Toward a Fuller Symbolic View of Grammar: The Theoretical Orientation of Cognitive
Phonology and Its Application to Japanese Prosody
Yuki-Shige Tamura
Osaka University
This presentation attempts to apply essential notions of cognitive grammar to the description ofphonological phenomena. After clarifying why phonological descriptions in terms of cognitive
linguistics are needed, I will show how the traditional basic concepts of phonology such as
phonemes and allophonic variation can be represented using cognitive-grammar notions. With
this background, paying particular attention to the relationship between phonology and phonetics(i.e., phonologization), I discuss the characteristics of Japanese vowel coalescence and Japanese
VOT as a case study in cognitive phonology analysis.
When Ronald Langacker launched cognitive grammar as a new paradigm of linguistic
theory in the 1980’s, the phonological description, including the relationship between phonetics
and phonology, was definitely in its descriptive range and progress was expected, as was that ofsemantic description, including the relationship between conceptualization and semantics. The
following diagram may be a good illustration of how phonology fits into the overall theory.

Figure 1(Langacker 1987:77)

As shown in the diagram, cognitive grammar is based on the symbolic view of grammar, in which
the relation of phonological units to the vocalization (i.e., phonetics) is assumed to be parallel tothat of semantic units to conceptualization. Langacker’s (1987) most significant proposal on
phonology was that phonological phenomena can be described utilizing the same theoreticalnotions (general cognitive abilities) as semantic phenomena when the former is regarded, like thelatter, as a conceptual organization schematized/abstracted from actual usage events (i.e., phoneticexperience). Lakoff (1993) shares Langacker’s views on phonology as shown in the following
quotation: “cognitive phonology is to be seen as an integral part of cognitive grammar. As such,it assumes that phonology, like the rest of language, makes use of general cognitive mechanisms…”(p. 118, my emphasis).
More than 30 years after its inception, cognitive linguistics has successfully grown into amajor linguistic theory with many related conferences and journals. However, as many researchers
have noticed, its success primarily resulted from the vigorous linguistic analyses of therelationship between conceptualization and semantic units, that is, the upper part of Figure 1,

including construction-grammar analyses; however this is not due to the inclusion of phonologicalanalyses in the bottom part of Figure 1–there is little accumulated research on the relationshipbetween vocalization and phonological units. Bybee’s series of studies (e.g., Bybee 2001) might
be considered an exception. However, her description does not actively incorporate the general
cognitive mechanisms that have been employed in cognitive semantics into an explanation ofphonological phenomena, placing more emphasis on the frequency effect on phonologicalstructures. I believe that more research is needed on the bottom part of Figure 1 to prove our thesis
from the early days that general cognitive abilities shape not only meaning but also the language
as a whole. This presentation is a small step toward this goal to activate the research in cognitivephonology.
I focus on how phonologization (the bottom part of Figure 1) can be explained in a parallel
way to semanticization/grammaticalization (the upper part of Figure 1; cf. Hyman 2013) anddiscuss the advantages of this phonological analysis over other theories, employing thecharacteristics of Japanese vowel coalescence and Japanese VOT as a case study. First, regarding
the phenomenon of vowel coalescence in Japanese, previous studies that relied on a purely
phonological explanation (e.g., Kubozono 1999, Ono 2004) not only could not provide themotivation for the phenomenon together with counterexamples, but they also failed to adequately
address dialectal differences. While these problems could be solved if sufficient attention is paid
to the phonetically subtle differences (e.g. Sugito 1982), I suggest that the cognitive-grammar
approach, which assumes that phonology designates the prominent elements of the usage event,can straightforwardly capture these differences as a profile/construal phenomenon. Second,
following Takada (2011) and Sato (1958), the modern Japanese word-initial plosives (/{/b/, /p/},{/d/, /t/}, and {/g/,/k/}) are gradually shifting from the voiced/voiceless sound opposition to thatof pitch. While the shift that includes the transitory stage is also considered a difficult issue todeal with within traditional phonology, the cognitive-grammar approach can explain this subtle
shift in a parallel manner as the ubiquitous semantic extension in which the latent elements inusage events are gradually foregrounded, while the prominent elements are bleached.
References
Bybee, Joan (2001) Phonology and Language Use, Cambridge University Press; Hyman,Larry M. (2013) "Enlarging the scope of Phonologization," Origin of sound change: Approaches
to phonologization, edited by Allan C.L.Yu, Oxford University Press, 3-28; Kubozono, Haruo(1999) Nihongo no Onsei, Iwanami Syoten; Lakoff, George (1993) "Cognitive Phonology,"
The Last Phonological Rules: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations, edited by J. Goldsmith,Chicago University Press, 117-145; Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University Press; Ono, Koji (2004) "Nihongo
no Boinyugo to Boinkotai," Kenkyu Ronbunsyu (Faculty of Education, Saga University), 107-115.
Sato, Toshio (1958) "On the Difference in Time Structures of Voiced and Unvoiced StopConsonants," Nihon Onkyo Gakkaishi 14(2), 117-122; Sugito, Miyoko (1982) Nihongo noAkusento Kenkyu, Sanseido. Takata, Mieko (2011) Nihongo no Gotoheisaon no Kenkyu: VOTno Kyojitekibunpu to Tsujiteki henka, Kuroshio.

