{ -

I

SOCIAL MEANTNGS OF THE JAPANESE SENTENCE.FINAL PARTICLE NO

Haruko Minegishj_ Cook

1. Introduct ion

Linguist ics and rerated f ierds have made us aware ofthe fact that language has not onty referent ia l andgrammaticar funct ions but a lso indexical funct ions. Languageis capabre o f s ignar ing soc ia r con tex ts as wer r as re fe r r i ngto ob jec ts "ou t the re . " rn soc io l i ngu is t i cs , e rements wh ichsignal aspects of contexts have been referred to as keys(Go f fman t974 ; Hymes L974) , f rames (Ba teson L972 ; eo f f i an1974) and con tex tua r i za t ion cues (Gumperz 1gg2) . The te rms"register" been used and they typicarryrefer to a part icurar combinat ion of r inguist ic featuresassociated wi th a part icular speech event or socj-a l context(Anderson 7977, Ferguson ] -977 and 1983; Biber Lgg6, Biber &F i n e g a n i n p r e s s ) .

Some studies in l inguist ics and phi losophy arso discussr inguist ic features which index socia l contexts (peirce1931-58 ; Mor r i s L946 ; Jakobson 1960 ; Lyons rg77 t S i t ve rs te in1 9 7 6 ; o c h s i n p r e s s ) . L y o n s ( L 9 7 7 : 1 o 6 ) d e f i n e s i n d e x i c a r i t yas "some known or assumed connexion between a s ign A and i tss igni f icatum c such that the occurrence of A can be held toimpry the p resence o r ex i s tence o f c . " S i l ve rs te in ( Lg76)expands the not ion of index into two categor ies, namery,re fe ren t ia l i ndexes and non- re fe ren t ia l i ndexes . Re fe ren t ia li n d e x e s ( e - 9 . d e i c t i c s s u c h a s " r " a n d " y o u " ) d o n o t h a v eany abstract proposi t ional equivarence rerat ions becausetheir references are only in the speech context . Non-referent i -a l indexes do not contr ibute to referent ia lmeanings but s ignar the speech context . Some examples ofspeech contexts which non-referent iar indexes s ignal aresoc ia r s ta tus , ro les , se t t i ngs , ac t i v i t i es e tc . i n the caseof French, for example, the tu/vous dist inct ion does nota f fec t the re fe ren t ia l , mean ing o f an u t te rance , bu t doesindex d i f f e ren t soc ia r con tex ts , v j - z . t u may ind ica te tha tthe speaker and the hearer are c lose and yous may indicatethat the speaker and the hearer are in a d istantre la t i onsh ip .

However, indexicaL re l -at i -ons are more complex than one-to-one mappings between a part icular feature and somepar t i cu la r soc io -cuL tu ra l d imens ion . ochs ( i n p ress ) po in ts

IPvA Papers in Pragmat ics L, No.2 (1987), 123-168

L24

o u t t h a t " . . . i s o l a t e d l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s o f t e n h a v e b r o a dindexical scope. " She provides an example of delet ion of thecopu la as in "Tha t bad" i n Amer i can s tandard Eng l i shspeaking communit ies. Delet ion of the copula can index ava r ie ty o f soc ia l s ta tuses o f the addressee (e .9 . theaddresseg as a ch i l d , f o re igner , pa t ien t , o r e lde r l ype rson) . - Because o f the po ten t ia l b read th o f i ndex ica lscope , research on index ica l i t y has been ra the r d i f f i cu l t .One of the problems is how to account for the var iety ofsoc ia l mean ings wh ich a s ing le l i ngu is t i c fea tu re i ndexes .Ochs ( i n p ress ) p roposes a mode l o f i ndex ica l i t y wh ich dea lsw i th the comp lex i t y o f i ndex ica l re la t i ons . One o f theimportant cr i ter ia of indexes which Ochs proposes is d i rectand ind i rec t i ndex ica l re la t i ons : a d i rec t i ndex ica lre lat ion is a case in which one or more l inguist ic forms area di rect or unmediated index of some contextual d imension.In an j -nd i rec t i ndex ica l re la t i on , wh ich i s more comp lex , acontext d i rect ly indexed is convent ional ly I inked to andhelps to const i tute some second feature of a context . Inother words, a d i rect ly indexed context evokes a secondcontext . Thus, understanding of the di rect indexical meaningis basic to understanding of the indirect indexicalmeanings. Ochs fur ther suggests that among the var iousfea tu res o f the soc io -cu l tu ra l d imens ions (e .9 . soc ia li den t i t y , soc ia l re la t i onsh ip , be l i e f , a f fec t , speech even tsand speech ac t i v i t i es ) , a f fec t i ve and ep is temo log ica ld i spos i t i ons a re d i rec t l y i ndexed in a l l l anguages . Thefol lowing chart i l lustrates the di rect and indirecti ndex ica l re la t i ons p roposed by Ochs .

direct context

125

indirect context

socia l ident j - ty

L i -ngu is t i c a f f ec tresource

be l ie f , /knowledge

speech act

speech act iv i ty

genre

( ' - - - > ' = d i r e c t i n d e x i - c a l r e l a t i o n a n dr - - - > t = i n d i r e c t i n d e x i c a l r e l a t i o ni . e . cons t j - t u t i ve )

F igu re 1 : Index ica l Re la t i ons

Examples of d i rect and indirect indexical re lat ionsOchs ( in press & 1987 ) ment ions are cases of the Japanesesen ten t ia l pa r t i c l -es ze , zo and wa . S ince the pa r t i c les zeand zo are more f requent ly used by men, they are of tenre fe r red to as "ma le " pa r t i c les . In con t ras t , t he pa r t i c lewa is more f requent ly used by women. Hence i t is referred toas a " fema1e" part ic le. However, ze and zo are somet imesused by women and wa j -s a lso somet imes used by men. Toaccount for this phenomenon, Ochs proposes that thesepar t i c les do no t d i rec t l y mark gender pe r se . Ra the r the reare di rect indexical meanings associated wi th thesepart ic les and the di rect meanings evoke indirect meanings inpart icular communicat ive contexts. The di rect meaning of thepar t i c le ze and zo a re a f fec t i ve i n tens i t y . Th is d i rec tmeanlng evokes the socia l image of mal-e gender in Japanesesoc ie ty , name ly fo rce fu lness . Thus , the pa r t i c les ze and zoind i rec t l y i ndex ma le gender ( i . e . i nd i rec t mean ing ) .S im i la r l y , t he pa r t i c le wa d i rec t l y i ndexes the a f fec t o fsof tness. This d i rect meaning again evokes the socia l imageo f fema le gender . The mean ing , fema le gender i s , t hus ,ind i rec t l y i ndexed by the pa r t i c le &za . Th is ana lys i s , f o rexample, expla ins why wa is used by womem much morefrequent ly than men. Further, s ince wa does not d i rect tyindex ma le gender , i t can exp la in why men a l so use rda .

A t yp i ca l case o f i ndex iea l comp lex i t y i s re f l ec ted inthe research on the Japanese sentence-f inal part ic le no. Inwha t fo l l ows , us ing the mode l o f i ndex ica l i t y sugges ted by

126

O c h s ( i n p r e s s ) , I w i l l s h o w t h a t ( i ) t h e s e n t e n c e - f i n a lpa r t i c le no d i rec t l y i ndexes the speaker ' s ep is temo log ica ld i spos i t i on . ( i i ) G iven th i s d i rec t i ndex ica l mean ing o f no ,diverse sociaf contexts indirect ly indexed by no can beexp la ined .

2 . D a t a

Prev ious ana lyses o f the pa r t i c le no re l y heav i l y onintu i t ive judgments of isolated sentences or shortd i scourses made up by the l i ngu is t s themse lves . To b roadenthe range of data, the present study invest igatesspontaneous conversat ion. Conversat ion is the basic genreamong the uses of language in that i t is universal and isthe med ium th rough wh ich a ch i l d f i r s t acqu i res l anguage .

The data come from 14 hours of audio- taped relaxedconversa t ion . Tape L (1 hour ) comes f rom a casua lconversat ion involv ing 8 adul t fami ly members gathered at aChr istmas dinner. The members are a couple, the husband TOand the wi fe CH, their two grown-up daughters YO and AT,CH 's b ro the r H I , h i s w i fe AY and two g rown-up sons , YU andTA. The res t o f t he tapes ( l -3 hours ) a re d inner - tab le andbed-t ime conversat ions between parents and chi ldren of threed i f f e r e n t f a m i l i e s ( F a m i l y O , F a m i l y T a n d F a m i l y M ) . E a c hfami ly has two to three chi ldren whose ages range between 6months and 7 years . A t l t he pa r t i c ipan ts a re m idd le c lasss p e a k e r s o f s t a n d a r d d i a l e c t ( i . e . T o k y o d i a l e c t ) .

3. Broad Indexical Scope Problems: The Case of the JapaneseSentence-f inal Part ic le No

In Japanese , a p ropos i t i on can be exp ressed in twoways : one end ing w i th a ba re ve rba l fo rm ( i . e .present/ future tense verbal and adject ival s tems ending in -

u and - i and their corresponding past- tense forms in - ta and-ka t ta ) and |he o the r end ing w i th the sen tence- f i na lp a r t i c l e n o . ' S e n t e n c e s " ( l a ) a n d ( 1 b ) a r e e x a m p l e s o f t h e s etwo t ypes o f sen tences . "

L27

( 1 a ) J o h n g a e i g a o m i r u . 4John SUB movie OBJ see' J o h n

s e e s m o v i e s . '

(1b ) John ga e iga o m i ru no .John SUB movie oBJ see PART' J o h n

s e e s m o v i e s . '

( l b ) cons is t s o f a p ropos i t i on fo l l owed by the pa r t i c len o . ( 1 a ) L a c k s n o a n d e n d s w i t h t h e v e r b . ( 1 a ) a n d f i U lshare the same proposj- t ionar content , but in (1b) the whoreproposi t ion is nominar ized by the part icre no whereas in(1a ) i t i s no t . i n th i s s tudy r w i r r ca r r a ve rb such asmi ru i n (1a ) w i thou t no a "b i re ve rba l fo rm" . There fe ren t ia t mean ings o f ( l a ) and ( l b ) a re i den t i ca t . rn thesense that no does not contr lbute to referent ia l meani-ng, i ti s pu re l y a non- re fe ren t ia l i ndex by S i l ve rs te in ' sdef in i t ion. The di f ference between a bare verbal c lause anda no c lause (other than the fact that no nominal izes thec lause) i s ve ry sub t le and e lus i ve .

rn Japanese, when speakers distance themselves f rom theaddressee as in po l i t e s t y te , an in f l ec t i on -masu (desu as acopura form) appears on the verb stem. rn such instances nois fo l l owed by the copu la desu ( i . e . no desu) . Fu r the r , i nryare speech, of ten no is forrowed by the prain copura io.*da ( i . e . no da ) . These d i s t i nc t i ons a .e n6 t the m i in focusof th is paper. Therefore, r wir r group together these forms:no desu, (and i ts var iant n desu), no d.a iand i ts var iant nd a ) a n d n o i t s e r f . T h u s , a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e t e r m ' , ( s e n t e n c el . r lu l

part iqre ) no" refers to any of these forms throughoutt h i s p a p e r . "

