The sentence-final particle ne, if used with rising intonation, expresses seeking confirmation. However, when rising ne is connected to a sentence nominalized by no(da), it functions to share information that is inaccessible to listeners. It is interpreted as seeking confirmation only when listeners can directly access the information. Nominalization by no(da) before rising ne indicates the listener's or speaker's understanding is incomplete. In analyzing the discourse functions of ne, besides types of intonation, we should consider the existence or absence of noda.

抄録全体を表示

Third person pronoun “_??_” which is used for objects except animate has some more grammatical restrictions than “_??_/_??_” for a human does, however, the practical study has hardly been done yet.
Here in this paper, for trial, the categorization between Third person pronoun “_??_” and Demonstrative pronoun “_??_/_??_” should be made clearly.
Moreover, I would like to state my opinion on some distinctive tendencies, such as the congenial of “_??_” and “_??_” sentence.

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is to explore the verbalization pattern of subject, especially that of personal pronoun subject, in Japanese discourse. Wallace Chafe (1972, 1974) remarks that the concepts of speaker and hearer are ‘given’ and are pronounced with weaker stress and lower pitch. However, the Japanese equivalents of ‘I’ and ‘you’ are not always omitted.
In this paper, we shall argue that there are four types of subject in the light of its semantical function, and that this semantical function controls the verbalization vs. non-verbalization of the subject. The four types of subject are: 1) Topic of absolute contrast (Tac) / Nominative of complete exclusion (Nce), 2) Topic of relative contrast (Trc) /Nominative of partial exclusion (Npe), 3) Topic of logical uniqueness (Tlu) / Nominative of logical uniqueness (Nlu), 4) Topic of absolute uniqueness (Tau) / Nominative of absolute uniqueness (Nau).
In the case Tac/Nce, the subject has to be verbalized. On the other hand, for the case Tau/Nau, the subject is normally not verbalized.
Trc/Npe are divided into two types according to their predictability. When the subject is predictable through the factors below, it is omittable. When it is not, it must be verbalized. The factors which make a subject predictable are ‘Speaker-Hearer Predicates (SHP)’, ‘Shared Information’ and ‘Repetition or Substitution’. SHP indicate certain types of predicates which demand the first person or the second person subject. 'Shared Information' is the nformation shared between a speaker and a hearer. The third factor 'Repetition or Substitution' means repetition or substitution of something which has been uttered
previously in the discourse. If any one of these factors are present in the predicate or in the context, the hearer can predict the subject, and it can hence be omitted. But in the case that none of these factors are present in the predicate or in the context, the subject must be verbalized.
Tlu/Nlu are uniquely identifiable by shared knowledge between speaker and hearer or from context, and these subjects are omittable.

抄録全体を表示

本稿は, 「まあ, 嬉しい!」のような発話者が感情を思わず口にした「感情表出文」とはどのようなものか, 感情主の制約のあり方と, 統語的特徴から分析したものである. 感情述語の人称制約は2種類のムードに関わる問題である. 一つは, 「述べ立てのムード」, もう一つは「感情表出のムード」である. 前者のムードを持つ「述べ立て文」に生じる人称制約は語用論的なものであり, 一人称感情主の場合が多いが, 条件が整えば他の人称も可能である. 一方, 感情主が一人称以外ではあり得ないような人称制約を持つタイプの文がある. これを, 感情表出のムードを持つ「感情表出文」と定義した.
その上で, 感情表出文の統語的特徴について検討した結果, 感情表出文は, 述語が要求する感情主や感情の対象といった意味役割を統語的に分析的な方法では言語化しない, すなわち述語一語文であるという事実を明らかにした.
一語文では, 言語文脈上に意味役割の値を参照することができないため, 発話現場に依存して決めるしか方法がなく, 感情主は発話現場の発話者, 感情の対象は発話時の現場のできごとに自動的に決まる. よって, 一語文は感情表出文のムードに適合する. 一方, 意味役割を言語化した文は, 意味役割を発話現場に依存する必要がないため, 発話現場に拘束されない. こうしたことから, 感情表出文は述語一語文でなければならないと結論づけた.

抄録全体を表示

Although the English variant ‘Japanese English’ is not yet widely known and accepted, some characteristics of Japanese English influenced by the mother tongue do exist and have both explicit and implicit effects on English. The purpose of this study is to confirm, through analysis of the phenomenon of“heavyuse of ‘I think’ in Japanese English”, that modality usages of Japanese have a possibility to influence and characterize Japanese English. In this study, based on the hypothesis that heavyuse of ‘I think’ is partly caused by attitudinal modality of the corresponding Japanese phrase ‘to-omou’, the author analyzed translated sentences containing　 ‘to-omou’, and revealed the fact that modality functions of ‘to-omou’ are highly relevant to the heavyuse of ‘I think’ in Japanese English.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to argue for a temporal-order interpretation system in a complex sentence. A complex sentence has at least two or more temporal denotations. If a complex sentence has two temporal denotations because of its two clauses, the system may show the temporal order of events described in the clauses.
Mihara (1991, 1992) has proposed TENSE PERSPECTIVE, taking up the position that both English and Japanese have only two tenses: past tense and non-past tense. According to the principle, the two events which have an identical temporal denotation in a complex sentence are viewed, on the one hand, from a speaker's viewpoint: the time of utterance. Therefore, the denotations in clauses do not reflect the temporal order of events. The order must be settled pragmatically. On the other hand, in a complex sentence with different temporal denotations, its subclause event is viewed from the viewpoint of a main clause subject: the time of its main clause. (The temporal denotation of its main clause is, of course, fixed from a speaker's viewpoint.)
However, the dichotomy between the same temporal denotation and a different one does not work in some cases. For the settlement of the temporal order of events described in a complex sentence, we need a different principle: the principle of discourse interpretation. Discourse information about a complex sentence is inevitable for us to settle the temporal order of events. This principle covers such information, and it reveals the following points: (a) each clause has its own viewpoint from which its temporal denotation is fixed, (b) the viewpoint must precede the clause so that we may get discourse information, and (c) it need not exist in the same sentence.

抄録全体を表示

This paper analyzes the semantic features of Japanese affective passives and Vietnamese "bị" passives. From the point of contrastive linguistics, the similarities and differences between the two languages can be observed and considered through the characteristics of the subject and the conditions for forming affective passives and "bị" passives. Although both Japanese indirect passives and "bị" passives take similar constructions and imply adversity, it is revealed that "bị" passives need the adversity to the subject in a direct way.

抄録全体を表示