1887
Volume 19, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study examines the diachronic development of the Japanese discourse marker ‘so’ from the perspective of grammaticalization with a special focus on the role of discursive strategy in its semantic-pragmatic meaning change. Stemming from the adverbial phrase ‘because it is so’, originally emerged as a causal connective that introduces a consequence. Subsequently, it gained several non-causal uses, i.e. the point-making use that refers back to what has been said or inferable in the discourse to stress the point that the speaker has been trying to make, the point-clarification use that points out that the preceding interlocutor’s statements need more elaboration, and the point-denying use that indicates the speaker’s opposition to the interlocutor’s claim. Among the new non-causal uses, it is found that the point-making use emerged from the retrospective use of causality as a result of employing the discourse strategy of justification in argumentative discourse, while the point-clarification and the point-denying uses arose due to its use as a device for delaying disagreement. It is argued that these new uses developed because the expression was repeatedly used for these two discourse strategies and over time the readings associated with these contexts became conventionalized and turned into the expression’s encoded meaning. This low-level generalization seems to better explain the process of grammaticalization than the high-level generalization of (inter)subjectivity for the developments of .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00022.tan
2018-10-10
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. A.Nakano, Mitsutoshi & Maeda, Ai & Jibō, Kazuya (eds.) 2000Sharebon, kokkeibon, nijōbon [Pleasure-quarter stories, humorous stories, and sentimental stories]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. B.Aozora bunko [Blue sky library]: www.aozora.gr.jp (Last accessed2016-07-22.)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. C.Denshi bungei-kan [The Japan P.E.N. club digital library]: bungeikan.jp/international/ (Last accessed2016-07-22.)
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Altenberg, Bengt
    1984 Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica38(1). 20–69.10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1984.tb00734.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1984.tb00734.x [Google Scholar]
  5. 2002 Concessive connectors in English and Swedish. InHasselgård, Hilde & Johansson, Stig & Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 21–43. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004334250_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334250_003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel, Mira
    1988 Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics12(5–6). 567–600.10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90049‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90049-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. 1998 Discourse markers and form-function correlations. InJucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 223–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.57.12ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.12ari [Google Scholar]
  8. 2001 Accessibility in text and text processing. InSanders, Ted & Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  9. Baba, Toshiomi
    2005 Gyakusetsu no setsuzokushi/setsuzoku goku [On the adversative connectives]. InThe National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (ed.), Zasshi “Taiyō” ni yoru kakuritsuki gendaigo no kenkyū [Research on the formative era of contemporary Japanese based on the Taiyo Corpus], 173–191. Tokyo: Hakubunkan Shinsha.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne
    2000Usage based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
    2012Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cook, Haruko Minegishi
    1990 An indexical account of the Japanese sentence-final particle no. Discourse Processes13(4). 401–439.10.1080/01638539009544768
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544768 [Google Scholar]
  14. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A.
    2000 Concessive patterns in conversation. InCouper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  15. Degand, Liesbeth & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline
    2015 Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?: More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics16(1). 59–85.10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg [Google Scholar]
  16. Detges, Ulrich
    2006 From speaker to subject: The obligatorization of the Old French subject pronouns. InAndersen, Hanne Leth & Birkelund, Merete & Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (eds.), La linguistique au coeur. Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus: Mélanges offerts à Lene Schøsler à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire [Linguistics in the heart. Verbal valence, grammaticalization and corpus: A collection of papers in honor of Lene Schøsler on the occasion of her 60th birthday] (University of Southern Denmark Studies in Literature 48), 75–103. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Diessel, Holger
    2014Usage-based linguistics. Oxford University Press. (www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0068.xml) (Accessed2015-12-24.)10.1093/obo/9780199772810‑0068
    https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0068 [Google Scholar]
  18. Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja
    2011 Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. InSiemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 23–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238068.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238068.23 [Google Scholar]
  19. Doi, Yōichi
    1984 -keredomo [but]. InMatsumura, Akira (ed.), Kotengo/gendaigo joshi jodōshi shōsetsu [Classical/Modern Japanese summary of particles and auxiliaries], 5th edn., 415–420. Tokyo: Gakutōsha.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fitzmaurice, Susan
    2004 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies6(4). 427–448.10.1177/1461445604046585
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046585 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ford, Cecilia E.
