Cover not available
Part of
Different Slants on Grammaticalization
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Vittorio Tantucci
[Studies in Language Companion Series 232] 2023
► pp. 147–175

Chapter 6
The final-appendage construction in Japanese and Korean

To what extent is post-predicative position exploited in the two East Asian languages?

| Fuji Women’s University
| Hokkaido University of Education
| Georgia Institute of Technology
Japanese and Korean are both predicate-final (OV) languages with relatively flexible constituent order. However, our analysis of parallel texts (Japanese novels and their Korean translations) demonstrates that the two languages differ in the exploitability of post-predicative position. Korean has a much lower frequency of final-appendage structures with clause-internal elements (especially adnominals and subject nominals) less likely to occur in post-predicative position. On the other hand, Korean shows a relatively higher proportion of vocative phrases in post-predicative position despite a lower frequency of final-appendage structures. The results reveal that Japanese exhibits a relatively higher degree of constructional entrenchment of final-appendage structures. In contrast, post-predicative position in Korean is rather restrictive, more limited to clause-external elements than to clause-internal ones.
Keywords: final-appendage construction, postposing, post-predicative position, Japanese, Korean
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Japanese final-appendage structures and their Korean translations
    • 3.2Korean translations of Japanese utterances with the final-appendage construction
    • 3.3Distribution by grammatical function
  • 4.Post-predicative differences in form and frequency
    • 4.1Adnominals
    • 4.2Nominals
    • 4.3Particle-less pronouns
    • 4.4Vocative phrases
    • 4.5Summary: Post-predicative position in Korean
  • 5.Constructional entrenchment of final-appendage structures
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgements
  • Keys to abbreviations
  • References
  • Data sources
Published online: 13 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.232.06izu
References (31)
References
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 40]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Seiko. 1995. Nihongo-no gojun-no gyakuten-nitsuite: Kaiwa-no naka-no nagare-o chuushinni (Word order reversal in Japanese: With special reference to a flow of conversation). In Nichieigo-no Uhooidookoobun: Sono Koozoo-to Kinoo (Rightward Movement in Japanese and English: Their Structure and Function), Ken-ichi Takami (ed.), 167–198. Tokyo: Hitsuzi.Google Scholar
Izutsu, Katsonobu & Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2013. From discourse markers to modal/final particles: What the position reveals about the continuum. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234], Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds), 217–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izutsu, Katsunobu, Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Kim, Yong-Taek. 2021. Grammatical relation sensitivity: Some different conceptions of pre/post-predicative structues. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 28. <[URL]>(29 December 2022).
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Izutsu, Katsonobu. 2014. Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1): 62–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Cross-varietal diversity in constructional entrenchment: The final-tag construction in Irish and American English. In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 202], Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban & José Vicente Lozano (eds), 381–430. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak. 1988. Preverbal focusing and type XXIII languages. In Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 147–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Eunae. 2013. Nihongo-to kankokugo-niokeru shugo-no arawarekata-nitsuite (On the occurrences of subjects in Japanese and Korean). Journal of the Faculty of Integrated Human Studies and Social Sciences, Fukuoka Prefectural University 22(2): 55–62.Google Scholar
Kim, Taeho. 2011. An empirical study of postposing constructions in Korean. Linguistic Research 28(1): 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirk, John M. & Kallen, Jeffrey L. 2010. How Scottish is Irish Standard English? In Northern Lights, Northern Words. Selected Papers from the FRLSU Conference, Kirkwall 2009, Robert McColl Millar (ed.), 178–213. Aberdeen: Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ireland. <[URL]>(29 December 2022).Google Scholar
Kirk, John M., Kallen, Jeffrey L., Lowry, Orla, Rooney, Anne & Mannion, Margaret. 2011a. The SPICE-Ireland Corpus: Systems of Pragmatic Annotation for the Spoken Component of ICE-Ireland. Version 1.2.2. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast and Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar
. 2011b. International Corpus of English: Ireland Component. The ICE-Ireland Corpus. Version 1.2.2. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast and Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar
Maynard, Seiko K. 1989. Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Mihara, Ken-ichi. 2015. Chizu seisaku keikaku-niokeru nihongo-no koochibun (A cartographic approach to right dislocation in Japan). Studies in Japanese Language and Culture 25: 1–11.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Jean, Thompson, Sandra A. & Penry Williams, Cara. 2009. Final but in Australian English conversation. In Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and Beyond [Varieties of English Around the World G39], Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds), 339–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi. 2006. An emotively motivated post-predicate constituent order in a ‘strict predicate final’ language: Emotion and grammar meet in Japanese everyday talk. In Emotive Communication in Japanese, Satoko Suzuki (ed.), 139–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Suzuki, Ryoko. 1992. Word order variability in Japanese conversation: Motivations and grammaticization. Text 12(3): 429–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
School of Lock. 3 June, 2016. <[URL]>(19 February, 2020).
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2005. Argument Encoding in Japanese Conversation. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Mutsuko Endo. 1989. An Analysis of the Postposing Construction in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. & Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2014. The interplay of discourse and prosody at the left and right periphery in Korean: An analysis of kuntey ‘but.’ In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change [Studies in Pragmatics 12], Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds), 221–249. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takami, Ken-ich. 1994. Nichiego taishookenkyuu (5): Nichieigo-no koochibun-to joohookoozoo (A contrastive study of Japanese and English: Postposing and information structure in Japanese and English). Eigo Seinen (The Rising Generation) 140(5): 230–232.Google Scholar
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1995. Nichieigo-no koochibun-to joohookoozoo (Postposing and information structure in Japanese and English). In Nichieigo-no Uhooidookoobun (Rightward Movement in Japanese and English: Their Structure and Function), Ken-ichi Takami (ed.), 149–165. Tokyo: Hitsuzi.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. Grammatical relations. In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, Robert A. Wilson & Frank C. Keil (eds), 355–357. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Data sources
Miura, Ayako. 1982 [1965]. Hyooten 1. Tokyo: Kadokawa. (Bingjeom, trans. by Ho Choe. Seoul: Hong Shin Publishing, 2017 [1992]).Google Scholar
Nishi, Kanako. 2013 [2011]. Entaku. Tokyo: Bungeishunju. (Weontag, trans. by Heuiseon Im. Bucheon: Bookstory Publishing, 2014).Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Yuji. & Momose, Shinobu. 2013. Saikoo-no Rikon 1. Tokyo: Fusosha. (Choego eui Ihon 1, trans. by Jina. Chu. Seoul: Bagha, 2018).Google Scholar
Sakuragi, Shino. 2016 [2013]. Dakosuru Tsuki. Tokyo: Futabasha. (Gubichi neun Dal, trans. by Yunog Yang. Seoul: Hyeondae Munhag, 2015).Google Scholar
Shinkai, Makoto. 2019. Tenki no Ko. Tokyo: Kadokawa, 2019. (Nalssi eui Ai, trans. by Gyeongog. Min. Seoul: Daeweonssiai, 2019).Google Scholar