this PDF file - Linguistic Society of America

Pragmatics
6:4.465-489.
International
Pragmatics
Association
AN INDECENT CALL FROM A MAN:
NARRATIVE AS REVELATION OF FRAMEWORK
Katsuya Kinjo
The
self
neither
preexists
all
'':1
;l#:"::?
\:'"i"ll";1,1"*",1;f
introjection of the interlocutor; but it
arises within conversation, because this
kind of dialogical acrion by irs very
nature marks a place for the new locutor
who is being inducted into it.
Charles Taylor, "The dialogical self'
0. Introduction
"[S]pe-aking
a languageis engagingin a rule-governedform of behavior.To put it
morebriskly,talkingis performingactsaccordingto rules."(Searle 7969:22)Speech
Act theoryhas demonstratedthat people perform suchvaried actionsas ordiring,
requesting,
apologizing,and promisingby uttering sentences(e.g.Come here!,Cin
you pass me tlrc salt?, I apologize,etc.) (Searle 7969,,r97g). Ricognition of such
varied actionsis made possiblethrough considerationof 'rules' involved in these
actions.However, what one does with words is not necessarilyrestricted to the
activitiesthat Searle identifies.What is overlookedin SpeechAct theory can be
clarifiedby considerationof such larger units of discourseas narratives.
The Labovian approach to narratives argues that narratives, the forms
recapitulatingthe speaker'spast experience,have their own structures:Abstract,
orientation,complicatingaction, evaluation,and coda (Labov and Waletzky 1967;
hbgY 1.972).Regarding the two functions of narratives,i.e. referential (to the
oulsideworld) and social/expressive,
Schiffrin(199ab)arguesthat "telling a story is
a form through which we displayour identity".What is unique in her discussionis
that this approachenablesone to analyzenarrativesnot only at the structure level
(as Laboviananalysis),but also at the level at which the narrator'sself is defined
"both by the individual_andby the culture in which he or she participates"(Bruner
1990:116).Identity,in Schiffrin'sdiscussion,
concernstwo kindl of selvesassociated
with the narrator,agentiveself and epistemicself,which contributeto the construct
of the speaker'spsychological
self.l
t
Th" dir.ursionon self hasreceivedattentionfrom variousfieldsincludinganthropology(e.g.
Geertz1973),philosophy,psychologl(e.g.Mischel ed. 1977),psychotherapyle.g.schafer
1gg2;
Spence1982),andsocialpsychology.
Sociaipsychologists
suchas Biuner (l9fi6, if"o;, Harr€ (rgg4,
466
Katsut'a Kinjct
While this line of argumentis useful,the goal of this paper is consideration
of how the narratorslocatethemselves
in their surroundings.
The key questionis,
therefore,how do narrativescontributeto displayspeakers'
orientations?
The utility
of this type of approachbecomesclearwhen comparedwith other approaches.
The
type of approach taken by ConversationAnalysis,for example, assumessocial
interactionto be structurallyorganized:
"all aspectsof social action and interaction can be examined in terms of conventionalised
o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e ds t r u c t u r a l o r g a n i s a t i o n sw h i c h a n a l y s a b l yi n f o r m t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n . . . .
T h e s e o r g a n i s a t i o n sa r e t o b e r e l a t e d a s s t r u c t u r e si n t h e i r o w n r i g h t w h i c h . . . s t a n d
indepcndently of the psychologicalor other characteristicsoI particular participants."
(Heritage 1989:22)
In such a view, the speaker'sself is not given importance.CA analysts'focus has
been on conversationas the manifestationof socialorder (Heritage 1984;Lee 1987;
Sacks1984).
On the other hand, as Schiffrin (199ab)points out, the Labovian approach
to narratives,althoughconsidering
them astransformation
of the speaker'spersonal
experience,missesthe dynamicview of self.Sociolinguistics
hasbeen assumingthat
most membersof a communityhavefixed identitiesrepresentedby such labelsas
Asian, Japanese,male,graduatestudent,etc. and investigates
the variationsfound
within a group.' Such categorizations
can be significantwhen studyingtraits of
people from a macro-pointof view, namely"what the speakeris,"but they do not
contributeto knowing"who the speakeris".What this paperwill suggestis a micropoint of view focusingon a communitymember'sself, "who the speakeris," by
1993), and Pottcr and Wetherell (1987) provide discussionson self with referenceto discourseand
narratives. In his overview of the tlevelopment of the notion of self in Western culture, Johnson
( 1 9 8 5 ) s u m m a r i z e sa v i e w o f s e l f a s a n i n t e r p e r s o n a lo r i n t e r s u b j e c t i v eu n i t t h a t c a n b e e x t r a c t e d
f r o m v a r i o u s t h e o r i s t sa n d d i s c i p l i n e s :
"Since the self is intersubjectiveand is scen in the phenomenological contexts of
a c t u a l e n c o u n t e r s ,i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n st a k e t h e f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d a r e
e m p i r i c a l l yp r e s e n ti n t h e g e s t u r a l ,s e m a n t i c a
, n d c o n t e x t u a lf c a t u r e so f e n c o u n t e r s
occurring within clr between one or more selves."(130)
In a recent study in linguistics,Senko K. Maynard (1993) discussesthe importance of the
interactional aspect of the self with referencc to L.S. Vygotsky and Japanesephilosopher, Tetsuro
Watsuji. Watsuji defines the Japaneseword ningen'humanbeings'in terms of both hilo 'person' and
yo no naka 'world', and clearly distinguishesit from such other words as anthropos, homo, man,
Mensch, etc. (Watsuii 193411963).
He "emphasizcsthat 'self cannot be defined without sufficiently
considering the social relationship betwecn the self and others, which in fact are delinable only in
their 'betweenness"'(Maynard 199-3:10). A similar view of Watsuji's 'betweenness'can be found in
Arendt (1958).
2
It i, significant here, especially in the case of Japaneseidentity, that Japanese themselves
promote such a view, leading eventually to the assumption that the "Japanese(language, people,
society) are very unique" (see for cxample, Maynard 1993 for criticism). Clanry (1986) argues from
a macro point of view that culture-specificpatterns of communication reflect fundamental cultural
beliefs. In this sense, to ask where the speaker's orientation is provides anolher viewpoint for
sociolinguistics and sociology of language.
Narrativeas rey,elationof frantew,ork 467
investigating how he or she locates self in a society by means of narratives.
In order to approach narratives as revelations of a speaker's orientation, the
work of philosopher Charles Taylor (1985, 1989, 1991) will serve as a conceptual
background of the study. He considers such notions as self, identity, and morality,
and is essentially interested in one's self and the interactional situation. He argues
that in order for one to have an identrty, it is necessaryto recognize what kind of
"framework" s/he relies on to make moral judgment:
"...whcnwe lry to spellout whatit is thatwe presuppose
whenwe judgethat a certainfcrrm
of life is truly worthwhilc,or placeour dignityin a certainachievement
or status,or define
our moral obligationsin a certainmanner,we find oursclves
articulatingintcr alia what I
havebcencallinghere'frameworks'."
(1989:26)
!
i')
Each of us uses a framework to know where to be oriented "in moral space, a space
in which questions arise about what is good or bad, what is worth doing and what
not, what has meaning and importance" (Taylor 1989: 28). For example, those who
make a moral or spiritual commitment to something may want to identify
themselvesas, say, anarchistsCatholics,Japanese,anarchists,etc.. Taylor points out
that they are not simply attached to a certain spiritual view or background. As a
source of moral judgment, he says,it is impossiblefor us to live without frameworks.
In this view, the Cartesian pure rational agent that is free of frameworks is
rejected.
However, one's self is not captured as a fixed one (cf. Schiftrin 1994b).
Taylor views the self as dynamic3; here the existence of the other interlocutor
comes into the picture:
"l am a self only in relation to certain intcrlocutors: In one way in relation to those
conversation partners who were essential to my achieving self-definition; in another in
relation to those who are now crucial to my continuing grasp of language of selfunderstanding - and, of course, these classesmay overlap. A self exists only within what I
c a l l ' w e b s o f i n t c r l o c u t i o n ' . "( 1 9 8 9 :3 6 )
I
I
I
t"
The self,unlikeinanimateobjectswhich existstaticallyin the world, livesin relation
to its surroundings.
