Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis, by Noriko O

PRAGMATICALIZATION AND THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS

KOICHI NISHIDA

Tohoku University*

Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis, by Noriko O. Onodera, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2004, xiv+251pp.

Keywords: pragmaticalization, grammaticalization, directionality, freedom from sentencestructure, lexical discoursemarkers

1. Introduction Noriko Onodera's (2004) Japanese Discourse Markers brings us to the new research area of historical pragmatics. As the book's title suggests, Onodera's study is characterized by its diachronic perspective brought into a branch of linguistics which usually deals with the relations between daily situations and present-day language use. In this sense, her study should be understood as addressing a new question: in what way has the pragmatic use of language been developed? She attempts to answer this question by tracing historical changes of discourse markers (DMs) such as discourse connectives and interjections. Studies of Japanese have long been concerned with the question of how to code the interpersonal relations between speaker and hearer. In particular, various approaches have been proposed for particles such as ne or na, which, like 'yes' or 'yeah' in English, show the agreement between speaker and hearer (cf. Watanabe (1971: Ch. 3) and Kamio (1997: Ch. 3), among others). In line with this direction, Onodera takes

* I am indebtedto two anonymousEL reviewers for their detailed comments. I am also indebted to Hajime Fukuchi and Ian Gleadall, both of whom gave me advice on the revision of the manuscript. Remaining inadequaciesare entirely my responsibility.

English Linguistics 24: 1 (2007) 184-211 -184- (c) 2007by the English Linguistic Society of Japan THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 185 up conjunctions of contrast, such as dakedo 'but' in (1), which is quoted from Onodera (2004: 76), and interjections such as ne::e in (2), quoted from Onodera (p. 127).1 This review article follows her glosses of Japanese examples.2 (1) (Mrs. K is arguing with her daughter Saki about the regulations in her school) Saki: e. Mamotteru janai. Jaa watashi mamotte obey TAG well I obey-GER f. nai koto nante nai wa yo. NEG things no FP 'I do obey (regulations)! Well, there's nothing I don't obey!' Mrs. K: g. Dakedo anata wa /?/ wariaini sa soo iu but you TP rather FP like that h. koto ittemo sono toki dake wa moo a tto say.if that time only TP ah QT i. omotte ki o tsukeru kedo think attention DO pay but chotto koo,… soon 'But you rather become careful, being startled only when the teacher says such a thing, but soon,…' (2) (Mrs. K is teaching several students how to make a Chinese sweet) Student A: a. Kooshiki tenisu no booru mitai. tennis LK ball looks.like 'It looks like a tennis ball.' Mrs. K: b. Ne::e honto. TAG really 'Doesn't it, really.'

1 In what follows, unless otherwise identified, page numbers in parentheses refer to the book under review. 2 The following glosses are used: COP=copula, DO=direct object, FP=sentence-final particle, GER=gerundive form, HON=honorific, LK=linker, NEG= negative, NOM=nominalizer, QT=quotative marker, SB=subject marker, TAG= tag-question like forms, TP=topic marker, /?/=rising intonation. 186 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

As illustrated by these examples, Onodera's research interests are in conversation, markers used in conversation, and the history of such markers. She traces the history of Japanese DMs back into classical Japanese, collecting data from what she calls "written colloquial seg- ments" (p. 9): for example, lines in play scripts, conversational parts from novels, and ballads. Theoretically, on the other hand, her study is focused on the concept of "pragmaticalization" as distinguished from grammaticalization. This book is primarily recommended to those who are interested in pragmatics, discourse analysis and historical lexicography. It is also recommended to those who are interested in the process of historical reanalysis and information structure associated with syntactic positions. Onodera combines these research areas from a historical perspective, and focuses on the semantic changes that have taken place in two groups of DMs in Japanese, the first including demo and dakedo, which she calls "demo-type connectives," and the second including ne and na, which she calls "na-elements." She traces the histories of these two groups to clarify the processes of pragmaticalization. In what follows, I will examine Onodera's analyses and supplement them with relevant examples from Japanese and English, so as to make a case for the new concept of pragmaticalization. This review article is organized as follows. In Section 2, I will offer an outline of the book under review. In Section 3, I will focus on Chapters 3 and 4 of the book, and examine Onodera's approach to the demo-type connectives. In Section 4, I will present likely candidates for pragmaticalization, so as to gain a better understanding of this concept. In Section 5, I will discuss remaining issues and a future direction of historical pragmatics. Section 6 is the conclusion.

2. An Outline of the Book

In this section, I will first introduce the contents of the book under review. Then I will discuss the theoretical frameworks of this study, focusing on the relation between the pragmaticalization process and the demo-type connectives.

2.1. Contents This book consists of the following seven chapters. Chapter 1: Introduction THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 187

Chapter 2: Perspectives on Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis Chapter 3: Functions of the Conjunctions Demo and Dakedo in Present Day Japanese (Synchronic Analysis) Chapter 4: Pragmaticalization of Demo and Dakedo (Diachronic Analysis) Chapter 5: Functions of the Interjections Ne and Na in Present Day Japanese (Synchronic Analysis) Chapter 6: Pragmaticalization of Ne and Na (Diachronic Analysis) Chapter 7: Conclusion It is clear from this organization that the demo-type connectives and the na-elements are covered in equal depth, and that both are analyzed in terms of the same procedures. Summaries of each chapter are as follows. In Chapter 1, Onodera outlines the topics of study and introduces concepts to be used to analyze these topics. In Chapter 2, Japanese DMs are surveyed from the perspectives of four research areas: (i) discourse analysis and pragmatics, (ii) historical studies of language change, (iii) linguistic typology, and (iv) syntax and semantics of conjunctions and interjections. Chapter 3 deals with discourse functions of demo and dakedo, focusing on their present-day usage. She argues that they are markers of contrast, whose usage types are subdivided into "referential contrast," "pragmatically inferable contrast," "functional contrast," and "contrastive actions." In Chapter 4, she discusses the historical processes of pragmaticalization of demo and dakedo, collecting data that range from the 14th century to the present. Chapter 5 is concerned with the present- day discourse functions of the na-elements. Onodera argues that these elements contribute to the harmony among speech participants by expressing the speaker's "involvement" to the hearer, a term which she uses to refer to positive politeness in the sense of Brown and Levinson (1987). In Chapter 6, she discusses the pragmaticalization processes of the na-elements. Here her discussion covers a long time span that ranges from the 8th century to the present. Chapter 7 concludes this study by commenting on its relevance to the theories of grammaticalization and motivation for historical semantic changes, and to typological characteristics of Japanese. Before starting discussion, Onodera (pp. 11-12) sets five goals to achieve in her study, which are listed as follows: 188 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

(3) i. To analyze the functions of the DMs, and the historical changes of these functions in light of Traugott's hypothesis. ii. To account for motivation for the pragmaticalization of the DMs. iii. To make clear the difference between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. iv. To analyze the DMs in relation to (i) word order typology, (ii) their productivity, and (iii) conventionalization of implicatures. v. To show the validity of Schiffrin's theory of DMs in light of Japanese data. Here I will be mainly concerned with her goals in (3-i, 3-ii, 3-iii), arguing that Onodera's concept of pragmaticalization is best fit for what I here call "lexical discourse markers," the nature of which I will describe in Sections 3 and 4.

2.2. Theoretical Frameworks To begin discussion, Onodera (pp. 12-18) combines the three theories in (4) to account for the process of pragmaticalization that has occurred to Japanese DMs such as those in (1) and (2): (4) i. the ideational, textual and expressive functions of language in Halliday and Hasan's (1976) sense ii. the unidirectionality of semantic change as shown by Traugott's series of works, Traugott (1982) and Traugott and Konig (1991) among others iii. the criteria for DMs proposed by Schiffrin (1987) For the first part, Onodera (p. 15) adapts the terms, but the idea is the same as Halliday and Hasan's (1976) three functional-semantic components of language, the ideational, the textual, and the interpersonal. To cite from Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26), the ideational component is "that part of the linguistic system which is concerned with the expression of 'content,' with the function that language has of being ABOUT something." The textual component refers to the elements that contribute to the cohesion of a text, i.e. those that serve to organize two or more sentences into a text. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 26-27) describe the interpersonal component, or Traugott's "expressive component," as being concerned "with expressing the speaker's 'angle': his attitudes and judgments, his encoding of the role relationships in the situation, and THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 189 his motive in saying anything at all." Here I develop the complementary relationship between semantics and pragmatics, which is adopted by Onodera (p. 13), and use "grammar" in reference to a set of rules for making well-formed sentences whose meanings belong to the ideational component of language, and "pragmatics" in reference to a system of heuristics for using utterances whose meanings belong to the textual and the expressive components. Seen in this way, the order of the ideational, the textual, and the expressive reflects the transition from grammar to pragmatics. This division of grammar and pragmatics will be recalled when we consider the definition of pragmaticalization in Section 5. Second, Onodera (p. 14) bases her arguments on the unidirectionality hypothesis of grammaticalization, formulated by Traugott and Konig (1991: 189) as follows: (5) the dynamic, unidirectional historical process whereby lexical items in the course of time acquire a new status as grammatical, morpho-syntactic forms, and in the process come to code relations that either were not coded before or were coded differently. The aspectual auxiliary be going to is a well-known example of grammaticalization as defined above (cf. Hopper and Traugott (2003: 1-3)). In this case, the main verb go lost the original concrete meaning of motion and direction, going to was reanalyzed to produce a reduced form gonna, and obtained a status of auxiliary verb and a function to encode immediate futurity. In this way, grammaticalization applies to cases where what was once a lexical word or a sequence of lexical words has changed into an item that serves a grammatical function. As a result, the grammaticalized item has more to do with grammar than with the lexicon. Onodera points out that dakedo in (1), for example, is now in utterance-initial position and is used as a DM, but it was originally in clause-final position. For expository purposes, I use the following invented examples to illustrate her point: (6) a. Tabi ni ikitai no dakedo, mainichi isogashii. trip to go.want NOM but everyday busy 'I want to go to trip, but I'm busy everyday.' b. Tabi ni ikitai. Dakedo, mainichi isogashii. trip to go.want but everyday busy 'I want to go to trip. But I'm busy everyday.' 190 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

c. Dakedo/Demo/Kedo/Daga mainichi isogashii ne. but everyday busy TAG 'But(To open a conversation) I'm busy everyday.' Originally, dakedo was a final part of the first clause, and then it moved to the initial position of the next sentence. In this second step, dakedo serves to link the clause it introduces to the preceding clause. In the third step, it can be used discourse-initially, as in (6c). Similar processes hold for demo, kedo and daga in (6c). They are, first, devices of clause-linkage, second, anaphoric connectives, and third, DMs. Is this kind of historical change a case of grammaticalization, too? According to Onodera (p. 204), the historical change in question is a case of grammaticalization, but it also has another aspect of change. Like be going to (be gonna), dakedo has obtained a new morpho-syntactic form, but unlike be going to, it has obtained a pragmatic function to encode discourse-based meanings and interpersonal relationship between speaker and hearer. Thus, she argues that it is an instance of what she calls "pragmaticalization," which she defines as follows (p. 1): (7) the process in which an item acquires the functions of a marker, i.e. the process in which a lexical item with rather restricted functions becomes one with more extended discourse functions. Onodera argues that the unidirectionality of historical process is also the case with the transition from the ideational through the textual to the expressive: as illustrated by the history of dakedo, what was once a word of the ideational function is now also used as a word of the expressive function, and not vice versa. According to Traugott (1982, 1989), semantic change has regular tendencies of showing the following two types of steps: (8) a. ideational3>((textual)>(expressive)) b. less personal to more personal Onodera analyses the historical processes of the na-elements and demo- type connectives against the background of (8). In (8a), the second and the third steps are put in parentheses to show that these steps are optional, i.e., either one or both can be gained. Once a given item has acquired a wider range of discourse functions,

3 Traugott (1982, 1989) calls this function "propositional," but following Onodera, I call it "ideational"for the sake of consistentterminology. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 191 it comes to exhibit syntactic and phonological properties specific to DMs. Onodera adopts Schiffrin's (1987: 328) criteria for DMs, which are listed from (9-i) to (9-iv): (9) i. A DM has to be syntactically detachable from a sentence, ii. it has to be commonly used in initial position of an utterance, iii. it has a range of prosodic contours, and iv. it has to be able to operate at both local and global lev- els of discourse, and on different planes of discourse. v. It has to realize either textual or expressive functions. As shown by the dakedo in (1), if a given item meets these criteria, it is not part of sentence structure, but part of the discourse in which the speaker uses it to communicate with the hearer. Such items typically have syntactic freedom and phonological variants. Onodera (p. 200) integrates Halliday and Hasan's theory into the definition of DMs and adds the fifth criterion in (9-v). In addition to the three theories in (4), Givon (1979) and Matsumoto (1988) help us understand the roots of Onodera's study. From a typological standpoint, Givon (1979: 208) discusses "processes by which loose, paratactic, "pragmatic" discourse structures develop-over time -intotight, "grammaticalized" syntactic structures," which he calls "syntacticization." This applies, for example, to historical reanalysis of the discourse topic into the grammatical subject of a sentence, or to reanalysis of a conjunction of two clauses into one complex sentence. Matsumoto (1988: 340) points out that in historical changes of the syntacticization-type, what is originally an independent item becomes increasingly dependent on other items, but Japanese connectives like demo and dakedo are different in that they provide instances of "the change toward increasing independence of morphemes": they came to be used without being combined with other elements to make a phrase or sentence. Matsumoto (1988: 345-347) says that these connectives have been changed to acquire pragmatic and discourse functions instead of lexical semantic content, so they have undergone pragmaticalization of meaning. As far as the demo-type connectives are concerned, Onodera deals with mostly the same issue as Matsumoto (1988). She extends and deepens his analysis, combining Halliday and Hasan's three components of language, Traugott's unidirectionality of grammaticalization, and 192 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

Schiffrin's criteria for DMs so as to make a model for the process of pragmaticalization. In the next section, I am going to review her discussion of the demo- type connectives with special reference to dakedo.

3. The Pragmaticalization of Demo-type Connectives In this section, I am going to survey Onodera's analysis of the demo- type connectives, with special reference to their pragmaticalization process and their relevance to the replacement function of copula da in the sense of Okutsu (1978). Notice that Onodera deals with both dakedo and demo, but, for the reasons that I state in Section 3.2, I focus on dakedo instead of demo.

3.1. Historical Process to Discourse Markers: A Case of Dakedo In Chapter 4, Onodera discusses the historical processes of demo and dakedo, saying that their processes agree with the steps in (8). She points out that dakedo was originally a combination of a verb and -kedo, an adversative conjunctive particle, and meant a contrast between the clause preceding -kedo and the clause following it. She notes that the early examples of verb+kedo are found in the Japanese used in Osaka-Kyoto area, called "kamigata-Japanese," and cites (10) as the oldest example (p. 100): (10) a. Inakamono ja to iwaha nsu kedo, countrywoman COP QT say HON but, b. kyoo hazukashii umai sakari capital embarrassed delicious at.(its).best c. hitokuchi kuwazu ni okarenu mensu. a.mouthful eat.NEG cannot.help face 'Although (you) say (you are) a countrywoman, since Kyoto's (food) is at its best to your embarrassment, your face (says you) can't help eating a mouthful (of it).'4 This is taken from Chuushin Kogane no Tanzaku (1732), a ballad drama called jooruri in Japanese. In (10), the speaker is trying to disturb another speaker who claimed to have come from the countryside, and

4 My interpretationof example (10) is based on the text of Hara (1991:375), and differs from Onodera's. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 193

makes a contrast to what she said before. At this stage, the verb+kedo combination expressed a contrast between the content of one clause and the content of another, i.e. a contrast based on the ideational function of language. Next the clause-final jakedo and dakeredo appeared in the early 19th century where Onodera (p. 103) cites an example from a humorous novel titled Ukiyoburo (1809). Then in the 1910-20s, dakedo appeared in utterance-initial position, as in (11), which Onodera (p. 105) cites from a novel titled An-ya Kooro (1922): (11) Moshi watashi no tame deshitara dooka moo if me LK for COP-if please no.more otanomi ni naranai de itadakimasu. Dakedo, ask-HON NEG receive But, watashi hitori de gofujiyuu da to me alone COP-GER inconvenient COP QT oboshimesu n deshitara betsu desu kedo. think-HON NOM COP-if other COP but 'Ifit is for me, please do not hire another one (nurse) again. But, if you think that only myself is not enough, do it for yourself, though.' At this stage, in addition to the ideational function, the function of dakedo was extended to include the textual function in that it helped to connect two texts via a contrast. The textual function then further developed into the expressive function in the present-day usage, as shown in (1). Onodera (p. 77) says that in (1), "dakedo is used to mark the speaker's return to her position after being challenged," which is a function belonging to the expressive component of language. The development of dakedo agrees with the tendencies in (8): what was once a marker of less personal sense changed into a marker of strongly personal sense. This has been associated with the positional change from the clause-linking position of verb+kedo to the utterance- initial dakedo. Onodera (p. 113) summarizes by saying that its functional change is schematized in (12): (12) Pragmaticalization of dakedo verb+kedo (18th- dakedo (early 20th C- early 20th C) Present-day Japanese) ideational>ideational textual(>expressive) She notes that the ideational function of verb+kedo remains constant 194 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

through the shift to dakedo; like the tendency in (8a), the shift from the textual to the expressive function is a matter of option, so she puts the latter in parentheses.

3.2. On the Treatment of Demo In this subsection, I first examine Onodera's (pp. 86-92) treatment of the origin of demo, pointing out two problems with it. Second, I am going to raise a question about Onodera's position when she (p. 57) says that "the only difference in the use of [demo and dakedo] is associated with "language style," and that there is no significant difference in the distribution of demo and dakedo" with respect to the four con- trasting functions they carry. I am going to provide a couple of examples to show that demo and dakedo differ in the kinds of contrast they express. These arguments are based on the fact that the particle -mo of demo has an adversative sense and an additive sense, and that Onodera's analysis covers only the former sense of -mo. Onodera argues that demo came from the combination of verb+te-mo, where -te is a conjunction particle expressing continuation and -mo is a conjunction particle expressing adversity. As she admits (p. 86), however, "there are a few different views on the formation of demo," and she mentions a hypothesis that demo comes from the combination of a so-type demonstrative and copula d, which she does not adopt. She also mentions a possibility that demo comes from -ni+te mo, where -ni is an inflected form of an archaic copula nari (p. 92). Notice that verb+te mo and demo differ at least in two ways, suggest- ing that the two are not directly related. First, -te-mo is combined with a verb in its infinitive form, which is called ren-yoo kei in Japanese, but demo is combined with a noun or a verb in its nominalized form, i.e. a combination of a verb in its adnominal form, called ren-tai kei, and a pronominal no. Thus, according to Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (NKD), demo is an elliptical form of sore-demo, where sore is an anaphoric pronominal. Second, demo has different senses that te-mo does not have, as in "Ocha 'tea' demo nome 'drink'," 'Drink tea or something like that,' where demo serves to add the sense of 'for example' to ocha; this sense is hard to translate to sentences with a verb+te-mo. To the extent that Onodera discusses the historical process from verb+te-mo to demo, we are not in the position to fully understand the link from the former to the latter. Since I review Onodera's study only on the basis, of clear cases, I have here focused on the historical THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 195

process of dakedo instead of demo, the origin of which requires further research. The next problem is with the differences between demo and dakedo. First, demo, but not dakedo, can be a part of what Konig (1985) calls "concessive conditionals," where demo in focus position serves to introduce an extreme value on a scale that is hypothetically contrasted with the content of the main clause. (13) Saru {demo/??dakedo} pasokon ga benri da to monkey even PC SB useful COP QT wakaru. see 'Even if you were a monkey, you'd see PCs are useful.' Here demo can express a hypothetical situation in which the understood subject is compared to a monkey, a metaphor for a person with a low IQ level. However, dakedo can express only a real situation in which the understood subject is a monkey, and makes the sentence unaccept- able as a concessive conditional. Second, dakedo, but not demo, can be used in the first utterance of a telephone conversation, which goes as follows: (14) Moshi-moshi boku dakedo, ima hanasemasu ka /?/. hello me but now speak.can question 'Hello, it's me, but can we talk now?' In (14), demo cannot be used in place of dakedo. This type of dakedo belongs to what Onodera (pp. 73-83) calls the usage type of "contrastive actions," by which she means that demo or dakedo serves to mark the speaker's actions toward the hearer, opening a conversation, for example. The dakedo in (14) marks a contrast between the preceding situation where there is no speech activity and the following context where there is lively conversation. Moreover, in (14), dakedo introduces a unique topic that involves the speaker himself, which demo cannot do. As shown above, demo has the sense of 'for example,' which adds a non-uniqueness sense to the preceding noun and so produces its unacceptability in the context in which something unique is introduced. These contrasts show that because of the particle -mo, demo serves to add additive senses to the preceding noun, and that it differs from dakedo in this respect. The concessive conditionals expressed by demo, too, have an additive sense, because they express a hypothetical extreme situation that is additive to the real situation. Since demo exhibits these properties that are not covered by Onodera's analysis, I have dealt 196 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

mainly with dakedo instead of demo in this review article.

3.3. Productivity of Demo-type Connectives Here I turn to discuss a grammatical property of Japanese that leads to the morpho-syntactic reanalysis of the demo-type connectives, i.e. the replacement function of copula da. Onodera (pp. 115-119, pp. 211-214) refers to Okutsu (1978), who argues that besides having the copulative function of linking two phrases into one sentence, da can replace the predicate of the preceding sentence or can stand for a situationally understood predicate, as shown in (15): (15) Anata wa karee o chuumon suru ne. you TP curry DO order do TAG Ja, boku wa unagi da. then I TP eel COP 'You order curry, and I do (=order) eel.' Here da replaces the predicate of the preceding sentence, i.e. chuumon suru 'order,' and so the second sentence means 'I order eel.' This means that da can act as a pro-predicate being anaphoric to the preceding predicate. To shorten da and its polite form desu into d, we may say that the initial d-element has a pro-predicate function. Before Okutsu, Mikami (1953: 60) notes that the pro-predicate function is carried over to the anaphoricity of d-initial connectives such as dakedo: thanks to the function, they are used to represent the preceding context. Thus, dakedo is composed of da and kedo, the first element standing for what has been said before and the second element having a sense of contrast: when these two elements are agglutinated into one word and used in utterance-initial position, dakedo serves to mark a contrast to what has been said before.5 Onodera (pp. 114-119) argues that the pragmaticalization of the demo-type connectives has been motivated by the productive morphology in Japanese. Japanese has a set of connectives whose initial ele-

5 For a similar analysis of the demo-type connectives, Onodera (p. 117) cites Morioka (1973:41). Morioka takes the preceding text represented by a discourse connectiveto be a kind of subordinateclause to the clause introduced by that connective. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 197 ment is d, including demo and dakedo. For example: (16) da-kara 'because,' da-tte 'because,' da-ga 'but,' desu-ga 'but,' desu-node 'therefore,' da-tosuruto 'if so,' da-toshite 'if it were so,' and so on. Here the d-element is combined with a particle like -kara 'from' to make an anaphoric connective like da-kara 'from the preceding context.' Connectives of this form are productive in Japanese morphology, and we have newly coined ones, such as de-nakya 'if it weren't so,' da-ttara 'if it were so,' and so on.6 In her earlier study, Onodera (1996: 466) argues that the copulative function, too, is still present in the d-initial connectives in (16), because they serve to connect the text preceding them with the text following them. On this view, they are used to add the sense of the second element to the two texts combined by the initial d-element. For example, da-ttara is a combination of da with tara 'if,' which serves to add the hypothetical sense to the texts combined by da. Because Onodera's account crucially makes use of the replacement function of the d-element, it may appear to be at a loss when we observe that the replacement can be carried out not only by the d-element, but also by ellipsis. In (15), for example, we can omit da and use elliptical utterances like Boku wa unagi, too. Similarly, some of the initial d-elements in (16) can be omitted, and the markers without d-elements make stylistic variants. For example, dakedo can be reduced to kedo, daga to ga, datosureba to tosureba, and so on. If we are to maintain the account of the demo-type connectives in terms of the replacement function of the d-element, how can we explain the fact that their anaphoric function can be achieved by markers without d-elements? An answer will come from the grammaticalization process of "layer-

6 The productivityof anaphoricconnectives differs from one language to another. Germanhas a large number of compoundadverbs which consist of a prepositionand its object pronoun da 'it,' such as daruber 'over it' or darauf 'on it.' They are used as anaphoricconnectives. As recorded in the OED,Early Modern English had much use of anaphoricconnectives of this kind, such as thereby and therewith;but today they are restrictedto written style. It is worthwhileto study how English has differed from German in this respect. For the comparisonof English and German, see Miyoshi (1977:103, 186), and for the present-dayuse of the English anaphoric connectives,see Rouchota(1998: 47-48). 198 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007) ing," which Hopper and Traugott (2003: 125) define as "the synchronic result of successive grammaticalization of forms which contribute to the same domain." It refers to the situation in which a new way of saying something forms a layer on older ways of saying the same thing, and so several forms with different lengths of life coexist to express basical- ly the same meaning. To apply layering to the demo-type connectives, we may say that their pragmaticalization is initially motivated by the presence of d-elements, but the resultant forms undergo layering, which is, in this case, propelled by the comprehensive pragmatic principle of least effort; as Horn (1984) puts it, "say no more than you must."7 According to NKD, the adversative connective first appeared in the phonologically full form of keredomo in the 16th century, and then the shorter forms keredo and kedo appeared in the 18th century (cf. Onodera (p. 102)). This history shows that the emergence of a shorter form follows the least-effort principle, and that its process is toward the shorter and more economical way of expressing the sense that was formerly expressed by a longer form. During this process, the pragmaticalized DMs can shed the original element to which they owe their birth. Pragmaticalization should be a historical change which semantic, morpho-syntactic, and stylistic factors conspire to achieve. Although het- erogeneous, these factors share one property; they serve to free what was once a syntactically and semantically constrained item from sentence structure, and make it a syntactically independent item. Besides, the pragmaticalized item is used in accordance with the least-effort principle, and so may be processed into a shorter and simpler form.

