J269: Seminar in Japanese Linguistics

Abstract: Cook 1990

Cook, Haruko Minegishi. 1990. "The Sentence-Final Particle Ne as a Tool for Cooperation in Japanese Conversation" in Hoji Hajime (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 29-43. Stanford:CSLI.

Cook proposes that ne signals an affective common ground between the speaker and the addressee in Japanese conversation. She asserts that her analysis is different than previous accounts in that "ne is not limited to agreement on propositional content" (29). Usually ne (eg. Uyeno 1971) is presented as an SFP which is used to show two kinds of propositional content agreement:

  1. person B uses ne to indicate that s/he agrees with what person A has said.
  2. person A uses ne to indicate that he expects person B to agree with what s/he says.
Cook points out, however, that ne can be used when there is no particular propositional content expressed or presupposed by the interlocutor. The above use of ne, Cook claims, suggests that the speaker expects the addressee to share an affective disposition. Moreover, in the next example, ne does not indicate agreement, but is rather a marker of intimacy:

Given these three examples, Cook proposes that ne indicates an affective common ground between the speaker and the addressee but not necessarily agreement with any particular propositional content (32).

Ne is used for various speech functions which call for cooperation of the addressee. For example, it is often used to get another's attention, to introduce a new topic or subtopic (in Cook's data it is used 47.3% or 26/55 of the time to introduce a new topic), and to keep the floor. If ne does signal an affective common ground between the speaker and the addressee, it makes sense that it encourages cooperation in the form of keeping the floor, taking up a new topic, or giving attention.

Cook also asserts that ne is a positive politeness strategy (which are strategies that minimize the potential damage of the positive face [the desire to be appreciated] caused by an FTA). If ne indicates affective common ground between a speaker and an addressee, then it perhaps serves as one of the main linguistic means of positive politeness. Ne is often used when the speaker needs to convey information that is potentially negative to the addressee or to get the addressee to do something s/he may not want to do.

In Cook's data, the uses of ne serve to mitigate FTAs and mark intimacy. This is why she asserts that ne is a marker of affective common ground. This cooperation is indicated by eliciting the addressee's involvement with the speaker. Although ne does not carry referential meaning, its functions are crucial in the social acts that the conversation participants perform in the course of talk in interaction.

Abstract by Cindi Sturtz

Back