Functions of Language - Volume 17, Issue 2, 2010

This paper investigates the semantics of three Japanese evidential markers — rashii, yooda and sooda. These three words are often used in similar situations and interpreted in English as ‘it seems’, ‘it appears’, or ‘it looks like’. The expressions are semantically closely related, but sometimes they are not interchangeable. Thus the question arises how to articulate the subtle differences between them. Previous studies have attempted to explicate the differences by using explanatory terms such as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ to describe the content of information, and ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ to describe the attitude towards the information. While these terms are convenient to capture the meaning simplistically, they illustrate only part of the words’ usage, and also the definitions apply equally well to other evidential markers. This study is the first explication of the meanings of these markers using metalanguage and the framework of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage Theory (NSM Theory) proposed and developed by Anna Wierzbicka and colleagues (Goddard & Wierzbicka 1994, 2002; Peeters ed. 2006; Goddard ed. 2008). By analyzing the deficiencies of the previously presented definitions, and examining actual usage examples drawn from modern Japanese literature, the article applies semantic primes to explicate the meanings of rashii, yooda and sooda. The meanings of each expression are illustrated by cognitive scenarios such as ‘I think I can say something like this about X’, or ‘I think this about X at the moment’. The resulting semantic formulae clarify the differences between the three expressions. They also have utility for assisting second language learners in decisions about using the three terms.

This paper explores cross-cultural and grade-based differences in the use of intertextual resources in persuasive essays written by tertiary students. Expressions of explicit intertextuality are analysed using the model of Attribution, an element of the engagement system formulated within the interpersonal metafunction of Systemic Functional Linguistics. The text analysis, supported by interview results, reveals that while there are some differences in the overall use of Attribution between native English speaking and ESL students, the most significant grade-based differences were found in expressions of Attribution and in the Attribution patterns adopted in the presentation of intersubjective claims supported by evidence. The differences identified are interpreted in terms of dialogic literacy perspectives. Pedagogical implications are discussed in terms of the contribution of the differences to the success of the essays, and the need to support academic literacy.

The traditional definition of anaphora in purely co-textual terms as a relation between two co-occurring expressions is in wide currency in theoretical and descriptive studies of the phenomenon. Indeed, it is currently adopted in on-line psycholinguistic experiments on the interpretation of anaphors, and is the basis for all computational approaches to automatic anaphor resolution (see Mitkov 2002). Under this conception, the anaphor, a referentially-dependent expression type, requires “saturation” by an appropriate referentially-autonomous, lexically-based expression — the antecedent — in order to achieve full sense and reference. However, this definition needs to be re-examined in the light of the ways in which real texts operate and are understood, where the resulting picture is rather different. The article aims to show that the co-textual conception is misconceived, and that anaphora is essentially an integrative, discourse-creating procedure involving a three-way relationship between an “antecedent trigger”, an anaphoric predication, and a salient discourse representation. It is shown that it is only in terms of a dynamic interaction amongst the interdependent dimensions of text and discourse, as well as context, that the true complexity of anaphoric reference may be satisfactorily described. The article is intended as a contribution to the broader debate within the pages of this journal and elsewhere between the formalist and the functionalist accounts of language structure and use.