P r a g m a t i c5
s:.1.427-453.
IntcrnationaP
l r a g m a t i c sA s s o c r a t i o n
AFFECT IN JAPANESEWOMEN'S LETTER WRITING:
USE OF SENTENCE-FINALPARTICLESNE AND YO
AND ORTHOGRAPHICCONTVENTIONSI
KunivoshiKataoka
1" Introduction
I.l. Affect-encoding and epistolary interaction
Recent rnquiries demonstrate that emotion and affect, despite their seeming
irraticlnality,are highly logically organized,and thus subject to scientitlc investigation
(G. Lakoff and Johnson 19f10:G. Lakoff 1987;Holland and Quinn 1987).More and
more linguists have come to appreciate the grammatical realization of affect in
language. Also. data accumulate suggesting that discourse is shot through by
numerous atfect-carrying devices such as word order, verb voice, pronominal
reference.mood, tense/ aspect, and case/ number/ gender/ animacy marking. (Ochs
and Schieffelin 1989; Besnier 1990 for an extensive review).
On the other hand, many discourse analysts have also tried to explicate
specificproperties of the written and spoken in terms of grammatical and rhetorical
aspects(e.g. Chafe and Danielewicz 1987; Biber 1986; Halliday 1987). Recently,
research interest has developed in how features of the spoken language are
incorporated into writing, and how these are mediated, as with the activation of
involvement by imagery (Tannen 1982, 1992). The encoding of affect in writing
needshere again to be captured in terms not only of syntactic features but also of
sociallymotivated intentions of the writer. Much as in face-to-face communication,
the interaction and text creation between the messagesender (speaker, writer) and
the receiver (reader, hearer) is increasinglybeing emphasized (Rubin 19tt4;Bruner
1986;Nystrand 1989; Camitta 1993). All of these trends challenge the dichotomous
view of speaking as the affect-laden mode and writing as the opposite.
Insofar as people take the trouble to communicate their messagevia such an
' I cspccially
thank Jane Hill for her cncouragement and carcful reading clf the final
manuscript.I also sratefully acknowlcdqc Susan Philips, Donna M. Johnson, Ellen Basso for their
invaluablccomments on thc previous version of this papcr, and Douglas Adamson for technical
advicc.I also bcncfitcd from insightful comments bv Matt Teller and Shoji Takano about the general
oncntation of this paper. Mi' thanks extcnd to Gail Shuck for carcfully and critically reading the
m a n u s c r i p ta, n d t o T a k a y o M u k a i , H i s a k o I k a w a ,Y a v o i T o r i k a i , M i k i S h i b a t a ,A k i k o K a t o , R i t s u k o
Uenaka,Yoshiko Okuyama, Aiko Kiyota, Noriko Enokida, Kotomi Oihira, the Takagis,and my wife
Kayoko for gencrouslvlcnding me their personal lcttcrs. Finally, I would like to sincerely thank all
the studentswho participated in this study at CESL and in the Japaneselanguageclasses.Of course
a n v o v c r s i q h t sa n d m i s c o n c e p t i ( ) n a
src mv o$'n.
428
Kuniyoshi Kataoka
inconvenient(though often cheaper)meansas writing, there should be some kind
of specialintention, and/or reward, for taking up the channel.zBesnier'sstudies
(1988, 1989, 1991)in Nukulaelaeare thus quite suggestive.
There personalletter
writing is considered to be a cathartic communicativeevent, and has acquired
specificlocal cultural meanings.Besniersuggests
in his Nukulaelaestudiesthat the
written mode is intrinsicallyheteroglossic
and more affectivethan the spoken.Seen
in this wav, the written mode can present another possiblefield of researchinto
immediate,affect-ladeninteraction.
L.2. Propertiesof ne and yp
This study concernsa written form, the letter, as a social-interactive
means of text
creation - in particular, the affect-encodingdevicesemployedby young Japanese
women who use this form. Especiallyinterestingis the disproportionateuse of
2 Japanese has four types of writing systems, which are respectively Kanji (Chinese
characters), Hiragana, Katakana, and Romaji (Roman alphabet). Each has specific history and
associations.
KANJI: is originally borrowed from the Chinese and can at least be read in two completely different
ways based on the Japaneseand modified Chinesepronunciations.While Kanji charactersrepresent
morphs (sound + meaning) on one hand, the appropriate pronunciation of a given characteris often
determined by the context where it is used. When it was introdurcd into Japan, it was a privilege
only for highly intelligent Buddhist monk^s,high officials and aristocrats,that is, mostly for elite
males. Kanji characters arc traditionally used in combination with two syllabaries:Hiragana and
Katakana.
HIRAGANA:
One type of Kana 'Japanese syllabary' is called Hiragana whose function is to
represent grammatical signals such as postpositions, particles, inflectional endings, affixes as well as
indigenous ideas and objects.Historically, Hiragana were invented by modiffing the most simplified
fclrm of three types of Kanji charactersalready prevalent in the Nara Period (710 AD. - 794 AD.).
Since Hiragana was a simplified form of Kanji, it was easier to master, even for those who had
limited proficiency in Kanji. Besides, in Nara Period, since literacy was necessaryeven for women
to write letters and poems, Hiragana writing eventuallyflowered into the brilliant women's literature
of the Heian Period (794 A.D. - ll92 A.D.).
I({TAIA{NA:
The_other type of Kana is Katakana, which developed from preceding Man'yoogana
(Japanesewriting systemof the Chinese) and was initially used for adding grammatical relationships
and enabling the reader of Chinese literature and Buddhists to 'transread'original Chinese canons.
Katakana were widely used as a substitute for Hiragana before World Ward II, but currently,
Katakana are mostly used for spelling loan words, Furigana (Kana for telling readers how to read
characters), slang, adverbs, and onomatopoeias.They can also be used to represent some sort of
emphasis.
ROMAJI: Finally, Japanesepeople use Romaji (Roman alphabet) quite often in everydaywriting.
It was originally Portuguese missionariesthat first started writing Japanesewith a latin alphabet.
However, becauseo[ the attempts to suppressChristianity by the then-government,it was not until
the Meiji Period (1868-1912)that the official introduction of Romaji into academicfields set in. At
that time, a proposal was even made that Japanesebe written in Roman letters instead of the other
writing systems.After the defeat in WW II, Romaji was incorporated into the curriculum of the
primary school, but now it is taught only for a short period in the primary school mainly for
understanding the transcription of Japaneseinto Roman alphabets,such as in transcribing names
and places.Since its main function in Japancseis merely transcription, it tends to be seen as childlike and non-authenlic.
t4)onten's
Affectin Japanesa
letterwriting 429
sentence-finalparticles3 (henceforth SFP) ne andyo in their writings addressed to
intimates.Both particles represent aftect appropriate for a specitic proposition and
context. In this study, my questions particularly concern the SFPs rrc,yo, and their
comhinatory form yzne^
These SFPs are generally associatedwith affective closenessto the addressee,
although each has its own set of connotations. Researchershave accounted for the
propertiesof trc in terms of contextual function (Cook 1992),psychokrgicaldistance
and "territory' of information (Kamio 1994), and relative modal ditferencc in
interactional and informational load (lzuhara 1993; Maynard 1993; Kinsui 1993).
For example. Cook (1992) found out that trc cirn indirectly index several functions
'requesting
'getting
'introducing
a new topic in
s u c ha s i n
attention,'
confirmaticln.'
'keeping
'socializing
'mitigating
conversation.'
the fl)or,'
children,'
fac:e-threatening
'marking
ac:ts.'and
intimacy,' drawin_{ on the rvell-acknowledged view that nc
functionsas a siqnal which directly indexes'at-fbctivecommon ground' (Cook 1992).
'territury
Kamio's (1994) intluential theory of
of information' currently postulates
a gradable and cclntinur-rus
noticln of interaction between the speaker's territory of
infilrmation and the hearer's. In particular. ne is construed as representing the locus
i n w h i c h t h c i n t o r m a t i o n i s e q u a l l y i n t h e s p e a k e r ' sa n d t h e h e a r e r ' s t e r r i t o r r e s
(direct-nc forrn) or falls completely tn the hearer's territory (indirect-rue form),
constituting degrees of shared information. Maynard ( 1993) more strictly
c h a r a c t c r i z e di t s f u n c t i o n a s ' i n t e r a c t i o n - f o c u s e d a' n d ' i n f o r m a t i o n - d e f o c u s e d ' .
Although the prclperties of yo have so f'ar been less investigated than those
of nc. Izuhara (1993), Maynard (1993). and Kinsui (1993) have considered its
functions in relation tc.lrrc. and defined it in terms of its intbrmation relevance to,
and fitcusednesson. the utterance with yo attached. Along the same lines is
Shirakawa(1992) who hypothesizedthat the function ofyo is to emphasize that the
utterance to which _yo is attached is exclr.rsivelydirected to the hearer. In other
'interactionally
words,it is addresser-orientedand
defocused'.Their generalizations
sound reasonable because yo is usually, though not necessarily, used with
imperatives and statements that are hearer-new. Thus, when y'o is used in
i n t e r a c t i o n a ls i t u a t i o n s . i t f u n c t i o n s a s a n a t t e n t i o n - g e t t e r .w a r n i n g , a n d s c l o n
( M a s u o k a & T a k u b o 1 9 8 9 ) . I t c a n a l s o i m p l y p u s h i n e s s ,o r e v e n a s l i g h t t h r e a t
d e p e n d i n go n t h e c o n t e x t .
Generally. both nc and l'o are seen to best function in face-to-face contexts
( C l a n c y , 1 9 U 2 ) i n o r d e r t o m a n i p u l a t e m u t u a l i t y a n d e m o t i o n a l c l o s e n e s s .F o r
3 I *ill stick to this traditional tcrm
i n t h i s s t u d y s i n c c t h c o c c u r r e n c co f n o n - c l a u s c r - l ' i n a l
particlcsin mv data was negliqible (lcss lhan 2(/r of the total SFP occurrcnc:e)in spitc of thc fact
t h a t n c , i n p a r t i c u l a a r ,( a n d l c s s s o w i t h o t h c r S F P s , )c a n a p p c a r n o t t l n l y a t t h c s c n t c n c c - f i n a l
p o s i t i o nh u t a l s o a t e v c r y p h r a s c b o u n d a r y o f a c l a u s c .I c x c l u d c dt h o s c t o k c n s l ' r o m m y a n a l y s i s
b e c a u s cm v b a s r so f a n a l v s i si s t h c c l a u s c ,n o t t h c s c g m c n t .F r l r e x a m p l e:
W a t a s h i1 n c ) k i n o u ( r r c )
tomodachih
to (nc) ciga
I
yestcrdav
with
f r i en d ( s )
movic
(l sav) I u'cnt to a movie *'ith mv friend(s) yestcrdair.
ni (ne) ita (no; (r,o).
wcnt
to
, V cs o m c t i m c ss o u n d sc h i l d i s h w h e n u s c d 1 o o o [ t e n . A c c o r d i n g t o H o r i ' s s t u d y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , u s c o f n c i s
a b u n d a n ti n S F - P so l ' c l c m c n t a r v s c h o o l c h i l d r en .
430
Kunito:;hi Kotookrt
example:
(l)
Aitstt tto t,Ltlt koto wa slirryoct deki ttai ne.
'We
c a n ' t t r u s t w h a t h e s a v sn e . ( d r > n ' tv o u t h i n k ? ) '
(2)
Aitstt no yLtLtkoto wa shirryoo deki rtai yo.
'l
say I can't trust what he says (he is a liar) yo.
As wc will see litter. however, the functions of these particles are not so clear-cut.
a r - r da r e a l s o v a r i a b l e d c p e n d i n g o n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a lc o n t e n t .
1.3. Researchquestions
The useof theseSFPsstrikinglvfills everynook rind crannyof the lettersand cards
written by young Japanesewomen.My first questionhere is to look at the way in
which rrc and.r'o reflect the emotiorutllance of the encoder, which is usually
culturallyand contextuallyorganized(e.g,Ochsand Schieffelin1989;Besnier1989;
Irvrne 1990).and also how theseSFPsare relatedto two aspectsof socialrelations
most cruciallytied to emotiondiscours
e: Sociabilityandpowerrelatiorts(Abu-Lughod
a n d Lut z 1990:13- 1 4 ).
My ra ti o n a l etb r s e l e cti ngthesespeci fi cS FP s i s the
following.Frrst, the SFPstrc,yo are a very imnnrtant part of self-representation.
Accclrdingto Hori (1981),the use of SFPspermeatesthe utterancesof .Iapanese
women of 20 veArsof age and older living in suburbanarcasof Tokyo, and most
likely prevailsacrossother regionsand dialects.Interestingly,
ne alwaystops the list
of SFPsacrossagesincludingteenagersand younger,but the use of yo climbsup
to the secondplace in frequencyonly after the twenties.It alternatesin frequency
with other SFPssuchas tto,nu, iind.saup throughthe teens.In any case,neandyo
zlre two most widely used SFPs throughoutthe litespan.Overall, Hori (1981)
concludesthat the high frequencyof use of SFP impliesinformality.solidarity,and
politenessamongdiscourseparticipants.
Speakers
are expectedto graduallybroaden
their repertoireof SFPsas they are meshedinto the society(attestedby the use of
a g e -s pec : ifS
icF P s ) .a c q u i ri n -u
i n te rp e rs o n a l /i d e ntimanagement
tv
ski l l s and adul t
t'crrmsof xtciuhility.
The secondquestionconcernsthis increasingstabilityof use clf ne andyo,
which I assumcis inf-luenced
by covertnormalizingpressurefrom peersand seniors
at workplacesand from the societyin general.These factorsmay play a role in
soliclif.ving
their use. (See Nakane 1910: Okonogi 1981; Doi 1973 lI97I) for
a g e -/ s t at us - r elit teexdp e c ta ti o nasn d h i e ra rc h i c aeld ucati onal
systems
at w orkpl aces
i n Ja panes es oc iet y .)Be c a u s eo f th i s a s s u m p ti o nm, ostof my data consi stof l etters
written by femalejunior high/highschoolstudentsand youngtemalestrom 20 to 34
of age whcl have had some occupntionalexperience.Brief analyseswill be done
betwcenthe usesol rrc and)'o by theseage groups.I will alsobreak down the data
accordingtct the addressee's
age, a factor often cclnnectedto pov'er relalionsin
Japan.
w,onrcn's
Afft:ctin Japanese
lerterwriting
43I
2. Analysis of sentence final particles ne, yo, and yone
2.1. Inftrrnants antl data
I n t h i s s e c t i o n ,t h e a n a l y s i sf o c u s e so n t h e s p e o i f i cu s e o f s o m e S F P s g a t h e r e d f r o m
65 letters and cards written by young Japirnesewomen. There are 20 writers in their
t e e n s , 9 i n t h e i r e a r l y 2 0 ' s , 2 2 i n t h e i r l a t e 2 0 ' s ,a n d 1 4 i n t h e i r e a r l y 3 0 ' s a n d o l d e r .
The breakdown of types of addresseesis as fbllows: 37 letters to same-sex close
f r i e n d s . 3 l e t t e r tso o p p o s i t e - s e x c k r sfer i e n d s .l 5 l e t t e r s t o s u r n e - s c x f r i e n d s , 6 l e t t e r s
'closeness'
i l c : c o r d i n gt o
t o o p p o s i t e - s e xf r i e n d s . a n d 4 l e t t e r s t o s i s t e r .( l j u d g e d t h e
their self-report.)
2.2. Factors and prtx:edure
T h i s a n a l v s i ss h o u l d b c m a d e r n r c l a t i o n t o t h e o f t - d i s c u s s c dc u l t u r a l t h e n r e s o f
J a p a n .T h e v a r i a b l e ss e n e r a l l y e m b r a c e d a s n c c e s s a r yf o r c o n s i d e r a t i o ni n s t u d i e s
of Japanese society are basiczrllygroup iderttity, gertder, and age (Loveday 1986).
'inside'/solr.r
rntricatelvintertwined with the considerationsand manipulations olucli
'r.rutside'and
s e l f / o t h e rr e l a t i o n s h i p .( S e e D o i ( 1 9 1 3 | 9 1 1 1 ) ; K o n d o ( 1 9 U 9 ) ;B a c h n i k
( 1 9 9 2 )f o r a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n . )H o w e v e r . w e c a n e l i m i n a t e t h e t i r s t t w o f a c t o r s
here sincethe data gathered for this analysisall came frclm cclrrespondencebetween
'unmarked'
intimatesor friends. that is. an
uc'lti case in terms of group iderttity. I
'unmarked'
t e n t a t i v e l ya s s u m e t h a t t h e
p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t so f i n t i m a t e o r c l o s e
friends,whether the addresseesare male rlr female, as long as the letters are written
by t'emales.
As fclr the gertder tactclr, considering the distribution and the datar gathered
(all letterswere written by females, and addressedto unmarked addresses),ge nder
ditference of thc addressee will not be addressed in this study - the number of
t o k e n s o b t a i n e d f r o m m a l e - a d d r e s s e ec a s e s i s r a t h e r s m a l l ( 4 7 5 1 2 1 2 5= 2 2 . 4 c / o ) .
Theretirre, in the next section, I will pav closc attentic)n to how the age tactor is
c r u c i a It o r t h e u s e o f c e r t a i n p a r t i c l e s .
As for the basic analytical framework, the dependent variable is the presence
or absenccof particular SFPs. Although the focus of this study is to investigate the
use of SFPs ne, yo and vr)rrc,I also looked at other SFPs for comparison. and also
cross-analyzed
some of the factors as necessary.The SFPs investigated are tte, yo,
vone,na, tro, we, sa, ko, and roughlv defined otlters for the sake of convenience. [n
casesof combinations of these ofi-used ones (exceptyone) such as wonel kurte, kane,
nutto,nottovo,trtutor,one,etc.. I classifiedthem under otlrcrs (the trequency of these
SFPswas relativelv small). Since as Hori ( 19f11
) observed,there are more than thirty
rypesof SFPs including combinatory fclrms, I had to narrow them down to the most
r e l e v a n to n c s .
The independent vzrriablesare what I take to be the four most relevant
t i r c t o r st h a t m i g h t i n t l u e n c e t h e ( n o n ) o c c u r r e n c eo f t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . T h e y
w c r e 1 ) l o c u s o f o c c u r r e n c e .2 ) c o - o c c u r r e n c eo f a f t e c t i v e / e v a l u a t i v e d e v i c e s ,3 )
'Locus
adult / juvenile affiliation, and ,1) direction of address.
of occurrence' has
f o u r l e v e l s :a ) t o p i c b o u n d a r y m i n u s 1 , b ) t o p i c b o u n d a r y , c ) t o p i c b o u n d a r y p l u s 1
432
Kuniyoshi Kataoka
(: an initial position of the next topic), and d) mid-topic.The reason for this
distinctionwill be discussedwith relationto Labov'smodel of narrativestructure
(1912).My assumptionis that ne,yo, andyorteare especially
concernedwith specitic
narrativecomponentsand tend to serveas contextualization
cues(Gumperz)1982)
governedby the structure.
By 'affective/ evaluativedevices'I mean pictorialsignsand unconventional
punctuation that representthe rvriter'saffect in a different way from what mature
writersare supposedto employin a conventionally
appropriatemanner.I employed
Tanizaki's(1975)essentialaxiomsfor writingJapaneseto definethis'mature'style.
Becauseof my focus on this metalinguisticaspectof writing, I did not analyze
syntacticfeaturesof expression
manifestedby lexicalandgrammaticalorganizations.
It is highly plausiblethat thesemetalinguistic
featuresfunctionhand-in-handwith
some affect-ladenSFPs.I will discussthis topic in more detail elsewhere(Kateroka
1e9s)"
I classifiedthe letters accordingto the two age cohorts:Adult andjuvenile.
It is arguablewhat cclnstitutes
adultnessandjuvenileness,
and presumablyit is highly
psychologically,economically,and legislativelydefined. Here I tentatively define
them accordingto whetherthe writer hasever had a rigid occupationalexperience,
becauseof my assumptionthat the implicit normalizingforce of Japanesesociety
playsa role. Consequently,
adult here corresponds
to femalesat20 yearsof age or
older with an occupationalexperience,andjt;enile, tojunior high / high schooland
junior collegestudentswho lacksuch.Labov(1972),Eckert(1988),and Shaw(1994)
claim that juvenileshave their own norms of interactionbasedon speciticsocial
identitiesand subculturalmeaning.In tact, in our case,they seemto have quite a
diftbrent perceptionabout the use of yo from their adult counterparts.
Another age factor is the directionof address.Upwardmeanshere that the
letter was written to a seniortriend (someonewith a higherstatusin terms of age
relationship),Level,to a peer. andDownwerd,to a junior friend, respectively.There
is, of course,a casein which someonecan be a senior at a workplace even if s/he
is younger than others. I excludedthis 'reversed'casebecausein it self-identity
managementseemsto be situationaland thusunstable,althoughI admit peoplecan
be psychologicallypeers even if they are dift'erentagesas long as they are on the
same seniorityrelationshipin Japanesetate shakui'verticalsociety'(See Nakane
le70).
In this study,I usedcoLDVARB version2.0 developedby Rand and Sankoff
( 1990)to carry out a variablerule analysis.The resultis representedby the numbers
called factor weightsindicating the degree to which certain factors promote or
demote the operation of the rule, thus favoring or disfavoringthe dependent
variable,which hasa neutralweightof .50.Put anotherway,largervaluesabove.50
(.5 1 t o. 99) im ply s t ro n g e rp ro mo ti n ge ffe c tsa, n d smal l erval uesbel ow .50 (.01 to
.49) imply strongerinhibitoryeffects.
2.3. Identification of topic
The basisof the analysisis the topic-boundedclause.In reality,how to decide a
topic boundary is a very complicatedmatter. I first relied on the conventional
boundaries such as Zenhun 'introductory remarks', Honbutt 'body', lvfatsttbtut
Affect in Japanese wonten's letter writing
433
'concludingremarks'.As fbr Hortbtut (Body). as is often pointed out, there is a
wefl-kn<rwn rhetorical organization called Ki-Slrc-Tert-Ketsu,which roughly
correspclnds
to Introduction- Development- Unexpectedtwist - Conclusion.This
stvlervasoriginallyimported from China more than 10 centuriesago with the
introductionof Chinese charactersand graduallycame to be used in formal
expository
writings.In addition to this convention,an ordinary letter usuallyhas
salutation.
complimentaryclose,and signature.I treatedtheseas distinctelements
that maniteststructuralsaliencebecause,althoughSFPsrarely appearwith them,
salutationand signature(that is, channelopen/closesignals)and complimentary
close(most relevantto the Gricean maximsof truthfulnessand politeness)are
usuallvhighlyaffect-ladenalthoughfairly conventionalized
to someextent.Further,
manywriters added postscript(s),which I includedin my analysisas a distinct
segment.
One way I could have boundedclauseswas this kind of rhetoricalstructure,
but,exceptin somerelativelylong letters,manywritersdo not seemto observethis
style at all. Partly because they did not sufficiently exploit this rhetorical
organization,
or partly becausethey had too much to say in a limited space,they
endedup reportingone after another what had happenedto them without any
senseof buildingup a coherentwhole as prescribedby Japaneserhetoricalnorms.
In anycase,the pervasivepracticeof ncltrelyingon the styleis a common feature
of their writings.Thus we have to figure out how to sort out the clusteredchunk
into topicsas reasonablyand emicallyas possible.
Brown and Yule (i983) point out the arbitrariness
in detiningthe notion of
'topic'
and its boundariesin ordinary conversationanalysis.In most casesthe
decisicln
of topic boundariesis made intuitivelybased on two types of brcladly
definedtopics:sentencetopic and discoursetopic. In this study,I mainly followed
van Dijk's notion of discoursetopic and macrostructure(van Dijk 1980,7982;van
Dijk and Kintsch 1983)and occasionally
referred to Giv6n's (1983a,1983b)and
Hinds'(1983,1984)notion of sentencetopic for dubiouscases.a
The number of
" Accordingto van Dijk, episodes,that are usuallyminimum setsof text, can bc semantically
detinedand hounded by a distinctive beginning and end. Such episodescan also be theoretically
b o u n du p i n t e r m so f w h a t h e c a l l s a ' m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n ' .I t i s u s u a l l yc q u i v a l e n tt o w h a t i s g e n e r a l l y
termedas topic, thcme, or gist. He stipulates that this thematically and intuitively bound chunk of
text is marked by linguistic 'breaking points' or grammatical 'signals'that specifl,the prepositional
boundaries(van Dijk 1982: l8l; van Dijk and Kintsch 1983:204). He proposesthe following critcria
f o r d e t e c t i n gs u c h p o i n t s a n d s i g n a l s :l ) C h a n g co f p o s s i b l ew o r l d , 2 ) C h a n g eo f t i m e o r p e r i o d , 3 )
Changeof place, 4) Introduction of new participants, 5) Full noun phrase rcintroduction of old
participants.6) Change of perspective, 7) Change of frame of script, 8) Pauses and hesitation
phenclmena
in spokcn discourse,9) Paragraphindcntations in written discourse.Thus us a general
strategv.if a sentence can no longer be subsumed under a current macroproposition, a new
macropropositionmust be set up.
We can find numerous articles dcvoted to the notion o[ topic continuity, acticln/evenl.
continuity,and clause chaining mainly done from the Functional pcrspective (e.g. Giv6n 1983a,
l9tJ3b;Hinds 1983, 1984:Myhill and l-libiy'a1988;Watanabe 1994).Howevcr, although thesc types
of considerationsare tit for lcloking at information flow and cohesion. they are not helpful to the
boundingpracticc in this study becausethey tcnd to capture thc continuity/discontinuitycontinuum
with variou-s
svntacticand typological organizations.One criterion I have adopted form their studies
is Hinds' notion of disranceand decq' in Japanese(1983, 1984),with which he claims the gradient
topic continuitv among case-markerdcletion, (subject case-marking)particle ga and wa; Deletion
434
Kuniy,sslli
Karaoka
broadly defined topics was countcd following thcse critcria.
Table I indic:ates the breakdown of number of topics that form each
'Adult
'Direction
of address' and
/ juvenile orientation' f'actors. In the sections
'Adult'
r{)w. comparing the differencesin the directicln
below, I will flrst consider the
'Level'
column to look for particular features associated
of address, and then the
with the two types of age cohrlrts.
Tuble l.
NUM BE RO F C L AU SEIN
S EA C H ' D I R E C TION ' FA C TOR
N u m b e r s i n n a r c n t h c s e si n d i c a t c t h c t o t a l # o f S F P s u s c d i n c a c h c a t c g o r y .
'Totul
Agc rclationship
L pu'ard
L.eve i
Dou nu ard
,,rdult
Ju'u'ett
ilc
6-10r85r
7 3 8( l - 1 3 )
6ll (186)
7-lfi t l09 r
NiA
\/.{
ll16r3l7r
6llrl8(rr
fotul
O-10rti.5r
il59 {Jl())
7 - 1 1r l' 0i ( ) r
1 7 4 7 t - iI . 1 r
2.4. Ns, W lone and other particles
Here I will brietiy compare the contextual uses of SFPs tle, )'o, yotrc anrJ others,
reterring to Shibamoto's spoken data (19tt7) and Clancy's wrttten data (19tt2). First,
as Shibamoto ( 1981) points out, these lexical (or rnorphological) teatures can be
used in both male and female speech but are used in different conditions, such as
that men use these tctrms immediately atter plain and polite tirrms of the copula,
adjectives,and verbs, but women obey combinatory rule-swhich considerably restrict
the use of thesc forms (Shibamoto 19t17:3,1).''However, in the case clt letter-writing
> ' r ' { t > g r i , i n t c r m s o l ' c o n t i n u i t r ' . F o r d u b i o u s c a s c s ,I r c r l i c dr l n h i s l i n d i n g s a n d j u d g e d o n t h e
toprc boundaries.
Thc gcncral rules are:
whcn grr --> Kr; e --> wa: e --> ga: wa --> ga: Ncw Topic
W h e n w , o - - > w , i l :e - - > e : g o - - > h ' a : w a - - > p : C o n l i n u o u s
is marked by
E . g . l t a b o u n d a r v l s v a { u c a n t l t h e f i r s t c l a u s ei n t h e c x p e c t c dr r e u ' m a c r o p r o p ( l s i t i o n
ga and followcd bv .lld or deletion, OR markcd by wa and followed by dcletion and preceded by
' d i s c o n t i n u o u s 'a n d t h u s a
dcletion (that is. less 'markcd' on thc continuum), I took this to bc
b o u n d a r y . ( l t s e e m s t h a t t h i s m e a n s t e n d s t o m a k c a t o p i c s e g m e n ts m a l l e r t h a n w h a t v a n D i l k
c o n s i d c r st o h c a m a c r ( ) s t r u c t u r c r . )
5 W i r h r h c ' c o m b i n a t o r y r u l e s , 'S h i h a m o t o ( l 9 t t 7 : 3 4 ; t a k e s u p f o l l o w i n { c x a m p l e s :
(M) Iku "vo.(go)
(M) Ikimasune. (Go-politc)
( F ) I k u w , 0\ , o . ( G o ) : ' l ' m g o i n g . '
'l'm going.'
1 F ) I k i m a s un o n e . 1 G o - p o l i t c ) :
wonrcn'slettcrwriting 435
Af.fccttn Jopunese
o f y o u n g J a p a n e s ef e m u l e s . t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n i n c i d e n c e o f S F P s s e e m s t o b e a s
i m p o r t a n ta s t h e g r a m m a t i c a l c o n d i t i o n so n w h i c h t h e y a r e s u p p o s e dt o t a k e p l a c e .
An interestrngresult arises when my written data are put into the SFP classification
from Shibamoto's( 1987)spoken framework (Table 2). Other sentence-finalparticles
suchas wa and rrr.r.which Shibarnoto (and others) classifiesas particularly womanly
'neutral'
p a r t i c l e so. c c u r r c d l e s s f r e q u e n t l y t h a n n e a n d y o , w h i c h s h e m e n t i o n s a r e
g e n d e rm a r k e r s .
C l e a r l y i n y o u n g J a p a n e s ef e m a l e s ' l e t t e r s .r t e ( 3 7 . 3 9 b) a n d ) , ( . ,( 1 6 . 6 o i a )a r e
more indexicalof female gender than widely acknorvledgedf'emale particles such as
wu (1.8c/o)trnrlrto (3.1oh1.Morcover, some supposedly male-specific particles (ze,
sri, and rra) were cclnfirmed to tre more frequent than some t"emale-specitlcones.
This result slrggeststhat any gender-indexicalityin SFPs is highly sensitiveto context.
S h i b a m o t o " sd a t a c a m e f r o m n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o nc o n d u c t e d b y , a n d T V d r a m a
'wclmanly
women'. Mv data concerns informetl written
s c e n a r i o ss c r i p t e d f o r ,
c o m m u n i c a t i o nb e t w e e n i n t i m a t e s .
As firr written data, Clancv (1982) rel)orts that based on her sample (20
narrativew
s r i i t e n b y y o u n u J a p a n e s ew o m e n i n r e s p o n s et o a s h o r t f i l m ) t h e r e w a s
total aureement among thc writers that none of thern ever used trc,))o or sn in their
w r i t i n g ,a n d c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e s e p a r t i c l e s s e n , e a s a m e a n s o f s u p p o r t i n g a n d
'tace-to-face'
m a i n t a r n i n ga
i n t e r a c t i o n .T h e e x t r e m e g a p b e t w e e n t h e u s e o f S F P s
in hcr data and that in mv own has apparently come from the different purposes for
which the vrritings tctok place: Frtrmal expository prose or informal letter writing.
Both of these results susgcst a great variability in contextual and purposive use of
t h e s er r a r t i c l e sa n d i n t e { r r a t i o no f t h e s p o k e n f e a t u r e s i n t o c a s u a l l e t t e r w r i t i n g .
Tuble 2.
PARTICLESNE. YO.YONEAND OTHERS
INCIDENCEOF SENTENCE-FINAL
BASEDON SHIBAMOTO'SCLASSIFICATION
N o t e : N a n d c / ca r e t h o s e o b t a i n e d i n m v d a t a .
Ircrllrlc
\cLrtllrl
\1ril.
lrr
..\rlt.L pr',:irrl
.\di. [)trii rrrrlir.tl
\tlt. 1..-r,:l
. i L r r cl -. c r l l
Ii
i I
(r\
Irr1.1|
l ( )I
, in l,,t,rl Silt
ir
.t
+
ir
ll
it
.\S
s5
I
i(,(.
lr
IS
l{)
r5
I
lh
r)
i-l
5S
tlr
ti
()
| (r
IS
rl
o
()
I
'l
()
I
t5
sl
(r
6
:-l
1-1
A s c a n b c s c c n , m c n u s l r p a r t i c l c sd i r e c t l v a f t c r p l a i n a n d p o l i t e f o r m s o f t h e c o p u l a , a d j e c t i v e s ,
v c r b sa, n ds o c l n .O n t h c o t h c r h a n d .u ' o m c n ' su s a _ qi e
s b a s c do n t h c c o m b i n a t i o nw i t h o t h e r p a r t i c l c s
( e . g -. r r r rn c ) . P r e s c r i p t i v e hs' p c a k i n g .l h i s o b s e r v a t i o ni s c o r r c c t , b u t m a n v o f t h e J a p a n e s c\ ^ ' o m e n
i n m v d a t a d i d n o t n c c e s s a r i l vf o l l o w t h e s c r u l c s .
436
KuniyoshiKutaoka
2.5. Analysis of Ug W vone and age factor
I wif f consider the use of ne, yo and their combinatory torm yr,ntebased on two
'Direction
factors. One rs the
of address' and the other is the functional differences
'Adult juvenile
of rre a,nrJyo in
orientation'. I will also connect my first discussion
/
to a narrative structure, and my second one to a writing system switch.
Labov (1972: 369-370) identified the cclmpletenarrative structure as starting
with Abstracl ('what was this about l') or Oiertturiorr ('who, when, what, where'), and
leading tct Complicntirtg Actiort ('then what happened?';, Resolutiotr ('conclude'),
Result ('what finally happened?'), and finally tr>Coda ('signal change of topic'), with
Et'ulttutklr ('so what?') appearing in various forms throughout the narrative. As far
as the narrative event (or'topic' in this study) is concerned, the average number of
clauses in one narrative is approximately 7 (26581388: 6.85...)after the exclusion
'topics'
clf non-nrrrrative
such as salutation. complimentary close, and signature.
Since the esscntial part of the narrative structure is Complicating acticln (as long as
the narrative is reportable), we will see that this structure also applies to a narrative
event typical of letter writing of Japanese females in a more simplified framework.
'narratives'
Just reading thcir
impresses us that some of the events are not so
reportable from our point of view. However,, they are reportable for the
communicators themselves in their specific ways. That is why they decided to take
up this onerous means of cclmmunication.using their time and energy, whether their
purpose is merely phatic or one of obligiition. Letter writing is almost always heavily
evaluated because the evaluative pclrtion of a narrative indexes this reportabiliry,
highlighted by the contextualizing functions of particular SFPs. To take up an
instance from the data:
/i\
Okutt-sart yo ottee-.tan kuru u,u yoku o-hnnasli o ukttgatte masu ga I ('iroiro
guttbutteru wayo'l) tiattte kikuto luratsmete ('Yayoi-son, tanomosltii'l) to
kctrtsltinsltite imustt. I 'l rn rtuka rn kuwrtzu' tterut watashi niwa (Yayoi-san ga
kuette kuru l) lti su tortoslitni. I Korukt wa .shibarakutaizni dekiru to no koto.
lAmeriku de rut koto (etc'.) wtkkui kikusete kudasai ne I fuIattentytutoort. I
I hear a lot about you from yclur mother and sister, and I really admire you
'Y:rycli,
'she
like
great!' when I especiallyhear that
seems to be doing great
yn.' For a person like me, wlto is narnrw-sightcd (don't know the world), it
is a great pleasure to have you back here. I heard you are going to stay a
while this time. You must tell me things about America and etc. ne. I am
l o o k i n g f i r r w a r d t o s e e i n gy o u a g a a a a a i n y o ! ! !
A l s o , a t o p i c s o m e t i m c s c o n s i s t sl u s t o f a f e w c l a u s e s . t h a t a r e e i t h e r
Complicating action or Evzrluaticln.
(4)
Korto 'birtsert'kuw,ctErau. I Okkuu gu kutc kite ku'etu no. I Moo' desho.
Don' t y ou t h i n k th i s w ri ti n gp a d i s c u te ?M om b< l ughtthi s for me rro. [t' s
'so-so'.don't vou think'/
We see frclm these examples that vast background knowledge is shared, and
much of the Abstract / Orientation, Result and Coda is simply presupposed, thus
Affect tn Jaltonesewonlen's letter writing
437
rendcringthe content a bare sequenceof actions/eventsand atfect, mostly consisting
of brief Orientation, Complicating action, Evaluation, and omitted Resolution and
Coda - the skeleton of a narrative. This is roughly what most of the topics comprise,
and this makes it reasonable why onc topic on average consists of only about 7
clauses.
The GOLDVARB analysisof the adult population (Table 3) demonstrated
'Locus
'Direction
their distinct distributions for
of occurrence',
of address'. and
'Co-occurrence
of affective / evaluative devices'.
As is evident from the tzrble,trc,yo and yotrc have distinct functions suggested
bv the factors of each independent variable. They seem to have functionally
complementarydistributions and are closelyconnected with the narrative structure,
allowing tbr the structural correspondence between the narrative structure and
preferreclloci of occurrence. Table 4 presents a rough schematization of this
correspondence"
First, since ne implies cmoticlnal cklseness and atfective common ground
(Cook 1992), it usually helps to consolidate common feelings toward a narrated
eventat the end of a topic. ultimately establishingsolidarity between the addresser
and addressee.It also helps to capture the addressee'sattention with its evaluative
tone and give a clue to usher him/her into a ncw topic. We could thus say that ne
indirectlyindexescerterinnarrertivccomponents in the overall structure of discourse
(c.f.Cook 1992; Ochs 1992).
Table 3.
VARBRULANALYSISOF INDEPENDENTVARIABLES
I-rlcusof ()ccurrcncc
has four lcvclls:a) topic boundary- I, b) topic boundary,c)
t o p i cb o u n c l a r+y 1 ( : t o p i ci n i t i a l )a, n d d ) m i d - t o p i c .v: a l u ex > . 5 0 : >
facilitative;
x < .50 :> inhibitory
(to juniors);kvel (to peers)
Direction
of address:
Upward(to scniors);
Downward
I ) i r c et i o n
LtrCtls
L'1,
i6
1:
.51
I ' t r t r t l( - l t i - s t 1 u . t t c= l - i 0 9
I)o\\ tt.
.l -i
-5()
C h r s t l u r r r c / c c l=l .(rJ
()7
l-i
ll
i - o t r r lC h t - s r l r r r r l c= I 0 . 5 0
.-s-l
(,5
.10
6S
f r r t l t lC h i - s r l u l l c= l . t 0 s
+6
")l
C h i - s qu a r c / ec l l _
.(rS
1'1
()-1
+6
f ' h i s t l u r t r . c / c=
c l l. 5 ( )
Lcr cl
6l
.6l
N = l.lj
-57
11
N=il
1-)
a _
N=()
438
Kuni,-oshi Kataoka
Table 4.
CONTEXTUALIZING
FUNCTIONS
OF NE,YO,AND YONE
IN RELATION
TO TI-IE FACTORS IN 'LOCUS OF OCCURRENCE'
Components\SFP
EvalLratror-l
(5)
A b s t r a c t / O r i e n t a t i o(nc )
C o m p l i c a t i n sa c t i t ' r n( a / c l )
R e s o l u t i o n( a / b )
R e s L r l t / C o d(ab )
tIe
\'otI(
X
X
X
X
X
X
(x)
X
Sale ware ware mo 28-sai ri twrimaslita ga, I nartka kodomo-ppoi
yonee---!!
I (Demo Yamada wa korto ttatsu sukoshi ototro ni natta kedo
ne!!!) I Demo .fukekomu koto wa rni! I ltsu made mo kimochi wa 10-dai de
gurtburoo ne!
tsy the way, we have turned 2fl, but we are still kind of childishyotrce---,
don't you think'/ (But Yamada (your)has become a little more 'mature'
wom an t his s u m m e rn e , h a v e n ' ty o u ' /) We don' t have to teel senile.Let's
keep on going with the heart of a teenagerne.
This common practiceexplicatesthe relativehigherweight of ne at the loci
' a ( t o p i c b o u n d a r y- 1 : . 5 6 ) ' a n d ' c ( t o p i c
b o u n d a r y* 7 : . 5 2 ) ' , a n d t h e s i g n i f i c a n t
va lue at ' b ( t opic b o u n d a ry .7
: 2 )' ,a l l o f w h i c h(e speci al l y' b'serve
)
to consti tutea
ropic boundary(Table 3). Further,suchmutualfeelingsare most likelyto be shared
by peers,thus displayingthe highestpreterencetor 'Level' factor in 'Direction of
address',with a weight value of .63.
Second,yo seemsto haveat leasttwo functions:One similarto ne; but with
a strongerconnotationof the addresser's
intenticln,and the other quite different
from rtc. As many Japanesegrammarianspoint out, in additionto the emphasized
directedncssto the utteranceto whichyo is attached(e.g.Shirakawa1992:Kinsui
1993),yois particularlyusedwhen the addresserpresentsinformationto which the
addresseehave not had access.This functionaldistributionis shownin Table 5:
Table 5.
DISTRIBUTION
OF NT AND YOIN TERMSOF N,IUT'UAL
KNOWLEDGE
A d d r e s s e r( + )
Adclressee(+)
A d d r e s s c '(e- )
ne
\'(/
Affect in Japnnesev,onren's letter w,iting
439
Becauseof this epistemological
ditference,using yo in this sensealmost
alwaysconcernsintroducingnew information"Thus,yo helpsto oreatean implicit
power relationship,the function of which Maynard (1993) summarized as
'information-focused'
and 'interaction-def
ocused'.This inherentfunctionreasonably
relatesto the higher frequencyof yo in tactors'd (.54)' (roughly,Cornplicating
action,or presentzrtion
of new infbrmation)and 'b (.67)' (Resolutionor Result /
Coda),and to significantlyhigher weight (.68) for 'Downward' in VARBRUL
of 'Directionof address'.It seemsto me quite naturalthat seniorstend to
analysis
yo'.rtoward their juniors becausethey are usuallyendowedwith mclre
more
use
society,whetherthey are cclnscious
authoritv
and powerin hierarchy-based
Japanese
of this ur not. [n other words,_yocues 'new infirrmaticln'and also overtly marks
p o w er - ladcev
n alua ti o nE. x a mp l e(6 ) d e m o n s tru l t es
theseuses.
(6)
Soosrlo,Ltcltirto slnc:hoorto Trxtmnsltgo kckkrxt Kl,ookorxt koto o kikurt da
'hnooto-settdoo shitent?'-tte.LEXIS no sutu.ffurti,rturttekungneleiruno
y<-t.
komoslirenui shi,saikirt uchintctklttoiku kunkeiga nobiru kurutoseiga mienai
denro rni shi. Izttre ni ssy-o,hirukeru micli wa iktro demo onot dukare,
shikkai ganhureyo.
You know what'JOur president,Mr. Thomas,often asksme about Kyooko
(yor) yr,,.saying,'How is your sisterdoing'l'He may be thinkingof recruiting
you tirr LEXIS (the writer'sfirm). . . . lt is true that there is a possibilitythat
our education-related
businessis going to develop.Anyway, there are as
manywaysas you wish (if vou try hard).so you must keep up a good work
yo.
Finally,voneseemsto be more ambiguouspartly becauseof the paucityof
essential
data here and partly becauseof its mitigatingfunctionbetweenne andyo.
As Tabie4 shows,vorteis most relevantto 'Resolution'and 'Abstract/ Orientation'.
are seenin (7) and (8):
Examples
are rare, but typicalpatternsof clccurrence
(7)
Soreri sltitemohataruitemienut deslitu-kke?I Doo vuttekurashiteirut daroo
I to, sobokurtu gimortgrt uttui .sltite,
I kooy,utttto yokei na osewaf-tte iwt desu
YOne.
By the way, do you have a job? I have a simple questionabout how your
f am ilyis ( ec o n o m i c a l l yg)e tti n ga l o n g .T h i s i s l i ke ' Mi nd your ow n busi ness!'
vone.I knctw.
(8 )
Toshi o lont ti Isttrete I tuiryokn ga icltiban otoroent yone(e),/ nante, lgtoo mo
Sachi to saikoi shite I hurtuslite kita tokoro destt. I Kodomo mo kr,ttoslti3-sai
ni narintustt. I Srrosoro futari-rne o to kartgaete int no destt ga . . . .
'As we get older,we krsephysicalpower most of allyone(e).'This is what we
talkedabout when I met with Sachi(her friend) today.My son is turning 3
yearsold, and (my husbandand) I am (are) thinking of having a second
babv.
Kuniyoshi Karaoka
440
Sinceyone is a combinationt'sfyo and ne (seeKinsui (1993)for an explanationof
why the neyo tr-trmdoes not exist.),it implies that the utteranceis particularly
directedto the addresseeand also to her/hisintentionto shareaffectivecommon
ground: A mitigatedform of speakerorientation/ hearerorientationand power /
despite
that the GOLDVARB analysisdemonstrates,
solidarity.It is very suggestive
'Upward'.(Closeattentionto the actual
its low l'requency,a high promotingettect
use of yone in the data showsthat it is alwaysprecededby polite forms suchas desa
or masu when used to write to seniors.Also, it is mostly used in a consultativeor
persuasivetone.) On the basisof thesedata,we couldsaythat yone is mainly used
involvementwith the consultative
to intntduce a new topic by elicitingaddressee's
tone, and by confirming mutual affectiveorientationwith its atfirmative tone,
especiallywhen addressingseniors.
So far, I have not separatelyconsidered"Co-occurrenceof affective /
evaluativedevices'.The common finding acrossthese three SFPs is that these
devicesare closelyrelatedto the occurrenceof the SFPs.At this point I can only
say that these devicesare most likely to co-occurwith negatives,futures, and
modals, which Labov (1972:380-1) assumestypically occur at the point of
placedat the end of a clausesinceJapanese
evaluation.They are alsosyntactically
tense,aspect,and
language,and thustypologically,
is an SOV (subject-object-verb)
mood come at the clause-finalposition (if not deleted),accompaniedby such
devices.
2.6" Comparativeanalysisof adult and juvenile useof SFP
I will compareadult and juvenileusesof rte,,yo,andyortein this section.I will look
clnlyat the 'Level' populationfrom adult and juvenilegroupspartly becausethere
were not sufficientdata from juvenilesin the other categoriesand mainly because
Japanesefemalesusedmost SFPsin that category.(SeeTable 1 and 2.) The results
from the GOLDVARB analvsisare summarizedin Table 6.
Table 6.
OF I/E. YO.AND YONEFORADULTAND JUVENILE'LEVELS'
PROBABILITIES
Notc: Factor 'b' in ),one'srow was not available becauseof its non-occurrence in
'Adult
marked 'b' thus was excludcd from the analysisof
the ccll. Tokens
'Evaluativc devicc' f<tryone.
/ Juvenile orientation' and
Ach.rlt
I
Jurveni l e
L o c u so f
o()currence
yes
c
ne
.6t
,1
\ ' () I l e
'1
59
. 60
Evallrative
clevice
.59
.+--)
. 17
..16
53
N/A
.55
.1 7
t a
NO
5l
.19
56
.48
a !
.-t I
.t3
.51
.1r)
.55
.,1.1
.6ri
.-15
w'onrcn's
ktter writing 441
Affectin Japanese
T h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n f o r t h i s ' L e v e l ' p o p u l a t i o n s e e m st o b e a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y
the same as that of the overall adult population (see Table 3) except for yo's
'h'
'Locus
rnhibitoryettbct in
of
of co-occurrence' (.47) and its dramzrtic reversed
'Adult
e t f e c t .o r j u v c n i l e p r e f e r e n c e w i t h a s i g n i f r c a n tw e i g h t v a l u e o f . 1 3 i n
/
j u v e n i l eo r i e n t a t i o n ' .H o w e v e r , i f w e p a y c k r s e ra t t e n t i o n t o e a c h S F P f r o m t h e s a m e
d a t a b a s e .a d i f f e r c n t p i c t u r e e m e r g e s .T a b l e 7 i n d i c : a t e st h e w e i g h t s o f S F P s f r o m
'Evaluative'
e a c hc a t c g o r yo f o r i e n t a t i o n .( ' L o c u s ' z r n d
f a c t r l r sa r e n o t r e p e a t e d h e r e
t o a v o i dr e d u n d : r n c v . )
Tuhle 7.
W E I G H T S O F S F P sB Y A D L I L T / J U V E N I L E O R ] E N T A T I O N
G c n c r l l { c n d e r p r e f c r e n c ci s b a s c do n S a k a l a ( l ( 1 9 1 )a n d O g u r a ( 1 9 8 - 5 ) .
N : n c u t r { l l :M : n t u l c : F : f c l n a l c .
'N,iA'rclcrs
t o t h c t t l k e n si n * h i c h S F P sd i d n o l o c c u r .
Il('
C c n t l cPr l e l . r \ r
\ 1)
. \ ')(n (
n(l
n ()
ll rl
.f(1
ilr
l\r
(\l)
rFr
t[]t
(\l>[r) --,
6l
..r7
..1()
.6.1
.1 .5 .5E
.().i
+l
Adult
.51
.l-i
( J u cr n i l c
+li
.E,5
O r c r l l l t o t u l\
l.l)9
ri
r r 1 / i r ' r ' , r\ / A
1()
7-5 .61
-l'olal
il
+6)
C h i - \ r l L l i . r r c= ( r 7 . - l l
C I t t - s r l L u r t ' c / c c=l l l . l 3
This SFP-specific analvsis demonstrates an occLlpation-related and/or
a g e - r e l a t e tde n d e n c vt o u s e p a r t i c u l a r S F P s a m o n g i n t i m a t e s .A d u l t s o b v i o u s l yt e n d
to usc more addressee-oriented,that is, affectively softer and more sociable SFPs
(hence.relatively hi_uherpret'erencefor ne anrlyctrte,but extremely low preference
f o r l o ) , i n c l u d i n go n e t h a t s m a c k so f f e m i n i n i t v a n d m a t u r i t y ( w a ) . J u v e n i l e s ,o n t h e
other hand, tcnd to use more affcctively stronqer SFPs like y-r, more male-sounding
o n c sl i k e r r r ra n d . r a .a n c l m o r e t ' e m z r l e
o n e s l i k e r r o . c h a r z r c t e r i z e bd y c h e r i s h i n g .( S e e
Sakata 1991. which reve:rled that rro is nture frequently r-rsedthan rrc antl.yo by
motherswhen they socialize children.) As far as these SFPs are concerned, adr.rlts
s e e mt o b e m o r e n o r m - c o n s c i o u sa n d s e n s i t i v et o s o c i e t a le x p e c t z t t i o n sm
, aking use
'womanlv
w o m a n ' ( S h i b a m o t o . 1 9 8 7 ) .O n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
o f t h e S F P st y p i c a l o f t h e
j u v e n i l ef e m a l e s ' w r i t i n g i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e i r u s e o f h a r s h . m a l e - l i k e . a n d
'childish'SFPs.
2.7. Katakana and its connotation: Katakanization of ne and y2
R e l a t e dt o t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f S F P - s p e c i f i cf e a t u r e sb y y o u n g J a p n n e s ef ' e m a l e si s
t h e w r i t i n g s y s t e m v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r l e t t e r s .T r a d i t i o n a l l y ( i n a b r o a d s e n s e ) t h e r e
are three types of writing systems: Hiragana, Katakana, and Kanji (Chinese
characters).Currentlv, a fourth type is acknowledged, adding Romaji (Roman
a l p h a b e t )t o t h c t h r c c . ( S e e N o t e 1 f o r m o r e e x p l a n a t i o nc l f t h e s e s y s t e m s . )A m o n g
442
KuniyoshiKaraoka
the possibilities tirr a writins system switch, the most avidly explclitedis that between
Hiragana and Katakana. I will loclk below at how frequently the switch takes place
'Direction
'Adult
and whzrt kind of tendency it represents in terms of
of address'and
j
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
orientation'.
i
Table 8.
OVERALL FREQUENCIES OF NE AND YO IN HIRAGANA (H) AND KATAKANA
'Tokcns
'Dircction'
Bare numbcrs indicate
o b s e r v c d/ T o t a l # o l ' t o k e n s ' i n e a c h
f a c t o r , a n d t h o s c i n p a r c n t h e s c sa r c t h c p c r c e n t a g c .
Ju v c n i l e
r\dLrlt
r\t1;
K
l'( )
II
['pn urci
Dovn'nu,'iir(l
Level
L.eve I
l-l/6-t0
r3.fir
,ti6-10
(.5)
+ t/7-+8
68/7-18
1 - 5 ). 5
I 0 /7 -1 8
( 1.-l)
I l /7 3 8
5tj/6tI
( 9 . 3)
l l / 6 1l
( 1 . 3)
-{/6-10
1 7/ 1 1 8
rl3)
-5/7-+8
(.1)
(.0)
K
()/6+0
(0.0
)
(K)
I l/738
t 1 . ,t5
-tl738
(.-s
)
-53/61I
( 8 . . 5)
I t62l
(l.l)
The general picture is evident: Table 8 shows that there is a complete
parallel in the frequency order for Hiragana and Katakana with respect to both rre
a n d . y o . T h i s i s c o n v c n t i o n a l l vi n e x p l i c a b l eb e c a u s e ,i f H i r a g a n a a n d K a t a k a n a w e r e
used according to what the convention tacitly impels - that is, if Hiragana was used
'wr)rds
only to write wugo
of Japan origin' and particles (e.g. SFPs and case
markers), and Katakana, clnly to trernscribeforeign words, onomatopoeia, slang, etc.
- there should never be a functional parallel like this. The convention predicts ncr
rur little occurrence clf Katakana in SFPs. In tact, however, there was a time when
Kataknna was used instead of Hiragana as the major syllabary, but that was true
before the Second World War and the generation at issue has never had such an
expcrience at least in school _sirammar,
although they might have heard about it.
T h i s p h e n o r r e n o n s u g g c s t st h a t w r i t e r s a t t a c h s o m e k i n d o f m e a n i n g t o a
K a t a k a n i z e d e x p r e s s i o n , a n d t h e v p < l s s i b l ye x p l o i t i t i n o r d e r t r l r e f l e c t t h e i r
s o c i a b i l i t y a n d p o w e r r c l a t i o n s w i t h t h e r e a d e r s .i w i l l s u m m a r i z e i n t h e o r d c r o f
frequency the percentages clf Katakanization out of the tcltal tokens of ne and yo
(Table 9), although it might he speculativeto make the following analysessince the
n u m b e r o f t r > k e n so f K a t a k a n i z e d l a z r n dy o i s s m a l l .
AfJbct rn Japanese wonrcn's letter writing
443
Table 9.
PERCENTAC';E OF KA'fAKAN I ZATION OUT OF TOTAL OCCURRENCE OF NE AND YO
\1
..\tlt. [)orr rru ult]
l0/1 1 t l-1 -i r
Iurc. l-cvcl
l l / - 5 8 t 1 - 1| r
Arlt. I-crcl
il/63(16l)
,.\tlt. Irg.rrrlu'tl
l / l - 1r l l s t
, . \ t l t .l . c r c l
l/ll t.l(r.-it
. , \ t l t . [ ) r r r rr r u . r r - r l
- s i| 7 r 1 9 . - 1 r
. l L r v c .I - c r . ' l
7 / 5I r l . l . ( ) i
0/-l rO O )
,'\tlt. [
'prr
lttil
We have already seen that /rc wils most likely to be used by levels and yo. by
superiors.If this finding is always the case, this implicit pclwer relationship should
also be, ideally, rctlected in the use of Katakanized SFPs. The reality is, however,
n o t t h i s s i m p l e .A l t h o u g h t h e w r i t e r ' s i n t e n t i o n i s n o t o n l y m a n i f e s t e db y S F P s , o f
course.but also by rnany other grammatical and semantic features that I have not
c o n s i d c r e dh e r e , I w i l l p a r t i c u l a r l y r e f e r t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a lc o n t e n t o f c l a u s e st o
which Katakanized rre and yo are attached.
First. Katzrkanized trc can be summarized tcl have a function to augment
'cherishing'
addresser's
t-eelingstoward, and implication of 'cuteness' of, the target
addressee.Table 9 demonstrates that a major difference in 'Direction of address'
is that seniors(adult Downward) tend to use Katakanized trc for the sentencesthat
arc suggestions.encouragement, and requests (24.4o/c),which are actions people
wrth relative power are often privileged to enjoy in the Japanese society. For
instance:
(e) Yukkui kiku.setektttlusuine.
' W hy c l o n ' ty o u te l l
m e i n d e ta i in e ' l '
(10)
lvlutu TEL kudu.rai ne.
'Why
dctn't you give me a call again ne'l'
(11)
Jittsei ti clnretli slite ktdasai ne.
'l
wish you to have a challenginglitene.'
(12)
O-kuruda ni ki o tsukete oxtgosli kttdasui ne.
'Take
good care of yourself ne.'
On the other hand, peers (adult and juvenile Levels) are likely to use
Katrtkanizedne more for sharing information, establishingcamaraderie, and asking
for confirmation of their utterance (21.1% and I 6.2c/o,respectively),which are the
m o s te x p l o i t e df u n c t i o n s o f n e i n t e n d e d t o e n h a n c e' p o s i t i v ep o l i t e n e s s '( B r o w n a n d
Levinson, l9tt7):
(13)
Soclira wu utsui voo desu ne.
's
'Looks
like it
hctt over there ne.'
444
Kuni1,o5l'tiKataoka
(14)
Umare taro sliraseru kara ne.
'l promise I will let you know when (the baby is) born ne.
(15)
Asu kara kibwt ga waru katts rt daroo ne.
'l guesshe got up on the wrong sideof the bed ns, don't you think?'
(16)
It.stttti natto re aent n daroo ne(?)
'l rvonderwhen we can get togetheragain
ne, don't you know'l'
(17)
Soslitara buka-ppoi ne.
'lf so, it's sort of stupidne, isn't it'/'
Therefore,when Katakanized,ne might most suitablyrepresentseniors'cherishing
feelingstoward juniors, who are the most likely target of affectiveattachment.At
the same time. peerstend to use Katakanizedne for reciprocity.Each population
obviouslymakes use of Katakanizedne with a different intention.Seen this u'ay,
framework:One by
they might have manifestedtheir affect in a two-dimensional
dimension:
managingthe frequencyof useof ne (that is,a horizontalor syntagmatic
c.f. Table 8), and the other by manipulatingthe intensityof affect itself through
writing systemswitchingsuchas Katakanization(that is, a verticalor paradigmatic
ch o rc eam ongs c r r p ts ).
In the first dimension,for example,we couldsaythat seniorsare constrained
to a more societalnorm that seniorsshouldalwaysbe staidand not easilysuccumb
to emotionalswings,thususingfeweraffect-laden
SFPs(but more appropriatelvand
economicallyat evaluationpoints)than theirjuniors.However,this lack of intimacy
can be complementedin the seconddimensionby relyingon emphasisdevicessuch
as Katakanization.henceits higher ratio (typicallyfor 'adult downward').
Second,the particleyo givesus a ditferent and more ambiguouspicture.
Katakanizedvo is _uenerally
used to intensifylocutionary/ illocutionaryfbrce of
utteranceand the addresser's
semanticintention.When it is used in Katakanized
fo rm by peer s( adu l t: J u v e n i l e:3 6 .4 : 1 3 .9Vo ),theproposi ti onal
contenti s al most
alwaysconcernedwith vivid manifestationof affect.friendly demand/ command,
and emphasizedcamaraderie,the casescloseto what Brown and Levinson(1987:
94-101) call urgency and FTA-oriented bald-on-recordusage (e.g. welcomings,
farewellsand off"ers).
(18)
Watasli tacli mo okao-satt rti natte ikwt da na-tte omoi mashita yo.
'(l
say) I thought we are also going to be a mcltheryo!'
(19)
Demo kirtcltoo slimle (sic: : slfinide) moztt oclitsukitt yo.(sic: :
rnsai yo)"
'But
don't get nervous. You must be relaxed flrst vo.'
(20)
Dewa ganbanutduyo.
'Well, you try hardyo!'
(2I)
Tesutodame dalta twnte yutma yo.
'Don't sayyou did bad on the testyo.
ocltitsuki
Affcct in Japanese w,onrcn's letter writing
(22) Gomut yo.
'l'm so sorry
445
vo.'
What is more complexis a juvenileLevelcategory,in which,in spiteof their
high number of tokens (N : 53), Katakanizationratio is rather low ( I3.9%). lf
'Levels'tend
to usea more solidarity/camaraderie-orientedyo,
this populationcould
have used the highest raticl clf Katakanizationthrough its emphasis-oriented
property,but they did not. I can oniy mention at this point that, in addition to
juvenileshave many more evaluativedevicesavailablethan adults
Katakanization,
haveresortedto.6This might have led to the lower Katakanizationraticl.
In the secondhighestcategory(adult downward),seniorsusedKatakanized
y'o(29.4c/c)
in a differentcontext.Although there are onlv five tokensin my data,
four of them tlccompanythe sentences
that simplyinfbrm the addressee
of events.
happenings.
and news,creatingunequalpower relationsin terms of knowledge.
(23) Futui tomo oozukeo nonde iru yoosttdesu yo.
' B o th o f th e m s e e mto
b e d ri n k i nqa l ot yo, I sav.
(.241 Sutorceto de (daiguku ri) ltaitta soo yo.
'l
h e a r d t h a t s h e e n t e r e d a u n i v e r s i t ys t r a i g h tl o ( :
an additional year).'
(25)
Iroiro garthntte nt wu yro.
'(l
say) She is trying hard at everythingyo.
(26)
Gertki slite (sic) int yoostt yo.
'lt
seemsto me she is verv well vo.
without spending
So far. it looks reasonable to ilssumc that Katzikanization intensifies the
encctdedmeaning and inherent function of some SFPs, but it is also probable that
it is often controlled by the writer's aspiration lor sociability, or power, or both" In
oul sense,Katakanization is contextual and dynamic, contextual because the writers
took into consideration not only age factors but afso, probably unconsciously,
attbctiveintensity similar to what we see in the choice of SFPs. It is also dynamic
partly because it is in some situations unconventional, and thus requires that the
writer should re-define her social identity about whether or not she is a
norm-abiding person. It also implicitly ref'lects the atflliation to a specitic (age)
group depending on the type of addressee.They make situational use of writing
style,frequency of SFPs, and ratio of Katakanization, drawing cln the immediate
n e e do f i d e n t i t y m a n a g e m e n t .
ln sum. it appears that Katakana system tends to intensify the sound image
o These inclutle
such dcviccs as unconventional punctuation, pictorial signs, sub-codes w i t c h i n ga m o n g i n d e g c n o u su r i t i n g s v s t c m s a
, n d o t h e r f o r m a n d c o n t e n t r e l a t e d s t r a t c g i e s .T h e y
a r ed i s c u s s c d
in morc detail in Kataoka (1994).
446
KuniyoshiKataoka
and connotation of the worcl which was transcribed into the code.7Seen from this
point of view. not only the lexicon itself but also the choice of a certain orthographic
code or script can encode particular af-fect through an appropriate channel if
'Language
properly managed. Borrowing the phrase
has a heart (Ochs & Schieffelin
'Script
1989),' we can also say that
has a heart, too.' Seen this way, the function of
(writing) system switching in our data may be compared to the tense switching
observed by some conversation analysts (Wolt'son 1978; Schiffrin 1981;
Silva-Corval6n 1983). They convincingly demonstrate that the switch into the
historiczrlpresent tense is a means of internal evaluation (Labov 1972; Fleischman
1990) in that reporting in the tense allows the narrator to tell the event as if it is
taking place in front of the hearer, increasing the modality of the narrative and
e v i d e n t i a l i t yo f t h e e v e n t r e p o r t e d .
7 Thit function of cmphasisof katakanizccl
form is also verificd by another survey in which
I asked scvcral informants to choosc from the two lvpcs of codes (Hiragana or Katakana) one that
t h c y t h i n k i s m o r e p r o p c r t o p r e s e n t f u n d a m e n t a lm c a n i n g a n d f e e l i n g o f t h e d e s i g n a t e dw o r d s
( T a b l e A ) . T h e n ' o r d s a r e a l l o n n o m a t o p o e i a sr c p r e s e n t i n gs o u n d ( ' g s e i g o ' )a n d s t a t c o r m a n n e r
';
(Etaigo becausethey are typcs of expressionsmost frequcntly Katakanized in Japanese,although
n o t s o c o n v c n t i o n a l l va s , a n d m o r e s u b t l v t h a n , t h e k r a n u ' o r d . H e r c a g a i n ,e i g h t w o r d s a n d c i g h t
i n f r r r m a n t si s t o o s m a l l a . s a m p l eo n * ' h i c h t o b a s co u r j u d g m e n t , b u t w e m a y i n f c r f r o m t h i s r e s u l t
t h a t l ) i n f o r m a n t s p r c f ' c r r e cul s i n g K a t a k a n a f o r ' g i s e i g o ' a n d H i r a g a n a f b r ' g i t a i g o ' , 2 ) t h e v u s e d
K a t a k a n a f o r i m p l v i n g s t r o n g e rf e e l i n g sa n d e m o t i o n a ls t a t e s a
, n d H i r a g a n af o r d e s c r i b i n gm u c h i e s s
i n t e n s i v cs t a t e o r m a n n e r .
KATAKANA
'grsclgo'
(sound)
Romanrz.atron
I g a n g a nI
I k a c h i k a c hI i
Ikorokoro]
OR HIRAGANA
Katakana
8
7
1
'g i ta r g o ' ( s t a t c / m a n n e r )
Romanrzation
Katakana
2
[jimejime]
2
Inurunuru]
o
Ishitoshitol
(l
[ v u r a lu r a l
IsonrsoroI
t)
Tablt'A
PREFERENCE. FOR G/SEIGO AND GITAIGO
l-{ira qana
I
meaning
strikc, hit...
click, tick...
roll, tumble..
Hiragana
6
6
8
8
6
meaning
humid, damp...
slippery, slimy...
drizzle...
sway, float...
slowly, sneaky...
()
I
I w a b u c h i ( 1 9 8 2 ) s u m m a r i z c st h c f u n c t i o n s o f K a t a k a n a a s l ) i n t e n s i l y s o u n d i m a g e , 2 )
s p e c i a lc f f c c t l e m p h a s i s ) ,a n d 3 ) i n t c n s i l yc n c o d c dm e a n i n g ,a l t h o u g h h e d i d n o t p r o v i d e s u p p o r t i n g
cvidencc. This perccptual difference seemsto bc motivated by distinctive cognitive processes.Hatta
and Ogawa (1983) found in their expcriment using the repeated cffcct paradigm in which, when
Japanesc words werc prcscnled twicc both or eithcr in Hiragana and/or Katakana, thc subjects
proscntcd lower lcvcl of (acilitation for the mLxcd pairs (Katakana-Hiragana and HiraganaKatakana.) Thcy conclude that thcse two types of kana scem to share the common structural
features but thcir lcxical representationsdo not completely overlap. Besides,Hatta (1985) further
observc<llarge Stroop-effectstbr Kanji and pictograph conditic'rns,
whereas Katakana and English
conditions did not show anv such effect. Thcsc studies suggestthe possibility that [{iragana and
Katakana utilize complctely different proccssingmechanisms.
Affectin Japanese
wonrcn'sletterwinng
447
In our cirse,ne, )'o, and yolle seem to have similar contextLlalizingtunctions,
but functions clf Katakanized forms are
lust beginning to be known.8 At least, we
can mcldestlyconclude that thcy can visually carry out internal evaluation in cclntexts
where the writer wttnts to put some kincl of emphasis, whether emotional or
f u n c t i o n a l I. n a d d i t i o n , w e c a n n o w s a y t h a t t h o s e w r i t e r s t a k e u p t h e m 6 s t p e r t i n e n t
stancewithin a three-. rather than two-, dimensional paracligm. They first have a
s y n t a g m a t l c h o i c e a b o u t w h e n a n d w h e r e t o u s e s u c h S F P s i n a s e n t e n c eo r t o p i c .
d r a w i n go n t h e s i m p l i f i e d n i t r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r c . S e c o n d , t h e y h a v e a p a r a d i g m i t i c
chotceabtlut what writing r;ystemto be uscd tclr a specific SFP (and also frtr other
iexicon). Wc loctked at only fJira-eana-Katakanaswitch in this stucly, but sgme
writers al.soswitched between Hiragana and Romaji. (That is, nc, yo, ze, erc. were
w r i t t e ni n R 0 m a n l e t t e r s j u s t a s w e s e e i n t h i s E n g l i s h t e x t . )
F i n a l l y ,t h e y r e p r e s e n tt h e i r h i s t o r i c a l l ya n i j c : u l t u r a l l yc r e a t ed r e a l i t y v i a t h e i r
community-baseddiscursivc strategy of how to present themselves in the situatecl
d i s c t l u r s(eU r b a n 1 9 9 1 ) .T h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o na n d m a n i f e s t a t i g no f s e l f i s c o n s t r a i n e d
by. and created upon, the backdrop of temporally ancl historic:allv structured
meaningof SFPs and writing svstems.We have seen that there seem tcl be stable
dominancefor the use of ,le acrossgenres ancl ages,but the full-tledged functioning
of vo might be more developmental, ancl thus need 'maturation' from thg
c o n v c n t i o n apl e r s p e c t i v e .A l t h o u g h I h a v e t e n c i e dt o e m p h a s i z et h e i r d i s l u n c t i o n ,a
I t ; n g i t u d i n aal n d d i a c h r o n i c f o l l o w - u p s t u d y w i l l h e l p t o f i g u r e o u t w h a t p r o p e r t i e s
of SFPsare, ttnd are not. persistent and developmental in orcier to interpret cultural
c o n t i n u i t ya n d ' m a c r o p a r a l l e l i s m (' U r b a n 1 9 9 1 ) .
2.8. Summary of functional
distrihution of ryg yo, and yone_
To surnmarizethe disci:ssion about ne, \,o, and
1,one in Hiragana and Katakana,
(althoughthcre were few tokens of Katakanizedyone) the firllowing schema (Figure
l ) e m e r g e si n t e r n t s o f p o w e r / s o l i d a r i t y ( a n d e v c n t o t h e e x t e n t o f ' c h e r i s h i n g ' )
relationship
a n d o f s o c i a b i l i t yo r i e n t a t i o n o f d i s c c t u r s p
e a r t i c i p a n t s ,a s f a r a s i n f o r m a l
l e t t e rw r i t i n g i s c o n c e r n e d .
Some of the functions of these SFPs apparently do overlap, hence some
expressions
used with rle can also imply the same intensity of power ancl ad<Jresser's
intentionas those used with 1'r.rdepcnding on the propositional content. It is hard
to decide which sentence is mc''re power-laden or arJclresser-orientedtor the
tbllowing czlscs(although in spoken language much of it depends on prclsodic
features.which would be prolecteci onto shape, size. choice of siript, tegibility, ancl
so frlrth in the written):
8 The fact thal
s c n t e n c c - f i n apl a r t i c l c st en d t o c l u s t c ra r o u n d t h c t o p i c / s e g m e nbt o u n d a r i e s
wasalst'rtrbscncd bv Polvani ,.t i\4artin (l9q)) in their study on Mocho storyielling. See als. Bakkcr
( 1 9 9 3 )f o r G r c e k p a r t i c l c d d a s a b o u n d a r y m a r k e r , a n d H i l l ( 1 9 9 1 ) f o r t h e i n i e r a c t i o n b e r w e e n
Laboviannarralivc slructurc and tlther pt'rssiblccontextualizing factors such as theme ancl sclfc t l h c r c n cicn r r t u u lu c c p i n u .
q
448
KuniyoshiKataofut
(27)
sono ko tto omr4lsu o kaete ne.
'Please
change his (this boy's) diaper ne, OK'!'
(2ft)
sono ko ,to omutsu o kercyoo yo.
'Why
don't we change his diaper yo?'
However, there are always some areas where ne and yo can never overlap even if
the semantic content is essentiallythe same:
(29)
Kirno no eiga wa saikoo dntla ne.
'Yesterday's
movie was great ne, (wasn't it?)'
(30)
Kirtoo rn eiga wa saikoo dattu yo.
'Yesterday's
movie was great Jo, (l say.)'
Figure 1.
DISTRIBUTION
OF NE,YO.AND YONE
IN TERMS OF SOCIABILITY AND POWER RELATIONS
Sociubi I in' reIuti t trt
,,\cldrcsscc-
Adtlrcsscro r i cn t c d
Horicntccl
Pt)\\ Cl'
Ptnt'r,t'
rt'lulirt t
tI
I
I
Solrtlltritr
t C l i c irs h i n g
t
K c rs :
n c : H r r a - u a nnac . N E , :K ; t t a k a n t z cnde
v o : H i n t g r n uv o . \ ' O . K l t a k a n i z c dv o .
\ () . .lU\ Cnllc \'()
Affect in Jaltanesewonren'sletter writing
449
The first sentence implies that the addressermust have been the person with
whom the addresserwent to the movie or at least s/he knows the zrddresseesaw the
movlc: A case of mutual knowledge and reciprocity. In the second case, the
addresseecannclt be the person with whom the speaker / writer went to see the
movie or who the addresser knows went to see the movie becauseyo stands only fbr
the addresser'ssubjective knowleclge and intention, and can never attain full
reciprocity.Likewise, r?c cannot fully function in the strongest addresser-oriented
and power-related situation. When ne is used in an imperative, it implies a mild
order, strong suggcstion,and imploration, but never extreme imperative power like
yo. Sincenc alu'avs implies reciprocity. it cannot appcar in hare imperatives.
(31)
Sttgukono lrctta kuru dete ike yo.
*Strgttkono lteya kora dete ike ne.
'Get
out of tiris room pretty soon yol*ne!'
(32) Sugukorto lrcyukaru dete itte yo.
' G et o u t c l f th i s ro o m p re ttys o o n
J o , OK ?'
(33) Sttgukorto lteyukuru dete itte ne.
'Get out of this room pretty soonne, will yclu'l'
One thing that is very interestingalong the lines of generationgap is that
juvenilesdo seem to uscyo more in a reciprocaland solidaritysituationswhere
adultspreferredusingtte.lt seemsto me that this aspectof use of,yo may be one
of the adult-heldimpressionthat youngerpeopledo not know how to
of thecauses
talk/writeto scniors,sincethey tend to take sucha useof yo as implyingpushiness
and challengeto their authority.This is why the functionalarea of juvenileyo is
towardsolidaritvand addressee-orientzrtion
in Fisure 1.
stretched
3. Conclusion
We haveseenyoungJapanesewomen'sletter writing in terms of their devicestbr
encoding
affectin the lettersaddressedto their (close)friends.Their letterswere
particularlycharacterizedby thc disproportionateincidence of sentence-final
'neutral'
particles
ne and 1,o,both of which have been suggestedto be relatively
'female',
unlike other
markers
of genderin spokenlanguageratherthan specifically
particlcs
suchas v)o,no, and te. All of them are saidto be much more 'female',but
rarelyappearedin thescdata. I havepointedout that the contextualizing
functions
of.ne,t'o, and7,otteare highly indexicalof power / solidarityrelationsto the extent
whichthey can be connectedto such emotionsas 'tamiliarity,''reciprocity,'and
'pride'of havingaccessto a crypticcode indicativeof a certainmembership.This
of practicewasfound to be exclusivelv
utilizedby juvenilewriters.The choice
aspect
of writing system (Katakana or Hiragana) also contributes to the better
management
of expressedaffect. At the same time, a writer can draw on a
paradigmof culture manifestedthroughculture-specitlc
three-dimensional
means
of representing
affect.rvhichshouldbe a continuingagendafor future study.Also
450
KuniyoshiKataoka
interesting is that the temale writers incorporated in their creation of text several
realitics such as age dittbrence, politeness.and the degree of solidarity on one hand,
zrnd affective / emotional strength arndother metalincuistic intentions on the other.
References
Abu-Lughod, L. & C. Lutz. ( 1990) Introduction: Emotion, discourse,and thc politics of everydaylife.
In C. Lutz and L. Abu-Lughod (ecls.),Languaw: and the politics rfenuttion,. Cambridge: Cambridge
Llnivcrsity Prc:ss,pp. l-23.
B a c h n i k , J M . ( 1 9 9 2 ) T h c t w o ' f a c e s ' o f s c l f a n d s o c i c t yi n J a p a n .E t h o s 2 0 . 1 :3 - 3 2 .
B a k k c r , E . ( 1 9 9 3 ) B o u n d a r i e s ,t o p i c sa n d t h c s t r u c t u r co f d i s c o u r s eA
: n i n v e s t i g a t i o no f t h e A n c i e n t
Grcck particle DE. Sturiiesin lunguage l'7.2:275-311.
B c s n r c r . N i k o ( 1 9 8 8 ) T h c l i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p so f s p o k e n a n d w r i t t e n N u k u l a e l a e r e g i s t e r s .
Langt agt 64.4: 7 0'7-'736.
B e s n i e r , N i k o ( 1 9 8 9 ) L i t e r a c y a n d f c c l i n g s :T h e e n c o d i n go f a f f c c t i n N u k u l a e l a el c t t e r s . T e r t 9 . 1 :
69-91.
B c s n i c r , N i k o ( 1 9 9 ) ) L a n g u a g ea n d a f f e c t .A n n u a l r c v i e wo f a n t h r o p o l o g 1 9 : 4 1 9 - 4 5 1 .
B e s n i e r ,N i k o ( 1 9 9 1 ) L i t c r a r y a n d t h c n o t i o n o f p c r s o no N u k u l a c l a eA t o l l . A n t e r i c a na n t h r o p o l o E s t
93: 570-587.
B i b e r . D . ( 1 9 8 6 ) S p o k e n a n d w n t t e n t e x t u a l d i m e n s i o n si n E n g l i s h : R e s o l v i n g t h c c o n t r a d i c t u r y
findings. Language 62.2: 3tt4-414.
B r o w n . G i l l i a n . t G e o r g c Y u l e ( 1 9 8 3 ) T o p i c a n d t h e r c p r e s c n t a t i o no f d i s c o u r s c c o n t e n t . I n
DiscourseanaNsis: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp, 68-101.
Brown, Penclopc and Stcphcn C. Levinson (1987) Politeness:Sonte universals in language usnge.
C.:rmbridge:C,ambridgeUniversitv Press.
B r u n e r , E . M . ( l 9 t t 6 ) E x p c r i c n c ca n d i t s e x p r c s s i o n sI.n V . W . T u r n e r a n d E . M . B r u n c r ( e d s . ) ,I f t c
Ethnogrnphl,of crpencncr. Chicago, IL.: Llnivcrsity of Illinois Press,pp. 3-32.
Camitta, M. (1993) Vernacular writing: Varieties of literacy among Philadelphia high school
studcnts. In B. Strcet (ed.), Cros-r-culturolop;troaclrcsto litcracy.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. pp.228-246.
Chafe. W. & J. Danielewicz (1987) Properties o[spoken and written languagc.In R. Horowitz and
S.J"Samuels (eds.), Contprehendingoral and witten languoge.Academic Press,Inc., pp. 83-113.
Clancy, P. (191i2)Written and spoken style in Japanescnarrativcs.In D. Tannen (cd.), Spoken and
w'ritten language: Drploring oralitl, and literacl,. Norwood. NJ.: ABLEX, pp. 55-76.
Cook, H. M. (1992) Meanings of non-refercntial indcxes: A casc of thc Japanesc scntence-final
particle ne. Text 12.4: 507-539.
Doi, Takeo (1973 [19'7ll) Thc Anoronryof dependence
. Translatedhy John Bestcr.Tokyo: Koodansha
Affcct tn Jopantse w,onten'slettar w'riting
451
l n t c r n a t i o n aLl t d .
E c k c r t .P . ( l g l i t i ) A d o l c s r : c n st r l c i a ls t r u c t u r ea n d t h c s p r c a do f l i n g u i s t i cc h a n g c .L o n g u a g ct n s o c i t ' f i '
17.2:183-207.
F l c i s c h m a nS, . ( 1 9 9 0 ) T h c l i n g u i s l i c s t r u c t u r c o [ n a r r a t i v c . l n ' f a n s t o n d n a r r o t i v r D 'A, u s t i n , T c x a s :
U n i r , c r s i to
v f TcxasPrcss.
G i v t i n ,T . ( l 9 t i - l a )T o p i c c o n L i n u i t vi n d i s c o u r s c A
: n i n t r o t l u c t i o n .I n T . C i r , 6 n ( u J . ) , T o p i cc ( , n t i n u i t v
i n d i s c o u r s t : A q u a n t i t a t i v ' e t : r o s : - l a n g u e g ( . s tALm
t dst t' .e r d a m :J o h n B c n j a m i n s P u b l i s h i n g C o . , p p . l {1.
G i v 6 n ,T . ( 1 9 8 3 h )T o p i c c o n t i n u i t v i n d i s c o u r s c :T h c l ' u n c t i o n a d
l t l m a i n o f s w i l c h r e l c r c n c e .I n J .
Hatmanand P. Munro (cds.),Swttch-rcfcrtnccurul universalgronmtor. Amstcrdam: John Bcnjamins
P u b l i s h r nC
g ' r i . .5 I - t 3 2 .
G u m p c r z J. . 1 1 9 8 2 ;D i s c o u r . ; e
stratcgitsC
. a m b r i d g e :C l a m h r i d g cU n i v c r s i t v P r c s s .
) p o k c n a n d u ' r i t t c n m o d c s o l ' m c a n i n g . I n R . H o r o n ' i t z a n d S . J .S a m u c l s
H a l l i d a vi,\ , { .A . K . ( 1 9 . 3 7 S
CrlrrTrr(hudirtt!orul ond writttn longuog(. Acadcntic Press,Inc., pp. .55-82.
1cds.).
H a t t a .T . ( 1 9 t J - 5R) c a d i n g p r o c c s si n J a p a n c s c :D o t h c J a p a n c s ch a v c s c r i p t - s p e c i f i cm e c h a n i s m s ' ?
7.2: 355-363.
Langtugest:iettc<'
Hatta, T. ct T. O.qawa ( 1983) Hiru*ma antl Kotukunu in Japancsc orthographv and lcxical
rcprcscntatlon
L .a n n t a g c s ( ' r c n c c5 . 2 : l 8 - 5 -1 9 6 .
H i l l . i - H . ( 1 9 9 1 ) W c c p i n g a \ a m c t a - s i r l n a il n a N 4 c x i c r n oW o m a n ' s n a r r a t i v c .J o u r n a l o f f o i k l o r e
rtscarc
h 21.112:29 -19.
H i n d s .J . ( 1 9 8 3 )T o p i c c o n t i n u i t v i n J a p a n c s c[ l | . l n T . G i v t l n ( c d . ) , T o p t cc o n t i n u t t vt n d t s c o t t r s tA
;
q u u n t i t o t n ' t ' c n t s s - l u r t g usatgLct d \A' .m s t c r d a m .T h c N c t h er l a n d s :J o i r n B c n j a m i n sP u b l i s h i n gC o . , p p .
43-93.
H i n t l s , J .( l 9 t t . 1 )T r l p i c m a i n t e n a n c ci n J a p a n e s cn a r r a t i v L rasn d J a p a n c s cc o n v c r s a t i o n ailn t c r a c t i o n .
Disctntrstpro('(ss(:.\7: -16.5--lt't2.
Hori, M. (1981) Shuu-1oshino shurrri. ln F. Pcng (cd.), /vfrilclfentale difJercncetn Jopanase.Tokyo:
Thc East-WcstSisn Lanquagc Association, pp. -53-96.
Holland, D. & N. Quinn (cds.) (l9li7) Culilrrul nttilels in longtaga and thougltt. Cambridgc:
CamhriducLlnir,crsitvPress.
I n i n e . J .( 1 9 9 0 )R c _ q i \ l c r i n _ q a f f cHcet :l c r o g l o s s j ian t h c l i n g u i s t i c c x p r c s s i oonf c m o t l o n . I n C . L u t z
& L . A b u - L u u h o d( c d s . ) .L u n , q u a q ta' n d r h t p o l i t t < ' -otf t n t o t i o t r .C a m b r i d g c :C a m b r i d g c U n i v e r s i t v
P r c s sp. p . 1 2 6 - 1 6 1 .
I u a b u c h i . T .( 1 9 8 1 ) K a t a k t n a n o k i n o o n o r c k i s h i . l n K . N , l o r i o k ac t a l . ( c t l s . ) ,K o o z u N i l t o n g o g a k u
6 : G t n d a i H y o o k it o r u t S h i t t ' k iT d s l u t o . T o k v o : M e i j i S h o i n , p p . 1 1 2 - 1 . 3 4 .
l z u h a r aE. . ( 1 9 9 3 )N c t o - ) o s a i k o o :N c t o l r r n o k o n t v u n i k c c s h o nk i n o o n o k o o s a l s uk a r a . N i h o n g o
h'ooiku80: l(.)3-I 1-1,
Kamirr.A. ( 1991)Thc thcon' ol' territon' ol' inlirrmation: Thc cascul Japanesc.Journol of pragnntics
2l:67-l(X).
452
Ktnl,oslti Karaoka
K a t a o k a ,K . ( 1 9 9 4 )A l ' f c c t a n d l c t t c r w r i t i n g : U s c o f u n c o n v c n t i o n a l s i g n a
s n d p u n c t u a t i o nb y y o u n g
J a p a n c s ef c m a l c s .U n r v c r s t t vo l A r i z o n a : n r - r .( P r c p a r c df o r s u b m i s s i o n )
K i n s u i , S . ( 1 9 9 3 ) S h u u - j o s h iy o , n ( . G u g t
22.1:I lu-lll.
Kondo, D.K. ( 1990) Craf'ttng selves:Pttw'er,g:nder, und discourseof identi;1,in a Japancse workplace.
C ' h i c a g o ,I L . : U n i v c r s i t y o f C h i c a s o P r c s s .
[-abov, William (1972) Transfrrrmation of expcricncc ln narratlve svntax.In Languoge in the inner
C i { y . P h i l a d c l p h i a :U n i v . o l ' P e n n s y l v a n i aP r c s s ,p p . 3 5 a - 3 9 6 .
t akotf, Gcorgc ( 1987) lVonrcn,firt, and dangtrous things.Chicago, IL.: Llnrvcrsityof Chicago Press.
Lakoft, Georgc & Mark Johnson (1980) lvlcraphorswc livc by,.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lovcdav, f,co ( 1986)E.rplorutionsin Japunest:
soc:iolingui.stlcs.
Amstcrdam: John Bcnjamins Publishing
Companv.
Masuoka. Takashi. & Yukinori Takubo (1989) Kiso NihonS4oBunpoo. Tokvo, Japan: Kuroshio
Shuppan.
Mavnard. Scnko K. (199-l) Discourse nuxlali4,: Subjtctiv'i4,, entotion qnd v'oice m the Japanese
i o n g r o g e .A m s t c r d a m . T h c N c t h c r l a n d s :J o h n B c n j a m i n sP u b l i s h i n gC o .
'fhe
d i s c o u r s ef u n c t i o n o f c l a u s c - c h a i n i n gI.n J . H a i m a n a n d S .
Mvhill, J. & J. Hibiva (1988)
Thompson (ccls.;,Cldusc t'onrbiningin qrarrtrttarund discoursc.Amsterdam, The Nethcrlands: John
B c n j a m i n sP u h l i s h i n { C o . , 3 6 i - 3 9 8 .
Nakirnc, Chic (1970) Japatrr'.rcSocicn'.Bcrkelo' ,/ LA.: Univcrsity of California Press.
N v s t r a n d ,M . ( 1 9 8 9 ) A s o c r a l - i n t c r a c l i v cm o t l c l o l ' w r i l i n s . l l l r i t t e nC o n t n t u n i c a t i o n6 . 1 : 6 6 - 8 5 .
Ochs. E. 11992t Indcxinrt qcndcr. ln A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinkingcontext.
C a n t b n d g c :C . a m b r r d i l cL t n i v c r s r t vP r c s s .p p . 3 3 5 - 3 - 5 8 .
O c h s , E . . t E . S c h i c l ' f c l i n1 1 9 8 9 )l , a n g u a s ch a s e h c a r t . T e x t9 . 1 : 7 - 2 5 .
O g u r a . H . ( l 9 l J - 5 )S h u u - j o s h i ,K a n t o o - j o s h i .I n K . S u z u k i a n d O . H a y a s h i 1 c d s . ) ,K e n l g u u S h i r y o o
Nihtm Burtpoo Dut 7-kun: Joji-ht'n (,1)io-sht,Jodoo-shi"Iltcn.Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, pp.225-250.
Okonoqi. Keigo (1981) Moratoriantu Ninscn no Jidai. Tokvo: Chuuookorlronsha.
P o l a n y i , L . . . t L . M a r t r n ( 1 9 9 0 ) O n t h c f u r m a l t r c a t m c n t o l ' d i s c o u r s ep a r t i c l e s :T h e c a s co f M o c h o
la an<l-0.' nts.
Q u t n n . N . ( 1 9 . 3 7 )C o n v c r { c n t e v i d c n c cf o r a c u l t u r a l m o d e l o [ A m c r i c a n m a r r i a g c .I n D . H o l l a n d
and N. Quinn (eds.). Cultural nrodcls rn languagcand thousht Cambridge: Cambridge University
P r c s s ,p p . 1 7 3 - 1 9 2 .
Rand, D., & D. Sankofl ( 1990) GOLDVARB vcrsiort2.0: A vurinhlc rule app[icationfor the Macintosh.
C c n t r c d c r c c h c r c h c sm a t h d n a t i q u c sU
, n i v e r s i t 6d e M o n t r 6 a l .
R u b i n , D . L . ( 1 9 8 4 )T h c i n f l u c n c co f c o m m u n i c a t l v cc o n t c x to n s t y l i s t i cv a r i a t i o n i n w r i t i n g . I n A . D .
Pellcgrini and T.D. Yawkey' (cds.), The dcrelopnrcnt ttJ-oral and written langtage in social contexts.
N o r - w o o d .N J : A B L E X , p p . 2 1 3 - 2 3 1 .
AJJcctrn Jopone.sawotn(n's lctter writtng
453
S a k a t aM, . ( 1 9 9 1 )T h c a c q u i s i t i ( ) n
o f J a p a n c s c ' g c n d c r ' p a r t i c l cLsa. n g u a g e& c o n t n t u n i c o t i o n
11.3:
i17-12.i.
S c h i l ' l i i nD, . ( l 9 E l ; ' T c n s cv a r i a l i o n i n n a r r a t i r c . L
' a n g u a s t- 5 7 . 14: 5 - f i 2 .
S h a n 'T. . f 1 9 9 4 )T h c s c m i o t i c n t c d i a t i o n o f i d c n t i t v .E t h o s 2 2 . 1 :l t 3 - 1 1 9 .
S h i h a m o l oJ.. ( 1 9 8 7 ) J ' h c r v o m a n l r ' ' u l ' o m a M
n :a n i p u i a t i o no f s t c r c o t v p i c aal n d n o n s t c r c o t v p i c a l
l c r t u r c so f J a p u n c s cl c m a l c s p c c c h . l n S . P h i l i p s ,S . S t c c l c & C . T a n z ( c d s .y . L u n e t a g t ' ,g t ' n d t r a n c l
s t . t i t t t ' t t r t t l t t t r ( t r i t t ' p ( r . \ p ( , t :C
tia
l cm
. h r i c q c :C a m h r i d r l cU n i v c r s i t v P r c s s ,p p . 2 6 . 1 9 .
S h i r a k a * ' ai 1. . ( 1 9 9 1 )S h u u - j o s h vr i l n o k t n o o . N i h t t n g ok y o o i k u7 7 : . 3 ( r - - l t i "
S i l r , a - C o n a l i r n . C . ( 1 9 . 9 '-1j 1g n 5 c ; r n d a s p c c t i n i l r l l S p a n i s h n a r r a t i v c :C o n t c x t a n d m c a n r n g .
LunquusL'
59 -l: 76()-780.
T a n i z a k tJ. u n ' i c h i r o1 1 9 7 - 5B
t o k t t h t t r tT. o k r t l C h u u o o k o o r o n s h a .
; u t r s l t t t tD
T a n n c nD
. . ( l 9 t { 2 ) T h c o r a i , 4 r t e r a t c o n t i n u u m l n d i s r ' o u r s cI.n D . T a n n c n ( c d . ) ,S , o o t c rrt t i t d w r i t t e n
l a n p u , q t .N o r u ' o o c lN
. J.: AB[-EX. pp. i-16
T a n n c nD
. . ( 1 9 ( ) l )H o r , r ' r sc o n \ c r s a t r ( ) n
l i k c l i l c r a n d i s c t i u r s c 'Iln P . D o w n i n c , S . D . L i m a a n d M .
N o o n a n( c d s . 1I.l r c l i t t t u r s t r t 'rst f - l i t t n t t ' t 'A. m s t c r t l a m :J t l h n B c n j a m i n sP u b l i s h i n gC o m p a n y ,p p . 3 l 16.
Llrhan,Grcq ([99 l) ,'i di.scour.sc-ctntcrt'd
ultltrttuc'lrttt t:ultura.Austin. Tcxas: Univcr:;itv of Tcxas
Prcss.
tan Drjk. Tcun A. 119.3t))
ltlucro.stnrcturcs:
An intt'nli.st'iplinan'studloftlobal .ttntcturcsin discour.se,
intcraction,
ond t'ognition.Hillsdalc, NJ.: LEA.
v a n D i j k . T c u n A . ( 1 9 8 2 ) E p i s o d c sa s u n i t s o l ' d i s c o u r s c a n a l v s i s .I n D . T a n n c n ( c d . ) , A n a l t z i t t g
discour.;t:Tttt tttul tclk. Washintton: Gcor{cl()\\'n Llnivcrsil!' Press,pp. 117-195.
v a n D i 1 k . T c u n A . & W a l t c r K i n t s c h ( 1 9 8 - f ) S t n t t t , q i a so J ' d i s t ' o u r s t ' c o n q t r c h a n . r i oNnc. w Y o r k :
A c a d e m i cP r c s s .
W a t a n a b cY
. . ( 1 9 9 - t ) C l a u s c - c h a i n i n gs. u ' i t c h - r e
l L ' r en c c a n d a c t i o n / c v c n tc o n t i n u r l v i n J a p a n c s c
d i s c o u r s cT:h c c a s co f t e , t o a n d z c r o - c o n j u n c t i o n .S t t t d i e isn l o n g L t a g c1 8 .1 : 1 2 7 - 2 0 3 .
W o l f s t l n .N . ( l 9 7 E ) A l i ' a t u r c o f p c r f o r m c d n u r r a t i v c : T h c c o n v c r s a t i o n a lh i s t o r i c a l p r c s c n t "
7: ll-5-l-lr.
Langtagt in .r'ircrr'tt'

STDENT INFORMATION

JPN 101 Sample Syllabus

CONTENTS

諸F:詰蹴11疵棚ξ鶏憮尋 lttl亀:蜘撫せ雛∫器 7激さ権

GVJCI Japanese Language School

Introducing some of new arrival items in the library

Select type of form which corresponds to the purpose of residence

Lesson 7 家族の写真 Family Picture Objectives: ∼ている：テレビを見

The Kenzaburō Ōe Prize (大江健三郎賞) is a Japanese

31st August – 5th September Vols