Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages

Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages

Shoichi IWASAKIa and Foong Ha YAP

b

a University of Hawaii/UCLA

Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, University of Hawai‘i at

Mānoa, Moore Hall 354, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

Department of Asian Languages and Cultures, UCLA, Royce 290, Los Angeles, CA

90095, USA

[email protected]

b

Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,

Hong Kong

[email protected]

1. Introduction

In recent years, “stance” has become increasingly an important locus for research

within the functional, pragmatic, cognitive, sociolinguistic and interactional

paradigms. Stance may be indicated through established lexical, morphological, and

prosodic devices, or indexed indirectly via speakers’ strategic use of particular

linguistic signs or interactional patterns in the speech situation Stance is something

speakers take towards various objects, people, concepts, ideas and so forth based on

their knowledge state, personal belief, identity, sociocultural norms, among various

other factors. The impetus for research on stance as a linguistic category can be traced

back to earlier work on modality and subjectivity in language (Benveniste, 1971;

Lyons, 1977, 1982, 1994, 1995). The concept of stance, however, is much broader

than these notions, and thus has required researchers to adopt various innovative

approaches. Terms that have been put forth by different researchers to refer to

different aspects of stance and stance-taking include epistemic state, commitment,

judgment, evaluation, perspective, point-of-view, voice, evidentiality, feeling, affect,

attitude, subjectivity and intersubjectivity (see Jaffe, 2009: 6). Though not always

easily separated from each other, these conceptual terms provide useful entry points

into the intricate system of stance-marking and stance-taking. Our understanding of

stance has increased remarkably following a number of important recent publications,

among them Kärkkäinen (2003), Wu (2004), Englebretson (2007), Du Bois and

Kärkkäinen (2012).

Drawing on the current state of our knowledge of stance, we will explore in

this special issue how ‘stance marking’ and ‘stance taking’ are manifested in three

East Asian languages, namely, Chinese (Mandarin), Japanese and Korean (CJK). Our

first goal is to verify the insights and suggestions proposed for English and other

European languages with data from these three Asian languages. Though we assume

that expressing stance is universal and expect to find many similarities between the

languages of Asia and those from other linguistic areas, we also expect to find

differences induced by language- and culture-specific peculiarities as well. Our

second goal is to determine the extent of the differences and similarities among CJK.

Typologically, all three languages are considered topic-prominent (Li and Thompson,

1976), but Chinese is an isolating language, while Japanese and Korean are

agglutinating languages. Japanese and Korean share many typological features, such

as case marking via particles and head-final constituent order, but details reveal

differences (e.g. more complex verbal morphology in Korean, and more complex

systems of deictic verbs and complementizers in Japanese). The differences become

more pronounced as we extend the comparison to the sociolinguistic sphere, with

previous studies showing, for example, language variations based on honorific and

gender considerations (Hijirida and Sohn, 1986; Horie, 2000; Horie and Taira, 2002).

We will not, however, try to answer these questions directly via a single uniform

template in this special issue; instead, we are encouraging the contributors to pick up

issues they consider relevant to stance-marking and stance-taking in their native

languages, thereby letting similarities and differences emerge. Toward the end of

section 3 of this introductory essay, we will briefly discuss some of their common

themes as well as some interesting variations induced by differences in language and

culture.

2. Subjectivity

In hindsight, we now better understand how studies in subjectivity paved the way for

research on stance. In the tradition of language analyses in Asia, Japanese scholars

have shown particularly strong interest in subjectivity phenomena. Motoki Tokieda

(1900-1967) is one such scholar, who put forth his view on language in the theory he

named ‘Language as Process’ (Gengo katei setsu) (1941). According to him, language

is not a static object, but is a means to express a speaker’s intention. In his theory,

language exists on three main pillars - ‘the speaker’, ‘the material’ and ‘the speaking

environment (including the addressee)’. Tokieda notes that language exists when

someone (speaker) talks to someone (addressee in the environment) about something

(material) (1941: 57), specifically denying the Saussurian conception of language as a

static entity analyzable in terms of the signifier and the signified that can be isolated

for observation from the messy reality of language use (cf. Karl Bühler’s three main

elements (I-you-it) (1933, 1934)).

The first element, ‘the speaker,’ is an instigator of linguistic activity. Without

the speaker, language does not exist. For Tokieda, therefore, language is a priori a

subjective process. The second element, ‘the material,’ is a symbol, a concept, or an

event that the speaker intends to verbalize. Without the material, language loses its

purpose. Here we see the speaker's selective intervention before linguistic forms are

verbalized. The third element, ‘the speaking environment including the addressee’, is

crucial for understanding stance in Tokieda’s framework. He notes that the speaking

environment is not simply a spatial concept, but it also embeds the speakers’

perspective, feeling and emotion towards what exists in the environment, including

the addressee. In other words, the speaker treats the addressee with a specific attitude,

such as ‘friendly,’ ‘uncomfortable,’ or ‘scornful’ stance (p. 61). Tokieda also notes

that the type of stance will dictate the choice of second person pronoun from among

several possibilities (e.g. anata, kimi, omae, or zero form). Based on this observation,

he posits that the addressee is not only the recipient of the speaker’s stance, but is also

at the same time an object of the speaker’s stance.

This tri-partite configuration can be usefully compared to Langacker's

description of subjectivity within the theory of Cognitive Linguistics (1985, 1990,

1991, 2002). For Langacker the three elements relevant for subjectivity encoding in

language are the conceptualizer (the speaker), the object of conceptualization (the

situation), and the stage (the linguistic expression). The term ‘conceptualizer’ shows

his emphasis on the speaker’s active mental engagement in the process. The ‘object of

conceptualization’ is Tokieda’s 'material.’ The ‘stage’ is where the object is displayed

linguistically, and is to some extent comparable to Tokieda’s notion of ‘the speaking

environment’ but without the addressee in view.

