1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study introduces an enigmatic construction in Japanese called ‘annotative dual-clause juxtaposition’ (ADCJ), exemplified below:


  • , , .
      who meet restaurant reserved



    Lit. ‘Hiro, (I wonder) who (he) will meet, reserved a restaurant.’

This construction is ubiquitous and yet little known even in Japanese linguistics circles. Because the matrix predicate of ADCJ cannot semantically accommodate such a component as ‘who (he) will meet’ above, this paper argues that ADCJ is parenthetical, a construct that should be recognized as an essential element of verbal communication and, in turn, a determining factor in how utterances are to be formed and interpreted. This construction is dissimilar to any other type of parentheticals hitherto reported in the literature. What is so special about it is its merger of portraying two situations through abduction and expressing the entire circumstance in a single communicative unit. For example, in the above example, the parenthetical element explains why the speaker wishes to convey the matrix statement. From an interactional perspective, the primary function of ADCJ is to highlight the speaker’s intellectual and communicative involvement in the depicted scene. This style of communication, when compared with an ‘objective’ and apathetic description, is likely to induce more earnest reactions from the hearer or reader and, consequently, promote a more favorable continuation of the conversation or reading. This paper advocates a wide-ranging examination of (Kaltenböck et al. 2011), for which detailed analyses of constructions such as ADCJ that traditional syntactic/semantic theories cannot capture are indispensable.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22020.has
2023-11-09
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akatsuka, Noriko
    1985 Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language611. 625–639. 10.2307/414388
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414388 [Google Scholar]
  2. AnderBois, Scott
    2016 Semantics and pragmatics of (not-)at-issueness in Yucatec Maya attitude reports. Semantics & Pragmatics91. 1–55. 10.3765/sp.9.19
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.19 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, Henning
    1973 Abductive and deductive change. Language491. 765–793. 10.2307/412063
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412063 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aoki, Hirofumi
    2016Nihongo rekishi tōgoron josetsu [An introduction to historical syntax in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berlin, Brent
    1974Principles of Tzeltal plant classification: An introduction of the botanical ethnography of a Mayan speaking people of Highland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay
    1969Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blakemore, Diane
    2006 Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua1161. 1670–1687. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Burton-Roberts, Noel
    2005 Parentheticals. InKeith Brown (ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, 179–182. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. InWallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261–272. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, Haruko
    1992 Meanings of non-referential indexes: A case study of Japanese sentence-final particle ne. Text121. 507–539.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kavalova
    2007 Parentheticals: An introduction. InNicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106.03deh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.03deh [Google Scholar]
  13. Deutscher, Guy
    2002 On the misuse of the notion of ‘abduction’ in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics381. 469–485. 10.1017/S002222670200169X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670200169X [Google Scholar]
  14. Emonds, Joseph
    1979 Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry101. 211–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Espinal, Teresa
    1991 The representation of disjunct constituents. Language671. 726–762. 10.2307/415075
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415075 [Google Scholar]
  16. Filchenko, Andrey
    2011 Parenthetical agent-demoting constructions in Eastern Khanty: Discourse salience vis-à-vis referring expressions. InChristian Chiarcos, Berry Claus & Michael Grabski (eds.), Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse, 57–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110241020.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241020.57 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frellesvig, Bjarke
    2010A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511778322
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778322 [Google Scholar]
  18. Güneş, Güliz
    2014 Constraints on syntax-prosody correspondence: The case of clausal and subclausal parentheticals in Turkish. Lingua1501. 278–314. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.021 [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1978Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hand, Michael
    1993 Parataxis and parentheticals. Linguistics and Philosophy161. 495–507. 10.1007/BF00986209
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986209 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hattori, Tadasu
    1992 Gendaigo ni okeru -ka no aru shu no yōhō ni tsuite [On the usage of -ka in Modern Japanese]. Tokushima Daigaku Kokugo Kokubungaku51. 57–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hirose, Yukio
    1995 Direct and indirect speech as quotations of public and private expression. Lingua951. 223–238. 10.1016/0024‑3841(94)00006‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)00006-8 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hobbs, Jerry, Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt & Paul Martin
    1993 Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence631. 69–142. 10.1016/0004‑3702(93)90015‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hymes, Dell
    1971On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva
    2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language351. 852–897. 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal [Google Scholar]
  26. Kamio, Akio
    1995 Territory of information in English and Japanese and psychological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics241. 235–264. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00064‑L
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00064-L [Google Scholar]
  27. Karttunen, Lauri
    1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy11. 3–44. 10.1007/BF00351935
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kavalova, Yordanka
    2007And-parenthetical clauses. InNicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 145–172. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106.09kav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.09kav [Google Scholar]
  29. Kinsui, Satoshi
    2015 Nihongo gimonbun no tsūjiteki, taishōgengogakuteki kenkyū [A diachronic and contrastive-linguistic study of Japanese interrogative sentences]. NINJAL Project Review5(3). 108–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kinuhata, Tomohide
    2012 Historical development from subjective to objective meaning: Evidence from the Japanese question particle ka. Journal of Pragmatics441. 798–814. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky
    1970 Fact. InManfred Bierwisch & Karl Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics: A collection of papers, 143–156. Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111350219.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111350219.143 [Google Scholar]
  32. Koda, Aya
    1956Nagareru [Floating]. Tokyo: Shinchosha.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuroda, S.-Y.
    1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language91. 153–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lagana, Domenico
    1975Nihongo to watashi [The Japanese language and myself]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Leino, Jaakko
    2010 A cognitive approach to parenthetical speech. InElzbieta Tabakowska, Michal Choinski & Lukasz Wiraszka (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back, 273–289. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226096.3.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226096.3.273 [Google Scholar]
  36. Long, Haiping, Bernd Heine & Francesco-Alessio Ursini
    2020 Prosody and formation of Modern Chinese parenthetical CTMP ni xiang ‘you think’: A conjoining pathway account. Australian Journal of Linguistics401. 369–386. 10.1080/07268602.2020.1832441
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2020.1832441 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lounsbury, Floyd
    1956 A semantic analysis of Pawnee kinship usage. Language321. 158–194. 10.2307/410664
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410664 [Google Scholar]
  38. Luke, Kang-kwong & Wei Zhang
    2010 Insertion as a self-repair device and its interactional motivations in Chinese conversation. Chinese Language and Discourse11. 153–182. 10.1075/cld.1.2.01luk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.1.2.01luk [Google Scholar]
  39. Maynard, Senko
    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]
  40. Nomura, Takashi
    1995Ka ni yoru kakari-musubi shiron [Toward a theory of kakari-musubi with the particle ka]. Kokugo kokubun64 (9). 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ochs, Elinor & Bambi Schieffelin
    1989 Language has a heart. TEXT91. 7–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Peirce, Charles
    1934Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vol.51). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Potts, Christopher
    2002 The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory201. 623–689. 10.1023/A:1015892718818
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015892718818 [Google Scholar]
  44. Prevost, Sophie
    2011 A propos from verbal complement to discourse marker: A case of grammaticalization?Linguistics491. 391–413. 10.1515/ling.2011.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.012 [Google Scholar]
  45. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ross, John Robert
    1973 Slifting. InMaurice Gross, Morris Halle & Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (eds.), The formal analysis of natural languages, 133–169. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110885248‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885248-009 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
    1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics251. 511–580. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1990The languages of Japan. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Shinzato, Rumiko
    2020 Focus-predicate concord (Kakari Musubi) constructions in Japanese/Okinawan. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at:https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.287
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.287 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stowell, Tim
    2005 Appositive and parenthetical relative clauses. InHans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Jan Koster, Riny Huybregts & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 608–617. Berin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Takamiya, Yukino
    2003 Gendai nihongo no kansetsu-gimonbun to sono shūhen [The Indirect question and related constructions in Modern Japanese]. Mie Daigaku Nihongogaku Bungaku141. 104–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2004Yara(u) ni yoru kansetsu-gimonbun no seiritsu: Futeishi gimon o chūshin ni [Origins of the indirect question construction with yara(u): Focusing on wh-questions]. Mie Daigaku Nihongogaku Bungaku151. 124–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tansman, Alan
    1993The writings of Koda Aya: A Japanese literary daughter. New Haven: Yale University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt211qwbj
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt211qwbj [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Valin, Robert
    2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  55. Vovin, Alexander
    2018Man’yōshū. book 17. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zauner, Adolf
    1902/2018Die Romanischen Namender Körperteile: Eine Onomasiologische Studie. London: Forgotten Books.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22020.has
Loading
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