株式会社極東書店トップ > 商品一覧 > Japanese Questions : Discourse, Context and Language.
商品詳細
Japanese Questions : Discourse, Context and Language. 日本語の疑問文-ディスコース、コンテクスト、言語
・ISBN 978-1-4725-7760-3 2015 hard GB£ 140.00
¥44,352.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
・ISBN 978-1-4742-8808-8 2016 paper GB£ 38.99
¥12,351.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-1-4725-9379-5
| 著者・編者 | Tanaka, Lidia, |
|---|---|
| 出版社 | (Bloomsbury Academic, UK) |
| ページ数 | 247 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | <616-3062> |
解説
Questions and interrogatives in Japanese discourse have attracted considerable interest from grammarians, but the communicative aspect has received little attention. This book fills this gap. Through detailed analyses of formal and informal interactions, this book demonstrates that the inherent multi-functional and polysemous aspect of language can also be observed in the use of questions. What emerges is a sense of the considerable variety of question forms and also an understanding of how questions are used to perform a wide range of social actions.
The importance of context is stressed throughout the book; both in guiding the speakers' choices of question types and in helping to create the particular stance that characterizes those interactions.
The data used in this book shows that speakers prefer questions that are not canonical. When speakers do use canonical questions, these are overwhelmingly accompanied by some mollifiers. This phenomenon suggests that in Japanese communication the illocutionary force of canonical questions is too strong. To soften the interaction, speakers tend to use other types of interrogative forms such as statements with rising intonation or, at least, to leave questions grammatically unfinished.
The findings in this book contribute to the understanding of how Japanese speakers use questions in different communicative interactions and provide new evidence of the gap between prescriptive grammar and actual communication.