Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Assessment Identifies Morphosyntactic Deficits in Mono- and Bilingual Children with Developmental Language Disorder
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role Classifiers Play in Selecting the Referent of a Word
Previous Article in Journal
Even Simultaneous Bilinguals Do Not Reach Monolingual Levels of Proficiency in Syntax
Previous Article in Special Issue
Acquisition of the Epistemic Discourse Marker Wo Juede by Native Taiwan Mandarin Speakers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Revisiting the Modal Verb huì with an Interactional Linguistic Approach

Department of Asian Languages and Cultures, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
Languages 2022, 7(4), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040294
Submission received: 1 April 2022 / Revised: 23 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 21 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Research on Chinese Morphology)

Abstract

:
This study takes an interactional linguistics and conversation analysis-based approach to analyze the modal verb huì ‘will’ in the recurrent formular of commissive actions, [wǒ huì X (de)] ‘I will X.’ Data analyses show that this format has two variations differentiated by the prosodic stress on huì. The format with the unstressed huì is often observed in turn-initiating position where the speaker offers to perform a future action or informs the recipient of their arrangement of an established activity. The format with the stressed huì appears in both initiating and responding positions although it is less frequently observed. Stressed huì is often used to reassure the recipient of an existing commitment to performing a future action. This study highlights the significance of prosody in the study of modal verbs and the benefits of studying individual words in a linguistic formula situated in specific interactional contexts.

1. Introduction

Social interaction is a multimodal process where participants utilize multiple layers of semiotic resources including verbal, vocal, visual behaviors; sequential location; and even physical environments, to interact with each other and at the same time accomplish social actions such as making a request or a proposal (Goodwin 2000, 2013; Kendon 2004; Enfield 2009). Traditional approaches in linguistics have progressed the understanding of human languages and social interaction tremendously, but many results were based on constructed sentences, written discourse, or spoken language generated in a lab environment that is highly conceptualized and context-free (Tao 1996; Ford and Thompson 1996; Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2017). Given the complexity of multimodality and sequential context, findings in these traditional studies might not be applicable to natural conversations. Without considering other aspects of social interaction, it is also difficult to answer questions such as how social interaction is achieved with limited verbal resources, how participants know the timing of turn-taking, and how stances and emotions are displayed through non-verbal channels.
Informed by discourse-functional grammar (Chafe 1980; Du Bois 1980; Hopper and Thompson 1980) and conversation analysis (Schegloff 2007; Sidnell and Stivers 2012), interactional linguistic researchers study linguistic resources in the context of conversation sequences and social actions, or “grammar in interaction“(Ford and Thompson 1996; Thompson et al. 2015). One of the prominent topics that attracts a growing interest is prosody in natural conversations. Suprasegmental prosodic features including pitch, loudness, and duration are observed to perform crucial interactional functions such as turn-taking and sequence organization (See Couper-Kuhlen and Selting’s (2017) online chapter E, Prosody and Phonetics). Regarding Mandarin conversations, Tao (1996) challenges the traditional view on grammatical structures in Mandarin and argues that intonation unit is the basic unit in Mandarin conversation.
This study applies an interactional linguistic methodology to investigate how prosodic stress and morphosyntactic forms co-construct social actions in naturally occurring Mandarin conversations. Specifically, I study what type of commissive actions are performed when the modal verb huì is stressed and unstressed in the format [wǒ huì X (de)]1. In what follows, Section 2 reviews previous research on the modal verb huì, social action format, commissive actions, and prosody in conversation. Section 3 introduces data and methodology of this study. Section 4 presents the result of the analysis. Section 5 provides a discussion on social interaction, followed by a concluding remark.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Modal Verb Huì

Huì is a common modal verb in Mandarin Chinese with two widely recognized usages: expressing ability (Ex 1) and indicating possibility (Ex 2). Following Palmer’s (2001) modality system, previous studies in Chinese linguistics have categorized the former as dynamic modality and the latter as epistemic modality (Lv 1979; Zhou 1989; Tang 1979; Tiee 1985; Ding 1979; Tsang 1981; Hsieh 2002; Peng 2007). In addition to the two widely recognized usages, there are discussions concerning other meanings of huì, including its function as a marker of future tense (Chen 2020; Wang 1947), its habitual use in sentences where an event happens habitually as the consequence of certain conditions (Lamarre 2016; Fan 2016), and its promising use that conveys the speaker’s voluntary commitment to perform a future action (Hsieh 2002; Peng 2007; Ma 2014; Chen 2020). The discussion is especially heated regarding the promise use of huì. Huang (1999) and Peng (2007) argue that statements such as Ex 3 place the speaker under an obligation to perform the named future action. They believe that when the speaker and the agent of the future action is also the subject of the sentence, huì should be considered a marker of “personal deontic.” Ma (2014) agrees on the promise meaning of huì but classifies huì as a dynamic modality marker that indicates the subject’s willingness to perform the named future action. Hsieh (2002) considers huì as a subtype of epistemic modality because huì expresses the speaker’s assertion about the future action that they will perform. Some scholars claim that the promise sense of huì stems from the first-person pronoun subject and the agentive verb rather than being the function of huì itself (Xu 1992; Lu 2002).
Ex 1 Ability (dynamic modality) (Lv 1979)
会不会
nǐhuìbuhuìchàngzhège
2sgcan-not-cansingthisCLsong
‘Can you sing this song?’
Ex 2 Possibility (epistemic modality) (Peng 2007)
将来总厂选拔肯定
jiāngláizǒngchǎngxuǎnbá, kěndìnghuìyǒunǐ
futuregeneralselection,definitelywillexist2sg
‘You will be selected in the future general selection for sure.’
Ex 3 Promise use (Huang 1999; as cited in Peng 2007)
吧,我们第一名
nǐděngzheba, wǒmenhuìkǎodìyīmíngde
2sgwaitPRGPRT1plwilltestthe firstPRT
‘Just wait. We will get the first rank in the exam.’
Categorizing and disambiguating different meanings of modal verbs, like the studies above, has been the typical line of research in modality systems across languages. However, this approach overlooks the intertwined relationship among the different modalities at diachronic and synchronic levels. Cognitive linguistic studies have found that different meanings of the same modal verb tend to be closely associated due to their diachronic grammaticalization process. Most languages follow the path of grammaticalization from root modality (deontic and dynamic) to epistemic modality (e.g., Coates 1983; Bybee et al. 1994; van der Auwera and Plungian 1998). For example, the modern-day English modal verb will developed from its Early Modern English usage of first-person intentions, willingness, and promises, to its current meaning of future and prediction (Bybee 1988; Coates 1983; Bybee et al. 1994). As a result of the diachronic development, multiple meanings of the same modal verb often co-exist in a synchronous environment, especially in natural conversations where various linguistic and contextual factors interact with each other. Regardless of the disagreement on its grammaticalization path (Zhou 1989; Jiang 2007; Fan 2016; Chen 2020), huì can display multiple modality meanings in the same utterance, such as intention and volition (dynamic modality), commissive and obligations (deontic modality), and agentivity and future tense (Chen 2020). Therefore, in natural conversation, it is problematic to categorize huì into a single modality category as such categorization inevitably neglects the possibility of other modal meanings.
This study investigates the modal verb hùi in the context of social action format, explores the sequential environments where the format [wǒ huì X (de)] occurs recurrently and the social actions performed in those environments, including not only promising but also other actions that indicate the speaker’s commitment to accomplishing a future action.

2.2. Social Action Format and Commissive Actions

Since the proposal of speech act theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969), researchers in various fields have been exploring how speakers “do things” with language (Austin 1962). Interactional linguists and conversation analysts approach this issue by investigating how speech acts, also termed as social actions, such as requests and assessments are formulated and ascribed by interlocutors in natural conversation (Schegloff 2007; Levinson 2012). Primary factors considered in this line of research include sequence organization–whether it’s an initiative action or a response to a previously initiated action (Stivers 2012); designs of conversation turns–including linguistic formats of individual turn constructional units (TCU) and nonverbal resources such as gaze and gestures; and social relationship dynamics such as epistemic authority (who has the right to know and knows more, see Heritage and Raymond (2005)), beneficiary relationships (who is the agent and who is the beneficiary of the action, see Clayman and Heritage (2014) and Couper-Kuhlen (2014)), entitlement and deontic relationships (who has the right to determine the future event either through requests or commitment, see Curl and Drew (2008); Stevanovic and Peräkylä (2012)). Among these aspects, linguistic formats of social actions and their interaction with other factors in action formation and ascription are attracting increasing interest among interactional linguists whose studies have also contributed to the understanding of typology and universals of actions in world languages (Floyd et al. 2014).
Social action format is a recent innovation in studying grammar in social interaction (Goodwin and Goodwin 1992; Fox 2007). It is recognized that some language formats are recurrently used to perform a certain type of action as opposed to other action types, and recipients of such utterances can recognize and respond to these actions accordingly (Couper-Kuhlen 2014). The idea of recurrent formats in action formation aligns with previous linguistic notions such as constructions in construction grammar (Fillmore 1988) and formulaic expressions in usage-based functional grammar (Bybee and Hopper 2001). What distinguishes social action format from others is that it sees grammar as contingent on the sequential environment and simultaneously sets constraints for the subsequent turn of talk (Sacks et al. 1974). For example, Curl and Drew (2008) find that request formats with modal verbs such as Can you and Could I show the speaker’s high entitlement to make the request and little consideration of contingencies on the requestee’s end; by contrast, I wonder if prefaced requests orient to contingencies and show a low entitlement to make the request. Thompson et al.’s (2021) recent study finds that speakers of English use recurrent grammatical formats–let’s, why don’t we, modal declaratives, and modal interrogatives–for proposals in joint activities based on the recipient’s disposition to accept the proposal in the conversation.
Commissive actions refer to those that commit the speaker to a future course of action in various degrees (Searle 1969, 1976), such as promising and offering. The combination of first person-pronoun and modal verbs (e.g., Ex 4, I will, I shall) has been observed as a common format used to display the speaker’s commitment to performing a future action (Houtkoop-Steenstra 1987; Maynard 1990; Lindström 1999, 2017; Thompson et al. 2015), which is consistent with findings in speech act theory and functional linguistics (Austin 1962; Coates 1983; Bybee et al. 1994). Couper-Kuhlen’s (2014) study on directive-commissive actions (e.g., proposal, offer, request, and suggestion) in English especially provides a framework to analyze various factors in social action formats, including subjecthood, interrogativity, conditionality, modality, and imperativity.
In Mandarin Chinese, observations made on commissive actions mainly focus on the morphosyntactic resources of promising (Peng 2007; Dong 2010), such as performative verbs (e.g., Ex 7), time references (e.g., Ex 6), modal verbs (e.g., Ex 4), and adverbs (e.g., Ex 5). Among these, implicit forms, such as time references and adverbs are more common than explicit forms, such as performative verbs in Mandarin (Dong 2010; also see Searle’s (1969) discussion on implicit and explicit commissive speech acts).
Ex 4 Modal verb
帮助的 (Dong 2010)
wǒhùibāngzhùnǐde
1sgwillhelp2sgPRT
‘I will help you.’
Ex 5 Adverb
一定你 (Peng 2007, p. 23)
wǒyídìngbāngnǐ
1sgdefinitelyhelp2sg
‘I will definitely help you.’
Ex 6 A combination of an adverb and a time reference
明天一定来 (Dong 2010)
wǒ-míngtiānyídìnglái
1sgtomorrowdefinitelycome
‘I’ll definitely come tomorrow.’
Ex 7 A combination of a performative verb and an adverb
保证犯 (Dong 2010)
wǒbǎozhèngjuézàifàn
‘I promise that I will not make the same mistake anymore.’
Some scholars argue that the first-person pronoun, action verbs/verb phrases, and the particle de collaboratively contribute to the expression of commitment (or promises) when used with the modal verb huì (Xu 1992; Shi 1994; Lu 2002). In other words, [wǒ huì X (de)] might be a recurrent social action format of commissive actions in Mandarin conversations. A systematic analysis, therefore, is necessary to understand not only the modal verb huì but also the commissive actions in Mandarin conversations.

