Cover not available
Part of
Usage-based Approaches to Japanese Grammar: Towards the understanding of human language
Edited by Kaori Kabata and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Studies in Language Companion Series 156] 2014
► pp. 261–278

Context in constructions

Variation in Japanese non-subject honorifics

This paper illustrates the importance of context for grammar by examining discourse data of the nonsubject honorific construction o – Verb (stem) – suru.   Building upon previous studies that argued that non-subject honorifics are subject to a pragmatic condition of benefit transfer between the subject and nonsubject referents, I argue that the targeted referents of nonsubject honorification are reorganized to the two participants of the discourse: the speaker and the addressee.  The variations in the o-Verb (stem) – suru form are explained from the constructional and frame semantics perspectives as a process of cognitive and intersubjective (e.g., Traugott and Dasher 2002) reorganization of grammatical constructions motivated by contextual conditions of use and the speaker’s intention with respect to the addressee.
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.156.17mat
References (31)
References
Bunka cho (Bureau of Culture). 1996. Kokugo Shingi-kai Hookokusho (Report of Council of the National Language) 20. Tokyo: Ministry of Finance.Google Scholar
Dasher, Richard Byrd. 1995. The Grammaticalization in the System of Japanese Predicate Honorifics. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 123-131. Berkey CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm , Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Harada, S-I. 1976. Honorifics. In Syntax and Semantics, 5: Japanese Generative Grammar , Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 499-561. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, M. 1999. Teinei-hyoosiki tosite no kenzyoo-doosi (Japanese humbling verbs as politeness markers). In Gengogaku to nihongo kyooiku (Linguistics and Japanese language education), Yukiko Sasaki Alam (ed.), 259-274. Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan.Google Scholar
Kikuchi, Yasuto. 1980. Jooge-taiguu-hyoogen no kijutu (Description of expressions for the treatment of status distinctions). Kokugogaku (Japanese linguistics) : 39 - 54.Google Scholar
Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo (The National Language Research Institute), 1957. Keigo to keigo-ishiki (Honorifics and the attitudes toward honorifics). Tokyo: Shueido Shuppan.Google Scholar
Komatsu, H. 1967. ‘O - suru’ no seiritu (Establishment of ‘o - suru’). Kokugo to kokubugaku (National language and national literature): 93-101.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1983. Sin Nihon-bunpoo Kenkyuu  (New studies in Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Ono, Tsuyoshi. 2005. Data is data and model is model: You don’t discard the data that doesn’t fit your model! Language 81: 218-225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel Elmo. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese . New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1985. A sort of speech act qualification in Japanese: chotto . Journal of Asian Culture 9: 143-159.Google Scholar
. 1997a. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame Semantic Approach [Studies in Language Companion Series 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. The rise and fall of Japanese nonsubject honorifics: The case of ‘o-Verb-suru ’. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 719-740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Tyotto: Speech act qualification in Japanese revisited. Japanese Language and Literature 35(1): 1-16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Variations in Japanese honorification. Deviations or a change in the making? In Constructional Re-organization [Constructional Approaches to Language Series 5], Jaakko Leino (ed.), 89-104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1993. A Japanese and Ainu linguistic feast (Review of Shibatani 1990). Journal of Linguistics 29: 469-484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, Junko. 1993. Some observations in humble expressions in Japanese: Distribution of o-V(stem) suru and V(causative) itadaku . In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3 , Soonja Choi (ed.), 67-83. Stanford CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1979. What’s in the frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In New Directions in Discourse Processes , Roy O. Freedle (ed.), 137-181. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tokieda, Motoki. 1941. Kokugogaku genron (The theory of Japanese linguistics). Tokyo: Iwanami Syoten.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57: 33-65.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard Byrd. 2002. Regularity and Semantic Change . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Toshiki. 1967. Gendai no keigo (Modern honorifics). Tokyo: Kyobunsha.Google Scholar
. 1968. Keigo no sitekikenkyuu (Historical studies on honorifics). Tokyo: Tokyo-do Shuppan.Google Scholar
. 1992. Keigo ronkoo (Essays on honorifics). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Yamada, Yoshio. 1931[1924]. Keigohoo no kenkyuu (The studies of honorification). Tokyo: Hobunkan.Google Scholar