Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 18:3 (2008) ► pp.425–451

Utterance-final conjunctive particles and implicature in Japanese conversation

According to the received view, connective particles are characterised as “bound grammatical markers” that connect two clauses into a ‘sentence’ (Matsumoto, Yo 1988: 345). As Fukushima (2005) points out though, these conjunctions have other functions that go beyond intra-sentential usage. Utterance-final conjunctive particles have been analysed thus far, for the most part, as a type of (clausal) ellipsis or as particles that give rise to various pragmatic effects. In this paper, it is suggested that an approach to utterance-final conjunctive particles that is grounded in the notion of implicature may offer a complementary perspective on this phenomenon. The notions of “(im)politeness implicature” and “interactional implicature” are utilised in order to discuss how utterance-final conjunctive particles may trigger inferences leading to various interpersonal and interactional effects. By carefully analysing the projection and uptake of these implicatures apparent in the sequential development of interpretings conjointly co-constituted in Japanese conversation, it is argued that the analysts’ and participants’ perspectives can be better reconciled to avoid the imposition of an analysis by the researcher which is not contingently relevant to those participants. It is argued that through such an analysis the manner in which linguistic and communicative perspectives on implicature can complement one another can be explored more fully.
Keywords: Conjunction, Japanese, Interactional achievement, (Im)politeness, Implicature, Pragmatic analysis
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.3.04hau
References (79)
Aoki, Haruo, and Shigeko Okamoto (1988) Rules for Conversation Rituals in Japanese. Tokyo: Taishūkan.Google Scholar
(2004) Co-constituting face in conversation: An alternative to Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. Paper presented at the 90th Annual National Communication Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
(2005) Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In K. Fitch and R. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 41- 63.Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert, and David Good (2002) Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In A. Fetzer and C. Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121-150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 221: 327-366. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006) The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. Birner and G. Ward (eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21-30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, Jack (1985) “Why that now?” Two kinds of conversational meaning. Discourse Processes 81: 319-355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blome-Tillmann, Michael (2008) Conversational implicature and the cancellability test. Analysis 681: 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel (2006) Cancellation and intention. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 12/131: 1-12.Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31.7: 881-909. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2007) Mitigation. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logo  MetBibGoogle Scholar
(2004) Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 633-656.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1995) Conversation analysis. In J. Smith, R. Harré, and L. van Langenhove (eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 64-79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Tatsuya (2005) Japanese continuative conjunction ga as a semantic boundary marker. Language and Communication 25.1: 81-106. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fujita, Naomi (2001) Politeness in interaction: A discourse approach to Japanese politeness markers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.
Gauker, Christopher (2001) Situated inference versus conversational implicature. Nous 351: 163-189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul (1967) Logic and Conversation. William James Lectures, Unpublished manuscript.
(1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) The importance of “place” in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural Pragmatics 2.1: 41-68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a) The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39.1: 84-110. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2007b) Emic conceptulisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics 39.4: 657-680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Carl Hinze (2003) A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 35.10: 1581-1611. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John (1978) Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse. In J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 79-121.Google Scholar
(1982) Japanese conversational structures. Lingua 571: 301-326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1984) Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8.3: 345-365. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence (2004) Implicature. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3-28.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Mari (1988) Repetition and Ellipsis in Japanese Conversational Discourse: A Study of the Cognitive Domain of Conversational Interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Ide, Sachiko (1989) Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8.2/3: 223-248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iguchi, Yoko (1998) Functional variety in the Japanese conjunctive particle kara ‘because.’ In T. Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 99-128.Google Scholar
Itani, Reiko (1992) Japanese conjunction kedo (‘but’) in utterance-final use: A relevance-based analysis. English Linguistics 91: 265-283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iten, Corine (2005) Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabaya, Hiroshi (1993) Taigū hyōgen ni okeru shōryaku [Ellipsis in polite expressions]. Nihongogaku 12.9: 27-33.Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio (1994) The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21.1: 67-100. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu (1978) Danwa no bunpō [Discourse grammar]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.Google Scholar
Lebra, Takie (1976) Japanese Patterns of Behaviour. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai'i.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalised Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  BoP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsui, Tomoko (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of a Japanese discourse marker dakara (so/in other words): A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics 24.7: 867-891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo (1988) From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers. Berkeley Linguistics Society 141: 340-351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko (1988) Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 121: 403-426. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mastumoto, Yoshiko (1989) Politeness and conversational universals - observations from Japanese. Multilingua 81: 207-221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko (2003) Discussion note: Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics 35.10/11: 1515- 1521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko (1989) Japanese Conversation. Self-contextualisation through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Mizutani, Osamu, and Nobuko Mizutani (1987) How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.Google Scholar
Mori, Junko (1999) Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide, and Kumiko Ichihashi-Nakayama (1997) Japanese kedo: Discourse genre and grammaticalization. In: H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics Volume 6. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 607-619.Google Scholar
Obana, Yasuko (2000) Understanding Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio (1995) Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology. In M. Shibatani and S. Thompson (eds.), Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 201-218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko (1985) Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Okazaki, Shoko (1994) Ellipsis in Japanese Conversational Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
Ooishi, Hatsutaro (1981) Hanashi kotoba to wa nani ka [What is spoken language?]. In Kotoba Shiriizu12. Tokyo: Bunkachō, pp. 36-51.Google Scholar
Ooyama, Tetsuharu (1998) Poraitonesu no sutoratejī toshite no Nihongo bunmatsu hyōgen [Japanese sentence-final expressions as a politeness strategy]. In The Proceedings of the Dainikkai Shakaigengokagakkai Taikai [Second Sociolinguistic Sciences Society Conference], Kyoto University, Japan, pp. 5-10.
Potts, Christopher (2005) The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerry (1978) On testing for conversational implicature. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 91. Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 281-297.Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert (1999) The impossibility of a culturally contexted conversation analysis: On simultaneous, distinct types of pragmatic meaning. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32.1/2: 129-140. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, Ryoko (2008) Japanese discourse connectives dakara and sorede: A re-assessment of procedural meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40.1: 127-154. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Saul, Jennifer (2002) Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Nous 36.2: 228-248. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina (2001) Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33.12: 1791-1814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deidre Wilson (1995) Relevance. Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, T. (1993) Shōrayku ni yotte dekita jutsugo keishiki [Predicate forms created by ellipsis]. Nihongogaku 12.9: 18-26.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko (1999) Turn-taking in Japanese. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Liddia (2004) Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interview discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toyoda, Miyuki, and Shunichi Ishihara (2003) The teaching of Japanese culture. In J. Lo Bianco and C. Crozet (eds.), Teaching Invisible Culture. Classroom Practice and Theory. Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
Uchito, Shoko (1997) Kanrensei riron ni okeru hanashikotoba ni arawareru shōryakubun no bunseki [An analysis of elliptical sentences occurring in speech from the perspective of relevance theory]. Bunkyō Daigaku Kokubun [Bunkyo University Journal of Japanese Literature] 261: 24-33.Google Scholar
Usami, Mayumi (2002) Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Weiner, Matthew (2006) Are all conversational implicatures cancellable? Analysis 66.2: 127-130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Won, Ji-Eun (1999) Nichikan ‘Chūto shūshi bun’ no teineisa nitsuite [A comparative study of the politeness of unfinished utterances in Japanese and Korean]. Tsukuba Ooyōgengogaku Kenkyū [Tsukuba Research in Applied Linguistics] 61: 133-144.Google Scholar
Xie, Yun (2000) Irai Kōi: Nichichū Taishō Kenkyū [A Comparative Study of Requests in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese]. Unpublished Masters thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Xu, Xia Ling (2002) Bunmatsu ‘kara’ to ‘karada’ no imi yōhō [The meaning and usage of utterance-final kara and karada]. Gengo Bunka Ronshū [Studies in Language and Culture] (Nagoya University) 23.2: 67-79.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Toshiko (2007). Japanese Language in Use. An Introduction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Yoneha Okazaki, Shoko (2003) Conversational styles and ellipsis in Japanese couples’ conversations. In L. Thiesmeyer (ed.), Discourse and Silencing. Representation and the Language of Displacement.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 79-110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yotsukura, Lindsay (2003) Negotiating Moves: Problem Presentation and Resolution in Japanese Business Discourse. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Au-Yeung, Terry S. H. & Richard Fitzgerald
2022. Multi-layered Gestalt in Real-time Interaction. Philosophia Scientae :26-3 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Min, Shingo Tokimoto, Ge Song, Takashi Ueno, Masatoshi Koizumi & Sachiko Kiyama
2022. Different Neural Responses for Unfinished Sentence as a Conventional Indirect Refusal Between Native and Non-native Speakers: An Event-Related Potential Study. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Degand, Liesbeth & Geertje van Bergen
2018. Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence From Speech and Instant Messaging. Discourse Processes 55:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Kawanishi, Yumiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
2018. Reason-coding in Japanese. In Pragmatics of Japanese [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 285], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Zawiszová, Halina
2018. On ´doing friendship´ in and through talk: Exploring conversational interactions of Japanese young people, DOI logo
Kaneyasu, Michiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
2017. Indexing ‘entrustment’: An analysis of the Japanese formulaic construction [N da yo N]. Discourse Studies 19:4 ► pp. 402 ff. DOI logo
Rhee, Seongha
2016. LP and RP in the development of discourse markers from “what” in Korean. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:2 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Taguchi, Naoko
2014. Development of Interactional Competence in Japanese as a Second Language: Use of Incomplete Sentences as Interactional Resources. The Modern Language Journal 98:2 ► pp. 518 ff. DOI logo
Taguchi, Naoko
2014. Development of Interactional Competence in Japanese as a Second Language: Use of Incomplete Sentences as Interactional Resources. The Modern Language Journal 98:2 ► pp. 518 ff. DOI logo
Izumi, Tomoko, Kenji Imamura, Taichi Asami, Kuniko Saito, Genichiro Kikui & Satoshi Sato
2013. Normalizing Complex Functional Expressions in Japanese Predicates. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing 12:3 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2009. Intention(ality) and the Conceptualization of Communication in Pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics 29:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2011. Chapter 9. Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. In Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing, ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 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.