Language and Food

Language and Food Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS) Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within language sciences. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns Editor Associate Editor Anita Fetzer Andreas H. Jucker University of Augsburg University of Zurich Founding Editors Jacob L. Mey Herman Parret University of Southern Denmark Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp Jef Verschueren Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp Editorial Board Robyn Carston Sachiko Ide Deborah Schiffrin Thorstein Fretheim Kuniyoshi Kataoka University of Trondheim Aichi University Paul Osamu Takahara John C. Heritage Miriam A. Locher University College London Japan Women’s University University of California at Los Angeles Universität Basel Susan C. Herring Indiana University Masako K. Hiraga St. Paul’s (Rikkyo) University Georgetown University Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Sandra A. Thompson Sophia S.A. Marmaridou University of Athens University of California at Santa Barbara Srikant Sarangi Teun A. van Dijk Cardiff University Marina Sbisà University of Trieste Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Yunxia Zhu The University of Queensland Volume 238 Language and Food. Verbal and nonverbal experiences Edited by Polly E. Szatrowski Language and Food Verbal and nonverbal experiences Edited by Polly E. Szatrowski University of Minnesota John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdamâ•›/â•›Philadelphia 8 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of theâ•¯American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. CIP data is available from the Library of Congress. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 238 isbn 978 90 272 5643 0 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7088 7 (Eb) © 2014 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa Table of contents Part I.â•‡ Introduction 1. Introduction to Language and food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences Polly Szatrowski 3 Part II.â•‡ Process and structural organization 2. Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures William O. Beeman 31 3. The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi53 Satomi Kuroshima Part III.â•‡ Talking about the food while eating 4. It’s delicious!: How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event Mari Noda 5. Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa: We eat what we are Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski 6. Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches: Identifying and assessing an unfamiliar drink Polly Szatrowski 79 103 131 Part IV.â•‡ Experiences and stories related to food 7. Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction159 Chisato Koike 8. Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories about food and restaurants: A group bonding exercise 185 Mariko Karatsu â•‡ Talk about food with and among children 9.vi Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences Part V. Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese Matthew Burdelski 233 11. pretend play. juice and water in an ethnically diverse kindergarten class in Denmark Martha Sif Karrebæk 279 Author index 301 Subject index 305 Food names and descriptor index 313 Commensality index 317 . Family mealtimes. yuckiness and the socialization of disgust responses by preschool children Sally Wiggins 211 10. “I needa cut up my soup”: Food talk. Healthy beverages?: The interactional use of milk. and gender in an American preschool Amy Sheldon 257 12. part i Introduction . . for her help and the efficiency with which she moved this book through the review process. Dr. identify and assess food. Both form an important part of our identities. and analyzing video (in some cases together with audio) recordings of spontaneous casual conversations. Eegimaa and Wolof (two African languages spoken in Senegal). and to proceed during a meal (e. How do we use our language and bodies to taste. how do we use them to get to and from the table. Prof. Editor for the Pragmatics and Beyond Series.g. and how do we talk about our experiences with and tell stories about food and restaurants? 1. and influence others’ preferences.. This book focuses on how people use verbal and nonverbal resources to experience food in actual conversations among people eating and talking about food in a variety of languages. German. We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and comments on this volume. conversations over food. The languages include American and British English. Japanese. Danish. We explore the relation between language and food based on observations from fieldwork and surveys in the countries where these languages are spoken. How does food trigger the memory of past experiences. and Isja Cohen and others at John Benjamins for everything they did to make this book go to press. while ordering at a sushi restaurant)? 2. and Turkish. and sounds which we associate with food early in and throughout our lives. i.e. smells.chapter 1 Introduction to Language and food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences Polly Szatrowski University of Minnesota 1. Persian.. and food assessment and family mealtime conversations. How do we organize our language and bodies around food. textures. The analyses address the following questions: 1. visual features. Anita Fetzer (Augsburg University). and how do these distinctions and discriminations define us as people and construct identities? 3. Arabic. . Introduction What could be more central to our lives than language and food?1 We learn language and the tastes. language and identity. everyone is concerned with the food that they eat. these interactions are an important context in which to examine “ritual and performance. group identity. Thus.” “food.) that we analyze can be observed in other contexts. no other social or cultural practice occurs so frequently or has such a potential to be overlooked due to its habitual nature.” “food description. etc. and regardless of age. gender.” “Talking about the food while eating. the relation between language . The chapters focus on the verbal and nonverbal behavior observed or in videotapes of conversations related to food using conversation analysis. We also have a need to describe. identities.” Language and food coincide daily and on repeated occasions..4 Polly Szatrowski 4.” “Experiences and stories related to food. identification and assessment. identification and assessment. etc. identity. It is important to note that the contributors do not treat food or language as an OBJECT. anthropology and psychology. Ochs and Beck (2013. assessment). identify and assess food in order to survive.” “Process and structural organization. etc. shared values. observational discursive psychology. How does language and nonverbal behavior in conversations over and about food socialize children (novices) and adults to food practices. and anthropological approaches.” The regular way in which we eat and deal with food daily and transmit information over time has given rise to distinctive rituals and performances in our interactions involving language and food. These identities are multifold.” “food. 63) point out that “sharing a meal is a universal opportunity for strengthening the ties that bind a family.” and “verbal and nonverbal resources in talk about food.” The question “Why food?” might be raised because many aspects of the interactions over food (socialization. language and identity. Our answer is that food is a very central part of human life. etc. and has memories of past food experiences. cook. Japanese linguistics.” and “Talk about food with and among children.? The book is divided into 5 parts: “Introduction. without food we could not exist.” and “verbal and nonverbal resources in talk about food. but rather as part of a SOCIAL ACTIVITY through which people construct their lifeworlds by displaying stances (e. p.” “food description. maintain our health and raise the quality of our lives.” “child and adult socialization through food. gender norms. taste. The ubiquitous nature of interactions involving language and food makes them a prime area where aspects related to the four themes of this volume intersect and are negotiated and communicated over time.” The contributors come from backgrounds including linguistics. linguistic ethnography. affect.g. applied linguistics. Patterns in these interactions influence and contribute to our identities and socialization. beliefs.” “child and adult socialization through food. Common themes in the papers in this volume include the relation of language and food to “ritual and performance. 1997. taste. 2. choosing and modifying everything that the body ingests and digests and assimilates. Leví-Strauss.” (Bourdieu. 1984. smell.” ‘â†œTell me what you eat. presenting and offering food. p. Appendix A gives important information about the data. Despite the claims of these studies that food is intimately related to identity and one’s relationships with others. and sight.g. French gastronomist Brillat-Savarin’s (1926. 5 . and intricately involved in the way we use language. It is “an incorporated principle of classification which governs all forms of incorporation. the French sociologist. and Japanese romanization used in this volume. individual tastes. values. to others and to one’s own body” (Bourdieu. 13) famous aphorism “Dis-moi ce que tu manges. are not limited to food-related contexts. There have been semantic studies of cooking terms in a variety of languages (Lehrer. and present a synthesis of the common themes across the chapters.â•‡ Introduction and food in social activities reveals aspects of identity not only on a group level (e. 1984. 2011). It is also important for the formation of identity and culture. serving. construction of group identity. embodied. etc. Previous research related to language and food Food is more than a nutrient. p. and I will tell you what you are’ suggests the intimate connection between food and identity. 1972. Taste. Kunihiro. ethnic groups. I will review prior research on language and food. they are highlighted in interactions involving language and food. Indeed we might go so far as to suggest that interactions involving language and food are a primordial context where ways we use our language and bodies emerge and can be extended to other aspects of human life. perceptions. hearing. behaviors. English translation.. 1967. a class culture turned into nature. that is. p. as members of nations. and experiences). Similarly. give an overview of the chapters in this volume. but also on an individual level (e. je te dirai ce que tu es. etc. 1970. and it shapes and organizes everyday life experiences. helps to shape the body.. 1969. socialization.). etc. physiologically and psychologically. We experience food through all five senses. 193). one’s body. preferences. much of the previous linguistic research on language and food has focused primarily on lexical items. 190) Taste in food is dependent on “other dimensions of the relationship to the world. transcription conventions. touch. Fukutome et al. Chapter 1. According to Bourdieu (1984).g. and Appendix B describes the taster meal analyzed in Chapters 5 and 6. the life-style of each class is constructed in relation to the other through distinctive ways of treating. Although assessment. In this chapter. Bourdieu (1984) demonstrated that people show their affiliation and disaffiliation with communities through their food preferences. etc. and revolve around themes related to Bourdieu’s “taste of necessity” and “taste of freedom” (Bourdieu. Hayakawa. 2011). 2004). eating and drinking verbs (Newman. 2005. Ioku. 2005). television food commercials in the U. Nakamura et al. and words for taste and flavor in Tzeltal (Brown. Hayakawa. and Italy (Ochs & Shohet. Hayakawa. 2006. used explicit taste descriptors. 2010). whereas Italian families gave priority to food as pleasure” (Ochs et al. 2002.. There have also been studies on Japanese informants’ preferences for taste terms (Ohashi. 1996). 2011. 1969. 1994. Nishinari. 35). p. 36) has focused on the use of language in naturally occurring contexts (Duranti. Ochs. 2006. Japan. has language and food been studied in ways that reveal their intricate interplay in spontaneous conversational interaction. Schieffelin & Ochs. They showed how food becomes “charged with specific sociocultural meanings” through practices involved in socializing taste in actual mealtime conversations in the U.6 Polly Szatrowski expressions used in wine tasting (Lehrer. these studies focus on the relationship between language and food outside of its normal habitat – eating in everyday life. Ochs et al. 2012). 2006. p. Chinese texture terms (Hayakawa. 2007). 2011) and Southeast Asia (Enfield.S. 1980).S. 2006. 2. 1983. . However. Ochs & Schieffelin. Harada. Ioku. the connection between language and the senses (Majid & Levinson. Pontecorvo. Rarely. Ochs & Shohet. 2006. “the process by which children and other novices acquire sociocultural competence through language and other semiotic modalities” (Ochs & Shohet. Nishinari. Yoneda. and reward. & Schieffelin.. morality and local understandings of the world” (Ochs & Shohet. Akuzawa. 2009).S. 39). while commercials in Korea and the U. and associated sensual pleasure of food with other sensual pleasures. analyses of menus (Zwicky & Zwicky. Kulick & Schieffelin.. Hayakawa. 1984.. 2006).2 and e-mail discussions about food (Sneijder & te Molder. Akiyama. Kazami. For example. Garrett & BaquedanoLopes. “American families gave high priority to food as nutrition. p. Research on language socialization. Chen et al. Takasaki. Ochs. Akuzawa. Caballero. (1996) and Ochs and Shohet (2006) claimed that mealtimes are “pregnant arenas for the production of sociality. 2006. 2002. the use of onomatopoeia and other terms for food texture in Japanese (Akiyama. 1986). 2008). Akuzawa. Japanese taste terms (Backhouse. 1984. television and magazine food advertisements in Japan and Korea (Koo. 2006. recipes (Fisher. Ochs et al. Strauss (2005) focused to some extent on the interaction in commercials in her analysis of the tendency for Japanese commercials to use generic taste descriptors. there have been several groundbreaking studies that have looked at how children are socialized around food. 2012). 2004. 2002. Yoneda. Saito et al. Baba et al. & Fasulo (1996). 2006. p. 2003. 2007). Using this approach. Ioku. 177.. Ochs. hyperbole and emphatic expressions. 2011). 1985. Lakoff. and Korea (Strauss. with a few exceptions. 2006. Kazami. a material good. Goodwin (1981. (2011). 2012) and Indonesian (DuFon. and others). temporally unfolding sequence of embodied action” (C. and use verbal and nonverbal behavior in assessments to create “congruent understanding” (Goodwin. mealtimes that often involved conflict and children’s negative assesments of food that they disliked. Goodwin & M. In (1).S. 2010). 2003. 2006. many of which relate to food. While U. 1981. C. 1986. families eat for dinner. Research in conversation analysis has developed methodologies that can be used to characterize the intricate interplay between language and food through careful attention to talk-in-interaction. bodies.S. In contrast to U. Rather. C. and how this relates to whether or not they eat it together and what they say when they do. Furthermore. 2000. Goodwin. 7). Goodwin & M. 2006) language learners are socialized through food. families favored equal food distribution. parents’ health imperatives. 2009. 2013) and others have demonstrated that human actions are embedded within complex semiotic systems constituted by multimodal resources including talk. Karatsu (2004. 2010c. Szatrowski (2000a. 2007). Koike (2001. 2012). gaze.S. 1987:â•›32). and material surroundings. 2002a. Mandelbaum (2010) showed how story recipients’ disruption and intervention during storytelling at family dinners contribute to the interactive construction of family roles and relationships. and conflict over eating habits. food distribution in Italian families favored the child over the parents. 2013. Koike. 2004b. Clacia projects an upcoming assessment from Diane’s lengthened intensifiers so:: so//: and body movement.â•‡ Introduction 1996. Chapter 1. 2000b. Italian parents oriented to pleasure using a rich grammar of positive affect to praise the food and the preparer. Goodwin and M. Burdelski (2006) develops this work further in his research on language socialization using videotaped recordings of spontaneous interactions between Japanese two-year olds and a range of interlocutors in a variety of settings including mealtime in Japan. There have also been studies on how Japanese (Cook. 2010b. Szatrowski. Goodwin (1987) confirmed that assessments are not lodged solely in the individual. They found that families that eat preprepared convenience foods eat together less than those that eat meals made with fresh ingredients. Streeck. 2009. 1986. and they do so even in situations in which they did not share the same experience. and nurture the child’s individual tastes. artifacts. Conversational participants often assess the food they are eating. Ochs and Beck (2013) refine this analysis further in a recent study of what U. participants co-construct assessments as in (1) using one another’s verbal/ nonverbal behavior to project what is coming in an “intricate. Clancy’s (1986) research on the acquisition of Japanese communicative style is based on interactions between caretaker and child(ren). and overlaps Diane’s goo:d 7 . Goodwin. Studies of assessments and emotion in conversational interaction are particularly relevant to research on language and food. Goodwin and LeBaron. 2008. 1987:â•›28–33. 2002b. and children may prefer not to eat together to avoid food negotiations. 2010a. p. 2004b. 2005. 2003. rather than merely as a private internal experience (M. gesture. p.8 Polly Szatrowski (accompanied by a nod and an eyebrow flash) with her congruent assessment I love it and nods. 239). 2001). In (1) bold = emphasis (italics in original). She demonstrated that the participants used distal demonstratives to refer to entities in their individual minds as well as co-experienced shared entities. Goodwin & M. 2012). Goodwin & C. . and texture (often with onomatopoetic adverbs). p. smell. Goodwin & C. a new area of psychology grounded in the analysis of conversational interaction. and subjective versus objective constructions. and postposing) similar to Goffman’s (1981) response cries. Research by Wiggins.” “evaluate the events being assessed in a similar way” (M. 2001. Goodwin. 2001. and build events that “constitute their lifeworlds” (M. involving intonation. comments on the food preparation 3. c. & C. //= overlap ([ in the original). intensifiers. Goodwin. immediate responses to the food (exclamations. A. Wiggins (2001.| | | Nod Nod (C. and how these entities converged in the storytelling. 254). She found that they used: a. Goodwin. 1987:â•›32) Emotion is also an embodied performance. and Wildsmith (2001) and Wiggins and Potter (2008) outlines discursive psychology. Cekaite. Potter. Goodwin. assessments are dynamic accomplishments embodied in the conversational interaction.| Clacia: |I love| | it. mmm. and Wiggins (2004) investigates the interactive construction of children’s healthy eating practices. Participants use emotion and assessments “to display that their minds are together. Thus. Karatsu (2010) analyzed how a Japanese storyteller shared her personal discovery of a new taste and her assessment of the taste with her story recipient.Goodwin. Goodwin & C. 2002) and Wiggins and Potter (2003) show how food evaluation is constructed in mealtime interaction focusing on evaluation. evaluations related to taste. Szatrowski (2011) investigated the verbal and nonverbal behavior in a taster meal between 3 Japanese women under 30. and is organized as an interactive practice. body posture and timing (M. 2000. Goodwin.3 (1) Diane: Jeff made en asparagus pie Lowers Nod with Upper Eyebrow Trunk Flash | | | Diane: it wz s:: so//:| |goo:d. b. the chapters in this volume take a dynamic approach by focusing on language and food not as objects. identification. Part II “Process and structural organization” consists of 2 chapters that give overall perspectives on the relation between language and food in the process. and the structural organization of ordering and serving sushi in sushi restaurants in Japan. repetition). i. A few papers have begun to explore the interplay between gender.4 Part IV “Experiences and stories related to food” has 2 chapters that focus on how Japanese speakers talk about their experiences with and tell stories about food in casual conversations. events. loanwords. Chapter 1. Szatrowski (2013) shows that amai ‘sweet’ can have a negative connotation in taster lunch interactions. while boys talked about the process of devouring food. Counihan (1999) showed that in stories about food. gender and age differences in the use of Japanese texture vocabulary (Hayakawa et al. 2012). Nonverbal behavior included noodle slurping and other sounds made while eating the food. There have been studies on the use of dessert metaphors to refer to women (Hines. DeVault (1994) investigated women’s narratives about their family food preparation. manipulation of various eating utensils. comments on the effects of the food and appropriateness for the season.â•‡ Introduction (including health benefits). and j. Wolof. for example. and beat gestures. identify and assess food while eating at a potluck party and in a workplace office. and how well specific ingredients go together. e. Building on this previous research. g. f. and assessment in contexts in which people are eating and tasting food. and the use of sweet foods/ words for lovers and/ or children (Dolinar-Hikawa. gender differences in Japanese words that mean “delicious” (Takasaki. d. contrary to Backhouse’s (1994) claim that descriptive taste terms such as amai ‘sweet’ have a +OISII ‘good-tasting’ affective value (based on a semantic study of Japanese taste terms in question-answer sentences out of context). A few studies have focused on narratives about food and gender. Details on the taster meal are given in Appendix B of this chapter. and American English. Part III “Talking about the food while eating” consists of 3 chapters that deal with food description.. comments on size and quantity of the food. 1999). h. The focus is on the actual use of language to describe. comments on how to eat the food. and Shohet (2007) explored how women use narratives to reframe and recover from anorexia. 2007). 4. 9 . language and food. Eegimaa. pointing at the food with the index finger or chopsticks. but rather as part of social activities in naturally occurring interactions. 1994. comparisons with other foods. girls referred to eating and drinking as a comestible. comments that negative preconceptions about the food had been overturned. and actions involved in getting to and from the table for a meal. and in conversations over a 3-course taster meal in Japanese. 2006). agreement (aizuti ‘back channel utterances.’ laughter. and closing). Emerging themes related to language and food Emerging themes in the papers in this volume include the relation of language and food to “ritual and performance. language and identity. Japanese. etc. Beeman focuses on the stages of commensality that participants pass through when going from the outside world to the meal and back. 2006. Across cultures this can be analyzed in terms of events. He presents a model that encompasses social rituals. 37).” The ubiquitous.” “the practice of sharing food and eating together in a social group” (Ochs & Shohet.” i. German. identity. manners.10 Polly Szatrowski Part V “Talk about food with and among children” consists of 4 chapters concerning how children are socialized and socialize others regarding food affect. taste. p. which are systematically and intricately coordinated by the customer and chef using verbal and nonverbal resources.” “child and adult socialization through food. based on fieldwork in four cultures (Middle East.” “food description. .” and “verbal and nonverbal resources in talk about food. the actual eating/ drinking context. By examining the structure and interactions in actual contexts involving language and food we hope to put the spice back into research on language and food that previously tended to focus on the somewhat bland meaning of words out of context. The phases in the overall structural organization of ordering and serving in Japanese sushi restaurants are constructed and delimited through an intricately coordinated and multi-modal performance. Kuroshima demonstrates that the overall structural organization consists of three phases (opening. they are also understood to be part of larger cultural and structural organizations. While the other chapters focus more on what Beeman refers to as the “commensality stage. and American). gender. social scenes. In Chapter 2. and set linguistic phrases that serve as “pragmemic triggers” for each stage.e.. This is particularly evident in the 2 chapters in Part II “Process and structural organization.” “food. essential nature of food gives rise to highly structured patterns in the ritual and performance of “commensality. These 2 chapters set the stage for the other chapters in the book. etc. In Chapter 3. customs.” I will discuss these themes below while referring to relevant chapters in the volume. 3. 3.1 Ritual and performance Ritual and performance are intricately related to food consumption and talk about food. continuing state of incipient ordering/talk. identification and assessment. Chapter 5). Chapter 6).” These chapters deal with food description. identification and assessment This theme is central to the 3 chapters in Part III “Talking about the food while eating. American boys’ and girls’ play in a kitchen play area is a performance that reflects and reconstitutes gender norms (Sheldon. In Chapter 4. Chapter 8). 11 .” viewing each interaction as a performance situated in a specific place and time.S. Japanese speakers associate foods with specific seasons. identification. 3. Wolof and Eegimaa speakers recall ceremonial occasions and associate their native food with ceremonial rituals (Bassene & Szatrowski.S. Chapter 10). ceremonies and ritual foods. the participants recall the food their mothers put in their bentoo ‘box lunches’ for the occasion. 2000). Chapter 1.2 Food description. Learning how to function in a culture includes performing events related to food consumption and is crucial for socialization into that culture (Noda. She also emphasizes the importance of teaching Japanese language learners how to share personal food experiences and use sensory expressions related to food. audience and script (Walker. the U. Japan. and personal/ special events such as undookai ‘athletics day’5 (Koike. Together. Chapter 4). and assessment. Conversations over and about food are full of references to special/ personal events.â•‡ Introduction Second/ foreign language learning has been approached as “performed culture. and recall experiences involving toasting and birthday songs (Karatsu. Noda analyzes the Japanese food descriptions used at a potluck party and in a work place office in terms of flavor. Chapters 5 and 6 analyze conversations during a taster meal served in the U. coined native words and code-switching are used in Wolof and Eegimaa to assess the food 5. and Senegal. these chapters suggest that ritual and performance provide a rich and informative frame in which interactions over food can be situated. In referring to food associated with undookai ‘athletics day’. Japanese caregivers socialize preschool children to behave properly at the table using ritual phrases and embodied actions such as bowing and hands together in prayer to mark the beginning and end of meals (Burdelski. Bassene and Szatrowski demonstrate how loanwords. areas of Japan. (See Appendix B for a description of the three-course meal which consisted of authentic foods from Japan. Chapter 7).. These practices are also observed in adult Japanese taster lunches (Szatrowski. with specific roles. Chapter 11). personal experiences and onomatopoeia. texture. and Senegal. See Allison (1997) for an indepth account of the cultural order and meaning of bentoo ‘box lunches’ in Japan.) In Chapter 5. Together these chapters suggest that food description.g. Koike demonstrates how participants use food to co-construct temporal/ spatial concepts. truth approximation forms. Sacks. Karatsu shows how Japanese women’s repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of their stories about food and restaurants serves as a group bonding device. Szatrowski reports on differences in Japanese and American English participants’ use of modal and evidential forms to identify and assess an unfamiliar juice during the taster meal. to distance themselves from the foreign food. but is also negotiated in emerging talk-in-interaction. 165) claim that identity is created by the food we eat. 143. language and identity The relation between food. Koike concludes that contrary to Lakoff ’s (2006. Americans expressed their personal opinions directly primarily using forms of belief/ opinion (I think). especially the 2 chapters in Part IV “Experiences and stories related to food. and some comparative/matching forms and sensory evidential forms. Japanese speakers co-created concepts related to familiar food to reinforce their shared identity. identification and assessments are negotiated among participants. and final particles to request agreement and include others in the process. and can be intertwined with assertions of individual and group identity. identity and personal/ social events in their everyday talk. Koike (Chapter 7) shows how knowing and unknowing Japanese participants use their talk and body to share. They also referred to foods that represent “Japanese-ness” to reinforce their Japanese identity. p. lack of a native word).” The focus is on how identity is constructed. 3.12 Polly Szatrowski during the taster meal. language and identity is also an important element of many of the papers in this volume.. and shared and blended individual perceptions and experiences eating similar foods at personal/ social events to consolidate their group identity. and rarely requested agreement. Through repetition in the context of new stories. She concludes that categorization is not merely cognitive. and this strategy served to reinforce/ construct their identity. In Chapter 6. In Chapter 8. negotiate and create categories in order to achieve mutual understanding of one another’s personal experiences of food. In contrast. these . 1998.3 Food. In Chapter 7. emerging and consequential in talk (Antaki & Widdicombe. 1992). participants used loanwords in a strategy of demarcation/ evaluation. In addition to practical reasons (e. The Japanese used more sensory evidential forms. identity is created and shared through talk-in-interaction about food. but also learn how to think. 2006. the women create solidarity and reinforce their sense of group identity. Danish children use talk about healthy drinks (e. etc. 1986. By showing that they can interpret the punch lines that they repeated from previous stories correctly. Chapter 5). and their expression of food preferences reinforced tribal membership. milk) as a resource to socially position themselves as respectable and create alignments with their kindergarten teachers. interpersonal harmony. p.â•‡ Introduction words and phrases take on symbolic/ evaluative meanings which can be used by participants to display their shared understanding of previous stories. 35). Wolof and Eegimaa participants’ choices between loanwords and native words. Preschool children are socialized to food practices which draw on empathy. Activities around food are important for creating social bonds. 163.g. Chapter 1. competent members of the community. 1976) of 13 . Burdelski. Children (or novices) learn how to use language pragmatically and socially as an index (Silverstein. 3. This serves to reinforce majority identity while excluding minority non-Danish children who have different food practices and attitudes towards the health value of milk (Karrebæk. and socializing children to be “competent and appropriate members of society” (Ochs & Shohet. and act in ways that reflect the values. conveying norms and values. Chapter 10). and traditions of the community (“socialization through the use of language”) (Schieffelin & Ochs. Chapter 11). Eegimaa speakers’ practice of coining words in their native language was a strategy to protect their language and linguistic identity (Bassene & Szatrowski. Their use of loanwords as a demarcation/ (negative) evaluation strategy to distance themselves from foreign food reinforced their food identity.4 Child and adult socialization through food Many papers in this volume approach language and food from the point of view of socialization. ideologies. p. these food practices create a unique cultural profile that socializes their Japanese identity (Burdelski. The relation between language and identity is also apparent in talk-in-interaction about food with and among children. server and customer are essential to successfully frame events in sushi restaurant conversations. Together. Through interactions with more knowledgeable. western images. Practices in American children’s play with food-related objects reinforce implicit gender prescriptions that define and create gendered identities (Sheldon. feel. Chapter 10). children (or novices) not only acquire language (“socialization to use language”). They are mutually recognized in the opening phase and oriented to in the closing phases as part of the overall structural organization (Kuroshima. Locally constructed identities such as chef. Chapter 3). During the taster meal. Japanese religion. Chapter 12). and activities (Ochs. In Chapter 10. and shows how food socialization can lead to the social exclusion of children with different cultural backgrounds as well as intercultural (mis)understanding. 2004). In Chapter 12. In Chapter 9. considered to be funny. The fact that children’s disgust markers are often ignored. Her analysis reveals the cultural and moral hierarchies associated with the health value of food. social actions. resist. 2002). etc. danger. the boys transformed the food objects and the home setting to accommodate play involving adventure. and shows how they socialize one another to gender-normative practices through their use of language. and can be agents who socialize. challenge. Wiggins uses a discursive psychological/ conversation analytic approach to examine how preschool children and their parents enact and acquire the meaning and use of “disgust” in family mealtime conversations in England and Scotland.14 Polly Szatrowski socio-cultural meaning in stances. He demonstrates how caregivers and children use verbal and nonverbal resources in strategies to socialize children to feel and relate in certain ways to others. The theme “child and adult socialization through food” is approached head on in the 4 chapters in Part V “Talk about food with and among children”. While the girls spent a lot of time discussing and preparing meals with the kitchen objects. finishing food. and proper table behavior. and suggests that developing nonnative speakers’ competence in this area will make it easier for them to engage in personal interactions in Japan. This has important implications for health education. juice and water in a Danish kindergarten shows how children’s socialization into healthy food practices is negotiated and constructed linguistically. Burdelski identifies 3 practices in preschool children’s meal and snack time in Japan: talking about food. identities. or treated as attention-seeking devices has important implications for how children are socialized to eating practices.. 2011). Noda’s (Chapter 4) analyzes Japanese speakers’ food descriptions at a potluck party and workplace office. Sheldon’s analysis of American preschool girls’ and boys’ play (in a preschool play area with objects from a home setting) elucidates the meanings that they ascribe to food and eating. and transform others (Kulick & Schieffelin. In Chapter 11. She demonstrates that the children’s disgust markers (yuck) differ from that of their parents (eugh). sometimes playing the roles of mother and child. to food. She argues that describing food and relating personal experiences with food are important pedagogical strategies for Japanese food socialization. Language socialization occurs across a variety of settings and is a lifelong process (Duranti et al. Karrebæk’s ethnographic and micro-analytic study of interactions related to milk. and to food-related objects. Bassene and Szatrowski (Chapter 5) show that knowing how to use loanwords for demarcation/ evaluation in interactions about food is important for language socialization in the Wolof and Eegimaa cultures in . touch (texture and temperature). ingredients). Szatrowski (Chapter 6) shows that identifying and 15 . Chapter 2). eating utensil movements. Chapter 4). invitations. Koike (Chapter 7) claims that participants exploit food with indexical meaning to categorize members of society as well as to dynamically create food categories. including flavor.. Chapter 3).â•‡ Introduction Senegal. and pointing (Kuroshima. e. Ochs & Shohet (2006). kisses. Linguistic formulas used in greetings. Duranti et al. coined native words and code-switching are also constructed and reflected in their accompanying body movements (Bassene & Szatrowski.5 Verbal and nonverbal resources in talk about food The papers in this volume analyze how verbal and nonverbal resources are used for food description. and accompanying bows. participants display their orientation to the entire dining activity as well as to moment-by-moment action via their fine-tuned monitoring of one another’s availability and coordination of verbal discourse markers. back stretches. The chapters in this book extend Schieffelin & Ochs’ (1986).g. and intricately involved in issues related to food. together with gaze direction. texture (often using onomatopoeia). can be highly structured and regular (Beeman. language. information (smell. and evaluation (Noda. They also expand this concept by demonstrating the many and subtle ways it occurs in talk-in-interaction over and/ or about food. requests. She also demonstrates that eating habits and experiences are embedded socioculturally. Karatsu (Chapter 8) shows how participants’ repetition of phrases from previous stories about food and restaurants in other stories is important for showing their shared understanding and creating bonds in their social group. identification and assessment. hugs. Chapter 5). and shared. 3. In more local negotiations of structural organization. Chapter 1. and the beginning and end of stages of commensality. This suggests that food identification can provide an arena for socialization into the structuring of opinion presentation using modal and evidential forms. etc. These resources are also essential to ritual and performance associated with food. Szatrowski’s (Chapter 6) comparison of the conversational development in which belief/ opinion forms are used in taster lunches shows that Americans used I think in successive utterances throughout food identification sequences. revised and recreated in relation to life experiences. between sushi chef and customers. and identity.’s (2011) and others’ concept of socialization to many cultures. etc. The attitudes that multi-lingual speakers in Senegal express when choosing to use loanwords. Japanese taste descriptions relate to nonverbal senses. past experience. while Japanese speakers used to omou ‘(I) think’ after a differing opinion had been expressed to finalize their opinion and summarize the discussion. comments on production. while boys shifted play themes rapidly. passive forms. body movements. Chapter 9). Caretakers used pragmatic particles. (Burdelski. demonstrating their bad experience with dramatic gestures. Verbal and nonverbal devices used in the socialization of preschool children include disgust responses by children (yuck) and parents (eugh). Japanese speakers achieve mutual understanding in explanations of food referring to time. and tended to use I think. and changes in body posture (Wiggins. and this influenced . smell (bringing nose close to cup). Japanese speakers used a variety of modal and evidential forms and body movements (squinting and lowering eyebrows. etc. smiling. Chapter 11). and facial expressions. girls engaged in a mutual focus from early on. Chapter 3). Chapter 10). and pointing gestures in assessment strategies when socializing Japanese children to eating practices. echoic close repetitions. etc. 1981). space. contrast differences..16 Polly Szatrowski assessing an unfamiliar drink can be an embodied performance involving talk. direct quotation. personal/ special events. Chapter 5). Chapter 7). laughter. Chapter 8). to create concepts related to familiar food. Words and phrases from the punch lines (that were often accompanied by gestures) of previous stories about food and restaurants were often repeated in subsequent stories. etc. and create ad hoc categories (Barsalou.). etc. This gave symbolic/ evaluative meaning to these forms and with laughter helped create solidarity (Karatsu. etc. In children’s gendered talk in a domestic play area. 1983) for unfamiliar food (Koike. a Wolof speaker told a story about how disappointed he was when vermicelli were served instead of the traditional cere ‘a type of couscous’ at a family Tamxarit (beginning of the New Year in the Islamic calendar) celebration using hand gestures and head shakes (Bassene & Szatrowski. and reported about parallel activities eliciting gaze though not necessarily to receive a response (Sheldon. head twist tilts. an American couple told stories about a similar drink they had in Istanbul. etc. Children also learn how to use expressions such as oisii ‘delicious’ with appropriate sequential timing. and facial expressions. response cries (Goffman. mitai ‘like’) to compare similarities. together with disgust facial expressions. After eating some Japanese noodles during the Japanese course of a taster meal. sensory evidentials. While drinking an unfamiliar drink at a taster lunch. Americans smelled the drink. taste (inner mouth licks). Japanese guests at a potluck party recollected past experiences when describing the taste of the food (Noda. Narrative/ storytelling using verbal and nonverbal resources was a common genre in the food conversations analyzed in this volume. linking and coordinating collaboration in reciprocal turn sequences. and ritualistic expressions before and after a meal together with bows. reported speech. and indicated that evidence came from sight (tilting cup and looking inside). hands in prayer. manipulation of artifacts. and onomatopoeia and expressions of simile (-(p)poi. Chapter 4). and participates in the overall structural organization of interactions such as ordering in sushi restaurants (Kuroshima. and can be used by children and teachers to construct personal relations and position children as deviant as well as exclude them (Karrebæk. participants achieve mutual understandings. and modified (Koike. Chapter 8). etc. Chapter 7). assessment and even the identification of food is not done simply in terms of nutritional value and sensory characteristics. Chapter 5). identifications. Chapter 9). Chapter 9. Chapter 1. created. 17 . Food is a common focus of stories that can be used to create solidarity (Karatsu. It is a vehicle for teaching children to learn to distinguish emotions such as distaste and disgust (Wiggins. American children’s play narratives involve manipulation and transformation of play objects to reenact gender norms (Sheldon. socialize one another into food practices. The categorization.â•‡ Introduction the participants to assess the drink negatively (Szatrowski. Karrebæk. The category of healthy food is not only an issue of physical health. Through the intricately coordinated use of verbal and nonverbal resources. varies across culture. and used onomatopoeia and gestures to describe food they had eaten in the past (Koike. and for socializing children in how to shape feelings and relationships with others. Sheldon. Chapter 6). Chapter 10). Identification of unfamiliar foods involves not only sensory evidence. food. Burdelski. (Burdelski. It can relate to food identity and linguistic identity (Bassene & Szatrowski. and assessments of food. Chapter 5). Chapter 3). Chapter 11). Chapter 11). Chapter 8). Chapter 6). Conclusion Analyses of the relation between language and food in the chapters in this volume suggest that food is much more than a nutrient. Chapter 11. It is important for socialization of children (Wiggins. Chapter 12) and other novices including second language learners (Noda. Chapter 7). food-related objects. Chapter 12). and shape one another’s identities and experience of food. Categories of food are related to life experiences and culturally and socially embedded in interactions where they are dynamically negotiated. but also information from past experiences and interactive structuring of opinion presentation (Szatrowski. but indexes cultural beliefs and moral hierarchies. A food-related play area can be an arena for boys’ and girls’ gender socialization (Sheldon. and a symbol of culture and identity (Bassene & Szatrowski. Chapter 10. Chapter 2). 4. Japanese women told stories about food and restaurants highlighting the punch lines with laughter and hand gestures (Karatsu. Food is a crucial element of ubiquitous commensality which universally involves social ritual and performance (Beeman. Barsalou. (1994).. Paris: Les Arts et le Livre. Brillat-Savarin. New York: Routledge.). 6(1). Atkinson. (1926). (Doctoral dissertation. Norwood. 1–14). Caballero.â•›W. Language socialization of two-year old children in Kansai. P. Manner-of-motion verbs in wine description. (2007). Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. 106–116. (1997). and linguistic aspects of narrative production. 12–27. DuFon & E.. (1983). In C. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.). (2006). J. Antaki. Bourdieu. and cultural identities in conversations over and about food. & Heritage.â•›A. meditations on transcendental gastronomy].). Burdelski. 296–313). (2002). Physiologie du goût.) (1984). Joint construction of folk beliefs by JFL learners and Japanese host families. Ochs (Eds. (1986).). Â�Schieffelin & E. Â�Cambridge. Kokugakuin Daigaku Kokugo Kenkyuukai “Kokugo Kenkyuu” [Kokugakuin University Japanese Research Society “Inquiries into the Japanese Language”]. Kokugakuin Daigaku Kokugo Kenkyuukai “Kokugo Kenkyuu” [Kokugakuin University Japanese Research Society “Inquiries into the Japanese Language”]. M. P. Japanese mothers and obentōs: The lunch-box as ideological state apparatus. 66.Resipi no bunsyoo/ buntai ni tuite (Expressions related to “food”: On the discourse/ style of recipes). (1980). Â�Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Or. Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. Ou. Color me bitter: Cross modal compounding in Tzeltal perception words. In C. A. and education. Chafe.â•›E. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese.â•›M. Backhouse. Trans. They also suggest ways to integrate linguistics with food science. Akiyama. Counihan & P. and improve cross-cultural understanding. The pear stories: Cognitive. NJ: Ablex. P. In B. 2095–2114. References Akiyama. (2011). 11. categories. Journal of Pragmatics. London: Sage Publications. University of California at Los Angeles. 36–46. 39. Syokkan o arawasu onomatope ni tuite [On the onomatopoeia of the texture]. 211–227. Ad hoc categories. (1984).â•›B. & Widdicombe. (2003). Allison. cultural. W. MA: Harvard University Press. Cambridge: Â�Cambridge University Press. méditations de gastronomie transcendante [The physiology of taste. Widdicombe (Eds. the chapters in this volume contribute to research on contextualized social and cognitive activity and language socialization. CA. Nice. . R. Brown. In M. Food and culture: A reader (pp. Cook. Identity as an achievement and as a tool. Memory & Cognition. (1998). marketing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R.â•›A. H. “Syoku” o meguru hyoogen. Antaki & S.â•›M. 120–150). development. (2006). Churchill (Eds. Clancy. Los Angeles.18 Polly Szatrowski By elucidating the dynamic co-construction of assessments. The Senses and Society. A. J.â•›M. 65. (Eds. Japan: The family and beyond. M. L. USA). The lexical field of taste: A semantic study of Japanese taste terms. Identities in talk (pp. 213–250). Language socialization across cultures (pp. Van Esterik (Eds. S. C.). M. Chen. Churchill (Eds. Journal of ARAHE. C. I. 32. (1981). Goodwin. In A. Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. (2002). M. Sweet somethings. Ochs. H. In A. A. In A. C. Wertsch (Eds. MA: Blackwell. Journal of Pragmatics. Uzgris. 17. P. & Goodwin.. culture. Goodwin. DuFon & E.â•›C. Annual Review of Anthropology.. Unpublished manuscript.â•›A. In S. Kita (Ed. & B. Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (pp. 1489–522. C.â•›H. The handbook of language socialization. S. New York: Academic Press. Goffman. Perakyla & M. 239–257). M. C. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Fisher. Duncan. In M. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pointing as situated practice. 33–54).). transformation and change. 205–217. Cassell. Goodwin. In With bold knife and fork (pp. CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Emotion as stance. Mahwah. The anatomy of a recipe.â•›B. A study of cooking terms and expressions for the water heating process. Enfield.. C. 195–212).). (1987).â•›A. and cognition meet (pp..). In N. Goodwin. & Goodwin.. Stamford.â•›F. C. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.â•›B. Goodwin. 129–155)..). DeVault. Ayabe. E. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. M. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. C. A. Emotion within situated activity. C.. The Senses and Society. Duranti (Ed. (2000). (Eds. A. New York. and power (pp. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Goodwin. The anthropology of food and body: Gender. Goodwin.). Levy (Eds. M. B. M. Schieffelin (Eds. & Baquedano-Lopes. & E.â•›H. 1(1). Taste in two tongues: A Southeast Asian study of semantic convergence. Sorjonen (Eds. (2006). (2012). Fukutome.â•‡ Introduction Cook. Budwig. Pointing: Where language. 217–241). (2011). P.). & Goodwin.).. Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. In S. Goodwin.â•›M. C. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Emotion in interaction (pp. MA: Blackwell.â•›B.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2012).â•›L. Fantasy food: Gender and food symbolism in preschool children’s madeup stories. Otyanomizu Zyosi Daigaku Kokugo Kokubun Gakkai “Kokubun” [Ochanomizu University Kokugo Kokubun Society “National Literature”]. 100–110. (2001). Ochs. & Goodwin. C. & Schieffelin. E. NY: Counterpoint. Goodwin. Japanese. Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity. Dolinar-Hikawa. Cekaite. 19 . 339–61. 61(1)-51(11).[Research on the style used in recipes: Recipe articles in the magazine Huzin no tomo ‘Women’s friend’].. N.Zassi “Huzin no tomo” no ryoori kizi o taisyoo ni. (2011). (2011).). (1969).â•›H. M.â•›T. 30–37. Garrett. (2007). The handbook of language socialization (pp. Malden. N.. 16–41). (1981). 9. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics. (2007). The socialization of taste during study abroad in Indonesia. 6(1). 18. meaning. E. Environmentally coupled gestures. 31. DuFon. M. & J. (1986).English.â•›H.). Duranti.â•›D. Communication: An arena of development (pp.â•›K. 1–54. London: Routledge. Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 296–321). Counihan (Ed. Resipi no buntai ni kansuru kenkyuu. 1–14). Goto. & Kasai. (2000). Malden. C. Counihan. (2003). Human Studies. 120–150). Language socialization and stance-taking practices. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chapter 1.-L. (1994). Forms of talk. Harada. (1999). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. Emotion within situated activity. K. (2012). M. In C.. Duranti. M. J. Chinese. C. Chang. [A communication style of advertising phrases: A comparison of advertising phrases in women’s magazines of Japan and Korea]. Koike.â•›A. K. (2006). K. M. 327–336.. C. social circumstances and tellability of stories. Sharing a personal discovery of a taste: Using distal demonstratives in a storytelling about kakuni ‘stewed pork belly’. M. (2004). age and region]. gaze and body movements. and context. E.â•›H. Ningen Bunka Ronsoo [Journal of the Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences]. Nippon Syokuhin Kagaku Koogaku Kaisi [Food Science and Technology Research]. 145– 162).. Y. (2012). F. Yoneda. K.. In P. Kazami. Hayakawa. Karatsu. Y. S. 337–346.). Hayakawa. Hines. pointing. Yoneda. Baba. Nishinari. Liang. K. F. Tyuugokugo tekusutyaa hyoogen no syuusyuu to bunrui [Collection and classification of Chinese texture terms]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 54(11). Situmon sihoo ni yoru syoohisya no tekusutyaa goi tyoosa [Research survey of Japanese consumers on texture vocabulary]. Hines.. In M. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baba. 1999. C. 488–502.. A.. 131–141. pp.).).. Hayakawa. Akuzawa. Akuzawa. Japanese: The spoken language (Part 1). 113–146).Nihon to kankoku no kookokubun no hikaku kara.). (pp. M... (Doctoral dissertation. K. C. Verbal and nonverbal negotiation in Japanese storytelling. In P. CT: Yale University Press. S. Seebetu/ nenreebetu/ tiikibetu ni mita nihongo tekusutyaa yoogo no ninti zyookyoo [Recognition of Japanese texture descriptive terms according to gender. Szatrowski (Ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. Conversational storytelling among Japanese women: Conversational circumstances. Cultural performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. Ioku.. Koike. Interaction in storytelling in Japanese conversations: An analysis of story recipients’ questions.â•›C. Ioku. Szatrowski (Ed. Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre. In M.. Reinventing identitites: The gendered self in discourse (pp. New Haven.â•›C. Rebaking the pie: The woman as dessert metaphor. F. K. X. CA. Y. Y. Nishinari. 27. 53(6).. . T. 189–197. M. (2010). Y.. (1987). Wang. An analysis of shifts in participation roles in Japanese storytelling in terms of prosody. USA). C. K. (2006). Syokkan no onomatope [Onomatopoeia for food texture]. Hayakawa. Bucholtz. Los Angeles. Sutton (Eds.. Li. & C. Nakamura. Karatsu. 295–303). Nippon Syokuhin Kagaku Koogaku Kaisi [Food Science and Technology Research]. (2004). Kookokubun no dentatu yoosiki. Nippon Syokuhin Kagaku Koogaku Kaisi [Food Science and Technology Research]. In P. L. A. Nishinari. Jorden.. 51(3). Nihongo tekusutyaa yoogo no syuusyuu [Collection of Japanese texture terms].â•›A. & L.. K. & Kohyama. Koo. & Kohyama... M. “Let me call you sweetheart”: The woman as dessert metaphor. Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction (pp. Z.20 Polly Szatrowski Hayakawa. Ioku.. C.. F. CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. 125–161). Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre (pp... Kazami. Y. S. Tokyo: Kurosio. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berkeley. Akuzawa. & Yokohama. Karatsu.). Nippon Syokuhin Kagaku Koogaku Kaisi [Food Science and Technology Research]. Tokyo: Sanseido. Hines (Eds. Sutton. 9. & Kohyama. M. (2007). 1994. Yamano..â•›H. C. (2005). (2001). S.. 61–111). Saito. K. Chen.. Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. (2006). (2009). Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series: Gaze. Liang. & Noda.. Bucholtz. University of California at Los Angeles. (2010). 381–392). Saito. C. 52(8). F. Szatrowski (Ed. Baba. Y. M. Koike.. IN: Indiana University Press. 61(1-2). The cultural structure of mealtime socialization.â•›B. 35–49. Kawamoto (Eds.â•›C. & Schieffelin.â•›A. Gendai nihongo kenkyuu [Research on modern Japanese] (pp. A.â•‡ Introduction Koo. MacWhinney (Eds. London: Continuum. Koozooteki imiron. Tokyo: Sanseido... & Beck.â•›B.: Georgetown University Press. E. A.â•›C. (1967).. J. 14(5). Washington. In C. D. The linguistics of eating and drinking. Fletcher & B. Shweder & R. 28–35). Culture theory: Essays on mind.). B. Kunihiro. 276–320).â•›T.C.).. 168–189). Counihan & P. Minami. S. (1984). (2004). (1983). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. E. The Senses and Society.. 155–171. (1997). Jakobson & S.). Bloomington. (2006). & Levinson. Sya-kai-on-sei-gaku [So-ci-o-pho-ne-tics]. (1972). In P. & Schieffelin. Spring. narrative.. self and emotion (pp. 5–18. 403–415). Leví-Strauss. De Fina. Kulick. 325–347). 349–368. Schiffrin. Oxford: Blackwell. E. New York: Routledge. Discourse and identity (pp. Language socialization. (1970). Ochs. & A.Nikkan no komaasyaru kara miru kotoba to syoku. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development.. Nihongo bunka kenkyuu no kokusaiteki zyoohoo dentatu sukiru no ikusee [Developing international communication skills in Japanese cultural studies] (Heesee 20-nen katudoo hookokusyo [Report on activities in 2008]) (pp. Concurrent and intervening actions during storytelling in family “ceremonial” dinners. & M. Ethnos. 5(1). In C. Wine and conversation. Tokyo: Ochanomizu University. 1982. (2011). Pragmatics.â•›B. Levinson. Handbook of child language (pp. A. B. A. Language. Anthropological Linguistics. (2010). S. T. (2013). (1996).). Linguistics cooking vocabularies and the culinary triangle of Lévi-Strauss. 73–94). B. Lehrer. Chapter 1. Y. In R. Ochs. D. & Schieffelin. F. A. 1–21). Kunihiro. culture. C. A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. In D. Kookoku to syoku. internet edition pp. Socializing taste. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Semantic cuisine. De Fina. Identity à la carte: You are what you eat. Jourdan & K. Mandelbaum.) Newman. 21 . Pontecorvo. 6(1). Lakoff. (2008). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications.). New York: Cambridge University Press. (2002). Dinner. LeVine (Eds. work and relationships in middle-class America (pp. C. In E. Duranti (ed.).[An advertisement and food: Vocabulary of a television commercial in Japan and Korea].â•›B. T. Nylund (Eds. 99–120). Ochs.).Nitiee ryoogo taisyoo kenkyuu [Structural semantics: Contrastive studies in English and Japanese]. M. The senses in language and culture. Food and culture: A reader (pp. Schiffrin. & Shohet. D. In A. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 48–66). In A. (2006). Studies in general and oriental linguistics (pp. A contrastive study of vocabulary – With special reference to English and Japanese. 142–165). R. 367. Tokyo: Sanseido. (2006). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.â•›A. Ochs & T.). Journal of Linguistics. 7–46.. Kramsch (Ed. & Fasulo. M. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. (1983).). In R.). Ochs. Lehrer.. Lehrer. (1995). B. Kremer-Sadlik (Eds. The culinary triangle. Telling stories: Language. E. 111. and society: Key topics in linguistic anthropology (pp. Van Esterik (Eds. E. (Reprinted from Gengo Seekatu [Linguistic Life]. Ochs. In C. (Ed. 39–55. E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fast-forward family: Home. Bamberg (Eds. (1969). A.â•›J. & Schieffelin. Becoming a speaker of culture. Tokyo: TEC Company. J. Ochs. Tuite (Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ltd. 152–156). E.) (2009). 161–172). (1982/ 1997). Ochs. Majid. and social life (pp. Oxford: Blackwell. . Shifters. Ohashi & Sizuru Kenkyuukai (Eds. Nitibee in okeru animeesyon no sutoorii no katarikata to higengo koodoo no sooi [Differences in American and Japanese nonverbal behavior and retellings of the story of an animation]. 469–480). B. M. Disputing taste: Food pleasure as an achievement in interaction. 107–116. Nomura. In P. (2002b). P.22 Polly Szatrowski Ohashi. C. M.â•›B. (2000b). Hyoogen to buntai [Expression and style] (pp.. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. (pp. head nodding. linguistic categories. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.). (2002a). Journal of Pragmatics. M. Sadanobu.Kanyuu no danwa no sutoratezii no koosatu [Structure of Japanese conversation: Invitation strategies]. Nihongo no danwa no koozoo bunseki. and cultural description. Japanese/ Korean Linguistics (Vol. Strauss. M.â•›F. 119–132).). head nodding and aizuti ‘back channel utterances’ in information presenting activities. In K. Shohet. P. Szatrowski.Kuti no naka no bunka [Whispering lovers. M. Szatrowski. Stanford: CSLI. 1427–1455. 11. Relation between gaze.). Schieffelin. J.â•›H. 283–294. P. Cambridge. Narrating anorexia: “Full” and “struggling” genres of recovery. Selby (Eds. M. Danwa to buntai.â•›A. & Ochs. Streeck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankookai. Sneijder. “Oisii” kankaku to kotoba: Syokkan no sedai [“Tasty” senses and language: The taste generation] (pp. Nakamura. Tokyo: Business Marketing Foresight (B. 76. Szatrowski. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Korea. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Appetite. 187–201). Mizutani & D. (2010). Animeesyon no sutoorii o kataru sai no wadan to tyuusin hatuwa [Wadan ‘stages’ and central utterances in animation film narratives]. C.â•›B. 37. (1976). 46.[Discourse and style – On the dynamic process of emotion/ evaluation]. (1992).. 44–69. Oisii o kanziru kotoba: Sizzle word report [Words from which (we) sense tastiness: Sizzle word report]. Gaze. & LeBaron. (2005). S. Ed. Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Szatrowski. P. Szatrowski. Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction. P. Yi (Eds. and aizuti ‘back channel’ at a Japanese company meeting. T. & C. P. Clancy (Ed. 7.FT). Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. MA: Blackwell Publishers. 344–382. (2003). & te Molder H. (2000a). P. Tokyo: Iwanami Publishers. Szatrowski. creaking reporters: Culture inside the mouth]. (1986). 7–63). Lectures on Conversation (G. Sacks. The linguistic aestheticization of food: A cross-cultural look at food commercials in Japan. Hyoogen Kenkyuu.). In O. Nihongo Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics]. P. H. Szatrowski. In M. 163–246. Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatiba to gengo/ higengo koodoo no kanren ni tuite [Relation between participant status and verbal/ nonverbal behavior in co-construction].) (2011).Kanzyoo hyooka no dooteki na katee ni tuite. Ethos. rikimu repootaa. P. 35(3). (2007). (1993). (Eds. pp. Jefferson. Sakuma. . Sasayaku koibito.). Basso & H. Szatrowski. Soogooteki nihongo kyooiku o motomete [In search of integrated Japanese language education] (pp.). (2004a). 15(1). E. (2006). Komiya (Eds. Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology. (2005). and the United States. Meaning in anthropology. (2004b). Goodwin. In A. 33–39.. 11–56). Silverstein.M. Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre (pp. 281–292.â•›M. P. Â�Lambert & E. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Journal of Health Psychology.â•›D. J. The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Willig & W. M. Tokyo: Hituzi Syoboo. (2005). 55–67. (2010a). “Bimi” o imi-suru go no siyoo to seesa. British Journal of Social Psychology. Journal of Health Psychology. meaningless movements. In P. (2008). P.â•‡ Introduction Szatrowski. Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre. Potter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 87–92. 95–120． Takasaki. (2012). (1990).. P. 73–90). American Speech.[On gender differences and the use of words that mean bimi ‘good flavor’ in Japanese: Focusing on oisii ‘delicious’]. 187–204). In R. Wiggins. 55(83). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chapter 1. 24–37. A. (Ed. item and subjective vs. Zyoohoo syori.â•›D. 20.. Wiggins. America’s national dish: The style of restaurant menus. 88. P. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. (2004). A. Den (Eds. Eating your words: Discursive psychology and the reconstruction of eating practices. Szatrowski. Walker. danwa koozoo kara mita tooti to higengo koodoo to no kankee [The relation between postposing and nonverbal behavior from the point of view of information management. Good for ‘you’: Generic and individual healthy eating advice in family mealtimes. In C. J. S. 5–15. Tannen. 5. P. Research on Language and Social Interaction. (2001). 35(3).). Szatrowski (Ed. S. Stainton Rogers (Eds. & Wildsmith. Ronald Walton (pp.30-sai miman no zyosee guruupu o tyuusin ni [Verbal and nonverbal behavior in a taster lunch – Focusing on a group of women under 30]. Zwicky. NY: Ballantine Books. 23 . (1980). 445–463. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Koogi danwa ni okeru sisee. muimi na doosa.). Szatrowski. S. Kokuritu Kokugo Kenkyuuzyo Ronbunsyuu [NINJAL Research Papers].. 311–336. In M. & Y. J.) (2010b). Wiggins. Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. Szatrowski. (2011). and gesture in Japanese university lecture discourse]. (2013). (2003). (2008). miburi ni tuite [On posture. 7.). Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Discursive psychology. Koogi no hyoogen to rikai [Expression and understanding in university lectures] (pp. Otyanomizu Zyosi Daigaku “Zinbun Kagaku Kenkyuu” [Ochanomizu University “Studies in Arts and Culture”]. Koogi no danwa no higengo hyoogen [Nonlinguistic expression in university lecture discourse]. Sakuma (Ed. In H.“oisii” o tyuusin ni. Shohamy (Eds. 267–302). & Zwicky. (2001). New York. 8. Language and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. London: Sage. Hikaku Nihongogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Sentaa Kenkyuu Nenpoo (Center for Comparative Japanese Studies Annual Bulletin). Wiggins. P. 6. soogo sayoo. D. (2002). S.). Szatrowski. Wiggins. & Potter. S. T. S. Szatrowski.. interaction and discourse structure]. Kushida. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture by telling the story of a haiku. Szatrowski. 513–531. 221–236). 9. Performed culture: learning to participate in another culture. Sadanobu. Hyoogen Kenkyuu. 535–548. Wiggins. Sisyokukai no gengo/ higengo koodoo ni tuite.). & Potter. Tabemono o hyooka-suru sai ni motiirareru “kyakukanteki hyoogen” to “syukanteki hyoogen” ni tuite [On the use of “subjective” and “objective” expressions for food assessment in Japanese]. (2000). 159–208). P. A.. Construction and action in food evaluations: Conversational data. (2010c). Katudoo to site no bun to hatuwa [Sentences and utterances as activities] (pp. G. 6. and the Japanese utterance in (2) is referred to as Arigatoo ‘Thank you’. the symbol on the left is used in the Japanese transcription. ？/? 、/. (1) Thank you. rising intonation. Szatrowski. and the one on the right in the romanized version of the Japanese and in other language transcriptions. Thank you. Atkinson & Heritage. in the text. etc. the English utterance in (1) is referred to as Thank you. in the English translation of Japanese utterances. 1980. 1983. unless they obscure the meaning or would be misleading (as is sometimes the case in indicating overlap with // and ||. laughter over the utterance with @ @. not necessarily a question.’ not a ‘?’. The first line gives the utterance in the native orthography in italics (except for Japanese utterances in the native orthography which are not italicized). English. (2) ありがとう。 Arigatoo.24 Polly Szatrowski Appendix A Data The non-English data in the chapters in this volume are cited using two or three lines for each utterance. Whenever possible. 1993. these conventions are also indicated in the English translation. and an English translation is supplied in single quotes ‘ ’ (for non-English data). or a slight rise on the next syllable when utterance medial. 2004a.) . 1984. The first letter of utterances after a falling sentence-final intonation are capitalized. due to differences in word order. Transcription conventions for Japanese/ romanized Japanese. 2010b) HIGHLIGHT 。/. When citing words/ utterances from the data in the text. The last line gives an English translation in bold letters to make it easier for readers unfamiliar with the language to follow. (Questions ending in falling intonation end with a ‘. For example.) continuing intonation followed by a slight pause. italics are used for the original language (even if it is English) without quotation marks (‘ ’ or “ ”). proper names are always capitalized. flat intonation. Levinson. When there are two symbols separated by a /. except in postposed noun phrases and postposed clauses in which the first letter is not capitalized to indicate it is added to the preceding utterance. slight rise in final intonation when utterance final. The second line gives a romanized transcription6 in italics (Japanese data only) or word-for-word gloss (Wolof and Eegimaa data only). In the romanization. → ↑ highlight is used to highlight important forms in the data that are referred to in the text falling sentence-final intonation. 7. and other languages7 (Chafe. Multiple ‘h’s’ indicate the length in relation to the length of syllables/ mora in the preceding talk (Japanese data only)..hhh indicates a 3-syllable/ mora long out-breath. coughing. an ‘s’/ ‘sh’ sound made by sucking in air through the front . … description of gestures.represents a cut-off in the middle of the final mora. See Minami (1997. (Japanese data only) indicates omission of lines in an example or excerpt. 9. e. e.â•‡ Introduction indicates lengthening of the preceding vowel or syllabic nasal in the Japanese/ romanized or other language version of the transcript.) micro-pause.7) second. < ? > length of pause/ silence in seconds. Whenever ｛｝/{} possible the beats and actual sounds of the laughter are transcribed. －/ : 8. Cut-offs are followed by a space in the Japanese romanized transcription and Eegimaa and Wolof transcriptions. etc. (. laughter consisting of an in-breath or out-breath. e-gerette ‘CLF-peanut’). 411–412) and Sadanobu (2005) regarding this sound in Japanese. 25 . (0. multiple ‘h’s’ indicate the length in relation to the . tch utterance between the @ @ is said in a laughing voice. ｛ハハヘヘ｝{ha ha he he}. etc. > < the talk after the > begins rushed. {. Chapter 1. ･･ the talk between the > < is compressed or rushed. . cut-off of previous sound9 - latched utterances are indicated by a = at the end of the present utterance and = = a = at the beginning of the next utterance. fricative in-breath. a single = sign at the end of an utterance indicates that the next utterance (by = the same speaker) continues on to the next line without a pause. > indecipherable or slightly audible speech is indicated in < >. ryuugaku-suru ‘study abroad-do’. @ @ utterance between the ° ° is said in a quieter voice. Double slashes // and double vertical lines || indicate where an overlap begins // || and ends in the present and following utterance(s).sh teeth.. in order to distinguish them from word-medial dashes which indicate morphological boundaries (e. enclose non-linguistic sounds such as laughter.g. pp. saliva click. ° ° utterance between the ･･ is said in a louder voice.h= in-breath.7) indicates a pause of 7-tenths of a (0. h= out-breath.8 {tlp} inner mouth lick (Japanese data only). shift in gaze direction. respectively.g.h} {h} ～ postposing (indicated at the beginning of the line after the speaker’s alphabet/ name designation).h h length of syllables/ mora in the preceding talk. neex-ul ‘good-NEG’. (( )) 「」/ “” direct quotation or direct reported speech. romanized as ugok-. . In Japanese 動く.g. //# #|| subscript numbers are used to distinguish multiple overlaps. we do not distinguish between hard ‘g’ and nasalized ‘g’ and do not indicate the syllabic nasal with a micron. For more precise information on Japanese pronunciation and romanization. 2004a. sya=sha. 16–17) The romanization given in Table 1 is used in the Japanese examples in this book. refer to Jorden and Noda (1987:â•›1–23). but are necessary in English. viii. Unlike Jorden and Noda (1987). hu=fu. tyo=cho. zya=ja. zyo=jo. and is an adaptation of Shin-kunrei-shiki ‘New Official System’ which follows Jorden and Noda (1987) for the most part.26 Polly Szatrowski English translation ( ) explanatory material or words in the translation that do not directly reflect the original language. Each of the syllable-like units in the following chart constitute a “mora” which gets one beat and is pronounced with approximately the same unit of time as the other mora in a given utterance. [ ] Japanese romanization (Szatrowski. p. but are awkward in the English translation. syu=shu. words that directly reflect the original language. tyu=chu. zyu=ju. syo=sho. pp. . Table 1. For readers who are less familiar with Japanese phonology. 2010b. lit. tya=cha. used to indicate literal translations of the original language.10 This romanization reflects Japanese phonology and the Japanese writing system. it may be helpful to think of the following approximate correspondences when pronouncing these sounds: si=shi.â•‡ Romanization of Japanese Mora a ka ga sa za ta i ki gi si zi ti u ku gu su zu tu e ke ge se ze te de ko go so zo to do kya gya sya zya tya nya hya pya bya mya rya kyu gyu syu zyu tyu nyu hyu pyu byu myu ryu kyo zyo tyo nyo hyo pyo byo myo ryo o gyo syo da na ha pa ba ma ni hi pi bi mi nu hu pu bu mu ne he pe be me no ho po bo mo ya ra ri yu yo wa k s ru t re p ro n 10. zi=ji. ti=chi. We will answer any questions you may have about the food after your meal. Japanese (in Japan). how it smells. Chapter 1. talk about what you think of each food. 27 . even if you don’t like it. Participants were invited to the taster meal. but they were told that they could find out after the meal. and American course. hearing. We are interested in how you experience food. In Chapter 6. FFM).â•‡ Introduction Appendix B The taster meal Conversations among triads of speakers of American English (in the U. 12. and SENBEE ‘rice crackers wrapped in seaweed’. you might notice something about the sound it makes when you eat it. or how it tastes. the Japanese course. This research was supported by Polly Szatrowski’s University of Minnesota Grant-in-Aid of Research Artistry and Scholarship (2009–2011) and a Hakuho Foundation Japanese Research Scholarship (2012–2013). touching. and were asked to try all of the foods and comment on them. you might notice something about the texture of the food in your mouth. Please make sure you try everything and comment on it. FMM. and Wolof and Eegimaa (in Senegal) were video and audio recorded while they were eating a taster meal. each consisting of foods commonly eaten in 3 different countries. KINAKOBOO ‘soy flour sticks’. and will have 3 or 4 tasting portions of food. You may want to talk about aspects of the food you can see (the visual appearance of the food). They were not told what kind of food they were eating or the country of its origin. Everything we give you is an authentic food eaten in a country around the world. MMM. While you are eating. and tasting. The following is a summary of the directions given in each of the languages before the taster meal. touch.). Figure 1. The taster meal consisted of 3 courses. each on a separate plate. hear.12 foods in the taster meals are capitalized (as shown below) when referred to in the text.S. Before the meal. In Chapters 5 and 6.11 The triads consisted of speakers who were either all over 30 or all under 30 years old in different gender combinations (FFF.â•‡ The Japanese course 11. smelling. You may also want to talk about what you are eating if you have something new. The Japanese course (shown in Figure 1) consisted of (in clockwise order starting with the bowl) UDON ‘Japanese noodles’ with ABURAAGE ‘fried tofu’ and WAKAME ‘green seaweed’) in a broth. HIZIKI ‘black seaweed’ with small whole fish (IWASI ‘pilchard sardine’). Each plate comes from a different country. There are 5 senses: seeing. the American English and Japanese taster meals are referred to as taster lunches because they all occurred around lunch time. The foods served in the 3 courses of the taster meal are described below. Senegalese course. they were told that the meal had 3 courses. There will be 3 courses. Figure 3. . MACARONI AND CHEESE. Figure 2. The meals were served in ascendant order of familiarity in Senegal to assure that the participants would try all of the courses. and Japan. American course. and Senegalese course in the Wolof and Eegimaa taster meals in Senegal.â•‡ The Senegalese course The American course (shown in Figure 3) consisted of (in clockwise order starting from the bottom) a SALAD in the bowl (LETTUCE. and a LICORICE DOG. a dessert (in the bowl) called LAAX ‘(white corn) flour pudding with a sweet (yogurt and) milk sauce’.S.28 Polly Szatrowski The Senegalese course (shown in Figure 2) consisted of (in clockwise order starting from the bottom) MAFE ‘(chicken in) peanut butter sauce’ on Jasmine rice. dried CRANBERRIES. a CHOCOLATE CUPCAKE. TOMATOES. and a drink called BAFIRA ‘hibiscus juice’.â•‡ The American course The courses were served in the above order in the U. Thousand Island DRESSING). and in the order of Japanese course. part ii Process and structural organization . . I compare the passage to the meal in four widely dispersed cultures: Middle East.chapter 2 Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures William O. The Austinian notion of performative speech (Austin. Eating together – “commensality” is perhaps one of the most basic human social acts. 1962. German and American. “pragmemic triggers” signal the end of one stage of social action in an event. 166) is here clearly an essential component of language use in social situations. To demonstrate this. and is imbued with a special ritual quality. In short. In this paper I show that there are several stages that participants in commensality pass through from the outside world to the communal meal. . but their structure and use is the same. The passage from stage to stage is effected through the use of linguistic/ behavioral routines that I call “pragmemic triggers. p. Language accomplishes social “work” in distinct cultural settings.” The form of these triggers is different for different societies. Introduction In this paper I will show how language use functions to carry out cultural transitions from setting to setting and scene to scene in a very specific cultural event – namely the transition between cultural stages in the movement toward common shared food. Pragmatic dimensions of communication are integrated with social action and cultural institutions. and the commencing of a new stage. When we deal with linguistic pragmatics we are continually dealing with more than just grammar and semantics. Although I am dealing with a very special cultural event – “commensality” – the basic linguistic mechanisms detailed here have analogous functions in the conduct of the processual organization of stages of any cultural event. Beeman University of Minnesota Food plays a central role in hospitality in virtually every culture on earth. Japanese. 1. Stages of commensality and their pragmemic triggers Food plays a central role in hospitality in virtually every culture on earth. Concomitantly. social movement from scene to scene and setting to setting is marked. Whether as simple as sharing a drink or a snack. Both take place within the “event” of the baseball game. language is functional. most guests will accept something. However. a scene is a culturally defined gloss on the activity. religious. one could be in the “setting” of a baseball game in a baseball stadium and the “scene” of an altercation between a coach and an umpire. it is rare for people to come together and not share food in a private setting. even a small piece of candy or a drink of water in order to recognize and create that desirable social tie. or purely functional. Movement from the everyday world to the state of commensality is pragmatic. social. in Hymes (1974) (and Austin’s) view. People must be in special relationships to other diners to be admitted to the table. Not everyone is invited to dine together. pragmatically . or as elaborate as a banquet. Sociality and commensality are clearly linked. economic. pragmemes can be seen as meaningful linguistic and behavioral acts in social and cultural life. Eating together – “commensality” is perhaps one of the most basic human social acts. commensality has profound meaning in human society. To refuse food is to refuse a social relationship.32 William O. This is true whether social and cultural events are political. 2. There is a transition from the “everyday world” (Schuetz. 1945) to the state of commensality through a series of stages that mirror the stages of other social events. Commensality is thus the social event of people eating together. Beeman Linguist Hymes (1974) in his formulation of the “ethnography of communication” points out that language is embedded in cultural “events” within which social “scenes” and “settings” are integrated. Thus. Since. or even effected by linguistic mechanisms that delineate the cultural and cognitive boundaries between these special events and sub-events. to indicate the kind of performative. and is imbued with a special ritual quality. and deploys “pragmemics” in its execution. Even the poorest people in the world will offer food or drink to a casual guest with the full knowledge that eating together creates a social bond. According to Hymes (1974) a setting is a physical locus for linguistic behavior. which is why such a refusal usually requires an explanation or apology. particularly those of ritual. legal. commensality is not an event that arises instantaneously in social life. Just as phonemes constitute meaningful sound units in language. In this paper I use the term “pragmemic trigger” or “trigger” for short. In fact. it is essential that certain behavioral and linguistic actions take place for a social event to proceed from beginning to end without consequence. Each of these stages also constitutes a psychological “frame” such as identified by researchers such as Schuetz (1945). In Table 1 the pragmemic triggers in the middle column initiate the transition in the right column to each new stage in the left column of the next row. Therefore I believe that a comparison of their pragmatic mechanisms will serve to illustrate the remarkable common pattern practiced by humans in most if not all societies. The rituals of commensality are of great interest here as a pan-human phenomenon. until all can approach the table in a relative state of social comfort. The judge is announced in court – a pragmemic trigger. embodying the pragmemic triggers I am positing is palpable in many other cultural situations. In describing these passages. Bateson (1956). witnesses are called. In analyzing the social rituals of movement to the place of commensality. Each stage is frequently marked by a ritual or linguistic act in which social differences between participants are gradually reduced. Nevertheless. all rise. and interrogated all using pragmemic triggers to move from stage to stage in the trial. I take into account three elements: (1) The “states” between which actors move. Goffman (1974) and Tannen (1993). such as court proceedings. That is to say. the process begins again at the top. summary statements are made and a judgment is rendered. Objections to testimony are entertained. Commensality is a social ritual in which kinship relations. This kind of pragmatic event. The pragmatics of approaching and negotiating a meal is variable in each society. Chapter 2. I identify eight stages summarized in Table 1 with seven transitions between stages and seven pragmemic triggers that initiate these transitions. the trial begins with the utterance of another pragmemic trigger by the judge. (2) The “transitions” between states and (3) the pragmemic triggers that initiate the transitions between states. They show a remarkable similarity across cultures. attorneys are allocated turns to present their cases. sworn. When the “reciprocating status” is reached. social hierarchy and the passage from the public “outside” to the intimate “inside” is negotiated by stages. The process is cyclical. This kind of pragmatic transitioning is perhaps less apparent in the rituals of everyday life. Each of these events is linguistically and behaviorally triggered. sporting events or religious rituals.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures situated culturally defined linguistic and behavioral formulas that advance a social action from one phase to the next. there are appropriate pragmatic behaviors and 33 . though hierarchy and social difference may still be ritually marked in the physical placement of participants. thus moving participants from the outside world to commensality and back to the outside world. Schuetz wrote: . before and after the culmination at the “table” where “table manners” are practiced.” “ordinary” and “unmarked” by any special event. 2.1 The “outside world” and departures from it This is the world of the everyday. As Schuetz (1945) points out. in all in this model of commensality there are 13 areas of pragmatic communicative behavior. It is the world unmarked by any special relationship to a specific instance of incipient commensality. For human beings this is a “zero level” of normalcy.34 William O. Thus. for it is the “ground” against which the specialized states in the process of commensality are experienced. Beeman Table 1. It is the state seen by actors as “normal.â•‡ Stages of commensality and their pragmemic triggers Stage Pragmemic trigger Transition The “outside world” The invitation Outside world to threshold The “invited state” Greeting/Welcome Crossing the threshold The “gathering place” Summons to “the table” Passage to “the table” The “arrival at the table” The signal to eat Beginning the meal Commensality Invitation to leave “the table” Leaving “the table” The “post commensal activity” Statement of departure Departure (crossing the threshold) The “departing place” Expression of gratitude Re-entry into the “outside world” The “reciprocating status” (Invitation) (Passage from outside world to threshold) language that characterize each stage of movement. The eight “stages” and the seven transitions between stages activated by seven pragmemic triggers are described in detail in the following sections. to repeat. the everyday outside world is a social construct. Humans then transform this world through the construction of special events. as identified by Alfred Schuetz. It is important to have a clear picture of this state. the openings and closings of the cognitive frames that demarcate them. and by extension. All of these transitions from frame to frame are marked by pragmemic triggers. Goffman (1974) and Tannen (1993) among others have developed the notion of different cognitive realities further. the world of “idols of the tribe”. In the everyday world of the individual there are multiple instances of these kinds of small cognitively framed events initiated and concluded with pragmemic triggers. some frames are open and held open as the individual transits into subsequently embedded. the world of ideal relations. It is the inter-subjective processes mentioned here that create the social relations that serve as the basis for common social actions. the worlds of sheer madness and vagary. close frame 3. a game. Transitions to and away from these states are marked by clear linguistic triggers that mark the beginnings and endings of such events. These frames demarcate states that are differentiated from the ordinary outside world. Chapter 2. Schuetz continues: James [1890. the various supernatural worlds of mythology and religion. usually introduces oneself and is greeted by one person [open and close frame 2]. for example. each of the frames is closed in turn and the individual re-emerges into the everyday world. So. and it is through these relations and common shared activities that humans create multiple cognitive realities. 291ff. pointing out that virtually any shared social activity – even a simple conversation – creates a cognitive frame that contains its own temporary reality. we work (Schuetz. the pragmemic trigger “Hello” opens a conversational encounter – a special state different from the ordinary world. p. or nested. 35 .] calls …[such different cognitive realities] “sub-universes” and mentions as examples the world of sense or physical things (as the paramount reality). Many cognitive frames are embedded within others. as a pragmemic trigger to close the conversational encounter.. close frame 1]. (Schuetz. 