Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Czech and Japanese show formal differences in adnominal modification. Czech tends to utilize adjectives for both classification and qualification purposes whereas Japanese tends to express classification by compounding and to use a whole range of parts of speech for qualification. As a result, part of speech membership often differs between the Czech and Japanese rendering of the same referential content. It has been shown that parts of speech dispose of schematic meaning which contributes to conceptualization. Based on the results of corpora analysis, I argue that the difference in parts of speech membership results in different tendencies in meaning extension and ultimately in different meaning of the two counterparts, Czech adjectives are more abstract and schematic while Japanese verbs are more concrete.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Croft, W.
    (2006) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp.269–302). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.269 [Google Scholar]
  2. Dirven, R.
    (2002) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.75–111). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.75 [Google Scholar]
  3. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Grady, J.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. UC Berkeley, Dissertation.
  5. Imai, M., Li, L., Haryu, E., Okada, H., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., & Shigematsu, J.
    (2008) Novel noun and verb learning in Chinese-, English-, and Japanese-speaking children. Child Development, 79, 979–1000. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2008.01171.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01171.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Kageyama, T., & Kishimoto, H.
    (Eds.) (2016) Handbook of Japanese lexicon and word formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614512097
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512097 [Google Scholar]
  7. Kageyama, T., & Saito, M.
    (2016) Vocabulary strata and word formation processes. InT. Kageyama & H. Kishimoto (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese lexicon and word formation (pp.1–50). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kanasugi, P.
    (2016) Hyōzōsei no Kanten kara mita Chekogo to Nihongo to no Hikaku – Chekogo niokeru “Keiyōshi + Meishi” no Kōzō o megutte. InHikaku Nihongaku kjóiku kenkjú sentá kenkjú hókoku (pp.142–147). Tokyo: Ochanomizu University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) On grammatical categories. Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 44–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Maass, A., Karasawa, M., Politi, F., & Suga, S.
    (2006) Do verbs and adjectives play different roles in different cultures?_ A cross-linguistic analysis of person representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 734–750. 10.1037/0022‑3514.90.5.734
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.734 [Google Scholar]
  15. Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkjūkai
    Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkjūkai (2013) Gendai Nihongo Bunpō. Vol.1. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Okimori, T., Kimura, Y., Tanaka, M., & Chin, R.
    (2011) Zukai Nihon no Goi. Tokyo: Sanseidō.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp.407–434). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  19. Suzuki, S.
    (1982) Nihongo bunpō, keitairon. Tokyo: Mugishobō.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Štícha, F.
    (2013) Akademická gramatika spisovné češtiny. Prague: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Uehara, S.
    (1998) Syntactic categories in Japanese: A cognitive and typological introduction. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]

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