    1993Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554278
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2000 The treatment of contrasts in interaction. InCouper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 283–311. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.3.283
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ford, Cecilia E. & Mori, Junko
    1994 Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: A cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics4(1). 31–61.10.1075/prag.4.1.03for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.1.03for [Google Scholar]
  24. Gohl, Christine
    2000 Causal relations in spoken discourse: Asyndetic constructions as a means for giving reason. InCouper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 83–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.1.83
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.1.83 [Google Scholar]
  25. Günthner, Susanne
    2000 From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. InCouper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 439–468. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.4.439
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.439 [Google Scholar]
  26. Habein, Yaeko Sato
    1984The history of the Japanese written language. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hasunuma, Akiko
    1991 Taiwa ni okeru “dakara” no kinō. Himeji Dokkyō Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyō [The Journal of the College of Foreign Languages Himeji Dokkyo University] 4. 137–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild
    1984Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko
    2010 Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. InHeine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 401–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1988 Explanations as accounts: A conversational analytic perspective. InAntaki, Charles (ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 127–144. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey
    2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68(1). 15–38.10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  33. Higashiizumi, Yuko
    2015 Periphery of utterances and (inter)subjectification in Modern Japanese: A case study of competing causal conjunctions and connective particles. InSmith, Andrew D. M. & Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hilpert, Martin
    2013Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  35. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?InBisang, Walter & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization?: A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InTraugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol.1, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoye, Leo Francis
    2008 Evidentiality in discourse: A pragmatic and empirical account. InRomero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente, 151–174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Im, Jae-eun
    2011The Korean discourse marker kulenikka: A panchronic study. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ito, Kiwako
    2002The interaction of focus and lexical pitch accent in speech production and dialogue comprehension: Evidence from Japanese and Basque. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jackson, Sally & Jacobs, Scott
    1980 Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech66(3). 251–265.10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jacobs, Andreas & Jucker, Andreas H.
    1995 The historical perspective in pragmatics. InJucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.35.04jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35.04jac [Google Scholar]
  42. Kamio, Akio
    1994 The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics21(1). 67–100.10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90047‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Karatsu, Mariko
    1995 A functional analysis of dewa, dakara, and shikashi in conversation. Japanese Discourse1. 107–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Katō, Kaoru
    1995 “Gen’in/riyū” o ukenai “dakara”: “Dakara” no shutai-teki sokumen no tosshutsu [“Dakara” used as “cause/reason”: Prominence of the subjective aspect of “dakara”]. Waseda Nihongo Kenkyū [Waseda Japanese Language Study] 3. 14–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kim, Ahrim
    2015 Utterance-final -ketun in spoken Korean: A particle for managing information structure in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics88. 27–54.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak
    2011 Rhetorical questions as catalyst in grammaticalization: Deriving Korean discourse marker KETUN from conditional connective. Journal of Pragmatics43(4). 1023–1041.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kitahara, Yasuo
    2000Nihon kokugo daijiten [The comprehensive dictionary of the Japanese language]. 2nd edn.Tokyo: Shogakukan.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Knott, Alistair
    2001 Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effects. InSanders, Ted & Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 127–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.8.08kno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.08kno [Google Scholar]
  49. König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter
    2000 Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. InCouper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.4.341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.341 [Google Scholar]
  50. Konishi, Izumi
    2003 Kaiwa ni okeru “dakara” no kinō kakuchō: Bunpō kinō to danwa kinō no setten [The function extension of dakara in Japanese conversation]. Shakai Gengo Kagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in Society] 6(1). 61–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Krug, Manfred G.
    2001 Frequency, iconicity, categorization: Evidence from emerging modals. InBybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 309–335. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.16kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.16kru [Google Scholar]
  52. Kyōgoku, Okikazu & Matsui, Eiichi
    1972 Setsuzokushi no hensen [Change in conjunctions]. InSuzuki, Kazuhiko. & Hayashi, Ōki (eds.), Hinshibetsu Nihon bunpō kōza [Japanese grammar lecture on parts of speech], 89–136. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lang, Ewald
    2000 Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s three-level approach. InCouper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 235–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219043.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lehmann, Christian
    1985 Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile20(3). 303–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lewis, Diana M.