Tokieda's and Langacker's discussions of the first person pronoun reveal

interesting similarities and differences between Japanese and English stance

phenomena. Some linguists, both classical and contemporary, consider the first person

pronoun as an essential sign of subjective expression in language (Benveniste, 1971:

226; Scheibman, 2002). This is based on the observation that the first person pronoun

is a marker of a deictic center from which one’s discourse is organized (Shoichi

Iwasaki, 1993). In contrast, both Tokieda and Langacker consider the pronoun as a

sign of objectivity. Tokieda explains that the signing function of the first person

pronoun, watashi ‘I’, is simply to refer to an entity, and is not dissimilar to ordinary

nouns such as ‘cat’ or second or third person pronouns. Langacker similarly takes the

first person pronoun as a sign that objectifies the speaking self; a speaker may put

himself on ‘the stage’ through the use of the first person pronoun to observe himself

objectively (‘Vanessa is sitting across the table from me’). When he is involved and

immersed in the situation completely, the speaker cannot objectify himself, thus the

sentence will lack the first person pronoun (‘Vanessa is sitting across the table’).

Incidentally, this explanation can clarify the difference between “It hurts!” (more

subjective) and “I have a pain here” (more objective) (cf. Halliday 1998). However,

the function of the first person pronoun is also different in the two languages. The use

of first person pronoun is more complex in Japanese than that in English due to the

availability of multiple forms of first person pronouns in Japanese (boku, ore, atashi,

and the zero form, among others). It is the speaking subject who encodes his

evaluative stance by choosing the most appropriate pronoun among multiple forms,

including the zero form, based on the information available in the ‘environment

(including the addressee)’ (see also Englebretson (2007a) for a related discussion in

Indonesian). In any comprehensive treatment of stance, we need to take into account

both perspectives, where the first person pronoun can be construed either objectively

or subjectively.

Interest in subjectivity continued in Japan following Tokieda’s work, but more

notably Japanese linguists with training in the West started to bring the concern of

subjectivity into the analysis of various grammatical phenomena, among them

psychological predicates (Kuroda, 1973), complementizers (Akatsuka, 1979), deictic

verbs and ‘give’ verbs (Kuno, 1987), voice and aspect (Uehara, 2000). Maynard

(1993) and Shoichi Iwasaki (1993) applied the concept of subjectivity to the level of

discourse, while Onodera (2004) employs the concept for her historical analysis. See

Ikegami (2005) for a comprehensive overview of this development.

Interest in subjectivity and stance among Korean and Chinese linguists has

been of more recent origin. Much of the research in Korean has been spearheaded in

the area of grammaticalization (e.g. Sohn, 2002; Rhee, 2012; Ahn and Yap, 2013,

2014), and more recently within the framework of discourse analysis (e.g. Koo and

Rhee, 2013a,b; Rhee, 2014; Ahn and Yap, 2015). Similar interests in subjectivity

from a grammaticalization perspective for Chinese can be seen in Tao (2007) and the

collection of papers in F. Wu (2011). Research on subjectivity and stance within the

discourse and grammar tradition is represented in Tao (1996, 2003), Su (2004), Lim

(2011) and Endo (2013) for Mandarin Chinese, and in Chor (2010a, 2010b, 2013) for

Cantonese Chinese. For similar recent studies in Japanese, particularly those

involving the emergence of stance markers via the “insubordination” of dependent

clauses as a result of main-clause ellipsis, see Ohori (1995), Higashiizumi (2006) and

Shinzato (2011, 2015). (The term ‘insubordination’ was coined by Nick Evans. See

Evans (2007) for more detailed discussion; see also Noonan 1997, Watters 2008 and

DeLancey 2011 for discussion of ‘insubordination’ in Tibeto-Burman languages.)

3. Intersubjectivity and stance-marking and stance-taking

In the past twenty years or so, functionally-oriented linguists have enriched the view

on grammar by incorporating advances made in related areas, especially analyses of

conversation. Within this newer paradigm, the subjective trajectory is understood as

bidirectional. Two (or more) participants take turns to express their subjectivity and

respond to it until both (or all) come to some understanding of each other’s

subjectivity in a homeostatic chain reaction that advances conversation forward until

the balance in knowledge or opinion is reached, or at least the imbalance is noted.

(Enfield (2011) uses the term ‘enchrony’ to describe a similar idea.) When the use of

language came to be viewed in this way, the interest in subjectivity broadened into the

interest in intersubjectivity, which in turn has expanded into a strong and growing

interest in various types and aspects of stance-taking phenomena.

Du Bois (2007) introduced the notion of a ‘Stance Triangle’ in which “[t]he

stance act ... creates three kinds of stance consequences at once … [namely,] the

stancetaker (1) evaluates an object, (2) positions a subject (usually the self), and (3)

aligns with other subjects” (p.163). Unlike Tokieda’s triangle in which the speaker

and the addressee as two stationary points are connected unilaterally, Du Bois

conceives two speakers as bilateral actors who take turns to express, observe, and

negotiate stance with respect to a “stance object” during the course of conversation.

