UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles from Frequency to Formulaicity: Morphemic Bundles and Semi-Fixed Constructions in Japanese
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles From Frequency to Formulaicity: Morphemic Bundles and Semi-Fixed Constructions in Japanese Spoken Discourse A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures by Michiko Kaneyasu 2012 © Copyright by Michiko Kaneyasu 2012 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION From Frequency to Formulaicity: Morphemic Bundles and Semi-Fixed Constructions in Japanese Spoken Discourse by Michiko Kaneyasu Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures University of California, Los Angeles, 2012 Professor Shoichi Iwasaki, Chair This dissertation investigates patterns and functions of fixedness, or formulaicity, in Japanese spoken discourse. A growing number of language researchers have pointed to the centrality of formulaicity and idiomaticity in understanding what native speakers know and do with the language. However, an overwhelming majority of evidence comes from English, which differs from Japanese typologically. In particular, agglutinating morphology poses methodological and conceptual challenges for examining formulaicity in Japanese language. As a result, not much is known about Japanese formulaicity, except for fixed idioms and phrases, such as te o yaku ‘have difficulty with’ (lit. ‘burn one’s hand’) and o-tsukare-sama deshita ‘thank you for your hard work’ (lit. ‘(you) were honorably tired’ or ‘(you) seemed tired’). ii The present study is an attempt to explore formulaicity in Japanese spoken language by employing a morpheme-based, frequency-driven approach with large corpora. It identifies the most frequently recurring multi-morphemic sequences, or morphemic bundles, in three spoken registers, ordinary conversation, formal interview, and academic speech. Detailed analysis of the morphemic bundles reveals structural and functional characteristics of fixedness in spoken language that are linked to particular communicative needs of different registers and contexts. Findings in this study, however, also indicate that the morphemic bundles do not necessarily represent form-function units. Most significantly, about half of the morphemic bundles are encompassed by three partially-filled, or semi-fixed, constructions, with open slots and variations in some forms. Rather than adding to the conceptual meaning of utterances, the three semi-fixed constructions serve as discourse frames for fluent, socio-pragmatically appropriate, and idiomatically natural utterances, thereby contributing to the smooth on-line production and comprehension of spoken language. Findings and discussions in this study provide new insight into the formulaic and socio- interactional nature of native speakers’ language use in real context. The new insight also has important implications for Japanese as a foreign language learning and teaching, as a significant part of language acquisition takes place in learning idiomatic ways of saying or doing things in the target socio-linguistic community. iii The dissertation of Michiko Kaneyasu is approved. John H. Schumann Sung-Ock Sohn Hongyin Tao Shoichi Iwasaki, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2012 iv To Mayu v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ···················································································· ix LIST OF TABLES ····················································································· ix LIST OF GLOSS ABBREVIATIONS ······························································ x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ·········································································· xi VITA ····································································································· xiii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1. Purpose of the study ·············································································· 1 1.2. Basic unit of analysis ············································································· 5 1.3. Definition of formulaic language ······························································· 6 1.4. Scope of the research ············································································· 9 1.5. Research objectives ··············································································· 10 1.6. Outline of the dissertation ······································································· 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review 13 2.1. Overview ··························································································· 13 2.2. Formal-semantic perspectives on formulaic language ······································· 14 2.3. Pragmatic/socio-interactional aspect of utterances ··········································· 21 2.4. Cognitive-oriented approaches to formulaic language ······································ 24 2.4.1. Grammar as constructions ··································································· 24 2.4.2. Cognitive representation model ···························································· 26 2.4.3. Cognitive models for first language acquisition ········································· 27 2.4.4. Intersection between formulaicity and creativity ········································ 31 2.4.5. Problems for second/foreign language learners ·········································· 33 2.5. Usage-based approaches to Japanese discourse ·············································· 34 2.5.1. Introduction···················································································· 34 2.5.2. Patterns of fixedness in Japanese discourse ·············································· 35 2.5.2.1. Varied word order ········································································ 36 2.5.2.2. Ellipsis and syntactically incomplete utterances ···································· 38 2.5.2.3. Particles···················································································· 41 2.5.2.4. Discourse markers ······································································· 42 2.6. Lexical bundles and register variations ························································ 43 2.7. Summary ··························································································· 47 vi Chapter 3: Data and Methodology 49 3.1. Introduction ························································································ 49 3.2. The data····························································································· 49 3.3. Methodology ······················································································· 51 3.4. Procedures ·························································································· 52 3.4.1. Tokenization of texts ········································································· 53 3.4.2. Standardization of tokenized texts ························································· 54 3.4.3. N-gram analysis ··············································································· 55 Chapter 4: Morphemic Bundles in Conversation, Interview, and Speech 58 4.1. Frequency of morphemic bundles among three registers ··································· 58 4.2. Structural characteristics of the morphemic bundles ········································ 60 4.2.1. VP-related bundles ··········································································· 64 4.2.2. NP-related bundles ··········································································· 68 4.3. Functional characteristics of the morphemic bundles ······································· 69 4.3.1. Stance expressions············································································ 77 4.3.1.1. Epistemic stance bundles ······························································· 79 4.3.1.2. Attitudinal stance bundles ······························································ 87 4.3.1.3. Summary of stance expressions ························································ 94 4.3.2. Discourse organizers ········································································· 94 4.3.2.1. Topic introduction/elaboration bundles ··············································· 95 4.3.2.2. Cohesion bundles ········································································ 103 4.3.2.3. Background bundles ····································································· 113 4.3.2.4. Summary of discourse organizers ····················································· 131 4.3.3. Referential expressions ······································································ 132 4.3.3.1. Conceptualization bundles ······························································ 132 4.3.3.2. Equivocation bundles ···································································· 138 4.3.3.3. Summary of referential expressions ··················································· 152 4.3.4. Socio-interactional expressions····························································· 153 4.3.4.1. Reporting bundles ········································································ 154 4.3.4.2. Interpersonal bundles ···································································· 164 4.3.4.3. Reactive bundles ········································································· 167 4.3.4.4. Word/expression search bundles ······················································· 175 4.3.4.5. Inquiry bundles ··········································································· 187 4.3.4.6.