Cover not available
Article published In:
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1] 2019
► pp. 78–112
Special issue articles

Parts of speech membership as a factor of meaning extension and level of abstraction

Comparison of Czech adjectives and Japanese verbs in adnominal modification

| Charles University
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.
Keywords: part of speech, adnominal modification, adjective, verb, meaning extension, metonymy, metaphor, Czech, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The target structural difference and its implications
  • 3.Relevant previous research on meaning and meaning extension
  • 4.Research question, methodology and results
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1 Mokrý versus nureta, nureteiru (wet)
      • 5.1.1Detected types of uses for the Czech adjectival attribute mokrý (wet):
      • 5.1.2Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute nureta (wet):
      • 5.1.3Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute nureteiru (wet):
      • 5.1.4Summary and discussion of Czech and Japanese expressions of wet
    • 5.2 Suchý versus kawaita, kawaiteiru (dry)
      • 5.2.1Detected types of uses for the Czech adjectival attribute suchý (dry):
      • 5.2.2Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute kawaita (dry):
      • 5.2.3Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute kawaiteiru (dry):
      • 5.2.4Summary and discussion of Czech and Japanese expressions of dry
    • 5.3 Živý versus ikita (live)
      • 5.3.1Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute ikita (live):
    • 5.4Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute ikiteiru (live):
      • 5.4.1Summary and discussion of Czech and Japanese expressions of live
    • 5.5 Mrtvý versus shinda (dead)
      • 5.5.1Detected types of uses for the Czech adjectival attribute mrtvý (dead):
      • 5.5.2Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute shinda (dead):
      • 5.5.3Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute shindeiru (dead):
      • 5.5.4Summary and discussion of Czech and Japanese expressions of dead
    • 5.6 Tlustý versus futotta, futotteiru and futoi (thick)
      • 5.6.1Detected types of uses for the Czech adjectival attribute tlustý (thick):
      • 5.6.2Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute futotta (fat):
      • 5.6.3Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute futotteiru (fat):
      • 5.6.4Detected types of uses for the Japanese verbal attribute adjectival attribute futoi (thick):
      • 5.6.5Summary and discussion of Czech and Japanese expressions of thick
    • 5.7Summary of results and general discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00027.kan
References (21)
References
Croft, W. (2006). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 269–302). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75–111). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. UC Berkeley, Dissertation.Google Scholar
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, 791, 979–1000. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, T., & Kishimoto, H. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of Japanese lexicon and word formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, T., & Saito, M. (2016). Vocabulary strata and word formation processes. In T. Kageyama & H. Kishimoto (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese lexicon and word formation (pp. 1–50). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kanasugi, P. (2016). Hyōzōsei no Kanten kara mita Chekogo to Nihongo to no Hikaku – Chekogo niokeru “Keiyōshi + Meishi” no Kōzō o megutte. In Hikaku Nihongaku kjóiku kenkjú sentá kenkjú hókoku (pp. 142–147). Tokyo: Ochanomizu University.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 21: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). On grammatical categories. Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 44–80.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkjūkai. (2013). Gendai Nihongo Bunpō. Vol. 11. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Okimori, T., Kimura, Y., Tanaka, M., & Chin, R. (2011). Zukai Nihon no Goi. Tokyo: Sanseidō.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, S. (1982). Nihongo bunpō, keitairon. Tokyo: Mugishobō.Google Scholar
Štícha, F. et al. (2013). Akademická gramatika spisovné češtiny. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Uehara, S. (1998). Syntactic categories in Japanese: A cognitive and typological introduction. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar