Cover not available
Part of
Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructional Approaches to Language 32] 2021
► pp. 219–246

Constructionalization of Japanese koto imperatives

| The Ohio State University
This paper examines koto imperatives (e.g., tōku-o mite unten-suru koto! ‘drive looking far ahead!’) in Japanese. With internal reconstruction, it is shown that koto imperatives not only underwent a process of pragmatic strengthening resulting in a new sense of modality, but also inherited the syntactic schema of the prototypical modal (raising-to-subject) construction. Given this new meaning associated with new syntax, it is proposed that koto imperatives are an instance of constructionalization. Given the similarities between koto imperatives and suspended clauses (Ohori, 1995), the current analysis also raises the possibility that constructionalization may take place or may be taking place with other emerging modality expressions in Japanese.
Keywords: constructionalization, imperative, Japanese, suspended clause
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Japanese koto imperatives
    • 2.1Semantic properties of koto imperatives
    • 2.2Syntactic properties
  • 3.Koto imperatives as an instance of constructionalization
  • 4.Suspended clauses
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.08yua
References (35)
References
Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In J. Bybee & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endicott, T. (2016). Law and language. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016 ed.). Retrieved October 28, 2019, from [URL]
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horie, K. (2011). Versatility of nominalizations: Where Japanese and Korean contrast. In F. H. Yap, K. Grunow-Hårsta, & J. Wrona (Eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (pp. 476–496). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kikuta, C. (2018). Development of conditional imperatives in Japanese: A diachronic constructional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 235–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E., & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description I: Clause structure (pp. 276–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koto [Def. 2–4]. (2000–2002). In Nihonkokugo Daijiten. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from [URL]
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical perspectives. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Masuoka, T., & Takubo, Y. (1992). Kiso nihongo bunpō [Basic Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health, Labour and Health. (2020). Moderu shūgyō kisoku [The Model Rules of Employment]. Retrieved from Ministry of Health, Labour and Health website: [URL]
Miyazaki, K., Adachi, T., Noda, H., & Takanashi, S. (2002). Modaritī [Modality]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Muraki, M. (1978). The shika nai construction and predicate restructuring. In J. Hinds & I. Howard (Eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics (pp. 155–177). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese. [URL]
Nitta, Y. (1991). Nihongo no modaritī to ninshō [Modality and grammatical person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō.Google Scholar
Noda, H. (1995). Monoda to kotoda to noda: Meishisei no jodōshi no tōi-teki na yōhō [Monoda, kotoda, and noda: Deontic usages of nominal modal expressions]. In T. Miyajima & Y. Nitta (Eds.), Nihongo Ruigihyōgen no Bunpō [Grammar of synonymous expressions in Japanese] (pp. 253–262). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Ohori, T. (1995). Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on semantics and pragmatics (pp. 201–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1997). Framing effects in Japanese non-final clauses: Toward an optimal grammar-pragmatics interface. Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 471–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Gengoteki chishiki to shite no kōbun: Fukubun no ruikeiron ni mukete [Constructions as linguistic knowledge: Toward the typology of complex clauses]. In S. Sakahara (Ed.), Advances in cognitive linguistics, pp. 281–315. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S. (1995). Pragmaticization of meaning in some sentence-final particles in Japanese. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on semantics and pragmatics, (pp. 219–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15, 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ransom, E. N. (1988). Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 364–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shimada, M., & Nagano, A. (2017). Miratives in Japanese: The rise of mirative markers via grammaticalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 7(1–2), 213–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shirakawa, H. (2009). Īsashi-bun. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Takahashi, T. (1993). Shōryaku niyotte dekita jutsugo-keishiki [Predicate forms developed from ellipses]. Nihongogaku, 12(10), 18–25.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on grammaticalization, 406–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uchibori, A. (2007). Modaritī-yōso ni yoru kyoka no (hi)-futōmeiryōiki [(Non-)opaque domain of permission by modality]. In N. Hasegawa (Ed.), Nihongo no shubungensyō [Main clause phenomena in Japanese] (pp. 295–330). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.Google Scholar
Ueno, Yoshio. (2017). Gendai nihongo no bunpōkōzō: Tōgoron-hen [The grammatical structure of nodern Japanese: Syntax]. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu.Google Scholar