Cover not available
Part of
Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics
Edited by Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker and Jukka Tuominen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243] 2014
► pp. 77–106

From degree/manner adverbs to pragmatic particles in Japanese

A corpus-based approach to the parallel diachronic development of amari, bakari, and yahari

| Georgia Institute of Technology
This is a corpus-based analysis of synchronic and diachronic variations of the Japanese degree adverbs amari ‘extremely’ and bakari ‘about, to the extent’, and the manner adverb yahari ‘being still’. These variations are unique in that they are not constructions, but morphophonological variants. Further, variants of the same phonetic shape undergo parallel development. First, phonologically, each adverb set involves both expansion and truncation. Positionally, the newer variants shifted from sentence-internal to sentence-peripheral, and they expanded functionally as discourse/pragmatic particles, thereby semantically becoming more (inter)subjective. Contrastingly, each original form preserves its original features most. Second, such parallelism is motivated by “associative iconicity” (Fischer 1999) and “paradigmatic iconicity” (Krug 2000). Third, given the layered structure analyses of Japanese, the changes are conceivably interrelated. Fourth, this article presents a similar case in Korean for a comparison.
Published online: 11 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.07shi
References (31)
References
Corpora
Aozora Bunko [online collection of out-of-copyright materials]. 1997. Compiled by Michio Tomita. Online: [URL] .
BTSJC = BTSJ ni yoru Nihongo Hanashi Kotoba Corpus 1 [Japanese conversation corpus by BTSJ]. 2005. Compiled by Mayumi Usami. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
CD-ROM-ban Shinchoo Bunko no 100-satsu [Shinchosha CD-ROM edition of 100 selected books]. 1995. Tokyo: Shinchosha.Google Scholar
Shokuba-F = Josei no Kotoba: Shokuba hen [Female corpus: In the workplace]. 1997. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai. Tokyo: Hitsuzi Shoboo.Google Scholar
Shokuba-M = Dansei no Kotoba: Shokuba hen [Male corpus: In the workplace]. 2002. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai. Tokyo: Hitsuzi Shoboo.Google Scholar
Secondary sources
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Andreas. 1999. “What, if Anything, is Phonological Iconicity?” In Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Literature , ed. by Max Nänny, and Olga Fischer, 123–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamada, Atsushi. 1986. Kokugo-shi no Shomondai [Various issues concerning the history of Japanese]. Tokyo: Izumi Shoin.Google Scholar
Hirosaka, Naoko. 1996. “‘Amari’ ni tsuite no ichi koosatsu [Some thoughts on amari].” Dooshisha Joshi Daigaku Nihongo Nihon Bungaku 8: 48–65.Google Scholar
Inoue, Fumio. 1998. Nihongo Watching [Japanese watching]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas, and Andreas H. Jucker. 1995. “The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics.” In Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English , ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, 3–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawase, Tadasu. 2008. “Jaku-hitei to kado o arawasu fukushi no shi-teki koosatsu [Historical analysis of an adverb of weak negation and excessivity].” A paper presented at the 9th Nihongo Bunpoo Gakkai.
Kim, Hijean. 2008. “Processes Underlying the Development of Korean Intensifiers: The Cases of ‘nemwu’, ‘nemwunemwu’ and ‘nem’.” The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 16 (3): 163–192.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter. 1999. “Court Records and Cartoons: Reflections of Spontaneous Dialogue in Early Romance texts.” In Historical Dialogue Analysis , ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft, 399–429. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Hans, and Christian Mair. 2004. “Introduction.” In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English , ed. by Hans Lindquist, and Christian Mair, ix–xiv. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NKD = Nihon Kokugo Dai-jiten [Comprehensive dictionary of the Japanese language]. 2003. Tokyo: Shogakukan.Google Scholar
Numata, Yoshiko. 1992. “Toritate-shi to Shiten [Focusing particles and viewpoints].” Nihongogaku 11 (8): 35–43.Google Scholar
Numata, Yoshiko, and Hisashi Noda (eds). 2003. Nihongo no Toritate: Gendaigo to Rekishiteki Henka, Chiriteki Heni [Focusing in Japanese: Present-day Japanese and historical changes, regional variations]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Suzuki Ryoko. 1992. “Word Order Variability in Japanese Conversation: Motivations and Grammaticalization.” Text 12 (3): 429–445.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Noriko. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers . Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Mieko, and Yasue Numaguchi. 2003. “Kin-Gendai ni okeru ‘bakari’ no koosatsu [Analysis of bakari in Modern/Present-day Japanese].” Kobe Daigaku Ryuugakusei Sentaa Kiyoo 9: 1–20.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. “I dunno: A Usage-based Account of the Phonological Reduction of don’t in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (1): 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2007. “(Inter)subjectification, Japanese Syntax and Syntactic Scope Increase.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (2): 171–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “From a Manner Adverb to a Discourse Particle: The Case of yahari, yappari and yappa.” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 27: 17–44.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Susan, and Sung-Ock Sohn. 1998. “Grammaticalization, Aspect, and Emotion: The Case of Japanese -te shimau and Korean -a/e pelita.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8: 217–230.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker. 2010. “Trends and Developments in Historical Pragmatics.” In Historical Pragmatics , ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 3–30. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ueno, Satoko. 2003. “Gentei no toritate no chiri-teki heni [Geographical variants of limit-focus adverbials].” In Nihongo no Toritate: Gendaigo to Rekishiteki Henka, Chiriteki Heni [Focusing in Japanese: Present-day Japanese and historical changes, regional variations], ed. by Yoshiko Numata, and Hisashi Noda, 203–222. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Tanno, Koji
2022. The role of discourse strategies in the grammaticalization of the Japanese discourse markerdakara. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 ► pp. 592 ff. DOI logo
Shinzato, Rumiko
2017. Chapter 11. Grammaticalization of PMs/DMs/MMs in Japanese. In Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 186], ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Shinzato, Rumiko
2018. Chapter 2. Amari/anmari/anma and totemo/tottemo in history and discourse. In Pragmatics of Japanese [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 285], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.