2.3. Prosody, Intensifying Emphasis, and Informational Focus

Prosody is a crucial component of social interaction and is found to contribute to various aspects of conversations. For example, stress-signaled beats are considered useful metrics for English speakers to manage turn-taking and turn organization (Couper-Kuhlen 2004; Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2017; Local and Walker 2004); topic-shifting is often projected by a high-pitch onset (Couper-Kuhlen 2003; see Wang and Xu (2011) for observations in Mandarin)); and an increased pitch and loudness often signals surprise and astonishment in German (Selting 1996).
Although there is no direct correlation between prosody and social actions, researchers find that prosodic designs can affect action formation and ascription through interacting with lexical-syntactic designs (Selting 1996; Walker 2010; Local and Walker 2004) and other contextual factors in conversation (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2017). Couper-Kuhlen (2012), for instance, points out that polar questions that are usually produced with a rising intonation can function as news receipts when designed with a falling intonation. Another example is the responsive token oh. Heritage (1984) refers to oh as a “change-of-state” token that acknowledges the receipt of new information. Later studies report oh does more than “change-of-state”: when produced with a rising-falling contour, an extra high pitch, and longer duration, oh displays “surprise” (Reber 2012); when delivered with a reduced pitch and loudness, oh displays “disappointment” (Couper-Kuhlen 2009).
Intensifying emphasis (IE) is an example of how prosody operates on the lexical level. It features longer duration, greater intensity, pitch prominence, and longer voice onset time for plosives (Niebuhr 2010; Ogden 2012). It is frequently found on numbers, quantifiers, and extreme case designs to present noteworthy information in upgraded assessments and other actions such as complaining and storytelling (Niebuhr 2010; Ogden 2012).
Another related concept is informational focus from information structure theory. Informational focus is a type of focus–the prominent part of a sentence compared to other elements (Bolinger 1958; Lambrecht 1994) that is used to mark the message that the speaker wants to be interpreted as new information (Halliday 1967; Chafe 1976; Xu 2004). Informational focus operates on information structure, which represents the speaker’s assumptions about the hearer’s state of knowledge (see more discussions on information structure and different types of focus in Lambrecht (1994) and Li (2009)). Information focus can be classified into broad informational focus and narrow informational focus (Li 2009). Focuses can be realized by prosodic prominence, syntactic constructions (e.g., cleft construction), and morphological markers (Féry and Ishihara 2016) in different languages. In Mandarin, the cleft constructions [shì…dōu] ‘is’ and [lián…yě…] ‘including…all/also’ (Shyu 2014) are common syntactic devices used to mark focus. Prosodic means of focused syllables in Mandarin include longer duration, higher mean intensity, and magnified pitch contour (Chao 1968; Shen 1993; Wang and Xu 2011; Chen et al. 2016). The overall intonation pattern of informational focus in Mandarin shows a tri-zone pitch range control that consists of little change before the focus, expansion under the focus, and compression after the focus (Xu and Xu 2005), which is consistent with observations of informational focus in other languages.

3. Data and Methodology

The dataset of this study includes 42 h of telephone conversations in the CALLHOME and CALLFRIEND corpora and 12 h of face-to-face conversations among friends and family. Collected by the Linguistics Data Consortium in the 1990s, the CALLHOME and CALLFRIEND corpora consist of telephone conversations between native speakers of Mandarin Chinese between North America and various locations overseas (Canavan and Zipperlen 1996; MacWhinney and Wagner 2010). The face-to-face conversations were recorded by the researcher during the summer of 2019 in mainland China. The two subsets can represent naturally occurring Mandarin conversations in everyday life.
The current study adopts a two-step procedure to identify the target [wǒ huì X(de)] format. In the first step, the search command combo +s"我^*^会^*" *.cha was used in the corpus processing program Computerized Language ANalysis (CLAN, MacWinney (2000)) to generate an exhaustive list of strings that begin with the first-person singular pronoun and contains the modal verb huì. This search command allows the search results to include other elements (such as time references and modal adverbials) between and huì, as well as the particle de. A total of 121 word strings in the telephone subset and seven strings in the face-to-face subset were matched in the first step.
In the second step, some clear cases of non-commissive string were excluded manually, including fifty-three cases in which huì is used as “meeting” or the subject is not a first-person pronoun (e.g., Ex 9 and Ex 8), two cases (from the same conversation) that do not have a predicate following huì, eight cases that have first-person pronoun but express the speaker’s ability (all from telephone conversations, e.g., Ex 10), and twenty-seven cases that express the speaker’s epistemic certainty (possibility; all from telephone conversations, e.g., Ex 11).
Cases of ability and epistemic possibility are identified and excluded based on criteria discussed in previous studies, especially by Coates (1983) and Peng (2007). Specifically, the ability cases focus on the speaker’s skills (e.g., Ex 1 and Ex 10); and the epistemic possibility cases focus on the speaker’s judgment or prediction of a future event. In some cases, the distinction between epistemic and commissive use could be ambiguous, such as in Ex 11. The current study takes modal expressions such as dàgà ‘probably,’ kěnéng ‘maybe,’ and wǒ juéde ‘I think’ as major indicators of epistemic possibility and treats the utterances as a whole unit expressing how certain the speaker is toward the possible occurrence of the future event. For example, Ex 11 focuses on the speaker’s judgment of the possibility that he works “there.” The epistemic modals ‘I think’ and ‘probably’ downgrade his certainty of the future event.
Ex 8 Second-person pronoun
可能过几天收到
nǐkěnéngguòjǐtiānjiùhuìshōudàowǒdexìn.
2sgmaybein.a.few.daysas.soon.aswillreceive1sgNOMletter
‘You may receive my letter in a few days.’ (Callhome_0110)
Ex 9 “meeting”
星期五开完去.
wǒxīngqīwǔkāiwánhuìwǒzàiqù.
1sgFridaycompletemeeting1sgnot.untilgo
‘I will go after having my meeting on Friday. ‘(Callhome_1359)
Ex 10 Ability
英语呢.
wǒháihuìshuōyīngyǔne.
1sgevencanspeakEnglishPRT
‘I can even speak English! ‘(Callhome_0667)
Ex 11 Possibility
大概那里工作.
wǒxiǎngdàgàihuìzàinàligōngzuò.
1sgthinkprobablywill attherework
‘I think {I} will probably work there.’ (Callhome_0754)
The two-step procedure results in thirty-six candidate cases of commissive actions performed by the format [wǒ huì X (de)]. Note that the goal of the two-step screening procedure is to compile a collection of candidate cases of commissive actions performed by the format. The screening is by no means one hundred percent accurate, given the lack of sequential analysis. Based on the basic-level transcripts provided by CALLHOME and CALLHOME corpora, cases in this collection were transcribed or re-transcribed following CA conventions (Hepburn and Bolden 2012) with some adjustments recommended by Lee et al.’s (2017) for Mandarin data. The transcription symbols can be found in the Appendix A and Appendix B.
As a crucial component of this study, prosodic analysis is conducted using the software Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2022). Stressed syllables are identified based on criteria including a wider pitch range, a lengthened duration, and a higher intensity value (Chao 1968; Shen 1990, 1993; Jin 1996; Li 2002), among which pitch range and duration are used as primary indicators (Shen 1990; Li 2002). Statistical analyses are used to test whether the three prosodic parameters differ significantly between the stressed and unstressed cases of huì. Informational focus coincides with the prosodic prominence of the utterance signaled by an enlarged pitch range and longer duration on the focused item and a suppressed pitch range on the following words (Gårding 1987; Jin 1996; Xu 1999; Li 2009).
Interactional linguistics and conversation analytical methods, as well as information structure theory, are used to analyze the collected cases. Specifically, I investigate sequential position–whether the commitment is produced as a response to a prior action or an initiating action, the turn design of the commissive actions, and the recipient’s next-turn response (Stivers and Sidnel 2012; Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2017).

4. Result

4.1. An Overview of the Format with the Stressed and Unstressed Huì

A close investigation of the collection reveals that the [wǒ huì X (de)] format has two variations based on whether huì is stressed or not, and the variations are observed in different sequential environments. This section presents an overview of the prosodic features of stressed huì and unstressed huì, followed by their distributions in different commissive actions and sequential positions. Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 present the sequential analyses of examples from each type.

4.1.1. Prosodic Features of the Stressed and Unstressed huì

By measuring the duration, pitch range, and mean intensity of the commissive huì and comparing them to those of the surrounding syllables, twenty-eight cases with unstressed huì and eight cases with stressed huì are identified. Ex 12 and Ex 13 are examples of the two variations of huì. Although the two extracts are produced by two speakers with different voice quality and pitch ranges, the prosodic analyses provide evidence for the presence or absence of prosodic prominence on huì.
In Ex 12, A and B are talking about her graduation plan. B has mentioned that she is moving to a different state for work. A seeks confirmation about B’s graduation time in lines 01 and 02, and B informs her specific plans through lines 03 to 08. The target format [wǒ huì X (de)] is used in line 06.
Ex 12 Callfriend_4227 Graduation
01A:不是说-十月份 (.)月份毕业.
nǐbúshishuō-dàoshíyuèfèn(.)jǐyuèfènbìyè.
2sgNEG-issaytillOctoberwhichmonthgraduate
‘Didn’t you say that you will {graduate} in October? Which month {will you} graduate?’
02十月份吗.
shíyuèfènma.
OctoberQ
‘{Is it} October?’
03B:但是我-现在论文,
dànshìwǒ-wǒxiànzàishìzàixiělùnwén,
but1sg1sgnowisPROGwritedissertation
‘But I am currently writing my dissertation,’
04然后我:
ránhòuwǒ:
then1sg
‘and then I’
05B:.h啊:.
.h a:.
INT
‘Mm:’
06 →八月中旬过去上班:
bāyuèzhōngxúnwǒhuìguòqùshàngbān:
Augustmid1sgwillgo.overgo.to.work
In mid-August, I will go there and start working.
07然后回来答辩就对了.
ránhòuwǒzàihuílaidábiànjiùduìle.
then1sgagainreturndefendPRT
‘And then I will come back to defend {my dissertation}.’
08然后就是说(.)十二月份应该可以毕业.
ránhòuwǒjiùshìshuō(.)shíèryuèfènyīnggāikěyǐbìyè.
then1sgDMDecembershouldcangraduate
‘And then I mean, I should be able to graduate in December.’
09A:^哇::了. (x)
^wa::nǐtàibangle. (x)
INT2sgtooawesomeCRS
‘Wow! You are awesome!’
10B:yeah, yeah.
11知道啦,
zhīdàola.
NEGknowPRT
‘{I} don’t know.’
12我们看着办就对了.
wǒmenkànzhebànjiùduìle.
1plfigure.outPRT
‘We will figure it out.’
Figure 1 shows the waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 06 in Ex 12 where huì is produced without stress.
As shown in Figure 1, the time phrase bāyuè zhōngxún ‘mid-August’ has the highest pitch and longest duration, which is consistent with the previous findings that a new topic or sequence tends to be produced with a high onset (Couper-Kuhlen 2003). This expression of time is also the narrow informational focus of the utterance that the speaker orients to deliver to the recipient. The next pitch peak of the utterance is noticeably on guò, the first syllable of guòqù ‘go over there’ (286 Hz), which also has the largest pitch range of 91 Hz, the highest intensity of 77.9 dB, and the duration of 240 ms. In contrast, the modal verb huì is produced with a relatively lower mean intensity (70.9 dB, compared to the mean intensity of the utterance 73.2), shorter duration (183 ms, compared to the 229 ms average duration of a syllable in this utterance), and more importantly a reduced pitch range (27.5 Hz). Considering that both huì and guò are falling tones produced adjacently in the same utterance, huì is noticeably unstressed with lower values of pitch range, duration, and intensity.
In Ex 13, the son (SON) promises his father (DAD) that he will go back home. Huì is stressed in both line 01 and line 03.
Ex 13 Callhome_0848 “I will go back (for you)”
01SON:→反正我:尽快会:回去一趟.
fǎnwǒ:jǐnkuàiHUÌ:huíquyìtàng.
anyway1sgas.soon.as.possiblewillreturnonce
‘Anyway, I will go back as soon as possible.’
02你们放心吧.
nǐmenfàngxīnba.
2plno.worry PRT
‘You should not worry.’
03[我尽][会回] 去的.
[jǐn]kuàigěinín[HUÌhuí] qude.
1stas.soon.as.possiblefor2sgwillreturnPRT
‘I will go back {for you} as soon as possible.’
04DAD:[哎. ] [对对.]
[ai. ] [duì duì.]
INT rightright
‘Okay. Right, right.’
Figure 2 shows the prosodic features of line 01. Huì is produced with an audibly extended duration (258 ms) compared to other syllables in the sentence (140 ms per syllable). Huì is also produced with an expanded pitch range (45.05 Hz). In terms of intensity, huì is produced louder with a peak intensity measure of 77 dB and a mean intensity measure of 72.52 dB, which is slightly higher than the mean intensity of the sentence (71.27 dB).
A comparison of pitch range, duration, and mean intensity of the two tokens of huì in Ex 12 and Ex 13, and the values of these indicators of the surrounding falling syllables are shown in Table 1. In Ex 13, huì is produced with a noticeable expended pitch range and longer duration, compared to the proceeding syllable kuài. In contrast, huì in Ex 12 is produced with reduced pitch range, duration, and mean intensity compared to the succeeding falling syllable guò.
Descriptive and analytical statistic tests are conducted to test whether the acoustic parameters of stressed and unstressed huì are significantly different across the collected cases.
As the first step, boxplot, the Shapiro–Wilk normality test, and the F-test are used to identify the distribution of the two categories of huì. Results of the Shapiro–Wilk normality test show that the two samples are not normally distributed in terms of pitch range (p-value = 0.4426 for the stressed group and p-value = 0.004802 for the unstressed group), therefore the non-parametric two-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test is used to compare the pitch range parameter. The two samples are normally distributed in terms of duration (p-value = 0.133 for the stressed group, and p-value = 0.201 for the unstressed group). However, their variances are significantly different (p-value = 0.001119), hence the Walch two-sample t-test is used to compare the duration parameter (Good and Pennebaker 2012; Gries 2021). Lastly, the two groups are both normally distributed (p-value = 0.7693 for the stressed group and 0.359 for the unstressed group) with a similar variance (p-value = 0.4121) in terms of mean intensity3; therefore, Student’s t-test is used to compare the mean intensity parameter.
Figure 3 shows that the distribution of pitch range in the two categories is not normal, and the variances are quite different. The median pitch range of stressed huì is 41.8 Hz (IQR = 51.6), whereas the median pitch range of unstressed huì is 23.3 Hz (IQR = 33.8). The Wilcoxon test showed that the difference between the two samples was significant with a moderate effect size (p-value < 0.05, effect size r = 0.35).
Figure 4 shows that the duration of the two categories is more normally distributed but the variances are significantly different. The mean of duration of stressed huì is 235 ms (sd = 73.7), whereas the mean duration of unstressed huì is 145 ms (sd = 30.8). The two-sample Walch t-test is used since it is more robust to unequal variances and outliers. The result showed that the difference between the two samples was significant (p-value < 0.05).
Figure 5 shows that the two categories of huì have a normal distribution in mean intensity with a similar variance, which meets the assumptions of the Student’s t-test. The mean of the mean intensity of stressed huì is 67.4 Hz (sd = 6.65), and the mean of unstressed huì is 66.9 Hz (sd = 5.39). The Student’s t-test results showed that the two samples are not significantly different (p-value = 0.87). However, this result does not invalidate the prosodic prominence of stressed huì since intensity is not the primary indicator of prosodic stress in Mandarin.
Despite the variances of voice quality and pitch ranges among different speakers of both genders in natural conversation, the statistical analysis results presented above show that across the collected cases, stressed huì is produced significantly more prominent than unstressed huì in terms of pitch range and duration.

4.1.2. Distribution of Stressed and Unstressed huì in Sequences

In the current collection, the unstressed huì is predominantly observed in initiating position with only two exceptional cases. The stressed huì is found in both initiating and responding position. Table 2 shows the distribution of the two variations in different positions and social actions.
Among the twenty-eight observed cases of unstressed huì, six of them are found in initiating position as the speaker offers to perform a future action for the interest of the recipient, and twenty of them are used when the speaker informs the recipient of an arrangement of an established future activity. Only two cases are found in responding position, both of which are used to claim agency with a stressed self-referential pronoun zìjǐ ‘self.’
The functions of the [wǒ huì X (de)] format with the unstressed huì in initiating position can be explained by information structure. When huì is unstressed, an informational focus lands on other parts of the turn, i.e., the X part, where the speaker delivers the new information. The information could be (1) the future action as one whole piece of information (broad informational focus in Ladd (2008)), which often consists of simple verb phrases, or (2) a specific information of the established future activity such as a time expression in a more complex verbal phrase of X (narrow informational focus in Ladd (2008)). In the former case, the particle de are often observed cooccurring with huì to display the speaker’s certainty towards the future action, which is consistent to the observation in previous studies (Li et al. 1998; Xu 2008). In the latter case, de is often absent in the [ huì X (de)] format4 since the speaker orients to informing the arrangement of the future activity as a narrow informational focus.
The stressed huì is observed less frequently (8 out of 36) than the unstressed huì (28 out of 36) in the current dataset, and it is more evenly distributed in initiating (4 out of 8) and responding position (4 out of 8). When huì is stressed, the speaker’s strong commitment to perform the named future action is emphasized. Informational focus is no longer available to be placed on other items. In this environment, the [wǒ huì X (de)] format reassures the recipient of the speaker’s commitment to performing a future action that has been promised but not fulfilled. This includes (1) commitment made to fulfill an obligation existing before the current conversation and (2) commitment made to reassure the recipient of a granted request, which is a response to the recipient’s pursuit. Additionally, the stressed huì is also found in responding position to claim the speaker’s agency.
The above results shows that the format with the unstressed huì is significantly more common than the stressed huì in the current collection. Moreover, a two-tailed Fisher’s exact test was conducted to determine if there was a significant association between sequential position–initiating or responding–and the stress on huì. The p value equals 0.0144, indicating that the association is statistically significant. A possible account for this result is that speakers make arrangements more often than reassurance of commitment/promises in everyday life, and the result might be different in registers where reassurances of commitment are expected more frequently such as in political discourse.
In what follows, I present the sequential analyses of each category, including their subcategories.

