jα ′ιa17g″ αgι ヤυ″Jο ″α″ごC力 α7Zg′ , 10(1998),289‑323 Printcd in thc U S A◎ 1999 Calllbridgc Univcrsity Prcss 0954‑3945/99$950

A quantitative study of gender differences in the ellipsisof the Japanese postpositional particles‐ ″αand― gα

Gender composition as a constraint o五:variability

SHOJl TAKANO〃θた膨sι ′Gα た′ι刀し物′
ソ

̀パ

ノ
ヶ

ABSTRACT
It has been claimcd thatthc ellipsis of postpositional particles is one ofthc propcr―

tics ofJapanese women's language The validity ofthis clailn,however,is compro―
miscd by several lnethodological problcms in prior rcscarch in this arca:(1)thesublective comparison of bare percentagcs withOut any statistical veriflcation ofmalc― icmale differenccs:(2)thc neglect of the intcrsccting rclationships among avaricty ofpotential constraints which silnultaneously in■ ucncc thc spcakcr's choiceof thc variablcl and(3)the cXClusivc focus on single― sex intcractions Conducting
multivariate analyscs of cOnversational data from both single―
sex and cross― sexpeer intcractions, this prelilaninary study dcmonstrates the overgcncralization of
gcnder― linked diffcrcntiation in past work duc to thc ncglcct of the relative strengthof potential intcrsccting factors Thc rcsults also rcvcal statistically signilicant dc―

grccs of stylistic intragendcr variability across different typcs of gcndcr composi―tion,which counters the static approach to a social variable ofgenderin thc traditionalsociolinguistic paradigm

This article focuscs on gender― relatcd variation in the ellipsis of the nonlinative
particle gα and the topic lnarker ll α in Japanesc.l First,obscrvc thc phenomenon

fronl a casual conversation l recordcd:

amain dacream NOA/1 sweet COP(1)a Kuriimu gὰThe frosting on thc cake must be sweet'b Kimotiの warui toka
fccling NOM bad ctc
̀You fccl bad,that kind of thing'(2)a SyuSShian ンッα doko dcsu ka
homctown TOP where COP Q― PARTICLE
̀Where are you from?'

I would likc to thank ⅣIalcah Yrdcgcr― Dror for hcr carcful rcading and for a numbcr of insightfulcommcnts and discussions l also grcatly apprcciatc usclill commcnts and suggcstions fronl anony―mous iVC rcvie、vers Comincnts from Kilalbcrly Joncs,Janc Hill,Kuniyoshi Kataoka,Bonnic Fonscca‐
Grcbcr,and Ellcn Rcttig on an carlier vcrsion ofthis articlc arc also grcatly apprcciatcd All crrors arc

myo、 vn

289

290

SHOJI TAKANO
b Fooku ② arlmasu yo

ncc

foよ TOR thercis PART PART̀You havc a fork,don't you?'

These particles arc dropped with high frequency in informal conoquial speech(Kuno, 1972;Martin, 1975;Peng et al., 1981;Shibatani, 1990;Tsutsui,1981,
1983,1984).Utterances with particle ellipsis sound morè̀nattlral''than those
without ellipsis(Hasegawa,1993),and̀̀the constant inclusion of thesc particles

deinitely docs not reflect norlnal,unmonitored conversation''(Jorden&Noda,
1987:87).WhethCr the particlcs should be present depends on an unconscious
decision by the speakcr The strong linkagc of pttticle ellipsis with an informal
and unmonitored style of speech suggests that ellipsis in Japanese is a property ofthe speaker's ̀̀vernaCular''― ―the most systematic style of speech produced insituations whcre minilnum attention is paid to speech(Labov,1981).It has been
demOnstrated thatthe highly regular character ofthe vernacultt is the most useful
dcvice for revealing inherent variability in the grammar of a particular language(Labov,1969,1972b)
Previous resettch on Japanese grammar,however,has paid much less atten―
tion to thc variability ofpttticle ellipsis than to the usage ofpaFtiCles(e.g.,Kuno,

1973;Maynard,1981;Shibatani,1990),partly because of a common theoreticalstancc that ellipsis phcnomena someho、 v deviate fron■ the basic structurcs of alanguage and partly due to a llllisconception that ellipsis is mostly a matter ofstylistic free variation in linguistic performance Nevertheless,several studies
havc attempted to rcfute thesc misconceptions,illustrating that there are under―
lying principles govcrning variation in the ellipsis of―レッα and― gα (e.g.,Hinds,

1982;Kuno,1972;Tsutsui,1981,1983,1984).Although inost of the earlier stud―
ies involve methodological problems in that their analysis of

intuitivcly''con―

structed sentences in isolation as primary data often does not conform tophenomena in natural speech(Hinds,1982),a grOWing body ofliterature is be―
ginning to focus on the vernacul冨(1.e.,unmonitored,spontaneous convcrsations
nciples ofor narratives in informal settings)and tO detect different types of p五particle ellipsis(eg。 ,Fttii&OnO,1994;Matsuda,1992;Shibamoto,1985,1987,

1990).The present study is a further attempt to investigate rule―

govemed varia―

tion in particlc ellipsis as a componcnt of Japanesc grammar, analyzing thevernacul笛 .2
An interesting finding of previous studics is that ellipsis is correlated、vith the

speaker's gender.Shibamoto(1985,1990),analyzing peer― group conversationaldata,reportcd a quantitative diffcrcnce in the ellipsis ofシ ッ
αand.・ α betwecn lnen
and womeno Women deletcd these pπ ticlcs 23.9%of the time,、vhereas men did
so only ll.0%5 of the tiine.Furthermorc,women rnore freely deleted the particles

when ottectS are moved out Of canonical SOV order to yield OSV order(men9.1%vs.women 36.8%)(ShibamOto,1985)
ShibamOtO's(1985,1990)studies,howcvcr,are compromised by three crll―
cial methodological problems First, Shibamoto's conclusion is based on thecomparison of bare percentagcs v/ithout any investigation of statistical signif―

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

291

icance levels.Any generalization,particularly when deHved from a large alnountof quandied data,requires the statistical veriication of frequencies of occur―
rence because of inherent problems of skewing in the disiibution of sociolin―
guistic data elicited from uncon■ olled natllral speech(SankO地 1985).Our resultsmust statistically indicate thc differing ranges of occurrence of a particular lin―

guistic feature(1.e.,tlle probability of its occurencc)fOr each gendet and thedifference in the ranges bet、 veen thenl,if any,should then be exanlined in termsof the level of significance in order to rule out the possibility that thc detecteddifferencc happened by chance.
Second,Shibamoto(1985,1990)docs nOt take into account the intersccting
relationships between the occurrence of the va五 able under investigation and alarge number of other types of factors that may siinultaneously consiain its

occurrencc and compete with onc another(SankOff&Labov, 1979).In Va五̲able linguistic behavior,every token Of a variable is governed by a number offactors, such as the nature of the grammatical context, discursive function of
the utterance, topic, style, interactional context, and personal or sociodcmo‐
graphic characteristics of the speaker or other participants.The speaker's gen―
der is obviously one of such factors that lnight attect particle ellipsis, but
Shibamoto views the quantitative differences as being corelated solely、 vith afixed biological category― ―sex.
Apparently sex― related differentiation in language is actually a linguistic lnan―

ifestation of the speaker's enormously complex social practices(i.e.,gender),、vhich stem fl・ onl the intcraction of a va五 ety of cOntextual and sociocultural

factors unique to the local community(Coates&Cameron,1988;Eckert&
McConnell― Ginet, 1992;Gilcs&Coupland, 1991;Graddol&Swann,1989;
McConnell― Ginet,1988;Philips,1980).The importance of focusing on the in―tersecting relationships among potential factors has been demonstrated in manystudies of language and gender. For example, NEilroy (1980), amOng others,
sho、 ved that speakers'patterns of participation in the labor market and theirinterpcrsonal networks in thc local community outranked their sex as the mostimportant factor governing the use of local vernaculars(see also Bortoni―

Ricardo,1985;Nichols,1980,1983,1984;Thomas,1988).Eckert(1988,1989)
demonstrated that vowel changes in progress alnong adolcscents in lDc■ oit、 verebetter captured in terms of the interaction of scx and speakers'
acts of iden―

tity''(Lc Page &Tabouret― Keller. 1985)through affiliation with adolescentgroups(c.g.,JOCks vs.Burnouts),and that the patterns of affiliation accounted
for vanation more efficiently than their socioecononlic class rnembership.Cam―eron and Coates(1988),basCd On Douglas― Cowie's(1978)study Of a nlral
Northern lrish community, suggcsted that speakers' levels of education andtheir social aspirations were particularly important factors that should be ac―counted for in terms of interaction with the speaker's sex.
Thus, in sorting out the effects of the speaker's gcnder on the variable inquestion,researchcrs lnust take into account the effects of otller potential factors

simultaneously influencing the variable and takё a closc look at their relative
strength.Until we fulillthis requirement,wc cannot claim with certaintD7thatthe

292

SHOJI TAKANO

results depict a tme picture of gender― based differentiation in languagc use.Siin―ply correlating the rates of occurrence、 vith the speaker's sex is very likely to
produce a premature,oversimplificd generalization.
According to Sankoff(1988),statiStical infercnce is a useftll heuristic tool tograsp thc complex intcraction of various factors and their roles in producing
variation in speakers'choices.Multivariate analysis is aparticularly usefullnethod
for statistically(or prObabilistically)dcterlllining the interfactor relationships

among a number of potentialinfluencing factors and for telling us whether gen―
der is a signiacant factor as compared with others.This techniquc involves a
multiplc rcgression analysis with stcpwise selection ofsigniicant hctors(SankO∬1986).ThiS Study accommodates these considerations in its dcsign.

,

Finally,Shibamoto's(1985,1990)indings on women's speech are lilnited interms ofthe addressee effect or audience design factors(Bell,1984)becauSC herdata are derived fronl conversations involving、vomcn exclusivcly.ノ ヘnumbcr ofpast studies have suggested that cross― seX dyadic conversations as well as groupheterosexual interactions can have a significant situational effect on dynalllicgende卜 linked variabiliり (BrOuwer,Gerritsen,&de Haan,1979;Eakins&Eakins,

1976;Edclsky, 1981;Fishman, 1983;Criles&COupland, 1991,Swann, 1988;

Zimmerman&Ⅵ石
est,1975).There is no evidencc that grammatical and sOciolin―
guistic rules in same― sex intcractions tte cttried over directly to mixed―

scx in―teractions(Uchida,1992).CoatCS(1988)suggeSted that the indings of researchon same― sex and lllixcd― sex interactions should be cttefully kept apttt,and nci―

ther can be used independently for deinitions of、 vomen's(Or lnen's)language
The prcscnt study supports this perspectivc,providing prelilnintty evidencc
for dynamic aspccts of gcnder― relatcd variation responding to specific types ofaudicnce design,such as cross― sex and single― sex dyadic convcrsations,and groupheterosexual interactions Furthermorc,intraspeakcr variability that is scnsitive
to thesc audience design factors(i.e.,stylistic vaHation depending on the gendercomposition ofthe interacdon)is fOund to be more signiicantin particle ellipsis
than interspeakcr variability based on gcnder(i.c.,SOCial variation betwccn men
and women).ThiS result violates the stylc axionl of Bell(1984:151)in ways that
pronlise to be fruitful in future rescarch l argue for a dynanlic interpretation of asocial variable,gender,which has consistently bcen vie、 ved as a static entity inquantitative sociolinguistic studies ofgender and language(Eckertだ

乾ⅣIcConnell―

Ginet,1992).
The ailn of the present study is twofold.The irst goal is to account for rule―
governed variation in particle ellipsis based on vernacular data:that is,in natu―
rally occur五 ng peer conversations in inforlllal settings.While a great mttOrity ofprcvious studics of Japancse particlc cllipsis are concerned predonlinantly withthe effects of functional constraints(c.g., degrces of closeness,perceptibility,

sharedncss,expectedness,ctc.ofinformation conveyed by a marked/unmttked
NP),the prescnt study also takes into account the effects of lnore lnechanistic
constraints ofthe surface structure(c.g.,immediately preceding sound segments;
presencc or absence ofother postpositional particles such as the accusative rnarker―θ),a SOCial factor(ic.,the speaker's gender),and Stylistic factors(ie.,gender

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

293

COlllpOsition and audience design)to illunlinate the complex processes underly―
ing particle ellipsis.Conducting multivariate analyses,I investigatc in、vhat dis―tinct ways all three types of factors affect ellipsis and determinc thcir relative

strength in contributing to the phcnomenon.The hicrarchy of constraints ob―
tained is exanlined in light of two putatively univcrsal sociolinguistic axioms(Ben,1984;Preston,1991).
My second goalis to dcterllline、 vhethcr gender‐ related variability tuly cxists
in Japanesc particle ellipsis(i.e.,Whether male/female differences are statisti―cally significant),as has bccn consistently clailned in previous studies of single―

sex intcractions(ShibamOtO,1985,1987,1990).HoweVer,Ido so with a t)cus onho、 v gender― related variation、 vould bc susceptible to the types of gender lllix

involvcd in interaction(ie.,Single―

scx dyadic,cross― seX dyadic,and heterosex―
ual group interactions)and on hOW Variability is affccted by audience design
factors.My results indicatc that,due to accommodativc convergence among in―
tcrlocutors,Hlixed― sex dyadic and group hetcrosexualintcractions exhibit gender―
speciic patterns of variability quite distinct from those manifcsted in single―

scx

intcractions.The clailllthat Japancse particle ellipsis is part ofwomen's grammar
is thcrefore an ovcrsimplification ofcomplex facts.Instead,tllc participant framc―
work of an interaction is one of thc essential factors to considcr for a thoroughdescription of the dynanlics of gender― rclatcd linguistic variation.

PREVIOUS RESEARCHPθ ′ι72′ ′
α′θοんs′ ″αJκ /sο /2■鱒 αれ

̀s̀′

j71た
α′
′
′
ε′
ιι′
′
″s,S αJ7″ gι んどιr― ′Thcre tte only a fcw studies speciically concerned、

ッα′
ブ
α′
げ
οん
̀″

vith gendcr differences inJapancse particle ellipsis(Shibamoto, 1985, 1987, 1990).3 shibamoto's(1990)
study is more sOphisticatcd than her(1985)study because it takes into accountvarious grammatical environments and cognitive factors.4 shibamoto investi―
gatcd gender― relatcd variation in the ellipsis of И′αand gα in a set of same― sexconversations(a male group ofthree white― collar workers and a fcmale group of
threc housewivcs).She defincd potential stmctural and functiona1/interpretivefeatures bascd prilna五 ly on such studies as Hinds(1982)and l「 Sutsui(1981,1983)5
and exalllincd thcir correlation with the speaker's sex,although without conduct―
ing any statistical tests.I revicw only the potential constraints on Japanese par―ticle cllipsisthatε re rclevantto the prcscntresearch in connection with Shibamoto's(1990)indings about rnale/female diffcrcnces in the ellipsis of― llα and― gα

STRUCTURAL FEATURESl Word ordcr
Thc scrambling of grammatical elements inhibits Japancsc particle ellipsis(TamOri,1977)Dislocation of NPs to the post―
disI‐ avors

prcdicate position(iC,SVO)

cllipsis of the accusativc casc markcr― ο(Fttii&OnO,1994;Tamori,1977)ShibamOtO(1990)assumCd that canonical word ordcr in Japancsc(ic,

SNiSV)prOmOtCS― ll α/― gα ellipsis,but found thatittendcd to inhibit womcn's.

SHOJI TAKANO

294

particlc cllipsis Hinds(1982)also refutcd Tamori's claim that scrainnbling in―hibits particlc c‖ ipsis,arguing lor thc conlpensatory l・olc of̀̀casc fra:llc mark―erS"(ie,sclcctional restrictions)つPhysicalandpsychologicalcloscncssofanNPtoboththcspeakerandthchcarcr6
An NP idcntillcd as close to thc spcakcr and hcarcr has a high degrce of prcsup―

position(iC,bOth physica‖ y and psychologica‖y closc t・ cOntaCt・ 'with thc ref―erent ofthc NP)ThuS,itS associatcd particlcs arc lllorc likcly to bc clidcd(TStltsui,1984)TsutSui(1983)presCntcd a similar hypothcsis,thc relatcd utterancc con―dition,regarding thc ellipsis of thc su● CCt mal‐ kcr gα ,claiming that thc morc
closcly an utterance is rclated to the hearcr,the nnore natural the ellipsis of―gα in

the uttcrance is

Thc dcgrcc of pcrccptibility of an NP to both thc spcakcr and the hearcr
This constraint ovcrlaps、 vith thc sccond one lf thc NP in question is highly
perceptible to both speaker and hcarcr at thc innomcnt of speech,particlcs arc

vcry likely to bc clidcd Such NPs arc oftcn dcictic PronOuns(TsutSui, 1983,1984) ヽVh‖ e infOrination alrcady establishcd in the prcccding contexl of dis‐coursc(c.g,demonstrativcs)is unlikely to bc case― nlarkcd,in F可 ‖and OnO's(1994)study Ofthe ellipsis ol thc Japancse accusativc marker― ο,non rctrentia1/
non― specific inft)rination― namcly an NPoflo、 v pcrccptibility to the intcractant―、vas also found to bc vcry tinlikely to be case――nlarked This finding contradicts

the general clailnn that Japanese postpositional particles are elided、

vith NPs thatcarry fanliliar,pcrccptible inforination

Ernphasis on an NP in the clause

The NR which isthe most cinphatic elcmcntin the clause,tcndsto bc marked bya particlc Speaker's emphasis is achicved by cithcr enlincnt strcss or discoursc

manipulation(TsutSui,1983)Similarly,an NP that carries salient inttDrmation
tcnds to bc case― mal‐ kcd according lo Ft」

iiand OnO's(1994)analySiS ofοmark―

lng
5

Last NP condition
lfan NPis(cither ovcrtly Or cOvcrtly)preCCdCd by another NP and immcdiatclyfo‖ o、 ved by its prcdicate, thc particlcs arc lη

orc likcly to be elided(TSutsui,

1983,1984)7 Thc lattcr part ofthis constraint(iC,nO acllunct bctwcen a markcd
NP tind its prcdicatc)in pal■ icular has also bccn proposcd as a fllctor prollloting
particlc enipSiS by()thcrrcscarchers such asヽVatanabe(1986),Masunaga(1988),

and〜 latsuda(1992)市 lasunaga clairned that an intcrvcning elcnlcnt bct、

/cen thcNI)and its prcdicatc results in lo、 v locus on the NPithcrcf()rc,its particlc tcnds

to be droppcd
Pragmatic function of an utterance as a、 vholc

Sentcnccs、 vith sentencc― final particles,commands,and questions arc consid―
ered to involvc thc hearer,and thus thcy are inorc closcly related to him or her
As is clcar from thc prcccding argumcnts,thc particles ofthc NP in such a clausearc molcllkcly to bc clidcd(TSutsui,1983)Ⅳ lasunaga(1988),on tllC Other hand,claimcd that the use of scntcncc― final particlcs proln3otcs particlc cllipsis bc―
causc()f thc spcakcr's focus on thc scntcnce―

final vcrb,and that thc rcsulting

defocusing of thc preceding NP and its particle lcads to particle eHipsis

Formality of spccch
Since,orlnal stylc(― ′でゞ
ι
′
,̀ィ ド
″Stylc)enCOdCS intcrlocutors'psychological dis―/― ″tancc and lo、 v involvemcnt in speech, particlc e‖(TSutSui、

ipsis is lcss likely lo occur

1983, 1984)HindS(1976)claillled that pal・ ticlc eHipsis is rclatively

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

295

rare in situations、 vhcrc thc speakcr intcnds to sho、 /dcforcnce to thc hearer,
using forlllal style

FUNCT10NAL/1NTERPRETIVE FEATURES
8 Gcncral statcmcnt
Tsutsui's(1983)rclatCd uttcrancc condition proposes thatthe closerto the hearer

an NPis,the more ellipsis may takc placc Again,gcncral statcmcnts involve
rclatively loM/prcsupposition and psychologicalrcmotcncss to information car―ried by thc NP and inhibit particle ellipsis

9. Expcctcd information
lf an NP providcs information that thc hcarcr cxpects,thc information is as―
sumcd to bc closc to tlle healer,and its particle tends to bc droppcd(TsutSui,

1983)
10. Shttcd information
lfinformation conveycd by an NP is sharcd by thc spcakcr and thc hcarct itis
close to botll speaker and hcarcr,and the particlc ofthc NP tcndsto bc droppcd(TSutSui,1983,1984).SharCd information is not always derived± om whathasalready becn talkcd aboutin thc contcxt of convcrsation First― mentioned NPs
can also provide information shared between interlocutors bascd on thcir back―ground or cominon knowledge.Masunaga(1988)clailned that an NP carying
sharcd information is dcfocuscd,and that its particle tcnds to be dropped.

Concerning the structural features,Shibamoto's(1990)analysis suggests thatphysical and psychological closeness of an NP to both the speaker and hearer(alSO Catego五 zed as a functiona1/intcrprctive fcature),perceptibility of an NP toboth the speaker and the hearer,and usc of sentence― final particles positively
affect、 vomen's use of ellipsis.For all these features,no significant effects on
men's ellipsis rates were found.For men,only the last NP condition(i.e.,an NP
is the last NP before a predicate and is preceded by another NP)was fOund to bea facilitating stuctural factor.Shibamoto's assessment of significance lcvcls of
the cffects,howcver,is not based on any statistical investigation.8
Shibamoto also differentiatcd thc factors that inhibited ellipsis,according tosex.Canonical word ordcr(1.e.,SV/SOV)turncd outto be an inhibiting structural

factor only for women.For inen,closeness and emphasis on an NP negatively
affected their ellipsis rates.

Shibamoto also claimed that the inctiona1/inteΨ retive fcatures promoting
cllipsis diffcrcd for the two sexes.Again for women,closeness of information
convcyed by an NP to the spcakcr and the hcarcr scemcd to be a decisive factor
promoting ellipsis. Conversely.this factor inhibited men's ellipsis ratesi men
9 For women's ellipsis,thetended to include the particles under this condition。
inhibiting funcaona1/interpret市 e factors were obieCt市 ity and general statement.
related difference in
Shibamoto(1990:99‑100)conCluded that there is a sex―
the way lnen and women view sentences on a rnetalinguistic level."According toher,functiona1/interpretive features play a minimal role in men's ellipsis,and
men's linguistic behavior is prilllarily scnsitive to structural fcatures.In womcn's

ellipsis,on thc other hand,the fllnctiona1/interpretive features play a dominantrole.A variablc rulc analysis of the phcnomcnon in thc present study,however,296

SHOJI TAKANO

demonstratcs that Shibamoto's conclusion is lnisleading due to thc lack of close
cxalllination of the relative strengths of thc intersecting factors as constraints onparticle ellipsis.

T/1ι

″θ
θ ρθSた Jο れθ
れν
αガαわ′″
イン̀rsげ g̀4ご ιJ′The grcat rnaiority Of previous studies of gender differences in Japanese stem
froln the so― called subculture approach to gender differentiation in language.1°

This approach attemptsto deine gcnder― related differences in linguistic bchavior
bascd on the comparative analyses of rnale― specific and female― specific speech
patterns and thus tcnds to focus exclusively on same― sex peer interac● ons towrite women's(or mCn's)grammars(UChida,1992).Tよ ing separation of men's
and women's subcultures alld the resulting miscommunication for granted,hOw̲

ever,prevents us from understanding how mcn and women from different sub―culturcs manage to moditt their Own culturc― specific speech patterns,adapt tothe other group's norms, or resist then■ when engaging in cross̲subCultural
cOntact̲̲eve=yday social practices involving rnembers ofthc other group as、 vellas same― sex peers(Eckcrt&N/1cConncll― Ginet,1992).The Subculture apprOach
is inherently incapable of accounting for this dynanlic aspect of gender―

relatedlinguistic behavior― ―ho、v womcn's(or rnCn's)language is shaped in such situa―

tions as cross― sex convcrsations whcre the two subcultural norms interact.

Giles and Coupland(1991)StreSSed that what constitutes male and female
language styles as hcterogeneous entities should be studicd in closc linkage tocontextual variables― ―sOciopsych01ogical rnakeups of thc immediate context ofinteraction Gender‑linked language effects are not stable but subiecttO dynanlicaccommodative tendencics deterllllincd by the types of gendcr nlix in the inter―action.Although they havc thus far rcccived littlc systematic attention in varia―

tionist research(Rickford&McNair― Knox,1994),the effects of the addressee's
gendcr on variability are evidentin a number of sociolinguistic and sociopsycho―
logical studies,providing supportivc cvidence for a dynanlic vie、

v of gender andlanguagc(Abe,1989;Bilous̀と KIauss,1988;Brouwer et al.,1979;B■ own,1980;
Erman,1992:Mulac,ヽ 西アiemann,VVidenmann,&Gibson,1988;Peng et al.,1981;Ⅵζ
alters,1989).
Past studies have commonly found that variation Observed in single― sex inter―actions typically become less salicnt in■

lixed― scx interactions(Giles&Coup―land, 1991):that is,subcultural sociolinguistic norms tend to be neutralized incross― subcultural contact.For exalllple,among the few studies ofJapanese gender―

linked diffcrences that happen to includc data fronl both types of gender compo―
sition(ie., Single― sex and lllixcd― sex),Peng Ct al.'s(1981)study of Japanese
sentence― inal particles illustratcs clear changcs in their subiects'behavior be̲
t、veen the two types ofinteractions.In their usc ofthese particles,、 vhich mark thespeよ cr's gender in」 apanese,both male and fcmale suttccts in mixed―

sex inter―actions tended to use gender― neutral ones,avoiding gendcr― spccific particlcs like―llα for women orて θ for men.Similarly,Brown's(1980)st■ ldy of Tzeltal parti―
cles also found tllat in m破ed― sex dyads male/female diffcrences in tllc use of

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

297

strengtheners''and̀̀、 veakeners''tended to disappear,whereas thcy wcre salientin single― sex dyads. In investigating gender― speciic differences in conversa―
tional sttategies in B五 tishEnglish,Eman(1992)found a similartendency.Womcn

typically used pragmatic expressions to connect consecutive arguments,whercas
men used thenl either as attention― getters or as signals for repair、 vork,but thisgender―linked difference turned out to be less salientin rnixed― sex than in singlc―

sex convcrsatlons
The subculture approach,、 vhich is concerned only with variability manifested、
vitlin a gendcrgroup,obviously neglects these dynanlic stylistic aspects ofgender‐
related variation across different types of participant framework.It is essential

for future research to take into account thc intraspeaker variation formed by aspeaker's accommodative response to thc cross― subcultural contact.

Tた

̀夕

″′
νιだαJあ ′̀rακλッげ θθれS′

れな

Based on a number of ettirical studies of language variation,Bell(1984)pro―
posed an axlom that defincs thc ordered relationship between two typcs of extta―
linguistic constraints:social and stylistic.His style axiolll states that̀̀Variationon the style dilnension within the spcech of a single speaker derivcs from andechoes the variation、vhich exists between spcakers on thèsocial'dilnension''(ibid.:151)The aXiOm essentially suggests that variation dcrived from stylistic
factors(1.e,What denotes differences within tlle speech of a single speaker,such
as attention paid to spcech,involvementin speech,addrcsscc design,the natureof topic,etc.)shOuld bc contained v/ithin the range of variation associated、

vith

stics(i.e.,What denotes differences between the
speech of different speakers,such as social class,age,gender,ethnicity,ctc.).In

the speaker's social Characte五

other words,patterns and strength ofvariation based on the spcaker's social char―acteristics outrank those based on stylistic variation and supply the raw lnatcrialfor stylistic variation The social chttacteristics ofthc spealcer set the outer lilllits

of possible variation for any stylistic variations in that speaker's spccch.

Adapting Bell's hypothesis,Preston(1991:36)propOSed a status axlonl,whichfurther lilllits tlle relationship among constraints:̀̀ヽ ζ
ariation on thc ̀status'di―mension derivcs fronl and echoes the variation、 vhich exists within thèlinguis―
tic'dil■ ension."This axlo■ l suggests that va五 ation derived frolll the speaker'ssocial characteristics should be contained、 vithin the range of variation deter―
lllined by linguistic environments(1.e.,phonological,morphological,and syn―tactic constraints).In the relationships beい Ⅳeen linguistic and social factors,theformer are prilnary and stronger as constraints on vttriation and provide the outerlilnits for socially detcrIIlined variation.

Thus,the strong version ofthe t、 vo axioms is lneantto providc a thcory ofthe
universal hicrarchy of constraints,M/hich proves true for linguistic va五ation inalmost any communicative setting.The axioms predictthatlanguage variation isconstrained most strongly by linguistic environments,for they represent univer―
sal and language― specific conditions on the dependent variable The second stron―

gcst consiaints on variation are social,forthey representrnorc orless permancnt

298

SHOJI TAKANO

aspects of the speaker's identity and group mcmbership.Finally,stylistic con―straints arc weakest,for they control only the sclection of a point in fluctuating

speech situations(e.g.,tOpic,attention paid to speech,audience design)(Bell,1984;Preston,1991).The rnost significant utility of the axloms concerns theirrole in developing an integrative sociolinguistic theory(Rickford&ル IcN盛 r―
Knox, 1994).Such a theOry would be capable of predicting the patterns of lin―
guistic variation, testing empirical validity of future、

vork, and providing theresettcher、 vith important clues for conducting further analyses of the causes of

unexpected patterns、 vhen the axioms are violated The present study is con―ducted with the implications of thesc axioms in nlind.

THE PRESENT STUDY
Mer/7ο ″θJθ gッ

Particle ellipsis can be interpreted in terms of variable rules because it rneets thethree criteria for a variable rule analysis(SankO二1986).First,the varirable phe―nomenon is basically derived frollll the speaker's choice between the t、
vo vari―rables(i.e,use Or ellipsis of the particles)in hiS/her performance.SecOnd,achoice of eithcr inclusion or ellipsis is not immediately predictable from looking

at a variety of contextual information(i.e.,the phonological environment,thesyntactic context,discursive function of the utterance,topic,style,interactionalsituation,sociodcmographic characteristics of the spcaker or Other participants),、
vhich、 vould simultaneously affect that speaker's chOices.We need to know theintersecting relationships alllong these factors as constraints on the phenomenonin questiOn.Third,the speaker's choice is not based on a rando■ l application of
optional rules,butseemsto recur with some rcgula五 ties and tendenciesin the raw
speech data.
One of the primary cOncerns of this study is to find out、 vhen and in what
contexts particlcs are more likely to be dropped or retained.It should also be
stressed thatthc phenomcnon may be affected by a va五 cty oflinguisdc/pragmauc,social,and stylistic factors simultaneously,and our task is to detect rneaningfulinteractions among possible vadables in terms of their relative effectiveness inthe speaker's cllipsis of the particles.The multivariate analysis l used simulta―
neously considers the effects of all of the factors as well as the correlations be―t、veen them and estimates the weight of each variable in relation to the others(ⅣIyhill,1992).

I uscd the statisucal prograln GOLDVARB,theⅣlacintosh application of vari―ablc rule analysis(Rand&Sankoff,1990).ThiS prOgram includes two typcs ofapplications One type calculates probability、 veights for each factor and assigns
it a value fron1 0.00to l.00.A probability ofless than.50 indicates that the factor
disfavors thc operation of the rule;a probability of greater than.50 indicates thatthe factor favors the rule;and a probability close to 50 means that the factor is

ncutral.This irst type of application also provides the avcrage chi― square percell,、 vhich indicates the degrec to which the vaHables considered account forthedata(Preston,1989).The Othertype ofapplication is a step、 visc regression analy―

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSISTABLEI S″ ″,″ ,α ●1ぽ ψ

̀Sげ

Type

Nulnbcr of Participantsl hctcroscxual group convcrsation

4 11lalcsα″ ′237(67+ l16+54)
481 tokcns

Subtottll

l inale+l lemalc

226(malc:124:た male:102)

i ma!c+1た inale

244(malcl l17:female: 127)
470 tokens

Subtotal
2 samc― scx dyadic convcr、 ations

228(malcS:113+115)
139(fcmalCS:51+88)

2 nlalcs

2 1cmales

367 1okcns

Subtotal
Total

Number of Tokcns

244(60+58+63+63)

3 fclllalcs

2 cross― sex dyadic conversations

299

8 malcs+7 fcmalcs

1318 tokcns(malCS:748:females:570)

sis,、vhich sorts outthe groups of variables、

vhose distributions of factor、 veights

are statisticany signiicant.I uscd both types of application
Dα ′θ
Since a prilnary focus of this study、 vas the effect of the gender composition of

conversational groups on particle cHipsis,spoken data from threc types of con―versational settings、 vere analyzed.H The first corpus was a nlixcd― sex conver―sation in a large informal gathering of friends at the apartment of one of theparticipants.The participants were 9 male(inCluding the author)and 7 female
Japanese graduate students atthe l」 niversity ofArizona.All the participants、 vere
sitting around a big coffee table;a small tape recorder、 vas placed in the center of
the table together、 vith food and drinks 12 The participants v/ere told that thc

author nccded Japanesc data for futurc rcsearch.The recording lasted more than
2 hours,and the participants scemed to rclax quickly,ignoring the recorder,andstarted to engage in very active conversations.Subsequently,4 111ale and 3 female

speakers were selected as suttccts becausc oflarge amounts of speech thcy pro―

duced.13 Thc number of tokens for each speaker rangcd from 54 to l16(seeTable l),with a tOtal count of 481.Allthe speakcrs were mutual friends,ranging
in age from late t、 venties to carly thirtics.

The ncxt type of conversational setting involved t、 vo cross― sex dyadic con‐versations.One、 vas a self― recorded 45 minute face― to― face casual conversation
bet、 vecn a 26‑year― old、 voman and a 20‐ year― old inan.14 The friends,both stu―

dents,、 vere talking in the cafeteria on the University of Arizona campus.They

produced a total of 226 tokens, 102f()r the、 volnan and 124 for the man.The
second cross‐ sex dyadic conversation、 vas a self― recorded casual phonc conver‐sation bet、 veen a 24‑year― old、 voman and a 39‑year― old nlan.This conversation
lasted for 45 111inutes and yielded a total of 244 tokens, 127 for the、 voman andvcen the participants,
l17 forthe man.I decided to ignore thc age difference bet、

300

sHoJI TAKANO

which lnay have affected equality in power dist五 bution The 24‑year― old female
speaker charactcrized the 39‑year― old male speaker as à̀friend''to、 vhOm she

lttl席 』lよ謂視」
犠:稿宮∬顎]ざ 漑譜lttiⅧ 計
I艇

譜鮒鶴[:肝葛犠II篇 器
騎 ll″1∬:∬ 漁
lL器1誌l[誌° Wer manぬ e 計
woman hぬ dr rd血 Onshp dmpけ
駈譜
礼T鳳灘
畢
.詰撫1脱 出器 hi酬 :t:肥 :掘 :盟 胤淵常‖
:I乱
re p°

be―

lllinutes,involved two c10se friends in their early t、venties whO were classmatesin

theESLprogramattheUniversityofArizona.Theyproducedatotalof139tokens
解塩 〕
:キ 躙
『

:臆 翼1留 総 li卵 器 lw埠 邊 l潔諄 翼 y讃 :潔

たs獣 :1職 ∬ げ T:∬rmttlttfだ

備 翼 器 :R詭 驚 :眼 鋼 肥iwith casualtopics being talked about.The relationships among the pttticipants areequalin terms Of power/status distribution;all the participants are peers Or ac―躍謬譜∬鰍:∬ll:蹴 T:織::肥::I温〕
R∬ :鵬翼脱猛響避 誌駐ever,that there are three different types of participant framework:cross̲sex andsingle― sex dyadic conversations as well as a heterosexual group cOnversation To

avoid the observer effect,Iignored the first 5 nlinutes ofthe taped conversatiOns

鞣 盤t踏

ppettant tmepttdd

獅 躍 滉 l鷺 RI:::::淵 輩 脚JOng

置:I鵬紆:l譜 鳳::せ 認鶏柵器胸ど11よ靴説i灘::認 既瀧:(SCe the deinitiOns in note 5),(2)social,and(3)stylistic factors.There were five
linguistic(four Structural and one functiona1/intettretiVe),One social,and two

淵警
L驚l明i服 席:鶏 肌鮮
li驚鳳Fil:ξ lil∬ ::I品 品:轟with one allothcr(Preston,1989).In Whatfol10ws,I presentthe eight factors.The
research or comments cited for each factor brie■y explains rny coding systen■ andmotivation for its inclusion in this study.

LINGUISTIC FACTORS(StruCtural factors in ShibamotO,1990)

1.Accusative case marking― οcOncurring with― ″α/― gα ellipsis in the samc clausc(yeS/nO/nOt applicable)
Matsuda(1992)reportCd a statistically signiflcant corrclation betwcen nonlina―
tivc and otteCt市 e case marHng This rcsult is contradicted by Hinds'(1982)
pcrspectivc of functiOnal econonly,、 vhich claims that Japanesc ellipsis is moti―
vatcd by rcdundancy of infOrmatiOn; thercfore, thc cllipsis Of the accusativc
markcr should inhibitthc cllipsis of̲llα/̲gα . N/A''is for intransitive prcdicatc.

The prcscnt study investigatcd this issuc furthcr

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

301

2 Dislocation of noun phrasc and predicatc cllipsis(yeS/nO/cllipsis)
Scrambling of grammatical elcmcnts inhibits Japancsc particlc cllipsis in gen―cral(F司 li&OnO,1994:Tamori,1977)By contrast,Shibamoto(1985,1990)
reportcd that canonical、/ord order in Japancse(i.c, Sミ ISOヽ ″)iS ncgativcly
corrclatcd with womcn's cllipsis Postposing of subJcct or topic NPs favors cl―/OVS)UttCrances with thc cntire predicatc clidcd werc also
lipsis(ic,VS/OSヽ う

vcry frcquent in my data The phenomcnon of predicatc cllipsis was typical of
the casual inodc of convcrsation,regardlcss of the speakcr's scx(Peng Ct al,
1981)

3 1mmcdiately prcccding sound(α ,′ ,夕 ,′ ,ο ,Ⅳ )A numbcr of variationist studies havc dcmonsttatcd that thc preceding phono―
logical environmcnt functions as a strong constraining factor for variable parti―
clc cllipsis(see a rcvicw of earlicr studics of variability in final stop dcletion in

English in Guy,1980,1990,1991)Such phonological conditioning sccms rel―evant to particle ellipsis as explorcd by 1/1atsuda(1992),v/hO did not flnd it
statistically significant butidentified a consistcnt phonological differentiation in―οcllipsis The possible phonological cnvironmentin Japanese includes the flve
vowels and thc syllabic nasal

4 Speech actcatcgo五 es(infOrmativc/intc■ ogativc/cmphatic/infcК ntia1/mocШ ng)

As Matsuda(1992)and many others(eg.,Hascgawa,1993)pointCd Out,particlc
cllipsis seems to bc somehow corclatcd with thc pragmatic forcc of thc utter―ance Yamashita(1979)claiincd that the ellipsis of Japanese particles involvcs
vcry high contextual dependcncy,and thus pragmatic factors arc thc most dcci―
sivc constraint l categorizcd thc uttcrances into ivc relativcly common typcs;
thc scntcncc is uttercd for the purposc of providing informatiOn forthc intcrloc―

utOr(infOrmative),requcsting that thc intcrlocutor providc information(intcr―
rogative),rC― Cmphasizing or conirnling an uttcrance(cmphatic),infCrring
information convcycd by an uttcrance(inferential,and teasing thc intcrlocutor(mOCking)ThOugh a great dcal of spccch acts in Japanese takc advantage ofsentcncc― flnal particlcs(MCGloin, 1986, 1990, 1993),a numbCr Of uttcranccs

performcd a ccrtain act by virtue of marked intonation rathcr than throughscntcncc― flnal particlcs

5 1nformation status ofthc NP(brand― new/evokcd/unused)(funCtiOna1/interpretivc factor in Shibamoto,1990)

As discusscd in many previous studics(eg,FuJii&Ono,1994;Hinds,1982;
ⅣIasunaga,1988;Tsutsui,1983),infOrmation status ofthc NR espeCially sharcd¨ncss and familiarity ofinformation,sccms to play an importantrolc in Japancsc
particlc cllipsis l catcgorizcd NPs based on Princc's(1992)taxo■

Omy ofinfor―
mation statusi brand― new information(ie,an NP cvoking entitics which haveno prior inention in tllc convcrsation and have ncvcr bccn heard of by thc ad―

drcsscc),cVOked informatioll(ie,an NP cvoking entitics、 vhich have alrcady
been incntioncd in the prior convcrsation),and unuscd information(iC,an NP
cvoking entitics、vhich have no prior incntion but arc alrcady known or sharedbctwccn intcrlocutors)16

SOCIAL FACTOR
6 Speakcr's gcndcr(male/お malc)
STYLISTIC FACTORS
7 Gender composition(male Only/fcmalc only/mixcd)
Iinvestigated the cffcct ofthe speakcr's and thc addressee's gcndcr on variability

SHOJI TAKANO302

TABLE 2 Sな ′2′ εα″r cο ″s′ ″ れ rs Oれ ρα″′
た′
′ ′
″ sJs
̀′

Individual Factors

%‐

"α

/― gα

ElidedFactor group lNo lnarking

48(19/40)

ObJective casc(‐ ο)N/A25(313/1251)

markingヽ4arking

Factor group 2

Yes

NP dislocation andNo

Probability

Signiicancc

73

49

19(5/27)

41

48(32/67)
25(294/1173)

67
51

ρ<01

Prcdicatc cllipsis

14(11/78)

Factor group 4lntcrrogativc

40(86/214)

69

Spccch act catcgorics

Empha6c37(47/128)
27(8/30)6253

22(2/9)21(194/937)

53
49

′< 01

58
56
44

ρ< 01

prcdicatc cllipsis

lnfercntial

Mocking
lnforlllativc

Brand ncw

33(79/243)
31(119/384)
20(139/691)

Factor group 7

Fcmalc only

34(47/139)

61

Gcndcr composition

Mixcd

27(259/951)

53

Factor group 5
1nformation status

UnuscdEvokcd25

ρ<0114(31/228)

Malc onlv

30

First run:Factor groups l,2,3.4.5、 6.8

Sccond run:Factor groups l,2,3,4,5,7

lnput probability: 241

1nput probability: 233

Chi squarc/ccll: 8417

Chi― squarc/ccll: 8605

Mcan percentagc:26(337/1318)

NIlean pcrccntagc:26(337/1318)

Ⅳ =1318

Ⅳ =1318

ρ<05

8 2ヽ udience design(prcsCncc/abscnce of auditors)

According to Bell's(1984)thcory of participant framework,intcractions taking
place、 vith or without somc audience v/ould affcct thc individual's speech stylc
differently l invcstigatcd audicncc dcsign cffects on particlc cllipsis

R̀s夕 ′
rs α″″J′ sc′ ss′ θれ〃Jι ″ακカッグ εθれSrrα れrs.First,to obtain an overall picture of thc relativc
strcngth Of the constraints on particlc cllipsis,I conducted GOLDVARB analyses of
all tokens together from thc thrcc typcs of interactions.The results arc shov/n in
Tablcs 2 and 3 Because of possible factorial interaction,I carried out two scpa―

rate runs to isolatc factor groups 8(audiencc design)and 6(Speaker's gcndcr)
froln factor group 7(gcndCr cOmposition).Five factor groups(1,2,4,5,7)out ofcight were selected as highly signiflcantin the stepwise rcgression analyses(ρ01 for factor groups l,2,4,5;′<<05 for factor group 7)Three factor groups(3,6,8)wcre fOund to be insigniflcant
The chi一 squtte per cell is fairly low:.8417 for the first run and 8605 for thesecond run(Table 2)According to Preston(1989:16),the Value indicates thedegree to、 vhich our hypothesis about、 /hich factors constrain the variation ac―

counts for the actual data Thc lowcr than l.O it is,the surer we may be that

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSISTABLE3 Ⅳοれ―sJg″ ′ εαん′εοれs′Individual Factors
Factor group 3

Prcccding sound

Factor group 6

FcmalcSpcakcr's gcndcr

Malc

Factor group 8

Auditor absent

Audicncc dcsign

Auditor prcsent

Jれ rs

303

J̀′ ιι
οれ′α″′
JJ″ ∫Js%― ″α/― gα Elided

Probability

25(33/134)
30(69/229)
28(52/186)
24(80/337)
24(30/124)
24(73/308)

54
53
52

28(160/570)
24(177/748)
26(220/837)
24(117/481)

Signiflcancc

49
48
47
.53

48
52

47

additional independent variables need not be sought.Thus,both scores are loM/
enough for us to feel conident of the explanatory po、ver of the independent

variables under investigation.
Thc irst significant factor sclcctcd is thc correlation bctwecn particle cllipsis

and accusative case marhng.Ellipsis of the accusative case lllarker highly pro‐
motes thc ellipsis ofッ α/― gα with a weight of.73,whereas the presence of themarker inhibits their ellipsis with a weight of.41.This tendency confirms Nrat̲
suda's(1992)sinliltt finding:the concurrence of ellipses of the accusative(― θ)and nolninative(― gα )Inarkers.
At first glance,this result runs counter to functional considerations(Kiparsky,1972), accOrding to which there is a tendency for information that encodes
semantic/fllnctional distinctions to be retained in surface structure.Thatis,in thepresent case,ifone ofthe two arguments is dcprived ofits postposition,thc otllcr
should be morc inclincd to rctain its proposition so that the functional relation―

ship between the arguments can be undcrstood easily by the listener.The actual
varlatlon manlfested here,ho、 vever,exhibits thc opposlte pattern.

A plausible interpretation of the phenomenon comes from Hinds(1982).He
maintained that grammatical relationships in Japanese ttre marked by any of thefollowing three factorsi postpositional particles,word ordeL and so‐ called caseame mttkers(i.C,Selectional rcst五 ctions)(e.g.,Only animate NPs being asso―
ciated with affective verbs such as sン た′dα ̀like')(Hinds,1982:167).While thefl・scrambling of maOr syntactic constituents is very common in convcrsational
Japanese,a corectinteTretatiOn can be achieved as long as atleast one of theother two factors(pOstpOSitional particles and case frame markers)iS present.It
follo、 vs that the particles can be deletcd whenever either of the other two,wordorder or the case frame mttker, specifies the grammatical status of unmttked
nominals in an utterance.
The GOLDVARB analysis of factor group 2 readily substantiates this interpreta―tion ofthe result.The、 veight for predicate ellipsis in factor group 2 indicates thatit inhibits particle ellipsis ve=y Strongly with a、 veight of.25.This finding follows

304

SHOJI TAKANO

straightforwttdly from Hinds's(1982)theory.Given the ellipsis ofthe predicate,
which by virtue of its sclectional restrictions clarifies the roles of any overt NPs,

西rithout the predicate,word
ordcr is incapable of clearly markng the semantic relationships bet、 vcen NPs.
The postpositional particlcs are therefore required to indicate the grammaticalparticle ellipsis would result in serious ambiguity.ヽ

status ofthe NR
The results for factor group 2 also demonstrate that dislocation of NPs to thepost― predicate position(i.C.,postposing)prOmOtes particle ellipsis with a、veightof.67.Thcy sho、 v that canonical word order does not neccssarily favor particle
ellipsis(.51),contrary to past studies(F可 五 &OnO,1994;Tamori,1977)In thepresent study,pOstposed NPs often appearto encode appended information as anafterthought,asis common in colloquialspcech(Shibatani,1990).An exalnple isgiven in(3)(SFP stands for sentence― inal particle).

(3)a ltta kOtO nai na, atashi(wa)wcnt fact nonc SFP I
̀I havc ncvcr been thcrc'

b Yarimasu ncc,ano oytti (Wa)do

SFP that old lllan

̀Evcn an old man like that can do(it)WCll,Can't he!?'Despite the non― canonical、vord order of the utterances,the presencc of the par―ticle̲″ α is immaterial for the correct inteTFetation of the sentences because of

the obvious semantic relationship ofthe postposed NPs with the prcceding prcd―
icates(J′ ″ ̀[SOmeOne]Went',yα ″ αs夕 ,̀[SOmeOne]dOes[it]'),WhiCh require

animate nominals to satistt their selectional rcstrictions.
This positivc correlation betwecn the― ″α/― gα ellipsis alld NP postposing di―
rectly contradicts the clainl of Tamori(1977)that SCrambling inhibits Japanesepttticle ellipsis due to ambiguity or change in meaning.For the ellipsis of theaccusativc marker‐ ο in pttticular,Tamori(1977)and F可 五and OnO(1994)both
maintained that dislocation of NPs disfavors ellipsis.As shown so far,howevet

this constraint(i.e,inhibiung effects of scrambling on particle ellipsis due tosemantic ambiguity)can be ruled out on thc basis of compensatow aid fl・ om
selectional rest五 ctions of the predicate(HindS,1982:163‑173).That iS,as longas there is no issue of semantic ambiguity,the pttticles are essentially redundant.
This、 vould explain、 vhy scrambling does not nccessarily cause semantic ambi―
guities and why eliding the accusativc lnarker docs notincrease the likelihood of―lt α/― gα marking ln addition,positivc effects of non― canonical word order 2reconsistently identified in particle ellipsis by、 vomcn and no effect of variable

word ordcr is observed in lllen's cllipsis in Shibamoto(1985:127,1990:96).The
present analysis agrecs with thesc two studies
ln order to resolve this disagrcement,I question the quantity of samples on

which Tamori's(1977)and F可 五 and OnO's(1994)claim iS bascd.Tamori(1977:258‑260)did nOt COnduct any quantitative analysis to obtain the relative
frequencics of particle cllipsis between canonical and non― canonical word or―ders.17 Fttii and OnO(1994:13‑14)analyZed a total of only 9 tokcns, 6 ofwhich were found to bc marked by― ο and the remainder of、 vhich were un‐

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

305

marked. They clailncd tllat the lexical types of post― prcdicate NPs override
tlle、 vordorder factor;all the marked NPs are regular nouns,whereas the un―
NPs arc demonstrativc,demonstrative plus nominalizer(sθ れれα たο′ὸsuch a thing'), or indeinitc pronoun(77α 77た α ̀SOmething') MOre data, ho、 v―
cver, yield a more complcx picture. In the present study, 67 occurrences ofmal・ lced

post― predicate NPs include 35(52%)marked NPs,8(23%)of whiCh are either

demonstratives or person pronouns and 6(17%)of whiCh are clausal NPs(in―cluding NPs with relative clauses and nolninalized NPs).The remaining 21(60%)NPs are regular nouns.Among 32 unmal・ ked NPs,11(34%)arc rCgularnouns and the remaining 21(66%)caSes are eithcr dcmonstatives or person
pronouns.
In addition to the necessity of analyzing a large number of dislocatiOn occur‐

renccs for a valid generalization,anothcr possible resolution ofthe disagreement
nlight be dcrived fronl exalnining gendcr― linked differentiation in this pttticular

phenomenon One of the results of thc prcsent study(to be discussed in detaillater)is that NP dislocation favors particle ellipsis in women much more sttongly
tllan in men(.72 vs..60)(see Tables 8 and 9).ThiS finding also coincides with thefindings of Shibamoto(1985,1990).
The statistically confirmed degree ofconcurrencc of― ″α/― gα and― θellipsis ina single clause(faCtOr group l)alsO Sheds light on the intriguing interplay be―
tween ftlnctionalhctors(e.g.,Semantic status oftwo overtNPs)and nOn̲functional
factors(eg.,tWO consecutive positions ofparticlesin a string oftwo NPs)in gOV―
enling linguistic variation.The outcomc ofthc present analysis yields an exactpar―
allel with generalizations frolll past studies ofmorphosyntactic valiationinu/estern

languages.First,Kiparsky's(1972)func● Onal colnpensation hypothesis,accord―
ing to M/hich there is a tendency for semantically relevant information to bc re―tained in surface structure,is too simplistic to account for complex Felationships

among variousintersecting factorsincluding non― functional ones.R/1oreover,non―functionalfactorstendto outweighfuncuonal ones.Forexample,Poplack's(1980a,
1980b)studies ofthe dcletion of plurd markers in Puerto Rican Spanish demon―
strated that functional factors(i.e.,、 vhether ornotthe dcletion ofthe rnarkersleads
to alllbiguity)are rather weak comparcd with positional fhctors.Given a nounphrasc string,the deletioll ofpreceding rnarkers strongly promotes the delction of
succeeding mal・ kcrs,whereas the presence of the preceding markers inhibits thedeletion ofthc succccding lnarkers.Thistendency towttdslocalredundancy in sur―face structure or preserving parallelism in morphosyntactic elements is consid―
ered to IIninilllize lnental effort.Such lllechanical operations are cognitively lessdemanding,as、 vaslnaintaincd by Wciner and Labov(1983),who fOund a siFlllilar
tendency in the variable use ofthe agentless passivc inAmerican English.The fre―quent concurrencc of― ンッα/― gα and̲θ ellipsis in the present study provides anotherstrong piccc of cvidence forthis common phcnomenon― ―the FneChanical processof preserving parallelism in surface structurc over functional consideFatiOns.

Second,while the functional compensation hypothesis is found to play a nli―
nor role for a lack of surface morphosyntactic distinctness,it consistently plays
an illlportant role at a different linguistic level(Bayley t%Pease― Alvarez,1997)
As is evident fl・ om the discussion based on Hinds's(1982)model,Japanese par―

306

SHOJI TAKANO

ticle ellipsis constantly involvcs rigid compensatory relationships with the othertwo disambiguation mechanisms(i.C,WOrd order and case frame markers).To
achieve successful communication,thc spcaker,who clides a great deal of lin―
guistic elements in ordinary conversation,mustmakeconstantjudgmcnts regard―
ing which indicatoris required or、 vhethcr particle ellipsis is allo、

ved primttrily on

the basis of the flow of discourse or thc entire context of conversation This
cognitive operation is exactly whatthe functional compensation hypothesis would
predict,but it operates at a higher level than the local FnOrphosyntactic alterna―
tions.Furthermorc,functional factors tend to clilllinate redundancy,in contrastto

positional factors,which favorlocalredundancy(POplack,1980b).Thatis,given
the thrcc indicators, it seems likely that the prescnce of even onc of thenl isconsidercd sufficient or cven favorablc in helping thc listener arrive at a correctinterprctation of an utterance.

Now lct us return to factor group 5 in Table 2.As discussed earlier,the great
maiOrity Of pre宙 ous studies of Japanese particle ellipsis have focuscd on thecffect ofthc information status ofthe NP associated with the particle.The resultsof factor group 5(information status of NP)suppOrt thc unanimous claim thathighly perceptiblc,psychologically close,or shared information favors particle
ellipsis(F可 五 &OnO,1994:Shibamoto,1990;Tsutsui,1983,1984).HoweVCr,
the prcscnt analysis revcals that these functiona1/int∝ pretive factors tte rela―
tively weak:the range of variability is.14(.58‑.44).By cOmparison,tlle rangeof variあ ility for structural factors is 32(73‑。 41)for factOr group l(0可 eCtiVe

case mttking)and.42(.67‑25)for faCtOr group 2(NP dislocation and prcdicate
ellipsis).The analysis of hctor group 5 indicates thatthc particles marhng NPs
that represent evokcd information tend to be elided、

vith a weight of.56,and thatNPs representing unused information are also likely to be elided(.58).The par̲
ticles marking NPs that convcy brand― new information,on the other hand,arc
less likely to be elidcd(.44).

The ncxt significant factor group sclccted is factor group 4(speeCh act cat―cgories).(Dvcrall, the outcome agrees、 vith the clailns of previous studies: inutterances that highly involve the speaker and the hearet particles are likely to be

elidcd(NIlatSunaga,1988;Tsutsui,1983).Table 2 shows tllatinte■ ogatives greatly
favor particle ellipsis(.69).ThiS COincides with Yamashita's(1979)observationthat Japanese postpositional particles appear to bc elided most frcquently in ques―
tions and rcquests.Silllilarly,emphatic utterances also strongly promote particle

ellipsis(62),whiCh COincidcs with Matsuda's inding of the highest correlation
bet、 veen the use of emphatic particles and―θ cllipsis.Informative utterances,which express no particular pragmatic force, display an almost neutral effect(.49),and the remaining two types have cqually weak positive effects(inferen̲tial:.53;mocking:.53).
The final signiicant point concerns gcnder― linked variation.Table 3 showsthat the speaker's gender(faCtOr group 6)is not Selected as signiicant(womCn:.53,Inen:.48),whiCh dramatically counters Shibamoto's(1985, 1990)general̲
ization.Factor group 7(Table 2),on the Othcr hand,shows that itis the type ofgender composition that 80Verns apparent gcnder― linked variability in particle

307

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSISTABLE 4.Pα rrJθ Jι ι17″ s′ S′ ″″ι′α″IC・ ″ α″′
ル α771ι ″0″ たS
̀みⅣlixed― scx Dyadic

Heterosexual Group

Wcight: 72(′ < 05)

31%(60/194)
Wcight: 49(ns)22%(53/237)
S、ight: 48(ns)Singlc― scx Dyadic

Womcn
Nlen
Total

34%(47/139)
14%(31/228)

30%(82/276)

269ら (64/244)

Weighi 36(p<05)ヽヽight: 51(ns)M/cighti 53(ns)

21%(78/367)

30%(142/470)

24%(117/481)

ellipsis to a statistically signiicant extent(ρ<.05):women interacting withother women are likely to elide pttticles with a weight of.61,whereas men
interacting with other inen are much less likely to do so、

gaged in mixcd― sex interactions display a positive but、

vith.30.Speakers en―veak tendency to clide

particles with a valuc of.53.

Though this inding does not dircctly contradict Shibamoto's indings,which
are derived exclusively frolll single―

sex conversations,18 it does rcsurict her gen―cralization that Japanese particlc ellipsis is a property of、

speaker's stylistic response to the gender―

vomcn'slanguage.The

linked participant framcwork of theinteraction cxerts a inuch s■ onger influence than the speaker's static sex.Wom―en's advanccd ellipsis of Japanese postpositional particles and men's lag holdtrue only、 〃hen they respond to the sociolinguistic norms oftheir own subculture,
but the results sho、 v that the idendcal norms are unlikely to be favored in cross―subcultural contact(COates,1988;Uchida,1992).
This dynanlic property of gendcr‑linked variation in Japanese particle ellipsis

can be delineated lnore clearly by comparative analyses ofthe phenomenon acrossthree different types of participant frameworki the single― scx dyadic,Inixed― sex
dyadic,and heterosexual group conversations in Table 4 and Figure l.Figure lvisually rcpresents variability shifts across the three types of participant frame―work.Regression analyses(Table 4)seleCt the speaker's gender as a significalat
factor group only in single― sex dyadic conversations(、 vomen:.72;rneni 36;′ <.05).19 1n the othertwo types,the GOLDVARB Weights ofboth scxes are very close

to neuttal(WOmen:.49,.48;men:.51, 53,in mixed―

sex dyadic and in heterosex―

ual group conversations,respectively).
―male
WVhat is observed here is an obvious case of rnutual accommodation―and female convergence typical of mixed― sex dyads in otherlanguages(Gilcs&

Coupland, 1991).Between single― sex and Hlixed― sex dyadic conversations,therate of ellipsis among men increases by 16%,accommodating the female inter‐locutor's higher elllpsis rate,、 vhereasthe rate among、 vomen is also slightly lnod―i■ edwith a 3%decrease.As a result,both sexes find common ground at around
30% ellipsis.Accommodative convcrgence takes place in heterosexual groupconversation as、 vell The overall frcquency of particle ellipsis is relatively low(24%),preSumably due to the effects of auditors(faCtOr group 8:auditor present,.47;auditor absent,.52;see Table 3)and tO the likely use ofrnonitored,canonicalｎυ

SHOJI TAKANO
0.8
ψ

0.7

︒ ﹁ｏ

0.6
0.5

︻● ● ρ ︼ ０＞0.4――――■…………
wOmen

0.3
0.2

Men

0.1
―

0
S― S―

D

M‐ S― D

H― G

Participant Framework
FIGURE l Mutual convcrgcnce in particlc cllipsis across thrcc participant frameworks

TABLE 5動 ιッα′Jα ′′ο″1′ αειげ ′′g力 ′力 ε′οr gttο η s
Rank

Factor GroupRangc

Ъ pe ofFactorl

NP dislocation/prcdicate cllipsis

42

Linguistic

2

Concurrcnce of accusativc casc markcr

32

Linguistic3

Gcnder composition

31

Stylistic4

Spccch act catcgories

20

Linguistic

5

lnformation status

14

Linguistic6

Prcccding sound(nS)

Linguistic

7

Speakcr's gcndcr(ns)8

Audicnce dcsign(nS)

07
05
05

SocialStylistic

speech in large― group interactions disfavoring particle ellipsis(Hinds,1976).ノヽscomparcd、 vith thc rates of singlc― sex intcractions,womcn shift down signin¨cantly to 22%(12%decrcase),Whereas mcn conversely shift up to 26%(12%increase),eVen slightly cxceeding the women's lnodi■

ed rate.Thc inding thatthc speakcr's sex pcr se is not a statistically significant social variablc(Tablc 3)
results from this accommOdativc neuttalizadon ofinter―subcultural differcntiation
The prcsent results have theorctical implications for putatively universal so―

clolinguistic axloms.An cxallllination ofthe rangc ofvariation(Table 5),whiCh iS
an indication of a factor group's overall strengtll,reveals a violation of the stylc

axiom(Bell,1984)and the status axiom(PrestOn,1991)Table 5 shows thatthe
most influential factor group, thc one with the greatest range of variation,islinguistic― 一NP dislocation and predicate cllipsis(.42)一 ―as the axloms predict.

No othcr factor group exceeds this range,including the social factor,the speak̲GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS
cr's gendcr,、 vhich has a range of.05;thus,the status axiom is conf‐309
irmed.On thc

other hand, .31,thc range for gender composition,a stylistic factor group,fal・exceeds 05,the range for spcalcer's sex,thereby violating the style axlom.
I argue that the cause of this violatiOn is the problematic interpretation of
gcnder as a fixed social variable(1.e,thc biological category of sex)in the tra―ditional quantitative soci01inguistic paradign■ as wcll asin thc construction ofthc

axloms.Based on extensive revicws of past variationist research,neither Bell(1984)nor PrestOn(1991)interprcted the social variable of gender as a dynalnic
property,subject tO the effects ofthc addresscc's gendcr or the participants'gen―

der cohort As the present analysis demonstates,gender―

linked linguistic bchav―
ior is not a static,monolithic entity butis variably lnodified according to the typesof subculturc contact in the interaction一 ―whether the addrcssee shares gender―

linkcd lltembcrship produces crucial effects on variability ln some communica―
tivc settings such as in single̲sex interactiOns,gender as a social division is lnost
evidcnt and gcnder― linkcd differentiation in specch is lnost rnarked,rnaintaining

ingroup norms.In other scttings such as in cross― sex interactions,howcver,thedivisionbecomes fuzzier and readily overlaps.EckertandMcConncll―
Ginct(1992)
maintained that the contcnt of gender as dynanlic social catcgories shOuld beinterpreted as being constantly constituted and transformed in various ways as
speakers engagc in various social practiccs The present analysis also demon―
stratcs that gendcr produces effects that arc far fronl categorical and that vary

■Om COntextto context.The traditional trcatment of gendcr without insight into
itsinterplay witll audiencc design factorsis likely to miss a dynamic dimcnsion ofthis social category― ―systematic inttagender variation.In conclusion,I present asummary of the hierarchy of constraints favoring and disfavoring Japancse par―ticle ellipsis in Table 6.
A77 αddj′ Jθ れα′ッα″ゴαιJ̀. While thc utility Of cOgnitivc properties of sociolin―
guistic variables for stylistic analysis has long been known since Labov(1966,

1972a),soCi01inguistic studies ofJapanesc havc generally neglected the cognitive
nature ofsociolinguistic variables and its relations withvariability shifts acrOss di■ferentstylistic dimensions Studying lsraeli Hcbrew speakers,Yacger― Dror(1988,
1993)IIIlaintained thatthe degree ofcognitivc saliency ofsociolinguistic variables
is a useful heuristic toolfor distinguishing among a variety ofaccommodativc ten―dencies.Confirrning the analysis in Prince(1987),Yaegcr― Dror(1993)found thata VaFiable occurring in cognitively salient linguistic environments is likely to be

manipulated by speakers undertaking conscious accommodation(e.g.,consciously
COnV,rging toward ingroup norms in an effortto promote ethnolinguistic vitalityand diverging fl・ om the mainsteam outgroup norms),whereas a variablc occur̲

ring in less salient environments is likely to bc involvcd in unconscious accom―
modative shifts(e.g.,unconsciously converging to thc rnainstean■outgroup norms

that are the cOmmunity's standard).
The target of the prescnt study,postpositional pttticle ellipsis,is a variable
that occurs in the cognitively least salient linguistic cnvironmcnt according toYaeger― Dror's(1993)criteria: unaccented, closed― class 、
vords are less cogni―

SHOJI TAKANO

310
TABLE 6″ j̀rα κ/2)ofσ 072S′ ′α′れな 072ノ ,α rrJε ′̀̀′Nヽight′″ SJS

Promoting Factors

Inhibiting Factors

OtDlcctivc casc unmarkcd
lntcrllogative spcech act

Dislocation of noun phrascs
EInphatic spccch act
Fcmalc only interaction

Unuscd information
Evokcd infornlation
lnfcrcntial or mocking spccch act
Mixcd― scx intcraction
Brand― ncw information

Oblcctivc casc maよ cd
Malc only interaction
3
Predicate cllipsis

No′ ′i Constraints producing ncarly ncutral cffccts(CithCr 51 or 49)are nOt included

tively salient.The folloM′ ing comparative analysis of an additional,relatively
more cognitively salient,sociolinguistic variable―

一alternations betwecn dircct―

and distal― style predicates― ― shows that this variable produces stylistic varia―

tion across the three types of participant frame、

vork totally different fron■thepcrfect rnutual convcrgcncc of intcr― subcultural diffcrcntiation in particlc cllip―
sis.The stylistic shifts with thc cognitively morc salicnt variablc typically ex―hibit divcrgcnt tendcncics,allowing spcakers to display thc distinctivcncss ofthcir gcndcr― linkcd idcntity Thc corrclation bctwccn thc cognitivc status of thc
variablcs and thc resultant accommodative tcndencies provide further cmpiri―
cal support for Yaeger― Dror's generalization
Tablc 7 describes thc frcquency distribution of distal― stylc(polite,honorific,
outgroup― encoding)prediCates in proportion to that of direct―

style(casual,inti―

mate,ingroup― cncoding)prediCates across the three types of gender lllix in in―
tcractions, with a schcmatic rcprcscntation in Figurc 2 Japancsc distal stylc
indicatcs thatthc spcakcr is showing solicitudc to、 vard,and maintaining somc

linguistic distance■ om,thc addrcsscc''(JOrdCn&Noda,1987),charactcrizing

thc spcakcr as being lcss dircct and morc formal with a sign of dcfcrence to theperson(s)addressed and/or the tOpic of conversation.Japanese direct style,on
thc othcr hand,allows thc spcakcr to talk directly,intimately,familiarly,abruptly,

or carclcssly to the addrcsscc(s)and/Or aboutthc topic Compared to postposi―tional particlcs in Japanesc,thc cognitive status ofthis variable is lnorc salicnt,in

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSISTABLE 7し sι グ グお′
α′Sヶ ′ ″グた″たれ r/7″ ιρα′
″εttα ″′
″οttS
ル ″ι
̀ρ

Singlc― scx Dyadic

Womcn

12%(22/181)
26%(33/128)
18%(55/309)

Ⅳlen

Total

N/1ixed― scx

DyadicHctcroscxual Group

44%(73/165)
24%(51/212)
33%(124/377)

32%(24/75)
22%(19/88)
26%(43/163)

45
40
０
５
０
５

″ Ｏ ︻︑ や ∽ Ｉ Ｈ● ´ ∽ ﹁∩０――――■―――― 、
VOmen

men
―

S‐ S―

D

M‐ S―

D

H― G

Participant Framework

FIGURE 2 Womcn's divergcncc in usc of distal― style predicatc across threc participant
flamcworks.

that the alternations perforlll multiple sociolinguistic functions,including thc
encoding of social, situational dcictic information(c.g., Zfε /2ブ /Sθ ′θ [ingrOup/

outgroup]Inembership)in context(SuklC,1994;ヽ ヽtzel,1988,1994)as wcll as
the speaker's polite,honorific attitudes(Ide, 1990).What iS Observed here isconsistent divergent accommodative shifts frollll Single―

sex to thc two types ofcross― sex interactions;the shifts are salient only in accommodation by、

vomen

While women usc distal― style predicates less than men in single― scx interactions(12%and 26%,respectively)(ρ < 025),women drastically increase the rate to44%(32%increase),CXCCed men(24%),and eventually diverge fl・ om thcm inlnixed― dyadic conversations(′<.025).In hCtCrOsexual group conversation,siln―ilar divergcncc is also observcd;the rate of、 vomen(32%)is 20%♭ higher than thatin their singlc― scx interactions and 1073 highcr than the rate of rnen(22%)in theidentical participant fl・amework(′ >.1).20

Such synchronic occurrence of the two types of acconllnodative shifts(i.e.,
convergence in particle ellipsis and divergence in predicate stylcs)iS nOt an un―

COlllrnOn phenomenon acrosslanguages(Giles,1980).Giles and Coupland(1991)

312

SHOJI TAKAN0

noted that thc t、 vo types should not be considered mutually exclusive;there areoften cascs whcre the two typcs of phenomena procecd simultaneously in aninteraction,though involving diffcrcnt types of sociolinguistic variables.In Jap‐

anese,divergent shifts tte also documcnted in Abe's(1989)study of anothercognitively salient variablc― ― participant roles"in Japancsc conversations in―volving male/femalc college students She found that gender―

speciic behavior(aS diagnOsed on the basis of single― sex interactions)is emphasizcd rather than
reduced in rnixed― sex interactions.Ⅳ lale students tcnd to use affect― oriented strat―egies(ic,tO prOvide support for the interlocutor to lnaintain the■ oor,typicallyby showing rapport[e.g。 ,backchanncls])Slightly morc than female students By
contrast,female students use function―

oricntcd strategies(i.e,tO push a conver―satioll for、 vard or to contribute to activc, smooth conversation,Inaintaining a

chain of relevant topics)more than male students in single―

sex interactions.21

Ho、 vcvcr,both female and lnale students tend tò̀take over"the outgroup's strat―egies in mixed― sex interactions 22 Men tend tO take more initiativc in advancing

a conversation,whereas women tcnd to place themsclvcs backstage in thc con―versation by giving inen a numbcr of supporting signals
How should we account for thc potential causes of such divergent tendcncies

involving cognitivcly salient variablcs?Communication accommodation theory
typically interprcts divcrgcnce of this sort as a linguistic effort to cmphasizeintergroup distinctiveness by pcople in search of theiF grOup's social identity(Giles&Coupland,1991:Glles&Powesland,1975).It fllrther claims tllat com―municativc divergence(oftcn a10ng with psychological convergence)iS likcly totake placc in role― discrepant situations、 vhere participants share a complcmcn―

tary relationship(Thakerar,Gilcs,&Cheshire,1982)In suCh asymmetrical so―
cial relationships,itis likely that for the sake of certainty in their communicatiOntransactions thc two gfoups of participants involved tend to diverge stylisticallyfrom the outgroup as a result of emphasizing prototypicallinguistic behaviors ofthc group with which thc spcakeridentiies hin■sclf or herself(Giles&Coupland,

1991:83).

Thus,thc two examples of divcrgence in the Japanese context may be intёr―
prctcd as a typical conscqucnce of outgroup refercc dcsign(Bell, 1984:188):
spcakers diverge fron■ thcir ingroup speech towards a specch and identity nottheir own in unmarked ways but prestigious、 vays.The Japancse college students
studicd inノ ヽbe(1989)Inay diVCrge in nlixed― sex intcractions as a linguistic re―■ection of traditional,stereotypcd gender― ■ole ideologies:Inaintaining hierarchi‐
cal relations,Japanese inen take chargc Of a culturally prescribed,superordinate
role of the principal agcnt in sθ ′
ο ̀OutSide'contcxts,、 vhereas Japanese womcn
are expectcd to remain with a subordinate or rnodestrole in

ε/22'̀inSide'contexts(Rosenbcrgcr,1994).Silnilarly,thc divergent shifts in predicatc stylo in the ad―ditional analysis presentcd hcre may be derived fronl spcakcrs'culturally andeven institutionally prescribcd,prototypical self―

illlagcs of polite, deferential

women(MashimO,1969)23 1t is signiicant that(aS COmparcd with particle ellipsis)thcSC relatively more conscious,initiative shifts,which involve a rede■ ―nition of the relationship bctween spcaker and addressee initiatcd by the speaker(BeH,1984:184‑185),are revealed morc clcarly in cross― sex,cross― subcultural

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSISTABLE 8 2ヽ イαた ψ ′ε′ σ
Individual Factors
Factor group 2

Ycs

NP dislocation andNo

prcdicatc ellipsis

Factor grouP 3

Prcdicatc cllipsis

N

1mmcdiatcly prcccding
soundFactor group 4lntcrrogative

Spcech act catcgorics

Mocking
Emphatic
lnfcrcntial
lnforコ nativc

Factor group 7

Mixed scx

Gendcr composition

Singlc― scx̀ο

バ ′″ 772rs ο″ ρα″′
ノ
Cた

313

′
rr2S′ S̀′%― 14/α /― gα Elidcd

Probability

Signillcancc

41(13/32)
23(159/681)
14(5/35)60
23′

33(34/103)30(44/148)
24(22/93)
28(19/68)
20(37/187)
14(21/149)

64
55
55
55
47
36

ρ < 0546(45/97)
50(2/4)34(23/68)
26(5/19)
18(102/560)

76
69
66
62

42

ρ <05

28(146/520)
14(31/228)

58
32

ρ <05

51

<( 05

lnput probability: 209
Chi squarc/ccll: 8855

Mcan pcrccntagc:24(177/748)
Ⅳ =748interactions in v/hich thc speaker's gender― linkcd identity and group rnembcrshipare likely to be questioncd or even threatcncd by the outgroup rathcr than insingle― sex ingroup interactions
Further rcscarch on Japanesc gcndcr differentiation should takc advantage ofthe cognitive distinction concerning apparently gender― linkcd variables.Rescarch―ers should note that cognitivcly salient variablcs are lnore likely to respond lnorc
actively to the linguistic construction of gcnder―

linked identity than are variables

oflcss cognitive saliencc,and that social psychological proccsses tend to bccome
most cvident in subcultural contact such as mixed― sex interactions, M/hich arethercfore a prolllising sitc for elucidating thc dynalllics of linguistic gendcr
diffcrcntiation.

ノ
1イ ι
れν
И
0777̀71. In thc follo、 ving discussion,I focus on pattcrns of vari―̀rsas
ation in pttticle ellipsis that are uniquc to the two gcndcr groups.I conducted
another GOLDVARB analysis oftokens,grouping them separatcly according to thc
speaker's gender.I discuss my indingsin rcfcrence to thosc ofShibamoto(1990),
which is the most comprchensive study donc so far but does not adoptlllultivar―
iatc analysis.

As a matter of course,hctor group 6(speakCr's gender)was Climinated fl・om
thC GOLDVARB runS.Thercforc,a total of sevcn factor groups cntcrcd the GOLD―VARB analyses.Tables 8 and 9 include only thc results of factor groups found to
be statistically significant by rcgression analysis Thc female group has a inean

SHOJI TAKANO

314
臥 BLE 9.F̀777α ′̀ψ ̀ε ′c Cο 4S′ ″ 777な Oκ ρα″′
た′ι′″″ sおIndividual Factors

Factor group 2

Ycs

NP dislocation andNo

prcdicatc cllipsis

Factor group 4
Spccch act categorics

Prcdicatc cllipsis

Ernphatic
lntel■

ogativc

lnfcrcntial

lnformativc

Factor group 5
lnformation status

UnuscdEvokcdBrand― ncw

Factor group 7

Singlc― scx

Gcndcr composition

Mixed sex%‐ l α/‐ gα Elidcd

Probability

54(19/35)
28(135/488)
14(6/42)72

40(24/60)
35(41/117)
27(3/11)24(92/377)

63
63
48

Signiflcance

51

26

44

ρ <01

P<01

41(40/97)
34(61/179)
20(59/289)′ <0135(47/136)
26(113/429)

ρ <01lnput probability: 265
Chi square/cell: 8277

Mcan pcrccntagc:28(160/565)
ハ√=565

ellipsis rate of 28%(160/565)24 Thc malc group has a mean ellipsis rate of 24%(177/748)The chi― Square pcr ccll valucs tte lov/enough for both groups toindicate reliable results: 8855 for malcs and 8277 for females.The levels ofsignincance(′ leVels)fOr the sclected hctors arc less than.05 for males and lessthan.01 for females.
Factor group 2(NP dislocation and predicatc cllipsis)is Shared by the sexes
and shows thc samc rclative ranking of factor、 veights as in the overall analysis

presented earlier(TablC 2)The only diffcrcnce between the sexes is the muchhighcr promoting effect ofNP dislocation in women's enipsis(.72 vs.men's.60).
As l argued earlicr,this discrepancy may have implications for the contradictory
results from past studies、 vith respect to the correlation betM/een NP dislocationand pttticlc cllipsis in Japancse.I madc a case for the necessity of taking into
account gcndcr― linkcd speciicity in the effects ofthis variable.Shibamoto(1990)
clailncd that canonical v/ord order in Japancsc inhibits pttticle ellipsis by、

vomen.

The clainl,however,must bc rcfuted,givcn that canonical word order has analmost neutral effect on ellipsis by women(.51).
Factor grOup 4(specCh act categories)is alSO Shared by the sexes and displays
vith the overall analysis.Here again,theintcrrogativc and emphatic utterances are ranked as strong promoting factors,
although the two types[re not clearly differentiated by women(i.e.,both typcs
arc given 63).「 ΓhCrc is one speciic discrcpancy to note in the results.In particle
tcndencies that are fairly consistent、

cllipsis by mcn,mocking mood utterances are associated、 vith a much higher
valuc(.69)than in the overall analysis(.53),v/hiCh l attribute to the extremely

small numbcr oftokcns(Ⅳ =4)for thiS factor Shibamoto(1990)fOund that theGENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

315

use of sentence― final particles,which allo、 vs the spcakcrto dcliver a certain prag―

matic intention to thc addressec in Japanese,has no effect on particlc ellipsis bymen buts■ ongly promotes ellipsis by women.In the prescnt analysis,however,a speaker's speech act is found to be a robust factor promoting particle ellipsis,
regttdless of the speakcr's gender.25

Factor group 7(gender cOmposition)iS alsO found to be signiicant for bothgroups.As is obvious fl・ om the prcceding discussion,single― sex interactions tcnd

to favor ellipsisin women(.58)buttO diSfavorit highly in rnen(.32).ConVersely,
IIIlixed― sex interactions tend to disfavor ellipsis in women(.46)but tO favor it inmcn(58)I attued thatthese tendencics rcsultfrom mutual convergence ofintra―
subcultural norms in particle ellipsis taking place in cross― subcultural contact.
NIIy results also sort out factor groups with significant gender― specific effects

on particle ellipsis.Factor group 3(1lnmediately preceding sounds)iS fOund tohave effects exclusively for male speakers and factor group 5(information status)
to have effects only for femalc speakers.

In the phonological conditioning,men tend to elide particles lllost frequently
after syllabic nasal(.64).ThiS pattern clearly reflccts the universal phonologicalproccss of consonant cluster reduction for articulatory ease,、vhich has bccn rcc―

ognized as one of the most powerful linguistic constraints on phonological sim―
plification in a numbcr of variation studies(e.g。

,Guy,1980).26 The high front

vowe1/i/,on the Other hand,is s■ ongly corclated with retention of the particles(.36).ThiS tendency Fnay be due to thc dcgrcc of articulatory distance(or diSSim̲
ila五 ty)betWeen/i/andthe f01lowing consonants/w/and/g/The fact that thethree other vo、 vels,、 vhich are either non― high or non― front,uniforlllly slightly
favor ellipsis(.55)is conSiStent with this reasoning.

Factor grOup 5(information status)iS fOund to be signiicant only for l‐ emale
speakers.The results display the same gencral tendencies found in the ovcrall
analysis(Table 2).PartiCle ellipsis by women is hvorcd with NPs which rcpre―
sent unused information(.64)and eVOked information(.57),but it iS disfavoredwith NPs conveying brand― new information(41)ShibamOto's(1990)Claimholds
true that NPs that are psychologically close and highly perceptible to speakers

promote particle ellipsis by womcn.Ho、 vcvcr,the present analysis clearly dis―
agrees with her claim that NPs representing information close and perceptiblc to
speakers hamper pttticle ellipsis by men
The overall picture of gender―

linked diffcrendation in the hierarchy of con―straints on Japanese particlc cllipsis summarizcd in Table 10 makes it difficult
to accept Shibamoto's(1990)generalization that structural features(i.e.,̀̀fea―
turcs whose presence or absence is empirically observable,whcthcr it be at thephonological, molphosyntactic, or discourse setting level''[p 103])tcnd tO
play a dominant role in particlc ellipsis by men but a minimal role in particlc
ellipsis by women.Table 10 clearly shows that Shibamoto's clailn oversimpli―
fies the collllplexity of the facts,givcn that stuctural features are consistcntly

ranked as strong constraints,regardlcss of the speaker's gender. Speciically,both gender groups share speech act categories(factOr grOup 4)and NP dislo―
cation and predicate cllipsis(factOr group 2)as highly in■ uential factors,both
positively and negatively.

316

sHOJI TAKANOTABLE 10 Hicrα κカッグ″s̀″ αれ
̀ο

̀sο

れ′α″ブ
σ
ル ′
ιrsン s ltο ι″″sお :ル セれツ̀′MenFactor
Prollloting factors

lnhibiting factors

NO′

Strcngth

Strcngthlntcrrogativc spccch act

76

NP dislocation

72

Mocking spccch act

Unused information.64

Ernphatic spccch act

69
66

Ernphatic speech act

63

Syllabic nasal.64

1ntcrrogativc spccch act

63

lnfcrential spccch act

62

NP dislocation

60

Mixcd― sex intcraction

58

Singlc― sox intCraction

58

Vowels/e/,/u/,/a/Canonical word ordcr.55

Evoked infOrmation

.57

51

Canonical、 vord ordcr

51

Prcdicatc ellipsis

26

Singlc― scx interaction

23
32

Vowe1/i/.36

1nformativc spccch act
ヽ石
owe1/o/42

Brand‐ new information

.41

.47

1nformative spccch act
Mixcd― scx interaction

46
46

1nferential spccch act

48

Prcdicate cllipsis

̀si Factors are in dccrcasing ordcr of strcngth Factors in boldfacc arc gcndcr―

exclusivc

Shibamoto(1990)Inaintained that particlc cllipsis by womcn is highly scnsi―
tive to hnctiona1/interprctive features(1.e,the features̀̀whose presence or ab―
sence depcnds on analysis ofthe speaker's psychological statc with regard to his
or her utterancc''[p 103]),whCrcas particle ellipsis by lnen tends not to be.She
argued for gender― linkcd differentiation on a metalinguistic level:men are pri―marily concerned、 vith linear structural entitics in analyzing thc uttcrance,whercas
v/omen look into the utterancc in relation to thc̀̀particular contcxt of speech(Setting,participant,discourse,etc.)''as WCll as a variety of related other linguis―

tic cntities(ShibamOto,1990:99‑100).̲Although factor group 5(information sta―tuS)has bcen found to bc signiicant only for the female group,Shibamoto's
gencral claim must again bc rcgarded as an overgcneralization.Ourresults clearly
indicatc that particle ellipsis by men likewise shifts to a statistically significant

extentin rcsponse to changes in the types of gendcr composition(factOr group 7)(Table 8).
I Pointed out earlier that prior investigation of Japanese gcnder differentiation

involves several methodological problems Thc results ofpaststudies are derivcd
frona inlpressionistic comparisons of barc percentages without conducting any
statistical investigation More critically,the studies do not takc into account in―

terfactor relationships(ic,relative strength)amOng the indepcndcnt variables
which simultaneously affcct particle ellipsis Thcse problems have led research―ers to dig out only the factors unique to each ofthe gender groups,neglecting theGENDER DIFFERENTIAT10N IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

317

universal that linguisdc factors(Structwal factors in Shibamoto's[1990]terms)
equally permeate the two gender groups as prilllary constraints on pttticlc ellip―

sis over othcr types offactors.Moreover,priorinvestigation is based only on data
fronl singlc― scx interactiOns.The chttacterization of gender distinctions in Jap‐

anese particle ellipsis has thus been too restricted to represent a holistic picture
including the dynanlic properties of gender―

related variation sensitive to diffcr―

ent participant frameworks.

CONCLUSION
The signiicance ofthis study is twofold´ 、lthough its findings should be taken as
preliminary and require further futurc confirmation with a more carefully drawn
corpus,it yields some useful insights into the proper methods to adopt in thequantitative sociolinguistic investigation of Japanesc.I demonstrated that theneglect ofinterfactor relationships and the lack of statistical verification ofquan―titative dilferences in analyzing vaFiatiOn have led to the oversilnplification ofcomplcx gender― related linguistic behavio■ By fulfilling the inethodological re―quirements in quantification of speech data,this study sho、 vs that a vttriety of
constraints on Japanese particle ellipsis are hierarchically ordered and largely
confornl to the universal hierarchies of constraints on linguistic variationi lin―
guistic factors tend to out、 veigh Othertypes ofconstraints,regardlcss ofthe spcak―

er's gender.Moreovet the present analysis reveals thatrather rnechanistic surface
structure constraints are likely to produce even stronger effects than functional

considerations,which have been the exclusive focus of rnost past work on pttti―
cle ellipsis in Japanese.
Second,this study also clarifies the inadequacy of the categorical treatlnent of
the social variable of gender in the traditional quantitative sociolinguistic para―digm by presenting some preliminary evidence for its dynaIInic properties:theactive interplay between the speaker's gender and different types of participant
framework(i.e。 ,gender composition).Shibamoto's(1985,1990)subculture ap―
proach,which defined gender differentiation exclusively within subcultures,has
proven too restricted to provide a complete picture of thc complexity in gender―

relatedlinguisticbehaviotespeciallyofthedynalnicnatureofinv01vinginiagen―der variability activated in contact situations of the subculturcs.The necessity ofthis dynanlic approach to intricate relationships bet、

veen gender and linguistic
variation is confirmed in light of a violation of the universal axioms.Althoughstylistic or intraspeaker variability in gcneral has been critically overlooked in thequantitative sociolinguistic paradiglll so faL the integration of iniaspeaker vari―ability into the paradigln is vital and、 vould rcsult in a more adequate sociolin―

guistic theory(Rickford&McNair‐ Knox,1994).

NOTES
l.

In the prcsent study,I collapscd the ellipsis of― gα and― ″αmainly for comparativc pttrposcs ln

addition,thc distinction betwccn tlle two is not al、 vays clcarcut,and there arc often conflicting viewson which particlc has bcen elidcd Hinds(1982:158),for CXamplc,claimcd that̀̀itis almostimpos―

SHOJI TAKANO

318

siblc to dctcmninc withany ccrtainty whcthcr amissing suttcctparticlc shouldbc rcconstructcdas″ αor ga''

2. One of the LyC reviewers expressed dissatisfaction with my fundamental choicc of―″α/‐ gαalonc,commcnting that a uniflcd analysis of Japancsc particlc cllipsis cannot bc achicvcd unlcss、
vc
also takc into aCCountthe other canonical particles(― οand‐ 221ο )Although l appreciate the importanceof thc issuc raiscd,I lcavc it for futurc rcscarch.

3.

Shiballloto's(1987)study iS nOt directly relevantto thc prcscnt study sincc shc considcrcd thc

effects of agc and fol■ nality of situation only on 、
vomcn's dcletion of suljcCt,direct olject, andindircct obJcct caSC particles The present study invcstigates particle ellipsis in the lmost casual styleof speech and compares patterns of variability bet、

veen men and women ofthc same gencration

4.

But intcrfactor rclationships(i.C,ヽ VhiCh factor has a stronger or weakcr cffect on the dependentvriable than、 vhich other factor)are nOtt・ aken into account
5. Stmctural,according to Shibamoto(1990:103),
rcfCrs to fcaturcs whosc prcscncc or absencc is

empirically obscrvablc,whcthcritbc attllcphOnological,molphosyntactic,or discourse selting level,"
vhcrcas fllnctiona1/intcrprctivc includes̀̀those、 vhosc presence to absence depends on analysis of、thc spcakcr's psychological statc、

6.

vill rcgard to his or hcr uttcrancc.''

This factor is also included in the ftlnctiona1/interpreive features by Shibamoto(1990:94)

7. The fo1lowing are examplc scntcnccs from Tsutsui(1983:208)gα paatli ni ldte― mashita(i)a lrOirOna hito
va五 ous pcOplc

yoparty to camc wcrc thcrc SFP̀Various people came to the party'
b.Paatii ni wa

iroirona hito(gα )kitC― mashita yo.

TOP

According to Tsutsui,the■ ominativc particlc,― gα ,is morc likcly to bc clidcd in(ib)bCCausc thc
sentencc satisies the last NP condition8。

Shibamoto(1990:88‑89)lcgardcd hcr samplc(117 tokcns for mcn,85 for womcn)aS tOO Small

to provide the basis for a reliable statistical analysis

9.

It strikcs nlc as odd that only men、

vould includc particles lnore、 vith NPs,、 vhich catt infOr―

mation close to the speaker and hearer Shibalnoto(1990:96)hcrself Seemed to exprcss thc same
scntimcnt:[I]tiS nOt cntircly clcar、 vhatintelprctation to placc on this latter fact(ic,negative effects
of̀closeness of information'on particle ellipsis by ine■),exceptthatthis featurc is not onc to whichmalc spcakcrs attend whcn chOosing to cllipt"

10.

There ae two general approaches to gender differentiadon in language(Coates, 1988).One

is thc so― callcd subculturc approach.It contcnds that mcn and、

vomen bclong to two distinct so―、vhich the t、 vo sexes independently acquire a different patteming ofcommunicativc skills Cross― scx intcractions arc inhcrcntly cross― cultural communication,and mis―communication betwecn mcn and、 vomcn sharcs thc fundamcntal naturc of cross― cultural lniscom―
ciolinguistic subcultures inmunication(MaltZ&BOrkcr,1982)The other approach is called thc power/dominance approach
lt interprcts gender differentiation as a re■ ection of inequality bet、veen the sexes in society,claim―

ing that women's languagc echoes their infeHor/powerless status in socicty The power whichsocicty grants to mcn undcrlics malc donlinancc in conversation(Lakoff, 1975;Rosaldo, 1974)
11. Itook advantage oft、 vo ldnds of coTora When l began to conductthis preliininary investigation
五zona The flrst coplls is based on one ofthe occasional
as a graduatc student at the University ofノ ゝvhere only Japanesc students usually sho、 vcd up Abouta ycar
prior to this research proJect,I decided to tape― recol・ d it for potendal future use The second corpus
came frolll a stock of convcrsationaltapes that had o● ginally bccn submittcd as a class assignmcnt atparties organized by a friend ofrnine、

the l」 niversity ofノ ゝ
Hzona Department of East Asian Studies and had rcceived the participants'per―

mission fOr public use What audio cquipmcnt was used to rccord these corporais thus unknown All
the suttcctS WhOSc spccch was analyzcd had staycd in the Unitcd States forlcss thall ivc ycars.I did
not flnd anything unnaturalin thcir」 apancse that might havc becn caused by thcir cxtcnsive exposurc
to an English― spcaking environmcnt

D3,、 vas uscd at this party

12.
13.

A portable stcrco casscttc rccordeF,SOny WM―
ⅣIy spccch was notincluded in this study

14.

̀̀Self― recordcd'' mcans tllat one of thc participants opcratcd thc tapc rccordct All tllc sclf―

recordcd conversations analyzed、 vere originally taped as a class assignment,and none ofthe par―ticipants were a、 varc that thcir uscs of thc particles、

vould bc invcstigatcd,

15, A lcviewerregal・ dedit as quite inconceivable toidentitt suCh a fHendly,egalitaHan relationshipbet、 veen a youngcr、 voman and a malc colleaguc 13 ycars older on thc grounds that scniority is so

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

319

iinportant in constmcting human rclations in Japanese culturc l would maintain that it is plausiblethat people living in a forcign culture generally feel somewhat libcratcd or rcvived in a brand―
environmcnt,and that thc effects oftheir nativc cultural nOrms on their behaviors tcnd to bc grcatlynewdiminished through the proccsscs of aCCulturation ln addition,the two suliCCtS,who used to becolleagucs,now sharc similar life expericnces and problcms in adJusting to the new culturc Thus,Iregarded thc likclihood of thcir age difference having an cEcct on thcir vernacultt production as
minilllal

16. PHnce(1992)propOSCd a catcgory for inferablc inforlllation(iC,an NP cvoking entiies、
vhich、vere■ ot prcviously mcntioncd in the conversation and which thc hcaler had no p五 or k■ owlcdgc ot
but whose existence he or she could infcr On thc basis ofsome entity that was prcviously cvoked andsome belief hO or shc has about such cntities)I c01lapsed this catcgocy with unused information.
17. Tamori himself stated: ll10re data is rcquircd to determine the deletability of such casc markers[SubJCCt and direct otteCt markcrs]aftcr SCrambling''(1977:260)̲
18. As far as perccntagcs arc conccrncd,female speakers in thc singlc―
scx intcractions in thc prcscnt
study elidcd― ″α/― gク mOrc frcquently(34%)than tl10se in Shibamoto(1985)(239%)but almOst as
often as tllose in ShibalnOt。

(1990)(357%)The peК entagcs of cllipsis for male speakers in singlc―

sex intcractions arc more consistent acЮ ss thc thrcc studics:11%in Shibamoto(1985),111%in

Shibamoto(1990),and 149ら in thc prcsent study
19.

In addition to thc speaker's gendel.a rcgrcssion analysis of each type of participant frame、vork

also included the four factor groups that wcre follnd to be signiicant in thc carlier analyses(factor

groups l,2,4,5)
20.

Though ldc(1990)and lnany others(c.g。

,IdC ct al,1986)both generalized thatJapancsc、 vOmen

spcak lnore politely tllan do rncn bascd primarily on introspectivc data,it sccms inore appropriatc to
inteや rct thc claim in closc linkage to the context of intcractions.Ernpi五cal exalllination of politc

languagc use in sociopsychologically hctcrogencous communicativc scttings yiclds rcsults that re―vcal only a slight lead by womcn(283%[119/421]vs 24 1%[103/428]for men)MO。VCr,thc
generalizadon lnay not ncccssarily be coninlled oncc wc look more closely at participant framcworkin thc intcraction:in the present study,Incn usc distal style lmuch inorc frcqucntly in same―sex dyads

than do、 vomcn

21. The gender― related pattcrns sccn in these single― sex interactions countcr the stereotypes of
men's and womcn's languagc dcrived frolll studics in English― speaking cultures:rnen's convcrsa―
tional stylcs arc typically associated with compctitivcncss or aggressivcncss and womcn's styles、
co― operatlveness(Tannen,1990)ThC

vith

pattems in Abe's study,ho、 vcvcr,sho、 v that in single― scx in―teractions both lmcn and、 vomen seem to bc o五 cntcd to co― opcrative strategies to thc samc dcgrcc,andthat women seem to be slightly morc aggrcssive in managing thc■oor(cf Goodwin,1980,1990)
22. Thc remaining two types of strategies includc(1)to(■Sturb the smooth flow ofconvcrsation and(ii)tO COntrol the direction of convcrsation,inす oducing new topics
23. This rcsult lnay bc rclated to systematic discrcpancics in thc native perceptions of situationallyrequired dcgrccs of politcness bet、 veen men and womcn in」 apanese society(Ide, 1990:Idc ct al,

1986)
24. Πve tokcns considcrcd aslnocking categoHcally canncd pariclcs and were therefore eliminatcd
from the coLDVARB analysis
25. 4269ら (561/1318)of all tOkens and 56.19ら (189/337)of thC tOkCns、 vith particles clidcd areaccompanied by sentence― inal pariclcs
26. When thc particlcs‐ 1″ αOr― .Oα are not elided,the surfacc phonctic fom of the syllabic nasal
diffcrsin each case The realizttions would bc somcthing like[h6"wa](士 Om/hon wa/̀bookttTOP')and[h5oga](frOn1/hOn ga/̀book― SUB')(Vance,1987:35‑37)

REFERENCES
Abc,K(1989)Seiyakuw顧 to hatsuwa no kinoo[ScX rOlcs and pragmatic functions]E′ b′ jわ ″″gα たン々 り rrレ .Nihon」 oshi Dalgaku Eigo Eibungaku― kai 75‑93
̀″Baylcy,R.,&Pease― Alvarez,L (1997).Null pronoun variatlon in Ⅳlexican̲desccnt childrcn's nar
rative discoursc 肋 ″g′ αg′ 1/ar,α ′Jο 71 ακグC力 α″gι 9:349‑371
Bcll,A (1984).Language style as audicncc dcsign Lα″g″ αgι j″ Sο″ 13:145‑204̀jι
Bilous,ER,&Krauss,RM(1988)Dominance and accommodation in thc
convcrsational behav―
iours of same― and mixed― gender dyads.レ 74g′ αg′ α″′Cο滋771〃 ″jε α8:183‑194
j″ gン js′ jc s′
Bortoni― Ricardo,SM(1985)=″ ′ 泌αれたα′Jο ″げ rrz″ ′グ滋ルα P′ αル̀JO″/s,A sο ιjο ′クの J4

Braぇ 〃 Cambridgc:Cambridge Univcrsity Prcss.

320

SHOJI TAKANO

Brouwcr,D,Gcrritscn,M,&dc Haan,D(1979)SpcCCh diffcrcnccs bctwccn womcn and mcni On
the、 vrong track?■ α′g″ αgθ j71 SOσ j̀〜 8:33‑50

Brown,P(1980)How and why arc womcn ln3orc politci Somc evidencc iom a Mayan community
ln S ⅣIcConncll Ginct et al(Eds),W♭ ″,′ ″α″41′ α″g″ αgご J″ ″′′l ll′ ン″ α″′sOoJ′
New York:〜
Pracgcr lll‑149

Cameron,D,さ ヒCoatcs,J(1988)Somc prOblcms in the sociolinguistic cxplanation of scx diffcr
cnccs ln i Coates&D Camcron(Eds),"b711′ ″171′ 力´′rtヮ εみεο711771 ″ルj̀s London:Longmaǹ′
13‑26
Coatcs J(1988)IntrOduction ln J Coates&D Camcron(Eds),Wb771′ ″j″ r/lι″θs London:Longman 63‑73

Coatcs,J,&Camcron,D(Eds)(1988)1,bJ′

訪ιJr ψ ′ 力

711777〃J′

彎,′ ′ε力εο771777″ ″j″′′
たs London:Longman

̀′
̀ε
̀ο
Douglas― Cowic,E (1978)Linguistic codc― switchingin a Northcrn lrish villagci Social intcraction
and social ambition ln P Trudgill(Ed),Sο Cjο ″77glrJsrlc α″θ″″s J71 Br″ js/1E17glls/2 London:Ar―ρ

nold 37‑51

Eakins,B,2セ Eakins,G(1976)Vcrbal turn― taking and cxchangcsin faculty dialoguc ln B L Dubois&I Crouch(Eds),7みεJο ′οgỳ/′ み α″g αgas(√ A771̀rた α″wο ″,′ η San Antonio,TX:Trinity
̀Sὸ′
Univcrsity
Eckcrt,Pcnelopc (1988)Adolesccnt social structurc and the sPrcad Oflinguistic changc Lα″gllag̀
j71 Sο οブ
̀A
17:183‑207j。
̲(1989)The WhOIC、 vomeni Scx and gcnder diffcrcnccs in variation Lα 77g′ αg′ ツarjα ′77α 71′

Chα 72g′ 1:245‑267

Eckcrt,P,&McConncll― Ginct,S (1992)Think practically and look locally:Language and gcndcr
as community― based Practicc A7171 α7R´ ν ws orA71′ ヵルク
οgy 21:461‑490′ο′Edclsky,C (1981)ヽVhO'S got thc floor?Lα 71g″ αg̀,77 Sο ′ ,10:383‑421
̀ら
Erman,B(1992)Fcmalc and malc usagc of pragmatic cxprcssions
in same scx and mixed sex
j′c‐

intcraction Lα 71g αgι ヤレriα72

α77グ C/2α 71g̀4:217‑234

̀Jο
Fishman,P(1983)Intcraction:Thc
work womcn do ln B Thornc,C Kramarac,&N Hcnley(Eds),

Lα 4g

αgι ,g̀″ グ α″グsο σj̀″

Rowlcy,MA:Ncwbury Housc 89‑101

̀″FllJii,N,&Ono,T(1994)Thc
occurrence and non occurrcncc ofthc Japancsc dircct obJect markcr

ο in convcrsation Unpublished manuscript,University of Oregon and University of California,
Santa Barbara

Giles,H(1980)Accommodation thcory:Somc ncw dircctions lb″ たPαfで rs j″ Lj″ g″ な′たs9:105‑
135

Glcs,H,&Powcsland,PR(1975),′

σ力S〜 ル α″グSο σjα ′ α′″α″ο″ London:Academic
2で ご
S Pacific Govc,CA:Brooks/̀θ̀νGilcs,H,&Coupland,N(1991)Lα 71g″ α
g̀i Cο ″た■パα77グ σ
O″ s′ 9″Colè′Goodwin,M H (1980)Dircctivc― rcsponsc spcech sequcnccs in giris'and boys'task activitics ln S
McConnell Ginct ct al(Eds),″ ♭771̀れ α″ど′
α″g αg′ j″″′″″ α′,d sο c,ι ヶ Ncw York:Praeger
157‑173∫
αjど ―s/1̀‐ sα j′ :乃 ′たαs sο cjα ′Oζgα 77j̀α ″0″ α 077g B/α た みllグ r′ ″ BIoomington:
llrc・

7″

t‐

c‐

Univcrsity Prcss‑ Indiana(1990)HC―

Graddol,D,&Swann,J(1989)Gθ ″グι′ソοjσ

̀s Oxford:Blackwcll
Guy,G R (1980)VariatiOn in thc group and thc individual:Thc
casc of flnal stop dclction lnヽ
V
Labov(Ed),Lο εα″72g ι
α″g〃 αg̀′ 72′ ′771′ α72イ ド′ὰ̀ New York:Acadcnlic
l‑36
7igllα g′ ヤ
arプ α
r7r171 αllノ C/1α 4gι 2:l‑18j。
″glrα g̀シ arJα ′71α 71グ C/1α llgο‑(1990)ThC dCVClopment of a rnorphological class iα‑ 3:223‑239(1991)COntextual conditioning in variablc lcxical phonology Lα

Hasegawa,Y (1993)HanaSi― kOtoba ni okcrù̀inu― kansi''no kl■ oo[Functions of particlc delction in
spokcn Japanesc]fV7カ ο71gο κッοοJた ン80:158‑168
Hinds,J(1976)A,ρ ′εな のrJ「 9ρ α″Jscο ″だ
ン″ Tokyo:Kaitakusha̲(1982)E′ J″ SJSプ ′ cρ απ ̀S̀グ

̀Srr

̀′

J「

̀S̀Edmonton:Linguistic
lde,S(1990)HOW and Why do women
spcak morc politely Rcscarchin Japancse?In S Idc&N H McGloin
′
α
れ
ο
0″
g″ αgι Tokyo:Kurosio 63‑79ζ′α′ι(Eds),Aψ″
77・

̀お=呻 ̀∫ ̀II
1de,S,Hori,M,Kawasaki,A,Ikuta,S,&Haga,H(1986)Scx
differenccs and politencss inJapancsc f71′ ′″77α ″071α ′Jο ″77α ′た′Sο εjο ′οgyて 了Lα 71g〃 αg̀58:25‑36″′

Jordcn,EH,&Noda,M(1987)J9′ α″ ∫′:η %ι ソοル れ′α″gン ag̀,P177′ ■ Ncw Havcni Yalc Uni
vcrsity Press

Kiparsky,P(1972)Explanation in phonology ln S Peters(Ed),Gο
wood Cliffs.NJ:Prcntice― Hall

αお oF′ ′7,g″ おr7ε ′ヵ り Englc―
̀οGENDER DIFFERENTIAT10N IN JAPANESE PARTICLE ELLIPSIS

321

Kuno,S(1972)Functional scntcncc perspcctivc:A casc study flom Japancsc and English Lブ
I″ 9

17■

72g″ jsr7c

131269‑320

̲̲̲̲(1973)J吻 ′ r ン″ げルψαη′∫θ′
α″g″ αgθ Cambridgc,MA:MIT Press
Labov,W(1966)動 ′sο ε′ヽα′′ α″ο″げ E71g′ おみ 」とl17肋 ′
たC′ ″ Washington,DCi Ccnter for
s′

c′

"

Applied Linguistics

̲(1969)Con

r/2′

j″

7r7ε

action,dclction,and inhcrcnt variability ofthc English copula■gι
a77g″ α45:715‑762
̲(1972a)Sο cjο /771glrJsr7σ ρα′′ りs Philadclphia:University of Pcnnsylvania Prcss

̀刀(1972b)SomC principles of linguistic
mcthodology Lα 77grlα g̀′ 71 Sο οJι ´11:97‑120̲sげ r/2ι ρ7aJ´ σ

グ 712ι ′
/1ο ′
‑― ――
―― (1981)Fj′ ′

ι
′
′00

Jsrlc c/2α 71g′

α″″ ッαr′ αr7ο 71(sOciOlinguistic

̀0″Working Papcrs 81)Austin,TXi Southwcst Educational
Dcvclopmcnt Lab

Lakoff,R(1975)Lα ″gレ αg̀α ″′ 711´ ″むρ′
αε′ New York:Harpcr&Row"ο
Lc Pagc,RB,&Tabourct Kellcr,A(1985)Aαs9″ グ ″ヶ」C″ ο′ι―bα sで グα
α″g αg̀ρρ″αε力θs′ ο′αηグ′1/1″ ′εゎ Cambridgei Calllbridge Univcrsity Prcss̀″Maltz,DN,&Borkcr,RA(1982)A cultllral approach to male femalc communication ln l l

Gumpcrz(Ed),ι α71g″ αg̀α ″グsο σjα ′j″̀71r7Al cambridge:Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss 196‑216
Martin,S(1975)A″ ル″″こ771α ′イ ノ
α″ S̀Ncw Havcn,CT:Yalc Univcrsity Prcss
Mashimo,S(1969)″ ″rflgὸg″οル ηり ″″[Àρstudy of women's languagcl Tokyo:Tookyoo doo
Masunaga,K (1988)Casc delction and discoursc contcxt lnヽSι εο″グf71′ ′″″α′
0″ α′″brksた 9ρ
′ο72 Jttα ″VI J Poscr(Ed),Pα ′̀な″″ェ StanfOrd,CA:CSLI

iヽ0772′ λ̀Matsuda,K(1992)Accusativc casc markcr―̀s′o ̀″dclction in Tokyo Japancsc ln C P Canakis,GP
Chan,&J ⅣI Dcnton(Eds),P″ ′グJ″ gsげ ′力ι28′ 力R̀gノ οηα′2И ′J4g″ r/2′ C力 たαgο Lj″ gン おrlc̀ὶιjarll(VO1 1)356‑366Sο εMaynard,S K (1981)Thc giVen/new distinction and thc analysis of thc Japancsc particlcs――
ga P9ρ ars J72 Lブ 71g″ Jsrrσ s 14:132‑147

wa andMcConncll― Ginct,S (1988)Languagc and gcndc■

In F J Newmcycr(Ed),ι ブ
4g″ お″σsf rみ̀ca711‑ツb′ rl171̀IИ Lα ″grlα g′ f r71̀soε ブ
0‑ε ク
ル71′ α′cο 17′ ´
χ′Cambridgc:Cambridge Univcr
sity Press 75‑99
McGloin,NH(1986)Fcminine″ α and″ ο:Why do womcn usc them?Jο 〃r″ α′ィ r/1′ ASSο σjα ″ο″raρ αη
グ ルαC力 ″ S″ 」
b万 グg̀sン ″
ν

̀リ

̀∫

̀20:727

inal particles ln S Idc&N H McGloin(Eds),A,P′εおTokyo:Kurosio 23‑41‑ ̀√̲(1993)Shuu10Shi[Final particles]Ntみgα たο″gο ―
1712:120‑124
NIilroy,L (1980)Lα ″g αg̀α ″グsο σ′α′4′ n″ οrた cambridgc,MA:Blackwcll
Jα72'′ αれg〃
αgιscntcncc―
ρα71ι S′ l1077t′(1990)Sex
diffCrcncc
andMulac,A,η lcmann,IM,Widcnmann,S,&Gibson,TW(1988)MalC/femalc languagc diffcr―
cnccs and cffccts in samc― scx and lllixcd― scx dyads:The gcndcr― linked languagc cffcct Cο 711

α′′ο77]イ 071ο gn7ρ みs55:315‑335
Myhill,■ (1992)Tllpο ′οgたα′グ′sσ ο″″α″SJS,0″οη Cambridge,MA:Blackwcll̀α/11″ σ

ン‐

4Jc‐

α″″′
α″ν′η p″ α ´s′ ο′
力′s′ ンの ぼ ′,g″ お″σJ′̀力

Nichols,PC(1980)WomCn in thcir spccch communitics ln S McConncll―

Ginct ct al(Eds),″α″グ′
α71gllα g̀′ ″′
ノ
′
´″
α′
ン″ 71ノ SOε J′ ´, Nc、v York:Pracgcr 140‑149̀α̲(1983)Linguistic options and choiccs for Black womcn in thc rural South ln B Thornc ct al(Eds),■ ク″gン αg̀,gο 77ノ 04α 72グ Sο σjι らヽRowlcy,MA:Newbury Housc 54‑68
1夕b71t′‑― ――― (1984)Nctworks and hicrarchics:Language and social stratlication ln C Kramarac ct al(Eds),Lα ′g′ αg′ α77ど PO″̀4 Bcvcrly Hills,CA:Sagc 23‑42
Pcng,EC C,Hori,M,Horiguchi,1,Idc,S,Takahara,0,&Tanaka,M(1981)2)イ
グ:旋 ´

α′
ι7rど 772α ル´S'71 JllPα 77′ Sι TOkyol Thc East Wcst Sign Languagc Association

̀71εPhilips,Susan U (1980)Scx differcnccs and language A7171ン α′R′ ν′ι″sq′ A72̀た opο ′οg)9:523‑

544
Poplack,S (1980a)Dcletion and disambiguation in Pucrto Rican Spanish Lα 77g″ クg̀56:371‑385‑― ―――― (1980b)The

nOtion of the plural in Pucrto Rican Spanishi Competing constraints on(S)dclction ln W Labov(Ed),Lο εαr771g Jα 71gン αg′ ′″′1771′ α77グ Sρ αεθNcw York:Acadcnlic 55‑67
Preston,D (1989)Sο σjο ′′″g jsr7CS α71ご S′ εO″ ′′α72grrα g′ ασ9 JSfr7ο 12 Nc、 v York:Blackwell
Jσ α
77 Sp′ ′σ/166:33‑56(1991)SOrting out the variablcs in sociolinguistic thcory A′ ,′ ″Princc,E(1987)Sara Gorby,Ylddish folksingcr:プ―ll̀Sο jο ′ο′′οgy ο′Lα 72gン αg′ 67:83‑116j077α ′
ヽcasc study of dialcct shift r71′ ′′77α ′JO′ 77Jα J

c‐̲(1992)Thc ZPG lcttcr Sublccts,deinitcncss,and informa■

Thompson(Eds),DJS̀ο ″パιノ′sθ ″″rjο ″」Djν ′だadclphia,Rへ :Bclllamins 295‑325

onstatus ln W C Mann&SA

″g′ ′
″ブ
cα ″α s̀sグ αrll″ グ 7r7jSr71g′ ′χムPhil̀″〜

322

SHOJI TAKANO

jο
Rand,D,&Sankonι D(1990).Gο ′グレク4ι ツZ″ jο ″2,Aッ αrJα タセ r ′ι■ρノ jε α′″ノbr Й′″αιIP7わ S力

Montrcal:Universit6 de Mont.

al̀

Rickford,■ ,&McNair― Knox,R(1994)Addrcsscc―

and topic― influcnccd stylc shift:A quantitaivc

j″ g′ js′ jεsociolinguistic study ln D.Bibcr&E Finegan(Eds),Sο ιJο ′′ιム,ρνιS ο″″
ιgjsた み̀̀ガ
Oxford:Oxford univcrsity Press 235‑276
Rosaldo,M (1974)Womcn,culturc and society:A thcorctical ovcrview ln M Rosaldòヒ
L Lam―
phere(Eds),ラ フb ι″,ι ″′′″″ αれグsο ε′ι″ StanfOrd,CA:Stanbrd Univcrsity Press l‑16
Rosenbcrgcr,N R (1994)IndeXing hicrarchy through Japancsc gcndcrrelations ln I M Bachnikそ 貶
C I Quinn,」 ■ (Eds),S″ ′α″グ 777ι α″jη g:夕 sjグ ′α グο″rsJグ ′j″ Jβ ρα″′r SOε J′ ぁらα″′′
α4‑

̀s̀∫

g″ αg′ .PFinceton,N」 :Princeton Univcrsity Prcss 88‑112

Sankoム D(1985)StatiStiCs in linguistics.In EEり̀J9ρWlley 74‑81

σαJscj′ ″ε′S(V015)Ncw Yol・ k:

ιグ′
αぽ ∫
″
̀JS″

j77g″ js″ csfス ″′
ιJο ι
″′
ι′
れα″ο7tα ιみα77グ ‐α″g αg′ α″′sο σj′ ″ Bcrlin&New York:de Gmytcr
げ′jrsi r71′――――――(1988)SociOlinguistics and syntactic variation ln E I Newmcycr(Ed),Lj″ g″ お′Cα 771♭ ガグg′ s″ ″の ■bル ″7た o soσ j。 ―σンル″ Jε ο″′α たCambridgei Cambridgc Univcrsity PI・ ess
̀r砕‑― ――――(1986)Variable nlles ln U Amlnon et al(Eds),Sοbο ο
たイ r/2ι scjι ″140‑161

Sankofι D,dt Labov,ミ ̲(1979)On the uses of valiablc rules Eα 77g〃 αg̀′ ll Soι ′′″ 8:189‑222
Shibamoto,IS.(1985)」 ク′α″ ″0772′ れ ″g″ ag̀New York:Acadcmic̲̀sι'ルof stcrcotypical and nonstercotypical featuЮ s of(1987)Thc wOmanly woman:manipulation
Japanese female speech ln S U Philips,S Stecle,&C Tanz(Eds),Lα
れgrrα g´ ,g′ 71グιr α72グ sι χj″jν′αrα ′ ιριrsp′ rrrッ ′ cambHdgc:Cambridge University Prcss(1990)SCX related vaHation in thc ellipsis of wa and ga ln S Ide&N H McGloin(Eds),― A,ρ ιιrs̀ノ Jη α″ιS′ ″0771ι ″ζ勉″g αg′ Tokyo:Kurosio.81‑104
Shibatani,M (1990)rん ′ぁ4g″ αg′ sρ /Joρ α″ CalnbHdgci Cambridge University Prcss
Suklc,R J(1994)」 cみ ′/Sο ′ο:Choiccs in directive spccch acts in Japanese ln I M Bachnik̀tC.■
ιグ777′ αれJ77g′ ル sjグ
72ど ο なjグ ′Jれ Jα ′ακs̀ゲ SOCた ヶ,α ″グ′
α77gン ag′
Quinn,Jr(Eds),S力 α′Cὸα
PHnccton,NJ,Princcton University Prcss l13‑142

S、

̀sι

vann,J(1988)T』 k contr01: an illustration froln thc classroom of problcms in analyzing malc
dominancc ofconvcrsation ln i Coatcs&D.Cameron(Eds),7わ れ′″Jれ r/2ι Jr,′ ιισみεο ″′″

J′

jι

s

London:Longman 123‑140
れル′rsj″ げ Sο ン′
力ι Cα Jぁb jα′7S j′ Lj″ g お″cs 5:243‑263=鱒Tannen,D(1990)lb″
ル S′ グοη午 ″′ικ″れグf″♭ ι″α″グ ι″j″ εο″ツιおα″0″ .Ncw York:ゝ 江olTow.
Tamol・ l,I(1977)NP and particle dclction in Japanese discoursc.υ

θσεαs,ο 71α ′Thakcrar,IN,Giles,H,&ChcshiК ,I(1982)Psychological and linguistic paramctcrs of speechaccommodation thcow ln C・ Fraser&K R Schcrcr(Eds),4の α″ι′s,″ ″ιsο ε滋′′sl ε力ο′
ο げ滋″g″ αg̀Cambridgei Cambridgc Univcrsity Press
̀ッ
Thomas,B (1988)Dittercnccs of scx and sects:Liiguistic variation and social nct、 vorksin aミ、lsh
mining village ln i Coatcs&D Cameron(Eds),7わ IPÌ″ J″ r/2′ J″ ,P′ ιc力 οο772 ″″J̀jι s London:

Longman 51‑60.

Tsutsui,M (1981).Ellipsis of wa in Japanese ln S Makino(Ed.),Pη
フ /ràパSy ροSj″ ″ ο″J￠ ρα″′sι Dお ″ぉ′47tク ″SJS TOkyo:The Toyota Foundatioǹο̲(1983)Ellipsis of gα ′αριrs j77 J?ρ α″ιs̀LJ72g′ js″ ιs 9:199‑244′″ιν jググ′ιιン7′″s,sj″ 」?ρ α″′sι .Doctoral dissertation,Univcrsi,of lllinois‑――――(1984)Pα ″ ル ′′Uchida,A (1992).VVheǹ̀diffcrcnce''is
dominance'':Ac五 tiquc ofthc̀̀anti― power― bascd''cultural
Ic・

approach to scx diffcrcnces 肋 72g′ αg′ J77S00jι ″ 21:547‑568
jο
Vancc,■ (1987)A4j″ ′″グ′ο′″ゎ Jgρ α″ιs̀ρ 力ο″ο′οg)Albany:State Univcrsity of Ncw YorkPrcss
jsr7c s′ ン
Waltcrs,K (1989)rみ ιJ″ ′ι7■ ルll′ r asソ αrttι ′ιr71 9ン α′ ″″ν′sο ε′ο′
Jれ gン
グ s Papcr plc―j′r′sented at the annual lnceting of the Linguistic Society ofAmerica,IVashington,DC

Watanabe,■1(1986)T、 vo kinds of ellipsis in Japancsc discourse:A quantitativc tcxt study S′ ″′J′ sj″
助 ″g αg′ 10:337‑351
nreinet E■ ,&Labov.ヽヽ
1(1983)Constraints on the agcntlcss passive Jο ″r4α ιげ L′ れg′ JS̀jι s 19:29‑
58
Wctzcl,PI(1988)Japancsc social deixis and discoursc phcnomcna Jο ″772α ′ ′力´ASSο ιjα ″0″ げル ac71′ な 9′ J￠ ραれ′S̀22:7‑27

̲̀ノεた,and sο ′
ο lnlヽ 4 Bachnik&C i
α″g″ αgιQuinn,Jr(Eds),Srr″ αた′771̀α れj″ gr f7tsjグ ′α″グο″ぉJグ ιj72 J̀ρ α″′s′ sι ″ S00j′ Oα ″グ′(1994)A movablc sclf:The linguistic indexing of″Princeton,NJ:PHnccton University Press 73‑87

GENDER DIFFERENTIAT10N IN JAPANESE PARTICLE‐ELLIPSIS323

ヽ¨ ger Dror,M.(1988).￢ le in■ lcncc ofchanJnggrOu。 ,itality on conve理 onCe toward a dominantgそ α
nom=L4″グcο ″711′ 饉むo″ 0た 8:285̲305.
α̲̲̲(1993).Linguttc
andy● sofdMLct correction"and its htcracim with"騨 hivC SdiCnに̀″g̀yar"r,0″ ″れ″cた o″ια″ α
5,189つ 24= ta,H.(1979).Mわ れた
e and Mindl.TOkyo:
タ
YattasЦoわ
̀′ ″ タ oわ ●"lnlc J,panesc Lang,電Kodansha

Zmmemlan,D.H.,&Wc羮 ,C(1975).Scx r01es,intenuptlons and●■ioⅢ oと N:Honlcy(Eds,),ι
Housc.105■ 129.

g′
=‐

ご
″
̀″

:,鮨 た′″22d

lcnces lll conversauOns.In B

772磁 ″
0こ ROwley,MA:Newbury