Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 25:2 (2018) ► pp.337–362

From justification to modulation

Similarities and differences of after all and datte

| Kyushu University, Japan

The English discourse marker after all and the Japanese discourse marker datte have been commonly claimed to give a reason or justification to the preceding utterance, and therefore, these two expressions are regarded as the equivalent translation counterparts to each other. This paper first attempts to propose that such an equated account is motivated by these two discourse markers constructing a similar inferential schema involved in the interpretation of the utterance including them. In fact, datte and after all make manifest similar polyfunctions according to the syntactic position although they encode different lexical information. This is because these two discourse markers are indicators that contribute to the inferential phase of communication by various degrees of modulation of a cognitive gap between two different assumptions. Another aim of this paper is to differentiate a procedural constraint these two indicators encode on the interpretation of the utterance.

Keywords: after all , datte , procedural constraint, higher-level explicature, modulation, cognitive gap
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multifunctionality and syntactic positions
    • 2.1 After all
      • 2.1.1Clause-final use
      • 2.1.2Clause-medial use
      • 2.1.3Clause-initial use
    • 2.2 Datte
      • 2.2.1Clause-final use
      • 2.2.2Clause-medial use
      • 2.2.3Clause-initial use
  • 3.Common inferential schema
  • 4.Procedural constraints of after all and datte
    • 4.1Constraints on implicatures and constraints on higher-level explicatures
    • 4.2Utterance-initial use of datte
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Data references
Published online: 25 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17028.ots
References

References

Blakemore, Diane
1996 Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 321, 325–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Restatement and exemplification: A relevance theoretic re-assessment of elaboration. Pragmatics & Cognition 5(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Discourse markers. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 221–240. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 141. 383–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2). 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311. 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein
2001 In defence of monosemy. In Németh T. Enikő & Károly Bibok (eds.), Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning, 79–115. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasunuma, Akiko
1995 Danwa setuzoku go datte ni tuite (On the discourse conjunction datte). Himeji Dokkyo Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyo 41. 265–281.Google Scholar
1997  Datte to demo – Toritate to setuzoku no kankei ( Datte and demo: Correlation between designation and connection). Himeji Dokkyo Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyo 61. 197–217.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
2006 Japanese (Revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, Yoko
2010 Hanashi Kotoba ni okeru Inyou Hyougen (Quote representations in spoken language). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M.
2007 From temporal to contrastive and causal: The emergence of connective after all . In Agnès Celle & Ruth Huart (eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks, 89–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo
1988 From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. Berkeley Linguistic Society 141. 340–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K.
1993 Kaiwa bunseki (Conversation analysis). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
2000 Joi no gengogaku (Linguistics of emotion). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
Mori, Junko
1994 Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 41. 147–163.Google Scholar
Murillo, Silvia
2004 A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 361. 2059–2068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohori, Toshio
2002 Ninchi gengogaku (Cognitive linguistics). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.Google Scholar
2005 Nihongo no bunpoka kenkyu ni atatte – Gaikan to rironteki kadai (On the studies of the grammaticalization of Japanese – Overview and theoretical task). Nihongo no Kenkyu 1(3). 1–17.Google Scholar
Oki, Yuko
1996 Taiwagata setuzokushi ni okeru shoryaku no kikou to gyakusetu – datte to nazenara, demo  – (The mechanism of deletion and contradiction in interactive conjunctions – datte to nazenara, demo  –). In Osamu Nakajo (ed.), Ronshu kotoba to kyouiku (Essays: Language and education), 97–111. Tokyo: Izumi Shoin.Google Scholar
2006 Nihongo danwa ron (The theory of Japanese discourse). Tokyo: Izumi Shoin.Google Scholar
Otsu, Takahiro
2018 Multifuctionality of ‘after all’: A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics 1341. 102–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary
, 2nd edn. 1989 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
[1986]1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tada, Tomoko
2012 Fukujoshi no gainen to toritatejoshi no gainen (The concepts of adverbial particles and focus particles). Aoyama Gobun 421. 69–87.Google Scholar
Takiura, Masato
2003  Datte no goyouron: Enzanshi ga oshieru mono (Pragmatics of datte: What operators tell). Gekkan Gengo 32(3). 33–39.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroaki
1997  In other words and conversational implicature. Pragmatics 71. 367–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
1997 The discourse connective after all: A historical pragmatic account. Paper presented at the Sixteenth International Congress of Linguists, Paris, July 1997.
2004 Historical pragmatics. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 539–561. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2011 The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Handout 5: Semantics, pragmatics and the conceptual-procedural distinction. GIST (Generative Initiatives in Syntactic Theory, Wilson Seminar). University of Gent. November 2012.Google Scholar
Yamada, Daisuke
2006  Datte no imiron (The semantics of datte ). Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the Pragmatics Society, 129–136.Google Scholar

Data references

BNC = The British National Corpus
[URL]
WB = Wordbanks
[URL]
Women = Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (ed.) 1998 Josei no kotoba – Shokuba hen (Women’s Language: Office edition). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Men = Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (ed.) 2002 Dansei no kotoba – Shokuba hen (Men’s Language: Office edition). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar