Japanese Clausal Coordination and Inferential Processing Units
Miyuki Nagatsuji
Nara Women’s University
Sentences in which two clauses are coordinated with and convey a range of inferential relations,such as causal or parallel ones, between the conjuncts. According to Blakemore and Carston (2005),
every sentence of the form P and Q explicitly communicates three propositions: a conjoined [P &Q] and the propositions of the individual conjuncts [P], [Q]. These propositions function as
inferential processing units to yield a cognitive effect.
(1) John missed the usual train and he was late for work.
(2) We still keep in touch, and we go out for a meal.
In (1), the conjoined proposition including a causal relation, “John missed the usual train and, as aresult, he was late for work,” functions as a premise to derive a cognitive effect, for example, animplicature such as “John will get a lecture from his boss.” In (2), the propositions of the individual
conjuncts function as premises to derive the same implicature, “We’ve been good friends.” Japaneseclausal coordination corresponding to the and structure, in contrast, can be expressed with a varietyof linguistic forms, typical examples of which are the adverbial form (so-called renyo form) of apredicate, the suffixes -te, -tari, and -shi (Ohori 2004). From a relevance-theoretic perspective(Sperber & Wilson 1995), this paper reveals that the -tari and -shi structures explicitly communicate
the individual propositions [P], [Q] but not a conjoined proposition [P & Q] and claims thatBlakemore and Carston’s proposal does not apply to all structures for Japanese clausal coordination.
The adverbial form of a predicate in a clause P connects another clause Q in the form of P
(adv. form), Q, and -te connects two clauses in the form of P-te, Q. Both structures explicitly
communicate the three propositions, [P & Q] and [P], [Q], since they convey temporal or causal
relations between states of affairs, as shown in (3), and derive an implicature from the conjuncts, asin (4).
(3) John wa itsumono densha ni {a. noriokure/ b. noriokure-te}, shigoto ni
John TOP usual
train DAT miss (adv. form)
miss-tework DAT
chikoku shita.
latedid‘John missed the usual train and he was late for work.’(4) Watashitachi wa imademo renraku o{a. totte-ori/ b. totte-i-te}, gohan
weTOP stillcontact ACC
take-be (adv. form)
take-be-temealotabe niiku.
ACC eat PURP go‘We still keep in touch, and we go out for a meal.’-Tari takes the form P-tari, Q-tari suru (=do), and -shi takes the form P-shi, Q. These structures, on
the other hand, are used not for the narrative purpose, as in (5), but for the derivation of an
implicature from P and Q, as in (6).
(5) John wa itsumono densha ni {a. *noriokure-tari / b. *noriokureta-shi}, shigoto ni
John TOP usual train DAT
miss-tarimissed-shi
work DAT
chikoku {a. *shi-tari} shita.
latedo-tari
did‘John missed the usual train and he was late for work.’ [intended](6) Watashitachi
wa imademo renrakuo {a. tot-tari / b. toru-shi}, gohan o
weTOP stillcontact ACC
take-tari
take-shimeal ACC
tabe ni{a. it-tari suru / b. iku}.
eat PURP
go-tari dogo‘We still keep in touch, and we go out for a meal.’Example (5) indicates that the -tari and -shi structures might not exploit a conjoined proposition [P& Q] as a premise. Observing what interpretation they demand, this paper demonstrates that theproposition [P & Q] is not used in their inferential processes.
The form P-tari, Q-tari suru demands to be interpreted in such a way that each conjunct is an
illustration of a certain abstract assumption about a state of affairs. (7) is an explanation of what theoutcome is if someone’s name is blacklisted by credit rating organizations.
(7) The person cannot obtain a credit card -tari, (s/he) cannot take out a bank loan -tari suru.
(Miyuki Miyabe (1998) Kasha, p. 30; my translation)
P (“the person cannot obtain a credit card”) and Q (“(s/he) cannot take out a bank loan”) are both
concrete instances of some abstract assumption related to the context, for example, a person whosename is blacklisted cannot do what is involved in credit. The individual propositions [P], [Q]function as an inferential processing unit in that each of them has an “instance-abstract” relationshipwith the assumption; however, the conjoined [P & Q] plays no role in the interpretation since it does
not derive an implicature.
The form P-shi, Q demands to be interpreted in such a way that Q strengthens the assumption
for which P provides evidence. (8) is uttered by a detective whom a man asked to find his missing
friend.
(8) There are still too many unknowns -shi, let’s just see what we have to go on.
(ibid., p. 39; my translation)
P (“there are still too many unknowns”) provides evidence for the assumption that the detective ishesitant about undertaking the job, and Q (“let’s just see what we have to go on”) strengthens theassumption by suggesting that they collect information about the missing person before aninvestigation. The individual propositions [P], [Q] function as an inferential processing unit in thateach of them supports the assumption; the conjoined [P & Q] does not function as a premise in thederivation of any implicatures. Furthermore, the conjoined proposition itself may not be constructedfrom the conjuncts since they are different in mood; that is, P is indicative and Q is imperative, as(8’) with English and shows.
(8’) ?? There are still too many unknowns, and let’s just see what we have to go on.
Contrary to the adverbial form of a predicate and -te, the -tari and -shi structures do not
exploit a conjoined proposition [P & Q] as an inferential processing unit to yield a cognitive effect,
to which extent they do not explicitly communicate the proposition. The four structures can becategorized into two types on the basis of whether a whole inferential processing unit [P & Q] plays
a role in comprehension: P (adv. form), Q and P-te, Q versus P-tari, Q-tari suru and P-shi, Q. The
present paper leads us to the conclusion that not all Japanese clausal coordinating structures
explicitly communicate a conjoined proposition; this casts doubt on the universality of Blakemore
and Carston’s proposal.
References
Blakemore, D. and R. Carston (2005) “The Pragmatics of Sentential Coordination with and,”
Lingua 115, 569-589.
Ohori, Toshio (2004) “Coordination in Mentalese,” in Martin Haspelmath (ed.) Coordinating
Constructions, 41-66, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.), Oxford:Blackwell.