1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a discourse-pragmatic analysis of event conceptions with an accusative-, dative-, and comitative-marked participant and thereby accounts for somewhat irregular accusative marking in Korean and Japanese. The three cases can basically be analyzed as serving to mark participants in physical or mental events that involve a factive or fictive change as a primary element. The accusative marks a change-constitutive participant (so-called affected or effected entity), while the dative and comitative mark a change-independent participant. Unlike Japanese, Korean exhibits the tendency to extend the accusative case to the marking of an entity that constitutes some fictive change in a discourse-based event conception. In contrast, Japanese is liable to recruit the accusative case in an extended use for the marking of an entity that undergoes a fictive change in the conceptions of mental/bodily experiences. These conceptual characterizations can provide a further explanation for the discrepant and idiosyncratic accusative marking in verb phrases such as ‘ride a bus,’ ‘meet a person,’ ‘come/go to a place,’ and ‘give a person a book.’

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/alal.00004.izu
2020-03-11
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anttila, A. & Kim, J.-B.
    (2011) On structural case in Finnish and Korean. Lingua, 121, 100–127. Special issue on Semantic Aspects of Case Variation. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bando, M.
    (1996) Semantic properties of -ni NP and -o NP of Japanese psych-verbs. Journal of Language and Culture, 5, 165–177. Osaka: Osaka University.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, J.
    (2011) On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 335–370. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9124‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blake, B. J.
    (1994) Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, W.
    (2012) Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DeLancey, S.
    (2001) The Mirative and Evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 369–382. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hopper, P. J.
    (1998) Emergent Grammar. Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language; Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure (pp.155–175). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. İşsever, S.
    (2003) Information structure in Turkish: the word order-prosody interface. Lingua, 113, 1025–1053. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00012‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Izutsu, K. & Tamura, Y.-S.
    (2016) Independent of change or constitutive of change: Event construal of unstable recipient role in prototypical ditransitive events. Proceedings of the High Desert Linguistics Society Conference, 11, 175–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim, J.-B. & Sells, P.
    (2010) Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language, 34, 602–635. 10.1075/sl.34.3.04kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.3.04kim [Google Scholar]
  12. Kim, Y.-T.
    (2009) Event Construal and its Linguistic Encoding: Towards an Extended Semantic Map Model. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
  13. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  14. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1993) Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1997) Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 1–32. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2001a) Dynamicity in Cognitive Grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7–33. 10.1023/A:1012701031022
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012701031022 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2001b) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Levin, B.
    (2010) The Semantic Bases of Japanese and Korean Ditransitives. Handout of the 20th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, October 1–3, 2010. (web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/jk10dat.pdf).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ono, S., Satake, A. & Maeda, K.
    (Eds.) (1990) Iwanami Kogo Jiten (revised and expanded ed.) [Iwanami’s classical Japanese dictionary]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Paik, P. J.
    (2007) Wegugeo roseo eui hangugeo munbeob sajin: Korean Grammar as a foreign language. Seoul: Hawoo.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Shibatani, M.
    (2003) Directional verbs in Japanese. InErin Shay and Uwe Seibert (Eds.), Motion, Direction, and Location in Languages: In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier (pp.259–286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.56.19shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.56.19shi [Google Scholar]
  24. Shimizu, Y.
    (2007) Shinridoshi no kaku to imiyakuwari no taio-zure: “inyokobun” niokeru meishiku to inyosetsu no imikankei kara [Correspondence and discrepancy between the cases and semantic roles of Psychological verbs: with respect to the semantic relationship between noun phrases and quotative clauses in the “quotative construction”]. Nihon Bungei Kenkyu, 58, 23–39. Nishinomiya: Kwansei Gakuin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Fictive motion in language and “ception.” InToward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.1 (pp.99–175). Cambridge, MA: MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Teramura, H.
    (1982) Nihongo no Shintakusu to Imi I [Syntax and meaning of Japanese, vol. 1]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Tsukamoto, H.
    (1991) Nihongo niokeru kakujoshi kotai gensho nitsuite [On the phenomenon of case-particle alternation in Japanese]. The Bulletin of the Faculty of Law and Letters, Humanities, 24, 103–127. Matsuyama: Ehime University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tsunoda, T.
    (1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 385–396. 10.1017/S0022226700010318
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010318 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/alal.00004.izu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.00004.izu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error