１２７

On How Speaker’s and Participant’sViewpoints Function in Japanese―A cognitive approach to the reflexive jibun―
Toru Kunishige*
Abstract
Previous work such as Kuno (1976) has analyzed Japanese sentences with the reflexive jibun interms of the speaker’s empathy assigned to a particular participant in an event.
Pointing out that there are examples whose well-formedness cannot be properly accounted forsolely with the notion of empathy, this paper proposes an alternative approach. The major claims arethat the use of Japanese reflexive jibun is motivated by the mental transfer (Langacker 1987, 1991) of
the speaker’s Viewpoint (Cutrer 1994 ; Fauconnier 1997) and the mental rotation (Shepard & Metzler
1971), and that the mental transfer is caused by a high degree (as opposed to the highest degree) of
the speaker’s empathy with a participant in an event. Also, it is argued that when jibun is used, theprocess of the speaker’s construal of the event reflects a basic human cognitive ability, reference-point
ability (Langacker 1993 ; Yamanashi 2000).
In order to validate the claims and argument, this paper demonstrates the following : 1) the
acceptability of examples not accounted for in Kuno’s theory can be explained easily by proposing thatthe speaker’s/narrator’s highest degree of empathy motivates the blending (Fauconnier and Turner
1996) of the two Viewpoints ; 2) The well-formedness or the opposite of sentences with the verbs ofgiving kureru and yaru can be explained using a unified notion of Viewpoint, if the centripetal andthe non-centripetal properties of the verbs in relation to the locus of the speaker’s Viewpoint are
stipulated.
Keywords : reflexive, empathy, mental transfer, Viewpoint, mental rotation, reference-point ability,
blending
0. Introduction
There are now quite a number of studies of theJapanese reflexive jibun (self). They include studies
based on formalistic approaches such as Kuroda(1973), Inoue (1976) and Nakamura (1989) and, more
relevant to this paper, functionalist-cognitive approaches such as Kuno (1976, 1987), Kuno andKaburaki (1977) and Sawada (1993). It is with these
cognitively oriented approaches that we will beconcerned in this paper.

Kuno, and Kuno and Kaburaki characterize jibunas empathy expressions. They argue, for example,
that when the reflexive jibun is used to refer to aparticipant in an event in a complex sentence such as(1) with its antecedent not in the same simplex
sentence that it is in, the speaker empathizes andidentifies himself with the participant, i.e., Hanako inthis example (indices are put to show that indexed
NPs are coreferential. And the solid line arrow thatruns from jibun to Hanako shows that the speaker, byusing jibun, empathizes with Hanako) :(1) Hanako i wa Taroo ga jibun i ni kyuukonshita hi ni kaisya wo
yamete shimatta.
Hanako-top. Taroo-sub. self-dat. proposed
day on company-obj. quitting ended-up
Hanako i quit her job the day Taroo proposed to her i. (Kuno 1976)＊General Education, Tokuyama College of Technology

平成１３年９月２７日受理１２８弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

As this example shows, the main feature of Kuno’s
theory is to use the notion of empathy to analyze
various linguistic phenomena. But there are examples
whose well-formedness cannot be accounted for solely
with the notion of empathy, which will be presented ina moment.
In this paper, I will propose an alternative
approach. My approach is based on the assumptionthat empathy is a motivation or a trigger for thefunctions of Viewpoint and that linguistic phenomena
should be treated in terms of them. I will demonstrate that my approach accounts neatly for problematic examples for Kuno’s theory. Also, I will clarify
what kind of Viewpoint function is involved in the useof jibun in a complex sentence.(1) Finally, I will argue
that when jibun is used, the process of the speaker’s
construal of the event reflects a basic human cognitive
ability, reference-point ability.
First, let us see in detail how Kuno’s empathy
theory explains sentences with jibun.

1. Analysis based on the speaker’s empathy
Consider sentences in (2). According to Kuno
(1987), (2a), which has a pronoun kare (him), is asentence in which the speaker gives an objective
description of what happened by placing himself at a
distance from Yamada. It follows from the position of
the speaker’s point of view in his uttering thissentence that the use of the pronoun such as kareshows that the speaker does not express his empathy
with the referent of its antecedent (the dotted line
arrow indicates that when the pronoun is used, thespeaker’s empathy is not with the topic NP). In
contrast, (2b) is characterized as one in which the
speaker has overtly expressed his high degree of
empathy with Yamada (the solid line arrow indicatesthat the speaker, by using the reflexive, assigns
empathy to the referent of the topic NP) :(2) a. Yamada i wa, kare i wo nikunde iru onna to kekkonshite shimatta.
Yamada-top. him-obj. hating is woman with marrying end up
Yamada i ended up marrying a woman who hated him i.

b. Yamada i wa, jibun i wo nikunde iru onna to kekkonshite shimatta. (Kuno 1987)
Yamada-top. self-obj. hating is woman with marrying end up
Yamada i ended up marrying a woman who hated him i.
According to Kuno (1987), (2b) ordinarily implies at
the time of its utterance that Yamada is aware thatthe woman he married hated him. Kuno (1976) argues that when jibun is used in a subordinate clause
and the referent of its antecedent is aware of theaction or state represented by that clause, the speakerassigns the highest degree of empathy, and thus selfidentification, to the referent. Thus, in (2b), thespeaker empathizes with Yamada to the highest
degree and totally identifies with him.
Let us consider next example (3) :(3) Taroo i wa Hanako ga jibun i wo aishite iru koto o shiranai.
Taroo-top. Hanako-sub. self-obj. loving is that don’t know
Taroo i doesn’t know that Hanako is in love with him i. (Kuno 1976)
We know from (3) that Taroo is not aware that
Hanako loves him. According to Kuno’s empathy
theory, the speaker of (3) empathizes with Taroo not
to the highest degree and thus only partially identifies
with him. Based on examples like (2b) and (3), Kuno
argues that the speaker’s empathy varies in degree injibun sentences.
Kuno (1976), and Kuno and Kaburaki (1977) alsocharacterize verbs of giving kureru and yaru as
showing similar empathy characteristics to jibun.
Kuno proposes the principle shown in (4) regarding
the choice between these two verbs :On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）

１２９(4) Kureru requires that the speaker’s empathy be placed on the referent of its dative object, and yaru that his
empathy be placed on the referent of its subject. (Kuno 1976 : 254)
The introduction of the verbs of giving kureru andyaru into jibun sentences makes the contrast in theassignment of empathy caused by the use of the

pronoun or the reflexive distinct. Let us consider
examples in (5) :(5) a. Tanaka-san i wa [Doi-san ga kare i ni hon wo *kureta/yatta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
Mr. Tanaka-top. Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat. book-obj. gave
when delighted
Mr. Tanaka i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.

b. Tanaka-san i wa [Doi-san ga jibun i ni hon wo kureta/*yatta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
Mr. Tanaka-top. Ms. Doi-sub. self-dat. book-obj. gave
when delighted
Mr. Tanaka i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.

c. Boku no otooto i wa [Doi-san ga jibun i ni hon wo kureta/*yatta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
my brother-top.
Ms. Doi-sub. self-dat. book-obj. gave
when delighted
My brother i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
Kuno’s empathy theory accounts for these examples
straightforwardly. As just discussed in (2a), the use ofkare (him) in (5a) shows that the speaker’s empathy is
not with the referent of its antecedent, that is, Tanaka-san (Mr. Tanaka). The dotted line arrow indicatesthis. As stipulated in the principle in (4), the use of
kureta shows that the speaker’s empathy is placed on
the referent of the dative object, that is, the same
Tanaka-san rather than on that of the subject. The
solid line arrow from kureta indicates this. Therefore,
the use of kare and kureta causes a contradiction
regarding the empathy assignment. Thus, kureta cannot be used in this sentence. The sign of lightning
between two arrows shows the contradiction. In contrast, the use of yatta indicates that the speaker’s
empathy is placed on the referent of the subject rather

than on that of the dative object. So, neither kare nor
yatta marks Tanaka-san with empathy. Since there isno contradiction regarding the empathy assignment,
yatta can be used in this sentence.
In (5b), the use of jibun and the use of kureta arecompatible because they both indicate the presence of
empathy to Tanaka-san. Thus, there is no contradiction. So this sentence is well-formed. On the other
hand, the use of yatta indicates that the speaker’s
empathy is not with Tanaka-san, whereas the use of
jibun indicates the presence of the speaker’s empathy
to the same person. Since this causes a contradiction
regarding the empathy assignment, yatta cannot be
used in this sentence. (5c) can be explained in thesame way as (5b). So far, so good. Let us consider
next the sentences in (6) :(6) a. Doi-san ga
boku ni hon wo kureta.
Ms. Doi-sub. me-dat. book-obj. gave
Ms. Doi gave me a book.
b. Doi-san ga
Maeda-san to iu hito ni hon wo *kureta/yatta.
Ms. Doi-sub. a Mr. Maeda-dat.
book-obj. gave
Ms. Doi gave a Mr. Maeda a book.
c. Doi-san ga
kare (=boku no otooto) ni hon wo kureta.
Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat.
book-obj. gave
Ms. Doi gave him a book.

１３０

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

Note from (6a) and (6b) that the dative object of theverb kureta is normally the first-person pronoun but
not the third-person. But (6c), in which the thirdperson pronoun kare that refers to boku no otooto is
the dative object of kureta, is perfectly OK in thecontext where the dative object is something thatbelongs to the speaker (Kuno 1973) or somethingclosely affiliated with the speaker (Iwasaki 1993) orthe in-group member of the speaker (Wetzel 1985) andalso Doi-san’ s (Ms. Doi’s) having given a book to the
speaker’s brother is considered by the speaker to bebeneficial to himself in some way or other as well as tohis brother. Let us consider example (7), keeping (6c)in mind.
Kuno’s empathy theory runs into trouble when ittries to account for the well-formedness of (7) :(7) Boku no otooto i wa [Doi-san ga kare i ni hon wo kureta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
my brother-top.
Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat. book-obj. gave when delighted
My brother i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
In this example, kureta, which shows that the
speaker’s empathy is with boku no otooto (my brother),and kare, which indicates that the empathy is notplaced on boku no otooto are used. Under Kuno’s
analysis, the use of kureta and kare in the samesentence causes a contradiction regarding the empathy

assignment and thus (7) has to be unacceptable.
However, this sentence is perfectly acceptable because
its embedded clause is well-formed as observed in (6c).
Sawada (1993) gives similar examples such as (8), in
which giving verbs are used as supporting verbs,
coupled with main verbs :(8) Boku no imooto i wa [Mary ga kinoo
kanojo i ni oshiete kureta] sonnet wo itsumo ansyou shite iru.
my sister-top.
Mary-sub. yesterday her-dat. taught
sonnet-obj. always reciting
My sister i is always reciting the sonnet that Mary taught her i yesterday. (Sawada 1993)
Kuno’s theory cannot explain examples like (8)properly, either.
It is thus impossible to explain the acceptability of
the above examples in a consistent way in terms of
speaker empathy and speaker identification with aparticipant.
The problem is that Kuno wrongly assumes thatthe speaker expresses his highest degree of empathy
and thus total identification with the referent of jibun,
when, as in (2b), he is aware of the action or state
represented by the clause in which jibun appears. I
claim that a high degree (but not the highest degree)of the speaker’s empathy with a participant isrequired regardless of the awareness of the referent ofjibun.
I would assume that the speaker’s highest degreeof empathy, total identification is instead involved incases such as (7) and (8) but not in cases like (2b) as
proposed by Kuno.

It has been made clear that there are examples
that the notion of empathy cannot deal with properly.
The following section will demonstrate that the
introduction of the concept of Viewpoint and its
functions within the framework of Mental Space
Theory accounts neatly for both the ill-formedness andthe well-formedness of the above examples.
2. Analysis based on Viewpoint and its functions
2. 1. Viewpoint and its functions in Mental Space
TheoryAccording to Cutrer (1994), Viewpoint is thecenter of conceptualization and consciousness of theself to whom an utterance is attributed. It is composed of deictic dimensions such as time and space. In
order to analyze the above sentences properly, I would
propose three ways in which Viewpoint functions :(a) The speaker’s Viewpoint and the participant’s Viewpoint can be blended.
(b) Viewpoint can shift from the speaker to a participant and vice versa.
(c) The speaker’s Viewpoint can be transferred to the Viewpoint locus of a participant.

On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）Speaker s Viewpoint

Participant s Viewpoint

１３１

Blended Viewpoint

Blending(a) Blending
Speaker s Viewpoint

Participant s Viewpoint
Shift
Shift

(b) Shift
Speaker s Viewpoint Participant s Viewpoint

Speaker s Viewpoint

Participant s Viewpoint

Mental transfer

Speaker s Viewpoint mentally transferredto the participant s Viewpoint locus(c) Mental transfer
Figure 1

The functions of Viewpoint can be roughly schematized as in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the circle objects
symbolize the Viewpoint. Figure (1a) shows that due
to blending, the speaker’s black Viewpoint and theparticipant’s white Viewpoint are merged or fused into
a new gray one. As a result, sentences formed withthis blended Viewpoint reflect some merged features ofthe original two Viewpoints. So, in sentences formed
under this function, it is difficult to distinguish clearly
which part reflects the speaker’s Viewpoint and which
the participant’s Viewpoint. Figure (1b) shows that the
Viewpoint has shifted from the speaker to a participant and vice versa. As a result, sentences formed
with this function show clearly a shift between thepart in which the speaker’s Viewpoint is 100%
reflected and another part in which the participant’sViewpoint is 100% reflected. So the parts that reflect
the speaker’s Viewpoint and the participant’s Viewpoint can be clearly distinguished. Figure (1c) showsthat the speaker is placing himself in the Viewpoint
position of the participant. As a result, sentences

Table 1Degrees of Speaker Functions of Viewpoint motivatedempathyby each empathy degree
Highest degree of Blending of the speaker’s Viewempathy
point and the participant’s View(=total identification) point : [function (a)]High degree of
empathy

Mental transfer of the speaker’s
Viewpoint to the locus of the participant’s Viewpoint : [function (c)]→ the use of jibun

Lowest degree of No mental transfer of the speaker’s
empathyViewpoint → the use of the(=total lack of empathy) pronoun

formed by this function solely reflect the speaker’s
Viewpoint, even though readers or hearers of thesesentences may perceive them as the reflection of theparticipant’s Viewpoint. I claim that that perception
is caused by the speaker’s mental transfer of theViewpoint to the locus of the Viewpoint of theparticipant. The speaker is construing the event as if
from the participant’s Viewpoint :１３２

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

Here, as an assumption for the argument following, let us stipulate the relationship between the threelevels of the speaker’s empathy with a participant inan event and the functions of Viewpoint caused bythem. In Table 1, three levels of the speaker’s empathy are put in the left column and the corresponding
functions of Viewpoint are listed in the right column.
For example, the table shows that the highest degreeof the speaker’s empathy causes the blending of the
speaker’s Viewpoint and the participant’s Viewpoint :I have included the shift between the speaker’s
Viewpoint and the participant’s Viewpoint as one of
the functions of Viewpoint for later discussions.
However, this function is not included in the tablebecause the shift in Viewpoint does not have to be
characterized in terms of the speaker’s empathy.
2. 2. An alternative analysis
It is the mental transfer motivated by the
speaker’s high degree of empathy that accounts for his
use of jibun. Also, I would like to propose that theverbs of giving kureru and yaru have the centripetalfeature (the word centripetal literally means “proceeding or acting in a direction toward a center or axis”)
and the non-centripetal feature respectively in relation
to the position of the speaker’s Viewpoint as shown in(9) :(9) Kureru requires that a gift move toward the speaker’s Viewpoint, and yaru that a gift not move toward the
speaker’s Viewpoint.
gift

gift

gift
Speaker s Viewpoint

Speaker s Viewpoint(a) kureru centripetal feature(b) yaru non-centripetal feature
Figure 2

These features are roughly schematized as in Figure 2(a) and Figure 2 (b) :The reason I use the term non-centripetal instead ofusing the term centrifugal is that there are twopatterns that the verb yaru requires regarding thedirection of the movement of a gift as shown in Figure
2 (b).
Now, let us first observe how this Viewpoint
analysis simply accounts for the well-formedness or
opposite of the sentences with kureru or yaru. Let us
consider examples in (10) :(10) a. Saga-san ga
watashi ni hon wo kureta.
Mr. Saga-sub. me-dat.
book-obj. gave
Mr. Saga gave me a book.

b. ＊Watashi wa Saga-san ni hon wo kureta.
I-top.
Mr. Saga-dat. book-obj. gave
I gave Mr. Saga a book.
c. Watashi wa Saga-san ni
hon wo yatta.
I-top.
Mr. Saga-dat. book-obj. gave
I gave Mr. Saga a book.
d. ＊Saga-san ga watashi ni hon wo yatta.
Mr. Saga-sub. me-dat.
book-obj. gave
Mr. Saga gave me a book.
In (10a), the gift hon (book) moves toward watashi(me), i.e., the speaker. The speaker has the Viewpoint. Thus (10a) is grammatical. On the other hand,in (10b), the gift moves away from the speaker’s
Viewpoint, which violates the centripetal feature of
the verb kureru. Thus the use of kureta makes thisOn How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）sentence ungrammatical. In (10c), the gift moves
away from the speaker’s Viewpoint, which satisfies the
non-centripetal feature of the verb yaru. Thus thissentence is grammatical. On the other hand, in (10d),
the gift moves toward the speaker’s Viewpoint, which

１３３

contradicts the non-centripetal feature of the verb
yaru. Hence the ungrammaticality of (10d). Let us
consider next (5) and (7) repeated here as (11) and(12), again :(11) a. Tanaka-san i wa [Doi-san ga kare i ni hon wo *kureta/yatta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
Mr. Tanaka-top. Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat. book-obj. gave
when delighted
Mr. Tanaka i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
b. Tanaka-san i wa [Doi-san ga jibun i ni hon wo kureta/*yatta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
Mr. Tanaka-top. Ms. Doi-sub. self-dat. book-obj. gave
when delighted
Mr. Tanaka i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
c. Boku no otooto i wa [Doi-san ga jibun i ni hon wo kureta/*yatta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
my brother-top.
Ms. Doi-sub. self-dat. book-obj. gave
when delighted
My brother i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
(12) Boku no otooto i wa [Doi-san ga kare i ni hon wo kureta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
my brother-top.
Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat. book-obj. gave when delighted
My brother i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
In (11a), the use of kare as opposed to jibun indicatesthat the speaker’s Viewpoint is not mentally transferred in space to Tanaka-san’s Viewpoint locus. Thus,
the gift hon moves toward the participant’s, i.e.,
Tanaka-san’s Viewpoint but not toward the speaker’s
Viewpoint. Therefore, yatta can be used, whereas
kureta cannot be used in this example. On the other
hand, in (11b), since jibun is used, the speaker’s
Viewpoint is mentally transferred to Tanaka-san’s
Viewpoint locus. So, the movement of hon toward
Tanaka-san’s Viewpoint position means its movement
toward the speaker’s Viewpoint. Thus, not yatta but
kureta, which requires that the gift move toward the
speaker’s Viewpoint has to be used. (11c) can be
explained in the same way as (11b).
Let’s move on to (12). At first glance, (12) seems
problematic in that the use of kare which indicates nomental transfer of the speaker’s Viewpoint contradicts
the use of kureta which shows that hon moves toward
the speaker’s Viewpoint. This phenomenon cannot be
explained by Kuno’s empathy analysis as we haveseen above. But the assumption that in this example,
the speaker empathizes with boku no otooto to thehighest degree and thus totally identifies with him,
together with the blending of the speaker’s and theparticipant’s Viewpoints account neatly for the wellformedness of this sentence. Now let us have a closer
look at the concept of blending.
2. 3. Blending
Fauconnier and Turner (1996), and a number ofothers propose the existence of a general cognitive
process, conceptual blending. Blending operates on two
input mental spaces to yield a separate space, theblended space. In blending, structure and elementsfrom two input spaces is partially projected to theblended space. As a result, the blended space inherits
partial structure and elements from the input spaces,
and it also develops an emergent structure of its own.
One example of blending can be seen in the factthat we are able to talk about particular computer
programs and various related phenomena in thecomputer field by using expressions in the field ofhealth.
Consider the examples in (13) :(13) a. Uirusu deookuno kanja ga
shinda.
virus because of many patients-sub. died
The virus killed many patients.
b. Yuugaina puroguramu deookuno fairu ga kowareta.
harmful program
because of many files-sub. broke
The harmful program destroyed many files.

１３４弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

c. Uirusu deookuno fairu ga shinda.
virus because of many files-sub. died
The virus destroyed many files.
Words such as uirusu (virus), kanja (patients) andshinu (die) in (13a) are all considered to be expressions in the field of health. Words such as yuugaina
puroguramu (harmful program), fairu (files) andkowareru (break) in (13b) are expressions in the fieldof computers. Blending makes it possible for us toconstruct a sentence like (13c) when we describe thesame event represented normally as in (13b).
Fauconnier (1997) gives some of the conditions
that are satisfied when two input spaces are blended.
Let us use the above examples in (13) to see how theconditions (A)-(D) below are satisfied :(A) CROSS-SPACE MAPPING : There is a partial
mapping of counterparts between the input spaces asshown in Figure 3. (Since we are dealing with examples at a construction level here, mappings are
established between all the corresponding elements.)
For example, uirusu and kanja in the health domain
are mapped onto yuugaina puroguramu and fairu in

the computer domain respectively. The notation “a notame ni, shinu b (because of a, die b)” in the left
square in Figure 3 means that because of element a,element b dies. Similar notations will be used forother examples :(B) GENERIC SPACE : We can abstract the genericschemata from both domains. When we do this, webuild a space called generic space, whose elements
map onto elements of each input space. This spacereflects some common, usually more abstract, structure and organization shared by the input spaces as in
Figure 4.
For example, we abstract the schema of a harmful
substance from a and a’, and the schema of a damaged
substance from b and b’. Also, we abstract theschema of a frame “a’’ no tame ni, sonshou o ukeru b’’(because of a’’, b’’ suffers damage)” from the frames “ano tame ni, shinu b (because of a, die b)” and “a’ notame ni, kowareru b’ (because of a’, break b’)” :Input space 1

