영어
In this paper, I examine the sentence-final particle “mon” and classify it into three main categories. The first category is , where “mon” is used to provide reasons or supplementary information regarding a judgment or situation. The second category is , where “mon” is used to assert a statement contrary to the listener’s opinion. The third category is , where “mon ne” is used to reinforce the speaker’s statement for greater impact. A common feature among these three categories is that the speaker asserts the legitimacy of their statement. Furthermore, each category differs in terms of the existence or connection of the underlying situation as follows: First, in , before the utterance of “…mon,” there exists a situation such as the speaker’s judgment or claim that should be explained. The relationship between the situation and the explanation is not a strict logical one but maintains a hierarchical structure. Next, in , a situation precedes the use of “…mon,” but it involves a claim, question, or directive from the listener that opposes the speaker’s opinion or position. “Mon” is used in response to this, and unlike , it does not carry an explanatory function. In this case, the preceding situation and “…mon” are connected in opposition. Finally, in , “…mon ne” does not rely on any particular situation, distinguishing it from and , as “mon ne” can stand independently.