534) and operate not only within but upon the world. the various worlds of individual opinion. and move either back to the ordinary world or on to another state. p. The “Hello” must be matched by “Goodbye” or the equivalent. p. Thus. We have to dominate it and we have to change it in order to realize the purposes which we pursue within it among our fellow-men. 1945. As can be seen. the world of science. So. frames until. in a job interview one enters an office [open frame 1]. is ushered into an interview space [open frame 3].â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures The world of everyday life is the scene and also the object of our actions and interactions. 533) Bateson (1956). and on completion takes leave in a sequence of closings [close frame 4. reversing the process. where the interview [open frame 4] with another person takes place. 1945. for example. 2 Transit: Outside world to threshold – The “invited state” When one receives and accepts an invitation to a commensal event. or say no and show up anyway. 2.36 William O. 2. Invitations can be evaluated according to their appropriateness and their effectiveness. incidentally. of course. In some cultures. or embarrassed when they arrive for a meal or other event and are not expected.1. … GENTLE READER: The problem is not that invited guests are saying no. People who repeatedly do not get a reply to their party invitations should maybe stop having parties. but simply ignoring invitations. I know that sounds harsh. but I’m tired of hearing people endlessly whine that no one wants to come to their parties. such as commensality. The problem is that large numbers of them are not saying either yes or no. one’s social status changes. Many persons encountering another culture for the first time often lack that expertise and either feel miffed when commensality does not materialize. incumbent on those invited to respond to an invitation positively or negatively. The pragmatics of this situation are frequently problematic in the United States today where many hosts complain that people do not respond to written or even oral invitations.1 Pragmemic trigger: The invitation The movement from the everyday world into the world of commensality is first triggered by an invitation on the part of one party to another. It is culturally unacceptable in most societies not to answer an invitation. Even those who do answer might say yes and then not appear. The invitation is a trigger that requires a response. Distinguishing genuine invitations that will lead to actual commensality from those that are mere gestures is a matter of cultural expertise. It is. invitations are insincere or simple expressions of good will. Note this recent interchange between popular columnist Miss Manners (2011) and a reader: DEAR MISS MANNERS: I guess I’m just a grump. or try to modify them to include contingencies. ranging from a simple informal suggestion to a highly formal written message. … (Miss Manners. (“Let’s do lunch sometime!”). These matters are widely debated and the cause of some social friction. 2011) . They also come in many forms and styles. and thereby becomes bound to a future occasion of commensality. Beeman So the pre-existence of a zero-level “ordinary world” from which the individual departs into different cognitively framed events is the point of departure for understanding how the passage into and out of specialized social and cultural situations. In many societies a guest is expected to bring a gift for the hosts. and light refreshments such as cocktails or other beverages and “snack” food is offered. pragmatically situated speech act.2. When there is no host/ guest distinction. The event really starts when these anticipatory preparations are made. 2. and this must also be prepared in advance.1 Pragmemic trigger: Greetingâ•›/â•›Welcome When participants in commensality approach the time and place of the event. arranging transportation. Generally this involves a verbal greeting between hosts and guests. but they still may require extensive preparations. exchanges of gifts. This crossing is marked by a variety of pragmemic triggers which are culturally variable. In a restaurant. Generally. some food may be removed or placed to the side in preparation for the more substantial food to come.3 Transit: Crossing the threshold – The “gathering place” The commensal participants gather at some point other than the table where commensality will take place. conversation consists of light pleasantries. Of course many commensality events do not involve the social roles of “guest” and “host. nevertheless there are mutual greetings and a transition in physical state between the everyday world and the sphere of the commensal event. In terms of cognitive framing. The pragmatics of behavior in this setting are variable. and care of children or pets are just a few of the arrangements that must be made in advance of the event. such as friends meeting for a meal at a restaurant. If the gathering place and the dining space are the same. Physically an ante room or living room serves as a gathering space. the most salient aspect is that the incipient guest is in a state of anticipation of entry into the commensality event. 2. change in attire (such as removing shoes and outerwear).1 Pragmemic trigger: Summons to “the table” When all have gathered. Scheduling. but one is transformed into the other by a change in furniture or accoutrements. a pragmemic trigger is issued: an announcement that the commensal meal is to be served. a lounge or bar may be a place to wait until the group is escorted to the table. Chapter 2. In many societies the social gathering and dining space are the same. they cross physically into the place of gathering.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures Being invited to a commensality event creates the need for preparation on the part of the guest. 2. Individuals 37 . This announcement fulfills the definition for a pragmemic trigger: a performative. This stage generally continues until all guests have arrived and the meal is ready to eat.3.” Individuals are equal participants in the event. and preparations are made accordingly. and in many societies the social order is ingrained in social consciousness. In many formal settings seating is pre-arranged by the organizers or hosts.38 William O. 2008.1 Pragmemic trigger: The signal to eat There is usually an invocation. to the group or to some ideal such as “friendship. These are sometimes glossed as “table manners. Virtually always there is a social ranking that governs the movement to the table. A toast is a frequent feature of this pragmemic trigger. In more formal settings guests are assisted into their chairs. unique to different cultural traditions ensues. They spread their napkins if it is customary to use them. In most societies the toast is a ritual activity with set roles for the offering of praise.” which are highly variable microcosmic reflections of wider cultural attitudes and practices. In some societies they are offered water or a moist towel to wash their hands. status. 2. historical practice. thanks and kind words. They settle in their chairs. either through guidance on the part of the organizers or hosts. aesthetics.5 Transit: Beginning the Meal – Commensality During commensality a variety of pragmatic behaviors. 2. . In Victorian England wives and husbands were not allowed to sit together to insure conversational variety – a rule that seems to be largely ignored today. 167– 168). such as rank. In other societies guests may be ushered to a pre-determined place. This can be flexible in many societies. or as a result of personal judgment. so there is a virtual industry of training young people and people traveling in cultures other than their own in the pragmatics of commensal behavior. In some societies toasting continues throughout the meal. Place cards or informal direction determine where people will sit in the west. Breaches of table manners can create ill-will. and regard for the host(s) or guest(s). or they assist each other. but since it is processual.” 2. the gathered participants must decide who is going first and who is to follow. prayer or set phrase that signals the participants that commensality may begin. The American military and diplomatic corps have strict protocol about these matters.4 Transit: Passage to “the table” – The “arrival at the table” The commensal participants take their place and prepare to eat. Beeman then proceed to “the table” in accord with social custom (cf. Visser. pp. cultural ideas of purity and pollution. The most prominent of these is perhaps Russian and Russian-influenced societies where everyone in turn at the table offers an orchestrated toast to an individual.4. This is usually a time of minimal conversation. 6. further conversation. In some societies there is a quick departure following the meal.” A suggestion is made to move to another space. Usually. in a formal setting. games. This may be small comfort for someone wondering how to consume an unusual culinary item. The hosts usually express some reluctance to let the guests leave but then support the move to depart.1 Pragmemic trigger: Statement of departure The transition to the outside world is signaled by leave-taking.1 Pragmemic trigger: Invitation to leave “the table” In many societies participants in commensality take their cue from the host as to when the meal is “over. That said. and the specialized knowledge required to use them properly resulted in the virtual exclusion of those who didn’t command the skills. 2. Frequently food and drink continues to be served. Other societies prefer silence. or to each other if there is no host. and may not be admitted to adult company until they are competent in carrying them out. or water or a moist towel is brought for individuals to clean their hands. Chapter 2. Elaborate utensils for specialized purposes were evolved in Europe for formal meals. It is important to note that the activities that take place in the commensality frame are largely rule governed. This is marked linguistically by a series of verbal formulas that mark departure and thanks to the host for the commensal event.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures One important divide in the world’s cultures has to do with the permissibility or desirability of conversation within the commensality frame. 39 . Entertainments. At this point diners rise from the table.6 Transit: Leaving “the table” – The “post commensal activity” In many cultures there is activity following a meal. like an artichoke. or the food is removed. 2. specialists in etiquette are fond of saying that the best “manners” at the table are those that are the most logical and comfortable for all. the guest initiates the departure with a pragmemic trigger expressing the need or time to go. and indeed engineer the placement of participants to insure that it will happen. 2.5. and other amusements can prolong the event. In many societies young people receive special instruction in these rules. Some societies insist on pleasurable conversation while eating. or minimal conversation while consuming food. though not always. 8 Transit: Re-entry into the “outside world” – The “reciprocating status” Guests at a commensal event leave in a transformed social state on many levels. and mutual pleasantries about the event just concluded are exchanged along with promises to meet again. In most cultures a commensal event implies reciprocation at some level. This takes place at the threshold of the location of commensality.” The outside world is continually being transformed through experience. clothing suitable for the external world is put on. a return invitation from the guests to the hosts is frequently expected.7 Transit: Departure (crossing the threshold) – The “departing place” Behaviorally. In this way commensality perpetuates itself as a social practice. The commensal event changes the social universe permanently for all participants. 2. It looks very much like the structure of a ritual process. They also enter a state of obligation. transformed by the commensal event. the guests for the meal and entertainment and the hosts for the trouble the guests have taken to come.40 William O. Finally. and the guests re-enter the everyday world. p.” A new normal everyday world reality becomes established from which future experiences will depart. and the pragmatic routine replicates itself. Here we must remind ourselves of Schuetz’s (1945. Extravagant individuals may send flowers the next day. and in the next cycle of commensality the roles of guest and host are reversed.7. There is no neutral outside world after an event of commensality. 3. 2. leave taking in the form of departure expressions are exchanged. Beeman 2. Therefore it is impossible to go back precisely to the psychological world from which one has departed in participating in commensality (or any ritual or framed act). Their relationships to each other are altered. A ritual approach Taking a look at the schema presented in Figure 1 we can see that commensality has a structure that is familiar to anthropologists everywhere. A telephone call or thank-you note to a host is frequently sufficient for good friends.1 Pragmemic trigger: Expression of gratitude Expressions of gratitude to each other are exchanged. This does not make it any less “normal. However. The guests incur an implicit obligation to issue the pragmemic trigger: invitation. 534) formulation of the “everyday [outside] world. The structure of rituals has been known to be . ” an intense.â•‡ Van Gennep (1909. 1960) work inspired Campbell’s classic text: “The Hero with a Thousand Faces.” (Campbell. He also equates this feeling of common bonding between people with sacredness as opposed to the secularity of the non-ritual world. LIMINAL SPACE Liminal transition status Post-liminality (STATUS 2) Pre-liminality (STATUS 1) The “outside” world Figure 1. Each society will have its own 41 . liminality and post-liminality (Status 2). Chapter 2. social status. age. then they enter a state of liminality in which the normal rules of social life are suspended and replaced by special procedures and observances. such as gender. whose essential work. “The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures remarkably similar across all human cultures for more than a century. (such as the vision quest undertaken as a passage to adulthood in many American Indian tribes) consists of three stages: departure. The basic schema was established by Arnold van Gennep (1909. formal professional title and achievement. Then they emerge into the everyday world in a transformed state.” added several important dimensions to van Gennep’s schema that are important for the description of commensality. 1956 [1949]. Most important for anthropology is the inspiration van Gennep’s work gave to Turner (1995). 1960) on Ritual Van Gennep’s (1909. In the external world there is a range of social differentiation based on many culturally defined dimensions. Communitas occurs when people experience liminality in a common setting. pleasurable feeling of social bonding. initiation and return. In his schema the person or persons engaged in ritual first have a preparatory stage. group membership. 334–356) in which he shows how the heroic journey. 1960) in his classic work: “Les Rites de Passage” in which he posits three processual stages of ritual: preliminary preparation (Status 1). For Turner (1995) the period of liminality in the ritual process corresponds with a feeling of “communitas. pp. togetherness and social unity. In this schema the journey results in a change of social status for the person embarking on the quest. They all wear the same plain garment and undergo the same ritual activities before emerging back to the secular world in a state of ritual purity. transformed by the process.â•‡ The commensality ritual Post-commensal activity The “outside world” I re ncip cip ie ro nt cit y Gathering g in av e Le tabl Signal to eat Pa ss ta age bl to e 42 . They then move by stages back to the everyday world. Figure 2 shows how the stages of commensality and their pragmemic triggers shown in Table 1 (a few features are omitted to save space) map on to the ritual structure outlined by van Gennep (1909. 1960). LIMINAL SPACE Commensality Signal to leave THE “TABLE” THE “THRESHOLD” Greeting (crossing the threshold) Invited state Statement of departure (departure) Reciprocal state n tio ta vi In Figure 2. 1960). called “the hajj. They then receive a social title: hajji (one who has made the hajj) to indicate their new social status.” for observant Muslims. Campbell (1956 [1949]) and Turner (1995).William O. Campbell (1956 [1949]) and Turner’s (1995) work. Beeman distinct set of social divisions and weighting criteria for each. Individuals in the secular world come together in one place and proceed by ritual stages to the “table” where all social distinctions are eliminated in the process of eating together.1 Ritual and commensality It should be eminently clear how the process of commensality fits the schema of the ritual process as seen in van Gennep (1909. persons making the pilgrimage are stripped of their social differences during the time of pilgrimage. An excellent example is the pilgrimage to Mecca. Briefly stated. 3. In the ritual world of liminality these differences are partially or completely eliminated. Japanese. Invited guests who insist on bringing companions to the commensality event without permission in modern times frequently are cause for negative comment or unhappiness. These pragmemic triggers are virtually universal.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures In Figure 2 we can see the “guest” moving from an “invited” state over the threshold of the locus of commensality to the gathering spot.” departing from the “table” to the post-commensal activity. providing examples from four distinct cultures: German. finally re-emerging over the “threshold” in the real world with an expectation of reciprocity that did not exist before the commensal activity. An interloper may be tolerated. 4. Pragmemic triggers in four cultures Pragmemic triggers. It has distinct “felicity” conditions. (2) The person making the invitation must be empowered to do so. (3) The invitation must be issued to (a) suitable individual(s). but may also be stigmatized or cause disruption. Some may claim that such people have “spoiled” the event – the equivalent of rendering a ritual ineffective. However. Just as there is special language and behavior in rituals. for example).1 The invitation In Austinian terms an invitation is a speech act. are the utterances that signal the transitions from one stage to another. as already discussed. Others are inadequately prepared to observe the expected behavioral and linguistic norms of the occasion. over a second threshold to the “table. in many cases all participants issue the pragmemic trigger language and behavior that moves the event from stage to stage. just as those who participate in a ritual must be qualified to do so. Clearly not everyone is admitted to the “table” (or even over the “threshold”) in commensality. Chapter 2. Don Giovanni may have thought his invitation to the statue 43 . I will examine each of these triggers. (1) There must be an event to which people are invited. Every society has expressions that correspond to these functions. but also the symbolic imagery that is used in the formulation of these expressions. often times pronounced by an officiant. 4. I have already cited the specific pragmemic triggers that move the commensality event forward as shown in Table 1. Middle Eastern and American – all societies in which I have conducted fieldwork. I will analyze these utterances in four separate cultures to show not only the functionality of these expressions. in most commensality events the host or hosts take this role. Only the chosen (invited) individuals can join those dining together. (NonCatholics cannot take communion in the Catholic Church. Figure 3. pp. not placing the invitee in too much discomfort at having to choose the time and place. German: Only close friends and relatives are invited into the sanctity of the house. Even so. but dragged Don Giovanni to the underworld. The time is usually observed exactly as stated. There is a great deal of cultural variation in issuing invitations: Middle East: The custom is generally to repeat the invitation more than once. 2001. The statue not only came to dinner. Such formality is rare these days. an invitation is often a pleasant. such as a theater starting time or specific restaurant reservation. 2–15) . and a reply from an American military etiquette manual. so this is the one place where more informal communication may occur. an event and an invitee. Unless a specific time and place is set. therefore a “joke. a specific time for a meeting often is interpreted with great flexibility. but the joke was on him. as it shows that you have achieved a more than superficial relationship. but still proper. Beeman of the Commendatore to dine with him in Mozart’s opera was not legitimate. but meaningless social gesture. Figure 3 shows an example of a written invitation. The time of an invitation is generally semi-relaxed unless there is a specific starting time for an event. non-repeated invitation is generally not taken seriously. A single. Japan: The invitation is best made specific. The time of an invitation is generally observed exactly. For home entertaining. American: Invitations are often informal and oral.44 William O. fifteen minutes to a half-hour after the stated time is normal.â•‡ Examples of formal invitations (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. It is a great honor to be invited to a German household. but on many occasions they are written. The Don may have thought that a statue wouldn’t be able to accept the invitation.” The invitation turned out to be an entirely proper one with an inviter. Wedding invitations are nearly always written as are other more formal occasions. but be sensitive to colors. Bringing a gift for the hosts is part of German etiquette. In many traditional Muslim households women and men do not make physical contact.3 Summons to “the table” Middle East: If guests are already seated in the commensal space. Consider flowers. In private homes. and Merhaba or hoshgeldiniz ‘Welcome’ [Turkish]. and plates. Red is for romance. the personnel of the establishment will take the role of implied hosts.2 Chapter 2. In a traditional home. In a restaurant. Guests may or may not remove their shoes depending on the family custom. season and weather. 45 . saying Irassyaimase ‘Command your presence!’. moving closer to the door. To usher people to the table from another space the verbal formulas: Tafaẓẓal ‘oblige (us)!’ [Arabic]. Men and women are allowed to hug and even kiss. 2011) American: The hosts welcome the guests with Welcome or simply Hello followed by an inquiry about health. and should refuse it. there will be a removal and storage of coats and other outerwear before guests are shown to the gathering place. Japan: Guests enter. Choose an odd number. Some variability is seen depending on environment. Men and women kiss arrivals of the same gender on both cheeks. remove their shoes and bow. (cf. For example. The guest is shown to a place to sit. They are then shown to a place to sit. and either shake hands or engage in an informal hug. in the winter. The guest removes his/ her shoes and may present a gift of sweets or flowers. German: The host welcomes the guests with Wilkommen! ‘Welcome’ and shakes hands with the guests. Guests present a gift to the hosts. Guests may present a small present to hosts. Not only is it a European custom. the most honored place is furthest from the door. cups and eating utensils (if used) will be placed before the guests followed by plates of food. Yellow roses are perfect German gift flowers. simpler greetings are used. 4. Hosts welcome the guests into the household and sees to the guests’ comfort. Both hosts and guests bow. The remarkable similarities in these greeting rituals show the universality of these ritual structures. which must be extremely ancient in human civilization. 4. The guest will be offered this spot. Guests are then ushered into the gathering space. It is common in the Middle East for the food to be parceled in several dishes and spread around the table. Weber. Xosh amadid ‘You arrived happily’ [Persian]. but Germans believe they are easier to arrange. Carnations symbolize grief or mourning.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures Greetingâ•›/â•›Welcome Middle East: The host welcomes the guest with Ahlan wa sahlan ‘Being and health’ [Arabic]. a dinner cloth will be spread. In Iran a buffet is common at large gatherings. 3–2) . American: There is no set formula for the invitation to the table. It is customary for people to avoid being the first to proceed to the commensal space. In case there is a movement to the table. A more informal phrase is Mahlzeit! ‘Time to eat’. so there may be a polite “struggle” to avoid being first. People proceed in order of prominence. In the most formal occasions there may be a procession to the commensal space with men escorting women.â•‡ Formal Seating Arrangement (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 2001.46 William O. the hosts will transform the space from a gathering space to a space of commensality by placing eating implements such as chopsticks. In this case. In the case where the commensal space is in a different location. guests are ushered into that space in order of prominence. Beeman Befarma’id ‘command (us)!’ [Persian]. Figure 4 is from a military etiquette manual showing the proper seating of guests. One may simply say Dinner (Lunch) is served or Dinner (Lunch) is ready. Buyurun’ ‘command (us)!’ [Turkish]. German: A simple Bitte! ‘Please!’ may signal the move to the commensal space. HOSTESS Man 1 2 Man Woman 3 4 Woman Man 5 6 Man Woman 6 5 Woman Man 4 3 Man Woman 2 1 Woman HOST Figure 4. pp. In formal settings seating may be assigned. At formal dinners men and women are interspersed at the table. Japan: Because of limited space in many Japanese homes and establishments guests may already be seated where food will be served. the all-purpose Japanese pragmemic trigger for inviting someone to proceed in this and other situations is doozo ‘please/ go ahead’. which is a signal for the guests to move to the table. In more formal settings there may be place cards showing where guests are to sit. The hosts may assign seating to the guests or leave them to their own devices. sauce dishes and other accoutrements. cups. Chapter 2.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures The various cultural routines for movement to the table are similar in that there is a clear pragmemic trigger in the invitation to assemble for the meal. There is attention to social order in both the arrangement of guests, and in the procession to the “table.” The transition between pre-commensality and commensality is signaled by both words and actions. 4.4 Signal to eat Middle East: Occasionally a ewer of water and basin will be brought to each guest, and water poured to clean the hands before eating. The meal commences with Bismilla ar-rahman ar-rahim, ‘in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate’, sometimes shortened to bismillah. In Turkey one begins the meal with afiyet olsun, ‘may you be healthy’. In some areas food is eaten by hand, or with a fork and spoon. The fork is used to scoop food into the spoon, which is then taken to the mouth. One never eats or takes food with the left hand. When seated on the floor, one never turns the soles of one’s feet toward others. Burping is not considered impolite. In Arab nations there is frequently little conversation during the meal. Japan: Often a hot or chilled towel will be presented to guests before starting to eat. The meal commences with the formula itadakimasu ‘(I) will humbly receive’, usually repeated by all, at which point all may begin eating. Many rules apply at the table. Toasts are made with the formula Kanpai! ‘dry cup’. Individuals do not pour their own drinks. Chopsticks must be handled carefully. They can only be used for eating, not pointing at others, and never stuck upright in a rice bowl (as this use of chopsticks occurs in funerals). Slurping (especially noodles) is allowed as a sign of enjoyment. Germany: The meal commences with Guten Appetit ‘Good appetite’, with the response Danke ‘Thanks!’; or Mahlzeit ‘Mealtime’. It may also be proceeded by a toast using the pragmemic trigger: Zum Wohl ‘To Health’ or Prosit (from Latin) literally ‘may it prove beneficial’. The fork is held in the left hand and the knife in the right, and food is lifted to the mouth with the left hand. Silverware is placed parallel on the plate diagonally extending from “4:00 to 10:00” when one is finished, and placed crosswise in an X when one is merely pausing eating during the meal. Potatoes are never cut with a knife. America: The meal commences with either an invocation or a prayer and/ or a toast using a formula such as To your health! or a European formula such as Chin Chin! A variety of commencement phrases are used for the main meal, but the French Bon appétit! is very popular. Americans may use the European manner of handling silverware or the “American” pattern where the fork is held in the left hand, the knife in the right, and after the food is cut, the knife is laid down and the 47 48 William O. Beeman fork is transferred to the right hand for transfer to the mouth. Bread and rolls are broken into small pieces which are buttered separately before eating. In all of these signals to eat the structural principles are the same. Eating and drinking both commence with pragmemic triggers in the form of set phrases and formulas invoking health or enjoyment of the meal. At the table there are clear rules for handling implements and for transporting food to the mouth. Some selected noise is tolerated in the process of eating. Toasts Arab Fi sahtek(um) To your health Persian Be salamati To health Turkish Sherefe (your) honor Japanese Kanpai Dry cup German Zum Wohl (wine) Prosit (beer) To health May it prove beneficial (Latin) American Cheers Figure 5.â•‡ Pragmemic triggers for toasting 4.5 Invitation to leave “the table” The pragmemic trigger for leaving the table is complex. When guests are finished they may signal that they have had enough with a verbal formula. They are then invited to remove themselves from the place of consumption. Additionally, food may be removed from the table and the host may rise, signaling the others to rise as well. Middle East: Guests signal that they are finished eating by proclaiming Al hamdu li-llah ‘Praise be to God’. They usually engage in a gesture of raising their hands to their face and performing a “wiping” gesture over the face, not touching the face itself. At this point if they have been seated on the ground before a dinner cloth, another ewer with water and a basin may be brought for them to clean their hands. In Arabic speaking countries it is also customary for the guest to say Dayman, ‘Always’ or Sufra dayma, ‘May your table always be thus’ to the host and hostess. The most common responses are Teesh ‘May you live’ and Bilhana wa shifa ‘to your happiness and health’. This shows the kind of love that the family gives to its guests. Iranian guests typically say in Persian: Dast-e shoma dard nakonad, Chapter 2.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures ‘May your hand not hurt’, and the reply is Sar-e shoma dard nakonad, ‘May your head not hurt’, i.e. don’t think about it. Turkish guests express simple thanks with Teşekür ederim ‘thank you.’ Japan: After the meal, it’s customary to say Gotisoo-sama desita, ‘It was an honorable feast’. The last item consumed is usually tea. German: A simple Danke, ‘Thanks!’ on completing the meal is often used by guests. In some areas the term Mahlzeit short for Gesegnete Mahlzeit ‘blessed mealtime’ is used at the end of a meal, or in some areas even as a casual greeting on the street. German hosts take their cue from their guests at the end of the meal, although historically the nobility set the protocol for the end of the meal. Friedrich the Great of Prussia ate very little and ate very fast. In dinners at court he would finish his meal and rise before anyone else had the chance to begin theirs. Court protocol required that all guests then rise and leave the table as well. This led to a series of post-court suppers in Berlin where people could satisfy their hunger. American: The dinner usually winds down to a lull. Guests may express their appreciation for the meal. When there is a noticeable lack of activity at the table the hosts will suggest another activity, such as ‘Shall we move to the living room?’ or ‘Shall we take a walk?’ In all of these cases there is coordination between guest and host. The guest expresses appreciation for the meal, and the host reciprocates. It is then clear that another phase of the event will begin, and the host organizes the movement from the table to the next activity. 4.6 Statement of departure Most societies frown on an immediate departure after eating. There is virtually always a period of activity following commensality (The “post commensal activity”) after which there is a pragmemic trigger for departure. Those who must leave immediately after eating usually apologize or make an excuse. Middle East: Arabs, Turks and Iranians all encourage their guests to remain after the meal and extend conversation. After a meal, one will be served tea or coffee, often pre-sweetened. Conversation continues for a while longer, perhaps an hour, and then the guests prepare to leave. When the guests announce their intention to leave, the host and hostess usually exclaim, ‘Stay a while; it is still early!’ This offer is ritual, and one may stay a few more minutes, but this expression need not be taken literally and does not mean that one will give offense by leaving. Generally, one can follow the example of other guests, except that one should probably not stay after midnight. 49 50 William O. Beeman Japan: Frequently drinking continues after the meal with perhaps a few light snacks to accompany the drinks. In traditional “geisha” houses, a variety of games and entertainments followed the meal. In traditional business entertainment (more common than “geisha” houses in the present day), guests will be ushered from night locale to night locale long into the night, extending the evening for many hours, and occasionally “hostesses” fulfill some of the functions of the historical geisha. German: hosts may offer coffee or an after-dinner drink, like Kirschwasser or brandy. Guests should enjoy this, but not linger too long after a German dinner. Hosts expect the guests to signal when it is time to leave. American: Americans may have a wide range of activity after a meal from simple conversation to games, dancing and watching movies or television. Drinks and snacks are usually provided during this period. The pragmemic trigger for departure consists of a series of verbal and behavioral routines for leave-taking. In general all leave takings have the following structure. (1) The guests announce that they are leaving and the reason for it. (2) There is a response from the host, often an exhortation to stay longer (which in most cases can be ignored). (3) The routine of putting on shoes and outdoor clothing to emerge into the “ordinary world.” (4) Chitchat at “the threshold.” (5) Eventual departure. Middle East: Leave taking is accompanied by hugs and kisses between people of the same sex, promises to meet again and a departure formula: Ma’ salama ‘(go) with peace’ or fi aman Allah ‘(go) in the protection of God,’ uttered by both host and guest [Arabic], Xoda hafez ‘God protect,’ also uttered by host and guest [Persian], Allahaısmarladık ‘God guide you.’(The automatic reply to this phrase is güle güle, ‘bye-bye’) [Turkish]. Japan: Guests bow and use a leave taking formula. Casual friends say Zya mata, ‘Well, later’. In the evening it is permissible to say Oyasumi nasai, “it has become night, good night’. The commonly understood Sayonara is used, but not so often because it implies a kind of finality to the relationship. The presumption in Japan is that the parties will always meet again. German: The leave taking is usually Gute Nacht ‘Good night’ or bis später, or bis bald, ‘until later, until soon’. The host may then say Komm gut nach Hause, ‘Get home all right!’. American: The simple Goodbye is an all purpose phrase for leave taking, accompanied sometimes by See you soon or other expressions of a desired reunion. All of these pragmemic triggers share the same semantic purpose, namely to issue a wish for health and protection as one re-enters the real world, and a desire for reunion at a future time. 4.7 Chapter 2.â•‡ Negotiating a passage to the meal in four cultures Expression of gratitude Although thanks may have been expressed at many stages during the commensality event, it is common for a final expression of gratitude to be expressed as guests depart and re-enter the “ordinary world.” However, they have been transformed by the commensality experience, since their relationship to their hosts has been forever changed by the experience. A debt of gratitude for the commensality event extends beyond the point of departure for the guest. In general, being entertained incurs a debt for the guests. This can be dealt with through a return invitation, or a simple note, message or gift – but most often a return invitation at some future time. A person who never reciprocates will be dropped from any given social circuit. Reciprocity is one of the most potent behavioral forces in human life. The act of commensality incurs obligations on all who attend to repeat the process at a future date. This is true in every known society – something anthropology has known for a very long time, memorialized in the classic work by Marcel Mauss, Essai sur le don (The Gift) (Mauss, 1954). Thus the Commensality Ritual is really a cycle, where guests take on the role of hosts in the next cycle. 5. Conclusion Commensality has such a central place in human social life it seems utterly commonplace and uninteresting in its ubiquitous nature. However, when it is examined it can be seen to be highly structured. Not only does it proceed in stages from the external world to an inner luminal space where communitas unites those who eat together in pleasurable communion, but the linguistic formulas, which I have called pragmemic triggers, move the participants by stages through the ritual process and back to the external world in a transformed state. These pragmemic triggers have accompanying physical and behavioral actions that are equally important for their effectiveness, such as shaking hands, bowing, kissing or hugging during a greeting. The pragmemic triggers and their companion behaviors constitute ritual actions just as surely as one would find the language and action in a church, mosque, temple or synagogue moving religionists through a sacred ceremony. The pragmemic triggers are speech acts in that they accomplish social action. However, it is startling to see that in widely divergent cultures – as different as Japan, the Middle East, Germany and the United States they have a similar semantic purpose and a similar functionality. The universality of human experience is thus evident for anyone to see. 51 52 William O. Beeman It would be a mistake to conclude that all instances of commensality are the same. There are several other dimensions to this study that encompass scales of formality, scales of intimacy and scales of utility. The construction of commensality will vary depending on its embedding in all of these scales. One thing remains. However simple, however informal or intimate, the act of commensality is transformative of social relations. It is one of the ways that humans make meaningful connections with each other. Just as it conforms to the pattern of a ritual, it is in its own way a sacred act. References Austin, J.â•›L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bateson, G. (1956). The message “this is play”. In B. Schaffner (Ed.), Group processes. Transactions of the second conference (pp. 145–242). New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation. Campbell, J. (1956 [1949]). The hero with a thousand faces. New York: Meridian Books. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hymes, D.â•›H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. James, W. (1890) Principles of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mauss, M. (1954). The gift; forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Glencoe, IL.: Free Press. Miss Manners (Judith Martin). (2011). Miss Manners: No response to invitations? Stop sending them! Washington Post online August 27, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/ style/miss-manners-no-response-to-invitations-stop-sending-them/2011/08/11/gIQATyKBjJ_ story.html Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. (2001). Social Usage and Protocol Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy Schuetz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5(2), 533–576. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Turner, V.â•›W. (1995). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. van Gennep, A. (1909). Les rites de passage; Étude systématique des rites de la porte et du seuil, de l’hospitalité, de l’adoption, de la grossesse et de l’accouchement, de la naissance, de l’enfance, de la puberté, de l’initiation, de l’ordination, du couronnement des fiançailles et du mariage, des funérailles, des saisons, etc. [The rites of passage; A systematic study of the doorway and the threshold, of hospitality, of adoption, of pregnancy, of child delivery, of birth, of childhood, of puberty, of initiation, of ordination, of engagement, and of marriage, funerary practices, the seasons, etc.] Paris: É. Nourry. van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. London: Routledge & Paul. Visser, M. (2008). The rituals of dinner. New York: HarperCollins. Weber, M. (2011). “My German Travels” http://mygermantravels.com/2011/05/german-etiquette dinner-guest/ and students in her Language and Food class for their helpful comments and suggestions. It illustrates that a single dining activity at a sushi restaurant has a structural organization that is composed of three phases: (1) an opening. Part of the data used for this study is by courtesy of the Kyoto University Global COE Program “Informatics Education and Research Center for Knowledge Circulating Society”. 1. It has been demonstrated that in ordinary face-to-face interaction. 1973). while medical consultations can be even more complex (Robinson. it becomes a distinctive interactional activity constructed through collaboration by the parties. Introduction Eating at a sushi bar counter is not merely a process in which one person orders and another serves. This project was partially funded by a Hiroshi Wagatsuma Memorial Fellowship and a Sasakawa Fellowship. 1998. which has a reference to the single overall unit of dining. These phases are constructed and delimited by conversational practices with bodily orientation through which dining parties demonstrate their orientation to the overall organization. 1968.chapter 3 The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi Satomi Kuroshima Meiji Gakuin University. being less structurally and temporally fixed 1. institutional activities such as emergency calls are more structurally fixed (Zimmerman. . and (3) a closing. Japan This paper explores the overall structural organization of dining activity by analyzing conversations videotaped in sushi restaurants in Japan. Polly Szatrowski. In contrast to ordinary interactions. Schegloff & Sacks.1 When they are positioned face-to-face. Robinson & Heritage. This paper contributes to our understanding of people’s fine-tuned coordination through body and talk by utilizing projection and recognition of the other’s actions as a resource. The experience of eating falls somewhere in between. 1992). (2) a continuing state of incipient ordering/ talk. there can be a distinctive opening and closing of a phone conversation to which conversationalists have an orientation (Schegloff. I would like to thank John Heritage. 2005). a phone conversation. As the customer is allowed to order at any given moment. and the transitions between phases are achieved in and through their collaborative orientation to these phases (Drew & Heritage. For this reason it is also possible to distinguish between a single conversation and what they term “the continuing state of incipient talk” (p. but how is this coordination achieved? By analyzing how each phase of the activity is co-constructed. In particular. I will explore the ways in which people organize their bodies in order to achieve the coordination necessary for co-constructing each phase. The dining occasion addressed in this paper is treated by the participants as one entity that consists of an opening. both the customers and the chef(s) have an orientation to the dining activity as one entity that includes these phases. a continuing state. this state refers to the occasion in which there is a non-attributable silence between the customers’ interaction with the chef for ordering or interacting. p. 2.54 Satomi Kuroshima compared with these institutional contexts. Background Schegloff and Sacks (1973. The utterances and embodied work by interactants that delimit such activity phases will be explored. 1992). As long as one person orders and another receives and serves the order. I will demonstrate how participants use their bodies and talk to show their orientation to the activity that is understood as a single unit. In other words. but an adjournment. a continuing state. . The significance of this is that conversations during phone calls cannot ordinarily be closed by the parties simply “falling silent”. and a closing. in particular. some kind of coordination between two parties is needed. but also having more overall structural features than ordinary conversation. I show how the participant’s orientation to the activity framework is seen by reference to these phases. I argue that there is a continuing state of incipient “talk/ ordering” at a sushi restaurant. They argue that parties to a single conversation orient to the overall structure of their talk by claiming that a silence in a single conversation is attributable to someone or otherwise accountable in some other way. and closing sections. 325) in which a silence is not attributable to anyone nor a termination. but instead closings must be accomplished through distinctive sequences of actions. It includes a distinctive beginning. 292) have introduced the notion of “overall structural organization of single conversations” in thinking of opening and closing as an occasion of conversational interaction. I address the issues of mutual orientation and projection that are necessary for organizing dining at a sushi bar counter. By applying Schegloff and Sacks’ (1973) notion of “continuing state of incipient talk” to one phase of the dining. servers.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi As the dining activity at a sushi bar counter is done face-to-face between the chef. In such a situation. and customers. and other epistemic grounds for understanding each other’s action conduct has been addressed and demonstrated in a series of pioneering papers by C. Although there is a so-called “conventional order” for ordering sushi at a bar counter (i. anticipation and mutual recognition of an intended course of action become key elements for the participants to precisely coordinate each other’s action and collaboratively accomplish the focal action. Goodwin (1981. Ordering and eating sushi involves an intricate choreography of actions. because unlike ordinary telephone conversation where the main attention of the participants is on the talk. it is entirely up to the customer to decide what to order next. I will do so by explicating how coordination is achieved in interactions between chefs and customers and how participants orient to the entire activity as well as to the moment-by-moment action progression by employing various semiotic resources and showing their recognition of the other’s conduct. The customers were either alone or accompanied by a partner. I would like to contribute to the growing body of knowledge of situated human actions and coordination. finish with egg. and others). start with white fish.e. There is also a set of established conventions. 2007.. and so on). The chef may be engaged in preparation of food or taking an order from other customers when a customer wants to address an order to the chef. Data and methodology The data corpus used for this study consists of video recordings of 10 different dining activities at two sushi restaurants in Tokyo and Osaka. 2000. Japan. other instruments necessary for interaction. Therefore. The participants recruited for the study were adult mixed gender groups competent in eating at sushi bar counters. Overall. the projection. face-to-face interaction occurs simultaneously with other activities. move onto fatty items such as toro ‘fatty tuna’. the order of ordering is not pre-determined although it can invoke some membership knowledge. 3. body and gaze direction. Chapter 3. the investigation of how people coordinate their action by using their bodies and language as resources is one of the most relevant (and crucial) frameworks for the analysis. The intricate system and process of how human actions are embedded within a complex semiotic system and constituted via various semiotic resources including language. The participation framework temporally unfolds and changes according to each activity phase. such as special terminology for referring to the instruments or actions 55 . In a place like a restaurant. .2 2. it is often done by overlapping with the first greeting rather than by adjacent greetings. 1968).. joins the chef ’s greeting (line 4). who has been directing his attention to the entrance with his gaze direction. As he raises his face. the addressor gazes at the addressee. who is still in training. With a slight delay the customer first looks at the chef and lowers his head (line 3). The gaze in this phase has an important role not only for selecting the addressee but also for recognizing it. whose design is to receive the customer’s arrival. A couple (Cus1 and Cus2) is entering a restaurant that consists of only a bar counter. it seems critical for them to first recognize the addressee before the initiation of verbal or non-verbal action. the secondary chef (Chef2). That is indeed happening in the data for this study. English translation and Japanese romanization.8 seconds). When the second greeting is verbally done.56 Satomi Kuroshima performed at a restaurant that is different from everyday terms (Hara et al. first bows to Cus1 (to show an incipient greeting and his orientation to him) and greets him (line 2). 1963). Cus1 gives a second pair part of the greeting (line 5).1 Opening: Establishing mutual recognition and relevant identities When the customer enters the restaurant. is ordinarily responded to by the recipient (i. Whether the second greeting is done with a bow or verbally. Thus. customer) with a slight bow. such as irassyaimase ‘welcome’. an ownerchef.e. but I will only refer to them when their use is relevant for the analysis. These conventions are employed. it is normally the chef who initiates the first greeting. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data. however. thus recognizing and responding to the chef ’s greeting. The greetings can put the participants into the ritual state of ratified mutual participation (Goffman. Analysis 4. 4. Slightly afterwards (0. normatively known as composing an adjacency pair (Schegloff. (1) is such an example. where there is a high possibility that they will not know each other. The greeting is the very first action which allows the participants to recognize who the addressing/ addressed party is.. Then. 2012). the chef and customers orient in such a way as to identify the addressee when they face the new encounter. The greeting. Chef1. his wife (Cus 2) enters the corridor and simultaneously looks and greets the chef with a bow (line 8). transcription conventions. just prior to the initiation of greeting. As they walk into the corridor. 3 Cus1: //((looks at the chef and lowers his head)) 4 Chef2: //いらっしゃいませ。 //Irassyaimase. ((bowing)) The practice of recognizing the addressee by gaze prior to the action can be seen across different sushi dining activities. the participants establish the relevant relationship through a successive greeting exchange in an opening section. ((bowing)) 6 (0. In contrast. the conversational greeting exchange is done with a form that does not invoke a particular identity (e. In the ordinary context. and accomplish this via the mutual orientation.g.. One party (chef). In addition.° //Hello. chef and customer demonstrate their institutional identity via different turn designs. 1968) between the two parties. It seems that it shows the participant’s orientation to the others when their relationship is not yet established. 1968)). By mutually recognizing who they are. says Irassyaimase ‘Welcome’ (line 4). “Hello” – “Hello” in telephone openings in English (Schegloff. acknowledges it (line 5). Furthermore. In this case. 5 Cus1: //どうも。 //Doomo. who is a receiving party. and the other (customer). 57 . 8 Cus2: //°んにちはーーー。° //°N’niti wa:::. Chapter 3. //Welcome. none of the participants claim to know each other.3 3. //Welcome. the greeting sequence marks the beginning phase of the dining activity and can be repeated after the customers are seated. Such a relationship is also made public by the design of the turns. Hello.8) 7 Chef1: //いらっしゃいませ。 //Irassyaimase. the repeated greeting sequence is used to open the communication channel (Schegloff.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi (1) Greeting 1 ((Chef1 bows slightly)) 2 Chef1: はい//いらっしゃい//ませ。 Hai //irassyai//mase. who is a dining party. //wel//come. in the exchange. //Hello. The fact that either one of them need not do the greeting in the sequence suggests that they do not do “greetings” but rather embody the “opening” of the dining. Prior to (2). (2) begins just after he is served tukidasi. First. Following the tukidasi. (2) White fish as the first order ((The chef serves a small appetizer. I discuss how talk can be initiated within the same state. They usually wait until the drinks are served.)) . The customers do not immediately start ordering after they are seated. he does not start eating the appetizer at this point. Instead. the chef approaches him.1. which is to his far right. the customer is seated and orders hot sake. and asks in line 3. I focus on how the participants coordinate their timing of actions via projection and mutual recognition of each other’s action. there might not be any substantial interaction yet at that point. This acceptance projects the occurrence of incipient ordering.1 Continuing state of incipient ordering and talk In this section. the customer does not immediately respond.” 4. It is only after 14 seconds have passed that the customer responds to the chef ’s inquiry by saying in line 6 Soo desu ne ‘Sounds good’. The parties have to mutually recognize each other’s orientations by which they display that they are available for the incipient action. I show how the first order is done by analyzing how participants display their orientation through their bodies and talk. which accepts the chef ’s proposal.)) 2 3 Chef: 何かお切りしますか。 Nanika okiri-simasu ka. he starts looking along the bar counter and eventually his gaze reaches the showcase. I demonstrate how the subsequent requests are made within a continuing state of incipient ordering. Second. serves ginger. which is in front of the showcase. the customers are only served omakase ‘the chef ’s recommendation’. Finally. ‘Shall (I) cut something (for you)?’. neither the chef nor the customer looks at the other. the chef also goes back to his original position.)) 1 ((The chef also serves ginger. he sits with his chin in his right hand leaning against the table and drops his gaze in front of him. In the meantime. they are supposed to order food – either sushi or something else. In some sushi restaurants. Shall (I) cut something (for you)? ((Looks at the customer right before but the customer does not gaze back.1.58 Satomi Kuroshima 4. The initiation of the incipient ordering state involves collaborative work done by two parties that have a distinctive beginning and ending. thus treating it as a “continuing state of incipient talk. but in most restaurants the customers are expected to order at their will. All the excerpts in this paper are taken from the latter type of restaurant. Upon hearing the chef ’s offer as a solicitation. However. Nanika okiri simasu ka. and prepares something. However. Even if the chef serves tukidasi ‘a small appetizer’.2 The first order: Body and talk for initiation of an incipient ordering Once the customers are seated and have ordered drinks. During the whole time. For instance. white fish? //White fish? //よろしいですか? || //はい。 //Yorosii desu ka?|| //Hai. and thus they achieve mutual engagement (Goodwin.” Thus. when the chef uses tap water. ((The serving person brings sake.2) ((The chef turns and looks at the customer.)) えー//白身? || //白身? E://siromi? //Siromi? Uhm.)) (14. the chef continues preparing food but also occasionally glances over at the customer. Rather.0) そうですね。 Soo desu ne. invites the customer to initiate an incipient action in this state. he starts exploring the showcase with his gaze. â•⁄4 â•⁄5 â•⁄6 Cus: â•⁄7 â•⁄8 â•⁄9 Cus: 10 11 Chef: 12 Cus: 13 14 Chef: Chapter 3. ((Serves white fish)) After the customer responds to the chef ’s offer in line 6. Sounds good.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi ((The chef serves wasabi ‘Japanese horse radish’. he initiates his solicitation in line 3 without a greeting and in so doing.)) (22.” In (2). while uttering the request in line 9. 1981). the chef returns the customer’s gaze in line 10. which is located on his side of the showcase inside the bar counter.0) ちょっとだけじゃあ白身を切ってもらってー Tyotto dake zyaa siromi o kitte moratte: A little bit then (please) cut white fish (for me) and (0. the customer also withdraws his gaze from the chef (or the showcase) for 1. After a few moments. Here you go. his lower body shows a more basic and cotinuing orientation to the previous engagement. and upon this averted gaze. Soon after that. the customer looks at the chef. but by orienting his upper body towards the customer the chef displays his transient but main attention on the customer. (24. Such a form of engagement achieved through mutual orientation is necessary for the parties to initiate the incipient action of ordering because both parties are in a “continuing state of incipient ordering. When the chef approaches the customer and serves ginger 59 . //Is it okay? //Yes. the chef averts his gaze. During this time (line 8). Then. he displays his orientation to the customer by turning his head and upper body to the customer but maintains his lower body facing straight ahead in what Schegloff (1988) refers to as “body torque. the chef does not reissue the opening with a greeting exchange.0 second.0) ((Chef cuts white fish.)) はいさ。 Hai sa. & Jefferson. However.. the initiation of an order is not yet required nor conditionally relevant. During the hold. That is. During the 22 seconds of silence (line 8). Despite the presupposition that the chef is ready to take orders. The talk creates a context for the unfolding aspect of the social organization of their interaction. the customer utters the substantial part of his request (siromi kitte itadaite: ‘(please) cut white fish (for me) and’). On the other hand. he looks at the customer. although the chef is engaged in other activities such as washing a plate. Then. As soon as the chef hears this turn. he keeps monitoring the customer by occasionally looking at him. Sacks. both the chef and the customer embody such an orientation. at that point. and therefore have to monitor each other’s availability (Schegloff. the customer shows bodily that he is looking at the fish in the showcase. 2010b). displaying his orientation for an incipient ordering through his engagement in another activity. however. 2006). and the addressee is selected by the speaker’s gaze just at that moment (Lerner. even though they can initiate a conversation at any moment during this state.2-second silence in line 10. Nishizaka. 2003. 2010a. since the customer does not continue immediately. the chef selects himself as the next speaker to check his hearing and understanding by repeating the ordered item in line 11 (Kuroshima.60 Satomi Kuroshima and wasabi. Because Tyotto dake ‘A little bit’ projects that what follows will be an entity that can be measured. Because the final intonation of his utterance does not fully fall. The incipiency of the action is thus secured and oriented through their mutual monitoring. Such a projection might have led the recipient (the chef) to delay in responding. Such a request for confirmation is a consequence of the customer’s . However. Schegloff. that is deciding on what fish to order. Through their careful monitoring.. aligning with the initiated action. it can also project that some form of request for food will follow. both the chef and the customer maintain mutual gaze. Finally. the design of the customer’s request turn in line 9 encodes that this request is contingent upon the previous interaction by utilizing a continuing state (e. thus yielding a 0. Furthermore. which marks the utterance as contingent on the prior context and marks the following utterance to be “next” (cf. grammatically and prosodically it equivocally projects that something else might follow. 1981) without completely withdrawing. putting his production on hold at that point by ending his utterance with a non-final verbal form (te form).e. the chef and the customer still have to coordinate their orientation to initiate such an action. 2002). The adjacency pair of solicitation and acceptance in (2) creates a context for the recipient to initiate a next action. i. the participants maintain the framework for engagement (Goodwin. a continuing state of incipient ordering/ talk).g. it is publicly observable that he is ready to take an order. 1974). the customer adds zyaa ‘then’. detailed observation shows that they carefully monitor each other’s bodies and talk situated within the continuing state of incipient ordering. his request for confirmation overlaps with the customer’s completion of the request turn. and orders. Therefore. without explicitly asking whether the customer wants sashimi (i. the chef ’s verb choice displays his presumption that the customer may want to order sashimi at this point. Although the silence in line 5 and the delay in response suggest that the chef and customer are misaligned with each other. which is considered to be a main dish.e. without explicitly referring to membership knowledge). However. The participants’ understanding of where the request is positioned within this state is shown in their formulation. after the chef says E: ‘uhm’.1. the chef requests confirmation again in line 11 (Siromi? (‘White fish?’)). when the chef cleans the counter in front of the customer (line 2). Chapter 3. (3) occurs just after the customer has ordered some starters. I argue that they make use of the continuing state of incipient ordering. overlapping the customer’s delayed confirmation. This contrasts with sushi.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi production of an utterance that was projected to continue. They continuously coordinate their actions using the temporal aspect as well as the activity framework as demonstrated in the design of their turns. looking ahead (line 1). However.. the customer needs to do some work to get the recipient into the engagement framework. the chef needs to make sure that white fish was the item that the customer is indeed ordering. In (2). It is significant that this order is the customer’s very first request. in line 11. Thus. 4. At a sushi restaurant. the verb kiru ‘to cut’ is used by the chef in line 3 (Nani ka okiri-simasu ka ‘Shall I cut something (for you)?’) to specifically display the chef ’s understanding that the customer is just at the beginning of his meal. because sashimi can be a good starter. Thus. he stretches his back pushing his chest forward (a body movement that makes him stand out) (line 3).3 Addressing a request within a continuing state of incipient ordering In this section I examine how the customer and the chef coordinated to collaborate in the initiation of “another” ordering. However. 61 . and that this orientation is displayed by the ways the customer initiates and the chef invites a request. because the chef might not be available at any particular time. which comes in a delay in line 12. The customer aligns with the chef ’s solicitation and orders sashimi by also formulating his request turn with the same verb (kitte moratte: ‘cut (for me) and’) in line 9. fish cut into slices as sashimi is often ordered at the beginning rather than at the middle or the end of the meal. which serves to accept the request. After tasting them he just sits there. which he has already tasted. then. and the chef glances at the customer. He first starts his turn with an interjection N. okay.)) 4 Cus: ん-えーーとじゃあ握っ//てもらえます？ N. where e::to ‘uhm’ alerts the recipient that what follows is disjunctive (in terms of action or a proposition) from what precedes the marker. e::to ‘uhm. her analysis is relevant here. //Un. can (you) make sushi (for me)? 5 //((The chef turns his gaze toward the customer)) 6 Chef: ん、はいっ。 N. just as the customer initiates his incipient ordering.” This point is further proven by the customer’s subsequent use of the token zyaa ‘then’. and then looks down. in this case. . What is disjunctively marked is the transition from the customer’s “not ordering state” (in which he is drinking. the customer designs his turn as a pre-request nigitte moraemasu? ‘can (you) make sushi (for me)’). which can project the transition from the previous state to another one. Takagi (2007) argued that such a turn initial marker. //Yeah. 7 Cus: こはだ。//うん。 Kohada. Kohada ‘gizzard shad’. which projects that he is going to develop his turn. whose preferred response would advance the activity of the base-request action. Following this. and his “incipient action of requesting.’ marks the transition from what is previously projected through a first action or a previous development of a turn to what comes next. the chef glances at him in line 3. The orientation to initiating an incipient action is seen in the customer’s design of his turn.‘Okay’ (line 4). he utters e::to ‘uhm’. next to the starters. ((nodding)) 8 //((The chef opens the fish showcase. By following this. Zyaa ‘then’ marks that the order of what follows is “next” to something as in (2) (Nishizaka. uhm. hai. or whatever).62 Satomi Kuroshima (3) Kohada 1 ((The chef extends his right arm to clean the customer’s counter.e::to zyaa nigit//te moraemasu? ((leaning his body forward)) Okay.)) When the customer straightens his back.)) 2 ((The chef returns behind the showcase. enjoying the starter. Although there is no preceding talk. Uh-huh.)) 3 ((The customer stretches his back. 2006). the customer has already tasted several starters. In (3). but are not yet proper recognizable beginnings. as the chef avails his gaze (line 3).‘Okay’. The most prevalent way to address an order is through the initiation of a request for food along with a gaze toward the chef (Goodwin. the speakers indicate to some extent the order of the incipient action in relation to the overall organization of the dining experience. engaged in another activity. which marks the orderliness of the activity. 1981). 1981). as soon as the chef hears the initiation of the order in line 7.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi In sum. the customers indicate their understanding of the limitation for successfully selecting the chef as a next-speaker through gaze direction and in the formulation and prosody of their request (cf. he turns toward that customer. Next. body. establishing the framework for ordering (cf. 2002) within this state. In a context like a sushi bar counter. I will focus on the ways in which customers address a request to the chef within a continuing state of incipient ordering using their gaze. correctly identifying without misunderstanding the customer who addressed the order to him. In such circumstances. he does quite a bit of interactional and body work. which “project the onset of talk. the one that is already completed). zyaa ‘then’) to project the upcoming incipient action by which the customer is able to obtain the recipient’s gaze as in line 5. This way of addressing is utilized even when the chef ’s recipiency does not seem to be verified because he is engaged in other activities such as cooking.e. Even within this state. the customer displays his orientation to the positioning of his request within this state. or the beginning of a (next) TCU or a turn. p. However. 2003). and language. By marking his request turn with zyaa ‘then’. 92) “pre-beginning” elements. where no opening sequence is necessary.. 63 . To accomplish this. That is. but the chef is looking away. he changes his posture. As mentioned above. Chapter 3. he still needs to be recognized as an “ordering party” in order to be heard. e::to ‘uhm’. the request is contingent upon the previous activity (i. the customer then uses several discourse markers in line 4 (N. Lerner. which invites the recipient’s gaze.” However. where there are some obstacles to initiating a request such as the chef ’s availability or the presence of other customers. the customer addresses an order to the chef by gazing at him. the customer and chef are orienting to the dining activity as a coherent entity that has some unfolding temporal aspect. although the customer does not need to be engaged in any opening exchange in order to secure the recipient’s (chef ’s) availability (Schegloff. First. Such body motion is considered to be one of Schegloff ’s (1996. In (3). it is quite normal for the customer to do some interactional work in order to initiate a request action. he straightens his back. In (4). and what is expected next is ordering a main course of sushi. Goodwin. The chef ’s recognition through monitoring the ordering customer becomes visible in (5). he communicates to his customers that he is available for the next order. while the customers in (2) and (4) initiate a request without issuing some pre-turn (“pre-beginning”) action for mutual recognition. Please. the chef was standing in front of the customers. one hot tea. Chef goes to the kitchen)) あがりいっちょうくれる？ Agari it-tyoo kureru? Can (I) get a hot tea? あがりいっちょう、はいよ。はい、あがりいっちょうー。 Agari it-tyoo. At the time of ordering. They are already orienting to the incipiency of a request that defines the current state. agari it-tyoo:. This is possible because the customer is sitting in front of the chef and the distance between them is close.e. his action is understood to be recognizable and hearable to the chef. With his body. The customer does not need to use a summons to secure the chef ’s availability. haiyo! Hai. the projectability of an incipient ordering could have contributed to the chef ’s correct identification of the ordering customer. and indeed this order is successfully heard and received by the chef. One hot tea. Thus. not engaged in any particular activity. it is the first order for this customer). for the customer. The customers in (2) through (4) utilize several resources to initiate a request. 2010b).0) ((Sound of door closing)) どうぞ。 Doozo. ((Indicating the seat with his hand)) (5. They are able to initiate a request without securing the chef ’s availability prior to initiation of a request. The customer in (3) initiates a pre-request sequence rather than a base-request turn. and is able to ensure his recipiency by providing his utterance as a voice sample as well as by using the continuing state of incipient ordering. and the chef ’s correct and confident hearing is shown in the chef ’s repeat of the customer’s request (line 7) with falling intonation in line 8 (Kuroshima. not only the sequential context but also the customer’s voice can be a resource for the chef to identify the ordering party. both the customers and the chef are monitoring each other in preparation for the incipient ordering. As in (1).0) ((Cus sits down. In addition. ((turns to Cus)) Because the sequential positioning of this ordering action comes right after the same customer enters the restaurant and is seated (i.64 Satomi Kuroshima (4) Agari it-tyoo 3 4 5 Chef: 6 7 Cus: 8 Chef: ((Greeting exchange of two lines omitted)) (2. okay! Okay. . 2010a.. even when the chef is moving and thus passing in front of this customer when the customer addresses his request. >hai yo. still looking at the chef. It has been argued that speakers launch a summons when there could be trouble with recipiency (Lerner. Amberjack.< =//Amberjack||//. p. Thus. does not require a response in this case). Sometimes they move their body in order to see some item in the showcase or a menu bar on the wall.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi The customer turns slightly toward her left and then turns her head and looks at the chef just before she orders. which can potentially be an ordering in this state.e. 1996. as part of a turn’s talk” (Lerner. okay. p. p. 93). //((vertical deep nod)) ((chef starts preparation)) As shown in (3) above. A summons pre-positioned before the main sequence initiating action is used to secure an addressed recipient “in passing. 190) of just doing the action of “addressing” (Schegloff. the chef brings his gaze toward her (line 1). When that conversation is over (not shown in transcript). the chef brings his gaze toward her. 189). (6) is a case in which the customer uses a summons term Sumimasen ‘Excuse me’ (in line 2) prefacing the order. Because such movement is similar to a “pre-beginning in-breath” (Schegloff.” Through such a body movement. Just prior to (6). the chef drops his gaze onto the cooking board right in front of him. 2002). such upper-body movement often prompts the chef to turn his gaze toward the customer. ＝//かんーぱちー||//ーよ、＞はいよ。＜ =//Kan:pati:||//: yo. addressing is done through her gaze and ordering action. 1968. 2002). customers display their orientation to initiating an order. and the customer.)) かんぱち。 Kanpati. 2002. As soon as the customer turns her head. 2003. 2003) rather than independently as a summons-answer sequence (Schegloff. 65 . In any case. 2003). the customers often use their head or upper body to make some body movement just prior to their ordering. Thus. I will refer to it as a “pre-request body movement. Lerner. This way. (5) Amberjack 1 2 Cus: 3 Chef: 4 5 ((Cus turns towards her left and then just as she looks at the chef. although it does not happen every time. 2007). Chapter 3. the main action is not strongly made contingent (i. the chef and the customer are conversing.. it can project for the chef the customer’s incipient action. or availability of the recipient (Schegloff. The summons is embedded within an ordering action (cf. initiates a request in line 2. because the embedded summons is “the weaker form” (Lerner. 2003. This is what is observed in (6). where the chef also does not look at the customer prior to the order. Eel.)) 4 Chef: うなぎ、はい。 Unagi.. The chef is looking down when the customer initiates this action in line 2. the customer does not need to open a communication channel because they are already in the continuing state of incipient ordering. When the recipiency is understood to be secured by the ordering party. if the previous communication is taken to be “closed.66 Satomi Kuroshima (6) Excuse me.” followed by a silence.e. Rather the customer orients to forwarding the action of the summons as a part of a request activity. Thus. //Unagi::: de. while the chef is monitoring the customer in (5). in (6). 2003) suggest that the speaker is in doubt about whether the recipient would recognize the addressing party. //eel. Schegloff (1968. ((nodding)) The excerpt in (6). Unlike (5). in which the customer calls the chef by prefacing a request with the summoning expression Sumimasen ‘Excuse me’ contrasts with (4) and (5). and the timing of the recipient’s gaze arrival corresponds with naming the ordered item in line 2. This is particularly relevant in this setting. It is likely that the ordering customer sees the chef ’s posture (i. eel 1 ((Cus is looking at the chef. The chef ’s withdrawal from the engagement framework with the customer prior to (6) the conversation might have prompted the customer to initiate his request with an embedded summons. in (6).. Such an orientation is displayed in the customer’s way of requesting. his looking down) as less secure for his recipiency. Excuse me. the customer could also observe that the chef was not engaged in any other activity.. in which there is another participant who could be doing the same action (i. okay. the customer does not use pre-order body movements. 2002) argues that with a summons-answer sequence the participants open the communication channel by orienting to the recipient’s availability.e. 3 //((The chef looks at the customer.)) 2 Cus: すみません、//うなぎーーーで。 Sumimasen. which suggests that the chef ’s recipiency could be more easily secured than if the chef has been doing something else. As soon as the summons is done. (6) shows that even in this state they need to establish mutual orientation at the time of ordering. ordering). hai. On the other hand. The embedded forms of addressing (Lerner. in order to initiate an incipient action the speaker might have to do some additional work to re-establish the engagement framework. even if the recipient is .e. as a response to the summons). the recipient (the chef) looks at the speaker (the customer) (i. However. they utilize “the continuing state. uhm ((clears throat)). knowing who the other party is) does seem to be a basic element for the order to be launched and received. while the 1 customer turns to him. Uh-huh.< Kore kore nan te iu n su ka? That’s right.” When the chef initiates a non-requesting related action. unt ((clear throat)). °tasika nan datta kana?° Hatizyoo-zima no ne. for sure I wonder what it was (called).4 Continuing state of incipient talk The whole activity of dining is usually organized around the customer’s requesting rather than the chef ’s initiation of an offer. That Mugi ‘wheat (sake)’ is good.. What do you call this. the participants have to establish a one-to-one relationship in a recognizable way prior to launching a request turn. Uhm. from Hachijyo-jima. Mutual recognition (i.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi engaged in another activity. you know. the requester-requestee relationship can always be made relevant. such as small talk or preparing food. (7) Mugi ((The chef washes a cloth and wipes the customer’s counter. It’s called Shima no hana. Sima no hana tte yatsu. the incipient action is topical talk as in (7). there is indeed a continuing state of incipient “ordering. (4)).e. ((Pointing at the sake.)) 3 Cus: ＞そうっすね。＜これ-これなんて言うんすか？ >Soo ssu ne. 5 Chef: うん。 Un.. the speaker simply initiates a request with a pre-turn activity (e. In this way. let me see. as customers). Hachijyo-jima.. Chapter 3. In the continuing state of incipient ordering. 67 . 4 Cus: 八丈島。 Hatizyoo-zima. because both the chef and the customers can initiate a non-requesting action without an opening.1. and the fact that there are several other participants who have the same identity (i. isn’t it.this? 4 Chef: うわえーーーと、うんっ((咳払い))、°たしかなんだったかな。°八丈島のね、島の花ってやつ。 Uwa e:::tto.)) 2 Chef: その麦おいしいでしょ。 Sono mugi oisii desyo.” Nonetheless. 4.e. However.g. with other potential activities that can occur. )) 2 Cus: いつこちらに引っ越されたんですか？ Itu kotira ni hikkosareta n desu ka? When is it that (you) moved to this place? 3 Chef: ええっと4年前。 Eetto yo-nen mae. In this way. within the continuing state of incipient talk. pointing).. In the continuing state of incipient talk. 4 Cus: ((Nods)) . and then the customer 1 drinks his sake. As soon as the chef utters his turn in line 2. both the speaker and the recipient can establish the locus of their orientation. the drink that the customer is having at the time.. Such a pointing gesture coupled with the deictic term (sono ‘that’) can only be understood through the situatedness of the action in the context. It is noteworthy that unlike (2) and (3). (8) Moving ((The customer and the chef have mutual gaze. at the syootyuu (‘distilled spirit’) drink the customer is having. pointing coupled with other semiotic resources such as talk. gestures. It also requires a point of reference. The customer was looking toward his left front. virtually any topic can be topicalized.e. Uhm. as in (8). it seems that the speakers usually utilize resources available to them in order for the initiation to be accessible to the recipient (i. in which the customer initiates a request. Not only by talk but also by the pointing gesture. 4 years ago. i. in this case. As Goodwin (2007) demonstrates. nor is it marked by reference to the sequential positioning of the turn in relation to the previous talk. along with a pointing gesture directed at the referent. not at the chef ’s action. This shows that the utterance is neither uttered in relation to other previous actions or as an orderly one. the topical talk can be initiated by the customer.. The chef gives his assessment of the item he is pointing to.e. The talk and the pointing gesture embedded within this environment become resources for the participants to analyze the focus of their activity. the customer directs his gaze toward the chef. However.e. Similarly. assessment of the drink. the chef ’s initiation of an assessment (which strongly prefers an agreement) treats the recipient as someone who locally has equal epistemic status. or objects constructs a meaningful structure that is available for the participants to achieve mutual recognition at that moment.68 Satomi Kuroshima Just prior to (7). and can be seen as one of the mentionable topics that are available to both parties. i. which is both visibly and hearably available to the recipient. this chef ’s initiation of topical talk is not marked by any turn-preface token such as zyaa ‘then’. the chef washes a cloth and wipes this customer’s counter. i. Okay. the customer was drinking sake. 4.] 69 . Although the customer does not design his request to be his last order. Since dining is collaborative work done by both the customers and the chef. the closing section could be either extended with other intervening activities or very brief. the closing of the dining activity is another phase that is collaboratively achieved by the participants’ coordinating and moving on to a closing section. Can (I) have the check? はいかしこまりましたーー。 Hai kasikomarimasita::. i. [Yes (I) obey respectfully. After having sea eel and egg.e. Naturally. Normatively. (9) involves a single customer. when the customers have had enough food. they start talking about stopping ordering. it is briefer for a single customer to initiate and close a closing section than for a couple or a group. Ordering egg sushi at a sushi restaurant normally forecasts it to be the last item. he initiates the following exchange. The customer uses the opportunity he gained from obtaining the chef ’s gaze as a resource for initiating a non-request-related topic talk without any opening or turn prefaces. (9) Check 1 Cus: 2 Ser: 3 4 Cus: 5 Ser: ((Uses hand gesture to call the server. (I) got (it).. yes. the customer rushes to drink up his sake cup and initiates topic talk in line 2.)) お会計して。 Okaikee-site. it is the customer who initiates a closing section (rarely the chef).e.)) あっはい。 Ah. Chapter 3..8) ((Server approaches the customer. requesting a check. Compared with an opening section. while putting his chopsticks down and washing his left hand. closing the dining activity. If a customer is accompanied by a companion. they need to negotiate between themselves when to close the dining before they actually initiate the closing. The chef is clearly monitoring the customer by gazing at him. Oh. hai.. he initiates a closing section by asking the server for a check.2 Closing At some point. a few minutes after eating his egg sushi.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi Just prior to this segment. they both need to agree whether or not they can move on. As soon as they both achieve a mutual gaze. i.e. (0. the decision is irreversible (unlike in an ordinary conversation. As the identities of server and service recipient become the most relevant in an exchange about the check. where either party can reopen the interaction). which indexes the speaker’s congruent epistemic status (Hayano. The check can be requested from the chef or a server.e. ne.. After the server answers the summons (line 2) and approaches the customer (line 3) (i. these assessments designed with a past tense form can mark the ending of the dining experience by reference to the whole dining activity that has happened rather than a specific item that the husband and wife ordered. In response. and ending her utterance with an agreement particle. in a sushi restaurant it is the customer who calls for the closing of a dining experience. there is an asymmetrical relationship with regard to who can initiate a closing. The customer probably used a hand gesture because he and the server were distant from each other. Furthermore. that it is . he summons the server with a hand gesture in line 1. because the chef normally orders the server to make upon the customer’s request. After the proposal-acceptance sequence is closed. such as a joke). in this case. which can show equal epistemic access (Heritage. the customer asks for the check in line 4. This reference to the check clearly marks both the ending of the continuing state of incipient ordering and the initiation of the next phase. 1973). Unlike an ordinary phone conversation in which both the caller and the receiver must negotiate and agree upon the shift to the closing by making sure there are no more mentionables (Schegloff & Sacks. when they are close enough to hear each other). In contrast. it is understood as not serious.e. After enjoying the kohada ‘gizzard shad’ sushi. the closing is initiated to the server. just as the server comes out from the back of the restaurant. (9) suggests that selecting the server as a recipient of the request for the check establishes such an asymmetrical status between the customer and the server. this sequence serves as a “pre-closing” (Schegloff & Sacks. Given that they claim equal epistemic access to the referent. In both cases.. and the chef ordinarily accepts (unless. the wife (Cus2) initiates a proposal to stop the dining in line 1. the server prepares the check. Hence. i. 2002). This suggests that although the dining activity is done collaboratively. 1973). if there is a company. the husband and wife agree with each other on the assessment’s interactional import. they need to negotiate and agree upon closing the dining among them. the closing section. (10) captures such a moment. the husband (Cus1) initiates an assessment sequence in line 3 to appreciate the dining experience. 2011).70 Satomi Kuroshima After the customer eats his sea eel and egg sushi (not shown in (9)). the wife joins by agreeing with him (line 4) with a second assessment in the same tense (-katta adjectival past tense). and thus. and there were two other groups of customers between them. When the customer (Cus1) receives the check. the parties can be engaged in talk that is not relevant to the continuing state of incipient ordering. Such an orientation is also seen in its formulation of an ellipsis of a referent of these assessments. By assessing their experience in the past tense. which comes after the proposal-acceptance on the check is issued. The customers then do things on their own. the husband and wife are further orienting to the closing phase by assessing the experience that they have had together. etc. 4 Cus2:　 //おいしかったねーー。 //Oisikatta ne::. they are making sure that both of them are ready to close the dining rather than still desiring to eat. // (It) was good. (that) was delicious. Upon hearing the customer’s request. Oh. wasn’t it? 5 (1. a couple has already asked for the check. Chapter 3. there could be an intervening activity with a different recipient. then the closing is initiated as in line 6. //Shall (we) go? 3 Cus1: あーーーー、やーーーおいしかっ//た。 A:::: ya::: oisikat//ta. who is preparing food and talking to another customer. In (11). the customer asks the server for a check as in (9). the customer seated at the counter picks up some ginger and the chef initiates topical talk in line 2. the chef also responds (not shown). he gives his credit card to the server. the sequential positioning of this exchange. yes. In other words.