Abstract

WORKSHOP: Chinese and Japanese metaphors: A contrastive approach.

【Abstract】

IMPORTANCE IS SIZE, IMPORTANCE IS WEIGHT, DIFFICULTY IS WEIGHT and DIFFICULTY IS SOLIDITY metaphors in Japanese, and cultural body part study of te (手) “hand” in Japanese.

KJ Nabeshima, Kansai University and Satomi Arizono, Nagoya Gakuin University

 Importance Is Size in Japanese

 (1)  a. 大きな 政治問題

big    political.issue

“a big political issue” 

      b. 小さな 役-しか    もら-え-ない 

          small   role-only  be.given-POT[1]-NEG

          “I can only get an unimportant role.”

c. その 声明-の            与え-た     影響-の          規模

    that statement-GEN  give-PAST influence-GEN size

    “The size of the influence that was given by the statement”

 

  d. 問題-が                 どんどん      でかく なって

    the problem-NOM   increasingly   big     become

    “The problem increasingly becomes big and…”

 

e. あそこ-で   追加点-を                   取-れ-た-の-が                            大きい

          There-LOC additional point-ACC   get-POT-PAST-Nominalizer-NOM  big

          “It was big that we could added another point there.”

Importance Is Weight in Japanese

(2) a. 政府-は  その 事件-を        重く      見て-いる

The government-TOP that  incident-ACC   heavily    see-PROG

“The government sees the incident as important.

b. 彼-は 社内-で                      軽く 扱わ-れて-いる                            

He-TOP     inside.company-LOC   lightly     treat-PASS-PROG

  “He is treated lightly in his company.”

c. こと-の            軽重(けいちょう)

   things-GEN   lightness and heaviness

“the importance of things”

Difficulties Are Weight in Japanese

 (3) a. 問題-を            抱える           

          problem-ACC carry

          “carry problems”

b. 問題-を             背負う                      

          problem-ACC    shoulder

          “shoulder problems”

c. 問題-を              引きずる   

    problem-ACC     drag

          “drag problems”

Difficulties Are Solidity in Japanese

(4) a. 困難-を               突破する     力

difficulty-ACC    breakthrough    power

         “the power that breakthrough difficulties”

b. 困難-を       和らげる

    difficulty-ACC   soften

         “soften the difficulty.”

c. 固い d. 難い

        katai                         katai

“solid”                       “difficult”

1. Other semantic concepts constructed from bodily experiences

Hands are important body parts since we do various things with our hands in everyday life: we eat, wash, write and gesture with our hands. This frequent interaction between our hands and the external world can serve as the inspiration for metaphors and metonymies (Kövecses 2002, Yu 2009, Arizono 2009, Sneesby 2009).

n  Commonality in conceptualization of ENGAGEMENT across languages[2]

(1)     Japanese: 手を着ける te-o tsukeru (put one’s hand to) ‘begin’ / 手を伸ばす te-o nobasu (stretch out one’s hand) ‘expand into’ /手を引く te-o hiku (draw one’s hand away) ‘stop’ / 手を拱く te-o komanuku (to fold one’s arms) ‘stand idly by’ / 手を汚す te-o yogosu (get one’s hand dirty) ‘do evil’

(2)     BEING ENGAGED IS TOUCHING (Arizono 2009)

the object being touched                          ⇒            the thing being engaged

the movable range of arms                      ⇒            the range of engagement

physical distance to the object                ⇒            the familiarity with the thing

the cleanliness of the object                    ⇒            the morality of the thing

(3)     Chinese: 着手 zhuo-shou (put.to-hand) ‘set about’ / 入手 ru-shou (put.into-hand) ‘start with’ /伸手 shen-shou (extend-hand) ‘ask for’ / 放手 fang-shou (release-hand) ‘give up’ / 手黑 shou-tei (hand-black) ‘(dial.) cruel’ / 洗手 xi-shou (wash-hand) ‘stop doing wrong and reform oneself’               (Yu 2009: 118-124)

n  Which do we wash, hands or feet?: the difference in DISENGAGEMENT FROM BAD THINGS

(4)     足を踏み入れる ashi-o fumiireru (make one’s feet step in) ‘take a step in’ / 足を突っ込む ashi-o tsukkomu (to stick one’s feet into) ‘get involved in’ / 足を抜く ashi-o nuku (pull one’s feet out of) ‘stop bad things’ / 足を洗う ashi-o arau (wash one’s feet) ‘stop doing bad things’

(5)     Kare-wa  engeki-no  sekai-ni     doppuri             ashi-o    fumiireta.

