This dissertation examines how the Japanese particles "nado", "toka", and "tari" which all may be translated as "such as", "etc.", or "like" behave differently in written and spoken discourse. According to traditional analyses (e.g. Martin, 1987), these particles are assumed to be Exemplifying Particles (EP) used to provide concrete examples to explain an abstract idea; however, these particles also have other functions. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis of each particle based upon naturally-occurring data, this dissertation shows clear structural and functional differentiations in the use of the particles between written and spoken discourse. In writing, the reader is separated from the writer by both time and space. These particles can be used to present examples to clarify and support the point a writer makes in order to avoid misunderstanding. Conversely, in spoken language, these particles are often used to soften the utterance by creating fuzzy boundaries around a concept and mitigating the force of statements or questions which generates the effect of politeness in the expression of restraint. These particles downgrade the strength of the utterance as an interpersonal communicative strategy. The forms and functions of the EPs in written and spoken discourses are different because the requirements, pressures, and the language producers' intentions are contingently different. Conversation is more interactively oriented while writing maintains a more informational orientation. Therefore, conversational discourse creates a derivative grammar of the particles that emerges as a result of its interactional demands, while written discourse does not necessitate the softening function in its grammar. These phenomena are related to the notion of emergence in grammatical subsystems that has been discussed by Hopper (1987) under the name of Emergent Grammar which assumes that grammar evolves by responding to the need of discourse (as much as grammar forms a discourse). Grammars of spoken and written discourses differ from each other since the discourse demands of distinct language uses are different in their motivations, purposes, and functions. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]