3.4. "Lexical Discourse Markers" and Pragmaticalization The discussion of the demo-type connectives has shown that DMs are productive, and that their usage is constrained by the properties of their component function-words. I next argue that this also applies to DMs whose component parts are lexical items. Schiffrin (1987: 317) points out that "many discourse markers are

7 Horn (1984) argues that his pragmaticprinciples are valid for historicalchanges of language. For example, clippings like TV (from television)and acronyms like USA are produced and adopted historically,and are clear cases of the least effort principle. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 199 used in ways which reflect their meaning." Her point fits well with markers whose basic functions are decomposed into their original elements. For example, y'know is a DM for information to be shared by speaker and hearer, and this function is based on the literal meaning of you know (cf. Schiffrin (1987: Ch. 9)). Schiffrin's point applies to Japanese too. In a similar vein, Morioka (1973: 15) says that virtually all discourse connectives in Japanese are derived from other lexical items. We call such markers "lexical discourse markers," (LDMs). Given that LDMs are productive, we may make a generalization about their origins as in (17), which borrows words from Simone Beauvoir's words "One is not born a woman, one becomes one": (17) A word is not born a lexical discourse marker, one becomes one via pragmaticalization. There are various cases where what was once a lexical item has partly lost the original syntactic and semantic properties, and now is a DM in the sense of (9). Given this understanding of pragmaticalization, I next discuss likely candidates for pragmaticalization, offering data from English and Japanese.

4. Candidates for Pragmaticalization In what follows, I would like to present a set of likely candidates for pragmaticalization in English and Japanese. It is shown that Japanese is rich in cases of pragmaticalization. Compared with the by now familiar term of grammaticalization, pragmaticalization is not yet so widely adopted and still needs more explication. The data provided below are intended to bring us a clearer understanding of what pragmaticalization is like. They are mainly taken from terms of address, interjections, and words of greetings. All these cases share two properties. First, they are freed from sentence structure, and so they can be used independently like inherent interjections like oh in English. Second, they differ from inherent interjections in that they retain their original lexical senses that constrain their use. English has a set of terms of address whose senses are based on sweet taste, as in Hey, honey/sugar/sweet! As the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows, these words first denoted substances and then came to be used as terms of endearment. Clearly, they were originally common nouns which were used in accordance with the grammar of 200 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007) noun phrases. However, in the course of time, they were freed from the grammatical constraints, were changed from the ideational to the expressive functions, and came to be used independently as terms of address. Oda (2005) points out that sugar is a substance that produces a pleasant feeling to those who eat it, and similarly, the person addressed by sugar is one who produces a pleasant feeling on the speaker's part. This extends to other terms of address such as chocolate drop or pump- kin pie. By contrast, excrement is a substance that produces a bad feeling to those who see it, and similarly, the situation described by shit is one which produces a bad feeling on the speaker's part. Historically, the interjectory use of shit appeared after its use as a common noun.8 In these cases, pragmaticalization holds for the historical change from what was once a common noun to a term of address or to an interjection. They have been "pragmaticalized" to be freed from sentence structure, and to carry the expressive function. Besides, shit has produced phonological variants like shee-y-it. Japanese, too, has lexical interjections of this kind. For example, chikushoo was once a common noun, used mainly in the context of Buddhism, and meant 'livestock,' but now it is used to express one's discontent. The word has produced phonological variants such as chik- ishoo, chikkusho, anchikishoo, konchikishoo, and so on. Like shit in English, it has obtained a new status in grammar and phonological variants, and become an LDM. In these kinds of phenomena, it is difficult to predict which item will be pragmaticalized into a connective or into an interjection, but it is possible to find motivations behind each of the pragmaticalization processes. The meaning of the relevant word has shifted from the concrete object to the speaker's emotion towards a situation he or she is in, but its original meaning remains to constrain the type of situation in which the pragmaticalized version of that word is used.

8 The OED's first example of interjectoryshit comes from 1920, but its use as "a contemptuousepithet applied to a person" dates back to the 1500s, which is as old as its "excrement" sense. The OED's first citation of sweet in its taste sense is from circa 888. From the 14th century on, it has been used as a noun that refers to a beloved person as well as to a sweet thing. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 201

So far I have given cases in which a lexical item like honey changed itself into an LDM like honey.9 Although these cases did not undergo morpho-syntactic reanalysis, they extended their function into the expressive component and changed their syntactic and possibly phonological properties. As a result, they came to meet the criteria in (9), and came to be used independently with conventionalized meanings. On the other hand, there are cases in which combination of two or more words or morphemes has produced one LDM. This type of pragmaticalization is similar to DMs like dakara in (16) and leave clear traces of morpho-syntactic reanalysis and their original lexical meanings. Examples include interjections like shimatta, dekashita, yatta (cf. Morita (1973)), and words of greetings like kon-nichiwa, sayonara (cf. Fujiwara (1992)). The former cases are derived from part of the tensed verb phrase. According to NKD, shima-tta originally consisted of shimau, a verb meaning 'finish' and -ta, the past tense particle. In the 17th century, the verb became an auxiliary verb expressing perfective aspect. In Japanese, the perfective aspect expressed by the combined form of -shima-tta is used to implicate that the described situation is unexpected, and that the result of this situation is of negative value. For example: (18) Watashi wa kagi o nakushite shimatta. I TP key DO lose-GER perfective.aspect 'I have lost my key, implying 'I am in trouble'.' From the 18th century on, the tensed auxiliary verb -shima-tta has been separated from the sentence of which it was a part, and turned into an interjection "Shimatta!," which is used by itself and means 'I have just made an unexpected mistake!'

9 Similar remarks apply to French nouns used as connectivesby themselves. As Naganuma(2000) points out, the noun resultat 'result,' for example,can be used as an anaphoricconnective, meaning 'as a result of the precedingcontext.' For example: (i) J'ai oublie son anniversaire:resultat, elle ne me parle plus. I've forgotten her birthday result she NEG to.me talk more 'I forgot her birthday: as a result of this, she does not talk to more any- more.' Connectives of this type are made from nouns like consequence 'consequence,' paradoxe 'paradox,' and resume 'summary.' 202 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

Similarly, the origins of dekashi-ta and ya-tta were past tense forms of the verbs dekasu 'do, achieve' and yaru 'send, give, do,' respectively. In the course of pragmaticalization, they are separated from the sentences whose predicates include these verbs, and when used as interjections, their meanings are extended to cover not only the actions described by dekasu and yaru in their verbal use, but also the speaker's attitudes towards these actions. Thus, interjectory dekashita is used by someone superior who praises the action done by an inferior addressee, having a meaning like 'You did a great job!' Interjectory yatta is used to express one's joy about what has happened just before the utterance, having a meaning like 'I did it just the way I wanted to.' The next group of examples comes from words of greetings. The shimatta-group was once positioned at the end of the sentence, but this group was once an initial part of sentences talking about the day in question, as in (19): (19) Kon-nichi wa yoi otenki desu ne. today TP good weather COP TAG 'Today, it is fine, isn't it' Originally, kon-nichi-wa 'good afternoon' was part of a sentence, and then it was separated from it (cf. Fujiwara (1992: Ch. 2)). In this process, wa changed its function. As has been widely discussed in the lit- erature (see, for example, Hinds et al. (1987) and references therein), wa is a function word for marking a topic of discourse or that of the sentence. Because the day that speaker and hearer meet each other is the safest topic with which to start a conversation (cf. Brown and Levinson (1987: 112)), the topic marking function is diverted to the first greeting in the afternoon, i.e., to starting an interpersonal relation in a day by marking the safest topic. Once pragmaticalized, kon-nichiwa has produced a number of variants, and generally resultant forms are shorter than the original, as in chiwa. According to NKD, sa-yo(o)-nara was originally a protasis which consisted of sa 'so,' yoo 'mode,' and naraba 'copular NARI inflected for conditional mood,' meaning 'if it is in such a state (, then…).' In the 18th century, this became a greeting of parting by adding to it the meaning of the conventionalized apodosis 'then I will leave'; the apodosis was unsaid, but implicated, when sayonara was literally a protasis. I have so far offered several examples that are, in my view, to be part of pragmaticalization phenomena. But what is the advantage of THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 203

accounting for these phenomena in terms of pragmaticalization? One tentative answer is that it helps discover the underlying regularities across languages by which lexical interjections have been developed. Although there are inherent interjections such as wow in English and ah in Japanese, lexical items can be assimilated to the properties of these words via pragmaticalization. Besides, such items can express what inherent interjections cannot properly express, and these meanings are to be analyzed as the results of pragmaticalization processes. For example, shimatta differs from ah in that it can express that I have done something unexpected, that something does me bad, and I have just realized the fact. These meanings are originally implicatures associated with the use of sentences ending with -shimatta, but once pragmaticalized, they are conventionalized and become regular parts of the meaning of interjectory shimatta. Similar cases of pragmaticalization are going to be found in the vocabulary histories of various languages, and equally interestingly, in the changes that are taking place in our everyday language use.10

5. Pragmaticalization Reconsidered In this section, I would like to discuss five questions about Onodera's study, pointing out remaining issues as well as a future direction of historical pragmatics. The first question is concerned with the time span in which to study pragmaticalization processes. This question is relevant when we consider Onodera's analysis of na-elements such as the one in (2). Onodera adopts Morita's (1973) account of the origin of the word of

10We should be more alert to newly adopted usage to find ongoing cases of pragmaticalization. For example,Arita (2005) reports that the Japanese topic marker wa has recently been used independently in utterance-initialposition, without being combinedwith a topic expression,as shownin the dialogue in (i): (i) A: Kodomo wa suki desu ka. children TP like COP Question 'Do you like children?' B: Wa suki desu ne. TP like COP FP 'Yes, I like (them).'

This suggests that wa has newly obtained a DM status, serving as a reply for con- tinuing the previous speaker's topic. 204 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

address ne. Morita (1973: 197) says that na was first located in sentence-final position, then it was separated from the sentence to be an independent item, which is used in sentence-initial position; it has produced phonological variants such as nau, and from the 17th century onwards, ne. In Chapter 6, Onodera traces the history of the na-elements consisting of na, noo, no, ne, nee, and naa. While accepting that the language after the 14th century has a direct relevance to modern Japanese (p. 158), she notes that the sentence-internal use of na is as old as its sentence-final use; both are found in Kojiki, the oldest extant record of Japan in the 8th century. Then, na appeared in sentence-initial position in the 12th century. In Chapter 5, she analyzes the present-day na-elements; today, they can be used independently, as in ne::e in (2). Thus seen, the historical process of the na-elements is parallel to that of the demo-type connectives; they show the process from sentence-final to sentence-initial positions, with a concomitant shift from markers of the expressive function to those of the expressive and textual functions. Onodera's account is consistent, but it leaves one question unad- dressed. According to her, each of the na-elements underwent a shift from sentence-final to sentence-initial position. As Onodera (p. 186) shows, this shift first occurred with na in the 12th century, second with noo in the 14th century, and last with ne in the 20th century. Given this time lag of about 800 years, we have at least two possible accounts. One is that each of the na-elements underwent a similar shift in different periods in history. Another is that the first shift of na made a model that was followed by the subsequent cases. Onodera attempts to explain all the na-elements in a unified way, but a clear account remains to be given of the question to what extent were the shifts of the na-elements homogeneous. The second question is: what is the difference in argument style between synchronic pragmatics and historical pragmatics? Virtually all the examples Onodera uses in her analyses come from naturally produced utterances; she uses only a few invented examples, and does not use inappropriate ones. This differs sharply from other styles of pragmatics research in which inappropriate examples as well as invented ones play an active role, as are exemplified by studies of the present-day language like Kamio (1997). The latter styles do not apply to historical pragmatics, however. We cannot simply equate inappropriate examples with what cannot be found in historical records. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 205

The only way we can make solid arguments about the past language is by accumulating as many reliable historical records as possible. Considering the nature of historical records, Onodera's approach is empirically sound. However, as noted in relation to the historical processes of the na-elements, it is one thing to formulate a hypothesis about the history of a given item and it is quite another to support that hypothesis by excluding other equally possible hypotheses about that item. The next hurdle for historical pragmatics will be to secure the means to constrain interpretations of historical data. I think it a good idea to focus on the language of the near past rather than that of the remote past, for we have a wealth of information about it and the expe- riences of old people are available for confirmation.11 The third question has to do with the directionality of semantic change. Onodera adopts the tendencies proposed by Traugott in (8) and applies them to the changes in pragmatic function of Japanese expressions. As Onodera (p. 38, p. 112, p. 188) cites Traugott's (1982) intended meaning, the direction "from less to more personal" meanings is to be understood to mean a shift toward interpersonal or interaction- based meanings. However, Japanese scholars, for example, Miyaji (1979) and Mori (1993), have pointed out that Japanese has cases which do not fit with (8). Miyaji (1979: 268) says the following (my translation): (20) In Japanese, there are a lot of adjectives which originally expressed subjective emotions later changed into objective meaning. This is exemplified by the history of the adjective utsukushi(i). It originally meant 'beloved (person),' the data of which are recorded in Man- yoshu, the oldest collection of Japanese poetry whose language repre- sents the Japanese of the 7th and 8th centuries. In the 9th century, it gained the sense 'cute,' and from the 12th century, it gained the sense 'beautiful.' This is a process from a sense of personal emotion to a more objective sense. On the other hand, Yamaguchi (1982: 223-224) says that there are a group of adjectives that originally denoted particular states and then

11 Since historical pragmatics is still in its initial stage, it needs be based on reliable historical records; the time span to be covered may be short, say, less than 100 years, but it should be studied in detail, on a year-by-year basis, for example. 206 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007) came to denote emotions that people have toward those states. She notes that this type of semantic change applies to adjectives denoting unpleasant emotions. For example, kowai originally meant 'hard, solid, firm.' The adjective then came to denote emotions that people have when they encounter hard, solid, or firm things. That is, it means 'frightening, scary.' Unlike utsukushi(i), this type of semantic change may fit in with the "less to more personal" direction in a sense, but it still differs from this direction as understood by Traugott and Onodera. Cases like kowai show a shift toward personal emotional meanings, but not toward interpersonal meanings. These cases become a source of opportunities for researchers working on Japanese who are to offer alternatives to Traugott's unidirectionality hypothesis. Undoubtedly, such opportunities will favor those who are familiar with classical Japanese in detail. Our fourth question is concerned with the relation between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. Conceptually, pragmaticalization is a functional extension such that a given item that formerly had a limited range of functions changes into an item with a wider range of functions. This extension is characteristically manifested in the form of the syntactic freedom and phonological variation of that item. This is the case with dakedo, and is also the case with kon-nichiwa and chikushoo. Elsewhere, Onodera (2000: 45) argues that "[the demo-type connectives] have undergone grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, and [the na-elements] have experienced pragmaticalization without involving grammaticalization." This is because, as we saw in Section 3.3, the former underwent layering as well as morpho-syntactic reanalysis, a major factor in grammaticalization, but the latter did not: the na-elements have been pragmaticalized only in terms of positional change. In view of this argument, pragmaticalization is better understood in terms of the result of a historical process rather than in terms of the process itself. We may say that pragmaticalization, by its nature, results in expressions that meet the criteria of DMs in (9), irrespective of whether the process involved may or may not be set up by grammaticalization. Thus, pragmaticalization applies well to LDMs, as stated in (17). LDMs have been historically developed to carry either textual or expressive functions; they belong to elements of discourse organization and THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 207 interpersonal relationship, for example, greetings, topic changing markers, and interjections. Since they are freed from the constraints of grammar, they have little syntax or have lost syntax: it is natural that they are either placed at the peripheral edges of sentences, especially at the initial position, or used independently of sentences. Therefore, we have the correlation of pragmaticalization and positional change from the clause-final or clause-internal to the utterance-initial or discourse- initial.12 Finally, I discuss the framework in which to study pragmaticalization phenomena. Onodera adopts Traugott's tendencies for semantic change, which are characterized by the unidirectionalities in (8). The unidirectionalities have been adopted by the definition of grammaticalization in (5), and equally by Onodera's study on pragmaticalization. As noted above, Onodera (2000) argues that the na-elements underwent pragmaticalization, but not grammaticalization, and for this reason, she in that article suggests that the two processes are independent. However, Onodera (p. 205) changes her position slightly because of the scope of application of the term "grammaticalization." As she admits (p. 205), it allows for both restrictive and. broad definitions, and in its broad sense, it covers historical processes that involve 'semantic and syntactic reclassification,' 'gradual step-by-step change,' 'increase in scope and in syntactic freedom' even when such processes do not involve change in morpho-syntactic status and production of new grammatical elements. Because the na-element underwent these processes, she says that the development of the na-elements, too, would be an instance of grammaticalization in its broad sense. In spite of her basic position, Onodera's argument blurs the difference between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. Her pragmaticalization is based on the same framework as grammaticalization, so it is natural that the two have in common the concepts and the data to be covered by those concepts. It is also natural that, given the width of

12 If pragmaticalization is responsible for the origins of LDMs in general, as stated in (17), it implies that among the parts of speech, morpho-syntactically peripheral ones such as lexical interjectionsemerge later than those that play a central role in forming sentence structure,such as nouns and verbs. It will be of interest to study the relations between pragmaticalization and the priority among lexical categories. 208 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007) application of the definition in (5), grammaticalization has come to be used almost as a cover term for. various historical changes having particular directions. It is important, however, to have a clear defining feature of pragmaticalization if we are serious in maintaining its independence from grammaticalization. As stated in Onodera's definition in (7), pragmaticalization is the process in which a given item ends up with a DM. This means that it has to be defined by the result of a historical process rather than the mode of a process. Once one attempts to define pragmaticalization in terms of its modes of processes, one will be confused by the fact that to make DMs or LDMs, some processes of pragmaticalization adopt those of grammaticalization, but others do not. But such an attempt is not relevant. In fact, the term "grammaticalization" is ambiguous between a sense in which it refers to the modes of historical changes and a sense in which it refers to the results of these changes. The former sense is a broad one and includes the case of the na-elements, and the latter, a narrow one, excludes them. Seen in this light, pragmaticalization is a result-oriented concept and is specifically designed for DMs, and in this sense, it is clearly distinguished from both versions of grammaticalization. In Section 2.2, I mentioned the complementary relation between grammar and pragmatics, and it has led me to define pragmaticalization in pragmatic terms. When we go on to apply the result-orientedness to the narrow grammaticalization, we may say that it applies to cases where the resultant item belongs to the ideational component and becomes an element of grammar such as auxiliary verb, preposition, case-marker, or complemetizer. Now pragmaticalization still depends on grammaticalization for its concepts and for the methods with which to study language change. To achieve further independence and progress, however, it is wise to formulate pragmaticalization not in terms of grammaticalization, but in terms of pragmatics. A certain number of terms are available. For example, we may say that it is a process from conversational to conven- tional implicature, or from less to more situation-dependent meanings. Onodera (pp. 214-218) herself suggests this line of research in reference to invited inferences in the sense of Geis and Zwicky (1971). When equipped with such instruments, pragmaticalization will be more directly linked to present-day pragmatics, and researchers of the field will be more familiar with historical pragmatics. THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 209