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi an expansion of a pre-closing.//site morau? Should (we) ask for [have them calculate] the check now? //行くか。 2 Cus1: //Iku ka. also projects an upcoming closing initiation. such as go to the bathroom. Even after the closing is initiated. excuse me.0) 6 Cus1: あっすいませんおあいそーー//お願いします。 Ah suimasen oaiso:: //onegai-simasu. While they are waiting. Furthermore. ((to the server)) In line 6. they do not engage in any interaction with the chef. talk among themselves. 71 . Oh. the check //please. (10) Closing 1 Cus2: じゃもうーお勘定//してもらう？ Zya moo okanzyoo. While waiting for the server to return. When that is agreed upon. even though he is sitting far from the customers. After the initiation of closing is issued. the couple starts talking to each other because the check has not yet been processed. right? 5 Cus2: あt.72 Satomi Kuroshima (11) Ginger 1 ((Cus1 eats some ginger. Then the server (Ser) comes back with the receipt and the credit card as shown in (12).)) 2 Chef: そのガリはい-自分で作ってる//ガリだからね？ Sono gari wa i. and the chef glances at him.zibun de tukutte ru //gari da kara ne? That ginger is ginger that (I) made myself. (12) Greetings 5 Ser: 今後共ご贔屓によろしく//お願いしまーす． Kongo tomo gohiiki ni yorosiku //onegai-sima::su. (you) made it’s that it’s made by hand (homemade). Rather. oisikatta desu:::. Oh. Although the continuing state of incipient ordering was closed by asking for the check.<Huh? 4 Chef: 自分で作ってるガリだからおいしいでしょ？ Zibun de tukutte ru gari da kara oisii desyo? It’s ginger that (I) made myself. yes. the chef uses the moment when the customer eats the ginger as an opportunity to inform the customer that he made the ginger.(. //Oh.)) Similar to (7). //ああ、はい、おいしかった 6 Cus1: ですーーー、 //Aa. Thank you for your continued patronage. hai. He designs his informing as an account for a positive assessment of ginger with which the chef is inviting the recipient to agree with his use of desyo? ‘right?’ in line 4. 6 ((Talk about the ginger continues.tezuku//ri na n da. (it) was delicious.<E? //Ginger is delicious. their relative epistemic incongruence through which their topic talk is developed becomes public. . As shown in (11). the continuing state of incipient talk has not been closed. After the topic talk about the ginger. so you know? 3 Cus1: //ガリおいしいです。<え？ //Gari oisii desu. the topical talk can still be initiated.) 作って-手作//りなんだ。 A t.(. When the customer’s response to the informing treats the chef ’s turn as agreeable through comments (Gari oishii desu ‘Ginger is delicious’) and an open-class repair initiator (E? ‘Huh?’) in line 3. When the chef sees the customer picking up the ginger.) Tukutte. the ginger is not topicalized by the chef coincidently. he initiates this topical talk with an informing and a strongly yes-preferring assessment. so it’s good. =//your patronage. Thus. their initiation without these markers suggests that the closing sequences took place independent of the previous talk. Rather. Thank you for=((glances at Cus)) //ごちそうさまでした。 12 Cus2: //Gotisoo-sama desita. lines 6–7. ((to the chef)) 11 Chef: ありがとうござい//ました。どうぞまた＝ Arigatoo gozai//masita. zyaa ‘then’. and gives an assessment. In closing sequences.. seeing him standing. // (That) was a great job. which can show its sequential relationship with a prior segment. who has just entered the bar counter from the kitchen. Thank you very much. lines 8–9.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi â•⁄7 Ser: //ありがとうございます。 //Arigatoo gozaimasu. 10 Cus1: おいしかったです。 Oisikatta desu. Chapter 3. ((looking at the chef)) 13 Chef: ＝//よろしくお願いします。 =//Yorosiku onegai-sima:su. â•⁄9 Ser: ありがとうございます。 Arigatoo gozaimasu. 1973). //Thank you very much. the sequence consists of an [appreciation] – [appreciation] adjacency pair (e. the customer turns to the chef. oisikatta desu ‘it was good’ (line 10)... Thank you very much. When this exchange is closed with the server’s acceptance of the compliment in line 9. The customer responds to handling the receipt and proffers an assessment in line 6 and a compliment to the server in line 8. the customer’s initiation of an assessment (e. The chef ’s (or a server’s) understanding of the sequential positioning of the closing section is shown by his immediate alignment with the customers and his acknowledgements and/ or appreciative responses. This method of closing is similar to the ordinary telephone conversation’s closing initiation. His companion. lines 10–11 in (12)). (10)) is not usually marked by a turn-preface marker (e. ((bowing)) â•⁄8 Cus1: //すごいいい仕事で。 //Sugoi ii sigoto de. which does not refer to the previous talk (Schegloff & Sacks. The server (Ser) is the first to initiate a closing remark in line 5 when she gives the receipt to the customer. the customer stands up. eeto ‘uhm’). line 6. which can be a warrant for closing 73 . //Thank you for the dinner. Doozo mata. (It) was delicious.g. While uttering this line.g.g. also rushes to sip her tea and joins the exchange by thanking the chef in line 12. After the chef and the customer (Cus1) look at each other at the initiation of the terminal exchange. 32.. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. closing). lines 11.e. Within each of the three phases (opening. 5. The participants treat the dining experience as one entity whose boundaries are marked by conversational practices. & Heritage. the chef withdraws his gaze. but this is very brief. (Eds. a continuing state of incipient ordering/ talk) organized around some activity. In Paul Drew & John Heritage. E. UK: Cambridge University Press. C. in (12) the customers also show their orientation to exiting from the occasion through their body. (2000). Conclusion I have examined the ways in which the boundaries of an activity frame for an experience of eating at a sushi bar counter is oriented to and understood by the customers and chef in the recordings of actual dining scenes. New York: The Free Press. and withdrawing from the scene by walking away. i.g. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. by standing up.74 Satomi Kuroshima the dining occasion. 13 in (12)). continuing state of incipient ordering/ talk.. It was observed that even without keeping track of how many pieces of sushi they have ordered so far. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. the customers are still orienting to where they are during the course of dining.g. . J. This paper contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding human action in a particular state (e. (1963). Cambridge. Goodwin. 1489–522. Such orientation is seen in their formation of each action in the dining activity. It can be terminated by the chef ’s request for the customer(s) to come back soon (e. as the sequence closes down mutual orientation through gaze direction is acknowledged minimally by both parties (Cus1 and the chef). Goffman. Goodwin. (1981). P. C. New York: Academic Press. Each participant analyzes what the other participant(s) is doing at that moment and makes use of this analysis as a resource for initiating a collaborative action.. It also describes the intricate structural organization of ordering and serving sushi. Journal of Pragmatics. In addition. bowing along with their appreciations. (1992). References Drew.) Talk at Work (pp. both the customer(s) and the chef mutually coordinate their bodies and monitor each other’s actions. and continues doing some other work while producing the second appreciation. 3–65). Thus. Jefferson. J. 52–133)..: Cambridge University Press. & Heritage.â•›A. private talk. Steensig (Eds. Talk at work (pp. Language. The interactional organization of calls for emergency service. In E. Sacks. Hayano. (1974). 418–469). public performance (pp. & Sacks. (2007). A. Cambridge.â•›A. (1968). Katz & M. 8(4). Mondada.). K. 1075–1095. 481–493. and trust in a Japanese sushi restaurant. E. and body orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Perpetual contact: Mobile communication. Thompson (Eds. 61(2). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: The completion relevance of current symptoms. UK: Cambridge University Press. E. (2010b). Kuroshima. Lerner. Chapter 3.. (2003).â•›A. (2011). Body torque.. Tokyo: Eihosha. S. Nishizaka. E. Schegloff. & Tanaka.. Schegloff. D. Language. Â�Heritage & P. & Sacks. Getting down to business: Talk.). Tuda Aoi kyoozyu taikan kinen ronbunsyuu [Papers in honor of Dr. Schegloff. Heritage. 856–869. H. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. 18(1). G. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. Ochs. 25(1). 75 . 327–342). Stivers. Discourse and Society. In J. S. Selecting the next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a contextfree organization. (2002). intersubjectivity. Journal of Pragmatics. Research on Language and Social Interaction. (2002). Yamauchi.â•›A.â•›A. UK: Cambridge University Press. Jefferson. Cambridge. On ‘opening sequencing’: A framing statement. Another look at the service encounter: Progressivity. Drew (Eds. Social Research. (2007).. J. (2012). Schegloff.â•›D. & S.. Schegloff.â•›A. C. E. Cambridge.. Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. Language in Society. Interaction and Grammar (pp. (Doctoral Dissertation. Human Communication Research. 1427–1446. Soogokooi tituzyo sooti to site no ‘eeto’ [‘Eeto’ as an interactional ordering device]. Ordering sushi: The intersection of linguistic form. 70(6). 289–327. L. Schegloff. G. 58–81). 42. (1996). 177–201. (1988). Social Science and Medicine. 65(3).). Robinson. K. E.). J. Unpublished manuscript.â•›A. 39(2). culture and social setting in the United States and Japan.â•‡ The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi Goodwin. (2006). Ohshima. Y. Semiotica. 32(2). H. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. In J. What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. 119–154.â•›H. gaze. E. U. Takagi. (2005).K. 53–73. and affect in the organization of activities. 696–735. stance. Cambridge.â•›A. (1998). Hara. H. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. H. G. American Anthropologist. 321– 325). 361–382.â•›H. Aoi Tuda] (pp. Robinson. Yamakawa. J. & J. Schegloff. (1973). T. Y. How Japanese traditional “Omonpakari” [consideration] services are delivered – A multidisciplinary approach. Kuroshima. E. 53. J. UK: Cambridge University Press. Zimmerman. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics.. 34. Aakhus (Eds. Opening up closings.â•›A. Fujisawa. 97–123. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. (2007). 535–596. In T. E. Y. Participation. (1992). (1977)...â•›E.â•›A. The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. E. Schegloff. 50(4). University of California at Los Angeles). Schegloff. Sequencing in conversational openings. (2010a). . part iii Talking about the food while eating . . and for her constant encouragement. Results validated Ohashi’s (2010) market research finding that onomatopoeic expressions have been replacing more traditional clausal descriptions of food texture. I examine how they make use of taste descriptions to socialize with one another and the expressions that they use in the socialization process. Introduction The present study provides evidence from observation of conversations at a potluck party and responses on written surveys at the party and in a workplace to support some of the findings of Ohashi’s (2010) market research on expressions of tastiness preferred by Japanese consumers and to offer additional insights into how Japanese speakers describe what they are eating. Language socialization is a central process of mealtime socialization 1. who took meticulous notes during the party. Results of this study have important pedagogical applications to teaching Japanese.1 In particular. This research suggests the pedagogical usefulness of the strategy of relating food being shared to personal experiences and concrete sensory expressions. for the helpful suggestions she provided to improve the manuscript. and references to personal experiences related to food. and to all of the study participants whose enthusiasm about food was an inspiration. . The use of the word hutuu ‘ordinary’ had a more positive connotation than has been traditionally associated with this word. texture.chapter 4 It’s delicious! How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event Mari Noda The Ohio State University Analysis of 105 Japanese taste descriptions gathered from observation of conversations at a potluck party and responses on written surveys at the party and in a workplace shows that speakers go beyond the common oisii ‘(it)’s tasty’ in their socialization through food sharing. Eating is a basic human activity and much socialization occurs around food consumption. The descriptions included specific descriptions of flavor. 1. I am indebted to Kanako Yao. I wish to acknowledge with deep gratitude Polly Szatrowski for her insightful comments about this research. cautions that “participating as a guest in an eating event in China while following American rules of dining etiquette will probably leave the impression that one is an arrogant. 2004. Shepherd (2005). one would expect a greater range of expressions . audience and script or program of action (Walker. Sakane. 1998. 1982. Learning to function in a culture entails learning to perform in events associated with food consumption during socialization in ways that a given culture endorses. in his extensive study of socialization through banquets in China’s Shandong province. 1984. 1986). Food talk as performed culture Building on the concepts of culture as a framework for interactions (Cole. roles. Kulick & Schieffelin. 9). if introduced at all. 1990. Makino. 2. of folk psychology (Bruner.. Ochs & Schieffelin. including linguistic behavior.80 Mari Noda (Ochs & Shohet. 1969. citing Garrett & Baquedano-Lopes. 1966. Food talk among Japanese guests at a multi-cultural potluck party in the US Midwest would define a performance that can be studied. Ochs and Shieffelin (2006) suggest that language socialization impacts language development. It behooves language learners to learn to participate in mealtime socialization in the target culture. Yet. Jorden & Noda. 1961. the specific time. and that the goal of language learners is “to participate in the interpretations of any sector of [that] … culture within which they are likely to find themselves engaging in personal interactions or conducting social transactions” (p. self-centered. and expressions that refer to taste. 2004). In these materials. 1977. Tohsaku. 1974).g. 2002. Hatasa & Hatasa. Turner. food references are limited to customary meal commencing greetings such as Itadakimasu ‘I humbly receive (the food being offered)’. 1995). 1987–1990. Ohno. 1999. It refers to the process “by which children and other novices acquire sociocultural competence through language and other semiotic modalities” (Ochs & Shohet. 2006:â•›36. not only as a target of learning but also as a process through which further learning can occur. 1996. Goffman. 2000). 1992. In a society in which food availability and consumption have become as cosmopolitan and diverse as in Japan. inconsiderate guest” (p. are typically introduced in the context of conveying personal likes and dislikes. such as oisii ‘(it)’s tasty’ and katai ‘(it)’s hard’ (e. and of performance (Bauman. 1996). Walker’s (2000) concept of performed culture assumes that the interpreter’s culture allows interpretations of behavior. Shinagawa. 1959. Performance is a situated event characterized by the specific place. 223). & Tokashiki. expressions related to food consumptions that are typically introduced in Japanese pedagogical materials are limited to a few generic taste-related adjectives. 2006). Banno. 1967. Turner & Bruner. 81 . that is. Of the 77 texture expressions 63 were onomatopoeic. 3. especially texture. Ohashi (2010) asked 1. 30–39. there are dictionaries dedicated to Japanese taste expressions (Kawabata. 2006. 2006). Chapter 4. such as poripori ‘crunchy’ or nettori ‘sticky.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event for describing food than what current pedagogical materials offer. 1998. Ohashi (2010) identifies expressions that consumers associate with the sense of tastiness.’ are associated with the sound that is heard (or 2. whether vegetables sold at a supermarket or beverages on a menu. 40–49.2 Data were collected six times over a 7-year period. Trends in Japanese expressions of tastiness Using a web-based survey.’ syoppai or siokarai ‘salty. Onomatopoeia expresses either sound or other sensory conditions and is an extremely prevalent genre of words in Japanese.’ nigai ‘bitter. aged 15 to 59. except 2005. In this study I address the following research questions: (1) how varied are the expressions that Japanese speakers use to describe food they eat in social settings.350 men and women. The question remains as to whether and how onomatopoeic expressions contribute to socialization in establishing performance at a social gathering. and each group had an equal number of men and women. One would also expect changes in how people describe taste along with other changes observed in general language use (e.g.. in natural social settings. They were collected once a year between 2003 and 2009. amai sweet. (2) what expressions do Japanese speakers use when describing the food that they eat in social conversations. 3. Flavor expressions refers to what taste buds on one’s tongue transmit as a food flavor to the brain. In fact. Unger. e. which of 220 pre-selected taste expressions were strongly associated with tastiness.g.. Texture expressions. to find expressions that could be used to effectively market food.3 The goal of Ohashi’s (2010) research was motivated by marketing factors. used to express a wide range of sounds and other sensory conditions. 50–59). 77 texture expressions and 74 information expressions. Inoue. The 220 expressions included 69 flavor expressions. Participants were asked to select expressions that they associated most strongly with tastiness from among 220 pre-identified expressions. for example). and notes that onomatopoeic expressions are used frequently to describe texture.350 participants were distributed with a group of 150 participants between ages 15 and 19 and 300 in each of four groups between 20 and 59 (20–29. The 1. and (3) do Japanese speakers readily use onomatopoeia to describe food.’ etc. English translation and Japanese romanization. Ohashi (2010) suggests that tastiness is expressed more by expressions of texture than flavor or information expressions.5 7 とろける torokeru melting Verb Texture 43.’ or yuuki ‘organic’. sea kelp.4 5 もっちり mottiri thick and elastic (like rice cake) Onomatopoeia Texture 45.1 2 もちもち motimoti elastic (like rice cake) Onomatopoeia Texture 48.0 10 風味豊かな huumi yutaka na richly flavored Clause 41.6 9 サクサク sakusaku crusty Onomatopoeia Texture 42. Table 1 shows the top ten expressions of tastiness chosen by the 1.0 6 香ばしい koobasii fragrant Adjective Flavor 44.7 8 焼きたて yakitate freshly baked Noun Information 43.7 4 コクがある koku ga aru deep taste Clause Flavor 45. English translation by Mari Noda). 5. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data. . 25. p. 4.82 Mari Noda felt) when the food item with this texture is consumed.â•‡ Top ten Japanese tastiness expressions in 2009 (from Ohashi. Nâ•›=â•›1.3 3 うまみのある umami no aru flavorful5 Clause Flavor 45. Umami refers to a distinctive flavor associated with certain amino acids found in soy sauce.6 Flavor Because five of the top ten expressions are texture terms. Table 1.’ Supeinsan ‘product of Spain. and dried bonito fish flakes. 4 Information expressions refer to pieces of information related to food.350 participants in Ohashi’s survey in 2009. such as musiboo ‘fat-free.3505 Rank Expression English equivalent Form Expression type % of respondents 1 ジューシー zyuusii juicy Noun Texture 50. mushrooms. transcription conventions. 2010. 2010 and Szatrowski. The party guests ranged in age from approximately 20 to 65. and anyone aged 18 or older were invited to participate in the survey voluntarily.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event Three of the five texture terms in the overall top ten are onomatopoeia: two are associated with the thick elasticity of fresh moti ‘pounded glutinous rice cake’ (motimoti ‘elastic’ and mottiri ‘thick and elastic’). with the majority in their 20s and 30s. 11 texture factors. The selection of onomatopoeia also increased over the six years between 2003 and 2009. and 7 informational factors. can be observed in the verbal assessment of food that party guests eat? Next. Japanese. The most salient texture factor was huwa/ moti ‘light/ rice cake-like’. referring to lightness. Do speakers of Japanese actively use as wide a variety of taste descriptions as those used in food marketing? What tendency. The most salient flavor factor was aziwai/ hukami ‘flavor sense/ depth’ referring to deep. research that relates food description to socialization. transmitting multiple sensory images without extensive description” (p. such as cookies and chips (sakusaku ‘crusty’). In addition. especially for those describing senses related to texture. 4. Methodology The primary data for this study came from notes taken during small talk between Japanese native speakers at a potluck party. the most salient was X-tate/ Y-goro ‘freshly X-ed/ just ready for Y’. Chapter 4. 69) (English translation by Mari Noda). lingering flavor. While Kumita (2010) offers an annotated list of books and films in which food is the central theme. 2011) is relatively new. 83 . elasticity. Muto (2010) suggests that onomatopoeia can “depict concretely with concise expressions. such as nettori ‘sticky’ or poripori ‘light crunchy sound’. This paper focuses on the data obtained from the Japanese speakers. I will describe how native speakers of Japanese assess food they eat during the potluck party. I collected data through a written anonymous survey at the same potluck party and on several occasions when food was offered at an office at a university department. Native speakers of Chinese. in particular research related to assessment of taste in Japanese (such as Karatsu. and smoothness. while making reference to the data from the Chinese and English speakers when appropriate. and German were present at the party. if any. Among the informational factors. English. Results of a factor analysis that Ohashi (2010) performed on the 220 expressions showed 13 flavor factors. and one with the lightness of baked products. referring to the freshness of the item. and potentially the hosts as well. They were graduate students. the performance had audience. In combination with the fact that this was a congenial occasion. either standing or sitting around a small table or in a circle on the floor. respectively. The speakers could have been aware of the fact that one of the people within earshot had prepared the food that they were talking about. Two of the guests.84 Mari Noda I regard small talk at the potluck party as a performance (Walker & Noda. even when the guests included both professors and students. nan desu ka? Oisii desu ka? ‘What’s that? Is it tasty?’ . The Script: The Japanese assistant approached Japanese speakers and engaged in small talk in Japanese. the roles. The hosts provided some dishes as well. All of these elements contributed to a very informal setting. Although it is possible that in some instances. 2000). and 1 German native speaker. the presence of the audience called for the positive evaluation of food. The roles: The guests at the party. The party was given in late October. The audience: Because the small talk was taking place in a room full of people. They were both advanced graduate students. Most of the dishes were placed in two rooms. well outside of the school environment. The guests were scattered throughout the house. about a month into a new school year to welcome new graduate students and faculty and to give everybody an opportunity to get to know each other in a social setting outside of the university. 20 Chinese native speakers. defined in terms of the time. using the pre-determined script. asking casually about the food the guests were eating. consisting primarily of other guests. a Chinese native speaker from Taipei and a Japanese native speaker from Tokyo. the place. including approximately 15 Japanese native speakers. 10 English native speakers. the audience. but they were not in any of the small talk observed by the assistants. The time: During small talk about food being eaten at a potluck party for an East Asian language department. The place: Home of the department chair and her husband. this factor was not overtly mentioned in the small talk. Apples and potatoes were baked in a bonfire in the yard. were also acting as my assistants. faculty. participants knew that the guest they were talking to was the person who had prepared the dish they were talking about. and the script as specified below. and their family members. The home is located about 25 miles away from the university in a wooded surrounding. Guests were eating the food in small groups of two to seven. also a member of the department faculty. Sore. thus senior to most of the graduate students at the party and were comfortable talking to most of the professors in Chinese or Japanese. â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event When the other guests made comments about what they were eating. Unlike the small talk data. The food brought to the office included some homemade Japanese food that was not commonly consumed in the U. To supplement the primary data. Then respondents were asked to write down in their native language up to three expressions that came to their mind to describe the food item they ate. Upon obtaining the speakers’ verbal consent.S..7 The office provided a non-party setting where only one food item was available at a time. Nine food items (one at a time over a three-month period following the potluck party) were brought to the department office for general consumption with the option of responding to the food taste survey. the assistant explained to the guests that she was collecting data on how people talked about food. They were also asked to rate the food item. main dish. The survey sheets were available near the dishes at the party and next to the food items in the department office. as well as in the department office. a survey was also used. the assistant wrote down on a data sheet the expressions the guests used to describe the food that they were eating. Food items were often brought into the department office for public consumption.g. and type of the food item tasted from options provided (e. The tri-lingual survey sheets (given in Appendix B) asked participants to indicate the cuisine type. 7. 85 . the act of filling the anonymous survey involved no audience for the survey respondents to be concerned about. 6. cold dish). warm dish. Chapter 4. one for each dish that they tried. on a scale of 0 to10. dessert. both at the potluck party where the primary data came from. See Table A in Appendix A for the list of dishes discussed in the small talk. to indicate the degree to which they personally found the food item tasty. They were free to make both positive and negative evaluations without the risk of being responsible for hurting the feelings of the person who offered the food. The guests at the potluck party were invited to fill out as many survey sheets as possible. so the setting of the study was not an unusual occurrence in the office and many members of the department ate the food. which appeared spontaneous.6 Audio and video recordings were not used to collect data. See Table B in Appendix A for the list of dishes described on the survey at the office. giving the researcher clearer information about what food each survey sheet was about. The survey form was available for people to respond to on voluntary basis. and necessarily entailed the presence of the audience because of the setting of the social gathering. a single word may contain multiple elements and a phrase may be one element. and the other with evaluation ((ama)sugi ‘too (sweet)’). Shí zài tài hǎochī le. Thus.8 (1) 甘過ぎ。クリームが多い。おいしい。 Amasugi. Kuriimu ga ooi. as shown in (1). kuriimu ga ooi ‘a lot of cream’ [information]. and the second a question.9 A single description may refer to one or more aspects of food. etc. . I categorized each element into one of four taste factors: flavor. The description kuriimu ga ooi ‘a lot of cream’ consists of one information element and oisii ‘tasty’ one evaluation element. In (1). I refer to the various aspects that are captured in descriptions about the food being tasted as “elements”. For example. A lot of cream. Zùo zhège hěn huā shí jiān ma? ‘It’s so good. one Japanese guest at the potluck party ate some cake and wrote three descriptions on the survey. 9. (ama)sugi ‘too (sweet)’ [evaluation]. I further divided elements related to the touch factor into texture and temperature. evaluation. Evaluative elements may be positive or negative. Oisii Too sweet. transcription conventions. For example. I refer to one or more descriptions that a single speaker gives about a single food item collectively as a “token”. and evaluation (adding evaluation to Ohashi’s (2010) three salient factors of tastiness expressions). (It)’s tasty. and elements related to the information factor into information related to smell. touch. the first one is a statement. The three descriptions in the token about a cake in (1) contain four elements with the following three factors given in brackets: ama(sugi) ‘(too) sweet’ [flavor]. 8. and elements. The example in (1) comprises a single token. that is. such as the flavor. information. the texture. comments related to the production of the item (including a request for a recipe). and other. descriptions. the smallest salient taste units being expressed. The data I analyzed the data collected for this study in terms of tokens. comments on a particular ingredient. consisting of three descriptions. a Chinese guest at the potluck party said about an egg custard. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data. A “description” may be a statement or a question. recollection of some personal experience related to the food item. The flavor factor includes after taste as well as flavor elements. Did it take you a lot of time?’ This token included two descriptions.86 Mari Noda 5. the ingredients. English translation and Japanese romanization. and oisii ‘tasty’ [evaluation]. amasugi ‘too sweet’ contains two elements: one having to do with flavor (ama(sugi) ‘(too) sweet’). a total of 55 usable Japanese tokens were obtained from the primary small talk data and the supplementary survey data. The party survey data only contained 12 elements and the respondents did not identify the dishes they were describing. The office survey data consisted of 15 tokens. Ingred. Smell Produc.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event As shown in Table 2. Table 3. Chapter 4. In addition. and elements collected (Descript. Token / Element Descript. making this portion of the data sets less informative. Table 2. Token / Element Descript.â•‡ The number of tokens. = evaluation) Flavor Touch Texture Information Eval. Ingred. containing 33 descriptions and produced a total of 57 elements. Ref. the number of onomatopoeic expressions used for the texture and flavor factors are given in parentheses. Token / Element Descript. = Description) Small talk Survey Party Party Office Token / Element Descript. = ingredients.â•‡ Taste factors and elements from the Japanese small talk and survey data (Temp. Eval.Ref. = temperature. Other tion to own Small talk 30 (2) â•⁄3 (1) 0 0 0 19 13 0 30 â•⁄95 â•⁄(3) Party Survey â•⁄5 (0) â•⁄5 (1) 0 0 0 â•⁄1 â•⁄0 0 â•⁄2 â•⁄13 â•⁄(1) Office Survey 14 (4) 22 (13) 1 1 0 â•⁄5 10 0 â•⁄3 â•⁄56 (17) Total (164) 49 (6) 30 (15) 1 1 0 25 23 0 35 164 87 . Total Temp. which contained 62 descriptions and produced a total of 95 taste elements. to own = Reference to own experience. 34/ 62 â•⁄6/ 10 15/ 33 â•⁄55/ 105 95 TOTAL 12 57 164 The primary small talk data from the potluck party consisted of 34 tokens. descriptions. These 55 tokens contained 105 descriptions. which in turn accounted for 164 taste elements. Table 3 shows the distribution of the 164 taste elements that were obtained from the Japanese speakers. sake no kaburazusi ‘salmon vinaigrette sandwiched in pickled turnip’.5 to 10 with a median score of 8. None of the Japanese speakers identified the food they described on the survey form at the party. The median rating given on the survey by the Chinese speakers was 9. side dish 15% Main 41% Dessert 37% Figure 1. these figures should not be taken to reflect the general evaluative tendencies among these speakers. 10. and 15% for appetizers and side dishes (including kimpiragoboo ‘sautéed burdock root’.0.â•‡ Types of food items described by Japanese speakers (Nâ•›=â•›164 elements) Approximately 41% of the Japanese elements were used for main dishes (including sushi. duck. as reflected by their ratings on the survey for each food item they tasted on a scale of 1 to 10. chili. and fish cakes. . while the median rating by the English speakers was 8.88 Mari Noda The Japanese survey participants generally had positive reactions to how the food tasted. Unidentified 7% Appetiser. and spicy shrimp). 37% for desert items (including cakes and baked apples). chicken. Because the food items they rated were not controlled. oden ‘fishcake hot pot’.0.10 Figure 1 shows the distribution of types of food described by the Japanese speakers in the full data. The ratings by the Japanese speakers ranged from 6. accounting for 32%. Chapter 4. Discussion The data suggest several features of taste descriptions that were obtained at two different settings through two data collection methods. and 30 evaluation elements were fairly evenly distributed. 34%. soft food. the evaluative and informational elements together accounted for 62% of the elements. This differs from Ohashi’s (2010) finding that texture expressions (roughly comparable to my touch elements) were among the most favored for expressing tastiness. In contrast. respectively. 32 information. that is. where the speakers were eating with other guests.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event 6. of the small talk elements. and only a handful (9%) of evaluative elements. 39% of all elements from the office survey were touch elements. and in harmony with Ohashi’s (2010) survey-based finding. The office survey may have produced more descriptive touch and flavor elements. compared to 25% flavor elements. This suggests that they worked as vehicles for socializing and might have been favored over the more descriptive texture and flavor elements. The larger number of flavor elements as compared to touch elements in the small talk data may relate to the fact that the food served at the potluck party tended to be easy-to-serve. because there was no sharing of food with other people. the distribution data presented in Tables 3 were mapped out onto a radar diagram. and 32%. 89 . while there were only 3 (3%) touch elements. Figure 2 shows the distribution among the four factors of the 164 taste elements identified from the Japanese data. Evaluation 40 30 20 10 0 Flavor Touch Small talk Survey at party Survey at office Information Figure 2.â•‡ Distribution of taste elements from Japanese speakers (Nâ•›=â•›164 elements) Of the 95 elements in the Japanese small talk data. 28% information elements. the 30 flavor. In the potluck small talk. To see the type of taste elements that were used by the tasters in these different conditions. it occurred with other elements. that is. (3) おいしい。普通の味。 Oisii. Hutuu no azi. as shown in (2)–(4). It is possible that hutuu ‘regular’ is used to connote taste that matches one’s expectation. The food items that were described with hutuu ‘regular’ were all common food in Japan. (It)’s regular flavor. or 8%). The tendency for a small proportion of evaluation elements in the office survey was also evident in the Chinese data (4 out of 24. Hutuu no oden no azi. In all other instances. Out of the 35 Japanese evaluative elements.11 Only 13 elements were obtained from the survey forms at the party. This is reflected by the very small rectangle in the middle of the diagram in Figure 2. He went to a ramen noodle shop. nothing special to write home about. . (It)’s the flavor of regular Chinese cuisine. or 17%) and in the English data (2 out of 25. (4) おいしい。普通の中華料理の味。 Oisii. It occurred in isolation only 2 times. The use of hutuu as a positive descriptor in today’s discourse is reported by Maki (2011) in his column in the Mainichi newspaper (January 25. (It)’s tasty. (It)’s tasty. The ramen was indeed exquisite.90 Mari Noda the tasting did not occur in a socializing setting. 27 contained oisii ‘tasty’. following a strong recommendation of his young office associate. (It)’s the flavor of regular fish cake hot pot. Among the various elements that occurred with oisii ‘tasty’ was hutuu. The speakers may be expressing their unexpected delight in having un-Americanized family-style dishes in the US. and Chinese spicy shrimp (4). together with oisii ‘tasty’. 2011). tirasizusi ‘sushi rice with multiple toppings scattered on top’ (3). Soo desyo? Hutuu no azi desyo? ‘Isn’t it! It’s (English translation by Mari Noda) normal flavor. and only in the potluck small talk. isn’t it!’ 11. Hutuu no tyuuka-ryoori no azi. that is. When he came back from the very satisfying meal and thanked the young associate who’d recommended the shop. (It)’s tasty. suggesting that it is a basic tastiness expression in Japanese. (2) おいしい。普通のおでんの味。 Oisii. the associate replied and said. which often has a negative connotation of ‘regular’ or ‘ordinary’. oden ‘fish cake hot pot’ (2). However. this word was used three times. Information elements also accounted for a very small portion (8%) in the English office survey data. (6) おいしい。フライドチキンの味。 Oisii. Huraidotikin no azi. When the food item tasted did not match the taster’s expectations formed from seeing the item. and in (6). as shown in (5) and (6) from the small talk data. In (5). which are not commonly consumed everyday food in Japan. Inarizusi no azi. as in a true feeling of an ordinary person as opposed to a TV personality’s pretentious or perfunctory praises. Just as with hutuu ‘ordinary’. (4) beyond one’s expectations. the reaction was less positive. Related to the use of hutuu ‘regular’ is the tendency to state the obvious. that is. (It)’s tasty. the item X must be something that is very familiar to the taster. Chapter 4. The use of hutuu ‘regular’ in the small talk further supports Maki’s account that it is used for positive emphasis and Watanabe and McGloin’s (2012) analysis of the multi-faceted interpretation of hutuu ni ‘ordinarily’ in today’s Japanese discourse. One assesses new experiences or encounters by gauging them against expectations arising from previous related experience. Yukari ga haitte ite suppai. These are (1) true to one’s feelings (rather than flattering). They could mean ‘just as excellent as what I’d expect in X and I’m not saying this just to be nice’. the speaker describes the flavor of fried chicken as huraidotikin no azi ‘the flavor of fried chicken’. (3) contrary to one’s expectation. (It)’s tasty. (This) is the flavor of fried chicken. Based on data from natural conversations among Japanese college students. For hutuu no X ‘ordinary X’ or X no azi ‘flavor of X’ to be a positive evaluation of X. oisii ‘(it)’s tasty’. Containing some dried pickled leaves. (2) judgment based on broadened standards. these expressions in the form of X no azi ‘flavor of X’ occur along with the clearly positive evaluative element. and (5) emphatically. Watanabe and McGloin (2012) propose five new uses of the adverbial sequence hutuu ni ‘ordinarily’. (5) おいしい。いなりずしの味。ゆかりが入っていてすっぱい。 Oisii. These forms were not used for such items as chili or baked apples. blog sites and twitter postings. the speaker describes the flavor of inarizusi ‘sushi in fried tofu skin’ as inarizusi no azi ‘the flavor of sushi in fried tofu skin’.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event Maki (2011) concludes with some unease that hutuu no azi ‘ordinary flavor’ must mean extraordinarily tasty. (it)’s tangy. (This) is the flavor of the inarizushi (sushi rice stuffed in fried tofu skin). to describe the flavor of a food as the flavor of the food item being eaten. 91 . As shown in Figure 2. In the data. and the other half referred to personal memories associated with the dish. This expression was used to describe kinpiragoboo ‘stir-fried burdock root with chili peppers’ in (9) and in (10) to describe chocolate. Another expression of positive evaluation. The use of tigakute rather than tigatte. but it was a bit different. It has just the right spiciness with light crustiness. and information elements in the small talk data. found in the office survey data. that is excess in comparison to one’s expectation. (I) was imagining the flavor of shrimp with chili. and siratama ‘small dumplings made of rice powder’ in (12). (It) wasn’t that spicy. (8) アーモンドがたくさんのってる。ちょっと甘すぎた。 Aamondo ga takusan notte ru. Ebi-tiri no azi o soozoo site ta kedo. Similarly. the more standard gerundive form of tigau ‘be different’. (9) さくさくとした中に程よい辛み。 Sakusaku to sita naka ni hodo yoi karami. flavor. These elements frequently occurred in the gerundive clause preceding oisii ‘tasty’. was hodo yoi ‘just right. tyotto tigakute12. This was because almost all of the evaluation elements occur with additional elements that justified or provided additional information about the evaluation. 12. In the small talk example in (7). there was a balanced distribution among evaluative. moderate’. but disappointed that the dish was not immediately as spicy as expected. tabetara tyotto piri tto site ta. (It) was a bit too sweet. is normally associated with the younger generation. and (it) was just a bit spicy to taste. excess. (10) チョコレートは程よい甘さでまろやか。 Tyokoreeto wa hodo yoi amasa de maroyaka. There are a lot of almonds on top. About half of these information elements referred to particular ingredients in the dish. as in (8). In the end. which accounted for half of the 25 combinations of elements with oisii ‘tasty’. The chocolate is of just the right sweetness and smooth. oisii ‘tasty’ occurred most frequently with information elements. the speaker apparently had imagined a familiar spicy dish upon seeing a shrimp dish. the speaker reconciled the gap between reality and expectation by finding a bit of spiciness in the dish. is considered negative. . as in the description of baked macaroni in (11). Tyotto amasugita.92 Mari Noda (7) そんなに辛くなかった。えびチリの味を想像してたけど、ちょっと違くて、食べたらちょっとピリッとしてた。 Sonna ni karaku nakatta. Natukasii azi.â•‡ Japanese flavor and touch adjectives used in party small talk Japanese 甘い柔らかい辛いすっぱい固い amai yawarakai karai suppai katai English Occurrences sweet soft spicy sour hard 13 â•⁄7 â•⁄5 â•⁄3 â•⁄1 The Japanese speakers added a number of information elements related to their personal experiences to their evaluation elements. (14) 春の香り。 Haru no kaori. such as the spring fragrance from kusamoti ‘mugwort rice cake’ in (14).â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event (11) チーズたっぷりでおいしい。 Tiizu tappuri de oisii. (it)’s tasty. 93 . from the office survey after eating kusamoti ‘sweet red bean paste in mugwort rice cake’. All of the elements with hutuu ‘ordinary’ or with the form X no azi ‘flavor of X’ referred to what is regular or expected in one’s personal memory that has developed from personal experiences. (it)’s tasty. Some flavor or touch elements also referred to a complex particular experiential memory that is triggered by some aspects of the food item. Spring fragrance. (15) おいしい。懐かしい味。 Oisii. (it) was disappointing. It’s tasty. The flavor is nostalgic. Not having much flavor of mugwort. Being firm and having resistance to the teeth. (12) かたくて、歯ごたえがあっておいしい。 Katakute hagotae ga atte oisii. With plenty of cheese. They were used in gerundive forms to modify evaluation elements in Japanese. as in (13). Negative evaluative elements also occurred following gerundive clauses. and a melting sensation from chocolate in (16). nostalgia from oden ‘fish cake hot pot’ in (15). (13) よもぎの味があまりなくて残念でした。 Yomogi no azi ga amari nakute zannen desita. Chapter 4. Table 4 lists the flavor and touch adjectives that the Japanese speakers in this study used. Table 4. 94 Mari Noda (16) とろけていくような。 Torokete iku yoo na. The question of which syllabary (katakana vs. There was a general agreement on the orthographic choice among the speakers on any particular word. who were living far away from their home. a typical winter-time home cooking in Japan. . The person who wrote (14) on the office survey sheet connected the flavor of mugwort to spring. hiragana) should be used is beyond the scope of this paper. The representations in the first column of Table 5 reflect the orthographic choices made by the native Japanese assistant who wrote down expressions used during the potluck small talk or by the respondents on the survey forms. The descriptions in (15) suggests that oden ‘the fish cake hotpot’. served on a cold October day in Midwest US. As if (it)’s melting away. with one exception: one person wrote sakusaku ‘crusty’ using hiragana (さくさく) while two others used katakana (サクサク). The melting sensation in (16) referred to the soft and delicate texture from a previous experience that overlapped with the smooth texture of chocolate. quickly flavor flavor flavor flavor 3 (1/0/2) 2 (0/0/2) 1 (1/0/0) 1 (0/0/1) 13. In the data.13 Table 5. 21 taste elements contained the 13 onomatopoeic expressions given in Table 5.â•‡ Onomatopoeia used in describing food Japanese English Element Occurrences (Small talk/party survey/ office survey) サクサク/ さくさくカリカリシャキシャキもちもちねち（っ）ねちねちもっちりコリコリパリパリ sakusaku crusty texture 3 (0/0/3) karikari syakisyaki motimoti netit netineti mottiri korikori paripari crunchy lightly crunchy elastic sticky sticky elastic crunchy crispy texture texture texture texture texture texture texture texture 2 (0/1/1) 2 (0/0/2) 2 (1/0/1) 1 (0/0/1) 1 (0/0/1) 1 (0/0/1) 1 (0/0/1) 1 (0/0/1) ピリほんのりたっぷりぱ（っ） piri honnori tappuri pat hot slightly plenty readily. the season when young mugwort leaves are collected to make mugwort rice cakes in Japan. conjured up nostalgic feelings among the Japanese guests. Ohashi (2010) observes that in the tastiness expression rankings over the seven years surveyed. Of the 13 onomatopoeic expressions that occurred in the data. (it) tasted good. (18) カリカリした歯ごたえがあっておいしかった。 Karikari sita hagotae ga atte oisikatta. (20) もちなので少し「ねちっ」とした食感がありますが、「ねちねち」して歯につくような感じではなかった。 Moti na no de sukosi “netit” to sita syokkan ga arimasu ga. (19) 歯ざわりはシャキシャキしている。 Hazawari wa syakisyaki site iru. 95 . While most of these onomatopoeic expressions in the data were used along with positive evaluation elements such as oisii ‘tasty’ or hodoyoi ‘just right’. The majority (14 out of 21) of the occurrences of onomatopoeic expressions in the data referred to texture. (18).â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event Of the 21 elements. (It) has the light crunchy resistance to the teeth. That may be because many of the food offered at the office had characteristic texture that the speakers felt was noteworthy. Having crunchy resistance to the teeth. texture-related onomatopoeia are rapidly replacing the traditional descriptive clauses such as hagotae no aru ‘having resistance to the teeth’ or hazawari no yoi ‘good touch to the teeth’ (p. (17) シャキシャキ歯ごたえがある。 syakisyaki hagotae ga aru. only sakusaku ‘crusty’ and motimoti ‘elastic (like rice cake)’ were among Ohashi’s (2010) top ten list of expressions that suggest tastiness. whereas those at the potluck party were more focused on being party guests. Chapter 4. Being rice cake. but the feeling wasn’t so “sticky” that it would stick to your mouth. The touch to the teeth is lightly cruncy. 16). 17 were obtained from the office survey. “netineti”-site ha ni tuku yoo na kanzi de wa nakatta. It is also possible that the Japanese speakers were being more analytical about what they were tasting in the office survey context. respectively. and (19). but they occurred three times and twice. In the survey data. suggesting the on-going transition from “traditional” clausal descriptions to onomatopoeia in describing food texture. there were 4 occurrences of hagotae ‘resistance to the teeth’ and 1 occurrence of hazawari ‘touch to the teeth’. netit ‘sticky’ and netineti ‘sticky’ (both referring to a sticky sensation) seemed to be used in a negative sense. In all but 1 instance. as in (20). it has the slightly “sticky” mouth feel. these “traditional” clausal expressions co-occurred with onomatopoeia as shown in (17). Conclusion The present analysis of Japanese taste expressions collected from small talk at a potluck party and through surveys. not only in its adverbial use (hutuu ni ‘ordinarily’) as suggested by Watanabe and McGloin (2012). also evident in the use of pirit ‘hot’ in (7). 7. It is used in combitation with more concrete flavor. and pat ‘readily. quickly’ in (21). and the person credits the smoothness of the paste to the quick spread of the sweet flavor across his/ her mouth. and (19). which is rarely used. netit ‘sticky’ and netineti ‘sticky’ are related to each other because they are both variants of the more basic neti ‘sticky’. the speakers used these evaluations regularly with flavor elements and information related to their experience. The fact that the sequence hutuu no X ‘ordinary X’ (in which X is the name of the dish) was used in combination with overtly positive evaluative elements suggests that hutuu ‘ordinary’ has a more positive connotation than what has traditionally been associated with it. the geminate -t ending in netit ‘sticky’ suggests an immediate intense sensation of a shorter duration. oisii ‘tasty’. both at the party and at the office. if at all. As is true of the other expressions involving repetition as in (17). netineti ‘sticky’ in (20) suggests that the particular sensation (in this case “stickiness”) lasts a longer time. touch. In their performance of Japanese small talk at a potluck party. In (21). (18). it is important to delineate the contexts in which this is appropriate. the smooth type of red bean paste is contrasted with the type that contains whole beans intact. (I) felt the sweetness spread quickly across my mouth. In teaching students how to use hutuu with a more positive connotation. Stating that food item X has X no azi ‘flavor of X’ was another way that Japanese speakers expressed their positive reaction to the food item X. In contrast. There being plenty of smoothed sweet bean paste.96 Mari Noda The two onomatopoeic expressions in (20). (21) 「つぶし」のあんが多かったので口の中でぱっと甘さが広がる感じがした。 “Tubusi” no an ga ookatta no de kuti no naka de pat to amasa ga hirogaru kanzi ga sita. is indeed the dominant evaluative expression. referring to personal memory that certain aspects of the food . or information elements. The data from the potluck small talk provided evidence for a semantic shift in the Japanese word hutuu ‘ordinary’. including hutuu ‘ordinary’. but more generally. The unrepeated pirit ‘hot’ in (7) suggests the immediate reaction when the shrimp touched the tongue. but that it is rarely used by itself. has confirmed that the commonly taught evaluative expressions. Whether or not this difference holds in natural conversational setting remains to be investigated. There are several limitations to the current study. While the data provided the lexical and syntactic choice that speakers made in their party small talk performances. In addition. Second. Ohashi’s (2010) study suggests that Japanese men favor flavor expressions while women favor texture expressions. their manner of speech expressed through suprasegmental features or facial expression could not be addressed. Two of the onomatopoeic expressions observed in the present study (motimoti ‘elastic’ and sakusaku ‘crusty’) were among the top ten expressions of tastiness identified by Ohashi (2010). I did not identify the speakers by their age or gender. language teachers should continue to teach the generic oisii ‘tasty’ and teach it along with additional elements related to flavor and information referring to personal experience. netit ‘sticky’) can provide a natural context for introducing and enhancing the instruction of Japanese onomatopoeic expressions. Despite these caveats. with the new interpretation of hutuu. touch. I did not control for the type of food people tasted.g.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event item triggered in their minds. this study has several pedagogical implications.. First.. hutuu no X. pat to amasa ga hirogaru kanzi ‘felt the sweetness spread quickly across my mouth’) and knowledge (e. interpretation of the data collected from the small talk at the potluck party was limited because these data were neither audio nor video recorded. Also. This study has confirmed Ohashi’s (2010) observation that Japanese speakers make extensive use of onomatopoeia in describing the texture of food items. Chapter 4. and referring to the larger category with X no azi ‘flavor of X’ to describe the particular dish in that category are also strategies for expressing positive reaction to food in a social setting. In contrast. tiizu tappuri de ‘with plenty of cheese’). and the more “traditional” clausal texture expressions (e. flavor. description of food in the less social office survey tended to be more analytical and included more touch elements than in the social setting of the potluck party. hagotae no aru ‘have resistance to the teeth’) occurred rarely and mostly in combination with an onomatopoeic expression. 97 .g. were not available for analysis. The degree to which the relative number of evaluative. netineti ‘sticky’ vs. conversational strategies of relating the eating experience to one’s personal experience (e. utterances that preceded or followed the taste descriptions. and informational elements observed is related to the type of food that the speakers happened to taste cannot be gauged accurately from the data.. and descriptions of food texture (e.g. In addition. if any. First. Speakers used information related to personal experiences as a way to engage in the small talk. Finally.g. Teachers as well as people developing pedagogical materials need to be sensitive to semantic shifts such as that evident in the use of hutuu ‘ordinary’ in Japanese.. New York: Oxford University Press. K. (1998). B. Cole. Karatsu. (1999). it is important to teach strategies for conveying dislike without negation (e. I. E. (2010). Bruner. New York: Anchor Books. 349–368). (Ed. Y. Goffman. 2.M. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tokyo. Goffman. New York: W. J. & Tokashiki. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.â•›R. Olson & N.â•›H. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. J. Norton. (1992). E. Nihongo u(o)ttingu [Japanese Watching]. CT: Yale University Press. Y. & Schieffelin. Stating the excess of certain characteristics (with X–sugiru ‘too X’) is more readily usable in social situations.. & 3). and popular entertainments.. M.â•›W. Folklore. Genki: An integrated course in elementary Japanese (Vols. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. R. Japanese: The spoken language (Parts 1.). 31. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Language socialization. & Noda.). 339–61. (1974). (1959). & Baquedano-Lopes. Garrett. In D. Kumita. Frames for thinking: Ways of making meaning. A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. Actual minds. cultural performances. J. D. E. A. The presentation of the self in everyday life. (1996).â•›S. (1967). Japan: The Japan Times. transformation and change. R. E. (1966). Goffman.â•›S. Sakane. In M. (2006). Sharing a personal discovery of a taste: Using distal demonstratives in a storytelling about kakuni ‘stewed pork belly’. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. “Oisii” kankaku to kotoba: Syokkan no sedai [“Tasty” senses and language: The taste generation] (89–103). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.g.. P. II). Goffman. 93–105). New York: Pantheon Books. Onomatope to kyookankaku [Onomatopoeia and synesthesia]. 113–146).â•›B. C. M. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. (2002). (2004). Malden. Tokyo: Business Marketing Foresight (B. (2010). (1987. M. Verbal art as performance. New Haven. In A.).â•›B. E.g. (1969). Annual Review of Anthropology. Oisisa-hyoogen ziten [Dictionary of expressions of tastiness]. Duranti (Ed. (1996). Shinagawa. 1989. kirai ‘dislike’). Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp.). oisiku nai ‘not tasty’) or referring to dislike (e. T. (1990). (1977). Bruner. Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho.. Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity.). Bauman.â•›S. Ohashi & Sizuru Kenkyuukai (Eds. Kawabata. P. F. (1961). 1990). Â�Torrance (Eds. In P. possible worlds.98 Mari Noda In addition.FT).. Toward a theory of instruction.. E. Jorden. Szatrowski (Ed. Ohno. Bauman. References Banno. Bruner. MA: Blackwell. E. Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre (pp. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Strategic interaction. Kulick. Tokyo: Tokyodo. Inoue. Goffman. January 25. (2011). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. B. Turner. Language and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. 219–22. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese. Terry (Eds. Chicago: National Textbook Company. Language. Watanabe. 35–49. OH: Foreign Languages Publications. V. 111. Reflecting on the past to shape the future (pp. “Hutuu ni” no imi-henka ni kansuru iti-koosatu [Semantic shift of the Japanese adverb hutuu ni ‘normally’]. Ronald Â�Walton (pp.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event Maki. Japanese Language & Literature.â•›W. In M. 187–212). and society: Key topics in linguistic anthropology (pp. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In R. Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. E. 2011 from http://mainichi. Shepherd. “Oisii” kankaku to kotoba: Syokkan no sedai [“Tasty” senses and language: The taste generation] (66–69). The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. B. M. Jourdan & K. April). (2011). E. Makino. 221–236).FT).Focusing on a group of women under 30].â•›W. 40(2). (Eds. & Schieffelin. G. Sisyokukai no gengo/ higengo koodoo ni tuite. self and emotion (pp. (2006). G.). New York: McGraw Hill. Ochs. Yookoso!: An invitation to contemporary Japanese. Hikaku Nihongogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Sentaa Kenkyuu Â�Nenpoo (Center for Comparative Japanese Studies Annual Bulletin). Hatasa.). LeVine (Eds.â•›A. P. (1982). & Bruner. 73–94). Canada. S. (2010). Walker. Unger. 2). Culture theory: Essays on mind. & Schieffelin. Ochs. (2004 [1994]).html. Retrieved July 4. culture. & McGloin. (1998. 2000). In C. Chapter 4. N. (2006). Ohashi. 99 .). Pathways to advanced skills: Vol. Walker. & Hatasa. & Shohet.). but…: Tasty in the ordinary way?] Mainichi Shimbun. 1. E. Eat Shandong: From personal experience to a pedagogy of a second culture. A. Onomatope to kyookankaku [Onomatopoeia and synesthesia]. J. T. (1995). & Schieffelin. New York: PAJ Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muto.â•›W. & Noda. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. “Oisii” kankaku to kotoba: Syokkan no sedai [“Tasty” senses and language: The taste generation] (pp.). (2006). Remembering the future: Compiling knowledge of another culture. In M. E. Ohashi & Sizuru Kenkyuukai (Eds. Tokyo Evening Edition. Birckbichler & R.â•›D. Toronto. Szatrowski.). 9. (2012.30-sai miman no zyosee guruupu o tyuusin ni [Verbal and nonverbal behavior in a taster lunch. Nakama (Vol.â•›A.â•›M. Ongoing sound change in standard Japanese.. (1984). 7. Y. Shweder & R. 7–63). Spring. Ohashi & Sizuru Kenkyuukai (Eds. 281–292. E. Â�Lambert & E. M. (1986). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Oisii o kanziru kotoba: Sizzle word report [Words from which (we) sense tastiness: Sizzle word report]. (2005). Tohsaku. E. Performed culture: Learning to participate in another culture. Ochs. M. 168–189). Y.. (2000). In R. New York: Cambridge University Press.â•›A. (2010). The anthropology of experience.jp/select/opinion/maki/ news/20110125dde012070062000c. (2000). B. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2011. V. The cultural structure of mealtime socialization. Tokyo: Business Marketing Foresight (B. Ochs.â•›B. Oxford: Blackwell. Handbook of child language (pp.).M. Turner.â•›B.M. 276–320). Shohamy (Eds. Columbus.). In D.â•›T. Boston.â•›M. Maki Taro no ooki na koe de wa ienai ga…: Hutuu ni oisii? [Can’t say it out loud.â•›B. Fletcher & B. Tokyo: Business Marketing Foresight (B. K. MacWhinney (Eds. MA: Houghton Mifflin. Tuite (Eds. M. In P.FT). Unmarked items were homemade. Unmarked items were homemade.â•‡ Dishes described by the Japanese guests at the potluck party (SB = store-bought.) Dish name English equivalent Cuisine type (SB) Guratan baked macaroni Japanese main dish Inarizusi sushi rice stuffed in fried tofu skin Japanese main dish Oden fishcake hotpot Japanese main dish Tirasizusi sushi rice with multiple toppings scattered on top’ Japanese main dish Tori no karaage Fried chicken Japanese main dish Chicken wings – Chinese main dish Orange chicken – Chinese main dish Roast chicken – Chinese main dish Roast duck – Chinese main dish Spicy shrimp – Chinese main dish Stir-fried vegetables – Chinese main dish Sweet red bean soup – Chinese dessert Chili – American main dish Siratama small dumplings made of rice powder Japanese dessert Baked apples – Dessert Cake – Dessert (SB) Cheese cake – Dessert Chocolate cake – Dessert (SB) Melon – Dessert (SB) Table B.) Dish name English equivalent Cuisine type (SB)* Kaburazusi salmon vinaigrette sandwiched in picked turnip slices Japanese appetizer/ side dish Kinpiragoboo sautéed budock root Japanese side dish Kusamoti sweet red bean paste in mugwort rice cake Japanese dessert Chocolate – Dessert (SB) Peanut butter cookies – Dessert (SB) .100 Mari Noda Appendix A Table A.â•‡ Food items described on the office survey (SB = store-bought. [Project Number: 2010E0691] Thank you for your participation! 谢谢您的参与！ご協力ありがとうございます！ Your native language: English (Go to Section A)・ Chinese (Go to Section B)・Japanese (Go to Section C) Section A: Fill out this section if you are a native speaker of English. There is no compensation for your participation in the survey. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-6786251.edu). You must be 18 years or older and be a native speaker of Chinese.Chapter 4. The type of food you ate (Please circle all that apply): Japanese・Chinese・Western・meat dish・sea food dish・vegetable dish・warm dish・cool/ cold dish・main dish・side dish・dessert How would you describe the taste of what you ate? (Up to 3 descriptions.â•‡ How Japanese speakers describe food at a social event 101 Appendix B Survey forms I am investigating how people describe the taste of what they eat. please contact Mari Noda (noda1@humanities.) (Expression 1) (Expression 2) (Expression 3) The degree of tastiness you personally felt about the food item (0~10)? Section B: 如果您母语是中文，请填写这部分您吃的食物是 (请圈选所有适合的答案)：日本菜・中国菜・西式食物・肉菜・海鲜・蔬菜・热食・凉菜・主食・副食・点心您会如何描述这道菜的味道？(最多三个) (描述 1) (描述 2) (描述 3) 如果要打分，您会给这道菜几分 (0分最低，10分最高)？ _____________________ . For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team.osu. Please enjoy the food regardless of whether you are participating in the survey or not! Using the section below that corresponds to your native language. Japanese. you may contact Ms. It should take approximately 1 to 2 minutes to complete the survey sheet. or English to participate in this study. For any questions or concerns about this survey. please complete in your native language one survey sheet for each food item you eat here today. Participation in this survey is voluntary and you may withdraw your participation at any point until you submit this anonymous survey sheet. 102 Mari Noda Section C: 日本語が母語の方はこのセクションにご記入ください食べたものの種類（当てはまるもの全てを丸で囲んでください）：和食・中華・洋食・肉料理・魚料理・野菜料理・温製・冷製・前菜系・メインディッシュ・副菜系・デザート系食べたものの食感をどのように表現しますか。（３種類まで回答可）（表現１）（表現２）（表現３）この料理にあなたが個人的に感じたおいしさ度（最低０点〜最高１０点）は？点 . foreign words are used to refer to foreign food as a demarcation/ evaluation strategy to distance the participants from the foreign food which is viewed as a symbol of foreign culture. . The function of food extends well beyond the satisfaction of nutritional needs. and for constituting. Schieffelin. 2005[1990]). but also the kind of language they use to describe it constitute a means for expressing their sense of membership in a community. and thank Souleymane Ba for his help finding alternate Wolof names.chapter 5 Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa We eat what we are Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski Rutgers University / University of Minnesota This study examines loanwords. The ways in which people use language to talk about food is important for constituting identity.g. In this study. we look at the relationship between food and language and how they can be used to constitute food identity and linguistic identity. and performing the activities/ practices and actions that make up culture (Duranti. Japanese and Wolof ”) 2009–2011. We are grateful to all the Wolof and Eegimaa speakers who participated in our study. This research was supported by Polly Szatrowski’s University of Minnesota Grant-in-Aid of Research. The analysis reveals that the use of loanwords by Wolof and Eegimaa participants in food assessment is not always motivated by practical reasons. Results clearly show that not only the food people eat. coined native words and code-switching in taster meal conversations and how their use relates to food identity and linguistic identity in Wolof and Eegimaa (two languages spoken in Senegal). In many cases. little attention has been paid to the role of language in relation to food and culture. 1. 1. 1997).1 The authors view language as a resource for indexing identities and stances. Counihan & Van Esterik.. Artistry and Scholarship (“Sensory Evaluation of Food and Cultural Identity in English. Introduction Although there has been a wealth of research on food and culture (e. participating in. 1997. Today. He also informed them that their participation was absolutely voluntary and that they could opt out of the study at any time. occupation and language background) for the Wolof and Eegimaa participants. Mamadou Bassene met with the participants ahead of time to give them a detailed explanation of the purpose of our study. Dakar. and how the data would be kept confidential. For Wolof speakers. but their language is endangered. and although Wolof does. two languages spoken in Senegal. Details about and directions given at the taster meal are given in Appendix B. Mamadou Bassene met with each group again to review the purpose of the study and to have consent forms signed. A brief overview of the history and background of the languages is in order. Eegimaa does not have a writing system. he made sure that they were native speakers. 2. Wolof is the largest ethnic group. In contrast. French is the language used in schools. Participants were then left alone in the room to chat for at least twenty minutes while preparations were made to serve the meal. Tables 1 and 2 in the Appendix summarizes background information (age. how the data would be used. relationship and closeness. functions as a lingua franca between individuals of different linguistic backgrounds. The remaining two Wolof triads were videotaped in Saint Louis. Chapter 1. Since that time the Wolof culture and language have steadily spread throughout the country. Participants were not told what type of food they would be served. Four of the Wolof taster meals were conducted in Dakar (three in one room and one elsewhere). and their families not only considered themselves to be Wolof. Each triad was served a taster meal consisting of three courses (Japanese. The Wolof language. 3. Mamadou Bassene made sure that the Eegimaa participants were native speakers of Eegimaa who were born and raised in a Eegimaa speaking area. The influence of the Wolof people dates back to the colonial era (1850–1958) when they were the first contacts of the French colonizers.104 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski This study is based on videotaped conversations of 6 triads in Wolof and 10 triads in Joola Eegimaa (hereafter Eegimaa). Wolof was the primary language they used at home. but also identified completely with the Wolof culture. used by about 90% of Senegalese people. the Eegimaa people are not only a tiny minority (approximately 7000).2 The Eegimaa and Wolof taster meal conversations were collected by research assistant Mamadou Bassene in three locations in Senegal: Seleky (a village in the district of Ziguinchor). In Senegal. respectively. Before each taster meal. and the first to be introduced to the French school and then used by the French as assistants to govern and impose French law. and Wolof people play a prominent role in all aspects of life. American and Senegalese). 3 Except for one Eegimaa taster meal that was conducted in Dakar. . all the other Eegimaa taster meals took place in the same room in Seleky. and Saint Louis. it is not used in formal education. Motivations for lexical borrowing Why do speakers borrow words into their language? Previous research has demonstrated that lexical borrowing occurs for practical reasons. but also because of the power associated with the European languages due to the prior colonizer/ colonized relationship. Many African languages have borrowed words from European languages.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 105 In this paper.g. Political tension that exists between the French and English communities has played a significant role in the type of words borrowed from French. we focus on the attitude expressed by the participants toward the food and the type of language they used to assess the food. cannot be ignored in accounting for the presence of words from European languages in many African languages. but also when there is an “inequality of power” between the speech communities in contact. According to Deroy (1956). When a language community does not have a word for the new concept the people may adopt the word from the language of the people who introduced the concept. According to Ngom (2000). a loanword was used to refer to the foreign food despite the existence of a native word in Wolof and Eegimaa to refer to the food. 2. Fee (2008) also highlights the relevance of the power relationship for lexical borrowing. The French linguistic policy during the colonial era was known as assimilation. However. We interpret this use of loanwords as a demarcation/ evaluation strategy for participants to distance themselves from the foreign food which constitutes a symbol of a foreign identity.. The participants used a substantial number of loanwords (sometimes code-switching) and some coined native expressions in their assessment of the Japanese and American courses. sometimes people use foreign words not because there are no words in their language to refer to the concept. In many cases. people borrow words either for practical reasons or for prestige. This policy contributed substantially to the plethora of French loanwords found in many African languages. but because of the prestige associated with the source language. The borrowing process is accounted for not simply because of prestige. In addition. In other cases Eegimaa participants coined an Eegimaa word even when a loanword existed as a strategy to protect linguistic identity. and the intent was for people to speak French exactly the way it is spoken in France. e. such as France. borrowing occurs not only for prestige. In his discussion of the influence of French in Quebec English. Wolof. The practical reasons relate to the need to express concepts foreign to the language community. Chapter 5. linguistic policies pursued by some of the colonial powers. in particular. Quebec English . and for reasons of prestige and power. the majority of the Wolof loanwords are from French and Arabic. Arabic and English. Wolof has also borrowed many words from Arabic related to religion (Yalla ‘God’. AMERâ•›=â•›American. especially French. For instance Swahili has borrowed extensively from Arabic. transcription conventions. and background information for the participants in taster meal conversations (Table 1). 2). We hope to add a new dimension to previous studies that focused on loanword counts in Wolof websites (Ngom. etc. and English translation. 2000). 2003). Mola ‘God’. In some cases these loanwords are also reassigned a new meaning. See the Appendix of this chapter regarding the abbreviations for the gloss.sg. imani ‘faith’) (Gaw. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding the data. . by analyzing the actual use of loanwords and code-switching in spontaneous taster meal conversations as a “resource for the construction of interactional meaning” (Auer. In this paper. p.106 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski (Canadian English) has borrowed many “politically charged words” from French (Fee.sm try rel green dem 1. Most of the English loanwords in Wolof are used by younger speakers in the domain of entertainment (Ngom. aɟana ‘heaven’) (Ngom.1 Loanwords in Wolof Wolof has borrowed a substantial number of words from many languages. 181).4 (1) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (00:00–00:13) JPN COURSE WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ 1i Xar-al ma essayer lu verte lii ma→. 1998. that is. demarcation. The use of the French essayer ‘try’ and verte ‘green’ by Issate in 1i is motivated by both practical and demarcating/ evaluative reasons. SENâ•›=â•›Senegalese. In the data for this study. 2008.. 4. In the examples. controlled sociolinguistic interviews (Ngom.g. the course being eaten is given in capital letters at the end of the title and the food being talked about is given in capital letters prior to the utterance(s). The Wolof excerpt in (1) starts off with a couple of French loanwords. 2000). and many of the loanwords have a religious connotation (e. Religion (Muslim here) can also play an important role in lexical borrowing. JPNâ•›=â•›Japanese. 2003). wait-mood 1. 2009).sm Let me try this which is green. the use of a foreign word to mark a concept as foreign and thus exclude that foreign concept from what the speaker considers to be part of their culture. 2.sg. p. we propose a third motivation. (WOL3â•›=â•›hij. In the figures. interj dem 1. See Table 1 in the Appendix for participants’ fake names beginning with these initial letters.sg. the participants are seated in alphabetical order from left to right as viewed from the camera. According to McLaughlin’s (2004) morphological analysis of so-called “adjectives” and their usage in Wolof. 6i thing dem These things.Chapter 5. EEG1â•›=â•›ABC. Lii //de|| lii lan la? 7j dem emph dem what def This what is this? Figure 1.|| Research in African linguistics has revealed a scarcity of “pure” adjectives in the Niger-Congo languages to which Wolof and Eegimaa belong. and 5.sm what be I don’t know what it is. EEG3â•›=â•›def).â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 107 JPN COURSE 2h Eh way lii man ban façon toggu→.|| 4j //{aha}|| Xaw ma lumu doon? 5i know.â•‡ WOL3 Jabou’s utterance 7j5 8h //Hu:. and CAPITAL letters men. Welmers (1973) points out that in many of these languages so-called “adjectives” take nominal morphology. WOL6â•›=â•›RST. they are not distinguishable from verbs. while in other languages.sbj what type dish Ow. there is no independent adjective class in Wolof. Affaire yi→. what type of dish is this. WOL5â•›=â•›mnO. 3h //Lii?|| dem //This. .neg 1.sg. Lower case letters indicate women. Colors other than these three are expressed through a comparison with other elements from nature (e. Issate’s use of the French loanword verte ‘green’ in 1i is motivated by the fact that Wolof does not have a word for “green”. like many African languages. respectively. which resembles the color of leaves)’ for demarcation.pl. When it comes to color terms. like many French words in Wolof. weex ‘white’and xonk ‘red’. mainly from French. Wolof. ready 1. 6.sm taste emph It’s really worth trying.6 The French loanwords façon ‘type’ and affaire ‘thing’. they are less common than pare ‘ready’ (from French prêt ‘ready’) in 84i in (2) and torop ‘really’ (from French trop ‘too much’) in 13n in (3). In addition. (2) 84i Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (02:21–02:22) JPN COURSE Pare nañu de. the shortage of underived adjectives is acute. but also from the adaptation process whereby the sequences [pr] and [tr] (which are not allowed in Wolof phonology) have been resolved through vowel insertion. two characteristics which apply to the participants in (1). In (1). However.sm emph We are ready. Issate probably used the French word verte to refer to the green seaweed instead of a comparative Wolof term such as lu mel ni xob ‘which has the color of leaves (lit.obj cook Who cooked the mafe? Ciré.sg. . 10n pn 11O Mom jaar na mos kat→. (3) Food10-WOL5-8f9f6m-mnO-7-15-10 (11:00–11:05) SEN COURSE MAFE ‘chicken in peanut butter sauce’ Mafe bi ku ko tog? 9O mafe def who 3. mbok ‘corn’ to denote “yellow”) or loanwords. as will be discussed in Section 3 “Demarcative/ evaluative motivations for lexical borrowing”. in (1) are more common than verte ‘green’. has only three color adjectives: ñuul ‘black’. used in 2h and 6i. foc worth 3. the word verte.108 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski “adjectives” are a sub-class of verbs.sg. Evidence for the complete integration of words such as pare ‘ready’ and torop ‘really’ into Wolof comes not only from their high frequency of use. is more common in the speech of young people and people with a certain level of education..g. These words have been completely nativized and are considered by Wolof speakers to be native Wolof words. In addition. sm deg <?> It is really good. salat ‘salad’ (from French salade). Other French loanwords which occur very frequently in the Wolof data are pâte ‘macaroni. 13n <?> mom neex na torop→. In some cases we found that Wolof (and Eegimaa) participants used loanwords to describe the foreign food in a subtle way to either reassign meaning to the foreign words or for demarcating/ evaluative purposes. Another instance of words recently borrowed from French is pâte. it is still viewed as foreign. e. because although they are known to be from Italian. not just among Wolof people but also among the other Senegalese ethnic groups.â•‡ WOL5: Ousmane utters 11O 12O Neex na de? good 3. spaghetti’. Chapter 5. This was the case with the use of the essayer ‘try’ in (1) and (4). and bagas ‘baggage’ by Wolof participants. . they came into Wolof through French. Although the phonological modification of the word spaghetti may suggest that it is fully integrated into the Wolof lexicon. feuille ‘leaf ’ (only used interchangeably with the Wolof xob ‘leaf ’) in (12).7 Macaroni is quite well known in Senegal.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 109 Figure 2. The words chocola and salat have been in the Wolof lexicon for a long time and the food they refer to is well known. spaghetti ‘spaghetti’.sg. However. One may argue that this word has been around for quite some time since in Wolof there are many substances which are often referred to by the word pâte. macaroni ‘macaroni’. chocola ‘chocolate’. 7. the use of the word pâte to refer to macaroni and spaghetti is very recent and is viewed as foreign. the introduction of spaghetti into the Senegalese culinary system is more recent.sm emph It’s really good. However.sg. ? foc good 3. French loanwords which begin with the sequence [s] followed by a stop undergo an insertion process in which the vowel [ɛ] is attached before the [s].g. toothpaste. The words macaroni and spaghetti (pronounced [ɛspaɣɛtɪ] in Wolof) are treated here as French loanwords. bagas ‘luggage’ (from French baggage) and feuille ‘leaf ’. Bismilla is generally used before starting something (for example.name laax def something def emph In God’s name. 2.110 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski Wolof has also borrowed extensively from Arabic. The words Yalla ‘God’ and Billahi ‘In God’s name’ are among the most common loanwords from Arabic found in the Wolof data. before starting to eat). The only example in the data was súkar ‘sugar’. 16j Waye lii lan la? wow dem what def Wow.God.sm God dem able-neg 1.0) Jabou essaye-l. 1179S Laax bi mbir la de? laax def something def emph The laax (dish) is really something (really good!). (5) Food10-WOL6-7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (27:10–27:13) SEN COURSE LAAX ‘(white corn) flour pudding with a sweet (yoghurt and) milk sauce’ laax bi mbir la de? 1178S Billahi in. (4) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (00:24–00:32) JPN COURSE 14h Lii neex-ul dé? dem good-neg emph This is really not good. it is certain to God that I cannot eat this. 18j Issate wóor na Yalla lii mun-u ma ko lekk→. pn certain 3.sbj too for God eat-mood dem Hey Jabou for God’s sake eat this= 57h Nga ñam ko.sg. the laax is really something (really good!).sg. Many loanwords from Arabic refer to religious (Muslim) concepts as in (4) and (5). Other words also found in the data are Bisimilla ‘in the name of God’ and Mashalla ‘as God wants it’.sg.neg 1sg. from Arabic as-sukkar ‘sugar’. →j pn try-mood (3.sg. The Wolof lexicon also contains other words of Arabic origin. 15h Xaw ma ban façon tog. and Mashalla is used to show great appreciation for the quality of the food.0) Jabou please try.sm 3.sg. what is this? 17i (3.obj Try it. know.sa what type dish I don’t know what type of dish it is.obj eat Issate. .sm taste 3.sg. … ((approximately 1 minute later)) (1:29–1:31) 56h Éy Jabou yow tam ngir Yalla lekk-al lii= →j hey pn 2. Chapter 5.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa Ngom (2003) pointed out that most words from English in Wolof are found in the speech of the youth. However, the introduction of some American dishes into the Senegalese cuisine has made English words such as sandwich (pronounced [sandiʃ]) and hamburger ([amburgɐ]) very popular, not just among young people but also in the speech of elders. 2.2 Loanwords in Eegimaa In Eegimaa the two main sources of loanwords are Wolof and French. Some French loanwords used by the participants were crevette ‘shrimp’, chocolat ‘chocolate’, ebonbong ‘candy’, macaroni/ epâte ‘pasta’ (used for noodles and spaghetti as well as macaroni), and esalat ‘salad’. In (6) and (7) the French loanwords crevette and pâte are used to refer to Japanese SENBEE ‘rice crackers’ and UDON ‘noodles’, respectively. The excerpt in (6) is analyzed in Section 3.2 “Eegimaa examples of loanwords for demarcation/ evaluative motivation.” (6) Food10-EEG1-1m2m3m-ABC-6-2-10 (05:10–05:17) JPN COURSE SENBEE ‘rice crackers’ 189B Kaenkan me e-nogor tii→, mood dep clf-look like It almost looked like, 190B u-nde-aw wo ni gu-kkan me, clf-thing-def rel hab 3.pl.sm-do dep the things which they did, 191B Ter crevette ni gu-ok go i-ffas-ut. mood shrimp.chip hab 3.pl.sm-call 3.sg.obj 1.sg.sm-know-neg I don’t know if they call it shrimp. 192A Mm ga-fas. interj clf-shrimp Mm shrimp. 193B U-lullu//m-ay wawu.|| clf-white person-gen def The white //people’s (shrimp).|| 194C //Ã:m!|| 195B U-lullum-ay wawu→. clf-white person-gen def The white people’s (shrimp). (7) Food10-EEG3-1f2f3f-def-6-4-10 (3:15–3:22) JPN COURSE HIZIKI ‘black seaweed’ → UDON ‘noodles’ 58d E-ssum-e ré? clf-good-pfv emph It (HIZIKI ‘black seaweed’) is really good. 111 112 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski 59d Bare e-nde-ai e-kkan-e e-un→. cord clf-thing-def con-do-pfv clf-salty But the thing (UDON ‘noodles’) is a little salty. 60d Mat i-bij→. neg 1.sg.sm-lie I will not lie. 61f Mm? E-pat-ai→. 62d clf-macaroni-def The macaroni. Figure 3.â•‡ EEG3 Dáko’s utterance in 62d Some Eegimaa words borrowed from Wolof in the data are egerette from Wolof gerte ‘peanut’ in (8), epobar from poivre ‘black pepper’ in (9), dunen from diwliin ‘cooking oil’, and sobile from soble ‘onion’. The French loanword chocolat is also used in (8). (8) 923B 924C 925B 926C Food10-EEG1-1m2m3m-ABC-6-2-10 (23:17–23:24) AMER COURSE CHOCOLATE CUPCAKE Úru xum n-eeg-e? dem mood 1.sg.sm-tell-pfv I said this, E-gerette? clf-peanut Peanut. E-nde e-nde chocolat y-om quoi? clf-thing clf-thing chocolat 3.sg.sm-be ? (That) thing (that) thing it is chocolate. Exummul lepo. emph mood Yes, it is. Chapter 5.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 113 927B E-gerette wái. clf-peanut emph Peanut indeed.8 (9) Food10-EEG1-1m2m3m-ABC-6-2-10 (32:01–32:05) SEN COURSE MAFE ‘chicken in peanut butter sauce’ 1274B Ban dere let bá-baba bu-taf mee. cord dem neg clf-chili.pepper clf-be.spicy dem But it is not chili pepper which is this spicy. 1275B Ni-inen-e pankan e- e-→, 1.sg.sm-believe-pfv mood clf clf I believe it must be. 1276C E-nde? clf-thing (That) thing. 1277A E-nde? clf-thing (That) thing. 1278B E-pobar? clf-black.pepper Black pepper. Many Eegimaa words borrowed from Wolof were actually borrowed from French into Wolof. For instance words such as epobar ‘black pepper’, etomate ‘tomato’, and eliñong ‘onion’ were originally from French poivre, tomate and onion, respectively. In this way Wolof often serves as an intermediary language in the borrowing process. In Eegimaa as well as in Wolof, we noticed that the frequency of loanwords or code-switching tended to increase with higher level of education, younger age, gender (women), and profession (that involved using foreign languages) of the participants, as well as their linguistic repertoires. All three men (ages 44–54) in (8) and (9) are native speakers of Eegimaa and are fluent in both Wolof and French. However, Bala used more French words than the other two men, probably because he was a middle school French language teacher. The three women (ages 17–25) in (7) are all native speakers of Eegimaa, fluent in Wolof but not in French. They used more Wolof words than the older men in (8) and (9), and more Wolof and French words than a group of three young men (under 30) and a group of 8. Homemade peanut butter in Senegal is dark brown. Many Eegimaa people believe chocolate is made from peanut butter. 114 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski three older women (over 30), in which the participants were also native speakers of Eegimaa, fluent in Wolof but not fluent in French. These differences in the use of loanwords and code-switching observed are consistent with many reports in the field of sociolinguistics.9 3. Demarcation/ evaluative motivation for lexical borrowing As outlined in Section 3 “Motivations for lexical borrowing”, loanwords can be motivated by practical reasons, prestige and power, and demarcation. Most of the loanwords were used by both Wolof and Eegimaa participants to assess the Japanese and American food. Some were used for practical reasons due to the lack of a word for the food they were eating, but others were used by the participants to distance themselves from these foods which they viewed as elements of foreign identity. 3.1 Wolof examples of loanwords for demarcation/ evaluative motivation In the Wolof excerpt in (1), Issate’s use of the French word verte ‘green’ in 1i is motivated practically by the fact that Wolof does not have a word for that color. In contrast, Issate uses the French word essayer ‘try’ in 1i despite the fact that Wolof does have words for ‘try’, such as jëm (although this word is not used normally when trying to taste something), ñam, and mos. In addition, the three young women in (1) are all very fluent in French and could have used the French word goûter ‘taste’ or déguster ‘taste’ which would have been more appropriate French words in this context. Rather, in (1), Issate uses the word essayer for demarcation, to convey a negative attitude towards the Japanese food. Although she has not tried it yet when she uses the word, the texture of the food and the fact that she has no clue whatsoever about what the food is probably make her skeptical about its taste. Subsequent uses of essayer ‘try’ not just by Issate but also by the other two participants, together with their comments and the frustration which they express by verbal as well as nonverbal means, clearly confirm their negative attitude toward the Japanese food. The same three young women refer to the Japanese WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ with Wolof xob ‘leaf ’ in (10) and (11), and then with French feuille ‘leaf ’ in (12). These references have a pejorative connotation. 