Surroundings
shouldbe construedto rangefrom the locationin
which self is embeddedto the interactionwhich it has with other selves.a[t is
I
I
I
:
I
I
" Anthony P. Kcrby (1991) also cJiscusses
the speakcr'sself with regard to narratives.He argucs
againstthe position that the self is a given entity (i.e. Cartesianagent) with priority ovcr evcrything
c l s ea n d f u n c t i o n i n ga s a n a u l o m a t i o n :
I
" O n a n a r r a t i v ea c c o u n t ,t h e s e l l i s t o b e c o n s t r u e dn o t a s a p r e l i n g u i s t i cg i v e n t h a t m e r c l y
c m p l o y s l a n g u a g e ,m u c h a s w e m i g h t e m p l o y a l o o l , b u t r a t h e r a s a p r o d u c t o f l a n g u a g e . . .
. The self, or subject, then becomes a result of discursive praxis rather than either a
substantial entity having ontological priority over praxis or a self with epistcmological
p r i o r i t y , a n o r i g i n a t o r o f m e a n i n g "( 1 9 9 1 :4 )
a
I woul<l like to thank one of thePrngntaticsjudges for calling my attention to the relationship
betweenGoffman's Frame Analysis (1974) and Taylor's idcas. These two scholars do not mention
eachother in their own wtlrks, but Goffman's notion of "[rame" can be the basiswhere the speaker's
self is revealcd. In other words, to keep applying adjustments for frame could be the source of
468
KatsuyaKinjo
inappropriate, if not impossible,to studythe self as one studiesobjectsin natural
scientific studies.The self must be capturedin terms of jissentekikooitekirenkan, the
'practical relationship based on actions' (Watsuji L93411963).
Such a dynamically-capturedself still lacks its temporality. Taylor further
suggeststhat in order to have a senseof who we are, "we have to have a notion of
how we have become,and of where we are going" (47). Narrativesas transformation
of the speaker's past experienceserve to locate the self in the speaker'slife time
span.They structurethe speaker'spresent,and theybecomethe indicatorsof future
directions:
'But narrativemustplaya biggerrolethanmerelystructuring
WhatI am has
mypresent.
aswhatI havebecome.
matters
to be understood
Thisis normallysoevenfor sucheveryday
of howI havecome
asknowingwhereI am.I usuallyknowthispartlythroughmysense
I can'tknowin
there.But it is inescapably
so for theissueof whereI amin moralspace.
or amhalfiraythere."
a flashthat I haveattainedperfection,
(Taylor1989:47-48)
This brief summaryof how self is capturedin Taylor'smoral philosophyhas
three parts. First, one has hisiher own moral framework(s), the lack of which can
lead to an identity crisis.Second,becausewe are human beingsinteractingwith
people around us, to describeone'sself requiresattentionto the relationshipone's
self has with others. Third, one's self should be capturedin terms of not only its
location in moral spacebut also of time span.This enablesone to speak about the
self within historicalperspective.
However, Taylor's argumentsremain abstract.This paper attempts to apply
his ideas to narrative analysis.Narratives as the manifestationof the speaker's
framework and as the location of the speaker'spresentwill be discussedutilizing a
Japanesenarrative in which the female agent (= the narrator) receivesa so-called
indecentphone call from a stranger.The analysisproceedsfrom how the speaker's
self as an agent is portrayed in the narrative (Bruner 1990; Kerby L991; Taylor
1985)(section1) to how the narrator makesthe point of the story (section2). It will
be seenthat the narrator usesa certainframeworkin which her self is located;how
such an event is evaluated with reference to that framework will also become
evident. This narrative point leads to another - the narrator's framework differs
from that of other women, who, in her ambiance,are easilyseduced(section3). It
can be concludedthat the narrator'sself is basicallya "dialogicalself' (Taylor 1991).
Definition of suchself requiresdialogicalinteractionwith other people.At the same
time, one's backgroundof the self is known from the maintenanceof framework
between the story world (i.e. past) and the time of the interaction(i.e. present).
1. Emergenceof the narrator's self
In order to learn how our narrator identifiesherselfthrough narrative,two points
emergenceof differentdialogicalselves.For instance,the stranger'swayof answeringher questions
were the nkeys'for her reorganizewhat was going on betweenthem. To changeone's nfootingn
(another Goffman'snotion, cf. Goffman(1981))is relatedto the readjustmentto different frames.
Nanafive as revelation of
framework
469
will be considcred:construction of the figure
of the caller, and how the narrator
portraysherselfin the narrative.ThesearJ actually
interrelated;it *itt be seenthat
the narrator'sself is shapedthroughthe interaction
with the caller.The significance
of thesetwo points is alio discussedin section
2 in connectionwith the point of the
story.
l.l, Constructkg the antagonist's
figure
The participantsin the conversation,K (Japanese
male) and s (Japanesefemale),
havebeen talkingabout S'sboyfriend.The
ueginswith K,s evaluationof the
boyfriendshinshida ne'He is a.gentremun'it;.
"*..rpt
s agreesby using the same
evafuativeword shinshi .gentleman,.
K:
S:
K:
S:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
shinshida ne.
shinshiyo.
ii hito ii -z
/- honde sa, sono shinshi
to wakaretekimochiyoku
nattottano.
n de ne, tsun tsun tsun tte hoteru no heya kaetta
no.
soshitarasa, shinshijanai yatsu kara denwa ga
atta no yo. ..
Englishgloss:
K:
(1)
He [her boyfriend] is a gentleman.
S:
(2)
He is.
K:
(3)
Good person ...
S:
(!)
Arg
]was happy after I said good_night
e to him.
(5)
And I went back to my hotel ioorn.
(6)
Then I got an indeceniphone call from a man.
(lit. ,'I gor a call from
a non_gentleman_like
guy.,,)
S'snarrationbeginswith an abstract(what happened
to her, i.e. she receiveda call
fr?.t.i stranger)contrastingher boyfiiend
1=^gentieman)with a strangerwho had
calledher,shinshiianaiyatsu'a non-gentleman-iike
guy'. Her characterizationof the
caller contributesto locating her moral orientatiori,
nametywhich kinds of men,s
attitudesshe judges good ano bao. This parti.ulai
narrative in the conversation
betweens and K should be understoodin i.m,
of the precedinglinguisticcontext,
namely,the narrativeson S's boyfriend,which
will be discussedfurther in section
2.
The content of the indecent.callisvividly captured
through S,s,,constructed
dialogue"(Tannen 19s9) betweenherself and
the itrung"r. It is important to see
how this man is portrayed by her in her narrative.
It enablesus to reco gnize(i) what
kind of moral framework she has (i.e. those
things which she judges bad,
undesirable,weird, etc.), and (ii) how she presents
her agentiveseffln the story
(schiffrin 7994b),who decid"t *irut to do, whar
to say and what to think in such a
situation.
S:
(16)
"hai" tte,
470
Kinjo
Katsul,a
K:
S:
K:
( 11)
( 18)
(19)
(20)
Qf)
(22\
" S - s a nd e s uk a ? "
" ee s o o d e s uk e d o "
"anoo ima nani shiterassharu
n desuka?" tte yuu wake yo.
ee? nanoranaide?
un.
@ nani sore?
Englishgloss:
( 1 6 ) I said,"Yes."
S:
( 17) "Is this Miss S?"
( 1 8 ) "Yes, speaking."
( 1 e ) And he said, "What are you doing now?"
K:
(20) What? Without identifyinghimself?
(21) Y es .
S:
/ 11\
What's that?
K:
\LL )
After she answersthe summoningcall (16), the man asksan information question,
whetherthis is the personwith whom he wantsto speak(17).So far, it can be said
that the conversationhas followedan ordinaryscript(ringing(:summon)-answer,
o-A).
K's amazement(20) indicatesthat somethingis wrong with the stranger's
questionima nani shiterassharu
n desuka 'What are you doing?'(19). If the analysis
proceedsstrictly as structuralorganizationof talk, which is the chief concernof CA,
why K interruptsthe narrationto commenton what is (believedto be) said by the
man is ditficult to explain.As far as the structureof conversationbetweenS and the
man is concerned,no marked utteranceis observable.Both participantsobey Q-A
fbrmat. The markednessof the man'squestionstemsfrom the fact that normally a
caller self-identifiesafter (18), or even before. And although he is using the
respectfulform of the vero sltnt'to do,' i.e.shiteirasslnruto refer to S's action, the
question content counters this politeness.Such a personal question from an
unknown personcommunicates
somethingwrongwith this interaction(seebelow).
K's point is, therefore,why the strangerasksher sucha thing. His concernis for the
content of this particular information request;it is not an answerablequestion
(Lakoff 1973). Because this particular question is embedded in a constructed
dialogueand presentedas the utteranceof the man, it contributesto construction
of the image of the man in this narrative.
It is useful to considerhere the pragmatic/discourse
tunction of questions
before proceeding to observe other parts of the constructed dialogue which
constitutethe narrativeitself.Athanasiadou(1991)in her discussing
the discourse
functions of questions,and says that not all information questionsare "free
questions"(Lakoff 1973);whether or not the questionis answerabledependson its
contentsand the relationshipbetweenquestionerand subject.Commonlyobserved
questionsin conversations,
i.e. informationquestions,are deeply related to the
statusof the questionerand the subject.It is particularlyimportant in discourseto
considerquestionswith regard to the questioner'sintention and what motivates
him/herto ask sucha question.Concerningthe relationshipbetweenthe questioner
and the subject,Athanasiadoupoints out that "people ask information questions
most readilyof thosein a similarstatus.Informationquestionscarrythe leastpower
Nanative as revelation of framework
477
w h e nt heyar e addre s s eto
d s ta tu se q u a l s (1
" 9 9 1 :1 18).S hasnot beenprovi dedw i th
appropriateand sufficient information by the caller to respond to a personal
questionbecausehe has not revealedhis identity.s
In passing,with regard to the interactionbetween K and S, it is worth
mentioningK's involvementin the narrative.K's comment (20) on the man's
informationquestionshowsthat he is involvedand cooperatingin creatingthe figure
of the calleras the type of personwho asksa personalquestionwithout identifying
himself.
Againstthe man'sinformationquestion,S asksa clarificationquestion(23).
However,shesoon recognizesthat they are not on the sameground.So shechanges
her mind and asksan informationquestionto learn who he is rather than answer
his question.It is notable that the caller providesinformationabout his location
whenshe checkedin at the front desk,but without providinghis name:
S:
(23)
"a, ima desuka? dochiraclesuka? dochira-sama
desuka?" tte yuttara
fle,
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
"ano,boku ne, chekkuinno toki ni anatano ushironi ita n desu"tte
yuu wake yo.
dakarachekkuinno toki kagi toru janai,
de heya no bangooyuu desho.l2222 ne'/
"l??'/l shitan desu"tte yuu wake yo.
honde "he: soo desu ka," tte yutta no.
Englishgloss:
-
Searlc'sSpeechAct Theory (SAT), as quoted in thc beginning of this paper, is a knowledgebasedapproach to language use. Its application to a real uilerance, for example (19), misses the
point of why the caller is consideredrude at the outset of the interaction. One's utterance is counted
as a question when the fcrllowingconditions are fulfilled appropriately:
Propositional content:
Preparatory:
Sinceritv:
Essential:
Any proposition or propositional function
(a) S does not know "the answer," i.e. does not know if the
proposrtion is true, or, in thc case of thc propositional function,
does not know the information needed to completc the
p r o p o s i t i o nt r u l y
(b) It is not obvious to both S and H thar H will provicle the
information at that time without being asked
S w a n t st h i s i n f o r m a r i o n
Counts as an attempt to elicit this information from H
The caller's (constructed) utterance,anoo inta nani shiterasshorun desu ka? "What are you doing
now?" is construed as a gap-type question, which lacks certain information to complete the
proposition, say, S wa inn _
o shiteint "S is doing _
now." The caller does not know what S is
doing,and without being asked,it is unlikely that S will provirle such information. Following SAT,
we can identiff the man's utterance as a question. However, SAT's analysisdoes not go beyond this
point. It does not account for why this particular uttcrance is construed rude becauseneither the
context of the utterance (i.e. in the beginning of the interaction, without identifying himself) nor
what kind of question it is (i.e. personal) is consiclered.If any, the caller's self revealeclfrom such
an utteranceis a figure lacking certain information, and he tries to find the answer. We cannot be
satisfiedwith this type of approach that concealswhat we want to know, namely, who thc man is.
472
KatsuyaKnjo
S:
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
"Well, now? To whom am I talking?Who is this?",I asked.
"I was behind you when you checkedin", he said.
You receivea key at the desk.
And you say your room number, right? 2222.
"I did [unintelligiblepart], he said.
And "Oh, really.",I said.
In Goffman's terms (1974), S is an animator,author and principal who produces,
creates,and is responsiblefor portraying the figure (the man). The figure of the
caller is presentedin this dialogueas the type of personwho wishesto maintain his
anonymity. Provision of the location at the time S checkedin is not a normal way
of identifying oneself.One might argue that he tries to provide a visual image of
what he looks like to remind her of a person behind her. Nonetheless,people
normally provide their name when askedto identiS themselvesand frequently do
so even earlier. Intruding into her territory, this man demandsthat she answerhis
question,without identifyinghimself first.o
Notice that the caller accomplishes
two thingsby uttering(24).He fulfills the
participant role in an interactionby providing S with required information, which
contributes to the maintenance of Q-A structure. And he creates a power
relationshipby maintaininghis secureanonymity- he knowsher name,appearance,
location, and phone number, but she does not know him (no information
whatsoeverhas been provided by him). He is a manipulatorwith power over her,
and he exploits his anonymity.On the other hand, facing such a manipulator, the
narrator seems to be attempting to structure a detached role in the story. Her
answerhee soo desuka'Oh, really' in a disinterestedtone suggeststhat she is not
totally surprisedby his way of revealinghis identity,and she tries to distanceherself
from interaction with the man. Although S's self does not know who he is, his
assumptivemanner culminatingin the impositionof power makes her decide how
to cope with him.
So far, the man has been portrayed as an intruder, violator of telephone
etiquette, and imposer of power. On recognizinghim as such, she enter'sinto an
observer mode; she shows no interest and changesher attitude in order to
investigate what he has on his mind. Wearing the mask of indifference, the
narrator's self forces him to clariS his motivesin callingher.
S:
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
K:
de "sore de nan desu ka?" tte yuttara ne,
"iyaa ano desu ne, anoo tookyoo no kata desu ka?" tte yuu no yo.
"iie watashiamerikano kata desu"tte yutta no.
@@@
English gloss:
S:
(29) "So, what do you want?", I said.
(30) "Un... Are you from Tokyo?",he asked.
6
I woulcllike to thank Robin Tolmachlakoff for callingmy attentionto the point rhat rhe
caller'sutteranceis virtuallya threat(i.e."I knowwhereyou are"),andit indicateshisgreaterpower
(i.e.'l know more aboutyou than you do aboutme.").
Natative as revelation of franrework
(31)
(32)
K:
473
"No, I'm from the United States",I replied.
[laughing]
This part is one of the climaxeswithin the account:She demandsthe man answer
her questionas to what he has in mind. The hearer's(K) focus is now on whether
the man tells her why he has called. Such direct questioning of the other
interlocutor'sintention,especiallywhen a man attemptsto imposehis power on the
interaction,challengeshim. Thus far, the narrator hasportrayedherselfas a passive
victim exposedto a caller'sindecentquestion.(29) is a counterattackagainsthim.
His perplexityis well capturedin the constructeddialoguein which he supposedly
saidiyaa ano desu ne 'well' (30), a formulaic phraseusedwhen a speakerbrings a
difficultsubjectinto a conversation.Insteadof answeringher question,he responds
againwith a question.Such a questioncan be construedin this interaction as (i)
avoidingan undesirable(unsuccessful)
situationwhich might be causedby revealing
his real intention,while (ii) maintainingthe conversationby manipulatingS into QA interaction.Another aspectof the stranger'scharacteris revealedas he avoids
her question,and does not articulatehis ulterior motive.
It is interestingto observehow shedealswith sucha situation.The portrayed
self is not afraid of the man. The agent self (Schiffrin 1994b),which is in observer
mode,has strengthto deal with this unknown man by distancingherself from the
currentinteraction.Her strengthis apparentin her reply to the questionregarding
where she is from (31), which evolvesinto a humorousinteraction.' It is amusing
for two reasons.She literally came from the United Statesto visit her family at the
time of the interaction,so that she was telling the truth. X rto kata (no'possessive
marker' and kata '(honorific form) person' literally means 'a person of X' (i.e. a
personfrom X), and kata'person (honorific)') supposedlydoes not appear in an
answerto this type of question.The use of kata to refer to the speaker herself
violatesthe rulesof Japanesehonorification,resultingin elevatingthe speaker'sself.
Sheridiculesthe man, whosefalsepoliteness(his use of.kata'person(polite)') loses
its effect,and his hidden intention.
S's constructeddialoguerevealsanother aspectof the man as he confesses
that he is drunk:
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
S:
7
ne, mendokusaikara ne.
"amerikano kata desu"tte yutta no.
soshitarane, "amerikaniwa oshigotode" toka yuu kara ne,
"ee soo desu kedo: ano: dochira no kata desu ka?" tte kiitara ne,
"anoo boku wat xyz [=prefecture name] desu yo"
Deborah Schiffrin pointed out to me that it seems thar S keeps attending to the caller's
agendaon a referential, informational level, thus saving face for him. For example, in line (31), she
answersthe question rather than repeating her question in (29). When I later asked why she simply
did not hang up, she respondedthat she thought that the man might just want to report something
which she had lost. Even if this were the case,it might be reasonable to expect business-like talk to
elicit necessaryinformation from the caller. The extent to which interlocutors in various societies
engage in face saving in behalf of themselves and others (assuming that her engagement in
referential level interaction is related to such politeness strategy), is however, beyond the scope of
this paper.
474
KasuyaKinlo
(38)
(39)
( 40)
"aa ja kyoo wa shucchooka nankade" tte hantaini kiita no.
"iya ano ne chotto yopparacchattemendookusakunatta mon de
kocchi tclmatterun desu"tte yuu wake vo.
" he: "
Englishgloss:
S:
(33) You know, it's too much trouble [to explainwhy she is in the U.S.].
(34) "I'm trom the United States",I said.
(35) Then, he said,"Do you live in the united Statesfor a job?"
(36) "Yes, but how about you? Where are you from?",I asked.
(37) "I'm tiom xyz prefecture",he said.
(38) "Then, are you here [in Tokyo] for a businesstrip?", I asked.
(39) "l'm a little drunk. I'm so lazy that I decidedto stayhere",he said.
(40) "Reallv."
Until (35), the role of intervieweehas been imposedon her: The man has asked
four questions((17), (19), (30), and (35)) but refusedto provide appropriate
answers for S's questions ((23) and (29)).t After rhese unproduuive e-A
interactions,she plays the active role of inquirer who unmaskshim. Becausehe is
from ryz prefecture requiring three hours by train, he must have a reason for
stayingin the hotel.He (un)intentionally
tellsher that he is drunk! (39) would serve
as a hint to be developedlater in the story.
It has been observedthat the constructeddialogueplaysan important role
in depicting the narrator's self and the antagonist,the stranger.His behavior intruding into her territory, askingvariousquestions,violating telephoneetiquette,
insistingon maintaining his anonymity,and refusingto reveal his intentions - all
contribute to establishingthe kind of person he is.eAlso observedwas how the
narrator'sselfwas shapedthroughinteractionwith the callerand enabledto change
from the role of passivesubjectto activeinquirer.
But the encountercontinues.After (40), K is interestedin which hotel she
stayed,and S and K chat about the hotel for a while ((41)-(75)seeApperrdix).The
next sectjonwill discussthe latter part of the incidentin which the strangerreveals
8
Asymmctrical intcraction is typically observ'cdin what R<lbin T. lakoff calls therapeutic
discourse (TD) llakoff i989, 1990).It is common in our data and TD for (i) rhe person with power
to control such local initiativcs as questions,orders, and proposals,ancl (ii) the motivation of the
questioner (doctor/the callcr) is not provided, and (iii) topic changesare not markeclas such (cf. ten
Have 1991).
9
At least, concerning the latter two characteristicsof the man, namely, maintaining his
anonymity and refusing to reveal his intention, Gricean maxim violations are observable.For the
constructed utterance (24), the only way to construe his answer as relevant to the question is to
assume that he is cooperative. If he were genuinely cooperative,and he appears so at least at the
surface level analysisof the Q-A format (i.e. he does nor ignore the question, but supplics something
of a response to the inquiry), his desire for maintenanceof his anonymity is very iilety motivation
for not providing his name. On the other hand, in the caseof (30), when he is asled what he wants,
he does not answer the question, but posesanother question to S. Thus, (30) violates the maxim of
relevanceand it seems that what motivates and is eventuallyimplicated is that he does not want to
talk about his real purpose in calling her.
Nanativ'e as revelation of franrcw,ork
475
his actualintention.
1.2.Constructionof the narrator's self
As the hearerof S's narrative,K interruptsthe story but also initiatesreentrance
into the narrativeworld. Upon receivingK's invitation,S summarizesthe previously
established
pointsthat the callerwasbehindher in line (anonymity)and that he was
stayingat the hotel becausehe was drunk (irresponsible
state):
K:
S:
(76)
(77)
(i8)
(79)
(80)
a soidesoide?
sono otoko ga nan da tte?
de ne, "ushironi ita n desu"tte yuu wake.
n de "kyoowa mendokusakatta
mon de, koko ni tomatterun desu"tte
yuu wake yo.
de "he:" toka tte yuttara,
Englishgloss:
K:
(76) And?
(77) What did this _uuysay?
S:
(78) So, "l was behindyou",he said.
(79) "l'm so lazy that I decidedto stay here", he said.
(80) "Really",I said.
After this short reintroductionto the story, the narration moves on to
anotherscene.The man, as a next step,tries to ask her out.
S:
81)
82)
83)
84)
85)
86)
87)
88)
89)
90)
"ano: isshyoni sakedemo nomimasenka?" tte yutta wake.
de "osakeI doko de nomu n desuka?" tte yutta no.
"ano ima nani shiterun desuka?"10
"terebimiteru n desukedo" tte yuttara,
anoo raunji ka nanka dattarane, betsunizenzenkankei nai janai.
betsunine, neru mae no jikan ne,
ni-sanbaiaotte "soreja"tte kaererukara, ne?
"raunji de, raunji nanka areba,
sorewa raunji de oai shitenondemobetsunineru mae ni ne,
kankei nai desuyo ne:" tte yuttarane,
Englishgloss:
S:
(81) "Are you interestedin havinga drink with me?",he asked.
(ft2) "Liquor'/ Where are you planningto drink at?",I said.
t0
Not" that virtually the same request for infclrmation about what S is doing has already been
made in (19), whose inappropriatenessis consideredin section 1. In the case of (19), it was not
obviouswhat motivated him to ask such a question; however, utterance (83 = pre-invitation) is
accompaniedby (81 = invitation) which provides a context for why he asks what S is rloing. Notc
the order of the preinvitation and the invitation is reversedin this interaction.
476
KatsuyaKinjo
(83) "What are you doing now?" (he said)
84) "I'm watchingT.V.", I said.
8s)
I think it is okay if it is a lounge or some other similar place.
86) Before I go to bed,
87) I can drink a couple of shotsand come back saying"Good-night".
88) "If there is a place like a lounge,
8e) I can meet you at a lounge,before I go to bed;
e0) it is not a problem for me", I said.
He suggestsdrinking together. Note that it is S's agentiveself who first tries to
speciff the place at which to drink. Her cautiousand sobermind contrastswith that
of the devious and drunk man. Stepping out of the story world, she confirms that
her self was playing an aloof/observerrole in the narrative world. She comments
that she does not care to drink with the man ((85)-(87)),which in turn revealsan
aspect of her moral self, namely, the type of activity in which she can and will
engage.However, this shouldnot be construedthat sheis obedient,but that rather,
she could at this point read his mind. She choosesa lounge as a neutral and safe
place (85). She suggeststhat drinking in a public lounge,even with this man who
has imposed his power and guards his anonymiry,would not lead to a deeper
relationship.
NegotiationsbetweenS and the man begin.Contrary to S's suggestionof a
lounge as a meeting place,he arguesagainsta lounge,counteringthat he does not
know whether the hotel has one!
S:
K:
S:
91)
92)
93)
94)
95)
96)
97)
98)
99)
"raunji aru ka doo ka wakarimasenyo" tte yuu wake yo.
raunji aru no yo. aru. atashi shitteru no.
