Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic And Diachronic Discourse Analysis (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Japanese Discourse Markers Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich, English De...

Author: Noriko O. Onodera

167 downloads 1435 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Japanese Discourse Markers

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich, English Department Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey University of Southern Denmark

Herman Parret Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Jef Verschueren Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni University of Lyon 2

Jean Caron Université de Poitiers

Claudia de Lemos University of Campinas, Brazil

Robyn Carston University College London

Marina Sbisà University of Trieste

Bruce Fraser Boston University

Emanuel Schegloff University of California at Los Angeles

Thorstein Fretheim University of Trondheim

Deborah Schiffrin Georgetown University

John Heritage University of California at Los Angeles

Paul O. Takahara Kansai Gaidai University

Susan Herring University of Texas at Arlington

Sandra Thompson University of California at Santa Barbara

Masako K. Hiraga St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

Teun A. Van Dijk Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

David Holdcroft University of Leeds

Richard J. Watts University of Berne

Sachiko Ide Japan Women’s University

Volume 132 Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis by Noriko O. Onodera

Japanese Discourse Markers Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis

Noriko O. Onodera Aoyama Gakuin University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Noriko O. Onodera Japanese Discourse Markers : Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis / Noriko O. Onodera. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 132) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Japanese language--Discourse analysis. 2. Japanese language-Conjunctions. I. Title. II. Series. PL640.5.O66 2004 495.6’0141-dc22 isbn 90 272 5375 7 (Eur.) / 1 58811 607 7 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2004059887

© 2004 – 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

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 14:09

F: PB132DE.tex / p.1 (v)

To Ren

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2004; 9:41

F: PB132CO.tex / p.1 (vii)

Table of contents

Acknowledgments Transcription conventions Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The problem 2 1.1.1 Historical approach 2 1.1.2 Phenomena to be investigated 4 1.1.3 Connection with typological features 8 1.1.4 Problems in diachronic analysis 9 1.1.5 Goals 11 1.2 Conceptual background: Definitions and assumption 12 1.2.1 Definitions 12 1.2.2 Assumption 18 1.3 Data and approach 18 1.3.1 Data 18 1.3.2 Approach for analysis 23 1.4 Sample analyses 24 1.4.1 Analysis of dakedo 24 1.4.2 Analysis of ne 26 1.5 Outline of this book 28 Chapter 2 Perspectives on Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis 2.1 Discourse/pragmatic perspective 31 2.2 Historical perspective 38 2.3 Typological studies 43 2.4 Syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions (demo and dakedo) and interjections (ne and variants) 46 2.4.1 Syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions 46

xi xiii

1

31

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2004; 9:41

F: PB132CO.tex / p.2 (viii)

 Table of contents

2.4.2 Syntactic and semantic aspects of interjections 53 2.5 Summary 54 Chapter 3 Functions of the conjunctions demo and dakedo in Present Day Japanese (synchronic analysis) 3.1 Use and distribution of demo and dakedo 57 3.2 Referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast 60 3.3 Functional contrast 63 3.3.1 Functional contrast marked by dakedo and kedo 63 3.3.2 Another example of functional contrast 69 3.4 Contrastive actions 73 3.4.1 Point-making device 74 3.4.2 Claiming the floor 77 3.4.3 Opening the conversation 79 3.4.4 Changing the topic 81 3.5 Demo and dakedo: Markers of contrast 83 Chapter 4 Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis) 4.1 Pragmaticalization of demo 86 4.1.1 Clause-final V-te + mo 90 4.1.2 Demo as a discourse marker 92 4.2 Pragmaticalization of dakedo 99 4.2.1 Clause-final V + kedo 100 4.2.2 Dakedo as a discourse marker 104 4.3 Pragmaticalization: Evolution of demo and dakedo as discourse markers 111 4.4 Motivation for the pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo 114 4.4.1 The grammatical process leading to the adoption of demo and dakedo as initial markers 115 4.4.2 The discourse process leading to the adoption of demo and dakedo as markers 120

57

85

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2004; 9:41

F: PB132CO.tex / p.3 (ix)

Table of contents

Chapter 5 Functions of the interjections ne and na in Present Day Japanese (synchronic analysis) 5.1 Harmony: The ultimate goal in Japanese conversation 124 5.2 Agreement (affirmative response) 127 5.2.1 Agreement 127 5.2.2 Back channels 129 5.3 Call attention (cataphoric) 132 5.3.1 Before new information 132 5.4 Call attention (anaphoric) 135 5.4.1 Reinforcement 136 5.5 Call attention (anaphoric and cataphoric) 138 5.5.1 Summons 138 5.5.2 Linking prior and upcoming information 140 5.6 Marker of rapport 143 5.7 Fillers 148 5.8 Atmosphere sustainer 150 5.9 Ne(e) and na(a): Markers of involvement 152 5.9.1 Involvement 152 5.9.2 Ne(e)/na(a) as markers of involvement 153 5.9.3 Metamessage level of interaction 154 Chapter 6 Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 6.1 Na elements in sentence-final position 160 6.2 Na elements in sentence-internal position 168 6.3 Na elements in initial position (as interjections and discourse markers) 174 6.4 Pragmaticalization: Evolution of na elements as discourse markers 185 6.4.1 Functional change relating to Traugott’s hypothesis 185 6.4.2 Subjectification and intersubjectification: From ideational to interpersonal meanings 188 6.5 Some thoughts on motivation for the pragmaticalization of na elements 191

123

157



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2004; 9:41



F: PB132CO.tex / p.4 (x)

Table of contents

Chapter 7 Conclusion 7.1 Summary of this study 197 7.2 Grammaticalization 200 7.2.1 Development of discourse markers: A case of grammaticalization 201 7.2.2 Demo and na elements: Grammaticalization or not? 203 7.3 Relevance of findings 205 7.3.1 Relevance to typological characteristics 205 7.3.2 Productivity 211 7.3.3 Conventionalization of conversational implicatures 214 Notes References Name index Subject index

197

219 227 241 245

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 8:53

F: PB132AC.tex / p.1 (xi)

Acknowledgments

In various stages of this work, many people have helped me in different ways. First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to my professors of linguistics and sociolinguistics at Georgetown University Ph.D. program, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Ralph Fasold. Debby Schiffrin’s guidance in discourse analysis and support to my challenge of the new field has helped me to form my uncultivated idea into shape. I would also like to thank Senko K. Maynard for her useful suggestions and encouragement. My debt to Sachiko Ide goes yet further back: it was her graduate seminar where I first experienced much inspiration on the study of language in use. Since those days, Professor Ide has furnished me the model as a scholar and a teacher. I am grateful not only for her intellectual guidance and allowance to use her collected data (Ide et al. 1984) for this study, but also for her warmhearted encouragement. These people are the foundation of my own cognizance in linguistics. Since graduating from GU, I have been fortunate to work in the present climate in linguistics. In the last decade, grammaticalization and pragmaticalization have drawn more attention, and even the development of discourse markers seems to have offered interesting topics. Relatedly, we now see a growing new subfield, Historical Pragmatics, under which the diachronic study of discourse markers also seems to fall. I am thankful to the organizer of the panel at IPrA ’98, Andreas H. Jucker, who has also probably coined the term, historical pragmatics, and has always been encouraging. I express my gratitude to Elizabeth C. Traugott who read the earlier chapters and has always given constructive comments and much inspiration. Completion of this book does not mean the end of exploration into this theme. However, to present in this field, I have benefited from discussions with many colleagues including Susan Fitzmaurice, Scott Saft, Yoko Fujii, Etsuko Oishi, Hartmut Haberland, Kaoru Horie and Heiko Narrog. Ryoko Suzuki’s insightful comments and good conversations with her helped in my elaboration of this work. My sincere thanks go to them.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 8:53

F: PB132AC.tex / p.2 (xii)

 Acknowledgments

As mentioned in 1.1.4, the topic of diachrony of discourse markers has not been a facile one. I am greatly obliged to expertise in historical linguistics, too: Professor Akio Tanaka has provided crucial suggestions and kind advice. The anonymous readers’ comments and suggestions have also been appreciated. I am of course, however, responsible for any inadequacies that remain. At Aoyama Gakuin University, I am grateful to my students who always give unfeigned feedback to my ideas and lectures, and also my colleagues; above all, for completion of this book, Minoji Akimoto, Gregory Strong and Forrest Nelson. I would also like to thank Isja Conen at John Benjamins for her support during the editing process. Part of this work has been supported by JSPS.Grantin-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (14510630). Lastly, my thanks go to my family: my parents for their unflagging faith in me; my husband, Ren, for his understanding, patience and tremendous support; and my daughters, Momo and Hana, for providing important reasons for the pursuit of my work.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:06

F: PB132TR.tex / p.1 (xiii)

Transcription conventions

Japanese transliteration is provided in the Standard system of Romanization, phonetic orthography. To express a long vowel, the vowel is repeated. (e.g. aa, uu, oo.)

Key to transcription conventions . ? ,

falling intonation followed by a noticeable pause rising intonation followed by a noticeable pause continuing intonation, with slight rise or fall in contour, followed by a pause (shorter than . or ?) . . . noticeable pause or break in rhythm (each half-second pause is marked by a dot) : prolonged vowel (not morphologically, but for e.g. emphasis – e.g. ‘e:’ instead of ‘ee’) = speaker continues (brackets on two lines) indicate second utterance latched onto first, without perceptible pause

Abbreviations In the transcript, a word-for-word (morpheme-for-morpheme) gloss is given on the line between the Japanese utterance and the free translation. The following abbreviations are used in the examples. However, in the citations from Kuno (1978a, 1973), I used his original abbreviations that differ slightly from those used in the present study. COP DO EMP

copula direct object emphatic

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:06

F: PB132TR.tex / p.2 (xiv)

 Transcription conventions

FP GER GN HON HUM IP LK NEG NOM PASS PST Q QT SB TAG TP

sentence-final particle gerundive form genitive honorific humble sentence-internal particle linker negative nominalizer passive past/perfect tense question marker (assigned to a FP ka only) quotative marker subject marker tag-question-like expressions such as auxiliary verb forms (e.g. desho, daro, ja-nai) and the interjection and FP ne(e) topic marker

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.1 (1)

Chapter 1

Introduction*

This book examines the historical process of how forms in two different groups in Japanese, (1) demo type connectives and (2) na elements, have developed to emerge and work as discourse markers (DMs). Demo type connectives seem to have undergone the development whereby the clause-final connecting expressions (e.g. V-de + mo1 ) eventually became the sentence-initial connectives and discourse markers (e.g. demo). And na elements seem to have evolved whereby the sentence-final particles (SFPs) change to the sentence-internal particles (SIPs), then finally to the sentence-initial interjections. The process in which an item acquires the functions of a marker, i.e. the process in which a lexical item with rather restricted functions becomes one with more extended discourse functions, is what I call a pragmaticalization. The discourse-pragmatic functions considered here are either textual or expressive functions, or both (cf. Traugott 1989: 31). It will be argued that the diachronic processes of the above two groups of expressions are not the same. That is, while demo type connectives undergo pragmaticalization and grammaticalization, na elements undergo pragmaticalization with a syntactically positional change, which is a less clear case of grammaticalization (see also 1.2.1.2 and 7.2). As outlined above, ‘pragmaticalization’ and ‘grammaticalization’, among conceptual terms and findings disclosed in prior investigations into historical meaning changes (most indebted to Traugott’s serial works), offer the fundamental framework for this study. Traugott (1982) once proposed the direction in general meaning change, ‘ideational > ((textual) > (expressive))’, based on the functional-semantic model of language. The current study will employ this language model because of its usefulness, which still holds today, in analyzing functions of items.2 This study is a product of a multi-dimensional approach. Besides historical studies that supply an important frame for this study, several sub-fields of linguistics provide additional perspectives: discourse studies, pragmatics, typological studies, and syntax and semantics of conjunctions and interjections. The four realms, (1) discourse/pragmatic, (2) historical, (3) typological,

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.2 (2)

Chapter 1

and (4) syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions and interjections, altogether comprising the perspectives for this study, will be reviewed in Chapter 2. Among the discourse/pragmatic works, Schiffrin (1987) defines “discourse markers” and offers the guiding principle for analyzing discourse functions of language. Linguistic typology pertains to this study since the historical changes to be examined here appear to be productive processes involving typological characteristics of language. Syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions and interjections are required as the basic knowledge in the linguistic exploration of these items. This book is thus a product of these multiple domains. The rest of this chapter does the following. In (1.1) I state the problem which this study addresses. (1.2) defines the key terms of this study and presents an assumption in order to build a consistent theoretical background before starting the argument. In (1.3) the data and approach taken to the analysis are introduced. Then, (1.4) specifically gives sample analyses of the two discourse markers. Finally, (1.5) anticipates the content of each chapter.

. The problem .. Historical approach While this study owes a lot to the established historical perspective showed in prior works (such as Heine, Claudi, & Hünnemeyer 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Lehmann 1995; Pagliuca (Ed.) 1994; Traugott 1982, 1986b, 1988b, 1989, 1995a; and Traugott & Dasher 1987), this book will also make suggestions with interests in developing the approach appropriate for analyzing the pragmatics of any world languages and in seeking the linguistic universality in a true sense. I will review my indebtedness to the historical perspective later (in 2.2), so here I will address what this study suggests and supplements in the previous historical studies. The first suggestion is the necessary application of the pragmatic perspective to the study of semantic-pragmatic change. By the early 1990s, some studies of semantic-pragmatic change lacked the solid pragmatic perspective with which to see and capture the speaker’s meanings (both implicature and other speaker’s strategies). Although capturing such speaker’s meanings is essential in arguing pragmatic changes, some early works only looked at intuitively madeup sentences where no such speaker’s interactively negotiated/created meanings exist. They had somewhat theoretical and methodological difficulties.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.3 (3)

Introduction

This book examines the development of discourse markers in Japanese, which will be regarded as a case of pragmaticalization from my analysis. Pragmaticalization has been often discussed in connection with grammaticalization which had been examined primarily in theoretical linguistics (such as syntax and semantics). However, pragmaticalization, semantic-pragmatic change of meaning, seems to be a phenomenon which can be analyzed only in the context where interactive/negotiatory aspect of language is available (cf. Onodera 1999). Such aspect is what the discourse studies and pragmatics address more directly than the so-called theoretical linguistics. Among the discourse studies, in particular, “interactional sociolinguistics” (cf. Tannen 1992), one of its approaches, uncovers this aspect successfully. By the early 1990s, Traugott’s studies brought to light three evocative issues for the succeeding research in this area; the predictable direction of meaning change, the generalization of pragmaticalization, and the process – the development of conventionalized implicatures. The first two issues apply to pragmatic meaning in general, and the third issue deals with one of the pragmatic meanings, Grice’s (1975) ‘implicature’. It is noticeable that any of the three issues are directly relevant to the so-called ‘study of discourse’. It was regarded in those days that these issues would be elucidated in an appropriate discourse/pragmatic framework that defines the unit of analysis as ‘discourse’ and examines the functions of language in the discourse context. It indeed seems a clearer pragmatic viewpoint that more recently have elucidated further points of this field. Such new points are: (1) the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC) (see Traugott & Dasher 2002, 1.3.2: 34–35), (2) “Subjectification (including intersubjectification)” is “the main mechanism of semantic change” (Ibid.: 279), and (3) intersubjectification (Ibid.: 31, 229 and elsewhere). No doubt these new points seem to have come along as an extension of the early three issues. Although recent pragmaticalization works use more appropriate pragmatic approach than before, I suggested, for example, Schiffrin (1987) supplies a rigid and sound pragmatic framework (Onodera 1993) (see also 2.1 and 1.2.1.4 in this book). Given my simplified definitions of semantics and pragmatics as ‘the study of the meaning of sentences’ and ‘the study of the meaning of sentences in context’, analysis of the items in context will be required for the examination of pragmatic meanings. For such analysis, the data should include naturallyoccurring discourse. Another claim against the prior studies of meaning changes is a rethink on universalness in grammaticalization. Structural unidirectionality co-occurrent



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.4 (4)

Chapter 1

with grammaticalization has for a long time been discussed mainly from the observations of western languages. However, I wonder whether the same discussion is possible if phenomena in typologically very different languages worldwide are fairly observed. Indeed, in my studies on the development of Japanese discourse markers (Some cases of this process have been uncovered as grammaticalization: see Onodera 1995, 2000), ‘scope increase’ and ‘decrease in boundness’ have been recognized against the long discussed premise that ‘scope decrease’ and ‘increase in boundness’ are unidirectional parameters (cf. Lehmann 1995). Further, at present, with some linguists’ more recent interests in the evolution of English discourse markers (Brinton 1990, 1996; Traugott 1995b; Tabor & Traugott 1998), scope increase and decrease in boundness themselves are newly considered as common features of grammaticalization, based on the observations of English and Japanese discourse markers (Traugott 1995b; Tabor & Traugott 1998; Onodera 1993, 1995). This shows the inevitability of surveys done on both western and non-western languages to argue universality in linguistic phenomena.3 There are surely other works that have explored grammaticalization phenomena in Japanese. Matsumoto (1988, 1998), Horie (1998), Ohori (1998a, 1998b), Suzuki (1998, 1999) and Mori (1996, 1999) are such works. Also, other studies on grammaticalization in non-western languages include Akatsuka and Sohn (1994) and Sohn (1996). As one of the non-western studies, my earlier work (Onodera 2000) also suggested that pragmaticalization and grammaticalization were processes independent of each other (see also 7.2.2). .. Phenomena to be investigated This section introduces the items chosen for analysis in this study. The items are selected from two categories, conjunctions (1.1.2.1) and interjections (1.1.2.2). That is, a set of connecting elements that eventually develop into demo type connectives whose grammatical class is ‘conjunction’, and a set of particles that develop into na group of sentence-initial ‘interjections’ in the course of time. First, in Chapters 3 and 5, demo type connectives and na group of interjections as developed forms in their historical change will be examined respectively in the synchronic analysis: Their pragmatic functions in Present Day Japanese will be revealed. Then, in Chapters 4 and 6, the meanings and structural changes of the same items will be elucidated in the diachronic analysis.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.5 (5)

Introduction

... Conjunctions The two conjunctions demo and dakedo will be investigated. They belong to a set of conjunctions that I call as demo type connectives. This group of conjunctions are sentence-initial connecting expressions with a noticeable morphological structure – all prefaced by d element (copula in Japanese). It seems that the group members have similar historical processes of development and that such process is even productive. Connectives4 such as dakara, datte, dewa, de, daga, and nanoni are included in this category. A riveting list of conjunctions which first awakened my interest in Japanese discourse markers will be introduced. Demo and dakedo are included in this list. The National Language Research Institute (NLRI, 1955) counted the frequency of conjunctions used in ten hour-long tape-recorded conversations half a century ago. Table 1.1 shows their results: the conjunctions are listed in the order of frequency of appearance. Here, the variants are grouped together under the numbers, 1, 2, . . . 5. The number besides the items indicates the actual number of appearance. The percent designates the group’s proportion of appearance of all the conjunctions. The National Language Research Institute also counted the frequency of the conjunctions used in written language (journals), and revealed that the top-ranking items in spoken language (in Table 1.1) all rank lower in written texts: e.g. de ranks 20th, demo 20th and dakara 22nd. This shows that the set of conjunctions in frequent use in spoken Japanese are in infrequent use in written Japanese. The National Language Research Institute accounts for this distinctly high frequency of a certain set of conjunctions in spoken discourse by their function as “fillers”. The National Language Research Institute’s Table 1.1 Frequency of conjunctions in spoken Japanese (National Language Research Institute 1955) 1.

2.

3.

sorede soide sonde de nde

        

demo ndemo dakedo ndakedo dakara ndakara

  

4. (and) 417 (27%)

(but) 196 (12.6%)

5.

sorekara seekara soikara

jaa njaa

(then) 138 (8.9%)

(well then) 99 (6.4%)

 

(so) 188 (12.1%)

*total number of frequency of 85 conjunctions = 1558 (100%)



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.6 (6)

Chapter 1

Table 1.2 Frequency of conjunctions in spoken Japanese (1982) 1.

2. 3.

sorede soide de nde ja jaa demo dakedo dakedomo

 219   28 290   2 212 99 262 41 2

(and) 539 (29.6%)

(well then) 311 (17.1%) (but) 304 (16.7%)

4.

dakara

299 (16.4%) (so)

5.

datte

82 (4.5%) (’cause)

6.

sorekara

76 (4.1%) (then)

* total number of frequency of 160 conjunctions =1819 (100%)

(1955: 158) recognition of fillers is that “the items with no connecting function are added for almost no purpose”.5 This seems close to the notion of “‘stop-gap’ interjections” including expressions such as ‘well’ and ‘ah’ (the Proceedings of the American Social Psychological Research Association 1885 cited in Schiffrin 1982b).6 There seems to be a similarity between the function of filling and stopping gap. I wondered, then, whether the most frequently used conjunctions in spoken Japanese (listed in Table 1.1) were mere fillers. It is conspicuous that the English equivalents to the conjunctions ranking between 1st and 5th are ‘and’ (sorede), ‘but’ (demo), ‘so’ (dakara), ‘then’ (sorekara) and ‘well then’ (jaa) (see Table 1.1), that had ‘all’ been found to be discourse markers in English (Schiffrin 1987). Discourse markers are well known by their efficient pragmatic functions. Therefore, it seems very plausible to uncover the real functions of these Japanese conjunctions, possibly pragmatic, were they newly approached and analyzed in the frame of pragmatics. In this study, such analysis will be attempted. Thus, my earliest interest in Japanese discourse markers began with a question of the relevance between the high frequency in spoken language and the functions. To supplement the survey of 1955, I counted the frequency of the conjunctions used in more recent spoken Japanese (of 1982). Table 1.2 presents the conjunctions the most frequently used in the 1982 corpus of Japanese discourse.7 It shows the result strikingly similar to the 1955 survey despite the gap of thirty years: The five top-ranking items in 1955 still all rank within the top six, despite an assumption that thirty years would be long enough to see some language change. This result implies that, for some reason, a limited set of conjunctions has been the most frequently used in spoken Japanese without a significant difference over decades.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.7 (7)

Introduction

Demo and dakedo, chosen for examination in this study, belong to the group which ranks 2nd in 1955 and 3rd in 1982. It appears that the two expressions have undergone a similar process in which they developed from their corresponding unit-final connecting elements. Besides this structural change, the process whereby the functions of demo and dakedo have changed will be explored. ... Interjections The interjection ne and its variants will also be analyzed. What led me to pay attention to interjections is that they also undergo an interesting process which is parallel to that of demo type of connectives: i.e. an interjection ne and its variants seem to have evolved from their corresponding unit-final elements (sentence-final particles). Ne and its variants are markers of involvement (discussed in 5.9). They display harmony between the speaker and hearer (and also other participants in conversation) in several ways by involving the participants in what is being said in the conversation. Inoue (1989) claims that ne plays an important role in Japanese conversation and points out the similarity in the functions of ne and the English discourse particle ‘you know’. Inoue (1989: 239) suggests the usefulness of Schourup’s (1982) analysis of ‘you know’ for that of ne: “‘You know’ creates solidarity between the speaker and the hearer or their comraderie in the utterance by confirming the identity of their private worlds”. Ne and ‘you know’ (Schiffrin 1987; Schourup 1982) seem to function in a similar way in conversation. Hayashi’s (1983) proposal concerning the hierarchical expressive structure of an utterance gives much attention to the three positions where ne occurs (sentence-final, clause-final and sentence-initial positions). Kitagawa (1984: 31) states that Hayashi’s attention to these positions tries to capture the expressive function of an utterance in a three-dimensional/hierarchical way. Kitagawa then suggests that a structural or functional approach (such as Hayashi 1983) is also possible in discourse analysis and that such an approach would make it possible to observe the integrated or holistic function of such expressive words which at first appear to be randomly placed. This study will examine ne and its variants in the three positions, and observe the functional change in each position as well as in the total process of pragmaticalization of ne viewed as a single item.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.8 (8)

Chapter 1

.. Connection with typological features There seems to be linguistic phenomena that occur in a way related to the typological features of languages. Croft (1990: 27) writes that languages are classified typologically according to the various linguistic devices used for a particular grammatical parameter (e.g. expression of grammatical number or formation of relative clauses). The well-known phenomenon that Japanese has no relative-pronouns (Kuno 1973: 25, 1978a: 88) seems a case relevant to linguistic typology. I suggest that another case of phenomenon which arises connected with typological features is the diachronic evolution of unit-final elements into unit-initial discourse markers in Japanese. As far as I know at this stage of my research, this evolution involves at least two domains in Japanese, conjunctions and interjections. The evolutionary process of unit-final elements into initial markers in Japanese appears to concern at least two typological features of language. The first is that Japanese is a post-positional language. Japanese displays all the characteristics that Greenberg (1963) has attributed to SOV language. One of them is concerned with adpositions. In Japanese, adpositions are all postpositional (Kuno 1978a: 78). Among the postpositions, two bear reference to my study: conjunctive particles that are attached to verbs and form connecting elements at clause-final positions and sentence-final particles. Since the unit-final connecting devices containing conjunctive particles and the sentence-final particles are considered the original forms from which demo, dakedo, ne and na evolved, careful observation will be made of these postpositions. Another typological feature seemingly partly involved in the development of discourse markers from the final elements is the agglutinating nature of Japanese. Shimizu (1987: 222) makes the following statement about agglutination in Japanese: It is auxiliary verbs and particles that mainly contribute to agglutination. By grace of auxiliary verbs and particles, the ‘case’ of a NP and the relationship between phrases are made explicit. Therefore the order of phrases is relatively free. . .

He implies that the relatively free word order in Japanese is ascribed to the explicitness in the relationship of phrases which auxiliary verbs and particles mark. Agglutination appears to be another factor which prompts the developmental process of discourse marker formation in some way. Because there is a distinct shift of the elements from their original final positions to initial positions, a study of postpositional Japanese could provide

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.9 (9)

Introduction

tangible evidence that final elements start to be used as discourse markers. Since English is a typical prepositional language, the above positional shift does not appear, because connectives such as ‘and’ and ‘but’ are already in initial positions in deep structure (McCawley 1988). A discussion concerning the relevance of this study to typology of languages will be attempted in (7.3.1). .. Problems in diachronic analysis I should mention the problems I faced during the process of this work: The problems are put together into three points that all pertain to diachronic study but not to synchronic study. The first problem which can be the biggest in any diachronic language study is that in a crucial sense ‘nothing can be evidenced’. Treating language of earlier days and discussing the diachronic courses since then, we often say ‘development’, ‘evolution’ or ‘changes’. But these processes cannot be evidenced either visually or audibly. For analysis of today’s language, we have a better tool, i.e. audio-taped or video-taped language data which facilitates analysis of human interactional dynamics. However, for diachronic discourse analysis which I attempt in Chapters 4 and 6 in this book, we can only rely on “written records of spoken language” (Jacobs & Jucker 1995: 7) that can be said to be secondrate compared to the above data of naturally-occurring language which we can indeed listen to or watch. This is the fate of diachronic study of language, especially concerning its interactional aspect. I should say, however, towards the completion of this study, that it is still possible to analyze human communication including the speaker’s intentions and the participants’ possible actions in this kind of study instead of its limited data. Referring to the feasibility of such diachronic language study, Jacobs and Jucker (Ibid.) state: It is plausible to suggest that written records of spoken language are closer to the actual spoken language of the time than written language not based on spoken language.

Many works in a new linguistic field now called “historical pragmatics” bear the same problem, but deal with the same kind of data. In this study, for data of Japanese of earlier days, ‘written’ colloquial segments (e.g. lines in play scripts (of noo, kyoogen or kabuki), conversational parts from novels, and ballads) are used. The second problem seems to lie in the methodological difference between the two fields, sociolinguistics and historical linguistics. The current study started with interests in pragmatic/communicative aspect of language.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.10 (10)

Chapter 1

To examine such aspect, study and perspective of ‘language in use’, i.e. sociolinguistics, seems useful. Here, however, I faced a problem: In sociolinguistics, methodologically, induction is primarily taken. Sizable amount of data and its analysis (at times statistical) prove our findings in this field. Works carried out by this method are valued, and hence judged scientific. In the diachronic study of language, on the other hand, we realize the limit in both size and consistency of data from the beginning. Therefore, induction in the sociolinguistic sense is impossible. In the diachronic study of language, there is also inclination, among researchers, to search ‘tendencies’ seen in changes in accumulated examples of the prior scholarship. We attempt to predict the courses based on the tendencies just mentioned, or try to make predictable suggestions, too. Hypotheses also seem to play an important role in this field. Thus, argument in such a study may sound ‘speculative’ at times (this feature may be relevant in the first problem, too). This field indeed has the deductive feature. During this study, there were at times conflicts raised by the above methodological difference in the two fields. A specific conflict was between induction and deduction. Thirdly, a specific difficulty in treating data of earlier Japanese was pointed out while writing this book. This point is concerned with the regional difference in the history of the Japanese language: i.e. Tokyo (East) Japanese and Kamigata (Kyoto and Osaka; West) Japanese have undergone two different developmental courses, so these two Japanese varieties should be analyzed separately. To preserve the consistency of data, only one Japanese variety (either Tokyo or Kamigata Japanese) should be the subject of analysis to see the diachrony of a linguistic item/expression in question. Tokyo Japanese, which now also can be called standard Japanese, is considered to have started when the shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu entered Edo (in 1590 (cf. Komatsu 1985: 4–5; Edo is the old name for Tokyo)). Until then, language used in Kyoto where Japan’s capital had been located since the Heian period (794–1192) had been regarded as standard. As Komatsu (1985: 5) states, “Edo Japanese gradually formed along with the development of Edo city”. Thus, the history of today’s standard or Tokyo Japanese is short compared to that of Kamigata Japanese: It is because Tokyo/standard Japanese which was originally Edo Japanese had started only in the 16th century, whereas Kamigata Japanese had succeeded from the Heian period (8th–12th century) through Kamakura (12th–14th century) and Muromachi (14th–16th century) periods (cf. Ibid.). Tokyo (East) and Kamigata (West) Japanese, hence, have traveled completely different developmental paths. The course of the language development from the Muromachi period is considered to have evolved into the modern Japanese. To examine

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.11 (11)

Introduction

the development of ‘Tokyo Japanese’, it seems reasonable to limit the data to Japanese language from Muromachi onward. Demo/dakedo and na elements, the subject of analysis in this study, are still used in today’s Tokyo Japanese. Therefore, strictly, only Edo and Tokyo Japanese since Muromachi period should be used as data to see the diachrony of expressions in question. This stance is taken in this study as far as it is possible and feasible. However, for example, the sentence-final na has been reported in many prior works that it first appeared in the 8th century texts (Yoshida 1987; Uchio & Okamura 1973; Uchio 1973: 104). Na’s development is quite relevant in this study. Thus, in this study my basic position is: Japanese data before Muromachi period is treated only as secondary information. For the same reason of consistency, Kamigata Japanese is also observed only as secondary information. When such secondary information is judged quite relevant and important in exploration of diachrony of the items in question, the information is included in the analysis of this study. Specifically, for the diachronic analysis of demo/dakedo (Chapter 4), basically, Tokyo Japanese only after Muromachi period was looked at (with some exceptional Kamigata examples). For the diachronic analysis of na elements (Chapter 6), basically, Japanese before Muromachi was observed just as secondary information.8 .. Goals This study has five main goals. The first is to find and describe the functions of the linguistic forms in question and reveal how those functions change in history. This change will be examined mainly relating to Traugott’s proposed meaning change. In what follows, this study may either support Traugott’s proposal or provide an account for counterexamples to what has been assumed in this area, from the position of a non-western language. The second goal is to attempt to explain why or how such pragmatic change took place. Although what in fact brings about the change is not a simple question, I will take the opportunity to consider this “essential question” (Traugott 1982: 265) in semantic change, taking advantage of a sizable amount of data. This question will be discussed as ‘motivation for the pragmaticalization’ at the end of Chapters 4 and 6. The third goal is to see how the functional and structural changes found in this study would be discussed in the framework of “grammaticalization”. It includes a question – whether the changes seen in this study are cases of grammaticalization or not. This issue will be argued in (7.2).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.12 (12)

Chapter 1

The fourth is to discuss the findings of this project, in relation to the following: (1) typological characteristics of languages, (2) productivity and (3) conventionalization of implicatures. These issues will be addressed in Chapter 7 as conclusions. The last goal is to support the original proposals regarding discourse markers in English (Schiffrin 1987) by showing the existence of the same sort of markers in Japanese, a language quite different from English. This study is a combination of the synchronic and diachronic analyses. The synchronic analysis of discourse markers at each time stage as well as the diachronic approach to them altogether leads to the integrated understanding of discourse markers.

. Conceptual background: Definitions and assumption .. Definitions In this section, I will define or introduce four key terms of this study, “pragmaticalization”, “grammaticalization”, “functional-semantic model of language” and “discourse markers”. ... Pragmaticalization I define “pragmaticalization”9 as a process of meaning/functional change involving shifts from the semantic to the pragmatic domain. This is closest to Traugott’s (1986a: 542) notion of “pragmaticization”. She also uses a similar term “semantic-pragmatic change/process” (1989 and elsewhere). Pragmaticalization is on the whole associated with two tendencies of meaning shift: One, shift to a more “speaker-based” meaning, and the other, shift to more “discourse-based” meaning. The shift to more “speaker-based” is characterized as more “person-based”/“speaker-attributed” (1986a: 541). The speaker-based meanings are in fact the result of the discourse-based meanings since “the speaker-based meanings shift from referencing the situation outside the discourse to referencing the situation inside the discourse” (Ibid.: 542). This statement manifests that discourse-based meaning and speaker-based meaning more or less refer to both sides of the coin. The shift to more discoursebased meaning is mentioned in Traugott (Ibid.: 545), as referring “less to the described situation, and more to the discourse situation”. Traugott has put forward two more specific orientations that accompany semantic-pragmatic change: the shift from “less to more personal” (1982: 253)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.13 (13)

Introduction

meanings and the shift “from propositional through textual to expressive” (256) meanings. They will be further reviewed in the next chapter. Before going on to the next key term, let me briefly discuss the notion of “pragmatics” relating to “pragmaticalization”. Although the task of defining pragmatics is notoriously so disputable (cf. discussion in Chapter 1 in Levinson 1983; Onodera 1999), I tentatively define pragmatics as the study of the meaning of sentences in context, i.e. the meaning of the utterances, while semantics is the study of the meaning of the sentences. This definition of pragmatics which contrasts with semantics implies the complementary relationship between pragmatics and semantics (Leech 1983; Levinson 1983; Oishi 1999). Therefore, Gazdar’s (1979: 2) definition “pragmatics = meaning – truth conditions” contains a similar idea. As mentioned in (1.1.1), this study will supplement the previous studies of semantic-pragmatic change by applying the pragmatic theory to capture the speaker’s meanings seen in dynamics of the speaker-hearer interaction and the methodology appropriate for such analysis – data including naturallyoccurring language. The pragmaticalization studies by the early 1990s had started referring to ‘articulation of speaker attitude’, ‘strategic negotiation of speaker-hearer interaction’, or speakers’ use of discourse markers with the increasing interests in the pragmatic aspect of language. Nonetheless the data they analyzed was limited range of examples from written records and intuitive sentences. Besides, Traugott’s (1982: 256) hypothesized direction of semanticpragmatic change “propositional > ((textual) > (expressive))” implied that expressive meaning (such as articulation of speaker attitude) lies in the most pragmatic domain. Thus, in those days, we needed to seek an approach fit for the investigation into pragmaticalization. This was a starting point of my study. To realize a “pragmatic” study of pragmaticalization, I specify the domain of pragmatic viewpoint this study covers. This viewpoint takes in contextsensitive meanings including speaker-hearer interactively negotiated/created meanings, discourse functions, pragmatic inferences, and speaker and hearer’s actions (cf. Onodera 1999). Lastly, Aijmer’s view on pragmaticalization should be noted here. That is, a categorical limit of grammaticalization when applying to the development of discourse particles (Aijmer 2002: 18–19). Aijmer agrees with Hansen’s (1998: 225) suggestion that “instead of making a binary distinction between lexical and grammatical items,” discourse markers be classified as a third category, “discourse items” (Hansen: Ibid.). Then Aijmer (Ibid.: 19) posits the stance that “the ‘functionalization’ of discourse particles from propositional



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.14 (14)

Chapter 1

meaning to textual and interpersonal uses [. . . ] involves ‘pragmaticalisation’ rather than grammaticalisation”. ... Grammaticalization Among many other definitions, grammaticalization in this study refers to the dynamic, unidirectional historical process whereby lexical items in the course of time acquire a new status as grammatical, morpho-syntactic forms, and in the process come to code relations that either were not coded before or were coded differently. (Traugott & König 1991: 189)

This shows rather a broad perspective of grammaticalization, in contrast to more restrictive ones in the field.10 Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization are at times (maybe too often) analyzed and discussed in a correlated way. Traugott (1982) argued the occurrence of pragmaticalization in the early stages of grammaticalization. Then more recently the correlation between pragmaticalization and grammaticalization seems recognized in the larger set of diachronic processes. Today, pragmaticalization can be considered a common feature of grammaticalization as well as other well-known unidirectional features such as boundness, abstraction, or “parameters” (Lehmann 1995: Chapter 4). However, as it may be true for the relationship of the other parameters, grammaticalization and pragmaticalization are originally independent processes. This asymmetric relationship of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization was self-evident in the initial literature, but fallaciously their correlation has been emphasized in the recent discussions. Hence, in Onodera (2000), the independent relationship of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization was confirmed and suggested (see also 7.2). ... Functional-semantic model of language A functional-semantic model of language was introduced in Traugott (1982) which put forward a predictive tendency in meaning change, from propositional to textual and expressive meanings. The shift to ‘expressive’ meaning in this tendency was replaced by the notion of subjectification in the theoretical progress of this field, however, the methodological advantage of the functional-semantic model still seems to hold today. This language model provides a rigorous framework for analyzing functions of linguistic items. Hence, this study will employ this model. Here the language model and three functions of language organized in this model will be introduced.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.15 (15)

Introduction

Traugott’s (1982) functional-semantic model is a modified version of Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) linguistic system. It is also affiliated with Silverstein’s (1976) similar approach. Within this model there are three functionalsemantic components; propositional (ideational in Halliday & Hasan), textual and expressive (interpersonal in Halliday & Hasan) components. The propositional function has to do with “the resources of the language for making it possible to talk about something” (Traugott 1982: 248). The same function is, in Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26), “part of the linguistic system which is concerned with the expression of ‘content’, with the function that language has of being ABOUT something”. This function is, in other words, the ideational (Halliday & Hasan) or referential function. In my study except the review of Traugott’s research itself, “propositional” function originally so called in Traugott (1982) is replaced by “ideational” function to avoid the terminological fuzziness. “Propositional” seems too strictly semantic to adequately express this function discussed in this study. (See detailed discussion on the ideational component in (3.2).) The textual function is served by “the resources available for creating a cohesive discourse” (Traugott Ibid.). In Halliday and Hasan, this text-forming function is both inside and “outside the hierarchical organization of system” (in terms of sentences and clauses) (1976: 27), i.e. the textual function (and also ‘cohesion’) refers to both intrasentential and intersentential relations. In contrast, in Traugott’s works and this study the full-fledged textual function refers only to the intersentential linking function. The expressive function is equipped by: the resources a language has for expressing personal attitudes to what is being talked about, to the text itself, and to others in the speech situation. . . [They] show not only cohesion but also attitudes toward, even evaluation of, the propositions. . . (Traugott 1982: 248)

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26–27) illustrate the same function as: concerned with the social, expressive and conative functions of language, with expressing the speaker’s ‘angle’: his attitudes and judgements, his encoding of the role relationships in the situation, and his motive in saying anything at all.

This function is called “interpersonal” function in Halliday and Hasan (1976). Armed with the notions of the three functions of language specified above, I will examine the functions of the items chosen for study and their change.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.16 (16)

Chapter 1

... Discourse markers I basically follow the concept of discourse markers defined by Schiffrin (1987). In the book Discourse Markers (1987), Schiffrin provided both operational and theoretical definitions of markers. Both definitions will be briefly reviewed, and I will discuss the issues most relevant to my study among the suggested issues important for understanding discourse markers. Schiffrin (1987: 31) operationally defines discourse markers as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk”. The phrase ‘units of talk’ is left deliberately vague: this shows Schiffrin’s wish “to let units of various kinds and sizes . . . figure in the analysis as needed” (Schourup 1988: 634) rather than to bind the definition with a particular kind of unit. It is hence possible to employ this definition in analyzing different units such as tone groups, sentences, actions, verses, etc. depending upon the research purpose. ‘Sequential dependence’ and ‘bracketing’ are two qualifying features of markers. By ‘sequential dependence’ it is denoted that the level on which markers function is the “discourse level” (Schiffrin 1987: 37). ‘Brackets’, the notion of which comes from Goffman (1974), mark “the boundaries of units not only of talk, but of social life and social organization in general” (Schiffrin 1987: 36). Brackets “provide frames of understanding through which [the containing activity] is defined” (Ibid.). Brackets both initiate and terminate units of talk. However the symbolism and the predominance of initiating brackets are often focused on. Goffman suggests in his original work (1974: 255) that the beginning bracket not only will establish an episode but will establish a slot for signals informing and defining what kind of transformation is to be made of the materials within the episode. In my study, occurrence of an item in the unit-initial position as a bracket is a key point in exploring pragmaticalization. As will become apparent below, initial position is one of the conditions to define an item as a discourse marker (Schiffrin 1987: 328). A more theoretical definition of markers (Schiffrin 1987: 40), provided after the analysis of eleven English expressions is: markers are “contextual coordinates” (Ibid.: 327). That is, the markers index the containing utterance to the local contexts in which utterances are produced and are to be interpreted (Ibid.: 326). The main function of contextual coordinates is the indexical function (indexing an utterance to context). Indexicals are referred to as deictic features (Ibid.: 322–323; Levinson 1983; Cook 1988: 9). Deictics, in this case, markers, are grouped into ‘proximal’ (indexing toward the deictic center11 ) and ‘distal’ (indexing away from the deictic center). The context to which markers index an utterance includes both participants and text. Now markers can be

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.17 (17)

Introduction

demo

Participation coordinates (speaker/hearer)

Textual coordinates (prior/upcoming)

speaker/hearer

prior

Figure 1.1 Demo as contextual coordinates

classified as participation coordinates or textual coordinates (and in each case proximal or distal), depending on their indexical function. Let us examine, for example, one of the elements to be observed in this study, demo, and see how it is classified according to the proximal/distal opposition on participation and textual coordinates. Markers as participation coordinates index the speaker (proximal) or the hearer (distal) or both. Demo, for example, in playing the role of ‘opening conversation’ or ‘changing topic’ focuses on both the speaker and hearer, since it marks the speaker’s action of suggesting that the hearer seek for and receive prior information. The textual coordinates point at prior text (proximal) or forthcoming text (distal). Demo indexes the current discourse to a portion of prior discourse. Accordingly, how demo is classified as contextual coordinates is summarized in Figure 1.1. The other expressions subject to examination in this study could also be typed as contextual coordinates just as demo has been. I also suggest that the indexical function of markers falls into the textual function of language, since it is their indexical function that makes markers contribute to discourse coherence (cf. Halliday & Hasan’s argument that cohesion is part of the textual component 1976: 27). Discourse deictics argued in Levinson (1983) are indeed what we consider discourse markers. Levinson includes utterance-initial usages of English expressions such as ‘but’, ‘therefore’, and ‘so’ etc. as ‘discourse deictics’. His notion of discourse deixis “concerns the use of expressions within some utterance to refer to some portion of the discourse that contains that utterance” (Ibid.: 85). Then the elements expressing such deixis, i.e. deictics, “indicate the relationship between an utterance and the prior discourse” (Ibid.: 87).12 Levinson (Ibid.: 87–88) further states that deictics: have at least a component of meaning that resists truth-conditional treatment. What they seem to do is indicate, often in very complex ways, just how the utterance that contains them is a response to, or a continuation of, some portion of the prior discourse.

The characteristics of discourse deictics expressed here are that of discourse markers, too. With respect to the component of meaning possessed by deic-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.18 (18)

Chapter 1

tics, quoted above, I suggest that the “component resisting truth-conditional treatment” can be more specifically defined as the component containing the textual and expressive functions of language. What Levinson describes as the task of deictics in the above quotation (i.e. the indication of how the utterance is a response to, or a continuation of the prior discourse) seems, in fact, the same as the textual and expressive functions of markers. Schiffrin (1987: 328) suggests the following criterial conditions that allow an expression to be used as a marker: 1. 2. 3. 4.

it has to be syntactically detachable from a sentence it has to be commonly used in initial position of an utterance it has to have a range of prosodic contours it has to be able to operate at both local and global levels of discourse, and on different planes of discourse

If the elements about to be examined in this study are truly discourse markers, they should also fulfill the above conditions. .. Assumption An assumption is put forward before the analysis. That is, an item is judged to have become a discourse marker when it gains either textual or expressive function. Although the expressive function supplies a characteristic feature of a marker, i.e. expressing the speaker attitude, acquisition of only textual function also satisfies the condition of being a marker. Accordingly, there are items that as markers may have only a textual or only an expressive function. Based on this assumption, the point in time when an item becomes a marker will be distinguished in this study.

. Data and approach .. Data The pragmatic change of each item will be explored by the incorporated approach of discourse/pragmatic analysis and diachronic analysis (which will be described in more detail in (1.3.2)). As stated in (1.2.1.1), this study will examine the pragmatic functions of language with a special focus on the speakerhearer interactive aspect. The language data which represents this aspect (the

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.19 (19)

Introduction

articulation of speaker attitude or speaker-hearer interactive negotiation) most faithfully seems to be naturally-occurring everyday language. As is usual in the field of discourse analysis, I will examine tape-recorded and transcribed everyday conversations of present-day Japanese (PDJ). Although recorded conversations are the ideal for investigating the interactive aspect of language, such data are unobtainable for the language of earlier days. Thus I will use conversational segments from literature that are considered the closest to the naturally-occurring colloquial language of contemporary period. Jacobs and Jucker (1995: 7) claim the feasibility of the area of historical pragmatics, concerning its data as: It is plausible to suggest that written records of spoken language are closer to the actual spoken language of the time than written language not based on spoken language. Features that are consistently more frequent in records of spoken language than in written language proper can fairly safely be hypothesized to be even more frequent in the spoken language of that period.

Such written records of spoken language include play scripts (e.g. kyoogen and kabuki scripts), popular ballads and conversational segments of popular fictions. On the whole, my data consist of the best representatives of conversational discourse for a given time period. These data are thought to reflect the interactive aspect of language the best. As stated in Jacobs and Jucker (1995: 10), “historical pragmatics, [as a whole area,] will always have to rely on written material. However, this should no longer be seen as detrimental” or restricted. Modern sociolinguistic methodologies and attentive work will make it possible to distinguish which texts may be used as rough approximations to the spoken language of that time. Such discreet treatment would bridge the traditional (and potential) problem in this area, the discrepancy of the mode, spoken language vs. written language. In the rest of this section, the profile of data will be provided. Data for Present Day Japanese (1.3.1.1) and data for Japanese of earlier days (1.3.1.2) are introduced. ... Data for Present Day Japanese The data representing the Present Day Japanese are tape-recorded and transcribed Japanese conversations among native speakers. The data comprise two sets of corpora. The first set consists of recorded conversations in which I also participated. We owe a great deal to recent works (especially those within the last decade) which have developed discourse models or principles and organized



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.20 (20)

Chapter 1

prior works more systematically, while the discourse studies conducted in the 1980s were not provided with “guidelines based on cumulative results from past studies” (Schiffrin 1987: 44). With respect to data collection for discourse analysis, I am personally indebted to the professors who taught my sociolinguistics classes. A few important points in collecting conversation as data are noted from Professor Deborah Tannen’s graduate seminar of “Discourse Analysis (conversation)”:13 1. Naturally-occurring conversation where 2–4 people are participating would be the best. 2. Participants should be those we are in regular contact with so we can play back the tape afterward and get their reactions. 3. To avoid invasion of their privacy, ask permission first or get blanket permission. In the transcript use pseudonyms. As for the transcription conventions, I mainly followed those in Schiffrin (1987) and Tannen (1984). Two conversations were chosen for examination: a family conversation when my in-laws visited our home in Tokyo in November 1987 (participants were: my husband, in-laws, and myself) and a conversation among three female graduate students at Georgetown University, recorded in April 1989 (Midori, Mari and myself). The two conversations were casual ones, and the topics covered were a variety of ordinary ones (e.g. Sendai-city where my in-laws live, plans for summer vacation, etc.). In addition to these conversations, two interviews I conducted in Washington DC during March and April 1989 are also analyzed. An interview was made with Miki, a female Japanese undergraduate student. I requested that she describe the preparation of some dishes. Another was made with Jun, a male Japanese graduate student. Questions referring to various languages and cultural differences were given and answered. The second corpus contains recorded and transcribed everyday conversations which Mrs. K, a Japanese housewife, had with her family members as well as people with whom she interacted verbally during one week in August 1982 (Ide et al. 1984). A total of ten hours of discourse was recorded. This corpus comprises two volumes: a 229-page long transcription and its keywordin-context (KWIC) index. Owing to the index which lists all the uses of an item in textual context (in succession), it is extremely useful for a study of discourse markers which requires a considerable number of examples of each marker. I take advantage of this index for two reasons. First, in order to get a general idea of which items function as markers in Japanese, I looked over the examples of items that might actually function as markers. This supplies a pre-analysis, and

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.21 (21)

Introduction

makes it possible to pick out the items truly used as markers. Second, to update the survey run by the National Language Research Institute (1955) which revealed the most frequently-used conjunctions in spoken Japanese (Table 1.1), I offer a 1982 version of this survey by counting the frequency of conjunctions that appeared in this corpus (Table 1.2). Both tables are shown in (1.1.2.1). The profile of the main participant, Mrs. K, will be briefly given. She is in her 40s, the wife of a middle class office worker, and has two daughters – Rika, a senior in college, and Saki, a third-year student in high school. Mrs. K is also a cooking instructor and is a PTA official at Saki’s school. The topics of conversations vary in the given situations; as in the first corpus, the conversations are all naturally-occurring. The situations where tape-recording took place include a family conversation on Sunday morning; conversations during and after cooking classes; talks when the daughter’s professor visited the K’s; telephone conversations with other PTA members. They were all recorded during Mrs. K’s everyday activities. ... Data for Japanese of earlier days For the data for Japanese of earlier time periods, discourse containing conversational segments was collected. Labeling the time periods of history relies upon the traditional categorization of eras14 (e.g. Matsumura 1972, 1977; Fujii 1938; Shuzui 1956; Hayashi & Ikegami (Eds.) 1979), rather than the corresponding time classification applied to Western languages such as Old, Middle, and Early modern English, etc. (This is to avoid the confusion which may occur because of the slight difference in the classification of antiquity, the middle (medieval) ages and modern times in Western and Japanese histories.) Earlier time stages to be examined include the following eras: Nara period (710– 784), Heian period (794–1192), Muromachi period (1336–1573), Edo period (1603–1867) and the present age (Meiji (1868–1912), Taishoo (1912–1926) and Shoowa (1926–1989). This categorization corresponds to the political divisions of ages. This seems natural because “the language is used in the society and it changes along with the political revolutions” (Matsumura 1972: 14). As mentioned in 1.1.4 (Problems in Diachronic Analysis), data of Nara and Heian periods will be looked at as secondary information only. In the rest of this section, let us look over the Japanese language and literature in each era represented in this study. For this review, mainly Matsumura (1972) and Shuzui (1956) are referred to, and complementarily Matsumura (1977) and Hisamatsu (1955). The historical range within which the items are used is first noted: [V-te + mo/demo]: Muromachi → Present Day Japanese,



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.22 (22)

Chapter 1

[V + kedo/dakedo]: Edo → Present Day Japanese, [ne and its variants]: Nara → Present Day Japanese. The Nara period (710–784) is the earliest age in which Japanese language is examinable through literature.15 There was no Japanese orthography at that point, and Chinese writing was utilized. During this period, a modification of the Chinese writing system was developed and it appeared as kana (Japanese alphabet) in the next Heian period. The basic literature of this age includes Kojiki (‘Record of Ancient Matters’),16 Nihonshoki and Manyooshuu. Songs will be taken out of these collections and examined as examples. The Heian period (794–1192) commenced when the capital was transferred from Nara to Kyoto. The prominent and substantial change in language is that in the 9th century kana (hiragana and katakana) developed and became widespread. This means that the Japanese first possessed a writing system of their own. In the mid Heian, a collection of poems Kokin wakashuu (‘Collection of Ancient and Modern Poems’) (905) appeared, and due to this appearance the prosperity of the poetry and literature performed in the Japanese orthography was predictable. One hundred years later, Genji monogatari (‘The Tale of Genji’) (1008) and Makura no sooshi (‘The Pillow Book’) (1000) marked the peak of such literature. The aristocracy of this period enjoyed singing the local ballads Fuuzoku uta. Since interjections were used especially in the ballads and poems, such texts are beneficial to this study and are examined. Ryoojin Hishoo (1171) is a collection of ballads of the Heian period. One of the features of language in the Muromachi (1336–1573) is the separation of the spoken and written languages (‘genbun nito’). This fact is reflected in the texts of this period. Noo scripts and kyoogen scripts are comprised mostly of the performers’ lines considered close to the spoken language of those days. The collection of populace’s love songs reflect their candid everyday spoken language. The next period, Edo (1603–1867), begins and ends along with the Tokugawa shogunate. Since the government was established in Edo (later called Tokyo), this period is so named. During this period, feudalism increased and the system of the four social classes was settled. Also urban centers such as Kyoto, Osaka and Tokyo developed. This politically and socially shifting situation brought about variety in spoken language according to the social classes and regions. Gradually, the Edo language came into a model. The Edo period is also the time when the townspeople, not the ruling classes, first gained their own literature. An example of such literature is Ukiyoburo, a comic novel. Its text is full of the Edo townspeople’s colloquial expressions, and therefore it is often called the storehouse of the Edo spoken language. The gay-quarter novelettes

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.23 (23)

Introduction

(share-bon) such as Yuushi Hoogen and Tatsumi no sono describe the life and manners in gay quarters of those days. The following three periods, Meiji (1868–1912), Taishoo (1912–1926) and Shoowa (1926–1989), are grouped together as modern times. This age accords the modernization of Japan. During this new epoch of Japanese history, a significant change in language use is marked. The distinctive change was the unification of the spoken and written modes (‘genbun icchi’) of Japanese. Since the Heian period, the written and spoken modes had evolved almost individually. However after around 1888, novelists agitated for and practiced this unification. Consequently, written language based on the spoken language (called spoken-written unified style (genbun icchi-tai)) was well-developed and expanded. Without doubt, the spoken mode includes various styles that are not exactly copied in the written mode; however, in comparison to earlier periods, from this point on, the two modes of Japanese came to be assimilated. In the new epoch, the modern novels as well as the new-style poems and traditional-style poems (tanka and haiku) grew all more or less under the influence of Western culture. A Meiji novelist Futabatei succeeded in writing a novel Ukigumo (‘The Drifting Cloud’) (1887) in the spoken-written unified style and made a great contribution to the foundation of this style. Hakai (‘The Broken Commandment’) (1906) written by Shimazaki is another typical Meiji novel. In the Taishoo era, novels of sensual romanticism such as Udekurabe (1917) by Nagai appeared. Yuujoo (1920) by Mushanokooji describes the life and manners of a growing class, the intelligentsia. In the Shoowa period, much influenced by American and English writers, Tanizaki described human pleasure in novels such as Tade kuu mushi (‘Some Prefer Nettles’) (1929). A neosensualist Kawabata also published Yukiguni (‘Snow Country’) (1938) in this age. All these modern works were already written in the spoken-written unified style; I extracted only the conversational segments out of these novels for use in the analysis. .. Approach for analysis This section will explain the approach taken for this study. In order to reveal the functional change of each item, two types of analyses, discourse/pragmatic analysis and diachronic analysis, are required. Figure 1.2 illustrates that the two analyses form two axes in my whole data analysis, the x and y = axes. To begin with, for each item, I will conduct a discourse/pragmatic analysis which is to reveal the uses and functions of the item in Time 4 (Present Day Japanese). The discourse/pragmatic analysis is the synchronic analysis.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.24 (24)

Chapter 1

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 1.2 Approach taken for analysis

Chapters 3 and 5 will provide the result of discourse/pragmatic analysis of conjunctions and interjections respectively. I will then carry out the diachronic analysis which looks at the items used in Times 1, 2, 3. . . (ranging from Old Japanese to the Shoowa era). In this analysis, the structural as well as functional changes of each item will be investigated. Chapters 4 and 6 will show the result of such analysis. Discourse/pragmatic and diachronic analyses together will bring us to a position where we can discuss the direction of shifts in meaning/function and structure. I will start with the former analysis simply because we are more familiar with synchronic discourse analysis both theoretically and methodologically than dealing with the language of earlier days.

. Sample analyses This section shows sample analyses of the two discourse markers – a conjunction dakedo and an interjection ne. Sample analyses will be provided to epitomize the problem I address. Throughout this book, in my analysis, propositional function defined in Traugott’s (1982) functional-semantic model of language is called “ideational” function, to avoid terminological confusion. “Ideational”, textual and expressive functions comprise the three fundamental functions of language in Traugott’s (1982) model (see 1.2.1.3 for the functional-semantic model of language). .. Analysis of dakedo Figure 1.3 presents the direction of pragmaticalization of dakedo revealed in my pilot study. The pilot study examined one of the earliest cases of the source element, clause-final V + kedo (1758), and a case of the developed element, an initial dakedo, which appeared around the Taishoo period.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.25 (25)

Introduction

Time 1 (1758) V + kedo (final) ideational

>

Time 2 (1922) Dakedo (initial) ideational textual expressive

Figure 1.3 Direction of pragmaticalization of Dakedo (revealed in pilot study)

This figure shows a case of pragmaticalization: Whereas V + kedo bears mainly the ideational function only in the final position, Dakedo has all three functions, ideational, textual and expressive, on occurring in the sentenceinitial position. For dakedo in the initial position, the possession of textual (and expressive) function(s) fulfills the criterion to be counted as a discourse marker. (1) illustrates V + kedo in 1758. It is an example taken out of Sanjikkoku yofune no hajimari, a kabuki script.17 (1) Sanjikkoku yofune no hajimari (1758)18 a. Chitto ome ni wa irimasu mai kedo, a.little eyes in enter would not but b. suwa to iwaba donata demo, when the time comes anyone (HON) c. doitsu demo kiri kanenu anyone cut would d. wazamono degozarimasu. fine.sword COP

The sequence V (irimasu mai) + kedo (a conjunctive particle) is a clause-final connecting element. This element forms the subordinate clause (a), whose main clause is (b–d). It links the preceding and the following: this linking function is intrasentential. V + kedo has an ideational function of conveying the adversative meaning between (a) and (b–d) and an intrasentential linking function but no other function clearly recognized. (2) shows a case of dakedo, a conjunction which seems to have first appeared in the Taishoo period. (2) is an excerpt from Anya kooro, a novel. (2) Anya kooro (1922) Kensaku: a. Oniisan ni tsurete kite Brother take-GER come-GER



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.26 (26)

Chapter 1

Taeko:

b. morau sa. receive FP c. Ee, sono tsumori. Yes, that intention d. Dakedo, itsu na no? But, when COP FP e. Gakkoo ga oyasumi de School SB off COP f. nai to dame na no yo. NEG impossible COP FP FP

When (2) took place, Kensaku was meeting his two younger sisters. The sisters were asking about the brother’s wedding. Prior to (2) the youngest sister Taeko mentioned her desire to attend the wedding. Dakedo in (d) seems to mark the speaker’s contrastive action of changing the sub-topic. In (c) Taeko agrees with Kensaku’s suggestion (a–b): the same sub-topic is maintained from (a) to (c). However, in (d) Taeko brings up a question about the time of the wedding: This is regarded as the speaker’s shift of the sub-topic. Dakedo marks this speaker’s action, which is realized by an expressive function. Dakedo also marks a referential contrast, since sub-topics (topics) are referentially different discourse chunks. In addition, dakedo links two utterances (c and d): this linking function is intersentential which is counted as a textual function. While the contrastive action is served by dakedo’s expressive function, the referential contrast is served by ideational function. Therefore dakedo in (2) contributes to the ideational, textual and expressive components of language. As shown in Figure 1.3, an overview of analyses of (1) and (2) reveals the direction of functional change in dakedo, which roughly accords with the direction once suggested to be general in meaning change (Traugott 1982), ideational > (textual > expressive).19 .. Analysis of ne Figure 1.4 exhibits the direction of pragmaticalization of ne. In the pilot study, each example of the first appearances of final ne and initial ne in my data was examined. I have approached ne, applying the same functional-semantic model of language which will be used for the analysis of the conjunctions. Un-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.27 (27)

Introduction

Time 1 (1768) Ne (final) expressive

>

Time 2 (1906) Ne (initial) expressive textual

Figure 1.4 Direction of pragmaticalization of ne (revealed in pilot study)

like the conjunctions, the pilot study has revealed that the pragmatic change which ne underwent deviates from the general direction of pragmaticalization, (ideational > textual > expressive) (Traugott 1982). This deviation seems to arise simply because ne starts with an expressive function, not with an ideational function. This result will be discussed more substantially in my full analysis. Figure 1.4 shows that while ne in the final position carries only the expressive function, in the initial position it has both expressive and textual functions as a marker. (3) illustrates the case of the final ne in 1768. It is extracted from Yuushi Hoogen, a gay-quarter novelette (share-bon). (3) Yuushi Hoogen (1768) Anatasama wa donatasama degozarimashita ne. You TP who COP FP

(3) is judged to be uttered to someone superior to the speaker because of the use of honorific title (sama) appended to the pronouns anata (you) and donata (who) and the polite form of the copula degozarimas. Due to these expressions, the speech style of this utterance is fairly formal. Ne adds nothing semantic. However its use at the end softens the formality of the utterance because ne expresses the speaker’s attitude of involving herself and the hearer in what is being said (Martin 1975). This is counted as ne’s expressive function. More specifically, ne indicates the speaker’s attempt to share the unsolved problem ‘who you are’ with the hearer, or more directly to request the answer from the hearer. Ne in (3) carries an expressive function but nothing else. In (4) we see an example of the interjection ne which emerges in the Meiji era for the first time in my data. (4) is taken out of Hakai, a novel. In this example ne works as ‘reinforcement’ (see 5.4.1) and shows its expressive and textual functions.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08



F: PB13201.tex / p.28 (28)

Chapter 1

(4) Hakai (1906) Segawa: a. Atode gakkoo no kozukai Later school LK janitor b. o tori ni yokoshimasu DO take send c. kara tte. Ne. because QT OK

Preceding (4), Segawa asked the hearer to tell the landlady to make his dinner. The information in (a–c) ‘I’ll send the janitor to fetch it’ is then a support for his request. Ne operates the expressive function in conveying the speaker’s confirmation of the hearer’s reception of his request. (Ne might also seek agreement from or transfer responsibility to the hearer.) Here we also recognize ne’s textual function. Ne in fact looks backward and points at the preceding information (a–c). In pointing to the preceding utterance ne indeed contributes to creating discourse coherence. Ne in (4) serves both expressive and textual functions. As Figure 1.4 presents, the functional change of ne is from expressive to expressive and textual. In the diachronic process of ne, the expressive function remains throughout the process. Synchronic analysis of the items in Chapters 3 and 5 and diachronic analysis of the same items in Chapters 4 and 6 will bring the more detailed findings in the functions of each discourse marker. Besides, in later chapters, the question of the motivation of each pragmaticalization will be addressed as well.

. Outline of this book An outline of this study is presented. In this introductory chapter, the background material to advance this study has been given: the problem; definitions and assumption; data and approach; and sample analyses. The definitions of key concepts and assumption provide criteria for this analysis. Chapter 2 reviews prior studies in four perspectives of my study: (1) discourse/pragmatic, (2) historical, (3) typological studies, and (4) syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions and interjections. This review reinforces the backbone of the study by clarifying the points of argument in each area. Chapter 3 explores the functions of the conjunctions demo and dakedo used in Present Day Japanese. Their basic and specified functions will be revealed as

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:08

F: PB13201.tex / p.29 (29)

Introduction

a result of the synchronic discourse analysis. Chapter 4 conducts the diachronic analysis of demo and dakedo. The functions of the items in the unit-final and initial positions that appear in Japanese of different time stages will be observed chronologically. The process of how such functions seem to change over time is an issue to be addressed and it will be discussed relating to the assumptions and suggestions in the field. What provoked such functional change will also be considered. The same procedure will be taken for the exploration of the historical change of the interjection ne and its variants. Chapter 5 analyzes the functions of ne and na used in Present Day Japanese. Since the use of ne and na may pertain to some cultural aspect of Japanese conversation, such cultural feature connected with a goal in practice of Japanese conversation will be argued. The relationship between ne/na and interpersonal involvement at a metamessage level of interaction will also be examined. In Chapter 6, the functions of ne and its variants in the three different positions within an utterance used in the succeeding time stages since antiquity will be inspected. The process of their functional change will then be studied. In addition, a question concerning the motivation for such functional change will also be raised. For the readers whose main interests go to the functions of discourse markers in modern Japanese, pay close attention to Chapters 3 and 5 where the analysis of such functions will be discussed. For those who are interested in diachrony as well as synchrony of Japanese discourse markers, read Chapters 4 and 6. Lastly, Chapter 7 summarizes the findings of this study and concludes it with discussions of a few more linguistic issues relevant to the subjects treated in this book. In this chapter, some thoughts on “grammaticalization” will also be illustrated. The issue of development of discourse markers in the framework of grammaticalization will be discussed.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.1 (31)

Chapter 2

Perspectives on Japanese Discourse Markers Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis

Four diverse linguistic areas supply the theoretical perspectives of this study. This chapter will review the related literature of the four areas. First is a discourse/pragmatic perspective: The related areas of discourse analysis and pragmatics provide a fundamental method for my discourse/pragmatic analysis. Second is an historical perspective: Among prior scholarship, Traugott’s hypothesized orders of meaning change define the direction of my study as a historical one. I will attempt to reveal the functional shifts in the evolution of some Japanese unit-final elements into markers, relating to Traugott’s findings. The third perspective is derived from typological studies: Whereas the position where connectives appear holds when they start serving as markers in English, there is a positional shift in the case of Japanese: some of the items do shift from final to initial positions. This specific linguistic phenomenon seems related to typological differences in languages. Two typological characteristics of Japanese that seem involved in the evolution of discourse markers will be reviewed. The fourth and final perspective concerns syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions and interjections: Some of the previous literature on syntax and semantics of the items to be investigated will be reviewed as basic linguistic information for this study.

. Discourse/pragmatic perspective Conjunctions and interjections, the subject of this study, have been long discussed from a traditional semantic viewpoint (this is especially true for conjunctions). However, I start the review with Lakoff (1971) because hers is one

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.2 (32)

Chapter 2

of the earliest studies that took a more pragmatically-oriented approach to the conjunctions. While the semantic view considers the connective ‘but’ to be truthfunctionally equivalent to ‘and’, Lakoff (1971) proposes that ‘but’ has a pragmatic meaning requiring the hearer to make a presupposition. Lakoff (Ibid.: 132–134) divides the use of ‘but’ into two kinds; (a) the semantic opposition ‘but’ and (b) the denial of expectation ‘but’. (1) and (2) represent examples of each use. (1) John is tall but Bill is short. (2) John is tall but he’s no good at basketball.

In (1) the meaning of contrast lies overtly in the lexical items in the two conjuncts, which form a pair of antonyms. In the case of (2), ‘but’ is used without any notion of semantic opposition. However, there is an inconsistency implied between the two conjuncts. In such a case, to interpret the implied meaning of contrast the hearer must supply a presupposition. What is presupposed here is: “If someone is tall, then one would expect him to be good at basketball” (Ibid.: 133). The presupposition involves a general expectation. This is the use of denial of expectation ‘but’. Blakemore (1987) also discusses the two uses of ‘but’; however, she gives them different labels. The uses of ‘but’ in (1) and (2) are called ‘contrast’ ‘but’ and ‘denial’ ‘but’ respectively. In my study, the referential contrast (Schiffrin 1987) marked by Japanese adversative conjunctions is considered similar to the ‘semantic opposition ‘but” (or ‘contrast ‘but”). Van Dijk (1979) clearly distinguishes between semantic and pragmatic connectives: while semantic connectives express relations between denoted facts/propositions, pragmatic connectives express relations between speech acts. The use of what van Dijk regards as a pragmatic connective ‘but’ can be tentatively grouped into two types. The two types are exemplified in (3) and (4). (3) Harry was ill, but he came to the meeting anyway. (4) A: Let’s go! B: But, I am not ready yet!

The use of ‘but’ in (3) is identical with Lakoff ’s (1971) denial of expectation ‘but’. A case such as (4), in van Dijk (1979), presents another pragmatic use of ‘but’. In (4) ‘but’ links the relation between the speech acts, which is the pragmatic interpretation in van Dijk’s sense; request and its non-acceptance (here, protest). ‘but’ in this case indicates that the speaker does not accept a

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.3 (33)

Perspectives on Japanese Discourse Markers

previous speech act; it signals that a prerequisite condition, i.e. the hearer is able to perform the action expressed in the directive, is not fulfilled. The meaning of contrast in (4) pertains to actions not to propositions. Van Dijk (1979: 452) also mentions that a weaker form of ‘but’ is used as a conversational starter, e.g. “when a speaker interrupts another speaker” even in cases without semantic contrast. Cases similar to this use will be observed in my examples of demo/dakedo. A condition for the occurrence of pragmatic connectives is noted in van Dijk (1979). This condition involves the accompaniment of different phonological and syntactic constraints on such connectives. More specifically, pragmatic connectives are (usually) “sentence-initial, followed by a pause, and uttered with a specific intonation contour” (Ibid.: 449). These constraints are also suggested as the conditions for the occurrence of discourse markers (Schiffrin 1987). What van Dijk (Ibid.) poses as the “main problem” in the field is having no unambiguous meta-language to characterize the meanings of use of pragmatic connectives. As a means of solving this problem, I will employ the functionalsemantic model of language to characterize the meanings in question. Consistent with Lakoff (1971), Lakoff (1972) claims that we must consider assumptions about the social context of an utterance in order to make correct predictions about the applicability of linguistic rules. In Japanese, for example, honorifics and final particles are linguistic phenomena linked with the social context. With respect to the final particle ne, Lakoff suggests that the felicity condition, which concerns the relative status of the speaker and the addressee, must be operating in order for the acceptable use of ne. This condition can be specified as in (a) and (b): (a) The status of the addressee should be higher (but not very much higher) than that of the speaker (H > S, but *H >> S). (b) The status of the addressee cannot be lower than that of the speaker (*H < S). However, this condition which led from the observation of invented data is questionable. In my analysis of actual conversation, uses of ne in conversations where H >> S or H < S will be seen. In the 1980s, the increase of interest in the structural organization of conversation and the speaker-hearer dynamics of interactional negotiation in conversation resulted in systematically-organized research on common English expressions that serve a variety of discourse functions (Schourup 1982; Warner 1985; Schiffrin 1987; Östman 1981; Schleppegrell 1989). Schourup (1982) and Östman (1981) seem to have been inspired by the conviction that discourse particles/pragmatic expressions should not be simply regarded as “fillers” (Schourup 1982: 2) or “pause-fillers” (Östman 1981: 9). These labels



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.4 (34)

Chapter 2

were the result of analyses based on truth-conditional semantics which found little contribution of such particles to the ideational component of meaning. Schourup (1982) suggests that what discourse particles do is disclose the speaker’s covert thinking to the overt world. This work is characterized by a tripartite model concerning the participants’ knowledge and meta-knowledge state. From the speaker’s viewpoint, there are three worlds: (1) the private world – the covert thinking of the speaker, what s/he has presently in mind; (2) the other world – the covert thinking of other participants, invisible to the speaker and (3) the shared world – what is on display as verbal or non-verbal behavior and is thus available to all the participants. The core meaning of ‘you know’, one of the particles, which seems to function similarly to the Japanese particle ne is proposed as follows: ‘You know’ indicates that the speaker expects that there is no significant discrepancy between what is now in the private world and what is now in the other world, with respect to what is now in the shared world. (Schourup 1982: 74)

This core use of ‘you know’ in addition to its specific functions (discussed in Chapter 5 in Schourup 1982) such as “initiating a topic”, “tracking topic”, “repair marker” and “sympathetic circularity sequence” truly indicates the parallelism between ‘you know’ and ne. The main function of the interjection ne seems closely related to displaying the ‘harmony’ among conversants which is essential in Japanese conversation. Schourup’s descriptions of ‘you know’, “the speaker’s anticipation, upon its use, of a positive response indicating that the private and other worlds are in harmony” (1982: 103) and “intimacy ploy” (79) all predict a similar role for ‘you know’ and ne in discourse. Östman’s (1981) study of ‘you know’ is also suggestive for the investigation of Japanese particles. The general meaning, which every occurrence of ‘you know’ has, is formulated as follows: The speaker strives towards getting the addressee to cooperate and/or to accept the propositional content of his utterance as mutual background knowledge. (Ibid.: 17)

Elsewhere, ‘you know’ is observed to “imply and invoke prior information, or a prior agreement. . . with the addressee” (Ibid.: 22). The speaker in fact invokes a prior agreement “as the source for the trustworthiness of ” his statement (Ibid.). In my analysis of ne, a very similar function is anticipated. More importantly, the indexing function of the particle, introducing “its ‘referent’ as being

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.5 (35)


supposedly already mutual (the speaker and hearer’s) background knowledge” (Ibid.: 25) is suggested. Schiffrin (1987) proposes an integrated model of discourse in which discourse is analyzable as comprised of five different planes: ideational structure, action structure, exchange structure, participation framework and information state. Schiffrin also suggests the indexical functions of markers and that the markers act as contextual coordinates of talk, indexing utterances to both participants and text. Eleven markers are shown to be functionally differentiated from one another, using the above five planes of talk and the ideas of participation and textual coordinates. The discourse viewpoint developed in Schiffrin’s book provides us with an efficient and applicable model for the analysis of actual conversational discourse. Among a number of stimulating discussions in Schiffrin (1987), a helpful suggestion is the approach toward the notion of “action” (10–12). Several branches of scholarship such as functional analyses of language, speech acts, conversation analysis and ethnography of communication have contributed to the understanding of discourse as a means of action. In the five planes of talk in Schiffrin (Ibid.), exchange and action structure and participation framework are considered to be pragmatic. Studies of semantic-pragmatic change (e.g. Traugott 1982, 1989) required a clear position towards actions such as Schiffrin’s exchange and action structure and participation framework: this had not been taken till recently in previous studies. In Schiffrin (1987), the items ‘and’, ‘but’ and ‘or’ are categorized as ‘discourse connectives’. As stated, it is necessary to take a somewhat different approach to this group of markers from that taken with other groups of markers such as interjections, since connectives have grammatical roles in English. The analysis of these English connectives will be a helpful contrast for my analysis of Japanese connectives. Lastly, a further discussion in my study directly addresses an important finding in Schiffrin (1987), i.e. in English, some connectives came to be put into service as discourse markers. My aim is to illustrate the same phenomenon in Japanese and support the above finding. Since in English, connectives such as ‘and’ and ‘but’ already emerge in initial positions in deep structure (McCawley 1988), the functional shift (ideational > textual > (expressive)) is implicit. By contrast, a study of Japanese, a postpositional language in which connectives originally emerge in final positions, could show the explicit functional change which is accompanied by positional shift (from final to initial) as visible evidence. As noted in Chapter 1, one of the goals in my study is to support



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.6 (36)

Chapter 2

proposals regarding markers in English by providing analysis of a language quite unlike English. Warner (1985) provides another extensive study. He analyzes language taking “discourse fragment” as a unit, which consists of two sentences and a connective (Ibid.: 9). Schourup (1982: 7) has suggested an important question in the discussion of discourse particles, routinization. He cites Coulmas (1981: 3), who contends that routines are “highly conventionalized prepatterned expressions whose occurrence is tied to more or less standard communication situations”. Schourup (1982: 8) goes on to argue that “the degree of meaningfulness of an item may depend to an extent on its frequency of occurrence”, and he considers the basic/core use of an item to define the possibilities for its multiple routine uses. This inquiry is closely related to one of Traugott’s (1989: 52) tasks which is to specify the exact process by which conversational implicature becomes conventionalized. Discourse studies of Japanese conversation are also relevant to my research. Maynard (1989b) has investigated both the structure and interactional strategies of Japanese conversation, with a special focus on self-contextualization which seems a culture/language-specific process associated with on-going Japanese conversation. Initially, several fundamental features of Japanese conversation are described. At least four features pointed out in Maynard’s work are distinctive characteristics of Japanese and suggestive for my study, although no direct discussion of typological characteristics is given. First, in a comparison of spoken vs. written language, Maynard points out that the most striking feature in the spoken language is its fragmentedness and involvement. Second, she proposes Pause-bounded Phrasal Unit (PPU) as a basic unit of Japanese discourse, replacing Chafe’s notion of ‘idea unit’. It is further claimed that a significant point in the fragmentation in Japanese is that PPUs are frequently marked by final particles. Third, in this work “final particles” include both sentence-final particles and insertion particles. Although some are strictly sentence-final, this group of particles are found to appear not only at sentence-final but sentence-internal positions as well. It is also explained that the primary function of final particles is to express modality based on Tokieda’s (1950) concept of “ji”. In Japanese conversation, frequent use of final particles appeals to the interpersonal feelings of the recipient of the message (“involvement” in Chafe 1982). Elements such as ne, sa, ka, wa and ze are included in “final particles”. Finally, it is noted that many of the sentencefinal expressions in Japanese are characterized by the function of “solicit(ing) rapport” (Maynard 1989b: 39).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.7 (37)


Maynard (1989a) has revealed that dakara, a conjunction widely recognized as a logical connective of ‘cause and result’, is in fact also used as a discourse marker. In addition to dakara’s primary functions that retain the original cause-result meaning, dakara’s secondary functions in which the original logical relationships are no longer recognizable have been found. The primary functions are: (1) express the ‘cause-result’ relationship of two connected propositions and (2) signal a point where supplementary explanation starts in discourse. The secondary functions are: (3) express a speaker’s reluctant repetition and (4) signal the end of the speaker’s turn. In addition to the already known textual function of dakara, the finding of its expressive functions is the main point in this work. A study of the social meanings of the Japanese sentential particles ne, yo and no was conducted by Cook (1988). She regards these particles as indexicals (referring to those such as Pierce 1931–1958; Morris 1946 or Silverstein 1976) and the key idea of this work is that language uses indexicals to express various social contexts (Cook 1988: 12). Cook accounts for her use of audio-taped actual conversation by suggesting that observation of language use in social interaction is a requirement for the analysis of indexicals because they are what create context. This claim regarding data is convincing and valid. According to Cook (1988), the particle ne directly indexes mutual agreement between the speaker and hearer (the direct meaning here is thought to correspond to core/general meaning used in the work of other scholars). Additionally, the use of ne is considered to keep harmonious or intimate relations with the addressee (Ibid.: 171). Indirect meanings (specific meanings opposed to the core meaning) of ne are only briefly mentioned in this work: “initiating interaction, introducing a new topic, displaying or seeking agreement/confirmation/cooperation” (Ibid.: 155). French studies of “markers of conversational structure” (Auchlin 1981) and interjections (Brunet 1983) have also appeared. They are not reviewed in detail, here, though. Finally, Stein (1985) should be included in this section, since this work has also examined discourse markers historically: variability in Early Modern English – the ‘s’/‘th’ contrast of the third person sing. pres. ind. and the choice between ‘do’ or ‘finite form’ in declarative sentences. Let us consider the ‘s’/‘th’ contrast to capture the idea of its discourse functions and asserted textual function. The ‘s’/‘th’ contrast is likely to have a discourse function in the sense of differentiating between two alternating modes of narrating and reporting (Ibid.: 284). (This discourse marker has been found in the data, Robert Greene’s Art of Conny-Catching (1591).) In the portion of text where ‘s’ represents the third person sing. pres. ind., the agents, places and circumstances are



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.8 (38)

Chapter 2

described in detail, which gives us the impression that a scene is set up in front of us. In the portion where ‘th’ serves the same grammatical function, the event (in this case, ‘conny-catching’) is illustrated from a more general/generic viewpoint (Ibid.). This variable is further claimed to have a textual function since it is “functionalized as a broad denominator for a broad range of heterogeneous functions” (Ibid.: 294). More importantly, Stein (1985: 300) suggests, based on Brown and Yule’s (1983) idea, that one of the constraints on the degree of functionalization of these variables as discourse markers is “how long such a variable state persists in a particular compartment of the grammar”. His conclusion is that historical studies in the past “without the benefit of modern variation studies and discourse analysis” (Ibid.: 301) were likely to overlook pragmatic patterns lying in textual history.

. Historical perspective Up to present, Traugott’s research into historical semantic change has recovered regularities in many cases of meaning change, covering various domains of language. In fact the results she obtained were so regular that Traugott developed predictive hypotheses. From the results of her research by 1990 (such as 1982, 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1988a, 1988b, 1989, 1990 and Traugott & Dasher 1987), the hypothesized orders of semantic change can be put together into two tendencies: (1) propositional > ((textual) > (expressive)) (Traugott 1982, 1989) (2) less to more personal (Traugott 1982)

In tendency (1), meanings with largely propositional (ideational) content acquire either textual (cohesion-making) and expressive meanings or both (Traugott 1989: 31). Although tendency (1) was originally associated only with the early stages of grammaticalization types of changes (1982), later it was extended to involve general lexical changes (Traugott & Dasher 1987). Tendency (2) should be understood to mean not ‘more individualized’ but ‘more interpersonal/interactive’. In this tendency an item starts being used to inject the speaker’s point of view/belief-state/attitude into what is stated. Two additional tendencies that are more specific seem to be associated with tendency (2), i.e. a shift to ‘more speaker-based’ and a shift to ‘more discourse-based’ meanings. The more speaker-based meaning is, in other words, more “person-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.9 (39)


based”/“speaker-attributed”. Overall in this tendency, speaker informativeness about his/her attitude increases. The more discourse-based meaning refers to a shift from referencing the situation outside the discourse to referencing the situation inside the discourse. Developing tendency (2), Traugott (1989: 31) further demonstrates the development of epistemic meanings in certain domains in English, in which “epistemics develop from less to more strongly subjective epistemicity.” Later, as a theoretical development, the shift to more ‘expressive’ in tendency (1) was replaced by the shift to more ‘subjective’, i.e. subjectification (Traugott 1995a). Subjectification refers to: a pragmatic-semantic process whereby ‘meanings become increasingly based in the speaker’s subjective belief state/attitude toward the proposition’, in other words, towards what the speaker is talking about (31).

Returning to the tendencies (1) and (2), they have been well evidenced both within English and in other languages (e.g. Myhill 1988 in Spanish; Genetti 1986 in Bodic languages). Traugott also clarifies the optionality (nonobligation) of the tendencies in meaning change: they “represent mere tendencies, not a strictly unidirectional path” (1982: 258). From the beginning, Traugott’s suggested tendencies underlying many semantic changes guided the line of this study. Traugott (1989) mentions that, for the future of historical linguistics, a sociolinguistic study (Guy et al. 1986) which has examined present-day variation is suggestive since it evidences change in progress. Indeed in the field of sociolinguistic/discourse studies, not only markers to check for listener comprehension (Guy et al. 1986), but many other pragmatic markers have been found. More importantly, some works have provided a framework for discourse/pragmatic studies (cf. Schiffrin 1987). To take another step forward in the theoretical studies of semantic-pragmatic change, it seemed necessary to take a more sound discourse/pragmatic position such as the one suggested in Schiffrin (1987). The contribution of Traugott’s research into pragmatic changes lies not only in descriptions of individual changes, but more significantly, in predictions about changes. Meaning changes which have often been considered random are actually subject to systematic analysis, and furthermore, they are predictable. These meaning changes are thought to be products of conventionalization of conversational implicatures (Traugott 1989, 1988b). The optimal theory which Traugott (1986b) supposes is the one which will account for the greater number of facts. What motivates form-function (or



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.10 (40)

Chapter 2

form-meaning, especially form-newly acquired meanings) mappings is a moot point in any semantic change, but Traugott suggests that the conventionalization of pragmatic inferences motivates such mappings. The conventionalization of inferences is accounted for as “the historical result of the operation of Levinson’s Principle of Informativeness” (Traugott 1988b: 411): “Read as much into an utterance as is consistent with what you know about the world” (Levinson 1983: 146–147). In conversation we often need to make pragmatic inferences to interpret what is implied in a given utterance. When the implicature associated with a particular word becomes conventionalized enough, the word takes on a new meaning (or becomes polysemous). This process is thought to account for pragmatic change better than semantic treatments such as metaphor, amelioration, pejoration and generalization (Traugott & Dasher 1987 and elsewhere). Following these serial works of Traugott, during the last decade (since 1991 to present), her works has shown more pragmatics-related findings. Traugott’s more recent works will be reviewed later, together with the establishment of a field of historical pragmatics. Another theoretical and systematic work on historical semantic change is Sweetser (1990). Unlike Traugott, Sweetser claims that “metaphor” is the source of links between multiple senses of a single form. According to Sweetser (1990: 19), metaphor is a major structuring force in semantic change since metaphor operates between domains. It operates so pervasively that an interdomain connection such as that between knowledge and vision/time or space is as natural as the intra-domain connection such as that between ‘finger’ and ‘hand’. For example, regarding a meaning shift that physical-domain verbs acquire speech-act and/or mental-state meanings, and mental-state verbs acquire speech-act meanings (Traugott & Dasher 1987), Sweetser (1990: 19–20) proclaims it possible to metaphorically refer to speech and intellectual activity in terms from the domain of physical action. In Sweetser (1990), conjunctions are also examined and it is shown that they are ambiguous among threeway usages, i.e. in the content, epistemic and conversational (speech-act) domains. As for ‘but’, “semantic opposition” ‘but’ and “denial of expectation” ‘but’ in Lakoff ’s (1971) classification are accounted for based on inter-domain metaphorical connections. Thus, the accounts of what motivates the pragmatic change provided by Traugott and Sweetser differ. However, Traugott (1989: 51) further states that their explanations based on pragmatic implicature and metaphor do not deny each other’s force. She sees the difference rather in their perspectives: While the metaphoric process is an individual’s activity of reasoning and his/her at-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.11 (41)


tempt to increase the informativeness of an abstract notion, the process of coding pragmatic implicature is an attempt oriented toward communication with others. Matsumoto (1988) examines both formal and functional changes in some Japanese connective expressions, relating to grammaticalization and language change in general. In the beginning part of this paper, the formal change of connectives: e.g. a final element ‘a copula (da) + a connective particle (kara)’ shifts into an initial connective (dakara), is inspected in the domain of existing theories of grammaticalization. It is claimed that the formal change of Japanese connectives such as dakara increases the freeness of morphemes and that it provides a counterexample to the widely-accepted theory of grammaticalization and language change (Givón 1971, 1979; Lehmann 1985). That is, while Japanese connectives undergo a process toward increasing independence of morphemes, all other grammatical markers undergo the opposite process – toward increasing boundedness of morphemes (as Givón and Lehmann assume). The formal change of these connectives is quite unique among other cases of historical formal change. The treatment of this change of a certain set of Japanese connectives (e.g. dakara) as a case of grammaticalization is subject to further consideration (but see 7.2 on grammaticalization). The functional change of the same connectives is argued to be “toward discourse/pragmatics-oriented meanings” (Ibid.: 345). Apparently interactively created meanings such as the speaker’s and hearer’s interactive moves in conversation are described, however, as data, invented sentences are used here. The rise of interests in pragmatic aspect of language change, along with the growing interests in the field of pragmatics per se, led to the inauguration of Journal of Historical Pragmatics in January, 2000. As a new sub-field of pragmatics, Historical Pragmatics was first proposed by Jucker’s (1995) volume. Many of its contributors presented at a panel at IPrA 1998, the outcome of which later appeared in the inaugural issue of the above journal. This inauguration seems to mark a fruitful token of this growing sub-field to be established in linguistics of the new century. The scope of historical pragmatics is clarified in Jacobs and Jucker (1995). It subsumes two approaches, “pragmaphilology” and “diachronic pragmatics”. Pragmaphilology “goes one step further [than traditional philology does] and describes the contextual aspects of historical texts, including the addressers and addressees, their social and personal relationship . . . ” (Ibid.: 11). Diachronic pragmatics, on the other hand, converges on “linguistic inventory and its communicative use across different historical stages of the same language” (13). Two subtypes of diachronic pragmatics, “diachronic form-to-function



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.12 (42)

Chapter 2

mapping” and “diachronic function-to-form mapping” are distinguished. If a linguistic form (e.g. discourse markers, relative pronouns or lexical items) is taken as a starting point in diachronic investigation of meaning change, such studies fall into the former; and if linguistic functions (e.g. a specific speech act or politeness) are taken as a starting point in investigating their changing realizations, such studies are labeled the latter (Ibid.). Development of discourse markers across time, such as this study, is clearly a topic in the diachronic research on form-to-function mapping in diachronic pragmatics (see Fitzmaurice 2000). Within the last decade, this topic has been pursued by several researchers, most of who relate their analysis to grammaticalization. In Japanese, Mori (1996), Suzuki (1998, 1999), and Onodera (1993, 1995, 2000), and in English, Traugott (1995b), Brinton (1996), and Schwenter and Traugott (2000) appeared as their works. In addition to her prior works reviewed above, Traugott (1999) which demonstrates her more recent theoretical framework should be included here. Surveying current research on meaning changes and their motivations, Traugott points out three central questions: Question 1 “Given the form-meaning pair L (lexeme) what changes did meaning M undergo?” Question 2 “Given the concept C, what lexemes can it be expressed by?” (e.g. Concept CONDITIONAL expressed by if, when, as long as, etc.; CONCESSIVE by although, while, etc.) Question 3 “Given the concept C, what other conceptual domain is it likely to develop into?” (e.g. TEMPORAL > CONDITIONAL, etc.) (Ibid.: 93– 94). Then, three approaches are focused on as those to the above three questions. One is Cognitive Linguistics, and it is concerned with metaphoric processes. “It privileges metaphorical mapping from one conceptual domain to another; . . . (see Sweetser 1990; . . . Langacker 1990)” (94). Although “understanding metaphors requires pragmatic inferencing to relevant meanings (see e.g. Sperber & Wilson 1995, etc.)”, “pragmatics has not been the main focus of historical work in the Cognitive Linguistics tradition” (Ibid.). Another approach seems Historical Pragmatics which “combines certain aspects of sociolinguistics with formal pragmatics and theories of action”. Its primary interests go to “communicative acts in speech events” and “the contexts in which communication takes place” in order to account for language in use (Ibid.), referring to Jucker (1995). Then, as a third approach, Traugott’s Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC) is introduced. This theory suggests that “the key motivations for change are associative, metonymic, indexical meanings that arise in the process of speech and writing” (Traugott 1999: 94). Special attention is paid to “ways in which they [such motivations] lead to changes in the linguistic sys-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.13 (43)


tem, that is, in the semantics of the lexicon, constructions, and in grammatical markers”. IITSC “combines cognitive linguistics with communication-based historical discourse analysis/historical pragmatics (Schwenter & Traugott 1995, etc.)” (Ibid.). It is explained that IITSC emerged during consideration of crosslinguistic regularities in grammaticalization, however, it “currently ranges over domain in which semantic change occurs” (Ibid.).

. Typological studies The pragmaticalization of a certain set of Japanese conjunctions and interjections explored in this study appears to be related, in some way, to typological characteristics of language. The original forms of the items examined in this study, demo, dakedo, ne and its variants seem all unit-final elements (expressions that appear in unit-final positions). The question then is the correlation between the pragmaticalization in which unit-final elements evolve into initial markers and the typological features of Japanese which might allow such change. Two typological features of Japanese are taken into consideration, i.e. features of a postpositional language and of an agglutinative language. Each of these is reviewed below. Japanese is an SOV language according to Greenberg’s (1963) word order typology. Kuno (1973: 4) states that many of the characteristics of Japanese are ascribable or at least relevant to the fact that Japanese is an SOV language: among these characteristics one is that “Japanese is a postpositional (as opposed to prepositional) language.” Being postpositional is referred to as one of syntactic universals in Greenberg (1963: 81): Universal 9. With well more than chance frequency, when question particles or affixes are specified in position by reference to the sentence as a whole, if initial, such elements are found in prepositional languages, and, if final, in postpositional.

According to this criterion also, Japanese is recognized to be postpositional since a sentence-final question particle ka forms interrogative sentences in Japanese. McCawley (1988) discusses the postpositionality of Japanese in relation to the position of conjunctions in the surface constituent structure and in deep structure. A Japanese phrase “Tom to Dick to Harry to” in which to conjoins NPs corresponds to English “Tom ‘and’ Dick ‘and’ Harry”. In the surface con-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.14 (44)

Chapter 2

stituent structures to and ‘and’ are postposed and preposed respectively as illustrated in (5).1 (5) Japanese

NP NP NP

NP

NP to

Tom

to

NP

Harry

Dick

English

to

NP

NP NP

NP

NP

‘and’ NP ‘and’ NP

Tom

Dick

Harry

Furthermore, it is argued that the difference of postposed to and preposed ‘and’ in the surface structures is attributed to the difference of final and initial position of to and ‘and’ in deep structure as presented in (6). (6) Japanese

X X

...

English

X

to

...

X

X ‘and’

X

The postpositional nature of Japanese connective elements has thus been illustrated in the generative syntactic structure. Kuno (1978a) classifies Japanese postpositions according to their functions. In Japanese, adpositions are all postpositional. Among those, two postpositions are reviewed here since they represent the original elements of demo, dakedo and ne that evolved into markers. One is sentence-final particle (SFP) expressing the speaker’s attitude to his/her statement: From one such sentencefinal particle, ne, an interjection ne is derived. The other is a clause-final particle

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.15 (45)


which is appended to a verb and forms a clause-connecting device: conjunctions demo and dakedo are thought to have developed from such final connecting devices. (7) and (8) show examples of the above two postpositions, a sentence-final particle ne (7) and a clause-final connective particle kedo (8). (7) Kimi wa kinoo gakkoo o yasunda ne. you yesterday school rested Tag Q

(Kuno 1978a: 79)

2

(8) Taroo wa, toshokan ni itta kedo, hon o yomanakatta. library to went although book didn’t-read

As reviewed thus far, Japanese has features of a postpositional language. The second typological feature of Japanese is its agglutinating nature. According to a syntax-based typology classifying languages into four groups (isolating; agglutinative; inflecting and polysynthetic) (Mallinson & Blake 1981: 20), Japanese is an agglutinative language. Mallinson and Blake describe the feature “agglutinating” as “separable affixes on verbs and other roots”. Some works refer to the correlation between the agglutinating nature of Japanese and the fact that Japanese has many separable affix-like elements, particles and auxiliary verbs. Kitahara et al. (Eds.) (1981: 215) and Hayashi and Ikegami (Eds.) (1979: 188) both admit the fact that for Japanese to be typed as agglutinative, well-developed particles play a significant role. Shimizu (1987: 222–223) also states that the agglutination in Japanese is ascribed to particles and auxiliary verbs. He further writes that since the particles and auxiliary verbs designate the relationship between phrases or they clearly mark the case of each phrase, the order of phrases in a Japanese sentence is relatively free. Focusing on Japanese particles, they are attached to verbs which are grammatically strictly required to be in final positions, and they clearly mark the case of the attached phrase, hence the relationship among the phrases. In addition to Shimizu’s statement, Kuno (1973: 3 and elsewhere) also refers to the relatively free word order of Japanese. An example, (9), shows the clear caserelation among phrases by virtue of case-marking particles and the relatively free word order as a consequence of the clearly marked case-relation. In (9), (a) is realizable as (b) through (f). (9) a.

John ga Mary o Cambridge de mita. nominative accusative in saw particle particle



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.16 (46)

Chapter 2

b. c. d. e. f.

John ga Cambridge de Mary o mita. Mary o John ga Cambridge de mita. Mary o Cambridge de John ga mita. Cambridge de John ga Mary o mita. Cambridge de Mary o John ga mita. (Kuno 1973: 351–352)

All the sentences in (9) are grammatical. In Japanese, except for the constraint that verbs must appear in the sentence-final position, the word order is not so restricted due to the function of particles. Above, two typological features of Japanese, i.e. the postpositionality and agglutinating nature, have been reviewed. The fact that the phrase order in Japanese is relatively free, which is at least partly ascribable to the distinct case-relation of phrases marked by particles, has also been discussed. The relationship between such typological features and pragmaticalization in Japanese is an interesting issue. It will be discussed in (7.3).

. Syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions (demo and dakedo) and interjections (ne and variants) In prior studies of Japanese conjunctions and interjections, their syntactic and semantic aspects have been mostly observed and discussed together: This seems to come from the approach taken in Japanese studies of national language (called Kokugogaku). Once two aspects are discussed in combination, it is a hard task to extract two separate aspects from the fused discussion. Therefore, this review will also reflect the above trend; the combined observation of syntactic and semantic aspects of language. .. Syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions Conjunctions are elements that connect two discourses/sentences/clauses/ words (Ide 1965a: 293; Tsukahara 1970: 10). In connecting two units, conjunctions make the relationship between the preceding and following units clear. Here, it is explained that the relationship between the two units is judged by the speaker subjectively. According to Ide (1965a), conjunctions do not conjugate; they become neither subjects nor predicates; they do not modify other elements, nor do they get modified (see also Hashimoto 1959).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.17 (47)


The category (word class) ‘conjunction’ was not originally used by Japanese scholars. The term, conjunction, per se was loaned from Western (such as Dutch) grammar and first used in the nineteenth century (Ide 1973). Most conjunctions, now recognized, are derived from other elements such as adverbs, demonstrative pronouns, auxiliaries and connective particles – sometimes a combination of two such elements. They then become conventionalized as conjunctions (Ide 1965a). Thus, ‘conjunction’ is a new grammatical category. Nagayama (1970: 25) suggests a way to judge whether a form is included in this category. That is, a form is judged a conjunction, if it shows only the connecting function rather than other functions (meanings) of its original elements (such as pronouns and adverbs mentioned above). While Japanese conjunctions are typed according to their connecting function, as (i) word-connecting and (ii) clause-, sentence- or discourse-connecting conjunctions, the following classification is based on their specific functions (Ide 1965a: 303). First, Ide’s (Ibid.: 294–295, 303) classification divides conjunctions into (1) those which express temporally/spatially/psychologically paratactic/additional relationship and (2) those which express logical relationship. This dichotomy is further specified as (1) additional, paratactic, disjunctive, topic change and (2) causal, adversative, explanatory, supplementary. Demo and dakedo are classified as (2) adversative (Ide 1965a). That demo and dakedo seem to be derived from a clause-final sequence of a copula de/da and a conjunctive particle mo/kedo is widely-accepted in the field. In Morita (1967), the functions of conjunctions are well described by distinguishing them from the functions of corresponding conjunctive particles. Morita points out a clear dissimilarity between conjunctions and conjunctive particles in the function of ‘unfolding’ discourse. Two specific categories in Japanese traditional studies, ‘statement’ (chinjutsu) (Watanabe 1971) and ‘unfolding’ (tenkai) should be explained. Although there is a variety of views (some conflicting) concerning ‘chinjutsu’, ‘chinjutsu’ is paraphrased as an expression of a speaker’s subjectivity, as opposed to ‘jojutsu’ (predication) which is an expression of ideational content. ‘Chinjutsu’ and ‘jojutsu’ seem to be close to expressive and ideational functions respectively. A predominant view in regard to ‘chinjutsu’ always claims that ‘chinjutsu’ operates in a sentence-final position, hence a sentence is completed as the embodiment of both ideational and expressive materials.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.18 (48)

Chapter 2

Conjunctions are said to materialize/formalize the potential to continue the discourse right after a sentence-final position. At sentence-final position ‘chinjutsu’ is complete; therefore, it is unnecessary though possible to have a following sentence, thus the potential to continue the discourse. Only when there is a following sentence, is this potential realized: in this case what realizes the potential is a conjunction. Thus conjunctions preface the following sentence, and the story line of the discourse unfolds further. The main function of conjunctions is, in other words, to show the relationship between two intrinsically separate sentences in which chinjutsu (statement) is already complete. On the other hand, at a clause-final position, which is at the end of a subordinate clause, chinjutsu is incomplete; thus a following clause is necessary to conclude chinjutsu. Here what unfolds the story line, i.e. connects the prior and the following clauses, is a conjunctive particle. The main function of conjunctive particles is to directly unfold the discourse by connecting two clauses. Thus, here is the difference between a conjunction and a conjunctive particle: a conjunction only formalizes the potential between two sentences to continue the discourse by designating their relationship, while a conjunctive particle actually unfolds the story line (seemingly more purely grammatically) as a required task between two clauses. Structural analogy and difference among chinjutsu adverbs (tentatively translated as expressive adverbs), conjunctions and interjections in Japanese are discussed in Kitahara (1974): he claims an important analogy among the three word classes. The analogy is that although they bear no ideational or conceptualized notion, i.e. they belong to ji (Tokieda 1950). They are all independent elements in terms of constituting a sentence (they are not appended to other elements). According to Tokieda, word classes in Japanese are grammatically categorized as either ji or shi. Ji is “an expression representing the speaker’s perspective toward the referent”, while shi is “an expression representing an objective and conceptualized notion of referents” (translation is from Maynard 1989b: 30). Considering the fact that expressive adverbs, conjunctions and interjections, that are all independent elements and ji, do not carry ideational function, they are exceptional in Japanese grammar. This is because an ordinary form-meaning mapping is that independent elements bear ideational content and dependents bear no such content. Kitahara (1974) considers that conjunctions structurally belong to the ‘connecting’ component of language, and interjections are part of the component which marks ‘paratactic relationship’ between two linguistic portions. Likewise, expressive adverbs fall under the ‘modifying’ component.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.19 (49)


Some conjunctions are derived from conjunctive particles, e.g. dakedo from da + a particle kedo, and daga from da + a particle ga. Here kedo/ga can be appended to da and modal auxiliaries such as daroo/rashii that belong to ji as well as to other verbs that belong to shi just expressing propositional content. When a particle kedo/ga is attached to ji, the clause-final part consists of jojutsu (ideational predication) + chinjutsu (expression of speaker’s subjectivity). (It should be noted that jojutsu (ideational part) precedes chinjutsu (expressive part) in a sentence, while chinjutsu operates at the end of a sentence.) By contrast, when kedo/ga is attached to shi, the final part consists only of jojutsu. It is suggested in Kitahara (1974) that conjunctions dakedo and daga are derived from clause-ending da + kedo and da + ga because the particles kedo and ga can be attached to chinjutsu (subjective) part. Other conjunctive particles like node, ba and nagara do not derive conjunctions because they cannot be joined to chinjutsu but only to jojutsu (ideational part). Take an intersentential connecting part such as a sentence comprised of jojutsu + chinjutsu and a following conjunction dakedo into consideration: We now have a continuum of expression of subjectivity which starts with the non-subjective (jojutsu) part and ends with the most subjective part (dakedo). Thus the conjunctions that consist being appended to the chinjutsu part are the most subjective elements within the connecting component of Japanese. Within the component marking paratactic relationships, interjections are considered to be the most subjective elements. This component consists of different levels of paratactic relationships: parataxis of words, parataxis of sentences, etc. An interjection and a following sentence are thought to be parataxis of subjective (ji-like) elements. For instance, a sentence Aa, omoshiroi hon da. (“Oh’, it’s an interesting book.’) is comprised of a subjective expression of exclamation (aa) and a verbal analysis of such subjective exclamation (Kitahara 1974: 36; citing Tokieda 1950: 180). In sum, interjections are the most subjective elements in the component indicating paratactic relationships. Likewise, within the modifying component of Japanese, expressive adverbs are said to be the most subjective elements (Kitahara 1974: 25–33). As surveyed above, the difference among Japanese conjunctions, interjections and expressive adverbs is recognized in that they contribute to different components of language, i.e. connecting, marking paratactic relationships and modifying components. However there is an important analogy among the three word classes: they are the most subjective (ji-like) elements on the continuum of “fully ideational ←→ fully subjective” expressions within the component to which they are affiliated.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.20 (50)

Chapter 2

A critical syntactic feature of conjunctions, demo and dakedo, is possession of a morpheme d within their structure. The possession of da (de) which is widely-recognized as a copula is very important for demo/dakedo since the function of da/de seems to involve equipping these conjunctions with ‘textual function’. Two works analyze da functionally and show somewhat different aspects of da from those found in the traditional approach. Kuno (1978b) and Okutsu (1978) clarify the mechanism of da (de) being involved in the textual function of dakedo/demo. In his analysis of ‘ellipsis’ in Japanese, Kuno (1978b) suggests the use of da as one of the main strategies to create ellipsis. First, “the basic rule for ellipsis” (Ibid.: 8) is: The elements to be omitted must be recoverable from either verbal or nonverbal context.

What Kuno calls da strategy is then defined as: (Available only when the main verb is recoverable.) Omit recoverable elements. Then embed the remaining elements in da (des) pattern to qualify it to be a sentence. (Ibid.)

The following examples illustrate the cases of ‘ellipsis’ with da strategy. Desu in (B) is the polite form of da. (10) A. Kimi wa kinoo Hanako to doko ni itta ka. You TP yesterday with where to went Q B. Kanda desu. is (11) A. Dare ga kyoo gakkoo o yasun de imasu ka. Who SB today school DO absent COP Q B. Yamada-kun desu. Mr. Yamada is

(Ibid.: 9)

(Ibid.)

In (10) and (11), A asks B a wh-question. According to the da strategy, B need not repeat the recoverable elements. In other words, only the element in focus (Kanda in (10), Yamada-kun in (11)) need be overtly stated. The recoverable elements (e.g. in (10), ‘you went somewhere with Hanako yesterday’) are not repeated but omitted in B. Here, in B, Kanda or Yamada-kun alone do not constitute sentences. The recoverable part gets embedded in a des pattern. And

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.21 (51)


the ‘element in focus’ + ‘desu (or da)’ is qualified as a sentence. B creates a perfect sentence with only the unrecoverable element + desu. The da strategy is thus “the most economical pattern” (Ibid.: 80) to create a sentence when the omitted elements are recoverable from verbal or non-verbal context. Furthermore, Kuno explains two discourse constraints on the da strategy. First, if the recoverable elements are not established as given information in prior discourse, they cannot be omitted. (The da strategy cannot be used.) Second, when more than two elements are to be embedded in the da pattern, the syntactic and semantic relationships between the elements must be able to be defined only by recovering one verb. (When more than one recoverable verb is involved, the da strategy cannot be used.) Another useful grammatical analysis of da for understanding the evolution of some conjunctions is Okutsu (1978). Da is widely analyzed as a copula. However, Okutsu claims that the function of da is not always as a copula (linking verb), but often it replaces a predicate in some prior sentence. The meaning in the da sentence pattern is vague: This pattern can have more than one meaning. Nonetheless, it is frequently used in our everyday conversation and is interpreted correctly as the speaker intends. This is possible only when verbal or non-verbal context is shared by the speaker and hearer. The da sentence pattern is a context-dependent system which is used as an economical and convenient strategy in discourse. Although this pattern is context-dependent, Okutsu reveals specifically: (1) da replaces a predicate in a sentence, (2) the kind and range of predicate that can be involved in this operation. A da sentence (12) can have various meanings as in (13), (14) and (15). (12) Boku wa unagi da. (13) Boku wa unagi o tsuru.

(14) Boku wa unagi o chuumon suru.

(15) Boku wa unagi o taberu.

The meaning depends upon the context in which the utterance takes place. For (12) to have the sense in (15), the speaker and hearer must share a context such as (a) in (16). (16) a.

Konban kimi wa tomodachi to Futaba de nanika taberu sooda Tonight you TP friend with at something eat ga, but



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.22 (52)

Chapter 2

b. nani o taberu ka. what DO (will) eat (Okutsu 1978: 28)

The portion (a) must be shared as a “presupposition” in the conversation. Between the speaker and hearer only what in (b) is the point in question. If we call this point the “focus”, the focus is the element which precedes da in a da sentence. In Okutsu’s view, unagi da in (12) forms a predicate and unagi plays the role of a complement of an imperfect predicate da. In addition, Okutsu shows cases where the da pattern need not have a complement. He discusses two subordinate clauses formed by da + conjunctive particles, kara (because) and kedo (although) respectively, and shows that da replaces the preceding sentence. (17) is an example of da + kara structure. (17)

In this case, a predicate in (a) futta or extendedly the meaning of the whole utterance (a) is replaced by da in (b). (17) shows that da does not take a complement when used as part of a conjunction such as dakara. Okutsu proposes that da also replaces adjectival predicates. Not only the verbal predicate described earlier ((12), (13), (14) and (15)) but the adjectival part as predicate is replaced by da. The example is as follows: (18) (Dare ga chiisai ka.) (presupposition) a. Taroo ga chiisai. (Okutsu Ibid.: 36) b. Taroo da.

In (18), (a) containing an adjectival part as predicate is replaced by a da sentence pattern (b). In addition, Okutsu shows that da replaces numbers of adverbs as well. Furthermore, Okutsu also clarifies the range to which the da replacement is applicable in a sentence-final structure of Japanese. He proposes that a Japanese sentence-final expression has the following structure: Pred1 . . . Predn

Tense

Confirmation

Final

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.23 (53)


Pred1 is a stem of a verb or an adjective. Following Pred1 , any number of predicates which take a complement such as causative, passive and negative come (Predn , n can be 0). After this, elements which express Tense and Confirmation and sentence-final particles (Final) follow. In this sentence-final structure, the extent to which da can replace is Pred1 . . . Predn. Okutsu’s analysis will be again referred to in my account of the motivation for the pragmatic change of demo and dakedo (4.4). .. Syntactic and semantic aspects of interjections Japanese grammar books appear to spend fewer pages on an account of interjections than other word classes. Most of the books give a brief explanation and a list of elements that belong to this category, or list the summarized analyses of prior studies. Interjections have been treated marginally in Japanese grammar. This inclination comes from the fact that interjections carry no ideational function and no grammatical function: Overall, it is true that interjections make a smaller contribution to the meaning construction of language than other word classes. In this section, I will first introduce the definition and classification of interjections and the most widely-accepted perspective to the analysis of these elements. Second, I will mention James’ work (1972, 1974) which points out the somewhat grammatical function of interjections. An interjection is defined as an element which expresses the speaker’s subjective sentiments and intentions straightforwardly, either inside or outside of a sentence. An interjection is a word which is a “sentence equivalent” (originally mentioned in Tokieda 1950: 179), and it does not conjugate (Ide 1965b: 304). A reliable classification of Japanese interjections seems as the following dichotomy: (1) those which express the speaker’s inner sentiments (e.g. exclamation, anger, surprise, doubt, etc.) (without intention of communicating these sentiments to others), and (2) those which express the speaker’s communicative intention of responding, calling others’ attention etc. (Ide 1965b; Yamada 1908; Hoshina 1911; Yasuda 1928; Suzuki 1973; Morita 1973). Interjections can be used by themselves; e.g. Aa. (‘Oh.’), Waa. (‘Wow.’), or another clause can follow them; e.g. Aa, omoshiroi hon da. (“Oh’, it’s an interesting book.’). When a clause follows an interjection, such a clause conveys the verbal version of the speaker’s sentiment expressed by the interjection. Although an interjection per se forms an independent component, grammatically like a sentence (Tokieda 1950: 180), a comma instead of a period is usually used between an interjection and the following clause since there is the close relationship between them (i.e. sentiment and its verbal version) (Ibid.).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.24 (54)

Chapter 2

A prosodic feature of interjections which is useful in distinguishing the elements of this category is pointed out by Martin (1975: 1041): these elements “are characteristically set off from the rest of the discourse by major junctures and are often accompanied by special voice qualifiers or intonation features”. According to Martin, the functions of interjections are the following four (also quoted in Hinds 1986: 443): (a) to express the speaker’s emotional reactions – pleasure, relief, surprise, hesitation, disgust, etc.; (b) to call attention; (c) to respond to a question, a command, or a social transaction; (d) to hold the floor when fluency fails and one is searching for a desired expression. Martin’s classification is similar to the dichotomous grouping given above; i.e. (a) illustrates exactly the same function as type (1) expressing the speaker’s inner emotions, and (b) and (c) fall under type (2) expressing the speaker’s communicative intentions. James (1972, 1974) suggests that interjections and hesitations, long ignored by linguists, are constrained by grammatical rules and they themselves have a somewhat grammatical function. When sentence-initial, James (1974: 242) claims, interjections and hesitations mark that the speaker has had to stop to think about what to say: the speaker may be trying to remember something; choose an alternative out of several possible ones; think of the best way to describe something; or s/he may be hesitating because of reluctance to tell his/her hearer something. The element which the speaker stops to think about is called “referent” of the interjection or hesitation, and the interjection or hesitation “refers to” that element.3 James further argues the main finding in her work that interjections or hesitations seem able to refer only to elements that are constituents. Although James’ analysis is based on English data including items like ‘oh’, ‘ah’, ‘say’, ‘well’ and ‘uh’, the function of “referring to” some element in discourse can be a crucial function of interjections in general, namely in other languages as well.

. Summary In the field of discourse/pragmatic studies, numbers of researchers have addressed the discourse/pragmatic and interactional aspects of language along with the rise of interest in these aspects. Those studies have taken a variety of approaches and focused on different questions, however, as a whole, they added new findings to the study of ‘language in use’. A few specific findings (issues) are suggestive in developing the current study: observations of English ‘y’know’ in Schourup (1982) and Östman (1981), Maynard’s (1989b)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37

F: PB13202.tex / p.25 (55)


“self-contextualization” and and Stein’s (1985) suggestion of “functionalization”. There is a stream of investigating ‘common expressions in conversation’ in world languages, which had started in the 1980s. This study is one of those investigating common expressions in conversation. While Stein (1985) suggests a study of discourse markers in a certain past time stage, my study views the whole history or substantive time range of some markers. Unlike most previous research, my study will pinpoint the stage at which some Japanese expressions started to be used as discourse markers.4 The time when pragmaticalization of some expressions took place will be revealed. In the domain of historical studies, above all Traugott’s research since 1980s guides the line of this study as a diachronic one. Two hypothesized tendencies of meaning change in general have already been verified in different domains of many languages: (1) “propositional (ideational) > ((textual) > (expressive))” (Traugott 1982, 1989) and (2) “less to more personal” (Traugott 1982). Thus, Traugott’s research does not only describe the individual changes, but predict changes. After the analysis of functional changes of Japanese demo, dakedo, ne and its variants, these two tendencies will be also examined. Traugott (1989: 50) also suggests an important issue ‘conventionalization of conversational implicatures’ which might induce all the pragmatic changes. I will discuss this issue after having discussed my results. My study will add to this field by revealing when and how the pragmaticalization of some Japanese expressions happened. The results will also show whether or not Traugott’s hypotheses are supported in the Japanese language which is unlike English. In the field of linguistic typology, the fact that Japanese is a postpositional and agglutinative language is relevant to this study. The items to be analyzed involve these two typological features. Ne and its variants as sentence-final particles are themselves postpositions. Demo and dakedo contain postpositions mo and kedo that are clause-final particles. It is particles and auxiliary verbs that realize the agglutination in Japanese. Related to agglutination, free word order in Japanese has also been reviewed. On the whole, postpositionality, agglutinating nature, together with free word order, seem to be relevant to the process of pragmaticalization of demo, dakedo, ne and its variants. In this study, it will be shown that some typological characteristics of languages are concerned in the productive process of pragmaticalization. In the review of the syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions and interjections, conjunctions have been defined as elements that connect two discourses/sentences/clauses/words (Ide 1965a: 293; Tsukahara 1970: 10). Interjections have been defined as elements that express the speaker’s subjective



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 9:37



F: PB13202.tex / p.26 (56)

Chapter 2

sentiments and intentions straightforwardly inside and outside a sentence (Ide 1965b: 304). As for conjunctions, their classification, functions and a brief historical note concerning the establishment of this category have been discussed. In addition, a critical feature of the conjunctions demo and dakedo, i.e. possession of d in their structure has been reviewed. Okutsu (1978) suggests that d is not always a copula, but that its fundamental function is to replace a predicate in a prior sentence. I have suggested further that the possession of d allows the textual function of demo and dakedo. As for interjections, their classification, prosodic feature and functions have been reviewed. The current study will suggest that in addition to their semantic and syntactic aspects, conjunctions and interjections have a variety of discourse/pragmatic functions. Such functions have not been examined or revealed by the previous traditional studies of Japanese conjunctions and interjections.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.1 (57)

Chapter 3

Functions of the conjunctions demo and dakedo in Present Day Japanese (synchronic analysis)

Prior scholarship has revealed the semantic and syntactic aspects of adversative conjunctions1 in Japanese quite clearly. However, till recently, researchers have long neglected the pragmatic aspects of Japanese adversative conjunctions. I will examine demo and dakedo, adversative conjunctions (reviewed in (2.4.1)), that appear to be semantically and syntactically most equivalent to the English ‘but’. My approach is to examine them from a synthesized discourse/pragmatic perspective. In English, ‘but’ has been found by Schiffrin (1987: 152–177) to be a discourse marker which encodes three types of contrast, i.e. referential contrast, functional contrast and contrastive actions. I will show that Japanese demo and dakedo also mark these three contrasts, and in addition, pragmatically inferable contrast. Some specific functions that ‘but’ does not have in English conversation will be also demonstrated. In this chapter, first, I discuss whether or not there are any differences in use and distribution between demo and dakedo in (3.1). Second, I demonstrate the four kinds of contrastive relationships marked by demo and dakedo: referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast in (3.2); functional contrast in (3.3); and contrastive actions in (3.4), by first defining each contrast and next exemplifying it.

. Use and distribution of demo and dakedo Before starting the analysis in which I treat demo and dakedo as markers with the same functions, I first clarify a question – are there any differences in the use and distribution between demo and dakedo? In response to this question, in this section, I show that (1) the only difference in the use of these two words is associated with “language style” (speech level), and that (2) there is no sig-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.2 (58)

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Demo and dakedo in careful and casual styles Careful style demo dakedo

35 0

Casual style : :

34 11

nificant difference in the distribution of demo and dakedo with each of the four contrasting functions. As already discussed in (2.4.1), demo and dakedo are widely accepted and classified as logical conjunctions, more specifically as “adversative” ones in previous studies (e.g. Ide 1965a; Saji 1970; Tanaka 1984). According to such traditional classifications of conjunctions, it is suggested that demo and dakedo have the same functions. Then, what is the difference, if any, in the use of these two words? I propose that a difference is recognized in the language style (speech level) in which the words are used. In his paper discussing speech levels in Japanese, Martin (1964: 408) claims that the Japanese are forced to make a choice of speech level before starting to talk. Jorden (1987: 32 and elsewhere) also asserts the importance of choice of style in Japanese conversation. Although Jorden (Ibid.) admits the extreme complexity of the concept of style in Japanese, I will provide a basic idea of this concept here. In Japanese, the style in a given conversational situation is determined mostly by the speaker’s relation to the addressee. Thus, style reflects how the speaker addresses a partner in a conversation. When one talks with superiors or those in relations of non-intimacy (cf. Brown & Levinson 1987: 45; Brown & Gilman 1960), one must use “careful style”. In contrast, when one talks with social equals or those in relations of intimacy, one is allowed to use “casual style”. Table 3.1 illustrates the use of demo and dakedo in careful and casual styles of Japanese. The appearance of demo and dakedo in a conversation spoken in careful style and two conversations spoken in casual style are counted. Conversations are taken out of the discourse corpus (Ide et al. 1984), used as data in the current study. The length of the conversation in careful style and that of the two conversations in casual style are approximately the same. The results indicate that demo is used in both careful and casual styles with same frequency. On the other hand, dakedo appears in casual style, but not in careful style, at least in my data. I suggest that in Japanese conversation there is a tendency in which dakedo is more likely to be used in casual style than in careful style, while demo is used equally in both styles. Thus, a difference in the use of demo and dakedo is seen in the language style in which each is used.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.3 (59)

Functions of the conjunctions demo and dakedo

Table 3.2 Demo and dakedo with contrasting functions demo

dakedo

ref. + func. ref. + func. + ac. prag. inf. prag. inf. + ac. prag. inf. + func. + ac. func. + ac. ac.

1 1 2 3 4 2 7

total

20

ref. + func. ref. + ac. prag. inf. prag. inf. + func. prag. inf. + ac. prag. inf. + func. + ac. func. + ac. ac. total

1 1 5 2 4 3 2 2 20

(In this table, the abbreviations ref., prag. inf., func. and ac. represent referential contrast, pragmatically inferable contrast, functional contrast and contrastive actions.)

Next, I show, however, that there is no significant difference in the distribution of demo and dakedo (the appearance with the four kinds of contrastive relationships they mark). Table 3.2 illustrates the distribution of demo and dakedo with each of the four contrasting functions. Twenty examples each of demo and dakedo from my data are presented along with their respective functions. As shown, demo and dakedo are used with all four contrasting functions (referential contrast, pragmatically inferable contrast, functional contrast and contrastive actions) and with the combinations of more than two functions that sometimes co-occur (ref.-func., ref.-ac., prag. inf.-func., prag. inf.-ac. and func.-ac.).2 The ratio of the use of demo with only contrastive actions to all the uses of demo is slightly high (7/20): This might indicate that demo is a more established discourse marker than dakedo because demo is frequently used with expressive function (an extended function), marking the speaker’s interactional action, only. There is no other salient difference in the distribution of contrasting functions of demo and dakedo (Table 3.2). Thus, there is no substantial difference in the distribution of demo and dakedo with the four contrasting functions, though the two conjunctions appear in the different speech levels. Hence, it is suggested that the operation of demo and dakedo’s contrasting functions is independent of language style. The validity of the analysis given below, in which demo and dakedo are treated as markers with the same functions, is thus supported.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.4 (60)

Chapter 3

. Referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast Referential contrast is the contrast between contraries that are overtly stated in the discourse (e.g. John is tall, but Bill is short). ‘Referential’ here has a rather narrow semantic sense: the contrast lies between propositions with semantic content. In this type of contrast, the contrastive meaning resides in the lexical items being contrasted. Pragmatically inferable contrast is the contrast between contraries that are inferred. For the analysis of demo and dakedo, this type of contrast needs to be added to the three contrasts marked by English ‘but’, referential and functional contrasts and contrastive actions (Schiffrin 1987: 177). In Japanese conversation we rarely see purely referential contrast, but instead we see many pragmatically inferable contrasts. A possible reason for the frequency of the latter contrast is given. Generally, Japanese speakers do not say exactly what they mean, but they often use indirect or metaphorical phrases and even ambiguous expressions in order to avoid being assertive. Accordingly, in Japanese conversation, very often inference is required to understand what is meant more than what is actually ‘said’. In the case of pragmatically inferred contrasts marked by demo/dakedo, a hearer must make an inference to understand the contrastive meaning lying between the parts of the utterance, following demo/dakedo and prior to them. The pragmatically inferred meanings discussed here are, in other words, derived “conversational implicatures” (“implicatures” for short) in Grice’s (1975) sense. Owing to implicatures, “it is possible to mean. . . more than what is literally expressed by the conventional sense of the linguistic expressions uttered” (Levinson 1983: 97). Now that referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast have been defined, the fact that these two contrasts add to the “ideational” component of language will be discussed. “Ideational” component, as I employ the term, along with the “textual” and “expressive” components constitute the three fundamental functional-semantic components of language (suggested in Traugott 1982, based on Halliday & Hasan’s 1976 linguistic system). “Ideational” component is called “propositional” component in Traugott (1982). This term is somewhat misleading because Traugott (1982: 248) claims that this component is not only the locus of truth-conditional relations (generally, termed “propositional”) but that it also includes categories which need pragmatic interpretation.3 For example, deictics are given as such a category: It is pointed out that the features of deictics are directly connected with faceto-face communication, because deictics are fully referential only if speakers’

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.5 (61)


and hearers’ (spatial) positions are known (Traugott Ibid.). Therefore, instead of Traugott’s “propositional” component, I will use the term, ideational component, to represent the component of language which is not strictly truthconditional, but more like what Levinson (1983: 132) calls “the total signification or communicative content of an utterance”.4 Referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast both add to the ideational component of language. Incidentally, among demo and dakedo’s four kinds of contrasting functions, referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast seem to be the most basic functions. They are basic because functional contrast and contrastive actions are identified only after the identification of referential or pragmatically inferable contrast. (I will return to the basicness of referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts later.) Below, I provide examples (1) and (2) which respectively illustrate referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast. (1) illustrates a case in which demo marks referential contrast. In fact, it has not been easy to find clear cases of referential contrast such as “John is tall, but Bill is short” in Japanese conversation. In addition to the preference for metaphorical and overall indirect expressions in Japanese, discussed above, subject and/or object deletion, which is a common phenomenon in Japanese, seems to promote the infrequency of referential contrast. (1) is an excerpt from a conversation which took place when my in-laws visited my house in Tokyo. In this segment, we were discussing the activeness of Sendai-city’s current tourism (Sendai is the city where my husband, Ren, had lived and where his parents now live) since a popular TV historical drama had recently been set in Sendai. In (1), Ren raises the issue that the popularity of the city will fade away when the TV drama is over. Then his mother, Yasuko, gives her opinion, which is the opposite of his. (1)

c.

auto ni nacchau n da kara. out become NOM COP FP



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.6 (62)

Chapter 3

Yasuko: d. Demo ne, nokoru no wa noko n janai, But FP remain NOM TP remain NOM TAG e. mae kara atta mono. for a long time (the city) has been FP

After self-repairing his false start in (a), Ren points out in (b–c) the possible decline in the popularity of Sendai upon the completion of the TV drama next March. However, Yasuko, who lives in the city, predicts in (d) that its popularity will remain as it is. In (c) and (d), the predicates of Ren’s and Yasuko’s utterances (auto ni nacchau (fade away) vs. nokoru (remain)) are clearly stated, and they are in semantic contrast. The portion (e), ‘Sendai’s popularity has been there for a long time’, is support for Yasuko’s position in (d). Therefore, Demo in (d) marks the referential contrast between Ren’s and Yasuko’s ideas (in (c) and (d)): “the popularity will fade away” vs. “the popularity will remain.” (Demo in (d) does not mark a speaker’s contrastive action such as a topic (/sub-topic) change (see 3.4.4): rather the topic in (a–c) (the activeness of Sendai’s tourism) is maintained in (d–e).) (2) illustrates a case of pragmatically inferable contrast. In an interview I had with a college student, Miki, at my request, she told how she made hamburgers. In (2), Miki talks about how to deal with the chopped onion to be put into the ground meat. (2) Miki: a.

Dee, anoo, watashi wa nama demo And well I TP fresh even b. ii keredomo, hontowa anoo, sukoshi OK though actually well a.little c. abura de itameta hoo ga ii kamo oil in sauté had better may d. shirenai. e.

Demo, shinnari shitara, anmari But soft become much f. itamesuginakutte ii kara, overcook NEG OK g. de, sore irete, . . . and it put.in

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.7 (63)


In (a–d), Miki suggests that ‘it might be better to sauté (the onion).’ Following that, she says demo in (e) and adds another piece of information ‘don’t overcook it’ in (f). From what is uttered in (a–d) and (e–f), the following contrast is pragmatically inferred: “advantage of cooking” vs. “potential disadvantage of cooking”. This is the kind of contrast that I call pragmatically inferable contrast. In (2), Demo (e) marks this contrast. (Many examples of pragmatically inferable contrast also appear in Chapter 4 (diachronic analysis of demo and dakedo).)

. Functional contrast .. Functional contrast marked by dakedo and kedo Another contrast which demo and dakedo mark is a functional contrast. This is the contrast between functionally differentiated portions of discourse. Demo and dakedo contrast the functional relation of discourse portions, e.g. in a question-answer sequence, the relation of the request for information, the requested information, and any extra information, etc. In discourse such as question-answer sequences or arguments, it is relatively easy to see how each utterance in the discourse is related by its functional role. I will examine question-answer sequences to show the functional contrasts. Question-answer is well-known as an adjancency pair (Schegloff & Sacks 1973), i.e. two adjacent utterances, the first part of which requires the second part, and the two parts are produced by different speakers. Adjacency pairs such as question-answer seem a fundamental unit in conversational organization (Goffman 1976). Schiffrin (1987: 159–163) also suggests that a certain kind of complementary social expectation may also sometimes govern the use of adjacency pairs. Schiffrin has found that her interviewees often provide more information than what is propositionally needed to fulfill a question-answer sequence. When they cannot answer “yes” to the interviewer’s yes-no question, they sometimes make efforts to find some connection to its affirmative option to avoid a direct denial and thus to save the interviewer’s face (Brown & Levinson



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.8 (64)

Chapter 3

1987: 2; Goffman 1967). When they cannot comply with the interviewer’s request, they often give their reason for this. Thus interviewees tend to add information which is not requested in order to be informationally and socially cooperative. All these efforts to give more information than is requested work together with what Schegloff and Sacks (1973) call “a basic rule of adjacency pair operation”. Such a rule requires that: given the recognizable production of a first pair part, on its first possible completion its speaker should stop and a next speaker should start and produce a second pair part from the pair type of which the first is recognizably a member. (Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 74. Also cf. Levinson 1983: 304)

That is, the social expectation adds to this adjacency pair-rule. We will see cases in which dakedo marks the contrast between the information requested and the information not requested, the functionally differentiated portions in the answer part. (3), (4) and (5) are question-answer sequences which took place successively as part of my interview with Jun, a male graduate student at Georgetown University. (3), (4) and (5) comprise one discourse which developed after my original question, ‘Do you speak other languages in addition to English and Japanese?’ I will treat (3), (4) and (5) as individual adjacency pairs to examine how functional contrast is shown in conversation. (4) shows that dakedo has a function parallel to that of English ‘but’ in a question-answer pair. By contrast, (3) and (5) show that the speaker uses the other connecting expression kedo, which functions similarly to dakedo. (3) Noriko: a.

Jun:

Hoka no.. gaikokugo wa doo desu ka? Other LK foreign.languages TP how COP b. Boku wa hoka no gaikokugo wa I TP other LK foreign.languages TP c. shaberenai desu ne. speak can NEG COP FP d. Uun, dekitara benkyoo shitai to wa Um, possible-if study would.like.to QT e. omoi masu kedo ne.. think but FP f. Uun, zannen nagara. Um, a.pity though

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.9 (65)


(4) Noriko: g. Koremade ni gakkoo de anoo benkyoo By-now school at well study h. shita toka. PST Jun: i. Hoka no gaikokugo? Other LK foreign.languages? Noriko: j. Hai.. Yes. Jun: k. Daigaku no soo desu ne, College LK well l. Daigaku no toki ni, College LK days in m. Ee, dai ni gaikokugo desu ka ne. Well, the second foreign.language COP Q FP Noriko: n. A, soo desu ne. Yeh, so COP FP Jun: o. Are wa Furansugo datta kara.= That TP French COP-PST FP Noriko: p. =A, soo desu ka.= Oh, so COP Q Jun: q. =Dakedo Furansugo wa moo wasurete But French TP already forget-GER r. shimaimashita ne. PST FP (5) Noriko: s.

Jun:

t.

Soo desu ka?= So COP Q =Hai. Hanasenai desu ne. Yes. Speak can NEG FP



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.10 (66)

Chapter 3

u. Hanashitai kedo. Speak want but

In question-answer pair (4), I will first look at dakedo. In (g), I ask Jun ‘Have you studied any (language) at school?’ Jun then requests clarification of my question in (i), and I comply with his request in (j). Then Jun provides part of the information requested in my original question (g) in (k–m), ‘the second foreign language in college days’. After my backchanneling in (n), he gives the requested information fully, ‘French’ in (o). However, Jun continues with another piece of information in (q–r), ‘But (Dakedo), I’ve already forgotten French.’ Thus the functional contrast marked in (4) is as follows: Noriko: Request for Information X Jun: Compliance with request partial provision of Information X complete provision of Information X Dakedo Provision of additional Information Y

(g–h) (k–o) (k–m) (o) (q–r)

Dakedo marks the contrast between the functionally differentiated portions of discourse: what is requested (Information X) vs. what is not requested (Information Y). It can also be noticed that dakedo in (q) marks a referential contrast between the propositions in Information X and Y: ‘I’ve learned French (o)’ vs. ‘I’ve forgotten French (q–r)’. I stated earlier that referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts are basic among the four types of contrast marked by demo and dakedo. This is because we (analysts) have to recognize what the functionally related portions mean, before we actually discover their role in discourse. In other words, before we can realize the functional structure, we must differentiate the portions of discourse according to the ideational meaning of each portion. It becomes possible to label each portion ‘Request for Information X’, ‘Information Y’ etc. only after we interpret what each portion means ideationally. Since referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts are basic, they often co-occur with the other two types of contrast; however, this co-occurrence is not obligatory.5 In (3), another connecting expression other than a conjunction, i.e. V + kedo, is used to mark the functional contrast in a question-answer pair. In (a) I pose the original question, ‘(In addition to Japanese and English you speak,) how about other languages?’ Following (a), Jun gives a straightforward answer in (b–c), ‘I can’t speak other foreign languages.’ Although he has given a full answer to my question, Jun adds another piece of information, ‘Although I’d like

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.11 (67)


to learn to speak them’ in (d–e). (D–e) sounds cooperative to the interviewer. Jun could have stopped after (b–c), i.e. the discourse could close as a complete question-answer unless the interviewer brought up another topic/subtopic, or posed another question which could open a new topic. However, Jun’s giving the information not requested ((d–e), extra information) helps to continue our conversation. More importantly, it saves the interviewer’s face: she might have expected to develop the topic about foreign languages because she mentioned it in her question. In (d–e) Uun, dekitara benkyoo shitai to wa omoi masu kedo ne, we see a connecting device at a unit-final position, V + kedo, instead of a conjunction dakedo. (3’) provides a closer look at this device in (3). (3’) . . . omoimasu + kedo [S1 [V1 ] ] think a conjunctive particle

A conjunctive particle kedo is appended to the main verb of this clause omoimasu (think-polite form, cf. Martin 1964). In Japanese, verbs are strictly required to be at the final position of a sentence (Kuno 1973: 3). What kedo usually does is to subordinate S1 (a sentence preceding kedo) to a main sentence which usually follows kedo. prototypical structure [[S1 kedo] S2 ] (sub.) (main)

In (3), however, the main sentence to which (d–e) is subordinate is the sentence which precedes (d–e), i.e. (b–c). Jun’s utterances (reversed) [S2 [S1 kedo]] (main) (sub.)

What happens here is in fact understood as the reverse order of subordinate and main sentences (postposing) which takes place at times in Japanese. Jun’s original discourse, b–c–d–e is actually the reversed version of a prototypical S1 + kedo, S2 structure. The prototype of Jun’s original (b–c, d–e) thus would be (d–e, b–c) ‘Although I’d like to learn to speak them, I can’t speak other foreign languages’, i.e. Dekitara benkyoo shitai to wa omoimasu kedo, boku wa hoka no gaikokugo wa shaberenai desu ne. This is a less marked (i.e. syntactically more basic, cf. Huddleston 1984: 11) clause order than the original. The functional contrast marked in (3) is as follows:



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.12 (68)

Chapter 3

Noriko: Request for Information X Jun: Information X Information Y kedo.

(a) (b–c) (d–e)

Thus the formal difference between (4) and (3) is that in (4) an explicit conjunction dakedo contrasts the functions in discourse; in (3) a conjunctive particle kedo marks the functional contrast (Information X vs. Information Y). Kedo simultaneously marks the referential contrast; ‘I can’t speak other foreign languages (b–c)’ vs. ‘I’d like to learn to speak other foreign languages (d–e).’ Another example of a question-answer pair is (5). It is repeated below for convenience. (5) Noriko: s.

Jun:

Soo desu ka?= So COP Q t. =Hai. Hanasenai desu ne. Yes. Speak can NEG FP u. Hanashitai kedo. Speak want but

In (5), the connecting device V + kedo is used, which is the same formal structure as (3). Following up Jun’s statement (q–r) in (4) ‘I’ve already forgotten French’, I, as the interviewer, request clarification of his statement in (s) ‘Have you (really forgotten it)?’ Jun clarifies in (t) ‘Yes. I can’t speak it’, then adds his wish about French in (u). Here the referential contrast kedo (u) marks is ‘I can’t speak it (t)’ vs. ‘I want to speak it (u).’ The formal structure of (5) is like that of (3): prototypical structure [[S1 kedo] S2 ] (sub.) (main)

Jun’s utterance [S2 [S1 kedo]] (main) (sub.)

Jun’s utterance (t, u) is, in fact, the reversed version of its prototypical structure (u, t). The functional contrast in (5) is also like that in (3): (J: Dakedo Information X (5) N: Request for clarification of Information X J: Clarified Information X Information Y kedo

(4)(q–r)) (s) (t) (u)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.13 (69)


In both (3) and (5), we have observed that the order of the main and the subordinate clauses is reversed. Although the prototypical sentence structure is the order (sub.-main), it is also true that the reversed sentence pattern is in common use. I suggest that the reversed pattern is used customarily as a strategy in Japanese conversation: The speaker provides the main sentence first in order to give the requested information right after the interviewer’s question; then s/he goes to the postposed subordinate clause in order to add some extra information. The postposing is thus used as a convenient (and cooperative) strategy which gives the information immediately demanded, then adds something extra. Postposing seems to happen in part because of the relatively free word order in Japanese (cf. Kuno 1973: 3). In a kedo connection, a conjunctive particle kedo is attached to a verb which is at the final position of a clause. This connecting element (V + kedo) at a clause-final position, then, connects the main and subordinate clauses of a sentence. Therefore, even if the order of these two clauses is reversed, the relationship between them is clearly shown. Thus far, we have seen that the functional contrast marked in a questionanswer sequence can be realized by two connecting expressions – one is a conjunction dakedo, and the other is a conjunctive particle kedo. While dakedo is a free morpheme, kedo is a bound morpheme which must be attached to a verb. .. Another example of functional contrast Thus far, in (3), (4) and (5), we have seen relatively simple functional contrasts marked in each question-answer sequence (Information X vs. Information Y). I will now look at an example where a more complex functional contrast is marked by dakedo. In the somewhat lengthy example (6), I ask another question (a–c) in my on-going interview with Jun. The overall structure of the question-answer sequence in (6) will be given later. (6) Noriko: a.

Nanka teineisa toka kangaeru to ne, Well politeness like think FP b. Igirisujin no hoo ga Amerikajin yori the.British SB the.Americans c. zutto Nihonjin ni chikai yoo na. than the.Japanese close seem d. Chikai,= close



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.14 (70)

Chapter 3

Jun:

e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v.

=Un, un, soo desu ne. Yeh yeh so COP FP Maa, boku no semai ningen kankei kara Well my limited human relations amari ienai kedo.. much say can NEG but amari suterotaipu mitai ni natte shimau Very stereotypes like become kara desu ne. because COP FP Dakedo, boku ga amari koo gaikoku tte iu But, I SB much umm foreign.countries yoona koto shiranakatta toki tte iu no knew NEG when QT wa, dooshitemo koo anoo kono kuni no hito TP (can’t help) um well this country wa kooiu kanji da tte iu fuu ni TP this type COP QT kimete shimau desho. decide TAG Dakedo, soo ja nakute, jibun ga nannin ka But, so COP NEG, myself SB some no hito to attari toka, ato, hito kara LK people meet well others kiitari, soko ni itta kuni no hito kara hear there went country people kiitari desu ne. Sore to ka, kooiu hear COP FP And, here tokoro ni kite iru hito de, ironna in have come people various Yooroppa no kuni kara kiteiru hito nanka Europe LK countries come people to hanashi shitetara.. yappari Yooroppa with talk do anyhow Europe tte iu no wa kanari hoshuteki.. de, QT NOM TP rather conservative COP

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.15 (71)


w. hijooni kenjitsu na mono no kangaekata o very sound things LK viewpoint x. shita hito ga ooi n janai kana, to iu do people SB many NOM COP NEG QT y. kanji wa shimasu kedo ne. impression do but FP

In (a–c), I ask a question ‘As to politeness, (do you think) that the British are closer to the Japanese than the Americans?’ Before this question is completed, Jun starts to acknowledge the request of Information (X); ‘Yeh, yeh’ (e) may also show agreement with the content of my question (a–c). Then, instead of providing his answer right away, in (f–g) Jun shows his inability to comply with my request: By saying ‘I can’t say much from my limited human relations’, he conveys what sounds like non-compliance. But the reason for this non-compliance follows in (h–i) ‘Because it could be rather a stereotypical opinion.’ Providing reasons performs remedial work, as Schiffrin (1987: 159 and elsewhere) found in English discourse. (H–i) is a reason, but also Jun’s negative evaluation of the notion of stereotypes, which I label as Information (Y). (Y) contrasts with the following information which is (Z): another opinion Jun wanted to provide about stereotypes, that goes from (j–n) ‘But (Dakedo), before I became familiar with foreign countries, I couldn’t help having the image that people from this country are like this.’ Thus dakedo in (j) marks the functional contrast, by linking Information (Y) and Information (Z). At the same time, dakedo in (j) marks the pragmatically inferable contrast “stereotypes are no good (h–i)” vs. “stereotypes still exist (j–n).” After showing his reluctance (f–n) to answer my question, since he first needed to clarify his opinion about stereotypes, Jun finally starts providing the requested Information (X) in (o). Thus Information (X) is his opinion about the Europeans’ way of thinking, implying their closeness to the Japanese in



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.16 (72)

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 Overall functional structure of (6)

(o–y) which has been gained from his own experience: ‘I think the Europeans are conservative and have sound points of view.’ This statement (o–y) is more relevant to my question (a–c). Dakedo in (o) marks both the pragmatically inferable contrast “opinion based on stereotypes” vs. “opinion not based on stereotypes” and the functional contrast between two pieces of information (i.e. what is not requested (j–n) vs. what is requested (o–y)). Figure 3.1 illustrates the functional structure of example (6). It is clearly shown that dakedo in (o) divides the structure of (6) into superordinate and subordinate parts. Whereas my question (a–c) and Information (X) in (o–y) form the superordinate part, the intervening discourse (a tangent before arriving at the main point, (e–n)) forms the subordinate part.6 I have mentioned a social expectation which adds to the basic rule of adjacency pair operation (see 3.3.1). I suggest that the subordinate part of the discourse in Figure 3.1 is due to social expectation. Right after my request for information X (question, a–c), Jun’s answer in fact starts in (e). However, in the digressive section (subordinate part), the speaker first presents a few socially-motivated deeds before actually providing information more directly relevant to my question in (o–y). Such socially-motivated deeds are acknowledging the question, showing inability to comply, and providing the reason for non-compliance, all to be polite in conversation. Levinson (1983: 303–304) summarizes the characterization of adjacency pairs along the following lines. Adjacency pairs are: (i) adjacent, (ii) produced by different speakers, (iii) ordered as a first part and a second part, (iv) typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second (part). . .

Focusing on (i) and (iv), Levinson (1983: 304) points out that “strict adjacency is actually too strong a requirement” and shows the frequent occurrence of “insertion sequences” (Schegloff 1972) in which a question-answer pair is embedded within another. One such nested adjacency pair structure is well exhibited in Merritt’s (1976) example of “questions following questions in service

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.17 (73)


encounters”. Schiffrin (1982a: 10) also illustrates a case of nested structure in a question-answer sequence: In her example, in the subordinate part the speaker explains his lack of qualification to answer the question. My example (6) in which the speaker shows his incompliance and its reason, as well as the examples in Merritt (1976) and Schiffrin (1982a), all indicate that the subordinate part (intervening discourse) within a question-answer pair structure can attend to a social expectation. We have spent a great deal of time in this section discussing (6), an example where dakedo displays functional and pragmatically inferable contrasts simultaneously. In fact, dakedo in (o) also displays another contrast, contrastive action. I will examine this in the next section.

. Contrastive actions The fourth contrast demo and dakedo mark is contrastive action. I define contrastive actions as contrast between actions, which highlights some contrasting aspect of the speaker-hearer interactional dynamics in the on-going discourse. Four types of contrastive actions marked by demo and dakedo are found in my Japanese data: (1) point-making, (2) claiming the floor, (3) opening the conversation, and (4) changing the topic. The contrasts marked in each function are summarized as follows. In each case, the contrast lies between: 1. point-making: action of talking about material which is tangential in discourse (e.g. self-repairs, digression, interruption) vs. action of returning to material essential in discourse 2. claiming the floor: Speaker A’s action of holding the floor vs. Speaker B’s action of holding the floor 3. opening the conversation: action of opening a conversation vs. preceding lack of action (no speech activity) 4. changing the topic: action of talking about Topic A vs. action of talking about Topic B Below, these four types of contrastive actions are examined. Speaker A: Request for information (X) Speaker B: intervening discourse Dakedo Information (X)

Figure 3.2 Return to the speaker’s point in question-answer

question answer



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.18 (74)

Chapter 3

.. Point-making device ... Point-making in question/answer Many examples are found, in my data, in which demo and dakedo are used to help make a speaker’s point. This point-making function has also been found for ‘but’ in English conversation (Schiffrin 1987: 164–176). The first example is (6), a question-answer sequence where we have already observed the pragmatically inferable and functional contrasts marked by dakedo. In (6), before giving an answer to my question, Jun talked about stereotyped images of countries. Before giving information more relevant to my question, Jun digressed to a subtopic. When this subtopic ends, he says dakedo in (o), and returns to the prior concern of providing an answer. This returning to the speaker’s point (the information requested by the interviewer) is the speaker’s contrastive action here. Figure 3.2 summarizes this action, speaker-return in the question-answer sequence. Speaker B returned to his point with dakedo, and finally provided the requested information. Thus, dakedo in (o) in (6), in fact, marks not only pragmatically inferable and functional contrasts (3.3.2) but contrastive action as well, such that (6) is actually an example where three contrasts are marked by dakedo. ... Point-making to index back to speaker’s position (7) is taken out of a conversation between Mrs. K and her teen-age daughter, Saki. In (7), Mrs. K asks Saki if she knows the story of the life of the principal at her high school; after an answer is given, she goes back to her position which had been established earlier. (7) Mrs. K: a.

Saki:

Anata koochoosensei wa sensoo de ano You principal TP war in well b. goshujin nakusarete sorede okosan o husband lost HON-GER and child DO c. hikiageru toki ni nakushita tte iu return when lost QT d. ohanashi shitteru? story know e. Shitteru yo. I know FP

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.19 (75)


Mrs. K: h. kata wa are ne soo iu eiga o mitara person TP well that movie DO see-if i. hitoichibai kanzuru tokoro ga more than others moved place SB j. are de shoo ne. well TAG FP

In this excerpt, Mrs. K’s general position that the principal is an admirable person is suggested in (a–d); this seems to differ from Saki’s opinion in (g) ‘That’s all!’ which shows Saki’s disagreement with her mother’s position. This general position of Mrs. K will be sustained throughout discourse (7) and the following discourse (8). Mrs. K’s purpose is not to start a story about the principal in (a–d); rather, she mentions the story and checks on Saki’s shared knowledge of it. In (e) Saki manifests her knowledge of the story. Mrs. K now can use the story shared by the hearer as support for her position. After checking her daughter’s knowledge of the story, Mrs. K needs to re-establish her general position that the principal is an admirable person. She thus returns to her general position with demo in (f), and gives another comment (f, h–j) based on her position. Demo in (f) thus marks the speaker’s return to her position. There is no referential/pragmatically inferable contrast which demo in (f) marks. (7) shows a contrastive action marked by demo, the speaker’s return to her position provided earlier. Following (7), Mrs. K’s position (The principal is an admirable person) is interrupted by Saki’s question concerning whether the principal had been teaching at her school since those days. After answering that she doesn’t know, Mrs. K again says demo and makes another point, shown in (8). (8) Mrs.K: a.

Demo: kokoro ga tsuyoi kata de nai to. But mind SB strong person COP NEG if



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.20 (76)

Chapter 3

After digressing to Saki’s subtopic (whether the principal had been teaching at her school since then), Mrs. K still continues her main position. Demo in (a) displays Mrs. K’s effort to return to her position. Based on this position, she makes another point implying that if the principal were not strongminded, she couldn’t pursue her path. In the sense of getting back to the main point, it is possible to say that demo in both (7) and (8) functions as a ‘POP’ marker (Polanyi 1978). (7) and (8) show where demo indexes/pops back to the speaker’s position and functions as a point-making device. (9) is a similar example in which the speaker uses a point-making device after she is challenged. (9) is from another conversation between Mrs. K and Saki. (9) Mrs. K: a. b. c. d.

Saki:

e. f.

Mrs. K: g. h. i.

Saki:

j.

Dakara seiseki wa moo yudan shicha ikenai So grades TP take your eyes off shi, sore igai ni yappari kisoku o ano shouldn’t besides anyway regulations DO kichitto mamotte tte osshatta koto properly obey-GER QT said yoku oboeteru deshoo keredo. well remember TAG but Mamotteru janai. Jaa watashi mamotte Obey TAG Well I obey-GER nai koto nante nai wa yo. NEG things no FP Dakedo anata wa /?/ wariaini sa soo iu But you TP rather FP like that koto ittemo sono toki dake wa moo a tto say-if that time only TP ah QT omotte ki o tsukeru kedo chotto koo,= think attention DO pay but soon =Sonna no omowareta tte . . . Like that NOM think PASS QT

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.21 (77)


Mrs. K is arguing with her somewhat rebellious daughter regarding the points about which Saki should be careful and about which she had been warned by her high school teacher. In (a–d), Mrs. K repeats the warnings from the teacher, ‘Saki shouldn’t take her eyes off her grades and should obey regulations.’ By doing so, Mrs. K in fact establishes her position in this conversation that Saki should be careful. In (e), Saki challenges by making her point ‘I DO obey regulations!’ Then Mrs. K begins her turn with dakedo and defends her position in (g–i) until her utterance is interrupted by Saki in (j). Thus (9) shows a case where dakedo is used to mark the speaker’s return to her position after being challenged. .. Claiming the floor The second type of contrastive action marked by dakedo and demo is to claim the floor. Demo and dakedo mark this action especially in the situation where the speaker makes an effort in order to claim the floor. In other words, it is the situation where the speaker attempts such an action, going through difficulty in getting a floor in the on-going conversation. In my data, many examples are seen in multi-party conversations or in heated discussions. (10) illustrates an example. In this conversation, three Japanese female graduate students, Midori, Mari and I, were discussing computers. Showing a special interest in getting a computer, I attempt to point out the shortcomings of my word processor in (a–e). (10) Noriko: a.

De atashi wa seven o okutte And I TP seven DO send-GER b. ima tsukatteru no ne. Dakedo now using NOM FP But c. are wa motomoto nihongo waapuro de, it TP originally Japanese word.processor COP d. eigo no vaajon wa, nanteiukana English LK version TP say

g. Eibun kinoo tsuiteru, English version carry



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.22 (78)

Chapter 3

h. eibun kinoo tte iuno? English version QT say Noriko:

Midori:

In (e), my turn is not completed. However Midori’s demo in (f) latching onto my utterance starts her question to me ‘Can’t you do it (use the English version)?’ Midori got the floor at a location which is not a TRP (transition relevance place; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson 1978) (henceforth, I call such a location a non-TRP). I think that the use of demo is less likely if the floor is claimed at a TRP, because a TRP is originally a location where speakers may change (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson 1978). Taking the floor at a TRP is indeed cooperative because such transition allows “the current speaker to reach a possible completion point” (Schiffrin 1987: 174). In contrast, taking the floor in the middle of the current speaker’s utterance, as in (10), is an uncooperative transition since it does not allow for a possible completion of the utterance.7 I assume that Midori must have made more effort to take the floor in (f) in (10) than if she had attempted the same action at a TRP. Demo in (f) marks such speaker-effort to claim the floor, as well as the pragmatically inferable contrast “Inefficiency of the word processor” in (b–e) vs. “its capability” in (f–h). Although I will not discuss them here, in other examples of claiming the floor in my data, the utterance which demo prefaces sometimes latches onto the preceding uncompleted utterance of another speaker.8 This suggests that demo is part of the speaker’s effort to get a turn and hold the floor at non-TRPs. We have seen that in Japanese conversation demo and dakedo mark the contrastive actions of claiming the floor with effort as well as of making the speaker’s point (3.4.1). These two types of action have also been found in the use of ‘but’ in English conversation (Schiffrin 1987: 164–176). However, there are two other contrastive actions marked by demo and dakedo, but not shared by ‘but’. I will now turn to these, “opening the conversation” and “changing the topic”.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.23 (79)


.. Opening the conversation When people get together, it seems that very often somebody in the group tries to start a conversation by introducing a particular topic. After a discussion about our group project, for example, Mari, Midori and I went to the student hall to have a break. (The three graduate students know each other fairly well as classmates.) First, we talked about plans for the summer for a while. Earlier in the same day Mari had brought up plans for the upcoming summer: we knew already that Midori and I were going to visit Japan. Prior to (11), while walking to the student hall, I remember that we were not talking, or not paying attention to a single topic. When we found seats and sat down, I turned on a recorder and Mari started talking: (11) Mari:

a.

Demo, nihon ni kaettara tanoshimi desu ne. But Japan to go.back fun COP FP b. Minasan. Oishii mono ippai tabete kite Guys. Delicious food much eat come c. kudasai. give Noriko: d. Nee. E, kaeranai no? Yeh. Well go.back NEG

Notice that (a) is the first utterance of the entire conversation. By saying demo, Mari tries to enter into a conversation and furnishes the first topic “it will be good when you go back to Japan (for vacation).” Notice also that there is no referential contrast. Because (a) is the first utterance in discourse, there is nothing to refer to before (a) is made. Even without marking referential contrast, demo in (a) was clearly heard as a marker to start a conversation by the other two participants. Demo in this case marks a contrastive action by connecting no speech activity (silence prior to (a)) and a lively conversation. Demo thus contrasts acts, i.e. no speech activity vs. speech activity (i.e. opening a conversation). Another example of a speaker’s effort to open a conversation is seen in (12). (12) Mrs. K: a.

Moo kore kyoo de moo owari ni shimasu Soon this today soon end make b. kara moo hitoban kyooryoku shite kudasai because one-night cooperate



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.24 (80)

Chapter 3

c.

Mr. K: d.

Mrs. K: e. f. g. h.

Mr. K: i.

Mrs. K: j. k.

ne. FP N? Hmm? Demo daibu hieta de sho, a hieteru But quite cooled TAG well cool de sho? TAG Moo shooshoo no are datte hienai n desu Well a.little LK that cool NEG NOM mon kyoo. today Un, zuibun hieteru ne. Yeh, quite cool FP Atsui desu ne, hontoo. Denwa sureba Hot COP FP really Call make-if mukae ni itte ageru noni. meet go-GER give though

(12) is a conversation between Mr. and Mrs. K when Mr. K returned home from work. Mrs. K first asks her husband for cooperation in recording conversation for the last day in (a–c). I regard (a–c) as meta-linguistic activity of talking about the conversation that will follow. In (e) Mrs. K then attempts to enter into conversation: this kind of exchange (the segment after (e)) is imagined to take place as a daily routine upon her husband’s return. Mrs. K starts the conversation with demo and utterances implying that it was hot that day (e– h), then says that she could drive (to the station, perhaps) to meet him (j–k). Following (12), she mentions that the bath is ready, all to show her appreciation for her husband’s labor for the day. I suggest that demo in (e) marks the speaker’s contrastive action of starting the conversation:9 here she is opening the conversation, instead of engaging

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.25 (81)


in the metalinguistic activity of talking about the conversation. There is no referential or pragmatically inferable contrast: There is no ideational contrast between what precedes demo (a–c) and what follows demo (e–h). Thus it is more plausible to take this as a case of a contrastive action contrasting the preface to the conversation (a–c) with the actual conversation upon the husband’s return (e–k). It is also noted that demo in (e), as well as in (11), denotes a frame shift. .. Changing the topic The fourth contrastive action marked by dakedo and demo is change of topic. This strategy is commonly used in Japanese conversation. There is a more specialized conjunction in Japanese, tokorode,10 which prior scholarship (e.g. Ide 1973; Tanaka 1984; Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) 1981 (Shoogakkan Japanese Dictionary)) identifies as a conjunction for changing topics. However, tokorode does not occur often when changing topics in my corpus of naturally-occurring conversation: In “A Housewife’s Discourse Corpus” (Ide et al. 1984) tokorode is used only twice.11 Instead, throughout my entire corpus, people use demo and dakedo when they shift topics. I suggest that this is an established strategy in Japanese conversation.12 In the following examples (13) and (14), when a sub-topic of the conversation changes, demo seems to mark this change. In Schiffrin (1988: 3), the most general notion of “topic” is “what something is about”. Schiffrin suggests that there are differences among scholars as to the size of a topic: (1) entities such as people, objects and ideas, (2) propositions encoded at the clause or sentence level, and (3) general frameworks or macro-propositions underlying an entire text, something like the “title” of a story. In this analysis, I tentatively take the third definition of topic, i.e. the largest size. When the talk in (13) took place, the three women were comparing the convenience of word processors with computers. The topic of this conversation is comparison between word processors and computers. Under this topic, smaller units of topic (“what is talked about”, i.e. sub-topics) change in this conversation. In (a–b) Mari tries to provide a sub-topic “people in the MBA program buy their own computers.” However, in (c–h), latching onto (b), Midori also tries to furnish another sub-topic. (13) Mari:

a.

MBA no hito nanka wa jibun de katteru MBA LK people like TP themselves buy



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.26 (82)

Chapter 3

b. mitai ne.= seem FP Midori: c. =Demo ne, gakkoo de kau to sa, . . . But FP school at buy FP d. daigaku n naka de aaiu Educational program university inside that Educational program e. mitai n de, like NOM f. IBM toka Apple wa nan paasento biki? IBM or Apple TP what percent discount g. Yonju (p)paasento biki gurai de kaeru n da 40 percent discount about buy NOM COP

Mari: Midori: Noriko:

Midori provided a new sub-topic “we can buy a computer at a discount at school” in (c–h) and we talked on this sub-topic for a while. Therefore (c) is thought of as a point of shifting to a new sub-topic. Demo (ne)13 in (c) marks the speaker’s sub-topic change. Demo (c) seems not to mark a pragmatically inferable contrast, because nothing in (a–b) is in contrast with what is inferred from (c–h). If inferences were derived from (a–b), such as that MBA people buy computers from places other than school or that they buy computers without a discount, there would be inferred contrasts between (a–b) and (c–h). (14) also illustrates that demo marks a sub-topic change. In this segment, we talk about composition (writing). Mari says ‘I’m weak in writing’ in (a). She sounds discouraged. I, then, try to provide a new sub-topic about Dr. X’s class in (b), to encourage her. (14) Mari:

a.

Kaku no nigate da waa. Honto. write NOM weak COP FP really Noriko: b. Ya, demo, Dr. X no kurasu mo totte ita de um but GN class also take PST

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12

F: PB13203.tex / p.27 (83)


c.

sho. Kare nanka mo kanari kibishikute ne. TAG he also rather strict FP

In (a), Mari confessed her having a hard time in writing. Therefore, I informed her that many others (such as those in Dr. X’s class) were also suffering a hard time with writing, implied in (b–c). Demo in (b) marks a pragmatically inferable contrast “Just Mari is suffering a hard time with writing” (a) vs. “Many others are suffering a hard time with writing” (b–c). After my utterance in (b–c), the three participants talked about Dr. X’s class for a while. Again, in (14) the first utterance in (b–c) beginning with demo seems the point where the new sub-topic develops. Thus, demo in (b) marks a sub-topic change. My act of changing the sub-topic here can be seen as a face saving strategy for Mari who originally mentioned the hardship.

. Demo and dakedo: Markers of contrast In this chapter, we have seen that the so-called adversative conjunctions demo and dakedo mark four kinds of contrast: referential contrast, pragmatically inferable contrast, functional contrast and contrastive actions. I suggested that among these contrasts, the referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts are the most basic. Perhaps as a consequence of this basicness, we have seen that referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts often co-occur with the other two contrasts. We have seen that demo and dakedo mark a contrast between functionally related portions of discourse. It has been revealed that another connecting element other than conjunctions fulfills the same function of marking functional contrast. That is, the clause-final connecting device, V + a conjunctive particle kedo. Although the fact that so-called adversative conjunctions, demo and dakedo, mark referential and functional contrasts could have been predicted by relying on previous studies, the additional function of marking contrastive actions was not predicted by prior scholarship. This newly-discovered function is discourse/pragmatic function, indeed. We have found that demo and dakedo mark four types of contrastive actions in Japanese: (1) they are point-making devices in question/answer sequences, and relatedly, they help index back to the speaker’s position, (2) they claim the floor; (3) open the conversation; and



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:12



F: PB13203.tex / p.28 (84)

Chapter 3

(4) change the topic/sub-topic. (1) and (2) are also found in the use of ‘but’ in English (Schiffrin 1987: 164–176); however (3) and (4) have been found only in Japanese data. As mentioned in (1.1.2.1), my early interest was in the relation between the most frequently-used conjunctions in Japanese conversation and their pragmatic functions. As seen, demo and dakedo mark pragmatically inferable contrasts and contrastive actions that show pragmatic functions. Therefore, in the case of demo and dakedo, the idea that the most frequently-used conjunctions in Japanese conversation have pragmatic functions is supported.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.1 (85)

Chapter 4

Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis)

Let us now look at the historical aspect of demo and dakedo. While I have discussed the use of the two conjunctions in Present Day Japanese (PDJ) together (Chapter 3), I will examine them separately in the diachronic analysis. This is because while the two conjunctions have parallel functions in Present Day Japanese, the histories of the two words diverge, simply because of their morphological difference. The morphemes that constitute each of the two words first appeared at different stages in history and each pursued its own developmental path. In this section, I trace the evolution of the two conjunctions and attempt to reveal how they have developed into discourse markers, relating this process to Traugott’s (1982) suggested functional-semantic model of language1 (see also 1.2.1.3). Before starting the diachronic analysis of demo and dakedo, I will suggest the basic relationship between the four types of contrast marked by demo and dakedo, referential, pragmatically inferable and functional contrasts, and contrastive actions, and the three domains identified in functional-semantic models of language. When marking referential or pragmatically inferable contrast, demo is assumed to have an ideational function. When demo marks functional contrast it is considered to have a textual function. When it marks contrastive actions it is suggested to have an expressive function. However, it must be also noted that the relation between the contrastive functions of adversative conjunctions and the suggested three functions of language can not be a clear-cut one-to-one correspondence. This is because there can be functions running between the three functions of language or because there are other kinds of functions of language which do not fall into Traugott’s (1982) or Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) trichotomy (cf. Jakobson 1960; Lyons 1977).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.2 (86)

Chapter 4

. Pragmaticalization of demo In this section, I examine the historical process by which the unit-final element V-te + mo seems to have developed into the initial demo. There are indeed a few different views on the formation of the sentence-initial conjunction demo in the prior studies of the field. It is the most difficult part of this kind of diachronic examination to judge which path (or what path) the item has actually traced. Such a path is invisible. It has not been audio-recorded, nor can be evidenced. I rather see that demo comes from de (a gerundive form of the socalled copula da) + mo (an adversative clause-final particle) mainly from the viewpoint of analysis of discourse/spoken language. First I should review the two assumptions about word-formation of demo type connectives (Onodera 2000) shown in previous studies. One is that the correspondent clause-final connecting expressions develop to shift into the sentence-initial position and work as independent demo type connectives/conjunctions. The other is that demo type conjunctions are formed based on the construction [so type demonstrative + copula d]. I support the former assumption from the standpoint of analysis of discourse/spoken language. However, both views will be briefly reviewed. The former view assumes that the clause-final connecting expressions V-te + mo and V + kedo developed to be lexicalized as sentence-initial independent and conjunctive elements, demo and dakedo. This standpoint is implied in Mio (1995: 207–212), Nagayama (1970: 26–27) and Kyogoku and Matsui (1973: 115, 118–119). As for word-formation, Kyogoku and Matsui (Ibid.: 115) states that “Daga, temo and naredomo were detached from the preceding sentence and became independent [sentence-initial conjunctions].” Another page of Kyogoku and Matsui (Ibid.: 118–119) writes that “[as for] daga, dakara, datte, dewa and demo, elements formed as shift into conjunctions.” Mio’s classic which analyzed spoken Japanese (Grammar of Spoken Japanese, first published in 1942, reprinted in 1995) offers an interesting description implying word-formation of demo type conjunctions. (1) Boku wa kimi o sonkee site iru. I TP you DO respect Sonkee site iru kara sukui ni kita. Respect because save come-PST

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.3 (87)


(2) Sorya, watasi wa muron baka desu wa. Well I TP certainly fool COP FP Baka desu keredomo, niisan mo baka yo. Fool COP although elder.brother also FP (from Sooseki Natsume Gubijinsoo, cited in Mio 1995: 207–208)

Offering examples (1) and (2) (and five similar cases in his book), Mio (Ibid.: 207–208) explains that in these examples the beginning part of the second sentence is repetition of the last part (predicate) of the preceding sentence. The language style (either da-style, desu-style or degozaimasu-style2 ), which indicates the politeness level in Japanese is also repeated because in a Japanese sentence, style always appears sentence-finally. Here, instead of repeating the predicate of the first sentence, the proverbs da or desu (degozaimasu) is used (Mio Ibid.: 208) to replace such a predicate. Use of da/desu at the beginning of the second sentence can avoid redundancy, which sometimes arises because of the repetition. Da/desu functions as a pro-predicate. Da or desu plus the following conjunctive particle, e.g., kara (example 1) or keredomo (example 2) then function as conjunctions sentence-initially, which, as a result, is an economical and effective discourse device (see also 4.4.1 on da’s pro-predicate function). In my tape-recorded conversations of Present Day Japanese, too, the discourse pattern shown in (1) and (2) appears frequently. It seems that in our natural production of spoken Japanese, repetition of the predicate of the preceding sentence is in frequent use, then the replacement of such repetition by da or desu (degozaimasu) is a useful strategy in conversational management. This usefulness in language use (or in our communication) may have promoted the expanding use of initial demo and dakedo. It is assumed that useful demo and dakedo have gradually come to be used by more and more speakers and eventually recognized as sentence-initiating markers and conjunctions. I support this view on word-formation of demo type conjunctions: i.e. based on the clause-final connecting device [copula da, de or desu + connecting particle (e.g. mo, kedo, keredo and kara)], the initial demo type conjunctions developed.3 The latter assumption about the word-formation of demo type conjunctions suggests that these conjunctions come from the construction [so type demonstrative + copula da]. The following list exemplifies: soredakara → dakara soredemo → demo sorede → de



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.4 (88)

Chapter 4

sorenara → nara soodakedo → dakedo

This view is implied in Tanaka (1984: 113) among others. In this view, it is assumed that soredemo was originally sorenitemo, composed of [a demonstrative pronoun, sore] + ni, which is an inflected form of an archaic copula nari + a particle te + a particle mo. In Tanaka’s perspective, the initial conjunction demo came from the expression, sorenitemo. Although I declared my support to the former view, Tanaka’s opinion is also plausible. As mentioned above, since it is indeed difficult to judge the very way the item has come along, for a safer conclusion, in the next section I will analyze an example of ‘-nitemo’, too. Once the former view of formation of demo and dakedo is taken, there is still diversity in treatment of structure of V-te + mo, the source element of demo. While the treatment of the structure of the source element of dakedo as da + kedo seems substantially consistent among scholars, there are different treatments about how to look at the structure of V-te + mo. I briefly review the main points in this controversy which are relevant to my study. First, many previous works in Kokugogaku (National Language Studies)4 regard te as a conjunctive particle. Kokugogaku considers the sequence te + mo as a conjunctive particle + another particle, and it suggests that this sequence later developed into one conjunctive particle, temo (e.g. Shoogakkan Japanese Dictionary (Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) 1981); Uchio 1973). Tokieda (1950) and Yuzawa (1954) explain that temo is one conjunctive particle. Another group of researchers (those on whom my perspective is based e.g. Hinds 1986: 84; Jorden 1962 Part 1: 46; Jorden 1987 Part 1: 94; Kuno 1973: 28 and elsewhere; Martin 1975: 330) look upon te as part of a verbal, i.e. gerundive. Researchers from both positions consider that mo (an adversative conjunctive particle) is appended to te, and there seems general agreement on the function of te + mo. Konoshima (1960: 148) in Kokugogaku states that “te is a particle which expresses continuation without considering whether the connection is adversative or affirmative”. Yuzawa (1970a: 278–280) also in Kokugogaku lists the functions of the particle te as “to link two matters, prior and upcoming” and “to express cause-result relationship”. What the two scholars describe conforms exactly to what we think of as the functions of -te gerundive. In addition, as pointed out in Uchio (1973: 94), the particle mo seems to have first appeared earlier than temo. Uchio writes that: the sentence-final particle mo evolved into an adversative conjunctive particle during the end of the Heian period [the end of the 12th century] and the

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.5 (89)


Kamakura period [from the end of the 12th century through the mid 14th century]. [Bracketed information is my contribution]

Shindo (1973: 185) also provides a similar view: a conjunctive particle mo which expresses an established adversative condition first occurred in the mid Heian period [the end of the 10th century] and spread in the Kamakura period [ditto].

According to these Kokugogaku views, it is apparent that mo appeared earlier than temo as a particle expressing adversative meaning. Consequently, before the temo connection occurred (e.g. ittemo meaning “although (S)5 goes”), there was another adversative connecting device V-noun modifying form + mo (e.g. ikumo meaning “although (S) goes”). However, in this study, I will start by observing the time when the V-te + mo device first arose, because it is the element directly related to the developed element demo. Also, for analysis of this chapter, I will observe the Japanese language only after the Muromachi period from which standard Japanese/Tokyo Japanese flows. As for language data for the diachrony of demo and dakedo, one important point should be noted. Both expressions, demo and dakedo, are used in Present Day Standard Japanese. This Standard Japanese has developed from Edo Japanese through Tokyo Japanese. Edo is the old name for Japan’s capital, which was renamed in 1868 and is now called Tokyo. Since the Tokugawa Shogunate government started in Edo in 1603, Edo developed rapidly to become a big city. Japanese spoken in this city has gradually matured into the shape of a standard, along with the development of the city (Matsumura 1998: 3). This is one developmental path which has led to today’s Standard Japanese, a language similar to one spoken in and around Tokyo (Kanto) area. (Tokyo is located in the Kanto area. Kanto is located in the East part of Japan.) Meantime, there is another developmental path of language, which has led to Kansai (Kamigata) Japanese. Before the capital was opened in Edo, Kyoto, a city in the West part of Japan (Kansai), had been the capital for 200 years since Muromachi period. In those days Kamigata Japanese spoken in this capital had been regarded as standard (Ibid.: 19–23). The important point is the difference between the languages of West and East Japan, which have their own diachronic and evolutionary paths. In each language, each specific expression or word has evolved in its own diachrony. Thus, it is significant to capture such diachrony in consistency of language data. Although many works still observe the data mixed of Kansai (West) and Kanto (East) Japanese, in this chapter I carefully chose the sources to see the evolution of Tokyo standard in which demo and dakedo, the expressions in question, have emerged and been used.6 In addi-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.6 (90)

Chapter 4

tion, another importance in data choice was that the origin of today’s Tokyo or Standard Japanese seems the beginning of Edo Japanese or at the earliest the late Muromachi Japanese. That is, I should see the Japanese language after Muromachi period to observe the development of demo/dakedo. It is common practice in historical Japanese linguistics to consider language development from the Muromachi period (14th century – 16th century) through today as the path that Tokyo or Standard Japanese has taken.7 One more thing must be noted before proceeding the diachronic analysis. (This note is effective in the two chapters on diachronic analysis, Chapters 4 and 6.) In this study, when the first appearance of an item is discussed, this means the first time that I have found a particular expression with a given function in my data. In the diachronic chapters, I will provide the tables that show the time lines of expressions (to indicate when each expression starts and is used). However, these time lines should be understood as descriptive devices only. That is, I treat the appearance of a form/function correlation in my data as a description of when something occurred in my data – not a description of when something occurred in the language. It will be helpful to show where and when the different forms are found, before showing my specific analysis. Table 4.1 presents a summarized chronological view of clause-final V-te + mo, demo, clause-final V + kedo and dakedo. In the table, the point at which each item starts in my data and then continues is shown. .. Clause-final V-te + mo The earliest examples of the clause-final connecting device V-te + mo are seen in Muromachi Noo play scripts. (3) illustrates an example of V-te + mo taken out of Jinenkoji (before 1384). It is an utterance by the main character. (3) Jinenkoji (before 1384) a. Mi o kokkani kudakite mo, body DO now break-GER but b. kano mono o tasuken tame nari,. . . that person DO save purpose COP

V-te + mo in (a) forms a connecting device but it is within a sentence. It marks a contrast pragmatically inferred from (a) and (b): “it can be a problem that my body would fall apart” vs. “it is no problem that my body would fall apart

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.7 (91)


Table 4.1 Chronological view of final V-te + mo, demo, final V + kedo and dakedo

* ‘b’ stands for before’. The years prefaced by ‘b’ are those of the death of the playwrights, because of the unavailability of the exact dates of publication. ** (W) indicates that the text is written in Kamigata Japanese (Japanese used in West Japan). As for the Japanese data from the Edo era, basically the texts for analysis are written in Edo and Tokyo Japanese, to be consistent. However, as mentioned in 4.1 and 1.1.4, a few Kamigata texts were exceptionally analyzed for reference. † Japanese language from Muromachi period onward is regarded as a course, i.e. the course of ‘modern (kindai) Japanese’.

(for saving that person)” (b). This marking of the adversative sense mostly contributes to the ideational function of language. V-te + mo has an ideational and a clause-connecting function. V-te + mo in (a) seems to have a function linking a and b.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.8 (92)

Chapter 4

As mentioned, another expression, -nitemo, which later appears and is used as -demo, is another possibility of the source element of the initial demo. An example of such an expression will be also analyzed here. (4) is an excerpt from Ukiyoburo (1809), right after a tumult caused by the young women. (4) Ukiyoburo (1809) Woman a. Ima no yo sekee jaa nakuto Today LK age world in cry b. kuwau no nenesan demo. eat LK women COP although c. Mumenmoku jaa nee wa na. absurd COP NEG EMP FP

The expression ‘nenesan demo’ was shifted from ‘nenesan nitemo’. ‘-Nitemo’ is constructed as: [an inflected form of an archaic copula nari, ni] + a particle te + a particle mo. Some assume that the part, demo, as in b. becomes an independent and initial conjunction demo. In (4) -demo in (b) expresses the adversative sense, i.e. ‘although I (the speaker) cannot understand the young women who caused such a tumult, they shouldn’t be just absurd.’ This function contributes to the ideational function. -Demo in (4b) seems not to carry an explicit clausenor sentence- linking function. Through the analysis of (3) and (4), it is seen that the clause-final V-te + mo has the ideational function and a clause-connecting function, and -demo which is a development of -nitemo, carries the ideational function. .. Demo as a discourse marker The expression seems to have first appeared as demo in the sentence-initial position in the 18th century kobanashi-bon texts. In the examples of demo of those days we see textual and expressive functions. Therefore, demo is considered to be not only a conjunction but also a discourse marker. We will see that its expressive function is accomplished by a particular contrastive action, ‘refutation’. Two cases of demo are found in the Edo humorous short stories (kobanashibon). Niwaka dooshin (1772), a story, contains a case of demo in the descriptive rather than the conversational part of the text. Another story Kake-suzuri (1775) contains a case of demo in a conversational segment. I will illustrate the

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.9 (93)


latter case in (5). (5) demonstrates that demo in Edo kobanashi-bon text shows the contrastive action, to mark ‘refutation’. (5) Kake-suzuri (1775) A: a. Shikashi, aitsu o But that DO b. motte itte mo, nan bring-GER go-GER but, any c. no yaku ni tatsu mai. be of use NEG B: d. Demo omee, kane ga But you, money SB e. haitte iru jaa nee kai. is TAG

In this story, the main character, A, was robbed of his inkstone case (kakesuzuri). Kake-suzuri is a case in which to keep money or an account book, as well as an inkstone and brushes. Right before (5), A said, ‘Oh, no, my inkstone case is stolen!’ Then he continues (a–c), putting on a show of not caring. B then refutes A’s idea in (d–e) with demo, because he knows that there is money in the case, a fact that would lead B to infer that A should care. Following (d–e), in fact, A provides the reason for his indifference to the theft, which gives the punch line at the end of the story: ‘I don’t mind. Because although there’s money in it, the key to the inkstone case is on my waist.’ In (5), demo in (d) marks the pragmatically inferable contrast: “The inkstone case will be of no use (a–c)” vs. “It will be of use (d–e).” By marking such a contrast, demo serves ideational function. Simultaneously, the positions of A and B (“I don’t care” vs. “I care”) are in functional contrast; which is also marked by demo in (d). Here, it is seen that demo in (d) connects A’s utterance (a–c) and B’s utterance (d–e). This connecting function serves intersententially. It is regarded as textual function of language. Thus, demo in (d), at the beginning of a sentence (utterance), seems to work as a conjunction. Finally, demo marks B’s contrastive action of showing his refutation to A’s idea. Marking the speaker’s contrastive action contributes to the expressive function. Demo here is regarded not only as a conjunction but also as a discourse marker with explicit textual and expressive functions. As to the functional-semantic components of language, the sentence-initial demo, which we first encountered in the Edo Japanese texts (the 18th cen-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.10 (94)

Chapter 4

tury), is suggested to bear all three functions, ideational, textual and expressive functions. Another example of the initial demo is seen in another genre of Edo literature, share-bon. (6), an excerpt from Futsukayoi oosakazuki, shows a case of demo, which functions similarly to (5). (6) Futsukayoi oosakazuki (1784) ((Stage directions write) . . . The woman (Nyooboo) offers a comforter to Chuubei) Chuubei a. Futon wa irumei. Comforter TP necessary not Nyooboo b. Demo konya wa samuu gozariyasu kara, But tonight TP cold COP because ((Directions) Nyooboo, the woman, puts the futon on Chuubei’s shoulder, and lighting a lantern, leads him to a boat . . . )

In (6), demo serves as a conjunction connecting the utterances, a and b. This function contributes to textual function. Demo also marks a pragmatically inferable contrast between a and b: “Comforter won’t be needed. vs. Comforter will be needed.” Marking this contrast seems manipulated by ideational function. Lastly, demo indicates the speaker’s contrastive action, again, ‘refutation’. Marking this kind of speaker’s action seems part of expressive function. Demo in (b) carries ideational, textual and expressive functions. In another genre of Edo literature, noo kyoogen, we encounter the frequent use of the sentence-initial demo. In kyoogen (Torahiro-hon, completed in 1792), the examples of demo typically show a particular function, to mark the speaker’s refutation of the other’s preceding idea. As stated earlier, Japanese conversation often requires some pragmatic inference to determine what is in contrast when a contrastive marker is used. There seems degrees of inferencing required: while referential contrast lies between propositions stated, i.e. no inferencing is required, and the contrast is directly conveyed by the lexical items, pragmatically inferable contrast requires a certain amount of inferencing. The amount of inferencing necessary depends on the particular example. Examples of both referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts are seen in kyoogen scripts around the 18th century. I first demonstrate a case with somewhat transparent referential contrast (7), and go on to another case with more pragmatically inferable contrast (8). (7) illustrates a use of demo in Suehirogari (1792).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.11 (95)


(7) Noo kyoogen: Suehirogari (1792) Lord: a. Sore wa daidokoro ni That TP kitchen in b. nan bon mo aru kasa ja. several umbrella COP c. Sore o motomete kuru It DO get come d. to iu koto ga aru mono ka. QT NOM SB thing Retainer: e. Demo miyako no mono ga, But capital LK people SB f. ‘suehirogari’ ja to mooshita fan COP QT say-PST g. ni yotte motomete maitta. because get-GER come-PST

In kyoogen, a story is typically simple and the same storyline appears in different stories with slight modifications, e.g. with diverse stage props. (7) shows one of such patterned stories in which the lord needs something (in (7), a fan) and requests the retainer to go to the capital (Kyoto) and get it. The retainer went all the way to Kyoto and thought that he got a fan (suehirogari). (Because of its shape which widens toward the end, a folding fan is metaphorically called suehirogari (‘increasing prosperity as time goes by’).) However, what he got was, in fact, an umbrella though it was also made of ribs and paper. In (7), the lord says ‘It is an umbrella. You shouldn’t have brought it back.’ in (a–d). Then the retainer utters demo in (e) and tries to refute his lord’s idea by giving his reason for getting that article, ‘Because the people told me it was a fan, I got it.’ in (e–g). Here we see a more or less transparent referential contrast marked by demo, i.e. “it is an umbrella (a–d)” vs. “it is a fan (e–g).” The two nouns, ‘umbrella (kasa)’ and ‘fan (suehirogari)’, are clearly stated, so the ideational contrast is lexically explicitly recognized. Note, also, that demo in (e) marks the functional contrast between the two positions taken by the lord (a–d) and the retainer (e–g). In addition, a contrastive action is marked here: the retainer’s refutation of his lord’s idea.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.12 (96)

Chapter 4

Demo in (e) takes part in constructing ideational meaning: it brings about and expresses the adversative meaning between (a–d) and (e–g). It also plays a role in constructing textual meaning by linking the two utterances (a–d) and (e–g): the textual function operates intersententially. Demo in (e) also contributes to the expressive function by marking a ‘refutation’. In Torahiro-hon kyoogen, demo is likely to be somewhat specialized for the use of ‘refutation’. Demo in (7) is involved in all three components in Traugott’s functional-semantic model of language – ideational, textual and expressive components. There are other cases of demo similar to (7) in this kyoogen script. I will examine another example of demo from this time period (the end of 18th century) for which the determination of the contrast requires more inference. As written in Dictionary for Interpreting Classical Literature (Shiraishi et al. (Eds.) 1953: 109), “a kyoogen story basically consists of a simple storyline” and there are several patterned kyoogen storylines on which each story is based. The stories, in fact, can be classified into groups according to the characters in the story (cf. Ibid.). This is why we see many cases of demo in patterned stories and with patterned expressions. One typical group of characters consists of a husband and wife and the wife’s family, the husband having been “adopted into” the wife’s family. The last example of demo from around the 18th century, (8) is taken from a story of this type. In many cases in this story-group, a goodnatured husband gets beaten by his wife during an argument. (8) Noo kyoogen: Okadayuu (18th century) Husband: a. Otto ni mukoote Husband address-GER b. kuroota ka to iu ate Q QT say c. koto ga aru mono ka. thing SB Wife: d. Demo konata no yoo ni But you LK like e. kuuta mono o wasururu ate thing DO forget f. to iu koto ga aru mono QT thing SB

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.13 (97)


g. de gozaru ka. COP

Prior to (8), the husband told his wife that he had been entertained very well with delicacies by her father. The husband especially liked one of them, but could not remember its name. The wife suggested several foods by asking “Did you eat X?” She used the verb mairu four times in her questions. Mairu is an ‘honorific’ word (to eat or wear) for regular kurau (to eat). However, getting impatient at her husband’s poor memory, right before (8), the wife finally asked “Did you eat Y?” using kurau which is non-honorific. (8) took place when the husband then objected. The husband’s objection (a–c) sounds considerably strong. Now in (d), the wife shows her opinion ‘It is you that should not forget what you ate!’ following demo. The contrast which demo marks here lies in our inferred notions: “what wife does is wrong” from (a–c) vs. “what husband does is wrong” from (d–g). If (a–c) and (d–g) are thought to be functionally differentiated as the husband and the wife’s respective points, demo also marks a functional contrast. At the same time demo is used when the wife begins to refute her husband. Two similar uses of demo in very much the same expressions, with a slight modification, are seen in the same story-group. The analysis of the sentence-initial demo in the18th century Edo literature (kobanashi-bon, share-bon and kyoogen) has revealed the following: First, demo in this time period, when it seems to have first emerged, marks all the contrasts it can mark, i.e. referential contrast, pragmatically inferable contrast, functional contrast and contrastive actions. Second, demo is used to realize ideational, textual and expressive functions. Since it bears textual and expressive functions, demo is considered to be a discourse marker. Third, the only contrastive action marked by demo in the Edo period texts is the speaker’s refutation. I will go on to the analysis of Japanese of the Meiji period which follows the Edo. In the novels written in the Meiji era (1868–1912), I found a fairly widespread use of demo. Hakai (1906) and Sanshiro (1908) contain each seven cases of demo in the conversational portion and none in the descriptive portion. However, I have found that demo of Meiji is still used to mark the speaker’s refutation in most of the examples. (9) is one such example drawn from Hakai (1906). In this scene, the main character Segawa had brought a ‘notebook’ to school, especially to please a boy, Shoogo. Segawa offered Shogo the notebook, but Shogo refused this unexpected favor. Segawa objected.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.14 (98)

Chapter 4

(9) Hakai (1906) Segawa: ...... a. Sekkaku ageyoo to omotte Especially give QT think-GER b. kooshite motte kita mono o. this.way bring-GER thing DO < . . . . . . ‘I brought this especially for you.’> Shoogo: c. Demo kaasan ni shikarare yasu. But mother sold-PASS Segawa: d. Kaasan ni? Mother e. Sonna bakana koto ga aru mono ka. Such unreasonable thing SB exist NOM FP ...... . . . . . .

Following (9e), Segawa continues his reasons why it is reasonable to give a present to Shoogo (i.e. Segawa knows Shoogo’s father and Shoogo’s sister helps Segawa, and so on.) Demo (c) marks the functional contrast between the two characters’ positions, and it also marks the pragmatically inferable contrast: “It is reasonable to give a present (notebook)” (a–b) vs. “It is unreasonable to give a present” (c). Here, at the beginning of Shoogo’s turn, demo (c) denotes the speaker’s intention to ‘refute’ his interlocutor. Demo (c) can be also analyzed to mark another type of contrastive action ‘claim the floor’. As stated in (3.4.2), when the speaker makes an effort to claim the floor at non-TRPs (i.e. locations where the previous speaker may still continue his/her turn), there is a contrast between actions; Speaker A’s holding the floor vs. Speaker B’s holding the floor. (9) occurred in rather a heated argument, and it seems that Segawa was in a hurry to hand a present to a boy while nobody else sees their exchange. It is reasonable for Shoogo to show his effort to claim a floor in such a speedy conversation. Of course, this is a possible analysis of speaker-hearer interactional dynamics, since the data is a written conversational segment. In (9), demo (c) clearly shows its marking ‘refutation’ and possibly its secondary contrastive action, ‘claim the floor’. In Hakai, there are other examples in which demo marks ‘refutation’. Finally, although it is not included here, another example of demo shows the simultaneous marking of ‘refutation’ and another contrastive action, ‘subtopic change’. However, in this case also, demo’s function of refutation still predominates.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.15 (99)


When I analyzed demo in the 18th century Edo literature and in the Meiji (1868–1912) texts, I found that demo continued to be used mostly for a particular function, speaker’s refutation. In the Meiji novels, demo may also have other functions, i.e. claiming the floor and sub-topic change. However, they are seen only as secondary contrastive actions of demo. In what precedes, I have traced the process in which the final element V-te + mo seems to have developed into the initial element demo. The key finding in this analysis is the following. While the item was in unit-final positions, it had only an ideational function with a connecting function within a single sentence. When the item appeared as an utterance-initial word, it had more expanded functions as a discourse marker – not only a textual function but also an expressive function (while still keeping its ideational function). Therefore, the initial marker demo has all three functions noted by Traugott and said to be the basis for a diachronic path, which, in the case of demo, involves the period from its first appearance in the 18th century until today. Another finding is that demo seems to continue to be used for a particular pragmatic effect of marking the speaker’s refutation. However, it is true that in the early 20th century demo may also have had other contrastive actions (claiming the floor and sub-topic change) that were not clearly observable in my data. Considering that in Present Day Japanese demo has a greater variety of contrastive actions – occurring independently of the ‘refutation’ action – (see Chapter 3), the expressive function of demo must have expanded in the course of its historical path.

. Pragmaticalization of dakedo I assumed that the use of the unit-final element V + kedo is related to the use of the sentence-initial dakedo, mainly from the viewpoint of discourse analysis/analysis of spoken language. Kedo is a conjunctive particle which is strictly required to be attached to a verb (or an adjective) at clause-final positions; thus it is a bound morpheme. At clause-final positions, kedo can in fact be appended to any verb other than a copula. The sentence-initial dakedo is now used in Tokyo Japanese or the standard Present Day Japanese. However, while trying to find the cases of V + kedo in literature, I unexpectedly found examples of V + kedo in Kamigata Japanese (Language spoken in Osaka-Kyoto area in the West part of Japan) texts rather than in Tokyo Japanese. More interestingly, an Edo kokkei-bon text Ukiy-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.16 (100)

 Chapter 4

oburo (1809) illustrates an exchange between a Kamigata person and an Edo merchant in which they use different clause-final expressions (see (12)). I will show some analysis of the use of final V + kedo. However, I should regrettably say that it is indeed impossible to demonstrate exactly how the use and distribution of final V + kedo has influenced the formation of sentenceinitial discourse marker dakedo. The ‘formation’ here can be also rephrased by the contemporary speakers’ first use of the item or its distribution. The entire figure of such formation cannot be captured nor evidenced audibly or visually in any way. The sentence-initiating dakedo and demo (demo type conjunctions; conjunctions prefaced by d) seem to have occurred surely based on the establishment of “da” style as a common discourse style in Japanese. Tanaka (2001: 753) writes that it was in the Edo Japanese of the late Edo era that “da” discourse style was established. .. Clause-final V + kedo As far as I know, the oldest example of the final connecting device V + kedo is in a jooruri (ballad drama) book, Chuushin kana tanzaku (1732) (cf. Table 4.1), which is written in Kamigata-Japanese (Japanese used in Osaka-Kyoto area, the West part of Japan). This occurrence of V + kedo is also reported in Yuzawa (1970b) and Uchio and Okamura (1973). (10) illustrates one of earliest examples of V + kedo. (10) Chuushin kana tanzaku (1732) A: a. Inakamono ja to iwa nsu kedo, Countrywoman COP QT say HON but, b. kyoo hazukashii umai sakari, capital fine delicious at (its) best c. hitokuchi kuwazu ni okarenu me nsu. a.mouthful eat NEG cannot help

In the sources only the utterance in (10) is cited, and the preceding and following discourse is not available. In (10), A says, ‘Although (you) call a person who eats such a thing a countrywoman, I can’t help trying a mouthful of it.’ In this example V + kedo (iwa-nsu + kedo) marks a pragmatically inferable contrast, i.e. “You think a countrywoman is shameful (a)” vs. “I don’t think a countrywoman is shameful (b–c).” V + kedo in (a) could mark a contrastive

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.17 (101)

Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis) 

action: if prior to (a) another speaker in fact called A a countrywoman, and in (a) A attempts to refute/challenge what another speaker said. However, since the surrounding textual content is not available (even the subject, who calls A a countrywoman, in (a) is ambiguous), any possible contrastive action cannot be discussed further. V + kedo does not seem to mark a functional contrast. The pragmatically inferable contrast makes a contribution to the ideational function. Thus, in the final connecting element V + kedo in (11), we see an ideational function and clause connecting function. Another example where V + kedo shows an ideational function is drawn from a kabuki script created a few decades later than the earliest use of V + kedo from (10). (11) is such an example. The author of Sanjikkoku yofune no hajimari, Shozo Namiki, is from Osaka city. The language in (11) seems again Kamigata Japanese. (11) Sanjikkoku yofune no hajimari (1758) a. Chitto ome ni wa irimasu mai kedo, a.little eyes in enter would not but b. suwa to iwaba donata demo, when the time comes anyone (HON) c. doitsu demo kiri kanenu anyone cut would d. wazamono degozarimasu. fine.sword COP

In (11), irimasu + mai (a polite form of iru (to enter) + a modal auxiliary expressing the impossibility or unlikelihood of an affair in the near future) constitute a VP in a subordinate clause (a). Irimasu-mai + kedo is the clausefinal connecting element in (11). Its function is, like (10), to link a subordinate clause (a) and a main clause (b–d): this clause-connecting device operates only within a sentence. V + kedo expresses the adversative relationship between the two clauses and is involved in the transmission of propositional information. There seems weak expressive meaning in irimasu-mai + kedo, however this meaning is less explicit than that indicated by initial discourse markers. Thus, V + kedo maintains an ideational function and the grammatical function of clause-linking. The conjunctive particle kedo apparently belongs to a group of which keredomo, keredo and kedomo are members (Uchio & Okamura 1973: 256; Yuzawa 1954: 573, 1970b: 505). They are all adversative conjunctive particles and are

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.18 (102)

 Chapter 4

considered to have the same grammatical function. In exploring the language in the Tokugawa period (1603–1867), Yuzawa (1970b: 505) states that “kedo appears occasionally as an irregular form of keredo.” Looking at the language in the same period, Yuzawa (1954: 574) writes that “there are cases of saying kedo and kedomo instead of keredo (mo).” In addition, Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) (1981) (Shoogakkan Japanese Dictionary) accounts for kedo as “an informal form of keredo”. Shoogaku Tosho (Ibid.) further explains the transitional process regarding the use of these particles: In written language, keredomo is predominant in the Meiji era; then keredo comes to predominate after the Taishoo era. In spoken language, keredo is mainly used in the Meiji era; then kedo becomes the predominant form after the Taishoo era.

This Shoogaku Tosho (Ibid.) explanation accords with our knowledge that language change generally occurs earlier in spoken language than in written language. This transitional process seems to involve a phonological reduction. Hence, the order of the change is assumed to be the following: keredomo > keredo > kedo. The most full-fledged form keredomo (among keredomo, keredo and kedo) seems to have appeared first sometime after the Kamakura period (1180–1333) (Hayashi & Ikegami (Eds.) 1979). The phonologically reduced forms keredo and kedo have been found above to have appeared later than keredomo. Since its first appearance, keredomo seems to have continued to be used in coexistence with other variants (keredo and kedo). Kedo first emerged in the 18th century. Even after the 18th century, kedo has been found to be in co-use with other variants. This means that more phonologically reduced form (kedo) did not totally replace the fuller forms (keredo and keredomo) which still continue to be used today. In a collection of the Edo humorous short stories (kobanashi-bon shuu, written between 1764–1766), the adversative conjunctive particles other than the keredomo group, ga, domo and do which had all first emerged earlier than keredomo, still predominate. In this collection, keredomo appears but keredo is not found. Ukiyoburo, a kokkei bon (a humorous novel of Edo days), was written by 1808 and published in 1809. It is an interesting and valuable source in which to explore the Edo language since its text mostly consists of townspeople’s vivid conversation in a public bath. Ukiyoburo is often considered a good reflection of the Edo spoken language. However, my observation shows the frequency of keredomo variants in Ukiyoburo as follows: kedomo occurred 1 time, keredo 17 times, and kedo 1 time. Despite the fact that the first appearance of kedo

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.19 (103)

Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis) 

is around the mid 18th century (see (10)), in Ukiyoburo (1809) we still see a widespread use of keredo. In Ukiyoburo, however, although it is written in Edo Japanese, a scene in which a Kamigata customer and an Edo merchant converse demonstrates a very interesting and separate language use: i.e. the Kamigata (West) speaker uses the Kamigata copula ja + kedo, while the Edo (East) speaker uses the copula da + keredo. (12) illustrates it. (12) Ukiyoburo (1809) Merchant a. Cho omee ni wa ura nee. (Edo) Hem you to EMP sell NEG b. Hito o tyooseeboo ni suru yoo da. Others DO live long make seem COP ............... Customer c. . . . . . . omee ni hikararete chito hamari ja kedo. (Kamigata) you scold-PASS a.little tricked although ........................ Merchant d. Kore minee. Koira ga ochi da keredo. . . . . . . (Edo) This look This SB working-out COP although e.

Anmari urusee kara maketa kedo. So noisy because reduce although

In the conversation of this scene (the excerpt is partly omitted), the Edo merchant’s use of da discourse style is seen. As mentioned above, Tanaka (2001: 753) states that this style was established in Edo Japanese in the late Edo era, when Ukiyoburo was written. He also says that Da style was formed, needless to say, based on the East Japan’s copula -da which corresponds to West Japan’s copula, -ya/-ja. . . . Before [the establishment of da style in the late Edo era], West Japan’s ja style was conducted. Da style was originally formed out of Edo common people’s spoken conversational style. Therefore there is some impression of vulgarity in it. . . . History [,however,] has chosen and developed da style because of its efficiency of space, then made this into a dignified style, wiping off its original impression of vulgar dialect. (Tanaka Ibid.: 753–754)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.20 (104)

 Chapter 4

Tanaka’s statement implies that the establishment of da style was influenced by West Japan’s precedent use of ja style. In the late Edo period, the exchanges between Edo and Kamigata people in Edo city like (12) might influence the Edo peoples’ language use: i.e. more specifically, West Japan’s use of ‘ja + kedo’ may urge East Japan’s first use and distribution of ‘da + kedo’. We do not necessarily see the pervasive use of the item in the texts written after the first documented appearance of the item.8 Rather, we encounter the more or less broad use of an item at a substantial period of time after its documented first appearance: after the reported first appearance of keredo in 1704,9 its extensive use is seen in literature written in 1809 (Ukiyoburo) – a century after its first appearance. Likewise, kedo’s widespread use is seen 190 years after its first appearance in 1732 (Chuushin kana tanzaku): Yuujoo (1920) is a novel showing such common use of kedo. In the Taishoo era (1912–1926), V + kedo is in more common use, and its unit-initial correspondent dakedo arises for the first time in history. In this Taishoo era, the final V + keredo and its corresponding initial dakeredo co-occur in a piece of literature (e.g. Udekurabe 1917): This means that the emergence of a new initial element is closely related to the already wide-spread use of its corresponding final element. When V + kedo comes to be used more frequently in the Taishoo period, we first see the initial element dakedo. I have shown some analysis of kedo as well as its closely related particles, keredomo and keredo. At least in Present Day standard Japanese, the use of clause-final V + kedo and that of sentence-initial dakedo look inter-related. As analyzed above, in the language the final expression V + kedo seems to have emerged far earlier than the first appearance of dakedo. In the diachronic analysis, we have no way to see or hear the very process of formation of an item. It can only be suggested that the use of final V + kedo (da + kedo) through the use of ja + kedo may have been influential on the emergence of initial dakedo. .. Dakedo as a discourse marker As stated, when the conjunctive particle kedo began to be used more commonly in the Taishoo period, we encounter the first emergence of the initial marker dakedo. Today dakedo is widely recognized as a conjunction. Hence, it is now a content word, consisting of two morphemes da and kedo, while the final element V + kedo contains two separate words. In this section, I will analyze the use of dakedo in the Taishoo era (1912–1926) when this item seems to have appeared first (cf. Aoki 1973).10

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.21 (105)

Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis) 

As for dakedo in the Taishoo era, it is recognized that some have ideational and textual functions and others have ideational, textual and expressive functions: Expressive function is optional for dakedo of this time stage. I first illustrate dakedo with ideational and textual functions (4.2.2.1), then dakedo with all three functions (4.2.2.2). This division is, however, only for analytical convenience. ... Dakedo as a marker with textual function Dakedo which has ideational and textual functions is considered a discourse marker, since it has the textual function of linking portions of discourse intersententially. (13) is an example. This excerpt is cited from Anya kooro (1922), a novel. When this excerpt took place, the main character (Kensaku) whose baby had been sick, had hired a nurse (Nurse H) to care for the baby. Kensaku and his wife had been very satisfied with Nurse H. However, considering H’s health, another nurse was hired to support H. H did not like the way the other nurse cared for the baby. One day the other nurse got sick and went home early. Nurse H then says: (13) Anya kooro (1922) Nurse H: a. Moshi watashi no tame If me LK b. deshitara, dooka moo COP-if please no.more c. otanomi ni naranai de ask-HON NEG d. itadakimasu. receive e. Dakedo, watashi hitori de But, me alone COP-GER f. gofujiyuu da to oboshimesu inconvenient COP QT think HON g. n deshitara betsu desu kedo. NOM COP-if other COP but

In (13), dakedo in (e) marks a referential contrast, “Don’t hire another nurse for me (a–d)” vs. “Do it for yourselves (e–g).” Dakedo also marks a functional contrast. In (13) H sounds like she is considering the pros and cons of hiring

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.22 (106)

 Chapter 4

another nurse. The pros (Hire another nurse for yourselves) in (e–g) and the cons (Don’t hire for me) in (a–d) are contrasting alternating opinions in an argument, and they are marked as one kind of functional contrast. As suggested before, when dakedo marks a referential contrast, it serves an ideational function. Dakedo also has a textual function: It seems that the function of the element d in dakedo in (e) contributes to the textual function. As will be discussed fully in (4.4.1), d replaces a predicate in the preceding utterance (Okutsu 1978). In (13), d in dakedo in (e) replaces the predicate in the sentence (a–d), itadakimasu (to receive). Itadaku is one of the Japanese donatory (giving and receiving) verbs, literally meaning ‘to receive’. The main sentence (b–d) is translated into ‘Do me the favor of not hiring another nurse.’ D in dakedo in (e) indeed replaces the meaning of ‘do me the favor of not hiring . . . ’. As a consequence of d’s replacement function, dakedo suggests that (e–g) is coherent with the preceding utterance (a–d), and in fact links the prior and the upcoming utterances. Let us compare the connecting system of the final V + kedo to that of the initial dakedo. The primary difference is that while the utterance-initial dakedo has a textual function (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 27–28 and elsewhere; Traugott 1982: 248), the unit-final V + kedo does not. This difference comes from the difference in the scope of connecting system. The initial dakedo links the preceding sentence and the sentence it prefaces. This is an intersentential linkage. By contrast, the final element kedo links a subordinate clause (terminated with kedo) and a main clause. Notice this linkage is only within a sentence, i.e. intrasentential. Hence, along the diachronic development from a unit-final into initial element, there is also a change in the scope of the connecting function, i.e. sentence → discourse. We have already seen an important indicator of the difference in the scope of connecting devices in (13): in a single sentence (e–g), both dakedo (e) and V + kedo (g) are used. There are two adversative connecting devices used in one sentence. This happens because the scope of the two devices is different: V + kedo (desu + kedo) in (g) only adds the meaning ‘. . . , though’ being used like a sentence-final particle in this case; this device operates within the sentence. On the other hand, dakedo in (e) links the preceding sentence (a–d) and the following (e–g). Its scope is here beyond the sentence level, and it operates at a higher level, i.e. discourse level. The use of dakedo and V + kedo together in a single sentence is possible because of the difference in scope of the two items, i.e. the level of discourse organization at which they work. In addition to scope, another difference between V + kedo and dakedo is their contribution to discourse coherence. As a consequence of gaining the

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.23 (107)

Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis) 

intersentential linking function (i.e. textual function), dakedo contributes to coherence in on-going discourse, whereas V + kedo does not. According to Traugott (1982: 248), “creating a cohesive discourse” is a textual function. This function is also “linked to the unfolding of the speech event” (Ibid.). A point which has been focused on here is mentioned in Traugott (1982: 269): only the “scheme” which “codes intersentential cohesion” has the textual function, not the schemes coding intrasentential cohesion. Dakedo in (e) (13) may also have an expressive function. However, the “contrast” denoted here is rather a logical contrast between what precedes and what follows, which is on the ideational level. This contrast is marked by dakedo which has been regarded as an adversative conjunction. Thus, the contrastive meaning here may be ‘residue’ of semantic meaning of dakedo as an adversative conjunction, rather than explicit speaker’s contrastive actions seen in (4.2.2.2). The classification between (4.2.2.1) and (4.2.2.2), i.e. dakedo that do not carry explicit expressive function and dakedo that carry such functions, depends on whether or not dakedo marks explicit conversationalists’ actions. At the time of its first emergence in initial position, some instances of dakedo are involved in both the ideational and textual components of language. ... Dakedo as a marker with textual and expressive functions While some instances of dakedo in the Taishoo era have only ideational and textual functions (4.2.2.1), others also have explicit expressive function. In this section, I look at dakedo with ideational and textual functions, and also with expressive function which is optional. The first example is a case in which dakedo marks a contrastive action, ‘point-making’. As seen in the analysis of Present Day Japanese (Chapter 3), with the use of demo/dakedo, the speaker sometimes returns to his/her position to make his/her point in conversation. In (14), we see this use of dakedo. (14) is an excerpt drawn from an argument between Kensaku and his wife, Naoko, in the Taishoo novel ‘Anya kooro’ (1922). Kensaku and Naoko’s baby had been seriously ill. Prior to (14), Kensaku attempted to persuade Naoko to try to be carefree, being concerned for the bad effect on her own health. Naoko rebutted by saying that Kensaku’s request was an impossibility. Kensaku, then, excitedly told her again that her optimistic attitude was indispensable for their baby. Naoko then says that she knows how she should be, but she also knows a case in which a baby died of the same disease that their baby has. She continues:

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.24 (108)

 Chapter 4

(14) Anya kooro (1922) Naoko: a. Sore o shitte iru node, That DO know because, b. nandaka shinpai de shikata somehow worry COP-GER cannot c. ga nai no. help FP d. Dakedo, hontooni watashi, But, really I e. dekirudake byooki no koto, as.much.as.possible disease LK NOM f. wasureru yoo ni kokorogake masu wa. forget NOM try FP

Naoko’s general position in this exchange is that she will try to be carefree about the baby’s sickness. Right before (14), Naoko provided the reason for her worry, i.e. she knew about a more serious case involving another baby. After giving this reason, she says dakedo in (d), and tries to return to her position and says ‘I will try to forget the baby’s sickness’ in (d–f). Dakedo in (d), thus, marks the speaker’s contrastive action, point-making and return to her position. We also recognize the pragmatically inferable contrast between ‘I can’t help worrying’ stated in (a–c) vs. ‘I will try not to worry’ inferred from (d–f). In contrast to dakedo (4.2.2.1) in (13), dakedo in (14d) marks the speaker’s action of ‘point-making’. Since dakedo here marks the speaker’s contrastive action, this dakedo has an expressive function in addition to ideational and textual functions. As noted, there is no way other than looking at written text to explore the language of the past. As a consequence, it is somewhat limited to observe speaker’s and hearer’s actions in written conversational texts, since the actual dynamics of the speaker/hearer interactive negotiation are more opaque in written data than in spoken data. Accordingly, in the next example (15), I suggest a possible contrastive action. (15) is another example in which dakedo first appeared as a marker with expressive function. This use of dakedo shows another type of contrastive action ‘claiming the floor’. This is an excerpt from a conversational segment in Yuujoo (1920), a novel. Prior to (15), another participant N had said to H that

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.25 (109)

Pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo (diachronic analysis) 

if H did not believe in God, he is the same as a maggot. H rebutted by uttering that N was talking rubbish. In (15), K tries to arbitrate between N and H by addressing H: (15) Yuujoo (1920) K: a. Maa, sonna koto o Well, like.that NOM DO b. iu mono ja nai yo. say had better NEG FP H: c. Dakedo, boku wa ujimushi But, I TP maggot d. atsukai sarete damatte wa treat PASS keep.silent EMP e. irare nai yo. can NEG FP

Considering the preceding discourse and the immediate excerpt, the argument between H and N seems heated. Dakedo in (c) is used at the beginning of H’s turn. A possible function of dakedo here could be to take the floor. In a conflicting interactive situation like this argument, who will take the next turn is less predictable to the participants than in other types of discourse. In an argument, participants seem required to make more effort to take a turn. Dakedo in (c) may well mark such effort to get the floor. If so, dakedo here is considered to denote a contrastive action, ‘claiming the floor’. We can also see that dakedo in (c) marks referential and functional contrasts. The referential contrast is seen between the statements of K’s and H’s positions, “H shouldn’t say something like that” (a–b) vs. “I(H) can’t keep silent” (c–e). The functional contrast is between K’s and H’s positions about H’s deeds in the conversation. Dakedo in (c) seems used for claiming the floor: it expresses the speaker’s intention to perform an action in the conversation, that action being, taking the next floor. Since dakedo conveys the speaker’s intention to the other participants, it has an expressive function, and since dakedo in (c) connects two utterances ((a–b) and (c–e)), it has textual function. (15) is thus another example of dakedo as a discourse marker carrying all three, ideational, textual and expressive, functions. I will examine one more example in which dakedo serves an expressive function. (16) shows a clearer case of contrastive action than (15) does. In (16), dakedo marks the speaker’s contrastive action of ‘changing the sub-topic’.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.26 (110)

 Chapter 4

This example is an excerpt from the novel Anya kooro (1922). When (16) took place, Kensaku was meeting his two younger sisters after a long time. The sisters asked about Kensaku’s wedding which would be held soon. Preceding (16), the youngest sister Taeko said, ‘I would like to go to Kyoto, then (to attend Kensaku’s wedding).’ (16) Anya kooro (1922) Kensaku: a. Oniisan ni tsurete kite Brother take-GER come-GER b. morau sa. receive FP Taeko: c. Ee, sono tsumori. Yes, that intention d. Dakedo, itsu na no? But, when COP FP e. Gakkoo ga oyasumi de School SB off COP f. nai to dame na no yo. NEG impossible COP FP FP

Kensaku suggests in (a–b) that Taeko ask the elder brother to take her to the wedding. In (c), Taeko shows her agreement with this suggestion, which is maintaining the same sub-topic in (a–b). However, after this, Taeko says dakedo and provides a request for information concerning the time when the wedding will be. Dakedo here marks Taeko’s action of changing the sub-topic. Since sub-topics (and topics) are referentially different information chunks, dakedo also marks a referential contrast. Therefore, in (16), dakedo is involved in the expressive and ideational components of language as well as in the textual component. In this section, I have illustrated dakedo with all three functions of language. We have seen that expressive function is realized by contrastive actions, ‘point-making’ (14), ‘claiming the floor’ (15) and ‘changing the sub-topic’ (16). These speaker’s actions denote important points in the on-going discourse in terms of conversational management. This denoting function (addressed to the other participants) seems essential as “markers”. Above, I have shown that the clause-final V + kedo seems to have come to be used as the utterance-initial dakedo. The primary finding in this di-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.27 (111)


achronic analysis is: As a final connecting element, V + kedo carries only an ideational function and an intrasentential connecting function. When this element emerged in utterance-initial positions as dakedo, it began to be used as a discourse marker with ideational and textual functions and optionally expressive function.11 The connecting function of the final V + kedo and the initial dakedo differ in the scope within which their function is realized: V + kedo is only a clause-connecting device, but dakedo serves an intersentential linking function. Thus, the scope of the connecting function is enlarged (sentence → discourse). This increase in scope allows the textual function of dakedo, but not V + kedo. Another point is noted. Dakedo’s contrastive actions have been found to be the same as those in Present Day Japanese (Chapter 3). However, in Present Day Japanese we recognize another variety of the contrastive action of dakedo. This implies that the variety of contrastive actions and hence expressive function of dakedo has increased.

. Pragmaticalization: Evolution of demo and dakedo as discourse markers In this section, I review the results of the diachronic analyses of demo (4.1) and dakedo (4.2), and inspect the direction of their functional change, focusing on Traugott’s proposal. Adopting Traugott’s proposed functional-semantic model of language, the pragmaticalization which demo underwent is schematized as (A). In (A), + superscribed on “expressive” in PDJ (Present Day Japanese) designates that the expressive function has expanded, when compared to the previous time stages. V-te + mo here is a possibility of the earlier form of demo, or it has influenced the appearance of demo. (A) Pragmaticalization of demo V-te + mo (14th–19th C) Demo (18th–early 20th C) Demo (PDJ)12 ideational ideational ideational > textual > textual expressive expressive+

The ideational function seems maintained throughout the course of demo’s history. The item keeps this function both in the unit-final and initial positions. The textual function arises when the item first emerges in the initial positions in the 18th century. Although V-te + mo had a connecting function, it



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.28 (112)

Chapter 4

worked only within a sentence. The connecting function of demo, on the other hand, works beyond the level of the sentence, and hence it creates cohesion. This is how I judged that the textual function arises at the first appearance of demo. (See the definition of textual function in 1.2.1.3.) The expressive function also emerges clearly at the first appearance of demo. The examples of demo from its first appearance in the 18th century through the early 20th century show its expressive function, i.e. mostly expressing the speaker’s action of refuting the other’s idea. The expressive function, however, expands at some point, because demo in Present Day Japanese was observed to have at least four other expressive functions (Chapter 3). I suggest that the functional change of demo follows two general tendencies in meaning/functional changes that have been attested in several languages (Traugott 1982, 1986a, 1988a, 1988b, 1989 and elsewhere). One is what was first proposed in Traugott (1982: 253): a meaning shift from “less personal to more personal”.13 The other is a more comprehensive tendency: a semantic-pragmatic direction of functional change, “propositional (ideational)14 > ((textual) > expressive)” (Traugott 1989: 31).15 To understand the first tendency, the following must be noted as Traugott (1982: 253) herself mentions: It should be understood that “more personal” means ‘more anchored in the context of the speech act, particularly the speaker’s orientation to situation, text, and interpersonal relations’; it does not mean “more individualized”.

Thus, as a matter of fact, “more personal” in Traugott’s sense includes ‘interpersonal’. For Traugott, ‘more personal’ does not denote a meaning shift to more individualized nor ego-oriented, but to more interaction-based, i.e. the speaker’s communicative intention in the speaker/hearer negotiation or the speaker’s strategic point of view towards propositions becomes more essential (cf. Traugott 1988a, 1988b, 1989 and elsewhere). She elsewhere identifies the shift ‘from less to more personal’ with the shift from propositional to interpersonal meaning (Traugott 1982). Whereas V-te + mo contributes only to the objective world of describing what a sentence is about, demo is brought about by the speaker’s own evaluation of the situation (shown as the action of refutation). In Halliday and Hasan’s (1976: 26) sense, V-te + mo is concerned only with “the expression of content” (=ideational), but demo is concerned with “expressing the speaker’s ‘angle”’ (26–27). As mentioned earlier (2.2), meaning shifts to more ‘speaker-based’ and to more ‘discourse-oriented’ are linked to the tendency “less to more personal”.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.29 (113)


In the possible process in which the item developed from V-te + mo into demo, we see a meaning shift from ideational (expression of ‘content’) to more “speaker-based” and “discourse-oriented”. This is because when an item starts to function as a discourse marker, thus functioning in the speaker’s use of discourse strategy, the speaker’s evaluation of the immediate discourse is more obvious. The item thus injects the speaker’s point of view into the proposition. Speaker-based (and therefore discourse-based) meanings shift from “referencing the situation outside the discourse to referencing the situation inside the discourse” (cf. Traugott 1986a: 542). I propose the direction of pragmaticalization of demo as (A), and further suggest that it pursues the second tendency in functional change: ideational > ((textual) > expressive). As shown in (A), the change in demo does not occur in an abrupt linear fashion, but is rather gradual, i.e. the change in demo is multi-functional. Traugott (1982: 256) also seems to agree that this is a gradual process. I suggest that in general the multi-functional change in demo follows the direction, ideational > ((textual) > expressive). It is noted, however, that there are a few factors which could also influence the interpretation of functional change in the data, i.e. different modes (spoken/written), characteristically patterned expressions in a set of sources (kyoogen), and similar to this, the varying individual styles of the authors who wrote in the literature investigated. These factors could also affect the frequency of some particular use of a lexical item. Therefore, after due consideration of the possible effects caused by these factors, I determined the direction of pragmaticalization to be stated as in (A). The functional change which dakedo seems to have undergone is schematized as (B). (B) Pragmaticalization of dakedo V + kedo (18th–early 20th C) Dakedo (early 20th C–PDJ) ideational > ideational textual (> expressive)

The ideational function is sustained in the whole process of functional change of dakedo. When the possible original element V + kedo evolved to emerge as dakedo in initial positions, we saw that dakedo had ideational and textual functions, and optionally expressive function. Since dakedo’s expressive function is optional, I tentatively suggest the direction ‘textual (> expressive)’ in the course of pragmatic change in dakedo, as in (B). In PDJ (Present Day Japanese), dakedo shows at least one more speaker’s contrastive action different from three kinds



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.30 (114)

Chapter 4

of actions found in the earlier Japanese. Dakedo’s expressive function appears to have increased a little towards these days. Thus the pragmaticalization of dakedo also conforms to the two tendencies in meaning change in general which demo follows. In conclusion, the pragmaticalization of both demo and dakedo seems to follow Traugott’s suggested directions: ideational > ((textual) > expressive) less personal to more personal

Before closing this section, I will mention briefly the motive for the possible positional shift, the process in which the final V-te + mo / V + kedo seem to have moved into sentence-initial position. That is, first, the subordinate clauses such as V-te + mo and V + kedo are detached from the rest of the sentence by ‘postposing’ which occurs often in Japanese conversation. Then, those subordinate clauses that have become movable shift into sentence-initial position.16 (In 7.3.1 (Relevance to typological characteristics), I will discuss fully this motive for the positional shift from the perspective of typology in languages.)

. Motivation for the pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo In this section, I address the question of what brings about the pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo. This kind of question, addressing what provokes the semantic/pragmatic change of a lexical item, appears to be the most essential moot point in the exploration of meaning change; it also remains unsolved in many cases (cf. Traugott 1980: 29). I hope that my attempt will contribute to the answering of a more specific question: “Why were these forms or these structures adopted rather than others?” (Ibid.: 30). An attempt to solve this sort of question will allow us to look not only at “the onomasiological question – what forms move into one given domain, and why?” but also at “the semasiological question – what paths does any one form move along in the course of semantic change?” (Traugott 1985: 298). Why the structures de + mo and da + kedo, rather than others, were adopted as independent words and came to be used as markers in initial position, I think, is greatly due to the fact that the structures contain a morpheme da (more strictly its stem d). Below, I will claim that da, which has been mostly recognized as a copula, does not always function as a copula but has another important role in discourse.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.31 (115)


There are two processes that I can think of as the reasons for adoption of demo and dakedo as markers: one process is grammatical and the other is discourse-based. The function of da has to do mainly with a grammatical process. I will start with an inspection of this function which seems to rely upon grammar for the emergence of demo and dakedo as initial grammatical markers (4.4.1). Next, I will turn to discuss a discourse process which, along with the grammatical process, seems to have accelerated the use of these items as markers (4.4.2). .. The grammatical process leading to the adoption of demo and dakedo as initial markers Two grammatical analyses of the function of da (Kuno 1978b and Okutsu 1978) were reviewed in (2.4.1). They argue for similar functions of da, based on ‘ellipsis’ (Kuno) and ‘replacement’ (Okutsu). Here, I will explain da according to Okutsu (1978). Okutsu’s point was: Da, widely analyzed as a copula, does not always function as a copula (linking two nouns A and B as in “A is B”); rather its fundamental function is to replace a predicate in a prior discourse. Hence, this function of da can be called a pro-predicate. If da replaces a predicate of a prior utterance, the predicate need not be repeated. Therefore, the predicate replaced by da is an economical and rational strategy in Japanese conversation. (For details of Okutsu 1978, see (2.4.1).) There are conditions for manipulating the da pro- predicate (replacement) strategy: (I) “a certain verbal or non-verbal context is necessary” (Okutsu 1978: 28), and more specifically, (II) “the predicate which da is going to replace must be presupposed” (Ibid.: 32). Consider, for instance, the interchange (1) between two male speakers, A and B, who play baseball. (1) A: a.

Kinoo ame ga futta. Yesterday rain SB fell B: b. Dakedo boku wa renshuu ni itta. But I TP training went (cf. Okutsu 1978: 33–34)

Once A makes the utterance (a), ‘Yesterday it rained’, the fact that ‘yesterday it rained’ becomes part of textual context. This satisfies condition (I) for the use of da in (1b). Further, the information ‘yesterday it rained’ becomes part of



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.32 (116)

Chapter 4

shared knowledge between A and B, in other words, it is presupposed by them. This fulfills condition (II). When B makes his statement in (b), ‘But (Although it was raining yesterday), I went to the training’, B uses a da replacement strategy to make an adversative subordinate clause dakedo. The predicate futta (‘fell’)17 in (a) is already presupposed by A and B. Therefore, da in (b) replaces it. When A hears dakedo in (b), A immediately interprets it as which is replaced by dakedo. B, however, might just repeat the predicate (futta) to make the same statement. (2) shows such a case. (2) B: x. Futta kedo, Fell (it rained) but y. boku wa renshuu ni itta. I TP training went

In this case, futta + kedo (x) forms a (adversative) subordinate clause to the main clause (y). This utterance (sentence x–y) is fully grammatical, just as (1b) was fully grammatical. However, if we compare (2) to (1b) in which dakedo is used, we see the effect of the da strategy. (1) B: b. Dakedo, boku wa renshuu ni itta. But I TP training went

(2) and (1b) convey exactly the same information. The difference is: In (1b), because da in dakedo replaces the predicate futta just given prior to (1b) by another speaker, it avoids the repetition of the same predicate. Therefore, (1b) is not redundant. Here I suggest that not only the meaning of the predicate ‘fall-past’ (futta) is conveyed but the meaning of the whole A’s original utterance ‘Yesterday rain SB fell’ (kinoo ame ga futta) is calculable and conveyed by dakedo in (1b). This is because another part of the sentence, other than the predicate, is also recovered from the textual context. As a consequence, in addition to the replacement of a predicate by da, the whole meaning of a preceding utterance can be recovered by the hearer owing to context. Thus da’s replacement function is used as an economical and effective speaker strategy for cohesion in Japanese conversation. Okutsu (1978) provides examples where da replaces predicates (not only verbs but adjectives and even adverbs. See (2.4.1)). Below, it is shown that da

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.33 (117)


in (3) can replace the underlined predicate in (4), (5) and (6) if the condition is observed. (3) Boku wa unagi da. I TP eel (4) Boku wa unagi o tsuru. I TP an eel DO (will) catch

(5) Boku wa unagi o chuumon suru. I TP eel DO (will) order

(6) Boku wa unagi o taberu. I TP eel DO (will) eat

When the predicate is presupposed by the speaker and hearer, i.e. the predicate is calculable from their background knowledge, (3) would mean (4), (5), (6) or something else depending upon the presupposition. We are now ready to discuss the emergence of dakedo and demo18 in initial positions as conjunctions. Morioka (1973: 41) points out that a function of a certain group of conjunctions including demo and dakedo (which I call as demo type connectives) is to “bring in the content of a preceding sentence as a subordinate clause to the following sentence”. He (Ibid.: 20) further states that “these conjunctions are, in fact, the abridged forms of the subordinate clauses, or the replacement of the subordinate clauses”. Morioka’s finding points to virtually the same behavior of da or de as discussed in Okutsu (1978). Morioka’s point is that conjunctions such as demo and dakedo play the role of the subordinate clause to the following sentence. And this allows us to discover why the particular group of conjunctions prefaced by ‘d’ tend to become initial textual markers. Demo and dakedo work as subordinate clauses in discourse because of the replacement function of d. While the original elements (V-te + mo and V + kedo) are in the final position they cannot have the replacement function. Demo and dakedo needed to move into the initial positions to serve the replacement function. The following observation accounts for this. (7) and (8) exemplify the typical use of the original elements, V-te + mo and V + kedo, respectively. (7) John wa gakusei de mo, mainichi hataraki ni iku. TP student COP everyday work go (8) John wa gakusei da kedo, mainichi hataraki ni iku. TP student COP everyday work go



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15



F: PB13204.tex / p.34 (118)

Chapter 4

Originally, da, a copula, is an imperfect predicate in the sense of requiring a complement. In (7) and (8) gakusei (‘student’) is the complement of de/da, and gakusei + de/da forms a predicate of a subordinate clause. In this structure a copula must be accompanied by a complement to be a full predicate, hence the containing clause can be a full (subordinate) clause. In this case the meaning which the subordinate clauses in (7) and (8) convey is ‘Although John is a student’: There can be no other interpretation. In other words in cases such as (7) and (8), i.e. in final position, d cannot replace anything. For d to replace a predicate in a prior discourse, it must be in sentence (utterance) initial position. Recall that the d(/da) replacement strategy must meet two felicity conditions: (I) a certain verbal/non-verbal context is necessary, and (II) the predicate which d is going to replace must be presupposed. The following four examples (from Okutsu 1978) show that when d in initial positions meets the two conditions, it serves replacement. (9) (Kinoo ame ga futta. (‘Yesterday it rained.’)) Dakara renshuu ni ikare nakatta. So training to can go NEG PST (10) (Kinoo ame ga futta. (‘Yesterday it rained.’)) Dakedo renshuu ni itta. But training to went (11) (Kinoo ame ga futta. (‘Yesterday it rained.’)) Danoni michi wa sorehodo waruku nai. However road TP that bad NEG (12) (Ashita tenki ni naru yo. (‘It will be fine, tomorrow.’)) Dato ii desu ga ne. good COP FP (Okutsu 1978: 33–34)

(9), (10), (11) and (12) exemplify that d in the initial positions replaces a predicate in prior discourse. The preceding utterance in the brackets in each case provides the necessary verbal context which supplies the background knowledge to the participants (meeting the condition (I)). The predicate to be replaced by d is presupposed in the background knowledge in each case (meeting the condition (II)). The four examples are all grammatical and natural utterances. They show that it is only in sentence-initial position that d does not

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.35 (119)


need to take a complement and can thus replace a predicate in prior discourse. Okutsu (1978: 33–34) explains this as follows: D(a) [in (9), (10), (11) and (12)] does not require a complement. However, it cannot be used without a precedent sentence. Replacing a predicate in a precedent sentence, d is then followed by kara, kedo and so forth, and forms a subordinate clause.

As shown, the only location where d can serve the replacement function is the sentence (utterance) initial position. In such a position without accompanying the immediately preceding complement, d freely replaces a predicate in prior discourse. Due to this replacement function, the elements dakedo and demo come to have the strong textual function of linking the previous and the current utterances. In fact, there is an entire group of items which seems to have undergone the same kind of pragmatic change and positional shift from the final to initial position. At least daga, dakara, datte and denakereba, all prefaced by d, belong to this group “demo type connectives” (Onodera 2000), and they are recognized as conjunctions (Aoki 1973).19 It is possible that the possession of d made it easier for this particular group (demo type connectives) rather than others to move into initial position and work as textual markers. Traugott (1985), in her discussion of conditional markers, has found that expressions associated with the protasis (such as the use of interrogative in English (294–295) and Swahili imperfect (295–296)) are effective at establishing the presupposed condition for the main clause since such strategies supply “the frame”, “the given” or “topic” of the apodosis (cf. 295). Although demo and dakedo are not conditional markers, sentences prefaced by demo/dakedo may be considered to have a structure which is parallel to that of conditionals in that demo/dakedo behave like a subordinate clause and are followed by a main clause. Like a conditional protasis, demo or dakedo also supplies the frame for the following main clause (apodosis), owing to the replacement function of d. In this section, the question of why demo and dakedo in particular were adopted as conjunctions (i.e. initial textual markers) has been examined, and a grammatical process which seems to have led to this adoption has been discussed. The grammatical process is as follows. The possible original final elements de + mo and da + kedo contain d which has the potential of replacing a predicate. They shifted into the initial position and began to serve the replacement function. In the initial position, demo and dakedo indeed work as strong textual markers due to the replacement function of d.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.36 (120)

 Chapter 4

.. The discourse process leading to the adoption of demo and dakedo as markers In (4.4.1), we have seen a strong motivation for the pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo, i.e. the items contain d with a replacement (pro-predicate) function which greatly contributes to discourse cohesion. There seems one more process which promotes the same pragmatic change, although with less influence than the first factor. That is, expressive strengthening in initial positions. This means: Demo and dakedo eventually appear in utterance-initial positions, and it seems plausible that the appearance in this site accelerates the strengthening of expressive function as markers. Let us consider two requirements for an item to be considered a discourse marker (cf. 7.1 and 1.2.1.4): (1) appearance in the initial position and (2) possession of either textual or expressive function. In (4.4.1) it has already been recognized that demo and dakedo have emerged in the initial position and gained the textual function. In this section, the operation of the expressive function of demo and dakedo is particularly focused on. By definition, an item in initial position carrying the textual function already qualifies as a marker. However, the expressive function is also a very important feature of discourse markers because it involves expressing the speaker’s attitude, stance, angle, or evaluation towards the proposition as well as expressing his/her actions. Recall again that discourse markers function as brackets of talk (Schiffrin 1987: 36). Brackets may initiate or terminate a unit of discourse; however, as Goffman has suggested (1974: 255) initiating brackets may carry more significance because they establish a slot for signals and provide frames of understanding through which the talk is defined. Thus the initial position seems a suitable and advantageous place for a marker to serve this function. In addition, a “marker”(such as a discourse marker, a traffic signal or a stone marker, etc.) has to stand in a conspicuous locus to function as a marker. In sentences (or utterances), such locus is the initiating position. Therefore, I suggest that the emergence in such advantageous positions actually strengthened demo and dakedo’s expressive function: i.e. they frame the entire utterance with the speaker’s stance, evaluation of the situation or orientation toward speaker/hearer negotiatory relations. As well as textual function, demo and dakedo serve the expressive function effectively as initial brackets. Above, I have attempted to answer the question “what brings about the pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo?” and more specifically, the onomasiological question “why were these particular items adopted rather than others?” Two processes have been discussed in this attempt. The first is the grammat-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:15

F: PB13204.tex / p.37 (121)


ical process (4.4.1) in which demo and dakedo became initial textual markers because of their equipment of the element d. The second is the discourse process (4.4.2) in which demo and dakedo came to be used as pragmatic markers, rather than mere conjunctions, because their emergence in the utterance-initial position accelerated their serving the expressive function. To conclude the motivating factors for the pragmatic change of demo and dakedo, I propose that, on the whole, the fact that they contain the element d is the vital impellent of their pragmaticalization.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.1 (123)

Chapter 5

Functions of the interjections ne and na in Present Day Japanese (synchronic analysis)

We saw in Chapter 3 that two conjunctions demo and dakedo function as markers in Japanese conversational discourse. In this chapter, I now address two interjections ne and na, and examine what discourse functions they have in present day Japanese conversation. Exploring English conjunctions (‘and’, ‘but’ and ‘or’) and interjections (‘oh’ and ‘well’) as discourse markers, Schiffrin (1987) mentions that among other word classes whose members are recognized as markers, conjunctions and interjections are two extremes with respect to referential meaning: Conjunctions inherently have semantic meaning but interjections carry no semantic meaning within themselves (Schiffrin 1987: 319 and elsewhere). Schiffrin (1987: 128) also refers to the difference in the grammatical role of these word classes, i.e. while conjunctions “have a role in the grammatical systems of English”, the “linguistic contribution [of interjections] to their discourse function as markers is minimal”. Since interjections are elements which have no referential meaning and make no contribution to a grammatical system, I will not take the discourse synthetic (syntactic – semantic – pragmatic) approach that I applied to the analysis of conjunctions (Chapter 3). Interjections, rather, contribute to human interactional communication by their abundant expressive meanings. Therefore, in this chapter, I examine the expressive meanings of ne and na and attempt to show mainly how they work pragmatically in each different speaker strategy. There seems to be general agreement in previous studies of Japanese that interjections are classified into two types: one type expresses the speaker’s exclamation (admiration, surprise, fear etc.) and the other type expresses the speaker’s communicative intention of drawing somebody’s attention or responding to somebody. This classification reflects the general features of Japanese interjections. The first type of interjection simply conveys the speaker’s inner emotions without the intention of communicating those emo-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.2 (124)

 Chapter 5

tions to others. By contrast, the second type fundamentally articulates the speaker’s intention to communicate with others (Morita 1973). The following Kokugogaku (National Language Studies) scholars also agree with this dichotomy: by the early Shoowa era, e.g. Hoshina (1911), Yamada (1908) and Yasuda (1928); and in our time, e.g. Ide (1965b) and Suzuki (1973). I will show that ne and na belong to the second type (expressing the speaker’s communicative intention). This dichotomy of interjections according to their meanings will be an important issue in the diachronic analysis of ne and na (Chapter 6). This chapter comprises the following: First in (5.1), I introduce a notion, harmony, which is essential not only in examining the usage of interjections ne and na, but also in practicing the conduct of Japanese conversation per se. Following, I demonstrate the six specific functions of ne and na. Among them, I first illustrate two basic functions: agreement (affirmative response) (5.2) and call attention. ‘Call attention’ has three varieties depending on what the speaker is calling attention to: call attention (cataphoric) (5.3), call attention (anaphoric) (5.4) and call attention (both cataphoric and anaphoric) (5.5). In (5.6), I show that ne and na mark achieved rapport in discourse from the viewpoint of the exchange structure and the participation framework of discourse. I then illustrate two secondary functions, i.e. fillers (5.7) and atmosphere sustainer (5.8). Lastly in (5.9), I show that, overall, ne and na are markers of involvement.

. Harmony: The ultimate goal in Japanese conversation There are three reasons for introducing the concept, harmony, before providing the analysis of ne and na. First, ‘to reach harmony’ is the ultimate goal for participants in Japanese conversation (cf. Barnlund 1974; Haga 1979; Hayashi 1988). Ne and na are the elements that reflect the achievement of harmony in Japanese conversation. Second, harmony may be a language/culture-specific feature; in other words, it may be a characteristic inherent in the Japanese language, patterns of interactional behavior, and even the social organizations in general. This feature may not reside in Western languages such as English. Third, the concept of harmony also provides the base from which to comprehend that ne and na are markers of involvement (5.9). ‘Harmony’, as I shall employ the term, is the “feeling of ‘one-ness’/unity” (Nakane 1970) among conversants in non-conflicting or non-argumentative conversational communication.1 In such a situation not only is the meta-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.3 (125)

Functions of the interjections ne and na

knowledge2 status maintained (i.e. both the speaker and hearer know that they share the same information), but also the interpretation/evaluation of the information is shared by the speaker and hearer. In my analysis of ne and na in Present Day Japanese, it is recognized that they display ‘harmony’ in some way in conversation: They reflect a harmonious atmosphere, display harmonious personal relations, or even help to develop harmony. I suggest that to reach harmony is the underlying ultimate goal for participants in Japanese conversation. Motivated by this goal, there is a continuous process in Japanese conversation management, in which participants strive for conformity, not only through the sharing of information but also through the evaluation of information. Thus harmony means not mere conformity of the external informative frame (possessing the same piece of information) but of each participant’s inner world. A conclusion of Hayashi’s (1988: 286) contrastive study of English and Japanese floor management also implies that “to attain a communicative goal such as enjoying conversation in harmonious atmosphere” is the highest goal in Japanese conversation. Previous works in sociology, psychology and communication have also noted that harmony is a fundamental factor in understanding communicative patterns in Japanese society. In his conclusion of Japanese and American communicative styles, Barnlund (1974: 94–95) writes: The Japanese appear to place the highest value on preserving the harmony of the social group . . . [while Americans place it] on the preservation of individual integrity.

Haga (1979: 104–105) also mentions that while Japan is a world where harmony (wa) is sovereign, Western countries comprise a world where logic (ri) assumes sovereignty. Haga (Ibid.: 107) further suggests that in such a harmony-oriented society, Ego is continuously sensitive to Alters’ evaluation of him/her in the group he/she belongs to. I think this groupbelongingness/orientedness is another characteristic feature in Japanese society which actually promotes harmony. Nakane (1970) accounts for Japanese group-orientation (in her term, group-consciousness) by her two criteria of group formation: frame and attribute. She assumes these contrasting concepts “to be most effective in the analysis of Japanese society in comparison with other societies” (Ibid.: 1). Nakane (1970: 1–2) defines the two concepts as follows: Frame may be a locality, an institution or a particular relationship which binds a set of individuals into one group. . .



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.4 (126)

 Chapter 5

Attribute may mean, for instance, being a member of a definite descent group or caste.

Nakane (Ibid.: 2) then stresses the ready tendency of the Japanese to lay emphasis on the frame rather than the attribute. An example showing such tendency in a social context of self-introduction is given: Rather than saying, ‘I am a type-setter’ or ‘I am a filing clerk’, he [a Japanese] is likely to say, ‘I am from B Publishing Group’ or ‘I belong to S Company’. (Ibid.: 3)

Nakane (Ibid.) concludes that indeed such group-consciousness fosters the strength of an institution, and the institutional unit (such as a school or company) is in fact the basis of Japanese social organization. . .

In Japanese society, where belonging to a group is of primary importance, to maintain harmony within such a group without distinct conflict with other members seems fundamental (cf. also Brown 1974). An extensive linguistic study of Japanese conversation (Maynard 1989b: 219) has pointed out a general inclination in Japanese conversation management that contrasts with that of American English: The Japanese people are more preoccupied with using words in ways that contribute to empathy building in conversation than they are with what propositional meaning the words themselves provide.

To “contribute to empathy building” implies the contribution to the creation of harmony, and I suggest that ne and na make such a contribution. Maynard’s point is also consistent with Haga’s (1979) view of Japan and the Western nations mentioned above. Maynard further suggests that the essential sociocultural difference between Japanese and American speech cultures is “the difference in degree of sensitivity to self-contextualization” (218), i.e. the “ongoing process of continually defining oneself in relation to one’s interactional environment” (4). This on-going process/duty may be related to “facework” (Scollon & Scollon 1995: 80) which was also pointed as an East-Asian behavioral pattern. Maynard’s conclusion is that the Japanese are more sensitive to self-contextualization. An underlying goal of self-contextualization is implied to place ego appropriately in a given conversational context. Such appropriateness in contextualizing ego in the Japanese speech community lies, I propose, in the sustenance of harmony. In the sections that follow, I will show that the interjections ne and na are linguistic elements that display harmony in Japanese conversation. I suggest that the general function of ne and na is to display har-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.5 (127)

Functions of the interjections ne and na 

mony: speaker/hearer interactional alignment. The specific speaker’s strategies of ne/na derived from this general function in a given discourse are strongly dependent upon both interactional (social) and conversational (linguistic) context. Therefore when ne/na is decoded into English (as seen in the gloss in my transcript) several different English expressions are used to convey its original meaning. The use of several expressions to convert a single word (ne/na) comes from ne/na’s dependence on interactional context and thus reflects the differences between the language systems of Japanese and English.3

. Agreement (affirmative response) .. Agreement The first specific function of ne(e) is agreement. As a member of a group of interjections expressing the speaker’s intention to communicate, responding to somebody is its typical function. (See the beginning of this chapter.) Ne (or nee) is used when the speaker intends to make an affirmative response. There are also other interjections that make an affirmative response such as hai, un, ee, etc. While these express mainly affirmativeness of the response (translated into yes or yeh), ne(e) (usually translated into a tag question) rather expresses the respondent’s consent to share what is said by the speaker. In other words, this function is to show agreement. (1) illustrates a basic case of agreement. (1) is an exchange which took place in a cooking class where Mrs. K was teaching several students how to make a Chinese sweet. (1) Student A: a.

Mrs. K:

Kooshiki tenisu no booru mitai. Tennis LK ball looks.like b. Ne::e honto. TAG really

In (a), Student A describes a rice cake which grows bigger as it fries so that it looks like a tennis ball. The description in (a) expresses A’s surprise at the growing cake. Then in (b) Mrs. K, the instructor, shows her agreement with A’s description, with ne::e and an adverb, really. As well as the use of an intensive, really, the lengthened vowel in ne::e indicates the high degree of Mrs. K’s agreement. Mrs. K’s ne::e also seems to be an exclamation. The fact that ne is related

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.6 (128)

 Chapter 5

to exclamation, the feature characterizing the first group of interjections (see the beginning of this chapter), will be a relevant issue in the diachronic analysis (Chapter 6). (2) is another example in which ne is exclamatory. This is an excerpt from a conversation which took place at Mrs. K’s when her daughter’s university professor visited them. Professor W talks about a female graduate student who has recently had a baby and is still making more efforts to proceed with her graduate work. (2) Prof. W: a.

“Shigoto o herasanaide kudasai. Work DO reduce-NEG-GER give b. Don don yarasete kudasai.” tte. Steadily let me do give QT c. “Hakase ronbun mo kaku tsumori Dissertation also write intend d. da.” tte, COP QT Mrs. K: e. Hoo:. Oh. Prof. W: f. Kodomo sodate nagara. Child raise while Mrs. K: g. Nee:. Yeah

In (2), listening to Prof. W’s talk about the admirable student, Mrs. K makes two exclamatory remarks with interjections hoo and nee. The use of two interjections indicates that Mrs. K is very impressed by the tenacity of the student. By uttering nee: in (g), Mrs. K expresses her agreement with Prof. W’s description of the student. There seems also Mrs. K’s feelings of being impressed and surprised. This emotional response is conveyed by the lengthened vowel of nee:.4 Note that hoo (as in (2)) is an interjection which belongs to the first group of interjections (expressing the speaker’s exclamation): This is a word which is uttered when one is impressed by something. Nee in (2) is also involved with

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.7 (129)

Functions of the interjections ne and na 

feelings of exclamation, more specifically admiration. Hoo and nee both convey the speaker’s exclamation. However, the difference in them is that while hoo expresses the speaker’s emotion directly, nee conveys the speaker’s exclamation by showing agreement with the interlocutor’s inner evaluation. In other words, nee, in fact, reflects not only the speaker’s, but also the interlocutor’s emotional reaction. This is one way to account for the fact that nee expresses exclamation in spite of being part of the second group of interjections (communicationbased). However, it does not seem the whole story: There also seems a close relationship between a communication-based interjection nee and exclamation. This relationship will be considered further in the diachronic analysis of ne and na (Chapter 6). In (1) and (2), I proposed that phonetic variation, lengthened vowels, designate the emphatic use of ne, and hence they are contextualization cues. In (3), another phonetic variation marking emphatic ne, a glottal stop, [‘] is found. (3) is an exchange from a conversation which took place when my in-laws visited our home in Tokyo. (3)

Ne ‘

In (a–b), I evaluate that the cake my in-laws brought would appeal to the young generation. Agreeing with my evaluation, my mother-in-law says Ne ‘ in (c), latched onto (b). This phonetic variation, glottal stop, added to ne, also designates a more emphatic use than the one-mora ne. .. Back channels In Japanese conversation, it is important and necessary to show our ‘listenership’ in order to maintain smooth communication with others. For example, in a dialogue, while one is holding the floor, the other (namely the listener) has to express his/her cooperative attitude of paying attention to what the speaker is saying or his/her interest in the topic by some means. One such way is by ‘back channel behavior’. Yngve (1970: 568) defines back channels as follows: short messages such as “yes” and “uh-huh” that the person who has the turn re-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.8 (130)

 Chapter 5

ceives without relinquishing the turn. While ‘agreement’ (5.2.1) is a full-fledged function which shows the speaker’s assent, a back channel is a reduced form of ‘agreement’ with a weaker sense of agreeing. Some researchers observing English conversation suggest that back channels function merely to inform the speaker that he/she should continue, i.e. function as a continuer (Schegloff 1982: 81; Brown & Yule 1983: 92). However, there is a contrasting view which suggests that hearer’s back channels make a significant contribution to the turn system in English conversation and that both the speaker and hearer are at the same time strongly engaged in the on-going conversation management process (Yngve 1970; Duncan 1973). In Japanese conversation, Maynard (1989b: 171) has found additional variety in the function of back channel behavior. Six features are specified as functions of back channels in Japanese conversation: (1) continuer, (2) display of understanding of content, (3) support toward the speaker’s judgement, (4) agreement, (5) strong emotional response, (6) minor addition, correction, or request for information.

I will show that ne and na are used as back channels whose basic function is agreement (4), with accompanying functions (2) and (5). Maynard’s contrastive study of Japanese and American English conversations has also revealed the higher frequency of back channels in Japanese conversation (Ibid.: 207). According to Maynard, the number of back channels in three-minute segments of conversation among twenty Japanese and twenty American pairs are: Japanese 871, American 428. Back channels occur more than twice as frequently in Japanese casual conversation. This result accords with my own impression from participating in conversations in both languages. What causes the difference in frequency of back channels in the two languages? Maynard (1989b: 177) states that a continuous flow of back channels in casual conversation is the norm within the Japanese speech community. She also writes that back channels offer integral information for self-contextualization (Ibid.). The difference in frequency of back channels in Japanese and English is, in fact, accountable in her framework of selfcontextualization: it is caused by the difference in degree of sensitivity to self-contextualization (Ibid.: 218). Recall that, when contextualizing self, the ultimate goal in Japanese conversation, to seek harmony, supplies the criterion for appropriate contextualization (5.1): That is, to maintain harmony is the appropriate way to contextualize self in Japanese society. Therefore, my study suggests that the high frequency of back channels in Japanese conversation is controlled by its culturally specific goal, ‘to seek harmony’. Back channels

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.9 (131)


in Japanese also show that harmony has been achieved or at least that the participants are working toward it. Ne and na as back channel expressions occur at transition relevance places (TRP), and they indicate the listener’s agreement. (A TRP consists of the end of a turn-unit where the transition of speakers may occur, Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson 1978.) (4) shows a case of ne as a back channel. (4) is taken from a conversation among Mr. and Mrs. K and Prof. W. When (4) arose, Mr. K was talking about his hobby of fishing. Mr. and Mrs. K had already explained that whenever Mr. K set off for fishing, he left home about 3:30 am. In response, Prof. W says: (4) Prof. W: a. b.

Mr. K: c. d. e. f.

Prof. W: g.

Mrs. K: h. i.

Soide omodori ni naru Then return no wa yuugata nan deshoo? NOM TP evening NOM TAG Ee, soo desu ne, hai, Yeh, well, yes, nanji goro ka naa, what-time about Q FP kuji goro ni narimasu nine-o’clock around is ka nee. FP Nee. TAG Sorekara moo ichi jikan Then well one hour ni jikan kakatte, two hours take-GER

Prof. W mentions ‘evening’ in (a–b). Mr. K then tries to recall the time of his return in (c–d) and builds on ‘evening’ mentioned by Prof. W by specifying ‘9:00’ in (e–f). This shows that Prof. W and Mr. K are indeed jointly building information in a way to exhibit they “share information” and have harmony. In (g),



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.10 (132)

 Chapter 5

Prof. W says nee. It does not express her agreement with or show that she is impressed by the proposition in (e–f), “Mr. K returns home around nine o’clock.” Nee in this case, rather signifies Prof. W’s contribution to keep the harmonious relationship with Mr. K in the conversation, by contributing a listener reaction. Nee (g) shows the listener’s involvement in this talk, too. Following this back channel, in (h) Mrs. K develops the story by describing what Mr. K does after his return (He spends one or two hours cooking the fish, . . . etc.).

. Call attention (cataphoric) Another important role of ne(e) and na(a) in discourse is to call the attention of the hearer. The ‘calling attention’ function can be divided into three types according to the direction of discourse to which ne(e) and na(a) point. I demonstrate the cases in which they point forward (5.3), backward (5.4) and lastly both directions (5.5). .. Before new information When ne(e) is used cataphorically to call attention, it focuses on the upcoming information. Ne(e) calls the hearer’s attention to what the speaker is about to say. The cataphoric use of ne(e) here, more specifically, calls the hearer’s attention ‘before new information’. This strategy is used right before the speaker provides new information in discourse. “New information” is used as referred to in Prince (1981) in her ‘scale of the speaker’s assumed familiarity’. Prince proposes that the speaker makes an assumption about how familiar the hearer is with the information which the speaker will provide (i.e. the speaker judges whether the information is brand-new, unused, inferable or can be evoked for the hearer). The use of ne(e) right before the speaker’s provision of information means the speaker assumes that the information will be new to the hearer. Therefore, this strategy is based on the speaker’s assessment of the current meta-knowledge situation between the speaker and hearer. The communicative effect in the use of ne before new information is as follows. When the speaker employs this strategy, the upcoming new information is important, and ne can help prepare the hearer for the forthcoming information. Hence, the speaker can avoid abruptness and startling the hearer by new information. For the hearer, ne may provide a clue to figuring out the sense of the speaker’s information (the sense includes why the speaker says this to

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.11 (133)


us now in this way) because ne marks the coming report of a relatively notable piece of information in the immediate flow of discourse. As a discourse marker, ne suggests contextual coordinates (Schiffrin 1987: 326): it focuses on the upcoming information (textual coordinates) and it indexes the utterance to the hearer (participation coordinates).5 Let us turn to see in what situation this strategy is used. The first example is (5). It is an excerpt from a conversation which came about during Mrs. K’s cooking class. Prior to (5), even though it was in the middle of the class, Mrs. K needed to explain the reason for leaving the tape-recorder on (recording conversation) since the students were curious. To answer her students’ questions, Mrs. K told them the purpose of an earlier study for which some conversations were recorded. Mrs. K then needed to return to the task at hand and give a cooking instruction. In (c), she makes an effort to give new information on cooking even though the students are still showing interest in the linguistic study. (5) Student B: a.

Mrs. K:

Sensei no kotoba ga Teacher GN words SB b. omo ne. main TAG c. Nee, chotto tsumeta:ku wa Well umm cold EMP d. narimasen wa. Gomennasai. get NEG FP sorry

In (c), nee is used to call the attention of the hearers (students) before the new information in (c–d). In this case, in addition to nee, an adverb chotto which also plays the role of calling somebody’s attention is used. Thus the appearance of both nee and chotto conveys that Mrs. K is drawing the hearers’ attention to something other than the ongoing subtopic. Nee in (c) focuses on the upcoming information. Following (d), the conversation on today’s dish continues. Mrs. K succeeded in going back to her cooking instruction from a digressive topic. A similar case of Mrs. K’s use of nee was also found: In this case, the students’ attention had been scattered in many directions; thus before giving the next instruction, she called their attention using nee. By contrast, when the stu-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.12 (134)

 Chapter 5

dents are paying enough attention, she uses another interjection saa. (6) shows Mrs. K’s use of saa instead of nee. (6) Student B: a.

Dakara ‘Edo Zushi’ no tokoro So LK place b. kara shika ike nai n desu. from only go NEG NOM COP Mrs. K: c. Fu:n. Hmmm Student C: d. Fu:n. Hmmm Mrs. K: e. Saa, jaa zelii dashiNow then jello get out f. mashoo ka? Q

In (a–b), Student B has just ended her story about the one-way traffic in the neighborhood. Mrs. K and Student C back channel ‘Hmmm’ in (c) and (d): this seems a transition relevance place (Sacks et al. 1978). Everybody is at the table and appears to be silent for a moment following (d). Mrs. K then says saa and gives her next instruction ‘let’s get out jello’ in (e–f). In this situation, it is not necessary for Mrs. K to direct the students’ attention to her suggestion. Saa is an interjection which expresses the speaker’s ‘invitation’ (to listen to what he/she will say) (cf. Yamaguchi 1984). In a situation like (6) where it was not necessary to get the hearer’s attention before new information, the speaker can use an interjection other than nee. Another example of calling attention ‘before new information’ is (7). It is an excerpt from a telephone conversation between Mrs. K and Mrs. M, the mother of Saki’s friend in piano class. When this excerpt took place, the two mothers were discussing giving a present to the piano instructor at the pupils’ recital. Following Mrs. M’s information, in (7), Mrs. K makes an effort to give another piece of information which might explain why some mothers objected to giving a present. (7) Mrs. K: a.

Ee sore to, Yeh it and

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.13 (135)


Mrs. M: b. Ee. Yeh Mrs. K: c. ne, maa sore wa yodan kamo well, um it TP digression d. shiremasen keredomo, might.be though Mrs. M: e. Ee, Yeh Mrs. K: f. ano, ginkoo no kata ga um bank clerk SB g. osshatterashita ni wa, . . . told (HON) EMP

In (7), Mrs. K’s effort to give new information is marked not only by ne in (c) but also by other linguistic features: a formulaic expression to begin a new subtopic, sore to in (a) (and then) and a meta-linguistic clause which is an external evaluation6 ‘this may be off the subject’ in (c–d). Ne and all these linguistic devices indicate that there will be new information upcoming. Following (g), Mrs. K supplies new information, which she heard from a bank clerk, about the financial hardships the people in her town are suffering, caused by the home loan. In this section, I have examined the use of ne(e) to call attention ‘before new information’. Ne(e) focuses on upcoming information, hence it is cataphoric. At the beginning of this section, I mentioned the communicative effect of this function: (1) For the speaker, this function allows him/her to prepare the hearer for the forthcoming information. (2) The hearer can know that a piece of important information is to come. The use of ne contributes to the interactional level of discourse; in other words, involvement.

. Call attention (anaphoric) Let us now turn to examples in which ne(e) works anaphorically to call the hearer’s attention. One specific use of ne(e) is to reinforce information (5.4.1). The sequence here is the reverse of the cataphoric use of ne(e). Once the speaker supplies the information, he/she can well assume that it has become shared by



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.14 (136)

 Chapter 5

the hearer. Following this shared information, ne(e) functions in a specific way in discourse: it asks about and suggests the validity of the given information to the hearer (5.4.1). .. Reinforcement A speaker can use ne(e) to suggest the validity of information just presented. The effect of this function is that the speaker reinforces his/her information to try to get the hearer to receive it. This shows the speaker’s effort to reach the goal of sharing the information with the hearer. The goal is, in other words, to attain harmony in conversation. Hence this function also reflects the feature of ne(e) as a marker of involvement. (8) illustrates. It took place when one of Mrs. K’s cooking classes was over and the students were getting ready to leave. Student S asked Student T if she wanted a ride. But T did not want to inconvenience S, and rejected the offer three times. Mrs. K then reinforces S’s offer in (a–b). (8) Mrs. K:

a.

Jaa eki made nosete Then station to ride b. itadakeba? Nee. receive-if How’s.that? Student S: c. Soo yo. Right Student T: d. Itsumo suimasen. Always thank.you e. Nanka itsumo nanka, Anyhow always anyhow c. Ja ja, sore poshetto? Then then it pochette

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.29 (151)


Student S: d. Dare mo, Anybody Mrs. K: e. Nee TAG Student S: f. Soo suru to ne, So do-if FP

When this segment took place, the students had already started getting ready to leave. Some might have stood up and started putting on their coats. Reading the transcript of the segment containing (18) leads to an impression that in this situation the participants in conversation are not paying careful attention to topic management. In (a–b), S continues to finish her statement about her sweater. In (c), Mrs. K comments on S’s small bag (pochette). Nonetheless, S’s interest appears to remain focused on the previous topic when she says ‘anybody’ in (d). At this point, what ‘anybody’ means would not be clear to any participant. However, Mrs. K utters nee in (e) as if she were agreeing with what S says. In (f), instead of completing a sentence started with ‘anybody’, S begins another clause ‘if doing so,’. Mrs. K’s nee in (e) cannot mark agreement. It could be called a filler. However, compared to (17) in which ne filled the potential gap created by the speaker’s own search for words, nee in (18) seems even more socially motivated. In (18), nee fills a potential interactional gap in a gathering where the speaker holds more or less social responsibility. I suggest that nee in (e) is provided only because of Mrs. K’s intention to help keep and promote the settled cozy atmosphere at the end of this day’s lesson. Thus (18) is a case where nee functions as an ‘atmosphere sustainer’. In Mrs. K’s utterances in the cooking class conversations there are more cases of ne(e) as the same speaker’s strategy. This can be understood as follows: The cooking class situation is a social context in which Mrs. K as the instructor holds the communicative leadership and is in the position of controlling classroom management, including the class atmosphere. Mrs. K’s frequent use of ne(e) to sustain the class atmosphere indicates her attempt to be responsible as the communicative leader in her cooking classes.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23



F: PB13205.tex / p.30 (152)

Chapter 5

. Ne(e) and na(a): Markers of involvement .. Involvement In the sections above, I have described specific functions of ne(e) and na(a). In this section, I propose that ne(e) and na(a) in all the examples above are markers of involvement. It was suggested in (5.1) that participants in Japanese conversation have an ultimate goal, of reaching harmony. It has been observed above that the participants make efforts to reach harmony by trying somehow or other to share information and its associated evaluation: Thus their efforts are all attempts to approach ‘alter’ (as opposed to ‘ego’) and involve him/her in what is being said in the conversation. Involvement has been discussed by many researchers as a result of increased interest in the interactive nature of conversations (Bateson 1972; Chafe 1982; Goffman 1967; Gumperz 1982; Tannen 1987, 1989; also cf. Brown & Levinson 1978[1987]). According to Tannen (1987), Goffman’s classification of presentational rituals and avoidance rituals, based on Durkheim’s (1915) dichotomy of positive and negative rites, provides the basic notion of ‘involvement’. Tannen (1987: 584) identifies involvement with presentational rituals. According to Goffman (1967: 73), “through (presentational rituals), the actor concretely depicts his appreciation of the recipient.” Another framework dependent on Goffman and on Durkheim’s negative and positive rites is that of Brown and Levinson (1987) who distinguish between negative and positive politeness (43). Involvement in the sense I am using it is closest to Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness, which shares its conceptual base (Durkheim 1915) with Goffman’s (1967) presentational rituals. Negative politeness is clearly redressive action addressed to the hearer’s specific negative face in each interactional context, his/her want to have freedom of action unhindered (Brown & Levinson 1987: 129). On the other hand, positive politeness is not only limited to redressive means, but it functions as a general strategy in communication. Brown and Levinson (1987: 101) state: in positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of alter’s wants in general or to the expression of similarity between ego’s and alter’s wants. (Italicizing is my addition)

The italicized part in this quote in fact provides the core of the notion of ‘involvement’ in my study. In short, positive politeness (involvement) can be paraphrased as a communicative strategy ‘to approach others’, while negative politeness is a strategy with the reverse direction ‘to keep distance from others’.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.31 (153)


In the next section, adopting Brown and Levinson’s notion, positive politeness, which I identify with involvement, I will show that the interjections ne and na are markers of involvement. .. Ne(e)/na(a) as markers of involvement Brown and Levinson (1987: 102) suggest fifteen specific strategies, derived from a few assumed situations of speaker/hearer wants, that all fulfill positive politeness. In this section, I attempt to classify the basic functions of ne(e) and na(a) according to Brown and Levinson’s classification of positive politeness strategies to show why ne(e) and na(a) are identified as markers of involvement (= positive politeness).8 Based on the strategy in which the speaker “claims ‘common ground’ with the hearer (H)”, a means of making such a claim is to “claim in-group membership with H” (Ibid.: 102). Brown and Levinson suggest that the output strategy which realizes this claim is “use in-group identity markers”. In this strategy, they include affectionate or diminutive terms of address such as ‘Mom, mate, dear, luv’ and so on (107–108). In my analysis, I have shown that nee can be used as a summons which replaces address terms such as ‘Mom, Grandma, etc.’ within an intimate relationship (5.5.1). I suggest that nee as a summons belongs to this positive politeness strategy, hence involvement strategy. Another mechanism which is the base for sub-strategies is “convey that S (the speaker) and H are cooperators” (102). Two sub-strategies derived from this are “claim reflexivity, if S wants <S has X> then H wants <S has X>” and “indicate S knows H’s wants and is taking them into account” (Ibid.). From the former sub-strategy, an output strategy, “be optimistic” is obtained. In this output-strategy, making a request to H by adding a tag question such as (a) is included. (a) You’ll lend me your lawnmower for the weekend, won’t you. (Brown & Levinson 1987: 126)

(a) is similar to the examples analyzed as ‘reinforcement’ (5.4.1). In ‘reinforcement’ also, S appears to be optimistic enough to seemingly predict H’s affirmative answer. Therefore, I suggest that ‘reinforcement’ falls under the category, “be optimistic”. The output-strategy which is the outcome of “indicate S knows H’s wants and is taking them into account” is “assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concerns for H’s wants”. This output-strategy in fact covers the four basic functions of ne(e) and na(a), i.e. ‘agreement’, ‘back channel’, ‘before new infor-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.32 (154)

 Chapter 5

mation’ and ‘linking prior and upcoming information’. Brown and Levinson’s strategy, “assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concerns for H’s wants” relates to S/H meta-knowledge situation. In my analysis of ne(e) and na(a), I have shown that many examples involve marking a meta-knowledge situation. Therefore, it may be that this strategy concerning S and H knowledge/metaknowledge situation covers four of the ne(e)/na(a) functions. First, in the ‘agreement’ and ‘back channel’ functions, S asserts that he/she knows what H wanted to convey by responding affirmatively. This would satisfy H’s positive face. Second, in the ‘before new information’ function, S presupposes S’s knowledge that the upcoming information would be new to H. The use of ne(e)/na(a) in this function also shows S’s presupposition of his/her knowledge that uttering ne(e)/na(a), which marks the upcoming information, would aid H’s basic wants of comprehend the discourse. Third, the function, ‘linking prior and upcoming information’ arises from S’s presupposition of S’s knowledge that the use of ne(e)/na(a) to show the coherent relationship between two pieces of information would help H’s wants to understand the second piece of information. In fact, in the functions ‘before new information’ and ‘linking prior and upcoming information’, S expresses his/her concern for H’s basic wants in Japanese conversation, i.e. to reach harmony (by trying to share the same information). As shown above, all the basic functions of ne(e) and na(a) can be viewed as realizations of the output strategies of Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness. Therefore, ne(e) and na(a) are markers of positive politeness, i.e. markers of involvement. Generally speaking, in Japanese conversation the operation of negative politeness dominates over that of positive politeness, e.g. a large number of linguistic strategies in Japanese such as honorifics express negative politeness. In this sense, it is interesting to find ne(e) and na(a) serving functions that fulfill positive politeness (involvement), which also seems to play an important role in Japanese conversation. .. Metamessage level of interaction ‘Involvement’ is paraphrased as interpersonal involvement in Tannen (1987, 1989). Tannen (1987) focuses on the functions of repetition in discourse. Tannen states that interpersonal involvement is “the highest-level function of repetition” (Ibid.: 584) and “the metamessage level of interaction: the level at which messages about relationships are communicated” (Ibid.). Involvement is at the metamessage level of interaction; thus the involvement (positive po-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:23

F: PB13205.tex / p.33 (155)


liteness) markers ne(e) and na(a) work at this level of interaction. The clearest case in which ne(e) and na(a) send metamessages is when they function as ‘rapport markers’ (5.6). As rapport markers, ne(e) and na(a) send messages about the amicable speaker-hearer relationship based on the concordant metaknowledge status. As shown above, all the basic functions of ne(e) and na(a) fulfill positive politeness, hence involvement. To conclude this chapter, I propose that interjections ne(e) and na(a) in Japanese conversational discourse are ‘markers of involvement’.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.1 (157)

Chapter 6

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis)

In this chapter, I examine the historical process which the interjections ne and na (and their variants) seem to have undergone. By looking at the historical process of ne and na, I will explore their pragmaticalization as well as demonstrate their positional shifts over time: ne and na first emerged in sentence-final and sentence-internal positions, then later began to occur in initial positions as interjections and discourse markers. Concerning the shift of na group of interjections, a prior study, Morita (1973: 197) states that As for this group of interjections (such as na, naa, noo, noo noo and nayo), the equivalent sentence-final particles were detached [from the rest of the sentence] and occurred sentence-initially as independent elements.

He further writes that Na, naa, noo, noo noo and nayo were used in noo songs and kyoogen plays of the Medieval Period [Kamakura period (1190–1332) and Muromachi period (1336–1573)]. . . . Most of them continued to be used in the modern times (kinsei), . . . then, phonologically shifted ne and nee were used in the Edo Japanese. (Ibid.: 197)

In Chapter 4, I mentioned my intention to capture demo and dakedo in the flow of [Edo Japanese → Tokyo Japanese], since this flow seems to be the source of today’s standard Tokyo Japanese, in which demo and dakedo are used. Ne (as a sentence-final particle, a sentence-internal particle, and an interjection) is also used in Present Day Tokyo Japanese, so it might be correct to see the Japanese data only within this flow (i.e. only after the 17th century) to accomplish the exactness of diachrony of ne. This seems one way to capture the development of ne. However, several previous works have reported the following, on the other hand. In addition to Morita’s (1973: 197) report mentioned above, “na [first] appeared in the Nara period [710–782]” (Uchio 1973: 104; Uchio & Okamura 1973: 268; Yoshida 1987: 175), “and continued to be used in the Heian [782– 1190] Kamakura [1190–1332] periods” (Uchio 1973: 104), which is far earlier

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.2 (158)

 Chapter 6

than the Edo period. From the survey of the previous studies, the interrelationship among the na elements and the similarity in their functions is indeed recognized. This study originally set off as a discourse analysis in which I had been engaged. In this area, analyzing dynamic social interactions in the ongoing human discourse (e.g. conversation) is the main theme. Such analysis at times cannot be reported within the traditional categories such as word classes. For this chapter, to see the functions of the interrelated na elements altogether and to try to grasp the development of such elements, I will take the approach, not focusing on only one element (ne), but looking at na varieties as a group. Konoshima (1960: 419) has reported that “while ne appears only in Edo Japanese, no is used both in Kansai and Edo Japanese”. Considering this kind of behavior, too, it would be worth analyzing na elements endowed with similar functions together as a group. Such an approach would capture the entire figure of development and change in na elements more dynamically. This approach might differ from that of the traditional national linguistics. I should note two points about treatment of data (see also 1.1.4 Problems in Diachronic Analysis). First, it is generally approved that the flow of Japanese since the Muromachi period (1136–1573) has developed into the modern (kindai) Japanese which leads to today’s Japanese.1 Therefore, the continuity between today’s na elements and those used before Muromachi is uncertain. I should mention that Japanese data before Muromachi in this chapter was looked at as helpful information. So, in the tables (Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3), a dotted line is drawn to mark the separation between Muromachi and the precedent periods. The second point refers to the diverse developments of Edo and Kamigata (Osaka-Kyoto) Japanese,2 which is often taken as an issue in historical Japanese linguistics (see also1.1.4 and 4.1). That is the claim that the two Japanese varieties have traveled the completely different evolutional paths and these two should be treated separatedly. Formation of Edo Japanese is summarized here, since it at times becomes a point of controversy in this kind of diachronic study. In his Japanese Language of the Edo Era: Edo Japanese, Komatsu (1985: 3–6) states: Edo became a castle town when Oota Dookan (1432–1486) built the Edo Castle in 1457. However, at that time, Edo was only one of the villages in Kanto area with some hundreds of houses. Kanto dialect seems to have been spoken. Since Tokugawa Ieyasu (the shogun) entered Edo in 1590, the town Edo grew rapidly. Edo Japanese, then, gradually came into shape along with the town’s development. Many people from various parts of Japan were assembled to run this castle town. Various

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.3 (159)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

regional dialects seem to have been spoken by those people. In 1603, the Tokugawa government was opened. Then towards its end [1867], Edo has always suffered from the inflow of population. From this description of Komatsu’s (1985), it is recognized that at the early stage of Edo period, various regional varieties of Japanese in addition to Kanto Japanese were used in Edo, and people seem to have communicated in such language. It cannot be said that there is no relation between the new Edo Japanese and other varieties that continued from the past. Admitting that “the history of the Japanese language does not mean the enumerated facts nor fanciful speculation apart from facts”, Yanagida (1985: 246), the author of Japanese Language of the Muromachi Period, states that “[he] wrote this book, groping for [such] history”. Without visual or audible proofs, diachrony of language cannot be evidenced. Maybe this is the biggest problem for all who grope for such diachrony. I apply the functional-semantic model of language focusing on the three functions of language (ideational, textual and expressive functions) that I also used for the analysis of conjunctions. While the conjunctions demo and dakedo were found to follow Traugott’s once hypothesized direction of pragmaticalization, ideational > textual > expressive (1982, 1989), the change of ne and na will be shown to be a somewhat different type of pragmaticalization. As mentioned, to investigate the diachronic evolution of ne and na, it was necessary to enlarge the number of items to be inspected because there are a number of historically closely related variants. The variants are nee and naa with lengthened vowels, and no and its long vowel variant, noo.3 In what follows, when I refer to ne, na and their variants in general, regardless of their position (i.e. final, internal or initial), I call them ‘na elements’. When specification of their location is necessary, either their positions will be noted, or the terms ‘sentence-final particles (SFPs)’, ‘sentence-internal particles (SIPs)’ and ‘interjections’ (this means sentence-initial elements only) will be used. Expansion of the range of texts was also necessary for the investigation. That is, since the na elements appear largely in songs and ballads throughout their history, those data were also analyzed. This chapter does the following: The first three sections demonstrate the results of the diachronic investigation of the na elements in sentence-final position (6.1), in sentence-internal position (6.2) and in initial position (6.3). In (6.4) I relate the pragmaticalization of the na elements to Traugott’s hypothesis. Lastly in (6.5) I discuss possible motivations for the pragmaticalization of the na elements.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.4 (160)

 Chapter 6

. Na elements in sentence-final position A large number of sentence-final particles have occurred in the history of Japanese. The sentence-final particles are classified into two types: [1] those which mainly express the speaker’s attitude toward or judgment about his/her statement, and [2] those whose prime function is grammatical (cf. Kuno 1978a: 79–80; Maynard 1989b: 27). The na group of sentence-final particles belong to the first type. The question marker ka, for example, belongs to the second type (Kuno Ibid.). While ka plays a role in the grammatical system as in (1), ne(na) has no grammatical function as seen in (2). (1) Kimi wa ano eiga o mita ka. You TP that movie DO saw Q (2) Kimi wa ano eiga o mita ne. You TP that movie DO saw FP

In (1), the proposition the speaker intends to convey includes the interrogative meaning, ‘Did you see that movie?’ Without ka this interrogative proposition cannot be formed. Ka thus contributes to the ideational component of language (Traugott 1982), simply because (1) without ka does not convey the same referential meaning. By contrast in (2), the proposition the speaker intends to provide contains the affirmative meaning, ‘You saw that movie.’ What is added by ne can be glossed either as a tag question (didn’t you?) or as the speaker’s conviction of the statement (I believe) depending upon its context. In this case the proposition ‘You saw that movie’ remains the same regardless of the addition of ne. I assume that the na elements in final positions (6.1) as well as in internal positions (6.2) have neither ideational nor grammatical functions but only expressive function. Among the na elements in the sentence-final position, the earliest item to be used seems na. Some early examples are seen in Kojiki (712), Nihonshoki (720) and Manyooshuu (759) believed to be written in the Nara period (710– 784). Although the examples in Manyooshuu (759) are widely used to show the early use of na in prior studies (Yoshida 1987; Uchio & Okamura 1973; Uchio 1973: 104), I found a case in the ballad section of Kojiki (712) written earlier than Manyooshuu. (3) illustrates.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.5 (161)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

(3) Kojiki (712) ...... a. Akara otome o Red.faced girl DO b. izasaba yorashi na. invite-if good FP

The writer, the Emperor Oojin, had been asked by his son to give him a girl in prison. At a banquet the Emperor created and read (3) to answer his son. The general meaning of this stanza is that the father allows his son to get the girl. The function of na is to emphasize the writer’s exclamatory remark ‘it will be good.’ The proposition of (3), ‘If you invite that girl, it will be good’ persists with or without na. Na does not add ideational or textual meaning, but it adds expressive meaning by conveying the speaker’s exclamation. Table 6.1 presents a chronological view of the history of the na group of sentence-final particles. In the table, each element marks ‘exclamation’ except where the sign ‘tag’ is added. ‘Tag’ designates the first emergence of this use in each na group of sentence-final particles. Clearly na appears earlier than the other na variants (see Table 6.1). One reason for the early appearance of na seems the phonology of the sentencefinal particles.4 Many sentence-final particles are phonologically simple: Many of them consist of only one mora; sa, zo, na, yo and so forth. (There is also a view that interjections (and sentence-final particles) are “the most primitive” (Yasuda 1928) among words since “they represent (human) expressive sounds in the verbal context” (Sakuma 1952).) The phonological features of the phonemes constituting na suggest that na is the most fundamental among the na elements: The nasal [n] is let out when one is impressed or admires something. Also the vowel [a] is recognized as the most elementary: e.g. a and aa belong to the oldest interjections (Morita 1973: 184). We meet the first variant of na, noo, in the Muromachi period (1336–1573). This is the period when so-called Muromachi balladry (Noo-plays, Kyoogen plays, Kagura (Shintoo music and dancing) etc.) developed in association with music. Muromachi noo and kyoogen plays were succeeded by balladry of the following Edo period. In some texts, noo is orthographically presented as nau and in others as noo. Both nau and noo are pronounced as [no:]; therefore, they are considered to be the same sentence-final particle. In the annotation in Sumidagawa (1432), a Noo script, it is stated that “noo (nau) is a lengthened particle of na which is used for emphasis.”5 (4) shows one of the earliest uses of noo.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.6 (162)

 Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Chronological view of appearance of SFPs (na, noo, no, ne, nee and naa)

**

* ‘b’ stands for ‘before’. The years prefaced with ‘b’ are those of the death of the playwrights, because of the unavailability of the exact years of publication. ** The dotted line separating the Japanese language from the Muromachi period onward and in the precedent time periods indicates the secondary treatment of the Japanese data preceding the Muromachi in the diachronic analysis of na elements (see 1.1.4).

(4) Sumidagawa (before 1432) a. Mashite haha totemo Let.alone mother even b. tazunenu yo noo. visit-NEG EMP FP

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.7 (163)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

Prior to (4), the main character found that her kidnapped son had died and been buried near where she was. She laments over her son’s doom by stating ‘Neither his parents nor relatives have visited, have they?’ (prior to (4)), ‘Even his mother hasn’t visited, has she?’ (in (4)). The performer adds noo when she mentions her own non-visit. Noo in (b) thus emphasizes the performer’s lamentation. It expresses the performer’s inner emotional world. This contributes to the expressive component of language. However the ideational content in (4), ‘Even his mother hasn’t visited him’ stays the same regardless of the use of noo. In Kanginshuu (1518), a collection of ballads, we see the next sentence-final particle no. In Kanginshuu the incessant use of sentence-final particles which adds the writer’s attitude to the content of a ballad stands out. Zo, yo, ya, kana, noo and no are such final particles. A reason for this may be that this collection is dominated by the populace’s love songs. Among sentence-final particles, the use of noo is extremely frequent.6 Na is used next most frequently. The annotation of Kanginshuu (1989: 33. Iwanami) mentions that the shortened form no is later than noo. In my analysis, the use of no dominates that of noo after Muromachi period. No does in fact appear later than noo (see Table 6.1). (5) illustrates that the use of noo and no is in transition at this time of history. Noo and no co-occur in (5). (5) Kanginshuu (1518) a. Kesa no arashi wa This.morning LK storm TP b. arashi de wa nageni su yo no. storm COP TP NEG FP FP c. Ooigawa no kawa no se no Ooi River LK river LK shallows LK d. oto ja ge ni su yo noo. sound COP indication FP FP

It is said that this song was written by a man who had spent a night with a prostitute, repeating the words she had uttered the following morning. What no in (b) and noo in (d) do is to add the speaker, the prostitute’s, commitment/belief in her statement. The propositions in (a–b) and (c–d) do not change if no and noo are eliminated.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.8 (164)

 Chapter 6

Among the large number of examples of noo in Kanginshuu, (6) shows an interesting case which hints of the transition of this sentence-final particle to an interjection. (6) Kanginshuu 299 (1518) a. Koko wa doko. Here TP where b. Ishiwara tooge no saka no shita. Ishiwara Pass LK slope LK foot c. Ashi ita ya noo. Legs hurt FP FP d. Dachin uma ni norita ya noo, Fare horse ride FP FP e. Tono noo. Darling FP (,hey)

This song is structured as a dialogue between husband and wife. In (c) and (d), the wife is grieving over her fatigue. Noo in (c) and (d) express the speaker’s strong commitment to her statements which are recognized as complaints by her husband. By contrast, noo in (e) seems no longer to express the speaker’s exclamation, but it is used with a vocative. In (6.3), we will see that early examples of the interjection noo which alternates as a ‘summons’ also appear in the Muromachi period (when (6) was written). Accordingly, the sentence-final particle noo in (6e) used to call somebody could well signify a transition in its evolution into an initial marker with the function of summons (as seen in Present Day Japanese (5.5.1)). In the Edo era (1603–1867), the exclamation markers, na group of sentence-final particles, develop further and start serving a tag-question-like function, which is a new expressive function. Tag-like function no longer represents the speaker’s inner world but rather the speaker’s other-directed attitude. Tag-like uses here such as seeking affirmation or confirmation (cf. Nakano 1996), or giving the other a choice to be polite all show the speaker’s otherdirected demeanor. In other words, such tag-like uses are all communicationbased functions. The Edo period is when the popular performing arts such as the kabuki plays and jooruri (ballad drama) and popular literature such as share-bon (gay-quarter novelettes) and kokkei-bon (comic novels) grow. During this period, we meet two more na group of sentence-final particles, ne and

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.9 (165)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

nee, that continue to be used today. It is also noticed that all the na group of sentence-final particles that have emerged so far are in more active use than before in Ukiyoburo (1809), a comic novel in the final stage of Edo. (7) represents a case where a final particle no marks a tag-like function. Yuushihoogen (1768–1769), a gay-quarter novelette (share-bon), contains one of the earliest examples of the tag-like use of no. (7) Yuushihoogen (1768–1769) Hei a. . . . taisoona kami ja. unusual hair COP b. Iwayuru honda huu ja no. so-called Honda’s style COP FP Nyooboo c. Ai sa, sayoo de gozarimasu. yes FP so COP

Looking at a customer’s attire, Hei utters (b) adrressing the woman (nyooboo). No in (7b) expresses the speaker’s intention of confirming his idea. This intention is well evidenced by the next nyooboo’s reaction (a response to (b)). No works like a tag-question. Later than the Edo period, we in fact see frequent use of no as a tag marker. At first, no only has the function of expressing exclamation which is internal to the speaker’s world. However, the later tag-like function involves a distinct intention of communication with others. This function is external to the speaker’s world. Later in the Edo period, we see more examples of the tag-like function of na. Some examples have the sequence, V (imperative form) + na. (8) from Yuushihoogen illustrates one such case. (8) Yuushihoogen (1768) a. Soko o chotto akete There DO a.little open b. mite kure na. See give FP

In (8), a man asks a prostitute to open the window. With na in (b), the speaker seeks affirmation or gives the hearer a choice. The sentence (a–b) ‘Open the window and look outside’ is grammatically imperative owing to the imperative

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.10 (166)

 Chapter 6

form of the verb (kure). Na’s function here is to soften the decisive finish of the sentence. The interpersonal meaning of an order in (8) is therefore softened with na. This use is again other-oriented, while na’s original function, marking exclamation, is self-oriented. As mentioned above, in the Edo period, we meet two new na elements, ne and nee. They appear in this age, and throughout the following Meiji, Taishoo and Shoowa eras and even today they are in frequent use (see Table 6.1). Ne emerges in Yuushihoogen as in (9). (9) Yuushihoogen (1768) Shinzoo: a. Nushi ya daibu, You a.lot b. ki ga naorinshita ne. feelings SB got.well FP

Shinzoo, a prostitute, remarks on her customer’s behavior in (a–b). Ne in (b) again works like a tag, expressing Shinzoo’s seeking of affirmation. Yuushihoogen provides the earliest examples of ne, and many of these already have a tag-like function. Nee appears first in Tatsumi no sono (1770). In addition to no, nee appears recurrently in this text. (10) illustrates an early case of nee. (10) Tatsumi no sono (1770) Prostitute: Mada osamuu gozariyasu nee. Still cold COP FP

A prostitute comments upon the weather, addressing her customer. Nee conveys the speaker’s seeking of confirmation; thus it is a tag-like marker. We see examples of the sixth na group of sentence-final particle, naa, in kyoogen plays (Torahiro-hon). These scripts seem to have been written by 1792. Kyoogen itself expanded in the Muromachi period, in association with the development of Noo plays. Obviously naa is a vowel-lengthened form of na. We have already seen that noo (nau) was derived from na by adding another vowel. One of the earliest examples of naa is given in (11). (11) Kyoogen: Awataguchi (18th C) a. Sate sate tsuyoi ha o Well strong teeth DO

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.11 (167)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

b. motta yatsu ja naa. have fellow COP FP

Prior to (11) a man named Awataguchi professed his ability to crush a stone with his teeth. Naa in (b) expresses the speaker’s exclamation (a surprise here) like all the final na elements that have already emerged. As shown, in the Edo period, no, na, ne and nee all exhibit a tag-like function. This is an other-directed function, and it differs from the self-directed ‘exclamation’ which had been the only function of the na sentence-final particles in the preceding time periods. In my data analysis, tag-like functions of na sentence-final particles seem to have appeared in the Edo era. During the Edo period, the new elements ne and nee appeared. They will in fact predominate in the subsequent time periods (cf. Table 6.1). The final stage of Edo (around the time of Ukiyoburo 1809) seems actually a transition with respect to the use of sentence-final particles; it precedes a completely new epoch starting with the Meiji period when Japan was modernized and westernized. Throughout six texts ranging over fifty years of the three modern eras, Meiji, Taishoo and Shoowa, i.e. Ukigumo (Meiji 1887: 20); Hakai (Meiji 1906: 39); Udekurabe (Taishoo1917: 6); Yuujoo (Taishoo 1920: 9); Tade Kuu Mushi (Shoowa 1929: 4) and Yukiguni (Shoowa 1938: 13), there is no salient difference in the use of the na group of sentence-final particles (SFPs) (See Table 6.1). Therefore, instead of regarding the three eras as different time periods it is more reasonable to view this half century as one temporal stage. This perspective conforms to the history of Japan, i.e. the time of its modernization. The na group of sentence-final particles seems to fundamentally fill the role of conveying the speaker’s subjective attitude towards his/her statement. The main findings of the diachronic analysis of the na group of sentencefinal particles are summarized as follows. First, the na group of sentence-final particles bear only the expressive function and no textual, ideational or grammatical function. With their expressive function, in most of the above examples, they express the speaker’s exclamation (e.g. conveying grief, admiration, complaint) or just speaker’s belief/involvement in the statement. Exclamation is a meaning internal to the speaker’s expressive world (self-focus). Although exclamation is the predominant role of the na group of sentence-final particles throughout history, in the Edo era, ‘other-focused’ functions based on the speaker’s attention to interactions appeared, i.e. tag-like functions. A few examples also demonstrate interesting transitional cases: For example, noo (6) implies a transition in which the sentence-final particle noo marking exclama-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.12 (168)

 Chapter 6

tion develops into an interjection marking summons. These changes all follow the direction: from internal to external to the speaker’s world, i.e. to more interactional meanings. Second, among the na group of sentence-final particles, na appears first followed by its variants. Na is phonologically the simplest, and it seems the most fundamental.

