Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:03:52.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motion Verbs with Locational/Directional PPs in English and Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Shunji Inagaki
Shunji Inagaki*
Affiliation:
Osaka Prefecture University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Talmy’s typology of “lexicalization patterns” for a motion event, English is the type of language that conflates Motion and Manner in the verb root, whereas Japanese is the type of language that conflates Motion and Path in the verb root. This article provides an explanation for why there is such a difference between English and Japanese within the framework of Hale and Keyser’s syntactic approach to argument structure. It extends Hale and Keyser’s approach to motion verbs and locational/directional Ps in English and Japanese and shows that given a “Lexical Relational Structure” of a motion event, the difference between English and Japanese derives from the fact that the former has a variety of directional Ps, allowing the insertion of a manner-of-motion verb into the Motion V, whereas the latter has a variety of directed motion verbs with the Path P incorporated into the Motion V. This suggests that Talmy’s lexicalization patterns are constrained by general syntactic principles.

Résumé

Résumé

Selon la typologie des patrons de lexicalisation des événements de déplacement proposée par Talmy, l’anglais est une langue qui amalgame Mouvement et Manière dans la racine verbale, alors que le japonais est une langue qui amalgame Mouvement et Trajectoire (Path) dans la racine verbale. Cet article propose une explication à cette différence entre l’anglais et le japonais dans le cadre de l’approche syntaxique de la structure d’arguments développée par Hale et Keyser. L’ approche de Hale et Keyser est étendue aux verbes de déplacement ainsi qu’aux P locationnelles/directionnelles en anglais et en japonais. Il est démontré que, compte tenu de la «Structure relationnelle lexicale» d’un événement de déplacement, la différence entre l’anglais et le japonais dérive du fait que l’anglais possède une variété de P directionnelles, permettant l’insertion d’un verbe de manière de déplacement dans le V de déplacement, alors que le japonais possède une variété de verbes de déplacement dirigé avec la P de Trajectoire incorporée dans le V de mouvement. Cela suggère que les patrons de lexicalisation de Talmy sont contraints par des principes syntaxiques généraux.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 47 , Issue 3-4 , December 2002 , pp. 187 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aske, Jon. 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1–14.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard. 1988. On linking: Papers by Richard Carter. Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, and Lepore, Ernie. 1999. Impossible words? Linguistic Inquiry 30:445–453.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers 34, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1992. The syntactic character of thematic structure. In Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, ed. Roca, Iggy M., 107–143. Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J., 53–109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicators. In Complex predicates, ed. Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, 29–65. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, ed. Harley, Heidi, 73–118.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1999a. Bound features, Merge, and transitivity alternations. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon, ed. Pylkkanen, Lima, van Hout, Angeliek, and Harley, Heidi, 49–72.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1999b. A response to Fodor and Lepore, “Impossible words?”. Linguistic Inquiry 30:453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. ‘Sum’ to ‘naru’ no gengogaku [Linguistics on ‘do’ and ‘become’]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Inagaki, Shunji. 1999. Motion verbs and locational/directional Ps in English and Japanese. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar
Inagaki, Shunji. 2001. Motion verbs with locational/directional PPs in English and Japanese. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 15:37–79.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jorden, Eleanor H., and Noda, Mari. 1987. Japanese: The spoken language, Part 1. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Complex predicates, ed. Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, 473–499. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kizu, Mika. 1996a. A syntactic approach to unaccusative mismatches. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar
Kizu, Mika. 1996b. A goal phrase and unaccusativity. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics ‘96, 194—205.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rapoport, Tova R.. 1988. Lexical subordination. In Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 275–289.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1989. An approach to unaccusative mismatches. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 19, 314–328.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 1995. A neo-Davidsonian approach to resultatives, particles, and datives. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 25, 457–471.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1985. Relator nouns as a source of case inflection. In For Gordon H. Fairbanks, ed. Acson, Veneeta Z. and Leed, Richard L., 111–133. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Takezawa, Koichi. 1993. Secondary predication and locative/goal phrases. In Japanese syntax in comparative grammar, ed. Hasegawa, Nobuko, 45–77. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Syntax and semantics 4, ed. Kimball, John P., 181–238. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon , ed. Shopen, T., 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 48–519.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1994. Unaccusative mismatches and resultatives in Japanese. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24: Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 1, ed. Koizumi, Masatoshi and Ura, Hiroyuki, 335–354.Google Scholar
Yoneyama, Mitsuaki. 1986. Motion verbs in conceptual semantics. Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities 22:1–15. Seikei University, Tokyo.Google Scholar