UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Japanese interactional particles yo, ne and yone : their functions and acquisition by Japanese language.. Goto, Yasuko 1998-05-23

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1998-0449.pdf [ 8.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088582.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088582-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088582-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088582-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088582-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088582-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088582-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088582-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088582.ris

Full Text

JAPANESE INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES YO, NE AND YONE: THEIR FUNCTIONS AND ACQUISITION BY JAPANESE LANGUAGE LEARNERS by YASUKO GOTO B.A., Fuji Women's College, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Asian Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1998 © Yasuko Goto, 1998 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract The Japanese language possesses a class of particles called "interactional particles" which appear in and facilitate interactions among people. This thesis analyzes the functions and Japanese language learners' acquisition of the interactional particles yo, ne and yone, which frequently occur in Japanese conversations. Employing speech data obtained from spontaneous conversations and written data from questionnaires and fill-in-the blank tests, the present study analyzed yo, ne and yone as used by Native Japanese Speakers (NJSs) and Japanese Language Learners (JLLs). It is generally understood that yo marks new information and ne elicits and demonstrates agreement. Based on the analyses of yo, ne and yone in previous works, I propose that the fundamental function of yo is "pointing to the speaker's private world" and that that of ne is "pointing to the common ground of the speaker and addressee." Yone, the combination of yo and ne, also points to the interlocutors' common ground. Due to the existence of yo, yone further reveals the speaker's personality: uncertainty about information and empathy toward the addressee. The NJS data revealed two notable practices which contrast with general understanding concerning the use of these particles. First, the NJSs presented new information in conjunction with ne, often accompanied by the nominalization form n(o) (daldesu). Secondly, they often requested agreement by employing yone. I claim that the NJSs' inclination for using ne and yone, the particles of "common ground," exemplifies a politeness strategy and Japanese communicative styles (e.g., expressions of enryo 'reservedness', omoiyari 'empathy' and wakimae 'discernment'), both of which are oriented to the unification of understandings between the speaker and addressee. The JLLs underused yone and overused ne. The JLLs' use of yone was approximately 10% lower than that of the NJSs. In contrast, the JLLs' use of ne was 20% higher than that of the NJSs. Furthermore, the JLLs misused yone and ne due to inadequate instruction on their use both in textbooks and classrooms. In particular, the JLLs showed difficulty when presenting new information by properly combining ne and yone with the nominalization form. This indicates the importance of the ability to handle the nominalization form along with yo, ne and yone. The present study revealed the JLLs' inadequate acquisition of the use of yo, ne and yone, which conform to politeness strategies and Japanese communicative styles. In conclusion, I suggest that Japanese textbooks and classrooms should pay more attention to the effects of these particles on human relationships. I also propose the introduction of yone, which is not often dealt with, into Japanese language teaching because of its significant contribution to Japanese interaction and discourse: an essential device for demonstrating agreement and exemplifying Japanese politeness and communicative styles. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents v List of Tables viList of Figures viii List of Abbreviations ix List of Transcription Conventions x Acknowledgements xi Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 Japanese Interactional Particles 1 1.2 Interactional Particles in Language Classrooms 5 1.3 Interactional Particles and Socialization 8 1.4 Organization of the Thesis 9 Chapter Two: Review and Characterization of Yo, Ne and Yone 10 2.1 Limitations of Previous Studies 12.2 Yone as the Combined Form of Yo and Ne 15 2.3 Pragmatic Analysis of Yo, Ne and Yone 7 2.3.1 Kamio's "Theory of Speaker's Territory of Information" 18 2.3.2 Maynard's Concept of "Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship" 23 2.3.3 Cook's "Theory of Direct and Indirect Indexicality" 27 2.4. "Pointing" as the Fundamental Function of Yo and Ne 33 V 2.4.1 Problems of Contrasting "Information" and "Interaction" 34 2.4.2 Fundamental Function of Yo and Ne as "Pointing" and Their Contribution to "Personalization of Discourse" 36 2.4.3 Interaction, Speech Acts and Interactional Particles, Yo, Ne and Yone 41 2.4.4 Constraints on the Uses of Yo, Ne and Yone 45 Chapter Three: Methodology 51 3.1 Participants3.2 Procedure for Data Collection 53 3.2.1 Questionnaire3.2.2 Conversation Sessions 4 3.2.3 Fill-in-the-BlankTest 53.3 Procedures for Data Collection 5 3.4 Procedures for Analysis 6 Chapter Four: Analyses of Conversational Data 67 4.1 Conversation Management 64.1.1 Conversation Management by NJS 67 4.1.2 Conversation Management by JLL 71 4.2 Presentation of New Information 5 4.2.1 Presentation of New Information by NJS 74.2.2 Presentation of New Information by JLL 90 4.3 Request for Agreement 97 4.3.1 Request for Agreement by NJS 94.3.2 Request for Agreement by JLL 106 vi 4.4 Demonstration of Solicited Agreement 112 4.4.1 Demonstration of Solicited Agreement by NJS 114.4.2 Demonstration of Solicited Agreement by JLL 116 4.5. Summary 118 Chapter Five: Fill-in-the-Blank Tests and Questionnaire Data 121 5.1 Results of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests 125.2 Results of Questionnaire Data 130 5.3 Summary 135 Chapter Six: Conclusion 136 6.1 NJS Use of Yo, Ne and Yone 136.2 JLL Acquisition of Yo, Ne and Yone 140 6.3 Pedagogical Implications 142 6.4 Limitations 145 6.5 Further Studies 7 References 149 Appendixes: Appendix A List of Definitions 161 Appendix B Backgrounds of Japanese Language Learner (JLL) Participants 164 Appendix C Backgrounds of Native Japanese Speaker (NJS) Participants 165 Appendix D Questionnaire for JLL Participants 167 Appendix E-l Questionnaire for NJS Participants 173 Appendix E-2 Questionnaire for NJS Participants [English Translation] 177 Appendix F Suggested Topics 181 Appendix G Fill-in-the-Blank Test 2 ( List of Tables vii 1 Particle Types (Independent, Fragment and Predicate Types) of Yo, Ne and Yone Used by NJSs 68 2 Particles (Yo, Ne and Yone) Used by NJSs Categorized in terms of Particle Types (Independent, Fragment and Predicate Types) 68-9 3 Yo, Ne and Yone that the NJSs Used in Six Speech Acts 70 4 Types of Speech Acts that the NJSs Performed with Yo, Ne and Yone 71 5 Frequency of Use of Yo, Ne and Yone by JLLs and NJSs 72 6 Particle Types (Independent, Fragment and Predicate Types) of Yo, Ne and Yone Used by JLLs 73 7 Particles (Yo, Ne and Yone) Used by JLLs Categorized in terms of Particle Types (Independent, Fragment and Predicate Types) 73 8 Yo,Ne and Yone that the JLLs Used in Six Speech Acts 74 9 Types of Speech Acts that the JLLs Performed with Yo, Ne and Yone 74 10 Results of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests by NJS 123 11 Results of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests by JLL 124 12 The Use of Yo, Ne and Yone in relation with Information Status 127-8 13 Self-Estimation of the Frequencies of Yo, Ne and Yone the JLLs Use in Japanese Conversation 131 14 Self-Estimation of the Frequencies of Yo, Ne and Yone the NJSs Use in Japanese Conversation 132 15 Responses to Question 6 concerning the Necessity of Yo, Ne and Yone 133 viii List of Figures 1 The Relationships between the Territories of Information and Sentential Forms 19 2 Choice of Yo and Ne based on Relative Accessibility and/or Possessorship 24 3 Functions of Particles Yo and Ne in relation to Information and Interaction 26 4 A Summary of Relationships between Signs and Indexes 29 5 Direct and Indirect Indexical Meanings of Ne 30 6 Direct and Indirect Indexical Meanings of Yo 3 7 Hierarchal Structure of the Japanese Sentence 38 8 Relationships between Interaction, Speech Acts and Interactional Particles Yo, Ne and Yone A3 9 A Taxonomy of Speech Acts 60 10 Contexts of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests 122 11 Relationships between Interaction, Speech Acts and Interactional Particles (Revised from Figure 8) 139 List of Abbreviations Following abbreviations are used in this thesis: BE copula CAU causative DO direct object marker FI fdler IO indirect object marker IP interactional particle LK linker (linking nominals and nominal adjectives) NEG negative morpheme NOM nominalizer OP onomatopoeia P particle (other than interactional particles) PASS passive morpheme Q question marker QT quotative marker SUB subject marker TOP topic marker TAG tag-question-like morpheme (e.g.Janai, deshoo) List of Transcription Conventions x unraised intonation ? rising intonation recognizable pause [ the beginning of overlapping speech = speech which comes immediately after another person's (i.e., latched utterances) LAUGH laughter wo:: rd vowel elongation word- abrupt cut-off (word) unclearly uttered word (?) audible but undefinable word *sentence ungrammatical sentence ?sentence sentence whose grammaticality is questionable f Acknowledgements xi I would like to express my appreciation to my M.A. thesis committee members: Drs. Yoko Collier-Sanuki, Ross King, Richard Berwick and Kate Swatek, for their valuable comments and suggestions. I am especially indebted to Dr. Yoko Collier-Sanuki, my graduate studies supervisor. Without her constant and insightful feedback, this thesis, as presented here, could not have been completed. I am also thankful to Dr. Juta Kitching, who personally read my thesis draft and offered many useful comments. I wish also to express my gratitude to the participants in this research and the friends who introduced them to me. I appreciate the generosity of the Japanese language instructors of the Department of Asian Studies and Ms. Heather Mcintosh, Assistant Coordinator of the UBC English Language Institute, for having allowed me to recruit volunteer participants for this research. I am also grateful to the Soyosha Publishing Company who permitted me to reproduce parts of a comic for use in my research and also encouraged in my completion of this thesis. I appreciate the tremendous assistance given me by Kasimir Kish and Elizabeth Legge who proofread my thesis drafts so many times and helped me to improve them. My hearty thanks also extends to the people of the Department of Asian Studies: to the fellow graduate students who have supported me, particularly Yukiko Nagakura who assisted me the most; Ms. Hiroko Tokumoto who gave me useful advice on thesis writing; and Enid Graham and Mina Wong, the secretaries of the department office, who were always there to help me deal with the various problems I encountered. I was very fortunate to have had some great friends here in Vancouver: Makiko Nakai, Hiroka Sasaki and Jee-Weon Shin. Their friendship and support were the main source of strength encouraging me to complete this thesis. Last but not least, I am grateful to my father and mother. All I have accomplished would have been impossible without their existence and their belief in me. 1 Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Japanese Interactional Particles The Japanese language has an inventory of "interactional particles" (Maynard 1993) or 'dialogic particles' ("taiwajoshi," Izuhara 1993) (e.g., yo, ne, na, sa, wa, zo, ze) which occur in situations which involve interactions among people. Interactional particles do not mark grammatical relations; instead, they "index interactive contexts" (Ohta 1993).1 This thesis also uses the term "interactional particles" to refer to yo, ne and yone. Some of the interactional particles (e.g., wa, zo, ze) appear exclusively at the final position of an utterance (e.g., Kanarazu shiken ni gookakusuru zo. 'I will pass the exam for sure.'), while others (e.g., yo, ne, sa) occur in an utterance at its initial position (e.g., Ne, are nani. 'Hey, what's that?'), internal position (e.g., Ano ne, kyoo ne^ sensee ni atta yo.'"l met (my) teacher today.') and final position (e.g., Basu wa moo demashita yo. 'The bus has already left.'). Among these various interactional particles, this thesis particularly analyzes yo, ne and their combined form, yone, because of their frequent occurrence in Japanese conversation. The following examples show the use of yo, ne and yone'} (1) Context: A and B just found out that they had both lived in Tokyo. 1 A: Setagaya no hoo ni. Setagaya LK side P "(I was living in) the Setagaya district." --> 2 B: Aa, ja chikai desu ne. oh then close BE IP "Oh, then that's close (to the area I used to live in), isn't it?" i'To index" refers to "to signal, or to relate a linguistic symbol to a feature of the communicative or social context" (Ohta 1993: 13). 2A11 data represent actual speech collected during the present research project unless otherwise noted. The methodology of the data collection will be discussed in detail in Chapter Three. 2 —> 3 A: Soo desu ne. so BE IP "It is (, really)." As illustrated above, ne (Line 2) has the function of eliciting the addressee's agreement like an English tag-question. It also appears in utterances that demonstrate the speaker's agreement (Line 3). Yone has basically the same functions as in the next example: (2) Context: A says that she was amazed by the fact that Canadian university students, unlike those in Japan, always carry big, heavy backpacks. 1 A: Nihon no daigaku ni konna ko ga i-tara Japanese LK university P like this child SUB exist-if "If there were a student like this at a Japanese university," --> 2 B: =Okashii yone. strange IP "(It would be) strange, (don't you think?)" ~>3 A: Okashii yonee. strange IP "Strange (, really)." While yone in Line 2 functions to request agreement, yone in Line 3 serves to constitute an utterance that exhibits agreement. Yo, on the other hand, appears in utterances that convey new information as in the following two examples: (3) 1 A: Nani benkyoo shiteta n desu ka ? what study were doing NOM BE Q "What were you studying?" 2 B: Watashi, tetsugaku-ka datta n desu kedo, I philosophy-section was NOM BE but "I was in Philosophy, but," 3 A: Aa. oh "Oh," 3 —> 4 B: Demo gakkoo ga ne, kibishiikatta n desu yo. but school SUB IP was strict NOM BE IP "But (my) school was strict." (4) Context: B is a graduate student. A asks B how old he is. B answers "twenty four." 1 A: Aa, ja, moo, sasasa-tto kita n desu ne. oh then FI OP-QT came NOM BE IP "Oh, so, you went straight (into graduate school), did you?" --> 2 B: Iya, roonin shite-mashita yo* no roonin was-doing IP "No, I spent extra year(s) studying for the university entrance exams." In the examples above, information that yo-attached utterances (Line 4 in Example 3 and Line 2 in Example 4) convey are new to the addressee. As in Example 4, yo often occurs in utterances of opposition and/or correction, producing impressions of assertion, insistence and emphasis. Note that the use of yo and ne in the above examples does not directly influence the propositions4 or referential meanings of the utterances.5 For instance, in Example 3, even though the utterance on Line 4 is deprived of yo and ne, the resulting utterance, "Demo gakoo ga, kibishikatta n desu," represents the same original proposition, which is 'But (my) school was strict.' Similarly, the absence of yo in the utterance of Line 2 in Example 4 does not change the speaker's proposition, 'No, I spent extra year(s) studying for the university entrance exams.' Thus, the presence or absence of yo and ne is not reflected in the above English translations. These ^Roonin is a student who has failed the annual entrance examinations to schools of his or her preference (e.g., universities, colleges and high schools), and is preparing for the following year's. 4"Proposition" is "[t]he unit of meaning which constitutes the subject matter of a statement, and which is asserted to be true or false" (Crystal 1992: 316). 5I use the term "referential meaning" to signify the meaning that a linguistic expression has when referring to an entity or situations. Referential meaning is sometimes contrasted with "social meaning" which is understood with the help of contextual information (e.g., Cook 1988, 1992; Finegan, 1994). 4 examples demonstrate that these particles do not function at the referential level where propositions or referential meanings are dealt with. Instead, interactional particles function at the non-referential level, which is concerned with modality, or what Tokieda (1950, 1954) calls ji, as summarized in Maynard (1993): Tokieda (1950, 1954) defines shi as an expression which has gone through the objectifying process—representing an objective and conceptualized notion of referents, which includes grammatical categories of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Ji, on the other hand, is an expression which has not gone through the objectifying process-representing the speaker's subjective perspective toward the referent and it includes conjunctions, exclamatory expressions, auxiliary verbs and particles. (Maynard 1993: 31) The involvement of "interaction" in the use of yo, ne and yone is referred to in several studies (e.g., Clancy, 1985; Kawamori, 1991; Cook, 1992; Ohta, 1993). Although the use of these particles is sometimes associated with certain genres such as "spoken language" (e.g., Uyeno, 1971; Ohso, 1986) and "informal language" (e.g., McGloin 1990), genre itself is not the decisive factor for the occurrence of the particles. For example, Cook (1992) found that ne was absent in a one-hour lecture speech given by a writer to a large audience. On the other hand, yo, ne and yone can be used in a letter if the letter is written as though the author were talking directly to the addressee. The point is that whenever yo, ne and yone are used, "interaction" is taking place or is supposed. Interactionality, or the interactional nature of yo, ne and yone, leads to another aspect of these particles: their relationship with Japanese culture. Since socially appropriate interactions are defined differently from culture to culture, the acquisition of the appropriate use of these particles requires an understanding of cultural aspects of the language as well as the linguistic functions of these particles. Clancy (1986) defines such cultural aspects of a language as "communicative style," or "the way language is used and understood in a particular culture, both reflects and reinforces fundamental cultural beliefs about the way people are and the nature of interpersonal 5 communication" (p. 213). For example, the Japanese communicative styles identified in previous studies include expressions of omoiyari ('empathy,' Cook, 1992; Hinds, 1978), enryo ('reservedness,' Clancy 1985), "conformity to the group norms" (Noguchi 1997), "affect" (Cook, 1992; Ohta, 1993) and "preference for avoiding confrontation" (Cook 1992). Yet another Japanese communicative style is aizuchi (often translated as "backchannel expressions"), as some studies (e.g., Hinds, 1978; Mizutani, 1983, 1984, 1985; Maynard, 1989) report its frequent occurrence in Japanese. Aizuchi are verbal and non-verbal messages signalling that the addressee is following what the speaker is saying, and they function to smooth interaction.6 For example, "soo desu ne (Lit. 'it is so')," as in the next example, is a common verbal aizuchi expression: (5) A: Kyoo wa samui desu ne. today TOP cold BE IP "It is cold today, isn't it?" —> B: Soo desu ne. so BE IP "It is (, really)." (Horii 1994: 69) In this example, ne is obligatory, or an essential element for this sentence to serve as an aizuchi expression. In other words, B's utterance becomes a simple statement or affirmation without it, indicating that this particle plays a significant role in Japanese communication or interaction. 1.2 Interactional Particles in Language Classrooms Previous studies discussed the difficulty of acquiring yo, ne and yone by Japanese language learners (e.g., Ohso, 1986; Sawyer, 1991; Cook, 1992; Ohta, 1993; Horii, 1994; Shimoyama, SCook (1992) refers to aizuchi as "back-channel expressions" which are "verbal or non-verbal cues that signal that the addressee is following what the speaker says" (Cook 1992: 514). Maynard (1989) defines "back channel" as "occurrences of behavior where an interlocutor who assumes a listener's role sends short messages during the other's speaking turn" (Maynard 1989: 160). Therefore, gestures such as nods and gazes are examples of non-verbal back channels, while such expressions as un ("yeah"), ee ('yes') and soo desu ne ('it is so') belong to verbal back channels. 6 1995). For example, Ohso (1986) claims that the lack of similar types of linguistic forms in many other languages causes such difficulties. I suspect that the obstacles to both teaching and learning interactional particles lie in their characteristics discussed above: non-referentiality, interactionality and their relationship with Japanese culture. First, their non-referential nature makes it hard for textbooks and teachers to present explicit explanations of these particles to students. Secondly, due to the interactional nature of yo, ne and yone, their instruction and acquisition in Japanese language classrooms are difficult. In other words, language classrooms are limited in that they cannot duplicate ordinary, everyday interaction and discourse, and instead they produce their own unique "classroom discourse" (Ohta 1993), or "educational discourse" (Kasper, 1989; Sawyer, 1991). Classroom discourse is differentiated from ordinary discourse in that it is based on the imbalanced power relationship that exists between a teacher and his or her students and that the primary goal of classroom discourse is not interaction but unidirectional information transfer from a teacher to his or her students (Kasper, 1989; Ohta, 1993; Ellis, 1994). Consequently, formal classrooms do not offer students enough opportunities for observing and learning how yo, ne and yone are used in ordinary spontaneous interactions. The third factor that makes the acquisition of yo, ne and yone by Japanese learners troublesome is the relationship of these particles with Japanese culture. Thomas' (1983) distinction between "sociopragmatic failure" and "pragmalinguistic failure" is useful here. Sociopragmatic failure "takes place when a learner fails to perform the illocutionary act required by the situation (i.e., deviates with regard to appropriateness of meaning)" and pragmalinguistic failure "occurs when a learner tries to perform the right speech act but uses the wrong linguistic means (i.e., deviates with regard to appropriateness of form)" (Ellis 1994: 165).7 Concerning these two types of pragmatic failures, Sawyer (1991) states that Japanese interactional particles produce a complex 7An "illocutionary act" refers to "a speech act which is performed by a speaker by virtue of the utterance having been made"(Crystal 1992: 181), and includes promising, commanding and arresting. On the other hand, a "locutionary act" is "a simply meaningful utterance" (Ibid.) which will not cause the same consequences as the illocutionary acts. 7 learning problem since the ineffective use of these particles makes the full range of speech acts less successful, although they are not obligatory components of any speech act in Japanese.8 The following examples of learners' errors from Ohso (1986) demonstrate this point: Both utterances, soo desu 'that is so' (Example 6) and kireena burausu desu '(that is) a beautiful blouse' (Example 7), which lack ne, sound assertive and blunt despite the learners' intention to be accommodating to the addressee.9 These examples show that Japanese language learners need to know what the speech acts of demonstrating agreement (Example 6) and making comments or compliments (Example 7) mean to Japanese communication (i.e., sociopragmatic knowledge), and also how those speech acts should be realized in an appropriate linguistic form with the use of the proper interactional particles (i.e., pragmalinguistic knowledge). Maynard (1993) states that "unlike grammatical mistakes, which can be dismissed simply as lack of knowledge, non-referential signs in general can cause serious communication problems" (p. 270). These problems 8However, as I will argue in Chapter Two, ne is obligatory in certain speech acts such as requesting and demonstrating agreement. Probably what Sawyer implies here is the non-referentiality of these particles, which has little influence on propositions. 9As Collier-Sanuki (personal communication) notes, simply attaching ne to B's utterance in Example 6 does not make the utterance acceptable (i.e., *Hcd, soo desu ne.). Only if hai is also replaced by ee, (i.e., "Ee, soo desu ne."), the resulting utterance becomes natural. This indicates incompatibility of ne and hai. For more discussion on hai andee, see McGloin (1996). (6) A: Kyoo wa ii tenki desu ne. today TOP good weather BE IP "Good weather today, isn't it?" B: *Hai, soo desu. yes so BE "Yes, that is so." (Ohso 1986: 91) (7) *Kireena burausu desu. Atarashii desu ka. beautiful blouse BE new BE Q "(That is) a beautiful blouse. (Is it) new?" (Ohso 1986: 92) 8 include "[the failure] to understand one another's intentions ... to get their points across and, more often than not, make unjustified negative evaluations of the sincerity, interest, intelligence and motivation of other particles in interaction" (Erickson 1984: 82). Examples 6 and 7 substantiate this point: non-use of ne creates a rude impression and thus causes a negative evaluation of the speaker. 1.3 Interactional Particles and Socialization Some studies of yo and ne discuss the relationship between language and socialization (e.g., Clancy, 1985; Cook, 1992; Ohta, 1993). For example, Ohta (1993) states that "language is a part of the socialization process, language socialization being both socialization through language, as well as socialization to use language appropriately" (Ohta 1993: 6). Also, Cook (1989, 1992) describes language as a tool for social interaction, and assigns one of the functions of ne as that of "socializing children" (Cook 1992).10 The relationship between language and socialization is not an issue concerning only first language (LI) acquisition; it has just as much importance on second language (L2) acquisition. Based on the studies of Ochs (1988) and Schieffelin (1990), Ohta (1993) defines socialization as "the process by which a person becomes a competent member of society — a process which takes place through interaction, as knowledgeable members and novices, whether children or newcomers, interact with one another" (p.6). Similarly, the National Foreign Language Center (1993) proposes that socialization into the Japanese culture and society is a goal for learning Japanese: The purpose of learning Japanese is not to become Japanese, but rather to become an informed foreigner who can function in Japanese society in a way that does not make Japanese feel uncomfortable or otherwise impedes the attainment of practical goals, whether in work or in everyday affairs. (National Foreign Language Center 1993: 16) 10Cook (1989,1992) found that ne appeared frequentiy in mothers' speech to young children, and she claims that through observing their mothers' use of ne, children become aware of social skills including how to manage conversation and develop effective interaction. 9 As mentioned in Section 1.2, L2 Japanese learners experience difficulties in mastering interactional particles. This contrasts sharply with the early acquisition of these particles by LI Japanese learners. Clancy (1985), an extensive study of the LI acquisition of the Japanese language, found that yo and ne are among the first interactional particles to emerge in children's speech. Furthermore, she considers that these particles are acquired by LI learners at such an early stage because their usage is so context-dependent and has a pragmatic and emotional basis. Consequently, she suggests that the difficulties L2 learners encounter in using these particles appropriately originates from the language classroom environment which cannot duplicate the conditions of LI acquisition or the contexts for LI socialization. 1.4 Organization of the Thesis This thesis pursues two goals: (1) discovering the fundamental function of yo, ne and yone; and (2) investigating Japanese language learners' acquisition of these particles. Chapter Two reviews previous studies on yo, ne and yone and proposes that their fundamental function is "pointing." It also hypothesizes on the relationships of yo, ne and yone with speech acts and the interaction process. Chapter Three describes the methodology used for the present research. Chapter Four analyzes the recorded conversation data in terms of conversation management, speech acts and information status (i.e., whether information is new or old) of speech acts. Chapter Five discusses the written data obtained from the questionnaire and the fill-in-the-blank tests. Chapter Six summarizes findings concerning the use of yo, ne and yone by native speakers of Japanese, and the acquisition of these particles by Japanese language learners. In conclusion, I will also suggest some pedagogical implications for teaching yo, ne and yone. 10 Chapter Two Review and Characterization of Yo, Ne and Yone In this chapter, I will first discuss in Section 2.1 limitations of previous studies on yo and ne and present my position to inquire into the fundamental function of these particles. Then, Section 2.2 proposes that yone is the combined form of yo and ne (i.e., yo ne), rather than an independent particle or one inseparable unit (i.e., yone). Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 introduce and discuss respectively Kamio's (1979, 1989, 1990) "Theory of Speaker's Territory of Information," Maynard's (1993) concept of "Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship" and Cook's (1988, 1989,1992) model of "Direct and Indirect Indexicality." Based on these discussions, Section 2.4 proposes that "pointing" is the fundamental function of both yo and ne, and that this fundamental function achieves various effects on speech acts the speaker tries to perform. 2.1 Limitations of Previous Studies Most studies of yo and ne (e.g., Cheng, 1987; McGloin, 1990; Kawamori, 1991; Sawyer, 1991) refer to them as shuujoshi, or "final particles," because of their position in an utterance. However, such studies lack fundamental attempts to define shuujoshi explicitly, and use the terminology rather carelessly. In kokugogaku ('traditional Japanese language studies') shuujoshii generally implies those particles which occur in the final position of a sentence. Matsumura (1971), for example, defines shuujoshi as "particles which appear sentence-finally to complete a sentence, expressing such meanings as exclamation, prohibition, question, rhetorical question, wish and emphasis" (p.316).1 On the other hand, there are other locationally defined •Translation is mine. 11 categories of particles called kandooshi ('interjection particles') and kantoojoshi ('insertion particles'). Kandooshi is an independent linguistic element which can constitute a sentence by itself and expresses directly such expressions as exclamations, appeals, addresses and replies as in aa ('ah'), oi ('hey') and hai ('yes') (e.g., Tokieda, 1950; Hashimoto, 1959; Kato et al., 1989). Kantoojoshi, on the other hand, is a particle that reveals the speaker's attitude and appears word-finally or phrase-finally within a sentence (e.g., Tanaka, 1977). Example 1 contains an interjection ne and Example 2, an insertion ne. Both examples are excerpts from the actual speech of native Japanese speakers:2 (1) Nee, Mama. IP mom "Mom!" (Cook 1992: 522) (2) Ima no wareware ga ne, kantanni, koo, today LK we SUB IP easily FI Konjikidoo dake mite ne, are dake de golden pagoda only see IP that only with handan, ma, shite mo taihenna mono na n desu kedo ne, ... judgement FI do even great thing BE NOM BE but IP "Even if we, the people in the modern age, take a look at the golden pagoda and judge (it), we can see that it is great, but..." (Izuhara 1992: 164) Some studies (e.g., Saji 1956) use the term shuujoshi to include, in addition, particles of phrase-final or word-final position, namely, insertion particles. However, most studies on yo and ne discuss only sentence-final yo and ne, suggesting that they intentionally exclude the interjective and insertional uses of these particles from the scope of their analyses. The insertion ne, as illustrated in the above example, is ubiquitous in natural conversation. Ohta (1993) states that "ne appears most frequently not in utterance-final position but medially within an utterance at the end of translations and glosses are mine. 12 an intonation unit" (p. 13).3 Therefore, the analysis of interjection and insertion ne seems unavoidable in locating the nature of this particle. Yo also has interjective and insertional uses, although they are found less frequently than the interjection and insertion ne are. The following fabricated examples show the interjection yo and insertion yo respectively: (3) YOj hisashiburiA IP after a long time "Hey, long time no see!" (4) Demo karini soo da to shitemo yo, okashiku-nai ? but supposed so BE QT even if IP strange-TAG "But even if it is so, isn't it strange?" Here arises a question of whether these particles used in different positions are independent particles with their own functions or if they are the same particle with different manifestations. I propose that there exists only one variable ne with different variants, and that the same is true of yo. Izuhara's (1992) study of ne is suggestive on this point. Izuhara (1992) attempts to analyze all types of ne: interjective, insertional and sentence-final ne in terms of communicative function based on two grounds. First, the definition of a "sentence," which is the basis for categorizing these particles under locational analysis, becomes very ambiguous in the spoken language when influenced by contextual factors such as pause and intonation.5 In addition, she found that 3Du Bois et al. (1992) defines an "intonation unit" as a "stretch of speech occurring under a single unified intonation contour." For more discussion of intonation unit, see Chafe (1987), Du Bois et al. (1992) and Iwasaki (1993). 4As was the case with this example, the interjective use of yo is almost exclusively confined to male speech. See Section 2.4.4. 5Because of the characteristic of spoken language, (i.e., the fragmented and loosely integrated structure), previous studies have proposed alternative units for discourse analysis to replace the traditional concept of sentence which consists of subject and predicate. They include "idea units" (Chafe 1980, 1982, 1985), "intonation units (IU)" (Chafe, 1987; Du Bois et al., 1992; Iwasaki, 1993) and "Pause-bounded Phrasal Units (PPU)" (Maynard 1989). Maynard (1989) and Iwasaki (1993) specifically focus on the application of these units to Japanese discourse. 13 regardless of the position of its appearance, ne always shows one common characteristic, which is, kikite ni taiwa o mochilcakeru or 'to direct and present utterance to the addressee' (p.160-1).6 She then claims that there exists only one essential ne with different variants. Other evidence for this argument is found in the relationship of ne with intonation and vowel length. In actual speech, ne is uttered in various intonations and vowel lengths. In fact, some studies have classified ne based on its intonations and vowel lengths. For example, Jorden (1963) explains that ne pronounced with a rising intonation and a short vowel is a question marker, while nee with a falling intonation and a long vowel is an exclamation marker. Similar explanations are found in works such as Ohso (1986), Makino and Tsutsui (1986) and Soga and Matsumoto (1978). Cook (1992) further points out other possible forms: nee with a rising intonation and a long vowel, and ne with a falling intonation and a short vowel. In these cases, the former becomes a question marker, the latter an exclamation marker. In addition, she notes that a Japanese question can be indicated through rising intonation without the question marker ka. Based on these facts, Cook (1992) concludes that a rising intonation indicates a question. Other studies assign more interactional meanings to intonations. For example, Kitagawa (1977) explains that a highly sustained intonation is "a device of giving options to the addressee" (p.31). On the other hand, Edelsky (1979) found that a falling contour is used with lexical manifestations of indecisiveness such as "I guess," "I don't know" or "maybe" and the rising contour is also used merely to prolong the interaction, indicating that a falling contour does not necessarily imply a sign of confidence or decisiveness and a non-falling contour, insecurity or lack of confidence. Agreeing with Edelsky's argument, McGloin (1990) regards rising intonation as a translation is mine. 14 sign of "positive politeness."7 Sawyer (1991) takes a different view in observing intonation. He states that a falling intonation shows the speaker's stronger expectation of agreement than rising intonation does. A noteworthy study for the present discussion is Todoroki (1993), which specifically focuses on the relationship between the functions of yolne and intonation. She discovered that a falling intonation serves to express the speaker's emotions and/or to ask the addressee to sympathize with those emotions. On the other hand, a rising intonation indicates the conveyance of information or a request for confirmation. The above discussions suggest that rising and falling intonations can be characterized in terms of the speaker's attitude toward communication: a falling intonation reveals the speaker's personal feelings or emotions, while a rising intonation serves for interaction. Hence, I identify rising intonation with the speaker's intention to participate actively in the interaction process, and falling intonation with the exhibition of the speaker's emotions and feelings, which is subjectivity or what Suzuki (1824) calls "kokoro no koe" ('voices from the heart,'Maynard 1993: 5). As for the other factor, vowel length, Makino and Tsutsui (1986) assign nee with a long vowel a meaning of excitement. Cook (1992) further states that "geminated vowels typically indicate emphasis crosslinguistically" (p.512). Therefore, I regard vowel elongation as an act of emphasizing one's thoughts and emotions. The discussions above suggest that there is one and only one ne, which is interpreted differently, depending on intonation and vowel length. It seems that previous studies focused on the classification of the particle without exploring its fundamental function, causing inconsistent conclusions. Furthermore, Izuhara's (1992) second discovery that ne serves to direct and present a TBrown and Levinson (1978) proposes two types of strategies in showing politeness. "Positive politeness strategies" are those used to protect the addressee's "positive face" or "the desire to be approved of." On the other hand, "negative politeness strategies" are "politeness of non-imposition," in other words, those strategies are used so as not to demean the addressee's "negative face" or "the desire to be unimpeded in one's actions" (p.62). 