47639
Particle は is often called topic, emphasis, contrast, etc. particle. Can
particle は use cases be summarized by a single term
[disambiguation](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disambiguation)? If one
could think of は as disambiguation particle should one ever need to remember
all sub-cases?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-07T23:03:41.413
47173
2017-05-22T06:06:40.910
3371
question
particle-は pragmatics
Can particle は use cases be summarized by a single inclusive term "disambiguation"?
I am quoting this passage directly from "All About Particles" by Naoko Chino:

> **Note** : _Wa_ has several usages, but its basic function is to set off a
> topic (e.g. of conversation) from the rest of the sentence, which talks
> about the topic. Technically _wa_ does not indicate case (subject, object,
> etc.). However, in practical terms, it often (but not always) comes after
> the subject of the sentence. See also _-te wa_ (#47) and _to wa_ (#17)
>
>   1. Indicates that information is being presented about something that is
> already known or that has been identified.
>

>

>> あそこにあかいほんがありますね。あれ **は** 漢字の本です。

>>

>> _Asoko ni akai hon ga arimasu ne. Are **wa** kanji no hon desu._

>>

>> Over there is a red book, right. It's a _kanji_ book. / See the red book
over there? That's a _kanji_ book.

>>

>> あの大学 **は** 、四谷駅の近くにあります。

>>

>> _Ano daigaku **wa** , Yotsuya-eki no chikaku ni arimasu._

>>

>> That university—it's near Yotsuya Station. / That university is near
Yotsuya station.

>
>   2. Indicates a topic, which is then identified or explained.
>

>

>> 明日 **は** 日曜日です。

>>

>> _Ashita **wa** nichiyōbi desu._

>>

>> As for tomorrow, it's Sunday. / Tomorrow is Sunday.

>>

>> 鯨は魚ではありません。

>>

>> _Kujira **wa** sakana de wa arimasen._

>>

>> As for the whale, it is not a fish. / The whale is not a fish.

>
> **Note** : if _ga_ replaces _wa_ in these sentences, the noun which it
> follows is no longer being presented as a topic but as the subject of the
> predicate (see _ga_ , #2, I-2). The switch from topic ( _wa_ ) to definite
> subject ( _ga_ ) lays the stress on the latter. For example:
>

>> あさって **は** 日曜日ですね。  
>  違います。明日が日曜日ですよ。
>>

>> _Asatte **wa** nichiyōbi desu ne.  
> Chigaimasu. Ashita **ga** nichiyōbi desu yo._
>>

>> The day after tomorrow is Sunday, isn't it.  
>  You're wrong there. _Tomorrow_ is Sunday.
>
>   3. In the construction N + _wa_ N + _ga_ , _wa_ indicates a topic (the
> first noun) about which an aspect or quality (the second noun) is explained.
>

>

>> 象は鼻が長いです。

>>

>> _Zō **wa** hana **ga** nagai desu._

>>

>> The elephant—its nose is long. / Elephants have long noses.

>>

>> 竹本さんは性格が優しいです。

>>

>> _Takemoto-san **wa** seikaku **ga** yasashii desu._

>>

>> As for Takemoto, her personality is gentle. / Takemoto has a gentle nature.

>
>   4. Used to show contrast between two items or ideas, both of which are
> signified by _wa_.
>

>

>> 漢字 **は** 難しいですが、日本語の文法 **は** あまり難しくないんです。

>>

>> _Kanji **wa** muzukashii desu ga, Nihon-go no bunpō **wa** amari
muzukashiku nai-n desu._

>>

>> _Kanji_ are difficult, but Japanese grammar is not very difficult. (笑) <-
_kakko-warai_ is mine

>>

>> 北海道の冬 **は** 寒いですが、東京 **は** 暖かいです。

>>

>> _Hokkaidō no fuyu **wa** samui desu ga, Tōkyō **wa** atatakai desu._

>>

>> The Hokkaido winter is cold, but [the] Tokyo [winter] is warm. / It's cold
in Hokkaido in the winter, but warm in Tokyo.

>
> **Note** : In some cases, only one item or idea is explicitly mentioned. For
> example, in the following sentence, the implication is that the person might
> go to a cheaper restaurant.
>

>> 高いから、あのレストランには行きません。

>>

>> _Takai kara, ano resutoran ni **wa** ikimasen._

>>

>> Because it's expensive, I won't go to that restaurant. / I am not going to
_that_ restaurant because it's too expensive.

>
> **Note** : In its contrastive function, _wa_ comes after other particles
> (e.g., _ni wa_ , _de wa_ ). Two important exceptions are when it replaces
> _ga_ and _o_ , as in the next example.
>

>> バターを買いましたか。  
> マーガリン **は** 買いましたが、バター **は** 買いませんでした。
>>

>> *Batā o kaimashita ka.  
>  Māgarin **wa** kaimashitaga, batā **wa** kaimasen deshita.
>>

>> Did you buy some butter?  
> I bought some margarine, but I didn't buy any butter. / I bought some
> margarine, but not any butter.
>
>   5. In the forms V- _te wa iru_ (first example below) and V- _masu_ base
> folowed by _wa_ and _suru_ (second and third examples), _wa_ indicates
> emphasis. See also _-te wa_ (#47).
>

>

>> コンピューターを持って **は** いますが、まだ使って( **は** )いません。

>>

>> _Konpyūtā o motte **wa** imasu ga, mada tsukatte ( **wa** ) imasen._

>>

>> I _own_ a computer [I do own a computer], but I haven't used it yet.

>>

>> あの人を知って **は** いますが、あまり話したこと **は** ありません。

>>

>> _Ano hito o shitte **wa** imasu ga, amari hanashita koto **wa** arimasen._

>>

>> I _know_ him, but I haven't spoken to him much.

>>

>> お茶 **は** 飲みましたが、時間がなかったので食事 **は** しませんでした。

>>

>> _Ocha **wa** nomimashita ga, jikan ga nakatta no de shokuji **wa** shimasen
deshita._

>>

>> I had some tea, but since there wasn't much time, I didn't eat (have a
meal).

I am somewhat unclear as to what you mean by "disambiguation" in that context.
I would tend to call it "focus" rather than "disambiguation", as that conveys
the meanings of both topic, emphasis, and contrast. Hope this helps.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-18T02:20:19.617
47534
2017-05-18T02:20:19.617
21802
47173
answer
> Can particle は use cases be summarized by a single term disambiguation?

I don't think so. Even though there are many definitions of 助詞 は and it seems
they are far from consistent, I think if you want the shortest definition is
subject marker. But when I say it's a subject marker, I mean it as semantic
subject marker and not syntactic one.

If you think of a construction like:

私は猫は好きだ。

the syntactic subject (and the object) can't be determined without the
context(usually this kind of utterance comes from a human point of view). And
because they are semantic subjects, the sentence can be translated into either
"As for me, I like cats." or "As for cats, I like them."

As for the topic/focus of conversation marker, it seems the が fits the bill. I
think が is not only a semantic subject marker, it's also a semantic object
marker. When you say:

私は猫が好きだ。

This construction implies "out of all animals/things (I like cats)" and
telling "it's cat" is the objective of conversation/sentence.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-18T13:47:06.637
47554
2017-05-18T13:47:06.637
22087
47173
answer
According to Michiel "Pomax" Kamermans in the section titled Essential
Particles, the particle は should be thought of as disambiguation particle.

Quoted from [chapter 4.2.1.8 — は —
Disambiguation](https://pomax.github.io/nrGrammar/#section-4-2-1-8-%E3%81%AF_%E2%80%94_Disambiguation):

> As already explained in chapter 2, in the verb particle section, は
> (pronounced わ) is used to disambiguate statements. Let's look at what this
> means in terms of what は does, compared to を or が. Imagine that we're having
> a conversation and we're talking about watching films in the cinema, DVD
> rentals, and TV shows, and the following sentence is used:
>
> テレビ(...)よく見ます。
>
> Where for (...) we either find が, を or は. While all three would translate to
> "(I) watch TV a lot", their connotations are very different.
>
> 1) テレビをよく見ます
>
> When we use を, the sentence is fairly plain information. Whoever of us says
> it wants to convey that they watch TV a lot, and nothing more.
>
> 2) テレビがよく見ます
>
> When we use が, the sentence is still plain information, although using が
> rather than を emphasises that whoever is talking about TV, is talking about
> TV. This using が as an emphasis marker is a fairly common practice, although
> you need to know why you're emphasising, of course.
>
> 3) テレビはよく見ます
>
> By using は, everything has changed. The speaker has indicated that the
> information in the sentence requires disambiguation in terms of what it
> applies to. In this case, the "watching a lot" only applies to TV. While を
> and が told us only one thing, namely the plain information that TV was being
> watched a lot, は tells us two things. First, the basic information, that
> someone watched TV a lot. However, because the speaker felt they needed to
> make sure that we know it only applies to TV, it also tells us that it
> explicitly does not apply to films or DVD rentals.
>
> This makes は very powerful, and also makes it very easy to misuse: If you
> only want to state some information, you should not be using は. However, if
> you want to make sure that the context for some information is unmistakable,
> は is exactly the particle you want to use.
>
> One very common use of this is in the form of social commentary, by pairing
> it with verbal て forms, followed by something that represents a negative
> commentary such as the word いけません, indicating that something "won't do", or
> the word 駄目, indicating something is bad:
>
> 今日は、来なくてはいけません。
>
> literally: "(you) not coming over today will not do".
>
> "(You) have to drop by today."
>
> 食べては駄目です。
>
> literally: "Eating it is no good."
>
> "(You) may not eat this."
>
> In these sentences, the negative repercussion is explicitly said to apply
> only in the situations marked by は. Also, because は is used, we know that
> they don't apply if whatever は is suffixed to doesn't apply.
>
> Of course, sometimes it will feel like は isn't doing this strict
> disambiguation, such as in simple sentences like the following:
>
> 今日はいい天気ですね。
>
> "Nice weather today, isn't it?"
>
> 実は、日本語に下手です。
>
> "Actually, I'm horrible at Japanese."
>
> In both sentences, the は looks perfectly innocent, but it's actually still
> doing the exact same thing. In the first sentence, the fact that 今日 has to
> be mentioned means that the situation of good weather is implicitly being
> contrasted to some previous, poor weather. Similarly, in the second sentence
> it seems like 実, 'truthfully' or 'actually', is fairly innocent, but the
> fact that it has been explicitly mentioned and marked with は means that the
> information that follows only applies in the context of 'true information'.
> Even when は sounds like it's just sitting in a sentence as a common
> courtesy, it never loses its additional connotation.
>
> So in summary, we can characterise は as: [X]は[Y] → in the context of [X],
> [Y] applies, and outside the context of [X], [Y] does not apply. Put
> concisely, は not only tells us the applicable context, but also the
> inapplicable context.
>
> Because of this, you will typically find は referred to as the 'context'
> particle (or 'topic' particle) in literature, but this is dangerous
> terminology, as it makes it really easy to forget that in addition to
> indicate context/topic, it also indicates the inverse at the same time. は
> never just marks applicable context, it always — always — also gives the
> inapplicable context simply by virtue of being used. If you don't want to
> also imply inapplicable context, use が — or を — instead.
>
> (Almost) needless to say, this also means you never use は for things you're
> asking questions about. For instance, in the following example sentences,
> the first sentence is fine, and the second is very, very wrong:
>
> 誰が来ましたか。
>
> "Who came (over)?"
>
> 誰は来ましたか。
>
> "Who, as opposed to someone else, came (over)?"
>
> This second sentence makes absolutely no sense, and you should never ever
> mark subjects of questions with は. Ever.
>
> That said, you can use は in a question to disambiguate just fine, as long as
> it does not get used for the actual question subject:
>
> 最近は誰がよく来ましたか。
>
> "Who's recently been coming (over)?"
>
> literally: "Lately [rather than during some other time frame], who has come
> (over)?"
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-22T00:30:44.677
47639
2017-05-22T06:06:40.910
2017-05-22T06:06:40.910
10476
47173
answer