He-Top  drama-Gen  world-Goal  deeply.Onomatopoeia  feet-Acc  make.step.in-PAST

‘He made his feet step deeply in the world of drama. (= He immersed himself in the world of drama.)’ 

(6)     BEING ENGAGED IN SOMETHING TOUGH IS STEPPING IN A MUDDY SWAMP

a muddy swamp                                          ⇒            something tough

the manner of stepping in a swamp            ⇒          the manner of engagement

the depth of a swamp                    ⇒          the degree of engagement

the viscosity of mud                     ⇒          the unmanageability of the thing

the dirtiness of mud                      ⇒          the wrongness of the thing

 

  In Japanese, ENGAGEMENT is conceptualized by means of physical activities of hands and feet as in (2) and (6), which share ETHICAL IS CLEAN/UNETHICAL IS DIRTY. Disengagement from bad things is expressed not by 手を洗う(wash one’s hands) but by 足を洗う(wash one’s feet) which is derived from (6).

  Simple and/or complex metaphors that are based on universal human experiences can be (near-)universal, and, although there are variations across languages, this is only superficial diversity (Kövecses 2005: 62-63).

 

References

Arizono, Satomi. (2009) Shintaibuishi o kouseiyouso ni motsu nihongo kanyoohyoogen no ninchi gengogakuteki kenkyuu [A Cognitive Linguistic Study on Japanese Idiomatic Expressions Containing Body-part Words], Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Nagoya University.

Kövecses, Zoltan. (2002) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Zoltan. (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Manjavacas Sneesby, Patricia. (2009) A Comparative Study of Metonymies and Metaphors with Hand in English, German and Spanish, within the Framework of Cognitive Linguistics, Herzogenrath: Shaker Verlag.

Nabeshima, KJ (2011) Nihongo-no metafaa.(Japanese metaphors) Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishing.

Nabeshima, KJ (2016) Metafaa and shintaisee (Metaphor and embodiment) Tokyo: Hitsuji

Yu, Ning. (2009) From Body to Meaning in Culture: Papers on Cognitive Semantic Studies, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

KJ Nabeshima, Kansai University

Satomi Arizono, Nagoya Gakuin University

Analyzing Metaphor Systematically: A Comparative Approach

 

Ning Yu, Pennsylvania State University

 

In this talk, I will first discuss briefly some notions pertaining to systematicity in metaphor analysis within the framework of conceptual metaphor theory (CMT). In addition to the distinction between conceptual and linguistic metaphors, which has fundamentally characterized CMT from its inception, other constructs employed in systematic analysis include image schema, duality, frame, metaphor hierarchy, and metaphor network. I will then show how systematic and comparative analysis can be achieved with examples from two case studies conducted comparatively between English and Chinese. These two case studies each focus on a pair of primary metaphors with the same target concept: (i) importance is size and importance is weight, and (ii) difficulty is weight and difficulty is solidity. Each of these primary metaphors can be further analyzed as consisting of a pair of parametric versions with bipolar value settings: (i) importance is size = important is big + unimportant is small; (ii) importance is weight = important is heavy + unimportant is light; (iii) difficulty is weight = difficult is heavy + easy is light; and (iv) difficulty is solidity = difficult is hard/tough + easy is soft. I will show how applications of the notions mentioned above (i.e., image schema, frame, metaphor hierarchy, and metaphor network) can make cross-linguistic analysis of metaphor more systematic. In this approach, conceptual metaphors are analyzed as relating to other conceptual metaphors both horizontally and vertically, and as forming metaphor networks in our conceptual system.

 Ning Yu, Pennsylvania State University

Different construals of Force-schema applied to body in Japanese and Chinese.

 

Introduction

A schema is a recurrent pattern, shape, and regularity in, or of, these ongoing ordering activities (Johnson1987:29). These patterns emerge as meaningful structures for us chiefly at the level of our bodily movements through space, our manipulation of objects, and our perceptual interactions (Johnson1987:29). We use these image schemas to understand and express the world around us. Typical types of image schemas include: SPACE, SCALE, CONTAIENT, FORCE, UNITY/MULTIPLICITY, IDENTITY, EXISTENCE (Clausner and Croft 1999).

Previously, Talmy (1988) established the force-dynamics theory (hereafter referred to as FD theory) to express several types of movement and force resistance relationships, using two elements- Agonist (the focal force entity) and Antagonist (the force element that opposes Agonist). According to the FD theory, Agonist does not always become agent, and vice versa, Antagonist does not always become sentient. However, the FD theory does not mention how those force relationships observed by the agent, the sentient, and the third party are verbalized. When verbalizing the strength of the force, it may be different depending on whether you are agent or sentient in different languages. On some occasions, the strength of the force from the agent that you observe is the same as the strength of the force you are received as a sentient; while on other occasions, it is not. Moreover, the differences between the two languages that emerged over physicality can also influence how people describe the force relationships between the abstract ones. In other words, it is necessary to distinguish how the strength of the force observed by the agent, the sentient, and the third party is captured. Ikegami (1994) described the relationship between an agent and a sentient in the “Source-Goal” schema and noted that a human being has two basic attributes: being an agent and being a sentient.

Hereafter, we show four examples of force relationships in Japanese and Chinese to demonstrate the above-mentioned differences. Examples (1) and (2) are the expressions used when the third party describes the act that Taro (one person) beats Jiro (another person). Here, Taro is the agent and Jiro is the sentient. Examples (3) and (4) are examples of Japanese and Chinese when one person is beaten by another person and the person describes the intensity of the felt pain. In these two cases, the speaker is a sentient and the third party is the agent.

 

(1)     太郎が次郎を強く殴った. (Taro hits Jiro strongly)

(Taro-ga Jijro-o tsuyoku nagu ta)

(2)       太郎重重地打了次郎. (Taro hits Jiro strongly)

(Taro-zhongzhongdi-da- le-Jiro.)

(3)     彼に強く殴られ、強い痛みを感じる.(I was beaten by him strongly, and felt a strong pain)

(Kare-ni tsuyoku nagu rare, tsuyoi itami-o kanjiru)

(4)     我被他重重地打了,疼痛感很强. (I was beaten by him strongly, and felt a strong pain)

(wo-bei-ta-zhongzhongdi-da-le, teng-tong-gan-hen-qiang)

 

 In the Japanese cases (1) and (3), the same "tsuyoi" is used as both the strength of the physical movement of the agent that the third party observe and the strength of the pain felt by the recipient. However, in the Chinese cases (2) and (4), "zhong" is used as the strength of the body movement of the agent, while the pain felt by the person is expressed differently as "qiang". In other words, when expressing the same objective facts, there may be a gap between Japanese and Chinese in terms of describing the strength of the force, which is an important aspect of the force schema. Also, both the Japanese "tsuyoi" and the Chinese "zhong" have multiple meanings. Some of the meanings are similar for the two words and some are different.

 

Data and Methods

In our work, we have studied the FORCE schema in two perspectives (i.e., the stimulus itself and the intensity of the stimulus felt by the susceptor). In Kikuchi (2008), the sense system is divided into eight types. It is noted that the role of the sense system is to receive external stimulating energy, convert it into electrical information in some way, send it to the brain, and finally cause a sense of modality corresponding to the sensory organ received. Table 1 is a classification of sense systems from Kikuchi (2008), which is partially modified from Matsuda (1995).

Based on the data from Chinese corpus (Center for Chinese Linguistics PKU) and Japanese corpus (Tstukuba Web Corpus), we show how Chinese and Japanese are different in terms of Visual, Hearing, Skin sensation, Olfaction, Taste, Deep feeling, Visceral sensation on the verbal level.

 

Table 1 Relationship between the strength of force and sense system

 

To clarify the tendency of using "zhong" and "qiang" in Chinese and the tendency of using "tsuyoi" "omoi" in Japanese, we present the following 19 examples (from (5) to (23)). In order to save the paper length, we only translate the underscored words into English.

 

<Taste, Olfaction, Vision, Hearing>

(5)     但由于这种农药的气味很重、尽管进入市民家中水管的自来水药物浓度很低、仍然有一种刺鼻的异味。(『新闻报道』)(qing-wei-hen-zhong; strong smell)

(6)     西安的小吃口味很重、比如羊肉泡馍、服务员会上一盘大蒜头和辣酱给你调味。(ネット)

(kou-wei-hen-zhong; taste strong)

邵红娇笑笑、拉上窗帘、颜色很重的窗帘、然后将灯拉亮、这时亮铜看清了窗帘是紫色的。(『原始风景』)(yan-se-hen-zhong; dark color)

(7)     传来一阵沉重的上楼的脚步声、喘息的声音很重、说明这个人呼吸困难。(『福尔摩斯探案集』)

(sheng-yin-hen-zhong; the sound of heavy breathing)

(8)     途中、獣の匂いが強くなって警戒した。(kimono-no nioi-ga tsuyoi; the smell of the beast is strong)

(9)     あとソースの味が強くてびっくり!(aji-ga tsuyoi; taste strong)

(10)  使われる三味線は強い音の出る「太棹(ふとざお)」が主。(tsuyoi oto; sharp sound)

(11)  乾くと、青から黒味の強い色に変化する。(kuromi-no tsuyoi iro; vivid black color)

<Skin sensation>

(12)  重重地搓手(zhong-zhong-di-cuo-shou; rub hands hard)

(13)  重重地揉眼睛(zhong-zhong-di-rou-yan-jing; rub eyes hard>

(14)  新芽(葉)が素手で扱えるような温度になったら、両手で強く揉む

(ryoute-de tsuyoku momu; rubbing by hands)

(15)  理想的には、手のひらや指先が皮膚と強くこすれることのないように注意しながら汚れを泡で包み込むようにし、泡で落とすことがポイントです。

(tsuyoku kosureru; rub skin hard)

< Deep feeling>

(16)  好像是有一个看不见的拳头、重重地打了江玫一下。(『红豆』)

(zhong-zhong-di-da-le; hit him hard)

(17)  重重地撞向贝伦, 正巧将它脸朝天的撞过海浪中。(『龙枪编年史02』)

(zhong-zhong-di-zhuang; hit him hard)

(18)  彼女の平手が、強く頬を打った。(『リレー小説』)

(tsuyoku hoho-o u ta; hit check hard )

(19)  そして、また、ドンドンと、ドアを強くたたく音。(『25歳  荷酷』)

(tsuyoku tataku oto; knock door hard)

<Visceral sensation>

(20)  对于一个饥饿感很强的人来说(『家庭医学(下半月)』2017)(ji-e-gan-hen qiang; very hungry)

(21)   尿后总有未尽感 ;有时尿意很强(『江西中医学』2000)(niao-yi-hen-qiang; really want to urinate)

(22)  「空腹感が強くなる」から食べる? (kuufukukann-ga tsuyoku naru; feel hungry)

(23)  目覚めた瞬間の尿意が強く、トイレまで間に合わないことがあります。(nyoui-ga tsuyoku; really want to urinate)

 

 Discussion and Conclusions

Using data from Chinese and Japanese corpus, we searched the differences between Japanese and Chinese FORCE schema based on word co-occurrence information.  In Japanese, we have two findings. First, the strength of the stimulus from outside and the strength of the stimulus felt inside use the same word “tsuyoi”. It indicates that the strength of stimulus is equivalent to the feeling of a susceptor. Second, Visual, olfaction, taste, hearing, skin sensation, deep feeling, and visceral sensation are expressed as “tsuyoi”, irrespective of whether there is stimulation from the outside or not.

In contrast to Japanese, we find that both “zhong” or “qiang” could be used in Chinese, depending on the magnitude of the external stimulus as well as whether there is an external stimulus or not,. Specifically, on visual, olfactive, taste, and auditory senses, the intensity of stimulus is identical to the feeling of a susceptor and thus “zhong” is used. On the senses of skin and deep feeling, the strength of the stimulus is identical to the feeling of the susceptor and therfore“zhong” is used. However, when the strength of the stimulus received by the susceptor is specifically emphasized, it is expressed as “qiang”. Moreover, when the external stimulus is absent, visceral sensation is expressed as “qiang”.

 

Table 2 Results of the difference between Chinese and Japanese

 

The differences between Chinese and Japanese in terms of using FORCE schema to describe the sense system are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the table, the external sense and the internal sense are divided on the boundary of the body (skin). Specifically, in Chinese, the stimulus given to the external stimulus (body movement, five senses) is captured by "heavy". In contrast, in Japanese, the stimulus given to the external stimulus (body movement, five senses) is caught by "strong". Regarding to internal sense, Chinese and Japanese are similarly captured in "strong".

In summary, the stimulus itself and the intensity of the stimulus felt by the susceptor are treated separately in Chinese, while these two are not considered differently in Japanese.

 

References

Clausner, Timothy C., William Croft. “Domains and image schemas.” Cognitive linguistics 10, 1999, pp.1–32.

Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Ikegami, Yoshihiko. “The Agent and the Sentient: A Dissymmetry in Linguistic and Cultural Encoding.” Origins of Semiosis, 1994, pp. 325–337.

Talmy, Leonard. “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 1, 1988, pp. 49–100.

菊地正, 2008. 感覚知覚心理学. 朝倉書店, 東京.

松田隆夫, 1995. 視知覚. 培風館.

Wenxin Li, Tsukuba University

Negative Experience and Proactive Control: Personal Space and Semantic Extension of Verbs in Japanese and Chinese

Xia Haiyan, Kanagawa University

 

This study mainly focuses on the type of verb that ends with the agent’s personal space as well as the direction of its semantic extension and explores the difference between Japanese and Chinese. We divide this type of verb into two subtypes: verbs expressing actions which are completed at the hand position and verbs that end with other personal spaces. Different types of verbs show different directions of semantic extension, e.g., verbs that end with hands develop proactive control, whereas verbs that end with other personal spaces showunidirectional semantic extension from self-directed motion to negative experience.

 

1.     Verbs that End with Hands

◆Japanese: e.g., tor- ‘take,’ tsukam- ‘grab,’ tsukamae- ‘catch,’ and nigir- ‘hold.’

◆Chinese: e.g., na ‘take by the hand,’ zhua ‘grab,’ qu ‘take,’ wo ‘hold,’ and nie ‘hold between the fingers.’

 

The directions of semantic extension within this type of verb are as follows:

MAKING SOMETHING ONES OWE IS USING HAND TO GET SOMETHING.

OBTAINING INFORMATION IS USING HAND TO GET SOMETHING.

COMPREHENDING SOMETHING IS USING HAND TO GET SOMETHING.

 

(1) a. 抓住机遇zhua zhu jiyu         b. 抓要点/本质/大意 zhua yaodian/benzhi/dayi

(seize the opportunity)           (grasp the main points/the essence/general idea)

 

Studies have discussed the relationship between hand action and comprehension and asserted conceptual metaphors such as MENTAL ACTIVITY IS MANIPULATION (Jäkel 1995, cf. Sweetser 1990).

 

2.     Verbs that End with Other Personal Spaces

Verbs that end with other personal spaces can be classified into five semantic subtypes: verbs of wearing, verbs of bearing, ingestion verbs, verbs of perception, and others.

◆Japanese: 

(Ⅰ)       verbs of wearing (ki- ‘wear,’ kabur- ‘put on a hat,’ etc.)

(Ⅱ)       verbs of bearing (ow- ‘bear on one’s own body,’ ninaw- ‘bear on one’s shoulders,’ etc.)

(Ⅲ)       ingestion verbs (kuw- ‘eat,’ nom- ‘drink,’ etc.)

(Ⅳ)       verbs of perception (mi- ‘look,’ kik- ‘hear,’ etc.)

(Ⅴ)       other (kaw- ‘buy', manek- ‘invite,’ etc.)

◆Chinese:

(Ⅰ)       verbs of wearing (chuan ‘wear,’ dai ‘put on,’ etc.)

(Ⅱ)       verbs of bearing (dan ‘carry on a shoulder pole,’ kang ‘bear on one’s shoulders,’ etc.)

(Ⅲ)       ingestion verbs (chi ‘eat,’ he ‘drink,’ etc.)

(Ⅳ)       verbs of perception (jian ‘see,’ ting ‘hear,’ etc.)

(Ⅴ)       other (zhao ‘invite,’ etc.)

 

Unlike prototypical transitive verbs such as kill, which denote an action schematically understood to be transmitted from the subject to the object (Langacker 1991), all these verbs involve a self-directed transmission, such as attachment to one’s own body (e.g., ki- ‘wear’) or entry into one’s own body (e.g., kuw- ‘eat’) or other personal space (e.g., manek- ‘invite’). Therefore, the subject has dual roles: agent and goal.

We propose that many these types of verbs share the same directionality of semantic extension, which is from subject-directed motion to negative experience (Xia 2010, 2012, 2017). For example, the verb kaw- shows a semantic extension from ‘buy’ to ‘invite (e.g., someone’s wrath, criticism).’

 

(2) a. hon  o   kaw-u.                b. hankan/ urami    o    kaw-u.

  book ACC buy-NPst                antipathy/ grudge ACC  buy-NPst[3]

  (buy a book)                      (what the subject did) invite others' antipathy/ grudge.

 

3.     Differences between Hands and Other Personal Spaces

In conclusion, verbs that end with hands and with other personal spaces develop two different semantic extensions. We argue that the agency of hands in the body structure causes the difference. The word “hand” can be used to represent the actor, e.g., 投手 toushou ‘pitcher,’二传手 erchuanshou ‘setter,’ 枪手qiangshou ‘gunmen,’ and 选手 xuanshuo ‘athlete selected for a sports meet.’ Individuals use their throats when singing, but a singer is 歌手in both Chinese and Japanese. “Hand” can be used as a substitute for labor or movement: 高手 gaoshou ‘master-hand’ or 生手 shengshou ‘someone new to a job.’ It can also be used to substitute means or skills regarding work: 手段 shouduan ‘method’ or 手艺 shouyi ‘workmanship,’ and to represent control and manipulation: 逃不出我的掌心 tao bu chu wo de zhangxin ‘can’t escape from my palm,’ 掌握着权利 zhangwo zhe quanli ‘hold power in hands,’ or 到手 daoshou ‘in one’s hands.’

 

4.     Differences and Similarities between Japanese and Chinese

Verbs that end with the personal spaces except for hands develop a negative experience in both Japanese and Chinese. However, this phenomenon more frequently appeared in Japanese, while many Chinese verbs are constrained by fixed collocations. For instance, “戴dai” is primarily used in idioms such as “戴罪立功daizuiligong.” No productivity is observed in this type of verb.

In Japanese, when expressing negative experience, many verbs that end with the personal spaces except hands possess the similar meaning of the passive forms. Whereas in Chinese, some verbs develop along the direction of passivity and are gradually grammaticalized into passive markers, such as “见jian, 被bei, or 吃chi.”

Moreover, and notably, verbs that have ends with feet do not present a similar direction of semantic expansion in both Japanese and Chinese.

References:

Jäkel, Olaf (1995) The metaphorical concept of the mind: mental activity is manipulation. In: John R. Taylor and Robert E. Maclaury (eds.) Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, 197-229. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundation of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sweetser. Eve (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Xia Haiyan (2010) Chakuten.dousashu.dooshi kara miru imika.kuchoo no hookoo.sei [The tendency of semantic extension: the case of Japanese “Goal-Agent Verbs”], Journal of Japanese and Chinese Linguistics and Japanese Language Teaching 3: 56-66, Tokyo: Kohbun Press.

------ (2012) Imi.kakuchoo ni okeru ni shurui no hookoo.sei: chakuten.dousashu.dooshi to shintai.ryooiki [Two types of directionality in semantic extension: Goal-Agent Verbs and body space], Kobe Papers in Linguistics 8: 35-45.

------ (2017) Dooshi no imi.kakuchoo ni okeru hookoo.sei: chakuten.doosashu.dooshi no ninchi.gengogaku.teki kenkyuu [The Directionality of Semantic Extensions of Verbs: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Goal-Agent Verbs] Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.

[1]  NOM: Nominative 主格、ACC: Accusative 体格、DAT: Dative 与格, LOC: Locative 場所核, GEN: Genitive 属格, TOP: Topic 提題, PAST: Past 過去, NEG: Negation 否定, PASS: Passive 受け身, POT: Potential 可能., PROG: Progressive 進行形.

[2]  In this section, phrases with round brackets refer to the literal meanings while phrases with single inverted commas refer to the figurative meanings.

[3] ACC= accusative case; NPst=non-past tense

Haiyan Xia, Kanagawa University

Commentator

Kazuko Shinohara, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology (commentator)

Toshio Ohori, Keio University (commentator)