The English verbal prefix out- and the relationship between its spatial and differential types
Akiko Nagano(University of Shizuoka)
The synchrony and diachrony of West Germanic preverbs is a traditional topic in English
linguistics. Preverbs appear before a verb and form a close semantic unit with it. Structurally,
they are XP, X0, or prefix (where X= P, Adv, A or N); diachronically, the following
grammaticalization cline is conceivable: phrasal XP > particle X(P) > particle X > incorporated
particle X > prefix (Los et al. 2012: 93). Inseparable complex verbs (ICVs), the target of thispaper, are said to have emerged from two separate evolutions (ibid.: Ch.7); early Germanic
prefixes evolved from erstwhile predicative particles, while newer prefixes are derived fromseparable complex verbs (SCVs) with incorporated adpositions.
The purpose of this paper is to provide new evidence for the hypothesis that the new ICVsystem represents the final stage of the grammaticalization cline. This hypothesis naturally
leads to the following prediction:
If the structural development [from SCVs to ICVs (AN)] represents agrammaticalization cline, we would expect it to be accompanied by acorresponding loss of lexical meaning and the development of more abstract,metaphorical meanings (semantic bleaching; e.g. Hopper and Traugott 2003; Booij
2002a: 218; van der Auwera 1999:132).
(Los et al. 2012: 192)
Los et al. argue that this prediction is supported by the ICVs with over- ‘over’, door- ‘through’and om- ‘around’ in Dutch. Thus, unlike the separable preverb in (1a), the prefixal preverb in(1b) instantiates a holistic multidirectional path; moreover, it is quantificational in (1c).
(1)

a. SCV: de brief óver-lezen (lit. the letter over-read) ‘to read over/through the letter’b. ICV: de situatie over-zíen (lit. the situation over-see) ‘to survey the situation’c. ICV: Jan over-spant de boog (lit. J over-stretches the bow) ‘to overstretch the bow’This argument is not conclusive because, as the authors correctly note, the ICV meanings in(1b, c) are also observed with SCVs (Lieber 2004 for the same point on the English prefix over-).
To prove the above prediction, we need a case where ICVs are unambiguously associated withSCVs while at the same time having what Booij (2010) calls a construction-specific meaning.
In our view, such a case is found with the English ICV prefix out- and the relationship between
its spatial and differential types (Nagano 2011, Kotowski 2023).
In OE and ME, ut ‘out’ formed SCVs. While Los et al. (2012: Ch.6) highlights the Figurelicensing type (e.g., And seo helle Þone deofel ut a-draf ‘And Hell drove out the devil’), there
were also the Ground-licensing type in which the P + motion verb composite directly took asource argument:(2) ?a1350 Þe harnes out sprange þe harnepan. (OED online)‘the brains went out of the brainpan springing; the brains sprang out of the brainpan.’This “accusative unaccusative” SCV (Myler 2013) is an inheritance of the preposition
incorporation in the OE, and from it, the path-denoting ICV such as (3) naturally emerged:(3) 1621

A..second Brother liued, whose ill out-sprung..the elder. (OED online)

But in ModE, the same prefix also began to produce accusative transitive ICVs, now known as
the differential eventive usage (Kurafuji 2013, Morzycki 2015):(4)

PE

Mary outran Fred by three miles.

---F--------M--- → distance scale|3 miles|In (4), the ICV denotes the emergence of a degree gap between the two scalar points represented
by its subject (“Mary”) and object (“Fred”). Crucially, this usage is absent in the free-standingout; i.e., it is a construction-specific meaning of the out-ICV.
There is an independent empirical motivation for considering the relationship between thepath-denoting SCV/ICV and the differential ICV as a part of the grammaticalization cline. The
extension of ablative markers into comparative standard markers (A>SM) is widely attested intypologically unrelated languages, including OE, Latin, and Japanese (Heine & Kuteva 2002).
Consider the multifunctionality of yori in Japanese (Shibasaki 2023). In the present case, thepath-incorporating SCV and ICV constitute a licit input to this change because they contain thepreposition out, an ablative marker, within.
Underlying the A> SM grammaticalization is the semantic bleaching of the spatial path.
The source-specified path in (2, 3) has been semantically extended to the lower-bound degree
scale (Kennedy & McNally 2005). This explains why Fred can mark the lower scalar point in(4) and why the construction semantics has changed from [EXIT (THE SOURCE)] to [EXCEED(THE STANDARD)]. Other effects of grammaticalization include morphologization (Joseph2006), the expansion of base-verb selection, and the emergence of functional projections.
Selected References
Heine, B. & Kuteva, K. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.
Los, B., Blom, C., Booij B., Elenbaas, M. & van Kemenade, A. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change:
A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge: CUP.
Myler, N. 2013. On coming the pub in the North West of England: Accusative unaccusatives,dependent case, and preposition incorporation. The Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 16, 189-207.

Subject and Object Gaps in Young Learners’ L2 English
Yuki Hirose
The University of Tokyo
Abundant evidence supports the subject-gap advantage in the acquisition andprocessing/comprehension of relative clauses across languages and among different
populations. In English, subject(-gap) relative clauses (SRCs), such as (1), are generally
acquired earlier by children (e.g., Brown, 1971; Diessel & Tomasello, 2000) andprocessed faster and with less effort by adult native speakers (e.g., Staub, 2010; Witzel &Witzel, 2021) than object(-gap) relative clauses (ORCs), such as (2).
(1) the girl that (gap) is chasing the boy(2) the boy that the girl is chasing (gap)The SRC advantage is also reported in Japanese learners of English. Adult EFL learners
start to produce SRCs earlier and more frequently than ORCs in natural conversation(Saunders, 1980) and process SRCs with less effort (e.g., Ueno & Garnsey, 2008; Roland
et al., 2019).
Less is known about L1-Japanese child learners of English who have never been
explicitly instructed about relative clauses or other NP-modifier constructions. This ispartly because postnominal modifiers, in general, take young Japanese learners some timeto learn naturally, as they progress from the stage of using prenominal modifiers such as
adjectives and quantifiers to the stage of postnominal phrasal modifiers such as
prepositional and participle phrases, and only then to postnominal clausal modifiers(Suzuki & Usukura, 2018; H. Tanaka, 2022). Opportunities for observing the naturaldevelopment of relative clauses in L2 English are limited, as one would have to wait aconsiderable time after a child’s initial exposure to the L2 to start a longitudinal study,
which would then have to last at least several months from that point. One such example
is a study by Yamaguchi and Kawaguchi (2016), who recorded a female child’snaturalistic conversations from age 5;8 (four months after arriving and starting local
primary school in Australia) every other month for two years. Just one instance of a full
NP SRC was reported at her eighth month after arrival; two months later, her first ORC,
together with more SRC utterances, were recorded.
In this presentation, I will discuss an ongoing study series in which we approach theSRC advantage from two perspectives (Hirose & H. Tanaka, in prep; H. Tanaka & Hirose,in prep a & b). First, we are conducting a longitudinal study of a male child who was first

exposed to an English-speaking environment at the age of 7;10, by which time hisJapanese acquisition had been completed. We have been collecting data for 4.5 years as
frequently as bi-weekly and for 45–60 minutes each time, providing a larger number ofutterances for analysis than previous studies.1 In addition to full RCs, we document othertypes of NP modification, including free relative clauses and contact clauses, to assess thechild’s repertoire of alternatives to full SRCs and ORCs. The first full SRC utterance
emerged earlier than the first full ORC utterance, and the total number of SRCs to date islarger than that of ORCs, but we also have found postnominal modifications involving
object gaps in the form of free relative clauses that occurred much earlier than either fullORCs or full SRCs. The developmental path from simple prenominal modifications tocomplex postnominal clausal modifications will be discussed in relation to what has
already been established in the literature and what has not.
Our second approach employs controlled elicitation experiments, adopted from N.
Tanaka et al. (2019), targeting specifically full SRC and ORC constructions. The
preliminary results from ten young Japanese learners of English (age 7–12) reveal thatthe participants were more successful in describing pictures with SRCs than with ORCs.
However, the pictures intended to elicit ORCs were often successfully described withalternative constructions, mostly passives involving a SRC construction.
The implication is that the apparent subject-gap advantage in child L2 acquisitionof English may partially be explained by the variety of alternative structures that are
somehow more accessible to the learners. We will discuss this implication in light ofprevious RC research on other populations (adult L2 learners and L1 learners of English)
from both acquisition and processing views.

Selected References
Tanaka, Nozomi, William O’Grady, Kamil Deen, & Ivan Paul Bondoc. 2019. An
asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses: Evidence from Tagalog. First
Language, 39(6), 618–632.
Yamaguchi, Yumiko, & Satomi Kawaguchi. 2016. Development of relative clause
constructions in English L2. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 83–93.

1

The annotated corpus will be available as UH-UT Child Second Language Acquisition

Database: A collection of Longitudinal case studies (UH-UT CSLAD)
https://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3RZ47