A Cognitive Grammar of Japanese Clause Structure

| Keio University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027246691 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027267467 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This volume represents the first comprehensive work on Japanese clause structure conducted within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. The author proposes schematic conceptual structures for the major constructions in the language and defines Japanese case marking and grammatical relations in purely conceptual terms. The work thus makes a convincing case for the conceptual basis of grammar, thereby constituting a strong argument against the autonomy of syntax hypothesis of Generative Grammar.

The volume should be of interest to any researcher wishing to know how Cognitive Grammar, whose primary focus has been on the non-syntactic aspects of language, can explain the clausal structure of a given language in a detailed, comprehensive, yet unifying manner. In addition to its theoretical findings, the volume contains a number of revealing analyses and interpretations of Japanese data, which should be of great interest to all Japanese linguists, irrespective of their theoretical persuasions.

[Human Cognitive Processing, 53]  2016.  xxiii, 373 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of figures
xv–xx
List of tables / List of abbreviations
xxi
Acknowledgments
xxiii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–24
Chapter 2. Subjecthood tests
25–36
Chapter 3. The semantic structure of the nominative-accusative construction
37–48
Chapter 4. The semantic structure of the dative-nominative construction
49–120
Chapter 5. The semantic structure of the bi-clausal double-nominative construction
121–164
Chapter 6. The semantic structure of the mono-clausal double-nominative construction
165–240
Chapter 7. The semantic structure of the topic construction
241–262
Chapter 8. The semantic structure of the nominative case marker ga
263–290
Chapter 9. Conclusion
291–331
Appendix. Summaries of constructions from Chapters 3–6
333–357
References
359–369
Index
371–373
“This fine-grained study of central aspects of clause structure represents an important contribution to cognitive linguistics as well as the investigation of Japanese. It is perhaps the most extensive, detailed, and precise descriptive study yet carried out in the framework of Cognitive Grammar. As such, it is revelatory in regard to both the grammar of Japanese and how the framework applies to it.”
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Reference Point and Case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68], Crossref logo
Bell, Daniel
2019. Chinese possesses Japanese style scrambling: the case of Xining Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 28:2  pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Alfonso, A.
(1966) Japanese language patterns: A structural approach. Tokyo: L. L. Center of Applied Linguistics, Sophia University.Google Scholar
Amano, M.
(1990) Fuku shukaku bun koo: Fuku shukaku bun no imi to, seiritsu ni kakawaru imiteki seiyaku [Thoughts on multiple nominative sentences: The meanings of multiple nominative sentences and the semantic constraints on their formation]. Nihongogaku, 9, 27–42.Google Scholar
Aoki, H.
(1986) Evidentials in Japanese. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic encoding of epistemology (pp. 223–238). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Blake, B.J.
(1994) Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brentano, F.
(1924) Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt, Volumes 1 and 2. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Butt, M.
(2003) The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 1–49.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L.
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li (1976), Subject and topic, 25–56.Google Scholar
Clancy, P., & Downing, P.
(1987) The use of wa as a cohesive marker in Japanese oral narratives. In Hinds, et al. (1987), Perspectives on topicalization: The case of Japanese wa, 3–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1981) Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 265–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1995) Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language, 71, 490–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culy, C.
(1997) Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics, 35, 845–859. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S.C.
(1989) The theory of functional grammar, Part I, The structure of the clause. 
Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1997) The theory of functional grammar, Part I, The structure of the clause. Second, revised edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.R.
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J.E.
(1976) A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fujitani, N.
(1778) Ayuisho [Notes on suffixes and auxiliaries]. Reprinted in (1971) with notes by N. Nakada and M. Takaoka. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M.J.
(Eds.) (2007) Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.T.
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In S.T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D.
(2007) A case for a cognitive corpus linguistics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, et al. (2007), Methods in cognitive linguistics, 149–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H., & Travis, L.
(1992) SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 375–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1980) Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50, 329–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985) Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harada, S.-I.
(1976) Honorifics. In Shibatani (1976a), Syntax and semantics, Volume 5, Japanese generative grammar, 499–561.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
(1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J.
(1978) Conversational structure: An investigation based on Japanese interview discourse. In Hinds & Howard (1978), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 79–121.Google Scholar
(1986) Situation vs. person focus. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hinds, J., & Howard, I.
(Eds.) (1978) Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Hinds, J., Maynard, S.K., & Iwasaki, S.
(Eds.) (1987) Perspectives on topicalization: The case of Japanese wa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirose, Y.
(2002) Viewpoint and the nature of the Japanese reflexive zibun. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 357–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, L.
(1935) La catégorie des cas: Etude de grammaire générale, Volume 1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J.
(1987) Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 117–134). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1998) Emergent grammar. In Tomasello (1998), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 155–175.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Thompson, S.A.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horikawa, T.
(2012) Nihongo no “shudai” [“Topic” in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hoshi, H.
(1999) Passives. In Tsujimura (1999), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 191–235.Google Scholar
Ide, S.
(1982) Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women’s language. Lingua, 57, 357–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iida, M.
(1996) Context and binding in Japanese. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
(1981) “Suru” to “naru” no gengogaku: Gengo to bunka no taiporoji e no shiron [Linguistics of “do” and “become”: Essays on typology of language and culture]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
(1991) “DO-language” and “BECOME-language”: Two contrasting types of linguistic representation. In Y. Ikegami (Ed.), The empire of signs: Semiotic essays on Japanese culture (pp. 285–326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) <Ido> no sukima to <koi> no sukima: Nihongo no “o kaku + ido dooshi” kozo no ruikeiron teki kosatsu [The <movement> schema and the <action> schema: A typological study of the “particle o + verb of movement” structure in Japanese]. Gaikokugoka Kenkyu Kiyo, 41(3), 34–53. College of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Komaba.Google Scholar
Inoue, K.
(1976) Reflexivization: An interpretive approach. In Shibatani (1976a), Syntax and semantics, Volume 5, Japanese generative grammar, 117–200.Google Scholar
(1978a) Nihongo no bumpo kisoku [Grammatical rules of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
(1978b) “Tough sentences” in Japanese. In Hinds & Howard (1978), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 122–154.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S.
(1992) Subjectivity in grammar and discourse: Theoretical considerations and a case study of Japanese spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, W.
(1992) The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1936) Beiträge zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 6, 240–288. Reprinted in Jakobson (1971), 23–72.Google Scholar
(1958) Morphological inquiry into Slavic declension: Structure of Russian case forms. Reprinted in Jakobson (1971), 154–183.Google Scholar
(1971) Selected writings II: Words and language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kabata, K., & Rice, S.
(1997) Japanese ni: The particulars of a somewhat contradictory particle. In M. Verspoor, K.D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 102–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kameyama, M.
(1984) Subjective/logophoric bound anaphor jibun. Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 228–238.
Kanaya, T.
(2002) Nihongo ni shugo wa iranai: Hyakunen no gobyu o tadasu [No need for subject in Japanese: Correcting a century-old fallacy]. Tokyo: Kodansha.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.L., & Comrie, B.
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kikuchi, Y.
(1995) “Wa” kobun no gaikan [An overview of the “wa” constructions]. In 
T. Masuoka, H. Noda, & Y. Numata (Eds.), Nihongo no shudai to toritate [Topics and nominal emphasis in Japanese] (pp. 37–69). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kindaichi, H.
(1950) Kokugo doshi no ichi bunrui [A classification of Japanese verbs]. Reprinted in Kindaichi (1976), 5–26.Google Scholar
(1955) Nihongo doshi no tensu to asupekuto [Tense and aspect of Japanese verbs]. Reprinted in Kindaichi (1976), 27–62.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (1976) Nihongo doshi no asupekuto [Aspect of Japanese verbs]. Tokyo: Mugi Shobo.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H.
(2004) Transitivity of ergative case-marking predicates in Japanese. Studies in Language, 28, 105–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D.
(1991) The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kumashiro, T.
(1994a) How the goal can be the source: The semantics of the Japanese dative marker ni. In V.B. Makkai (Ed.), Twentieth LACUS Forum 1993 (pp. 401–417). Lake Bluff: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.Google Scholar
(1994b) On the conceptual definitions of adpositions and case markers: A case for the conceptual basis of syntax. Papers from the Thirtieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 236–250.
(2001) The imperfectivizer aspect in Japanese. Kyoyo Ronso, 114, 85–116. Faculty of Law, Keio University.Google Scholar
(2004) Cognitive acts, mental contacts, and ga and wa in Japanese. Kyoyo Ronso, 121, 43–68. Faculty of Law, Keio University.Google Scholar
(2014) No c-command or movement: The conceptual basis of quantifier float in Japanese. Manuscript. Faculty of Law, Keio University.Google Scholar
Kumashiro, T., & Langacker, R.W.
(2003) Double-subject and complex-predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kunihiro, T.
(1974) Culture and system of expression in patterns: A contrast of English and Japanese. In Hoffer, B.L. (Ed.), Proceedings of a U.S.-Japan sociolinguistics meeting (pp. 13–24). San Antonio: Trinity University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S.
(1972) Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 269–320.Google Scholar
(1973) The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1976) Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy – A reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Li (1976), Subject and topic, 417–444.Google Scholar
(1978a) Danwa no bumpo [The grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
(1978b) Theoretical perspectives on Japanese linguistics. In Hinds & Howard (1978), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 213–285.Google Scholar
(1983) Shin nihon bumpo kenkyu [A new study of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
(1986) Ukemi bun no imi: Kuroda setsu no sai hihan [The meaning of passive sentences: A re-criticism of Kuroda’s analysis]. Nihongogaku, 5, 70–87.Google Scholar
(1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., & Kaburaki, E.
(1977) Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 627–672.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
(1965) Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprinted in (1979). New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
(1972) The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185. Reprinted in Kuroda (1979b), 1–32.Google Scholar
(1973a) On Kuno’s direct discourse analysis of the Japanese reflexive zibun. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 2, 136–147.Google Scholar
(1973b) Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese. In S.R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 377–391). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Reprinted in Kuroda (1979b), 185–203.Google Scholar
(1978) Case marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter equi in Japanese (a preliminary survey). In Hinds & Howard (1978), 30–51. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992), 222–239.Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, Google Scholar
(1979a) On Japanese passives. In G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, & M. Muraki (Eds.), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue (pp. 305–347). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992), 183–221.Google Scholar
(1979b) The (w)hole of the doughnut: Syntax and its boundaries. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) What can Japanese say about government and binding? Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 2, 153–164.Google Scholar
(1985) Ukemi ni tsuite no Kuno setsu o kaishaku suru: Hitotsu no han hihan [Interpreting Kuno’s analysis of passives: A counter-criticism]. Nihongogaku, 4, 69–76.Google Scholar
(1986) Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In T. Imai & M. Saito (Eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics (pp. 229–271). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1987) The study of the so-called topic wa in passages from Tolstoi, Lawrence, and Faulkner (of course in Japanese translation). In Hinds, et al. (1987), Perspectives on topicalization: The case of Japanese wa, 143–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes, 12, 1–47. Reprinted in W. J. Poser (Ed.) (1988), Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax (pp. 103–143). Stanford: CSLI. Also reprinted in Kuroda (1992), 315–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The categorical and the thetic judgment reconsidered. In K. Mulligan (Ed.), Mind, meaning and metaphysics: The philosophy and theory of language of Anton Marty (pp. 77–88). Dordrecht: Nijhoff. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1982) Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language, 58, 22–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Active zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 172–188. Revised in Langacker (1990a), 189–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986a) Abstract motions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, 455–471. Revised in Langacker (1990a), 149–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986b) Settings, participants, and grammatical relations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, 2, 1–31.Google Scholar
(1987a) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1987b) Grammatical ramifications of the setting/participant distinction. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 383–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988a) Autonomy, agreement, and cognitive grammar. Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2, Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory, 147–180.
(1988b) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Revised in Langacker (1990a), 261–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990a) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1990b) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38. Revised in Langacker (1990a), 315–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 2, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993a) Clause structure in cognitive grammar. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 15, 465–508. Revised in Langacker (1999d), 1–43.Google Scholar
(1993b) Deixis and subjectivity. In S.K. Verma & V. Prakasam (Eds.), New horizons in functional linguistics (pp. 43–58). Hyderabad: Booklinks.Google Scholar
(1993c) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. Adapted in Langacker (1999d), 171–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995a) Possession and possessive constructions. In J.R. Taylor & R.E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 51–79). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995b) Raising and transparency. Language, 71, 1–62. Revised in Langacker (1999d), 317–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995c) The symbolic alternative. In H. Kardela & G. Persson (Eds.), New trends in semantics and lexicography (pp. 89–118). Umeå: Swedish Science Press.Google Scholar
(1995d) Viewing in cognition and grammar. In P.W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 153–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Revised in Langacker (1999d), 203–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997a) Consciousness, construal, and subjectivity. In M.I. Stamenov (Ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness (pp. 49–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997b) A dynamic account of grammatical function. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 249–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Condensed and revised in Langacker (1999d), 361–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998a) Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In Tomasello (1998), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 1–39.Google Scholar
(1998b) Topic, subject, and possessor. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla, 19, 1–28. Reprinted in H. G. Simonsen & R. T. Endresen (eds.) (2001), A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and constructional perspectives (pp. 11–48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1999a) Correspondences, compositionality, and grammar. In F.T. Iglesia, J.A. Prieto Pablos, M.J. Mora, & T.L. Soto (Eds.), Actas del XXI Congreso Internacional de A.E.D.E.A.N. (pp. 55–74). Sevilla: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
(1999b) Double-subject constructions. In S.-Y. Bak (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, Volume 4 (pp. 83–104). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1999c) A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow & Kemmer (1999), 1–63. Revised in Langacker (1999d), 91–145.Google Scholar
(1999d) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999e) Losing control: grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 147–175). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Adapted in Langacker (1999d), 297–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Dynamic conceptualization in grammatical structure. Research in Language, 1, 53–79.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, C.N.
(Ed.) (1976) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A.
(1976) Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li (1976), Subject and topic, 457–489.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S.
(2003) On the meaning of prepositions and cases: A study of the expression of semantic roles in ancient Greek. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marty, A.
(1908) Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle a.S.: M. Niemeyer. Reprinted in (1976). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
(1916–1918) Gesammelte Schriften. Halle a.S.: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(1940) Psyche und Sprachstruktur. Bern: A. Francke AG.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(1997) Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsushita, D.
(1928) Kaisen hyojun nihon bumpo [Revised standard Japanese grammar]. 
Tokyo: Kigensha. Reprinted in (1978). Tokyo: Benseisha.Google Scholar
Maynard, S.K.
(1987) Thematization as a staging device in the Japanese narrative. In Hinds, et al. (1987), 57–82.Google Scholar
McCawley, N.A.
(1976) Reflexivization: A transformational approach. In Shibatani (1976a), 51–116.Google Scholar
McGloin, N.H.
(1980) Ga/no conversion re-examined. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 7, 65–77.Google Scholar
Mikami, A.
(1953) Gendai goho josetsu: Shintakusu no kokoromi [An introduction to modern grammar: A syntactic approach]. Tokyo: Toko Shoin. Reprinted in (1972). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
(1959) Zoku gendai goho josetsu: Shugo haishi ron [A sequel to an introduction to modern grammar: Subject abolitionism]. Tokyo: Toko Shoin. Reprinted in (1972). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
(1960) Zo wa hana ga nagai [The elephant has a long trunk]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D.C.
(1984) An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. In D.E. Kieras & M.A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 69–89). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., Farmer, T.A., & Waugh, L.R.
(2007) They actually said that? An introduction to working with usage data through discourse and corpus analysis. In Gonzalez-Marquez, et al. (2007), 19–52.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S.
(1989) Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Momoi, K.
(1985) Semantic roles, variation, and the Japanese reflexive. University of Chicago Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 73–92.Google Scholar
Moriyama, S.
(2008) Ninchi gengogaku kara mita nihongo kaku joshi no imi kozo to shutoku: Nihongo kyoiku no tame ni [The semantic structure of Japanese case particles and their acquisition from a cognitive-linguistic perspective: For their application to Japanese language education]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Nakajima, N., & Sagawa, M.
(1984) On subjectivization – A drastic modification of Kuno’s analysis –. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics, 17, 103–115.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J.
(1983) Grammatical theory: Its limits and possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Language form and language function. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1988) On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shapely (Ed.), In honor of Mary Has: From the Has festival conference on native American linguistics (pp. 557–609). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niwa, T.
(2006) Nihongo no daimoku bun [Topic sentences in Japanese]. Osaka: Izumi Shoin.Google Scholar
Noda, H.
(1996) “Wa” to “ga” [“Wa” and “ga”]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Nomura, M.
(2000) The internally-headed relative clause constructions in Japanese: A cognitive grammar approach. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Odani, M.
(2000) Fuyu suryoshi ni han’ei sareru ninchi sutorateji [Cognitive strategies reflected in floating numeral quantifiers]. Papers in Linguistic Science, 6, 61–101. Department of Linguistic Science, Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
Ogiwara, T.
(1999) Tense and aspect. In Tsujimura (1999), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 326–48.Google Scholar
Oka, T.
(2013) Basho no gengogaku [Linguistics of locations]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Onoe, K.
(1981) “Wa” no kakari joshi sei to hyogen teki kino [The characteristics of “wa” as a relational particle and its expressive functions]. Kokugo to Kokubungaku, 58, 102–108.Google Scholar
(1997) Nihongo no shugo no ninchi bumpo teki haaku [A cognitive-grammatical account of subject in Japanese]. A lecture presented at The Sixth CLC Intensive Lectures in Linguistics . University of Tokyo, Komaba.
(1997–1998) Bumpo o kangaeru [Reflecting on grammar] 1–4: Shugo [Subject] (1)–(4). Nihongogaku, 16(11), 91–97, 16(12), 88–94, 17(1), 87–94, and 17(4), 96–103.Google Scholar
Payne, D.L., & Barshi, I.
