D epending on th e speakers, th e sentence m ay be felt to be incom plete. However, this exam ple is m uch m ore n a tu ra l th a n th a t in (23). T he co n te n t of th e sentence u tte red by speaker Q refers to th e (crim inal) case which has been (nearly) solved. T his sentence includes a change from being u n se ttle d to being settled . Dooyara refers to this move, assessing t h a t th e tru th of th e propositional co n ten t is not perfectly b u t a lm o st clear.
F ro m th is observation, a possible in te rp re ta tio n is th a t dooyara is basically concerned w ith th e sam e m echanism as th a t of doom o, specified w ith a move from u n clarity tow ard c la rity . Still it indicates a sh o rtag e of certain ty
T his in te rp re ta tio n accounts for th e unaccep tab ility of dooyara in (22); th e reason for th a t is probably th a t a change such as th a t discussed above does n ot em erge from this exam ple.
5.4 . A b o u t e v id e n tia lity
T he fu n ctio n /m ea n in g of th e adv erbs, doom o and dooyara is rec a p itu late d as follows. T he c o n te n t of a sentence to which they are a tta c h e d conveys a sp eak er’s inference, which is based on percep tual experience. These adverbs are involved in th is m echanism . They in d icate t h a t the tru th fu ln ess of th e co n te n t of a sentence (^in feren ce) is to a certain e x te n t, su p p o rte d by evidence ( = p erceptu al experience). D oom o and dooyara differ from each o th e r, in a su b tle w ay, in term s of how close to the tr u th they come.
In th is connection, the epistem ic category called ev idential seems useful to u n d erstand
71
The use of dooyara is not limited to epistemic use. It can be used like this; Gomanen areba, dooyara seikatsu dekiru.
50000 yen be COND live can
This sentence means that it is possible to survive if one has fifty thousand yen, although not satisfactorily. The abstract meaning shared by the uses of dooyara is assumed as something like ‘it is not perfect, but all right ’(Gaikokujin no tame no kihongo yoorei jiten 1971). The above use does not seem to fall with SSA category (see 10.2.1 for this).
this m echanism in m ore general term s. T e ra m u ra (1984:225) briefly suggested the viab ility of this category for certain m odal expressions in Jap anese, by m aking reference to th e study of g ram m atical system s in some A m erican Indian languages.
In th is connection, it is w orth looking at some tre a tm e n ts of this categ ory .
Foley and Van Valin (1984:218) presented re-organisation of tra d itio n a lly accepted m o dality as four different o p erato rs. E videntials are defined as follows.
E viden tials m ark the tru th fu ln e ss of the proposition in term s of th e way the speaker had ascertained this. D id he see w ith his eyes? Is it hearsay? and so on.
T his definition is concerned w ith ascertainin g the tru th fu ln e ss of the proposition. Follow ing this, m odal adverbs such as probably and certainly fall in to th is category for th e reason th a t they indicate ‘th e sp eak er’s assessm ent of th e tru th s ta tu s of the p o ten tial or necessary e v e n t’ (ibid: 219).
On th e o th er h and , G ivon’s tre a tm e n t (1982) inten ded to re-c o n stru c t epistem ology from a p rag m atic view point relying on things such as speaker-hearer c o n tra ct. For this purpose, ev id en tiality plays a c e n tral role. P rop osition s are classified according to ev id en tiality as follows.
(a) P rop o sition s which are to be tak en for g ran ted , via th e force of diverse conventions, as unchallengeable by th e hearer and thus regarding no eviden tiary ju stifica tio n by th e speaker;
(b) P rop osition s th a t are asserted w ith relativ e confidence are open to challenge by th e hearer and th u s require-or ad m it-ev id en tiary ju stifica tio n , and finally,
(c) P ropo sition th a t are asserted w ith d o u b t, as
hypotheses and are th u s b en eath both challenge and eviden tiary su b sta n tia tio n . T hey are, in term s of th e im plicit com m unicative c o n tra c t, ‘n ot w orth the tro u b le .’
Here, the relevance of evidentiary ju stifica tio n is a focal point. T h is tre a tm e n t suggests th a t RASHII constru ctio ns fall w ith in (b), while DA RO O co n stru c tio n s fall w ithin in (c). In tu rn , the adverbs closely related to these co n stru ctio n in term s of fu n ctio n /m ean in g can be placed in to (b) and (c), respectively.
for the Ja p an e se m odal system as a whole; our research is ju s t lim ited to a p a rt of it. However, th is tre a tm e n t allows us to disting uish G roup II-1-1 and G roup II-1-3. G roup II-1-3 can be characterised w ith evidentiary ju stifica tio n , while G ro up II-1-1 w ith irrelevance of ev id en tiality , according to th is tre a tm e n t. This assig nm en t is in line w ith the analysis given in the previous sections.
For th e p resen t, evid entiality is adopted in th e narrow sense. It is also possible to consider b o th groups as e v id e n tia l in the w ider sense, as is seen in Foley and Van Valin.
A t th is p o in t, it is necessary to note a couple of points a b o u t th e use of the adverbs under co n sid eratio n . F irstly , th e use of doom o an d dooyara should be m ore specified w ith regard to (possible) sub-types of evidentials. F or instance, Jap an ese includes the SO OD A c o n stru c tio n rendering hearsay , w hich a p p a re n tly belongs to th e ev id ential category. T his co n stru c tio n does not occur w ith doom o or dooyara. An exam ple is as follows.
(2 6 )
a. Tokyoo de wa kono uta ga hayatte iru sooda. at TOP this sone NOM be popular HEAR
‘They say that this song is popular in Tokyo.’
b . * D oo m o Tokyoo dewa kono uta ga hayatte iru sooda. * D ooyara
Sentence (26b) w ith doom o or dooyara sounds strange. T his in co m p atib ility m ay be explained as follows. SO O D A c o n stru ctio n s designate th a t a speaker passes on to a listener w h a t h e /sh e heard or gained from som eone as inform atio n. T he conten t of a sentence is regarded as w h at th e speaker was filled in on, but not a sp e ak e r’s inference or th o u g h t. T h e lack of inference may be due to th e oddity of a sentence like (26). In o th er w ords, th e fact th a t doom o and dooyara are concerned w ith inference plays a decisive role here.
T hu s, th is analysis suggests th a t the evidential category can be sub-divided, as far as these adv erbs are concerned. F u rth e rin g the discussion on Ja p an ese ev idential category is beyond the task of this thesis. It is hoped t h a t this line of research will be developed fu rth e r. 1 ^
T V .
An interesting work is Watanabe (1984) which discussed some evidential constructions in Japanese by reference to transitivity.
Secondly, adverbs like doom o and dooyara are only concerned w ith unclarity or u n c e rta in ty , althou g h dooyara shows a move to w ard c e rtain ty . T he prom ising can d id ate for c e rta in ty m ay be a k ir a k a n i (obviously, clearly), which will be handled in the next c h a p te r.
5.5. C on clu sion
T his c h a p te r exam ined G rou p II-1-3, including doom o and dooyara.
T he can d id ates can be regarded as having a kind of epistem ic function, m ore specifically, an ev idential function. T his function indicates th a t the tru th of the prop osition is justified by p erceptual evidence. In th e case of the adverbs tre a te d here, u n c e rtain ty is involved in term s of p roxim ity to the tru th .
T he m ajor surface restrictio n s exhibited by these adverbs can be explained by th e above function. They are com p atib le w ith th e RA SH II co n stru ctio n , w hereas th e DA RO O c o n stru ctio n hardly occurs w ith these adverbs. T he sem antic s tru c tu re of th e RASHII c o n stru ctio n is sim ilar to th e function of these adverbs, in term s of ev id entiality (and u n c e rta in ty ). On th e o th er h an d , although the D A RO O co n stru ctio n is concerned w ith u n c e rta in ty , it lacks ju stifica tio n by evidence. T his is th e reason for in co m p atib ility .
B asically, the cand id ates do not ap pear in basic d eclarativ e (action) sentences, alth ou gh it is tru e th a t each adverb shows finer restric tio n s in term s of basic d eclarativ e sentences. It can be considered th a t these adverbs require some o th er expression of evid entiality in the sam e sentence in order to get su p p o rt from th a t, and otherw ise these adverbs do not work properly. This m eans th a t th e function of these adverbs is weak, like th a t of those discussed in C h a p te r 6.
C om paring doom o and dooyara, by dooyara it is indicated th a t th e speaker is m ore clear ab o u t th e tru th th an by doomo.
O verall, these adverbs show fairly regular association betw een m ean in g /fu n ctio n and surface restriction s and it is possible to tak e them as c o n stitu tin g a sub-class, which is ch aracterised w ith epistem ic (evidential) function.