Take the 2-minute tour ×
Japanese Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Japanese language. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here's a sentence I found:

デパートはどこにあるか、知っていますか?
Do you know where the department store is?

What's the purpose of the か particle in 「どこにあるか」? Under what circumstances do I use it?

I'm fairly sure it's not the か that's normally used to form questions, like the second か in that sentence, nor is it the か that means “or.”

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

Think of this か as a that is nominalizing a question.

デパートはどこにあるか、知{し}っていますか?

Do you know where is the department store?

In spoken casual conversation I've heard native speakers drop the か and communicate just as effectively, but I would recommend always using か.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm not sure か can be dropped in this case. It sounds weird to me, and googling for "どこにある、知" only yields 9 results, of which just two are grammatically similar to this case: 「…それは私の中心がどこにある知られていないので…」 and 「…それは私の中心地がどこにある知られていないため…」 By comparison, "どこにあるか、知" has 12400 results, "どこにあるのか、知" has 6330. –  Raizin Nov 6 at 21:38
1  
You may be able to communicate even if you drop the か, but it is not grammatical to do so as far as I can tell (this may not be true in some particular dialect or another, I suppose...). The best I can think of is that if you split it into two sentences with rising intonation at the end of the first (デパートはどこにある↗ [pause] 知っていますか?) then it is, if not entirely natural, at least more or less grammatical. –  rintaun Nov 7 at 1:05
    
Definitely not acceptable in written language, but just fine in spoken conversation. –  Jorge Bucaran Nov 7 at 5:58

These are sometimes called embedded questions, but if you look them up you'll find a variety of terminology in use, including "embedded interrogative content clauses" and "indirect questions".


I think the か in embedded questions is more or less the same か used to form regular questions. But there are a couple differences:

  • In an embedded question, it's okay to have だ before か:

    1. [ 誰だか ] 分からない                  ←  okay

  • In an embedded question, か generally can't be omitted:

    2. デパートは [ どこにある ] 知っていますか?  ←   can't be omitted

Another difference is that embedded interrogatives can function like nouns (for examples, see Satoshi Tomioka's paper Japanese Embedded Questions are Nominal, especially pages 8 and 9). In fact, we might want to say as a matter of theory that the か-phrase is the direct object of 知る:

    3a. [ どこにあるか ]- 知らない  
    3b. [ どこにあるか ]   知らない

We might choose to say that sentence 3b is derived from sentence 3a by omitting を. But in practice, it's usually omitted, particularly in conversation, and sometimes inserting を is strange, so I'm not sure if this is the right approach. (See our discussion in chat.)


We have embedded questions in English, too:

   4a. What are you talking about?
   4b. I don't know [ what you're talking about ].

In 4a we have a basic question, and in 4b we have the embedded question corresponding to 4a. Likewise, in Japanese, we can write:

   5a. を言っているのか?
   5b. [ を言っているのか ] 分からない。

As you can see, embedded questions straightforwardly correspond to main clause questions, although in each language there are small differences in syntax.

share|improve this answer
    
Does this か not correspond to an indirect question? Maybe I'm missing something big here. –  3 to 5 business days Oct 28 at 9:01
1  
@3to5businessdays Yes, some people call interrogative content clauses "indirect questions" or "embedded questions" etc. (I should clean this answer up...) –  snailboat Oct 28 at 9:07
    
How about a sentence like 調査でどんな証拠が見つかるかに応じて起訴を推すかを決めよう。 The first question refers more to a yet unknown circumstance than a question as such. The か particle seems to indicate more doubt than inquisition. –  Espen Nielsen Oct 28 at 12:17
    
@EspenNielsen I think "embedded interrogative content clause" would probably be the most accurate term. I was trying not to hit people over the head with terminology, so I went with a simpler term that people sometimes use. –  snailboat Oct 28 at 12:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.