When Talmy’s Typology Meets Peculiar Mimetics in Japanese
Takeshi Usuki
Fukuoka University
Talmy (2000) proposes that languages can be divided into S(atellite)-framed languages andV(erb)-framed languages depending on where a language characteristically encodes path. Talmy’stypology is influential partly because it can explain the parallelism between Motion Constructions (MC) and
Resultative Constructions (RC). Ono (2010), however, shows that based on the English examples in (1)and –sase constructions in Japanese, the Rout-Path Compensation (RPC) is only available for MC, andargues that the putative parallelism between MC and RC do not exist. According to Ono (2010), thetwo-way typology is not relevant, and the surface typology falls out from general constraints on how mannerand path may be encoded together with lexical resources of particular languages, which is called “ a lexicalresource view” (cf. Beavers et. al. 2010).
(1) a.

John walked in the store.

(cf. John walked into the store.)b. *John pounded the metal in pieces. (cf. John pounded the metal to/ into pieces.)
In this paper, I will show that Ono’ s (2010) argument based on the examples (1) is inadequate, andargue that the parallelism between MC and RC in fact exists. Furthermore, I will present new data
employing peculiar mimetics in Japanese to show the parallelism between MC and RC, and develop a
Manner Incorporation (MI) theory based on “an event extension view” (cf. Harley 2010).
First, a careful investigation of verb classes reveals that Ono’ s (2010) argument based on the examples(1) is inadequate, and the parallelism between MC and RC exists as depicted in (2). I also argue that theapplicability of RPC in MC in Japanese is not a feature of MC but depends on other factors.
(2) a. *John laughed in the store.

(cf. John walked in/ into the store.)b. *John pounded the metal in pieces.

(cf. John broke the stick in/ into pieces.)

Secondly, I present new data to show another parallelism between MC and RC, where the event iscoercively restructured to have a path [dir –WARD [path TO…]] by the introduction of the path-oriented
mimetics (e.g. tobotobo, sutasuta, tekuteku) in (3a) and the result-oriented mimetics (e.g. bokoboko, pikapika,dorodoro) in (3b). The ungrammaticality of mimetic verb constructions shows that these mimetics actuallytrigger a path in the event structure (e.g.*tobotobo-suru/*bokoboko-suru) (cf. Akita 2009), and an aspectual
test ensures that [dir –WARD [path TO…]] is encoded in the Lexical Conceptual Structure(LCS) of verbs.
(3) a. ?Takuya-wa eki-ni
Takuya-Top station-Ni

tobotobo(-to)

arui-ta.

<path-oriented m.>

walk-Past‘Takuya walked to the station in a manner of trudging.’(cf. *Takuya-wa eki-ni arui-ta.)
b. ?Luffy-wa
Luffy-Top

Teach-obokoboko-ni

Teach-Acc <result-oriented m.>nagut-ta.
beat-Past‘Luffy beat up Teach.’(cf. *Luffy-wa Teach-o hangoroshi-ni nagut-ta.)
Based on the examples in (3), it is clear that these examples cannot be explained in “a lexical resourceview” since their analysis fails to treat the pattern where a manner is expressed by a verb and a path isexpressed by an adverb (Beavers et. al.: 43). I argue that the data in (3) are following Talmy’s typology
since the meaning of –ni is underspecified in Japanese and the path must be encoded in a verb. Therefore, I
assume that these examples are theoretically consistent with a V-framed property. Following Tada’s (2010)
proposal, I assume that the roots of mimetics lack semantic information, and the mimetics coercively getproper meanings through the interface between the phonological form and the semantic form after thespell-out (cf. Marantz 2006), and that in these examples RPC to LCS of the verb is possible because of thecoercion of peculiar mimetics (cf. Jackendoff 1997, Pustejovsky 1995).
As a consequence, the peculiar nature of mimetics in Japanese sheds a new light on “an event extensionview.” Harley (2010) proposes that Talmy’s typology can be explained depending on whether MI is anavailable option in a particular language. Adopting the coercively created interface between thephonological form and the semantic form, we can give a theoretical explanation for MI. I propose that theMI to v0 is derived by coercion, and I will show a piece of evidence employing double object constructions
with denominal verbs in English (e.g. e-mail, FedEx), in which denominal verbs are freely exempted for aphonological restriction on double object constructions (Pinker 1989). Moreover, taking a step further fromHarley’s MI strategy, I propose that Talmy’s typology can be reduced to the timing of MI across languages
based on Usuki (2007).
Finally, adopting “an event extension view”, we can also give a theoretical explanation for the Lexical
Iconicity Hierarchy (LIH) in Akita (2009). Specifically, language variations described in LIH aredetermined by the timing of MI in a particular language, which eventually leads to the conclusion that “anevent extension view” has both theoretical and empirical advantages over “a lexical resource view.”
References
Akita, K. 2009. A Grammar of Sound-Symbolic Words in Japanese: Theoretical Approaches to Iconic andLexical Properties of Mimetics. PhD. Dissertation, Kobe University.
Beavers, J., Levin, B. and T. Shiao Wei. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal ofLinguistics 46.
Harley, H. 2010. “The syntax and argument structure of motion constructions in English”, handout presentedat MLF 2010, National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo.
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Marantz, A. 2006. Phases and words, unpublished ms, NYU.
Ono, N. 2010. A Lexical Resource View of Motion and Resultative Constructions, a talk at MLF 2010,
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure, Cambridge, Mass.:MITPress.
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Tada, H. 2010. Gitaigodoshi-niokeru <chikaku・zokusei> koutai-no tokuisei-nituite (On the Peculiarity of theCognition–Property Conversion in Mimetic Verbs), the 8th Meeting of Fukuoka University
Linguistic Colloquium, handout presented at Fukuoka University.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Usuki, T. 2007. Manner Conflation in v/√Root Partition, In Journal of the Graduate School of Fukuoka
University, 1-30. Fukuoka University.