"a soo desu ka. ja doko de nomu n desu ka?" tte yuttara ne,
"ano heya de ikaga deshoo ku" a
L na::
7
Ltte yuu kara ne,
"a heya wa chotto" tte yutta no yo.
"raunji ka nanka de onomininarutte yuu n deshitara,
maa ichijikan gurai otsukiaishimasukedo?" tte yutta no.
English gloss:
S:
(91) "I'm not sure whether or not this hotel has a lounge",he said.
(92) There rs a lounge. I know that.
(93) "I see.Then, where do you prefer?",I said.
(94) "How about my room?",
LNol 7
(95)
K:
Z- he said.
(96)
S:
(97) "I don't think it's a good idea", I said.
(98) "If you are planning to drink at a lounge,
(99) I can drink with you for an hour or so", I said.
S knows (and knew in the storyworld) that his reasoningis falsesimplybecauseshe
is aware that there ri a loungein the hotel. In any event,the proposalthat she meet
and drink with him in a private room is excessive.
Note that S's portrayal of this
Nanative as revelation of framework
477
man hasprogressedfrom mere intruder to manipulativepower imposer,which now
allowsthe hearer to label him a disreputableperson.
The constructedutterance,heya de ikaga deshooka? '(lit.) How about a
room' (9a) is not ambiguous becauseit indicates his room. A lounge can be
considered
a neutral place,in that it doesnot pertainto either of the participants.
It is a publicspace,and there may be other customerspresent.On the other hand,
drinking in either his room or hers would significantlyaffect the relationship
betweenthem. Going to a man'sroom can indicatea woman'swillingnessto enter
his territory on his terms. The eyesof the public may restrict people'sbehavior in
a localesuchas a lounge.His enteringher room, on the other hand, implies that
shewelcomesthe man; she is the occupantof the room and responsiblefor what
happensin it. It is also still commonlyassumedin many locationsthat women are
invited,and ladies do not invite (These are variations on the double standard).
Ultimately,his refusal to meet at a lounge clearly communicatesthat he wants to
be alonewith her in a private space.
S declaresthat she would not think of drinking with him in his room. Both
knowwhat it meansfor a woman to come to a man's room especiallyat night. The
man imposeshis power over her further when he demandsto know why she refuses
to cometo his room (102),and she respondswith alacrity:
S:
(100) soshitara"iya: raunji wa wakaranaikara heyawa doo deshooka" tte
kiku wake yo.
(101) de "heya,heya desuka? heyawa chottokomarimasune:" tte yuttara
(102) "dooshitedesu ka?" tte yuu kara
(103) "dooshitette ne:, chottomaa raunji no hoo ga ii desuyo" tte yuttara
(104) soshitaraammari nando mo yuttemosa,
(105) "anoraunji nara otsukiaishimasukedo moo sorede nakerebaotsukiai
itashimasen"
tte yuttarasa,
(106) "aa soo desu ka, ja raunji ga aru ka doo ka shirabetemimasu.
(107) ato de kakenaoshimasu"
tte gachantte kitta no.
Englishgloss:
S:
00) Then, he said,"I don't know about a lounge.Why not my room?"
0 1 ) "I don't like that idea",I said.
02) "Why?", he asked.
03) "Why? I prefer a lounge",I said.
04) I didn't want to repeatmy words,so
0s) "Lounge is okay, but otherwise,I cannot drink with you", I said.
06) "I see.I'll checkwhetherthere is a lounqein this hotel or not.
0t) I'll call you later",and he hung up.
The man appearsto assumethat S must come to his room unlessshe providesan
acceptable
reasonfor not doing so.S could saythat sheknowsthat there is a lounge
in the hotel.However,if shesaysso,it would be interpretedas an insult to him. Or,
shecouldsaythat she knowswhat he has on his mind - askinga woman to his room
for a drink at night. Becausein this constructeddialoguehe implies,but does not
explicitlysay,somethingsexual,he might have denied such an accusation,making
her the guilty party becauseshe assumed!
478
KatsuyaKinjo
Such an exchange- S's insistenceon a lounge,and his demandinga reason
for rejecting his room - is unlikely to terminateas long as they are engagedin this
adult game.S is the one who concludesit with her explicitstatementthat shecannot
be his companion becausehe insistson his hotel room as the place for them to
meet and drink (105). The story ends here,implyingthat he did not call her again
as he said he would. He was not interestedin merelydrinkingwith her; what he had
on his mind was, of course,somethingsexual.
How constructeddialoguecontributesto portrayalof the figures of S's self
and the man has been observed.The summaryline of the storysosftiterqsa, shinshi
janai yatsu kara denwa ga atta no yo... 'l got an indecent call from a man' (6)
forecaststhe contentsof the narrative.Constructionof the figure of the caller has
been provided through the narrator's reporting what he said in the telephone
interaction. He is captured as one who disturbs her peace (4), one who asks a
personalquestionwithout establishingequalstatuswith S (19),one who manipulates
the power structure by refusing to reveal his identity (24), an inebriate (39-40),
dishonestperson (91). The overwhelmingevidenceleadsto the conclusionthat he
is not a gentleman (s/rurslijanai).
The narrator's self also emerges/isshapedthrough the interactionwith the
caller. In accordancewith his increasinglyanomalousbehavior,S's self takes the
who attemptsto distanceherself from
shape of an autonomousobserverlanalyzer
the interaction in which her self is engaged,and as an activeagent who resiststhe
man's attempts to cast the net of the power structure.She changesher footing
(Goffman 1981) according to the way the man responses(i.e. keying) and to
reframing of the situation(Goffman 1,974);the initial encounterwith a stranger,in
which the participantsmight get involvedin interaction,makesS changeher footing
not do so. Her control enablesher self to rejecthim when attackedby his several
questions. For example, she employs the formula he uses for an information
questionon where she is from (31). The activeagentwas brave enoughto say no
to him when he pressedher to come to his room.
2. Making a point of the narrative
Thus far, close examinationof S's narrative has been provided. The aim in this
paper is to view the narrator's portrayal of herself in it with regard to her own
framework. The point of the story and the portrait of one's self, although
interrelated,require different levelsof analysis.That is, as the introduction of S's
narrative (sctslitarasa, shinsltijanai yotslt kara denwoga atta no yo'Then I got an
indecent call from a man' (6)) suggests,'why this narrative at this point of
conversation?'
shouldbe studiedwith referenceto S and K's conversation;
our goal
of seeking the narrator's use of her own framework is not (at least initially) the
main focus of the narrative.
In order to clarify the context of the story of this indecent call, how her
boyfriend (T) and the caller will be contrasted.The relaxed atmosphere/tension
created by these two men and how honest and demanding they are will be
compared.How she evaluatesthe accountof the indecentcall, namely,the point of
the narrativewill then be clarified.
The caller'sfigure has been establishedthrough the constructeddialogueof
Nanative as revelation of framework
479
what he said to her. What is communicatedis someoneexploitinghis anonymityto
imposehis masculinepower dishonestly.These characteristicscontrastwith those
of T, whom S met while travelingin Poland.The portrait of T and their seconddate
precedethe story of the indecentcall. These consecutivedescriptionsof two men
enablethe hearerto estimatewhere the narrator'sself is located,what she regards
as good or bad. In contrast to the chilling atmospherewhich ultimately influences
S'sself to assumean aloof attitude,S saysthat she feelsrelaxedwhen she is with
T:
A.
S:
K:
S:
K:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
maa demo raku rakuna hito da na towa omotta kedo ne.
k ihon te k in i n e .
ichinichikoo poorandoni itemo jama ni naranakattashi ne. ...
dakaraseiritekiniuketsukenaitaipu janai.
aru ne, soo yuu no.
ne, sanjuppunijoo isshoni irarenail???l
s)
@@
Englishgloss:
S:
(u)
Somehow,I thought that he [T] is a very easyperson to be with.
(b)
Basically[I thoughtso].
(.)
He was not annoyingat all when I waswith him in Polandthe whole
day.
(d)
So he is not a personwhosechemistrydoesnot match mine.
K:
(.)
There are some cases.
S:
(0
There are those whose presenceI cannot stand more than 30
minutes.
K:
(g)
flaughing]
Although the phrase rakuna hito 'easy person (to get along with)' does not
necessarily
indicate that she is relaxed,clearly he is not the kind of person who
createsan atmospherewhich she can tolerate only briefly.
