The interactional nature of suspended clause constructions in Japanese

In talk Japanese, drug-addicted clauses often occur without their chief(prenominal) clauses. Ohori (1995 1997) called them suspended clause constructions (SCCs) and hypothesise that a SCC occurs when the intend subject matter is either contextually inferable or conventionalized. However, it is non very clear when and how the conversational participants know whether the intended message is contextually inferable (or conventionalized) or not, since a SCC and a non-suspended version of subjugate clause atomic number 18 not totally distinct category. Therefore, in dress to consider the motive for SCCs, we need to look carefully at the elaborate of the process of producing SCCs. found on the corpus analysis on by nature occurring conversational recordings, I propose to restrict Ohoris formulation from the Interactional Linguistic localise of view.1 IntroductionIt has been widely known that, in spoken Japanese, subordinate clauses (e.g. kedo- /kara- /node- /noni- clauses) of ten occur without their main clauses (Martin, 1975 Hinds, 1986). While they are syntactically incomplete, they even off a complete utterance. For example, in (1), speaker A uses a kedo (though, plainly) clause without its main clause.Ohori (1995 1997) argued that such patterns can be seen as autarkical grammatical constructions in the sense of Fillmore et al. (1988) and called them suspended clause constructions (SCCs). Answering to a question of under what conditions can a clause marked for control not be accompanied by a following main clause? (pp.201-202), Ohori (1995) formulated that a SCC occurs when the intended message is either contextually inferable or conventionalized (p.213). From the Construction Grammarians point of view, Ohori (1995216) argued tha... ...r when and how the conversational participants know whether the intended message is contextually inferable (or conventionalized) or not, since a SCC and a non-suspended version of subordinate clause are not totally distinct category. Therefore, in order to consider the motivation for SCCs, we need to look carefully at the details of the process of producing SCCs. Based on the corpus analysis on naturally occurring conversational recordings, I found that it cannot be predetermined whether an subordinate clause is a SCC or not. Rather, SCCs are realized retrospectively as a result of interactive negotiation among conversational participants. Thus, I propose to modify Ohoris formulation as follows a SCC occurs when the fact that the intended message is either contextually inferable or conventionalized is interactionally observable by the participants behavior.