6. Conclusion I conclude this review article by mentioning the effects that Onodera's work has on the advancement of pragmatics. Studies on historically related words and newly coined ones, differences between old people's and young people's speech, processes of conventionalization and idiomaticization, have fallen within the domain of lexicography, and have been contiguous to, but not included in, the research area of pragmatics proper. With the rise of historical pragmatics, together with the hypothesis of pragmaticalization, however, pragmatics is expected to incorporate the findings of these studies; this trend leads students of pragmatics to develop pragmatic principles that work not only across the boundaries of particular situations but also across the boundaries of time. Onodera's book surely makes a step toward this direction. Here I focused on processes of pragmaticalization and Onodera's analysis of them so as to better understand pragmaticalization as distinguished from grammaticalization. Because of this, I did not cover the whole range of Onodera's work. To list just a few of the untouched issues, I did not consider: (i) theories of grammaticalization concerning subjectification and intersubjectification; (ii) Onodera's fine-grained analysis of present-day Japanese DMs; and comparison of DMs in Japanese and those in English; nor (iii) the relevance of her work to politeness, to word order typology, and to Japanese grammatical theories of the kind represented by Watanabe (1971). Each of these issues will certainly develop into an independent study. In historical pragmatics, one can, and in fact must, serve both as a philologist and as a researcher of pragmatics. Onodera's work is a good example of this high requirement, and will be the standard for any studies to come in this area.

REFERENCES

Arita, Setsuko (2005)“Taiwa ni Arawareru Buntoo no Wa no Kinoo nitsuite

(On the Function of WA in Sentence-initial Position Occurring in Dialogues),”paper presented at 8th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fujiwara, Yoichi (1992) Aisatsu Kotoba no Sekai (The World of Greeting 210 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 24, NO. 1 (2007)

Words), Musashinoshoin, Tokyo. Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky (1971)“On Invited Inferences,” Linguistic Inquiry 2, 561-566. Givon, Talmy (1979) On Understanding Grammar, Academic Press, New York. Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English, Longman, London. Hara, Michio, ed. (1991) Toyotakeza Joorurishu 1 (The Collected Jooruri Ballads of the Toyotake Theater), Kokushokankokai, Tokyo. Hinds, John, Senko K. Maynard and Shoichi Iwasaki, eds. (1987) Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese WA, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott (2003) Grammaticalization, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Horn, Laurence R. (1984)“Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference:

Q-based and R-based Implicature,”Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 11-42, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. Kamio, Akio (1997) Territory of Information, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Konig, Ekkehard (1985)“On the History of Concessive Connectives in English: Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence,”Lingua 66, 1-19. Matsumoto, Yo (1988)“From Bound Grammatical Markers to Free Discourse Markers: History of Some Japanese Connectives,”BLS 14, 340-351. Mikami, Akira (1953=1972) Gendai Gohoo Josetsu (Introduction to the Present- day Usage), Kurosio, Tokyo. Miyaji, Atsuko (1979) Shin-Shin Goi no Shiteki Kenkyuu (Historical Studies on the Vocabulary of Body-parts and Emotions), Meijishoin, Tokyo. Miyoshi, Sukesaburou (1977) Shin Ei-Doku Hikaku Bunpoo (New German- English Comparative Grammar), Ikubundo, Tokyo. Mori, Yuichi (1993)“Nihongo no nakano Shin-Shin Metafa (The Mind-Body Metaphor in Japanese),”Kokugo Kenkyu (Studies of the Japanese Lan-

guage), 828-843, Meijishoin, Tokyo. Morioka, Kenji (1973)“Bunshoo Tenkai to Setsuzokushi, Kandooshi (Discourse Development and Conjunctions, Interjections),”Setsuzokushi, Kandooshi

(Conjunctions, Interjections), ed. by Kazuhiko Suzuki and Oki Hayashi, 7- 44, Meijishoin, Tokyo. Morita, Yoshiyuki (1973)“Kandooshi no Hensen (The Historical Change of Interjections),”Setsuzokushi, Kandooshi (Conjunctions, Interjections), ed. by Kazuhiko Suzuki and Oki Hayashi, 177-208, Meijishoin, Tokyo. Naganuma, Keiichi (2000)“Setsuzokushitekini Kaisyakusareru Mukanshimeishi nitsuite (On the Article-less Nouns That Are Interpreted as Connectives),” Furansugogaku Kenkyuu (Studies in French Linguistics) 34, 39-44. Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (NKD) (Unabridged Dictionary of the Japanese Lan-

guage) (2000) 2nd ed., Shogakkan, Tokyo. Oda, Nozomi (2005)“Amasa ni Kakawaru Yobikakego no Komyunikeeshon Kinoo (Communicative Functions of the Vocative“Epithet of Sweetness”),” THE HISTORY OF JAPANESE DISCOURSE MARKERS 211

JELS 22, 151-160. Okutsu, Keiichiro (1978)“Boku-wa Unagi-da”no Bunpoo (Grammar of“I-am- an-eel”), Kurosio, Tokyo. Onodera, Noriko (1996)“Dooshi kara Setsuzokuhyoogen e: Nihongo niokeru Grammaticalization to Subjectification no Ichijirei (From Verbs to Connec- tives: A Case of Grammaticalization and Subjectification in Japanese),” Gengogakurin (The Linguistics-woods), 457-474, Sanseido, Tokyo. Onodera, Noriko (2000)“Development of Demo-type Connectives and Na-elements: Two Extremes of Japanese Discourse Markers,”Journal of Histori- cal Pragmatics 1, 27-55. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (1989) 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford. Rouchota, Villy (1998)“Connectives, Coherence and Relevance,”Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 11-57, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Schiffrin, Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1982)“From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization,” Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, 245-271, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1989)“On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English,” Language 65, 31-55. Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig (1991)“The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited," Approaches to Grammaticalization: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, 189-218, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Watanabe, Minoru (1971) Kokugo Koobunron (A Study on Japanese Sentence Structure), Hanawa Shobo, Tokyo. Yamaguchi, Nakami (1982)“Kankaku, Kanjoo Goi no Rekishi (History of the Vocabulary of Feelings and Emotions),”Goishi (Vocabulary History), ed. by Kenji Morioka, Yutaka Miyaji, Hideo Teramura and Zenmei Kawabata, 202-227, Meijishoin, Tokyo.

Graduate School of Information Sciences Tohoku University 6-3-09, Aoba, Aramaki-aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi Miyagi 980-8579 e-mail: [email protected]