1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 18, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

According to the received view, connective particles are characterised as “bound grammatical markers” that connect two clauses into a ‘sentence’ (Matsumoto, Yo 1988: 345). As Fukushima (2005) points out though, these conjunctions have other functions that go beyond intra-sentential usage. Utterance-final conjunctive particles have been analysed thus far, for the most part, as a type of (clausal) ellipsis or as particles that give rise to various pragmatic effects. In this paper, it is suggested that an approach to utterance-final conjunctive particles that is grounded in the notion of implicature may offer a complementary perspective on this phenomenon. The notions of “(im)politeness implicature” and “interactional implicature” are utilised in order to discuss how utterance-final conjunctive particles may trigger inferences leading to various interpersonal and interactional effects. By carefully analysing the projection and uptake of these implicatures apparent in the sequential development of interpretings conjointly co-constituted in Japanese conversation, it is argued that the analysts’ and participants’ perspectives can be better reconciled to avoid the imposition of an analysis by the researcher which is not contingently relevant to those participants. It is argued that through such an analysis the manner in which linguistic and communicative perspectives on implicature can complement one another can be explored more fully.

© 2008 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.04hau
2008-01-01
2023-03-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.04hau
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aoki, Haruo , and Shigeko Okamoto
    (1988) Rules for Conversation Rituals in Japanese. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arundale, Robert
    (1999) An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9.1: 119-154.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2004) Co-constituting face in conversation: An alternative to Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. Paper presented at the 90th Annual National Communication Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2005) Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In K. Fitch and R. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 41- 63.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Arundale, Robert , and David Good
    (2002) Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In A. Fetzer and C. Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121-150. doi: 10.1075/pbns.103.06aru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.06aru [Google Scholar]
  6. Bach, Kent
    (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy22: 327-366. doi: 10.1023/A:1005466020243
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005466020243 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2006) The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. Birner and G. Ward (eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21-30. doi: 10.1075/slcs.80.03bac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.03bac [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilmes, Jack
    (1985) “Why that now?” Two kinds of conversational meaning. Discourse Processes8: 319-355. doi: 10.1080/01638538509544620
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544620 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakemore, Diane
    (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  11. Blome-Tillmann, Michael
    (2008) Conversational implicature and the cancellability test. Analysis68: 2. doi: 10.1093/analys/68.2.156
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/68.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Burton-Roberts, Noel
    (2006) Cancellation and intention. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics12/13: 1-12.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Caffi, Claudia
    (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics31.7: 881-909. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2007) Mitigation. Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carston, Robyn
    (2002) Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2004) Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 633-656.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Drew, Paul
    (1995) Conversation analysis. In J. Smith , R. Harré , and L. van Langenhove (eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 64-79.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fukushima, Tatsuya
    (2005) Japanese continuative conjunction ga as a semantic boundary marker. Language and Communication25.1: 81-106. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2004.02.001
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fujita, Naomi
    (2001) Politeness in interaction: A discourse approach to Japanese politeness markers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.
  21. Gauker, Christopher
    (2001) Situated inference versus conversational implicature. Nous35: 163-189. doi: 10.1111/0029‑4624.00292
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00292 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grice, Paul
    (1967) Logic and Conversation. William James Lectures, Unpublished manuscript.
  23. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Haugh, Michael
    (2002) The intuitive basis of implicature: Relevance theoretic implicitness versus Gricean implying. Pragmatics12.2: 117-134.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2005) The importance of “place” in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural Pragmatics2.1: 41-68. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2007a) The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics39.1: 84-110. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2007b) Emic conceptulisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics39.4: 657-680. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haugh, Michael , and Carl Hinze
    (2003) A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics35.10: 1581-1611. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00049‑3
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00049-3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hinds, John
    (1978) Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse. In J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 79-121.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1982) Japanese conversational structures. Lingua57: 301-326. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(82)90007‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90007-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes, Janet
    (1984) Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics8.3: 345-365. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Horn, Laurence
    (2004) Implicature. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3-28.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hubbard, Mari
    (1988) Repetition and Ellipsis in Japanese Conversational Discourse: A Study of the Cognitive Domain of Conversational Interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  34. Ide, Sachiko
    (1989) Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua8.2/3: 223-248. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.223
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 [Google Scholar]
  35. Iguchi, Yoko
    (1998) Functional variety in the Japanese conjunctive particle kara ‘because.’In T. Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 99-128.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Itani, Reiko
    (1992) Japanese conjunction kedo (‘but’) in utterance-final use: A relevance-based analysis. English Linguistics9: 265-283. doi: 10.9793/elsj1984.9.265
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.9.265 [Google Scholar]
  37. Iten, Corine
    (2005) Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230503236
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503236 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kabaya, Hiroshi
    (1993) Taigū hyōgen ni okeru shōryaku [Ellipsis in polite expressions]. Nihongogaku12.9: 27-33.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kamio, Akio
    (1994) The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics21.1: 67-100. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90047‑7
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kuno, Susumu
    (1978) Danwa no bunpō [Discourse grammar]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lebra, Takie
    (1976) Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai'i.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Leech, Geoffrey
    (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Levinson, Stephen
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2000) Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalised Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Matsui, Tomoko
    (2002) Semantics and pragmatics of a Japanese discourse marker dakara (so/in other words): A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics 24.7: 867-891. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00066‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00066-2 [Google Scholar]
  46. Matsumoto, Yo
    (1988) From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers. Berkeley Linguistics Society14: 340-351.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    (1988) Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics12: 403-426. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90003‑3
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mastumoto, Yoshiko
    (1989) Politeness and conversational universals - observations from Japanese. Multilingua8: 207-221. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.207
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.207 [Google Scholar]
  49. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    (2003) Discussion note: Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics35.10/11: 1515- 1521. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00077‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00077-8 [Google Scholar]
  50. Maynard, Senko
    (1989) Japanese Conversation. Self-contextualisation through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Mizutani, Osamu , and Nobuko Mizutani
    (1987) How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Mori, Junko
    (1999) Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.8
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sidag.8 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nakayama, Toshihide , and Kumiko Ichihashi-Nakayama
    (1997) Japanese kedo: Discourse genre and grammaticalization. In: H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics Volume 6. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 607-619.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Obana, Yasuko
    (2000) Understanding Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Ohori, Toshio
    (1995) Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology. In M. Shibatani and S. Thompson (eds.), Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 201-218. doi: 10.1075/pbns.32.11oho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.32.11oho [Google Scholar]
  56. Okamoto, Shigeko
    (1985) Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  57. Okazaki, Shoko
    (1994) Ellipsis in Japanese Conversational Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
  58. Ooishi, Hatsutaro
    (1981) Hanashi kotoba to wa nani ka [What is spoken language?]. InKotoba Shiriizu12. Tokyo: Bunkachō, pp. 36-51.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Ooyama, Tetsuharu
    (1998) Poraitonesu no sutoratejī toshite no Nihongo bunmatsu hyōgen [Japanese sentence-final expressions as a politeness strategy]. In The Proceedings of the Dainikkai Shakaigengokagakkai Taikai [Second Sociolinguistic Sciences Society Conference], Kyoto University, Japan, pp. 5-10.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Potts, Christopher
    (2005) The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Sadock, Jerry
    (1978) On testing for conversational implicature. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9. Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 281-297.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Sanders, Robert
    (1999) The impossibility of a culturally contexted conversation analysis: On simultaneous, distinct types of pragmatic meaning. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32.1/2: 129-140. doi: 10.1080/08351813.1999.9683616
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1999.9683616 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sasamoto, Ryoko
    (2008) Japanese discourse connectives dakara and sorede: A re-assessment of procedural meaning. Journal of Pragmatics40.1: 127-154. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.008
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  64. Saul, Jennifer
    (2002) Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Nous36.2: 228-248. doi: 10.1111/1468‑0068.00369
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0068.00369 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sbisà, Marina
    (2001) Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics33.12: 1791-1814. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00060‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sperber, Dan , and Deidre Wilson
    (1995) Relevance. Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Takahashi, T
    (1993) Shōrayku ni yotte dekita jutsugo keishiki [Predicate forms created by ellipsis]. Nihongogaku 12.9: 18-26.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Tanaka, Hiroko
    (1999) Turn-taking in Japanese. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Tanaka, Liddia
    (2004) Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interview discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slcs.69
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.69 [Google Scholar]
  70. Toyoda, Miyuki , and Shunichi Ishihara
    (2003) The teaching of Japanese culture. In J. Lo Bianco and C. Crozet (eds.), Teaching Invisible Culture. Classroom Practice and Theory. Melbourne: Language Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Uchito, Shoko
    (1997) Kanrensei riron ni okeru hanashikotoba ni arawareru shōryakubun no bunseki [An analysis of elliptical sentences occurring in speech from the perspective of relevance theory]. Bunkyō Daigaku Kokubun [Bunkyo University Journal of Japanese Literature] 26: 24-33.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Usami, Mayumi
    (2002) Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Weiner, Matthew
    (2006) Are all conversational implicatures cancellable?Analysis66.2: 127-130. doi: 10.1093/analys/66.2.127
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/66.2.127 [Google Scholar]
  74. Won, Ji-Eun
    (1999) Nichikan ‘Chūto shūshi bun’ no teineisa nitsuite [A comparative study of the politeness of unfinished utterances in Japanese and Korean]. Tsukuba Ooyōgengogaku Kenkyū [Tsukuba Research in Applied Linguistics] 6: 133-144.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Xie, Yun
    (2000) Irai Kōi: Nichichū Taishō Kenkyū [A Comparative Study of Requests in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese]. Unpublished Masters thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Xu, Xia Ling
    (2002) Bunmatsu ‘kara’ to ‘karada’ no imi yōhō [The meaning and usage of utterance-final kara and karada]. Gengo Bunka Ronshū [Studies in Language and Culture] (Nagoya University) 23.2: 67-79.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Yamaguchi, Toshiko
    (2007) Japanese Language in Use. An Introduction. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Yoneha Okazaki, Shoko
    (2003) Conversational styles and ellipsis in Japanese couples’ conversations. In L. Thiesmeyer (ed.), Discourse and Silencing. Representation and the Language of Displacement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 79-110. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.5.06oka
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.5.06oka [Google Scholar]
  79. Yotsukura, Lindsay
    (2003) Negotiating Moves: Problem Presentation and Resolution in Japanese Business Discourse. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.04hau
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (Im)politeness; Conjunction; Implicature; Interactional achievement; Japanese; Pragmatic analysis

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