PRAGMATICALIZATION AND THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE …

REVIEW ARTICLE

PRAGMATICALIZATION AND THE HISTORY

OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS

KOICHI NISHIDA

Tohoku University*

Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic DiscourseAnalysis, by Noriko O. Onodera, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2004,xiv+251pp.

Keywords: pragmaticalization, grammaticalization, directionality, freedomfrom sentence structure, lexical discourse markers

1. Introduction

Noriko Onodera's (2004) Japanese Discourse Markers brings us tothe new research area of historical pragmatics. As the book's title sug-

gests, Onodera's study is characterized by its diachronic perspectivebrought into a branch of linguistics which usually deals with the rela-tions between daily situations and present-day language use. In thissense, her study should be understood as addressing a new question: inwhat way has the pragmatic use of language been developed? Sheattempts to answer this question by tracing historical changes of dis-course markers (DMs) such as discourse connectives and interjections.

Studies of Japanese have long been concerned with the question ofhow to code the interpersonal relations between speaker and hearer. In

particular, various approaches have been proposed for particles such asne or na, which, like 'yes' or 'yeah' in English, show the agreementbetween speaker and hearer (cf. Watanabe (1971: Ch. 3) and Kamio

(1997: Ch. 3), among others). In line with this direction, Onodera takes

* I am indebted to two anonymous EL reviewers for their detailed comments. Iam also indebted to Hajime Fukuchi and Ian Gleadall, both of whom gave meadvice on the revision of the manuscript. Remaining inadequacies are entirely myresponsibility.

English Linguistics 24: 1 (2007) 184-211

(c) 2007 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan

-184-

THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 185

up conjunctions of contrast, such as dakedo 'but' in (1), which is quot-ed from Onodera (2004: 76), and interjections such as ne::e in (2),

quoted from Onodera (p. 127).1 This review article follows her glossesof Japanese examples.2

(1) (Mrs. K is arguing with her daughter Saki about the regula-tions in her school)

Saki: e. Mamotteru janai. Jaa watashi mamotteobey TAG well I obey-GER

f. nai koto nante nai wa yo.NEG things no FP

'I do obey (regulations)! Well, there's nothingI don't obey!'

Mrs. K: g. Dakedo anata wa /?/ wariaini sa soo iubut you TP rather FP like that

h. koto ittemo sono toki dake wa moo a ttosay.if that time only TP ah QT

i. omotte ki o tsukeru kedothink attention DO pay butchotto koo,…

soon

'But you rather become careful, being startledonly when the teacher says such a thing, but

soon,…'

(2) (Mrs. K is teaching several students how to make a Chinesesweet)Student A: a. Kooshiki tenisu no booru mitai.

tennis LK ball looks.like'It looks like a tennis ball.'

Mrs. K: b. Ne::e honto.TAG really

'Doesn't it, really.'

1 In what follows, unless otherwise identified, page numbers in parentheses refer

to the book under review.2 The following glosses are used: COP=copula, DO=direct object, FP=sen-

tence-final particle, GER=gerundive form, HON=honorific, LK=linker, NEG=negative, NOM=nominalizer, QT=quotative marker, SB=subject marker, TAG=tag-question like forms, TP=topic marker, /?/=rising intonation.

186 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

As illustrated by these examples, Onodera's research interests are in

conversation, markers used in conversation, and the history of such

markers. She traces the history of Japanese DMs back into classical

Japanese, collecting data from what she calls "written colloquial seg-ments" (p. 9): for example, lines in play scripts, conversational parts

from novels, and ballads. Theoretically, on the other hand, her study is

focused on the concept of "pragmaticalization" as distinguished from

grammaticalization.This book is primarily recommended to those who are interested in

pragmatics, discourse analysis and historical lexicography. It is alsorecommended to those who are interested in the process of historical

reanalysis and information structure associated with syntactic positions.Onodera combines these research areas from a historical perspective,

and focuses on the semantic changes that have taken place in two

groups of DMs in Japanese, the first including demo and dakedo, whichshe calls "demo-type connectives," and the second including ne and na,which she calls "na-elements." She traces the histories of these two

groups to clarify the processes of pragmaticalization.In what follows, I will examine Onodera's analyses and supplement

them with relevant examples from Japanese and English, so as to makea case for the new concept of pragmaticalization.

This review article is organized as follows. In Section 2, I will offer

an outline of the book under review. In Section 3, I will focus on

Chapters 3 and 4 of the book, and examine Onodera's approach to thedemo-type connectives. In Section 4, I will present likely candidates

for pragmaticalization, so as to gain a better understanding of this con-

cept. In Section 5, I will discuss remaining issues and a future direc-

tion of historical pragmatics. Section 6 is the conclusion.

2. An Outline of the Book

In this section, I will first introduce the contents of the book underreview. Then I will discuss the theoretical frameworks of this study,

focusing on the relation between the pragmaticalization process and the

demo-type connectives.

2.1. Contents

This book consists of the following seven chapters.

Chapter 1: Introduction


Chapter 2: Perspectives on Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronicand Diachronic Discourse Analysis

Chapter 3: Functions of the Conjunctions Demo and Dakedo inPresent Day Japanese (Synchronic Analysis)

Chapter 4: Pragmaticalization of Demo and Dakedo (DiachronicAnalysis)

Chapter 5: Functions of the Interjections Ne and Na in Present DayJapanese (Synchronic Analysis)

Chapter 6: Pragmaticalization of Ne and Na (Diachronic Analysis)Chapter 7: Conclusion

It is clear from this organization that the demo-type connectives and thena-elements are covered in equal depth, and that both are analyzed interms of the same procedures.

Summaries of each chapter are as follows. In Chapter 1, Onoderaoutlines the topics of study and introduces concepts to be used to ana-lyze these topics. In Chapter 2, Japanese DMs are surveyed from the

perspectives of four research areas: (i) discourse analysis and pragmat-ics, (ii) historical studies of language change, (iii) linguistic typology,and (iv) syntax and semantics of conjunctions and interjections.Chapter 3 deals with discourse functions of demo and dakedo, focusingon their present-day usage. She argues that they are markers of con-trast, whose usage types are subdivided into "referential contrast,""pragmatically inferable contrast," "functional contrast," and "contrastive

actions." In Chapter 4, she discusses the historical processes of prag-maticalization of demo and dakedo, collecting data that range from the14th century to the present. Chapter 5 is concerned with the present-day discourse functions of the na-elements. Onodera argues that theseelements contribute to the harmony among speech participants byexpressing the speaker's "involvement" to the hearer, a term which sheuses to refer to positive politeness in the sense of Brown and Levinson

(1987). In Chapter 6, she discusses the pragmaticalization processes ofthe na-elements. Here her discussion covers a long time span thatranges from the 8th century to the present. Chapter 7 concludes thisstudy by commenting on its relevance to the theories of grammaticaliza-tion and motivation for historical semantic changes, and to typologicalcharacteristics of Japanese.

Before starting discussion, Onodera (pp. 11-12) sets five goals toachieve in her study, which are listed as follows:


(3) i. To analyze the functions of the DMs, and the historicalchanges of these functions in light of Traugott's hypoth-esis.

ii. To account for motivation for the pragmaticalization ofthe DMs.

iii. To make clear the difference between grammaticaliza-tion and pragmaticalization.

iv. To analyze the DMs in relation to (i) word order typol-ogy, (ii) their productivity, and (iii) conventionalizationof implicatures.

v. To show the validity of Schiffrin's theory of DMs inlight of Japanese data.

Here I will be mainly concerned with her goals in (3-i, 3-ii, 3-iii),arguing that Onodera's concept of pragmaticalization is best fit for whatI here call "lexical discourse markers," the nature of which I willdescribe in Sections 3 and 4.

2.2. Theoretical FrameworksTo begin discussion, Onodera (pp. 12-18) combines the three theories

in (4) to account for the process of pragmaticalization that has occurredto Japanese DMs such as those in (1) and (2):

(4) i. the ideational, textual and expressive functions of lan-guage in Halliday and Hasan's (1976) sense

ii. the unidirectionality of semantic change as shown byTraugott's series of works, Traugott (1982) and Traugottand Konig (1991) among others

iii. the criteria for DMs proposed by Schiffrin (1987)For the first part, Onodera (p. 15) adapts the terms, but the idea is thesame as Halliday and Hasan's (1976) three functional-semantic compo-nents of language, the ideational, the textual, and the interpersonal. Tocite from Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26), the ideational component is"that part of the linguistic system which is concerned with the expres-

sion of 'content,' with the function that language has of being ABOUTsomething." The textual component refers to the elements that con-tribute to the cohesion of a text, i.e. those that serve to organize two ormore sentences into a text. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26-27) describethe interpersonal component, or Traugott's "expressive component," asbeing concerned "with expressing the speaker's 'angle': his attitudes and

judgments, his encoding of the role relationships in the situation, and


his motive in saying anything at all."Here I develop the complementary relationship between semantics and

pragmatics, which is adopted by Onodera (p. 13), and use "grammar" inreference to a set of rules for making well-formed sentences whosemeanings belong to the ideational component of language, and "prag-matics" in reference to a system of heuristics for using utteranceswhose meanings belong to the textual and the expressive components.Seen in this way, the order of the ideational, the textual, and theexpressive reflects the transition from grammar to pragmatics. Thisdivision of grammar and pragmatics will be recalled when we considerthe definition of pragmaticalization in Section 5.

Second, Onodera (p. 14) bases her arguments on the unidirectionalityhypothesis of grammaticalization, formulated by Traugott and Konig

(1991: 189) as follows:(5) the dynamic, unidirectional historical process whereby lexical

items in the course of time acquire a new status as gram-matical, morpho-syntactic forms, and in the process come tocode relations that either were not coded before or werecoded differently.

The aspectual auxiliary be going to is a well-known example of gram-maticalization as defined above (cf. Hopper and Traugott (2003: 1-3)).In this case, the main verb go lost the original concrete meaning ofmotion and direction, going to was reanalyzed to produce a reducedform gonna, and obtained a status of auxiliary verb and a function toencode immediate futurity. In this way, grammaticalization applies tocases where what was once a lexical word or a sequence of lexicalwords has changed into an item that serves a grammatical function. Asa result, the grammaticalized item has more to do with grammar thanwith the lexicon.

Onodera points out that dakedo in (1), for example, is now in utter-ance-initial position and is used as a DM, but it was originally inclause-final position. For expository purposes, I use the following in-vented examples to illustrate her point:

(6) a. Tabi ni ikitai no dakedo, mainichi isogashii.trip to go.want NOM but everyday busy

'I want to go to trip, but I'm busy everyday.'b. Tabi ni ikitai. Dakedo, mainichi isogashii.

trip to go.want but everyday busy'I want to go to trip. But I'm busy everyday.'


c. Dakedo/Demo/Kedo/Daga mainichi isogashii ne.but everyday busy TAG

'But (To open a conversation) I'm busy everyday.'Originally, dakedo was a final part of the first clause, and then it movedto the initial position of the next sentence. In this second step, dakedoserves to link the clause it introduces to the preceding clause. In thethird step, it can be used discourse-initially, as in (6c). Similar pro-cesses hold for demo, kedo and daga in (6c). They are, first, devicesof clause-linkage, second, anaphoric connectives, and third, DMs. Isthis kind of historical change a case of grammaticalization, too?

According to Onodera (p. 204), the historical change in question is acase of grammaticalization, but it also has another aspect of change.Like be going to (be gonna), dakedo has obtained a new morpho-syn-tactic form, but unlike be going to, it has obtained a pragmatic functionto encode discourse-based meanings and interpersonal relationshipbetween speaker and hearer. Thus, she argues that it is an instance ofwhat she calls "pragmaticalization," which she defines as follows (p. 1):

(7) the process in which an item acquires the functions of amarker, i.e. the process in which a lexical item with ratherrestricted functions becomes one with more extended dis-course functions.

Onodera argues that the unidirectionality of historical process is also thecase with the transition from the ideational through the textual to theexpressive: as illustrated by the history of dakedo, what was once aword of the ideational function is now also used as a word of theexpressive function, and not vice versa.

According to Traugott (1982, 1989), semantic change has regular ten-dencies of showing the following two types of steps:

(8) a. ideational3>((textual)>(expressive))b. less personal to more personal

Onodera analyses the historical processes of the na-elements and demo-type connectives against the background of (8). In (8a), the secondand the third steps are put in parentheses to show that these steps areoptional, i.e., either one or both can be gained.

Once a given item has acquired a wider range of discourse functions,

3 Traugott (1982, 1989) calls this function "propositional," but following Onodera,I call it "ideational" for the sake of consistent terminology.


it comes to exhibit syntactic and phonological properties specific toDMs. Onodera adopts Schiffrin's (1987: 328) criteria for DMs, whichare listed from (9-i) to (9-iv):

(9) i. A DM has to be syntactically detachable from a sen-tence,

ii. it has to be commonly used in initial position of anutterance,

iii. it has a range of prosodic contours, andiv. it has to be able to operate at both local and global lev-

els of discourse, and on different planes of discourse.v. It has to realize either textual or expressive functions.

As shown by the dakedo in (1), if a given item meets these criteria, itis not part of sentence structure, but part of the discourse in which thespeaker uses it to communicate with the hearer. Such items typicallyhave syntactic freedom and phonological variants. Onodera (p. 200)integrates Halliday and Hasan's theory into the definition of DMs andadds the fifth criterion in (9-v).

In addition to the three theories in (4), Givon (1979) and Matsumoto

(1988) help us understand the roots of Onodera's study. From a typo-logical standpoint, Givon (1979: 208) discusses "processes by whichloose, paratactic, "pragmatic" discourse structures develop-over time

-into tight, "grammaticalized" syntactic structures," which he calls"syntacticization." This applies, for example, to historical reanalysis of

the discourse topic into the grammatical subject of a sentence, or toreanalysis of a conjunction of two clauses into one complex sentence.

Matsumoto (1988: 340) points out that in historical changes of thesyntacticization-type, what is originally an independent item becomesincreasingly dependent on other items, but Japanese connectives likedemo and dakedo are different in that they provide instances of "thechange toward increasing independence of morphemes": they came tobe used without being combined with other elements to make a phraseor sentence. Matsumoto (1988: 345-347) says that these connectiveshave been changed to acquire pragmatic and discourse functions insteadof lexical semantic content, so they have undergone pragmaticalizationof meaning.

As far as the demo-type connectives are concerned, Onodera dealswith mostly the same issue as Matsumoto (1988). She extends anddeepens his analysis, combining Halliday and Hasan's three componentsof language, Traugott's unidirectionality of grammaticalization, and


Schiffrin's criteria for DMs so as to make a model for the process of

pragmaticalization.In the next section, I am going to review her discussion of the demo-

type connectives with special reference to dakedo.

3. The Pragmaticalization of Demo-type Connectives

In this section, I am going to survey Onodera's analysis of the demo-type connectives, with special reference to their pragmaticalization

process and their relevance to the replacement function of copula dain the sense of Okutsu (1978). Notice that Onodera deals with bothdakedo and demo, but, for the reasons that I state in Section 3.2, Ifocus on dakedo instead of demo.

3.1. Historical Process to Discourse Markers: A Case of DakedoIn Chapter 4, Onodera discusses the historical processes of demo and

dakedo, saying that their processes agree with the steps in (8). She

points out that dakedo was originally a combination of a verb and-kedo, an adversative conjunctive particle, and meant a contrast between

the clause preceding -kedo and the clause following it. She notes thatthe early examples of verb+kedo are found in the Japanese used inOsaka-Kyoto area, called "kamigata-Japanese," and cites (10) as the old-est example (p. 100):

(10) a. Inakamono ja to iwaha nsu kedo,countrywoman COP QT say HON but,

b. kyoo hazukashii umai sakaricapital embarrassed delicious at.(its).best

c. hitokuchi kuwazu ni okarenu mensu.a.mouthful eat.NEG cannot.help face

'Although (you) say (you are) a countrywoman, since

Kyoto's (food) is at its best to your embarrassment, yourface (says you) can't help eating a mouthful (of it).'4

This is taken from Chuushin Kogane no Tanzaku (1732), a ballad dramacalled jooruri in Japanese. In (10), the speaker is trying to disturbanother speaker who claimed to have come from the countryside, and

4 My interpretation of example (10) is based on the text of Hara (1991: 375), anddiffers from Onodera's.


makes a contrast to what she said before. At this stage, the verb+kedocombination expressed a contrast between the content of one clause andthe content of another, i.e. a contrast based on the ideational function oflanguage.

Next the clause-final jakedo and dakeredo appeared in the early 19thcentury where Onodera (p. 103) cites an example from a humorousnovel titled Ukiyoburo (1809). Then in the 1910-20s, dakedo appearedin utterance-initial position, as in (11), which Onodera (p. 105) citesfrom a novel titled An-ya Kooro (1922):

(11) Moshi watashi no tame deshitara dooka mooif me LK for COP-if please no.moreotanomi ni naranai de itadakimasu. Dakedo,ask-HON NEG receive But,watashi hitori de gofujiyuu da tome alone COP-GER inconvenient COP QToboshimesu n deshitara betsu desu kedo.think-HON NOM COP-if other COP but

'If it is for me, please do not hire another one (nurse) again.But, if you think that only myself is not enough, do it for

yourself, though.'At this stage, in addition to the ideational function, the function ofdakedo was extended to include the textual function in that it helped toconnect two texts via a contrast. The textual function then furtherdeveloped into the expressive function in the present-day usage, asshown in (1). Onodera (p. 77) says that in (1), "dakedo is used tomark the speaker's return to her position after being challenged," whichis a function belonging to the expressive component of language.

The development of dakedo agrees with the tendencies in (8): whatwas once a marker of less personal sense changed into a marker ofstrongly personal sense. This has been associated with the positionalchange from the clause-linking position of verb+kedo to the utterance-initial dakedo. Onodera (p. 113) summarizes by saying that its func-tional change is schematized in (12):

(12) Pragmaticalization of dakedoverb+kedo (18th- dakedo (early 20th C-early 20th C) Present-day Japanese)ideational>ideational

textual(>expressive)She notes that the ideational function of verb+kedo remains constant


through the shift to dakedo; like the tendency in (8a), the shift fromthe textual to the expressive function is a matter of option, so she putsthe latter in parentheses.

3.2. On the Treatment of DemoIn this subsection, I first examine Onodera's (pp. 86-92) treatment of

the origin of demo, pointing out two problems with it. Second, I am

going to raise a question about Onodera's position when she (p. 57)says that "the only difference in the use of [demo and dakedo] is asso-ciated with "language style," and that there is no significant differencein the distribution of demo and dakedo" with respect to the four con-trasting functions they carry. I am going to provide a couple of exam-

ples to show that demo and dakedo differ in the kinds of contrast theyexpress. These arguments are based on the fact that the particle -moof demo has an adversative sense and an additive sense, and thatOnodera's analysis covers only the former sense of -mo.

Onodera argues that demo came from the combination of verb+te-mo,where -te is a conjunction particle expressing continuation and -mo is aconjunction particle expressing adversity. As she admits (p. 86), how-ever, "there are a few different views on the formation of demo," andshe mentions a hypothesis that demo comes from the combination of aso-type demonstrative and copula d, which she does not adopt. Shealso mentions a possibility that demo comes from -ni+te mo, where -niis an inflected form of an archaic copula nari (p. 92).

Notice that verb+te mo and demo differ at least in two ways, suggest-ing that the two are not directly related. First, -te-mo is combined witha verb in its infinitive form, which is called ren-yoo kei in Japanese, butdemo is combined with a noun or a verb in its nominalized form, i.e. acombination of a verb in its adnominal form, called ren-tai kei, and a

pronominal no. Thus, according to Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (NKD),demo is an elliptical form of sore-demo, where sore is an anaphoric

pronominal. Second, demo has different senses that te-mo does nothave, as in "Ocha 'tea' demo nome 'drink'," 'Drink tea or somethinglike that,' where demo serves to add the sense of 'for example' to ocha;this sense is hard to translate to sentences with a verb+te-mo.

To the extent that Onodera discusses the historical process fromverb+te-mo to demo, we are not in the position to fully understand thelink from the former to the latter. Since I review Onodera's study onlyon the basis, of clear cases, I have here focused on the historical


process of dakedo instead of demo, the origin of which requires furtherresearch.

The next problem is with the differences between demo and dakedo.First, demo, but not dakedo, can be a part of what Konig (1985) calls"concessive conditionals," where demo in focus position serves to intro-

duce an extreme value on a scale that is hypothetically contrasted withthe content of the main clause.

(13) Saru {demo/??dakedo} pasokon ga benri da tomonkey even PC SB useful COP QTwakaru.see

'Even if you were a monkey, you'd see PCs are useful.'Here demo can express a hypothetical situation in which the understoodsubject is compared to a monkey, a metaphor for a person with a lowIQ level. However, dakedo can express only a real situation in whichthe understood subject is a monkey, and makes the sentence unaccept-able as a concessive conditional.

Second, dakedo, but not demo, can be used in the first utterance of atelephone conversation, which goes as follows:

(14) Moshi-moshi boku dakedo, ima hanasemasu ka /?/.hello me but now speak.can question

'Hello, it's me, but can we talk now?'In (14), demo cannot be used in place of dakedo. This type of dakedobelongs to what Onodera (pp. 73-83) calls the usage type of "con-trastive actions," by which she means that demo or dakedo serves tomark the speaker's actions toward the hearer, opening a conversation,for example. The dakedo in (14) marks a contrast between the preced-ing situation where there is no speech activity and the following contextwhere there is lively conversation. Moreover, in (14), dakedo intro-duces a unique topic that involves the speaker himself, which demo can-not do. As shown above, demo has the sense of 'for example,' whichadds a non-uniqueness sense to the preceding noun and so produces itsunacceptability in the context in which something unique is introduced.

These contrasts show that because of the particle -mo, demo servesto add additive senses to the preceding noun, and that it differs fromdakedo in this respect. The concessive conditionals expressed by demo,too, have an additive sense, because they express a hypothetical extremesituation that is additive to the real situation. Since demo exhibitsthese properties that are not covered by Onodera's analysis, I have dealt


mainly with dakedo instead of demo in this review article.

3.3. Productivity of Demo-type ConnectivesHere I turn to discuss a grammatical property of Japanese that leads

to the morpho-syntactic reanalysis of the demo-type connectives, i.e. thereplacement function of copula da.

Onodera (pp. 115-119, pp. 211-214) refers to Okutsu (1978), whoargues that besides having the copulative function of linking two phras-es into one sentence, da can replace the predicate of the preceding sen-tence or can stand for a situationally understood predicate, as shown in

(15):(15) Anata wa karee o chuumon suru ne.

you TP curry DO order do TAGJa, boku wa unagi da.then I TP eel COP'You order curry, and I do (=order) eel.'

Here da replaces the predicate of the preceding sentence, i.e. chuumonsuru 'order,' and so the second sentence means 'I order eel.' Thismeans that da can act as a pro-predicate being anaphoric to the preced-ing predicate.

To shorten da and its polite form desu into d, we may say that theinitial d-element has a pro-predicate function. Before Okutsu, Mikami

(1953: 60) notes that the pro-predicate function is carried over to theanaphoricity of d-initial connectives such as dakedo: thanks to the func-tion, they are used to represent the preceding context. Thus, dakedo iscomposed of da and kedo, the first element standing for what has beensaid before and the second element having a sense of contrast: whenthese two elements are agglutinated into one word and used in utter-ance-initial position, dakedo serves to mark a contrast to what has beensaid before.5

Onodera (pp. 114-119) argues that the pragmaticalization of thedemo-type connectives has been motivated by the productive morpholo-

gy in Japanese. Japanese has a set of connectives whose initial ele-

5 For a similar analysis of the demo-type connectives, Onodera (p. 117) citesMorioka (1973: 41). Morioka takes the preceding text represented by a discourseconnective to be a kind of subordinate clause to the clause introduced by that con-nective.


ment is d, including demo and dakedo. For example:

(16) da-kara 'because,' da-tte 'because,' da-ga 'but,' desu-ga'but,' desu-node 'therefore,' da-tosuruto 'if so,' da-toshite 'if

it were so,' and so on.Here the d-element is combined with a particle like -kara 'from' tomake an anaphoric connective like da-kara 'from the preceding context.'Connectives of this form are productive in Japanese morphology, andwe have newly coined ones, such as de-nakya 'if it weren't so,' da-ttara

'if it were so,' and so on.6In her earlier study, Onodera (1996: 466) argues that the copulative

function, too, is still present in the d-initial connectives in (16), becausethey serve to connect the text preceding them with the text followingthem. On this view, they are used to add the sense of the second ele-ment to the two texts combined by the initial d-element. For example,da-ttara is a combination of da with tara 'if,' which serves to add thehypothetical sense to the texts combined by da.

Because Onodera's account crucially makes use of the replacementfunction of the d-element, it may appear to be at a loss when weobserve that the replacement can be carried out not only by the d-ele-ment, but also by ellipsis. In (15), for example, we can omit da anduse elliptical utterances like Boku wa unagi, too. Similarly, some ofthe initial d-elements in (16) can be omitted, and the markers withoutd-elements make stylistic variants. For example, dakedo can be re-duced to kedo, daga to ga, datosureba to tosureba, and so on. If weare to maintain the account of the demo-type connectives in terms ofthe replacement function of the d-element, how can we explain the factthat their anaphoric function can be achieved by markers without d-ele-ments?

An answer will come from the grammaticalization process of "layer-

6 The productivity of anaphoric connectives differs from one language to another.German has a large number of compound adverbs which consist of a preposition andits object pronoun da 'it,' such as daruber 'over it' or darauf 'on it.' They areused as anaphoric connectives. As recorded in the OED, Early Modern English hadmuch use of anaphoric connectives of this kind, such as thereby and therewith; buttoday they are restricted to written style. It is worthwhile to study how English hasdiffered from German in this respect. For the comparison of English and German,see Miyoshi (1977: 103, 186), and for the present-day use of the English anaphoricconnectives, see Rouchota (1998: 47-48).


ing," which Hopper and Traugott (2003: 125) define as "the synchronicresult of successive grammaticalization of forms which contribute to thesame domain." It refers to the situation in which a new way of sayingsomething forms a layer on older ways of saying the same thing, andso several forms with different lengths of life coexist to express basical-ly the same meaning.

To apply layering to the demo-type connectives, we may say thattheir pragmaticalization is initially motivated by the presence of d-ele-ments, but the resultant forms undergo layering, which is, in this case,

propelled by the comprehensive pragmatic principle of least effort; asHorn (1984) puts it, "say no more than you must."7 According toNKD, the adversative connective first appeared in the phonologically fullform of keredomo in the 16th century, and then the shorter formskeredo and kedo appeared in the 18th century (cf. Onodera (p. 102)).This history shows that the emergence of a shorter form follows theleast-effort principle, and that its process is toward the shorter and moreeconomical way of expressing the sense that was formerly expressed bya longer form. During this process, the pragmaticalized DMs can shedthe original element to which they owe their birth.

Pragmaticalization should be a historical change which semantic, mor-

pho-syntactic, and stylistic factors conspire to achieve. Although het-erogeneous, these factors share one property; they serve to free whatwas once a syntactically and semantically constrained item from sen-tence structure, and make it a syntactically independent item. Besides,the pragmaticalized item is used in accordance with the least-effort prin-ciple, and so may be processed into a shorter and simpler form.

3.4. "Lexical Discourse Markers" and PragmaticalizationThe discussion of the demo-type connectives has shown that DMs are

productive, and that their usage is constrained by the properties of theircomponent function-words. I next argue that this also applies to DMswhose component parts are lexical items.

Schiffrin (1987: 317) points out that "many discourse markers are

7 Horn (1984) argues that his pragmatic principles are valid for historical changesof language. For example, clippings like TV (from television) and acronyms likeUSA are produced and adopted historically, and are clear cases of the least effortprinciple.


used in ways which reflect their meaning." Her point fits well withmarkers whose basic functions are decomposed into their original ele-ments. For example, y'know is a DM for information to be shared byspeaker and hearer, and this function is based on the literal meaning of

you know (cf. Schiffrin (1987: Ch. 9)).Schiffrin's point applies to Japanese too. In a similar vein, Morioka

(1973: 15) says that virtually all discourse connectives in Japanese arederived from other lexical items. We call such markers "lexical dis-course markers," (LDMs). Given that LDMs are productive, we maymake a generalization about their origins as in (17), which borrowswords from Simone Beauvoir's words "One is not born a woman, onebecomes one":

(17) A word is not born a lexical discourse marker, one becomesone via pragmaticalization.

There are various cases where what was once a lexical item has partlylost the original syntactic and semantic properties, and now is a DM inthe sense of (9). Given this understanding of pragmaticalization, I nextdiscuss likely candidates for pragmaticalization, offering data fromEnglish and Japanese.

4. Candidates for Pragmaticalization

In what follows, I would like to present a set of likely candidates for

pragmaticalization in English and Japanese. It is shown that Japaneseis rich in cases of pragmaticalization. Compared with the by nowfamiliar term of grammaticalization, pragmaticalization is not yet sowidely adopted and still needs more explication. The data providedbelow are intended to bring us a clearer understanding of what pragmat-icalization is like. They are mainly taken from terms of address, inter-

jections, and words of greetings. All these cases share two properties.First, they are freed from sentence structure, and so they can be usedindependently like inherent interjections like oh in English. Second,they differ from inherent interjections in that they retain their originallexical senses that constrain their use.

English has a set of terms of address whose senses are based onsweet taste, as in Hey, honey/sugar/sweet! As the Oxford EnglishDictionary (OED) shows, these words first denoted substances and thencame to be used as terms of endearment. Clearly, they were originallycommon nouns which were used in accordance with the grammar of


noun phrases. However, in the course of time, they were freed fromthe grammatical constraints, were changed from the ideational to theexpressive functions, and came to be used independently as terms ofaddress.

Oda (2005) points out that sugar is a substance that produces a pleas-ant feeling to those who eat it, and similarly, the person addressed bysugar is one who produces a pleasant feeling on the speaker's part.This extends to other terms of address such as chocolate drop or pump-kin pie.

By contrast, excrement is a substance that produces a bad feeling tothose who see it, and similarly, the situation described by shit is onewhich produces a bad feeling on the speaker's part. Historically, theinterjectory use of shit appeared after its use as a common noun.8 Inthese cases, pragmaticalization holds for the historical change from whatwas once a common noun to a term of address or to an interjection.They have been "pragmaticalized" to be freed from sentence structure,and to carry the expressive function. Besides, shit has produced

phonological variants like shee-y-it.Japanese, too, has lexical interjections of this kind. For example,

chikushoo was once a common noun, used mainly in the context ofBuddhism, and meant 'livestock,' but now it is used to express one'sdiscontent. The word has produced phonological variants such as chik-ishoo, chikkusho, anchikishoo, konchikishoo, and so on. Like shit inEnglish, it has obtained a new status in grammar and phonological vari-ants, and become an LDM.

In these kinds of phenomena, it is difficult to predict which item willbe pragmaticalized into a connective or into an interjection, but it is

possible to find motivations behind each of the pragmaticalizationprocesses. The meaning of the relevant word has shifted from the con-crete object to the speaker's emotion towards a situation he or she is in,but its original meaning remains to constrain the type of situation inwhich the pragmaticalized version of that word is used.

8 The OED's first example of interjectory shit comes from 1920, but its use as "acontemptuous epithet applied to a person" dates back to the 1500s, which is as oldas its "excrement" sense. The OED's first citation of sweet in its taste sense isfrom circa 888. From the 14th century on, it has been used as a noun that refers toa beloved person as well as to a sweet thing.


So far I have given cases in which a lexical item like honey changeditself into an LDM like honey.9 Although these cases did not undergomorpho-syntactic reanalysis, they extended their function into the ex-

pressive component and changed their syntactic and possibly phonologi-cal properties. As a result, they came to meet the criteria in (9), andcame to be used independently with conventionalized meanings.

On the other hand, there are cases in which combination of two ormore words or morphemes has produced one LDM. This type of prag-maticalization is similar to DMs like dakara in (16) and leave cleartraces of morpho-syntactic reanalysis and their original lexical meanings.Examples include interjections like shimatta, dekashita, yatta (cf. Morita

(1973)), and words of greetings like kon-nichiwa, sayonara (cf. Fujiwara(1992)).

The former cases are derived from part of the tensed verb phrase.According to NKD, shima-tta originally consisted of shimau, a verbmeaning 'finish' and -ta, the past tense particle. In the 17th century,the verb became an auxiliary verb expressing perfective aspect. InJapanese, the perfective aspect expressed by the combined form of-shima-tta is used to implicate that the described situation is unexpect-

ed, and that the result of this situation is of negative value. For exam-

ple:(18) Watashi wa kagi o nakushite shimatta.

I TP key DO lose-GER perfective.aspect'I have lost my key, implying 'I am in trouble'.'

From the 18th century on, the tensed auxiliary verb -shima-tta has beenseparated from the sentence of which it was a part, and turned into aninterjection "Shimatta!," which is used by itself and means 'I have justmade an unexpected mistake!'

9 Similar remarks apply to French nouns used as connectives by themselves. AsNaganuma (2000) points out, the noun resultat 'result,' for example, can be used asan anaphoric connective, meaning 'as a result of the preceding context.' For exam-ple:

(i) J'ai oublie son anniversaire: resultat, elle ne me parle plus.I've forgotten her birthday result she NEG to.me talk more'I forgot her birthday: as a result of this, she does not talk to more any-more.'

Connectives of this type are made from nouns like consequence 'consequence,'paradoxe 'paradox,' and resume 'summary.'


Similarly, the origins of dekashi-ta and ya-tta were past tense formsof the verbs dekasu 'do, achieve' and yaru 'send, give, do,' respectively.In the course of pragmaticalization, they are separated from the sen-tences whose predicates include these verbs, and when used as interjec-tions, their meanings are extended to cover not only the actionsdescribed by dekasu and yaru in their verbal use, but also the speaker'sattitudes towards these actions. Thus, interjectory dekashita is used bysomeone superior who praises the action done by an inferior addressee,having a meaning like 'You did a great job!' Interjectory yatta is usedto express one's joy about what has happened just before the utterance,having a meaning like 'I did it just the way I wanted to.'

The next group of examples comes from words of greetings. Theshimatta-group was once positioned at the end of the sentence, but this

group was once an initial part of sentences talking about the day inquestion, as in (19):

(19) Kon-nichi wa yoi otenki desu ne.today TP good weather COP TAG

'Today, it is fine, isn't it'Originally, kon-nichi-wa 'good afternoon' was part of a sentence, andthen it was separated from it (cf. Fujiwara (1992: Ch. 2)). In this pro-cess, wa changed its function. As has been widely discussed in the lit-erature (see, for example, Hinds et al. (1987) and references therein),wa is a function word for marking a topic of discourse or that of thesentence. Because the day that speaker and hearer meet each other isthe safest topic with which to start a conversation (cf. Brown andLevinson (1987: 112)), the topic marking function is diverted to the first

greeting in the afternoon, i.e., to starting an interpersonal relation in aday by marking the safest topic. Once pragmaticalized, kon-nichiwahas produced a number of variants, and generally resultant forms areshorter than the original, as in chiwa.

According to NKD, sa-yo(o)-nara was originally a protasis whichconsisted of sa 'so,' yoo 'mode,' and naraba 'copular NARI inflectedfor conditional mood,' meaning 'if it is in such a state (, then…).' In

the 18th century, this became a greeting of parting by adding to it the

meaning of the conventionalized apodosis 'then I will leave'; the apo-

dosis was unsaid, but implicated, when sayonara was literally a prota-

sis.

I have so far offered several examples that are, in my view, to be

part of pragmaticalization phenomena. But what is the advantage of


accounting for these phenomena in terms of pragmaticalization? Onetentative answer is that it helps discover the underlying regularitiesacross languages by which lexical interjections have been developed.

Although there are inherent interjections such as wow in English andah in Japanese, lexical items can be assimilated to the properties ofthese words via pragmaticalization. Besides, such items can expresswhat inherent interjections cannot properly express, and these meaningsare to be analyzed as the results of pragmaticalization processes. Forexample, shimatta differs from ah in that it can express that I havedone something unexpected, that something does me bad, and I have

just realized the fact. These meanings are originally implicatures asso-ciated with the use of sentences ending with -shimatta, but once prag-maticalized, they are conventionalized and become regular parts of themeaning of interjectory shimatta. Similar cases of pragmaticalizationare going to be found in the vocabulary histories of various languages,and equally interestingly, in the changes that are taking place in oureveryday language use.10

5. Pragmaticalization Reconsidered

In this section, I would like to discuss five questions about Onodera'sstudy, pointing out remaining issues as well as a future direction of his-torical pragmatics.

The first question is concerned with the time span in which to study

pragmaticalization processes. This question is relevant when we con-sider Onodera's analysis of na-elements such as the one in (2).Onodera adopts Morita's (1973) account of the origin of the word of

10 We should be more alert to newly adopted usage to find ongoing cases of

pragmaticalization. For example, Arita (2005) reports that the Japanese topic mark-er wa has recently been used independently in utterance-initial position, withoutbeing combined with a topic expression, as shown in the dialogue in (i):

(i) A: Kodomo wa suki desu ka.children TP like COP Question'Do you like children?'

B: Wa suki desu ne.TP like COP FP'Yes, I like (them).'

This suggests that wa has newly obtained a DM status, serving as a reply for con-

tinuing the previous speaker's topic.


address ne. Morita (1973: 197) says that na was first located in sen-tence-final position, then it was separated from the sentence to be anindependent item, which is used in sentence-initial position; it has pro-duced phonological variants such as nau, and from the 17th centuryonwards, ne.

In Chapter 6, Onodera traces the history of the na-elements consistingof na, noo, no, ne, nee, and naa. While accepting that the languageafter the 14th century has a direct relevance to modern Japanese (p.158), she notes that the sentence-internal use of na is as old as its sen-tence-final use; both are found in Kojiki, the oldest extant record ofJapan in the 8th century. Then, na appeared in sentence-initial positionin the 12th century. In Chapter 5, she analyzes the present-day na-ele-ments; today, they can be used independently, as in ne::e in (2).

Thus seen, the historical process of the na-elements is parallel to thatof the demo-type connectives; they show the process from sentence-finalto sentence-initial positions, with a concomitant shift from markers ofthe expressive function to those of the expressive and textual functions.

Onodera's account is consistent, but it leaves one question unad-dressed. According to her, each of the na-elements underwent a shiftfrom sentence-final to sentence-initial position. As Onodera (p. 186)shows, this shift first occurred with na in the 12th century, second withnoo in the 14th century, and last with ne in the 20th century. Giventhis time lag of about 800 years, we have at least two possibleaccounts. One is that each of the na-elements underwent a similarshift in different periods in history. Another is that the first shift of namade a model that was followed by the subsequent cases. Onoderaattempts to explain all the na-elements in a unified way, but a clearaccount remains to be given of the question to what extent were theshifts of the na-elements homogeneous.

The second question is: what is the difference in argument stylebetween synchronic pragmatics and historical pragmatics?

Virtually all the examples Onodera uses in her analyses come fromnaturally produced utterances; she uses only a few invented examples,and does not use inappropriate ones. This differs sharply from otherstyles of pragmatics research in which inappropriate examples as wellas invented ones play an active role, as are exemplified by studies ofthe present-day language like Kamio (1997). The latter styles do notapply to historical pragmatics, however. We cannot simply equate inap-

propriate examples with what cannot be found in historical records.


The only way we can make solid arguments about the past language isby accumulating as many reliable historical records as possible.

Considering the nature of historical records, Onodera's approach isempirically sound. However, as noted in relation to the historical

processes of the na-elements, it is one thing to formulate a hypothesisabout the history of a given item and it is quite another to support thathypothesis by excluding other equally possible hypotheses about thatitem. The next hurdle for historical pragmatics will be to secure themeans to constrain interpretations of historical data. I think it a goodidea to focus on the language of the near past rather than that of theremote past, for we have a wealth of information about it and the expe-riences of old people are available for confirmation.11

The third question has to do with the directionality of semanticchange. Onodera adopts the tendencies proposed by Traugott in (8)and applies them to the changes in pragmatic function of Japaneseexpressions. As Onodera (p. 38, p. 112, p. 188) cites Traugott's (1982)intended meaning, the direction "from less to more personal" meaningsis to be understood to mean a shift toward interpersonal or interaction-based meanings.

However, Japanese scholars, for example, Miyaji (1979) and Mori

(1993), have pointed out that Japanese has cases which do not fit with(8). Miyaji (1979: 268) says the following (my translation):

(20) In Japanese, there are a lot of adjectives which originallyexpressed subjective emotions later changed into objectivemeaning.

This is exemplified by the history of the adjective utsukushi(i). It orig-inally meant 'beloved (person),' the data of which are recorded in Man-

yoshu, the oldest collection of Japanese poetry whose language repre-sents the Japanese of the 7th and 8th centuries. In the 9th century, it

gained the sense 'cute,' and from the 12th century, it gained the sense'beautiful.' This is a process from a sense of personal emotion to a

more objective sense.On the other hand, Yamaguchi (1982: 223-224) says that there are a

group of adjectives that originally denoted particular states and then

11 Since historical pragmatics is still in its initial stage, it needs be based on reli-

able historical records; the time span to be covered may be short, say, less than 100

years, but it should be studied in detail, on a year-by-year basis, for example.


came to denote emotions that people have toward those states. Shenotes that this type of semantic change applies to adjectives denotingunpleasant emotions. For example, kowai originally meant 'hard, solid,firm.' The adjective then came to denote emotions that people havewhen they encounter hard, solid, or firm things. That is, it means'frightening, scary.'

Unlike utsukushi(i), this type of semantic change may fit in with the"less to more personal" direction in a sense, but it still differs from this

direction as understood by Traugott and Onodera. Cases like kowaishow a shift toward personal emotional meanings, but not toward inter-

personal meanings.These cases become a source of opportunities for researchers working

on Japanese who are to offer alternatives to Traugott's unidirectionalityhypothesis. Undoubtedly, such opportunities will favor those who arefamiliar with classical Japanese in detail.

Our fourth question is concerned with the relation between grammati-calization and pragmaticalization. Conceptually, pragmaticalization is afunctional extension such that a given item that formerly had a limitedrange of functions changes into an item with a wider range of func-tions. This extension is characteristically manifested in the form ofthe syntactic freedom and phonological variation of that item. This isthe case with dakedo, and is also the case with kon-nichiwa andchikushoo.

Elsewhere, Onodera (2000: 45) argues that "[the demo-type connec-tives] have undergone grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, and

[the na-elements] have experienced pragmaticalization without involvinggrammaticalization." This is because, as we saw in Section 3.3, theformer underwent layering as well as morpho-syntactic reanalysis, amajor factor in grammaticalization, but the latter did not: the na-ele-ments have been pragmaticalized only in terms of positional change.

In view of this argument, pragmaticalization is better understood interms of the result of a historical process rather than in terms of the

process itself. We may say that pragmaticalization, by its nature,results in expressions that meet the criteria of DMs in (9), irrespectiveof whether the process involved may or may not be set up by grammat-icalization.

Thus, pragmaticalization applies well to LDMs, as stated in (17).LDMs have been historically developed to carry either textual or expres-sive functions; they belong to elements of discourse organization and


interpersonal relationship, for example, greetings, topic changing mark-ers, and interjections. Since they are freed from the constraints of

grammar, they have little syntax or have lost syntax: it is natural thatthey are either placed at the peripheral edges of sentences, especially atthe initial position, or used independently of sentences. Therefore, wehave the correlation of pragmaticalization and positional change fromthe clause-final or clause-internal to the utterance-initial or discourse-initial.12

Finally, I discuss the framework in which to study pragmaticalization

phenomena. Onodera adopts Traugott's tendencies for semantic change,which are characterized by the unidirectionalities in (8). The unidirec-tionalities have been adopted by the definition of grammaticalization in

(5), and equally by Onodera's study on pragmaticalization.As noted above, Onodera (2000) argues that the na-elements under-

went pragmaticalization, but not grammaticalization, and for this reason,she in that article suggests that the two processes are independent.However, Onodera (p. 205) changes her position slightly because of thescope of application of the term "grammaticalization." As she admits

(p. 205), it allows for both restrictive and. broad definitions, and in itsbroad sense, it covers historical processes that involve 'semantic andsyntactic reclassification,' 'gradual step-by-step change,' 'increase inscope and in syntactic freedom' even when such processes do notinvolve change in morpho-syntactic status and production of new gram-matical elements. Because the na-element underwent these processes,she says that the development of the na-elements, too, would be aninstance of grammaticalization in its broad sense.

In spite of her basic position, Onodera's argument blurs the differencebetween grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. Her pragmaticaliza-tion is based on the same framework as grammaticalization, so it is nat-ural that the two have in common the concepts and the data to be cov-ered by those concepts. It is also natural that, given the width of

12 If pragmaticalization is responsible for the origins of LDMs in general, as stat-ed in (17), it implies that among the parts of speech, morpho-syntactically peripheralones such as lexical interjections emerge later than those that play a central role informing sentence structure, such as nouns and verbs. It will be of interest to studythe relations between pragmaticalization and the priority among lexical categories.


application of the definition in (5), grammaticalization has come to beused almost as a cover term for. various historical changes having par-ticular directions. It is important, however, to have a clear definingfeature of pragmaticalization if we are serious in maintaining its inde-

pendence from grammaticalization.As stated in Onodera's definition in (7), pragmaticalization is the

process in which a given item ends up with a DM. This means that ithas to be defined by the result of a historical process rather than themode of a process. Once one attempts to define pragmaticalization interms of its modes of processes, one will be confused by the fact thatto make DMs or LDMs, some processes of pragmaticalization adoptthose of grammaticalization, but others do not. But such an attempt isnot relevant. In fact, the term "grammaticalization" is ambiguous be-tween a sense in which it refers to the modes of historical changes anda sense in which it refers to the results of these changes. The formersense is a broad one and includes the case of the na-elements, and thelatter, a narrow one, excludes them. Seen in this light, pragmaticaliza-tion is a result-oriented concept and is specifically designed for DMs,and in this sense, it is clearly distinguished from both versions of gram-maticalization.

In Section 2.2, I mentioned the complementary relation between

grammar and pragmatics, and it has led me to define pragmaticalizationin pragmatic terms. When we go on to apply the result-orientedness tothe narrow grammaticalization, we may say that it applies to caseswhere the resultant item belongs to the ideational component andbecomes an element of grammar such as auxiliary verb, preposition,case-marker, or complemetizer.

Now pragmaticalization still depends on grammaticalization for itsconcepts and for the methods with which to study language change.To achieve further independence and progress, however, it is wise toformulate pragmaticalization not in terms of grammaticalization, but interms of pragmatics. A certain number of terms are available. Forexample, we may say that it is a process from conversational to conven-tional implicature, or from less to more situation-dependent meanings.Onodera (pp. 214-218) herself suggests this line of research in referenceto invited inferences in the sense of Geis and Zwicky (1971). Whenequipped with such instruments, pragmaticalization will be more directlylinked to present-day pragmatics, and researchers of the field will bemore familiar with historical pragmatics.


6. Conclusion

I conclude this review article by mentioning the effects thatOnodera's work has on the advancement of pragmatics. Studies on his-torically related words and newly coined ones, differences between old

people's and young people's speech, processes of conventionalizationand idiomaticization, have fallen within the domain of lexicography, andhave been contiguous to, but not included in, the research area of prag-matics proper. With the rise of historical pragmatics, together with thehypothesis of pragmaticalization, however, pragmatics is expected toincorporate the findings of these studies; this trend leads students of

pragmatics to develop pragmatic principles that work not only acrossthe boundaries of particular situations but also across the boundaries oftime. Onodera's book surely makes a step toward this direction.

Here I focused on processes of pragmaticalization and Onodera's analy-sis of them so as to better understand pragmaticalization as distinguishedfrom grammaticalization. Because of this, I did not cover the wholerange of Onodera's work. To list just a few of the untouched issues, Idid not consider: (i) theories of grammaticalization concerning subjectifi-cation and intersubjectification; (ii) Onodera's fine-grained analysis of

present-day Japanese DMs; and comparison of DMs in Japanese andthose in English; nor (iii) the relevance of her work to politeness, to wordorder typology, and to Japanese grammatical theories of the kind repre-sented by Watanabe (1971). Each of these issues will certainly developinto an independent study.

In historical pragmatics, one can, and in fact must, serve both as a

philologist and as a researcher of pragmatics. Onodera's work is agood example of this high requirement, and will be the standard for anystudies to come in this area.

REFERENCES

Arita, Setsuko (2005)“Taiwa ni Arawareru Buntoo no Wa no Kinoo nitsuite

(On the Function of WA in Sentence-initial Position Occurring in

Dialogues),”paper presented at 8th Conference of the Pragmatics Society

of Japan.Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals

in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Fujiwara, Yoichi (1992) Aisatsu Kotoba no Sekai (The World of Greeting


Words), Musashinoshoin, Tokyo.

Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky (1971)“On Invited Inferences,”

Linguistic Inquiry 2, 561-566.Givon, Talmy (1979) On Understanding Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English,

Longman, London.Hara, Michio, ed. (1991) Toyotakeza Joorurishu 1 (The Collected Jooruri

Ballads of the Toyotake Theater), Kokushokankokai, Tokyo.Hinds, John, Senko K. Maynard and Shoichi Iwasaki, eds. (1987) Perspectives

on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese WA, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott (2003) Grammaticalization, 2nd ed.,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Horn, Laurence R. (1984)“Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference:

Q-based and R-based Implicature,”Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, ed.

by Deborah Schiffrin, 11-42, Georgetown University Press, Washington,

D.C.

Kamio, Akio (1997) Territory of Information, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Konig, Ekkehard (1985)“On the History of Concessive Connectives in English:

Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence,”Lingua 66, 1-19.

Matsumoto, Yo (1988)“From Bound Grammatical Markers to Free Discourse

Markers: History of Some Japanese Connectives,”BLS 14, 340-351.

Mikami, Akira (1953=1972) Gendai Gohoo Josetsu (Introduction to the Present-day Usage), Kurosio, Tokyo.

Miyaji, Atsuko (1979) Shin-Shin Goi no Shiteki Kenkyuu (Historical Studies onthe Vocabulary of Body-parts and Emotions), Meijishoin, Tokyo.

Miyoshi, Sukesaburou (1977) Shin Ei-Doku Hikaku Bunpoo (New German-English Comparative Grammar), Ikubundo, Tokyo.

Mori, Yuichi (1993)“Nihongo no nakano Shin-Shin Metafa (The Mind-Body

Metaphor in Japanese),”Kokugo Kenkyu (Studies of the Japanese Lan-

guage), 828-843, Meijishoin, Tokyo.

Morioka, Kenji (1973)“Bunshoo Tenkai to Setsuzokushi, Kandooshi (Discourse

Development and Conjunctions, Interjections),”Setsuzokushi, Kandooshi

(Conjunctions, Interjections), ed. by Kazuhiko Suzuki and Oki Hayashi, 7-

44, Meijishoin, Tokyo.

Morita, Yoshiyuki (1973)“Kandooshi no Hensen (The Historical Change of

Interjections),”Setsuzokushi, Kandooshi (Conjunctions, Interjections), ed. by

Kazuhiko Suzuki and Oki Hayashi, 177-208, Meijishoin, Tokyo.

Naganuma, Keiichi (2000)“Setsuzokushitekini Kaisyakusareru Mukanshimeishi

nitsuite (On the Article-less Nouns That Are Interpreted as Connectives),”

Furansugogaku Kenkyuu (Studies in French Linguistics) 34, 39-44.

Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (NKD) (Unabridged Dictionary of the Japanese Lan-

guage) (2000) 2nd ed., Shogakkan, Tokyo.

Oda, Nozomi (2005)“Amasa ni Kakawaru Yobikakego no Komyunikeeshon

Kinoo (Communicative Functions of the Vocative“Epithet of Sweetness”),”


JELS 22, 151-160.

Okutsu, Keiichiro (1978)“Boku-wa Unagi-da”no Bunpoo (Grammar of“I-am-

an-eel”), Kurosio, Tokyo.

Onodera, Noriko (1996)“Dooshi kara Setsuzokuhyoogen e: Nihongo niokeru

Grammaticalization to Subjectification no Ichijirei (From Verbs to Connec-

tives: A Case of Grammaticalization and Subjectification in Japanese),”

Gengogakurin (The Linguistics-woods), 457-474, Sanseido, Tokyo.

Onodera, Noriko (2000)“Development of Demo-type Connectives and Na-ele-

ments: Two Extremes of Japanese Discourse Markers,”Journal of Histori-

cal Pragmatics 1, 27-55.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (1989) 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Rouchota, Villy (1998)“Connectives, Coherence and Relevance,”Current Issues

in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 11-57,

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Schiffrin, Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1982)“From Propositional to Textual and Expressive

Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization,”

Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann and

Yakov Malkiel, 245-271, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1989)“On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English,”

Language 65, 31-55.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig (1991)“The Semantics-Pragmatics

of Grammaticalization Revisited," Approaches to Grammaticalization:

Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. by Elizabeth C.

Traugott and Bernd Heine, 189-218, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Watanabe, Minoru (1971) Kokugo Koobunron (A Study on Japanese Sentence

Structure), Hanawa Shobo, Tokyo.

Yamaguchi, Nakami (1982)“Kankaku, Kanjoo Goi no Rekishi (History of the

Vocabulary of Feelings and Emotions),”Goishi (Vocabulary History), ed.

by Kenji Morioka, Yutaka Miyaji, Hideo Teramura and Zenmei Kawabata,202-227, Meijishoin, Tokyo.

Graduate School of Information SciencesTohoku University6-3-09, Aoba, Aramaki-aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai-shiMiyagi 980-8579e-mail: [email protected]

Documents

PRAGMATICALIZATION AND THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE …