Cover not available
Part of
Usage-based Approaches to Japanese Grammar: Towards the understanding of human language
Edited by Kaori Kabata and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Studies in Language Companion Series 156] 2014
► pp. 109–134

What typology reveals about modality 
in Japanese

A cross-linguistic perspective*

This paper presents a functional-typological analysis of three linguistic manifestations of modality-related phenomena in Japanese. When compared with English, German, and Korean, Japanese is characterized by a modal system that encodes event, epistemic, and evidential modalities, and a relatively impoverished grammatical mood, as well as a rich discourse system of sentence-final particles that can be grouped into speaker-oriented and hearer-oriented particles. The modality system in Japanese demonstrates a relatively high degree of elaboration in formal coding of evidential and discourse modalities. The cross-linguistic differences in the degrees of elaboration among different subcategories of modality as presented in this study require an explanation beyond the confines of grammar to find a link between grammar and other cognitive and communicative systems.
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.156.09hor
References (60)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2009. Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung Modalität anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikeln und Modus. In Modalität und Evidentialität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus , Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 251-302. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2009. Pragmatics and Grammar . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World . Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Soonja. 1995. The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 165-204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In The Expression of Modality , William Frawley (ed.), 27-69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805-855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Discourse and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language , Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 47-87. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. (ed.) 2002. Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Culture and Grammar . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds). 2006. Roots of Human Sociality . Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. 2003. Social interaction and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language , Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 119-143. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Frawley, William (ed.) 2006. The Expression of Modality . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent grammar. In The New Psychology of Language , Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155-175. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 1997. Form-meaning interaction in diachrony: A case study from Japanese. English Linguistics 14: 428-449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998a. Functional duality of case-marking particles in Japanese and its implications for grammaticalization: A contrastive study with Korean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8: 147-159.Google Scholar
. 1998b. On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle No: From the perspectives of ontology and grammaticalization. In Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives , Toshio Ohori (ed.), 169-192. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive and cognitive linguistic approach. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 1], Kaoru Horie (ed.), 11-31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Kootyakugo ni okeru bunpooka no tokutyoo ni kansuru ninti gengogakuteki koosatu (A cognitive linguistic analysis of the characteristics of grammaticalization in agglutinative languages). In Ninti gengogaku ronkoo (Papers in cognitive linguistics), Masaaki Yamanashi et al. (eds), 89-131. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
. 2002a. A comparative typological account of Japanese and Korean morpho-syntactic contrasts. Eonehag 32 (The Linguistic Society of Korea): 9-32.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Verbal nouns in Japanese and Korean: Cognitive typological implications. In Culture, Interaction, Language , Kuniyoshi Kataoka & Sachiko Ide (eds), 77-101. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
. 2003a. What cognitive linguistics can reveal about complementation in non-IE languages: Case studies from Japanese and Korean. In Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo European Languages , Eugene H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer (eds), 363-388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. Differential manifestations of “modality” between Japanese and Korean A typological perspective. In Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language , Shuji Chiba et al. (eds), 205-216. Tokyo: Kaitakusya.Google Scholar
. 2004. Danwa to ninti (Discourse and cognition). In Ninti bunpoo ron II (Essays in cognitive linguistics II), Yoshihisa Nakamura (ed.), 247-278. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
. In press. Modaritii no ruikeiron (A typology of modal expressions). In Modaritii: Riron to hoohoo (Modality: Theory and method), Harumi Sawada (ed.). Tokyo: Hituzi.
Horie, Kaoru & Sassa, Yuko. 2000. From place to space to discourse: A contrastive linguistic analysis of Tokoro and Tey . In Japanese/ Korean Linguistics 9 , Mineharu Nakayama & Charles J. Quinn (eds), 181-194. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru & Taira, Kaori. 2002. Where Korean and Japanese differ: Modality vs. discourse modality. In Japanese/ Korean Linguistics 10 , Noriko Akatsuka & Susan Strauss (eds), 178-191. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru & Pardeshi, Prashant. 2009. Gengo no taiporozii: Ninti ruikei ron no apurooti (A typology of languages: Cognitive typological approach). Tokyo: Kenkyusya.Google Scholar
Johnson, Yuki. 2003. Modality and the Japanese Language . Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 2003. Human cognition and the elaboration of events: Some universal conceptual categories. In The New Psychology of Language , Vol. 2. Michael Tomasello (ed.), 89-118. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1999. Modality. In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories , Keith Brown & Jim Miller (eds), 223-229. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyosang. 1991. Tense, Aspect, and Modality. A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Affixes in Korean: From a Typological Perspective. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese . Berkeley CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Maikino, Seiichi. 1983. How sensitive is the Japanese language to directly Perceivable phenomena? In Issues in Syntax and Semantics. Festschrift for Masatake Muraki , Kazuko Inoue (ed.), 127-144. Tokyo: Sansyuusya.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean . Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Masuoka, Takashi. 1991. Modaritii no bunpoo (Grammar of modality). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
. 2000. Meidai to modaritii no kyookai o motomete (In search for the boundary between proposition and modality). In Nihongo bunpoo no syosoo (Aspects of Japanese grammar), Takashi Masuoka (ed.), 87-98. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Maynard, Senko K. 1993. Discourse Modality. Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 24]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1992. Typological Discourse Analysis . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Moriya, Testuharu & Horie, Kaoru. 2009. What is and what is not language-specific about the Japanese modal system? A comparative and historical perspective. In Japanese Modality: Exploring its Scope and Interpretations , Barbara Pizziconi & Mika Kizu (eds), 87-114. Houndmillls: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2002a. Imiron kategorii to site no modaritii (Modality as a semantic category). In Ninti Gengogaku 2: Kategoriika (Cognitive linguistics 2: Categorization), Toshio Ohori (ed.), 217-251. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Polysemy and indeterminacy in modal markers. The case of Japanese Beshi . Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 123-167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27: 165-192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories [Studies in Language Companion Series 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Modality, modariti and predication – The story of modality in Japan. In Japanese Modality. Exploring Its Scope and Interpretation , Barbara Pizziconi & Mika Kizu (eds), 9-35. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
. In press. Modaritii no teigi o megutte (Concerning the definition of modality). In Modaritii: Riron to hoohoo (Modality: Theory and method), Harumi Sawada (ed.). Tokyo: Hituzi.
Narrog, Heiko & Horie, Kaoru. 2005. Hanasi kotoba ni okeru kanoo hyoogen (Potential expressions in spoken Japanese). In Gengogaku to nihongo kyooiku IV , Masao Minami (ed.), 99-110. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo no modaritii to ninsyoo (Modality and person in Japanese). Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
. 2000. Ninsiki no modaritii to sono syuuhen (Epistemic modality and its surroundings). In Modaritii (Modality). Nihongo no modaritii to ninsyoo (Modality and person in Japanese), Takuroo Moriyama et al. (eds), 81-159. Tokyo: Iwanami Syoten.Google Scholar
Onoe, Keisuke. 1996. Bun o doo mita ka: Zyutugoron no gakusiteki tenkai (How did they view a sentence? A historical development of the analysis of predication in Japanese). Nihongogaku (Journal of Japanese Linguistics) 15(8): 4-12.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2001. Mood and Modality , 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara, & Kizu, Mika (eds). 2009. Japanese Modality: Exploring its Scope and Interpretations . Houndmillls: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sawada, Harumi. 1995. Studies in English and Japanese Auxiliaries . Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Sawada Harumi (ed.). 2012. Modaritii: Zirei kenkyuu (Modality: Case studies). Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Sawada, Harumi (ed.). In press. Modaritii: Riron to Hoohoo (Modality: Theory and method). Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Sohn, Homin. 1994. Korean . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Moriya, Tetsuharu & Kaoru Horie
2009. Japanese Modality, ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 december 2018. 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.