9. For an in-depth discussion of the use of loanwords and code-switching in the Senegalese community, see Ngom (2003) and Mclaughlin (2001). Chapter 5.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 115 (10) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (1:20–1:27) JPN COURSE WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ 47i Wae lu verte lii mom daa mel ni xob mbedd yi→. but rel green dem foc 3sg.sm look like leaf street def But this which is green looks like the leaves (from) the street. 48j Dafa sedd? 3.sg.sm cold Is it cold? Sedd na? 49j cold 3.sg.sm Is it cold? {aha} 50j 51h {aha} xob bi lumu saf? 52h Issate pn leaf def how taste Issate how does the leaf taste? Mm? 53i 54i xob bi kay xaw ma ko→. leaf def emph know.neg 1.sg.sm 3.sg.obj I don’t really know the leaf. In (10), although the participants could not be sure, after a close look and a little taste of the WAKAME ‘green seaweed’, Issate appears to be convinced in 47i that it is xob mbedd ‘leaves from the street’, as opposed to a leaf from the garden. The implication is that WAKAME is not food fit for humans to eat, that is, they should not have been served these xob mbedd ‘leaves from the street’. Subsequently the participants continue to assess the WAKAME negatively, referring to it as xob ‘leaf ’ in (11). (11) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (3:24–3:28) JPN COURSE WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ 94j Xob bi neex na. leaf def good 3.sg.sm Is the leaf good? 95j Issate lekk nga si xob bi? pn eat 2.sg.sm p leaf def Issate did you eat some of the leaf? 96i Xob bi mo géna //bon|| lep. leaf def 3.sg.sm more bad all The leaf is the //worst|| of all. 116 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski 97h //Wex→.|| Bitter //Bitter.|| 98j {aha} 99h Lii ay xob mbedd? →i dem pl leaf street These are leaves from the street. For Jabou, who did not try any of the Japanese foods, the WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ is worse than leaves from the street. She conveys this evaluation using the French feuilles vertes ‘green leaves’ in 108j in (12). (12) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (3:41–3:43) JPN COURSE WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ 106j Lii du xob mbedd. dem neg leaf street This is not a leaf from the street. 107h Ay xob banana ak yoyu? pl leaf banana and indf Leaves of banana and other. 108j Lii feuilles vertes. dem leaves green These are green leaves. By code-switching from Wolof (xob ‘leaf ’) to French (feuilles ‘leaves’), Jabou upgrades the already highly negative assessment of the WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ established by Issate and Hawa in (10) and (11). In (13), Hawa and Jabou continue code-switching in 273h and 274j, with utterances that are all in French except for the Wolof word xob ‘leaf ’. (13) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (8:08–8:14) JPN COURSE WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ 273h Ça c’est le xob de la rue. dem 3.sg.sbj.be det leaf of det street This is the leaf from the street. 274j C’est le xob de citron? {aha} 3.sg.sbj.be det leaf of lemon This is the leaf of lemon. {aha} 275h {he he //ha ha ha}|| 276i //{ha ha ha ha}|| This upgrade in code-switching from Wolof syntax with a French word(s) to French syntax with a Wolof word not only evaluates the food as extremely bad, but also ridicules it. The participants’ laughter in 274j–276i suggests that all the sg.sg.|| 20j Lekk-u ma ko. The frequent use of the word ende ‘thing’ (the default word used in Eegimaa to refer to something one does not know or for which one has forgotten the name) and the participants’ comments and questions regarding the type and origin of the food show clearly that these .good-neg This is not good. gives way to amusement.sm caramel def It is the caramel.sm 3.good-neg This is not good.sg. rel be. to convey her negative evaluation. tell me. all of the foods in the American course were familiar to the informants.|| if be.sg. In contrast to the Japanese course which was completely foreign to the participants. was also observed in the Eegimaa data. eat-neg 1. As was the case with the Wolof participants. Chapter 5.good-neg tell 1. dem be.obj //If it is not good. most of the Japanese food was unknown to the Eegimaa participants. 19j //Bu neex-ul wax ma.2 Eegimaa examples of loanwords for demarcation/ evaluative motivation The strategic use of loanwords by the participants to distance themselves from the foreign food and the negative meaning sometimes associated with these words.black dem be. 21i Mm! 22i Bii neex-ul.obj I am not eating it.good-neg This which is black is not good.sbj 3. regardless of their original meaning. 3. Hawa refers to it with the French loanword caramel ‘caramel’. except the LICORICE. dem be. In 18h in (14). (14) Food10-WOL3-4f5f6f-hij-7-9-10 (12:10–12:15) AMER COURSE LICORICE DOG 14i Mm:! 15h M? 16i Bii neex-ul.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 117 frustration and anger which they felt because they were served something not meant for humans. 18h Mom //moi caramel bi?|| 3.sg. 17i Bu ñuul bii neex-ul. the participants categorize the ABURAAGE ‘fried tofu’ (in the UDON ‘noodles’) as Eegimaa gaway ‘honeycomb’ based both on its taste. she/ he can tell you if it is báxorox ‘tiny fish from the rice field’ or bañanga ‘tiny fish from salt water’. On the other hand Eegimaa speakers frequently used native Eegimaa words to refer to foreign foods which bear a certain similarity to native foods or which have a familiar taste. and light amber color. It is usually used to refer to food which is sticky. Eegimaa speakers used foreign words to refer to the unfamiliar foods. two of whom (Dáko and Exaw) are professional cooks. but may also refer to Japanese. If you give a tiny fish to someone who grew up in the Eegimaa speaking area. . Not all of the food in the Japanese course was evaluated negatively. Due to cooking conditions in Senegal. Eegimaa people also prepare tiny fish by boiling the fish with bafira ‘dry hibiscus flowers’. they are totally unfamiliar with the Japanese food and also with some of the foods in the American course. the French loanword epâte (as with the French loanword pâte in Wolof) has a negative connotation when used to refer to food. The similarity between IWASI in the Japanese HIZIKI and cooked barai was noted by all the participants who consequently used the term barai to refer to the fish in the HIZIKI. it was difficult to boil the UDON ‘noodles’ immediately before serving as would normally be done in Japan. senses some honey taste and informs the other participants about it in 104B. Thai and other Asian people.11 The Eegimaa participants also used epâte to refer to the MACARONI AND CHEESE in the American course. In (7) Dáko uses the word epâte ‘macaroni’ in 62d (E-pat-ai→) to refer to the Japanese UDON ‘noodles’. However. such as the CHEESE used on the MACARONI and the LICORICE. hired in that capacity at a touristic site. texture. In all the Eegimaa conversations. 11. In (15). the HIZIKI ‘black seaweed’ dish was the most positively appreciated food in the Japanese course. The Eegimaa excerpt in (7) is among three women. Fishing is one of the main activities of Eegimaa people.118 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski participants are experiencing the Japanese food (which they called Chinese10 food) for the first time. The term Chinois ‘Chinese’ used by Eegimaa people (and many other Senegalese people) does not necessarily mean someone of Chinese origin. Bala. Their expertise in the domain of fishery is such that they even have different categories for tiny fish. 10. who tastes the ABURAAGE first. such as the Japanese UDON ‘noodles’ which did have a sticky texture because they were prepared hours before the meal was served. The participants were able to recognize the tiny fish (IWASI ‘sardine’) mixed with the HIZIKI ‘seaweed’ which they subsequently referred to as barai ‘raifish’. despite their culinary expertise. In Eegimaa. Koreans. look. 1.sbj 3. 112C M//hm. 111B Ga-way gaa mu-kum-e? clf-comb of clf-honey-mood Honeycomb.sg.|| 113A //Mm?|| 114B Mhmm. 109B Nogornogor tii tii e-nde ga ga ga-way→. sm. 106A Mm. Figure 4.pfv like clf-comb of clf-honey This looks like honeycomb.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 119 (15) Food10-EEG1-1m2m3m-ABC-6-2-10 (2:51–3:08) JPN COURSE ABURAAGE ‘fried tofu’ 104B Yauye e-kkakkan e-ttok mú-kum ãa? clf. I will take it and finish by it).dem This thing. Chapter 5. 115B Dére nogornogor tii ga-way gaa mu-kum→. dem look. .do sm-taste clf-honey It does taste like honey.â•‡ EEG1 Bala’s utterance in 107B 108A Ínje go ni-ja-e e-ŋar ni-ban→. 107B Gu-kkakkan gu-ttok mú-kum. clf-thing clf.dem sm-do sm-taste clf-honey emph This (the ABURAAGE ‘fried tofu’) does taste like honey.sg. 110A Hm. 105B Ga-nde gauge?.obj sm-mood-pfv clf-take sm-finish I will finish (the meal) with it (lit.pfv like like clf-thing clf clf clf-comb It looks like like (that) thing a (honey) comb. The food we grow up eating is not just a substance to satisfy our nutritional needs. 4. As soon as Ceruno tastes the ABURAAGE ‘fried tofu’. dishes such as cere ‘type of couscous’. and sometimes the particular way it is prepared and eaten are typical of the person’s group. Food and identity Nations. Someone who claims to be eating only halal12 ‘allowed/ lawful’ food is certainly a Muslim. Italian and Japanese cuisines as well as their cultures. it is certainly because the food. one is able to infer someone’s identity based on the food she/ he eats. and groups of individuals can be differentiated based on their eating habits. states the following Aphorism IV often cited in debates about food and identity. and I will tell you what you are’. the food Muslims are allowed to eat. The Qur’an ‘Koran’ has clear guidelines regarding the types of halal ‘allowed/ lawful’ food. In Senegal. respectively. Although shrimp is a very common seafood in Eegimaa culture. 1997).120 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski The honey flavor noted by Bala was also sensed by the other two participants. If as Brillat-Savarin (1926) suggests. Amay uses the Eegimaa word gafas ‘shrimp’ in 192A. or sushi does not just refer to the food but also to the Mexican. Bala’s repetition of the phrase Ulullumay wawu ‘The white people’s (shrimp)’ in 195B highlights the distinction between the Eegimaa way of preparing shrimp and the SENBEE ‘rice crackers’ they are eating which are totally foreign to the Eegimaa people. Bala uses the French word crevette ‘shrimp’ to single out the SENBEE as something foreign to the Eegimaa culture. but Bala quickly makes his categorization more precise with Ulullumay wawa ‘the white people’s (shrimp)’ in 193B. The simple mention of burrito. but with respect to the type of food prepared with the shrimp.“Dis-moi ce que tu manges. pasta. they all refer to the Japanese ABURAAGE as gaway ‘(honey) comb’. Brillat-Savarin (1926. je te dirai ce que tu es. . Subsequently.” ‘Tell me what you eat. The excerpt in (6) between the same three men about the Japanese SENBEE ‘rice crackers’ contrasts strongly with the excerpt in (12). that is. especially Ceruno. tribes. Wolof. A French gastronomist. he becomes emphatic that it is honey in 112C. p. ceebu jén ‘rice and fish’. 13). The role of food in defining who we are has long been recognized. The distinction being drawn here is not between one variety of shrimp for white people and another variety for Eegimaa people. Joola and Fula cultures. It is an important part of our cultural identity (Barthes. in his “Physiologie du goût”. or at least she/ he is following the Islamic dietary 12. Subsequently. ñankatang ‘cooked rice’ and lacciri ‘type of couscous’ are associated with the Seereer. can serve as a vehicle of culture. than on the fact they do not know it. The traditional staple food for Eegimaa people basically consists of rice served with fish. as clearly suggested by Duffy (2009) who called it “Senegal’s national plate of rice and fish”. The Wolof dish called ceebu jén ‘fish and rice’ is very popular not only in Senegal. The assessment of the food as made by Hawa and Jabou is based less on the actual flavor of the food (Jabou did not try it at all). or one of the soups made from palm tree nuts (gatos and bammafix). and some U. bukkaç ‘type of porridge’. This dish is so popular that it is often taken to be the “typical” Senegalese food. but also in many African countries. Food. sometimes with fish added prepared during gaccinnen ‘the preinitiation ritual’. Western Europe. some Eegimaa dishes are associated with certain cultural events or closely linked to special ritual ceremonies. It helps us construct a sense of who we are as individuals and how closely linked we are to other individuals who eat the way we do. but also on the plurality of its culture and cuisine. The eating habits we develop in our societies play a crucial role in how we experience foreign food. The presence of foreign food is a threat to cultural identity. The excerpt in (4) provides clear evidence of the role the participants’ habits play in assessing the unknown food of the “other”. For instance. The reason for this low rating related to the fact that the Japanese course was totally new to all the participants. In all the Wolof data. Although Hawa tries the . According to Fischler (1988). with the Wolof culture and cuisine at the forefront of that popularity. Chapter 5. In Eegimaa culture. and the Wolof cuisine has played an important role in popularizing the Wolof culture. which is prepared during garumo ‘a traditional ceremony’ is different from the beans and rice. the Japanese course was the least favored of the three courses. just like language and music. a boy who has not undergone the preinitiation ceremony cannot eat gussax ‘beans’. food is an important symbol of cultural identity. Senegal’s popularity is based not only on its history and strong diplomacy. This is shown by their frequent use of xaw ma/ xamu ñu ‘I don’t know/ we don’t know’ and nexul ‘it’s not good’ throughout the Japanese course. meat. states (such as New York). Here we will focus on the function of food as a symbol of cultural identity and how people react when their sense of cultural identity is threatened.S. despite the fact that in Senegal each tribe has its characteristic cuisine. in contrast to the American course which was somewhat familiar. In addition.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 121 guidelines. The way we prepare and experience food contributes significantly to our identity. Similarities and differences in the way that the participants react to this threat in the data suggest that Wolof participants are more direct in their criticism of the foreign food and their assertion of their cultural heritage than Eegimaa participants. It also allows us to set ourselves apart from any group of individuals who eat differently. that is. the belief that a given food. In contrast to the Japanese course. she mainly tastes it with the tip of her tongue and only occasionally tries to bite off a piece but with a high degree of cautiousness. dem foc 3. 1441S Mh! 1442S Bii mom plat dëgg la. the Wolof participants considered the American course to be fine as in (18). The attitude of these participants toward the Japanese food can be understood as strategy for protecting their food identity. This was the same in Eegimaa conversations as well. . the way it is prepared and eaten constitutes an important symbol which defines the eaters as members of a given group of people. 1440S Mm bii mom Mashalla→. The Japanese food was not only assessed negatively overall. (18) Food10-WOL6-7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (22:34–22:41) AMER COURSE ((after finishing the American course)) 1439R Bii mom ça va→. dem foc meal true def This is a true meal. thank God. some of the Wolof participants did not even touch the Japanese food.sg.God Mm this.pl. (16) Food10-WOL6-7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (00:27–00:28) JPN COURSE Waye lii mom lekk yu wóor la? 22S wow dem foc food rel safe def Wow is this food safe? (17) Food10-WOL6-7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (2:20–2:22) JPN COURSE 109S Ã! 110T //<?>|| def. but even despised and ridiculed by many Wolof participants as shown in (14).sm make //These|| people make a joke of food for us. 111S //Ñii nag|| ñii nag lekk tappale la ñu →T dem emph dem emph food joke def 1. but also presents potential sanitary risks as in (16) or considered to be a tapale ‘joke’ as in (17). mm dem foc thank. but the Senegalese meal with MAFE and LAAX (two very popular dishes in Senegal) were considered to be the real deal as in (19). and that unknown food is not only unlikely to taste good. The Wolof participants showed a tendency to think that the food they grew up eating is the best and the safest.sbj fine This is fine.122 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski food. Despite the researcher’s assurance that all the dishes were totally safe for consumption. â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 123 Bii mom. (19) Food10-WOL6-7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (22:53–22:55) SEN COURSE ((as server places Senegalese course in front of R)) 1463S Mhmhm! 1464S {haha} lu may séen de xam na ko mom. Figure 5.sg. this (food) is (from) our country.â•‡ WOL6 Excitement over the Senegalese course in front of Rene … ((approximately 30 seconds later)) (23:03–23:05) ((as server places Senegalese course in front of S)) 1477S Yii mom. Although most of the ingredients in the American course are well known in Senegal. But others meals def foc But the other dishes. Waye yenen plat yi mom. lii mom suñu dëkk la? {haha} dem foc dem foc 1.sm value emph It has value.sg. {haha} … ((approximately 16 and a half minutes later)) (39:27–39:29) ((after finishing the Senegalese course)) 2762S Yii mom mbir la de? dem foc deal def emph This is the deal. 1443R 1444S Chapter 5. While the American course was okay compared to the Japanese course. The attitude of . the Wolof participants did not identify themselves with the food because it was prepared differently.poss country def This.sg. I really know it.pl.sm see emph know 1. it was not as good as the Senegalese course. 2763R Am na solo de? have 3.sm 3. dem foc This. haha rel 1.obj foc {haha} what I am seing.sg. .obj neg I told them nope. 927S Billahi lolu a baax→. to satisfaction when the American food was served in (18). Sidi joined his family to celebrate Tamxarit (the Wolof name for Achoura) which occurs at the beginning of the New Year in the Islamic calendar. Subsequently. but he threatened to never join his family for Tamxarit again if they prepared vermicelli.pl. look-mood eat fonde or cere Look. →T 1.sg. to becoming overjoyed with the Senegalese course (finally food with which he could identify) in (19). 986S Ma ne len muk→.person dem That is look at those food of the white people. 985S Lolu moy xol-al ñam tubab yoyu? →T dem be look-mood food white. (21) Food10-WOL6. when vermicelli was served instead of cere. to eat fonde ‘Senegalese porridge’ or cere ‘Senegalese couscous’.Sidi’s attitude improved from his utter disappointment with the Japanese course in (16) and (17). It reveals how far some people will go to protect their food identity. the tradition in Senegal is to serve cere ‘a type of couscous’.7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (15:57–16:00) JPN COURSE UDON ‘noodles’ 984S Ay vermicelli?. That year.name dem 3.sm tell 3. Sidi tells a moving story about how disappointed he was as a high school student when inappropriate food was served. He expresses his joy of being finally offered something familiar with his utterance ending with laughter in 1477B in (19). in. In (21) he complains that vermicelli is ñam tubab ‘food of the white people’.124 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski Sidi towards the Senegalese food in (19) is one of total excitement. although it was more salient in the Wolof conversations.sm good In the name of God that is good. During Tamxarit. (20) Food10-WOL6-7m8m9m-RST-7-16-10 (15:03–15:04) JPN COURSE COMMENTS ON SENEGALESE DISHES 926T Xol-al lekk fondé mba cere→.sg. Earlier in the conversation during the Japanese course. not only did Sidi refuse to eat it. →T indf vermicelli Some vermicelli.God. A similar change in attitude was observed throughout the Wolof and Eegimaa conversations. However. Sidi comments on the Senegalese food as shown in (20). obj //We don’t know|| this (food).obj spoil Now the white people have spoiled them (= people who cooked the vermicelli).sm-be-der-1. For all three participants. clf-Joola clf-cook. 509d Uru u-ffa-t-al→. Légi tubab yi dan len jax. Nonetheless.sm 3.sm-know-neg-1.sm-pfv Sinnang is what Joola people are. eating Senegalese food is the best thing to do. Vermicelli?. 987R 988T Chapter 5. 1. now white.â•‡ EEG3 Dáko’s utterance in 509d 510d //Dére→.rice 1.pl.person def 3. In 987R.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 125 Vermicelle?.sm This we don’t know.sg.pl.pl.pl.|| 511e //U-ffa-t-al|| yo→. (22) Food10-EEG3-1f2f3f-def-6-4-10 (22:41–22:45) AMER COURSE ((after finishing the American course)) 508d É-jjola si-nnang nu-om-um-al-e→. .|| dem //This. Figure 6. and Tambaa blames the changes in the Senegalese traditional diet on the white people in 988T. Rene repeats the word Vermicelle? ‘Vermicelli?’ to express his disbelief.pl. they asserted their food identity as clearly as the Wolof participants as shown in (22).sm-know-neg-1.pl.pl. dem 1. The other participants are also surprised to hear that someone would prepare vermicelli on Tamxarit.pl.sm 3. The Eegimaa participants were less direct and more willing to try the food than the Wolof participants. although they were equally unfamiliar with most of the food. the word eomum ‘be’ (nu-om-um-al-e ‘is’ in 508b13) is used in predicate constructions to express the idea that some entity (usually the object of the predicate clause) contains the defining features of another entity. Subsequently. but on the other hand this conflicted with their need to assert their linguistic identity. for example. In (23). one can easily trace them back to their original locations. On the one hand their desire to distance themselves from the foreign food prompted them to use foreign words to refer to those dishes. 5. their use of loanwords was often accompanied by the use of the Eegimaa equivalents for these words. Amay. they often referred to each dish with the name of the tribe with which they associated it. The utterance in 508d was said in all 10 of the Eegimaa conversations. 309B Mu-law á-lullum→. (23) Food10-EEG1-1m2m3m-ABC-6-2-10 (7:39–7:41) JPN COURSE UDON ‘noodles’ 306A Nu-og-al Mu-law á-lullum. and something which sets them apart from the other Senegalese tribes.sg. clf-intestine clf-white. The Eegimaa participants displayed an identity clash in their conversations. language constitutes a “powerful symbol of national and ethnic identity”.person The white person’s intestines. Ceruno and Bala confirm this with repetition.sm-tel-1. As Spolsky (1999.person We call it the white person’s intestine. 181) notes. Eegimaa participants view sinnang ‘cooked rice’ not just as a food.person The white person’s intestine. 1. . When they were served the Senegalese course. 13. but as part of who they are. MAFE was simandingay ‘of Mandinka people’ and LAAX was súfulaay ‘of Fula people’. Consequently.sm clf-intestine clf-white.126 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski In Eegimaa. Most of the world languages bear the same name as the people who speak them and from the name of many languages. clf-intestin clf-white.sg. the predicator. p. 307C Mu-law á-lullum→. Language and identity Language is crucial for defining linguistic identity. 308B Mmm. dissatisfied with what he considered to be an excessive use of French words by Bala comes up with the Eegimaa equivalent for the French word macaroni in 306A. The initial e (infinitive marker) in eomum is replaced by other prefixes when the verb is conjugated. the use of loanwords to refer to taboo concepts is considered to be less offensive than using the native words for these concepts. . derivation of words from other already existing words within the language. This may be because historically Wolof has borrowed extensively from many languages and more importantly. The dual identity protection (food identity protection and linguistic identity protection) observed in Eegimaa was not present in Wolof. but can also be used for demarcation/ evaluation. The borrowing process mainly occurs when the concept referred to is foreign. the Eegimaa people are not only a tiny minority (approximately 7000). In cases where they did not know the foreign word for the food. Conclusion Food and language are two fundamental symbols of cultural identity. Therefore. For example. these participants referred to the SALAD first twice with the French word salade (pronounced [salat]). 14. in the Wolof and Eegimaa conversations analyzed in this study the use of loanwords was used to distance the speaker from the foreign food. or borrowing of words from other languages. but their language is endangered. Puular and other Senegalese ethnic groups. such as Chichewa. This includes the total number of people who speak Wolof as their native language as well as those who speak it as their second language. they referred to the Japanese SENBEE ‘rice cracker’ as yal’euful ‘the one that you peel’ because they thought that they had to peel off the seaweed wrapped around the cracker. Languages can expand their lexicon through coinage. some people jokingly claim that Wolof is an ethnic group for people who have lost their ethnic identity because many people who identify themselves as Wolof trace their ethnic origin to Seereer. Wolof is by far the dominant language in Senegal (having six times more speakers14 than French. Chapter 5. Borrowing is not always motivated by practical reasons or prestige and power. there was a tendency to create an Eegimaa word for the food. In some languages. This makes them more protective of their linguistic identity. and subsequently with the Eegimaa word utoj ‘leaves’. In contrast. it may be that Wolof people do not feel the need to assert their ethnic identity as much as Eegimaa people do. This study suggests that it is important to consider conversational interaction in the interpretation of loanwords. which is the official language of Senegal). In addition. 6. Further investigation of the demarcating/ evaluative function of loanwords should reveal exciting results.â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 127 During the American course. In contrast. P. interaction and identity (pp. (2005[1990]). Fischler. Food and culture: A reader (2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Introduction: Bilingual Conversation revisited.â•›B. (1926). (1997). R.â•›A. swarthmore. Is there an adjective class in Wolof? In R. (2009). M. (1973). pp. P. Cee bak jën [Rice and fish]: Deconstructing Senegal’s national plate in search of cultural values. 153–172. (2000). 242–262). AZ: Fenestra Books. Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. Toward a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption. J.). C. Ngom. Deroy. Duranti. (Ed. . Duffy. 16(3). New York: Routledge.). L. 181–192). Kenyon College. Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. Barthes. Counihan. F. African language structures. Gambier.â•›M. French. Spolsky. F. méditations de gastronomie transcendante [The physiology of taste: Or. (2008). Unpublished report. Brillat-Savarin. Journal of African Cultural Studies. Language Variation and Change. & Van Esterik.edu/SocSci/Linguistics/xling131-2009. W. (2008 [1997]). Dixon & A. A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In J.â•›Y. W. self and identity. Ngom. (2003). meditations on transcendental gastronomy]. Paris: Les Arts et le Livre. Â�Aikhenvald (Eds. New York: Routledge. M. McLaughlin.). Sociolinguistic motivations of lexical borrowings in Senegal.128 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski References Auer. Dakar Wolof and the configuration of an urban identity. New York: Routledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Auer (Ed. Ohio. 1–26). Â�Counihan & P. Van Esterik (Eds.). N. (1956).). 159–172. Social Science Information 27(2).). F. 19..In P.â•›E. (1999).â•›A. Food. Gaw. Les emprunts linguistiques [Linguistic borrowing]. The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. (1988). (2004). Second-language learning. 14(2). (2009). (1998). 173–188. and English in the Senegalese speech community. Food and culture: A reader (2nd ed. Welmers. 30(2). In C. http://www. Linguistic anthropology. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. French borrowing in Quebec English. Paris: Belles Lettres. B. F. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20–27). 1997. Physiologie du gout: Ou. Tucson. Code-switching in conversation: Language. (Eds. (2001). Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies. We have a language problem here: Linguistic identity in East Africa. Fee.html McLaughlin. 351–368. Schieffelin. The social status of Arabic. 275–292. C. Fishman (Ed). B. i’s friend and neighbor student Frâ•›=â•›fluent i Issate 27 h’s friend and neighbor student Frâ•›=â•›fluent j Jabou 19 h’s younger sister. negative *neg *obj object *pfv perfective *pl plural *pn personal noun *possÂ� possessive *rel relative *sbj subject *sg singular *sm subject marker WOL6 WOL5 WOL3 Table 1. Spâ•›=â•›fluent T Tambaa 33 friend of R and S university employee Frâ•›=â•›fluent .â•‡ Food and identity in Wolof and Eegimaa 129 Appendix Abbreviations for the gloss A hyphen is used to separate segmentable morphemes. Unmarked abbreviations follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules. *1 first person *3 third person *clf classifier *con concord *cord coordinator *def definite *deg degree *dem demonstrative *emph emphasis *foc focus *gen genitive *hab habitual *indf indefinite *interj interjection *mood mood negation. Those marked with a * are not supplied by these rules. i’s neighbor student Frâ•›=â•›fluent m Maty 33 n’s younger sister housewife Frâ•›=â•›fluent n Natou 42 m’s older sister. has known O a long time housewife Frâ•›=â•›not fluent O Ousmane 43 has known n a long time ? Frâ•›=â•›fluent R Rene 34 friend of S and T student Frâ•›=â•›fluent S Sidi 38 friend of R and T store owner Fr. Eng.â•‡ Background information for participants in the Wolof taster meal conversations (* lower case lettersâ•›=â•›female.Chapter 5. and the following abbreviations are used for the gloss. upper case lettersâ•›=â•›male) * Fake name Age Relationship and closeness Occupation Other languages h Hawa 25 j’s older sister. 130 Mamadou Bassene and Polly Szatrowski Table 2. Wolofâ•›=â•›fluent. long acquaintance tourist site of f employee Frâ•›=â•›not fluent. Wolofâ•›=â•›fluent e Exaw 24 d’s colleague. d’s neighbor Frâ•›=â•›near fluent. Wolofâ•›=â•›fluent student . Engâ•›=â•›fair C Ceruno 54 A’s colleague Eegimaa instructor Fr. upper case lettersâ•›=â•›male) EEG3 EEG1 * Fake name Age Relationship and closeness Occupation Other languages A Amay 44 C’s colleague.â•‡ Background information for participants in the Eegimaa taster meal conversations (* lower case lettersâ•›=â•›female. Wolofâ•›=â•›fluent d Dáko 25 e and f ’s colleague tourist site employee Frâ•›=â•›near fluent. Wolofâ•›=â•›fluent f Fanta 17 e’s colleague. Wolofâ•›=â•›fluent B Bala 46 A’s neighbor French instructor Fr. B’s neighbor Eegimaa instructor Fr. This research was supported by a University of Minnesota Grant-in-Aid of Research Artistry and Scholarship (2009–2011) and a Hakuho Foundation Japanese Research Fellowship (2012–2013). Results show that the Japanese used more sensory evidential forms. and am grateful to the Japanese and American taster lunch participants whose names will remain anonymous. Professor Emeritus Tasaku Tsunoda (National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics). and Natasha Spernick’s assistance in collecting and transcribing the data. and show their attitude towards information (evidentiality) while identifying and assessing an unfamiliar drink at a taster lunch. Aya Harada’s. Los Angeles) for their comments on a draft of this paper.1 The taster lunch is ideal for investigating modality/ evidentiality because the 1. Mariko Karatsu (University of Arizona) and Chisato Koike (University of California. and language and food. I also appreciate Saori Yamada’s. Natsuko Hirose. . 1. I compare/ contrast how speakers of Japanese and American English express nonfactual information (modality). while Americans used more forms to express their personal belief/ opinion directly.chapter 6 Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches Identifying and assessing an unfamiliar drink Polly Szatrowski University of Minnesota This study investigates how Japanese and American English speakers use modal/ evidential forms and body movments to identify and assess an unfamiliar drink at a taster lunch. and Assistant Professor Yuko Hoshino (Jumonji University) for their assistance and comments. cross-cultural understanding. A comparison of the conversational development in which belief/ opinion forms were used showed that while Americans used I think in successive utterances. Results contribute to research on modality/ evidentiality in conversational interaction. truth approximation forms. Japanese speakers used to omou ‘(I) think’ after a differing opinion(s) had been expressed to finalize their opinion and summarize the discussion. Introduction In this study. and Drs. and Midori Kasai (Ochanomizu University). Masaichi Akiyama’s. I would like to thank Professors Midori Takasaki. and final particles to request agreement. and final particles (e. 2. (See Szatrowski (2007) for an English summary of Minami’s model. (2) What similarities/ differences can be observed across the two languages in the way the participants use these forms to identify and evaluate foods?. is not instantaneous nor only speaker-centered. translation by Szatrowski) gaigen ‘truth approximation’. especially of unfamiliar foods. kitto ‘for sure’ and the auxiliary verb daroo ‘probably’). . and evidentiality is relevant to this study. and (3) How do the participants use these forms to influence one another’s identification and assessment in the conversational interaction? The analysis shows that food identification and assessment. smell. 127–131. Previous studies of Japanese modality have focused on the sentential meaning of these forms.. “the verbal expression of attitudes (as opposed to the state of affairs understood objectively) related to (experienced by) the subject”. Minami’s (1974.’ yo ‘I tell you’). but also a social experience that includes monitoring others’ experience and negotiation in the interaction. According to Kamio’s (1994) theory of territory of information. ne ‘isn’t it. 1993) hierachical model of Japanese sentence structure reflects the connection between outer level modal adverbs near the beginning and auxiliary verbs near the end of Japanese clauses/ sentences. p. 30. pp. I will demonstrate that it is not only a personal experience involving the present and projected effects of the food. The following questions inform this study: (1) How do the number and types of modal/ evidential forms used at the taster lunch differ between Japanese and American English speakers?. and then through actual contact with the food by direct manipulation and ingestion using all five senses. These include (a) dantee horyuu ‘assertion with reservations’ (e. tinzyutu ‘modal’ adverbs tabun ‘probably’. isn’t it’ and yoo da ‘it appears that’. According to Masuoka (1991. modality is “the linguistic realization/ verbal expression of subjectivity”. etc.132 Polly Szatrowski participants identified and assessed the foods based on the taste. Rather food identification and assessment involves a variety of perspectives. I will also review research on assessment/ evaluation and modality in conversational interaction.2 (b) syooko ga aru suitee ‘inference based 2. first from the outside using sight and smell. Previous research Previous research on territory of information.g.) Masuoka (2007) includes modality in his hierarchical semantic structure. can be expressed in 6 ways. “the modality for expressing knowledge that cannot be declared to be absolutely true”. texture. and past experiences with similar foods. Masuoka and Takubo’s (1992.. Japanese speakers use forms to distinguish between information in the speaker’s versus the hearer’s territory of information. modality. translation by Szatrowski). visual appearance. They do so using modal forms such as daroo ‘probably.g. osoraku ‘perhaps’. Goodwin. (d) tyokkanteki kakusin ‘intuitive conviction’ based on direct experience (as opposed to objective evidence or logical inference) (e. (sort of. They demonstrated that people co-construct assessments using one another’s verbal/ nonverbal behavior to project what is coming in an “intricate. Goodwin (2000) confirmed that assessments are not lodged solely in the individual. surely. feels like) Language Hearsay (they say. p.. pp. Goodwin (1987.g. evidentiality (broadly defined) refers to “any linguistic expression of attitudes toward knowledge”. Goodwin & M.. 7–8). oddly enough actually.g. Aikhenvald (2004)). to iu ‘quote. apparently) Hypothesis Deduction (should. even. yoo da ‘it appears that’. I’ve been told. based on external symptoms or a prediction from the condition of the object). (e) yootai ‘situation. but.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 133 on concrete evidence’ (e. 1987. is obvious ←→ seem. hazu da ‘(I) expect’). undoubtedly. evidently) High categories/ schemas (certainly. modal adverbs hyotto suru to ‘perhaps’. can. Goodwin and M. hear. Knowledge from “Belief/ opinion” and “Sensory/ perceptual evidence” is particularly relevant for this study. dooyara ‘somehow’ and auxiliary verbs rasii ‘apparently’. and (f) dengon ‘hearsay’ (soo da ‘it is said that’.. I suppose) Evidence a. condition presented by an object’ (e. of course. see Chapter 1. even when they did not experience the thing being assessed (C. maybe. 1992). 32. Goodwin and C. .â•‡Inductive inference (must. feel ←→ looks. about) probably) b. I guess. Chapter 6.. because the phenomena of evidentiality he presents can be applied easily to a variety of languages and is useful for a comparison of Japanese and English. mitai da ‘it seems like’. may. only. and M. kind of. 271). suffix -soo da ‘it seems’. nonetheless) possibly. mosika suru to ‘maybe’ and auxiliary verb kamosirenai ‘may be’). however.g. (c) kanoosee ‘possibility’ (e. sounds.â•‡Sensory/ perceptual evidence (see.3 I summarize Chafe’s (1986. 263) phenomena related to evidentiality together with representative English adverbs and modal forms in Table 1.’ to no koto da ‘that is what was said’). could. modal adverbs doomo. at least.g.. Table 1. p. p. Low (might. C. presumably) Matching with expectations (in fact. e. I chose to use Chafe’s (1986) broad definition (rather than more recent strict definitions of evidentiality. According to Chafe (1986. temporally unfolding sequence of embodied action”. perhaps) 3. modal adverb kitto ‘for sure’ and auxiliary verb ni tigainai ‘without a doubt’).â•‡ Phenomena related to evidentiality with English examples Source of knowledge Mode of knowing Reliability ??? Belief/ opinion (I think.g. would. X said ←→ it seems. each eating and commenting on three courses containing 3–4 foods from Japan. as taster lunches. but rather are created through the relations and associations between the participants in the conversational interaction. Goodwin and C. Japanese speakers spent more time eating the same amount of food. and takes the grammatical form I (x) cheese which foregrounds the subject. I refer to these conversations. love suggest personal stances/ subjective experiences). which occurred around lunch time. taste. 1992). DuBois (2007) and Pizziconi (2009) demonstrated that stance and modality. Goodwin (1987. FMM. Goodwin (2000). the Japanese speakers tended to eat the foods together in the same order. objective evaluation indexes qualities of objects (good. (See Appendix B. In contrast to previous research on modality and evidentiality that focused on the speaker’s subjectivity in sentences out of context or the number of forms used in different genres. They talked about more aspects of the food. FFM. enjoyable. respectively. In both languages. MMM). and M.134 Polly Szatrowski Wiggins and Potter (2003) distinguished between subjective evaluation and objective evaluation in a study of food evaluation. Szatrowski (2013) demonstrates how the meaning of “subjective” and “objective” taste expressions for food assessment are negotiated in the interaction. America and Senegal. lovely) and takes the grammatical form The cheese is (x) which foregrounds the object. Subjective evaluation indexes individual preference/ dislike (like. and were more systematic about the way they ate and organized their assessments of each food. They demonstrated that speakers differentiate in their use of subjective versus objective evaluation depending on the speech activity. the taster lunches for the female triads (FFF) were longer than for the male triads (MMM). as well as related topics such as their normal associations with certain foods. enjoy. Chapter 1. In addition. texture. the present study examines how the meaning of these forms emerges in the conversational interaction. Like C. how familiar food in the taster lunch . Overall. 3. ingredients. Goodwin and M. and tried to identify and assess the food from more perspectives. Data The data for this study come from a videotaped corpus of 13 triads of Japanese speakers and 10 triads of American English speakers. are not merely in the mind of a single speaker.) The triads were made up of participants all under 30 or all over 30 years old in various gender combinations (FFF. In contrast. including cooking methods. respectively. Szatrowski (2011. First. The course also included MAFE ‘(chicken in) peanut butter sauce’ on Jasmine rice and a dessert called LAAX ‘(white corn) flour pudding with a sweet (yogurt and) milk sauce’ in a bowl. Third. a prior experience (with a drink similar to the Senegalese BAFIRA ‘hibiscus juice’ they were drinking) shared by two of the participants strongly influences their assessment of the juice. the Japanese speakers were less direct. and worked harder to get others to agree before making their assessment final. Analysis The procedure I used in my analysis is as follows. I focus on sections from two taster lunches where the participants (2 males and 1 female. I identified sections in the taster lunches where the participants were eating and commenting on the same food.) While Americans tended to make their assessments explicit. building on previous research. and readily agreed/ disagreed with one another’s assessments without lengthy negotiation. Chapter 6. In some cases. when one Japanese participant’s assessment differed from the other two. took more time to make their assessments. in their 40’s) are drinking BAFIRA ‘hibiscus juice’ during the Senegalese course.4 (See Noda. Chapter 4. she/ he commented on the divide. The participants were not told what kind of food they were eating nor the country of its origin. The Americans compared the foods to their past experiences more than the Japanese sometimes to the point where their past experience became more important than evaluating the food at hand.) 4. and counted the number of modal and evidential forms used in order to get an overall picture of the distribution of these forms. . Second. and/ or modified his/ her position to reduce the difference. 4. Chapter 1. In my analysis.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 135 compared to what they had at home. 2013) analyzes the verbal and nonverbal behaviors used in a Japanese taster lunch among three women under 30 years old. (See Appendix B. etc. In the English taster lunch analyzed in this paper. I categorized the modal and evidential forms used in the taster lunches. I analyzed how these forms were used in the conversational interaction. changes in the taste of the food as the meal progressed. naa ‘isn’t it (selfdirected)’ 1 4=4%. kanzi ga suru ‘(I) feel’ 2、kanzi (desu) ‘(it’s) a feeling (like)’ 3.[2] 27=27%. zya nai (no)? ‘isn’t it (that)? 2. Tigau? ‘(Is it) different?’ 2. tte omou n da ‘it’s that (I) think’ 1. aziwatta syunkan ni ‘the moment (I) taste (it) [1]. na ‘isn’t it (self-directed)’ 7. { }= general/ past experience. aziteki ni iwasereba ‘if (I) speak tastewise’ 1.{1} C: yo ne ‘isn’t it/ I tell you. yoo na ‘like’ [2]. soo iu ‘like that’ [1]. to omotta dake ‘(I) just thought’ 1. kitto ‘for sure’ 1. to omotte ‘thinking’ 1.[1] 7=7%.136 Truth approximation/ Belief/ opinion Reliability (A: assertion deferment. kanzinai ‘(I) don’t feel’ 1. iro ‘color’ 2 -ppoi ‘-ish’ 5. to omotta† ‘(I) thought’ {1}.{6} C: Saikin nonda ‘(I) have drunk it recently’ {1} 0 2=2%. you know’ 3. () simasen (ka) ‘doesn’t (it smell like)’ 2. siranai ‘(I) don’t know’ [1]. to wa omowanai ‘(I) don’t think’ {1}. kaori (wa) sinai ‘(it) doesn’t smell (like)’ 2.[10] Deduction Table 2. daroo ‘must be’ 1. yo ‘I tell you’ 3. kore kee no ‘of this type’ [1] 25=25% 5=5%. desyoo ‘doesn’t it’ 1. kamosirenai (desu) ‘may be’ 2 C: zettai ‘absolutely’ 1. ne ‘isn’t it/ you know’ 8 101[13]{5} . kaori ‘smell (N)’ 4. zya nakatta ‘it wasn’t’ 1 B: mosikasite ‘maybe’ 1. san-wari gurai ‘about 30%’ 1. C: intuitive conviction) Sensory/ perceptual evidence Comparison/ Matching (with categories or expectations) A: tabun ‘probably’ 1. Simasen ka ‘Doesn’t it…?’ 1 to omou ‘(I) think’ 2. (n) zyan ‘isn’t it (that)’ 2. () sinai? ‘doesn’t (it smell like)’ 1. Nonda koto nai ‘(I) have (never) drunk (it)’ 1 A: wakatta? ‘Can you tell (what it is)?’ 1. Sinai? ‘Doesn’t it…?’ 2. sonna ‘like that’ [2]. nioi o kagu <to> ‘<when> (I) smell (it)’ 1. tasika (ni) ‘for sure’ 4. † = forms used to talk about a recent past thought that changed) English translations reflect the context in which the forms were used Experience Knowledge Final TOTAL particles. B: possibility. koo yuu ‘like this’ [2]. miti no ‘unknown’ [1] A: kedo ‘but’ 101[13]{5} 4. konna ‘like this’ [2]. to (ka) omotte ta† ‘(I) was thinking’ {2} ki ga suru ‘(I) feel’ 1.â•‡ Attitudes toward knowledge in identification and assessment of BAFIRA in JPN1 (MFMâ•›>â•›30) ([ ]= relative clause. azi ‘taste’ 9. tigau/ tigaimasu ‘different’ 2. etc. zya nai ‘isn’t it’ 2. A: Nomu koto nai ‘(We) don’t drink (it)’ 1. iroteki ni wa ‘colorwise’ 1. wakaranai/ wakarimasen ‘(I) can’t tell’ 3. ka <na> ‘(I) wonder’ 1. kaori ga suru ‘(it) smells (like)’ 1.{4} 31=31%. I thought (it would) [1] {1}{[2]} 14=42%. different 1 could 1 6=18%. actually 1. we think {1}. smell 1. I guess 2. B: possibility.[1]{3}{[2]} 5=15%.[1] I think 6{1}.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches Sensory/perceptual evidence Comparison/ Matching (with categories or expectations) B: maybe 1[1]. 1. we don’t Wasn’t it …1 know 1 C: we know 1 0 3=9% 2=6% 33[2]{9}{[2]} . I’m assuming 2. etc. Chapter 6.{4} 1=3% C: definitely 1 2=6%. wonder <ing> 1.â•‡ Attitudes toward knowledge in identification and assessment of BAFIRA in ENG10 (FMM â•›>â•› 30) ([ ]= relative clause. –y 1. taste (N) 2. did not taste {1} like 2{4}. I don’t think 1. close to 1. (did) you think 2. tasted {1}. TOTAL A: I don’t know A: is it? 1. C: intuitive conviction) Experience Table 3. I’m thinking 1.{2} Deduction Truth approximation/ Belief/opinion Reliability (A: assertion deferment. taste (V) 2. { }= general/ past experience) Knowledge Final particles. and some for (4) Comparison/ matching (18%). (8) Final particles (27%). 42). and (8) on Kamio (1990). . Beniko says it is siso ‘perilla. 42). and (8) Final particles (including the final connective kedo ‘but’).g. and intuitive conviction) (25%). (4) Comparison/ Matching with categories or expectations. For (1) Truth approximation. (6) Experience. tag questions) with this function. and (1) Truth approximation (assertion deferment.138 Polly Szatrowski 4. the American participants used many forms for (2) Belief/ opinion (42%). (3) Sensory/ perceptual evidence. (5) Deduction.2.1 Modal and evidential categories and quantitative results I categorized the modal and evidential forms used in the taster lunches into the 8 types shown in the top of Table 2 and Table 35: (1) Truth approximation (A: assertion deferment. C: intuitive conviction)/ Reliability. I added (6) and (7) because they are also relevant to knowledge. The development proceeds as follows. In response to Chikao’s question about whether the BAFIRA is acerora ‘Barbados cherry’. The total number of forms expressing attitudes toward knowledge used by the Japanese (101) (Table 2) was three times that of the Americans (33) (Table 3). (1) also on Masuoka and Takubo (1992). (7) Knowledge. 4 minutes 54 seconds) than for the Americans (6 sections. while Americans used only a few for possibility and intuitive conviction. (7) Knowledge. and none for assertion deferment. 5. and Chikao (male. and (8) Final particles. In contrast.. Beniko and Chikao are married and friends with Aki. (2) Belief/ opinion. and (3) Sensory/ perceptual evidence (15%). The Japanese participants tended to use (3) Sensory/ perceptual evidence (31%). Beniko (female. B: possibility. I also extend A. Types (1)–(5) build on research by Chafe (1986). 4. Japanese participants used more forms for intuitive conviction and assertion deferment than for possibility. 1992) to apply to (6) Experience. possibility. B and C (from Masuoka & Takubo. beefsteak plant’ and uses a variety of modal/ evidential forms 5. not all of the possible modal and evidential forms in these languages. The fact that Americans used few (8) Final particles reflects the fact that English has only a few forms (e.1 Sections of the Japanese taster lunch conversation about BAFIRA I will analyze the conversational development in the first two sections (BAFIRA1 and BAFIRA2) about BAFIRA ‘hibiscus juice’ in the Japanese taster lunch (JPN1) among Aki (male. seated in that order from left to right as viewed from the camera. 47). despite the fact that the length of their talk about the BAFIRA was shorter for the Japanese (4 sections. These types reflect the forms used in the taster lunches.5 minutes).2 Analysis of the conversational interaction 4. â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 139 throughout (1)–(6) to get Aki and Chikao to agree with her identification. Next. 7. questioning her identification of the juice as shiso. English translation and Japanese romanization.>|| 730C //あ、アセ||ロラとかそうゆうやつ？ //A. Chikao begins an identification sequence with his question in 730C about whether the juice is aserora ‘acerola (Barbados cherry)’. Chapter 1 and Burdowski. See Appendix A. By unmodulated I mean an utterance lacking a modal/ evidential form. Then. 729b (1. Beniko drinks some BAFIRA. and states that it is non-alcoholic. (is it) ace||rola or that kind of stuff? 731b しそ。 Siso. Beniko appears to comment that the taste of the BAFIRA is suppai ‘sour’.|| sup-. Chikako disagrees throughout. 6. and Aki comments on the MAFE. Then. Then in 728b in (1).6 but after the server agrees. using an unmodulated form.) Next. Beniko points to the BAFIRA. with an unmodulated utterance Kore wa nonarukooru desu. Pauses are indicated at the beginning of the utterance following the pause in order to save space. transcription conventions. prior to the excerpt from the second section in (1). The participants first see the BAFIRA in the first section (data not shown) when the Japanese server brings out the Senegalese course. . Chapter 1 regarding the data. ‘This is non-alchoholic’. the server requests that the participants eat and they do so after each pronouncing the ritual expression Itadakimasu ‘(I) humbly partake’.0)8 //＜うる、＞|| (1. (See Beeman.|| sou-. Forms that were counted for Tables 2 and 3 are highlighted in the examples. beefsteak plant). (1) BAFIRA2 – Taste and Identification (17:40–17:56) 728b //うー、||すっ、＜すっぱい＞。 //U:. Chikao repeats Beniko’s response with rising intonation. Chapter 10. 8. Beniko changes this utterance to an agreement request by adding the final particles yo ne ‘isn’t it’. and Aki attempts to get confirmation in 732A by repeating the first two mora of Chikao’s aserora (perhaps suggesting his doubt). and Aki agrees using modal/ evidential forms which in some cases seem to be used to acknowledge Chikao’s opinion. beefsteak plant)’. Shiso (perilla. Chapter 6. ase||rora toka soo yuu yatu? //Oh. and the server agrees again. <(it’s) sour>.7 Beniko gives an unmodulated response in 731b Siso ‘Shiso (perilla. //U:. <suppai>. This does not necessarily assign the pause to the speaker of the utterance.0) //<uru. â•‡ Chikao’s head tilt R twist L Subsequently. Beniko reaffirms that it is siso zyuusu ‘shiso juice’ in 734b.2) ((Figure 1. eee? Shiso? Shi-. Ye:s. whaaat? Figure 1. and postposing the modal adverb tabun ‘probably’ indicating assertion deferment. (3. ending her utterance with to omou ‘I think’ (making explicit that her knowledge comes from a belief/ opinion). えー。 735A E:. Beniko used to omou ‘(I) think’ when differing opinions . tabun. This is typical of the uses of to omou ‘(I) think’ in the Japanese taster lunches.140 Polly Szatrowski 732A アセ-？ Ase-? Ace-? 733C しそ？ Siso? Shiso? 734b ～しそジュースだと思う。たぶん。 Siso zyuusu da to omou.6) ((AC: drink the BAFIRA)) 736C ええ？ Ee? Wha:t? *squints and lowers eyebrows 737b 違う？ →C Tigau? Is (it) different? (2. (I) think (it’s) shiso juice probably. C: head tilt R twist L)) 738b 何？ Nani? What? 739C しそ？し-、えええ？　 Siso? Si-. (not) especially for me at least. Body movements that occurred during an utterance are marked with a *. right) while twisting one’s neck in the opposite direction (e. left) as a “head tilt twist” (e.0) ((A: drinks the BAFIRA. //but shi||so (is) to begin with.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 141 had been expressed (here Chikao’s acerola in 730C and Beniko’s shiso in 731b) to summarize her final thought.g. 1993). after nobody responds in the subsequent 1-second pause. sou-. Subsequently. Chikao disagrees in 740C with Beniko’s earlier assessment of the BAFIRA as suppai ‘sour’ (728b). I tell you. . Body movements that occurred between two utterances are indicated in (( )) after the time (in single parentheses) in which they occurred.) 10. However. (See Figure 1. She ends her utterances in 744b and 746b with the final form zyan ‘you know/ isn’t it’ that indicates her intuitive conviction while requesting Chikao’s agreement. Next. head tilt R twist L). Aki and Chikao drink their BAFIRA for the first time. Chapter 6. Back channel line up with the end of the previous utterance (Szatrowski. (you use the word) sour. by pointing out that shiso is not excessively sour (it is only sour because they put salt in it). with his head tilt twist9 in response to Beniko’s question in 737b shown in Figure 1... and Chikao shows his disbelief while squinting and lowering his eyebrows in 736C.g. after Beniko and Chikao drink some more juice. Beniko cancels Chikao’s implication that the juice is not shiso juice because it is not very sour. but his response during 745b is a head tilt twist. and this implies that the juice is not shiso. he softens this utterance with the postposed elements betu ni watasi wa ‘(not) especially for me at least’ in 741C. which makes it clear that this knowledge is more in his territory than hers.6) ((C: drinks the BAFIRA)) 742b す-、すっぱくって//だってし||そってそもそも、 su-. Chikao modulates his assessment in 740C with the sensory/ perceptual evidential kanzinai ‘(I) don’t feel’ and the final particle yo ‘I tell you’.10 In (2).4) ((bC: drink the BAFIRA)) 740C あんまりすっぱく感じないよ。 Anmari suppaku kanzinai yo. and with his repetition of Beniko’s Siso? ‘Shiso?’ with rising intonation in 739C.. C: head tilt R twist L)) 741C～別に私は。 betu ni watasi wa. (3. I will refer to tilting one’s head to one side (e. (1. (2) BAFIRA2 (continued) – Taste and Identification (17:57–18:12) (3. 9.g. (I) don’t feel (it) is very sour. suppaku tte //datte si||so tte somosomo. in 742b–746b. (it’s) not that oh excessively sour.|| 749b //違う？|| →C //Tigau?|| //(Is it) different?|| . ° °it’s that (it’s) sour. while tilting her cup to look at her BAFIRA.|| 744b そんなもうめっちゃすっぱくないじゃん。 sonna moo mettya suppaku nai zyan.|| Well (I) have a feeling like (it’s) shiso-ish //but. ‘if (you) ask is (it) 100% shiso. and kedo ‘but’ which allows for other options.0) But isn’t it shiso? (Is it something) different? (1. in 748A.0)((b: looks at the BAFIRA while tilting her cup)) 748A まあしそっぽいような気がする//けど。|| Maa sisoppoi yoo na ki ga suru //kedo.’ followed by the result in 752C that indicates that the likelihood is very small (//san-wari-gurai siso||ppoi ‘// (I would say) about 30% shiso||-ish’). Then in 751C.|| //somehow. after a long fricative in-breath (. Beniko requests Chikao’s agreement more directly in 747b indicating her intuitive conviction with zya nai? ‘isn’t it?’ and assertion deferment with Tigau? ‘(Is it something) different?’. By framing his response as a conditional and probability he makes his disagreement less direct. he agrees with Aki’s identification as sisoppoi ‘shiso-ish’ in 750C. 745b 塩使うから＝ Sio tukau kara= (You) use salt so= *C: head tilt R twist L 746b °すっぱいんじゃん。° °suppai n zyan. suggesting that the evidence for her utterance comes from the way it looks. (3) BAFIRA2 (continued) – Identification (18:13–18:24) 747b (1.142 Polly Szatrowski 743A //なんか、|| //nanka. it may be that he modulates his utterance to show consideration for Chikao’s opinion. but ends this utterance with kedo ‘but’. When Beniko repeats her question to Chikao in 749b.0) Demo siso zya nai? Tigau? (1. Aki agrees that the juice is sisoppoi ‘shiso-ish’ using the comparator -ppoi ‘-ish’. isn’t it. he looks at Aki and qualifies this identification with a conditional hyakupaasento siso ka tte //iu to.0)でもしそじゃない？違う？ →C (1. ° Next in (3). After a 1-second pause.shhhh). you know. and ends his utterance with the sensory/ perceptual evidential yoo na ki ga suru ‘(I) have a feeling like’ (suggesting that he is not totally sure or that his evidence is weak). While agreeing with Beniko. for sure. describing it as kekkoo … usui ‘quite … thin/ weak’.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 143 750C いや、しそっぽいけど、 Iya. usui. Chapter 6.|| //Somehow it’s that (it’s) that thing. || 756b //うーん。|| //U:n. Nah. 751C .shhhh if (you) ask is (it) 100% shiso.shhhh hyaku-paasento siso ka tte //iu to. (I) wouldn’t drink (it). isn’t it. 755A 薄//いって||いうかこう//微妙な、|| Usu//i tte|| iu ka koo //bimyoo na. for sure’).|| //This. In (4). Aki agrees with Chikao and turns the discussion to the taste/ texture of the juice in 753A–755A. Beniko agrees in 756b and adds a conditional to make her negative assessment less direct in 757b–759b (nodo kawaite nakattara nomanai ne kitto. modulated by the final particle ne ‘you know’ and the modal adverb of intuitive conviction kitto ‘for sure’.|| 754A そうそう、なんか、薄い。 soo soo. you know. you know. quite. In 760C Chikao makes an inner mouth click {tlp} and agrees with Aki and Beniko’s negative assessments by repeating Aki’s bimyoo ‘indistinct’ and using the self-directed final particle na ‘isn’t it’. .|| 757b //これね、|| //Kore ne. and bimyoo ‘indistinct’. (4) BAFIRA2 (continued) – Taste/ Texture (18:21–18:32) 753A //なんかあれなんですよね、結構、|| //Nanka are na n desu yo ne. .= ‘if (I) weren’t thirsty (I) wouldn’t drink (it). sisoppoi kedo. like. // (I would say) about 30% shiso||-ish.|| Thi//n/ weak|| or like this //an indistinct. right right.|| //Yea:h. (it’s) shiso-ish but. nanka. thin/ weak.|| 758b 喉渇いてなかったら＝ nodo kawaite nakattara= if (I) weren’t thirsty= 759b～飲まないねきっと。 nomanai ne kitto. kekkoo.shhhh 百パーセントしそかって//いうと、 . you know. 752C 三割ぐらいしそ||っぽい。 san-wari-gurai siso||ppoi. and the fragrance. However. Yea:h. 2007). respectively (these utterances are not shown in (5)).0) {tlp} (It)’s an indistinct taste. Beniko requests Chikao’s confirmation of her intuitive conviction with her negative question in formal distal style in 769b. Figure 2.|| koo kuti tuka-. by suggesting that evidence from the smell supports her identification of the juice as shiso in 763b–767b. Chikao and Aki co-construct a negative response in 772C and 773A. Subsequently. Bringing her nose close to the juice (Figure 2). Although her utterance in 767b ending with a modal expression of intuitive conviction (desyoo ‘doesn’t it’) requests agreement. (5) BAFIRA2 (continued) – Smell and Identification (18:33–18:46) 762A .0) {tlp}微妙な味だな。{tlp} (1. Beniko begins another identification sequence overlapping Aki’s fricative in-breath in 762C. {tlp} 761b うーん。 U:n. After they all drink some more juice.11 After Beniko requests Chikao’s confirmation of her intuitive conviction again repeating her negative question.â•‡ Beniko smells the BAFIRA (763b) 11. she only succeeds in getting Aki’s nebulous response in 768A. she demonstrates (Clark & Gerrig. both Chikao and Aki respond negatively in distal style and direct style.|| like this (I) us.my mouth.0) {tlp}Bimyoo na azi da na. isn’t it. 2002. In (5). this time in informal direct style.144 Polly Szatrowski 760C (1. . Hayashi (2003) on co-construction. //What. de kaori. 1990) with her body how one can smell the shiso fragrance. Aki requests repair with his repetition in 770A Kao-? ‘Fra-?’ and Chikao does a head tilt twist which elicits Beniko’s laughter. See Szatrowski (2000. {tlp} (1.shh//h|| *head tilt R twist L 763b //え、||で香り、こう口つか-、 //E. 6) ((A: smells the BAFIRA. this is the fragrance of shiso°”’. While bringing her face close in order to smell the juice.|| //Right right right right. 2|| //1 ((Not) mu-)1|| //2do-.0) ((AbC: smell the BAFIRA)) 769b しません//か？|| Simasen //ka? || →C Doesn’t it (smell like that)? *C: head tilt L twist R //かお-？|| 770A //Kao-?|| //Fra-?|| (1. As in 734b. °ん。° 768A °N. ‘it’s that (I) think …. Beniko uses her utterance ending in to omou ‘(I) think’ after opposing opinions have been expressed to summarize the discussion with her final thought about the smell of . which makes her identification even more specific. doesn’t it. and 767b) with a more exaggerated one in 779b–781b. kore tte siso no kaori°” ‘“°Oh. when (I/you) bring (it) near. I tell you. //(it) has the fragrance of shiso||.|| //しその香りがす||るでしょう。 767b //siso no kaori ga su||ru desyoo.)1||//2si. Chapter 6. 3|| In (6) Beniko upgrades her previous demonstration (in 763b. 765C うん。 Un. //3does it. ° (3. C: head tilt L twist R)) 771b ｛フフ//1フフ｝1|| {hu hu //1hu hu1||} 772C //1（あま-、）1||//2し、2|| //1 (Ama-. 766A //そうそうそうそう。|| //Soo soo soo soo.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 145 764b 近づけたときに、 tikazuketa toki ni.2|| *head tilt R twist L 773A //2香2||りはあんまりしない//3な。3|| //2Kao2||ri wa anmari sinai //3na. she animates the direct quote of her thought in a high soft pitch to show her delight in the smell in 780b “°A. Uh huh. She ends this utterance with tte omou n da yo ne. 3|| //2 (It) 2 || doesn’t have much fragrance. ° °Uh. 764b. you know’. followed by the postposed element in 781b. Beniko’s final particle na ‘isn’t it’ and modal adverb kitto ‘for sure’ (788b). this is the fragrance of shiso°”. <when> (I) smell (it)= *smelling the BAFIRA 780b 「°あ、これってしその香り°」って思うんだよね。 “°A. 779b 顔、を近づけた瞬間に、匂いを嗅ぐ<と>＝ kao. I tell you. 13.12 After Chikao questions Beniko’s identification of the juice as red shiso in 786C. //Nah normally|| it’s that (it) doesn’t (have a smell). Oh. When Aki continues to indicate that he can only tell from the taste in 783A. nioi o kagu <to>= (my) face. you know. Jones (1990.146 Polly Szatrowski the drink. *AbC:smell the BAFIRA Figure 3.â•‡ Aki. 2004) notes this tendency for Japanese speakers to drop the topic in the face of conflict. the fragrance of red shiso. kore tte siso no kaori°” tte omou n da yo ne. but still uses the comparator -ppoi ‘-ish’ and the final particle ne ‘isn’t it’. the instant (I) bring (it) close (to the juice). Beniko and Chikao smell the BAFIRA together (780b) 781b～赤じその香り。 akaziso no kaori. is it that (it) is so. soo na no. but. it’s that (I) think “°Oh. 782A あ、そうなの。 A. 12. Beniko indicates that it depends on the person in 785b. and looking into her bowl turns her attention to the Senegalese dessert. . and assertion deferment adverb tabun ‘probably’ (791b) were not counted in Table 2 because they refer to the LAAX dessert not the BAFIRA. Aki reiterates his stance that the juice is shiso in 789A more strongly than he did in 748A.13 (6) BAFIRA2 (continued) – Smell and Identification (18:48–19:09) //いや普段は||しないんだけど、 778b //Iya hudan wa|| sinai n da kedo. o tikazuketa syunkan ni. (I) can only tell (what it is) the instant (I) taste (it). ° hito ni yotte tigau kara ne. This is a sweet thing probably. -ish. 47). 1|| 789A //1まあでもし1||そ、でもしそっぽい、しそ、っぽいね。 //1Maa demo si1||so. Chapter 6. the Japanese participants disagreed indirectly using implied disagreements and conditional forms. 6) about BAFIRA ‘hibiscus juice’ in the American English taster lunch (ENG10) among Ula (female. the American participants stated their opinions openly modulating their statements primarily with I think.2 Sections of the English taster lunch conversation about BAFIRA Next. ° it depends on the person. 1|| Yeah this (=LAAX) is sweet //1isn’t it for sure. //1Well but shi1||so. their body movements (lowering eyebrows. 4.) also indicated their attitudes towards knowledge. and Wil (male. 785b まあ、°人によって違うからね。 Maa. They also frequently involved other participants directly with agreement requests and final particles. 42). 4. *C: drinks BAFIRA 784b °そっか、 °Sokka. so. siso.6) ((b: picks up her bowl and looks inside it)) 786C 赤じそ？ Akaziso? Red shiso? 787b 赤じそ。 Akaziso. °Is that so. Vic (male. isn’t it. etc. made . Ula and Vic are partners and friends with Wil. you know. Well. 790b～これは甘いものですたぶん。 Kore wa amai mono desu tabun. I will analyze the conversational development in three of the six sections (BAFIRA1. 42) (left to right as viewed from the camera). Though not counted in Table 2. and used to omou ‘I think’ after opposing opinions had been expressed to summarize their final thought. In contrast to the Japanese conversation. *pointing at the LAAX In summary. Red shiso. head tilt twists. demo sisoppoi. and used many forms of truth approximation (in particular assertion deferment and intuitive conviction) and sensory/ perceptual evidential forms. looking at and smelling the food. (1. ppoi ne. shiso.2. 788b～うんこれは甘い//1なきっと。1||　 Un kore wa amai //1na kitto. but shiso-ish.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 147 783A 味わった瞬間しかわかんない。 Aziwatta syunkan sika wakannai. and opens an assessment sequence with his response cry15 (Goffman. Their negative recollection of these experiences influenced the participants to have a negative attitude towards the BAFIRA. which ends with Vic saying that the identification of that beverage remains a mystery (600V). which links back to Wil’s comment prior to the story in 562W. and Chikao (4) did after the Japanese taster lunch. 15. and Wil all rated the BAFIRA ‘2’ on a 7-point scale. Vic. Ula joins in the telling. 254–255). This gets Ula to recall some stuff that she got down on the wharf of Istanbul and request confirmation from Vic that the BAFIRA is not that with her tag question in 566u. contrasting it with a drink that is harmless. and Ula bringing the conversation back to the present in 601u This (=BAFIRA) is also not what I thought it would be. indicates that the taste of the BAFIRA is contrary to expectation. (7) BAFIRA1 – Smell. Then Vic and Wil drink some BAFIRA. because the BAFIRA is drinkable (571V). and his assessment This is not what you think it is using the verb think in 562W. they did not use modal/ evidential forms as in the Japanese conversation. Ula. and when they did. 1981) in 557W Oooh. Wil smells the BAFIRA (Figure 4). in particular to reminisce and tell about shared past experiences with a similar drink.148 Polly Szatrowski fewer attempts to involve others in moving toward a common identification and assessment of the food. who had been eating his MAFE and smelling the BAFIRA during their story. Wil. Her subsequent “reminiscence recognition solicit” (567u) leads to a story (Lerner. pp.14 In (7). Beniko (4). After Vic and Ula’s story. states his personal belief/ opinion that the drink contains tarragon using I think in 602W. After the taster lunch. Next. Vic jokes that the BAFIRA is not your grandma’s grapefruit juice (563V). and begins to tell Wil about the beverage that Ula had in Istanbul in 572V. 1992. . he makes an unmodulated claim that it has a different taste (559W). Vic eventually responds to 568u in the negative. Ula and Vic also moved away from the here-and-now. and Identification (17:34–18:42) Figure 4. which was lower than Aki (3). Response cries are indicated with gothic font.â•‡ Wil smells the BAFIRA 14. while Ula announces that she is going to try the LAAX (560u). Taste. W: smells the BAFIRA)) 557W Oooh. no I don’t //remember that.I can’t even //describe it. is it? *pointing at V with spoon (turned upside down. *V.W: drink the BAFIRA 561V O:h. *smelling the BAFIRA 560u I gotta.0) This is gonna be a different taste. 587u Like this. 2 || 576V //2it was2|| not drink//3able. 562W This is not what you think it is.|| //{he he}|| 564W //This isn’t|| 565u 566u this isn’t that stuff that I got down on the wharf of Istanbul. 559W (1.|| wi://th|| 582V //Ye||:ah. 583u u:m 584V //It was lik-|| 585u //It was|| really red deeply red.0) Oh she got a beverage (1. || 569u //O::h=|| 570V 571V noah cuz I can drink it. 575u //2Tart and <tangy>. 563V This is not your grandma’s grapefruit //juice. || 578V //It wa||s salty? 579u //It tasted like. 1|| 574u //1Oooh1|| that’s really tangy. tch pomegranate juice or something? 592V Right.|| //fermented|| carrot juice or //whatever it was.|| 581u //fish sau:ce.0) ((Figure 4. ((creaky voice during quote)) 591u I thought it would be like um. parallel to table) 567u Remember that568V I don’t. *lowering eyebrows 558u Hm. 586V Like like this. 593u And it was like salty::? .0) in Istanbul= *u: drinks the BAFIRA 573V and //1it was. || 580V //and had|| I. try some of this (=LAAX). 588V {ha ha ha ha ha ha} 589u Cuz as soon as you said “Ooh this is not what I thought it would be”= *V: drinks the BAFIRA 590u I was like.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 149 (2. 572V (2. Chapter 6. 3|| 577u //3Oh3|| my go//sh. “Is it that stuff I bought”. 593u salty 586V. . and offers a reason in 649V Cuz it’s definitely not fruity (with an adverb of intuitive conviction and the comparator -y). 595u (tasted/ was like) fish sauce 571V I can drink it 576V not drinkable 574u really tangy. 594V. where she reaffirms Wil’s identification of tarragon using the verb I think. and praises Wil for noticing it (647u). Ula expresses her opinion that the BAFIRA has tarragon for the third time using I think (646u).|| 601u //Well this also is not what I thought it would be.150 Polly Szatrowski 594V It was like fish sauce. 587u (red) like this 585u really red deeply red 595u.|| 602W I think there’s tarragon in here. 575u tart 578V. and tries to get Vic to agree with Wil’s and her identification of tarragon in the BAFIRA with her question about whether he smells it (641u). Ula returns to the identification of the BAFIRA in 640u in (8). *smelling the BAFIRA Table 4 summarizes the similarities and differences between BAFIRA in the present and the drink in Istanbul in the past described in Vic and Ula’s story in (7). After a repair sequence where Vic clarifies the referent for her question. and Ula wonders about the color of the juice (650u). || 597u something red in it. 595u //Fish sau:::ce with|| *W smells the BAFIRA 596V //that would be the best description of it. Table 4. Vic finally responds with a modal of possibility in 648V Maybe so. 597u with something red in it 602W there’s tarragon in here After about a minute of talk about the MAFE. Her use of the expression Good call (647u) suggests that she views the taster lunch as a game. 598u Wasn’t it was it not the fermented carrot juice that they sold? 599V I I I think that’s what we figured out later? 600V //and I never knew where they got that from.â•‡ BAFIRA and the drink in Instanbul BAFIRA The drink in Istanbul 559W a different taste 569u fermented carrot juice 562W not what you think it is 601u not what I thought it would be 591u thought it would be like … pomegranate juice 563V not your grandma’s grapefruit juice 579u & 581u. this time at a pomegranate juice stand. Ula draws on her experience with Vic again. 656u And the reason I’m saying that is= 657u I’m thinking about that pomegranate juice stand we stopped at? 658u The orange and pomegranate stand? 659V Ri:ght. *brings cup to nose 641u Do you smell tarragon er taste tarragon in //this?|| 642V //In this?|| 643u No in the drink. (1. pomegranate juice didn’t quite taste like I thought it would.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 151 (8) BAFIRA4 – Smell/ Taste and Identification (19:36–19:53) 640u I think you’re (=W) right about the tarragon. *V: drinks the BAFIRA 648V (1.5) Maybe so::.|| 661V 662u the. 660u And remember that //pomegra||nate stand where= //I do. When Ula mentions that the juice at the stand didn’t quite taste like I thought it would (662u).0) not. Chapter 6. This makes Ula’s identification relevant to the present because Vic’s reason harkens back to Ula’s assessment of the BAFIRA as tangy (574u) and tart (575u) and Wil’s and Ula’s previous utterances in 562W not what you think it is and 601u not what I thought it would be. this time to justify her identification of the BAFIRA as pomegranate juice. 649V Cuz it’s definitely not fruity. Ula requests attention with you know. again moving out of the here-and-now back to her experience with Vic in Istanbul. using the adverb actually and modal could. like when you eat a pomegranate? 666u Right. . 644V Oh in the drink? *u: drinks the BAFIRA 645u Mmm hmm. (9) BAFIRA4 – Identification from experience (20:06–20:29) 655u You know this actually could have some pomegranate in it. 663V Yeah you know that is true. In 655u. 647u Good call Wil. She outlines her reasons in 656u–662u. 646u I think there is tarragon in it. and deduces that there is some pomegranate in the BAFIRA from her prior experience in Istanbul. Next in (9). Vic agrees and explains that it tasted more tart and not like a Â�pomegranate (664V–665V). 664V That was more on the kind of tart side= 665V and not. 650u Wonder<ing> what the red’s from. and uses I guess and I think to relate this to the fact that he expected it to be fruit juice from the color.16 The Senegalese course ends with Wil ringing the bell for the next course. When she offers the possibility that it was fermented pomegranate juice using the modal maybe (852u). *lowering eyebrows 852u Maybe it was //fermented|| pomegranate juice. Chapter 8. and Vic expressing his desire to find out the identity of the BAFIRA. it’s kind of an odd taste for me. 842u I think what. 853V //It was|| 16. Vic disagrees (854V). Wil opens up an assessment sequence in the beginning of (10) with his question in //What did you|| think of the u:h. my stomach would be in knots if I did. and Vic’s sentiment in 563V and 845V–848V.) . {ha ha|| ha ha ha} //What did you think of the u:h. comments on the taste being odd (845V).152 Polly Szatrowski After about 6 minutes. The punchline of Ula’s story repeats Wil’s utterance in 562W. 845V But it’s. (Karatsu. Ula dissipates her disagreement with Vic with a demonstration of her experience in Istanbul (857u–868u) that reiterates the similarity between the present and her past thought in 868u I was like “Wow that’s no:t what I thought”. //kind of want. 846V I guess when I see something like this= 847V I think fruit juice. Ula argues that the color was comparable (to pomegranate juice) (855u).0) Although I’ll finish this. 851V E::hh. Ula responds negatively in 841u–842u beginning with I (don’t) think. analyzes the effect of repeating story punch lines. (11) BAFIRA6 – Identification (26:54–27:23) 849u //That tastes suspi||ciously= 850u close to whatever that bottled stuff I got in Istanbul. 843V I think I could not drink a lot of that. Vic also indicates his negative opinion using I think (843V). || 838W 839u Thi:s? 840W fruit juice.{he} 848V That’s what I. but Vic disagrees because the taste was really salty (856V). 841u tch I:: don’t think I could finish the glass. Ula returns to her past experience with the bottled stuff she had in Istanbul. her own utterance in 601u. (10) BAFIRA6 – Assessment and Identification (26:34–26:54) 837V There’s only //one more course. 844V (1. fruit juice using the verb think to elicit Ula’s and Vic’s personal opinion. but it tasted otherwise.|| In (11). the Americans did not come to a final concensus about the identity of the BAFIRA.â•‡ 861u 862u cuz we were right down there. 863V {ha ha} 864V Right by the //<fish pier> where we bought it|| from. they seemed to all agree that it contained tarragon in (8). Chapter 6. Although they all appeared to dislike it. 858u And I and I open the bottle= 859u I took a big swig= Figure 5.â•‡ 859u 860u 861u I was just like= I didn’t wanna spit it out= Figure 6. 855u It was really deeply //1re:d.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 153 854V (1. Like the Japanese participants. so I had to swallow it= 868u I was like “Wow that’s no:t what I thought”. but it was so::. 1|| 856V //1but1|| that was really sa:lty. ((W rings the bell)) 869V Yeah I I’ll be real curious as to what this is. and Ula and Vic appeared to .0) Ne:ah. 865u //amongst all the people. 857u But it.|| 866V {ha ha ha ha} 867u And I. Japanese speakers used to omou after a differing opinion(s) had been voiced to finalize their opinion and summarize the discussion. Although not counted in Table 3. However. Chapter 9. Further research is required to determine whether these results hold in other contexts. There was more focus on the fact that the BAFIRA was not what it appeared to be and the dramaticization of Ula and Vic’s experience with a similar beverage in Istanbul than with the BAFIRA in the here-and-now.) 5. . a comparison of the Americans’ use of I think with the Japanese speakers use of the translation equivalent to omou showed that while Americans used I think in successive utterances. 17. but also the forms available in each language to express attitudes toward knowledge. truth approximation (primarily assertion deferment and intuitive conviction) and final particles.17 in contrast to the Japanese taster lunch in which many modal/ evidential forms and final particles were used for this purpose. while the Americans focused more on their personal identifications and assessments.154 Polly Szatrowski agree that it could be pomegranate juice in (9). See Karatsu (2012) for an analysis of how response cries heighten involvement in storytelling. Not only how the participants assess and categorize food. and possibly with her question in 641u. and the attitudes that are chosen to be expressed vary across culture and conversations about food. the Americans also used many response cries in their reaction to the food (557W Oooh. (See Wiggins’ analysis of yuck and eugh. this result comes from a specific context. Conclusion A comparison of the modal/ evidential forms used by 2 triads (2 men and 1 woman) in their 40’s drinking an unfamiliar juice from Senegal showed that the Japanese used sensory evidential forms. These results suggest that the use of similar modal and evidential forms and their location within an activity sequence differs across languages. 574u Oooh. The Japanese requested agreement and frequently used forms that included the other participants in their identifications and assessments. while the Americans tended to use belief/ opinion. 851V E::hh occurred just prior to a storytelling. and disagreed openly with each other using unmodulated utterances. One cannot help but notice the paucity of forms requesting agreement. Only Ula requests agreement with her tag question in 566u and negative question in 598u. and there may be different distributions depending on the data and genre. a taster lunch. The Americans used I think in successive utterances to express their personal beliefs/ opinions directly. Furthermore. 18. 851V E::hh 18). (1987). Goodwin (Eds. (2000). (2012). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. Englebretson (Ed. . C. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.â•›C..). 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). & C. & J. C. Wertsch (Eds.â•‡ Modality and evidentiality in Japanese and American English taster lunches 155 This study shows that the use of modal/ evidential forms is not limited to the subjective judgement of a single speaker in the present. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. (2004). 1–25). USA). C. C. Chapter 6. Goffman. 182–193).1–54. & Goodwin. Emotion within situated activity. (1986). A. The stance triangle. In J. In R. Budwig. M. 21(1). 67–100.â•›H. In A. Goodwin. M.. Stancetaking in discourse (pp. Communication: An arena of development (pp. Assessments and the construction of context. W. C. University of Michigan. J. Quotation as demonstrations. Uzgris. & Goodwin. Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction (pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Conflict in Japanese conversation. M.â•›Y. (1992). Jones. Language. Goodwin. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Norwood. Results contribute to previous research on modality and evidentiality that has tended to focus on sentences out of context. The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Goodwin. Goodwin. and how body movements can express attitudes towards knowledge (Goodwin. NJ: Ablex Publishing. Duranti & C. Rather verbal and nonverbal expressions of modality/ evidentiality are used to adjust and involve others in identifications and assessments that emerge moment-by-moment in the interaction. They also contribute to cross-cultural understanding and are relevant for food development and marketing. K.â•›H. Nichols (Eds. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics. Streeck. UK: Oxford University Press. (1994). & Goodwin. DuBois. 2011). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 29–64). Managing topics in conversation in Japanese. (2007). Stamford. I. Oxford. Karatsu. 147–189). Conversational storytelling among Japanese women: Conversational circumstances. Jones. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics. In N. M. Goodwin. (1990). 33–54). E.). Kamio. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chafe & J. (Doctoral dissertation. (2003). Evidentiality.â•›H. Amsterdam/ Â�Philadelphia: John Benjamins. by showing how these forms are used in conversational interaction.). 764–805. In W. In P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1990). Ann Arbor. 1(1). Chafe. CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. & Gerrig.. Forms of talk. MI. Clark.). References Aikhenvald. M. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments.). Szatrowski (Ed. LeBaron (Eds. A. R. 261–272). (2004). Hayashi. Contextures of action. social circumstances and tellability of stories. H. (1981). Rethinking context (pp. K. Gendai nihongo no koozoo [Structure of modern Japanese]. P. Szatrowski. 313–339). Gendai nihongo bunpoo no rinkaku [Outline of modern Japanese grammar]. 513–531. 7. Kizu (Eds. 5. Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre. Kiso nihongo bunpoo – Kaiteeban [Basic Japanese grammar – Revised edition]. Berkeley Linguistics Society. Kyoodoo hatuwa ni okeru sankasya no tatiba to gengo/ higengo koodoo no kanren ni tuite [Relation between participant status and verbal/ nonverbal behavior in co-construction]. perspective and footing in Japanese co-construction. (2007). Szatrowski. G. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Szatrowski. (2011). (2010). 281–292. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. & Takubo. (2002).156 Polly Szatrowski Lerner. T. Sisyokukai no gengo/ higengo koodoo ni tuite – 30-sai miman no zyosee guruupu o tyuusin ni [Verbal and nonverbal behavior in a taster lunch – Focusing on a group of women under 30].). Jeanette K. The interactive consequences of epistemic indexicality – Some thoughts on the epistemic marker -kamosirenai.. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. P. Hikaku Nihongaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Sentaa Kenkyuu Nenpoo [Center for Comparative Japanese Studies Annual Bulletin]. Hedberg (Eds. (2009). Y. T. (1993). S. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (1974). (2003). F. Syntactic projectability and co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. T. Assisted story telling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. (2007). Tabemono o hyooka-suru sai ni motiirareru “kyakukanteki hyoogen” to “syukanteki hyoogen” ni tuite [On the use of “subjective” and “objective” expressions for food assessment in Japanese]. Pizziconi & M. P. F. 315–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 28. J. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Topics on the grammar-pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Dr. Masuoka. (1992). Zacharski & N.). item and subjective vs. Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. Nihongo no danwa no koozoo bunseki – Kanyuu no danwa no sutoratezii no koosatu [Structure of Japanese conversation-Invitation strategies]. Szatrowski. British Journal of Social Psychology 42. Japanese modality (pp. In B. P. Pizziconi. Qualitative Sociology. . (1992). Modariti no bunpoo [A grammar of modality]. & Potter.. (Ochanomizu University) Szatrowski. Szatrowski. (2000). objective constructions in everyday food assessments. P. 247–271. 259–286). Minami. (Ed. Masuoka. Nihongo no modarit(e)i tankyuu [Investigations of Japanese modality]. Minami. 95–120． Wiggins. P. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Masuoka. Nihongo Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics]. 15(3). Kokuritu Kokugo Kenkyuuzyo Ronbunsyuu [NINJAL Research Papers]. Gundel (pp. Subjectivity. (2013). (1993). P. In R. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.). 44–69. B. 7. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Szatrowski. (1991). part iv Experiences and stories related to food . . 2009 (Koike. and pumpkin pie can be simply classified as meat. they have cultural 1. and dessert. I am most grateful to Professor Polly Szatrowski for her insightful comments and constant encouragement that enabled me to develop earlier versions of my analysis into this paper. minds. 2011). roast turkey. I am also deeply indebted to Professor Ji-Yun Son for providing me with inspiration and guidance in cognitive science. July 12–17.. 2009) and the 12th International Pragmatics Conference in Manchester. and to the audiences at the above conferences for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. mashed potatoes. The analyses demonstrate that participants deploy socio-culturally categorized food in order to co-construct their temporal/ spatial concepts. Los Angeles This study investigates how categorization of food is formed around participants’ experiences in their daily lives in spontaneous face-to-face conversations between Japanese native speakers. and that they utilize categorized food in order to achieve mutual understanding on unfamiliar food in talk-in-interaction. and on the other food is used to define various concepts of our world. however. I am solely responsible for all the mistakes and problems that remain in this paper. once these foods are put together on a list. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 11th International Pragmatics Conference in Melbourne.chapter 7 Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction Chisato Koike California State University. and create categories through talk about familiar and unfamiliar food in the emerging interaction. Introduction Food forms our bodies. 2011 (Koike. vegetables. This study sheds light on the cognitive and interactional processes involved in the activity of categorization for group solidarity through conversational practices in social interaction. Australia. identity. 1. Building on previous studies on categorization in conversation analysis and cognitive psychology. U. negotiate. to the participants in my data for allowing me to use their conversations. July 3–8.K. . this study examines how participants collaboratively share. and lives on the one hand. and personal/ social events.1 For example. resorting to a familiar food for comparison.160 Chisato Koike implications for people who have experienced a typical Thanksgiving dinner in the United States. 2007. 2011). space. p. 100). I will examine the strategies used to describe unfamiliar food in two repair sequences in talk-in-interaction. talking about food that others have never had inevitably leads to meta-talk on the unfamiliar food. as individual participants share their own food experiences with others in the talk about food in interaction. First. i. & Sacks. focusing on how the participants use food categories in the explanation of the unfamiliar food. and how they collaboratively establish a food category around concepts based on their shared knowledge or experiences. I will investigate talk about food in interaction. lunch. To protect participants’ privacy. The unfamiliar food becomes a “possible trouble-source” in a repair sequence (Schegloff. Analysis In the analysis I investigate seven excerpts from five different Japanese spontaneous face-to-face conversations between friends. In the first part of this study. pseudonyms are used in all excerpts. I will demonstrate how participants associate a certain food with a particular concept..e. Through the examination of the talk about food in these two different contexts. colors. I will show that participants build their mutual understanding and vicariously share their experiences of unfamiliar foods by exploiting linguistic resources. sequences in which participants co-construct concepts related to familiar food and sequences in which they repair a possible trouble source related to unfamiliar food. my analysis reveals that people categorize food not simply in terms of their nutrients but also in relation to their life experiences in their society. identity. Second. This raises the question of how food can express concepts such as the event of Thanksgiving. or dinner. . Jefferson. in which participants are talking about food over coffee. In the second part of this study. and the participants employ a range of strategies such as using gestures and describing shapes. and events. I examine how categorization of food and the expressions of simile are used to describe the differences and similarities among two or more foods in order to explain food that is unfamiliar to another participant (Excerpts 5 and 6). and created. focusing on the ways in which participants deploy food to construct concepts such as time. and ingredients of the food in order to explain the unfamiliar food (Koike. I analyze how food is associated with various concepts and categorized based on the participants’ experiences (Excerpts 1 through 4). 1977. and assembling different and similar features of unfamiliar and familiar food. modified. Schegloff. When participants do not share knowledge or experiences about food. 2. I also demonstrate how food categories are dynamically co-constructed. in the present study I apply this device to food categorization. concepts related to identity. such as Japanese nationality (Excerpt 3). for example. . and “representative” meaning that “any member of any category is presumptively a representative of that category” (pp. a persimmon is a food member of the category “autumn food” in the set “seasonal food” that indicates a temporal concept (seasons).2 Sacks (1992) proposed the notion of an “MIR [Membership Inference-rich Representative] Membership Categorization Device” and stated that there is “a class of category sets” by which he means “a set which is made up of a group of categories” (Sacks. see Rosch (2009). association.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 161 3. school events like athletics day (Excerpt 4). I demonstrate how participants collaboratively construct these concepts through their talk about food in the interaction. as an activity in talk-in-interaction. 40–41). Chapter 7. and the set “religion” has categories of “a Catholic” and “a Buddhist” and so on. For example. pp. and concepts related to social and personal events. the set “sex” has categories of “a woman” and “a man”. and categorization In this section I examine how participants categorize food by associating their food experiences with various concepts: temporal concepts such as the seasons (Excerpt 1). and food is rich in social cultural indexical meanings. I will also demonstrate that participants exploit food with indexical meanings to categorize members of a society. For example. Sacks (1992) noted three features of this “class of category sets”: “membership” meaning that categories in each set “can classify any member of the population”. 2.1 Previous studies This section provides a brief review of previous study on categorization relevant to the present study in the field of conversation analysis. 1992. I examine how members of a society with such knowledge collaboratively categorize “food members” in terms of categories in sets that indicate concepts. 3. “inference-rich” meaning that “a great deal of the knowledge that members of a society have about the society is stored in terms of these categories”. spatial concepts such as a region of a country (Excerpt 2). because members of a society have much knowledge of inference-rich categories related to food. Sacks (1992) claims that MIR Membership Categorization Device is the machinery for categorizing members of a social organization. However. Food. For the historical development of categorization research in the area of cognitive psychology. 40–41). 4 Eri: うん。 Un. and these seasonal foods play a significant role in shaping concepts of the seasons as shown in Excerpt 1. and fish.â•‡ Eri (left) and Maki (right) eating kuriiri dorayaki → 1 Maki: 秋の夜ってさー、食べてるよねー。 Aki no yoru tte sa:. (On) so-called autumn evenings. like this. (0. don’t we. → 5 Maki: 栗こうやって果物ナイフでさー、 kuri koo yatte kudamono naihu de sa:.@ 3 Maki: あのー、(0.@ @Yeah. (we) eat (food). you kno:w.162 Chisato Koike 3. fruits.g.4)お母さんとさー、 Ano:. transcription conventions. (0. while drinking green tea and eating kuriiri dorayaki ‘pancake sandwich with sweetened bean paste and chestnuts’ for dessert.â•‡ Autumn nights in Japan Figure 1. . you kno:w.) are talking about how autumn in Japan is associated with food. Uh:m. tabete ru yo ne:.2 Temporal concepts: Seasons Food is used to establish concepts about time (e.4) okaasan to sa:. 2 Eri: @うん。@ @Un. In Excerpt 1. (Figure 1). See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data. English translation and Japanese romanization. Eri and Maki (who are roommates and college students living in the U. with a paring knife. 3.S. Countries with four seasons such as Japan are abundant in seasonal vegetables.S.4) with (my) mother..3 Excerpt 1. seasons and the time of day) as in Excerpt 1. Uh-huh. chestnuts. after cooking and eating dinner together at their apartment in the U. you kno:w. < 8 Eri: //{フフフフ} //{Hu hu hu hu} //{LAUGH} 9 Maki: //@食べてる。@ //@tabete ru.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 163 6 Eri: うん。 Un. So-called autumn in Japan is this kind of feeling. 16 Eri: {フフ} {Hu hu} {LAUGH} 17 (1. kaki toka:?= Like chestnuts or you kno:w. Yea:h.･ .)) → 18 Maki: パンプキンじゃ//ないよー。 Panpukin zya //nai yo:.< (We) are paring (them) >like this throughou:t (the night). 15 Maki: うーん。 U::n. 7 Maki: むいて>こうやってずっとー、< muite >koo yatte zutto:.@ → 20 Maki: なんか栗とかさー、柿とかー？= Nanka kuri toka sa:. and. Chapter 7. o:r?= → 21 Eri: =･柿。･ =･Kaki.@ //@eating (them=chestnuts). ((Shaking her head twice)) → 19 Eri: //@パンプキンじゃないよー。@ //@Panpukin zya nai yo:.@ ((4 lines omitted)) → 14 Eri: 日本の秋ってこんな感じかなあ。 Nihon no aki tte konna kanzi ka naa. Uh-huh. I tell you:.@ //@(It)’s not pumpkin. I wonder. (It)’s not pumpkin.4) ((Eri turns to her left and touches the small jack-o’-lantern on the table with her left hand. persimmons. I tell you:.･ =･Persimmons. Prior to Excerpt 2.’ After receiving Eri’s laughing and agreement in line 2. i.. Maki says in line 18 Panpukin zya //nai yo:. people often register a place in their knowledge through associations between the place and the food and drink for which it is famous. and prefectures in Japan produce their own special local food and drink. p. seasonal foods (as a set including categories such as “autumn food” with members such as “persimmons”) available in a certain place (e.e. eating a chestnut dessert).’ and in line 21 Eri immediately and emphatically repeats ･Kaki.e. in turn.. o:r?. as illustrated in Excerpt 2 below. and people.. In the next turn Eri indicates her agreement by “shadowing”.” 3. and her friends Ikuyo and Junko (who are also working in Osaka) said that they would visit her in Hakata.. Because a large number of towns. because it refers to the very activity that Eri and Maki are doing at the moment (i. you kno:w. don’t we.’. Maki provides typical autumn foods eaten in Japan in line 20 Nanka kuri toka sa:. As shown in Excerpt 1. Then. 1989. Japan) mentioned that she might get transferred to the branch office in Hakata Ward in Fukuoka Prefecture soon. after watching Eri turn to her (Eri’s) left and touch a small jack-o’lantern on the table with her left hand in line 17. tabete ru yo ne:. I tell you:. cultivate their keen sense of the seasons by eating seasonally categorized foods. i. persimmons. Subsequently. Maki continues telling how she spends autumn nights in Japan. while shaking her head twice.g.3 Spatial concepts: A case of the region of a country A spatial concept such as a sense of geography can also be established through food. (we) eat (food). foods that have been categorized in this way as members of the category “autumn food” in the set of “seasonal foods. to illustrate what represents autumn in Japan.’ Eri’s expression konna kanzi ‘this kind of feeling’ here also relates the season of autumn to eating food. chestnuts in autumn in Japan) shape people’s concept of the seasons. 88). Next. Eri also comments on autumn in Japan in line 14 Nihon no aki tte konna kanzi ka naa. kaki toka:? ‘Like chestnuts or you kno:w. ‘(It)’s not pumpkin.164 Chisato Koike Maki expresses her strong association between autumn and food in line 1 Aki no yoru tte sa:. cities. providing the specific example of eating chestnuts (a typical autumn food in Japan) with her mother at home from lines 3 through 9. I wonder. In Excerpt 2 the participants collaboratively co-construct their image for Hakata by listing the various foods for which Hakata is famous.･ ‘･Persimmons. ‘(On) so-called autumn evenings. Hiromi (who is working in Osaka. “repeating what is being heard with a split-second delay” (Tannen. . ‘So-called autumn in Japan is this kind of feeling.･’ to show her agreement again.e. Chapter 7. and Junko (from left to right). It’s that (it) is famous for mizutaki. Hiromi traces the outline of the poster she saw with her right index finger in lines 20–22 .° → 13 Ikuyo: あとなんか水炊きのおいしい所があるとかゆうな？ Ato nanka mizutaki no oisii tokoro ga aru toka yuu na? And like (they) say like there are places that have delicious mizutaki ‘vegetables boiled in soup’. 14 Junko: あーん。 A:n. raamenya sika sirahen nen kedo na? Yuute mo na? °Ramen°. O://:h. //Hakata (they) say.â•‡ Famous food in Hakata Ward.â•‡ Hiromi. but. you know? 11 Hiromi: あー//ー。 A://:. → 19 Ikuyo: //とりの水炊き。 //Tori no mizutaki. //Chicken mizutaki. Fukuoka → 10 Junko: °ラーメン°ラーメン屋、ラーメン屋しか知らへんねんけどな？ゆーてもな？ °Raamen° raamenya. → 15 Ikuyo: 水炊きが有名やねんて//博多って。 Mizutaki ga yuumee ya nen te //Hakata tte. Figure 2.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 165 Excerpt 2. ((2 lines omitted)) 18 Hiromi: 今なんか//こうー、 Ima nanka //koo:.° //°Yeah. ramen shops. O:h. Ikuyo. you know? Even if (I) say so. Right now like //like thi:s. 12 Junko: //°うん。° //°Un. it’s that (I) don’t know (about anything) except ramen shops. iron na toti no: senden-posutaa //hatte aru yan ka.g. In JR (Japan Railway). ‘Chicken mizutaki. //Yeah. advertisements directly relating a place to its food as well as the opposite relation of various foods to the place where the ingredients are grown (e. In addition.166 Chisato Koike 20 Hiromi: JRで (0. Ikuyo provides another example of what Hakata is famous for. Junko indicates in line 10 that the only thing that she knows about Hakata is that it is most famous for ramen (shops). quoting from a Japan Railway Company (JR) advertisement poster for Hakata that she saw (Figure 2. → 22 Hiromi: で、はかたーかなんかで餃子が鉄鍋やねんみたいなこと書いてあって、 De. various regions. kimchi for Korean). Yeah.. (Figure 2) 21 Ikuyo: //うん。うん。 //Un.’ Then. mizutaki ‘vegetables boiled in soup’ in lines 13 and 15. and. and in line 19 Tori no mizutaki.4 Identity concepts: A case of nationality The foods that are traditionally and predominantly consumed by people in a particular country are associated closely with its nationals and can be used to represent its national identity (e. as indicated by a JR poster representing Hakata in terms of its famous food.e. i. Subsequently. People in Japan are expected to . in Hakata or something. Hakata: ka nanka de gyooza ga tetunabe ya nen mitai na koto kaite atte.g..4) JR tte iron na tokoro no sono:. food that has been categorized as members of the category “Hakata” in the set of “regional food in Japan”. And. Un. (0. Hiromi gives another example of what Hakata is famous for. can help people develop a geographical concept. dumplings (cooked) in an iron pan. 3. (they) say something like it’s that dumplings are (cooked) in an iron pan. The co-construction of an image for what Hakata is famous for illustrated in Excerpt 2 demonstrates how regionally categorized food. Right after Junko expresses her strong desire to visit Hiromi in Hakata prior to Excerpt 2.4) JR has advertisement posters put up for various places. don’t they. aligning with the topic of “famous food in Hakata”.4)JRっていろんな所のそのー、いろんな土地のー宣伝ポスター//貼ってあるやんか。 JR de (0. lines 20 and 22). a bag of wasabi-flavored potato chips with the word Azumino-san wasabi ‘wasabi from Azumino (Nagano Prefecture)’ on it) strengthen people’s associations between the regions of Japan and their local special foods.. and Fujio (from left to right) in line 1 1 Seiji: 大葉食べれる人？ Ooba tabereru hito? Are (you) a person who can eat the leaf of a beefsteak plant? (Figure 3) 2 Fujio: あ、そりゃ食べられますよ。 A. informal. taste. smell. Makino (1996) suggested that a sense of taste is one factor for the concept of uti. This excerpt shows how Japanese people who cannot eat traditional Japanese food such as umebosi ‘pickled plums’ can be viewed as “non-uti ‘inside’ group members”. and touch (p. . and “us”. those who cannot eat this food are regarded as soto ‘outside’ members. I tell you. Seiji.. and soto as “not shared. unknown. Quinn (1994) described uti as shared. On the other hand.° 5 Fujio: //°うん。うん。° //°Un. Seiji.4 In Excerpt 3. and the concept of uti is a “space of involvement” where people have direct involvement through the five senses. and “them” (p. Oh. hearing. Fujio. translation by Koike).° °Oh. Un.â•‡ Taku.â•‡ Japanese food Figure 3. I tell you. unfamiliar. (He) is a person who eats even parsley. //paseri mo taberareru hito nara.e. Yeah. known.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 167 eat the food categorized as “traditionally national food” in order to be identified as uti ‘inside’ members of the country. formal. sorya taberaremasu yo.° //°Yeah. 11. and Taku are talking about what Fujio can and cannot eat (Figure 3). (of course) (I) can eat (that). 4 Seiji: °ああ、//パセリも食べられる人なら、° °Aa. i. //if (you) are a person who can eat even parsley. sight.° 4. 3 Taku: パセリも食べる人やで。 Paseri mo taberu hito ya de. 38). familiar. private. Excerpt 3. Chapter 7. public. No no. I tell you. 8 (0.2) → 16 Seiji: すごいなー。自分、日本人//@じゃないわー。@ Sugoi na:. I tell you. → 14 Taku: おかしいわー。 Okasii wa:. 17 Taku: //{ハハハ} //{Ha ha ha} //{LAUGH} ((11 lines omitted)) 29 Fujio: 食えないですよ梅干し。 Kuenai desu yo umebosi.168 Chisato Koike 6 (2. . 15 (4. → 30 Seiji: にっぽん男児としての自覚が足りんわ//それは。 Nippon danzi to site no zikaku ga tarin wa //sore wa. (You) yourself @are not@ Japanese.@ (That)’s amazing.@ //@Seriously:. Umebosi mo dame. Zibun nihonzin //@zya nai wa:. (As for me) pickled vegetables and fermented soybeans are no good. (That) means (you) lack the sense of a Japanese man. (As for me) pickled plums are also no good.6) → 9 Seiji: え？ E? What? 10 (0. (He) is strange.@ → 12 Taku: //おかしいやろー？ //Okasii yaro:? //(He) is strange. After Fujio responds in the affirmative. pickled plums. isn’t he? → 13 Fujio: いやいや。梅干しもだめ。 Iya iya.’ which is often served as a garnish with sasimi ‘sliced raw fish’ (Figure 3).6) 11 Fujio: //@まじでー。@ //@Mazi de:. suggesting that Fujio eats even a garnish that most people tend to leave on their plate. Taku adds that Fujio eats even parsley in line 3. 31 Fujio: //{ハハハハ} //{Ha ha ha ha} //{LAUGH} In line 1 Seiji asks Fujio if he can eat ooba ‘the leaf of a beefsteak plant.0) → 7 Fujio: 漬け物と納豆がだめ。 Tukemono to nattoo ga dame. (I) can’t eat (them). I tell you. mentioned that she participated in her cousin’s athletics day on the very next day after she returned to Japan recently. Fujio rejects Taku’s assessment and mentions that he cannot eat pickled plums either in line 13. who already knows this fact. Eri. Thanksgiving dinner in the U.’.5 Concepts of events and personal experiences: The case of athletics day Food is often associated with people’s experiences of social and personal events such as annual events. Then. 3. and birthday parties. gives his assessment in line 12 Okasii yaro:? ‘(He) is strange. who was studying at a university in the U. This suggests that for Japanese people being able to eat “group-identified food” provides a soto ‘outside’ member with a qualification for entering into the uti ‘inside’ group. and those who cannot are viewed as okasii ‘strange’ (as in Taku’s utterances in lines 12 and 14) and are disqualified from being an uti ‘inside’ member of the Japanese society (Seiji’s utterances in lines 16 and 30). pointing at Fujio with his right index finger while looking at Seiji to request his agreement about Fujio. This brings the participants to the topic of bentoo ‘the box lunches’ that their mothers made especially for athletics days in Excerpt 4. Zibun nihonzin //@zya nai wa:. Chapter 7. listing typical dishes common among many families and special dishes unique to some families.’. which he subsequently paraphrases in line 30 Nippon danzi to site no zikaku ga tarin wa // sore wa. Taku. Although these event foods may be more or less fixed or similar within the same social cultural group due to its tradition or custom (e. (You) yourself @are not@ Japanese. Foods such as tukemono ‘pickled vegetables’ and umebosi ‘pickled plums’ are perceived as the food that represents Japaneseness. isn’t he?’. though this time looking to the left side and giving a quick glance at Seiji. Seiji provides his assessment in line 16 Sugoi na:.’ This excerpt illustrates how food can be categorized to represent group identity and have indexical social cultural import. Excerpt 4 exemplifies such a case in which the participants co-construct their concept of food for a school event.S.5 Subsequently. It is expected that people who belong to the Japanese society should be able to eat these Japanese foods. ceremonies. ‘(That) means (you) lack the sense of a Japanese man. Prior to Excerpt 4.g.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 169 Then. festivals. after agreeing that he can eat both of these strong-flavored herb garnishes. Fujio mentions that he cannot eat tukemono ‘pickled vegetables’ and nattoo ‘fermented soybeans’ in line 7. ‘(He) is strange. and oseti-ryoori ‘special dishes for the New Year’s Day’ in Japan). I tell you. ..@ ‘(That)’s amazing. See Koike (2010) for a more in-depth analysis of the use of pointing gestures for ellipsis. they are always somewhat different at a local or individual level. at the time of recording.S. In the next turn Taku repeats the same assessment in line 14 Okasii wa:. I tell you. First Seiji’s assessment in line 9 E? ‘What?’ indicates his surprise and disbelief that Fujio cannot eat these two foods. 5. Then. → 13 Eri: 卵焼きーとー、 Tamagoyaki: to:. ri:ght. → 14 Maki: 卵焼きとねー、 Tamagoyaki to ne:.â•‡ Athletics day bentoo ‘box lunches’ 1 Maki: 超さー、おべんとおいしいんだよねー運動会の日。 Tyoo sa:. (I) know (what you mean).6) chicken or deep-fried (chicken).170 Chisato Koike Excerpt 4. (0.4) → 10 Maki: チキン、(0. . 12 Maki: //うん。 //Un. 4 (0. it’s that the box lunch is delicious on an athletics day.6)チキンっていうか唐揚げとかー、 Tikin. 8 Maki: //あのねー、 //Ano ne:. 6 Maki: すごい好きなの。 sugoi suki na no. but. 2 (1.4) 3 Maki: なんかお母さんが作ってくれるメニューが決まってるんだけどー、 Nanka okaasan ga tukutte kureru menyuu ga kimatte ru n da kedo:. and such. Super. Deep-fried (chicken) is definitely in (it). → 11 Eri: 唐揚げ絶対入ってる//よねー。 Karaage zettai haitte ru //yo ne:. a:nd. //isn’t it. and. obento oisii n da yo ne: undookai no hi. 7 Eri: //わかる。 //Wakaru. it’s that (I) really love (it). //Yeah.4) 5 Eri: わかる。 Wakaru. //Uhm. Chicken. Rolled fried-e:ggs.6) tikin tte iu ka karaage toka:. you kno:w. you kno:w? 9 (1. (0. //(I) know (what you mean). isn’t it. Rolled fried-eggs. Like it’s that the menu that (my) mother makes for me is set (the same every time). it’s that (my) mother makes stewed cubed pork for some reason. Maki enumerates another dish in line 16 Uti wa ano. and Eri agrees in lines 5 and 7 by indicating that she knows what Maki means. ‘Deep-fried (chicken) is definitely in (it). Maki mentions one of the foods in the box lunches her mother used to make in line 10 tikin karaage ‘deep-fried chicken’. Next.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 171 15 Eri: うん。 Un. → 16 Maki: うちはあの、豚の角煮をーお母さんが作るのなぜか。 Uti wa ano. //isn’t it. you know. (For you it)’s stewed cubed pork. As for (my) home uhm. obentoo >tte iu ka nanka< okaasan-tati ga matte ru obentoo @no naka ni atte.@ (She) slices that. a:nd. this time she indicates . Subsequently.’ Then. Eri begins enumerating. hu:h. I tell you. Yeah. giving another food in line 13 Tamagoyaki: to:. you know? and the box lunch.’ and in line 14 Maki agrees that it is also athletics day box lunch food by repeating Eri’s prior utterance and ending with ne: ‘ri:ght’. box lunch >or.< (it) @is in@ the box lunch that my mother and others (bring and) are waiting (for me with until lunch time). It’s that (I) love that. it’s that (my) mother makes stewed cubed pork for some reason. Uh-huh. → 17 Eri: ほんと？ Honto? Really? → 18 Maki: それをね？スライスするってお弁当、お弁当 >っていうかなんか<お母さん達が待ってるお弁当 @の中にあって、@ Sore o ne? suraisu-suru tte obentoo. Eri strongly agrees that deep-fried chicken is a must in line 11 Karaage zettai haitte ru //yo ne:. Chapter 7. ‘As for (my) home uhm. → 20 Maki: それがすごい好きなんだよね。 Sore ga sugoi suki na n da yo ne. buta no kakuni o: okaasan ga tukuru no nazeka. ‘Rolled fried-e:ggs. buta no kakuni o: okaasan ga tukuru no nazeka. From line 1 to line 6 Maki talks about how much she loves the box lunches that her mother always made for her on athletics day. 19 Eri: うん。 Un. like.’ However. and although there is no culturally fixed box lunch menu for athletics day. 21 Eri: 角煮かー。 Kakuni ka:. 172 Chisato Koike that buta no kakuni ‘stewed cubed pork’ is a special dish that is for some reason unique to her home. rather than a shared public domain. Heritage (2012) proposed “relative epistemic access to a domain or territory of information as stratified between interactants such that they occupy different positions on an epistemic gradient (more knowledgeable [K+] or less knowledgeable [K−]). the turn initial phrase uti ‘(my) home’ followed by the topic particle wa projects that the ensuing utterance will contrast with the preceding sequence about common typical athletics day box lunch foods. (as)…as or the conjunctions as. as though” (p. This excerpt demonstrates how people experience and remember personal and social events through their association of the events with food. Next.7 I define a “knowing participant” as a participant who has more access to the information in question at a given moment in interaction. Third. and an “unknowing participant” as a participant who has no or less access to the information in 6. and that it will relate to her uti ‘inside’ or private domain. rather than people in general. okaasan ‘(my) mother’. and Eri’s expression of surprise in line 17 further emphasizes this unusualness. and Shibata (1995). First. Categorization of food by knowing and unknowing participants In this section I examine the ways in which participants utilize categorization of food and the expressions of simile6 when a knowing participant is explaining food to an unknowing participant. 7. It also illustrates how participants establish their group identity by sharing their experiences of eating similar food at these events. Building on Heritage’s (2012) notion of epistemic status. Second. 874. even though they may have experienced the events independently.e. Maki explicitly states the agent of the verb tukuru ‘make’. 128). i. and how participants express their individual identity by telling about their own unique experiences of eating unusual food at these events. The present study examines other Japanese simile expressions: -(p)poi ‘-ish’ and mitai ‘like’. 4. “a tyokuyu ‘simile’ expresses similarities between the things compared” and “in many cases it links the thing compared by the words such as no gotoku ‘as if ’ and no yoo ni ‘like’ (p. relating that her mother would slice buta no kakuni ‘stewed cubed pork’ and put it in the lunch box that she and others would be holding while waiting for Maki to come back from the field for lunch. 4). in line 18 Maki vividly describes her memory of a scene from athletics day. translation by Koike). by adding the increment nazeka ‘for some reason’ Maki indicates that she considers buta no kakuni ‘stewed cubed pork’ to be rather unusual as a food for an athletics day box lunch. Hayashi. which itself may vary in slope from shallow to deep” (p. as if. Wikberg (2008) defined an English simile “as a figurative expression used to make an explicit comparison of two unlike things by means of the prepositions like.. According to Kindaichi. . Chapter 7.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 173 Â� question vis-à-vis the knowing participant. I will demonstrate how participants employ food categories, compare similarities using simile, and contrast differences with other food in order to achieve mutual understanding (Excerpt 5). I will also show how knowing participants can dynamically create a new food category during the process of explaining food that is unfamiliar to one (or more) of the participants in talk-in-interaction (Excerpt 6). 4.1 Previous studies Research on categorization in cognitive psychology by Glucksberg (2008), Markman and Gentner (1993), and Barsalou (1983) is particularly relevant to my analysis of simile and categorization in repair sequences related to unfamiliar food. Glucksberg (2008) pointed out that “[l]iteral comparison assertions compare two ‘like’ things: two things that belong to the same taxonomic category, as in coffee is like tea” (p. 72), and one approach to understanding literal comparisons is to “identify the closest superordinate category that encompasses the two concepts and then use that category’s properties as the ground for the comparison” (p. 71). For instance, to compare similarities between oranges and lemons, the superordinate category “citrus fruits” is identified, and then this category’s properties are compared: “they have the same kind of skin, seeds, acidic juice, and so on” (p. 71). I will apply this in my analysis of how similarities between familiar food and unfamiliar food in the same category are employed to describe unfamiliar food in repair sequences. In an experimental study of commonalities and differences in word pairs in terms of an alignment of conceptual structures, Markman and Gentner (1993) distinguished two types of differences: an “alignable difference”, i.e., a difference that “occurs within elements connected to the common structure”, such as a car and a motorcycle, and a “nonalignable difference”, i.e., a difference which is “independent of the matching structure”, such as a frog and a sofa (p. 519; examples are taken from p. 534). Their results suggested that comparisons encompassing commonalities, alignable differences, and nonalignable differences “determine the overall similarity of the objects” (p. 532). I will apply this research in my analysis of how differences among food members perform an important function in the repair sequence related to unfamiliar food. When comparing items in explanation of the unknown, describing not only similarities but also differences among the items performs an important function in a repair sequence on unfamiliar food. However, Barsalou (1983) proposed that seemingly nonalignable items can be connected to the common structure in contexts, with his notion of “ad hoc categories”, i.e., instrumental categories constructed spontaneously to achieve goals 174 Chisato Koike “in specialized contexts”. For example, various unrelated items can be clustered in the ad hoc category of “things to sell at a garage sale” for “achieving the goal of selling unwanted possessions” (p. 211). Based on the results of an experiment, Barsalou (1983) pointed out that ad hoc categories differ from common categories (e.g., “birds” and “fruits”) in that they do not have “well established category representations in memory” (p. 213), and that they need context in order to become apparent because the ad hoc category’s “instances do not appear to share correlated properties” (p. 214). While the above studies in cognitive psychology examined categorization in highly experimental settings, the present study explores how notions of literal comparisons, alignable differences, and ad hoc categories can be applied to spontaneous social interaction. I will show how participants exploit two Japanese simile expressions (-(p)poi ‘-ish’ and mitai ‘like’), compare the similarities and differences between food that is familiar to the participants and food that is unfamiliar to an unknowing participant, and spontaneously create an ad hoc category in the midst of the repair sequence, in order to explain unfamiliar food and achieve mutual understanding in talk-in-interaction. 4.2 Comparing similarities and contrasting differences: -(p)poi ‘-ish’ and categorization In Japanese, the suffix -(p)poi ‘-ish’ as in X wa Y-(p)poi ‘X is Y-ish’ is used to mean an item X “is full of, is characterized by” another item Y (Martin, 1975, p. 286) and to denote that the features of Item X in question are the same or similar to the features of Item Y. In Excerpt 5, in response to Masa’s request for repair of the thing called onimanzyuu8 ‘devil bun’ in line 7, Kaoru (knowing participant) explains what it is to Masa (unknowing participant) (Figure 4). The participants compare the food in question to another food that they both know (musipan ‘steamed bun’) using -(p)poi ‘-ish,’ and also contrast these two foods by describing a difference between them. Excerpt 5.â•‡ Onimanzyuu ‘devil bun’ 6 Kaoru: >あたし<鬼まんじゅう作りたいんやけど、 //°載ってないかなあ。° >Atasi< onimanzyuu tukuritai n ya kedo, //°notte nai ka naa.° It’s that >I< want to make onimanzyuu, but //°I wonder if (this cookbook) [doesn’t] (by chance) have (a recipe for it).° 8. Manzyuu is a kind of Japanese-style bun usually stuffed with sweetened bean paste. Chapter 7.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 175 7 Masa: //何鬼まんじゅうって。 //Nani onimanzyuu tte. //What is (the thing) called onimanzyuu? Figure 4.â•‡ Masa (left), Kaoru (right). Kaoru describes onimanzyuu (line 8) 8 Kaoru: 知らん？たぶん名古屋が(0.4)中心かなあ。なんかあのさつまいもがさー、角切りにしてあってー、なんか蒸してあんねんけどー、こう、こういう形。べちょーんって、//べちょんっていうか。{フフ} Siran? Tabun Nagoya ga (0.4) tyuusin ka naa. Nanka ano satumaimo ga sa:, kakugiri ni site atte:, nanka musite an nen kedo:, koo, koo iu katati. Betyo:n tte, //betyon tte iu ka. {Hu hu} (You) don’t know? I wonder if Nagoya is probably the center (for this food). Like uhm, sweet potatoes, you kno:w, have been diced a:nd, like, it’s that (they) have been steamed, bu:t, this, (it’s) this kind of shape. (It’s) squa:shy, //squashy I mean. {LAUGH} (Figure 4) 9 Masa: //うーん。なんかわかるような@わからんような@ //微妙な感じ。 //U:n. Nanka wakaru yoo na @wakaran yoo na@ //bimyoo na kanzi. //Uh:m. Like (I) sort of understand, @sort of don’t understand@, //(it) feels slightly (unclear). 10 Kaoru: //売ってないかもしれん。 //Utte nai ka mo siren. //(They) may not be sold (here). 11 (0.4) 12 Kaoru: 名古屋では売ってんねん。 Nagoya de wa utten nen. It’s that (they) are sold in Nagoya. 176 Chisato Koike 13 Masa: あーでもなんか食べたことあるような気がするけど //なー。 A: demo nanka tabeta koto aru yoo na ki ga suru kedo //na:. Oh, but like (I) feel like (I)’ve eaten (it), but //you kno:w. 14 Kaoru: //おいしい//よー？ //Oisii //yo:? //(It)’s delicious, //I tell you. //蒸しパンぽいー、 → 15 Masa: //Musipan-poi:, //Steamed bun-i:sh, → 16 Kaoru: >そう。そう。< 蒸しパンやけど、そんなふっくらしてないねん。 >Soo. Soo.< Musipan ya kedo, sonna hukkura-site nai nen. >Right. Right.< (It)’s a steamed bun, but it’s that (it)’s not that fluffy. 17 Masa: ああ、わかる気がするー。 Aa, wakaru ki ga suru:. Oh, (I) feel (I) understa:nd. In response to Masa’s question in line 7 Nani onimanzyuu tte. ‘What is (the thing) called onimanzyuu?,’ the knowing participant Kaoru explains what an onimanzyuu ‘devil bun’ is by describing in detail how to make it, saying that it is steamed and has a betyo:n ‘squashy’ shape in line 8 (Figure 4). Although in her next turn (line 9) Masa does not show her clear understanding, she mentions that she feels like she has eaten it in line 13. Subsequently, she provides her candidate understanding by comparing onimanzyuu ‘devil bun’ to musipan ‘steamed bun’ using -(p) poi ‘-ish’ in line 15 Musipan-poi:, ‘Steamed bun-i:sh,’ and Kaoru gives her “partial agreement” (Mori, 1999) in line 16. First she gives an agreement token (>Soo. Soo.< ‘>Right. Right.<’) and then qualifies Masa’s statement by saying Musipan ya kedo, sonna hukkura-site nai nen. ‘(It)’s a steamed bun, but it’s that (it)’s not that fluffy.’ Figure 5 illustrates schematically how the knowing and unknowing participants categorize onimanzyuu ‘devil bun.’ Based on her understanding of knowing participant Kaoru’s descriptions of devil bun, unknowing participant Masa, who does not know what Item X (devil bun) is, states that it is musipan-poi ‘steamed bun-ish,’ suggesting that her candidate understanding of the item in question is similar to Item A (steamed bun), which becomes a common item bridging understanding between the two parties. In this way, what is registered in Masa’s cognition from Kaoru’s descriptions is not Item X (devil bun), but an item similar to A (steamed bun), i.e., Item A’ (steamed bun-ish). In contrast, knowing participant Kaoru, who knows what both Item X (devil bun) and Item A (steamed bun) are, categorizes them as different kinds of buns in the steamed bun category. She states Chapter 7.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 177 Unfamiliar item X = an onimanzyuu ‘devil bun’ Common item A = a (typical) steamed bun Item A’ = a steam bun-ish food Common item bridging understanding between knowing and unknowing participants A A fluffy X not fluffy A A’ Steamed bun category Steamed bun category Knowing participant Kaoru Unknowing participant Masa Figure 5.â•‡ Knowing and unknowing participants’ categories of the item in question and a common item in Excerpt 5 (≒ means similar) that a devil bun is a steamed bun (rather than ‘steamed bun-ish’), suggesting that a devil bun is a kind of steamed bun and belongs to the steamed bun category. However, she further provides an “alignable difference” (Markman & Gentner, 1993), when she states that a devil bun is not that fluffy, implying that Item X (devil bun) is different from the prototypical Item A (fluffy steamed bun). As demonstrated in Excerpt 5, when describing food about which an unknowing participant has no knowledge, the participants strategically use and negotiate their categorization of food through the course of their talk-in-interaction. They compare the food in question to a food that they both know based on similar features of the foods, and the knowing participant contrasts the two foods based on alignable differences, in order to achieve mutual understanding. 4.3 Ad hoc category creation in the interaction: mitai ‘like’ The form mitai ‘like’ can be used to mean “(1) ‘it looks like,’ expressing resemblance; and (2) ‘it seems like,’ expressing an inference or an uncertain (roundabout) conclusion based either on sensory impression of the object itself or on the surrounding circumstances”, and it can be used to modify a noun “in the fashion 178 Chisato Koike of an adjectival noun (da becoming na)” as in X mitai na Y ‘a Y like X’ (Martin, 1975, pp. 172–173). In Excerpt 6, Maki (knowing participant) describes what a red persimmon is to Eri (unknowing participant), comparing and contrasting it with a food both know based on similarities and differences, in a way similar to Excerpt 5. However, what is interesting in Excerpt 6 is that in the course of explaining the food in response to Eri’s request for repair in line 24, Maki (knowing participant) creates a new food category in the emerging interaction to express resemblance between the two items using mitai ‘like’ in line 29. Excerpt 6.â•‡ (Continuation from Excerpt 1): Red persimmon → 22 Maki: あのあたしね？皮の、皮まで食べれる柿あるじゃん。やわらかい方。黄色じゃなくって赤とかの。 Ano atasi ne? Kawa no, kawa made tabereru kaki aru zyan. Yawarakai hoo. Kiiro zya nakutte aka toka no. Uhm I, you know? The skin, there is a persimmon that (you) can eat even the skin, right? A soft one. It’s not yellow, but a red one. 23 (1.0) 24 Eri: もう熟したやつってこと？ Moo zyuku-sita yatu tte koto? You mean one that has been already ripe (for a while)? 25 Maki: ううん。種類が違うの。 Uun. Syurui ga tigau no. No. It’s that (it)’s a different variety (of persimmon). 26 Eri: あるんだそんなの。 Aru n da sonna no. It’s that (it) exists, such a thing. → 27 Maki: うん。あのこう剝くやつじゃなくってさー、 Un. Ano koo muku yatu zya nakutte sa:, Yeah. Uhm, (it)’s not the one that (you) peel like this, and, you kno:w, 28 Eri: うん。 Un. Uh-huh. → 29 Maki: こうー、トマトみたいな柿。 Koo:, tomato mitai na kaki. U:hm, (it)’s a persimmon that is like a tomato. 30 Eri: ほん//とー？ Hon//to:? Rea:lly? 31 Maki: //種無しなんだけどー、おいしいのねー？ //Tanenasi na n da kedo:, oisii no ne:? //It’s that (it)’s seedless, but it’s that (it)’s delicious, you kno:w? ’ the typical variety of persimmon widely available in markets in Japan (although she does not give the name for the more common persimmon. tomato mitai na kaki.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 179 In Excerpt 1. and then contrasts differences and compares similarities among the items. It should be noted that the process of explaining an unfamiliar item through comparison and contrast is recipient-designed. Maki clarifies that it is a different variety of persimmon. in lines 22 to 27 Maki contrasts Item X (red persimmon) that is unfamiliar to Eri. Chapter 7. is soft. (it)’s a persimmon that is like a tomato. its texture and color) with that of a huyuugaki ‘huyuu persimmon. when Eri does not indicate her understanding and requests clarification as to whether Maki is talking about one that is already ripe. and is red (not yellow). In her description. Subsequently. Maki creates a new category by comparing the red persimmon to a different food using mitai ‘like’ in her simile in line 29 Koo:.. Maki contrasts the distinctive different features of this red persimmon (e. huyuu persimmon.g. and tomato Line Unfamiliar Item X: Red persimmon Common Item A: Huyuu persimmon 22 22 22 27 29 29 29 29 Can eat the skin Soft Red Do not peel the skin ≠Cannot eat the skin ≠Crisp and firm ≠Orange ≠Peel the skin Common Item B: Tomato =Can eat the skin =Soft =Red =Do not peel the skin Table 1 summarizes how Maki (knowing participant) indicates differences and similarities among the three items compared in her description of a red persimmon that is unfamiliar to Eri (unknowing participant). ‘U:hm. huyuugaki): While a red persimmon is soft and has a red edible skin. In order to describe the red persimmon. in Excerpt 6. providing another distinctive different feature (one does not have to peel the skin of a red persimmon) in line 27. she requests confirmation of Eri’s recognition of an unusual variety of persimmon which has edible skin. First. Then. Maki (knowing participant) mentioned a persimmon as an example of an autumn food in Japan. Maki (knowing participant) selects items that she presupposes that Eri (unknowing participant) knows. i.â•‡ Similarities and differences among a red persimmon.. a huyuu persimmon is crisp and its orange-colored skin is not edible.e.’ Table 1. by enumerating several . with the Common Item A that both parties know (huyuu persimmon) and belongs to the same category (persimmons) as Item X. Then. e. 1983). a new category spontaneously created in the emerging course of the interaction to achieve . a persimmon is in the fruit category and a tomato in the vegetable category)? Unfamiliar item X = a red persimmon Common item A = a huyuu persimmon Common item B = a tomato Item Ab = a tomato-like persimmon Common items bridging understanding between knowing and unknowing participants A B A Persimmon category B Ad hoc category X Knowing participant Maki A Persimmon category B Ab Unknowing participant Eri Figure 6. In so doing. a puzzle arises regarding the comparison of Item X and Common Item B to express similarity: How can a tomato be used to illustrate features that are similar to a red persimmon. given that they belong to categories that are remotely different from each other (i.. However. features that differed between Item X (red persimmon) and Common Item A (huyuu persimmon) mentioned in the prior sequence (lines 22 and 27) turn into features that are similar for Item X (red persimmon) and Common Item B (tomato) (line 29). Maki compares a red persimmon to another Common Item B (tomato) to express similarities between the two items which she sums up by saying tomato mitai na kaki ‘a persimmon that is like a tomato’ in line 29.â•‡ Knowing and unknowing participants’ categories of the item in question and common items in Excerpt 6 What makes the two categorically different items (red persimmon and tomato) comparable and similar in line 29 is Maki’s use of tomato mitai na kaki ‘a persimmon that is like a tomato’ as an “ad hoc category” (Barsalou.180 Chisato Koike alignable differences between the two varieties of persimmons. Next. the knowing participant creates an ad hoc category. p.e. and has some features of Item A and some features of Item B. based on the alignable differences related to color. an Item Ab (a tomato-like persimmon) that belongs to the persimmon category. to explain a food to the unknowing participant. . 5. but rather a posteriori and dynamic in nature in that they are created and modified in the emerging course of talk-in-interaction. This excerpt illustrates how categories of objects and concepts (e. Had she used taste as a parameter for comparison. and static. she puts side by side the unfamiliar Item X (red persimmon) and another Common Item B that both parties know (tomato). Conclusion The talk about food in this study illuminates the interactional and cognitive process of how human beings establish collaboration and mutual understanding by elucidating how participants in talk-in-interaction co-construct concepts through the enumeration of familiar foods and how they repair a trouble source in interaction by describing food that is unfamiliar to an unknowing participant. 19). Item A’ in Excerpt 5 and Item Ab in Excerpt 6).9 What is registered in Eri’s cognition from Maki’s comparison is not Item X (red persimmon).. and edibility of the skin (rather than taste) in her comparison of a red persimmon with a tomato in line 29. pre-determined. the result may have been different. As illustrated in Figure 6. red. spontaneously created in the sequence in which food features were contrasted and compared. I propose that the food (Item X) that the unknowing participants vicariously experienced through the knowing participants’ explanation is registered in the unknowing participants’ knowledge as something similar to the familiar food with which it was compared by the knowing participant (e. Maki uses features related to color. and compares them with respect to the ad hoc category of “soft. but rather.’ which would not make much sense if it were uttered out of the blue. as participants share their own categorized experiences of the objects and concepts. Chapter 7.. i. the food categories) are not a priori. they are 9. What the participants are doing in talk-in-interaction about food in both contexts is becoming “with” members of a group (Goffman. 1971.g. a new category with the features of “soft red food with edible skin”. texture. Specifically.g. i. edible skin food” in line 29. This ad hoc category. Then.e... until they directly experience the (unfamiliar) food for themselves. softness and skin edibility that she mentioned in lines 22 and 27. provides the context for the utterance tomato mitai na kaki ‘a persimmon that is like a tomato.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 181 the goal. group. This study sheds light on how eating habits and experiences are culturally and socially embedded. In P. Inc. C. whom we admire or disdain” (Lakoff. How metaphors create categories – quickly. July). Nihongo hyakka daiziten [An encyclopaedia of the Japanese language]. 143). Koike.).. L. Ellipsis and action in a Japanese joint storytelling series: Gaze. and negotiated through conversational practices in social interaction with other members of the society. Gibbs. 11. concepts. these identities are established. & Shibata. Publishers. as I demonstrated in this study. how competent we are. According to Lakoff (2006). 211–227. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Australia. and minor identities are not created by the food that they eat per se. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. (1983). (2008). p. Memory & Cognition. 61–111). She also pointed out that “‘minor identities’ like culinary preferences and sophistication contribute significantly to our sense of ourselves: who we are.â•›W. 165). what kinds of edibles carry prestige.). shared. Melbourne. S. revised. In R. how much we are expected to know about what we eat – all of these are aspects of individual and group identity” (p. (2012). Glucksberg. and context. and shared through the talk about food while interacting with other members of a society. Goffman. (1995). (1971). and the world through talk about and over food in Japanese. pointing. I argue that these individual. (Ed. H. and how these conceptual organizations are shared. J.. Hayashi. (Eds. T.182 Chisato Koike consolidating their group identity by blending their individual perceptions and experiences through conversational practices in the social interaction. Japanese storytelling across conversational genre (pp. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing Company. “[w]hat we can and cannot eat. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. shaped.â•›W. 45(1). Construction of identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. References Barsalou. who our friends are or should be. (2010). and that an individual’s ideology is manifested. O. Paper presented at the panel entitled “Experiencing food through language and the body in Japanese and English” at the 11th International Pragmatics Conference. how conventionalized eating life-styles shape our conceptual organizations of the world. (2009. Kindaichi. Szatrowski (Ed. Koike. Ad hoc categories. Heritage. It suggests that the activity of eating is central to the establishment of how an individual views and assesses the world. However. E. 67–83). 2006. Jr. 1–29. Research on Language and Social Interaction. . Rather. C.). and created anew in the emerging talk-in-interaction.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New York: Basic Books. 127–142). J. Dominiek. Cambridge.â•›J. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. D. Phrasal similes in the BNC. Inc. In J. I). (1994). 53(2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. H. Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verschueren (Eds. (1989). & Gentner. C. . VT: Charles E. S. (1975). Markman. Schegloff. C. E.). E. R.â•‡ Food experiences and categorization in Japanese talk-in-interaction 183 Koike. Paper presented at the panel entitled “Experiencing food through verbal and nonverbal behavior across languages” at the 12th International Pragmatics Conference. Journal of Memory and Language. Schiffrin. Quinn (Eds. K.â•›A. G. 38–72). Describing strange food: Sharing food experiences in interaction. (2006).). & Sacks.K. 142–165). 517–535. & M. S. Tokyo: ALC. Manchester. (2009). A. and language (pp. 41–52). (2008). (1999). 32. Mori. (2011.). Language. H. Cognition and pragmatics (pp. In S. In S.â•›M. J. Rosch. Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. and imagery in conversational discourse. Lectures on conversation (Vol. MA: Blackwell Publishers. (1993). Östman. 361–382. Rutland. Amsterdam: John Â�Benjamins Publishing Company. De Fina. (1996). Categorization. Identity à la carte: You are what you eat.â•›A. Tuttle Company. (2007). Sacks. Bamberg (Eds. E. Princeton.-O. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity... dialogue. Granger & F. July). A reference grammar of Japanese: A complete guide to the grammar and syntax of the Japanese language. (1992). Bachnik & C. Jefferson. Uti to soto no gengobunkagaku – Bunpoo o bunka de kiru [Linguistic cultural study of uti and soto: Cutting grammar with culture]. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. Schegloff. D. & J. Wikberg. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen. Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese. Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self. U. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. In A.â•›J. D. (1977).). Meunier (Eds. Martin. Lakoff. Discourse and identity (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics series) (pp. society. Talking voices: Repetition. The terms uchi and soto as windows on a world. Chapter 7. Makino.. NJ: Princeton University Press. . chapter 8 Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories about food and restaurants A group bonding exercise Mariko Karatsu University of Arizona Drawing on research on repetition in storytelling (Jefferson, Sacks & Schegloff, 1987; Norrick, 2000; Georgakopoulou, 2007), I demonstrate how words and phrases in punch lines about food and restaurants can acquire evaluative or symbolic meanings in a storytelling among three Japanese women. I also show how later in the conversation participants use these words and phrases to comment on their taste and to evaluate a story utilizing the original evaluative or symbolic meanings of these words and phrases. This study shows how the ubiquity of talk about food and restaurants allows the participants to use words and phrases from punch lines as a device to show their understanding of one another and suggests how this can be a group bonding exercise in talk-in-interaction. 1. Introduction Conversational participants tell their stories in order to share emotions and attitudes towards story events. When a story is shared with others, it can be retold or mentioned by any of the participants later in the conversation or in a future conversation. Research on conversational storytelling has pointed out that whether or not a story is retold or mentioned is an important factor for a story becoming a tellable story (Sacks, 1992; Norrick, 2000; Ochs & Capps, 2001; Georgakopoulou, 2007; Karatsu, 2012). Building on research on repetition in storytelling (Jefferson et al., 1987; Norrick, 2000; Georgakopoulou, 2007), this study shows how participants can utilize a previous shared story about food and restaurants (e.g., repeating words and phrases from the punch line of the story) as a resource for commenting on their taste and evaluating a subsequent story. 186 Mariko Karatsu In this study, using data from a naturally occurring conversation, I demonstrate how words and phrases in the punch lines (utterances that provide humor) of previous stories (1) acquire evaluative or symbolic meanings through the participants’ repetition and laughter, (2) are repeated by the participants to give evaluative comments on their taste and evaluate subsequent stories, and (3) work as references to the previous stories. I also show that the ubiquity of talk about food and restaurants allows the participants to use punch line words and phrases from previous stories as a vital resource for mobilizing their interaction and showing their understanding of one another. Finally, I suggest that the practice of repetition of punch line words and phrases from the previous stories can make it possible for the participants to bond as a group. 2. Previous research on repetition in a storytelling In this section, I present an overview of previous research on the practice of repetition within a story because this research is relevant to my analysis of how the punch line words/ phrases acquire evaluative or symbolic meanings. Then, I review previous research on how repetition works as a reference to the shared story in order to demonstrate how the participants analyzed here repeat the punch line words/ phrases from previous stories, and how the words/ phrases work as references to the previous stories. 2.1 Repetition as an evaluative device Research on repetition in interactional sociolinguistics has demonstrated how repetition of utterances functions as an “involvement strategy” (Tannen, 1984, 1989; Nakada, 1992; Norrick, 2000; Fujimura-Wilson, 2007). In particular, research on conversational storytelling has demonstrated that when a teller repeats phrases in a story, they acquire an evaluative character, help to make a point of the story, and play an organizational role in the storytelling (Labov, 1972; Tannen, 1989; Norrick, 2000; Karatsu, 2004, 2012; Szatrowski, 2010). It has also demonstrated how story recipients repeat the teller’s phrases to show their understanding of the story and their involvement in the storytelling. The practice of repetition is one of Labov’s (1972) evaluative devices, specifically the device he refers to as “intensifiers.” Labov (1972) pointed out that the story teller repeats key phrases to strengthen or intensify the events. Tannen (1989) also notes that “repetitions and variations” are effective specifically for evaluating the Chapter 8.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 187 point of the discourse.1 She demonstrated that repetitions and variations function to combine individual utterances into a unified discourse, and contribute to the point of the discourse. She also showed that repetitions and variations enhance the hearer’s comprehension because their redundancy provides the hearer the time to absorb what is said (Tannen, 1989, pp. 55–56). Focusing on repetition as a narrative strategy, Norrick (2000) pointed out that when an evaluative phrase recurs in a story, it locally and spontaneously acquires a “formulaic character,” that is, what he refers to as “local formulaicity,” and functions in a way similar to formulaic speech (Norrick, 2000, p. 48). 2 Norrick (2000) also demonstrated how local formulaicity can help tellers organize their narratives into orderly chunks, and “signal[s] teller’s attitudes and move[s] listeners to adopt parallel perspectives” (p. 57). In this way, researchers have demonstrated how the teller’s repetition of key phrases functions to evaluate the events of the story and to communicate the point of the story to other participants. However, previous researchers on repetition as an evaluative device have tended to examine repetitions which occurred immediately after the original words/ phrases and repetitions which occurred within a short conversational segment, e.g., within a single activity such as telling a story. In this study, I demonstrate how the formulaic character (Norrick, 2000), which key phrases acquire in storytelling, specifically evaluative/ symbolic meanings, work across activities, and how the participants utilize the formulaic character of key phrases. 2.2 Repetition as a reference to a shared story Conversation analytic and ethnographic research has shown that participants repeat phrases from a previous story to show that the story was shared among them. In an analysis of laughter in ordinary conversation, Jefferson et al. (1987) demonstrated how the participants’ repetition of a “lexical reference of the prior joke segment” (e.g., “Ooops!”) re-invoked the joke which had been told previously and invited laughter (pp. 158–159). In her ethnographic research in Greece, Georgakopoulou (2007) reported that in conversations among three young female friends, the girls repeated short phrases (“references”) which were used in their shared stories in order to refer to 1. In “repetition and variations”, Tannen (1989) includes “exact repetition”, “paraphrase”, and “repetition with variation”, i.e., repetition with a change in a word/ phrase, patterned rhythm, etc. 2. Norrick (2000, p. 48) defines formulaic speech as “any relatively fixed unit of two or more words which recurs in the discourses of a linguistic community”, which includes recurrent collocations (e.g., ‘live it up’) and proverbial phrases. 188 Mariko Karatsu these shared stories or story characters. References took the form of a punch line of a story and/ or a brief characterization of a third person by imitating the character’s speech. In addition, the form of these references becomes fixed as the participants’ interactional history develops. Georgakopoulou (2007) also pointed out that “references originate in less recent stories,” are “rich in symbolic associations, and prone to re-contextualization,” and are used repeatedly by the participants to show their membership in the group (p. 53). Research by Jefferson et al. (1987) and Georgakopoulou (2007) suggests how participants use evaluative/ symbolic meanings that particular phrases acquire in a previous story to refer to the previous story. However, this research focused more on the participants’ use of the phrases as a reference to the previous story, than on the relationship between the original use of the phrases in the previous story and subsequent uses of the phrases as a reference. In this study, I analyze both the use of punch line words and phrases in the previous story and subsequent uses of these words and phrases as a reference in order to shed light on the mechanism behind the practice of repetition of punch line words and phrases from the previous story as well as its interactional import. 3. Data and methodology The data for this study come from a 70-minute audio and video taped naturally occurring conversation among three Japanese women having tea and cakes at a university cafeteria. The participants (Kayo, Yoko, and Ikuyo), graduate students in Tokyo, talk a lot about food and restaurants, and tell a series of stories about a particular food and another series of stories about restaurants. I observed three types of repetition that varied depending on who the teller was that uttered the original word and phrase and which participant(s) subsequently repeated the word and phrase in six (story) tellings about food and restaurants that came up in various parts of the conversation. These were told by Kayo (K), Yoko (Y), and Ikuyo (I) in the following order K1, K2, Y3, Y4, Y5, I6. Kayo repeats a word from her previous story (K1) in her own subsequent telling (K2); Kayo repeats one of Yoko’s phrases from Yoko’s previous story (Y3) during Yoko’s subsequent story (Y4); and both Kayo and Yoko repeat one of Yoko’s phrases from Yoko’s previous story (Y5) during Ikuyo’s storytelling (I6). I will focus on three conversational excerpts: Excerpt 1 which includes the K1 story and K2 telling, Excerpt 2 which includes the Y3 and Y4 stories, and Excerpt 3 which includes the Y5 and I6 stories. Chapter 8.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 189 4. Analysis Drawing on Norrick (2000), I analyze how particular words/ phrases from a previous story acquire formulaic character, specifically evaluative/ symbolic meanings. Following Jefferson et al. (1987) and Georgakopoulou (2007), I examine how the participants’ repetition of these words/ phrases as a reference to the previous story evokes the evaluative/ symbolic meanings and displays their solidarity. In my analysis, I demonstrate how (1) the punch line words and phrases of previous stories acquire evaluative/ symbolic meanings through the participants’ repetition, laughter, and hand gestures, (2) the participants utilize the punch line words and phrases by repeating them to give evaluative comments on their taste and to evaluate the story, and (3) the words and phrases work as references to the previous stories, as shown in Figure 1. Finally, I discuss how the participants’ repetitions function as a group bonding exercise. (a) A story about food/ restaurants Time Punch line words and phrases acquire evaluative/ symbolic meanings … ((talk)) (b) (Story)telling about food/ restaurants Repetition of punch line words/ phrasesâ•‡ <Reference> –â•‡ to give an evaluative comment –â•‡ to evaluate the story Figure 1.â•‡ The relationship between the punch line words and phrases of a previous story and repetition of these words and phrases 4.1 Excerpt 1: Kayo’s use of the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ to evaluate her taste In Excerpt 1, Kayo tells a story K1 (“Artichokes and American soy sauce”) about how she used syooyu ‘soy sauce’ as a special seasoning, and when she uses the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ in a subsequent telling K2 to evaluate her taste, it reminds Yoko of Kayo’s previous story.3 First, I demonstrate how Kayo highlights the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ as a kernel entity of her story by repeating it while evaluating it as strange but special in her story K1. Second, I demonstrate how Kayo uses the 3. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data, transcription conventions, English translation and Japanese romanization. 190 Mariko Karatsu word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ to summarize her taste, that “syooyu is best” to comment on her dislike of coconut milk in her subsequent telling K2, and how this reminds Yoko of Kayo’s previous story. Kayo’s story (“Artichokes and American soy sauce”) is about how she and her friends bought artichokes on a trip to America, and boiled them although they did not know how to eat them, and ate the artichokes with wasabi-zyooyu ‘soy sauce with wasabi added,’ which they accidentally discovered. Kayo gives the climax of her story in 2K through 11K, that is, how she and her friends found some soy sauce with wasabi added in a refrigerator and used it to season their artichokes, and how although it tasted okay, they wondered if it was an appropriate way to eat artichokes. Kayo introduces the soy sauce that they found in 2K referring to it as wasabi-zyooyu ‘soy sauce with wasabi added.’ Subsequently in 3K, she rephrases it in a humorous way as sude ni wasabi ga insutooru-@zumi no osyooyu@ ‘soy sauce in which wasabi had been installed previously’. Her ways of describing the soy sauce invite Ikuyo and Yoko to laugh loudly in 4I and 5Y and her utterance in 3K functions as a punch line. Kayo further rephrases the soy sauce by characterizing it as American in 7K saying ikanimo Amerikateki na yatu ‘stuff that (was) really American.’ (1) Kayo’s story (K1) “Artichokes and American soy source” (27:45–28:48) なんかそん時つついたのじゃうまくないとか言//って、 1K Nanka son toki tutuita no zya umaku nai to ka i//tte, Like then (we) said that (the artichoke we) picked at was not tasty, //and ((Two lines are omitted, where Yoko and Ikuyo say un ‘uh huh.’)) … なんか冷蔵庫開けたらわさび醤油って、 2K nanka reezooko aketara wasabi-zyooyu tte, somehow when (we) opened the refrigerator, (we found some soy sauce) called wasabi-soy sauce, なんかすでにわさびがインストール@済みの 3K //お醤油があったって、@ nanka sude ni wasabi ga insutooru-@zumi no //osyooyu ga atta tte,@ somehow there was soy sauce in which wasabi had been installed previously, and, 4I //{ハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 5Y //{ハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 6Y すごーーー→ Sugo::: → Wo:::w. hhhh なんか (.hhhh Somehow (.’ Her utterance consisting of the noun predicate [syooyu ‘soy sauce’ + the copula da] gives a tone of her judgment that “the best is simply using syooyu. that is. uh huh. and Ikuyo mentions that she did not like the coconut smell in a shampoo she used in America. specialness for her. When (we) poured (it) on (the artichokes) whoosh. she tells the “result” (“what finally happened” (Labov. Chapter 8. that is.hhhh well (we) were able to eat (them).) there was stuff that was really American. In this way. Kayo evaluates the soy sauce as a strange American type. 10Y //うん。 //Un.) いかにもアメリカ的な//やつがあってー、 . she highlights the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ by repeating it and referring it as yatu ‘stuff ’ (7K). honto ni kore de yokatta n //daroo ka: to ka tte . and â•⁄8Y //うん、うん。 //Un. to the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ (and syooyu as a seasoning). the participants talk about episodes during their overseas travels and foods which were foreign for them. Kayo gives a second telling (K2) about her dislike of coconut milk in 1K through 3K in (2). She also implies that syooyu ‘soy sauce’ is a special all-round seasoning by telling how she and her friends used it for the foreign food despite its being strange and their not knowing the correct way to eat the food. Kayo gives a comment to summarize her personal taste in 9K Yappa sinpuru ni syooyu da yo ‘After all (it) is simply soy sauce. Following Kayo’s story (K1).) ikanimo Amerikateki na //yatu ga atte:. â•⁄9K ビターとかかけたら//ー、 bita: to ka kaketara//:. I tell you.hhhh Nanka (. 370)) of the story in 11K.hhhh maa kueru kedo:. that is. . un. Subsequently. Kayo grants an evaluative meaning. When Kayo evaluates the strangeness of the soy sauce. //Uh huh. Touching off of Ikuyo’s comment.hhhh 12I //{ハハハハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} With her elaborations centering on the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ in 3K and 7K. p. まあ食えるけどー、ほんとにこれでよかったん 11K //だろうかーとかって.　 //Uh huh. or something. . the soy sauce was acceptable but they wondered if this was really an appropriate way to eat artichokes. 1972. but (we) wondered if this was really the appropriate (way to eat them).” Following her acknowledgement of Kayo’s taste of syooyu ‘soy sauce’ with laughter . one that is different from Japanese soy sauce. Subsequently.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 191 â•⁄7K . (The one called) “ethnic food”. Rather than not acceptable. â•⁄8 (0. But. where Kayo says that the food she mentioned is … dame ‘not acceptable’ and Ikuyo requests confirmation about it.0) â•⁄7Y ふーーーん。 Hu:::n. â•⁄6 (2. Yoko refers to her desire to taste artichokes in 12Y. isn’t there.)) â•⁄2K だめってかく. 10I {ハハハ//ハハハハ} {ha ha ha //ha ha ha ha} 11Y //{ハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 12Y でもアーティチョーク食べてみたいなーー。 Demo aatityooku tabete mitai na::. (2) Kayo’s telling (K2) about her dislike of coconut milk (31:02–31:23) â•⁄1K わたしもココナッツミルク入りなんとかってゆうのあるじゃない。エスニック//料理って(ゆうの)。タイ料理？ Watasi mo kokonattu-miruku-iri nan to ka tte yuu no aru zya nai. … ((One line is omitted where Ikuyo asks if regular coconut milk is not acceptable.)) â•⁄3K そう//ゆうのもあんまり(　　) Soo //yuu no mo anmari (â•…â•… ) (I don’t like) that kind of thing that much (â•…â•… ) â•⁄4Y //タピオカ入り(â•…â•…) //Tapioka-iri(â•…â•…)　 //(â•…â•… ) with tapioca â•⁄5I そうなんだーー。 Soo na n da::. (I) want to try eating artichokes. (it) is simply soy sauce. I tell you. Tai-ryoori? I also. . (I) eat (it). Esunikku-//ryoori tte (yuu no).192 Mariko Karatsu in 11Y. It’s that (it is) so.5) â•⁄9K やっぱシンプルに醤油だよ。 Yappa sinpuru ni syooyu da yo.食べるけど//ーそんなに好きとか、 Dame tte ka ku. (Is it) Thai food? ((Five lines are omitted.taberu kedo//: sonna ni suki to ka. but (it’s that I don’t) like (it) that much or. there is one which is called (something) with coconut milk in it. although nothing besides Kayo’s reference to syooyu ‘soy sauce’ connects the talk to artichokes. After all. I see. I have demonstrated how the teller (Kayo) gives the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ an evaluative meaning (i. (it) is simply soy sauce. to which Yoko responded mada ‘not yet. a specialness for her) by her repetition and elaboration on it as a kernel word in her story (K1). Ikuyo’s and Yoko’s immediate appreciation of Kayo’s comment with laughter in 10I and 11Y suggests that they understand Kayo’s utterance despite the abruptness of her reference to syooyu ‘soy sauce. Yoko talked about how she loves sweet desserts. Prior to the Yoko’s story Y3 in (3). Yoko uses the phrases booru ippai ‘a full bowl’ and mi o motte ‘with (his) own body’ in her story about how her friend learned that he could not eat a large amount of whipped cream through an experience that his mother gave him.’ suggests that her taste for soy souse is expected. and in response Yoko uses the phrase mi o motte ‘with (my) own body’ to comment on her own taste.’ Subsequently. Kayo uses the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ to communicate something evaluative (i.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 193 Kayo’s use of Yappa ‘After all’ in 9K Yappa sinpuru ni syooyu da yo. Yoko’s remembering Kayo’s previous story suggests that the word which had acquired the evaluative meaning in the previous story could be used as a reference to the previous story later in the conversation. the specialness for her) that she bestowed on the phrase in her previous story (K1). Later in the conversation in Yoko’s story Y4 in (4). Chapter 8. Kayo uses yappa ‘after all’ and by repeating the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ utilizes the evaluative meaning of this word to comment on her taste. I demonstrate how Yoko and Kayo use the two phrases to symbolize the reciprocal relationship between the mother’s action and the child’s learning a lesson. 4. and Ikuyo asked if Yoko had ever felt sick after eating whipped cream. I tell you..’ Yoko’s subsequent mention of artichokes in 12Y indicates that she connects Kayo’s summary of her taste preference in 9K to Kayo’s previous story (K1). Ikuyo’s and Yoko’s immediate understanding of Kayo’s utterance shows that they appreciate the same evaluative meaning of the word. I illustrate how Yoko highlights the phrase booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ with laughter and hand gestures (specifically. Kayo uses the phrase booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ to comment on Yoko’s love of fresh whipped cream. and that Yoko associates the word syooyu ‘soy sauce’ with Kayo’s previous story.. Later in the conversation (K2). ‘After all. Yoko begins her story Y3 (“A . I demonstrate how the phrases in a previous story can acquire symbolic meanings and can be utilized as set phrases in a subsequent story. she uses her hands to depict a large amount of whipped cream) and the phrase mi o motte ‘with (his) own body’ with repetition.e. In her story Y3 (“A full bowl of whipped cream”) in (3).2 Excerpt 2: Using the phrases booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ and mi o motte ‘with one’s own body’ to comment on another’s and one’s own taste In this section.e. )) Figure 2.@ 4Y @ボールいっぱい食べ//させてくれた。@ @booru ip-pai tabe//sasete kureta.â•‡ Yoko’s hand gestures for booru ‘bowl’ and ip-pai ‘full. his mother let him eat booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ of whipped cream (3Y. 14Y).5) nanka “Syoo ga nai wa @nee” tutte. 8Y). tomodati no otoko no ko ga:.@ @(she) let (him) eat a full bowl (of whipped cream). @aren’t you” and.5) like (she said) “(You) are hopeless. (he) loved.’ Y makes the shape of a big bowl with both of her hands. お母さんに「生クリームいっぱい食べたい食べたい 2Y ってなんか okaasan ni “Nama-kuriimu ip-pai tabetai tabetai” tte nanka (he said) to his mother “(I) want to eat (I) want to eat a lot of fresh whipped cream”. when he was a child.’4 4. where Yoko tells how there is only a little whip cream on top (of a dessert). my male friend. and Kayo and Yoko give acknowledgement tokens. tittyai koro nama-kuriimu ga suki de suki de: Oh. .5) なんか「しょうがないわ@ねえつって、@ =De nanka okaasan ni ittara:. in which she tells about how when her friend was crazy about whipped cream (1Y.194 Mariko Karatsu full bowl of whipped cream”). 4Y. loved fresh whipped cream and. somehow … ((Three lines are omitted. 2Y). nanka (0.)) 3Y =でなんかお母さんに言ったらー、なんか (0.@ = and somehow when (he) said (it) to his mother. (3) Yoko’s story (Y3) “A full bowl of whipped cream” (1:03–1:46) えでもなんかーー、友達の男の子がー、ちっちゃい頃生クリームが 1Y 好きで好きでー、 E demo nanka::. but he felt sick before eating even half of it (11Y) and understood mi o motte ‘with his own body’ that he could not eat a large amount of whipped cream (13Y.@ ((While saying booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl. like (0. but uh::m. I underline the mora of the word that corresponds to the frame grab picture. Y swings her right hand down vertically as if she is throwing whipped cream into an imaginary bowl in her left hand.) //. (go ahead) @try eating (it)!”@ ((While saying tabete goran nasai ‘try eating (it)!’. and then she moves her left hand forward as if she is serving the bowl of whipped cream.) â•⁄8Y なんか「そんな食べたいんなら食べて@ごらんなさい //って@ nanka “Sonna tabetai n nara tabete @goran nasai” //tte@ like (she said) “If it’s that (you) want to eat (it) that much.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 195 â•⁄5K //{ハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha} â•⁄6I //{ハハハハハハ//ハハハハ}hh //{ha ha ha ha ha ha//ha ha ha ha}hh　　 â•⁄7Y //.)) Figure 3.sarete.@ when (he) ate (it).hh De nanka (. Chapter 8.hh{ハハハ} //.â•‡ Yoko’s gestures for tabete ‘eat’ and goran nasai ‘try’ â•⁄9K //{ハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 10I //{ハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 11Y @出し.hh and like (. 12I //. like (he) went “Ble:ch” before (he) had eaten even half (of it).hhでなんか (.) //.されて、@食べたらなんか半分も食べない //うちにもう「ウエーーって、 @dasi. @(he) was served and.hh{ha ha ha}　 . @tabetara nanka hanbun mo tabenai //uti ni moo “Ue::” tte. > 20Y //@身をもってー//ー。@ //@Mi o motte://:. Yoko’s laughing voice in 4Y indicates that the line is funny. @aren’t you.196 Mariko Karatsu 13Y なってーー、なんか身をもって生クリームは大量に食べられないってことを、 natte::. She depicts the mother’s amazement by quoting the mother’s speech in 3Y Syoo ga nai wa @nee@ ‘(You) are hopeless. she evaluates the largeness of the amount of the whipped cream in 4Y with the phrase booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ and her hand gestures where she depicts a big bowl with both hands (Figure 2). where Kayo says He::→.” and Ikuyo says Soo … na n da::.@ //@With his own body.>@{ha ha ha ha} //. Then. @isn’t she. somehow (he understood) with his own body that (he) couldn’t eat a large amount of whipped cream. In particular. ‘I see.@ {he he} //<そうだね。 19K > //<Soo da ne.@ 21I //{ハハハ} //{ha ha ha} 22I //{ヒヒ} //{hi hi} Kayo’s highlighting of the phrase booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ evaluates the amount of whipped cream as excessively large in the context of the mother’s amazement at her child’s hopeless love of whipped cream (3Y) and her attempt to discipline him with a challenge (8Y).> //<That’s so. isn’t it.@{ha ha ha ha}//. nanka mi o motte nama-kuriimu wa tairyoo ni taberenai tte koto o. すごいいいお母さん//@ですよね？@ {ヘヘ} 18Y Sugoi ii okaasan //@desu yo ne? @ {he he} (She) is a very nice mother.)) いいよね？その話。 17K Ii yo ne? sono hanasi. (It’s) nice isn’t it? that story.hhh{hi hi hi hi} //@he <ended> up understanding (that). ‘It’s that that’s so. the location of Kayo and Ikuyo’s laughter precisely after Yoko’s phrase booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ suggests that they appreciate this phrase .) {hu hu hu hu} //(Right.) {hu hu hu hu} ((Two lines are omitted. and Kayo and Ikuyo appreciate the funniness of Yoko’s talk with their loud laughter in 5K and 6I.@’.hhh{hi hi hi hi} 16Y //(そう。) {フフフフ} //(Soo.hhh{ヒヒヒヒ} //@kare wa satotte //<simatta. 14Y //(â•…â•…) 15I //@彼は悟って// <しまった。> @{ハハハハ}//. 1989).) This quoted speech is appreciated as another punch line by Kayo and Ikuyo with their laughter in 9K and 10I. (4) Yoko’s story (Y4) about her like of whipped cream (4:41–5:00) えだからこうパフェで、中にー、中はアイスってパターン多いじゃ 1Y ない//ですか。 E dakara koo pah(u)e de. Yoko reveals how crazy she is about whipped cream by telling how she always wishes she could have whipped cream in a parfait instead of ice cream (4Y). Later. //Ice cream. and then pushes the bowl forward with her left hand. Yoko talks about how much she loves whipped cream again and the kind of dessert that she likes.= //(I) always think that (I) would be happy if (it) wasn’t like that but if even after (I) took a big scoop of this there would still be whipped cream left. Then. and Kayo tells a story about how surprised she was to see people eating big desserts with whipped cream at a coffee shop. using the phrase mi o motte ‘with his own body’ in 13Y nanka mi o motte nama-kuriimu wa tairyoo ni taberarenai tte koto o. Yoko concludes her story with the result. Ikuyo’s co-construction of Kayo’s utterance in 15I shows that she understands the story to be about the lesson that the boy learned. 2K //へー → んー→ //He: → n: → //Really → n: → 3K //アイス。 //Aisu. like this (it’s) a parfait and. isn’t there. so. 4Y //そうじゃなくてこれをガっていってもまた生クリームだったらうれしいなー//っていつも思って、= //Soo zya nakute kore o ga tte itte mo mata nama-kuriimu dattara uresii na: //tte itumo omotte. naka ni:. naka wa aisu tte pataan ooi zya nai //desu ka.’ Yoko’s phrase symbolizes the boy’s experience through which he learned the lesson his mother taught him. Yoko savors her phrase mi o motte ‘with his own body’ in 20Y by repeating it with laughter (Tannen.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 197 as a punch line phrase. Yoko depicts the mother’s offer of the whipped cream as a challenge by quoting the mother’s speech in 8Y sonna tabetai n nara tabete @ goran nasai@ ‘if it’s that (you) want to eat (it) that much. Chapter 8. ‘somehow (he understood) with his own body that (he) couldn’t eat a large amount of whipped cream. Well. inside (of it). (Specifically she swings her right hand down with force towards an imaginary bowl on her left as if throwing whip cream in the bowl. Following the excerpt in (3). (go ahead) @try eating (it)!@’ accompanying it with an aggressive hand gesture (Figure 3). in (4). and= . and how disappointed she was when she had some with ice cream in it (6Y). often there’s the type with ice cream inside. positioning Yoko’s mother and Yoko in the same way as the mother and the boy in Yoko’s previous story (Y3). //{ha ha} Oh. = It’s that that is so. (Really) if I too don’t experience (it) once with my own body. I tell you.198 Mariko Karatsu â•⁄5I //(ふーー →) //(Hu:: →) //(Hu:: →) â•⁄6Y =//アイスだなー？しょうがないなーって。 =//“Aisu da na:? Syoo ga nai na:” tte.’ Yoko’s use of her phrase mi o motte ‘with my own body’ shows that she understood Kayo’s use of the phrase as a symbolic reference to the mother’s action in the previous story (Y3). =//(I feel like) “(It’s) ice cream. (it will be) “a full bowl. //(You) wouldn’t understand. //this won’t be cured. for Yoko’s mother too. (will it). for (your) [Yoko’s] mother too. Yoko comments on her crazy love for whipped cream in 11Y (Ho:nto ni) watasi mo ik-kai mi o motte taiken-sinai to // ko:re wa naoranai desu (yo ne). //this won’t be cured (will it). Kayo evaluates Yoko’s love for whipped cream. using Yoko’s phrase booru ippai ‘a full bowl’ from Yoko’s previous story in 8K Yoko-san no okaasan mo zya booru ip-pai da ne? ‘Then. 12K //分からない。 //Wakaranai. ‘(Really) if I too don’t experience (it) once with my own body. After agreeing with Kayo’s comment in 10Y.” â•⁄7I //{ハハ}あーそうなんだー。 //{ha ha} A: soo na n da:.　　 â•⁄8K よう子さんのお母さんもじゃボール一杯//だね？= Yooko-san no okaasan mo zya booru ip-pai //da ne?= Then. the phrase symbolizes the mother’s aggressive offer to give her child a lesson. Can’t be helped. 11Y (ほーんとに)わたしも一回身をもって体験しないと //こーれは治らないです(よね)。 (Ho:nto ni) watasi mo ik-kai mi o motte taiken-sinai to //ko:re wa naoranai desu (yo ne).” won’t it?’ Rather than using the phrase with a verbal predicate she uses it as a noun predicate to symbolize the “action” of the boy’s mother in Yoko’s previous story. and that she places . and Kayo applies the symbolic meaning to Yoko. That is. (it will be) “a full bowl. is it that that is so.” won’t it?= â•⁄9I //{ハハハ} //{ha ha ha} 10Y =そうなんですよ。 = Soo na n desu yo. The two phrases are used as set phrases from Yoko’s previous story to symbolize the reciprocal relationship between the mother’s action and the child’s learning the lesson. However. I demonstrate how it becomes possible for Kayo to repeat the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ in Ikuyo’s story (I6). and this invites the recipients’ loud laughter (6Y–20Y). 5. through a parallel application of the relationship between the customer’s rejection and the server’s offer in Y5 to I6. Kayo’s and Yoko’s uses of the particle mo (Yooko-san no okaasan mo ‘Yoko’s mother too (in addition to the boy’s mother)’ in 8K and watasi mo ‘I too (in addition to the boy)’ in 11Y indicate that they are applying the phrases from Yoko’s previous story (Y3) to Yoko’s taste (Y4). 4. are transferred by accompanying laughter.5 In (5). First. and how they mobilize the participants’ interaction. its funniness and forcefulness. Yoko begins a story (Y5) in which she depicts the humorous dialogue between a waitress and herself. I use the same data (the story “Compulsory toast at a restaurant” and the story “A happy birthday song at a restaurant”) that I analyzed in Chapter 7 “The story recipients’ involvement in the storytelling and shared knowledge” in Karatsu (2012). I demonstrate how the phrases ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ and omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ are contextualized and highlighted by the participants’ repetition and laughter in Yoko’s story (Y5). Yoko tells a story Y5 (“Compulsory toast at a restaurant”) about how a waitress at a restaurant gave a toast to Yoko saying omise no kimari ‘it’s a rule of the restaurant’ despite Yoko’s rejection ii desu ‘(I’m) fine (if you don’t)’.3 Excerpt 3: Using the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ to preemptively evaluate another participant’s second story In this section. rather than on how the story recipients show their involvement by repeating the phrases. In this section. I also demonstrate how the evaluative and symbolic meanings of the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’. Later in the conversation in (6). Kayo talked about how a restaurant she had been to was noisy because a group of customers were celebrating a customer’s birthday with their waitress. and Yoko also repeats the phrase. In (5). Second.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 199 herself in the same position as the boy. . Prior to the excerpt in (5). Kayo repeats the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ from Yoko’s previous story with laughter to preempt the result of Ikuyo’s story. Chapter 8. when Ikuyo tells a second story I6 (“A happy birthday song at a restaurant”). the analysis here is different because it focuses on how symbolic meanings of phrases are created and used through repetition of the phrases. I demonstrate how participants can use a punch line phrase from a previous story to evaluate another participant’s second story. that is. since we’re here.@= //@ (I) know. where Yoko tells how she was not in a drinking mood. //like this. 強制的に乾杯させられるんですよ。= De @soko tte@ hh.200 Mariko Karatsu (5) Yoko’s story (Y5) “Compulsory toast at a restaurant” (14:36–15:54) 1Y =なんかこの間 (0.3) Napori de kanpai to ka yuu: mise aru no sitte //ru? = Uhm. nanka kyoo wa sonna kanpai to ka yuu kibun zya nai n de ii desu to ka itte. when we ordered (alcohol) with a feeling like “Well.> and. I tell you. where Ikuyo shows her recognition of the restaurant and Kayo shows her non-recognition of it.)) 2Y で@そこって@ hh. . 6Y で、なんか乾杯の音頭とらせていただきまーす > //とか言ってなんかウエートレス<が来るの。 de. shall (we) order alcohol” and. kyooseeteki ni kanpai-saserareru n desu yo. <it’s that> somehow a waitress <comes (over to us)> saying “(I) will receive your allowing me to lead you in a toast. it’s that (you) are forced to make a toast. uhm (I) said “It’s that (we) are not in the mood for toasting or something.= and @there@. sitte ru. (I’m) fine (if you don’t)” or something and.= 3Y =なんか//こう = Nanka //koo. nanka kanpai no ondo torasete itadakima:su //to ka itte nanka ueetoresu <ga kuru no.3) do (you) know that there is a restaurant called Napori de kanpai ‘Toast in Naples’? … ((Two lines are omitted.3) ナポリで乾杯とかゆうー店あるの知って//る？ = Nanka kono aida (0. but. 4I //@知ってる、知ってる。@= //@Sitte ru.@= … ((Six lines are omitted. (I) know.” 7K //{ハハハハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 8I //{ハハハハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 9Y で、なんか今日はそんな乾杯とかゆう気分じゃないんでいいですとか言って、 De. And. = Uhm. a while ago (0.)) 5Y まあでもお酒もついでだから飲もうかねってゆうような感じで頼んだら、 maa demo osake mo tuide da kara nomoo ka ne tte yuu yoona kanzi de tanondara. ’ Yoko raises her right hand again as if making a toast)) //{ハハハハハハハ}うん。 16K //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} Un. 18Y). 18Y //@強制的に乾杯させられたよーとか言って。@ //@Kyooseeteki ni kanpai-saserareta yo: to ka itte. Chapter 8. //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} Uh huh. nantoka kantoka kanpa:i @to ka itte@ compulsorily.@ 19K //{ハハハハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 20I //{ハハハハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} In Yoko’s depiction of the dialogue between the waitress and herself.>@ @<(I) was.@ //@ (I) said “(I) was forced to give a toast.’ Because she characterizes a toast as “forceful” by repeating the phrase kyooseeteki ni ‘forcefully’ (2Y. @(she) said@ “Something or other Cheers”. but it’s that (it’s) a rule of the restaurant. Yoko uses the phrase omise no kimari as the waitress’ reason for her second offer of a toast in 10Y iya: demo omise no kimari na n de: @onegai-simasu ‘Okay.@ 11K //{ハハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 12I //{ハハハハハハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} 13Y @<なんか言われて、>@ @<nanka iwarete.>@ 強制的に、なんとかかんとかかんぱーい@とか言って@ 14Y kyooseeteki ni.@ (she) said “Okay.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 201 10Y いやーでもお店の決まりなんでー@お願いします //とか言って、@ iya: demo omise no kimari na n de: @onegai-simasu //to ka itte. the waitress’s offer is contextualized as a forceful offer despite the customer’s (Yoko’s) rejection in 9Y . so @please. I tell you” or something and.@ //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} ((While saying ha: to ka ‘â†œ“Haa” or something. //{ハハハハハハハ}乾杯。 17I //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} Kanpai. told something (like that) and. //{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha} Cheers. @//{ha ha ha ha ha ha ha}@ (I) ended up saying “Haa” or something and.’ Yoko raises her right hand as if making a toast)) 15Y @はーとか言っちゃって。@//{ハハハハハハハ} @ha: to ka ittyatte. 14Y. and ((While saying kanpa:i ‘Cheers. but it’s that (it’s) a rule of the restaurant. so @please” or something and. ” Yoko savors the phrase omise no kimari with laughter in 24Y @omise no kimari na n da kara tte.@ {ha ha //ha ha} 26K //それは知らないで入った、い. Right. isn’t it. so. (I) said “(I’m) fine (if you don’t)” but.@ ‘(the waitress said) @it’s that (it’s) a rule of the restaurant.202 Mariko Karatsu ii desu ‘(I’m) fine.@ //@ Right. you know. 21I @ほんとすごいねー→。@ @Honto sugoi ne:→. @ @That’s really awful. where Kayo asks what Yoko ordered and Ikuyo asks for confirmation about the location of the restaurant.ゆったのに、一応お願いしますって。 Ii desu tte ii. Yoko highlights the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ and the phrase ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ by repeating them in 24Y and 27Y.@ {ha ha //ha ha} {hi hi}@That’s awful. the two phrases are highlighted as the customer’s rejection and as the waitress’s funny forceful offer.@{ha ha} @(She said) “it’s that (it) is a rule of the restaurant. 27Y いいですっていい. (she) said “Please (just) once.hoo ga warukatta. . In this way. the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ is contextualized as the waitress’s funny forceful offer in response to the customer’s (Yoko’s) rejection.’ Kayo and Ikuyo immediately appreciate the waitress’ offer as a funny punch line with loud laughter in 11K and 12I. After finishing telling all of the events in the story. i.’ Finally. In this way. //As for that. the one (person) who went (there) not knowing (the rule) was wrong. itioo onegai-simasu tte.ほうが悪かった。 //Sore wa siranai de haitta.yutta no ni. Yoko emphasizes her rejection in 27Y repeating her phrase ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’.@ … ((Seven lines are omitted. where they refer to it as sore ‘that. Soo. This invites Ikuko’s and Kayo’s comments on Yoko’s reason in 25I and in 26K.”@ {ha ha} 25I {ヒヒ}@それはすごい。@{ハハ//ハハ} {hi hi}@Sore wa sugoi. respectively. Subsequently the participants appreciate the funniness and forcefulness of the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ again. @//{he he he} 23Y //@そう。そう。@ //@Soo.)) 22I おいしいんだけ@どね？@//{ヘヘへ} Oisii n da ke@do ne?@ //{he he he} It’s that the (food) is tasty bu@t.@ 24Y @お店の決まりなんだからって。@{ハハ} @Omise no kimari na n da kara tte. so@’. â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 203 Following Yoko’s story. so” @ 7I //{ハハハハ} //{ha ha ha ha} 8Y //{ハハ}@お店の決まりですから。@ //{ha ha}@Omise no kimari desu kara. and explains the restaurant by telling what they serve and where it is located. Yoko and Kayo give a few non-lexical tokens such as A: ‘O:h. And uhm (. but she rejected it because she felt embarrassed (4I. 4I). (6) Ikuyo’s story (I6) “A happy birthday song at a restaurant” (15:54–16:42) ((Nine lines at the beginning of the story are omitted.)なんかアメリカ系だからやっぱりこうお誕生日の時は必ずお 1I い Demo (.@{ho ho} 6K @お店の決まりです//から(って。)@ @Omise no kimari desu //kara (tte.” or something but.:@{ho ho} @it’s that (I) said “(I’m) fine (if you don’t). 5I). when (it’s) somebody’s birthday.@ (I) was very embarrassed and.@ //{ha ha}@(It’s) a rule of the restaurant so.@sugoi hazukasikute:.) soko tenin-san-tati ga minna atumatte kite.@ 5I @いいですーとか言ってたんだけどー、@{ホホ} @ii desu: to ka itte ta n da kedo. 4I @ハッピーバースデーの曲@歌ってくれるんだけど、@すごい恥ずかしくてー、@ @happii baasudee no kyoku @utatte kureru n da kedo.)@ @ (They say) “(It’s) a rule of the restaurant. Prior to 1I. Chapter 8.) nanka Amerikakee da kara yappari koo otanzyoobi no toki wa kanarazu oi But (.’)) でも(.@ it’s that (they) sing @a the happy birthday song@ (for the customer) but. (they) always cele2I お祝いをしてくれちゃう//んですね？でなんか(. where Ikuyo slowly … says that she does not remember the name of the restaurant.@ . //Oh oh oh.) somehow because (it’s) American.) all the servers gather (around) and.)そこ店員さんたちがみんな集まってきて、 oiwai o site kuretyau //n desu ne? De nanka (. you know. Ikuyo tells a second story about how the servers at a restaurant where she went offered to sing a happy birthday song for her (2I. Ikuyo slowly begins her story giving some background about the restaurant. 3K //あーあーあー→ 。 //A: a: a:→. it’s that (they) ends up celebrating (it for you). Yoko and Kayo look at each other when Kayo repeats Yoko’s previous phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ in 6K.204 Mariko Karatsu Ikuyo talks about how she rejected the servers’ singing a happy birthday song for her in 5I @ii desu: to ka itte ta n da kedo:@ ‘@it’s that (I) said “(I’m) fine (if you don’t). Subsequently. and invites Ikuyo’s laughter in 7I. mitai na.’ Subsequently.@ //@Something like “(I’m) not holding back. before Ikuyo has a chance to tell about a server’s reaction to her rejection.” or something but.@ //@(I) was told like@ “Don’t hold back” and.” @ . Well. Yoko actively participates in Kayo’s story as a person who had had a similar experience. 10Y @そんなこと//遠慮せずに。@ @Sonna koto //enryo-sezu ni.”@’ using the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ from Yoko’s previous story. While Kayo and Yoko show their solidarity with each other in 6K and 7I. //it’s that (I’m) fine. 12I はー →//(â•…â•…) Ha: → //(â•…â•…) Uh:m//(â•…â•…) 13Y //@遠慮じゃなくて//いいんです。今日は。みたいな。@ //@Enryo zya nakute //ii n desu. Soo. the author). Kayo preempts the result of Ikuyo’s story with laughter in 6K @Omise no kimari desu kara (tte)@ ‘@(they said) “(It’s) a rule of the restaurant. Kayo’s use of this phrase with laughter re-invokes the funniness of the phrase in Yoko’s previous story. Then Yoko looks at Ikuyo when she repeats the phrase in 8Y as if she is the teller. Kayo’s gaze at Yoko suggests that she treats Yoko as the original teller of the phrase (that is. Kyoo wa. and their mutual gaze and Yoko’s laughter suggest their common orientation towards Yoko’s previous story through the phrase. Yoko’s laughter while repeating the phrase in 8Y plays a role in evaluating Ikuyo’s story by making the story into a funny story like Yoko’s previous story (Y5). â•⁄9I //いや。そう。 //Iya. Kayo’s and Yoko’s repetitions with laughter establish a connection with Yoko’s previous story and reinforce their solidarity with each other. It appears that Ikuyo’s use of the phrase ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ affords Kayo’s use of the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ from Yoko’s previous story. Ikuyo shows a different orientation as the author of the story in 9I by rejecting the phrase as an appropriate characterization of the servers in her story saying in 9I Iya ‘No. //No.@ @ [That kind of thing] //don’t hold back. telling the story to Ikuyo.@’ using the phrase ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ which Yoko used in her story (Y5).@ 11I //遠慮せずにー@みたいに言われてー、@ //Enryo-sezu ni: @mitai ni iwarete:. Today. ”@’. This allowed them to use the words . while referring back to the previous story. while Kayo and Yoko were engaged in making a connection with Yoko’s previous story (Y5) and Yoko was acting as a person who had had a similar experience by co-telling Ikuyo’s story. The participants continuously or disjunctively talked about their experiences with food and at restaurants.” 16I そんな//しーんとしている@時に。@//{ヒヒ} Sonna //si:n to site iru@ toki ni. so it’s fine.@//{hi hi} @When@ (it) was very quiet like that. However. mitai na. giving them the evaluative and symbolic meanings. 15I 恥ずかしいからいいですみたいな。 Hazukasii kara ii desu mitai na. Subsequently. She participates in Ikuyo’s telling as if she is a co-teller of the story or as if she is continuing her own story taking over Ikuyo’s story. and later Kayo used the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ to evaluate Ikuyo’s story (I6). as soon as Ikuyo uses the phrase ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’. (I was) like “(I)’m embarrassed. so it’s fine”. because of the differing treatments of Kayo’s repetition of the phrase in terms of its authorship and the authorship of the current story. Ikuyo was engaged in telling her own story (I6). respectively. I suggest that because of these symbolic meanings. //Right. Today. ‘(I) was like “(I) am embarrassed. and how the participants can repeat these phrases to give evaluative comments on their taste and evaluate subsequent stories later on in the conversation. //it’s that I’m fine. Conclusion I have demonstrated how punch line words and phrases can be contextualized and acquire evaluative/ symbolic meanings in a previous story. All the participants enjoyed the phrase with their laughter. Kyoo wa. Ikuyo tells how she actually responded in 15I Hazukasii kara ii desu mitai na.Chapter 8.//{hi hi} Yoko laughs while offering both her version of the servers’ second offer in 10Y @Sonna koto //enryo-sezu ni@ ‘@[That kind of thing] don’t hold back@’ and her version of Ikuyo’s rejection in 13Y @Enryo zya nakute //ii n desu. Kayo can jump into Ikuyo’s story repeating the phrase omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ from Yoko’s story. I have demonstrated how the phrases omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ and ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ were contextualized and highlighted in Yoko’s story (Y5) as the customer’s rejection and the waitress’s funny forceful offer. 5.’ which differs from Yoko’s version in 13Y.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 205 14I //そう。 //Soo.@ ‘@Something like “(I’m) not holding back. and relate these words and phrases to the current talk. For example. However. Due to the symbolic meanings that the phrases acquire in the previous story. when one speaker uses the first phrase later in the conversation. I have shown how particular two phrases can symbolize a reciprocal relationship between two actions. 1987. This research contributes to the study of conversational storytelling by demonstrating that when a story is shared among the participants. It also shows how the ubiquity of talk about food and restaurants allows the participants to use punch line words and phrases as a handy device to show their understanding of one another. 2007). Georgakopoulou.” this study shows that participants can use words and phrases to refer to stories told in the same conversation.206 Mariko Karatsu and phrases from the previous stories. Similar to repetition in English and Greek conversations (Jefferson et al. In Excerpt 3 the phrase ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ and omise no kimari ‘rule of the restaurant’ symbolize the customer’s rejection and the server’s funny forceful offer. if there is a participant who does not appreciate the repeated phrases or shows a different orientation (for example. negotiation of the interpretation of the phrases may occur. repetition of punch line words and phrases from the previous story in Japanese conversation can be an effective way for the participants to show their connection and solidarity to each other by sharing each other’s story. the phrases booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ and mi o motte ‘with one’s own body’ in Excerpt 2 symbolize the mother’s aggressive offer and the child who learned a lesson. respectively. . who share the previous story and interpret the current activity in a similar way. respectively. two or more parties can be defined as members of the same group. Although Georgakopoulou (2007) has pointed out that “references originated in less recent stories. the punch line words and phrases can become a vital resource for mobilizing the participants’ interaction later in the conversation. The findings suggest this practice could be interpreted as a group bonding exercise where the definition of membership can be negotiated. When a participant show her ability to repeat and utilize phrases from a previous story and others can appropriately interpret them. it affords another speaker’s use of the second phrase in a timely way to evaluate another’s taste and another’s story. Ikuyo in (6) in Excerpt 3). Nakada. L. (2012). Tokyo: Kurosio. Sacks. Jefferson. H. Talking voices: Repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Creating involvement in a large Japanese lecture: Telling the story of a haiku. interaction and identities. I & II). 13. Cambridge. Kokuritu Kokugo Kenkyuuzyo Kenkyuu Hookokusyuu [The National Institute for Japanese Language Occasional Papers]. M. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Chapter 8. Lectures on conversation (Vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Karatsu. NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. In P. Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. dialogue. and imagery in conversational discourse.â•›A. Verbal and nonverbal negotiation in Japanese storytelling. social circumstances and tellability of stories.). M. Ochs. N. Storytelling across Japanese conversational genre (pp. D. (2000). (1987). . H. & Schegloff. E. Discourse Studies. 354–396). (2010). (2004). 9(3). (1992). Karatsu. P. W. (2007). 152–205). 267–302. 267–302). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. G. Szatrowski (Ed. (1992). Japanese exact repetitions involving talk among friends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Conversational storytelling among Japanese women: Conversational circumstances. Norwood. E. Tannen. Talk and Social Organisation (pp. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In J. MA: Blackwell Publishers. D. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends.). Sacks. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Norrick.). In P. (1972). Tannen. Language in the inner city (pp. Lee & G. 319–339. (1984). T. 125–161). (2001). Georgakopoulou. & Capps. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. A. Szatrowski.â•‡ Repetition of words and phrases from the punch lines of Japanese stories 207 References Fujimura-Wilson. Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Small stories. Button (Eds. (1989). Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction (pp. Szatrowski (Ed. Kaiwa no hoosaku to site no kurikaesi [On repetition within conversational strategy]. Labov. K. (2007). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. . part v Talk about food with and among children . . a nauseous bodily state and a behavioral move to avoid the disgusting object. preschool children predominantly use the disgust marker yuck whereas adults most commonly utter eugh. and the Scottish Ethnomethodology. in this context. The author would like to thank the families who recorded their mealtimes. Interaction and Talk (SEDIT) group in Edinburgh for providing a stimulating research environment. I demonstrate that. Eric Laurier. The aims of this paper are to contribute to the growing literature which examines how children learn disgust or 1. Preschool children’s yuck utterances are typically ignored by parents. and of the role of language and social interaction in children’s eating practices. yuckiness and the socialization of disgust responses by preschool children Sally Wiggins University of Strathclyde This paper contributes to research on the socialization of disgust responses by examining the ways in which preschool children (up to and including 5-yearolds) and their parents enact disgust in video recordings of family mealtimes in England and Scotland using a discursive psychological approach. . Discourse. Clare McMaster. Mike Forrester. Introduction What happens when parents or children produce what appears to be a disgust response during a family mealtime?1 How do we know if the utterance refers to a specific emotional state? Disgust is typically understood to be one of the six core emotions: an internal state associated with facial gestures. The paper aims to stimulate debate in research on food and disgust. Laura Jenkins. I argue that preschool children are not treated as having the right to “know” disgust. Thanks are also due to Polly Szatrowski and her students for constructive and detailed feedback on an earlier version of this paper. colleagues (Kay Adams.chapter 9 Family mealtimes. treated as humorous or as attentionseeking behavior. Jonathan Potter and Kate Tobin) who shared their data. Alex Kent. 1. I adopt a discursive psychological approach. These utterances are for the most part ignored by parents.2 Extract 1. Scotland. ((looks down at pizza in her hand)) 3 Eva: (1. The following exchange recorded in Scotland between a mum. 2 (. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data and transcription conventions. preschool children use a different form of disgust marker (“yuck”) to that used by adults (“eugh”). though.212 Sally Wiggins are socialized to disgust responses. Earlier. Mum is adjusting the video camera which has been recording their family meals on a regular basis. although clear in theory. in this context. (. the family members were talking about whether the pizza is a particular brand or just a “pizza pizza”. 2. and that Mum’s orientation to yuck is part of the socialization process to disgust around food. ((Eva turns back to the table and 11 continues eating her pizza)) 12 What is going on here? What sense can be made of Mum’s turn at line 5 (Jolly good) in response to Eva’s Yuck utterance in line 3? In this paper.) Eat it up. Based on a discursive psychological analysis of video recorded family mealtimes in England and Scotland. sets the scene for the rest of the paper. 5 (2. and consequential for. and is turned toward her Mum. and her daughter. Eva is eating her evening meal (pizza and salad) with her older sister. Poppy. and to begin to answer the two questions posed at the start of this paragraph.) and I ig↑nored ya. McMaster corpus.4) ((Eva starts to eat pizza again)) 6 Eva: ºI saidº yuck. In Extract 1. it is important to first consider the literature on children and disgust. 7 8 Mum: I ↑know (. While Eva has some pizza in her hand. which enables an examination of the ways in which psychological concepts – including food preferences and disgust responses – are constructed within. I will argue that this early evidence suggests that. 1 Mum: How’s your pizza pizza. (2.0) ((Eva pouts bottom lip)) 4 Mum: Jolly good.0) 9 10 Mum: ‘s not yuck. the following exchange occurs. I argue that the distinction between distaste and disgust. social interaction. Heather. is blurred in interaction and that learning this distinction may be part of the subtle socialization of children to disgust. I will demonstrate later how Eva’s yuck is prototypical of preschool children’s disgust responses. .â•‡ Mum = Heather. and do not appear to be treated as authentically representing “disgust”. In order to understand these processes. Poppy = daughter (10 years old).) Y:uck. Eva. Eva = daughter (5 years old). McCauley. and how distaste may be confused with disgust in daily interaction. . it taints all other objects which come into contact with it (Rozin. Anthony. 1985). however. In their pioneering work on the psychology of disgust. What has also been suggested. Fallon. social and personal implications of disgust. & Rozin. Researchers have also developed a “Disgust Scale” to measure an individual’s sensitivity to disgust (Haidt. that is.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 213 2. for instance. 1994). which is the rejection of food based on sensory factors alone. disgust also has an ideational and moral element (Rozin. Schmeer. It is also important to point out that disgust differs from “distaste”. Haidt and McCauley (2000) proposed the first developmental model of disgust which has since received some empirical support (Stevenson 3. Rozin and Fallon (1987) provide a definition of disgust as “revulsion at the prospect of (oral) incorporation of an offensive object” (p. The “disgust face”. but a commentary on theoretical and methodological developments. is that core disgust elicitors may only be disgusting in certain contexts (Simpson. has been coded according to Ekman and Friesen’s (1978) Facial Action Coding System3. 1990). by contrast. This is important in terms of how we evidence disgust. it is not surprising that there have been attempts to “measure” disgust and to operationalize disgust responses. the disgust object must have a contaminating property. 23). perception and use of disgust In this section I provide an overview of the previous literature on disgust and children’s understanding. Given the moral. I will return to this point later in the paper. 2. For example. perception and use of disgust responses. referred to as the “law of contagion”. Chapter 9. & Overton. Rozin. faeces-shaped fudge may only be treated as disgusting if it is regarded as a food item. I will refer to Ekman and Friesen’s Facial Action Coding System with the abbreviation FACS. Some objects are regarded as almost universally rejected (“Core Disgust Elicitors”) with faeces being a prime example. it is only recently that researchers are beginning to examine the acquisition of disgust responses in children.1 Psychological approaches to disgust Disgust is most commonly understood as one of the six basic emotions. and it sets a background against which a discursive approach to disgust can be understood. 2007). Previous research on disgust and children’s understanding. & Augustoni-Ziskind. This is not an exhaustive review. To be recognized as disgusting. Hereafter. While research on disgust itself is now fairly well established. rather than as an object per se. deformities or transgressions of the intact body. children’s cognitive development must also play a part in disgust acquisition (Stevenson et al. For example. This model suggests that children acquire disgust in the following sequence: distaste (the innate rejection of bitter tastes).. Research so far suggests that while preschool children may not fully understand disgust.2 Children’s understanding of disgust In line with Rozin et al. interpersonal and socio-moral disgust (related to contact with ill or immoral persons. Toyama (1999) argues that disgust is not the basis for 4-year-olds associations between food and contamination. this includes body-envelope violations4 and sexual disgust). 4. For example. body or animal products).e. that something is “good” or “bad” as a first step) begins even before the age of 3 years old (Widen & Russell. earlier than 4 years old). disgust responses have been associated with the rejection of foods or “fussy eating” (Martins & Pliner. in contrast to understanding contagion and contamination which relies on cognitive development.’s (2000) developmental model of disgust.214 Sally Wiggins et al. or the categorization of immoral acts). 2010). and a disgust response in children may also help prevent the ingestion of harmful substances. 2010). where the goal is to ensure the child becomes disgusted with their own bodily wastes. 1987). These refers to any violations of the exterior form of the body (i. animal-reminder disgust (i.e. This research suggests that rather than focusing on children’s understanding of contamination. it is important to examine more closely how disgust is represented in language and in facial expressions. Their development of disgust proceeds without necessarily “understanding” it: disgust is usually theorized as an emotion. . the development of this understanding (e. 2006). those which remind people of our commonalities with animals. Miller (1997) has noted that it is likely that there are peaks in such development around the age of potty training (i. core disgust (relating to the incorporation of food. and that danger or taste elements might also be at work here. 2011). be a precursor to an understanding of disgust.. it has been suggested that because disgust requires an understanding of moral values.e. Children’s sensitivity toward contamination may not. 2. such as a gaping wound). however.g. The relevance of disgust for child development is hugely consequential. Other estimates suggest that children do not have the cognitive prerequisites to “experience” disgust younger than 8 years old (Rozin & Fallon. that if the focus is on interaction as collaborative. Tenenbaum. Ford and Alkhedairy (2011) examined the use of emotion words between same-gender and mixed-gender dyads of 6–8-year-olds. For example. Dunn.. then Tenenbaum et al.3 Chapter 9. The effect was even more pronounced in children than in adults: even when the target was something that the children said they liked to eat. seeing someone else express disgust at the food reduced their own desire to eat it. however.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 215 Use of disgust labels Widen and Russell (2008b) suggest that verbal labels for disgust (in addition to facial expressions and behaviors. “Misunderstanding” the disgust face is just . For example. 2008a. for example) may be particularly important for learning the concept of disgust. because the focus was on individual speaker’s use of different words when conversing with others. Barthomeuf.. rather than on people’s individual utterances. and focused on the use of “feelings talk” by the parents. 714). 2010) or fear (Gagnon et al. 2. 2011. The importance of facial expressions in children’s acquisition of disgust responses has yet to be fully agreed upon. 2010). and demonstrated a slightly greater use of emotional explanations by girls compared to boys.’s (2011) “difficulty” does not exist. Research into children’s use of emotional expressions more broadly has examined the use of various emotion words by children in communication with their parents or with their peers. There is growing evidence. Understanding other people’s facial expressions as disgust-relevant (whether or not disgust is actually being experienced) is consequential in a number of ways. that children do not necessarily interpret the “disgust face” in the same way as adults. There was a “methodological difficulty” determining which speaker was using the emotion word (Tenenbaum et al. Rousset and Droit-Volet (2009) show that seeing a disgust expression on someone else’s face has an impact on people’s desire to eat. “urgh/ eugh” or “that’s disgusting”.4 Adults’ and children’s responses to facial expressions of disgust What may be lacking in research on disgust and language is compensated by research on facial expressions. Brown and Beardsall (1991) conducted observations of young children at home with their families. p.. 2. The term “verbal labels” usually refers to expressions such as “yuck/ yuk”. however. 2011). This was repeated in a study that examined the effect on children aged either 5 years old or 8 years old (Barthomeuf et al. The findings suggested that 3-year-olds who had been exposed to more feeling state talk were better able as 6-year-olds to recognize emotions in familiar adults’ faces. They perceive it as anger (Widen & Russell. I would argue. perception and use of disgust examine individual responses to a range of potentially disgust-relevant objects. This research is still removed. with evidence that the “disgust face” is not understood until much later (Widen & Russell. touch or consume different objects. These include verbal labels (“yucky”. “eugh”).g.e. 2008a. (2010) argues that facial expressions become much more important when we examine the parent-child “transmission” of disgust (note that this term implies that disgust is an individual entity or sensitivity). Their study is the first to report on observations of this process in an experimental setting. This may be in part due to the influence of the categorical model of emotion perception: that we perceive emotions in terms of discrete categories rather than as a continuum of facial expression. The results revealed that laughter and smiling often accompanied disgust responses. then the parent and child. or a combination of the two (e. Research by Stevenson et al.5 A note on methodology Many of the previous studies on children’s understanding. from situations in which children (and adults) would typically experience emotional encounters in everyday life. experiments have required participants to express their desire to observe. disgusting. feeling nauseous) (Widen & Russell. For example. perceptual and social skills. avoidance (moving away from objects). Haidt et al. rotting foods) and physiological characteristics (e. and Mondloch (2012) and Viellard and Guidetti (2009) have begun to investigate the influence of dynamic body posture on perception of emotion in adults and children. The script for disgust.g. of course. The stimuli presented in facial expression research are usually static and in isolation. 2011). and at times were the most frequent behavior displayed. 1999). This is a risk with any methodology.g. without contextual background (Mondloch.. It has also been noted that some of the results seen in earlier research could be an artifact of the methodology used (Toyama. 2. They argue that children learn different “scripts” for different emotions. whether these be classed as neutral. They examined parent-child dyads in a laboratory where first the child. verbal and behavioral responses on video. 2010). with each script developing with their cognitive. Other research by Widen and Russell (2004) has begun to undermine the assumption that facial expression is the predominant factor in children’s understanding of emotions such as disgust. were presented with stimuli to capture their facial. i. however. though there is an increased risk when one sets up an experimental situation in order to investigate a particular behavior. contains various features relating to facial expression (the “disgust face”). for example. 1994). Different features of the script are added gradually. 2012). As McNally . causation (e.216 Sally Wiggins one interpretation. occur naturally. Cekaite. conducted retrospectively. for example. I am not concerned with the cognitive development of children with regard to their understanding of disgust. (2012). . The current paper contributes to work in this field by focusing on preschool children and their parents’ enactment of disgust. engaging and important in terms of understanding individual perceptions and responses to disgust. without researchers present. asking whether someone would eat a contaminated food item in an experiment might say more about the participants’ desire to please the experimenter than it does their desire to eat. Recent work by Goodwin. C. The Forrester corpus is freely available on the CHILDES corpus (MacWhinney. All of the data were collected for different research projects. 2000). or their willingness to eat a particular food. they do not examine the relevance or enactment of disgust in everyday social interaction. as shown in Table 1. Interactions involving disgust. it is necessary to use a discursive analysis focusing on the interaction between parents and children when disgust is enacted during family mealtimes. using disgust as a key example of how emotions are in part constituted through the embodied actions of speakers in a social context. 3. This is important because it means the data was not collected with the aim of examining disgust. Chapter 9.. and with the aim of collecting “naturalistic” data. Observational and discursive analysis of actual family mealtimes How and when is disgust enacted during a family mealtime? How do parents and preschool children respond to other people’s expressions of disgust? What might this tell us about socialization processes of disgust responses? In order to answer these questions. in situ. M. with different research questions. but all were collected by parents in their own homes. For this. The focus on disgust responses is therefore secondary analysis of the data. but for now the focus is on the observable interaction. & Goodwin. This is perhaps even more pronounced when children are involved in the research. The data on which this paper is based come from approximately 117 hours of family mealtimes collected by researchers in England and Scotland. and are being asked by the adult researcher to respond to questions or to consume different food. and what this may tell us about the socialization of preschool children to disgust.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 217 (2002) notes. therefore. has highlighted the importance of investigating emotions within the unfolding interaction. While these experimental scenarios have been innovative. it is necessary to use observational and discursive methodologies. Results of the present study may assist those who aim to examine cognitive abilities. Using a social constructionist perspective. for any and all instances of the verbal utterances “urgh/ eugh”. When analyzing the video data. Most of the family mealtimes did not include any disgust markers. of mealtimes No. they indicate that disgust is being enacted. the aim is to understand how disgust is understood. I am concerned with how disgust is socially constructed and enacted by parents or preschool children. examining the ways in which actions are performed. is thus understood in terms of how disgust markers are produced and . and not with what might be the “correct” understanding or use of disgust. 87 instances have been identified (as shown in Table 2). This paper adopts a social constructionist perspective on disgust. accountabilities managed and behaviors enacted. I refer to these as “Disgust Markers”. but make no claims that these are expressions of a putative internal state. but did not use Ekman and Friesen’s (1978) FACS as the analysis focused primarily on how parents and children responded to verbal disgust markers. Of these. 2008).5 â•⁄12 â•⁄30 â•⁄â•⁄8 â•⁄40 â•⁄25 117. preschool children) as the producer of the disgust marker. of families Country collected Hours Adams Forrester McMaster Tobin Wiggins (1) Wiggins (2) Totals 2003–4 1998–2001 Jul–Aug 2011 2008–2009 1998–1999 Jun–Sept 2011 n/a 9 33 79 15 86 49 271 3 1 3 3 10 1 21 England England Scotland Scotland England Scotland n/a â•⁄â•⁄2. The psychology of disgust. I used a discursive psychological approach to analyze the data (Edwards & Potter. Some caveats should be noted here. each interaction typically lasting less than a minute in duration. “yuck” and “disgusting”.â•‡ Data corpora used in this study Data source Data collection period No. Wiggins & Potter. This approach focuses on the action orientation of talk. I will focus on the 17 examples in the data which included children 5 years or younger (i. I examined facial expressions together with discursive and embodied behaviors. used and consequential in social interaction.5 The data corpora were searched in full. 2005. Relatively few disgust markers were found in the 117 hours’ of data. At the last count.e. not with whether people “accurately” portray or perceive a “disgust face”. These utterances are observable and culturally available (in a British setting) features of interaction which imply that disgust is being invoked. using a discursive approach.218 Sally Wiggins Table 1. as well as any facial expressions which might indicate disgust responses. 2005. Mum is feeding her baby Gemma. By contrast. Second. but also how it is said. In addition. Discursive psychology has been used previously to offer theoretical and empirical examples of emotion talk (Edwards. In this way. but far less frequently. and usually involve further elaboration or explanation. 2012). other speakers may dispute claims of disgust. examination of the orientation to the disgust markers shows that typically.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 219 Table 2. examples of young children (up to 5 years old) and their parents during family mealtimes show that preschool children use the term “yuck” but not “eugh”. while her older daughter Chloe is seated near Mum and eating her lunch too. 1999) and embodied interaction (Hepburn & Wiggins. emphasis and so on) is as important as its placement within the interaction. and thus treat the disgust marker as an expression of evaluation rather than simply an emotional state (Wiggins. 3. the analysis focuses not only on what is said. . Finally.â•‡ Disgust markers identified in the data corpora Disgust marker Preschool (0–5 years old) Children (6–18 years old) Adults Total (over 18 years old) Yuck/ yucky Eugh Disgusting Total 13 â•⁄4 â•⁄0 17 â•⁄3 28 â•⁄5 36 â•⁄3 25 â•⁄6 34 19 57 11 oriented to by the participants in the interaction.Chapter 9. The format of the disgust marker (its pronunciation. The current paper builds on this work in order to further the understanding of embodied eating practices in interaction. “Yuck/y” (19 uses) or “disgusting” (11 uses) are also used. people either laugh at disgust markers or simply ignore them.1 Disgust markers used by preschool children (“yuck”) An examination of family mealtimes in England and Scotland involving parents and older children (6-years-old and over) suggest that the “eugh” (57 uses) is the most common disgust marker used in everyday interaction (Wiggins. First. Wiggins. 2002). I address the troublesome issue of whether the participants are enacting “disgust” (based on ideational and moral elements) or simply “distaste” (based on sensory factors alone). 2012). I demonstrate that the format of disgust markers presented by preschool children (“yuck”) or their parents (“eugh”) is remarkably different. In Extract 2. such as moving Chloe’s chair closer to the table and preparing food for Gemma while Chloe is beginning her lunch.6) ((Chloe presents a nose wrinkle.) hhh //mumm:y? 16 Mum: //ºyehº 17 Chloe: hh can you try? this: for me ple:ase (0.â•‡ Chloe says “Yuck”. 10 looking up towards Mum)) 11 12 Chloe: bl.0) ((Chloe lifts a forkful of food and moves to tongue)) 7 Mum: Okay Gemma?= 8 9 Chloe: =･Yuck･((see Figure 1)) (3. after moving Chloe’s chair in. ((Mum returns to table)) (3. marks the start of the meal. away from 4 table)) 5 6 (2. and includes preparatory work conducted by Mum. Chloe ↑is it↑.hh Ca:n you try? this= 18 19 Mum: =Yep. Adams corpus Extract 2 is taken from near the start of the mealtime. After Chloe seemingly tastes some of her food in line 6. (.0) 20 Figure 1. she declares ･Yuck･ in line 9 (with the “disgust face” shown in Figure 1).0) ((moves Chloe’s chair towards 3 table)) Mum: ºOkayº ((Mum moves out of shot.Y:uck (0. England.â•‡ Mum = Alison.220 Sally Wiggins Extract 2.4) . .= 14 15 Chloe: =Mumm:y? (. Mum’s Okay on line 4.) move yer chair ↑in 2 (1. 1 Mum: Let’s:.4) mummy?= 13 Mum: =Well tha:t’s not very nice. Chloe = older daughter (3–4 years old). While turning her gaze towards her mum. Adams corpus. Gemma = younger daughter (less than 1 year old). 2010). and situates the speaker as an authority on the matter. Alastair spat out some of his sausage onto a piece of tissue. they orient the recipient(s) to the possibility of forthcoming troubles (Jenkins. 2011) and inappropriate behavior. As with the gustatory “mmm”. with sausages and green beans. Chloe is also claiming her entitlement to know what yuck means. 1981). However. The second yuck on line 12. The positioning of Chloe’s yuck in line 9 in a stand-alone position. . that is. In saying yuck. which is also turn initial and usually solitary (Wiggins.e. Following Chloe’s yuck there is a long pause (lines 10–11) during which Chloe looks toward her Mum. They are eating pasta. nor visible facial expressions to suggest that a disgusting incident (i. In doing so. Jenkins’ (2010) study showed that the pain cry (Ow!) is used most commonly in turn-initial position. and with no prior orientation by others to either Chloe or her food (in line 8. with the Mummy soon after. In Extract 3. 2002). The upshot of this is that while the sequential positioning and emphasis on the yuck suggest an authentic experience. It is in turn initial position. there were no disgust markers. During that incident. Immediately prior to Extract 3. Lines 13–14). Alastair (2 years old) uses the yuck disgust marker while he is eating lunch with his Mum. a younger child. although they do not indicate how the issue should be resolved. provided by Mum. as shown in Extract 1. pain cries display a disengagement from normative tasks in the interaction (such as eating and drinking). Chloe’s disgust marker appears to make the private. her entitlement to know disgust. public. and then pursues a response (line 12). and sitting on his Dad’s knee. Similarly. It orients to a putative internal reaction. located soon after the assumed tasting of the food. with no preface and no orientation by others is significant here. Related work by Jenkins (2010) on children’s pain cries during family mealtimes has also indicated the importance of considering the sequential placement of utterances which imply embodied experiences. and suggests that Chloe understands the concept of disgust. Chloe ↑is it↑. Zimmerman and Kidwell. Mum is orienting to Chloe’s baby sister Gemma instead). the utterance is not necessarily treated by parents or other participants in the interaction as an entitlement. embodied experience. it is treated instead as attention-grabbing (see also Lerner. presented as a responsive reaction to an internal experience. who told him not to put too much food in his mouth. Chapter 9. While Chloe’s yuck therefore implies a personal. is then treated by Mum as inappropriate behavior (well tha:ts not very nice. it is the next few lines of talk that are particularly interesting. spitting out partially-chewed food) had occurred. and seems to act as a response cry (Goffman.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 221 Chloe’s ･Yuck･ is pronounced clearly in a voice that is a little louder than the rest of the talk. 6) @yuck@ 10 Dad: {ºheh hehº} 11 (.222 Sally Wiggins Extract 3. Subsequently. there is a sense in which the preschool child is using the disgust marker to draw the parent’s attention to himself.) 12 Mum: So whose work have you got? 13 (1. The evidence from the data corpora used in this study. Yuck is a word that is sure to capture attention.2 Disgust markers used by adults (“Eugh”) with preschool children Before moving on to focus on the response by parents to disgust markers in more detail. Alastair 6 examines a green bean and starts 7 hitting his plate with the green 8 bean)) 9 Alastair: Loo:k (0.â•‡ Dad. instead. even if that attention is a gentle laugh. The Forrester data provides some helpful examples of the Dad. Alastair = son (2 years old). and the topic swiftly moves on (line 12). In Extract 4. 3. Prefaced by Look (line 9). Alastair’s yuck does not appear to be a response cry or an evaluation of the food. however. Unlike Chloe’s yuck in Extract 2. Ella has been eating small pieces of bread from the tray of the high-chair. Mike.0) ((Mum passes a fork. 4 5 (4.8) 3 Mum: Here. Ella is sitting in her high-chair and Dad sits down in a chair opposite her soon after the recording begins. Mum.0) As with Chloe’s yuck in Extract 2. and despite the earlier spitting incident. Alastair’s yuck is received with muted laughter from Dad (line 10). In almost all instances. It may be that the predominant use of yuck/y by preschool children is because they simply do not hear the eugh used by their parents. Alastair presents his yuck in line 9 clearly. . to orient the parents’ attention onto the food and its use as a toy. Dad: Your fork for your pasta. I will address the issue of how parents themselves use disgust markers when preschool children are the recipients in the interaction. Scotland. 1 Dad: here’s your fork2 (0. they take the form of “eugh”. McMaster corpus. uttering disgust markers to his young daughter (Ella. his Mum and Dad do not seem concerned with Alastair playing with his food. and with a laughing voice. it serves. with emphasis. As with Extract 2. suggests that parents do not use the word yucky in order to teach their children about disgust. between the ages of 1 and 3 years old during the recordings) on a few occasions. though here it is not turn-initial. There is playfulness in this extract. Forrester corpus. Dad’s reaction might be rather different.â•‡ Dad = Mike. rather than a response cry or an emotional reaction. As such. complete with nose wrinkle. the incongruity of the smiling is potentially troublesome. England. What is Ella’s lesson to be learnt here? That “eugh”. 2012). if the rubber glove had faeces on it. Its position in turn-final position. it serves to provide an evaluation of the behavior. Imagine.8) ((Ella still smiling)) The disgust marker E:u:↓argh::: on line 11 is typical of those produced in family mealtime talk with adults and children over 6-years-old (Wiggins. however. elongated and pronounced with a slight falling intonation. for example. Had Dad’s E:u:↓argh::: been indicative of an emotional response.5) 6 Dad: //For dadd:y? 7 //((points to bread on high-chair tray)) 8 Ella: //((looks down at bread while sucking rubber 9 glove 10 (1. Had it been a response cry or emotional reaction.5) 4 Dad: For ↑me? ((moving bread on tray)) 5 (0. lip curl and narrowing of the eyes. it would more likely be in turn-initial position. means that sucking the rubber glove is a humorous behavior to engage in? A final example of a “disgust face” being treated as humorous is a visual one taken from the same Forrester corpus. Also of interest with this extract is Dad’s laughing voice (line 17) and Ella’s reciprocated smiling in lines 14–19.4) //e:u:↓argh::: 12 // ((Dad tries to 13 pull glove away from Ella)) 14 (0. and Daddy pulling a funny face. Because he presents this “disgust . 1 Dad: Can //↑I have some. Ella = daughter (1-year-old exactly). Chapter 9. It is likely that Dad’s E:u:↓argh::: is socializing Ella into appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. It is emphasized. ((moving bread on tray)) 2 Ella: //((looking down at high-chair tray)) 3 (0.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 223 Extract 4.8) ((Dad smiles at Ella. immediately following a request to suck the rubber glove is also significant. or even sooner in the interaction. It appears as if Dad is presenting the prototypical “disgust face”. who returns the smile)) 15 16 Ella: {hhheh} 17 Dad: //@Give it to Daddy::@ 18 //((holds out hand with palm facing up)) 19 (0.0) 11 Dad: No don’t suck ↓that. (0. smiling and laughter would be less likely. with Ella now 1 year 5 months old. 2010). Stevenson et al. . Forrester corpus Applying the logic of some of the existing research on children’s misinterpretations of the disgust face (e. though as yet the social and linguistic implications of disgust and humor around food have yet to be fully explored. 2010).g. Widen & Russell. 1997. it appears to be a more conscious presentation.224 Sally Wiggins face” after a brief nose wrinkle and then a pause. Other research has also demonstrated that disgust responses can be associated with humor (Miller. No verbal disgust markers accompany this facial expression.. directed to Ella. Ella’s response is to smile. Figure 2. the interpretation might be that Ella is mistaking Dad’s expression here for something else. As in Extract 4.â•‡ Dad pulls a face. (.â•‡ Mum = Alison.0) 24 Chloe: It doesn’t taste nice. disgust is a brief topic. Indeed. This is even more pronounced when preschool children produce a disgust marker. one of which is alongside the yucky expression. Mum even turns her attention instead to Chloe’s baby sister. Chloe also displays two “disgust faces” (lines 8 and 13). adults. 3 //((Chloe taps Mum’s arm)) 4 Mum: It’s hot is it↑. (0. 3.) 18 19 Mum: That’s potato. (0. There is no surrounding talk. 23 (1.8) ((Chloe looks at spoonful of 20 casserole and lifts it to her mouth)) 21 22 Mum: Yeah. 25 Mum: Chloe plea:se eat it I don’t want to have to nag. 5 ((Chloe nods and makes scrunched up face)) 6 Mum: Well if you fed yourself you would know 7 that. 1 Chloe: It’s hot. Extract 5 is taken from later in the lunch with Chloe and her Mum given in Extract 2). Adams corpus. there is no uptake from Mum (line 9). Chloe = older daughter (3–4-years-old). little is said and the conversation quickly moves on. 8 (1.2) Just blow on it.) 2 //its hot.0) 9 Chloe: Yuc:ky.3 Chapter 9. and begins with Chloe’s utterance about the temperature of the chicken casserole that Mum gave her to eat.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 225 Parents’ response to disgust markers: Ignoring disgust In interactions involving older children. and disgust markers during mealtimes.) it’s hot Mummy (. England.0) 12 Mum: //Ge↑mma do you ↑like Mummy’s chicken casse↓role. nor an explanation for Chloe’s yucky utterance. Despite Chloe’s apparent expression of emotion. slightly extended and pronounced clearly. Gemma = baby daughter. Extract 5. 26 The disgust marker in line 8 has the same form and position as in Extract 1: it is turn-initial. 17 //((Chloe wrinkles her nose)) (. and verbalizes . which Mum appears to interpret as being aimed at her chicken casserole (line 10). ((nose wrinkle and slight lip 10 curl)) 11 (2. 13 //((Chloe blows loudly on her food)) 14 (1.8) 15 16 Mum: Gemma likes //it. . The reaction from Chloe’s Mum is consistent with most of the instances of disgust markers in the data corpus used by preschool children. Unlike with other embodied food utterances (such as the gustatory “mmm”. In both extracts. something is disgusting. it appears that the way in which young children use disgust markers is simply not being treated as appropriate for displaying disgust. there is no empirical evidence of others joining in with “yuck”. Tentatively.. but more data and further analysis is needed to qualify this speculation in other contexts. it was in the form of an “eugh/ eugh” or “eugh/ that’s disgusting” pairing (Wiggins.4 Disgust or distaste? A key to the “ignoring” puzzle might simply be that preschool children’s use of disgust markers is treated not as disgust.. 2012). 2009. disgust around food has an elusive quality in the interaction. “Yuck” or “yucky” is typically ignored.226 Sally Wiggins Gemma’s apparent liking of the meal (even with the video it is not apparent what Gemma does to express this). there were very few occasions in which other speakers “joined in” with a disgust marker. It is to this potential solution to the ‘ignoring puzzle’ that I turn in the final section of the paper. Second. and if disgust is being experienced. Wiggins. The answer to this puzzle may lie in two areas. Barthomeuf et al. 3. Where this did occur. There is rarely elaboration of why. the preschool child repeats her “yuck” to prompt a reaction from her Mum. If the “yuck” is a disgust marker (and thus potentially indicative of an emotional state). then this would suggest a high likelihood of food rejection. As with gustatory “mmms”. this “something else” could be resistance to eating the food. 2000. Widen & Russell. the child continues to eat their food after the disgust marker has been uttered. the disgust markers most commonly used by preschool children differ from those used by older children and adults. For now. This was also the case in Extracts 1 and 2. First. or which aspect of. It may be that “yuck” is simply not treated as disgust-relevant.. it can be noted that in many of the extracts. As yet. but distaste. Work on facial expressions demonstrated that there is some ambiguity in children’s perception and understanding of the disgust face (e. Other research (Oaten et al.g. even in adults. and others) has also demonstrated that the line between distaste and disgust is blurred. then why are parents not attending to this utterance? The rejection or acceptance of food is central to the business of feeding children. 2008a). 2002). 2011. though this may be the case in settings with more than one preschool child. Rozin et al. Rozin and Fallon (1987) also noted that the disgust face does not distinguish distaste from disgust. but rather as doing something else. chicken casserole) is not of the caliber of that seen in disgust experiments. and who has the “authority” to know disgust. in particular those in which preschool children are involved. and that the speaker has the authority to claim access to this experience. feelings or sensations. as Simpson et al. and others). 1990. however.g. is that whether or not yuck refers to distaste or disgust.’s (2000) developmental model noted that children first experience/ understand distaste before they develop core disgust reactions. when parents use disgust markers (typically “eugh”) during mealtime interactions with their children. for that matter) indicate an underlying emotive response. not on putative thoughts. suggest that both an embodied experience is the source of the marker. faeces or hairs in the soup (cf. Saying. then animal reminder or core . these parental responses instead orient to the child’s behavior as being correct or appropriate. it is difficult to know what would develop first: cognitive understanding of the concept. In contrast. ‘s not yuck (Extract 1) or well that’s not very nice. Certainly. If disgust is constructed in interaction and if what is disgusting is in part dependent on who is speaking. Chapter 9. If so. It may be. children’s development of the first steps (“good” versus “bad”) to disgust may develop before they understand it. (2007) and others have noted that disgust is a relative concept. or the visceral experience? Rozin et al. Chloe (Extract 2) does not specify whether disgust or distaste is being referred to here.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 227 When we begin to examine disgust markers in interaction. is examine how these utterances (disgust markers) are constructed by speakers and oriented to by others in social interaction. What is also striking in Extracts 1–5 is that the food being eaten (e. the turn-initial position of disgust markers and their lack of elaboration. preschool children’s authority to claim it as such is not being recognized by parents. Yuck may therefore be treated as shorthand for distaste. What can be done. as to whether “yuck” utterances (or “eugh”. The foods or behaviors being referenced by the children are not core disgust elicitors. then individual disgust experiments will not easily translate into everyday implications. It is very difficult to identify. for sure. pizza. then attempts to ascertain an individual’s disgust sensitivity may be flawed. As Widen and Russell (2011) have already noted. however. There are no cockroaches. Given that disgust is usually conceptualized as an emotion with a moral element. it is not clear whether either child or parent is referring to distaste or disgust. one cannot make such claims since the analysis is based on observable and conversational actions in interaction. green beans. What appears to be happening in interaction. Rozin. It may be that parents are attuned to this developmental pathway and that they do not treat preschool children as being able to “understand” disgust in its moral and ideational form. then. Using a discursive psychological approach. Mum does not validate it (s’not yuck. In this paper I have shown that up to around the age of 5 years old. Eva’s use of the disgust marker is typical of those used by preschool children (“yuck” rather than “eugh”). Even research into older children and adults’ use of disgust markers (Wiggins. however. The interaction between Eva and her Mum highlight the key issues developed in this paper: that preschool children typically use yuck rather than eugh. for example. and Eva carries on eating the pizza. Focusing on language as well as facial expressions and bodily orientations makes it possible to see the ways in which children may be socialized to disgust and disgust relevant responses. sucking a rubber glove. 2012) suggests that it is unclear as to whether “Eugh” utterances are being used to evidence an emotional state. Second. line 8). instead. line 10). There is much still to be understood in terms of how we might distinguish distaste from disgust in interaction. distaste or pleasure that accompany these therefore reveal a new perspective on disgust. Conclusions The analysis presented here provides some basis for understanding the interaction with Eva and her “yuck” pizza in Extract 1. What happens. it is assumed that she would not continue eating it. 4. This does not happen. in turninitial position. and with no elaboration or explanation. Had it been irrelevant or inappropriate. Examining naturalistic interaction around food and the expressions of disgust. who indeed very explicitly ignores it (I ig↑nored ya. First. The “yuck” is treated by both Eva and Mum as being a relevant thing to say here. belching. and an incorrect one at that (line 10). verbal utterances or bodily movements. What I am arguing here. but importantly. Mum (or the older sister. is that preschool children’s use of “yuck” rather than “eugh” may be part of the problem of claiming authority to knowing (and “correctly” knowing) disgust in mealtime interaction. who does not say anything in Extract 1) might have said something to pick Eva up on the transgression. it is not taken up by Mum. the disgust responses used by preschool children differ . is that Eva’s two uses of “yuck” are treated by Mum as an evaluation of the food. and whether this could be evidenced through facial movements. Had Eva “really” found the pizza disgusting. that these utterances are typically ignored by parents or treated as inappropriate or incorrect. nor does it happen in any other extract found in the data corpus. spitting and putting a foot in the mouth). Poppy.228 Sally Wiggins disgust elicitors are more apparent (for example. and that we cannot be sure whether it is distaste or disgust which is being referred to by either the child or the parent. people do not say “why yuck?”. Conversation and cognition (pp. Cekaite. & Potter. S. They are also based on data collected within England and Scotland.â•›V. The present analysis and the theoretical discussion are based on a limited number of instances across 21 families found in naturalistic data. Rousset. and there are likely to be cultural differences in uses and understandings of disgust markers. A.. 448–455. Discursive psychology. K.. (1981). 52. I. & Milliard. 16–41). Distinguishing between disgust and distaste in interaction is as yet unresolved.. Chapter 9. C. Cekaite. In M. & Friesen. (1978). S. D. Palo Alto.. 30(2): 253–266. S. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour. L. & Beardsall. & Rousset. & Droit-Volet. interactional element is crucial for understanding facial expressions. Forms of talk.â•›H. Barthomeuf. Ekman. Potter (Eds.. 27(3). D. Sorjonen & A. References Barthomeuf. M.). W. Emotion as Stance. . L. (2012).. M. Emotion and food: Do the emotions expressed on other people’s faces affect the desire to eat liked and disliked food products? Appetite.. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gosselin. bodily postures and children’s cognitive understanding of the concept of disgust.. bodily orientations and disgust marker utterances (Goodwin. In H. Edwards. Children’s recognition and discrimination of fear and disgust facial expressions.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1999). eye gaze. Hudon-ven der Buhs. P.-L. S. Family talk about feeling states and children’s later understanding of others’ emotions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. P. They are typically ignored by parents. J. and further research is required to examine this distinction in more detail. 2012). J. Brown. Gagnon.. Emotion in Interaction (pp. Edwards. The facial action coding system. as well as the involvement of humor in the socialization of disgust responses.. (2010). & Goodwin. L. Dunn. M. Emotion discourse. 271–291.. te Molder & J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 229 from those used by older children and adults. E. Goffman. treated as humorous or attention-seeking behavior. & Goodwin. and continue to focus on issues such as the exact timing of facial gestures. (1991). Further areas of research would undoubtedly need to build on these corpora in other cultures and social contexts. and the development of children’s cognitive understanding of the disgust concept. mental states and descriptions. Cambridge: Â�Cambridge University Press. J.. Perakyla (Eds. 27–42. Developmental Psychology. Culture & Psychology. Goodwin. 27–33.). Other routes for investigation include the relationship between these enactments of disgust. C. (2011). Droit-Volet. (2005). Larocque.. 34. despite the large data corpora accumulated. K. How emotions expressed by adults’ faces affect the desire to eat liked and disliked foods in children compared to adults. This study makes it clear that a discursive. 5(3).. 241–259). (2009). 637–653). 15. M. (1987). (1994). C. J. (2011). 343–361. (2010). C. (2011) Formal structures of practical tasks: A resource for action in the social life of very young children. N. McCauley. S. 46(1). Tenenbaum. Jenkins. Schmeer. Cognitive Development.â•›R. & Pliner.â•›J. & Overton.. Haviland-Jones (Eds. Oaten. W. Disgust has arrived.. Appetite. C. M. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis. (1997). Mondloch. & Wiggins. 78–95. B. 29.â•›E. B. 707–721.).â•›H.. 44–58). 75–85. (1985). (2000). P.â•›J.. 94(1). 16. & Fallon. The anatomy of disgust.â•›I. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Handbook of emotions (pp. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. LeBaron (Eds.).. Developmental Psychology. 135(2). T. Ford. 561–566. pleasure.â•›I. “Ugh! Thats disgusting!” Identification of the characteristics of foods underlying rejections based on disgust.â•›J. S. 14.â•›E.. (1990)..â•›J. R. Size matters: Constructing accountable bodies in NSPCC helpline interaction. Toyama.â•›G. Rozin. Food Quality and Preference. M. Oaten. Repacholi. Mannheim. (1999). M. Rozin. 625–646. & McCauley. S. P. Simpson. 46. & Kidwell. 1075–1079.... S. & Rozin. D. “Your head hurts but you’re holding your tummy”: The co-production of children’s bodily experience through talk and gesture in family interaction. . British Journal of Developmental Psychology. Developmental Psychology. A. (pp. & Case. Cambridge.. 16(5). P. Stevenson. B. Â�Goodwin & C. Miller. (2009). N. Lerner. 303–321. Food-related contextual factors substantially modify the disgust response. 111. Psychological Review. J. Discourse & Society. P. Case. Rock (Ed. P. Haidt. 180–196. Hillsdale. In J. Psychological Bulletin.. Children’s perception and understanding of (dis)similarities among dynamic bodily/ facial expressions of happiness. Hepburn... Children’s response to adult disgust elicitors: Development and acquisition. Fallon.â•›H. The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk (3rd ed. 21(6). 102. MA: Harvard University Press. Toyama. Mahwah. (2006). (2005).. Lewis & J.â•›L. NJ: Â�Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. July 2010. P. Sad or fearful? The influence of body posture on adults’ and children’s perception of facial displays of emotion. Streeck.). Rozin. Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Developmental changes in the basis of associated contamination thinking. 23–41.â•›M. New York: Guilford Press. Y. Anxiety Disorders. Viellard. & Augustoni-Ziskind. (2000). In I. (2012). 523–541.â•›J. anger and irritation.. R.. (2000). The legacy of Â�Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. & Alkhedairy.. McNally. & Wagland. Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. A perspective on disgust. Anthony. 97–110). T. 701–713. P... J.. G.â•›J.. (2007). Telling stories: Gender differences in peers’ emotion talk and communication style. Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. & Guidetti. MacWhinney. 16(5).230 Sally Wiggins Haidt.â•›H. 183–189. Stevenson. Disgust. Martins. Rozin. C. H. Social and moral aspects of food and eating. A. P. Zimmerman. R. M. Young children’s awareness of socially mediated rejection of food: Why is food dropped at the table “dirty”? Cognitive Development. In M. 165–177. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. (2009). A. The child’s conception of food: The development of contamination sensitivity to “disgusting” substances.â•›I. (2010). S. L. 18.). Personality and Individual Differences.. (2002). â•›C.â•›C. 455–466. London: Sage. 23. S.â•›A. In building a script for an emotion.2044–8309.02106. (2002).. do preschoolers add its cause before its behavior consequence? Social Development. (2010). Children acquire emotion categories gradually. Widen. 471–485. & Russell. Widen. Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure.. S. 35(3).â•›C. label. Willig & W. (2008a). S. Stainton Rogers (Eds. Emotion.â•›C. Widen. & Potter. 10(4).. (2012). & Russell. In C.â•›A. Widen. 111–125. Cognitive Development.â•›A. & Russell. & Russell.1111/j. Children’s and adults’ understanding of the “disgust face”. 73–90). and behavioral consequence to evoke preschoolers’ knowledge of its cause. S. S. & Russell. The social life of “eugh”: Disgust as assessment in family mealtimes. 311–336. The relative power of an emotion’s facial expression. S.. J. J.. Cognition and Emotion. (2004). 20(3). The ‘disgust face’ conveys anger to children. J.â•‡ Socialization of disgust responses by preschool children 231 Widen. doi: 10.â•›A. The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp.â•›C.x Wiggins.2012. Wiggins. British Journal of Social Psychology. Discursive psychology.â•›A. J. Cognitive Development. S. Wiggins. J. Chapter 9. S.. Research on Language and Social Interaction. . 291–312. 1513–1541. (2011).). 19. 22(8). (2008b). (2008). J. . 2006). and behaving properly at the table – and examines the verbal (e. food. 1. Introduction Food is an integral part of daily life in societies across the globe. and foodrelated objects. pragmatic particles. Counihan & Van Esterik.chapter 10 Early experiences with food Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese Matthew Burdelski Osaka University.g. It has not only practical value as an essential means of sustaining life. Focusing on meal and snack time in and around households and a preschool. This paper examines children’s early experiences with food in Japan. and behaving properly at the table.g. Prior research shows that food is deeply tied to culture in various ways (e. finishing all of one’s food. it identifies three practices across these settings – talking about food.g. I identify three key practices across these settings: talking about food. 2008 [1997]). sharing and consuming food with others at mealtime and other food-related activities is a central site for promoting social bonds. and socializing children (e. While these practices are not . and strategies (e. but also a symbolic one as an object that shapes feelings and relationships. Ochs & Shohet. The findings reveal how speakers deploy language resources and strategies within activities surrounding food to socialize children into how to feel towards and relate to others. assessment. conveying norms and values. passive) and non-verbal resources (e. mealtime continues to be an important activity for socializing children into norms and values of society. Focusing on meal and snack time in and around households and a preschool.g. finishing all of one’s food. Japan is an important case because. although it has undergone social changes over the last few decades such as an increase in nuclear households and a drop in marriage and birthrate. pointing). reported speech) that caregivers and peers deploy in socializing children to these practices. Japan This paper examines children’s early experiences with food in Japan. In particular.g. food. Although they are often referred to as “novices”. through interaction with more knowledgeable or competent members children (and other novices) not only acquire language (e. Rather. contest. and transform the practices into which they are socialized. children are not merely empty vessels into which language and culture are poured (Kulick & Schieffelin. and act in ways that reflect the values. 2011. ideologies. and interpersonal harmony. such as mealtime (e. 2004). and at times refer to Japanese religious (e. The second section provides an overview of meal and snack time in the Japanese data. and traditions of the community (“socialization through the use of language”).g. Schieffelin & Ochs.g. Ochs. Pontecorvo & Fasulo. The last section summarizes the results and relates the findings to processes of language socialization.234 Matthew Burdelski unusual to Euro-American and many other communities. In particular. 163). I suggest that the ways they are encouraged in Japanese socializes children to affect and relationships in socio-culturally organized ways.g. Japanese caregivers draw upon values of empathy. 1986). and food-related objects in ways that represent a unique cultural profile. Duranti. & Schieffelin. 2002). who can socialize others. they learn how to use language in pragmatic and socially valued ways. This analysis suggests children’s early experiences with food in Japanese entail learning how to feel towards and relate to others in the social world. as an “index” (Silverstein.g. The paper is divided into four sections. grammar) (“socialization to use language”). 2009). . and analyses the resources and strategies that caregivers and peers/ siblings deploy in socializing children to these practices. social actions. Background In examining children’s early experiences with food.g. but also learn how to think. The first section discusses the theory of language socialization. Santa Claus) images.g. 1976) of socio-cultural meaning such as stances. respect. While language socialization occurs across a wide variety of settings and is a lifelong process (e. feel. Ochs. That is. I focus on children’s early socialization (2–5 years) in and around the household and preschool. Duranti. A central site of language socialization is socio-cultural activities. The third section identifies three practices at meal and snack time. & Schieffelin. 1986. In particular. Paugh & Izquierdo. they are agents. Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits) and Western (e. 2011). identities. this study takes a language socialization perspective (e. as this is an especially important period of language socialization. Language socialization involves “socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language” (italics in original) (Schieffelin & Ochs. p. words. 1996. 2. Ochs. and resist. and activities (Ochs. but you haven’t eaten any of Mr. Hamburger. a teacher appealed to the feeling of sabisisa ‘loneliness’ of a carrot the child had left on the plate. 22)). Mr.g. In a study on Japan. and to wait to eat until the grandparents have taken the first bite. including inanimate objects. 1996). They found that teachers encouraged children to consider the feelings of others. Rice.. (1996) found that in both Italy and the United States family members talked about food. Thus. Park (2006) showed that caregivers encourage children to show respect to grandparents at meal and snack time by encouraging them to serve grandparents first. and how to feel and display affect towards others (Herot.g.g. teachers socialized children into the cultural value of empathy (also see Clancy. . 2002) and food (Ochs et al. Studies have shown that caregivers socialize children at mealtime how to use language (e. Previous studies suggest that mealtime is also an activity for socializing children’s identity. 1984). 40) (e. whereas in the United States children were socialized into a notion of “food as reward” (e. 1997. using conditionals that link finishing a main dish to being able to eat dessert: “Whoever does not finish their vegetables does not get any ice cream for dessert” (p. However. p. and have been a focus of inquiry in a number of studies on children’s socialization (e. Carrot. In encouraging children to eat all their food. in urging a child to finish his lunch. across various activities. 1986). Don’t you think he feels lonely?” (p. “Poor Mister Carrot! You ate Mr. De Geer. There are similarities and differences across (and within) societies in practices of mealtime and in how they are socialized (Ochs & Shohet. Gleason. Mizera & Tryggvason. Orange. to address grandparents using honorific phrases. 2002).â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 235 Mealtimes are “cultural sites for the socialization of persons into competent and appropriate members of a society” (Ochs & Shohet. Hayashi. 32). 35). her mother instructed her to serve the grandmother first and then the father indexing the grandmother as having the highest family status. Tulviste. activities surrounding food are an important site for socializing Korean heritage language children to social hierarchy. She also showed that when a child attempted to serve her father a rice bowl first. Karasawa and Tobin (2009) observed how a “pedagogy of feeling” was organized in classroom interaction in preschool. Chapter 10. For instance. using suffixes -etto/ etta ‘appealing. in her examination of the socialization of Korean heritage language children in households in the United States. and Mr. For instance. the United States. in Italy children were socialized into a notion of “food as pleasure” (p. Ochs et al. nice. saying. 2006). Perlmann & Grief.g. “Say ‘Please’”) (e. For instance.g. little X’ in talking about food). These studies on Italy. 2006. and Japan suggest that caregivers socialize children into how to think and feel about food in socioculturally organized ways. Hayashi et al. BlumKulka. showed. or a sandwich. usually mothers. Fader (2011. The studies discussed above shed light on practices that constitute mealtime across communities. Meals in the households (lunch. I build on this research by examining meal and snack time in Japan. spoon). Children under the age of three or four generally ate with small silverware (i. and morally based aspects of identity. ethnic. which sometimes led to interactions surrounding food and animals. Fader (2011) discussed moral socialization in a Hasidic Jewish community in New York City. 334) also links the recitation of prayer to gender socialization noting that first grade “Hasidic girls learn from their teachers that prayer expresses Jews’ gratitude to God. this prayer consists of a single word (burikh ‘blessed’) that caregivers say for children or explicitly instruct them to say. 3. In addition to meals.236 Matthew Burdelski In another study. dinner) and preschool (lunch) consisted of typical Japanese foods such as noodles. for making the food they are about to eat”. p. Burdelski. and suggest that in acquiring these practices children are socialized into affect and identity in socio-culturally organized ways. whereas for school-age children this single word is part of a longer prayer that they are expected to say on their own. 2011). which are typically prepared by caregivers (in the home. and in the preschool. For children under two. fork. fish. Overview of meal and snack time in household and preschool In this section I give an overview of meal and snack time in the Japanese households and preschool to provide contextualization for my analysis. Snacks often consisted . children ate one or sometimes two snacks a day. or Japanese inspired Western/ Eastern foods such as spaghetti. The data come from a larger study of language socialization in Japanese households with a preschool age child (2–4 years old) and in a preschool with children (0–5 years old) whose first (L1) or second language (L2) is Japanese (e. children ate lunch and snacks at a table inside. She showed that caregivers encouraged young children at the beginning of the meal to say a fixed prayer in Hasidic Yiddish. curry.g. Dessert was typically fruit. In the preschool. staff members). and seaweed.e. tofu. She suggests that mealtime is a vehicle for socializing children into identity and affect. in Japan children’s eating habits center on three meals a day and snacks. The Japanese expression san-zi no oyatu ‘three o’clock snack’ is widely considered the appropriate time to eat a snack between lunch and dinner. a language that functions in this community as a marker of religious. whereas older children ate with small chopsticks especially when eating Japanese foods. whereas in households caregivers and children on occasion ate outside at a park. As in many societies. rice. The beginning and ending of meal and snack time in Japanese is marked by the formulaic expressions. Children are socialized to use these expressions from a young age. before the first bite is taken. and a drink (e. even if children cannot yet say it on their own. as elsewhere. (dried) fruit. 1991. or ice cream. In the preschool.g.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 237 of one or more of the following foods: rice crackers. For instance. I also point out some similarities and differences in how these practices are socialized across settings. In the preschool there is a strong group orientation (Peak. or other’. Itadakimasu ‘I humbly receive’ and Gotisoosama (desita) ‘Thank for you for the food/ drink [lit. typically situated at a dining table with chairs (or in the case of families. onigiri ‘rice ball in a triangle shape wrapped in dried seaweed and filled with dried plum. This pattern is also observed in households. which are widely used to convey thankfulness for food and drink. No child is allowed to say Itadakimasu and begin eating until all children are seated. are constituted by a set of practices.g. father and child may start eating first before the mother sits down). the end of lunch or snack is less group-oriented. barley tea. fish. Chapter 10. and behaving properly at the table. milk). which have both a secular function as an expression of thanks for food and a religious function that is similar to praying for good luck or health at shrines and temples in Japan. 1989) to meal and snack time. on occasion outside at a park or other venue). children ate a snack at 3pm upon waking up from a nap (1pm–3pm). caregivers prompt children to say Itadakimasu. semisweet bread. 2011). snack time was a structured activity in both the household and preschool. Wu & Davidson. Three practices at meal and snack time Meal and snack time in Japan. as individual children say the expression Gotisoosama (desita) when they finish their food at their own pace. In this section I focus on three practices common in both household and preschool: talking about food. 4. cookies. cake. while modeling how to put the hands together and bow the head (Burdelski. finishing all of one’s food. These expressions are accompanied by embodied actions including putting the hands together (as in prayer) and bowing the head. but there is variation among families (e. . Tobin. and go to play. Similar to mealtime. In the preschool. and children’s early socialization entails learning these practices. It is/ (was) an honorable feast]’. â•⁄7 Teacher: うさぎのりんごなの。 Usagi no ringo na no.g. Children’s names are pseudonyms and their ages are expressed in years and months (e. 2010. || ((Holding up piece of apple)) â•⁄5 Lan: こ-これ。 Ko. â•⁄6 Teacher: そう、りんご。 Soo. isn’t i::::t. Th. intensifers (e. Right. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data. 10:25am.|| (It)’s cute.1 Talking about food Talking about food is an important communicative practice at mealtime and other activities surrounding food in various societies including Japan (Szatrowski. Vietnam. .10 = 2 years and 10 months). â•⁄2 (1. diminutive -tyan (sii-tyan ‘little shiitake mushroom’). honma ni ‘really’).g. and others.|| //Th.2 â•⁄ 1 Teacher: おいしいねーー。 Oisii ne::. || 1.1.kore.kore.this. 2007 (Th. 2. English translation and Japanese romanization. transcription conventions. 2. Lan=female.). || â•⁄4 Lan: //こ-これ。|| //Ko. Similar to Ochs et al. Their country of origin is provided if it is not Japan. ringo. //isn’t i::::t.238 Matthew Burdelski 4.3) â•⁄ 3 Teacher: おいし//いねーーーー。|| Oisi//i ne::::. nine children are seated around a table eating a snack of cake and fruit during a birthday celebration held once a month (for all the children who were born in that month). (1996) observations in Italian families.g. Japanese caregivers often evaluate food in a positive way using adjectives (e. 2011). â•⁄ 8 Teacher: かわいい//ねーーーー。|| Kawaii //ne::::. It’s that (it’s) a rabbit apple. 2. Here. (It)’s delicious.1 (1) Preschool: May 17. an apple. isn’t i::t. Excerpt (1) begins as a female teacher addresses the children after they have begun eating. oisii ‘delicious’). Excerpt (1) illustrates some ways that teachers in the preschool evaluate food.this. || (It)’s deli//cious. 3) 14 15 Teacher: おいしいねーー。 Oisii ne::. isn’t i:://::t. isn’t i::t. or verbalizing their expected reactions towards the food. 1992) with it. Goodwin and Goodwin (1992) show how assessments reside within “assessment activity” (p. 1992) of the food. which also conveys the importance of its sequential timing within the activity. she showed that mothers instruct children to say oisii “after the first few bites” (Clancy. 1981) the children. Clancy (1986) observed that mothers encourage children to use oisii in relation to being a “polite diner” (p. a female child (Lan) holds up a piece of apple cut into a rabbit shape towards the teacher while saying the deictic word kore ‘this’ (lines 4 and 5) (Figure 1).g. 1984).4) 12 13 Teacher: <?>こういうちっちゃなりんごあったんだねー。 <?>Koo iu tittya na ringo atta n da ne:. the teacher repeats her assessment. caregivers use oisii to socialize children not only to politeness. which is the most frequent adjective for evaluating food in these data. an assessment by one speaker leads to a response by another speaker such as agreement (e. When none of the children verbally aligns (pause in line 2). 236).â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 239 â•⁄9 Lan: //んーーーー。|| //N::::. In Excerpt (1). Goodwin & Goodwin.|| (But) (it)’s that (it’s) small. In their research on assessments in conversation. <?> (It)’s that there was this kind of small apple. 155). Moreover. p.g.g. “Yeah”) or further assessment (Pomerantz. (It)’s delicious. In response. in role-plays when one child played a host and the other a guest.|| //Ye::::ah. 1986. since it is the children and not the teachers who are eating in Excerpt (1). the teacher’s use of oisii can be heard as “voicing” (Bakhtin. Chapter 10. . || 10 Teacher: (でも)ちっちゃいのねーー//ーー。|| (Demo) tittyai no ne:://::. 236). again using the particle ne (line 3).　 wasn’t the:re. In particular. such utterance using oisii (and the like) is a positive “assessment” (e. In particular. From the perspective of action. Here the teacher’s use of the pragmatic particle ne ‘isn’t it’ at the end of her assessment launches an assessment activity by encouraging the children to align (e. Cook. In my data. the teacher addresses the children using the word oisii ‘delicious’ (line 1). but also into how to think and feel about food.|| 11 Lan: //<?>|| (0. (0. In her study of Japanese socialization in the home. 240 Matthew Burdelski Rabbit apple Figure 1.This’ (line 4) The physical shaping of food into objects of nature as in Figure 1 is a common practice of Japanese food culture that has aesthetic value and other purposes. she provides an explanation for why Lan is holding up and displaying her interest in the apple. 2010). preschool teachers socialize children to this cultural value and interactional norm. 1987). As Szatrowski’s (2010. the teacher continues the assessment activity by shifting from talking about the taste of the food to talking about its appearance. vegetables. In particular. this time using the adjective kawaii ‘cute’ (line 8). She then comments on its appearance again. 1995). Kinsella. the teacher makes another assessment. By making assessments of both the taste and appearance of the food. In the preschool. as well as this snack time as a celebratory event (as apples are not usually cut into a shape of a rabbit for ordinary snacks and meals). In particular. In responding to Lan. while saying Ko. but also indexes child-like cuteness.Kore ‘Th. and rice into objects such as cartoon characters so they will be appealing to eat (Allison. the shaping of food not only is designed to make it appealing to eat. Next. Japanese speakers frequently make assessments of taste and appearance of food. 2008 [1997]). constructing meat or fish. Finally. this time saying the rabbit apple is tittyai ‘small’ (line 10). using the extended predicate no ‘It’s that X’ (line 7: Usagi no ringo na no ‘It’s that (it’s) a rabbit apple’) (Jorden & Noda. 2011) research on eating on Japanese television and in conversations over food demonstrates.g. it has been noted that Japanese mothers often spend a good deal of time in preparing school-age children’s bentoo ‘boxed lunch’. using the affective word tittyai (rather than the word tiisai ‘small’) that is highly associated in these data with cuteness. .â•‡ Lan holds up a piece of apple cut into the shape of a rabbit (right) towards a teacher (left). she closes down the assessment activity by making another assessment of the food as oisii ‘delicious’ (line 15). a word associated with positive feeling towards things that are typically small and immature (e. and one generally addressed to girls as a type of gender socialization (Burdelski & Mitsuhashi. again referring to its taste. L1 children between the ages of 1.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 241 In households too. or pet or other animal. (It) says/ said. In particular. Oisii? ‘Is it delicious?’). Chapter 10. assessment activity surrounding food is common. 5 Mom: 食べた。 Tabeta. . while eating lunch at a picnic table in a park during a visit to a zoo. 2011). her mother glosses this action as a polite offer with the formulaic expression doozo ‘Here you are’ (Burdelski. 2005 (Fri. 6 Mom: 「おいしいーー」って。 “Oisii::” tte. mothers and fathers make assessments of food using oisii ‘delicious’ or umai (a stereotypically male word for ‘delicious’ that can be a form of gender socialization when addressed by father to son). In Excerpt (2) a mother voices an assessment of food by an animal to her daughter (Keiko). 2.g. especially in terms of taste.5. Keiko=female. infant. These types of assessments reinforce the importance of assessment in activities surrounding food.11–2. (It) ate (it).3 and some L2 children a few months after entering preschool were producing assessments of food using oisii. including a parent. doozo. In lines 1 and 2. Doo? ‘How it is?’. “(It)’s deliciou::s”. and they encourage children to make their own assessments through questions (e. 1 Keiko: //((Throws bread towards pigeons))|| 2 Mom: //はい、どうぞ。|| //Hai. In these data. when Keiko throws a piece of bread towards the pigeons. One type of voicing of assessments of food that was observed in the families but not in the preschool was voicing such assessments by third parties.|| //Here you are. and also play a role in socializing empathy. The frequent use of caregiver assessments and their strategies designed to get children to align and make their own assessments may encourage children’s early acquisition of assessments of food. among other strategies. they are feeding small pieces of sandwich bread to a flock of pigeons. (2) Park at zoo (Kyoto): April 13. (The pigeon) ate (it). Preschool teachers also posed such questions to children. 2:17pm.|| ((Pigeon picks up bread from ground and eats 3 it)) 4 Keiko: 食べた。 Tabeta. Here.). // “(It)’s delicious” || (it)’s saying. after Keiko and her mother comment on the pigeon having eaten the bread (lines 4–5).” 8 Mom: //「おいしい」||ゆってるよ。 // “Oisii”|| yutte ru yo. Unlike Excerpt (1) in which the assessment adjective was followed by the particle ne (line 1: Oisii ne ‘(It)’s delicious. The mother repeats Keiko’s utterance as a display of joint understanding. offers. This strategy reinforces assessments of food as a practice at meal and snack time. In reporting the speech of third parties in this way. Some children even younger than Keiko reported the assessments of food by others.|| (It)’s saying. 9 Mom: はい、どうぞ。 Hai. Japanese caregivers socialize children to empathy (see Clancy. even imaginary food. doozo. and other related social actions of third parties. and the sequential timing of these assessments. Here you are. or in this case an understanding of how the pigeon is reacting to and feeling about the food in the moment. here it is followed by the quotative particle tte.2. In Excerpt (2). after feeding an imaginary leaf to a toy dinosaur: “Happa. Keiko’s repetition of the assessment.happa oisii” yuttaru ‘(It)’s saying “The leaf is delicious”’). which includes understanding how others think and feeds towards certain stimuli such as food. displays empathy. ((handing Keiko more bread for pigeons)) In Excerpt (2). isn’t it’). the mother voices the pigeon as having assessed the bread as Oisii ‘delicious’ (line 6). this excerpt shows that they also use reported speech to voice the assessments of food of non-human third parties. which marks it as reported speech or thoughts. such as toys (Male child. line 6).242 Matthew Burdelski 7 Keiko: 「おいしい」//ゆってる。|| “Oisii” //yutte ru. 2. This suggests that two-year olds are acquiring empathy in relation to what others are thinking and feeling about food. and adds the final particle yo ‘I tell you’ (line 8) for emphasis. While Japanese caregivers often use reported speech to voice the requests. line 7) instead of the quotative particle (tte ‘says/ said’. using a reporting verb in the present progressive tense (yutte ru ‘(It)’s saying’. 1986). “(It)’s delicious. . I tell you. Mother: Sikkari tabenasai ‘Eat it up completely’) to polite requests (e. sonna koto site //tara. farmers). children in Japan are often encouraged to finish the last grain of rice in their bowl or bit of food on their plate. 8 Dad: //うんーーー。|| //U:::n.3 Is it that (you)’re already finished? You.4) ((Sound of Dad at sink. Boku. and Western images (e. 2 (0. 15.Chapter 10. Here.g. Teacher: Tabete kudasai. during a family lunch (mother. (3) Home (Kyoto): Feb.|| The Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits will get angry.g.7) 7 Mom: 〜神様に怒られるよ、そんなことして//たら。|| Kami-sama ni okorareru yo. rinsing plate)) 5 Mom: <?> 6 (0. Kami-sama ‘Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits’). Caregivers also use strategies that draw upon Japanese religion (e. . The use of boku in effect takes the child’s perspective by using the term the child is expected to use when referring to himself (Suzuki.g. high status family members (e. his mother responds.5.5) 3 Taka: <?> 4 (0. hutari wa ‘Please eat. Caregivers use a range of strategies to encourage children to finish all their food.g. the indigenous religion of Japan.5) becomes restless in his highchair after having eaten only half his lunch.2 Finishing all of one’s food As in many other societies such as China (Hsu & Hsu. 1 Mom: 〜もうごちそうさまなの、ぼく。 Moo gotisoosama na no. male. 2. the two of you’). such practice is linked to showing keii ‘respect’ to food and those who had a hand in bringing it to the table (e. I tell you. when a child (Taka.g. and child).â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 243 4. Mother: Mottainai ‘(It’s) a waste’). and sanctions for being wasteful (e. Santa-san ‘Santa Claus’). father.). Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits are multiple) becoming angry if the child does not eat all his food.g. 2005 (Sat. In Japan. As in some cases when talking to young boys. Excerpt (3) illustrates how a mother invokes fear of the Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits (in Shinto.|| // Mm-hm:::. 2. such as directives ranging from imperatives (e.|| 3. oziizi ‘grandfather’). here the mother uses the male first-person pronoun boku ‘I [male] ’ (glossed as ‘you’) in postposed position at the end of her utterance for emphasis. 12:41pm.g. 1973). if (you) are doing that kind of thing. Take = male. 1977). parents. || Without spilling/dropping (any food). No::.|| //Without leaving any.} (0. here the mother refers to herself with her title Mama ‘Mama’ (more intimate than the honorific term okaasan ‘mother’). 10 (0. Ye:::h.244 Matthew Burdelski â•⁄9 Mom: 〜おじじに電話してしまう？ママ。 