15 certain utterance to the addressee (kikite ni taiwa o mochikakeru) ,8 suggests that the fundamental function of yo and ne is closely related to and thus should be analyzed in terms of "interaction." Therefore, I attempt in this thesis to discover the fundamental function of yo and ne in terms of "interaction" (not in terms of locations of their occurrence), and in so doing, I eliminate such factors as intonation and vowel length. This section discussed the limitations of the previous studies of yo and ne: (1) the analyses of these particles based on a "sentence" as a unit; (2) the partial focus on sentence-final particles, paying less attention to the interjective and insertional uses of these particles, and (3) the failure to eliminate factors of intonation and vowel length from their analysis of interactional particles. In order to overcome these limitations, I proposed an inquiry into the fundamental function of yo and ne. The next section analyzes yone, the combined form of yo and ne. 2.2 Yone as the Combined Form of Yo and Ne The previous section explained that yo and ne are interactional particles which can appear utterance-initially, -internally and -finally. This section will analyze the internal structure of yone from a syntactic viewpoint and propose that it is the combined form of yo and ne (i.e., yo ne) rather than an established independent particle or one integral unit (i.e., yone). Compared to studies on ne and yo, studies on yone are few (e.g., Kawamori, 1991; Izuhara, 1993; Maynard, 1993; Shimoyama, 1995). Furthermore, these analyses tend to become contingent on those of yo and ne. Only Shimoyama (1995) focuses on the analysis of yone, comparing it with ne. She regards the sentence-final yone as one particle rather than as the combination of two particles, yo and ne, stating that some utterances take yone but others yo ne, STranslation is mine. 16 the form that functions with a pause between the two. The following are two of her examples:9 (5) a. Kekkon shi-mashoo yo. Ne. marriage do let's IP IP "Let's get married. Shall we?" b. IKekkon shi-mashoo yone. marriage do let's IP "Let's get married, shall we?" (Shimoyama 1995: 51) (6) a. IChotto sore jaa komaru n desu yo. Ne. FI that if trouble NOM BE IP IP "Well, that would be a problem for me. You know." b. Chotto sore jaa komaru n desu yone. FI that if trouble NOM BE IP "Well, that would be a problem for me, you know." (Shimoyama 1995: 51) However, these examples reveal the weakness of yone's structural integrity instead of its oneness. First, Example 6a, which Shimoyama judges as questionable, becomes acceptable, depending on such factors as intonation, tone and gesture. For example, if ne is pronounced with a rising intonation, the utterance expresses the speaker's strong appeal to the addressee. As a result, the accessibility of this sentence increases. Therefore, Examples 5a and 6a substantiate that yone at the end of a sentence is separable. A further phenomenon that reveals the structural weakness of yone is that yone cannot appear as an interjection or insertion particle. This phenomenon can be explained by examining the structure of a yowe-attached utterance. I propose that its internal structure is {[(proposition)yo] ne}. In this model yo and ne are separate particles located at different levels within an utterance.10 This structure indicates that the connection between yo and its preceding proposition is stronger than that of yo with its following ne. The connection yo has with ^Translations and glosses are mine. loprevious studies (e.g., Suzuki, 1976; Shibatani, 1990; Masuoka, 1991; Iwasaki, 1993; Maynard, 1993) state that a Japanese sentence has hierarchical structure in which proposition and modal elements are located at different dimensions, with the latter enveloping the former. 17 the proposition is so strong that if the proposition is removed, it is impossible for yo to remain and cooccur with ne to form an independent yone; namely, an interjection yone. The reverse is not the case; the deletion of yo does not cause the deletion of the proposition. Therefore, realization of the form {proposition ne} is possible. This explains why yone is neither used interjectively (or independently) nor insertionally (or word/phrase-finally).11 The only possible forms which are closest to the interjection particle are da yone (plain form copula+yorce) and desu yone (polite form copula+yone).12 This example shows that yone requires a proposition or at least its fragment (i.e., a copula) as the condition of its occurrence. The structural looseness of yone demonstrated above indicates that this form has not obtained the status of an independent particle. This section examined the internal structure of yone and showed that this form is not an established interactional particle but a combined form of yo and ne. The next section reviews three main works on yo, ne and yone. 2.3. Pragmatic Analyses of Yo, Ne and Yone This section reviews analyses of yo and ne by three researchers. Section 2.3.1 introduces 1 tA word and a phrase are considered to be fragments of a proposition rather than one proposition (e.g., Tannen, 1982; Maynard, 1989; Cook, 1992). For further discussion on "fragmentation" of spoken language, see Maynard (1989). l2Da/Desu yone(e) can occur as an utterance expressing agreement as in the following fabricated example: A: Hukeeki de mattaku taihen da yo. recession P sheerly tough BE IP "Because of the recession, (our situation) is really tough." B: Da yonee. BE IP "It is, really." In fact, two Japanese participants in the present research pointed out this usage of yone in response to the question concerning the use of yo, ne and yone (Question 4, See Appendix E). 18 Kamio (1979, 1989, 1990) and his "Theory of Speaker's Territory of Information," in which he proposes that Japanese sentence-final forms are determined by the relationship between information and the speaker's/addressee's territories. Kamio took the factor of addressee's presence into consideration in his analysis of ne. Section 2.3.2 reviews Maynard's (1993) concept of "Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship." The introduction of the notions of "relativity" and "interaction" contrasted with "information" is the significant contribution Maynard (1993) brought to studies of yo and ne. Section 2.3.3 discusses Cook's (1988, 1989, 1992) analysis on yo and ne, based on the model of "Direct and Indirect Indexicality." She characterizes yo and ne as "index," or a sign that indicates aspects of context, and she attempts to discover the fundamental meaning and related functions of yo and ne. 2.3.1 Kamio's "Theory of Speaker's Territory of Information"13 Kamio's (1979, 1989, 1990) "Theory of Speaker's Territory of Information" is an attempt to explain how Japanese sentential forms are realized differently, depending on whether a given piece of information is located inside or outside of the speaker's and addressee's territories.14 Figure 1 represents the relationships between the territories of information and the Japanese sentential forms: 13Kamio's more recent works (e.g., 1994,1995,1998) were not included in the current discussion for the reasons: (1) his basic idea has not drastically changed in his recent works; and (2) Maynard (1993) and C 1989, 1992), which will be discussed in the following sections, were in part developed by an exam Kamio's earlier works. 14I use Maynard's (1993) translations for the citations of Kamio (1990) unless otherwise noted. 19 Figure 1 The Relationships between the Territories of Information and Sentential Forms15 ^^^-^Speaker's territory Inside Outside Hearer's territory^^^-^,^^ Outside A D Direct form Indirect form Inside B C Direct form + ne Indirect form + ne (Kamio 1990: 32) Kamio (1989, 1990) explains that the use of ne is obligatory in Situation B (the speaker assumes that both the speaker and the hearer share given information within their territories) as well as in Situation C (the hearer possesses information in his or her territory but the speaker does not. He states, "when the speaker assumes that the speaker and the listener possess the identical information as Already Learned Information (ALI), the speaker's utterance must be accompanied 15According to Kamio (1979, 1989, 1990), information which belongs to the speaker's territory is that which is assumed to be closer to the speaker. He provides the conditions that determine Mnjoohoo ("close information") as follows (The conditions of close information to the addressee are the same): a. Information that the speaker himself or herself gained from his or her own experiences. b. Information that shows the speaker's private facts such as his or her history and possessions. c. Information about the speaker's schedules or plans already fixed. d. Information that shows important private facts about the people intimate with the speaker. e. Information that shows the already fixed schedules or plans about the people intimate with the speaker. f. Information which is essential to the speaker's occupation or specialty. g. Information about the place with which the speaker has fukai kakawari'deep involvement.' h. Other information that is deeply involved with the speaker. (Kamio 1990: 33; Translation is mine.) Also, Kamio (1989) defines "direct forms" as plain subject-predicate forms with or without stylistic auxiliary verbs: desu and masu (and their past forms: deshita and mashitd). On the other hand, "indirect forms" are those forms which accompany such modal elements as rashii, sooda, te and mitai, either followed or not followed by the above stylistic auxiliary verbs. 20 by ne" (Kamio 1990: 77).16 Examples 7 and 8 illustrates this point: .17 (7) (Situation B) // tenki Good weather 'Good weather, i desu \ a. nee |. BE J IP ( I b* 0 f , isn't it?"1* J (Kamio 1990: 26) (8) (Situation C) Kimi wa taikutsu soo da You TOP bored seem BE i "You look bored. (Are you?)" (Kamio 1990: 28) However, ne can also appear in the situations of A and D as in Examples 9 and 10: (9) (Situation Ais) Kyooto no jinkoo wa hyakugojuuman nin gurai desu yo Kyoto LK population TOP 1.5 million people approximately BE IP <{ "The population of Kyoto is approximately 1.5 million." (Kamio 1990: 22) 16In this thesis, I use the term "addressee" to mean "hearer" (Kamio 1979) and "listener" (Maynard 1993). translations and glosses are mine. 18For example, the speaker may be a resident of Kyoto or a specialist on population issues. 21 (10) (Situation Di9) Ashita mo atsui rashii yo Tomorrow too hot I hear IP J a. 0 'I heard tomorrow would be hot, too." (Kamio 1990: 30) Kamio (1990) sets the condition for the optional use of ne, which is, "when the speaker especially wants to express a co-responding attitude (kyoo-ooteki taido) by one's own expression, the speaker's utterance can be accompanied by ne" (p.77). The "co-responding attitude" refers to "the attitude the speaker actively encourages the listener to have identical cognitive state towards the relevant information" (Ibid.). However, in some cases the use of optional ne is restricted, as in Example 11: (11) (Situation A) / \ Watashi, atama ga itai a. 0 I head SUB aching ' b.*ne_ , IP "I have a headache." / (Kamio 1990: 22) For this reason, Kamio presents a rule on the use of ne, that "when the information provided by the speaker is more deeply involved {fukai kakawari o motsu) with the speaker than it is with the listener, ne can not be used" (Kamio 1990).20 According to Kamio, the optional ne cannot be used in Example 11 because the information that the speaker feels a headache in Example 11 is l9As Collier-Sanuki (personal communication) suggests, we may identify Situation D as Situation A, assuming that once the speaker learns a given piece of information (second-hand information), it enters the speaker's territory. Thus, it seems that the distinction between direct and indirect forms, which differentiates Situation A from Situation D, is not the factor that determines the choice of ne. 20Kamio (1990) does not provide an explicit definition of fukai kakawari ('deep involvement') other than stating that this notion is distinct from the conditions that determine the sentential forms and that it is a more specific, restricted and fluid notion influenced by contexts. 22 exclusively accessible to the speaker and thus more deeply involved with the speaker than with the listener. In conclusion, Kamio (1990) states that "ne is a marker [with] which the speaker conveys kyoo-ooteki taido ('co-responding attitude') with the listener. Kamio (1989) also describes ne by incorporating Schourup's (1983) concept of "the private world" and "the other world." Kamio (1989) states that ne is an obligatory marker which indicates that the information in the (speaker's) private world is identical with that in the (hearer's) other world. As for the particle yo, Kamio categorizes it as a direct form since yo can accompany either the direct or indirect form, and thus does not directly influence the territory of information.21 Reviewing Kamio's conditions for the use of ne, we find that the use of ne cannot be explained by the location of the information alone. For example, the co-responding attitude, which determines the optional use of ne, is a separate concept from that of "information territory," and this concept involves more the speaker's consideration of the addressee's existence. Also, Kamio (1990) admits that the concept of fukai kakawari ('deep involvement'), which constrains the use of ne, is distinct from the speaker's territory of information and is the more specified and restricted concept. In other words, the proposed rules for the use of ne rely on additional concepts of the information territory. Other studies (e.g., Masuoka, 1991; Kinsui, 1991; Okamoto, 1993; Kitano, 1993) also note this limitation.22 Those studies all suggest once again, the need to examine the factor of the speaker's consideration of his or her relationship with the addressee and the information. 2•However, as we observed, ne can also appear with either direct form or indirect form. Section 2.3.2 will discuse this point. 22Okamoto (1993) proposes that "involvement" should be included in the conditions for the choice of ne. Masuoka (1991) states that when the speaker's consideration of the addressee's knowledge is involved, the use of ne is obligatory. Kitano (1993) and Kinsui (1991) argue that whether the speaker and the addressee share information as Ali determines the use of ne. The discussion above shows a limitation of the cognitive approach in the and ne and suggests the interactional and dialogic nature of these particles. 23 analysis of yo 2.3.2 Maynard's Concept of "Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship" Maynard (1993) points out a limitation in Kamio's (1979, 1990) Theory of Speaker's Territory of Information: that it does not explain the distribution of ne and yo. The particle yo, which Kamio identifies as a direct form, can also cooccur with indirect forms, as in Example 10. As a result, there arises a situation in which the speaker chooses between yo and ne. Maynard (1993) presents an example: (12) A: Tanaka-san no ojoosan wa iyoiyo sotsugyoo da soo desu ne. Tanaka LK daughter TOP soon graduation BE I hear BE IP "I hear that Tanaka's daughter is graduating soon." B: Ee, soo da soo desu yes so BE I hear BE J a. ne_ IP b. yo IP e Yes, I heard that is so." ' (Maynard 1993:200) Maynard discusses "the condition for choosing either yo or ne when both are optional" (p.201) and then claims that "it is not so much whether the bit of information belongs to one of the four possible territories of information"(p.201). Instead, she suggests the need for "relativity" in explaining the choice between yo and ne and proposes the concept of "Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship."23 She states that the choice is based on the relative degree of accessibility and/or possessorship the speaker estimates for a given piece of information. Under this notion, five possible situations arise, as follows: 23Kamio (1994) acknowledges the need for relativity in his theory, stating that "the closeness of information is relative and gradable" and the speaker's/hearer's territory "must be considered a relative, gradable category" (p.81). 24 Figure 2 Choice of Yo and Ne based on Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship Situation label: Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship Speaker's choice of articles Speaker Addressee Sp-E Exclusive None X y o Ad-E None Exclusive Xne Sp-M Partial-More No/Partial-Less X yo, (X ne) Ad-M No/Partial-Less Partial-More Xne Sp/Ad-Same Same Same Xne (Maynard 1993:194) Maynard (1993) explains that [Sp-E] is a situation in which information on which the proposition [X] is based can be exclusively accessible to and/or possessed by the speaker. Similarly, in [Ad-El the information is exclusively accessible to and/or possessed by the addressee. [Sp-M] indicates that given information is more accessible to and/or possessed by the speaker, and [Ad-M] is in the reverse. In the [Sp/Ad-Same] the speaker assumes that the addressee shares the same quality and quantity of relevant information. According to Maynard, [Sp-E] can take yo but not ne. In contrast, [Ad-E] can take ne but not yo. In [Sp-M] and [Ad-M], the most likely choice is yo and ne respectively unless some other factors exist. In [Sp/Ad-Same] situation, the speaker is most likely to take ne, instead of yo. Under this framework, the previous question concerning the choice between yo and ne in Example 12 is solved by "the relative proximity the speaker feels he or she has within the identical territory" (Maynard 1993: 201). In other words, when B thinks he or she has relatively more access to and a firmer possession of the information than A has, he or she chooses yo. On the other hand, if B feels that A has either the same or more access to and the same or firmer possession of the identical information, ne is chosen. 25 A notable point is that the speaker assesses this relative proximity by considering again the relationship he or she has with the addressee and the information. For example, ne can be used instead of yo in the [Sp-M] situation. Maynard (1993) seeks the reason for this deviated usage in the "politeness strategy": the speaker may choose ne in place of yo since the display of [Sp-M] information toward one's social superior often results in a Face-Threatening Act (FTA).24 Therefore, I assume that either "having or owning information in one's own territory" or "accessing and/or possessing information" is a social activity in which the speaker estimates his or her right to claim given information. Kamio (1990) states that the speaker's territory of information concerns joohoo no shoyuuken ('the ownership of information'). Kamio's adopting the term "territory" for linguistic analysis seems appropriate, considering that "territory" from its general definition is won by the social activity of claiming and negotiating one's rights. Maynard (1993) also states that her concept is "directly linked to the relative right to interactional and social power" (p. 196). The other new perspective Maynard (1993) introduced into the studies of yo and ne is, as she points out, the complementary functions of yo and ne, with yo as the object-information-oriented particle and ne as the person-interaction-oriented particle.25 Maynard (1993) provides a figure that represents the relationships of yo and ne with information and interaction: ^Brown & Levinson (1978) explains that FTAs are those acts which intrinsically threaten "face," or the public self-image that everyone wants to claim for himself/herself. 25Cheng (1987) also notes the contrasting functions of yo and ne. He states that both particles serve to fill in the recognition gap between the speaker and the addressee, with yo raising the addressee's recognition level and ne increasing the speaker's recognition level. 26 Figure 3 Functions of Particles Yo and Ne in relation to Information and Interaction Particles: Aspects of Communication: Information Interaction Yo Focused Defocused Ne Defocused Focus Yo ne Somewhat Focused Focused Not Yo/Ne (Maynard 1993: 214) Maynard explains that, when the speaker uses yo, information conveyance is foregrounded and interaction with the addressee is backgrounded.26 In contrast, ne is used to foreground interaction and background information. Maynard (1993) claims that the non-existence of *neyo proves her argument. She states that "Japanese sentence-final elements are ordered so that the closer to the end of the phrase, the more emotional and personal the message conveyed. Conversely, the farther away from the end of the phrase, the less emotional and more objective or logically-controlled is the information expressed" (p. 197-8). In other words, the further left in an utterance, the more subjectivity is expressed, and the further to the right, the more interactionality (i.e., consideration of the addressee and the interaction process) is revealed. Then she explains that *neyo is ungrammatical because ne is more interaction-oriented than yo is and should be located to the right of ne. This analysis of yo and ne in terms of information and interaction provides another 26According to Maynard (1993), "foregrounding" in a broad sense includes a deviation in linguistic form and a semantic prominence (or focusing) in general. Therefore, the former is exemplified by a distinctive rhythm and word order in poems, and special spellings in brand names. On the other hand, the latter definition of "foreground" is represented by Hopper (1979) as "the language of the actual story line" or "the parts of narrative which relate events belonging to the skeletal structure of the discourse" in contrast with "the language of supportive material which does not itself narrate the main event" i.e., "background" (p.213). I follow Hopper's (1979) definition of "foreground" and "background" in this thesis. 27 explanation for the choice of particles in Example 12. When B chooses ne, he or she expresses his or her attitude toward the on-going communication with A; namely, the intention to actively participate in the interaction. If B chooses yo instead, he or she is focusing more on the conveyance of information, producing an assertive impression. Maynard (1993) explains that the speaker can attain successful communication by manipulating yo and ne, as these particles elicit desirable listener responses, designing speaker turns and expressing personal emotion. In this sense, yo and ne are effective conversation management devices, which "make conversation go ahead .. . toward a speaker's goals, safely — through considering the constraint from behind, and flexibly, — by looking at a hearer's reactions" (Oishi 1985: 195). The discussion above has revealed that the speaker's decision concerning the use of yo and ne lies not in the relationships of these particles with the information itself but rather in the speaker's attitude toward the interaction process. However, the discussions are not exhausted. It should be noted that most previous studies, including the two discussed above, focus on sentence-final yo and ne, paying less attention to the use of yo and ne as interjection and insertion particles. In addition, the analysis of yone is far from adequate in these studies. The next section introduces a study which attempts to discover the fundamental function of yo and ne. 2.3.3 Cook's "Theory of Direct and Indirect Indexicality" This section examines another series of studies by Cook (1988, 1989, 1992) on yo and ne. To find the fundamental function of these particles, Cook (1992) approaches her analysis of ne by applying the theory of direct and indirect indexicality developed by such scholars as Jakobson (1960), Laver (1968), Lyons (1977), Ochs (1988, 1989) and Silverstein (1976). An overview of Cook's theory of indexicality is in order. She uses Peirce's (1931-1958) categorization of "signs." According to Cook (1992), Peirce's classification of signs consists of three groups: "symbols" (i.e., arbitrary signs such as content words, e.g., "tree"), "icons" (i.e., non-arbitrary signs such as 28 onomatopoeic words), and "indexes," which can directly as well as indirectly indicate aspects of context. Indexes are further categorized into two types: referential indexes, which explicitly assert or predicate referential meaning by the force of contextual factors (e.g., the personal pronouns "I" and "you"), and non-referential indexes, which evoke or imply contextual meanings and can thus be superimposed on referential expressions. A common characteristic of these two types of indexes is their dependency on "context" for interpretation. Non-referential indexes are further divided into two meanings: "direct indexical meanings" and "indirect indexical meanings." "Direct indexical meanings" are conventionally evoked by a linguistic feature, and express affective and etimological dispositions.27 "Direct indexical meaning" further constitutes "indirect indexical meanings" with the assistance of the social context that surrounds the direct meaning. Figure 4 below represents the relationships between signs and the further classification of indexes. 27"Affect" is "a speaker's emotional orientation and feelings about the ongoing interaction, including the speaker's attitude towards the propositional content of any particular utterance, as well as the speaker's overall feelings about the topic, interlocutors, context and other variables, involved in the interaction" (Ohta 1993: 3-4). On the other hand, "epistemological disposition" refers to "the speaker's evaluation of the truth-value of any particular utterance" (Ibid.). 29 Figure 4 A Summary of Relationships between Signs and Indexes based on Cook (1988, 1992) Signsl arbitrary signs non-arbitrary signs (e.g., content words such as "tree") (e.g., onomatopoeia) signs that evoke the existence of something Non-referential indexes Indexes explicitly assert/predicate referential meanings through the force of contextual factors. (e.g., pronouns such as T\"you") Indexes which evoke/imply contextual meanings (e.g., prosodic features, honorific morphemes, Japanese interactional particles) [Social contexts] + | Direct indexical meanings dispositions (affect, epistemology) ¥-Indirect indexical meanings Social meanings (e.g., speech acts, social identity, social relationship) Under this framework, Cook proposes that ne is a non-referential index which "directly indexes affective common ground between the speaker and the addressee" (Cook 1992: 510). Also, "ne indirectly indexes social acts such as requesting confirmation, getting attention, introducing a new topic, keeping the floor, socializing children, mitigating a face-threatening act, and marking intimacy" (Ibid.). Figure 5 indicates the direct and indirect meanings of ne: 30 Figure 5 Direct and Indirect Indexical Meanings of Ne based on Cook (1988, 1992) Linguistic resource Direct meaning Indirect meanings Ne Affective common ground Speech acts of: (Interlocutors' general attitude of mutual agreement) Requesting confirmation Getting attention Introducing a new topic in conversation Keeping the floor Socializing children Mitigating face-threatening acts Marking intimacy Cook (1992) provides three grounds for demonstrating that the direct indexical meaning of ne expresses an affective common ground between the interlocutors: (1) the non-referential nature of this particle, (2) the nature of language as a means of expressing affects and (3) the affective-oriented Japanese communicative style. First, Cook (1992) points out the fact that ne can occur without a referential proposition as an interjection or insertion particle. Then, she states that "ne does not always solicit the addressee's agreement on a piece of information," and that "ne is not in essence a marker of information"(p.513). To make this point, she presents two cases which violate the rules proposed in the proceeding discussions, the constraint of ne and the obligatory use of ne. Although Kamio (1990) and Maynard (1993) explained that ne is avoided when the information is exclusively accessible to the speaker, Example 13 from Cook (1992) below violates this constraint: (13) [In this example, the speaker tells a story about his trip to someone who did not take that trip with him.] Boku wa sono inu o ne. I TOP that dog DO IP "I, that dog" 31 Eeto nan dakke ? FI what BE "Well, what (am I) talking about?" Omae shigoto suru ka tte kik-arete ne. you work do Q QT ask-PASS IP "(I) was asked if I would work and" Nan no shigoto ka wakan-nai to omotte ne what LK work Q know-NEG QT think IP "(I) thought (I) would not know what work it would be and" So- soto it-tar a ne out-outside went-when IP "When (I) went out- outside" Sono inu no sooji ya ara-that dog LK cleaning and wash-"Cleaning of that dog and wash-" (Cook 1992: 514) In this example, the speaker uses ne recurrendy in presenting information which is unknown to the addressee in order to keep the floor. Example 14, on the other hand, does not observe Kamio's rule for the obligatory use of ne despite fulfilling the condition that the speaker and the addressee possess the identical information as ALI: (14) [This example is a segment of the speech given in a session of the Diet. In this context, the fact that the speaker (a Diet member) has been released from hospital and has recovered is observed by the audience (the other Diet members).] Kyoo kono yoo ni genki ni natte tan-in o shite mairimashita. today this way P well P become leave hospital DO came (humble form) "(I) have gotten well and got out of the hospital today." (Cook 1992: 517) The examples above indicate that ne does not always show or solicit agreement concerning a piece of information or a particular proposition. In other words, ne functions at the non-referential level, as well as at the referential level, where propositions are dealt with. Cook (1992) seeks the second reason for defining the direct indexical meaning of ne as affective common ground in the nature of language itself. She characterizes language as "a means 32 of expressing affect" (p.518), not only as a means of conveying information. The following fabricated example demonstrates this point: (15) A: Kyoo wa ii tenki desu ne. today TOP good weather BE IP "Good weather today, isn't it?" B: Soo desu ne. Honto ii tenki desu ne. so BE IP really good weather BE IP "It is. It's really good weather." This example is often cited in studies of ne. Kitano (1993) questions the meaning of this type of utterance, asking "Why do people utter information which the addressee already knew?" (p.86). It is unlikely that the speaker's purpose for producing this utterance lies in the transmission of information. Cook (1992) regards the function of this type of utterance as "to establish what Malinowski (1923) calls 'phatic communion,' social rapport (i.e., common feelings) among the interlocutors" (Cook 1992: 517-8). Notice that B's utterance in Example 15 cannot function as an aizuchi expression without ne. This example shows that language is a medium for expressing affects and that ne becomes a vital device to indicate these affects. Finally, Cook (1992) discusses the Japanese communicative style as another basis for her considering ne as a marker of affective common ground.28 She states that "Japanese prefer an affective-oriented communication style" (p.520), which includes the expression of omoiyari ('empathy') and enryo ('reservedness'). This point relates to the conclusion of the last two sections: the use of yo, ne and yone is motivated by the speaker's consideration of interactional factors. As for the particle yo, Cook (1988) assigns the direct indexical meaning of "pointing to the speaker's utterance" to this particle. She explains that "[the function of yo] is comparable to the 28Discussions on Japanese communicative styles are found in studies such as Barnlund (1975), Hinds (1978), Goodwin (1986), Maynard (1989) and Sawyer (1991). 33 gesture of pointing. If we want the addressee to notice some entity in the speech context, we typically point to that entity. In a similar manner, in order to draw attention to his or her own utterance, the speaker uses yo" (p. 126). Next, she lists many functions such as the indirect indexical meanings of yo, which include expressions of the speaker's assertive attitude, a variety of speech acts (e.g., warning, announcements and report) and social relationships (i.e., the speaker is in the higher status and/or the knowing party). Figure 6 demonstrates the indexical relationships of yo as summarized by Cook (1988): Figure 6 Direct and Indirect Indexical Meanings of Yo Linguistic Resource Direct Meaning Indirect Meaning Yo Pointing to speaker's utterance • Assertive Attitude • Speech Acts warning advice instructions announcements explanations report request/command insistence contradiction • Social Relations higher status knowing party (Cook 1988: 129) 2.4 "Pointing" as the Fundamental Function of Yo and Ne I first discuss in Section 2.4.1 the problems of Maynard's (1993) analysis of yo and ne based on the complementary notions of "information" and "interactions." Then, based on Cook's (1988, 1992) analysis that the direct meaning of yo is pointing to the speaker's utterance and that of ne is the affective common ground between the speaker and addressee, I propose in Section 34 2.4.2 that "pointing" is the fundamental function of both yo and ne. Section 2.4.3 further considers the relationships of yo, ne and yone with the interaction process and speech acts. Finally, Section 2.4.4 discusses the constraints on the use of yo, ne and yone. 2.4.1 Problems of Contrasting of "Information" and "Interaction" We have seen in Section 2.3.2 in Maynard's (1993) proposal that yo and ne serve the complementary functions of information-foregrounding and interaction-foregrounding, respectively (See Figure 3 in Section 2.3.2). Her concept of "Relative Information Accessibility and/or Possessorship" explains that when the speaker foregrounds information with the use of yo, interaction is backgrounded, and that when ne is used, interaction is foregrounded and information is backgrounded. However, observe the next fabricated example: (16) Boku wa iya da ne. I TOP no BE IP "For me, no way!" This use of ne produces a blunt and inconsiderate impression to the listener, in spite of the proposed interaction-oriented nature of this particle. This use of ne apparently produces an opposite effect. The resulting sentence sounds as if the speaker refuses to have any interaction with the addressee. In contrast, yo used in the following fabricated example produces the impression of closeness and the speaker's strong appeal to the addressee: (17) A: Watashi tte yappari dame da wa. I TOP after all no-good BE P "After all, I'm dumb." B: Sonna koto nai yo. such thing NEG IP "Such is not the case." We can observe that, in Example 17, B is actively participating in the interaction with his or her 35 addressee by encouraging him or her. Maynard's (1993) analysis is correct in contending that yo is information-oriented since yo in this example produces the impression that B is putting forth his or her opinion. However, her argument that the use of yo defocuses interaction is not accurate since, as we observed, B directs his or her "appeal" to the addressee, which is the act of interacting. For this reason, the characterization of yo as the particle that foregrounds information and simultaneously defocuses interactions needs modification. Based on Cook's (1988, 1992) analysis, I instead propose that the fundamental function of yo is that of pointing to the speaker's utterance in order to reinforce the involved speech act. Thus, in Example 17, B reinforces the speech act of "encouraging" by pointing and drawing the addressee's attention to his or her proposition with the use of yo. I further assume that this action of pointing to the speaker's utterance is motivated by the disparity of recognition between the speaker and addressee.29 In other words, the speaker has to point to his or her utterance because he or she feels some disparity in understanding and the need to direct the addressee's attention to his or her own understanding. It should be noted that such speech acts motivated by recognition disparity, are not always negative or potentially offensive ones such as opposing, complaining, refusing and refuting. Speech acts such as complimenting and encouraging, as seen in Example 17, are also based on the assumption that there exists a disparity of understanding or perception between the speaker and the addressee. To make an oversimplified distinction between these negative and positive speech acts, the former may be called face-threatening acts (FTAs) and the latter Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs). This distinction is useful for the current analysis of yo. When yo is connected with a FTA speech act, this particle reinforces the effects of that speech act, increasing the possibility of damaging the addressee's "face." In contrast, when yo is used with positive politeness strategies, such speech acts are similarly reinforced, producing accommodating and thus positive attitudes 29Masuoka (1991) and Ohso (1986) point out the characteristic of yo to indicate recognition disparity of interlocutors. 