. Na elements in sentence-internal position While na elements emerge in sentence-final positions (6.1), they also appear in sentence-internal (clause-final) positions occasionally. For example, nee occurs at phrase-final positions (i.e. sentence-internally) as in (12). (12) Speaker:

a.

Ano ko wa nee, That girl TP IP b. Shichi-san to iro o shite nee, Mr. Shichi with affair DO made IP c. kabutte, inasariyasu. fired stay

These intrasentential particles are particularly called ‘insertion particles’ (kantoojoshi)(Hashimoto 1969; Konoshima 1960; Uchio & Okamura 1973; Maynard 1989b and others). While sentence-final particles and sentence-internal particles can be distinguished positionally, their functions seem quite similar. Kantoo as in kantoojoshi (insertion particles) literally means ‘throw in (insert)’; however it is etymologically considered to be identical with kandoo which denotes ‘emotion’ as in kandooshi (interjections). Insertion particles can thus be recognized as emotion markers. Some scholars even include both sentencefinal and internal particles within kantoojoshi (e.g. Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) 1981) since sentence-final particles also mark human emotion (6.1). Thus the emotion marking functions are recognized in both sentence-final and internal particles. I will call na, noo, no, nee and ne that occur sentence-internally the na group of sentence-internal particles, corresponding to the same group of sentence-final particles, and I will trace their historical process to show when the different sentence-internal particles first appeared. Table 6.2 presents the overview of the occurrence of the na group of sentence-internal particles. All the internal particles in the table mark the speaker’s exclamation, and indeed

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.13 (169)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

Table 6.2 Chronological view of appearance of SIPs (na, no, noo, nee and ne)

**

* As discussed in the text, the validity of the first appearance of no as a SIP in the 9th–10th century depends upon the lexical analysis. If the 9th–10th century example is invalid as the first appearance of no, the next appearance I found is in Ukiyoburo (1809). ** The dotted line separating the Japanese language from the Muromachi period onward and in the precedent time periods indicates the secondary treatment of the Japanese data preceding the Muromachi in the diachronic analysis of na elements (see 1.1.4).

the function of na group of sentence-internal particles is only exclamation. In the table, the dotted line denotes the separation between the Muromachi period and the precedent time periods. Language before Muromachi was analyzed only as secondary information.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.14 (170)

 Chapter 6

What sentence-internal particles do in each utterance, in general, is add the speaker’s exclamation to the content of the phrase to which they are appended; this is also the basic function of na group of sentence-final particles. Whereas injecting the speaker’s attitude into his/her statement is the key function of the na group of final particles, the contribution of the same group of sentenceinternal particles is (1) tuning the tone of the utterance as well as (2) expressing the speaker attitude. For the internal particles the degree of expression of speaker attitude appears to be lower than that of the sentence-final particles. Therefore, overall, the contribution of sentence-internal particles to the meaning construction of an utterance is even less than that of sentence-final particles. Among the na group of internal particles, na appeared the earliest. (13) illustrates an early instance. It is from Kojiki (712) in which we also saw the first appearance of the sentence-final particle na (6.1). (13) Kojiki (712) ...... a. Ube na ube na, Reasonable IP reasonable IP b. kimi machi gata ni you wait can’t c. waga keseru osui no my worn (HON) robe LK d. suso ni tsuki tatanamu yo. hem in moon stand FP

The writer creates this song to reply to the song from her love, the emperor. She retorts in (13) by saying ‘It’s reasonable that another month has arrived (since you haven’t visited me for a long time).’ The uses of na in (a) add rhythm at the beginning of this song. Simultaneously, since na’s in (a) are the sentence-internal particles expressing the writer’s exclamation (annotation in kojiki kayoo 1957: 55), they emphasize the writer’s feeling ‘It’s reasonable.’ Na does not convey semantic content; therefore, the internal na, as well as the final na, has only the expressive function. Recall that na emerged the earliest among the na group of sentence-final particles, too. The fact that na is the first item among the na group of both sentence-final and internal particles reinforces my claim that na is the fundamental nasal sound expressing exclamation (cf. Yoshida 1987).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.15 (171)


We encounter a possible first appearance of the second na group of sentence-internal particle, no, during the 9th and 10th century. Fuuzoku-uta (well-known local ballads especially sung by the aristocracy) contain such examples. (14) illustrates a possible appearance of no. I say possible because there are two ways to interpret no in this example. In either case, however, no’s main function is to express the speaker’s inner exclamation. (14) Nari takashi (9th–10th C) a. Nari takashi ya nari takashi Sound high IP sound high b. Oomiya chikakute nari takashi Shrine close sound high c. Aware-no nari takashi. Oh (IP) sound high

The first possible interpretation is the following: According to the Shoogakkan Japanese Dictionary (Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) 1981), this example is indeed an early case of the sentence-internal particle no. The second interpretation is that, as alluded to in the annotation (Fuuzoku uta 1957), awareno is one word which is an interpolation, a word inserted to maintain or complete the rhythm of a song as well as to add exclamation. On the first interpretation, aware is a noun expressing a strong exclamation, to which an internal particle no is appended. On the second, awareno is regarded as one word. If the first interpretation is taken, (14) indeed presents one of the first examples of internal no. (Regarding the function of no in (14), its basic function of conveying the speaker’s inner exclamatory remarks remains the same whichever interpretation is taken.) Following na and no, the third sentence-internal particle noo is found in the Muromachi period (1336–1573). In this time period, a number of Noo scripts were written. However, the specific dates of many of the scripts are unavailable. The dates of these scripts are figured out by considering the dates of playwrights’ birth and death. This fact hinders our knowing the exact chronological status of scripts containing the earliest examples of the sentence-internal particles. Like na and no, noo carries expressive function but neither ideational nor textual function. The prime function of internal noo is to express the speaker’s exclamation. (15) shows an example which is an utterance of the main character in Hachinoki, a Noo script.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.16 (172)

 Chapter 6

(15) Hachinoki (Muromachi p.) a. Noonoo8 tabibito oyado Hey traveler accommodation b. mairashoo noo, provide IP c. amarino oo yuki ni such big snow in d. moosu koto mo kikoenu ge ni say NOM hear state e. sooroo, itawashi no on COP pitiful LK HON f. narisama yana, sight FP

In (15), the main character pitying the traveler who sets off in snow, calls out to him to halt and suggests accommodation. Noo in (b) expresses the performer’s involvement in his statement, ‘I will provide you accommodation.’ We have already observed that a sentence-final particle noo also occurred first in a Noo script of the Muromachi period. However the unavailability of the precise dates of these scripts prevents us from knowing whether the sentencefinal or sentence-internal particle noo occurred first. It seems more plausible to suggest that the final noo precedes the internal rather than the reverse. The fourth and fifth internal elements are nee and ne. In (6.1), we found that final ne and nee appeared first in the literature of 1768–1769 and 1770. (16) and (17) will show that the internal ne and nee appeared slightly later than the sentence-final particles’ first appearance. (16) shows one of the earliest examples of internal nee in Tatsumi no sono (1770), a gay-quarter novelette. Nee is used to maintain the rhythm of the utterance. (16) is a dialogue between a waitress, Onaka, and a customer at a tea house. Since the final nee also turned up in the same literature, it looks like that the final nee and internal nee have arisen almost simultaneously. (16) Tatsumi no sono (1770) Customer: a. Oise-san wa dooshita nee. Oise TP how has been FP Onaka: b. Ano ko wa nee, That girl TP IP

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.17 (173)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

c.

Shichi-san to iro o shite nee, Mr. Shichi with affair DO made IP d. kabutte, inasariyasu. fired stay

In both (b) and (c), nee is used to sustain the rhythm of the utterance. It adds an accent in the phrase-final positions: each instance would be pronounced with phonological stress. Nee in this case can well be considered to be a reduced form of an exclamation marker. It conveys the speaker’s involvement in her statement and sustains the rhythm. Therefore, the sentence-internal particle nee has expressive function but no referential or textual function. (17) illustrates one of the earliest examples in which ne occurs in internal positions. The use of ne is similar to nee in the same position (as seen in (16)). (17) is an utterance of a woman who talks with another female customer at a public bath (from Ukiyoburo (1809)). (17) Ukiyoburo (1809) Mi: a. Izure sa, tanin no Anyhow IP others GN b. meshi o tabeneba ne, meal DO eat-NEG-if IP c. hito no omoiyari ga others LK consideration SB d. gozaimasen no sa. no NOM FP

Ne in (b) adds an accent and expresses the speaker’s commitment to the preceding clause ‘if (children) didn’t eat the meals made by the others’ (implying ‘if children were not sent to the others’ homes and work there’) in (a–b). In fact, by adding an accent with ne, the speaker confirms the hearer’s reception of the information: in this way the speaker’s involvement is conveyed. (Four decades before this first appearance of internal ne, in Yuushihoogen (1768), we saw the earliest examples of the final correspondent.) Ukiyoburo also contains a case of the internal no. We saw its possible first appearance back in the 9th to 10th century in a local ballad (fuuzoku uta). Throughout all the texts in my analysis, the use of no in internal position is extremely rare. Therefore, it is difficult to identify its first appearance. In

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.18 (174)

 Chapter 6

my analysis, if the 9th–10th century example is not the first appearance, this Ukiyoburo (1809) case is virtually the first occurrence of the internal no. The diachronic examination of the na group of sentence-internal particles has revealed the following main findings. First, like the sentence-final particles, the sentence-internal particles carry only the expressive function. Specifically, they convey the speaker’s exclamation, however, their contribution to the meaning construction of an utterance seems even less, when compared to the same function of the sentence-final particles (6.1). In many cases the sentenceinternal particles’ function is to tune the rhythm of discourse simultaneously with the expression of exclamation.9 Second, the order of the appearance of each internal particle (na → no(?) → noo → nee → ne) is very similar to that of the sentence-final particles (na → noo → no → ne → nee → naa). (Na is the first sentence-internal particle in history. The late Edo period is the time when different internal particles co-occur in active use. Then towards the Shoowa period, ne becomes predominant (see Table 6.2).) Third, the first appearance of each sentence-internal particle (in the case of na, noo and nee) is around the same time as, or slightly later (in the case of ne) than that of the corresponding final particle (see Table 6.4 in 6.4.1).

. Na elements in initial position (as interjections and discourse markers) Let me now turn to the na elements that appear in utterance-initial positions. Once the na group of items occur in initial positions, they show two significant characteristics not shared by the final and internal correspondents. One characteristic is one of the defining features of a discourse marker, acting as initial brackets. As defined in (1.2), for an item to be a marker, it is required to be in an initial position and should signal the opening of a unit of discourse; in other words, markers must stand at the beginning of a unit of talk, distinguishably as “markers” for participants of conversation. Another characteristic is their newly earned textual function. While the final and internal correspondents had only expressive function, the interjections have acquired a textual function in addition to their expressive function. With the textual function, interjections make a contribution to “the text-forming component” (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 27) of language, and hence to discourse cohesion. The textual function of interjections is recognized in the linking task when they highlight some information in a certain direction of discourse (in the preceding or in the following utterance).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.19 (175)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

The first interjection of the na group in history is na, as was the case for the final and internal positions. Ryoojin Hishoo (1171), a Heian collection of ballads, contains an example. (18) illustrates. Na here is used as a summons. While the majority of examples of the final and internal na elements convey the speaker’s inner exclamation, the function of the initial na in (18) is ‘summons’ which seems based on the speaker’s communicative intention. (18) Ryoojin Hishoo (1171) ...... a. Na, iza tamae hijiri koso, Hey come on please come monk b. ayashi no yoo nari tomo, poorly LK state COP although c. warawara ga.10 Shiba no us GN Wooden d. iori e, cottage to

In (a), na acts like a vocative. This is the same function we have seen as a ‘summons’ in ne and na in Present Day Japanese (5.5.1). In (18), na in (a) looks forward and focuses on the following information ‘please come.’ Na serves the expressive function by conveying the speaker’s action of summons. Na also seems to have the textual function by filling the gap between the preceding monologue and the current utterance addressed to the hearer. However, like the na group of sentence-final and internal particles, an interjection na is unlikely to have an ideational function. Table 6.3 shows the chronological view of the process that na interjections underwent. In this table, the elements function to ‘summons’ unless particular functions are labeled. The functions other than ‘summons’, ‘before new information’, ‘exclamation’, ‘linking prior and upcoming information’ and ‘reinforcement’, are marked where they occur by the abbreviations, ‘b.n.i.’, ‘e’, ‘l’, and ‘r’. As for the data, it seems that language of Muromachi and the following periods developed into modern Japanese. It can be regarded as one developmental course. Language preceding the Muromachi was analyzed as helpful information, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter and in 1.1.4. We meet the second and third initial na elements, noo and noonoo in the Muromachi period (1336–1573). The examples are taken out of Noo scripts. The prime function of noo and noonoo is ‘summons’. While the initial na was

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.20 (176)

 Chapter 6

Table 6.3 Chronological view of appearance of interjections (na, noo, noonoo, no, naa, nee and ne)**

†

* ‘b’ stands for ‘before’. The years prefaced with ‘b’ are those of the death of the playwrights, because of the unavailability of the exact years of publication. ** In this table, the na group of interjections mark ‘summons’ unless other functions (b.n.i. = (The interjection appears) ‘before new information’; l = ‘linking prior and upcoming information’; r = ‘reinforcement’; e = ‘exclamation’) are labeled. † The dotted line separating the Japanese language from the Muromachi period onward and in the precedent time periods indicates the secondary treatment of the Japanese data preceding the Muromachi in the diachronic analysis of na elements (see 1.1.4).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.21 (177)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

used as summons only, noo and noonoo are found to be used also for other interaction-directed expressive functions: i.e. in noo ‘before information’ and ‘linking prior and upcoming information’, and in noonoo ‘before information’. What is interesting about the initial noo and noonoo is that they also preserve the function, ‘to mark exclamation’, which we found in the na group of sentence-final and internal particles. Notice that while the other functions are interaction-oriented, ‘exclamation’ conveys the speaker’s internal emotional move. This means that noo and noonoo keep the ‘exclamation’ function as they move from final through internal to initial positions, although this function will disappear in later stages. First, I will show the function of ‘summons’ for both noo and noonoo. (19) and (20) illustrate. They are excerpts from Jinenkoji (before 1384). (19) Jinenkoji (before 1384) Merchant: a. Noo watarisooroo ka, Hey stay (HON) Q .............................................

In (a), the Merchant calls the other merchants before he talks to them. Noo watarisooroo ka is a formulaic expression when one calls somebody in Noo scripts. The same expression with noonoo instead of noo is also used. Noo in (a) is used as a ‘summons’. (20) shows an earliest case of noonoo. (20) Jinenkoji (before 1384) Merchant: a. Noonoo Jinenkoji isoide Hey, hurry-GER b. fune yori on nori . . . . . . boat from HON step off

In (20), the Merchant calls the main character Jinenkoji by saying noonoo in (a). The function of this interjection is summons. The co-occurrence of noonoo and Jinenkoji proves the acceptability of co-use of this interjection and an address term. In (19) and (20), the speaker’s information (the message he wants to convey) follows the act of addressing the hearer. Both (19) and (20) present the cataphoric uses of interjections. Next, I will examine another interaction-oriented function, ‘before new information’, the same function of ne and na we saw in the analysis of Present Day Japanese (5.3.1). (21) illustrates a case of noo.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.22 (178)

 Chapter 6

(21) Jinenkoji (before 1384) Merchant: a. Sareba koso kore ni As I thought here b. sooroo, noo isoide is well hurry-GER c. tsurete . . . . . . bring

In (21), the merchant already knows that the hearers are there (ready to listen to the speaker). This situation differs from (19) and (20) where the interjections worked as ‘summons’ because the speaker at first needed to draw the hearer’s attention. Although in (21) the hearers are ready to listen to the speaker, the speaker still says noo in (b) because this time he is going to urge the hearers to bring the child by first getting their attention. This use is considered ‘calling the hearer’s attention before new information’. Another interaction/other-oriented function of noo seen in Present Day Japanese (5.5.2) is ‘linking prior and upcoming information’. This use is discovered in Hachinoki, a Muromachi Noo script. (22) is an utterance by the main character addressed to the traveler. (22) Hachinoki (Muromachi p.) ...... a. Yume ni mo mukashi o Dream in EMP past DO b. miru naraba, nagusamu see if console.myself c. koto mo aru beki ni, NOM have would although d. noo goranze yo kahodo made. see look at EMP like this

Noo in (d) confirms the hearer’s understanding of the preceding information in (a–c), and also marks the upcoming information in (d). In this way, noo suggests some relationship between the prior and the forthcoming information, and thus it links the two pieces of information. The first information (a–c) is

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.23 (179)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

‘If I had happy old days, I could console myself by recalling those days in a dream.’ The portion of the second information in (d) in parentheses has been omitted in the Japanese version. I recovered this in the translation to make the meaning clear. In the Japanese version the information in (d) would be incomprehensible without the information in (a–c) which is suggested to cohere with the following information in (d) by noo. Now I examine the function of marking ‘exclamation’ of the initial na elements. This is a function which expresses the speaker’s inner world, while the other functions seen thus far in this section are all other-oriented. ‘Exclamation’ was not seen in the initial ne(e) or na(a) in Present Day Japanese. It has been discovered above as the key function of the final (6.1) and internal (6.2) na elements. The ‘exclamation’ function, however, is recognized in the interjection noo in a Noo script in the 15th century, and in noonoo in a Kyoogen script in the 18th century. (23) demonstrates an exclamatory use of noo taken out of Sumidagawa (before 1432), a Noo script. (23) Sumidagawa (before 1432) Mother: a. Noo shinrui totemo oya Alas relatives even parents b. totemo, tazunenu koso even visit-NEG TP c. kotowari nare, sono osanaki reason COP the young d. mono koso kono monogurui ga person TP this lunatic SB e. tazunuru ko nite wa look for child COP-GER EMP f. samurae toyo, FP g. noo kore wa yume kaya alas! this TP dream FP h. ara asamashi ya zooro. oh deplorable FP

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.24 (180)

 Chapter 6

In the story, the mother who has been looking for her kidnapped son has been driven insane by anxieties. In (a) and (g), noo is used unit-initially as an interjection to mark the speaker’s grief. It is indeed interesting to find that the initial noo of the 15th century marks exclamation, in this case, grief, considering that the other functions of the initial na elements of those days signal the speaker’s attitude and action based on interactive interest. At the beginning of the analysis of ne and na in Present Day Japanese, I claimed that there are two types of Japanese interjections: (1) those which express the speaker’s exclamation (admiration, surprise etc.) without his/her intention of communicating with others, and (2) those which express the speaker’s belief, attitude and action based on his/her attention to the communicative negotiation (interaction). I have further suggested that the interjections ne and na are the second type and revealed that it was indeed the case since all their functions in Present Day Japanese such as ‘summons’, ‘before new information’ and ‘reinforcement’ etc. were communication/interactionoriented. Therefore, I propose a developmental process in which the interjection noo in the Muromachi age marking exclamation (seemingly the first type of interjection) has evolved from the exclamation-marking correspondent sentencefinal particles. However, after the 18th century, the exclamation function no longer shows up in the na interjections and all uses become interaction/otheroriented functions (behaving as the second type of interjections; see Table 6.3). The analysis of the Muromachi age has given a few crucial phenomena in the course of the pragmatic change of the na interjections. The main findings are as follows: (1) Two new elements, noo and noonoo appeared. (2) Although the function of the elements in many cases is ‘summons’, more interaction/other-directed functions are also found, i.e. ‘before new information’ and ‘linking prior and upcoming information’. (3) Interestingly, the function of marking ‘exclamation’ which is ‘self-focused’ is found in interjections in the Muromachi period, a function which has never been seen in the na interjections in Present Day Japanese (Chapter 5). It is suggested that the exclamation-marking function seen in the na sentence-final particles has remained in the developmental process of the final elements into the initial elements. However, this self-oriented residuary function will eventually disappear in the entire process of the pragmaticalization of na elements. In Torahiro-hon kyoogen scripts (written by 1792), the predominance of the ‘summons’ function continues. From the appearance of na in 1171 towards the end of Edo period, the major function of the na group of interjections is ‘summons’. Noonoo as a ‘summons’ is widely used in this kyoogen script. Noonoo’s

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.25 (181)


marking of exclamation and calling attention ‘before new information’ are also found. I show here an example in which na marks a ‘cue to the partner to start a joint line’ in kyoogen. This seems to be a sub-function of ‘summons’ and is a formulaic expression used by the kyoogen performers. (24) from Kobukaki illustrates. (24) Kobukaki (18th C) ...... A: a. Nani to ojikijiki Why directly (to the government) b. mooshi ageraruru mono de tell give can NOM COP c. gozaru zo. FP d. Kore wa ikue ni mo, na, This TP repeatedly EMP well A & B: e. owabigoto o mooshi agemasuru. apology DO tell give

Prior to (24), an officer requested the main character A and another performer B to report their names directly to the government. However, since A and B consider it awkward to report their lengthy and funny names, A starts making up excuses for not reporting in (a–c). In (d) A is going to apologize to the officer then utters na. Following, B understands that na was a signal to start the joint line with A, and in (e) A and B together say ‘we apologize’. This particular use of na in a play thus marks the performer’s cue to his/her partner to utter the joint line. The same use of na is also seen in other scripts. Although this strategy seems too technical to be used off the stage, it unquestionably arises out of the performer’s consideration for communicative regulation. ‘Summons’ remains the major use of the na interjections in the Edo period. In 1809, Ukiyoburo, which contains all the na group of sentence-final particles that have appeared in the preceding texts, unsurprisingly, supplies the earliest examples of initial no, naa and nee. No marks ‘reinforcement’ as seen in the analysis of Present Day Japanese (5.4.1). Naa and nee work as ‘summons’. (25), (26) and (27) illustrate such early cases of no, naa and nee.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.26 (182)

 Chapter 6

(25) Ukiyoburo (1809) Tori: a. Osonae ya nanairo gashi Offering or seven-kinds confectionery b. o ageru yori ka, ikiteiru DO give than living c. uchi ni hatsu gatsuu de while first skipjack with d. ippei nomaseru hoo ga a.glass drink let SB e. harukani kudoku da to. much good.deeds COP QT f. No, soo daroo. Obasan. See so TAG Mate

In (25), an old woman, Tori, talks to another old woman about what she usually says to her son and his wife (a–e). In (f), Tori says no and confirms the validity of her opinion (a–e) with her hearer. This is the function ‘reinforcement’. No used in an initial position is rare throughout my examination. The appearance here may well be influenced by this particular speaker’s recurrent use of no in final and internal positions. (26) shows an earliest use of nee in an initial position. (26) takes place at a public bath for females, while a nurse washes a little girl, ojoosan. (26) Ukiyoburo (1809) Nurse: Nee, ojoosan. (Hey) Miss

Nee is used as a ‘summons’. Ojoosan is a kinship term which refers to a daughter of others, especially of an upper-class family.11 Here, nee precedes an address term ojoosan; which is a typical pattern of a summons. When (26) occurs, the nurse is arguing with another nurse. In (26) the nurse addresses the little girl and after this she continues ‘it’s better to stay away from the idiot (the other nurse)!’ (27) is one of the earliest uses of the interjection naa. It also marks a summons.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.27 (183)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

(27) Ukiyoburo (1809) Customer: Naa, bantoo. Hey clerk

Here again, naa co-occurs with an address term bantoo. Bantoo is another word indicating a person’s social role (clerk). As Table 6.3 shows, among the new variants that appeared in the Edo era, no, naa and nee, nee is the dominant interjection in the following time stages, virtually in today’s Japanese. In the Meiji era which followed the Edo, we encounter the last initial element ne in Hakai, a novel. Ne here works as ‘reinforcement’. (28) Hakai (1906) Segawa: a. Atode gakkoo no kozukai Later school LK janitor b. o tori ni yokoshimasu DO take send c. kara tte. Ne. because QT OK

Prior to (28), Segawa asked Oshio to tell the landlady to make his dinner. The information in (a–c), ‘I’ll send the janitor to fetch it’, is support for his request to Oshio. Ne in (c) then confirms the validity of Segawa’s request with his hearer, Oshio. Ne can also seek agreement from or transfer responsibility to Oshio. Overall this interjection marks Segawa’s reinforcement of his information. As Table 6.3 shows, the Meiji, Taishoo and Shoowa eras together are a new phase in terms of the usage of interjections as well as sentence-final particles (SFPs) (see also Table 6.1). In this phase, nee predominates, and interjections with the sound of [no] (noo and no) disappear. Also in this phase, the function of interjections is almost solely that of summons. The examination of the historical process of the na group of interjections has revealed the following. First, while all the sentence-final and sentenceinternal particles carry only expressive function, all the interjections except those marking exclamation have both expressive and textual functions. Exclamation markers seem to carry only an expressive function. The expressive (‘interpersonal’ in Halliday & Hasan 1976) functions of ‘summons’ (‘cue to start the line’), ‘before new information’ and ‘linking prior and upcoming in-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.28 (184)

 Chapter 6

formation’ all mark the speaker’s perspective towards or motivation for what he/she says. The textual function is recognized in the interjections’ task of linking utterances. Second, as for the specific roles of the initial na elements, the most predominant one is ‘summons’ at any temporal stage in history. This is a basic other-directed function (Suzuki 1973: 170; Yamada 1908 cited in Suzuki 1973; Hoshina 1911 cited in Suzuki 1973). In addition, as Table 6.3 presents, more other-directed functions have been found. While the above roles are all other/interaction-bound, a non-other-directed role, ‘exclamation’, has also been found. Exclamation is a function internal to the speaker’s world. I have stated above that there are two types of interjections in Japanese (see Chapter 5): (1) those which express the speaker’s exclamation without attention to the communicative negotiation, and (2) those which express the speaker’s attitude, action etc. based on direct attention to the communication. As for the finding of the exclamation-marking na interjections, I note the following two points. First, the exclamation marking function which was originally associated with the final na elements has remained along with the development of the corresponding na interjections. Second, the Japanese interjections expressing the ‘other-focused’ meanings (the second type) seem to have in fact developed from the interjections expressing the ‘self-focused’ meanings (the first type).12 This was shown in the diachronic analysis of the na elements: They originally had only the exclamation (self-focused) marking function. Later, they began to mark other-directed meanings. Then, after the co-occurrence of the interjections expressing exclamation and those expressing other-directed meanings, exclamation-marking interjections disappeared and only other-directed meanings remain in Present Day Japanese. The development of the other-focused interjections from selffocused ones is also suggested in Morita (1973). He (1973: 183) writes that the self-focused interjections are gradually systematized and develop into communicative (other-focused) markers. According to Morita’s (Ibid.) historical survey, many Japanese interjections first marked exclamation and later function to call attention or mark a response. Third, the interjections emerged in the order very similar to that found for sentence-final and sentence-internal particles, i.e. the order of interjections (na → noo; noonoo → no; naa; nee → ne) is similar to that of final particles (na → noo → no → ne → nee → naa) and of sentence-internal particles (na → no(?) → noo → nee → ne). Fourth, the first instance of each interjection is later than that of the corresponding sentence-internal particles. As for na, the first appearance of the

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.29 (185)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

final and internal na are both in the 8th century. That of the initial na is in the 12th century. In the case of no, the earliest appearance in internal position is problematic since it could have been either in the 9–10th century or in the 19th century. It is clear however that the interjection no (19th century) occurred after the final no (16th century). The interjection naa (19th century) has also been shown to have appeared a little later than the sentence-final particle naa (18th century). (I have found no case of internal naa.) As for nee, the developmental process is as clear as that of na. The final and internal elements occurred around the same time (in a 1770 text); the first initial occurrence was found slightly later (in an 1809 text). Lastly, in this analysis ne appeared in final position in a 1768 text, in internal position in 1809, and in initial position in 1906. As a consequence of this diachronic analysis, it could be said that generally the na group of elements have traveled a historical path in which the final and internal elements first appear at about the same time or successively; then later they begin to occur in initial position.

. Pragmaticalization: Evolution of na elements as discourse markers .. Functional change relating to Traugott’s hypothesis Before closing, I will review the results of the diachronic analysis of the na elements and clarify the direction of their functional change relating to Traugott’s hypothesis. Focusing on Traugott’s proposed functional-semantic model of language, the pragmatic changes of all the na elements are summarized in Table A. Again, the language development before the Muromachi period (14th–16th century) should be considered hypothetical. (See the beginning of this chapter and 1.1.4.) Hence, among the na elements here, na’s development is judged hypothetically (see Table 6.4). In each case, the elements appear in both final and internal positions at around the same period or the internal elements appear slightly later; then each element appears in initial position a while later. For the development of noo, the analysis could be more specific were the precise dates of texts (Noo scripts) available: Without them, the finding that noo in each position occurred one after another between the 14th and 16th century remains approximate. For the development of no, the first emergence of an internal element either in the 9th–10th century or 19th century was hard to determine. Thus if we ten-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.30 (186)

 Chapter 6

Table 6.4 Pragmaticalization of all the na elements Final elements (SFPs)

Internal elements (SIPs)

Initial elements (Interjections)

na (8th C) noo (14th–16th C) no (16th C) ne (18th C) nee (18th C) naa (18th C)

= na (8th) = noo (14th–16th C) > no (19th C?) > ne (19th C) = nee (18th C)

> na (12th C) = noo (14th C) = no (19th C) > ne (20th C) > nee (19th C) > naa (19th C)

expressive

=

expressive

>

expressive textual

tatively exclude these uncertain processes (noo and no), a clearer view of the developmental process of the na elements in general is gained. Figure 6.1 schematizes such a diachronic process, i.e. the pragmaticalization of the na elements. Tokieda (1950: 51) classified all the word classes in Japanese into two categories shi and ji. Maynard (1989b: 30) summarizes what shi and ji are: Shi is . . . ‘an expression representing an objective and conceptualized notion of referents [/what is said]’, which includes the grammatical categories of [pronouns], nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Ji, on the other hand, is . . . ‘an expression representing the speaker’s [attitude] toward the referent [/what is said]’, and it includes conjunctions, [interjections],13 auxiliary verbs, and particles.

Ji can thus be paraphrased as the expressive function of language. The sentencefinal and sentence-internal particles typically belong to ji. In the diachronic change of the na elements, an expressive function is maintained from the beginning (in sentence-final particles) through the end (in interjections). The expressive function of the na elements is thus part of their earliest meaning. In Figure 6.1, in (I), the SFPs and SIPs (sentence-final and sentence-internal parI. Final

II. na elements >

Internal (SFPs and SIPs) expressive

Initial na elements (Interjections)

>

Figure 6.1 Pragmaticalization of na elements

expressive textual

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.31 (187)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

ticles) have only the expressive function. In (II), interjections, the developed forms, preserve this function. The elements do not attain the text-forming function until they appear in utterance-initial positions. Attaining this function is a token to prove their status as markers in discourse.14 Licensed as markers, at a higher level of discourse organization than ever (i.e. intersententially), initial na elements serve an utterance-linking function as well as the function of signaling the speaker’s involvement. With the intersentential linking function, the na group of interjections forward the creation of discourse coherence. In my earlier work (Onodera 1993), I suggested that the pragmaticalization of the na elements, i.e. from expressive to expressive and textual, falls outside of Traugott’s (1989: 31) hypothesized direction of meaning change: ideational > ((textual) > expressive).

Onodera (1993) concluded that the functional change of the na elements was quite another type of change which does not support nor contradict Traugott’s hypothesis: because the na elements did not have ideational function in the first place; thus the change did not start with ideational function. This was analyzed in contrast of the studies that had dealt with meaning changes which start with ideational function (e.g. Traugott 1982, 1989; Plank 1979; Hopper 1977) and had supported Traugott’s suggested direction. More recently, in Traugott (1995a), in her hypothesized direction “ideational (propositional) > textual > expressive”, the shift to ‘expressive’ was replaced by subjectification, the shift to ‘subjective’. As we will see closely in (6.4.2), the pragmaticalization of the na elements follows the process of subjectification. The pragmaticalization of na elements is a case which supports “subjectification”. Before closing this section which reviews the diachronic analysis of the na elements, I will mention briefly the motive for the positional shift, i.e. the process in which the final na elements move into sentence-initial position. This discussion will be fully developed in 7.3.1 (relevance to typological characteristics). When we look at a Japanese sentence from the viewpoint of functional structure, expressive function (‘ji’ in Tokieda 1950) typically operates on both edges of a sentence, i.e. sentence-initial and sentence-final positions. Originally, the na group of sentence-final particles serve expressive function in sentencefinal position. Recall that, as mentioned in (1.2.1.4), the sentence-initial position is where discourse markers can better demonstrate the ‘marking-function’. I suggest that the na group of sentence-final particles started appearing in the

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.32 (188)

 Chapter 6

sentence-initial position for this reason.15 (For a further discussion of this issue, see 7.3.1.) .. Subjectification and intersubjectification: From ideational to interpersonal meanings While (6.4.1) discussed a more general conclusion based on the former hypothesis, this section sees more particular tendencies recognized in the pragmaticalization of the na elements: Subjectification and intersubjectification in different aspects of this pragmaticalization. A hypothetical tendency in meaning-shift was “less personal to more personal (rather) than the reverse” (Traugott 1982: 253).16 In later works (Traugott 1989: 35, 1995a: 31), ‘subjectification’ refers to: a pragmatic-semantic process whereby ‘meanings become increasingly based in the speaker’s subjective belief state/attitude toward the proposition’, in other words, towards what the speaker is talking about.

Traugott (1989) claimed that subjectification accompanies the pragmaticalization, ideational > ((textual) > expressive), in the English modal auxiliaries, assertive speech act verbs and modal adverbs, elaborating on ‘less to more personal meanings’. Subjectification in fact develops in parallel with other general tendencies, a shift towards more ‘discourse-based’ and a shift towards more ‘speaker-based’ (1986a). Therefore, subjectification is indeed interpreted as a trend, a shift from ideational to interpersonal meanings, referring less to objective situations and more to subjective ones (including speaker point of view/evaluation), less to the described situation and more to the discourse situation (cf. Ibid.). Traugott (1989) claims that a study by Guy et al. (1986) is an example showing subjectification. Guy et al. revealed that Australian Question Intonation (rising) has developed from a marker of questions “into a marker of ‘nonpropositional, interactive meaning’, specifically speaker’s ‘checking for listener comprehension”’ (Traugott 1989: 52). The fact that Traugott includes Guy et al. (1986) as a case of subjectification manifests that subjectification in her sense involves interaction-oriented meanings. A discourse marker is used as a speaker’s strategy in on-going interactional conversation, each instant based on the speaker’s subjective evaluation of a given situation. Therefore, in this sense, too, it seems that development of an item as a discourse marker involves subjectification.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.33 (189)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

In a more recent work (Traugott & Dasher 2002), relation between subjectification and intersubjectification is more distinctly described. [Subjectification] falls directly out of SP/W-AD/R interactions, and the competing motivations of speakers to be informative and of addressees to construe invited inferences. . . . It therefore inevitably involves intersubjectivity to some degree. (Ibid.: 31)

Intersubjectification is “regarded as a special subtype of ” subjectification (Ibid.). “Intersubjectification can be said to take place” “in instances where meanings come explicitly to index and acknowledge SP/W’s attitude toward AD/R in the here and now of the speech event” (Ibid.). Then, as an example of intersubjectification, the case “when non-honorifics are recruited to serve honorific uses” (Ibid.) is given. Also as a case of “the operation of intersubjectivity”, the selection of vous vs. tu in Fr. and sie vs. du in Gm. is mentioned (Ibid.: 91). When an expression, for example, mitigates the SP’s imperative intention as a hedge use, typically the intersubjective meaning (“attention to AD’s image needs”) seems to arise (Ibid.: 177). Intersubjectivity here seems in other words ‘meta’subjectivity. Subjectification and intersubjectification are recognized at different aspects of pragmaticalization of the na elements. Figure 6.2 shows that subjectification is seen at least at two levels; at the more extensive level and the more local level. First, subjectification is seen at the more extensive level of development of the na elements: sentence-final → internal → initial elements (in Figure 6.2 in horizontal direction). In the sentence-final positions, the primary and original function was to mark the speaker’s ‘exclamation’. When elements occur initially, the primary function switches to ‘summons’. While marking exclamation is internal to the speaker’s world (self-focus), summons is other-directed function (other-focus). There is a shift from self-focus to other-focus meaning, to more interactive meaning based on the speaker’s subjective judgment: This comprises subjectification. The second realization of subjectification is seen at a more local level and occurs in another direction (vertical direction in Figure 6.2). This is the functional change of the na elements in each position: in sentence-final, in internal, and in initial positions. Although the functional change of sentence-internal particles is not so clear, the changes of the sentence-final particles and interjections suggest distinct cases of subjectification. In the case of sentence-final particles, the primary function was exclamation as mentioned above. Later, tag-like functions appear. Among them, ‘seeking affirmation’ (such as (8) and

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.34 (190)

 Chapter 6

m o r e l o c a l l e v e l

Figure 6.2 Subjectification and intersubjectification in development of na elements

(9)) and ‘seeking confirmation’ (such as (10)) show intersubjective sense, and development from exclamation to these intersubjective functions seem a case of intersubjectification. For example, in (8), the sentence-final particle na mitigates the imperative force of the speaker’s utterance, hence to save the hearer’s “image needs” (Traugott & Dasher 2002: 229). Likewise, in other examples ((9), (10)), the speaker pays intersubjective attention to the hearer’s acceptance or comprehension of what the speaker says (in these involvement strategies). In the initial position, summons was the function most widely associated with the na group of interjections in all the time stages. Later in their history, functions such as ‘before new information’, ‘linking prior and upcoming information’ and ‘reinforcement’ emerged. Compared with ‘summons’, the original and fundamental function (Suzuki 1973: 170; Yamada 1908 cited in Suzuki 1973; Hoshina 1911 cited in Suzuki 1973), the later functions express the speaker’s more subjective judgment upon the use of communicative strategies. Among the later subjective functions, ‘before new information’ and ‘reinforcement’ seem to show intersubjective concern for the hearer’s attention before the upcoming information or acceptance of information. The development from ‘summons’ to these functions shows increased intersubjectivity. In addition, in the history of the interjections, the least personal meaning, ‘exclamation’, which appeared occasionally in co-occurrence with the dominating other-directed meanings, ceases to appear in the late 18th century.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.35 (191)


In the end, the initial elements lost the residual meaning which was apparently the primary function in the final position and which is also the least subjective function. As shown, subjectification is reflected on two different levels of the diachronic evolution of the na elements. And intersubjectification takes place specifically in the developments of sentence-final particles and interjections. The pragmaticalization of na elements which set off with the original ‘exclamation’ function also involves the change, ‘non-subjective → subjective → intersubjective’ meanings.

. Some thoughts on motivation for the pragmaticalization of na elements In this section, I speculate on an essential question in meaning/functional change, “Exactly what brings about such change?” or more specifically “Why were these forms or these structures adopted rather than others?” (Traugott 1980: 30) in the case of the pragmaticalization of the na elements. The answer to these questions must be the motivation for such pragmaticalization. Although the exact motivation remains inexplicit, here some thoughts on this motivation will be shown. First, I briefly compare the pragmaticalization of the na elements with that of demo type connectives and clarify a factor which brought about the former change. Second, to specify such a factor I review two researchers’ previous works and elucidate exactly what the motivating factor is. I suggest that a motivating factor of the pragmaticalization of na elements is the fact that their early elements (sentence-final particles) already had the expressive function. This is self-evident if the pragmatic changes of demo type connectives and of the na elements are compared. The pragmaticalization of the conjunctions demo and dakedo is summarized as: (1) Time I Time II ideational > ideational textual expressive

On the other hand, the change in na elements is as follows:



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.36 (192)

 Chapter 6

(2) Time I Time II expressive > expressive textual

In the change of na elements (2), the expressive function, with which the speaker marks his/her attitude toward the statement, is originally part of the meaning (of sentence-final particles), while in the case of demo type connectives (1), this function is only newly acquired at Time II. In the case of the na elements (2), the early presence of an expressive function seems to motivate the elements to develop as markers. However, an expressive function is realized by many Japanese sentencefinal particles. Hence the motivating factor for becoming a marker must be narrowed. The na elements may have the potential to change into communicationoriented meanings. In the diachronic analysis of the na group of sentence-final particles (6.1), we saw that the elements originally marked only the speaker’s internal emotion and gradually began to signal the more communicationoriented strategies. And indeed in the analysis of the interjections ne and na in Present Day Japanese, they were found to have the primary function of marking speaker’s involvement in the discourse. Below, I will suggest a more specific motivating factor for the pragmatic change of the na elements, i.e. among Japanese sentence-final particles with expressive function (such as ne, na, wa, yo, sa and zo), only those whose expressive function is communicationoriented such as the na sentence-final particles tend to develop into discourse markers.17 Work carried out by two researchers (Okutsu 1978 and Watanabe 1971) concerning Japanese sentence-final structure helps to reveal the above motivating factor. First, Okutsu (1978: 62) describes Japanese sentence structure in general as follows. As presented in Figure 6.3, the central part of a sentence consists of shi18 (Tokieda 1950) which is identified with the ideational function. Both ends of a sentence are comprised of ji (Tokieda 1950) which expresses the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition. Ji is in other words the expressive function. Among ji, typically, word classes such as interjections occur at the a sentence Ji [expressive]

Ji Shi [ideational]

Interjections

Figure 6.3 Structure of a Japanese sentence (Okutsu 1978: 62)

SFPs

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.37 (193)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

initial end, and sentence-final particles (SFPs) at the terminating end. Ji located at either end of a sentence conveys the speaker’s subjectivity. Okutsu (1978: 52) then states the following, focusing on the sentence-final expression. A Japanese sentence-final expression consists of a succession of a stem of a verb or an adjective at the beginning, various auxiliary verbs, suffixes, and sentence-final particles at the end.

The suggested sentence-final expression is summarized as (3). (3) Pred1 . . . Predn

Tense

Confirmative Final.

(Okutsu 1978: 53)

Pred1 is the stem of a verb or an adjective, which can be followed by any number of predicate elements (Predn ) such as ‘causative verb’ and ‘negative element’. ‘Tense’ indicates ‘tense auxiliary’. ‘Confirmative’ signifies ‘epistemic modal auxiliary’ such as hazu-da (should), daroo (can) and kamoshirenai (may). Then ‘Final’ designates so-called sentence-final particles. What is important in Okutsu’s examination is that sentence-final particles conveying the speaker’s attitude appear at the terminating end of a Japanese sentence and interjections also conveying the speaker’s attitude appear at the initiating end of a sentence. Watanabe’s (1971) speculation on Japanese final expression reveals the nature of the expressive function of the na elements among Japanese sentencefinal particles more clearly. First, his basic model of ‘statement (Chinjutsu)’ opposed to ‘predication (Jojutsu)’ is illustrated in Figure 6.4. Jojutsu which is shi in Tokieda (1950) is paraphrased by the ideational function, while chinjutsu which is ji can be called the expressive function. In Watanabe’s model, expressive function is considered to be a base supporting ideational function dynamically throughout a sentence. While admitting the operation of expressive function inside a sentence by elements such as sentence-internal particles, Watanabe claims that expressive function is served typically at either end of a sentence, especially in the sentence-final position. This view concurs with Okutsu’s (1978: 62). Watanabe also states that the ideational f. expressive f.

(Interjections) initial

(SFPs) final

a sentence

(from Watanabe 1971: 108)

Figure 6.4 Watanabe’s functional structure of a Japanese sentence

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.38 (194)

 Chapter 6

distinct feature of the expressive function which differs from the ideational function is exposed in the sentence-final position (Watanabe Ibid.: 111). Watanabe discusses sentence-final particles quite extensively. He proposes a continuum of communication-boundedness for sentence-final particles that occur in the sentence final position. This proposal is demonstrated in (4). (4) i.

Sakura ka i ne. Cherry.blossom Q FP FP ii. Sakura sa ne. Cherry.blossom FP FP iii. Saku yo ne. Bloom FP FP iv. Saku zo ne. Bloom FP FP (Sentences except (iii) are from Watanabe Ibid.: 149)

In (4), the four sentences all contain more than two sentence-final particles at the end. The detailed examination of each sentence-final particle is not of interest here, but my focus is on the location of ne in the alignment of sentencefinal particles. Ne is always at the very end. Watanabe proposes a criterion of what I translate as ‘emotion markerness’,19 i.e. marking the speaker’s emotion towards others, to account for this sentence-final particle alignment. According to Watanabe’s criterion, ka in (i), a question marker (Kuno 1978a: 79), is a non-emotion-marker. Sa in (ii) is a semi-emotion-marker. Yo in (iii) is a half -emotion-marker. And ne in all the examples is a full-emotion-marker (Watanabe: 149). Thus ka-sa-yo-ne fit on the ‘emotion markerness’ continuum (0 → high) in this order, and ne in fact marks the highest degree of emotion towards other people. Another way of saying this is that ne has the most otheroriented, i.e. communication-oriented meaning. A sentence-final particle with higher emotion markerness emerges closer to the terminal end of a sentence. Watanabe accounts for the fact that ne emerges following all the other sentence-final particles in a sentence, as follows. Ne is veritably the extreme in the continuative aspect of marking emotion. Considering ‘calling the hearer’s attention’ to be the fundamental function of ne (Watanabe Ibid.), ne is thought to be the most basic means of expressing the speaker’s relationship with the hearer.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:02

F: PB13206.tex / p.39 (195)

Pragmaticalization of ne and na (diachronic analysis) 

To answer the question “Why were the na elements adopted as discourse markers rather than others?”, I would say the reason is that, from the outset, the original elements, the na group of sentence-final particles, have had a highly communication-oriented expressive function. In Japanese, because the na group of sentence-final particles already had an interaction-oriented expressive function, they underwent the pragmaticalization to become markers more easily than the other Japanese sentence-final particles and other Japanese expressions. The abounding communication/interaction-oriented expressive function was the potential to convey the most fundamental relation in human communication, i.e. the speaker-hearer relationship. Thus due to this pragmaticalization, i.e. the evolution of markers from sentence-final particles, the speaker-hearer relationship is now marked in utterance-initial position by the na group of interjections. The fact that na group of interjections mark involvement (5.9) of the speaker and hearer in the discourse also stands to reason.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.1 (197)

Chapter 7

Conclusion

In this final chapter, in (7.1) I summarize the main points of the study, reviewing the pragmaticalization of the conjunctions demo and dakedo and of the interjection ne and its variants. In (7.2), since ‘development of discourse markers’ seems to draw increased interests in the recent argument about grammaticalization, some thoughts on ‘grammaticalization’ is shown. In (7.3), to conclude this study, I discuss the relevance of my findings to a few other linguistic issues, inside and outside pragmatics, i.e. relevance to typological characteristics of language (7.3.1), productivity (7.3.2) and conventionalization of conversational implicatures (7.3.3).

. Summary of this study This study has inquired into pragmaticalization of two domains in Japanese, conjunctions (demo and dakedo) and interjections (ne and its variants). First, I will review the change in the conjunctions. The pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo are summarized in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. In Figure 7.1, in Present Day Japanese (PDJ), expressive function holds a superscribed + indicating the expansion of this function: This means that the expressive function has been expanded when compared to the preceding time stages. The functional changes that demo and dakedo seem to have undergone overall correspond to Traugott’s (1982) proposed direction; ideational > ((textual) > (expressive)). The changes in demo and dakedo also seem to have experienced a positional shift: from a clause-final connecting element V (copula) + a conjunctive particle mo/kedo into an utterance-initial conjunction and discourse marker. If we take a broad definition of grammaticalization, this positional and structural change is considered a case of grammaticalization (see Chapter 7 on grammaticalization). As for demo, the original form de + mo first emerged in my data around the 11th century, as shown in Figure 7.1. The element seems to have first appeared in the utterance-initial position as demo in the 18th century. At this point, demo

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.2 (198)

 Chapter 7 V-te + mo (14th–19th C) ideational

Demo (18th–early 20th C) Demo (PDJ) ideational ideational > textual > textual expressive expressive+

Figure 7.1 Pragmaticalization of demo V + kedo (18th–early 20th C) Dakedo (early 20th C–PDJ) ideational > ideational textual (> expressive)

Figure 7.2 Pragmaticalization of dakedo

gained textual and expressive functions while in the clause-final position it only carried the ideational function. Between the 18th century and the early 20th century, demo’s expressive function was to signal the speaker’s contrastive action of refutation. Later, in Present Day Japanese, demo’s expressive function is realized by additional speaker’s actions, such as ‘changing the topic’, ‘opening conversation’ and ‘claiming the floor’. Thus, the expressive function must have expanded over time. The change in demo follows a general tendency “less to more personal” (Traugott 1982): Between the 14th century and the 19th century, V-te + mo seems not to have marked personal meaning, but when the element appears in the initial position in the 18th century, it clearly serves an expressive function. As for dakedo, the original form V + kedo seems to have appeared first in the 18th century in my data (as shown in Figure 7.2). Then it seems to have turned up in the utterance-initial position as dakedo in the early 20th century in my data. Dakedo at this stage has expressive function optionally, i.e. some dakedo carry just ideational and textual functions, but others carry all three functions. Whereas the element expressed no personal meaning explicitly at first as an initial marker, it began to convey expressive meaning clearly: The pragmaticalization of dakedo also complies with the tendency “less to more personal”. The functional change in the interjection ne and its variants na, noo, no, naa and nee which is accompanied by the positional shift from the sentencefinal elements through internal elements into initial markers is summarized in Figure 7.3. This development of na elements could be discussed as an example of grammaticalization, as reported in (7.2). As seen in Figure 7.3, in general, the na group of elements emerge in final and internal positions around the same time or in succession; then they emerge in initial positions later. As mentioned before, analysis of Japanese language

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.3 (199)

Conclusion  Final/internal elements expressive Final elements

Initial elements expressive textual

> SIPs

na (8th C) noo (14th–16th C) no (16th C) ne (18th C) nee (18th C) naa (18th C)

= = > > =

na (8th C) noo (14th–16th C) no (19th C?) ne (19th C) nee (18th C)

expressive

= expressive

Interjections > = = > > >

na (12th C) noo (14th C) no (19th C) ne (20th C) nee (19th C) naa (19th C)

> expressive textual

Figure 7.3 Pragmaticalization of all the na elements

before Muromachi period (14th–16th century) should be treated speculatively. However, as seen in Figure 7.3, na elements except na show their own diachrony after Muromachi. The pragmaticalization of the na group of interjections neither conforms nor contradicts Traugott’s hypothesis, ideational > textual > expressive. For the na elements, the expressive function seems fundamental so that it remains throughout their history, from the beginning to the final stage. The pragmaticalization of the na elements is a process in which the elements gain a textual function in a later stage, while maintaining the expressive function. The pragmaticalization of the na elements clearly follows the direction, less to more personal. It traces a more specific change of increasing subjectification (6.4.2). Subjectification is recognized in at least two different aspects of the historical process of the na elements. First, subjectification accompanies the shift from final to initial position: whereas the prime function of the item in sentence-final position was ‘exclamation’, that in initial position is ‘summons’. Subjectification (Traugott 1986a) is in essence a shift from ideational to interpersonal meanings, referring less to objective situations and more to subjective ones. Along with the shift in the primary function from exclamation to summons, there is a meaning change towards increasingly interpersonal. Second, subjectification goes along with the diachronic process of the na elements in the sentence-final position and that in the initial position, respectively. In the final position, although at first the only function was exclamation, the item later started marking interrogation or suggestion: this is a meaning shift from less to more interpersonal/communication-bound. In the initial

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.4 (200)

 Chapter 7

position, the original function was only that of summons; however, later the item began marking more extended interpersonal meanings such as ‘reinforcement’ and ‘before new information’: this is also a change from less to more interpersonal meaning. In Chapter 1 where the definition of discourse markers was introduced (1.2.1.4), I listed the specific conditions that allow an expression to be a marker, proposed by Schiffrin (1987: 328): 1. 2. 3. 4.

it has to be syntactically detachable from a sentence it has to be commonly used in initial position of an utterance it has to have a range of prosodic contours it has to be able to operate at both local and global levels of discourse, and on different planes of discourse

At this point, it is relevant to question whether or not demo, dakedo, ne and its variants fulfill these conditions. The expressions examined in my study do fulfill the above criteria; thus they are all qualified as markers. It might also be possible to suggest an additional condition based on the results of this study. That is: 5. it has to realize either textual or expressive functions Demo, dakedo, ne and its variants also satisfy this criterion.

