| Creator |
|
|
|
| Language |
|
| Publisher |
|
|
|
| Date |
|
| Source Title |
|
| Vol |
|
| First Page |
|
| Last Page |
|
| Publication Type |
|
| Access Rights |
|
| JaLC DOI |
|
| Abstract |
In Japanese conversation, contrastive connectives are sometimes used to connect the utterance even though there is no contrastive relationship found between them. This paper took both qualitative and ...quantitative approaches to analyze such phenomena based on the theory of grammaticalization. The findings were as follows: 1. “kedo” and “demo” have been grammaticalized from “Content Textual Component” through “Interactive Textual Component” to “Procedural Textual Component”. At the stage of “Content Textual Component”, the contrastive connectives are used to connect contrastive utterances of the speaker. At the stage of “Interactive Textual Component”, the contrastive connectives are used to show the attitude of the speaker which is opposite to the utterance of the hearer. Furthermore, at the stage of “Procedural Textual Component”, the speaker uses contrastive connectives to soften the claim of the speaker to show the consideration for the hearers. As grammaticalization progresses, intersubjectivity of contrastive connectives becomes gradually stronger. 2. This paper only analyzed data from informal conversations, wherein the number of occurrences of “tada” is far less than “kedo” and “demo”. Likewise, there are no examples observed in which “tada” is used as “Procedural Textual Component”. However, it has been pointed out that “tada” is also used as a discourse marker to introduce a new topic or to indicate a change of topic in talk shows. One of the reasons for this is that “tada” is more often used in formal situations than informal ones. 3. Although “kedo”, “demo” and “tada” have undergone the same grammaticalization process, “kedo” is the most diversified in function and is the most grammaticalized contrastive connective.show more
|
Export Mendeley
p027