Her relaxed attitude with T also relates to their speaking her native
Hiroshimadialect.The scenein which she is locatedrelatesto the formality of
speech(Brown and Fraser 1979).After their first meeting since the encounter in
Poland,she askshim what it was about her that attractedhim.
B.
S:
K:
S:
(u)
(b)
(r)
(d)
(e)
(t)
(g)
"doko ga yokattan desuka" tte kiitara ne,
a, kiita no? @
un. "atashiburikko shitenakattadesuyo ne" tte yuttara ne,
jaro?" toka tte yutte,hiroshima-bende.
"shitenakatta
"shitenakatta
yo ne?" tokatteyutte kiitara sa:,
"iya moo burikko suru taipu janai kara ne,
zenzen burikko nante ima mo shitenaidesho?"toka tte yutte.
Englishgloss:
"Why did you like me?" I asked.
S:
(u)
480
KatsuyaKinjo
K:
S:
(b)
(.)
(d)
(e)
(0
(g)
Did you?
Yes. "I was not pretendingto be a cute girl, right?" I asked.
"I wasn't, was I", I said in Hiroshima-dialect,
"I wasn't,was I", I asked.
"No, you are not that kind of person."
"You are not pretendingto be cute, are you?",he said.
T is a Tokyo native who speaksstandardJapanese.It is well-knownthat people try
to suppresstheir rural speechpatternsin formal/unfamiliarsituations.Note that this
is S's second encounterwith T, and they do not know each other well. This code
switching from standard Japanese to Hiroshima-dialect functions as a
contextualizationcue (Gumperz 1982), which indicates her change of footing
(Goffman 1981)from formal to familiar and how sheframesthe situation- whether
or not this social interactionis conductedin a tenseor relaxedatmosphere.
The man depictedin the indecentcall accountintrudedinto her territory and
assumptivelyasked personal questions.This contrastswith T, who carried her
baggageto the hotel for her, and did not impose or attempt to intrude into her
territory:
C.
S:
K:
S:
K:
S:
(u)
(b)
(.)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
de moo yuugatanatta kara, hoteru ni mata okuttekitekurete.
@ ima hoteru tte yutta kara, "ee?" @
hoteru no hen made, iya, ano hito sugoi shinshiyo.
un.
sonde ne, hoteru made nimotsu mottekitekuretakedo
heya made tsuitekoyoo nante zettai shinai.
"boku wa koko de mattemasukara doozo".
English gloss:
S:
(u)
And it was getting dark, and he came to see me off to my hotel.
K:
(b)
I was surprisedbecauseyou mentioneda hotel. [laughing]
S:
(c)
To my hotel. No, he is a gentleman.
( d)
K:
I s ee .
S:
(.)
So, he carried my baggagefor me.
(0
But he never tried to come to my room.
"l'll be waitingfor you here."[he said]
(g)
Note that there appearsan evaluationclausewhen K tries to tease her ima hoteru
tte yutta kara, "ee?"'l was surprised becauseyou mentioned a hotel', she saysano
Itito sugoi shiltshiyo 'He is a gentleman'(.). T is considerateand understandsthat
his coming to her hotel room could be an intrusion into her private territory.
It was noted that the caller revealed nothing about himself (hidden
intention). When he asksher out for a drink, he tries to misleadher when he claims
not to know whether there is a loungein the hotel. He seemsto convinceher that
there is no acceptableneutral place and that if she wants to drink with him, she
must come to his room. However, she knows that there is a lounge; the man is
captured as dishonest.Meanwhile,the excerptbelow suggeststhat S evaluatesT as
an articulateand sincereperson.
Nanative as revelation of frantework
481
D.
S:
(u)
(b)
(c)
(d)
demo ne:otabun .. demo ano hito iitai koto iu n da yo ne.
honto ni, iitai koto iu tte yuu ka sa,
chanto shoojikini l???I
betsuni kimochiwarukuwa nakatta yo.
Englishgloss:
(u)
S:
But, maybe,but he sayswhat he wants to say.
(b)
Really. Well, he sayswhat he wants to say,
(.)
he honestlydoes [something].
(d)
I didn't feel that he is weird.
futiculatenessand sincerity correlate in her perception with his gentlemanly
manner.There is no observabledeviousnessin the constructedimase of T. A
summarycomparisonof the two men's constructedfiguresfollows:
Chart 1.
T (S's boyfriend)
contributesto a relaxedatmosphere
non-intrusive
sincere
a gentleman
the caller
createstension
intrusive
dishonest
a cad
The point of the narrative, an indecent call from a man, should be
understoodin its context, namely how T's figure is constructed.The preceding
betweenS and K dealswith how well-manneredT is. In contrast,the
conversation
caller'sfigure in the narrativecomesacrossthe opposite.The constructedimage of
T, therefore,enablesthe hearer to compareand judge which of thesetwo men may
be honorableand attractive.
Returningto the story,it is necessaryto see the evaluationclauses(Labov
1972)to know what point S aims to make by this narrative.She evaluateswhat
happenedaskimocltiwarui'disgusting';
it is not capturedas an interesting,amusing
or excitingexperience,but rather, it is disgusting:
S:
K:
S:
(108)
(109)
(110)
(11i)
demo ne, kimochiwaruito omowanai?
ushiro ni ita otoko ga heya no bangookiite,
ano dakarabangoodake,onna no hito ga ne,
ga arimasukatoka tte kiku
nantokanantokade tokatteiroiro messeeji
jun,
(II2) soshitarasa,l??I de kagi watasutoki ni sa,
(113) "suimasen,
onamaeonegaishimasu"l???l
(114) "atashiS desukedo" tte yuttarasore kiitoite sa,
(115) sore mo sa, dakaraheya kaette,ho tto suwattesa, ne?
(116) puchi tto tsukete,terebi puchi tto tsukete,
(117) hoide suwattemidashitatokoro ni biribiririn datta no yo.
( 118) k ow a :
(119) kimochiwaruito omowanai?
482
Katsuya Kinjo
K:
( 120) k im o c h iw a ru ::h e e
Englishgloss:
( 1 0 8 ) Don't you think this is disgusting?
S:
( 1 0 e ) The guy behind me checkedmy room number;
( 1 1 0 ) when a woman checks-in,
( 1 1 1 ) she askswhetheror not she has any messages.
( r \ 2 ) And when they hand a key to me,
( 1 1 3 ) "Muy I have your name, please?",they ask.
( 11 4 ) "I'm Miss S" I said,and this guy heardwhat I said.
( 1 1 s )I was huppy when I went back to my room.
( 1 1 6 ) I turned on the T.V.,
( 11 7 ) and began to watch the T.V. and I got this call.
K:
( 11 8 ) Terrible.
S:
( 1l e ) Don't you think it's disgusting?
(120) It is.
K:
'Don't you think
The repetition of a rhetoricalquestion,kimochiwandto omowanei?
((108)and (119))invitesthe hearerto evaluatethe storyin the same
it's disgusting?'
way as the narrator,which, in turn, showsthat the hearer (K) sharesthe samemoral
framework as far as the evaluationof this story is concerned.She summarizeswhat
causesher disgust ... the man's deviousbehavior (checkingher name and room
number) ((109)-(114)) which resulted in a call interrupting her feeling of
co n t ent m ent( 115).
This very point revealsthe speaker'sframework to which she refers at the
time of judgment: What is good and what is bad (i.e. intrusion, imposition,
dishonesty,deviousness),which type of person makes a good impression (her
boyfriend) and who does not (the caller), what brings her happinessand what
effects tension, what factors evoke a certain state of mind (relaxed and being
oneself,for example,not pretendingcuteness(B), or aloofnessas an observerand
challenger).In short, by telling a story and making a point, the narrator reveals
deeply held valueswhich she assumesare sometimessharedwith the hearer, and
she reinforcesher feeling of solidaritywith him .
3. The lessonof the experience
Beyondmaking their points,narrativescan serveto reveala narrator'sself through
the way he or she portrays or constructsthe image of self. This is an additional
feature in Taylor's concept becausethe Labovian approach to narrativescannot
extend the argument that the narrativein questionhas meaningor makes sensein
a given context.
Following Taylor's line of argument,self is relevant to where
the narrator is locatedin moral space.Sucha caseis that of Ms. S as sheconstructs
the caller's behaviorwith referenceto her framework.The narrator'sself changes
shapedependingon the kind of interactionin which she is engaged.Capturingor
constructingher own self as such,then, her self establishesboundariesaround it.
Her self is carved out from the narrativeworld, and also shapedby K's responses,
as a unique entity with distinguishable
characteristics
unobservablein others' selves.
Nanative as revelation of framework
483
Others'selves,too, are anchoredin different frameworkswhich are not necessarily
sharedwith that of the narrator.
The following exchangebetweenS and K after the story of the indecentcall
showsthat S acknowledgesher perceptionthat there are women whoseframeworks
differ from hers:
S:
K:
S:
K:
S:
(I21)
(122)
(123)
(124)
(125)
(126)
(127)
(128)
(129)
(130)
(131)
(I32)
(133)
demo ne, atashiomou kedo ne,
nani sore
aa yuu koto yatte nottekuru onna ga iru kara da to omou.
inai yo.
iru yo, yononaka.
zettai ne, tamani ne, soo yatte nottekuru onna ga iru n da to omou
yo.
sonnano ne, moo ne, hitobanne,
moo otoko o tomo ni shitesayoonarano hanashidakarane,
kimochiwaruiwa yo ne, byooki ni koso narisure.
demo ne, yononakasoo yuu onna ga iru kara,
ano "a koitsu mo hikkakarankana: " nante omotte.
datte yopparatte kaeritaku nakattara tookyoo tomatte yaru wake
desho?
maa kekkon ka nanka shitotte ne, yasukuuwaki shiyootte yuu.
Englishgloss:
S:(
121) But I think ...
K:(
I22) I don't understand.
S:
( 123) there are some women who are interestedin that kind of person.
K:
24) I don't think so.
S:
25) There are.
26) There are some women who are easilytempted.
27) Such a thing, one night,
28) is a "Sleepingwith a man and 'Good-bye"'-typestory.
29) It's terribly awful. You know you may get a disease.
30) But becausethere are suchwomen out there,
31) he thought"This girl may be tempted,too."
32) He does this if he is drunk and doesn'twant to go home.
33) Maybe he is married and wants to have an affair with somebody.
S claimsthat there are somewomen who are interestedin men like the caller (I23).
K disagrees.
S constructsher argumentby pointingout that the man'sbehavioritself
suggests
the existenceof such women. She again usesa constructeddialoguein
which she refers to what she imaginesthe caller was thinking about, koitsu mo
hikkakarankana:'This girl may be tempted,too'(131). One reasonthat the man
calledher, accordingto her inference,is that he had had successwith women by
usingthe same strategy.
Note that with such an assumption,S giveslife to the figure of the man, no
longera strangerwhose orientation is unknown to the narrator, but also anchored
in a certain moral world. He is now assigneda past and potential future. She
logicallyassumesthat he is a married man (133).As the center of experienceof
484
KatsuyaKinjo
action, one's self is capturedas an entity whosepresentactionis the function of the
past experience (t aing f967). His action is further assumedto be located in a
specific framework. However, his moral framework is quite different from that of
S, who differs from those women who can be victimizedby sucha man. Taking an
observer's position and distancing her self somewhat from the caller in the
telephone interaction,she ultimatelydrawsa line betweenthe man and her self. It
is this line that differentiatesthe two frameworks.
The exchangebetweenK and S ((121)-(133))is anothersocialinteraction
which should be distinguishedfrom that of S and T, or of S and the caller. S's self
in the present interactionis on the sameline extendingfrom her past to the future.
Her narrativesand the self depictedin them contributeto her socialself at the time
of the conversationwith K. She does not say explicitlythat she is different from
those who are easily victimized, or, as she expressesit, tempted. The hearer is
expectedto understandher frameworkas revealedthroughthe action,attitude,and
stanceof the self apparent in the narratives.
4. Conclusion
This paper has engagedin a study of how narratives,the reformulation of one's
experience,contribute to the portrayal of the self and how the narrator's self
emergesin the constructeddialogues.
One'sexperience,
PaulRicoeurargues,cannot
be the other interlocutor'sexperience.Still, "[t]he experienceas experienced,as
lived, remainsprivate,but its sense,its meaning,becomespublic"(1976:16).Such
private experienceis exposedand projected in public space through narratives
(Taylor 1985).One's self, portrayedin narratives,can be captured as a "dialogical
self':
"Much of our understandingof self, society,and world is carried in practicesthat consist in
dialogical action. I would like to argue, in fact, that languageitself servesto set up spaces
of common action, on a number of levels,intimate and public. This means that our identity
is never simply defined in terms of our individual properties. It also placesus in some social
space. We define ourselvespartly in terms of what we come to accept as our appropriate
place within dialogical actions. In the case that I really identiff myself with my deferential
attitude toward wiser people like you, then this conversationalstancebecomesa constituent
of my identity. This social reference figures even more clearly in the identity of the
dedicated revolutionary." (Taylor 1991: 311)
Social interaction binds both the speakerand the hearer. There is binding in the
sensethat "the speaker shapesher discoursein responseto the other, und in u
similar fashion, the listener makes sense of another's discourse by taking a
responsiveand interactivestancetoward the speaker/text"(Kent 199I 286).On the
other hand, socialinteractionis a negotiationof interpretationand valuesbecause
each participant in an interaction has a personal experienceand belongs to a
different social group. This negotiationpresupposesthe interlocutor'sbackground
framework, to which each participant refers in order to make a moral judgment.
S's self was shapedthrough the interactionwith the caller. Her self as an
aloof observernot involvedin the continuinginteractionemergesthrough what the
man says.It was his imposition,anonymity,and dishonestywhich made her take
Nanative as revelation of framework
485
sucha stance.On the other hand, the samenarrator'sself was portrayed as relaxed
when interactingwith her boyfriend.Her own framework differs from that of the
callerand some women who might associatewith such a man.
Constructeddialoguein narrativesinducesthe hearer'sinvolvement(recall
K's involvementin the narrativeworld, e.g.(20)). It hasbeen observedin this paper
that such a narrative form servesnot only this function, but also to display the
narrator'sself.Becauseself displayedin a narrativeis not separatefrom the self in
the current conversationfrom the past to the present,the narrator's self in the
currentconversationis also captured on the basisof the framework on which the
selfin the narrativeworld relies.
I have endeavoredto demonstratethat a narrative is a place where the
narrator'sframework is revealed.It was pointed out in the introduction that the
narrator'sself,which utilizescertain frameworks,is not captured as a fixed entity,
asCartesianlinguistspresuppose.It may be the casethat mainstreamlinguisticsis
suitablefor a type of investigationwhich attempts to capture the linguistic
knowledgestoredin the mind. However,if Cartesianargumentsare reliable,we are
all rationalbeingswith clear logicalselvesusingvariouskinds of rules,we missvery
importantaspectsof languageuse,and such a view is far from reality.
The underlyingassumptiontaken in this paper has been that the Cartesian
presumption/self
of commensurabilityshouldbe rejected.Rather,what is employed
is closeto hermeneuticarguments(e.g. Bernstein 1982;Geertz 7973;Packer and
Addison1989;Ricoeur I976; Rorty 7979),whichplaceimportanceon interpretation
of texts.Although philosophers'argumentstend to be abstract and without real
data,an attempt has been made here to demonstratethat CharlesTaylor's claim
that people use frameworks opens up a new way to approach discourseanalysis.
Suchan interpretive approach should be studied further with literary criticism,
philosophy,psychology,socialpsychologyand other fields in its perspectiveand a
betterunderstanding
of who we are as the outcome.
Transcription conventions
Capitalization is avoided €xcept for personal names (therefore, the narrator is referred to in the
scriptas S, but the capital of Japan is transcribedtolqoo, for example). Other conventions include:
..
l??l
il n
::
@
?
t
z
Two dots indicate a perceptible pause of less than ll2 second
Question marks in slashesindicate inaudible urterances
Quotation marks indicate quoted speech
lengthenedsyllable
indicateslaughter
rising intonation
continuing intonation
overlapping
When speech from B follows speech from A without perceptible pause, then Z links the end
of A with the beginning of B (Schiffrin 1994a: 432).
486
Katsuya Kinjo
Appendix
The following is the portion of the conversation between S and K not considered in the text. Here
they are talking about how S got a room in the hotel where she received the indecent call. Although
analysis of how the listener (K) contributes to the flow of conversation is an interesting topic (e.g.
his interjecting a question engages S in information exchangerather than the narrative world), it is
outside the scope of this paper.
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
sl)
52)
53)
54)
55)
bijinesuhoterudattano?
bijinesujanai.ano: purinsu.
e;?
purinsu.yasui.
shinagawa
yasui?uso,shinagawapurinsuda yo?
takakunaino sorega.
ichimanne, sen'enmo shinaino, ippaku.
uso.
honto.
v???I
[/???/honto honto.
atashibikkuri shitan da mon.
desho?
shinagawa
karamo ne,
benri desho?hamamatsu-choo
56)
57)
58)
59)
60)
61)
62)
63)
64)
un un
benri desho?
dakedo ne, atashi mazu kuukoo de hoteru yoyaku shitenakatta kara,
dare no tokoro nimo tomaritakunakatta no ne.
ano yoru toka tomodachi nimo attari suru si.
de moo chotto ki: tukau kara, shawaahitotsu abiru no mo.
soi dattara moo hoteru ni tomaroo tte tte
"suimasen,bijinesu hoteru ka nanaka benrina tokoro arimasen?"tte yuttara
doko doko ga niman l???l de, doko doko ga ichiman gosen'en de toka iiyotta
wake.
de kayaba-choo no hoteru deshitara hassen'en /??/.
kayaba-choohuben janai.
nihonbashi no hoo ne. ne'l
"a, shinagawapurinsu desu to ichiman .. nihyaku ikura" tte yutta no.
ippaku. [shinguru ne.
[a honto.
"e? shinagawapurinsu? ja soko onegai shimasu."
ippaku desho?
hetana bijinesu hoteru datte ichiman'en de aru janai.
de purinsu dakara ne.
hee omoshiroi.
(65)
(66)
(67)
(68)
(69)
(70)
(71)
(72)
(73)
(74)
(75)
Englishgloss:
(42)
K:
(43)
S:
(44)
K:
(45)
S:
(46)
K:
(47)
S:
(48)
(49)
K:
S:
(50)
K:
(s1)
(52)
S:
Was that a business
hotel?
No, it wasn't.It wasthe Prince.
Really?
Prince.It wascheap.
Shinagawa
Cheap?You must be kidding.
It wasnot expensive.
L,essthan 11,000yen a night per person.
No way!
Really.
ll???l
|???l I meanit.
Nanative as revelationof framework
K:
S:
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
I was also surprised.
It is Shinagawa,
right?
It's very convenient,you know. It's closeto Hamamatsu-choo.
Yes.
It's veryconvenient.
(58)
(59)
However, I hadn't made a reservation.
I didn't want to stay at my friend's house.
sometimes meet friends at night.
have to worry about things, for example, whether I can take a shower late at
night or not.
So I decided to stay at a hotel.
I asked [at the counter at the airport], "Is there any convenient place like a
businesshotel or something?"
So the attendant said that this hotel is 20,000 yen, that hotel is 15,000 yen.
"If you want to have a room at a hotel in Kayaba-tyoo, it is 8,000 yen," he said.
Kayaba-choo is inconvenient, you know.
It is close to Nihonbashi.
And he said, "You can stay at Shinagawa Prince for about 10,200 yen a night per
person."
A night's lodging.
[A single room.
(60)
(61)
(62)
(63)
(64)
(65)
(66)
(61)
(68)
(69)
K:
(70)
S:
(71)
(72)
(73)
(74)
(75)
K:
487
IReally.
"Oh, ShinagawaPrince? Would you make a reservation for me?" I said.
One night's lodging, right?
Even not so classy hotels ask 10,000yen.
It was the Prince!
That's interesting.
References
Arendt, Hannah (1958) The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Athanasiadou,Angeliki (1991) The discoursefunction of questions.hagmatics l.l: lO7-122.
Bernstein, Richard J. (1983) Bqond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis.
Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brown, Penelope & Colin Fraser (1979) Speech as a marker of situation. In Klaus R. Sherer &
Howard Giles (eds.), Social markers in speech.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-62.
Bruner, Jerome (1986) Acnal minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, Jerome (1990) Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Clancy,Patricia M. (1986) The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese.In Bambi B.
Schieffelin& Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,pp. 213-250.
Geertz,Clifford (1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, Erving (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of expeience. New York:
Harper Colophon Books.
488
Katsuya Kinjo
Goffman, Erving (1981) Footing. In Erving Goffman, Forms of talk Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-159.
Gumperz, John J. (1982) Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harr6, Rom (1984) Personal being: A theoryfor individual psychologt. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Harr6, Rom (1993) Social Being (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
ten Have, Paul (1991) Talk and institution: A reconsiderationof the "asymmetry' of doctorpatient interaction. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social soacture: Sudies in
ethnomethodolog and conversation analysrs.Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 138-163.
Heritage, John (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodologt. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, John (1989) Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. Roger & P. Bull
(eds.), Conversntion: An interdisciplinaryperspective.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, pp. 2l41.
Johnson, Frank (1985) The western concept of self. In AJ. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F.L.K. Hsu
(eds.), Culture and self: Asian and westernperspectives. New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 9l138.
Kent, Thomas (1991) Hermeneutics and genre: Bakhtin and the problem of
communicative interaction. In David R. Hiley et al. (eds.), The interpretiveturn: Philosophy,
science,culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 282-303.
Kerby, Anthony P. (1991) Nanative and the sef. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Laing, Ronald D. (1967) Politics of expeience. New York: Pantheon Books.
Labov, William (1972) The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. labov,
Language in the inner clry. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 354-396.
[.abov, William & J. Waletzky (1967) Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal
and visual crrs. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 12-44.
takofl Robin Tolmach (1973) Questionable answersand answerablequestions. In B.B. Kachru
et al. (eds.), /ssues in linguistics: Papers in honor of H. and R. Kahane. University of Illinois Press,
pp. 453-467.
lakofl Robin Tolmach (1989) The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse.
Multilingua B, 213: l0I-129.
Lakofl
Robin Tolmach (1990) Talking power: The politics of language.Basic Books.
lre, John R.E. (1987) Prologue: Talking organisation. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lre
(eds.), Talk and social organisation Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, pp. 19-53.
Maynard, Senko K. (1993) Discourse modality: Subjectivity,emotion,.and voice in the Japanese
Ionguage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mischel, Theodore (ed.) (197'7) The self: Psychologicaland philosophical issues.Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Nanative as revelation of ftanrcwork
489
Packer,Martin J. & Richard B. Addison (1989) Introduction. In M.J. Packer & R.B. Addison
(eds.),Enrering the circle: Hermeneutic investigationin psychologr,.New York: State University of
New York Press,pp. 13-36.
Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell (1987) Discourse and social psychologt: Beyond attitudes
and behaviour.London: Sage Publications.
Ricoeur, Paul (1976) Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. F-ort Worth,
Texas:The Texas Christian University Press.
Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the minor of narure. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Sacks,Harvey (198a) Notes on methodology. In J. Heritage & M. Atkinson (eds.),Strucntresof
socialaction: Srudiesin conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.2l-27.
Schafer,Roy (1992) Retelling a life: Nanation and dinlogue in psychoanab'sis.New York: Basic
Books.
Schiffrin, Deborah (l99aa) Approaches to discourse.Oxford: Blackwell.
Schiffrin,Deborah (1994b) Narrative as self portrait: The sociolinguistic
constructionof identity. Manuscript.
Searle,John R. (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle,John R. (1979) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In J.R. Searle, Expression and nteaning:
Studiesin the theory of speechacts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. l-29.
Spence,Donald P. (1982) Narrative truth and histoical tntth: Meaning and interpretation in
psychoanalysrs.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Tannen, Deborah (1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and intagery in conversational
discours
e. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi ty Press.
Taylor, Charles (1985) Theories of meaning. In C. Taylor, Human agencyand language:
Philosophicalpapers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 248-292.
Taylor, Charles (1989) Sourcesof the self: The nnking of the modern identity. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univcrsity Press.
Taylor, Charles (1991) The dialogical self. In David R. Hiley, et al. (eds.),lnterpretive rutn:
Philosophy,science,culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 304-314.
Watsuji,Tetsuro (193411963)Ningen no gaku tosite no rinrigaku. In Junzo Karaki(ed.), Watsuji
Tetsuro,gendai nihon shisoo taikei 28. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, pp. 55-128.