. Grammaticalization This book is about the pragmatics of some Japanese discourse markers (DMs), which at first did not address the issue of grammaticalization. However, in the last decade, grammaticalization has grown to be one of the themes that attracts primary attention in linguistics. And in today’s on-going discussions on grammaticalization, even the issue of development of discourse markers itself (exactly the topic of this book) has drawn more attention. Book-length works on grammaticalization appeared one after another in the 1990s (Heine, Claudi, & Hünnemeyer 1991; Traugott & Heine (Eds.) Vols. 1 and 2, 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Pagliuca (Ed.) 1994; Lehmann 1995; Ramat & Hopper 1998; etc.). And still today, discussions to develop and remodel the theory of grammaticalization are being argued (e.g. Traugott & Dasher 2002; Wischer & Diewald 2002, etc.). In this climate of the field, the question “if the developmental process of discourse markers is judged as a case of grammaticalization or not” has been argued from time to time. In this section, I will give some

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.5 (201)

Conclusion 

thoughts on “grammaticalization” by showing a view in which the development of discourse markers is regarded as an example of grammaticalization (7.2.1) and examining the cases of demo and na elements from a more up-dated perspective than ones shown in my earlier works (Onodera 1995, 2000) (7.2.2). .. Development of discourse markers: A case of grammaticalization There are at least two scholars who declare that the development of discourse markers is a case of grammaticalization. This view, the development of discourse markers as grammaticalization, will be firstly presented. First, Traugott (1995b: 1) suggests that a cline be added to the inventory of “staples of grammaticalization theory”, “in addition to nominal clines (nominal adposition > case) and verbal clines (main verb > tense, aspect, mood marker)”. The newly suggested cline is: “Clause-internal Adverbial > Sentence Adverbial > Discourse Particle (of which Discourse Markers are a subtype)” (Ibid.). In this paper, Traugott specifically argues that three English discourse markers, ‘indeed’, ‘in fact’ and ‘besides’, developed following this cline. ‘Indeed’, for example, undergoes a path from a verbal adverbial through a sentential adverb to a discourse marker. (i) (Ernst 1984: 202; quoted in Traugott 1995b: 6) illustrates this developmental direction (a → b). (i)

a. Many people hated it indeed. b. Indeed, many people hated it.

The three discourse markers, ‘indeed’, ‘in fact’ and ‘besides’, also all originally started from the stage (Stage 0) where lexical nouns (‘deed’, ‘facte’ and ‘siden’ (meaning side)) were included. Then, Traugott considers the developed forms, namely discourse markers, as “part of the grammar of a language (Fraser 1988: 32), even though they are pragmatic in function” (Ibid.: 5). She argues that discourse markers fill a syntactic slot, and have highly constrained syntactic properties (Ibid.). Thus, according to this view, the development of discourse markers fulfills the natural tendency of grammaticalization; from non-grammatical lexical items to grammatical elements. Treating Japanese discourse markers such as demo and dakara (often called conjunctions in Japanese grammar), I also consider that these demo type connectives fill syntactic slots and have syntactic properties. It seems to depend on each discourse marker to what extent a marker is part of the grammar of a language and contributes to the propositional component of a language.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.6 (202)

 Chapter 7

The development of ‘indeed’, ‘in fact’ and ‘besides’ show long-attested structural characteristics of early grammaticalization, decategorialization, phonological reduction, generalization and more recently found characteristics, pragmatic strengthening and subjectification. The historical process of these discourse markers and the suggested cline, “Clause-internal Adverbial > Sentence Adverbial > Discourse Particle”, involve increased syntactic freedom and scope, which violates the features of bonding and reduced scope frequently regarded as criterial parameters of grammaticalization (e.g. “parameters of grammaticalization” (Lehmann 1995: 121)). At the end of Traugott (1995b: 15), bonding and reduced scope came to be excluded from the criterial features of grammaticalization as in “[they] should not be thought of as necessarily entail”ed in grammaticalization. The developmental process of demo type connectives studied in this book also showed increased syntactic freedom and scope, which supports this exclusion. In Tabor and Traugott (1998) which argues the relation of “structural scope expansion and grammaticalization”, they conclude that the reduced scope should not be thought as a parameter of grammaticalization (265). In addition, they propose that “structural unidirectionality (in any formulation) is not an appropriate presupposition at this stage in the development of the field” (Ibid.). This proposal seems useful if the theory of grammaticalization indeed pursues the universalness of language or human communication. Second, Brinton (1996, 2001) argues even more clearly that the development of pragmatic markers1 is considered a case of grammaticalization. In Brinton (2001), analyzing forms of look ((now) look (here), lookyou, lookee, lookahere and look it) that she calls pragmatic markers, she reports that their development exhibits most, if not all, of the characteristic signs of grammaticalization; “decategorialization”, “coalescence” (“[i.e.] increase in morphological bondedness” (193) as seen in lookye/lookyou (cf. Lehmann 1995: 147–157), “phonological attrition”, “desemanticization”, “increase in pragmatic meaning”, “pragmatic strengthening” (Hopper & Traugott 1993: 75–77), “subjectification”, and “divergence”. Brinton also mentions that “there are ways in which the development of look-forms is not characteristic of grammaticalization as it is commonly understood”. She points out the features that violate the long-discussed characteristics of grammaticalization: (1) scope reduction, (2) “fixation” (Lehmann 1995: 158–160) “[i.e.] coming to occupy a fixed syntactic slot” (2001: 194), (3) typical cline of grammaticalization of verbs: full verb > quasi-auxiliary > auxiliary > clitic > affix (195). Another way in which the development of look-forms is uncharacteristic of grammaticalization is that “[look-forms] begin[ning] life

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.7 (203)

Conclusion 

as syntagms, or full constructions, rather than as individual lexical items” (Ibid.: 194). As for scope reduction (1), it has been recognized that the development of other discourse markers (‘indeed’, ‘in fact’ and ‘besides’ in English (Traugott 1995b), and demo type connectives in Japanese (this study)) violate this “parameter” and rather these discourse markers expand in structural scope. Tabor and Traugott (1998) indeed argue against the traditional view of scope reduction and suggest that grammaticalization of discourse markers involve increase in scope (see also 1.1.1). In sum, Brinton (2001) considers that the similarities between the development of discourse markers and grammaticalization prevails against the differences between these two kinds of historical processes. At the end of Brinton (2001), she suggests another cline of grammaticalization that a set of pragmatic markers follow, after pointing out the diversity in pragmatic markers recognized synchronically and diachronically. The suggested cline is: matrix clause [subject + verb] > parenthetical adjunct

This cline would explain pragmatic markers such as look-forms, I mean, you see, I think/guess/suppose and you know (195). Synchronically, pragmatic markers are divergent in structure: They are “verbs, adverbs, interjections, coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, literal phrases, and idioms” (Fraser 1988: 24 quoted in Brinton 2001: 195). Diachronically, pragmatic markers also have a variety in sources, including “interjections (hwæt), adverbs (anon), verbs/auxiliaries (gan), or matrix clauses (þa gelamp þæt) (Brinton 1996)”. I also agree on such diversity in pragmatic markers. Because of this diversity, it is plausible that there are plural clines of grammaticalization to be proposed in addition to the traditional view of its unidirectional tendencies. .. Demo and na elements: Grammaticalization or not? In Onodera (2000), I suggested the independence of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization: these are originally two separate processes that are independent of each other. That is, these two historical processes occur independently despite the fact that pragmaticalization is too often discussed to accompany grammaticalization like one of its criterial features (see also 1.2.1.2). In Onodera (2000), I considered that the development of demo type connectives was a case of both grammaticalization and pragmaticalization while that of na elements was a case of pragmaticalization without involving grammaticalization. In this section, my re-examination will show that the di-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.8 (204)

 Chapter 7

achronic process which na underwent could also be counted as a case of grammaticalization. In the following, the development of demo type connectives and na elements will be briefly argued as examples of grammaticalization. First, demo type connectives undergo grammaticalization, if a broad definition of such historical process is taken: the dynamic, unidirectional historical process whereby lexical items in the course of time acquire a new status as grammatical, morpho-syntactic forms, and in the process come to code relations that either were not coded before or were coded differently. (Traugott & König 1991: 189)

As illustrated in this definition, the developed form, demo type connectives, gained a new morpho-syntactic form, i.e. ‘an intersentential syntactic connective’, out of the source element, the clause-final connecting device de + mo, i.e. ‘the gerundive form of a verb (copula) da + an adversative clause-final particle mo’. The elements later came to code relations that were coded differently: de + mo connected two clauses (connection within a sentence), then the developed forms, sentence-initial demo type connectives, connect two sentences (connection beyond a sentence). In addition to this morpho-syntactic change, the developmental path of demo also shows several common features of grammaticalization: (1) semantic and syntactic reclassification, (2) increase in abstraction, (3) non-referentiality, (4) gradual step-by-step change [cline] (Tabor & Traugott 1998: 265), and (5) layering (Hopper 1991: 22) (see also 1.1.1). As for pragmaticalization of demo type connectives, as discussed in detail in Chapter 4, this category of words clearly follow the path of pragmatic strengthening, i.e. pragmaticalization. Demo type connectives went through both grammaticalization and pragmaticalization in their history. Second, in Onodera (2000), I concluded that the development of na elements involves pragmaticalization and just positional change – i.e. without undergoing grammaticalization. While demo type connectives undergo both pragmaticalization and grammaticalization, another group of Japanese discourse markers, na elements, undergo only pragmaticalization. Because of this asymmetric relationship, I proposed the independent feature of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization (Ibid.: 45–46). This independence (autonomy) holds true. But, a more up-dated viewpoint judges that the evolution of na elements may also be a grammaticalization. Their positional change; from sentence-final particles to sentence-internal particles to sentence-initial interjections, indeed shows correlation with change in syntactic position. It thus involves “scope” change, specifically scope expansion, just as we saw in the development of the English discourse markers,

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.9 (205)

Conclusion 

‘indeed’ and ‘besides’ (7.2.1). The analysis illustrated in (7.2.1) is indeed implicative for the analysis of other discourse markers. If a process exhibits the arrival at a new morpho-syntactic status or a new grammatical element, such process is surely counted as a case of grammaticalization. For the case of na elements, however, unclear part is the grammaticality of the developed forms, the interjections na.2 If their development is seen as one from non-grammatical sentence-final particles to non-grammatical interjections, such process cannot be a grammaticalization. Nonetheless, the historical evolution of na elements at least partly involves features of grammaticalization, if grammaticalization is a process which crucially involves correlations between semantic/pragmatic and morphosyntactic change. The case of na elements at least show the signs of grammaticalization such as ‘semantic and syntactic reclassification’, ‘gradual step-by-step change (cline)’, ‘layering’, ‘pragmaticalization’ and ‘subjectification’ and the signs of grammaticalization of discourse markers such as ‘increase in scope’ and ‘increase in syntactic freedom’ (see also 1.1.1). This case would be judged as a grammaticalization in the broadest viewpoint in the current field.

. Relevance of findings .. Relevance to typological characteristics Some typological characteristics of language seem to make possible the pragmaticalization processes in Japanese seen in the preceding chapters. At least two typological features of Japanese, i.e. postpositional and agglutinative, reviewed in (2.3), appear to be involved in the process of discourse marker formation in the case of the set of Japanese items which changed from unit-final elements into unit-initial elements. In this section, I will discuss how these typological features affect the pragmaticalization, a developmental process. The word formation of demo/dakedo and the interjection ne indeed involves a typological feature, agglutination. That is, dakedo/demo and ne are derived from the unit-final connecting devices da + kedo/de + mo and the sentence-final particle ne respectively: The grammatical relationship between the verb (copula da/de) and the appended conjunctive particles kedo/mo and between a sentence and the attached final particle ne is agglutination. Kedo/mo and ne all fulfill the defining feature of “agglutination”, “separable affixes on verbs” (Mallinson & Blake 1981: 20). Therefore ‘agglutination’ indeed directly connects kedo/mo and ne to the preceding sentence. The elements constituting

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.10 (206)

 Chapter 7

the original forms, kedo, mo and ne, are all postposed and such adpositions are indeed called postpositions. Postpositions are ascribable to the fact that Japanese is a postpositional language, which is another typological feature (see Greenberg’s Language Universal 9 in (2.3)). How do [clause + kedo/mo] and [ne appended to a sentence] shift into the unit-initial position? There are two possible ways of accounting for this shift. The first way to account for the shift in the formation of conjunctions like demo/dakedo is by postposing. In Japanese there are two types of movement processes, “scrambling” and “postposing”3 (Hinds 1986: 164). Although scrambling, also referred to as “free word order” (Kuno 1973), is a typical typological feature of Japanese, it is not clear that ‘postposing’ can be categorized as a typological feature.4 Free word order and postposing are briefly illustrated below. ‘Free word order’ is partly attributable to agglutination. This is because case-marking particles (postpositions) which contribute to agglutination in Japanese clearly designate the cases, hence the relationships among phrases (words) in a sentence, and therefore phrases can move around relatively easily. An example given to show the clear case-relation among words and free word order which can occur in Japanese (Kuno 1973: 351–352, reviewed in (2.3)) is repeated below. (1) a.

John ga Mary o Cambridge de mita. nominative accusative in saw particle particle b. John ga Cambridge de Mary o mita. c. Mary o John ga Cambridge de mita. d. Mary o Cambridge de John ga mita. e. Cambridge de John ga Mary o mita. f. Cambridge de Mary o John ga mita.

In (1), (a) is realizable as (b) through (f), and the six sentences are all grammatical. As seen in this example, in Japanese it is possible for a phrase to be detached from the rest of the sentence and moved to a different position as long as the rigid constraint is observed that verbs must appear in the sentence-final position (Kuno 1973: 3). ‘Postposing’ takes place relatively frequently in conversational interaction, but it also appears sometimes in written language (Hinds 1986: 166). As will be illustrated in (2) and (3), subordinate clauses (underlined part) seem able to be postposed.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.11 (207)

Conclusion 

(2) Nihon ja soo iu koto amari nakatta, Japan at-TP that say fact very NEG-PST hikaku shitara. compare do-if (Hinds 1986: 166) (3) Hanasenai desu ne, hanashitai kedo. speak can NEG COP FP speak want but

In (2) and (3), the subordinate clauses ‘if you compare the two countries’ and ‘although I wish I could’ are postposed. Postposing is a convenient strategy in conversation, since the speaker can add something extra (e.g. a supplementary explanation, excuse, justification etc.) after starting the main sentence. In addition to the phrases seen in (1), postposed subordinate clauses like (‘although I want to speak it’: hanashitai kedo) in (3) seem easy to detach and move. Following the clause (‘although I want to speak it’), the speaker might like to re-assert his/her information to emphasize it and say: (4) Dakedo, dooshitemo hanasenai desu. But anyhow speak can NEG COP

In (4), instead of saying dakedo, the speaker of course has the option of just repeating the clause preceding (4) (‘although I want to speak it’: hanashitai kedo). However, since the element da (more strictly its stem d) has the function of replacing a prior predicate, the speaker utters dakedo in which d replaces the predicate hanashitai (‘I want (wish) to speak’): thus the speaker uses an economical d replacement strategy rather than a redundant or repetitive expression.5 Thus, in Japanese sentence structure a subordinate clause such as (V + kedo/mo) seems detachable and somewhat movable. It stands to reason that the mobility of a subordinate clause and the replacement function of d would allow the formation of the initial condensed subordinate clause-like word dakedo/demo. Thus, ‘postposing’ is involved in the formation of initial markers since it allows a subordinate clause to be detached from the rest of the sentence. Postposing contributes to the marker formation in the case of conjunctions such as demo/dakedo. There may be another way of accounting for the shift of a final element into an initial marker in the case of ne, a sentence-final particle (SFP) which later becomes an initial marker. That is, in Japanese, a postpositional language,

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.12 (208)

 Chapter 7

(Interjection) sentence initial

predication statement

(SFP) sentence final

a sentence

Figure 7.4 Watanabe’s functional structure of a Japanese sentence (1971: 108)

elements which in the final position of a sentence already express the speaker’s subjectivity shift into the initial position which (in Japanese) seems the most efficient site for expressing subjectivity. This account relies upon (1) the functional structure of the Japanese sentence suggested by Watanabe (1971) or Hayashi (1983) and (2) the bracketing function of initiating markers. Although the entire sketch of motivation for this pragmatic change remains indefinite, this account gives us a hint to consider the motivating factor. Watanabe’s (1971) model (mentioned in (6.5)) is illustrated below as Figure 7.4: This time our focus is rather on the functions of language which could be pertinent to the typological feature of postpositionality. ‘Predication’ (jojutsu) is what is expressed by ideational function, i.e. ideational content, or state of affairs. Opposed to predication, ‘statement’ (chinjutsu) is what is expressed by expressive function; the content of the state of affairs into which the speaker’s attitude is added. ‘Statement’ is paraphrased as what is expressed by ‘ji’ in Tokieda’s theory (1950). ‘Ji’ is “an expression representing the speaker’s perspective toward the referent” as opposed to ‘shi’, “an expression representing an objective and conceptualized notion of referents” (translation from Maynard 1989b: 30). ‘Ji’ and ‘shi’ are two grammatical categories into which all the word classes in Japanese are classified: ‘ji’ includes conjunctions, interjections, auxiliary verbs and particles, whereas ‘shi’ subsumes nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. What is noteworthy in Watanabe’s model (Figure 7.4) is that ‘ji’ adding the speaker’s attitude to the proposition of an utterance (sentence) serves especially in sentence-initial and final parts (Watanabe emphasizing the final part). In the sentence-initial part, typically interjections as ‘ji’ function to express the speaker’s attitude, and in the sentence-final part, sentence-final particles also have this function as ‘ji’ (cf. Okutsu 1978: 62). One might wonder why the elements need to move to the initial part, if both initial and final parts are the locations where the speaker’s attitude may be expressed. Hayashi’s (1983) model illustrates the idea that expressive function is operating in the peripheral parts (initial and final ends) of a Japanese sentence more comprehensibly. According to Hayashi, a Japanese sentence is functionally

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.13 (209)

Conclusion  predication judgment sentiments interaction sentence final

í

sentence initial

a sentence

Figure 7.5 Hayashi’s functional structure of a Japanese sentence sentence initial

Sensei, anoo, nandaka

(summons) (pre-ex. of upset) (pre-ex. of uncertain judgment)

Nakamura-san ga, yoosu ga okashii

p j s i

mitai nan desu kedo, (uncertain judgment) dooshitara ii n deshoo sentence final

ka.

(upset)

(interrogation)

(p, j, s, i stand for predication, judgment, sentiments and interaction. pre-ex. stands for pre-expression.)

Figure 7.6 Hayashi’s layered-structure of utterance

structured with four-layers as shown in Figure 7.5: the central layer is “predication” (byoojo), the core part of the sentence, where the semantic content of events is described, and the three layers encircling “predication” outward are “judgment”, “sentiments” and “interaction”. “Judgment” expresses the speaker’s judgment regarding the proposition; “sentiments” convey the speaker’s various sentiments toward the semantic content; and “interaction” transmits the speaker’s interactive attitude concerning the other participants in a given situation. To capture a more concrete idea of this functionally layered-structure of a sentence, an example is given in Figure 7.6, which Hayashi (1983: 49) calls the “layered-structure of an utterance”. Figure 7.7 presents the English equivalent for the utterance in Figure 7.6. In this model (see Figure 7.5), ‘sentiments’ and ‘interaction’ included in the expressive component are expressed in the outwardmost layers, hence in

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.14 (210)

 Chapter 7 ‘Teacher,’ well, looks like there’s something wrong with Mr. Nakamura seems what should we do question marker

Figure 7.7 English translation for the utterance in Figure 7.6

both sentence-initial and final positions. With the predication, which is the described semantic content, as the core of the sentence, ‘judgment’, ‘sentiments’ and ‘interaction’ functions operate, forming layers outward, i.e. in both directions toward the initiating and terminating ends of a sentence (see Figures 7.5 and 7.6). Furthermore, the following might hint an account of the pragmaticalization of na elements. In the outermost layer, ‘interaction’ (see Figure 7.5), the na group of sentence-final particles move into sentence-initial position and become interjections, since the initial position is where the marking or bracketing function of a discourse marker stands out and operates the most effectively.6 From the two models of the functional structure of a Japanese sentence (Watanabe 1971; Hayashi 1983), we now understand that in a Japanese sentence the semantic content is placed in the center and the speaker’s subjective attitude toward the content is in the peripheral part (in initial and terminal positions). Among the items that express the speaker attitude (ji), especially those which transmit the speaker’s interaction-oriented (interpersonal) meanings (e.g. summons, interrogation, suggestion, etc.) are in the outermost positions. Items such as the na elements originally located in the sentence-final position are detached from the sequence of discourse: those items are cut from the rest of discourse in the position of ‘ji’. As seen in the preceding chapters, those detached items move into the sentence-initial position. A reason for this can be as follows. The sentence-initial position is the most appropriate place for markers to serve their ‘marking’ function because this is where ‘initial brackets’ (Schiffrin 1987: 36–37; Goffman 1974: 255; see (1.2.1.4)) work. As a consequence, the sentence-initial position is the most expressive and subjective site. It is also noted that the bracketing function of an initial marker can be even a

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.15 (211)

Conclusion

stronger motivating force than the functional structure where the interactional meaning is expressed in both sentence-initial and final positions.7 Although this is not yet clear, there may already be the “path” for the pragmaticalization in Japanese (at least, in the case of the na group of interjections), because in this language, both sentence-final and sentence-initial locations are expressive and subjective. In the case of na elements, those in sentence-final location gradually come to be used in sentence-initial location where the “signaling” (marking) function of a discourse marker serves the most efficiently. In this section, an account for the shift of unit-final elements into initial markers in Japanese has been attempted in relation to the typological features of Japanese. Schiffrin (1987) suggests that English conjunctions have come to be used as markers. However, in English, this pragmatic change is not accompanied by a positional shift of items, as is the case for the Japanese markers examined here. This possibly occurs because English is a typically prepositional language. In English, conjunctions are located in the unit-initial position in the first place (McCawley 1988; see (2.3)), and they need not move into the initial position to become markers. Therefore, the exact process of discourse marker formation, whereby items obtain the status of markers is very much a matter of whether the language is typologically pre- or postpositionally structured. In sum, in Japanese which is a postpositional and agglutinative language, a certain group of unit-final items become unit-initial discourse markers, involving at least the above two typological characteristics. The pragmaticalization in Japanese seen in this study clearly shows the accompanying positional shift of the items, which can never be seen in English. Therefore, the examination of Japanese gives us a piece of evidence which shows how some items evolve into markers. Thus this study adds support for the evolutionary development of markers, first suggested in Schiffrin’s (1987) analysis of English, by showing visually explicit evidence, the accompanying positional shift in pragmaticalization in Japanese, a language typologically quite unlike English. .. Productivity In addition to typology, another linguistic issue relevant to this study’s findings is productivity (cf. Huddleston 1984; Riddle 1985; Romaine 1985; Uhlenbeck 1981). Huddleston (1984: 27) states: A morphological process is fully productive if it can apply to all members of a large and independently definable set of stems.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.16 (212)

 Chapter 7 denakereba ? ¬ü sore ü de nakere ba þ that þ COP (subjunctive) conj. ¯ NEG nai particle omitted

Figure 7.8 Formation (1) of denakereba

In this section, I will discuss the productive feature of the word-formation of demo and dakedo which can build other similar conjunctions (and markers). The conjunctions demo and dakedo seem to have been derived from unitfinal connecting elements V (copula de) + mo (a conjunctive particle) and V (copula da) + kedo (a conjunctive particle). As seen in (2.3) and (7.3.1), the grammatical relationship between de/da and the conjunctive particle is agglutination: the word-formation process by which demo and dakedo were formed involves agglutination. I now propose that the same kind of formation process involving agglutination also builds other conjunctions or conjunctive expressions. The process similar to the formation of dakedo seems to produce the conjunctions, daga, dakara, danoni, datte and dattara. Indeed, there are strikingly numerous conjunctive expressions with similar structure in Japanese. Damondakara, dakeredo, dakedomo and dakeredomo (cf. Aoki 1973: 243–244) are such expressions. The formation process and meaning of the produced conjunctions are listed in (A). (A) daga dakara danoni datte dattara

← ← ← ← ←

da (COP) + ga (conjunctive particle) da (COP) + kara (conj. particle) da (COP) + noni (conj. particle) da (COP) + tote (conj. particle) da (COP) + tara (inflected form of past/perfect tense marking aux. verb ta)

‘but’ ‘so’ ‘despite it’ ‘’cause’ ‘if so’

In all the cases in (A), the copula da and the attached conjunctive particles (or the inflected form of an aux. verb) are related due to agglutination. A formation process similar to that by which demo is formed can likewise produce another set of words, today recognized as conjunctions (according to Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) 1981), de, denaito, denakereba and dewa. The formation of these words can be thought of in two ways. Figure 7.8 shows one way of forming denakereba. In Figure 7.8, denakereba is considered to be an abbreviated form of another conjunction soredenakereba, from which the demonstrative pronoun sore (that) is omitted. Following the same process, demo, de, denaito and dewa are

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.17 (213)

Conclusion  denakereba ← de + nakere ba, ‘if not so’ (gerundive) (sub.) conj. COP NEG nai particle demo

← de (ger.) COP

de

← de, (ger.) COP

denaito

← de (ger.) COP

+ nai NEG

dewa

← de (ger.) COP

+ wa, TP

+ mo, conj. particle

‘but’

‘and then’

to, ‘if not so’ conj. particle ‘well then/now’

Figure 7.9 Formation (2) of denakereba and similar conjunctions

thought to be abbreviated forms of the conjunctions soredemo, sorede/sokode, soodenaito and soredewa. That is, omission of demonstratives sore, soko and soo from soredemo, sorede/sokode and soodenaito form demo, de and denaito. In contrast, Figure 7.9 presents the other way of forming denakereba and the other conjunctions: I have taken this position to account for demo in the previous chapters. In this formation, a conjunction is thought to be derived from a clause-final connecting device. The meaning of each conjunction is also listed in Figure 7.9. Once one recognizes d’s (stem of da) ‘replacement function’ of replacing a predicate in prior discourse (Okutsu 1978) as the critical syntactic nature of conjunctions like demo (reviewed in (2.4.1) and discussed elsewhere in my study), the formation process illustrated in Figure 7.9 is plausible. It is mainly because d makes a great contribution to the textual function by relating the prior and upcoming at the point where the conjunction occurs. Regardless of which formation process ((1) or (2)) one accepts, the fact remains that the formation process of demo is productive in that other conjunctions such as de, denakereba, denaito and dewa are also produced by a similar process. It has been shown in this section that the word-formation process of conjunctions (and discourse markers) demo and dakedo is not idiosyncratic but productive. Though this process is not fully productive, it is similar to other lexical processes such as those involving the English affixes, en-, -age, and even -able.8 Thus, the conjunction-formation process [the agglutinated sequence of

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.18 (214)

 Chapter 7

the copula de/da (including negative form) + a particle or an auxiliary verb] is productive. Among conjunctions in Japanese, this formation process has in fact produced a large group, whose members are all prefaced by d, which I call demo type connectives (Onodera 2000). A more general productive process which makes discourse markers in Japanese is also noted. That is, the elements which belong to ‘ji’ and express the speaker’s subjective attitude tend to develop into discourse markers in Japanese. The original forms of the conjunctions prefaced with d discussed in this section are made up of the copula and conjunctive particles or auxiliary verbs, as mentioned above. The interjection ne and its variants were derived from sentence-final particles. These original elements (copula, conjunctive particles, auxiliary verbs, and sentence-final particles) are, according to Tokieda (1950), all categorized as ‘ji’. ‘Ji’ is the grammatical division which expresses the speaker’s attitude, opposed to ‘shi’ which expresses the semantic content of discourse (for the details of ‘ji’, see 7.3.1). Therefore, a general productive pattern of forming discourse markers in Japanese seems that some set of ‘ji’ elements are inclined to evolve into markers. .. Conventionalization of conversational implicatures To date, many works have revealed that structural coordinators in language have additional discourse functions as well (e.g. Schiffrin 1987; Maynard 1989a, 1993; Mori 1996, 1999; also this study). Schiffrin (1987) has found that English connectives ‘and’, ‘but’ and ‘or’ are not only coordinators marking relationships between constituent parts of a sentence, but also ‘discourse markers’ (her coined term) with a pragmatic role and interactional effect. ‘And’ is a coordinator of idea units and is also a pragmatic marker of the speaker’s action of continuation. ‘But’ is a coordinator of idea structure (like ‘and’) and is also a marker of the speaker’s contrastive actions. Likewise, ‘or’ is a coordinator as well as a marker of the speaker’s provision of options to the hearer. In Japanese, Maynard (1989a) has found that dakara, which has long been recognized as a logical ‘cause-and-result’ connective, in fact carries additional discourse functions. Such discourse functions are marking where supplementary explanation starts, marking reluctant repetition and designating the ending of a turn or claiming a turn. In addition, in this study the hitherto so-called adversative conjunctions demo and dakedo have been demonstrated to mark the speaker’s contrastive actions (like ‘but’) as a pragmatic effect. The last issue I would like to consider in this study is why or how the items long recognized only as structural coordinators came to be used as discourse

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.19 (215)

Conclusion 

markers with additional meanings. Another way of stating this question is to ask how the extra discourse meanings began to be understood by the hearers. I suggest ‘conventionalization of conversational implicatures’ somehow facilitates the process in which the coordinators gained the discourse meanings and these later acquired meanings gradually became understood by any hearer. Traugott (1989: 52) seems to include the discourse function of the speaker’s checking for listener comprehension of a question marker in Australian English in this conventionalizing process. Although further study is needed in order to account for “conventionalization of discourse/interactional meanings”, there may be some process similar to the ‘conventionalization of conversational implicatures’ which is introduced below. In what follows, I will refer to the work which suggested the original concept of conventionalization of implicatures (Geis & Zwicky 1971) and another work which provides another explication of the same process of conventionalizing (Dahl 1985). Following, I will mention the three documents exemplifying the semantic changes facilitated by conventionalization of implicatures. The original concept of conventionalization of implicatures is first categorized and introduced as “invited inferences” by Geis and Zwicky (1971). In reference to the development of the English conjunction ‘since’ from a temporal word to a causal marker, they interpret such a process as a change from a principle of invited inference associated with ‘since’ (by virtue of its temporal meaning) to a piece of the semantic content of ‘since’. (Ibid.: 565–566)

Geis and Zwicky contend that an invited inference which has been associated with a word can become part of its semantic representation (Ibid.). Horn (cf. 1984) also seems to support the idea that the conventionalization of a salient or stereotypical conversational inference is involved in the development of ‘since’ from a temporal to a causal marker (cf. Traugott 1989). The process of the conventionalization of implicatures which I focus on here is explicated quite clearly by Dahl (1985). “Implicature” as used by Dahl is the term coined by Grice (1975). Dahl writes that conventionalization of implicatures is a powerful mechanism which creates secondary foci and secondary interpretations of a word. Although secondary foci and interpretations will be explained below, Dahl’s (1985: 11) description of the process of the conventionalization of a conversational implicature is as follows: if some condition happens to be fulfilled frequently when a certain category is used, a stronger association may develop between the condition and the cat-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.20 (216)

 Chapter 7

egory in such a way that the condition comes to be understood as an integral part of the meaning of the category.

As an example of such conventionalization, the development of the English aspects, Perfects and Pluperfects, into recent and remote past tenses is given. Dahl also discusses the notions of ‘basic meaning’ and ‘secondary meanings’. Looking at the meaning of a term extensionally, the extensions of a term are divided into different regions, one of which is considered ‘basic’ or ‘primary’ among others. The basic/primary meaning (‘sense’ or ‘use’) is the ‘focal’ or ‘prototypical’ in contrast to the ‘peripheral’ senses (1985: 9). Given the notion of a focused category, a ‘secondary meaning’ (‘sense’, ‘use’, ‘reading’, ‘interpretation’ etc.) is defined as something outside the focus. The secondary meanings are represented by a subset of the prototype; that is, some of the prototypical properties would be present and others not (Ibid.: 10–11). It is implied here that in the secondary interpretations there is a residue of the primary meaning. Three more works provide examples of the semantic changes fostered by the conventionalization of implicatures (inferences). In reference to the development of volitional ‘will’ in the first person to pure future, Aijmer (1985: 13) connotes the implicature being involved in such development: “If the speaker is willing to do something, it follows conversationally that he intends to do it and that the future action will take place.” Examining the development of the perfect ‘mI¸s’ to the evidential in Turkish, Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1986: 165) state that the change was probably facilitated by. . . the cognitive fact that nonwitnessed processes can be inferred from observation of resultant states.

Moreover, in Traugott’s work (1982, 1986a, 1989), several examples can be found: Among them, for instance, the deontic ‘must’ evolves into the epistemic ‘must’. Traugott (1989: 51) says that “if one says ‘You must go’ in the meaning ‘You ought to go’, one can implicate that one believes/concludes that it is true that you have to go.” Observing the semantic change of the items ‘very’, ‘just’ and ‘mere’ from the content words like ‘true/absolute’ and ‘exact’ to evaluative terms (Traugott 1982, 1986a), she suggests that such a shift proceeded “via the inference that one would not say what one says unless there were some doubt or surprise factor” (Traugott 1989: 51). In all the cases of meaning change surveyed thus far, the secondary meanings that were first just implicatures made in association with the basic meanings have eventually become conventionalized and established. The implicatures (inferences) made in the given cases argued above are guided at least

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.21 (217)

Conclusion 

to some extent by Grice’s (1975) four maxims of conversation. However, for implicatures to be conventionalized, there seems to be one more independent principle or maxim underlying the process. That is the “principle of informativeness” proposed by Levinson (1983: 146).9 This additional principle allows us to obtain the richest interpretation (as many interpretations as possible) of a statement. The principle is in short “read as much into an utterance as is consistent with what you know about the world” (Ibid.: 146–147). Take the utterance (5) into consideration. (5) He turned on the switch and the motor started.

(Ibid.: 146)

Observing the principle of informativeness, (5) can be read as all the following relations between two conjoined clauses, (i), (ii) and (iii). (6) Given p and q, try interpreting it as: (i) ‘p and then q’; if successful try: (ii) ‘p and therefore q’; if successful try also: (iii) ‘p, and p is the cause of q’

The inference in (i) can be accounted for by a submaxim of Grice’s maxim of manner ‘be orderly’: However this does not help us to make the inference in (iii) in which there is a causal relationship between the two clauses. The point here is that if we have only Grice’s maxims for making inferences from a given utterance (say (5)), the inference from (5) to (6-iii) should be prohibited. This is because if the speaker meant (iii), he/she should have said so: the first submaxim of the maxim of quantity ‘make your contribution as informative as is required’ only allows the additional inference that a stronger statement could not be made. Thus, in conformity with Grice’s maxims, fewer interpretations are possible (two out of three possible options in the case of the utterance (5)). If we are guided by the principle of informativeness, all the probable interpretations are available and we in fact read an utterance in a way which is “as ‘strong’ (informationally rich) as the world allows” (Levinson 1983: 146). In the history of development of connectives such as the English ‘and’ and the Japanese dakara into discourse markers which I mentioned at the beginning of this section, I suggest that, in the early stage the hearer tried to read as much into a given utterance as was consistent with his/her world knowledge. Thus the discourse meanings were part of the hearer’s interpretation, and these discourse meanings eventually became widespread because these connectives were used so frequently. The reason for the frequent use seems to be communicative convenience.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:21/10/2004; 13:43

F: PB13207.tex / p.22 (218)

 Chapter 7

The discourse/pragmatic meanings of coordinators like the English ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘or’ and the Japanese dakara, demo and dakedo seem to have been only implied originally. The discourse/interactional functions of these coordinators (e.g. demo’s claiming the floor) seem to have never become meanings that deserve the semantic representation of a word. However, for the established use of discourse markers, there should also be a similar conventionalizing/developmental process which strongly links form and function, thus causing the discourse/pragmatic function to play a large role in the hearer’s understanding of the meaning. Finally, the relationship between the conventionalization of implicature and grammaticalization should be mentioned. Within the last decade, both theory and empirical diachronic analyses of grammaticalization developed resulting in a multitude of studies. Conventionalization of conversational implicature is in other words pragmatic strengthening (Brinton 2002). And some see that pragmatic strengthening is a feature of grammaticalization (Ibid.). If this view is taken, it means that conventionalization of implicature, i.e. this conventionalizing process of meaning, occurs in grammaticalization. It is fascinating to consider a process like the following: Meaning of a word started just as a single speaker’s implicature in a given interactional situation. Gradually, this implicature spread by frequent use and distribution of the given word. Then it eventually came into the core part of a word’s meaning or even the grammar of language. Language changes. Grammaticalization is one of such changes. And the motivation of grammaticalization seems to lie in the human communicative strategies. Many discourse functions of language were found through the observation of language in use. Likewise, grammaticalization is also seen in changes in use (cf. Traugott 2002).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.1 (219)

Notes

Chapter 1 * Since my earlier works (Onodera 1993, 1995, 2000), analysis, especially the diachronic one, has been redone and updated. Part of data and treatment of data have been changed. As a result, in this book, tables (e.g. Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) have been revised, and some dates for the appearance of the items are reported differently from the earlier works. . As for the source element of demo, a possible original device (clause-final -nitemo (-ni + te + mo)) will be also analyzed in 4.1.1. . Brinton (1990, 1996), as historical works, also use this language model and display fertile findings. . Recently, however, Heine and Kuteva (2002), a book on grammaticalization with a holistic viewpoint, which covers “data from roughly 500 different languages” (1) appeared. . Conjunctions and connectives are similar terms. When ‘conjunction’ is used, it refers to a grammatical category as an established word class long discussed as ‘setsuzoku-shi’ in Japanese linguistics (Kokugogaku). . In this book, the citations from the sources written in Japanese are my translation unless a note is provided. . Although interjections are referred to in the proceedings, the focus here is the similarity between the function of “filling” and “stopping gap”. . The data used for my survey is a ten-hour taped and transcribed corpus of Japanese spoken discourse (Ide et al. 1984. A Housewife’s One-Week Discourse Corpus). I am deeply indebted to Sachiko Ide who willingly let me use this corpus. . In Tables (6.1, 6.2, 6.3) in Chapter 6, a dotted line is drawn between Muromachi period and its preceding time periods to mark the secondary treatment of data of the latter time periods. . In my earlier works (Onodera 1993, 1995), ‘pragmatic change’, ‘semantic-pragmatic change’ are employed rather than the term ‘pragmaticalization’. Now that this research area including the development of discourse markers has expanded and ‘pragmaticalization’ seems the term in the most general use. This terminological convention is followed. . The broader perspective of grammaticalization is also seen in Mori (1996) and Suzuki (1998: 130). Restrictive definitions (such as Comrie 1998 and Lehmann 1995) consider that grammaticalization involves ‘decrease in syntactic freedom’ and ‘increase in boundness’.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.2 (220)

 Notes . The deictic center in unmarked cases is the speaker, the time when the utterance is presented and the location of the speaker. . Levinson points out the deictic relationship only between an utterance and what is “prior”. However, as we have already seen in Schiffrin (1987), I suggest that deictic expressions mark the relationship between an utterance and both the prior and upcoming discourse (see ‘textual coordinates’ in Schiffrin 1987: 323). . This kind of practical points in data collection rarely appear in Tannen’s publications. However, since they are very useful in the practice of discourse analysis, they are mentioned here. . In fact the majority of literature in all the genres inside and outside linguistics use eras when referring to Japanese history. . I appreciate Heiko Narrog’s comment on the unfeasibility in written data of this period. As seen in Tables showing the chronological view of appearance of na group of sentencefinal and sentence-internal particles and interjections; respectively Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 in Chapter 6, the validity of analysis holds, even if the data analysis of Nara period were excluded from the study. . If an English title is used conventionally to refer to a work (as in e.g. Keene 1955a, 1955b, 1956), such title is also provided in the parentheses following the Japanese title. . This play script seems written in Kamigata Japanese. However, as mentioned in 1.1.4, Kamigata Japanese was exceptionally examined when relevant or meaningful in exploring diachrony of language. . The category of sentence of those days differs from that of the present. However, kedo’s connecting function is recognized here and thus the form V + kedo is regarded as the source element. . In this proposed direction, the shift to ‘expressive’ was later replaced by the shift to ‘subjective’ (Traugott 1995a). In either way, the original direction is still recognized in many examples of pragmaticalization in different languages. So, it is regarded as an index of the general direction of pragmaticalization in this study.

Chapter 2 . In McCawley (1988) to and and are both called conjunctions. Strictly speaking, while the English and is a conjunction which links NPs and VPs, the Japanese to is usually considered a particle which links only NPs. . In Kuno (1978a), the connective particles node and noni are exemplified. Kedo belongs to the same group as these particles since it is attached to a verb and is a clause-final connective device. This device seems the original element of the conjunction dakedo. . Östman (1981) who also analyzes interjections admits the ‘referring’ function of interjections, quoting James (1973). . Now we see a similar historical approach in Brinton (1996).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.3 (221)

Notes 

Chapter 3 . Demo and dakedo fall into this category, adversative conjunctions. In Present Day Japanese, other conjunctions such as shikashi, keredomo, ga and daga are also members of this category. Of these, conjunctions which appeared earlier in the history of Japanese and are still in wide use in today’s written text have tended to draw primary attention from grammarians. Shikashi which first appeared in the 12th century and keredomo in the 17th century are such conjunctions. . Among the contrasting functions, referential contrast and pragmatically inferable contrast do not co-occur in a pair contrasting two pieces of information. . In addition to Traugott’s claim, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26), which is the base for Traugott’s functional-semantic model, also state that their ideational component is concerned not only with logical relations but with something more. . This Levinson’s category includes both what is said and what is implicated. Based on Grice (1975), what is implicated is divided into conventional implicature and nonconventional implicature which is then divided into more specific categories (Levinson 1983: 131–132). . Referential and pragmatically inferable contrasts are basic; however, it is not obligatory for functional contrast and contrastive actions to be accompanied by these basic contrasts. In (3.4), for example, we will see a case of contrastive action not accompanied by a referential or pragmatically inferable contrast. . The finding of this nested functional structure is due to Schiffrin’s (1982a: 10) analysis of nested paraphrase. Although paraphrase is her focus in that paper, in her example of a nested paraphrase, it is noticed that ‘but’ used in the outer paraphrase seems to subordinate the inner paraphrase which is intervening discourse. This example gave me a hint in understanding the nested functional structure. . Associated with cooperative and uncooperative transitions, Schiffrin (1987: 174) distinguishes two locations where a transition occurs: “transition space entry” and “nontransition space”. . In the transcript, “indicate(s) second utterance latched onto first, without perceptible pause” (Tannen 1984: xix). . In English conversation, ‘so’ works in a parallel way to demo, which opens the conversation in (11) and (12) (Schiffrin p.c.). . Tokorode conveys the equivalent meaning of the English “by the way”, and it is mainly used in written or planned (Ochs 1979) spoken Japanese today. . Tokorode seems to occur more frequently in written text. The user of this conjunction in the corpus is a male middle-class office worker in his 50s. . I do not mean that the use of demo/dakedo is obligatory to change topics. It is possible to change a topic without using any conjunction. . Ne is a sentence-final particle which will be examined in a later chapter. Semantically this particle does not add anything extra. Therefore, I treat demo + ne as a propositional equivalent to demo here.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.4 (222)

 Notes

Chapter 4 . As stated in (1.2.1.3), this language model is still useful in examining functions of language. Another diachronic study which employs the same model is Brinton (1996). . Among da-, desu-, and degozaimasu- styles, da- style is called ‘ordinary’ style. Desu style marks ‘polite’ style, then degozaimasu style the most polite (formal) style. . Mio (1995: 209) lists the conjunctions formed based on da as follows: Dakara,soredakara, dakedo, dakedomo, dakeredo, dakeredomo, daga, danoni, soredanoni,dattara, datositara, datosuruto, datte, damonde, damondakara. Most of these conjunctions are prefaced by da. In Onodera (2000), I called them demo type connectives. . National Language Studies (Kokugogaku) is a branch in the study of Japanese language with a long history. For instance, the grammar taught in school in Japan is mainly influenced by Kokugogaku. . The S in parentheses designates an omitted subject. . As for the importance of the difference in Japanese of West and East, I owe a great deal to an anonymous reader and Prof. Akio Tanaka’s comments. . In this book, I show the updated and corrected data analysis. In my earlier works, part of description was based on the analysis of Japanese from the 8th century through today. Such analysis captures the whole history of written Japanese, but it would overlook the separate evolutions of Japanese language of East and West Japan. . As to the first appearance of kedo, Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) (1981) also documents the excerpt (10) as one such example (cf. also Uchio & Okamura 1973). . This first appearance is reported in Yuzawa (1970b: 505) and Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.) (1981). . Aoki (1973) also reports the first appearance of dakedo in the Taishoo era. Regarding the ‘first appearance’ of an item, Aoki (1973: 210) states that it is not something which provides strong evidence for “no existence of the item in the preceding time stages”. Her ‘first appearance’ rather means “the emergence of the item is first recognized in that time stage” (Ibid.). I basically agree with Aoki’s treatment of the term. The reason for this is that it seems almost impossible for anybody to obtain exactly the first use of an item both in written and spoken language. . The ratios of the instances of dakedo with only the ideational and textual functions and the instances of dakedo also with the expressive function (2) do not change when comparing the Taishoo Japanese with Present Day Japanese. In both time periods, 1/5 of instances of dakedo belong to group (1), and the remaining 4/5 belong to (2). In sum, by the Taishoo era, already, a larger percentage of the instances of dakedo bears the expressive function. . Studies of discourse analysis emerged in the 1960s (van Dijk 1990). Thus the discourse functions of Japanese conjunctions have been unveiled only recently. However, despite the fact that we came to know the discourse functions of language only within the last four decades, conjunctions, for example, seem to indeed have been in use as discourse markers for a long period without having been documented. Demo, for instance, seems to have been in use as a marker since the 18th century.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.5 (223)

Notes  . When this tendency was first proposed, it was associated with the process of grammaticalization. However, in her later works Traugott enlarged the domain which this tendency involves: from only grammaticalization to include other types of lexical changes. . As mentioned before, “propositional” function in Traugott’s work has been argued as “ideational” function in this study. . This direction was also first associated only with grammaticalization (Traugott 1982). However, other kinds of meaning shift are now also considered to pursue this direction. . I would suggest that this kind of shift first take place in spoken language rather than in written language. . In Japanese, the equivalent expression to ‘It rained’ is Ame ga futta (‘Rain SB fell’). In this structure, futta (fell) is the predicate. . De in demo is a -te gerundive form of the verb da, as already explained in (4.1). As an inflected form of da, it is assumed that de also bears the replacement function. . These conjunctions were also formed relatively recently: Daga and dakara first appeared in the Edo period (1603–1867), datte in the Meiji period (1868–1912), and denakereba in the Shoowa period (1926–1988) (Aoki 1973). If the conjunctive expressions not yet considered to be proper conjunctions are also taken into consideration, there is even a larger number of items which have undergone the same process.

Chapter 5 . Later I will discuss a similar notion ‘rapport’. In this study while ‘harmony’ refers to a more general communicative situation, ‘rapport’ is used for a particular situation where ‘rapport marker’ is employed (5.6). Harmony is seen at a more global level; therefore, the correlation between the two terms is: harmony > rapport. . Meta-knowledge “concerns what speakers and hearers know about their respective knowledge” (Schiffrin 1987: 28). . One such difference is, while English has tag-questions, Japanese does not. . The following is noted to clarify my judgment of lengthened variants as emphatic. In the corpus examined (A Housewife’s One-Week Discourse Corpus), the original form ne (1 mora) and a form with another vowel, nee (2 moras), are in common and wide-spread use. I categorize lengthened forms consisting of more than three moras (nee: (3 moras), ne::e (4 moras) etc.) as emphatic use, following the phonetic designation of the transcript in the corpus. Between the lengthened vowels and the emphasized meaning, there seems a “conventionalized co-occurrence expectation” (Gumperz 1982: 131). Therefore, this phonetic variation is considered to be a “contextualization cue” (Ibid.). “Mora” mentioned just above is explained as follows. Japanese is a mora-counting language or what is called a CV-patterned language. On the other hand, English is a syllablecounting language or a CVC- patterned language. Because of this difference in phonological structure, syllabification sometimes confuses us. English street has only one syllable, while Japanese [su to ri : to] (meaning ‘street’) is perceived to have five syllabic bits. This syllabic

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.6 (224)

 Notes

bit is a mora. [Su to ri : to] consists of five moras because a lengthened vowel [i :] is counted as two mora units (cf. Ootsuka & Nakajima (Eds.) 1982: 650 and 1216–1217). . Discourse markers are theoretically defined as contextual coordinates (Schiffrin 1987: 327, see (1.2.1.4)). Contextual coordinates consist of participation and textual coordinates, i.e. markers index an utterance to local context, i.e. both participants (speaker/hearer) and text (prior/upcoming text) (Ibid.: 323). . External evaluation consists of the points the speaker makes, in a frame outside of the story (current topic) itself, which show the speaker’s stance/point of view concerning the “story” (cf. Labov 1972: 371). . ‘A sultry night’ (nettaiya) is officially (meteorologically) defined to be a muggy night when the temperature does not drop below 25 ◦ C. . I realize that the universality of Brown and Levinson’s framework of politeness itself and hence the classification of specific strategies may remain disputable. However, I myself consider their theory of negative and positive politeness to be valid in investigating politeness phenomena in many cultures, and here I apply it to argue that the notion, involvement, is identified with their positive politeness.

Chapter 6 . In the field of Kokugogaku-shi (History of National Language Studies), a dichotomy divides the flow of Japanese language into kodai-go (ancient Japanese) and kindai-go (modern Japanese). Kinsei as well as kindai are both translated as ‘modern’. It is important to clarify these terms: Kinsei Japanese refers to Japanese of Edo era which is the time of Tokugawa shogunate. On the other hand, kindai Japanese means Japanese from the late Muromachi through the present (cf. Yoshida 1974: 3; Tanaka p.c.). . I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this diversity. Related to this point, I appreciate Professor Akio Tanaka’s insightful comments and suggestions. . In the historical development of sentence-final particles, phonological alterations such as vowel gradation and vowel lengthening are reported to be common (Morita 1973). . This phonological account has usually been provided for the word formation of the na group of interjections. However, the same account is applicable to the sentence-final particles since sentence-final particles in my focus are all realized by the same sounds as the corresponding interjections. . This annotation is cited from Sumidagawa included in Yookyoku-shuu (1960. Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei 40: 391. Iwanami). . The annotation of Kanginshuu (1989: 33. Iwanami) states that noo is in especially wide use in the Muromachi ballads. This accords with the result of my data analysis. . Dachin uma are pay horses that carried people and luggage in those days (Kanginshuu. 1989: 227. Iwanami). . Noonoo is an interjection which will be examined in (6.3).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.7 (225)

Notes  . While expressing exclamation is counted as expressive function, tuning the rhythm is rather a prosodic function. . I do not know exactly the semantic reason why a period follows ‘us + GN’ in (c). The more natural interpretation would be to leave out the period here. Perhaps it is added with respect to sustaining the rhythm of the song. . In the situation where first names are used to address somebody in English, in Japanese, kinship terms such as ojoosan or obasan (in (25)), which designate social relationships, are in routine use. . It is apparent that diachronic analyses of other interjections are needed to make this suggestion a more valid hypothesis. . Maynard (1989b: 30) includes “exclamatory expressions” in ji. It seems that she includes ‘interjections’ in exclamatory expressions. At any rate, interjections are explicitly classified as ji in Tokieda’s (1950: 178) original dichotomy. . For an item to be a discourse marker, the possession of either textual or expressive function is prerequisite. Among the na group of interjections, all the roles but ‘exclamation’ have both of these functions and are thus markers. The ‘exclamation’ marker, however, is also recognized to be a marker because of its expressive function. . The viewpoint of study of discourse/conversational management would suggest this. . The shift “less to more personal” should not be interpreted “more individualized” (Traugott 1982: 253). “It should be understood that “more personal” means ‘more anchored in . . . particularly the speaker’s orientation to situation, text and interpersonal relations’.” (Ibid.) . In contrast to the sentence-final particles whose expressive function is communicationoriented, there seem sentence-final particles whose expressive function is self-oriented. . For the details of shi and ji, see the summary by Maynard (1989b) (6.4.1.). . Watanabe (1971) uses Kantoojoshika for his criterion. Kantoojoshi are the sentenceinternal particles. As seen in (6.2), kantoo is related to kandoo (emotion). If we call kantoojoshi ‘emotion markers’, Watanabe’s original criterion would be called ‘emotion markerization’. Here I employ the term ‘emotion markerness’ for Watanabe’s criterion.