Ozizi ni denwa-site simau? Mama. As do other caregivers in these data (Excerpt (6) line 15). Well then. chew (it) chew (it). (0. in response to the child not finishing his food. Hm-hm::. using the adversative passive form of the verb okoru ‘to become angry’ to imply that the child will suffer from the Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits becoming angry if he does not finish his food. || 22 Taka: //((Begins to eat))|| 23 Dad: んーー。 N::. In Excerpt (3). (1.6) 17 18 Mom: こぼさないよう//に。|| Kobosanai yoo //ni. This self-reference term is postposed for emphasis. 19 Dad: //{ha|| ha. 1973). . the mother invokes the anger of the Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits (line 7).3) 14 15 Taka: かみさま？ Kami-sama? Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits? ((Reaches for and picks up spoon)) 16 Mom: んーーー。 N:::. eat it up completely. which takes the child’s perspective by using the term the child is expected to use when addressing the mother (Suzuki. (0.4) 11 Taka: だめーー。 Dame::.4 Shall (I) end up telephoning grandpa? Mama. Similar to Lebra (1976).2) 12 13 Mom: んじゃー、しっかり食べなさい。 N zya:. sikkari tabenasai. the mother sensitizes the child to how others will react to their undesirable 4.7) 20 21 Mom: //残さずアムアム。|| //Nokosazu amuamu. but has left his daikon salad nearly untouched. â•⁄1 Tetsu: ((takes a drink of tea and puts glass down on table)) â•⁄2 Tetsu: °ごちそうさま。° °Gotisoosama. animals. This is especially relevant in Japan in which Shinto is centered on a view that kami ‘spirits. at times. the mother issues a directive to Taka to not spill and leave any food (line 21). animals. 2001.). the social world can be “made of people. spirits or other kinds of supernatural beings” (p. the mother encourages the child to understand eating in relation to maintaining interpersonal harmony.)) 22 Mom: 〜もうごちそうさま、本当に？= Moo gotisoosama. 1999 (Wed. and. and then proceeds to finish his food (line 22). the child (Tetsu) finishes his curry and rice.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 245 actions (e. by mentioning Kami-sama ‘the Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits’. food. implying that he is finished. and child) dinner of curry and rice with a side of daikon ‘Japanese radish’ salad. Lebra. which can both be seen as being wasteful. Tetsu = male. by proposing to call him on the telephone (line 9). Chapter 10. Gods’ exist all around. ° °Thank you for the meal. At the end of this sequence. In particular. During a family (mother. namely invoking that Santa Claus will not come (and thus not bring gifts) if the child does not finish the food. As in many families. really?= 23 Dad: =もうごちそうさま？ =Moo gotisoosama? =Are (you) finished already? . In relation to this. 6:35pm. Excerpt (4) may be recognizable to many Western households. The mother’s strategy in Excerpt (3) socializes the child to the notion that eating everything on one’s plate goes hand in hand with maintaining interpersonal harmony. and natural and manmade objects. 8. When Taka does not proceed to finish his meal. While Excerpt (3) may be an especially “Japanese” strategy of socialization. and then says Gotisoosama ‘Thank you for the meal’ (lines 1 and 2). 124). 206). namely the grandfather (Kobayashi. Tetsu reaches for a piece of roll cake dessert on the table and then puts it back on the plate when he is told to wait. (4) Home (Osaka): Dec. 3.9. hontoo ni?= Are (you) finished already. p. the mother invokes the fear of a more familiar authority figure. father.g. Duranti (2009) points out that. takes a drink of tea. 1976). things of nature. Taka strongly objects (line 11). including within humans. an important notion in Japanese society (e. not finishing all their food). ° … ((Mom begins to feed Tetsu a forkful of daikon salad. artifacts. in many societies. the father’s role in this socialization is to support the mother through agreement tokens (lines 8 and 23).g. ((Taking cake fromTetsu)) Dad: <?> //((Wipes Tetsu’s mouth))|| 32 Tetsu: // °うーんうーん°。|| 33 //°U:n u:n. 27 Tetsu: //((Shakes head))|| 28 Mom: //((Takes away curry plate and sets it down))|| 29 Dad: //<?> ((Getting up from table))|| 30 Tetsu: ((Picks up piece of rolled cake dessert on table)) 31 Mom: ((咳)) 待ってよ。 ((Coughs)) Matte yo.2) 40 Tetsu: サンタさん。 Santa-san. Not yet.|| zenbu tabenai to nani ga konai no? //Wh-|| if (you) don’t eat everything. Yea:::h. what is it that won’t come? 39 (1.246 Matthew Burdelski 24 (3. Santa.8) 25 Tetsu: んーーー N:::. 37 Tetsu: んーーーー//ーー。|| N:::://::. ((Coughs)) Wait. ((with a mouthful of daikon)) . I tell you. I tell you. 26 Mom: 〜もういらない？//カレー。|| Moo iranai? /Karee.|| (You) don’t need anymore? Curry. °|| 34 Mom: まだだよ。 Mada da yo.|| ((Shaking head while eating daikon from the fork that Mom is holding)) 38 Mom: //だ-||全部食べないと何が来ないの？ //Da.|| No:::://::. Mr.)) 35 Mom: 自分で//これは||食べれない？ Zibun de //kore wa|| taberenai? (You) can’t eat this (daikon) by yourself? 36 Dad: //全部|| 食べてから。 //Zenbu|| tabete kara After (you) eat everything.°|| //°No: no:. ((Feeding Tetsu a forkful of daikon. which the child had just reached for on the table (line 30). 42 Mom: ((Puts fork in Tetsu’s hand)) 43 Mom: ちゃんと食べる子のところにしか来ない。 Tyanto taberu ko no tokoro ni sika konai.. (I) wonder if (you) are a bad child? (0. (He) only comes to children (who) eat properly. I tell you.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 247 41 Mom: サンタさん来ないよー。 Santa-san konai yo:. 1997). the mother’s immediate utterance (line 38) functions to get the child to make a connection between eating all his food and obtaining a “reward” (Ochs et al. While the larger directive here is “eat all of your food”.8) 51 52 Tetsu: そうじゃない。 Soo zya nai.|| 46 Mom: //テ||ッちゃん悪い子なのかな？ //Te||t-tyan warui ko na no ka na? //Te||t-chan. 53 ((Begins eating daikon again on his own with fork)) In Excerpt (4). his mother poses a question (line 38: Da. what is it that won’t come?’). & Strauss. 44 Tetsu: ((Continues chewing food from previous forkful)) 45 Tetsu: んーー//ーー。|| N:: //::. which is frequently used by Japanese caregivers in directives to children on what to do or not do (Clancy. By using . (1996)). ((Shaking head)) (0. That’s not so. Akatsuka. 1996). the mother implies the reward of Christmas. Mr. No.5) 47 48 Tetsu: ううん。 Uun. Santa won’t come. Chapter 10.|| Yea:://::h. when Tetsu does not finish his food despite his parents’ prodding. Rather than casting the reward as eating dessert (as in the US data cited from Ochs et al. then not Y’) and the conditional marker to. using a double negative construction (‘If not X.zenbu tabenai to nani ga konai no? ‘Wh-.6) 49 50 Mom: ん？ N? Hm? (0. if (you) don’t eat everything. 1 Mom: もったいない。 Mottainai. Ichiro. which eventually leads Tetsu to resume eating his food on his own. by implying that others (Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits. Santa Claus) are monitoring the children’s eating and may respond in a negative way (e. When Tetsu hesitates to continue eating. Ichiro = male.). is it that (you) won’t drink any more? This. Thus. which is expected to evoke feelings of regret and responsibility.4) 3 4 Ichiro: うん。 Un. rather than a statement. family member. but she does so in a culturally organized way. It should be noted that not all caregivers encouraged children to eat all of their food all the time. 2003 (Wed. Santa’). using a conditional clause in double negative construction (line 38) and casting the child in negative moral light (line 46).1) ((Begins to pour out juice in sink)) 6 Mom: 「ごめんねー」って。 “Gomen ne:” tte.3) . his mother reinforces this link to Santa Claus in line 43. The caregivers in Excerpts (3) and (4) encourage the children to finish all of their food. Here. 1:40pm.g. The mother employs the Western image of Santa Claus to encourage Tetsu to finish all of his food. No. Excerpt (5) shows how a mother encourages a child to apologize to his unfinished juice. which he does (line 40: Santa-san ‘Mr. “(I)’m sorry” (to the juice). His mother has just picked up his half-finished juice (made in a mixer using fresh fruit) from the table. (5) Home (Osaka): August 20. (0. and on occasion they even threw away uneaten food. and then casts Tetsu in a negative moral way (line 46). Japanese caregivers socialize children to the notion that eating all of their food is a practice for maintaining interpersonal harmony. Yet. she urges Tetsu to provide an answer. Say. 2 Mom: 〜イチロウもう飲まへんの？これ。 Itiroo moo nomahen no? Kore. withholding gifts) if they do not finish their meal. becoming angry. even in throwing away food caregivers used strategies to socialize children to affect. ((Washing rice at sink)) 5 Mom: (1. (It)’s a waste.8. 2. Ichiro has just eaten a snack and is now standing on a chair at the sink helping his mother wash the rice for dinner. ((Pouring juice down sink)) 7 (1.248 Matthew Burdelski a wh-question (line 38). Upon sanctioning Ichiro for not finishing his juice (line 1). Here. loudly scrapes her plate. please wash just this (empty juice glass).11). eat without dropping food. 76–78). kon dake aratte kudasai. and gestures. and not use silverware or chopsticks as a toy (e. by prompting the child to apologize to the juice the mother implicitly conveys the importance of eating all one’s food so as to avoid evoking such negative feelings. Caregivers and peers use a variety of resources and strategies in this socialization such as directives. 2013). 4.3 Behaving properly at the table As in many other societies. In the preschool. reported speech. Chapter 10. Okay. and how other children align. in Japan caregivers encourage children how to behave at the table and exhibit good situke ‘manners’ (Hendry. to bang on dishes). which encourages them to recognize responsibility and to feel regret (Burdelski. six children are eating lunch when a female child (Hina. Here. but teachers do not instruct them to apologize to uneaten food. including toys and other inanimate objects. that they have harmed. his mother begins to pour it down the sink where Ichiro is standing on a chair (line 5). 2. â•⁄9 Mom: 「ごめんねー、飲めなくて」っていわなあかんねんで。 “Gomen ne:” nomenakute tte iwana akan nen de. (You) have to say. sit upright in their chair. (I)’m sorry. 1986. In general. who is attempting to gather the last bit of food on her plate. possibly to avoid embarrassing a child in front of the group. children are encouraged to wipe or wash their hands after eating. children are encouraged to finish all their food. . Excerpt (6) from the preschool shows how a teacher invokes empathy by reporting the speech of a plate to encourage a child to not loudly scrape her plate with her fork. p. “(I)’m sorry (I) couldn’t drink (you)”. She then prompts Ichiro to say a formulaic expression of apology (to the juice) (line 6: “Gomen ne” tte ‘Say “(I)’m sorry”’). 10 Mom: ((Rinsing out glass)) (3.g. while pouring the juice down the sink in front of him.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 249 â•⁄8 Ichiro: ごめんね。 Gomen ne.8) 11 Mom: はい、こんだけ洗ってください。 Hai. For instance. to be illustrated below. Japanese caregivers prompt children to apologize to others. 3) â•⁄5 Girl-1: カナやってないや。 Kana yatte nai ya.” ((Touching Hina’s plate with right index finger)) â•⁄8 (0. But (it)’s saying it. â•⁄4 (1.1) 11 Hina: <?>お口ないや。 <?> Okuti nai ya. Hina=female. â•⁄1 Hina: ((Scraping plate several times with fork)) â•⁄2 Boy-1: 先生ーー。 Sensee::.11. India. you know.6 It’s that (I) can hear it.11.0. 6. ((Pointing to Hina’s plate. 12 (0.).(o-sara ‘plate’). looking at teacher)) â•⁄3 Teacher: あーんもうヒナちゃんそういうふうにやらないの。 A:n moo Hina-tyan soo iu huu ni yaranai no. 1973). The teacher uses the prefix o. Boy-1=2.5. The plate is saying. ° ((Putting hand to ear)) 5. 10 (1. . ((Pointing at Hina’s plate)) 14 (0. <?> (It) doesn’t have a mouth. °Sensee°. 2. a “beautification honorific” that is a stereotypical characteristic of female speech. 11:46am.3) 13 Teacher: だってゆってるよ。 Datte yutte ru yo. I tell you. Girl-1=3. â•⁄6 (0. Boy-2=4.250 Matthew Burdelski (6) Preschool (Saitama): 4/25/07 (Wed. O:h Hina it’s that (we) don’t do [in] that [kind of way]. Teacher::. I tell you. I tell you. “Ouch. and in speech addressed to young children. °Teacher (can).3) 15 Teacher: 〜聞こえるもん、°先生。° Kikoeru mon. L2. The plate (is). Here the teacher refers to herself as Sensee ‘Teacher’.5) â•⁄9 Teacher: お皿が。 Osara ga. which in effect takes the child’s perspective by using the term the child is expected to use (Suzuki. [Kana] (I) am not doing it.2) â•⁄7 Teacher: お皿が「痛いよ」って言ってるよ。 Osara5 ga “itai yo” tte yutte ru yo. . ‘O:h Hina. while pointing towards it (Figure 2). 1990. it’s that (we) don’t do [in] that [kind of way]. right. (I/ we) can hear (it). (I) can hear it.@ @Can’t you. the teacher issues a directive to Hina (line 3: A:n moo Hina-tyan soo iu huu ni yaranai no. in doing so she makes scraping sounds with her fork. Gent. although Hina orients to the practice “Finishing all of one’s food”. 417). (I/ we) can hear it. (he) says (he) can hear it. ((Gathering up the last bits of Hina’s food on her plate)) In Excerpt (6). (I) can hear it. °> 23 Girl-1: 聞こえるね。 Kikoeru ne.5) 19 Boy-2: 聞こえるよ。 Kikoeru yo.°> <°Right.’). Here. 18 (0. which is also relevant in the larger society. which is a breach of appropriate behavior at the table. gather it u::p.yasasii <?>(made tabe) yo. ((Gazing towards Boy-2)) やさ-優しい<?>(まで食べ)よ。 24 Teacher: Yasa. I tell you. Chapter 10. which ends with the extended predicate no. I tell you. the use of no conveys to children a locally constructed rule in the preschool related to table manners.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 251 16 Girl-1: 聞こえる Kikoeru. ((Putting hand to ear)) 17 Teacher: うん聞こえるよ。 Un kikoeru yo. kikoeru tte. The teacher then addresses Hina by invoking the feelings of the plate (line 7). p. @ ((Nodding at Boy-2.<?> (eat it up) gently.5) 25 26 Teacher: 優しく集まれ集まれーー。 Yasasiku atsumare atsumare::. Yeah. Gather it up gently. (0. an index of an epistemic stance of “common knowledge in society” (Cook. In response. and smiling)) (1. ((Raising up his right hand)) @ねー。@ 20 Teacher: @Ne:.1) 21 22 Teacher: <°ね、聞こえるって。°> <°Ne. I tell you. Girl-1) align with the teacher by stating that they can also hear it (lines 16. several children align with the teacher as a form of peer reinforcement and socialization that is common in preschool. Excerpt (6) shows ways that children socialize peers into how to behave at the table. In summary. In lines 24 and 26. . and how children resist and contest the practices into which others attempt to socialize them into at mealtime. 19. After the teacher aligns with Boy-1 by sanctioning Hina. I tell you’ (so it cannot express feelings ostensibly). finishing all of one’s food has to be done in an appropriate manner. For instance. Hina counters by replying in line 11 Okuti nai ya ‘(It=the plate) doesn’t have a mouth. In these ways. and 23). here the teacher uses reported speech to attribute feelings of pain to an inanimate object. the teacher also socializes Hina to the proper way to clean one’s plate by gathering up her food for her with her fork. Excerpt (6) also shows ways that children are agents in the socialization process. Hina’s initial scraping of her plate draws the attention of a peer (Boy-1. other children (Boy-2. As in the analysis in Section 4.252 Matthew Burdelski Figure 2. in encouraging children’s behavior at the table teachers socialize children to empathy. 2011:â•›399) in that his verbal and non-verbal actions are done in front of the group of children. These actions indicate the boy has noticed that Hina has breached a norm of behavior at the table. Thus. and positions himself as a kind of public “tattletale” (García-Sánchez.â•‡ A teacher touches Hina’s plate with her index finger while attributing feelings of pain to it in line 7 Similar to Clancy (1986). When the teacher counters Hina by asserting that she can hear the plate (line 15). and points towards Hina while calling for the teacher (line 2). while urging her to do it yasashiku ‘gently’. an L2 speaker of Japanese) who is the first to notice Hina’s actions.2 “Finishing all of one’s food”. Holquist. I identified three practices (talking about food. Counihan & P. Japanese mothers and obentōs: The lunch-box as ideological state apparatus. Liapunov & K. Trans. 221– 239). respect. food. and examined the verbal and non-verbal resources and strategies that caregivers and peers deploy in socializing children to these practices. Austin: University of Texas Press. and how children resist and contest the practices into which others attempt to socialize them. Blum-Kulka. Santa Claus) images. and at times refer to Japanese religious (e. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. They deploy verbal (e.g. which are also used in other communities across the globe.g. V. Bakhtin.). gestures). assessment.g. pragmatic particles. and strategies (e. New York: Routledge. finishing all of one’s food. Van Esterik (Eds.g.). Goodwin & Kyratzis. and interpersonal harmony.g. voicing). Focusing on meal and snack time. Food and culture: A reader (pp. reported speech. Chapter 10. quotative particle) and non-verbal resources (e. References Allison. passive. The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 253 5. In C. M. 2011). Godsâ•›/â•›Spirits) and Western (e. Japanese caregivers draw upon notions of empathy. but taken as a whole contribute to a unique cultural profile of socialization in Japanese. (2008 [1997]). While these practices are recognizable in many other communities. (1981).g. Â�Brostorm. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. This finding is consistent with the theory of language socialization in which peer socialization has received more attention in the past couple decades (e. (1997). Excerpt (6) illustrates how children socialize peers into the practices. The present analysis builds upon prior research on language socialization at meal and snack time. . This socialization is not a one-way process from caregivers to children. and food-related objects. A. As children are socialized into the set of practices that constitute everyday meal and snack time they are also socialized into how to feel towards and relate to others. I showed how they are socio-culturally organized in Japanese. Conclusion This paper has analyzed children’s early experiences with food in families and a preschool in Japan. behaving properly at the table) across these settings. It suggests that children are not merely recipients of this socialization but also agents who challenge others attempts at socialization and who socialize others into the practices that constitute mealtime and other food-related activities that are central to everyday social life. S. A. (2002). Ochs & B. S. and relationships in a Japanese preschool.). In A. (Eds. E. 365–390). E. M.). Ochs (Eds. Malden. Malden.. 377–395. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Language socialization across cultures (pp. Journal of Pragmatics.â•›E.â•›B.. Mahwah. (pp. 12. Schieffelin (Eds. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. & Strauss. P. Multilingua. & B. Text. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.â•›M. In A. Pragmatics and Society. M. Perlmann. 65–93. Schieffelin (Eds. Hendry. The handbook of language socialization. (2002). (2011).). MA: Wiley-Blackwell. (1990). J. The role of the Japanese sentence-final particle no in the socialization of children. & Van Esterik. & Tryggvason. P. E.â•›B. Herot. C. 19–57). Food and culture: A reader. Language socialization and morality. Cook.. Burdelski. 4(1).â•›B. gender. 213–250). Fader. H. 54–81. Counihan. Ochs & B. C. 493–502. & Schieffelin. 39(1).).â•›B. In A. A. Goodwin. R. (2013). M. The handbook of language socialization (pp. Language socialization and exclusion. Gleason.â•›M. Assessments and the construction of context. & Kyratzis. 275–295). (2009). & B. (1992). A. Schieffelin E. The handbook of language socialization (pp. Goodwin (Eds. J. MA: Wiley-Blackwell. (1984). & Tobin.). Burdelski. E. Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition (pp. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. M.â•›M. Duranti.254 Matthew Burdelski Burdelski. (2011). Deontic modality and conditionality in discourse: A cross-linguistic study of adult speech to young children.. Duranti. García-Sánchez. In A. E. H. Ochs. L. De Geer. Duranti. Malden. In A. Cook. Language in Society. Akatsuka. M.â•›B.). The handbook of language socialization (pp. Socialization in communication: Pragmatic socialization during dinnertime in Estonian. Malden. Duranti.â•›H.. Cambridge: Â�Cambridge University Press.â•›B. (2011). (2011). 19(2). The handbook of language socialization (pp.. M. & Mitsuhashi. (1986). Goodwin. What’s the magic word?: Learning language through politeness routines. The relevance of Husserl’s theory to language socialization. MA: Blackwell. B.). I. Hayashi. Becoming Japanese: The world of the pre-school child.. P. N. Socialization of affect during mealtime interactions. Snow (Eds. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese.â•›H. In A. (1997). 1757–1786. (2008 [1997]). (2011). The Japanese preschool’s pedagogy of feeling: Cultural strategies for supporting young children’s emotional development. . E. (Eds. 507–539. “She thinks you’re kawaii”: Socializing affect. Malden. 32–49.. M-T. Mizera. Karasawa. T. Language socialization and politeness routines.â•›M. Blum-Kulka & C. 34(12). In S. Peer language socialization. Duranti. Â�Schieffelin (Eds. (1992). New York: Routledge.. Schieffelin (Eds. Discourse Processes. & Goodwin. 7. Directions in functional linguistics (pp. A. and empathy in Japan.â•›B. 322–340). J. Duranti & C. Â� & Clancy.). & Grief. relationships. 147–190). Ochs. 391–419).). In B. B. 37(1). Finnish and Swedish families. 9(4). Ochs. MA: Blackwell.â•›M. (2009). 155–179). Clancy. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ethos. K. Meanings of non-referential indexes: A case study of the Japanese sentencefinal particle ne. “I’m sorry.). C. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. flower”: Socializing apology.â•›Y. (2010). Duranti. A. 205–226. MA: Blackwell. Tulviste. Kamio (Ed. Atkinson & J. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. Kondo-Brown (Ed. Kinsella. 35–50. A. Modern China: North. Ochs. Paper presented at the panel entitled “Verbal and nonverbal experiences of food in Japanese” at the Association of Teachers of Japanese Annual Conference. P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Japanese: The spoken language (Part 1). T.â•›H.. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. and the United States. (2002).). Chapter 10.. 349–368).â•›C. Grandparents. CT: Yale University Press. (1989). E.). D. China. Women. Selby (Eds. & Noda. 220–254). and cultural description. Chang (Ed. Skov & B. Ochs. (2004). Preschool in three cultures: Japan. “Why is this a battle every night?”: Negotiating food and eating in American dinnertime interaction. (2009). M. T. & Davidson. 185–204. H.). Cuties in Japan. Kotoba to bunka [Language and culture]. (2011). E. J. Pontecorvo. Ethnos. The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. C. & Ochs. (2010. . Annual Review of Anthropology. In C.â•›B. Japanese frames of mind: Cultural perspectives on human development (pp. Kramsch (Ed. Shimizu & R. Meaning in anthropology.â•›M. 57–101). A. A. Hikaku Nihongogaku Kyooiku Kenkyuu Sentaa Kenkyuu Nenpoo (Center for Comparative Japanese Studies Annual Bulletin). Silverstein. Szatrowski. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. Language socialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In H. Sisyokukai no gengo/ higengo koodoo ni tuite. 163–246. MA: Blackwell. & Shohet. In K. Pomerantz.. (1991). M. Socializing taste. (pp. Levine (Eds. Park. & Hsu.â•›A. E.). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. Wu. In K. Food in Chinese culture: Anthropological and historical perspectives (pp. C. (2001). and heritage language use in Korean. Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho. F. New Haven.â•›Y. (1984). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Basso & H. Japanese patterns of behavior. Szatrowski. (2006). E.30-sai miman no zyosee guruupu o tyuusin ni [Verbal and nonverbal behavior in a taster lunch. 61(1-2). Tobin.). S. In A. 295–316). 19(2). L. New Haven: Yale University Press.. In L.Focusing on a group of women under 30]. Moeran (Eds. B.â•›S..â•›H. S. March). Duranti (Ed. (1996). 99–120). Kulick.â•›H. PA. D. Verbal and nonverbal co-construction of food assessments on Japanese television cooking shows. Becoming a speaker of culture. Jorden. D. London: Continuum. Paugh.). 281–292. E. & Izquierdo.. Lebra. 7–46. 11–56). (1995). Learning to go to school in Japan: The transition from home to preschool life. linguistic categories. media and consumption in Japan (pp. Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian immigrants (pp. (1977). & Fasulo. Malden. M. New Haven. 11. Schieffelin. (1976). CT: Yale University Press. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. (1987). grandchildren. A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. V. In K. Ochs. Language socialization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Heritage (Eds. In J. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2006). (1976).â•›B. Kobayashi. 7. Peak. Suzuki. 57–86).â•›A. E.â•›J. B. (1973). Shifters. Japanese mother-child relationships: Skill acquisition before the preschool years. (1986). & Schieffelin. Philadelphia.â•‡ Early experiences with food: Socializing affect and relationships in Japanese 255 Hsu. 15(1).).). 111–140). . . I thank them all. pretend play. 1999a:â•›9) “Every mouth taste inevitably becomes a moral taste….” â•‡ (Gopnik. n. but usually in non-family roles. a piece of bread becomes a camera. Girls discussed and coordinated complex. sequenced meal preparation. the children who shared their creative play. Boys’ food-as-comestible play was shorter and less developed. sometimes explicitly as mother or child. I am grateful for the hospitality of the University of Minnesota Child Care Center. Boys also style-shifted linguistically. in which food was symbolically transformed for use in nondomestic. pretend to eat the meal. All of our food becomes a lesson. they are not 1.g. and gender in an American preschool Amy Sheldon University of Minnesota American English-speaking preschoolers reinscribe implicit understandings of gender prescriptions in their food-related talk and pretend play. and Lisa Rohleder. and exclaim how yummy the eggs and cheese are.chapter 11 “I needa cut up my soup” Food talk. 2011. . and for capable research assistants: Claire Dzur. Introduction This chapter is about preschool children’s peer talk during social play with food. “One of the most significant domains of meaning embodied in food centers on the relation between the sexes. and to research concerned with the meanings children ascribe to food and eating. e. their gender definitions…” (Counihan. noncomestible activities. planning and enacting scripts of gender normative adventure and danger. a parable. the cooperation of the parents. They imaginatively transported themselves to places outside of the home setting (to a swamp. This study contributes to research on preschooler’s gendered social language and spontaneous symbolic play. Heidi Engstrom. a spaceship).1 When children cook plastic food replicas on a stove that never heats up. pag) 1. Sharin Park. p. Counihan. emotional and physical labor necessary for the production of family meals (cf. Sheldon & Rohleder (1996). face-to-face talk is “…a form of social organization through which the work of the constitutive institutions of societies gets done … such as the economy. sociological bedrock”. Kiesling (2006) uses the term “Discourses” that gives gender a scope involving. and myriad others that align with implicit gender norms. An abstraction like . hegemonic gender order that is in the background of their lives. 81). “the entire interlocking web of practices. p. Western cultural beliefs and practices promote the understanding that it is primarily a woman’s role to supply the mental. well before they might want to renegotiate it as an adult obligation. The approach taken (following Bruner. 262). in Sheldon (1990).258 Amy Sheldon actually satisfying bodily hunger at that moment. and value their culture’s gender ideology. the polity. Children’s socialization around food starts in their family. and solidify their alignment with social expectations that are in the background of their life. Pretend play narratives studied in this preschool group show how individual minds and bodies connect with each other and to an implicit. 1999b and DeVault. This paper is an opportunity to look closely at patterns in talk and pretend play narrative activity connected to food. This snapshot from one preschool community shows how children’s gender normative food-related practices reflect gender ideology. imaginative play.g. It is. and how practices and structures are understood” (p. Sheldon & Johnson (1998). Membership in a socially relevant sex-class is accomplished through practices involving discourse. They learn to display themselves recognizably as feminine or masculine. 1990) is to consider the children’s narrative thinking and narrative practices as derived from and as displaying cultural understandings. act on.. e. Sheldon (1992). As described by Schegloff (2001. clothing. in this case understandings of gender normativity. ideologies and social structures: a system of understanding and expectation that prefigures which practices and interpretations are available. and styles of mutual engagement have been described previously. 230). 1997). they develop an appropriately gendered social self. Food inspires their narrative imagination. hairstyle. socialization. the family. I will show that gender normative practices around food are already reflected and reconstituted in this preschool community’s discourse and pretend play. provides opportunities to talk. Sheldon & Engstrom (2005). Spending a significant amount of time in childhood with same-sex companions. I will describe gender differences in food-related talk and pretend play activities produced by a community of American English-speaking children. This community’s gendered conflict talk styles. So we might wonder when and how children begin to understand and act in accordance with this expectation. which is a “… crossculturally universal and robust phenomena” (Whiting & Edwards (1988. As children become socially competent native speakers. so to speak. play preferences. p. 4): In Discipline and Punish. pretend play. they were uninterested. train bodies to act within a narrow range of normalizing behaviors. Counihan (1999b) found little prior data on “… how children use eating or food imagery to develop and signify gender…” (p. Becoming gendered is child’s play. 362) cited by Atik & Ertekin (2011. Sheldon (1990) describes how a spontaneous conflict over a plastic pickle that emerged in an allgirls’ play triad and one that developed independently in an all-boys’ play triad were negotiated in gender-normative ways. in which bodies become practiced entities. marketing practices. i. Subtle physical and mental disciplinary practices become a means of social control. Elliott (2009. In a sample . and perspectives on. in which prisons are designed to give the impression of an ever-watchful eye monitoring the actions of prisoners. Foucault argues that modern power is “maintained not through physical restraint and coercion.” Preschoolers do not have the metacognitive ability to critically scrutinize their gender inscription.) notes that there is limited research on children’s eating practices. Counihan found out a little more by analyzing stories told to her by individual children and stories that children told to other researchers. 1993a. 129). Foucault (1979) introduces the concept of ‘docile’ bodies. Previous research There has not been much ethnographic research on children’s face-to-face foodrelated talk (although see Wiggins and Burdelski in this volume).â•‡ Food talk. pag. 130). It is normalized through shared practice in peer culture and continues to be entrained in cultural institutions beyond the family: school. n. or “boy foods and girls foods”. p. other cultural institutions. gave short answers. 138). When she asked preschoolers if there are “good or bad foods”. embodying social values (p. and moved on to more interesting topics (p. 191) and self-correction to norms. 2. To quote Borello (2006. Chapter 11. Much like the panopticon. outside of research on the influence of food advertising. Pitcher & Prelinger (1963). and gender in an American preschool 259 “gender-appropriate” comes to life and is accomplished in children’s embodied talk and action. food. but through individual self-surveillance (quoted from Bordo. Ochs & Taylor (1995) in an ethnographic study of talk at the family dinner table.e. such as schools. etc. Such direct questioning yielded little insight into their attitudes to food or their implicit understanding of food’s relationship to gender. p. or perception of. media. In this way. describe how gender asymmetry and dominance is constituted in a “father knows best” practice when everyday narratives are told to the father at dinnertime. Mothers unwittingly gave fathers the role of all-seeing eye (panopticon) and subjected themselves and their children to his criticism. After we showed them the resources we disappeared up into a loft on the side where we could observe unseen. (some of which were multiple stories told by the same child). I placed children into all-girl or all-boy triads based on friendships within their group. 137). and an older group of four-and fiveyear-olds. This proportion is the same for stories told by girls and by boys. They knew all their group members well. However. Boys’ stories had more references to devouring (56%) than girls’ stories (p. Minnesota. It was produced by a community of educationally and socially advantaged three. A graduate student assistant and I brought each of the six girl triads (N = 18) and six boy triads (N = 18) into one of their daycare playrooms. 73% of the total references to a meal or food event occurred in girls’ stories. Methodology and participants The food-related talk and social play described here emerged spontaneously and was not supervised or directed by any adult. 54% were told by girls. hard hats. These complex stories that are lived as they are told give us access to the meanings and uses for food that are created exclusively with and for peers.260 Amy Sheldon of 489 monologic stories. 66% of the total references to foods occurred in girls’ stories. 137). four. However. The room was set up with resources for dramatic play in one of three gender typed ways: as a housekeeping center (feminine). or a center with trucks. Descriptions of the methodology and participants can be found in Sheldon (1990. Counihan describes relatively short monologic narratives related to food that are told by one child to an adult on request. No daycare staff or other children were present. and five year old children at their child care center in Minneapolis. USA. 1992) and Sheldon & Rohleder (1996). the ways that food was talked about differed by sex of the teller as follows: 63% of the total references to eating or drinking “in a comestible sense” occurred in girls’ stories. This chapter describes jointly constructed talk about food and food related activities that emerge from children’s spontaneous dramatic play. She reports that 51% “have references to foods and food-centered activities” (p.and four-year-olds. or food places occurred in girls’ stories. food workers. The daycare center had organized the children into a younger preschool group of three. dinosaurs and . The patterns that Counihan (1999b) found among individual children are consistent with sex differences in interactive play in the preschool community whose peer talk and play I have been studying. 3. whereas I am interested in how children’s knowledge of food and gender can direct or constrain the communal working of their socially shared symbolic imagination. 70% of the total references to food tasks. In consultation with their teachers. Whether and how their play might be different in mixed-sex groups is an important question but not one that this study can address.2 We concluded that even though the girl groups and boy groups shared the same physical space and material resources. Girls’ food talk connected to a coordinated narrative and physical activity with a high degree of mutually synchronous talk and body engagement with shared objects in a shared space and time. a doll’s high chair. a mirror. Their narrative worlds were stylized in same-sex play. sometimes. . a doll’s bed with three dolls and some blankets. However. on a tripod. Each group played once in each room set-up on different days in counterbalanced order. and gender in an American preschool 261 building blocks (masculine). This happened in (1). The utterance quoted in the title of this chapter occurred in line 3 at the end of a sequence of partial verbal and physical repetitions in which each girl announced her intention to cut up some food on the table:3 2. a land line telephone next to a child size foam chair that could unfold into a bed.â•‡ Food talk. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data and transcription conventions. a few cooking pots. and a doctor’s kit. Elaine and Erica were in the middle of a dinnertime conversation while pretending to eat a meal they had prepared. paper plates and cups. The children quickly became engrossed in their play. was operated in the doorway to the room. Looking specifically at food-related pretend play discourse. for about twenty-five minutes per session. pretend play.e. This chapter discusses food-related discourse and play in the housekeeping center only.. Chapter 11. The children wore individual lapel microphones and were video-recorded. Those six girls’ and six boys’ sessions totaled about five hours of play. plastic eating utensils. and the process of recording did not interfere with the naturalness of their activity. when four-year-olds Arlene. Brief overview Sheldon & Rohleder (1996) showed that preschoolers in this community created and enacted gender typed story preferences. The camera. joint understandings) and interactions around food that had some qualitative and quantitative differences from the boys’. gender typed dress up clothes. 3. a basket of plastic replicas of food items. The resources in the housekeeping center included a child size toy stove and sink. the girl groups created a style of intersubjectivity (i. a child-size dining table and three chairs. closely attending to the form of prior talk and acting together might lead a speaker astray. they created stories that patterned differently. or a center with art materials (gender neutral). 4. I need to cut up my ･chicken･. Girls in this community organized more of their mutual playtime in food related activities and associated talk than boys. 2 Elaine: I ha. Although the boys had the same linguistic resources as the girls. that is. They don’t sit down to an organized dinner yet. I’m having. (2) Hey cheese â•⁄1 Robert: ･Corn. Tannen (1990) characterized the pattern in boys’ and mens’ talk as “report” talk. ending dinner and putting food away. However. Each of the boy groups engaged in food activities and food talk at the beginning of their time in the room. even though boys played with the same resources during their time in the room. having a dinner party. Their pretend play domestic scenarios in the kitchen setting were shorter and had some fewer elements than the girls’. variations I got. sometimes cooking at the stove.I need to.･= ((puts a corn cob from the basket on his plate. and in the other two boys threw everything off the table. and pretending to be at a restaurant. The three boys produce a series of self-reports (in lines 3. ･ ((puts tomato on his head)) â•⁄4 Connor: ･Hey. each announcement evoking a similar one by another boy. Like the girls. 5. and I have. the boys’ groups started the session by taking out the contents of the food basket. cleaning up after dinner (3 of the 6 girl groups). chee:::se. their self-reports or announcements. Connor (lines 3. Mark and Robert are taking food items out of a basket at the table. This example shows a notable feature of talk about food that occurred in the boy triads. their food discourse drew on them in some stylistically different ways. Each boy gets his own food from the basket. In (2) Connor. talking about food. bends his â•⁄ 2 head down to it and pretends to bite into it making eating sounds)) â•⁄ 3 Connor: =Hey. For example. Only Connor and Robert are sitting at the table and eating in this sequence. Their food-related activity and talk were less developed and varied. a birthday party. The series could be interpreted as playful competition.I got a ･tomato. They have not explicitly put a meal time frame around their activity. making baby food or getting it at the baby store. 12 and 16).･= . like the girls did. 3 Emily: I needa cut up my ･soup･. foodrelated activities in some girl triads that did not occur in any boy triads included: grocery shopping. it was for a shorter time. Two of the boys’ sessions were distinct because in one a child threw food he didn’t like on the floor. and sitting at the table. There is no meal preparation for the group.262 Amy Sheldon (1) I needa cut up my soup 1 Arlene: I’ll cut up the mashed potatoes. 4 and 7) and Robert (line 15) exclaim loudly and use attention getting devices Hey and Oh look to attract attention. a picnic. the boys’ groups engaged with the play resources and space differently than the girls did. tries to eat it)) Oh ･look･ at this. pretend play. both the girls’ and boys’ pretend play food conversations and foodrelated practices are consistent with.･ 13 ((Turns in his seat away from the table. boys imaginatively transformed domestic resources (the pretend food. the doll crib. looks down at the blood 14 pressure cuff that is around his wrist.< ･Swiss･ cheese. nibbles his 12 cheese and grins)) I’m having ･che:::ese. the kitchen furniture. They imaginatively transported themselves out of the domestic setting that the room had been set up to invoke. a corn cob was suggested as a camera. a spoon represented stolen jewels or was also used as a flash light for an “explore”.･ 11 Connor: ((looks at Mark who is standing by the table. etc. In brief. and gender in an American preschool 263 â•⁄ 5 Mark: ((Walks to the table from the food basket)) =I got some ･meat. Items that were normally taken to be food were given nondomestic narrative uses in some of the following ways: a piece of bread was used as a camera to take photos of a bear by scratching a fork across it. adventure. a slice of bread is used as a transmitter to talk to robots. a banana was a “banana-gun”. I will describe some of these examples that involve food when it is not embedded in the framework of a congregate dinnertime activity or in a domestic setting at all. and danger outside of the home. it was as a brief break from the adventure script outside of the home and not as a congregate meal activity. when we find differences in how they do dinner and how their discourse . beans became bullets. etc. 16 ((says wondrously)) I have a big ･sami:::ch↑･ ((pretends to eat it 17 making a chomping noise and then drops it on his plate)) Typically. and starts squeezing the bulb)) 15 Robert: ((holds sandwich up. Chapter 11.â•‡ Food talk. When a boy consumed food in these settings. after a short spate of food-related activity together. Very little talk or activity with food as a comestible appeared in these masculine. Instead of staying in the housekeeping setting. reflect.= â•⁄ 9 Robert: ((notices Connor’s cheese)) = °Yes.). involving action. and reinscribe gender normative discourse and practices in an adult culture that creates a division of labor around food in the home. an eggplant became a sword. Even though all children experience dinnertime activities and talk at home.･= â•⁄6 Robert: =･Corn?･= â•⁄ 7 Connor: ((shows it to Robert)) =>Hey ･chee:::se･. ° 10 ((building a big sandwich)) and ･this. although some boys made suggestions to take their food with them. a plastic knife was a magic wand used with an incantation to turn a threatening bear into a piece of gum. They gave them other identities and functions in nondomestic pretend play activities that they jointly negotiated. nondomestic play scripts. to one that was more gender-normative for boys. appropriate. gender ideology is manifested in girls’ lengthy and complex food talk and their embodied participation in mundane food related routines in a domestic setting. Gender differences in food talk and food related activity Food talk and pretend play narratives were influenced by two key factors: the preference for versus avoidance of domestic activity. In conjunction with boys’ nondomestic creative play stories. 5. domestic or nondomestic.264 Amy Sheldon organizes creative food-related play we see how fertile their peer discourse and culture is as a social incubator. enact. On the other hand. Girls created extended domestic scenarios in which food talk was thematically relevant. And when boys did transform an object. they did more object transformations in the housekeeping center (62%) than in the trucks center (38%). On 4. Of the total number of transformations that girls did in both the housekeeping and trucks sessions. p. . In their trucks sessions. and created scenarios with nondomestic themes. compared to 23% in housekeeping. and reinscribe (for the time being at least). boys established. it was more likely to be given a nondomestic identity or function in both housekeeping (82%) and trucks (93%). These findings suggest that while preschoolers are having fun in their pretend food play. 616–619 for details.e. Young children collaboratively discuss. In their housekeeping sessions. 70% of the object transformations kept the object within the nondomestic mode. Their construction of these common-place activities conveys the impression that the girls are following steps in a cultural domestic script. i. its identity or function was more likely to remain consistent with the setting they were in. and the style of social and linguistic engagement. overall. Girls transformed an object to a domestic mode in trucks more so (30%) than boys did (7%). but then lost interest in.4 Comparing the total number of object transformations (206) in the housekeeping and trucks sessions.. 79% of the object transformations kept them within a domestic mode. the identities of objects that fit in the housekeeping center were symbolically transformed by explicitly renaming them or by attributing a function or quality to the object that it does not ordinarily possess. boys did more object transformations (71%) than girls (29%) overall. 77% occurred in trucks. when girls transformed an object. However. domestic pretend activity. gender distinctions that they observe in their day-to-day experiences outside of the daycare center. Of the total number of transformations boys did in both housekeeping and trucks sessions (146). See Sheldon & Rohleder (1996). That restricted or eliminated their enacting the home activities of preparing food to eat. he throws the black chicken on floor.e. In regard to the other key factor that influenced food-related talk and activity. In short. pretend play. In addition. i. or they entirely re-framed the domestic symbolism of the housekeeping area by transforming the functions of objects to fit nondomestic space and activities. Sheldon & Engstrom (2005) describe two systems of mutual engagement. But that’s ･my･ cake. occasionally a boy mistreated food. and their food preparation activities were less complex and less coordinated. mostly nonfood related narratives. Charlie objects. Three-year-old Timmy has been arguing with three-year-old Charlie in the kitchen area. their play had fewer food-related routines.e. food is a tool that serves conflict. i. imaginations design and carry out normative masculine practices and talk. when boys diverged from the expected domestic routines of preparing and consuming food. style of engagement.â•‡ Food talk. just missing Charlie. but gendered. Boys broke away from the domestic frame more than the girls. they were more likely than the girls to treat that domestic space unconventionally. I hate this black chicken. Charlie sits down at the table in the highchair and picks up what Timmy had called a marshmallow cake (replica of a head of cauliflower) from the table. and tries to grab back what he had called the light chicken he had given to three-year-old Monty before. For example. more of their session included food talk and food play that fit a normative masculine play script and a different style of engagement. Instead. three-year-old Joel says.. and while Charlie continues to eat. more gender appropriately. Mine. The food resources were transformed into objects that served the nondomestic. utensils. Their symbolic transformation of space away from the feminine is an act of agency that organizes their world more “suitably”. the time that boys spent in food preparation was shorter. Eventually. Girls moved into an immediate and smooth engagement . standing next to him. Timmy says. Chapter 11. It creates a place in which their creative. Let’s mess these things. undermining it as something to eat. The food in it tumbles to the floor. and plates from the dinner table onto the floor. coordinating a meal together. transforming the kitchen space and the housekeeping area into nondomestic settings for other activities. Charlie continues sitting at the table pretending to eat. Timmy takes a saucepan full of food and turns it upside down very close to Charlie. when they were in the kitchen area and treating food in a comestible way. Next. and gender in an American preschool 265 the other hand. serving it. holds it away from Timmy and says. into a nondomestic space that they re-gendered with talk and activity that marked it as masculine. which are conventionally gendered as feminine. tries to grab it and says. In another example. item by item. But when he is unable to grab it. anomalously. Charlie joins in. The boys symbolically transformed the kitchen space and its food related contents. and having a dinnertime conversation that includes food talk. Then Timmy. Timmy begins to throw all the food. Boys were slower to create a mutual focus and coordinated activity. in a pattern of engage-disengage-reengage. They had fewer reciprocal turn sequences. Sometimes the child who was in the role of mother would ask the “children” what foods they wanted and then she would serve them. They more often expanded play themes in a linked manner. with reciprocal turn sequences. but did so more gradually than the girls. Sometimes the mother would plan and direct food preparation or other food activity. ok? … â•⁄ 6 Sue: We need some plates. â•⁄2 Sue: Cook them. discussing what to serve and finding out what the others want to eat. in the three-year-olds’ play in (3). Sue. … â•⁄5 Sue: One for Mary. â•⁄ 7 Lisa: My baby isn’t clothes yet ((not dressed)). One child’s talk was often a report of his own activity in parallel with another child’s activity or similar report. Boys eventually attained a sustained mutual engagement and coordinated activity. Mutual engagement was more episodic. they tended to be mirrored and matched by the others. She is preparing dinner. (3) I’ll give you something to eat â•⁄ 1 Mary: Let’s cook this first. Speakers jockeyed for topic rights.g. we’re gonna have milk. I’m gonna cook sandwiches. after some delays and topic derailments. Individual experience was more likely to be reported in a series of echoic. e. Sue has previously claimed the role of mother. choosing food. cooking it. We’re gonna have milk. The two other girls might disagree and make alternative proposals. Lisa is dressing one of the dolls and Mary is waiting to put a quilt on the doll. Lisa. When individual experiences and evaluations were presented to the group. â•⁄3 We’re gonna eat them for supper. They had shorter and more intermittent common foci in their talk and activity. creating the effect of a choral ensemble. Examples of food-related talk: Girls The gender typed lived-as-they-are-told stories that the girls jointly created seemed to result in longer and more complex dramatic play around food themes and activities than was the case for the boys. close repetitions. They more often talked about mutual contributions to the group activity. While Sue works at the stove. They more rapidly introduced and shifted to new play themes. Girls’ dinnertime scripts had more steps. … . let’s cook them first. I’m gonna set up the table. Talk is collaborative. 6.266 Amy Sheldon with a mutual focus and coordinated collaboration. right? â•⁄ 4 Lisa: Yeah. For instance. Now fry them. to line 30. Sue has designated herself as the mother and Lisa and Mary as children. a discourse of questions. setting and bringing everyone’s food to the table. e. pretend play. Lisa is playing with a doll that Mary is waiting to cover with a blanket. I’m waiting. Sue is preparing food. answers and statements sometimes resulted in an oral text expressing their collective action. Their food related activity and talk sometimes seems scripted when it involves familiar. and gender in an American preschool 267 â•⁄ 8 Mary: Now I’m gonna put the quilt on. sex-typed routines. In (4) and (5) as well. Examples (4) and (5) are examples of choral ensemble in preschool girls’ discourse.. 6. I’m the mom and you’re the kid. labor was divided up. The girls seemed attuned to the work of food preparation and they display the idiom of family talk. yummy. 11 Sue: Look at. Tannen (1989) claims that chorale ensemble is a characteristic of women’s talk style. Chapter 11. Coates (1998) notes a similar phenomenon in her study of a women’s friendship group in Birkenhead. â•⁄ 9 Sue: I’ll give you something to eat. Nearby. Lisa do you want eggs? 10 Lisa: Yes. girls appropriate some or all of another’s prior utterance. This care giving discourse creates a representation and enactment of family.â•‡ Food talk. The result is a chorale ensemble with poetic resonance that linguistically mirrors their coordinated food activity. Girls more so than boys explicitly claimed a family role for themselves and sometimes they ascribed one to another child. 14 Sue: ((has been serving Lisa)) I’ll give some to you.. England. In (4).1 Creating collectivity: Girls’ repetition and choral ensemble Because the girls’ actions are highly coordinated around food routines. in the repetitions in (1). eat the food they prepared and sometimes have a dinnertime conversation. and characterizes the function of its talk (and talk in women’s groups generally) as “…the establishment and maintenance of social relationships. These motions continue for almost two minutes. three-yearold Trixie says to Lenore. which are likely to be valued by the group.g. e. and Tannen (1990) characterizes women’s talk as “rapport talk”.do you want this? It’s apple. e. while she finds out just what to prepare for the others. meal preparation for all three was more likely to be done jointly. 229).g. She pretends to pick up something with the tip of her knife from empty plates on the table and to spread it on bread. I’d like some eggs. the reaffirming and strengthening of friendship” (p. In the girls’ groups. . Usually all would sit down.. 13 Maryâ•› →â•›L: You’re having a lot of food and I need some. which assign women the obligation of food preparation. We can hypothesize that these girls groups are displaying their knowledge of gender prescriptions. Here’s some food.g. 12 Lisa: Yes apple. I’m waiting to put this blanket on. 17 Sue: //Ok. I’ll do it||.|| I want butter. //I want butter||.0) Waiting. (4. Mary? 16 Mary: No. â•⁄ 9 Mary: I want butter.0) Will you do that? ((looks 27 at Mary)) You’re waiting for the jam? 28 Mary: No.jam for you. 10 Sue: Ok. 13 Sue: Do you want peanut butter? 14 Lisa: Yeah. the meal prepared. 23 including to the camera.268 Amy Sheldon (4) I’m putting jam on yours â•⁄ 1 Sue: I’m putting jam on yours. 12 Lisa: Peanut butter on your jam? Oh. ok? 18 Lisa: I want peanut butter. and after two “babies” were placed in the high chair to Arlene’s left (dolls are not visible). 21 S. 19 Maryâ•› →â•›L: I’m waiting↑ ((holds quilt and stands near Lisa)) 20 Lisa: ((dressing a doll at the crib)) You waiting. â•⁄ 5 Sue: But youâ•⁄6 I’m gonna have jam. M: ((eighteen seconds of silence pass during which Sue continues to 22 scrape the knife across the bread and turn her gaze around the room.|| ((puts Mary’s chair up to the table)) Examples (5) and (6) are from four-year-olds Arlene. I want peanut butter on my jam.|| â•⁄ 8 Lisa: //Yeah. 11 Sue: I’m gonna have peanut butter on my jam. (1. ((points 25 the knife at a chair and looks at it)) Sit down at the table and put 26 your chair up while I’m making jam. Lisa. Want just butter. Notice the echoic repetitions and ensemble talk in (5). It is the same scene in which all three examples of their talk take place. and Lisa and Mary continue their activities)) 24 Sueâ•› →â•›M: ((looks at Mary)) I’m making jam for you. 15 Sue: You want peanut butter. Elaine and Erica. . you guys can have butter and I’ll have jam. I want //butter. â•⁄ 2 Mary: I don’t need jam. ((stops scraping the knife over the bread)) I could give you a 30 jam. 29 Sue: Oh. Do you want butter? â•⁄ 7 Mary: Yeah. â•⁄ 3 Lisa: I don’t want jam. Figure 1 portrays the same group whose talk is characterized in (1) as well. ((puts the bread on a plate in front of the chair she had pointed 31 to as Mary’s place to sit)) 32 Mary: //I’m waiting. for. L.|| 33 Sue: //We’re gonna have it outside. shown in Figure 1 sitting at the table after it had been set. â•⁄4 Mary: I don’t want jam. I want just butter. She confirms Arlene’s taste for butter on bread with an adult sounding.･ â•⁄ 5 Erica: It’s butter. (6) I absolutely hate green beans â•⁄ 1 Arlene: ((picks up the green beans.in your bed. as pictured in Figure 1. Chapter 11. There is more talk about the taste of food. Erica (right) in (1).// that’s what-|| 11 Arlene: //･I･. â•⁄ 9 Elaine: That’s what ･Mommy･ putted on it. Elaine announced.･ Girls more often explicitly claimed family roles and constructed family connections with appropriate linguistic style shifts. I must say. holds them and looks at Elaine)) hhh you â•⁄2 know. . pretend play. where’s all the stuff to spread on the bread. In (6) Erica uses a common child’s strategy to get attention from a busy parent: nonstop repetition. Well. â•⁄ 6 Elaine: It’s ･butter. you certainly do. (5) and (6).0) ･hate･ (1. â•⁄ 4 Elaine: It’s ･butter.･ â•⁄ 7 Erica: Butter. implying that she knows (or has observed) what Arlene likes. well.0).･ 12 Elaine: Well. Elaine (center).0) green beans (2. e. and gender in an American preschool 269 Figure 1. ((brings â•⁄ 3 beans closer to Elaine)) Do you like ‘em? You can have them.â•‡ Arlene (left). Earlier.I put-|| ･I･ always ･love･ butter on ･mine. I must say.g.. I abso･lute･ly (2. â•⁄ 3 Arlene: Hmm.â•‡ Food talk. that’s what. The three girls are at the table pretending to eat. â•⁄ 8 Arlene: Well. â•⁄2 Erica: Put on. you certainly ･do. Now. line 3 in (1) I needa cut up my soup (5) It’s butter â•⁄1 Arlene: Hey. In line 12 in (5) she linguistically constructs her authority. I’m the mommy. 10 Erica: Yeah.bread? I don’t know. ･5|| Here give me that. 40 Let’s keep on eating. 14. â•⁄ 6 Elaine: You can give them to your sister.I 36 cooked some sugar in it. okay? 31 Elaine: ((is back at the table and hands Erica a fork)) 32 Ericaâ•›→â•›Er: °Fork. ((the beans)) 21 I think I can do something about this. 19. ((Gets up from table and goes to the small foam chair)) 26 Arlene: I’ll get some sugar.1|| 11 Erica: ((searches table)) //1°Where’s1|| my fork? ° (.= 13 ((takes the green beans from Erica and //3pretends to taste them3||)) 14 Ericaâ•› →â•›El: //3Mom. Indicating that she is unable to eat without a utensil.° â•⁄ 8 Erica: ((takes the beans)) °’kay. I tried them. and Elaine refers to Erica as your sister when . Arlene also addresses Elaine as Mom (in line 35). 27 Elaine: ((in an adult voice)) I’ll get a fork. ((points to Erica with open palm)) â•⁄ 7 Arlene: ((hands the green beans to Erica across the table)) °Okay.weren’t that //1bad. 33 Nobody gave me my fork.･ ((grimaces slightly)) 19 Erica: Where’s my fork //5Mom?5|| 20 Arlene: //5･Wait. Erica displays herself as a child by addressing Elaine as Mom. Thank you. 24. they should taste better now. they were 10 just. where’s 3||my fork? 15 Elaine: ((continues to taste the beans and to ignore Erica’s question. but they don’t work for me. thank you Mom.) where’s my fork? 25 Elaine: Okay. ((to Erica)) Taste ’em. 17. 16 then displays a //4puzzled thinking face4||)) 17 Erica: ((amused)) //4@Where’s@ my ･fork?･4|| 18 Elaine: ((looks at Arlene)) It. //6I’ll go and get some-6|| 22 ((gets up. takes beans and goes to the stove)) 23 Erica: //6Where’s my fork6|| Mom? 24 Mom (. mimicking a young child’s single-mindedness.it tastes ･sour. Mom. Mom.= â•⁄5 Erica: =You don’t have to have any green beans. I didn’t have a fork yet.･ 39 Elaine: They work for you. ((brings a fork from the chair)) 28 Erica: Where’s //7my 7|| fork? 29 Arlene: ((goes to stove)) //7And7|| I’ll go cook these with some 30 sugar.) //2 °Mom? °2||= 12 Elaineâ•›→â•›Er: =//2Let2|| me try that. she repeatedly asks for a fork in lines 11.° â•⁄9 Arlene: Are they good? You should try them. I put. and 28.° 34 Arleneâ•›→â•›El: ((brings the beans back to Elaine at the table after pretending to 35 cook them)) Okay. 38 Erica: ((tastes the beans and smiles)) ･Yu::::m:::. 37 Elaine: ((tastes the beans)) It’s still sourer. 23.270 Amy Sheldon â•⁄ 4 Elaine: Well. Ira and Mike get on board (in line 1). Seated behind John. the primary food preparer. construct the child as the mother. Yu::::m:::. momentarily eliciting their gaze but not necessarily a verbal response. and danger. Boys’ food related talk: Food intermission and self-reports in a transformed room Boys tended to use food related announcements to narrate something that they were doing in parallel play alongside the others. as described earlier. and gender in an American preschool 271 she talks to Arlene (in line 6). Their selfreports verbalize cooperative participation. Ira and Mike are boy-robots under Lieutenant John’s command. We are ready to open fire. or. Elaine also enacts the role of mother by rendering a verdict on how the beans taste that explains why Arlene doesn’t like them (in line 18). This was not a jointly constructed dinner script that organized talk and activity for the group. which tended to be a report to the others about how they were pitching in to get the meal ready. Chapter 11. When boys transformed play to an imaginary place outside of the home. she uses an idiomatic adult expression to diplomatically resolve the discrepancy in their food preferences. More frequently. they plan their next actions as John narrates what he is doing. . Moments before the scene in Figure 2. coordinating their labor with others. 7. He would announce what he was doing with the food in a brief monologue. occasionally. The doll crib has been symbolically transformed into their spaceship. In line 37. This is contrasted with girls’ food related announcements. some suggested they take food with them. In lines 39–40. for action. Elaine tells Erica to taste them and when Erica renders a contradictory verdict. He is ready to fly to San Francisco where they all plan to catch robbers. Then Arlene pretends to add sugar to the beans to make them taste better to her Mom. (7) illustrates a food intermission that John took from the group’s adventure play about five minutes before the end of the housekeeping session. and thus.â•‡ Food talk. a boy would shift the activity frame and briefly take a food intermission from the non-food themed adventure script. Then she directs the others to continue to eat. Elaine has the last word. Figure 2 captures John in line 21 right after he announces. the plastic replicas of food were given other symbolic uses. They work for you but they don’t work for me. The stove is to John’s right. adventure. pretend play. However. His right hand is pressing an imaginary firing button and he is making weapon-firing sound effects. The four-year-olds have been pretending to be robots. Figure 2 sets the scene. (in line 38). as in the example of Sue in (4). Dolls and blankets are still in the crib (notice the doll head hanging over the edge in the right hand crib corner). But very little food talk appeared in these nondomestic play stories. 0) 10 Iraâ•› →â•›M: >Don’t shoot ･m::e::. mostly monotonic.< … ((omission of 6 seconds of talk between Mike and Ira that overlaps John’s talk)) 23 Jâ•› →â•›M.< 1|| brrr. I: ((speaks into stethoscope chest piece)) Hello? 24 ((rapid. ･brrr.let’s say you ･needed･ us on this 15 ship so. 19 ((pursing his lips to make shrill vibrating sounds. voices his bump-sit sound. and they take their â•⁄ 5 place on the doll crib/ spaceship/ plane behind John)) â•⁄ 6 John: ((makes a long. pressing an 20 imaginary weapon firing button on the arm of the crib/spaceship 21 each time)) ･brrr. >brrr.･ brr°rrrrr. ((Ira voices raspy â•⁄ 2 electronic sound effects while he imitates flying in slow motion over â•⁄ 3 to the crib.â•‡ John (left). in line 21 of (7). â•⁄ 4 Mike moves too.so then. Mark (center rear). facing forward. brrr.272 Amy Sheldon Figure 2. (2.= â•⁄ 9 John: =I’m the lieutenant. brrr. speaks 17 matter-of-factly into it in a nasalized transmitter-talk register)) 18 //1We are ready to open fire.･ brr°rrrrr.0) 16 John: ((holds stethoscope chest piece to his mouth.･< ((Ira leans away from Mike’s syringe)) 11 John: ((speaks into the stethoscope chest piece/ spaceship microphone)) 12 We are ready-= 13 Iraâ•› →â•›J: ((Ira faces back but turns momentarily to look at John)) =No let’s 14 say that you needed //1us.so then we could-1|| (4. We’re gonna jump over to your ship. mmmm↓= â•⁄8 Mikeâ•›→â•›I: ((pointing with the syringe)) =Let’s say we. brrr.we shot that ship. nasalized humming sound that â•⁄ 7 seems to symbolize the spaceship in flight)) mmmmm.< brrr. loud sound effects like beeps of a telephone left . brrr.° (7) It’s time to eat my hamburger â•⁄1 Iraâ•›→â•›J: Yeah. he voices a low pitch bump sound when he sits down. Ira (right rear).°= 22 Ira: ((resumes talking to John)) >=see the bad guys. >brrr. Chapter 11. 55 John: ((in the same sing-song)) It’s ･time･ to eat my ･cheese↑･= 56 ((pretends to eat the cheese while Ira briefly turns his gaze to him)) 57 Iraâ•› →â•›M: =Okay. perhaps they are an alarm call)) 26 >･beep→ beep→ beep→ beep→ //2beep→ beep→･ <2|| 27 Mikeâ•› →â•›J: ((sticks face next to John’s ear)) //2hey um-2|| 28 John: ･beep→ beep→ beep→ beep→ beep→ beep→ beep→ beep→ 29 beep→･ 30 John: ((turns to look at Mike)) ･What. food. 36 John: ((brings stethoscope chest piece to his mouth. smiles)) ･Right. 32 food. (3. um. right? We’re. food and pots are still on its top)) //3 And our food. pretend play. 51 ((pretends to eat the hamburger)) 52 M and I: ((turn their gaze to John’s pantomime. let’s say. 47 and ･this･ ((touches doll crib)) is part of the ･ship.um. and gender in an American preschool 273 25 off the hook.0) and let’s say the food was-3|| ((food drops on floor)) 33 Mikeâ•›→â•›J: //3Let.5|| 58 John: ((in same sing-song)) //5Time to eat my ･strawberries↑･5|| 59 ((pretends to eat strawberries while Ira turns his gaze to him)) 60 Mike: ((to Ira)) Okay.let’s say… 65 ((play theme continues)) .) 43 John: ((walks over to the kitchen table to take a food break.let’s say34 let’s say we were.we’re not on a part 42 of the ship. >Yeah yeah.//5use this chair right here.um.â•‡ Food talk.let’s say ((he walks around the room and touches items 46 while Mike looks on)) ･this･ ((touches chair)) is part of the ･ship･. makes sound effects.((John puts the stethoscope chest piece up to 35 Mike’s mouth)) let’s say we were3|| um. M and I watch)) 63 Iraâ•› →â•›M: ((each boy has returned their gaze to their own play)) =We are64 let’s say we shot things with our. >psh psh< (.･ and (. let’s say4|| ･this･ ((touches 41 the stove)) was part of the ship.･ and ･this･ 48 ((touches stove)) is part of the ･ship.) >psh psh<= 62 ((swordfights with eggplant. then look back at 53 what Ira is arranging on the floor in front of them)) 54 Mike: ((to Ira.) army robots. ((looks at Mike)) Right?= 50 John: ((in a sing-song)) =Um it’s ･time･ to eat my ･ham↑･burger.･= 37 Ira: =hhh >lost some of the ･food･< ((whistles softly while pretending 38 to fly a carrot back to the top of the stove as if it were a plane)) 39 Mike: ((stands up)) And let’s say.･ 31 Ira: ((goes to stove.when we-4|| 40 Ira: ((stands in front of the stove)) //4Mike. we hafta.< (.our little guns. answering his question in line 41)) Okay. 61 John: Time to ･sword↑ fight･.)･this･ ((touches 49 kitchen table)) is part of the ship.(.) psh (. food items are 44 still on it from the mealtime activity at the beginning of the session)) 45 Iraâ•›→â•›M: Let’s say.and //4let’s say. Mark said that he was worried that the bear could come in. It’s time to eat my cheese As shown in Figure 3.he got hotter in there. playing together near the crib/ spaceship.â•‡ John (left. It is inside. in the refrigerator. are bystanders who momentarily look up at each of John’s announced performances. Robert turned two of the kitchen table chairs on their side and piled one on top of the other (on the left in Figure 4) to keep the bear out. Mark (center). Ira (right.it got warm in there. John has stopped driving the spaceship and has gone to the kitchen table. eating).274 Amy Sheldon Figure 3. it turns out that the bear is not actually outside of their hideout. He assured Mark that this is a strong door that the bear cannot break down. (8) Abracadabraca…turn into gum â•⁄ 1 â•⁄ 2 â•⁄ 3 Robert: He. the boys continue to invent and enact the dangerous polar bear story with moments of intense worry. In response. However. kitchen table chairs. exuberant problem solving. Robert: I’ll get. and then turn back to their own play. and the small foam chair to protect them from the bear they had been tracking in what they called their explore. Robert and Connor have built a hideout with the stove. the bear becomes a polar bear and defeats their clever scheme to make it too hot for him. in the same singsong melody he reports each food item he is eating while he stands by the table (in lines 50. 55 and 58). In (8). They talk about temperature.he got. the table and the stove are part of their pretend spaceship (starting in line 31). With the stethoscope still in his ears and addressing no one in particular. looking at John) in line 59 of (7). Prior to (8). Connor: He got. The boys excitedly try to solve the problem of how to keep the bear from getting out of the refrigerator. and loud. Mike and Ira. In the middle of their discussion.he. four-year-olds Mark.I’ll- . perhaps in response to Ira’s designating that the food. 0) ･Turn into gum↑ ha ha ha･ Food related elements of this story serve a non-food related narrative purpose.(1.< Cla::ws.･these･ are our ･magic wands↑･ right? 12 Mark: >Here he comes.･ â•⁄ 7 Mark: Aright. . imaginary piece of gum.) >Here he comes.he went ･straight↑･ up to the freezer.< â•⁄ 6 Connor: And we ･ma::de･ the ･free:zer･ hot ･too.don’t try to take away that baby. He’s-|| he’s going. â•⁄ 8 Connor: ･Now･ we made a ･fire･ so he. pretend play. and gender in an American preschool 275 â•⁄ 4 Mark: Oh.･ 14 ((waving a plastic knife as a magic wand as shown in Figure 4)) 15 Alacadabraca.//we’ll follow him.° 20 He ((the bear)) just laid an ･egg. Mark (center).don’t. give us your ･gum. 10 Connor: °He’s going straight towards-. (2. The subsequent imaginary appearance of an egg is another dramatic flourish.< (. he ･escaped. The refrigerator is repurposed as the bear’s hiding place. Alacadabraca…make the bear. 19 Connor: ((adds another incantation and waves wand)) Alacadabraca °ripple.･ Figure 4.thi. lines 15–16 in (8). now↑ he’s coming. my gosh. 13 Robert: We’re ･gettin’･ the magic ･wands.･ Make the bear.â•‡ Food talk. harmless. and together they figure out how to defeat him by making imaginary temperature changes in there.･ He just laid an ･egg.â•‡ Robert (standing). The stacked kitchen chairs symbolize a strong door to keep their hideaway safe.(1. Connor (right). … ((two incantations and conversational turns later)) 18 Mark: ((warning the bear)) Don’t.° 11 Robert: We ･have･.((waves wand)) go ･away↑ gum･. The dangerous bear is magically turned into a small.･ >and he went ･straight↑･ up to the â•⁄5 freeze. Chapter 11.0) He’s go::ne.|| â•⁄ 9 Mark: //Here.0) 16 Conner: ((screams)) ･Turn into gum↑ ha ha ha･= 17 Robert: =Make. Foucault and the politics of the body. 1999a) and DeVault (1997) describe how gendered identities and practices related to food that are established in childhood take on greater complexity over the lifespan. Counihan. (1990). J. C.. Borello. 179– 201). Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu. Food related narratives are “making identities which are hegemonic.edu/wsi_theses/6/ Bruner. J.1470-6431. 65. London: Routledge.276 Amy Sheldon 8. Feminism. In C. Z. and are reinscribing. Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. Coates.â•›S. (1993). 33.x Bordo.â•›A. and operate in a framework of unequal power relations between women and men. To paraphrase Kiesling (2006). Human Development. Food rules in the United States: Individualism.). power and control in mothers and daughters. Georgia State University. for both the speaker at the time of speaking and the social world they inhabit and will inhabit …” (p. normalizing and reinscribing a culture’s food ways. Over time. Ramazanoglu (Ed. girls and boys do not equally engage in everyday food related talk and practices. Up against Foucault: Explorations of some tensions between Foucault and Feminism (pp. 55–66. 226–253).01049. & Ozdamar Ertekin. and hierarchy. D. This study of pretend play stories that were planned and enacted in a housekeeping space by this preschool community suggests that by early childhood. social practices and social structure “in a particular way for a specific purpose” (p. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 286). In children’s food related dramatic play narratives and activities. we see “docile bodies” whose imaginations are already complicit with. (2011). Children’s perception of food and healthy eating: Dynamics behind their food preferences. International Journal of Consumer Studies. References Atik. while some background understanding and expectation about gender is pre-existing knowledge in this community. .). their pretend play and discourse practices remake the social knowledge. Counihan (1992.2011. 344–355. Thesis. control. lives lived and imagined under the influence of unequally distributed cultural obligations and expectations around food related practices become gender normalized. M. Language and gender: A reader (pp. In J. Culture and human development: A new look. Coates (Ed. Conclusion This study sheds light on ways in which early childhood peer talk about food and food related activities are a medium in which children’s gender socialization takes place. (1992). Anthropological Quarterly. (1998). L. Retrieved from doi: 10. until and unless they can be successfully renegotiated. Mother may I? Food. (2006). gender expectations.1111/j. 286). S. â•›B. New York. In K. dialogue. Sheldon. Kyratzis. Trudgill (Eds. E. (1989). Conflict and deference. Bucholtz (Eds. Guo (Eds. De Fina. A. L. Retrieved from http://www. (2006). London: Routledge.gopnik-rituals-of-taste/ Kiesling. Two systems of mutual engagement: The co-construction of gendered narrative styles by American pre-schoolers. Pitcher. In J. A. The ‘father knows best’ dynamic in dinnertime narratives. . A. (A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharing the same world. & J. Cheshire & P. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. (1997). Mahwah. Fantasy food: Gender and food symbolism in preschool children’s madeup stories. M. Tannen. meaning. A.).. & Edwards. (1995). Key West Literary Seminar audio archives. social context. (1990).). telling different stories: Gender differences in co-constructed pretend narratives. (pp. A. In A. D. Ochs.kwls. (2009). Counihan (Ed. New York. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. Gerhardt. Tannen. and imagery in conversational discourse. Schiffrin. Cambridge. & Taylor.). Van Esterik (Eds. C. & M.. Children tell stories: An analysis of fantasy. In A.. Schiffrin.) New York: Vintage Books (Original published 1975). (Eds. C.â•›G. D. (1998). Discourse Processes. (1979).â•›D. Gopnik. Rituals of taste. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 97–120). 180–199). Hamilton. London: Routledge. Sheldon. & Prelinger.â•›I. The anthropology of food and body: Gender. Hegemonic identity-making in narrative. The sociolinguistics reader: Gender and discourse Vol. 129–155). London: Arnold. Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Preschool negotiators: Gender differences in double-voice discourse as a conflict talk style in early childhood. and gender.â•‡ Food talk. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D. 13. A. culture.. Sheldon.).) Discourse and identity (pp. Food. (1999b). and power (pp.. C. 95–117. DeVault. (2005). and gender in an American preschool 277 Counihan. Haskell (Producer). C. Bamberg (Eds. Slobin.). Children of different worlds. 76–99). E. C.) Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. In C. 613–632). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elliott. MA: Harvard University Press. and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Thornborrow & J. In D. London: Routledge. D. & Rohleder. (1988). Food and culture (pp. (2001). The sociolinguistics of narrative (pp. Counihan (Ed.). Counihan. In J. 261–287). (1990). Talking voices: Repetition. M. Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. In D. The anthropology of food and body: Gender. pretend play. Whiting. Oxford: Blackwell. Canadian Journal of Communication. NY: Ballantine Books. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.org/podcasts/adam. H. Foucault. (1999a). E. Counihan & P. (2011). London: Routledge. Chapter 11. Hall & M. Schegloff. 38. S. & Johnson. 229–249). 6–24). (1963). Sheldon. 34. meaning. Tannen. J. 171–192). Coates (Eds. 359–380. In C.â•›P. In C.. and power (pp. Social interaction. Sheldon. The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. (Podcast). 2. Trans. & H. Sheridan. 5–31. E.â•›A. A. (1996). (1992). NY: International Universities Press. B.). D. & Engstrom. Healthy food looks serious: How children interpret packaged food products. . 2007) and Language Socialization (Ochs. However. I discuss how learning outcomes in health educational activities depend on individuals’ understandings prior to interactions and on the process of co-ordinating understandings. Schieffelin. the interpretation of the pictures. Also. The paper contributes to prior research with a micro-analytic perspective on the role of health education in wider processes of social exclusion and intercultural (mis)understandings. Maybin & Tusting. the boy cut out and glued all the pictures on to a piece of paper with the caption “Healthy”. Rampton. 1. I present micro-analyses of three situations where the health value of milk. Yet. to me the interaction itself. 1988. Introduction During fieldwork in a kindergarten class I witnessed a situation which ignited my interest in the relation between health. language.chapter 12 Healthy beverages? The interactional use of milk. and the boy’s previous experience with the food items seemed to be very important elements. water. juice and water in an ethnically diverse kindergarten class in Denmark Martha Sif Karrebæk University of Copenhagen This paper investigates the socialization into healthy food practices in a Danish linguistically diverse kindergarten classroom within the frameworks of Linguistic Ethnography (Creese. 1990). 2008. Often such teaching failures in interactions are treated as caused by students’ insufficient linguistic skills. Health is a moral concept which is culturally embedded but linguistically constructed and negotiated. in particular in interactions with linguistic minority students. I also wondered what “healthy” (sund) . A teacher tried to make a minority boy understand that some dairy products pictured in a promotion magazine (yoghurt with fruit flavour and whipping cream) were usunde ‘unhealthy’ in contrast to one product (low-fat neutral yoghurt) which was sund ‘healthy’. and food socialization. and juice is topicalized. in children’s conversations nutritional value becomes an interactional resource. Ochs. and particularly in schools attended by children with different . Holm. you change your food practices accordingly (Margetts. & Tusting. 2006). 2009. 1996). raw food. Using the frameworks of linguistic ethnography (Creese. Martinez. 2004. constructed. Health education builds on the assumption that a healthy lifestyle is superior to an unhealthy lifestyle. how the concept of health is linguistically embedded. 1988. 2001. 2011. The range of alternative food ideologies (veganism. 2008. In this paper I discuss food and health socialization in a Danish kindergarten class with a linguistically and culturally heterogeneous population of students. Mintz & Du Bois.) shows how official health advice is widely contested in Western societies (cf. and with what teaching implications. when the individual observes health norms. WHO. Gullberg. Schieffelin. Maybin. and negotiated interactionally in social encounters (Paugh & Izquierdo. defined. or adopt rules for what food items may be brought to school (Weaver-Hightower. all embedded in health education activities. etc. Disagreements about food and health emerge when different understandings meet (Burgess & Morrison. and healthy food does not constitute a natural category. 1997:â•›24). & Jensen. & Fasulo. 1990). 1996: Chapter 3). for whom. The understanding of health and food practices is indexical of cultural beliefs (Counihan & Van Esterik. Potter. Lupton. 2001. 2002). 2002. vegetarianism.280 Martha Sif Karrebæk actually means and what food items it can actually be applied to. I show how health may be used as a resource for social positioning and alignment (Paugh & Izquierdo. Schools may supply students with healthy food. offer them healthy alternatives at the school canteen. I present an analysis of the construction and negotiation of the value of a paradigmatic selection of beverages: milk. Practice-based activities engage directly with children’s food practices in order to reform them. In general health education activities are either analytic or practice-based. Heitman. 2008. if we accept the superiority of the healthy lifestyle. 1998). 2007) and language socialization (Ochs. Biltekoff. 2004). Pontecorvo. 1992). based on fieldnotes and video. Backett. and how children’s health interactions involve more than discussions of nutritional value. Wiggins. They build on the assumption that when you know what constitutes healthy food. Health is a linguistic concept. 2008:â•›1. I analyze three situations. Saba.and audio-recordings of peer group and teacher-student interactions. health is transferred from the physiological and psychological area (Straub. but we also find intra-group differences. Husby. 2009. For instance. Wiggins. 1946) to a moral area (Coveney. Wiggins. he or she is indexed as generally worthy of respect. The goal is to make children understand this and to inform them what is and what is not healthy. Also. This is consequential in educational settings. water and juice. 2007. 2006. This happens on a daily basis in schools. & Wildsmith. & Kearney. Rampton. Analytic activities are supposed to raise children’s information level with respect to the relation between nutrition and health. 2007:â•›153). In Mexico milk was consumed in the morning or at bedtime. Cook. Hillén. Wiggins. In Western societies most school-age children are expected to consume their lunch in school (Weaver-Hightower. Golden. such as Denmark. Learning outcomes in health education activities depend. Chapter 12. “responsible sibling” (Aronsson & Gottzén. general social relations are demonstrated. 1997. 2007:â•›154). 2009:â•›187). 2. negotiated while participants engage in other activities and assume roles and positions such as “child”. In other countries. official advice underlines the importance of drinking milk during all life-stages (Johansson. & Huotilainen. juice and water 281 cultural backgrounds (Twiner. Milk is a frequently contested food item. 2013. & Gillen. 2005:â•›266. evaluations in terms of health quality may “spill over into judgments of the moral quality of the person” (Paugh & Izquierdo. 1999 and others). 2007. Furthermore. Ochs et al. discourse and socialization Meals are important cultural sites of socialization as documented in a range of studies within linguistic anthropology and language socialization (Blum-Kulka. such as “good” and “bad” parent. official experts. 2009) – although popular movements contest the health benefits of dairy products . and modified through participants’ orientation to food (Ochs & Shohet. Roos. Pan. Perlman. among other things. and as food has symbolic value. 2006:â•›36. teachers are the local. Food socialization also takes place in institutional settings. Yet food socialization is rarely discussed. Classrooms are dominated by particular food cultural understandings which may be more or less in accordance with official health advice and with students’ home food culture. Haden. 2004). Salazar. Jensen. 2001. & Snow. Salazar. on the process of calibrating individuals’ different understandings through language. In some places milk is unavailable or regarded as inappropriate for adult consumption.’s (1996) study was groundbreaking in drawing upon microanalysis in comparisons of the practical organization of food events and of individuals’ attitudes towards food in US American and Italian families. Thus. Minority students are under pressure to adopt dominant majority food norms (Karrebæk. However. Hansen. 2011). school lunch may become a cultural battle between home and school (Salazar. 2009. “mother”. 2005). Even the understandings of health and healthy food are interactional accomplishments (Wiggins. Mäkelä. contested.â•‡ The interactional use of milk. and they expect students to abide by their advice in the health-and-food area as in other areas in order to become appropriate school-children and eventually citizens. 2012. Healthy food. 2004). Salazar (2007) reports how a Mexican immigrant as a child was appalled by the wide-spread practice in a US canteen of drinking milk with lunch. “good” and “bad” child. 2011:â•›15). the well-balanced Canadian meal. And in Rampton’s (2006) study of a multiethnic classroom two girls demonstrate a negative school attitude by sharing sweets which they hide behind their bags. . re-evaluated as a result of the re-contextualization (cf. “(H)ealth and welfare experts … were encouraged to embrace the newcomers but also teach them the superior values of democracy. too. 1975). 2005). they are still subject to teaching practices when teachers inspect and evaluate them (Golden.. 1997). Stewart. They are. 1990. for instance.282 Martha Sif Karrebæk (Søgaard. Salazar. Calnan. There are a lot of different reasons for choosing what to consume (Counihan & Van Esterik.” and. just as we speak like them (Giles & Powesland. & Chadwick. Generally children divide food into good food and bad food. Bourdieu. 1996. but it is important in peer groups. As private possessions of the children they mediate between home and school. 2005). Bishop. The Italian children in Corsaro’s (2005) work share forbidden sweets and other objects which index and define independence and peer culture. Blommaert. and some have canteens where children can purchase food and drinks. Gill. 2010. Some schools have lunch programmes. “freedom. not least of all. Østergaard. Items brought from home have a particular status (Allison. fiber-rich bread (Hart. People’s eating practices do not necessarily reflect their knowledge about healthy food (e. She describes how nation-building in post-war Canada involved attempts at reforming the food customs of both Canadian and immigrant women through cooking lessons. are generally incompatible with this dichotomy. apples. Bad food contains sugar and fat and good food include fruits. 2007). thus. 2011:â•›1. 2008). 2008). Despite discrepancies between food cultural background and food practices in a new setting. MSK] as a rejection of the intrinsic meaning of being a child”. 2002. Murcott. and others). Overvad. such as milk. and children may believe that specific food items are “bad” but still like them (Johansson et al. 1986). Iacovetta (2006) introduces the topic of socialization into citizenship.. Some food items. In Danish schools most children bring lunch-boxes from home.. vegetables. Stewart et al. and we eat as the ones we want to be like (Lupton. Margetts et al. 2010). Christensen. According to Ludvigsen and Scott (2009:â•›426f) “to eat healthy food was almost viewed [by the children. 2006).. Halkjær. & Tjønneland. 1982. 2008. 2005. They are cultural objects. & Truby.g. Treaure. Egebjerg. Olsen. prepared according to food norms at home but in spite of their sensitive character.” (Iacovetta. 2009:â•›40ff. 2006:â•›174). Germov. & Østergaard. migrants may succeed in integrating the two (Bradby. 1997). have a rather different potential (see also Goodwin. The sweets become a symbol of distinction and a resource for creating solidarity and opposition to the official agenda. Food socialization is mainly studied in adult-child interactions. Rampton et al. Rampton. I interviewed almost all parents. in a class of 22 children during one school year from the second week of August until the end of June.and audio-recorded in class.g. 2010. and in particular positioning of the ethnic other. I wanted them to know that I could be trusted and that I was not a substitute teacher. Yet. 2004. Ochs. They also share the tenets that the analysis of the internal organization of data. Parents and children were informed about the project. verbal and other.. 2008. and language socialization is much concerned with how novices (often children) are socialized to the use of language through the use of language in order to become participants in social groups. Both frameworks assume that the way individuals speak reflects culturally embedded understandings of the human being. Denmark. is essential. I participated in classes from wherever there was a free chair. Methodology The present study builds on a project on socialization and language use. Creese. Therefore ethnographic sensitivity is required. 2006). but different types of discursive. In addition. I did ethnographic fieldwork in a kindergarten class in Copenhagen. Schieffelin. Creese & Blackledge. The children were video.â•‡ The interactional use of milk. Linguistic ethnographic studies often take urban schools as their empirical field (e. This study focuses on explicit and implicit linguistic socializing acts to and among children in a classroom. 2007) and language socialization (Kulick & Schieffelin. 2010. . 1988. meaning. I suggest that these index general socio-cultural processes and interpretations. I strongly emphasized that I could not be drawn upon as a source of information for neither teachers nor children. and all participants were given pseudonyms. linguistic and micro-social analyses are pursued. the two teachers. Thereby I got to sit next to almost all of the children over the year and I generally got along very well with both teachers and children. juice and water 283 3. and that connections between language. during breaks and after-school activities (over 200 hours of audio-recording and 70 hours of videorecording). social relations. The project combines insights and methods from linguistic ethnography (Blommaert. I did however occasionally help children with their school work. 1990). and the school principal. much more than food. Chapter 12. that is. and institutional regimes are specific and cannot be taken for granted. more often I just hung out and chatted with them about whatever they found relevant – as I did with the teachers. I also looked after them a few times when parents (or teachers) were in need and I brought one of them to a social gathering when her parents could not find the energy. and most of them received a container of milk (250 ml). etc. The student population came from families with different social backgrounds in terms of income. Kristine had two years of experience. The school was situated in a former working class neighbourhood with old and new social housing. She had completed a qualifying course as well as a course on intercultural education and second language acquisition. and the oldest was 6½. and all were between 5½ and 7 years old1. and semi-detached houses. Both were trained as preschool/nursery school teachers. Twice a year their parents paid for the type of milk they wanted. semi-skimmed. In this classroom the youngest was 5½ at school-start. This was communicated to all the teachers but no measures were taken in order to ensure a homogeneous approach. This poster was used by both the teachers (when talking about healthy food) and the children (who mostly discussed how much they liked some of the sugar-rich food items). In an interview Louise indicated that many of the minority children had appalling lunch-boxes which she found it important to improve. It was a fairly informal activity with no explicit teaching agenda.284 Martha Sif Karrebæk 4. and whole milk. Everybody treated health mainly as a question of food. were in charge of the class. The children’s ethno-linguistic backgrounds are summarized in Table 1. but this is a topic of itself which I will not engage in here. At the same time it was clearly a practice-oriented educational activity where teachers instructed children on health and nutrition and displayed good examples through their own lunch practices. The children chose among skimmed. . carrots. apples. 6 children received whole 1. she did not hesitate to call the parents if she did not approve of lunch-box contents. rented and owned flats. The children brought food from home. Two female teachers of majority Danish background. The class in focus had about 22 students. all three options in either organic or conventional quality. The principal had appointed health a general priority area. The children’s competence in both Danish and other languages differed widely. Danish children start school around age five. a few children arrived and left during the year. Louise had eight years of experience. The school context A city school in Copenhagen. Denmark. chocolate bars. Louise and Kristine. The issue of health was particularly striking at lunch which was consumed in the classroom. All – except the Icelandic boy – were born in Denmark. She reported that she put more and more effort into this work. and this was then distributed in the classroom at lunch. For instance. education and ethnicity. and she had received no supplementary training.). soft drinks. was the main location of the fieldwork. A poster in the classroom illustrated sugar content in different food items (corn flakes. and they are trying to find out to whom it belongs.. one of the children not receiving milk.â•‡ The ethnolinguistic background of children Name Ethnolinguistic background Gender Selina Shabana Fadime Merve Özlem Amira Muna Anna Mia Julie Selma Karen Mathilde Frederik Oliver Oscar Johan Anton Zaki Bilal Selcuk Ørn Elias Moroccan-Arabic Pakistani-Urdu Turkish-Kurdish Turkish Turkish Iraqi-Arabic Somali Danish Danish Danish Danish Danish Danish Danish Danish Danish Danish-Chinese Somali Moroccan-Arabic Turkish Icelandic Pakistani-Urdu f f f f f f f f f f f f m m m m m m m m m m milk. The teacher Kristine and one of the children. and more appropriate for lunch than fruit juice. e.Chapter 12. illustrates how the children learn that the different beverages are valued differently. Elias told the researcher that his parents find it too expensive. 5.g. . juice and water 285 Table 1. Analysis 5.â•‡ The interactional use of milk. Anton. There is one left. A few children brought their own beverages. healthier.1 Appropriate drinks for lunch Excerpt 1. one and a half month into the school year. are distributing the milk containers. The options also included orange juice (received by no children) and water (received by one child). milk is better. 12 received one of the skimmed varieties. Eventually they focus on Elias. (. child)2 â•⁄ 1 Kristine: og så er der lige den sidste her.)) â•⁄ 6 Anton: Eli er det Elias? Eli is it Elias? â•⁄7 Elias (. September (Kristine. teacher.) er det dig? Elias (.) is that for you? ((Kristine addresses Anton)) â•⁄2 næh du ka ik li mælk mere Anton.â•‡ Elias’ juice (24/9-09) Audio-recording. Anton. because he ge:ts he gets one of the:se erh a semi-skimmed milk.) â•⁄9 aj men hvem søren er de:t. no:.) 12 det var mærkeligt (. See Appendix A in Chapter 1 regarding data and transcription conventions.) hvem mangler at få sin mælk? who is it that is going to get the last (one) who has not got his/ her milk yet? â•⁄ 4 (. no you don’t like milk anymore Anton. and unfinished sentences.) no: Elias brings his own m: milk. m. both contain many false starts. Elias. (. unclear indexicals. 11 (. â•⁄ 3 hvem er det der ska ha den sidste? (. 14 Anton: øh er det Muna? Eh is it Muna? 15 Kristine: næh der vi har fået en for meget i dag no there we have one spare left 2. … ((Turns omitted in which children suggest to whom the milk may belong. The English translation is as close as possible to the Danish version. it’s strange (. Kristine consults a list with children’s milk choices)) 13 Kristine: så er der måske simeplthen bare en i overskud? well maybe there is just one spare.) is it you? â•⁄ 8 Kristine: ne:j Elias har sin egen m: mælk med.286 Martha Sif Karrebæk Excerpt 1. det ka jo ik være Oliver nah but who can it be really.) er det til dig selv? and then there is the last one here (. hesitations. m. (. Kristine refuses this and tells her that cheating is a bad thing.) â•⁄5 ne:j. . it it can’t be Oliver 10 for han få:r øh han får sådan en af de: øh en letmælk dér. … ((Turns omitted in which one child for fun claims that it is her milk.) that there would be a spare semi-skimmed milk. child. f.) der sku være en letmælk i overskud. ) just give it to me then I put it 18 <?> andre vil ha den. (. Elias is told to take the juice home and instruct his parents that juice is an inappropriate lunch-time beverage due to its excess sugar content (lines 21–23). as shown by the classroom poster which illustrates the sugar content in different food items. (. Chapter 12. in front of the entire class. but it also indexes normality and appropriateness.) then we do get utterly confused Anton.) gi den bare til mig så stiller jeg den yes (. so that one is not good to bring to school. Katrine also makes it clear that juice does not fall within the range of items that may be referred to as mælk ‘milk’ in this context. When she hesitates on the initial consonant of mælk ‘milk’ it may be because she is uncertain what beverage Elias has actually brought and whether mælk ‘milk’ will be the appropriate label.) ik? <?> others want it.) no? did you bring a drinking bottle today Elias? (. Kristine laughs)) 19 Kristine: har du en drikkedunk med i dag (. (. However she uses the term mælk ‘milk’ metonymically for the category of “lunch-time drinks” and thereby signals that milk is preferred.) 17 ja (. Hence implicitly Kristine’s choice of term instructs Elias what drink(s) he should bring for lunch in order to be respectable.) Elias? (.) 22 og sige den er fyldt med sukker (. she hands him the spare milk instead of leaving it in the fridge as originally suggested (lines 17–18).) 23 så den er ik go og ha med i skole. She does not present this as an offer. Nutritional value becomes the measure of appropriateness and Kristine appears to believe that Elias can make this inference. and because of its (alleged) superior health value. She never explicitly says that juice is unhealthy and milk is healthy.) no? 20 men så får du den (. . and. throws an inaudible comment.) and say that it is full of sugar (.) but then you get this one 21 så ska du ta juicen med hjem til far og mor (.) right? … ((A teacher from a different classroom enters. (.) then you can take the juice back to daddy and mommy (. Kristine turns down Anton’s suggestion that the milk belongs to Elias.â•‡ The interactional use of milk.) men så får du den her but then you get it (. Elias is expected to know that sugar is regarded as a defining feature of unhealthy food. Thereby milk becomes the contextually neutral term. It is preferred both because it is the most frequent and therefore normal choice. juice and water 287 16 så bliver vi da helt forvirrede Anton. arguing that Elias brings his own milk (line 8). Elias gets the milk with the inherent obligation to take it. When Kristine discovers that Elias brought juice (around line 19). Here the left side shows food that is considered healthy (fruits. the teacher treats Elias’ parents’ as deficient: Juice is considered inappropriate in this specific context. Other placemats included coffee. and feta cheese on the healthy side. Figure 1 is an example of these placemats.288 Martha Sif Karrebæk Pedagogically it is of course controversial that six-year old Elias is told to educate his parents about the nutritional value of juice. rolls with chocolate chips.2 Placemats as illustrations of healthy food In October one week was devoted to the theme of health. meat (pork chops). Here I mainly use the activity to illustrate the categorization of specific food items.â•‡ Placemat . and chocolate milk. full fat cheese. In this section I present data from the production of placemats during this week. 5. In addition. carbohydrated drinks (coke etc. The children were provided with promotional magazines and newspapers and they were told to cut out pictures of food items and glue them on to a piece of paper with healthy items on the left side and unhealthy on the right side. low fat milk. bottled water. and by supplying Elias with juice his parents have demonstrated that they are incapable of making their son a respectable school-child. This will undermine parent authority. In effect.). cold cuts (ham). chocolate spread but also freshly squeezed fruit juice as well as white bread rolls). a process which appeared to be rather complicated. Figure 1. fish). bacon slices. The right side food that is considered unhealthy (candy. and sausages on the unhealthy side. beer. he is told to position himself as the expert. vegetables potatoes. Unfortunately I was not able to retrieve Elias’ placemat. and fruit juice as unhealthy. white bread.) og det er yoghurt (. is sitting next to him.)) â•⁄3 (. remain unresolved in spite of attempts at establishing shared understandings. vegetables. But what did he learn from the placemat activity? Excerpt 2.â•‡ Elias’ placemat (5/10-09) Video-recording (Elias. rye bread.) det her e:r fløde (. â•⁄2 Elias: ska jeg først lime dem her? should I first glue these? ((Talking about a cut-out picture.) and this is yoghurt (. is this milk. Kristine. cream. MSK.) <?> (.) yoghurt with fruit and yoghurt with <?>.) â•⁄6 og det er (. at times. It is unclear to what extent the children shared this specific categorization as well as the general understanding. which is from the day when the placemat production was initiated. â•⁄7 Elias: ska jeg oss klippe det her og lægge <?> det her? should I also cut out this and put <?> it here? ((Talking about the same picture as before. meat.) â•⁄8 Elias: ska jeg lægge den her? should I put this here? ((unknown what ‘this’ refers to.) and this i:s cream (. he asks me.â•‡ The interactional use of milk. Elias does not know if he should glue pictures of different dairy products (milk. f. the researcher. fruit yoghurt. f. Nor is it clear if Elias considered juice to be unhealthy. The teachers explicitly declared fruit. child. and we generally get very well along. researcher. and since I. cookies. and milk to be healthy. low-fat neutral yoghurt) onto the “Healthy” side of the placemat. and this is (.) yoghurt med frugt og yoghurt med <?>.) 11 MSK: jeg ved ik hva de synes <?>. or to what extent children acquired understandings similar to those of the teachers during the production of the placemats. illustrates how there may be discrepancies between children and teachers’ understandings and how these discrepancies. m. juice and water 289 The production of placemats The placemat resonates well with the cultural understandings of healthy food offered by the teachers.) â•⁄4 Elias: ska jeg oss klippe mælk? should I also cut out milk? â•⁄5 MSK: <?> (.3 Excerpt 2. Chapter 12. . I don’t know what they think <?>. 10 (. soft drinks. and candy. teacher) â•⁄1 Elias: er det mælk.)) â•⁄9 MSK: <?>. ((‘they’ refers to the teachers)) 3. (. and that is actually unhealthy.) ((‘those’ refers to some of the items on the picture that Elias has cut out)) ik? 24 Kristine: right? Elias is not entirely sure what the pictures he has found represent. Rather than confirming Elias’ categorization of the items as mælk ‘milk’ (line 1) she suggests yoghurt to be the relevant category (line 16).) no sugar in 20 for der er faktisk noget yoghurt because there is some yoghurt 21 hvor der er frugt i og så har de puttet en masse sukker i oss (. who is sitting next to Elias. but he suggest that they are milk (line 1).)) 13 Elias: <?>. In addition. yes. 14 Kristine: hva sir du Elias? what are you saying Elias? 15 Elias: er det det her sundt? is this healthy? øh yoghurt? 16 Kristine: eh yoghurt? 17 Elias: ja.) where there’s fruit in and then they’ve put a lot of sugar in it too (.) 22 og det er nemlig usundt. prøv og se det her det er sådan noget yoghurt 18 Kristine: try and see this this is the kind of yoghurt 19 hvor der (. I am not at all sure whether Elias’ teachers regard these dairy products as healthy or unhealthy. which he both shows when he asks the teacher directly (line 15). She does not tell Elias explicitly how all of these items are related to the category of “healthy food” but she does qualify some (unnamed .) 23 Kristine: those you can cut out and put on healthy.) ikke er noget sukker i where there is (. write her name and the caption SUND ‘healthy’. I do not hear his question at first. He is also not sure if milk is healthy. One problem is that the products are not conventionally labelled mælk ‘milk’. It takes several minutes. (. dem ka du godt klippe ud og sætte på sundt. and when he asks me if he should glue the pictures of dairy items that he has found onto the healthy side of the placemat (line 2). and then I am not entirely sure how to answer. Things do not get much clearer when Elias asks the teacher Kristine.290 Martha Sif Karrebæk 12 ((The teacher Kristine arrives at the table and helps Muna. It is possible that Elias only heard the part where Kristine states that something ‘is healthy’ (line 23). interactional. and she explains that other types of yoghurt (lines 18. difficulties in establishing mutual understanding will often be interpreted as the result of his deficient linguistic competence. It is clear that the negotiation draws on participants’ prior understandings as well as on their linguistic. Excerpt 2 illustrates how pictures are never self-explanatory. so if he has failed to understand that yoghurt is not (a hyponym to) milk. It also shows how the placemats as final products result from a complex interpretive process. Apparently he fails to do so – as he glues everything onto the healthy side of the paper. Elias is then left to infer that the previous item is healthy. . Also. and for some of them it is merely done implicitly (the low-fat yoghurt). he has reason to be confused. including the cream that Kristine has not made any mention of. the health value of some of the items is never pointed out (cream). was healthy. This process involves visual information. Chapter 12. juice and water 291 but probably indicated non-verbally) item as ‘containing no sugar’ (lines 18–19).4 As Elias is a (child) second language speaker of Danish. or just for some of them. The categorical term he has introduced (line 01) is milk. and he may think that this quality applies to all items. depth or size of Elias’ Danish repertoire or linguistic competence. 20) (one represented on the pictures that Elias points to) contain sugar (lines 20–23). verbal information and an important interactional element where the teacher and child negotiate the categorization and health values of specific items. These latter are categorized as unhealthy (line 22). and inference skills. if Elias heard that Kristine said that det her ‘this one’. yoghurt.â•‡ The interactional use of milk. no matter the breadth. 4. but she has introduced yoghurt as the relevant category. Although he gives a sign of acknowledgment (line 17) he may not have understood whether ‘milk’ is actually wrong as a cover term for all of the items. Their relation to the real-world items that they represent may indeed be iconic but this does not mean that everybody interprets them as the same type of object. He has learned from the teachers on previous occasions that milk is healthy. he is presented with a difficult task and it seems less relevant to focus on him as a deficient speaker of Danish than on the fact that even contextualized messages may be highly ambiguous. then he surely has reason to be confused. However. Yet. One is that this contained fewer items than the unhealthy page and he wanted to finish the task. There are of course other possible explanations why Elias glued all the pictures to the healthy page. ) nogle gange yes because there is pr (. it it is equally healthy. where there also comes a little meat in milk (. water is healthier. you can also put something.5 (10/12-09) Audio-recording (Selma. 5.) some times 10 hvor der oss kommer lidt kød i mælk. but there is fat in milk. thus. 13 (. water is healthier. Excerpt 3. (=no) â•⁄6 Fred: det det er lige sundt. yes //but it <?>. Frederik. Some of the utterances are unidiomatic in Danish and. f. child) â•⁄ 1 Selma: Frederik hvorfor tager du ik din mælk? Frederik why don’t you take your milk? â•⁄2 Fred: vand er sundere.) becau:se the milk is <?>. also in the English translations.292 Martha Sif Karrebæk 5. . and accounted for this in terms of milk’s low content of sugar.) 14 Fred: men det er fedt i mælk. â•⁄ 3 Selma: hvad? what? â•⁄4 Fred: vand er sundere. â•⁄ 9 Oscar: ja fordi der er pr (. m.3 The different values of milk Although in Excerpt 1 the teacher treated milk as healthy. â•⁄ 5 Oscar: ahah. â•⁄ 7 Oscar: nej det er ej vel? no it isn’t is it? â•⁄ 8 Selma: mælk er sundere end vand. m.â•‡ Milk is healthier than water. milk is healthier than water. (. and accordingly as the appropriate lunch-time beverage. I have rendered the Danish version as closely as possible in English. Oscar. Oscar and Frederik who all drink skimmed or semi-skimmed milk. no::.) fordi: mælken er <?>. child. 11 Fred: ne::j. child. 15 Oscar: ja //men det <?>. It is from a lunch-time situation at the table of the three majority Danish children Selma. The next excerpt illustrates the children’s understandings of milk. the children assigned different values to milk. 12 Oscar: man kan godt komme noget. before this Oscar provides a contrast by adding the comment that Bilal. He argues that milk also contains fat. In Oscar’s account this is because sometimes there is meat in milk (lines 9–10). Chapter 12. and Frederik responds that water is healthier (line 2.) 21 men i det her mælk hvor jeg drikker? (. 18 Oscar: jamen det er fjernet når man ta drikker det ik? but it is removed when you ta drink it. (. 23 Selma: i det der mælk. 25 Selma: i det her mælk er der altså ik fedt i. in that milk. milk must be healthy. 17 Fred: ja det ka man godt dø af hvis man tr får alt for meget af det. Oscar’s next objection ends in a tag vel? ‘right?’ (line 7) as a request for confirmation and support from Selma. When Oscar objects (line 5). 4). Now water and milk are lige sundt ‘equally healthy’ (line 6). The ultimate health risk! Selma counters Frederik’s move by stating that there is only fat in some milk (line 16) and Frederik’s denial (line 19) gets little attention. right? 19 Fred: nej det er ik fjernet. in this milk there is really no fat in. //but it is just in some milk. there is. 24 Oscar: i sødmælk som Bilal drikker. the milk that he is drinking has had its fat removed (lines 20–22).â•‡ The interactional use of milk. Frederik then constructs an opposition in two steps. line 8) and their alignment is consolidated. and that if you eat too much fat you will die (lines 14. Frederik downgrades his assertion. (=no) Selma asks Frederik why he does not tager ‘take’ his milk (line 1). 26 Oscar: ahah. but yo//u dr //ik i sødmælk ik i sødmælk der er det ik 20 Oscar: fjernet der stadig fedt i. Figure 1). juice and water 293 16 Selma: //men det er kun i noget mælk.) but in this milk where I drink? (. 17).) 22 der er. (. in whole milk that Bilal drinks. men ma//n dr No it isn’t removed. Selma’s comment that there is no fat in det her mælk ‘this milk’ (line 25) stands as a concluding remark (indicated by the adverb altså ‘really’). the placemat. His logic appears to be that because meat is healthy (cp. a boy with a Moroccan background. yes you can also die from it if you tr get too much of it. drinks the variety of milk which contains fat (line 24). .) //not in whole milk not in whole milk there is still fat in. She affirms (milk is healthier than water. Yet. because Oscar argues that while whole milk contains fat. 6. thus. although they do not agree on the exact members of the category of healthy food. Selma. Karrebæk. but it also appears to be unhealthy because it contains fat. In addition this shared identity is strengthened by creating an oppositional category in Bilal.294 Martha Sif Karrebæk To sum up. some don’t”). may belong in both categories. and specific positions (“some children acknowledge the importance of health. one child contests the health value of milk. It is clear from the excerpts presented that in this classroom children are socialized by teachers into very particular food cultural understandings and practices. specific food-related understandings (“milk is healthier than juice”). and they use these understandings to position themselves in social space. Yet if you remove the fat. They are presented with specific food-related values (“it is important to consume healthy food and beverages”). Concluding discussion Mealtimes expose cultural values (Ochs & Shohet. For instance. and neither would (whipped) cream. and the teachers’ categorization is not necessarily in accordance with children’s own understandings. The children negotiate their understandings through reasoning. thus position themselves as appropriate students. this is ‘food for fun’ which indexes the child community. the teachers expose same approach to healthy beverages at lunch and during the placemat production. They imply that Bilal’s lunch-time practice is less appropriate than their own because he drinks the health-threatening whole milk instead of milk without fat. Fat is introduced as what causes milk to be unhealthy and even dangerous. Milk thereby appears to be healthy because it contains meat. Some children know what beverages are healthy. Excerpt 3 illustrates that from the children’s perspective the binary opposition between healthy and unhealthy food items cannot always be upheld. you will be left with something healthy. Furthermore. Some food items. 2012. The preference for healthy items is. Fruit juice would certainly not be considered inappropriate in such situations. 2006:â•›35f). By orienting positively to such a strikingly different food model . Surely other understandings of food co-exist in the classroom along with the ones promoted by the teachers. in peer group interaction children often orient to unhealthy food as desirable and preferred. 2013). and Oscar all accept the importance of health and communicate a strong preference for healthy drinks. The cultural values exposed during meals are present in other situations as well. in this excerpt. such as milk. Frederik. and the children’s fat-free milk is therefore healthy. a boy with Moroccan-Arabic background. In other situations the children treated unhealthy food items such as soft drinks and sweets as desirable. some don’t. Thus. fruit yoghurt etc. probably motivated by the activity type “eating lunch” where teachers supervised and exhibited concern over the health value of their meals (Excerpt 1. In this paper. 2012. This impression from my fieldwork was corroborated in an interview with Louise. the teachers’ understandings of specific food items are not always unambiguously communicated. However. It concerns the reputation of the individual. in this case. This task is even more difficult because whole milk is among the official. Health education in the practice-based health education activity “lunch” is approached in several ways. Children such as Elias who do not share a (food) cultural background with teachers are particularly challenged when they try to interpret their messages. Paugh & Izquierdo.â•‡ The interactional use of milk. As a consequence the minority children’s food practices appear problematic. and rye bread (a traditional type of bread in Denmark) is the only appropriate option. juice and water 295 children demonstrate that they are part of the peer group and are genuine and appropriate children.6 I will now turn to the significance of my observations. I have also contributed with new insights into cultural processes in mainstream 6. Yet.” The paper argues that healthy food concerns more than nutrition. what is presented as the healthy and appropriate option (skimmed milk) is clearly at odds with some of the minority students’ choices and practices (whole milk. They certainly evaluate their peers’ food practices differently when the situation is defined as “school activity” than when it is “peer group activity. 2002). at the same time children show themselves to be highly aware that this food understanding is at odds with the teachers’ hegemonic health model. juice). but they put much effort into health educational work with minority children’s food understandings and practices. The teachers never explicitly topicalized minority-majority issues in relation to health. Biltekoff. I have demonstrated how a group of majority children negotiate an understanding of the health value of milk that excludes a minority boy Bilal from their group of respectable children. school-sanctioned options. The teachers never contrast Bilal’s choice of whole milk with what his majority peers drink and he and his parents are left to infer from other information that skimmed milk is a superior choice. and socialize each other into this model. even orange juice was on this list but according to the teachers this was a mistake. Elias becomes subject to a teaching strategy consisting in prohibition and negative feedback. Furthermore. another is an explicit disapproval of some products. . as demonstrated. One is the explicit encouragement of students to bring certain products instead of others. We find a parallel in the area of bread: White bread (the first choice by all the minority families) is treated as an illegitimate lunch-box content (Karrebæk. 2009. 2013). as a good student and a respectable person (cf. A third approach consists in providing the children with a healthy option for lunch (milk). In fact. Chapter 12. I have demonstrated the value of an interpretive. This shows how health can be used as a resource for positioning and exclusion in the peer group. micro-analytic approach to health educational practices. Nevertheless. I find the difference between Elias and Bilal. through their choices of lunchtime beverage Elias and Bilal show that they belong to a different social community. that health is used to position children – and to exclude them. Food practices may become unhealthy on a socio-psychological level when they position the child as deviant. I argue that the teaching of healthy food practices builds on a range of culturespecific assumptions. Blackledge. or Europe. It transforms food items from concrete edibles with the function of satisfying the child’s basic needs into discourse objects that take part in the construction of interpersonal relations. that children and teachers’ understandings differ. Although there is a difference in scale between the situated and constructed values of Elias’ and Bilal’s beverages and of them as students. . Yet. some food practices are less healthy than others.. 2005:â•›vii) health intervention in classrooms and canteens should be treated with great care (Husby et al. The increased focus on health education in the Western World is positive. When negotiating the health quality of milk varieties the majority Danish children construct identities as students with a view of health comparable to that of the teachers. Some food items are undeniably better for the body than others. on the one side. In the classroom characterized by diversity. Thus. In this paper I have shown how minority students fail to live up to the naturalized understandings of food and healthy lunchtime practices. food and health practices are similar to clothing and religious practices. although in an incipient form of Silverstein’s (2003) registers. and between the treatment and position of Elias and Bilal in this specific classroom and the treatment of minority children in Denmark.296 Martha Sif Karrebæk schools in a field that is generally overlooked. between the moral quality of their choice of beverage and of them as human beings. 2003:â•›30). and the excerpts indicate that in order to avoid the discriminatory and assimilative pressures that are characteristic of these other symbol-laden areas (cf. that food is just food. majority-minority relations are always potentially at stake. striking. one could argue that the excerpts analyzed are just trivial everyday interactions. on the other. Frederik and Oscar. and Selma. and that Bilal and Elias are not singled out as representative of a particular group because ethnicity and nationality are never mentioned. Bourdieu (1986) pointed out in his analysis of “taste” that we show affiliations and disaffiliations with communities through our food preferences. and to language and linguistic practices. This negotiation shows “the mechanisms of life-style emblematization” (Silverstein. the evaluation of food practices is based on specific cultural understandings. It is a glimpse into what difficulties these children meet if they try to acquire these understandings. it is important to recall that the health value of food items has significance beyond what concerns physical health and indexes cultural and moral hierarchies. 2008:â•›6f). Yet. in general. (1997). (2006). 209–284). Food and health: A comparison of beliefs and practices in middle-class and working-class households. Food. 181–199.). A. L. H.). R. The sociology of childhood (2nd ed. (1997).â•›R. Murcott (Ed.. Journal for the Study of Food and Society. In P. New York. Introduction to the second edition. The sociolinguistics of globalization. A sociology of food & nutrition: The social appetite (3rd ed. Giles. Bourdieu.â•›H. (2005). 14(2). Food & Foodways. and identity (pp. Linguistic ethnography. In A.â•›P.). (2008).. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. & Van Esterik. W. Food. Chapter 12. Health. 264–280). Germov & L. Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed. (1992). health. Sociology of Health & Illness. Food and culture: A reader (2nd ed.). (2011). Taboos and excesses: Lay health moralities in middle class families. Creese. London and New York: Routledge. Readings in medical sociology (pp. pp. & Blackledge. Germov. & Powesland. In S. McKeganey (Eds. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. 1–13). London: Routledge.). P. Biltekoff. A. Hornberger (Eds..â•›F. (2002). pp. J. In K. 40. Corsaro.. (6)1. Counihan. 255–274. In C. In C.). Caplan (Ed. Creese. juice and water 297 References Allison. Calnan. Mahwah. (2010). (2008).â•‡ The interactional use of milk. J. Golden. Speech style and social evaluation. C. London/New York: Tavistock/ Routledge. Vol. C. S. van Esterik (Eds. & Gottzén.). (2005). (1998). 13. Food. 60–69. Burgess. Strong men and women are not products of improper food: Domestic Â�science and the history of eating and identity. The nation’s diet: The social science of food choice (pp.. Backett. In J. P. 221–239). and identity. . H. Blommaert. Aronsson. (1975).â•›A. Counihan & P. Coveney. & Morrison. Cunningham-Burley & N. (1986). M. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Publishers. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. (2005). class. UK: Cambridge University Press. Blackledge. Japanese mothers and obentōs: The lunch-box as ideological state apparatus. (2008). 213–246). Blum-Kulka. K. 10: Research methods in language and education (pp. (1990). 94(1). King & N. M. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal. J. New York: Springer. morals and meaning: The pleasure and anxiety of eating (2nd ed. New York. London.â•›A. Amsterdam.). Discourse and power in a multilingual world. Language in Society. Williams (Eds. Ethnographies of eating in an urban primary school. A.. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. London: Routledge. Bradby. A. K. New York: Harcourt Brace. P. UK: Routledge. A. Nourishing the nation: The uses of food in an Israeli kindergarten.). 405–426.. (2008). pp. Food and culture: A reader (2nd ed. Cambridge. 103–115. Counihan & P. Generational positions at a family dinner: Food morality and social order. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. D. eating and heart attacks: Glaswegian Punjabi women’s thinking about everyday food. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. (2010). 3424–3436).). 9–35). Van Esterik (Eds.. Moral regulation and governance in Canada: History. 639–644. 12. In L. & Kearney. (1996). On the social significance of the “cooked dinner” in South Wales. (2002). B. 205–224). nutrition and health. Olsen.. Bernstein Ratner (Eds.. Ethnos. Kulick. Food. New Delhi: Sage Publications.. Food. and exclusion. Egebjerg.. 12(4).â•›B.). 51(supplement 2). I. Mintz. G. Oxford: Blackwell.. E.â•›H. & Du Bois. Paugh. A. and making female citizens in Cold War Canada. and Society. J. A. “What’s in your lunch-box today?”: Health. J... Food for thought: Dinner table as a context for observing parent-child discourse. 7–46. & Snow. B. Inc. The hidden life of girls: Games of stance. J.â•›M. status. Christensen.). 337–343. London: Thousand Oaks. Food. A. C. & Huotilainen. Toronto. & Izquirdo. (2006). S. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. Lasagne for breakfast: The respectable child and cultural norms of eating practices in the kindergarten classroom. (1997).â•›L. R. (2012). Martinez. Definitions of ‘healthy’ eating: A pan-EU survey of consumer attitudes to food. Karrebæk. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. G. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Culture. (1995).â•›S. & Schieffelin. An investigation into school children’s knowledge and awareness of food and nutrition. 9(3). (2011)..â•›L. K. (2009). Culture and Society..â•›E. (2006). Annual Review of Anthropology. Culture. S.. Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics. 349–368. (2009). internet edition pp. Halkjær. Haden. Karrebæk. Perlman. Pontecorvo. C. In A. F. R. (2004). A. D. 23–29. 111. Ochs. E. 99–119. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.long. M. 677–696. and ethnicity in the primary classroom.. 12(1). B. 1–21).â•›W. Holm. C. (1988).â•›Y. The anthropology of food and eating... B. . 19(2). M. Glasbeek (Ed. M. Language socialization.â•›M.. 31. R. and Society. Menn & N. K..â•›A. Heitman. the body and the self. 35–49..â•›H... 21. Roos. Husby. Public Health Nutrition. Recipes for democracy? Gender. A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. Why is this a battle every night? Negotiating food and eating in American dinnertime interaction. Mahwah. (2006). respectability. B. ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Murcott. Lupton. Methods for studying language production (pp. Margetts. Culture & Society. & Scott. S. 26–51. 61(1-2).â•›M. Healthy aspects of the Nordic diet are related to lower mortality.. & Tjønneland. & Jensen. (2013). 16. (2002). (2009). Ochs. O’Doherty. E. The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. J. 185–204.. Meals and snacks from the child’s perspective: The contribution of qualitative methods to the development of dietary interventions. 169–187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Journal of Nutrition 141(4). T. Retrieved from http://jn.. Culture & Society. Hart. (1996).nutrition.298 Martha Sif Karrebæk Goodwin. family. Socializing taste. Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Gullberg. Iacovetta. Pan.. Food for future citizens: School meal culture in Sweden. Ochs. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 85–106..â•›A. Saba.â•›S. Food. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. Overvad. Food. 1–22. Johansson.org/content/141/4/639.. Hillén. (1999).. L. A. & Fasulo. E. (1982). A. Food. 15. 22. M. Bishop. context and critical issues (pp. M. 739–747. 9(3). Mäkelä. (2006). C.). & Shohet. 129–140. In A. Hansen. A. K. Duranti (ed. 417–436. J. Jensen. (2008). Real kids don’t eat quiche: What food means to children. Ludvigsen. H. & Truby.. 266–274.â•›A. A. Anthropology of Food. Nordic children’s foodscapes: Images and reflections. Pandora’s Lunchbox. D. (2009). B. Salazar. 9(3).. J. S. Søgaard. (2007). R. Public schools. B.â•›V. Wiggins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.â•›O. (Eds. T. J. K.. Culture & Society. A. 15–21. 473–488. Rampton. & Gillen. Overlooked issues of religious identity in the school dinners debate. Stewart.. 193–229. 40(1). P. 6. Cambridge. Language and Communication. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school.. K. Eating your words: Discursive psychology and the reconstruction of eating practices. Health psychology: A biophyschosocial approach (2nd ed. (2003). Wiggins. & Wildsmith. Special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics. Silverstein.â•›B. 445–463. (2005). Potter. A. problems and possibilities.. Why education researchers should take school food seriously. 39(4). E. 11(5).â•‡ The interactional use of milk.who. S. Food. K. (1946). Chapter 12. 153–181.â•›L. Gill. M. B. (2001). B. G. & Østergaard. Cook. Journal of Health Psychology. Cambridge Journal of Education. S. private foods: Mexicano memories of culture and conflict in American school cafeteria. WHO. 15.. (1990). Educational Researcher. UK: Cambridge University Press. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Good for ‘you’: Generic and individual healthy eating advice in family mealtimes. Journal of Health Psychology. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Construction and action in food evaluations: Conversational data. (2004)..â•›B. (2007). juice and water 299 Rampton. Weaver-Hightower. 23. Mælk og sundhed: Hvad er det du drikker? [Milk and health: What are you drinking?] Copenhagen: Books on Demand. Straub. & Tusting.. & Chadwick. New York: Worth Publishers. M. . 317–336. Østergaard. Twiner.. Treasure. (2006). http://www. Schieffelin. (2010). Linguistic Ethnography: Links. Food & Foodways. Understandings about food among 6–11 year olds in South Wales.â•›B.int/governance/ eb/who_constitution_en. 9. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. J. 535–548.). M. A. (2011).pdf Wiggins.) (2007). (2001). 5–15. The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. Maybin... 20. . J. P. W.â•… 259 Bourdieu.â•… 9 Drew. O. 239. C.â•… 280 Backhouse. 235. C.â•… 258.â•… 6. 103. L. 11. 281 Bordo. L. 253 B Baba.â•… 105–106 Fischler.â•›W.â•… 213 Aronsson.â•›Y. 177 Georgakopoulou. 21. S.â•… 215 Duranti.â•… 19 Chen.â•… 281 Atik. I.â•… 185. 258. 138 Chang.Author index A Aikhenvald. 283 D Davidson.â•… 106.â•… 5–6. M. H.â•… 133 Akatsuka. R. P. 280.â•›S.â•… 6.â•… 6 Chen.â•›E. J.â•… 5. A. 280 Fee. 226 Bateson. 9 Bakhtin.â•… 215 García-Sánchez. D. R.â•… 235. 173–174. P.â•… 6 Bruner.â•… 282 Clancy.â•… 6. 98. 249. M.â•… 6. C.â•… 259 Friesen. 218 Elliott. M.â•… 8.â•… 247.â•›M. 253– 254. B.â•… 215 Foucault. J. M.â•›L.â•… 267 Cole.â•… 282–283 Blum-Kulka. S. 233. 255. M.â•›M. 251 Corsaro.â•… 4.â•… 6 Ford. J.â•›B.â•… 258 Edwards. M. 120 Brown. 253. 239. G.â•… 134 Duffy.â•… 213–214.â•… 120 Barthomeuf.â•›L.â•›D. S. C.â•… 280 DuBois.â•… 31–32.â•… 282 Blackledge. K.â•… 213.â•… 11. 128 Augustoni-Ziskind. 103.â•… 41–42 Capps. E. 282 Coveney. 259 Burgess. A.â•… 24. R.â•… 235 .â•… 218–219 Egebjerg. H.â•… 80 Baquedano-Lopes. N. B. 282. A.â•… 280 C Caballero. 255 Auer. 218 Fujimura-Wilson. 217 Chadwick. 18. 133. 253 Banno.â•›M.â•… 173.â•… 80 Cook. 276.â•›R. 254 Akiyama. 240–241.â•… 280 Creese. P.â•… 121 DuFon. W.â•… 7. C. D. M. A. 187–189. J.â•… 6 Christensen.â•… 281 Gleason.â•… 7.â•… 106 Gentner.â•… 9. 14–15. S. J.â•… 186 Fukutome.â•… 282 Gill. S. M.â•… 215. J. J. 257–260. 242.â•›P. M. M.â•… 144 Giles. 13–14.â•… 80 Beardsall. R.â•… 239.â•… 121 Fisher. S.â•… 235. W.â•›M. P. J.â•… 236 Fallon. H. E. N. Y.â•… 258 Burdelski.â•… 252 Gaw.â•›A. P. A. L.â•… 33. R.â•… 237 De Geer. M. L.â•… 6 Calnan.â•… 282 Chafe. 265 Ertekin. 19 Engstrom. J. A. A. C. 254–255 E Edwards.â•›V. 295 Bishop. B.â•… 12 Anthony.â•›H. 245.â•›E.â•… 213 Austin.â•… 283. P. 296 Blommaert.â•… 215 Allison.â•… 6. 234. J.â•›K. K.â•›A.â•… 6 Backett. J.â•… 282 Brillat-Savarin.â•… 258 F Fader.â•… 7. R. 20 Alkhedairy. K. H.â•… 282 Gillen. L.â•… 280.â•… 16.â•… 80 Bruner.â•… 5 G Gagnon.â•›Z. 131 Akuzawa. N. M. J.â•… 259 Borello.â•… 259 Enfield. J.â•… 144 Coates. 7 Biltekoff. 233. 226 Fasulo. M.â•… 54 Droit-Volet. 282 Antaki. 206 Germov. A.â•… 215 Brown. A. M. M.â•… 185 Cekaite. 252 Clark. 180 Barthes. S. 276 Dolinar-Hikawa.â•… 6.â•… 215 Beck.â•… 9.â•… 7 Dunn. H.â•… 24. 253–254. 234. L.â•… 282.â•… 6.â•… 279–280.â•›F.â•… 282 Ekman. P. 296 Bradby. D. J. 236–237. C.â•… 215 Du Bois. C. 297 Counihan. A. 240. 35 Bauman. D. C.â•… 282 Campbell.â•… 105 DeVault. 254 Deroy. 247. N.â•… 282 Gerrig.â•… 259 Atkinson. A. 16–17.â•›A. J.â•›A. 80 Barsalou.â•… 213. F. T.â•›S.â•… 235 Karatsu. 35. E. 64 Kyratzis.â•… 280. 247. S. 294–295 Kasai.â•… 280 Jensen. O.â•… 186. E. A. T. Y. F. 181.â•… 6. C.â•›H. F.â•… 281 Grief. M. K. 283 Kumita.â•… 90–91 Makino. M. A.â•›L.â•… 6. 221 Levinson. D. J.â•… 35 Jefferson. 253–254.â•… 281 Maki.â•… 105–106. S. 24 Leví-Strauss.â•… 281 Haidt.â•… 245 Kohyama.â•… 172 Heitman. 279–281.â•… 185–187.â•… 280 Kidwell. B. 185. 238. A. A. 280–281 J James. 148. L. J.â•… 280 Johansson. 82–84. 83. 131 Hart.â•… 4.â•… 235 Hayashi.â•›H. T.â•… 280 H Haden.â•… 6 Ngom. Y. E.â•… 80.â•… 211 Jensen.â•… 11.â•… 235 Guidetti. S. 75.â•›H. 229.â•… 56 Harada.â•›M. B.â•… 216 Mori. S. 276 Kindaichi. 53. 70. C. 11–12. 217.â•… 6. W.â•… 9 Holm.â•… 243 Huotilainen. 98. D. K.â•›H. 167 Mandelbaum.â•… 20 Koike.â•… 60.â•… 20 Ludvigsen.â•… 21.â•… 26. 114 Nishinari. 174. 240 K Kamio.â•… 216 Gullberg.â•… 6 Newman.â•… 5–6 Lerner.â•›C. K. 11–12. 282 M MacWhinney. 259. 239 Kulick.â•… 13–14.â•… 281 Johnson.â•… 10.â•… 279–280 McCauley. 62 Noda.â•… 144 Hayashi. S. R.â•… 235 Hillén. C. A. 279. 185.â•… 52. W.â•… 7.â•… 83 Kunihiro. 185–186. 21 Mäkelä. 217 Majid.â•… 226 Ochs.â•›J.â•… 280. M. 63. 9 Hayano. T. A.â•… 173.â•… 282 Muto. J.â•… 132. J.â•… 282 Lupton.â•… 281 Hines. F. 148. A.â•›H. K. K. Y. D. 131. 74–75.â•… 258.â•… 6. D.â•… 173 Goffman. K. M. 131.â•… 70 Hayashi. E. J. L.â•… 8.â•… 244–245 Lehrer. 283. 16. 80. 96 McLaughlin. M. 101. M. M.â•… 235 Mondloch. 156 Mintz.â•… 83 N Nakada.â•… 6 Izquierdo.â•… 7 Margetts. M. 15–17. J.â•… 213 McGloin. J. 55. N. 177 Martin. 80.â•… 282 Hansen. F. 281. 206 Jenkins.â•… 131 Kawabata.â•… 7–8.â•›B. 133–134.â•… 282 Inoue.â•… 219 Heritage.â•… 80 Hayakawa.â•›T. 221 Golden.â•… 280 Hendry. B. 79–80. K.â•… 6. J.302 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences Glucksberg.â•… 281 Hara. 133–134. 138 Mauss. D. 154. 189 O Oaten.â•… 186 Nakamura. 178 Martinez. S.â•… 258 Jones. S. 138 Karasawa.â•… 7 Lebra.â•… 176 Morrison.â•… 146 Jorden. 19. C.â•… 234.â•… 281 Husby.â•… 6. 224 Minami. 240 Norrick.â•… 213 Halkjær. F. A.â•… 7–8.â•… 5 Kuroshima. E. C. Y. L. S. W. M. 169 Koo. 296 Hymes. A. 59–60. 75. G.â•… 280 Hsu.â•… 280 Martins. A.â•›J. 282 Markman.â•… 51 Maybin.â•… 81 Kazami. 33.â•… 282 Hatasa. 74. 172 Herot. H. 294 . C. 159–160. 14–17.â•… 107. G. M.â•… 60. 182 LeBaron. T. 160.â•… 280. J. 233–235. A.â•… 99. N. L. 14.â•… 24.â•… 5 Li.â•… 81 Ioku. B. 239. C. T.â•… 280 Murcott. 65–66. 56. Z. M. A. 282 Gopnik.â•… 32 I Iacovetta. C.â•… 281–282 Goodwin. A. 90. A.â•… 221 Kiesling. 12. 10. V. 80. 217.â•›W.â•… 91.â•›M. 13–15. 282 Goodwin. 13. A. M. J. 68. M. 114 McNally. 63. 239. K.â•… 6. S. 135.â•… 214 Masuoka. 111. G.â•… 257 Gottzén.â•… 243 Hsu. 17.â•›A.â•… 280 Miss Mannersâ•… 36 Mitsuhashi. T.â•›L.â•›A. F. 191 Lakoff. 234. 15.â•… 172 Kobayashi. 229.â•… 6 Nishizaka. 187–189. 253. R.â•… 132. 53–54.â•… 253 L Labov. 60.â•… 7–8. 255. 199 Karrebæk. C.â•›S.â•… 60. 80.â•… 80 Hatasa. Y.â•… 6 Kearney.â•… 240 Mizera. I. T. 15–17. 6–7. K. 152. R.â•… 249 Hepburn. 26.â•… 216 Miller.â•… 214. â•… 12.â•›G. A. S.â•… 172 Shinagawa.â•… 80 Shibata. P. K. 228.â•… 279–280. 253–254.â•›B. 281. 35.â•›M. R. 14.â•… 280–281 Weber. P.â•… 25 Saito. S. D.â•… 213.â•… 254. 96 Weaver-Hightower. S.â•… 213–214. 59–60.â•… 282.â•… 11. T. 154. E.â•… 281–282 Schegloff. 216 Truby.â•›Y. 83.â•… 214–216. A.â•… 235 Tulviste. E. 13. 283 Schmeer. Y. P. M.â•›M. C. 134.â•… 53 Rohleder.â•… 259 Pizziconi.â•›B.â•›W. 221.â•… 243–244.â•… 6 Z Zimmerman. 95. N. B. 197.â•›J. 80 Tusting. 211.â•… 282 P Pan. E. S. 16–17. K. 260–261. 80. J. 53.â•… 216 Visser. J.â•… 80 Shohet. C.â•… 213 Schuetz. 224. C. P. V. 250 Szatrowski. 221 Zwicky. E. 70.â•… 281 Pitcher.â•… 8. 103. K. 226–227 Russell.â•… 172 Wildsmith. 134. 226.â•… 33. T. 280. 138 Tannen. M. 40 Scott.â•… 6 Tenenbaum.â•›M. 56–57. 277. 224.â•… 12 Widen. 267 Taylor. 255.â•… 80 Salazar. 227 Sneijder. M. 247 Streeck.â•›T. 233. 241 Paugh. 160. B.â•… 259 te Molder. 282–283 Robinson. 144.â•… 126 Stevenson. M.â•… 5–6. 298 Sheldon. 233. A. D.â•… 62 Takasaki.â•›A. A. C. 226–227 S Saba. 299 Witberg. A. E.â•›V. 11–17. 63.â•… 282 Tobin.â•… 3. A. 13–15.â•… 235.â•… 41–42 Viellard. 134–135. S. G.â•… 281 Park. A. S.â•… 279–280 Twiner. J.â•… 80 Olsen. 80.â•… 11.â•›O.â•… 6.â•›L. K. 224 Stewart.â•›J. 257–261. 211. 60. 280 Powesland.â•… 282 Straub. 9–10.â•… 6 Snow. 255. C.â•… 38 W Walker. A. B. 282 van Gennep.â•… 235 Turner.â•… 53–54.â•›E.â•… 215 Rozin. 280–281. 7–9. 79. 258 Schieffelin. 264–265 Shepherd. 70. 279–280. A. 238. Y. 280–281.â•… 282 O Overton. M.â•… 215 Tjønneland. 218. 13–14. 81–83. G. A.â•… 32–35. 73.â•… 167 R Rampton. 24. B. 84 Watanabe. 218.â•… 213 Overvad.â•›F.â•… 161 Rousset. T. 235.â•… 53. R. 226–227 Wiggins. S. 131–132. 15. B. 26–27. 9.â•… 281 U Unger. K.â•›F.â•›B. A. 223. P.â•… 237 Y Yoneda. 79. W. 280 Wu. H. 264 Roos.â•… 282 Tryggvason.â•… 282 Prelinger. 234.â•›B. H.â•›Y.â•… 80 Tokashiki. 16–17. 218–219. M.â•… 45 Welmers.â•›A.â•… 239 Pontecorvo.â•… 8. 65–66.â•… 107 Whiting. 295 Peak.â•›E. 240 T Takagi.â•›D. M. 185 Sadanobu. 254–255. 235.â•… 41–42. E. T.â•… 282 Østergaard.â•… 6 Sakane. 73.â•›R.â•… 6. 18–19. H.â•… 259 Q Quinn. 294 Silverstein.â•… 6. A.â•›C. 103. T. 281 Søgaard.â•… 282 Ø Østergaard.â•… 214–216.â•›H.â•… 258 WHOâ•…280 Widdicombe.â•… 237 Perlman.â•›A. 186. A. P. 164.â•… 214. 53–54.â•… 134 Pliner. K.â•… 213–214. 46 Ohashi.â•… 234. 211. L. J. R. J. B. 296 Simpson. J.â•… 91.â•… 211. K. 234. 103. S. 185. 237 Tohsaku. 89. P.â•… 280 Sacks. 160–161.â•… 13. 280 Potter.â•… 7.â•… 6 Zwicky.â•›F.â•›H. 216.-T. 262. 259.â•… 80 Toyama. D. Y. Y. 155 Suzuki. L.â•›G. M.â•… 258. 131 Takubo. M. 80.â•… 6. M. 141. C. 86. 234. 186–187.â•… 132.â•… 281 Rosch.â•… 282 Spolsky.â•… 6.â•… 214 Pomerantz.â•… 18.â•… 6 .â•… 81 V Van Esterik. M.Author index 303 Office of the Chief of Naval Operationsâ•… 44.â•… 280 Strauss.â•… 8. H. T. 97 Ohno. . 226 acquisitionâ•… 7. 206. 164. 182. 257–261. 80 B back stretch 15. pointing. 257–258. 239–242. 6. 97. 12. 34–35. 159–161. 134–137. 239–240. 247–250. 90. 60–64. 84–85 authorâ•… 204. 131. hug. 17. 73–74 co-constructâ•… 7. 17. 9. 155 see back stretch. 56. 134. 288–289. 233–236. 94. 282. 6–11. US Americanâ•… 3. 237. 12. 292. 83. 263. 83.. gesture. 54–74 Chichewaâ•…127 childâ•… 4. 169. 108. 247–253. 235–237. 245 see disagreement alignable differenceâ•… 173 Americaâ•… 47. 177. 294 assertion defermentâ•… 136–138. 169. 68. 267–269. 148. 284 agreementâ•… 9. 140. 269–271. 198–199. 173–174. 154 dantee horyuu ‘assertion with reservations’â•… 132 assessâ•… 3–4. 13. 154. 203. 32. 266–267. 242 see color terms adult socializationâ•… 4. 73–74. 261–267. social activity ad hoc categoryâ•… 173. 139. 27–28. 296 see juice. 103. 239. 121. 211 see teller authorshipâ•…205 availabilityâ•… 15. 80. 11–12. 7. 88. 13–14 adverbâ•… 133. 61 banquetâ•…32 beverageâ•… 148–149. 93. 31. 273. 181 . nonverbal. 104. 81. 209. 287. 60. 79. bow. 114. 49– 50. 176–181. 234. 259–262. 147. 222–223.S. 100. 164. 15. 114–115. 206. 292. 239–241. 237 breadâ•… 48. 70. 20. 80. 164. 120. 142. 271. 221–229. 221–222. 60. 213–215. 53–55. 140. 298 caregiverâ•…241 categorizationâ•… 12. 134. 53–54. 196. 295 C Canadaâ•… 99. coined native word bowâ•… 45. 238–240. 16–17. 241. 62–66. 118. 132. 52. 74. 48. hand gesture. 21. 154–155. 255. 127 see loanword. 159–160. body torque. 51. 141. 222. 127. 172 audienceâ•… 11. 97. 214. 82. 150–151. 258. 43–47. 43. 285–286. 80. 181 categoryâ•… 17. 83. 57. 131–132. 164. 113. 141–142. 236–237.Subject index A acceptanceâ•… 58. 38. 10. 233–243. 45. 134. 50. 159–161. 13–14. 146. 41. 176. 280. 144. 144. 141. 266–267. 288–289. 240. 111. 281. 237. 10. 279–286. 214. head tilt. 294–295 see parallel activity. 177. 133. 15–17. 154 assessmentâ•… 3–5. 121–125. U. 285. 187. 169. 118. 147. 257. 257. 18. 73 adjectiveâ•… 80. 60. 263–264. 172–174. 105. 281–282. 38–39. 68. 284. 249 Arabicâ•… 3. 211–219. 160 associationâ•… 161. 294 see ad hoc category ceremonyâ•… 51. 288–289. posture body torqueâ•… 59 borrowingâ•… 105–106. 16–17. 216. 7. 66–71. 226–228. 86. 131. 296 childrenâ•… 4. 106. 41. 235. 41. 100–101. 291–292. 159. 293 see modal adverb affectâ•… 4. 50. 288–289. 154. 7–11. 11. 117–118. 287. 241– 242. 151–152. 189–191. 281 anthropologyâ•… 4. 253 associateâ•… 3. head tilt twist. 49–50. 70. 70–71. 228. 160–161. 15. 113–114. 13–14. 282. 166–167. 66. 107. 128. 110. 105. 138. 242–245. 143. 104–106. 284 activityâ•… 4. 290–291. 190–191 see United States. 161. 294 see identification categorizeâ•… 15. 9. 166. 69–71. 277. 7. 276. 169. 10. 174. 147. 248 see feeling ageâ•… 4. 143. 288–291. 20. 164. 90. 83–84. 176. 154. 73. milk body movementsâ•… 15–16. 294–296 Chinaâ•…243 Chineseâ•… 6. lexical borrowing. 180–181 adjacency pairâ•… 56. 71–73. 233. 37. 233. 116. 121 chefâ•… 10. 65. 214. 134. 57. 281 apologyâ•… 32. 13. 285 classroom interactionâ•… 235 closingâ•… 10. 129. 164. 294. 9–14. 193–194. 64. 146–147. 86. 294 educationâ•… 14. 159–162. 216–217. 284. 277 see mutual orientation Englishâ•… 3. 31–34. 106. 197. 226. 127. 18. 191. 230 continuing state of incipient orderingâ•… 10. 127. expression disgust markerâ•… 211–212. 32. 222–223. 86–87. 296–298 customâ•… 38. 169. 6–12. 107 see borrowing. 255. 266 coordinationâ•… 15. 87–97. 80. 229 coined native wordâ•… 103. 117–118. 8. 145. 223–224. 49. 172. 53. 236–241. 185–189. 92. 116–117. 74. 138–139. 13. 31–32. 15. 220. 124–127. 214. 108–109. 271–273 eatingâ•… 3–4. 132. 17. 86. 241–242. 166–167. 279–280 conditionally relevantâ•… 60 contagionâ•… 213. 120–122. 214. 215. 229. 214. 66 communitasâ•… 41. 93. 245–249. 169 eatâ•… 263. 276. 133. 228. 36. 297 conceptâ•… 15. 13–14. 291–292. 53–55 cultural identityâ•… 103. 25. 296 see demarcation evaluativeâ•… 13. 297–298 dinnertimeâ•… 259. 264–265. 128. 48–50. 104. 136–138. 150. 169 customerâ•… 10. 135. 229. 72. 227. 108. 162. 108–109. 80 eughâ•… 14. 56–57. loanword color termsâ•… 108. 74 continuing state of incipient talkâ•… 54. 263–264. 154. 58–61. 12–15. 161 cookâ•… 4. 66. 54–74. 279–280. 88. 66–67. 63–64. 72 conversation analysisâ•… 4. 103. 18. 7. 125. 295 Eegimaaâ•… 3. 73. 229. 5. 134. 120–121. 201–203. 236. 156. 84 elementâ•… 12. 89–93. 14–16. 274. 259. 120–122. 258 discursiveâ•… 4. 105–106. 117. 103–105. 160. 109. 59–61. 131–136. 12. 44–46. 27–28. 103–104. 128. 109. 45–49. 21. 77. 296 demarcatingâ•… 106. 228–229 disgust scaleâ•… 213 distasteâ•… 17. 282. 90 desyoo ‘isn’t it’ (JPN)â•… 136. 218. 282. 221–222. 134–135. 270. 11. 125. 120–121. 265–267. 179–181. 259. 219. 266. 105–106. 219. 26–27. 37. 84. 117. 233–234. 116 cognitiveâ•… 12. 215–216. 46–47. 225. 221–223. 268. 169. 89. 217. 108. 159. 101. 292 epistemic groundsâ•… 55 ethnic identityâ•… 126–128 ethnographyâ•… 4. 130 e::to ‘uhm’ (JPN)â•… 62–63 eeto ‘uhm’ (JPN)â•… 73. 89. 16. 181. 173–174. 173–174. 114 commensalityâ•… 10. 219. 226–229 see disgust docile bodiesâ•… 259 domesticâ•… 16. 219. 148. 189. 84–85. 33. 86. 144. 227. 88–93. 24. 23. 114. 103. 249. 117. 162. 222–223. 211–229 see distaste core disgustâ•… 213–214. 69. 44–45. 97. 155. 111. 168. 53. 111. 248. 107. 227. 265–267. 214–216. 276. 258– 259. 160. 219. 58. 114. 113–114. 67–68. 281–282. 111–114. 261. 8. 261. 291 emotionâ•… 7–8. 229 empathyâ•… 13. 93–94. 108. 13–14. 17–18. 79. 9. 218–219. 103. 55. similarity dinnerâ•… 7. 262–263. 279–281. 227. 212. 36–43. 96–97. 70–72. 218–219. 105–106. 193. 15. 281 cookingâ•… 261–262. 240. 127 demarcationâ•… 12–14. 252–253 engagementâ•… 52. 257. 113. 156. 172. 199. 279–280. 172–173. 263. 90. 197 code-switchingâ•… 11. 11. 258. 9–12. 51 see closing. 215–216. 24–25. 58. 105–106. 211–213.306 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences co-constructionâ•… 18. 225–226. 27. 82–84. 182. 44–46. 266–267. 262–265 E E? ‘Huh?’(JPN)â•… 72. 182. 284–286. 131. 53. 154. 100–101. 283 discursive psychologyâ•… 4. 79–80. 277 disagreementâ•… 142. 84. 160. 205 see demarcating . 179 desyo? ‘right’ (JPN)â•… 67. 223. verbal label evaluationâ•… 8. 97. 22. 226 see gesture. 147. 67. 9. 283 etiquetteâ•… 39. 259–262. 159. 32. 257–258. 211. 213. 51 comparisonâ•… 15. 86. 41. 240 cultureâ•… 5. 228. 105. 211–212. 161. 127 cultural valueâ•… 235. 16–17. 286. 211–212. 111. 234–235. 231. 92. 39. 80. 296 see alignable difference. 31–32. 212–214. 152 see agreement Discoursesâ•…187. 181. 215 contaminationâ•… 214. 103. 192–195. 205–206 cutenessâ•…240 D Danishâ•… 3. 199. 106. 227. 206. 245. 257. 14. 83. 105. 7. 166. 144–145 differenceâ•… 33. 114. 213. 20. 42. 265–266. 127 descriptionâ•… 4. 164. 162–164. 238. opening communication channelâ•… 57. 271. 127. 270. 217–219. 16. 15. 95. 94–95. 35. 17. 177–181. 226–228 see yuck. 154. 49. 227 disgust faceâ•… 213. 52. 229. 97. 219 disgustâ•… 14. 87. 221. 172. 51–53. 130 Fulaâ•… 120. 27. 224–230. 273–276. 264 gender inscriptionâ•… 259 gender normativeâ•… 257–259. 79. 204.Subject index 307 evaluative commentâ•… 186. 39. 67. 47–51. 109–110. 49–50. 51 gestureâ•… 8. 169. 79–80. 25. 97. 27. 48. 70–71. 11. 51. 94. 96–97. 159–160. smiling F face-to-face talkâ•… 258 familiarâ•… 12. 279–284. 121. 214–216. 16. 197. 13–14. 148. 59. 45–46. 49. 43. 276 experienceâ•… 3. 264 gender expectationsâ•… 276 gender ideologyâ•… 258. 69. 63. sensory evidence evidentialâ•… 12. 98. 240. 191. 88–91. 121. 31–32. 35. 134. 12–13. 268. 77. 154. 263– 264. 120–128. 93–97. 147–148. 271 see gesture. 7–8. 172. 85–87. 86–87. 224–226. disgust face. 257–259. 48. 245. 247–249. 154–155 evidentialityâ•… 131. 188–189. 49. 204–205. 100. 94–95. 189 formulaic expressionsâ•… 237 formulaic speechâ•… 187 see local formulaicity frameâ•… 11. 45–48. 143. 135–138. 185–186. 131–132. 181–182. 205–206. 269 feelingâ•… 41. 263–265. 248. 200. 287–290. 258. 47. pointing Gods/ Spiritsâ•… 234. 122. 273 genderâ•… 4. 5. 66. 251–253. 89–94. 89. 74. 202. 144. 191–192. 135. 79. 167. 132–133. 79. 56–57. 227. 285 gender differencesâ•… 9. 141–142. 294–296 food identityâ•… 13. 133. 217–219. 257. 91. 207. 215. 51. 242. 151–152. 172. 15–16. 17. 31. 124. 182 guestâ•… 32. 173–174. 53. 226. 214–219. 79–82. 49. 181–182. 221. 209. 269. 44. 245. 136–138. 120–121 flavor expressionsâ•… 81. 258. 229. 126 G gatheringâ•… 34. 220–222. 120. 116–118. 189. 16. 136. 211–217. 45. 55–60. 242 see affect feminineâ•… 258. 34. 41. 91. 215–216. 45. 37. 108–109. 266 Germanâ•… 3. 241. 197–198. 68–69. 43–46. 96–97. 89–92. 134–135. 253 greetingâ•… 34. 266. 94–97. 283 gazeâ•… 7. 251–252. 236–237. 9. 93–94. 45. 81–83. 265. 91–92. 39. 58–60. 103. 55. 267 see unfamiliar familyâ•… 3–4. 126–128. 233–245. personal experience expressionâ•… 13. 257–261. 95. 235. 85. 185. 260 evidenceâ•… 16–17. 79–86. 100–101. 43. 265 see masculine feminine talkâ•… 267 final particleâ•… 141. 267. 240–241. 74. 220. 15. 230. 271. 7. 68–70. 226. 101. 235. 239 H hand gestureâ•… 69–70. 90. 203–204 head tiltâ•… 140. 84. 52. 163–164. 134. 108. 146. 265–267 food related narrativeâ•… 275–276 food socializationâ•… 14. 281–282 formulaic formulaic characterâ•… 187. 144–145. 40. 244. 65–66. 215–216. 147 head tilt twistâ•… 141. 229. 81. 159–161. 63. 169. 196–197 happy birthdayâ•… 199. 271 Frenchâ•… 5. 212–213. 229. 113. 33. 260. 104–106. 243. 71. 26. 134. 189. 142. 267 gender typedâ•… 260–261. 114–118. 159–161. 103–106. 164–167. 19. 62–63. 248. hand gesture. 43–44. 74. 276–277. 215. 254 see ne agreement particle (JPN) flavorâ•… 6. 236. 52. 193 eventâ•… 31–34. 37. 189. 90–92. 127 food playâ•… 264–265 food preparationâ•… 8–9. 155 expectationâ•… 43. 133. 131–132. 124. 121. 97 foodâ•… 3–23. 279. 177–179. 193. 17. 206 group identityâ•… 4–5. 37. 55. 194. 205 evaluative deviceâ•… 186–187 evaluative meaningsâ•… 13. 193–194. 144 . 27. 132. 243. 249. 13. 85. 228 see perceptual evidence. 211. 96. 111–114. 45. 40. 10. 154–157. 117–118. 222. 142. 164. 257–267. 147–148. 221. 266–267. 171–175. 83–84 Germanyâ•… 47. 262. 271. 223. 245. 279. 40–41. 240. 169. 9–11. 14. 141–142. 172. 159–162. 124–125. 211–212. 229 see body movements. 86–87. 263 gender prescriptionsâ•… 13. 15–17. 181. 284 see past experience. 64 group see membership group bondingâ•… 12. 169. 36–37. 37–40. 39–40. 138–139. 83–86. 15–16. 51. 17. 6–8. 283– 284. 36. 291. 53. 219–221. 15. 36. 27. 16–17. 156. 273–275 knowing participantâ•… 172. 13. ordinary’ (JPN) 79. 80. 148. 147–148. ethnic identity. 189. 64. 191. 160–161. 260–263. 173. 182–183. 279. 141–142. 120. 154–156. 235. 236–238. 233–237. 177. 39. 160. 10. 169. 109. 260. 90. 43–44. 103. 33–34. 58. 136–137. 46–48. 97. 20–22 Koreanâ•… 167. 129–130. 90–91. 114. 235 L language socializationâ•… 6. 67. 43. 165. 93–97. 64. 14. 187. 180–181 see unknowing participants knowledgeâ•… 32. 45. 234. 106. 74. 202. 132. 296 linguistic ethnographyâ•… 4. 48–50. 28. 249. 120–122. 11–15. 284– 285. 116. 280 individual identityâ•… 172 information expressionsâ•… 81–82 intuitive convictionâ•… 133. 261. 134–135. 47–48. 9. 14. group identity. 217–223. 144. 79. 193. 44–47. 237. 233–234. 64. 131–135. 265 see feminine masculine talkâ•… 262 mbedd ‘the street’ (WOL)â•… 115–116 mealâ•… 3–5. 206. 138–152. 103– 105. 253. 51 humorâ•… 186. 243. 15–16. 57. 235. 243. 269. 174. 146–148. 17–18. 282 Koreaâ•… 6. 36. 80. 56. 13–14. 154. 122. 224. 222–223 lexical borrowingâ•… 105–106. 235–237. 257–258. 252–253 Joola Eegimaaâ•… 104 see Eegimaa juiceâ•… 12. 245. 150. 47–50. 61. 13. 294–295 see taster lunch M mannersâ•… 10. 251 masculineâ•… 258. 159–161. 162–164. 294–295 see beverage. 14. 24–28. 108. 255. 154 invitationâ•… 22. 50. 231. 71. 93. 287–288. 25. 136– 138. 53. 80. 264. 166. 133. coined native word local formulaicityâ•… 187 lunchâ•… 9. 188–189. 14. 271. 154. 238. 167–169. 225. 154. 242–243. 15. 52. 251. 179. 7. 183. 236–240. 253–255. 199. 127. 176–179. 292. 249. 42 linguisticâ•… 4–5. 124–127. 31. 169. 161. 50. 18. 267 mealtimeâ•… 3. 227–228. 36–40. 282 meal preparationâ•… 257. 281–282. 291. 73. 34. 105– 106. 285–289. 7. 49–51. 156 involvementâ•… 154. linguistic identity. 164. 10. 27. 27–28. 12–13. 45. 279–281. think Icelandicâ•…284–285 identificationâ•… 4. 293–296 health educationâ•… 14. 242. 136–138. 283 linguistic identityâ•… 103. 18. 118. 233–234. 59. 211–212. 140. 51. 166. 199. 103–104. 161. 41. 17. 94. 233. 250–252. 186–187. 212. 113. 169. 185. 254–255. 265. 90–91. 139. 236. 131. 126–127. 46. 127 loanwordâ•… 9. 60. 27. 124. 16. 55. 196–197. 31–33. milk K kitchenâ•… 11. 141–144. 234. 282–283 indexicalâ•… 15. 96–97 I I thinkâ•… 12. 160. 159–162. 61. 131–132. 281–282 Italyâ•… 6. 135. 46. 191. 144–146. 99. 126–127 see borrowing. 250 hospitalityâ•… 31–32. 9–12. 265. 132–133. 235–236. 11. 248–249. 253. 167. 253–255 Japaneseâ•… 3–27. 283 laughterâ•… 9. 206. lexical borrowing. 229 Italianâ•… 6–7. 31. 181–182. 16. 220. individual identity. 147–148. 273 membershipâ•… 13. 138–140. 216. 128. 138. 276. 173–174. 132–133. 226. 147. 126. 117–118. 150–152 see categorization identityâ•… 4–5. 279–281. 147. 111. 240–241. 47. 199. 80. 291. 103. 17–18. 276 honorificâ•… 236. 235 J Japanâ•… 6–7. 204–205. 188. national identity ignoreâ•… 219. 43. 49. 34. 182. 105. 245. 39–40. 284. 150. 235–238. 287. 279–280. 263. 79–91. 262. 224. 262–263. 100–101. 99. 167 hierarchyâ•… 33. 36. 103–106. 252–255. 55. 270 indexâ•… 9. 262. 169. 137. 279–281. 114. 51. 118–119. food identity. 279–281.308 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences healthâ•… 4. 150–152. 120–124. 45. 264. 61. 267. 79–80. 103. 134. 229 hutuu ‘regular. 287. 225. 15. 14. 294 identity protectionâ•… 127 see cultural identity. 38–39. 247–249. 295–296 health valueâ•… 13–14. 294–296 hearingâ•… 5. 9. 172. 170–172. 155. 140– 141. 239 hugâ•… 15. 35. 268. 153–155. 248. 8–14. 43. 245. 249. 279–280. 257 hostâ•… 37–40. 24–25. 186. 172. 114 liminalityâ•… 41. 104. 116–118. 270 see omou ‘(I) think’ (JPN). 108–114. 258 see group . 55. 152–153. 295 O occupationâ•… 104. 280. 70. 11. 170–171 Mexicanâ•… 120. 146 modalityâ•… 131. 15–17. 86. 141. 67. 145–146. 237. 133. 8. 10–11. 248. 296 mutual orientationâ•… 54. 46–50 see trigger pre-beginningâ•…63–65 prestigeâ•… 105. 70. 80. 249. 218–219 punch lineâ•… 185. 147. 136. 226. 216. 7–10. 81. 53–54. 266. 271 non-nativeâ•…14 nonverbalâ•… 3–4. 159. 203. 50 personal experiencesâ•… 11–12. 14. 276 perceptual evidenceâ•… 133. 276. 74 monologic narrativeâ•… 260 moralâ•… 14. 114. Gods/ Spirits . Moslem. 87. 143. 146. 47. Yiddish. 238–242 oisikatta ‘(it) was good’ (JPN) 71–73. 183 nutritionâ•… 6. 69. 275–276 see monologic narrative national identityâ•… 166 naturalisticâ•… 217. 182. 275. 276–277 practicesâ•… 4. 66. 11. 263–264. 81. 171. 150. 178. 121. 196. 155–156 monitorâ•… 60–61. 250–251. 83. 74 opinionâ•… 12. 59. 295–296 see second language MIR Membership Categorization Deviceâ•… 161 mitai ‘like. 165. 282 referenceâ•… 21. 182–183 menuâ•… 65. 186–189. 97. 264. 15. 106. 198. 97. 31. 150. 132. 131. 294–295 peer talkâ•… 257. 145. 241. 52. 6. 188–190. 193. 152. 284. 74. 237. 282. 96. 80. 136–138 performanceâ•… 4. delicious’ (JPN)â•… 9. 17. 66. 11. 154 overall structural organization 10. 114. 177–178. 282 religionâ•… 13. 74 see engagement N narrativeâ•… 16. 17. 219. 199. 101. 257–266. 38. 35. 213. 72. 176 pointingâ•… 9. 205–206 punch line phraseâ•… 197. 248. 23. 52–53. 231. 251. 263. 155. 241. 161. 28. 79–80. 15–17. 276 professionâ•…113 see occupation projectionâ•… 53–55. 96 performative speechâ•… 31 performed cultureâ•… 11. 13–14. 33–40. 172. 135. 63. 79–80. 294–296 pragmemic triggerâ•… 32. 259. 16–17. 204– 206. 16.Subject index 309 memoryâ•… 3. 260. 169. 202. 229–230 potluckâ•… 9. 57. 243 polite dinerâ•… 239 possibilityâ•… 56. 23. 67–68. 134. 258–259. 51 re-contextualizationâ•… 188. 66. 186. 110. 206. 154 see I think. 273–274. 69. 127. 201–202. 52. 239. 139. 79. 60 psychologyâ•… 4. 80. 106. 236. 148. 233–237. 159. 161. 213–214. 273–274. 252–253. 162. 47–51 milkâ•… 13–14. 67. 272 politeâ•… 46. 86. 269–271. 182 pretendâ•… 257–258. 187. 81–83. 282. 132. 211. 135. 147. 16. 84. 279–281. 136–140. 95 omou ‘(I) think’ (JPN)â•… 136. 169 playâ•… 11. 170. 45–46. 219. 214. 135–137. 174 reciprocal relationshipâ•… 193. 16–17. 243 see Islam. 238. 280. 133. 152 pedagogicalâ•… 79. it seems like’ (JPN)â•… 133. 97 openingâ•… 10. 149. 279–282. 53–54 P panopticonâ•… 259 parallel activityâ•… 266 parallel playâ•… 271 participation frameworkâ•… 55 past experienceâ•… 15. 89–90. symbolic play -poi / -(p)poi ‘-ish’ (JPN)â•… 16. 197. 172. 94–97. 63. 206 reciprocityâ•… 43. 270. 162. 172. 79–80. 17. 104. 179–181. 95–97. 292 see final particle nondomesticâ•… 257. 59. 276 see parallel play. 288 pedagogical applicationsâ•… 79 pedagogical implicationsâ•… 97 pedagogical materialsâ•… 80. 14. it looks like. 174. 202. 286. 178. 284. 176. 182. 174. 173–174. 127. 265. 44–45. 263–265. 114. 136–138. 13. 257. 268. 174. 93. 204–205 X mitai na Y ‘Y like X’ (JPN) 178 modal adverbâ•… 133. 48. 190–192. 276. 84. 200. 90–93. 281 micro-analysisâ•…281 Middle Eastâ•… 10. 239. 156. 244 rejectionâ•… 199. think onomatopoeiaâ•… 6. 156. 35. 35. 233. 279–280. 142. 143. 83–87. 43. 261–265. 129 see profession oisii ‘tasty. 13–14. 53–54. 198. 199. 93. 284–296 minority childrenâ•… 284. 186. 15–16. 242. 67. 13. 258–261. 94–95. 103. 271. 97 pedagogical usefulnessâ•… 79 peerâ•… 252–253. 8. 228–229 ne agreement particle (JPN)â•… 58. 72. 227. 100 powerâ•… 105. 140. 59. 152. 16. 99. 14–17. 166. 71. 192. 68. 8. 221 postureâ•… 8. 58. 202. 199 R recipeâ•… 86. 259–260. 133. 213–214. 80 Persianâ•… 3. 56–57. 191 smilingâ•… 16. 233. 220. 17. 69–73. 127. 189. 120. 258. 108. 269–271. 177. 261–262. 63–66. 159–161. 53– 56. 233. 261. 139. 109. it seems like’ (JPN). 126. 58. touch. 240 tellable storyâ•… 185 tellerâ•… 186–188. 211. 10. 8–9. 133. 10–11. 269 subjectivityâ•… 132. 172 . 141–142. 31–33. 249. 43. 282 sharingâ•… 4. 41. 154. 154. 172. 13. 239. 204. 61–63. 264. 131. 45. 173– 174. 205– 206. 131. 121. 126. 234–237. 15. 189–193. 100. 242. 150. 141 stanceâ•… 19. 211–212. 239–241. 23. 178. 257. 17. 57–58. 298 storyâ•… 7–8. 282 shared storyâ•… 185–187 sightâ•… 5. 233. 193. 31. 154. 35. 139 roleâ•… 31–32. 15. 179 see mitai ‘like. 172. 150. 206. 103–104. 141. 160. 267. 269. 205–206 symbolic playâ•… 257 T table mannersâ•… 34. 296 sceneâ•… 31–32. 295 S Santa Clausâ•… 234. 206. 247 ritualâ•… 4. 27. 8. 141. 83. texture. 70. it looks like. 90–91. 31–32. 169 see uti ‘inside. 103. 120 symbolâ•… 17. 9–10. 139. 138. 279–283 see adult socialization. 123. 10–11. 37. 51. 64–66. 11–13. 185–191. 180– 181. 173–174. 128. 16–17. 216. 147. 251 see manners. 167. 245. 74. 181–182. 213. 96–97. 35. 148. in-group’ (JPN) speechâ•… 16. 162. 203 semiotic systemâ•… 55 Senegalâ•… 3. 187–188. 181 repair sequenceâ•… 150. 99. 83–85.310 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences repairâ•… 72. 134. 15–16. 219 see hearing. 282. 260 territoryâ•… 132. 229. 139. 79. 132. 25. 206 style shiftâ•… 257. etiquette tag questionâ•… 148. 118. 51. 154 taster mealâ•… 5. 124. 118–119. 73–74. 245. 217. 262–265. 133. 252–253 squintingâ•… 16. 292 second storyâ•… 199. 199 settingâ•… 14. 234. 271. 79. 37. 152. 16. 199–206. 150. 35 socializationâ•… 4–7. 144–146. 134. 223. visual sensory evidenceâ•… 17 sensory evidentialâ•… 12. 106. 131–132. 84–85. 91. food socialization. 16. 159. 96. 152. 113. 103–104. 90. 216. 266–269 reported speechâ•… 16. 252–253 request for confirmationâ•… 60–61. 12. 110. 259– 261. 257. 212. 56. 204. 193. 185–188. 167. 83. 268. 24. language socialization solicitationâ•…58–61 solidarityâ•… 13. 16. 92. 257–259. 16–17. 52. 154 sequenceâ•… 7. 193. 57. 88. 186. 15. 136–137. 38. 146–152. 15–16. 196–197. 193–194. tellable story storytellingâ•… 7–8. 81. 172–174. 45. 151. 121–122. 134–135. 202–206. 271 scriptâ•… 11. smell. 225. 221–223 restaurantâ•… 3. 69–70. 185–189. 249. 259. 134 summonsâ•… 34. 240–241. 144. 70 supernaturalâ•… 35. poi / -(p)poi ‘-ish’ (JPN) simileâ•… 16. 40–43. 129–130 televisionâ•… 6. 79–81. 154 sensoryâ•… 11–12. 190 second languageâ•… 11. 105. 266. 271 seasonâ•… 9. 144. 16. 182. 206 set phrasesâ•… 48. 16. 226. 199. 49. 74. 101. 172 territory of informationâ•… 132. 235. 79–83. 263–267. 214. 25. 132. 15. 80. taste. 69–70. 89. 144. 172–174. 199. 148. 56. 13–18. expression social activityâ•… 4. 127. 143–144. 96. 61. 43. 185–186. 37. 242. 84. 242. 12–13. 271. 178–180 see difference. 282 soto ‘outside. 296–298 taster lunchâ•… 9. 296 symbol of foreign culture 103 symbolic imaginationâ•… 260 symbolic meaningsâ•… 185–189. 141. 114–115. 16. 118. 148. 132. it seems like’ (JPN). 45. 15. 216. 154. 13. 122. it looks like. 245. 37. sight. 199. 204–206. 218. 274–276 see second story. 160. 11. 51. 66. 199. 136–138. 39. 248. 279 rye breadâ•… 289. 80. 185 tasteâ•… 3–6. 199. 97. 88. 94. 146. 252–253. 148. 173–174 repetitionâ•… 9. mitai ‘like. 167 similarityâ•… 33. 103. 147–148. 86–87. shared story. 120–124. 154 talk-in-interactionâ•… 7. 241. 284. 44–45. 253 scaleâ•… 85. 251. 84. 193. 245 sushiâ•… 3. 94. 236. 204. 251 see disgust face. 257. 96–97 smellâ•… 5. 160. 266 serverâ•… 13. 45. 181. 134–137. 160. 8–10. 213. 89–90. 276. 173–174. 266–267. 17. 262 rewardâ•… 6. 85–87. 38. out-group’ (JPN) 167. 214. 196–200. 64. 243. 89–94. poi / -(p)poi ‘-ish’ (JPN) small talkâ•… 67. 293 response cryâ•… 8. 152. 148. 177. 53–55. 160. 87. 249–250. 245. 204–205. 32. 164. 150. 97. 172. 50. 24–25. 280. 79. 178. 86–87. 50. 89. 131. out-group’ (JPN) Wolofâ•… 3.. 27. 116–118. 233. 114. 247. 204–205. 198. 37. 169 uti ‘inside. 289. 247 W welcomeâ•… 34. 87. omou ‘(I) think’ thresholdâ•… 34. U. 181 see knowing participant unmodulated utteranceâ•… 139 upgradeâ•…116 USâ•… 80. 62–63. 131. 85. 140. 242. 224. 177. 291 voicingâ•… 239. 291 see body movements. 11. 281 see United States. 270. 211–212. 73. 86–87. 295 unfamiliarâ•… 12. 235 see American. 127. 244. 142. 15. U. 216 triggerâ•… 3. 252– 253. gesture. 36. 218–222. 136–138. 50. 14–17. 253 Z Zya(a) ‘then’ (JPN)â•… 50. 193. 122. 121. 85. 195 see soto ‘outside. 48. 291 see I think. 132–133. 228. 26–27. 90. 239. 291. 60–61. 192. 242. 15–16. 49. 43. 83. American U. 53. 234–235. 206. 145–152. 40. 18. 95–97. 81–83. 16–17. 8–9. 28. 154 Turkishâ•… 3. 43. 46–50 see pragmemic trigger truth approximationâ•… 12. 197. 197.S. 11. 261. 89. 241. 159–160. 132. 179.S. 163–164. 125. 49–50. 39. 154. 225. 167. 163. 167. 142. 168–169. 68. 206 understandingâ•… 7. 289. 18. 226–229. 36–37. 16. 154. 97. 45. 56–57. 181 thinkâ•… 12–13. 174. 12–16. 45. 173–174. 283. 200. 162. 45–46. 84 white breadâ•… 288–289.. 27. 192. 10. 213–219. 159–160. 168–169. 16. 9.S. 173–174. 295 X xamu ñu ‘We don’t know’ (WOL) 121 xaw ma ‘I don’t know’ (WOL) 121 Y Yiddishâ•…236 yuckâ•… 14. 73. 223. 135. 27–28. 133. 179. 63. 196. 51. nonverbal verbal labelsâ•… 215–216 see yuck/ eugh visualâ•… 3. 131–132. 59–60. 180–181 see familiar United Statesâ•… 36. 93. America. 257–259. 136. 215– 216. 71. 27. 200. 94. 169. 261. 86. 147.Subject index 311 textureâ•… 6. 11. 215–216. 181. 7. 129–130 V verbalâ•… 3–4. 114. 60. 132. 226–228 see eugh. 120–125. US unknowing participantâ•… 172. 276. 164. 56. 143. 136–137. 247 zya nai ‘isn’t it’ (JPN)â•… 136. 176–177. 37. 103–114. 23. 32–40. 218. 24. 176 touchâ•… 5. 68. 15. 7–8. 154. 190. 185–186. 134. 13–14. 160. verbal labels . 176–179. 118. 179. 197–198. 271. 132. 55.â•… 6. 94–95. 52 tokenâ•… 62. 285 U ubiquityâ•… 185–186. 118. in-group’(JPN)â•… 167. . ger = German. 245–247 disgusting (eng)â•… 211. 237. Food names given all in capitals (e. 213. 170–171. 93–95. 159. 257. 100–101. 262–263. 294 crevette ‘shrimp’ (fr→eeg)â•… 111. 118 * The following abbreviations are used to denote languages and are given in parentheses after each word or expression. fr = French. 81. 291. 284 CRANBERRIES (amer)â•…28 cream (eng)â•… 86.. 221. dan = Danish. 267 artichokes (eng)â•…189–193 aserora ‘acerola (Barbados cherry)’ (jpn)â•…139 as-sukar ‘sugar’ (arab)â•…110 azi ‘taste. 262–263. 146. tiny fish’ (eeg) 118 báxorox ‘tiny fish from the ricefield’ (eeg)â•…118 bentoo ‘box(ed) lunch’ (jpn)â•… 11. pp. seer = Seereer. When words have been derived from another language an arrow (→) indicates the change from the language to the left of the arrow to the language on the right of the arrow. 267–269. 295 bukkaç ‘type of porridge’ (eeg) 121 burikh ‘blessed’ (yid)â•…236 burrito (mex)â•…120 buta no kakuni ‘stewed pork cube’ (jpn)â•…171–172 butter (eng)â•… 48. 108. 86. sen) 16. 235. 193–198. eng = English. 110. 265 chocola ‘chocolate’ (fr→wol) 109 chocolat ‘chocolate’ (fr→eeg) 111–112 chocolate bars (eng)â•…284 CHOCOLATE CUPCAKE (amer)â•… 28.g. 289. eeg = Eegimaa. 265 caramel ‘caramel’ (fr→wol) 117 carrot (eng)â•… 149–150. 125 apple (eng)â•… 238–240. 147 amasugi ‘too sweet’ (jpn)â•…86 AMER COURSEâ•… 112. 273– 274. mex = Mexican Spanish. 90. 268–269 corn (eng)â•… 28. fr→wol→eeg means that the word is an Eegimaa word that was borrowed from Wolof. 275 egg sushi (eng/jpn)â•…69–70 eggplant (eng)â•… 263. 113. 120 C cake (eng)â•… 82–83. 194. 93. 69–70. 144 aziwai ‘flavor sense’ (jpn)â•…83 B BAFIRA ‘Hibiscus juice’ (sen) 28. 282. 235–236. 118. per = Persian. 120. 235. 135. 88. 273 eliñong ‘onion’ (fr→eeg)â•…113 epâte ‘pasta’(fr→eeg)â•… 111. 222–223. 122. 100. 118. wol = Wolof. 117. 97. 245–246.Food names and descriptor index* A ABURAAGE ‘fried tofu’ (jpn) 27. 100. 273 ceebu jén ‘rice and fish (a Senegalese dish)’ (wol) 120–121 cere ‘a type of couscous’ (seer. 135. tur = Turkish. 237–238. 197. lat→ger means that the word is a German word derived from Latin. LICORICE) are foods from the Taster Lunch/ Meal (See Chapter 1. 86. 169–170. 218–219. Appendix B. 237. ful = Fula. 27–28). 263. 135–142. 198. . sen = Senegal. 227. 144–154 banana (eng)â•… 116. 136. 85. 162. 257. 96–97. lat = Latin. 288–289. 226–228. 279. 134. 288 chicken (eng)â•… 28. 28. amer = American. 165–166. 230 diwliin ‘cooking oil’ (wol)â•…112 dorayaki ‘pancake sandwich with sweetened bean paste’ (jpn)â•…162 dunen ‘cooking oil’ (wol→eeg) 112 E E::hh (eng)â•… 152. 225. jpn = Japanese. 206 bread (eng)â•… 48. 154 ebonbong ‘candy’ (fr→eeg)â•…111 egerette ‘peanut’ (wol→eeg) 112 egg (eng)â•… 55. 262. which borrowed it originally from French. 241–242. 215– 216. 263 bañanga ‘tiny fish from salt water’ (eeg)â•…118 barai ‘raifish. e. 91. 93. 164. 124 cheese (eng)â•… 28. arab = Arabic. 196. 20. flavor’ (jpn)â•…90–93. 135. 240 booru ip-pai ‘a full bowl’ (jpn) 193–194. 112 D dessert (eng)â•… 9. 108. 118–120 amai ‘sweet’ (jpn)â•… 9. 100.g. 118 J jam (eng)â•…268 JPN COURSEâ•… 106–108. 90–91. 147–148. 126 MACARONI AND CHEESE (amer)â•… 28. 285–289. 215–216. 190–192. 249. 109. 100. 292–293. 118. 94–95. 100 IWASI ‘pilchard sardine’(jpn) 27. 70 koku ga aru ‘deep taste’ (jpn) 82 kuriiri dorayaki ‘pancake sandwich with sweetened bean paste and chestnuts’ (jpn)â•…162 kuriimu ‘cream’ (jpn)â•… 86. 170–172. 151. 288–289. 36. 27. 134. 240. 110. 93. 262 meat (eng)â•… 101. 294 G gaccinnen ‘preinitiation ceremony’ (eeg)â•…121 gafas ‘shrimp’ (eeg)â•…120 gari ‘ginger’ (jpn)â•…72 garumo ‘traditional ceremony’ (eeg)â•…121 gaway ‘honeycomb. 150. 287. 294–295 K kaki ‘persimmon’ (jpn)â•… 163–164. 218–219. 148. 227. 299 MAFE ‘(chicken) in peanut butter sauce’ (sen)â•… 28. 235. 154. 111–112. 126 juice (eng)â•… 12. 248–249. 131–132. 254 kimchi (kor)â•…166 KINAKOBOO ‘soy flour sticks’ (jpn)â•…27 kinpiragoboo ‘sautéed burdock root’ (jpn)â•… 92. 196–198. 226 moti ‘pounded glutinous rice cake. 110. 178–181 kaori ‘smell’ (jpn)â•… 93. 253. 202–206 inarizusi ‘sushi in fried tofu skin’ (jpn)â•… 91. 146–149 lacciri ‘type of coucous’ (ful) 120 LETTUCE (amer)â•…28 LICORICE DOG (amer)â•… 28. 111–112. 118 hukami ‘flavor depth’(jpn)â•…83 hutuu ‘ordinary’ (jpn)â•… 79. 236. 136. 119. 281–282.314 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences epobar ‘black pepper’ (fr→wol→eeg)â•…112–113 esalat ‘salad’ (fr→eeg)â•…111 etomate ‘tomato’ (fr→wol→eeg) 115 E:u:↓argh:::â•…223 eugh (eng)â•… 14. 222. 246–247. 110– 111. 27. 225. 226 mmm (eng)â•… 8. 100 kohada ‘gizzard shad’(jpn)â•… 62. 237. 47–48. 292–294 mi o motte ‘with one’s own body’ (jpn)â•… 193–194. 118 mælk ‘milk’ (dan)â•…286–287. (honey) comb’ (eeg)â•… 118. 211–212. 221. 95 motimoti ‘elastic (like rice cake)’ (jpn)â•… 82–83. 109. 240. 144–146 karikari ‘crunchy’ (jpn)â•…94–95 katai ‘hard’ (jpn)â•… 80. 255. 196–197 kusamoti ‘sweet red bean paste in mugwort rice cake’ (jpn)â•… 93. 159. 117 lunch (eng)â•… 9. 122. 135. 96–97 huumi yutaka na ‘richly flavored’ (jpn)â•…82 huwa ‘light’(jpn)â•…83 huyuugaki ‘huyuu persimmon’ (jpn)â•…179 I ice cream (eng)â•… 197–198. 121. 14. 108. 46. 135. 139. 297–298 M MACARONI (amer)â•… 28. 126. 272–273 HIZIKI ‘black seaweed’ (jpn) 27. 134–135. 173. rice cake-like’ (jpn)â•… 83. 243. 138–152. 27. 168–169 fork (eng)â•… 19. 135. 284–296. 126. 279–280. 92. 100. 16. 97 . 112–113 gerte ‘peanut’ (wol)â•…112 -goro ‘just ready for Y’ (jpn)â•…83 green beans (eng)â•… 221. 23. 270 freezer (eng)â•…275 fridge (eng)â•…287 see refrigerator fruit yoghurt (eng)â•… 289. 235. 156. 231 F fermented (eng)â•… 149–150. 92. 237 ii desu ‘(I’m) fine’ (jpn)â•… 199–200. 96–97. 263. 111. 18. 99. 152. 263. 240–241. 299 mizutaki ‘vegetables boiled in soup’ (jpn)â•…165–166 mmm (eng)â•… 8. 289–290. 126. 294–295. 206 milk (eng)â•… 13–14. 269–270 gussax ‘beans’ (eeg)â•…121 H halal ‘allowed/ lawful food’ (arab)â•…120 hamburger (eng)â•… 111. 134. 126. 235–237. 93 kawaii ‘cute’ (jpn)â•… 238. 28. 118. 100 L LAAX ‘(white corn) flour pudding with a sweet (yogurt and) milk sauce’ (sen)â•… 28. 28. 154. 222–223. 126 macaroni ‘pasta’ (fr→eeg)â•…28. 194. 221. 292. 266. 135. 160. 151. 284–285. 122. 99 hutuu no X ‘ordinary X’ (jpn) 91. 150 marshmallow cake (eng)â•…265 mashed potatoes (eng)â•… 159. 124. 120 gerette ‘peanut’ (wol→eeg)â•… 25. 219–221. 154. 138. 113. 122. 115–116. 279–282. 226–228. 249–252. 16. 123 SENBEE ‘rice crackers’ (jpn) 27. 178–181. light crunchy sound’ (jpn)â•… 81. 120. 9–10. 199–201 tomate ‘tomato’ (fr)â•…113 TOMATO (amer)â•…28 tomato (eng)â•… 113. 17. 176. 150–151. 178–181 red persimmon (jpn)â•…178–181 refrigerator (eng)â•… 190. 249–252. 274–275 see frige S sake no kaburazusi ‘salmon vinaigrette sandwiched in pickled turnip’ (jpn)â•…88 sakusaku ‘crusty’ (jpn)â•…82–83. 245–246. 221–222 pat ‘readily. 292 SEN COURSEâ•… 108. 168. 118 pâte ‘pasta’ (fr)â•… 109. 79–80. 16. 111. 90–93. beefsteak plant)’ (jpn)â•… 138–143. 96. 95–99. 67. excessively’ (jpn)â•…86 súkar ‘sugar’ (arab→wol)â•…110 sund ‘healthy’(dan)â•… 279. 127 salty (eng)â•… 81. 100. 152 samich ‘sandwich’ (eng)â•…263 sandwich (eng)â•… 111. 262 toro ‘fatty tuna’ (jpn)â•…55 torokeru ‘melting’ (jpn)â•…82 . 222. 292 sinnang ‘cooked rice’ (eeg) 125–126 siokarai ‘salty’ (jpn)â•…81 siratama ‘small dumplings made of rice powder’ (jpn)â•… 92. 170. 13. 268 poivre ‘black pepper’ (fr)â•… 112–113 poripori ‘crunchy. 149–151. 241. 57–58. 100. 112. 15. 145–147 situke ‘manners’â•…249 skimmed milk (eng)â•… 286. 178. 69–70. 149–150. 236 stove (eng)â•… 257. 113. 93. 112. 146–147. 273–274 strawberries (eng)â•…273 sugi ‘too much. 96–97. 290 suppai ‘sour’ (jpn)â•… 91. 165. 262–263. 100. 121. 202. 153 -tate ‘freshly X-ed’â•… 83 Thanksgiving (eng)â•… 160. 236. 135. 289. 61–63. 94–95. delicious’ (jpn)â•… 9. 100 oisii ‘tasty. 139. quickly’ (jpn)â•… 94. 88. 110. 149–151 tappuri ‘plenty’ (jpn)â•… 93–94. 261–262. 294 Swiss cheese (eng)â•…262 syakisyaki ‘lightly crunchy’ (jpn) 94–95 syootyuu ‘distilled spirit’ (jpn) 68 syooyu ‘soy sauce’ (jpn)â•…189–193 syoppai ‘salty’ (jpn)â•…81 T tamagoyaki ‘rolled fried eggs’ (jpn)â•…170–171 Tamxarit ‘New Year celebration’ (wol)â•… 16. 292. 284 oseti-ryoori ‘special dishes for New Year’s Day’ (jpn)â•…169 oyatu ‘snack’ (jpn)â•…236 P parfait (eng)â•…197 paripari ‘crispy’ (jpn)â•…94 pasta (eng)â•… 111. 127 skimmed milk (eng)â•… 284.Food names and descriptor index 315 Mottainai ‘(It’s) a waste’ (jpn) 243. 120. 93–94. 74–75. 53–55. 248 mottiri ‘thick and elastic’ (jpn) 82–83. 113. 128. 97 tarragon (eng)â•… 148. 141–142 sushi (jpn→eng)â•… 3. 282. 108. 120 sweets (eng)â•… 45. 111. 263 san-zi no oyatu ‘three o’clock snack’ (jpn)â•…236 sasimi ‘raw fish’ (jpn)â•…168 sea eel (jpn)â•…69–70 semi-skimmed milk (eng)â•… 284. 83 nexul ‘it’s not good’ (wol)â•…121 nigai ‘bitter’ (jpn)â•…81 O oden ‘fish cake hot pot’ (jpn) 88. 118 peanut butter (eng)â•… 28. 243. 86. 270–271. 286. 154 organic (eng)â•… 82. 97 salat ‘salad’ (fr→wol)â•… 109. 162. 93. 47. 295 sobile ‘onion’ (wol→eeg)â•…112 soble ‘onion’ (wol)â•…112 soft drinks (eng)â•… 284. 294 spaghetti ‘spaghetti’ (fr→wol) 109. 268–269 plate (eng)â•… 27. 235. 100 siromi ‘white fish’ (jpn)â•…59–61 siso ‘shiso (perilla. 94 musiboo ‘fat-free’ (jpn)â•…82 musipan ‘steamed bun’ (jpn) 174. 47. 72. 22–23. 196–197 nattoo ‘fermented soybeans’ (jpn)â•…169 netineti ‘sticky’ (jpn)â•…94–97 netit ‘sticky’ (jpn)â•…94–97 nettori ‘sticky’ (jpn)â•… 81. 108. 111. 238–242 onigiri ‘rice ball’ (jpn)â•…237 onimanzyuu ‘devil bun’ (jpn) 174–176 onion ‘onion’ (fr)â•…112–113 ooba ‘leaf of the beefsteak plant’ (jpn)â•…167–168 Oooh (eng)â•… 148–149. 176 Ñ ñam tubab ‘food of the white people’ (wol)â•…124 ñankatang ‘cooked rice’ (eeg) 120 N nama-kuriimu ‘whipped cream’ (jpn)â•… 194. 124–125 tangy (eng)â•… 91. 90–91. 83 pumpkin pie (eng)â•…159 R red (eng)â•… 45. 60. 169 tikin karaage ‘deep-fried chicken’ (jpn)â•…171 tirasizusi ‘sushi rice with multiple toppings scattered on top’ (jpn)â•… 90. 84. 100 toast (eng)â•… 38. 92. 90. 266. 114–116 X-tate ‘freshly X-ed’â•… 83 Y yakitate ‘freshly baked’ (jpn) 82 yawarakai ‘soft’ (jpn)â•… 93. 178 Y-goro ‘just ready for Y’ (jpn) 83 yoghurt (dan. 93. 159 U UDON ‘noodles’ (jpn)â•… 27. 100. 222. 288–289 vermicelli ‘vermicelli’ (wol) 16. 124. 114–116 wasabi ‘wasabi’ (jpn)â•…59–60. 211–212. 190 whole milk (eng)â•… 284. 126 Ulullumay wawa ‘the white people’s (shrimp)’â•… 120 umami no aru ‘flavorful’ (jpn) 82 umebosi ‘pickled plums’ (jpn) 167–169 urgh (eng)â•… 215. 293–295 X X no azi ‘flavor of X’ (jpn)â•… 91. 225–226 yuk (jpn)â•…215 yuuki ‘organic’ (jpn)â•…82 Z zyuusii ‘juicy’ (jpn)â•…82 . 106. 165–166. 16. 159. 226–228 yucky (eng)â•… 216. 240. 218–222. eng)â•… 110. 219. 235. 96–97 xob ‘leaf ’ (wol)â•…108–109. 154. 162. 166. 168–169. 124–125 W WAKAME ‘green seaweed’ (jpn)â•… 27. 218 usunde ‘unhealthy’(dan)â•…279 V vegetables (eng)â•… 81.316 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences tukemono ‘pickled vegetables’ (jpn)â•…168–169 tukidasi ‘small appetizer’ (jpn) 58 turkey (eng)â•… 47. 289–291. 111–112. 282. 294 Yu::::m::: (eng)â•…270 yuck (eng)â•… 14. 215. 279. 118. 49 Merhaba ‘Welcome’ (tur)â•…45 Nanika okiri-simasu ka ‘Shall (I) cut something (for you)?’(sushi chef) (jpn)â•…58 Oyasumi nasai ‘Good night’ (jpn)â•…50 Prosit ‘May it prove beneficial’ (lat→ger)â•…47 Sar-e shoma dard nakonad ‘May your head not hurt (i.Commensality expressions* Afiyet olsun ‘May you be healthy’ (tur)â•…47 Ahlan wa sahlan ‘Being and health’ (arab)â•…45 Al hamdu li-llah ‘Praise be to God’ (arab. the merciful.g. 73. 272 Hoshgeldiniz ‘Welcome’ (tur)â•…45 Irassyaimase ‘Command your presence!. arab = Arabic. 243. eng)â•…47 Buyurun ‘Command (us)’ (tur)â•…46 Cheers (eng)â•…201 Chin Chin! (eng)â•…47 Danke ‘Thanks’ (ger)â•… 47. . e. per = Persian. lat = Latin. 49 Dast-e shoma dard nakonad ‘May your hand not hurt’ (per)â•…48 Dayman ‘Always’ (arab)â•…48 Dinner (Lunch) is ready (eng)â•…46 Dinner (Lunch) is served (eng)â•…46 Doozo ‘Please/go ahead’ (jpn)â•… 46. It was an honorable feast’(jpn)â•… 49. don’t think about it)’ (per)â•…49 Sayonara ‘Goodbye/Farewell’ (jpn)â•…50 See you soon (eng)â•…50 Shall we move to the living room (eng)â•…49 Shall we take a walk (eng)â•…49 Sherefe ‘(Your) honor’ (tur)â•…48 Sufra dayma ‘May your table always be thus’ (arab)â•…48 Sumimasen ‘Excuse me’ (jpn)â•… 65. lat→ger means that the word is a German word derived from Latin. 245 Güle güle ‘Bye-bye’ (tur)â•…50 Gute Nacht ‘Good Night’ (ger)â•…50 Guten Appetit ‘Good Appetite’ (ger)â•…47 Hajj ‘pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims’ (arab. 73. 66 Tafaẓẓal ‘Oblige (us)’ (arab)â•…45 Teesh ‘May you live’ (arab)â•…48 Teşekür ederim ‘Thank you’ (tur)â•…49 * The following abbreviations are used to denote languages and are given in parentheses after each expression. eng = English. 139. per. jpn = Japanese. yid = Yiddish. 237. 57. 241–242 Enryo-sezu ‘Don’t hold back’ (jpn)â•…204–205 Fi aman Allah ‘(Go) with the protection of God’ (arab)â•…50 Fi sahtek(um) ‘To your health’ (arab)â•…48 Gesegnete mahlzeit ‘Blessed mealtime’ (ger)â•…49 Goodbye (eng)â•… 35. tur)â•…42 Hello (eng)â•… 35. 64.e. ger = German. (I) humbly receive (the food you are offering)’ (jpn)â•… 47. 50 Gotisoosama (desita) ‘Thank you for the food/ drink/ meal. tur = Turkish. 56–57 Itadakimasu ‘(I) will humbly receive. 237 Kanpai! ‘Dry cup’ (jpn)â•…47 Komm gut nach Hause ‘Get home all right’ (ger) 50 Ma’ salama ‘(Go) with peace’ (arab)â•…50 Mahlzeit “‘Mealtime. 80. 45. per) 48 Allahaısmarladık ‘God guide you’ (tur)â•…50 Be salamati ‘To health’ (per)â•…48 Befarma’id ‘Command (us)’ (per)â•…46 Bilhana wa shifa ‘To your happiness and health’ (arab)â•…48 Bis bald ‘Until soon’ (ger)â•…50 Bis später ‘Until later’ (ger)â•…50 Bismilla ar-rahman ar-rahim ‘In the name of God. Time to eat’ (ger)”â•…46–47. When words have been derived from another language an arrow (→) indicates the change from the language to the left of the arrow to the language on the right of the arrow.. the compassionate’ (arab)â•…47 Bitte! ‘Please’ (ger)â•…46 Bon appétit! ‘Good appetite’ (fr. Welcome’ (jpn)â•… 45. later’ (jpn)â•…50 . 48 Zya mata ‘Well. 37. 84 Wilkommen! ‘Welcome’ (ger)â•…45 Xoda hafez ‘God protect’ (per)â•…50 Xosh amadid ‘You arrived happily’ (per)â•…45 Zum Wohl ‘To health’ (ger)â•… 47.318 Language and Food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences To your health (eng)â•…47 Welcome (eng)â•… 34. 56–57. 45. Documents Similar To Language and FoodSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextThe Linguist Blog BookThe Politics of Identity John Smyth Critical Pedagogy for Social Justice Critical Pedagogy Today 2011A Critical Pedagogy of ResistanceBowles & Edwards, Understanding Capitalism 3rd EditionThe Behavioral Economics Guide 201683063295 Prostitutes Amp Courtesans in the Ancient WorldEmber-Concepto de CulturaWhistling Vivaldi_ How Stereoty - Steele, Claude MSchooling in Capitalist America - Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life - Samuel Bowles and Herbert GintisHenry Giroux PedagogyMisbehaving the Making of Behavioral EconomicsCulture Matters How Values Shape Human ProgressCritical PedagogyMore From phalangchokSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextPragmatics in Speech and Language Pathology. Studies in Clinical Applications 9 to 68Framework for Task-Based LearningLanguage and Food BookLanguage Teaching MethodologyFooter MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK

Comments

Description