Input space 2

a : yuugaina(health domain)(computer domain)

puroguramu(harmful program)a: uirusu (virus)
b: kanja (patients)aab : fairu (files)

a no tame ni,bb

a no tame ni,

shinu b (because

kowareru bof a, die b)(because of a ,break b )Figure 3
Generic spacea : yuugaina busshitsu (harmful substance)b : sonshou o uketa busshitsuab(damaged substance)a no tame ni, sonshou o ukeru b(because of a , b suffers damage)

Input space 1
a

a

b

b

Figure 4

Input space 2

On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）１３５Generic spaceab

Input space 2

Input space 1
a

a
b

b

a
b

a

: uirusu (virus)b: fairu (files)ano tame ni, shinub(because of a , die b )Blended space

Figure 5(C) BLEND : The existence of the generic spaceenables us to partially map elements or structure fromboth input spaces into the blended space, as shown in
Figure 5. When counterparts are projected into theblended space, they may be fused into a single element
or they may be projected separately or one of thecounterparts is projected but not the other.
In Figure 5, both element a’’’ and element b’’’ arethe examples of one of the counterparts (uirusu (virus)/ fairu (files)) being projected but not the other (kanja(patients) / yuugaina puroguramu (harmful program)),which are shown by broken lines :(D) EMERGENT STRUCTURE : The blend space
has new internal structure not provided by theelements in input spaces. The structure of theblended space in Figure 5 is the emergent structure
per se because the projections from the input spaces, i.

Generic spacea : yuugaina busshitsu (harmful substance)abb : sonshou o uketa busshitsu(damaged substance)a no tame ni, sonshou o ukeru b(because of a , b suffers damage)

Input space 1

a

a

b

b

Input space 2
a : yuugaina puroguramu (harmfulprogram)b : fairu (files)
a no tame ni, kowareru b

a: uirusu (virus)ab: kanja (patients)
a no tame ni,ba : uirusu (virus)

shinu b (because
of a, die b)(because of a , break b )Blended spaceb : fairu (files)
a no tame ni, shinu b(because of a , die b )Figure 6

１３６

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

e., elements a’’’ and b’’’ and the frame “a’’’ no tame ni,
shinu b’’’ (because of a’’’, die b’’’)”, taken together,make new relations available only in this blended
space that did not exist in the separate input spaces.
Schematically, the whole process so far is represented as in Figure 6 :In Figure 6, a dotted line arrow from the frame “ano tame ni, shinu b (because of a, die b)” to the frame“a’’’ no tame ni, shinu b’’’ (because of a’’’, die b’’’)”
shows that a schema of a frame in input space 1 (asopposed to input space 2) is projected to the internal
structure of the blended space.
Now, let us consider (12), repeated here as (14)again :

(14) Boku no otooto i wa [Doi-san ga kare i ni hon wo kureta toki] ooyorokobi shita.
my brother-top.
Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat. book-obj. gave when delighted
My brother i was delighted when Ms. Doi gave him i a book.
As mentioned earlier, let us assume that when the
speaker utters this sentence, he expresses his highest
degree of empathy and thus totally identifies himself
with his brother. The total identification of the
speaker and his brother naturally results in the fusionor the blending of the speaker’s Viewpoint and his
brother’s Viewpoint.
Now I will demonstrate that the application of theconcept of blending to the Viewpoint easily explains

the acceptability of this sentence by examining how itsatisfies the conditions of blending (A)-(D).
Doi-san’s giving a book to the speaker’s brothercan be described as in (15a) from the brother’s
Viewpoint (Base/Viewpoint space, technically speaking) and as in (15b) from the speaker’s Viewpoint
without his empathizing with his brother to thehighest degree and totally identifying with him :(15) a. Doi-san ga
watashi ni hon wo kureta.
Ms. Doi-sub. me-dat.
book-obj. gave
Ms. Doi gave me a book.
b. Doi-san ga
kare (= boku no otooto) ni hon wo yatta.
Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat.
book-obj. gave
Ms. Doi gave him a book.
Let us examine how the conditions of blending (A)-(D) are satisfied to verify that (14) is structured as
the result of the blending of two Viewpoints :(A) CROSS-SPACE MAPPING : Between the spaces
set up by (15a) and (15b), Doi-san (Ms. Doi), watashi(me) and hon (book) are mapped onto their counterparts as shown in Figure 6. The notation “kureru a, b

ni c wo (give a, b c)” in the Figure means thatelement a (=giver) gives element b (=recipient)element c (=gift). Similar notations will be used forother examples :(B) GENERIC SPACE : In Figure 6, these two input
spaces share frame structure : there is a giver, arecipient, a gift and a relationship in which the gift

Input space 1(from the brother s V-POINT space)a: name Doi

Input space 2(from the speaker s V-POINT space)aab: watashi (me)bbc: hon (book)cckureru a, b ni c woa: name Doib: kare (him)(=boku no otooto(my younger brother))c: hon (book)yaru a , b(give a, b c)ni c(give a , b c )Figure 6wo

１３７

On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）Generic spacea : giverb : receiverac : giftb

idou suru c , ackara b(move c , from a

Input space 1b: watashi (me)c: hon (book)to b )

Input space 2(from the speaker s Viewpoint)(from the brother s Viewpoint)
a: name Doi

e

a

a

b

b

c

c

a : name Doib : kare (him)(=boku no otooto

kureru a, b ni c wo

(my younger brother))(give a, b c)c : hon (book)yaru a , b ni c wo
(give a , b c )Figure 7

Generic spacea : giverab : receiverbc : giftc

idou suru c , akara b(move c , from a
Input space 1eto b )

Input space 2(from the brother s Viewpoint)(from the speaker s Viewpoint)a : name Doi

a: name Doib : kare (him)b: watashi (me)aac: hon (book)bb

kureru a, b ni c wo

cc(=boku no otooto(my younger brother))c : hon (book)(give a, b c)yaru a , b ni c wo
(give a , b c )a : name Doib : kare (him)abc(=boku no otooto(my younger brother))c: hon (book)kureru a,b(give a , b
Blended space

Figure 8

ni c
c

)

wo

１３８

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

moves from the giver to the recipient. This sharedframe structure constitutes a third space, a genericspace as in Figure 7. The notation “idou suru c’’, a’’kara b’’ e (move c’’, from a’’ to b’’)” means thatelement c’’ moves from element a’’ to element b’’ :(C) BLEND : The existence of the generic spaceenables us to partially map elements or structure fromboth input spaces into the blended space. When counterparts are projected into the blended space, they
may be fused into a single element or one of thecounterparts is projected but not the other. Figure 8
shows that elements a’’’ and c’’’ are cases in which thecounterparts are fused into a single element, which isrepresented by two dotted lines, and that element b’’’is the one in which one of the counterparts---i.e., kare(=boku no otooto (my younger brother))---is projected,
which is represented by a broken line. A dotted line
arrow from the frame “kureru a, b ni c o (give a, b c)”in input space 1 to the frame “kureru a’’’, b’’’ ni c’’’ wo(give a’’’, b’’’ c’’’)” in the blended space shows that theschema of the frame in the internal structure of input
space 1 (as opposed to input space 2) is projected tothe internal structure of the blended space :(D) EMERGENT STRUCTURE : The blended space
has a new internal structure not provided by theelements in the two input spaces. The structure of theblended space in Figure 8 is the emergent structure
per se because the projections from the input spaces--i.e., elements a’’’, b’’’ and c’’’ ---and the frame“kureru a’’’, b’’’ ni c’’’ wo (give a’’’, b’’’ c’’’)”, taken
together, make new relations available only in thisblended space that did not exist in the separate input
spaces.
As a result of the above process, the description of
the same event from the blended Viewpoint space isshown in (16), which indeed reflects the blending of
the syntactic structures (15a) and (15b). Conversely,
the blended syntactic structure is developed by acognitive operation : the blending of two Viewpoints :(16) Doi-san ga
kare (=boku no otooto) ni hon wo kureta.
Ms. Doi-sub. him-dat.
book-obj. gave
Ms. Doi gave him a book.
Since (16) is acceptable, the sentence (14)(=(12) =(7)),
in which (16) is embedded, is quite acceptable.
It follows from what has been said that the
speaker’s highest degree of empathy with a participant, empathy leading to his total identification is notwhat motivates the use of jibun. This degree of empathy brings about the blending of the speaker’s
Viewpoint and the participant’s Viewpoint. We may
say that the grammaticality of the sentences such as(14)(=(12) =(7)), in which (16) is embedded, and (8)above can be adequately explained if Viewpoint istaken into account. I have also shown that acceptability and unacceptability of sentences with the verbs ofgiving kureru and yaru can be explained using
Viewpoint rather than empathy, if we stipulate
centripetal feature in relation to the locus of the
speaker’s Viewpoint.
Let us consider next the pair in (17) :(17) a. Takeshi i wa [Ai ga jibun i wo nikunde iru koto wo shitte] kanashii.
Takeshi-top. Ai-sub. self-obj. hating is thatknow sadTakeshi i is sad to know that Ai hates him i.
b. Takeshi i wa [Ai ga jibun i wo nikunde iru koto wo shitte] kanashi soo da.
Takeshi-top. Ai-sub. self-obj. hating is thatknow sadit seems to me
It seems to me that Takeshi i is sad to know that Ai hates him i.
If jibun could reflect the speaker’s highest degree of
empathy when its referent’s awareness exists, we
could expect (17a) to be acceptable in any context.
However, (17a) is possible only in narrative because,
unlike (17b), it lacks any evidential or inferential
markers representing the speaker’s subjective judgement.

The reason for the acceptability of (17a) in
narrative is that in narrative, the implied author, who
is omniscient, can make the narrator empathize withTakeshi to the highest degree and thus totally identify
with him. This total identification causes the blendingof the two Viewpoints. Therefore, the space set up by(18a) from Takeshi’s Viewpoint and the space set up

On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）by (18b) from the narrator’s Viewpoint are also
blended and, as a result, (17a), which reflects the

１３９blending of syntactic structures of (18a) and (18b) isformed :(18) a. Boku i wa [Ai ga jibun i wo nikunde iru koto wo shitte] kanashii.
I-top.
Ai-sub. self-obj. hating is thatknow sadI i am sad to know that Ai hates me i.
b. Takeshi i wa [Ai ga jibun i wo nikunde iru koto wo shitte] kanashi soo da.
Takeshi-top. Ai-sub. self-obj. hating is thatknow sadit seems to me
It seems to me that Takeshi i is sad to know that Ai hates him i.
Outside of narratives, a speaker is not normallyomniscient and thus cannot identify himself withTakeshi sufficiently to know Takeshi’s internal feelings or states. Since it is impossible for the speaker tohave perfect knowledge of others’ internal feelings orstates, (17a) is unacceptable except in narrative. It
can of course be made acceptable by the insertion ofevidential or inferential markers, as shown in (17b).
As we have observed above, an exception of the
speaker’s total identification with a participant in an
non-narrative context is the example (14)(=(12) =(7)),
the case where the speaker assigns his highest
empathy to his in-group member participant in regard
to the giving of a thing from a third person to theparticipant.
To sum up, there are at least two cases, that is,the case in (14)(=(12) =(7)) and the case in (17a), in
which the highest degree of empathy, thus total
identification is involved, and therefore, I argue, ablended Viewpoint is conceptually constructed.
These blending phenomena thus indicate that theuse of jibun is not motivated by the highest degree of
empathy. Instead, its use is motivated by the mental
transfer of the speaker’s Viewpoint, a transfer trig-

gered by a high degree (as opposed to the highest
degree) of the speaker’s empathy.
Of course, it could be claimed that in examples
such as (14)(=(12) =(7)) and (17a), there isn’t a blend
but simply the occurrence of two unblended Viewpoints. But how could such sentences be acceptable inany language? If such sentences were possible, thenindirect speech sentences such as (19a) with thereading that Nick and I are coreferential, andsentences with an embedded clause such as (19b) withthe reading that Takeshi and boku are coreferential
would also be acceptable :(19) a. *Nick i said that I i would win the game.
b. *Takeshi i wa boku i ga katsu toomotta.
Takeshi-top. I-sub.
win that thought*Takeshi i thought that I i would win.
But this is not the case. Therefore, the examples inwhich two Viewpoints are concerned are limited tocases such as (14)(=(12) =(7)) and (17a) above, inwhich two Viewpoints are blended, and cases like (20a) and (20b), in which the Viewpoint shifts :(20) a. “Boku i wa katsu” Takeshi i wa itta.
I-top.
win Takeshi-top. said
Takeshi i said, “I i will win”.
b. Takeshi i wa kuyanda : Ore i wa nante baka nanda!
Takeshi-top. regretted I-top.
what a foolTakeshi i thought, “What a fool I i am!”(20a) is an example of direct speech and (20b) is an
example of direct representation of Takeshi’s thoughts.
It follows that only the speaker’s Viewpoint isreflected in sentences regardless of whether they aresimplex, complex or indirect speech sentences. As
mentioned above, exceptions are cases of Viewpoint
blending and shift.

3.

jibun sentences and reference-point ability

What cognitive abilities motivate the use of jibunin sentences? This section will focus attention to thisquestion.
Let us consider example (21) :１４０

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）(21) Takeshi i wa tora ga
jibun i ni mukatte hashitte kita nodenaki hajimeta.
Takeshi-top. tiger-sub. self-dat. toward came running because crying started
Takeshi i started crying because the tiger ran toward him i.
When the speaker utters this sentence, he transfers
his Viewpoint to the locus of Takeshi’s Viewpoint andthe jibun reflects this mental transfer. Thus, in (21),only the speaker’s Viewpoint, not Takeshi’s, is reflected. In uttering such a sentence, the speaker doesn’t need to locate himself physically where Takeshi
stands. All he needs to do is exercise mental rotation
to describe the situation from Takeshi’s Viewpoint
position.
The process of the speaker’s construal of the event
represented in (21) can be schematized as in Figure 9 :The important point to note is that this process isexactly the same as the process observed in referencepoint construction (Langacker 1993 : 6) schematized
as in Figure 10 :In Figure 10, C, R and T stand for the conceptualizer,
a reference point and a target respectively. D is adominion of the target restricted by the reference
point. The dotted line arrows show the path of mental
contact of the conceptualizer. The path goes from C to
T via R.
In Figure 9, the speaker, as a conceptualizer,
mentally transfers his or her Viewpoint to the reference point, i.e., Takeshi’s Viewpoint locus and describes the target by mental rotation.
I believe that both mental transfer of our
Viewpoint and mental rotation are our basic cognitive
abilities. Remember we exercised these abilities as wesolved a math problem like the following long timeago. Take a look at the shape in Figure 11. And theMental transfer of the speakerr s Viewpoint

TakeshiSpeaker
Speaker s Viewpoint
mentally transferred
to Takeshi s
Viewpoint locus
Scope of the perception of
the transferredspeaker s Viewpoint
Tiger running toward Takeshi

Figure 9

D

T

R

C

Figure 10

On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）１４１Figure 11

question was something like : What does the shape in
Figure 11 look like from right above? Since we can use
the mental transfer and mental rotation, we are able
to tell that the answer is a rectangle without any
difficulty.

Let us go back to example (21). To describe thesame situation represented by (21), the speaker could
also utter (22). But in (22), he does not transfer his
Viewpoint and thus he doesn’t use mental rotation :(22) Takeshi i wa tora ga
kare i ni mukatte hashitte itta nodenaki hajimeta.
Takeshi-top. tiger-sub. him-dat. toward went running because crying started
Takeshi i started crying because the tiger ran toward him i.
It is worth noting that the verbs of motion kita (came)and itta (went) are used as supporting verbs in (21)and (22) respectively. It follows from the position of
the speaker’s Viewpoint and the direction in which thetiger runs that their use is quite natural. The processof the speaker’s construal of the event represented in(22) can be schematized as in Figure 12. We mightfeel that when we read (21), we understand thesituation not through the speaker’s Viewpoint but

through Takeshi’s Viewpoint. But it is not the case.
As discussed above, if the situation were construed
and described through Takeshi’s Viewpoint, then ashift in Viewpoint from the speaker to Takeshi would
result. However, such a shift results in an ungrammatical sentence (23) since the tiger’s running toward
Takeshi is represented as in (24) through Takeshi’s
Viewpoint :(23) *Takeshi i wa tora ga
boku i ni mukatte hashitte kita nodenaki hajimeta.
Takeshi-top. tiger-sub. me-dat. toward came running because crying started*Takeshi i started crying because the tiger ran toward me i.
(24) Tora ga boku ni mukatte hashitte kita.
tiger-sub. me-dat. toward came running
The tiger ran toward me.
It follows that in (21), we view by mental rotation thesituation in which the tiger runs toward Takeshi
through the speaker’s Viewpoint mentally transferred

to Takeshi’s Viewpoint locus.
It should be concluded, from what has been said
above, that the process of the use of jibun is nothing

Scope of the speaker s perception
TakeshiSpeaker s Viewpoint
Takeshi s Viewpoint position

Tiger running toward Takeshi

Figure 12

１４２

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

but the reflection of a basic human cognitive ability,reference-point ability, which involves the Viewpoint’s
mental transfer and mental rotation.
4. Conclusion
In this study, I have argued that the use ofJapanese reflexive jibun is motivated by the mental
transfer of the speaker’s Viewpoint to the Viewpoint
locus of a participant and the mental rotation, andthat the mental transfer is caused by a high degree (asopposed to the highest degree) of the speaker’s
empathy with the participant. To prove the validity of
my argument, I have shown :( i ) The acceptability of examples not accounted for in
Kuno’s theory can be explained easily by proposingthat the speaker’s/narrator’s highest degree of
empathy motivates the blending of the two Viewpoints.
(ii) The well-formedness or the opposite of sentenceswith the verbs of giving kureru and yaru can be
explained using a unified notion of Viewpoint, if
we stipulate centripetal property of the verbs inrelation to the locus of the speaker’s Viewpoint.
It is concluded that linguistic phenomena related
to reflexive jibun reflects our reference-point ability
and that they can be reasonably and revealingly
analyzed if we utilize the notion of Viewpoint and its
functions in discourse.
A Note(1) I will use the notion of Viewpoint and its functions
within Mental Space Theory.
Mental Space Theory (1977) views linguistic forms
as a kind of recipe that enables speakers and hearers
to construct meaning. In this view, the full meaningof a given linguistic expression is not in the expression
itself but is constructed fully by its potential to elicit
cognitive domains or spaces, and mappings acrossdomains, together with contexts in the discourse,
social and cultural background knowledge, and inference and other reasoning processes.
Cutrer (1994) and Fauconnier (1997) posit fourconceptual discourse primitives which are crucial tothe ongoing process of discourse interpretation. The
four primitives are Base, Focus, Event and Viewpoint.
These primitives are assigned to the discourse spaces.

Roughly speaking, the Base is a starting point for thecognitive construction. The Focus is assigned to a
space upon which attention is currently focused. The
Event corresponds to the time of the event or state
being considered. The Viewpoint is assigned to a
space from which other spaces are currently being
built or accessed. It is with the Viewpoint that we will
be most concerned later in this paper.
References
Coulson, S. 1996. Menendez Brothers Virus : Blended
Spaces and Internet Humor. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, ed. by A. Goldberg.
67-81. Stanford : Center for the Study of Language and Information (distributed by C.U.P.).
Cutrer, M. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives andEveryday Language. Ph.D. diss., U.C.S.D.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge,
Mass. : MIT Press. Rev. ed. New York : C.U.P. ,1994.
---. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge : C.U.P.
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 1996. Blending as aCentral Process of Grammar. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, ed. by A. Goldberg.
113-30. Stanford : Center for the Study of Language and Information (distributed by C.U.P.).
Inoue, K. 1976. Reflexivization : An Interpretive
Approach. Syntax and Semantics 5 : Japanese
Generative Grammar, ed. by Sibatani. 117-200.
New York : Academic Press.
Iwasaki, S. 1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse : Theoretical considerations and a casestudy of Japanese spoken discourse. Philadelphia,
PA : John Benjamins.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass : MIT Press.
---. 1976. The Speaker’s Empathy and Its Effect on
Syntax : A reexamination of yaru and kureru inJapanese. Journal of the Association of Teachersof Japanese, 11 (2&3), 249−71.
---. 1987. Functional Syntax. Chicago : University of
Chicago Press.
Kuno, S., and Kaburaki, E. 1977. Empathy and
Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8 (4), 627−72.
Kuroda, S. -Y. 1973. Where epistemology, style, andgrammar meet : a case study from Japanese. A
Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen R.
Anderson and Paul Kiparsky. 377−91. New

On How Speaker’s and Participant’s Viewpoints Function in Japanese（国重）York, NY : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Vol. 1, Stanford : Stanford University
Press.
---. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2,
Stanford : Stanford University Press.
---. 1993. Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive
Linguistics, 4, 1−38.
Mandelblit, N. 1997. Grammatical Blending : Creative and Schematic Aspects in Sentence Processing
and Translation. Ph.D. diss., U.C.S.D.
Nakamura, M. 1989. Reflexives in Japanese. Gengo
Kenkyu, 95, 206−230.
Sawada, H. 1993. Shiten to Shukansei : Nichieigo Jodoshi no Bunseki. Hitsuji Shobo.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. 1971. Mental Rotationof Three-dimensional Objects. Science, 171, 701703.
Wetzel, P. J. 1985. In-Group/Out-Group Deixis :Situational Variation in the Verbs of Giving andReceiving in Japanese. Language and Social Situation, ed. by J. Forgas. 141-57. Springer : NY.
Yamanashi, M. 2000. Ninchi Gengogaku Genri. Kuroshio Shuppan.

１４３

１４４