    2003 Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course. Invan der Wouden, Ton & Foolen, Ad & Van de Craen, Piet (eds.), Particles (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16), 79–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. López-Couso, María José
    2010 Subjectification and intersubjectification. InJucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Maekawa, Kikuko
    1997 Effects of focus on duration and vowel formant frequency in Japanese. InSagisaka, Yoshinori & Campbell, Nick & Higuchi, Norio (eds.), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech, 129–153. New York: Springer.10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑2258‑3_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2258-3_10 [Google Scholar]
  59. Matsumoto, Yo
    1988 From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. InAxmaker, Shelley & Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340–351. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 1998 Semantic change in the grammaticalization of verbs into postpositions in Japanese. InŌhori, Toshio (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 25–60. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Mauri, Caterina & Sansò, Andrea
    2011 How directive constructions emerge: Grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics43(14). 3489–3521.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Maynard, Senko K.
    1992 Cognitive and pragmatic messages of a syntactic choice: The case of the Japanese commentary predicate n(o) da. Text12(4). 563–613.10.1515/text.1.1992.12.4.563
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1992.12.4.563 [Google Scholar]
  63. 1993Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.24 [Google Scholar]
  64. 1996 Contrastive rhetoric: A case of nominalization in Japanese and English discourse. Language Sciences18(3–4). 933–946.10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00055‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00055-1 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mori, Junko
    1994 Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. InAkatsuka, Noriko (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol.4, 147–163. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1996 Historical change of the Japanese connective datte: Its form and functions. InAkatsuka, Noriko & Iwasaki, Shoichi & Strauss, Susan (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol.5, 201–218. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 1999Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 8). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.8 [Google Scholar]
  68. Nakano, Mitsutoshi & Maeda, Ai & Jibō, Kazuya
    (eds.) 2000Sharebon, kokkeibon, nijōbon [Pleasure-quarter stories, humorous stories, and sentimental stories]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Narrog, Heiko
    2015 (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences47. 148–160.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  70. Nihongo Kijutsu-bunpoo Kenkyuukai [Japanese Descriptive Grammar Research Group]
    Nihongo Kijutsu-bunpoo Kenkyuukai [Japanese Descriptive Grammar Research Group] 2003Gendai Nihongo bunpoo 7: Danwa/taigu hyogen [Modern Japanese grammar 7: Conversation/intersubjective expression]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Okamoto, Shin’ichirō & Tamon, Yasuyo
    1998 Danwa ni okeru dakara no shoyōhō [Uses of dakara in discourse]. Nihongo Kyōiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching] 98. 49–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Suzuki, Ryoko
    2014 Introduction: Situating usage-based (Japanese) linguistics. InKabata, Kaori & Ono, Tsuyoshi (eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar: Towards the understanding of human language, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.156.03int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.156.03int [Google Scholar]
  73. Onodera, Noriko O.
    2004Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.132
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.132 [Google Scholar]
  74. Ōtsuka, Mariko
    2007 Kochakugo ni okeru bun no bunpōka ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu: Nihongo/Kankokugo no riyū o arawasu setsuzokushi “dakara” “geureonikka” no imi keisei katei ni tsuite [Evolution of clause combining processes in agglutinative languages: A case of Japanese ‘dakara’ and Korean ‘geureonikka’ as causal conjunctions]. Nihon Ninchi Gengo Gakkai ronbunshū [Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association], vol.7, 182–192. Tokyo: Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984a Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InAtkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 1984b Pursuing a response. InAtkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Raevaara, Liisa
    2011 Accounts at convenience stores: Doing dispreference and small talk. Journal of Pragmatics43(2). 556–571.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.020 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ren, Li & Yi, Hu
    2010 Danwa no tenkai ni okeru “dakara” no kinō [Function of connective dakara in progressive discourse]. Kokusai Nihongogaku Ronsō [Journal of International Japanese Studies] 7. 47–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rhee, Seongha
    2015 On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement. Journal of Pragmatics83. 10–26.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  80. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis, vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  81. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey
    1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53(2). 361–382.10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  82. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  83. Schwenter, Scott A.