36 toward the addressee. In an extended sense, presenting new information is also a FTA. This suggests that the number of possible FTAs is supposed to be larger than that of the positive politeness strategies. It is therefore reasonable that the use of yo is often constrained in many contexts. The point is that Maynard's (1993) analysis thatyo defocuses interaction only captures the phenomena concerning FTAs (i.e., to use yo when conducting a FTA increases the possibility of threatening the addressee's face, and this indicates that the speaker does not pay much attention to interaction), but it does not explain the function of yo when used in PPSs. This section discussed the problem of characterizing ne as interaction-focusing and yo as interaction-defocusing, demonstrating that yo also serves to promote interaction. The next section, based on Cook's (1988, 1992) analyses of yo and ne, proposes the fundamental function of yo and ne. 2.4.2 The Fundamental Function of Yo and Ne as "Pointing" and Their Contribution to "Personalization of Discourse" Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 examined Kamio (1979, 1989, 1990) and Maynard (1993) respectively, and discussed the assumption that the speaker's attention to the interaction process was the factor determining the choice of ne. Cook (1988, 1992) also assigns "affect," or the speaker's emotions/feelings toward the on-going interaction, as the meaning of ne but not of yo. However, the previous section revealed that this is also the factor that defines the use of yo. In other words, an attention to "interaction" does not explain the distributional characteristics of yo and ne, since both yo and ne can serve to promote interaction. Therefore, based on Cook (1988, 1992), I propose that the fundamental function of yo and ne is as follows: 37 (19) Both yo and ne are interactional particles whose fundamental function is "pointing" or "directing the addressee's attention in a certain direction." (20) Ne points to the common ground of the speaker and addressee. (21) Yo points to the speaker's private world. Although the above definitions are almost identical to those proposed by Cook (1988, 1992), they differ in that the word "affect" is not used in my definition and that ne is also assigned the function of pointing. I propose that the fundamental function of both yo and ne is "pointing," yet they differ in what they point to: Yo points to the speaker's private world, and ne points to the common ground the speaker and the addressee share. I also adopt Schourup's (1983) term "private world" to refer to the cognitive state where we process information or proposition (either referential or non-referential). While Schourup (1983) calls the speaker's cognitive state "the private world" and the addressee's cognitive state "the other world," I use the terms "the speaker's private world" and "the addressee's private world," to mean that each of the interlocutors has a "private world." I also employ Cook's (1992) term "the common ground" to refer to the overlapping area of the speaker's private world and the addressee's private world. Some discussion on the structure of a Japanese sentence seems necessary for a more detailed analysis of yo and ne. It is known that a Japanese sentence has a hierarchical structure in which propositions and modal elements are located at different dimensions, with the latter enveloping the former (e.g., Suzuki, 1976; Shibatani, 1990; Masuoka, 1991; Iwasaki, 1993; Maynard, 1993). Masuoka (1991), one of such studies, proposes the Japanese sentence structure from the perspective of modality, which is presented below: 38 Figure 7 Hierarchical Structure of the Japanese Sentence ISentencel Proposition 1 Modality of toritate (Topicalization) 2 a b 2 a Modality of Mitomekata(Affirmation/Negation) b Modality of Tensu (Tense) 3 Modality of Setsumei (Explanation) 4 a Modality of Kachihandan (Value Judgement) b Modality of Shinihandan (Truth Judgement) 5 Modality of Hyoogenruigata (Types of Expressions) 6 a Modality of Teeneesa (Politeness) b Modality of Dentatsutaido (Communication Attitude) 4 5 6 a b a b (Masuoka 1991: 44) Masuoka's (1991) model shows that a Japanese sentence consists of a core proposition with other modal elements that envelop the proposition from both sides. Under this model, Masuoka (1991) treats yo and ne as the forms that belong to 6b, the Modality of Communication Attitude, which are located at the sentence-final position in his model. Notice that politeness is dealt with at the nearest but still separate level from the one which contains yo and ne in this model. This suggests that, while the concept of politeness is closely linked to yo and ne, these particles themselves do not denote politeness.30 Then, what do yo, ne and yone represent? 3(h:eramura (1977) proposes another model which shows the Degree of Modality of the Japanese predicate structure, which consists of (1) plain form, (2) epistemic modality and volitional form, (3) copula and imperative form, (4) polite form and (5) sentence-final particle. This model also treats the notion of politeness and interactional particles (sentence-final particles) separately. 39 Masuoka's (1991) model of a Japanese sentence explains that yo and ne reveal the speaker's "communication attitude," or the speaker's attitude toward the on-going communication. I believe that this process of demonstrating communication attitude is what Maynard (1993) calls "personalization of discourse," or an investment of the speaker's personal feelings/emotions into the discourse. Therefore, I assume that the speaker uses the "pointing" function of yo and ne for the personalizing of his or her discourse. How do yo, ne and yone personalize a discourse? I consider that the speaker uses yo to point to and present a certain utterance to the addressee, with the implication that the information he or she conveys is his or her personal understanding or perception. On the other hand, with the use of ne, the speaker points to and presents an utterance to the addressee while showing his or her presupposition that what this utterance means is already shared or should be shared with the addressee. In discussing how yone personalizes discourse, I will employ the internal structure of yone which I proposed in Section 2.2.1 assume that yone, as well as ne, points to the common ground between the speaker and the addressee. However, because the presence of yo points to the speaker's private world, yone projects more subjectivity, or kokoro no koe ('voices from the heart'), into the speaker's utterance than ne does. As a result, this revelation of subjectivity generates a nuance of "uncertainty" (hutashikasa no hyoomei," Izuhara 1993: 21) and also "empathy" in the speech. By indicating that the proposition to which the speaker requests agreement from the addressee is nothing more than his or her personal view and not "kiteemeedai" ('the established proposition,' Kunihiro 1992: 19-21), the speaker shows uncertainty concerning the information. On the other hand, showing agreement with yone gives the impression that the speaker is more emphatic to the addressee than when ne is employed, because it indicates that the agreement that the speaker shows is what he or she personally feels but is not necessarily any others.' Yone is thus considered to be a better device than ne for intensifying 40 interaction since an indication of uncertainty and empathy would elicit the addressee's rapport. In this sense, yone is more interaction-oriented than ne. I will now discuss how this analysis works in relation to the previous examples. Example 17 is repeated below as Example 23: (23) A: Watashi te yappari dame da wa. I TOP after all no-good NOM P B's primary goal in this utterance is to encourage A by denying A's negative self-evaluation and making him or her accept the speaker's view. Apparently, this speech act is motivated by the disparity of recognition. In order to diminish this disparity and achieve identical recognition states, B uses yo (23Ba) and draws A's attention to his or her private world in which the proposition "A is not dumb" is located. As a result, B succeeds in increasing the force of the speech act of encouragement, which is the goal of his or her utterance. In this context, the replacement of yo with ne is implausible (23Bb). The reason for this lies in the conflict extant between the index and the indexed. In other words, the speaker points to his or her private world with the index ne, which is supposed to point to the common ground of the speaker and addressee. As well as ne, yone cannot be used (23Bc) unless it is pronounced with a pause between them and a rising intonation (23Bd). This is again because of the conflict between the index and the indexed since yone also points to the common ground. When no particle is employed, this utterance sounds blunt just as Example 18a does (23Be). This is due to the absence of discourse 'After all, I'm dumb. Such is not the case. 41 personalization. In other words, while encouragement is supposed to stress the speaker's feelings and emotions, in Example 23e, the appropriate revelation of the speaker's feelings with the use of yo is not made by the speaker. As a result, an impression of aloofness or distance arises. The previous example of 16 is explained by the same argument: the conflict between the index and the indexed. Example 23 demonstrated how each of yo, ne and yone differently personalize discourse, depending on what they point to. Moreover, it suggests that these interactional particles have significant roles in Japanese discourse: they contribute to discourse development, a social activity which affects human relationships.31 This section proposed that the fundamental function of yo and ne is "pointing," with yo pointing to the speaker's private world and ne pointing to the common ground of the speaker and addressee. Furthermore, it explained that yo, ne and yone contribute to the "personalization of discourse," or the process by which the speaker expresses his or her communication attitude. The next section considers the relationships of yo, ne and yone with speech acts and the interaction process. 2.4.3 Interaction, Speech Acts and Interactional Particles Yo, Ne and Yone In analyzing the interactional particles yo, ne and yone, which are inherently non-referential, it seems necessary to examine the nature of language itself. I agree with Maynard's (1993) interpretation of language that "language is interaction-based, subjectivity-conscious and textually-bound" (p.21). She characterizes language as (1) social interaction, (2) subjective expression and (3) discourse or text. Her definition of language is useful for the current analysis of interactional particles in that it captures the non-referential aspects of language, or modality and 31Cook (1992) states that an important goal of Japanese interaction is creating and maintaining an affective unity between the speaker and the addressee. She further suggests that the role of the interactional particles in Japanese discourse should not be overlooked both in studies of Japanese linguistics and in Japanese language teaching. 42 subjectivity, which traditional generative linguistics has ignored. Based on Maynard's (1993) interpretation of language, I regard "interaction" as the process in which the interlocutors attempt to establish an identical recognition state between them through various speech acts. In order to construct successful interaction or communication, the interlocutors need to integrate discourse or text, "a body of linguistic signs, normally larger than the traditional unit of sentence, that constitutes a meaningful or cohesive whole" (Maynard 1993: 17-18). I then consider that interaction consists of two stages: (1) conversation management and (2) speech act realization, which operate concurrently.32 On one stage, the speaker engages in the construction of coherent, well-organized discourse for effective communication. On the other stage, the speaker attempts to share his or her own recognition or understanding with the addressee by performing various speech acts. It is through conversation management and speech acts that the speaker's subjectivity or attitude towards interaction and the addressee is revealed. More importantly, yo, ne and yone function at both stages by conducting conversation management and performing various speech acts, and by expressing the speaker's subjectivity. I propose in the next figure the relationships between interaction, speech acts and the interactional particles yo, ne and yone: 32Maynard (1989) states that "conversation management offers a variety of linguistic devices and social strategies to manage face-to-face interactions from one moment to another" (p.6). She explains that conversation management includes "the ability to start conversation, take turns appropriately, develop topics of conversation interactionally, perform appropriate back-channel behavior, select what is to be said and unsaid, and send appropriate paralinguistic and nonverbal signs" (Ibid.). 43 Figure 8 Relationships between Interaction, Speech Acts and Interactional Particles Yo, Ne and Yone [Interaction] Goal: The establishment of identical recognition/understanding of information by Speaker (S) and Addressee (A) Conversation Management Goal: Integration and manipulation of discourse/text for the effective communication Particle(s) to be chosen • Aizuchi expressions NE • Floor-Keeping expressionsSpeech Act Realization S's judgement of the recognition state by S and A • S and A have disparate recognition Information status Examples of speech acts New Information • answering •reporting •correcting •opposing •encouraging •complimenting S and A have shared or Old Information should share recognition YO •requesting, agreement •demonstrating, agreement •establishing phatic communion, •providing supplemental information NE/YONE On one stage, the speaker tries to manage conversation by using various devices including aizuchi expressions (i.e., expressions indicating that the provider of aizuchi is attending and following the other party's speech), floor-keeping expressions (i.e., expressions used to draw the 44 addressee's attention and maintain the speaking turn).33 Ne contributes to these expressions. We observed in Section 1.1 that is an essential element in the verbal aizuchi expression, "soo desu ne" Also, floor-keeping expressions are often conducted with interjection and insertion particles, and especially with ne, as we saw in Examples 1-4 of Section 2.1. On the other stage, various speech acts are performed. Such speech acts which presuppose disparity of recognition include answering questions, reporting, opposing, correcting, encouraging and complimenting. Disparity of recognition suggests that the information to be conveyed by these speech acts is new to the addressee. The utterances that conduct these speech acts are apt to take yo. On the other hand, those speech acts which presuppose shared recognition are those which perform such functions as providing supplemental information, requesting agreement and demonstrating agreement.34 The common feature of these speech acts is that they offer further information to the already introduced information; namely, old information. These speech acts tend to be accompanied by ne or yone. In this section, based on Maynard's (1993) definition of language, I proposed a model of the relationships between interaction, speech acts and yo, ne and yone. This model explains that the interaction process consists of (1) conversation management and (2) speech act realization, and that yo, ne and yone contribute to both stages. 33A1 though conversation management is conducted by various means which are either verbal or non-verbal (e.g., gestures, facial expressions), I discuss here only verbal ones which particularly involve the use of interactional particles. 341 assume that ne elicits and exhibits the addressee's agreement with either referential or non-referential propositions. Agreement with non-referential propositions concerns the interaction process itself: the speaker administers or asks for agreement with an on-going interaction form. In this case, this is conversation management. On the other hand, agreement with a referential proposition is manifested either as a speech act for requesting agreement (e.g., Example 9), demonstrating agreement (e.g., Example 12) or by through phatic communion (e.g., Example 15). 45 2.4.4 Constraints on the Uses of Yo, Ne and Yone This section attempts to explain the constraints on the uses of yo, ne and yone under the current analysis which assigns to these particles the function of "pointing." I discussed in Section 2.4.2, employing Example 23, that the use of yo with speech acts of shared recognition and that of ne/yone with speech acts of disparate recognition, are constrained because of conflict between the index (i.e., yo, ne ox yone) and the indexed (i.e., what yo, ne or yone points to). This conflict between the index and the indexed explains the unacceptable use of ne in Example 11, which is recalled below as Example 26: (26) Watashi atama ga itai I head SUB aching \ "I have a headache." a. yo IP b. *ne (Kamio 1990: 22) In the above example, the use of ne is ungrammatical, while yo is optional. From the pragmatic perspective, I assume that the possible speech acts the speaker intends to accomplish through the utterance, T have a headache,' are asserting, complaining and eliciting the addressee's sympathy, which are all grounded on the disparity of understanding between the speaker and addressee. Since the speaker perceives that his or her understanding differs from that of addressee, and feels the need to have the addressee accept his or her understanding, she can use yo to point to his or her private world which includes that understanding. On the other hand, the use of ne is not allowed since it causes a conflict between ne, the particle of "common ground," and what it points to. In other words, the proposition T have a headache' is not part of the common ground to which the speaker draws the addressee's attention with the use of ne, and consequently, the addressee cannot relate to that proposition. The conflict between the index and the indexed further explains a phenomenon pointed out by some studies (e.g., Uyeno, 1971; Martin, 1975; Masuoka 1991): ne is incompatible with strong imperatives and prohibitions, as observed in the following examples: 46 (27) [Strong imperative] *Byooin ni ik-e ne. hospital P go-CAU IP "Go to the hospital!" (Masuoka 1991:99) (28) [Strong prohibition] *Henna koto iu-na ne. strange thing say-NEG IP "Don't say (such) a strange thing!" (Masuoka 1991:99) As illustrated in the above examples, ne is incompatible with strong imperatives and prohibitions since these speech acts are grounded on the apparent disparity of recognition. In other words, strong imperatives and prohibitions are attempts to control someone who the speaker assumes possesses a totally different understanding, and thus would not behave as the speaker expects. Therefore, the unacceptability of ne in strong imperatives and prohibitions is explained again by the conflict between the index and the indexed. Although ne cannot occur in strong imperatives and prohibitions, it can if those imperatives and prohibitions are softened by such elements as -nasai, -te and -naide, as in the following fabricated examples:35 (29) [Soft imperative] Iki-nasai 1 go-CAU \ "Go," 35Soga and Matsumoto (1978) refers to strong imperatives and prohibitions as in Examples 27 and 28 as "informal imperatives" and "negative commands" respectively. On the other hand, soft imperatives and prohibitions as in Examples 29 and 30 are respectively assigned the terms "polite imperatives" and "polite negative requests." 47 (30) [Soft prohibition] Iw-anai say-NEG lai-de \ a.yo J. JEG V IP V l^b.ne I 'Don't say (that) I assume that softened imperatives and prohibitions are a kind of "request." As well as strong imperatives and prohibitions, "requests" attempt to let someone do a certain action. However, unlike imperatives and prohibitions, "requesting" is not the act of "forcing." I discussed in Section 2.4.2 that ne points to an utterance with the implication that what that utterance means is already shared or should be shared with the addressee. I assume that because of this effect ne harmonizes with requests: the speaker can reinforce "requesting" by adding the implication that what the speaker requests should be shared by the addressee. Next, I discuss the constraints on yone. The use of yone is more constrained than that of ne. Similar to ne, yone also cannot occur in Examples 27 and 28. In addition, this form needs a predicate which contains the final form of a verb, adjective or copula, and thus does not have interjective or insertional uses. For instance, replacement of the insertion ne with yone is thus implausible, as demonstrated below: (31) [A part of Example 13] Boku wa sono inu o I TOP that dog DO < "I, that dog" Eeto nan dakke ? FI what was "Well, what (am I) talking about?" Omae shigoto sum ka tte kik-arete you work do Q QT ask-PASS "(I) was asked if I would work and" a. ne IP b. *yone (Cook 1992: 514) 48 In this example, ne cannot be replaced by yone since the first line does not end with a predicate, and the third line ends with a non-final form of a verb (i.e., gerund -te), although it is a predicate. However, constraints on the use of yone are not that simple. Shimoyama (1995) further points out that yone cannot follow daroo, a modal element which represents the speaker's inference: (32) [Inference] Based on the analyses of daroo by Shibata (1982), Teramura (1984), and Moriyama (1992), Shimoyama explains that daroo is used when the speaker makes an inference based on his or her own subjective judgement without taking the addressee's existence into account. One hypothesis is that since yone is more interaction-oriented than ne, it does not cooccur with daroo, a linguistic form that does not take the addressee's existence into account. Therefore, the compatibility of yone and ne with their preceding utterances seems to depend on whether or not those utterances invest the same degree of subjectivity or interactionality that either yone or ne shows.36 As for yo, "[its use] as insertion particle is stylistically severely limited. Only in the most blunt and casual male conversation between social equals can yo be used as an insertion particle" (Maynard 1993: 184). Human relationships might be damaged by the function of yo that points to the speaker's private world since drawing the addressee's attention to the speaker's utterances leads to assertion and insistence. The same is true of the interjection yo, as is discussed in Example 36Yb is also unlikely to cooccur with "deshoo" (the polite form of daroo), "(y)oo" (the plain volitional form) and "mashoo" (the polite volitional form), and certain words such as "gomen(nasai)" ('sorry') and "arigatoo" ('thank you'). These expressions can be taken as either the exhibition of personal emotions/feelings or appeal to the addressee. If the latter is the case, my hypothesis does not explain the incompatibility between yone and these expressions, both of which are interaction-oriented. Therefore, further analysis on this point is necessary. Ashita wa ante ni naru daroo \ tomorrow TOP rain P become probably I I think it will be rainy tomorrow. a. (Shimoyama 1995: 58) 49 4. However, unlike yone and ne, there seems to be no sentential forms and modal elements which are completely incompatible with yo. For example, yo can appear in all the examples of 26-32, which take neither ne nor yone. Furthermore, yo can also occur in such sentences as in Example 25 which typically take ne. The resulting sentence, "Kyoo wa ii tenki desu yo" is itself grammatical, although the speech act to be achieved transforms itself into the presentation of new information. In other words, at the sentential level, yo can appear in any utterance, and this is one of the differences between yo and nelyone. This is probably because the speaker's utterances is his or her possession, and thus the speaker is allowed to mark that utterance with yo as being his or hers. 2.5 Summary In this chapter, in order to overcome the limitations of previous studies of yo, ne and yone, I proposed in Section 2.1 my position to inquire into the fundamental function of these particles. Then, in Section 2.21 explained that yone is the combined form of yo and ne (i.e., yo ne) rather than one inseparable particle (i.e., yone). Section 2.3 reviewed specifically the studies by three researchers (Kamio 1979, 1989, 1990; Maynard 1993; Cook 1988, 1989, 1992). In Section 2.4.1, I discussed that yo, as well as ne, also foregrounds interaction. Next, based on Cook's (1988, 1992) indexical analysis of yo and ne, Section 2.4.2 proposed that the fundamental function of yo and ne is "pointing," with yo pointing to the speaker's private world and ne pointing to the common ground extant between the speaker and addressee. It also discussed that yo, ne and yone serve to personalize discourse by revealing the speaker's emotions/feelings and attitude toward communication. Section 2.4.3 further proposed a model of the relationships of yo, ne and yone with the realization of speech acts and the interaction process. In this model, I proposed that interaction consists of two stages; conversation management and speech act 50 realization, and that yo, ne and yone function at both stages. Also, this model explained that when the speaker presupposes a disparity of recognition between him or her and the addressee, yo is opted for. On the other hand, the speakers's presupposition of shared recognition with the addressee leads him or her to choose ne or yone. Finally, Section 2.4.4 considered the constraints on the use of yo, ne and yone. Then I proposed that unacceptable and questionable sentences are produced by conflicts between the index and the indexed, as in the use of ne and yone to point to the speaker's private world and the use of yo to point to the common ground between the speaker and addressee. The next chapter will introduce the organization of present research into this subject and its methodology. Chapter Three Methodology 51 Based on a review of previous studies, I proposed in Chapter Two a model of relationships between interaction, speech acts and the interactional particles yo, ne and yone (Figure 8). This hypothesis explains that yo, ne and yone are vital devices for conversation management and various speech acts. Based on this hypothesis, I present the following research questions: (1) In what manners and how frequently do the NJSs and JLLs use yo, ne and yone! (2) How does the information status (i.e., whether information is new or old) of the phrase yo, ne or yone follows relate to the use of yo, ne and yone by the NJSs and JLLs? (3) How do the NJSs and JLLs use yo, ne and yone when they conduct certain speech acts? In order to answer these research questions, I will analyze in Chapter Four actual conversational data by both native Japanese speakers and Japanese language learners. I will further examine in Chapter Five the data of the questionnaires and the fill-in-the-blank tests so as to understand the comprehension of the use of yo, ne and yone by the NJSs and the JLLs. Following sections will describe the participants in the research, the means used for data collection, the procedure for data collection and the procedure for data analysis. 3.1 Participants The data was collected at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in January and February 1998. The participants in this research consisted of two groups: Japanese Language Learners (JLLs) and Native Japanese Speakers (NJSs). All of them were voluntary participants.11 ^Following the procedure for Ethical Reviews at UBC, I obtained permission from Japanese language instructors of the Department of Asian Studies to solicit JLL participants in their classes. Next, I visited Japanese language classrooms and asked JLL participants to volunteer for this research. Also, with permission from the coordinator at 52 recruited JLL participants from second- and third-year Japanese language courses offered at UBC.2 A total of 21 JLLs participated in the research, which comprises 10 Japanese-Canadians3, 3 Chinese-Canadians and 8 Canadians.4 The average age of this group was 21.8 years. Four students never visited Japan and studied the Japanese language only in Canada. Appendix B summarizes details of the JLL participants. I solicited NJS participants from students at the UBC English Language Institute (ELI). I also asked my Japanese friends to inform their friends about this research project. As a result, a total of 32 NJSs agreed to participate in my research. The NJS group consisted of 26 students (16 university students and 16 English language school students) and 6 Working-Holiday visitors.51 used the following criteria in selecting NJS participant: (1) they were to have spent most of their lives in Japan and to not have stayed overseas consecutively for more than three years prior to this the English Language Institute (ELI) of UBC, I solicited NJS participants from among students of the institute. All the participants completed the consent forms I prepared. I am grateful for the cooperation of Japanese language instructors, the director of ELI, the people who helped me find the participants, and the participants in this research project. 21 conducted a pilot study which recorded and examined conversations between NJSs and JLLs at the introductory courses. Since very few interactional particles were found in this data, this research project collected data from those students who are enrolled in second- and third-year Japanese courses. 3In this thesis, I refer to Japanese-Canadians' as those who received most of their compulsory education in Canada, 'Chinese-Canadians' as landed immigrants from either Taiwan or Hong Kong and 'Canadians' as those spent most of their lives in Canada regardless of their birth places, and whose first language is English. 4This distribution of the JLL participants does not reflect the general population of actual Japanese language classrooms at UBC, which contain mostly Chinese-Canadians and some Korean-Canadians. This atypical population probably derived from the means for collecting participants. Restrained responses from those students who had little experience with interacting with native Japanese implies that they might have limited confidence in their aural and oral skills and fear conversing with native Japanese speakers. In fact, some of the students who refused to partake in this research mentioned their fear of interaction with native speakers and insufficient speaking abilities. Random selection would have overcome this limitation. This procedure, however, was impossible in the present study since the researcher lacked authority to do so. 5Japanese youths with Working-Holiday Visas can study and work in Canada up to one year. Many of them work on a part-time basis after they finish studying English in ESL (English as a Second Language) schools. 53 research and (2) they were to use the standard Japanese language in their first encounters with other Japanese speakers. I established my second criterion for two reasons: (1) dialect users, especially Kansai dialect speakers, are supposed to replace yo, ne and yone with other particles and/or omit those particles when speaking with their dialects and (2) JLL most likely to experience difficulties comprehending dialects which differ from the standard Japanese language they are taught in Japanese language classrooms.6 Although it was not a strict criterion, I recruited Japanese people in their twenties in order to obtain a population similar to the JLL counterpart. The average age of the NJS participants was 25.0 years and their average length of stay in Canada was 7.3 months. Detailed information on the NJS participants is given in Appendix C. 3.2 Procedure for Data Collection Three procedures were employed for collecting data in this project: (1) a questionnaire, (2) conversation sessions and (3) a fill-in-the-blank test. Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 describe each of them, respectively. 3.2.1 Questionnaire Prior to the conversation session, the questionnaire was administered to the JLLs in English and the NJSs in Japanese.7 The questionnaire consisted of two parts: (1) questions concerning the participants' backgrounds and (2) questions concerning the uses of yo, ne and yone. The second part of the questionnaire concerned (1) situations of the use/non-use of yo, ne and yone, (2) frequency of the use of these particles, (3) necessity of these particles and (4) meanings/functions 6Kansai dialects are spoken in the western parts of Japan, which includes Osaka and Kobe. Some participants of Kansai dialect informed me that they usually converse in the dialect when they talk with other Kansai dialect speakers as well as someone in a close relationship, regardless of their dialects. This means that they usually speak standard Japanese when they have not established a close enough relationship with a person to know if that person speaks their dialect However, this is a general tendency, and individual differences are expected. TThe complete questionnaires are provided in Appendixes D and E. 54 of these particles. The JLL participants were given additional questions concerning difficulty in using yo, ne and yone and regarding their sources of information on the use of these particles. After the conversation session, the NJS participants were asked to write comments on the speech of their JLL conversation partners. 3.2.2 Conversation Sessions Data was collected by tape-recording spontaneous conversation to capture natural use of interactional particles. I organized two types of conversation groups: NJS, consisting of 4 NJSs and the NJS+JLL, consisting of 2 NJSs and 2 JLLs. Instead of conversations among all JLL members or interviews between the researcher and each JLL, conversations among NJSs and JLLs were chosen as a data source to reflect a realistic situation that learners often encounter in Japan: an observation of conversations among NJSs and JLLs was expected to provide meaningful information or real problems that JLLs may face. In order to promote interaction among group members, I placed those participants who were friends in the same group. Although I provided a list of suggested topics (Appendix F) for the participants' convenience, each group freely chose the topic of conversation. Data was collected by means of audio-tape recordings because this study focuses on verbal behaviors. Video-tape recordings were avoided in order to reduce negative effects on the performance of participants. In addition, except for explaining the procedures of the conversation session and operating the recording instruments, I remained a passive observer and took necessary notes in order to minimize the effects of the observer's presence on the participants' performance. 3.2.3 Fill-in-the-Blank Test While spontaneous conversation is useful for understanding natural language usage, it is limited in analyzing "interlanguage," or "a transitional system reflecting the learner's current L2 knowledge" (Ellis 1994: 710). For example, we cannot analyze the absence of the targeted 55 linguistic feature in the speech of language learners. The absence of a particular linguistic form involves more than one cause: (1) learners do not know the form (i.e., ignorance), (2) learners know the feature but try not to use it (i.e., avoidance) because of insecurity about its usage and/or because of lack of time (i.e., incomplete acquisition), or (3) learners know how to use the feature as native speakers do, but they do not use it for pragmatic reasons (i.e., preference). JLLs' avoidance of the use of interactional particles is predictable since those particles do not greatly influence the performance of speech acts, except when they solicit or demonstrate agreement. In other words, since learners can achieve many speech acts without the help of interactional particles, they may not take the risk of using those particles whose usage they do not fully understand. For this reason, "obligatory occasion analysis" (Ellis 1994: 75) was also performed. The procedure for this analysis is first to provide a linguistic environment where the use of a target feature is required, and then to examine the learners' use of that feature. I attempted this analysis through a "fill-in-the-blank test" which used portions from a Japanese comic as the required linguistic environments. Comic strips were chosen as the device for this analysis since they provide participants with visual information of the involved contexts and non-verbal contextual cues such as facial expressions and gestures of interlocutors. First, some portions of the comic that contain yo, ne and yone were extracted. Then, originally provided particles were whited out, and the JLL and NJS participants were asked to fill in those blanks with either yo, ne or yone. They were instructed to mark an X in locations where they thought particle was not necessary. The entire test is reproduced in Appendix G.8 The results are compared and analyzed in Chapter Five. 3.3 Procedures for Data Collection The data collection lasted for six days, with one NJS-only conversation and two NJS+JLL 81 am grateful for the Soyosha Publishing Company's giving me permission to reproduce parts of this comic. 56 conversations recorded daily. Each NJS-only group consisted of four Japanese native speakers and NJS+JLL group 2 NJSs and 2 JLLs. The NJSs were first called for and asked to fill out the first part of the questionnaire (Appendix E-l, Item 1: the questions concerning the participants' backgrounds).9 A 20-minute conversation among these four NJSs followed and was tape-recorded by the researcher. The JLL participants then convened in the room and were asked to fill out the first part of the questionnaire (Appendix D, Item 1). After they had completed that part, the participants were divided into two groups, each consisting of two NJSs and two JLLs. Both groups were asked to have another 20-minute conversation which were also tape-recorded by the researcher. Following this session, all the participants were asked to complete the second part of the questionnaire (Appendixes D and E: the questions concerning the use of yo, ne and yone). Those participants who finished this part were then asked to do the last task, the fill-in-the-blank test. Each participant spent approximately 5 minutes providing background information, 20 minutes in conversation, 10 minutes working with questions on the use of yo, ne and yone and 10 minutes on the fill-in-the-blank test. The total time required for the entire process, including the instruction and explanation, was approximately 80 minutes for the NJS participants and 60 minutes for the JLL participants. 3.4 Procedures for Data Analysis The tape-recorded conversations were later transcribed by the researcher for analysis. Following the generally accepted assumption that "speakers grow accustomed to being recorded and that unnatural speech decreases with time" (Maynard 1989: 16), the first 3 minutes of each conversation was excluded from the data. In fact, although they were not instructed, almost all the groups started their conversations with self-introductions, which were not important for the present study. In cases where the participants were still engaged in self-introduction even after the first 3 9Because of sudden cancellations and schedule changes, some groups consisted of three or five people. 57 minutes, the first part of the data to be analyzed was set at the point where the introductory phase finished. The subsequent 10-minute segments were transcribed and analyzed. In Chapter Two, I pointed out that a sentence is not an appropriate unit for analyzing spoken discourse because it is "fragmented due to numerous pauses, false starts, fillers, repetitions, and backtracks" (Tannen 1982: 9-10). As alternative units for analyzing Japanese discourse, Maynard (1989) suggests "Phrase-bounded Phrasal Units (PPU)" and Iwasaki (1993) proposes the "Intonation Unit (IU)." However, it is not certain whether these units, which are useful in analyzing the discourse of native Japanese speakers, can be directly applied to the analysis of speech produced by Japanese language learners. This is because such phenomena as pauses, repetitions, hesitation noises and the lengthening of vowels observed in the JLL speech may be motivated by different reasons and thus function differently from those found in NJS speech. While NJSs use them almost exclusively as devices for conversation management, those used in JLL speech can involve communication strategies which help language learners to handle communication problems caused by their insufficient linguistic knowledge.10 Also, the boundaries of IUs and PPUs depend much on the raters' subjective judgement. For this reason, the present quantitative analysis will not adopt these units. Instead, I will approach the current research questions by examining the distribution of yo, ne and yone appeared in the data in terms of speech acts. The procedures of data analysis are as follows: STEP1: Depending on the nature of the preceding utterance, yo, ne and yone were grouped into three types: (1) predicate, (2) fragment and (3) independent. (1) Predicate-type particles immediately follow a predicate, which contains a final form (the non-past or past form) of an adjective (e.g., Atsuine 'hot+ne'), a verb (e.g., Iku yo 'go+yo') or 10According to Ellis (1994), "communication strategies" are employed "when learners are faced with the task of communicating meanings for which they lack the requisite linguistic knowledge (for example, when they have to refer to some object without knowing the L2 word)" (p.696). 58 a copula da or desu, (e.g., Atsui desu yone 'hot+copula+yone')-11 (2) Fragment-type particles are those which follow "fragments," or "non-final verbal forms that indicate conjunction, or subordination, and post-positional phrases, both arguments and obliques" (Cook 1992: 513). This type of particle represents the insertion particle. The following example illustrates fragment type particles: (1) Boku wa sono inu o ne. I TOP that dog DO IP "I, that dog" Eeto nan dakke ? FI what BE "Well, what (am I) talking about?" Omae shigoto suru ka tte kik-arete ne. you work do Q QT ask-PASS IP "(I) was asked if I would work and" Nan no shigoto ka wakan-nai to omotte ne_ what LK work Q know-NEG QT think IP "(I) thought (I) would not know what work it would be and" So- soto it-tara ne out-outside went-when IP "When (I) went out- outside" Sono inu no sooji ya ara-that dogLK cleaning andwash-"Cleaning of that dog and wash-" (Cook 1992: 514) In this example, ne does not follow a predicate (in Line 1), or the final form of a prediacte (i.e., "-te," the gerund, in Lines 2 and 3 and "-tara ," the connective form, in Line 4 are both non-final forms). (3) Independent-type particles are those which appear by themselves, pronounced with a 11In cases in which yo, ne or yone follows an utterance which lacks a copula because of an ellipsis (e.g., Nichiyoobi yone " Sunday+yone") derived from Nichiyoobi daldesu yone "Sunday+copula+yone," that particle is treated as a predicate type, assuming that an invisible copula exists. Ellipses were identified when utterance-final features (e.g., falling intonation, decreasing speech speed, occurrences of a pause) were observed. 59 recognizable pause both before and after them. They are identified as interjection particles. An example is given below: (2) Nee, Mama. IP mom "Mom!" (Cook 1992: 522) STEP 2: Because a comparative analysis of all three particles yo, ne and yone is possible only with the predicate-type particles (since yone requires a predicate form), I focused on the analysis of the predicate-type. STEP 3: All occurrences of predicate-type yo, ne and yone were then categorized according to the types of speech acts with which they cooccurred, and the frequencies and percentages of the particles were then calculated. Thus, I was able to analyze how each of yo, ne and yone contributes to the realization of a particular speech act. In addition to the conversation data, the data from the fill-in-the-blank test was also analyzed by the same procedure. I assured first the speech acts of the items of the tests and then analyzed their relationships with yo, ne and yone. Based on the proposed model of the relationships among interaction, speech acts and interactional particles (Figure 8 in Chapter Two), I present a taxonomy of speech acts as follows: Figure 9 A Taxonomy of Speech Acts 12 60 ^^Conversation Management Types Speech Acts r Other Types . C(A) Aizuchi (B) Floor-Keeping — (C) Request for Agreement — (D) Demonstration of Solicited Agreement —(E) Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement — (F) Presentation of New Information Definitions and examples for each speech act are given below: (A) Aizuchi 13: Aizuchi refers to those expressions uttered by the addressee or the provider of Aizuchi in the speaker's turn to simply signal that he or she is attending and following what is being said. In the present analysis, Aizuchi expressions are the following two types: (1) the combination of Soo desu, Soo da, or Soo and yo, ne or yone, and (2) the combination of a partial repetition of the addressee's previous utterance and yo, ne or yone. Aizuchi is provided by the addressee during the speaker's turn, and does not literally demonstrate one's agreement with or emotions concerning a particular referential proposition. However, when contextual factors such as tones, stresses, vowel lengths and the uses of exclamatory sounds (e.g., a:, e:) apparently indicated the speaker's agreement with the addressee's proposition, a given utterance was categorized as Demonstration of Solicited/Unsolicited Agreement, even if that utterance occurred in 12It should be noted that the taxonomy of speech acts and definitions of the speech acts proposed here were designed specifically for the current analysis of the interactional particles yo, ne and yone in order to examine their roles in conversation management and in requesting and demonstrating agreement. This means that other taxonomies of speech acts and definitions of those speech acts are possible. 13In this thesis, I differentiate Aizuchi (the upper case) from aizuchi (the lower case). As stated in Footnote 6 in Chapter One, aizuchi refers to general back channels which can be either verbal or non-verbal. On the other hand, Aizuchi is a subcategory of aizuchi defined specifically for the current analysis of yo, ne and yone: Aizuchi has to contain either yo, ne or yone. 61 the speaker's turn. The following example demonstrates Aizuchi: (3) 1 A: Jaa, moshi motomoto gakkoo de, kooyuu puroguramu ga aru tte shitte-te, then if originally school P like this program SUB exist QT know "Then, if (you) already knew that your school had this kind of program," 2 B: Hai, yes "Yes," 3 A: De, kanada de tor-eru tan-i o shitte-tara, then Canada P take-can credits DO knew - if 'Then, if (you) knew the credits (you) can take in Canada," 4 B: Hai, yes "Yes," 5 A: Hoka no tan-i o saisho ni totteoite, kocchi de other LK credits DO beginning P take in advance here P "(You can) first take other credits (in Japan), then, here -" 6 B: =A::, oh "Oh," 7 A: Tan-i o totte Sorekara tte yuu huuni, credits DO take and then QT say like 'Take credits, and then," —>8 B: [Soo desu ne, kedo:, so BE IP though "It is so, but," 9 So: umaku ika-nai n desu yone. so well go-NEG NOM BE IP "Things don't go that well." In this example, B does not show sincere agreement to A's proposition by the utterance "Soo desu ne" but simply indicates that he is following A. Observe that B denies A's inference immediately following this utterance. 62 (B) Floor-Keeping: The purpose of this speech act is to maintain the speaker's turn. While Aizuchi is produced by the addressee, Floor-Keeping expressions is produced by the speaker. Through this speech act, a speaker shows that he or she understands that it is his or her turn to speak and/or draws the addressee's attention to his or her speech. Therefore, just like Aizuchi, Floor-Keeping does not literally indicate or request agreement with any of the propositions presented by the addressee, as illustrated in the following example: (4) 1 A: Roonin shite-ta n desu ka. roonin were doing NOM BE Q "Were you roonin ?" ~>2 B: N, demo, ato wa, maa, soo desu ne, ma, chotto hataraite, hantoshi gurai, ... FI but other TOP FI so BE IP FI a little working half a year about "Well, but, I was also working for half a year or so . .." In this example, a Floor-Keeping expression "soo desu ne" does not indicate agreement with a particular proposition, but rather functions as a time-filler used to fill in the time while the speaker is searching for words. Floor-Keeping expressions can take independent- and fragment-type particles, as well as predicate-type particles as in the following example: (5) --> 1 A: Ne, kyooshitsu ga ne, sugoku hiroi tokoro dat-tara, (LAUGH) IP classroom SUB IP very large place BE- if "If the classroom is a very large one," 2 B: A::, uh "Uh-huh," 3 C: U::n, hum "Hum," 4 A: Wakan-nai kamo ne ? know-NEG maybe IP "Maybe (the teacher) doesn't know." 63 --> 5 Kore ga, ne, chicchai nihon no kyooshitsu, ne_ ? this SUB IP small Japan LK classroom IP "If this were the classroom in a Japanese (school)," 6 Kookoo toka no kyooshitsu mitai no dat-tara sa:, high school such as LK classroom like LK BE-if IP "Like the classroom in a high school or something like that," 7 C: U::n, uh "Uh-huh," 8 A: Wakacchau (?). know "(The teacher) will find out." In this example, ne is used as an independent-type particle (Line 1) and as a fragment-type particle (Line 5) to maintain the speaker's turn. (C) Request for Agreement: Utterances of Request for Agreement are used to elicit from the addressee the same understanding concerning a certain proposition. They obtain certain responses from the addressee, whether these responses are in agreement or disagreement, as shown in the example below: (6) 1 A: E ? yokatta. Karugarii tte donna kanji ? uh was good Calgary QT what kind of like "Was (it) good? How's Calgary like?" —> 2 E, samui n da yone ? uh cold NOM BE IP "Uh, (it's) cold, isn't it?" --> 3 B: A, huyu wa ne. Natsu wa hutsuu no natsu desu yo. oh winter TOP IP summer TOP ordinary LK summer BE IP "Oh, in the Winter, yes. As for the Summer, it's ordinary Summer." A solicits B's agreement for her proposition that it is cold in Calgary. As a result, her utterance elicits B's response in the form of an agreement. 64 (D) Demonstration of Solicited Agreement: Demonstration of Solicited Agreement is an indication of agreement in response to the addressee's request for agreement, which is expressed by tag-question-like utterances ending with ne, yonejanai or deshoo as in Line 1 in the example below. The utterances of Solicited Agreement contain either soo 'so' or a partial or complete repetition of the addressee's utterance. They can appear either in the addressee's or the speaker's turn. (7) l A: Sotsugyoo mo nantoka dekiru yone ? graduation also anyway can IP "(You) can manage to graduate, can't you?" —> 2 B: Dekiru yo_. can IP "(You) can." 3 A: Nanka, daigaku, hakaratte-kureru janai ? FI university arrange-do a favor to TAG "Well, universities arrange things (so that you can graduate), don't they?" 4 Nantonaku, ano, tsuishi toka mo ne, in a subtle way FI make-up exam such as also IP "By giving (you) make-up exams or something." —> 5 B: A, soo da yone. oh so BE IP "Oh, it's true." Notice the presence of yone (Line 1) and janai (Line 3) in A's utterances, which serve to create tag-questions to indicate the addressee's agreement. Both utterances of B, "Dekiru yo" (Line 2) and "A, soo da yone" (Line 5) are responses to A's request for agreement. (E) Demonstration of Urisolicited Agreement: Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement refers to an indication of agreement not prompted by the addressee's request. Unsolicited Agreement presents information which supplements the topic that either the addressee or speaker previously introduced. In the current analysis, except for Request for Agreement and Demonstration of Solicited Agreement, all the utterances which presuppose the sharing of information by the 65 interlocutors are placed in this category. Utterances of phatic communion are also classified in this category. (8) 1 A: Demo ne, kocchi de ne, seekatsusuru no mo, ii keeken dakara, but IP here P IP live NOM also good experience because "But, to live here is also a good experience," —> 2 B: Soo desu ne, hontoo ni. so BE IP really P "It is, really." 3 A: =Soo yuu imi de wa ne. so say sense P TOP IP "In that sense." In this example, B's utterance "Soo desu ne" indicates support rather than agreement with A's proposition because, unlike Example 7, B's utterance was not solicited by A's request for agreement. (9) 1 A: Yappa, hataraki-tai tteyuuka, hataraite-as expected work-want to FI work-"As expected, (I) want to work; I mean, work and-" —> 2 B: Soo da yone. so BE IP "Right." ~>3 Okane ga heru dake da mon nee. money SUB decrease only BE NOM IP "(We are) just running out of money." 4 A: Un. yes "Yeah." Lines 2 and 3 both demonstrate Unsolicited Agreement. Line 2 shows unsolicited, spontaneous agreement to A's utterance. Line 3 further reinforces B's agreement by offering supplemental information. 66 (F) Presentation of New Information: The process of Presentation of New Information conveys information which is assumed by the speaker as new to the addressee. Presentation of New Information performs such speech acts as answering questions, reporting, opposing, correcting, encouraging and complimenting. The following is an example: (10) 1 A: Dooshite, e::to, bankuubaa. (LAUGH) why FI Vancouver "Why, uh, Vancouver?" 2 B: A, dooshite bankuubaa. oh why Vancouver "Oh, why (I came to) Vancouver." 3 Ar.nto, shigoto una made shite-ta n da keredo, FI job now until was doing NOM BE though "Although (I) was working -" 4 A::, oh "Oh," --> 5 Nihon de, ryokoogaisha de hataraite-ta no ne ? Japan P travel agency P was working NOM IP "In Japan, (I) was working at a travel agency. In this example, B is presenting new information by answering A's question. Following the procedures described above, Chapter Four attempts to analyze the conversational data. 67 Chapter Four Analyses of Conversational Data This chapter analyzes the conversational data in an attempt to answer the research questions presented in Chapter Three. In particular, it will analyze the use of yo, ne and yone by NJS (Native Japanese Speakers) and JLL (Japanese Language Learners) in terms of the following three points: (1) conversation management, (2) speech acts in which yo, ne and yone appear, and (3) information status (i.e., whether information is new or old) of those speech acts. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 4.1 discusses the uses of yo, ne and yone in conversation management. Section 4.2 probes into the relationship of the uses of yo, ne and yone with the Presentation of New information. Section 4.3 discusses the uses of yo, ne and yone in the Request for Agreement, and Section 4.4 for the Demonstration of Solicited Agreement. 4.1 Conversation Management 4.1.1 Conversation Management by NJS For an analysis of the NJS use of yo, ne and yone in conversation management, I examined speech from both the NJS-only and NJS+JLL conversation groups. The results are shown separately in order to observe, if any, the influence of the interlocutor types (i.e., native speakers vs. language learners) on speech. Yo, yone and ne, as used in NJS speech, were classified into three groups: independent-type, fragment-type and predicate-type (For their definitions and examples, see Section 3.4.). Tables 1 and 2 below present the types of particles used by the NJSs in NJS-only conversations and NJS+JLL conversations. The results are shown in frequency and percentage:1 iBecause of the relatively small population of the research (i.e., 21 JLLs and 32 NJSs), the present analysis did not apply any statistical calculation to the obtained data. 68 Table 1 Particle Types (Independent-, Fragment- and Predicate-Types) of Yo, Yone and Ne Used by NJSs2 A. NJS Speech in NJS-Only Conversation Group: Particle type Independent Fragment Predicate Total Particle YO 0%(0) 0%(0) 100% (82) 100% (82) YONE 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (58) 100% (58) NE 6.1% (13) 35.5% (76) 58.4% (125) 100% (214) B: NJS Speech in NJS+JLL Conversation Group: Particle type Particle Independent Fragment Predicate Total YO 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (60) 100% (60) YONE 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (68) 100% (68) NE 7.1% (15) 25.8% (55) 67.1% (143) 100% (213) Table 1 shows the particle types (independent-, fragment- and predicate-types) for all the occurrences of yo, yone and ne. On the other hand, Table 2 below indicates percentages of yo, yone and ne that appeared as independent-, fragment- or predicate-type particles: Table 2 Particles (Yo, Yone and Ne) Used by NJSs Categorized in terms of Particle Types (Independent-, Fragment- and Predicate-Types) A. NJS Speech in NJS-Only Conversation Group: NJS-Only Panicle I m YONE NE Total Particle type Independent 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (13) 100% (13) Fragment 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (76) 100% (76) Predicate 30.9% (82) 21.9% (58) 47.2% (125) 100% (265) 2The number in parenthesis indicates frequency of occurrences. 69 B; NJS Speech in NJS+JLL Conversation Group: Particle Particle type YO YONE NE Total Independent 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (15) 100% (15) Fragment 0% (0) 0% (0) | 100% (55) 100% (55) Predicate 17.6% (60) 19.9% (68) 62.5% (143) 100% (271) The tables above indicate that in both NJS-only and NJS+JLL conversation, the NJSs did not use yo and yone as independent-type particles (i.e., interjective particles) and fragment-type particles (i.e., insertional particles), both of which function to manage conversation. In contrast, ne has a wide range of use, appearing in all of the independent-, fragment- and predicate-types. This suggests that only ne served conversation management accomplished by independent and fragment type particles. The ratio of the predicate-type within all uses of ne was 58.4% in NJS-only conversation and 67.1% in NJS+JLL conversation, both percentages larger than the portion of the independent- and fragment-type ne's combined (See Table 1). Also, Table 2 shows that ne was the particle that appeared most frequently as the predicate-type. The data showed one difference between NJS-only conversations and NJS+JLL conversations: the ratio of predicate- type yo decreased while that of predicate-type ne increased in NJS+JLL data. As observed in Table 2, the percentage of predicate-type yo is 30.9% in NJS-only conversations and 17.6% in NJS+JLL conversations. In contrast, predicate-type ne's in NJS-only conversations is 47.2% and 62.5% in NJS+JLL conversations. In other words, the NJSs used yo more frequently in conversation with other native Japanese speakers, while using ne more often in conversation with learners. I speculate that the NJSs' frequent use of ne instead of yo is "foreigner talk," or "the modified language native speakers use with non-native speakers" (Ellis 1994: 289) in an attempt to facilitate conversation. I will discuss further this claim concerning the use of yo, ne and yone in showing solicited agreement in Section 4.3.1. 70 Based on the proposed taxonomy of speech acts (See Figure 9), the predicate-type yo, ne and yone were further classified, depending on the speech acts they relate to. Table 3 and 4 below show the NJS use of yo, yone and ne for the speech acts of Aizuchi, Floor-Keeping (both of which are conversation management devices), Request for Agreement, Demonstration of Solicited Agreement, Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement and Presentation of New Information: Table 3 Yo, Yone and Ne that the NJSs Used in Six Speech Acts A. NJS Speech in NJS-Only Conversation Group: Speech Act Conversation Management Others Speech Act Type Particle Aizuchi Floor-Keeping Request for Agreement Demonstra tion of Solicited Agreement Demonstra tion of Unsolicited Agreement Presentation of New Information Total YO 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.4% (2) 23.2% (19) 74.4% (61) 100% (82) YONE 1.7% (1) 0% (0) 41.4% (24) 8.6% (5) 36.2% (21) 12.1% (7) 100% (58) NE 2.4% (3) 3.2% (4) 7.2% (9) 7.2% (9) 42.2% (53) 37.6% (47) 100%(125) B. NJS Speech in NJS+JLL Conversation Group: Speech Act Conversation Management Others Speech Act Types Particle Aizuchi Floor-Keeping Request for Agreement Demonstra tion of Solicited Agreement Demonstra tion of Unsolicited Agreement Presentation of New Information Total YO 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 18.3% (11) 81.7% (49) 100% (60) YONE 0% (0) 0% (0) 39.7% (27) 5.9% (4) 50.0% (34) 4.4% (3) 100% (68) NE 1.7% (1) 4.9% (7) 7.0% (10) 11.2% (16) 46.2% (66) 30.1% (43) 100%(143) Table 3 shows the percentages of the speech acts with which each of yo, yone and ne coocurred. Table 4 below represents the same results in terms of the ratio of yo, yone and ne as used for each speech act: 71 Table 4 Types of Speech Acts that the NJSs Performed with Yo, Yone and Ne Particle Speech Act YO YONE NE Total Aizuchi 0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 100% (4) Floor-Keeping 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (4) 100% (4) Request for Agreement 0% (0) 72.7% (24) 27.3% (9) 100% (33) Demonstration of Solicited Agreement 12.5% (2) 31.3% (5) 56.3% (9) 100% (16) Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement 20.4% (19) 22.6% (21) 57.0% (53) 100% (93) Presentation of New Information 53.0% (61) 6.1% (7) 40.9% (47). 100% (115) B. NJS Speech in NJS+JLL Conversation Group: Particle Speech Act YO YONE NE Total Aizuchi 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (1) 100% (1) Floor-Keeping 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (7) 100% (7) Request for Agreement 0% (0) 73.0% (27) 27.0% (10) 100% (37) Demonstration of Solicited Agreement 0% (0) 20.0% (4) 80.0% (16) 100% (20) Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement 9.9% (11) 30.6% (34) 59.5% (66) 100% (111) Presentation of New Information 51.6% (49) 3.2% (3) 45.2% (43) 100% (95) The above tables show that with the exception of one use of yone for Aizuchi in NJS-only data, no NJS used predicate-type yo and yone for Aizuchi and Floor-Keeping, both categories of which are conversation management devices. This result concurs with the previous finding concerning conversation management; specifically, that yo and yone did not appear as independent- and fragment-type particles, which also conduct conversation management. 4.1.2 Conversation Management by JLL Table 5 presents the frequency of use of yo, ne and yone by the JLLs and the NJSs: 72 Table 5 Frequency of Use of Yo, Ne and Yone by JLLs and NJSs Particle JLL NJS NJS+JLL NJS-Only YO 13.3% (18) 17.6% (60) 23.2% (82) YONE 6.7% (9) 19.9% (68) 16.4% (58) NE 80.0% (108) 62.5% (213) 60.4% (214) Total 100% (135) 100% (341) 100% (354) A comparison of the NJS and JLL data indicates that much fewer interactional particles appeared in the JLL speech than in that of the NJS. This is probably because the JLLs tended to remain as passive participants in conversation, and also because the JLLs took more time to produce utterances and thus produced fewer utterances than the NJSs did. Table 5 reveals another difference in the distribution of yo, ne and yone between JLL and NJS speech: when they used yo, ne and yone, the JLLs relied more on ne and less on yone, as compared with the NJSs. The table shows that the percentage of ne in the JLL speech is approximately 20% higher than that of the NJSs and the percentage of the JLL use of yone was approximately 10% lower than that of the NJSs.3 Table 11 categorizes yo,yone and ne, as used by the JLLs, into three groups: independent-, fragment- and predicate-type: 3Table 5 summarizes the occurrences of each particle regardless of their appropriateness and/or grammaticality. 73 Table 6 Particle Types (Independent-, Fragment- and Predicate-Types) of Yo, Yone and Ne Used by JLLs JLL Particle type Particle Independent Fragment Predicate Total YO 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (18) 100% (18) YONE 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (9) 100% (9) NE 12.0% (13) 31.5% (34) 56.5% (61) 100% (108) The above table represents the percentages of the particle types (independent-, fragment- and predicate-types) for all the occurrences of yo, yone and ne. Table 7 summarizes the same results in terms of the proportion of these three particles within each particle type (independent-, fragment-and predicate-types): Table 7 Particles (Yo, Yone and Ne) Used by JLLs Categorized in terms of Particle Types (Independent-, Fragment- and Predicate-Types) JLL Particle Particle type YO YONE NE Total Independent 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (13) 100% (13) Fragment 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (34) 100% (34) Predicate 20.5% (18) 10.2% (9) 69.3% (61) 100% (88) The JLL data share a few characteristics with those of NJSs'. These include absence of the independent- and fragment-type yo and yone and the appearance of ne in all types. Also, as well as in the NJS speech, the ratio of the predicate-type ne out of all the occurrences of ne the JLLs used was more than 50%, which is larger than the independent- and fragment-type ne combined (See Table 6). In addition, as Table 7 shows, the JLLs used ne most frequently among all the predicate 74 type particles (69.3%), just as the NJSs did. Tables 8 and 9 below represent the percentages of the particles of yo, yone and ne which the JLLs used in conducting the six speech acts: Table 8 Yo, Yone and Ne that the JLLs Used in Six Speech Acts JLL Speech Act Conversation Management Others Speech Act Types Particle Aizuchi Floor-Keeping Request for Agreement Demonstra tion of Solicited Agreement Demonstra tion of Unsolicited Agreement Presentation of New Information Total YO 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 33.3% (6) 66.7% (12) 100% (18) YONE 0% (0) 0% (0) 33.3% (3) 0% (0) 44.4% (4) 22.2% (2) 100% (9) NE 0% (0) 9.8% (6) 3.3% (2) 18.0% (11) 42.8% (20) 36.1% (22) 100%(61) The table above represents the percentages of six speech acts for all the occurrences of yo, yone and ne in the JLL speech. Table 9 summarizes the same results in terms of particles (yo, yone and ne) for each speech act: Table 9 Types of Speech Acts that the JLLs Performed with Yo, Yone and Ne JLL Speech Act \ Particle YO YONE NE Total Aizuchi 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Floor-Keeping 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (6) 100% (6) Request for Agreement 0% (0) 60.0% (3) 40.0% (2) 100% (5) Demonstration of Solicited Agreement 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (11) 100% (11) Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement 20.0% (6) 13.3% (4) 66.7% (20) 100% (30) Presentation of New Information 33.3% (12) 5.6% (2) 61.1% (47) 100% (36) Tables 8 and 9 indicate that the JLLs did not use yo and yone in Aizuchi and Floor-Keeping, which are both devices for conversation management. This result is similar with the NJS data in 75 which no NJS used the predicate-type yo and yone for Aizuchi and Floor-Keeping except for one use of yone. In summary, the data showed that both the NJSs and the JLLs conducted conversation management almost exclusively with ne. 4.2 Presentation of New Information 4.2.1 Presentation of New Information by NJS Table 3 indicated that the NJSs used yo primarily for Presentation of New Information (74.4% in NJS-only conversation and 81.7% in NJS+JLL conversation). On the other hand, yone and ne were used more for Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement, which conveys old information. In the NJS-only data, 36.2% of all the occurrences of yone and 42.4% for ne presented old information through Demonstrating Unsolicited Agreement. Similarly, in the NJS+JLL data, 50.0% of yone and 46.2% of ne usage occurred in this speech act. If Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement and Request for Agreement, both of which presuppose the sharing of information by the speaker and addressee, are included, the percentage of yone used for conveying old information increases to 86.2% in the NJS-only data and to 95.6% in the NJS+JLL data. The percentage of the use of ne will also rise to 56.6 % in the NJS data and to 64.4 % in the NJS+JLL data. The most important finding is that more than 40% of new information was presented by ne instead of yo which appeared with approximately 50% of the new information (See Table 4). This frequent use of ne in presenting new information deviates from the predictions illustrated in a model of the relationships between yo, ne and yone and speech acts that I presented in Figure 7. The rest of this section focuses on an analysis of the relationship existing between the use of yo, ne and yone and the presentation of new information. We have noted in Chapter Two that yo is used for Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs) 76 such as encouraging and complimenting as well as for Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) including opposing, reporting, correcting and answering. The following exemplifies the use of yo for a PPS: (1) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: JLL 8, B: NJS 25, C: NJS 284 Context: A tells B that going to Japan used to be his goal. B asks A if he came to dislike Japan. 1 A: A::, nihon moshi nihon de, ben- hataraita nara, uh Japan if Japan in stu- worked if "Uh, if I were to stu-(dy) work in Japan," 2 B: N::, hum "Hum," 3 A: Ano, hutsuuno, shigoto dake ga, ueni ika-nai. FI ordinary job only SUB up go-NEG "Well, only ordinary jobs (are available), and (you can't) get promotions." 4 Watashi wa gaijin dattara, chotto muzukashii. I TOP foreigner BE if a little difficult "Since I'm a foreigner, (promotions) are a little difficult." --> 5 B: Sonna koto nai yo::. such matter NEG IP "Such is not the case. (You can get promotions.)" 6 A: =Wakara-nai, wakaru no wa, chotto muzukashii to omou. know-NEG know NOM TOP a little difficult QT think "I don't know, what I know is that it is a little difficult, (I) think. " 7 B & C: U::n. uh-huh "Uh-huh." In this example, B's utterance "Sonna koto nai yo::" (Line 5) performs "encouraging" by denying A's low expectations for his career's future in Japan. Below is a similar example: (2) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 31, B: JLL 14 Context: Describing how different the Japanese word order is from the English, B asks A if she does not get confused by that difference. 4For background information on each participant, see Appendixes B and C. 77 1 A: Moo, moo, chotto ne, watashi wa chotto nihon ni itta-shi, nanka moo, FI FI a little IP I TOP a little Japan P went and FI FI "Well, uh, I've been to Japan, and," 2 Nihongo wa heta da kara watashi, (?) Japanese TOP poor at BE because I "Since I'm not good at Japanese, (?)" --> 3 B: Sonna koto nai yo. such thing NEG IP "That's not such a case. (You speak Japanese well.)" \ In Example 2, B uses the same yo-attached utterance to deny A's low evaluation of her Japanese language ability and to thus encourage her. In both above examples, different speakers used yo for the speech act of encouraging, which is one of the PPSs. The use of yo as encouragement was found only in the NJS+JLL speech but was absent in the NJS-only as well as the JLL speech. In the JLL speech, even the speech act of encouragement itself did not occur.5 Table 4 revealed that in the NJS speech, approximately 40% of all new information was presented with ne. This finding deviates from the prediction made by the previous model of the relations existing between interaction, speech acts and interactional particles, which associated yo with the new information, and ne and yone with old information. This deviation seems to concern the pragmatic factors of the politeness strategy and Japanese communicative styles. Since ne and yone indicate that the speaker is attentive to the addressee, these particles mitigate the assertiveness r produced by informing or the presentation of new information. This acknowledgement of the addressee's existence can be seen as a positive politeness strategy in that it shows that the speaker constantly attends to the addressee's positive face want, which is in this case the addressee's desire to be approved of or recognized for his or her presence. I assume that the use of ne when presenting new information is motivated also by the Japanese communicative style which shows an SOne possible factor influencing this result is the power relationship between the NJSs and JLLs. In other words, as native speakers of the target language, the NJS had power over the JLL and initiated conversation and encouraged interaction more than the JLL did. 78 orientation toward the "sharedness or feeling of oneness" between interlocutors (Cook 1992: 524). The definition of the Japanese "self as a "non-autonomous self (Maynard 1993: 15) is also useful here. Maynard (1993) states that the "Japanese view of self differs from that of the Western tradition" (p. 15) in that "in Japan, there is a tradition of defining self on the basis of the human relationship within the society of which the self is a part" (p. 16) while in the Western tradition, the Cartesian autonomous "ego" is the entity which polarizes the "other." When even "self-identification is based on the other" (Maynard 1993: 264), it is understandable that the NJSs chose not to mark new information with yo as something exclusively possessed by the speaker, but opted to mark it with ne as something related to the addressee. In the present data, the use of ne to present new information appeared in two types of utterances: those which do not take the nominalization form, n(o) (da/desu),6 and those which contain it. These two types of utterances showed not only a syntactic difference but also a difference in the speech acts that they perform and their roles in discourse. The first type of utterances which lack n(o) (da/desu) typically occurred in answers, comments and expressions of reflections as in the following examples: (3) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 27, B: NJS 25 Context:A, a graduate student, asks B, who is an ESL student, about the relationship between Japanese and Korean students at ESL schools. 1 A: Sono hen no kankee tte, doo na n desu ka. That area LK relationship TOP how BE NOM BE Q "How's that relationship?" 2 B: (Not being sure of A's question) N:: uh "Uh. . ." 6The parentheses indicate that the elements in them are optional. Thus, n(o) (da/desu) may be realized either as no desu, no da, no, n desu, n da or n. 79 3 A: Ryookoo desu ka. good BE Q "Is it good?" --> 4 B: Aa, aa. Sore wa mondai nai desu ne. oh oh that TOP problem NEG BE IP "Oh, I see. There is no problem about that " 5 A: Nai desu ka. NEG BE Q "Aren't there any problems?" --> 6 B: Ryookoo desu ne, hai. good BE IP yes "(The relationship) is good. Yes." In the example above, B used ne to present new information in the form of an "answer" in response to A's question. The following is another example of ne used in presentation of new information: (4) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 27, B: NJS 25 Context: A moves to a new topic: Culture shock. 1 A: Ato, karuchaashokku toka nai desu ka. also culture shocks such as NEG BE Q "Also, haven't you had anything like culture shock?' 2 B: Karuchaashokku nee. culture shocks IP "Culture shock ..." 3 A: Hoomushikku toka. homesick such as "Home sickness or something like that." 4 B: Hoomushikku wa nai, tokuni ? homesick TOP NEG especially "As for homesickness, I had nothing (like that)." —> 5 A: Tsuyoi desu ne. strong BE IP "You're strong." 80 6 B: Tsuyoku-nai yo:. Strong-NEG IP "(I'm) not strong." In this example, ne occurred in A's "comment" to the fact that B did not experience homesickness. This comment conveys A's personal impression ('You're (Speaker B) strong.'),which is new information to B. Example 5 below further shows the use of ne in presenting new information: (5) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 3, B: NJS 10, C: NJS 16 Context: A and B are visiting Canada on Working-Holiday visas, while C is a student. A is talking about the day he received his acceptance letter from the Canadian Embassy in Japan. 1 A: Taishikan kara saa, tegarni kita jan ? embassy from IP letter came TAG "(You) got a letter from the embassy, right? " 2 B:= A::, hai, hai, hai, oh yes yes yes "Oh, yes." 3 A: Sorede oya ga mite, nani kore tte ? then parent SUB see what this QT "Then, (my) parent saw it, and (said), 'What's this?'" 4 B:=A.v, haa, haa, haa, oh hum hum hum "Oh, uh-huh," 5 A: A toka itte. whoops such as say "(I) said, 'Whoops.'" 6 Chotto, ashita ? kaisha yame n da kedo (A, B & C: LAUGH) a little tomorrow company quit NOM BE but '"Well, (I'm) going to quit the company, uh, tomorrow.'" 7 C: Sugo:i. daring "How daring." —>8 A: Sungoi okotta ne, sasugani ne. very got angry IP expectedly IP "(My parent) got so angry, as expected." 81 In this example, A used ne in his "reflection" of a past event. This reflection and recounting of his personal experience conveys new information to B and C. The second type of ne-attached utterances, which contain the nominalization form n(o) (daldesu), appear in the course of recounting a story to provide preliminary or supplemental information to that story. Observe the following example: (6) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 26, B: NJS 17 Context: The participants are talking about their own backgrounds, including where they were before they came to Vancouver, and why they decided to come to Vancouver. 1 A: Hajime kara bankuubaa erabi ? beginning from Vancouver choice "(Did you) choose Vancouver from the first?" 2 B: N:to nee, saisho wa:, nande bankuubaa ni shita ka tte yuu to:, FI IP beginning TOP why Vancouver P decided Q QT say QT "Well, first, talking about why (I) decided on Vancouver..." --> 3 Ano, watashi, samui toko damena no ne 1 FI I cold place no good NOM IP "Uh, I don't like cold places." 4 De, mada, koo, bankuubaa dat-tara samusa ga gaman-dekiru ka na to omotte, then still FI Vancouver BE - if coldness SUB endure - can Q IP QT think 'Then, I thought I might be able to stand the coldness of Vancouver," 5 Toriaezu bankuubaa ni shita no to, anyhow Vancouver P decided NOM and "So anyhow I decided on Vancouver, and, " 6 Ato, atashi america no nishikaigan ga sugoi suki da kara, also I America LK West Coast SUB very like BE since "Also, since I like the American West Coast very much," 7 Chikai janai, sugoi. close TAG very "It's very close (to Vancouver), isn't it?" 8 A: =Un, un, un, yeah yeah yeah "Yeah," 82 —>9 B: De, sorede, kanada no bankuubaa ni eranda no ne! then therefore Canada LK Vancouver P chose NOM IP "So, then, I chose Vancouver, in Canada." 10 De kite, ikoo ka to otnotta n da kedo, and come will go Q QT thought NOM BE though "Then, I thought about going, but," 11 A: Nishikaigan ni ? West Coast P "To the West Coast?" 12 B: Ano, nishikaigan, kocchi no karugarii no hoo toka, FI West Coast this side NOM Calgary NOM direction such as "Uh, this West Coast, this side of it, such as to Calgary," 13 A::, Un un un yeah yeah yeah "Yeah yeah yeah" 14 B: Kisetsu ga yo-kereba, season SUB good-if "If it is a good season," 15 A: Un yeah "Yeah" 16 B: Okane ga na-katta no to, money SUB NEG-PAST NOM and "(I) didn't have money, and" 17 Choodo, a nani, baito ga kimacchat-tari toka shite, a little FI what part-time job SUB got decided such as do "Well, (I) got a part-time job, and" 18 Sorede kekkyoku, nandakanda-itte, koko ni zutto moo. therefore after all after all here P always already "And, (I've been) here always, until now." In the first half of B's response to A's question, B gave the reasons why she chose Vancouver (i.e., the fact that Vancouver is not so cold, and it is on the West Coast, Lines 1^9). In the latter half (LineslO-18) she further explains why she settled down in Vancouver. Two uses of ne are found during her outlining these reasons. The following is another example that shows the use of 83 ne together with the nominalization form in the presentation of new information: (7) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: JLL 9, B: NJS 4, C: JLL 2 Context: The participants start talking about the conditions of skiing in Japan and Canada. 1 A: Nihonjin wa, minna, sukii ga joozu no imeeji ga (LAUGH) arimasu kedo. Japanese TOP everyone skiing SUB good at LK image SUB there is though "(I have) the impression that all Japanese people are good at skiing." 2 B: Sukiijoo ga chikai n desu yo. Skiing areas SUB close NOM BE IP "(In Japan,) skiing areas are close at hand." 3 Sorede, wissuraa wa doo ka wakara-nai n desu keredomo, therefore Whistler TOP how Q know-NEG NOM BE though "But then, though I don't know the situation in Whistler," 4 Iwayuru, Jinkooyuki tie itte, ano, what is called artificial snow QT say FI "What is called 'artificial snow,' uh," --> 5 Jinkookoosetsuki de, yuki o tsukucchau n desu ne ? snow- maker P snow DO make NOM BE IP "Is made by snow-makers." 6 C: Aa, oh "Oh," 7 B: Dakara, tashoo, atatakakute-mo, iwayuru, yuki ga hura-nakute-mo, therefore more or less warm even what is called snow SUB fall-NEG-even "Therefore, even if it's warm or if it doesn't snow," 8 Sukiii ga dekiruyoona jootai ni sukiijoo o shichau n desu yo. skiing SUB can so that condition P ski areas DO make NOM BE IP "(They) modify the conditions of skiing areas so that skiing is possible." In this example, B tells A how available Japanese skiing areas are (i.e., 'even if it is warm or does not snow, the existence of snow-makers makes skiing possible') by providing a reason for that (i.e., 'snow is produced by snow-makers'). The speaker used ne in presenting this explanatory or preliminary information. The following is yet another example of ne following the nominalization form: 84 (8) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 7, B: NJS 5 Context: The participants start bringing up recent news that has caught their attention. 1 A: Ato ne, kyuushuu de ne, also IP Kyushu in IP "Also, in the Kyushu (prefecture)," 2 B: Un, yeah "Yeah," —> 3 A: Nanka, sensee ga hito ni chuuishita no ne, seeto ni. FI teacher SUB person P warned NOM IP student P "Uh, one teacher cautioned a person, a student (about something)." 4 B:Un, yeah "Yeah," 5 A: Soshitara, gatto kita no, sensee ni. and then OP came NOM teacher P "And then, (that student) came up to (the teacher)." 6 B: Un, yeah "Yeah," 7 A: Sensee, sonna koto itte-ru-to, sas-areru yo tte yutta n datte. teacher such thing is saying - if stab-PASS IP QT said NOM I heard "And said.'Sensei, if you say such a thing, you will be stabbed.'" 8 B: Un, yeah "Yeah," In this example too, ne occurs in preliminary information in the introduction of a new topic (i.e., 'one teacher cautioned a student in Kyushuu') which leads to the climax of the story (i.e., 'the student threatened the teacher'). Notice that in the examples above, this type of ne-attached utterances introduce the focal information or further supplementary information to the stories accompanied by conjunctions or conjunction-like expressions, which are "de" ('and') in Example 6 (Lines 4 and 10), "dakara" ('so') in Example 7 (Line 7) and "soshitara" ('and then') in 85 Example 8 (Line 5). These examples reveal that this type of ne-attached utterances provide supplemental or subordinate information for the discourse. Just like ne, yone often follows the n(o) (da/desu) form to present new information in the course of recounting a story. However, yone differs from ne in that it primarily occurs in the focal rather than the subordinate information of a story, as seen in the following example: (9) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 3, B: NJS 10 Context: A says that he is planning to go to Whistler to visit his friend who is staying there with a Canadian family. —> 1 A: Mae itta toki mo osewaninachatta n da yonee. before went when also was took care of NOM BE IP "When I went (there) before too, (they) took care of me." 2 B: A, soo. Hee. oh so uh-huh "Oh, really. Uh-huh." 3 A: Datte, kyaku nanoni, ichiban meshi kutteta kara nee. because guest even though most dinner was eating since IP "Because, even though (I was) a guest, I ate the most food during dinner." In this example, yone appeared in the utterance that conveys focal information (i.e., 'I was taken care of by them') followed by supplemental, explanatory information (i.e., 'because I was the one who ate the most dinner'). Another example of yone following the nominalization form is given below: (10) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 25, B: NJS 19, C: NJS 28 Context: After the participants finish with self-introductions, A introduces a new topic. 1 A: Shitara saa, minna atashi igai, gakusee na n da yonee. then IP everyone I except for student BE NOM BE IP 'Then, except for me, everyone (here) is a student, right?" --> 2 B: Watashi, gakusee demo nai n desu yone I student or something NEG NOM BE IP "I'm not a student" 86 3 C: Moo, sotsugyoosareta n desu ka ? already graduated NOM BE Q " Have you already graduated?" 4 B: [Tan-i wa totta-shi. credits TOP took and "I have received some credits (already)." In this example, yone appears again in the focal information in B's utterances (i.e., 'I'm not even a student'). This information is again followed by an explanation (i.e., 'since I have received some credits already'). I consider that this difference between the environments of ne and yone originates from the characteristics of yo, which serves to point to and then stress the speaker's utterances. The data obtained further exhibited the following pattern: yone often appeared in utterances of opposition, correction and denial. Examples 11 and 12 below show the use of yone in utterances of opposition or denial: (11) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 15, B: NJS 31, C: NJS 20 Context: B and C complain that young Japanese females are only given routine chores in work places. A, who did not feel any inequity when working in Japan, opposes B and C. 1 A: Iyaa, sonna koto nai yo. no such thing NEG IP "No, that's not the case." 2 Demo, watashi no mawari toka, sonna koto nai yo, (?) nanka. but I LK environment such as such thing NEG IP FI "But the environments I was in were different from such cases (?)." 3 B: Honto ? really "Really?" 4 A: Un. yeah "Yeah." 87 --> 5 C: Demo, shokugyoo ni mo yoru to omou n da yonee. but occupations P also depend QT think NOM BE IP "But I think it also depends on the occupation." In this example, yone is used in the utterance of "opposition" (Line 5). The example below demonstrates the use of yone for "corrections": (12) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 21, B: NJS 5 Context: A is an ESL student. B is an exchange student who is studying at UBC for one year. A is interested in that program, and asking questions about it of B. 1 A: Jaa, moshi motomoto gakkoo de, kooyuu puroguramu ga aru tte shitte-te, then if originally school P like this program SUB exist QT know "Then, if (you) already knew that your school had this kind of program," 2 B: Hai, yes "Yes," 3 A.De, kanada de tor-eru tan-i o shitte-tara, then Canada P take-can credits DO knew - if "Then, if (you) knew the credits (you) could take in Canada," 4 B: Hai, yes "Yes," 5 A: Hoka no tan-i o saisho ni totteoite, kocchi de other LK credits DO beginning P take in advance here P "(You could) first take other credits (in Japan), then, here -" 6 B: =A::, oh "Oh," 7 A: Tan-i o totte Sorekara tte yuu huuni, credits DO take and then QT say like "Take credits, and then," 8 B: [Soo desu ne, kedo:, so BE IP though "It is so, but," 88 --> 9 So: umaku ika-nai n desu yone. so well go-NEG NOM BE IP "Things don't go that well." In this example, B corrects A's supposition concerning the exchange program in which B participates. The reason for the preference of yone to ne in delivering utterances of opposition, correction and denial lies in its dual function: (1) foregrounding of the information, which is a characteristic of yo; and (2) indicating the speaker's attentiveness to the addressee's feelings, which is characteristic of ne. In other words, yone enables the speaker to make assertions while indicating enryo ('reservedness'), omoiyari ('empathy') and wakimae ('discernment.').7 It is supposed that this use of yone to foreground both information and interaction simultaneously led the NJSs to choose yone over ne when they implied FTAs such as denial and correction. Therefore, I identify the use of both ne and yone during recounting a story as a PPS to indicate that the speaker recognizes the addressee not as a passive hearer but as an active cooperator in the conversation. Some observation should be made on the nominalization form no desu with which ne and yone cooccur. Many of the studies on the nominalization form n(o) (da/desu) characterize the primary function of this form as the providing of some explanatory information (e.g., Kuno, 1973; McGloin, 1980; Tanomura, 1990; Saji, 1991). Martin (1975) further states that the use of no da shows some sort of reservations as in "Kare wa koo iu ndaga ..." ('This is what he says, but. . .') and in "Iki-tai n desu (ga ...)" (T want to go, you see" (but.. dare I? May I? Can I?)'). On the other hand, McGloin (1990) explains that "the function of no desu is to present information which is known only to the speaker or the hearer, as if it were shared information" (p.34-5) thus TBased on Ide's (1989) definition of wakimae as "the speaker's use of polite expressions to social conventions rather than interactional strategy" (p.223), Maynard (1995) interprets wakimae as "to behave according to sets of social norms of appropriate behavior people have to observe in order to be considered a respected member of society" (p.472). For instance, wakimae is involved when the speaker assesses the extent to which he or she can be assertive to the addressee, based on the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee. 89 no desu has "the effect of emphasizing particular information by claiming an appearance of shared knowledge with the hearer, thereby creating rapport or involving the hearer in the conversation or the speaker's point of view" (p.35). From the above descriptions of the functions of no da/desu as implying reservedness and shared information, we find that this form shares its characteristic with ne and yone. It is thus understandable that this nominalization form often functions in combination with ne and yone for the same goal of interaction: the unification of recognition between the speaker and addressee. Our data showed that ne tended to appear with subordinate information and yone with the focal information of a story. The choice between ne and yone seems to be influenced also by the sentential forms to which these particles attach, as well as by their position in the discourse. The conversation data lacked combinations of n da and ne (nominalization form+plain copula form) in the presentation of new information, although ne cooccured with n desu (nominalization form+polite copula form).8 This suggests incompatibility of ne with n da. For instance, the replacement of yone with ne in Example 9 is impossible. The created utterance, " Osewaninachatta n da ne," does not function as a presentation of new information but is understood as a request for agreement which confirms that somebody other than the speaker was taken care of. In contrast, ne can be used instead of yone in Example 10, producing the utterance: "Watashi gakusee demo nai n desu ne." But this particle could not be used if da were used in place of desu. Thus, the sentence "Watashi gakusee demo nai n da ne" does not make sense.9 The same argument applies to Example 11. Another piece of evidence for the incompatibility of ne SThis means that if the intended speech act is not the presentation of new information (e.g., request for agreement), ne can coocur with n da. 9Being structurally similar to the above example: "Osewa ni nachatta n da ne," this utterance also solicits the addressee's agreement. However, a contradiction arises in this example since the speaker asks for confirmation concerning the information she knows best (Notice the subject "I."). 90 with da in the presentation of new information is that ne can cooccur with n(o), a variant of n(o) (da/desu) which lacks da McGloin (1990) characterizes da as a form which represents assertiveness, stating that "the use of a copula da is strongly assertive and adds a strongly imposing tone" (p.34), and is thus "generally avoided in women's speech." Similarly, Maynard (1995) describes da is "the blunt form" (p.473) avoided by female speakers. These observations explain why yone, which contains yo, the particle of assertion, has no problem cooccurring with da, unlike ne.10 In summary, the NJSs used yo in approximately 50% of Presentation of New Information. The data showed that yo was used for positive politeness strategies such as encouraging as well as in face-threatening acts. The use of ne instead of yo in this speech act amounted to as much as 40% of Presentation of New Information. This type of ne was then identified as a politeness strategy and a Japanese communicative style. These we-attached utterances of new information were further categorized into two groups according to their structures. The first type did not contain the nominalization form n(o) (da/desu) and typically appeared in answers, comments and expressions of reflection. The second type contained n(o) (da/desu) and appeared during the recounting of a story. Yone also had the same usage as ne. However, a difference was found in that ne tended to appear in utterances of subordinate information while yone occurred in focal information to a discourse. Finally, I noted the incompatibility of da, the copula of assertion, with ne. 4.2.2 Presentation of New Information by JLL Table 8 shows that, as in the NJS data, the JLL data showed that yo tended to cooccur with new information and yone with old information (i.e., Request for Agreement, Demonstration of 10Martin (1975) remarks that da is used as "an interjectional particle, interpolated by certain male speakers to give an overbearing, preachy tone" (p.915). These characterizations of da as a male form, however, do not apply to the current speech style of native Japanese speakers: females also use da, especially in informal speech and monologues. 91 Solicited Agreement and Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement). However, unlike the NJS data, the use of ne was observed slightly more often in Presentation of New Information (36.1%) than in Demonstration of Unsolicited Agreement (32.1%) which conveys old information. Also, Table 9 reveals that as much as 61.1% of all new information utterances were presented with ne in the JLL speech while NJSs used it only for 40% of new information utterances. In contrast, the proportion of yo used by the JLLs in Presentation of New Information was 33%, while the NJS counterpart was 50%. These results indicate that JLLs were much more dependant on ne in presenting new information than were NJSs. However, this does not necessarily mean that the JLLs employed ne more frequently than NJSs for the purpose of positive politeness strategies. The JLL conversational data showed misuses of ne, or the uses of ne in an inappropriate context (three different participants misused ne). The following examples show such cases in which the use of ne is questionable. In Example 13, a JLL used ne in "opposition": (13) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 16, B: JLL 3, C: NJS 10, D: NJS 3 Context: Having found that B studied at a Japanese high school for one year, the NJS participants begin asking about his high school life in Japan. 1 A: Eego no jugyoo toka mo deta no ? English LK class such as also attended NOM "Did you also attend English classes?" 2 B: Soo. Demo, sore wa omoshiroi. (A, B, C & D: LAUGH) so but that TOP interesting "Yeah. But, it is interesting." 3 C: Omoshiroi yonee. Sugoi kantan desho. interesting IP very easy TAG "It (should be) interesting. It is very easy, isn't it?" —> 4 B: Demo:, kantan janai ne. but easy NEG IP "But it is not easy." 92 5 C: Nande ? why "Why?" 6 D: A, nihongo ni yakus-anakuchaikenai kara ? oh Japanese P translate - have to since "Oh, is it because (you) have to translate (English) into Japanese?" 7 B: Soo. Sore to, ano, sensee wa, eego ga anmari yoku-nai (LAUGH) desu kara. so that and FI teacher TOP English SUB much good-NEG BE since "Yeah. And also, because the teacher's English is not so good." In this example, the JLL used ne instead of yo in opposing or correcting (Line 4). As a result, his utterance produced an impression of detachment and impoliteness. Kamio (1990) analyzes this type of ne with the example "Iya, ore wa ikanai ne." ('No, I won't go.') uttered in response to an invitation "Doo, isshoni ikanai?" ('Well, don't you want to come with me?'). Kamio explains that this utterance becomes a strong denial since the use of ne causes the impression that the speaker strongly requests the addressee's "co-responding attitude," and thus forces him or her to accept the speaker's information. As an utterance which conveys new information ('But it's not easy.'), if yo is used instead of ne (Kantan ja nai yo_.), the utterance sounds natural. Or he should use the other structures: the attachment of n da+yone (Kantan ja nai n da yone.) and the attachment of n desu+yone/ne (Kantan ja nai n desu yone/ne.).n N da+ne is unlikely because of the incompatibility of ne with da (*Kantan ja nai n da ne.). The next example shows another use of ne by a JLL when presenting new information in the form of "answer": (14) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 6, B: JLL 2 Context: The participants move to a new topic: 'The most shocking event that happened to you." A starts the conversation. xlNo da+yone and no_ desu+yone or ne are unlikely to attach to the present utterance: "Kantan ja nai^ This is probably because the formality level of no does not match that of ja in this utterance since ja is the informal version of de wa. 93 1 A: Shokku datta koto desu ka ? shocking was thing BE Q "Shocking events?" 2 Un, uchi no obaachan ga, ano, shinjatta koto, yeah home LK grandma SUB FI died thing "Yeah, that my grandma died," 3 Haha- hahaoya no okaasan ga, mother mother LK mother SUB "Mother- Mother's mother," 4 Ano, shindeshimatta koto desu ne ? FI died thing BE IP "Uh, died." 5 Kyonen, choodo ichinen, deshita kedo, last year exactly one year was though "Last year, (it) was just one year (ago)," 6 Shokku deshita ne. shock was IP "It was a shock." 7 B: Onnajikoto de, jaa, same thing P FI "(My case) is the same, well," --> 8 Nihon no, obaachan, nakunarimashita nee, yappari. Japan LK grandma passed away IP as expected "Similarly, my grandma in Japan passed away." As in Example 13, ne in this example requires n desu, thus producing the utterance "Obaachan nakunatta n desu ne." If the speaker intends to put more stress on this information, yone would be more effective than ne (Obaachan nakunatta n desu yone.). Two examples show that when the speaker's intention is to present new information during recounting a story, either ne or yone needs to accompany n(o) (da/desu). Otherwise, the utterance gives rise to the impression that the speaker is requesting or showing agreement. In this sense, the above examples reveal the inappropriate use of n(o) (da/desu) as well as that of ne, suggesting that the use of ne and yone in the presentation of new information is conditioned by the proper use of the nominalization form. 94 At this point, the issue of the appropriate use of yo, ne and yone becomes complicated, involving the relationships of these interactional particles with the preceding modal elements. One question arises concerning the research into JLL acquisition of these particles: What is the real problem Japanese language learners need to handle? Is it the use of the interactional particles, their preceding element n(o) (da/desu), or both? This is also a problem for the study of these interactional particles, revealing that it is deficient to analyze these interactional particles without taking into account their linguistic environment, especially their immediately preceding elements. The unacceptable Example 11a in Chapter Two, can be explained in the same line. The acceptability of the use of ne depends on the existence of the form n desu as observed below. For comparison, I add the yone-attached sentences: (15) (Reproduced from Example 11 in Chapter Two) Watashi atama ga itai la. 0 I head SUB aching lb. * ne "I have a headache." lc. * yone Id.* nda ne le. n da yone If. n desu ne Ig. n desu yone Since the information T have a headache' is new to the addressee, when the speaker presents this information with ne or yone, he or she needs to use the nominalization form (15e, 15f and 15g). However, n da cannot be used because of its incompatibility with ne (15d). This suggests that analysis of the interactional particles cannot be conducted in isolation but should take their linguistic contexts such as their preceding modal element, n(o) (da/desu) into consideration. While the JLLs had difficulty in handling the use of ne and yone in proper combination with the n(o) (da/desu) form, they were able to use ne correctly in accomplishing the other types of new information presentation, including answering, commenting and expressing reflections, all of which do not involve the use of n(o) (da/desu). The following examples show such appropriate 95 uses of ne by two JLL participants: (16) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 30, B: JLL 10 Context: The participants are talking about travel. 1 A: Dokka iki-tai toko arimasu ka. anywhere go-want to place there are Q "Are there any places you want to go to?" —> 2 B: Baritoo ni iki-tai desu ne. Bali Island P go-want to BE IP "I'd like to go to Bali Island." In this example, B used ne correctly in presenting new information as an "answer" to A's question. (17) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 31, B: JLL 14 Context: A is telling a story about her Japanese friend who said that she felt discrimination against the Japanese when she was staying in a countryside area in America. 1 A: Tokai wa chigau to omou kedo, big city wa chigau to omou kedo. urban city TOP different QT think though big city TOP different QT think though "But I think (in) urban cities, (the situation) is different, (in) big cities, (the situation) is different." 2 B: Watashi wa moo, ano, demo, chicchai machi ni sodatta dakara, I TOP FI FI but small town P grew up because "Because I grew up in a small town," 3 A: Un, yeah "Uh-huh," --> 4 B: Sooyuu kanji wa nai, desu ne. such feeling TOP NEG BE IP "I haven't had such a feeling (that I was discriminated against)." 5 A: N::, so-kka. hum so - Q "Hum, I see." 96 6 B: Ima wa jiyuu da to (LAUGH) omou kara. now TOP free BE QT think since "Since I think (we are) free now." In this example, B used ne in presenting a "comment," telling of her personal experience (Line 4) which was new information to her addressee. Yone used in correct combination with n(o) (da/desu) occurred only twice in the speech of the same Japanese-Canadian participant, as observed in Example 18: (18) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: JLL 11, B: NJS 27, C: NJS 19 Context: A is talking about her frustrating experiences as a Japanese-Canadian who can speak Japanese relatively fluendy but not perfectly. 1 A: Tatoeba ne, michi ni mayotte, for example IP street P being lost "For example, (a person) is lost," 2 Kore wa doko ni an no ka naa toka kik-areru janai ? this TOP where P there is NOM Q IP such as ask-PASS TAG "(You are) asked (by that stranger) where this is or something like that, O.K.?" 3 Sooyuu toki, atashi kotae-rare-nai-shi, such when I answer-can-NEG-and "In such occasions, I can't answer, and," 4 De, yappari nihongo mo hanas-eru kara, then as expected Japanese too speak-can since 'Then, since I can speak Japanese after all," 5 Kedo nihongo hanashidasu to, yappari, kono hito nanka, nihongo okashii ne, but Japanese start speaking if as expected this person FI Japanese strange IP "But, once (I) start speaking in Japanese, (that person) says 'This person speaks strange Japanese'" --> 6 Toka nanka i-wareru no yone. such as something say-PASS NOM IP "Or something like that" 7 B & C: Aa. uh-huh "Uh-huh." 97 In this example, the JLL recounts her past experience. In this story-telling, she appropriately employed the structure of the nominalization form+yone. The same type of ne used with n(o) (da/desu) in the presentation of new information was completely absent in the JLL conversation data. The JLL conversations indicated that the JLLs had few problems presenting new information with ne in answers, comments and reflections. However, they had much difficulty in using ne and yone appropriately together with the nominalization form, n(o) (da/desu). As a result, the JLL data showed very few occurrences of ne and yone that follow n(o) (da/desu). This result contrasts with the NJS data in which this type of ne and yone occurred recurrently. 4.3 Request for Agreement 4.3.1 Request for Agreement by NJS In the current conversational data, the speech act of Request for Agreement was accompanied in most cases by yone. Table 3 reveals that this speech act was also the primary function of yone in the NJS data (41.4%) and the second primary function in the NJS+JLL data (39.7%). Furthermore, Table 4 indicates that yone accompanied approximately 70% of the utterances of Request for Agreement. I assume that the NJSs' preference of yone over ne for achieving this speech act lies in the high subjectivity this form reveals and the consequent effect of personalizing discourse, or the indication of the speaker's uncertainty about the information. Request for Agreement is a FTA, something more risky than demonstrating agreement in terms of the possibility of offending the addressee since this speech act requires the addressee's positive cooperation with the speaker. It is reasonable that for this speech act, many NJSs resorted to yone, the form which adds utterances to the tone of uncertainty. Examples of yone used in Request for Agreement are as follows: 98 (19) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 18, B: NJS 26 Context: Preceding to this part, B told the other participants that she was in Calgary before she came to Vancouver. 1 A: E ? yokatta. uh was good "Uh, was (it) good?" 2 Karugarii tte donna kanji! Calgary QT how like "What's Calgary like?" --> 3 E ? samui n da yone ? uh cold NOM BE IP "Uh, it's cold, isn't it?" 4 B: A, huyu wa ne. oh winter TOP IP "Oh, in the winter, yes." A uses yone here to elicit the addressee's agreement concerning the information she knows of but is not sure about. Similarly, the speaker in the next example attempts to obtain agreement from other members regarding her opinion: (20) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 29, B: NJS 18, C: NJS 26 Context: The participants, all of whom have had the experience of staying with Canadian families, are complaining about the food provided by their Canadian host families. 1 A: Dakara yappari, kodomo no tabe-tai mono ni nam deshoo ? therefore as expected children LK eat-wantto thing P become TAG "So, as expected, (such a dinner) is what the children (of the host family) want to eat." 2 B: N::, demo, sonna n ja, yappari yatteik-e-nai. hum but such NOM TOP as expected get along with-can-NEG "Well, but, (we) can't accept such approaches." --> 3 Kocchi wa nanka yappari, yuushoku tte, nanka tokubetsu da yone! nihonjin tte. this side TOP FI as expected supper QT FI special BE IP Japanese QT "For us, for the Japanese, supper is special, isn't it?" 4 C: Nihonjin wa nee. Japanese TOP IP "For the Japanese, (yes)." 99 This example demonstrates that requesting agreement is a FTA. Notice the use of hesitation words such as "E?" ('uh') in Example 19 and "nanka" ('well') in Example 20, as well as prosodic features such as the decreasing speed of speech, the lowering volume of the voice and rising intonation.12 Notice that the replacement of yone with ne in the above examples produces an awkward and mismatched impression. This is because the produced utterances exhibit a conflict between the tone of the sentence as a whole and that of the particle ne. In other words, while the hesitation words and other prosodic features demonstrates the speaker's uncertainty about the information, the accompanying particle ne does not express such uncertainty to balance the tone of that utterance. For the same reason, the replacement of ne with yone in the ne-attached utterances also generates awkwardness. The following example demonstrates this point: (21) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 2, B: NJS 1, C: NJS 9 Context: A is describing his background such as what he is studying at UBC. Prior to this conversation session, he had a talk with one of the JLL participants. C saw that scene. 1 A: Ima wa, sono ore wa, jinshukankee, tte yuu no o yatteru n desu yo. now TOP that I TOP racial relations QT say LK DO doing NOM BE IP "I'm now studying what is called multiculturalism." 2 B: A, sooshare, soosharu-oh sociale- social-"Oh, (it's) sociale- social-" 3 A: Multiculturalism na n desu kedo ne. multiculturalism BE NOM BE though IP "It's called multiculturalism." 4 C: A, dakara, sakki, nikkee no ano hito, oh therefore a while ago Japanese-descent LK that person "Oh, that's why a while ago, with that Japanese-Canadian," 12"_?" with a rising intonation is an interjection usually uttered if the speaker is surprised about something (e.g., "E, honto?" ('Oh, really?')) This form is sometimes observed at the beginning of utterances of confirmation as in Example 19. This type of "e" produces an impression of reduced confidence in the information. I assume that this type of ne is a sort of hesitation word and translated it as "uh" here for this reason. 100 5 A: Un, yeah "Yeah," —> 6 C Kyoomi ga aru n desu ne. interest SUB there is NOM BE IP "You showed interest." 7 A: Sono hen ga. that area SUB "(I'm interested in) that sort of thing." In this example, based on what he had heard (i.e., that A studies multiculturalism) and what he saw (i.e., a scene in which A and the JLL participant was conversing), C concludes that A had an interest in that JLL because of her ethnic background. C reaffirms his inference with the use of ne (Line 6). Similarly, in the example below, based on the obtained information, the speaker asks for the addressee's agreement with the use of ne: (22) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 1, B: NJS 2 Context: B is telling about his personal background, including what he was doing in Japan and what he is doing now in Canada 1 A: E, ima, nansai desu ka ? tokorode. uh now what age BE Q by the way "Uh, by the way, how old are you?" 2 B: Nijuuyon desu. Twenty four BE "(I'm) twenty four." 3 A: Nijuuyon desu ka. Twenty four BE Q "(You're) twenty four. —> 4 Aa, ja, moo, sasasatto kita n desu ne. oh then FI OP came NOM BE IP "Oh, so, you went straight (into graduate school), didn't you?" 5 B: Iya, roonin shitemashita yo. no roonin was doing IP "No, I spent an extra year(s) studying for the university entrance exams." 101 A asks for the addressee's agreement to his inference (i.e., B entered graduate school immediately after finishing his B.A.), which was made based on the information he obtained (i.e., B is twenty-four). The common characteristic found in Examples 21 and 22 is that the propositions for which the speaker asks agreement (i.e., 'A has an interest in the Japanese-Canadian he was talking to' in Example 21 and 'B went straight into graduate school' in Example 22) derive from the speakers' logical thinking based on the information they received. Notice the conjunctions such as "dakara" ('so') and "ja" ('then') used in these examples. That the induced proposition was based on logical thinking suggests that the proposition can be assisted not only by the speaker but also by people in general, who follow ordinary logical thinking. In other words, since the involved proposition is based on logical thinking, the speaker is relatively sure of that proposition, and does not show uncertainty. Also, the speaker does not mark that proposition with yone as personal, because the proposition for which the speaker requests agreement should be appreciated not only by the speaker and addressee but also by people in general. This is the reason why ne is more appropriate than yone in the utterances in Examples 21 and 22. The examples above suggest that the use of ne and yone is explained in terms of personalization of discourse. With the use of yone, a speaker requests the addressee's agreement, implying, "Can you agree with this proposition, which is no more than my personal understanding/perception?," which shows the speaker's humble attitude. On the other hand, ne lacks the function of marking a proposition as something personal to the speaker. Thus ne produces the impression that the speaker requests the addressee's agreement to a general proposition; namely, the proposition that should be supported not only by the speaker but also by people in general. This is why /^attached utterances requesting agreement sometimes sound less polite than yowe-attached ones do. As well as the indication of uncertainty regarding a given piece of information, yone produces another impression: that the information is possessed exclusively by the speaker and 102 addressee. What differentiates yone from ne is the existence of yo, which indicates that the proposition is personal for the speaker, and that the speaker asks the addressee to agree with that personal proposition. The impression of the exclusive possession of information by the speaker and addressee originates in this characteristic of yone. Since yone indicates that common ground can be obtained between the speaker and the addressee but not necessarily by others, yone becomes more effective than ne in order to obtain somebody's cooperation and thus reinforce and justify the speaker's own position against others'. The example below illustrates this function of yone: (23) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 17, B: NJS 18, C: NJS 29, D: NJS 26 Context B says she has to work while she is staying in Canada. A, a Working-Holiday visitor just like A, shows sympathy with her situation. 1 A: Soo da yone, okane ga hem dake da mon nee. so BE IP money SUB decrease only BE NOM IP "Right, (we are) just running out of money." 2 B: Un. yeah "Yeah." 3 A: U::n. hum "Hum." 4 C: Hem no wa hayai desu nee, tamaru no wa osoi noni. (LAUGH) decrease NOM TOP quick BE IP accumulate NOM TOP slow though "Running out of money happens quickly, although saving money happens slowly." 5 A: U::n, honto soo da yone. yeah really so BE IP "Yeah, exacdy." 6 Hoomusutee dat-tara, kedo, gaishokushi-na-kereba, home-staying BE-if but eat out - NEG- if "But, (you're) 'home-staying,' so, if you don't eat out," —> 7 C: (Facing to D) Shimasu yone, demo. Shuumatsu toka. do IP but weekend such as "But you do eat out on weekends or other occasions, don't you?" 103 8 D: Un. yeah "Yeah." In this conversation group, A and B were already friends prior to this research, and so were C and D. In addition, A and B had commonality in that they were both Working-Holiday visitors and lived by themselves in apartments. On the other hand, C and D, as ELI students, shared the experience of staying with Canadian host families. In this conversation, C, finding a disparity between her opinion and A's, tries to elicit D's support to defend her position and thus to justify herself. C used yone for this purpose. The context of Item 8 of the fill-in-the blank test, which is reproduced in Example 24 below, exhibits this strategy. The following shows the original conversation extracted from the cartoon strip: (24) Participants: A: Grandpa, B: Father, C: Mother, D: Grandma, and Kobo (a child) Context In the living room, A, B, C and D are sitting at a table, while the TV is on. C turns the channel to a drama A tells her to change the channel to a news program, but C refuses. They hold a majority vote. Being even, A and C go to awaken Kobo, who is sleeping in the next room, and they attempt to make Kobo side in with them. 1 A: Nyuusu ga mi-tai hito. news SUB watch-want to person 'The people who want to watch the news program?" 2 B: Had. yes "Yes." 3 C: Dorama ga mi-tai hito. drama SUB watch-want to person 'The people who want to watch the drama?" 4 D: Had. yes "Yes." 104 —>5 C: (Facing Kobo) Kobo-chan wa dorama yone !13 Kobo TOP drama IP "Kobo, you're for Drama, aren't you?" 6 A: (Facing Kobo) Nyuusu daroo ! news TAG "News, right?" In this setting, the goal of both A and C is to obtain agreement with their own positions from Kobo, who has the power to choose the channel. A tries to make Kobo share the common ground A and B have, putting C and D on the other side. At the same time, C aims to draw Kobo to her and B's side, opposing to C and D. The use of yone is very useful for C to conduct the speech act of requesting agreement since with the use of yone, she can elicit the addressee's (=Kobo's) agreement by excluding the others (A and B). The next chapter presents the result of this question. The discussions above revealed that the subjectivity or personality yone projects in utterances consequently generates the impression of uncertainty and exclusive possession of information by the speaker and the addressee. I attributed these effects to the nature of yo, which comprises yone. Because of yo, yone engenders still another effect: the foregrounding of the information to which the speaker asks the addressee's agreement. In other words, the use of yone indicates that the speaker's desire to elicit the addressee's agreement is stronger than when he or she employs ne. For this reason, NJSs sometimes repeated yone-attached utterances that requested agreement when they could not obtain an immediate response or agreement. This is the phenomenon which is lacking in the ne-attached utterances. The following is an example of this: (25) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 2, B: NJS 1, C: JLL 21 Context Discovering that C is being quiet, A and B began talking to her. Remembering what C said before, A confirms for C her ability to speak French. 13In the question sheet, yone in Line 5 was changed into a blank and the participants were asked to fill in the blank with an interactional particle they would choose. 105 —> 1 A: Huransugo, sha.be- shaber-eru n desu yone. French spea- speak-can NOM BE IP "You can spea- speak French, can't you?" 2 Huransugo. v French "French." 3 Hanas-eru. speak-can "(You are) able to speak (it)." 4 Hanas-emasu yone. speak - can IP "You can speak (French), right?" 5 Sore wa, (B: LAUGH) kokode benkyooshita n desu ka. that TOP here studied NOM BE Q "Did you study that here?" 6 B: (LAUGH) Mensetsu mitai desu nee. (A: LAUGH) interview seem BE IP "(This) looks like an interview." 7 C: (LAUGH) Haha wa, huransu, huransujin desu. mother TOP France French BE "My mother is French." Prior to this conversation, C mentioned that she could speak French. A recalls that and confirms that information. However, C did not provide any responses to A's request for agreement (Line 1), probably because she could not understand what he had said. A then repeats the question to obtain the information he had anticipated, that C is able to speak French (Lines 2, 3 and 4), since this information is important enough to be the premise for his next question, 'Did you study that language here?' (Line 5). Interestingly, after observing the interaction of A and C, B described this scene as interview. This comment also suggests that B perceives that A is foregrounding the information for which he asks C's agreement since the main goal of an "interview" is to elicit information from an interviewee rather than to promote interaction. The above discussions pointed out three pragmatic effects of yone in Japanese discourse: (1) to indicate the speaker's uncertainty about information, (2) to imply the exclusive possession of 106 information by the speaker and addressee, and (3) to foreground the information to which the speaker requests the addressee's agreement. Among these three possibilities, the first one seems especially significant in terms of Japanese discourse, as the expression of uncertainty concerning the involved information sometimes indicates politeness. In other words, the indication of uncertainty satisfies both the positive and negative face wants of the addressee as follows: (1) the speaker satisfies the addressee's "positive face want," or the desire to be appreciated or approved, by lowering confidence in the involved information and yielding himself or herself to the addressee's knowledge; and (2) the speaker fulfills the addressee's "negative face want," or the desire not to be intruded upon, by decreasing the possibility that the addressee's knowledge will be challenged. Furthermore, this revelation of uncertainty due to politeness concurs with Japanese communicative styles such as showing enryo ('reservedness'), omoiyari ('empathy'), wakimae ('discernment') and "preference for avoiding confrontation" (Cook 1992: 526). Therefore, I assume that the NJSs' high tendency for employing yone to request agreement is due to the pragmatic factor in Japanese politeness and communicative styles. 4.3.2 Request for Agreement by JLL As in the NJS data, Request for Solicited Agreement was the primary function of yone in the JLL speech (Table 13). However, the proportion of yone and ne the JLLs used for this speech act was different from that of the NJSs'. By comparing Tables 4 and 9, it is found that the JLLs used yone and ne with a proportion of 6:4, while the NJSs used them with the approximate proportion of 7:3. This result indicates that the JLLs were more dependent on ne when requesting agreement as well as when presenting new information. Below is an example of yone a JLL used appropriately and effectively: (26) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 30, B: JLL 10, C: NJS 24 Context: The participants are talking about travel. 107 1 A: Kanada no hoka, kanada no dokka itta koto arimasu ka. Canada LK others Canada LK somewhere went experience there are (polite) Q "Have you ever been to some other places in Canada?" 2 B: Banhu ni itta n desu kedo, Banff P went NOM BE (polite) though "I went to Banff," 3 A: Aa, doo deshita ka ? oh how was (polite) Q "Oh, how was it?" 4 B: Sugoi desu nee, nanka moo, zentaitekini jibun ga sugoku chiisai sonzai ni great BE (polite) IP FI FI as a whole self SUB very small existence P "It was great; (I felt as if) I was a tiny entity," 5 A: [Shizen, nature "Nature," 6 B: =Nee, kakom-arechatte, (LAUGH) IP surround-PASS "Yeah, being surrounded," 7 A: =Aa, uh-huh "Uh-huh," 8 Demo nidoto iki-taku-nai. but twice go-want to-NEG (plain) "But, I don't want to go there any more." 9 A: Nande ? why "Why (not)?" 10 C: Nande ? Tool why far (plain) "Why (not)? (Is it) far?" 11 B: Ikkai ike-ba juubun. once go-if enough "One visit is enough." 12 A: Aa, nanimo nai. uh-huh anything NEG (plain) "Uh-huh. There is nothing (there)." 108 --> 13 B: Demo, koronbia aisufiirudo tte arimasu yone. but Columbia Icefield QT there are (polite) IP "But there is (a place called) the Columbia Icefields, right?" 14 C: = Un, un, un, yeah yeah yeah "Yeah, yeah, yeah," 15 B: Suggoi kiree deshita. very beautiful was (polite) "It was very beautiful." 16 A: He::. hum "Hum." This JLL participant is a Japanese-Canadian, whose Japanese language ability is rather high, as observed in her speech. For example, the use of keigo ('honorifics') is well controlled in her speech. So is the use of ne. The use of yone in this example is interesting for a pragmatic reason. Since she is a Canadian, she is assumed to be more familiar with the geography of this country than her conversation partners A and C, who are visitors from Japan. Thus, it is not uncertainty concerning the information, 'there is a place called the Columbia Icefields,' that motivated her to choose yone. Rather, the this use of yone is a politeness strategy to satisfy her addressee's negative face want made by lowering her confidence in the information. Although yone was used appropriately in the example above, such an appropriate use of yone in Request for Agreement was scarce in the present JLL data. Moreover, the JLL data exhibited inappropriate uses of yone. In the example below, another JLL employed yone in a request for agreement. However, ne is more suitable this time than yone. (27) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 20, B: NJS 31, C: JLL 14 Context: A and B, the NJSs, are comparing Canada and the U.S. as the places to live, by discussing issues such as racism and the lives of immigrants. 109 1 A: N::, maa, demo, nanka am kamoshirenai kedo, FI FI but something there is may though "Well, although (some bad points) may exist, 2 Amerika yori wa ii no ka naa. America than TOP good NOM Q IP "I wonder if (Canada is) better than America." 3 B: Ii to omou yo. good QT think IP "I think (Canada is) better." 4 Zenzen chigau mon, sorya:. totally different NOM it is "It's totally different (from America)." 5 A: E::, soo ? oh so "Oh, is it?" 6 Wakan-nai. Sono hito ni kiita dake de, watashi ga itta wake janai kedo, know-NEG that person P heard only P I SUB said case NEG though "I don't know. I just heard this from that person, and it's not that I went there," 7 A: Jissaini ne, taikenshitemi-nai to, wakan-nai actually IP experience - NEG if know-NEG "Unless you actually experience it, you don't know" 8 B: =Wakan-nai kedo ne. know-NEG though IP "You never know, though." 9 A: -Wakan-nai desu yone. know-NEG BE IP "You never know." 10 C: Aa, nanka, Los Angeles ga ichiban, oh FI Los Angeles SUB number one "Oh, Los Angeles seems to be most -" 11 B: Un, yeah "Yeah," —>12 C: Chotto kowai mitai da yone. a little scary seem BE IP "Scary, isn't it?" 110 13 A:Kowaitte no wa, nani ga kowai no! scary QT NOM TOP what SUB scary NOM "What do you mean by 'scary'?" None of the participants in this conversation group was particularly familiar with the situation in Los Angeles. In addition, any frightening news was not heard when this research was being conducted. Under these conditions, C's use of yone sounded rather abrupt. As a result, her utterance elicited A's response, "Kowai tte no wa, nani ga kowai no?" ("What do you mean by 'scary'?"), indicating that B's understanding does not accord with A's. The use of ne can instead reduce this impression of abruptness and awkwardness, although the sense of abruptness still remains. This example implies that the proposition to which the speaker asks the addressee's agreement with yone should be close enough to the addressee's so that he or she can feel personally connected with that proposition. In this sense, while the use of both yone and ne are based on the establishment of "common ground" between the speaker and addressee, as discussed in Chapter Two, it seems that yone requires more common ground than ne does. The following example shows a use of ne by still another JLL participant in requesting agreement. Contrary to Example 27, ne should be replaced by yone in this case: (28) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: JLL 9, B: NJS 8, C: NJS 6 Context: The participants are talking about shocking events in their lives. A, a Chinese-Canadian, describes the time when he first came to Canada 1 A: A::n, koko ni kita toki wa, hajimete kanada ni kita toki, FI here P came when TOP first Canada P came when "Uh, when I came here, when I came to Canada for the first time," 2 Ano, kanada, kanadajin wa, ano, jibun no kodomo o homesugiru koto, FI Canada Canadians TOP FI self LK children DO compliment too much thing "Uh, that Canada, the Canadians compliment their own children too much," 3 B: =N:, hum "Hum," Ill 4 C: E, kikoemas-en-desita. Moo ichido. oh can-hear-NEG-past more once "Oh, I missed (what you said). Once again. " 5 A: Jibun no kodomo o homesugiru. self LK children DO compliment too much "(They) compliment their own children too much." 6 C: Homesugiru. compliment too much "Compliment too much. 7 Kanadajin ga desu kal Canadians SUB BE Q (You mean) Canadians?" 8 A: Hai. Ano, hutsuu, ano, nihonjin to chuugokujin wa amari, yes FI usually FI Japanese and Chinese TOP much —> 9 Ano, ano, keesonsuru [sic] neM FI FI show modesty IP "Yes. Uh, uh, usually, the Japanese and the Chinese show modesty, right? " 10 B: Un. yeah "Yeah." In this case, the use of yone seems more suitable than ne, because of its effects in indicating the speaker's uncertainty about the information and the exclusive possession of information by the speaker and addressee. Examining this speech, it is found that A is not very confident in his argument from the frequent use of the hesitation word "ano" ('well'), the decreasing speed of speech, and the lowering volume of voice. As we discussed with Examples 19 and 20 in Section 4.3.1, the reason this ne sounds awkward lies in conflict between the uncertainty sensed from A's entire speech and the tone of ne, which does not show such uncertainty. Also, notice the content of this discourse: A, a Chinese-Canadian, tries to associate himself with the other two Japanese participants, or he attempts to include the Japanese within his (Chinese) group, excluding Canadians in order to reinforce his proposition. To achieve this goal, he needs cooperation from 14"Keesonsuru" in Line 9 is considered to be a the mispronunciation of kensonsuru. 112 the other two Japanese people. This situation resembles Example 24, in which yone works more effectively than ne to elicit the addressee's agreement and support. I speculate that the JLLs' infrequent and inappropriate uses of yone in requesting agreement are due to their lack of or incomplete comprehension of this form, just as in the case of ne and yone used with the nominalization form. Chapter Five further analyzes this point. 4.4 Demonstration of Solicited Agreement 4.4.1 Demonstration of Solicited Agreement by NJS The NJSs performed Demonstration of Solicited Agreement in most cases with ne both in NJS-only and NJS+JLL conversations. However, one difference was found in the distribution of the three particles used for this speech act between the two types of conversations. In the NJS-only conversations, 56.3% of Demonstration of Solicited Agreement was accompanied by ne, and the percentage increased up to 80% in NJS+JLL conversations (See Table 4). I speculate that increased uses of ne in NJS+JLL conversations was caused by the NJSs' attempt to establish the common ground with JLLs, anticipating their background differences. In contrast, the fewer uses of ne in the NJS-only conversation is probably due to the greater common ground the interlocutors already shared as native Japanese people. In this sense, this frequent use of ne by NJSs in NJS+JLL conversations might be characterized as "foreigner talk" caused by the fact that the addressee is a non-native speaker. Ellis (1994) lists three main functions of foreigner talk: (1) "to promote communication, (2) to signal, implicitly or explicitly, speakers' attitudes towards their interlocutors, and (3) to teach the target language implicitly" (p.264). He elaborates on (2), stating that it is a special kind of affective bond that foreigner talk can create between native- and non-native speakers. This observation explains why NJS+JLL conversations showed more frequent occurrences of ne, an interactional particle of "common ground" in demonstrating agreement. Below is an example of this type of ne which a NJS used in response to a JLL's utterance: 113 (29) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 25, B: JLL 8 Context Participants are talking about mah-jongg in Japan, Taiwan and Hong-Kong. 1 A: Kake wa sum no ? betting TOP do NOM "(Do you) bet?" 2 B: Un, mochiron. (LAUGH) yes of course "Yes, of course." 3 A: Demo, sore wa sa:, but that TOP IP "But, that (is)" 4 Are, irigorii [sic] janai no ? uh illegal TAG NOM "Uh, illegal, isn't it?" 5 lhan janai no ? violation TAG NOM "Isn't it law violation?" 6 B: Iya, wakar-anai. no know-NEG "No, I don't know." 7 Watashi ga maajan kake-te-nai. I SUB mah-jongg betting NEG "I'm not betting with mah-jongg." 8 Demo ne, moshi kaketa, ii koto janai. but IP if bet good thing NEG "But, if you bet, it's not a good thing." --> 9 A: Ii koto janai ne. (LAUGH) good thing NEG IP "It's not a good thing." In the example above, A indicates her agreement with B's utterance (Line 8) by repeating that utterance and adding ne. This type of ne may appear in particular registers such as "teacher talk" 114 and "caretaker talk" as well as in "foreigner talk."15 Ellis (1994) explains that these registers show such similarities as simplification of language, repetition of utterances and unequal status of interlocutors. The point is that this type of ne is expected to happen in these particular registers but not in usual all-native-speakers-conversations, as observed in Example 30 below: (30) Participant types: NJS Participants: A: NJS 20, B: NJS 23, C: NJS 31 Context A is amazed by the fact that Canadian university students, unlike Japanese, always carry big, heavy backpacks. C fully agrees with A. 1 A: Kocchi kite sa:, minna omoi ryukku shotte sa:, (LAUGH) here come IP everyone heavy backpack carry IP "(After I) came here, (finding that) everyone carries a backpack," 2 Watashi honto koshi itaku-naru. I really back aching-become "I have a back ache." 3 B: A::. oh "Oh." 4 A: Nihon no daigaku de zettai konnna no mota-nai yo. Japan LK university P absolutely like this NOM carry-NEG IP "(Nobody) carries such a thing in Japanese universities, for sure." 5 C: Zettai mota-nai yo. absolutely carry-NEG IP "Never carry (them)." 6 A: Konna no motte-ru nihon no daigakusee, i-nai yonee. like this NOM is carrying Japan LK university student exist-NEG IP "There is no Japanese university student who carries such a thing. (Is there any?)" 7 C: Ita- ita-tte, kitto tomodachi ni nar-anai yo. exist exist-if definitely friend P become-NEG IP "Even if there is such a student, I wouldn't make friends with him/her." ^According to Ellis (1994), "caretaker talk" refers to the modified speech adults (or older children) use when addressing young children. This register is sometimes called "motherese" or "baby-talk." 'Teacher talk," on the other hand, is the language a teacher uses when addressing classroom language learners adjusted to both language form and function in order to facilitate communication. The terms "classroom discourse" and "educational discourse" also refer to this register. 115 8 A: Ne, nanka, chotto, doo shita n daro tte kanji da yone. IP FI a little how did NOM I wonder QT impression BE IP "I feel like saying, 'What happened to them?'" 9 Nihon no daigaku ni konna ko ga i-tara Japanese LK university P like this child SUB exist-if "If there were a student like this at a Japanese university," --> 10 C: =Okashii yone. strange IP "(It would be) strange (, don't you think?)" —> 11 A: Okashii yonee. strange IP "Strange (, really)." In this example, A brought up a new topic (Line 1). A, finding that C is agreeing with her most strongly among her conversation group members (Line 5), began addressing C in particular (Line 6). Notice that in the following portion, A employed yone(e) three times but no ne, and also that she responded to C with the same yowe-attached utterance (Line 11). Furthermore, this example suggests that while A and C were strengthening their bonds by showing agreement with each other, B and another participant were left in a rather passive position as audience. This example exhibits the characteristic of yone to increase intimacy between the speaker and the addressee and to distance the speaker and addressee from the third party. Notice that if ne were used in place of yone in Line 10 and/or Line 11, the utterance would create the impression that the speaker had more control of the conversation, exhibiting the characteristic of foreigner talk, teacher talk and caretaker talk, just as in Example 29. This is probably because ne lacks the function of yone to show intimacy and draw the speaker's status to an equal level with the addressee. One characteristic of the ne-attached utterances that demonstrate agreement was that the structure "soo (da/desu) ('it is so')" preceded ne in many cases. As much as 60% of the ne-attached utterances of Demonstration of Solicited Agreement contained soo (da/desu). The remaining 40% were the utterances consisting of the partial repetition of the addressee's utterance 116 and the attachment of ne. This result contrasts highly with the fact that the soo (da/desu)+yone pattern was found only twice in the form of "Soo da yone." I assume that this tendency for soo to be connected with ne but not with yone relates to the personalization of discourse. If the speaker intended to demonstrate actively his or her agreement and collaboration with the addressee, he or she would choose certain specific words instead of soo, the meaning of which is general and ambiguous. In addition, a speaker can intensify the extent of his or her agreement through the use of yone which shows the speaker's empathy. On the other hand, for usual agreement without any stress, ne might be preferable since this particle does not show the speaker's personality traits such as empathy and uncertainty. The NJSs often produced utterances of this general agreement with the use of ne. It is thus reasonable that this type of general agreement is apt to take ne and soo, both of which do not indicate specific meanings; thus, it has a wide range of uses. 4.4.2 Demonstration of Solicited Agreement by JLL As well as the results of Request for Agreement, Showing Unsolicited Agreement by the JLLs was similar to that of the NJSs in that ne performed this speech act in most cases. The differences between the NJS's and JLL's speech were that the JLLs did not employ yone for this speech act at all, and that all of the ne-attached utterances which demonstrated agreement consisted of the soo (da/desu)+ne structure. In other words, the JLLs did not go further than using ne in the formulaic expression of soo (da/desu) ne.16 Consequentially, these two characteristics of the JLL speech; namely, non-use of yone and the lack of productive use of ne, made the discourse of JLLs less personalized, with the their feelings and emotions less projected into their utterances. The following example illustrates the difference between NJSs and JLLs in their indication of agreement i6Sawyer (1991) states that "soo desu ne" is the formula that Japanese language learners acquire relatively fast. 117 (31) Participant types: NJS + JLL Participants: A: NJS 4, B: JLL 2, C: JLL 9 Context The participants are talking about skiing and other Winter sports in Canada. 1 A: Hokani huyu no, nanka, rejaa toka tte, other winter LK FI leasure such as QT "As for other Winter leisures," 2 Kanada de wa, dooyuu no ga aru n desu ka ne. Canada P TOP what kind of NOM SUB there are NOM BE Q IP "I wonder which are ( popular) in Canada." 3 Yappari, ichiban saishoni sukii sunooboodo tte omoitsuku n desu keredomo, as expected number one first skiing snowboading QT think of NOM BE though "As expected, skiing and snowboading come first, but," 4 Hokani nani yararemasu ? other what play (polite) "What other (sports) do you play?" 5 B: Aisusukeeto mo, iceskating too "Iceskating, too," 6 A: A, aisusukeeto mo ikimasu ? oh iceskating too go "Oh, do you go iceskating, too?" 7 B: Iya, saikin (?) no lately "No, lately (?)" 8 A: (LAUGH) Saikin wa zenzen ik-anai. lately TOP at all go-NEG "(You) don't go iceskating lately at all." 9 B: (To C) Aisusukeeto toka wa yar-anai n desu ka, hokkee toka mo ? iceskating such as TOP play-NEG NOM BE Q hockey such as too "Don't you iceskate or play hockey?" 10 A: (To C) A, hokkee yararemasu ? oh hockey play "Oh, do you play hockey?" 11 C: le. Demo, kanada de wa, hokkee ga ninki ga arimasu ne. no but Canada P TOP hockey SUB popularity SUB there is IP "No. But, in Canada hockey is popular." ) 118 —> 12 B: Soo desu ne. so BE IP "It is." --> 13 A: =Ninki arumasu nee. popularity there is IP "It is popular." This is one of the examples in which the JLLs resorted to the soo desu ne formula, where the NJSs used their own expressions for showing agreement.17 The absence of yone in the JLL data means that they did not produce soo (da/desu) yone, while they frequently used the expression soo (da/desu) ne. I speculate that one reason for these usages resides again in the nature of the classroom discourse. It is almost impossible to imagine a situation in which a teacher would use "soo (da/desu) yone" in the Japanese language classroom, considering that the teacher's discourse little concerns functions of yone such as the indication of uncertainty and exclusive possession of information with a particular addressee. 4.5 Summary This chapter analyzed the use of yo, ne and yone by the NJSs and the JLLs in terms of their relationships with conversation management, information status and request for and demonstration of agreement. Section 4.1 showed that both the NJSs and the JLLs used ne almost exclusively for conversation management. Section 4.2.1 analyzed the NJS's use of yo, ne and yone in the presentation of new information, and found that more than 40% of new information was presented with ne instead of yo. This type of ne and yone were identified as politeness strategy and Japanese communicative styles. The data also showed two types of utterances in which ne and yone accompanied new information: (1) those utterances which lack the nominalization form n(o) 17One possibility is that A's utterance (Line 13) might have been motivated by avoidance of the repetition of " Soo desu ne." However, that A's utterance immediately follows B's without a pause suggests that A produced his utterance with little consideration of the preceding utterance of B. 119 (da/desu) and represent such as answers, comments and reflections; and (2) those which contain n(o) (da/desu) and appear during a story-telling. A difference between ne and yone was observed in their locations in a discourse; namely, ne tended to appear in the utterances of subordinate information while yone occurred in the focal information of the story. Another difference between ne and yone concerns their connection with the preceding modal element; specifically, ne is incompatible with da, the copula of assertion, while yone can cooccur with da. Section 4.2.2 revealed that the JLLs employed ne with as much as approximately 60% of the new information. However, their uses of ne were inappropriate in some cases. The JLLs had particular difficulty in using yone appropriately in the course of story-telling. This is probably because the learners must first know the use of n(o) (da/desu) in order to correctly use this type of ne and yone. Section 4.3.1 discussed the frequent use of yone by the NJSs in requesting agreement, and explained that yone is a powerful device with various effects as follows: (1) to show the speaker's uncertainty concerning information and extensively indicate politeness; (2) to elicit the addressee's support by claiming the exclusive possession of information by the speaker and addressee; and (3) to intensify the effect of requesting agreement by foregrounding the information to which the speaker is asking the addressee's agreement. The NJSs' preference for yone was then attributed to the indication of uncertainty and politeness, both of which conform with Japanese communicative styles. Section 4.3.2 revealed that the JLLs also employed yone for most requests for agreement. However, the JLLs were more inclined to use yone infrequently and ne more frequently, compared to the NJSs. Also, the JLLs exhibited inappropriate uses (misuses) of ne caused probably by their lack or inadequate knowledge of yone. When demonstrating agreement, in contrast to requesting agreement, both the NJSs and the JLLs used ne more frequently than yone. In addition, a strong pattern was found concerning the use of ne: this particle followed the soo da/desu structure, and lacked the use of yone. 120 Furthermore, the JLLs' exhibition of agreement always consisted of this soo (da/desu)+ne construction. This result suggests that the JLLs engaged in the process of discourse personalization less than the NJSs did. Another notable finding was that the NJSs used ne more frequently in NJS+JLL conversations than in NJS-only conversations. These frequent uses of ne in the NJS conversations were identified as "foreigner talk" used for the purpose of establishing common ground with the learners and then facilitating interaction. 121 Chapter Five Fill-in-the-Blank Tests and Questionnaire Data Analyses of the conversational data in Chapter Four revealed two important findings concerning the relationship between the use of yo, ne and yone and speech acts. First, contrary to the general understanding that yo is the particle that presents new information, ne was also an important particle employed frequently for presenting new information. Secondly, yone was the primary particle used in requesting agreement.1 This chapter analyzes the data of the fill-in-the-blank tests and questionnaire and discusses the relationship between the use of yo, ne and yone with the presentation of new/old information as well as the use of yone. 5.1 Results of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests The previous chapter discussed the conversational results in terms of the appearance of yo, ne and yone in actual speech, but could not analyze the "absence" of these particles. This section addresses the appropriateness of the use of yo, ne and yone by analyzing the results of the fill-in-the-blank tests that asked the participants to supply suitable particles in given contexts. The test consisted of twelve questions, each of which asked the participants to make the appropriate choices among yo, ne, yone and non-use of any particle for a given situation, but only nine were used for analysis.2 The contexts of the nine items and other relevant information for analyses are as follows: •Collier-Sanuki (personal communication) points out the importance of these findings for pedagogical purposes since no textbooks explain that ne can present new information or that yone elicits agreement. Some textbooks (e.g., Learn Japanese: New College Text, Vol.1) teach that yo presents new information while ne requests agreement (e.g., Foundations of Japanese Language, Japanese for College Students: Basic,Vol.l). 2I later excluded three questions from the data. Out of three questions, two concerned interjective and insertional uses of particles (Questions 3 and 12). The third question (Question 5) was later excluded since the test did not clearly indicate the addressee, thus produced various responses, reflecting the different viewpoints of the test takers. 122 Figure 10 Contexts of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests Q# Speech Act New/Old Information of Speech Act Context at the Time of the Utterance 1 A and B (a middle-aged couple) ask directions to a community center at a police station. After they leave the station ~ Requesting Agreement? (1) Old (1) A (wife) confirms the directions with B (husband), who goes in a different direction. Opposing (2) New (2) A opposes B, who goes in a different direction. 2 Opposing New In the above context, B opposes A, pointing in another direction. 3 Reporting New Observing the unusual behavior of his grandfather, A reports what he saw to his mother in an enthusiastic way. 4 Answering New A answers his father's question about where his mother is. 5 Complimenting4 A compliments his wife on her hair style when she comes back from a hair salon. (1) Old A presents another compliment that reinforces the previously uttered one. (2) New A presents another utterance which is united with the preceding utterance to constitute one compliment. 6 Correcting New In the above context, the wife corrects her husband by saying that she went there just to buy shampoo. 7 Refusing New A tells B to turn the channel to a news program. B refuses. 8 Requesting Agreement Old In the above context, trying to gain others' support, B seeks C's agreement on her own position. 9 Indirectly Criticising5 Seeing her husband (B) coming home fairly drunk, A indirectly criticizes him. (1) Old A assumes that B is conscious enough to understand what she says. (2) New A assumes that B is almost unconscious due to intoxication. 3The speech act involved in this context can be taken either as Requesting Agreement or as Opposing, depending on how test-takers judge A's (wife) psychological state. If the test-taker judges that A requests agreement, the information that speech act conveys is old. On the other hand, if the test-taker assumes that A's speech act is opposing, the information to be conveyed is new. 4This speech act of making a compliment is considered to be presenting either new or old information. Prior to this stage, the husband implies that he would surprise her by making a compliment. The facial expression of the wife also indicates that this flattering comment from her husband was unexpected (See Appendix G.). This suggests that the husband usually does not give her compliments. In this sense, the information that he presents is new. On the other hand, this compliment can be also interpreted as the presentation of old information, since another flattering comment precedes this utterance. 123 The responses of both the NJS and JLL participants are given below. Table 10 summarizes the NJS responses: Table 10 Results of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests by NJS<> NJS (n=32) Particle Q# Original Particle YO YONE NE 0 Total 1 YO 31.3% (10) 65.6% (21) 3.1% (1) 0% (0) 100% (32) 2 YO 87.5% (28) 0% (0) 3.1% (1) 9.4% (3) 100% (32) 3 YO 96.9% (31) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3.1% (1) 100% (32) 4 YO 93.8% (30) 0% (0) 0% (0) 6.3% (2) 100% (32) 5 YO 59.4% (19) 0% (0) 40.6% (13) 0% (0) 100% (32) 6 YO 100% (32) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (32) 7 YO 87.5% (28) 0% (0) 0% (0) 12.5% (4) 100% (32) 8 YONE 0% (0) 93.8% (30) 6.3% (2) 0% (0) 100% (32) 9 NE 6.3% (2) 0% (0) 87.5% (28) 6.25% (2) 100% (32) The above results exhibit one notable finding. In the cases where the author of the cartoon used "yo," as much as 65.6% of the NJSs opted for yone in Question 1, and 40.6% chose ne in Question 5. I consider that this preference of yone and ne over yo substantiates Japanese communicative styles, which were discussed in Chapter Four. Since Japanese communicative styles show an orientation toward the sharing of recognition, it is preferabable to employ ne and 5As well as in Question 5, the information delivered through the utterance of Question 9 can be either new or old. In this example, whether the information is new or old depends on the speaker's (the wife's) judgement of whether her husband is conscious or unconscious due to intoxication. If she judges that he is unconscious, she is presenting new information which she assumes he does not understand. On the other hand, when she judges that he is conscious, she is asking for his agreement with her critical comment, "You're pretty drunk." 6"Original particles" refer to those particles that appeared in the original lines of the comic. 0 indicates the non-use of particles. 124 yone, which point to the common ground of the speaker and addressee. Table 11 below represents the results of the JLL data: Table 11 Results of the Fill-in-the-Blank Tests by JLL7 JLL(n+21) Q# Original Particle YO YONE NE 0 No Answer Total 1 YO 23.8% (5) 52.4% (11) 19.0% (4) 4.8% (1) 1 0%(0) 100% (21) 2 YO 90.5% (19) 0% (0) 0% (0) 6.3% (2) 0% (0) 100% (21) 3 YO 85.7% (18) | 4.8% (1) | 9.5% (2) | 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (21) 4 YO 95.2% (20) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4.8% (1) 0% (0) 100% (21) 5 YO 19.0% (4) 23.8% (5) 47.6% (10) | 9.5% (2) | 4.8% (1) 0% (0) 100% (21) 6 YO 85.7% (18) 9.5% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (21) 7 YO 71.4% (15) 4.8% (1) 4.8% (1) | 9.5% (2) 9.5% (2) 100% (21) 8 YONE | 9.5% (2) | 52.4% (11) 28.6% (6) 0% (0) 9.5% (2) 100% (21) 9 NE 4.8% (1) | 4.8% (1) | 81.0% (17) 0% (0) 9.5% (2) 100% (21) The numbers in the bold squares above represent the percentage of inappropriate or non-used particles by JLLs. Inappropriateness of the use of yo, ne and yone by JLLs were assessed based on the NJS usage of these particles. Thus, the non-use of a particle by a JLL in a context where every NJS employed a certain particle was judged as inappropriate. The use of a particle in a context where no NJS employed a particle was also treated as inappropriate usage. The total number of inappropriate and non-uses of yo, ne and yone were 19 cases, or 10% of all responses. Among 21 of them, 11 made incorrect choices in choosing appropriate particles. This result suggests that JLLs have trouble using yo, ne and yone. The ratio of inappropriate use for each particle was 2.0% for yo, 7.5% for ne and 31.3% TThe same two participants did not answer Questions 7,8 and 9. 125 for yone. Also, the inappropriate non-use or absence of particles in the required contexts was 44.4%. This indicates that the appropriate use of yone and the non-use of particles are especially problematic for the JLLs. As for the uses of yone, the NJS participants used this particle specifically for requesting agreement (Questions 1 and 8). The data suggest that while the JLLs understand the function of yone for eliciting agreement (Questions 1 and 8), they do not know exactly when they should not use it: they used it for the speech acts which should not be followed by this form (Questions 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9). In contrast, inappropriate choice of 0, which amounted to 44% of all appearances of 0, reveals a tendency among the JLLs to underuse interactional particles. The data showed that as much as 31.3% of all the occurrences of yone and 7.5% of those of ne were inappropriate uses, while the inappropriate use of yo was only 2.0%. Examples of inappropriate choices of yone and ne by JLLs are as follows: (1) [Reporting] (Question 3) Ojiichan ga hen da grandpa SUB strange BE J Grandpa is acting funny! (2) [Answering] (Question 4) Biyooin ni itteru lyo. beauty salon P has gone UP < *yone. *ne. (Mom) has been to a beauty salon. 