Chapter 7 . The “mystery features” Brinton found in medieval texts and treated in her study (Brinton 1996) “resemble the forms identified as discourse markers in Modern English” (6). Brinton calls such mystery features (gan, anon, gelamp, bifel, hwæt, I gesse are examined in her 1996 book) pragmatic markers. . As for grammaticality of ‘conjunctions’, that there are also disparate opinions in linguistics is true. . The movement ‘postposing’ discussed here is a different category from “postpositions” (Kuno 1978a: 78) that are clearly considered typological.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/11/2004; 12:33

F: PB132NO.tex / p.8 (226)

 Notes . Postposing might be typological in that it is related to free word order. . It should be noted, however, that it is true that redundancy and repetition are pervasive in language. I think that an economical strategy like d replacement and redundancy/repetition coexist in language since they have different functions. . In terms of diachrony, the na group of interjections came from their corresponding sentence-final particles. However, the na group of sentence-final particles themselves have also remained in the vocabulary of Present Day Japanese: In Present Day Japanese, the na group of interjections and sentence-final particles coexist, which is a case of layering. . I owe this idea on the motivating force to an anonymous reader. . In addition to Huddleston’s (1984: 27) definition of “full productivity”, “a morphological process is fully productive if it can apply to all members of a large and independently definable set of (items)”, he asserts that “lexical processes are typically of restricted productivity.” If the formation of conjunctions in question here were to be fully productive, all the combinations of [de/da + any particle] need to become conjunctions: this is certainly not possible. . A suggestive comment on Grice’s theory by Fasold (1990: 128) is: “It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Grice’s theory has become the hub of pragmatics research, with various scholars either applying, extending, or attempting to refute his ideas.”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.1 (227)

References

Aijmer, Karin (1985). “The semantic development of ‘will”’. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation (pp. 11–21). New York: Mouton. Aijmer, Karin (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Akatsuka, Noriko & Sohn, Sung-Ock S. (1994). “Negative conditionality: The case of Japanese -tewa and Korean -taka”. In N. Akatsuka (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4 (pp. 203–219). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Slobin, Dan I. (1986). “A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish”. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 159–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Aoki, Reiko (1973). “Setsuzokushi oyobi setsuzokushiteki goi ichiran (List of conjunctions and conjunctive items)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Setsuzokushi· Kandooshi (Conjunctions·Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 6] (pp. 210–253). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Auchlin, Antoine (1981). “Mais heu, pis bon, ben alors voila, quoi! Marqueurs de structuration de la conversation et completude”. Cahiers de linguistique Française. Les differents types de marqueurs et la determination des fonctions des actes de langage en contexte (part 2). Unité de linguistique Française. Barnlund, Dean C. (1974). “The public self and the private self in Japan and the United States”. In J. C. Condon & M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural Encounters with Japan (pp. 27–96). Tokyo: Simul Press. Bateson, Gregory (197).2 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine. Blakemore, Diane (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. New York: Basil Blackwell. Brinton, Laurel J. (1990). “The development of discourse markers in English”. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Linguistics and Philology (pp. 45–71). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel J. (2001). “From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: the history of lookforms.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 177–199. Brinton, Laurel J. (2002). “The development of (I) say: grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or lexicalization?” Paper presented at the symposium on grammaticalization, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, March 2002. Brown, Gillian & Yule, George (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.2 (228)

 References

Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1978). “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena”. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger & Gilman, Albert (1960). “The pronouns of power and solidarity”. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, William (1974). “Japanese management: The cultural background”. In T. S. Lebra & W. P. Lebra (Eds.), Japanese Culture and Behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Brunet, Jean-Paul (1983). “L’interjection: son rôle et son impact dans une classe de français”. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40(1), 88–93. Chafe, Wallace L. (1982). “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature”. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Comrie, Bernard (1998). “Perspectives on grammaticalization”. In T. Ohori (Ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization (pp. 7–24). Tokyo: Kuroshio. Cook, Haruko Minegishi (1988). Sentential particles in Japanese conversation: A study of indexicality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. Coulmas, Florian (Ed.). (1981). Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton. Croft, William (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Östen (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. New York: Basil Blackwell. Duncan, Starkey Jr. (1973). “Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation”. Semiotica, 9, 29– 46. Durkheim, Émile (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press. Ernst, Thomas Byden (1984). “Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English”. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Fasold, Ralph W. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language (Introduction to sociolinguistics Vol. 2.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Fitzmaurice, Susan M. (2000). “Some remarks on the rhetoric of historical pragmatics”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–6. Fraser, Bruce (1988). “Types of English discourse markers”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38, 19–33. Fujii, Otoo (1938). Nihonbungaku Shi Yoo (A Historical Summary of Japanese Literature). Tokyo: Sanseidoo. Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press. Geis, Michael L. & Zwicky, Arnold M. (1971). “On invited inferences”. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 561–566. Genetti, Carol (1986). “The development of subordinators from postpositions in Bodic languages”. BLS, 12, 387–400. Givón, Talmy (1971). “Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist’s field trip”. CLS, 7, 394–415. Givón, Talmy (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.3 (229)

References 

Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goffman, Erving (1976). “Replies and responses”. Language in Society, 5, 257–313. Greenberg, Joseph H. (Ed.). (1963). Universals of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation”. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3) (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guy, Gregory, Horvath, Barbara, Vonwiller, Julia, Daisley, Elaine, & Rogers, Inge (1986). “An intonational change in progress in Australian English”. Language in Society, 15, 23–52. Haga, Yasushi (1979). Nihonjin no Hyoogen Shinri (The Psychology of Japanese Expressions). Tokyo: Chuuoo kooron-sha. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group. Hansen, Maj-Britt M. (1998). The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hashimoto, Shinkichi (1959). Kokubunpoo Taikeiron (The System of Japanese Grammar). Tokyo: Iwanami. Hashimoto, Shinkichi (1969). Joshi/Jodooshi no Kenkyuu (A Study on Particles and Auxiliary Verbs). Tokyo: Iwanami. Hayashi, Ooki & Ikegami, Akihiko (Eds.). (1979). Kokugoshi Jiten (A Dictionary of the History of the Japanese Language.) Tokyo: Tokyodoo. Hayashi, Reiko (1988). “Simultaneous talk – from the perspective of floor management of English and Japanese speakers”. World Englishes, 7(3), 269–288. Hayashi, Shiro (1983). “Nihongo no bun no katachi to shisei (The structure and modality of a Japanese sentence)”. In Danwa no Kenkyuu to Kyooiku 1 [Nihongo kyooiku shidoo sankoosho 11] (pp. 43–62). Tokyo: National Language Research Institute. Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, & Hünnemeyer, Friederike (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The Univeristy of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinds, John (1986). Japanese. London: Croom Helm. Hisamatsu, Senichi (1955). Nihonbungaku no Rekishi (History of Japanese Literature). Tokyo: The Mainichi Newspapers. Hopper, Paul J. (1977). “Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language”. NUSA, 4, 14–24. Hopper, Paul J. (1991). “On some principles of grammaticalization”. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1 (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horie, Kaoru (1998). “On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle no: From the perspectives of ontology and grammaticalization”. In T. Ohori (Ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization (pp. 169–192). Tokyo: Kuroshio.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.4 (230)

 References

Horn, Laurence R. (1984). “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Qbased and R-based implicature”. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT ’84) (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hoshina, Kooichi (1911). Nihon Koogohoo (Japanese Spoken Language). Tokyo: Waseda University Press. Huddleston, Rodney (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ide, Itaru (1965a). “Setsuzokushi (Conjunctions)”. In Koogo Bunpoo Kooza 6. Yoogo Kaisetsu Hen (pp. 293–304). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Ide, Itaru (1965b). “Kandooshi (Interjections)”. In Koogo Bunpoo Kooza 6. Yoogo Kaisetsu Hen (pp. 304–309). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Ide, Itaru (1973). “Setsuzokushi towa nani ka (What are conjunctions?)” In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Setsuzokushi Kandooshi (Conjunctions·Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 6] (pp. 45–88). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Inoue, Kazuko (Ed.). (1989). Nihonbunpoo Shoojiten (The Concise Encyclopedia of Japanese Grammar). Tokyo: Taishuukan. Jacobs, Andreas & Jucker, Andreas H. (1995). “The historical perspective in pragmatics”. In A. Jucker (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jakobson, Roman (1960). “Closing statement: linguistics and poetics”. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. James, Deborah (1972). “Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections”. CLS, 8, 162–172. James, Deborah (1973). The syntax and semantics of some English interjections. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. James, Deborah (1974). “Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints, on, oh, interjections and hesitations”. CLS, 10, 242–251. Jorden, Eleanor Harz (1962). Beginning Japanese Part 1 & 2. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jorden, Eleanor Harz with Mari Noda (1987). Japanese: The Spoken Language. Part 1. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Jucker, Andreas H. (Ed.). (1995). Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Keene, Donald (1955a). Japanese Literature: An Introduction for Western Readers. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. Keene, Donald (1955b). Anthology of Japanese Literature: From the Earliest Era to the MidNineteenth Century. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. Keene, Donald (1956). Modern Japanese Literature. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. Kitahara, Yasuo (1974). “Chinjutsu fukushi to setsuzokushi to kandooshi to (Expressive adverbs, conjunctions and interjections)”. Bungaku/Gogaku, 74, 24–38. Kitahara, Yasuo et al. (Eds.). (1981). Nihonbunpoo Jiten (Encyclopedia of Japanese Grammar). Tokyo: Yuuseidoo. Kitagawa, Chisato (1984). “Hatsugen no kaisookoozoo to ‘kotoba’ no shutaisei (Hierarchical structure of an utterance and the subjectivity of language)”. Nihongogaku, 4, 31–42. Komatsu, Hisao (1985). Edo Jidai no Kokugo: Edogo (Japanese Language of the Edo Era: Edo Japanese). Tokyo: Tokyodoo.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.5 (231)

References

Konoshima, Masatoshi (1960). Kokugo Joshi no Kenkyuu: Joshishi no Sobyoo (A Study on Japanese Particles: A Historical Sketch of Particles). Tokyo: Ofuusha. Kuno, Susumu (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuno, Susumu (1978a). “Japanese: a characteristic OV language”. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language (pp. 57–138). Austin: University of Texas Press. Kuno, Susumu (1978b). Danwa no Bunpoo (Discourse Grammar). Tokyo: Taishuukan. Kyoogoku, Okikazu & Matsui, Eiichi (1973). “Setsuzokushi no hensen (The change of conjunctions)” In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Setsuzokushi·Kandooshi (Conjunctions·Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 6] (pp. 89–136). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Labov, William (1972). “The transformation of experience in narrative syntax”. In Language in the Inner City (pp. 354–396). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, Robin (1971). “If ’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction”. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 114–149). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lakoff, Robin (1972). “Language in context”. Lg, 48, 907–927. Langacker, Ronald W. (1990). “Subjectification”. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Lehmann, Christian (1985). “Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change”. Lingua e stile, 20(3), 303–318. Lehmann, Christian (1995). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München: Lincom Europa. (First distributed in 1982 Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts, 48.) Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry J. (1981). Language Typology: Cross-Linguistic Studies in Syntax. New York: North-Holland. Martin, Samuel E. (1964). “Speech levels in Japan and Korea”. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in Culture and Society (pp. 407–415). New York: Harper and Row. Martin, Samuel E. (1975). A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Matsumoto, Yo (1988). “From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives”. BLS, 14, 340–351. Matsumoto, Yo (1998). “Semantic change in the grammaticalization of verbs into postpositions in Japanese”. In T. Ohori (Ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization (pp. 169–192). Tokyo: Kuroshio. Matsumura, Akira (1972). Kokugoshi Gaisetsu (History of Japanese Language). Tokyo: Shuuei Shuppan. Matsumura, Akira (1977). Kindai no Kokugo: Edo kara Gendai e (Modern Japanese Language: from Edo to Modern Times). Tokyo: Oofuusha. Matsumura, Akira (1998). Zooho Edogo Tokyogo no Kenkyu (‘Enlarged Edition’ A Study on Edo Japanese and Tokyo Japanese). Tokyo: Tokyodoo. Maynard, Senko K. (1989a). “Functions of the discourse marker ‘dakara’ in Japanese conversation”. Text, 9(4), 389–414. Maynard, Senko K. (1989b). Japanese Conversation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.6 (232)

 References

Maynard, Senko K. (1993). Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCawley, James D. (1988). The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Merritt, Marilyn (1976). “On questions following questions (in service encounters)”. Language in Society, 5(3), 315–357. Mio, Isago (1995). Hanashi Kotoba no Bunpoo: Kotobazukai Hen (Grammar of Spoken Japanese: Language Use). (First published in 1942, and reprinted in 1995.) Tokyo: Kuroshio. Mori, Junko (1996). “Historical change of the Japanese connective datte: its form and functions”. In N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki, & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5 (pp. 201–218). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Mori, Junko (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Morioka, Kenji (1973). “Bunshoo tenkai to setsuzokushi/kandooshi (Discourse cohesion and conjunctions/interjections)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Setsuzokushi· Kandooshi (Conjunctions·Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 6] (pp. 7– 44). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Morita, Yoshiyuki (1967). “Setsuzokushi no kinoo (Functions of conjunctions)”. Waseda University Kokubungaku Kenkyuu, 35, 14–24. Morita, Yoshiyuki (1973). “Kandooshi no hensen (The change of interjections)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Setsuzokushi·Kandooshi (Conjunctions·Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 6] (pp. 177–208). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Morris, C. W. (1946). Signification and Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Myhill, John (1988). “The grammaticalization of auxiliaries: Spanish clitic climbing”. BLS, 14, 352–363. Nagayama, Isamu (1970). “Setsuzokushi no tanjoo to hattatsu (The first appearance and development of conjunctions)”. Bunpoo, 2(12), 19–27. Nakada, Norio (Ed.) (1963). Shinsen Kogo Jiten (Dictionary of Archaic Words). Tokyo: Shoogakkan. Nakane, Chie (1970). Japanese Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nakano, Nobuhiko (1996). “Kakuninyookyuu no heijobun to shuujoshi ne: Edogo to gendaigo (Declarative sentences that claim confirmation and the sentence-final particle ne: Edo Japanese and Present Day Japanese)”. In Akiho Yamaguchi Kanreki Kinenkai (Ed.), Festschrift for Professor Akiho Yamaguchi: Kokugogaku Ronshuu (pp. 485–500). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. National Language Research Institute (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo) (1955). Danwago no Jittai (The Current Situation of Discourse Language). [National Language Research Institute report 8.] Tokyo: Shuuei Shuppan. Ochs, Elinor (1979). “Planned and unplanned discourse”. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax (pp. 51–80). New York: Academic Press. Ohori, Toshio (Ed.). (1998a). Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Ohori, Toshio (1998b). “Polysemy and paradigmatic change in the Japanese conditional marker ba”. In T. Ohori (Ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization (pp. 135–162). Tokyo: Kuroshio.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.7 (233)

References 

Oishi, Etsuko (1999). “The dichotomy between semantics and pragmatics”. Paper presented in the panel “Approaches to pragmatic meanings: Exploring the intersection of pragmatics, semantics and social interaction” at AILA ’99 Tokyo conference. Okutsu, Keiichiro (1978). “Boku wa Unagi Da” no Bunpoo (“I Am an Eel” Grammar). Tokyo: Kuroshio. Onodera, Noriko Okada (1993). Pragmatic change in Japanese: Conjunctions and interjections as discourse markers. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University. Onodera, Noriko Okada (1995). “Diachronic analysis of Japanese discourse markers”. In A. H. Jucker (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 393–437). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Onodera, Noriko Okada (1999). “Linguistic discourse approach to pragmatic meaning”. Paper presented in the panel “Approaches to pragmatic meanings: Exploring the intersection of pragmatics, semantics and social interaction” at AILA ’99 Tokyo conference. Onodera, Noriko Okada (2000). “Development of demo type connectives and na Elements: Two extremes of Japanese discourse markers.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 27–55. Ootsuka, Takanobu & Nakajima, Fumio (Eds.). (1982). The Kenkyusha Dictionary of English Linguistics and Philology. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Östman, Jan-Ola (1981). ‘You know’: A Discourse Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pagliuca, William (Ed.). (1994). Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pierce, C. (1931–1958). Collected papers. Vols. 1–8. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Plank, Frans (1979). “Exclusivierung, reflexivierung, identifizierung, relationale Auszeichnung; Variationen zu einem semantisch-pragmatischen Thema”. In I. Rosengren (Ed.), Sprache und pragmatik; Lunder symposium 1979. Lund: Gleerup. Polanyi, Livia (1978). “False starts can be true”. BLS, 4, 628–639. Prince, Ellen F. (1981). “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information”. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press. Ramat, Anna Giacalone & Hopper, Paul J. (Eds.). (1998). The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Riddle, Elizabeth M. (1985). “A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes ‘-ness’ and ‘-ity”’. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation (pp. 435–461). New York: Mouton. Romaine, Suzanne (1985). “Variability in word formation patterns and productivity in the history of English”. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Papers from the Sixth ICHL (pp. 451–465). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel & Jefferson, Gail (1978). “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation”. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 7–55). New York: Academic Press. Saji, Keizo (1970). “Setsuzokushi no bunrui (Classification of conjunctions)”. Bunpoo, 2(12), 28–39. Sakuma, Kanae (1952). Gendai Nihongohoo no Kenkyuu (A Study on Present-Day Japanese Language). Tokyo: Koseikaku.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.8 (234)

 References

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972). “Sequencing in conversational openings”. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979). “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 23–78). New York: Irvington. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1982). “Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences”. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (GURT ’81) (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Sacks, Harvey (1973). “Opening up closings”. Semiotica, 7, 289– 327. Schiffrin, Deborah (1982a). Cohesion in everyday discourse: the role of paraphrase (Sociolinguistic working paper 97). Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Schiffrin, Deborah (1982b). Discourse markers: Semantic resource for the construction of conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, Deborah (1988). “Sociolinguistic approaches to discourse: Topic and reference in narrative”. In K. Ferrera, B. Brown, K. Walters, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Linguistic Contact and Variation (pp. 1–28). Austin: University of Texas Press. Schleppegrell, Mary J. (1989). Functions of because in spoken discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University. Schourup, Lawrence Clifford (1982). Common discourse particles in English conversation. Working papers in linguistics 28. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics. Schourup, Lawrence Clifford (1988). “Review of discourse markers, by Deborah Schiffrin”. Lg. 64, 633–637. Schwenter, Scott A. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995). “The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English”. In A. H. Jucker (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 243–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwenter, Scott A. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2000). “Invoking scalarity: the development of in fact”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25. Scollon, Ron & Scollon, Suzanne Wong (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Shimizu, Tomio (1987). “Jodooshi, joshi no jugyoo (A class on auxiliary verbs and particles)”. In by The Editorial Department of Kokubungaku (Ed.), Jodooshi to Joshi no Techoo (pp. 222–224). Tokyo: Gakutoosha. Shindo, Sakiko (1959). “Meiji shoki no shooshinbun ni arawareta danwatai no bunshoo (Discourse style which appears in early Meiji newspapers)”. In Kotoba no Kenkyuu (pp. 57–70). Tokyo: National Language Research Institute. Shindo, Sakiko (1973). “Setsuzoku joshi (Conjunctive particles)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Joshi (Particles) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 9] (pp. 171–208). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Shiraishi, Daiji, Niima, Shinichi, Hirota, Eitaroo, & Matsumura, Akira (Eds.). (1953). Koten Dokkai Jiten (Dictionary for Interpreting Classical Literature). Tokyo: Tokyodoo.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.9 (235)

References 

Shoogaku Tosho (Ed.). (1981). Kokugo Daijiten (Shoogakkan Japanese Dictionary). Tokyo: Shoogakkan. Shuzui, Kenji (1956). Kokubungakushi (History of Japanese Literature). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Silverstein, Michael (1976). “Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description”. In K. M. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11–55). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Sohn, Sung-Ock, S. (1996). “On the development of sentence-final particles in Korean”. In N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki, & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5 (pp. 219– 234). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre (1995[1986]). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Stein, Dieter (1985). “Discourse markers in early modern English”. In R. Eaton et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (pp. 283–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Suzuki, Kazuhiko (1973). “Kandooshi towa nani ka (What are interjections?)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Setsuzokushi·Kandooshi (Conjunctions·Interjections) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 6] (pp. 137–175). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Suzuki, Ryoko (1998). “Grammaticalization of clause-final elements: A commentary on Iguchi’s paper”. In T. Ohori (Ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization (pp. 129– 134). Tokyo: Kuroshio. Suzuki, Ryoko (1999). Grammaticization in Japanese: a study of pragmatic particle-ization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara. Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1998). “Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization”. In A. G. Ramat & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization (pp. 229–272). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tanaka, Akio (1984 “Setsuzokushi no shomondai (Aspects of conjunctions)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Kenkyuu Shiryoo Nihonbunpoo 4 (pp. 82–123). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Tanaka, Akio (2001). Kindai Nihongo no Bunpoo to Hyoogen (Grammar and Expressions of Modern Japanese). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Tannen, Deborah (1982). “Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives”. Lg, 58, 1–21. Tannen, Deborah (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah (1987). “Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk”. Lg, 63, 574– 605. Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking Voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, Deborah (1992). “Interactional sociolinguistics”. In W. Bright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics Vol. 4 (pp. 9–12). New York: Oxford University Press. Tokieda, Motoki (1950). Nihonbunpoo Koogohen (Japanese Grammar for Spoken Language). Tokyo: Iwanami.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.10 (236)

 References

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1982 (1980)). “From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization”. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1985). “Conditional markers”. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 289–307). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1986a). “From polysemy to internal semantic reconstruction”. BLS, 12, 539–550. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1986b). “On the origins of “And” and “But” connectives in English”. Studies in Language, 10(1), 137–150. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1988a). “Is internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction possible?” In C. Duncan-Rose & T. Vennemann (Eds.), On language: Rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica (pp. 128–144). New York: Routledge. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1988b). “Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization”. BLS, 14, 406–416. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). “On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change”. Lg, 65, 31–55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1990). “From less to more situated in language: The unidirectionality of semantic change”. In S. M. Adamson, V. Law, N. Vincent, & S. M. Wright (Eds.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (pp. 497–517). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995a). “Subjectification in grammaticalization.” In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995b). “The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization.” Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995. (http://www.stanford.edu/∼traugott/ traugott.html) Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1999). “The role of pragmatics in semantic change.” In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. II (pp. 93–102). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association (IPrA). Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2002). “Exaptation: a counterexample to grammaticalization?” Paper presented at the symposium on grammaticalization, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, March 2002. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. (1987). “On the historical relation between mental and speech act verbs in English and Japanese”. In A. G. Ramat, O. Carruba, & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the Seventh ICHL (pp. 561–573). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (Eds.). (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization. 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.11 (237)

References 

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard (1991 “The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited”. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization Vol. 1 (pp. 189–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tsukahara, Tetsuo (1968). “Setsuzokushi (Conjunctions)”. Bunpoo, 1(1), 39–43. Tsukahara, Tetsuo (1970). “Setsuzokushi: sono kinoo no tokushusei (Conjunctions: the peculiarity of their functions)”. Bunpoo, 2(12), 10–8. Uchio, Kumi (1973). “Joshi no hensen (The changes of particles)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Joshi (Particles) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 9] (pp. 69–106). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Uchio, Kumi & Okamura, Kazue (1973). “Joshi sooran (List of particles)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Joshi (Particles) [Hinshibetsu Nihonbunpoo Kooza 9] (pp. 249–288). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Uhlenbeck, Eugenius M. (1981). “Productivity and creativity”. In H. Geckeler, B. SchliebenLange, J. Trabant, & H. Weydt (Eds.), Logos Semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugeno Coseriu (pp. 165–174). New York: Walter de Gruyter. van Dijk, Teun A. (1979). “Pragmatic connectives”. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456. van Dijk, Teun A. (1990). “The future of the field: Discourse analysis in the 1990s”. Text, 10, 133–156. Warner, Richard G. (1985). Discourse Connectives in English. New York: Garland. Watanabe, Minoru (1971). Kokugo Koobunron (A Study on Japanese Sentence Structure). Tokyo: Hanawa Shoboo. Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (Eds.). (2002). New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yamada, Yoshio (1908). Nihonbunpooron (A Study on Japanese Grammar). Tokyo: Hoobunkan. Yamaguchi, Gyoji (1984). “Kandooshi/kantooshi/ootooshi (Interjections, interpolations, responses)”. In K. Suzuki & O. Hayashi (Eds.), Kenkyuu Shiryoo Nihonbunpoo 4 (pp. 125–157). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Yanagida, Seiji (1985). Muromachi Jidai no Kokugo (Japanese Language of the Muromachi Period). Tokyo: Tokyodoo. Yasuda, Kiyomon (1928). Kokugohoo Gaisetsu (An Outline of Japanese Language). Tokyo: Chuubunkan Shoten. Yoshida, Kanehiko (1987). “Koten o yomu tame no joshi jiten (Dictionary of particles for reading classical literature)”. In The Editorial Department of Kokubungaku (Ed.), Jodooshi to joshi no techoo. Tokyo: Gakutoosha. Yoshida, Sumio (1974). “Kindaigo kenkyuu no gendankai (The current stage of studies on modern Japanese)”. In Kindaigo Gakkai (Modern Japanese Society) (Ed.), Kindaigo Kenkyuu (Studies on Modern Japanese) Vol. 1 (pp. 1–11). Tokyo: Musashino Shoin. Yuzawa, Kookichiro (1954). Edo Kotoba no Kenkyuu (A Study on Edo Language). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Yuzawa, Kookichiro (1970a). Muromachi jidai Gengo no Kenkyuu (A Study on the Language in the Muromachi Period). Tokyo: Kazama Shoboo. Yuzawa, Kookichiro (1970b). Tokugawa jidai Gengo no Kenkyuu (A Study on the Language in the Tokugawa Period). Tokyo: Kazama Shoboo. Yngve, Victor H. (1970). “On getting a word in edgewise”. CLS, 6, 567–578.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.12 (238)

 References

Text references The texts used as data for this study are listed chronologically according to the Japanese time period. (If there is an English title conventionally used for a Japanese work (cf. Keene 1955a, 1955b, 1956, etc.), the English title is also given in the parentheses following the Japanese title.) As mentioned in 1.1.4 and elsewhere, the texts before the Muromachi period and the texts written in Kamigata (Kyoto-Osaka) Japanese are analyzed as secondary information in this study.

Time period Nara (710–784) 712 Kojiki (‘Record of Ancient Matters’), ed. by Oo no Yasumaro. Kodaikayoo Shuu [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 3]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1957. 720 Nihonshoki, ed. by Oo no Yasumaro et al. Kodaikayoo Shuu [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 3]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1957. 759 Manyooshuu (‘Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves’), ed. by Ootomo no Yakamochi. Shintei Shinkun Manyooshuu. Vols. 1 & 2, ed. by Sasaki Nobutsuna. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1927.

Heian (794–1192) 905 Kokin wakashuu (‘Collection of Ancient and Modern Poems’), ed. by Ki no Tsurayuki et al. Kokin Wakashuu Hyookai, by Tani Kanae. Tokyo: Yuuseidoo. 1955. 9–10th C Fuuzokuuta. Kodai Kayoo Shuu [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 3]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1957. 1000 Makura no Sooshi (‘The Pillow Book’), by Sei Shoonagon. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1962. 1008 Genji Monogatari (‘The Tale of Genji’), by Murasaki Shikibu. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1965. 1171 Ryoojin Hishoo, ed. by Emperor Goshirakawa. Wakan Rouei Shuu/Ryoojin Hishoo [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 73]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1965.

Muromachi (1336–1573) before 1384 Jinenkoji (Noo script), by Kan’ami. Yookyoku Shuu Vol. 1. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 40]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1960. before 1432 Sumidagawa (Noo script), by Motomasa. Yookyoku Shuu Vol. 1. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 40]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1960. * Hachinoki (Noo script), by *. Yookyoku Shuu Vol. 2. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 41]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1963. (* For this work, the date of the publication and the authorship are unknown.) before 1520 Arashiyama (Noo script), by Konparu Zenpoo. Yookyoku Shuu Vol. 2. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 41). Tokyo: Iwanami. 1963.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.13 (239)

References 

1518 Kanginshuu, ed. by *. Shintei Kanginshuu. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1989. (* The authorship is unknown.)

Edo (1603–1867) 1694 Kooshoku denju, by Kojima Hikojuuro. In Tokugawa jidai Gengo no Kenkyuu, by Yuzawa Kookichiro. Tokyo: Kazama Shoboo. 1970. 1713? Keisei sando gasa, by Kino Kaion. In Tokugawa jidai Gengo no Kenkyuu, by Yuzawa Kookichiro. Tokyo: Kazama Shoboo. 1970. 1732 Chuushin kana tanzaku, by Namiki Soosuke et al. In Tokugawa jidai Gengo no Kenkyuu, by Yuzawa Kookichiro. Tokyo: Kazama Shoboo. 1970. 1758 Sanjikkoku yofune no hajimari, by Namiki Shozo. Kabuki Meisakushuu Vol. 1, by Kawatake Shigetoshi. [Hyooshaku Edobungaku Soosho Vol. 5]. Tokyo: Koodansha. 1970. 1768–1769 Yuushihoogen, by Inakaroojin Tadanojijii. Kibyooshi/Sharebon Shuu. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 59]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1958. 1770 Tatsumi no sono, by Muchuusanjin Negoto Sensei. Kibyooshi/Sharebon Shuu. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 59]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1958. 1772 Niwaka dooshin. Kanokomochi, by Kimuro Booun. Kobanashibon Shuu. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1987. 1775 Kake suzuri. Hanaegao, by Ryuunisai Monshu. Kobanashibon Shuu. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1987. 1777 Geisha yobu kodori, by Tanishi Kingyo. Tokugawa Bungei Ruijuu 5: Sharebon. Tokyo: Kokusho kankoo kai. 1970. 1784 Futsukayoi oosakazuki, by Banshoo Teisaku. Tokugawa Bungei Ruijuu 5: Sharebon. Tokyo: Kokusho kankoo kai. 1970. 1789 Unubore kagami, by Shinrotei. Tokugawa Bungei Ruijuu 5: Sharebon. Tokyo: Kokusho kankoo kai. 1970. 1792 Kyoogen scripts. Ookura Torahiro hon: Noo kyoogen. Vols. 1, 2 & 3. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1942. 1794 Hokka tsuujoo, by Shunkooen Hanamaru. Tokugawa Bungei Ruijuu 5: Sharebon. Tokyo: Kokusho kankoo kai. 1970. 1809 Ukiyoburo, by Shikitei Sanba. [Nihon Kotenbungaku Taikei 63]. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1957. 1811–1812 Ukiyodoko, by Shikitei Sanba. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1928.

Meiji (1868–1912) 1887 Ukigumo (‘The Drifting Cloud’), by Futabatei Shimei. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1941. 1906 Hakai (‘The Broken Commandment’), by Shimazaki Tooson. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1957. 1908 Sanshiro, by Natsume Sooseki. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1938.

Taishoo (1912–1926) 1917 Ude Kurabe, by Nagai Kafuu. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1987.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:8/11/2004; 15:03

F: PB132RE.tex / p.14 (240)

 References

1920 Yuujoo, by Mushanokooji Saneatsu. Shinchoo Bunko. Tokyo: Shinchoosha. 1947. 1922 Anya Kooro, by Shiga Naoya. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1938.

Shoowa (1926–1988) 1929 Tade kuu Mushi (‘Some Prefer Nettles’), by Tanizaki Junichiro. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1948. 1938 Yukiguni (‘Snow Country’), Kawabata Yasunari. Iwanami Bunko. Tokyo: Iwanami. 1952.

Present Day Japanese recorded conversations 1984 Shufu no Isshuukan no Danwa Shiryoo (A Housewife’s One-week Discourse Corpus), S. Ide, S. Ikuta, A. Kawasaki, M. Hori, & H. Haga (Eds.). The Japanese Ministry of Education Grant Publication. 1987–1989 tape-recorded and transcribed conversations.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 11:37

F: PB132NI.tex / p.1 (241)

Name index

A Aijmer 13, 216 Akatsuka 4 Aksu-Koç 216 Aoki 104, 119, 212, 222, 223 Auchlin 37

B Barnlund 124, 125 Bateson 152 Blake 45, 205 Blakemore 32 Brinton 4, 42, 202, 203, 218–220, 222, 225 Brown, Gillian 38, 130 Brown, Penelope 58, 63, 152–154, 224 Brown, Roger 58, 139 Brown, William 126 Brunet 37

C Chafe 36, 152 Claudi 2, 200 Comrie 219 Cook 16, 37 Coulmas 36 Croft 8

D Dahl 215, 216 Dasher 2, 3, 38, 40, 189, 190, 200 Diewald 200 Duncan 130 Durkheim 152

E Ernst 201

F Fasold 11, 226 Fitzmaurice 11, 42 Fraser 201, 203 Fujii 11, 21

G Gazdar 13 Geis 215 Genetti 39 Gilman 58, 139 Givón 41 Goffman 16, 63, 64, 120, 152, 210 Greenberg 8, 43, 206 Grice 3, 60, 215, 217, 221, 226 Gumperz 152, 223 Guy 39, 188

H Hünnemeyer 2, 200 Haga 124–126 Halliday 15, 17, 60, 85, 106, 112, 174, 183, 221 Hansen 13 Hasan 15, 17, 60, 85, 106, 112, 174, 183, 221 Hashimoto 46, 168 Hayashi, Ooki 21, 45, 102 Hayashi, Reiko 124, 125 Hayashi, Shiro 7, 208–210 Heine 2, 200, 219

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 11:37

F: PB132NI.tex / p.2 (242)

 Name index

Hinds 54, 88, 206, 207 Hisamatsu 21 Hopper 2, 187, 200, 202, 204 Horie 4, 11 Horn 215 Hoshina 53, 124, 184, 190 Huddleston 67, 211, 226 I Ide, Sachiko 11, 20, 58, 81, 219 Ide, Itaru 46, 47, 53, 55, 56, 124 Ikegami 21, 45, 102 Inoue 7 J Jacobs 9, 19, 41 Jakobson 85 James 53, 54, 220 Jefferson 78, 131 Jorden 58, 88 Jucker 9, 11, 19, 41, 42 K König 14, 204 Keene 220 Kitagawa 7 Kitahara 45, 48, 49 Komatsu 10, 158, 159 Konoshima 88, 158, 168 Kuno 8, 13, 43–46, 50, 51, 67, 69, 88, 115, 160, 194, 206, 220, 225 Kuteva 219 Kyogoku 86 L Labov 224 Lakoff 31–33, 40 Langacker 42 Leech 13 Lehmann 2, 4, 14, 41, 200, 202, 219 Levinson 13, 16–18, 40, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 72, 140, 152–154, 217, 220, 221, 224 Lyons 85

M Mallinson 45, 205 Martin 27, 54, 58, 67, 88 Matsui 86 Matsumoto 4, 41 Matsumura 21, 89 Maynard 11, 36, 37, 48, 54, 126, 130, 149, 150, 160, 168, 186, 208, 214, 225 McCawley 9, 35, 43, 211, 220 Merritt 72, 73 Mio 86, 87, 222 Mori 4, 42, 214, 219 Morioka 117 Morita 47, 53, 124, 157, 161, 184, 224 Myhill 39

N Nagayama 47, 86 Nakajima 224 Nakane 124–126 Nakano 164 Narrog 11, 220 National Language Research Institute (NLRI) 5, 21

O Ochs 221 Ohori 4 Okamura 11, 100, 101, 157, 160, 168, 222 Okutsu 50–53, 56, 106, 115–119, 192, 193, 208, 213 Onodera 3, 4, 13, 14, 42, 86, 119, 187, 201, 203, 204, 214, 219, 222 Ootsuka 224 Östman 33, 34, 54, 220

P Pagliuca 2, 200 Plank 187 Polanyi 76 Prince 132

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 11:37

F: PB132NI.tex / p.3 (243)

Name index 

R Ramat 200 Riddle 211 Romaine 211 S Sacks 63, 64, 78, 131, 134 Saji 58 Sakuma 161 Schegloff 63, 64, 72, 78, 130, 131, 138 Schiffrin 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, 18, 20, 33, 35, 39, 57, 60, 63, 73, 74, 78, 81, 84, 120, 123, 133, 140, 200, 210, 211, 220, 221, 223, 224 Schleppegrell 33 Schourup 7, 16, 33, 34, 36, 54 Schwenter 42, 43 Scollon, Ron 126 Scollon, Suzanne Wong 126 Shimizu 8, 45 Shindo 89 Shiraishi 96 Shoogaku Tosho 81, 88, 102, 168, 171, 212, 222 Shuzui 21 Silverstein 15, 37 Slobin 216 Sohn 4 Sperber 42 Stein 37, 38, 55 Suzuki, Kazuhiko 53, 124, 184, 190 Suzuki, Ryoko 4, 42, 219 Sweetser 40, 42 T Tabor 4, 202–204 Tanaka 12, 58, 81, 88, 100, 103, 104, 222, 224 Tannen 3, 11, 20, 152, 154, 220, 221

Tokieda 36, 48, 49, 53, 88, 186, 187, 192, 193, 208, 214, 225 Traugott 1–4, 11–15, 24, 31, 36, 38–40, 42, 43, 55, 60, 61, 85, 106, 107, 111–114, 119, 159, 160, 185, 187–191, 197–204, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221, 223, 225 Tsukahara 46, 55

U Uchio 11, 88, 100, 101, 157, 160, 168, 222 Uhlenbeck 211

V van Dijk

32, 33, 222

W Warner 33, 36 Watanabe 47, 192–194, 208, 210, 225 Wilson 42 Wischer 200

Y Yamada 50, 53, 124, 184, 190 Yamaguchi 134 Yanagida 159 Yasuda 53, 124, 161 Yngve 129, 130 Yoshida, Kanehiko 11, 157, 160, 170 Yoshida, Sumio 224 Yule 38, 130 Yuzawa 88, 100–102, 222

Z Zwicky 215

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.1 (245)

Subject index

A address terms 138, 139, 153 adjacency pair(s) 63, 64, 72 adversative conjunction(s) 32, 57, 83, 85, 107, 214, 221 adversative meaning 25, 89, 96 agglutinating 8, 45, 46, 55 agglutination 8, 45, 55, 205, 206, 212 agglutinative language 43, 45, 55, 211 agreement 28, 34, 37 in diachronic analysis 183 in synchronic analysis 71, 124, 127–132, 137, 142–146, 151, 153, 154 amelioration 40 atmosphere sustainer 124, 148, 150, 151 attention getting 143

B back channel(s) 129–132, 134, 142, 143, 146–148, 154 frequency of 130 before new information 200 in diachronic analysis 175–178, 180, 181, 183, 190 in synchronic analysis 132–135, 142, 143, 154 ‘besides’ 201–203, 205 bracketing 16, 210 brackets (of talk) 13, 16, 118, 120, 174, 210 ‘but’ 6, 9, 32, 33, 35, 40, 57, 78, 84, 212–214

C call attention 54 in diachronic analysis 184 in synchronic analysis 124, 132, 135, 138 careful style 58 casual style 58 “cause’ 6, 212 change the topic/sub-topic 84 see also changing the topic see also sub-topic change changing the topic 81–83 chinjutsu 47–49, 193, 208 claim(ing) the floor 198, 218 in diachronic analysis 98, 99, 108–110 in synchronic analysis 73, 77, 78, 83 clause-connecting function 91, 92 communication/interaction-oriented 194, 195 conjunction(s) 5, 6, 24, 26, 31, 32, 40, 45–51, 55, 56, 197, 201, 211–214, 219–223, 226 dichotomy of Japanese conjunctions 47 frequency of 5, 6 in diachronic analysis 85–87, 100, 117, 119, 121, 159, 186, 191 in synchronic analysis 57–59, 83, 84, 123 context 3, 13, 16, 116, 142, 143, 224 context-dependent 51 contextual coordinates 16, 17, 35, 133, 142, 224 contrasting functions 58, 59, 61, 221

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.2 (246)

 Subject index

contrastive action(s) 26, 59–62, 73–75, 77–81, 83–85, 93–95, 97–99, 101, 107–111, 113, 198, 214, 221 functional contrast(s) 59–61, 63, 64, 66–69, 71, 72, 74, 83, 85, 93, 95, 97, 98, 105, 106, 109, 221 referential contrast(s) 26, 32, 59–62, 66, 68, 79, 83, 94, 95, 97, 105, 106, 109, 110, 221 pragmatically inferable contrast(s) 59–63, 71, 72, 75, 78, 81–83, 85, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 108, 221 conventionalization of (conversational) implicature(s) 12, 39, 55, 197, 214–216 conversation analysis 35 conversational implicature(s) 36, 60, 197, 214, 215, 218 copula 5, 27, 41, 47, 50, 51, 56, 86–88, 103, 114, 115, 118, 205, 212 correlation between harmony and rapport 223

D da + kedo 49, 205, 212 in diachronic analysis 88, 104, 114, 119 d(a) replacement strategy (da strategy) 50, 51, 116, 118 felicity conditions for 115, 116, 118 pro-predicate 87, 115, 120 see also replacement (function) da style 100, 103, 104 dakara 5, 6, 37, 41, 52, 86, 87, 119, 201, 212, 214, 217, 218, 222, 223 dakedo 5–8, 11, 24–26, 28, 29, 33, 43–47, 49, 50, 53, 55–61, 198, 205–207, 212–214, 218, 220–222 in diachronic analysis 85–91, 99, 100, 104–111, 113–121

in synchronic analysis 57–61, 63, 64, 66–74, 76–78, 81, 83, 84 decrease in boundness 4 see also increase in syntactic freedom degozaimasu-style(s) 87, 222 demo 1, 4–8, 11, 17, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 43–47, 50, 53, 55, 56, 192, 198, 200–207, 212–214, 218, 219, 221, 223 in diachronic analysis 85–101, 111–115, 117, 119–121 in synchronic analysis 57–63, 66, 73–84 demo and dakedo 5, 7, 28, 29, 45–47, 50, 53, 55, 56, 63, 197, 212–214, 218, 221 in diachronic analysis 85–89, 111, 114, 115, 117, 119–121 in synchronic analysis 57–61, 66, 73, 74, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84 demo type connectives 1, 4, 5, 86, 117, 119, 191, 192, 201–204, 214, 222 formation of formation 1 of denakereba 212 formation 2 of denakereba and similar conjunctions 213 deontic ‘must’ 216 diachronic analysis 4, 9–11, 21–24, 85, 90, 167, 185, 187, 192 diachronic pragmatics 41, 42 discourse analysis 7, 9, 11, 19, 20, 24, 29, 31, 43 discourse coherence 17, 28, 106, 187 discourse corpus 58, 81, 219, 223 discourse deictics 17 discourse marker(s) 1–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 16–18, 20, 24, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, 120, 123, 157, 174, 187, 200–205, 211, 222, 224, 225 definition of 16–18 sequential dependence 16

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.3 (247)

Subject index 

marking function of 211 requisites (conditions) to be a marker 18, 200 discourse particle(s) 13, 33, 34, 36 discourse/pragmatic analysis 18, 23, 24, 31 discourse/pragmatic perspective 31–38, 57 discourse-pragmatic functions 1

E Edo

10, 11, 21, 22, 134, 223, 224 in diachronic analysis 89–94, 97, 99, 100, 102–104, 157–159, 161, 164–167, 174, 180, 181, 183 Edo Japanese 10, 89, 90, 93, 100, 103, 157–159 ellipsis 50, 115 emotion markerness 194, 225 ethnography of communication 35 exclamation 49, 53, 199, 225 in diachronic analysis 161, 164–171, 173–177, 179–181, 183, 184, 189–191 in synchronic analysis 123, 127–129 expressive function 7, 15, 18, 25–28, 197–199, 208 in diachronic analysis 85, 92–94, 96, 99, 105, 107–114, 120, 121, 164, 167, 170, 173–175, 186, 187, 192–195 in synchronic analysis 59

F face 63, 67, 152 facework 126 filler(s) 5, 6, 33, 148–151 free word order 8, 45, 55, 69, 206, 226 relatively 8, 45, 69 functional structure (of discourse, of sentence) 66, 72, 187, 193, 208–211, 221

functional-semantic model of language 1, 14, 15, 24, 96, 111, 159 G genbun icchi 23 generalization 40, 202 grammaticalization 1, 3, 4, 11–14, 38, 41–43, 197, 198, 200–205, 218, 219, 223 group-belongingness/orientedness 125 group-consciousness 125, 126 group-orientation 125 H harmony 7, 34, 124–126, 130, 131, 136–138, 143, 144, 146, 152, 154, 223 Hayashi’s functional structure of a Japanese sentence 209 Hayashi’s layered-structure of utterance 209 Heian period 10, 21, 22 in diachronic analysis 88, 89 historical linguistics 9, 39 historical perspective 2, 31, 38–43 historical pragmatics 9, 19, 40–43 honorific 14, 27, 97, 189 I ideational function 15, 24–27, 48, 198, 208, 223 in diachronic analysis 85, 91–94, 111, 113, 187, 192–194 ideational > textual > expressive 24–26, 94, 96, 97, 109, 159 implicature(s) 2, 3, 12, 36, 40–41, 60, 197, 214–218, 221 ‘in fact’ 201–203 increase in scope 111, 203, 205 see also scope expansion and scope increase increase in syntactic freedom 205 see also decrease in boundness

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.4 (248)

 Subject index

‘indeed’ 201–205 initiating brackets 16, 120 integrated model of discourse 35 interactional sociolinguistics 3 interjection(s) 6–8, 22, 24, 28, 31, 35, 37, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53–56, 197, 199, 208, 210, 211, 219, 224–226 dichotomy of Japanese interjections 53, 123, 124, 180, 184 in diachronic analysis 159, 174–178, 180, 184, 186, 187, 189–193 in synchronic analysis 123, 124, 126–129, 140, 148, 153, 155 prosodic feature of 54 referent of 54 sentence equivalent 53 interpersonal involvement 29, 154 intersentential linkage 106 intersubjectification 3, 188–191 intersubjective 189–191 intersubjectivity 189, 190 intuitively made-up sentences 2 Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC) 3, 42, 43 involvement 29, 124, 132, 135–137, 152–155, 167, 173, 190, 192, 195, 224 J ja + kedo 103, 104 ji 36, 48, 49, 141, 186, 187, 192, 193, 208, 210, 214, 225 jojutsu 47, 49, 193, 208 jooruri 100, 164 K kabuki 9, 19, 25, 101, 140, 146, 164 Kamakura 10, 89, 102, 157 Kamigata copula ja 103 Kamigata Japanese 10, 11, 89, 91, 99, 101, 220 kedo 25, 49, 55, 63, 64, 66–71, 197, 198, 205–207, 212, 220, 222

in diachronic analysis 99–107 kedomo 101, 102 keredo 101–104 keredomo 87, 101, 102, 104, 135, 221 kinship terms 138, 139, 225 kobanashi-bon 92, 93, 97, 102 kokkei-bon 99, 102, 164 Kokugogaku 46, 88, 89, 124, 219, 222 kyoogen 9, 19, 22, 94–96, 157, 161, 166, 179–181

L language style (speech level) (casual or careful style) 57–59, 87 less to more personal (less personal to more personal) 12, 38, 55, 112, 114, 188, 198, 199, 225 linguistic typology 2, 8, 55 linking prior and upcoming information in diachronic analysis 175–178, 180, 190 in synchronic analysis 140, 142, 144, 147, 154 listenership 129 logical conjunctions 58 ‘look’-forms 202, 203

M marker of rapport (rapport marker) 143, 144, 147, 148, 223 markers of involvement 7, 124, 152–155 Meiji 21, 23, 27, 223 in diachronic analysis 97, 99, 102, 166, 167, 183 meta-knowledge 34, 132, 143–145, 148, 154, 223 meta-linguistic activity 80 metamessage level of interaction 29, 154 metaphor 40 mora-counting language 223 Muromachi 10, 11, 21, 22, 199, 219, 224

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.5 (249)

Subject index 

in diachronic analysis 89–91, 157–159, 161–164, 166, 169, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 180, 185 N na 199 in diachronic analysis 157–171, 174–177, 179–181, 183–193, 195 in synchronic analysis 123–127, 129–132, 138, 140, 142–146, 148, 152–155 na elements 1, 198, 199, 201, 203–205, 210, 211 in diachronic analysis 158–162, 166–169, 174–176, 179, 180, 184–193, 195 Nara period 21, 22, 220 in diachronic analysis 157, 160 naturally-occurring language 9 ne 7, 8, 24, 26–28, 33, 34, 37, 43–46, 55, 197–200, 205–207, 214 in diachronic analysis 157–160, 162, 166–169, 173–176, 183–186, 192, 194 in synchronic analysis 123–133, 135–138, 140, 142–145, 147–155 ne and na 8, 29 in diachronic analysis 157, 159, 175, 180, 192 in synchronic analysis 123–126, 129–131 ne (e) in diachronic analysis 179 in synchronic analysis 127, 132, 135, 136, 138, 142–144, 148, 150–155 ne (e) and na (a) in synchronic analysis 132, 143, 148, 152–155 ne/na 29 in diachronic analysis 159, 160 in synchronic analysis 127, 138, 144 negative politeness 152, 154

nested paraphrase 221 -nitemo 88, 92, 219 non-subjective 49, 191 non-TRP(s) 78, 98 noo kyoogen 9, 94–96 noo play scripts 90 novel(s) 9, 22, 23 O ‘oh’ 49, 53, 123 onomasiological question opening the conversation ‘or’ 35, 214, 218 other-directed (meanings) 180, 184, 189, 190 other-focused (meanings)

114, 120 73, 78–81 164, 167, 167, 184

P pejoration 40 play scripts 9, 19, 90 point-making (device) in diachronic analysis 107, 108, 110 in synchronic analysis 73, 74, 76, 83 ‘POP’ marker 76 popular ballads 19 positive politeness 152–155, 224 postposing 67, 69, 114, 206, 207, 225, 226 postpositional language 8, 35, 43, 45, 206, 207 postpositionality 43, 46, 55, 208 postpositions 8, 44, 45, 55, 206, 225 pragmaphilology 41 pragmatic connectives 32, 33 pragmatic perspective 2, 31, 57 pragmatic strengthening 202, 204, 218 pragmaticalization 1, 3, 4, 7, 11–14, 16, 24–28, 43, 46, 55, 111–114, 120, 121, 157, 159, 180, 185–191, 195, 197–199, 203–205, 210, 211, 219, 220 pragmatics 1–3, 6, 13, 40, 197, 226 presupposition 32, 52, 117, 154

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.6 (250)

 Subject index

principle of informativeness 40, 217 productive 2, 5, 211–214, 226 productivity 12, 197, 211, 226 propositional function 15, 24, 223 Q question-answer sequence(s) 63, 64, 69, 73, 74 R rapport 36, 124, 143–148, 155, 223 refutation (refute) 198 in diachronic analysis 92–99, 101, 112 reinforcement 27, 200 in diachronic analysis 175, 176, 180–183, 190 in synchronic analysis 136, 142, 153 replacement (function) 52, 87, 106, 115–119, 207, 213, 223, 226 restricted productivity 226 S scope expansion 202, 204 scope increase 4 self-directed 167 self-focus 167, 189 self-focused (meanings) 180, 184 semantic-pragmatic change 2, 3, 12, 13, 35, 39, 219 semantics 3, 13, 34 semasiological question 114 sentence-final particle(s) (SFP) 1, 36, 44, 204, 205, 207, 208, 210, 214, 224–226 dichotomy of Japanese sentence-final particles 160 in diachronic analysis 157, 159–164, 172, 174, 180, 181, 183, 186, 187, 191–195 sentence-final structure of Japanese 52 sentence-internal particle(s) (SIP) 1, 199, 204, 220

in diachronic analysis 159, 168–171, 174, 184, 186, 189, 193 sequential dependence 16 share-bon 23, 27, 94, 97, 164, 165 shared knowledge 75, 116, 140 shi 48, 49, 76, 186, 193, 208, 214 shikashi 93, 221 Shoowa 21, 23, 24, 223 in diachronic analysis 166, 167, 174, 183 in synchronic analysis 124 ‘so’ 6, 17, 212, 221 sociolinguistics 3, 9, 10, 20, 42 soredemo 87, 88, 213 sorenitemo 88 SOV language 8, 43 speaker attitude 13, 18, 19, 170, 210 speaker’s return (speaker-return) 74, 75, 77 speech acts 32, 35 spoken language 5, 6, 9, 19, 22, 23, 36, 86, 99, 102, 223 Standard Japanese 10, 89, 90, 104 stop-gap interjections 6 structural unidirectionality 3, 202 sub-topic change (changing the sub-topic) 26, 62, 82, 83, 99, 109, 110 subjectification 3, 14, 39, 148, 187–191, 199, 202, 205 subjective 39, 49, 53, 55, 167, 187–191, 199, 210, 211, 214, 220 subjectivity 47, 49, 148, 189, 193, 208 summons 199, 200, 210 in diachronic analysis 164, 168, 175–178, 180–184, 189, 190 in synchronic analysis 138, 139, 142, 143, 153 synchronic analysis 4, 12, 23, 24, 57, 123 syntactic and semantic aspects of conjunctions and interjections 2, 31, 46-54

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:10/12/2004; 13:24

F: PB132SI.tex / p.7 (251)

Subject index

T tag-like function(s) 161, 164–167, 189 tag-like marker 166 tag-like uses 164 Taishoo 21, 23–25, 222 in diachronic analysis 102, 104, 105, 107, 166, 167, 183 -te gerundive 88, 223 tenkai 47 textual function 15, 18, 26, 28, 38, 50, 56, 199, 213 in diachronic analysis 85, 93, 99, 105–107, 109, 111, 119, 120, 174–175, 184 in synchronic analysis 142 tokorode 81, 221 Tokugawa 10, 22, 89, 102, 158, 159, 224 Tokyo Japanese 10, 11, 89, 91, 99, 157 topic 62, 79, 81, 151, 221, 224 transition relevance place(s) (TRP) 78, 131, 134, 148

typological characteristics (of language) 2, 12, 31, 43, 55, 114, 187, 197, 205, 211 U unidirectional parameters 4 universality (universalness) 2, 3, 4, 202, 224 V V-te + mo 21, 198 in diachronic analysis 86, 88–92, 99, 111–114, 117 vocative 164, 175 W Watanabe’s functional structure of a Japanese sentence 193, 208 ‘well’ 6, 54 ‘well then’ 5, 6, 213 Y ‘you know’ 7, 34, 203



In the Pragmatics & Beyond New Series the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 79 ANDERSEN, Gisle and Thorstein FRETHEIM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. viii, 273 pp. 80 UNGERER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. xiv, 286 pp. 81 DI LUZIO, Aldo, Susanne GÜNTHNER and Franca ORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. xvi, 341 pp. 82 KHALIL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. x, 274 pp. 83 MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. xviii, 225 pp. 84 ANDERSEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. ix, 352 pp. 85 COLLINS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. xx, 384 pp. 86 IFANTIDOU, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. xii, 225 pp. 87 MUSHIN, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. 2001. xviii, 244 pp. 88 BAYRAKTAROĞLU, Arın and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. xiv, 439 pp. 89 ITAKURA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. xviii, 231 pp. 90 KENESEI, István and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. xxii, 352 pp. 91 GROSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. xxviii, 341 pp. 92 GARDNER, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. xxii, 281 pp. 93 BARON, Bettina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002. xxiv, 357 pp. 94 McILVENNY, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. x, 332 pp. 95 FITZMAURICE, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. viii, 263 pp. 96 HAVERKATE, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002. vi, 241 pp. 97 MAYNARD, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. xiv, 481 pp. 98 DUSZAK, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. viii, 522 pp. 99 JASZCZOLT, Katarzyna M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. xii, 388 pp. 100 JASZCZOLT, Katarzyna M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. viii, 496 pp. 101 LUKE, Kang Kwong and Theodossia-Soula PAVLIDOU (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. x, 295 pp. 102 LEAFGREN, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. xii, 252 pp. 103 FETZER, Anita and Christiane MEIERKORD (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. vi, 300 pp. 104 BEECHING, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. x, 251 pp. 105 BLACKWELL, Sarah E.: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. xvi, 303 pp. 106 BUSSE, Ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. xiv, 344 pp.

107 TAAVITSAINEN, Irma and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. viii, 446 pp. 108 BARRON, Anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. xviii, 403 pp. 109 MAYES, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. xiv, 228 pp. 110 ANDROUTSOPOULOS, Jannis K. and Alexandra GEORGAKOPOULOU (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. viii, 343 pp. 111 ENSINK, Titus and Christoph SAUER (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. viii, 227 pp. 112 LENZ, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. xiv, 279 pp. 113 PANTHER, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. THORNBURG (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 2003. xii, 285 pp. 114 KÜHNLEIN, Peter, Hannes RIESER and Henk ZEEVAT (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 2003. xii, 400 pp. 115 KÄRKKÄINEN, Elise: Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. 2003. xii, 213 pp. 116 GRANT, Colin B. (ed.): Rethinking Communicative Interaction. New interdisciplinary horizons. 2003. viii, 330 pp. 117 WU, Ruey-Jiuan Regina: Stance in Talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. 2004. xvi, 260 pp. 118 CHENG, Winnie: Intercultural Conversation. 2003. xii, 279 pp. 119 HILTUNEN, Risto and Janne SKAFFARI (eds.): Discourse Perspectives on English. Medieval to modern. 2003. viii, 243 pp. 120 AIJMER, Karin and Anna-Brita STENSTRÖM (eds.): Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. 2004. viii, 279 pp. 121 FETZER, Anita: Recontextualizing Context. Grammaticality meets appropriateness. 2004. x, 272 pp. 122 GONZÁLEZ, Montserrat: Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. The case of English and Catalan. 2004. xvi, 410 pp. 123 MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina and María Elena PLACENCIA (eds.): Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. 2004. xvi, 383 pp. 124 VINE, Bernadette: Getting Things Done at Work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. 2004. x, 278 pp. 125 LERNER, Gene H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation. 2004. x, 302 pp. 126 WU, Yi’an: Spatial Demonstratives in English and Chinese. Text and Cognition. 2004. xviii, 236 pp. 127 BRISARD, Frank, Michael MEEUWIS and Bart VANDENABEELE (eds.): Seduction, Community, Speech. A Festschrift for Herman Parret. 2004. vi, 202 pp. 128 CORDELLA, Marisa: The Dynamic Consultation. A discourse analytical study of doctor–patient communication. 2004. xvi, 254 pp. 129 TABOADA, María Teresa: Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. 2004. xvii, 264 pp. 130 HALMARI, Helena and Tuija VIRTANEN (eds.): Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach. viii, 244 pp. + index. Expected Winter 2004-2005 131 JANOSCHKA, Anja: Web Advertising. New forms of communication on the Internet. 2004. xiv, 230 pp. 132 ONODERA, Noriko O.: Japanese Discourse Markers. Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. 2004. xiv, 251 pp. 133 MARNETTE, Sophie: Speech and Thought Presentation in French. Concepts and strategies. xii, 357 pp. + index. Expected Spring 2005 134 SKAFFARI, Janne, Matti PEIKOLA, Ruth CARROLL, Risto HILTUNEN and Brita WÅRVIK (eds.): Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. xi, 399 pp. + index. Expected Spring 2005

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers website, www.benjamins.com

Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic And Diachronic Discourse Analysis (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Markers in Native And Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Constraints in Discourse 2 (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

South Slavic Discourse Particles (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Constraints in Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 172)

Connectives As Discourse Landmarks (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew discourse markers (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Verbal Aspect in Discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond)

The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers

Style Shifting in Japanese (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Essential Medical English Discourse Markers

Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Perspectives on English: Medieval to Modern (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis (Continuum Discourse)

Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese

Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Gender and Discourse (Sage Studies in Discourse)

Political Discourse Analysis

Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Critical discourse analysis

Discourse Analysis: An Introduction

Discourse of Blogs and Wikis (Continuum Discourse)

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic And Diachronic Discourse Analysis (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Markers in Native And Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Constraints in Discourse 2 (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

South Slavic Discourse Particles (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Constraints in Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 172)

Connectives As Discourse Landmarks (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew discourse markers (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Verbal Aspect in Discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond)

The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers

Style Shifting in Japanese (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Essential Medical English Discourse Markers

Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Perspectives on English: Medieval to Modern (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis (Continuum Discourse)

Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese

Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Gender and Discourse (Sage Studies in Discourse)

Political Discourse Analysis

Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Critical discourse analysis

Discourse Analysis: An Introduction

Discourse of Blogs and Wikis (Continuum Discourse)

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Recommend Documents