4.2. Unstressed huì: Offering or Informing an Arrangement of an Established Activity

The variation with unstressed huì is often used in informing the recipient of the speaker’s my-side arrangement of a future activity, which could be (1) the speaker’s offer to perform a future action for the recipient’s benefit, or (2) the speaker’s arrangement of an established activity that needs the recipient’s attention or cooperation.
In Ex 14, four kids are playing a board game. Lele plays a dominant role in the group’s daily interactions5 and has been winning this game for a few rounds. This extract starts at the beginning of a new round of the game where everyone just received their cards and Lele reveals his role as the monarch who has to kill other roles to win the game. While others are busy organizing their cards, Lele initiates a strong commitment in line 06 without a request from anyone, ‘I will let you survive more rounds.’ The commitment is not responded to–neither accepted nor rejected–by anyone. By making this commitment, Lele displays his understanding that the other players would prefer to survive more rounds in the game and expect him to kindly keep them alive for a longer time, which presupposes Lele’s dominant agency in determining the future activity and in this game.
Ex 14 00071_0945 ‘I will let you survive several more rounds’
01Lele:呀.
aya, yayaya. ((exclamation))
INTINTINTINTINT
‘Oh/Wow.’
02Niman:看见.
wǒzhèméikànjiàn.
1sgthistimeNEGsee
‘I didn’t see {it} this time.’
03Zili/lele:二:三:
èr:sān:
onetwothree
‘One two three.’
((Zili and Lele are counting the number of cards that another player draws from the deck))
04Niman:其实[自己知道自己什么牌.]
qíshíwǒ[zìjǐzhīdàozìjǐshìshénmepái.]
actualy1sgselfalso NEGknowself iswhatcard
‘Actually I’ don’t know what cards I have either.’
05Zili/lele: [四::(.)五: ]
[sì:: (.)wǔ:]
four five
‘four five’
06Lele:→你们活-
wǒ:huìgěinǐmenhuó-
1sg will let 2pl live
‘I will let you live’
回合的.
duōhuójǐhuíhéde.
more liveseveralCLroundPRT
‘live more rounds.’ ((gazing at another player))
Figure 6 shows the waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity contour of line 06 in Ex 14. Multiple prosodic features indicate that huì in this utterance is not produced with a prosodic prominence: the duration of huì (177 ms) is not longer than the surrounding syllables (, 231 ms; gěi 184 ms); the pitch range of huì (43.4 Hz from the highest pitch to the lowest pitch) is not significantly higher either (gěi is produced with a rising pitch contour with a higher pitch range of 71.1 Hz); the mean intensity of huì (71.8 dB) is only slightly higher than the following gěi (70.1 dB).
In Ex 15, the speaker offers to benefit a third-party using the [wǒ huì X(de)] format with an unstressed huì. The two speakers, mom (MOM) and son (SON), have just discussed a relative’s plan to immigrate to a foreign country. It is indicated in the earlier part of the phone call that the mom contacted this relative, Shuanglin, frequently, and she is the one who launches this topic. The son, who lives in the U.S., is more knowledgeable about the immigration process and starts providing information and suggestions. In line 03, MOM reports her plan to tell the relative (the son’s cousin) this information, ‘I will tell Shuanglin.’ The promise shows that MOM treats informing the relative of this important information as a responsibility of hers, and this understanding is shared by the son as he responds “uh right’ in line 04, followed by another piece of advice for the cousin. In other words, the two speakers have established a common ground that the information will be delivered to the relative by the mom after the call, and the mom’s promise confirms this expected commitment.
Ex 15 Callhome_1393 ‘I will tell Shuanglin’
01SON:他们可能就是这样政策.
tāmenkěnéngjiùshìzhèyàngzhǒngzhèngcè.
3plmaybejust.isthisoneCLpolicy
‘Their policy {in Canada} is just like this,’
02美国没有政策. hhh.
měiguóméiyǒuzhǒngzhèngcè.hhh.
U.S.don’t.have thatCLpolicy
‘The U.S. doesn’t have such a policy.’
03MOM:→告诉-告诉霜林一下.
wǒhuìGÀOsu-gàosushuānglínyíxià.
DM1sgwill telltellNAMEbriefly
‘In that case, I will tell Shuanglin.’
04SON:呃: 对:.
e:duì:.
INTcorrect
‘Uh, right.’
05如果她:如果加拿大的话呢:
rúguǒtā:rúguǒjiānádàdehuàne:
if3sgifgoCanadaPRTPRT
‘If she, if {she} goes to Canada,’
06那么:可能是不是- (..)
name:kěnéngshìbushì- (..)
DMmaybeis-not-is
‘Then maybe, is it {that}’
那么可能机会就-
namekěnéngjīhuìjiù-
DM3sg alsomaybeopportunityjust
‘then she might also {get more} opportunities’
一些就是了.
jiùduōyìxiējiùshìle.
justmoresomeDM
‘{there will be} more opportunities.’
07MOM:嗯.
en.
INT
‘Yeah.’
08(0.2)
09MOM:(.)家里那些啊.
ai(.)jiālǐnàxiēyàoa.
INT home those medicinePRT
‘Okay. Regarding the medicine at home,’
Figure 7 shows that the prosodic stress of this utterance is placed on the first syllable of the verb gàosu ‘to tell,’ which embodies the pitch peak (242.6 Hz), high pitch range (41.6 Hz), the highest intensity (78.2 dB), and the longest duration (323 ms). That is, in this example, huì does not demonstrate prosodic prominence with a highest pitch of 225.4 Hz, a pitch range of 23.3 Hz, a maximum intensity of 73.1 dB, and a time duration of 163 ms.
When the speaker adds more details to the future action, such as time expressions, the [wǒ huì X (de)] format is used to inform of the speaker’s arrangement of an established future activity. In terms of turn design, the particle de is dropped in these situations and an emphasis might be added to the informational focus of the utterance–the details of the arrangement. Similar to the phenomenon of my-side telling in Pomerantz (1980), information expressed with [wǒ huì X] tends to be the speaker’s my-side arrangement of the future activity known by both participants, which makes a confirmation or agreement relevant in the recipient’s next turn.
In Ex 16, the daughter (DAU) has been telling her mom (MOM) about her summer schedule. In line 02, the daughter informs the mom that ‘I will call you on that weekend.’ The format with an unstressed huì is used in this environment as this arrangement is part of her summer schedule, which has been established in the prior conversation. The mom does not respond to this informing action until after a one-second-long silence. Noticing the silence, which often signals problems of the prior turn and projects dispreferred actions, the daughter provides an account for the arrangement in line 07, ‘because Leinuo has not called for a while.’ In line 09, the mom agrees with the arrangement (‘uh, ok ok ok, no problem’). The further expansions through lines 11–17 provide additional evidence that the daughter’s my-side arrangement orients to seek the recipient’s confirmation on the future activity.
Ex 16. Callhome_0735 ‘I will call you on that weekend’
01DAU:然后(.)那儿(在)-
ránhòu(.)wǒzàinàr(zài)-
then 1sg at thereagain
‘And then {in} there I {will}-‘
呃:可能星期:
uh:kěnéngshìxiàxiàxīngqī:
uhmaybeis nextnextCLweek
‘uh, maybe the week after next week, ‘
中间week-个: (.)^周末.
zhōngjiāngeweek-ge: (.)^ZHOUMO.
middle that CLweek that CLweekend
‘that weekend in the middle {of the month,’
02 →你们打电话.
wǒhuìgěinǐmendǎdiànhuà.
1sgwillto2plcall
‘I will call you.’
03(1.0)
04MOM:呃.
uh.
INT
‘Uh’
05CHL:个.
xiàxiàgè.
NEXTNEXT CL
‘The week after next week.’
06MOM:[下个- ]
[xiàxiàgè-]
nextnextCL
‘Next next‘
07DAU:[因为那时候 ]雷-
[yīnwèinàshíhou ] léi-
becausethat.timeNAME
‘Because at that time, Lei-’
因为雷洛[久打] 电话了.
yīnwèiléiluòhǎo[jiǔméi] diànhuàle.
becauseNAMElong.timeNEGmakephonecallCRS
08MOM: [嗯行, ]
[ēn xíng, ]
INTokay
‘Hmm, okay,’
09MOM:(.) 没事.
uhxíngxíngxíng(.)méishì.
INTokayokayokay no.problem
‘Uh, Okay, no problem.’
10(0.8)
11DAU:吗:
xíngma:
okayQ
(Is that) okay?
12MOM:
uh.
INT
Uh.
13DAU:[末.]
xiàzhōu[mò.]
nextCLweekend.
‘Next weekend.’
14MOM: [行]行,
[xíng]xíngxíng,
INTINTINT
‘Okay, okay, okay./That works.’
15(0.2)
16DAU:[吗:]
xíng[ma:]
okayQ
‘{Is that} Okay?’
17MOM: [哎] 可以.
[ai ]kěyǐ.
INTokay.
Yeah, {that} works.
DAU’s orientation to informing her arrangement is also displayed in the prosodic design of her turn in line 02. As shown in Figure 8, the prosodic prominence of this line is placed on zhōumò ‘weekend,’ rather than huì. With a wider pitch range (316.2 Hz), higher mean intensity value (66.1 dB), and longer duration (588 ms) compared to other parts of the utterance (the highest and lowest pitch of wǒ huì gěi nǐmen dǎdiànhuà ‘I will call you’ is 340.5 Hz and 73 Hz, respectively; the mean-energy intensity is 61.7 dB; and the speech rate 128 ms per syllable), the time expression zhōumò is the pitch peak (423 Hz) and narrow informational focus of the utterance. In other words, what is emphasized in this utterance is not the commitment to perform but how to perform, which can be seen as an alert to the recipient so that they can be prepared accordingly. Huì is not produced with audibly prominent stress with an average time duration of 128 ms, and its mean intensity is lower than that of the whole clause (60.4 dB).
[wǒ huì X (de)] with unstressed huì in the above examples highlights that the future activity has been established or expected prior to the current talk and displays the speaker’s understanding of the recipient’s expectation in the irrealis world. In cases where no specific information is included in the utterance and the particle de is present, the speaker adopts the format [wǒ huì X de] with the unstressed huì to initiates an offer to perform the future action, which at the same time assures their commitment expected to the recipient. In the environment where details of the future action such as time expressions are emphasized as the narrow informational focus and the particle de is dropped, the speaker orients to inform about a my-side arrangement of the established future activity and seeks a confirmation or an agreement from the recipient.
The function of huì in the format becomes especially salient when compared to commissive actions performed by simple declaratives without huì, such as line 02 in Ex 17 and lines 04 and 05 in Ex 18. Both conversations occur between same gender friends.
In Ex 17, B has mentioned writing to A prior to this segment. In line 01, A accepts the earlier proposal, and in line 02 B commits to the letter-writing activity with a response format matches A’s utterance: a same response token as A, xíng ‘okay’ and a simple declarative, ‘I write a letter to you.’ In the third TCU of her turn in line 03, B makes an arrangement with the modal verb huì. Considering the information structure of B’s utterances, B’s commitment in line 02 is made to a new activity, whereas the arrangement in line 03 is based on the assumption that the letter-writing activity has been established in the previous sequence (lines 01–02).
Ex 17 Callfriend_0111 ‘I will write a letter to you’
01A:过来吧.
xíngnǐjiùxiěxìnguòlaiba.
okaythen 2sg justwriteletteroverPRT
‘Okay, you can just write a letter to me.’
02B: 行 (.)把- 信.
xíng (.)wǒbǎ-wǒgéinǐxiěfēngxìn.
okay1sgBA1sgto2sgwriteCLletter
‘Okay, I will write a letter to you.’
03 →然后
ránhòuwǒxìnlǐhuì
and.thenIatletterinsidewill
‘And inside the letter, I will’
什么东西你.
xiěxiēshénmedōngxigéinǐ.
writeCL somethingto2sg
‘write something to you.’
In Ex 18, A and B are talking about business cooperation opportunities with another company. A makes a request in line 01, ‘Could you go ask {them} again’. B’s response in lines 04 and 05 are both declarative sentences without the modal verb huì. Unlike line 03 in Ex 17 and other examples, B makes the commitment to perform a future action that is just requested in the question-answer sequence. In other words, it has not been established or expected before the current course of talk.
Ex 18 Callfriend_0756 ‘I’ll go ask.’
01A:你(.)能不能-
zhègenǐ(.)néngbunéng-
thisCL2sgcan-not-can
‘{Regarding} this, could you-‘
能不能一下.
néngbunéngzàiwènyíxia.
can-not-canagaingoaskbriefly
‘could you go ask {them} again?’
02B:好.
hǎo.
okay
‘Okay.’
03A:看看.
kànkàn.
looklook
‘Take a look.’
04B:→我-一下.
-wǒwènyíxa.
1sg1sggoaskbriefly
‘I’ll go ask.’
05 →一下.
aiwǒláiwènyíxia.
INT1sgcomeaskbriefly
‘Yeah, let’s me ask.’
06A:还- 你-对.
hái--duì.
also2sgright
‘Also- you- right.

4.3. Stressed huì: Reassuring an Existing Commitment

Unlike previous examples where the speaker uses the unstressed huì in offering or informing my-side arrangement of an established activity, the [wǒ huì X (de)] format with stressed huì is used to reassure the speaker’s commitment to an existing obligation or a granted request where a higher degree of commitment is due.
When the speaker has not fulfilled an existing obligation and the interlocutor shows an understanding that the action is not likely to happen in the future, the speaker initiates a promise with stressed huì to reassure their commitment to performing the future action. In the following Ex 19 (the same conversation as Ex 13), the son (SON) has been living in the United States for many years and is not able to take care of his parents back home, which violates the traditional value of “filial piety” in Chinese culture. In lines 01–06, the dad (DAD) launches a pre-sequence telling regarding the content of a letter he has sent to the son, which is a discussion on the possibility for the son to return to China. In lines 07–08, the dad informs that son does not need to go back home if he is occupied with work in the States. Dad’s practice in these two lines can be seen as an account he offers to the son for his unavailability, ‘you should prioritize your job.’ This account not only shows his current understanding that the son is not likely to go back home but also licenses the son to disregard the existing family obligation. In line 11, the son initiates a promise to visit his parents, ‘I will go back as soon as possible,’ which is partially repeated in line 14 with an additional sentence-final particle de. As shown in Figure 2 presented in Section 4.1, the first occurrence of huì is audibly stressed. The son’s promise here rejects the account offered by the dad and reassures his commitment to fulfilling the family obligation. The dad’s response in lines 15 and 16, duì duì, duì ‘Righ, right,’ ‘right’ is a positive assessment of the son’s promise, indicating his preference of having the son back home. The account for the preference is provided in lines 18 and 20.
Ex 19 Callhome_0848 ‘I will go back for you as soon as possible
01DAD:不是不是:七月二十号- 二十一号
búshinǐgexìnbúshi:qīyuèèrshíhào-èrshíyīhào
is.not2plthatCLletteris.notJuly20th-21st
‘Isn’t it that the letter {I sent} on July twenty-second, twenty-first,’
信:收到嘛.
gexìn:shōudàolema.
that CLletter receivePFVQ
‘{you} have received that,’
02SON:[嗯.            ]
[en.            ]
INT
Yeah.
03DAD:[.h完了就]是信.
[.hwánlejiù]shìgěinǐlefēngxìn.
finish just.isto2sgsendPFVCLletter
‘{It’s} just that I sent you a letter.’
04SON:[mm hmm?]
INT
mm hmm.
05DAD:[发了 ]说了说就是::
[le ]fēngxìnnegēnnǐshuō-le-shuōjiùshì::
sendPFVCLletter PRTwith2sgsay.brieflyDM
‘{I} sent you a letter, and told you {in the letter} that’
06.h回家事.=
.haihuíjiādeshì.=
INT return.home NOMthing
‘{Regarding} coming back home,’
07=回家 的话 (.) 自己:
=huíjiāshìdehuà (.)nǐkànnizìjǐ:
return.homethingDM2sgsee2sgself
‘Regarding coming back home, you should decide by yourself,’
08.h工作为主吧.
.haiyǐnǐgōngzuòwéizhǔba.
INTas2sgworkas.priorityPRT
‘Uh, you should prioritize your job.’
09SON:mm hmm.
INT
mm hmm.
10DAD: [啊, ]
[a, ]
INT
‘Okay?’
11 SON:→[反 我: ] 尽快会: 回去一趟.
[fǎn wǒ:],jǐnkuàiHUÌ:huíquyìtàng.
anyway 1sgas.soon.as.possiblewillreturnonce
‘Anyway, I will go back as soon as possible.’
12你们放心吧.
nǐmenfàngxīnba,
2plno.worry PRT
‘You should not worry.’
13DAD:[哎. ]
[ei. ]
INT
Okay.
14 →[我尽] [会回]去的.
[]jìn]kuàigěinín[HUIhuí]qude.
1sgas.soon.as.possiblefor2sgwillreturnPRT
‘I will go back for you as soon as possible.’
15DAD: [对 对. ]
[duì duì. ]
right right,
‘Right, right.’
16对.
duì.
right
‘Right. ‘
17SON:[到时候- ]
[dàoshíhòu-]
by.then
‘By then,’
18DAD:[因为 ]呢:
[yīnwèi ]wǒne:
because1sgPRT
‘Because I’
反正因为生病了.
jiùfǎnzhèngyīnwèi:rénlǎoleshēngbìngle.
justany.waybecausepersonoldCRSsickCRS
‘{I’m} old and got sick,’
19SON:[mm hmm,]
INT
mm hmm.
20DAD:[所以 ] (.)
[suǒyǐ ]zǒngxiǎngne(.)
thereforealwaysthink PRT
‘So {I} have always been thinking’
好像亲人(.)能够能够:
hǎoxiàngqīnrénne(.)nénggòunénggòu:
as.iffamilyPRT cancan
‘if my family can, can,’
.hh 呃:看一看什么的.
.hhe:kànyikànashénmede.
INTvisitPRTlike.that
‘uh, visit {me}, or something like that.’
Stressed huì is also found in the responding position where a request has been granted but the unsatisfied requestee pursues a promise with a higher degree of commitment. In these environments, the speaker reassures the recipient of their commitment to the granted action, displays their agency in the future events, and indicates that the interlocutor’s pursuits are not necessary. Ex 20 is such an example where the daughter (DAU) reassures her dad (DAD) of her commitment to a request that she has granted.
Ex 20 Callhome_0003_004500 ‘I will write a letter’
01DAD:如果有空那个啊.
nǐrúguǒyǒu kòngnàgea.
2sgifhave.timethatPRT
‘If you have time,’
02DAU:哎.
ai.
INT
‘Yeah.’
03DAD:一春叔叔啊.
gēnyìchūnshūshua;
withNAMEunclePRT
‘(To/with) Uncle Yichun,’
04DAU:啊.
a.
INT
‘Yeah?’
05DAD:一春啊.
yìchūna.
NAMEPRT
‘Yichun,’
06DAU:哎.
ai.
INT
‘Yeah.’
07DAD:一春叔叔信.
yìchūnshūshuxiěfēngxìn.
NAMEunclewriteoneCLletter
‘Write a letter to Uncle Yichun’
08 感谢一下.
gǎnxièyíxià.
thankbriefly
‘Thank him.’
09DAU:一春吧.
o.yìchūnshìba;
INTNAMEisPRT
‘Oh, is it Yichun?’
10台湾[的吧.]
zàiTáiwān[deshìba.]
inTaiwanNOMis PRT
‘{The one} in Taiwan, right?’
11DAD: [哎,: ]
[ai,]
INT
‘Yeah.’
12哎,:对.对.
AI,:duì.duì.
INTrightright.
‘Yeah, right, right.’
13DAU:直接台湾吧.
zhíjiēxiědàoTáiwānshìba.
directlywritetoTaiwangoisPRT
‘Write directly to Taiwan, right?’
14DAD:哎,:对: (.)对.
AI,:duì.(.)duì.
INTrightright.
‘Yeah, right, right.’
15DAU:哦:.h下回来-
o:.hnǐxiàhuílai-
INT DM2sgnext-time come-
‘Oh, then next time when you come-’
下回写信时候
xiàhuínǐxiěxìndeshíhou
next-time2sgwrite-letter NOMtime,
‘next time when you write back to me,’
地址告诉 一下
bǎdedìzhǐgàosuwǒyíxià
BA3sgNOMaddresstell1sgbriefly
‘tell me his address,’
好不好.
hǎobuhǎo.
good-not-good
‘okay?’
16(0.8)
17DAU:我-[我知道有没有]地址.
wǒ-[zhīdàowǒzhèyǒuméiyǒu] dìzhǐ.
1sg1sgNEG know1sg herehave-not-have address
‘I don’t know if I have {his} address.’
18DAD:[哦下一次 告诉你. ]
[ò xiàyícìwǒgàosu. ]
INTnext.time 1sg tell2sg
‘Oh, next time I’ll tell you.’
19(0.8)
20DAD:好.
aihǎo.
INTokay
‘Okay.’
21DAU:好的.
hǎode.
okay
‘Okay.
22.h[你-]
.h[-]
2sg
‘You-’
23DAD: [我]上次-
[]shàngcì-
2sg last.time
‘Last time, I’
是::回去碰到嘞.
wǒzhèshì::huíqupèngdàolelei.
1sgthistimeisreturnencounter3sgCRSPRT
‘I saw him this time when I went back.’
((4 lines omitted. The speakers confirm that Yichun was there.))
24DAD:还:给 (.)那个:嗯:.h阿娘
hái:háigěi (.)gěigěinàge:en:.h ā’niāng
evenevenforforwithDMmm grandma
‘{He} even accompanied us to {send your} grandmother’s {coffin}’
送葬送到山上了.
sòngsòngzàngsòngdàoshānshàngle.
sendsend.coffinsend.to mountain goCRS
‘to {the grave on} the mountain. ((traditional Chinese burial customs))’
25嘞.
lelei.
3sgalsogoCRSPRT
‘He also went.’
26DAU:真的啊.
ZHENdea.
ReallyPRT
‘Really?’
27DAD:[哎哎.]
[aiaiai.
INTINTINT
‘Yeah, yeah, yeah’
28DAU:[哦::. ]
[o::. ]
INT
‘Oh.’
29 →好的有空会: 的.
hǎodewǒyǒukònghuì:xiěxìnde.
DMokayDM1sghave.timewillwriteletterPRT
‘Okay, {in that case} I will write a letter when I have time.’
30DAU:.h下 [回]要是-
.h nǐxià [huí] yàoshi-
2sgnext.time if-
‘Next time if you-’
31DAD: [哎.]
[ai.]
INT
‘Yeah.’
32DAU:时候
xiěxìndeshíhou
writeletterNOM time
‘When you write to me,’
地址告诉一下好不好.
bǎdìzhǐgàosuwǒyíxiàhǎobuhǎo.
BA address tell1sgbrieflygood-not-good
‘tell me the address, okay?’
33DAD:哎 哎 [好].
ai aihǎohǎo[hǎo].
INT INT okayokayokay
‘Okay, okay, okay.’
34DAU: [那]直接过去.
[] wǒjiùzhíjiēxiěguòqù.
DM 1sg justdirectly writeover
then I’ll write there directly.
35DAD:好.
enahǎo.
INT INTokay
‘Yeah, {that’s} good.’
In lines 01 to 08, the dad (DAD) requests his daughter (DAU) to write a letter of gratitude to a relative who lives in Taiwan on behalf of him. Lines 09–12 are an inserted sequence (Schegloff 2007) in which the two participants resolve a recognition issue because the daughter is not familiar with this relative (‘the one in Taiwan, right?’). Lines 13–14 are another inserted sequence but used to clarify the requested action (‘Write directly to Taiwan, right?’). Lines 15–17 are yet another inserted sequence initiated by DAU who claims, “not knowing the address” and requests DAD to tell her next time. Note DAD refers to the relative using his name in his initial request, treating the name as recognizable to DAU. DAU does recognize it as she identifies the referent with the location ‘Taiwan’ in line 10. DAU’s ‘Okay’ in line 21 is ambiguous: it can be understood as the third-turn response in the question-answer sequence of lines 15 to 20; it can also be seen as granting DAD’s request in the very beginning in lines 01–08. In lines 23 to 24, DAD tells an anecdote of this relative being nice to the family, which serves as an account for his request in line 01. Accounts are often made in request sequences to pursue a preferred next action from the recipient and sometimes to remediate face damages if produced after the recipient had complied with the request (Taleghani-Nikazm 2006). DAD’s account in this turn functions to pursue the granting of his request, hence treating the three inserted sequences in lines 09–17 as a delay that projects a dispreferred response. DAU registers the anecdote as new information (zhēnde a ‘really’ in line 26 and ao in line 27) and makes a promise in line 29 with a stressed huì, ‘then okay, (in that case) I will write a letter when I have time.’ This promise displays her commitment and agency to the future action and indicates that no more pursuit is necessary. Note after this promise, DAU redoes her request for the relative’s address (line 32) and makes another promise after DAD grants her request, ‘I’ll write there directly’ (line 34). These practices further upgrade her agency on the matter by redirecting the conversation to the position where DAU can initiate a promise rather than responding to DAD’s request.
As Figure 9 shows, huì in line 29 is stressed with a prolonged duration (244 ms, compared to 184 ms/syllable in the utterance) and a pitch peak (383 Hz, compared to 312 Hz average pitch of this utterance). The prominent prosodic features display the speaker’s agency and commitment towards the granted action.
A special type of commitment observed in everyday conversation is where a commitment is made to the recipient, but it benefits the speaker themselves. The variation of the [wǒ huì X(de)] format with stressed huì is used in these cases to mark the speaker’s agency over the future action. In the following example Ex 21 the son (SON) just had a heated discussion with his mom about his wife prior to the segment. The mom disapproves of her daughter-in-law’s behavior and requests the son to “educate” his wife. In the current extract, the dad (DAD) just took over the telephone and starts talking to SON. In line 02, DAD proposes to change the topic ‘(we can) talk about (that) later,’ but SON insists on continuing the current topic with the preface, ‘I just (want to) tell you’ in lines 03 and 04, and makes a promise using the [huì X(de)] format with stressed huì, ‘I will tell (her)’ (line 08). The following turn constructional unit, wǒ yǒu shù ‘I know (what’s going on),’ asserts his primary knowledge of the matter and provides an account for the proceeding promise. Stevanovic (2021) finds that epistemic authority can be a resource for deontic authority–the right to decide each other’s future actions–in joint decision-making activities. In the current conversation, SON integrates his epistemic primacy to claim agency over his own action and displays resistance to the parents’ interference in his relationship with his wife.
Ex 21 Callhome_0913 ‘I will talk to her’
01DAD:不要紧哎.
búyàojǐnai.
doesn’.matterPRT
‘It doesn’t matter,’
02[以后 再-             ]
[yǐhòu zài-             ]
later again
‘{We can} talk about {that} later.’
03SON:[我讲- ]
[jiùgēnnǐjiǎng-]
1sg just with 2sg talk
‘Let me just tell you-’
04[就 ](.)
wǒ[jiù ]gēnnǐjiǎng(.)
1sg justwith2sg talk
‘let me tell you’
05DAD: [哎.]
[ai.]
INT
‘yeah?’
06SON:这个(.)
zhègea (.)
this3sg PRT
‘She,’
张毅事情(.) 这边[有-]
zhāngyìzhèshìqing(.)wǒzhèbiān[yǒu-]
NAME thisthing 1sg herehave
‘regarding issues with Zhangyi, I-’
07DAD: [哎.]
[ai.]
INT
‘Yeah.’
08SON:→我-(.)^会讲.
wǒ -(.)^HUIjiǎng.
1sg will talk
‘I will talk {to her about the issues}.
09[数.]
wǒyǒu[shù.]
1sg have-idea
‘I know {what’s going on.}’
10DAD: [呃]好.
[e] hǎohǎohǎohǎo.
INT goodgoodgood good
‘Oh, {that’s} good, {that’s} good.’
Figure 10 shows that the modal verb huì is produced with prosodic prominence as the pitch peak of this turn constructional unit6 (notice the pitch step up at the onset of huì with a maximum pitch value of 420.3 Hz), a wider pitch range (32.2 Hz, compared to 9.6 Hz of the following syllable, jiǎng). Huì is also produced with a higher intensity value (maximum intensity 79.5 dB and mean-energy intensity 76.6 dB) as demonstrated by the dark area of the spectrogram compared to the surrounding syllables (the maximum intensity value of the following syllable jiǎng is 70.5 dB, and the mean-energy intensity value of it is 67.2 dB).
The [wǒ huì X (de)] format with stressed huì in general is used to reassure the recipient of an existing commitment. It is observed in environments where the speaker has an unfulfilled pre-existing obligation or when the recipient has explicitly pursued a higher degree of commitment to the requested future action. In both situations, the recipient enters the current stage of conversation with an understanding that the speaker is unlikely to perform the desired future action. Such an understanding is displayed in the interactional space through direct and indirect requests and accounts. Given this context, the speaker orients to reassure the recipient that they are fully committed to the named action, therefore no more further pursuits are necessary. In addition, the format with stressed huì is used to resist the recipient’s interference on the speaker’s own business and to claim agency towards their future activities.

