Cover not available
Part of
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 41–70

Chapter 3
Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk

| University of Alberta
| Keio University
This chapter examines the phenomenon called ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese where syntactic arguments, thought to be projected by the predicates, are assumed to be deleted yet their referents are still tracked. A close inspection of representative narrative and interactive segments reveals that everyday talk, the primordial form of language, is carried out largely through more or less fixed expressions which are better analyzed as not projecting syntactic arguments. This suggests that deletion of arguments and tracking of referents might not be relevant to the grammar of Japanese everyday talk. We demonstrate this by discussing several facts including: (1) inserting what might be thought of as ‘deleted’ arguments in relevant examples makes them consistently more marked, awkward, or even unacceptable and (2) ‘deleted’ arguments are often associated with multiple equally possible referents, or no referents. The predominance of fixed expressions in our data suggests that they constitute the basic type of language in Japanese everyday talk. It is hoped that the current study is a contribution to building a model of grammar which captures this very characteristic of everyday talk where (semi-) fixed structure continuously emerges.
Keywords: zero anaphora, ellipsis, zero, fixed expression, everyday talk, Japanese, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods
  • 3.Findings
    • A.Directives
    • B. Subjective expressions
    • C. Epistemic expressions
    • D.Quotative expressions
    • E. Discourse markers
    • F. Reactive tokens
    • G.Predicate repetition
  • 4. Results and conclusions
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.03ono
References (65)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles L., and Richard Bauman. 1992. “Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2 (2): 131–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Paul Hopper (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge Dictionary. [URL] (accessed on July 8, 2019).
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M. 1980. “Referential Choice in English and Japanese Narrative Discourse.” In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe, 127–202. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M., Sandra A. Thompson, Ryoko Suzuki, and Hongyin Tao. 1996. “The Conversational Use of Reactive Tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 26 (3): 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M., Noriko Akatsuka, and Susan Strauss. 1997. “Deontic Modality and Conditionality in Discourse.” In Directions in Functional Linguistics, ed. by Akio Kamio, 19–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds). 2009. Formulaic Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Devitt, Amy J. 1989. Standardizing Written English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds). 2014. Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren. 2000. “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20 (1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1974. “Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse.” In Pragmatics II, ed. by Siegfried J. Schmidt, 83–104. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
1979. “On Fluency.” In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. by C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. S. Y. Wang, 85–102. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language 64 (3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1981. “Typology and Functional Domains.” Studies in Language 5 (2):163–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, and Hubert Knoblauch. 1995. “Culturally Patterned Speaking Practices: The Analysis of Communicative Genres.” Pragmatics 5 (1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Hinds, John. 1982. Ellipsis in Japanese. Carbondale: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” In Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Berry, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip, 139–157.Google Scholar
2012. “Emergent Grammar.” In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by J. P. Gee, and M. Handford, 301-314. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language . Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 2018. “The Finnish Verb Repeat Response: Its Emergence and Its Nature as a Formulaic Expression.” Journal of Pragmatics 123: 139–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ryoko Suzuki. 2019. “Questioning the Clause as a Crosslinguistic Unit in Grammar and Interaction.” Studies in Language, 43 (2): 364–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 1996. The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 2001. “Silent Reference in Japanese Discourse: Another Look at 'Zero-anaphora' in Japanese.” A talk given at Japanese Linguistics Workshop ‘From Discourse to Grammar: Directions in Japanese Linguistics’ , Stanford University.
Nakayama, Toshihide, and Kumiko Ichihashi-Nakayama. 1997. “Japanese kedo: Discourse Genre and Grammaticization.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6, ed. by H. Sohn, and J. Haig, 607–618. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2003. Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko. 1991. “Nominal Tautologies in Japanese: X wa X, X ga X, and X mo X.” Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 218–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Kimberly Jones. 2008. “Conversation and Grammar: Approaching So-called Conditionals in Japanese.” In Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social Perspectives, ed. by J. Mori, and A. Ohta, 21–51. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Ryoko Suzuki. 1992. “Word Order Variability in Japanese Conversation: Motivations and Grammaticization.” Text 12: 429–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “The Use of Frequent Verbs as Reactive Tokens in Japanese Everyday Talk: Formulaicity, Florescence, and Grammaticization.” Journal of Pragmatics 123: 209–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. “Deconstructing 'Zero Anaphora'.” BLS 23: 481–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku: They’re Not Just Pronouns.” Cognitive Linguistics 14 (4): 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Fixedness in Japanese Adjectives in Conversation: Toward a New Understanding of a Lexical (Part-of-speech) Category.” In Formulaic Language, ed. by Roberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley, 117–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Negative Scope, Temporality, and Clause Structure in Japanese and English Conversation.” Studies in Language 41 (3): 543–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson, and Yumi Sasaki. 2012. “Japanese Negotiation through Emerging Final Particles in Everyday Talk.” Discourse Processes 49: 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson, and Ryoko Suzuki. 2000. “The Pragmatic Nature of the So-called Subject Marker ga in Japanese: Evidence from Conversation.” Discourse Studies 2 (1): 55–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Francis H. Syder. 1983. “Natural Selection in Syntax: Notes on Adaptive Variation and Change in Vernacular and Literary Grammar.” Journal of Pragmatics 7 (5): 551–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2009. Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2015. The Request System in Italian Interaction . Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Radboud.
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Some Practices for Referring to Person in Talk-in-interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, 437–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1997. “Sogenannte Ellipsen als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in Interaktionen.” In Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, ed. by Peter Schlobinski, 117–156. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1998. “From a Lexical Noun to an Utterance-final Pragmatic Particle: Wake .” In Studies in Japanese grammaticalization, ed. by Toshio Ohori, 67–92. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
. 1999a. Grammaticization in Japanese: A Study of Pragmatic Particle-ization . Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
. 1999b. “Mutifuncitonality: The Developmental Path of the Quotative tte in Japanese.” In Cognition and Function in Language, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, Dan Jurafsky, and Laura A. Michaelis, 50–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2006. “How Does ‘Reason’ Become Less and Less Reasonable?: Pragmatics of the Utterance-final wake in Conversational Discourse.” In Emotive Communication in Japanese, ed. by Satoko Suzuki, 35–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “(Inter)subjectification in the Quotative tte in Japanese Conversation: Local Change, Utterance-ness and Verb-ness.” Historical Changes in Japanese: With Special Focus on Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (2): 207–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “A Note on the Emergence of Quotative Constructions in Japanese Conversation.” In Subordination in Conversation, ed. by Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki, 149–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, Toshifumi, Masahito Takahashi, and Kosho Shudo. 2014. “A Lexicon of Multiword Expressions for Linguistically Precise, Wide-coverage Natural Language Processing.” Computer Speech and Language 28 (6): 1317–1339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russel S. (ed.). 1987. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Ryoko Suzuki. 2011. “The Grammaticalization of Final Particles”. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, ed. by Heiko Narrog, and Bernd Heine, 668–680. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2006. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics, Second edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuzawa, Kokichiro. 1982. Tokugawajidai gengo no kenkyuu [A study of language of Tokugawa period]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo. (original work published 1936).Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ewing, Michael C.
2024. Chapter 2. Elusive referentiality and allusive reference in Indonesian conversation. In (Non)referentiality in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 344], ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2024. Chapter 6. (Non)referentiality of silent reference in Japanese conversation. In (Non)referentiality in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 344], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
2024. Chapter 7. The indeterminacy and fluidity of reference in everyday conversation. In (Non)referentiality in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 344], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
2023. Establishing a pseudo-cleft construction in Japanese: A perspective from everyday conversation. Lingua 284 ► pp. 103437 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.