Paper short abstract:

In this presentation we examine the sentence qualifications of single-noun utterances in Japanese from pragmatic and phonological perspectives. The conclusion is that single-noun utterances are not sentences from either of these two perspectives, contrary to strong version of sententialism.

Paper long abstract:

In the research contexts of Japanese language studies known as Kokugogaku and Nihongogaku, the strong version of sententialism has traditionally been widely accepted. This view regards human language activity as conducted through sentences and it treats all utterances that appear in discourse, including utterance with only single words, as sentences (ichigobun “one-word sentence,” e.g. Yoshio Nitta Bun to Zitairuikei o Tyushin ni, 2016). Since it takes no account of syntax as its doctrine, we need perspectives other than syntax in order to examine the validity of this view. In this presentation we consider the sentence qualifications of single-noun utterances in Japanese from pragmatic and phonological perspectives. The conclusion is that single-noun utterances are not sentences from either of these two perspectives, contrary to strong version of sententialism.

From the pragmatic perspective, single-noun utterances cannot be sentential utterances. Unlike utterances widely recognized as sentential utterances, they require the support of (i) authority, (ii) an adjacency pair, or (iii) strong feeling. That is, they must meet at least one of the following descriptions: (i) an utterance made by a higher-ranking person to a lower-ranking person (i.e., supported by authority, e.g. Meshi. “Food.”); (ii) an utterance made in response to a precedent utterance by another party in a conversation (i.e., supported by adjacency pair, e.g. Okinawa. as the second repeating utterance in response to the first utterance of Okinawa=ni it=te ki=ta=yo. “I went to Okinawa.”), or (iii) an utterance with strong feeling (e.g. Nezumi! “A mouse!” out of strong surprise or fear).

Single-noun utterances are not sentential utterances from the phonological perspective either. Unlike utterances widely accepted as sentential utterances, they generally cannot bear falling intonation at their end. Single-noun utterance of calling others can exceptionally bear (e.g. Matumotoo! LHHHF), but this is due to final prolongation with strong feeling. Final falling intonation is commonly observed at the end of prolonged utterances with strong feelings, whether they are sentential utterances or not (e.g. Hara=ga tatsuu! “Damn!”, Yukee! “Charge”, Anta=ttaraa! “You!”, and Itsumo soo-na=nda=karaa! “You are always like that!”). Therefore we don’t have to admit single-noun utterances of calling as exceptional sentential utterances.

Paper short abstract:

In this presentation, we will examine the functional and formal motivations that gave rise to the particle-initiated construction and show that different discourse contexts justify and call for different forms of linguistic expressions, including those deviating from the well-formed ‘sentence’.

Paper long abstract:

This presentation examines a marginal syntactic construction that is observed in Japanese conversation in order to shed light on discussion of the role of ‘sentence’ within discourse. This construction, *wa*-initiated responsive construction (WRC), starts with a dependent particle, the topic postposition *wa* as illustrated below.

A: yamada-san imasu{is.in}?

‘Is Yamada in?’

B: wa= kyoo{today} yasumi{absent} desu{COPULA} ne{FINAL.PARTICLE}

‘(He) is absent today.’

Its distribution is very limited: the construction is observed only in spoken conversation, particularly in the response part of question-answer pairs. WRC, nevertheless, constitutes a robust construction in that its form and function are consistent across uses. The utterance-initial particle is pronounced with a high pitch and is often lengthened. Pragmatically, this construction also tends to be perceived as more positive, cooperative, and less abrupt, compared to an utterance without the utterance-initial *wa* (as in the case where both a noun phrase and *wa* are omitted). WRC in fact could be considered as a form of ellipsis where just a main noun phrase is omitted leaving a postposition behind. However, this raises a further question. Japanese in fact has a more common ellipsis strategy where *wa* is omitted with the noun phrase. What then motivated the development of this minor elliptical strategy?

Combination of the construction’s limited distribution and its functional and formal consistency presents an interesting puzzle. On the one hand, the construction contradicts with an otherwise widely observed structural rule, i.e., the postpositional particle *wa* must be used with a noun phrase. This contradiction is clearly felt by native speakers: speakers invariantly reject the form when presented in isolation. On the other hand, however, the construction has been used consistently and frequently enough to be established as a recognizable construction. In other words, there is some environment within conversation where the apparently ‘incomplete’ form of utterance is well-motivated.

In this presentation, we will examine the functional and formal motivations that gave rise to the particle-initiated construction and show that different discourse contexts justify and call for different forms of linguistic expressions, including those deviating from the well-formed ‘sentence’.

Paper short abstract:

Co-construction (defined as joint construction of a sentence) examples in the literature are found to not form grammatical units. The sentence analysis of these examples stems from a bias in that utterances by separate speakers are atemporally patched together in a quest to find sentences.

Paper long abstract:

Studies (e.g., Ono and Thompson 1995; Hayashi 2003) have discussed a phenomenon called co-construction, where ‘two participants engaged in conversation to jointly produce a single syntactic unit such as a sentence’ (Lerner 1991), as in:

A.

Kinoo atami no hoo de ookina jishin ga …. (Yesterday Atami of direction in large earthquake SUB)

Yesterday, in the Atami area, a big earthquake …

B.

Ee, arimashita ne. (Yes existed PTCL)

Yes, occurred (, didn’t it?). (Suzuki and Usami 2006)

However, since B’s utterance begins with ee ‘yes’, combining the two parts results in a strange sounding string:

?kinoo atami no hoo de ookina jishin ga ee arimashita ne

‘Yesterday, in the Atami area, a big earthquake, yes, occurred (,didn’t it?)’

Even more problematic to the co-construction analysis is observed in what the two utterances do in the talk. A’s utterance introduces ‘yesterday’s big earthquake in the Atami area’ into the talk. B accepts it with ee ‘yes’ and continues to talk about the shared referent by confirming its occurrence as ‘(it) occurred (, didn’t it?)’. Japanese has long been known for the frequent non-overt expression of referents (i.e., zero anaphora), and this characterization based on the shared referent seems more realistic than the co-construction analysis which produces a strange sounding string.

We examine Japanese examples previously analyzed as co-construction in order to show that speakers are better understood to be simply engaged in activities such as continuing to talk and asking about the shared referent. We suggest that the co-construction analysis stems from a common bias in that researchers fail to see how each utterance is produced or for what purpose, and patch together the utterances by multiple speakers atemporally in their quest to find sentences.

Paper short abstract:

Utterances that end with the particle –te ‘and’ appear frequently in Japanese discourse. They may be deemed unfinished, but analyses of their formal and functional properties demonstrate that they are complete utterances, constituting several different types of grammatical constructions.

Paper long abstract:

Many utterances in Japanese discourse, as in other languages, often appear to be incomplete or fragmental. This feeling of incompleteness seems to stem from what may be called “sententialism,” or an assumption that the basic structure of an utterance in discourse is a well-formed sentence. However, I argue that many of these seemingly incomplete utterances are in fact not incomplete. As a case in point, this paper examines utterances ending with the particle –te in Japanese.

The particle –te, corresponding to English ‘and,’ is typically used in a sentence like Uchi ni kaette, sugu ni neta. ‘I went home and went to bed immediately.’ That is, it is a clause- or phrase- linking particle. Accordingly, if an utterance ends with –te, it may sound unfinished. However, such utterances are widely used in Japanese discourse, especially in spoken informal conversations. Examining a corpus of spoken discourse consisting of dyadic conversations of Japanese college students, this paper analyzes the formal and functional properties of –te ending utterances and demonstrates that with some exceptions, –te ending utterances, as in the following example, are in fact complete as utterances in terms of form and meaning.

A: Go-kazoku ni nani ka atta no ka, mitaina, kiita n da kedo, sore demo chigakutte. (falling intonation)

‘I asked if something happened to her family members or something, but that’s not it, either, -tte.”

B: (a short pause) Nanka ne, kinō hanashita toki ni, nanka …

‘Well, when I talked with her yesterday, well …’

Furthermore, the analysis identified several types of –te ending utterances, each of which differ with regard to formal properties (e.g. intonation patterns, possibilities of co-occurrence with interactional particles) and pragmatic properties (e.g. mitigation of speech-act force, avoidance of bluntness, stating a reason, making a request). These different types of utterances, I argue, can be regarded as grammatical constructions in different degrees of grammaticalization, with one used as a request (e.g. Matte ‘Please wait’) as most fully grammaticalized.