Tsuyoshi Ono

Word order variability in Japanese conversation: Motivations and grammaticization

is widely accepted that Japanese is a strict verb-final language. However, r examination of conversational data reveals cases where elements are pressed after the predicate. These exceptions can be divided into two oes. The first type involves a break in Intonation between the predicate id the following element or elements. In this type, after the predicate is pressed, a certain element (or elements) is expressedfor such purposes für t her specification and repair. In the second type, the predicate and the llowing element or elements are expressed within one Intonation contour. his type isfurther divided into Iwo subtypes: the discourse-pragmatic type id the emotive type. In the discourse-pragmatic type, the element or eleents after the predicate serve a certain discourse-pragmatic function. These ements include adverbials, conjunctions and pronouns, and either indicate e Speakers stance loward the proposition or referent or create discourse )hesiveness. In the emotive type, an adjectival or nominal predicate which ^^presscs such fcclings äs surprise and disgust is followed by a demonstrative. It is accompanied by an emotional Intonation pattern. In this subtype, non-canonical order seems to be preferred over canonical order. The intonational and distributional characteristics of the two subtypes thus suggest that the non-canonical word order is becoming grammaticized.

Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in “increments” among students of conversational interaction. This article first outlines “incrementing” as an analytical problem (i.e., as turn constructional unit [TCU] extensions) by tracing its origins back to Sacks, Schegloff, and Jeffersons (1974) famous turn-taking article. Then, the article summarizes and reviews Schegloffs recent publications and presentations, which revisited this problem, as well as contributions on the same theme by scholars using data from a variety of languages and settings. It is suggested that authors have generally focused their analytic attention on utterances that contain structural “oddities” (i.e., oddities relative to the “canonical” structures of particular languages), which could, and do, vary tremendously across languages. A general account of TCU extensions can only be built on the basis of more data from a larger variety of languages, and it must be typologically informed.