Linell (2009) presents a quadrilateral framework by adding the sociocultural

coordinate to further enrich interactive triadic frameworks like Du Bois’ Stance

Triangle. The sociocultural coordinate represents, for example, socially shared

knowledge, which both Ego (= the speaker) and Alter (= the addressee) acknowledge

sharing in the act of stance building in interaction. With this enriched understanding,

we can analyze not only the speaker’s personal stance, but also a stance endorsed

socioculturally by both speaker and addressee (cf. Sheibman 2007). Whereas the

earlier researchers used the notion of subjectivity to explain lexical and grammatical

constructions, researchers focusing on grammar-in-interaction examine a variety of

constructions as a means of encoding stance. An important shift in perspective has

now taken place. Earlier, subjectivity was seen as a motivation for the patterning of

grammar, but now stance is an interactional goal that grammatical resources help

achieve (Selting and Couper-Kuhlen, 2001; Kärkkäinen, 2006; Ghesquière, Brems

and Van de Velde 2014). Traugott (1982, 2010, inter alia) also enriched our

understanding of the processes of coding subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the

history of language change, or subjectification and intersubjectification in her term.

While subjectivity refers to the speaker’s “expression of himself and his own attitudes

and beliefs” (Lyons 1982:102), intersubjectivity refers to the speaker’s expression of

“his or her awareness of the addressee’s attitude and beliefs,” often with implications

for facework and politeness (Traugott 2010:33). As Traugott and Dasher (2002)

noted, stance markers emerge as linguistic signs acquire subjective and (then)

intersubjective senses while speakers in conversation negotiate meanings through the

process of ‘invited inferences’.

Researchers of Asian languages have started to examine stance in the new

perspective involving intersubjectivity as well. Sentence final particles or pragmatic

particles are devices whose function cannot be fully understood without this

perspective (see, for example, Lu and Su 2009 on the intersubjective functions of

Mandarin sentence final particle le, and Suzuki 1998 on the development of sentence

final wake in Japanese). Interestingly, while Japanese and Chinese have independent

‘sentence final particles’ despite being typologically dissimilar (R. Wu, 2004; Morita,

2005, this volume; inter alia), Korean uses non-independent, agglutinative sentence-

ending morphemes (Rhee 2012, 2013; Kim and Sohn, this volume). These particles

and sentence-ending forms are often highly versatile and are put to use for various

stance purposes. For example, nominalizer-derived sentence final particles such as

Mandarin de, Japanese no and Korean kes evolve into ‘landing sites’ (or ‘hosts’) of

the speaker’s sentence final prosody to convey a wide range of contextually-

interpretable speaker stance, including assertion, amazement, doubt, challenge, among

many others (Cook, 1987; Yap and Matthews, 2008; Yap, Choi and Cheung, 2010;

Horie, 2011; Rhee, 2011; Yap, Grunow-Hårsta and Wrona, 2011). Similar extensions

from textual to pragmatic functions have also been noted for sentence final particles

derived from ‘say’ evidentials in Japanese (tte) and Korean (tako, tamye(nse), tanun,

tanta, etc.), as well as in Chinese (Cantonese waa, Taiwanese Southern Min kong,

Shanghainese hika, Mandarin shuo) (see Ahn and Yap, 2014; Chang, 1998; Han and

Shi, 2014; Leung, 2006, 2010; Su, 2004; R. Suzuki, 2007; Tamaji and Yap, 2013;

Yap, Yang and Wong, 2014). From a discourse perspective, Kim (2005, 2011) has

recently proposed a new look at experiential evidential stance markers in Korean from

an interactionist point of view.

Recent works on stance from an interactionist perspective have also shown

that speakers have at their disposal stance-coding phrases in conversation such as

Mandarin wo juede (‘I think/feel’). These phrases mark the speaker’s epistemic

stance. Endo (2013) shows that Mandarin speakers use wo juede to “position

themselves in consideration of other interlocutors” (p. 13) but its precise definition

depends on its position in the turn sequence (see also Lim, 2011; Su and Cheng 2011).

The epistemic expression wo juede, comprising a psych verb juede ‘think/feel’

accompanied by an explicit first person subject wo, is possible in Mandarin, similar to

I think/feel in English (see Thompson and Mulac 1991; Thompson 1991, 2002), but

such a configuration is not possible for Japanese or Korean, both of which have

different syntactic and morphological patterns. A crucial question is whether Japanese

and Korean speakers express the same kind of epistemic stance. And if so, how? The

answer is a qualified ‘yes’. Japanese and Korean also have linguistic resources to

attenuate the speaker’s epistemic claims, but rely more on semantically bleached

modal expressions such as de shoo in contemporary Japanese and ciana yo in

contemporary Korean which occur in sentence final position only (i.e. at the right

periphery), unlike the Chinese wo juede-type epistemic stance markers which could

appear in different syntactic positions much like English I think.

Though discourse-based crosslinguistic comparison is still in its infancy, some

exciting ground work has been initiated by researchers who work in CA, Interactional

Linguistics, and other similar frameworks (e.g. Tanaka, 1999, 2001; Mori, 1999;

Hayashi, 2003; Morita, 2002, 2005, 2012; Shimako Iwasaki, 2009, 2011, 2013; K.

Kim, 2001; K. Kim and Suh, 2010; Hayano, 2011; Lim, 2011; Endo, 2013; Ju, 2011).

In the present special issue, however, we have decided not to compare two or more

languages directly. We believe that at the current stage of our knowledge of stance,

we will gain more if we ask various types of questions. As noted earlier, the

contributors have been asked to identify issues that they consider critical for stance-

marking and stance-taking in their own native languages so that similarities and

differences among them will emerge naturally. Below we introduce each contribution

in the current special issue.