126 (3) [Complimenting] (Question 5) Sugokushizen de ii {yo. very natural P good I IP ]*yone "(Your hairstyle) is nice and natural. (4) [Correcting] (Question 6) f Shanpuu kai ni itta dake\ shampoo buy P went only yo. IP *yone. *ne. '(I) just went to buy shampoo. (5) [refusing] (Question 7) Dame (yo. \ no goodllP E "No." ' *yone. The use of yone/ne is ungrammatical in all the examples above. The ungrammaticality of these examples is due to the use of yone/ne without accompanying the n(o) (da/desu) form. This result is consistent with the conversational data that the JLLs had a problem in using yone and ne in proper combination with the nominalization form. One of the main findings of the conversational data was the JLLs' preference of ne over yo and yone across speech acts. Results of the fill-in-the-blank tests provide further evidence for this. First, it is observed from Tables 10 and 11 that the JLLs used ne much more frequently than the NJSs did in requesting agreement (Questions 1 and 8). Second, the JLLs were inclined to choose 127 ne regardless of the information status (i.e., new or old) of the speech acts. Table 12 summarizes frequencies of yo, ne, yone and 0 (i.e., the non-use of a particle) that the NJSs and JLLs chose in all the questions. Out of the nine questions, four (Questions 2, 3, 4 and 7) concerned new information, three (Questions 1, 5 and 9) new or old information, and one (Question 8) old information: Table 12 The Use of Yo, Ne and Yone in relation to Information Status (i.e., New or Old) Particle NJS JLL YOs 93.1 %(149) > 85.7 % (90) YONE 0 % (0) < 8.6 % (9) NE 0.6 % (1) < 2.9 % (3) 0 6.3 %(10) 5.7 % (6) No answer 0 % (0) 1.9 % (2) Total 100% (160) 100% (110) B. Presentation of New/Old Information: (Results of Questions 1, 5 & 9) NJS JLL YO 32.3 % (31) > 15.9 % (10) YONE 21.9 % (21) < 27.0 % (17) NE 43.8 % (42) < 49.2% (31) 0 2.1 %(2) 4.8 % (3) No answer 0 % (0) 3.2 % (2) Total 100 % (96) 100 % (63) SThe data of the fill-in-the-blank test showed that in the NJS data, as much as 93% of new information was presented with yo while ne and yone were infrequendy used for presenting new information. This result contrasts with the conversational data. I hypothesize that the nature of the involved contexts and speech acts caused this result. The context involved in this test was an interaction among family members where politeness is less of a concern. Also, the concerned speech acts were based on rather explicit disparities of understanding between the speaker and addressee, including opposing, refusing and correcting. This differs from conversational data in which the recounting of stories was frequently observed. 128 C. Presentation of Old Information: (Result of Question 8) Particle NJS JLL YO 0 % (0) < 9.5 % (2) YONE 93.8 % (30) > 52.4% (11) NE 6.7 % (2) < 28.6 % (6) 0 0 % (0) 0 % (0) No answer 0 % (0) 9.5 % (2) Total 100 % (32) 100 % (21) The above tables indicate that the percentages of ne used by the JLLs always exceed those of the NJSs. In other words, the JLLs overgeneralized and incorrectly overused ne regardless of the information status of the speech acts they performed. Another evidence for the JLLs' preference of ne is demonstrated in the answers to Question 5 of the fill-in-the-blank test. This question concerned the speech act of complimenting. For this speech act, 59.4% of the NJSs chose yo, 40.6% of them used ne and none employed yone. That a relatively large percentage of the NJSs used yo is explained by their intention to reinforce the positive politeness strategy with yo, as in Example 23 of Section 2.4.2. On the other hand, only 19.0% of the JLLs employed yo. In contrast, 47.6% of the JLLs used ne for this speech act while 23.8% incorrectly chose yone. I speculate that the high ratio of ne used by the JLLs relates to the element preceding this particle in the question sentence, the adjective ii ('good') as in "Sugoku shizende ii" ('[Your hair style] is nice and natural.'). This combination of an adjective and ne is a form often found in classroom discourse. Ohta (1993), a study on the use of sentential particles by teachers and students in Japanese language classrooms, revealed that ne was the particle which appeared most frequently in follow-up or feedback turns, and that "it often occurred when the teacher provided assessments — personal reactions to a student's answer" (p.71). The following 129 are examples taken from Ohta (1993):9 (6) Context: After pair works were finished, the teacher (T) asks John where his partner (Sara) went over the weekend. 1 T: Un. Doko e ikimashita ? oh where P went "Oh. Where did she go?" 2 John: Hai, uh, Los Angeles yes uh Los Angeles "Yes, uh, Los Angeles." 3 T: ( ) Sara-san L.A. Shiataa e ikimashita. Sara L.A. Theater P went "Sara went to the theater in Los Angeles." --> 4 Ii desu ne::. good BE IP "How ni::ce ne::." (Ohta 1993: 71) (7) Context: The teacher is having the students (SI and S2) demonstrate their dialogue using the phrase Sore wa hidoi desu ne (That's awful.'). 1 SI: Kate-san, doo shita n desu ka ? Kate how did NOM BE Q "Kate-san, what's wrong?" 2 S2: Watashi wa sensei ni takusan homework o watasaremashita. I TOP teacher P lots homewoork DO was handed "I was assigned lots of homework by my teacher." 3 SI: Sore wa hidoi desu ne::. that TOP awful BE IP , 'That's awful ne::." —>4 SI: ((laughing)) Hidoi desu ne::. ((laughing)) awful BE IP 'That's awful ne::." 9In citing Examples 24 and 25,1 retained the original transcription conventions and translations in Ohta (1993). The glosses are mine. 130 ~>5 Sl:/i desu ne:: yoku dekimashita ne. good BE IP well could do IP "Good ne: you did well ne." (Ohta 1993: 150-1) I speculate that because of this frequent cooccurrence of ne and the adjectives used in assessment during classroom discourse, students easily associate ne with comment or assessment. This association then caused the higher ratio of ne used in JLL compliments since a compliment is a form of comment. Ohta (1993) suggests that follow-up utterances by a teacher such as un-marked repetitions or expansions of a student's response are "unimaginable outside of a classroom or teaching — learning context" (p.86).10This observation implies that JLLs extended classroom discourse to include ordinary discourse. The results of the fill-in-the-blank test revealed that (1) the JLLs had difficulty particularly in the appropriate use of yone (Yone was the particle that JLLs used inappropriately most frequently.), and (2) the JLLs used ne more often than the NJSs did whether the information of the phrase that was accompanied by ne was new or old. These results endorse the finding of the conversational data: the JLLs' infrequent use of yone and frequent use of ne. These results suggest that the JLLs lacked or had inadequate knowledge of yone, and that the JLLs were influenced by classroom discourse in which ne often cooccur with adjectives in comments. 5.2 Results of Questionnaire Data In an attempt to find the reasons for the JLLs' infrequent use of yone and frequent use of ne in the conversational data and the fill-in-the-blank tests, this section examines the questionnaire 10However, as we have already seen in Section 4.4.1, NJSs frequently produced this type of /i£-attached utterances of "comment" in their conversations with JLLs. Therefore, I assume that this type otne is a characteristic of languages that native speakers use when talking to language learners of either LI or L2 whose mastery of the target language is assumed imperfect. "Classroom discourse" or "teacher talk," "foreigner talk" and "caretaker talk" are all included in this type of languages. 131 responses to answer the following two questions: (1) How do the JLLs and NJSs understand the roles and functions of yo, ne and yone in Japanese discourse? (2) How do their understandings of yo, ne and yone reflect their actual use of these particles? Table 13 summarizes the result of Question 1 which asked the participants to estimate how frequently they used yo, ne and yone in Japanese conversation: Table 13 Self-Estimation of the Frequencies of Yo, Ne and Yone the JLLs Use in Japanese Conversation Question 1: [Do you use yo, ne and yone when you speak in Japanese?] (Often / Sometimes / Rarely / Never) [Circle one.] Note. The square with thick, black borders means that a majority locates in it. Often Sometimes Rarely Never Total NE 42.9 % (9) 38.1 %(8) 19.0 % (4) 0 % (0) 100 % (21) YO 19.0 % (4) 47.6 % (10) 33.3 % (7) 0 % (0) 100 % (21) YONE 4.8 % (1) 28.6 % (6) 47.6% (10) 19.0 % (4) 100 % (21) For comparison, Table 14 presents the NJS data. Since the distinct influence dialects have on the participants' responses was identified in NJS responses, the results are divided into two categories: those by the speakers of standard Japanese and those of the Kansai dialect.11 Out of the 31 NJS participants who responded to this question, 21 were standard Japanese speakers and 10 were Kansai dialect speakers. nsince dialect is not the focal topic of this thesis, detailed analyses of Kansai dialect are not presented. However, some of these participants informed me that they would substitute yo, ne or yone for other interactional particles used in their dialect (e.g., the replacement of ne with na and that of yone with yanne). 132 Table 14 Self-Estimation of the Frequencies of Yo, Ne and Yone the NJSs Use in Japanese Conversation A. Standard Japanese Speakers: Often Sometimes Rarely Never Total NE 66.7 % (14) 23.8 % (5) 9.5 % (2) 0 % (0) 100 % (21) YO 52.4% (11) 38.1% (8) 9.5 % (2) 0 % (0) 100 % (21) YONE 71.4 % (15) 14.3 % (3) 14.3 % (3) 0 % (0) 100 % (21) B. Kansai Dialect Speakers: Often Sometimes Rarely Never Total NE 20.0 % (2) 40.0 % (4) 30 .0% (3) 10.0 % (1) 100 % (10) YO 20.0 % (2) 20.0 % (2) 50.0 % (5) 10.0 % (1) 100 % (10) YONE 10.0 % (1) 20.0% (2) || 40.0% (4) 30.0 % (3) 100 % (10) In spite of a clear difference between the standard Japanese speakers and the Kansai dialect speakers as observed in Table 14, the actual NJS speech obtained from NJS-only and NJS+JLL conversations did not show any significant influences of dialect that would change the proportion of the use of yo, ne and yone represented in Tables 1-4.12 To be consistent with the analysis of the conversational data, I compare the JLL result (Table 13) with that of the standard Japanese speakers' (Table 14A). The first difference found between the two groups is the NJSs' higher estimation of their own use of all three particles: more than half of the NJSs estimated their use of yo, ne and yone in ordinary conversation as "often." On the other hand, the JLLs' assessment of their use of these particles was much lower. Furthermore, a relatively large difference is observed again in the use of yone between the JLL and NJS responses. While most NJSs (71.4%) consider 12This problem could have been avoided if the participants were requested in advance to estimate their use of yo, ne and yone when they speak in the standard Japanese. 133 that they use yone "often," only one JLL answered that he uses yone often. Moreover, while no NJS answered that he or she "never" uses yone, 4 JLLs stated that they "never" use it and 10 that they "rarely" use it. Comparing these self-estimations by participants with the actual occurrences of yo, ne and yone in their speech (See Table 5), we notice that their estimations reflect their speech almost correctly. Notice that the percentage of JLL use of yone was less than half of that of the NJSs. In other words, the JLLs knew consciously that they used yone infrequently in their conversations. Then, why do JLLs not use yonel Question 6 concerns the necessity of yo, ne and yone in Japanese conversation. Table 15 summarizes the responses from both JLL and NJS groups: Table 15 Responses to Question 6 concerning the Necessity of Yo, Ne and Yone13 Question 6 : [Do you think it is necessary to use yo, ne and yone when you speak Japanese?] Particle Group Necessary Unnecessary I don't know Total NE JLL 81.0 % (7) 9.5 % (2) 9.5 % (2) 100 % (21) NJS 96.8 % (30) 3.2 % (1) 0 % (0) 100% (31) YO JLL | 76.2 % (16) 14.3 % (3) 9.5 % (2) 100 % (21) NJS || 93.5 % (29) 6.5 % (2) 0 % (0) 100% (31) YONE JLL 42.9 % (9) 33.3 % (7) 23.8 % (5) 100 % (21) NJS 90.3 % (28) 9.7 % (3) 0 % (0) 100% (31) From the above tables, it seems that the majority of both groups consider that ne and yo are necessary in Japanese conversation. However, Table 15 demonstrates a clear difference between 13006 NJS participant did not provide answers to this and the next questions. Therefore, the total number of the NJSs' replies is 31. 134 the JLL and the NJS groups in their assessment of yone: less than 50% of JLL stated that yone is "necessary." Comments on Question 7 (meanings/functions of yo, ne and yone) and Question 8 (difficulties in using yo, ne and yone) further provide possible reasons for this result: that JLLs could not tell if yone was necessary because they did not know the functions and usage of this form. In fact, five JLLs acknowledged that they did not understand yone. Their answers are as follows: "I don't know." (answers to Questions 6 and 8: JLL7), "I don't know how to use it." (answers to Question 6 and 7: JLL 8), "I'm not sure of its meaning." (an answer to Question 7: JLL 16), "I'm not sure when to use it." (an answer to 7: JLL 19) and "I don't know its function!" (an answer to Question 7). In addition, three other JLLs left blank or put a question mark to Question 8, while they provided answers to the same question concerning yo and ne. Furthermore, some of them attributed their lack of knowledge of yone to Japanese language classes that did not instruct them on this form, stating "It's difficult [to use yone] because I have not learned it." (an answer to Question 7: JLL 7), "Nobody told me [how to use yone]." (an answer to Question 9; i.e., sources of information: JLL 8). These comments are further supported by the results of Question 9: sources of information on yo, ne and yone. To this question, a total of 12 JLLs excluded "teachers" and/or "textbooks" from the source of information on yone, while 7 JLLs responded that they learned yo and ne from other sources than teachers and textbooks (e.g., friends, interaction with Japanese people, parents, Japanese TV dramas). In fact, there was no explanation for yone usage found in the textbooks that I examined. The results of the questionnaire revealed that JLLs were aware of their lack of or inadequate knowledge concerning yone, and thus of the infrequent uses of this form in their speech. Ignorance of yone in formal Japanese teaching was then considered to be a cause for this insufficient comprehension of the form by JLLs. 135 5.3 Summary In an attempt to further substantiate the findings based on the conversational data, this chapter analyzed the results of the fill-in-the-blank test and the questionnaire. The analysis focused on the relationships of yo, ne and yone with the information status of speech acts. As in the conversation data, the fill-in-the-blank test data showed that the JLLs used ne more frequently than the NJS did regardless of information status of the speech acts, and that they often made inappropriate use of yone. One reason for their reliance on ne was attributed to the influence of classroom discourse in which ne often appears in comment utterances. As for the JLLs' inappropriate use of yone, the questionnaire answers suggested that it was caused by their lack of or inadequate knowledge about this form due to the lack of classroom instruction on it 136 Chapter Six Conclusion This chapter summarizes the analysis of the NJS use of and the JLL acquisition of yo, ne and yone, and answers the proposed research questions raised in Chapter Three. It then will discuss some implications for the teaching of yo, ne and yone in Japanese language classrooms. 6.1 NJS Use of Yo, Ne and Yone Chapter Three presented the following three research questions concerning the relationships of yo, ne and yone with interaction and speech acts: (1) In what manners and how frequently do the NJSs and JLLs use yo, ne and yone for the purpose of conversation management? (2) How does the information status (i.e., whether information is new or old) of the phrase that yo, ne or yone follows relate to the use of yo, ne and yone by the NJSs and JLLs? (3) How do the NJSs and JLLs use yo, ne and yone when they conduct certain speech acts? The analysis revealed first that among the three particles the NJSs almost always used ne to manage conversations. In other words, only ne occurred in Aizuchi (e.g., "soo desu ne") and in Floor-Keeping (e.g., interjection and insertion ne), which are both speech acts for conversation management. The NJSs did not use yone or yo at all to manage conversations, with the exception of one use of yone in Aizuchi ( "soo da yone"). Concerning information status, the data showed a few deviations from the prediction of the original model which I had proposed in Chapter Two. When presenting new information, the NJSs used yone and ne instead of yo to show politeness and to observe the Japanese 137 communicative styles for expressing enryo ('reservedness'), omoiyari ('empathy') and wakimae ('discernment'). The ne/yone-attached utterances in NJS speech presented new information in the forms of answers, comments and expressions of reflection. Ne and yone were used also in presenting new information in the course of delivering a story. There are two findings that seem especially important for the study of yo, ne and yone. First, this type of yone and ne should follow the nominalization form, n(o) (da/desu) to precede them. Secondly, yone tended to follow focal information, and ne subordinate information of a story. These findings suggest thatyo, ne and yone must be studied comprehensively in order to understand their syntactic aspects (e.g., their connection with preceding modal elements), their functions in discourse and their pragmatic aspects (i.e., their relationship with speech acts). The present study mainly examined the speech acts of requesting and demonstrating agreement because of their close relationship with ne and yone, and discovered the following pattern: requesting agreement takes yone while demonstrating agreement concurs with ne. The tendency to use yone when requesting agreement was attributed to its high degree of subjectivity. Yone exhibits uncertainty concerning a given piece of information, which is among the speaker's personal feelings/emotions revealed through speech (i.e., subjectivity). This expression of uncertainty leads to an expression of politeness. Therefore, yone becomes a desirable device for requesting agreement, which is a face-threatening act. On the other hand, the NJSs were apt to choose ne when showing agreement because this speech act has a smaller chance of threatening the addressee's "face," and thus, the speaker need not mitigate the potential damage. I believe that the ultimate goal of interaction in any language is the establishment of identical recognition/understanding of information by the speaker and addressee. However, different languages adopt different approaches and measures to reach that universal goal. I further assume that Japanese speakers attempt to achieve this goal by defocusing the disparity of recognition extant between the speaker and the addressee, and, instead, focusing the speaker's intention on 138 negotiating that disparate recognition with the addressee. This defocusing of disparity is the expression of enryo, omoiyari and wakimae, which exemplify Japanese communicative styles. The choice of yone and ne over yo in presenting new information, and the preference of yone to ne in requesting agreement, substantiate these Japanese communicative styles. From the discussion above, I assume that the NJSs' choice of yo, ne and yone involves at least two phases. First, a speaker estimates the degree of disparate or shared recognition extant between the speaker and the addressee. Next, the speaker considers pragmatic factors of the positive politeness strategy and the Japanese communicative styles to decide on the most suitable particle. How conscious the speaker is of making these decisions requires further study and is beyond the scope of this thesis. Based on the analysis of the NJS speech in Chapter Four, the original model of the relationships between interaction, speech acts and the interactional particles of yo, ne and yone is modified, as below: 139 Figure 11 Relationships between Interaction, Speech Acts and the Interactional Particles Yo, Ne and Yone1 (Revised from Figure 8) [Interaction] Goal: The establishment of mutual recognition/understanding of information by Speaker (S) and addressee (A) Conversation Management Goal: Integration and manipulation of discourse/text for effective communication Particle(s) to be chosen • Aizuchi expressions NE (YONE) *YO • Floor-Keeping expressions NE (YOIYONE) Speech Act Realization S's judgement of the Information status Examples of Defocusing of recognition state speech acts recognition disparity by S and A • S and A have New Information •answering None YO *NEIYONE disparate recognition •reporting •correcting •opposing V NEIYONE *YO •encouraging •complimenting • S and A have shared Old Information •requesting agreement V NEIYONE *YO or should share •demonstrating agreement recognition •establishing phatic communion •providing supplemental information •The particles with asterisks indicate situations which cannot occur in the given contexts. The particles within the parentheses are possible but less likely to occur than those without parentheses. For example, yo was assessed as a "possible" particle for Floor-Keeping expressions despite its absence in the present conversation data. This is because the use of yo for Floor-Keeping is still possible even though it is not common (e.g., interjection and insertion yo. See Examples 3 and 4 in Chapter Two). 140 6.2 JLL Acquisition of Yo, Ne and Yone The JLL data exhibited a similar result to that of the NJSs in their management of conversation. The JLLs always employed ne for conducting Aizuchi and Floor-Keeping, which are among devices used for conversation management. Yo and yone never occurred for conversation management. In the present data, the JLLs did not produce inappropriate uses of yo and yone for conversation management (e.g., interjective and insertional uses of yo/yone, the use of * soo desu yo intended for Aizuchi). However, this result does not confirm that the JLLs fully understood the use of yo and yone for conversation management since the JLLs might have avoided these forms due to uncertainty concerning the usage of these forms. Furthermore, the JLL data revealed individual differences in the use of ne for conversation management. While the Aizuchi and Floor-Keeping expression, "soo (da/desu) ne," was used by different JLLs, the use of interjection and insertion ne was observed only in the speeches of a couple of JLLs. As well as the NJSs, the JLLs used yone in requesting agreement and ne in demonstrating agreement. However, the JLLs used ne more frequendy and yone less frequently than the NJSs in performing both speech acts. For example, no JLL used yone for expressing agreement. As a result, their expressions of agreement always consisted of the formulaic structure, soo+(da/desu)+ne. Moreover, the JLL data exhibited inappropriate uses of ne, which should have been replaced with yone. I assume that the JLLs' misuse of ne originates from their ignorance of yone. In other words, since the JLLs were unaware of the functions and uses of yone, they used ne in the contexts in which native Japanese speakers would have chosen yone. This ignorance of yone and the misuse of ne are problematic since yone has its own pragmatic function (i.e., the implication of uncertainty towards information and empathy towards the addressee) that are essential to Japanese discourse. As a result, some JLLs produced awkward utterances in which the tone of yone and that of the preceding utterance did not match. Sometimes, their speech 141 unintentionally gave the impression that they were distant or inattentive to the addressee. These results indicate that Japanese language learners need to learn the appropriate use of yone so that they can interact with native Japanese speakers without causing misunderstanding and discomfort. The JLLs seemed to have particular difficulty in using ne and yone when presenting new information while recounting a narrative. The conversational data demonstrated the JLL's infrequent uses of yone and misuse of ne in this speech act. This is probably because the JLLs did not fully understand the functions of the nominalization form, n(o) (da/desu), the structure that a speaker has to use with ne/yone when presenting new information in the course of telling a story. In fact, in the fill-in-the-blank test, many JLLs mistakenly chose ne and yone for utterances which convey new information but do not contain the nominalization form. The JLL data further revealed a notable finding concerning the conveyance of new information: JLLs used yo much more infrequently than the NJSs. All the above findings indicate that the JLLs tended to use ne over yo and yone. Since both yo and yone foreground the speaker's feelings and emotions by virtue of the function of yo, the JLLs' infrequent uses of yo and yone consequently made their discourse less personalized. Based on Ohta's (1993) findings, I assume that the JLL's frequent use of ne and infrequent use of yo and yone were partly caused by exposure to classroom discourse. For instance, Ohta (1993) points out that, ne appears relatively often in teachers' feedback. On the other hand, yone is expected to be absent in classroom discourse which overrides the information exchanges to the individuals' revelation of personal feelings/emotions. Also, I assume that the limited occurrences of yo are in part due to the constraints on and negative images of yo (e.g., assertiveness, insistence, rudeness) that the JLLs learned from textbooks and/or teachers. 142 6.3 Pedagogical Implications Most textbooks cover yo and ne, and they usually explain that ne is the agreement or confirmation marker and that yo is the marker for assertion, emphasis and new information (e.g., Foundations of Japanese Language, Learn Japanese: College Text Vol.1, Japanese for College Students). I consider that these explanations suffice in that they describe how yo and ne are used in various speech acts. However, I emphasize that textbooks and teachers need to inform students of the interactional nature of yo and ne. They should at least specify the situations in which these particles are used; specifically, a speaker can use these particles when interaction is involved but not when the speaker does not intend interaction (e.g., diary, compositions, formal speech presentation). Ohta (1993), another study on interactional particles as used in the Japanese language classroom, discusses the instruction of these particles by introducing Lave and Wenger's (1989) concept, "legitimate peripheral participation." She states that "legitimate peripheral participation begins with observation, with the learner, or 'newcomer' to use Lave & Wenger's term, gradually participating more and more in 'situated negotiation and renegotiation of meaning,' thereby acquiring the ability to participate more and more fully" (p.7). Following this concept, it seems that the integration of classroom discourse with ordinary, everyday discourse provides students with the opportunity for both observing the reality of Japanese interaction and negotiating the meaning of interactional particles. I propose a few suggestions for creating an effective classroom discourse for the instruction of yo, ne and yone. First, a teacher should make the most of opportunities to present feedback or follow-ups to his or her students. Ohta (1993) found that ne was the particle which occurred most frequently in teachers' feedback, and that this feedback in turn elicits students' feedbacks, consequently creating dynamic conversation between the teacher and students. Thus, the teacher's constant feedbacks are considered to create a desirable environment for students to 143 apply their knowledge of yo, ne and yone to real conversations with a native speaker (i.e., the teacher). Secondly, I believe that a teacher need not feel hesitant or inhibited from uttering monologues and revealing his or her emotions/feelings, which reflect natural language use. These expressions provide good opportunities for demonstrating how a native speaker of Japanese integrates discourse and manages conversation, using yo, ne and yone as in such devices as Aizuchi and Floor-Keeping expressions. These conversation management devices are so prevalent in Japanese discourse that even students at the introductory level should learn them. Also, a teacher, through his or her speech, can present students with important information concerning the use of interactional particles which textbooks cannot; namely, visual information (e.g., head movements and facial expressions which yo, ne and yone accompany) and acoustic information (e.g., intonations and vowel lengths when pronouncing yo, ne and yone). By manipulating these physical aids, a teacher can illustrate the essence of interactional particles: the expression of affects. However, a teacher does not have to be responsible for all authentic input. Other visual and acoustic aids can be obtained from such materials as videotaped Japanese dramas, commercials and news programs. Some commercials are especially useful in that their time-length is short and their speech accurate and neither too casual nor too fast. In addition, some of them involve information about Japanese culture (e.g., commercials of seasonal gifts such as ochuugen ('mid-summer gifts') and oseebo ('year-end gifts') and Japanese mannerisms (e.g., bowing). Written materials are also available. The use of Japanese comics (e.g., activities such as writing speech lines in blank balloons from comic pictures) might increase the students' interest and their motivation to participate in Japanese conversation. The composition of short dialogues is still another way for teaching the use of interactional particles. One advantage of such "written conversation" is to detect learners' incorrect usage of these particles that may not surface in spontaneous oral speech. Also, if this activity is given in the form of homework, a teacher can discover students' individual 144 problems. It would be ideal if a class can afford time for the demonstration of skits based on those scripts. This activity becomes good practice for students in conducting speech acts with proper interactional particles that are accompanied by the appropriate prosody and non-verbal features. It is noteworthy that none of the introductory, college/university-level textbooks that I reviewed explained the use of yone. I have emphasized that yone serves an important role in Japanese discourse and that its inappropriate use can damage human relationships. I consider that this problem is especially serious for learners of the intermediate level, because I assume that their learning goal is no longer to manage survival Japanese but "to become an informed foreigner who can function in Japanese society in a way that does not make Japanese feel uncomfortable or otherwise impedes the attainment of practical goals, whether in work or in everyday affairs" (National Foreign Language Center 1993: 16). The instruction of yone also concerns the issue of the relationship between Japanese culture and Japanese language teaching. I believe that both textbooks and teachers should inform students of the social meaning of interactional particles in Japanese discourse. By explaining what outcomes could result from neglecting these particles, they can raise the students' consciousness of the significance and necessity of these particles. For example, in the JLL speech, the absence of yone caused a decrease in politeness and a deviation from Japanese communicative styles. Role playing and skit presentations in which students simulate various speech acts (e.g., requesting/showing an agreement, making/responding to a compliment) and social activities (e.g., visiting someone's house, seeing a doctor) are useful for instructing yo, ne and yone in relation to the Japanese culture. Through these activities, students can learn how Japanese culture is reflected in the realization of speech acts, and how the interactional particles, yo, ne and yone contribute to the effective achievement of those speech acts. 145 6.4 Limitations This study is limited in several ways. First, as pointed out in Section 3.1, the obtained JLL population was partial in that it consisted of a relatively large number of Japanese-Canadian students. Thus, the present study is limited in explaining the speaking behaviors of those learners who do not have Japanese background and also those who studied the Japanese language without much experience of interacting with native Japanese speakers. As stated in the previous section, I assume that the fear of interaction with native speakers of Japanese is one factor that discouraged the majority of students from participating in the present research. As for the population of the NJS group, I included Kansai dialect speakers in this research, based on the result of a pilot study, which did not reveal significant differences in the frequency of occurrence of yo, ne and yone between standard Japanese speakers and Kansai dialect speakers. However, clear distinctions were found between two groups in their answers to the questions concerning the use of these particles. This is probably because the questionnaire did not instruct participants to answer the questions in the context of such situations. This result contrasts with conversation data which demonstrated that Kansai dialect speakers and standard Japanese speakers used yo, ne and yone for the same functions and with similar frequencies. In order to avoid possible influence by dialects, it might have been better to exclude Kansai dialect speakers from the research. Secondly, better audio-recording equipment and multiple microphones were desirable for recording so as not to miss any interactional particles that appeared predominantly at the end of utterances and thus tended to fade away. Extra attention should have been paid to the recording of the JLLs' speech since they made the ending portions of their utterances ambiguous more often than the NJSs did, probably because they were not confident in speaking in their second or foreign language. Although this study confined its scope of analyses to verbal features, visual data such as videotaping would have been helpful in analyzing non-verbal features (e.g., nods, facial expressions and gazes) which illustrate further interactional aspects of these particles. The design of the fill-in-the-blank test also has room for improvement. The number of 146 questions, the type of speech acts used in each question, the syntactic structure of the provided sentences (e.g., the types of the preceding linguistic elements), and the social contexts of the speech (e.g., social relations of the involved interlocutors) could have been chosen with more care by conducting more than one pilot study. Another limitation concerns the categorization of speech acts. Although an utterance can be multifunctional in nature, in the present study I represented each utterance with only one label of speech act for a simpler analysis. For example, the same utterance may indicate both Aizuchi and agreement. In this case, however, I defined that utterance either as Aizuchi or as expression of agreement, judging from other contextual information such as intonation, stress and vowel length (e.g., "soo desu ne" pronounced with stress and rather a prolonged vowel was identified as an expression of agreement). As in this example, defining the speech act of a certain utterance sometimes depended a great deal on such contextual factors. As a result, judgement in classifying the utterances of the data was somewhat influenced by my subjective judgement. In fact, this process of defining the speech act of each utterance was one of the most laborious tasks in the process of composing this thesis, indicating the fuzziness of the borders among speech acts. For this reason, it seems necessary to examine the concept of the speech act itself. Actually, some studies (e.g., Givon, 1982, 1990; Tsuchihashi, 1983; Kitano, 1993) incorporated the notion of "speech act continuum" for the analysis of interactional particles. This concept explains that speech acts are not discrete from one another but constitute a continuum. Givon (1982), for example, proposes that interactional particles including yo, ne and ka are placed on a continuum between two points, declarative and interrogative, based on such variables as the speaker's confidence in his or her knowledge and the speaker's willingness to admit challenge to his or her knowledge. The incorporation of this theory might have brought different views into the present study. 