1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 13, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

This paper examines the behavior of contrastive – in Japanese written discourse. While supporting its local nature (Clancy and Downing 1987), the paper argues, based on a survey of newspapers, that localness alone is not sufficient to understand the nature of contrast. It proposes that the use of contrastive – is motivated by how the writer perceives the world, or what Chafe (1994) calls ‘conscious experience’. We propose literal opposition, evaluation, association, and conflict as its main components. In the final part, the paper relates the results to the recent study on Contrastive Topic (Lee 1999, 2000, 2003), stating that the CT-approach is still unable to account for the entire range of phenomena discovered. The paper suggests that the discrepancies arise because of the fact that natural data integrates the writer’s context-specific intentions, to which priority is not given in formalistic approaches.

© 2003 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.3.04yam
2003-01-01
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.3.04yam
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Caenepeel, Mimo
    (1995) Aspect and text structure. Linguistics33: 213-253. doi: 10.1515/ling.1995.33.2.213
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.2.213 [Google Scholar]
  2. Caffi, Claudia
    (1994) Metapragmatics. In R.E. Asher (ed.), The Enchyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 2461-2466.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Chafe, Wallace
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25-55.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Clancy, Patricia M. , and Pamela Downing
    (1987) The use of wa as a cohesion marker in Japanese oral narratives. In J. Hinds , et al . (eds.), Perspectives on topicalization. The case of Japanese ‘wa’. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 3-56. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14.03cla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.03cla [Google Scholar]
  6. Cotter, Collen
    (2001) Discourse and media. In D. Schiffirn , et al . (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 416-36.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. van Dijk, Teun A
    (1985) Structures of news in the press. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse and communication. New approaches to the analyses of mass media discourse and communication. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, pp. 69-93. doi: 10.1515/9783110852141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852141 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dooley, Robert , and Stephen H. Levinsohn
    (2001) Analyzing Discourse. A Manual of Basic Concepts. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics International.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Francis, Gill
    (1989) Thematic selection and distribution in written discourse. Word 40.1-2: 201-21.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Givón, Talmy
    (1983) Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction. In T. Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language study. John Benjamins. Amsterdam/New York, pp. 3-41. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1984) Syntax: A functional typological introduction, vol 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010434 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gundel, K. Jeanette
    (1985) ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics9: 83-107. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90049‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hinds, John
    (1987) Thematization, assumed familiarity, staging, and syntactic binding in Japanese. In Hinds et al 1987, pp. Perspectives on Topicalization. The Case of Japanese ‘wa’,83-106. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14.05hin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.05hin
  14. Hinds, John , Senko K. Maynard , Shoichi Iwasaki
    (eds.) (1987) Perspectives on Topicalization. The Case of Japanese ‘wa’. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hobbs, Jerry R
    (1990) Topic Drift. Conversational Organization and its Development. In B. Doral (ed.), Conversational Organization and its Development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 3-22.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hodge, Robert , and Gunther Kress
    (1993) Language as Ideology [second edition]. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Inoue, Kazuko
    (1979) Furui jouhou atarasii jouhou [Old information and new information]. Gengo 8.10: 22-34.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1982) An interface of syntax, semantics, and discourse structures. Lingua57: 259-300. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(82)90006‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90006-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    (2002) Japanese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/loall.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.5 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kress, Gunther
    (1983) Linguistic processes and the mediation of ‘reality’: The politics of newspaper language. International Journal of Sociology of Language40: 43-57.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuno, Susumu
    (1973) The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kuroda, Shigeyuki
    (1972-73) The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language9: 153-85.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1987) A study of the so-called topic wa in passages from Tolstoi, Lawrence, and Faulkner. In Hinds , et al . (eds.), Perspectives on Topicalization. The Case of Japanese ‘wa’. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 143-61. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14.07kur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.07kur [Google Scholar]
  24. (1990) The categorical and the thetic judgment reconsidered. In Mulligan, Kevin (ed.), Mind, Meaning and Metaphysics. The Philosophy and Theory of Language of Anton Marty. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 77-88. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑0505‑4_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0505-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lang, Ewald
    (2000) Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s three-level approach. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause Condition Concession Contrast. Cognitive and discourse perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 235-256. doi: 10.1515/9783110219043.3.235
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, Chungmin
    (1999) Contrastive Topic: A locus of the interface. Evidence from Korean and English. In K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics interface from different points of view, Elsevier, pp. 317-342.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2000a) Contrastive predicates and conventional scales. In A. Okrent & J. Boyle (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society36: 243-257.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2000b) Topic, Contrastive Topic and Focus: What’s on our minds. Journal of Cognitive Science1: 21-38.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (2003) Contrastive Topic and proposition structure. In A.M. Di Schiullo (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45-371. doi: 10.1075/la.57.16lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.16lee [Google Scholar]
  30. Linell, Per , and Natascha Korolija
    (1997) Coherence in Multi-Party Conversation. Episodes and Contexts in Interaction. T. Givón (ed.), Conversation. cognitive, communicative and social perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 167-205. doi: 10.1075/tsl.34.07lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.34.07lin [Google Scholar]
  31. Longacre, Robert E
    (1996) The Grammar of discourse [second edition]. New York/London: Plenum Press. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4899‑0162‑0
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0162-0 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lyons, Christopher
    (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  33. Maynard, Senko
    (1987) Thematization as a staging device in the Japanese narrative. In Hinds , et al (1987), pp. Perspectives on Topicalization. The Case of Japanese ‘wa’,57-82. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14.04may
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.04may
  34. (2002) In the name of a vessel: Emotive perspectives in the reporting of the Ehime Maru-Greeneville collision in a Japanese newspaper. Linguistics 40.5: 1047-1086. doi: 10.1515/ling.2002.036
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.036 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mey, Jacob
    (2001) Pragmatics. An introduction. [second Edition]. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    (1987) Wa and the wh phrase. In Hinds , et al ., pp. Perspectives on Topicalization. The Case of Japanese ‘wa’,185-217. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14.10miy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.10miy
  37. Nagano, Masaru
    (1972) Bunshouron sousetsu [Introduction to the sentence structure]. Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nariyama, Shigeko
    (2002) The WA/GA distinction and switch-reference for ellipted subject identification in Japanese complex sentences. Studies in Language 26.2: 369-431. doi: 10.1075/sl.26.2.07nar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.2.07nar [Google Scholar]
  39. Noda, Naofumi
    (1996) Wa to ga [Wa and ga]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nuyts, Jan
    (1992) Aspects of a cognitive-pragmatic theory of language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Schwenter, Scott. A
    (2000) Viewpoints and polysemy: linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause Condition Concession Contrast. Cognitive and discourse perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257-281. doi: 10.1515/9783110219043.3.257
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.257 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sweetser, Eve E
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tannen, Deborah
    (1985) Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D.R. Olson , N. Torrance , A. Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, language, and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ungerer, Friedrich
    (1997) Emotions and emotional language in English and German news stories. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.), The Language of emotions, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 307-328. doi: 10.1075/z.85.20ung
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.85.20ung [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.3.04yam
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Conscious experience; Contrastive Topic; Contrastive –wa; Speaker/writer; Written discourse

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