4.4. Summary

Drawing on social action format, intensifying emphasis, and informational focus, this study investigated how prosodic stress operates on the modal verb huì in the format [wǒ huì X(de)] and enables the conversation participants to perform different types of commissive actions. As illustrated in Table 2, the two variations of the format are observed in different sequential environments. The format with unstressed huì is recurrently observed in initiating position where the speaker (1) offers to perform a future action expected but unrequested by the recipient or (2) informs a my-side arrangement of an established future activity. The format with stressed huì is often used to reassure the recipient of the speaker’s commitment to a future action, either in initiating position due to an obligation existing prior to the on-going conversation or in responding position where a higher degree of commitment to a granted request is pursued by the recipient.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Morphosyntactic devices such as the modal verb huì have long been observed to perform interpersonal functions in language (Halliday 1978). What less discussed is how these functions are realized in natural conversation. The current study analyzed huì in the context of a recurrent commissive action format and discovered that the same format can perform different social actions when produced with and without prosodic stress. The empirical findings are limited to the particular format, but they lead to broader implications for understanding natural conversations.
First, prosody plays a crucial role in producing and recognizing social actions. Although there is no one-on-one relationship between prosodic features and social actions (Couper-Kuhlen 2012), researchers of other languages have also reported the important role of prosody (Reber 2012; Couper-Kuhlen 2009; Selting 1996). Observations made in the current Mandarin conversational data contribute to the discussion by investigating a less studied language.
Second, this study highlights the importance to take into consideration of information structure in studying actions in social interaction. The information structure of an utterance represents the speaker’s assumptions about the recipient’s knowledge at the time of the utterance (Lambrecht 1994), and informational focus is a means to establish common ground in relation to the current status of propositions among conversation participants (Chafe 1976; Clark 1996). Given the fact that informational focus is often realized by sentential prominence and coincides with prosodic stress (Shen 1990; Li 2009), it is crucial to examine how information structure may affect the prosodic design and other aspects of social actions.
Third, social interaction is fundamentally a collaboration of multiple modes of communication. Kendon (2004) describes an utterance as the ensemble of speech and gestures, and Goodwin (2013) uses the metaphor of lamination to describe the multiple layers of semiotic resources in interaction. Morphosyntax, or prosody and other resource alone is insufficient to understand social interaction. By revisiting the modal verb huì in Mandarin conversations with an interactional linguistic approach, this study hopes to call attention to study naturally occurring Mandarin conversations and to investigate prosody and other the non-verbal resources in future studies.

Funding

This study was supported by a Harry and Yvonne Lenart Graduate Travel Fellowship (UCLA).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of California, Los Angeles (IRB#19-001337, 8/9/2019) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed oral consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The telephone call conversational data presented in this study are openly available on Talkbank.org at doi:10.21415/T54022 and doi:10.21415/T5R38Z. Video recorded face-to-face conversational data are collected with participants’ informed oral consent and managed by the researcher privately.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Transcript conventions
target line
,rising to mid final pitch movement
.falling to low final pitch movement
?rising final pitch movement.
^pitch step up
-cut-off
=latching
[ ]overlap
°the utterance is produced very weak
hhhlaughter
.hhinhale
(.)micro-pause
(1.0)measured pause of approximately 1 second.
huì::prolongation
HUIprimary, or main stress
((XX))unintelligible syllables in pinyin line
((arms))gestures or transcriber’s notes
{ }information added in the free translation

Appendix B

Gloss conventions
1plfirst person plural
1sgfirst person singular
ASSassociative
ATTattributive
BAba structure
CLclassifier
CRScurrent relevant state (le)
DMdiscourse marker (e.g., na, nage, nishuo)
EXPexperiential marker (guo)
NEGnegator
NOMnominalizer (de)
PFVperfective aspect (le)
PRTparticle
Qquestion particle (e.g., ma)
INTinterjection (e.g., ai, ya, o, en)

Notes

1
X represents a predicate that consists of a verb or a verb complex. This formulation is an abstraction of various forms of commissive actions that consists of a first-person singular pronoun, the modal verb huì, and a verb or a verb complex. It also includes cases with and without the utterance-final particle de and other adverbial elements between and huì.
2
In this example, the mean intensity of the proceeding syllable kuài is slightly higher than the stressed huì. However, mean intensity is not the primary indicator of prosodic prominence, especially when there is a noticeably expanded pitch range and lengthened time duration.
3
A separate set of statistical tests were conducted to compare the three prosodic features between male and female speakers. Results of the two-sample Wilcoxon rank sum exact test show that the pitch range of huì in the female group (median = 49, rqr = 45.6) is significantly higher than in the male group (median = 13, iqr = 22.7), p-value = 0.000835. The duration and mean intensity of the two groups are not significantly different. Although further analyses are necessary, gender differences, among other acoustic differences in the natural speech produced by different speakers, might be the reason why the three prosodic features of stressed and unstressed huì are not normally distributed or significantly different in their variances.
4
While a separate investigation is necessary to fully understand the particle de in the [wǒ huì X (de)] format, the current study focuses on huì.
5
Ethnographic observation conducted by the author.
6
The pitch trace proceeding huì is caused by the cut-off and the ensuing glottal stop after in the same line and is unintelligible.

References

  1. Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2022. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Available online: http://www.praat.org/ (accessed on 7 October 2021).
  3. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1958. Stress and information. American Speech 33: 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Semantic Substance vs. Contrast in the Development of Grammatical Meaning. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 13–15; pp. 247–64. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, Joan, and Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, vol. 45. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Canavan, Alexandra, and George Zipperlen. 1996. CALLFRIEND Mandarin Chinese-Mainland Dialect LDC96S55. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Available online: https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC96S55 (accessed on 30 May 2021). [CrossRef]
  8. Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic. Edited by Charles N. Li. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, Wallace L. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood: Ablex. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, Yiya, Peppina Po-lun Lee, and Haihua Pan. 2016. Topic and Focus Marking in Chinese. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structures. Edited by Caroline Féry and Shinichiro Ishihara. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, Zhenyu 陈振宇. 2020. 再说 ‘会’ [Hui Revisited]. 世界汉语教学 [Chinese Teaching in the World] 1: 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2014. Benefactors and beneficiaries. In Requesting in Social Interaction. Edited by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Paul Drew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, vol. 26, pp. 55–86. [Google Scholar]
  15. Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. [Google Scholar]
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2003. On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Universitat Antònoma de Barcelona, pp. 119–22. [Google Scholar]
  17. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2004. Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Amsterdam, pp. 335–76. [Google Scholar]
  18. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of ‘Disappointment’. In Talk in Interaction-Comparative Dimensions. Edited by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso and Jan Lindström. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, pp. 94–123. [Google Scholar]
  19. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Edited by Jan P. de Ruiter. Language Culture and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24: 623–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2017. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41: 129–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ding, Shengshu. 1979. 现代汉语语法讲话 [An Introduction to Modern Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dong, Xiufang 董秀芳. 2010. Hanyu zhong biaoshi chengnuo de yanyu shiwei dongci [Performative Verbs that Can Express Commitment in Chinese]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language Learning] 2: 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  25. Du Bois, John W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Edited by Wallace Chafe. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 203–74. [Google Scholar]
  26. Enfield, Nicholas J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridage: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fan, Xiaolei 范晓蕾. 2016. 助动词‘会’情态与语义演变之公式构拟-基于跨语言/方言的比较研究 [Reconstruction of the Semantic-Development Path of the Modal Verb Hui (會) with Crosslinguisitic and Dialectal Evidence]. 语言及语言学 [Language and Linguistics] 17: 195–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Féry, Caroline, and Shinichiro Ishihara. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Spirit Lake: Berkley, pp. 35–55. [Google Scholar]
  30. Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, Nick J. Enfield, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Mark Dingemanse, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Jörg Zinken. 2014. Recruitments across languages: A systematic comparison. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis [ICCA 2014], Los Angeles, CA, USA, June 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns. In Interaction and Grammar. Edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fox, Barbara A. 2007. Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9: 299–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gårding, Eva. 1987. Speech Act and Tonal Pattern in Standard Chinese: Constancy and Variation. Phonetica 44: 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Good, Phillip I., and James W. Pennebaker. 2012. Testing Hypotheses: Choosing a Test Statistic. In Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 79–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Goodwin, Charles. 2013. The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46: 8–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1992. Context, Activity and Participation. In The Contextualization of Language (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series). Edited by Aldo Di Luzio and Peter Auer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gries, Stefan Th. 2021. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. [Google Scholar]
  39. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden. 2012. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by Sidnell Jack and Tanya Stivers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 57–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heritage, John. 1984. A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation Analysis. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345. [Google Scholar]
  43. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Dordrecht/Providence, R.I.: Foris Publications. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hsieh, Chia-ling 謝佳玲. 2002. 漢語的情態動詞 [Modal Verbs in Chinese]. Ph.D. dissertation, 國立清華大學語言學研究所 [National Tsing Hua University], 新竹市, 台湾 Hsinchu, Taiwan. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hab82g (accessed on 26 October 2022).
  47. Huang, Yu-Chun. 1999. A Semantic Study of Modal Verbs in Chinese. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, New Taipei, Taipei. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jiang, Shaoyu 蒋绍愚. 2007. Cong zhudongci ”jie”, “hui”, “shi” de xingcheng kan yuyi de yanbian 从助动词“解”、“会”、“识”的行程看语义的演变 [A study of semantic change based on the evolution of the auxiliaries jie, hui and shi]. Hanyu Xuebao 汉语学报 [Chinese Linguistics] 1: 2–10. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jin, Shunde. 1996. An Acoustic Study of Sentence Stress in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lamarre, Christine. 2016. 试论汉语情态动词”会”的惯常用法及其教学 [Teaching Chinese Modals: The Case of Habitual Huì]. 汉语国际教育学报 [Journal of International Chinese Education] 1: 111–37. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee, Jee Won, Hongyin Tao, and Ping Lu. 2017. Transcribing Mandarin Chinese conversation: Linguistic and prosodic issues. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology 7: 787–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Levinson, Stephen C. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by Sidnell Jack and Tanya Stivers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 101–30. [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, Aijun. 2002. Chinese Prosody and Prosodic Labeling of Spontaneous Speech. Paper presented at the Speech Prosody 2002 International Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, April 11–13; Available online: http://www.isca-speech.org/archive (accessed on 30 September 2021).
  57. Li, Kening. 2009. The Information Structure of Mandarin Chinese: Syntax and Prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  58. Li, Ne, Shandi An, and Bojiang Zhang. 1998. 从话语角度论证语气词的” [Analyzing sentence final particle de: A discourse perspective]. 中国语文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 2: 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lindström, Anna. 1999. Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lindström, Anna. 2017. Accepting remote proposals. In Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Edited by Gene H. Lerner, Geoffrey Raymond and John Heritage. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 125–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Local, John, and Gareth Walker. 2004. Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1375–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Lu, Xiaokun 鲁晓琨. 2002. 助动词‘会’的语义探索及与“能”的对比 [A semantic stud on the modal verb “hui” and its comparison to “neng”]. 第七届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选 [Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Chinese as a Second Language], Guilin, China, August 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lv, Shuxiang 吕叔湘. 1979. 汉语语法分析问题 [Issues in Chinese Grammar]. 北京: 商务印书馆. Beijing: Commercial Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ma, Beijia. 2014. 汉语动词语法化 [Grammaticalization of Chinese Verbs]. Beijing: 中华书局 [Chinese Book Company]. [Google Scholar]
  65. MacWinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  66. Maynard, Douglas W. 1990. Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Establishing agreement: An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris, 1987. p. 228. Language in Society 19: 447–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Niebuhr, Oliver. 2010. On the phonetics of intensifying emphasis in German. Phonetica 67: 170–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ogden, Richard. 2012. Making sense of outliers. Phonetica 69: 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  70. Peng, Lizhen 彭利贞. 2007. 论情态与情状的互动关系 [Interaction between Modality and Situation]. 浙江大学学报人文社会科学版 [Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition)] 37: 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  71. Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Reber, Elisabeth. 2012. Affectivity in Interaction: Sounds Objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Linguistic Society of America 50: 696–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available online: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511791208 (accessed on 30 May 2021).
  75. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  76. Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Selting, Margret. 1996. On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 6: 371–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shen, Xiaonan Susan. 1990. The Prosody of Mandarin Chinese. Oakland: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  79. Shen, Xiaonan Susan. 1993. Relative duration as a perceptual cue to stress in mandarin. Language and Speech 36: 415–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Shi, Youwei. 1994. 得说‘不能上课了’ [Have to say ‘Can’t come to the class’]. 汉语学习 [The World of Chinese] 5: 28–29. [Google Scholar]
  81. Shyu, Shu-Ing. 2014. Topic and Focus. In The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 100–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Stevanovic, Melisa. 2021. Deontic authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and compliance. Discourse Studies 23: 670–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45: 297–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stivers, Tanya. 2012. Sequence Organization. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by Sidnell Jack and Tanya Stivers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 191–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnel. 2012. Introduction. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by Sidnell Jack and Tanya Stivers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. 2006. Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  88. Tang, Ting-chi. 1979. 助动词‘会’的两种用法 [Two Usages of Auxiliary ‘Hui’]. In 国语语法研究论集 [Paper on Chinese Grammar]. Taipei: 学生书局 Student Book Company, p. 106. [Google Scholar]
  89. Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  90. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2021. The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics 11: 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  92. Tiee, Henry Hung-Yeh. 1985. Modality in Chinese. In Studies in East Asian Linguistics. Edited by Nam-Kil Kim and Henry Hung-Yeh Tiee. Los Angeles: Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Southern California, pp. 84–96. [Google Scholar]
  93. Tsang, Chuilim. 1981. A Semantic Study of Modal Auxiliary Verbs in Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  94. van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. MacWhinney, Brian, and Johannes Wagner. 2010. Transcribing, searching and data sharing: The CLAN software and the TalkBank data repository. Gesprachsforschung 11: 154–73. [Google Scholar]
  96. Walker, Gareth. 2010. The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice. In Prosody in Interaction. Edited by Margret Selting, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten and Elisabeth Reber. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wang, Bei, and Yi Xu. 2011. Differential prosodic encoding of topic and focus in sentence-initial position in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 39: 595–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, Li. 1947. 中国现代语法 [Modern Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: 中华书局 [Chinese Book Company]. [Google Scholar]
  99. Xu, Heping 许和平. 1992. 试论‘会’的语义与句法特征 [On the semantic and syntactic features of “hui”]. In 汉语研究, 第三集 [Chineselanguage, Volume 3]. 天津 [Tianjin]: 南开大学出版社 [Nankai University Publisher]. [Google Scholar]
  100. Xu, Jingning. 2008. 现代汉语话语情态研究 [A Study on the Discoursive Modality of Mandarin Chinese]. Beijing: 昆仑出版社 Kunlun Press. [Google Scholar]
  101. Xu, Liejiong. 2004. Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua 114: 277–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of Tone and Focus on the Formation and Alignment of F0contours. Journal of Phonetics 27: 55–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Xu, Yi, and Ching X. Xu. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33: 159–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhou, Xiaobing. 1989. ‘会’和‘能’及其在句中的换用 [The Interchangeable Hui and Neng in Mandarin Chinese]. 烟台大学学报 (哲学社会科学版) [Yantai University Journal (Philosophy and Social Science Edition)])] 4: 73–81. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 07. The red line represents the pitch contour, and the blue line represents the intensity contour.
Figure 1. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 07. The red line represents the pitch contour, and the blue line represents the intensity contour.
Languages 07 00294 g001
Figure 2. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 01 in Ex 13.
Figure 2. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 01 in Ex 13.
Languages 07 00294 g002
Figure 3. Boxplot for pitch range grouped by stress.
Figure 3. Boxplot for pitch range grouped by stress.
Languages 07 00294 g003
Figure 4. Boxplot for Duration grouped by stress.
Figure 4. Boxplot for Duration grouped by stress.
Languages 07 00294 g004
Figure 5. Boxplot for Mean intensity grouped by stress.
Figure 5. Boxplot for Mean intensity grouped by stress.
Languages 07 00294 g005
Figure 6. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 06 in In.
Figure 6. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 06 in In.
Languages 07 00294 g006
Figure 7. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 03 in Ex 15.
Figure 7. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 03 in Ex 15.
Languages 07 00294 g007
Figure 8. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of the second half of line 02 in Ex 16.
Figure 8. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of the second half of line 02 in Ex 16.
Languages 07 00294 g008
Figure 9. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 29 in Ex 20.
Figure 9. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 29 in Ex 20.
Languages 07 00294 g009
Figure 10. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 08 in Ex 21.
Figure 10. Waveform, spectrogram, pitch contour, and intensity of line 08 in Ex 21.
Languages 07 00294 g010
Table 1. Duration, mean intensity, and pitch range of huì in Ex 12 and Ex 13.
Table 1. Duration, mean intensity, and pitch range of huì in Ex 12 and Ex 13.
Prosodic Featureshuì in Ex 12guò in Ex 12 huì in Ex 13kuài in Ex 13
Pitch range
(Hz, logarithmic frequency)
27.59145.728.8
Duration (ms)183240245161
Mean intensity (dB)70.977.972.575.82
Table 2. Distribution of stressed and unstressed huì in different sequential environments.
Table 2. Distribution of stressed and unstressed huì in different sequential environments.
VariationsInitiating PositionResponding PositionTotal
[wǒ huì X (de)] with the unstressed huìOffering: 6/6
Informing arrangement: 20Agency: 2 22
[wǒ huì X (de)] with the stressed huì Reassuring of an existing commitment: 4 Reassuring of a granted request: 2
Claiming agency: 2
8
Total30636
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, Y. Revisiting the Modal Verb huì with an Interactional Linguistic Approach. Languages 2022, 7, 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040294

AMA Style

Zhou Y. Revisiting the Modal Verb huì with an Interactional Linguistic Approach. Languages. 2022; 7(4):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040294

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Yan. 2022. "Revisiting the Modal Verb huì with an Interactional Linguistic Approach" Languages 7, no. 4: 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040294

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop