Article published In: Language and Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2017) ► pp.296–325
Development of ‘say’-derived constructions
The case of tote and totemo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 10 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.18.2.06tam
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.18.2.06tam
Abstract
Totemo in contemporary Japanese is a degree adverb (intensifier). Previous studies have reported that totemo derived from the adverb totemo kakutemo, which means ‘either way’ (and hence is a bipolar item) in classical Japanese. These studies also reported that totemo became a negative polarity item (an adverb modifying words for negative evaluation), but then shifted to a positive polarity item (an adverb modifying words for positive evaluation), and that counter-expectation factors played an important role in this shift. It is reported that the ‘say’-derived complementizer develops into a hearsay evidential marker, counter-expectation marker, and in some cases an intensifier (e.g. Wang, Yu-Fang, Aya Katz, & Chih-Hua Chen. 2003. Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences 25.5:457–488. ) in some languages. Tote in classical Japanese is known as a ‘say’-derived complementizer, but it does not grammaticalize into an intensifier. This study maintains that the intensifier totemo also derived from the verb ‘say’ and the entire process of grammaticalization of totemo may be chronologized as follows: concessive use of quotative > concessive use of hearsay evidential > counter-expectation marker > intensifier. Thus, this study reveals the language-specific development of grammaticalization of the intensifier totemo. We also reveal that a reanalysis of the concessive subordinator and the elision of the complement clause preceding totemo as a sentence initial counter-expectation marker further gave rise to the sentence-medial parenthetical phrase (intensifier) totemo.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous studies on the development of totemo from totemo kakutemo
- 3.Typological studies of the grammaticalization of the ‘say’ verb
- 4.Data and methodology
- 5.Grammaticalization of tote and totemo
- 5.1Grammaticalization of tote
- 5.2Grammaticalization of totemo
- 6.Grammaticalizations of tote and totemo from a typological perspective
- 7.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (25)
Ahn, Mikyung, & Foong Ha Yap. 2014. On the development of Korean SAY evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica 31.3:299–336.
Aksu-Koc, Ayhan A., & Dan I Slobin. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols, 159–167. Norwood: Ablex.
Harima, Keiko. 1993. ‘Totemo’ ‘Zenzen’ nado ni mirareru fukushi no yōhō hensen no ichi ruikei [A study of development of usages of adverbs on ‘totemo’, ‘zenzen’ and so forth]. Gobun Kenkyū [
Research on Language and Literature
] 751:11–22.
Hopper, Paul. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.11, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols, 3–28. Norwood: Ablex.
Konoshima, Masatosohi. 1973. Kokugo Jodooshi no Kenkyuu: Taikei to Rekishi [
A Study on Auxiliary Verbs in Japanese: Syntax and History
]. Tokyo: Oofusha.
Lord, Carol. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa. Papers from the Parassession on Diachronic Syntax: April 22, 1976, ed. by Sanford B. Steever, 179–191. Chicago: CLS.
Moriwaki, Shigehide. 1995. Joji tote no seiritsu katei, imi yoohoo wo megutte (2) [On the development and semantic usages of postpositional particle tote (2)]. Yamaguchi Kokubun 181:69–82.
Ono, Susumu, Satake Akihiro, & Kingoroo Maeda. 1990. Iwanami Kogojiten [
Iwanami Dictionary of Classical Japanese
]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Onodera, Noriko O. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis (
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 132
). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saxena, Anju. 1988. On syntactic convergence: the case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization, ed. by Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster, 375–388. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2014. Amari/Anmari/Anma and Totemo/Tottemo in history and discourse: interaction of negative polarity and positive polarity. Unpublished Manuscript.
Tabor, Whitney, & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. The Limits of Grammaticalization, ed. by Anne Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper, 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tamaji, Mizuho. 2015. Nihongo ni okeru denbunshookosei no maakaa to ‘goiteki inyoo koozoo’ no hikaku: tsuuji goyooronteki kanten kara [A comparison of hearsay evidential marker and lexical quotative constructions in Japanese: a diachronic-pragmatic perspective]. Goyooron Kenkyuu [
Studies in Pragmatics
] 171:17–32.
Thompson, Sandra A., & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 21, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine, 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 1995), August 13–18, 1995. Manchester: University of Manchester.
. 1997. UNLESS and BUT conditionals: a historical perspective. On Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athanasiadou & René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Yu-Fang, Aya Katz, & Chih-Hua Chen. 2003. Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences 25.5:457–488.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12.1:51–97.
Yamada, Yoshio. 1936. Nihon Bunpoogaku Gairon [
An Introduction to Japanese Grammar
]. Tokyo: Hoobunkan.