    1998 From hypothetical to factual and beyond: Refutational si-clauses in Spanish conversation. InKoenig, Jean-Pierre (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 423–435. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Schwenter, Scott A. & Waltereit, Richard
    2010 Presupposition accommodation and language change. InDavidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 75–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226102.2.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.2.75 [Google Scholar]
  85. Shinzato, Rumiko
    2014 From degree/manner adverbs to pragmatic particles in Japanese: A corpus-based approach to the parallel diachronic development of amari, bakari, and yahari. InTaavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H. & Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 77–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.243.07shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.07shi [Google Scholar]
  86. Smirnova, Elena
    2015 When secondary grammaticalization starts: A look from the constructional perspective. Language Sciences47. 215–228.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  87. Suzuki, Ryoko
    2011 A note on the emergence of quotative constructions in Japanese conversation. InLaury, Ritva & Suzuki, Ryoko (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, 149–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.24.07suz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.07suz [Google Scholar]
  88. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  89. Taavitsainen, Irma & Fitzmaurice, Susan
    2007 Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. InFitzmaurice, Susan & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197822.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197822.11 [Google Scholar]
  90. Taavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H.
    2010 Trends and developments in historical pragmatics. InJucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Takada, Hiroyuki & Shiina, Michi & Onodera, Noriko O.
    2011 Rekishi goyōron no kiso chishiki [Basic knowledge for historical pragmatics]. InTakada, Hiroyuki & Shiina, Michi & Onodera, Noriko O. (eds.), Rekishi goyōron nyūmon: Kako no komyunikēshon o fukugen suru [Introduction to historical pragmatics], 5–44. Tokyo: Taishukan.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Tanizaki, Kazuyo
    1994 Danwa hyōshiki ni tsuite no kōsatsu: “Dakara” o chūshin ni [An analysis of the Japanese discourse marker dakara]. Ōsaka Daigaku Gengobunkagaku [Osaka University Journal of Language and Culture] 3. 79–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1995 Subjectification in grammticalisation. InStein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  94. 2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. InRaymond, Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  95. 2008 “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. InCooper, Robin & Kempson, Ruth (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 2010a Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. InCloutier, Robert A. & Hamilton-Brehm, Anne Marie & Kretzschmar Jr., William A. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language V: Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon: Contemporary approaches, 11–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110220339.1.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220339.1.11 [Google Scholar]
  97. 2010b (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InDavidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  98. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.
    2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
    2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  100. Twine, Nanette
    1991Language and the modern state: The reform of written Japanese. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1977Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 1979 Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics3(5). 447–456.10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  103. von Mengden, Ferdinand & Coussé, Evie
    2014 Introduction: The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. InCoussé, Evie & von Mengden, Ferdinand (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Waltereit, Richard
    2006 The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. InFischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 61–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 2012 On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies. InDavidse, Kristin & Breban, Tine & Brems, Lieselotte & Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 51–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.130.03wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.03wal [Google Scholar]
  106. Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich
    2007 Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics6. 61–80.10.5565/rev/catjl.124
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.124 [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang, Chueh-chen & Huang, Lillian M.
    2006 Grammaticalization of connectives in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language and Linguistics7(4). 991–1016.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang, Yan
    2007 A functional study of the final particle mono in Japanese conversational discourse. The Linguistics Journal2(1). 162–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Yajima, Masahiro
    2011 Jikanteki/kūkanteki hikaku o jiku ni shita kinsei-go bunpōshi kenkyū: Soredakara-rui no goi-ka o rei to shite [A study of the Early Modern Japanese grammar based on time/space comparisons]. InKanazawa, Hiroyuki & Yajima, Masahiro (eds.), Kinseigo kenkyū no pāsupekuthibu gengobunka o dō toraeru ka [Perspective of the early modern Japanese language: How to recognize our language and culture], 56–82. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00022.tan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00022.tan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accessibility , disagreement , discourse marker , grammaticalization and justification
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error