P r a g m a t i c s4 : I . l - 2 9
International Prasmatics Association
DISCOURSEANALYSISOF THE
JAPANESEPARTICLE S,4
Todd Squires
l. Introduction
With the need to know more about how each participant in a conversational
framework achieveshis/hergoalsthrough the interactionwith other participantsin
the conversation,the studyof the mechanismsthat facilitatethe flow of conversation
becomesever more important. The way a conversationdevelopsis a continual
negotiationof eachparticipant'sgoalswith thoseof the other participant(s).In this
paper I will examinehow the speakersuse the particlessa and ne to achievea
desiredeffect. The Japaneseparticle sa effectsa personalview on the intormation
conveyed in the utterance. This use of sa contrastswith the use of ne which
speakersuse to create an empathic common ground with the hearer regardlessof
whether or not the information containedin the utterance is exclusivelvheld bv
either participant.
Japanesegrammarshave traditionallyreferred to sa, ne and other particles
aseither sentence-finalparticles(syuu4rosi)or interjectionalparticles(kantooryosi).
Research on these particles up until the last decade has focused primarily on
syntacticand semanticparameterswith little regardto how the particlesare actually
used in a true conversationalexchange (Konoshima 1966; Hashimoto 1969;
Matsushima1969;Martin I975). However,the focusin recentresearchis concerned
with how these particlesare actuallyused (lshikawa 1988;Cook 1990;McGloin
1990;Suzuki 1990).In my analysisI will focuson the utterance-internalusageof the
particlessa and ne in natural conversationalsettings.The utterance-internalusage
of the particle sa has not be examinedin great detail by previousresearch First,
I will outline the questionswhich I addressin my analysis.Second,I will give a brief
overviewof the previousresearchthat proved to be helpful in formulating my own
about the useof sa and ne in the actualconversational
hypotheses
data.Third, I will
presenta synthesis
of the previousresearchoutlinedin the secondsection.Finally,
I will provide extensivean analysisof the data collectedtbr this study.
2. Areasof inquiry
In the courseof my studyseveralbasicquestionsaroseabout how to approachan
analysisof the particle sa.First, I addressedthe questionof whether my goal should
be the definition of the inherent meaning of sa, as in previous studies, or a
descriptionof how sa is used in context. For the sake of clarity, I use the term
"usage"here not with the traditionalimplicationof "meaning"as in earlierresearch,
2
TbddSquires
but rather to refer to the kinds of work that the particlesdo and the situationsin
which they occur. In the earlier researchon particles,linguiststried to pinpoint
exactmeaningswhich they claimedwere inherentin sentence-final
and interjectional
particles. I argue that these particles as such have no "meaning" outside of the
context in which they are used,and thereforeany attempt to assignthem some type
of meaning in and of themselvesruns counter-intuitive.
For this reason I have
divorced the concept of "meaning"from my analysisand instead focus upon the
conceptof "usage."
Next, I addressedthe questionof in what types of situationsthe particle sa
was used. Areas identified in my analysiswere situationsinvolving information
clarification,rebuttal and correction,interruptionsand attention requests,the
expressionof opinions,and narrationof personalexperiences.
Detailedinvestigation
of the datasuggested
an additionalneedto addressthe
question of how the use of sa contrastswith the use of ne as well as with the
absenceof particles.This was necessarybecausene and sa occur in similar contexts
with the same types of information.(1) and (2), givenbelow,are examplesin which
ne and sa, respectivelyare usedwith informationheld exclusivelyby the speakerin
a clarification context.
In example (1), N and A are talking about placesat which to have a party
with their friends. A suggestsa certain restaurant, howeverN has heard that the
restaurantis undergoingsome redecorationat the presenttime, and for this reason
suggeststhat the prices at the restauranthave probably risen.
The information preceding each use of ne in example (1) above is
information that is held exclusivelyby the speaker.Speakersalso often use the
particle sa with this type of information in similar contextsof rebuttal and personal
expenence.^
(1)
lN:
2A:
3N:
4Az
5N:
6A:
t
Kinoo ka ototoi kara ka
Un.
Kaisoo na n datte.
A soo na no?
Un.
De mo ne, asoko no okonomiyaki2tte, betu ni, hutuu da yo?
anmari. De ne, kekko minna ga, soo iu zya
Not". on
(0.0)
?
.
( )
the transcription method uscd in this study.
pausesor gaps in what is very approximately tenths of seconds
not a punctuation mark, but a rising intonation contour
not a punctuation mark, but sentence-final,falling intonation contour
u n c c r t a i n p a s s a g eo
sf transcript
non-linguistic, sounds like laughrer
{ }
a slash indicating the beginning and end of the part of the current utterance which
I I
is overlapped by that transcribed below
I use the New Official style of Japaneseromanization for the transcriptions. Within the
English text I use the Hepburn systemof romanization. In the transcriptions as well as in the text
I will use A through M for female speakcrs and N through Z for male speakers.
2
Okonomiyaki is a type of Japanesefood.
A discourse analysis of the Japanese par-ticle Sa
3
7N:
8A:
N.
Da kara, takaku nattyatte ne.
1N:
2A:
3N:
4A:
5N:
64:
Sinceyesterdayor the day before yesterday.
Uh huh.
They say that they've been reclecoratins
Oh, is that so?
Uh huh.
But ne, the okonomiyaki2there isn't anything special,you
know.
very much. And ne, everyonesaysthat, don't trrei quite a bit.
Uh h u h .
So, it's gotten expensiveand ne.
7N:
8A:
-Example(2) illustrateshow sa is usedin rebuttalcontextssimilar to that in
example(1) where A used ne. In (2), N and A are talking
about an upcoming
marathonthat is going to be held. N is trying to persuade
A1o join the marathon.
(2)
lN:
2Az
3N:
4A:
Kamon, kamon {laugh} isyoo ni ikimasen ka?
Uun, ikitai na, de mo sa, hutu-ka no asa ni kaette kuru no
tte
tyotto sore muboo desyo.
De mo sa , nagai yq, kekko datte sa
Un.
1 N : Come on, come on {laugh} Won't you come along?
2A: Yeah,I want to go [na],but sa,it's a bit recklesstJcome
back on the
3N:
4A:
morning of the second,isn't it?
But sa, it's long, they say quite a bit, but sa.
uh.
A expresses
her reservationaboutgoingto the marathonin ZA.In return N
mentionsthat there may be a problem sinie tlie marathonis rather
long. N usessa
with kekko datte "quite a bit they say"in 3N, i.e. with information
that he holds
exclusivelyand he usessa with theseutterances.In both examples
(1) and (2) the
speakersuse sa to rebut or correct their hearer by giving'infbimation
that is
exclusively
held by the speaker.This similarityin usageis a point that I will
examine
in detail in my analysisof aclditionalconversationaltatabelow.
In addition to the above usagesof the particles sa and
ne, there were
rebuttal or correction contexts,as in (:;, where no particle,
that is, neither sa nor
ne' were used. In example(3), there is a misundeistanding
betweenH and S. S
offers to give her kerosene stove to S since she is going
to move back to her
parents'home before she gets marriecl. S howeverthlnkslhat
she is moving to a
new apartment and is therefore confusedabout why H
has offered to givi her
kerosenestoveto him sincehe thinks H will need it.
Tbdd Squires
(3)
lH:
25:
Da kara, Ken ni yuzutteageyooka tte itta n zy^n.
Hikkosutte, atarasiitoko ni hikkosuyoo ni natteno da to.
3H:
Uun, datte rainen ni wa yome ni iku no ni sonna ni nan-do mo
hikkosi suru hodo okane nai no.
1H:
25:
So, isn't it that I said I'd give it to Ken (you).
When you said you were moving, I thought you meant to a new
apartment.
Mmm, hey even though I'm getting married next year, I don't have
enough money to move that constantly.
3H:
In 3H, H clarifies for S the reasonwhy she is able to give the kerosene
stove to him. This context is similar to examples(1) and (2) becauseH, expresses
her personal information in the course of rebutting or correcting the hearer.
However, she usesno particle, i.e. neither sa nor ne with this information.
My final area of concernrelatesto what factorsaffect the use of sa, ne, and
the lack of theseparticle in contextswhere they are usedwith typesof information
similar to that illustrated above, that is in contextsof rebuttal and correction. As
I will demonstrate,these differenceshave to do with linguistic factors such as
speaker'sstrategies,i.e. how the speakerwisheshis/herutteranceto appear to the
hearer.
3. Previous research
In this section I will briefly summarizesome of the previousresearchthat relates
to my analysisof the usageand functionsof the particlessa and ne in Japanese
conversations.In particular I will focus on four areasof researchinterest,namely,
1) previous analysesof the sa and ne particlesin traditional and current research
(Konoshima 1966;Hashimoto 1969;Matsumura 7975;Martin 7975;Ishikawa 1988;
Cook 7990;McGloin 1990;Suzuki 1990),2) power and "powerful"and "powerless"
speechstyles(Brown and Gilman 1969;O'Barr and Atkins 1980;Hengeveld 1984;
Wetzel 1990),3) the theory of territory of information (Kamio 1979,I99l), and 4)
conversationaldevicesand speaker'sstrategies(Tannen 1984).
3.1. Previousanalysesof sa and ne
3.1.1.Analysesof sa
In both the traditional and recent researchon particles, sa is characterizedas
"imposing" (Suzuki 1990: 1), "ego-assertive"
(Martin I975: 918), and "insisting"
(McGloin 1990:26). These analysesmake the generalclaim that the particle sa is
basicallya "powerful" particle and becauseof that underlyingpowerful meaning sa
is used by speakerswhen they want to be assertive.Researchon particleshas not
been extensive to date, but the usual approach is to make broad and general
A discourse analysis of the Jopanese particle Sa
5
statementsconcerningtheir meaningand their generalsyntacticusesrather than to
analyzeactual usage in context.
particlesa
Martin (1975:918)suggests
that the origin of the sentence-final
is the deictic ga/pq.Konoshima (1966: 4I2) drawsa semanticconnectionbetween
the particle zo and the particle sa. He observesthat the modern use of sa in
phrase-finalposition is similar to the classicaluse of zo, which is only used in
sentence-finalpositionin modern Japanese.However,at the sametime, Konoshima
admitsthat it is impossibleto constructa hypotheticalevolutionof the deicticuse
of sa in the classicallanguageto its modernusagewhich is evidencedas appearing
in the latter part of the Edo period.
Suzuki (1990) investigatedthe usageof sa, ne, and other particlesin her
gossipdiscourse.
conversational
analysisof Japanese
Her analysisrepresentsa major
step towards understandinghow particles are used by the speaker in a
conversational
context.She concludesthat sa hasthree usesin gossipdiscourse:1)
to keep the attention of the hearer,2) to criticizethe hearer,and 3) to influencethe
hearerwith opinions.
of Suzuki,howeverI disagree
My analysissupportsthe generalconclusions
with her hypothesisthat sa is an 'insisting'particleand that utteranceswith sa are
assertive.
As I will demonstrate,opinionsutteredwith sa are much lighter in tone
than are opinionsthat are utteredwith ne.
3.1.2.Analysesof ne
In contrastto the limited researchwhich has been conductedon the particle sa
there has been an extensivebody of linguisticwork on the functionsand usageof
the particlene. Previousanalyseshaveshownthat ne expresses
rapport betweenthe
speaker and the hearer (McGloin 1990: 42; Ishikawa 1988: 32) and invites
confirmationof the hearer (Ishikawa1988:32). Cook (1990)demonstratesthat ne
is a tool for cooperation between participantsin Japaneseconversations.
Specifically,fle is used to negotiate cooperation in social interaction, indicate
affective common ground between the speaker and the addressee,and signal
intimaterelationships
(Cook 1900:42).1willbuild on theseanalyses
of the usesand
functionsof the particle ne in my demonstrationof how sa alternateswith ne and
no particlein similar contexts.This view of sa, ne and no particleas alternatesin
similar contextshas not been addressedby previousanalyses.
3.2. Powerin speechand 'powerful'and 'powerless'
speechstyles
In this sectionI will discussthe noticlnsof power and 'powerful' and 'pclwerless'
speechstylesas they relate to particle usageas well as conversationin general.
speechstylesare relevantbecause
Notionsof power and 'powerful'and 'powerless'
previousanalysesof the particlesa havecharacterizedthis particle as givinga strong
feelingof assertionto the utterance.
The relation between"power" and speechwas first demonstratedby Brown
and Gilman (1960)in their studyof pronouns.Brown and Gilman'sstudywas based
on the assumptionthat all sociallife is divided into two dimensions,power and
6
TbddSquires
solidarity.Power is defined as the degreethat one is able to control the behavior
of another, thus making the power relationshipbetweentwo people non-reciprocal
(Brown and Gilman 1960:255).Solidarityon the other hand expressessymmetrical
relationships in contrastwith the asymmetricaland non-reciprocalones (258).
Researchon "powerful" and "powerless"languagegrew out of studieswhich
were concerned with diftbrencesbetween masculineand feminine speech styles.
The work on this aspectof language( O'Barr and Atkins 1980;Maltz and Borker
1982;Hengeveld 1984;and Wetzel 1990)is relevant to the present work because
the distinction between seeminglymasculineand feminine speech in English has
recentlybeen shownto relateto the distinctionbetween"powerful"and "powerless"
styles.O'Barr and Atkins (1980) showedthat what has been generallyclassifiedas
f'emininespeechstyle is alsousedby malesin relativelypowerlesspositions. On the
other hand, women with more powerful roles in society,due to educational
backgroundand occupation,did not exhibit the typesof speechstylesidentified as
particularly feminine. This raised the question of whether strictly feminine or
masculinelanguageexists.
Hengeveld (1984) suggeststwo equivalentsof the English word "power" in
Japanese,tikara and kenryoku.Wetzel (1990) commentsthat these two words fail
to adequatelydescribeinter-personalpower relationshipsin Japanesesociety. She
suggeststhat analysisof power relationsand the languageused in "powerful" and
"powerless"speech styles is misleadingif we assumethat there is a parallel
distinctionbetween those relationsin Japanesesocietyand in Western societies
(121). For this reason cultural dittbrencesin relationshipsshould be taken into
accountwhen analyzingspeechstyles.
Understandingthe differencebetweenJapaneseand Westernideasof power
is essentialto an analysisof the particle sa. Japanesetextbooksin English refer to
the particlesa as assertive,
howeverthis representation
is not an accuratedefinition
sincethe power of the particlesa is definedin Westernterms and not in Japanese
terms.
3.3. Kamio's theory of the territory of information
Becausea large portion of my conclusions
will be basedon Kamio's (7979,1991)
theory of territory of information, I will briefly summarizehis work on this topic.
Kamio claimsthat a speakercognitivelyassesses
the information that his or her
utterancecontainsbeforeexpressing
it. This assessment
relatesto both the speaker's
and hearer's territory. Kamio identified the following six basic conditions for
determiningwhere the information lies in the speaker/hearerterritory framework.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
the speaker/hearer'sinternal direct experience
professionalor other expertiseof the speaker/hearer
the speaker/hearer'sdirect externalexperience
information about persons,objects, events and facts close to the
speaker/hearer
the speaker/hearer'splans,actionsand behavior
geographicalrelationsto the information
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
7
Kamio claimsthat speakersevaluatewhether the information containedin
their utterances is closer to the speaker or the hearer based upon the above
conditions.Kamio also distinguishessix casesof information which he describesin
relation to speaker/hearerterritories and correspondinggrammaticalforms.3
Case A
- the information is completelyin the speaker'sterritory (direct form,
ne optional)
(4)
CaseB
Watasi,atama ga itai (ne).
I have a headache(ne).
- the informationis equallyin the speaker'sand the hearer'territories
(direct-ne form)
(5)
Ii tenki desu ne.
It's a beautiful dav ne.
CaseCB - the information is in both the speaker'sand the hearer'sterritories
but to a greater extent in the speaker'sterritory (daroo form)
(6)
Kono kyoku, ii kyoku daroo.
This melodyis really nice,isn't it.
CaseCB - the information is in both the speaker'sand the hearer'sterritories
but to a greater extent in the hearer's territory (daroo form)
(7)
CaseC
- the information falls completelyin the hearer'sterritory (indirect-ne
form)
(8)
CaseD
Hitati-tte kekkoo ooki na mati rasii ne.
Hitachi seemsto be a fairly big city ne.
- the information is in neither the speaker'snor the hearer'sterritory
(indirectform, ne optional)
(9)
-'
Anata wa, Yamada-sandesyoo.
You are Mr.Ms. Yamada,aren't you.
Alaska no huyu wa monosogoirasii yo/tte (ne).
It seemsAhear winter in Alaska is terrible (ne).
In Kamio's examples,( ) indicate optionality. "Direct form" indicatespredicateswhich do not
include any modal elements which expressthe speaker'ssupposition or conviction about the truth
of the dictum. According to Minami's sentencestructure the direct form would correspond to levels
A and B (however, Kamio's examples include the topicalization marker wa which Minami does ot
include in levelsA or B. "Indirect form" is indicated by modal elementswhich mean "I heard tha1...",
i.e. modals which indicate that the dictum is hearsay.Desvoo is the polite form of daroo.
8
TbddSquires
Kamio's analysisis predicatedon the assumptionthat the speakermakesan
objective assessmentof information before choosinga particular utterance that is
independent of other linguistic and non-linguisticfactors in the conversational
context. Futhermore, he firmly denies that the hearer has any influence on the
speakerat all in his claim that "it is the speaker'scognitivefunctionthat carriesout
all of this [applicationof the conditions]process."(1991:40) This characterization
ignoresthe interactivenature of conversation.
The dynamicnature of conversation
is enhancedby the use of particlessuchas sa and ne.
In addition,the inclusionof particlesasgrammaticalforms which correspond
to information territories is confusing.Kamio claims that "obligatory ne" and
"optionalne" are usedwith direct forms (predicateswith no modalaelements)and
indirectforms (predicateswith modals).I find his discussion
of "obligatoryne" and
"optional ne" difficult to apply. His accountof the usageof "optional ne" with
infbrmation that falls entirely in the speaker'sterritory as well as with information
that falls neither in the speaker'snor the hearer'sterritoryis descriptivebut fails to
give reasonswhy ne has this distributionpattern.I will accountfor theseusesof ne
in my analysisof the data below.
3.4. Speakers'strategies
The final piece of previousresearchI will add before I look at the entire particle
puzzle,,including the usagesof particles in actual conversations,relates to the
stylisticstrategiesused in conversations.
Tannen(1984)indicatesthat "individual
stylisticchoicesare not random but constrainedby overridingstylisticstrategiesthat
are conventionalized
ways of servingidentifiableuniversalhuman need" (11). She
emphasizes
the fact that participantsin a conversation
do not existwithin a vacuum
and that their stylesarise as a responseto those strategiesused by the other
particrpants(19). Thus there are avariety of factorsat severallevelsatwork in the
speaker'schoiceof a particularutterance.How certainintbrmationis perceivedby
the speakerrelativeto the hearer'sknowledge(or how the speakerperceivesthe
hearer'sknowledge)atfectshow the informationis presented"
4. Japanesedefinition of power and information territories
In this sectionI will be looking at how power is definedin Japanesesociety. In turn
I will also show how the definitionof power relatesto how speakersuse language
in conversation,especiallyhow this definitionrelatesto informationterritories. In
addition, I will be looking at how speakersuse strategieswhich enable them to
manipulateinformationterritoriesin order to make the informationcontainedin a
'
Opinion varies among Japaneselinguists about what modality is in Japanese.Kamio refers
to modal elemcnts as Tbramura (1984) does including daroo, p_da, rasii, hazu da, mono da, no da,
ka mo sirenai, etc.
A discourse analysis of the Jnpanese porticle Sa
9
particular utterance appear to be either shared information or exclusivelyheld
information.
In order to understandthe dynamicsof Japaneseconversationit is important
to first come to an understandingof Japaneseinterpersonalrelations.The most
importantfactor in the make-upof theserelationsis what Doi (1971)refers to as
amae "dependence."
Amag is most evidentin the psychological
dependenceof a
youngerprotege,kohai, upon his senior,senpai.From the Westernpoint of view
this type of relationship may seem on the surfaceto be a rather one way affair,
however after a closer look the relationship is in fact much more accurately
describedas a mutually beneficialone. In return for the senpai'sintormation,
expertiseand assistance,
the kohai offers his/hersincereloyalty.
How then can power be describedin the Japanesecontext?The notion of
power in the Westernsense,that is of havingauthorityor dominationover someone
or somethingis not appropriatesincethe Japanesepower structureis basedupon
mutuallybeneficialrelationships.Assessmentof distanceor deferencerelates to
whetheror not a personis consideredto be in the speaker'sin-group(Wetzel 1990:
27),or whether the other personhas,or is perceivedto have,more knowledgeor
experience.
For example,Kamio citesthe exampleof a travelagentor experienced
travellertalking about flights to Paris.In example(10) below the travel agent or
experienced
travellerusesthe direct forms of the predicatesuggests
that he or she
has more experienceor information than the addresseeabout travelling.
(10)
Pari e wa tyokkoobin ga benri desu.
To go to Paris,a direct flight is convenient.
( K a mi o 1 9 9 1 :5 7 )
Howeverif the sameutterancewas saidby one travel agentto another travel agent,
then the utterancewould includethe particlene after the direct (non-modal)form
o f t he pr edic at ea s i n (1 1 ) b e l o w .
(11)
Pari e wa tyokkoobin ga benri desu ne.
To go to Paris,a direct tlight is convenientne.
Thus power, defined as having more infbrmation than the other person,is relative
and is independentof overt hierarchicalrelationships.
The relationship of Kamio's theory of territory of information to particle
usageis confusing. Considerthe next example(12) where A is askingB where
he/shewas born.
(r2)
A: Kimi wa doko no umare na no?
B: Yamanasiken desu ne.
A: Where were you born?
B: In Yamanasiprefecturene.
(Kamio 1991:57)
In answeringAs question,B usesthe direct form of the predicatewith the particle
ne. This would suggestthat the informationabout where B was born is shared
10
TbddSquires
equally by both A and B, and since the information about where B was born is
presumablyexclusivelyheld by him or her (12) shouldbe very odd. However this
is not the case,in fact (12) is a very natural exchange.Kamio refers to the use of
ne in situationsas in (12), where the speakerholds the information exclusivelyas
"optional ne." He does not however explain why it is used in this way, rather his
explanationconsistsof only a descriptionof its distribution.
Kamio also does not mention that ne is alsopossiblewith CasesBC and CB.
An explanationof the use of ne with daroo has been offered by Moriyama (1989).
He arguesthat the meaningsof daroo and ne are interrelatedin that they both take
the hearer into consideration.
When daroo and ne are used togetherdaroo takes
on the meaningof possibilityof the informationin the utteranceand ne retainsthe
functionof transmittinginfbrmationto the hearer.Moriyamaillustratesthiswith the
e xa m ples( 13) and ( 1 a ).
(13)
Kare wa iku daroo.
He'll probably go.
(14)
Kare wa iku daroo ne.
He'll probablygo ne.
In (13), Moriyama argues that daroo takes on two functions; expressingthe
speaker'sjudgementabout the possibilityof the propositionkare wa iku "he'll go"
and alsoexpressing
the transmission
of thisjudgementto the hearer.In (14), daroo
functions only as an expressionof the speaker'sjudgement of the probability, and
ne takes on the function of transmittingthe judgementto the hearer (Moriyama
1989:108, 109).
Moriyama's analysisof Kamio's casesBC and cB supports my argument
that the particles(in this paper sa and !9) do not alwayshelp to focus the location
of the information as Kamio's analysisof ne suggests.
I claim that particlesin fact
function on a different level than the direct and indirect forms of the predicate.
My position that particlesare working at a different level than the predicate
within the sentenceis supportedby Minami's (1970, 1974)analysisof sentence
structure.He divides the sentenceinto two categoriesof meaning,dictum and
modus.The dictum of the sentenceis what Minami callsthe objectivelyexpressed
matter (kotogara)(Minami 1974:108).The modusexpresses
the speaker'sattitude
about the dictum. The modus is further dividedinto three levelsyielding four levels
in the structureof Japanesesentences.
Level A, the dictum/description,includes nouns with case particles o
(accusative), de (instrumental), ni (dative), kara (ablative). Notice that the
subject(nominativecase)is excludedfrom this level.Also includedin the dictum are
adverbswhich modify the stateof activitiesexpressedby verbs(e.g.yukkuri, slowly),
adverbswhich indicatedegree(e.g.sukosi,a little), and verbs,i.e. the verb stem
without elementswhich indicate affirmation,negation,politeness,or tense.
Level B includes the subject with the particl. & (nominative case) but
excludes the topic which has the particle wa. In acldition, this level includes
modifiers that have the functions of expressingnegation and time, modifying the
statementexpressedby a predicativeexpressionsuchas yappari (after all) and kitto
(surely). Level B also includesmodifers which expressan evaluativeview of the
A discourse ana$tsis of the Japanese particle Sa
11
activityor statedescribedby a predicativeexpressionlike saiwainanimo(fortunately)
and osii kotoni (it is regrettable...).Also includedin this level are words which have
indefinite meanings(WH-words), e.g. nani (what), doko (where), and itu (when).
Finally lrvel B includesverbs in their forms that indicate politeness,tense, and
affirmation or negation.
Level C expressesof the speaker'swill, suppositionor doubt about the
contentsof the dictum and lrvel B. This level includesthe topic of the sentence
(noun + E), modifierswhich expresspossibility,interjectivessuchas hai (yes) and
iie (no),and verbswith the elementswhichexpressprobability,presumption,or will.
Level D expresses
the speaker'sappealto the addressee.Includedin Level
D are vocativewords like okaasan!(Mom!), mosi mosi (hello), oi! (Hey!) and
chotto (hey,just a minute). Also includedat this level are interjectivessuch as the
particlesne, sa. yo. In addition to these expressions,Level D also includes
which
conjunctions
like datte (but), de (and,well), sorekara(and then),expressions
accompanycommandsor requestssuchas zehi (without fail) and doozo (please).
In (15) I present an exampleof Minami's ditferent levels in a Japanese
sentence.
(1s)
{address}
tabun
darela
probably someone
ga
watasi ni
NoMs I
DAI
purezentoo
kure
ru daroo ne
gilr
give
N P probably
ACC
Al
"Someonewill probablygive me a presentne."
On the left I have addedone elementwhich doesnot appearin the sentenceitself.
The addressor appeal can be understoodas the hearer of this utterance.In
addition,the existenceof an adverbof probability(tabun) can alsobe omitted since
it can be understoodfrom the modal daroo (probably).This analysisof sentence
structureclearlyelucidatesthe interpersonalfunction of particlessuchas sa and ne.
Minami's analysisof Japanesestructureis vital to understandingthe theory
of territory of information and indeedhelpsto clarifythe theory.Kamio's direct and
indirectforms correspondto Minami's judgement level, and Kamio's daroo forms
correspondto the expressionlevel.These levelsexpressthe speaker'srelationship
to the information. A speaker'saddition of particlessuch as sa, ne, and p to the
direct,indirect,or daroo forms to appealsto the addresseeon Minami's fourth level.
t
*Oy
(Nominative), DAT (Dative), ACC (Accusative),NP (Non-past tense of thc verb)
72
TbddSquires
This explanationalso applies the situationwhere, accordingto Kamio, the
speakerhas the choice of addingp on to an utterancewhich refers to knowledge
exclusivelyby the speaker.The use of so called "obligatoryne" and "optional ne"
is similar to the choice the speaker makes to use p with exclusivelyheld
information. The differencebetweenthe choiceof ne and the choice of p in this
contextis that usingthe particle ne at the end of an utteranceis a speaker'sprimary
means for lexicalizingthe expressionof shared information. Yo does not have a
similar function of lexicalizingexclusivelyheld information as Kamio implies in his
CaseA.
The present study of the particlessa and ne in this paper focuseson
utterance-internal uses of the particles not on utterance-final uses.
Utterance-internallyspeakersuse the particle sa to indicatethat the information is
exclusivelyheld by the speakerand the particle ne to indicatethat the information
is sharedbetweenthe speakerand the hearer.The function of theseparticlesin
position.
utterance-internal
positionis comparableto theirfunctionin utterance-final
The use of sa with hearsay-based
informationmakesthe information appear
to be the speake.r's
exclusivelyheld information.Sa with sharedinformation would
make the informationappearto be exclusively
held by the speaker.This use of sa
was not found in the data for this paper.However,the absenceof its use does not
rule out the possibilityof the use of sa with thesetypes of information.
Ne is usedwith informationthat is exclusivelyheld by the speakeras well as
with sharedand hearsay-based
information.The use of ne with information that is
not sharedinformation has the effect of making information appear to be shared.
Uses of ne with thesethree typesof informationwere found in the data. Examples
of this use of ne will be presentedin sections5.3 (usedof ne with speakerexclusive
information) and 5.4 (use of ne with hearsay-based
information).
The absenceof either sa or ne with speakerexclusiveinformation make the
informationseemobjective.Similarlythe absenceof ne with sharedinformation also
makesthe informationseem more obiective.
5. Analysis of the data
5.1. Background information about the conversationsused in this study
The data consistof five telephoneconversationsbetweenfriends (conversations1-5
AN, B/C, D/O, ElP, and F/Q, respectively).In conversations3 and 5 there is a
senpailkoohai relationship between the two participants (D/O and F/Q,
respectively).ConversationsI,2 and 4, are between good friends (A/N, B/C, and
E,P, respectively).These data were collectedby researchersat the University of
Tsukuba during the summer of 19916.
Also included in the data are two excerpts from a forty-five minute
conversationbetween four people at a coffee shop in Tokyo during the winter of
1992. I will refer to the conversationas the "Coffee Shop Conversation."The
participantsare two women and two men. One woman,G, is a teacherat an English
o
The tclephone convcrsarion data was collected by Ishida (1992).
A discourse anatysis of the Japanese particle Sa
13
conversationschool and is in her early thirties. The other woman, H, is in her
mid-twentiesand a friend of G. R, a male nurse in his late twenties,is a student at
the English school as is S, who is a man in his early twenties.
Thble 1 is a summaryof the backgroundinformation about the participants
in the telephone conversationsand the "Coffee Shop Conversation."Included is
informationabout the sex and age as well as the relationshipof each to the other
participantsin the conversation.
TABLE1
Conversation
Coffee Shop
Conversation
Participant
Sex
age
Relationshipto other participant
A
N
F
M
early 20's
early 20's
friend
friend
B
C
F
F
early 20's
early 20's
friend
friend
D
o
F
M
early20's
early20's
koohai
scnpai
E
P
F
M
early 20's
early 20's
friend
friend
o
F
F
M
early20's
early20's
koohai
scnpai
G
H
R
S
F
F
M
M
early30's
mid 20's
late 20's
early20's
teacher
friend/formerstudentof T
studentof T
studentof T
5.2. Situations in which sa is used
The examinationof the data from actualconversations
showedthat sa was usedwith
informationthat is exclusivelyheld by the speaker.I further identified the following
five generalcontextsin which speaker'sexclusiveof information occurredwith the
particlesa: 1) information clarification,2) rebuttal and correction,3) interruptions
and attention requests, 4) expressing opinions, and 5) narrating personal
experiences.
74
TbddSquires
5.2.1. h{ormation claificatiort contexts
The first context in which sa was used with speakerexclusiveinformation was the
contextfor clarifyinginformation.In (16), A and N are discussing
why some of their
friends cannot participate in a marathon with them.
(1 6)
lN:
2*
3N:
4A:
1N:
2N:
44:
Tlotto, tooranakya,mondai da na tte, iu. Un. Tlotto X-san to Y-san
kurusii ka mo sirenai kedo,
Nan de?
Soturon no kankeede sa. seesintekini kurusii Tvan. Ima.
Aa.
Just, they say if they don't passit will be a problem. Yeah. Just, X
and Y may be hurting a bit but,
In relation to their seniorpaperssa, [t's psychologically
rough don't
you think, now,
O h.
N is explainingto A why X and Y are not able to run in the marathon with them.
In responseto 1N, A indicatesthat she is not clear abclutwhat d means exactly
when he saysthat X and Y may be hurting , so she asksfor clarificationabout why
going might be troublesomefor X and Y. Sincethe information in 3N is elicited by
As questionin line 2A, A probablydoesnot know about this information or at least
it does not occur to her at that point. In this casethe information falls only in N
territory therefore the use of the particlesa with this utteranceseemsvery natural.
Furthermore,the fact that 3N is in responseto a questionprovidesevidencefor and
strengthensthe interpretationthat the informationcontainedin 3N is exclusively
held by N.
5.2.2. Rebttttal and conectiortcotttexts
Another common use of sa is in the contextof rebuttalor correctionof the other
participant. In this usage sa is frequently found in utteranceswhich contain
conjunctionslike de mo or datte,both clfwhich mean "but" or "evenso."Sa is also
often found with nanka "something."In (17),N is trying to persuadeA to run with
him on a marathon.
(17)
1A:
2N:
3A:
4N:
Un. De mo watasi mo na ikka ni kaeritaku natta n da p, nanka.
Kamon, kamon {laugh} issyo ni ikimasen ka?
Uun, ikitai na, de mo sa, hutu-ka no asa kaette kuru no tte tyotto
sore muboo desyo.
De mo sa, nagai yq, kekko datte sa.
A discourse anatysis of the Japonese particle Sa
1A:
2N:
3,A:
4N:
15
Mm. But it's that I too [na], it's that it's gotten to the point where I
want to go home my parent'shouse,somehow.
Come on, come on {laugh} Won't you come along?
Yeah, I want to go [na], but sa,it's a bit recklessto come back on the
morning of the second,isn't it?
But sa, it's long, they sayquite a bit, but sa.
In 2N, N invitesA to come along on the marathon.A stressesthe reasonfor her
hesitationabout going prefacedwith a de mo sa "but sa" in 3,A,.N then counters
with his personalreasonsusingthe conjunctionsde mo and datte with the particle
sa. This type of usagewith sa also seemsnatural given that when the speaker
deniesor contradictsthe other participanthe or sheoften usesreasonsthat consist
of informationwhich is entirelv in his or her information territory.
5.2.3. Inlemtptions and attentiortreqLtestcontexts
Frequentlysa is used in conversationin utteranceswhich request the other
participants'attentionand also in utterancesused as interruptions. In Japanese
conversationwords such as nanka "something"and are "that" are often used by a
speakerto changethe directionof the topic of the conversationor to introducea
new topic of conversation.In example(18) from the "Coffee Shop Conversation,"
G is trying to get the other participantsto look at a foreigner who is wearing a
Japanese
schooluniform outsideof the cofteeshop.In doing this she introducesa
new topic, talking about foreigners,into the conversation.
(18)
lG:
1G:
Nanka sa, tyotto mite, soto.
Somethingsa, take a look out there.
Therewas a long pausein the conversationbefore 1G example(18). The use of sa
as an attention request in (18) relates to my analysisof how sa is used in
conversationas follows.G givesher immediateand emotionalreaction to seeinga
foreignerin a Japaneseschool uniform in her utterancewith sa. This use of sa in
utteranceswhich give natural reactionsof surprisefurther illustratethe tendencyto
usesa with information that is exclusivelyin the speaker'sterritory.
S usessa in the "Coffee Shop Conversation"when trying to interrupt in the
In example(19), G and R are talking about doctorsmaking house
conversation.
callsin America. R is very involved in the conversationand would like to know
more about this subject since he himself is a nurse. S tries to interrupt and
his first time around.
introducea new topic in this utterancebut is unsuccessful
Tbddsquires
16
(1e)
sin saa/bisu-sarete
ru n yo ne.
/
Are sa7
A soo na n desu ka?
Sintai( )to onazi yoo na mono
Kangohu wa?
E? Wakaranai, kangohu made.
Kuruma ni sa, 'piin' oite oku to tukamanai tte.
lG:
25:
3R:
4Gz
5R:
6G:
7S:
America wa oo
1G:
25:
3R:
4G:
5R:
6G:
75:
It's that in America they make housecalls[yo] [ne].
That sa
Oh, is that so?
It's the same as a physical( )
What about nurses?
Huh? I don't know, about nurses
I hear if you leave a devicethat goes 'piin' in the car sa they don't
catchyou.
S's first attempt to interrupt at 2S in (19) is unsuccessfulsince R and G are
mid-topic. S is able to interveneat 75 only after R and G's exchangehas come to
a conclusion.At this point he sayspresumablywhat he started to say at 25, his
comment that there is a devicethat you can leave in the car so that the police do
not catch you parking in a no parking zone. In S's attempt to interrupt mid-topic,
to his topic.
he choosessa to try to draw the other participants'attention
5.2.4. Contexts wlrcre opitttorts are expressed
his or her opinions.This usage
Sa is used in utteranceswhere the speakerexpresses
follows from my characterizationof sa since opinions are by their very nature
information that is in the speaker'sterritory exclusively.
^In (20) the participantsin
the "Coffee Shop Conversation"are discussinga kotatsuuthat G is going to give to
H. G has the kotatsuin storageat her apartmentand can not clearlyrememberhow
it folds up. The other participantsin the conversationare trying to guessat how the
kotatsu might fold up.
(20)
lH:
2R:
3G:
Ano mannaka no tokoro warenai no. Doo natte ru no?
Koo natte ru n zya nai. Katya to koo natte ru n zya nai no?
Nanka, wakaranai kedo,
'
S uses the distal deictic are with the particle sa. This could be a case of the usage of the
particle sa with shared information. The a-seriesof kore. sore, and are is used when referring to
something that the speaker knows both he or she and the hearer know personally or have shared
experience in. The referent of are is the previous topic of conversation dealing with parking
privileges in general.
8
A kotrtru is a tale with short less with a heatins element underneath.
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
17
4H:
Zya, katagawa ni yotte ru n zya nai.
5R:
Iya, tasika sa,
65:
Thkaku nai n zya nai no?
7R:
Hutuu oritatami tte iu ka sa,
8G:()
9R:
Oritatami mite sa katya tte koo naru n zya nai no?
10S: Iya, mannaka kara ba to naru n da to omou.
11H: Poko to naru n da to omou. domannakani.
12R: Tbreru no?
13G: Iya, oboetenai.
14R: Soo, iya, katya da yg.
lH:
Um, is it that it doesn'tbreak down in the middle?How is it that it
is put together?
Isn't it like this? Isn't it that it snapstogetherlike this?
Somehow,I don't know but,
Then isn't it that it gatherstogether on one side.
No, if I'm not mistakensa,
Isn't it that it isn't tall'l
Ordinarily the fold up type sa or,
2R:
3G:
4H:
5R:
65:
7R:
8G:()
9R: You look at a fold up type sa isn't it that it snapstogether like this?
10S: No, I think the centergoesout flat like this,
11H: I think it pops up in the center
12R: Does it comesoff?
l3G: No, I can't remember.
14R: Is that so, no it snapstogether[yo].
In conversation(20) we see that sa is usedby R when he is expressinghis opinions
about the type of kotatsu that he thinks it is. In this conversationR is trying to
make up his own mind about the type of kotatsu that G has in her apartment.
It is interestingto note that if we use the traditional analysesof the use of
the particlesa we would have to concludethat R is trying to be very assertiveabout
hisopinionand is tryingto pushhis opinionon the other participants.
However,the
useof sa here givesthe expressionof R's opinionsa lighter tone than if he had used
the particle ne. Had he used ne here the impressionwould be one of seeking
agreementfrom the other participants.In contrast,the particle sa expressesthe
speaker'sexclusivelyheld information demandingno such agreement.The use of
sa to give opinionsa lighter tone is a very important point sincepreviousresearch
on particlesconcludesthat the particle sa is assertivein tone. As demonstratedin
example(20) sa can actuallyhave the oppositeeffect, that is to give a lighter tone
to opinions.
5.2.5.Corttextsof nanatiort of persorwl expeience
Overwhelminglythe most common use of sa was in narrations of personal
experiences.
Personalexperiencesare usuallyunknown to the hearer, or if known
18
TbddSquires
to the hearer, usually known as a less direct experience.The use of sa in these
contextsseemsto stressthe fact that the information was directly experiencedby
the speakerand thus primarily in the speaker'sinformationterritory. In (21) N is
trying to explainwhat happenedat a marathon.
(2r)
lN:
2A:
3N:
44:
5N:
64:
7N:
8A:
9N:
l0A :
11N:
l2Az
13N:
l4N:
Kedo, maa, kyonen no watasi no ree ga aru kara,
Un (1.0) Kakuzitu ni ikeba,
Aa.
Iroiro itte agetara,"kakujitu ni ikeba, dazyoobuye."
{laugh} "Watasi no yoo ni ne" tte. De mo, are (0.7) wa watasi wa,
S-san no seerJokuwa ookikatta to mite ru n desu kedo,
Aa, aa.
Datte, mae no ban (0.3) sa, toriaezu lcyonen tte tizu ga moo atta
zyan.
Un.
Sore mite sa, S-sanga "koko o koo iu koosu ga kitara, koo iu huu ni
ikeba ii wa yo" to ka sa, itte kurete sa
Un.
"Anata no baai wa, hasiranakute ii kara" maa, I-tyan-tati ni wa,
ganbanasaimitai na koto itte sa, "anatawa, toriaezu kaette kuru no
ga muboo desu" mitai na kanzi de,
Un.
Kiraku ni sa,"ippo,ippo,ruuto o mo akaenpitude kaku yoo na kibun
de, kimete kara ikinasai" to ka itte sa, itte kuretara kiraku ni iketa
si,
Un.
But, well, there'sthe exampleof me last year so,
Yeah (1.0) tf you proceedwith assurance,
O h.
Why don't you help out by sayingthings like, "[t will be okay if you
proceedwith assurance."
5N:
(laugh)Say,"like me, right"But, that, I (0.7)lt'sthat I'm seeingit that
as S had a big influence.
6,{:
Oh, oh.
7N:
But, I, the night before sa (0.3), last year we already had a ffiup,
didn't we.
8A:
Uh huh.
9N:
We looked at it sa, and S said to me [sa] "If you come to this type
of course here comes up, it's best to go this way [wa] [yo]," or
somethingsa.
10A: LJh huh.
11N: "ln your caseit's okay not to run so,"well, to me and to thoseother
guys she said somethinglike "hang in there" sa, somethinglike "For
you first of all the goal is to make it back."
I2A: Uh huh.
1N:
2A:
3N:
4A:
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
19
13N: Then calmly sa. "Stepby step,with a feelinglike you are tracing over
the course with a red pencil, decide on it, then go," she said sa.
When she said that to us, we were able to go without worry, and,
l4A: Uh huh.
Sa is frequently observedin narration of personalexperiencelike that of N
in (21), althoughsa is not used exclusively
in this context.For example,N could
havechosento use the particle ne insteadof the particle sa, but this use of ne with
information that is exclusivelyin the speaker'sterritory would signal that the
speakerwanted to invite the hearer'sempathy.The use of the particle sa with
information that is exclusivelyheld by the speaker emphasizesthe personal
relationshipof the intormation to the speakerrather than inviting the hearer's
empathy.
the personalnatureof the experience,the use of
In additionto emphasizing
sa in long narrationssuch as by N in example(21) signalsto the hearer that the
speakerhas not reachedthe end of the story.The use of ne would be more likely
to elicita minimalresponsesuchas un "uh huh" and invitethe hearerto chime into
the conversation.
The uses of sa outlined above coincide closelyto Kamio's conditions for
determiningthe territory of information. Clarification, rebuttal and correction,
interruptionand attentionrequests,expressing
opinion,and narrationof personal
experience,
are contextswhere the speakerclaimsthe information falls entirely into
the speaker's
territory.Sa in thesecasesemphasizes
the speaker'spossession
of the
intbrmationand in turn the hearer'slack of possession.
5.3. The usageof ne in alternation with sa
In this section I will examine those contextswhere speakersused ne with
informationthat is exclusively
in the speakersterritory.Thesecontextswill include
informationto which the speakerfeels the hearer can relate,when the speaker
wantsto invite the hearer'sempathy,and contextsin which the speakerfeel that
the hearercanmake logicalconclusions
basedupon what the speakerhaspreviously
stated.
towards
5.3.1.Usageof ne with speakerexclttsiveinformatiort irt Lttterances
wltich the speakerfeels tlrc hearercan relate
The first exampleof ne with information that is exclusivelyin the speakersterritory
is givenin example(22). F and Q are talking about a club at the university.Q is F's
senpaiwho graduatedfrom the universitythe year before. SinceQ was a member
of the same club, Q can relate to the informationthrough personalexperience,
althoughnot direct experienceof this particularincident. The speaker,F in 6F,
acknowledges
this by usesof ne insteadof sa.
20
TbddSquires
(22)
lQ:
2Fz
3Q:
4F:
5Q:
6F:
7Q:
1Q:
2F:
3Q:
4F:
5Q:
6F:
7Q:
Sinnyuuseito ka hairisoo
Soo ne. Sore wa yoku wakaranai. Da kedo, nanka lcyoowa hitori kite
ta.
Huun. Syuku mawari to ka yatte nai no?
Uun. Yatte ru yq. Watasi ga yatta tokoro wa oikosi datta kedo,
Un. De, doo datta?
Un. Maa, ano setumeekaito ka ato, sinkan koosyuukai kite ne to ka
ittara, hai, to ka itte kekkoo ng, tegotaearu ka natte kanzi datta n da
kedo ne, itan no ko da kara ne,
Haa. Haa.
Does it look like any new studentswilljoin?
Umm ne, I don't really know. But one person came today.
Hm. Is it that you're not going around to the dorms?
No, we are [yo]. The place I was doing was oikosi (name of
dormitory)
Uh huh. How was it?
Um, well, um, when I said "come to the explanatorymeeting," she
said "yes"and it's that sheseemedquite ne responsivebut ne, shewas
a student from the two year medical collegeso ne,
Oh. Oh.
Since the information expressedby F in 6F is a direct personal experience
it is information exclusivelyin the speaker'sterritory. The exclusivenature of this
information is further reinforcedby Q in 5Q with the questiondoo datta? "How was
it?" Despite the speaker'sexclusiveinformation in this context F uses ne in 6F
becauseF feels that Q can understandand relate to F's personalexperiencesince
Q has experiencedsimilar situationsas a memberof the club.
5.3.2. Usageof ne with speaker exclusiveinformation in utteranceswhich invite the
lrcarer'sempatlry
In example (23), G is oft'eringto give her pots and pans plus other kitchen items to
S and is describinghow they are all still in boxessinceshe moved.She usesne with
information that only she possesses,
that is information with which only she is
familiar such as the kinds and the amounts of kitchen utensils she has in her
kitchen. In the Coffee Shop Conversationnone of the participantshad the same
kind of relationshipthat G had to the information in (22).
(23)
1G:
2R:
3G:
45:
5G:
6R:
Kittin yoohin nara, atasi ageru wa yo.
E?
Kittin yoohin.
A, kittin yoohin fyoodai p.
Onabe to ka, iroiro.
Kore de, kawanakute sunda.
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
2l
7nz
8G:
Agerareru mono nai wae.
Datte, atasi ima kyabinetto nakute, hako ni ireta mama na no ne.
Ilikkosite kara ne, hontoo ne, hako ga ne, sugoi no uti. Mae wa kittin
ippai kyabinetto itutu atta desyo.Ima wa ikko da mono. Hako ( )
kyabinetto nai kara ireru toko mo nai mono. Hikkosite irai hako ni
haitta mama.
1G:
2R:
3G:
45:
5G:
65:
7R:
8G:
If it's kitchen utensils,I'll give them to you [wa] [yo]
What?
Kitchen utensils
Oh, give me your kitchen utensils[yo].
Pots or a variety of other things.
With this I'll managewithout having to buy anything.
I don't have anythingI can give [wa].
Hey, I don't have any cabinetsnow and so it's that they're still in
boxes ne. Since I moved ne really ne, the amount of boxes ne is
amazingat my house.Before my kitchen was full of cabinets,there
were five, you know, but now there'sone right. Boxes( ) sincethere
are no cabinets,there is no place to put them. They've been in boxes
sinceI moved.
By usingne in this context G invitesthe hearer'sempathy,an effect she would not
have given if she had used the particle sa instead.This function of ne has been
explainedby Cook as making information appear to be shared even if the
informationis exclusivelyheld by the speaker(Cook 1990:41).
Another example of ne used by the speakerto invite the empathy of the
heareris givenin (2a). H is explainingwhat sheherselfmust do before moving.She
usesne with her personalinformation insteadof the particle sa to invite the other
participants'empathy.
(24)
lH:
2S:
3H:
1H:
25:
3H:
e
Ano apaato kite kureru dattara, kagu ippai yaru zor .
A, ha, ha, ha.
