrconsideringthemoreuniversalorgeneralized
cognitiveunderpinningsofthesepractices.Thisstudyallowsustomovebeyond
descriptivecomparisonsbetweenlanguagestoapositionwherethe@@adaptations
andinliection¥ofgenericfeaturesoftalk‑in‑interaction(Sidnell,2007,p.230)
canbespecincallyexamined・Thisinvolvesbreakingdowntheartincialboundary
betweensocialandcognitive.Althoughitmaybesomewhattidiertostudythem
separatelyb thatbifilI℃ationisdiHiculttomaintainaswemovetowardmore
comprehensiveunderstandingsofhumancommunicationintennsofdiscourse
processesandprocessing.

REFERENCES

Andersen,RA.(1999).""o"ve心αIcomm""ic"わ":励向"＄α"d血"c"o"3.MoulltainView,CA:
Mayneld.

Basso,K. (1970). 'Ibgiveuponwords:SilenceinWestemApacheculture.Sひ"油w 花"'ん"、
qfA"山、"りん8)I26,213‑230.
Bazzanella,C. (2002).IEvocidelsilenzio[Wicesofsilence}.InC.Bazzanella(Ed.),SJfﾉdmJngo.
αm""eん""ed""花畑抑"e''9心qlelOndialogue.Contextsandsirucluresofverbalinteraction}(pp.35‑44).Milano,Italy:EdizioniAngeloGuerinieAssociatiSpA.
Bradac,J.J.,CaIgile,A.C.,&Halelt, J. (200i).Languageattiludes:Retrospecl,conspect,and

pmspect.InH.Gilcs&RRobinson(Eds.),所e〃 '伽"必ookqf"'Ig"ge"""ci(""鋤'cjio/og)'(pp.137‑155).ChichestCnUK:Wiley.

Brennan,S.E､,&Williams,M.(1995).Thefeelingofanolher'sknowing:Prosodyandnlledpauses
ascuestolisにncIsaboutlhemetacognitivestatesofspeakers.Jb"'w"Iqf"e"lon'&""g"ge,
34,383‑398．

351

Chomsky,N・ (1995).7Wemm"α雌rpmgmm.BOsIOn,MA:MITREss，
qancy,RM. (1986). 'I11eacquisilionofcommunicativeslyleinJapanese. InB.B.Schieffelin&E.E.Ochs(mS.),""g"gesoc"""加卯αcm"""mm(pp.213‑250).Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUniverSityPIess.

Clark,H.(1994).Managingpmblemsinspeaking.""cha"1,脚"た"わ",ノ5,243‑250.
CIark,H.(1996).""8〃"g"ge.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniveIsityPI℃ss・
Cohen,J. (1988).Sm応『たα/powerα"α なんrlhebehaWO"Igcie"c"(2nded.).Hillsdale,NJ:
Lawr巴nceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Davidson,J.(1984).Subsequentversionsofinvitations,oHers,I℃quests,andpmposalsdealing
withpoにnlialoractual Iqeclion. InJ.M.AtkinSOn&J.Heritage(Eds.),Srr"cJ"r"呼ぶ
αc"o"fSr"""mco"vema"o"α"αlysir(pp. 102‑128).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUnivelsity
P雁ss･

Ekman,R,&Friesen,WV; (I975).【伽m"kinglhe"ce;Afe"8"tだ""cog"iZi"gemorio"

伽ﾉ"んciqJc伽".EnglewoodCliffb,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Ekman,R,SoI℃nson,E.R.,&Friesen,WVB (1969).Pan‑cultumlelementsinfacialdisplaysof
emolions.SCie"",ノ64,86‑88.

Hetchel;J. (2010).T11epmsodyofspeech: 'IImingandrhythm. InWJ.Hardcastle,J.Laveri&
EE.Gibbon(Eds.),刀'e""dbookq/p加"創施 た"cEJ(pp.523‑602).Malden,MA:Blackwell.
1℃x'nEe,J.E.(2002). Intemretingpausesand"mJattumexchanges.DiSco""ePmce"",34,
37−55．

Garfinkel,H・ (1967).S"I"j"j〃〃A"ome"lomJ｡gy・EnglewoodClifrS,NJ:PI℃mticeHaⅡ、Gee,J.R(1992).7hesocmImmdtlpndon,UK:BeIgin&Garvey.
GlucksbeIB,S.,&McCloskey,M.(1981).Decisionsaboutignorance:Knowingthatyoudon'tknow.
"脚mqI"ExpeJfme"InIRSyc加jogy:"""mα〃陸α、伽gα"dMemoJX7,311‑325．
Goodwin,C. (2002).ConversalionalfiamewoIksfbr山eaccomplishmentofmeaninginaphasia.
InC.Goodwin(Ed.),α"ve応 わ〃αndbm腕血加age(pp､90‑116).NewWrk,NY:OxfbId
UniversityPress.
Heritage,J.(1984).GQ板"keノα"de肋"⑥melho"jOgjLCambridge,UK:WlityREss・
Herilage,J. (1995).Conversationanalysis:Memodologicalaspects.InU.M.QuasthoiT(Ed.),A""""omlco"""ic"jO"(pp.391418).Berlin,Germany:deGnlytem

HoPper,R.(1992).泥j〃Ao"ecomjem"iO".Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniveIsiWPI℃ss・
JawOrSki,A.(Ed.).(1997).S""":"re㎡厳c加ﾉ伽α"pempecrives.Berlin,Germany:deGruytert

JeHEISon,G.(1989).PIEliminalynolesonapossiblemetricwhichprovidesfbra44standardmaxi‑
mum''silenceofappmximatelyonesecondinconversation.InD・Roger&RBull(Eds.),α"‐ve""iO":A〃〃"errfi""1伽αﾉypeﾉ"""ve(pp.166‑196).Clevedon,UK:MulUlingUalMatterS.
Lambert,W,Hodgson,R.,GaIdllerbR.,&Fillenbaum,S. (1960).Evaluationall℃actionstospoken
languages.Jひ脚"ifIIqfA6"o"" α"dSociqJRsycholog)460,44 51.
Lave,J.,&Wegner,E.(1991).S""""J"加加gfLeg"""epe"hemJpα"jc叩α"o"・Cambridge,
UK:CambridgeUniversityPreSS.
Lehtonen,J.,&Sajavaara,K・ (1984).ThesilentFinn. InD.Thnnen&M.Saville‑'n℃ike(Eds.),"mpeαﾊ'"o"s""ce(pp・ 193‑201).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Ifmel;G.(1996).Finding"face'' inlhepIEferencestrucmresoftalk‑in‑interaction."c"IRsycA⑥ノー
ogyQ""e"59,303‑321.
Levinson,S.C.(1983).Pmgmq"".Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPI℃ss・
Levinson,S.C(2006).Onthehuman.Gintelactionenginej'InS.C.IEvinson&N.J.Enneld(Eds.),
RDofsqf伽"I"3 c伽"〃(pp.39‑69).Oxfbrd,UK:Berg.

Brown,R,&IEvinson,S.(1987).RDI"""s:So"肥M"h，e（αなi〃〃"g"(Jge""ge.Cambridge,UK:

Levinson,S.C.,&Enneld,N.J.(Eds.). (2006).Roo"qfhumα"socml"Oxfbrd,UK:BeIg.

CambridgcUnivCrsilyPresS.
BuIgoon,J．K.,Bullcl;D.B.,&Gucn℃ro,L.K. (1995). Inlelpemonilldcccplion: IX､En℃ctsof
sociaiskillandnonverbalcommunicalionondeceptionsucccs5anddclcclionaccuracy.JDJ"γMI
qf""g"geq"daﾉc"IPsychologji/4,289‑311.

Maynald,D.W,&Clayman,S.E.(1991).T11ediversityofethnomethodology.A""

ﾉReviewqf

釦cわんg)；ノ7,385‑418.

MOnzoni,C.M. (20").DoItalians ･oplcfer''disagrBeing？Someintemctional fEatu1℃sofdispu‑
tational talkinltalianmulti‑partyfamilyinteraction. InK.AUmer(Ed.),UU"de晒如"dmgmld

Ｊ■０町■■■もＩ卜ｂ０■ＪｂＢ・０１りりＯ１４ｂ４Ｉ日ｆｌＩ４

352

RoBERIs,MARGuTIT,TAKANom "火JWn"dj"g伽 jalog"e.Sel"ledpqpe庵加mlhe8肋肌DAco"吹肥"ce,G"IEbojg2"ノ(pp､ 119‑130).TYibingen,Gemany:MaxNiemeyerWrlag.
Monzoni,C.M.(2007).D坤幽､rわ舵αI、雌加加地〃mlJ"i･perso"たmily加花、α"".Unpublishedmanuscript,Universityof恥【k,UKMori,J.(1999).Wo""'tgng"e"zenm" disqg"emem伽血p esaa""""vee"ﾉ s""sα
畑、‑ 砥 αわ".Philadelphia,PA:JohnBenjamins.
Nakane,I. (2006).SilenceandpolitenessininteI℃ultumlcommunicationinuniversitysemina応．
ん趾mal"Pagmarim,38, 1811‑1835.
Nelson,'m(1993).MemcOg""わ":α花肥qdi"83.EnglewoodCliHS,NJ:PIenticeHall.
NwOyC,G･ (1985).EIoqucntsilenceamongtheIgboofNigcria､ InD．通nnen＆M､Saville‑Tmike(Eds.),姥ｸ"ecriveso"s"""(pp.185‑191).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Ochs,E.(1996).Linguisticresourcesfbrsocializinghumanity.InJ.J.GumpeIz&S.C.Levinson(Eds.),Re油加kmg伽g測鰄に膨伽M"(pp.407437).CambIidge,UK:CambridgeUniversity
HEss・"merantz,A.(1984).AgI℃einganddisagI℃eingwilhassessments:SomefeamresofpIefenedノ
dispIE蛇ITedtumshapes. InJ.M.Atkinson&J.Heritage(Eds.),SIIwcIJ"rsqfsocinIααわ"：S""""colwers"わ"α"αlysir(Pp.57‑101).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversiWPress.
Roberts,E,Fmncis,A.L.,&Morgan,M(2006). 'I11einteractionofinteremmsilencewithpmsodic
cuesinlistenerpeI℃eplionsof"trouble"inconveIsation."eecha醜腕""ic"わ",48, 1079‑1093.
Roberts,E,&Margutti,R(2008,Mal℃h).7We"emc"o"qf加陀脾卿r"s""",se9"e""0個e,α"dpmsodyi''America"andJmlin"peJ℃"rio''sqfr'U"ble伽加佗mam".PapCrprCscntcdatthe30th
annualconventionoftheAmericanAssociationofAppliedLinguistics,Washington,DC.
Roberts,E,&Robinson,J.D.(2004).Interobserveragreementonfirsl‑stageconversationanalytic
IIanscription.〃""、〃α、、脚"ic"jp"Resenfrh,30,376‑410.

Roberts,E,&Thkano,S・ (2007,May).TWe"erdαわ"ず加陀FII"TISiだ" α"dpmsoの伽Ame"cα〃α"d""esepe廊印fio"$qfr""b陀伽 emmわ".Paperpresentedatthe57thannualconvention
ofthelntemationalCommunicalionAssocialion,SanFrincisco,CA.
RogOmB.(1990).A"姥""c"坤加肋伽k"g:mg"i"yedeye"meminsociqIco'"exrbNewWIk,
NY:OxfbrdUniversityPI℃ss・
Saami,C. (1993).Socializationofemotion. InM.Lewis&J.M.Haviland(Eds.),"画"必ookqr

1

PERcEPIToNoFINTER-TuRNsILENcEAcRossLANGuAGEs(Eds.),"姻花兇加@"J⑥岬qfschool.""8"geα"。 肋ogmphySご"""2(pp. 88‑123).
Washington,DC:CenterfbrAppliedLinguistics.
Sidnell,J. (2007).CompaIativestudiesinconveIsationanalysis.A"""IRe'jiewqfA"伽UpomgM
36,229‑244．

Smilh,VGL.,&Clark,H.H. (1993).Onthecourseofansweringquestions. .bumdlqf""emoO'&
Zα"g"ageb32,25‑38.

Sodonen,M.(1996).OnIEpeatsandI℃sponsesinFmnishconveIsations・InE.Ochs,E.A.Scheglom&S.A.T11ompson(Eds.),〃だ、αわ"α"dgnmmar(pp.277‑327).Cambridge,UK:Cambridge
UniversityPI℃ss･

Stivers,．m,Ennelf;N.J.,Bmwn,R,Englert,C､,Hayashi,M.,Heinemann,T,etal.(2009).Universals
andcultumlvariationintum.lakinginconveIsation.P""edings可肋e""わ"αJAc"火皿yqf
Scie"ces,ノ06,10587‑10592.

Stivers,T,&Robinson,J.D. (2006).ApIeferencefbrpmgressivityininにmcUon.""gJJagem
釦c陀馴35,367‑392．

Tanaka,H.(2005).Grammarandlhe.@timing''ofsocialaction:WordoIderandpre企露nceoIgani‑zationinJapanese.""gJJagemSbc陀映34,389430.
Thnnen,D.,&SaviUe‑Thoike,M.(1985).姥『"ec"IJ"⑥〃siた"",Norwood,NJ:AbleX.

Tbmasello,M. (2003).Introducnon:Somesurprisesfbrpsychologists､InM.Tbmasello(Ed.),TWe"ewpsychoJbgyqfjα"g"g""g""jve"""ん"α""αla""""""jaJIg"ges""""(pp. 1‑14).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Tryggvason,M. (2006).Communicativebehaviorinfamilyconversation:Comparisonofamounl
oftalkinFmnish,SwedishFinnish,andSwedishfamilies.北幽malqfPqgmali",38, 1795‑
1810．

Watanabe,S・(1993).Culmraldiffelencesinframing:AmericanandJapanesegroupdiscussions.In
D.Thnnen(Ed.),Fmmmgindisco"me(pp. 176‑209).Oxfbrd,UK:OxfbrdUniversiWPress.

Ybung,M､A・(1993).Supplementingtestsofstatisticalsignificance:Wriationaccountedfb民"HmaIq/""ch&HewqingREs"Jrh,36,64

emoliO"(pp.435446).NewYbrk,NYhGuilfbId.
Sacks,H..ScheglOifE.A.,&Jeffemon,G. (1974).Asimplestsystematicsfbrtheorganizationof

mm‑takingfbrconveIsalion.""gHaga50,696‑735.
ScheglomE.A. (1972).Sequencinginconversationalopenings,InJ.J.Gumperz&D.H.Hymes(EdS.),DireC"OnSi"SOCjPl"g"iS""(pp､ 346‑380).NewYbrk,NYiHolt,Rinehart,&Winston.
ScheglofE.A. (1979). Identiiicationandrecognilioninlelephoneconversationopenings,InG.
Psathas(Ed.),EW""yl"g"gefS"di""erh"o畑師加dblogy(pp.23‑78).NewWrk,NY:
Irvington.

ScheglomE.A. (1992).Repairafiernextlum:Thelastsmlcmlallypmvideddefenseofintersub‑
jectivityinconversation.Ame雄α"ん切'7MIqrSひcわわgX97, l29S‑1345.
Scheglo氏E.A.(1995). Inlroduction.InG.Jefferson(Ed.),ZEcIwFso" " 応 わ"( l.1,pp.ix‑lxii).Cambridge,UK:Blackwell.
SchegloffE､A.,Ochs,E.,&T11ompson,S.A. (1996). Introduction. InE.Ochs,E.A.Schegloff&S､A.Thompson(Eds.),加陀、α"〃α"dgmmm"(pp､ 1‑51).Cambridge,UK:Cambridge
UniversityPI℃ss・
SchoberbM.E,&Bloom,J.E.(2004).Discoursecuesthatrespondentshavemisunderstoodsurvey
questions.DiSco測廊eP"""",38,287‑308.
Scollon,R.,&Scollon,S.B.K. (1979).""8"jSrにcom'erge"ce:A"e油"ogml'hy"""kmg"Fb"""eWα",AIberm.NcwYork,NY:Academic.

Shultz,J.J.,Rorio,S.,&Erickson,E(1982).Wherc'sthenoor?Aspcclsofthecultumlorganization
ofsocialmlationshipsincommunicationalhomeandinschool・ InRGilmoie&A.Glalthom

353

656.

APPENDIXA

ExamplesofaRequestandanAssessmentinEnglish
1． (Tblephonerings)
A：Hello？
B：Rachel？

A:Yeah,B:HWit'sme.
A:HW::How'sitgoin.
B:Good.I:justcalledthecopyshop,
A:uhhuh

B：A､:dmeHyersareready・Canyougivemearideoverthere？
A: Sure.