4. Contributing articles in the current special issue

Seongha RHEE provides a diachronic and discourse-pragmatic view of how stance

markers, specifically discourse markers of agreement (DMAs) in Korean, emerge

from anaphoric kule (‘be so’)-type subordinate clauses (e.g. conditional kulem,

quotative kulehkomalko and causal kulenikka). His analysis shows how semantic-

pragmatic extensions, main-clause ellipsis and phonological reduction contribute to

the development of DMAs that serve a solidarity-enhancing function. His analysis

also reveals that in the case of conditional-based DMAs, the obviousness of the logic

or proposition in the elided main clause provides the basis for justification and

consensus [e.g. kulem ‘if it is so’ > ‘then’ > ‘Right!’]; while in the case of quotative-

based DMAs, on the other hand, the obviousness of the elided proposition precludes

the need for any discussion [e.g. kulehkomalko ‘whether it is so or not so’ > ‘as for its

truthfulness’ > ‘Evidently!’ or ‘Right!’]; and in the case of the causal-based DMAs,

the obviousness of the prior speaker’s proposition warrants the addressee’s

affirmation, crucially without the need to restate it, hence resulting in a suspended

clause with the proposition elided [e.g. kulenikka ‘because it is so’ or ‘because what

you say is true’ > ‘Right! (= I agree because what you say is true)’]. Thus, through a

combined diachronic and discourse-pragmatic approach to stance studies, this study

succeeds in identifying a strong correlation between structural type and discourse-

pragmatic use.

Haiping WU examines the development of the Mandarin prenominal quantifier

zhengge ‘whole, entire’ into a scalar intensifier meaning ‘completely’ and ultimately

into an encoding device of speaker’s evaluative stance. Using a diachronic corpus

framework, Wu shows how zhengge extends from the Quantity domain into the

Degree domain, and subsequently—sometimes in combination with the numeral yi

‘one’ plus a classifier (e.g. ge)—into the Socio-Pragmatic domain to display the

speaker’s subjective (and often negative) evaluation of someone, something,

someplace or some idea. Whereas zhengge originally only scoped over referential

entities (e.g. zhengge (yige) xiawu ‘the whole afternoon’), in time it began to also

scope over entire propositions (e.g. zhengge bu keneng shangqu ‘utterly impossible to

climb up (e.g. the promotion ladder)’). Wu also adopts a diachronic and discourse

analytic framework in her study of the pragmatic functions of zhengge (yi + CL)

constructions. By combining both diachronic and discourse approaches, Wu is able to

provide usage frequency data to empirically demonstrate the phenomenon of

‘quantifier-floating toward the periphery’, with historical data showing zhengge (yi +

CL) moving from prenominal to pre-predicate and ultimately to utterance-initial

position as it assumes an evaluative (and often negative attitudinal) function.

Vivien YANG and Foong Ha YAP adopt a discourse-pragmatic framework to

examine how the ‘fear’ verb kongpa is used as a pragmatic hedge in Mandarin

broadcast talk to attenuate socially dispreferred moves such as disagreeing and self-

praising. They further show that potential face-threatening effects of the post- kongpa

complements often build up across multiple turns, and sometimes lurk in the shadows

of seemingly innocuous utterances especially when the propositions after kongpa

have neutral or positive valences. The negative impact of these utterances becomes

clearer when these utterances are viewed in their broader context, and crucially from a

socio-pragmatic perspective, the negative affective valence of kongpa allows the

speaker to hedge and thus pre-empt or mitigate the damaging effects of these potential

face-threats. Such face-threat mitigative moves are made possible largely because

kongpa is an apprehensional epistemic marker that simultaneously encodes both

epistemic modality and attitudinal modality, and in contemporary Mandarin

conversation, tends to be deployed with the face-needs of both speaker and addressee

in mind. Thus, similar to zhengge in Wu’s study above, kongpa has developed into a

discourse-level stance marker as well. From a methodological perspective, the

interactional data used in Yang and Yap’s study allow them to also incorporate the

face-needs of the addressee within their analysis.

Mary KIM examines a nominalized negation (NN) construction nun ke ani in

Korean conversations. While this construction has a grammatical origin of negating a

statement (‘it is not the case/fact that’), in conversation it frequently acts as a reversed

polarity assertion (‘it is the case’, ‘the fact is’, or ‘the thing is’). Speakers use the

construction as a challenging device by highlighting incongruity between a claim and

the factual grounds on which the claim is based. The speaker may contradict a claim,

not only of the addressee, but also of a third party or the speaker him/herself.

Speakers may also use the construction to highlight the inconsistency between

expectations and the reality of a situation, which often becomes a source of humor in

interactions. This study shows how a grammatical construction (in this case, a

nominalized negation construction) is employed as a device to do stance work in the

emerging research paradigm of interactional linguistics.

Stephanie KIM and Sung-Ock SOHN attempt to identify an interactional

motivation for a grammaticalization process that converts a discourse connective into

a sentence final element that does stance work. Previous studies have described

Korean kuntey as appearing at the turn initial position to project a dispreferred

response, but S. Kim and Sohn’s findings show that kuntey can also appear at the end

of a turn, which delays marking the turn as a dispreferred response. Korean speakers

often avoid producing an outright announcement of a face-threatening move (e.g. a

rejection to a suggestion), and prefer instead to mark such non-conforming responses

retroactively. For such mitigative purposes, the turn-final kuntey is similar to other

sentence final elements in Korean and other languages in terms of their retroactive

stance-marking functions, and as the authors suggest, this type of kuntey is also

similar to the turn-final though in English. The paper thus has opened up an

interesting area of investigation regarding the position of a stance word with respect

to the turn that conveys pragmatic (as opposed to referential) information. This work

along with the studies of zhengge (Wu, this volume) and wo juede (Endo 2013 and

Lim 2011) contribute to our understanding of the stance function afforded by the

peripheral positions.

Previous studies have noted that Japanese ‘sentence final particles’ or ‘pragmatic

particles’ are imbued with specific individual meanings (regarding, for example, the

degree of a proposition's assertive force or the degree of ‘sharedness of information’

existing between the interlocutors). Emi MORITA takes issue with this static

taxonomic view of these particles and re-defines them as ‘interactional particles.’

Employing a conversation analytic approach, she shows how these particles function

as a resource for the negotiation of stance-building in moment-by-moment

interactional space, rather than as one-dimensional stance markers attaching to

propositions. She argues that a number of readily-identifiable conversational

‘stances,’ such as ‘epistemic stance’ or ‘affective stance,’ become hearable from the

precise deployment of interactional particles on both the micro- as well as macro-

levels of talk, for example, in terms of turn-level sequential

positioning and sociocultural preference structures respectively. Morita's analysis

provides a new paradigm to examine similar resources in other languages beyond

CJK as many other languages in various parts of the world are also rich with these

types of particles used for interactional functions. See Hencal (2015) for a discussion

of sentence final particles in various languages.

Shimako IWASAKI examines stance negotiation not through particular lexical

items such as interactional particles but through the manipulation of the production of

turn constructions in conversation. Speakers may suspend the production of a turn

constructional unit to solicit the interlocutor’s validation to what has been produced

so far before finishing up their suspended utterance. This strategy is particularly

resourceful for a predicate-final language like Japanese because the stance work is

often carried out toward the end of a sentence. Shimako Iwasaki’s work encourages

researchers of typologically similar languages (e.g. verb-final Korean, Manchu,

Mongolian, and Turkic as well as Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan languages) to

determine if the speakers of these other languages employ similar strategies in

interaction.

The seven contributions in this special issue have suggested areas for further

research in stance-marking and stance-taking. From a language change point of view,

we have seen that ordinary expressions turn into stance-marking devices via either lexical

(Wu) or morphological processes (Rhee). This type of diachronic study is important as

the original meanings of the stance markers being analyzed are still accessible, and

thus provide us with a clearer understanding, not only of the phonological and

morphosyntactic mechanisms, but also the pragmatic environments that induce the

semantic shifts which give rise to stance markers. From a discourse perspective, we

have also seen how words and phrases can turn into stance markers in synchronic

time in conversation (Yang & Yap, M. Kim, S. Kim & Sohn). Discourse studies at

such micro-analytical levels can also provide us with deeper insights into the

interactional significance of non-propositional linguistic resources, allowing us to

reconstrue the role of sentence final particles as highly dynamic ‘interactional

particles’, thus taking us further into investigations of the often closely intertwined

relationship between subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Morita). In addition, these

micro-analytic discourse studies can also show us how the interactional process itself

can be used as a resource for stance-marking and stance-taking (Shimako Iwasaki).

Acknowledgments

The work described in this introductory essay and the editorial efforts for this special

journal issue comprising of seven thematic articles on stance-marking and stance-

taking in Asian languages were substantially supported by a grant from the Research

Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No.

PolyU 5513/10H) for the research project entitled “Stance Marking in Asian

Languages: Linguistic and Cultural Perspectives” awarded to both guest co-editors

Shoichi Iwasaki and Foong Ha Yap. A total of 20 colleagues from various parts of the

world and various linguistics sub-disciplines reviewed the papers contained in this

special issue and we wish to thank them for their generous support in terms of time

and expertise.

References

Ahn, Mikyung and Yap, Foong Ha, 2013. Negotiating common ground in discourse:

A diachronic and discourse analysis of maliya in Korean. Language Sciences,

37: 36-51.

Ahn, Mikyung and Yap, Foong Ha, 2014. On the development of Korean ‘say’

evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica, 31(3): 299-336.

Ahn, Mikyung and Yap, Foong Ha, 2015. Evidentiality in interaction: A pragmatic

analysis of Korean hearsay evidentials. Studies in Language, 39(1): 46-84.

Akatsuka, Noriko, 1979. Epistemology, Japanese syntax, and linguistic theory.

Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 6: 7–28.

Benveniste, Emile, 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Trans. Mary E. Meek,

Coral Gables. FL: University of Miami Press.

Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan, 1988. Adverbial stance types in English.

Discourse Processes, 11(1): 1-34.

Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan, 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and

grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1): 93-124.

Brems, Lieselotte, Ghesquière, Lobke, and Van de Velde, Freek (Eds.), 2014.

Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse:

Theoretical and Descriptive Advances. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Bühler, Karl. 1933. Ausdruckstheorie. Das system an der Geschichte aufgezeigt. Jena:

Fischer.

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie, die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache: von Karl

Bühler. G. Fischer (Druck von A. Kämpfe).

Burdelski, Matthew, 2012. Language socialization and politeness routines. In: Duranti,

Alessandro, Ochs, Elinor, and Schiefferin, Bambi B. (Eds), The Handbook of

Language Socialization, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 275-295.

Chang, Miao-Hsia, 1998. The discourse functions of Taiwanese kong in relation to its

grammaticalization. In: Huang, Shuanfan (Ed.), Selected Papers from the

Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, Taipei: Crane

Publishing Company, pp. 111-127.

Chor, Winnie Oi-Wan, 2010a. Grammaticalization of directional particles in

Cantonese. PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.

Chor, Winnie, 2010b. Inclusion of the outsider — Grammaticalization of the verbal

particle maai in Cantonese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8(2): 33-62.

Chor, Winnie, 2013. From ‘direction’ to ‘positive evaluation’: On the

grammaticalization, subjectification and intersubjectification of faan1 ‘return’ in

Cantonese. Language and Linguistics, 14(1): 91-134.

Cook, Minegishi, 1987. Social meanings of the Japanese sentence final no. Papers in

Pragmatics, 1(2): 123-168.

DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Finite structures from nominalization constructions in Tibeto-

Burman. In: Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen, and Wrona, Janick (Eds),

Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives,

Typological Studies in Language 96, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,

pp. 343-359.

Diessel, Holger and Tomasello, Michael, 2001. The acquisition of finite complement

clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2): 97-

141.

Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena, 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic

Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization, Trends in Linguistics:

Studies and Monographs 228, Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (Eds), 2013. Linguistic Realization of

Evidentiality in European Languages, Empirical Approaches to Language

Typology 49, Berlin: de Gruyer Mouton.

Du Bois, John W., 2007. The stance triangle. In: Englebretson, Robert (Ed.),

Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139-182.

Du Bois, John W. and Kärkkäinen, Elise, 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: affect,

sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4): 433-

451

Endo, Tomoko, 2013. Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and

functions of wo juede “I think”. In: Pan, Yuling, and Daniel Kádár (Eds),

Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice, London: Equinox,

pp.12-34.

Enfield, Nick J., 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: enchrony, status,

knowledge and agency. In: Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Steensig,

Jakob (Eds), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, 29: 285.

Englebretson, Robert (Ed.), 2007a. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity,

Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Englebretson, Robert, 2007b. Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some

aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation. In: Englebretson,

Robert (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69-110.

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.),

Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ghesquière, Lobke, Brems, Lieselotte, and Van de Velde, Freek (Eds.), 2014.

Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: typology and operationalization.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 129-153.

Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H., 1992. Assessment and the construction of context.

In: Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles (Eds), Rethinking Context:

Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 147–190.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1998. “On the grammar of pain” Functions of Language, 5:1:1-32.

Han, Weifeng and Shi, Dingxu, 2014. The evolution of hi23

ka34

(‘he says’) in

Shanghainese. Language and Linguistics, 15(4): 479-494.

Hayano, Kaoru, 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in

Japanese. In: Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob (Eds), The

Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, pp. 58-81.

Hayashi, Makoto, 2003. Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hencal, Sylvie. (Ed.). 2015. Sentence Final Particles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Higashiizumi, Yuko, 2006. From a Subordinate Clause to an Independent Clause: A

History of English because-clause and Japanese kara-clause. Tokyo: Hituzo

Syobo Publishing.

Hijirida, Kyoko and Sohn, Ho Min, 1986. Cross-cultural patterns of honorifics and

sociolinguistic sensitivity to honorific variables: Evidence from English,

Japanese and Korean. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 19(3): 365-

401.

Horie, Kaoru, 2000. Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11-32.

Horie, Kaoru and Taira, Kaori, 2002. Where Korean and Japanese differ: modality vs.

discourse modality. In: Akatsuka, Noriko, Strauss, Susan, and Bernard Comrie

(Eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol 10, Stanford: CSLI, pp. 178-191.

Horie, Kaoru, 2011. Versatility of nominalizations: Where Japanese and Korean

contrast. In: Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen, and Wrona, Janick (Eds),

Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives,

Typological Studies in Language 96. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,

pp. 473-496.

Ikegami, Yoshiko, 2005. Indices of a ‘subjectivity-prominent’ language: Between

cognitive linguistics and linguistics typology. Annual Review of Cognitive

Linguistics, 3: 132–164.

Iwasaki, Shimako, 2009. Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation:

Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46(2): 226-246.

Iwasaki, Shimako, 2011. The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit

construction in Japanese conversation. In: Streeck, Jürgen, Goodwin, Charles,

and LeBaron, Curtis (Eds), Embodied Interaction, Language and Body in the

Material World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106-120.

Iwasaki, Shimako, 2013. Emerging units and emergent forms of participation within a

unit in Japanese interaction: Local organization at a finer level of granularity. In:

Reed, Beatrice Szczepek, and Raymond, Geoffrey (Eds), Units of Talk – Units

of Action, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 243-275.

Iwasaki, Shoichi, 1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical

Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Jaffe, Alexandra (Ed.), 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo and Vsevolod, Kapatsinski, 2012. The apprehensive: fear as

endophoric evidence and its pragmatics in English, Mandarin, and Russian.

Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4): 346-373.

Ju, Hee, 2011. Collaborative Unit Construction in Korean: Pivot Turns. Crossroads of

Language, Interaction and Culture, 8(1): 33-60.

Kärkkäinen, Elise, 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of

Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Kärkkäinen, Elise, 2006. Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to

intersubjectivity. Text & Talk, 26(6): 699-731.

Kärkkäinen, Elise, 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In:

Robert Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse, Amsterdam: John

Benjamins, pp. 183-219.

Kärkkäinen, Elise, 2012. On digressing with a stance and not seeking a recipient

response. Text & Talk, 32(4): 477-502.

Kim, Hyeri Stephanie, Sohn, Sung-Ock, (this volume). Grammar as an emergent

response to interactional needs: A study of final kuntey'but' in Korean

conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 83: 73-90.

Kim, Kyu-hyun, 2001. Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration:

Organization of phrasal units in other initiated repair sequences in Korean

conversation. In: Selting, Margaret, and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (Eds),

Studies in Interactional Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,

pp. 345-372.

Kim, Kyu-hyun and Suh, Kyung-Hee, 2010. Ketun in conversation: soliciting news

receipt as sequentially-motivated action. In: Iwasaki, Shoichi, Hoji, Hajime,

Clancy, Patricia M., and Sohn, Sung-Ock (Eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics,

Vol 17, Stanford: CSLI, pp. 423-437.

Kim, Mary Shin, 2005. Evidentiality in achieving entitlement, objectivity, and

detachment in Korean conversation. Discourse Studies, 7(1): 87-108.

Kim, Mary Shin, 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean

conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker –tamye.

Discourse Studies, 13(4): 435-459.

Kim, Minju. 2008. The emergence of the Korean modal -keyss-: from causative to

epistemic and volitive modal, Discourse and Cognition, 15(2): 1-27.

Kim, Minju. 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean: The Evolution of the Existential

Verb. Saffron Korean Linguistics Series 5. London: Saffron Books.

Koo, Hyun Jung, Rhee, Seongha, 2013b. On an emerging paradigm of sentence final

particles of discontent: a grammaticalization

perspective. Language Sciences 37: 70-89.

Koo, Hyun Jung and Rhee, Seongha, 2013a. “I will do it … but I’m asking you to do

it.”: On the emergence of polite imperative from promissive. Procedia-Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 97: 487-494.

Kuno, Susumu, 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuroda, Shige-Yuki, 1973. Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case

study from Japanese. In: Anderson, Stephen R., and Kiparsky, Paul (Eds), A

Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, pp. 377–391 (also included in:

The Whole of the Doughnut: Syntax and Its Boundaries, Ghent: E. Story-

Scientia, 1979, pp. 185--203).

Langacker, Ronald W., 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In:

Haiman, John (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 109–50.

Langacker, Ronald W., 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive linguistics, 1: 5–38.

Langacker, Ronald W., 1991. Losing control: grammaticalization, subjectification,

and transparency. In: Blank, Andreas, and Koch, Peter (Eds), Historical

Semantics and Cognition, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 147-175.

Langacker, Ronald W., 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In: Brisard, Frank (Ed.),

Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 1-28.

Lee, Hyo-Sang, 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean:

a synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 243-

275.

Leung, Wai-mun, 2006. On the synchrony and diachrony of sentence final particles:

The case of wo in Cantonese. PhD dissertation, University of Hong Kong.

Leung, Wai-mun, 2010. On the Synchrony and Diachrony of Sentence-Final

Particles: The Case of WO in Cantonese. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic

Publishing.

Li, Charles and Thompson, Sandra, 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of

language. In: Lee, Charles N. (Ed.), Subject and Topic, New York: Academic

Press.

Lim, Ni Eng, 2011. From subjectivity to intersubjectivity: Epistemic marker wo juede

in Chinese. In: Xiao, Yun, Tao, Liang, and Soh, Hooi Ling (Eds), Studies in

Chinese Linguistics in the New Era, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp.

265-300.

Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Lu, Louis Wei-lun and Su, Lily I-wen. 2009. Speech in interaction: Mandarin particle

le as a marker of intersubjectivity. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen

Fremdsprachenunterricht, 14(1): 155-168. Abrufbar unter http://zif.spz.tu-

darmstadt.de/jg-14-1/beitrag/Lu_Su.pdf.

Lyons, John, 1977. Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, John, 1982. Dexis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In: Jarvella, Robert J.,

and Klein, Wolfgang (Eds), Speech, Place and Action, Chichester: Wiley, pp.

101-23.

Lyons, John, 1994. Subjecthood and subjectivity. In: Yaguello, Mariana (Ed.),

Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory,

Paris: Ophrys, pp. 9–17.

Lyons, John, 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Maynard, Senko, 1993. Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the

Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mori, Junko. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese:

Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Morita, Emi, 2002. Stance marking in the collaborative completion of sentences: final

particles as epistemic markers in Japanese. In: Akatsuka, Noriko, Strauss,

Susan, and Bernard Comrie (Eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol 10,

Stanford: CSLI, pp. 220-233.

Morita, Emi, 2005. Negotiation of Contingent Talk: The Japanese Interactional

Particles ne and sa. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Morita, Emi, (this volume). Japanese interactional particles as a resource for stance

building. Journal of Pragmatics, 83: 91-103.

Morita, Emi, 2012. Deriving the socio-pragmatic meanings of the Japanese

interactional particle ne. Journal of Pragmatics, 44: 298-314.

Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In: Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John

and Thompson, Sandra A. (Eds), Essays on Language Function and Language

Type. Dedicated to T. Givón. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.

373–394.Ochs, Elinor, 1992. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In:

Gumperz, John J., and Levinson, Stephen C. (Eds), Rethinking Linguistic

Relativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 407-437.

Ochs, Elinor and Schieffelinm, Bambi, 1989. Language has a heart. In: Ochs, Elinor

(Ed.), The Pragmatics of Affect, Special issue of Text, 9: 7-25.

Ohori, Toshio, 1995. Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese

phraseology. In: Shibatani, Masayoshi and Thompson, Sandra A. (Eds), Essays

on Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.

201-218.

Onodera, Noriko O., 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers. Pragmatics & Beyond New

Series 132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Rhee, Seongha, 2011. Nominalization and stance marking in Korean. In: Yap, Foong

Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen, and Wrona, Janick (Eds), Nominalization in Asian

Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Typological Studies in

Language 96, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 393-422.

Rhee, Seongha, 2012. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification:

The case of grammaticalization of sentence final particles. Language Sciences,

34(3): 284-300.

Rhee, Seongha, 2013. “I know I’m shameless to say this”: Grammaticalization of the

mitigating discourse marker makilay in Korean. Procedia – Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 97: 480-486.

Rhee, Seongha, 2014. “I know you are not, but if you were asking me”: On

emergence of discourse markers of topic presentation from hypothetical

questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 60: 1-16.

Scheibman, Joanne, 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of

Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Scheibman, Joanne. 2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in

English conversations. In: Englebretson, Robert (Ed.), Stancetaking in

Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins, pp. 111-138.

Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, 2001. Studies in Interactional

Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Shinzato, Rumiko, 2011. From a manner adverb to a discourse particle: The case

of yahari, yappari and yappa. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 27: 17-44.

Shinzato, Rumiko. 2015. Two types of conditionals and two different

grammaticalization paths. In: Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow, Margje Post

(Eds), Final Particles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 157-180.

Sohn, Sung-Ock, 2002. The grammaticalization of honorific particles in Korean. In:

Wischer, Ilse, and Diewald, Gabriele (Eds), New Reflections on

Grammaticalization, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 309-325.

Stivers, Tanya, 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When

nodding is a token of affiliation, Research on Language and Social Interaction,

41(1): 31-57.

Su, Lily I-wen, 2004. Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO.

Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 30: 19-40.

Su, Lily I-wen and Cheng, Kai-Yuan. 2011. From subjectification to

intersubjectification: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis of hedging expression. In:

Chang, Jung-hsing (Ed.), Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor

of James H.Y. Tai on His 70th

Birthday. Taipei: Crane Publishing, pp. 85-100.

Suzuki, Ryoko. 1998. From a lexical noun to an utterance-final pragmatic particle:

wake. In: Ohori, Toshio (Ed.). Studies in Japanese grammaticalization:

Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Kurosio Publisher Tokyo, pp. 67-92.

Suzuki, Ryoko, 2007. (Inter)subjectification in the quotative tte in Japanese

conversation: local change, utterance-ness and verb-ness. Journal of Historical

Linguistics, 8(2): 207-237.

Tamaji, Mizuho and Yap, Foong Ha. 2013. “Where does pragmatic marker tte come

from?”—Convergence of to ifute, to itte and tote constructions in the diachronic

development of ‘say’ constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at the 15th

Annual International Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences

(JSLS 2013), Nagasaki, June 28-30.

Tanaka, Hiroko, 1999. Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation: A study of Grammar

and Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tanaka, Hiroko, 2001. The implementation of possible cognitive shifts in Japanese

conversation: Complementizer as pivotal devices. In: Selting, Margaret, and

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81-110.

Tao, Hongyin, 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, Discourse and

Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tao, Hongyin, 2003. Phonological, grammatical, and discourse evidence for the

emergence of zhidao constructions in Mandarin conversation. Zhongguo Yuwen

(Chinese Language), 4(295): 291-302.

Tao, Hongyin, 2007. Subjectification and the development of special-verb

existential/presentative constructions. Language and Linguistics, 8(2): 575-602.

Thompson, Sandra, 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer

that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15: 237-251.

Thompson, Sandra, 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a

realistic account. Studies in Language, 26(1): 125–164.

Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony, 1991. The discourse conditions for the

use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of

Pragmatics, 15: 237-251.

Tokieda, Motoki, 1941. Kokugogaku Genron [A Principal Principled Theory of

Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Traugott, Elizabeth, 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: a

reassessment. In: Cuyckens, Hubert, Davidse, Kristin, and Vandelotte, Lieven

(Eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 29-71.

Traugott, Elizabeth and Dasher, Richard, 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uehara, Satoshi, 2000. The speaker’s roles in a cross-linguistic perspective: toward a

typology of linguistic subjectivity. In: Voice to Aspect no Sokansei ni Kansuru

Taishogengogakuteki Kenkyu (Contrastive linguistic studies on the voice-aspect

relationship), University of Tohoku, pp. 26–43.

Watters, David. 2008. Nominalization in the Kiranti and Central Himalayish

languages of Nepal. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 31(2): 1–43.

Wu, Fuxiang (Ed.), 2011. Hanyu Zhuguanxing yu Zhuguanhua Yanjiu (Studies in

Subjectivity and Subjectification in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press.

Wu, Haiping, (this volume). Encoding subjectivity with totality: A corpus-based study

of [zhengge yi (CL) + X] in Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 83: 27-40.

Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina, 2004. Stance in Talk: a Conversation Analysis of Mandarin

Final Particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Yap, Foong Ha and Matthews, Stephen, 2008. The development of nominalizers in

East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In: López-Couso, María José, and

Seoane, Elena (Eds), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Rethinking

Grammaticalization: New Perspectives, Typological Studies in Language 76,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 309-341.

Yap, Foong Ha, Choi, Pik-ling and Cheung, Kam Siu, 2010. De-lexicalizing di3: How

a Chinese locative noun has evolved into an attitudinal nominalizer. In: Van

linden, An, Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, and Davidse, Kristin (Eds), in

collaboration with Hubert Cuyckens. Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization

Research, Typological Studies in Language 94, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins, pp. 63-91.

Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen and Wrona, Janick (Eds), 2011.

Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives,

Typological Studies in Language 96, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Yap, Foong Ha, Yang, Ying and Wong, Tak-Sum, 2014. On the development of

sentence final particles (and utterance tags) in Chinese. In: Beeching, Kate, and

Detges, Ulrich (Eds), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery:

Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, Studies

in Pragmatics 12. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, pp. 179-220.