Portland State University Portland State University

PDXScholar PDXScholar

World Languages and Literatures Faculty Publications and Presentations World Languages and Literatures

2012

Climactic Effect Markers in Spoken and Written Climactic Effect Markers in Spoken and Written

Narrative: Japanese Conditionals Tara and To Narrative: Japanese Conditionals Tara and To

Suwako Watanabe Portland State University, suwako@pdx.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/wll_fac

Part of the Modern Languages Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Citation Details Citation Details Watanabe, Suwako. “Climactic effect markers in spoken and written narrative: Japanese conditionals tara and to,” TEXT & TALK, Vol. 32(1), 2012, pp.103-124.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in World Languages and Literatures Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: pdxscholar@pdx.edu.

1860–7330/12/0032–0103 Text & Talk 32–1(2012),pp.103 – 124Online1860–7349 DOI10.1515/text-2012-0006©WalterdeGruyter

Climactic effect markers in spoken and written narrative: Japanese conditionals tara

and to*

SUWAKO WATANABE

Abstract

This paper compares two Japanese conditional constructions — tara and to — used as nonconditionals for narrative effect in spoken and written narratives collected from five native speakers of Japanese. These two constructions con-nect clauses where two unrelated past events happened in sequence as in: Miruto/Mitara,amedatta ‘When I looked, it was raining’. Examination of the spoken and written narratives revealed that tara is predominantly used in the spoken narratives while to is favored in the written narratives. Although both con-structions are similar in the unexpected effect, the reason why the teller uses them differently can be attributed to the nature of the two different communica-tive modes. The teller in spoken narrative uses tara to intensify the heightened suspension whereby s/ he creates the surprising effect. The speaker-teller ex-ploits the situatedness of the listener’s co-presence and recreates a story in the way the listener can share suspenseful moments and a sense of uncontrol-lability. The teller, when writing, uses the to construction to issue a narrator’s voice, “Look what happened.” The writer takes the omniscient narrator’s viewpoint and directs the reader to an unexpected result even when the writer is absent.

Keywords: climactic effect; tara;to; Japanese narrative; speaking; writing.

1. Introduction

Narrative consists of multiple clauses, each of which is strung together toexpressrelationalmeaningsuchascause-and-resultandchronologicalorder.Halliday and Hasan (1976: 227) labeled this relational meaning producedthroughclause-linkingconjunction,whosefunctionis“aspecificationofthewayinwhichwhatistofollowissystematicallyconnectedtowhathasgonebefore.” One of the relational meanings that is observed with significant

104 Suwako Watanabe

frequencyinnarrativeisthechronologicalorderofmultipleevents.InEnglishclausesrepresentingeventsinsequencearefrequentlylinkedwithcoordina-tion and, and this is exemplified in the following narrative (1) taken fromLabov’s(1972:360)studyonBlackEnglishVernacular.

(1) Thisboypunchedme andIpunchedhim andtheteachercamein andstoppedthefight.

InJapanesenarratives,twostrategiestoexpresschronologicalorderareoftenobserved:oneiscoordinationwithte-gerundorrenyookee(stemform),whichis equivalent to ‘and’ in English.The other is subordination of conditionalconstructionstaraandto.1Althoughtaraandtoarecategorizedasconditionalsalongwithothercondi-

tionalconstructions(rebaandnara),taraandtobothhavetemporalmeaningwhen they are used to refer to the chronological relation between two pastevents.Unlikete-gerundandrenyookee,whichmerelyjuxtaposetwoclauses,taraandtoindicatethatsomethingnoteworthyhappenedinthemainclause.(SeeAppendixAforadescriptionoftheabbreviationsintheJapanesegloss.)

(2) a. botan o ositara araamu ga naridasita.2 button OB push-TARA alarm SUB go-off-PF ‘WhenIpushedthebutton,thealarmwentoff.’ b. botan o osu to araamu ga naridasita. button OB push-TO alarm SUB go-off-PF ‘WhenIpushedthebutton,thealarmwentoff.’

Bothofthesesentencesmean,“WhenIpressedthebutton,thealarmwentoff,”withaconnotationofunexpectedness,andtheyseemalmostinterchangeable.Thenarrativedataexaminedinthecurrentstudyrevealthattaraispreferredinspokennarrativeswhiletoismorefrequentlyobservedinwrittennarratives.Whilethesetwotemporalconnectiveshavethesameeffectofconnotingun-expectedness or dramatic surprise, the teller’s stance is somewhat differentbetweenthespokenandwrittennarration,whichcorrespondstothedifferentfeaturesofthespeakingandwritingcommunicationmodes(Chafe1982,1994;Tannen1982).3Inthisstudy,Iwillexaminehowthetaraandtoconstructions,includingthe

derivedconnectivessositaraandsuru to,areusedinthespokenandwrittennarrativesanddemonstratethatthetwoconstructionsareusedatsimilarpointsinastorytodepictaclimax,andattempttoaddressthequestionofwhyoneispreferredinacertaincommunicativemode.Icontendthat thedifferentiatedusebetweenspeakingandwritingcanbeattributedtothenotionofcommuni-cativeconstraintsandtheireffectsineachofthe(speakingandwriting)modes.

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 105

Iclaimthattaratendstobeusedinspokennarrativebecauseitintensifiesthesuspendedmomentsandfeelingbyexploitingthesituatednessofthespeecheventwherethelistenerisco-present;andtoisfoundpredominantlyinwrittennarrativebecausethewriterdetacheshim/ herselffromtheprotagonist’sroleand,takingtheobjectiveobserver’sview,s/ heintegratesthepasteventsasaset.Thecohesiveforceof toallows thereader toapprehendthedramaofasequenceinthecommunicativesettinginwhichthewriterisabsent.

2. Relatedliterature

Inthissection,Iwillreviewtheresearchstudiesthatarerelatedtothetaraandtoconstructionsasnonconditionaluse,differencesbetweenspeakingandwrit-ing,andthenarrativestructure.

2.1. Tara and to as nonconditional use

Whereas tara and to are categorized as conditional in Japanese grammar(Maeda 2009; Masuoka 1993; Nihongo Kizyutu Bunpo Kenkyukai 2008),when they are used in reference to past events, as in /S1-tara/to, S2/, theymean, “When S1 happened, S2 happened.”This usage in reference to pasteventsasfactualstatesiscallednonconditionaluseandisdistinguishedfromtheregularconditionaluse.Toki ‘time’isalsousedtoexpress“whensome-thinghappens/ed,”buttoki isdifferentfromtheconditionalconstructionsinthat the latter involves unexpectedness or noteworthiness of the occurrenceofthesecondevent.Comparethefollowingsentencecontainingtokiwiththeexamples(2a)and(2b)inSection1.

(2) c. botan o osita toki araamu ga naridasita. button OB push-PFtime alarm SUB go-off-PF ‘WhenIpressedtheredbutton,thealarmwentoff.’

Sentence(2c)isusedinresponsetothequestion,“Whendidthealarmgooff ?”Anditdoesnotconveythesamesurpriseorunexpectednessthatisexpressedinsentences(2a)and(2b)withtheconditionalconstructs.Intermsoftheextenttowhichthefourconditionalconstructions(tara,to,

nara,andreba)areusedinconversation,OnoandJones’s(2009)empiricalstudyofspokendataisinformative.Examiningconditionalsindatathatcon-sistedof28audio-recordedspontaneous informalconversations, they foundtemporalusageaccountedforalittleover50%ofalltheoccurrences,whileconditionalusageaccountedforapproximately40%.Theyalsofoundthattaraandtoarepredominantlyused(taraoccurred54.9%andto34.1%).However,thedifferenceinusagebetweentaraandtoisnotdemonstratedintheirstudy.

106 Suwako Watanabe

WhileOnoandJones(2009)labelthenonconditionaltaraandtoastempo-ral connectives,Maeda (2009: 73) identifies four nonconditionalmeanings.Theyare:twoactionsinsuccessionbythesameagent(renzoku‘succession’);oneeventpromptinganotherperformedbydifferentagent(kikkake‘prompt’);discoveryofastatethroughaneventoraction(hakken‘discovery’);andemer-genceofastateoreventwhileacertainstatecontinues(hatugen‘emergence’).Comparingtara/towithte-gerundandtoki,Maeda(2009:94 –95)pointsoutthat conditional constructionsused in thenonconditionalmeaning implyanaccidentalrelationbetweenthefirstandthesecondeventbutthattherelationissuchthatthefirsteventpromptsthesecondevent.Andtherelationisnotastightas thatofcause-and-resultas inkara andnode ‘because’,but thefirsteventworksasacueforthesecondeventtohappen.Earlier,Kuno(1973)explainedtheeffectoftaraandtoseparately,devoting

anentirechapterforeachofthetwoconditionalconstructions.Whenwehave/S1-tara,S2/pattern,inwhichtara“isusedtorefertopastevents,thetimingbetween the actionor event representedbyS1 and that representedbyS2”(1973:183)isnotamatterthatisself-controllable.HeexplainstheeffectoftarabydescribingS2asanoccurrencethat“oftenrepresentsanunexpectedorsurprisingevent”(1973:183).AsforS1-to,S2construction,hedescribesthefollowingfeatures:

Whenitreferstotwospecificevents:

(i) Theconstructionlacksany“logicalantecedent-consequent”implication.(ii) Thesentencemustbeamenabletotheparaphrase“After/whileS1happened,what

doyouthinkhappened?Iobserved/discoveredthatS2happened.”Inotherwords,S2must represent an event that the speaker couldobserveobjectively.Conse-quently,theconstructioncarrieswithittheconnotationofsuspenseandsurprise.(Kuno1973:194)

Kuno’sexplanationsoftara andto,whentheyareusedwithpastevents,indi-catethattheyshareasimilareffectofunexpectednessorsurprise.Iwasaki’s (1993) account of tara (in his study tara is comparedwith te)

supportstheconnotationofsurpriseintara.Hecomparesteandtarainnarra-tivesandfinds thatwith the linkof te thesubjectdoesnotchangebetweenthefirstandthesecondclause,whilewithtara thesubjectchangesbetweenthe two clauses. For example, the 1st-person subject remains the same in/S1-te,S2/.In/S1-tara,S2/,thesubjectofS1is1stperson,butthesubjectofS2is3rdperson.Buildingonthenotionofspeakerperspective(wherediffer-entdegreesofaneventorastate’saccessibilityforthespeakerareencodedthroughlinguisticdevices),heattributesthereferenceswitchwithtaratoin-formationaccessibility.Hestates,“TARAappearswhenthereisashiftinthedegreeof informationaccessibilityandTE if there isnot” (1993:76).Withtara,thesubjectofthefirstclausedoesnothaveaccesstotheeventinthesec-

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 107

ondclause,andthisunknowablestatehastheeffectof“uncontrollability”inanarrative.Intermsof thedifferencesbetween taraand to,Maeda(2009)states that

whenthesuccessionusagewiththesamesubjecttakesplaceinreferencetotwopastvolitionalactivities, to isusedbut tara insuchusageentailsmanyconstraints.Shepresentsthefollowingexample(Maeda2009:76).

(3) Isizuka wa udedokee o miruto /??mitara IshizukaTOPwristwatchOB see-TO/??see-TARA ‘WhenMr.Ishizukasawhiswristwatch, razio no ongaku o ookiku sita. radio LK music OB big do-PF heturnedupthemusicontheradio.’

Inthisexample,bothseeingawristwatchandturningupthevolumearevoli-tionalactsperformedbythesamesubject(Ishizuka),andtoisacceptablebuttaraisnotbecausetararequiresthatthesecondeventisnonvolitionalorin-volvesalowlevelofvolitioninordertorepresentaccidentaloccurrenceoftwoeventsinsuccession.ThisresonateswithKuno’s(1973)pointofuncontrolla-bilityofthetimingbetweentwoeventsintara.Anotherconstrainton taranotedbyHasunuma(1993)is thatthespeaker

must be the one who experienced the cognitive change represented by/S1-tara,S2/.Inotherwords,whenconveyingacognitivechangeexperiencedbysomeoneelse,thespeakerneedstoaddamodalexpressionindicatinghowthechangehascometohis/ herknowledge.Thefirstsentencein(4a)showsthatthespeakeristhepersonwhodirectlyexperiencedtheencounterwithKenatschool.

(4) a. Gakkoo ni ittara Ken ga ita. school to go-TARAKen SUBexist-PF ‘WhenIwenttoschool,Kenwasthere.’ b. ?Mari ga gakkoo ni ittara Ken ga ita. Mari SUB school to go-TARA Ken SUB exist-PF ?‘WhenMariwenttoschool,Kenwasthere.’ c. Mari ga gakkoo ni ikuto Ken ga ita. MariSUBschool to go-TO Ken SUB exist-PF ‘WhenMariwenttoschool,Kenwasthere.’

Hasunuma(1993)arguesthat(4b)isnotacceptablewhenthespeakerisnotMariunlessthespeakersomehowexperiencedMari’sunexpectedencounterwithKenorthespeakermarksthesentencewithamodalexpressionsuchastte(aquotationmarker)‘shesaid’indicatinghowtheoccurrenceofthetwoeventshasbecomeknowntothespeaker.Incontrast,toisacceptableasin(4c)be-causethespeakerdescribestwoeventsinsuccessionasanobjectiveobserver’s

108 Suwako Watanabe

pointofview.Shenotesthattoisoftenobservedinthegenresofnovelandliterarynarrativeandcontendsthatthereisapremiseinthosegenresthatthenarrator is omniscient and is not required to usemodality expressionwhendescribingsomeoneelse’scognitivechange.Uehara (1998) draws our attention to the samephenomenonwith to and

callsitperspectivetransfer.HeexaminedwhetherthepronounisretainedintwoconnectedclausesinanovelinEnglishandtheJapanesetranslationofthesamenovel,andfoundthatwhileinJapanesethesubjectswitchesbetweentwoclausesasin(4c)fromMaritoKen,thesubjectremainsthesameinEnglishasin“WhenMariwenttoschool,shesawKen.”HearguesthatinEnglishthenarratorobjectivelydescribes theprotagonist’sactions,whereas inJapanesethenarrator“identifieshim/ herselfwithoneofthecharactersinthestoryanddescribestheeventsfromthecharacter’sperspective”(1998:287).ThusswitchreferenceismorelikelyinJapanese — asin(4c).Examining theuseof to in retoldnarrativesbasedona storybook,Fujii

(1993)foundthattoisassociatedwithnoticingachangeinstate.SheanalyzesdataconsistingofnarrativeswrittenbynativeJapanesebasedonastorybook,4andfindsthattoisfrequentlyusedtodescribescenesinwhichtheprotagonistdiscoverssomechangeinthestateorcontext.Byreferringtouncontrollabilityandtheaspectualconstraintofthetoconstruction,shearguesthatthesecondclauseinthetoconstructioncontainsachangeencounteredbytheprotagonistor some new state that is brought to the protagonist’s perception.The firstclausesetsupastagefordiscovery.Shewrites,“thefirstclauseestablishesanewsetting(orsetsupanewscene),whilethesecondclauseprovidesdescrip-tionsofthestateofaffairsmadeperceivablewithinthenewsettingorsceneestablishedbythefirstclause”(1993:9).Inherstudy,onlytowasexamined,butshespeculatesthatsemantic/syntacticpropertiesandaconceptualschemeoftaraandrebaare“analogoustothoseofthetoconstruction”(1993:16).5Thenonconditionalstaraandtohaveasimilareffectofunexpectednessin

the secondclausebasedon somechange that enters into thecognitionof asubject.Theslightdifferencebetweenthetwoisthatwhiletaraexpressesun-controllability based on an unknowable state, to forces a direct focus on acognitive or perceptive change, implying that something noteworthy tookplace.Hasunuma(1993)andMaeda(2009)haveassociatedthedifferencebe-tweentaraandtowiththedifferenceingenre,wheretaraoccursfrequentlyinconversationwhile to is frequently found in novels and literary narratives.Manystudieshavefoundthattoandtararevealsubjectivity,thesubject’scog-nitivestate,attitude,andevaluation(Fujii1993;Iwasaki1993;Hayase2009;Maeda2009;Uehara1998).Itshouldbenoted,however,thatexamplesoftoinmanystudies(Fujii1993;Hasunuma1993;Maeda2009;Uehara1998)aretakenfromwrittennarrativesinwhichthestoryteller,whoisoftenaprofes-sional writer, is not the protagonist. How differently the two constructions

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 109

functionintermsofthewaythenarratororientstothestoryworldinwhichs/ hewastheprotagonistisyettobeexplicated.

2.2. Spoken and written language

Chafe(1994)outlinesthedifferentfeaturesandnatureofspeakingandwritingasfollows.First,whileaspeakerandalistenerareco-presentatthetimeofcommunication(exceptforcommunicationusingsometechnologicaldevicesuchastelephone),areaderisnotphysicallypresentwhenawriterwritesatext.Chafecallsthis“situatedness,”observingthatthespeakerandlistener(s)share time and space.Secondly,Chafe (1982: 39) states that the storytellerwhenwritingcanpack“moreinformationintoanideaunitthantherapidpaceofspokenlanguagewouldnormallyallow.”Thisdimensionhecalls“integra-tion” and contrasts itwith the fragmentation that characterizes spoken lan-guage.Hespeculatesthatwhenspeaking“eachideaunitrepresentsasingle‘perching’ofconsciousness”(1982:37) — whenspeakingweareconstrainedtooneideaunitatatime.Thefragmentationcausedbyphysicalandcognitiveconstraints,however,producesspontaneityandlivelinessinspokencommuni-cation.Inwriting,wehavetimetointegratemoreideaunitstoformacoherentlinguisticunit,which,inturn,iscompatiblewiththerapidpaceatwhichthereaderprocesseswritteninformation.

2.3. Narrative

TheviewofnarrativeadoptedhereisbasedonLabov(1972:359–360)whodefinesnarrativeas“onemethodofrecapitulatingpastexperiencebymatchingaverbalsequenceofclausestothesequenceofeventswhich(itisinferred)actuallyoccurred.”Afullydevelopednarrativestructureconsistsofsixcom-ponents: Abstract, Orientation, Complicating action, Evaluation, Result orResolution,andCoda.Thetellerbeginswithasummary(Abstract)ofthestorys/ heisabouttotellandthenprovidesbasicinformationaboutthesettinginwhichthestorytookplace(Orientation).Thetellerdevelopsthestorybytell-ingwhathappenedinasequenceinwhicheventsactuallyhappened(Compli-catingaction),andthecomplicatingactionusuallyendswitharesult(ResultorResolution).Optionallythetellersignalstheendofthestory(Coda).Asthetellertellsthestory,s/ hemightinsertinformation(Evaluation)thatthetellerfindsnecessaryfortheaudiencetoproperlyevaluatethestory.Theevaluationmaybeaddedalmostatanypointintheentirestorytellingandasoftenasthetellerfindsappropriate.Both taraand toareusedtorefertothesuccessionoftwounrelatedpast

events,andbothhavetheeffectofunexpectedandsurprisingsentimentinthesecondevent.While the twoconstructionsshareasimilareffect,whereand

110 Suwako Watanabe

howtheyareusedseemstodiffer.Onesuchdifferenceisfoundinthenarrativedatainthisstudy,wheretarawaspredominantlyusedinthespokennarrativesandtoappearedinthewrittennarratives.Iftheeffectoftheunexpectednessisthesame,whydostorytellersdifferentiatetheuseofthetwocommunicativemodes?Iftaraandtoappearincomplementaryfashion,whataccountsforthedifference?

3. Dataandmethods

Thedatainthecurrentstudyconsistoffivepeople’sstoriesabouttheirunusualexperiences traveling abroad; the storieswere rendered in both spoken andwrittennarratives.6ThesubjectswerefiveJapanesenativespeakerswhoweregraduate studentsatauniversity in theUnitedStates.Thestorieswerefirstelicitedindividuallyinaface-to-faceinterview,inwhichIwastheintervieweraskingforinteresting,unusualexperienceswhiletheyweretravelingabroad.ItwasobviousthatIwasperceivedasaninstructor,andalltheparticipantsusedthedistal (so-calleddesu/masu) speech stylewhen talkingwithme.Duringtheinterview,eachJapanesespeakerrelatedmorethanoneepisode.Theinter-viewswereaudio-recorded.Afterelicitingseveralepisodes,Iselectedonethatseemedmostdramaticandaskedeachsubjecttowritetheepisodeasiftheywerewritinganarticleforanewsletterofanextracurricularcircleorclub.7Afterthedatacollection,therecordedspokennarrativesweretranscribed,

andpredicates,excludingthosethatwerejudgedasoccurringasdirectquota-tion,were counted and classifiedfirst into (i)main clausefinal ending, (ii)subordinate clause, and (iii) other forms (e.g., fragments).Among the sub-ordinateclauses,predicatesthatendintaraorto,whethertheywereusedasconditionalor temporal,were identified. Inaddition to thepredicateendingforms,connectivewordssuru toandsositaraat thesentenceinitialpositionwerecountedforeachnarrative.

4. Analysesanddiscussion

4.1. Frequency of tara and to

Table1shows the frequencycountsof tara,sositara, to,andsuru to in thespokenandwrittennarratives.Thereisaclearcontrastbetweenthespokenandwrittennarratives:Inspokennarratives,taraandsositaraarefavoredwhiletoandsuru toarepredominantinwrittennarratives.Itisalsonotedthattaraandsositarawereneverusedinthewrittennarratives,buttoandsuru toappearedsporadicallyinthespokennarratives.

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 111

Table2showswhetheraneventbeingreferredtobythetara/toconstructionispastornon-past.Inallseventeencasesoftaraandsositarainthespokennarratives, theeventthatisdescribedisonethathappenedinthepast.Withregard to to/suru to constructions in the spokennarratives, theyareused todescribe non-past events.Among the four tokens of to and suru to in thespokennarratives,atleastthreeareusedtorefertonon-pasteventsratherthanpastevents.Thus,thecontrastbetweentaraandtoconstructionsaccordingtothecommunicationmodeseemsdecisive.

4.2. Toin spoken narrative

AsshowninTable2,acloserlookatthewayinwhichtoandsuru toareusedinthespokennarrativerevealsthattheyarenotusedtoconnecttwopasteventsthathappenedinthestoryworld.Rather,theyareeitherusedinanontemporalfashionorusedtopresentaregularoccurrenceoftwoeventsinasequence.ThefollowingsegmentisanexampleofKeiko’suseoftothatisinterpretedhereasnontemporal.(SeeAppendixBforthetranscriptionconventionsused.)

(5)1 A- sore ga ittokimasu to Oh that SUB tell-TO ‘Oh,thethingis,totellyouthisinadvance

Table1. Frequency of tara/sositara and to/suruto

Spoken tara/sositara 17to/suru to 4

Written tara/sositara 0to/suru to 16

Table2. Type of event to which tara/to constructs refer

J-1Jiro J-2Rikako J-3Masako J-4Mikiko J-5Keiko

Spoken tara 10 0 0 6=Past 2=Past 2=Pastsositara 7 1=Past 0 3=Past 1=Past 2=Pastto 2 0 0 0 0 2=Non-pastsuru to 2 1=Past* 0 0 0 1=Non-past

Written tara 0 0 0 0 0 0sositara 0 0 0 0 0 0to 10 0 2=Past 5=Past

1=Non-past1=Past 1=Non-past

suru to 6 1=Past 0 3=Past 1=Past 1=Past

* At first glance, Jiro’s use of suru to is used to describe a past event, but this needs closerexamination.

112 Suwako Watanabe

2 eetoo Bankoku kara zyuu-zikan na n desu yo FL Bangkok fromten-hour LK NOM BE IP Let’ssee,it’stenhoursfromBangkok,youknow,3 kuruma de. car by bycar.’

Example (5) shows that to is used as a conditional if-clause to express ameta-communicativemessage.Thephrase,Ittokimasu to‘ifIamtosaythisinadvance’(literaltranslation),functionstosignalthatthespeakerisinsert-ing additional background information as if adding a footnote into a narra-tive.The insertion is initiallysignaledby theprefacingdiscoursemarker,A‘Oh’,which indicates a shift in the speaker’sorientation to the information(Schiffrin 1987). The phrase, Ittokimasu to, functions essentially as a dis-coursemarkerwithameaningof‘bytheway’.ThisisclosetowhatNattingerandDeCarrico(1992)callalexicalphraseinthattheuseof to isnotafreechoice.Example(6) is takenfromKeiko’snarrative, thepointofwhichwas that

Thaipeoplearenotboundbytime.SherealizedhowmuchsheandherlifeweredrivenbytimewhenherThaifriend,inresponsetoherinnocentquestionofwhattimeitwas,answeredbyaskingwhyshewantedtoknowthetime.Thesegmentcontainstheuseoftoindescribingaregularoccurrenceoftwoeventsasaset.

(6)1 Tai no ryokoo . . no koto o kangaeru to Thailand LKtrip LKthing OB thinkTO ‘It’sthatwheneverIthinkofthetriptoThailand2 sugu sono koto ga omoiukabu n desu. immediately that thing SUB comeup NOMBE that[experience]immediatelycomesuptomymind’

In (6), to is used to refer to “a regular, recurring” association between thetwopropositions(JordenandNoda1990:52).ThefirstpropositionreferstothinkingofhertriptoThailand,andthesecondtotheepisodeofbeingaskedwhysheaskedthetime.Throughtheuseofto,sheexpressesnotonlytheorderinwhichone event evokes the secondbut also that evocationhasoccurredrepeatedly.Thus,theassociationbetweenthetwopropositionsdoesnotreferto a particular single occurrence in the past, rather it has formed a regularassociation.Turning next to the two tokens of the connective suru to in J-1 and J-5

spokennarratives,acloseexaminationofeachtokenrevealsthatassociationbetweentwoeventsformssomedegreeofregularity.Inthefollowingexample,

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 113

Jiro recalls amemorable episode ofmiscommunication inFrance — hewasignoredbysalespeopleataduty-freeshopwhenheusedEnglish insteadofFrench.

(7)1 Sorede ano: . . kore mo Andthen FL this too ‘Andthenuhm..thistoo2 atokara sono toki wa sitta n desu kedomo later that time TOP know-PF NOM BE but Ilearned[it]afterwardatthattimebut3 etto furansu de kaimono-suru toki ni FL France in shopping-do time at Uhmwhen[I]doshoppinginFrance,4 ikinari boku wa koo eego de suddenly I TOPlike Englishin ThethingisthatIsuddenlyspokeinEnglish,5 koo dadada tte syabettyatta wake desu yo. like ONO QT speak-PF NOM BE IP spokelikeamachinegun,youknow.6 Soo suruto mukoo ga zenzen koo thatway do-TO theotherSUB atall like Upondoingso,thethingisthatthey7 hannoo-site kurenai wake desu ne. reaction-do give-NEG NOMBE IP wouldnotrespondatall,youknow.’

Theassociationbetween thefirsteventeego dekoo dadada tte syabettyatta ‘speakinglikeamachineguntoaclerkinEnglish’(line5)andthesecondeventhannoo-site kurenai ‘theywouldnotrespond’(line7)inthisparticularcontextistreatedasarecurringoccurrence.Noticethatbeforetellingthesetwoevents,Jiroframestheeventsasaformulathathelearnedaftertheepisode.Inlines1and2,hestates,...kore mo ato kara sitta n desu kedomo‘...thistooIlearneditafterwardatthattimebut’,wherekore‘this’indicatessomekindofroutinethatatouristshouldexpecttohappenasarule.Inline3,hereferstotheactofshoppingusingthenon-pasttense,suru toki ni‘when[I]doshopping’,anditpartiallyrevealsthathisorientationtotheepisodeatthemomentofinteractionwasmoreofsharingalessonhelearnedthantellingastoryofwhathappenedinthepast.AndthelessonhelearnedisthatifoneusesEnglishtospeaktoasalespersoninFrance,onegetsignored.Inaddition,itcanbeinferredthathisattemptataddressingasalespersonwasnotjustaone-timeoccurrencebutthatheattemptedmorethanonce.Inline7,heusesnon-pasttenseinreferencetothesalesclerk’s lackof response:hannoo site kurenai ‘wouldnot respond’,

114 Suwako Watanabe

whichindicatesheframedtheresultingeventasregularizedoccurrence.More-over,laterinhisnarrativeheframestheincidentwiththeperfective,saying,Nankai eego de itte mo koo . . ano zenzen ripurai nakatta n desu yo‘Nomatterhowmany times I spoke to them inEnglish, therewas no reply’.Thus, in(7),althoughJirowasreferringtotwopasteventsthathappenedinacertainsequence,hewas framing the twoeventsasa regularizedand recurringse-quenceandasageneralizedeventthatpeoplecanexpecttoseewhentheygotoFrance.

Suru towasalsousedbyKeiko(J-5)inherspokennarrative,butagainwhenweexaminethecontextinwhichitisused,itisnotusedtoconnectpasteventsthathappenedinthestory.Priortothefollowingexcerpt,KeikohadtoldthatherThai friend invitedher togoonapicnicwithhis friends,andshe talksaboutherexpectationwhenoneisinvitedtogoonapicnic.

(8)1 De tomodati: And friend ‘Andotherfriends,2 hoka no tomodatitati mo sasotte iku kara other LK friends too invite-GERgo CAU [he]wouldinviteotherfriendstoo,so,3 tte iu koto de QTsay thing BE-GER hesaid,and4 A wakatta toka itte Oh understand-PF like say-GER “Oh,okay,”[I]said,and5 ano: de suruto hutuu wa toozen ano: FL and do-TO usual TOPnaturallyFL Uhm,andthen,[ifthat’sthecase]usuallynaturallyuhm6 nan-zi ni zya syu- koko ni atumatte what-timeat then syu here at gather-GER wewouldgettogetheratsuchandsuchtimeand7 nan-zi ni syuppatu-site what-timeat leave-GER leaveatsuchandsuchtime,8 tte iu no ga . . kimatteru daroo to . . QT say NOM SUB decided TNT QT thingslikethatwouldhavebeenarranged,9 omou zya nai desu ka. think BE NEG BE Q onewouldthinkso,wouldn’tyou.’

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 115

Lines1–4in(8)refertotheexchangebetweenKeikoandherThaifriendthatactuallyhappened,but lines5–9(whentogatherandleave)express theex-pectedprocessofarrangementbasedonherexperience.SheexpectedthatherThaifriendwouldarrangeatimeandlocationtomeether,butwecantellthatit didnothappen.Sheconfirmsand justifies the expectationwith the inter-viewerbyadding,omou zya nai desu ka‘onewouldthink,wouldn’tyou’(line9).Thus,suru tointhiscaseconnectsapremiseandanexpectedcourseofac-tionaccordingtothespeaker’snormalexperience.Inthissection,theanalysesoftointhespokennarrativesrevealedthattois

usedtorefertonon-pasteventsandthat,evenwhenitisusedtorefertopastevents,thespeakersviewtheassociationbetweenthetwoeventsasaregularlyoccurringone.

4.3. Tara and to in spoken and written narrative

Whenwecloselyexaminetheplaceoftaraandto(includingtheconnectiveconstructionofeach)inspokenandwrittennarratives,theyappearinsimilarpointsinthestories.Bothtaraandtoexpresssomekindofsurpriseandtheyappearclosetoapointinthenarrativewhereanunexpectedeventisabouttohappen.Bothtaraandtoreferringtopasteventsexpressthatthefirstevent+(sosi)tara/(suru)toisfollowedbytheeventthatisunexpectedorcontrarytowhattheprotagonisthadexpectedorknew.Wemightsaythattheeventfol-lowing(sosi)tara/(suru)toconstitutesapunchline.Masako’sspokenandwrittennarrativesabouthertriptoVenicepresenta

perfectparallelofthetwomodesdepictingthedramaticsceneinherepisode.WhenMasakoarrivedatthehotelinVenice,shewastoldtogotoanotherhotelbecausetheoriginalhotelwasoverbooked.Inexamples(9)and(10)shere-lateshersurprisewhenshegottothesecondhotelroominspokenandwrittennarratives,respectively.

(9)1 Ano: itte mitara FL go see-TARA ‘Wellwhenwewentupandsaw,2 san-gai made wa erebeetaa ga atta n desu kedo 3rdfloorupto TOP elevator SUBexist-PF NOM BE but uptothethirdfloor,therewasanelevator,but3 yon-kai made wa rasen-kaidan . . de 4thflooruptoTOP spiralstaircase BE-GER uptothefourthfloor,itwasaspiralstaircase,and4 agatte mitara goup-GER see-TARA whenwewentupandsaw

116 Suwako Watanabe

5 yaneurabeya datta n desu attic BE-PF NOM BE itwasanattic.6 [Interviewer] Ara ma: Oh wow [Interviewer]Oh,my.’

(10)1 Tokoroga erebeetaa wa san-gai made sika naku however elevator TOP 3rdfloorupto only NEG ‘However,theelevatoronlygoesuptothethirdfloor,and2 miruto yon-kai ewa nazeka see-TO4thfloorto somehow whenwelookedaround,tothefourthfloor3 rasen-kaidan ga tuzuiteiru no desu! spiralstaircaseSUB lead-GER NOM BE leadsaspiralstaircase!’4 Omoi suutukeesu o motiagete heavy suitcase OB lift-GER ‘Liftingupourheavysuitcasesand5 nantoka yon-kai no heya ni tadoritukuto, somehow 4thfloor LK room to reach-TO whenwemanagedtoreachtheroomonthefourthfloor,6 soko wa nanto, yaneurabeya de wa arimasen ka! thereTOPsurprisinglyattic BE NEG Q isn’titindeedanattic!’

The two examples (9) and (10) clearly illustrate the parallel between thespokenandwrittennarrativesintermsofhowtaraandtoareusedinasimilarplaceinastory.Bothtaraandtoareusedrightbeforeanunexpected,dramaticturnofeventhappens.NoticethatMasakoinheroralnarrativecreatesasus-pensefulfeelinginthescenebypresentingthedegreeofdisappointmentintwosteps: First she introduces her slight disappointmentwhen she saw a spiralstaircaseinsteadofanelevator(lines1–3in[9]).Andtheninlines4and5in(9),shepresentsthebiggersurprisewhenshefoundoutherhotelroomwasgoingtobeanattic.Bothtaraandtoareusedimmediatelybeforebetrayalofherexpectation.SimilarlyJiro’susesofsositarainthespokennarrativeandsuru tointhe

written narrative demonstrate a perfect parallel in that they share the samefunction, i.e., the connectives lead to revelation of a newsworthy event (orinformation). In examples (11) and (12), Jiro relates that aFrenchmanap-proachedandaskedhimwhatwasgoingonwhenhewashavingaterribletimegettingasalesperson’sattention.TotheFrenchmanJiroventshisresentment

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 117

and frustration.Then, Jirouses sositara/suru to topresent apunch linede-liveredbytheFrenchman.

(11) (Jiro’soralnarrative)1 Koo otoko no hito ga koo yottekite Likemale LKpersonSUBlikecomeclose-GER ‘Like,amanlikecameclosetous,2 de “Doo sita no:?” toka itte and how do-PF NOM QT say-GER and,“What’sthematter?”hesaid,and3 “Ya” a ano eego de well oh FL English in “Well,”oh,youknow,inEnglish,4 de “Zitu wa koo eego de . . and fact TOP like English in so,“ThethingislikeinEnglish,5 ma Furansugo syaberenai n de well Franch speak-NEG NOMBE-GER well,Ican’tspeakFrench,so6 eego de itteru n da kedomo Englishin say-PRG NOM BE but I’vebeentalkingtotheminEnglish,but7 dakara zenzen hannoo-site kurenai kara so atall reaction-do-GER give-NEG CAU so,theywouldn’trespondtousatall,so8 koo atama kiteru n da” like head come-PRG NOM BE we’relikeangry.”9 mitai na koto itta n desu yo. like LK thing say-PF NOM BE IP Isaidsomethinglikethat.10 Sositara “A sokka:” toka itte SOSITARAoh so-Q QT say-GER Then,hegoes,“Oh,Isee,”11 “Yoku aru n da yone koko wa ne” toka itte often exist NOMBEIP here TOPIP QT say-GER “Thingslikethatoftenhappenhere,youknow,”hesaid.’

(12) (Jiro’swrittennarrative)1 Nihongo de, “Anona:” to kutibasitteimasita. Japanese in C’mon QT blurtout-PRG-PF ‘IwasblurtingoutinJapanese,“C’mon.”

118 Suwako Watanabe

2 Sonna toki yasasi-soo na that timekind-lookingLK Atsuchamoment,akind-looking3 furansu-zin no dansee ga yattekite France-personLK man SUB came-GER Frenchmancametous,and4 kono ken’aku na zyootai o sassite ka this tense LK situation OB discern-GER Q maybediscerningthistensesituation5 zyookyoo o kiite-kite kuremasita. circumstance OB ask-come give-PF askedusaboutthecircumstance.6 Motiron eego desita. ofcourseEnglishBE-PF Ofcourse,itwasinEnglish.7 Wareware wa ikki ni makusitatemasita. We TOPone-breath in spout-off-PF Wespoutedoffinonebreath.8 “Wareware wa furansugo ga syaberenai si, we TOPFrench SUB canspeak-NEG and “WecannotspeakFrench,and9 koko wa yuumee na kesyoohinten na node here TOPfamous LKcosmeticstore LKCAU thisplaceisafamouscosmeticstore,so10 eeigo ga tuuziru daroo to omotte EnglishSUBcommunicable TNT QT think-GER thinkingthatthey’dprobablyunderstandEnglish,11 hazime kara eego de hanasikaketa n desu yo!” to beginning fromEnglishin talk-PF NOMBE IP QT wetalkedtotheminEnglishrightfromthestart!”wesaid.12 Suruto sono dansee wa niya tto waratte SURUTOthat man TOPONO QT laugh-GER Then,thatmangrinned,and13 yoku sonna koto ga aru n desu yo, oftenthatkindthing SUB exist NOM BE IP Thatsortofthingoftenhappens,youknow,14 furansu de wa to. France in TOP QT inFrance,hesaid.’

Inboththespokenandwrittenexcerpts,JiroconveyshowfrustratedhewasbeforetheFrenchmanappeared.Heusesinline8of(11)Atama kiteru n da

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 119

‘we’re...angry’inhisspokennarrative,andinthewrittennarrative,Ano naa‘C’mon’(line1,[12])andKen’aku na zyootai‘tensesituation’(line4,[12]),bothofwhichdenotethathisangerwasabouttoreachtheboilingpoint.How-ever,theFrenchmanrepliedthatitoftenhappened,implyingthatJirowasnotthefirstandonlyvictim.Theconnectivessositaraandsuru tofunctiontosig-nalapivotalpointwherethepersonwhoistoblameshiftsfromthesalespersonwhohadbeenignoringhimtoJirowhohadnaivelyassumedthathecouldgetbywithEnglish.InJiro’sstory,sositaraandsuru tolinktotheanswerofthequestion,“WhydidthesalespersonignoreJiroandhisfriend?”Althoughtheanswerdoesnotimmediatelyfollow,theFrenchman’sinitialutterancethatwhatJirowentthroughhappenedalotleadsustoexpectanexplanationtofollow.Insum,both(sosi)tarainspokennarrativeand(suru) toinwrittennarrative

functiontoguidetheinterlocutortoanticipateanunexpected,dramaticresult.

4.4. Difference between tara and to

What,then,isthesubstantivedifferencebetweentaraandto?Inaddressingthisquestion,Isuggestthatwemustconsidertheinteractionalenvironmentofthestorytellerwhorecreatesapastexperienceinthetwodifferentcommunica-tionmodes:speakingandwriting.Thedifferencebetweentaraandtoseemstobedirectlyrelatedtothedifferenceintheinteractionalenvironmentandcon-straintsofthestorytellerinspeakingandwriting.Whenorallytellingastory,thetellernormallyrecreatesastoryworldasifs/ heexperiencesitforthefirsttime.AsChafe(1994)notesthattheamountofinformationactivatedbytheteller is limited in part due to physical and cognitive constraints, the tellerstagesapastexperienceinlinearfashion,oneshortsegmentatatime,follow-ing thefootsteps that theprotagonistwalked through.The taraconstructionaffordsthetellertheopportunitytoeffectivelysuspendmomentsthatcanbeexperiencedbytheinterlocutorwholistenstothestory.Thenatureoforalin-teractionrequiresthetellertorelyontara,whichsuspendsprogressionofastoryandcreatesthefeelingofsuspensioninthelistener.Themoresuspendedthelistenerfeels,themoreanticipationincreases.Inaddition,theuseoftaracreatesthefeelingofreal-lifeexperienceasitassumescompletionoftheverbmarkedbytara,andthissenseofsharedexperienceisonlymeaningfulwhentheinterlocutorisco-presentwiththeteller.Therequirementofthespeaker’sfirst-handexperienceintheuseoftarais

compatiblewithoralcommunication.Inthecurrentstudy’snarratives,thefivenarratorstoldtheirexperiencesastheprotagonist.Thelistenerhearsastoryfromthespeakerwhoisalsotheprotagonist,andthereisnodetachmentbe-tweentheonewhoexperiencedtheeventandtheonewhoreportsit.Thelis-tenerexperiencestherecreatedpasteventasifseeingitthroughthelensoftheprotagonist’seye.Inotherwords,thelistenergetsonaridewiththeteller.With

120 Suwako Watanabe

the recreated past experience comes the sense that the protagonist had nocontroloverwhatwouldhappeninthenextmomentandnoknowledgeabouthowthestorywouldend.Kuno(1973)explainsthattarainreferencetopasteventsdenotesthespeaker’slackofcontroloftimingforthesequencebetweenthetwoevents.Theeffect isunexpectednessorsurprise.The taraconstruc-tioncreatesa stagebuilding toaclimax thatanticipatesablankslot that istobefilledwithsomedramatic,unexpectedevent.Andtheinnocenceandun-controllabilityintensifiestheclimaxofthestory.Thelistenerisco-presentwiththespeaker;taracreatesasenseofsharedexperienceofthesuspendedmo-mentbeforethedramaticresult.Inwriting,asChafe(1994)pointsout,thewriterhasmoretimeforplanning

andrevising.Thewriterhasasmuchtimeasnecessarytoplanastory,recallingmosteventsthathappenedinthestoryandselectkeyevents.Intheprocessofrecalling,thetellerdetacheshim/ herselffromtheprotagonist’sroletoanalyzeandevaluateevents.Thetellerthenmosttypicallytakesanomniscientnarra-tor’sperspective.Sincethetellerisnotunderthesamecognitiveconstraintsasinspeaking,s/ hecanlayouteventsinasequencethateffectivelyleadsuptoaclimaxand,then,aresolution.Inthisprocess,thetellerintegratestwoevents,thefirstoneofwhichpromptsthesecondclimacticevent,asonechunk.Kuno(1973:194)pointedout“[...]S2mustrepresentanevent that thespeakercouldobserveobjectively.”Thetellerisnolongeraninnocentprotagonistbut,astheomniscientnarrator,isawarethattwoseeminglyunrelatedeventshap-penedinsuccessionandthesecondeventissomethingunexpectedorsome-thingthatmeritsreaders’attention.Ratherthanrelyingontara,whichpresup-posestheco-presenceofaninterlocutor,thenarratorusesthetoconstructionstohelpthereaderfocusontheanticipatedturnofevent.AsHasunuma(1993)associatestowiththeliterarynarrativegenre,thisob-

jectiveobserver’sstancecoincideswiththewritingprocessinwhichthetellerdetaches him/ herself to rearrange recalled information. In otherwords, theprocessofwritinginvolvesfirstmentallyrecallingandprocessingpastexperi-encebeforewritingitout.Inthisprocess,asuccessionoftwoeventswherethesecondevent representsunexpectedness is integrated intoaunit.Thewriterconnectstwoeventswithto,askingtheleadingquestiontothereader,“Whatdoyouthinkhappened?”Aresolutionthenensues.Insteadofexploitingtheon-holdfunctionoftara,thetellerinawrittennarrativecallsthereader’sat-tentiontoaconsequenceexpressedinthesecondclause.Thetoconstructionin a sense functions as a guiding voice to pose the question, “Guesswhathappened?”Thedifferencebetweentheprotagonist’sviewpointandtheomniscientnar-

rator’sviewpointisanalogoustothedifferencebetweenexperienceofa3-Dmazebyactuallywalkingthroughitandlookingatamaze-likepuzzleonatwo-dimensionalmaterialsuchaspaper.Whenwalkinginamaze,wecannot

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 121

seetwoturnsahead,andwehavetodealwithoneturn/corneratatime.Notknowingwhattocomenexthelpscreateaheightenedsuspense.Inspokennar-rative,thetellerinvolvesthelistenerintothethree-dimensionalstoryworldsothelistenercanexperiencereal-lifeexcitementcomingfromtheunknownstatethat is experiencedby theprotagonist.Whenwe lookat a two-dimensionalmaze,wecancaptureafewcornersinoneglance.Inawrittennarrative,thefeelingofexcitement isproducednot throughthesharedexperienceofsus-pendedactionsbecausethereaderismuchfasterthanthetimeinwhichtheactionsoccur.Thewriter,instead,rapidlydirectsthereader’sfocusonadra-maticandsignificantresolution,and,atthesametime,thewriterisstillabletodramatizeapunchlineinsteadofmerelyreportingapastevent.Theconstruc-tionsoftoandsuru toworkasacohesivedevice,directingthereader’satten-tiontoanticipateadramaticresolutionwithoutbeingtogetherwiththereader.

5. Conclusion

This study shows that a storytellermay reproducea climacticmoment in astorydifferentlydependingoncommunicativemode,andthedifferenceintheperspectiveiscloselyrelatedtothelinguisticchoiceofthetwotemporalcon-nectivestaraandto.Inwrittennarrative,thewriterdetacheshim/ herselffromtheprotagonist’sviewandusestheomniscientnarrator’svoice.Intheprocessofrecallingandreorganizingpastexperience,thewriterinternalizesaprompt-ingeventandaclimacticeventasoneunitandusestoasacohesivedevicetoprompt the reader’s attention to adramatic, unexpected result.Whenorallytellingastory,thetellerusesthetaraconstructiontoheightenthefinalstageofsuspensewiththeexpectationthatsomethingunusualwillhappen.Theexami-nationoftheconstructiontointhespokennarrativesrevealsthatitisusedtorefertoeventsthathavebeenadoptedintothespeaker’sknowledgeasarecur-ringeventorgeneralizedlesson.This is indicativeof the integrationof twoeventsintooneunitthatunderliestheuseofto.Thecurrentstudyanalyzedhowthestorytellerconveysclimacticeffectin

Japaneseandshowedthatcommunicativemodeplaysacrucialroleinlinguis-ticchoice.Howcommunicativemode(speakingandwriting)affectsthewaysinwhichpeopleprocess informationandmemories toencodemessagesde-servescross-linguisticanalysisandanalysisofvariousgenres.ThenarrativedatainthisstudyweretakenfromfivenativespeakersofJapanese,sothefind-ingscannotbegeneralized.However,thedatawereelicitedsuchthattheusesoftaraandtorefertothesamepastexperiencesandcanbecomparedbetweenthespeakingandwritingmodes.Anothersignificantfeatureofthedataisthefactthatinallthenarrativesthetellerwastheprotagonistwhoexperiencedtheeventsfirst-hand.Thedetachmentoftheteller’sstancefromtheprotagonist’s

122 Suwako Watanabe

inwritinghasbeensharplycontrastedtotheoverlapofthetwostancesintheoralinteraction.Themicroanalysesofthelinguisticenvironmentswherethetaraandtoconstructionsareusedhaveshedsomelightonthesubtledifferencebetweenthetwoconstructions.Theanalysesinthisstudyhavealsoprovidedsome insight into the processes viawhichone’s experientialmemory is re-trievedasarecreationofsomepastexperience,asopposedtomemoryretrievalasgeneralizedtruth.Thissuggeststhatweadaptourorientationtomemory,information,andknowledgeaccordingtointeractionalenvironmentsandgoals.

AppendixA:Japanesegloss

TheabbreviationsfortheJapaneseglossareasfollows.SomeofthemhavebeenadoptedfromMaynard(1993:24).

BE thecopula“be”CAU causalconnectiveFL filler(e.g.,ano:andeeto)GER gerundiveformIP interactionalparticle(e.g.,neandyo)LK linker(noandnalinkingaphrasetoanominal)NEG negativeNOM nominalizer(e.g.,n,no,andwakethatnominalizeaclause)OB objectmarkerONO onomatopoeticexpressionPF perfectivePRG progressiveform(verb+iru)Q questionmarkerQT quotativemarkerSUB subjectmarkergaTNT tentative(darooanddesyoo)TOP topicmarkerwa

AppendixB:Transcriptionconventions

Theconventionsfortranscriptionareasfollows.

.. anoticeablepauseshorterthanasecond: elongatedvowelsound-betweenwords a compound word consisting of two or

morewords-attheendofalinguisticelement aglottalstoporabruptcuttingoffofsoundunderlinedpart indicatesapointofananalysis

Climactic effect markers in Japanese narrative 123

Notes

* Iwould like to thank the anonymous reviewerswho provided insightful comments. I amdeeplyindebtedtoPatriciaWetzelwhohelpedrevisethispaper.Allerrorsremaininginthestudyaremine.

1. Syntacticallytoisaparticletolinkanounphrasetoanother(neko to inu‘acatandadog’)ortoaclause(Kodomo to itta‘Iwentwithakid’),anditmeans‘and’or‘with’.Toalsohasaconditionalmeaningwhenitisprecededbyanon-pastclauseasinTaberu to nemuku naru ‘Ifyoueat,youget sleepy’.Thecurrentpaper isconcernedwith towhen it isprecededbyaclause.

2. TheRomanizationsysteminthisstudyhasbeenadoptedfromJordenandNoda(1987)andissimilartokunrei-siki.

3. AccordingtoChafe(1982,1994),themajordifferencesbetweenspeakingandwritingcanbesummarizedas follows.Spokendiscoursehappensspontaneouslywith the interlocutorco-presentinthesituationwherecommunicationtakesplace.Andspokendiscoursetendstobefragmentedinsmallunitsoflanguage.Writingoftentakesplacewherereadersarenotpresentatthetimeofwriting,andthereismuchtimetointegrateideasintoasinglesentence.

4. ItisnotclearhowthestorieswereproducedasFujii(1993:12)states,“Storydatawereelic-itedbyapicturestory-book[....]”Onthebasisofthedistalstyleandthelackofinterlocu-tor’sbackchannelsintheexamples,Iassumethatthedataarewrittenstories,ratherthanorallyretold.

5. Similarly,Toyoda(1979)discussessemanticconstraintsintheuseoftoashakken‘discovery’,whereS1indicatesastateorasituationinwhichthediscoverytakesplaceandS2aconditionora thing that is/wasdiscovered.Aconditionora thing tobediscoveredrequires thedis-coverertoeitherseeorphysicallymovetoaplacewheretheconditionorthingexists.Hayase(2009)findsaparallelbetweendanglingparticiplesinEnglishandtoinJapanese.ShestatesthatS1priortotoandthedanglingparticipleexpressaprocessinwhichaspeakerperceivesachangeinastate,andthechangeisrepresentedbythemainclauseS2.

6. Theoriginalpurposeofcollectingthenarrativeswastocompareadegreeofdifferencebe-tweenspokenandwrittennarrativesproducedbyJapanesenativespeakersand learnersofJapanese.Thus,onlyfivenativespeakerswereinvolved.

7. Amongthefiveparticipants,onepersonchosetotypehernarrativeonacomputer,andtheotherfourhand-wrotetheirnarratives.

References

Chafe,Wallace.1982. Integration and involvement in speaking,writing, andoral literature. InDeborahTannen(ed.),Spoken and written language,35–53.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Chafe,Wallace.1994.Discourse, consciousness, and time.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Fujii,Seiko. 1993.On the clause-linking to construction in Japanese. InPatriciaClancy (ed.),Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 2,3–19.Stanford,CA:CSLI.

Halliday,M.A.K.&RuqaiyaHasan.1976.Cohesion in English.London:Longman.Hasunuma,Akiko.1993.“Tara” to“to”nozizitutekiyoohooomegutte [On the factualuseof“tara”and“to”].InTakashiMasuoka(ed.),Nihongo no zyooken hyoogen[Conditionalexpres-sionsinJapanese],73–97.Tokyo:Kurosio.

Hayase,Naoko.2009.Kensui-bunsikoobunodooki-zukeru“uti”nositen[Internalperspectivethatmotivatesdanglingparticiple].InAtsuroTsubomoto,NaokoHayase&NaoakiWada(eds.),

124 Suwako Watanabe

“Uti” to “Soto” no Gengogaku[Linguisticsfromtheperspectiveofinternalandexternalsub-jectivity],55–97.Tokyo:Kaitakusha.

Iwasaki,Shoichi.1993.Subjectivity in grammar and discourse.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Jorden,EleanorH.&MariNoda.1987.Japanese: The spoken language, part 1.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Jorden,EleanorH.&MariNoda.1990.Japanese: The spoken language, part 3.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Kuno,Susumu.1973.The structure of the Japanese language.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.Labov,William.1972.Language in the inner city.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Maeda,Naoko.2009.Nihonno no Hukubun[ComplexsentencesinJapanese].Tokyo:Kurosio.Masuoka,Takashi.1993.Nihongo no Zyooken Hyoogen [Conditionalexpressions inJapanese].Tokyo:Kurosio.

Maynard,SenkoK.1993.Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Nattinger,JamesR.&JeanetteDeCarrico.1992.Lexical phrases and language teaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

NihongoKizyutuBunpoKenkyukai.2008.Gendai Nihongo Bunpo[ModernJapanesegrammar].Tokyo:Kurosio.

Ono,Tsuyoshi&KimberlyJones.2009.Conversationandgrammar:Approachingso-calledcon-ditionalsinJapanese.InJunkoMori&AmyS.Ohta(eds.),Japanese applied linguistics,21–51.NewYork:Continuum.

Schiffrin,Deborah.1987.Discourse markers.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Tannen,Deborah(ed.).1982.Spoken and written language.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.Toyoda,Toyoko.1979.Hakkenno“to”[“To”ofdiscovery].Nihongo Kyoiku[Japaneselanguageeducation]36.91–105.

Uehara,Satoshi.1998.PronoundropandperspectiveinJapanese.InNorikoAkatsuka,HajimeHoji,Shoichi Iwasaki,Sung-OckSohn&SusanStrauss (eds.),Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 7,275–289.Stanford,CA:CSLI.

SuwakoWatanabereceivedherPh.D.inlinguisticsfromGeorgetownUniversityandiscurrentlyProfessorofJapanese.Herresearchinterestsincludediscourseanalysis,pragmatics,andlanguagepedagogy/assessment. She authored “Cultural differences in framing:American and Japanesegroupdiscussions,”inFraming in Discourse(Tannen,1993)andco-authored“TheacquisitionofJapanesemodalityduringstudyabroad,”inJapanese Modality(PizziconiandKizu,2009).Ad-dressforcorrespondence:DepartmentofWorldLanguagesandLiteratures,PortlandStateUniver-sity,P.O.Box751,Portland,OR97207-0751,USA⟨suwako@pdx.edu⟩.

Copyright of Text & Talk is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.