Cover not available
Part of
Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries
Edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie and Peter Sells
[Typological Studies in Language 116] 2017
► pp. 45–57

Chapter 2
The attributive versus final distinction and the manifestation of “main clause phenomena” in Japanese and Korean noun modifying clause constructions

| Nagoya University
This paper compares Japanese and Korean noun-modifying clause constructions (NMCCs) in terms of the extent to which they accommodate ‘main clause phenomena’. Specifically, Japanese NMCCs allow for address-politeness suffixes to occur, and for quoted speech to be manifested with minimal linking devices. These main clause phenomena are disallowed within Korean NMCCs. We argue that the greater tolerance toward main clause phenomena in Japanese NMCCs than in Korean counterparts is crucially related to a prominent morpho-syntactic difference between the two languages, i.e. the virtual absence (Japanese) versus systematic presence (Korean) of the distinction between attributive and sentence-final forms. The attributive-final distinction in Japanese was obliterated around the sixteenth century.
Keywords: main clause phenomena, addressee politeness, quoted speech, attributive forms, sentence-final forms
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Noun-modifying clause constructions and attributive predicate forms
  • 3.‘Main clause phenomena’ in Japanese and Korean NMCCs
  • 4.Further infiltration of main clause phenomena into Japanese NMCCs: Emergence of the ‘less overt’ clause linkage devices marking direct quotation
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.03hor
References (15)
References
Bisang, Walter. 2007. Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In Finiteness, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 115–137. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52(2): 382–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 2011. Versatility of nominalizations: Where Japanese and Korean contrast. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 473–495. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The interactional origin of nominal predicate structure in Japanese: A comparative and historical pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 663–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 2009. Pragmatics of Japanese performative honorifics in subordinate clauses. In Language in Life, and a Life in Language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift, Bruce Fraser & Ken Turner (eds), 289–298. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K. 2008. Maruti Zyanru Danwaron (Multi-genre Discourse Studies). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Mikami, Akira. 1953. Gendai Gohoo Zyosetu (Introduction to Modern Japanese Grammar). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai Nihongo no Koozoo (The Structure of Modern Japanese). Tokyo: Taisyukan.Google Scholar
. 1987. Keigo (Honorifics). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
. 1993. Gendai Nihongo Bunpoo no Rinkaku (An Outline of the Structure of Modern Japanese Grammar). Tokyo: Taisyukan.Google Scholar
Mio, Sunago. 1942. Hanasi Kotoba no Bunpoo (A Grammar of Spoken Japanese). Tokyo: Kurusio Publishers.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Haruhiko. 2009. Meisekina in’yoo, Sinayakana in’yoo (Explicit Quotation, Flexible Quotation). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar