Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp. 752–791

Investigating the transitive and intransitive constructions in English and Japanese

A quantitative study

| Hong Kong Institute of Education
Previous research has suggested that languages differ in terms of how much prominence is given to the agent. Namely, English prefers to give prominence to a human agent, whereas Japanese prefers to suppress the human agent and express events as if they happen spontaneously (e.g., Ikegami 1981). By using a Japanese novel and its English translation as a parallel corpus, this paper shows quantitatively that Japanese uses more intransitive constructions than English. Using Hopper & Thompson’s (1980) parameters to measure semantic transitivity, this paper also shows that the difference in intransitive constructions was only observed in low semantic transitivity events, whereas both languages exhibit similar trends for high semantic transitivity events. An analysis under the framework of Construction Grammar suggests that the Japanese intransitive construction covers a space in a semantic map which would be occupied by the transitive and adjectival constructions in English.
Keywords: transitive, intransitive, Japanese, English, frequency, Construction Grammar
Published online: 08 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.04luk
References
Alfonso, Anthony
1966 Japanese language patterns. Tokyo: Sophia University L. L. Center of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1993 Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1990 Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Savas L. Tsohatsidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2010 Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Scott
2011 Semantics of case. Morphology 21(3-4). 515–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–119. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog & Elif Bamyaci
2014. Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics, 50(3), 587–625. Crossref
Higashinaka, Ryuichiro, Marilyn A. Walker & Rashmi Prasad
2007 An unsupervised method for learning generation dictionaries from spoken dialogue systems by mining user reviews. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 4(4). No. 8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John
1986 Situation vs. person focus. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko
1981 “Suru” to “naru” no gengogaku [The Linguistics of “Do” and “Become”]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
1991 ‘DO-language’ and ‘BECOME-language’: Two contrasting types of linguistic representation. In Yoshihiko Ikegami (ed.), The empire of signs: Semiotic essays on Japanese culture, 285–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, Wesley
1992 The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Noriko
1996 Sōtaijidōshi ni yoru kekka/jōtai no hyōgen – nihongo gakushūsha no shūtoku jōkyō [The expression of resultative state with paired intransitive verbs in Japanese]. Bungen Gengo Kenkyū/gengo Hen 291. 41–59.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro
1996 Dōshi imiron: Gengo to ninchi no setten. [The semantics of verbs: the intersection of language and cognition]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1972 Evidence for Subject Raising in Japanese. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 1(1). 24–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2005 Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Mengistu Amberer & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for cases, 73–118. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayes, Patricia
2003 Language, social structure, and culture: A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela
1982 On the transitivity of ‘say’ verbs. Syntax and Semantics 151. 301–318.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes
2004 Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2). 149–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pardeshi, Prashant
2008 No smoke without fire: Invisible agent constructions in South Asian languages. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Annual review of South Asian languages and linguistics, 63–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 41. 157–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Yasuhiro, & Yumiko Nishi
2002 Lexicalisation of aspectual structures in English and Japanese. In A. Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 267–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I
1996 Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 195–220. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
1997 Mind, code, and text. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Relating narratives events in translation. In Dorit D. Ravid & Hava B. Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth. A. Berman, 115–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Liesbeth Degand
2010 Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 241–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul Hopper
2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1981 Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19(5-6). 389–438.Google Scholar
1985 Remarks on Transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 385–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, Mieko & Maria Polinsky
2009 Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO–OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45(3). 675–710. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valin, Robert D. van Jr
1990 Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66(2). 221–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoshimoto, Banana
1988 Kitchin [Kitchen]. Tokyo: Fukutake Shoten.Google Scholar
1993 Kitchen. Translated by Megan Backus. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar