r~mr.~m~J ~ g JiY (2oo7 :¥) pp.1-16@2007 :¥

B :<js:~ffl~$4!:1

Where Japanese Contrasts with Korean and
Mandarin Chinese:*
Intersubjectivity, Modality and the Differential
Pragmatic-Semantic Foundations across Languages*
Horie, Kaoru*, Joungmin Kim*, and Tamaji Mizuho**
Tohoku University* and Takamatsu University*•This paper presents two contrastive case studies, a contrastive pragmatic analysis ofJapanese noda and Korean kes-ita and a contrastive semantic analysis of Japanese andMandarin Chinese modal markers, and points to the cross-linguistically differential locus
of pragmatic-semantic contrasts by adopting a modified multi-layered model of pragmatic-semantic structure based on the traditional Japanese linguistic notions of Proposition
and Modality, supplemented with the layer of Discourse Modality. It is suggested thatJapanese and Mandarin Chinese are different at the more fundamental layer of Modality
and arguably in the manifestation of Subjectification. The differences between Japaneseand Korean, in contrast, are manifested at the more peripheral layer of Discourse
Modality, which presumably correlates with Intersubjectification.

Key words: intersubjectivity, modality, discourse modality, subjectification, intersubjectification

1. Introduction
Three East Asian languages, Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin Chinese, have a long
history of mutual contact. Japanese and Korean, which arguably may have sprung from acommon source (Martin 1991), share the basic SOV word order and agglutinating morphosyntactic structure including the elaborate honorification system consisting of periphrastic and suffixal 'exalting' (e.g. o-V ni naru (J), -si- (K) ) and 'humbling' constructions (e.g.
o-V suru (J)) as well as sentence-final speech-level indicators. Mandarin Chinese, which
is characterized by the basic SVO word order and isolating morpho-syntactic structure,-1-

doesn 't have such an elaborate honorification system. In spite of these differences, three
East Asian languages share a number oflexical items of ancient Chinese origin, reflecting
the intense cross-linguistic language contact since ancient times.
The three languages tind!')r consideration manifest interesting cross-linguistic contrasts in pragmatic-semantic phen omen a including intersubjectivity and modality. As canbe expected from the cross-linguistic differences mentioned above., the pragmatic-semantic contrast between Japanese and Korean is more subtle than it is between Japa neseand Mandarin Chinese (and arguably that between Korean and Mandarin Chinese). This
paper presents two contrastive case studies in pragmatic-semantic phenomena, one dealing with intersubjectiv,ity in Japanese. and Korean (Section 2) and the oth er an alyzing
modality in J a pan ese and Mandarin Chinese (Section 3). The pragmatic-semantic phenomen a to be presented in each section are different. However , when they are synth esized, th ey are highly suggestive in revealing the pragmatic-semantic basis of Japaneserelative to oth er languages·, as discussed in Section 4. Section 5 presents the conclusion.

2. lntersubjectivity in Japanese and Korean

Japan~s~ ~d Kore~n a~e known to ma nifest many similarities not only .in terms of
inventory of syntactic constr~ctionsbut also in terms of t he pragmatic-semantic functions
they are put to serve c.ontextually. A family of superficially similar syntactic constructions are shared by Japanese and Korean, including a set of constructions consisting ·of
nominalizers and copulas. Crucially, more often than n ot, th ese constructions encode similar grammatical meanings, as in t h e 'experiential' construction s (la) and (lb) (Japaneseand Korean examples are abbrevia ted as 'J ' and 'K' throughout) :(1)

J . {a) Nihon-ni

itta

J ap an-to went: REL
K. (b) Ilpon-ey

ka-n

koto-gaaru.

NOML-NOM

be

cek-i

issta.

J ap an-to go-REL:PAST NOML -NOM.............

be'I h ave been to Japa n.'

J apanese and Korean both have a special construction type, situated in this family of
nominalizer-copular constru ctions, which in volves a most 'versatile' sentential nominalizer in the respective languages, i.e. no in Japanese and kes, as shown in (Za) and (2b):-2 -Where Japanese Contrasts with Korean and Mandarin Chinese(2)J . (a) Yamada-san-ga

ko-nai-na.

YAMADA-Mr.-NOM come-NEG-SFP

Kitto

yoozi-ga

aru-nda.

surelyerrand-NOM be-NODA'MI·.Yamada does not come. It must be that (he) has something to do'.

K. (b) Salip-mwun-i

pan-ccumbrushwood-door-NOM half-about(Noda 1997: 67)

yellyecye

iss-ess-ta.

openedbe-PAST-DECL again hear

Cipan-ey

nwukwunka-ka

wa

iss-nunhouse-insomeone-NOM

comeexist-REL KES-ITA

Ttotullinta.

kes-ita .

'The brushwood door half opened. I can hear (sounds) again. I t must be
somebody came in the house.'(Yin 2003: 18, minor modifications added)

The so-called noda construction in Japanese (2a) has received focused attention fromJapanese linguists for the past several decades (e.g. Kuno 1973, Tanomura 1990, Noda
1997) due to its contextual variability in pragmatic/semantic interpretations. Prominent
among the pragmatic/semantic interpretations contextually available to noda is the
speaker/writer's subjective judgement of a given linguistic or non-linguistic context as thebasis for some evidential statement. More recent attempts include Najima (2007), whoapplied Relevance theory to the noda construction to explicate the mechanism throughwhich specific pragmatic interpretations are arrived at contextually.
. I

Does the Korean counterpart to noda, i.e. kes-ita, induce a similar range of pragmatic/semantic interpretations contextually? The answer is obviously in the affirmative.
Noda and kes-ita serve a similar pragmatic function of elaborating on what is mentioned
in the preceding context. This often conveys the overtone of 'explanation' or justification,
as in (3a, b) [J=Japanese novel, original version, K'=Korean translated version; K=Korean
novel, original version, J'=Japanese translated version; Full bibliographical informationof the Japanese and Korean novels are given in the references]:(3)

K. (a) Na-hanthey

coh-unkyeyhoyk-i

iss-ta.

Wusen

wuli-nun

me-DAT

good-REL

plan-NOM

be-DECL

first

we-TOPnyesek-tul-hanthey

cencayng-ul

senphoha-nun

ke-ta.

guy-plural-DAT

war-ACC

declare-REL

KES-ITA'I have good plans!( ... ) First, it's that we declare war against them.'

-3-

(Kl)

J. (b) Ore-wa sugoi

keikaku-otateta.

Mazu

rentyuu-ni

sensenhukoku

I-TOP excellent plan-ACC

made

first

guys-DAT

declaration of war

suru-nda.
do-NODA (J'l)'I made a great plan! (. .. ) First, it's that (=let me explain in detail) we
declare war against them.'

In contrast, there are some noticeable pragmatic cross-linguistic differences between
these superficially similar constructions. Specifically, there are some pragmatic functionsof noda, to be outlined in (i) - (iii), which are absent in kes-ita (see Rorie and Kim(2008),
Kim and Rorie (in press) for a more extended discussion of the pragmatic contrast
between noda and kes-ita) :(i) Reporting a speaker/writer's private confession of her/his feelings/belief, as in (4a). The
Korean counterpart kes-ita isn't felicitous in this context and a sentence-final suffix-ketun is employed instead (4b).

(4)

J. (a) Sono kamigata-o

motto

yoku

niteru-tothat hair style-ACC change-COND more

wellresemble-QUOT think-SFP

kae-reba

Dekiru mono-naracanZitu-woima

NOML -COND now
iu-to

koko-deyatte

age-tai-kedo-ne.

here-LOC

dogive-wish-but-SFP

biyoosi-nanda.

watasi-wa

fact-ACC tell-COND I-TOP
K. (b) Heye suthail-ul

hair style-ACC
Hal swu-man

omou-na.

hair dresser-NODA
te

(Jl )

pakkwu-myencompisushaychi-1 kes kath-unteychange-COND

a little more similar-guess-but

issta-myen cimkum yekise haycwu-ko siph-untey

do:REL NOML-only be-COND

now

Sasil

na-nunmiyongsa-ketun.

fact

I-TOP

hairdresser-SFP

here

do-wish-but(.K'l)'If you change that hair style, you would look more like (him) ( ... ) If pos-sible, I'd like to change (your hair st yle) here, but ... (. .. ). Actually, (thefact is) I am a professional hairdresser.'-4-

Where Japanese Contrasts with Korean and Mandarin Chinese(ii) Requiring an addressee's immediate attention/response to a currently r el evant
event/state of affairs (cf. Masuoka 2007), as in (5a). The Korean counterpart kes-ita isn't
felicitous in this context and a plain imperative verb form is employed instead (5b).

(5)

J. (a ) (When explaining the rule of a game)K. (b) Cal
well

Yoku

miru-ndacyo.

carefully

look-NODA-SFP

pwa.

look: IMPER'Please have a good look (and see how to play the game). '(iii) Preempting a potentially face-threatening act aimed at an addressee (negative p oliteness strategy), as in (6a ). The Korean counterpart kes-ita isn 't felicitous in this context
and the bare conclusive verb final ending form is used, as shown in (6b).
(6)

J. (a) Onegai-ga

aru-n desu.

favor-NOM exist-NODA
K. (b ) Pwuthak-i

iss-supnita.

favor-NOM exist-POL'Can I ask a favor of you?'

These cross-linguistic differences illustrated in (4) - (6) suggest that t he ran ge ofpragmatic functions mapped onto a pair of superficially simila r syntactic constructions
differ s b etween Japanese and Korean in a subtle but non -negligible manner. Par ticularly
prominent is the greater elaboration of addressee-orient ed or 'intersubjective' pragmaticI

functions with Japanese noda, which contrasts with the virtual a bsen ce of these functions
with Korean kes-ita, sh own in examples (5) and (6). the Implications of this cross-linguistic contrast will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.

3. Modality in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese
When compared to the Japanese-Korean contrast presented in Section 2, the pragmatic-semantic contrast between Japanese and Mandarin appears to be more ostensible
than subtle, reflecting the greater morpho-syntactic differences b etween the latter two
languages.
For instance, Japanese and Mandarin Chinese are fundamentally different in terms
ofTalmy's 'framing' typology (Talmy 2000). Talmy proposed classifying languages into two-5-fundamentally distinct types depending on wh ether the notion of Path is encoded in t hever b root, a type of open-class element, or in the 'satellite', a type of closed-class elemen twhich "relates to the verb root as a dependent to a head" and which "can be eit her abound affix or a free word" (ibid: 102). J apanese, similarly to Romance languages, belongs
to the "verb-framed" languages which encode the notion of Path in its verb roots (7a). In
contrast , Mandarin Chinese (abbreviated as 'C' in examples), is categorized as a "satellite-fr amed" language, which encodes P ath in its sat ellites (7b). Talmy notes tha t"Mandarin Chinese has Path satellites and constructions that are entirely homologous
with those of English " (ibid: 109).

(7) J . (a) Bin-ga

tadayottebottle-NOM float:GER

iwa-noyoko-otoori

sugiterock-GENside-ACC

cross: INF

pass:GER wentc. (b) Ping-zi

piao

guo shi-t6u pang-bian (Talmy 2000: 109)

bottlefloat

past rock ('s)

itta.

side

'The bottle floated past t he r ock.'

It is not thus very surprising that J apanese and Mandarin Chinese exhibit differing
patter ns of form-meaning correspondence in modal markers, which encode various deantic meanings such as obligation, ability, and epistemic meanings such as probability andpossibility. One of the most noticeable d iffer ences bet ween J apanese and Mandarin
Chinese in this gr ammatical domain is the absence ver sus presence of the polysemy
between deontic and epist emic modal meanings in a single modal marker. The deonticepistemic polysemy is char act eristic of many Eill'opean languages including English , asshown in (8a, b). J apanese modal marker s fail to exhibit such polysemy (9a, b), wh ereas
Mandarin Chinese patterns like many European languages in encoding the two types ofmodal meanings by differ ent modal markers (lOa, b). Examples (9a, b) and (lOa, b)
demonstrate this cross-linguistic contrast between J apanese and Mandarin Chinese.

(8)(a) You should go and get the ticket yourself. (deontic modality)(b) You should be kidding. (epistemic modality)(9)

J. (a) H ayaku

hontoo no koto-oiubeki d a. (deontic modality)

promptly

true thing-ACC

sayshould'You should tell the truth right away.'-6-

Where Japanese Contrasts with Korean and Mandarin Chinese

J. (b) Ano hito-wa
that person-TOP

moosugu

kuru

hazu da. (epistemic modality)

soon

come

should'He should be coming soon.'(10) C. (a) Yrnggaishouldzai

sandian

zh1

qian

qu.

LOC

3 o'clockTOP

beforego(deontic modality)'You should go before 3 o'clock.'c. (b) Mingtianyetomorrow alsoyfnggaixiayu.

shouldrain(epistemic modality)'It should rain tomonow, too.'

The deontic-epistemic polysemy, which is widely observed in European languages(8a, b), has led cognitive-functional linguists (Sweester 1990) to hypothesize that deontic
modal meaning (e.g. moral obligation compels one to go, as in You should go) serves assource domain from which epistemic modal meaning is derived (e.g. evidence compels one
to make an epistemic judgement, as in I t should be true) through metaphorical extension,
instead of vice versa. Similar grammaticalization pathways have been proposed by functional typologists (Bybee et al. 1994) for some modal markers (e.g. English must).
The putative universality of such pragmatic-semantic extension/pathway has beencast in doubt in the face of modal markers in Japanese (9a, b), which fails to exhibit the
primacy of deontic meaning as source domain from which epistemic meaning is derived,
either synch ronically or diachronically (Horie 1997, Narrog 2002). Acquisition of Japanese
modal markers thus poses a challenge to those speakers whose first language differs fromJapanese in terms of the absence/presence of the deontic-epistemic polysemy, such as
Mandarin Chinese and English.
The following figures respectively present the correct/incorrect answers given by
Mandarin Chinese native speakers, in the beginning, intermediate, and advanced stages,
to multiple-choice questions which require deontic bekida (Figure 1) and epistemic hazu-

da (Figure 2). As shown in (9-10), the two Japanese modal markers correspond to a single
modal marker yinggai in Mandarin Chinese. Examples of multiple-choice questions
requiring bekida and hazuda are respectively given in (11) and (12) (See Tamaji andHorie (2007) for further information on the experiments and the functional-typologicalanalysis):- 7-

so ~--~~--------------.

60
D basic• intermediat1
D advanced

40

20
0

bekidahazudaothersFigure 1. Learners' response to questions requiring BEKIDA

(11)

J.

Sake-wa

tomokaku

tabako-wa (alcohol-TOP

if nottobacco-TOP'().

) tobacco, if not alcohol.'(a) herasa nai monoda(b ) herasu wakeda'(You) do not naturally cut down on'(c) herasu hazuda'No wonder (you) cut down on'(d ) herasu bekida'It is expected that (you) will''(You) ought to cut down on'

Dbasic• intermediate
Dadvanced

Figure 2. Learners' response to questions r equiring HAZUDA

·J.

(12)

B enkyoo si-nai de, gookaku dekiru (study-NEG

if pass'If (one) doesn't study, (
(a)

).

can

) that one will pass (an exam).'hazuga nai(b ) mono de wa nai'it can't be expect ed that''it won't u sually be the case'-8 -Where J apanese Contrasts with Korean a nd Mandarin Chinese(c)(d) beki de wa nai

monoda'it u sually happens that''it sh ouldn't be allowed that'

Figmes 1 and 2 highlight (i) the tendency for beginning learner s to overuse deontic

bekida irrespectively of the correct answer , and (ii) the reverse tendency for intermediate
learner s to overuse epistemic hazuda indiscriminately.
What these figures suggest is that the distinction between deontic bekida and epistemic hazuda is considerably difficult for Mandarin Chinese speakers to acquire. The tendency observed with beginning learner s (i ) is arguably a reflection of the p rimacy of deantic modal meanin g of yTnggiii in their Ll , from which the corresponding epistemic meaning derived historically (Li 2003). The reverse tendency observed with intermediate learners (ii) can b e interpr eted as the learners' newly acquired (over) -sensitivity (an 'interlanguage' phenomenon) to the epistemic modal meaning coded by hazuda, which is the derivative/secondary modal meaning of y fnggiii.
The pragmatic-semantic challenge posed by a pair of Japanese modal markers bekida
and hazuda to Mandarin Chinese speakers is indicative of the rather fundamental pragmatic-semantic 'distance' across two languages. This issue and the r elated pragmaticsemant ic contrast between J a panese and Korean will be addressed in Section 4.

4. Discussion: Differential Pragmatic-Semantic Foundations across Languages
The two case studies presented in Section s 2 and 3 respectively dealt with rather different pragmatic-semantic phenomena, i.e. differential manifestations of intersubjectivity
and modality across two different pairs of languages, i.e. Japanese/Korean a nd
Japan ese/Mandarin Chinese. However , these two findings have implications for the pragmatic-semantic basi s of J apanese when they are viewed from the persp ectives of differ ential pragmatic-semantic foundations across languages (R orie 2000) as well as of the unidirectional pathways of pragmatic-semantic change in grammaticalization (Tr au gott 2003).
The first author (R orie) has been engaged in revealing the pragmatic-semantic foundations of Japanes e and other languages, particularly Kor e an , through acontrastive/typological and cognitive-functional analysis of grammatical and grammaticalization phenomena (Rorie 2000, 2007, Rorie and Taira 2002, Rorie and Narrog, t oappear, Rorie and Kim 2008, Kim and Rorie, in press). One of the findings gleaned fromthese studies is that Japanese and Korean, which exhibit a close resemblance in lexicagr ammatical structure including the SOV word order and the agglutinating predicate- 9-structure, are both aptly describable by means of the layered sentence-level pragmaticsemantic structure model (13). The hierarchical model (13), which was employed as ananalytical framework in Rorie and Taira (2002), is rooted in the analytical tradition ofJapanese linguistics (e.g. Masuoka 1991, 2000, Nitta 1991; see also Shinzato 2007) and h as
been extended to incorporate the layer of 'Discourse Modality' based on Maynard (1993).
Actual manifestation of the three-layer structure is illustrated with Japanese and Korean
examples in (14a, b) :(13) [Proposition [Modality [Discourse Modality)])(14) J. (a) [Gogoyuki-gahuru [ha mo sirenai [ne)))afternoon

snow-NOM

come mayK. (b) [Ohwu-ey

nwun-1o-1[ci to molla))snow-NOM

come-FUT

mayafternoon-LOC

SFP'It may snow in the afternoon (you know).'

As discussed extensively in Rorie and Taira (2002), Rorie (2003) , and Rorie andNarrog (to appear), Japanese and Korean manifest a close resemblance to each other interms of morpho-syntactic coding (e.g. case-marking system, agglutinating predicate
structure, ordering of grammatical morphemes) and its pragmatic-semantic representation at the level of 'Proposition' (Propositional Content) ('unmarked' portions in (14a, b)) .
However, cross-linguistic differences are progressively more conspicuous at the levelof 'Modali ty' (ital icized portions in (14a, b) ) , which primarily expresses the
speaker/writer's subjective construal/assessment of the Proposition (cf. Rorie 2003), andmost prominent at the level of 'Discourse Modality' (the bold portion in (14a) ) , which
en codes the speaker's attention to/assessment of the addressee's belief/feeling-state (cf.
Rorie and Taira 2002, Rorie and Narrog, to appear).
Concretely, at the level of Modality, both Japanese and Korean exhibit the absence of
deontic-epistemic polysemy (Rorie 2003). That is, both languages h ave distinctive sets of
deontic and epistemic modal markers, with the Korean intention (deontic)/prediction(epistemic) modal suffix -keyss- (which corresponds to - (y) oo (intention) and - daroo(prediction) in Japanese) as a possible exception.
At the outermost layer of Discourse Modality, as extensively discussed in Rorie andTaira (2002), Japanese exhibits a higher degree of systematicity in its inventory of sen-

-10 -

Where J apanese Contrasts with Korean and Mandarin Chinese

tence-final particles which serve to monitor and facilitate the flow speaker-addressee
interaction, with addressee-oriented ne and speaker-oriented yo as core m ember s. Though
Korean does have a superficially similar set of sentence-final suffixes (e.g. -lewun, -ney,-ci), they are less interaction/addressee-oriented than their Japanese counterparts andinstead encode some additional pragmatic-semantic functions such as evidentiality (e.g.

-kwun, -ney) and the speaker's commitment (e.g. -ci) (see Rorie and Taira (2002) for an
extended discussion). The pragmatic-semantic contrast presented in Section 2 provides
yet another piece of evidence in favor of a more elaborate linguistic coding of Discour se
Modality in Japanese relative to Korean.
Unlike Japanese and Korean, Japanese and Mandarin Chinese start to diverge at themore fundamental pragmatic-semantic layer of Modality. Concretely, Japanese follows
patterns with Korean in formall y distinguishing deontic and epistemic modality bymeans of different sets of modal markers, while Mandarin Chinese, similarly to English,
tends to exhibit the deontic-epistemic polysemy and the primacy of deontic modal meaning from which epistemic meaning derives historically.
We can illustrate the cross-linguistically differing locus of pragmatic-semantic contrasts between two pairs of languages as in (13').

(13') [Proposition [Modality [Discourse Modality]]]
Jvs. C

Jvs. K

It should be noted that the hierarchical pragmatic-semantic structure model (13)presents interesting an parallelism with the diachronic pathway of pragmatic-semanticchange in grammaticalization proposed by Traugott (2003), whereby meaning changes
from 'non-subjective' (or propositional) to 'subjective' to 'intersubjective', rath er than viceversa (15):(15) non-subjective > subjective > intersubjective'Non-subjective' (or objective) meaning in (15) directly corresponds to the layer of
Proposition in (13), which provides the semantic building block of a sent ence.
The change from 'non-subjective' meaning to 'subjective' meaning is called 'subjectification'. 'Subjective' meaning is mapped on to the layer of Modality, which indexes aspeaker/writer's subjective construal/assessment of the Proposition. This is the layerwhere languages can differ rather fundamentally, as in the form-meaning contrast
between Japanese and Mandarin Chinese modal markers.
'Intersubjective' meaning is primarily represented in the layer of Discourse Modality,
which encodes the speaker's attention to/assessment of the addressee's belief/feelingstate. This is the layer most relevant to the contextual, addressee-oriented pragmaticinterpretation of a sentence. The concomitant tendency toward 'intersubjectification'(Traugott 2003, Rorie (in press)), i.e. the tendency for a grammatical form/construction toacquire intersubjective (or addressee-oriented) meaning, is particularly prominent with
the Japanese noda unlike its counterpart kes-ita. Similar pragmatic-semantic contrasts
in terms of intersubjectification has been attested with other pairs of syntactic constructions in Japanese and Korean, e.g. a completive aspectual construction -te simau ( > -tyau) and its Korean counterpart -e pelita (Strauss and Sohn 1998), and the so called'double causative' constructions in Japanese (e.g. yoma-sa-sase-te itadaku 'be allowed toread (to someone superior), 'literally: r eceive the favor of making (someone) let (me)r ead') and Korean (e.g. mek-i-key hata 'make someon e have someone else eat' )(Ishihara, Rorie, and Pardeshi 2006).
The proposed pathway of pragmatic-semantic change (15), informed by the multi-layered pragmatic-semantic structure model (13), can lead to the following hypothesis (16):(16) Typological-structural differences between languages correlate with the locus of pragmaticsemantic contrasts in synchronic and diachronic dimensions. Specifically, languages that are
typologically more similar can differ at the layer of Discourse Modality and in the manifestationof Intersubjectification, though not necessarily at the layer of Modality or in the manifestationof Subjectification. Languages t h at are typologically less similar can differ at the layer ofModality and in the manifestation of Subjectification, a s well as at the layer of Discourse
Modality and in the manifestation oflntersubjectification.

The testing of the hypothesis (16) in view of pragmatic-semantic phenomena/changes
across languages of varying typological profiles is in our future agenda.

5. Conclusion
This paper presented two contrastive case studies, a contrastive pragmatic analysis
of Japanese noda and Korean kes-ita and a contrastive semantic analysis of Japanese andMandarin Chinese modal markers, and pointed to the cross-linguistically differential- 12 -

Where Japanese Contrasts with Korean and Mandarin Chinese

locus of pragmatic-semantic contrasts by adopting a modified multi-layered model ofpragmatic-semantic structure based on the traditional Japanese linguistic notions of
Proposition and Modality, supplemented with the layer of Discourse Modality. It was suggested that Japanese and Mandarin Chinese are different at the more fundamental layerof Modality, while the differences between Japanese and Korean are manifested at themore peripheral layer of Discourse Modality. These differential cross-linguistic pragmatic-semantic differences, and possibly the directionality of pragmatic-semantic change,
arguably correlate with the degree of typological morpho-syntactic contrasts between two
pairs of East Asian languages.
Abbereviations:

ACC: Accusative

COND: Conditional

DAT: Dative

DECL: Declarat ive

FUT: Future

GEN: Genitive

GER: Gerund

IMPER: Imperative

INF: Infinitive

LOC: Locative

NEG: Negative

NOM: Nominative

NOML : Nominalizer

POL : Polite

QUOT: Quotation

REL: Relative

SE: Sentence Ender

SFP: Sentence Final Particle

TOP: Topic

References

By bee, J , R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality

in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rorie, K. 1997. "Form-Meaning Interaction in Diachrony: A Case Study from Japanese". English

Linguistics 14, 428-449.
Rorie, K. 2000. "Complementation in Japanese and Korean: A Contrastive and Cognitive Linguistic
Approach". In: K. Rorie (ed.), Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11-31.
Rorie, K. 2003. "Differential Manifestations of 'Modality' between Japanese and Korean: A
Typological Perspective". In: S. Chiba et al. (eds.) Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into

Language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita, 205-216. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, 205-216.
Rorie, K. 2007. "Subjectification and Intersubjectification in Japanese: A Comparative-Typological
Perspective". Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8.2, 311-323.
Rorie, K. (In press) "Kansyukanka (Intersubjectification)".Gengo 37.5. Tokyo: Taish ukan Shoten.
Rorie, K. and K. Taira 2002. "Where Korean and Japanese Differ: Modality vs. Discourse Modality".
In: N. Akatsuka and S. Strauss. (eds.) Japanese I Korean Linguistics 10. Stanford: CSLI, 178-191.
Rorie, K. and J. Kim. 2008. "Syukanka, Kansyukanka no Kanten kara Mita Nihongo, Kankokugo no
Bunpoogensyoo (Grammati cal Phenomena in Japanese and Korean Viewed from the
Perspectives of Subjectification and Intersubjectification)". Gengo 37.2, 84-89. Tokyo: Taishukan
Shoten.

- 13 -

Rorie, K. and H. Narrog. (To appear) "What Typology Reveals about Modality in Japanese: A Crosslinguistic Perspective". In: T. Ono and K. Kabata (eds .) Functional Approaches to Japanese

Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.
Ishihara, T., K. Rorie, and P. Pardeshi. 2006. "What Does Korean 'Double Causative' Reveal about
Causation and Korean?" In: T. Vance (ed.), Japanese/ Korean Linguistics 14, CSLI, 321-330.
Kim, J. and K. Rorie. (In press) "Intersubjectification and Textual Functions of Japanese Noda andKorean Kes-ita". In: Y. Takubo et al. (eds.) Japanese I Korean Linguistics 16. Stanford: CSLI.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, R. 2003. Modality in English and Chinese: A Typological Perspective. Amsterdam: Lighting Source
Incorporation.
Martin, S. E. 1991. "Recent Research on the Relationship of Japanese to Korean". In: S.M. Lamb, andD. M. Mitchell (eds. ) Sprung from Some Common Source. Stanford: Stanford University Press,269-292.

Masuoka, T. 1991. Modaritii no Bunpoo (Grammar of Modality). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Masuoka, T. 2000. "Meidai to Modaritii no Kyookai o Motomete (In Search for the Boundary between
Proposition and Modality)". In: T. Masuoka (ed.) Nihongo Bunpoo no Sy osoo (Aspects ofJapanese Grammar). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, 87-98.
Masuoka, T. 2007. Nihongo Modariti Tankyuu (The Research of Japanese Modality). Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Maynard, S. K. 1993. Discourse Modality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Najima, Y. 2007. Noda no Imi Kinoo: Kanrensei Riron no Kanten kara (The Meaning and Function of

Noda: From the Perspective of Relevance Theory). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Narrog, H. 2002. "Polysemy and Indeterminacy in Modal Markers- The Case of Japanese Beshi".

Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 123-167
Nitta, Y. 1991. Nihongo no Modaritii to Ninsyoo (Modality and Person in Japanese). Tokyo: Hituzi
Publishers.
Noda, H. 1997. Noda no Kinoo (The Function of Noda). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Shinzato, R. 2007. "(lnter)subjectification, Japanese Syntax, and Syntactic Scope I ncrease". Journalof Historical Pragmatics 8.2, 171-206.
Strauss, S. and S.-0. Sohn. 1998. "Grammaticalization, Aspect and Emotion. The Case of Japanese- te shimau and Korean -a/ e pelita". In: D. Silva (ed.) Japanese I Korean Linguistics 8. Stanford:
CSLI, 217-230.
Sweester, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic

Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II. Typology and Process in Concept Structuring.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tamaji, M. and K. Horie 2007. "Tyuugokuzin Nihongo Gakusyuusya no Modaritii Syuutoku Katei ni
Mirareru Tyuukangengo: Imi, Keishiki no Mappingu no Kanten Kara (The Interlanguage Stage
Observed during the Process of Mandarin Chinese Speakers' Acquisition of Modality inJapanese: From the Perspective of Form-Meaning Mapping)". In: M. Minami (ed.) Gengogaku to

Nihongokyoiku V (Linguistics and Japanese Language Education V ) . Tokyo: Kurosio-14-

Where Japanese Contrasts with Korean and Mandarin Chinese

Publishers, 53-71.
Tanomura, T. 1990. Gendai Nihongo no Bunpoo I: Noda no Imi to Kinoo (Modern Japanese
Grammar I: The Meaning and Function of Noda). Osaka: Izumi Shoten.
Traugott, E. C. 2003. "From Subjectification to Intersubjectification". In: H. Hickey (ed. ) Motives for

Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124-139.
Yin, S. 2003. Nihongono Noda to Kankokugo no -N kes-ita no Taisyoo Kenkyuu (A Contrastive Studyof Japanese Noda and Korean -N kes-ita). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ochanomizu
University.
Data Sources:

10: Ahopsal insayng ('The Life of Nine Years Old'). 2001. Wi Keecheol. Seoul: Chengnyensa.
Japanese Original Version
J'1: Kyuusai no Zinsei ('The Life of Nine Years Old'). 2004. Translated by Simizu Yukiko. Tokyo:

Kawade Shabo Shinsha.

Jl : Umibeno Kahuka ('Kafuka on the Shore'). 2002. Murakami Haruki . Tokyo: Shinchosha.
K'1: Haypyen-uy Khaphukha ('Kafuka on the Shore'). 2003. Translated by Kim Chunmi. Seoul:

Munhaksasangsa.

I

·I

-15-