Question:HowwillingisRacheltogivehermendaride？
Scale:

1

2

3

4

5

6

一ｌｌｌｌｌ■６９ＩＩ０ｌⅡｇ０１１１ＰｉｐＥｐ００１ｂ■１００■６０■ＩｒｌＩⅡⅡ１１Ⅱｌ６Ｐ１ｔ■■ｒ１０１１５１口Ⅱ１９０日１０申０９９１７卜﹄ｈ

354

RoBERrs,MARGuTm,TAKANo

2. (Tblephonerings)
A：Hello？
B：Rachel？

A:Yeah,B:HWit'sme.
A:HW.::How'sitgoin.

０１４勺︲ｌ１︲１

B:Good.Ijustsawtheflyers.T11eylookprettygood
A:Yeah.

Question:HowmuchdoesRachelagreewithher髄endabouttheHyers？
Scale:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Dな

側応ePmcesses,48:355‑385,2011

認 Routledge

Copyright@Thylor&FrancisGmup,LLC

TEMor&Frand$Cmup

ISSN:0163‑853Xprintﾉ1532‑6950onlme
DOI： 10.108M163853X､2011.578910

AgreeorDisagree？
CognitiveProcessesinAnswering
ContrastiveSurveyQuestions
NaomiKamoen,BregjeHolleman,PimMak,
andTbdSanders

APPENDIXBExamplesofEnglish, ltalian,andJapaneseGIossesofTargeted

・蝿秘

軸︾︽︾︾

︾岬岬︾︾

皿確・唖呼彪

●猟

English:Canyougivemearideoverthere？
Italian:TYvadidarmlunpassaggioinmacchina？
Japanese:Kurumaninosetettekurenai？

Ｖ″肥ｊ祁

，，

Ｇ即

"IjustcalledthecopyshopandtheHyersaI℃eady...

眺咋︾・僻

l.Request

皿

RequestandAssessmentFormulations

Ｈ唖恥部町

Ur"cht FIs"鯉彪qfLi"8"is"csOrS〔ﾉr"ch!U""e応靭泓eⅣどrﾙe"α""2.Assessment
ツ，"Ijustsawtheflyers...
English:Th可lookprettygood.
Italian:Misembranobelli.

Japanese:YOkudekiteruyone.

Inallthreelanguages,thelistenercouldlikelyguessthatarequestiscomngpriortotheendofthetum. InEnglish, c･Canyougiveme…''prqjectsa
yes/norequestofsomesortearlyinthetum,asdothefOrmulations@.tivadi''(glossableas, @GIsitokay/convenientfbryou")inltalianandafter"nosete'' inJapanese(glossableasget/givearide).Likewise,fbrtheassessments, inltalianaher.｡misembrano…'' (glossableas..Seemstomep'), itcouldbeclearthat
anassessmentisbeingfbnnulated;andinJapanese,perhapsrightafter･.YOku''("Well"),butcertainlyafter"dekiteru''(@@beingdone").

Fromthis,weconcludethatprQjectability,fiPombothgrammaticalandprag‑
maticstandpoints,isequivalentinthethreelanguages.

SurveydesignershavelongassumedthatIBspondentswhodisa厚Eewithanegative
question(."rhispolicyisbad?': ltsor｣Ⅳり;2‑pointscale)wnlagreewithanequivalentpositivequestion("Thispolicyisgoodj，：姥sorⅣb;2‑pointscale).
Howeveriexperimentalevidencehasprovenotherwise:Respondentsaremore
likelytodisagIEewithnegativequestionsthantoagIeewithpositiveones.To
explaintheseresponseeHEctsfbrcontrastivequestions, thecognitiveprocesses
underlyingquestionansweringweIeexamined,Usingeyetracking, theauthors
showthatthe6rstreadingofthequestionandtheanswerstakesthesameamountoftimefbrcontrastivequestions･ThissuggeststhatthewordingeHectdoesnot
ariseinthecognitivestagesofquestioncomprehensionandattimdenetrieval.
Rereadingaquestionanditsansweringoptionsalsotakesthesameamountof
time,buthappensmoreoftenfbrnegativequestions・ThiseHEctislikelytoindica｡

amappingdifr℃nce:FittinganopiniontotheI℃sponseoptionsismoredimcult
fbrnegativequestions.

Corr巴spondenceconcemingthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoNaomiKamoen,U江BchtInstimte
ofLinguisticsOrS,Uh℃ChtUniveISity,Tmns lO,3512JKUnEcht,TTneNetherlands・EFmail：n.kamoen@uu.､I