Most nat ive speakers, when asked to descr ibe thed i f fe rence be tween c lauses w i th no and w i thou t no as in ( l b )and (1a ) . a re unab le to do so . However , no ce r ta in l y i ndexessome contextuar d imensions. rn search of what context nosignals, as r ment i -oned above, severar l inguists haves_tudied the part ic le no (concentrat ing pr i tar i ry on the nodesu fo rm) , Because no has such b road index ica l scope , theprevious analyses have not yet grasped the essence of thepar t i c le . Va r ious s tud ies o f no have reached d i f f e ren tconclusions, and the proposed meaning for no in eachanalysis covers only a narrow range of usages. Because ofthe divers i ty of the sociar contexts no in-exes, theprevious analyses of no vary to a great extent . var iouss tud ies p ropose tha t no has someth ing to do w i th : ( i )

r28

e x p l a n a t i o n s ( e . g . A l f o n s o L 9 6 6 ; K u n o 1 9 7 3 ) , ( i i )p resuppos i t i ons o r sha red know ledge (e .g . Kuroda L973 ;M i z u t a n i & M i z u t a n i 1 9 7 7 ; M c G l o i n 1 9 8 0 ; N o d a 1 9 8 1 ) , ( i i i )p o l i t e n e s s ( e . 9 . M c G l o i n 1 9 8 3 ) , ( i v ) w o m e n ' s s p e e c h ( M c G l o i n1 9 8 6 ) a n d ( v ) e v i d e n t i a l i t y ( K a m i o t 9 7 9 ; A o k i 1 9 8 6 ) . " I naddi t ion, in examining conversat ional data, we f ind socia lmeanings that no indexes other than the ones listed above(e .g . make-be l i eve ) . Each one o f the above p roposa ls canaccount for the use of no j -n a part icular context but not inothers. Thus, we are st i l l puzzled as to what is theessen t ia l na tu re o f the pa r t i c le no .

In sum, the previous analyses of no are var ied.Al though each proposal I ment ioned above captures the natureo f no in a ce r ta in l im i ted case o r cases , none o f theproposals is general enough to capture the broad indexicalscope of no. This means that none of the proposed meaningsof no is broad enough to be the di rect meaning of no.

The present paper, thus, addresses the quest ion of whatcharacter izat ion of no is general enough to be the di rectmeaning of no, which can capture the var iety of contextswhich no indexes. Belor^r , I wi t l propose that in essence nod i rec t l y i ndexes the speaker f s ep is temo log ica l d i spos i t i on :the speaker and his/her group jo int ly hold an ut terance tobe t rue. I wi l l c la im that th is d i rect meaning of no helpsto const i tute var ious contextual meanings of no.

4. croup Authority VS. Individual Authority

In th is sect ion, I wi l l focus on the di rect meaning ofno in con t ras t w i th tha t o f ba re ve rba l fo rms ( i . e .present/ future tense verbal and adject ival s tems ending in-u and - i and their corresponding past- tense forms in - ta

and -kat ta) . I hypothesize that the verbal forms direct lyindex that the authorj-ty of an utterance lies with thespeaker a lone and that the use of no (a nominal form)direct ly indexes that the author i ty of an ut lerance l iesw i th a g roup o f wh ich the speaker i s a pa r t . ' Tha t i s to saythat when the speaker uses a bare verbal form, he/sheau tho r i zes wha t he lshe i s say ing as an ind iv idua l ( i . e . t hespeaker a lone holds what helshe is saying to be t rue). Whenthe speaker uses no, helshe author izes what helshe is sayingtoge the r w i th h i s /he r g roup ( i . e . t he speaker and h i s /he rg roup ho ld wha t he lshe i s say j -ng to be t rue ) .

I t is reasonabte to hypothesize that language encodesthe au tho r i t y w i th wh ich u t te rances a re made . Du Bo is (1986)

t29

proposes that no ut terance is made wi thout author i ty . Recentstudies on evident ia l i ty in d iverse languages have showntha t c ross l i ngu is t i ca l l y , ep is temo log ica t d i spos i t i on i sexpressed by var ious l inguist ic features and that severalep is temo log ica l ca tegor ies (e .g . ass im i la ted andunassimi lated knowledge, mode of knowing, degree ofre l iabi l i ty , source of knowledge etc. ) are found in a numbero f l anguages (S lob in & Aksu L982 , Lee 1985 ; Cha fe & N icho ts1986t I rv ine & Hi I l - in press). Language may encode whetherthe speaker is the source of the knowledge or someone elseis. For example, markers of reported speech, which are foundin many languages of the wor ld, are 1inguist ic markings thatindicate that the source of knowledge resides in another asopposed to i n the speaker . (Vo los inov L978 /L929 ; Besn ie r i np ress ) .

The dist inct ion I am proposing between the verbal andthe nominal no forms in Japanese is d i f ferent f romdist inct ions concerning reported speech. Whi le the use ornon-use of the l inguist ic feature that indexes reportedspeech s ignals whether the source 1ies in the speaker orsomeone else, the dist inct ion between the verbal form andthe nominal form no in Japanese sJ-gnals whether theau tho r i t y (Du Bo is 1986) fo r the know ledge l i es i n thespeaker as an indig idual or } ies in the group of which thespeaker i s a pa r t . " To o f fe r an ana logy , when we speak abou tsomething, we can speak about i t as an indiv idual or we canspeak about i t as a member of a group to which we belong. Inboth cases, the content of what we say can be ident ical , buthow the con ten t i s cas t i s d i f f e ren t : t o use Bakh t in rste rm ino logy (L935 /1980) , on the one hand , the con ten t i scast in an indiv idual "voj-ce" and on the other, the contenti s cas t i n a g roup "vo ice " . When we speak as an ind iv idua l ,the author i ty for what we say l ies sole ly in the indiv idual_,but when we speak as a member of a group of which we are apart , the author i ty for what l re say at least part ly l ies inthe group.

Many l inguists have suggested that verbs prototypicat lyexpress act ions and nouns prototypical ly express objects(Lyons l -968 ; Ross 1972 ; Ba tes & MacWhinney L982 ; G iv6n L984 ;Hopper & Thompson 1 -984) . Grammat i ca l d j_s t i nc t i ons can a l sobe used to index di f ferent socia l contexts (Brown & Levinson1978). Thus, the dist inct ion between verbs and nouns isre levan t fo r the speaker rs d i spos i t i ons . Fo r examp le , i nEngl ish nominal izat ions indicate a more format use oflanguage. To say " I am surpr ised at your ear ly arr iyal" ismore forma] and impersonal than to say " I am surpr ised that

1 3 0

you a r r i ved ea r l y . " B rown and Lev inson (1978r2L3) po in t ou t ," . . . t he more nouny an exp ress ion , the more removed an ac to ris f rom doing or feel ing or being something. " The case ofthe verb form and the noun form (no) in Japanese, then, isconsistent wi th cases in other languages in that the verbform indicates that the speaker is speaking as an indiv idualand the noun form (no) s ignals that the speaker is speakingas a spokesman, for in speaking as an indiv idual , thespeaker expresses his/her feel ings more di rect ly orexpresses his/her act ions and states as f i rs t -handexper iences . There fo re , i n Kochman 's (1981) te rms , when wespeak as a member of a group, we represent what we say andwhen we speak as an indiv idual , we advocate what we say.

The choice between speaking as a member of a group andspeaking as an indj-v idual is re lated to the fo lkep is temo logy o f Japanese soc ie ty ( i . e . Japanese v iews abou twhat can be known) as ref lected in language usage. Forexamp le , f rom a Japanese pe rspec t i ve , someone e l se ' spsychological state at a g iven moment cannot be known. Inother words, only the speaker has di rect access to h is/herown psychological state in statements and only the addresseehas di rect access to h is/her own psychological state ininterrogat ives. as pointed out by a number of l inguists(e .g . Kuroda L973) , ce r ta in ad jec t i ves deno t ing one 'spsychological state at the moment cannot occur in bare formwithout a verbal suf f ix -gat te t ra

' is showing an appearance

o f i f t h e s u b j e c t i s n o t l s t p e r s o n , a s i n ( 2 ) a n d ( 3 )be low. ( - fa i 'wan t '

i s an ad jec t i va l su f f i x ) .

(2a ) Watash i wa keek i o tabe- ta j . desu .I TOP cake OBJ eat want COP

' I w a n t t o e a t ( s o m e ) c a k e . '

(2b ) *John wa keek i o tabe- ta i desu .John TOP cake OBJ eat want COP

' J o h n w a n t s t o e a t ( s o m e ) c a k e . '

(3a ) *Watash i wa keek i o tabe- ta -ga t te i ru .I TOP cake OBJ eat want appear

' I w a n t t o e a t ( s o m e ) c a k e . '

(3b ) John wa keek i o tabe- ta -ga t te | ru .John TOP cake OBJ eat want appear

' J o h n w a n t s t o e a t ( s o m e ) c a k e . '

131

Other ad jec t i ves o f th i s k ind inc lude kanash i i ' sad ' ,

sab ish i i ' I one ly ' ,

u resh i i ' happy ' ,

a t su i ' ho t '

, samu i' co ld '

e t c . Th is shows tha t i n Japanese , one 's psycho log ica lstate at the moment is treated as something known only toonesel f but not to others. This being t t re case, we wouldexpect to f ind that the verbal form is used to express thespeaker ' s psycho log ica l s ta te i n s ta temen ts and theaddressee 's psycho log ica l s ta te i n i n te r roga t i ves . I f one ' spsycho log ica l s ta te i s on ly access ib le to the se l fo i t i snormal ly impossib le for the group to author ize i t . - Thus, wepred ic t t ha t psycho log ica l s ta tes (des i re , i n ten t ion . w i l I ,i n te rna l f ee l i ngs , ab i l i t y e tc . ) o f t he speaker a re mos tI ikely to be ment ioned in bare verbals and those of theaddressee are most l ikely to be asked in bare verbals. Onthe other hand, what is v iewed as typical ly accessib leknowledge is v iewed as potent ia l ly common knowledge insociety. Hence, we predict that accessib le knowledge insociety is most l ikely to be expressed in the nominal form(no) . I n fac t , t h i s i s wha t we v r i l l f i nd i n the da tad iscussed be low.

Consider the fo l lowing adul t conversat ion in which noindicates accessib le knowledge and a bare verbal formindicates inaccessib le knovr ledge about another 's abi l i ty . In(4) AT, CH, YO and AY are ta lk ing about dancing.

(4 ) [CH i s danc ing in an o ]d fash ioned s ty le to themus ic . AT i s wa tch ing CH dance . l

- -> AT: Ima wakai h i to soo yuu odor i dekinai no yo.'Young people today can' t do that k ind of dancing.

[CH is swl tchlng to a rock & ro11 sty le dancing. ]

CH: Koo yuu no?' T h i s

k l n d ? '

AT : Un' Y e a h . '

YO: Sore shika dekinai no yo.' (They )

can on ly do tha t . '

AY: Ako chan dansu deki'ru?'Ako , can you dance? '

132

Here , AT , CH and YO d iscuss young peop le ' s danc ing ingeneral . AT and YO use no to f rame their ut terances. Then AYasks AT i f she can dance. In th is ut terance AY does not useno but uses a bare verbal dekiru

'can do' . Knowledge of how

young people dance these days is obviously a type ofknowledge that can be assumed to be shared in the society.In contrast , the type of knowledge asked in AY's quest ion( i . e . Can you dance?) i s d i f f e ren t i n tha t i t on l y be longsto an indiv idual unt i l i t is revealed to others. Knowledgeabout how young people dance these days is accessib le and,AT and YO, using no, present the message as one stated by aspokesman of the society. In th is sense, both the speakerand the society have access to th is knowledge and the two( the speaker and the soc ie ty ) j o in t l y au tho r i ze i t . I ncontrast , AY asks a quest ion wi th a bare verbal because sheis asking for knowledge to which the addressee as anind iv idua l has access .

In conversa t ion (5 ) we see ra the r cons is ten t use o fbare verbal forms to express the speaker 's personal v iewsand ask fo r the addressee 's v iews . Here , the mother has jus tIea rned f rom her ch i l d ren tha t the i r f r i end rs new b icyc lehas been sto len by a stranger. The mother is cur ious aboutwhat her children would do if a stranger approached them andasked i f he coufd borrow their b icycle for a short whi le.(Th is was how the f r i end ' s new b icyc le d i sappeared . )

( 5 ) Mother

116 Kazush ige da t ta ra doo

' I r ' lhat would (you) do,

i f someone said that

Chi ldren

Kazushige( t o y o u ) ? '

Hiro dattara doo suru?' W h a t

w o u l d ( y o u ) d o , H i r o ? l

- ->K : Okaasan n i k i ku yo .' (

I ) ' d a s k M o t h e r . I

H : U n t o n e .Boku dat tara otoosan.

' U h - m e , f a t h e r . '

1 3 3

LL7 Inaka t ta ra?' W h a t

i f h e w a s n ' t t h e r e ? r

Otoosan mo okaasan mo

'What wou ld ( you ) do i f f a the r

and mother weren t t t he re? '

H : J a a n e e .' G e e l

118 - - )Sono ko ina i no yo .' T h a t c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s

w e r e n t t t h e r e . t

- ->H: On i - n in i n i k i ku .' ( I ) ' d a s k ( m y ) o l d e rb r o t h e r . '

Jaa n i i n i n i k i_ i ta ra ,

' T h e n i f ( H ) a s k s ( y o u ) ,

wha t w i l l you say? '

K : Un?' W h a t ? '

119 Hiro no- moshi neHiro ga atarashi i j i tensha ninot te te dare ka ni' I f ( you ) were r i d ing a newbike and by someone'

K : U n .' Y e a h . '

l2O Ji tensha chot to kashi te te' c a n ( I ) b o r r o w t h e b i k e '

K : U n .' Y e a h '

'were asked , wha t wou ld

( y o u ) d o ? r

K : Sosh i ta ra boku ga -Hiro ga sore boku niL 2 L

L34

iu no?'Then ,

T - , W i l f H i ro saytha t to me? '

U n .' Y e a h . '

I22 K: Un. Soshi tara ne boku'Uhn. Then I I

( t o H) On i i chan ga inaka t ta ra ,

' I f o lde r b ro the r wasn ' t t he re ,

wha t wou ld ( you ) do? '

L 2 3 K : S o s h i t a r a j a a , j a a , j a a .' T h e n ,

w e I I , w e I l , w e l I . I

kashitageru?' t fould(you) lend i t for a

a short whi le? |

K : U n .' U h n . '

Sono mae ni, yappariboku wa okaasan ka

'Be fo re tha t , I wou ld

ask Mother o r Fa the r . '

124 Dakara inakat tara t te

' S e e , ( I ) a m a s k i n g i fthey l^rerenrt home. '

K: Okaasan ka otoosanga inaka t ta ra .

' I f e i t he r Mo the r o r

F a t h e r w a s n ' t h o m e , '

I25 Mama ga inai tok i dat tearu deshoo. Okaimono nii t t e .

'There are t imes Mother is not

home. Gone fo r shoPP ing . '

J-J )

i . u .' T h e n , ( I ) ' d t e I I

( m y ) g r a n d f a t h e r . '

- ->L26 Iu no?' W o u l d ( y o u ) t e l l h i m ? r

De Kazu- Hiro dat tara,

'And Kazu- H i ro , wha t wou ld

( y o u ) d o ? '

Throughout conversat ion (5) the chi ldren's v iewpoint isconstant ly e l ic i ted by the mother wi th bare verbals (wi ththe except ion of l lne L26, to which I wi I I return below) andthe chi ldren also constant ly express their v iews wi th bareverbals in response. The mother 's statements in l ine 1L8 and124 and K 's ques t ion in l i ne 121 occur w i th no , bu t theseutterances do not express a personal point of v iew or other(und isc losed) psycho log ica l s ta tes o f the speaker . I w i l ld iscuss these funct ions in detaiL below.

In conversa t ion (6 ) , wh ich comes f rom ano the r fam i l y ,we see as yet undisclosed personal intent ions againconstant ly expressed wi th bare verbal forms. Here, themother asks i f the chi ld wi l l go to see Flashman ( achi ldren's robot hero) when he appears at the nearbydepartment store.

( 6 ) M o t h e r C h i l d

Doo suru, Aya chan

--) Honto ni iku, ano Ozu noFlashman kuru toki?' W i f l ( y o u ) r e a l l y g o , w h e nO z u ' s F l a s h m a n c o m e s ? r

- - > A . I k u .' ( I )

r ^ r i l l g o . l

- - ) Ozu no f lashman kuru tokiTlc.t?' W i l I ( y o u ) g o w h e n O z u ' s

F lashman comes? '

- - > A : I k u .' ( I )

w i l l g o . '

I n (7 ) , wh ich comes f rom s t i l l ano the r fam i l y , des i reis expressed wi th bare verbal f roms.

(7 ) Mo the r ch i l d

Tamagoyakl mada hoshrr?'Do (you) wan t more omle t te? '

Tamagoyakl_ hoshii hitoar imasu yo, okawar i .'Anyone

who wants omlet te,t h e r e i s m o r e . '

- ->C: Kamaboko ga hoshj . i .' ( I ) wan t f j . sh cake . ,

As we have seen in the above examples, one'spsychol0gical states, which are generar ly consideredinaccessi-b le to others in the Japanese society, are r ikeryto be expressed wi th bare verbar forms. tn contrast , commonknowledge in society - ( . -g. a styre of dancing popurar amongyoung peop le ) , wh ich i s genera r l y cons ide rea -a i c i ss ib te , i sexpressed wi th no. Since common knowtedge is usualLy sharedby the members of society, th is anatysi i subsumes thepresuppos i t i on p roposa l (McGlo in f9g6 ; Noda 19g1) .

4 .1 Who i s the Speaker ' s "Group"?

Though the nominaL form no is found in diversecontexts, i t d i rectry indexes that the speaker is speakingas a member of a group of which he/she i l a part . tn is readsto the quest ion of who (besides the speaker) holds what thespeaker says to be t rue. who is the gioup of which thespeaker i -s a part? Naturarry, the speaxei is a member of thesoc ie ty he lshe be longs to . Examin ing the da ta , we a rso f i ndother groups wi th which speakers associate themserves. Agroup can consist of the speaker and the addressee or thespeaker and a th i rd pa r t y . Thus , p ro to typ ica l l y , as

137

i l lustrated in Figure 2, we f ind the fo l lowing three typesof groups wi th which the speaker is associated in using no.

Figure 2: Three prototypical groups the speaker mayassociate wi th in using no

S=the speakerA=the addresseeT=a th i rd party

( i i i )

( i ) The speaker forms a group wi th the addressee.( i i ) The speaker and the th l rd party form a group.( i i i ) The group is the society the speaker belongs to.

Be low, I w i l l i l l us t ra te the th ree t ypeswhich the use of no di rectJ-y indexes.

The first type of group is formed by thethe addressee . In (8 ) the speaker rep resen tsv iew us ing no .

of groups

speaker andthe addressee 's

( 8 ) M o t h e r

Hiro, ashj- ta no ban wadoo suru no ga ichiban i i?'Hiro,

what do you want todo most tomorrow evening?l

i i n o .

chi ld

H:Keishookaku ni ikug a i i .

' ( I ) w a n t t o g o t o

Ke ishookaku . '

' ( Y o u ) w a n t t o g o t o

K e i s h o o k a k u . r

Here , i n repea t ing the ch i l d ' s u t te rance , the motheruses no . In so do ing . she i s rep resen t ing the ch i l d ' s v iewand the ut terance counts as a conf i rmat ion.

Further, a group can be formed by speaker and addresseeshar ing awareness o f a pa r t i cu la r even t . Fo r examp le , i n (9 )the mother saw the chi ld stop eat ing dinner. She asked thech i l d ques t ions w i th no .

(9 ) Mo the r Ch i1d

C : ( ( s t o p p e d e a t i n g ) )

' W h a t r s t h e m a t t e r ? '

' ( Y o u ) c a n r t e a t a n y m o r e ? r

In instances such as (9) no s ignals that the speakerand the addressee are both aware of the context. Theinterrogat ive wi th no lndicates that the speaker ls assumingthat the informat ion that he/she is asking for is the typeto which the group would have access. The present analysis,thus, subsumes Noda's proposal which c la ims that no is usedin ut terances when the speaker presupposes that theconnection between the proposition and the referents i - tuat ion is obvious to the addressee.

Speaking as a representat ive of society is i t lustratedin the fo l lowing conversat ion. The proposi t ion that noframes is knowledge common to members of the society.Through the use of no in these instances the speaker as amember of the society author izes an ut terance jo int ly wi ththe soc ie ty . I n (10 ) the mother i s te l l i ng the ch i td renabout manners and she uses no.( 10 ) Mo the r Ch i ld ren

K : ( ( b u r p ) )

H : ( ( l a u g h ) )

Sore wa ogyoogi

' T h a t r s b a d m a n n e r s . '

I n (1L ) the mother andgeography of Tokyo and itsconversat ion suggests thatcommon among the members ofmarked wi th no.

( 11 ) Mother

Urayasu.' I t ' s

U r a y a s u . '

139

the chlld are talking about thesuburbs. The use of no in th isknowledge that is supposedly

the society is most l j -kely

ch i l d

K :Nee , D isney land t te--)Tookyoo na no ?' I s

D isney land inTokyo? '

K:Jaa boku wa Tookyootono tonari ni sunderu

( ) I ch i kawa wa .'Then, I l ive next to

Tookyoo ( ) I ch i kawa. '

Koiwa no eki wa moo-Edogawa watareba Tookyooto

'Koiwa stat ion is a l ready-

When (we) c ross Edo r i ve r ,i t ' s T o k y o . '

' I t ' s c a l 1 e d E d o g a w a - w a r d . '

When the speakerfs group is not the society nor theaddressee , i t usua l l y i s a th i rd pa r t y (and the speaker ) . I nthe fo l lowing conversat ion, when the mother f inds a pictureof a hawk moth in the picture book that she is reading tothe chi ldren, she tarks to the chirdren about her chirdhoodepisode wi th hawk moths. Obviously, she does not a l readyshare knowledge of th is episode wi th the addressees or wi ththe society at 1arge, but she does share knowledge of th isepisode wi th th i rd part ies, her s isters who were presentwhen th is happened. In recount ing th is episode, the mother

r40

uses no constant ly . No here indexes that the mother is aspokesman of the group, which in th is case comprises hers ib l i ngs and he rse l f .

(L2 ) Mo the r

Mukashi nee, Mama to Haruko-bachan to Akko-bachan gach i i sa i t ok i nee ,'Long

time ago, when, Mama, Aunt Haruko and Aunt Akkow e r e s m a l l c h i l d r e n , '

rma no Kaminoge no ouchi ja nakute, betsu no ouchi n i' (we)

I j -ved in a house other than the one now inK a m i n o g e , '

Mi ta no ouchi toko.' a h o u s e l n M i t a . '

' Then , i n the even ing , the re wa i no sc reen , be fo re . '

Soide sa, atsui kara, aketoku Ja nai , neru toki n i ,'So , ' cause i t was ho t , (we) kep t ( the w indows) open ,a t b e d t i m e , r

Soide koo denki o ouchin naka ni tsuketoku toyoku kono ga ga hai t te k i te nee,'So,

when (we) kept the t ight on, of ten th is moth camei n ( t h e h o u s e ) a n d , '

kono susumega t te iu no ga ne.' t h i s , h a w k m o t h . '

'Buzzing around, i t came to a l ighted place, to the

l a m p . l

' ( W e ) r a n a r o u n d s c r e a m i n g . '

' T h e n , K a m i n o g e ' s g r a n d p a , '

' w i t h n e w s p a p e r ( h e ) h i t a n d c a u g h t ( i t ) . '

141

kodomo no koro.'This sort of hawk moth of ten came in,

w h e n ( w e ) w e r e c h i l d r e n . '

As i l lustrated above, the group of which the speakerspeaks as a spokesman varies from context to context andtypical ty the group is e i ther the addressee, the society, ora th i rd party.

4.2 Frequencies of the Markings of Psychological Statesand Comnon Knowledge in Socl.ety

Figures 3 and 4 represent a survey of the speech dataand give the frequency with which a bare verbal or nooccurred wi th an expression of a psychological state or anassert ion of common knowtedge in society, respect ively.

to ta l

9 4 . 2 * l-00t

1 s 8 100 t

I n F igu re 3 we see tha t 94 .2* o f a l l t he psycho log ica lstates expressed in the data are in bare verbal form. On theother hand, Figure 4 shows that 75t of a l t the ut terances inthe data which express somethipg about common knowledge inthe society are f ramed by no.^- The reason why thepercentage for common knowledge in the society j-s somewhatIower is that somet imes common knowledge in society isexpressed wi th other forms, in part icular , other nominal_

F igu re 3 :

Marking in

no

s . 8 t

F igu re 4 :

Marking in

no

75*

Psychological State Utterances

bare verbal

Common Knowledge in Society

bare verbal others tota l

10*

L42

forms such as wake, koto and. mono. The high correlationsbetween the l inguist ic forms and their respect ive funct ionssupport the claim that on the one hand, the verbal formdirect ly indexes that the speaker indiv idual ly author izeshis/her ut terance and that on the other hand, the nominalform (no) d i rect ly indexes that the speaker and his/hergroup together author ize the ut terance.

Moreover, the present analysis can subsume the sharedinformation analysis of no and can account for moreextensive uses of no. The analysis of no as a marker ofshared informat ion cannot expla in why no appears inc o n v e r s a t i o n s s u c h a s ( 1 0 ) , ( 1 1 ) a n d ( 1 2 ) . I n t h e s econversat ions, the knowledge expressed in the proposi t ion isnot actual ly shared by the speaker and the addressee. I f weheld on to the analysis that no is a shared informat ionmarker, we ! {ould be forced to say that no is used as i f theinformatj.on were shared between the speaker and theaddressee (McGlo in L980 , 1983 and 1 ,986) . However , such aproposal is rather ad hoc and there is l i t t le convincingmot ivat i -on for th is analysis. The fact that no appears whenei ther shared or non-shared informat ion is expressed in theproposi t ion is not a problem for the present analysis of no,which c la ims that no indexes group author i ty rather thanshared informat ion.

In sum, in th is sect ion I have shown that thel inguist ic features of the verb form ( a bare verbal ) andnoun form (no) in Japanese index the speaker 'sepistemological d isposi t ion wi th respect to whether thespeaker author izes an ut terance as an indiv idual or as amember of h is/her group. The previous proposals are notgeneral enough to capture the broad l -ndexical scope of no.In other words, .none of the previously proposed meanings ofno is broad enough to be the di rect meaning of no. Theproposed no t ion o f ep is temo log ica l d i spos i t i on , as I w i l Ishow below, is broad enough to capture the var iety ofcontexts which no indirect ly indexes. Intu i t ively,epistemological d isposi t ion is a not ion much broader thant h o s e o f " e x p l a n a t i o n " , " p o s i t i v e p o l i t e n e s s " , e t c .Moreover , t he p resen t p roposa l i s cons is ten t w i th Ochs ' ( i npress ) observat ion that among the diverse categor ies ofsocia l contexts, two contextual d imensions, namely,af fect ive and epistemological d isposi t ions, are recurrent lyused to const i tute other contextual d imensions.

5. Group vs.Individual Authority and Other Evidential

L43

NotLons

S ince my ana lys i s o f no concerns t ru th ( i . e . who ho ldsthe t ruth and hence author izes i t ) , i t is important tocompare the notions of group authority and ind{yidua}author i ty wi th other not ions of evident ia l i ty . -^ Below, Iwi l l show that the not ions of group and indiv idualauthor i t ies are dist inct f rom the not ion of source such asthat in reported speech and " terr i tory of informat ion"(Kamio L979) , t hough they a re re la ted .

As I men t ioned in sec t ion 4 , Du Bo is (1986) c la ims tha tno ut terance is accepted wi thout author i ty . He also c la imsthat provid ing a source is a specia l case of provid ingauthor i ty . Examining cases of no such as those above, I f indevidence support ing Du Boisf c la im in that provid ingauthor i ty can be achieved wi thout provid ing a source. RecaIIe x a m p l e s ( 1 O ) , ( 1 1 ) a n d ( L 2 ) d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 4 . 1 . I nthese examples, the group consists of the speaker and thesociety or the speaker and a th i rd party. However, the factthat the ut terance is d i rected toward the addressee includesthe addressee in the v iew framed by no. The addressee inth is sense is part of the author iz ing group but is not asource .

Also, there is a use of no (ment ioned in footnote 8)which occurs in non-f i rs t person stor ies. This use of noindexes that both the narrator and the character have accessto the character 's psychological state in quest lon. However,in th is case, the source of the knowledge is in thecharacter but not in the narrator . Nevertheless, both thenarrator and the character author ize the knowledge. In sum,the speaker can author ize his/her message when helshe is nota source .

The guest ion, then, is when the person who author izesknowledge is not the source of the knowledge, what can be alegi t imate author iz ing agent of knowledge ( assuming that nou t te rance i s accep ted w i thou t au tho r i t y . ) Du Bo is (L986)observes , "A s ta temen t i s somet imes ca l l ed se l f -ev iden t i fi t i s cons ide red a bas ic o r founda t ion tene t o f a pa r t i cu la rcu l tu re . . . " Fo r i ns tance , he s ta tes , the speaker i n u t te r ing"Al l men are equal . . . " does not j -ndicate the evidencebecause any rat ional person wi l l reach the same conclusionby di rect ly examining the evidence him/hersel f . Under ly ingWes te rn cu l tu res , the re i s a fo l k be l i e f t ha t t ru th i sreached by examining accessib le evidence and reasoninglog ica l l y . I n the Japanese fo l k be l i e f , however , t ru th i s

144

reached by having consensus among all the members of agroup. fn glher words, what everyone in the group says isthe t ruth.- - Thus, i t is reasonable to propose that a groupcan funct ion as an author i ty-provid ing agent in the Japanesecul ture. In ut terances f ramed by no, the author i ty ofknowledge in question is given by the group but not by anypart icular indiv idual in the group though some indiv idual(s)in the group may be the source of knowledge. Since theauthority is given by the group, any member of the group canbe included in the group v iew. Thls is why he/she can st i l lbe part of the authority-providing group when the addresseeis not the source of the knowledge in quest ion.

One of the epistemological d isposi t ions encoded in anumber of languages has to do wi th the source ofinformation, namely whether the information comes from thespeaker o r f rom somewhere e l se (e .g . Cha fe and N icho ls (ed . )1986 ; Kamio L979) . I n the case o f Japanese , Kamio (L979)cla ims that one important d ist inct ion concerningepistemological d isposi t ion is whether or not the speakercan assume himsel f to have the informat ion in the speechsi tuat : -on. fn ot f rer words, the speaker t reats h imsel f as asource of informat ion i f helshe is in a posi t ion to havethat informat lon. For example, i f the speaker saw a volcanice rup t ion f i r s t -hand , th i s i n fo rmat ion i s h i s own , i . e . hecan be a source of informat ion. Suppose the speaker d id notsee the erupt ion f i rs t -hand but helshe is a geologist who isan expert on volcanic act iv i t ies or he/she l ives c lose tothe volcano, helshe is in the posi t ion to t reat th isinformat ion as his/her own. According to Kamio (L979), suchinformat ion is in the speakerrs terr i tory of j -nformat ion andis l inguist ical ly expressed by ei ther a bare verbal form(Kamio ' s te rm "ze to fo rm" ) o r no . On the o the r hand ,informat ion outs ide of the speaker 's terr i tory is indicatedby the quotat ive marker - t te, or by the hearsay markers -soo

or - rashi i . He gives the fo l lowing examples (KamioI 9 7 9 2 2 L 9 . ) z

(13 ) Ook ina iwa-ga m le ru - yo l -n da .' A

b i g r o c k c a n b e s e e n . '

(14 ) Ook ina iwa-ga m ie ru - t t e / - rash i i / - soo da .' I t

appears l i s sa id tha t a b ig rock can be seen . '

Examp le (13 ) ends e i the r w i th a ba re ve rba l o r a no .(14 ) has e l the r a quo ta t i ve o r a hearsay marke r . Kamio

L45

states that ut terances l ike ( 13 ) a lmost a lways report thespeaker 's own percept ion whereas ut terances l ike (14)represent a percept ion by someone other than the speaker.

The notion of territory of information concerns theIoca t ion o f the source o f i n fo rmat ion , i . e . whe the r i t i sins ide or outs ide the speaker 's terr i tory. In contrast , thenot ion of group vs. indiv idual author i ty for knowledgeconcerns the quest ion of how knowledge ( i .e. informat ion) isauthor ized, i .e. whether i t is author ized indiv idual ly orcommunal ly . F igures 5 and 6 show the l inguist ic markingsassociated wi th these not ions.

Figure 5: Terr i tory of informat ion

Iocat ion of informat ion l inguist ic markings

bare verbal formno

- rash i i (hearsay )-soo (hearsay )- t te (quo ta t i ve )

authority for knowledge

I inguist ic markings

bare verbal form

no

As we note in Figures 5 and 6, the crucia l d i f ferencebetween the two not lons is that whi le the not ion ofterr i tory of informat ion involves a spl i t between inclusionand exclusion of the speaker wi th respect to the locat ion ofinformat ion, the not ion of group and indiv idual author i t iesfor knowledge does not involve such a spl i t : the speaker isalways included in the author iz ing agent. Kamio (1979) iscorrect in that he c lassi f ies both bare verbal forms and noas l - inguist ic markings s ignal ing informat ion inside thespeaker ' s te r r i t o ry . H is c lass i f i ca t i on , however , i s no t

ins ide the speaker f sterr i tory

ou ts ide the speaker ' sterritory

Figure 6: Group vs. indlv idual

who authorizes theknowledge in guest ion

the speaker a lone

the speaker andh is /he r g roup jo in t l y

146

di f ferent iated enough to accommodate the dist inct ion betweenbare verbal forms and no.

Temitory of information and group and individualauthor i t ies for knowledge are both necessary categor ies inJapanese. Their markers co-occur in the combinat ions giveni n ( 1 , 5 ) .

( 1 5 ) - r a s h r i n oHEARSAY PART

-soo na noHEARSAY COP PART

- t te i u noQUOT say PART

* -soo reguires the copula na before no and - t terequires the main verb iu

' to say' before no.

The phenomenon presented in (15) would be di f f icul t toexplain wi th only the not ion of terr i tory of informat ion. I fbare verbal forms and no both indicate information in thespeaker 's terr i tory and -rashi i , -soo and - t te indicateinformat ion outs ide the speaker 's terr i tory as Kamioproposes, then the sequences given in (15) arecontradictions since the information would have to be bothin the speaker 's terr i tory and outs ide the speaker 'sterr i tory at the same t ime.

The sequenees in (15) of ten occur j -n conversat ion.Consider conversat ion ( fO; in which both - tashi-T and no areused in H I ' s u t te rance .

( 1 6 ) I H I a n d C H a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t H I r s p o s s i b l e v i s i t t ot h e U . S . l

HI : Yoshi , kondo iku toki wa renraku shi te,' G o o d ,

n e x t t i m e ( I ) 9 0 , ( I ) ' 1 1 c o n t a c t ( h e r ) a n d '

CH: Un renraku shi te,' Y e s ,

c o n t a c t ( h e r ) a n d , '

H I : A u y o o n i .' t r y

t o s e e ( h e r ) . '

Rainen wa haru ka rokugatsu'Next year, e i ther spr ing or

-- ) Nanka aru rashi i n da yo.'There

seems to be something

ka dotchi ka na.J u n e , ( I ) w o n d e r . '

( some con fe rence) . '

Here HI says "there seems to be something" meaning thatthere is sorne conference t re has to at tend in the U.S. Heframes th is proposi t ion wi th both -rashir and n(o) .Obviously, the informat ion that there is a conference in theU.S. comes f rom a th i rd party, perhaps f rom the company heworks for . HI t reats th is informat ion as i f i t were not inhj-s terr i tory of informat ion. This is probably because th isinformat ion is not certa in yet . we see in the same ut terancethat he mentions that the conference may be either in spri-ngor June. This indicates that the date of the conference isno t ce r ta in ye t . A t the same t ime , n (o ) i nd i ca tes tha t herepresents the v iew of h is company (or the organizat ionwhj-ch plans the conference). Thus, using rashi i and no, HIis represent ing informat ion of h is company which is notcerta in yet . With the not ion of group and indiv idualauthor i t ies for knowledge, in addj- t ion to terr i tory ofinformat ion, we can explain the forms given in ( 15 ) .

In sum, I have shown in th is sect ion that the not ion ofgroup vs. indiv idual author i ty is d ist inct f rom that ofterritory of information and that these two notions arenecessary to account for sequences such as -rashi i noment ioned above.

6, tVo and Various Contextual Meanings

Recal l the dj -scussion given in sect ion 3 c la iming thatthe use of an index creates a var iety of socia l contexts.Since socia l contexts indexed by a part icular I inguist icfea tu re o r pa r t i cu la r fea tu res a re genera l l y vas t , t h i s hascreated problems in understanding the indexes, inc luding thepart ic le no. In th is sect ion, I wi l l show that g iven thedirect meaning of no as that of the speaker speaking as amember of h is/her group, we wi l l be able to expla in thebroad indexicat scope of no. Belotr I wi l l d iscuss suchvar ious socia l contexts indirect ly evoked by the use of no.As shown in the data, in a number of cases the di rectindexical meaning of no evokes other contextual meanings.

148

The use of no helps members of a group set up a make_bel ieve s i tuat ion by estabr ishing what- the-shared givens areof such a s i tuat ion. consider tn5 torr"r i "g conversat ion. rn(17 ) the ch i rd Aya i s .p ray ing in the room i i t n toy bu i l d ingblocks. She steps on the two-btocks as i f they rr rere skis.Then her father asks if it i-s snowing in the room and thechi ld answers that she is in a garden.

F: Ayachan, oheya ni yuki ga

'Aya, is i t snowing a lot in the

r o o m ? ' ( i . e . ' A r e w e p r e t e n d i n g

that l-t is snowlng a lot in tie room?' )

( I7) Parents

F: - -> Yuki ga fut teru no ?' I s i t snow ing? '

F : n e e ,' A h , '

M: Ja, moo kur isumasu ga k lchaukash i ra .

'We l I , t hen ( I ) wonder l f

Chr l s tmas w i l l come soon . '

chird

A:UN?' W h a t ? '

A : Soo'R igh1 . t

A:Koko wa oniwa na no.' I t ' s a g a r d e n h e r e . I

The father 's use of no in h is quest ions seems toind ica te tha t he . i s cheek ing w l th the ch i rd to see i f t heyshare the same view concerning the make-bel ieve s i tuat ion.Then the chirdrs use of no s ignals that what she says is tobe accepted as a v iew hel i l by both her father and herserf .Since the pretended elements of the s i tuat ion (snowing andthe garden) do not- actuar ly exist here, the use of no, whichdirect ly indexes that the two peopre commonly share the v iew(hence bo th o f them au tho r i ze t t re -u t te rance) , f ac i r i t a tesset t ing up the make-bel ieve s i tuat ion. Tf no were not used

in conversat ion (L7), i t would not sound l ike a make-bel ievesituation, but rather l ike a dialogue concerning realwea the r i n a rea l p lace .

( s )r23

The part ic le no can alsod i s c u s s e d b y M c G I o i n ( L 9 B 3 ) .f rom l ine 123 to the end:

kashitageru?'Wou ld (you) Iend i t f o r a

a shor t wh i l e? r

K :

L24 Dakara inakattara tte

' S e e , ( I ) a m a s k i n g i ft h e y w e r e n ' t h o m e . '

125 Mama ga inai tok i dat tearu deshoo. Okaimono ni i t te.

'There are t imes Mother is not

home. Gone for shopping. '

lnvolve posi t ive pol i teness asConslder conversat ion (5) again

K : S o s h l t a r a J a a , J a a , j a a .' T h e n ,

w e l l , w e L l , w e l l . '

Un .' U h n . '

Sono mae nj-, yappariboku wa okaasan kaotoosan nl kiku.

'Before that , I would

ask Mother or Father.

K: Okaasan ka otoosanga inakat tara.

' I f e i ther Mother or

F a t h e r w a s n ' t h o m e , '

K : Sh i ta ra , O j i i chan n i{u .' T h e n , ( I ) ' d t e l l(my) g rand fa the r . '

- ->726 Iu no?

' W o u l d ( y o u ) t e l l h i m ? '

De Kazu- Hiro dat tara,Doo sun no?'And

Kazu- Hiro, what would( y o u ) d o ? '

So far the mother has not been able to obtain thedesired answer to her quest ion ( i .e. what would the chi ldrendo if there were nobody around whom they could ask what todo . ) , bu t i n l i nes L24 and L26 ( the 2nd occur rence o f no )the mother does not challenge the children anlrmore with abare verbal , but , instead, uses no. l r le not ice that th is useof no occurs af ter many unsuccessful at tempts to get thedesired answer f rom her chi ldren. Therefore, i t seems thatthe mother 's mot ivat ion for swi tching to no is to obtain thedesired answer by j -ncluding the addressee in the speaker 'sgroup af ter fa i l ing to obtain a response in a more di rectw a y ( i . e . b y m e a n s o f b a r e v e r b a l s ) . W e n o t i c e i nconversa t ion (5 ) tha t the mother ' s v iew and the ch i l d ren rsview of what to do when approached by a stranger aredi f ferent . Apparent ly , the mother expects the chi ldren todecide what to do on their own, whereas the chi ldren insiston asking others for advice. The use of bare verbars impr iesdi f ference in opin ion between the mother and the chi ldren.The mother 's second use of no in r ine 126 creates a contextin which both the mother and the children betong to the samegroup ( i . e . a g roup wh ich shares the same v iew) . Accord ingto Brown and Levinson (1978), a posi t ive pol i teness strategytreats the addressee as a member of the in-group. This canserve several purposes, such as redressing a potent ia lth rea t to one 's pos i t i ve face . In th i s case , the mother , byind ica t ing tha t she i s pa r t o f t he ch i l d ren ' s i n -g roup , i shoping that she wi l l get the chi ldren to say what they woutddo . Thus , i n l j - ne w i th B rown and Lev inson 's c la im, we cansay that no is used as a posi t ive pol i teness strategy toa t t a i n t h e s p e a k e r f s g o a l .

Conversat ion ( 18 ) g ives anin persuasion. Here the motherbut the chi ld does not want to.

( 18 ) MotherPan okawar i wa?'Ano the r p iece o f b read? '

example in whj-ch no is usedwants the chi ld to eat more

ch i l d

Moo ichimai dake.' Jus t

one more p lece . '

Dame yo.' N o t

Tar inai r^ ta yo.'Tha t ' s

no t enough .

Moo sukoshi .' A l i t t l e m o r e . '

Tabenasa i .' E a t . '

151

' T h a t r s O K . ' ( K d o e s

not want more bread. )

K : I i y o . ( ( l o u d e r ) )' T h a t ' s

O K . '

- - > K : I i n o .' T h a t ' s

O K . '

- - > K : I i n o . ( ( l o u d e r ) )' T h a t ' s

O K . I

K : W a k a t t a . ( ( a n g r i l y ) )' ( I ) u n d e r s t a n d . '

N o t e t h a t i n ( 1 8 ) , c h i l d K ' s s p e e c h e x h i b i t s ap rog ress ion f rom i i ' Tha t ' s

OK. ' t o i i no . F i r s t K s imp lymakes an assert ion wi th i i , then he proceeds to L i gocal l ing the motherrs at tent ion to what he is saying. Thepart ic le go is s imi lar to "you see" in Engl lsh and i t doesnot change the speaker 's epistemological d isposi t ion at a l ll i ke the pa r t i c le no does . The mother s t i l l i ns i s t s on K fseat ing more. Then he shj- f ts to i i no to inc lude his motherin h is point of v iew so that he can persuade her. This useof no is an instance of a posi t ive pol i teness strategy toge t the speaker ' s des i red goa l . (Here , however , t h i sstrategy fa i led for K and he did not get h is desired goal . )In both ( 5 ) and ( 18 ) no indexes that the addressee isincluded in the speaker 's group. This context is interpretedas a pos i t i ve po l i t eness s t ra tegy in these pa r t i cu la r cases .

As noted by Kuno ( 1973 ) , the part ic le no of ten appearsin explanat ion c lauses. By including the addressee in the

1 q ?

speaker 's group, the speakerrs explanat ion becomes moreconv inc ing to the addressee . Cons ide r (19 ) . I n (19 ) thechi ld wants "dorai furrkake" ( f ish- f lavored powder tospr inkle on r ice) . The mother expla ins why she did not puti t on his r ice using no

( 19 ) Mother chl ld

D:Ah, ah boku ni kakete.'Ah ,

ah pu t i t on m ine . '

Dorai furikake Dai chantara sukl ja nai kara

' (You) don ' t l i ke Dora i Fu r i kake ,

s o ( I ) p u t i t a w a y . '

In (20) the mother and chi ld A are playing a guessinggame as to what is the dessert for that evenlng.

(2O) Mother Ch i ld

A :Waka t ta .' ( I ) g o t i t . '

Sakuranbo da na.' ( I t )

l s c h e r r y . fSakuranbo Ja nai .' ( I t ) ' s

n o t c h e r r y . '

' The re a re no more cher r ies . '

No t i ce tha t i n (2O) the mother f s f i r s t u t te rance i s anegat ion of the chi ld 's guess and i t occurs wi th a bareverbal form. Her second ut terance, in contrast , is anexplanat lon as to why the dessert is not cherr ies. Here sheuses no. The mother 's mot lvat ion ln using no in her secondutterance seems to be to inc lude the chi ld in her point ofv iew to e l iminate conf l ic t of opin ion.

In this section we have seen that the present analysj-sof no subsumes the previous proposals concerning no ( thoseof posi t ive pol i teness and explanat ion) and also accountsfor the use of no in make-bel ieve s i tuat lons.

r53

7.1 Affect of No: No as a llarker of Harmony and SocialPorder

IVo can index affect of harmony between the speaker andthe addressee. McGIoin (1986) notes that no serves toestabl ish/maintain rapport wi th the addressee. In examiningmy conversational data, I f ind a number of instances of nothat are used to create affect of harmony between thespeaker and the addressee in conversat ion. This af fect is aconsequence of the fact that no can dj - rect ly index contextsin which the speaker and addressee form a group ( i .e. co-membership between the speaker and addressee). As discussedin sect ion 5, s ince the group author izes an ut terance, thespeaker 's use of no can convey that the addressee, who is amember of the group, is assumed to have the same viewpointas the speaker. The direct meaning of no helps to constituteother contextual meanings. On the level of af fect , th isdirect meaning of no can create harmony between the speakerand addressee(s ) . Fo r i ns tance , i n the fo l l ow ing re laxedfami ly conversat ion no is mainly used to encode the af fectof harmony between the speaker and addressees.

(2L) ITA ls ta lk ing about what he dld when he did notunders tand Eng l i sh du r ing h l s v i s i t t o the U .S . l

TA: Wakannakattara, toko toko J isho no toko made- - ) hash i r i n i i t t a no .

'When ( I ) d id no t unders tand , ( I ) ran towardd i c t i o n a r i e s . '

A l l : ( ( l a u g h ) )

CH: J isho kotchi e koi .'D l c t i ona r ies ,

come over he re . '

T A : E i - w a J i t e n t o w a - e i j i t e n t o . . .' An Engt ish-Japanese dict ionary and a Japanese-E n g l i s h d i c t i o n a r y . . . '

I n (21 ) TA i s repor t i ng h i s exper ience in the U .S . Herethe primary motivation of the use of no by TA seems to be tocreate harmony between the speaker and the addressees. TA'sexper ience that he ran to d ict ionar ies is h is own and notthat of the other conversat ion part ic ipants, but by using

1 5 4

Do, the speaker creates a group wi th the addressees. In sodoing, harmony is created among the inter locutors.

In fact , most of the uses of no in conversat ion indexinterpersonal harmony. In order to appreciate why no of tenindexes harmony among interlocutors we need to conslder thecul tural or ientat ion of the Japanese society. In theJapanese society, harmony is considered the most importantand desirable goal of communicat ion -- as opposed toassert ing one's indiv idual opin ion at the r isk ofcontent ion. Reischauer (L977:135) descr ibes how much harmonyls valued and content ion is avoided in the Japanese society:

The key Japanese value is harmony, which they seek toachieve by a subt le process of mutual understanding,atmost by i-ntuition, rather than by a sharp analysis ofcon f l i c t i ng v iews o r by c lea r cu t dec ls lon . . . .Consensus i s the 9oa1 . . . . To opera te the i r g roup sys temsuccessful ly , the Japanese have found i t advisable toavoid open confrontations. Varylng positions are notsharply out l ined and their d i f ferences analyzed andc la r i f i ed . Ins tead , each pa r t i c ipan t i n a d i scuss ionfeels h is way caut iously, only unfold ing his own v iewsas he sees how others react to them.

Considering that the use of no is embedded 1n thls typeof cul tural or ientat ion, l t makes sense that no occursfreguentty as a part of harmony-creating efforts in Japaneseconversat ion.

McGloln ( l -986) reports that no occurs in women's speechin higher f requencies than in men's speech. That no cancreate harmony between the interlocutgqs explains why no isof ten assoclated wi th women's speech.^- Women, as members ofthe socia l ly tess powerfu l sex, need more mutual support andcooperat ion than men. Thus, i t makes sense that women aremore l ike1y than men to create harmony wi th their addresseeusing no in their speech. (This is not to say that men donot use no to create harmony. )

When directly indexing the speaker as a spokesman ofsociety, no invokes the authority of society and avoidssharply confront ing speech. General ly accepted knowledge ofsocia l v iews can be used to persuade others wi thoutconfront lng them. This conforms to the Japanese cul tural

155

orientation of avoiding confrontation and creating harmonyamong the group members.

Simi lar uses of l inguist j -c features to convey socia lauthor i ty are found in other languages. For example, RuthBorke r (1980) repor t s a case in Karen La rsen 's s tudy (1978)on the use of standard Norwegian dia lect in the rural area.According to Larsen, the local d ia lect in th is area isassociated wi th int imacy whereas the standard dia lectconveys informat ion as representat ive of the publ ic v iew.Thus, use of the standard dia lect , as Borker points out(1980 ;30 ) , has the e f fec t o f " remov ing the u t te rance f romthe realm of personal comrnunication and giving it both theimport and impact of general ly aceepted knowledge. " This useof the Norwegian standard dia lect in the rural area c loselyresembles the use of the Japanese part ic le no as i t isdescr lbed in the present analysis.

This strategy of using no to exert author i ty wi thoutsharply cggfront ing is common in Japanese mothers ' speech toc h i l d r e n . * = E x a m p l e ( 2 2 ) i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t . I n ( 2 2 ) t h echi ld Yuu ( 12 months old) is pul l ing his toys of f the toyshel f when i t is a l ready his bedt ime.

(22 ) Mo the r--) Yuu chan, omocha dasanai no.' Y u u , ( W e ) w o n ' t p u l l o u t t h e t o y s . '

Moo nenne dakara." c a u s e i t ' s a l r e a d y b e d t i m e . '

N e , h a i .' R i g h t , y € s . '

'See , (we) won ' t pu l l t hem ou t any ,more . '

Ash i ta ne , ma ta ash i ta asoboo ne .'Tomor row, Ie t ' s p lay aga in tomor row. '

In (22) the mother uses no whi le tet t ing the chi ld notto puI I out the toys. Here the author i ty of no comes f romthe mother ' s rep resen t ing common soc ia l know ledge ( i . e . onedoes no t p lay w i th toys a t bed t i rne ) . The speaker t s use o f noconveys that the addressee is inc luded in th is v iew. In(22 ) , i nc lus ion o f the ch i l d as a ho lde r o f t he v iew tha t

1 5 6

nobody plays with toys at bedtime has the power to make thechi ld conform to th is sociaf norm. Thus, no is a powerfu ltool to persuade others by including them as a part of thespeaker ' s g roup . We a lso no t i ce j -n (22 ) tha t o the rI j -nguist ic features used by the mother emphasize the uni tyof the mother and the chi ld. These features include the l -stpe rson impera t i ve " l e t ' s " i n aso .boo

' I e t ' s p lay ' andfrequent use of the part ic le ne, a marker of something l iketag quest ions in Engl ish, which s ignals shar ing of af fect .The mother is not forcing the chj-td to stop playing with thetoys and yet the force of no wi th socia l power behind i t isintended to get the child to conform to the norm of societywithout separating him from the mother. The authorityderives from the social view and not from the individualwi l l of the mother. This analysis of no is consistent wi tht h e f i n d i n g s o f V o g e l ( 1 9 6 3 ) a n d H e s s e t a I . ( 1 9 8 0 )concerning Japanese chi ld rear ing pat terns. The use of nocan accompl ish two seemingly opposing tasks s imul taneously:creating harmony between the speaker and the addressee andgett ing the addressee to do what the speaker wants h im/herto do. Thus, no plays an important ro le in socia l iz ingchildren into the Japanese society. As r^re have seen, thesetwo seemingly opposing social meanings, harmony and socialpower, both indexed by no, fo l low f rom the di rect meaning ofno as a marker of group authority for an utterance.

7.2 Social Power of No and Foreigm Speakers of Japanese

Furthermore, the present analysis of no integratesNoda 's (L98L) observa t ion tha t non-na t i ve speakers o fJapanese are of ten discouraged (by Japanese) f rom using no.According to Noda, who assumes that no involves presupposedinformat ion, th ls is because Japanese assume that foreignersdo not share informat ion and expectat ions wi th Japanese.Natural ly , when a Japanese speaker represents common viewsand values of the Japanese society, foreigners in Japan arenot expected to share these common views and values.

7.3 Indexical Relat ions of the Part ic le No

To summarlze what has been discussed in th is paper, Iwi l l present in Figure 7 a schema of re lat ionships betweenthe di rect and indj- rect indexical meanings of no. Figure 6shows that the di rect indexing of epistemology helps

L57

const i tute several d i f ferent socia l contexts as i ts indirectmean ings .

F igu re 7 :

l i ngu is t i cresource

Indexical meanings of no

indirectmeanings

- Persuasion'1

/ make-bel leve. /z, / - /

T,posi t ive pol i teness) / / /

e p i s t e m o t o g i c a l ' t - -

no - d isposi t ion . . . - - - )explanat ion

(author i ty of the groupthat the speaker \ \ -r e p r e s e n t s ) \ \ - - ,

\ \ - s tomen 's sPeech\

\ t harmony

\ - socia l power

- - - ) cons t i t u t i ve re la t i on( re la t i on tha t cons t i t u tesother contextual meanings)

My intu i t ion is that future examinat ions of indexicalre lat ions such as those schemat ized in Figure 6 wi l l lead toa deeper understanding of socia l meanings.

8. Summary and Conclusion

As I s tated ear l ier , in analyzj -ng indexes, we face aprobfem of broad indexical scope. This is why there havebeen several d i f ferent analyses of the Japanese sentence-f i na l pa r t i c le no . Fo r examp le , some s tud ies c la im tha t nomarks presupposed or shared informat ion, others c la im thatno marks explanat ion c lauses, and st i l l o thers propose thatno concerns posi t ive pol i teness and women's language. Eachone of these analyses only accounts for a narrow range of

di rectmeaning

158

the uses of no. In th is paper, I have t r ied to overcome thebroad indexical scope problem. By posi t ing one meanings as adirect meaning I have shown that other meanings are evokedby th is d i rect meaning.

I have proposed that no ( the nominal form) is a markerof the speaker speaking as a member of a group of whichhelshe is a part . That is to say that the speaker isspeaking as a spokesman of the group. In contrast , a bareverbal ( the verb form) is a marker of the speaker speakingas an indiv idual . In speaking as a spokesman of a group, thespeaker ' s g roup inc ludes (o the r than h imse l f ) an addressee ,a th i rd party, or society.

Choice of no or a bare verbal form is re lated to thefolk epistemology of the Japanese society: psychologicalstates are general ly considered to be inaccessib le toothers. We have seen that psychological states are mostl ike1y to be expressed wi th bare verbals and accessib leknowledge such as commonly shared knowledge in society ismost l ikely to be expressed wi th no. This analysis of no cansubsume the presupposi t ional analysis (McGloin 1980; Noda19BL ) in that knowledge held as t rue Joint ly by the speakerand his/her group is of ten knowledge shared or presupposedby the group. In addi t ion, the present analysis of no canalso account for the cases in which such knowledge is notac tua l l y sha red .

As we have discussed above, in ut terances f ramed by no,the authorj-ty of the knowledge in question ls given by thegroup but not by any part icular indiv idual . Because of th is,any member of the group can be included in the groupviewpoint . Thus, a l though the addressee is not the source,he/she, as a member of the group, can st i l l be part of theauthor iz ing agent.

We have also seen that the two epistemologicald isposi t ions involv ing terr i tory of informat ion andauthor i ty for knowledge are dist inct . The crucia l d i f ferencebetween the two is that while the former concerns whetherthe evidence l ies wi th the speaker or wi th someone e1se, thelat ter concerns whether the speaker holds the knowledge inquest ion to be t rue as an indj-v idual or as a group. I t isnot enough to c lassi fy bare verbals and no as markers ofi n fo rmat ion ins ide the speaker ' s te r r i t o ry wh i le c lass i f y ingquotat ive and hearsay mcrphology as markers of informat ionouts ide the speaker 's terr i tory, for there are cases inwhich ei ther quotat ive or hearsay morphology appears wi th

159

no. I have shown that the present analysis can handle thesec a s e s .

AIso, the present analysis of no can account for avar iety of contextual meanings indexed by no. Di f ferentcontextual meanings such as those of make-bel ievesi tuat ions, posi t ive pol i teness, persuasion, explanat ione tc . f o l l ow f rom the d i rec t mean ing o f no , i . e . t hespeaker fs i nc lus ion o f the addressee in the speaker ' s g roup .This direct meaning of no can also index harmony between thespeaker and the addressee. A number of instances of no inJapanese conversat ion have th is character is t ic because theJapanese cul ture highly values interpersonal harmony.Furthermore, because no indexes harmony, i t is more of tenused by women, who are socia l ly less powerfu l than men.

FinaI Iy, because no can index the speaker as aspokesman of the society, i t can exert socia l power. Thus,thre use of no can accompl ish two seemingly opposing taskssimul taneously: i t creates harmony between the speaker andthe addressee and i t gets the addressee to do what thespeaker wants h im/her to do. The use of no plays animportant ro le in socia l iz ing chi ldren into the Japanesesoc ie ty .

NOTES

1. Ochs ( i n p ress ) a l so po in ts ou t tha t o f ten a se t o findexes narrows the scope. For example, register can beident i f ied by a certa in set of l inguist ic forms that s ignalsome contexts. For instance, co-occurrence of h igh pi tch anddelet ion of the copula may index baby ta lk or foreignert a 1 k .

2. A proposi t ion can also be expressed in the -masu form(d iscussed be low) . Fo r examp le , (1 ) can be exp ressed w i th a-masu fo rm as in ( i ) :

( 1 ) J o h n g a e i g a o m i m a s u .John SUB movie OBJ see' J o h n

s e e s m o v i e s . '

3. There are other occurrences of no in Japanese wi th whichI wi l l not be concerned in th is paper. These include theuses of no to mark geni t ive phrases, to create nouns f romad jec t i ves (c f . t he Eng l i sh b ig one) , and to subord ina te

160

clauses. I wi l l not i ta l j -c j -ze such occurrences of no in myexamp les .

4 . Abbrev ia t i ons : SUB=sub jec t i OBJ=ob jec t ; PART=par t i c leToP=top ic ; COP=copu Ia .

5. In my data, occurrences of the n(o) desu form are veryI imi ted. Masu/desu forms of verb lnf lect ions basical ty markinterpersonal d istance. Hence, in my recordl-ngs of casualfamily conversation, aasu,/desu forms occur veryinfrequent ly; for example, in one hour of adul t conversat ionamong fanity members, onty 38 of the total utterances aremasu/desu forms. The occurrence of the n(o) desu form iseven more l imi ted. I t occurs in only 0.7* of the tota lut terances in one hour of adul t fami ly conversat ion. Sincethe occurrences of masu/desu forms are infrequent in mydata, I wi I I not d iscuss them in th is paper.

6 . Kuno (1973) c la ims tha t no c lauses a re used fo rexplanat ions. Al though th is proposal expla ins some instancesof no, i t does not account for a wide range of no c lausessince there are no c lauses whlch are not explanat ions.

In an attempt to cover a broader range of cases withDo, some tinguists have proposed that no is a marker of somepresupposed or shared informat ion in context (Kuroda L973,M izu tan i & M izu tanL L977 ; Mcc lo in 198O; Noda 1981 ; Kun ih i ro1984) . Fo r examp le , Noda ( l -981) c la ims tha t no i s used inut terances ei ther when the speaker presupposes that asi tuat ion exists and that the addressee is (or can become)fami l iar wi th that s i tuat ion, or when the speakerpresupposes that the connection between the proposition andthe referent s i tuat ion is obvious to the addressee. So forNoda, the presupposi t ion is the speakerrs presupposi t iona b o u t t h e h e a r e r ' s k n o w l e d g e . M c G I o i n ( 1 9 8 0 : 1 4 4 ) s t a t e s , " i t[no] marks a certa in informat ion as known or at leastassumed to be known ei ther to a speaker or a l is tener orboth. " Thus, for McGloin informat ion can be known to thespeaker or to the addressee or to both. In her formulat ion,however, i t is not c lear whether she means that no shouldmark aL1 cases of known informat ion or not . I f she meansthat not a l l cases of known informat ion are marked wi th no,then she has to expla in when known informat ion receives noand when i t does no t . A l though bo th Noda 's and McGlo in fsstatements apparent ly are intended to say that no marks somenot ion of "sharedness" or knowLedge in the context , they donot exact ly speci fy the k ind of "sharedness" or knowledgethat no seems to s ignal .

161

E lsewhere , McGto in (1986) repor t s tha t no i s morefrequent ly used by women than men. She explains that thefeminin i ty of no ar ises f rom the rapport between the speakerand the addressee which is created by the shared knowledgethat no s ignals. However, there are cases in which no marksinformat ion that is not shared.

In an at tempt to account for these, McGloin ( 1983 )c la ims that the speaker, by present ing informat ion that thespeaker has as i f i t were shared by the addressee, t r ies tocreate a sense of rapport wi th the addressee. Thus, McGloin(1983 :130) c la ims tha t no i s a dev ice to exp ress "pos i t i vep o l i t e n e s s " ( B r o w n a n d L e v i n s o n ' s ( 1 9 7 8 ) t e r m ) . I n t h e s a m epaper, however, McGloin a lso c i tes an example in which theuse of no creates impol i teness. The f indings of McGloin(1983) tha t the pa r t i c le no has to do w i th "po l i t eness" bu tthat i t can mark ei ther pol i te or impol i te s i tuat ionssuggests that no does not d i rect ty index pol i teness. Rather,the "pol i teness" phenomenon associated wi th no is apparent lyan indirect contextual meaning constituted by some othermore di rect meaning.

Aok i (L986) c la ims tha t no i s a marke r o f ev iden t ia l i t yi n d i c a t i n g " f a c t " . H e s t a t e s ( 1 9 8 6 : 2 3 O ) , " n o o r n i s amarker which converts a statement for which ordinar i ly nodirect knowledge is possib le into a statement which isa s s e r t e d a s a f a c t . " H e g i v e s e x a m p l e s s u c h a s ( i ) a n d ( i i )t o i l l us t ra te h i s p roposa l .

( i ) ( A o k i ' s ( 2 7 ) )* Kare wa atui

he TOP hot' H e

i s h o t . '

( i i ) ( A o k i ' s ( 2 8 ) )Kare wa atui no dahe TOP hot PART be

' ( I k n o w t h a t ) h e i s h o t . ( I t i s a f a c t t h a t ) h e i s

ho t . I

According to Aoki , in Japanese sensat ions such as hot , cold,or lonely are exper ienced only by the speaker and cannot bedirect ly exper ienced by a th i rd person. Therefore, when suchsensa t ions a re exper ienced by a th i rd pe rson as in ( i ) , t hesen tence becomes ungrammat i ca l . I n con t ras t , ( i i ) i s

r62

grammatical because no converts the meaning ofinto sometkr ing l ike " I know that he is hot" orthat he is hot . " th is cfa im, however, accountscerta in uses of no. In examining the data, wecases in which no marks accessib le knowledge.

sentenceis a fac t

for onlyof ten f ind

Fur the rmore , Aok i s ta tes ( l -9862229) , "Semant i ca l I y i t[no] removes the statement f rom the realm of a part lcularexper ience and makes i t in to a t imeless object . The conceptthereby becomes nonspeci f ic and detached. " I f th is c la im ist rue, we would expect to f ind infrequent use of no in famityconversat ions especia l ly involv ing chi ldren, for suchconversat ions typical ly deal wi th part icular exper ienceshere and now. In contrast, I have found quite frequent useof no in my data from family conversations. Also frequentuse of no by both mothers and children are reported in thel i terature on Japanese chi ld language acquisLt ion (YoshidaL977 ; Yamada 1980 i C lancy 1985) . Thus , the p roposa l tha t noindicates " fact" does not speci fy exact ly what the meaningof no is . The c la im that no is a marker of evident iat i tymade by Aok i (1986) and Kamio (L979) , however , i s re levan tand insight fu l . I wi l l have more to say about th is idea insec t ion 5 .

7. There are other nominal forms that funct ion as sentence-f inal part ic les. These include utake, mono and koto. However,d iscussion of these part i -c les is beyond the scope of th ispaper .

B . Besn ie r ( i n p ress ) c la lms tha t i -n repor ted speech , wh i leat some level the source is not the speaker but rather thosequoted, at other levels, in part lcular , at the af fect level ,t h e s p e a k e r ' s " v o i c e " ( B a k t i n ' s t e r m ) c a r r i e s t h e s p e a k e r ' sa f f e c t .

9. As Aoki d iscusses, somet imes no occurs wi th an expressiono f one 's psycho log ica l s ta te . Such usages , as po in ted ou t byKuroda (1973) , a re o f ten exp lo i ted in non- f i r s t pe rsonstor ies. In narrat ing a non-f i rs t person story, the narratoris supposedly able to see the characters ' psychologicalstates. The use of no in such a context indexes that boththe narrator and the character have access to thecharac te r ' s psycho fog ica l s ta te i n ques t ion .

10. There are other instances of no which index commonknowledge between the speaker and the addressee, the speakerand a th i rd party, etc. However, because i t is easier todetermine instances of no indexing common knowledge in

the" r t

163

soc ie ty , I have used on ly the fa t te r cases o f no fo rf requency count ing.

11 . Fo l l ow ing Cha fe ( 1986 ) , I w i l l use the te rm"ev iden t ia t i t y " to re fe r to any l i ngu is t i c exp ress ion o fat t i tude towards t ruth and knowledge.

