研究論文

A Dichotomous Comprehension Modelof Clausal Conjunctions*
Miyuki Nagatsuji
Komatsu University

Abstract: Ariel (2012) proposes a dichotomous account of English and-conjunctions with
distinct types of inferential processes called relational strategies and independent strategies.
She presents these inferences only as pragmatic strategies that depend on context. However,neither this inferential distinction nor its status has been extensively examined in otherlanguages. The Japanese language, for example, has three structures that correspond to
English and-conjunctions: the -te, -tari, and -shi structures. One of the criteria based on
which the structures delimit their interpretation is the distinction between relational andindependent inferences. Indeed, the distinction between the -te structure and the -tari and-shi structures is parallel to that between the inferential patterns: the -te structure is compatible with relational inferences, and the -tari and -shi structures are compatible with independent inferences. Given that both English and Japanese share the relational/independent
distinction, this distinction is rather a fundamental property that contributes to the interpretation of clausal conjunctions, beyond the distinction between mere pragmatic strategies.
Thus, the comprehension mechanisms of clausal conjunctions can be modeled using thedistinction between relational and independent inferences.
Key words: clausal conjunction, inferential processing unit, relational inferences,
independent inferences

1. Introduction
A variety of pragmatic accounts of English and-conjunctions have been offered since Grice (1967, 1975,1989). Among these major analyses is Ariel (2012), who claims that the interpretation of and-conjunctions involves two distinct types of inferences. Nagatsuji’s (2018: chapter 2) review of the analyses finds
her dichotomous analysis plausible in that it provides an accurate interpretive taxonomy of and-conjunctions.
However, this inferential distinction has not been extensively examined in other languages. The Japanese language, for example, has multiple clause-linking structures that correspond to English and-conjunctions. Given this fact, how can the interpretation of clausal conjunctions be accounted for cross-linguistically?

─ 45 ─

Miyuki Nagatsuji

This paper proposes, in agreement with Ariel’s view, a dichotomous model of the comprehension
mechanisms of clausal conjunctions based on Japanese data. I claim that the distinction between relational and independent inferences is a fundamental property that contributes to the dichotomy of clausal
conjunctions beyond a distinction between pragmatic strategies in the interpretation.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines Ariel’s (2012) dichotomous analysis of English
and-conjunctions. Section 3 shows that the distinction between relational and independent inferences is
one of the criteria based on which Japanese conjunctive structures delimit their interpretation. Section 4
addresses some implications of the dichotomous comprehension model of clausal conjunctions. Section 5summarizes the argument.

2. The dichotomy of English and-conjunctions
Ariel (2012) proposes a dichotomous account of English and-conjunctions with two distinct interpretive
strategies: (i) a relational strategy by which a relation between the conjuncts is inferred, and a conjoined
proposition that consists of the conjuncts and this relation contributes to the discourse topic; and (ii) an
independent strategy by which each conjunct makes a separate but parallel contribution to the same
discourse topic. For example, the interpretation of (1a) is classified as a relational strategy, and that of(1b) as an independent strategy.
(1) a. KEN: So I eat the local food, and get deathly ill.

(Ariel 2012: 1692)

b. My client entered ((Israel)) legally and he was born here and you know it is his right to be here. 1)
(ibid.: 1697)
In (1a), a cause–consequence relation is recovered between the states of affairs described in the conjuncts
through inferences, and the conjoined proposition that consists of the conjuncts and the causal relation
between them contributes to the speaker’s point in the conversation; here, Ken is understood as
explaining why he would not return to Mexico. In (1b), uttered by a lawyer who claims her client’s legal
immigration into Israel, the conjuncts function as independent pieces of evidence, each one supporting thesame conclusion that there are no grounds for a legal case against the client.
Ariel provides tests that distinguish the relational and independent strategies based on contrasts
reflected in various phenomena. Those tests include the insertion of a word or phrase with an additive
function, such as what’s more. Relational conjunctions do not allow the addition of the expression,
whereas independent ones do.
(2) a. ?? KEN: So I eat the local food and what’s more, get deathly ill.

─ 46 ─A Dichotomous Comprehension Model of Clausal Conjunctionsb. 	My client entered ((Israel)) legally and he was born here and what’s more, you know it is his
right to be here.
The and-utterance in (2a) is not acceptable in the context; the insertion of what’s more prevents the
conjunction from functioning as a conjoined proposition with the communication of a causal relation,
thereby making it incapable of contributing as a whole to the discourse topic. In contrast, in (2b), theand-conjunction co-occurs with the additive expression, since the propositions of the individual conjuncts
act as evidence for the speaker’s claim to make direct contributions to the same discourse topic.
This section has provided an overview of the relational/independent dichotomy of English and-conjunctions in line with Ariel’s analysis. The next section examines Japanese clausal conjunction systems.

3. The dichotomy of Japanese clausal conjunctions
As noted in section 1, the Japanese language has multiple clause-linking structures that correspond to
English and-conjunctions: typical examples include the -te, -tari, and -shi structures. While these structures
encode inherent meanings, they fall into two types from the perspective of an inferential processing unit,
or an information chunk that functions as a premise of an inference or inferences to derive an intended
effect in utterance interpretation (Nagatsuji 2014). This section uses insertion and replacement tests toargue that the -te structure involves relational inferences, and the -tari and -shi structures independent ones.

3.1 The -te structure and relational inferences
The -te structure can communicate a range of relations between the states of affairs described in theclauses connected by -te. For example, the interpretations of the -te utterances in (3)2) are, respectively,
temporal (3a)3), causal (3b), paratactic (3c), and adversative/contrastive (3d):(3) a. [A girl is talking to her mother on a pay phone.]
Okāsan				
mother
buzā
				
beep

no

koe

o

saegiru

yōni,

pū

to

ōkiku

GEN

voice

ACC

interfere

as.if

onomatopoeia

QUOT

loudlyga

nat-te,sorekara

denwa

wa

kire-ta.

NOM

make-te

then

phone

TOP

go.dead-PAST		 ‘The phone beeped loudly enough to interfere with her mother’s voice, and then the line went dead.’(BCCWJ)		b. Tokyo.todewa

Ishihara

to.chijigamuhōnakarasu

ni

				
Tokyo

in

TOP

Ishihara

governorNOM

disorderly

crow

about

─ 47 ─

Miyuki Nagatsuji

				atama.ni.ki-te,karasuogekitaisuru

tamenopurojekuto

chīmu

o

				get.mad-te

crow

ACC

drive.away

toproject

team

ACC			 hossokusase-mashi-ta.
			 set.up-POL-PAST		‘Mr. Ishihara, the governor of Tokyo, got mad at crows that did people harm and set up a task force
to drive them away.’

(BCCWJ)c. [An author describes eyes painted on a ship named Tatara.]
				Sengan

wa

“Mata

No

Tatara”

toyobarete-i-te,

me

no

				
eye.of.ship TOP

“Mata

No

Tatara”

QUOT

be-called-te

eye

GEN

				kōzu

ni

kyōmibukai

tokuchō

ga

aru.

				
composition ininteresting

featureNOM

is		‘The eyes painted on the ship are called “Mata No Tatara,” and their composition has interesting
features.’(BCCWJ)
		d. Kanojo

wakoredake

idainakotooshite-i-te,

jibun

no

				
she

TOP

such

great

thing

ACC

has-done-teoneselfGEN				kotoochittomo

idaidatowaomottei-nai.

				thingACC

at.allgreat

COMP TOP

consider-not

		‘She (Mother Teresa) has done such great things, and she does not consider herself a great person
at all.’

(BCCWJ)

The point is that the -te structure exploits a conjoined proposition that consists of both clauses and anenriched coherence relation between them as an inferential processing unit to contribute to the discourse
topic.
This inferential property of the -te structure is confirmed by the insertion of an expression that isclose in meaning to what’s more. Indeed, many -te utterances do not co-occur with an additive expression,
such as sono.ue (‘what’s more’) since the insertion prevents the structure from functioning as a single
inferential processing unit.
(4) a. ?? Okāsan  no  koe  o  saegiru  yōni,  pū  to  ōkiku  buzā  ga
nat-te,sono.ue

make-tewhat’s.more

denwa

wa kire-ta.

‘The phone beeped loudly enough to interfere with her mother’s voice and what’s more, theline went dead.’─ 48 ─A Dichotomous Comprehension Model of Clausal Conjunctions

b. ?? Sengan wa “Mata No Tatara” to yobarete-i-te,
be-called-tesono.uewhat’s.moreme  no  kōzu  ni  kyōmibukai  tokuchō  ga  aru.
‘The eyes painted on the ship are called “Mata No Tatara” and what’s more, their composition
has interesting features.’
When the expression sono.ue is inserted between the clauses as in (4a), the utterance is not acceptable inthe context; the sequential interpretation available to the original -te structure (3a) is blocked. The sameis true for (4b). The interpretation of the original -te utterance in (3c) is paratactic, and the clauses seem
superficially to make independent contributions to the same discourse topic. Therefore, an additive
expression can be predicted to appear between the clauses, but the insertion in (4b) is not pragmatically
acceptable in the context. The insertion tests in (4) indicate that the -te structure functions as a single
inferential processing unit that contributes to the discourse topic. 4)
As seen, the -te structure forms a conjoined proposition that consists of both clauses and an enrichedcoherence relation between them, contributing as a whole to the discourse topic. This property agrees
with that assumed by the relational strategy in Ariel’s terms; thus, the -te structure is compatible withrelational inferences.

3.2 The -tari and -shi structures and independent inferences
The -tari and -shi structures can constitute a list since their clauses are fundamentally in a paratactic relation. They share the function of exemplification although they differ in the type of that function they
perform: the -tari structure provides illustrations to elucidate an abstract or elusive assumption, and the-shi structure provides evidence to achieve a strengthening effect (Nagatsuji 2017, 2018: section 5.3.3).5)
The key property of these structures is that they exploit the propositions of the individual clauses as
inferential processing units that make direct contributions to the same discourse topic.
Let me first look at how the -tari structure is interpreted.
(5)	[After an Afghan ex-general and his daughter, Soraya, arrive in America as refugees, their relationshipgradually changes.]
The general’s frailty―and time―had softened things between him and Soraya too.
		
Futariwa

isshonisanposhi-tari,doyōbini

wachūshokuo		
two.people

TOP

togethertake.a.walk-tari

Saturday

on

TOP

lunch

ACC

─ 49 ─

Miyuki Nagatsuji

		
tabe

ni

it-tari,shōgunga

Sorayanooshieru

jugyō

ni

		
eat

to

go-tari

generalNOM

Soraya

NOM

teach

class

ACC

		
de-tari

shi-ta.

		
attend-tari

do-PAST

	‘They took walks together and went to lunch on Saturdays, and the general sat in on some of herclasses.’(Kimi no tame nara Senkai demo, p. 303)
The tari-marked clauses, their taking walks together and going to lunch on Saturdays and the general’ssitting in on some of his daughter’s classes, are interpreted as concrete instances of the previous
sentence: the general’s frailty and time had improved the previously negative circumstances resulting
from the bad relationship between him and Soraya. In other words, each -tari clause has an illustrative“instance–abstract” relation with the preceding sentence to help the reader understand how the relationship between the general and his daughter has improved. This suggests that the -tari structure functions
so that the individual clauses contribute to the same discourse topic.
Next, consider the interpretation of the -shi structure.
(6)	[A man who has worked on growing organic rice is giving an interview. He says that he tried a variety
of means to remove weeds from his paddy, but all of them failed.]	Carp and tadpole shrimp, which I have tried before, are aquatic creatures, and their living conditions
are restricted.
		
Suion

ga

takai

to

hataraka-nai-shi, mizuga		water.temperature

GEN

high

if

work-not-shi

GEN		nakunat-tara

shinde.shimau.

		is.gone-if

die

water

‘They are not active at high water temperatures, and they cannot live without water.’(Professional Shigoto no Ryūgi, p. 31)
The individual clauses of the -shi structure―that carp and tadpole shrimp are not active at high watertemperatures and that they cannot live without water―provide evidence for the previous utterance: theliving conditions of carp and tadpole shrimp are restricted. The first clause acts as a premise and leads toan implicated conclusion that the aquatic creatures live in limited conditions. The second clause also acts
as a premise, deriving the same conclusion. That is, both clauses reinforce the previous utterance, and thesecond one, in particular, strengthens it by providing evidence beyond that provided in the first clause. In
the -shi structure, too, the clauses function as distinct inferential processing units to contribute to the─ 50 ─A Dichotomous Comprehension Model of Clausal Conjunctions

discourse topic, converging on a single effect.
The inferential property of the -tari and -shi structures is also confirmed by the insertion test, which
worked for the -te structure. They co-occur with an additive expression since the individual clauses makedirect contributions to the same discourse topic.
(7) Futari wa isshoni sanposhi-tari, doyōbi  ni  wa  chūshokuniit-tari,sono.ue							

go-tariwhat’s.more

		 o tabeshōgun  ga  Soraya  nooshieru  jugyō  ni  de-tari shi-ta.
	‘They took walks together and went to lunch on Saturdays and what’s more, the general sat in onsome of her classes.’(8) Suion

ga

takai

to

							

hataraka-nai-shi, sono.ue
work-not-shi

mizu

ga

what’s.more

nakunat-tara shinde.shimau.
	‘They are not active at high water temperatures and what’s more, they cannot live without water.’In (7) and (8), the utterance with the insertion sounds natural in the context in which the original structure is used. The -tari clauses with the co-occurrence of the word sono.ue (‘what’s more’) in (7) can still
function the same, with some effect entailed by the use of the expression. Similarly, the -shi structurewith the insertion in (8) can also play the same role in the discourse, although the additive expression
makes the introduction of another piece of evidence clearer. The insertion test in (7) and (8) supports theinferential property of the -tari and -shi structures: the individual clauses make direct contributions to thesame discourse topic.
Thus, the -tari and -shi structures exploit the propositions of the individual clauses to contribute to
the discourse topic. This property agrees with that assumed by the independent strategy in Ariel’s terms,
from which it follows that these structures are compatible with independent inferences.

3.3 The Japanese clausal conjunction systems
Given the arguments so far, the distinction between the -te structure and the -tari and -shi structures shouldbe parallel to that between relational and independent inferences. If this is so, the acceptability of thestructures will reflect the distinction between the inferential patterns. Consider cases in which the -testructure is replaced with the -tari or -shi structure:─ 51 ─

Miyuki Nagatsuji(9) a.

Tokyo.to

de

wa

			

Tokyo

in

TOP Ishihara

governor NOM				atama.ni.ki-te,karasuogekitaisuru

tamenopurojekuto

chīmu

o

				

get.mad-te

crow

ACC

drive.away

toproject

team

ACC

				

hossokusase-mashi-ta.

				

set.up-POL-PAST
chīmu

o

Ishihara

to.chijigamuhōnakarasudisorderly crow

ni
about

b. ?? Tokyo.to  de  wa  Ishihara  to.chiji  ga  muhōna  karasu  ni							atama.ni.ki-tari,

karasuogekitaisuru

tamenopurojekuto							get.mad-tari							hossokusase-tari

shi-mashi-ta.

							set.up-tari

do-POL-PAST

c. ?? Tokyo.to  de  wa  Ishihara  to.chiji  ga  muhōna  karasu  ni							atama.ni.ki-ta-shi,karasuogekitaisuru

tamenopurojekuto

chīmu

o

							get.mad-PAST-shi							hossokusase-mashi-ta.
							set.up-POL-PAST			‘Mr. Ishihara, the governor of Tokyo, got mad at crows that did people harm and set up a task
force to drive them away.’

(= (3b); (b) and (c) are mine)(10) [An author describes eyes painted on a ship named Tatara.]
		 a.			Sengan		 wa

“Mata

No

Tatara”

toyobarete-i-te,meno						
eye.of.ship

“Mata

No

Tatara”

QUOT

is-called-te

eye

GEN

TOP

kōzu

ni

kyōmibukai tokuchō

ga

aru.

							compositionininteresting

NOM

is

feature		 b. ?? Sengan wa “Mata No Tatara” to yobarete-i-tari, me no				be-called-tari

kōzu  ni  kyōmibukai  tokuchō  ga  at-tari suru.
							

be-tari doc. ?? Sengan wa “Mata No Tatara” to yobarete-iru-shi, me no
is-called-shi
kōzu  ni  kyōmibukai  tokuchō ga  aru.
							is			‘The eyes painted on the ship are called “Mata No Tatara,” and their composition has interesting
features.’(= (3c); (b) and (c) are mine)─ 52 ─A Dichotomous Comprehension Model of Clausal Conjunctions

In both cases, neither the -tari structure nor the -shi structure is acceptable: in (9), the -te structure (9a)communicates a cause–consequence relation, but the -tari (9b) and -shi (9c) structures cannot be usedinstead. In (10), the -te structure (10a) communicates a paratactic relation, but the -tari (10b) and -shi (10c)structures are incompatible with the context. Notice that the -te structure cannot be replaced with the -tari
or -shi structure when expressing either an enriched coherence relation, as in (9a), or a mere paratactic
relation, as in (10a). This shows that the -te structure and the -tari and -shi structures differ in the inferential pattern, even when a purely paratactic reading is available to all of the structures.
The same holds true for replacement of the -tari or -shi structure with the -te structure:(11)	[After an Afghan ex-general and his daughter, Soraya, arrive in America as refugees, their relationshipgradually changes.]
The general’s frailty―and time―had softened things between him and Soraya too.
		 a. 		Futariwa

isshonisanposhi-tari,doyōbini

wachūshoku					 two.people TOP together take.a.walk-tari Saturday on

TOP lunch							o			tabe niit-tari,shōgunga

Sorayanooshieru jugyō							ACC

eat

go-tari

generalNOM

SorayaNOM

teach		classni

chūshoku

tonide-tari

shi-ta.

ACC

attend-tari

do-PAST		 b. ?? Futariwaisshoni							

sanposhi-te,

doyōbiwa

take.a.walk-teo tabe ni it-te, shōgun  ga  Soraya  no  oshieru  jugyō
			

go-te
ni

de-ta.
attend-PAST			‘They took walks together and went to lunch on Saturdays, and the general sat in on some ofher classes.’(= (5); (b) is mine)(12)	[A man who has worked on growing organic rice is giving an interview. He says that he tried a variety
of means to remove weeds from his paddy, but all of them failed.]	Carp and tadpole shrimp, which I have tried before, are aquatic creatures, and their living conditions
are restricted.
		 a.			Suion		

ga

takai

to

hataraka-nai-shi, mizuga						
water.temperature

GEN

high

if

work-not-shi

GENnakunat-tara

shinde.shimau.

is.gone-ifdie─ 53 ─

water

Miyuki Nagatsuji

		 b. ?? Suiongatakai to hataraka-naku-te,

			

mizu

ga

work-not-te
nakunat-tara shinde.shimau.
‘They are not active at high water temperatures, and they cannot live without water.’(= (6); (b) is mine)

In each pair, the -te structure is unacceptable: in (11), the -tari structure (11a) is understood as providing
illustrations of the previous sentence, but the -te structure (11b) does not fit the context. In (12), the -shi
structure (12a) is interpreted as providing independent pieces of evidence for the previous utterance, but
the -te structure (12b) is not compatible with the context. A stronger argument emerges in cases in which
both the -tari and -shi structures are acceptable, but the -te structure is not. Consider (13):(13) a.

Kinō			yesterday TOPb.

wa

tomodachiga

ki-tari,konpyūtā

gafriendNOM

come-taricomputerNOM

koware-tari

shi-ta-node,

break-tari

do-PAST-because anythingnani.moKinō  wa  tomodachi  ga  ki-ta-shi,deki-nakat-ta.
can.do-not-PAST
konpyūtā  gacome-PAST-shi
koware-ta-node,nani.modeki-nakat-ta.

break-PAST-because
c. ??  Kinō  wa  tomodachi  ga  ki-te,

konpyūtā

gacome-tekoware-ta-node,nani.modeki-nakat-ta.

break-PAST-because‘Yesterday, a friend came over and the computer broke down, so I couldn’t accomplish anything.’
(Hasegawa 1996: 51; (b) and (c) are mine)

The -tari (13a) and -shi (13b) structures are understood as providing a list of things that caused the
speaker to accomplish nothing, with some nuances of meaning. In contrast, the -te structure (13c) sounds
odd in this context; although a friend’s coming over and the computer’s breaking down are best seen as
independent instances that spoiled the speaker’s day, a temporal sequence or a cause–consequence relation can be read into the two events. Here, too, the discrepancies in acceptability between the -te structure
and the -tari or -shi structure mark a boundary between relational and independent inferences.
Thus, overall, the replacement tests in (9)–(13) demonstrate that the distinction between the -te struc-─ 54 ─A Dichotomous Comprehension Model of Clausal Conjunctions

ture and the -tari and -shi structures closely correlates with that between relational and independent inferences.
This section has argued that the Japanese clausal conjunction systems are based (at least partly) on
the distinction between the inferential patterns. The next section briefly discusses the implications of thisdichotomy of clausal conjunctions.

4. A fundamental property of clausal conjunctions
Both in English and in Japanese, the interpretation of clausal conjunctions involves two inferential
patterns: relational and independent inferences. The comprehension mechanisms of clausal conjunctions
can, therefore, be depicted as a dichotomous model based on the distinction between the inferential
patterns.
This dichotomous comprehension model may lead us to reexamine the status of the inferential distinction. Ariel (2012) presents relational and independent inferences as pragmatic strategies that depend oncontext. Notice, however, that the distinction is one of the criteria based on which the Japanese -te, -tari,
and -shi structures delimit their interpretation. This suggests that the Japanese clausal conjunction systems
are sensitive to a property that does not linguistically affect the English systems; and-conjunctions are
viewed as a single structure, both syntactically and semantically. Thus, the distinction between the inferential patterns lies in the semantic side in the account of the Japanese clausal conjunctions.
Based on my approach, the relational/independent distinction seems to be more than a distinction
between pragmatic strategies. Rather, the inferential distinction can be seen as a fundamental property
that contributes to the dichotomous comprehension model of clausal conjunctions. This alternative view
will still accommodate the fact that the distinction does not semantically define the and structure; theproperty should prompt the pragmatic strategies in the interpretation of and-conjunctions.
This section has concluded from the cross-linguistic perspective made possible by the Japanese datathat the comprehension mechanisms of clausal conjunctions can be modeled using the distinction between
relational and independent inferences. I have also proposed a new status for the inferential distinction as
a fundamental property that contributes to the dichotomy of clausal conjunctions, beyond the distinction
between mere pragmatic strategies.

5. Concluding remarks
The present paper has presented a dichotomous model of the comprehension mechanisms of clausal
conjunctions based on the distinction between relational and independent inferences. The examination of
the Japanese structures that correspond to English and-conjunctions finds that the inferential pattern
divides these structures: the -te structure is relational, and the -tari and -shi structures are independent.

─ 55 ─

Miyuki Nagatsuji

The distinction between the inferential patterns is involved in a semantic dimension of the Japaneseclausal conjunction systems. Accordingly, the inferential distinction can be a fundamental property that
contributes to the dichotomous comprehension model.
The implications discussed here may be limited and need further examination. However, I hope I havecast light on an important aspect of clausal conjunctions that does not seem to simply follow necessarily
from Ariel’s analysis of and-conjunctions.
Notes＊

An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the 16th International Pragmatics Conference of theInternational Pragmatics Association, held at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University on June 9–14,
2019. I would like to thank the audience for their helpful comments. I am also grateful to Akiko
Yoshimura, Ayumi Suga and Hiroaki Konno for their invaluable comments and suggestions. Allremaining errors and inadequacies are my own.

1)

The double-bracketed word is added by Ariel.

2)

The abbreviations used for word-by-word glosses in the present paper are as follows: ACC (accusative), COMP (complementizer), GEN (genitive), NOM (nominative), PAST (past), POL (polite),
QUOT (quotative), and TOP (topic).

3)

The -te utterance in (3a) co-occurs with the expression sorekara (‘then’), which explicitly communicates a sequential relation. However, omitting the word makes little difference to the interpretation.
Compare (i):(i) Okāsan

no

koe

o

saegiru

yōni,

pū

to

ōkiku

GEN

voice

ACC

interfere

as.if

onomatopoeia

QUOT

loudlyga

nat-te,denwa

wa

kire-ta.

NOM

make-te

phone

TOP

go.dead-PAST			mother
buzā
				
beep

		 ‘The phone beeped loudly enough to interfere with her mother’s voice, and the line went dead.’
The -te structure in (i) also communicates a temporal sequence, much like the original phrasing in(3a): the phone’s making a loud beep preceded its going dead. This indicates that the temporal interpretation of (3a) should not be attributed to the use of the sequential expression.
4)

There may be paratactic -te utterances co-occurring with an additive expression. However, they cannot,
strictly speaking, be paratactic in the sense that they are not independent. A quantitative analysis
provides indirect but important evidence for the view that the -te structure cannot be independent. A
search of data (2,554,958 words in total) from the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japa-─ 56 ─A Dichotomous Comprehension Model of Clausal Conjunctions

nese (BCCWJ) found only limited insertion of an additive expression, such as shikamo (‘furthermore’) into -te structures (note that I did not examine the data in statistical terms). Among 318
instances of the word, there were 191 usages at the beginning of a sentence (60.1%), 71 insertions
into the ren’yō-form structure (22.3%), 14 insertions into the -te structure (4.4%), and 42 other usages(13.2%). The ren’yō-form structure is a type of clause linkage in which the adverbial form, or the
ren’yō form of a predicate at the end of a clause connects another clause, and it has the samemorphosyntactic features as the -te structure. Given this fact, the low number of insertions into the-te structure suggests that this structure still tends to disallow insertion. If this is so, then the co-occurrence of the -te structure with an additive expression can be attributed to other aspects than the
key property of the structure―functioning as a single inferential processing unit.
5)

I use the terms “exemplification” and “illustration” as words that refer to different concepts. The
former represents an upper concept that encompasses both providing concrete instances to elucidate
an abstract or elusive assumption and providing evidence to strengthen an assumption; conversely,
the latter is used to represent only providing concrete instances for an elucidation, to the exclusionof providing evidence for a strengthening effect.

References
Ariel, Mira (2010) Defining Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ariel, Mira (2012) “Relational and Independent and Conjunctions,”Lingua 122, 1692–1715.
Blakemore, Diane and Robyn Carston(2005) “The Pragmatics of Sentential Coordination with and,”
Lingua 115, 569–589.
Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Grice, H. Paul (1967) “Logic and Conversation,” William James Lectures, Harvard University. [Reprinted
in Grice (1989).]
Grice, H. Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation,” in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and
Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58, New York: Academic Press. [Reprinted in Grice (1989).]
Grice, H. Paul (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hasegawa, Yoko (1996) A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective TE in Japanese, Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications and Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Nagatsuji, Miyuki (2014) “Japanese Clausal Coordination and Inferential Processing Units,” JELS 31,
359–365, the English Linguistic Society of Japan.
Nagatsuji, Miyuki (2017) “Japanese Clausal Coordination and Exemplification,” Annual Reports of Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences 32, 1–10, Nara Women’s University.

─ 57 ─

Miyuki Nagatsuji

Nagatsuji, Miyuki (2018) The Pragmatics of Clausal Coordination, Ph.D. dissertation, Nara Women’s
University.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986/19952) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, Deirdre (2017) “Relevance Theory,” in Yan Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics,
79–100, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sources of Examples
Hosseini, Khaled (2003) The Kite Runner, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. (Translated by Koji Sato(2007) Kimi no tame nara Senkai demo, Tokyo: Hayakawashobo.)
Mogi, Ken’ichiro and NHK “Professional” Seisaku Han (eds.) (2008) Professional Shigoto no Ryūgi:
Shippai no Kazu dake Jinsei wa Tanoshii [The Work Styles of Experts: The More Failures, the MoreFun in Your Life], Tokyo: Nihon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai.
CorpusBCCWJ: The Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (The Center for Corpus Developmentof the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, 2011).

─ 58 ─