Japanese complementizers: Interactions between basic characteristics and contextual factors

ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621

www.elsevier.nl/locate/pragma

Japanese complementizers: Interactions between basic characteristics

and contextual factors

Satoko Suzuki*

Macalester College, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55105, USA

Received 17 April 1997; revised version 25 October 1998

Abstract

In the present study basic characteristics of the major complementizers in Japanese, to, koto, and no, are delineated using the notions of the domains de dicto and de re (Frajzyngier, 1991; Frajzyngier and Jasperson, 1991) as well as those of potential vs. actual (Bolinger, 1968) and concept vs. percept (Bolinger, 1974). To is characterized as [+de dicto] while koto and no are considered as [+de re]. Koto and no are further divided into [-actual] and [+actual], respectively. After the basic characterizations of each complementizer, the interactions of the characterizations and contextual factors are explored using authentic discourse as data. The role of context is considered not peripheral but essential. Many puzzling examples that exhibit behaviors of complementizers contrary to their characterizations discussed in previous studies are accounted for by taking into consideration contextual factors such as the degree of speaker's conviction regarding the reality of the information expressed in the complement, the speaker's distance from the information, and rapidity of the speaker's processing of the information. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords. Japanese; Complementizers; Contextual variables; De re vs. De dicto; Quotation markers

My thanks go to Akio Kamio for extensive discussions on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. All errors are my own. A short version of this paper was presented at the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference at Free Uni- versity, Amsterdam, 1997. * E-mail: [email protected]

0378-2166/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0378-2166(99)00112-5

1586 S. Suzuki / Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621

1. Introduction

There has been significant progress in the study of complementation. Major studies such as Bolinger (1968, 1974), Giv6n (1980), Frajzyngier (1991, 1995), and Fra- jzyngier and Jasperson (1991) made clear that the selection of a particular complement type in a particular sentence is not a matter of mechanical operation, but rather is dictated by the function(s) that a complement type fulfills.

In the field of Japanese linguistics functional analyses have also flourished. The studies which discuss major complementizers, to, koto, and no, include Kuno (1973), Inoue (1976), Josephs (1976), N. McCawley (1978), T. Yamamoto (1986), E. Yamamoto (1987) and Quinn (1994). There are also studies which focus on differences between koto and no (e.g., Kageyama (1977), Hirakooji (1977), Kudoo (1985), Makino and Tsutsui (1986), Horie (1990, 1991a,b), Hashimoto (1990, 1994), Makino (1996) and Shinzato (1996). 1

Many of these studies concentrate on properties of the main clause predicates and attribute the constraints on complementizer choice mostly to the properties of the predicates. For example, Kuno (1973) concludes that factive predicates only allow koto and no as the complementizer whereas nonfacitve predicates occur with to. The present study takes the following position. Properties of the main clause predicates obviously play a central role in determining what complementizers are used. How- ever, the actual distribution of complementizers cannot be accounted for only in terms of the properties of the predicates. For example, as will be shown later, factive predicates, which are supposed to take either koto or no according to Kuno 's analysis, can take to in certain contexts. In order to explain such cases, it is necessary to take context into consideration. 2

There have been some attempts to incorporate considerations of context into the analysis of Japanese complementation. For example, in discussing differences between koto and no, E. Yamamoto (1987) cites the following sentences. 3,4

1) a. Watashi wa Hanako ga furoba e oriteitta n o o shitte iru. I TP SB bath to went-down CP OB knowing am Kanojo to rooka de surechigatta kara dearu. she with hallway in passed because is 'I know that Hanako went down to the bath. This is because we passed each other in the hallway. '

Other studies which examine complementizers in Japanese include Terakura (1980), Maynard (1984), and Akatsuka (1985). 2 Kuno (1973) does refer to some contextual factors. For example, in his discussion of the verb kitaisuru 'expect', he notes that the verb takes no (as opposed to koto) when the subject is more strongly convinced that what is expressed in the complement will come true. 3 Note the abbreviations used in the literal glosses: AV (adverbial marker), CP (complementizer), FL (filler), FP (final particle), LK (linker), NM (nominalizer), OB (direct object marker), PN (pronoun), QT (quotation marker), SB (subject marker), TG (tag expression), TP (topic marker). Although some complementizers function as nominalizers and others as quotation markers, they are glossed as complementizers unless there is need to note the other functions. 4 The translations are copied from Shinzato (1996).

S. Suzuki/Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621 1587

b. Watashi wa Hanako ga furoba e oriteitta koto o shitte iru.

I TP SB bath to went-down CP OB knowing am Yadoya no bantoosan kara soo kiita kara dearu. inn of clerk from so heard because is 'I know that Hanako went down to the bath. This is because I heard so from the inn clerk.' (E. Yamamoto, 1987: 79)

The second sentence in (la) gives background information on the first sentence. It illustrates that the information represented in the no-clause in the first sentence is acquired directly by the speaker. On the other hand, the second sentence in (lb) shows that the information marked by koto in the first sentence is obtained by hearsay. Although these illustrations are insightful and intuitively 'feel ' correct, the reader cannot help but wonder if what Yamamoto portrays with these examples really occurs in the language. The majority of studies which touch upon contextual factors, like Yamamoto's, do so with examples that the researchers themselves gen- erate. 5 Even though they provide important first steps toward incorporation of context into analyses of complementation, their claims should be verified with observations of actual behavior of complementizers in order to be convincing.

Based on the views expressed in the above two paragraphs, the present study is organized in the following manner. The first part discusses basic characteristics of the major complementizers. Specifically, to is associated with the domain of speech while koto and no are associated with the domain of reality, following the distinction made in Frajzyngier (1991) and Frajzyngier and Jasperson (1991). Further, koto and no are distinguished in terms of the notions of potential vs. actual (Bolinger, 1968) 6 and concept vs. percept (Bolinger, 1974). These characteristics are mostly deduced from the observations of co-occurrence patterns of the complementizers and main clause predicates. In addition, reasons behind the associations between the complementizers and the domains (e.g., why to represents the domain of speech) are explored.

The second part discusses contextual factors that influence the choice of the complementizers. Discussion in this section includes examination of examples which cannot be easily explained in terms of the basic characteristics discussed in the first part of the paper. Three contextual factors are identified: conviction, distance from information, and information processing. After illustrating the relationships between each contextual factor and complementizers, it will be shown that these relationships can be ultimately attributed to the basic characteristics of the complementizers.

Most of the data used are taken from naturally occurring discourses. When an example is obtained from written texts, a reference is given at the end of the example. No reference means that the example is taken from taped conversations. When examples are generated by myself in order to highlight certain contrasts, it is noted

5 Kudoo (1985) is a notable exception. 6 Kageyama (1977: 67) relates Bolinger's notion of potentiality with koto and the notion of actuality with no. N. McCawley (1978: 195-196) also cites Bolinger (1968) and observes that there are similarities between the English -ing and the Japanese complementizer no.


((6) and (7) are the only such examples). Other researchers' examples are cited as well.

2. Basic characteristics of the complementizers

2.1. To vs. koto and no

Frajzyngier and Jasperson (1991) propose a tripartite distinction of complementizers in English. They state that the complementizer that marks the complement clause as belonging to the domain of speech (the domain de dicto) whereas gerun- dive and infinitive clauses belong to the domain of reality (the domain de re). The domain de dicto is defined as referring to "a semantic domain in which reference is made to the elements of speech" (Frajzyngier and Jasperson, 1991: 135). On the other hand, the domain de re refers to the elements of reality. In the system of reference anaphoric pronouns belong to the domain de dicto by definition since they refer to elements that were or are going to be mentioned in speech while deictic pronouns are in the domain de re.

Frajzyngier (1991) focuses on the domain de dicto. Using data not only from English but also from other languages such as Mupun, he suggests that the encoding of the distinction between the domain de dicto and the domain de re is a universal phenomenon. He observes that in some languages complementizers which belong to the domain de dicto are derived from (remote) demonstratives (e.g., that in English). In other languages complementizers are derived from verbs of speaking (e.g., cewa 'saying' in Hausa).

Frajzyngier states that clauses marked by complementizers after verbs of saying belong to the domain of speech. This is true analytically since these complementizers follow verbs of saying. When they occur with other types of verbs, they indicate indirect evidence (i.e., inference) and thus, doubt in truth since there is a strong sense that "information obtained through speech is not as reliable as information obtained through direct observation" (Frajzyngier, 1991: 227).

In light of this discussion regarding the contrast de dicto vs. de re, which complementizers in Japanese belong to which domain? It is clear that to belongs to the domain of speech. It is the most common complementizer to be used with verbs of saying and thinking as shown below.

(2) lma, taibatsu wa kanarazushimo zettai ni warui now physical-punishment TP necessarily absolute AV bad wake dewanai to iimashita. reason is-not CP said 'I just said that physical punishment is not necessarily absolutely bad.' (Kishida, 1993: 65)

(3) Tashika uchi no ryooshin ga kekkonshita toki da to almost-certainly home LK parents SB married time is CP

S. Suzuki / Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621 1589

o m o u k a r a ...

think so 'I think that it is almost certainly (the year) when my parents got married, so

With respect to the origin of to, Kindaichi et al. (1993: 1111) notes that it is derived from a demonstrative. Yamanaka (1976: 378) states that to was originally a demonstrative which meant 'that', and developed from the same morpheme as that from which so of s o r e ' that' and sa of s a r e b a ' then' are derived. Thus, Japanese follows the cross-linguistic tendency that de d i c t o complementizers are derived from demonstratives.

Frajzyngier (1991:231-232) notes that in conversational Mupun the verb of saying sa t is often missing as in (4).

(4) w u r na i

he CP yes 'He (said) yes.' (Frajzyngier, 1991: 232)

The verb is understood, however, because of the presence of the complementizer na.

In this sentence na is used as an independent marker of the de d i c to category. Simi- larly in Japanese if a sentence appears without the verb but with the complementizer to, the missing verb is understood to be that of saying as in (5).

(5) K o n y a k u c h u u n i i c h i b a n t a i s e t su na no wa , j i b u n no h o n t o o no

during-engagement in most important LK PN TP self LK real LK koe o k i ku k o t o d a to y o s h i h i r o - s a n .

voice OB listen NM is CP Ms.-Yoshihiro ' "The most important thing to do while being engaged is to listen to your real voice", (says) Ms. Yoshihiro.' ( M o r e , Dec. 1995: 360)

When to occurs with verbs other than verbs of saying, it may indicate inference like other de d i c t o complementizers. The following examples are self-generated to show the contrast between to and no, which is a de re complementizer. 7

(6) W a t a s h i w a k a r e g a s o n o h a n z a i o o k a s h i t a to mi ta .

I TP he SB that crime OB committed CP saw 'I saw/judged that he committed that crime.'

(7) W a t a s h i w a k a r e g a s o n o h a n z a i o o k a s h i t a n o o mi ta .

I TP he SB that crime OB committed CP OB saw 'I saw him commit/committing that crime.'

7 The direct object marker o is required after no as well as koto. 0 does not accompany to. This point will be discussed later.

1590 s. Suzuki / Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621

Even though the information expressed in the complements is the same and the same predicate mita 'saw' is used in both of the above examples, (6), which has to as the complementizer, means that the information is inference whereas in (7) the no- marked complement is interpreted to represent an actual incident.

The preceding discussion demonstrates that to represents the domain de dicto. In the following discussion this trait of to will be referred to as having the [+de dicto] feature. [+de dicto] also means [-de re] (i.e., not belonging to the domain of reality). Appropriate for this label, to occurs with predicates which explicitly indicate that the information expressed in the complement is not real such as kanchigaisuru 'make the wrong guess', as pointed out by Kuno (1973), and yomichigaeru 'misread' as shown below.

(8) Ikko no gitaigo dearu to yomichigaete mo shikata ga nai. one LK phenomime is CP mistaking even way SB exist-not 'One cannot help it even if people mistake it for a phenomime.' (Inoue, 1981 : 212)

Regarding koto and no, Kuno (1973) points out that predicates whose meaning is such that the information in the complement represents rea!ity (e.g., omoidasu 'recall ') occur with them as shown below.

(9) Kizuato nitsuite wa anata jishin ga sore o mite ukeireru koto ga scar about TP you self SB that OB looking accept CP OB dekiru madeni sukoshi jikan ga kakatta koto o omoidashite kudasai. able until a-little time SB took CP OB remembering please 'As for the scar, please remember that it took you some time until you can look at it and accept it.' (Chiba, 1988: 189)

(10) Sugu ni kare wa watashi ga suimin busoku ni nayamasarete, me ni soon AV he TP I SB sleep lack by being-bothered eyes in juuketu o okoshite iru no o omoidashita. bloodshot OB having am CP OB remembered 'Soon he remembered that I was bothered by the lack of sleep and that my eyes were bloodshot.' (Chiba, 1988: 70)

Koto and no also occur with predicates which express reaction to an event/situation which is considered to be real as shown in the following examples.

(11) Ano kotachi no hahaoya dearu koto ga sugoku ureshiishi, jishin mo those children LK mother be CP SB very happy-and confidence also motte imasu. having am 'I am happy and confident to be the mother of those children.' (More, Jan., 1993: 147)

(12) Marude aza no yoo na kuroi shimi ga, me no shita ya hoo ni as-if birthmark of like LK black stain SB eye of under and cheek on


arawareta no ni wa bikkurigyooten'itashimashita. appeared CP by TP extremely-surprised 'I was extremely surprised that black stains that looked like appeared under the eyes and on the cheeks.' (Ito, 1992: 38)

birthmarks

This suggests that koto and no belong to the domain of reality. Thus, there is a division in the system of Japanese complementation in which to has the feature [+de dicto] while koto and no are characterized as [+de re]. Kuno (1973) describes the contrast between to on the one hand and koto and no on the other as the contrast between nonfactivity and factivity. In the present study the opposition [+de dicto] vs. [+de re] is adopted, rather than the opposition nonfactivity vs. factivity, for two reasons. First, as will be discussed later, since Kuno's analysis attributes the distribution of the complementizers to the factivity/nonfactivity feature of the main clause predicates, it cannot handle cases in which factive predicates occur with to or cases in which nonfactive predicates occur with koto or no. Second, as the following example shows, koto occurs in sentences in which the information represented in the complement is yet to be a fact.

(13) Watakushi wa kanojo ga shoorai erai gakusha ni naru koto o I TP she SB future great scholar AV become CP OB kitaishite imasu. expecting am 'I expect that she'll become a great scholar in the future.' (Josephs, 1976: 336)

The complement of (13) depicts a situation which is yet to be realized. Thus, it could not be called factive. Frajzyngier's description of the domain of reality includes cases in which the complement refers to a potential situation.

Why is the particular complementizer to chosen to represent the domain de dicto? Similarly, why are koto and no appropriate in the domain de re? The answer to the first question is obvious. To is used as a quotation marker. It functions to report what somebody says, which belongs to the domain de dicto. How about koto and no as the representatives of the domain de re? Again, the answer lies in the function that the complementizers have. Both koto and no nominalize the clause preceding them. The clause plus koto or no is treated as a noun phrase in a sentence. Therefore, it (the combination of a clause plus koto or no) fills the position within a sentence which is normally filled by a noun phrase, directly followed by a postpositional particle. This is why the object marking particle o follows koto and no when they mark a complement which is the object of the matrix predicate. To does not require any postpositional particle. Giv6n (1980) compares different complement types of English predicates which denote cognition such as those below.

(14) a. He knew of her coming. b. He knew that she came.

(15) a. He thought of her coming. b. He thought that she came. (Giv6n, 1980: 367)


Giv6n notes that (a) sentences tend to express stronger certainty on the speaker 's part than (b) sentences. Observing these English data as well as data from other languages such as Ute and Sherpa, he concludes that the more nominal-like the complement type is, the more certain the speaker is about the reality of the information expressed in the complement. His generalization applies to Japanese complement types as well. Koto and no, which nominalize the complement, are used when the speaker is certain that information represented in the complement refers to reality (or potential reality) while to, which does not transform the complement into a noun phrase, is used when the information in the complement is based on inference or is treated as false. 8

The fact that koto and no, but not to, are followed by the direct object marker o is also significant in another sense. Munro (1982) observes that in many languages quotation-ascribing verbs have some intransitive characteristics and that the quotations they introduce are often very different from normal objects. In other words, what is quoted is not well integrated into the matrix sentence as one of its argu- ments, the object of the verb. 9 Since to functions as a quotation marker, Munro 's cross-linguistic observation about quotations explains why to is not followed by the direct object marker o. In addition, to-marked complements have other syntactic characteristics that are similar to those of independent sentences. For example, a to-

marked clause may have a final particle at the end. The clause may be a request, command, or question. These characteristics suggest that a to-marked complement is not integrated well into the rest of the sentence (see Suzuki (1996) for more detailed discussion on the independence of to-marked complements). On the other hand, a koto- or no-marked clause may not have a final particle at the end and may not be a request, command, or question. The subject of the clause may be marked with a genitive particle no as well as a nominative particle ga. These characteristics are shared by other embedded clauses such as relative clauses (see Kageyama (1977) for a more detailed discussion on similarities between koto- and no-marked clauses on the one hand and embedded clauses on the other). This suggests that a koto- or no-marked complement is well-incorporated into the sentence in which it occurs.

The degree of grammatical incorporation is correlated with the degree of conceptual incorporation. Haiman (1989:134) says that quotations "are entities which exist in a different conceptual framework from the material in which they seem to be embedded. Their failure to undergo incorporation is then an instance of the general iconic principle that linguistic distance reflects conceptual distance (Haiman 1985)." Haiman's remark about quotations applies to to-marked complements in Japanese. To-marked complements are not grammatically incorporated because they are not conceptually incorporated into the speaker's belief system (i.e., the speaker has doubts about the information, believes that the information is false, or has not processed the information properly). On the other hand, koto- or no-marked complements are

8 There are some exceptions to these generalizations. They will be discussed later in the paper. 9 Munro's work is inspired by Partee (1973: 418) who concludes "the quoted sentence is not syntacti- cally or semantically a part of the sentence which contains it".

s. Suzuki / Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621 1593

grammatically well incorporated since they represent what the speaker regards as real (or potentially real) and thus are conceptually well incorporated.

2.2. Koto vs. no

Frajzyngier and Jasperson (1991) further divide de re into two domains: potentiality and actuality. This division is based on the semantic contrast between for-to and -ing complements observed in Bolinger (1968). Bolinger explains the following minimal pairs by associating the infinitive with potentiality and -ing with actuality ('reification' in his term).

(16)

(17)

a. I like him to be nice to you. b. I like his being nice to you. (Bolinger, 1968: 123) a. I sensed him to be a bit uncertain (and sure enough he told me later he had

been). b. I sensed his being a bit uncertain (and acted to reassure him immediately).

(ibid.: 124)

Bolinger says that (16a) is used where one's wish that someone will be nice is expressed while (16b) is used where someone's actual behavior is referred to. Simi- larly, the complement of (17a) refers to an unconfirmed suspicion. On the other hand, the information represented in the complement of (17b) is treated as an actuality. He argues that this characterization of two types of complementation explains why certain predicates tend to occur with them. Verbs such as want, wish, hope, and expect take the infinitive because they "apply to unrealized possibility" whereas verbs such as enjoy, visualize, detest, understand, and deny take -ing because they "apply to actualities or to possibilities conceived as actualities - literally or metaphorically they reify the action" (Bolinger, 1968: 127).

In his 1974 paper Bolinger discusses another type of semantic contrast: conceptual vs. perceptual. Concept is defined as referring to "our hold on facts, and includes knowing, believing, proving, judging, [...] and similar meanings" while percept is defined as referring to "our laying hold of sense data, and includes seeing, hearing, observing, perceiving, and the like" (Bolinger, 1974: 65). This contrast is also correlated with two types of complementation: to-infinitives and bare infinitives. The following contrasting sentences are explained using the conceptual vs. perceptual opposition.

(18) a. Can you show it to happen? (Can you demonstrate - cause to be apprehended - the fact that it does?)

b. Can you show it happen? (Can you demonstrate the actual happening?) (19) a. I sensed it to work magic on the mind. (I apprehended that it had that

power.) b. I sensed if work its magic on my mind. (I perceived the actual working.)

(Bolinger, 1974:67 [emphasis provided by SS])


It seems that these two kinds of semantic contrasts (potential vs. actual and conceptual vs. perceptual) are related to each other. As Bolinger's use of the word actual in the explanations of (18b) and (19b), which are examples of percept, indicate, actuality and percept are closely connected with each other. One can only per- ceive what actually occurs. On the other side of the coin, potentiality and concept share the characteristic of not being actual. According to Bolinger, these two notions are signified by the same linguistic form in English, to-infinitives.

In Japanese potentiality and concept seem to be encoded by koto-marked complements. As Josephs (1976), Kudoo (1985), and others point out, koto occurs with predicates which express future events/situations (futuritive predicates (Josephs' term) and ishi dooshi 'volition verbs' (Kudoo's term)) as shown below.

(20)

(21)

Shizue ni cha o irekaeru koto o meij i te oite, to tea OB make-new CP OB ordering doing-in-advance

'After ordering Shizue to make some tea .. . . ' (Kudoo, 1985: 46) Kangaete mo shikata no nai koto na no de kinishinai koto ni thinking even way SB not-exist thing LK NM being not-mind CP AV kime .... deciding 'Since it won't be solved by thinking about it, she decided not to mind it and...' (Kanai, 1995: 8)

The salient feature of the sentences with these predicates is that those in the complement take non-past forms which have the meaning of future time. The desired or proposed event is a potential reality but is not as yet an actuality. Associating koto with potentiality is compatible with the fact that koto occurs with these predicates. Hashimoto (1990) notes that both koto and no occur with predicates whose complements refer to taishoo to naru kotogara 'matters that are objects', while when only koto occurs with predicates whose complements refer to seisansareru kotogara 'matters that are produced'. For the latter category, he lists predicates such as omoitsuku 'hit upon (a plan)', keikakusuru 'plan', sengensuru 'declare', haj imeru 'begin', suishinsuru 'promote' as well as futuritive predicates discussed by Josephs and Kudoo. Notice that seisansareru kotogara 'matters that are produced' also refer to potentially real, but as yet unactualized events.

Koto is also associated with conceptualization since it occurs with predicates which designate mental activities as shown below.

(22) Sokode, j ibun no shi no kanoosei kara wa akumade then self LK death LK possibility from TP persistently toobooshitsutsu too, tanin no shi o ka imamiru koto niyotte, while-escaping even other LK death OB glimpse NM by j ibun ga ikiteiru koto o kakuninshi . . . . self SB living CP OB confirm-and 'Then, even while persistently escaping from the possibility of one's own death, one confirms that s/he is living by catching a glimpse of others' death and ...' (Kishida, 1993: 187)


(23) Tsumesho no setsumei de otto ga zetsubooteki dearu station LK explanation by husband SB not-hopeful is koto o Satoko wa rikaishita hazu deatta. CP OB TP comprehended supposed was 'Satoko was supposed to have understood from the station's explanation that there was no hope for her husband.' (Kudoo, 1985: 46)

Because of its association with potentiality and conceptualization, both of which denote non-actuality, koto may be characterized as [-actual].

On the other hand, no is best described as [+actual] since, as pointed out by Josephs (1976) and others, the use of no is compatible with verbs of sense perception (e.g., miru 'see', kiku 'hear'), of discovery (e.g., mitsukeru 'find', t sukamaeru

'catch'), of helping (e.g., tasukeru 'help', tetsudau 'assist'), and of stopping (e.g., tomeru 'stop', seishisuru 'stop'), all of which denote that the event/action expressed in the complement is actualized. Some examples are given below.

(24) Susumu-san to nihonjin no jose i ga dakiatte netsuretsu na kisu o Mr.-Susumu and Japanese LK woman SB embracing passionate LK kiss OB shite ita no o mokugekishi . . . . doing were CP OB witness-and 'He witnessed Susumu and a Japanese woman embracing and exchanging a passionate kiss ...' (Kanai, 1995: 63)

(25) Otooto ga nagurarete iru no o tasukenai to wa, doo yuu younger-brother SB being-beaten is CP OB not-help QT TP how say koto da. thing is 'What do you mean you don't rescue your younger brother (who was) being beaten up?' (Fujiwara, 1991: 126)

Why is koto chosen to represent [-actual] ? Why is no associated with [+actual] ? As Horie (1991a,b) argues, the choice seems to be motivated by the complementizers' original lexical meanings. Koto as an individual noun refers to abstract entities. The first meaning given in Koojien, a widely used dictionary (Shinmura, 1983:881), is ishiki shikoo no taishoo no uchi, gushooteki kuukanteki de naku, chuushooteki ni kangaerareru mono 'among objects of awareness or thought, things that are not concrete or spatial, but are thought of as abstract'. Because of this meaning, koto is appropriate in encoding [-actual].

As for no, Horie (1991b) notes that in Classical Japanese the morpheme was a pronominal replacing concrete entities as shown in the following usage.

(26) Sendo sochira e wataita no ha nanto shita zo. a-while-ago that-place to gave PN TP how did FP 'As for the one (which) I gave you a while ago, what has become of it?' [no replacing a previously occurring shiromono 'an article'] (Yanagida, 1985: 147)


If no was associated with concreteness in its prior usage, it is easy to see how it comes to acquire the feature [+actual].

The following is recapitulation of the basic characteristics of the complementizers discussed in Section 2.

(27) a. to: [+de dicto] ([-de re]) b. koto: [+de re], [-actual] c. no: [+de re], [+actual]

3. Contextual component

3.1. Introduction

The occurrence of complementizers in the following sentences can be easily accounted for by the characterization of each complementizer that was discussed in the last section.

(28) Nyuuinshite mamonaku, taiin chokuzen no being-hospitalized soon leaving-hospital tight-before LK kanja ga hidarigawa o shujutsushita noni migite de patient SB left-side OB operated even-though right-hand with j i ga kakenai to yuu n o o kiite dokiritoshita koto character OB not-able-write CP say CP OB hearing was-shocked experience ga aru. SB exist 'Soon after I was hospitalized, I had the experience of being shocked after hearing a patient who was about to leave the hospital say that even though she had the operation on the left side, she couldn't write with her tight hand.' (Chiba, 1988: 99)

(29) Riyuu ga nan deare, nihonjin ni wa ningen no nakami yorimo sotogawa reason SB what being Japanese to TP people LK inside than outer no raberu o juushisuru keikoo ga tsuyoi koto wa LK label OB attach-importance tendency SB strong CP TP inamenai deshoo. not-able-deny probably 'Whatever the reason, one probably could not deny that Japanese people have a strong tendency of attaching importance to an outer label of a person rather than his or her inside content.' (Chiba, 1985: 29)

The occurrence of to right before the predicate yuu 'say' in (28) can be explained by to's [+de dicto] character. Since the complement expresses verbal information, the presence of to, which belongs to the domain of speech, is compatible with the complement. The complementizer no belongs to the domain of reality and represents actuality. In (28) the verb of perception kiite 'heating' takes no. This is consonant


with no 's [+de re]/[+actual] property. The complement of (29), nihonjin ni wa nin-

gen no nakami yor i mo so togawa no raberu o juushisuru keikoo ga tsuyoi ' Japanese people have a strong tendency of attaching importance to an outer label of a person rather than his/her internal content' , refers to an abstract concept. The use of koto to mark the complement is appropriate since koto is associated with abstractness ([+de r e ]/[-actual ] ).

In this way the basic characterization of the complementizers is effective in elu- cidating certain uses of the complementizers. However, there are some cases which are difficult to explain by using just the basic characteristics of each complementizer. First, there are certain predicates which can take any of the three complementizers. For example, the predicate kizuku 'notice ' can take to, koto, or no. How does the speaker decide which complementizer to use? It is not immediately clear how the inherent character of each complementizer accounts for the selection.

Second, there are instances which were actually observed in naturally occurring discourse, but which would be regarded unacceptable if we only used the basic characteristics as our instrument for judgment. Observe the following examples.

(30) Sore wa itsuka kaet te kuru to ikura shitte ite mo that TP some-day returning come CP how-much knowing being even hakkiri miminisuru made kesshite tenihairanai ~jikkan' datta. clearly hear until never not-obtain realization was 'That was the "realization" which could never have been obtained until I heard it clearly even though I knew it well that he was coming home some day. ' (Yoshimoto, 1988: 106)

(31) Ikura watashi ga aishite iru koto o itte mo

how-much I SB loving am CP OB saying even wakat te moraenai no yo. understanding not-receive NM FP 'No matter how often I tell him that I love him, he doesn' t get it.' (More, Dec., 1992: 330)

The complementizer that is co-occurring with the predicate shitte ite 'knowing ' in (30) is to. 1° This cannot be accounted for by referring to the inherent characteristic of to, the property of [+de dicto]. Similarly, the use of koto in (31) is difficult to explain. Koto is a [+de re] complementizer and yet it is occurring with the verb of saying, itte ' saying. ' Since these sentences have actually occurred, an explanation needs to be provided. Reference to the basic characteristics of the complementizers is not sufficient in this regard.

10 It should be pointed out that the verb phrase shitte iru 'know' is in its concessive form shitte ite mo with the meaning of 'even though I know/knew'. The same can be said for wakatte ite mo 'even though I knew' in (32). One of the reviewers observes that other forms of shiru that are compatible with to are another concessive form shitte inagara 'while knowing' and a counterfactual form shitte itara 'if one knew'.


3.2. Explanation which takes contextual factors into consideration

In light of the preceding observation, I would like to propose the following explanation. The selection of a complementizer in actual discourse is determined as a result of the interaction between the basic characteristics of the complementizers and contextual principles, which will be described in this section.

As an illustration, let us take shitte iru 'know' and wakatte iru 'understand, know', which allow all of the three complementizers to co-occur. These predicates, shitte iru and wakatte iru, are derived from shiru 'come to know, find out' and wakaru 'come to understand, find out', respectively. Since shiru and wakaru represent acquisition of knowledge, rather than knowledge itself, in order to refer to the state of knowing something, the predicates have to be stativized by taking the gerund form and adding the predicate of existence iru. The resulting forms are shitte iru and wakatte iru. How do these predicates which express knowledge take all three complementizers? It seems rather unfitting that to, which belongs to the domain de dicto,

occurs with the predicates of knowledge. The notion of knowledge usually assumes that the speaker regards what is known as factual. Thus, predicates of knowledge seem to belong to the de re domain. In fact, Akatsuka (1985:631-632) says that the stativized forms of these predicates do not occur with to. However, as seen in (30), to is found to co-occur with shitte ite (the gerund form of shitte iru) in the authentic data.

Examination of the data reveals that the quality of 'knowledge' varies. The choice of a complementizer appears to be correlated with the strength of the speaker's conviction that the information expressed in the complement reflects reality. When the speaker's conviction is weak (i.e., the knowledge is based on rather shaky ground), to is used. On the other hand, when the speaker is strongly convinced that the information in the complement reflects reality (e.g., the speaker has some evidence on which the knowledge is based), koto or no is used. 11

In (30) to is occurring with the gerund form of shitte iru, shitte ite 'knowing'. The background of this sentence is as follows. A woman is separated from her boyfriend since he had to go to Nepal to help her father's business. She vaguely knew that the boyfriend would be returning home. Right before this sentence, she runs into her father on the street, who returned home briefly from Nepal. He tells her that her boyfriend is

11 AS discussed in section 3.3.3, this generalization (i.e., to is used when the speaker's conviction is weak while koto or no is used when the conviction is strong) does not necessarily apply when predicates of cognition (i.e., acquisition of knowledge) such as kizuku 'notice', shiru 'find out; come to know' and wakaru 'to find out; to come to know' are used. A classic example of this is the following from Kuno (1973: 217), which has been discussed in N. McCawley (1978), Akatsuka (1985), and Yamamoto (1986). To is occurring in a context in which the speaker's conviction is strong.

Watashi wa Mary ga tsunbo da to sono toki shitta. I TP SB deaf is CP that time found-out 'I found out at that time that Mary was deaf'.

Examples (61), (62), and (63) in this paper also show the similar behavior of to. The speaker's conviction is not the only contextual variable that influences the selection of the complementizers. In Section 3.3.3 I argue that in these cases another factor, rapidness of information processing, is relevant.


coming home soon. The complement of shitte ite, itsuka kaettekuru 'he will be coming home someday', refers to this vague knowledge that the speaker had. It is contrasted with j ikkan 'realization' (the literal translation of Japanese would be 'real feeling') that she obtained by hearing it firsthand from the father who had intimate knowledge of the situation. In other words, even though she had the 'knowledge' that the boyfriend was coming home, she was not strongly convinced of it. It did not seem real to her.

Another instance in which to (in this case its variation tte) occurs when the speaker is not strongly convinced that the information expressed in the complement reflects reality can be seen in (32).

(32) Ketsueki to seieki kara shika kansenshinai to, ikura atama

blood and sexual-fluids from only not-get-infected CP how-much head de wakatte ite mo, onaji sara no mono o taberu ni wa yuuki ga

in knowing being even same plate LK thing OB eat to TP courage SB itta. was-necessary 'No matter how much I rationally knew (lit. knew in the head) that one gets infected (with AIDS) only from blood and sexual fluids, it took some courage to eat something from the same plate (with an AIDS patient).' (Grazia, May 1997: 229)

The information in the complement, ketsueki to seieki kara shika kansenshinai 'one gets infected (with AIDS) only from blood and sexual fluids' refers to what the speaker knows. However, even though she had the knowledge, she was worried when she was urged to eat something from the plate of an AIDS patient. As the literal translation shows, although she 'knew in the head' that the information is accurate, she was not completely convinced of the reality of the information.

On the other hand, when the speaker is strongly convinced of the reality of the information in the complement, the complement used is either koto or no as shown in the following examples.

(33) (Talking about a newspaper article which did not mention the name of the writer of a report, from which the newspaper article took some information) Tamatama watashi wa sono shuppanbutsu ni me-o-tooshite ita

accidentally I TP that publication to reading was node, sono hookoku no hissha ga Sunada-san dearu koto o

so that report LK writer SB Ms.-Sunada is CP OB shitte ita no d e s u g a . . . .

knowing was NM is but 'I happen to have read that publication, so I knew that the writer of that report was Ms. Sunada, but ...' (Chiba, 1985: 31)

(34) Watashi no otoko tomodachi wa watashi ga onna tomodachi

I LK male friend TP I SB female friend to no ittaiichi no kaiwa o taisetsu ni shite with LK one-on-one LK conversation OB important AV viewing


iru no o shitte iru node...

am CP OB knowing is so 'My boyfriend knows that I value friends, so...' (Chiba, 1988: 151)

one-on-one conversation with my girl-

In (33) the complement, sono hookoku no hissha ga sunada-san dearu ' the writer of the report is Ms. Sunada', is marked with koto. The speaker has the evidence (she read the original report which bore its writer's name) for the information expressed in the complement. Therefore, she has reason to be strongly convinced that the information reflects reality. In (34) the complement marked by no, watashi ga onna

tomodachi to no ittaiichi no taiwa o taisetsu ni shite iru 'I value one-on-one conversation with my girlfriends', refers to the speaker's own values. Thus, the speaker is obviously strongly convinced of the reality of the information.

This distributional pattern of to, koto, and no with predicates of knowledge is a result of the interaction between the inherent characteristics of these complementizers and the context. There are different kinds of knowledge. With some knowledge we are not completely sure of its validity for one reason or another. Perhaps we do not trust the source from where the information comes. Or the information represents something taken out of a book, and not something we obtain by actually experienc- ing it. Sometimes we are confident that the content of the knowledge is absolutely true because we ourselves checked out the evidence or because the information refers to our own internal feelings. This contextual factor interacts with the inherent characteristics of the complementizers. The basic character of to is that it belongs to the domain of speech ([+de dicto]). Put differently, it does not belong to the domain of reality. Because of this property, it is appropriately used to mark knowledge/information the reality of which the speaker is not entirely sure. On the other hand, both koto and no have the property of representing the domain of reality. Because of this characteristic, they are chosen to mark knowledge/information which the speaker is strongly convinced to reflect reality.

The same interaction can be observed in the case of predicates of speech. In the majority of cases predicates of speech take to. That is natural since to belongs to the domain of speech. However, I found a few cases in the data in which koto occurs with predicates of speech. In what context is koto used instead of the more conven- tional to? Observe the following examples.

(35) lkura watashi ga aishite iru koto o itte mo wakatte how-much I SB loving am CP OB saying even understanding moraenai no yo. not-receive NM FP 'No matter how often I tell him that I love him, he doesn't get it'. (More, Dec., 1992:330 ) (=(31))

(36) Kore wa shujutsu go ni kite ooi ni choohooshita koto o this TP operation after at wearing great AV found-handy CP OB atode noberu. later state


' I will state later that I wore this (type o f clothing) after the operation and found it handy. ' (Chiba, 1988: 93)

In (35) k o t o is co-occurr ing with i t te, the gerund form o f y u u ' s ay ' . The complement marked by ko to , w a t a s h i g a a i s h i t e r u ' I love h im' , refers to the speaker 's internal feelings. In (36) k o t o is found with n o b e r u ' s tate ' . The complement, k o r e w a

s h u j u t s u g o ni k i t e oo i n i c h o o h o o s h i t a ' I wore this (type o f clothing) after the operation and found it handy ' , represents the speaker 's own experience. Thus, in both of these examples, the speaker is strongly convinced of the reality of the information. This can be explained in terms of the interaction between the basic character of k o t o

and the context. K o t o is chosen in the context in which the speaker is strongly convinced that the information in the complement represents reality because it has the feature [+de re]. 12

As this illustration shows, the actual distribution of complementizers can be explained only when we take into consideration the interaction between the inherent characteristics o f complementizers and contextual principles, which are pragmatic in nature. In the following sections three types of contextual variables are discussed: conviction (which has already been partially described), distance from information, and information processing.

3.3. C o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s

3 .3 .1 . C o n v i c t i o n

What was discussed in the last section with regard to predicates o f knowledge and speech belongs to a larger picture. Explanation using the contextual principle which involves the speaker 's conviction is not limited to these types of predicates. In describing the speaker 's conviction regarding the reality of the information expressed in the complement, the following degrees can be observed.13

12 Kudoo (1985) cites the following example in which a predicate of speech hanasu 'tell' is co-occurring with no.

Soshite konogoro no yoo ni Matsuzoo ga fui ni kuru koto no aru and these-days of like AV SB sudden AV come thing SB exist no o chichioya ni hanashitara ... CP OB father to when-told 'And when (I) told my father that these days there are times when Matsuzoo unexpectedly comes over ...' (Kudoo, 1985: 49)

This occurrence of no can also be explained in terms of the speaker's conviction. Although I searched extensively for such an occurrence of no with a predicate of speech in the data

I collected, I did not find any. On the other hand, there were quite a few instances of koto occurring with predicates of speech even though the number is relatively small compared with to. This suggests that between koto and no, both of which are unconventional options with predicates of speech, the occurrence of koto is more frequent. This may be explained by koto's [-actual] nature. Since it is 'less real' than no, it is more compatible with predicates of speech, which are inherently [+de dicto] and thus [-de re]. ~3 As one of the reviewers noted, the hierarchy represented in (37) is similar to N. McCawley's (1978: 178) "hierarchy of 'truth'", which is reproduced in (i). The order is reversed so that it can be easily compared with (37).


(37) a. The speaker be l i eves that the i n f o r m a t i o n does no t ref lect rea l i ty b. The speaker is no t sure whe the r the i n f o r m a t i o n reflects real i ty c. The speaker be l i eves that the i n f o r m a t i o n reflects rea l i ty d. The speaker takes it for g ran ted that the i n f o r m a t i o n reflects rea l i ty

O f these degrees , I f o u n d that to is used in cases (37a-c ) . Koto or no is used in case (37d). 14

(38) and (39) are example s of (37a).

(38) Moshi boku ga kansensha da to wakari , aite ga mada i f I SB i n fec t ed -pe r son a m C P f ind ing par tner SB still kansenshi te inakattara, kyori o okimasu. be ing - in f ec t ed i f - i s -not d i s tance OB place ' I f I f ound out that I a m infec ted (wi th A I D S ) and i f m y par tner is no t yet infected, I w o u l d p lace d i s tance (be tween m y s e l f and the par tner ) . ' (More, Feb. , 1993: 323)

(39) Tsumetai tokoro ni rokunenkan mo umerarete ite taihen cold p lace in s ix-years a s - m a n y - a s b e i n g - b u r i e d be ing hard dattaroo. Demo kuma ya saru to asonde ita to omoitai. m u s t - h a v e - b e e n but bea r and m o n k e y wi th p l ay ing was C P t h i n k - w a n t

(i) a. Ego's knowledge acquired via someone else's knowledge b. Ego's knowledge acquired through the speaker's purely logical reasoning c. Ego's knowledge acquired through the speaker's sensory experiences

The present study is influenced by N. McCawley's work on complementation. However, (37) is different from (i), which is ordered in terms of evidentiality (i.e., how a piece of information is acquired). The degree of the speaker's conviction regarding a piece of information does not necessarily coincide with how directly s/he was involved in acquiring the information. For example, it is possible for a speaker to be strongly convinced of the reality of some information even if that information was acquired by hearsay. The speaker may regard the source of the information as absolutely reliable and take the information as reflecting reality without question. In this sense (37) is distinct from the evidentiality-based hierarchy presented by N. McCawley.

(37) is also distinct from 'the epistemic scale' proposed in Akatsuka (1985: 636), which is reproduced in (ii) with some modifications.

(ii) a. know not (exist x) (= counterfactual) b. not know (exist x) c. get to know (exist x) (=newly-learned information) d. know (exist x)

(37) is very similar to (ii) in that both are ordered in terms of the speaker's degree of conviction regarding the realizability of information. However, (37) is different from (ii) regarding newly-learned information. Akatsuka (1985) uses (ii) to account for behaviors of conditionals. When it is applied to complementizers in Japanese, Akatsuka says that (ii-c), which refers to newly-learned information, is relevant in explaining behaviors of verbs such as shiru 'find out; come to know'. Shiru belongs to a group of verbs which denote cognition such as kizuku 'notice' and wakaru 'find out; come to know'. I am not quite convinced that the behaviors of verbs of cognition are best described using the notion of newness of information. I will argue that it might be better explained in terms of rapidness of information processing in section 3.3.3. Because of this, (37) does not include references to newness of information and thus is distinct from (ii). 14 In marking a subject clause koto and no may be used in case (37c) as well.


'It must have been hard that he was buried in such a cold place for six years. But I would like to think that he was playing with bears and monkeys. ' (Yomi-

uri Shinbun [Newspaper], Nov. 15, 1995: 14)

In (38) the complement clause boku ga kansensha da ' I am infected (with AIDS) ' is located within the antecedent of a conditional sentence and represents a hypothetical situation. When regarding the information as hypothetical, the speaker does not believe that it reflects reality. In (39) the speaker is talking about her grandson who was kid- napped six years ago. His body was found in a mountain not too long before this utterance was made. The information represented in the complement, kuma ya saru to

asondeita 'he was playing with bears and monkeys ' , represents the speaker 's wish. She knows it does not reflect reality. Both of these complements are marked by to.

Such cases are at the extreme end of the conviction scale. One stage closer to the other end of the scale are cases in which the speaker thinks that the information represented in the complement reflects reality, but is not entirely confident as illustrated in the following example.

(40) Tashika ane ga chuugakkoo no

almost-certainly older-sister SB junior-high LK ninensei no toki datta to kiokushite iru.

second-year-student LK time was CP remembering am 'I remember that it was almost certainly when my older sister was a second year student in junior high school. (Miyamoto, 1988: 34)

The use of the adverb tashika 'a lmost certainly' indicates the lack of the speaker 's absolute conviction. 15 The complement used in this case is to as well.

Next in the hierarchy of conviction are cases where the speaker believes that the content of the complement reflects reality. Observe the following example, in which to is used as the complementizer.

(41) Sore dake wa uso dewanakatta, to, boku wa ima demo shinjite iru.

that at-least TP lie not-was CP I TP now even believing am 'I believe even now that at least that was not a lie.' (Miyamoto, 1988:115)

We have seen so far that to is used in a variety of contexts ranging from cases in which the speaker is convinced that the information does not reflect reality to cases in which the conviction that the information reflects reality is fairly strong. When the conviction is even stronger, however, koto tends to be used as in the following example.

15 According to Morita (1989: 639), when tashika is used about matters based on the speaker's memory, the connotation is that "the judgment is based on memory, so it is uncertain, but if the memory is accurate, then the matters (which I assert based on the memory) are for sure to be realized". The original Japanese is handan no konkyo wa kioku nanode futashika da ga, sono kioku ga tadashii to sureba machigai naku seiritsusuru hazu da.

1604 s. Suzuki /Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621

(42) D e m o anata no hoo koso konna katachi de wakare o tsugeru but you LK side indeed this-kind form in farewell OB say j insei nado zettai ni erabitakunakatta koto o omoi, life something-like never AV not-wanted-choose CP OB thinking watashi wa umarete hajimete chooji nado o yomu I TP born first-time memorial-address something-like OB read no desu. NM is 'But, thinking that you never wanted to choose a life that ends like this, I will read a memorial address for the first time in my life.' (Bungei Shunjuu, 1986: 245)

Note that koto is used with the predicate omoi ' thinking'. Predicates which express thought such as omou and kangaeru usually take to as the complementizer. Why is koto used here? Let us look at the background of the utterance. (42) is uttered at the speaker's best friend's funeral. Her friend died in a bomb explosion of an airplane she was on. From the background knowledge that the speaker was the best friend of the deceased and thus, must have known her well, and from common sense that people normally do not wish to die in a bomb explosion, we can be pretty sure that the speaker is strongly convinced of the reality of the propo- sition expressed in konna katachi de wakare o tsugeru j insei nado zettai ni erabitakunakatta 'you never wanted to choose a life that ends like this'. In fact, the speaker is so strongly convinced that the information reflects reality that the realness seems to be taken for granted. The information is treated as a fact. Con- trast this with (41), in which to is used as the complementizer. Although the speaker's conviction that the information expressed in the complement reflects reality is pretty strong in (41), it is not strong enough for the information to be treated as a fact.

The contrast between to and koto when they are used with predicates of thought is shown in the following example.

(43) Kare ga amerika ni ryuugakushite ita koto o kangaeawasereba he SB America to studying-abroad was CP OB if-think-match kanari no shiryoku o yoosuru to omowareru no da ga ... quite LK money OB need CP be-thought NM is but 'When I think (of the fact) that he was studying in the United States, I would think that quite a bit of money is needed, but ...' (Sawaki, 1986: 74)

In (43) the information expressed in the koto-marked complement kare ga amerika ni ryuugakushiteita 'he was studying in the United States' is assumed to be real (hence the translation includes the word 'fact' in parenthesis) while the information expressed in the to-marked complement, kanari no shiryoku o yoosuru 'it needs quite a bit of money' , is not.

No also marks complements when the speaker takes the truth of the information for granted as in the following example.


(44) Toku ni, konnani semai nihon ni ippen no tochi o mochi tagaru

special AV this small Japan in one-piece LK land OB have-want hito ga ooi no wa watashi ni wa nantomo gesemasen. people SB many CP TP I to TP at-all understand-not 'Especially, I could not understand (the fact) that many people want to own a piece of land in such a small country like Japan.' (Chiba, 1985: 205)

Examples (42)-(44) (and also (33)-(36)) show that koto and no tend to be used at the extreme end of the conviction scale (i.e. when the speaker's conviction that the information reflects reality is absolutely strong). On the other hand, examples (30), (32), (38)-(41), and (43) show that to is used when the speaker either does not believe that the information reflects reality, is not sure of it, or believes it but does not believe it strong enough to treat the information as a fact. As discussed in the introduction, this difference in distribution can be explained in terms of the interaction between the basic characteristics of the complementizers and context. Since no and koto have the property of [+de re], they are used when the context is such that the speaker takes the information expressed in the complement as reality. On the other hand, to is used in the context in which the information is not assumed to reflect reality because to 's inherent character is [+de dicto] and thus, does not belong to the domain of reality.

The above analysis, which correlates the speaker's absolute conviction with koto and no and the lack of absolute conviction with to, seems to be similar to the conclusion of Kuno's study of complementizers (1973), which associates factivity with koto and no and non-factivity with to. However, this analysis differs from Kuno's with regard to the attention to context. In Kuno's analysis, for example, if a predicate is considered non-factive, to is assigned as its complementizer. In the present analysis whether a predicate is considered to be factive or non-factive does not deter- mine the selection of a complementizer. Note that factive predicates such as shitte ire 'knowing' in (30), wakat te ite 'knowing' in (32) occurring with to and non-factive predicates such as itte 'saying' in (31) and omoi ' thinking' in (42) occurring with koto were found. The key factor in understanding these examples is the degree of the speaker's conviction, which may be influenced by various factors such as the background of the utterance and the source of the information. When we take into consideration the interaction between the degree of the speaker's conviction that the information reflects reality and the inherent characteristics of the complementizers (to = [+de dicto] and koto/no = [+de re]), we can explain certain uses of the complementizers.

Are there any differences between koto and no in terms of the speaker's conviction? Some researchers seem to think so. For example, Yamamoto's examples (la) and (lb) mentioned earlier suggest that the speaker is more strongly convinced of the reality of the information represented in the complement in the case of no ( la) than in the case of koto (lb). In ( la) the evidence for the information is directly perceived by the speaker whereas in ( lb) the information is obtained by hearsay. Sim- ilarly, Horie (1990) states that in the following minimal pair no is used when the information 'he was telling a lie' is based on direct perceptual data such as his facial


expression while k o t o is used when the information is based on logical reasoning (more indirect evidence).

(45) a.

b.

W a t a s h i w a k a r e g a uso o t su i t e i ru n o g a w a k a t t a .

I TP he SB lie OB telling is CP OB noticed 'I noticed that he was telling me a lie.' W a t a s h i w a k a r e g a uso o t su i t e i ru k o t o g a w a k a t t a .

I TP he SB lie OB telling is CP OB noticed (Horie, 1990: 28)

If these observations made by Yamamoto (1987) and Horie (1990) are correct, it means that n o denotes a higher degree of the speaker's conviction than ko to . When evidence of the information represented in the complement is based on direct perception, it is more likely that the speaker is more strongly convinced of the reality of the information than in cases where indirect evidence is involved. This can be explained in terms of the basic characterization of complementizers. Since n o is [+actual] and k o t o [-actual], no is 'more real' than k o t o and that contributes to the differences in degrees of the speaker's conviction. However, in the data I collected I did not find conclusive data to support this claim. For example, in (31) k o t o marks information that represents the speaker's inner feelings while in (44) the no-clause encodes information that may have been obtained by hearsay. This matter awaits further investigation.

I did find, though, that there are subtle differences between k o t o and no when potential events/situations are concerned. Although no is associated with actuality, it can mark information that represents potential events/situations in certain contexts such as below.

(46) N o b u y u k i w a j i b u n t a c h i no k o d o m o g a u m a r e r u n o o

TP self LK child SB be-born CP OB t a n o s h i m i n i s h i t e i r u s h i . . . .

looking-forward is-and 'Nobuyuki is looking forward to their child being born and ...' (Kanai, 1995: 39)

What is expressed in the complement, the birth of the child, has not happened yet. Why is no used in this context?

Josephs (1976) notes that with predicates of prevention and expectation no can be used if the speaker has a strong conviction that the event expressed in the complement is likely to occur in the near future. K o t o is used when "the speaker has a weaker conviction about the likelihood of the future event" (Josephs, 1976: 335). Thus, in the following minimal pair, no tends to occur when the speaker feels that crime is likely to occur while k o t o is used when the sense of urgency is not present.

(47) a. H a n z a i g a s h o o r a i o k o r u n o o b o o s h i s h i n a k e r e b a n a r i m a s e n .

crime SB future occur CP OB if-not-prevent not-do 'We have to prevent crime from occurring in the future.'


b. Hanzai ga shoorai okoru k o t o o booshishinakereba narimasen.

crime SBfuture occur CP OB i~not-prevent not-do (Josephs, 1976: 335)

In the authentic data collected by Kudoo (1985) I find the following pair of sentences that support Josephs' claim.

(48) a. Gakuchoo ga j iken no shinbunzata ni naru no o

school-president SB event SB mentioned-in-paper AV become CP OB fuseide kureta koto nitaisuru sharei o ... preventing gave CP to reward OB 'The reward to the president of the school for preventing the event from being mentioned in the paper ...'

b. Taishuu o dema ni makikomu koto dake wa fuseganeba masses OB false-rumor in involve CP at-least TP if-not-prevent naranai.

not-do 'We must at least prevent the masses from being involved with the false rumor.' (Kudoo, 1985: 48)

In (48a) the speaker believes that the event expressed in the complement (jiken no shinbunzata ni naru 'the event is mentioned in the paper') was going to come true if it had not been for the intervention by the school president. No is used in this sentence. On the other hand, the sense of certainty is missing in (48b), in which koto is used.

With this perspective in mind, let us look at (46) again. The birth of a child is expected to occur for sure under normal circumstances. Since the speaker is strongly convinced of the likelihood of what is expressed in the complement (i.e., the birth), no is used to mark the complement. In this way koto and no are subtly different from each other when potential situations are concerned. No denotes higher degrees of the speaker's conviction on the likelihood of the event while koto

denotes relatively lower degrees. This can be explained in terms of the complementizers' basic characteristics. Because no has the [+actual] property, the speaker uses no when s/he is treating what is expressed in the complement as if it were already actualized. Thus, the use of no is appropriate in contexts where the event expressed in the complement feels most real (i.e., the speaker is strongly convinced of the likelihood of the event). On the other hand, koto has the [-actual] property, which means that a koto-marked complement represents what holds abstractly or logically. The use of koto suggests that the speaker is treating the event expressed in the complement as merely a matter of logical possibility.16 Thus, koto is appropriate in contexts where the event is felt to be less real (i.e., the speaker has lower conviction of its likelihood).

16 This analysis is due to Akio Kamio (personal communication).


The speaker's conviction is not the only contextual variable that influences the selection of the complementizers. In the following sections other variables are explored.

3.3.2. Dis tance f r o m information Predicates which express the speaker's emotional response (e.g., surprise, shock,

annoyance, happiness, regret) toward the information represented in the complement are compatible with both koto and no. That only koto and no are compatible with these predicates can be attributed to their [+de re] property. An emotional response is given only to things that the speaker considers real. Are there any differences between the use of koto and no? Kudoo (1985) states that there are no differences. Josephs (1976) argues that there are, citing the following examples (Josephs, 1976: 342-343).

(49)

(50)

a. Kanojo ga watto nakidashita no/*koto ni wa heikooshita. she SB loudly started-cry CP by TP was-annoyed 'I was embarrassed that she burst into tears.'

b. Kanojo ga watto nakidashita no/koto ni wa heikooshite iru. she SB loudly started-cry CP by TP being-annoyed am ' I 'm annoyed that she burst into tears.'

a. Kare ga biiru o juppon mo nonda no/*koto ni he SB beer OB ten-bottle as-many-as drank CP by wa odoroita. TP was-shocked 'I was shocked by his having drunk all ten bottles of beer.'

b. Ano okusan ga kodomo o nakasete ita no/koto ni wa that wife SB child OB making-cry was CP with TP

gamandekimasen. can-not-put-up 'I can't stand it how that woman just let her child keep crying.'

(49a) shows that when heikoo suru 'be annoyed, be embarrassed' is used in the past tense (heikoo shita), it allows only no as the complementizer. Koto cannot occur. On the other hand, (49b) shows that when heikoo suru is used in the present (progres- sive) form (heikoo shite iru), it allows both no and koto. Josephs says that koto may be even preferred. Similarly, (50a) shows that odoroita (the past form of odoroku 'be surprised') is compatible with no, but not with koto while (50b) shows that the present form gaman dekimasen 'cannot stand' can occur with both koto and no.

Josephs' explanation of the differences between no and koto in (49) and (50) is this. He characterizes n o as the marker of directness and koto as the marker of indirectness. When a predicate which expresses emotional response is used in the past tense, he argues, it designates "an instantaneous response to a directly experienced event" (Josephs, 1976: 342). Therefore, its complement is marked by no, which is characterized as direct. On the other hand, when a predicate of emotional response is in the present tense, it indicates a delayed response. In other words, it represents "a


continuing emotional state that is not instantaneous and is separated from the stimulus event by a considerable duration of time" (Josephs, 1976: 342). Koto is appropriate with the present tense of the predicate since it is characterized as indirect.

To summarize Josephs' analysis of koto and no in relation to predicates which express emotional response, koto is only compatible with the present tense of the predicates, which indicates that the response is not made instantaneously, since koto represents indirectness while no is compatible with both present and past tenses. I would like to argue that while Josephs' attribution of the differences between koto and no to their basic characteristics is accurate, the differences are not in terms of tense but in terms of psychological distance from information. My argument is based on two reasons. First, Josephs' analysis does not provide an explanation as to why no is compatible with both present and past tenses. If the present tense indicates that the response is not made immediately, then why does no, which is the marker of directness, occur with the present tense?

Second, contrary to Josephs' claim, I found in the data collected for this study instances of koto occurring with the past tense. (51) is one such example.

(51) Watashi yori zutto wakaku, kenkoo ni michiafureta otoko ga, I than much young health in filled man SB omoimokakenai koibito no byooki ni taishite, kooshita taido unexpected lover of disease to facing this-kind attitude o tori, kooyuu kizu o mite kooyuu kotoba o hakeru koto ni OB take this-kind scar OB look this-kind word OB utter CP by kandooshita. was-moved 'I was moved by the fact that a man who is much younger than I and who is quite healthy was able to react in this manner to the unexpected illness of his lover and was able to say these words after seeing this kind of scar.' (Chiba, 1988: 154)

In (51) koto is appearing with kandooshita, the past tense form of kandoosuru 'become emotionally moved'. Thus, Josephs' analysis of koto is not adequate in explaining this example.

Looking at the context of (51) gives us a clue as to why koto is used in this sentence. The speaker of (51) is a middle-aged woman who had breast cancer surgery in which one of her breasts was removed. When she showed the scar to her young boyfriend, he gave her a mature, supportive reaction. (51) describes the speaker's emotional response toward this incident. Considering this background of the sentence, the speaker's emotional response must have involved deliberation of some factors such as the reaction she was expecting from him and the implication of his reaction on their relationship. The speaker is separated from the stimulus by this deliberation. Even though the past tense form is used in the sentence, the emotional response cannot be characterized as direct and instantaneous. It is as if the speaker took a step back from the stimulus and gave a response. She is in this sense separated from the stimulus (his reaction). Josephs said that koto, the marker of indirectness, is


appropriate when the speaker's emotional response is removed from the stimulus by "a considerable duration of t ime" (Josephs, 1976: 342). The context of (51) shows that the separation is not in terms of time. While Josephs' account that koto is used when the speaker is removed from the stimulus is correct, the notion of distance between the speaker and the stimulus is not temporal as Josephs analyzed, but is psychological.

With this perspective in mind, let us look at more examples of no and koto occurring with predicates of emotional response.

(52) Marude aza no yoo na kuroi shimi ga, me no shita ya as-if birthmark of like LK black stain SB eye of under and hoo ni arawareta no ni wa bikkurigyooten'itashimashita. cheek on appeared CP by TP extremely-surprised 'I was shocked that black stains that looked like birthmarks appeared under the eyes and on the cheeks.' (Ito, 1992: 38) (=12)

(53) Amerikajin no Piitaa wa, machi no ichiba de kaimono o suru American LK Peter TP street LK market at shopping OB do toki ni, j ibun no amerika hatsuon o miminisuruya, time at self LK American pronunciation O as-soon-as-heating uriko no taido ga ippensuru no o, fuyukai ni sales-person LK attitude SB change-completely CP OB unpleasant AV omotte ita. thinking was 'Peter, who is American, found it unpleasant that when shopping in street mar- kets, as soon as a sales person hears his American pronunciation, his or her attitude completely changes.' (Fujiwara, 1991: 145)

(54) Sonna girigiri no shinkyoo de ita watashi nitotte, musuko that-kind on-edge of state-of-mind in was I for son ga igirisujin ni ijimerare, bujokusare, haibokushi, naite SB English by bullied insulted beaten crying kaettekuru koto wa, dooshitemo taerarenakatta. come-home CP TP by-any-means could-not-stand 'To me who was feeling like I was at the edge, it was unbearable that my son was coming home crying, bullied, insulted, and beaten by the English kids.' (Fujiwara, 1991: 174)

(55) Kanjusei no tsuyoi shoonen dearu dake hi, Maagarit to sensitivity SB strong boy is especially since Margaret wa chichioya no inai koto o anjiteita. TP father SB not-exist CP OB worried 'Since he is a very sensitive boy, Margaret was worried about his not having a father.' (ibid.: 159)

In (52), in which no is used, the response (shock) is given without deliberation of the stimulus (the appearance of black stains). The response may be described as direct and immediate. The speaker is not removed from the stimulus. Similarly in (53) the


no-marked clause represents the stimulus (the clerk's bad attitude toward the speaker) which prompts a direct response from the speaker (a feeling of unpleasant- ness).

On the other hand, sentences which contain koto with predicates of emotional response seem to involve the speaker's deliberation. The speaker of (54) is staying in Cambridge University doing research in mathematics. Since Cambridge is known for having prominent mathematicians, he is feeling pressure to prove himself. The first phrase in the sentence, sonna girigiri no shinkyoo deita watashi ni totte 'to me who was feeling like I was at the edge', describes this background. His response (feeling unbearable) toward his son's misfortune involves considerations of his own struggle. He is a step away from the stimulus since he is reflecting on his own circumstances. (55) also shows that when koto is used, the speaker is removed from the stimulus by deliberation. The speaker's response (worry) toward the stimulus (her son's not having a father) involves consideration of the fact that the son is a sensitive child, perhaps along with considerations of other social and economical issues.

Summarizing what has been discussed in this section, koto tends to be used when the speaker's emotional response requires that the speaker take a step back from the stimulus and no tends to be used when no such separation is involved. This is another example of the interaction between the basic characteristics of the complementizers and context. As argued earlier, koto possesses the [-actual] property. The information represented in the koto-clause is a non-actualized, conceptualized entity. Conceptualizing an event, rather than merely perceiving it, requires that the speaker distance him/herself from the event. This is why koto is used when the emotional response involves the speaker's taking a step back from the stimulus that triggers the response. On the other hand, no's [+actual] character makes no appropriate for cases where the emotional response is immediate. The event/stimulus is directly perceived as is, rather than conceptualized into an abstract entity.

3.3.3. Information processing This section is concerned with the occurrence of the complementizers with pred-

icates which express cognition such as kizuku 'notice', shiru 'find out, come to know', wakaru 'find out, come to know', and kanjiru 'feel'. As mentioned earlier, these predicates occur with all of the three major complementizers. How does the speaker choose one over the other two?

When information acquired is physically perceptible, koto or no is used as in the following examples.

(56) Soshite, potto ni mada sukoshi ocha ga nokotte ita koto ni and pot in still a-little tea SB remaining was CP OB futo kizuita. suddenly noticed 'And all of a sudden I noticed that there was a little tea left in the tea pot.' (Yoshimoto, 1988: 86)

(57) Tsukue no ue ni chiisana akai kaaten ga taresagatte iru no ni desk LK top on small red curtain SB hanging is CP OB


ki-ga-tsuita. noticed 'I noticed that on top of the desk a small red curtain was hanging.' (Sawaki, 1986: 57)

I did not find in my data any instance of to with physically perceptible information. This does not necessarily mean that to never occurs in this context, but does suggest the rarity of such occurrences.

This distributional pattern of the complementizers with physically perceptible information can be attributed to the basic characteristics of the complementizers. Because to is [+de dicto] and therefore [-de re], it is not appropriate with physically perceptible information, which is closely associated with the domain of reality. Because koto and no both have the property [+de re], they are compatible with physically perceptible information, which also has the property [+de re].

What about information which is not physically perceptible? I found that all of the complementizers are used. How does the speaker make his/her selection? Some instances can be accounted for by the contextual factor of the speaker's conviction discussed in 3.3.1. Observe the following examples.

(58) Kore ga honkon no yado no sooba toshite takai no ka this SB Hong-Kong LK hotel LK market as expensive NM FP yasui no ka wakaranakatta ga, fundakuru to yuu kanji no cheap NM FP knew-not but rip-off QT say sort LK nedan denai koto dake wa wakatta. price being-not CP at-least TP understood 'I did not know if this was expensive or cheap in the Hong Kong hotel market, but I understood at least that it was not a rip-off sort of price.' (Sawaki, 1986: 56)

(59) Choo-kun wa, tagai ni jikoshookai o shita atode, Mr. Cho TP each-other AV self-introduction OB did after watashi ga honkon ni tsuita bakari na no o shiruto .... I SB Hong-Kong in arrived just LK CP OB when-find-out 'When he found out that I had just arrived in Hong Kong after we exchanged introductions, Choo .... (ibid.: 73)

The speaker of (58) has been told the price of the hotel. Therefore, he is strongly convinced that the information ('it was not a rip-off sort of price') reflects reality. The use of koto is consonant with this context. The information in the complement of (59) ('I just arrived in Hong Kong') refers to the speaker's own experience. Since the speaker is usually strongly convinced of the truth of information about what s/he experiences, the use of no can be attributed to the conviction factor.

Similarly, certain occurrences of to can be explained in terms of the conviction factor. For example, the speaker's lack of strong conviction is reflected in the use of to in (60).

S. Suzuki /Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1585-1621 1613

(60) Karera no kooi ni mo riyuu ga nai koto wa nai

they LK kindness to also reason SB not-exist CP TP not-exist rashii to ki-ga-tsuita. seem CP noticed 'I noticed that there also seems to be a reason for their kindness.' (Sawaki, 1986: 103)

Since the auxiliary verb rashii 'seem', which conveys uncertainty, is used in the complement of (60), the occurrence of to can be accounted for by the speaker's lack of conviction.

However, there are examples of to that cannot be attributed to the speaker's lack of conviction as in (61).

(61) Shuppatsu mae no akegata, fu ton no naka de insupireeshon ga departure before LK dawn bed LK inside in inspiration SB hirameita Deki ta. t to kakushinshita. flashed got-it CP felt-convinced 'At dawn of the day I was leaving, the inspiration flashed upon me in the bed. "I got i t!" I felt convinced.' (Fujiwara, 1991: 102)

In (61) the complementizer to is co-occurring with the predicate kakushinshi ta 'felt convinced'. As the lexical meaning of the predicate explicitly expresses that the speaker is strongly convinced of the reality of the information expressed in the complement, this use of to cannot be explained in terms of the conviction factor.

Instead, another variable seems to be pertinent. The speaker of (61) is a mathe- matician and had been struggling with a particular mathematical problem for two days. The moment the inspiration hit him, he knew he solved the problem. The acquisition of the information was made instantly. This instantaneity of acquisition of information is another important factor in understanding to that marks information which is not physically perceptible.

The following examples also show that to is used when information is acquired instantly.

(62) Kono hito, watashi o suki- janai n da na to chokkanshita. this person I OB fond-not NM is FP CP knew-by-intuition 'I (instantly) knew by intuition that he didn't like me.' (Yamada, 1993: 64)

(63) Keredomo soo dewanakat ta no da to kizuita shunkan kara ... but so was-not NM is CP noticed moment from 'But from the moment when I noticed that that was not the case ...' (Miyamoto, 1988: 128)

As the English translation of (62) shows, the predicate chokkansuru ('know by intuition') connotes that the acquisition of information is made instantaneously. In (63) the instantaneity is explicit as the word shunkan 'the moment' is used. In both instances the complementizer used is to.


On the other hand, some instances of koto-and no-marked complements suggest that the acquisition took place over a certain period of time as in the following examples.

(64) Shikashi jikan to tomo ni igirisujin no kokuminsei ya but time with together AV English of national-character and wagaya ga tokubetsu denai koto mo wakattekita. our-family SB special not-be CP also came-to-realize 'But with time I also came to realize the national character of the English and also the fact that our family was not an exception.' (Fujiwara, 1991" 30)

(65) Nagaku yado ni tomatte iru uchi ni, kichoohin no tagui o heya ni long-time inn at staying am while AV valuables LK sort OB room in nokoshite oku koto ni heiki ni natta. leaving put CP with not-care AV became Shujinfuufu mo juugyooin mo, sono ten nikanshite wa manager-couple both employee both that point about TP shinraishite ii koto ga wakatte kita kara da. trusting okay CP OB getting-to-know came because is 'While staying in that inn for a long time, I came to not care about leaving valuables and things of that sort in the room. That is because I came to know that, with respect to that sort of thing, both the manager couple and their employees can be trusted.' (Sawaki, 1986:115)

(66) Shikashi, honkon de nanshuukan ka sugoshite iru uchi ni, but Hong-Kong in several-weeks FP spending am while in kotoba nitsuite wa jibun ga hotondo fuan o motanakunatte language about TP self NM almost anxiety OB having-not iru no ni kizuita. am CP OB noticed 'But while I was spending several weeks in Hong Kong, I noticed that as far as language was concerned, I was almost not worried about it at all.' (Sawaki, 1986: 111)

(67) (While the speaker was listening to Kinjiroo's talk) Boku wa, Kinjiroo ga tsuma o nikunde wa ite mo, koroshite I TP SB wife OB hating TP is even killing made sono nijuu paasento no kabu o teniireyoo to wa even that twenty percent of stock OB trying-to-obtain CP TP kangaete inakatta no o shitta. thinking was-not CP OB found-out 'It became clear to me that even though Kinjiroo hated his wife, he was not thinking about obtaining that twenty percent of stock from her by killing her.' (Miyamoto, 1988: 92)

Thus, it seems that the distribution of to, koto, and no is influenced by how fast information is processed. When a piece of information is acquired instantaneously, to tends to be used while koto and no are likely to be used when the time it takes for the speaker to acquire information is longer than an instant.


How can these behaviors of the complementizers be explained in terms of their basic characteristics? It is of interest that this contextual factor (the rapidness of information processing) pertains only to information which is not physically perceptible. When information is perceived with one of the five senses such as sight, it can be immediately recognized as reality. There is no need to analyze or deliberate about the information. On the other hand, when information is not physically perceptible, it is necessary for the speaker to contemplate the information before s/he can accept it as reality. As if to chew solid food in order to digest it, the speaker needs to deliberate about the information in order to incorporate it into his/her belief system since, unlike physically perceptible information, it is not easily assimilable. When such information is processed rapidly, the information does not become well incorporated into the speaker's belief system. This is why the complementizer to, which has the [+de dicto] and therefore the [-de re] property, is appropriate in such a context. On the other hand, when information which is not physically perceptible is processed over a certain period of time, it has time to be well digested and thus well integrated into the speaker's belief system. The information is fully recognized as reality. In such a context koto or no is used since they have the [+de re] property.

Before I conclude this section, I should mention Akatsuka's work (1985), which briefly discusses complementizer selection in relation to predicates which denote cognition. Akatsuka observes that conditionals can express a wide range of speaker attitudes. They include not only uncertainty ('I don't know if this is the case') and negative conviction ('I know this is not the case'), but also surprise ('I didn't know this until now! '). This analysis allows us to account for examples such as the following.

(68) A: I 'm going to the Winter LSA. B: If you're going, I 'm going, too. (Akatsuka, 1985: 635)

The traditional views which characterize conditionals as hypothetical can not explain why the antecedent of speaker B's conditional sentence is allowed, even though it expresses something that is known to the speaker. In Akatsuka's analysis, newly- learned information can be expressed in conditionals since it represents something that is not completely assimilated. Akatsuka also observes that newly-learned information, or what is considered to be at first a surprise "in time ceases to be so, and becomes assimilated" (Akatsuka, 1985: 635). For example, right after the conversation depicted in (68) if speaker B picks up the phone and talks to his wife, he could not use the conditional form anymore.

(69) I 'm going to the Winter LSA {*if/because/since} Takeda (=Speaker A) is going.

Akatsuka applies this analysis of conditionals to the analysis of complementation. By incorporating the notion of newly-learned information, Akatsuka argues that what is considered by Kuno (1973) to be a puzzling behavior of the complementizer to, which is exemplified in (70), can be explained.


(70) Watashi wa Mary ga tsunbo da to sono toki shitta. I TP SB deaf is CP that time found-out ' I found out at that time that Mary was deaf. ' (Kuno, 1973: 217)

Kuno, who classified to as the nonfactive complementizer, thought it was strange that to was occurring with the factive predicate shitta ' found out'. Akatsuka argued that to can be used when the information it marks is newly-learned because it represents not-yet-internalized information.

Equating the behavior of conditionals with the behavior of the complementizer to

may be problematic. The concept of newly-learned information as it relates to the behavior of conditionals involves the notion of the time of speaking. If the speaker regards the antecedent to reflect reality, then "such an antecedent always expresses new information that has just entered the consciousness of the speaker at the dis-

course site [emphasis provided by SS]" (Akatsuka, 1985: 628). As example (69) illustrates, even right after a conditional form was used, it could not be used again by the same speaker to relay the information to somebody else because the information is already considered to be well internalized. ~7

On the other hand, example (70) can be uttered much later than when the discovery was made. The phrase sono toki 'at that t ime' can refer to an hour or a year prior to the time of speaking. In other words, the 'newness ' of information in the use of the complementizer to is relevant to the time of reference, not to the time of speaking. Thus, the concept of newly-learned information should be interpreted differently in analyzing complementizers from when it is used to account for the behavior of conditionals.

Further, the concept of newly-learned information is inadequate in the face of the fact that all three main complementizers, to, koto, and no, could occur with predicates which express cognition. Predicates of cognition, such as shiru ' to find out; to come to know' and kizuku 'notice ' , if they are used in the non-stativized form, by definition indicate that the information expressed in the complement is newly obtained. Associating the use of the complementizer to with the concept of newly- learned information is thus problematic.

For these reasons, I chose to use the contextual factor of rapidness of information processing rather than Akatsuka's concept of newly-learned information to account for the behavior of complementizers with predicates of cognition. Notice that example (70) can be easily explained in terms of rapidness of information processing. The phrase sono toki 'at that t ime' indicates that the acquisition of information was made instantaneously (or at least during a short time period). This is reflected in the use of to as the complementizer.

~7 The close association between the notion of new information with the time of speaking in general is reflected in the observation made by Delancey (1997) regarding mirativity. He notes that in many languages that mark mirativity, those forms that signify the new status of information are limited to occurrences shortly after the speaker's discovery of the information. Mirativity "is most naturally expressed in present-tense or imperfective constructions, and is susceptible to evidential interpretation when used with past time reference" (Delancey, 1997: 47).


In the preceding paragraphs, I pointed out some problems with using the concept of newly-learned information in the analysis of complementizer selection in contexts where predicates of cognition are used. However, I do not mean to dismiss Akatsuka (1985). I think that the spirit of her proposal is very close to what I discussed in this section. The similarities can be detected in the following passage from her conclusion, which is quoted below.

"Humans, unlike machines which lack the ability to think and feel, do not learn instantaneously; humans need time and experience before they can digest and internalize the acquired information (Akatsuka, 1985: 638). ''18

This passage indicates that Akatsuka is concerned with the notion of digestion/incorporation of information, which I discussed earlier.

Although she uses the term 'newly-learned information' in reference to both conditionals and complementizers, she uses the term 'sudden realization' when she discusses complementizers (Akatsuka, 1985: 632). I think that this latter term more accurately describes the nature of information involved with complementizer selection in question. In her earlier work (N. McCawley, 1978) she describes examples similar to (70) as indicating that "the speaker acquired the new piece of information at that very momen t" [emphasis in original]. This comment indicates that she is aware that suddenness of acquisition of information is the crucial feature which dis- tinguishes cases in which to occurs with predicates of cognition from those in which koto or no occurs.

4. Conclusion

In the preceding discussion I delineated basic characteristics of the major complementizers in Japanese, to, koto, and no, using the notions of the domains de dicto and de re (Frajzyngier (1991); Frajzyngier and Jasperson (1991)) as well as those of potential vs. actual (Bolinger, 1968) and concept vs. percept (Bolinger, 1974). To is characterized as [+de dicto] while koto and no are considered as [+de re]. Koto and no are further divided into [-actual] and [+actual], respectively.

The present study differs from previous studies on complementation in that after basic characterizations of each complementizer are defined, the interactions of the characterizations and contextual factors are explored using authentic discourse as data. The role of context is considered not peripheral but essential. Many puzzling examples that exhibit behaviors of complementizers contrary to their characterizations discussed in previous studies are accounted for by taking contextual factors into consideration.

Contextual variables identified in this study are the degree of speaker's conviction regarding the reality of the information expressed in the complement, the speaker's distance from the information, and rapidity of the speaker's processing of

~8 I would like to thank one of the reviewers for pointing out this quote to me.


the information. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Further investigations which also take a close look at context will probably find more variables.

Note that the variables found in this study all involve the speaker. 19 This emphasis on the speaker is a reminder that language belongs to the speaker. As Haiman

(1991) observes, some language changes are brought about through routine repetition. Through such ritualization, language becomes standardized so that its form becomes relatively autonomous from its original stimulus. In other words, language becomes decontextualized. However, language is capable of being recaptured by the speaker so that it means what the speaker means, rather than something to which s/he no longer attends (R6vai, 1995).

This process (ritualization of language rules through repetition and the speaker 's resuscitation of the original st imulus) is relevant to Japanese complementat ion. For

example, to may have been used at first to refer to the domain of speech because of its original function as a remote demonstrative. Through repetition, to becomes associated with verbs of saying. However, when the speaker wants to mark the complement as something that s/he considers reality, s/he may do so by using the complement izer that belongs to the domain of reality such as with the speaker of (31) (i.e,, she uses koto instead of to with the predicate itte ' say ing ' ) . Similarly, since koto and no are l inked to the domain of reality, they may have come to be regarded as the complementizers that accompany predicates of knowledge. However, when the speaker has the 'knowledge ' but is not entirely sure of the reality of the content of

J9 When the subject of the sentence does not coincide with the speaker and when the speaker does not appear as one of the referents in the sentence, the contextual factors that were discussed in this study seem to be attributed to the subject of the sentence. For example, in (55), which is repeated here, the subject's response (worry) to the stimulus (her son's not having a father) is described. Since the response involves deliberation, the complementizer koto is used. (55) Kanjusei no tsuyoi shoonen dearu dake ni, Maagaritto wa chichioya no

sensitivity SB strong boy is especially since Margaret TP father SB inai koto o anjiteita. not-exist CP OB worried 'Since he is a very sensitive boy, Margaret was worried about his not having a father'. (Fujiwara, 1991 : 159)

Although it looks like the speaker does not play any role in the sentence, we have to remember that it is the speaker who produced this sentence. It is not possible for the speaker not to have any role. Whatever is described in a sentence has to go through the filter of the speaker's perspective. In the above sentence or in any sentence that fulfills the conditions discussed above the speaker identifies with the subject and describes the situation as if s/he were in the position of the subject. Thus, the contextual factors are ultimately attributed to the speaker. This does not apply just to cases of narrative discourse in which the nar- rator is omniscient, but also to non-narrative cases such as (55).

Kuno and Kaburaki (1977) discuss the notion of empathy (i.e., the speaker's identification with a person who participates in the event s/he describes in a sentence) and observes that the speaker is most likely to identify with the referent of the subject of a sentence. There are exceptions to this tendency such as cases in which the predicate kureru 'give' is used. With kureru the speaker empathizes with the referent of the indirect object. Kuno and Kaburaki state that next to the referent of the subject, the referent of the object is the next easiest element with which the speaker can empathize. They also note that the speaker is likely to empathize with human rather than non-human elements. Since sentences with complements discussed in this study have human subjects and non-human objects, it is inevitable that the speaker identifies with the subject.


the knowledge, s/he can signify that by using the complementizer that has the [+de dicto] feature (and thus [-de re]) such as with the speaker of (30) (i.e., she uses to instead of koto or no with shitte ite 'knowing'). The importance of the speaker's role in accounting for the complementizer choice in Japanese reminds us that grammar is a ritualized form of the speaker's thought and that the speaker can and does reclaim language.

References

Akatsuka, Noriko, 1985. Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language 61(3): 625-639. Bolinger, Dwight L., 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2:119-127. Bolinger, Dwight L., 1974. Concept and percept: Two infinitive constructions and their vicissitudes. In:

Kinen ronbunshuu kanoo iinkai, ed., World papers in phonetics: Festschrifl for Dr. Onishi's kiju, 65-91. Tokyo: Sankoosha.

DeLancey, Scott, 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, 1991. The de dicto domain in language. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 219-251. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, 1995. A functional theory of complementizers. In: Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman, eds., Modality in grammar and discourse, 473-502. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Robert Jasperson, 1991. That-clauses and other complements. Lingua 83: 133-153.

Giv6n, Talmy, 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in language 4(3): 333-377.

Haiman, John, 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, John, 1989. Alienation in grammar. Studies in Language 13(1): 129-170. Haiman, John, 1991. Motivation, repetition and emancipation: The bureaucratisation of language. In:

H.C. Wolfart, ed., Linguistic studies presented to John Finlay, 45-69. Winnipeg: Algonkian and Iro- quoian Linguistics.

Hashimoto, Osamu, 1990. Hobun hyooshiki 'no' 'koto' no bunpu ni kakawaru imi kisoku. Kokugogaku 163: 101-112.

Hashimoto, Osamu, 1994. 'No' hobun no toogoteki imiteki seiyaku. Bungei Gengo Kenkyuu, Gengo hen 25: 153-166.

Hirakooji, Kenji, 1977. 'No' no kinoo ni tsuite. Eigo Kyooiku 11: 65-70, 94. Horie, Kaoru, 1990. How languages encode the cognitive notion of directness and indirectness: A typo-

logical study. In: Hajime Hoji, ed., Japanese/Korean linguistics, 61-77. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Horie, Kaoru, 1991a. Cognitive motivations for event nominalizations. In: Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn

Nichols and Rosa M. Rogrigues, eds., Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Lin- guistic Society, 233-245. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Horie, Kaoru, 1991b. Event nominalization in Japanese and Korean: A cognitive perspective. In: Susumu Kuno, Ik-Hwan Lee, John Whitman, Joan Maling, Young-Se Kang and Young-joo Kim, eds., Harvard studies in Korean linguistics IV, 503-512. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Inoue, Kazuko, 1976. Henkei bunpo to nihongo, vol. 1. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Josephs, Lewis S., 1976. Complementation. In: Masayoshi Shibatani, ed., Syntax and semantics, vol. 5:

Japanese generative grammar, 307-369. New York: Academic Press. Kageyama, Taro, 1977. Iwayuru nihongo no 'meishiku hobunji' ni tsuite. Eigo Kyooiku 1 : 66-70. Kindaichi et al., 1993. Nihon kokugo daijiten, vol. 7. Tokyo: Shogakkan. Kudoo, Mayumi, 1985. No, koto no tsukaiwake to dooshi no shurui. Kokubungaku kaishaku to kanshoo

3: 45-52. Kuno, Susumu, 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.


Kuno, Susumu and Etsuko Kaburaki, 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4): 627-672. Makino, Seiichi, 1996. Uchi to soto no gengobunkagaku: 13. No to koto - hikikomi to hikihanashi.

Gekkan Nihongo 9(4): 58-61. Makino, Seiichi, and Michio Tsutsui, 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan

Times. Maynard, Senko K., 1984. Functions of to and koto-o in speech and thought representation in Japanese

written discourse. Lingua 64: 1-24. McCawley, Noriko A., 1978. Another look at no, koto and to: Epistemology and complementizer choice in Japanese. In: John Hinds and Howard Irwin, eds., Problems in Japanese syn-

tax and semantics, 178-212. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Morita, Yoshiyuki, 1989. Kiso nihongo jiten. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Munro, Pamela, 1982. On the transitivity of 'say' verbs. In Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson,

eds., Syntax and semantics vol. 15: Studies in transitivity, 301-318. New York: Academic Press. Partee, Barbara H., 1973. The syntax and semantics of quotation. In: Stephen R. Anderson and Paul

Kiparsky, eds., A festschrift for Morris Halle, 410--418. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Quinn, Charles J., 1994. Uchi/soto: Tip of a semiotic iceberg? 'Inside' and 'outside' knowledge in the

grammar of Japanese. In: Jane M. Bachnik and Charles J. Quinn, eds., Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society, and language, 249-294. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rrvai, J~inos, 1995. Asserting identity. In: Philip W. Davis, ed., Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, 135-152. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Shinmura, Izuru, ed., 1993. Koojien. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Shinzato, Rumiko, 1996. A cognitive analysis of structural dichotomies. Gengo Kenkyuu 109: 1-23. Suzuki, Satoko, 1996. The degree of incorporation of information and complementizers in Japanese.

Pragmatics 6(4): 511-551. Terakura, Hiroko, 1980. Some aspects of complementation in Japanese: A study of to yuu. Doctoral dis-

sertation, University of Wisconsin. Yamamoto, Toshiyuki, 1986. Complement selection and the lexicon in Japanese. Proceedings of the

Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 866-875. Yamamoto, Eiichi, 1987. Ninshiki no yootai to hobun yooshiki. In: Koizumi Tamotsu kyooju kanreki

kinen ronbunshuu, 73-89. Tokyo: Daigaku Shoin. Yamanaka, Joota, 1976. Kokugo gogen jiten. Tokyo: Azekura shoboo. Yanagida, Seiji, 1985. Muromachi jidai no kokuba Tokyo: Tookyoodoo.

Text references

Bungei Shunjuu, ed., 1986. Mukooda kuniko futatabi. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjuu. Chiba, Atsuko, 1985. Chotto okashii zo, nihonjin. Tokyo: Shinchoosha. Chiba, Atsuko, 1988. Nyuugan nanka ni makerarenai. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjuu. Fujiwara, Masahiko, 1991. Harukanaru kenburijji. Tokyo: Shinchoosha. Grazia, May, 1997. Tokyo: Kodansha. Inoue, Hisashi, 1981. Shikaban: Nihongo bunpoo. Tokyo: Shinchoosha. Itoo, Hiromi, 1992. Yoi oppai, warui oppai. Tokyo: Shuueisha. Kanai, Mieko, 1995. Ren'ai taihei ki. Tokyo: Shuueisha. Kishida, Shuu, 1993. Shitto no jidai. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjuu. Miyamoto, Teru, 1988. Hishochi no neko. Tokyo: Koodansha. More, December 1992. Tokyo: Shuueisha. More, January 1993. Tokyo: Shuueisha. More, February 1993. Tokyo: Shuueisha. More, December 1995. Tokyo: Shuueisha. Sawaki, Kootaroo, 1986. Shinya tokkyuu 1. Tokyo: Shinchoosha. Yamada, Eimi, ed., 1993. Setsunai hanashi. Tokyo: Koobunsha. Yoshimoto, Banana, 1988. Utakata/Sankuchuari. Tokyo: Fukutake Shoten.


Satoko Suzuki is an assistant professor at Macalester College. Her research interests are in pragmatics and especially in emotive aspects of language. Her recent publications are 'The relevance of factivity to complementizer choice in Japanese' (Studies in Language 1997), 'Tte and nante: Markers of psychological distance in Japanese conversation' (Journal ofPragmatics 1998), and 'Pejorative connotatin: A case of Japanese' (in: Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, eds., Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory 1998).

Japanese complementizers: Interactions between basic characteristics and contextual factors

Documents

Transcript of Japanese complementizers: Interactions between basic characteristics and contextual factors