L2. The l i terature on the Japanese cul ture points out thatthere are no universal pr incip les of t ruth in the Japanesecul ture. Therefore, t ruth is re lat ive to the context(e .g .Chr i s topher 1983) and dec is ions a re made no t by somepr inc ip les bu t by the consensus o f the g roup (Voge l L979) .

13 . No da o r n da , though , i s no t assoc ia ted w i th women 'sspeech . S ince da ( the p la in fo rm o f the copu la ) i n tens i f i esan ut terance, i t no longer sounds sof t . ( "Sounding sof t" isa feminine character is t ic in the Japanese society. )

1-4. Clancy (personal communj-cat ion) a lso notes that in herdata of mother-chi ld conversat ions, t lo f requent ly occurswhen the mother, instead of confront ing the chi ld, urges thechi ld to conform to a norm of the society.

164

REFERENCES

Al fonso , A . (1966) Japanese language pa t te rns . Tokyo : Soph iaUnivers i ty .

Andersen , E . (1977 ) Learn ing how to speak w i th s t y le .Unpub l i shed Ph .D . d i sse r ta t i on . S tan fo rd Un ive rs i t y .

Aok i , H . (1986) Ev iden t ia l s i n Japanese . In W. Cha fe &J .N icho ls (eds . ) , Ev iden t ia l i t y : t he l i ngu is t i c cod iof epistemology. Norwood: Ablex.

B a k h t i n , M . ( 1 9 3 5 / 1 9 8 0 ) M . H o l o g u i s t ( e d . ) , T h e d i a l o g i cimaginat ion. Aust in Texas and London: Univers i ty ofTexas Press .

Ba tes , E . & MacWhinney B . (1982) Func t iona l approaches tog rammar . In E . Wanner & , L . G le i tman (eds . ) , Languageacquis i t ion: the state of ar t . Cambridge: CambridgeUn ive rs i t y P ress .

Ba teson G. (L972) S teps to an eco togy o f m ind . New York :Ba l lan t ine Books .

Besn ie r , N . ( i n P ress ) Repor ted speech and a f fec t onN u k u l a e t a e . I n J . I r v i n e a n d J . H i I I ( e d s . ) ,Responsibi l i ty and evidence in oral d iscourse.Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty .

B ibe r , D . (1986) Spoken and wr i t t en tex tua t d imens ions inEng l i sh . Language 62 : 384-414 .

B i b e r , D . & F i n e g a n , E . ( T o a p p e a r ) . A d v e r b i a l s a s m a r k e r so f s tances : A mu l t i va r ia te approach . D iscourseprocesses .

Borke r , R . (1980) An th ropo logy : soc ia l and cu l tu ra lpe rspec t i ves . In S . McConne l l -G ine t , R . Borke r & N .Furman (eds . ) , Women and language in l i t e ra tu re andsoc ie ty . New York : P raeger .

B rown, P . & Lev inson S . (L978 ) Un ive rsa ls i n l anguageusage :po l i t eness phenomena . In E . Goody (ed . ) ,Ques t ions and po l i t eness : s t ra teg ies i n soc ia linteract ion. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty Press.

C h a f e , W . & N i c h o l s , J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) E v i d e n t i a l i t y : t h e l i n g u i s t i ccodinq of epistemoloqv. Norwood: Ab1ex.

C h r i s t o p h e r , R . ( 1 9 8 3 ) T h e J a anese mind. New York:Ba l lan t ine Books .

C l a n c y , P . ( l - 9 8 6 ) T h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f J a p a n e s e . I n D . I .S lob in (ed . ) , The c ross - I i ngu is t i c s tudy o f l anguageacqu is i t i on . H i l l sda le , New Je rsey : E r lbaum.

D u B o i s , J . W . ( 1 9 8 6 ) S e I f e v i d e n c e a n d r i t u a l s p e e c h . I n W .C h a f e , & J . N i c h o l s ( e d s . ) , E v i d e n t l a l i t y : t h el inquist ic codincr of epistemoloqv. Norwood: Ablex.

Ferguson , C . A . (7977 ) Baby ta l k as a s imp l i f i ed reg is te r .I n C . E . S n o w & C . A . F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t ochi ldren. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty Press.

Ferguson , C .A . (1983) Spor ts announcer ta l k : syn tac t i caspects of register var iat ion. Language in societyL 2 : 1 5 3 - L 7 2 .

G i v 6 n , T . ( L 9 8 4 ) S ntax: a funct ional- tvDol i c a lint roduct ion 1 . Amste rdam: Ben jamins .

Go f fman , E . (L974) F rame ana lys j - s : an essay on theorganizat ion of exper ience. New York: Harper & Row.

Gumperz J . J . (1982) D iscourse s t ra teg ies . Cambr idge :Cambridge Univers i - ty Press.

H e s s , R . D . , K a s h i g a w a , K . , A z u m a , H . , P r i c e , G . , a n dD ickson , P . W. (1960) Ma te rna l expec ta t i ons fo r mas te ryof developmental tasks in Japan and the Uni ted States.In te rna t iona l j ou rna l o f psycho logy . 15 : 259-7 I .

Hopper , P . & Thopmson , S . A . ( l -984) The d i scourse bas is fo rlexj -cal categor ies in universal grammar. Language6 0 z 7 0 3 - 5 2 -

H y m e s , D . ( L 9 7 4 ) F o u n d a t i o n s i n s o c i o l iCambr idge Un ive rs i t y P ress .

u i s t i cs . Cambr idge :

I r v i n e , J . a n d H i l l , J . ( I n p r e s s ) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n devidence in oral d iscourse. Cambridge: CambridgeUffi

L66

Jakobson , R . (1960) Conc lud ing s ta temen t : L ingu is t i cs andp e t i c s . I n T . S e b e o k ( e d . ) , S t y 1 e i n l a n g u a g e .Cambr idge , Mass : MIT Press .

Kamio , A . (L979 ) On the no t ion o f speaker ' s te r r i t o ry o finformat ion: A funct ional analysis of certa in sentencef ina ] fo rms in Japanese . In G . Bede I I , E . Kobayash i &M . M u r a k i ( e d s . ) , E x p l o r a t i o n s i n l i n g u i s t i c s : p a p e r sin honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo: Kai takusha.

Kochman, T . (1981) B lack and wh i te s t y les i n con f l i c t .Chicago: Univers i ty of Chicago Press.

Kun ih i ro , T .on theronshuu

(1984) "No da" no ig i so oboegak i (A memorandummeaning of " lVo da" ) . Tokyo daigaku gengogaku

(Tokyo Un ive rs i t y L ingu is t i c Papers ) .

Kuno , S . (1973) The s t ruc tu re o f the JaCambr idge : MIT Press .

Kuroda , S -Y . (L973) Where ep is temo logy , style and grammarIn S . R . Anderson &fo r Mor r i s Ha l le . New

meet: a case study f rom Japanese.P . K i p a r s k y ( e d s . ) , A f e s t s c h r i f tYork: Hol t , Rinehart and Winston.

La rsen , K . (L978) Ro le -p lay ing and the rea l t h ing :socia l izat ion and standard speech in Norway. Paperpresented at the Ninth World Congress of Socio logists,Uppsala, Sweden.

Lee , H . S . (1985) Consc ious ly known bu t unass im i la tedinformat ion: a pragmat ic analysis of the epistemicmodal suf f ix -kun in Korean. Paper presented at thef i rst Pacl f ic L inguist ic Conference at Univers i ty ofOregon.

Lyons , J . (1968) . I n t roduc t ion to theore t i ca l f i u i s t i c s .\ L r v v t .

Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty Press.

L y o n s , J . ( L 9 7 7 ) . S e m a n t i c s , V o l . 1 & 2 . C a m b r i d g e :Cambridge Univers i ty Press.

McGlo in , N . H . (1980) Some observa t ions concern ing no desuexpression. Journal of the associat ion of teachers of. lapanese . Vo

L67

McGlo in , N . H . (1983) Some po l i t eness s t ra teg les i nJapanese . Papers i n l i ngu is t i cszL2T-45 . Edmonton ,Canada.

McGlo in , N . H . ( l -986) . Femin ine wa and no : why do women usethem? Journal of the associat ion of teachers ofJ a p a n e s e . V o l . 2 0 . L . 8 2 7 - 2 7 .

M izu tan i , O . & M izu tan i ,N . (L977 ) N ihongo no tes 1 . ( Japaneselanguage no tes L ) Tokyo . : The Japan T imes .

Mor r i s , C . W. (L946) S ign i f i ca t i on and s ign j - f i cance .Cambr idge , Mass : MIT Press .

Noda , M. (1981- ) An ana lys i s o f t he Japanese ex tendedpredicate:a pragmat ic approach to the system andpedagog ica l imp l i ca t i ons . Unpub l i shed mas te r ' s thes is .Corne1I Univers i ty .

Ochs, E. (L987 ) Indexing gender. Paper presented at Wenner-G lenn Con fe rence on

'Gender h ie ra rchy f . M iJas , Spa in .

Ochs , E . ( i n p ress ) Index ica l i t y and soc ia l i za t i on . In R .H e r d t , R . S h w e d e r & J . S t i g i e r ( e d s . ) , C u l t u r e a n dhuman development. Canbr idge: Cambridge Univers i tyP r e s s .

P e i r c e , C . ( 1 9 3 1 - 5 8 ) C o l l e c t e d p a p e r s , V o I s . 1 - 8 . C .Har tshorne & P . We iss (eds . ) , Cambr idge , Mass : Harva rdUnivers i ty Press.

Re ischauer , E . O . (L977 ) The Japanese . Cambr idge : Harva rdUnivers i ty Press.

Ross , J . R . (L972) The ca tegory squ ish : ends ta t i onhauptwort . In Papers f rom the eighth regional meet ingo f the Ch icago L ingu is t i c Soc ie ty , 316-28 .Ch icago .

S i l ve rs te in , M . (1976) Sh i f te rs , I i ngu is t i c ca tegor ies andc u l t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n . I n K . B a s s o & H . S e t b y ( e d s . ) ,Meaning in anthropology. Albuqurerque: Univers i ty ofNew Mexico.

S lob in , D . & Aksu , A . A . (L982) Tense , aspec t , and moda t i t yin the use of the Turkish evident ia ls. In P. Hopper(ed . ) , Tense aspec t : be tween semant i cs and p ragmat i cs .Amste rdam: Ben jamins .

168

V o g e l , E . ( 1 9 6 3 ) J a p a n t s n e w m i d d l e c l a s s : T h e s a l a r y m a nand his faml ly in a Tokyo suburb. Berkeley: Univers i ty

Vogel , E. (L979 ) Japan as number one. Cambridge: HarvardUnivers i ty Press.

Vo los inov . V .N . IBakh t in ] . (L929 /L978) . Repor ted speech . InY . L . M a t e j k a & K . P o m o r s k a . ( e d s . ) , R e a d i n g s i nRussian poet ics: formal is t and structural is t v iews.Michigan Slavic Contr ibut ion Ser ies, 8. Ann Arbor, MI:Michigan Slavic Publ icat ions.

Yamada, A. (L98O) The development of s! 'ntact j -c devices forcommunicat ion in the ear ly stages of the acquis i t ion of

Univers i ty of Hawai i .

Yoshida, K. (L977 ) The acquis i t ion of quest ion and requestforms in a Japanese chl ld. Paper presented at theSecond Annual Boston Univers i ty Language Development.