Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

"You know, I know" : functions, uses, and acquisition of the Japanese noda predicate Renovich, Sachiko Omoto 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2000-0548.pdf [ 9.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089609.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089609-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089609-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089609-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089609-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089609-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089609-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089609-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089609.ris

Full Text

" Y O U K N O W , I K N O W " F U N C T I O N S , U S E S , A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N OF T H E J A P A N E S E NODA P R E D I C A T E by S A C H I K O O M O T O R E N O V I C H B . A . , The University o f British Columbia, 1992 B .Ed . , The University o f British Columbia, 1993 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R O F A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Department o f Asian Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A June 2000 © Sachiko Omoto Renovich, 2000 In p resen t ing this thesis in partial fu l f i lment of the requ i remen ts for an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e at the Univers i ty o f Bri t ish C o l u m b i a , I ag ree that t he Library shal l m a k e it f reely avai lable fo r re ference and s tudy. I fur ther agree that pe rm iss i on for ex tens ive c o p y i n g of this thesis f o r scho lar ly pu rposes may be g ran ted by the h e a d o f my depa r tmen t o r by his o r her representat ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r pub l i ca t i on of this thesis for f inancia l gain shal l no t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my wr i t ten p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t of As~\(KM- S " t "U^-£S" T h e Univers i ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a Da te OrvJ^ JL! . <=±cnrV a 4 1 D E - 6 (2/88) Abstract In the Japanese language, there are various modal elements, which mark speakers' subjective attitudes toward propositions. One of the most common modals is the noda predicate, which possesses the dual function of either asserting the truth of the position or relaying the speaker's desire for information sharing. Japanese Native Speakers (JNSs) use noda frequently in conversation; however, Japanese Language Learners (JLLs) often face difficulty in learning noda because of its wide variety in function and use. To determine the nature of noda use, this study examines conversational data from role-plays and a case study of two J L L s . The main aims of this thesis are 1) to review research on noda and to provide a cohesive and concise explanation of its functions and 2) to examine the use and acquisition of noda by J L L s . Following Noda's (1997) categorization, noda can be divided broadly into two types: scope and mood. Noda of scope exhibits the speaker's assertion that the proposition is true, while noda of mood marks the speaker's strong desire for information to be shared by speaker and hearer. This study proposes a framework with which to understand the functions of noda, and classifies information which is speaker-oriented (+ Speaker/- Hearer knowledge), hearer-oriented (-Speaker/+ Hearer), and shared (+ Speaker/+ Hearer). J L L s first tend to use noda with speaker-oriented information, and later acquire functions related to hearer-oriented and shared information. In the study of role-plays, J L L s with higher oral proficiency levels as rated by the A C T F L - O P I (Oral Proficiency Interview) used a higher frequency of noda. Both the J L L s and JNSs used noda primarily to provide and seek explanations. The intermediate-level J L L s i i underused noda in providing supplemental explanations. Other uses of noda in the role-plays included emphasizing information, seeking validity, and back-channeling. The two J L L s in the case study did not notice the use of noda during conversations with the JNS, but began to use noda more frequently during practice conversations upon receiving explicit instructions on the use of noda. While the post-test did not demonstrate increased use of noda due to the limited time of this study, there are clear indications for pedagogy. First, because the functions of noda are varied and numerous, Japanese language textbooks and classrooms should not be limited in providing only the 'explanation' function of noda. Second, the frequent use of noda in Japanese conversation suggests that it should be an area of focus in oral practice. Finally, J L L s need to develop skills in both comprehension and production of noda to improve their Japanese discourse. i i i Table of Contents Abstract i i Table of Contents iv List of Tables v i i i List of Figures ix List of Abbreviations x List of Symbols and Transcription Conventions x i Acknowledgements x i i Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 The Japanese noda 1 1.2 Functions of noda 3 1.3 Noda in Japanese discourse 8 1.4 Comparison of noda to related phrases in other languages 9 1.5 Comparison of noda to English you know 10 1.6 Organization of the thesis 12 Chapter Two: Review of noda 13 2.1 Previous studies on noda 13 2.2 Noda and Sakakibara's pragmatic analyses of noda 19 2.2.1 Noda's (1997) typology 19 2.2.2 Sakakibara's concept of noda 26 iv Chapter Three: Characterization of noda 31 3.1 Distribution of noda 31 3.1.1 Distribution of noda of scope ( N D s c o p e ) 33 3.1.2 Distribution of noda of mood ( N D m o o d ) 39 3.2 Structure of noda 42 3.2.1 Phrase structure of modals in Japanese 43 3.2.2 Phrase structure of noda 47 3.3 Characterizations of noda 50 3.3.1 The speaker's perception 50 3.3.2 Information framework of noda 51 3.3.3 Functions of noda under the information framework 54 Chapter Four: Methodology 59 4.1 Introduction of data collection 59 4.2 Role-plays 60 4.2.1 Participants 60 4.2.2 Procedures for data collection 61 4.2.3 Procedures for analysis 61 4.3 Case study 65 4.3.1 Procedures for data collection 66 4.3.2 Procedures for analysis 67 Chapter Five: Analyses of role-plays 68 5.1 Noda use by oral proficiency levels in role-plays 68 5.2 Functions of noda used in role-plays 69 v 5.3 Acquisition sequence of noda 72 5.4 Possible use of noda for JLLs 73 5.5 Explanation giving (+Speaker/-Hearer) 76 5.5.1 Explanation giving by JNSs 76 5.5.2 Explanation giving by JLLs 78 5.6 Validity posing (+ Speaker/- Hearer) ' 80 5.7 Explanation seeking (-Speaker/-i-Hearer) 81 5.7.1 Explanation seeking by JNSs 82 5.7.2 Explanation seeking by J L L s 83 5.8 Emphasis and reproach (+ Speaker/-i- Hearer) 84 5.9 Back-channel (+ Speaker/+ Hearer) 85 Chapter Six: Analyses of case study 88 6.1 Implicit learning stage 89 6.2 Explicit learning stage 93 6.3 Contexts of noda use 100 6.4 Interlanguage pragmatics 104 Chapter Seven: Conclusion 106 7.1 Functions and contexts of noda use 106 7.2 J L L s ' acquisition of noda 107 7.3 Pedagogical implications 109 7.3.1 Treatment of noda in textbooks 110 7.3.2 Suggestions for instruction 113 7.4 Limitations 114 7.5 Further studies 115 vi Data Sources 118 Japanese Textbooks Examined 119 References 120 Appendices: Appendix A Categorization of modals 128 Appendix B Distribution of noda of scope 129 Appendix C Distribution of noda of mood 131 Appendix D Native speaker grammaticality judgements of noda use (scope) 132 Appendix E Sentences used in the grammaticality judgements 133 Appendix F Backgrounds of Japanese Language Learner (JLL) participants 134 Appendix G Backgrounds of Japanese native speaker (JNS) participants 135 Appendix H Transcriptions of role-plays 136 Appendix I Grammaticality judgements of noda use by J L L s 199 vi i Lis t of Tables 1.1 Various forms of the noda predicate 2 2.1 Characteristics of noda of mood 21 2.2 Noda in subordinate clauses 23 2.3 Noda's overview of noda 25 2.4 Grice's cooperative principle 26 5.1 Frequency of noda use by OPI rating 69 5.2 Correct use of noda under the information framework 70 5.3 Possible use of noda for intermediate-level J L L s 74 5.4 Possible use of noda for advanced-level JLLs 74 6.1 Frequency of noda use in the case study 95 6.2 Contexts of noda use in the case study 100 7.1 Introduction of noda in Japanese textbooks 111 v i i i Lis t of Figures 2.1 Cook's framework of accessible and inaccessible knowledge 17 2.2 Kamio 's territory of information 18 3.1 Masuoka's hierarchical structure for the Japanese sentence 44 3.2 Rizz i ' s framework 45 3.3 Phrase structure of the two noda 47 3.4 Internal strucure of noda of scope 48 3.5 Information framework of no da 51 3.6 Functions of noda under the information framework 52 6.1 Graph of noda use in the case study 95 ix Lis t of Abbreviations A C C accusative marker C A U causative C P L copula D A T dative marker E X C exclamation G E N genitive marker I M P imperative L O C locative marker N D noda N E G negative N M R nominalizer N O M nominative marker P A S passive PST past tense P R F perfective aspect P R G progressive aspect Q question marker Q U O quotative marker S F P sentence final particle T O P topic marker 1/3PS 1st person singular/3 rd person singular 1PP 1st person plural X List of Symbols and Transcription Conventions V grammatical * ungrammatical ? questionable % varied grammaticality judgement (C) correct use of noda (I) incorrect use of noda (R) recommended use of noda Japanese English 0 m X word unraised intonation ? rising intonation , recognizable pause (under .5 second) () recognizable pause (over .5 second) [ the beginning of overlapped speech = speech which comes immediately after another person's speech (i.e. latched utterances) (laugh) laughter : emphatic vowel elongation X inaudible utterance word English pronunciation x i Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to the members of my M . A . thesis committee: Drs. Y o k o Collier-Sanuki, Rose-Marie Dechaine, Glor ia Tang and N a m - L i n Hur. Their insightful comments and questions were key in the writing of this thesis. I am particularly grateful to my graduate studies supervisor Dr. Collier-Sanuki, whose constant encouragement and valuable suggestions helped me tremendously with my study. I would also like to thank Dr. Hirokazu Tanaka for reading parts of my thesis draft and offering useful comments. I am also thankful to the participants in the research and the friends who have supported me through my study. M y peers in the Asian Studies Department, Shino Takahashi, Mich iko Suzuki, Maiko Shimada, and Kaeko Aragaki as well as Yuka Kurihara in Language Education, especially provided me help and encouragement. Finally, I am grateful to my husband and my family for enabling me to accomplish my goal of writing this thesis. x i i 1 Chapter One Introduction The noda predicate is used extensively in Japanese discourse and has been under intense study (e.g. Alfonso 1966, M c G l o i n 1983, Maynard 1992, Noda 1997). Researchers such as Maynard (1992) and Sakakibara (1998) note that noda is a difficult feature for Japanese Language Learners (JLLs) to master because of its numerous functions; however, most research to date has focused on natural and generated examples of Japanese Native Speakers (JNSs). This thesis examines noda from a pedagogical point of view, and studies conversational data from J L L s to provide insight into their acquisition of noda. The goals of this research are two-fold: 1) to review research on noda and to provide a cohesive and concise explanation of its functions and 2) to examine the use and acquisition of noda by J L L s . This chapter gives a preliminary introduction of noda, discusses its use in Japanese discourse, and compares it to similar phrases and/or grammar structures in other languages. The last section w i l l then outline the organization of this thesis. 1.1 The Japanese noda Noda is the combination of nominalizer no and copula da and attaches to the dictionary form of verbs, /-adjectives, no-adjectives or nouns.1 While previous researchers have used different terms, i.e., extended predicate (Jorden 1963), n desu (Kuno 1973, M c G l o i n 1989) and nominal predicate (Maynard 1996, 1997a), I wi l l use noda to refer to its various forms. 'When noda attaches to na-adjectives and nouns, the copula changes from da to the attributive form na, as seen in Table 1.1. 2 category dictionary form 1. polite noda + <DX-?I hX-f + nodesu/n-desu 2. plain noda [-force] +no 3. plain noda [+force] + (Dili hit + noda/n-da verb t f < iku go (ff<) hXir (iku) n-desu (tf<) <D (iku) no (tf<) ^ f c (iku) n-da i-adjective takai expensive (Ajvv h x r (takai) n-desu (takai) no (m^) h i t (takai) n-da na-adjective mmtc kirei da beautiful mm?*) Asx-r . (kirei na) n-desu * mmtc) hx-r * (kirei da) n-desu (kirei na) no (ffiMte) hit (kirei na) n-da noun tame. seito da student mm) tux-t (seito na) n-desu * mm) /oxi-* (seito da) n-desu <D (seito na) no (&W£) h i t (seito na) n-da Table 1.1 Various forms of the noda predicate Table 1.1 presents three variations of noda, 1) polite, 2) plain [-force] and 3) plain [+force].2 Each category adds different forms of the noda predicate to the verbs, adjectives and nouns. First, the polite noda (nodesu) is a combination of no and the polite form of the copula desu. Second, no is the plain form of noda without the added force of the copula. A fourth variation, no-de-aru (nominalizer+copula+exist) will not be dealt with in this thesis because it is not used in conversation. 3 Third, noda is the plain form with the copula da. Because the presence of the copula in noda adds force to the statement, I wi l l characterize no as.[- force] and noda as [+ force]. 3 In both the polite and plain forms, the nominalizer no may contract to n producing the colloquial versions n-desu and n-da. 1.2 Functions of noda Alfonso (1966) determines that speakers use noda in order to add various nuances to the information they are conveying. He concludes that noda "indicates some explanation, either of what was said or done, or wi l l be said or done, and as such always suggests some context or situation" (1966: 405). M c G l o i n states that with noda, the speaker is able to "present information as if it were shared information between the speaker and the hearer" (1989: 89). She suggests five major effects of noda: explanation, conjecture, rapport, reproach, and backgrounding. The five functions are discussed below. The first major and most-widely discussed use of noda is to give explanations for actions or situations.4 (i) m» nm % whwtat^^t^A^ Nanika ryoori o tsukura-nakerebanarimasen. something dishes A C C make-must Mochiyori no paatii ni iku n-desu. potluck G E N party L O C go N D I must cook something. I 'm going to a potluck party. 3Maynard (1992: 597) states that no functions similarly to noda with different degrees of depersonalization/distancing and personalization/emotional involvement. 4The examples in this section are mine, based on the descriptions given by McGloin (1989). 4 In example (1) the speaker explains that he needs to make a dish because he is going to a potluck party. 5 The use of noda makes it apparent that the speaker is explaining the reason for his action. The second use of noda that M c G l o i n discusses is interrogatives based on conjecture. When the speaker sees a friend dressed to go out, he may ask the question in example (2a): (2a) A : V-si/tL <D 7 ^ - ff< A^tri" tfa ? Jon-san no paatii ni iku n-desu ka? John G E N party L O C go N D Q (Tell me.) Are you going to John's party? B : T L X , Uish t f?< A/Tr-f-. Ee, mei-san to iku n-desu. Yes May with go N D Yes, I am going with May. The speaker in (2a) has a basis for guessing that his friend is going out, and asks the question expecting to know more, such as with whom his friend is going and what he w i l l do there. The hearer responds appropriately, explaining that he is going to the party with May . (2b) A : i / a V ^ (D K f f t t i " ^ ? Jon-san no paatii ni ikimasu ka? John G E N party L O C go Q Are you going to John's party? B : ftZt-fo Ee, ikimasu. Yes go Yes, I 'm going. On the other hand, the question in (2b) without noda is a neutral information-seeking question which the hearer may answer with a simple yes or no as in the example given. 5This paper will use he and its variants {him, his) to represent both genders. 5 The question in (2a) may also take additional overtones depending on how it is spoken. The intonation patterns below demonstrate how the same sentence can be uttered to indicate surprise (2c), reproach (2d), or back-channeling (2e). \ (2c) v ? a y $ ^ • ( D A—7-4 — f r < A/ T r f " frl Jon-san no paatii ni iku n-desu ka? Oh! Are you going to John's party? (2d) v i ; 3 > $ ^ co A—7-4— \z. f f < hX-f fr— ? Jon-san no paatii ni iku n-desu ka:? Don't tell me you're going to John's party? h-V-f A\ n-desu ka. Conjecture questions as in (2c) are often spontaneous and indicate the speaker's surprise, as confirmed by his tone of voice. The question may also contain nuances of criticism and exasperation as in (2d), in which the speaker questions the hearer's choice in going to the party. On the other hand, noda with falling intonation as in (2e) signals that the speaker is attentively listening and provides back-channel cues equivalent to "I see" in English. (2e) i/ay^/o co A—7-4— \c fr< Jon-san no paatii ni iku You're going to John's party. I see. 6 The third use of noda affects rapport with the hearer, and represents the speaker's attempts to involve the hearer in his story/information: (3a) A : i?a>£A, <D A-*r<< - ^ ?T< /uV-f, 6 Jon-san no paatii ni iku n-desu. John G E N party L O C go N D (You know,) I 'm going to John's party. B : feo Tanoshi-soo desu ne. enjoyable-seem C P L SFP It seems enjoyable. (3b) A : S/alsZA, <D ^ - f ^ - f c f f t * " f . Jon-san no paatii ni ikimasu. John G E N party L O C go I 'm going to John's party. B : Ztifrb fa £ . u^-f- ^ ? Sorekara nani o shimasu ka? then what A C C do Q What wi l l you do after that? In example (3a) the speaker is will ing to share information about his plans. The hearer may respond with questions about the party, or make comments such as "That sounds nice." to show interest in the speaker's life. On the other hand, the sentence in (3b) without noda relays neutral information, appropriate for such contexts as an interview in which the speaker is asked about his plans for the next day. The detached tone of (3b) lacks the sense of involvement in (3a). 'Whi le sentences with noda may be interpreted as assertion depending on context, this paper w i l l examine noda's function in sharing information. 7 McGlo in ' s fourth use of noda proposes that the speaker highlights known information to reproach the hearer: (4) K ^ f^-fi ^ t , ^ ^ * # ^ L T < / C £ I ^ ! Paatii ni iku n-da kara chanto kigaete kudasail party L O C go N D so properly change please We're going to a party (you know), so change into proper clothes! In example (4) the speaker may be ordering her husband who is wearing a t-shirt and jeans when they are expected at a formal party. She berates him for not being prepared when he should know better. As M c G l o i n suggests, the combination of noda with the conjunction kara (so) often carries a reproachful tone. McGlo in ' s fifth use of noda, giving background information, is similar to explanation in that the speaker explains background information when making invitations or requests: (5) i?ai/£/» <D ic ff< A,'x*i- if£\ Konban jon-san no paatii ni iku n-desu kedo, tonight John G E N party L O C go N D and/but isshoni iki-masen ka? together g o - N E G Q I am going to John's party tonight; do you want to come with me? The speaker in example (5) gives the background information that he is going to a party, and invites the hearer to jo in him. As attested in Iwasaki (1985), the use of noda with the conjunction kedo (and/but) gives a sense of cohesion between the background information and the invitation. 8 From the above examples, we see that the functions of noda vary depending on the context and the manner in which it is stated. Its use varies between the types of discourse, whether they be objective formal reports or more personalized natural conversations. Additionally, noda is used in both oral and written Japanese. The next section w i l l examine the frequency of noda use in natural discourse. 1.3 Noda in Japanese discourse Maynard's (1992, 1997a, 1997b, 1998) studies on noda in conversation and writing give evidence of its pervasive use in Japanese discourse. In her study of conversational data from 20 native-speaker dyads, Maynard (1992) found the use of noda in approximately 25% (317/1244) of the sentences analyzed. 7 Her (1997b) analysis of five television news reports reveals that the use of noda varies according to the type of communication in the news reports. Referring to Goffman's (1981) concept oi footing in discourse, Maynard divides the utterances into two categories: 'announcing' (reporting directly to the viewer) and 'talking' (speaking to other reporters doing the news). 8 While noda is used only 6% of the time in the announcing mode, it increases to 31% in talks. 9 Noda use in writings also varies according to genres. Following Sugimoto's (1990) study which cites front page newspaper articles as rarely containing noda, Maynard (1997a) 7A11 percentages in this section are based on the unit, number of noda use/total number of sentences. 8Goffman (1981) describes/oofmg in relation to the participants' alignment, stance, posture, and self-projection in communication. He states that what the speaker communicates, how he communicates, and how he accepts the listener's response all represent the speaker's attitude. 9Other potential influences on the differences may be that the 'announcing' portion originates from a written form relayed to the newscaster by a teleprompter, and that the script writer's style of speech is different from the newscaster. 9 analyzes newspaper articles and finds noda use in her sample to be 0% (0/37). Sugimoto reasons that the goal of front page news in newspapers is to report facts in a straightforward and objective manner, counter to the personalized tone of noda. On the other hand, Maynard (1992) analyzes 58 short stories written by amateur writers and finds a range of noda use from 6% (4/68) to 25% (24/97). Maynard attributes this range of use to the varied writing styles of the texts, and concludes that stories written in the style of oral-narratives have a higher frequency of noda than stories written from an objective viewpoint. Giving credence to her suggestion, the 24 personal narratives in Maynard's (1997b) study contained 18% use of noda (205/1109). The studies above clearly show that when the speaker or writer exhibits an awareness of the audience in the discourse, he frequently uses noda. Use of noda varies according to situation and discourse style: frequent during natural conversations and personalized writing (18-31%), and infrequent in de-personalized objective writing and news 'announcing' (0-6%). Because natural conversation contains a high frequency of noda, this thesis w i l l examine conversational discourse of J L L s and JNSs. 1.4 Comparison of noda to related phrases in other languages Various researchers (Maynard 1996, Noda 1997, Sugimura 1982) have compared noda to the English "It is that. . . " , the French "C'est (. . .) que. and the Chinese "shi. . . de" (jcl. . . frx)) constructions. Maynard's (1996) study comparing an English literary work to its Japanese translation and a Japanese novel to its English counterpart shows interesting 10 results.1 0 She compares noda to the English "It is that. . .". or "It is . . . if. . .". constructions and refers to them as nominalization-related expressions. While the English translation has fewer nominalization-related expressions than the original Japanese version, the Japanese translation includes noda not found in the English original. Likewise, Noda's (1997) comparison of a Japanese novel to its French translation reveals infrequent uses of "c'est (. . .) que. . ." . and "est-ce que. . .". where noda appears in the original text." Sugimura (1982) also finds numerous instances in which the Japanese noda does not translate into the Chinese "shi" and/or "de", and concludes that the "shi. . . de" structure is not synonymous with the Japanese noda. 1.5 Comparison of noda to English you know M c G l o i n (1989) suggests a resemblance of noda to the English "you know" in creating rapport. Pragmatic studies of this discourse marker by linguists such as Sebba and Tate (1986), Huspek (1989), and Jucker and Smith (1998) indeed demonstrate distinct similarities to the Japanese noda}2 According to Jucker and Smith, a discourse marker is a device that the speaker uses to negotiate the common ground and aid the hearer in integrating information. "'Maynard compares Kooboo Abe's Tanin no Kao 'The Face of Another' to its English translation, and Saul Bellow's Dangling Man to its Japanese translation. The use of noda is as follows. Abe, Kooboo. 1968. Tanin no Kao 30.5% (61/200) Saunders, E. Dale. 1966. The Face of Another 4.23% (9/213) (English translation of Tanin no Kao) Bellow, Saul. 1944. Dangling Man 2.5% (5/200) Oota, Minoru. 1971. Chuuburarin no Otoko. 11.32% (24/212) (Japanese translation of Dangling Man) "Noda compares Banana Yoshimoto's Kicchin 'Kitchen' to its French translation and finds that, of the 418 uses oi noda in Japanese, only 41 are marked by "c'est (...) que...". or "est-ce que...", in French. Moreoever, she finds 68 instances in which noda is not used, but is still translated into the French phrases. nYou know has been interpreted as compromisers (James 1983), tags (Sebba and Tate 1986), and phatic connectives (Bazzanella 1990). This paper adopts the interpretation that you know is a discourse marker (Watts 1989, Salmons 1990, Jucker and Smith 1998). 11 Discussions of you know, like noda, centre around how the speaker wishes the hearer to interpret an utterance. Ostman (1981: 17) describes you know as a way for the speaker to encourage the hearer to cooperate and/or accept the proposition as mutual background knowledge. Jucker and Smith categorize you know as "an addressee-centred presentation marker which relate the information to the presumed knowledge state of the addressee" (1998: 174). Through their analyses of qualitative data, they conclude that "you know is a strategic device used by the speaker to involve the addressee in the joint construction of a representation" (1998: 196). Whether or not the hearer previously knows the information, the discourse marker you know invites the hearer "to recognize the relevance and the implications of the utterance" (1998: 194). L ike the above descriptions of you know, the Japanese noda possesses similar characteristics of engaging the hearer in conversation. You know, like noda, is used frequently in conversation, as seen in studies by Watts (1989), Salmons (1990) and Freed and Greenwood (1996). Jucker and Smith's (1998) data of natural speech reveal on average one use of you know per minute between strangers, and 1.4 between friends. Huspek (1989) studies the use of you know by manual workers (0.296 per sentence) and examines its use in the context of linguistic variability and power. Future systematic comparisons of noda and English you know w i l l l ikely reveal the exact nature of these similarities and differences. Moreover, possible comparisons to other discourse markers may extend the knowledge of noda in Japanese discourse.1 3 13For example, the discourse marker tell me in ( 2 a ) gives the interpretation that the speaker genuinely is interested in the information. The use of noda in (2e) has the sense of the backchanneling feature / see in English. Comparisons of the Japanese noda to English conversation will need to go beyond previous comparisons to "It is that. ..". 12 1.6 Organization of the thesis This chapter introduced background information regarding the functions and uses of noda and its comparison to phrases in other languages. Chapter Two summarizes previous research on noda highlighting the key features of speaker and hearer knowledge. Based on distributional data, Chapter Three characterizes the structure of noda. It also proposes a comprehensive framework with which to explain various functions and overtones of noda. Chapter Four describes the data-collection method for this research. Chapter Five analyzes data from role-plays conversations by J L L s and JNSs. Chapter Six examines the use of noda by two J L L s over a period of five months. The final chapter presents research conclusions, with implications for pedagogy and directions for future research. 13 Chapter Two Review of noda This chapter summarizes previous research on and analyses of noda. Section 2.1 describes select studies on noda, highlighting their strengths and limitations in depicting its functions and uses. Section 2.2 focuses on Noda (1997) and Sakakibara's (1998) recent classifications of noda. 2.1 Previous studies on noda Explanations of noda often focus on a single function, i.e. explanation, assertion, showing concern, failing to cover its multi-faceted nature. On the other hand, researches which aim to describe the diversity of noda provide lists of functions rather than pointing out fundamental characteristics. Moreover, descriptions of the effects of noda are not as helpful for J L L s as explanations of the reasons and appropriate contexts for its use. In searching the root function of noda, this section examines previous studies, focusing on key concepts which run through the various approaches. Kuno (1973) highlights the explanatory nature of noda and describes its interrogative form as questions that request "the hearer's explanation of what the speaker has heard or observed" (1973: 225). He distinguishes between the contexts of the following two sentences, without and with noda: (la) {RT £ L T l ^ - f frl Nani o shi-teimasu ka? what A C C do-PRG Q What are you doing? 14 ( lb) £• L T V ^ <DX~f #>? Nani o shi-teiru nodesu ka? what A C C do-PRG N D Q (You seem to be involved in something.) What is it that you are doing? (Kuno 1973: 225) In example (la) , the speaker asks the question without observing what the hearer is doing. The conversation could be over a telephone or e-mail. In contrast, the speaker in example (lb) observes what the hearer is doing, and requests an explanation. This use is equivalent to what M c G l o i n (1989) calls conjecture. Kuroda (1973) proposes another view of noda, from the perspective of epistemics. He labels noda as a marker of the speaker's a priori supposition and assertion of a proposition. A o k i (1986) extends Kuroda's view, proposing that the nominalizer no acts as an evidential in indicating the existence of valid evidence.1 He describes no as a marker of fact and concludes that "semantically it removes the statement from the realm of a particular experience and makes it into a timeless object. The concept thereby becomes nonspecific and detached" (1986: 229). While the explanation and evidential features above capture elements of noda, they do not account for other features such as politeness (McGlo in 1980), closeness (Endo 1986), emotive tone (Makino and Tsutsui 1989), and cohesive power (Iwasaki 1993). Maynard (1992) defines noda under her construct of commentary predicates. She posits that commentary predicates represent a speaker's commentary on the proposition, functioning as discourse modality. 2 The commentary predicate "codes the speaker's cognitive process of 1) objectification through nominalization, 2) personalization through the predicate 'Aoki (1986: 223) explains the three types of Japanese evidential as follows: 1) gar used with sensations not experienced by the speaker Ex. Kare wa atsu-gatteiru "He is hot." 2) no used with nonspecific evidential statements Ex. Kare wa atsui-noda "I know that he is hot." 3) soo, yoo and rasii used with hearsay and inferential statements Ex. Kare wa atsui-yooda "He seems hot." 15 da, and 3) situationally and interactionally appropriate information organization through the topic-comment structure" (1992: 563). First, nominalization signals distance between event and speaker, and an event that is objectified through nominalization becomes distant from the speaker (1996: 937). 