147 6.5 Further Studies This study revealed that native Japanese speakers modify their uses of yo, ne and yone when they talk to Japanese language learners (i.e., "foreigner talk"). Studies which analyze in particular the native speakers' uses of these particles in native-learner conversations seem to be beneficial to the Japanese language teaching, providing Japanese teachers with information about the potential effects of their use of yo, ne and yone on the learners' production of these particles. Furthermore, longitudinal studies would account for the development pattern of the learners' competence for use of yo, ne and yone and the factors involved in the process. As linguistic features which influence human relationships, the use of yo, ne and yone also seems to be closely related with such sociolinguistic factors as gender, formality of language and dialect. The present study did not delve into these sociolinguistic aspects of yo, ne and yone. However, some answers obtained from the questionnaires suggest a need for more sociolinguistic analyses of yo, ne and yone. Some male participants (either JLLs or NJSs) associated yo, ne and yone with female speech and/or motherese, and considered that they should be avoided. Also, almost all the participants commented that yo, ne and yone should not be employed in a formal conversation and in the conversation with a meue no hito a ('superior' or 'senior'). Interestingly, however, the conversation data revealed that such male speakers used yo, ne and yone as frequently as did females. Further, those speakers who used honorifics also employed yo, ne and yone throughout their conversation. In other words, the participants' perception of yo, ne and yone does not necessarily coincide with their use of these particles in actual speech. These results imply that both Japanese language learners and native Japanese speakers have certain stereotypes regarding the use of yo, ne and yone. However, it is true that these particles sometimes produce the feminine tone, following certain linguistic features (e.g.."soo yone" is feminine, while "soo da/desu yone" is neutral). Also, as some studies (e.g., McGloin 1990) show, formal speech does 148 not usually contain many instances of yo and ne. As well as for purely sociolinguistic interest into the study of these interactional particles, further investigation into the relationships between yo, ne and yone and the sociolinguistic variables of gender and formality of language would greatly benefit dispelling misconceptions and informing students of constraints on the use of yo, ne and yone. The relationship of yone and ne with the nominalization form, n(o) (da/desu) is yet another topic which requires further analysis. There is no study that specifically examined this subject, while many studies have analyzed each of the interactional particles and the nominalization form separately. I believe that such an analysis would contribute to the field of Japanese language teaching as well as to Japanese linguistics. This study analyzed interactional particles, yo, ne and yone in terms of their roles in speech acts and in Japanese discourse. It also investigated the acquisition of these particles by Japanese language learners. The results suggest the need for a comprehensive analysis of yo, ne and yone, which includes examination of the relationships of these particles with their preceding modal elements (e.g., the nominalization form) and with sociolinguistic factors (e.g., formality of language). Those studies would bring insights into both linguistic analysis and instruction of these particles. Moreover, this study revealed that yone has its own pragmatic functions distinct from those of yo and ne, which substantiate Japanese politeness and communicative styles. For this reason, I suggest that yone be given more attention in both textbooks and in Japanese language classrooms. 149 References Association for Japanese-language teaching. (1984). Japanese for busy people. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Barnlund, D. C. (1974). The public self and the private self in Japan and the United States. In J. C. Condon & M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural encounters with Japan: Communication ~ contact and conflict (pp. 27-96). Tokyo: Simul Press. Benveniste, E. (1971). Subjectivity in language. In Problems in general linguistics (pp. 223-230). Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, W. (Ed.). (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Advances in discourse processes: Vol. 3. Norwood: Ablex. Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language (pp.35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 105-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, typological studies in language, No. 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cheng, C. (1987). Shuujoshi: Hanashite to kikite no ninshiki no gap o umeru tame no bunsetsuji [Final particles: Sentence clitics for filling the gap between the speaker's and the hearer's recognition]. Nihongogaku 6, 93-109. 150 Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: The data (pp.21-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Clancy, P. M. (1986).The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language acquisition and socialization across cultures (pp.213-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, H. M. (1988). Sentential particles in Japanese conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Cook, H. M. (1989). The sentence-final particle ne as a tool for cooperation in Japanese conversation. In H. Hoji (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (pp. 29-44). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cook, H. M. (1992). Meaning of non-referential indexes: A case study of the Japanese sentence-final particle ne. Text, 12 (4), 507-539. Crystal, D. (1992). Dictionary of language and languages. London: Penguin Books. Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement In Oiler (Ed.), Issues in Language testing research (pp. 108-129). MA: Newbury House. Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn. S., Paolino, D., & Summing, S. (1992). In Thompson, S. A. (Ed.), Outline of discourse transcription. Discourse and grammar (Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2): University of California, Department of Linguistics. Santa Barbara, Californina. Edelsky, C. (1979). Question intonation and sex roles. Language Society, 8, 15-32. Ellis, R. (1990). Individual learning styles in classroom second language development. In J. De Jong and E. Stevenson (Eds.), Individualizing the assessment of language abilities (pp. 83-96). Clevedon, England: Multilinguistc Matters. 151 Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erickson, F. (1984). Rhetoric, anecdotes, and rhapsody: Coherence strategies in a conversation among Black American adolescents. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 81-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Finegan, E. (1994). Language: Its Structure and Use, (2nd Ed.). Harcourt Brace College. Givon, T. (1982). Evidentially and epistemic space. Studies in Language, 6 (1), 23-49. Givon, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction: Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givon, T. (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction: Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6 (3), 283-316. Haga, Y. (1954). Chinjutsu to wa nanimono? [What is chinjutsul]. Kokugo Kokubun., 23 (4), 47-61. Hashimoto, S. (1959). Kokubunpootaikeiron [The National Language Systematization]. In Hashimoto Shinkichi Hakushi Chosakushuu Dainanasatsu [A Collection of papers of Dr. Shinkichi Hashimoto] (pp. 123-124). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Hinds, J. (1978). Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse. In J. Hinds & I. Howard (Eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics (pp. 79-121). Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Horii, K. (1994, Dec). Soo desu ne to soo desu ka no chigai o doo setsumeisuru? [How do you explain the difference between Soodesune and Soodesukal]. Gekkan Nihongo, 68-69. 152 Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals in linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223-248. International Christian University. (1996). Japanese for college student—Basic: Vol.1. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Ishikawa, M. (1988). The cognitive and interactional functions of the Japanese sentence particle ne in written discourse. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of New York, Buffalo. Iwasaki, S. (1993). The structure of the Intonation Unit in Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics: Vol. 3 (pp. 39-53). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Izuhara, H. (1992). 'Ne' no communication kinoo [Communicative functions of ne]. In H. Quackenbush, A. Ozaki, M. Kashima, M. Fujiwara, & Y. Momiyama (Eds.), Nihongokenkyuu to Nihongokyooiku (pp. 159-172). Nagoya: The Nagoya University. Izuhara, H. (1993).Shuujoshi 'yo' 'yone' 'ne' no soogooteki koosatsu: 'Yone' no communication kinoo no koosatsu ojiku ni [Comprehensive analysis of final particles; yo, yone and ne, focusing on communicative functions of yone]. Nagoyadaigaku Nihongo Nihonbunkaronshuu: Vol.1 (pp. 21-34). Nagoya: Nagoya University Ryuugakusei Center. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language, (pp.350-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kamio, A. (1979). On the notion speaker's territory of information: A functional analysis of certain sentence-final forms in Japanese. In G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, & M. Murai (Eds.), Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue (pp. 213-231). Tokyo: Kenkyuusha. 153 Kamio, A. (1989). Joohoo no nawabari no riron to nihongo no tokuchoo [Speaker's territory of information and characteristics of the Japanese language]. In K. Inoue (Ed.), Nihonbunpoo Shoojiten (pp. 223-244). Tokyo: Taishuukan. Kamio, A. (1990). Joohoo no nawabari riron [The theory of information territory]. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Kamio, A. (1994). The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 27,67-100. Kamio, A. (1995). Territory of information in English and Japanese and psychological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 235-264. Kamio, A. (1998). An analysis of Japanese ne in terms of the theory of territory of information. In N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, S. Sohn., & S Strauss. (Eds.), Japanese!Korean Linguistics: Vol.7 (pp. 231-242). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kasper, G. (1989). Interactive procedures in interlanguage discourse. In W. Oleksy (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 189-229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kato, A., Saji, K., & Morita, Y. (Eds.). (1989). Nihongogaisetsu [Profile of Japanese Language]. Tokyo: Soyosha. Kawamori, M. (1991). Shuujoshi to ninchiyoosoo: Japanese sentence final particles and epistemic modality. Shizengengoshori, 84 (6), 41-48. Kinsui, S. (1991). Shohyoo ronbun: Kamio Akio, joohoo no nawabari—Gengo no kinooteki bunseki [A review on Territory of Information' by Akio Kamio—A functional analysis of language). Gengo Kenkyu, 100, 106-119. Kitagawa, C. (1977). A source of feminity in Japanese: in defence of Robin Lakoff's 'Language and women's place'. Papers in Linguistics, 10, 275-298. 154 Kitano, H. (1993). Nihongo no shoojoshi 'ne' no motsu kihontekina kinoo ni tsuite [Fundamental functions of Japanese final particle ne]. Kokugoronsetsushiryoo, 30 (3), 83-88. Kunihiro, T. (1992). Noda kara noni, node e—No no kyootsuusei [Noda, noni and node—the common feature of no]. Nihongokenkyuu to Nihongokyooiku, 9-21. Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai. Kuno, S. (1973). Nihon Bunpoo Kenkyuu [The Study of Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1989). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. ISRL Report No. IRL89-0013. Laver, J. (1968). Voice quality and indexical information. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 3, 43-54. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.) Native Language and Foreign Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278. New York New York Academy of Sciences. Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics: Vols. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makino, S., & Tsutsui, M. (1986). A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296-336). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Martin, S. E. (1975). A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press. 155 Masuoka, T. (1991). Modality no bunpoo [Grammar of modality]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Matsumura, A. (Ed.) (1971). Nihon bunpoo jiten [Japanese Grammar Dictionary]. Tokyo: Meijishoin. Maynard, S. (1989). Japanese conversation: Self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Maynard, S. (1993). Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Maynard, S. (1995). Commentary questions in Japanese: Cognitive sources and pragmatic resources. Studies in Language, 19 (2), 447-487. McGloin, N. H.(1980). Some observation concerning no desu expressions. The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 15, 117-149. McGloin, N. H. (1990). Sex difference and sentence-final particles. In S. Ide & N. McGloin (Eds.), Aspects of Japanese women's language (pp.23-41). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. McGloin, N. H. (1996). 'Hai' and 'ee': An interactional analysis. Paper presented at the 7th Japanese and Korean linguistics conference, 1-8. Mizutani, N. (1983). Aizuchi to ootoo [Aizuchi and its responses]. In O. Mizutani (Ed.), Hanashi kotoba no hyoogen [Expressions of spoken language] (pp. 37-44). Tokyo: Chikuma Shoboo. Mizutani, N. (1984). Nihongo kyooiku to hanashikotoba no jittai: Aizuchi no bunkeki [The Japanese language teaching situations and the spoken language: An analysis on aizuchi]. In Kindaichi haruhiko hakase koki kinen ronbunshuu [Papers in commemoration of Dr. Haruhiko Kindaichi's 70th birthday], (pp. 261-279). Tokyo: Sanseidoo. 156 Mizutani, N. (1985). Hanashikotoba no bunpoo [Grammar of the spoken language]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Moriyama, T. (1992). Nihongo ni okeru suiryoo o megutte [Inferences in the Japanese language]. Gengokenkyuu, 101, 64-83. Murai, M., & Soga, ML (1983). Patterns of errors among intermediate and advanced students. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 18(1), 7-22. National Foreign Language Center. (1993). A framework for introductory Japanese language curricula in American high schools and colleges. Washington, D.C: National Foreign Language Center. Nitta, Y. (1991). Nihongo no modality to ninshoo [Modality and person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. Noguchi, M. (1997). A study of the speech act of refusals by native speakers of Japanese and learners of Japanese as a second language. Unpublished master's thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1989). Introduction. Text, 9(1), 1-5. Ohso, M. (1986). Goyoo bunseki 1: "Kyoo wa ii tenki desu ne."—"Hai, soo desu." [An analysis of learners' errors 1: 'It's beautiful weather today, isn't it ?' 'Yes, it is.'] Nihongogaku, 5 (9), 91-94. Ohta, A. S. (1993). Activity, affect and stance: Sentential particles in the discourse of the Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 157 Oishi, T. (1985). A description of Japanese final particles in context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour. Okamoto, S. (1993). Joohoo e no kanyo to bunmatsu-hyoogen: Kansetsukei to shoojoshi 'ne' no shiyoo e no eikyoo ['Involvement' with information and sentence-fimal forms: its influence on the use of indirect forms and the final particle ne]. Kokugorunsetsushiryoo, 30 (I), 552-556. Okamura, A.(1995). Teachers' and nonteachers' perception of elementary learners' spoken Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 29-40. Peirce, C. (1931-58). In Hartshorne, C, & Weiss, P. (Eds.), Collected papers, vols.1-8. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Saji, K. (1956). Shuujoshi no kinoo [Functions of final particles]. Kokugo Kokubun, 26(7), 461-469. Saji, K. (1991). Nihongo bunpoo no kenkyuu [A study of Japanese grammar]. Hitsuji Shoboo: Kusakabe. Sasaki, Y. (1992). Shuujoshi 'ne' to teeneesa to no kakawari [the relationship between the final particle ne and politeness]. Kokugorunsetsushiryoo, 29(3), 131-136. Sawyer, M. (1991). The development of pragmatics in Japanese as a second language: The sentence-final particle ne. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as a native and target language (Technical report #3) (pp.83-125). Honolulu, Hawaii: The University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31, 409-437. Schieffelin, B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 158 Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanism underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357-385. Schourup, L.C. (1983). Common discourse particles in English conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231. Shibata, T. (1982). Yooda, rashii, daroo. In T. Kunihiro (Ed.), Kotoba no imi: Vol. 3—Jisho ni kaiteinai koto [The meanings of words that are not found in a dictionary] (pp. 87-94). Tokyo: Heebonsha. Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. New York: Cambridge Language Surveys. Shimoyama, C. (1995). Bunmatsu ni okeru 'yone': 'Ne' to hikakushinagara [Sentence-final yone: Its analysis in comparison with ne]. Kotoba no Kagaku (Studia Linguistica) 8, 51-66. Nagoya: The Nagoya University. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifter, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 112-171). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298. Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In CA. Ferguson & D.I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Soga, M., & Matsumoto, N. (1978). Foundation of Japanese language. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Suzuki, A. (1979: originally 1824). Gengyo shishuron. edited by K. Toshio & M. Tsuboi. Bunseisha Bunko, 68. Tokyo: Bunseisha. 159 Suzuki, H. (1976). Gendai nihongo ni okeru shuujoshi no hataraki to sono soogoshoosetsu ni tsuite [The functions of and connections among final particles in modern Japanese]. Kokugo to Kokugogdku, 11, 58-70. Tanaka, A. (1977). Joshi (3) [Particles]. In Ohno, H. & Shibata, T. (Eds.), Iwanamikooza nihongo 7 Bunpoo 2 (Iwanami nihongo series vol.7: Grammar part 2) (pp. 361-454). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language, (pp. 1-16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tanomura, T. (1990). Gendai Nihongo no Bunpoo: Vol. 1 - "Noda" no imi to yoohoo [Modern Japanese grammar The meaning and usage of noda]. Izumi Shoin: Tokyo. Teramura, H. (1977). Teramura Hideo ronbunshuu 1: Nihongo bunpoo hen [A collection of papers by Hideo Teramura, Vol.1: Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Teramura, H. (1984). Nihongo no shintakusu to imi: Vol. 2. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91-112. Todoroki, Y. (1993). 'Yo' 'ne' no onchoo to kinoo [Intonations and functions of yo and ne]. Heisei Gonendo Nihongokyooiku-gakkai Shunki-taikai Yokooshuu [Paper presented at the Heisei 5th Japanese Language Education Conference], 7-12. Tokieda, M. (1950). Nihon bunpoo koogohen [Grammar of the colloquial Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami. Tokieda, M. (1951). Taijin kankei o koosei suru joshi, jodooshi [Auxiliary verbs and particles used to form human relationships]. Kokugo Kokubun 20(9), 1-10. Tokieda, M. (1954). Shi to ji no renzoku, hi-renzoku no mondai [The issue of the relationship between shi and ji]. Kokugogaku 19, (12), 1-16. 160 Tsuchihashi, M. (1983). The speech act continuum: An investigation of Japanese sentence final particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 7,361-387. Uyeno, T. (1971). A study of Japanese modality: A performative analysis of sentence particles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour. Watanabe, M. (1968). Shuujoshi no bunpoo-ronteki ichi: Jojutsu to chinjutsu saisetsu [The position of final particles in Japanese grammar: A review of jojutsu and chinjutsu]. Kokugogaku, 72, 127-135. Wiese, R. (1984). Language production in foreign and native languages: same or different? In Dechert, D. Mohlw, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions. Tubingen: Narr. Young, J., & Nakajima-Okano, K. (1984). Learn Japanese: New college text: Vol.1. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 161 APPENDIX A List of Definitions The following is a list of definitions of terms found in this thesis: Affective disposition/Affect: A speaker's emotional orientation and feelings about the ongoing interaction, including the speaker's attitude towards the propositional content of any particular utterance, as well as the speaker's overall feelings about the topic, interlocutors, context and other variables involved in the interaction (Ohta 1993). aizuchi (the lower case): Verbal or non-verbal cues that signal that the addressee is following what the speaker says. It is given by an addressee to a speaker during the speaker's turn in a conversation (Maynard, 1989; Cook, 1992). For example, nods and gazes are non-verbal aizuchi, while utterances un ('yeah'), ee ('yes') and soo desu ne ('it is so') are verbal aizuchi. Aizuchi (the upper case): A specific type of verbal aizuchi expression, which contains either yo, ne or yone (e.g., soo desu ne). Communication strategies: Strategies learners employ when learners are faced with the task of communicating meanings for which they lack the requisite linguistic knowledge (e.g., when they have to refer to some object without knowing the word in the second language). Communication strategies are viewed as discourse strategies that are evident in interaction involving learners, or they can be treated as cognitive processes involved in the use of the L2 in reception and production (Ellis 1994). Communicative Style: The way language is used and understood in a particular culture, which both reflects and reinforces fundamental cultural beliefs about the way people are and the nature of interpersonal communication (Clancy 1986). 162 Conversation management: Conversation management is a verbal and non-verbal interactional strategy employed to manage face-to-face interactions from one moment to another. It requires the ability to start conversation, take turns appropriately in that conversation, develop topics of conversation interactionally, perform appropriate back-channel behavior, or aizuchi, select what is to be said and "unsaid," and send appropriate paralinguistic and nonverbal signals (Maynard 1989). Enryo: 'Reservedness,' 'reservation' or 'feelings of constraint and reserve.' The expression of enryo is one of the Japanese communicative styles (Clancy 1985). Epistemological disposition: A speaker's evaluation of the truth-value of any particular utterance. Some property of the speaker's belief system or knowledge; namely, a proposition (Ohta 1993). Face Threatening Acts (FTAs): The acts which intrinsically threaten "face": the public self-image that everyone wants to claim for himself or herself (Brown and Levinson 1978). Foregrounding and Backgrounding: "Foregrounding" is relative prominence in a discourse, or the language of the actual story line or the parts of narrative which relate events belonging to the skeletal structure of the discourse. In contrast, "backgrounding" refers to the language of supportive material which does not itself narrate the main event (Hopper, 1979; Crystal, 1992). Index: "To index" refers to "to signal" or to relate a linguistic symbol to a feature of the communicative or social context. "Indexes" are signs which are related to the things they stand for because they participate in or are actually part of the events they stand for. For example, the use of honorifics in a given context indexes the social relationship between the interlocutors in that context (Cook, 1988; Ohta, 1993). Interactional particles: Particles which (1) appear utterance-initially, -internally and/or -finally, (2) do not mark grammatical relationships and (3) index interactive contexts. Omoiyarix 'Empathy,' 'consideration' or 'feelings of sympathy and compassion.' The expression of omoiyari is a Japanese communicative style. 163 Pointing: The act of directing the addressee's attention in a certain direction. Politeness strategies: There are two types of strategies employed to express politeness: positive politeness strategies and negative politeness strategies. Positive politeness strategies are used to protect the addressee's "positive face" or "the desire to be approved of." On the other hand, negative politeness strategies represents the "politeness of non-imposition" used not to demean the addressee's "negative face," or "the desire to be unimpeded in one's actions" (Brown and Levinson 1978). Proposition: A unit of meaning which constitutes the subject matter of a statement, and which is asserted to be true or false (Crystal 1992). Referential meaning: The meaning that a linguistic expression has through its reference to an entity or situations. Referential meaning is sometimes contrasted with "social meaning," which is understood through the help of contextual information (Cook 1988, 1992; Finegan, 1994). Subjectivity: A speaker's personal attitude and emotions, or the speaker's "voices from the heart" (Suzuki, 1824; Benveniste, 1971; Maynard, 1992). Wakimae: 'Discernment' or the speaker's use of polite expressions according to social conventions rather than interactional strategies. To behave according to sets of social norms of appropriate behavior people have to observe in order to be considered a respected member of society. For instance, wakimae is involved when the speaker assesses the extent to which he or she can be assertive to the addressee, based on the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee. It is one of the Japanese communicative styles (Ide, 1989; Maynard, 1995). 164 APPENDIX B Backgrounds of Japanese Language Learner (JLL) Participants Code Number Sex Age Native Language Period of Stay in Japan Period of Japanese Study in Classrooms 1 M 19 English 7 years 3 years 2 M 23 English 1 year 3 years 3 M 22 English 1 year 4 years 4 M 24 English 2 years 5 years 5 M 27 English 4 years 2 years 6 M 27 English 3 years 2 years 7 M 20 Cantonese-Chinese None 4 years 8 M 21 Mandarin-Chinese None 6 years 9 M 22 Mandarin-Chinese None 4 years 10 F 18 English Visit every year 2 years 11 F 20 English 3 months 5 years 12 F 20 English lyear 2months 8 years 13 F 20 English Visit Periodically 14 years 14 F 21 English lyear 6months 2 years 15 F 21 English Visit Periodically 11 years 16 F 22 English 2 months 3 years 17 F 22 English 11 months 15 years 18 F 21 English 1 year 4 years 19 F 22 English 10 months 2 years 20 F 25 English 1 year 4 years 21 F 20 English None 2 years 165 APPENDIX C Backgrounds of Native Japanese Speaker (NJS) Participants Code Number Sex Age Visa Status1 Length of Stay in Canada Birth place2 (Prefecture) 1 M 19 Undergraduate student 9 months Tokyo 2 M 24 Graduate student 6 months Tokyo 3 M 26 Working-Holiday 6 months Tokyo 4 M 30 English language student 4 months Tokyo 5 M 20 Exchange student 5 months Shizuoka 6 M 20 Undergraduate student 2years lOmonths Aichi 7 M 21 Exchange student 5 months Kanagawa 8 M 22 Undergraduate student 3 years Toyama 9 M 25 English language student 5 months Hiroshima 10 M 26 Working-Holiday 4 months Osaka* 11 M 20 Exchange student 6 months Hyogo* 12 M 20 Exchange student 5 months Siga* 13 M 25 Working-Holiday 8 months Ehime* 14 M 20 Exchange student 6 months Fukuoka 15 F 30 English language student 4 months Tokyo 16 F 27 Graduate student lyear 8months Saitama 17 F 26 Working-Holiday 11 months Chiba 18 F 23 Working-Holiday 6 months Chiba 19 F 30 Research student 4 months Kanagawa 20 F 35 English language student 1 month Fukushima 21 F 25 English language student 8 months Gifu 22 F 20 Exchange student 5 months Yamanashi 23 F 48 English language student 4 months Shimane 24 F 20 Exchange student 6 months Fukuoka •'Exchange student" refers to an undergraduate enrolled in a one-year UBC exchange programs. 2An asterisk indicates a Kansai dialect speaker. 166 25 F 24 Working-Holiday 9 months Kagoshima 26 F 30 English language student 1 month Osaka* 27 F 26 Graduate student 8 months Osaka* 28 F 22 Exchange student 5 months Osaka* 29 F 25 English language student 1 month Osaka* 30 F 20 Exchange student 5 months Osaka* 31 F 19 English language student 1 month Nara* 32 F 31 English language student 5 months Kobe 167 APPENDIX D Questionnaire for JLL Participants 1.Background Information: 1) Name: 2) Age: 3) Sex: Male / Female 4) Native Language: 5) Other language(s) you can speak other than English and Japanese: 6) I am a year undergraduate / graduate [Circle one] student 7) Specialization/Major 8) Why did you decide to participate in this study? [Circle one] 1 Because of interest in the topic of the study. 2 Because of the opportunity for talking with native Japanese speakers. 3 Other 9) Have you ever taken/Are you taking any Japanese course(s) at UBC? If so, please record the year(s) and the course(s) (i.e., the course number(s) and/or the title(s) of the course(s)). Year Course Year Course Year Course Year Course 10). Have you ever taken/Are you taking any Japanese course(s) at institute(s) other than UBC (e.g., a high school, college)? If so, please record the place(s), year(s) and course(s) (i.e., the course number(s) and/or title(s) of the course(s)). Place Year Course Place Year Course Place Year Course Place Year Course 168 11) Have you ever stayed in Japan? Yes / No [Circle one] (For Yes) Please specify the period(s) you stayed and the place(s) visited. Period: from (YY/MM) to Place: Period: from (YY/MM) ; to Place: 12) Do you have / Have you had the opportunity to converse with native Japanese speakers? Yes / No [Circle one] (For Yes) Please indicate how long and how often you speak/spoke with them (e.g., once a week). How long : How often: 13) What is your purpose of studying Japanese language? 14) What aspects of the Japanese language do you think are your strength? (speaking / listening / writing / reading / kanji) [Circle as many as it applies] 15) What aspects of the Japanese language do you want to improve? (speaking / listening / writing / reading / kanji) [Circle as many as it applies] 16) What is the most recent grade you achieved in the Japanese Language Proficiency Test? (Level 1 / Level 2 / Level 3 / Level 4 / Haven't taken it) [Circle one] 169 2. Questions Concerning the Sentence-Final Particles Yo, Ne and Yone: The following questions concern Japanese sentence-final particles yo, ne and yone. As the title of this research indicates, this research is a comparative study of conversation development by native Japanese speakers and Japanese language learners. More specifically, I am going to focus on the differences between two groups in the use of yo, ne and yone. I believe that this study would reveal the difficulties and problems that learners face in studying these particles, and thus provide possible implications for teaching Japanese as a second language. I did not inform you in advance that yo, ne and yone would be the target of investigation. This was for the purpose of seeing your natural use of these particles in the preceding conversation session. I ask you to appreciate the importance and necessity for this research, which is being conducted in order to discover the natural use of the particles as data in order to satisfy the above-stated purposes. The questions below ask how you perceive the particles yo, ne and yone. This is not to test your linguistic knowledge. So please answer the next questions fully. 1) . Do you use yo, ne and yone when you converse in Japanese? [Circle one] yo: (often / sometimes / rarely / never) ne: (often / sometimes / rarely / never) yone: (often / sometimes / rarely / never) 2) . Please place yo, ne and yone in the order of frequency of your use of them. 1. The particle you use most frequendy: 2. The particle you use the next most frequendy: 3. The particle you use least frequently: 170 3) . Do you consciously use yo, ne and yone ? Yes / No [Circle one] 4) . In what situations do you use yo, ne and yone ? If you can think of any particular situations, please write them down as examples. yo- ; ne: yone: 5) . Are there any situations in which you think you should not use yo, ne and yone! Yes / No [Circle one] (For Yes) What kinds of situations are they? Can you give some examples of such situations? yo-ne: yone: 171 6). Do you think it necessary to use yo, ne and yone when you speak Japanese? yo: necessary / unnecessary [Circle one] Reason(s): . ne: necessary / unnecessary [Circle one] Reason(s): yone: necessary / unnecessary [Circle one] Reason(s): ; 7). Please summarize the meanings/functions of yo, ne and yone. y°-ne: yone: 8). Is it difficult for you to use yo, ne and yone appropriately when you speak Japanese? yo: difficult / not so difficult [Circle one] (For difficult) How?: ne: difficult / not so difficult [Circle one] (For difficult) How?: yone: difficult / not so difficult [Circle one] (For difficult) How?: 172 9) . What were your sources of information for the use of yo, ne and yonel [Circle as many as applies] yo: (teacher / tutor / friend / textbook / book / interaction with Japanese people / other: ) ne: (teacher / tutor / friend / textbook / book / interaction with Japanese people / other: ) yone: (teacher / tutor / friend / textbook / book / interaction with Japanese people/ other: ) 10) . Does your language have any words or elements in it which correspond to yo, ne and/or yonel Yes / No [Circle one] (For Yes) Do you think your language is beneficial to your understanding of the concept of yo, ne and yo nel Yes / No [Circle one] 11) . What do you think is the best way to master the use of yo, ne and yonel Thank you very much for your cooperation. 173 APPENDIX E-l Questionnaire for NJS Participants 1. ^^77VK 1) £fiJ : 2) : 3) t4S'J : (A-T?fflA,-eT£v\, ) 4) B*mt$km<Dmz.Mi£z>nm •. 5) B*<Dl±i%m: m rjf 6) B^omm: af&JM: 10) H*^W#, *fcf*B#Ig£ftSig£LT^fA£, H^fT? a) KffcfgLTfcCidS&So b) is-r^ 174 2. B^m^^t<D^m^^x<oMm 175 2) rjtj , r^gij , r^j <ffi5«H^tT$v\ 4) £A,fti#K: r^j , r^aj , r^fcj E^iftfc: r_^i§ffi0 j J: : & : Xto : ^ffi: to : fc-S/ftv^ (*reBA,-?T£v\ ) Xto : &£/&V^ (*/eiffl^T£v\ ) 176 6) l B*.M<o&t£"Z rJ:J <D&mttL&mi£b JB5/JBfr*v\ (*.T*H^TSVO 2 B#fg<D&ig-<? Hfcj ©^fct&g7rf£ JB5/JBt>ftV^ (AT?BB^T*v\ ) 7) rj:j , rtaj , r^fcu *s^oTv^s^:©t>i^S*l*/«#*fiSl^t^:#v^-c £ : fr : £fr : 177 APPENDIX E-2 Questionnaire for NJS Participants [English Translation] 1.Background Information: 1) Name: 2) Age: 3) Sex: (Male/Female) [Circle one] 4) Other language(s) you can speak except English and Japanese: 5) Home town: City Prefecture 6) Occupation in Japan: 7) Had you ever stayed overseas before you came to Canada? Yes/No [Circle one] (For Yes) Please specify the period(s) stayed and the place(s) visited. Place: __ Period: Place: Period8) How long have you stayed in Canada? : year(s) months 9) Which language do you usually speak in your daily life (in Canada), Japanese or English? [Circle one] 10) Have you ever talked with Japanese language learners? Yes/No [Circle one] 1) Yes. (in the past) 2) Yes. (in present) 3) No, I have not. [Circle a number] 178 2. Questions Concerning the Conversations with Japanese Language Learners: Are there any significant features you noticed in the speech of the Japanese language learners you conversed with (in terms of fluency, naturalness, wording, grammar, politeness, etc.)? If you noticed any, please describe them. 3. Questions Concerning the Sentence-Final Particles Yo, Ne and Yone: The following questions concern Japanese sentence-final particles yo, ne and yone. As the title of this research indicates, this research is a comparative study of conversation development by native Japanese speakers and Japanese language learners. More specifically, I am going to focus on the differences between two groups in the use of yo, ne and yone. I believe that this study would reveal the difficulties and problems that learners face in studying these particles, and thus provide possible implications for teaching Japanese as a second language. I did not inform you in advance that yo, ne and yone would be the target of investigation. This was for the purpose of seeing your natural use of these particles in the preceding conversation session. I ask you to appreciate the importance and necessity for this research, which is being conducted in order to discover the natural use of the particles as data in order to satisfy the above stated purposes. The questions below ask the native Japanese speakers' intuitive opinions concerning the use of yo, ne and yone. This is not to test your linguistic knowledge. So please answer the next questions fully. 1) Do you use yo, ne and yone when you speak Japanese? [Circle one] yo: (often / sometimes / rarely / never) ne: (often / sometimes / rarely / never) yone: (often / sometimes / rarely / never) 179 2) Please place yo, ne and yone in the order of frequency of your use of them. 1 The particle you use most frequently: 2 The particle you use the next most frequently: 3 The particle you use least frequently: 3) Do you consciously use yo, ne and yone ? Yes / No [Circle one] 4) In what situations do you use yo, ne and yone ? If you can think of any particular situations, please write them down as examples. yo-- ; ne: yone: 5) Are there any situations in which you think you should not use yo, ne and yone! Yes / No [Circle one] (For Yes) What kinds of situations are they ? Can you give some examples of such situations? yo-ne: yone: 180 6) Do you think it necessary to use yo, ne and yone when you speak in Japanese? yo: necessary / unnecessary [Circle one] Reason(s): ne: necessary / unnecessary [Circle one] Reason(s): yone: necessary / unnecessary [Circle one] Reason(s): . 7) Please summarize the meanings/functions of yo, ne and yone. yo-ne: yone: Thank you very much for your cooperation. 181 APPENDIX F Suggested Topics [in Japanese] 77r>3> (BBS* B*T/7J^•y'C3SErToTt^^ifo(Oo ) ^mmmmm* rue^T. S^-ZL-T.0 ) B* (Hi#±feo ^W<Dlf^ fl, ) Suggested Topics [in English] Hobbies: Something you are interested in, Something you recommend to others. Travel: Countries or cities you have been to. Fashion: Something trendy in Japan/Canada. Show Business: Movies. TV Dramas. Entertainment news. Recent news: Interesting, funny or scary news. The most shocking thing that happened to you in your life Japan: Your hometown and its attractions. Unique conventions. Language. Vancouver: The reason why you came to Vancouver. Good/Bad points of Vancouver. Culture shock: Something you find strange or interesting about Japanese/Canadian culture. Japanese/English language: The reason or purpose for your studying the language. Difficulties and Interesting points. Future plans: 182 APEENDIX G Fill-in-the-Blank Test [Answer Sheet] Name: Among yo, ne and yone, please choose one particle which would most naturally fit in each blank. If you think no particle is necessary, please circle x. (Circle one) 1 yo ne yone X 2 yo ne yone X 3 yo ne yone X 4 yo ne yone X 5 yo ne yone X 6 yo ne yone X 7 yo ne yone X 8 yo ne yone X 9 yo ne yone X 10 yo ne yone X 11 yo ne yone X 12 yo ne yone X 183 (2) __ (1) Kobochan Vol'.y ©Soyosha Publishing Company Reproduced with a permission 184 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088582/manifest

Comment

Related Items