Volume 33, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Contrastive studies of languages usually focus on differences in lexical items, syntactic structures, semantic expressions, collocations, and so on. In the present paper we take a cognitive pragmatic approach, assuming that metarepresentation in the sense of Sperber (2000) and Wilson (2000) offers a crucial perspective in such studies. We discuss how the speech act component of higher-level explicatures is linguistically realized in Japanese and English, focusing on sentence adverbials, ‘because’ clauses, speech act particles, reported speech, private predicates, and desiderative predicates. We conclude that in the Japanese language, information concerning the speech act component tends to be linguistically realized, while such information is not necessarily realized in English. We suggest that this cognitive pragmatic approach can be applied to other languages where higher-level explicatures are basically explicit as in Japanese or implicit as in English.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aoki, Haruo
    1986 “Evidentials in Japanese.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. byWallace Chafe, and Johanna Nichols, 223–238. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blakemore, Diane
    1994 “Echo Questions: A Pragmatic Account.” Lingua941: 197–211. 10.1016/0024‑3841(94)90009‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90009-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1996 “Are Apposition Markers Discourse Markers?” Journal of Linguistics321: 325–347. 10.1017/S0022226700015917
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015917 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  5. Grice, Paul H.
    1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ifantidou, Elly
    2001Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  7. Iwata, Seizi
    2003 “Echo Questions.” Linguistics and Philosophy261: 185–254. 10.1023/A:1022851819941
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022851819941 [Google Scholar]
  8. Kuno, Susumu
    1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kuroda, S.-Y.
    1973 “Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammar Meet: A Case Study from Japanese.” InA Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. byStephen R. Anderson, and Paul Kiparsky, 377–391. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Levinson, Stephen
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  11. Nishiguchi, Sumiyo
    2006 “Fake Past and a Monster.” Stony Brook Occasional Papers in LingusiticsI1: 152–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Narrog, Heiko, and Wenjiang Yang
    2018 “Evidentiality in Japanese.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, ed. byAlexandre Y. Aikhenvald, 709–724. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34 [Google Scholar]
  13. Noh, Eun-Ju
    1995 “A Pragmatic Approach to Echo Questions.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics71: 107–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1998 “Echo Questions: Metarepresentation and Pragmatic Enrichment.” Linguistics and Philosophy21 (6): 603–628. 10.1023/A:1005361528891
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005361528891 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000Metarepresentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.69
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.69 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2021 “On Linguistic Communication Based on Resemblance in Form.” Journal of Pragmatics1861: 20–32. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ross, John Robert
    1970 “On Declarative Sentences.” InReadings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. byRoderick A. Jacobs, and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Rutherford, William E.
    1970 “Some Observations Concerning Subordinate Clauses in English.” Language46 (1): 97–115. 10.2307/412410
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412410 [Google Scholar]
  19. Sperber, Dan
    1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” InWhat is Intelligence?ed. byJean Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ed. 2000Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2000 “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective.” InMetarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. byDan Sperber, 117–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sperber, Dan, and Dierdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2002 “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mindreading.” Mind and Language171: 3–23. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00186
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  25. Uchida, Seiji
    1998 “‘(No)da’ – Kanrensei Riron karano Shiten [‘Noda’ in Relevance Theory].” InGendai Eigo no Goho to Bunpo [English Usage and Grammar], ed. bythe Editorial Board, 243–251. Tokyo: Taishukan.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2011Goyoron no Shatei [The Scope of Pragmatics]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2013Kotoba-wo Yomu, Kokoro-wo Yomu: Ninchi Goyoron Nyumon [Reading Words, Reading Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2022 “Metarepresentation kara mita evidentiality [Metarepresentation and Evidentiality].” Memoirs of Nara University501: 129–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Uchida, Seiji, and Eun-Ju Noh
    2018 “Metarepresentational Phenomena in Japanese and Korean.” Memoirs of Nara University461: 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wilson, Deirdre
    2000 “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” InMetarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. byDan Sperber, 411–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilson, Dierdre, and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua931: 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
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