Intonation units, clauses and preferred argument structure in conversational Japanese

Language Sciences

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 63-86

  Matsumoto, Kazuko ^a  

^a AICHI UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Japan)

Author keywords

Clauses; Intonation; Japanese

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042406949     PISSN: 03880001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0388-0001(99)00004-2     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ashby, W.J., Bentivoglio, P., 1993. Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change 5, 61-76.
2. Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies of Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3. Beckman, M.E., Pierrehumbert, J.B., 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255-310.
4. Brazil, D., 1985. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Birmingham University, Birmingham.
5. Chafe, W.L., 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: Li, C.N., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, pp. 27-55.
6. Chafe, W.L. (Ed.), 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
7. Chafe, W.L., 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In: Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 21-51.
8. Chafe, W.L., 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In: Haiman, J., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1-27.
9. Chafe, W.L., 1993. Prosodic and functional units of language. In: Edwards, J.A., Lampert, M.D. (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-43.
10. Chafe, W.L., 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
11. Chafe, W.L., 1996. How consciousness shapes language. Pragmatics and Cognition 4, 35-54.
12. Chafe, W.L., Mithun, M., 1995. What use are S, A, and O? Paper presented at the International Conference on Functional Approaches to Grammar, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
13. Clancy, P., Thompson, S.A., Suzuki, R., Tao, H., 1996. The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 355-387.
14. Comrie, B., 1978. Ergativity. In: Lehmann, W.P. (Ed.), Syntactic Typology. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 329-394.
15. Croft, W., 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33, 839-882.
16. Cruttenden, A., 1986. Intonation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Crystal, D., 1975. The English Tone of Voice. St. Martin, London.
18. Dixon, R.M.W., 1979. Ergativity. Language 55, 59-138.
19. Downing, P., Noonan, M. (Eds.), 1995. Word Order in Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
20. Du Bois, J.W., 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In: Chafe, W.L. (Ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 203-274.
21. Du Bois, J.W., 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63, 805-855.
22. Du Bois, J.W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., Paolino, D., 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In: Edwards, J.A., Lampert, M.D. (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-89.
23. Edwards, J.A., Lampert, M.D. (Eds.), 1993. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
24. Firbas, J., 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Ford, C.E., Thompson, S.A., 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 134-184.
26. Givón, T., 1975. Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics 6, 185-205.
27. Givón, T., 1984. Syntax, vol. I. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
28. Halliday, M.A.K., 1967a. Intonation and Grammar in British English. Mouton, The Hague.
29. Halliday, M.A.K., 1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199-244.
30. Halliday, M.A.K., 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, London.
31. Hopper, P.J., Thompson, S.A., 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251-299.
32. Iwasaki, S., 1985. The "Given A Constraint" and the Japanese particle ga. In: DeLancey, S., Tomlin, R.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Pacific Linguistics Conference. Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon, Eugene, pp. 152-167.
33. Kärkkäinen, E., 1996. Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 675-701.
34. Kuno, S., 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. Lambrecht, K., 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Matsumoto, K., 1995. Fragmentation in conversational Japanese. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal 17, 238-253.
37. Matsumoto, K., 1996. Intonation Units in Conversational Japanese: Structure and linkage. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
38. Matsumoto, K., 1997a. NPs in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 7, 163-181.
39. Matsumoto, K., 1997b. Japanese intonation units and syntactic structure. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, Illinois.
40. Matsumoto, K., 1998a. On the "one new NP per unit" constraint in spoken Japanese. The Bulletin of Aichi University of Education 47, 17-25.
41. Matsumoto, K., 1998b. Detached NPs in Japanese conversation: Types and functions. Text 18, 417-444.
42. O'Dowd, E., 1990. Discourse pressure, genre and grammatical alignment - after Du Bois. Studies in Language 14, 365-403.
43. Ono, T., Thompson, S.A., 1997. Deconstructing "zero anaphora" in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23.
44. Pierrehumbert, J.B., Beckman, M., 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
45. Schuetze-Coburn, S., 1994. Prosody, Syntax, and Discourse Pragmatics: Assessing Information Flow in German Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
46. Schuetze-Coburn, S., Shapley, M., Weber, E., 1991. Units of intonation in discourse: a comparison of acoustic and auditory analyses. Language and Speech 34, 207-234.
47. Selkirk, E.O., 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Shibatani, M., 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. Smith, W., 1996. Spoken narratives and preferred clause structure: evidence from modern Hebrew discourse. Studies in Language 20, 163-189.
50. Sugito, M., 1989. Nihongo to Nihongo Kyooiku, vol. 2. Meiji Shoin, Tokyo.
51. Sugito, M., 1990. Nihongo to Nihongo Kyooiku, vol. 3. Meiji Shoin, Tokyo.
52. Tao, H., 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
53. Thompson, S.A., 1997. Discourse motivations for the core-oblique distinction as a language universal. In: Kamio, A. (Ed.), Directions in Functional Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 59-82.
54. Vandepitte, S., 1989. Pragmatic function of intonation: Tone and cognitive environment. Lingua 79, 265-297.