論文

人間文化 , vol.46, pp. 56-63（2019）

Experience report starters and theirevoked speech event conceptions:Conceptual overlap of interpersonaland ideational metafunctions
Katsunobu Izutsu ／ Takeshi Koguma
Hokkaido University of Education ／ University of Shiga Prefecture

1. Introduction*（‘see’）, without a negotiator.

This study addresses the diversity found in the ideational
and interpersonal features of “pre-patterned” or

The functional counterpart in English does not sharesuch lexicogrammatical configurations, let alone the“prefabricated”（Barlow 2000）expressions used tomood evoked, with the relevant constructions in Japanesestart report talks about recent experiences in English,
Japanese, Korean, and an occasional reference toand Korean. The typical predicator is another verb of
mental process guess and the preferred mood is another

Spanish. We argue that an analysis of the speech event

indicative（interrogative）or imperative rather thanconception associated with the relevant expression in

declarative.

each language can help to account for how and why thoseideationally and interpersonally diverse expressions canSystemic functional approaches can provide
a plausible account of how each construction can

carry out the same pragmatic function.

function as experience report starter. However, theyJapanese and Korean speakers who are about tostart a report of what they recently experienced will use

would somehow leave unexplained how and why

specific constructions literally meaning ‘I did and came’

constructions of great discrepancies in lexicogrammaticaland ‘I did and saw,’ respectively: e.g., sensyuu mekisiko-configurations and mood categories. We propose ani it-te-ki-ta-yo（Japanese）and jinanju megsiko-e ga

bo-asseo（Korean）, both translatable as ‘Guess where
I went last week?（!）Mexico!’ Upon hearing these

expressions, the addressee（s）will prepare themselves foran experience report to be recounted in the subsequentconversation. As can be seen from the fact that theirsuch a comparable function is carried out by thosesolution to those questions based on the “speech event
conception”（Izutsu and Izutsu 2017: 3.2）associatedwith each of the constructions, which will hopefully
amount to a further cultivation of “interpersonal
metaphor”（Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 10.4）.

English translation manifests as an interrogative

2. Recent experience report starters

or imperative, those constructions primarily serve

It is very common in many languages of the world that

“interpersonal metafunction”（Halliday and Matthiessen

one speech event participant brings his or her recent

2004）; thus, they can be termed “experience reportexperience into conversation as a topic that is intended tostarters.”

be developed in the ensuing stretch of verbal interaction.

In both the Japanese and the Korean constructions,the “predicator”（ibid.）presents itself as a verbal

In Spanish, for instance, we can find such a recent

sequence of indicative（declarative）mood. Thoughapparently similar in lexicogrammatical configurations,they exhibit significant differences in ideational（experiential）terms. Japanese -te-ki-ta-yo is centered ona verb of “material process”（‘come’）, accompanied by
a “negotiator”（Teruya 2007: 48-49）, -yo, while Korean-a bo-asseo is centered on a verb of “mental process”

56

●人間文化

experience report in the following interview news, wherean actor named Gad Elmaleh talks about the last few
days he spent with his beloved son Raphaël in Monaco.
⑴ En la misma entrevista, Gad confesaba: “Justo acabode estar en Mónaco unos días y ha sido genial.
Raphaël y yo hemos estado todo el tiempo juntos.
Pero, claro, en algún momento tuve que decirle que meExperience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptions

tenía que marchar a trabajar y que volvería pronto”.

（Vanitatis: El Confidencial; emphasis added）1‘ In the same interview, Gad confessed: “I’ve just beenin Monaco for a few days and it was great. Raphaël
and I were together all the time. But, of course, there
was some time when I had to tell him that I had to go

B: Where?

A:（I went to）Mexico!
⑷ A: You’ll never guess where I went last week!
B: No. Where?
A:（I went to）Mexico!

to work and that I would be back soon.”’2
The contrast between the sequential verb construction
Here the recent experience report is started with aand the clausal sequence structure can be identified

2000: 319）
, justo acabar de V, where acabar de V isargue for as two different modes of mood and modality

usually described as an expression of a recent past.

expression under the notion of “interpersonal metaphor.”“prefabricated or semi-prefabricated chunk”（Barlow

This kind of expression can be characterized as recent
experience report starter.
In Japanese and Korean, speakers can start a recent
experience report using sequential verb（“converb” inShibatani’s（2003）terms）constructions illustrated in（2a-b）that literally mean ‘I did and came’ and ‘I did andsaw,’ respectively.3 The Japanese construction takes aprefabricated form accompanied by the final particle -yo.

4

		

		

According to Halliday and Matthiessen（2004: 613-614）,（5a）is an “example of metaphor in modality,” in whichmental clauses like I think or I don’t believe can serve asa “metaphorical realization of probability” because “theprobability is realized by a mental clause as if it was afigure of sensing.” They argue（2004: 614）that being
the projecting part of a clause nexus of projection” butit-te-ki-ta-yo.
go-and-come-PST-FP5‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’

KOREANb. jinanju megsiko-e		last:week Mexico-to

3. Interpersonal metaphor

metaphorical, such a mental clause not only serves “as⑵ JAPANESE
a. sensyuu mekisiko-ni
		last:week Mexico-towith what Halliday and Matthiessen（2004: 613-614）

gabo-asseo.
go:and see-PST‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’

ENGLISHc. You’ll never guess where I went last week!

also “as a mood Adjunct, just as probably does” in（5b）.

Pointing out that the appropriate form of tag for（5a）is, in the same way as（5b）, isn’t it? rather than don’t I?,
Halliday and Matthiessen（ibid.）further argue that therelevant expression is regarded as a metaphorical variantof modality because the proposition conveyed is not ‘Ithink’ but ‘it is going to rain.’		（I went to）Mexico!6⑸ a. I think it’s going to rain.
b. It’s probably going to rain.

In contrast, English does not use such a sequential

Likewise, Halliday and Matthiessen（2004: 617）explain

Matthiessen 2004: 8）or clausal sequence that expresses

modality.（6c-e）are analyzed in systemic-functionalverb construction but a “clause nexus”（Halliday anda “projection”（Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 206）,

as illustrated in（2c）. This structure can be seen as
deriving from conversational sequences such as（3）and（4）. Conceivably, speaker A’s utterances that shape twoturns in（3）and（4）are somehow contracted into one

utterance, giving rise to the structure instantiated in（2c）.
⑶ A: Guess where I went last week?

expressions like（6）as metaphorical variants of similarterms as in Table 1 and accounted for with respect to theinterpersonal metaphor of modality.
⑹ a. Probably, Mary doesn’t know.
b. It seems likely that Mary doesn’t know.
c. Mary won’t know.
d. In my opinion, Mary doesn’t know.
e. I don’t think Mary knows.

人間文化● 57

Experience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptions‘Mary
Subject

Mood‘Mary
Subject‘in my opinion’
Modality
Mood
I
Subject
Mood

won’t
Finite/Modality/
Polarity

know’
Predicator

Residueknow’
Predicatordoesn’tFinite/Polarity

Residuedon’t
αFinite/Polarity

think

Mary

Predicator

Subject

Residue

Mood

knows
‘β
Finite‘present’Predicatorknow
Residue

Table 1: Analysis of probability expressions（Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 617）
As illustrated in（6）, semantic domains such as mood andfor in terms of different facets of the same speech event

modality can extend across more than one grammaticalconception in which the speaker reports his or her recent

environment（Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 613）
. The
modality of probability can manifest itself in either an

adjunct, as in（6a）and（6d）, a verbal group（including
an auxiliary）, as in（6c）, or a clause nexus（including a
superordinate clause）, as in（6b）and（6e）.

The previous section saw that the recent experience
report starters exhibit contrasting manifestations inJapanese, Korean, and English. Following Halliday andexperience to the addressee.
⑵ JAPANESE
a. sensyuu mekisiko-ni it-te-ki-ta-yo.
		last:week Mexico-to		

KOREANb. jinanju

megsiko-eMatthiessen（2004: 613-614）, we can now recapture		last:week Mexico-to

this contrast in terms of interpersonal metaphor. The

		Japanese and Korean sequential verb constructions andthe English clausal sequence structure can be viewed ascorresponding to two variations of modal expression:

go-and-come-PST-FP‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’gabo-asseo.

go:and see-PST‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’

ENGLISHc. You’ll never guess where I went last week!

		（I went to）Mexico!

verbal group and clause nexus. Now we can see thatthey amount to two different modes of starting a recent
experience report.

4. Ideational（dis）
similarities ininterpersonal metaphors
As seen above, English employs a clause nexus for the

The discourse of recent experience report consists ofsome ideational and interpersonal facets:（i）the speaker

now conceives of what he experienced a short timeago,（ii）gives the addressee the gist of the experience,

and（iii）makes the addressee want to hear more about
the experience. Facets（ii）and（iii）largely amount toformation of a recent experience report starter, whereas“assertive” and “directive” illocutionary acts（SearleJapanese and Korean adopt a verbal group for the

1979: 12-13）, respectively. This implies that expressions

same purpose. The Japanese and Korean constructions

like recent experience report starters serve for complex

are comparably comprised of a tensed verb precededillocutionary acts, which are supposedly encodedby another verb in an adverbial form. However, they

separately by declarative and imperative sentences.

be one of “material process”（‘came’）in Japanese but

The recency facet（i）can be envisaged as the
speaker having just brought the experience to the sitein（2a-b）repeated below. Moreover, Japanese -te-ki-

as in Japanese example（2a）. Alternatively, it can bediffer in further ideational terms: the tensed verb must
can be one of “mental process”（‘saw’）in Korean, as

ta-yo is accompanied by a “negotiator”（Teruya 2007:
48-49）, -yo, while Korean -a bo-asseo is not. Theseof speech event（‘come here with the experience’）,envisioned as the speaker’s keeping a visual perception
or vivid cognition of the experience（‘saw and now keep

lexicogrammatical differences among the relevant

the experience’）, as in Korean example（2b）. Unlike theexpressions of the three languages can be accounted

Japanese verb of seeing mi-ru, the Korean verb bo-da

58

●人間文化

Experience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptions

Japanese

KoreanEnglishRECENCY

material process ‘come here mental process ‘saw and now
with the experience’keep the experience’-

GIST-GIVING

interpersonal particle for ‘I tellyou’-

mental process ‘guess wh’

INTRIGUING

interpersonal particle for ‘I tellyou’-interrogative/imperative ‘guess?’or negative ‘you’ll never guess’

Table 2: Ideational and interpersonal facets and their lexicogrammatical manifestations

covers a category of meaning that ranges over ‘seeing,’‘meeting,’ and ‘experiencing,’ which is seemingly
responsible for the semantic import of Korean -a boasseo: the speaker’s current maintenance of the relevant
experience as a vivid image in his memory.
Japanese further encourages the speaker to emphasize
the gist-giving facet（ii）and the intriguing facet（iii）with-yo（‘I tell you’）, one of the “interpersonal particles” thatadd “various negotiatory values to the clause, expressing
the speaker’s attitudinal stance towards the proposition or
proposal put forward”（Teruya 2007: 141）
. In contrast,

English allows the speaker to activate the intriguing facet（iii）using a strong emphasis of the addressee’s ignorance（‘you’ll never guess’）, as in（2c）, or an interrogative/
imperative mood（‘guess where?’）, as illustrated inexample（3）above. The gist-giving facet is prompted aspresupposes two different domains（“source domain
and target domain”）and a mapping between them

（Lakoff 1987: 288）
. However, we can hardly see any
distinction between the semantic domains that underlie
the lexicogrammatical variations of mood, modality,
recent experience report, and so on. These variations canbe better analyzed as contrasting ways of ethnographic“construal”（Langacker 2008: Ch.3）of a comparable
speech event conception.

5. Grammaticalization rather thangrammatical metaphor
As far as the Japanese and Korean constructions ofrecent experience report starter are concerned, we canfind one piece of evidence that they are founded on“grammaticalization”（Heine et al. 1991; Hopper andthe mental process of ‘guess wh.’

Traugott 1993）rather than interpersonal metaphors, one

As seen so far, the speaker’s conception of a speech
event in which the speaker delivers a recent experienceof the two “grammatical metaphors” that Halliday andreport involves both ideational and interpersonal facets

above, the relevant constructions in Japanese andin one composite whole. In other words, the “speech

Korean literally have a lexicogramatical structure thatevent conception”（Izutsu and Izutsu 2017）is by nature

Matthiessen（2004: Ch.10）argue for. As demonstrated

can be glossed as ‘did and came’ and ‘did and saw,’

a composite entity intermingling interpersonal andrespectively. This structure represents sequential verb

ideational metafunctions. It is not that the speech event

constructions that are well known to be a typical sourceis represented either ideationally or interpersonally [i.e.,of grammaticalization（converb constructions）（cf.

as “clause as exchange” and “clause as representation”

Haspelmath and König 1995）.

terms] but that its interpersonal and ideational facets

We also saw that the English structure exemplified
in（2c）can be seen as deriving from conversational

in Halliday and Matthiessen’s（2004: Chs.4 and 5）
are essentially inseparable and compose a monolithic

sequences such as（3）and（4）, shown above. Likewise,

representation.

Japanese and Korean sentences（2a-b）can be viewed as

If our view is correct, the relationships among
different variations of the same semantic domainb）. If the parenthesized elements in（7）are left out with（e.g., mood and modality at a more general level andrecent experience report at a more specific level）need
not be seen as metaphor. In the first place, metaphor

stemming from two-clause structures represented in（7athe square-bracketed element replacing the preceding one

in（7b）, we will obtain the structures of（2a-b）with averbal rather than clausal sequence as their chief element.

人間文化● 59

Experience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptions⑺ JAPANESE
a. sensyuu mekisiko-ni it-te （koko-ni）

		last:week Mexico-to go-and（here-to）ki-ta-yo.

come-PST-FP
		‘Last week（I）went to Mexico and（I）came（hereto this site of conversation）.’
KOREANb. jinanju
		last:week

megsiko-e ga（-seo）（geugeos-eul）
Mexico-to go（-and）（it-ACC）

bo-asseo.
		see[experience]-PST		‘Last week（I）went to Mexico and（I）saw		[experienced]（it）.’

nature”（Heine et al. 1991: 46）, it is not in the sense ofgrammatical metaphor but at some conceptual levels.
As is already noted above, the speech event
conception in which the speaker delivers a recent
experience report shapes a conceptual composite whole
whose interpersonal and ideational facets are essentiallyinseparable and compose a monolithic representation.
What can be dealt with as interpersonal metaphors need

to be reanalyzed in terms of various types（and further

subtypes）of speech event conception（cf. Izutsu andIzutsu 2017）.

6. A nother strategy to start a recent
experience report and its typologicalimplication
As has been demonstrated so far, a recent experience

In verb-final languages like Japanese and Korean,report can be started with two major types of expressions:sequential verb constructions for various semantica verbal group including an auxiliary, as illustrated inmodality, tense, aspect, etc.）have developed from clausal

nexus including a superordinate clause, as exemplified indomains（recent experience report as well as mood,sequences in this manner. This kind of development canappropriately be seen as grammaticalization in Hopperand Traugott’s（1993: xv）sense. Just as English be goingto has developed from the purposive expression, as in（8a）, into an auxiliary of future, as in（8b）,（Hopper andTraugott 1993: 1-4）
, Japanese -te-ki-ta-yo and Korean abo-asseo have now been more or less grammaticalized
as auxiliary-like verbal sequences of recent experience
report starter.
⑻ a. I am going（to London）to marry Bill.
b. I am going to go to London.
In the systemic-functional framework, go is a verb of“material process”（Halliday and Matthiessen 2004:

184）in（8a）, but it serves as auxiliary of future in（8b）（Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 338）. Likewise, ki-tayo （I）‘
came’ in（7a）and bo-asseo （I）‘
saw’ in（7b）canJapanese and Korean examples（9a-b）, and a clause
English example（9c-d）.
⑼ JAPANESE

a. sensyuu mekisiko-ni it-te-ki-ta-yo.（=2a）
		last:week Mexico-to go-and-come-PST-FP
		‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’

KOREANb. jinanju

megsiko-e		last:week Mexico-to		gabo-asseo.（=2b）

go:and see-PST‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’

ENGLISHc.	You’ll never guess where I went last week!（Iwent to）Mexico!（=2c）
d. Guess where I went last week, Mexico!
We can now remember that we already saw anotherstrategy or expression employable for introducing a
recent experience report into conversation. Section 2

be best described as verbs of material and mental process,observed that Spanish uses the structure justo acabar dedo not represent such processes but should rather be

repeated as（10）here. It should be noticed, however, that

respectively, while in（2a-b）, those verbal complexes
viewed as a mood element（i.e., element of interpersonal

V as a recent experience report starter, as in（1）, partiallythe structure is accompanied by another clausal element

metafunction）. Even though one may recognize thatthat can be translated as ‘and it was great’: y ha sido

grammaticalization such as these is “metaphorical ingenial. The foregoing clause mainly conveys the gist-

60

●人間文化

Experience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptions

giving and recency facets, while this additional clauseprofiles the intriguing facet. Thus, the additional clausepreceded by a connective y（or the whole structure⒀ JAPANESE
a. sensyuu
		ginzan-ni it-te-ki-ta-

last.week Ginzan-to go-and-come-PST-

including the foregoing clause）can be viewed as a type		nda-kedo,

of expression for recent experience report.

		EVD-though be.good-PST-FP⑽	Justo acabo de estar en Mónaco unos días y ha sido
genial.（Vanitatis: El Confidencial; emphasis added）
	‘I’ve just been in Monaco for a few days and it was
great.’

yokat-ta-yo.9		‘I went to Ginzan（hot spring）last week and it
was great.’
KOREANb. yobeon-e		jangmi chugje cheoeum

this.time-in rose

festival first		ga bo-ass-neunde joh-asseo-yo!10
In fact, the English translation can serve to start a recent

		go see-PST-though be.good-PST-FP

experience report; we can find many more examples

		‘I went to the rose festival for the first time thiswith the same structure used in the discourse of recent
experience report, some of which are illustrated in（11）.

⑾ a. I went to Mexico last week and it was great.
b.	
We had my son’s birthday party there last night
and it was great!7time and it was great.’
The examples in（9）through（13）instantiate the cases
where the speaker has some good news. Of course,
speakers can intend to report some bad news to theaddressee; in such cases, they seem to choose some otherc. We ate at the restaurant and it was great.

8

expressions for the additional clause connected to thegist-giving clause（e.g., and it was terrible in English;

It is further interesting that Japanese and Korean as well-ta-nda-kedo hidokat-ta-yo ‘and it was terrible’ and -ta-

have similar clausal elements that follow a gist-giving

nda-kedo gakkari ‘and it was disappointing’ in Japanese;

expression of recent experience report, as instantiated in-ass-neunde simhae-sseo ‘and it was terrible’ and -ass-（12）. An internet search can find a lot more examples ofthe same formulations as in（13）. In these expressions,the use of the verbal-group construction（V-te-mi-ru
and V-a bo-asseo）is optional, as represented by theparenthesis.
⑿ JAPANESE
a. sensyuu mekisiko-ni it（-te-ki）-ta		last:week Mexico-to go（-and-come）-PST-

neunde silmanghae-sseo ‘and I was disappointed’ in
Korean）.
The and-it-was-great type of expression may look
like a looser structure than the verbal-group and clausenexus types（‘I did and came/saw’ and you（will never）

guess wh）
. It will not be surprising, however, if theformer has achieved a status of sentential expression witha specific discourse-pragmatic function. In fact, there isanother instance in which similar two conjuncts connected		nda-kedo,

yokat-ta-yo.

with and have achieved such a construction-like status:

		EVD-thoughbe.good-PST-FP

coordination with “left-subordinating” and, illustrated‘I went to Mexico last week and it was great.’by sentences like You drink another can of beer and I’m		

KOREANb. jinanju

megsiko-e ga（ bo）-ass-leaving（Culicover and Jackendoff 1997: 197）.

		last:week Mexico-to go（ see）-PST-

Our discussion shows that there are at least
three types of expressions that are adopted as recent		neunde joh-asseo.

experience report starters; each language can employ

		though

one type or another, otherwise a combination thereof,		be.good-PST-FP‘I went to Mexico last week and it was great.’and exhibits a certain degree of favor for one of these.
To put it differently, different languages can be classified
from a typological perspective based on which type

人間文化● 61

Experience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptionsof expression they prefer as a recent experience report

facet can be focused on with the and-it-was-great typestarter. Japanese, Korean, and Spanish prefer a verbal-

of expression in Korean as well as in the other threegroup type, while English favors a clause-nexus type. All

languages. The four languages can thus be best understood

the languages exhibit diverse degrees of inclination to theas sharing a very comparable discourse type in which theand-it-was-great type.

speaker wants to report his or her recent experience and

The existence of these expressions implicatesthat the four languages have in common a comparable

share it with the addressee in the following conversation.

discourse pattern in which the speaker intends toexpressions for this same pragmatic purpose: linguistic

report his or her recent experience and share it with thedevices for a typical starter of such a discourse type. At

addressee in the following conversation. The speech

the same time, the lexicogrammatical diversities of theevent conceptions that underlie the meanings of thedevices can be seen as an ethnographical reflection of theexpressions will accordingly be similar across thediscourse type.

They have their own（respectively preferred）type（s）oflanguages but can, at the same time, differ in details of
the conceptions. Although similarly adopting a verbalgroup type, Japanese envisages a spatial movement（V-te-ki-ta ‘did and CAME’）, Korean focuses on aperceptual experience（V-a bo-asseo ‘did and SAW’）,and Spanish emphasizes the completion of an event（justo acabo de V ‘finish（of）doing’）. These differences
can comprise some language/culture-specific facets of

Notes* The chief discussion and main claim launched in thispaper is a revised version of our presentation at XIV
Congreso de la Asociación de Lingüística SistémicoFuncional de América Latina（ALSFAL）, La Facultad
de Lenguas de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma
de Puebla, October 11, 2018. Part of this research

the relevant speech event conception in each language.

is supported by JSPS KAKENHI（Grant-in-Aid for

Such differences will also deserve another typological

Scientific Research（C）18K00563）.

description and analysis, which is sure to be anotherintriguing, though beyond the scope of this paper, topic
of research.

7. Conclusion

1 h ttps://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial.com/casasreales/2018-09-19/gal-elmaleh-carlota-casiraghiraphael-ver-hijo_1617603/
2 This is our English translation. As will be discussed in
Section 6, ‘and it was great’ as well as ‘I’ve just been

The type of expression analyzed in this case study isin Monaco for a few days’ can serve to start a recent

systemic-functionally, conceptually, and speech-act

experience report; therefore, here we employ this literal

theoretically complex or multiplex. The speech event

translation instead of ‘guess where I went and spent a

conception associated with the relevant expressions, by

few days, Monaco.’

nature, consists of different ideational and interpersonal
facets, each of which is identified as: recency, gist-giving,

3 A similar characterization of Japanese V-te-kuru is
found in Mizutani（1985: 32-34）.

and intriguing facets. In Japanese, all the facets are

4 We can find a similar discourse in a Twitter postinglexicogrammatically profiled, as with V-te-ki-ta-yo. They
also are in Spanish, as manifested in justo acabar de V yha sido genial. In contrast, the gist-giving and intriguingsuch as:（i） soo ie-ba konaida
kyooto-eso say-if the.other.day Kyoto-to

facets are, but the recency facet is not, activated in

it-te-ki-ta-yo.

English, as with guess wh I did, while only the recency

go-and-come-PST-FP

facet is verbalized in Korean, as with V-a bo-asseo.

‘Guess where I went the other day? Kyoto.’

Accordingly, it is probable that the recent experience
report is not so enthusiastically started with the Korean
V-a bo-asseo as with Japanese V-te-ki-ta-yo and English
You’ll never guess wh. 11 Nevertheless, the intriguing

62

●人間文化

5 We adopt the following abbreviations in glossing
example sentences: COP for copula, FP for final
particle, PST for past, and QUOT for quotative.
6 In Japanese and Korean, too, comparable formulations

Experience report starters and their evoked speech event conceptions

such as the following are possible. However, their use
is more limited to conversations among close friends orfamily members.

（i）JAPANESE
a. sensyuu

subordination despite syntactic coordination.
Linguistic Inquiry 28: 195-217
doko-niit-te-ki-ta-to		 last:week where-to go-and-come-PST-QUOT
		omou?

Mekisiko-da-yo.

		think

Stanford: CSLI.
Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic

Halliday, M.A.K. and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.
2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar（3rded.）. London: Hodder Arnold.
Haspelmath, Martin and Ekkehard König. 1995. Converbs

Mexico-COP-FP‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’in Cross-Linguistics Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

KOREANb. jinanju

bo-ass-neun-ji

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer.

		 last:week where-to go-and see-PST-QUOT

1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework.

		ara?

eodi-rogamegsiko-ya.

		 know Mexico-COP-FP		

‘Guess where I went last week? Mexico!’

7 https://wonderlandspokane.com/faq-items/we-had-mysons-birthday-party-there-and-it-was-great/

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hopper, Paul J. and Eliazbet Closs Traugott. 1993.
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Izutsu, Katsunobu and Mitsuko Narita Izutsu. 2017.

8 h ttps://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-

Mental gaze monitoring and form manipulation:

g551607-d1371222-r534719428-Four_Seasons_distinct conceptions of language production andRestaurant_at_Knock_House_Hotel-Knock_County_

its management. Lege Artis: Language Yesterday,

Mayo_Western_Ireland.html
9 http://fhrp.seesaa.net/article/34163794.html?seesaa_

Today, Tomorrow, 2, 47-96.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:

related=category

What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:

10 https://www.inst4gram.com/tag/ 남편이랑데이뜨

University of Chicago Press.

11 Yong-Taek Kim informed us that in Korean as well,

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic

another converb construction meaning ‘did andIntroduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

came’（V-go wasseo）seems to exhibit an increasing

Mizutani, Nobuko. 1985. Nichi Ei Hikaku: Hanashi Kotoba

tendency to assume some shades of gist-giving,

no Bunpo [A grammar of spoken language: a Japanese-

intriguing, and recency.

English comparison]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in
the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge

Acknowledgement
We would like to express our gratitude to Walter Klinger

University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2003. Directional verbs in Japanese.

for his helpful and valuable comments on earlier versions

In Erin Shay and Uwe Seibert（eds.）, Motion,of the present discussion, especially on the relevant

Direction, and Location in Languages: In Honor ofEnglish expressions, and also for his stylistic suggestions

Zygmunt Frajzyngier, 259-286. Amsterdam: Johnfor the final version of this article. Needless to say, allremaining mistakes are our own responsibility.

Benjamins.
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammarof Japanese, volume one & two. London: Continuum.

References
Barlow, Michael. 2000. Usage, blends and grammar.
Michael. Barlow and Susanne Kemmer（eds.）,
Usage Based Models of Language, pp. 315-345.

人間文化● 63