(1999) External possession: What, where, how, and why. In D.L. Payne & I. Barshi (Eds.), External possession (pp. 3–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D.M.
(1984) Working 1s and inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quecha. In D.M. Perlmutter & C.G. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in relation grammar, Volume 2 (pp. 292–330). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, D.A.
(2007) Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, S.
(1987a) Toward a cognitive model of transitivity. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
(1987b) Towards a transitive prototype: Evidence from some atypical English passives. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 422–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadakane, K., & Koizumi, M.
(1995) On the nature of the “dative” particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics, 33, 5–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, M.
(2007) Grammar in use across time and space: Deconstructing the Japanese dative subject construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saito, M.
(1982) Case marking in Japanese: A preliminary study. Manuscript. Department of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sells, P.
(1987) Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 445–481.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M.
(Ed.) (1976a) Syntax and semantics, Volume 5, Japanese generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1976b) Causativization. In Shibatani (1976a), Syntax and semantics, Volume 5, Japanese generative grammar, 239–294.Google Scholar
(1977) Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language, 33, 789–809. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978a) Mikami Akira and the notion of “subject” in Japanese grammar. In Hinds & Howard (1978), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 52–67.Google Scholar
(1978b) Nihongo no bunseki [An analysis of the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
(1986) On the transitivity of the stative predicate. In S.-Y. Kuroda (Ed.), Working papers from the first SDF workshop in Japanese syntax (pp. 147–168). Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
(1990) The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29, 45–76.Google Scholar
(2001) Non-canonical constructions in Japanese. In A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 307–354). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M., & Cotton, C.
(1977) Remarks on double nominative sentences. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 5, 261–278.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
(1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith, M.B.
(1993) Cases as conceptual categories: Evidence from German. In R.A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 531–565). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sugai, K.
(2005) Kaku no taikei teki imi bunseki to bunsetsu kino [Systematic semantic analyses of cases and their delineative function]. In M. Yamanashi, et al. (Eds.), Ninchi gengogaku ronko [Studies in cognitive linguistics, Volume 4] (pp. 95–131). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Sugimoto, T.
(1986) Kakujoshi [Case particles]. In K. Okutsu (Ed.), Iwayuru nihongo joshi no kenkyu [A Study of so-called particles in Japanese] (pp. 227–380). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.Google Scholar
Takezawa, K.
(1987) A configurational approach to case marking in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1981) Force dynamics. Paper presented at Conference on Language and Mental Imagery . University of California, Berkeley.
(1985) Force dynamics in language and thought. Papers from the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2, Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity , 293–337.
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, Volume 1, Concept structuring systems. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, S.
(1997) Daiichi bu kukan hyogen no imi kino [Part I, the meanings and functions of spatial expressions]. In M. Nakau (Ed.), Kukan to ido no hyogen [Expressions of space and movement] (pp. 92–123). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
(2004) Kihongo no imi no torae kata: Kihon doshi ni okeru koa riron no yukosei [Ways to capture the senses of basic words: The utility of core theory for basic words]. Nihongo Kyoiku, 121, 3–13.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(Ed.) (1998) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2000) First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R.S.
(1995) Focal attention, voice, and word order. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–554). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 162–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tonoike, S.
(1975–1976) The case ordering hypothesis. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 4, 191–208.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.S.
(1936) Die Aufhebung der phonologischen Gegensätze. Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 6, 29–45.Google Scholar
(1939) Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 8.Google Scholar
(1969) Principles of phonology. Translation of Trubetzkoy (1939) by C.A.M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsuboi, E.
(2000) Cognitive models in transitive construal in the Japanese adversative passive. In A. Foolen & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (pp. 283–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref
Tsujimura, N.
(Ed.) (1999) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2007) An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Second edition. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2014) An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Third edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T.
(1991) Sekai no gengo to nihongo [The Languages of the world and the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
(1996) The possession cline in Japanese and other languages. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 560–630). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uehara, S.
(2006) Internal state predicates in Japanese: A cognitive approach. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics investigations: Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (pp. 271–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Hoek, K.
(1995) Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1957) Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. Reprinted in Z. Vendler (Ed.) (1967), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 97–121). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1980) The case for surface case. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
(1981) Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 43–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) The semantics of case marking. Studies in Language, 7, 247–275. Revised in Wierzbicka (1988), 435–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) The Meaning of a case: A study of the Polish dative. In R.D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 386–426). Columbus: Slavica. Revised in Wierzbicka (1988), 391–433.Google Scholar
(1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E.
(1980) Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203–238.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CF/2GJ – Linguistics/Japanese
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2015047981 | Marc record