3 Second, following Tokieda's (1950) classification of the predicate da as ji (non-objectified expression), Maynard proposes that da adds subjective overtones by expressing the speaker's attitude.4 Third, based on M i o ' s (1948) typology of sentences in Japanese, Maynard compares noda, with its topic and nominal predicate structure, to handanbun (sentences of judgement).5 The concept of commentary predicates is useful in understanding the relationships between the proposition, nominalization, and addition of copula; however, the exact nature of the speaker's commentary in noda is not delineated concisely. Other researchers attempt to summarize the wide array of functions for noda by formulating lists. Ohta (1984) cites nineteen referential, propositional, and referential features of noda.6 Tanomura (1990) points out features of noda such as shoozensei continuity, kiteisei Maynard (1997a, 1998) states that commentary predicates have the structure [clause + nominalizer + copula da/dearu] and express a speaker's interpretive commentary on the information in the clause. An example is kara da which gives a reason, as in Kare ga konai no wa Ken ga konai kard da. "The reason why he isn't coming is that Ken isn't coming." 'Maynard draws on the idea of nominalizations as objectified and abstracted concepts from Brown and Levinson (1987) and Langacker (1987). 4Tokieda (1950) identifies shi as categories of words which have been objectified and conceptualized (i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) and ji as non-objectified, subjective expressions which include conjunctions, exclamatory expressions, auxiliary verbs and particles. 5Mio (1948) classifies sentences into 1) genshoobun 'sentences of immediate description', 2) handanbun 'sentences of judgement', 3) mitenkaibun 'exclamatory sentences', and 4) bunsetsubun 'sentences with topical ellipsis'. fiOhta (1984: 161-152) lists two referential features (deictic and anaphoric), fourteen propositional features (explanatory, confirmatory, elicitory, instructional, self-assertive, self-reasoning, recollective, regretful, suasory, conjectural, exclamatory, dubitatory, accusatory, and assumptive) and three attitudinal features (emotive, peremptory and reserved). 16 fixed nature, hirekisei revelation, and tokuritsusei specificity. 7 Kunihiro (1992) presents examples of noda such as decision, acceptance, gentle refusal, and advice. He proposes that noda represents "the subjective judgement in recognizing the present state as being related to an established proposition" (1992: 19). Each work highlights elements of noda and extend its characterization; however the works do not provide a simple definition which would guide J L L s in the appropriate use of noda. Cook (1990) and Kamio (1997) take two approaches to viewing information through the knowledge status of the speaker and hearer. Cook (1990) defines her concept of accessible and inaccessible knowledge, and Kamio (1997) postulates his theory on the Territory of Information. Cook (1990) studies the characteristics of no as a sentence-final particle and focuses on the notion of accessibilty to knowledge. Cook posits that no indexes group authority where the group "assumes responsibility of the truth of the utterance" (1990: 408). In other words, information marked by no is deemed accessible to the interlocutors and/or society in general. From her framework in Figure 2.1, Cook explains that no is used with accessible knowledge as in (a). Area 1 indicates information that is general knowledge in society (common knowledge) and area 3, information that is known to interlocutors (shared knowledge). When information is both common knowledge and shared knowledge, it is located in area 2. She concludes that the speaker uses no with propositions which are either known to society 'Continuity refers to the reference of sentences with noda to previous contexts. Fixed state refers to the fact that noda usually takes the proposition as an established entity. Revelation refers to the sense of noda in expressing information that is difficult for the audience to know such as personal thoughts and situations. Specificity refers to the use of noda in specifying a certain situation as opposed to other situations, such as in asking "Did it rain?" rather than assuming that someone sprayed water on the ground. 17 and/or known to the speaker and hearer, offering a wider interpretation than the traditional account of its use with only shared knowledge. (a) Accessible knowledge (b) Inaccessible knowledge Common Shared Undisclosed psychological states knowledge knowledge Figure 2.1 Cook's framework of accessible and inaccessible knowledge (Cook 1990: 409) A s Cook states, no is used with accessible knowledge; however, there are cases in which no can be used with inaccessible knowledge (b) as in undisclosed psychological states. For example, a child may reveal his feelings to his mother to elicit empathy in an utterance such as Boku kanashii-no "I am sad". Cook's distinction of what types of information is deemed accessible (common/shared) and inaccessible is not clear. Furthermore, questions remain as to the speaker's intentions in marking information with no. Kamio 's (1997) Territory of Information situates information relative to the speaker and the hearer depending on various predicate structures as in Figure 2.2. Kamio specifies the Territory of Information as a bound area where the location of the information determines the information's hierarchical territory. 18 information Speaker I 1 1 1 1 n 0 information Hearer I 1 1 1 1 n 0 (Information in the Speaker's Territory) Figure 2.2 Kamio's territory of information (Kamio 1997: 17) The above figure represents information in the Speaker's territory where it is located closer to the Speaker. On the Speaker's scale, information is represented as greater than the middle-ground n. The information is less within the Hearer's territory with a value less than n on the Hearer's scale. In contrast, information that is more within the Hearer's territory would be depicted as greater than n on the Hearer's scale. When the information is totally within one territory, then the value would bel on one scale and 0 on the other. Kamio concludes that "information which is difficult to imagine or predict should be expressed in the noda form" (1997: 65). Example (2) represents information in the Speaker's territory which may be inaccessible to the hearer. (2) H f B ^ &Zt>ti1t htl J ; . 8 Yoshida-san ga kinoo gootoo ni oso-ware-ta n-da yo. M r . Yoshida N O M yesterday mugger by attack-PAS-PRF N D SFP M r . Yoshida was attacked by a mugger yesterday. (Kamio 1997: 65) The information in example (2) that M r . Yoshida was attacked yesterday is unexpected and unknown to the Hearer. The Speaker can use noda to mark such information when it may be 8This thesis adopts Uechi's (1998) proposal of an aspectual head above the verb and analyzes ta as a perfective morpheme rather than a past morpheme. 19 beyond the Hearer's territory. Likewise, Kamio describes psychological information as generally unobservable characteristics which may be represented with noda. While it is true that noda is often used with information in the Speaker's territory, the theory does not clarify contexts in which noda is used with information in the Hearer's territory, such as with questions. Moreover, the reasons for use and non-use of noda need to be examined further. Based on the studies above, we notice several common concepts among the studies. First, noda is related to the speaker's perception of the proposition. Second, in representing the speaker's judgement, supposition, idea, etc., the sentence with noda is subjective. Third, its use is related to the status of the information knowledge as perceived by the speaker. Chapter Three w i l l revisit these key concepts and propose a comprehensive framework in characterizing noda. 2.2 Noda and Sakakibara 's pragmatic analyses of noda This section examines recent studies by two researchers in characterizing the functions of noda. Section 2.2.1 provides an overview of Noda (1997), in which she differentiates the features of scope and mood. Section 2.2.2 summarizes Sakakibara's (1998) notion of the speaker's belief. 2.2.1 Noda 's (1997) typology Noda (1997) divides noda into two broad categories: scope and mood. 9 She summarizes the function of scope as placing focus on parts of a sentence, and mood as the speaker taking 9The translations of terminology and examples are mine based on Noda's work in Japanese. 20 a proposition as a fixed state. Referring to previous studies, Noda equates her definition of noda of scope to M i o ' s (1948) handanbun (sentences of judgement), Mikami ' s (1953) shitei (specification) and Masuoka's (1991) jojutsu yooshiki handangata no setsumei (explanation of judgement forms of predicates). Noda of mood is deemed to be similar to M i o ' s (1948) bunsetsubun (clausal sentence), Mikami 's (1953) kaisetsu (explanation), and Masuoka's (1991) haikei setsumei (background explanation) and kiketsu setsumei (consequential explanation). Noda proposes that the noda of scope exhibits a contrastive characteristic, similar to nominal sentences with the topic marker wa. Noda used in negative clauses such as Y nodewanai indicates that the proposition in Y is inaccurate, while the contrasting Y ' is accurate. (3) iiiW&h *s A , U * f t v \ § f r * < ^ ri* 5f53 hit. Satoo-san ga kuru n-janai Suzuki-son ga kuru n-da. M r . Sato N O M come N D - N E G M r . Suzuki N O M come N D It is not that M r . Sato is coming. M r . Suzuki is coming. (Noda 1997: 34) In example (3) M r . Sato and M r . Suzuki are contrasted by the use of n-janai. The negative noda also places focus on elements other than the non-realization of a state: (4) fx^tc^ tr>b rf< © T * f i * v \ Iki-tai kara iku nodewanai. Go-want so go N D - N E G I am not going because I want to go. The use of noda in example (4) allows the negative to be placed on the whole proposition, "I am going because I want to go." rather than simply on the verb to go. The speaker asserts that there is a different reason for him going, such as pressure from an outside force or sense of duty. Noda calls this highlighting of focus prominence, which can be expressed through prosodic measures and contextual understandings. Fundamentally, noda of scope asserts the 21 tekisetsusei (appropriateness) of the proposition and is related to the evidential reading of noda by Kuroda (1973) and A o k i (1986). Noda describes the second categorization of noda as one of mood. She divides noda of mood into two categories: taiji teki 'situational' and taijin teki 'interpersonal'. Situational mood refers to the speaker's understanding of a proposition previously unrecognized by himself and does not necessarily require the presence of an audience. In contrast, interpersonal mood requires the hearer's presence whereby the speaker relays information he knows to the hearer. Noda further sub-divides the categories into those with or without previous discourse kankeizuke/hikankeizuke. Table 2.1 below gives an overview of the four categories: Noda of mood Situational Interpersonal Previous Discourse understand Q as the situation/meaning of P present Q as the situation/meaning of P No Previous Discourse understand Q (as a fixed situation) present Q (as a fixed situation) Table 2.1 Characteristics of noda of mood (Noda 1997: 71) In situational mood, the speaker voices information he has just understood, while in interpersonal mood he relates information to a hearer. Noda with previous discourse takes the form [P [Q noda]] where [P] represents previous discourse and [Q] the nominalized concept. [P] could also be non-verbal contextual cues such as observations made by the speaker. When there is no previous discourse related to the nominalized concept, the structure is simply [Q noda]. 22 The speaker's goals in situational and interpersonal mood are distinct. His goal in situational mood is to recognize information such as in thinking aloud; whereas in interpersonal mood information is presented to another person. The examples below represent the four categories of noda of mood: (5) situational/previous discourse, (6) interpersonal/previous discourse, (7) situational/no previous discourse and (8) interpersonal/no previous discourse. (5) d j B ^ • # ftfeo f W # fc§ Ml. . Yamada-san ga ko-nai naa. Kitto yooji ga aru n-da. M r . Yamada N O M come-NEG SFP probably errand N O M exist N D M r . Yamada is not coming. He must have things to do. (6) m, mB it #fcv^ x. mm & MI. Boku, ashita wa ko-nai yo. Yooji ga aru n-da. IPS tomorrow T O P come-NEG SFP errand N O M exist N D F m not coming tomorrow. I have things to do. (7) i)\ ZOO 74 y f & Wi- Ml. Soo ka, kono suicchi o osu n-da. That Q this switch A C C push N D Oh that's right. I need to turn on this switch. (8) ZOO 74 £ mT Ml ! Kono suicchi o osu n-da! This switch A C C push N D Turn on this switch! (Noda 1997: 72) In examples (5) and (6) the speaker has contextual reference from the first sentences. According to Noda, (5) is an example of situational mood in which the speaker voices what he has realized, possibly to himself. (6) is an example of interpersonal mood, in which the speaker relays to a hearer information about running errands.1 0 In these cases, noda is used to present Interpersonal mood is not limited to information about the speaker and hearer. For example, boku IPS in (6) could be replaced with Tom to read, "Tom isn't coming tomorrow. He has things to do". While the information is about a third party, the presentation of information remains speaker to hearer. 23 the second sentence as being related to the first sentence, i.e. previous discourse. Noda explains that in contrast, (7) and (8) lack previous discourse." In (7) the speaker notices what he needs to do and makes a comment, as i f thinking aloud. Example (8) presents a command in which the speaker shouts an order for the hearer to obey. 1 2 Noda (1997) also examines the use of noda in subordinate clauses and creates a list of predicates. She runs grammaticality tests and categorizes them into scope and mood, as in Table 2.2. predicates with noda noda of nodewanai (neg) + conjunction scope node* (and) nodeari (be) nodeatte (be) nodattara (if) nodeareba (be+if) nonara (if) (D-Vit nodewa (and+TOP) noda of (Dtctf nodaga (and/but) mood <Dtclftl¥$> nodakeredomo (and/but) <Df£frh nodakara (so) Table 2.2 Noda in subordinate clauses (Noda 1997: 152) (*node as no + de is differentiated from the conjunction 'so/therefore')1 "Noda (1997) describes the difficulty of distinguishing between previous discourse and no previous discourse when there may be a non-verbal contextual cue. For example, in (7) and (8) one might argue that the speaker has the visual reference of looking at the light switch before making an utterance, and therefore falling under previous discourse. l2In (8) the speaker can also encourage himself to do an action, in which case he would need a previous reference. l3Noda gives the example, M^P£oTV>3<£>T?, •#*l^o"CV-»<5<D"TrB:ftV\, Ame gafutteiru node, yuki gafutteiru nodewanai. "It is not that it is snowing; it is raining." However, she explains that this form is rarely used so as to avoid confusion with node meaning 'therefore'. 24 Predicates with the noda of scope are based on assuming the actualization of a state. For example, A nodattara B (noda + if) is based on the idea that state B holds i f the proposition in A is realized. (9) -lifr) t.x ^ X V^< htc-otch, m-ox v^< i „ Toori made aru-ite iku n-da-tta-ra, oku-tte iku yo. Street to walk-PRF go N D - P S T - i f escort-PRF go SFP. If you are walking to the street, I ' l l go with you. {Ichigo Doomei: 213=cited in Noda 1997: 160) Sentence (9) shows an example of noda of scope in the context of an ' i f clause. According to Noda, combinations of noda of mood with conjunctions play various roles. For example, nodaga/nodakeredomo can 1) relay a speaker's emotion of surprise or frustration (contrast); or 2) present information perceived to be unknown to a hearer (backgrounding). (10) t±js, t i o i nb^-h^h K t i f ^ A o T m * s Shachoo, chotto Hirari-chan ni oriitte hanashi ga President, a bit Hirari D A T especially talk N O M chZ> LXT if if, 1 0 # ri»Lk? aru n-desu kedo, juppun hodo ii kashira? exist N D and/but 10 minutes about good Q Li t . Sir, there is a special talk with Hirari, but is about 10 minutes good? I have something important I want to discuss with Hirari. Could I take her out for 10 minutes? (Hirari 2: 369=cited in Noda 1997: 172) Example (10) shows an example of nodaga in a clause as backgrounding, where the speaker explains her intentions in requesting time to talk with an employee. Noda summarizes the characteristics of noda into Table 2.3 below. She takes a parametric approach in her categorization, differentiating the properties of the nominalizer no 25 and the three types of noda.H Noda's detailed approach to the various noda categories and functions provides a thorough analysis of noda; however, its complexity would be overwhelming to J L L s . For a more accessible explanation of noda, we turn to Sakakibara's (1998) analysis. nominalizer no noda of scope noda of situational mood noda of interpersonal mood 1. lack of ga-no conversion no yes 2. no-n contraction no yes 3. attachment to nouns no no SsSlllMfeiiMiilil VCS 4. wa insertion no no 5. lack of negative n/a no & yes 6. requirement of hearer no no no yes Table 2.3 Noda's overview of noda (Noda 1997: 247) 1. Ga-no conversion refers to the possibility of converting the nominative marker ga to the genitive marker no. Sentences with noda do not allow ga-no conversion. Ex. Suzuki-san ga/*no kuru n-da. Mr. Suzuki (NOM/*GEN) is coming. 2. No in noda contracts to n in colloquial speech. 3. Noda of mood attaches itself naturally to nouns while noda of scope does not. ??Jon wa gakuseina nodewanai. Sensei na noda. "John is not a student. He is a teacher." (noda of scope) Jon wa gakusei na n-desu yo. "You know, John is a student." (noda of mood) 4. Noda of mood allows the topic marker wa while noda of scope does not. Ex. Jon ga/*wa iku-n-da-ttara boku mo iku yo. "If John (NOM/*TOP) is going, I will too." (noda of scope) Jon ga/wa raishuu iku-n-desu ga sono toki demo ii desu ka? "John (NOM/TOP) is going next week; is it okay then?" (noda of mood) 5. The negative form nodewanai is available in noda of scope, but not in noda of mood. 6. Noda of interpersonal mood requires a hearer. 26 2.2.2 Sakakibara's concept of noda Sakakibara (1998: 86) defines a two-part characteristic of noda: 1) the proposition is represented as known to the speaker and the hearer, and 2) this representation of known information is based on the speaker's belief. To explain her hypothesis, Sakakibara turns to Grice's (1975) framework of the Cooperative Principle summarized in Table 2.4: The Cooperative Principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. Maxim of Quantity I. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange). II. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Maxim of Quality I. Do not say what you believe to be false. II. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant. Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous. I. A v o i d obscurity of expression. II. Avo id ambiguity. III. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). I V . Be orderly. Table 2.4 Grice's cooperative principle (Grice 1975: 47) Following Grice, Sakakibara proposes that people communicate within the boundaries of the Cooperative Principle, and that the hearer attempts to interpret the implications and nuances 27 when the speaker intentionally violates one of the maxims. In this way the speaker can break the various maxims in presenting information as i f it is shared. Sakakibara examines four types of information status in which no da is used: 1) known to both the speaker and hearer; 2) known only to the hearer; 3) known only to the speaker and 4) known by neither the speaker nor the hearer. She concludes that each of the four types violates Grice 's maxims: the first, the M a x i m of Quantity II and the rest, the M a x i m of Quality. When the information relayed in the noda clause is known to both the speaker and the hearer, Sakakibara (1998) proposes that it violates the M a x i m of Quantity II because repeating information is redundant. She explains that the speaker relays the information a second time because he is not satisfied that the hearer has completely understood the information as seen in example (11): (11) A l : WP ^ i o Kyooko-san Koobe e kae-cchau Kyoko Kobe L O C return-regret Kyoko is going back to Kobe. yo. SFP B l : Shi-tteru yo. K n o w - P R G SFP. I know. A 2 : M-?- £ ^ WP ^ ft o -fe) ^ 5 Kyooko-san Koobe e kae-cchau Kyoko Kobe L O C return-regret Kyoko is going back to Kobe. hit i „ n-da yo. N D SFP B 2 : b ) 5 » o T 5 - o T ! m K. ¥ o L6 o T W 5 hfl £! Waka-tteru tte! Ore ni doo shiro tte iu n-da yo! know-PRG Q U O ISP D A T how do Q U O say N D SFP I told you I know. What do you expect me to do! (Sakakibara 1998: 91) 28 The information given in A l and A 2 are exactly the same, yet A l is neutral, while A 2 shows redundant repetition and a sense of reproach. Sakakibara explains that A is criticizing B for being indifferent about Kyoko ' s departure, and is trying to convince B that he should do something about it. The outburst in B 2 shows that B has interpreted the critical overtone in A 2 . Instead of overtly expressed information, shared information may also be in the form of visual observation. According to M c G l o i n (1989) sentences without noda are neutral information-seeking questions where the answer may be a simple yes or no, while the same question with noda represents conjecture on the part of the speaker, seeking more information. For example, a speaker finds an invitation card from Dave for his roommate and asks the question in example (12): (12) f - f 7 ' CO X - f - f - ^ fr< CO? Deibu no paatii e iku no? Dave G E N party L O C go N D Are you going to Dave's party? (Sakakibara 1998: 92) Because the speaker knows about the party through the invitation card, the roommate is obliged to give more than a simple yes/no answer such as why he was invited or why he didn't tell the speaker about the party. The second category of conversation that Sakakibara (1998) proposes depicts situations in which the hearer knows information but the speaker does not. She refers to this as the violation of the Max im of Quality which states that the speaker should know that the information relayed is true. B y implying that the information is already known to both the speaker and hearer, the conversational effect is of implicitly showing involvement in the hearer. The use 29 of noda in questions such as example (13) implies that the hearer's personal information is or should be known to both the speaker and the hearer. (13) it fa £ &-<5 hXT tf. B-san wa nani o taberu n-desu ka? B T O P what A C C eat N D Q What are you going to eat? (Sakakibara 1998: 93) The use of noda implies concern and interest in the hearer, and usually connotes a close relationship (family, friends, and spouses). The third area of conversation that Sakakibara examines is when the information is known only to the speaker. B y relaying the information as i f it is known, the speaker can convey strong emotion and/or involve the hearer in the conversation: (14) A : if 5 L f c hX-f tf. Doo shi-ta n-desu ka? how do-PRF N D Q What's wrong with you? B : jotefr V^cV^ A,-efo Onaka ga itai n-desu. stomach N O M hurt N D I have a stomachache. (Sakakibara 1998: 94) According to Sakakibara, B responds to A ' s question, sharing information as i f it is known in order to create a conversational effect. It is interesting to note that a friend might ask the question in A , but a doctor or flight attendant in a more formal setting would not use noda in a similar question. The use of noda implies closeness, except in extreme cases where even strangers are expected to show concern (for example B clutching his stomach in pain). 30 The final area of information status is the rhetorical use of noda in which the information is not known to the speaker or the hearer. According to Sakakibara (1998), by exploiting a violation of the M a x i m of Quality, the speaker emphasizes the fact that no one knows the information. (15) m f i M & ^ o - c v ^ h t i r Ore wa nani o ya-tteiru n-da? IPS T O P what A C C do-PRG N D What am I doing? (Sakakibara 1998: 95) The rhetorical question in (15) carries overtones of frustration and/or confusion. L i k e the examples above, Sakakibara's proposal of situating speaker and hearer knowledge aids in understanding the contexts and overtones of utterances. Her classification of information knowledge subsumes and organizes previous analyses such as explaining, creating rapport, and showing involvement; however, it does not include noda of scope where the speaker asserts the actualization of a state. Moreover, her characterization of noda as "information believed by the speaker to be known to the speaker and hearer" becomes problematic when examining motives for the speaker's use of noda. The analysis raises questions as to why the speaker would present information he believes to be already known and why he uses noda in certain contexts while not in others. Keeping these questions in mind, Chapter Three examines structural and functional characteristics and proposes a definition and framework in understanding noda. 31 Chapter Three Characterization of noda This chapter describes the characteristics of noda from the perspectives of distribution, syntax and functions. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 examine the distributional properties and phrasal structure of noda. The aim of these sections is to investigate the properties of noda of scope and mood, and specifically differentiate the two types.' Section 3.3 combines relevant data from the analyses and proposes a framework of noda for this study. 3.1 Dist r ibut ion of noda This section gives descriptive generalizations about the two types of noda as defined by Noda (1997) as scope and mood. As seen in Section 2.2.1, she proposes that noda of scope ( N D s c o p e ) marks the focus and actualization of a state, while noda of mood ( N D m o o d ) presents information as a fixed state. Based on Lyons ' (1977) definition of modality, this study treats both types of noda as modals, in that they express a speaker's attitude and opinion toward the proposition. (1) 0 * ^ f f # f c < * V > © T r f i f c ^ COfc Nihon e iki-taku-nai nodewanai noda. Japan L O C go-want-NEG N D s c o p e - N E G N D m o o d It is not that I don't want to go to Japan. Example (1) gives evidence of the two distinct noda. Under Noda's classification, scope places a focus on "not wanting to go to Japan", and mood gives a sense of presenting 'Other sections of this thesis do not explicitly differentiate noda of scope and mood in the glosses. 32 information to the hearer as being related to previous discourse, in the sense that perhaps the speaker is showing reservations about going to Japan. The distributional analyses of the two types of noda are based on data checked by eighteen Japanese native speakers (JNSs). Appendix A shows the categorization of modality used for this paper. Takahashi (1999) in examining modal suffixes in Japanese, proposes three main categories of modality: deontic, epistemic, and discourse. The first type marks obligation, permission, or prohibition of an action; the second a speaker's perception of the truth of the proposition; and the third a speaker's attitude toward the hearer or situation. She further sub-divides each of the three types of modality into two sub-categories: primary modality (P-Mod) and secondary modality (S-Mod). Nitta (1991) and Masuoka (1991) contrast the qualities of primary and secondary modality, proposing that primary modality is restrictive, in the sense that it does not have negative forms, nor exhibit tense variation, but shows the attitude of only the speaker. On the other hand, secondary modality is not restrictive. Within the category of epistemic modality, an additional subset of evidentials marks the speaker's attitude based on what he has seen, heard, or read. In summary, then, there are three main categories of modality, with seven sub-categories: deontic (P and S) epistemic (P and S, and evidential S), and discourse (P and S). The next sections examine the distribution of noda in relation to these seven modal elements. 33 3.1.1 Distribution of noda of scope (ND s c o p e ) Noda of scope (ND s c o p e ) places a focus on an element of the proposition. It may take the four forms noda (non-past), nodewanai (negative), nodatta (past) and nodewanakatta (negative-past) as in the examples below. (2a) i/3> t i B * ^ f j o f c <Dtl„ Jon wa nihon e i-tta noda. John T O P Japan L O C go-PRF N D s c o p e It is that John went to Japan. (John did go to Japan.) (2b) i/ay t i B * ^ f r o f c <£>Tf f i f cv* . Jon wa nihon e i-tta nodewanai. John T O P Japan L O C go-PRF N D s c o p e - N E G It is not that John went to Japan. (John did not go to Japan.) (2c) i/a> t i B * ^ r r o f c (Dtc.itc Jon wa nihon e i-tta nodatta. John T O P Japan L O C go-PRF ND s c o p e -PST It was that John went to Japan. (2d) i?a> t i B * ^ firofc o f c . Jon wa nihon e i-tta nodewanakatta. John T O P Japan L O C go-PRF ND s c o p e -NEG-PST It was not that John went to Japan. Noda of scope in examples (2a) to (2d) highlights the fact that it was Japan where John went. Commonly used in narratives, sentences with noda of scope can be used to describe events and experiences. Noda (non-past) may represent either scope or mood depending on the context. For example, instead of placing the focus on Japan in (2a), the same sentence with noda of mood can create a sense of rapport in relaying information to a hearer. With negation or past tense, noda of scope becomes obligatory. It functions similarly to a verbal auxiliary such as the English do-support, in that negation "John did not go to Japan" and affirmation "John did go 34 to Japan" induce noda of scope.2 However, there are several differences between noda of scope and do-support. First in English for the sentences (2a) and (2b), a prosodic emphasis would be placed on the focus element Japan, while in Japanese, the structure and context highlight the focus. For example, to place focus on John, the nominative marker ga would be used. Second, unlike the auxiliary do, noda of scope can take separate negation on the verb. Example (3) represents a sentence with separate negation on the verb and noda. (3) i/3> It V ^ T ^ L V ^ frb fffrtefr^tc cDTrte&V-^ Jon wa isogashli kara ikanakatta nodewanai. John T O P busy so go -NEG-PRF N D s c o p e - N E G ?John did not not go because he was busy. Iki-taku-nai kara ika-na-katta noda. go-want-NEG so go -NEG-PRF N D s c o p c He did not go because he did not want to go. Third, as seen in examples (2c) and (2d), noda of scope can also be past and negative-past, an equivalent of which does not exist in do-support. The distribution of noda of scope ( N D s c o p e ) is summarized in Appendix B . Noda of scope is incompatible with Deontic P -Mod and cannot co-occur. Noda of scope positions after Deontic S-Mod. The formula Deontic S-Mod < N D s c o p e represents this relationship where noda of scope occupies a higher position on the tree structure, as w i l l be seen in the next section. Because Japanese is a head-final language, noda of scope positions after Deontic S-Mod with an assumption that N D s c o p e takes a head position. 3 2I am grateful to Dechaine (p.c.) for pointing out the similarities. 3This paper treats modals as head positions based on Cinque's (1999) proposal of verbal suffixes as clausal functional heads and adverb phrases as specifiers of functional phrases. 35 (4a) tf ^ f f o T k V ^ (DXitt^c Jon ga nihon e i-ttemoii nodewanai. John N O M Japan L O C go-may N D s c o p e - N E G It is not that John may go to Japan. (4b) ?? a yj&s 0 * ^ fr<<BT?ttfc< T<fei^v\ 7on ga nihon e iku-nodewanaku temoii John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D s c o p e - N E G may It is O K that it is not that John is going to Japan. Because noda of scope asserts the accuracy or inaccuracy of a proposition, a speaker may highlight the fact that John may not go to Japan, as in example (4a), but cannot place permission on the assertion itself, or the degradation of (4b) results. Deontic P-Mods like imperatives cannot be combined with noda of scope as can be seen in the following examples: (5a) * 0 * ^ ff*t <DX*tZte^ ! Nihon e ik-e nodewanai! Japan L O C go-IMP N D s c o p e - N E G (5b) * 0 * ^ f K t f r e f c t * ^ TL\ Nihon e iku-nodewanai e! Japan L O C g o - N D s c o p e - N E G I M P Elements such as commands and assertions cannot be used together, and hence, resultant sentences are ungrammatical. In general the JNSs accepted noda of scope before all epistemic modals. Contrary to expectation, results exhibited some variation in the acceptability of the word order (Appendices D & E) as in the following examples: (6a) v > 3 > - tf 0 ; £ ^ fx< ©"^ te f tv^ #>>bL*i&V\> Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanai kamoshirenai. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D s c o p c - N E G might It might not be that John is going to Japan. 36 (6b) % Pay tf 0 * ^ f f ^ & L t i & v ^ © T f t i f t v ^ Jon ga nihon e iku-kamoshirenai nodewanai. John N O M Japan L O C go-might N D s c o p e - N E G It is not that John might be going to Japan. A majority of the JNSs (14/18) accepts the order of example (6a) ( N D s c o p e < Epistemic S-Mod) where the modality kamoshirenai (might) falls on the negative assertion. On the other hand, the order of example (6b) (Epistemic S-Mod < N D s c o p e ) produces mixed results.4 In example (6b) noda of scope places a focus on kamoshirenai (might), producing the sentence "It is not that John might go to Japan." Noda of scopealso occupies a position preceding both Discourse S-Mods and P-Mods. For example, noda of scope co-occurs with the Discourse P-Mod in the following manner: (7a) i ? 3 V as 0 * ^ ff< «>T?fi£fcv,> <fcfa? Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanai yone? John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D s c o p e - N E G SFP It isn't that John is going to Japan, is it? (7b) * i?a> tf± 0 * ^ f T < « k f c © T i f i J f e V . Jon ga nihon e iku-yone nodewanai. John N O M Japan L O C go-SFP N D s c o p e - N E G It is not that John is going to Japan isn't it. In example (7a), the tag question represented by the discourse modality yone w i l l grammatically follow the assertion in noda of scope ( N D s c o p e < Discourse P-Mod) . In contrast, noda of scope in example (7b) cannot assert the clause containing the tag question. 4The eighteen JNSs judged example (6b) as follows: grammatical (4), questionable (6), and ungrammatical (8). \ 37 We have seen in the above examples that the nominalizer no and copula da are adjacent to each other. When no and da are separated, the sentence is ungrammatical as in example (7) below: (8) * i/ay j&s a * ^ ft<<D frbvtitw -efct f tv\ Jon ga nihon e iku-no kamoshirenai de-wanai. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N M R might C P L - N E G It is not might that John is going to Japan. From the ungrammaticality of example (8), it follows that the nominalizer no and copula da must function as units as in noda, nodewanai (negative), nodatta (past) or nodewanakatta (negative-past), or at the least be adjacent to each other without any elements in between them. The general placement of noda of scope in light of the distributional data is as follows. (9) Deontic S-Mod < N D s c o p e < Epistemic M o d < Discourse M o d The examples below give further evidence that the position of noda of scope is between Deontic S-Mod and Epistemic Mod . (10a) i?ay ft FJ;fc ^ h<^f£ (Dtftte^ L * i f t V \ , Jon ga nihon e iku-bekina nodewanai kamoshirenai. John N O M Japan L O C go-should N D s c o p e - N E G might It might not be that John is the one who should be going to Japan. ( 1 0 b ) ? ? v : 3 > - ft F J * ^ f K ^ t <D-Viit£^o Jon ga nihon e iku-beki kamoshirenai nodewanai. John N O M Japan L O C go-should might N D s c o p e - N E G It is not that John might should go to Japan. ( 1 0 c ) * v 3 > ft 0 * ^ f r<<7>Wft^ a»<bL*Uev\, Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanai beki kamoshirenai. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND s c o p e -NEG should might It might should not be that John go to Japan. 38 In the predicted order of example (10a), noda of scope places focus on John, and the epistemic modality in turn places the feature of possibility on the negative assertion. Example (10b) positions noda of scope after both deontic and epistemic modalities, and is judged degradable. The reverse positioning of noda of scope before both deontic and epistemic modalities in example (10c) results in an ungrammatical sentence. The basic order for noda of scope in (9) holds. Noda of scope places focus on elements of the proposition and marks the actualization of a state. In fact, it functions as epistemic modality in that it represents a person's perception of the truth of the proposition. The speaker states that the information in the proposition holds using noda, or that it does not hold, using nodewanai (negative). For the primary/secondary distinction, noda of scope functions as secondary modality in that it has a negative form, exhibits tense variation, and shows the attitudes of people other than the speaker. For example, the speaker can state the perceptions of a third person without committing to the information himself: (11) / V - tt *Ja>' tt •}£ f r o f c £ > T r f i / j ^ h S o T V ^ o Mer i i wa jon wa nihon ni i-tta nodewanai to omo-tteiru. Mary T O P John T O P Japan L O C go-PRF N D s c o p e - N E G Q U O think-PRG Mary is thinking that John did not go to Japan. The perception of the proposition not being true is Mary ' s and not necessarily that of the speaker. Based on the above descriptions, I w i l l restate (9) classifying noda of scope as Epistemic S-Mod (but usually occuring before other Epistemic S-Mod elements). (9') Deontic S-Mod < ND s c o p e Epistemic S-Mod < Epistemic P - M o d < Discourse M o d This categorization raises important implications about the nature of modalities in Japanese: first, multiple modalities from the same category could be represented in one sentence (examples 39 6 and 10); and second, the modal elements organize in a set order within the category.5 To determine the exact nature of the relationship and combination of modals in Japanese, more studies such as Saji (1991) which examine compatibility and ordering of modality, are needed. The next section examines the properties of noda of mood. 3.1.2 Dis t r ibut ion of noda of mood ( N D m o o d ) Based on the distribution as seen in Appendix C, noda of mood ( N D m 0 0 d ) occupies a position above deontic modality, noda of scope, and epistemic S-Mod in the order Deontic S-Mod < N D s c o p e < Epistemic S-Mod < N D m o o d . The following examples contrast the placement of noda of mood in relation to the Epistemic S-Mod (evidential) rashii (seem). (12a) y a > ft 0 * ^ tf<£>LV^ h t l o Jon ga nihon e iku-rashii n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-seem N D m o o d John seems to be going to Japan. (12b) *i?a> ft 0 * ^ ft</vt£ £>Lt/\ Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da rashii. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D m o o d seem John seems to be going to Japan. The mood of the speaker presenting information to the hearer envelops the whole idea that John seems to be going to Japan in example (12a). The reverse order in (12b) of situating noda of mood before rashii (seems) is ungrammatical. 5 In relation to the second implication, the JNSs may have varied in the grammaticality judgements of noda of scope in combination with other Epistemic S - M o d elements because they were of the same category. 40 In contrast to the examples above, noda of mood cannot follow Epistemic P-Mod: ( 1 3 a ) * v 3 y tf 0 * ^ ft<tc6o h t l . Jon ga nihon e iku-daroo n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-probably N D m o o d John is probably going to Japan. The placement of n-da ( N D m 0 0 d ) preceding daroo (Epistemic P-Mod.) is also ungrammatical, because the copulas are repeated as iku-n-da-daroo as in example (13b): ( 1 3 b ) * ^ a y tf 0 * - ft<ht£ t£6 0o Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da daroo. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D m o o d probably John is probably going to Japan. Keeping in mind that the epistemic modality daroo consists of the copula da and the volitional form of existence roo, a third possibility arises in which the copula of n-da is considered equivalent to the copula of daroo. If the two copulas overlap, producing iku-n-daroo, the sentence is grammatical: (13c) i/3> tf* 0 * ^ r r<A,: /c3 5o Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da-roo. John N O M Japan L O C go - N D m o o d -probably John is probably going to Japan. Example (13c) represents the grammatical sentence with a single overlapped copula. The order then, is N D m o o d < Epistemic P-Mod with the stipulation that the copula da overlaps. Noda of mood like noda of scope occupies a position preceding both discourse modalities, S-Mod and P -Mod ( N D m o o d < Discourse Mod). (14a) l?a> tf 0 * ^ f?<A,fc Xte* Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da yone. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D m o o d SFP John is going to Japan, isn't he? 41 (14b) 3 1 / ft a * ^ n<xu ^ f c o Jon ga nihon e iku-yone n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-SFP ND m o o d . John is going to Japan, isn't he? Noda of mood must occupy a position in front of sentence final particles, as in example (14a), for the sentence to be grammatical. Placing noda of mood after the discourse modality results in the ungrammatical sentence (14b). Noda of mood presents information to the hearer as a fixed state (Noda 1997) and marks information as known in the context of discourse to improve its reception by the hearer (Sakakibara 1998). A s such, it possesses characteristics of both epistemic modality (speaker's perception of the truth of the proposition) and discourse modality (speaker's attitude toward the hearer or situation). In the above distributional data, noda of mood occupies a position after Epistemic S-Mod and before Discourse M o d (both S and P). Noda of mood does not have a negative form nor tense markings, and can only express the attitude of the speaker; hence it is a Primary Modality. As we examined in (13c) the copula of noda overlaps with the copula in daroo (probably), an Epistemic P -Mod . Based on the above properties, I w i l l classify noda of mood under Epistemic P-Mod, with the assumption that its discourse functions become available through contextual and phonological effects. In summary, I propose the following order of the two noda, based on the relevant distributional data: (15) Deontic S-Mod < ND s c o p e Epistemic S-Mod < ND m o o d Epistemic P - M o d < Discourse S-Mod < Discourse P -Mod Section 3.2 wi l l examine the structure of noda based on the order of modal elements proposed in (15). 42 One final characteristic of noda of mood is that, as seen in Chapter One, the plain form of noda has two variants: nominalizer only or nominalizer + copula. (16a) i / a V tf ^ - U<(D„ Jon ga nihon e iku-no. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D M O O D John is going to Japan. (16b) i?a> tf ra* ^ t f<^/co Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da. John N O M Japan L O C g o - N D M O O D John is going to Japan. no (nominalizer only) n+da (nominalizer + copula) Both examples (16a) and (16b) express the speaker's desire to share information. Wi th the added force of the copula da, example (16b) carries more emphasis.6 The overlap of copulas in (13c) and the existence of two separate forms of noda in (16a) and (16b) attest to a distinction between the nominalizer no and copula da in noda of mood. Therefore I propose that the no and da are separate head positions. The implications of distinct heads are discussed in the next section. 3.2 Structure of noda This section analyzes the structure of noda in relation to Japanese syntax. Both the noda of scope and noda of mood function as modals in that they follow the proposition and express the speaker's attitude and opinion towards the proposition. Through examination of various syntactic approaches, the two noda as part of Epistemic S -Mod and P - M o d are situated on the phrasal tree structure. 'See Maynard (1992) for a discussion of intepretations of no and noda. 4 3 3.2.1 Phrase structure of modals in Japanese This section highlights four views of the modal structure. First, Tateishi (1990) situates Moda l Phrase (ModalP) between Inflection Phrase (IP) and Complementizer Phrase (CP) in Japanese. Second, Masuoka (1991) proposes a general outline of modal elements in Japanese. Third, R i z z i (1997) proposes a hierarchy of multiple C P projections based on Italian, French and English. And fourth, Cinque (1999) draws on data from various languages to highlight similarities between hierarchies of adverbs and functional heads. Tateishi (1990) analyzes the distribution of daroo (probably) and gives evidence to situate ModalP between the IP and C P as in example (17).7 (17) [ i?3yft 0 * - ft<]tc5? ] t ] W o f e o ] [ Merii wa [ [ [ jon ga nihon e iku] daroo ] to ] i-tta. ] [ m Mary T O P ^ [M o d a ,p[ I P 2 John N O M Japan L O C go ] probably ] Q U O ] say-PRF ] Mary said that John wi l l probably go to Japan. The IP "John wi l l go to Japan" is dominated by the ModalP daroo which in turn is dominated by the C P "that" and the IP "Mary said". 8 A s a head-final S O V language, Japanese projects higher projections of ModalP and C P to the right, in contrast to head initial languages such as English. Tateishi (1990) justifies the position of ModalP with daroo; however as Takahashi (1999) concludes, a single functional projection does not explain how multiple modals are possible in Japanese. 7This thesis classifies daroo as Epistemic P-Mod. 8While it is clear that the head of CP is to (that) and the head of ModalP is daroo (probably) it is not clear what occupies the head of IP for both "Mary said" and "John will go to Japan." For example, Fukui (1995) calls the Japanese Inflection defective in that it does not have features, but functions simply as a place holder for tense morphemes such as -ta (past) and -ru (non-past). This paper adopts Uechi's (1998) view of aspectual head position below epistemic modality and tense. In this view, the head II in example (15) would hold -ta (perfective) from itta (said) and 12 would hold -u (non-perfective) from Iku (go). 44 (18) i ? 3 > B * - ft<fri>l,tite^ tihb* Jon wa nihon e iku-kamoshirenai daroo. John T O P Japan L O C go-might probably John might (probably) go to Japan. A s in example (18) even daroo (probably) could be combined with other modals such as kamoshirenai (might) and nakerebanaranai (must). A single ModalP cannot account for the existence for the two modals in (18). Clearly there is a need for more projections to take the modalities. Masuoka (1991) categorizes modality into six areas and proposes the structure in Figure 3.1. In general, elements exhibiting the strongest modality (speaker's attitude) are the furthest from the proposition (6 and 5) at the top of the tree structure: sentence b 1. Modality of toritate (Topicalization) 2 a. Modality of mitomekata (Affirmation / Negation) b. Modality of tensu (Tense) 3. Modality of setsumei (Explanation) 4 a. Modality of kachi-handan (Value Judgement) b. Modality of shingi-handan (Truth Judgement) 5. Modality of hyoogen-ruikei (Types of Expression) 6 a. Modality of teinei-sa (Politeness) b. Modality of dentatsu-taido (Communication Attitude) Figure 3.1 Masuoka's hierarchical structure for the Japanese sentence (Masuoka 1991: 44) 45 Assuming the proposition to be IP, the modalities occupy head positions of categories dominating IP. Compared to Tateishi's (1990) proposal of a single ModalP , Masuoka's analysis seems more promising for situating the two noda in that it allows for the representation of multiple modality in Japanese. Rizz i (1997) takes generative data from Romance and Germanic languages to determine the hierarchy of modal elements in the systems of projections dominating IP. He specifies main elements of finiteness, force, and focus. According to R izz i , the element closest to IP is Finite Phrase (FinP) which selects a finite or non-finite IP. The element ForceP houses complementizers such as that in English and que in French. The optional projections of Topic and Focus differ in position according to language. Rizz i ' s overall framework shows Finiteness and Force surrounding optional Topic and Focus. Rizz i ' s model as adapted to the head-final structure of Japanese is shown in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2 Rizzi ' s framework (adapted from Rizz i 1997: 297) Taking into consideration the features of noda of scope and mood, scope is related to Rizzi ' s lower complementizers, and mood to his upper complementizers. The monomorphemic 46 noda of scope is a nonfiniteness complementizer which is often selected by Negative. 9 It would occupy a position low on the C system and facing the inside IP, hence Finiteness. On the other hand, noda of mood is more related to marking propositional force on the sentence, and occupies a position higher in the C system. No and da of mood act as free functional morphemes, more so than noda of scope. Before positioning the two noda in the phrasal tree structure for Japanese, we examine Cinque's (1999) proposal of multiple functional heads. Cinque (1999) categorizes functional heads into over thirty subcategories within the main categories of Aspect, Voice , Tense, Modali ty, and Mood . He examines data from numerous languages to provide a generic hierarchy of functional heads. The section of Cinque's list relevant to determining the position of noda in Japanese is as follows: M o d abi l i ty /permiss ion < M ° d o b l i g a t i o n < M ° d v o l i , i o n < M ° d p o s s i b i l i t y < M ° d n e c e s s i t y < M o ° d i r r e a l i s < T fu,ure < T past < M ° d e p i s t e m i c < M o o d e v i d e m i a l < M o o d e v a l u a t i v e < M o o d s p e e c h a c t (1999: 106) What Cinque terms Mod or root modality equates to the term deontic modality in this thesis. Not all categories, like M o o d e v a l u a t i v e apply to Japanese. To compare Cinque's analyses to the distributional data from section 3.1, the hierarchy represented in (15) is repeated below. (15) Deontic S-Mod < ND S C O P E Epistemic S-Mod < N D M O O D Epistemic P - M o d < Discourse S-Mod < Discourse P -Mod First, the analyses for noda in (15) condenses Cinque's proposal into five categories. Second, (15) assumes that the sub-classifications of modality, such as permission and obligation, are grouped in the phrasal structure. Third, distribution of noda reveals multiple projections 9Noda of scope is obligatory with negation placed on the proposition. 47 from the same cateogory in Epistemic S-Mod (examples 6a and 10a) and Epistemic P - M o d (example 13c). 1 0 Finally, (15) implicitly includes negative and tense feature markings on Epistemic S-Mod, as wi l l be seen in the next section. 3.2.2 Phrase structure of noda Distributional data reveal several characteristics of noda. 1) N D s c o p e a n d N D m o o d o c c u p y different positions, N D s c o p e as part of Epistemic S-Mod (after Deontic S-Mod) and N D m o o d as part of Epistemic P -Mod (before Discourse S-Mod.) 2) N D s c o p e expresses negative and tense (S-Mod) while N D m 0 0 d does not (P-Mod). 3) The nominalizer no and copula da of N D s c o p e form one head. 4) The nominalizer no and copula da of N D m 0 0 d form two separate heads. a) The copula of N D m o o d noda and Epistemic P-Mod daroo overlap. b) N D m o o d without copula is possible as in example (16a). Figure 3.3 Phrase Structure of the two noda Multiple projections from the same category may be a parameter of the language where Epistemic S-Mod, P-Mod and Discourse P-Mod allow multiple elements, and Deontic S-Mod and Discourse S-Mod do not. Deontic S-Mod does not seem to allow dual projections. For example, beki-da (should) and temoii (may) marking obligation and permission are ungrammatical when combined. *Jon ga nihon ni i-ttemoii bekida. "*John should may go to Japan." *Jon ga nihon ni iku-beki demoii. "*John may should go to Japan." Discourse S-Mod possesses the single feature of politeness and thus cannot be combined. Discourse P-Mod of sentence final particles in Japanese may be another category in which two projections from the same category are possible. The category includes the sentence final particles yo and ne as well as their combination yone. 48 Figure 3.3 shows the placement of noda of scope and noda of mood in the phrasal structure of Japanese modals based on the above findings. Noda's (1997) original argument for two distinct noda holds in the distribution. The noda of scope, as well other Epistemic S-Mod take negative and tense." For example, taking the linear order of negative past noda, nodewanakatta (norfa+negative+past) its form suggests higher projections of Negative Phrase (NegP) and Tense Phrase (TP). 1 2 The form does not allow any morphemes between the elements. Figure 3.4 demonstrates the internal structure of noda of scope. TP / \ r / \ NegP T / \ -katta Neg' / \ E M P Neg / \ -wana E M ' / \ E M (Epistemic Modal) -node Figure 3.4 Internal structure of noda of scope Other examples of negative past Epistemic S-Mod include Jon ga iku-ni-chigai-na-katta. Jon ga iku-hazude-wana-katta. Jon ga iku-kamoshire-na-katta. ?Jon ga iku-yoode-wana-katta. ?Jon ga iku-soode-wana-katta. ?Jon ga iki-soode-wana-katta. 12, (go-doubt-NEG-PST) (go-expected-NEG-PST) (go-might-NEG-PST) (go-looks-NEG-PST) (go-said-NEG-PST) There was no doubt that John would go. John was not expected to go. John might go. John did not look as to be going. John was not said to be going. John did not look as to be going. (go-looks-NEG-PST) This paper adopts Uechi's (1998) proposal of post-verbal heads where VP is dominated by deontic modal (root modal), aspect, epistemic modal, and tense. 49 Noda as part of the epistemic modality projects the Epistemic Modality Phrase (EMP) , which functions similarly to Rizz i ' s (1997) lower Comp. In noda of scope, unlike noda of mood, the copula da is required so that it can take the negative and tense markings: the nominalizer no cannot exist on its own. 1 3 This section introduced structures for noda of scope and mood. M u c h work remains in situating noda in the Japanese modality system. The relationship and structure of multiple modals from the same category i.e. Epistemic S-Mod, P -Mod , and Discourse P - M o d , and their relative hierarchy need to be examined. In the distributional data, grammaticality judgements by the NJSs reveal tendencies but are not necessarily consistent. Further study of modal combinations with strict control for contextual cues may reveal similarities and differences in the NJSs ' grammatical perceptions according to influences such as dialect variation, age difference, and exposure to other languages. Finally, more work is needed in the delineation of the heads no, da, roo in relation to Epistemic P - M o d and Deontic P -Mod , as well as their seeming ability to index discourse modality features. 13There are two epistemic S-Mod which optionally take no in front of its phrase: ka-mo-shire-nai (might) (Q-also-know-neg) and ni-chigai-nai (no doubt) (to-doubt-NEG). Jon ga iku-ni-chigai-nai. (go-doubt-NEG) There is no doubt that John would go. Jon ga iku-no-ni-chigai-nai. (go-no-doubt-NEG) There is no doubt that John would go. Jon ga iku-ka-mo-shlre-nai. (go-Q-also-know-NEG) John might go. Jon ga iku-no-ka-mo-shire-nai (go-no-Q-also-know-NEG)John might go. It is interesting to note that both of these forms contain a negative. The addition of no with the modality seems to behave similarly to noda in placing focus on an element in the proposition, in this case John. Further study is needed to determine whether the optional no preceding these elements is related to the nominalizer in noda of scope. 50 3.3 Characterizations of noda Having examined several different analyses of noda, this section combines the various ideas into a comprehensive whole. The distributional data in Section 3.1 supports Noda's (1997) postulation of two separate noda: scope and mood. Section 3.3.1 defines the two noda for this thesis. Section 3.3.2 extends Cook (1990) and Kamio 's (1997) construct of locating information and proposes a framework from which to understand noda. Section 3.3.3 examines how various utterances fit this information framework of noda. 3.3.1 The speaker's perception This paper adopts Noda's (1997) proposal of two separate noda, and suggests that the speaker uses them for distinct purposes. With noda of scope on one hand, the speaker asserts the (in)accuracy of information based on his belief. He highlights information that he perceives to be unknown to the hearer. On the other hand, this thesis proposes that the noda of mood marks the speaker's strong desire for information to be shared between the speaker and hearer. B y using noda of mood, the speaker indicates that he emphatically desires the information to be shared, and the hearer to respond to the overtones and implications associated with this intention. Sakakibara (1998) argues that the speaker relays a message as i f it were already shared in order to improve reception of the information; however, her proposal leaves the unanswered question of why the speaker would repeat information using noda i f he believes the information to be already known. 1 4 This paper's definition is based rather on the actual perception of need for information sharing, i.e. relaying something that the speaker 1 4I am grateful to Collier-Sanuki (p.c.) for pointing out the contradictions. 51 knows, asking for information about what the hearer knows, or emphasizing information already known. The next section examines in detail the functions of noda under the framework of speaker and hearer knowledge. 3.3.2 Information framework of noda This paper proposes an information framework marking + and - features for information knowledge by the speaker and hearer. It takes a parametric approach where at the time of the speaker's utterance, the information is perceived to be either known or unknown to the speaker and hearer. Figure 3.5 represents the information framework of noda. Hearer knowledge + + Speaker knowledge Figure 3.5 Information framework of noda While Sakakibara (1997) proposes four classifications of noda use, this paper takes the approach that there are three possible domains. Sakakibara's fourth context is deleted because modality marks a speaker's attitude and opinion toward the proposition, and would not be used with information unknown to the participants of the conversation. The speaker shows involvement in the information either by asserting it with the noda of scope, or showing his desire for its sharing with the noda of mood. Figure 3.5 describes the three possible domains of information knowledge at the time of the speaker's utterance: I) known to both the I II III 52 speaker and the hearer, II) known only to the speaker, and III) known only to the hearer. For example, the following sentence about going to Japan exhibits the feature + Speaker/- Hearer of Domain II. (19) MM B * iz: fi< htCo Raishuu nihon ni iku n-da. next week Japan L O C go N D I am going to Japan next week. n-da ND, scope n-da N D mood There are two possible interpretations of example (19). First, with noda of scope, the speaker could be asserting that it is next week that he is going to Japan, or that it is Japan where he is going. With noda of mood, the speaker marks his desire for the hearer to know the information, creating a sense of rapport. Noda of scope would be marked with a falling intonation; noda of mood, a slightly rising intonation. Various functions of noda can be categorized into the information framework as in Figure 3.6: x x Hearer knowledge +H - H +S Speaker knowledge -s • emphasis • reproach • back-channel • rhetorical question •<— A H • assertion (scope) • posing validity (scope) • giving explanation, reason, background information • creating rapport • giving commands • conjecture III • seeking explanation • creating rapport (question) Figure 3.6 Functions of noda under the information framework 53 The framework in Figure 3.6 represents the three domains of information knowledge and lists functions related to each of the domains. The functions of assertion and posing validity in Domain II represents noda of scope; the remaining functions, noda of mood. B y adding the overtone of desiring information to be shared, noda of mood creates the effect that Makino (1999) terms hikikomi or 'drawing in ' of the hearer. It creates a magnetic effect in which the speaker attempts to draw information towards the condition + Speaker/-!- Hearer. The arrows in the diagram represent this effect of pulling information towards Domain I. This effect of drawing in the hearer does not apply to the noda of scope. In Figure 3.3 noda of scope occupies a lower complementizer position marking Epistemic S-Modality asserting the truth value of the proposition. In the context of the information framework, the speaker must know the information well enough to be able to present it as fact, and in cases to highlight parts of the information. The noda of mood occupies a higher complementizer position, carrying greater propositional force and discourse features of creating a common ground between the speaker and hearer. The effect of negotiating a similar viewpoint is the pulling of information toward the status +Speaker/+Hearer. The status of knowledge at the time of the speaker's utterance, and the subsequent effect of drawing in information are thus key in understanding noda of mood. Noda of scope remains static in Domain II +Speaker/-Hearer, while noda of mood exerts a cyclic push-pull effect of giving and receiving information. Based on the framework in Figure 3.6, the next section examines the various functions of noda according to the above three domains. 54 3.3.3 Functions of noda under the information framework This section highlights features within each of the three domains proposed in the previous section. When information is already shared (+ Speaker/-)- Hearer) as in Domain I, using noda relays a sense of repeating redundant information. Sakakibara (1997) states that noda can create nuances of reproach and criticism when the speaker highlights known information. However, there are cases when noda is used with already shared information without reproachful tones as suggested by Hamano (1999). (20) -fro3^< Mfc htl frb ^ o < ^ L T frfr tt"? Sekkkaku ki-ta n-da kara yukkurishite ike ba? especially come-PRF N D so relax go i f Y o u came all this way, so why don't you stay awhile? In example (20) the speaker persuades the hearer to stay, citing the hearer's special trip as a reason to do so. This use of noda highlights information in the first clause to bring it to the special attention of the hearer. Another use of noda in Domain I occurs when the speaker gives back-channeling to information from the hearer. (21) ^ 5 ta Lt£} Soo na n-da. that C P L N D I see. <falling intonation> In (21) the speaker indicates that he understands what the hearer says and responds with a back-channel to indicate that he is listening to and involved in the hearer's information or story. The final feature of Domain I is rhetorical questioning. Unlike Sakakibara (1997), this paper classifies this use as information known to both the speaker and hearer, because 55 the intent of the speaker in posing a rhetorical question is to emphasize the fact that the question is unanswerable and to show his frustration at the lack of knowledge. (22) m*p tt ifr. f j o f c hut-Tanaka wa doko ni i-tta n-da? Tanaka T O P where L O C go-PRF N D Where (on the earth) has Tanaka gone? A group of colleagues waiting for M r . Tanaka may ask the question in (22), posing a rhetorical question which no one can answer. The speaker knows that the answer is unavailable, but makes the utterance with overtones of reproach and anger. Noda of scope falls under Domain II with the features +Speaker/- Hearer, whereby the speaker holds information that the hearer does not know. 1 5 He proposes what he believes to be true, asserting his beliefs about events, situations, or actions, etc. (23) EH4i ft 0 * K ftotc Tanaka ga nihon ni i-tta noda. Tanaka N O M Japan L O C go-PRF N D Tanaka has gone to Japan. In example (23), the speaker asserts the fact that Tanaka went to Japan, highlighting Tanaka through the use of the nominative marker ga. The slightly falling intonation of noda indicates assertion under noda of scope. "While in most cases the noda of scope reflects assertion from the speaker, there are limited contexts in which the assertion may be that of a third person. The effect is in the form of hearsay: ffl* ft O T t t T ^ ^ 5 / C o Tanaka ga kuru nodewanai sooda. Tanaka NOM come ND-NEG hear It is said that Tanaka is not coming. (Tanaka is said to be not coming.) In contexts of hearsay from a third person, the information framework does not apply. 56 Noda of scope may also be used under Domain II to pose the validity of something that the speaker believes to be true. For example, with a rising intonation, the speaker poses a question to which he expects the hearer to agree: (24) Hrfj ft ff< Tanaka ga iku n-janai? Tanaka N O M go N D - N E G Tanaka is going, isn't he? The speaker has a good idea that Tanaka is the person going. Instead of asserting the fact with the affirmative noda which may sound direct, the speaker poses the validity of the proposition in the form of a tag question. Noda of mood in Domain II is used to relay information for various purposes: creating rapport, explaining, giving background information, and making commands. In the example below, the speaker shares information about himself and creates a sense of rapport with the hearer. (25) %.ft 0 * K ff< /Wco Raigetsu nihon ni iku n-da. next month Japan L O C go N D (You know) I 'm going to Japan next month. He communicates his plans to the hearer using noda with a slightly rising intonation. The hearer is thus invited to respond with comments or questions about the trip. 1 6 Noda of mood is often used to give background information so that the speaker can make invitations, requests, or comments about the information. Conversely, the use of noda with a sharp falling intonation may have the effect of a command. "You are to go to Japan next month!" 57 (26) mm <D f ^ n as r#c & 3 X t t Wif £zga no chiketto ga nimai am n-desu kedo iki-masen ka? movie G E N tickets N O M two exist N D and/but g o - N E G Q? I have two movie tickets. Would you like to go? In example (26) the speaker wants the hearer to know that he has movie tickets as background information for his invitation to take the hearer out. Rather than beginning the sentence with a direct invitation which may sound abrupt, giving background explanations adds to the conversational effect of politeness and natural flow. In Domain III when information is known only to the hearer, (- Speaker/+ Hearer), the speaker uses noda in the form of questions. The speaker may seek explanations, or ask questions to create rapport and demonstrate involvement in the hearer's life. (27) 0 * (D K ff< © ? Nihon no doko ni iku no? Japan G E N where L O G go N D Where are you going in Japan? The speaker in (27) asks for more information and shows interest in the hearer's story. Speakers may also ask questions when they have indications about the information. M c G l o i n (1989) terms this use conjecture. In contrast to general questions, questions based on conjecture are based on the speaker's partial knowledge of the relevant information. For example, the speaker in (28a) and (28b) notices that the hearer is carrying some travel pamphlets and makes the assumption that the hearer is probably thinking of travelling. Because questions based on conjecture involve prior indication of information, they are close to the area of speaker knowledge, and are located at the top edge of Domain III as indicated in Figure 3.6. 58 (28a) ffift iz. • fif< <D ? (28b) Mf ff< © - ? Ryokoo ni iku no? Ryokoo ni iku no:? travel L O C go N D travel L O C go N D Are you going travelling? Are you going travelling? Conjectural questions may convey various emotional overtones such as surprise, approval, and disdain. For example, in (28a) the speaker may first exclaim a 'oh ' before asking the question i f he is surprised. In contrast, the speaker in (28b) communicates disapproval through intonation and emphatic elongation of no:. The hearer interprets the overtones and responds by explaining or justifying his situation. Using this information framework for noda, the following chapters analyze actual data from conversations by Japanese language learners to determine the nature of their noda use. The next chapter describes the methodology used for the data analyses of role-play and case studies. Chapter Four Methodology 59 Chapter Three of this thesis defined the framework of noda for this study. Wi th noda of scope, the speaker asserts the truth value of the proposition, while with noda of mood, the speaker expresses his strong desire for the information to be shared between speaker and hearer. The remainder of this thesis examines the use of noda by Japanese Language Learners (JLLs) and Japanese Native Speakers (JNSs) and poses the following research questions: (1) How frequently do JLLs and JNSs use noda in conversation? (2) In what contexts and functions do JLLs and JNSs use nodal (3) What is the nature of J L L s ' acquisition of nodal To answer these questions, this study analyzes conversational data from J L L s and JNSs in Chapters Five and Six. The following sections in this chapter describe the methodologies used in the data collection and analyses. 4.1 Introduction of data collection In order to gain a broader perspective on noda use by J L L s and JNSs, data collection for this study includes the audio-taping of one-time role-play conversations as wel l as a longitudinal case study of two JLLs . Section 4.2 outlines the methodology used for the role-play conversations and Section 4.3 explains the procedures for the case study. 60 4.2 Role-plays The role-plays were taken from longer interviews or institutional A C T F L - O P I s (The American Council of the Teaching of Foreign Languages Oral Proficiency Interview). 1 The next sections explain the reasons for adopting this methodology and describe the participants, data collection procedures, and analytical methods. 4.2.1 Participants The participants in this research were enrolled in a third-year Japanese course at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in 1998/99.2 The course was an advanced conversation and composition class which consisted of oral practice, conversation, grammatical analysis, and composition. As part of the final evaluation of the eight-month course, the students were all given oral interviews in the format of the A C T F L - O P I by trained raters. Participation in the research was voluntary. This study analyzes the role-plays of the 24 students who used noda out of the 56 students who gave permission to be part of the research. The range of Japanese studies (2 to 14 years) and stay in Japan (none to 4 years) reflects a mixed group of language learners. The students' profiles are given in Appendix F . 'For an overview of the ACTFL OPI see Hadley (1993), The ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual 1999 (ed. by Breiner-Sanders et al.) and the ACTFL proficienty guidelines 1986. For issues related to the ACTFL OPI in Japanese, see Makino (1991) and Johnson (1997). 2The students who volunteered to participate signed consent forms as required by Ethical Reviews at UBC. Data collection was approved by the UBC Research Services. I would like to express my gratitude to the anonymous participants, and to Dr. Collier-Sanuki for allowing me to use data obtained from her Japanese classes. 61 4.2.2 Procedures for data collection Each thirty-minute interview was recorded on audio-tape and used to determine the level of proficiency according to the A C T F L rating scale. The interviews included sections related to the description of daily life, comparison, explanation, situational conversation, and role-play. I elected to use the role-play portion for this study because of its standard use in all OPIs and stand-alone nature.3 Further, the role-play conversation reflected natural conversation. B y adopting characters in the role-play, the JLLs were able to perform relatively free from the constraints of the interviewer/interviewee relationship. 4.2.3 Procedures for analysis The role-play section generally consisted of the reading aloud of the role card by the J L L , the subsequent role-playing (approximately five minutes), and a brief wind-down section, where the interviewer thanked the JLLs and sometimes asked i f they had faced similar situations in the past. The analysis focused solely on the conversation and did not include the other components of the role-play procedure. Transcription conventions are listed in the index, and the transcriptions are provided in Appendix H . To segment the role-play data for analysis, different issues were first considered. Tannen (1982) points to the difficulty in interpreting oral data because of the variety of false starts, fillers, and repetitions, causing disjointed sentences in conversational data. Specific to Japanese, Maynard (1989) and Iwasaki (1993) propose units for analysis which include phrase-bounded phrasal units (PPU) as bound by pauses (Maynard 1989), and intonation 3In the OPI an interviewee is typically asked to talk about himself, explain various procedures, discuss opinions, and perform role-plays. 62 units (IU) which carry ideational components and could be lexical/phrasal or clausal (Iwasaki 1993). Goto (1998) discusses the difficulty of applying P P U and I U to conversations by J L L s , concluding that the use of repetitions, hesitation noises, etc. by J L L s may be differently motivated than those used by JNSs. To avoid subjective interpretations of discourse features such as pauses and repetitions, this thesis refers rather to the structural properties of the conversation and uses the clausal unit for analysis. 4 The clausal unit represents a clause marked by a subject and predicate, similar to Chafe's (1987) explanation of the English Intonation Unit. It is appropriate to use the clausal unit in analyzing noda because noda functions as modality which attaches itself to propositions represented by clauses.5 Lyons (1977) highlights the unity between physical order (intonation unit), grammatical order (clause) and semantic order (proposition). The J L L s also produced at times fragmented utterances lacking predicates, giving the semblance of 'incomplete sentences' (which were sometimes completed by the hearer). This thesis defines the clausal unit as the potential for uttering a complete clause, and includes sentence fragments as clausal units. In other words, a clausal unit is minimally a content-bearing fragment and maximally a coherent clause. Features such as hesitation noises such as aa (oh) and ee (yeah), back-channeling cues like hai (yes) and un (uhhuh), yes/no responses hai (yes) and He (no), and repetitions due to mispronunciations were not classified. The following examples represent the division of conversational data into clausal units. In the examples the J L L is role-playing a situation in which he has found an insect in his food at a restaurant. 4This study adopts the view that clauses with noda predicates are single clauses and that noda is not an additional clause. 5The null-subject feature of Japanese allows the presence of subjects to be optional when it is contextually clear to the speaker and hearer. 63 (1) fo\ zz % xyt*) \ x>t> r > f c o *>«9* - r . A / So&o ra' mo hitori! Hito, hitotsu arimasu. E X C there L O C also one person (one) one exist Oh! There is also one there. (2) zz.! Soko! there It is there! Despite the difference in their lengths, both examples (1) and (2) represent one clausal unit. Example (1) forms one clause where hitotsu, meaning one insect, is predicated by the verb exist. The exclamation and repeated self-corrections do not affect the analysis of the clausal unit. In example (2) the single utterance soko (there) forms a clause with the implicit understanding, "The insect is there". In both cases, noda could be attached to the the endings to form noda clauses. Once the transcriptions were divided into clausal units, noda use was coded according to the following classifications: 1) correct use of noda (C), 2) incorrect use of noda (I), and 3) recommended use of noda (R). The following role-play of asking a security guard to unlock the office door highlights examples of the three types. (3) ( C ) f c © ^ t i ZOO JT747 K XV A,X~t ft i f - * Anoo, watashi wa kono ofisu ni hairi-tai n-desu kedo:, um IPS T O P this office L O C enter-want N D and/but U m , I would like to get in this office, but . . . (4) (I) £<D A t i tehfr Mi iz. t f o T S hXT frb-, Sono hito wa nanka ryokoo ni i-tteru n-desu kara:, that person T O P um travel L O C go-PRG N D so ( C ) * r © A iz. ' HfS LX <t CtiftV^ A,X-to Sono hito ni denwa shite mo ko-re-nai n-desu. that person D A T phone do even i f come-able-NEG N D That person is on a trip so even i f I call her she can't come. 64 (5) ( R ) E # m £ H J T - , i i £ & f t T L * V ^ L f c . Gofun mae gurai ofisu o dete:, kagi o wasurete-shimaimashi-ta. 5 minutes before about office A C C leave keys A C C forget-regret-PST I left the office about five minutes ago, and forgot my keys. Example (3) is a correct use of noda (C) in which the J L L explains to the guard that she wishes to enter the office, implicitly requesting to have the door opened. In example (4) the J L L ' s use of noda in the first clause is incorrect (I), because its combination with the conjunction kara (so) over-emphasizes the reason that her co-worker is away and thus sounds rude. Example (5) is an instance of recommended use (R) in which the J L L should use noda to explain the fact that she forgot her keys. To code the data, two JNSs first read each transcription, citing possible areas where noda could be used. Second, minimal pairs, with and without noda, were provided as options (see the transcriptions in Appendix H). Third, three JNS informants coded each option as appropriate, questionable, or inappropriate (Appendix I). Finally, the coding was combined and re-analyzed as correct, incorrect, or recommended according to the judgements of at least two J N S s . 6 After coding, statistical differences and correlations of correct noda use were calculated between the intermediate, advanced, and superior-level J L L s under the OPI rating. The data was then re-classified into three types of information status as proposed in Chapter Three: 1) previously shared information (+ Speaker/-l- Hearer); 2) information known only to the speaker (+ Speaker/- Hearer); and 3) information known only to the hearer (- Speaker/+ Hearer). 6The JLLs' use of noda was coded as correct (C) if at least two JNSs found the use correct, and incorrect (I) if at least two JNSs found the use questionable or incorrect. If at least two JNSs found the non-use of noda questionable or incorrect, the section was coded as recommended use of noda (R). The coding is not biased by possible dialect variations because the JNSs' backgrounds represent different regions. 65 Chapter Five provides a detailed explanation of the functions of noda according to the various domains of information. 4.3 Case study The second type of data collection centred around the language acquisition of two J L L s , Susan and David. A t the time, the participants were second-year university students at the University of British Columbia. The students were chosen because they were intermediate-level students as rated by A C T F L - O P I , taking Japanese courses during the time of the study, and had prior experiences of staying in Japan. Both J L L s were of Taiwanese backgrounds, and had studied Japanese for four years at high school and one year at university at the beginning of the study.7 Susan had undergone a 2-month intensive second-year Japanese program at the Tokyo Foreign Language University while homestaying in Japan. She was taking two third-year Japanese courses at the time of this study.8 David had previously taken Japanese lessons at a private heritage language school in Vancouver. With instructor peimission, he concurrently took second-year and third-year Japanese courses in his first year at the university, and was taking two fourth-year Japanese courses at the time of the study.9 He had travelled to Japan on two occasions for short periods of time. The purpose of the case study was to qualitatively examine the nature of the J L L s ' use and acquisition of noda. The duration of the study was approximately five months, with 'Chinese, as discussed in Chapter One, does not have an equivalent form to noda. 8Susan was taking an advanced Modern Japanese reading course and an advanced conversation and composition course. 9David was taking reading courses in Modern Japanese literature and Japanese newspapers. 66 meetings approximately forty-five minutes in length every two to three weeks. I audio-taped and observed each session, and later transcribed the tapes for analysis. To study the J L L s ' perceptions of language use, the J L L s were asked to write reflections about their language use in journals. Furthermore, to determine the language levels of the case-study participants, A C T F L OPIs were administered at the outset and conclusion of the study. 4.3.1 Procedures for data collection The study examined pre-, mid-, and post-effects of acquisition of noda. In the pre-, mid-, and post-tests, the J L L s engaged in open-ended conversation for approximately forty minutes. The first five minutes of data were excluded, based on the recognition that taped conversations become more natural over time (Maynard 1989). Three sessions between the pre- and mid-tests focused on language learning through implicit means. During these sessions the J L L s had interviews, conversations on specified topics, and role-plays with a JNS. They had opportunities to listen to the JNS talk on the same topics and perform similar role-plays. They also listened to other JNSs performing similar role-plays. A l l tapes were transcribed, and the J L L s were asked to listen to the tapes, read the transcriptions, and reflect on the language used by themselves and the JNSs. The sessions between the mid- and post-tests focused on explicit learning of noda. I interviewed the JLLs about their understanding of noda, explained about its various uses, and gave them immediate feedback as they practiced conversations with each other. The last ten minutes of the practice conversations were taped for analysis. 67 4.3.2 Procedures for analysis The transcriptions of the J L L s and the JNSs were classified into clausal units and the frequency of noda use was calculated. Noda was then classified into speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and shared information under the information framework. Interview data and journal entries were examined for information relevant to the study. The findings are summarized in Chapter Six. Chapter Five Analyses of role-plays 68 This chapter examines conversational data from the role-plays of 24 J L L - J N S dyads as described in section 4.2, and 4 JNS-JNS dyads. The data analysis focuses on the language used by one person for each dyad, for a total of 28 data. Section 5.1 summarizes the frequency of noda use by J L L s and JNSs grouped into three major A C T F L oral proficiency levels: Intermediate, Advanced, and Superior. This study wi l l also group the four JNSs with the single superior-level J L L . 1 Section 5.2 categorizes noda use in role-plays into five functions: 1) explanation giving, 2) validity posing, 3) explanation seeking, 4) emphasis and reproach and 5) back-channel. Section 5.3 examines the acquisition sequence of noda based on the categorizations. Section 5.4 highlights the possible uses for noda as recommended by the JNS informants. Subsequent sections analyze each function of noda in detail. 5.1 Noda use by oral proficiency levels in role-plays Data analysis reveals that for the three oral proficiency groups - Intermediate, Advanced, and Superior - the use of noda increased as language level increased. Table 5.1 records the mean percentage of noda use by each of the three groups.2 Value N represents the number of people in each group. The mean frequency of noda use per clausal unit ranges from 7% for the intermediate-level J L L s to 25% for the superior-level J L L and the JNSs. 'The JNSs in this study would rate superior if they were to take the OPI. 2 This study only includes intermediate level JLLs who used noda in their role-plays. Because many intermediate level JLLs (55%=31/56) did not use noda in their role-plays, the actual mean for the intermediate level would be lower. Of the intermediate level JLLs who used noda, only one JLL was rated intermediate-low (who used a formulaic expression); the rest were mid or high. 69 N (number of participants) Mean (noda use / number of clauses) Intermediate 19 7.26% Advanced 4 15.73% Superior & native 5 25.02% F=27.699 Significance<.001, with 2 df Table 5.1 Frequency of noda use by OPI rating The Pearson's correlation coefficient is 0.830, indicating a high positive correlation between OPI levels and noda use. The analysis of variance ( A N O V A ) shows a significant difference of noda use between the different levels based on the OPI rating at the .001 level. The Post Hoc Tukey test reveals significant differences between usage at each of the levels, indicating a significance level at .011 between the intermediate and advanced levels, .000 between the intermediate and superior levels, and .024 between the advanced and superior levels. 5.2 Functions of noda used in role-plays The use of noda in the role-plays were analyzed according to the information framework as set in Chapter Three. 3 Within the three categories of information knowledge, the data revealed that the J L L s and JNSs used noda to give explanations and to pose validity when the speaker knew information, to seek explanations when the hearer knew information, and to emphasize information and give back-channeling when it was already shared. 3 A s s t a t e d i n C h a p t e r T h r e e , t h i s t h e s i s d o e s n o t i n c l u d e - S p e a k e r / - H e a r e r i n t h e f r a m e w o r k b e c a u s e i t t a k e s t h e v i e w t h a t f o r t h e s p e a k e r t o u s e noda, h e m u s t b e i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e s e n s e t h a t h e k n o w s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , o r h e d e s i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e h e a r e r . 70 Noda Functions OPI level +S: II expLinaiion giving +S / -M validity posing -S /+H explanation seeking +S/+H emphasis/ reproach +S''i II hack-channel Total Intermediate 5.3 % (28/530) (Y-, 0.4% (2/530) o<;; 0% 5.7% (30/530) Advanced 3.2f-J (5/155; 0% 5.8% (9/155) 3.9% (6/155) (Y-i 12.9% (20/155) Superior / Native Speaker 1 1.6% 146/395) 1.3R,Y (5/395) 6.8% (27/395) 3.3'.* (13/395) 2.3% (9/395) 25.3% (100/ 395) (unit=correct number of noda use I total number of clausal units) Table 5.2 Correct use of noda under the information framework Table 5.2 outlines the use of noda in each of its functions, with frequency percentages for each function type over the total number of clauses. The values indicate the correct number of noda use by the JLLs and JNSs. The incorrect use of noda was not included in the tables because they were too few to base conclusions. 4 Both the J L L s and JNSs used noda primarily to give explanations and to seek explanations. The JNSs and superior and advanced-level J L L s also used noda to emphasize information. The superior-level J L L and JNSs used noda to pose validity from the hearer in the form of a tag question. Moreover they used the set phrase soona-n-desu-ka T see' as a form of back-channel feedback (acknowledgement of "incorrect use of noda tallied as follows - intermediate (6), advanced (4), and superior (1). Examples are given in the following sections. 71 listening by the speaker).5 In the role-plays, the superior-level J L L and JNSs used noda in all of the five functions; while the advanced J L L s used it in three, and the intermediate J L L s two. Among the most frequent function of explanation giving, the participants typically used noda to explain their situation in order to seek help in solving a problem such as in example (1). (1) (C)gpm co m . £ co cfj ic Jsitifc hX-t ft i f - , Heya no kagi o heya no naka ni wasure-ta n-desu kedo:, rooom G E N key A C C room G E N in L O C forget-PST N D and/but I forgot the keys in the room and. . . In example (1) the J L L explains to the security guard at the office why he cannot get inside. He later asks the guard to unlock the door for him. Another common case of noda use was in seeking explanations: (2) (C) @# oo W oo Z.t bti\ fthX- J£5» A9Jfc L f t l ^ 00 1 Jibun no karada no koto toka, nande soo, taisetsuni shi-nai no? self G E N body G E N fact such as why that take care d o - N E G N D Why don't you take care of yourself, like your health? In example (2), the J L L demands an explanation of his circumstances from an old friend who now lives on the street. The tone of noda is appropriate to demonstrate concern and interest in the hearer's life. 5For explanations on Japanese discourse, see Maynard (1989) 72 5.3 Acquis i t ion sequence of noda The J L L s ' use of noda reveal that the types of functions become more varied with higher oral proficiency and that the JLLs develop their use of noda through stages exhibiting the following features as seen in Table 5.2.6 Noda is mostly used at the intermediate stage to mark speaker-oriented explanation giving, at the advanced stage to mark hearer-oriented explanation-seeking and to a lesser degree shared-knowledge emphasizing, reproaching and back-channeling, and at the superior stage to mark speaker-oriented features as well as hearer-oriented and shared-information features. The predominant use of speaker-oriented explanation-giving at the intermediate-stage is expected, because at the early stages of language acquisition, language learners focus almost solely on messages they wish to convey to the hearer. The central focus is on the self and the perspective primarily from self to other. Furthermore, the J L L s did not use noda with shared information in the role-play probably because they did not possess the skills to create discourse effects of drawing in the hearer. The intermediate-level J L L s in the role-play were focused on providing information about themselves, with the intent of gaining help from the hearer. Dechaine (p.c.) suggests an added feature for +Speaker functions: emphasis/reproach (+ Speaker/+ Hearer/+ F) back-channel (+ Speaker/+ Hearer/- F) explanation (+ Speaker/- HearerAf F) validity posing (+ Speaker/- Hearer/- F) The use of noda from Table 5.2 seems to suggest a hierarchy from early acquisition to late acquisition in the general order + Feature to - Feature, and speaker-oriented knowledge to hearer-oriented knowledge and shared information. The unmarked form would represent the neutral form without noda. The analysis predicts that JLLs and JNS children would use the form without noda, and when they notice the subjective overtones of noda, would start using the marked form of noda, first in relaying speaker-oriented information, then in hearer-oriented information and shared information. This is in keeping with how the self supersedes the other and group in child and second language acquisition. The acquisition sequence then, would be as follows: 1) explanation giving (+ Speaker/- HearerAf F) 2) explanation seeking (-Speaker/+Hearer) 3) emphasis/reproach (+ Speaker/+ Hearer/+ F) 4) back-channel (+ Speaker/+ Hearer/- F) 5) validity posing (+ Speaker/- Hearer/- F) 73 At the second stage of acquisition, the advanced-level learners use the hearer-oriented seeking-explanation as a strategy to gain information in determining their position within the discourse. Rather than the straightforward presentation of information as in the intermediate-stage, advanced-level J L L s take a broader perspective in seeking information, giving explanations and emphasizing information. In the role-plays, they asked for the hearer's perspective, and presented their own views. At the final stage, superior-level JLLs and JNSs have the ability to choose the strategies in achieving the goals of the conversation. In the role-plays they gave explanations about their situation, sought information from the hearer, added further explanations, and emphasized shared understandings to persuade and convince the hearer to act in a certain manner. The effect of negotiating the common ground is most apparent at this stage where they use a more balanced range of speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and shared knowledge features to achieve tasks such as persuading a friend off the street, having a security guard unlock a door, or having an airport attendant locate and deliver misplaced luggage. The varied use of noda is appropriate for the two-way exchange and sharing of information in the role-plays. 5.4 Possible use of noda for J L L s The mean correct use of noda for the intermediate-level J L L s was 6% of the clausal units, and for advanced-level JLLs 13%. When the coders conducted grammaticality judgements on the role-plays based on minimal pairs, their recommendation of additional noda use averaged to 10% for intermediate-level J L L s and 4% for advanced-level J L L s . Tables 5.3 and 5.4 represent the recommended noda use for the two groups. 74 Noda Functions Noda use +S/ -H explanation giving +S/ -H validity posing -S /+H explanation seeking +S/+H emphasis/ reproach +S/+H back-channel Total Correct use 5.3 % (28/530) 0% 0.4% (2/530) 0% 0% 5.7% (30/530) Recommended use 9.4 % (50/530) 0.2% (1/530) 0.4 % (2/530) 0.2% (1/530) 0.2% (1/530) 10.4% (55 /530) Possible use 14.7% (78/530) 0.2% (1/530) 0.8% (4/530) 0.2% (1/530) 0.2% (1/530) 16.0% (85/530) Table 5.3 Possible use of noda for intermediate-level JLLs Noda Functions Noda use +S/ -H explanation giving +S/ -H validity posing -S /+H explanation seeking - S / + H emphasis/ reproach +S/+H back-channel Total Correct use 3.2% (5/155) 0% 5.8% (9/155) 3.9% (6/155) 0% 12.9% (20/155) Recommended use 0.6 % (1/155) 0% 3.2 % (5/155) 0% 0% 3.9 % (6/155) Possible use 3.9% (6/155) 0% 9.0% (14/155) 3.9% (6/155) 0% 16.8% (26/155) Table 5.4 Possible use of noda for advanced-level JLLs 75 The majority of recommended uses for intermediate-level J L L s , 50/530 (9%), was to use noda more frequently in giving explanations. The advanced-level J L L s , on the other hand, used noda appropriately to give explanations. The coders recommended that advanced-level J L L s use noda in questions when they sought explanations in 5 of 155 clausal units (3%). Specific uses of noda are discussed in detail in subsequent sections. The correct use of noda by J L L s depicted in the top rows of Table 5.3 and 5.4 indicates the J L L s ' appropriate choice in using noda. There were cases in which the use was appropriate, but the sentence was ungrammatical. The following examples represent cases in which the use of noda was counted as correct usage, but included incorrect grammar or form. For example, a few J L L s attached noda to an incorrect form of the preceding word. (3) (C)ffi& <D mnm © t *m^^L± h-Q^r ft Nimotsu ni watashi no hikooki no bangoo mo kakimashi-ta n-desu ga luggage D A T IPS G E N plane G E N number also write-PST ND and/but I also wrote the flight number on the luggage, and. . . In example (3) the use of noda is appropriate in explaining that the J L L wrote her flight number on a missing piece of luggage; however, the verb preceding noda should be in the plain form kaita, instead of the polite form kakimashita as used in (3). In other cases, the J L L s used the casual (plain) form of noda when a context required more formality. In the following example, the J L L asks her supervisor for time off work: (4) (C)iift, . fcjggvN ft; hit Kachoo, onegai ga am n-da kedo:, section chief request N O M exist ND and/but Sir, I have a request, and. . . 76 The phrase aru-n-da-kedo is too casual to use in the hierarchical system of a company where the superiors are addressed with formality; the correct phrase would be aru-n-desu-ga, in which n-desu is the polite form of noda and ga (and/but) is a polite version of kedo. 5.5 Explanation giving (+ Speaker/- Hearer) The JNSs repeatedly used noda in explaining their predicament to the hearer. However, the J L L s often used noda only with the initial explanation of the problem, omitting its use in subsequent explanations of their situation. 5.5.1 Explanation giving by JNSs The JNSs ' gave explanations using noda with conjunctions and sentence final particles (i.e. ne, yo and yone). They frequently used noda with the conjunction kedo or ga (also/but) in the forms n-desu kedo or n-desu ga. (5) Participant: JNS 2 Context: A traveller is looking for missing luggage, and explains the situation at the airport luggage counter in order to have it delivered to her hotel when found. 1 As, h<D? ffim ft # o r i > £ > f c ^ A / T f f tfflif-, Sumimasen, anoo nimotsu ga mitsukara-nai n-desu keredo: Excuse me um luggage N O M find-NEG ND and/but Excuse me. U m I can't find my luggage.. . 2a 7 f 7 y <D tv—k, <D pJr JU£ t r o t Anoo ragejji no kureemu no tokoro mini i-tte U m luggage G E N claim G E N place look go-PRG ki-ta n-desu kedomo, come-PRF ND and/but U m , I went and checked at the luggage claim area. . . 77 2b t H T ^ T f t V ^ hXir detekite-nai n-desu ga: come out-NEG N D and/but but my luggage hasn't come out . . . 3 h<Do, V^o JI< hXLlo fro Anoo, itsu todoku n-de-shoo ka. U m when arrive ND-probably Q U m , when is it going to arrive? 4a hcoo, isT.Y>v I? mw&g £ L T , X— %£*)m& <o mm # t / % Anoo, shiatoru de noritsugi o shite, de: noritsugi no tokini nimotsu mo um Seattle at transfer A C C do then transfer G E N time luggage also -mz. & <D M'nWt iz m^T te-ftc^fc hx~t isshoni tsugi no hikooki ni nosete moraeru hazuda-tta n-desu kedomo: together next G E N plane D A T put on receive expect-PST N D and/but U m , I transferred at Seattle, and when I transferred the luggage was supposed to be put on the next plane with me but. . . 4b t i i o i tfi 'MoXtc &tc^ X\ &<D? m co Chotto sore ga chiga-tte-ta mitai de anoo hoka no a little that N O M differ-PRG-PST seem and um other G E N Wt K f f o T L t o T ^ &tc^ ft LX-f frif%-, tokoro ni itte-shima-tteru mitai na n-desu kedomo: place D A T go-regret-PRG seem C P L N D and/but It seems that that wasn't the case and um it seems like it has gone somewhere else.. . 5a ch<Do, fLfit co ~}j ic f f o t l t o f c ± 5 ft AyXir tf\ Anoo, eeto shikago no hoo ni itte-shima-tta yoo na n-desu ga um um Chicago G E N way D A T go-regret-PRF seem C P L N D and/but 5b t£hbfr, A y / 7 - A - S f o T # T %?>X . f t ^ XL-Z.0 fro nantoka, bankuubaa ni motte kite morae-nai deshoo ka somehow Vancouver L O C bring come receive-NEG probably Q U m , it seems to have gone to Chicago, but could it somehow be brought to Vancouver? Within the five turns in conversation (5), the JNS uses the form n-desu kedo/n-desu ga a total of six times to explain her situation. She begins with the main explanation that she cannot find her luggage, then continues with supporting explanations that she checked the turnstile and could not find her luggage there, that the luggage was supposed to have been transferred to her plane, and that the luggage seems to have been sent to Chicago instead. 78 In conversation (5) it is interesting to note that the request for help is implici t ly embedded in the context of the conversation and is only directly stated at the end of turn 5. Althought kedo and ga are conjunctions which join two clauses, the use of n-desu kedo/ n-desu ga is not limited to use in complete sentences. The two clauses in turn 2 reveal that JNSs also use n-desu kedo/n-desu ga in succession to give a variety of explanations. When the sentences are not completed with a subsequent clause, the JNS emphatically elongates the vowel at the end of n-desu keredo: in 1, n-desu ga: in 2b, and n-desu kedomo: in 4a and 4b. Most uses of the elongated forms signal the end of turns, (1,2 and 4b) and are indicative of the indirect speech style of Japanese.7 5.5.2 Explanat ion giving by JLLs The JNSs always started with a specific explanation of their problem, as in example (5). This is possible because the request for help is understandable from the context of approaching a clerk, service representative or security guard. On the other hand, the J L L s sometimes used such formulaic expressions as onegai-ga aru-n-desu-ga T have a request', or ohanashi-ga-aru-n-desu-ga T have someting to talk about' to start the role-play. After giving the main explanation with noda, the intermediate-level J L L s mostly did not continue to use noda with other added explanations. 7See Maynard (1989) for discussions on fragmentation in Japanese discourse. 79 (6) Participant: J L L 4 Context: A worker asks the security guard to let her in because she has locked herself out of the office. l a hhooo, fcH^ tf cb%> AsVi- tf-, (C) Anoo onegai ga aru n-desu ga:, um favour N O M exist ND and/but l b cbooo, fe tt- X- ®£t.1r tf^-, (R) Anoo, watashi wa: kaisha de: hatarakimasu ga:, um IPS T O P company L O C work and/but ic ib-, fe tt- Z\CD um % a i r tfb-, m. % ^ o t ^ v tfb-, Aa, watashi wa: kono heya o dete kara:, kagi o motte-nai kara:, um IPS T O P this room A C C leave after key A C C have-NEG so l d ^ 3 = - , ^tlbtite<* fc!9£Lfc. (R) Ima:, irerarenaku narimashita. now (enter-able-NEG) became Excuse me. I have a request. U m I work at this company, but I left this room without my keys, so I can't enter now. Lines lb and Id are explanations that the J L L is a worker at the building, and that she is unable to enter the office because she left her keys inside. Therefore, the JNS informants recommended the use of noda for these lines. l b ' hCDo, fe tt C(D £fcL T r f / ) ^ T V ^ < 5 hXir tf\ Anoo, watashi wa kono kaisha de hatarai-teiru n-desu ga, um IPS T O P this company L O C work-PRG ND ' and/but Id ' ^t, A f t & V A,T?- f tfi-Ima, hai-re-nai n-desu ga: now enter-able-NEG ND and/but Examples ( lb ' ) and (Id') with noda added make the utterances more natural. When talking in role-plays which require explanations of situations, J L L s should remember to use noda not only with the initial explanation, but also in subsequent related explanations as well . 8 As uttered, ire-rare-naku is ungrammatical. The correct form would be hai-re-naku. 80 5.6 Validity posing (+ Speaker/- Hearer) When the speaker holds a belief and desires the hearer to realize the validity of his belief, he may use the negative form of noda with a rising intonation in the form of a tag question. This use of noda falls under Noda's (1997) noda of scope; however, rather than asserting the inaccuracy of a proposition, the speaker poses the validity of the relevant information: (7) Participant: J L L 24 Context: The speaker gives advice to her friend who is considering marriage. 1 fc- ! ^ o t f U ^hif- WL & B * ic o t l T t t - , Ne:! Yappari ichido: kare o nihon ni tsurete kite:, Hey as expected once 3PS A C C Japan L O C bring come a-wasete mi tara ii n-janai? meet -CAU try i f good ND-NEG Hey! Wouldn't it be good to bring him to Japan and have him try meeting them? In example (7) the superior-level J L L suggests her friend introduce her boyfriend to the parents who are against their marriage, in order for them to become acquainted with him. The speaker uses noda to present her belief that it would be a viable option in resolving the situation.9 The hearer is invited to recognize the validity of her suggestion. The intermediate and advanced-level JLLs did not use phrases to pose validity except in one case where a J L L sought to have the hearer verify the situation: Collier-Sanuki (p. c.) points out that this use could also be construed as -SpeakerAHearer to indicate uncertainty; however, this paper takes the approach that the speaker poses the tag question to which she knows a definite answer, and that her ultimate goal is for the hearer to realize the correctness of her belief, and hence terms the use +Speaker/-Hearer. 81 (8) Participant: J L L 17 Context: The speaker is involved in a bicycle accident and negotiates with the other rider to seek compensation for damages. 1 <F> .SH ft, % & J L x f t l ^ fth £o - f 5 t5T- , Anata no hoo ga, watashi ga mi-e-nai kara massuguni kite:, you G E N way N O M IPS N O M see-able-NEG so straight come (R) J&ofrift -e-f- ft-! butsuka-tta ja- nai desu ka: ? coll ide-PRF C P L - N E G C P L Q Wasn't it that you came straight this way and collided into me, because you couldn't see me? The coders recommended that the J L L use noda to form butsukatta-n-ja-nai-desu-ka? Wi th the addition of noda, the phrase sounds more polite where the speaker poses the validity of the claim that she believes to be true, rather than the phrase without noda which directly accuses the hearer. 5.7 Explanat ion seeking ( - Speaker /+ Hearer) When seeking explanations from the hearer, noda is often used. The intermediate-level J L L s only infrequently posed questions. In the advanced and superior-levels, two of the subjects, J L L 22 and JNS 4, used noda to seek explanation the most, 7 times and 9 times respectively. In the role-play they sought information from their homeless friend now living on the streets. The frequent use of explanation seeking with this type of role-play suggests that topic influences the kinds of language functions used in role-plays. 82 5.7.1 Explanat ion seeking by JNSs The JNSs used noda each time they requested explanations from the hearer. The example below shows a succession of questions seeking information about the hearer's situation: (9) Participant: JNS 4 Context: The speaker talks to a former friend now living on the streets. 1 i£ 5 L T MbLXh 60 ? 1 0 Dooshite kurashi-ten no? how l ive -PRG N D How are you living now? 2 i£c\ K &hXh (Dl Doko ni sun-den no? where L O C l ive -PRG N D Where are you living? 3 % tf ftV^ (D 1 Ie ga nai no? jaa, house N O M exist-NEG N D then Y o u don't have a place to live then? 4 f£±. X mbLXZ (Dl Rojoo de kurashi-teru no? jaa, street L O C l ive -PRG N D then You're l iving on the street then? In each turn the speaker asks for more information from the hearer. Consequently, noda in the above examples demonstrates the speaker's involvement and concern in the hearer's life. The questions in this section all have rising intonations. A falling intonation can1 be used on sentences without interrogative pronouns; however in this case the speaker would be sharing information about himself (+ Speaker/- Hearer). Examples 1-4 also all have the form no without the copula da, common in questions. 83 5.7.2 Explanat ion seeking by J L L s Intermediate-level J L L s did not use noda to seek explanations, except in a few instances. In forming questions with noda, JLLs may face difficulties with yes-no questions. Questions of this type make presuppositions about a hearer's intention, and often demonstrate an accusing tone, especially when the preceding verb is in the negative form. (10) Participant: J L L 13 Context: A traveller is looking for missing luggage, and explains the situation at the airport luggage counter in order to have it delivered to her hotel. 1 -fcT-jv iz. ffityj & i l o T v^/t/cfrftv^ A / i ?L , f c5 ?K (I) Hoteru ni nimotsu o okutte itadake-nai n-deshoo ka. hotel L O C luggage A C C send receive-NEG ND Q Y o u can't send the luggage to my hotel? The use of noda in example (10) indicates a presupposition that the attendant is unwill ing to deliver luggage, and demands an explanation of why she is unwilling.. In cases where the speaker simply wishes to make a request, noda should not be used. J L L s at the advanced level began to use noda appropriately with wh-questions, as in example (11) to find out about his friend's current situation. (11) Participant: J L L 22 Context: The speaker talks to a former friend now living on the street. 1 W.M tt if 5 ft <oi (C) Kazoku wa doo na no? family T O P how C P L ND How is your family? (R) Kazoku to zenzen renraku to-tte-nai family and completely contact take-PRG-NEG Y o u haven't kept in contact with your family at all. 84 3 ^ A , f t i t X. HA.XX t'o ft • © ? (C) Sonna michi de sun-dete doo na no? that street L O C l ive -PRGhow C P L ND How is it l iving on a street like that? The J L L is personally involved in the hearer's situation and later persuades her to find work to get off the streets. Therefore, the personal tone of questions in turn 1 and 3 with noda is appropriate; the J L L should also use noda with line 2 to indicate his strong desire for an explanation. 5.8 Emphasis and reproach (+ Speaker/+ Hearer) The advanced and superior-level J L L s and JNSs effectively used noda to emphasize information known to both the speaker and the hearer. (12) Participant: J L L 23 Context: The speaker convinces his wife that they should both do the housework. 1 mu bi>. tt* £ . L T - 5 ztlz. li frfrbte^ hit fth-. (C) Ryoohoo tomo, shigoto o shi-teru kotoni wa kawara-nai n-da kara:, both also work A C C do-PRG fact T O P differ-NEG ND so It doesn't changethe fact that we both work, so.. . The J L L persuades his wife to let him share the housework, citing the reason that they both work. The use of noda is appropriate in emphasizing previously shared information for the speaker to make his case. When a speaker repeats and emphasizes information known to both the speaker and the hearer, the effect could also be one of reproach, as described by Sakakibara (1998). 85 (13) Participant: JNS 1 Context: A customer has just been told by the store clerk that the store does not give refunds and that the store policy is written on the bottom of the receipt. l a fc, T?<b It / b£v^ t f i < i l x . * - ^ fc-. A, demo kore wa chiisai moji de yoku mi-e-masen ne:. oh but this T O P small print and well see-able-NEG SFP Oh, but this is very small print and hard to see. l b <t5 '>L ft 3 s X ff^.T w f c / c > f t ^ zti It fetoi, Moo sukoshi ookina ji de kaite itadaka-nai to:, kore wa chotto, more slightly large letter by write receive-NEG i f this T O P a little Z\fi it. ^ A , f t Fi? » ^ T & o f c fr-B kore wa konna tokoro ni kaite-a-tta n-desu ka:. this T O P this kind place L O C write-is-PST N D Q <If you don't write it in bigger letters, this is a bit, this, it's written in such a place.> Y o u need to write it in bigger letters; this is a bit . . .it's hard to see where it's written. In example (13) the customer expresses her criticism that the salesperson did not clearly state the store's policy when she first bought the item. It is obvious from her statement that she thinks that the fault lies with the store; however, the reproach is stated indirectly and is more polite than directly criticizing the store. This type of noda use is more subtle than straight forward explanations, and difficult for J L L s to master. 5.9 Back-channel (+ Speaker/+ Hearer) The fifth and final use of noda in the role-plays is back-channelling. B y using the phrase soo-na-n-desu-ka T see' the speaker acknowledges to the hearer that he understands something that the hearer has previously stated. 86 (14) Participant: JNS 3 Context: A worker asks the security guard to let her in because she has locked herself out of the office. 1 u * . 14 <r> A kz. & t-ox t mm o r Ja, hoka no hito ni renraku o totte mo muri tte then other G E N person D A T contact A C C take even i f impossible Q U O c\t ft A,Xi~ XU—o koto na n-desu yone: fact C P L ND SFP Then it means that even i f I contact someone else, it's not possible. 2 fe ^ 5 ft hXir fr-0 A soo na n-desu ka: oh that way C P L ND Q Oh I see. In example (14) the guard (hearer) has previously explained that he cannot let her in even i f she calls a co-worker to verify her position in the company. The speaker (worker) first emphasizes the information in line 1 to seek confirmation, and includes the back-channel in line 2 to show that she understands the information. The J L L s infrequently gave back-channels after receiving explanations. In one case, in a role-play similar to the one above, the security guard explained that she had been previously stabbed by a knife and could not let the employee inside the office. The intermediate-level J L L responded with soo-desu-ka "Is that so", without noda; however, in such cases of extreme emotion, soo-desu-ka sounds too neutral and impersonal. The J L L should have used the more personal soo-na-n-desu-ka, with noda to show concern. 87 The J L L s with higher oral language proficiency used noda more frequently in the role-plays. The use of noda seemed to go through the most transition at the advanced level and solidify by the superior-level. Both JLLs and JNSs used noda most frequently to explain situations. The intermediate-level J L L s tended to use noda when they first explained their situations to the hearer. The JNSs and superior-level J L L often provided explanations combining noda with the conjunctions kedo/ga (and/but) and sentence final particles. Other than giving explanations, the advanced-level J L L s also used noda to seek explanations and emphasize information. The superior-level J L L and JNSs further used noda in tag questions and back-channels. The data revealed an acquisition sequence beginning from speaker-oriented functions at the intermediate-level, through hearer-oriented functions at the advanced level, and a balanced use of speaker and hearer-oriented and shared information functions of noda at the superior level." While most uses of noda by J L L s were correct uses, incorrect uses included making hasty (and often rude) presuppositions by using noda. The informants mostly recommended the addition of noda in contexts where the J L L provided explanations. In several cases, the recommendation was to use noda with explanation-seeking questions. Chapter Six Analyses of case study 88 This chapter examines two Japanese Language Learners' (JLLs) use of noda over a period of five months. The case-study design is appropriate for this study based on Johnson's (1992) description of case study as research which "informs us about the processes and strategies that individual L 2 (second languge) learners use to communicate and learn, and how their own personalities, attitudes, and goals interact with the learning environment, and about the precise nature of their linguistic growth" (1992: 76). This present study takes interest in the qualitative nature of how J L L s perceive and acquire noda and set out to conduct a case study research. This case study, as stated in Chapter Four, is driven by the following research questions: (1) When and how do JLLs use nodal (2) What is the nature of J L L s ' understanding of nodal (3) How do J L L s acquire the use of nodal Through references to interviews and personal journals, this chapter analyzes the learning process of the two J L L s . Section 6.1 discusses the implicit learning stage of the study, and Section 6.2 the explicit learning stage. Section 6.3 highlights the J L L s ' uses of noda within the conversational data. The distinction between explicit and implicit learning in this study is based on the deductive/inductive distinction drawn by Richards et al. (1997). Learners are specifically taught rules and given explanations about language in explicit learning (deductive), while 89 learners discover about language themselves without being taught specific rules in implicit learning (inductive). Krashen (1982) differentiates language acquisition as a subconscious process similar to child first language acquisition and learning as a conscious knowledge of rules. Recent studies on noda (Yoshimi forthcoming and Iwai 2000) examines J L L acquisition of noda through explicit instruction and conscious learning. In the studies, intermediate-level J L L s at the Univerisity of Hawaii improve in their use of noda in narrative story-telling through native speaker models, explanatory handouts, planning sessions, practice communications and corrective feedbacks'. This case study set out to explore whether implicit learning and/or explicit learning would have any effect on the J L L s ' use of noda. 6.1 Implici t learning stage During the implicit learning stage (sessions 2 to 4) as discussed in section 4.3.1, the aim was for the two J L L s in the study, Susan and David, to discover the use of noda in natural conversation and attempt to incorporate noda into their own conversation. The J L L s talked with a Japanese native speaker (JNS) who frequently used noda (25-26% of clausal units). After each session, the JLLs listened to the taped conversations and read the transcriptions of the tape, and wrote comments in their journal about the language used in the tapes. Their use of noda in conversation remained infrequent (0-3%) during this stage, similar to their use of noda during the pre-test (session 1). Although the JNS often used noda, the J L L s did not remark on its use either in their journals or in the interview. Their journals indicate concern with lexical choice and grammatical accuracy such as the use of correct tense and particles. 'in both studies n-desu improved the most, n-desu ne and n-desu kedo improved to a lesser degree, while n-desu yo did not improve. 90 With regards to session 4, David wrote the following points in his journal: -made some basic grammar mistakes (i.e. chiisai deshita) -past and present tense confusion -shift from formality to informality, inconsistent -missing particles Susan also noted her difficulty in speaking Japanese, remarking that she "could not concentrate in all ways (expressing ideas, grammar and fluency)". Neither mentioned noda, however. The J L L s noticed that they had improved in areas such as giving more back-channelling, pausing less often, and using more appropriate vocabulary. The mid-test at session 5 also did not indicate increased use of noda. During the pre-test, implicit learning stage, and mid-test of the study (sessions 1 to 5), Susan predominantly uses the form nano/nandesu in questions and statements (11/12 uses of noda). She used noda only infrequently, seemingly to mark emphasis: (i) mz mm tfr - # *® ft <D0 Kaeru jikan toka ichiban taisetsu na no. return time such as most important C P L ND Things like going home on time are the most important. In example (1) she explains that at her workstudy, the workers were focused on their break times and getting off work on time. At the conclusion of the conversation, Susan emphasizes that leaving work on time is more important than completing work that needs to be done. In the example below, Susan and David talk about their experiences taking Japanese-style baths. (2) * tt 3 - - * • * ^ r * ft <D0 Onsen wa yuusu hosuteru na no. hotspringTOP youth hostel C P L ND The hotspring is a youth hostel. 91 In example (2), Susan wishes to emphasize the fact that the only hotspring she has gone to is at a youth hostel, and that she has therefore not yet experienced a true Japanese-style hotspring. The corrected version (2') makes the effect clear. (2') % tf A o f c 00 tt — • H^^T/V OO S . H ft oo. Watashi ga hai-tta no wa yuusu hosuteru no onsen na no I N O M enter-PRF N M R T O P youth hostel G E N hotspring C P L N D . The hotspring I went to was at a youth hostel. Example (2') is appropriate because it emphatically states that the hot spring she is refering to was in a youth hostel, and the use of noda draws in the hearer to her experience. David uses noda both with and without na (copula) during the implicit learning stage. (3) Playland t 1/^ 5 FJf £ jtt-oT^&T tf? Playland to iu tokoro o shi-tteimasu ka? Playland Q U O say place A C C know-PRG Q Do you know a place called Playland? (4) mmm, mmm ft A, -? I - „ Yuuenchi, yuuenchi na n-desu. amusement park amusement park C P L N D Amusement park, it's an amusement park. In line (3) David introduces a new topic to the JNS. Hearing that she does not know what Playland is, he explains to the JNS using noda to indicate that he would really like her to know the information so that he can continue talking about going to Playland for a high school-field trip. David also uses noda to ask questions of Susan. (5) ym % wkvit h-vr tf, tto Supeingo o benkyooshi-ta n-desu ka, suuzan-san wa. Spanish A C C study-PRF N D Q Susan T O P Susan, did you study Spanish? 92 Susan and David discuss studying languages other than Japanese or Chinese. Had Susan given any indication that she had studied Spanish, by saying a Spanish phrase, for example, or carrying a Spanish book, David could have made a conjecture and asked the question in example (5) to find out more information. However, because she did not give any such indication, his question in (5) is out of context. It would be more appropriate to ask a neutral question without noda as in (5'). (5') a x^ym & z.t ft & 9 £ - f ft! Suuzan-san wa supeingo o benkyooshi-ta koto ga arimasu ka? Susan T O P Spanish A C C study-PRF fact N O M exist Q Have you studied Spanish before? The question in (5') does not make assumptions and simply inquires i f Susan has studied Spanish before. To use noda effectively in this context, the question would need to be more general such as a WH-question. (6) if/oft Win £ M^Ltc Zt ft &?> A,X-f ft! Donna gengo o benkyooshi-ta koto ga am n-desu ka? what languages A C C study-PRF fact N O M exist ND Q What languages have you studied before. To show interest and create rapport, David could ask Susan about her general study of languages as in example (6), without making assumptions. Immediately after the mid-test conversation in session 5, I interviewed the J L L s individually and asked about their understanding of the uses and functions of noda. Both indicated that they had not paid particular attention to its use by the JNS, although Susan stated that she had noticed the frequent use of noda when she studied in Japan. The J L L s were uncertain about the functions of noda. David thought that it marked formality and 93 emphasis, while Susan thought that it was a softer version of tsumori (intention) and that it sometimes had emotive qualities. She stated that she had not focused on noda because its use did not seem to affect the meaning of the sentence. A t the end of the interview, I asked the students to reflect on their use of noda for the next session. 6.2 Expl ic i t learning stage The explicit learning stage consisted of three sessions which focused on explicit explanations of the functions of noda and the practice of its use. Before beginning instruction about noda in session 6, I again asked the students about their understanding of noda. This time Susan had researched explanations from various resources, and she stated that noda was used in explaining, urging people to respond, as well as giving reasons. She expressed her surprise at the variance from her previous understanding. On the other hand, she stated that she was still not certain of their uses because the contexts of noda use referenced in the books were limited to set situations, and she suspected that there were more. David also stated that in reflecting on his previous use of noda, he was uncertain of how and why he used noda when he did. At the beginning of each session during the explicit learning stage, I explained the various uses of noda with sample sentences and handouts. During the J L L s ' practice conversations with each other, I also gave immediate feedback about the appropriate use of noda. The J L L s began to use noda frequently in their conversations (see Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1). David began to adopt the use of noda immediately upon the first session of explicit instruction (session 6). Susan showed more hesitation, writing in her journal, "to me 94 it is hard to use it in an appropriate situation because it is really unfamiliar to me." In session 7, she started to incorporate noda into her conversation. She wrote, Since knowing the appropriate use of no/n-desu, I started to take note of that when having conversations with David; however, because it is kind of new to me, I started to talk slower, but sometimes I still forgot to use it. . . After listening to the explanation of n-desu, I started to notice the frequent use of n-desu in Japanese converation. It really makes sense such as showing strong interest in the information or giving background information, etc. I noticed that I hardly use this pattern, and indeed, sometimes use it (-nano) in a weird situation which does not fit in. The J L L s ' use of noda varied during the sessions, dropping in session 8 and the post-test. Susan O Pre-test Implicit Learning Mid-test Expl ic i t Learning Post-test Figure 6.1 Graph of noda use in the case study Susan David Native Speaker 1 Pre-test 4.3% (8/187) 4.7% (9/192) 2 0% (0/43) 2.8% (1/36) 25.5% (12/47) 3 0% (0/55) 0% (0/80) 26.8% (37/138) 4 3.0% (3/99) 0% (0/68) 26.2% (38/145) 5 Mid-test 1.2% (2/161) 1.8% (3/169) 6 2.6% (1/38) 28.0% (14/50) 7 33.3% (13/39) 38.9% (28/72) 8 14.5% (11/76) 8.8% (6/68) 9 Post-test 3.4% (4/118) 1.5% (2/131) The numbers in the brackets indicate the total number of noda use over the total number of clauses. Table 6.1 Frequency of noda use in the case study 96 The decrease in the J L L s ' use of noda during the last two sessions (8 and 9) may be due to the fact that the J L L s focused more on content than form. LoCastro (1997) and Lightbown and Spada (1993) cite several reasons why pedagogical interventions may not effect change: 1) poor teaching, 2) insufficient time, 3) influence of developmental stages, and 4) sociocultural attitudes. The J L L s ' use of noda is incorporated in their pragmatic competence, "the knowledge underlying abilities to interpret, express, and negotiate social activities and their meanings beyond what is literally expressed" (Austin 1998: 328). Drawing on Bouton (1994), LoCastro (1997: 97) concludes in her study that first, pragmatic competence development is a complex interaction of values, language proficiency and social practices; second, language learning environments and societal attitudes towards L l and L 2 affect language development; and finally, language development requires time and exposure and experience with naturalistic input.2 Takahashi (1996) calls for more research in the area of explicit instruction and learner variables in the teaching of pragmatic features. Susan and David's increased use of noda during the explicit learning stage made their conversation sound more like natural Japanese. Compare example (7) from the implicit learning stage without noda to example (8) from the explicit learning stage with the use of noda. In both examples, David is expressing his opinions. LoCastro's (1997) study of explicit teaching of politeness to Japanese university students learning English, like this study, does not show expected positive effects on the students' language behaviour. 97 (7) ^ b te. Z<D m <D fcW tt, ^ t t t 9 mM& ft Ima kangaeru to ne, sono toki no kyooiku wa, yahari mondaiten ga now think i f SFP that time G E N education T O P certainly problems N O M & o fc'oT fe© f--lfti£ fcLT tt ft, arimasu ne. Datte ano kodomotachi toshite wa ne, exist SFP because um children as T O P SFP ^ t t < 9 nfc3 ' , tt>*9 tt Tf-f- *a0 yahari shikaru bakari wa dame desu ne. certainly scold only T O P bad C P L SFP If I think about it now, the education at that time had problems. Because for children, it is not good just to scold them. (8) ^ t t ^ mm <D £**tfc mft tt mo ft As-z-to Yahari bokutachi no umare-ta jidai wa heiwa na n-desu. certainly 1PP G E N born-PRF time T O P peaceful C P L ND X-fftb ft, ^-5 v^5 IHff o £ -^ttt? Desukara ne, soo iu sensoo no kowasa o yahari therefore SFP that say war G E N scariness A C C certainly w / N — t > h mm - r ^ f t ^ A,-**-? t3.o hyaku paasento rikai deki-nai n-desu ne. one hundred percent comprehend can-NEG ND SFP Y o u know the time we're born in is peaceful; so you know we can't truly comprehend the destruction of war. In example (7) David criticizes education in Taiwan as being authoritarian. The sentences sound somewhat disjointed exhibiting a neutral tone despite discussing something about which David feels strongly. The native-like use of noda in (8) creates an emotive overtone and sense of rapport which draws in the hearer. When using noda, the JLLs sometimes exhibited the following characteristics: pausing and self-correction, concern with use of noda, and the predominant use of nan-desu (copula + 98 noda) over n-desu (noda). The J L L s often corrected their own utterances, repeating phrases with noda as in example (9): (9) fe f± TSffi^ t S v ^ i " UK S o T S A,~?-f tf\ Watashi wa omoroshiroi to omoimasu ga, omo-tteru n-desu ga, IPS T O P interesting Q U O think but think-PRG ND and/but I think it is interesting but, you know I think it is interesting but. . . In example (9) Susan tells David of her interest in an article she read about cartoons, first without noda, then correcting herself to include noda. Susan notices her uncertainty when speaking, and writes, "I was struggling with expressions sometimes, resulting in switching words/expressions back and forth." The J L L s also use rising intonations in non-question forms when they are uncertain about their predicate choice. Sometimes the J L L s ' concern with the use of noda seems to override their concern about accuracy, resulting in ungrammatical sentences like in example (10): (10) * i a * miRLtc M ft i f - 3 Kiji o honyakushi-ta n, kedoo: article A C C translate-PRF N M R and/but I translated the article, but... In example (10) Susan explains to David that their class translated Japanese newspaper articles. When using the form n-desu kedo (noda + and/but) as in example (10), the J L L s sometimes omitted the required copula da/desu. Moreover, the J L L s used na n-desu ( C P L + noda) with all adjectives, instead of correctly choosing n-desu with /-adjectives and nan-desu with na-adjectives and nouns. 3The use of noda omitting the copula as in (10) may be seen in some dialectical variations of Japanese. 99 J L L s often confuse /- and na-adjectives, and in the case of noda, may perceive nan-desu to be the more salient form. In the following examples, David responds to Susan that translating is indeed difficult: (11) * a m tt *mz. SIL^ ft hx-t fto Honyaku wa hontooni muzukashii na n-desu ne. translation T O P truly difficult C P L ND SFP It's really hard to do translations, isn't it. (12) ft AsX-r ^ t t ^ , mm <D zt« A, taihen na n-desu ne, yahari, honyaku no koto. oh a lot of work C P L ND SFP certainly translation G E N thing Oh, translations are certainly a lot of work, aren't they. The use of na n-desu ( C P L + noda) is incorrect with the /-adjective muzukashii (difficult) in example (11), but correct with the na-adjective taihen (a lot of work) in example (12). (11') S I R tt mL^ A / T f t fto Honyaku wa hontooni muzukashii n-desu ne. translation T O P truly difficult ND SFP It's really hard to do translations, isn't it. The correct form of (11) is muzukashii n-desu, as in example ( l l ' ) . 4 This section described the structural features of noda use. The next section examines the contexts of its use. "instead of wa (TOP) and no koto (GEN + fact) which gives a formal tone in (12), the two examples could use tte (QUO) after the topic translation, creating similar phrases as in the examples below. fBlR o t K L V ^ A,t?-f- tao Honyaku tte hontooni muzukashii n-desu ne. translation QUO truly difficult ND SFP It's really hard to do translations, isn't it. fe, SIR o T ^ o i f 19 jzM & LX-T feo A, honyaku tte yappari taihen na n-desu ne. oh, translation QUO certainly a lot of work CPL ND SFP Oh, translations are certainly a lot of work, aren't they. The above sentences provide a clear sense that the speaker empathizes with the hearer's experiences. 100 6.3 Contexts of noda use The use of noda by the JLLs and JNS was divided into the three domains of information status as described in Chapter Three. Data analysis reveals that Susan and David mainly used noda with speaker-oriented information (+ Speaker/- Hearer) and less with hearer-oriented (- Speaker/+ Hearer) and shared information (+ SpeakerAf Hearer). The acquisition sequence reveals a similar pattern to that of the role-play data in which the J L L s first learn to use noda with speaker-oriented information, then hearer-oriented and shared information. The JNS used a balanced mixture of functions from the information domains. Table 6.2 shows the number of noda used during the course of the case study (9 sessions for the J L L s and 3 sessions for the JNS). The percentages represent the frequency of noda use in each domain according to each person. Speaker-oriented (+S/-H) Hearer-oriented (-S/+H) Shared information (+S/+H) Total use of noda Susan 34/816 (4.2%) 6/816 (0.7%) 2/816 (0.2%) 42/816 (5.1%) David 39/866 (4.5%) 18/866 (2.1%) 6/866 (0.7%) 63/866 (7.3%) JNS 1 32/330 (9.7%) 24/330 (7.3%) 31/330 (9.4%) 87/330 (26.4%) (total noda use/total number of clausal unit) Table 6.2 Contexts of noda use in case study Susan and David used noda most frequently to relay information that the hearer did not know (+ Speaker/- Hearer) to give explanations and create rapport. Similar to the role-plays, it is natural that the JLLs would first acquire the use of noda to relay speaker-oriented 101 messages, because the fundamental methods of communication are to express one's own ideas and thoughts to an audience. For example, when discussing about travelling, Susan describes an aboriginal community in Taiwan to David. (13) ^ f t 0 * M ft /o-vt «t„ Minna nihongo mo joozu na n-desu yo. Everyone Japanese also skilled C P L N D SFP Everyone is also good at speaking Japanese (you know). She creates a sense of rapport in sharing information she has knowledge of, while also explaining about the tribe to David. While the JLLs used noda most frequently with speaker-oriented information (4.2% and 4.5%), the frequency still did not reach half of the native speaker's use (9.7%). One difficulty the J L L s faced in using noda to convey information was in combining it with various sentence-final particles. Goto (1998) highlights J L L s ' difficulty in using appropriate combinations of noda and sentence-final particles and calls for detailed studies. For example, David points out the confusion in choosing the correct combination: I guess the most confusing part of n-desu is the distinction between n-desu ne and n-desu yone. I often find it extremely difficult to distinguish between the two. It.appears to me that there seem to be many cases where both are fine. In the case study conversations, Susan and David often repeated their utterances, trying out different combinations of noda with sentence-final particles. (14) 0 * co, 0 * iz, o v ^ T v ^ v ^ 5 f t z\b & Nihon no nihon ni tsuite iroirona koto o Japan G E N Japan D A T about various things A C C mULTV^ hXT, hXT ta, hX-f j ; ta ? honyakushi-teim n-desu iru n-desu ne, im n-desu yo ne? translate-PRG N D P R G N D SFP P R G N D SFP SFP I am translating various things about Japan. <rising intonation> 102 In example (14) Susan explains to David that she has been translating various articles about Japan. She first simply uses n-desu (noda), then repeats the predicate using the sentence-final particles ne and yone. She finally ends with a rising intonation, revealing uncertainty about how to end her sentence. Another feature about the J L L s ' use of noda with speaker-oriented information, is that they sometimes over-generalized its use with expressions of thoughts and emotions: (15) Xft^tc A,X"to Yoka-tta n-desu. good-PRF ND -It was good you know. Yahari sugoku omoshiro-katta, katta n-desu ne. certainly very interesting-PRF P R F ND SFP. It was very interesting as expected you know. In both examples, David expresses his emotional responses to different experiences. In the first, he finds his research project rewarding and educational, and in the second, the animation f i lm he watched interesting. JNSs normally use a more neutral tone without noda when talking about personal thoughts and emotions. The use of noda as sharing of information carries an overtone of desiring the hearer to share similar opinions and feelings with the speaker; in such contexts its use may be construed as forcing opinions on the hearer, and is generally avoided. Therefore, the examples in (15) and (16) should not include noda. Areas such as personal thought and emotion may need special attention when teaching J L L s about noda. The JLLs at times were successful in using noda in the second domain of hearer-oriented information (- Speaker/-!- Hearer). A s language learners develop proficiency, they are 103 increasingly able to ask questions of others and to take wider perspectives in viewing information. The J L L s in the case study sometimes asked questions with noda to demonstrate interest and involvement with the hearer: (17) }£ht£ tm & muLtc hx-f Donna kiji o honyakushi-ta n-desu ka? what kind article A C C translate-PRF N D Q What kind of articles did you translate? When Susan discusses about writing translations in a Japanese class, David asks the question in example (17) to convey his interest in Susan's answer. Noda establishes the sense, "I really would like to know". When Susan gives a general answer that the articles concerned various topics about Japan, David presses for more information, asking the question in example (18). (18) 0 * tc ov>T b <D f i <!fA,ft zb ft AjX-t tfl Nihon ni tsuite to iu no wa donna koto na n-desu ka? Japan D A T about Q U O say N M R T O P what kind thing C P L N D Q What kinds of things is it when you say 'about Japan'? In example (18) David asks Susan for additional explanation. Susan recognizes the cue and responds by giving more detailed descriptions of her translation assignments. The JNS in the case study frequently asked questions about the J L L s using noda, especially in the first session when they were first introduced to each other. The final area of noda use, shared information, was the lowest of the three for both Susan and David. They used noda to emphasize already shared information: (19) f c o T &ik f i &<D fN> ft hXt frb. Datte taipei wa ano toshin na n-desu kara, because Taipei T O P um city C P L N D so, Taipei is a metropolitan city s o . . . 104 In example (19) David emphasizes that because Taipei is such a metropolitan city, other places in comparison are more suburban. The JNS in the case study often asked for information from the J L L s , repeated it for confirmation and gave back-channel cues, creating a sense of interest and empathy. The balanced use of noda by the JNS over the three domains represent the key features of relaying and asking for information, and highlighting the sharing of information to establish the common ground. 6.4 Interlanguage pragmatics This study suggests that, while J L L s may be aware of features of language such as the occurrence of noda in Japanese conversations, awareness is not enough to shift their interlanguage. Schmidt (1990) outlines six influences on noticing: frequency, salience, instruction, processing ability, readiness, and task demands. Skehan (1998) explains, Instruction can work in a more complex way by making Salient the less obvious aspects of the input, so that it is the learner who does the extraction and focusing, but as a function of how he or she has been prepared... . The consequence of Schmidt receiving instruction was that what had been unstructured, undifferentiated input (but whose non-understanding had not impeded comprehension very much in the past) became noticeable and analysable, leading to future progress, (p.49) It is also difficult for J L L s to pick out discourse features of language when they are given whole contexts of extended discourse. It is simpler for them to notice obvious grammatical mistakes, like lexical items and verb inflections, rather than discourse features like noda, especially i f the feature does not affect the content of the proposition. In the case of features like noda where an equivalent form does not exist in English, explicit instructions are necessary. 105 In his influential work on consciousness in pragmatic learning, Schmidt (1993) states that language learners need to be attentive to linguistic forms, functional meanings, and relevant contextual features. Furthermore, Schmidt (1993) advocates explicit teaching of pragmatic knowledge using a consciousness-raising approach. While this case study does not find an increase of J L L s ' use of noda in the post-test, the J L L s did use noda more frequently during the explicit learning stage. The JLLs also indicated that it is useful to hear example sentences and explanations of functions. The case study of Susan and David suggests that while learning about noda may be difficult, explicit instruction on its use and practice conversation do help J L L s use noda in conversation. The J L L s used noda most frequently with speaker-oriented information, and less frequently with hearer-oriented and shared information. At the conclusion of the research the J L L s remarked that they felt more confident in using noda, but still not quite familiar with its use because they had just started using it. In their journals, the J L L s reflected that possible ways to help them use noda naturally were to practice its use more in conversation and to listen to conversations between JNSs. 106 Chapter Seven Conclusion This chapter summarizes the functions and contexts of noda use and their acquisition by Japanese Language Learners (JLLs). It also examines pedagogical implications for teaching noda in the Japanese language classroom. Finally, it highlights the limitations of this thesis and poses directions for future research in the area of noda. 7.1 Functions and contexts of noda use A s discussed in Section 2.2.1, noda has two major functions: scope and mood. Noda of scope asserts information as accurate or inaccurate. Its negative form, " . . . n-ja-naiV may also be used as a tag question to pose the validity for what the speaker believes to be true. Both Japanese Native Speakers (JNSs) and J L L s used noda of mood more frequently than that of scope. Since the uses of noda of mood vary widely, this thesis poses a framework of information status to provide a guideline in understanding the functions of noda of mood. The uses of noda of mood essentially reveal a speaker's subjective overtone that he has a strong desire for the information in the preceding proposition to be shared between speaker and hearer. Therefore, depending on a speaker or hearer's knowledge status, noda of mood can add overtones such as explaining, creating rapport and emphasizing to the utterance. In the role-plays, the JNSs most often used noda to offer and seek explanations. These uses of noda are natural when we take into account that the nature of the OPI role-plays was to explain situations in order to resolve problems. It is noteworthy that the JNSs used 107 noda not in isolation but mostly with conjunctions such as kedo (and/but) and ga (and/but) and sentence-final particles such as ne and yone. One possible interpretation of the addition of these conjunctions and particles is that they work to diminish the directness of the utterances, and hence act as politeness strategies. The JNSs also used noda to emphasize information and provide back-channelling to the hearers. Moreover, in their use of noda the JNSs used a variety of intonation patterns to add emotive overtones to their utterances. Through the use of noda, a speaker signals to a hearer how he would like information to be perceived. The hearer interprets this overtone and is able to respond accordingly. The use of noda provides a common ground from which speakers and hearers can extend their conversations with an understanding of where each stands in relation to the other. The analyses in this study point to two key features in noda use: 1) how the speaker perceives the status of information at the time of utterance (+/- knowledge of information by Speaker and Hearer); and 2) whether or not the speaker believes that the information should be shared between the speaker and hearer. The various nuances of noda and the contexts of their use can be better understood by taking these two features into account. 7.2 J L L s ' acquisition of noda There are four main implications from the analyses of the role-plays and case studies. First, J L L s increasingly use noda as their language proficiency develops. Second, J L L s progress through stages of acquisition of noda, using it first with speaker-oriented information (+ Speaker/- Hearer), next with hearer-oriented information (- Speaker/-i- Hearer), and finally with shared information (+ Speaker/-!- Hearer). Third, the J L L s in the case study used noda 108 during focused practice but avoided using noda during the post-test, pointing to variability in its use through language development and influence of task types. Finally, acquisition of noda, like language learning in general, requires time. Sakakibara (1998) points out that noda marks how a speaker wishes information to be perceived by the hearer without changing the content of the proposition. For language learners this is a difficult area to master because such conversation management strategies require sophistication of language use beyond the basic proficiency of conveying information. Lower-level J L L s may be more concerned with fundamental language features such as selecting the correct lexical item, particle, and verb tense, than how to convey messages to the hearers. A s J L L s develop their Japanese language skills, their noda use becomes closer to the target use. The J L L s ' OPI language proficiency correlated with their use of noda; the acquisition of noda was complete by the time J L L s reached the superior-level. Intermediate-level J L L s predominantly used noda to relay information they knew to the hearer in the form of giving explanations and creating rapport. The focus on self reflects the basic use of language to communicate one's ideas to an audience. At the advanced-stage, J L L s increasingly used noda with hearer-oriented information to seek explanations and show involvement in the hearer. The ability to ask questions of the hearer reveals an advanced ski l l of adopting a wider perspective. A t the superior-stage, the J L L and JNSs used noda with a variety of speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and shared information features. The relatively balanced mixture of relaying information, seeking information, and confirming shared knowledge highlight the main function of noda to negotiate the common ground between the speaker and hearer. 109 Whi le the J L L s in the case study had known that NJSs used noda frequently in conversations, they did not pay attention to the meaning and function of noda. With explicit instruction and practice the J L L s began to use noda in their practice conversations; however, during the post-test open conversation, they avoided its use. Tarone (1983) proposes a range of language use, from the careful style elicited by grammaticality judgements, to the vernacular style of natural conversations. The differences between the explicit teaching stage and the post-test may confirm differences between conversation practices focusing on the use of noda and natural conversation focusing on the messages the speakers wish to convey. Learning noda requires a long-term cycle of awareness, explanation and practice, and hence, short isolated instruction sessions may be insufficient for acquisition. El l is (1985) points out the variability in interlanguage, explaining that language learning is dynamic and not linear. According to El l i s , language learners continually engage various language forms, mapping form to functions in a slow process that involves a constant restructuring of the interlanguage system (1985: 95-96). Thus, Japanese language classrooms can introduce noda at the introductory levels and continue to provide explanation and opportunity for practice so that J L L s become accustomed to using noda in their conversations. 7.3 Pedagogical implications This section outlines the implications of teaching noda in Japanese language classrooms. The first section examines traditional accounts of noda in textbooks, and the second section provides suggestions in teaching noda. 110 7.3.1 Treatment of noda in textbooks Textbooks provide various contexts in which to practice noda; however, most cite only two of its functions as listed in Table 6.1: 'giving explanations and reasons', and 'making requests by explaining what the speaker wants done'. (la) to Ltc hXir tf? Doo shi-ta n-desu ka? how d o - P R F N D Q "What's wrong?" ( lb) Z\<D %m tf frfrbft^ ' AsX"to Kono eigo ga wakara-nai n-desu. this English N O M understand-NEG N D "I don't understand this English." {Japanese in Modules 2: 51) For example, the speaker in (la) notices his friend looking puzzled and requests an explanation, to which the friend responds that he does not understand the meaning of an English word, and therefore needs help. The second use cited in textbooks is to give background information. (2) co i/^y. £ $y-~v>f K [iib-nsL^ A,XT tf\ Kono shatsu o kuriiningu ni dashite-hoshii n-desu ga, this shirt A C C dry-cleaning L O C send-want N D and/but "I 'd like this shirt sent out to the dry-cleaners, but. . ." (Japanese in Modules 3: 20) In example (2) the speaker gives his shirt to the hotel staff, explaining his desire to have the shirt sent out to the drycleaners1. While the examples and exercises introduce students to some contexts, they do not expose students to the wide range of noda use in conversation such as in creating rapport, emphasizing information, and persuading. Teachers need to supplement textbooks by providing further contexts and explanations of noda. 'Takahashi (1996) studies the pragmatic transferability of requests between Japanese and English using the forms "would like" V-te itadaki-tai-n-desu-kedo and "want" V-te hoshii-n-desu-kedo. I l l ^ ^ ^ I n t r o d u c t i o n ^ ^ ^ o f noda T e x t b o o k ^ ^ ^ C h a p t e r Explanation Major example sentences (English translation) Major example sentences Bunka Shokyu Nihongo 16, 22, 36 -explaining -making requests • M y stomach hurts. • I'd like to use the video machine. . . Japanese for College Students 8, 30 -explaining -giving reasons • Would you like to go to a movie? I'm going to the beach. Japanese for Everyone 6 -explaining -justifying • Do you like sushi? Yes I do. • m \ ^ 5 f t / ^ f - o Japanese in Modules 8, 10, 11, 13, 15 -explaining -giving reasons -making requests • What's wrong? I don't understand this English. • I'd like this shirt sent to dry cleaning . . • if 5 V±&Trti>\ Kimono 3 4 , 9 -explaining • What are you doing? • I'm going to play cards tonight. Nakama 7, 11 -explaining -requesting a confirmation • Are you going home? • Why didn't you come yesterday? • if 5 LT£<£> 5515ft Pera Pera (Yoroshiku) Special Interest n/a • The pool is on the other side, right? • It is not convenient then. to Speak Japanese 2 2 -explaining -adding personal feeling • Why aren't you going to school? • I really want to see my friend. • if 5 L T ¥ * M f ^ft^ X-to Yookoso 4, 14 -explaining -giving reasons -questioning with assumptions • What are you doing? • You're not going to class? (rising/falling intonation) • ^ x ^ x ^ ^ ^ o ft ? (rising/falling intonation) Table 7.1 Introduction of noda in Japanese textbooks 112 In some cases, textbooks include uses of noda without explanations. For example, the following use is to emphasize information and seek confirmation: (3) f-)V It %<D tt/uft^ &t> K hZ> hXlr Uo Puuru wa sono hantai gawa ni aru n-desu ne. pool T O P that opposite side L O C exist N D SFP The pool is on the opposite side of that (water fountain) right? (Pera Pera: 12) In example (3) the speaker repeats directions to the pool previously given by the hearer. When noda is used in situations other than 'explaining', teachers should pay special attention to point out the different functions to the students. Another area in the study of noda is the use of correct intonation patterns. For example, Yookoso (1994: 254) describes the use of rising and falling intonations in negative questions with noda in example (4). (4) $7 7s ^ fxfrti^ A/Trf" fro Kurasu e ika-nai n-desu ka. class L O C go-NEG N D Q You're not going to class? (Yookoso 1994: 254) In example (4) the speaker assumes that the hearer wi l l go to class by using a rising intonation, and that the hearer w i l l not go with a falling intonation. Building on information available in textbooks and other resources, teachers should provide guidance on different uses of noda with appropriate intonations. Ancilliary audio materials such as cassette tapes and C D s w i l l also provide students with opportunities to listen to correct intonation patterns. 113 7.3.2 Suggestions for instruction In the language classrooms, teachers should provide opportunities for J L L s to notice the various functions of noda, listen to authentic conversations which include noda, and to practice using noda in conversations. As stated in the previous section, it is important for J L L s to learn the various functions of noda, not just that of 'explanation'. Teachers can explain the functions of noda using frameworks such as the information framework suggested in Chapter Two or grammar books such as M c G l o i n (1989) or Tips for improving your Japanese (1989). To extend J L L s ' awareness of noda, teachers should also give examples with various intonations and overtones. Sakakibara (1998) suggests for language teachers to explain fundamental characteristics of noda so that J L L s can themselves infer various conversational effects according to the different linguistic and socio-cultural contexts. Her proposal of class and group discussions on contexts of noda use wi l l also be beneficial for students to build awareness. Language classrooms can incorporate the listening of authentic dialogues of JNS conversations. Teachers can focus students' attentions to the various uses of noda so that they understand the contexts of its use. Under Krashen's (1982) proposal of exposing students to 'comprehensible input' students can be provided language which is challenging yet comprehensible through context and extralinguistic cues. Unless J L L s are exposed to natural language incorporating the use of noda and conditioned to notice its use, they w i l l ignore its use like the J L L s did at the beginning of the case study. Similar to the concept of 'comprehensible input', Swain's (1985) 'comprehensible output hypothesis' proposes that "negotiation of meaning needs to incorporate the notion of 114 being pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently and appropriately" (1985: 249). Moreover, conversation practice for the J L L s should be made a part of classroom routine so that they have opportunities for extended discourse, outside of short question and answer sessions in which noda is hardly used. For J L L s to be able to use noda effectively, they w i l l also need practice in using various combinations of noda with conjunctions and interactional particles. It may also be beneficial for teachers to provide corrective feedback and encouragement during the practice conversation sessions. When the J L L s internalize the various functions of noda, they w i l l have a better understanding of the discourse effects and power noda carries in conversation. 7.4 Limitations This section describes the main limitations of this thesis. First, the analyses of the role-plays were limited to general observations and categorizations. Detailed analyses of the contexts in which J L L s used noda appropriately and inappropriately would better illuminate the J L L s ' acquisition of noda. As well, investigations into contexts of obligatory and optional noda uses would have been useful.2 Moreoever, in the present study, the role-play participants represented mostly intermediate level JLLs . A larger number of advanced and superior-level J L L s would have provided a more balanced picture of the J L L s ' acquisition of noda. Furthermore, the J L L s may have been inhibited to an extent by the format for the role-plays: taped interview conversations with JNSs they considered their teachers. It may have been helpful to conduct role-plays with peers and to compare the language used in the conversations. Obligatory use would be when the J N S s coded the non-noda option a s incorrect and the noda option a s correct. I n optional use, both the non-noda and noda options would be correct. 115 Secondly, in the case study of David and Susan, a longer research period would have revealed more about their acquisition process of noda. The explicit instruction sessions could also have been more structured to include timed sections on explanation, discussion, practice and free conversation. A detailed analysis of the conversations as suggested for role-plays would also have better indicated the J L L s ' incorporation of noda into their interlanguage. To provide more opportunities for authentic communication, the explicit instruction sessions could also have included conversation times with JNSs. Final ly , the explanations of the functions and structure of noda in this thesis are limited in the uses they cover. For example, the information framework proposed in Chapter Three could be expanded to represent more functions of noda through further examination of generative data based on minimal pairs and corpus data. The study focused on conversations between people and did not highlight Noda's (1997) explanation of situational mood. The relationships between various functions and phrases (such as emphasis through n-desu kara or backgrounding with n-desu kedo/ga) also was not fully explored. 7.5 Fur ther Studies This research revealed that Japanese native speakers often use noda with conjunctions and sentence-final particles. Further research in the functions of various combinations is needed to allow Japanese language learners to understand how to use noda appropriately. Moreover, the effects of noda vary with the intonation placed on the sentences. For example, a simple question with noda may show emotive overtones of surprise, envy, disapproval, etc. Future studies in the phonological features of noda use wi l l also aid J L L s in using noda. 116 The structure of the Japanese modal system remains unclear and an area for much research. The field needs systematic analyses of distributional data and relationships between the modals. Noda needs to be situated among other sentence predicates within a general structural framework. Negative and tense marking on modals can also be compared to how noda mark those features. Because the discourse features of noda do not seem to fall under the structure itself, research in the interface between syntax and phonology is needed to determine the exact nature of the discourse marking on noda. The teachability of noda and learner backgrounds are two areas requiring further study. Schmidt's (1993) proposal of explicit pragmatic teaching needs more empirical research, especially in contexts of foreign language classrooms. Whether instruction of noda directly affects acquisition wi l l be shown through longer longitudinal studies and follow-up researches. Furthermore, studies can take into account the backgrounds and contexts of Japanese language use. The advanced and superior-level J L L s in this study either had parents who spoke Japanese or had lived in Japan for several years. In some cases through friends, room-sharing or exchange opportunities, J L L s also had had exposure to Japanese outside the language classroom. How various backgrounds and contexts affect the learning of noda would also aid in understanding the acquisition process of noda. This thesis examined the characteristics of noda in Japanese discourse. The study also analyzed the use of noda by JLLs in role-plays, as well as the longitudinal case study of two students, David and Susan, in their developing use of noda. The varying analyses of functions for noda point to a need for a generic and concise explanation for J L L s . This study proposed a framework from which J L L s can themselves discover the uses of noda. Further 117 research in the pedagogy of noda w i l l provide guidance on how to approach their instruction in the language classrooms. Finally, use of noda can be considered in relation to other features such as sentence-final particles, conjunctions, and intonation patterns, to provide indepth analyses of when, how and why noda is used. 118 Data Sources Abe Kooboo. 1968. Tanin no kao [The face of another]. Tokyo: Shinchoosha. Bel low, Saul. 1944. Dangling man. New York: The Vanguard Press, Inc. Mi t a Masahiro. 1991. Ichigo Doomei [Ichigo alliance]. Tokyo: Shueisha. Oota Minoru. 1971. Chuuburarin no otoko (translation of Dangling man). Tokyo: Shinchoosha. Palme, Dominique and Kyoko Sato. 1994. Kitchen (translation of Kicchin). France: Gallimard. Saunders, E . Dale. 1966. The face of another (translation of Tanin no kao). New York: G . P. Putnam's Sons. Uchidate Makiko . 1993. Hirari [Hirari]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Yoshimoto Banana. 1988. Kicchin [Kitchen]. Tokyo: Fukubu Shoten. 119 Japanese Textbooks Examined Bunka shokyuu nihongo. 1994. Bunka Institute of Language. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Japanese For College Students. 1996. International Christian University. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd. Japanese For Everyone. 1990. Susumu Nagara et al. Tokyo: Gakken Company, Ltd. Japanese in Modules. 1993. Tsuyako Coveney, Masahito Takayashiki, and Naoko Honma. Tokyo: A L C Press Inc. Kimono. 1992. Sue Burnham et al. Sydney, Australia: CIS Educational. Nakama. 1998. Seiichi Makino, Yukiko Hatasa, and Kazumi Hatasa. New York: Houghton Mif f l in Company. Speak Japanese. 1990. Hisako Yoshiki and Kiyo Saka. Tokyo: Kenkyusha Publishing Company, Ltd. Yookoso! An Invitation to Contemporary Japanese. 1994. Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l Inc. Yoroshiku: Pera Pera. 1994. National Japanese Curriculum Project. Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. 120 References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1986. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, N Y : A C T F L . Alfonso, Anthony. 1966. Japanese language patterns. Tokyo: Sophia University. A o k i , Haruo. 1986. Evidentials in Japanese. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 223-238. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Austin, Theresa. 1998. Cross-cultural pragmatics - building in analysis of communication across cultures and languages: examples from Japanese. Foreign Language Annals 31.326-341. Bazzanella, Carla. 1990. Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14.629-647. Bouton, Lawrence, F. 1994. Conversational implicature in the second language: learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics 22.157-167'. Breiner-Sanders, Karen E . , Lizette Mujica Laughlin, Pardee Lowe Jr. and John Miles , (eds.) 1999. ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual. Yonkers, N Y : A C T F L . Brown, Penelope and Stephen C . Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and grounding in discourse, typological studies in language If ed. by Russell S. Tomlin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. New York: Oxford University Press. 121 Cook, Haruko Minegishi. 1990. A n indexical account of the Japanese sentence-final particle no. Discourse Processes 13.401-439. El l i s , Rod. 1985. Understanding second language acquistion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Endo, M . 1986. Supplementary grammar notes to An Introduction to Modern Japanese, Part I. A n n Arbor, Center for Japanese studies, The University of Michigan. Freed, Al ice , and Al ice Greenwood. 1996. Women, men, and type of talk: what makes the difference? Language in Society 25.1-26. Fukui, Naoki . 1995. Theory of projection in syntax. Stanford: C S L I Publications. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: Univeristy of Pennsylvania Press. Goto, Yasuko. 1998. Japanese interactional particles yo, ne and yone: their functions and acquisition by Japanese language learners. Vancouver, B C : University of British Columbia Masters thesis. Grice, H . P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: speech acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Hadley, Al ice Omaggio. 1993. Teaching language in context 2nd edition. Boston, M A : Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Hamano, Shoko. 1999. Preventing misuse of no desu: the case of overgeneralized no desu-kara. The seventh Princeton Japanese pedagogy workshop proceedings, ed. by Seiichi Makino, 17-27. Huspek, Michael . 1989. Linguistic variability and power: an analysis of Y O U K N O W / I T H I N K variation in working-class speech. Journal of Pragmatics 13.661-683. Iwai, Tomoko. 2000. Acquisition of the discourse marker n desu by J F L learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, B . C . 122 Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1985. Cohesion, nonchallengeability and the -n desu clause in Japanese spoken discourse. Journal of Asian Culture 9.125-142. . 1993. The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. Japanese/Korean linguistics 3, ed. by Soonja Choi, 39-53. Stanford: Stanford University Press. James, Al lan R. 1983. Compromisers in English: a cross-discipoinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 7.191-206. Jorden, Eleanor. 1963. Beginning Japanese, Part 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Johnson, Donna. 1992. Approaches to research in second language learning. New York: Longman. Johnson, Y u k i . 1997. Proficiency guidelines and language curriculum: making A C T F L proficiency guidelines effective in furthering Japanese language proficiency. Applied Language Learning 8.261 -284. Jucker, Andreas H . , and Sara W . Smith. 1998. And people just you know like 'wow' : discourse markers as negotiating strategies. Discourse markers: descriptions and theory, ed. by Andreas H . Jucker and Yael Z iv , 171-201. Philadelphia, P A : John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kamio, A k i o . 1997. Territory of information. Philadelphia, P A : John Benjamins Publishing Company. Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. Kunihiro, Tetsuya. 1992. 'Noda' kara 'noni' / 'node' e - 'no' no kyootsuusei [Noda, noni and node - the common features of no]. Nihongokenkyuu to Nihongokyooiku [Japanese research and education], ed. by Quackenbush et al., 9-34. Nagoya, Japan: Nagoya University Press. 123 Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, M A : M I T Press. Kuroda, S . -Y. 1973. Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: a case study from Japanese. A Festschrift forMorris Halle, ed. by Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 377-391. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Langacker, Ronald W . 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63.53-94. Lightbown, Patsy M . and Nina Margaret Spada. 1993. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LoCastro, Virginia. 1997. Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development. Applied'Language Learning 8.75-109. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makino, Seiichi. 1991. A C T F L no gaikokugo nooryoku kijun oyobi soreni motozuku kaiwa nooryoku tesuto no rinen to mondai [Ideas and problems related to the A C T F L foreign language proficiency ratings and the oral proficiency interview.] Sekai no Nihongo Kyooiku [Japanese Language Education in the World] 1.15-32. . 1999. Oto to imi no kankei wa nihongo dewa uenka [Is there a relationship betweeen sound and meaning in Japanese?] Linguistics and Japanese language education, td. by Yukiko Sasaki Alam, 1-32. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Makino, Seiichi, and Michio Tsutsui. 1989. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Japan Times. Masuoka, Takashi. 1991. Modaritii no bunpoo [Grammar of modality]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Maynard, Senko Kumiya. 1989. Japanese conversation: self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, N J : Ablex Publishing Corporation. 124 . 1990. An introduction to Japanese grammar and communication strategies. Tokyo: The Japan Times. . 1992. Cognitive and pragmatic messages of a syntactic choice: the case of the Japanese commentary predicate n(o)da. 7ejtfl2.563-613. . 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: a case of nominalization in Japanese and English discourse. Language Sciences 18.933-946. . 1997a. Synergistic strategies in grammar: a case of nominalization and commentary predicate in Japanese. Word 48.15-40. . 1997b. Danwa bunseki no kanoosei [The potentiality of discourse analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. . 1998. Principles of Japanese discourse: a handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M c G l o i n , Naomi Hanaoka. 1983. Some politeness strategies in Japanese. Papers in Linguistics, Special issue: Studies in Japanese Language Use, 127-145. . 1989. A students' guide to Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing Company. Mikami , Akira . 1953. Gendaigohoo josetsu shintakusu no kokoromi [Introduction of modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. M i o , Isago. 1948. Kokugohoo bunshooron [Discourse studies of Japanese]. Tokyo: Sanseidoo. The National Language Research Institute Centre for Teaching of Japanese as a Foreign Language. 1989. Tips for improving your Japanese. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo no modaritii to ninshoo [Modality and person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. 125 Noda, Harumi. 1997. 'No(da)' no kinoo [The functions of no(da)]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Ohta, Kaoru. 1984. On the N O D A construction. Proceedings of the Nitobe-Ohira memorial conference on Japanese studies held at the University of British Columbia 23-25 1984, ed. by Matsuo Soga, 124-173. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia. Ostman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You know: a discourse functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B . V . Richards, Jack C , John Piatt and Heidi Piatt. 1997. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. England: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. R izz i , Lu ig i . 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Saji, Keizoo. 1991. Nihongo no bunpoo no kenkyuu [Study of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. Sakakibara, Sonoko. 1998. Gricean-pragmatics account of the Japanese sentence final form noda and its preliminary implication on pedagogy. The sixth Princeton Japanese pedagogy workshop proceedings, ed. by Seiichi Makino, 85-102. Salmons, Joe. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: code switching, borrowing, and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics 28.453-480. Schmidt, Richard. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11.17-46. 126 . 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage pragmatics, ed. by Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka , 21-42. New York: Oxford University Press. Sebba, Mark, and Shirley Tate. 1986. Y o u know what I mean? Agreement marking in British Black English. Journal of Pragmatics 10.163-172. Skehan, Peter. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. New York: Oxford University Press. Sugimoto, Kazuyuki . 1990. 'No da' no shujusoo [Various aspects of 'no da']. Nihongogaku ronsetsu shiryoo [Articles of Japanese studies] 27. 217-214. Sugimura, Hirofumi. 1982. 'Shi . . .de' - Chuugokugo no 'noda' no bun ['Shi. . . de' - the 'noda' sentence in Chinese]. Kooza nihongogaku [Japanese linguistics] V o l . 12, ed. by Kenji Morioka et al., 155-172. Tokyo: Mei j i Shoin. Swain, Merr i l l . 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensive input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, ed. by Susan Gass and C. Madden, 235-253. Rowley, M A : Newbury House. Takahashi, Satbmi. 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18.189-223. Takahashi, Shino. 1999. Descriptive generalizations of modal elements in Japanese. Vancouver, B C : University of British Columbia comprehensive exam. Tannen, Deborah. 1982. The oral/literate continuum in discourse. Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 1-16. Norwood, N J : Ablex Publishing Corporation. Tanomura, Tadaharu. 1990. Gendai nihongo no bunpoo 1 "No da" no imi to yoohoo [Modern Japanese grammar 1: the meaning and use of "no da"]. Tokyo: Izumi Shoin. 127 Tarone, Elaine: 1983. On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics 4.143-163. Tateishi, Koichi . 1990. The s-structure syntax of the subject and 's-adjunctions'. Amherst, M A : University of Massachusetts dissertation. Tokieda, Motoki . 1950. Nihonbunpoo koogohen [Grammar of oral Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Uechi, Akih iko . 1998. A n interface approach to topic/focus structure. Vancouver, B C : University of British Columbia dissertation. Watts, Richard J. 1989. Taking the pitcher to the 'we l l ' : native speakers' perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13.203-237. Yoshimi , Dina Rudolph, forthcoming. Explicit instruction and J F L learners' use of interactional discourse markers in extended telling. Pragmatics in language learning, ed. by Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 128 Appendix A Categorization of modals Japanese English la Deontic S-Mod obligation prohibition permission ika-nakerebanaranai/ikenai ika-nakutewanaranai/ikenai iku-bekida it-tew anaranai/ikenai it-temoii ika-nakutemoii must go must go should go must not go may need not go lb Deontic P-Mod imperative volition ik-e ik-oo Go! Let's go 2a Epistemic S-Mod certainty expectation possibility iku-nichigainai iku-hazuda iku-kamoshirenai wi l l go should be going might go 2b Epistemic S-Mod evidentials iku-yooda iku-rashii iki-sooda iku-sooda appears to be going seems to be going looks to be going heard to be going 2c Epistemic P-Mod probability iku-daroo iku-mai probably wi l l go probably wi l l not go 3a Discourse S-Mod politeness iki-masu wi l l go 3b Discourse P-Mod sentence final particles iku-ne iku-yo, etc. wi l l go, right? wi l l go (based on Takahashi 1999: 5) Appendix B Distribution of noda of scope (negative) 129 la Deontic S-Mod (la) V Jon ga nihon e it-temoii nodewanai. [4a] John NOM Japan LOC go-may ND-NEG It is not that John may go to Japan. (lb) ?? Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanaku temoii. [4b] John NOM Japan LOC go-ND-NEG may/it is OK It is OK that it is not that John is going to Japan. l b Deontic P-Mod (2a) * nihon e ik-e nodewanai! Japan LOC IMP ND-NEG (2b) * nihon e iku-nodewanai e! Japan LOC go-ND-NEG IMP 2a Epistemic S-Mod (3a) % Jon ga nihon e iku-kamoshirenai nodewanai. [8a] John NOM Japan LOC go-might ND-NEG It is not that John might go to Japan. (3b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanai kamoshirenai. [8b] John NOM Japan LOC go-ND-NEG might It might not be that John is going to Japan. 2b Evidential S-Mod (4a) % Jon ga nihon e iki-soona nodewanai. [9a] John NOM Japan LOC go-looks ND-NEG It is not that John looks like he is going to Japan. (4b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanasa sooda. [9b] John NOM Japan LOC go-ND-NEG looks It does not look like John is going to Japan. 2c Epistemic P-Mod (5a) * Jon ga nihon e iku-daroo nodewanai. John NOM Japan LOC go-probably ND-NEG (5b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanai daroo. John NOM Japan LOC go-ND-NEG probably "It is probably not that John is going to Japan." 3a Discourse S-Mod (6a) * Jon ga nihon e iki-masu nodewanai. John NOM Japan LOC go-polite ND-NEG (6b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewa arimasen. John NOM Japan LOC go-ND-NEG polite It is not that John is going to Japan. 3b Discourse P-Mod (7a) * Jon ga nihon e iku-yone nodewanai. John NOM Japan LOC go-SFP ND-NEG (7b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodewanai yo ne. John NOM Japan LOC go-ND-NEG SFP It is not that John is going to Japan, is it? [number from Grammaticality judgement] Appendix B Distribution of noda of scope (past) 130 la Deontic S-Mod ( la) ? Jon ga nihon e it-temoii nodatta John N O M Japan L O C go-may N D - P S T It is not that John may go to Japan. ( lb) * Jon ga nihon e iku-nodatta temoii. John N O M Japan L O C go -ND-PST may/it is O K It is O K that it is not that John is going to Japan. lb Deontic P-Mod (2a) * nihon e ik-e nodatta! Japan L O C I M P N D - P S T (2b) * nihon e iku-nodatta e! Japan L O C go-ND-PST I M P 2a Epistemic S-Mod (3a) % Jon ga nihon e iku-kamoshirenai nodatta. John N O M Japan L O C go-might N D - P S T It is not that John might go to Japan. (3b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodatta kamoshirenai. John N O M Japan L O C go -ND-PST might It might not be that John is going to Japan. 2b Evidential S-Mod (4a) % Jon ga nihon e iki-soona nodatta. John N O M Japan L O C go-looks N D - P S T It is not that John looks like he is going to Japan. (4b) * Jon ga nihon e iku-nodatta sooda. John N O M Japan L O C go -ND-PST looks It does not look like John is going to Japan. 2c Epistemic P-Mod (5a) * Jon ga nihon e iku-daroo nodatta. John N O M Japan L O C go-probably N D - P S T (5b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodatta daroo. John N O M Japan L O C go -ND-PST probably "It is probably not that John is going to Japan." 3a Discourse S-Mod (6a) * Jon ga nihon e iki-masu nodatta. John N O M Japan L O C go-polite N D - P S T (6b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-nodeshita. John N O M Japan L O C go -ND-PST polite It is not that John is going to Japan. 3b Discourse P-Mod (7a) * Jon ga nihon e iku-yone nodatta. John N O M Japan L O C go-SFP N D - P S T (7b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-n-datta yo ne. John N O M Japan L O C go -ND-PST S F P It is not that John is going to Japan, is it? 131 Appendix C Distribution of noda of mood la Deontic S-Mod (la) V Jon ga nihon e it-temoii n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-may ND "It's OK for John to go to Japan." (lb) * Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da temoii. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND may lb Deontic P-Mod (2a) * nihon e ik-e n-da! Japan L O C go-IMP ND "Go to Japan!" (2b) * nihon e iku-n-da e! Japan L O C go-ND IMP 2a Epistemic S-Mod (3a) V Jon ga nihon e iku-kamoshirenai n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-might ND "John might be going to Japan." (3b) * Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da kamoshirenai. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND might 2b Evidential S-Mod (4a) V Jon ga nihon e iki-soona n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-looks ND "John seems to be going to Japan." (4b) * Jon ga nihon e iku-n-? sooda. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND looks 2c Epistemic P-Mod (5a) * Jon ga nihon e iku-daroo n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-probably ND "John will go to Japan probably." (5b) * Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da daroo. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND probably 3a Discourse S-Mod (6a) * Jon ga nihon e iki-masu n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-polite ND (6b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-n-desu. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND polite "John is going to Japan." 3b Discourse P-Mod (7a) * Jon ga nihon e iku-yone n-da. John N O M Japan L O C go-SFP ND (7b) V Jon ga nihon e iku-n-da yone. John N O M Japan L O C go-ND SFP "John is going to Japan isn't he." Appendix D Native speaker grammaticality judgements of noda use (scope) C o d e r M o d a l C a t e g o r i e s I • 3'; *+ 5 6 "7 "8, 9 10 11 12 13 14 |5 16 ; 17 18 M«l D S o b l l „ , I l i l M < N n V V . ? ? . ? * ? ? . [2a] D S o b l i g a t i o n < N D V * * ? ? V ? * ? V V ? * * ? ? V [3a] D S p r o h l b i t l o n < N D V * V V V V ? ? V * * ? ? ? V [4a] D S p e r m i s s i o n < N D V V V V V V V V ? V V ? ? ? V [5a] D S p e r m i s s i o n < N D V V V V V v . V ? V * ? ? V * ? ? V [ l b | N D < L) S „ , , h , M I ] ( i n 111 * * ' * L2bj N D ' f D S o b l i g a t i o n * l l l l * 111 i m "> 13b] N D < D S , „ „ „ „ * * * Sill . * * * iHi WSB [4b] N D < ,D S p e r n i j s s l 0 1 1 111 * * * * * Ijpjf • * \5b] N D < p S p c r m i s , * I I I * -j: i l l * * [6a] E p S c e r t a i n l y < N D V * ? ? ? * * \ * * * ? ? * ? [7a] E p S e x p e c t a t i o n < N D V * * ? ? * ? ? ? V * ? * ? * ? * [8a] E p S p 0 S S l b i l i t y < N D V * * ? ? ? V ? * * ? ? V * * * * | 6 b | N I X E P S M s i n l y i * V •) 9 i l l i l l 9 V •) V V ipl * |7b| N D < I Z p S e % p x I d I 1 1 1 I I V B | •N V 9 .i *9 V V 9 V 9 j V [8b | \ D < L P S p _ , b ] l i l > M. 9 "V , | N V ' : i l l •\ l l j 9 V 111 l ^ ' l I - P S l l L n l „ , < N D V * * ? ? * ? ? * \ ? * ? ? * ? [%] N D < E p S r t l l l e n l l d l V . V A/. V V V \ H i l l V v . . \ \ V 9 V [10a] D S < N D < E p S V * V V ? V ? ? V V ? ? V * ? [11a] D S < N D < E p S ^ . * V V V V V V V V V ? ? V V ? [12a] D S < N D < E p S V V V V A/ V V V V ? * ? V V [ I 0 b | 1) s .- | p s .- M ) *' V ') '•'< V- 9 •> f y >•• 5? [ l l b | D S < I : p S < N D V •fi \ •/< 3j: ) ••> \ \ *9 [ I 2 b | D S < l - p S < N D V '1 •) 9 •) •> \ * D = D e o n t i c E p = E p i s t e m i c ND=noda p r e d i c a t e S = S e c o n d a r y ( S e n t e n c e s u s e d i n the g r a m m a t i c a l i t y j u d g e m e n t are l i s t e d i n A p p e n d i x E ) 133 Appendix E Sentences used in the grammaticality judgements (noda of scope negative) [la] ika-nakerebanaranai go D S - M o d o b ] i g a t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G [lb] iku-nodewanara go N D - N E G nakerebanaranai D S - M o d o b l i g a t i o n [2a] iku-bekina go D S - M o d o b l i g a t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G [2b] iku-nodewanai go N D - N E G bekida D S - M o d o b l i g a t i o n [3a] it-tewanarani go D S - M o d p r o h i b i t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G [3b] iku-nodewanaku go N D - N E G tewanaranai • D S - M o d p r o h i b i t i o n [4a] it-temoii go D S-Mod . . nodewanai N D - N E G [4b] iku-nodewanaku go N D - N E G temoii D S - M o d p e r m i s s i o n [5a] ika-nakutemoii go D S-Mod nodewanai N D - N E G [5b] iku-nodewanara go N D - N E G nakutemoii D S - M o d p e m i s s l o n [6a] iku-nichigainai go Ep S - M o d c e r t a i n t y nodewanai N D - N E G [6b] iku-nodewanai go N D - N E G nichigainai Ep S - M o d c e r t a i n t y [7a] iku-hazuna go Ep S - M o d e x p e c t a t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G [7b] iku-nodewanai go N D - N E G hazuda Ep S - M o d e x p e c t a t i o n [8a] iku-kamoshirenai go Ep S - M o d p o s s i b i l i t y nodewanai N D - N E G [8b] iku-nodewanai go N D - N E G kamoshirenai Ep S - M o d p o s s i b i l i t y [9a] iki-soona go Ep S - M o d e v i d e n t i a l nodewanai N D - N E G [9b] iku-nodewanasa go N D - N E G sooda Ep S - M o d e v i d e n t i a I [10a] ika-nakerebanaranai go D S - M o d o b ] i g a t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G kamoshirenai Ep S - M o d p o s s i b l l i t y [10b] ika-nakerebanaranai go D S - M o d o b l i g a t l o n kamoshirenai nodewanai Ep S-Mod p 0 S S l b i l i t y N D - N E G [11a] ika-nakerebanaranai go D S - M o d o b ] i g a t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G hazuda Ep S - M o d e x p e c t a t i o n [ l i b ] ika-nakerebanaranai go D S - M o d o b l i g a t i o n hazuna nodewanai Ep S - M o d e x p e c t a t i o n N D - N E G [12a] iku-bekina go D S - M o d o b l i g a t i o n nodewanai N D - N E G kamoshirenai Ep S -Mod p o s s i b i l i t y [12b] iku-beki go D S - M o d o b l i g a t i o n kamoshirenai nodewa Ep S -Mod p o s s i b i l i t y N D - N E G Appendix F Backgrounds of Japanese Language Learner (JLL) participants 134 J L L # Sex Native Language Language Spoken at Home Period of Japanese Study Period of Stay in Japan Parents speak Japanese OPI Rating* 1 F Man/Cant. Man/Cant. 2 years None No I-L 2 M English English 3 years 7 months No I - M 3 M Korean English 4 years None N o I - M 4 F Cantonese Cantonese 3 years None N o I - M 5 F Eng /C /M Eng/C/M 3 years 2 months N o I - M 6 M Mandarin Mandarin 3 years 1 week Yes I - M 7 M n/a n/a n/a n/a Yes I - M 8 F Gujarati Guj./Eng. 7 years None N o I - M 9 F Eng./Can. Eng./Can. 7 years None N o I - M 10 F Cantonese Cantonese 4 years 10 days No I - M 11 M Mandarin Mandarin 2 years 1 week No I - M 12 F Cantonese Eng./Can. 3 years None No I - M 13 F Cantonese Cantonese 5 years 1 week N o I - M 14 F Korean Korean 4 years 6 months N o I-H 15 F Mandarin Mandarin 4 years 10 days N o I-H 16 F n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a I -H 17 F Cantonese Cantonese 3 years None N o I -H 18 F English English 5 years 1.5 years N o I-H 19 F Mandarin Mandarin 5 years None No I-H 20 M n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A - L 21 M English Japanese 14 years 2 months Yes A - L 22 M English English 2 years 1 month Yes A - H 23 M English English 5 years 1 month Yes A - H 24 F Cantonese Cantonese 3 years 4 years Yes S *OPI ratings I=Intermediate A=Advanced S=Superior L=Low M = M i d H=High n/a information not available Appendix G Backgrounds of Japanese Native Speaker (JNS) participants Sex Visa status Length of stay in Canada Birth place (Prefecture) 1 F graduate student 8 months Shizuoka 2 F graduate student 5 years Nagano 3 F visitor 1 month Tochigi 4 M English language student 2 months Aomori 136 Appendix H Transcriptions of role-plays coding of J L L utterance J L L utterance correct choice based on JNS judgement a IT minimal pair options Sample transcriptions (examples 3-5 from Chapter Four) (C) Correct use of noda (C) A *9 tc^AsX"i~1r?}f (I) Incorrect use of noda (I) 4 (R) Recommended use of noda (R) 5 a © ^•.tlXL-t.^tch-Vi' 137 J L L 1 Interviewer Student x , t'ft'O^A.o Z 5 Xi-Uo if 5 L T . ttv\ Y o u are returning to your country tomorrow. Y o u have a lot of luggage. Ask your superior to take you to the airport by car. m \ jb—tfr-intAso (ttvo x -(C) ibX-ot^sm^fth^AsXir^ fria 1 (R) ^ f i H J B £ - £ - H o n B K o n K f z : 4 § ! 9 £ 1 - „ 2 b ^ » § J f B O T i z : * § 3 A , - e t . ? x x o () x o i - l f f c ^ - i t t , f T ^ t ^ ^ o %\i, & o SRl i lTO^&53^e>, x.— i:—/JN;I|^A^Oific, & -0 t>frV).tnt/u. J L L 2 138 Interviewer Student ( n y , n y ) fe, v v ^ - f - J : . i f 5 L £ L / c ^ ? fe, 3}? — A y ^ H r ^ ^ t f f - ^ o 5-m.T%hxi-fr? mBimrZhx-ffr? Y o u need to take days off during an extremely busy period at work. Explain it to your boss. fe, ttlft^A,, 02^) fet^-tirA,, fe, 1b i: ^  b i>w^X-ffr ? &—, fecofe—fe©5, ttfi^A,, fe<£>5, fe<£>, (R) 1 a b ttV\ Z5X*-t. (R) 2 a LXZfrbo b vxzAsT-t. (R) fe<£>, 3 a feCO, b fetfX ±nz>hx-fo fe, ! hhbhzoxi-fro 0 x i ^ t i , kfrofcx-tto-a m\ 139 x ? if' 5 = /KHi H h B M B * 0 f f i ^ T V ^ c f c < 0 ^ ^ - r f b T - ^ ^ i - S ^ ^ - f . i f 5 L T : : * ^ - ? - * - / ^ ? ^ Xi,, ^ i f ?i-%A;Xi-fr! D^feo ttV\ ^ T ? ? (R) Aft ft 4 a fev^cv^-ffrif b ikt.lkXi>b^tc^/uXiriiti! 0 ^ W ) t L f e . i g v ^ t i f . L i 5 ^ i 0 ^> if 5 - ^ o f c } $ 5 # ^ v \ - e - f ^ ? = f i t t . (R) f ^ t f C ! ®ttti1t/uo (R) 6 a b (R) mt> m, z<Dftm\sit< 7 b ma, m, z\(D\-m\,tc<t^AJxi-0 ( Q ^ , A ^ b f e v ^ - - e - r . 8 a Ay, A¥Ltc^X-fa b A,, A ^ L ^ V ^ ^ I " . (R: Jz¥XMl$LLfc^X-t„ 9 b -X'¥xm^Ltc^A.X-f° ho, ztix. 140 10 L i 5 ^ f t v \ LJ; 5o 0 L i 5^'ftv^b± 5o ^ a^^L / f c o fcte&friftL-t?, b^&, J L L 3 141 Interviewer Student Xoia-, 0 Ztil^^-xirte.-UT, h yyt£(DX, UTbyXD v—fr-^U^X^^X-tft-l if fob, (ttv^) ^ - c v ^ c ^ r j c , & A , ^ &CQo &ftA^X^fc/vXirte.0 L x . x . i _ 4 o J; b'hi. b ft—, ( I M x : o i -MOtiiftiA-oX^tcAsXlTv ( f c f c ! ) ^ | g < D ^ { c v ^ - T r f - T K fifth, %\%UT byycoA Xi~o (fiv^) ± o i : - f e © 5 > Jc/vJ%^^X&X<tc£is\. ^^X-tft? A, , 4? rxx . v ^ - e f - ; ^ 0 f±v \ v ^ - e l - ^ i fifth, &xi>M<Dttfxi>\/^x-t<, Giv^) (R) r>§r"ic^^-<fev^-rij-if\ I i ^ ^ o i j ^ ^ - t . h—v^x-fft ? 2 a i f t i*s—#v>v^tr i -^ ? 142 ^bXirU, frOb'ht£hfr£<X$5^V^ (R) bfr^XTifH, 3 a bfrh^^hift. b btfte^hX-fiib', = fe, ^oXirfrll^^h, hh<D^V;<—jj-(D-^y h^ch^Ot.Tiftlb\ fe, frOb'hX'tfr'i fe, fr-ob'hb' o^'-, ttv\ i f 5 € . ttV\ fa"? I, J: 5 ( t t W ( £ ) fr^X, (ttV^) ^ o i K L J t . ttv\ fro b" hie L-*1"o ttV\ fe, * D V ^ L - € : 5 ' 1 f - f - f e o 0 fe ! d t U 5 r T r 1 - ^ ? ^ L L t - - t - o (C) fe-SA^-f-tf-^f, 4 a b V^hXTifb', X . X ? ^ A , f t ^ t t t , (ttV^) t^X'Tita- ! EoXTfr? 7L7L C\tlX"tt3-—C\<D M<Dc\bx-fte-, / h $ v \ ( x x ) ^ * > j j s M V ^ 1 " - ! ^, ^m^LfrLX, (fefe) gctt^A,ft*a (R) : t i f ? L v ^ o bh iz. fr x . ^xi~fr. 0 fe<£>5, # > * . L - * - f - f t * i i f , fe©5^ ^(D— &ito%Xit-Js>.miZ.^t£^$kXTfrb, $5%m<D (ttV^) ZZLlCfthfrZ&ftX-jSAtlK b C t i f f h^frothicfrx.tc^hXirfr\ 143 6 <Dv7 b 7 &tc b 7 a. &v>$1-fr£f, b m 5 A , - ? W £ \ & ! *ZK:i>x>b V \X>b. nb^foVt-fo (slit ?) ! rT-ef„ i i - ! i f c o f c ^ t „ ( x ? ) fiv^ (fife) ^ r t i t i H , i M i ^ ^ j o ^ L v ^ ^ f - f ft—o 8 (R) ^ s g ^ ^ c v ^ t w . 9 rxx fo, £ f j \ salmon-f L (^ ? ) 144 fo, ^--^yxs-tft? liv^ ! ££V>£-? -ft ftafo £ J t l^fcv^-c f - r i* ? 10 b & i t ttV\ fefe, fcfe, 310*31111^*^0 0 x , i t i t t M l r - r ^ o 11 a ztimi^^fo^t^/wft? b *1~fto .(Dio0s\<D^K, BktDMftfo*) fofo ! ^ M ^ ' ^ I ^ - i ^ - f ^Jj-frA,, (R) 12 a l A ^ f M ^ t ^ t f L f C o b *5Ka*«? L£-f. if5"b, &<9#i5 J L L 4 145 Interviewer Student Y o u stayed late at work and are the only one in the office. Y o u leave to get a drink of water and lock yourself out. Y o u don't have identification with you. Explain the situation to the guard and ask him/her to open the door to your office. (C) hoob, j$M^tf&%>A,X"ti>s-1 b &<D5, jsM^frfoZhX-ffr-(R) & © 5 - &t±x-mg 2 et %ltZ(D^±xm^XV^Tfr-b mtZ(D^±xm^X^Z>hXTfr-ftVMC V \ f t f e> : f t f tV \ rmh^k&fzhx-to 5 ^ , tr'b, ^ftattfiSFJ&v^ £ (R) A t l f e t l f t < f t ^ £ L f c „ 3 a A t t f t < f t ^ * b f e „ b A t i f t v ^ - e i"o • f - ^ t r J T ^ f j - , ib<D-, (R) 4 a b (R) 5 a b c ^ f t c D t t M f t A ^ I - ^ (R) mt^oi>c\0D K T — £ r £ d o b T \ 6 a b 146 if 5 L~k L i 5ta— £ f e , if 5 Lfc£> — V V v C L j : 5fc 0 ffl^ 5 - A , , if 5 L i 5^&- 0 Xi>-{&oo if 5 L t U i 5 ft- ! t - f - f c - o fefe, V ^ T r f f r i f — » ttv\ (C) 7 b & © M £ : P £ x T V > f t ^ A , - e f -fe©5, ( £ ) i f ? L J ; 5 ^ f t - ( £ ) (R) fete, * / c - f c < ^ t t ^ L f c v ^ t ^ -8 b X^kifttcitm^Vtc^hXTtf-fe©5 4*»-, ^<D§|$M£, (C) * f c v v f t f c < v ^ & v \ / ^ T r - f r i * - , 9 a A f > & < T « : V ^ t £ ^ A ^ -b A£>& < xm^-ff^/vXTtf-. hcob-, O fetf>5> 5 - A / , (RB) fe©5 4-, if 5 L f c ^ v ^ t S v ^ - f r t * . . fe-A,feco-fecD-5-A,. fe, fecDJtiicoID &r, <£ .o /c<b- , fe©-, f£ co i fe oo- m hb<D-W%-&-to ^Hfrb- (cough) fe©5 ^ ^ M ^ - A ^ T < / £ £ i \ *r*i#>£>, fe-, msooib^lic-, &(D|±M RJE& (5 A,) fe©-, feftfcfc^oTV^-f-o fe<D5, •tr^feft7ttt|fico^'&^fe l9*f"^ io 10 b fe©5, Xi>mclj&fccb%/vXi-fr hoo-, 5-A,, fe©5-, t ^ , (5A,) fe©5-5-A,, (ffl) «IS&- (5A,) , tf»«9T-fe®, fe<D-ft!i©^±Mfc-, & - 1 I S & L fcv^-e-fo OtvO L T — , fecD-feSMtMtt, £&xW}<c\biichtetcK, mm. fcH**"fo J L L 5 Interviewer Student ^rtLtf, &©5 " t % ; f S # © A k : % 5 H ^ J & S ^ S A / T ' - t - , } : . (A,) ?£<DX\ S A ^ - t o ^ - f e ^ - ^ A ^ A ^ i - ? - © « 5 * * ^ i & L . f c f S 5 * s V ^ t ft-ft-df-A ( f i — £ 0 > m f & # * £ i © - f - 5 ^ t t i 5ft-% (fiv^) f S M L T ^ * - t " = =fe f i , J B J i L J : 5 i i S o T V ^ c A f i - , 5 * £ M L T J i £ A , # ; v ^ A , - ? - f o v ^ v ^ - f ^ ? ^ - ! , ^ f e t L t 5 ! f o T < « ^ \ . ( f i - H / c > k S S J i - r a «fc 5 w o r < tl £ ^ V ^ T ? - f f t ! ¥ ^ v v £ — , fe^Afi^o^j; < t—, 148 ' S ^ T t < " S t l * > ^ 5 too. 7s- h LXfcOOX. ~&tc- ! i B j y X . — - ^ A / f t © - ^ — < t o 7 H o T ^ 5 H £ A , © v ^ A & A ^ t , g o t i A i fe©fc:&*bot,-b M i ^ ^ t L i 5 ? fcfciit^T-feA^fc-^M^L-, 2 a T r ' b ^ i t t ^ T ^ V ^ ^ L — , b -C ! ' fcffi]fetrt '<T!6^V^^^^^cL-, 3 (R) H g f c ' C L i 5 f a - ! a — i R f f c v ^ - r / L j : 5 - ! b - ^ C V ^ c A ^ L J; 5 ! feA,fct-fifc-eL± 5 ? a — l i f f c l ^ T ? L ± 5 ? b - l i f f c V ^ A / ^ L j ; 5 ? a v ^ o t - i f f f c ^ S H ^ c o T f e S <fc&= 149 (C) 7 a b — A t t * £ t £ L < ftlbftV^CD c S o t -WL<DAlZtcbbtcbb ! <fe L — ^ \ &<£>5HAcDJ||£ I J A ^ W J ; ^ ? 8 a l i i f & v ^ ? b I f t i & v ^ ? c i l ^ A / L ; * f t V ^ ? d - 8 ^ A / D * & V ^ ( D ? •€:COP#ttft , - # & © i £ ^ V ^ o T W 5 t f - £ \ V ^ £ - !. J L L 6 150 Interviewer Student You stayed late at work and are the only one in the office. Y o u leave to get a drink of water and lock yourself out. Y o u don't have identification with you. Explain the situation to the guard and ask him/her to open the door to your office. tt*, a>, t°5fc&iitAjVi-jt>\ zAstz tt^-ei-frtif-o x ? ^ 5 t t * £ A , , & f * S I & L ! 9 3H£A/ fe - . i f ' ^ / c T f - f - ^ - ? (R) ftSifiiflftv^TV^Lfcris, 1 b & a £ ' # ^ T ^ ^ - e t - / ^ . (R) a - f c -£ t f e i ? fc fc fC!± l&Lfc r iS , 2 a ) ^ f e - I D , ID ( x ?) 0 f i f e , i ^ S t i - f ^ o / c A ^ t - ^ , i £ 5 t t / c A , ? a I D £ | # o T ( i l 3 © £ £ : f i T t t £ v ^ t t / c o b I D ^ o T f t ^ ^ t i T t t ^ o f c A , - ^ , fr/t tt —o ( v ^ x ) (v^x) 0 A ^ , -Xmx-f-U. &<D 0 i ^ ) ID , / c / c I D £ 151 x . & A , - ? - f \ tc\^Xirfr? £&XTfr-? . (ttv>) fi, &©5, 0 $t ^fc 02^) fiv\ fiv\ ri»v\ Mt, &tt©£tt&!f§»9 te: (C) I D £ ^ o © £ £ ; f t T L £ o f c i ; ? T o f c ^ £ 4 (R) 5 a b cbX)tftb zg^t-to J L L 7 152 Interviewer Student Y o u stayed late at work and are the only one in the office. Y o u leave to get a drink of water and lock yourself out. Y o u don't have identification with you. Explain the situation to the guard and ask him/her to open the door to your office. 1 a B - ^ L T L 4 ^ t L f c „ o -y 9 (C) m%%m<Drpte7£tltchXT-tt¥-, 2 b M&UmcD^Kl&tltchXlrtf b~-, (C 3 Zox-ffr-o o i - , mtfxtbotcb. (R) rpbmmwfecb *> t-tftif-Ziim^xirtfb\ 4\ $n I Href-ft if, frtLfrte^AsXi"? m\ hfr^O^VtCo L^ ,SfSLT^TT$V\ b 4 ^ f i E W » « f c ^ - t H - f t i f -frtt>^xi-0 J L L 8 153 Interviewer Student Y o u want to buy a t.v. set from a discount electrical shop, but would like to buy it at an even cheaper price. Ask the store keeper to discount it more. i r y b % (C) i i x t t , f l<7A v ^ v ^ f t # 5 / £ J ; «3 <b, * f £ ^X-fo (A, A,-) A—t-y b < h^^X-to (R) xk-tmz-Oo^utliMJ-ZXlr. b . T r ^ 2 : : © x i / t f ^ j ! U £ A o ; ^ ' T r t - 0 (R) 4 a b c 154 (ho) tzy)t.i£hfra fe©, feR$$H$5&&&5. fotDMMk^y -ft&tcb'Ot.i'fco fe©, xi>, mt^M, ftv\ m &^*1-= E /N— f e y h < - " f e V ^ f e , &<X%-&T-&o mcDiEbcft^fcjf&v^b^-kT-o m ZyX-ffro (ttV^) Ztlly^m&b. U&b . 3£/N—fey h i , £ < L $ b J : 5 . ^#.tt-[-|zg/^—fey hT?-rta 0 x . - , BMZ.'*—fe> r - f t A , - W a 0 z 5 f - r ^ . 5 a b fe, *;5ftA,-e-fri\> fe- ^ i o t l i # X . £ - f o fey h u - ^ j f e v ^ i - ^ ? ttV\ ZyXT, ^ ^ , t o t - , fc£V\ V ^ V ^ - f . v^ D I t . ttl\ J L L 9 155 Interviewer ifZX-, check in o t H f t ^ ? baggage o T ^ T r i " ^ Student When you arrive at the airport in Osaka your luggage is not in the baggage claim area. Y o u speak with a service representative. Describe your luggage, explain why you and your luggage did not arrive on the same flight, and make arrangements to have the bags delivered to your hotel. (C) 1 a b mm&tebvtc/vx-f-(R) 2 a b ^ m y * • ^ y L £ A, checking—, 5—A/, fete—/<y^ — ^ ' — T (5A,) y—MT-fr-tj-VZ—X* (5 A,) baggage &, ri»l£A,- ( £ ) £ - (ffi) fetf'T- Oiv^) (M) t i t - Giv^) T ^ f e - f e A , , ^ © baggage, h, ^oofrlf/v-^- (5 A,) (RB) A,, (R) 3 a mm b mm Mfcb-, 5 - A , . a» t fA ,£ - , (Iffl) l o t t -t i v \ if 5 Lt.La 5 ? ' (R) b ^ ^ T ^ f t v ^ A / T H - o 156 5 - A , , ttv\ & £ £ & v ^ - t - f t * £ - (oh , ) -f^ T^ r if 5 Ltc b, ZLZLX-fc -e4>Lost and FoundoTinT-C?1-^„ pick up o T W T f ^ ? « A , i ; ? A „ tfAstefrii/uX-i-fr. ^ « 9 * L / t „ ttv\ & , m T * - f - ^ 0 ttv\ &*j£1"<fco ttv\ i £ 5 L £ , & , x . o i - O fc, fc-A,, ^ if h - T ? £ * - f t f > . u # - M i - , m t o t - (^Rfl) 5-(BSD i r ' C ^ L o s t and Founds & 19.^-f-^0 (5?) Lost and Foundtt, fett-oh, /£* i O p ickup - r - t§^t, pickup tt- (£) 5 - A , , *>-; O K , (Rfl) pick u p t t - (RB) b&ObZ, m (5 A,) & O K , (Rfl) x . o t - , (RB) O K A , - , (Rfl) A , - , (Rfl) 4\ ^ « 9 * L f e o 5 a ^ < T , b ^ < T , £ 3 v 4 S & A , - e f - o C f i ^ S f D ^ O ^ T V ^ A ^ - T o (5 A,) A , - , (Rfl) m t b i t ^ - ? 5 - A , , (R) & t t f & t t { & © ? M r a f c f e 5 f £ t & ^ S - f . c & » & f c * # © j | * f T $ f c & 3 A,/£ £ S v ^ 1 - „ 5 - A , , t o t - (RB) *>£L.f±-^3;- (5 A,) / K i t - (5 A,) v ^ L i t (5 A,) ® t f > - £ & , $c<D - ^ x^^o - C - (5 A/) 5 - A / , (RB) feb ) t - (5A,) (5 A,) i i f c - t t - f - . J L L 1 0 157 In terv iewer Student You need to take days off during an extremely busy period at work. Explain it to your boss. (C) 1 a b c ISft, mi^ft&V&iriib\ d fs%tc^<DX\ A/-£A,fz:*>, £ / U £ i b £ , £ / U £ o£:A/—vt&, vttf, x . — T / w ^ V T>v^A h%, l*tr , tt**iT<*i|H^ri»? x -(R) 2 a b c d itlX ? ^ ^ , e f t - e ^ ^ , ^>-r, JH-trttstvr x.— b —\ if' 5 <9 ^ 5 i f5 ^ * 5 f i , i f 5 D ^ 5 f i , A £ A , £ B $ / U i , T /WN -Y b£r, fifc?>#, fifcfe 0 fet L T f A i : L T f i f c ^ t T ^ £>v\ fa-eta* ?fc>#»£>fcv\, ?A, f A i r L T , fefcLT, f ± * £ , " t t U i f A i r L T & t L T T ; w ^ h- £1" tUi *A t L T f i f a - e - f - ^ ^ i f t f i ? ftitt, A X , ftttt, A , A4A , a , tz±t>. A&bZi±^ftt>frb?j:^frb-, ZOA^ft 4-H s RSJ&S ©tefegi-ei-fco 158 & t V ^ 5 , & t & t L T t ^ 5 © t t . A , , fettftcft A £ A , t B £ A , t t (A,) iwibi^, iwii;p#fc, ^ ± fc, ^ I t e t t f c ? > ^ t 5 t v ^ 5 n kx-tc T % - A £ A , t B £ A , < f e , ksh, A £ A / t B £ A , , tt t T ^ I j M & A / c ^ o , b feL<T^A3t:A^:tJ§.5A,Tl-„ V ^ L ± ^ U V ^ L J Z ^ L V ^ , A X , A £ A / t B £ A , t t ^ V ^ L V \ x . - t ~ , (R) f d & t , i * f f ^ # * v > a w.mknn^n^x^A.o A t , ( x . - t - ) ^ ^ T ^ T i ^ A t , fa#>£ 5 I S L T & © 5 , (R) 6 a b J L L 1 1 Interviewer fc&o ? fo-ZyXtfr (fefe) £ * * > £ L ; / t f e 159 Student When you arrive at the airport in Norita fiSEH, 5A> your luggage is not in the baggage claim area. Y o u speak with a service representative. Describe your luggage, explain why you and your luggage did not arrive on the same flight, and make arrangements to have the bags delivered to your hotel. f ± l \ fe, ft i f , T b i o i ; ( Q fgas&S/k-et-ttif, l a &|Mc* L f c V ^ i ^ f e 9 £ W if , b & P ^ L / f c V ^ i ; ; ^ f e 5 ^ - f frif, 2 (R) m \ 3 a b Xfe— D^>, fe—, L ^ —fe—, fe — , 4> L — / v — &<z>TO£#.;fc£ i r^ ' f e «9 £ 1 " ^ o fe-, l ^ , & © # t i © ^ * 3 t i , fe*v^i"o fe-v^x.v^x., fe^v^fc, x . - , fe—x.—, <£>, red -Tf - f^o fe^v\ fe^v^-f-o fe, fe—iMXti, 3 0 centimetre, 160 fe — 4 5 centimetre <* lb V^1~„ a 4 5-feyf-<*£>^T*-f-. b 4 fcA/Tr-f-o fe-, ^ ! 7 ^ ^ f e ' l i o f c O - * 3 ± S , i - f e < D ± « i ; - , fe-ir-Sg&ltgftSgftffi (£) (RB) fiS&document, fi^fc-Mfc-fe—€:tLfi^S!5*i-fe. if 5 . L * L i 5< if 5 L f c l b V ^ l r t - ; ^ ? i ^ f e ^ - f o 5 a S - r ^ y ^ © I b if 5 Lfcfev^-et";^, 5 A,, = v ^ — v ^ f r f c b <^3ftfe, fo~, fo~, ZL%l\$-1sk<D&m<DWfe%r fo, %(D^/v<Dmnm^xi-o fo-um fo-htco, m, m^^tib, fatenmxtih t * V \ fe(7X I J ^ - ^ ^ L T i ^ V ^ ^ L-tl ftV^L--, W K o t , (fo, B< !) fe#K i f - if 5 ^ o T E g i J L / c fev^-ef tf\ Ahllx^i jTffe-^t icDhandle , handled, feo^if. f±V\ frtf^ £ L7c<, if 5 k f e ^ i ; 5 tev\ i - ^ - ^ h o fc£v\ if 5%, fe^i 5 a i i j f f l ^ i : « v ^ . f c « 9 * - t - . b LLiEgtefl i r i iFV^'Cfe^A^I-o fe >9 *s t 5 . J L L 1 2 161 Interviewer Student When you arrive at the airport in, blank, {%) your luggage is not in the baggage claim area. Y o u speak with a service representative. Describe your luggage, explain why you and your luggage did not arrive on the same flight, and make arrangements to have the bags delivered to your hotel. 5l5£L7to 1 a b MMK^tchX~to xi,. (R) & o t f - £ > * l f t V \ X~ffrib—, 2 a b tyofr!bt£^A,Xl-. fe-, feo^jj, A , - , -x%<x-, (ttvv t - , fe-, & © - < 6 V ^ < o < T - , (5A,) Hff#J<D]g-e, fe(Z)^t|fjtt, &V)t.1-frt>. 3 a ? f f f t l < D J i ^ f c O ^ ] ! i j ^ v ^ T f e i 9 £ - f ^ o b ffi®<D&ir.%<D%m&^X$>%>fvXl-, feo, &<D%ffibZ*^ xi/v • £ E f 3 L £ - t o fife, *-*Uif5r#-e, 2f£<z>&tt©-et;&\> (C) • t £ L f c , A , -e ta* 4 a b m^x^tc/oX-ttf fe, fe-©-fe-?ii^o^-y/<-tt (5 A,) J A L ® - x . o i - x . o i - 4 0 l -e-f, (RB) b'Zfrb, MMte^tcA. ( & & ! ) IStf-feA,-e#-#>o 162 fcfWc (RB) t ^ o t ^ & A ^ i ^ fe-ffrfc. —/< 5 a I B ^ y ^ b ttv\ -€r 5, ^ 5 T ^ - „ ttv\ t ^ ^ t L f e . tt*, H ^ T ^ S - T O T \ 7L-t, tt*, ^ O ^ o f c ? ) , & o , & - A , , ^ o ^ o t t - S C D ^ ^ - A - (5 A,) £ - 5 - A / , .(RB) fc-A/, t o t , (5 A/) * ? / 5 ^ * t t / C o * x / K D , x . - £ , jfiv^ 1 b &<z>*7vWi^<0jfi<*A,-Tr-f% 5A,o x . - t , tt*, * o ^ o f c ? ) , Raddison Hote l©, x.— t , ^r-^n/i^-^y * c x ^ © ^ t i i t t R a d d i s o n H o t e l T i " . a tfcr/WiRaddison H o t e l l r l " . b jf trvWiRaddison H o t e l f t A / T l - , , JLL 13 163 I n t e r v i e w e r S t u d e n t tev\ £ £ 9 * L ? t f e . m if 5 L f c k w ^ L ± 5 is- ? tev\ fc-i&riSLTfcw^-e-ffrif-i ; X * ? 5 ? ^ ^ i - ^ ? 5 A , , ^ t u - o - e t ^ ? When you arrive at the airport in Narita, your luggage is not in the baggage claim area. Y o u speak with a service representative. Describe your luggage, explain why you and your luggage did not arrive on the same flight, and make arrangements to have the bags delivered to your hotel. fe<D5, ~t&t.J&Aja (C) ^fr&oZb&cbZhXttfk'-1 a h ± o i r fs jv^cv^ b ibi. o bfil^tc^: btfcb^^-Tlfb' bfrchZ/oXTtfb' cb<D-t>, fete-, fe, & fl^BH<£>fj}c\ fe-fe, A ' V ^ - A — f r b , i?^4 • 3=-4 (R) - R 3 m , # * > £ L f c , ft i f . 2 a % o-mmi>ft-h&Ltcv-b\ b fc5-P#fflk#o£^-r$tif, (R) fe©, & © T O & j | o } t £ - f r A / . 3 a fe<£>, fe©#t/^o^!9 £-trA,„ b fe<©, fe©^^o^feft^-e-t-0 fe- if 5 • f - f t l i W - C L J: 5 A , - , fe^S^Lfco (5A,) A , - f e © - , fe-ci) a ^ L T ^ T ^ f a f c f t f t V ^ L J : 5#>. fe(D—, fe—, — o ^ i ^ ^ T r f - o (5 A,) fe©— 5 a A £ / £ / M 3 b ^ / ^ n - ^ i ^ T f e 3 A , - e t o 164 * # v \ o-c . if*u<*S>v\*:£ ^X-ffr ? 5 A,, \Mz.fi[fr—, A H - ^ x - r - " C ^ v \ & L T # * - f - f r i f - , 5 - A . , (5 A/5 A/) if 5 L t b i 5» fe-, O (£) £ A , f c * # v v T r L . j : 5 ? (£ ) fe-, %k<D-&mt (oh) fe, « v ^ T f e t 9 £ i - „ ( R ) fe-Mir^iffc, fttfo^^-e-fttif 6 a b » i / 7 f f c / a t 5 o ^ « 9 * ^ i - * t i f (I) ^ o T V ^ c f c f r / j ^ A ^ L i : 5 7 a b A , - , x . - i - 0 A , - , i i § © 3 0 0 O R f i *^I9 1-ftt tLif, V M / ^ 1 " ; K fefe, i ^ - r r f - i o f i v \ ^ L T f t ^ o f c o i f 5 t i l " ? i t - i U i C o t - s , ( £ ) fe©5-, (5A,) A , - A , - , m - c t - , fe- o fe-ot-, fe-, V ^ - ^ L T < ^ T - f e - £ 5 L V ^ 1 - ^ „ fe-, o fe-, (ra) - c ^ t i s - , fe-«v\ (C) te^V^5#>'l^A;-C-f-, frjf. 8 if 5 kfe *9 5 ^ ^ ' v ^ - t o fc£v\ K T £ i \ « v \ 'if 5 t&Vfrb 5 £ ' £ V £ 1 \ a f i ^ W S ^ V v ^ - f f r t i f , b f i - ^ W S S ^ w V ^ - f f t i f , J L L 1 4 165 Interviewer Student S A / ^ o f t ^ f c , + ¥ < b^mo^x\ ^ ttV\ W c l ! J - - H l ' ^ t . A , a*? (R) ^ f c £ < P ^ £ - g L f c a s , 1 a - g - & £ © # £ T Lfctfs, (C) ^m^AkX^tc/uXi-, 2 a b ^ a s = A A , - e t c (C) 5fe£©£ 3 a b >• ^K%tcLXW, c d >-6lZ.m^tcA,Xi-ft\ 166 (C) ifrtefri. 5 i f - LX^ZA,X*i-£. 4 a m b m T t , f A i ^ ^ o i ^ v ^ v ^ o t t * ^ 5 - A , , £ & v ^ A , T - f f t i f , t i o t 44tt t< o T f t x . o tt*, ziilRg $>&Z:5X"tfro tt*, £ f a i ; ^ f t 3 ^ % ttti^-tLUt i f , tt*&, 7L-hif 5 tt&tti 5 if"5 ttfc^V^T-t^, tfWc^o A , - & # , ^%&<D¥$Ltl^1t<Dk-, i f A , & ^ £ f * V \ fc>#^3=L,fco tt*, t > i o t t i t * * L j ; 5 , tt*, 40fiif'5 t ^ ^ b ^ ' (R) i ^ T % o ^ / c i ^ i r J g v ^ - f ; ^ 5 a vvr<b b^tc^t^t.irft b if'5 fc, 1 " ^ * ^ T t t f c J L L 1 5 167 Interviewer Student Y o u return with a coat to the drycleaner. Explain to the owner why you are returning the coat to be re-cleaned at her expense and why it is in her interest to do a good job. fo, S V \ x . - t * l f ^ \ fectiot-TL, fo<DZ\<D=i-bX~f ft ? T % 4 t 5 i i T v ^ o L * v ^ 1 - f t u ^ © ^ - K (C) IS L / C V ^ n t ft^fo 5 A , T 1 - ; ^ 1 a *5PH£ Vtc^Zbftifo Q t-i-it)^ b Lfcv>e A , - e - r a ^ >?'LX<tl, V ^ c / e f J t f t V ^ T L i ofto Xi>fo<D$, ^(DolZU, c\cr>^— b&, fo<Do, • tLVMCTfe \) £ - £ A , T L 7 t f t o L T & g & f c f c i f f i L L T*5 Y) ^ir<DX a %frW£t£iX^-£.:&A,XV±o X. ( £ ) T t , fo<DC<D=i-b&, ft^X^tcfeX •&tcMXf£^Xi-£U, a S T V ^ - t X c b MXv^^AsX"?, / < y ^ % £ / c A - o T V ^ 1 - J ; ; J a , f c ^ ^ - t , & TLTL, ^^6A,^fi^lz.LXfo<DZL(Di: m ic A flX T-f-ft V ^  o t L L T »9f--fft - , *58l L I ' S J; 5 ft - t tZlfcttiZ. £ h bXli m ztuthx o . i ; A ^ T i - i f t o foozo^-168 a S + b V H & V ^ L / t . x . x . f e © 5 — F&z\-hbcotXtU, b - c - f i & u - e l - ^ f e v ^ o V ^ o f e © ^ k o v ^ T (R) ft^fobT-ggftv^l-fr? - c % H t B f e © £ > b? v-~yyL±®%&&'t3 a te/wbfrX^f^X-ffr? r f c - t - f t B t e f c , fe©5fe£^, * > * A , t , (R) 6 a b 5 ^ fefe^-^-f ? fe© 5 M W o v ^ T v ^ ^ i f L f c . fe©&o£:}o&£A,£IB^L--t\ fc-iv^-fifc S - ^ f c o t , ^ ^ - C l - i ^ o tev\ *LXl>ob&%-£A;\*Z-Z.K?})-~y D ^ f e © i M ^ J A ^ — t f x t w 5 c i f , O i V ' O ttc^r&fr b^m^Xf^Vtcoo^m^ AtiX $f^XbLtc*)\1i.tl£'£>ftv\ £ f e £ 3 L < J L L 1 6 169 Interviewer Student ttl\ ^ 5Tj - t % (ttl^) h<D5z.<DZ?t^ Your landlord has complained you're disposing of your rubbish incorrectly. Explain to him or her that the rubbish is not yours. rubbisht t f t fc- ? tt*fe, - e t a * ? f i f e ? ! fitfX tt^ftv^T-f-J;-1 a & 0) tt A, b I A © t t * f t V X T l - J ; -i f & ft f c © ^ ( D BU f c *3 V ^ T & 5 tt * ft v \ >fc^ ? r y g t i ^ j r & f t f c © f e f t f c © £ \ ^ T t t j ; o j£ti r x x rfi#\ t t# \ Mt\ Mfrft&o? C\ ' f c g V ^ T i o £/i>£>, T t - , X . X . - , x . X . - T t - f e tt, £ < z > £ # £ - , ^ i : t £ i : f t t t f e f t f c © t t * f t v ^ T - f ; ^ ? * ^ T - r - „ fe©tt*ftv^Ti-0 a f £ c D t t * & * 9 b fe(Z)tt*ftVXT-fo i f © j ; 5 ^ t r j t t £ 1 - ^ ? ^ £ t i m # t t i f © <fc 5 fdtJti ttt-f^ ? fctf* *) t.-tfr ? IftPJi ttT < tl £ V \ ttv\ e.£>A,ft£i\ M ? i f < D £ Oil 170 =-f%mz, coo, \£=—;v%, < < o t , 3 fe© 5 fefi—Mfflfc 0 * ^ f r # £ bfc„ 4 b s t t - M r a s ^ f f o - c ^ - ^ i - . ( Q fooomztctcmz-m^tcisfr v tzhxi-o 5 a ibco, mz,m-o±iffr^)XTo b fe©, ^ f c i ^ o ^ i ^ ^ v j 3feA -^??-t-0 / c ^ o f e © ^ © U ^ ^ V ^ - f o 6 a f c ^ f e f e © i c © U ^ f e 9 £-frA,o b f c ^ f e f A © ^ © D ^ ^ v ^ ' C - t - o I b f t l t k - M & t e ^ X L i . btf- ! fe- ! frfrV&L± i xi>%i>\s^i>zb vt.To 7 a b ! 'cuz fe©5fettSibftfttilfft *) tit/uo 8 a b c.-g.'o*-f0 '^comxi-te-c tcfrb-J L L 1 7 171 Interviewer Student f i v \ L ^ , fe^\ Oiv^) n o ^ f e , &$xMX\ (tev^ a i f t / c ^ o ^ f e t e , , % ± feS5^ U V ^ - f ^ o & & f c ^ V ^ f e V ^ c l > A , " T ? L J; ? if 5 L T ? f t t t : o ^ i t ^ ^ o - f e ^ f e •e 5 ? i f 5 L T r . At the crossing, your bicycle collides with another bicycle. Both bicycles are badly damaged. Y o u don't believe you are to blame. Negotiate with the other rider. V^x.fe©77, f c o T . M^X-ti... 1 a b (I) Mb, mz, m&vxfr^hx-tx. 2 a Mb, fte»ot^t^j;0 b mb, mzmm-oxt^hx-rx. ZbXo Xi> ! CZ\bZfo<Dby£^&X-f£o fcfrb ZbXlrX- ! b-ht, tint, itm&teb, cb?£Z>h D ^ & V ^ & o f t f ^ f e ^ o ^ f e / ^ v ^ L ^ ^ V ^ frfco ch^fctfzi-o-hiicMtcfrbS'ofr^fcco (R) ^tcl>*?t£^X"tfr— ? 3 a &lz,&ifr otcV^ft^Xi-fr— ? b o ^ U - ^ J f e V ^ t r - t - ^ ? c 172 (R) 4 a SofrV)^.hfcXo b & & f c ^ V ^ f e i g ; f t f c ^ ^ ^ ? 0 •e 5 ? (I) 5 a vv$>, b ^^/ c e mti&CfcX ! 6 a b fe©g$SJil% v^ < fe ! frfr%> t H 5 ? = D * , u * ; fe%, &<D&ii&mi>&mii^v)t.-t t u ± 5 o ( A , A J v^^tv^^feo J L L 1 8 173 Interviewer Student fcfc, tt*ttl£oTT£V\ tt*fefe©t±MffiEj|-£T < f£ £ v \ Y o u stayed late at work and are the only one in the office. Y o u leave to get a drink of water and lock yourself out. Y o u don't have identification with you. Explain the situation to the guard and ask him/her to open the door to your office. (C) A ^ c v X T i - f r i f -l a A ^ / c V ^ T l - f r i f -b A ^ / c V ^ T - t f r i f -v ^ , h(D-tcftb-5 ^mtyty4 7^HiX-(R) 8 S t i - C L t v > 4 L f t . 2 a i i ^ ^ t L T L * V > t Lfco x.-- ^ 5 T - f f t 0 (C) t o T f t V X T - f - f r i f - , 3 a T t ^ t o T V ^ - t b U t i f - , b T t ^ t o T V ^ V X T - f - f r i f - , i f 5 t t £ t t j ; 5 f t r ^ t t f e - A T l ~ o = i f 5 tt£ L i 5° i J; *3 £ ttfcft- = V ^ , T t P ^ t f c b & i t f c f t o i b * 5 A , T ! = tt*, i f 5 tt^ttJ; 5 ^ ft-, ^>^ifflCO— K ^ y v ^ t , l / ^ o L ^ ^ t ZoXi-fr, if 5 tt£tt i 5 ^ f t — = = f t - , H i f r T ^ ; * ^ ! (9?) = V ^ T t ! M 5 J t W f r & V ^ o , V ^ , fcibXir, sV-Mtf o f t < T t t 174 TL- ! X^KDMb^ ! t.-tfrb. (R) 4 a ' } ! t t f t < f t ^ 3 ; t -b ' j § t i f t < f t 3 A , T i -c ' J § t L f t < / i o T L I ^ ' i t d 'Jftlft < ft o T 5 A , T " f ft- 5 o © i C © t l i : ; ^ (R) 5 a b $ T 7 4 Xfc—„ » f t W T : f - ; ^ f t - ^ £ ^ £ L ; f c f t -ftA,?K ft^ft^ftv^T-f^ft-, ft-, i f " 5 L J ; 5 , g o t . fefi, ^ o ^ - ^ . (C) . - > I 7 ^ L T 5 hx-tn i f . 6 a ^ T ^ L - T V ^ - f ^ i f , b ^ T £ L T 3 A , T - t - f r i f , (I) i ^ 7 ^ o T 3 A , T - f - ^ £ , - , 7 b WiiKfi^XZ/vX-tfrb (C) i(DKK,m,X^flt^AJX-tftb 8 b ^ © A t c m S - S L T t ^ t L f t v X T l - o i f 5 L t b J ; 5 if" 5 L £ L J; 5 ffl «9 * L f c f t - i f 5 L £ 5 175 ^CKfebcTV\?<DUb, cbZl^^cbv-t. 4-Btev^-tfA, b fehb{mtite<te%A,XTfrb, c ra^fc^i/jKftoTLSv^l-10 cbfo, ZoXTfr, frfrvlHLfCo D * , L J : 5 # ^ ! B o fefe, {%) J L L 1 9 176 Interviewer Student fe, if 5 LtchX-ffr ? if\ Eb MzhXirfr-1 (*.?) (Diftfif b LfchXTfr- ? = fefe-?-5#\ tev^ = You stayed late at work and are the only one in the office. Y o u leave to get a drink of water and lock yourself out. Y o u don't have identification with you. Explain the situation to the guard and ask him/her to open the door to your office. fe©, -tfrltfthttlf-, fe©? 0 ^TJV '<4 V & L T v ^ T — , fe©5, xi>—, <Diffri~% * L f c , cox-. •f^tVtc, i-^tVtc, ; W ^ £ L f c ? f e © , = fe©t7^0MoT, 7 k £ * # o T # £ L / c fefe, Ztifem Y) t. LfcU-o cb~?si>hi:^b. fe©5, ^ © t t ^ o T -IsiXft^/uXirfr- ? c b - Z i U t m v t T t e - X i ) . fe©5fe t U ^ c ^ l i 5-fete, g o t , ttMri* (R) tlfrb-1 a 8 & & ; h / r L * ^ * L £ . b ® £ ; £ t i T L * ofcA,Tr1-„ 4-fe© K T £ f e o f r o T - V ^ c f c ' t f & V ^ L J: (R) fe©, JT74 7\ltZ.cbY)-&-fo b f i & t - y V ^ f e ^ A , - ^ = fe«#B ! - o , C ^ , fe©, # , 5 f5T5 « t - ! c b b M X ^ & T £ - c fefefe©M£JlTo Z5Xiri>»-, fe-c£ofcft-o fe-, fe©*5ff v ^ L £ - f o fe©fe©-, fe©, fe© () fe©M^ fe©5^~7^ T s K f x o T - fefflt7^tto, .fe, fe^)£i-©-c-fe©5, ^ f t * - 0 t o t : X . , ^ £ ^ o i fefttftUf 177 (C) 3 a b ^ ' J § t l f t V X T - f - „ & © T t f e t t & © 5 , 0 5 X-ttZo (I) ^ A ^ M T t t f t v X T - f f t o 4 a- I ^ A c D l J i T t t f e 9 ^A.lft\ b M v ^  A © I i ? tt ft v ^  x-t If if\ ^ v ^ f r t v T t , £ - £ A , f t - ! T t & u • e t t t t - o i t t f & o / ^ T - t - . = Hifrfc&ifSfc $ £ fix b Zfc o ItAsXi: rxx f c ^ o t 5 l fe* l f£ feTi - 0 mts, ttv^ (ttv^) p * , & H * £ A , T I - 0 t L t U fecDOJHT-f ft i f - . \zh<DYT*?mx-, %mk<nM^% o & © 5 , (R) ^ 5 T - f - ^ ! 5 a fefe, - € : 5 T i - ^ ! b ^ 5 f t A , T - f - ^ ! = 1 f D T < / c £ l ^ ! ( Q * ^ K O / C A , T I - . 6 a ^ f c K ^ L - f c . b * ^ f d f f l o ^ T i 1 - . c * S £ B o T l t „ D*&fe<7A i t t £ £ & < £ > ; ^ L T < t i f t v \ < * i £ - £ ttV\ ttV\ ttV\ fcri^^L/fc. 178 ab^-ui / U i o if 5 u f c A , ? if, if e f c ^ f c A , - e t ^ ? (R) 7 b fc©5ii££tLTL£ofc^-f-0 (R) 8 T t & t f X 4-^cofe(D, t f / K D ; # - F( i fe©!S£r (C] &co5 K T £ H f t f t v X T l - „ 9 fefe, ; b ^ 3 ; L / c o D * , &©5, if z. frbmm u x 5 ^-e-r^ ? iT^-otfXitcZ^Uo 10 a b K © •£ h v x v ^ § ^  i?t„ f i v ^ i v \ fr^tLfc,, Oiv^) ££5ftb-o J i i \ $ i 5 f t o - o J L L 2 0 179 Interviewer Student OivO u-;vy°v4\ZXirU. x . - b -L^fe fecDfe t i h^^Ay<D7x'MXTo Ot^) X%lt, 7L—b—. bXlt>W<T>Wyfi—;V fp##LT, (A,) fe©<bfe&5i, 'WTJ:5 t H o ^ ^ i " . fe, htcL- O i ^ ? ) t , x - i - f e t t ! x . - i - f e < Z ) 5 r A T — igffc T r & f i , fe<£>5, ^ o t f f l - A ^ & L t t t U i i J g o T V ^ A ^ - f f a o (fe, h A £ / U i b&^X^hX-To tlfrb (fe) fe^fe fex.hA—, i o f f f ^ w o / c ^ d f r f t i : , / N - hl—bbtl-tb^y&fc^XLi. b ? (I) 1 a b U ^ , £ bii-h^b b^b X *) <k, fe©5-!tfcfe (I) 5 fc*»£LT3&<fc3A/T- t - J : . 2 a A ^ L T 3 i K £ i 9 * - f b LT3fi< ?fcS/l>-T*-#-J;o c L T 3 S < ft 3 b ^ t T o d TxWsb L T 3 t < ft 5 b hX-f0 h— rxx&o-c, feJi^oi^ 180 (C) / \ — hi— t b T . 3SK*5A, -C '1 - , J : . 3 a /•N hi— t b t . b / \ hi— i b t , f c o t - > ^ r t i ^ - , (x.x.) &<D5fe© « ^ © / £ - ) i v ^ ^ f r t i i f - , ^tt%feofe A ^ 3 < £ > - „ ' (5A/) t & ^ 5 U^fe> v ^ U t o f e t i § o T V ^ © f e o (5—A,) ^ o ««9 fe g #<z> r. i : tev^ ft if\ ( A X ) ^ y h o t t t t f e ; tigers ft i f . (I) if 5 1 - t U S V v ^ i : S 5 A, " T r t ^ ? 4 a if 5 ? b if 5 - f t i t e V v ^ S 5 A/tft-#> ? D^fe , & 0 > 5 £ * f t c ! hi— Km-otc ? A, . if 5 hxtmn 5 a A/ , if 5 L T ^ S * * ? b A , , if 5 L T ^ S ^ J ' * © ? (A/A,) : £ o f e f e „ & © 5 , £- f i t i#J . (R) fe^ 5 ? 6 a fe^5 ? b fe^5-ft<£>? M * V T ; % / ' N — r"t"—^ (R) ?mmzi,^ i t t o t s ? 7 a W B L V ^ t f o T 5 ? 1 8 1 ( 5 A , ) fe- r - i f t tt*ftv\ h-^— f i t btlh*? 5 , A , , - t " s i - ^ v ^ f r i f -A , A , ^ - t i s , ^ 5 . ; e 5 ^ t b t L f t v ^ o & © 5 , 0 fe—7-lft^v^v>i ? T t , & © 5 , 4 - ? ] S ^ v ^ i v ^ o f c i f t o ab, ^e© ftoCK&©5, v ^ A / f t ^ J , V 1 t U o T, fo<Do^-mz, fc^tt©^fai, h<Dbs 1 0 O f g < * £ > ^ A - ^ f t £ f c , (^) v ^ 6 A , f t ^ i : £ , & © 5 4 i t t , UT, * > © 5 v ^ A y & J l i : £ : L . f t # * Tt^ A,ft©TffH?>JJ; ! f c o t l B - (A, A,) j ^ s f r i f - , ( A X ) W c o f c b ^ * 5 & t e r i ^ 3 U (A, A, ) ffiMtt^^S U t o T t f c o T /N - r-7—©Ci^c^T l t - | ^ c t © - o (I) 1 0 0 { g U f c S £ ' b ? > 5 A y T l - i o 8 a l 0 0 f g © S & % S > 5 b 1 0 O f g - © g t f ^ A ^ c i o c 1 0 O f g © f i ^ v ^ t i . d l 0 ( H @ © ^ t 6 5 A v T - f - i o • ^ 5 ^ < t - o 0 A, , ^ r S f c f c - . A X , 0 A X A X V ^ i A , . (R) A X , i f ? L T t T « , t o f r f t v ^ ? 9 a i f 5 L T t T - t t t t t b ^ f t V ^ ? . b i f 5 U T t T - t t t t t bt>t£^(D! & © 5 , A,£lftfl&©;Su§;&sv>5.J:o 10 a mZJ-iM^A^Zi-fb b $ f ± ^ t % ^ H A t v ^ A , f £ f r i f =A®&©-? (U) ^ M f £ o f c o^ tL f i 182 (^ ) o W 5 0ttt> <fco,J;JS5 b * f t - l / ^ = (C) 11 a b U J © ^ C , & © 5 , » * & j i £ L ; f c v \ , ( 5 - A / ) r.Acn&Xo m^fo(Obl-\^(0 (%) \ £ — • fc©5, ^<D^f-i£<D, (C) 12 a b &©9iEM£^T^fc?>, •^©^jgfciif 5 f t 3 # > , ^ ^ 3 ? (5?) TOJ^T^§ ? rt?*»ofe—. b*&-^oT^3o b*> MLfroitb, A X ^ t U ^ H A o t , H A © b*fe, i © A t t ^ - h t - i l S i t 5 o t fiitigbT^Mftte^- X A , ) ^rbfc<^ ftv^o-c&o-t5A,-rr?Y (&-) ^ ® ^ © & # £ A , ! ©Hfffctfo-c-, ^ A , & K * I -b f t v ^ r p b T ^ o T T ^ v ^ o r t T < A ,T-TO 183 r & , * s ^ - e . fefete-, %(Dte, tlAvX ! - — ^ C i f o T 5 ( 7 ) t 5 , ^ n t ^ 5 - A , o & © 5 , ftire-r^? (C) 13 a ftiS 3 -fa*? b M S c £ 3 ^ ® 5 A , t i - ^ ? $#fe o THT- $ ft V > tt, fe <fc - ! (R) 14 a t % ztiit'&mm tt * ft ^  t - r b 1 t ztimkmyss tt * ft ^  A, x-r A,, 1 5 ttTtl"^ ? M{&f t i \ A O i b - C © F ^ S t ? - f - % ^ ARUfi^ftrpmt-f^o fc©5, u^fcfT^WAtfs ( Q A P « c f e f e f e £ J g , o T v ^ A , ~ e - t - ^ ? 15 a Arae^^fefefe i s b Ara^fcfefefeiJg o T V ^ A / t ' f - ; ^ ? r x ^ £ t £ t e } S 5 tt-, fefeJS5 t f t t t ^ f t v ^ t - f ^ ? *stf\ fc^ttv^J; tj, A>, ibXirfr? (hh) fe©5, cb<DyXi>^5 A , f t g ] * © A ; ^ i \ v ^ f i f e - (A,- ) $^4> & © 5 ^ 3 ^ g : & T S S 5 5 l 5 t L i ? ? = = i i o T t , v ^ o V ^ f t H ^ r i l T k - , fe© ^ © A t H o A i ^ M t t f e ^ , & © A i r & © A tt^Siif ttftv^oT, / e ^ f t H f t v ^ t - t - J : f e - ! ^ © S © A ^ - ? ^ 5 L T S I t ^ - ? v ^ £ ^ t « f t i ^ - f fr^te-fe^fe^o(±0^^n*3^ttV^t1-<t- ! © 0 i t t t , f ( f c t t f t v ^ i - ^ ? 184 H^Xto tn^Xto — o % f t a ^ o f e ^ t - f ^ f e - . =f£^fey-yXA»ftv\ f i - f l - i f f e 0 T r f c , fe©5. -€"5 V ^ ^ ^ f c ^ o T ^ f e © g ^ i t ^ L T V ^ i o g # i i t 3 W £ J ; 0 16 a g # i i b g # ] | • t k g ^ f t i T f ' b , # , < D A t ^ t£<Z)#»3*>*A, f f i * J 7 £ f c f e o T 5 , . WinLX&lfX< f£ £ V \ 0 4 ? ) (C) r.x^^hxt^U ! 17 a n A v ^ - t c f c f e ! b cb<Db\%frK zzM^Zhxtkto ! (C) 18 a b fe^fe*^{chA^&iiivx h i f ^ H ^ A $ ^ 0 ^ 5 ^ 1 " ^ - ( £ ) J L L 2 1 185 Interviewer Student b * , ztiftb%fttr^>ib^^ fe©*ltft. & h ^ J I U f 5 i f — U B C £>B (C) 3 - x ^ A o T ^ T l - f r i f , 1 a b 3 - 7. K A o T V ^ tc ^  T -f" 11 i f . *5A «3 T - t o fe©5 if 5 t r T M ^ L T V ^ - f - . & © B * T l l K 2 a tbCDB&xm < b &<£>B;fcTfi < b ^ b , &>(Do it— b-^6Aytj:Xftb(Dhcob-hob&MiKft!&mte<7)X\ bb b T t v ^ o b * 3 A / b * & v ^ T 1 - ; ^ ? j f t © T , A , - o t - r r s , fc©5 o A , - i r -X ~ , ^ ^ ^ L V ^ ^ T 1 - ^ O T t - f e © - E H ^ 7 f e &-f-£>T\ & © 5 i f 5 b T t « V \ b * , *?^«9*bfc a t ^ T T J O t f t ^ T b J : b*\ if b t f e ^ i r 5 £ 3 V > & 1 \ J L L 2 2 186 Interviewer Student Oiv^) T t , * - A i / X / U t t . (fiv^) •t?1". O i W T S i f i ^ o T j # ^ L T * - A l / X £5fcoTv^5<£>£fef<:-o± o i | j ; i # U T < ? if .5 T?1-a» ? hfrV * ? fctt*-Al/7>T?-f-o (fife) * — A U - * T j \ (fife) ^ H & L t v ^ - f - . &3i?KK©[)#<D tcMx-to ^^x-fti\ D*fe, fe©t*^ic £ 1 " ^ £ f e . 4 ^ M - A ^ ^ u ^ ^ ( D a ^ P > # ^ A t i 7 t ! 9 A £ (fiv^ i f5(S5 L f e i 9 LXmmW^tcY) bfrLXZA, -e-tfe. O i v \ ) f i v \ icfrb^frZkote W o T < / c £ v \ v ^ T l " ; ^ - ? U*fe> & f i fe, & , R n - i t * i t < D - m A/A>£&O r if 5, if 5, TJN — if 5 V ^ 5 * ^ - ^ o T (C) > X . 5, c 5 ^ o ^ * 7 t © » ? 1 a X . 5 ft o * o tc ? b X . 0 f l J ^ | o T & t « 4 V > (C) ' ^ f i i f 5 ^ © ? 2 a ^ ^ f i if 5 ? b id£f i i f5f t©>? ) ^.mt^^mt^xt^ 3 a i d & i ^ ^ S f & i r o T f t ^ b mmt±fm^t-oxf^(D o ^ A , f t ; t T f t A , T T , 187 (C) if 5 f t © ? 4 a if 5 ? b if 5 ft© ? ftv^ftv\ £>/vif < £ < o-c\ (C) *:5^5^C*#*>fci, ftv^©? a ^ 5 ^ 5 M * # - o t e f t ^ ? b -€-5 ^ 5 M * # * > t 4 f t v ^ © ? (C) 7L -flkjXt)ht< £</^© ? 6 a X. - f t A / T r f t / u i f < ? b X. - f tA,-e£>A,if < £v^© ? ^ 5 ^ 5 f e i ? ^ f e 7 t / c T % & ^ t A , t feofc 5 © t , /v/v> ^ i / c Uo (C) V ^ i ^ S o © ? 7 a v ^ i f o ? b W > i : g o © ? £ # © > WcDCbbfr, (C) ft^-c^5. A ^ J t L f t v ^ © ? 8 a ftA,-?^, A ^ t - f t ^ ? b tlhX^b, 7 v 9 J f c L f t ^ © ? 9 a b 0 ^ £ < T t (^) , %t>mz.. mmw 10 a ^ f e ^ t ^ v ^ ^ ^ t ^ l ; * f t ^ ^ < t „ b *>*A, i ; , 0 188 7L— ? b ^ f c , *c — X s & b V ^ ? icDflllfeoT, A/—1=1 Efel^i Uo 0 ^ A t g & f e U WA/D*fcV»? t 5 b T f t l ^ f e l \ •€rA,ft;i <t> ftV^ftV\ M f e o T b T ttfe-^ft^ t f t ^ o T o 11 a b (R) 12 a « b f t < bft^X b H .^bf t< - f e ^ ^ ^ f e f t v ^ f e i 5fctt, imat. (C) £ $ y & b < f t i ^ 13 a £ f M S b<ftV^ b £ M b < f t v ^ t S 5 ^ f e ^ t ^ f e 0 S f t t t , i f ^ S S K i t T S i , 14 a X5&iXZ>i>*t>fr% ? 0 ! 6 * t ^ I H b T S i S 5 i c 0 V^, £&*N_>IEbTV^J;o fife it b ^ f t < o *m<D%i&ltlbi>fr/uft'b&VX fe^fe1b^£^ft©£ Mc^ISJ to -C ^^—, ./vxft feoTft^^^ov^fei?- , f ^ ? A b f t ^ o f e 9 i ^ o V ^ o L T S ^ ^ f e -189 15 a D * f t l \ b c W o t S U-*ftV^(Do d W o t 5 ^ D ^ o 0 ^ f £ t f 0 ' J ^ ^ U * f t - ^ ? o & & -r f ± * t t , # 6 o t ^ S i J ^ . j f f © # { s o t 13*, t 5 r r ^ f t # * o A>, & 9 ^ t , u * f e f t - o U*2bfto J L L 2 3 190 Interviewer Student M£As&x*1-teo (ttv^) hoob, v^o% ^ & ^ T W 5 f e o 5 # > f e § # % 3 ; f c < f e £ v \ Oii^) -c-, H £ / U 4 £ » AftA/-e#"fe<, O i — V ^ V ^ - f - ^ ? = L * & f e » i b ± o £ ^ v ^ ^ 7 £ ' J l £ A , f c : ftfe-tf-OI^T m f i v \ tt^fe, fe, & f t f e ^ i S ( D i l t &&$:&<Dti:mi£A,t£fr fe- = m - ? % : & 3 ; x . % f e u (C) ® B f S f t W C S A / f c L - , 1 a b ^ B l Jg&ftTV^fcS 5 ^ f e - f e , £ t t £ t t T r (C) # 4 «9 f i - f t ^ f t v ^ ; / c > fe 2 a £ £ ^ f t / u ^ f t v ^ f e b t t ^ ^ ^ f t v ^ f e ^ f e fc^-stft^ftT?, fe, W B ^ f e - W B l f c ^ f t L £ f r ^ ^ f e -191 3 b & © 5 S f c o T i ! g & f t T 5 ^ c 5 5 ? (C ) tcftb-^^&fo^A,tlftb. 4 a / £ ^ ^ - * 3 S v ^ - K t L S ^ o > fc, —Xfth<D 5 CfixcDiS^ t t , —Arisitfl-ft (C) 5 a b f c o t , &ftfe©tt^A^ft^c%©= (£) ^ b X-ffr ? fra»!9 * Lfc, t 5 ftv^Trt\ J L L 2 4 1 9 2 Interviewer Student y I M ?/i><3T$s&&frfr KJ ^-tXUlBimvtc K> I T , tcftbXirU, UA^Ayt LXl\:i<D * 3 ^ ^ 7 t < $ A > 5 & ^ S ^ £>—, LftVMS 5 #>VV^  o T v ^ S c i i T , -efefirfJK^, " i M ^ f c L/tra 5 # WoTV^ 5 i c E f t ^ - H a , , (»vO -^ f e i 5 oTV^5 'J I M ^ /loSS&fcH'&.fc 5 o T i ^ 5 fe©5, if 5 fc&©Jt&^£>^£Ay, & < D 5 , u •y-'f ^/Kz>fi i?&Ay-ei-tttLif^ ( C ) 1 a m^5Xir£0 b { i v ^ ^ f t A v T - f - J ; . , ( C ) ft •ja^teftv^Az-ef-fc. 2 a ft ^ f t f t v ^ - f - f t o b ft ^ ^ f t f t V ^ T - f - f t o <D—, 02v>) i ^ l t ^ i - r V ^ S ^ S f t c D T - , Lftv^irv^3v^ftgE$g#sft < ft 19 £ 1 " < f c f c - o ££Tl^PH«:o-C T t t 5 , T-tt^ioeirt ^L^m^T#T^o#x.Tt*^£+^IHfc^5 ir 193 & © 5 , - S f c f c t i o t U o f e ^ M T r S M x f t v ^ D * f t ^ A , - T ? L j ; 5**- . (R) H v ^ - t - J t i t i f 3 a b c d fex_, &cDffilfJ£</*T% fex.ftv^A3i<k^5^fe, (C) 4 a b ^thjflZ. c b V ^ o f c fe rxx A,, ^ W J i t L T L £ x . t t \ ( t t W ^ 5 f i t ? ttfe--C%£fc-! ( £ ) &<5^fe-(C) 5 a v ^ D - ^ & v ^ - f " ^ — ? b (C) 6 a b , I-l-J BS ^ A.o A - e i - f t t t i f — . & & , 0 Zyf)\ D ^ f e , () U * £ f e ^ ( D # t t x—, t±-, o ^ m ^ ^ v t m - K x t -fe© 5 ffV^T^T—^ fe>x.£"t"^ ? -t L-fc fe-?:ti&r 194 ( £ ) — A, n * > f ) f^oTSt i f t o Oiv>) X\ focD?, iybXMoM^tft ic f i^^SEft v ^  Jg 5 A, frft i f t - , U * fe <D% ftW t II x -r - y - £ ^ <z>£ Ji tf>, OiW M8ifci:l,&1\ X\ yvT-*/--£h<r> Mwrnmrn^L-tcft-ox^/uX^u fiv\ (xx) g ( D A f t ^ ? T^oATrf-;^ ? -tfrt.MA„ iCfe/u, fccOXx-i-'-^A, <D;£ui{iB*AcD = = F J * A i = X\ * t ^ A ^ t , r f g ^ L f c V ^ 4 & o x x - ^ ^ f c £ f c £ B * j £ * 3 $ B ? -i s f c o t - , (ttv^ ) ^ c D i u ^ i o - c ^ f c A , ^ A , f t l S £ - Oih) i:5V^X~ffr-? Oiv^ ; x ^ - y - £ ^ B f i £ ^ f c < ^ o t 5 oC> oa^ o <D\%x (m^) o . (I) ©£*L ^  -e-f - ft ft if % -7 a *>©^LT?-rftti-ift-b &0&*L/j^-et-ft*iif fc-# ^ A © J § 1 £ f £ o Trite: 0 £#tt-c?-f-J:;ko 195 v \ 0 fcfe, ^ 5 * ^ ^ — 0 fe©^^v>fcfto (C) A,-?-t-frftif-, 8 a b z<Dmm<D$cmxi>cbK)-&hx. x-b-rzKM (C) 3^3 l%LX^%/uX-f£.-o 9 a b im 5^ft— b &Z>fri>Lti$Ht/ut}ti!?i>-, ( x x . ) x$> (C) ^bhx-rnfiift-10 a b T?4>, fe--Attt-C^»ffi@ftfeo © 4 - B;fcig0>®3&fiLT*t;<D-Cr-, IS«0* ( Q 11 a b (C) 12 a 5 hbbibfrite^frb b 196 ^ 5 , X^fciOMfr^Z-bi*- ! B * A l ? ftV^irif 5 L T < b f e - ! <b 5 £ 5v^5 £ t f c / i o t L | o t - (f i fe) (C) A ^ - f f t i f - o 13 a S V ^ ^ f t i f - o b , ® 5 A , - e t f t i f - . f i f e , A , -^ 5 -r-f (C) 14 a b 0 T ? ^ - , 0 fe-B*Am^A^o^3 t f i ^ r " 9 t ^ L - > 4>o(i0t9, () i ! i f t # J * 0) % f e i 9 £ - T L - , fecDHAft fe- ! mt-f-ob (C) 15 a b 5 £ < ^ o T l ^ 7 ? > A , l > * f t V ^ £ (c; Az-Xf-f-J^-if— 16 a m^*i-ftif-. b & 5 A, x . - f e © f e - , J H ' o T l ^ W i f e -g v ^ © - C i - ^ f e f e - o D ^ f e , *5"?-f"^. (%) 0 fe^fe, D * £ / c f e < D ^ - T - £ A , i ^ O i W (^) &mwttLt--r, ZyXTfi\ mz-byfehkK, f T 4 > - 0 f i t •tirA, r ^ f e -hooxybcb-, ^ - o j i i n ^ A ^ : fe § ^ fe t - w o T | £ # L T < ft 5. i 5 *5 i lv^ L i t . 4- 0 f i if 5 % t> 197 fe, V x^.- tt*, & t t * £ tt£ tt7c—0 ft--ft-(C) fSttT;/cA,£fJxif-, 17 a b fSLT#.&A/EJtif-, i f btl-otz- ? i f—5 ! ^ o t t / ^ ^ 5 ^ f t ^ * 5 o - f ^ (C) WofcA/fcfrifft—, 18 a Wofcfrifft-, b WofcA/fcfrifft—, ftv^ttft-o i —tA,ft£ ivvbftv^ftA/ir^LTJ:-, (£) / j u i t t * f t - ^ ! ft- ! ^ o f f ^ V ^ B ^ f c o f t T t T - , (C) ^ b ^ T ^ f c ^ V ^ t t * * ^ , 19 a ^b-fr-O^/t fbv^tt*ftv\ b iH?ii:T ^ f c s b V ^ V X t t * f t V \ (C) flr2>fr;/c{S5 7 ^ V X t t * & l ^ ? 20 a ^ b ^ / c f s ^ v ^ t t * ^ ? b t£;b^fc{S5^v^A,tt*&^ ? c tg*^fcS5 5^v^tt*&v^<D ? d # ; b ^ c S 5 ^ v X t t * & ^ © ? A,, TcoTft - , t 5 f t , oflT<-5&A/T Wo7tfe- ! & . 5 f t ^ M r ^ f r o * > * 5 198 bfrfrbte^bf)\ Zb^bCb^^XfctiX—o X X . - ! (J£) *:5Vvb*LT<k;te, ^ f t t (5-A,) W - H I ftA/ta\ ^ S t 5 - 0 (5-A/) A, A,, -iffcffo-Ci\ U*feo A^ v ^ x i ^ x Appendix I Grammatical i ty judgements of noda use by J L L s 199 V grammatical 7 questionable C correct noda use I incorrect noda use * socio-linguistically ungrammatical R recommended noda use JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS C JLL 1 la 7 Ib c 2a V ? R 2b V V 2 la R Ib V \ 2a 7 V ? R 2b V . V 3a 7 7 R 3b V 4a * * * R 4b 5a Illi! R 5b , 111 6a ? ? ? R 6b V V V 7a * S f l l l i l l R 7b IIP* i l l D • 8a * ? ? 8b V V V C 9a 7 liiiyiii R 9b 10a * ? V R 10b V JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c JLL 3 la * R lb V V 2a 2b V V V 3a 7 •> R 3b V v V 4a * 7 7 4b V V V C 5a - R 5 b i i f|i V V 6a 6b * * 7 7a m \ 7b " v : ' V ' V llB 8a V 8b * ? 7 9a lilllp • R 9b " V , ' \ B 10a V V 7 10b ? 11a . • ill 1 Ih Rl B 12a 7 7 R 12b V V JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c JLL 4 la <• •) • • i l l i • Ib i l i l c 2a * ? R 2b V V 3a 7 \ R 3 b V V 4a * ? V R 4b V V 5 a 7 R 5 b V B 6a * ? V R 6b V V V 7a mm . v 7b 111 C 8a * R 8b 9a •111 9b V c: 10a V V 10b ? V ? 5 la B Illi B lb 111 V B 2a V ? V 2b V V V 200 JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B . JNS C JLL 5 3a H ') • 3 b \ % 4a V ? ? R 4b V V 5.i • V lllilllli 5 b V -v 6a 7 V ? R 6b V V V 7a V \-7b 7 111 V ( 7c lliSii IIISII H 8a * V V 8b * * ? 8c ? V V 8d V V 6 la . •t \ R Ib : V A \ 2a * * 7 R 2b 3a * •MB V V 3 b \ ill 4a * * 4b V ? C 5a W-' R 5b V 7 l a * V V lb V V 2a sj: I B l 2b V V ( JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS C JLL 7 3a •• i i i •) Illl 3b v B l C 4a * ? ? R 4b V V 8 la ( i l l B i l l IP lb V v": V C 2a V V 2b V V V 3a * "• V 7 R 3b \ V 111 4a * 7 7 R 4b * V ? 4c ? V 5a n i l 5b 9 l a 7 7 lb V V C 2a jlljjjj 7 R 2b \ 0 v 3a ? 7 R 3b V V 4a 7 f V R 4b % \ 5a V 5b V V V 6a 6h 6c * B l Hi 0 JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c JLL 9 7a iimi 7 Wmmm 7b B i l l * •.• R 7c \ 10 l a * * * l b * * * l c * 7 ? Id V C 2a • lf | | i^ •) R 2b SIB 2c 7 2d 0 v.-3a 3b V V 4a 7 V 4b 0 v V P^ lllliP 5a * ? V R 5b •v V 6a ill • R 6b V V 11 l a * * ? l b V C 2a * \ V 2b V IB 3a * V 7 R 3b V 4a , V \ 4b \ \ llll 5a 5b V • V 201 JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c JLL 11 6a v Mil 6b iilll •) 12 l a ? V V lb V ? V 2a * R 2b V V V 3a V V ? 3b V 7 V 4a V V 4h H i \ C 5a V V 5b ? 7 V 6a • V Slpii 6b \ V , „ . ^ 7a \ V V 7b V ? V C <Sa "s V v , 8b •191 •) 1181 13 l a * * ? l b V V V C 2a •je ') R 2b IB 111 3a * ? . R 3b V V 4a . < • 4b ' / V liH I 5a V V 5b V 7 V 6a ISI 1111 HI R 6b JB| V JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c JLL 13 7a IIBI 7b 7 V 1 8a * ? V 8b V V V c 14 la * •) 7 R lb V •v 2a . 2b ? V C 3a i l l 1 > 7 3b IB • • C 3c KB 7 llSfll 3d V V V 4a * ? ? 4b V V V c 5a 7 7 •J R 5b % 15 l a * * ? lb V V V C 2a i l l j j l i 2b i n cv V 3a * V 3b V ? V 4a Ills \ 4b V" 7 \ 5a 7 ? V R 5b V V V 6a * 9 V R 6b i?v Iv-16 l a V V V lb 7 * ? JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS C JLL 16 2a lill pil 2b iiiiti Hill IiiIJi 3a V V 3b 7 * ? 4a llll i i i 4b V i l l 5a * V V 5b . V V V c 6a V v -\/ V', 6b llll IBl 7a V 7b * 7 * 8 a ) 11 HI 8b Pip 111 Hi 17 l a V V V l b V V 2a i l l ; v 2b * 7 1 3a * * V R 3b V V V 3c * * 4a *• R 4h \ 11 Bll*it 5a V V 5b 7 7 V I 6a 111111 V 6b IlSl V 18 l a * * * l b V V V C 202 J L L # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS C J L L IS 2a * > \ R 2b V" V 3a 7 7 3b V V V C 4a * > R 4b \ 7 V •B 4c i  V • BP 4d Bill V- \ 5a * ? 7 R 5b V V 6a f 7 6b V c: 7a \ 7b * ? * i Sa • p l l 7 8b i l l 11111 H 9a 7 7 9b ? * 9c * V V 9d V V V 1 0 a •? l3l| 111 I 0 h *1P1|I IS 19 l a * ? R l b V V V 2a < • -. R 2b 111 (II 3a ') 3b V V V C 4a Hf fiji •11 4b •? B J L L Opt JNS JNS JNS JLL # ion A B c 19 5a • R 5 b Illi 6a 7 6b * * * 6c 7 6d V V c 7a * 7 lill^l*^ R 7b \ MI 8a 7 R 8b V V V 9a * \ . 9b V V c 1 0 a V 1 0 b V. ? V 20 la \ Ib E l fill % 1 2a V V 2b * 7 V I 2c V V V 2d V V V 3a \ \ "ijjj 3 b t Pll c 4a \ . 4b ? 7 V I 5a S a g . vii* \ .A 5b tf' B • V 6a 7 7 V R 6b . 7a ? R 7b V V JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c J L L 20 Sa \ B llllllfllll 8b iJpM > B Sc * B 8d • • 1 9a 7 R 9b V V 1 0 a B . . 1 0 b i l l 7 1 1 a ? 7 l i b V V C 1 2 a * 7 1 2 b IP' C 1 3 a * ? ? 1 3 b V V V C H a 7 7 R 1 4 b V B B 1 5 a * ? 1 5 b V V V C I d a jjjll s i l i l mm 1 6 b V IS . V 1 7 a V 1 7 b V V V C I S a •1 V' pll I S h V V V C 21 l a ? 7 V l b V V V C 2a \ 2b llllliillill 3a * V V 3b V w 203 JLL # Opt ion JNS • A JNS B JNS C JLL 21 4a M 4 b l V ill 22 l a ? l b V V c 2a llilll V •v 2b lPI c 3a * ? R 3b V 4a V 4b » I^tliyilli \, -y c 5a ? V 5b V V V c Cu >••• IBl i hh Wt Illll El B 7a 7b V c 8a * - ' ^ 8b IB c 9a ? IH 9b . ""V 10a V ? V 10b V V V 1 la ? ; . 1 lb 12a ? ? R 12b V \\\ Ep . P h •Pf* V c 14a * V 14b * ? JLL Opt JNS JNS JNS JLL # ion A B c 22 14c 9 V V 14d V V V 15a V"; . v ; *w 15b V~ 15c A/ V 15d V 23 l a ? * V l b c 2a * '• % 2b ;>/ B c 3a V 3b ? ? V 4a l l l l l l l s l s l • ? f i i i i i i i i i 4b . \ • (' 5a iflfll B 5b V III (• 24 l a * * * lb V V c 2a \ ? 2b V \ c 3a ? V * R 3b V V V 3c ? V V 3d V V V 4a . I l l i 4b B B 5a * * V 5b c 6a > V 6b B c JLL # Opt ion JNS A JNS B JNS c JLL 24 7a • f l j |§j 7b l t l | | iiilllit H i I 8a "V * 8b V V c 9a * * •> 9b V c 1.0a * ? 10b V V c 1 la \ 1 Ih \ V B c 12a * ? * 12b V V c 13a • . 1 >b V 14a ? V V 14b ? V c 15a V 15b A/ (• 16a ? V 16b V V V c 17a * 7 17b V c 18a * ? V 18b V c ll>a BUI nm) 19b llJii mm ( 20a * ? ? 20b V V V 20c * ? ? 20d V V c 

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.831.1-0089609/manifest

Comment

Related Items