Atasi ano kagu dasu no ni ne, barasankya-ikenai.Da kara kaitai
sinakya ikenai n da mono. ( ) to ka teeburu to ka.
Um, if you come to my apartment,I'll give you a lot of furniture [zo].
Oh, ha, ha, ha.
I, um, in order to get the furniture out of the apartment ne, I've got
to take it apart. So it's that I've got to disassemble
it. (
) and the
tablesand thinss.
Notice that R is a man using rhe particle wa which is commonly used by women exclusively.
t0
H h.r" usesthe particle zo which in traditional grammarsand other particle analysesis said
to be used exclusively by men.
ZZ
TbddSquires
The use of the particle ne in a strategyto include the hearer in the speaker's
information territory was quite common in all of the data usedin this study. When
the speaker usesne-in contextsof exclusivespeakerinformation where sa is often
used,the speakerinvitesthe empathyof the other conversational
participants.The
effect of this invitation is to make the speaker'sexclusiveinformation seem to be
sharedinformation.
5.3.3. Usageof ne to expressspeakerexclusiveinformatiort in logical cortclusionsor
contextswlrcre the hearercan follow tlrc logic
Another use of the particle ne with intormation exclusivelyheld by the speakeris
when the speakerfeelsthat the hearercan follow the speaker'sconclusionslogically.
This usageof ne is most evident in phrasesbeginningwith da kara ne, and in
phrasesending with a predicate(verb, adjective,or nominal plus copula) followed
by kara ne.
In (25), N makesa conclusionbasedupon the personalexperiences
uttered
i n 7 ,9, 11,and 13N.H e u s e sth e c o n s tru c ti ovne rb p l us kara ne.
(2s)
15N: (0.7) tyanto kakuzitu ni yaroo to omotta kara ne.
15N: (0.7) Therefore I thought"I'll do it securely"ne.
In addition,logicalconclusions
are often made without an overt expression
such as da kara or predicateplus kara ne. In (26) R first corrects(rebuts) H by
elaboratingan explanationabout a rumor that he heard about how the American
embassy is dealing with the problem of gasoline being stolen. Background
intbrmation related to why the embassyhad to start poolinggasolineis described
with the particle sa. The conclusionof the story is made with an utterancethat
beginswith da kara and containsne.
(26\
lH:
Gaikookan tokken to ka aru.
2R:
Soo zya nakute, amerika taisikan de sa, gasorin o nusumareta to ka
sawaideita desyo.Donburi kanzyoo-sitete, nanka, dare ka ga sa, ura
mawasite te, sore o uttyatta to ka itte,
3R:
da kara gasorin o puuru site ru kara, taisikan de soo iu, nan dakke,
ano kuruma to ka dasu toki no ne, gasorinzibun-tati de tyootatu-site
mawasu.
lH:
2R:
There are thingslike diplomaticprivileges.
That's not what I mean. At the American embassy[sa] they were
making a commotion that gasolinehad been stolen or something,
weren'tthey.There wasbad bookkeepingand somehowsomeone[sa]
secretlysold some.
A discourse analysis of the Japonese particle Sa
3R:
23
So since they pool the gasoline,at the embassywhen they take out,
what do yctucall it that car ne they regulatethe amount of gasoline
among themselvesand send it around.
can alsobe
The use of the particlene with the speaker'slogicalconclusions
seenin phrasesthat contain yappan "after all, as you'd expect" and end with ne.
In example(27), A and N are talking about the studentsin their classat the
universityand about their plansconcerningmarriage.
(27)
lN:
2Az
3N:
4A:
5N:
6A:
7N:
8A:
Koko wa moo 30 made, suki na koto site kurasu n da.
Aa, ii ne. Amari nanka soo iu kangaetaku nai ne.
Nani ka, de mo sa'
Un.
Mizika ni sematte ru zyan' kekkoo.
Un.
Kekkon suru to ka iu hito mo iru si sa, dookyuuseede mo sa,
Iru kedo sa, de mo nanka yappari (0.7) zibun no koto to site wa
kangaetaku nai ne.
1 N : It's that here I will live doing what ever I like until I'm 30.
2A Oh, that'sgreat ne. I somehowdon't want to think about thosekinds
of thingsmuch ne.
3 N : Somehow, but [sa],
4A: Uh huh.
5 N : Isn't it comingcloseupon us, quite.
6A: Uh h u h .
7N: There are people who are getting married and all [sa], even our
8A:
classmates
[sa]
There are those but [sa],but somehow atler all, (0.7) as for my
situation,at least,I don't want to think about it ne.
The speaker'suse of ne in this context,invites the empathy of the hearer. In
example(27) above,the utteranceafter pppgr:i expressesboth conviction on the
part of the speakerto not think about marriage,and alsopersonalfeelingsthat the
hearershould understandbecauseof the intimacy of their friendship.
The uses of ne presentedhere support the conclusionsthat Cook and
Ishikawahave made, specificallythat ne creates an affective common ground
betweenthe speakerand the hearer.In other words use of the particle ne invites
the hearerto participatein the feelingsof the speakereven if the hearer does not
sharethe informationwith the speaker.With the particle sa however,the speaker
claimsthat the information expressedis in the speaker'sterritory and marks it as
such.
24
TbddSquires
5.4. The usageof no particle
The data also include utteranceswhich the speaker conveyswith the usage of
neither ne nor sa.In example(28), A and N are talking about their classmates
plans
after graduatingfrom the university.N is comparingwhat it is like to becomea civil
servantwith going to graduateschool.
(28)
lN:
2A:
3N:
1N:
2A:
3N:
(0.5) Kekkcto.Dakara ne, daigakuin ni iku mitai na kanzi ni, na no
Hoo,hoo,hoo
Nanka, sotugroo site te sugu ni kensyuu, tookyoo no kensyuuzyo ni
hati gatu made ite, hati-gatu zyanakute, siti-gatu, siti-gatu made te
ite, soko de nanka hooritu to ka benkyoo site te sono ato kakuti ni
haizoku-sareteru basyo ni itte nenkan benlryoo-sitekite, mada tugi
no tosi hati-gatu, tuitati kara, tookyoo ni minna atumatte, tugi no
tosi san-gatu made kensyuu saigo ni ronbun kaite teesyutu-site
hazimete saiyoo tte iu katati.
Quite, so [ne], it that it's like going to graduateschool.
Oh, oh, oh.
Somehow,right after you graduateyou enter training. You are at the
training center in Tokyo until August, no not August, July. You're
there until July and there, somehowyou study things like law. After
that you go to the place where you are assignedand study for one
year,and still on August 1 of the next year everyonegathersin Tokyo
and until March of the next year you are in training and in the end
you write a thesisand hand it in, and after that you are employedfor
the first time, that's how it works.
The expressionof the intbrmation as in 3N above,without any particles,that is
without explicit forms on what Minami reters to as the transmissionlevel of the
sentence,is common in presentationsof hearsay-based
or reported information.
This is also typical of discoursethat is impersonalsuch as a news broadcast. The
absenceof the transmissionlevel,that is particlesne and sa,makesthe information
seem more objectiveand neutral.
6. The distribution of sa and ne
This study deals with the utterance-internalusesof the particle sa and ne. I have
presentedexampleswhich show what contextssa and ne occur, and also contexts
where neither ne nor sa occur. In Thbles2 and 3 I presentthe overall distributional
patterns for the usagesof sa and ne by women and men in utteranceinternal and
utterance-final position (Thble 3) and the breakdown in terms of grammatical
construction(Thble 4).
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
25
TABLE 2
lbtal Numberof Ttrkensof Sa
Ultcrance-internal Sa
women
23
men
65
Total
88
Utterance-final Sa
-t
5
q
26
70
96
women
Utterance-internalNe122
men
70
Total
192
Uttcrance-final
Ne
100
7Z
172
zz2
t42
364
Total Numbcr of Ttrkensof Ne
TABLE 3
SA
NE
women
men
24(3s)
r4(20)
I 1 (1 6 )
1 s (2 1 )
38(17)
47(1e)
18(8)
24(rr)
1e(13)
18(12)
3(2)
30(20)
0
0
0
1(l)
4(7)
0
33(1s)
3r(22)
women
Utterance-internal
NounPhrase
Conjunction
Verb
Other**
3(r0)*
rr(47)
3 (l 3 )
6(23)
Utterance-final
Copula
0
Verb
0
Adjective
0
NounPhrasc
0
Conjunction
0
OtherUtterance-final 3(7)
4(11)
I 1(5)
e(4)
l4(6)
e(4)
18(12)
s(4)
0
4(3)
1e(13)
*Figures in parenthesesare the percentage of total tokens of sa for each sex, figures for ne are for
a total of ne tokens for each sex. Therefore, percentagesfor re are from a total of 222 tokens used
by women and 142 tokens used by men.
**Other includes nanka, are, ano, and etto.
26
TbddSquires
Thbles2 and 3 show that the total number of tokens of utterance-tinalne account
for nearly half (47 percent) of utterances with ne. Considering only the
utterance-internalusesof sa and ne, ne occurredwith twice the frequencyas did sa.
Sa was used by malesin 70 utterances,accountingfor 73 percent of the uses
of sa. The utterance-internal
ne was usedby femalesin 122 utterancesand males
in 70 utterances,accountingfor 64 percentand 36 percentrespectively.
In table 4 the differencesin usageby males and femalesis presented.
TABLE4
Differences in the Usase of Contextual Variants of Utterance-lnternal Sa bv Men and Women
Context
women
mcn
Clarification
Rebuttal
Opinion Giving
Attention Request
Personal Experience
8
'7
(4)*
6(3)
I
1
10
13
15
5
2l
*Figures in parcnthesesare number of utterancesout of the total which included repetition of the
other participants utterance.
Although women did use sa in rebuttal and opinion giving contexts,half of
the total number of utteranceswhere they used sa in these contextsincluded
repetitions.In contrast,utteranceswhere men usedsa in rebuttal and opinion giving
contextsdid not involverepetition.Tannen(1987)claimsthat one of the functions
of repetition in conversationis accomplishingsocial goals through a persuasive
effect or linking one speaker'sideasto another's.The use of repetition in rebuttal
and opiniongivingcontextslessens
the impactof presentingthe rebut or the opinion
as speaker exclusiveinformation by establishingcommon ground (Thnnen I98ll.
581) from which to rebut the other conversational
participantor to expressone's
opinions.
The use of repetition with rebuttal and opinion giving can also be seenwith
women'suse of ne in Table5.
TABLE5
Differences in the Usage of Contextual Variants of Utterance-Internal Ne by Men and Women
Context
Women
Men
Clarification
Rebuttal
Opinion Giving
Attention Request
Personal Experience
25
164
42(Zs)
69
72
14
23
19
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
27
Women'suseof ne togetherwith repetitionin opiniongivingutterancesmakestheir
persuasive
power strongerthan men'swho tend to use the particle ne alone, i.e.
without repetition.As I demonstratedabovethe useof the particle sa with opinions
makesthe opinionappearlighterin tone than opinionsgivenwith ne sincene elicits
agreementfrom the other participant.In addition,the use of repetitionwith the
particle ne gives the added effect of giving opinions from the position of given
information.Thus,women tend to be more persuasive
than men in givingopinions.
7. Concludingremarks
I haveshownwith data from actualconversations
that first, there is an important
connection
betweenthe claim a speakermakesaboutthe informationcontaine<J
in
his or her utterancesand the particlesusedin theseutterances.When a speaker
choosesa particle he or she is saying"this is my intormation"(sa), "this is our
information"(ng), or "this is infoimation" (no p-article).Second, tiie traditional
characterizationof sa as being assertiveand imposing are not sufficient for an
accuraterepresentation
of the way sa is used in conversation.
As I demonstrated
throughthe data, sa, when used to expressthe speaker'sopinions,makes the
utteranceappear lighter in tone. Contrary to previous analysesthe use of ne in
speakerexclusiveinformation contextsmakesthe utterance,the speaker'sopinion,
appearstrongerby urging the hearer to agreewith the speaker.
My conclusionshere based upon Japanesedata may be carried over in to
otherlanguages
as well. A more thoroughinvestigationinto the use of so called "tag
questions"in English,which are often given as the equivalentof ne, could produce
the same conclusionsas in my analysishere. Furthermore, investigationof
suprasegmentals
such as intonation in English and other languagesnot having
particlessuchas sa and ne may be calledfor.
References
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. (19tt7) Politeness:Some uniy,ersalsin language usage.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman (1960) The pronouns of power ancl solidarity. In Thomas E.
Sebeok (ed.), Sry/ein language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press, 253-77.
Cook, Haruko M. (1990) The sentence-final particle ne as a tool for cooperation in Japanese
convcrsation. In H. Hoji (ed.), JapaneselKorean Linguislics. Stanfor<l: Thc Stanford Linguistic
Association,24-44.
Doi, Thkco (1971) The anntonryof dependence.
Tokyo: Kodansha.
Hashimoto,Shinkichi (1969) Joshi,jodoshi no kenlg,uu[Particle and auxiliary verb research].Tokyo:
Iwanami.
28
Tbdd squires
Hengeveld, Elizabeth C. (1984) The lexiographic representationof power vocabulary in Japanese.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca.
Ishida, Akiyoshi (1992) Kaiwa ni okeru nnankan no yakuwari ni tuite. [The role of "nanka" in
conversationJ.Tbukuba University thesis. Unpublished manuscript.
Ishikawa, Minako (1988) The cognitive and interactional functions of the Japaneseparticle ne in
discourse. Southern Review 3: 24-35.
Ishikawa, Minako (IWZ) A synthesisof three approachesto discourse:an analysisof the Japanese
particle ne. Unpublished paper presented at the Linguistics Society of Anrerica Annual Meeting.
Kamio, Akio (1979) On the notion of speaker'sterritory of information. In G. Bedell. E. Kobayashi
and M. Muraki (eds.), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tbkyo:
Kenkyuusha, 213-231.
Kamio, Akio (1991) The theory of territory of information. Unpublished manuscript.
Konoshima, Masatoshi (1966) Kokugo joshi no kenl<yuu[Japaneseparticle research]. Tokyo: Ofusha.
kkoff,
Robin (1975) Language and a wonnn's place. New York: Harper and Row.
McGloin, Naomi H. (1990) Sex differences and sentence-final particles. In Sachiko Ide and Naomi
H. McGlaoin (eds.), Aspects of Japanesewonren's language.Ttlkyo: Kuroshio, 23-4L.
Maltz, Daniel W and Ruth Borker (1982) A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication.
In J. J. Gumperz (ed.). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962t6.
Martin, Samuel (1975) A referencegranmmr of Japanese.New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matsumura, Akira (1975) Kotengo gendaigojoshi jodoshi shosetsu [Particles and auxiliary verbs in
classicaland modern Japanesel.Tokyo: Gakutosha.
Minami, Fujio (1970) On the meaning of sentencesin modern Japanese.In R. Jakobson and S.
Kawamoto (eds.), Srudies in general and oriental linguistics,46T-483.
Minami, Fujio (1974) Gendai nihongo no koozoo. [Modern Japanese syntaxl. Tbkyo: Thisshuukan.
Moriyama, Thkuroo (1989) Ninshiki no muudo to sono shuuhen (Epistemic mood and its
'Ibkyo:
environment). In Y. Nitta and T Masuoka (eds.), Nihongo no modaiti [Japanesemodality].
Kuroshio, 57-120.
O'Barr, William M. and Bowman K. Atkins (1980) "Women's language"or "powerless"language?
In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds.), Wonten and language in literarure and
society,New York: Praeger,93-110.
Sugiyama lrbra, Thkie (1976) Japanesepatterns of behav'ior.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Suzuki, Ryoko (1990) The role of particles in Japanesegossip.Unpublished manuscript.
Thnnen, Deborah (198.1) Conversational style:Analyzing talk among friends. Nonwood: Ablex.
Thnnen, Deborah (1987) Repetition in conversation.Language 63(:3): 574-605.
A discourse analysis of the Japanese particle Sa
29
Tbramura,Hideo (19s4) Nihongo no shintakusu ro ini
[Japanesesynrax and meanin g\ vot.2. Ttrkyo:
Kuroshio.
wetzel, Patricia (19m) Are "powerlessncommunication
strategiesthe Japanesenorm? In Sachiko
Ide and Naomi H' McGloin (eds.), Aspects of Japanese*orrri',
'Ibkyo:
language.
Kuroshio, 5-22.