1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 25, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The English discourse marker and the Japanese discourse marker have been commonly claimed to give a reason or justification to the preceding utterance, and therefore, these two expressions are regarded as the equivalent translation counterparts to each other. This paper first attempts to propose that such an equated account is motivated by these two discourse markers constructing a similar inferential schema involved in the interpretation of the utterance including them. In fact, and make manifest similar polyfunctions according to the syntactic position although they encode different lexical information. This is because these two discourse markers are indicators that contribute to the inferential phase of communication by various degrees of modulation of a cognitive gap between two different assumptions. Another aim of this paper is to differentiate a procedural constraint these two indicators encode on the interpretation of the utterance.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17028.ots
2019-11-25
2024-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.17028.ots
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blakemore, Diane
    1996 Are apposition markers discourse markers?Journal of Linguistics32, 325–347. doi:  10.1017/S0022226700015917
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015917 [Google Scholar]
  2. 1997 Restatement and exemplification: A relevance theoretic re-assessment of elaboration. Pragmatics & Cognition5(1), 1–19. doi:  10.1075/pc.5.1.04bla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.5.1.04bla [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, Diane
    2002 Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2004 Discourse markers. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 221–240. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470756959.ch10
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    2002 Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  6. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14. 383–398. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  7. 1996 Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics6(2). 167–190. doi:  10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  8. 1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31. 931–952. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fretheim, Thorstein
    2001 In defence of monosemy. In Németh T. Enikő & Károly Bibok (eds.), Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning, 79–115. Oxford: Elsevier. doi:  10.1075/tsl.22
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.22 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hasunuma, Akiko
    1995 Danwa setuzoku go datte ni tuite (On the discourse conjunction datte). Himeji Dokkyo Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyo4. 265–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 1997 Datte to demo – Toritate to setuzoku no kankei (Datte and demo: Correlation between designation and connection). Himeji Dokkyo Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyo6. 197–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    2006 Japanese (Revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/loall.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.17 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kato, Yoko
    2010 Hanashi Kotoba ni okeru Inyou Hyougen (Quote representations in spoken language). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Lewis, Diana M.
    2007 From temporal to contrastive and causal: The emergence of connective after all. In Agnès Celle & Ruth Huart (eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks, 89–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.161.09lew
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.161.09lew [Google Scholar]
  15. Matsumoto, Yo
    1988 From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. Berkeley Linguistic Society14. 340–351. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1773
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1773 [Google Scholar]
  16. Maynard, Senko K.
    1993 Kaiwa bunseki (Conversation analysis). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 Joi no gengogaku (Linguistics of emotion). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Mori, Junko
    1994 Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics4. 147–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Murillo, Silvia
    2004 A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics36. 2059–2068. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ohori, Toshio
    2002 Ninchi gengogaku (Cognitive linguistics). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2005 Nihongo no bunpoka kenkyu ni atatte – Gaikan to rironteki kadai (On the studies of the grammaticalization of Japanese – Overview and theoretical task). Nihongo no Kenkyu1(3). 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Oki, Yuko
    1996 Taiwagata setuzokushi ni okeru shoryaku no kikou to gyakusetu – datte to nazenara, demo – (The mechanism of deletion and contradiction in interactive conjunctions – datte to nazenara, demo –). In Osamu Nakajo (ed.), Ronshu kotoba to kyouiku (Essays: Language and education), 97–111. Tokyo: Izumi Shoin.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 2006 Nihongo danwa ron (The theory of Japanese discourse). Tokyo: Izumi Shoin.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Otsu, Takahiro
    2018 Multifuctionality of ‘after all’: A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics134. 102–112. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    [1986]1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90057‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90057-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Tada, Tomoko
    2012 Fukujoshi no gainen to toritatejoshi no gainen (The concepts of adverbial particles and focus particles). Aoyama Gobun42. 69–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Takiura, Masato
    2003 Datte no goyouron: Enzanshi ga oshieru mono (Pragmatics of datte: What operators tell). Gekkan Gengo32(3). 33–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Tanaka, Hiroaki
    1997 In other words and conversational implicature. Pragmatics7. 367–387. doi:  10.1075/prag.7.3.04tan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.3.04tan [Google Scholar]
  30. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1997 The discourse connective after all: A historical pragmatic account. Paper presented at theSixteenth International Congress of Linguists, Paris, July 1997.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2004 Historical pragmatics. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 539–561. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470756959.ch24
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wilson, Deirdre
    2011 The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
     https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 Handout 5: Semantics, pragmatics and the conceptual-procedural distinction. GIST (Generative Initiatives in Syntactic Theory, Wilson Seminar). University of Gent. November 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Yamada, Daisuke
    2006 Datte no imiron (The semantics of datte). Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the Pragmatics Society, 129–136.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. BNC = The British National Corpus
    BNC = The British National Corpus scnweb.jkn21.com
  36. WB = Wordbanks
    WB = Wordbanks scnweb.jkn21.com
  37. Women = Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (ed.) 1998 Josei no kotoba – Shokuba hen (Women’s Language: Office edition). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Men = Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (ed.) 2002 Dansei no kotoba – Shokuba hen (Men’s Language: Office edition). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17028.ots
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): after all; cognitive gap; datte; higher-level explicature; modulation; procedural constraint

Most Cited

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